Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-06-01

Ia tne cosnrsi ~ abrsdxe tils legislative
s1kAefity e ttr csty ~ ceatrsetusi
t,oseS A tialllcticE s1e1ld here ne
t.4kea het&eea ths rlsat q aiy - per
Hit tAe .ayieg II ras.s snd the ngat q
la 49, Dspss Tbs charles fsqUlrss TIE
eity = proyiis taF 20 ilzhurk 4nd u
MY. n pgfs1ancs Il that sssplr-nsat,
ss..tr4es that z.s pipes sAsll De laid fos
a peflo1 q years.
Weighs 81 Authority.
TIE ~~isht u Authority % against tbs
rsxht n a cify coancLi. without special
l<< siatlse authority. ~ grant an s4ss-
slenf n ths streets IA perpesJnry of Tor
years. Judge niIlsa he'd that the gen
sral powers u q city ssrs not soch a. To
xxrrant them Ia sVproVrsstlrz streoss
81 steam railways. bat Is was others -.
o. respects horss railways. Judge Dil-
IA . 1fonx Il hs holds that sus.h grants
nay DC made for . term or IN peEpstnity.
A numbsr q tecisions are rlssd IN sup
pslrt u this viss. The casss cited by
the dsfsodAnts ooeass1 does NOT sup
post the contrary Of this view.
Tha question has never been express.
, pas.~d on By the supreme court OF
flcdigaa- The power 20 make the
xraats Ia question must b found outside
tie charter. II af eli. IN the train os
street railway .ets Il Michigan
The train railway act of $50 applles
- street railroads in cities and tosns.
Authorizes incorporation tor thirty
years. add requires tie consent OF tho
municipal authorities for such opera
ton. The rights which tho city under
the acts cont-rs upon railway compan-
- 10 siving IL CONSENT are not matters
81 real controversy between counsel.
The legislature confsrs the rigAI % eon-
struct and operate a street railway.
The function u the city l. simply one u
ascent 20 tho conditions upon which the
coGa panirs may exercise the state given
ffaacnlse.
Decision In Brief
Ire decision In brief holds. Judge
TAFT deeidrs:
1. That the common council has 40
agsaoury. under Michigan law. % grant
. frenchlre for any peEtoa OF years. that
onf council may grant and Us successor
revoke such license.
= That the railway company could
n0t - granted. Ia isiD. a franchise FOR
period logger than the llte ~ the Detsol;
LILY tetlla a. ftui fanfs
. 81 That fhe ordinance was not vail.
daied by th- Michigaa supreme court
decision Ia tho street railway tax cases.
4 That tAe Csty raileay franchise ex-
pre-. May 2. i-.8
z. That the Congress aud Baker and
Case and Third avenue franchises do
not expire until 100 and 1907 respect
iyoly.
4 That. as agains, the Detroit City
Railway company. the city is not es-
topped by ia own acts.
:. That the Investment II capital IL
good faith DO not constitute estoppcl.
:, That as against the Detroit Cit
xens' stree. Railway company the pres
eat holders * the franchises. be is not
prepared % hold that the city has not
validated tho franchises by scguies
ecnce. He orders further argument on
this point within ten days
Judge swan Dtss~usa
In his dissenting opinion Judge Swan
says. The opinion of the Circuit Judge
IN ny Judgment. 10 % utterly subver-
siv- IL the principles Of equity that l
aro unwilling b. my silence 10 sanction
an apparent assent 20 what seems 70 me
70 be a most inequitahls result
IN the course of his opinion Judge
Sxan says;
This is nominally a suit fos equisar
bic relief. and the effe-t % the manda-
tory injunction asked. II granted. will be
- practically forfeit and sequester un-
der tne forms Of Law and in disregard 70
deliberate and repeated assurances and
contracts 81 the complainant under
which 70 aud the defendants have acted,
the property rights and privileges OF i'm
rnensc value owned by the principal de-
PENDANTS. and also the valuable Deepen
dent property and securities OK their
mortgages. all ~ which were coufes-edly
acquired IN good faith and for valuable
considerations. and which the complain
ant still holds without rendering com
p@nsation - the railway companies Tor
their expenditures and investments
amounting - millions % dollars. or
offering % return any part q the consid.
ergtlon received by 10 in taxes and
otherwise. aggregating nearly 100000
more. under the very ordinance and
oniy ~ virtue II that ordinance which
h now asks The court q equity 81 de-
clare Bull and void an ordinance under
which the complainant has acted for
ned. and N some cases even required
Investments and exActej the taxes
thefran Assuming that le city bad
trarsgrss-ed - powers 10 making the
granting question and that a court Of
iav Fsle this case within TIA cogni
rance. Ne.id % compelled to 80 sdJudge
under the rigid rules which control Tia
drcisions. = 3, possible. under thu al.
uittrd facts = his case. that a court IL
equity vii shut It's eyes t. the iniquify
a The demands - the complainant,
TIE question should carry i,s own an.
sFef II - familiar maxim n equity
iusspFuae1ec that nothing can call
forth oouFt Of equity INTO activity hut
COZ scienrs. good faith and reasonable
diagenrs. Another maxim IL that be
vino sse<s equity must do equity.
Moral Considerations.
J an uDahie o. perceive any distinc-
tion between the neral q retaining
uensy dishonesty acquired ant that IN
vniTrsi in ,ienyiug com pensatl1n f0f ex-
penditnFrs aud investments made IN
esd faith "a the cypress request AMI
assurance q the Individual 81 corpora
ton PRIVATE ~ pubiic. which has 90
tanned and stiii holds the benefit - su IA
outlaws. cor q = easy - So the honesty
90 equity az permitting the municipality
o pocket the taxes which it haa received
ursier re very ordinance u @eeSs o. -.
prniiafe until the statute - Hmitasicos
s- run against their recovery by the 10.
ffsude-i party
uut IL i at true TIA, the law casts
up1n a party deal x With a municipal
c,4rfaratinn aIi the ccnseguenr~s n a
pliscon-srnrtion - ~ powers. and leaves
hira reraesiile~a. Where there hss teen
practical construction q ia charter