Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

Suit by the United Railroads of San Francisco against the City and County of San Francisco and others. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal.

The appeal in this case is taken from an order of the Circuit Court granting a temporary injunction restraining the appellants, pending the suit or until the further order of the court, from building, constructing, or operating a street railroad in San Francisco over and along .“Market street from East street to Geary street, a distance of seven blocks,” and “over and along Point Lobos avenue from Thirty-Third avenue, the point of intersection of Cliff avenue with Point Lobos avenue, a distance of nine blocks.” The bill of complaint filed by the appellee sets forth several franchises granted by the city and county of San Francisco to various street railroad corporations, all of which franchises are alleged to have been assigned to the appellee. It alleges that these franchises were granted upon the condition that no more than two corporations should be granted the right to use any of the streets covered thereby for more than five consecutive blocks. It alleges certain proceedings taken by the appellants with a view to the construction of a municipal railroad beginning at the ferry and extending up Market street to Geary and out Geary to the ocean, with a branch to the City Park. These proceedings are alleged to be the action of the city resulting from the vote on two distinct propositions which had been submitted to the voters of the city; proposition No. 1 covering the Market Street Railway from the ferry to! Geary street, proposition No. 2 covering the street railway from the intersection of Geary and Kearney to the ocean, with its branch to the park. The bill alleges that this railroad is about to be constructed along the said streets which are covered by the complainant’s franchises and its roads. It alleges that, unless the city is restrained, the construction of its road will cause irreparable damage to the appellee, that the value of its property will thereby be depreciated, also the value of its securities and bonds. Othfe’r facts aro sot forth showing the threatened injury to the appellee’s property. There is no diversity of citizenship between the parties to the suit, and the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was invoked on the ground that a federal question was involved, in that the construction of the road under the ordinances adopted by the city would result in impairing the obligation of the appellee’s contracts, and taking the property of the appellee without duo process of law, in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States; that the franchises granted to the ap-pellee’s predecessors in interest “were so granted and accepted upon the express condition and provision that it should be lawful for the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco to grant to one other corporation than to the grantee, and to no more, the right to use the street or streets named therein for a distance of five blocks and no more, and that said grant was made upon the terms and conditions specified in section 499 of the Civil Code as said section existed in the Civil Code at the date of the passing and the adoption of said order, to wit, in the year JS79, which said section of the Civil Code is in the terms and figures following, to wit: •499. Two corporations may be permitted to use the same streets, each paying an equal portion for the construction of the track; but in no case must two railroad corporations occupy and use the same street or track for a distance of more than five blocks.’ ” The hill alleges that the road which tlie appellants aro proceeding to construct will, when constructed, cover the same streets with the appellee’s street railway, a distance of seven blocks on Market street and a distance of nine blocks on Point Lobos avenue. It is not alleged that the appellee had a franchise for the exclusive use of any of the streets of San Francisco, or that the appellants were unauthorized to grant franchises to others over, the same streets, or to build a municipal railway in the city of San Francisco. The illegality of the proposed action of the city is alleged to consist in the fact that on Market street the road which the city proposes to build will occupy the same street with the ap-pellee’s road for a distance of two blocks, and on Point Lobos avenue for a distance of four blocks in excess of the distance which was permissible under section 499 of the Civil Code.