Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

.76, 94

76

582

634

Green, Watjen v., (N. J.)...... 343 Kneeland, Central Trust Co. v.,
Green Bay, Winona & St. Paul R. (U. S.). ....

268 Co., Farmers' Loan & Trust Co,

v. Lawrence, (U. S.)..

319 V., (C. C.).....

296 K’och v. St. Paul City R. Co., (Minn.) 201 Griswold v. Metropolitan El. R. Co., Lake Superior Ship Canal R. & Iron (N. Y.)..

52 Co. v. Cunningham, (C. C.)431, 455, 472 Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Necco Lakkie v. Chicago, St. P. M. C 0. (Tex.)...

R. Co., (Minn.). .

51
Grger v. Philadelphia City Pass. R. Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, M. &
Co., (Pa.)..

229
O. R. Co., (Minn.)..

42
Halsey v. Rapid Transit St. R. Co., La Moure County, Jackson v.,
(N. J.)..

(N. Dak.)..

449 Harris, Terre Haute & Logans Landis v. West Pennsylvania R. Co., port R. Co. v., (Ind.)...

(.)..

352 Harshbarger v. Midland R. Co., Larimer & L. St. R. Co., Appeal of, (ind.). 581 (Pa.)....

25 Hays v. McCormack, (Iowa). 480 Lawrence, Kneeland v., (U. S.).. 319 Henderson v. Ogden City R. Co., Leroy & Caney Valley Air Line R. (Utah).. 95 Co. v. Small, (Kan.)..

554 Hill v. Glasgow R. Co., (C. c.)..... 353 Long v. Louisville Gi N. R. Co., Holloway, Smith v., (Ind.). ... 495 (ky.)....

167 Hospes, Chicago, M. St. P. R. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., Co. v., (Minn.). .

488 Coppv., (La.). .
Hot Springs R. Co. v. Williamson, Lowryv. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.,
(U. S.).

59
(C. C.)...

636
Humphreys v. McKissock, (U. McClelland v. Nor folk Southern R.
S.)..

261
Co., (N. Y.)..

323, 351 In re Brooklyn Elevated R. Co., McIlhenny v. Binz, (Tex.). 392, 394 (N. Y.)..

251 McKissock, Humphreys v., (U. Ferris, (Conn.). 352 S.). ....

261 People's Rapid Transit Co. v. McLaughlin v. Menotti, (Cal.).... 445 Dash, (N. Y.)..

114 McLellan v. St. Louis & Hannibal Petition of Rutland R. Co., R. Co., (Mo.)..

501 (Vt......

646 McMahon v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Rochester Electric R. Co., Co., (Lu.).

75 (N. Y.). .

157 Magee v. West End St. R. Co., Wilkins, (N. Y.)...

157 (Mass.). .... Iron R. Co., Robinson v., (U. S.).. 383! Manahan v. Steinway & H. P. R. Jackson v. Ackroyd, (Colo.).... 94 Co., (.V. Y.)...

194 - 7. La Moure County, (N. Manhattan R. Co., Abendroth v., Dak.). 449 (N. Y.)....

128 Jackson County, Board of Com'rs Massavillo v. Nashville & Knox.

of, Kansas Central R. Co. v., ville R. Co., (Tenn.)... (Kan.)...

26 Messick v. Midland R. Co., (Ind.).. 512 Jennings, Fort Worth & Rio Metropolitan El. R. Co., Kane v'., Grande R. Co. v., (Tex.)...... 574

(N. Y.)..

137 Kane v. Metropolitan El. R. Co.,

Midland R. Co., Porter 7., (Ind.). 70 (N. Y.)..

137 Miller v. Swann & Billups, (Ala). 459 Kansas Central R. Co. v. Board of Mills, Detroit City R. Co. V., Comm’rs of Jackson County, (Mich.).

608 (Kan.)..

26 Millvale, (Borough) v. Evergreen Kansas City, St. Joseph & C. B. R. Co., (Pa.)...

219 R. Co., Dim mitt v., (Mo.). ..... 699 Minneapolis & St. Croix R. Co. v. - 9'. St. Joseph Terminal R. Co., Duluth & Winnipeg R. Co., (10.) 166 (Minn.).

473 Kan as, li ex D. R. Co. v. Mahler. Morgan's Louisiana & Texas R. & (Kan.)...

51 S. S. Co., Provost ?'., (La.). 535 Kemble, Appeal of, (Pa.).. u Mower v. Kemp, (La.)..

480 Kemp, Mower v., (La.)...

480 Muller v. Southern Pac, B. R. Co., Kentucky (Commonwealth) (Cal.).....

93, 94 Crutcher v., (U. S.). ...... 637 | Musser v. McRae, (Minn.). ..... 458

201

666

.....

580

Nashville & Knoxville R. Co., | Porter v. Metropolitan El. R. Co.,

Massavillo v., (Tenn.). ....... 666! (N. Y.)...................... 94 Newport St. R. Co., Vose v., Porter v. Midland R. Co., (Ind.). (R. I.).......

Post v. Manhattan R. Co., (N. Y.). New York El. R. Co., Duyckink Potter v, Saginaw Union St. R. Co.

v. (N. Y.)...................... 137 (Mich.)....................... 89 New York, Lake Erie & W.R. Co. Powers v. Manhattan R. Co., (N.

Frank v., (N. Y.).............. 356. Y.)............................ New York, Susquehanna & W. R. Provost v. Morgan's Louisiana & Co. v. Trimmer, (N. J.). ....

Texas R. & S. S. Co., (La.). ... 535 Nivette v. New Orleans City & L. R. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Co., (La.).......

205 Pennsylvania, (U. S.). ....... North Side St. R. Co. v. Tippins, Purifoy v. Richmond & Danville

(Tex.)...... .............. 204 R. Co., (N. Car.).. - v. Want (Tex.)...

201 Rapid Transit St. R. Co., Halsey Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Amack

v., (N. J.). ..... er, (C. C.).........

430 Republic Iron Works V. Burgwin, v. Cannon, (C. C.). ........ 419 (Pa.)... ....

.... 232 -- v. Cannon, (C. C.)............ 429 Richmond & Danville R. Co.,

- V. Meadows, (C. C.). ........ 448 Purifoy v., (N. Car.)........... - v. Sanders, (C. C.)... 431 | Rio Grande E. E. P. R. Co. v. Ogden City R. Co., Henderson v., Milmo, (Tex.). ......

581 (Utah)............::::

95 Riverside & Arlington R. Co., - v, Ogden City, (Utah)...... 101 Finch v., (Cal.). ... Oregon & California R. Co., By Roanoke Nav. Co. v. Emry, (N.

bee v., (U. S.). ............... 460 Car.)................... Owensborough E N. R. Co. v. Sut Robinson v. Iron R. Co., (U. S.). 383 ton, (Ky.) .........

.... III Rochester Electric R. Co., In re. Pacific Express Co. v. Foley, (N. Y.).....

:,: 157 (Kan.). .....

680 Rosenthal v. Taylor, B. & H. R. Papooshek v. Winona & St. P. R. 1 Co., (Ter.). ... Co., (Minn.) ;;;

93 Ross v. Georgia, Carolina & N. Pation v. Philadelphia Traction Co.

čo o R. Co., (S. Car.)...........3 (Pa.).............. Rousseau, Erie & Niagara R. Co.

34 Peers v. Deluchi, (Nev.). ......

v., (Ont.). ...... People's Rapid Transit Co. v. Rumsey v. New York & N. E. R. Dash, (N. Y.)......

Co., (N. Y.). ....... Pennsylvania, Pullman's Pala St. Catherines & Niagara Central

Car Co. v., (U. S.). ............ 236 R. Co., Phelps v., (Ont.). ...... 336 Pennsylvania Co. v. Platt, (Ohio). 558 St. Louis R. Co. v. Southern R. - v. Plotz, (Ind.).....

Co., (Mo.)........

..... 1 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Allegheny St. Louis & Hannibal R. Co., Mc

Val. R. Co., (C. C.). ..... 394 Lellan v., (Mo.). ....... ..... 501 -- Ayers v., (N. J.)........... St. Paul, Minneapolis Go M. R. Co. - v. Borough of Freeport, (Pa.) v. Greenalgh, (U. S.)....... ......., 542 - V. Minneapolis, Minn.)...

(171nn.). ..... 34 Pensacola & Atlantic R. Co., State — v. Phelps, (U. S.)............ 458 ex rel. Attorney General v. (Fla.) - v. St. Paul Union Depot Co.,

............... 704 (Minn.) .................... 582 Petition of Rutland R. Co., In re., St. Paul & Pac. R. Co. v, Northern (Vt.)........

Pac. R. Co., (U. S.). ...430, 454, 457 Phelps v. St. Catherines & Niag Sage v. St. Paul, Stillwater & T.

ara Central R. Co., (Ont.)...... 3361 F. R. Co., (C. C.)...........430, 459 Pittsburg & Connellsville R. Co., i San Antonio St. R. Co. v. CailloGloninger v., (Pa.). .... 276: nette, (Tex.). ....

......194, 195 Pittsburg & Western R. Co., Sanders, Northern Pacific R. Co.

Campbell v., (Pa.)...... 353 V., (C. C.)... Platt, Pennsylvania Co. v., (Ohio) Schaper v. Brooklyn & L. I. R. Co.,

...... 558 (N. Y.)...... Polhemus v. Fitchburg R. Co., Shelton, United Electric R. Co. (N. Y.)...

..... 330 v., (Tenn.)....

......51,

52

....

[ocr errors]

166

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

64

....

.................

200

Shenners v. West Side St. R. Co., United Electric R. Co. v. Shel

(Wis.)......................... 187 ton, (Tenn.)................... 206 Shepard v. Manhattan R. Co., (N. United States v. Central Pacific R.

Y.)........................53, 75] Co., (U. S.).................... 351 Simmons v. Taylor, (C. C.). ...... 393 — v. Colton Marble & Lime Co., Sioux City, Sioux City St. R. Co. (C. C.). ....................... 395 ., (U. S.)..................... 169 —

- V. Osborn, (C. C.). ........... 448

v. Sioux City St. R. Co. v. Sioux - v. Sioux City Ev Pac. R. Co.,

City, (U. S.)................... 169 (C. C.)........................ 455 Sioux City & Northern R. Co., - v. Southern Pacific R. Co.,

State ex rel., Clapp v., (Minn... 257 (C. C.)...................::::: 395 Sioux City & St. Paul R. Co. v. Updegrove v. Pennsylvania S. V. R.

Countryman, (Iowa). ........... Co., (Pa.)...................... 494 Small, Leroy & Caney Valley Vermont & Canada R. Co. v. Ver

Air Line R. Co. v., (Kan.).... 554 mont Central R. Co., (Vt.). .... Smith v. Florida Cent. ex W. R. Vermont Central R. Co., Ver. Co., (C. C.)....................

i mont & Canada R. Co. v., (Vt.) 646 - v. Holloway, (Ind.)......... Virginia Midland R. Co., Diffen. - Wichita & Colorado R. Co. dal v., (Va.)......

........... 496 v., (Kan.)....... .. ...... 53

53 Vose v. Newport St. R. Co., (R. I.) 91 South Beach R. Co. v. Byrnes, (N. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific R. Y.)......

....... 165 Co., Central Trust Co. v., (C. C.) 301 Southern R. Co., St. Louis R. Co. — v. McKissock, (U. S.). ...... 261 0., (Mo.)....

1 Warner v. People's St. R. Co. of Southern Pac. R. Co., Beronio v., Luzerne Co., (Pa.). ............. 195 (Cal.) .........................

......... 66 Waterbury Horse R. Co., Farrell - v. Burr, (Cal.). .........448, 460 v., (Conn.). .................., 207 - United States v., (C. C.)..... 395 Watjen v. Green, (N. J.). ....... 343

- v. Wiggs, (C. C.)....448, 454, 457 Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Staples, Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.)......... ........ 543 Co. v., (Minn.)...........

West Side St. R. Co., Shenners v., State v. Chicago, M. Sono St. P. R.

(Wis.).............

. ........ Co., (Iowa)..................33, Westcott v. New York & N. E. R. - v. Cozzens, (La.)............ 168 Co., (Mass.) ...............574, State ex rel. Attorney General v. Western Paving & Supply Co. v.

Pensacola & Atlantic R. Co., Citizens' St. R. Co., (Ind.). .... 176

(Fla.)......................... 04 Whitney v. Taylor, (C. C.). ....... 446 State er rel. Clapp v. Sioux City Wichita & Colorado R. Co. v. & Northern R. Co., (Mino.).... Smith, (Kan.). .......

53 Strickler v. Midland R. Co., (Ind.) Wiley v. Elwood, (III.)........... 513 Terre Haute & Logansport R. Co. Wilkins, In re, (N. Y.). .......... 157

v. Harris, (Ind.)............... 582 Williams v. Brooklyn El. R. Co., Texas & New Orleans R. Co., (N. Y.)....... ............ 149

Baugh v., (Tex.). ............ 105 Williamson, Hot Springs R. Co. Thomas v. Citizens' Passenger R. v., (U. S.).......

....... 59 Co., (Pa.). ......

Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. For Trenton v. Trenton Horse R. Co., sythe, (C. C.)...

........ 457 (N. J.)........................ 26 Wood v. Guarantee Trust Eau S. D. Trimmer, New York, Susquehan. Co., (U. S.). ....... ......... 352

na & W. R. Co. v., (N. J.)...... 585 Worcester, Nashua & Rochester Union Depot St. R. & T. Co., Chi- 1 R. Co., Day v., (Mass.). ....... 324

cago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v., Yates v. Town of West Grafton,
(Minn.).....
.......... 488i (W. Va.). .......

..............53, 74

187

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

SOUTHERN R. Co. (Missouri Supreme Court, Division No. 2, March 31, 1891.) Street Railway–Use of Tracks of Other Companies--Right of Public to Grant.-The public has the reserved right to grant the use of street railway tracks to companies other than those constructing them, upon making just compensation.

Same-Same-By the Charter of the City of St. Louis, of 1876, any street railway company has the right to run its cars over the track of another company in that city, upon payment of just compensation for the use thereof, under such regulations as the municipal assembly may by ordinance prescribe; and the municipal assembly has the power to pass ordinances to enforce this right.

Same-Amendment of Franchise--Company Subjecting Itself to Ordinances. A street railway company whose charter antedated that of the city, and which was not, accordingly, subject to the above provision, as a condition to the grant of additional franchises, agreed to conform to any ordinance then existing, or that might thereafter be passed, enforcing the above provisions of the city charter. Held, that the company made its right to operate its road subject to the provisions of the charter, and conceded the right of other companies of the city to use its tracks, and became subject to an ordinance subsequently passed providing the mode of ascertaining the compensation.

Same - Compensation for Use of Tracks-- Appeal to Circuit Court.- If the award of commissioners, provided for by the city ordinance as compensation for the use of tracks, is not satisfactory to the company owning them, it can either adopt the special mode of procedure by appeal to the circuit court as provided in the ordinance, or may apply to the court under its general jurisdiction. The city had authority to provide in such ordinance such special remedy for the party aggrieved, by way of a review of the award of the commissioners by the circuit court.

Relation Between City and Street Railway Company. -The relation between the city of St. Louis and the St. Louis R. Co., by reason of the passage of certain ordinances by the city, and the acceptance of the same by the railroad company, held to be contractual as contradistinguished from legal.

GANTT, P. J., dissenting.

« AnteriorContinuar »