Case Name: Manhattan Bridge Three-Cent Line, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-05-29
Citations: 236 N.Y. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: Manhattan Bridge Three-Cent Line, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ, Absent: Andrews, J.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 559–559

Head Matter:
Manhattan Bridge Three-Cent Line, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.
Contract— New York city — railroads■ — -franchise to operate railway for term of years with privilege of renewal — failure of city to act upon application for renewal — rights of parties under contract.
Manhattan Bridge Three-Cent Line v. City of N. Y., 204 App. Div. 89, affirmed.
(Argued May 1, 1923;
decided May 29, 1923.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 30, 1923, modifying and affirming as modified a declaratory judgment entered upon a decision of the court at Special Term construing a contract and declaring the rights of the parties thereunder, pursuant to section 473 of the Civil Practice Act. By contract dated July 10, 1912, the board of estimate and apportionment of the city of New York granted a franchise to the plaintiff company to construct, maintain and operate a street railroad in and through certain streets of the city and over the Manhattan bridge. The term of the franchise was limited and fixed to ten years with a privilege of renewal for an additional fifteen years upon the application of the company, upon a fair revaluation of the franchise. The original term being due to expire plaintiff made application for a renewal. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff had performed all the terms and conditions of the contract on its part to be performed, but that the defendant had failed to authorize the signing of either the proposed new contract or to appoint an appraiser.
Almet Reed Latson for appellant.
George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel (Joseph A. Devery and Alexander I. Hahn of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ, Absent: Andrews, J.