Court Opinion

ID: 6569027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 19:22:20.794982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:50.638727
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Denison
specially concurring.
I concur in the decision but not wholly with what is said concerning McPhee & McGinnity Co. v. The Union Pacific R. Co., 158 Fed. 5, 87 C. C. A. 619, and am not convinced that this case can be distinguished from that. I think, however, that the word “franchise” in the twentieth amendment is used as it so often is, to include rights of way on streets and it follows that it includes such a right of way as that before us now. The McPhee case does not control us; therefore whether it can be distinguished or not, I would reverse this judgment.