City of Sacramento v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The appellant, operating an electric street railway in the city of Sacramento, undertook to construct across K Street in that city two tracks, directly connecting its *Page 788 existing tracks on Tenth Street, which extended north and south from K Street. The accompanying diagram will facilitate an understanding of the situation:

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS MAP IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.]

K Street extends east and west and upon it, across Tenth Street, defendant has for many years operated its railway. Approaching Tenth Street along K from the west there is at Tenth Street a curve to the right and southerly, whereby cars on K Street may be and are diverted to Tenth Street and run southerly thereon. As defendant's street-cars reach Tenth Street on K from the east, similar curves bear off to the right hand and northerly, whereby the K Street cars are diverted on to Tenth Street north of K Street. These street-car tracks are indicated upon the diagram in solid black lines, a single line in each instance for convenience in delineation, representing two tracks. Over the right of defendant to maintain these tracks there is no controversy. Defendant undertook to make a direct connection across K Street for its lines on Tenth Street. That portion of the new track which it designed to build and was in process of building to accomplish this direct connection is indicated by the dotted lines. This work was arrested by this action in injunction brought by the city of Sacramento. It prevailed, and defendant has taken this appeal. Appellant insists that it has the legal right to construct this disputed portion of the track. It repudiates the suggestion that its argument is more one of convenience than of right, but it is undoubtedly true that running through its argument, like an accompaniment to a theme, is the contention adverted to. Thus it is said that appellant can and does transfer its cars from *Page 789 north Tenth Street to south Tenth Street or vice versa by the cumbrous method of running them on to K Street, backing them across K Street to the curve upon the other side of the street, and then turning them down that street; that the intersection of Tenth and K Streets is a busy and populous center of traffic, and that it would be much more expedient for the appellant, much more convenient for the traveling public, and a much more expeditious way of clearing the interruption to travel occasioned by the presence of these cars to permit the direct crossing. However, as it is only in this inferential way that appellant advances the argument of convenience, it is sufficient to say that so far as any such use of a public street is concerned, the only reasoning to which a court can listen is reasoning based on legal right. No argument of convenience nor even of necessity justifies an unauthorized obstruction on or unauthorized interference with the free use by the public of one of its highways, and all such arguments are to be addressed to the law-making power. (Omnibus R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 57 Cal. 160; Amestoy v. Electric Rapid T. Co.,95 Cal. 311, [30 P. 550]; City Store v. San Jose etc. R. Co.,150 Cal. 277, [88 P. 977]; Davis v. Mayor of NewYork, 14 N.Y. 506, [67 Am. Dec. 186]; Commonwealth v. Vermont M. R. Corp., 4 Gray (70 Mass.), 22; Louisville N. R. Co. v.Mobile etc. R. Co., 124 Ala. 162, [26 So. 895];Burlington v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 56 N.J. Eq. 259, [38 A. 849]; Fanning v. Osborne, 102 N.Y. 441, [7 N.E. 307]; Bangor v.Bay City Traction etc. Co., 147 Mich. 165, 169, [118 Am. St. Rep. 546, 11 Ann. Cas. 293, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1187, 110 N.W. 490]; Edmonds v. Baltimore Potomac R. Co.,114 U.S. 453, [29 L.Ed. 216, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1098]; Joyce on Nuisances, sec. 246; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., sec. 1244; Elliott on Roads and Streets, sec. 1046.)