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


denied, however. because the statute
did not require an increased number
Of trains OF course where rea sonable
facilities are already furnished there
is no occasion for judicial action. Thus
Chicago & Eastern H. r r. Co, v.
People, 222 III 39S. refused mandamus
10 compel she location Of a station al
another point than the company had
designated on the ground that tae evil
dence failed 10 show that the proposed
station would not afford reasonably
safe accessible and convenient condi-
tons for the public The same view
was taken by the United States gu-
preme Court IN Atlantic Coast Line p
R. Co, Y. Horton ct al. 207 Z. S. -,
as reported in advance sheets. The
Supreme Court of South Carolina had
granted a mandamus 70 compel the
railroad company 70 stop two Of its
through trains from Jersey City TO
Tampa al a station called Latta, pur-
suant 10 an order of the railroad COM
T1issioners. Latta had a population OF
453, having several local trains for sta
tons along the road and one through
Pullman train which stopped there,
The only objection to the trains was
their want of speed. The court thought
that the company had furnished such
reasonable accommodations TO the peo-
pie at Latta as it CT aid fairly and
properly be called upon to give.
It is urged that "a bill in chancery
would not lie to enforce the specific
performance of duties requiring con-
tinuous personal labor and care NC
Cam V. South Nashville r. r. Co, 2
Tenn Oh. 773), AID that an injunction
does not lie TO enforce a contract re-
quiring continuous acts The fnjunc-
ton in this case merely preeiudes the
violation OF an obligation imposed by
the defendants charter
AS to the defendants claim that it
does not appear that irreparable in
jury would result, il is enough that
the proposed act would be violation
Of the statutory obligation of the de-
PENDANT Attorney General v. Z. r.
Companies. IS wis. 425.
We do not sustain the defendants
contention that the suit is premature
pending the result of its application
to The superintendent Of Public Works
for permission to change its switches
TO conform 10 the proposed 1920 min
ute service. The statute, Sec. s43. r,
L, provides that the company shall
make reasonable and just regulations.
with the consent and approval of the
Governor. regarding the maintenance
and operation of said railway on and
through said Streets" and failing to
do so s'the Superintendent Of Public
vxvs4a 4--,T ~ -
ernor, may make them
This does not appear to us to be a
grant to the association or to the ex-
ecutive of discretionary power TO de-
termine how many cars shall be run
and at what intervals. A separate sec
ton. s41. provides that the company
shall at all times maintain a sufr
eient number of cars A grant
either to the company or to the execu-
tive of such an important power as to
determine how many cars are required
for this purpose would naturally and
properly be expressed or clearly i'm
piled It's exercise would not call for
any public hearing, but ordinarily would
be ex parte On the company's showing.
A matter so important TO the public is
subject to Judicial inquiry and de-
termination unless, as is not the case
here, shown in clear language TO be
entrusted to executive discretion or TO
the discretion Of the corporation.
Many cases are cited by the defend
ant holding that "mandamus to com
pei a railroad TO do a particular act
can be issued only when by statute
there is a specific legal duty on its
part to do that act" Northern Pa
cifc r. r CO. v Dustin, 142 Z. s.
492: People v Brooklyn Heights Ry.
Co., 17Z N Y 80: Nashville Ry. v.
atc., Ry Co. At N J. sos: san Ar
tonic Street Ry. Y. State, 80 Tex $40;
State V. Kansas City Ry. Co.. % So.
127 Ga.); Florida Central Ry. Co. v.
state, Is So. 10s (Fla-1; Raymond v.
County Of Stearns, Is MINI. 40.
Attorney General v Salem, 103 Mass.
13S. was an information in the nature
of QUO yvarranto alleging that under
a statute for supplying the city of
Salem with water the defendant had
constructed works at the expense Of
81, 090. 900 or more and issued scrip or
bonds to that amount. the statute
providing that the city council should
establish water rates 10 provide for
payment Of interest and not less than
one per cent. annually on the princi-
pal of the loan. and that the net in
come should be set apart as a sinking
fund for its payment; further alleging
that the city. disregarding these pro-
visions, had established nominal water
rates, leaving property and poll taxes
TO Fay the interest, etc, and praying
that il be made TO answer by what
warrant il was acting thus and be
enjoined from supplying water at NOM
fnal rates and taxing inhabitants to
pay the operating expenses and the
loan The court held that this was
not the appropriate remedy to enforce
performance Of duties imposed by law
or 10 restrain improper use OF a fran
chise which does not work q for
feiture. declining 20 decide whether
the Attorney General could bring
bin in equity TO redress any public
wrong. but holding that this was not
a public wrong. Attorney General y
Tudor Ice Co, 104 Mass. 23s. was an
information in equity by the Attorney
General TO restrain the defendant from
carrying on any other than its ice
- hz