Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. South Covington & Cincinnati Street Railway Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 24 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM KENTON CHANCERY COURT. 1. The franchise of the Bridge Company to conduct the business which it was authorized by its charter to do, was exclusive. 2. The use of a public highway by a street railway can only bo made by legislative grant, supplemented by the consent of the local authority controlling such highway; and a highway belonging to a private corporation, can only be so used by its consent. 3. This court has decided that the use of…
Read the full summary
Case 24 — PETITION EQUITY APPEAL PROM KENTON CHANCERY COURT. 1. The franchise of the Bridge Company to conduct the business which it was authorized by its charter to do, was exclusive. 2. The use of a public highway by a street railway can only bo made by legislative grant, supplemented by the consent of the local authority controlling such highway; and a highway belonging to a private corporation, can only be so used by its consent. 3. This court has decided that the use of a highway by a street railroad is not the same, or similar to that made by the general public, and this holding is…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PBYOB
delivered the opinion oe the court.
This is a controversy between the Covington and Cincinnati Bridge Company on the one side, and the South *139Covington and Cincinnati Street Railway Company on the other, and involves the question of toll collected, or attempted to be collected, by the bridge company of the street railway company. The latter maintains that, in the fixing of tolls, there is an unjust discrimination in the charge upon its vehicles and the charge made against other vehicles of a like character; that by the rates of toll fixed by the bridge company for years, twenty cents…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Southern Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Mayor, Etc., of N.Y. v. . Third Ave. R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kennedy v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1919