Case Name: Frank S. Scudder, Respondent, v. Interurban Street Railway Company, Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-07
Citations: 96 A.D. 340
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank S. Scudder, Respondent, v. Interurban Street Railway Company, Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 340–344

Head Matter:
Frank S. Scudder, Respondent, v. Interurban Street Railway Company, Appellant. (Action No. 1.)
Transfers on street surface railways— what leased roads are embraced within section, 104 of the Railroad Law.
The Ninth Avenue Railroad Company owned and operated a railroad on Amsterdam avenue in the city of New York. In 1899 it leased this line, to the Houston, West Street and Pavonia Ferry Railroad Company. On December 13, 1893, the Houston, West Street and Pavonia Ferry Railroad Company consoli dated with several other railroad companies and became the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.
The Third Avenue Railroad Company owned and operated a railroad on One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street in the city of New York. On April 13, 1900, the Third Avenue Railroad Company leased the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street line to the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. This lease did not mention the lines theretofore leased to or operated by the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.
In April, 1903, the Metropolitan Street Railway Company leased all of its lines to the Interurban Street Railway Company, a corporation organized to operate a railroad in Westchester county.
Held, that the Interurban Street Railway Company was bound under section 104 of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 105, as amd. by Laws of 1893, chap. 676) to issue transfers from the Amsterdam Avenue line to the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street line and from thé One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street line to the Amsterdam Avenue line.
Van Brunt, P. J., and Ingraham, J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, the Interurban Street Railway Company, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 8th day of February, 1904, affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the 28th day of November, 1903.
The Ninth Avenue Railroad Company owned and operated a railroad on Amsterdam avenue in the city of New York. In 1892 it leased this line to the Houston, West Street and Pavonia Ferry Railroad Company. On December 13, 1893, the Houston, West Street and Pavonia Ferry Railroad Company consolidated with several other railroad companies and became the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.
The Third Avenue Railroad Company owned and operated a railroad on One Hundred and Twenty-fifth street in the city of New York. On April 13, 1900, the Third Avenue Railroad Company leased the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street line to the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. This lease did not mention the lines theretofore leased to or operated by the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.
In April, 1902, the Metropolitan Street Railway Company leased all of its lines to the Interurban Street Railway Company, a corporation organized to operate a railroad in Westchester county.
The action is- brought to recover penalties under section 104 of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 105, renumbered .§ 104 and amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 676) from the Interurban Street Railway Company because of its refusal to issue transfers from the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street line to the Amsterdam Avenue.line and from the Amsterdam Avenue line to the One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street line.
Paul D. Cravath, for the appellant.
Harcourt Bull, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hatch, J.:
The question which I regarded as controlling the decision in . Topham v. Interurbam, St. R. Co. (96 App. Div. 323) is not presented by the present record. The lease made in this case shows it to have been subsequent to May 1, 1891, and it is not claimed that there were any other leases made of the Third Avenue railroad or the Metropolitan Street railway prior thereto ; consequently such question is not involved. Heither does the pleading nor the proof in this case raise the question of compliance with section 104 of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 105, renumbered § 104 and amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 676) by showing that suitable regulations were made for the issuance of transfers in the promotion of the public convenience, as is expressed in the Topham case.
It follows, therefore, that the determination of the Appellate Term should be affirmed, with costs.
Patterson and Laughlin, JJ., concurred; Van Brunt, P. J., and Ingraham, J., dissented.