Injunction will not lie to enjoin construction of street railway on ground it will injure abutting property or is illegally being built; owners having remedy for damages at law. General Elec. Ry. Co. v. C. & W. I. Ry. Co., 184 Ill. 588. Injunction to restrain a street railway company from extending its track across the track of another company, with whom it has contracted not to cross its track, will not lie. The contract is void as restricting a duty the companies owe the public. South Chicago Ry. Co. v. Calumet Elec. Ry. Co., 171 Ill. 391. Injunction will not lie at suit of a stockholder to restrain street railway company from paying annual license fee on cars, imposed by City Council. Byrne v. Chicago General Ry. Co., 169 Ill. 75. Injunction will not lie at suit of abutting owner to prevent laying of street railway in street. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. W. C. St. Ry. Co., 156 Ill. 255 (273). Street railway companies authorized by the county to use country highways, is not justified in entering upon private land. Injunction will lie. Russelí v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 205 Ill. 155 (167). Street railway cannot enjoin railroad company from building a subway too low for its cars to run through, when its cars are of unusual height. Damage for remodeling cars would be allowed. C. G. Ry. Co. v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 181 Ill. 605 (614). Injunction will not lie at suit of abutting owner to enjoin construction of street railway-when. General Elec. Ry. Co. v. C. & W. I. Ry. Co., 184 Ill. 588. Stewart v. Chicago General St. Ry. Co., 166 Ill. 61. Doane v. Lake St. "L" R. R. Co., 165 Ill. 510. Ordinances as to. An ordinance prohibiting under penalty the selling or giving away of a transfer issued by a street car company held not unconstitutional. City of Chicago v. Openheim, 229 Ill. 313. Ordinances granting privileges to street railway or other corporations are to be interpreted strictly and in the interests of the public. No rights pass by implication, but only by unquestionable grant. City of Aurora v. Elgin Trac. Co., 227 Ill. 485. Blocki v. People, 220 Ill. 144. An ordinance granting a street railway franchise is to be interpreted according to its language in the light of surrounding facts, and in case of doubt most strongly against grantee. Failure to construct in time forfeits franchise-exception. Blocki v. People, 220 Ill. 444. A city has no authority to grant license to individuals to construct a street railway or commercial railroad within its boundaries. Such power may be granted to corporations only. (Par. 90, Sec. 63, Art. 5, of City and Village Act.) Wilder v. Aurora, etc., Trac. Co., 216 Ill. 493. The ordinance of the City of Chicago (Sec. 1723, Revised Code) fixing fares and requiring transfers is not unconstitutional. Union Trac. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 484. City may authorize construction of a viaduct to be used by a street railway, although it partially obstructs the street. Village of Winnetka v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 204 Ill. 297. Street railway companies may be required by cities to keep the space between tracks clear of snow, dirt, etc., under police power-fine for neglect upheld. City of Chicago v. C. U. T. Co., 199 Ill. 259. Cities cannot deprive themselves of the right to pass ordinances exercising the police power-requiring street railway company to clear space between tracks. City of Chicago v. C. U. T. Co., 199 Ill. 259. City Council have no power to fix the route of a street railway company over private property. Its power ends with the highway as to street railways. Harvey v. Aurora & Geneva Ry. Co., 186 Ill. 283. Cities cannot by their consent authorize railway companies to condemn private property. The power is statutory. Sec. 1, Act of 1899, Street Railroads.) Dewey v. C. & M. Elec. Co., 185 Ill. 426. City granting street railway franchise may impose such conditions as it deems advisable. People v. Suburban R. R. Co., 178 Ill. 594. The right to use street is a sufficient consideration to support the conditions imposed upon a street railway company by ordinance. People v. Suburban R. R. Co., 178 Ill. 594 (607). Cities may, as a condition imposed in the franchise ordinance of a street railway company, require such company to pay an annual tax named, for each mile of track laid. Chicago General Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 253. Cities may, as a condition imposed in the franchise ordinance of a street railway company, require such company to pay an annual tax named, for each mile of track. Chicago Gen'l Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 253. Cities have no power to declare by ordinance that certain acts of street railway company shall constitute negligence. Rockford City Ry. Co. v. Blake, 173 Ill. 354. Cities are authorized to impose such conditions as they may desire upon street railway companies seeking franchise. Courts will not interfere-when. Byrne v. Chicago General Ry. Co., 169 Ill. 75. Annual license fee for each car of street railway company may be imposed in franchise ordinance by a city. Byrne v. Chicago Gen'l Ry. Co., 169 Ill. 75. Contracts of. A street railway company under license from a city has no authority to contract with an interurban railroad company to permit the interurban company to run its cars and passengers into the city over the lines of the street railway company. Such acontract is of no force as against the city. (Secs. 44-45, Railroad Act, no authority.) City of Aurora v. Elgin Trac. Co., 227 Ill. 485. Agreement between street railway company and abutting property owners that said company will build a curb, crosswalks, etc., in case it secures a franchise from the city, outlined, and held ultra vires as said corporation has no authority to improve any street, such power resting in the City Council alone. Farson v. Fogg, 205 Ill. 326. A contract by a street railway company which interferes with the discharge of its duties to the public is void-between companies, not to cross each other's tracks. So. Chicago Ry. Co. v. Calumet Elec. Ry. Co., 171 Ill. 391. Mueller certificates. Where the privilege of operating a street railway is pledged to secure the payment of certificates issued under the Mueller Law, in addition to the tangible property and income of the railway, an indebtedness is created against the city even though it is provided that no other than the street railway privilege and property shall be liable. The city pledges the privilege of operation, hence, creates an incumbrance upon its property. Lobdell v. City of Chicago, 227 Ill. 218. Street railway certificates and the mortgage and trust deed to secure the same, contemplated by the city of Chicago under the Mueller Law, held unconstitutional and void in that the trust deed creates an additional encumbrance upon the city's property in excess of the limit of five cents allowed by the constitution. Lobdell v. City of Chicago, 227 Ill. 218. Powers and duties of. A street railway has no exclusive right in the use of streets, but must use the same so as not to unnecessarily obstruct their public use. Russell v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 205 Ill. 155 (167). A corporation organized under the general Corporation Act, but leasing and operating street railways, is subject to the same regulation as street railway companies. Union Trac. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 484. Street railway companies have a superior right of way in streets, except at crossings. N. C. Elec. Ry. Co. v. Peuser, 190 Ill. 67. A street railway, or heating, lighting or power corporation cannot be organized as a corporation not for profit. Secretary of State is authorized to determine nature of proposed corporation. People v. Rose, 188 Ill. 268. Bond by street railway company conditioned not to lay second track without consent of abutting owner is void. Company cannot so bind itself. Doane v. C. C. Ry. Co., 160 Ill. 22 (38). Fares and transfers. Fact that the same company leases one of two connecting lines does not relieve it from giving transfers in Chicago under Section 1723, Revised Code. Union Trac. Co. v. City of Chicago, 199 Ill. 484. |