The Detroit times., 1912-06-07
D, U, R. CLAIMS FRANCHISE
RIGHTS IN FORREST. DO
NOT EXPIRE UNTIL 1921
Railway Files Brief in Rental
Case, to Be Argued in Su-
preme Courts Tuesday
OLD POINTS ARE RAISED
Proposed Rent Declared Arbi-
trary and Unreasonable and
in Excess Of Revenue

The city's suit against the ID L X.
10 collect 5000 day rental FOL the
companys use OF Forrest VIII be
argued In the supreme court by Cor
poration Counsel Lawson and Attor-
neys for the D. u. r. next Tuesday,
and an early decision is expected. The
main questions presented are whether
the company's rights in this street
have expired and whether the com
pany in any way became obligated 10
pay the rental claimed by the city.
The circuit court entered decree
February IA, 1912, to the effect that
the company's rights had expired and
the city could exact a rental or 5000 a
day for the continued use OF the line.
The court held, however. that the cry
could not collect the rental from luly
"a 1910, the date on which the rental
was ordered by the council, mp 10 the
time when the decree was eaIered.
The rental for this period amounts 10
about 100000, and Mr.. Lawson put II
q cross-appeal in the case 10 collect
the back rental, while al the same
time the company appealed from he
entire decision. The decree appealed
from by the company was in brief tina;
the company's rights had terminated
that the company had not become
bound 10 pay the rental demanded. but
that as the city refused 10 perml' II
TO continue without such payment IL
should. unless IL would accept the
city's terms, stop its cars and remove
It's tracks.
The company has just filed its brief
In the case in the supreme court and
tries 20 bolster up its position with
additional arguments. Chief among
its contentious are these:
"That by the passage and accept
ance OF the ordinance OF 1906 the com
pany's rights TO occupy the street was
extended to December IA, 1921
eThat after a street railroad has
been constructed and put into oper-
alton, and upon the termination OF the
period for which the right of oper
alton is granted, there is an implied
obligation resting upon both parties
TO the grant that the tracks AMI other
equipment composing such railway
sha, so long as the public need Tor the
use thereof remains, continue 10 be
used FOR, railway purposes upon sueh,
terms, not unreasonable, as the
municipal authorities may prescribe.
that at the option of the municipality
such operation may be continued by
the original granteekof the franchise
orNby some other organization, pro
yided, however. that in the latter case
payment OF the fair value OF said
property shall first be made 10 the
owner thereof.
IF there be no sucn implied obilga-
ton for continued use, either the mu-
nicipality or the company may, upon
the expiration of the franchise PERIOD,
elect TO terminate the railroad opera
tions, in which case a reasonable time
must be allowed for the remova' CT
the railway property or FOR making
other arrangements for necessary
public transportation.
"The facts in the present case 90
not show decision by either party
to terminate street railway operation
over the lines in question. but snow
an implied agreement for the coitinu-
ance thereof
-The rental OF 5000 per day pro
rosed by the city is arbitrary and m
reasonable, because it's payment
would raise the cost OF operation OF
these tracks TO an amount largely
In excess of the revenue and it's eX-
action would. therefore, amount 10
oonhscation. II the action OF tie city
is TO be construed as notice 10 stop
operation except upon this unre&son-
able and confiscatory condition, ii is
void.
THE company is under no liability,
contractual or otherwise, TO pay the
rental demanded for its occupation
after the expiration OF the several
franchise grants.
"Inasmuch as the company's occu-
patton after the expiration OF he
circumstances.
not unlawful, the present bill cannot
BE maintained
Mr.. lawson looks for decisiCh IN
favor OF the city as the main points
OF contention by the ID. L. II. were
knocked out BY the circuit count. The
citys construction Of the ordinance
OF 1906, referred TO in the companys
brief. is that it's effect was only To-
modify grants TO the ID. L. r., made
by the township of Springwcils, before
annexation, as 10 the rate Of fare; that
is, TO make tickets sold at eight for
quarter good over the newli an
nexed territory in workticket hCJrrs,
and that il did not extend the .nie
in which the company could maintain
and operate its roads for any pur-
pose. The defendants contentoa IS
that ordinance by requiring thai the
company sell tickets al the modified
fare effected an extension Of its RIGHTS
to occupy the street for that time