Market Street Railway Co. v. Central Railway Co.
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Memphis Street Ry. Co. v. Rapid Transit Co. (Tenn. 1917)
- In re O'Harra Bus Lines, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1948)
- Holston River Electric Co. v. Hydro Electric Corp. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933)
- Lindsley v. Dallas Consol. St. Ry. Co. (Tex. App. 1917)
- United Railroads v. City & County of San Francisco (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1917)
- Memphis St. Ry. Co. v. Rapid Transit Co. (Tenn. 1915)
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. Cincinnati, Lawrenceburg & Aurora Electric Street Railroad (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)
- South East & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Evansville & Mt. Vernon Electric Railway Co. (Ind. 1907)
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Steel (Neb. 1896)
- Santa Rosa City R. Co. v. Central St. Ry. Co. (Cal. 1895)
- Street Ry. Co. v. Street Ry. Co. (Lucas Circuit Court 1893)
- Metropolitan Street Railway Co. v. Toledo Electric Street Railway Co. (Ohio Circuit Courts 1893)
- T. & P. R'y Co. v. Rosedale Street R'y Co. (Tex. 1885)
- Omnibus Railroad v. Baldwin (Cal. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The maintenance of horse-railroads, and running of cars upon the public streets of the city of San Francisco, designed for the carriage of passengers, is a mere special mode of using the highway, nothing more. The right to maintain such a railroad does not exclude the public from the use of the street, nor does it prevent the crossing of its track by another railroad maintained for a similar purpose, provided the crossing is effected with as little damage as may be.
We see nothing in the circumstances here which required the interposition of a court of equity to enjoin the Central B. B. Co. from maintaining their road in the manner they appear to have pursued.
The question made as to the authority of the city to grant the street railroad companies the right to use the streets of the city is not material to the disposition of this case.
If the defendant is in fact occupying or using the street without proper license to do so, it is no concern of the plaintiff any more than of any other private person, but must be inquired of by the appropriate procedure.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.