The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-02-16
Opinion by Brown. J.
WHAT IS SAID AT GALVESTON.

Galveston, Texas, February l5.-Tele-
grams were received here today announc-
ing that the supreme court had reversed
and dismissed the suit against the Calves
ton and Western railroad. commonly
known as the Little SUSIE which was
decided adversely to the railroad by the
district court in Houston and affirmed by
the court OF civil appeals, The decision
was received with great satisfaction by the
owners and officers OF the Galveston, La
Porte and Houston road. with which II Is
consolidated, and Colonel Gresham said ap-
plication would at once be made to the
city council for right OF way from the
present terminus along avenue A and
across the Santa Fe property TO the ground
purchased by the La Porte road for depot
and terminal facilities.
The Susie railroad was sold, conditional
ly. TO the Galveston, La Porte AM Houston
Railroad company in April or May. 1880
That company had purchased property in
the east end for 6epots and terminal facili-
ties. which it expected to reach over the
rails of the Susie. But the legal entangle-
ments and the uncertainty of the result
greatly embarrassed the La Porte, End as
il was unable to use its east end property
IL has been greatly hampered for want Of
facilities
| And now what will follow" asked The
Post reporter of Colonel Gresham.
| 1.-THE La Porto road has, while this It'll
CATION was pending. gone into the hands
| OF receivers. We will, Therefore, nave 10
| apply to the legislature for confirmation OF
the consolidation of the La Porte and the
galveston and Western railroads. Then
| we will ask the Federal court for permis-
sion 10 improve the property in the east
end. so that We may have everything IN
readiness for next falls business. inns
| litigation has stood in the way oil every
thing. The La Porte has been unable 10
care for as large a volume OF business as
| IT might otherwise have handled. but II
| will now be placed in shape to handle trat
fic in good order and will be avallapie lot
the use of lines desiring to enter Calves
ton"
On September /, 1894, the city brough'
| suit In the district court OF Galveston coun
~ against the Galveston and Western ran
road, praying for a forfeiture OF all hcenses
privileges, rights and grants that mad pee
conferred llnon the said company anu IN
companies it had succeeded. and that IL
required to remove all OF its tracks. etc
off nj all the streets. alleys and grouho
in the citv. and enjoned from eXerc'sih,
any rights or privileges thereon me su,
was based upon n clause in the comp'h!
franchise providing for the forieiture
the grant II the railroad did not within
certain time huild bridge across Ha''es''
bay. ,oo,so
himself and the case went 10 the dlstrlc
court of Harris county; IN February, iou ,,
Q a decision was rendered adverse TO the Gun
, peny. In juno last the court OF cNIl up
1 uesis reformed and affirmed the )uasheu
q of the district court. IN OCTOBER .he
I preme court was applied 10 ior We
= error. which was. in November reiuseS
,ew DAYS thereafter application Tor &c
hearing was made, which the supreme cou
Granted after further examination anu W
) case was set down for arguiheh. y" !
I. # was on that date argued ny MaSvhs
5 G Hume for the city ana coiohei VI 80
G for the railroad, ami the decision was AAD'
cd down today. ~ ..s,,ry noint
md Tor that reason and because OF the VIZ,
: and tenacity with which II was Iousn
! has attracted a great deal OF ihte'es
. throughout the state uorost,ions
v Foliowing are the main propositione
e answer to the plea for forieiture o, 20,
q of noncompliance with the cohullion 10
mentioned, which the courts "e'e
, pass upon: -, 10, a, the ten,
= section OF the ordinance applies onS
= Inc RIGHT of way in the streets Heh, w
J. in section q. upon which appellant W.
3 W. did not build its road ID. rnd
Q Appellee tthe city, had no i i,sn. to il
e its charter or the laws OF TINS S'a. LIZ nm,
r. lose forfeiture Of a right OF w sor NO NO
/ which a railroad has been ou'le, ~,
n performance of condition su SUBS hs asse
II ,.,rba CITY can not. in granting its ass1
Z, 70 n railroad company to puiiu upon
). s,rse,s impose a forfeiture upon the 30 -.
n pany for not doing that which It's 'nA'
does not authorize 1t 70 do, ,.w,u,
= '0 Appellant &c. & W. having ;,d la%i y,
constructed and operated Its railroaa s ao
: certain streets in tho city o. 0a a
has vested contract rsn,s wav or Il
thereto that can not De 'aAe"
paired .,.r,.red under I
" III. state can not be estopped II