The San Francisco call., 1895-12-18
The Southern Pacific Freight
Yards Are Not to Be
Cut Up.
SUPREME JUDGES so DECIDE.
Supervisors Have the Power to Close
Highways at Will-Synons' Suit
Knocked Out.

The Supreme Court has sustained the
decision of the lower court by which the
action of the Board of Supervisors in clos
and Fourth streets on the north and Mari
posa street on the south was ratified.
The proceeding to set aside the action of
the board was brought by John Synons
and James Eva, who were property owners
in the district through which the closed
streets formerly ran. In their complaint
they alleged that they were the owners of
seven tracts of land in that vicinity, and
that they had the right to use in common
all the public streets, and that by passing
the order complained OF there was closed
up one of the principal streets and means
of convenient approach from the Potrero
to the central part of the City.
The Supreme Court says:
If it be assumed that the streets are closed,
we are of the opinion that the averments OF
the petition do not show that the plaintiffs
have such an interest in the matter complained
OF as to entitle them to be heard in proceed
ing OF this nature. None of the streets which
are included in the order are adjacent to any
of the lands of the petitioners. Six of the parcels
land.of whicn they have set out in their petition
as the basis OF their right to be heard a but
upon Pennsylvania street, and the other upon
Iowa street. The order does not purport to
affect Pennsylvania street, and that portion of
Iowa street included in the order is more than
two blocks distant from the land of plaintiff
fronting on that street.
The plaintiffs do not show that they have
sustained any injury special to themselves or
which is different, except. in degree, from that
sustained by other owners in the vicinity of
the streets included in the order
1t does not appear that by the closing of
| these streets they are deprived of access to
their lands, and the averment in this respect,
that Zone OF the main streets and reason OF
convenient approach from the central part of
the City to the Porero is closed by means of
| the order implies that there are other means of
convenient approach to their lands. And,
although they also aver that the eject OF the
order is to close "various other streets
and avenues heretofore opened and dedicated
to public use," they do not claim that any of
these streets are even servlceable to them in
approaching their lands.
Owners of land who are only remotely
affected by the proceeding and who sustain no
special injury different from that sustained by
call upon the officers of the City to justify their
acts or to invoke the judgment of the court
| upon the legality of the steps taken by the
municipality in passing the order.
Whether the order will have the effect to
| diminish the value of plaintiffs land or to
| cause them damage is not ground for annul-
| ling the act of the Board of Supervisors, and
| cannot be considered in this proceeding. If
| the Board of Supervisors, has the authority to
| pass the order and the plaintiffs have sustained
| eny legal damage by reason thereof. they must
| seek relief in a direct proceeding therefor.
Neither is it competent for the plaintiffs in
| this proceeding to review the decision of the
| Board of Supervisors that the public interest
| and convenience require that the streets be
| closed The Legislature has, by the statute re-
| ferred to, conferred upon that body the power
| TO open and close streets, whenever the pub
| lie interest or convenience may require" and
| the determination of this question by that body
! is not open for review Dy the court.
The judgment is affirmed.
The opinion is written by Justice Harri-
| son and Justices Garoutte and Van Fleet
| concurred.
| Considerable agitation was raised over
the action of the board and strong anti
railroad feeling was developed in the mat
ter, for the closing of the streets was for
the purpose of giving the Southern Pacific
Company a lot of land along Channel
street where the freight yards could be
established without the interruption Of
cross streets. Strenuous efforts were made
first to prevent the passage of the resolu-
tion and afterward to have it rescinded.
The Superior Courts decision was the first
victory for the railroad and now the ruling
of the Supreme Court leaves the Southern
Pacific in undisputed possession.