The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-03-15
May Now Lay Its Tracks On Brig
ham Street.
SUPREME COURT so RULES
NEW TRIAL GRANTED IN FRANZ
VS.. BULLIoN-BECK MINE.
Lower Court Affirmed In Wilson VS..
Triumph Mining Company-Water
Right Suit-Dr. Ewing Sues Wal
ker Bros Dry Goods Company For
$4,000 Damages-Mannon Guilty

In tn case of John Dern ct al, ap-
pellants, VS.. the Salt Lake City Street
Railroad company, the supreme court
handed down an opinion written by
Justice Baslkin and concurred in by
Chief Justice Bartch and Justice Mi
ner, affirming the decree of the lower
court, refusing to grant the appellants
an Injunction preventing the defend
ant from constructing or maintaining
a street car line on Brigham street,
east of E street.
The opinion, after going quite extern
sively into the question of franchises,
resolutions and ordinances of the city
council, says that there is no doubt
but that the ordinance conferred upon
/ the defendant company the right to
construct, maintain and operate on
that portion of South Temple street
brigham street, east of e street,
street railroad, and that that right still
exists, unless, since the passage of the
act of the legislature of March s, 1894,
and the ordinance of the city, it has
been terminated.
During the long period of twenty
seven years no objection was made by
anyone, and no legal proceedings insti-
tuted to interfere with the defendants
operations on the ground that the de-
rights, or on any other ground, until
this suit was begun. The failure for SO
long a time to institute proceedings to
forfeit any of the rights granted by the
franchises, and the repeated granting
to it of additional franchises, is a
waiver of all defaults which may have
occurred on the part of the company
up to March, 1894, the date of the last
franchise to the defendant. The fran
chises having been accepted and acted
upon, are valid and binding contracts
between the company and the sover-
eighty which authorized the granting
of said franchises, and as the state
and city have waived any defaults Of
the defendant the plaintiffs, being
strangers to the contract, have no
right whatever to prevent the defend
ant from exercising all of the rights
granted to X by the franchises.
On the question of estOppel the opin-
ion says the lower court was justified
in finding the issues for the defendant.
The proceedings were instituted by "a
number of the residents and property
owners on Brigham street, east of q
street, TO prevent the Salt Lake City
Railroad company from extending its
tracks on the portion of the street
named. The company had begun the
work of laying tracks, but were
stopped by a temporary injunction is
sued by the courts. pending the hear
ing of the case. The plaintiffs based
their case on alleged failure of the
company to live up to the terms Of the
franchise, which alleged failures, it was
claimed, caused q forfeiture of the
franchise. AS a further cause of ac-
ton, it was alleged that when the
franchise allowing the company to ex-
tend its lines On the street named was
granted, it was agreed by the COM
pany that it would not build on the
portion east of E street. Judge Hiles
heard the case and decided that nei-
Their of the grounds alleged had been
established, and refused to grant the
injunction, which ruling is now af-
firmed by the supreme court, and the
company is now at liberty TO extend
its tracks on the disputed ground.