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

Judge Lschre.a's Decision ia the Case of
Thomas Loicery 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
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 Of July and July
8, 1878, on which street defendants line
of railway is constructed and operated.
The plaintiff contends, first, that plaintiffs
| lease to defendant of October q, 1878, o.
plaintiffs rights under said ordinances 10
use such streets for railway purposes was
ultra VireS and void, because plaintiff had
no power to make sach lease; because the
defendant had no power TO accept
such lease; and because tbs
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 IN which they
were prior to the making of the lease, an6
therefore rights obtained under it cannot
be disturbed.
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 OF dissent. They can
not now be heard TO gaiusay the validity
of the lease.
Fourth-The said Lease ard its stipulation
and conditions only apply to that part %
the defendants railway whilh hes between
the city terminus and Lake Calhoun. And
such stipulation5 and conditions have al
been fairly kept and observed by saiC
defendant, ana 10 cause for forfeiture has
arisen.
Fifth-The defendants railway within
the limits OF The city Of Minneapolis, a
bounded when this action was commenced
has been g street railway and operated Al
! such in conformity with said ordinances
Between said city limits and Lake Calhoun
it has been operated as q suburban stree
L railway, as contemplated in such lease.
Sixth--The extension and operation O
/, defendants railway from Lake Calhoun K
+, Lake Minnetonka vas under the amend
= ment OF defendants charter, lawful.
, did not change the character OF defendant
railway between Lake Calhoun and thu
city terminus; was not contrary TO sale
o lease nor injurious to plaintiff.
a Seventh-That the enterprise of such
- extension was undertaken and carried tt
z its completion with the knowledge, consen
aud advice of the officers and stockholder
, of the plaintiff to such an extent tina
plaintiff cannot now insist on any forfeit
, ure because of it.
=, Eighth-The defendant is entitled t.
judgment, that plaintiff take nothing b.
this action and for costs and disburse
ments.
q Let judgment be entered accordingly.