City of Yonkers v. Maltbie

231 A.D. 415, 248 N.Y.S. 75, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16067
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 14, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D. 415 (City of Yonkers v. Maltbie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Yonkers v. Maltbie, 231 A.D. 415, 248 N.Y.S. 75, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Whitmyer, J.

The Yonkers Railroad Company applied, under section 49 of the Public Service Commission Law, for an order increasing its fares in the cities of Yonkers and Mt. Vernon. And in this proceeding the city of Yonkers is seeking an order of prohibition against the Public Service Commission, under the claim that it is without jurisdiction in the premises.

Whether or not the Commission has the necessary power is the question.

In Matter of Quinby v. Public Service Commission (223 N. Y. 244, 263) the Court of Appeals said that “ The Public Service Commissions Law (§ 26, § 49, subd. 1) and the Railroad Law (§ 181) deal with maximum rates of fare established by statute,but make no reference in terms to rates established by agreement with local authorities,” and concluded that, “ in the absence of clear and definite language,” the court “ should not unnecessarily hold that the Legislature has intended to delegate any of its powers in the matter, whatever its powers may be.”

Subsequently, that decision was explained and limited (People ex rel. Village of South Glens Falls v. Public Service Comm., 225 N. Y. 216, 224; Matter of International R. Co. v. Public Service [417]*417Comm., 226 id. 474, 480, 481; People ex rel. City of New York v. Nixon, 229 id. 356, 359, 360).

In the Nixon Case (supra, 360, 361) the court said, in effect, that pertinent statutes in existence, when the municipal consent to a franchise is given, are read into the contract.

Here, ten franchises are involved. And the powers of the Commission depend upon the terms and conditions thereof, as originally granted, the subsequent action of the city in respect thereto, the subsequent acts of the Legislature, and the acts thereunder of the interested parties.

Three do not contain any fare provisions; two contain fare provisions; four contain such provisions, with express conditions for compliance with article IV of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, § 101); and one contains fare provisions, with an express condition for compliance with article V (formerly article IV) of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1910, chap. 481, § 181).

The original railroad company was incorporated under chapter 252 of the Laws of 1884 by articles filed January 7, 1886.

The first franchise was for the Mt. Vernon and Nepperhan Avenue line (Exhibit 1 of the record) and was granted February 8, 1886. It was for horse cars. At that time the city had the power under its charter (Laws of 1872, chap. 866, tit. 7, § 6, subd. 14, as amd. by Laws of 1873, chap. 35) to regulate horse cars and their rates of compensation. Fare -provisions were not inserted in the franchise, but section 13 of the act, under which the railroad company was organized, was in force and fixed the rate of five cents for one continuous ride from any point to any other point or connecting branch on its road within the limits of the city.

As to that franchise, then, the rate of fare, having been fixed by an act of the Legislature, could thereafter be changed by the Legislature.

The motive power on that fine was changed from horse to overhead electric power on December 21, 1891.

On that date a franchise was given for an extension through Lake avenue, from Nepperhan avenue to Saw Mill River road. (Exhibit 2.) Fare provisions were not inserted in the franchise. But at that time section 101 of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565, effective May 1, 1891) was in force. Section 101 provided for a five-cent fare to corporations organized under the law or under chapter 252 of the Laws of 1884, and, in addition, contained a reservation to the Legislature of the right to regulate and reduce the rate of fare on any railroad constructed and operated wholly or in part under said chapter or under the Railroad Law.

[418]*418The Railroad Law of 1890 was amended by chapter 676 of the Laws of 1892, but section 101 was not changed as regards the five-cent fare within the city limits.

And there was no change in the law, when the third franchise was granted, on August 8, 1899, without fare provisions, for the second or additional track on Yonkers avenue, from Walnut street to the Mt. Vernon line. (Exhibit 5.)

Next, we come to the franchises, with fare provisions.

They were granted August 3, 1894, and August 10, 1899, respectively.

The one of August 3, 1894, was to the North and South Electric Railway Company for Shonnard place, between certain points; Park avenue, as it was being opened; and for some other streets, to the southerly line of the city. (Exhibit 3.)

It contained the provision that the railway “ will carry its passengers over all or any portion of its line, and transfer over its own routes or over those of the Yonkers Railroad Company for one fare not exceeding five cents.”

The respondent corporation was formed on April 1, 1896, by a consolidation of the original company, the North and South Electric Railway Company, and the Yonkers and Tarrytown Electric Railroad Company.

Otherwise, there was no change in the situation, when the other franchise, with fare provisions, for Central Park avenue, northerly and southerly, to the city fine; Nepperhan avenue to Lake avenue; the Saw Mill River road to the northerly city line; and the Tuckahoe road to the easterly city line, was granted. (Exhibit 4.)

And this franchise contained the same provision as to carriage of its passengers over all or any part of its fine and as to transfers, set forth in the former one containing fare provisions. These two franchises were subject to the reserved powers of the Legislature to regulate and reduce fares.

We reach the four franchises with fare provisions and express conditions for compliance with article IV of the Railroad Law.

Article IV of the Railroad Law (Laws of 1890, chap. 565) included said section 101, fixing the rate of fare and containing the reservation to the Legislature to regulate and reduce the rate of fare, as stated.

These franchises were granted April 13, 1907, as follows: (1) For South Broadway (Exhibit 6); (2) Elm and Walnut streets and Saw Mill River road (Exhibit 7); (3) additional or second track on Yonkers avenue (Exhibit 8); and (4) Nepperhan avenue (Exhibit 9).

Each contained a provision that the company should carry its [419]*419passengers over all or any part of its line and transfer them over its own routes for one fare not exceeding five cents, and should continue to give transfers at the junction of York avenue with Jerome avenue and McLean avenue with Webster avenue, as the same were given and required under existing conditions.

And each contained an agreement on the part of the railroad company that, so long as it operated cars thereunder, any passenger therein on payment of a fare of eight cents should be entitled to a single ride over its lines and over the lines of' either the elevated or subway roads in the boroughs of Manhattan or The Bronx, by transfer tickets or otherwise, through a connection to be made at stations at Bedford park, or at One Hundred and Fifty-fifth street and Eighth avenue, or at the subway station to be constructed at Kingsbridge, or at Van Cortland park, or upon Jerome avenue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bankers Trust Co. v. City of Yonkers
255 A.D. 173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
231 A.D. 415, 248 N.Y.S. 75, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-yonkers-v-maltbie-nyappdiv-1931.