The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1908-01-24

CHlSeS, Out ali dSTeeU llldt the remedy
was not in equity for specific perform
ance but by "mandamus. Indictment,
or, at the election of the people, by
proceeding to annul the existence of
the corporation
1t 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
pulsory powers will not be exercised
when mandamus will accomplish the
same purpose and that in the absence
of contractual obligation to construct
and operate railroad mandamus will
not lie to compel it's construction and
operation. The same remark applies
to Rogers Locomotive Works V. Erie
Ry. Co., 20 n. ]. Eq. 379; Delaware,
etc, Co., V. Stock-Yard Co., 45 n. ].
Eq. so; New York. ETC., Ry. Co. V.
Montclair, Al N. ]. Eq. SCI, and to
State V. Ry. Co., 81 n. H. 90, cited
by defendant. Nor is the plaintiff OBJ
liged to wait until the defendant shall
have accomplished a violation of its
charter obligation to provide a suffi-
cient number of cars for the public
convenience before bringing proceedings
to prevent the loss and inconvenience
which would result therefrom. The
defendant argues that this is not an
injunction against positive act but
against inaction, saying, THE court
by curious process of reasoning holds
that an injunction, the effect of which
T. - IL t.
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 a
threatened breach of a negative cove
nant where frreparable 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 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 of.
See Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v.
Manning, 1s6 U. S. 23S; Smith V. Gold,
etc, Tel. Co., ~ Hun asa.
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 cars shall be run is not tenable.
The statute requires that it shall at
all times maintain a sufficient num-
Der of cars to be used upon said rail-
way for the carriage of passengers as
public convenience may require (mean-
ing, as we understand the statute, that
the defendant actually operate and
not merely, as it suggests, keep the
cars in condition for using them), al
though "other cars designed for the
carriage of mails, 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 a street railway more or less
its efficiency in serving the
public interest which are necessarily
and finally determined by the railway
officials and are not within the power
of equity to supervise and direct; but
the defendants claim that the furnish
ing of sufficient cars for public con-
on Liliha street is a matter
Of which it is the sole judge goes too
far, for it would admit a similar claim
in respect of any other street over
which its line is established and in
clude a right to run no cars on such
portions of it's line as it thought fit,
and in some cases would amount to
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 corporations au-
thorized but not required by statute
to construct and maintain railroads
are not in point. Commonwealth "
R. R. Co., II Gray, $50, held
that statutory power to construct and
maintain branch railroads did not inn
pose legal duty to maintain them and
that it was for the corporation to
Judge what was necessary or reason
able except in those cases where the
Legislature has expressly interviewed in
the first instance" 1t is true that the
courts said that public wants were
measured by the business actually
DONE" that eff trains run at reason
able and moderate fares cannot be
it is because they are not
needed" and that it was the corpora
TONS right as well as duty ito exer-
else sound discretion in the use of it's
capital lest by exhausting it upon
trains that were not required by the
public wants it should deprive itself
IF the means of running at reasonable |
rates those that were" So State V.
Helena P. & L. Co., % Mont. 391 Ohio
Z Mississippi Ry. Co. V. People, 120 III. |
700, held that mandamus will not lie |
% compel the company to increase the !
number of it's trains over a branch |
Dad, the company having no funds |
With which to do so, it's running ex-
lenses having exceeded it's earnings |
Dver 100000 from the time of its pur- |
,hase. The court spoke of the duty of /
he defendant to afford adequate facil- !
ties ito be judged of and governed /
chiefly by the amount of business"
md that although as a general rule i
courts will not interfere with the man
cement of a railway in determining
Iuestions relating ~ the operation of |
is road, except where the act sought |