Page images
PDF
EPUB

3. Objections as to forms of writ of error-Effect of bringing in corporation

in liquidation to bring in liquidator.
Objections as to forms of writ of error not taken below will not be enter-

tained here to defeat the jurisdiction of this court-and an amend-
ment bringing in a corporation in liquidation as assignee of the party
plaintiff held, under such conditions, to bring in the liquidator also. Ib.

4. Necessary parties.
A party having no legal interest in maintaining or reversing a judgment

is not always a necessary party to writ of error or appeal, and if the
defendant has pleaded below that a party plaintiff has no interest in
the cause of action, having assigned the same, and as a result of such
plea the assignee has been substituted, the defendant cannot assert in
this court that the original plaintiff was more than a nominal party,
and the writ will not be dismissed on account of his death and failure
to give notice to his succession. Ib.

See HABEAS CORPUS, 1, 2;

JURISDICTION.

ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.

See TAXATION, 9.

ASSIGNEE.
See JURISDICTION, C 3.

BANKRUPTCY.
Title of trusteeRight of vendor of goods sold under conditional sale contract

as against bankrupt's creditors.
The trustee in bankruptcy is vested with no better right or title to the

property than the bankrupt had when the trustee's title accrued; and
where, as in the State of Ohio, a conditional sale contract is good as
between the parties themselves although not filed, the vendor of ma.
chinery, sold and delivered under such a contract and payment for
which had not been made, may remove the same as against all creditors
of the bankrupt who have not fastened upon it by some specific lien.
York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 344.

BANKS.
See NATIONAL BANKS.

BONDS.
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 2.

BOOKS.
See CONSTITUTION LAW, 14; CONTEMPT OF COURT; JURISDICTION, A 2;

EVIDENCE ; WITNESSES.

BURDEN OF PROOF.

See MARITIME LAW.

CAPITAL STOCK.
See JURISDICTION, C.4;
NATIONAL Banks;
TAXATION, 2.

CARRIERS.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7;
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS;

TAXATION, 11.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

Re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, distinguished in Felts v. Murphy, 123.

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES;
STATUTES, A 2, 3, 5;

CASES FOLLOWED.

C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Drainage Commission, 200 U. S. 251, followed in
West Chicago Railroad v. Chicago, 506.

Cleveland v. Cleveland City Railway Co., 194 U. S. 517, followed in Cleveland
v. Cleveland Electric Ry., 529.

Ex parte National Enameling Co., 201 U. S. 156, followed in Ex parte Auto-
matic Switch Co., 166.

Falk v. Moebs, 127 U. S. 597, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 123, followed in Valentina v. Mercer, 131.
Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, followed in McAlister v. Henkel, 90; Nelson

v. United States, 92.

1

Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, followed in Blair v. Chicago, 400.
Royal Insurance Co. v. Miller, 199 U. S. 353, followed in Amadeo v. Northern

Assurance Co., 194.

South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286, followed in Blair v. Chicago,
400.

United States v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 557, followed in Wisconsin v. Hitchcock,
202.

Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230, followed in Frenzer v. Wallace, 244;
Poppleton v. Wallace, 245.

CHALLENGES.
See JURY.

CHICAGO TRACTION CASES.

Railway franchises-Contracts for use of streets-Constitutional law-Diversity
of citizenship-Jurisdiction of Federal court-Suit by receivers in sup-
port of jurisdiction-Ultra vires acts of corporations—Public grants—
Practice and procedure--Construction of statutes—Title of statute—Power
of limited corporation to receive grant inuring to benefit of successors—
Title and control of municipal corporation over streets.

Where notes are made by a corporation payable to the order of its own
treasurer, a citizen of the same State, as a matter of convenience and

custom, and indorsed and delivered by him to a bona fide holder who,
a citizen of a different State, 'furnishes the money represented by the
note directly to the corporation, the treasurer is not in fact an assignee
of the note within the meaning of the act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat.
433, and suit may be brought by such holder in the Circuit Court of
the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, notwithstanding
such diversity does not exist as to the treasurer first indorsing the note.
(Falk v. Moebs, 127 U. S. 597; Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S.

150.)
Where there is a proper cause of action and diverse citizenship, jurisdiction

of the Federal courts exists, and the motive of the creditor who de-
sires to litigate in that forum is immaterial, and does not affect the
jurisdiction; nor is such jurisdiction if it actually exists, affected by
the fact that a receivership was in view when judgments were entered.

(South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286.)
Where, as in this case, the attitude and claims of the municipality cast a

cloud upon the title to property consisting largely of franchises in the
hands of receivers and to be administered under orders of the court,
the receivers may, with the authority of the court, proceed by ancillary
bill to protect the jurisdiction and right to administer the property,
and to determine the validity of claims of parties which cast a cloud
upon such franchises and in such a case it is proper to grant an injunc-

tion until the rights of the parties can be determined.
Whether a corporation having a limited and definite capacity to purchase

and hold real estate has exceeded those limits concerns only the State
within whose jurisdiction the property is situated; the question can-
not, unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication authorizes
it, be raised collaterally by private persons. (Fritts v. Palmer, 132

U. S. 282.)
The generality of the title of a state statute does not invalidate it under a

provision of the constitution of the State that private and local laws
shall only embrace one subject which shall be expressed in the title,
so long as the title is comprehensive enough to reasonably include
within the general subject or the subordinate branches thereof, the
several objects which the statute seeks to effect, and does not cover
legislation incongruous in itself and which by no fair intendment can
be included as having any necessary and proper connection. (Mont-

clair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147.)
Although decisions of the highest court of a State are not binding on this

court in determining whether a contract was made by legislative action
of that State which is entitled to protection under the impairment of
obligation clause of the Federal Constitution, it will consider decisions

of that court on the point in question.
One asserting private rights in public property under grants of franchises

must show that they have been conferred in plain terms, for nothing
passes by the grant except it be clearly stated or necessarily implied.
Legislative grants of franchises which are in any way ambiguous as to
whether' granted for a longer or a shorter period are to be construed
strictly against the grantee.

VOL. CCI-42

As a rule of construction a statute amended is to be understood in the same

sense exactly as if it had read from the beginning as it does amended.
Although a corporation be organized under a charter for a limited period

it may receive a grant inuring to the benefit of its lawful successors for
a period beyond its corporate life, but the right granted must be con-
strued with reference to the system of which it is a part and where that
general system is for a limited period a single ordinance, not naming a

specific term, will not be construed as granting a franchise in perpetuity.
A declaration in the title of state statutes that they concern horse railways,

where it is apparent that these terms were intended to indicate street
railways as distinguished from steam railways, will not, because of a
constitutional provision that the object of the statute must be expressed
in the title, prevent the city from exercising its powers under the stat-
ute in such manner as to authorize the use of other power such as cable

or electricity.
The repeal of a state statute authorizing every street railway to be operated

by such animal, electric or other power as the municipal authorities
may have granted would not destroy its effect to ratify contracts in

existence when it was passed.
Where a state statute requires the consent of a municipal officer to au-

thorize the extension of a street railway the abolition of that office
does not authorize the extension without any official consent; and
where the consent of muricipal authorities is required for franchises
relating to special localities by a statute, and subsequently a general
act limits the time for which any such franchise can be granted in any
city or village, the consent given will be presumed, in the absence of
any period specified not to be in perpetuity, but for the period as so

limited.
Under the law of Illinois municipal corporations have a fee simple in, and

exclusive control over, the streets, and the municipal authorities may
do anything with, or allow any use of, the streets not incompatible with
the ends for which streets are established, and it is a legitimate use of

a street to allow a street railroad track to he laid down, in it.
Applying the foregoing principles to the construction and effect of the various

acts of the legislature of the State of Illinois, and of the ordinances of
the municipal authorities of the city of Chicago and adjacent towns,
in regard to the franchises of the several street railway companies
owned and controlled by the Chicago Union Traction Company, and
the receivers thereof held, that :

1. The Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of
Illinois had jurisdiction to render the judgments against the Chicago Union
Traction Company, the North Chicago Street Railroad Company and the
West Chicago Street Railroad Company set up in the bills afterwards filed
for the appointment of receivers.

2. The proceedings for the appointment of receivers were not shown to
be collusive and fraudulent, and the court had jurisdiction to entertain
the bills and appoint the receivers and put them in possession of the prop-
erty of the railway companies.

3. The ancillary bills filed by the receivers were maintainable in aid

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

of the court's jurisdiction to settle controversies as to the property which
was to be administered and disposed of under the orders and decree of
the court.

4. The acts of 1859, 1861 and 1865 were not unconstitutional under the
constitution of Illinois of 1848 in force when the same were passed.

5. The act of February 6, 1865, amending the act of February 14, 1859,
had the effect to extend the corporate lives of the Chicago City-Railway
Company, the North Chicago City Railway Company and the Chicago
West Division Railway Company, for the term of ninety-nine years. It
affirmed the contracts with the city prescribing rights and privileges in
the streets of Chicago in all respects as theretofore made, including time
limitations as contained in the ordinances previously passed. It recog-
nized and continued in force the right of the city and the companies to
make contracts for the use of the streets upon terms and conditions,
including the time of occupancy, as might be agreed upon between the
council and the corporations.

6. Corporate privileges can only be held to be granted as against public
rights, when conferred in plain and explicit terms. The ambiguous
phrase in the act of 1865, "during the life hereof,” did not operate to
extend existing contracts for the term of ninety-nine years or limit the
right of the city to make future contracts with the companies covering
shorter periods.

7. The amending act of 1865 had reference to the North Chicago City
Railway Company as well as the corporations specifically named in the
first sections of the acts of 1859 and 1861.

8. The ordinances of May 23, 1859, granting rights and privileges in
certain streets to the Chicago City Railway Company and the North
Chicago City Railway Corhpany, respectively, are radically different.
The grant to the former company for the south and west divisions of the
city is during all the term specified in the act of February 14, 1859, which
act expressly ratified the ordinance of 1858, granting the right to use the
streets therein named for the term of twenty-five years and until the city
shall purchase and pay for the same as set forth in said ordinance. On
the north side the term granted is for twenty-five years“ and no longer."
The privileges conferred upon the Chicago City Railway Company and
its grantee weré confirmed, as made, by the act of 1865, with the effect
to continue the right of the companies to occupy the streets named in
the ordinances of 1858, May 23, 1859, and similar ordinances, for the term
of twenty-five years and until the city shall elect to purchase and pay for
the property of said railway companies. On the north side, no such right
exists to remain in the use of the streets until purchase by the city.

9. Whatever rights existed in the streets, were not lost to the com-
panies by the acceptance of the ordinances granting a change from animal
to cable or electric power in the operation of the railways.

10. The gộants in the town of Jefferson, having been made after the
acceptance of the Cities and Villages Act, are limited to the term of twenty
years.

11. The grants by the supervisor of Lake View are not in perpetuity,
as the Lake. View road was but an extension of the North Side system,

« PreviousContinue »