Case Name: Matter of the Petition of the New York Cable Company, App'lt, v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, The Thirty-fourth Street Railroad Company, The Second Avenue Railroad Company, The Trustees of Gramercy Park et al., William Oathout et al., owners on Madison avenue, other objectors, Resp'ts
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12-17
Citations: 4 N.Y. St. Rep. 308
Docket Number: 
Parties: Matter of the Petition of the New York Cable Company, App’lt, v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, The Thirty-fourth Street Railroad Company, The Second Avenue Railroad Company, The Trustees of Gramercy Park et al., William Oathout et al., owners on Madison avenue, other objectors, Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 4
Pages: 308–330

Head Matter:
Matter of the Petition of the New York Cable Company, App’lt, v. The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, The Thirty-fourth Street Railroad Company, The Second Avenue Railroad Company, The Trustees of Gramercy Park et al., William Oathout et al., owners on Madison avenue, other objectors, Resp’ts.
(Court of Appeals,
Filed December 17, 1886.)
1. Railroads—In cities—New York (city of)—Cable Railroad—General SURFACE ACT—DlD NOT ABROGATE EIGHTS OF CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER RAPID TRANSIT ACT—LAWS 1884, CHAP. 252—LAWS 1875, CHAP. 606.
Commissioners having heen appointed by the mayor of the city of New York, pursuant to Laws 1875, chapter 606, and having in the latter part of April, 1884, concluded their proceedings providing for the incorporation of the petitioners, and the petitioners having failed to obtain the consent of the owner of one-half in value of the property bounded on the streets in which it was to construct and operate its railways, commissioners were, by order of the supreme court, appointed as by the said act in such case provided. Upon appeal from an order denying a motion made to confirm the report of said commissioners. Held, that Laws 1884, chapter 252, section 16, providing that “No street surface railroad shall be constructed to run in whole or in part upon the surface of any street or highway under the authority of any commission appointed under the provision of chapter 606 of the Laws of 1875, entitled “An act further to provide for the construction and operation of a steam railway or railways in counties of the state, or the acts in addition thereto or amendatory thereof, ” must be construed in connection with section 18 of the same act, providing that “ nothing in the act shall * * * interfere with, or repeal or invalidate any right heretofore acquired under the laws of this state by any horse railroad company, or affect or repeal any right of any existing street surface railroad company to construct, extend, operate and maintain its roads in accordance with the terms and provisions of it's charter, and the acts amendatory thereof,” and that section 16, so construed, did not abrogate the right and power of the petitioner, if in other respects legally organized, to proceed to obtain the requisite consents, and when obtained to construct the railways in conformity to their articles of association.
2. Rapid transit act—Prior to passage of Laws 1875, chap. 606, AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION OF STREET RAILWAYS NOT OPERATED BY ANIMAL POWER.
Held, that Laws of 1875, chapter 606, known as the rapid transit act, did, before the passage of Laws 1884, chapter 252, known as the general surface act, authorize the organization of companies to construct street railways on the surface to be operated by any power other than animal.
8. Condition of statute providing for organization of corporations MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH.
Held, that unless validly organized in pursuance of the rapid transit act, the petitioner acquired no right to construct its road, and consequently could not demand - that the supreme court confirm the report of its com- ' missioners, as a substitute for the consent of a majority of the property holders. That a substantial compliance with the material require ments of the statute was a condition precedent, without performance of which the petitioner never became legally incorporated, or acquired any rights under the act.
4. Same—Rapid transit act—Laws 1875, chap. 606, § 6—What a substantial COMPLIANCE WITH—LIMITATION IN REGARD TO TIME.
It is provided by section. 6 of the rapid transit act that the commissioners appointed by the mayor must fix and determine the time within which such railway or railways, or portions of the same, shall be constructed and ready for operation, etc. The time fixed by the commis-. sioners in this case began by these articles of association to run from the date of obtaining the consents, etc., and no time was limited for obtaining such consents, and the only restriction in respect to time, was that due diligence should be used for the purpose of obtaining them. There was no actual limitation of the time within which the roads of petitioner sho Id be constructed. That time during which petitioner might by legal proceedings be prevented from the prosecution 'of its work was also excepted from the time limited for its completion. Held, that an objection that the organization of the petitioner was defective because of the failure of the commissioners to fix the time for the completion of the railway was not well taken. That the1 limitations as to time imposed by the commissioners were in that respect a substantial compliance with the statute.
5. Same—Section 7—What not substantial compliance with—Provision AS TO FORFEITURE FOR NON-FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS.
The commissioners, by section 7 of said act, in the articles of association, must provide for the release and forfeiture to the supervisors of the county of all rights and franchises acquired by the corporation, in case such railway or railways shall not be completed within the times and upon' the conditions therein provided. In article 10 of the articles of association it was provided that “ In case the several portions of such railway or railways shall not be completed, each within the time and upon the conditions hereinbefore for it provided, the rights and franchises acquired by said, corporation, for and as to any portion of such railway or railways not so' completed shall be released and forfeited to the supervisors of the county of New York.” Held, that the articles of association failed to comply with the requirements of the statute in that they did not provide for the release, and forfeiture to the supervisors of the county of all the rights and franchises acquired by the petitioner ih case of its failure to complete its railways within the prescribed time.
6. Same—Section 5—What not substantial compliance with—Plans FOR CONSTRUCTION, ETC.'
The commissioners must, by section 5 of said act, meet and decide upon the plan or p'ans for the construction of the railway or railways, wi ll the necessary supports, turnouts, switches, sidings, connections, landing places; etc., upon the route or routes, and in the "location determined by them;. Held, that the commissioners having left these matters largely under the control of the petitioner, there was not in respect to this a substantial compliance with the statute requirements, and that such compliance was ' essential to the valid organization of the petitioner.
Charles P. Shaw, att’y for a-pp’lt; William M. Evarts, Everett P. Wheeler, Robert Sewell, Eseh Cowen, of counsel;; E. Henry Laeombe, corporation counsel, for Mayor, etc., resp’t; W. C. Trull, Vanderpoel, Green and Cuming and-Robinson, Scriber & Bright and others, for res’pts.
Affirming 40 Hun, 1.

Opinion:
Rapallo, J.
On the hearing of this motion at the-' general term, the learned judges entertained different ' views. Daniels, J., who delivered the principal opinion, was in favor of denying the motion on various grounds. He considered, in the first place, that the. act under- which-the petitioner claimed to have been organized, commonly known as the rapid transit act (Laws of 1875, ch. 606), did not authorize the construction of a railroad upon the surface of the land, but related only to elevated or underground railways, also that if the rapid transit act ever did authorize the construction of surface roads, the general surface railroad act of 1884 (chapter 252, section 16) prohibited the erection of surface roads under the rapid transit act, and abrogated any authority which the petitioner might previously have had to construct surface roads, and, further, that the«commissioners appointed by the mayor, as prescribed in the rapid transit act, had failed to comply with some of the requirements of that act, which were essential to the legal organization of the petitioner as a corporation.