Telegram-herald., 1891-05-20
OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL.

To the Honorable. the Common Council Of the
City OF Grand Rapids
Gentlemen-PufsQa to Instructions of
your honorable BODY. adopted a, an
adjourned session. "Wednesday evening.
Stay Is ISL. page 70 Of your
printed proeeedings. l respectfully report in
regard to legal steps necessary TO be taken TO
compel the Valley City Street ana Cable Rail
way Company to run It's ears on schedule time.
The ordinance which WAS passed at the AL
iourned session OF Friaay evening. April -.
1884, tsee printed proceedings psge ss5l which
ordinance. aside from "a few minor amend.
ments which are re eorded on said rage Ssd. Is
found on pages s63 TO so. inclusive. OF Your
printed proceedings. provides In section -
thereof that the graft made by this ordinance
is expressly subject 10 the existing rights OF
the street railway com pany OF Grand Rapids
and OF said electric railway company. sever
ally; and the consent IN writing 10 this ordin-
ance BY said street railway company of Grand
Rapids and said electric railway company
shall be filed with the clerk Of the city Of
Grand Rapids b .fore this ordinance shall be-
come operative.
! ara advised by the clerk of said city tina:
though the consent Of the Valley CIV Street
and Cable Company, the grantees of the said
ordinances, commencing on page SOB. has been
duly Med in pursuance OF section 10 of said
ordinance. that the consent in writing OF the
two other. heretofore existing street railway
companies. to-wit: The written consents of
the Street RAILWAY Company Of Grant Rap
ids and OF the Electric Railway Company.
have not been fled with him. 50 that the new
ordinance Is not at this time operative. and
the street railway business now being con-
Quoted in the city is By virtue of the pre-exist-
H. ~
commencing on page 500 sixty days time is
allowed after the passage of said ordinance to
perfect such acceptances. SO that at present
there Is no power in the Common Council I'M
der the street railway law Of this state. and
under said ordinance, and under the decisions
OF the courts TO deDrive the company of the
rights and privileges so conferred by said new
ordinance; but II the company or companies
so operating street railways under the fran
chises granted by the former ordinances are
not complying with the terms and conditions
OF such ordinances. and such compliance Is of
such a nature as is recognized by the courts as
being ground of forfeiture; tnen, this coun-
Gil would have the power 10 instruct the city
attorney 10 marguerite the necessary steps in
the courts. by proceedings In the nature OF a
quo warranto. to have such forfeiture legally
declared.
understand the fact to be. and such Is the
recital In the new ordinance. that the owner
ship. property. rights and franchises OF the old
Street Railway Company. and of the Electric
Railway Company. have. by purchase. PASSED
into the hands OF the same persons who con-
troll the Valley City Street and Cable Railway
Company. and therefore that the entire man
agement Of all these lines is In the hands OF
the last named corporation.
The courts have always held that to consti-
trte just ground for a forfeiture In proceed
ings upon an information in the nature of a
quo warrauto. the acts complained OF must
have been repeated and wilfui. In other
words. there must have been
constant and wilful violation OF
the conditions of the corporate grant Such
is the doctrine recognized in Michigan Fiint
and Fentonyilie Plank Road Co. VS.. Woodhall,
- Mich So The same doctrine is also recog-
nized In Michigan in the case Of Coon vs..
Plymouth Plank Road Company. 81 Mich. Isl,
where they held that II must appear that the
corporation acted wilfuly or negligegfly.
That was case where the company did not
keep its road in lawful repair. other cases
hold that the wrong must be one arising from
wilful abuse or improper neglect. late dec.-
sion uses this language: Repeated and wil.ul
acts of misuser or ncn-user by corporation
which are OF the essence OF the contract con
stitute \ just ground for the forfeiture Of the
franchise
IL thus appearing what would constitute
valid ground OF forfeiture of the franchise. i'm
other words such grounds MS the courts would
recognize. II rests With this council TO deter
mine II. In its opinion. the pers Gus operating
the erect railway system have b zen guilty of
such wiliul non-user and neglect rs should Tor
felt their franchise or franchises. II the
council are of the opinion that such is the case.
they can then By resolution Instruct the city
attorney 10 take steps 10 cssss the prorer
proceedingsto be instituted in the courts by
an information In the nature Of n quo va--
ranto. to have the franchises tins abused Tor
feItcd. Nv HoweIIs stat. Vol z. page 2is.
section 500. such proceedings can be com
meneed In the supreme Court on Application
or By the permission of the Acknowledgement,
but cur supreme Court has acid az Mich sSs
that they ought gensraiiy TO be Instituted Ia
tas circuit court. unless the case Is quite ex
eept:onal. In order n institute them they
may b. nied In the circait ccurt by the prose
cutting attorney Of he county on his
own relation. or That of any citizen
81 the county. without leave Of
the court. or by any citizen
Of the county by special leave OF the court
The case then II 80 ordered. and II So inst
tuted. would be ard In the circuit court Of
fne county. and Il under the rules OF law
ri ose stated. TIE company or comnaniss have
been guilty ~ such non-user AZ would forfeit
their franchise or franehisfs. a would be for
the court to declare THE forfeiture Al sepeaj
would he from the decision II the circuii court
T. the supreme Court
Believing that | have fatty covered the
points referred 10 me. I respectfully submit
the above.
VIZ. WIsxss TsYI0n..
Cits Attofuey