People ex rel. Brooklyn City Railroad v. Nixon
Opinion of the Court
The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, on December 19, 1853, was granted franchises to construct and operate a double-track railroad along and upon certain streets and avenues commencing at the termination of Fulton street at or near Fulton ferry among which was: “ 4. Upon Fulton Street, Fulton Avenue and Flatbush Avenue, when graded, to the City Line.” This grant provided that the rate of fare for each passenger, and the license fee for each car should be upon the respective lines: “ 4. Flatbush Avenue route, fare not to exceed five cents; license fee, twenty dollars.” On March 17, 1860, the local authorities of the town of Flatbush and the Flatbush Plank Road Company granted the right to the Brooklyn City Railroad Company to construct and operate a railroad from the city line to Yernon avenue, and the said company agreed not to charge a fare in excess of five cents each way on that part of their road lying in the town of Flat-, bush. On November 21, 1890, a further right was granted to said company to extend its tracks in the town of Flatbush
On the Flatbush avenue line the Brooklyn City Railroad Company collected two fares, one in the city of Brooklyn and one in the towns of Flatbush and Flatlands from 1860 until it leased its railroads to the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company in 1893. In 1896 the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company reduced the fares to five cents for a continuous trip over the entire line. In 1907 the Public Service Commissions Law
The Legislature has not fixed a rate of fare, specifically, to be charged on this road, nor has the Public Service Commission attempted to fix the rate in the exercise of the power to regulate rates delegated to it by the Legislature. The inquiry was directed to an alleged non-compliance with provisions of law into which the Commission is empowered to examine and make an order that the corporation satisfy the cause of the complaint. (Pub. Serv. Comm. Law, § 45, subd. 2; Id. § 48.) We are not called upon to consider either the power of the Legislature or of the Public Service Commission to prescribe another or different rate. The question is simply, is the rate now charged a violation of law? It is not contended that it was not competent for the city of Brooklyn in 1853 to annex to its grant a condition that the rate of fare on this line to the city line should be five cents. Nor is it contended that the town of Flatbush in 1860 did not have the right to prescribe that the company should not charge more than five cents each way on that part of their line lying in the town of Flatbush. A right to charge not to exceed a maximum is authority to charge the maximum. There was nothing to affect the right to the two fares until the consent of the town of Flatbush to extend the line to the boundary of Flatbush in 1890. This consent was conditioned upon compliance by the company with the Street Railroad Act (Laws of 1884, chap. 252). Section 13 limits the right of any company incorporated under, or constructing and operating a railroad under, that act
Likewise the acts of 1890 and 1892 (Railroad Law of 1890, § 101, as amd. by Laws of 1892, chap. 676) excepted any part of any road constructed prior to May 6, 1884, and then in operation, unless an extension thereof should be acquired under the provisions of the act of 1884 or under the provisions of the acts of 1890 and 1892, in which event the rate of fare should not exceed its authorized rate prior to such extension. A similar exception is contained in the amendment of 1897 (Laws of 1897, chap. 688) and in the existing law (Railroad Law [Laws of 1910, chap. 481], § 181). There was, therefore nothing in the statutes which would affect the right of the Brooklyn City Railroad Company to charge the same fares after, as before, the extension in 1890 and 1892. The subsequent annexation of Flatbush and Flatlands to the city of Brooklyn did not alter the franchise rights, nor did the consolidation of Brooklyn with the city of New York impose upon the Brooklyn City Railroad Company any obligation or requirement from which it was then free. (Braffett v. Brooklyn, Q. C. & S. R. R. Co., 204 N. Y. 440, 447; Hogan v. Long Island R. R. Co., 206 id. 440, 446.)
In October, 1913, the Brooklyn City Railroad Company obtained from the city of New York consent to extend its line on Roebling street and in April, 1916, a like consent to extend its line on Fresh Pond road. In these consents was a provision that “ the rate of fare for any passenger upon said railway shall not exceed five (5) cents, and the company shall nob charge any passenger more than five (5) cents for one continuous ride from any point on its road or on any road, line or branch operated by it or under its control, to any other point thereof, or any connecting branch thereof within the limits of the City, unless a rate of fare in excess of five (5) cents may be lawfully charged therefor.”
Thus it clearly appears that the extension of a road was neither to affect the rate theretofore authorized nor to give the right because of such extension to exact any increase of fare. Existing legal rates are safeguarded. Therefore, in my opinion, these extensions have no effect upon the right of the railroad company to charge the additional fare over that portion of its line which, extended beyond the limits of the city of Brooklyn as it existed in 1860.
It is further contended that the Flatbush avenue line having been leased to the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company and that company having reduced the fare to a single five-cent fare on the entire line, the Brooklyn City Railroad Company on the termination of the lease could not exact a greater fare without the consent of the Public Service Commission first obtained. The Brooklyn Heights Company while operating this line was required to give free transfers from the various lines owned or operated by it to points on any other line owned or operated by it. It voluntarily fixed a five-cent fare on l his line. These provisions were binding upon it so long as it controlled and operated the line. When, however, the lease terminated, and the owner resumed possession it took the property with all the rights and subject only to the limitation originally imposed by its franchise which could in no way be limited by any act or obligation of the tenant. The tenant could not waive or impair any right of the landlord.
The order of the Public Service Commission will be reversed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.
Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Smith and Merrell, JJ., concur.
Writ sustained and order reversed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.