190 F. 507 | 9th Cir. | 1911
Lead Opinion
(after stating the facts as above). The question arises whether there is jurisdiction on the ground that the bill presents a federal question. As sustaining the jurisdiction, the appellee relies on the allegation that section 499 of the Civil Code entered into and became a part of its contract, and that the ordinances adopted by the city with a view to the construction of a municipal railroad and its acts in carrying out those ordinances would result in an impairment of the appellee’s contract as expressed in its franchises. Referring to those franchises, which are made exhibits to the bill, it will be seen that in the franchise for a street railway on Market street it is provided in section 5, as follows:
“It shall be lawful for the board of supervisors of the city and county of San "Francisco to grant to one other corporation and no more the right to use either of the aforesaid streets for a distance of five blacks and no more, upon the terms and conditions specified in the 499th section of the Civil Code of this state. This section shall apply to persons and companies, as well as corporations.”
“Two or more lines of street railway, operated under different managements, may by lease or contract, use the same street or tracks upon such terms as may have been agreed upon between the companies operating such railways; and two lines of street railway operated under different managements may be permitted to use the same street or tracks for a distance of five blocks without such lease or contract, upon payment of an equal portion for the construction of the tracks and appurtenances used by such' railways jointly; but in no case shall a company owning or operating one line of street railway be permitted to condemn the right to occupy and use the same street or tracks for a distance of more than five blocks consecutively.”
The inquiry is whether on the facts alleged in the bill there has been state action impairing the obligation of the contract.
“A municipal ordinance not passed under a supposed legislative authority cannot be regarded as a law of the state within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition against state laws impairing the obligation of contracts.”
In Barney v. City of New York, 193 U. S. 430, 24 Sup. Ct. 502, 48 L. Ed. 737, jurisdiction was invoked on the ground of deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the fourteenth amendment. It appeared on the face of the plaintiff’s bill that the acts of the city officers therein complained of were not only unau
"In the present ease defendants were proceeding, not only in violation of provisions of the state law, but in opposition to plain prohibitions.”
In Dawson v. Columbia Trust Company, 197 U. S. 178, 25 Sup. Ct. 420, 49 L. Ed. 713, the trust company, as mortgagee of the Dawson Waterworks Company, brought a suit to restrain the city of Dawson from taking measures to build new waterworks. It set forth the contract of the waterworks company with the city, the repudiation of that contract by the city, the calling of an election to determine whether the city should issue bonds to erect or buy waterworks, the vote in favor of the issue, and the issuance of the bonds. It was alleged that all these acts were unlawful, and were not warranted by the laws of the state. The court held that the acts of the municipality under the averments of the bill did not constitute an impairment of the contract by the act of the state. In Memphis v. Cumberland Telephone Co., 218 U. S. 624, 31 Sup. Ct. 115, 54 L. Ed. 1185, the complainant, which had a contract with the city, alleged the impairment thereof by ordinances of the city, which were alleged to have been enacted without authority either by express terms or by necessary implication in the legislative act -whereby the city was incorporated. The court' reviewed its former decisions, and held that the case was not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The opinion reviewed also and approved the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone &: Telegraph Co., 155 Fed. 725, 84 C. C. A. 151. In that case it was sought to restrain the enforcement of a municipal ordinance regulating charges for telephone service on the «'round that the ordinance violated the obligation of a contract between the complainant and the city, and the bill alleged that no power to regulate the rates had been granted by the Constitution or by the Legislature of the state. "If this be true,” said Judge Lurton, delivering the opinion of the court, "there was no state authority behind the action of the Louisville common council and no ground to claim that constitutional prohibitions have been violated which are pointed at state aggression only. A municipal ordinance may be the exercise of a delegated legislative power conferred upon it as one of the political subdivisions of the state. But, to he given the effect and force of a law of the state, it must have been enacted in the exercise of some legislative power conferred by the state in the premises.” In line with these authorities is the decision of this court in Seattle Electric Co. v. Seattle, R. & S. Ry. Co., 185 Fed. 365, 107 C. C. A. 421. In that case the ordinance which was complained of and which it was said would operate to deprive the complainant of its property without due process of law was alleged in the bill to have been granted illegally, and without right, and to be “without authority in law', and null and void and of no force and effect.” We held, following the cases above cited, that, taking those averments to be true, the ordinance complained of was not the act of the state, and that there was no federal question involved. When it comes to the question whether the ordinance of a munici
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the bill.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in the foregoing opinion written by Judge GILBERT. I am also of the opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint charge the citj'- and county of'San Francisco with acts that will simply amount to a breach of contract.
Section 12 of the ordinance under which the predecessors of complainant acquired the right to operate street railroads over the streets mentioned in the ordinance provides:
“Said railway company is iiereby required to file in tlie office of the clerk of the hoard of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco an acceptance in writing of the provisions of this order, under its corporate seal, signed by its president and countersigned by its secretary, and thereupon the provisions of this order shall be taken and deemed to he a contract between said ■company and said city and county. Unless such acceptance be filed within ten days after the passage of this order, this order shall become and remain null and void.”
. It is alleged in the bill of complaint that the predecessors of complainant accepted in writing the provisions of the order, and thereafter performed all the conditions required by the ordinance or by law to be performed. The ordinance thereupon became a contract between the city and county of San Francisco and the predecessors of the complainant. One of the conditions of this contract was specified in section 5 of the ordinance that it would be lawful for the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco to grant to one other corporation, and no more, the right to use either of the streets mentioned in the ordinance for a distance of five blocks, and no more, upon the terms and conditions specified in the 499th section of the Civil Code of the state. Section 499 of the Civil Code provided that corporations may be permitted to use the same streets if each pay an ■equal portion of the construction of the track, but in no case must two railroad corporations occupy and use the same street for a distance of more than five blocks. The complainant alleges that the city and county of San Francisco is proceeding in violation of the terms of this contract to construct and operate a municipal railroad along the streets occupied by the complainant. The facts alleged amount to an
“The breach of a contract is neither confiscation of property nor a taking of property without due process of law.”
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring). I concur in the foregoing opinion and all of it with this reservation, that as the decision of this court in the case of Seattle Electric Co. v. Seattle R. & S. Ry. Co., 185 Fed. 365, 107 C. C. A. 421, is cited, I am unwilling to acquiesce in that part of said decision found in the quotation from 5 Ency. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 545, asserting that a party complaining of an invasion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and also in violation of the Constitution or laws of the state, “must exhaust his remedy in the state courts by prosecuting his case to the state court of last resort” before he will be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court.
The federal courts ordained and established pursuant to the Constitution of the United States have an important function in adjudicating controversies involving questions of national law, and the jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts in actions at law and suits in equity, if not exclusive, is concurrent with, and not secondary to, the jurisdiction of state courts. I consider that a United States court has no right to deny its jurisdiction, in a case where jurisdiction is conferred by Congress, merely because of a presumption that the rights of the complainant will be fully protected by a state court, or on a review of its decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.