Hyperlawhypertext legal database City of New York v. New York City Railway Co. 138 A.D. 138

← Cases

City of New York v. New York City Railway Co.

138 A.D. 138 Court First Department, Decision date 1910-05-06 English

Delivered by Laughlin, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 138
The City of New York, Respondent, v. New York City Railway Company, Appellant. Car License Penalty. (Action No. 2.)
First Department,
May 6, 1910.

Headnote

See head note in City of New York v. New York City R. Co., No. 1 (ante, p. 131).
Appeal by the defendant, the- New, York City Railway Company,' from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 18th day of June, 1909, affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the 18th day of November, 1907, for the sum of $272. '
Joseph P. Gotton,Jr. [Robert H. Neilson with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Theodore Connoly [Terence Farley and Frwnk £. Pierce with him on the brief], for the respondent.

This appeal presents the "samé question of law as was presented by the appeal taken by the same defendant in action No. 1, argued and decided herewith. (City of New York v. New York City R. Co., No. 1, 138 App. Div. 131 .) This action is to recover penalties for the operation of five cars under the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company’s franchise, which was conferred by a grant reserving to the common council the right to -fix a license fee for each car and obligating incorporators of the railway company to pay the same. 3Yith respect to the operation by this defendant of cars under the Eighth Avenue franchise it was recently held by this court. (City of New York v. New York City R. Co., 126 App. Div. 42 ) that the defendant was liable for the license fees prescribed by the ordinance enacted pursuant to the reservation contained in the grant, and the' judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on our opinion ( 193 N. Y. 679 ).

It follows, therefore, on the authority of the opinion in action

p. 139
No. 1, that the determination of the Appellate Term and the judgment of the Municipal Court should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint should bé dismissed, with costs.

Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Miller and Dowling, JJ., concurred.

Determination and judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Cases cited