Court Opinion

ID: 6545467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:19:12.457898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:57.255300
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING. McCulloch, J. Both parties seek a rehearing of the cause. Appellant asks that we set aside that part of the decision'holding that ordinance No. 1019, passed August 10, 1903, is void, and that appellant acquired no rights thereunder, and appellee asks that we set aside that part of the decision holding that ordinance No. 1002, passed June 25, 1903, conferred a valid franchise. Upon consideration we adhere to the conclusion heretofore announced, and both petitions for rehearing will be overruled. Counsel for appellee insists that when the disannexation of territory was accomplished, the power reserved in ordinance No. 1002 by the city of Little Rock to revoke the franchise upon the refusal of the county court to confirm the right of way over the free bridge, as well as all other rights and powers reserved to that municipality, passed to the city of North Little Rock, .and that the latter could then properly exercise the power of revocation. He contends that we should, for that reason, hold that appellant had no existent rights in the franchise conferred by that ordinance. It is sufficient to say, in response to that contention, that the condition upon which the power of revocation rests, i. e./the refusal of the county court to confirm the right of way over the free bridge, is not shown either in the pleadings or proof in this case to exist. Appellee’s complaint alleges that application to the county court to confirm the right of way had never been made, and appellant’s answer expressly ' admits this to be true. J. A. Trawick, the manager of appellant company, testified (which was all the testimony on the subject) that no application was made to the county court, though he had reason to believe, he says, from information received that permission to cross the bridge would not be granted. The question of revocation is, therefore, not presented to us in this record, and we cannot properly pass upon it. We merely held in the former opinion that ordinance No. 1002 conferred a valid franchise, and that at the time of the commencement of this suit an unreasonable time for the performance by the grantee of the conditions precedent therein named had not elapsed. Whether or not it is now too late for appellant, under the circumstances, to perform them and preserve the granted rights; whether the power of revocation passed to appellee upon the disannexation of territory, and, if so, under what circumstances it may be exercised; and whether or not appellant may proceed to the enjoyment of the franchise without obtaining from the county court the right of way over the bridge, are all questions which we have not decided, and do not deem it necessary or proper upon the record in this case to decide. They must be brought before us in proper proceedings, and upon appropriate allegations and proof, before a determination can be reached. Appellant asks further that the judgment of this court be modified so as to permit the tracks constructed under the franchise by appellant before the commencement of this suit to remain in the streets of North Little Rock pending further proceedings by appellant to test and secure enjoyment of -its alleged rights under ordinance No. 1002, and to restrain said city from disturbing said tracks during such further proceedings. This, however, is provisional relief, which must be granted, if at all, by the court of original jurisdiction in which such further proceeding is instituted, subject to review on appeal. We cannot grant it in this suit. Nothing in this decision will bar such relief, if appellant be shown in other respects to be entitled to it. Following the decree of the chancellor, appellant has in the original judgment here been allowed sixty days in which to dispose of or remove the tracks and material now on the streets of North Little Rock, and said period will run from this date. To that extent the judgment heretofore entered here will be modified. In all other respects it will stand.