The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1911-06-08
VICTORY FOR CITY
IN RENTAL SUIT
IS OUTLOOK
Remarks and Questions by Members
of Bench During Arguments Seem
To Indicate Leaning Toward
Municipalities Side.
Attorney Baker Brings Up Old Claim
That D. U. R. Operates Under
State Franchise.

Remarks ana questions interpose1
by the judges during the arguments
in the ID. u. r. rental case, in the
circuit court. Thursday morning.
tended to indicate strong dispcsi-
tion on the part OF the court 10 de-
eide the case In favor OF the city.
Judge Hosmer went further, in this
regard, than either OF his associates,
Judges Murphy and Mandell-
The city has right to state con-
ditions under which the railway COM
pany may operate cars on lines where
the franchise rights have expired
Judge Hosmer told Attorney Hirton
+. Spalding.- representing the d u
r., at one stage Of the proceedings.
"And IL the city annexes conditions
that are prohibitory don't see that
you can complain"
The arguments were completed,
Thursday noon, and the court gave
counsel until June 10 to file briefs
on the question: Can this bill be
considered as a bill to quiet title,
and, II so, can the court grant relief
on that theory?"
Counsel for the company contends
that no such construction can be
placed on the present suit because
one of the conditions OF such suit
is that the complainant must have
possession of the property involved
In this instance, the defendant has
possession.
Attorney Fred A. Baker, OF coun
sci for the ID. u r., made formal
motion, Thursday morning, that the
n atN h nj
plant and grant the cross RELIEF
prayed by the Detroit United and
cited several reasons in addition TO
those stated In the arguments, as
follows;
The grants and contracts under
which the street railways, known as
the Fort-st. lines were built and op-
Grated were made under the con-
stitution OF 1850 and the tram railway
act of 1855, and, under the express
and implied provisions of said grants
and contracts, the state franchise to
maintain and operate street railways
upon the streets named and designat-
ed became attached to and part OF
the physical property, and whoever
owns the physical property Is entitled
to exercise the state franchise 10
maintain and operate. regardless OF
the question whether there Is any
further local consent or agreement
such owner of the physical property
being obligated in the absence OF an
agreement fixing rates OF fare, TO
charge reasonable fares only.
On the other hand, the local con-
sent and the physical property have
become attached to and a part OF the
state franchise, all of these three eie-
ments taken together constituting an
undivisible franchise and property.
the legal existence Of which can only
be questioned by the state Of sMichi-
gan. and then only on a forfeiture for
cause.
The Detroit United railway having
the right, after the expiration or the
local grants, to continue to maintain
and operate the Fort-st. lines, the res
olution OF the common council, I'M
posing upon the company all unrea-
sonable and confscatory rental or
license fee OF 5000 day, Is In vio-
lation OF section 10, article l OF the
constitution OF the United States, and
In conflict with the process-of-law
clause of the fourteenth amendment
OF the constitution OF the United
States.
Assuming that the city OF Detroit
had right at the expiration OF the
local grants to dispossess the street
railway company. yet II has no power
to exact an unreasonable and conf1s-
catory rental or license fee for the
further occupation OF the streets, and
II the laws of Michigan are construed
to authorize any such action On the
part OF the city they are In conflict
with the provision OF the federal
constitution referred to above.
Under the laws OF Michigan there
is ample authority in the courts and
the Michigan railroad commission,
subject to review in the courts, to
determine whether the rates OF fare
or any other Of the terms and con-
ditions demanded by the city or
charged and insisted upon by .the
company are reasonable or not, and to