Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-03-15
LINE ON SOUTH TEMPLE ST.
Supreme Court Decides in Favor Of Sal, Lake
Street RaiIw y Company.
work OF Constructing the Road siny
Now he Proceeded with, Unless
Cisy or state should Interfere.

Tho supreme court has delivered an
opinion In the case Of John Dcrn ct al
Va tho Salt Lake city hallway com.
pany. affirming the Judgment Of tho
court below.
The PLAINTIFF In this case. nil resi-
dents Of east South Temple street.
commenced Injunction proceedings
agains 1.-THE defendant company last
June to prevent II constructing line
farther east than u street. The mat.
ter was heard before Judge Hilcs. wis
denied the prayed for writ. when an
appeal was taken.
The effect OF the decision IL TO allow
the street railroad company to proceed
with tn. work ~ laying the track,
n II feels like II. unless the State &c
city should take action TO prevent IL.
The opinion IN quite q lengthy one.
and the following extract II here given!
The defendant company began soon
after ita organization In 1879. under ita
articles Of Incorporation and franchises
Rrantcd BY the city to construct and
operate Its road. and from time to time
thereafter ~ II amended It's articles In
pursuance of the statutes authorizing
the same 10 be done. ana was granted
additional franchises by the city. u
continued 10 extend Its railroad IN the
city. and operated tho same up Ia
III" present time. During the whole ~
that long period NJ about twcnty.scven
Year, no objection has been made either
by the Territory. city or state, and no
legal proceedings have been Instituted
60 Interfere with the defendants opera
tionr, until the present suit.
THE stat. could have interviewed In
this suit and assisted the plaintiff In
obtaining an injunction n II desired to
enforce a forfeiture of any ~ the rights
81 the defendant corporation. under liz
charter and city franchises. The city
was made a party TO the suit. but u
does not. an II could have don" II II
10 desired. join with the plaintiffs In
the enort 10 obtain M injunction 10
stop the defendant. In place Of actually
participating In the suit II entered Into
stipulation with the plaintiffs that the
city was only nominal party 10 the
suit and that no costs OF any Kind
should be taxed against II.
The failure FOR 10 long "a time to
Institute legal proceedings to forfeit
any of the righta granted by the fran
chlHes Of the defendant company, and
The repeated granting 20 II OF additional
franchises. II a waiver OF all defaults
on the part NJ the defendant company
M 10 March N. 1884. the date OF the
last franchise 10 the defendant
THE franchise Of the defendant
company having been accepted and
acted upon. nrr valid ana binding con-
tracts between Il and the Sovereignty
which authorized the granting OF said
franchises. ana the city which granted
the same In pursuance Of said author
lty, and as the defaults Of the defend
ant company up 90 the 18th day or
Nnfch. 1894. have been waived by tho
| State ana city, the plaintiffs. being
strangers 10 the contract. have nn
rights whatever to prevent the defend
ant from exercising all Of the rights
granted to II 10y said franchises. untll
the State or city shall move In the
matter ana obtain decree ~ court
restraining the defendant company. Il
has the right 10 enjoy all the privileges
granted by It's charter and franchises,
The opinion In written by Justice
HaHkln and N concurred In by chief
Justice Bartch and Justice Miner.