The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-11-30


isfaction over the fact that the people
have increased railroad facilities, pay
for them who may.
Judge JacksCn's Decision.
We have considered the motion
made by the Taxing District of Shelby
county and the Citizens Railroad
Company to remand the cases that
have been removed to this court from
the Chancery Court of Shelby county
the two cases being the Memphis City
Railway Company against the Taxing
District OF Saelby county, and the
Citizens Railroad Company against
the Memphis City Railway Company
In 1856 the Legislature chartere d
the Memphis City Railway Company
and by the fourth section Of its char
ter it was authorized to construct,
maintain, use and operate street rail-
ways by animal power, on all or any
of the streets OF the city OF Memphis.
1t was further authorized by that
fourth section to contract with the
city of Memphis for any purpose
whatever, connected, either directly
or indirectly, with the construction,
maintenance aud operation Of said
railway.
1t filed a bill, when it was OBJ
structed in January, 1866, against the
city of Memphis, and had is rights
asserted to some extent in that lit ga.
ton. But that is not material to a
decision OF this case.
In 1856 it entered into a contract
with the City of Memphis, and by the
terms of that contract, whenever In
the judgment of the Mayor and Alder
men of the City OF Memphis, rail-
road track should become necessary
on any of the streets not previously
occupied by the company, it should
give them sixty days notice for the
construction of railway on said
street, and the company had to in
dictate its intention to build the road
thus indicated by the city within
sixty days, and to actually construct
the fame within the course OF twelve
months. That was the then state OF
the rights Of the City Railway Com
paDy.
In 1866 the Legislature chartered
the Citizens Railway Company, and
authorized it TO lay down street rail.
way tracks on any OF the streets and
roads of Shelby County. 1t amended
that act in 1867 30 IS to enable it to
run its cars into the City OF Memphis,
for freight purposes, perhaps. In
March, 1870, there was still further
charter Of the Citizens Passenger
Riilway Company, by the fouth
oIauaa NJ xvh;ob ~ yDas onootoJ a, foI
lows:
"Be 1t further enacted, That the raid
corporation, by its directors and Of.
ficers, thsll have power to make and
execute contracts and agreements with
the City Council of Memphis
for constructing and maintaining
said street railways in the
said city, upon any OF the streets
thereof, upon which street railways
are not now constructed, such rail.
ways to be operated by animal power;
and may construct, maintain, use and
operate as aforesaid, such street rail-
ways, on all or any Of the said streets,
using for that purpose all nect ssary
machinery and equipments"
Under this act OF 1870 IT will be seen
that those two street railway charters
embodied substantially the came
grants, privileges and powers. Now,
this last act is referred to by the plead.
iDgs as an Interpretation OF the inten-
ton of the Lseis 'ature in its grant to
the Citizens Street Railroad Company.
II the contention of the Memphis City
Street Railway Company be correct,
namely, that its grant gives that com.
psny the exclusive right TO occu py all,
or any of the sire cts OF Memphis, and
the foregoing be correct interpreta-
ton of the extent of the grant to the
Citizens Street Railroad Company, of
course there lie, upon the very reading
and production of the two charters, q
conflict, arising out of legi.la-
tive grants. In such con-
hict as that there is necessarily
presented a federal question on the
face OF the two charters. And, even
If less than this should be claimed for
the new company, it is equally plain
on the facts appearing in this record
that 1t asserts franchise which may
conflict with that of the old company.
IL is not required, in order to give |
this court Jurisdiction, that all the
questions In the case shall be OF a
federal character. There IL hardly a |
case that is removed from the State to |
the Federal Courts that does not in
volve other questions. This was set.
tied as early as the case Of Mayer vs.
Cooper, 9 Wall, q case that went |
from this State, in which the Court
says: 1T is no obi sct on that ques-
tions are involved which are not Of
federal character. II one of the latter
exists. If there be q single such in
gredient in the mass, it is sufficient.
That element is decisive upon the
subject of Jurisdiction" Does the
case, in other words, in any Of its as
poets, depend for proper solution
upon q construction OF the Federal
law or of the Constitution OF the
United States forbidding the States 10
impair the obligation Of CONTRACTED
Whenever that Is shown by the plead
iDgs, exhibits or petition the right Of
removal exists and this court takes
jurisdiCtion--takes IL upon the theory
Of government, the theory OF National
Government, that in respect TO Fed
eral questions, questions which arise
out OF the laws or The Consti ution of
the United Sta es, the Supreme Court
OF the United Statee shall be the ulti-
mate arb, ter. And this act Of 1876
which authorizes tie removal ia a
remedial act. II was intended to OBJ
viate the d lays incid mt 10 trials in
the State Courts and removals follow
ing them.
/ can conceive, and this court is
ready to admit, that there are ques-
tons in this case on which the Su-
pIems Court OF Tennessee might rest
its deois on end expressly 6elide the
cess that would d spiive either party
OF a iignt to a writ OF error TO the 6u.