The Detroit times., 1912-10-02
FORT STREET CASE
is WON BY DETROIT

/ ~
the decision, Justice Bird dissented
from the decision OF his associates on
the subject OF the enforcement OF rem.
tai. He wrote:
II concur in the foregoing opinion
but I'm so doing | do not want to be
understood as holding that the city
may not recover damages in any APP
pfopriate proceedings for defendants
trespass in refusing TO vacate the
streets after the franchise expired"
The city did not call on the ID. u. r.
to vacate the street after the fran
chise expired. but passed resolution
to the effect that II the ID. u. r. con-
tinued to operate cars on the line IL
would be subjected TO a penalty or
500 q day The city contended that
the franchises expired June 80. 1910,
and sought TO collect rental from that
date. Judge Birds opinion indicates
that the city may collect a certain
amount OF damages for the company's
continued occupancy OF the street.
Claims Rental Too High.
The ID. u. r. is now paying daily
rental OF $500 for operating cars over
$50 miles OF trackage on the Wood
ward, Grand River and Jeffersonave.
lines, where franchises have expired.
The company accepted the terms OF
Ia resolution passed by the council.
|bnt when the latter attempted to tax
the company $500 day for operating
/ over 16 miles of trackage on the Fort
I st. line. the company baked, claimed
/ the rental excessive, and, anyway,
THAT the franchise had not expired.
This gave rise to hot legal battle
IN which the ID. u. r. tested out some
/ most remarkable theories relating to
Il the operation OF street cars in Michi.
! gan advanced by Attorneys Baker and
Donnelly. One OF these was that
when q street car line is established
It becomes. as a highway, a regular
route OF travel. and that the public
can never thereafter be deprived OF
It's use. Attorney Baker insisted thai
once street car line is established
u must be maintained so long as the
public has any use for it. regardless
or the terms of a franchise under
which the line was originally built.
This was the most serious aspect of
THE case from the standpoint of the
city. for with that principle establish
r<k the ID. u. r.. could forever snap
is Ringers Mt the city. To make this
theory sound the more plausible the
ID ~ r., lawyers contended that
uhen the franchises expired the city
could no longer fix the rates OF fare,
ana that this work then deyolved on
/|1 state railroad commission. II
<Hc supreme court had sustained these
11ints the city would have been help.
|@ss. but the court overruled the CON-
1&1r on these vital issues. The u.
ri. n played its trump card and lost
EVAPORATION Counsel Lawson and
*I(red Lucking, special counsel for
me city in ID. u. r. litigation, are
|.1IIant over the outcome OF the suit.
rIev regard IL as a very important
~IEfory for the city AMI one that firm.
~ Establishes the city's rights TO It's
&|feets. II Is thought the ID. u. r.
~IIl appeal the case TO the United
<Infes supreme court, but the city e
InHyers have examined federal de
r|sions in similar cases and judge
from them that the city's position viii
Be finally and unalterably sustained
"The rental part OF the case ii
comparatively unimportant,' said Mr.
Lawson. Il presume now the council
and the ID. u. r. will get together ant
decide on the amount OF rental to b.
paid until such a time as the city
takes over the line
THE decision gives the city abso
lutte power over the situation" saiC
Mr.. Lucking. .... .
Id Compromise Probable.
IA The rental that the city sought Il
4 Impose from June 80. 1910, amounts
20 $164,0OO, and in view OF the courts
decision that the franchise expired OF
that date the council might arrang,
some compromise with the ID. U. r.
tho city foregoing its right to sue foI
damages
Replying to the contention OF the ID
u. n. that It's rights in the street.
are perpetual the court said: "Thl
argument seems TO be based upon tn
assumed necessity OF the continues
uso OF the tracks OF the ID. y. n. 70
me- comfort and prosperity of th
public.
N n evident that the manieipa
I1fh0rifIes are duly constituted a
representing the people OF the cit
and n a the only governments
e<tnct provided a. municipalities ar
BOW constituted. For conserving IN
interest az the public for the purpos
NJ rnrrfinR out these views OF the I
RI no method il formulated an
||/II does not appear 20 be any whie
||I1 court may utilize unless the ide
IN rrfnctaitt is excepted
he courts Lewiston in part, 70