The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-12-18
ONE-FARE ZONE
MUST FOLLOW
CITY LIMITS
Supreme Court Affirms Judge
HOsmer's Ruling in the ID.
u. X. Ticket Case
GRAND RIvER-JEFFERSON
LINE BASIS OF SUIT
Township Franchises Are Sub
ject to Terms of City Or
dinances, Court Rules

The ID. U. r. can charge but one
fare for ride to the city limits on
any OF It's lines. This was decided by
the supreme court OF Michigan, Tues
day afternoon, In a decision handed
down In the Jefferson-Grand River
fare case. The court sustained the
decision OF Judge Hosmer, OF the
Wayne circuit court, Ia granting the
city a writ OF mandamus compelling
the ID. u. r. to carry a passenger to
the city limits, either west or east, for
one fare. Other lines will be affected
similarly as new territory il added to
the city.
The d. u. r. has been accepting one
fare for ride to the new city limits
since the decision OF Judge Hosmer
was rendered 1t has also been &C
cepting workingmen's tickets for a
ride to the city limits.
The decision OF the supreme court,
In part, follows:
Respondents cars are operated
between the points as single line
The, petition claims that extra fares
are 'required OF passengers travelling
on Grand Riverave. between the pres
ent northwesterly city limits, which
are about a mile beyond the city boule-
ward and the old city limits, which
were near the boulevard, and that a
like extra charge Is made for travel
on Jefferson-ave., between st. Jean
ave. and said Altered.
ut appears from respondents an
swer, and Is undisputed, that, although
asserting right TO exact fare beyond
the city boulevard on Grand River
ave-, respondent does not do so, and
that, still asserting right to the extra
fare, IL Is not collecting extra fares
or extra tickets for travel on Jeffer-
son-ave., between st. Jean-ave. and
the Altered during workingmen's
ticket hours, but 1t admits that 1t does
collect such fares for travel between
those limits at other times.
THE tracks OF respondent on Grand
River and Jefferson-aves., are con-
nected and operated together cars
passing from one to the other through
Griswold-st., the route formerly hav-
ing been through Woodward-ave., but
later changed for the convenience OF
respondent and It's patrons, and not
in compliance with any obligation i'm
posed upon It.
THE question presented for deter.
mination is whether or not, outside OF
workingmen's ticket hours. the right.
to charge extra fapes acquired by re
spondent under the Greenfield and
Crosse Pointe grants are abrogated
within existing city limits by the
foregoing arrangement OF 1909, con-
strued with the original city ordi-
nances OF 1862 and 1868. fixing the
rate OF fare within the city limits, and
the two city ordinances OF 1889 rela-
tive TO the Grand River Street Rail-
way Co. and the Detroit City Railway
Co. Apparently the parties hereto do
not disagree as to their respective
rights relative TO rates OF fare inside
OF or beyond the city limits, had those
limits remained unchanged
THE real contention arises over the
effect of extending the city boun-
daries."
The court interprets the city fran
chises to require the ID. L. X. TO accept
one fare to the city limits as the city
limits may be extended from time to
time. Touching OH this, 1t says:
the city territory are by city grant.
1t has united, built up and developed
as an entirety street railway systems
within the city, extending to and be
yond its limits. II has absorbed by
purchase and made part OF a sys-
tenn the township lines In question
with their grants and as result OF
such unif1cation and practical COM
bination, even though in name and
form II may retain the original cor
porate organization OF the subsidiary
companies, Il has made them as to the
city and within the city, an integral
part Of the whole, and subjected them
to the restrictions contracted for In
the original city ordinances. thus de-
fining and limiting its own rights
under the township grants, within
city territory, as subordinate TO and
dominated by said city ordinances"