Brothers v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.

California Supreme Court Nov 19, 1898 No. S. F. No. 885Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the assignment of piers to a steamship company for the exclusive use of its vessels does not grant the company control over the piers or the authority to grant or deny business privileges, such as baggage solicitation, to third parties. Such control remains with the harbor commissioners, who are empowered to regulate the use of the piers.

Issues

Whether a steamship company assigned exclusive use of piers by harbor commissioners has the authority to grant or deny business solicitation privileges to third parties.
Whether the assignment of piers to a steamship company creates a landlord-tenant relationship or grants the company general control over the premises.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The assignment to the steamship company only gave that company the exclusive privilege of using these piers in the loading and unloading of freight and passengers.”

“In all other things these piers are under the control and authority of the harbor commissioners, and subject to all reasonable rules and regulations they may promulgate.”

“The power to grant this privilege implies the power to grant any and all legitimate privileges for the conduct of business at that point.”

Synopsis

Water Front—Control of Piers—Power of Harbor Commissioners— Construction op Code—Delegation of Authority.—Section 2524 of the Political Code, granting power to the harbor commissioners to “set apart and assign suitable wharves, berths, and landings for the exclusive use of vessels,” is to be construed as making the assigning dr setting apart of the use of the wharves and landings “exclusive” as against other vessels, and not as including the power to lease the piers, or to give the entire control and occupancy of a pier to the assignee. The power and control over the waterfront, vested in the harbor commissioners by the statute, cannot be delegated to third parties, and it cannot enable a steamship company to grant an exclusive privilege to one transfer company to solicit, upon the pier occupied by its vessels, the carrying of the baggage of passengers therefrom.

Id.—Rival Transfer Companies—Injunction—Findings.—In an action by a transfer company to enjoin a steamship company, having the exclusive use of certain piers as against other vessels, from interfering with its use of the piers in the interest of a rival transfer company, where the court finds from sufficient evidence that the business of the, steamship company does not demand that the plaintiff should be excluded from the piers, a judgment enjoining such interference will be affirmed upon appeal.

Id.—Regulation by Harbor Commissioners.—The matter of granting or refusing privileges to transfer companies to conduct their business upon the piers, is with the harbor commissioners alone, and is a matter which they should control and manage by i‘easonable rules and regulations.

GAROUTTE, J. The Pacific Coast Steamship Company is a common carrier by vessel. Under an agreement and understanding with the board of state harbor commissioners, the com[353]pany uses piers Nos. 9 and 11 upon the waterfront in the landing of its vessels. By contract with the Pacific Transfer Company it receives twenty-five per cent of the gross receipts of that company for the exclusive privilege of soliciting upon their piers the carrying of baggage at the times when the passengers on the company’s vessels arrive in port. Morton Brothers, carrying on the same line of business as the Pacific Transfer Company, were denied the right by the Pacific Coast Steamship Company to solicit business upon these piers or wharves from passengers landing thereat. Thereafter they brought this action against the Pacific Coast Steamship Company to restrain that company from interfering with them in carrying on that particular business upon these piers. The trial court granted the relief sought, and that decision is now attacked by appeal.

There are a few minor and incidental questions raised by the appeal and discussed by counsel, but we pass them by and take hold of the broad proposition, to wit, what are the rights of the Pacific Coast Steamship Company to and over piers Nos. 9 and 11 under the assignment it has from the board of state harbor commissioners? The source of the authority and control of the harbor commissioners over the waterfront is found in section 252-4 of the Political Code, and among the many things enumerated in that section, it is declared that the board of harbor commissioners are empowered to “set apart and assign suitable wharves, berths, and landings for the exclusive use of vessels.” Under this grant of power from the state the harbor commissioners by resolution ordered that piers Nos. 9 and 11, commonly known as Broadway wharves Nos. 1 and 2, be assigned to the exclusive use, occupancy, and control of the Pacific Coast Steamship Company, and to the exclusive use and occupancy of the vessels operated by that company. The language of that resolution may be broader than is justified by the powers vested in the harbor commissioners under this section of the Political Code. If so, any attempted grant of authority over these piers to the steamship company in excess of the power vested in the harbor commissioners under the aforesaid section would be void and of no effect. Hence we are not specially concerned in the consideration of the length and breadth of the resolution assigning these piers to the steamship company; but will concede that the [354]

Brothers v. Pacific Coast Steamship Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief