Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-08-30
STREET CAR VS.. MOTOR.

Judge Lschre's;s Decision i,a the Case of
Thomas Loacery as. Col. McCrory-The
Motor Company Victorious.
The long expected decision in the case
of the Minneapolis Street Railway COM
pany against the Lyndale Motor company
was filed yesterday with the clerk of the
district court, Judge Lochren occupying
twenty. seven closely written pages of legal
cap paper in summing up the case and
giving verdict in favor of the Motor COM
pany. The following memorandum of
decision il the case will be read with in
terest:
The plaintiff claims that under the city
ordinances OF July II, 1875, and OF July
and July 8, 1878, and the legislative act of
confirmation of March 4, 1879, it has the
exclusive right to construct and operate
street railways by said ordinances, within
the city limits, as bounded at
the passage OF said ordinances; coupled
with duty to the public to construct,
maintain and operate such railways; and
that the defendant unlawfully interferes
with such right and prevents the perform
ance by plaintiff of said duty by its occu-
patton, without right, as plaintiff claims,
of the streets designated for street rail
ways by the ordinance uf July and July
8, 1873, on which street Defendants line
of railway is constructed and operated.
The plaintiff contends, first, that plaintiffs
lease to defendant of October %, 1878, o.
plaintiffs rights under said ordinances TO
use such streets for railway purposes was
ultra pires and void, because plaintiff had
no power to make sach lease; because the
defendant had no power to accept
such lease; and because the
| transaction was an attempt
| without legislative authority or sanction,
to transfer by lease franchise of plaintiff
| to the defendant, and hence contrary to
| public policy and void. Secondly, that if
said lease had any validity, the defendant
| has forfeited all rights hereunder By
| breach of its stipulations and conditions
whereby plaintiff became entitled to termin-
ate the lease, and that it do so terminate
it by its notice to defendant of March %,
1882.
| CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
First-The lease from plaintiff to defen-
dant of October "a. 1878, was valid.
| Second-That said lease has been COM
pletely executed; the parties cannot be
placed in the same positio n III which they
were prior to the making of the lease, and
therefore rights obtained under it cannot
| be disturbed. 70 .,-s b
| Third-Said lease was made with the
full knowledge and acquiescence of the
stockholders of plaintiff, and the plaintiff
and its stockholders, knowing that defend
ant was expanding large amounts of money
in constructing and equipping its railway,
on the faith of said lease, for years ex-
| pressed no objection or dissent. They can
not now be heard TO gainsay the validity
of the lease.
| Fourth-The said lease ard its stipulations
and conditions only apply to that part Of
the defendants railway which lies between
| the city terminus and Lake Calhoun. And
such stipulation5 and conditions have all
been fairly kept and observed by said
| defendant, ana 10 cause for forfeiture has
arisen.
Fifth-The defendants railway within
the limits Of the city of Minnea polls, as
bounded when this action was commenced,
has been street railway and operated as
such in conformity with said ordinances.
Between said city limits and Lake Calhoun
it has been operated as q suburban street
railway, as contemplated in such lease.
Sixth--The extension and operation of
defendants railway from Lake Calhoun to
Lake Minnetonka was under the amend
ment OF defendants charter, lawful. It
did not change the character of defendants
railway between Lake Calhoun and the
city terminus; was not contrary to said
lease nor injurious to plaintiff.
Seventh-That the enterprise of such
extension was undertaken and carried to
its completion with the knowledge, consent
and advice of the officers and stockholders
of the plaintiff to such an extent that
plaintiff cannot now insist on any forfeit
ure because of it.
| Eighth-The defendant is entitled to
| judgment, that plaintiff take nothing by
this action and for costs and disburse-
ments.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.