Telegram-herald. ([Grand Rapids, Mich.) 18??-1892, 1891-06-12
A CORPORATION lANGLE
Argument Of the Injunction SUIT
IN the Federal Court.
TWO RAILWAYS OK A SINGLE TRACK
The valley Ctts Street aud Cattle k&si-
Gay Company hesisfs the frsachiss
of the hesa's Lake Elestrie kAl-
Nay senpAns.

Justice Brown. Of the United States
Supreme Court, occupied the bench
with Judge seyerens in the federal
court yesterday afternoon. The case of
the Valley CITY Street and Cable Rs
way Compsny against the Reeds Lax
Electric Railway Company was heard
The complainant asks to have the de-
fendsnt enjoined from building tracks
overlapping the complsinsni's tracks la
East fultun-st.. from Jssserson-ave 10
lansoln-st. The complainant was rep
resented 10y Blair, Kingsley a KLEIN
hans, and the defendant bV Judge
Robert NJ. Montgomery and the pfes,-
dent of the road, Hon. Sybraut Nes-
seilus- Mr.. Kingsley opened the argu-
ments Tor the complainant and ey-
I planned the situation Of Gda.s
that brought about the litigation.
model showing the situation of the
wires, tracks and poles Was GA eNhlisi-
ton. An injunction = asked on cpn-
siituslonal grounds. The following :
his line of argument. Two DAYS before
the filing Of this hill The ciiy assumed
10 give the defendant compznv. ~
ordinance, the right 20 operate com
petng double track electric overhead
system. The defendants proposed line
extends froaI the central part Of tie
city 10 the easierly limits. there con-
Meeting with their line Ia Reeds lake.
This line blsecis complainaat's system
on East tulton-st., where u runs long
ltudlnslly on complsinants right of
WAY between JefiersOn-ave. and Ran
som-st. for the distance of 2tio feet.
The defendants road. 10y the
terms OF the ordinance, ls 10 bo
placed upon complainsnts super
structure, so that the rails of both
system shall be parallel 20 aud contg-
ons 10 each other. In order 10 do tins,
two crossings are necessary. making an
intermeddling Of rails on tile surface
and complicated network OF wires
overhead The complainant's new
franchise WAS granted May "a. 1921. sEd
the defendants May 25, 1891, each for
the term Of thirty years. The case IN
wolves two federal questions. VIZ: The
State. through defendants ordinance,
impairs the obligation of complainant
franchise. and they are also deprived
Of property without due process of law.
Before defendants ordinance was
granted complainant had occupied The
street for number OF years, and had
recently relaid and wired the tracks.
pat up poles and strung trolley wires
along Its route. After tins has
been done il excludes rival companaeS.
The Michigan Supreme Court has de-
cidcd that the compensation, which the
constitution provides for. includes no,
only the value of the thing actually
taken. bat also all damage that results.
l.fo Ao l. % ~
be laid upon and supported by the ucs
Of the complainant. The electrical dif-
ficultles Of operating the two ovcrlap-
ping system. will Re great. The defend
ant proposes 10 take part of the visible
and tangible property of the plaintiff.
thus deriving IL of the beneficial use
of its franchise and reducing its rev.
enues. The Nebraska constitution SAVE
no property shall he taken or damaged
without utcompensation. A cable company
I'm Omaha. undera lawful ord nance. pot
down its tracks between the sidewalks
and the tracks OF the horse car line for
a short distance and also crossed tie
tracks ~ the horse car line. Under
bill against the cable company, Justice
Brewer held that the horse car COM
pany was entitled 10 compensation.
First for tho Inconvenience and annoy
arce from the crossing OF the tracks.
Second, for the interruption al sccess
to the horse cars bv the cable tracks
between plaintiffs tracks and the side
walk. Tho Omaha ordinance was valid
and occupation would become lawful
upon subsequent payment of the as
sessed damages
The complainant was answered Nv
Judge Montgomery who stated that the
part of the comrlant which ssid that
the Valley CITY Railway bad exclusive
right 10 the route 60 Reeds Lake vas
denied hy the defendant, bu'
that the Rred's Lake CON pan
would bo = COMPETING lire. The deies-
dant claimed there wonid be 10 COM
petion as far as the new territory
recently anneNed 10 the citv y con
cerncd. but only ss means FOR reach
ing the center Of the CITY. Af'idavis
from experienced electricians were read
showing that there would hc uo inter
ference with the induction - electricity
nv the proposed arrangement An nfh-
davii from Homer A. Collier. cty sur
vevor. was read. which was to the effect
that the plan 81 laying the defendants
line q better ihsn four ffacks. and n
the track - laid according to the ro-
auiremcnts % the ordinance. 4 can l,e
done without interference. The volt
age running 20 Reeds Lake . ~ 900
volts. while that Of c0mpla nsnt . $50.
and that ~ less voitage would he liable
to be affected The arguments were
completed Yesterday afternoon and
dccisor hy tho court ~ expected t. DE