Manhattan Electric Light Co. v. Grant — 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 254

Majority

p. 254

The Manhattan Electric Light Company, App’lt, v. Hugh J. Grant, Mayor, etc., et al., Resp’

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed March 28, 1890.)

Headnote

Injunction—Electric light companies.

An electric light company whose wires have been placed in existing subways has no such rights by statute or its agreement to use the subways as entitles it to an injunction to restrain the transfer of the subways to another company and the making of a contract by the board of electrical control with the latter company for the construction of further subways.

Appeal from order denying motion to continue injunction.

The complaint and relief sought by plaintiff-is as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of certain electric light wires and cables which are now in the existing subways. It is also the owner of other wires and cables which must be placed in the subways which shall be hereafter built.

This property of the plaintiff the defendants are about to place in the actual physical control of the Standard Electrical Subway Company, which is a corporation entirely owned and controlled by other electric light and power companies, which are the rivals and competitors of the plaintiff in business.

The way in which the defendants are about to do this is as follows: 1. The Board of Electrical Control is about to make a contract for building future subways for electric and power conductors with the Standard Electrical Subway Company. 2. The Consolidated Telegraph & Electrical Subway Company is about to convey the existing subways for that sort of conductors to the Standard Company. 3. The board is about to relieve the Consolidated Company from all its obligations to maintain the existing subways for that sort of conductors, and to build and maintain other such subways in the future. 4. The subways for the accommodation of the Edison Company, which is a competitor with plaintiff in the electric lighting, are specially excepted.

These threatened acts are objected to and sought to be prevented by the plaintiff on the following grounds: 1. That under existing circumstances the Board of Electrical Control has no power to make any new contract. 2. That it has no power to make the particular contract with the Standard Company which it now proposes to make. 3. That it is not authorized to make the proposed arrangement with the Consolidated Company. 4.-That the proposed contracts are not reasonable or necessary.

Dlihu Root and D. Nicoll, for app’lt; W. JET. RecJcham, W. IY Cohen and D. J. Dean, for resp’ts.

The plaintiff in this action has no such rights secured to it either by the statutes or the agreement which it.has made as entitle it to interfere with the action of the Board of Electrical Control for the construction of the remaining subways and no injunction at its suit is required by the circumstances.

The order will, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Yah Brunt, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ., concur.