Sioux City & Northern R. Co., - v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 431 Updegrove v. Pennsylvania S. V. R. Co., (Pa.).... 494 554 323 v. Holloway, (Ind.).. 495 Wichita & Colorado R. Co. West Side St. R. Co., Shenners v., Westcott v. New York & N. E. R. Western Paving & Supply Co. v. 75 582 Texas & New Orleans R. Co., Baugh v., (Tex.)...... Williams v. Brooklyn El. R. Co., . (N. Y.)....... 149 105 Thomas v. Citizens' Passenger R. Williamson, Hot Springs R. v., (U. S.)... Co. 59 Co., (Pa.).. 196 Trenton v. Trenton Horse R. Co., (N. J.)........ Wisconsin Central R. Co. v. Forsythe, (C. C.).... 457 Trimmer, New York, Susquehanna & W. R. Co. v., (N. J.). Union Depot St. R. & T. Co., Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v., (Minn.) 26 Wood v. Guarantee Trust & S. D. Co., (U. S.).. 352 585 Worcester, Nashua & Rochester R. Co., Day v., (Mass.). 324 488 Yates v. Town of West Grafton, (W. Va.).... .53, 74 Vermont & Canada R. Co. v. Vermont Central R. Co., (Vt.)..... 646 Vermont Central R. Co., Vermont & Canada R. Co. v., (Vt.) 646 Virginia Midland R. Co., Diffendal v., (Va.).... 496 Vose v. Newport St. R. Co., (R. I.) 91 Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific R. Co., Central Trust Co. v., (C. C.) 301 v. McKissock, (U. S.).. Warner v. People's St. R. Co. of Luzerne Co., (Pa.)... Waterbury Horse R. Co., Farrell v., (Conn.)...... Watjen v. Green, (N. J.). Watson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., (Minn.).. . . THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOLUME. XLVI. ST. LOUIS R. Co. V. 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 ordi nance 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. |