The herald., 1893-07-27

received BY the defendant il deemed tt
be the same % the regular fixed rate.
The remaining proposition IL the Ques
ton whether the city had or had moi
the power, by means of the condition
inserted in the ordinances, to agree with
the railroad company that certain rate
of fare to and from Los Angeles should
be charged to persons buying tickets
from South Pasadena"
The court discussed this point ai
length, quoting q number Of decisions
and concludes as follows:
-. But the facts in this case
are not similar to those in the case oI
Lowe We. Marysville. The city oil South
Pasadena does not by this condition ol
the ordinance engage in any business or
enterprise whatever, nor does il become
liable for any debts or responsible fol
any OF the acts OF any outside or indie,
pendent body. There ls no element OF
speculation involved. It has the un.
doubted power to grant the franchise. II
ia not burdened with the office OF per-
forming the condition. 1t does not I'M
The performance OF the condition ie
ALL ROoSA oRVA uAAO klontOOt 0n0 tuO
failure to perform does not require
anything of the grantor, but simply re-
stores to 1t the estate granted.
The fact that the fare provided for by
the condition is to place outside of the
corporate limits of the city does not, In
my opinion, affect the question of the
legality of the condition. 1t is a well
settled proposition that in any matter
nit ha nf Otfu ms 10 nv,x
act which it may lawfully contract for,
outside of the city limits is immaterial.
A great many of the ordinary
contracts of the city will be
party to the contract to perform
some act outside OF the city limits, and
very often such acts are directly con-
tracted for. But, if the contract is one
which the city has otherwise the power
to make, the question Of place does not
affect its locality.
might impose upon the grantee OF q
franchise any and every condition that
might be imagined, conditions which
have no relation whatever to the city OF
its inhabitants and are OF no public con.
liz LIS 40 uOb . C0oO Va VA0U AA0Qs
South Pasadena is practically suburb
OF the city of Los Angeles. Its popula-
ton is largely composed of persops doing
business in Los Angeles, who travel to
and fro every Gay to their places Of busi-
tant to the residents of that city to have
low fares for travel to Los Angeles than
to and from places within its own linn
81 -. ko 49,
could, as a condition of the franchise.
restrict the amount to be charged to and
from all places within the city limits.
Los Angeles is equally matter OF public
concern. The condition is lawful be-
cause it is matter OF Importance to the
public of the city of South Pasadena,
and it is a matter which it is within the
power of the defendant to control. 1t is
not necessary to decide that such con-
dition would be valid under other and
different circumstances. As construe
the condition under the evidence and
facts surrounding the parties, it was un-
derstood that the fare on the cable rail-
way was cents each way, and it's true
meaning and intent is that the defend
ant should charge for round trip fares to
Los Angeles, exclusive of the cable road
fare. a sum not to exceed 20 cents. l
can see no reason why the statute should
not be construed to allow the city
to make this provision for the welfare of
it's citizens and residents, and it's gem
erRl prosperity, as condition annexed
to the grant of a franchise which it has
the power to make. 1t may be admitted
that the city would have no power to
make such contract with the defend
ant with the sole purpose OF fixing the
rates of fare to points outside OF the city.
The reason OF this lack OF power Is that
there is no statute granting such power,
either expressly or by necessary impli-
cation. The reason why it has the power
to make the contract as condition of
the franchise and incident thereto is be-
cause the statute in express terms gives
the power.
Having concluded that the granting of
the franchise in this case was within the
powers of the plaintiff and defendant,
and that it does not constitute an unjust
discrimination, and ia not against publ
policy as an infringement upon the func.
tions of the railroad commission, 1t will
not be necessary to consider the argu-
ment of defendants counsel as to what
would be the effect in case it should be
held that it was not within the powers
of the city, and as to whether or not the
defendant is estopped to make the de-
fense that the city has no power to grant
the franchise.
1, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is
entitled to judgment, declaring that the
right of way granted by the franchise is
forfeited by the breach of the condition
as to the rates of fare, and to have the
railroad track through the limits of the
city declared public nuisance.
Findings and judgment will be drawn
accordingly"
How Is This?
Something unique even in these days
OF mammoth premium offers, it is the
latest effort of Stafford's Magazine, q
Mo..r Xark M onthlu of hnrna and ran.