The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-01-21

the people for an Injunction 70 re-
strain the selling taking UP or re-
moving Of fixtures on the portion winch
had been abandoned and that the de-
PENDANT be required 10 operate 4 Tor
pfsbli,. use. The court held that the
railroad act under which the company
was organized, being permissive, in
posed no contract obligation. The bill
was therefore dismissed, four OF the
Judges being Of the opinion that
CORPORA ton Is under a legal obliga-
ton 10 exercise its franchises and that
il has not the option 10 discontinue
portion Of its road and forfeit its fran
chises." but all agreed that the remedy
was not in equity for specific perform
ance but by temandamus, Indictment,
or. at the election Of the people. by
proceeding 70 annuI the existence or
the corporation
It is unnecessary TO comment upon
these cases further than TO observe
that they merely illustrate the rule
that equity does not act when there Is
adequate legal remedy, that its COM
pgllsorv powers will not be exercised
when mandamus will accomplish the
same purpose and that in the absence
of a contractuaI obligation TO construct
and operate a railroad mandamus viii
not lie to compel its construction and
operation. The same remark applies
TO Rogers Locomotive Works V. Erie
Ry. Co, 20 " ]. Ed. 379: Delaware,
etc, Co, " Stock-Yard Co, As \. J.
Eq. 50: New York. etc, Ry. Co. v
Mentclair, Al y. J. Ed. 59I, and TO
State V Ry. Co. 81 N. H. %, cited
by defendant. Nor is the plaintiff OBJ
nged 10 wait until the defendant shall
have accomplished a violation OF its
charter obligation TO provide a sufh-
eient number of cars for the public
convenfene before bringing proceedings
TO prevent the loss and inconvenience
which would result therefrom. The
defendant argues that this is not an
injunction against a positive act but
against fnactfon, saying, THE court
by a curious process of reasoning holds
that an Injunction. the effect of which
Is TO compel US to run cars, is an IN
junction to prevent US from running
cars, the difficulty in the courts mind
being that what is prevented is not
running" A right cannot be enforced,
says the defendant, by the aid of an
injunction unless in the case of
threatened breach of a negative cove
nant where irreparable injury can be
shown; but injunctions are common
which, in effect, require that nothing
be done TO disturb existing rights or
conditions Thus injunctions are
granted restraining a telephone or tel
egraph company from unauthorized
discontinuance Of its service, a Gus
TONER not being required TO postpone
his remedy until the service is cut off.
See Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. CO. Y.
Manning. 1s6 e. S. 23s; Smith V. Gold,
etc, Tel Co, AZ Hun 454.
The defendants claim that its right
TO regulate the operations of its rail-
way includes the right to determine
for itself at what intervals its pas
senger ears shall be run is not tenafle.
The statute requires that il shall at
all times maintain a sufficient num-
Der of cars 10 be used upon said rail-
way for the carriage Of passengers as
public convenience may require tmean-
ing, as we understand the statute, that
the defendant actually operate and
not merely, as it suggests, keep tina
cars in condition for using them1, al
though .-other cars designed for the
carriage of malls, parcels and goods
may be such as the association may
deem necessary" Sec. S41 R. l.
Undoubtedly there are many admin
istrative details in maintaining and
operating q street railway more or less
affecting its efficiency in serving the
public interest which are necessarily
and finally determined by the railway
officials or 7S
of equity to supervise and direct; but
the defendants claim that the furnish
ing Of sufficient cars for public con-
venience on Idliha street is a matter
of which II is the sole judge goes too
far. for il would admit a similar claim
in respect Of any other street over
which its line is established and in
cIude a right to run no cars on such
portions of its line as it thought TT,
and in some cases would amount TO
regulating expressed contractual OBJ
legations imposed upon the defendant
by acceptance of its charter.
Decisions upon the exercise of Judi
cial power concerning the maintenance
or operation Of railroads or Of branch
roads which refer to corpora tons au-
thorized but not required by statute
70 construct and maintain railroads
are not in pofat Commonwealth
Fitchburg R. r. Co, u Gray. $50. held
that statutory power to construct and
maintain branch railroads did not i'm
pose a legal duty to maintain them and
that II was for the corporation 20
j'dge what was necessary or reason
able except in those cases where the
Legislature has expressly interviewed in
the first instance" It Is true that the
court said that public wants were
measured by the business actually
DONE that IF trains run at reason
able and moderate fares cannot be
supported 1t is because they are not
needed and that II was the corpora
tons right as well as duty Ito exer-
else a sound discretion in the use of its
capital lest by exhausting it upon
trains that were not required By the
public wants It should deprive itself
Of the means Of running at reasona bic
rates those that were" 50 state =
Helena P. & l. Co, % Mont 39I. Ohio
& Mississippi Ry- CO. Y. People, 30 III
2oa held that mandamus viii not lie