New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-07
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT or COMMON PLEAS-GESKBAL TgRx-MARcn5
Before Judges DAILY. BRADY and CARDoIo
TIE SIX CENT FARE QUESTION.

COURT or OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES TERs-MAncnS
Before Judges DAILY BRADY and CARDoIo.
TIE SIX CENT FARE QUESTION.
s. A. Hoyt agt The Sxth-Avenue Railroad Co..
After nearly years delay, the Courtol Nouu-
mon Pleas has delivered opinion in the against the
place Of five The Court decides substantially
thst thew are not included in tie General Railroad and
consequently the Tecovees must be limited TO the oVerpay
DAY r jim the wear 1850 general act passed al
lowing the formation of companies Tor the purpose OF con
structug maintaining and operating railroads FOR public use
IN the conveyance Of persons aud property Laws Of oSO
p 2 In the year 1891 permission vas granted 70 ths ue
PENDANTS by the Corporation Of the City Of to con
struct railroad from Chamberst TO the present term
nus Of their route, which is within the city limits upon
the condition, among others that they shouid pave
ears with all the improvements for the convenience
aud comfort Of passengers that they should un cars every
day both ways often as public convenience may require
that the rate passage for any distance should not exceed
1--WE cents and that motive power except horses Should
Amer bis permission was given the defendants organized
and incorporated under the general railroad act before re-
yded that every corporation Organized under j, shall have
power to regulate the time and manner IN which pas
90 be paid therefor that uch Compensation for any
sengeI and has ordinary baggage sha not exceed tse cent?
rsirosd company may take for any fractional distance les.
than mile the legal rate Of fare for one mile ana Wn n
receive greater Of fare than that allowed by law shall
forfeit $50 TO be recovered together win the s1ess 30
eeiyed by the party paying the same Claws oil 1884, vol
The plaintiff carried az passenger upon the
road from Fifteenth to Twenty third st. distance less han
mile for which the defendants agent asked and was PAID by
s plaintiff 81. and seSnb y e s eGs aSe I retired
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the excess and s
The statute in ny opinion not intended to, apply
20 city railroads which drawn by horsef but to
ma their bssrsse from one 6Sea point to another without
stopping at any intermediate points between which have an
appointed time for the departure OF train and hxed stations
or which stops but al other place for the re-
eepon Of the putting on Of passengers and the osgsse
Railroad. which have under this act the power to regulate
the time when and the in which passengers
property shall be transported, as well as the compensa
city railroad like that Of the defendants may not regulate
the fine when they will PASSENGER but must by the
day night often public convenience requires and
which far from regulating the compensation to be pad io
vropery al all but passengers only at the
City Corporation city railroad i mere Omnibus upon
enable passengers to come IN or 20 out ~ NOT
Ike the railroads to which the statute ep,
passenger and bis ordinary baggage" Il ha, apartment
Ton the reception safe keeping and transit OF the unts OF
run by horses and provided only with for passenger
In the railroads contemplated by the statute the distance
that 10 possible to adjust and bx beforehand according TO
The rule supplied by the statute the exact amount which the
pay but this not practicable or possible IN the
ease Of city railroad ike that Of the defendants 1t extends
distance Of about three miles and Its cars must stop
presents himself and for him leave when wishes 1t is
mot possible therefore, 20 the fare be must pay by the
bshed tariff the Re must pay from the point where the
receives him TO the place where he gets on and the only
practical course have fixed rate Of fare which the
h to pay whether he goes the entire distance or
sot, which i. uniformly and neee.sary the mode
features which make very plain to mind that city rail
roads Ike the operated by the defendants, not de-
3 another consideration The resolution Of Common
Council which constituted the license under which
Che defendants obtained the right to construct and their
road declares that the rate Of 70. distance shall
not exceed i've cents, which must also be interpreted
- sl.t he rod
distance and this would three mile II the
passenger carried les, than mile Bot the Legislature by
passed In 1884 confirmed the grants licenses and
resolutions under which the defendants road
which legislative recognition Of the defendants right to
that the resolution Of the Common Council 10 TO be regarded
- law allowing 1--WE cents TO DO charged. and that
have incurred the penalty so by e1acng greater
frs than that allowed by sw think, upon referring to
% apply the railroads. whose compensation i regulated by
She standard Of miles limited and fixed by tho preceding
nes Of 1880 The question whether the defendants have
rsh 10 increase fare x another question
which 10 to be considered and disposed Of in another
The plaintiff has not put his right Of action upon that ound
lo bss framed his complain, r recovery under the Statute
Upon that ground cannot be sustained The Justice de-
ecrse w Black Va The Sixth Avenue Railroad Company
DALI THE question whether the defendants are liable
and dsposed OF IA Hoyt the defendant decided
sAe present There Ia in this case another question
4. ssp Il does nos appear the defendants derive hei
ssht railroad through the city from the general Isi
direct grant Of the Legislature TO- that effect 50 as 10 pn
them within the decision the Court Of Appeals in the REQ
PIE ss Kerr IS How r. 25S They appear to have acquired
by grant from the Corporation OF the City OF New OH
serwud ratified BY act Of the Legislature laws OF So
o and they exercise consequently subject 70 the cor
aons which the corporation imposed One Of these comb
that the rate Of passage for distance the
sosd should not exceed I'VE and they cannot lawfully
charge more, unless authorized 10 do so by some
paramount authority. This authority IS assumed tc
have been conferred by the United States Internal
Revenue Act, which imposes a tar Of "a per cent
upon the gross receipts Of all railroad companies
declares that they shall have the right 70 add TO their
plty In the defendants Is that Of to which
sh,y are limited by the condition impo.ed by the City Copo
rston /, 50 small that il is not possible add TO- and collect
With H. the propoionabs amount Of the tau which s
sne eighth of cent: ADD TO add one cent Il
III. Are OF each passenger would be adding and
collecting eight times much az the amount Of
she tar Tor whicb there certainly authority In act
An that can be said Of the is that allows the TO be
sded collected with the fare II II possible to do
end that this particular case is not asthe propotonab
smoant Of the but the fractional part oil cent
maxim Of the law that, when anything granted all ths
attain H. aud all the fruits and effect, Of ~ ar
granted also (shephaIds Toucbsone, e9) But would b
carrying the maxim far 10 hold that because spsry
sAS eoestp TAI utefbs fare sfRsssepUsT ee may Isse