Telegram-herald., 1891-06-28
Thu JUDGES DISAGREED
BIS VIEW has TIE PREposDERlSCE
The Reeds LAKE Electric kAtiway Com
pAay MAY Build Tracks on aitoa-st.
hat aast Pile Inasnaity
Eoaas IA $4,000.

Brown IN court yesterday afternoon,
relative to the application OF the Valley
City Street and Cable Railway Company
Tor an injunction restraining the Reeds
Lake Electric road from building tracks
ia Fulton street, along with the plain
tlft's track. The case Was heard by
Judges Brown and Severens. and the
two judges fail TO agree. Justice
Brown holds that under the showing an
injunction cannot issue, but that the
plaintiff companies are entitled 10 CON-
peusatlon for damage IN tearing up
their tracks and interfering WITH their
business, ana unless = bond III the sum
of $4,000 Is filed To cover damages
within thirty days, an injunction will
issue. Judge severens dlssented, bu.
announced that the decision of the
latter would prevail, aud an order Was
Issued Tor the electric road 10 give the
bond, as was suggested. Following is
the
Opinion of Judge Brown.
"On motion for preliminary injunc-
ton: The plaintiffs in this case own
aud operate an extensive Interurban
system OF cable and horse railways.
connecting with suburban line to
Reeds lake, popular resort about
three miles east from the central part
OF the city. These roads are now
changing their motive power 10 elec-
tricity, adopting the overhead single
trolley wire system. A of the lines are
operated under one management. One
OF these lines runs from Reeds lake
into the city, finally reaching Jefferson
ave-, thence down to Fulton-st., and
thence through Fulton-st. 10 Monroe
and through Monroe to the center of
the city. Two days before the filing of
the bill, the city assumed TO give the
defendant company, by ordinance, the
right TO build and operate road from
Reeds lake, near to the terminus Of the
plaintiffs road into the city through
Fulton-st. to the corner of jefferson
ave., thence down Fulton ST., straddling
the track OF the plaintiffs road about
two hundred feet TO the corner of Ran
som, thence through Raneom-st. to
North Park-st., down North Park to
North DIvision-st., down North Divi-
sion to Peari-st., and thence to the
center Of the city. The controversy in
this case arises over the right Of the
city to authorize the defendant
company to place It's rails
upon the plaintiffs superstructure
sd that the rails of both systems shall
be parallel to and contiguous with ca CHI
other, both lines occupying the same
right OF way and superstructure over
the 200 feet IN controversy. The two
lines are admitted to be competitive as
kae Q Of ~, h,tt or 20
be competitive over the 200 feet upon
Fulton-st. which it is proposed that both
roads shall occupy. It's not claimed
that the plaintiffs have any exclusive
right to the streets of Grand Rapids for
railway purposes, nor even that they
have exclusive rights upon the streets
occupied by them. 1t Is claimed, how
ever, that their rights are t. the space
against any other line Of street railway.
This application plesupposes that the
Common Council has no right under
any circumstance to permit a JOINT
longitudinal occupation of any portion
OF their track. 1t IS conceded that, I'M
der the twenty-thlrd section of the
charter under which this portion Of the
plaintiffs road was constructed, the
Common Council reserved the right TO
grant any other persons or corporations
the privilege OF crossing the tracks of
said railway on any streets running at
right angles or Whereabouts TO the line
oil SAID railway. providing, however,
that the cost of making such crossings
shall, In all cases, be at the expense of
such other corporations or persons and
shall be done IN such way as not to
injure or interfere with the operation
OF the line OF railway herein author
led" do not see. however, that any
power was reserved by this ordinance
which did not exist already, for it will
hardly be claimed that the power to
authorize another road To cross the
track of the railway company would
not exist in the Common Council as q
matter OF necessity. On the other
hand, it IS admitted that the Common
Council after granting one corporation
the power to lay street railway track
in one of the streets of the CITY. would
have no right toauthoriZe another road
to straddie the tracks OF the former
through the same street 10 any such
distance as would make II n competitive
road on that street aimee such conces-
sion would operate TO destroy the value
of the franchise given to the first CON-
pany. Conceding that it would have
tue right TO authorize another road to
cross the tracks OF the former. IT seems
to me necessarily to follow that If one
arm of the crossing street was not exactly
in line with the other, but there was
log of few feet through which the
tracks would have to run parallel 10 or
a sxaddle of each other, the power TO
authorize such crossing would not be
lost by the fact of such paralleIsm.
Now. while this ~ not case Of a cross
inr road. IL IN or,Ier to enable the de-
PENDANT company to reach the center
of the city il be necessary 10 authorize
4 10 straddIe the track Of the plaintiff
company for a few feet. | am 10th to
say that the Common Council has not
the power to authorize 10 TO do so, not
withstanding it may involve some Incl
dental inconvenience to the plaintiff.
different question would arise in ca SO
il were shown To be unnecessary, or
that the defendant company could ne
we'll make use of Barciay-st and Foun-
tain-st. to reach the center of the city
as of Fulton and Ransom, but in the
absence of such showing, I think il
may be presumed that the necessity of
strxddling this track does not exist
IL may be difficult to draw the line and
10 say where this power does aud does
not eriss. Each case must be deter
miaed hy its own Circumstances. Ii
probably would not exist where the
two roads came IN competition
With each other upon the same
street for the reasons already