Ft. Smith Light & Traction Co. v. Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 16 of City of Ft. Smith

by by the Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

274 U.S. 387

FORT SMITH LIGHT AND TRACTION COMPANY  v.  BOARD OF IMPROVEMENT OF PAVING DISTRICT NO. 16 OF THE CITY OF FORT SMITH.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas.

No. 269. Submitted: March 17, 1927. --- Decided: May 16, 1927. 

1. Under the power reserved by the Arkansas Constitution to alter any corporate charter, the legislature may require a street railway which has surrendered its franchise for an indeterminate permit, to pave the streets between its rails. P. 389.

2. Such exercise of a reserved power to amend corporate charters by a requirement which might have been in the original charter and has some reasonable relation to the object of the grant and the duty of the State to maintain the highway is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 390.

3. The imposition of burdens, otherwise legitimate, upon a public service company cannot be held invalid as confiscatory because it is operating at rates which do not allow an adequate return. P. 390.

[p388] 4. A state law requiring the street railway in a particular municipality to do paving not required of other street railways elsewhere in the State not shown to be similar to it with respect to the location, use and physical character of the streets occupied by them, is not a denial of the equal protection of the laws. P. 391.

5. The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the uniform application of legislation to objects that are different, where those differences may be made the rational basis of legislative discrimination. P. 391.

169 Ark. 690, affirmed

Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas which affirmed a judgment recovered by the Improvement Paving District in its action against the Traction Company. The judgment was for the amount expended by the plaintiff for street paving which defendant had declined to perform though required by statute.

Messrs. Joseph M. Hill, Henry L. Fitzhugh, and R. M. Campbell for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John P. Woods and Harry P. Daily for defendant in error.