Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1908-10-01
TIE henry SIRE ct TRACK
CASE.

OASE.
Az WAS stated 10 the Gsz tie OF that
day, Jud. 9 Thornton 10 the Circuit Court
fjr the city yest- r lay emit red decree
sustaining the claim of The South rn
Rsil~ay Ompsny for the use Of Henry
street tor ts r.cks. This decision was
the outcome Of sctIon upon the part Of
the City CluucIl 20 compel the railway
company 10 abandon Henry street and
the iDjunct on proceedings instituted by
the company Judge Tn ration 10 re-
viewing the case calls attention 10 The
fact ths
ola 1892 the plSirt # and defendant
were in ltiguioo over the right OF plain
if to usa denTy sr,et. A compr )mi'e
was effect d ny which defeud mt enacttd
an ordinance, giving 10 pls'utIfi It's sue
csssor, and assigns The right t use said
street in perpeuny for a consideration,
which has been IA tlfully execut d. the
adop'iou tf this ordinance VAS followed
by a 6asl deere 10 the pending htga.
ton, b. which il WIS speci 6cally sp-
Iroved and con6rm,d. subs, queI ty to
tlis an act OF tue een,r i assembly, Acts
1899 1900 specifically ratifise, approves
and confirms the action OF the C ty In the
premises. The railroad has leased and
proposes to sell the franchise to the
Southern Railway Company. II is hard
10 conceive how plaintiff could have &C.
quirsd It's right to use the street with soy
higher guarantee than the ones BY which
1t apparently obtained 10 this instance.
For value paid the city authorities con
sented. A solemn adjudication vi
coult, to which both plaintiff and de-
fendsnt we're parties, approved and con-
firmed. And the Legislature OF the state,
representing the rights OF the public,
gave its sanction"
Continuing Judge Thornton says:
Il fad no embarrassment from the
fact that the legislative act followed and
did not precede the municipal ordinance.
At that time the legislature alone repre-
senhd the public rights. lie enactment
we're supreme 80 far IS the public rights
we're concerned, 1t could sanction the
right of plaintiff to use the streets of the
municipality with or without its assent.
The important fact IL, that it did sanction
aud consent to the use OF Henry street by
plaintiff and not the phrase in which that
sanction and consent WAS given. II is
immat.risl that it chose 10 give lis as
sent in the form of a ratification OF
town ordinance. But IS the authorities
cited abundautly show, that II the acts
we're treated as ex post facto or rttrosc-
tive it would be none the less valid. The
most recent decision | now recall is tue
decision of our highest court upon the
act validating the last land assessment,
but the case Of Bell vs.. Farmville. K. Z.
Co., 81 Va, shows the extent to which
this doctrine is carried. Every depart
ment of the state government, both local
aud general, seems t. have concurred In
giving force and effect to this right in
the plaintiff to use this street."
I think the able attCrneY
for the city admitted, that before the
city could annul the right of plaintiff 1t
must have reasonable cause. He in-
sis,s, however, that this csuse 10 found
in the feet alleged In the bill, that plain
tiff hiss leased its franchise to the South
era Railway Company and proposes to
sell the same.
Public service corporations have fire.
uuently in the past sold and leased and
merged their corporate rights aud fran
chises in whole and some times In part,
but have never known them to seek
the assent of every municipality through
whose limits their lines passed. l would
have to feel very certain of my position
t. question this general concensus that
such consent was not necessary. Ii
every contract between such corporations
relative 10 their frar chises would have
10 receive the sanction OF every munich
pslity through which their lines passed
il would be a great burden upon the
property value OF such franchises. But
think when q franchise Is granted to
public service corporation 1t has every
right therein conferred by corporate
powers. The general statutes of the
commonwealth give to public service
corporation the right to sell or lease IN
whole or in part any or all Of Its fraE-
chises. The charter Of this corporation
gives it the same right. And the very
ordinance and statute by which this
plaintiff acquired tae right to use Henry
street is grant to plaintiff 'fts success
sors or assigus." 1t would seem there
fore in leasing or selling its franchise to
the Southern Rail gay Company plaintiff
is acting within the power granted by
the ordinance.
consider, therefore, that this plain
tiff or any assigns OF 1t have rights 10
Henry street, which are not subject to
the uncomfortable actions of the defend
ant municipality.