New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-09
NO KINGSBRIDGE RAILROAD.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AGAINST THE
THIRD AVENUE COMPANY.

Albany June Spy It's decision In the cases Oh
Clinst and Beekman against the Third Avenue
Railroad Company of New-York. the Court vi ->P
peaIs to-day disposes OF Fix questions oil great I'M
portance practically making void the kngsoriuse
extension of the Third Avenue Railroad upon
which IL claims to have spent s2.ODVo. me Soui'
holds that an attempt TO build railroad on Il
public highway without authority Is nuisance
and that the city Of New-York has no inherent
right Independent of legislative permission 10 grant
a franchise for constructing and maintaining d ran
road in the public streets and therefore no sale OF
a franchise can be valid unless 1t was procee"cu
with in the manner prescribed by the Legislature
The leading objection to the legality OF the CON
sent to the granting Of the franchise given by '"e
city under the State Railroad act Is that more IMAM
one extension of lines already existing was inc'udeu
in the resolution and notice of SALE and that the
city has no power under the statute to sell more
than one ut time. The points in detail are as
follows:
First-The Common Council of New-York CITY
cannot make valid sale OF moro than one extern
sion OF existing railroad at the same sale, TO DC
struck off upon bid. when the extensions are
separated from each other in such way that they
can only be operated together over the lines OF an
existing road.
Second-A sale made in this way vested no right
In the Third Avenue Railroad Company to build
any OF the extensions above One-hundred- and-sixy-
second-st on Kingsbridge Road.
Il
pose condition OF consent to the sale OF an OK
tension that q railroad shall pay into the city
treasury sum of money in cash within certain
time in addition to the percentage OF gross re-
ceipts bid by 1t upon such sale.
Fourth-The sale of tho franchise TO the Third
Avenue Railroad Company was VOID and vests no
right TO build such extensions.
Fifth--The condition OF the Common Council reso-
luton that not moro than five cents shall be
charged for a continuous ride on the Thrd-ave.
line only to or from tho extension is valid.
Slxth-But II the Common Council did not mako
such a distinction for fares on extended lines the
grant would then be invalid.
In addition to it's decision that the roads grant
IS void relates the extension the Court grants
q permanent Injunction against the road. restrain
ing 1t from passing tho property Of Dorothy Clinst
and Catherine Beeknan, which In Itself Is @ pro-
hibition against completion.
Most OF the officers and directors Of the Third
Avenue Railroad Company were out Of the city last
evening. but David c. Andrews. OF the directors
who found by a Tribune reporter said that
some plan for defending tho rights OF the company
in the Kingsbrldge road probably would be formed
to-day. We Will have TO turn In another d!rec-
ton" he said now that the court from which there
Is no appeal has blocked one path. As the fran
chise already granted 10 the company has been de-
clared 10 be invalid, we may begin anew and seek
another franchise for the road 10 kinSsbridge on
the same line. 1t seems curious that the franchise
should be declared 10 be invalid because the COM
pany paid S25Q000 10 the city. | cannot say what
the plans OF the companys officers Will be, but some
announcement may be made tomorrow"
There was fall OF six points to 80 in tho stock
Of the Third Avenue Railroad Company yesterday
he Of @ bs rc he for tSn x
bridge extension was invalid.