The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-02-11


this mornings session Of the Appellate
Court, as ths case of Willard B. Tanner.
attorney general, city Of Providence
relator. against the New York, New
Haven e. Hartford Railroad Company,
otherwise known as the train shed casa,
was on for hearing In the CASE though,
as argued by City Solicitor Cclwell and
Assistant Solicitor Albert A. Baker train
sheds were minor factor, for those gem
tlemen claimed that the information fled
by the attorney general meant the depri-
vation Of the company of its charter and
to the rights given to Ii 10y the General
Assembly, and that on the case thus FAR
made the state was entitled TO have
judgment OF custer at once for breaking
the law of the state.
The hearing was on the demurrer of
the railroad corporation, and the main
point OF the demurrer was that the
remedy in such cases as the present one
was by msndamus, and not 10y quo war
ranto, and that the aot Of the City
Council authorizing the city solicitor TO
take such action against the railroad to
secure train sheds as was necessary In no
way justified tha bringing OF the proceed
ings Of custer. Counsel who represented
the attorney general maintained that the
City Council resolution had nothing TO
the attorney general had seen Mt, in ac-
cordance with the prfrogatiyes Of mis- high
Office to ask that the franchise of the
corporation be taken away on account of
its gross offence against the dignity OF
the state.
The case was finally held for advsemept
and during the hearing Judge Stiness
asked "A number Of pertinent questions.
Walter +. Angel in behalf Of the rail
road company opened the discussion. He
said In part: "This proceeding is an IN
formation in the nature of quo war
rantol brought by the attorney goueral,
at the relation of the city Of Providence,
against tie New York, New Haven 81
Hartford Railroad Company. The purpose
Of the proceeding as indicated by the
prayer with which the informtion con-
cludes. Is to GUST the respondent from the
use and enjoyment OF the franchises con-
ferred upon it by,certain acts of the Gener-
al Asssmb bly, relating to the construction
of a passenger station and a train shed
connected Herewith in the city OF Provi-
dence. BY "A supplemental motion in
the nature or an amendment to the prayer
OF the Information. the relator asked and
obtained from the court an injunction,
restraining the respondent from further
occupation of the promises than then ex-
isted. until further order Of tie court.
Toe re spondent filed iti answ erIwithin he
time allowed, and Incorporated therein
a demurrer to the information. The at
torney general has filed joinder in de-
murrr.
The relief by Injunction which was
sought by the relator and granted by the
court indicates that the proceeding was
intended TO be in equity, and that it was
so regarded by the court, since Injunction
is purely equitable remedy and has in
variably been refused when asked in con-
..Rf.
nature of quo warranto. But If this pro-
ceedinn IL an information in equity, IL Is
clearly denurrable since its purpose is to
oust private corporation OF Its franchises.
and such an Information can only bs
prosecuted in n court Of law. The only
equitable proceeding in the nature Of quo
warranto which Is recognized by our law
Is that provided by General Laws, chapter
263 to try title to an office.
The purpose of the information Is to
compel the respondent TO construct a train
shed, as part of its new station, in ac
cordnnce with wnat the rslator alleges TO
bs the provisions OF the acts referred to-
But the remedy is misconceived-tbe APP
propriate proceeding In such oases is
msncamus, aud not quo warranto. No
well considered case In which an inform8-
ton in the nature OF quo warrapto has
b. on entertained for such purpose, can.
it is believed, be found. On the other
mandamus Is the proper remedy in SINH
lar cases.
And in view Of the well settled rule that
courts will not re sort to n forfeiture Of the
privileges Of n corporation on quo war
ranto where any other remedy is availa-
ble. Il would seem that the established
procedure by msndamus ss shown by the
foregoing cases Is n sufficient ground for
dismissing the present information.
Mr. Angel also called the attention OF
the court to many Instances I'm which
mandamusss Ind been granted 90 compel
railroads TO tuild bridges, stations aod
lay tracks. and said there was an Engl sh
cas3 I'm which there was form Tor n
nandamus in just such case as the
present one.
Assistant City Solicitor Baker followed
Mr.. Apgell and said te was surprised at
the position taken by the gentlemen ON
the Other side. but ne would inform them
thet tho info f6rmation was not brought 10
have train sheds built, hut because the
dignity Of the state had Teen ipsulted.
lie aud Mr.. Co we'll represented the at
torney general VIII took action In accord
m - With the hikn preroraiive OF his Office
70 havs ths cour interfefe with any fur
t..sr infrlT n M MT of the rights OF the