The San Francisco call., 1910-07-19
UNITED RAILROADS
PETITION IS DENIED
Judge Van Fleet Turns Down Application
For Temporary Injunction
Continued From Page 1

to compete was in violation of the con-
tract into which it entered when grant
ing the franchises.
The petition had In it much that was
in the complaint filed by Platt in the
former proceedings, the main difference
being that, whereas in the former pc
tition the chief contention was based
on the alleged regularity of the pro-
ceedings and the claim that the city
had not the power to operate street
railroads, this late petition sets up in
reference with the vested rights of the
United Railroads. The subject matter.
to a large extent. was the same and so
in the roads taken by Plat and CAL
houn. Platt came in the guise of a
noble minded citizen, unable to coun-
tenance by silence the legal errors of
his municipality. Calhoun came forth
as Calhoun. vociferously declaring that
San Francisco was taking away his
rights.
A Voluminous Affair
The petition was a voluminous affair
and bore the names of. Attorney Will
liam j. Abbott, General Tirey l.. Ford
and Joseph D. Redding. Judge Van
Fleet gave it several hours considera-
tlon before writing his decision, which
was as follows:
Complainant has presented and
MED In this court it's bill in equity
seeking to enjoin the defendant :.
municipality, its mayor and board
CT supervisors and certain other Of
incers from taking further proceed -
lngs looking to the construction and
equipment of a street railroad upon
certain streets of the city, and COM
monty designated and referred to as
the Geary street road TO be owned,
operated and conducted as a street
railroad by the defendant city and
county under its municipal author
ity. Application is made upon the
Dill for an order upon defendants to
snow cause why an injunction pen
dente lite should not issue; and that
In the meantime and until a hear
ing can be had upon the applica-
ton a temporary restraining order
issue without notice to the defend
ants to stop the further prosecution
of the project.
The application for a temporary
restraining order is the only matter
Tor present consideration since the
order to show cause will usually
issue as of course
The status provides (sec. 71S
r. 81 that a temporary stay order
may be granted upon an applica-
tion for an injunction only when
there appears to be danger of ire
80 of this court, made in pursuance
of that section, provides that no
such restraining order shall be
granted without notice to the other
side unless it shall clearly appear
that irreparable damage will re-
suit to the applicant before the
matter can be heard on notice.
NO URGENT CAUSE OF ACTION
An examination of the averments
of the bill in the light of these re-
which would authorize this feature
of the relief asked The bill pro-
ceeds upon the theory that the pro-
ceedings being taken by the city
authorities looking to the building
of the road in question are in viola
ton of certain contract relations
ant and the defendant municipality
growing out of franchises hereto
fore granted complainant and it's
predecessors in interest for the
railroads within the city and coun-
ty and that the further prosecu-
tion of such proceedings will tend
to impair the obligations of those
contracts, destroy the value of the
complainants rights hereunder and
deprive it of its property without
tion of the constitution of the
United States.
AS Indicated, we are not at pres
ent concerned with the merits of
the controversy as they may be
eventually presented for determin
alton, but only with those aver
smentS of the bill which would
tend to disclose irreparable injury
to result to complainant If defend
ant be not restrained pending
hearing. In this respect the bill is
essentially lacking in any tangible
detail. It proceeds with a recital
of the various steps taken by the
city authorities, beginning with the
adoption on October 26, 1909, of a
bill or ordinance determining and
declaring that the public interests
and necessity demand the construc-
tion of street railways upon and
along the following streets, TO wit
| defining the project in question and
including the adoption at a special
election of a proposed bond issue
for it's prosecution. 1t is then al
legged that unless restrained and
enjoined from so doing as herein
prayed the defendants threaten to
and will proceed to construct and
operate a street railroad in the city
and county of San Francisco as
| projected and that unless such con-
| struction be enjoined the city will
! proceed to build said road and VIII
| cause continued and irreparable
injury to your orator and will oc-
'casion constantly occurring griev-
ance against which your orator IS
| without recourse, except by inter-
| vention of this honorable court
| and it is alleged that said proceed
| ings will depreciate the value or
| your orators property. will de-
crease the values of its bonds. VIII