T7 
 
 Olortt^U IGauJ ^t\\m\ Htbratg 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KF 2289.P61T7 
 
 A treatise on the law of railroads / 
 
 3 1924 019 318 934 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019318934 
 
A TREATISE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 BT 
 
 EDWARD L. PIERCE. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 
 
 1881. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1881, by 
 
 Edwaed L. Pieecb, 
 In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 Univeesitt Press: 
 John Wilsom ani> Son, Cambridge. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I SUBMIT this volume to the profession, with the hope that 
 it will be found to contain a- compact statement of the Law of 
 Railroads. My first book, written with the same view, was 
 published in 1857. At that time the subject had not been 
 treated in this country, and even the Law of Torts had not 
 been made the special topic of any treatise either in England or 
 the United States. I have made attempts at different times to 
 prepare a new edition of the earlier book, but various engage- 
 ments prevented the continuous study which was required for the 
 purpose. Meantime, the subject developed so much in several 
 directions, and the matter which was at hand in 1857 became 
 so overlaid with later decisions, that, in order to make a com- 
 plete statement of the law as it is, it became necessary to 
 undertake a new treatise, instead of preparing a new edition 
 of the earlier one. 
 
 The treatment of the subject is embarrassed by the multitude 
 of authorities. The profession is exacting in requiring an author 
 to put at its ready command aU the decisions of aU the States, 
 thus making it possible to trace at once those bearing closely 
 on a pending question on which advice is to be given or a brief 
 prepared. No principle of selection which he could adopt would 
 prove generally satisfactory fo those whom he endeavors to 
 assist. The result is that the mere citation of cases, in the 
 space they fill, rivals in some chapters the text itself. There 
 
IV PEEPACE. 
 
 will be no remedy for this disproportion between text and notes 
 until there, is greater moderation in writing and publishing 
 opinions, many of which are, without apparent reason, extended 
 to a great length, or are mere repetitions of what the same 
 court has already affirmed. If the present disposition to mul- 
 tiply reports should continue to the extent to which it has pre- 
 vailed for the last twenty years, it is fearful to contemplate 
 what an enormous mass of material, in the shape of judicial 
 opinions, is to accumulate in time to come.^ Such fecundity 
 has no parallel in any other profession or department of hu- 
 man thought. 
 
 I have made few extracts from judicial opinions, for the reason 
 that, being found in the reports, it is generally superfluous to 
 repeat them in a treatise. When the author has stated the 
 doctrine of the decisions in his text, and made full references, 
 he ought not, as'it seems to me, to enlarge his work, merely for 
 the purposes of amplification and illustration, with matter which 
 is already before the public and is in no respect the fruit of his 
 own mind. To this rule there are exceptions ; and I have de- 
 parted from it, though reluctantly, in a few instances, particu- 
 larly in the chapter on " The Powers of the Corporation," where 
 an attempt is made to simplify the discussion to which the 
 modern doctrine of ultra vires has given rise. 
 
 The scope of the book does not admit a critical treatment of 
 particular cases. Their aggregate number is so great, and is in- 
 creased to such an extent from year to year, that no one case 
 has the relative importance which a leading case had at an 
 earlier period of the law. The most that an author can do in 
 writing a book like this, which includes chapters on various 
 divisions of the law, and treats questions many of which pro- 
 voke strenuous and perpetual controversy in the courts, is to 
 give the resultant force of the decisions ; and, having stated the 
 
 1 The reports of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois for 1875 fill five 
 volumes and a part of another, making an aggregate of 3,678 pages. 
 
PEEFACE. V 
 
 main doctrine with proper qualifications and illustrations, to 
 leave the profession to analyze and distinguish the cases for 
 themselves. 
 
 The English decisions have been cited wherever they seemed 
 to throw light on the law as held in this country ; but for reasons 
 which are indicated on pp. 525, 526, and in the preface to my 
 earlier book, I have given them a less prominent place than is 
 usuallj'^ assigned to them in treatises, and few propositions of 
 the text depend on them alone for support. 
 
 The topics of the mortgages of railroads and franchises, and of 
 the liability of railroad companies as common carriers, have not 
 been included in this volume. 
 
 E. L. P. 
 
 Boston/ February 14, 1881. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE EXISTENCE OF THE CORPORATION. 
 
 FAGE 
 
 Definitions, 1. — : Mode of creating the Corporation, 2. — General Laws au- 
 thorizing the Formation of Corporations, 3. — Acceptance of the Grant, 
 4. — Essential Conditions of Existence, 6. — Organization, 7. — Proof of 
 Existence, 8. — Termination of Corporate Existence ; Eepeal of Charter, 
 9. — Modes of terminating Corporate Existence, 10. — Forfeiture, 11. — 
 Quo Warranto and Scire Facias, 12. — Corporate Property in the Event 
 of a Dissolution, 18. — Domicile of the Corporation, 14. — The Status of 
 a Railroad Corporation established in Different States, 16 1-23 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 THE DIRECTION OF THE CORPORATION. 
 
 Qualification of Directors and Voters, 24. — Elections, 25. — Notice of Meet- 
 ings, 26. — Officers de Facto, 26. — Kemedy for Illegal Elections, 27. — 
 Place of Meeting of the Corporation and of the Directors, 27. — Rule of 
 the Majority, a Quorum, 29. — Mode in which Directors act, 30. — Com- 
 pensation of Directors, 31. — Powers of Directors, 32. — Power to dele- 
 gate, 34. — Authority of the President or otlier Director, 34. — A Director's 
 Knowledge, 35. — Directors as Trustees, 36. — Diligence in the Trust, 40. — 
 Liability to the Public for Fraud, 41. — Suits against Directors, 43 . . 24-44 
 
 CHAPTER ni. 
 
 THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 Form of the Agreement to take Shares, 45. — Defective Subscriptions, 46. — 
 Subscriptions by Agents, 47. — Delivery of the Subscription ; Escrow, 
 48. — Subscriptions before the Existence or Organization of the Corpo- 
 ration, 48. — Non-payment of the First Instalment, 50. — Full Number of 
 Shares not taken, 52. — Conditions in General, 56. — Waiver of Condi- 
 tion, 57. — Parol Agreements and Representations, 57. — Subscriptions 
 conditional upon the Location, 59. — Fraud on Subscribers, 61. — Con- 
 struction of Written Conditions, 62. — Irregular or Illegal Action of the 
 Corporation, 64. — Amendments of the Charter ; Change in the Scheme, 
 66. — Calls and Assessments, 74. —Payment, Modes of, 75. — Compro- 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 mises ; Settlements in Fraud of Creditors and Stockholders, 76. — Statute 
 of Limitations, 77. — Proof of Subscriptions, 77. — Demand and Notice, 
 78. — Interest, 79. — Tlie Certificates; Tender; Effect of Holding, 79. — 
 Transfer of Sliares ; Effect on Liability for Calls, 80. — Subscriptions, a 
 Trust Fund, 80 — Eemedies against Subscribers, 81 45-86 
 
 CHAPTER rV. 
 
 MDNICIPAI, SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 The Power to subscribe, not an Ordinary Mimicipal Power, 87. — Legislative 
 Power to authorize Municipal Subscriptions, 87. — Construction of State 
 Constitutions and Statutes by the National Tribunals, 94. — Vote of Citi- 
 zens constitutional, 95. — What constitutes a Majority, 95. — Each Tax- 
 payer allowed a. Share, 95. — State Constitutional Bestrictions, 95. — 
 Modes and Extent of Aid, and Conditions to be observed, 96. — Validity 
 of Municipal Bonds, 100. — Various Defences, 101. — Defects cured by 
 Legislation, 102. — Estoppel, 103. — Conclusive Acts and Certificates, 
 104. — Mandamus, 105. — Mandamus issued by the National Courts, 105. — 
 Injunction against Issue of Bonds and Collection of Tax, 106. — Eeme- 
 dies against Municipality, 106. — Bonds and Coupons, 107. — Miscel- 
 laneous Points, 108 87-109 
 
 CHAPTEE V. 
 
 THE CAPITAX STOCK. 
 
 Incidents of Shares, 110. — Liable to Attachment, 110.— Not negotiable, 111. 
 — Pledge of Shares, 111. — Sale of Shares ; Delivery and Payment, 111. — 
 Fraud in Sales, 112. — Transfers ; Regulations and Eestrictions, 112. — 
 Mode and Effect of the Transfer, 112. — Adverse Claims of Attaching 
 Creditors and Purchasers, 114. — Liability of the Corporation for Wrong- 
 ful Transfers, 115. — Transfers by Executors, Administrators, Trustees, 
 and Assignees in Bankruptcy, 117. — Sales by Agents and Trustees in . 
 Breach of Trust, 117. — Eemedies at Law, 118. — Mandamus, 119. — 
 Remedy in Equity, 119. —' Measure of Damages, 119. — Dividends, 120. — 
 Stock Dividends, 123. —Eights of Stockholders upon an Increase of Capi- 
 tal Stock, 123. —Preferred Stock, 124. — Dividends on Preferred Stock, 
 125. — Interest upon Capital Stock, 126. — Overissues of Capital Stock, 
 127. — Lien of the Corporation, 129 110-129 
 
 CHAPTEE VI. 
 
 PURCHASE OF RIGHT OF WAT ANB AGREEMENT WITH LAND-OWNERS. 
 
 Title or Interest acquired, 130. — Statute of Frauds, 130. — Eights in Land 
 under a License, 131. — State Grants, 132. — Construction of Grants to the 
 Company, 132. — Covenants running with the Land, 135. — Covenants and 
 Conditions, 135. — Conditions Precedent or Subsequent, 136. — Bonds to 
 Convey; Specific Performance, 1-37. —Resulting Trusts, 140. — Remedy 
 against the Company for Breach of its Contract of Purchase, 140. Dam- 
 ages for Breach of Contract to convey, 141 130^141 
 
CONTENTS. XS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 LAND AKD INTEEESTS THEREIN ACQUIRED BY THE EIGHT OF EMINENT 
 
 DOMAIN. 
 
 Source of the Power, 142. — A Public Use, 143. — Delegation of the Power, 
 144. — What is a PubUc Use, a Judicial Question, 146. — Legislative Dis- 
 cretion as to the Exercise of the Power for a Public Use, 146. — Occa- 
 sions for use of the Power ; the Necessity or Exigency requiring its Exer- 
 cise, 148. — Property Subject to the Eight of Eminent Domain, 151. — 
 Property of Corporations, 152. — Franchises, 153. — Exclusive Grants, 
 153. — Presumption against Interference with Earlier Graftts for Pub- 
 lic Use, 154. — Estate or Interest taken, 157. — The Company's Eight 
 of Possession exclusive within the Location, 159. — Compensation 
 required, 161. — Adequate and Certain Provision for Compensation, 
 162. -^ Adequate Eemedy providing Compensation, 163. — Time when 
 Compensation must be made, 163. — Eemedies of Land-owners to whom 
 CompensSition has not been made. Actions at Law and Eemedy in 
 Equity, 167. — Injunctions, when granted, 168. — Eelease of Eight to 
 Compensation, 168. — Waiver, Acquiescence, Laches, 169. — Strict Com- 
 pliance with the Statute required, 170. — Vesting of Title, 171. — When 
 Proceedings to take Land may be abandoned, 171. — Mode of determining 
 and obtaining the Compensation, 172. — Extent and Application of the 
 Special Eemedy, 174. — The Statute- Eemedy exclusive, 177. — Acts of 
 Trespass or Negligence not within the Special Eemedy, 179. — Descrip- 
 tion of Property and Injury, 180. — Averment and Proof of Inability to 
 agree, 181. — Notice to Land-owners, 182. — Joinder of Parties, 183. — 
 Persons entitled to Compensation, 185. — Proof of Title, 187. — Eight 
 to open and close, 187. — The Award or Verdict, 188. — Certiorari, 
 190. — Waiver of Irregularities, 191. — Costs, 191. — Limitation to the 
 Eemedy, 192. — Property and Eights requiring Compensation, 192. — 
 Land occupied permanently, 192. — Injuries to Franchises, 192. — Prop- 
 erty ■ acquired under the Eight of Eminent Domain, 192. — Highway 
 Crossings, 193. — Eailroad Crossings, 194. — Preliminary Surveys, 194. — 
 Eights of 'Land-owners in Highways, 195. — Interference with the Own- 
 er's Use ; Flooding of Land, 195. — Actionable Injuries. Depreciation 
 in Value of Land not taken, 196. — Consequential Injuries, 197. — 
 Eights as affected by Statutes, 198. — Eights in Navigable and Other 
 Waters, 199. — What are Navigable Waters, 200. — Colonial Ordinances, 
 201. — Eemedies against Unlawful Obstruction of Navigable Waters, 
 201. — Authority to obstruct Navigation, how acquired, 201. — Bridges 
 across Navigable Waters, 201. — Ferries across Navigable Waters, 202. — 
 Interference with the Flow of Streams in their Natural Course, 203. — 
 Surface Water, 205. — Ponds, 205. — Eemedies for Injury to Eipa- 
 rian Eights, 206. — Construction of Certain Statutes which provide Com- 
 pensation. Statute of Massachusetts, 206. — English Statutes, 207. — 
 Damages, of what Time assessed, 209. — Measure of Damages. — General 
 Eule. Difference in Market Value of the Tract or Lot before and 
 after the Taking, 210. — Damages limited to the Particular Tract or Lot, 
 212. — The Owner's Fancy or Sentiment and the Company's Necessity 
 not to be regarded in the Estimate, 213. — The Use for a Railroad 
 to be considered, 213. — Particular Injuries, 213. — Expense of Fencing, 
 
 214. Expense of Clianges and New Erections by the Land-owner, 
 
 214. Exposure to Fire, 215. — Eents. — Interruption of Facilities of 
 
 Communication, 216. — Eemote and Fanciful Injuries, 216. — Present 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Use of the Land, and Capacity for other Uses, 217.— Damages to the 
 Company for Highway and Raiboad Crossings, 218. — A Proper Con- 
 struction to be assumed in the Assessment, 218. — Damages by Agree- 
 ment, 218. — Improvements while Proceedings are pending, or during an 
 Illegal Possession, 219.— Interest, 220. — Privileges and Reservation to 
 the Land-owner, when to be deducted, 220. — Deduction of Benefits, 
 221. — The Deduction limited to Peculiar Benefits, 222. — The Deduc- 
 tion limited to the Particular Tract which is in part taken, 224. — Evi- 
 dence. Sales of other Similar Land, 224. — Offers and Admissions, 
 225. — Opinions as to Value, 225. — Opinions as to the Amount of Dam- 
 age, 227.— Opinions on Various Matters affecting the Damages, 228. — 
 Grounds for Opinions, 229. — Proof of Mode of Construction, 229.— 
 Damages recoverable for an Unlawful Entry. — Injuries of a Permanent 
 Nature, 229 142-231 
 
 CHAPTEE Vm. 
 
 RAILROADS UPON HIGHTVATS. 
 
 Changes of Use, when a New Taking, 233. —A Railroad in a Highway not nec- 
 essarily a Different Use, 284. — A Railroad in a Highway held in Several 
 States to be a Different and Additional Use, 235. — Deprivation of the 
 Land-owner's Access to and Use of the Highway or Street is a taking of 
 his Property, 241. — Measure of Damages for Injuries to Land-owners 
 caused by the Use of the Highway for a Railr<?ad, 242. — Obstruction of 
 Highways lawful only when, and to the Extent authorized by Statute, 242. 
 
 — Liability for Nuisances on the Highway, 243. — Mode of Crossing, 244. 
 
 — Diversion of Highways, 244. — Duty to restore the Highway to its 
 Original Condition, 245. — Legislative Power over Highways, 246. — Lim- 
 itations of Power of Municipal Corporations over Highways, 246. — 
 Underground and Elevated Railroads, 248. — Liability of the Company to 
 Travellers on the Highway for Defective Crossings or laying of Tracks, 
 S48. — Liability of the City or Town for Injuries to Travellers on the 
 Highway, caused by Defective Construction of Railroads upon or across 
 ■the Highway, 249. — LiabiUty of the Company to indemnify the City or 
 Town, 249. — Bridges over Highways, 250. — Remedies for Unlawful Use 
 of the Highway, 250. — Street Railway Companies. Respective Rights of 
 
 the Company and of the Public in the Use of the Street, 252 ... . 232-253 
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 THE LOCATION. 
 
 Choice of Location, 254. — Power of Choice, when exhausted. Change of Lo- 
 cation, 254. — Expiration of Power, 255. — Identity of the Property taken. 
 Certainty in the Description of the Location, 256. — Conflicting Grants. 
 Priority of Location, 257. — Construction of Statutes granting a Location, 
 258. — Meaning of Various Terms used in defining Routes and Termini, 
 
 258. — Burden of Proof on the Company in justifying its Acts as being 
 within the Location, 259. — Purposes for which the Location may be used, 
 
 259. — Title to Location as affected by Non-user, Mis-user, and Adverse 
 Use, 260. — Title io Location, how questioned, 261. — Illegal Location con- 
 firmed, 261. — Bill in Equity to reform a Defective Location, 261. — Tres- 
 passers upon a Location liable to an Action at Common Law, 261 . . . 254-261 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 LIABILITY FOR TOUTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Injuries to Real Estate, 262. — Statute Remedies exclusive, 262. — Consequen- 
 tial Injuries not actionable, 263. — Injuries caused by the Lawful Use of the 
 Location not actionable, 264. — The Company's Right to its Location Sub- 
 ject to Public Exigencies, 264. — Grants and Licenses, 265. — Injuries from 
 the Choice of or Changes in the Location, 265. — Actions for Trespasses 
 and Abuse of Powers, 266. — Penal Actions, 267. — Liable to Indictment. 
 Nuisances. Breach of Duty, 267. — Acts authorized by Law not Subject 
 to Indictment, 268. — Equitable Remedies against Nuisances, 269. — Action 
 for a Nuisance, 270. — Continuance of the Nuisance. Notice, 270. — Lapse 
 of Time affecting a Nuisance, 271. — Navigable Waters and Highways, 
 271. — Right of Action in the Person who was the Owner at the Time of 
 the Injury, 271. — Reversioners. Parties in Possession, 272. — Proof of 
 Title, 272. — Form of Action, 272. — Damages to Real Estate. Permanent 
 Injuries, 272. — Duty of the Owner to endeavor to save his Property, 272. 
 
 — Actions for Various Torts, 273. — Injuries from Explosive Substances, 
 273. — Breach of Public Duty, 274. — Duty to Persons entering on its 
 Premises by Invitation or Inducement, 274. — Liability for Torts of Ser- 
 vants, 277. — What makes the Wrong-doer a Servant of the Company, 
 280. — Liability of the Company for Injuries committed by Lessees and 
 others using its Track, and Liability of Lessees, 283. — Mortgagee^ and 
 Trustees, 285. — Receivers, 285. — Liability incurred by Consolidation, 
 286. — Liability for Contractors and their Servants, 286. — The Company 
 hable when it authorizes or participates in the Contractor's Tortious Act, 
 288. — Effect of Reservations in the Contract, 289. — Liability for the 
 Exercise by the Contractor of the Delegated Power of Eminent Domain, 
 290. — Duties under Statutes not to be delegated, 290. — Nuisances created 
 by a Contractor, 291. — Form of Action against the Company for the 
 Torts of its Agents, 291. — Evidence, Positive and Negative Testimony, 
 292. — A Default at one Time or Place not proved by a default at another 
 Time or Place, 293. — Additional Precautions, 294. — Statements of the 
 Company's Servants, 294. — Photographs and Telegrams, 294. — Descrip- 
 tion of the Place of Injury. Previous Warning, 295. — Drunkenness 
 when Proof of Negligence, 295. — General Character of a Servant, 295. — 
 Opinions of Experts, 296. — Opinions of Physicians, 297. — Opinions as to 
 Amount of Damages, 297. — Life-tables, 297. — Statements of the Injured 
 Person, 297. — Examination of Plaintiff's Wound, 298. — Burden of Proof 
 of Defendant's Negligence, 298. — Burden of Proof of Plaintiff 's Care, 298. 
 
 — Damages for Personal Injuries one Cause of Action, .300. — What is to 
 be included in the Damages, 301. — The Husband's Action for Injuries to 
 the Wife, 304. — Amount received on an Insurance Policy, 304. — Injury 
 increased by the Act of the Surgeon, 304. — Vindictive Damages, 305. — 
 Verdicts set aside for Excessive or Inadequate Damages, 307. — Damages 
 
 for Torts to Personal Property, 309 262-309 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 Negligence defined, 310. —Liability for Negligence limited to the Natural and 
 Probable Consequences of the Wrongful Act, 310. — Relation of the Court 
 and Jury to the Question of Negligence, 311. — Negligence a Mixed Ques- 
 
XU CONTENTS. 
 
 tion of Law and Fact, 312. — The Jury to decide upon Conflicting Evi- 
 dence, 313. — The Jury decide as to the Care or Negligence of each 
 Party under the Direction of the Court, 313. — When the Court may 
 declare Certain Acta or Conduct to be Negligence, 314. — Setting aside 
 of Verdict, 321. — Instructions to be definite, pertinent, and consist- 
 ent, 322. — Allegation of Negligence, 322. — Negligence of the Injured 
 Person. Contributory Neghgence, 323. — Proximate and Remote Negli- 
 gence, 326. — Conditions and Cause distinguished, 327. — Comparative 
 Negligence, 328. — The Plaintiff's taking of Eisks not necessarily NegU- 
 gence, 328. — The Plaintiff's Conduct as afiected by the Direction or Invi- 
 tation of the Company's Servants, 329. — Injuries to Wrong-doers, 330. — 
 Negligence of Children and Disabled Persons, 332. — Injuries to Children 
 from Dangerous Machinery, 336. — Special Obligations to Children, 337. 
 — Effect of Parents' Negligence, 338. — Effect of Directions to Infants 
 and Youths, 338. —Negligence of the Child or of its Parents, a Question 
 for the Jury, 338 310-339 
 
 CHAPTER Xn. 
 
 INJURIES TO TRATELLEES ON THE HIGHWAYS. 
 
 Injuries where the Company and the Injured Person are each exercising a 
 Legal' Right without any Relation between them arising from Contract, 
 340. — Mutual Obligations of the Company and the Traveller, 342. — Duty 
 of the Traveller to use his Senses in order to avoid Danger, 343. — Duty 
 of the Company, 346. — Crossing in Front of Street Cars, 347. — Obstruc- 
 tion of the Traveller's View, 347. — Injuries by Noises made by the Com- 
 pany, and causing Horses to take Fright, 348. — Duty of the Company to 
 give Signals when not imposed by Statute, 349. — Duty to give Signals, 
 when imposed by Statute, 350. — Duty to place Flagmen at Crossings, 352. 
 — Rate of Speed, 354. — Duty of Company to avail itself of well-tested 
 Improvements, 355. -^ Acts and Omissions of the Company which are 
 deemed Negligence, 356. — Injuries from Defective Crossings, 357 . . 340-357 
 
 CHAPTEE XIII. 
 
 INJURIES TO SERVANTS. 
 
 General Doctrine of a Master's Non-liability to a Servant for the Acts of Fel- 
 low-servants, 358. — Rule applied to Minors, 360. — Common Service, 361. 
 — Equality of Grade not material, 366. — The Company's Negligence as 
 distinguished from a Servant's, 367. — The Plaintiff within the Rule only 
 when he was the Defendant's Servant at the Time of the Injury, 369. — 
 Negligence as to Machinery and Road, 370. — Duty as to New Inventions, 
 373. — Negligence as to the Employment of Servants, 374. — Intemperate 
 and Negligent Servants, 375. — Adequate Force of Employees, 376. — 
 Various Duties of the Company, 376. — Negligence of the Injured Ser- 
 vant, 377. — Detail of a Servant for a Dangerous Duty outside of his Em- 
 ployment, 378. — Negligence of a Fellow-servant combining with the Com- 
 pany's, 379. — Knowledge of the Defects in Road and Machinery, and of 
 the Character of Fellow-servants, 379. — Burden of Proof, 382 — Evidence, 
 383. — Negligence a Question for the Jury, 384. — Pleading, 384 . . . 358-384 
 
CONTENTS. XUl 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 INJUKIES KESULTING IN DEATH. 
 
 No Right of Action where the Injury is instantly Fatal, 385. — The Death of a 
 Human Being not a Cause of Action at Common Law, 385. — Statutes 
 providing a Remedy for Relatives in Case of Death, 886. — The Statutes 
 limited to Injuries within the State, 389. — Construction of Statutes and 
 Election of Remedies, 390. — Averments in Pleading, 392. — Damages, 
 393. — Damages for a Husband's and Father's Death, 397. — Damages for 
 a Mother's Death, 398. — Damages for a Child's Death, 898. — Damages 
 to Relatives not of the Immediate Family, 399. — Evidence, 399. — Time 
 when Right of Action vests. Statute of Limitations, 400 385-400 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 INJURIES TO CATTLE. 
 
 Rule at Common Law requiring the Owner of Cattle to keep them on his own 
 Land, 401. — Not adopted in some States, 404. — Injuries to Cattle upon 
 the Highway, 405. — Rate of Speed. Stopping of Train where Cattle are 
 on the Track, 406. — Signals, 408. — Duty to maintain Fences imposed by 
 Statute, 408. — Liability for Breach of the Statute Duty, 409. — The Stat- 
 ute Duty to fence not to be transferred, 411. — Liability o£ Parties operat- 
 ing the Road though not owning it, as Lessees and Mortgagee^, 411. — 
 Liability under Statutes for Cattle wrongfully on the Adjoining Land, 
 412. — Kind of Fence required by Statute, 416. — Cattle-guards. Private 
 Crossings, 417. — Liability as to Defects in Fences caused by Casualties or 
 'Trespassers, 418. — Gates and Bars, 419. — Places to remain unfenced. 
 Crossings of Pubhc and Private Ways, 420. — Fences at Station Grounds, 
 
 421. — Fences in Cities and Villages. Enclosed Lands, 421. — Fences at 
 Embankments, &c., 422. — Liability for Injuries to Cattle coming on the 
 Track at Places where the Company is not required to maintain Fences, 
 
 422. — Injury by Fright arising from Neglect to fence, 422. — The Owner's 
 Waiver of the Company's Duty to fence, 422. — Duty to fence assumed 
 by the Company, 424. — Agreements to maintain Fences when running 
 with the Land, 424. — Remedy for Breach of the Agreement. Damages, 
 425. — Plaintiff's Negligence, 425. — Negligence, a Question for the Jury, 
 
 427. — Burden of Proof. Evidence, 428 401-430 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 INJURIES TO PROPERTT BY FIRE. 
 
 Liability at Common Law, 431. — Compensation for Land taken not to include 
 Injuries by Fire caused by Negligence, 432. — Duty as to Mechanical Con- 
 trivances. Spark Arresters, 433. — Whether the Company is bound to 
 watch for Fires and assist in extinguishing them, 434. — Duty as to Com- 
 bustible Materials within the Location, 434. — The Land-owner's Duty as 
 to Combustible Materials on his Land. 434. — Plaintiff's Negligence, 435. i 
 
 — The Land-owner's Exposure of his Property to Risks, 435. — Burden of 
 Proof as to Cause of Fire, 436. — Burden of Proof as to Negligence, 437. 
 
XIV CONTENTS. 
 
 — Evidence of Negligence, 438. — Questions for the Jury, 440. — Causa 
 Proxima,iil. — Liability without Negligence under Statutes, 444. — Dam- 
 ages, 446. — Insurance as affecting the Right to the Damages, 446. — 
 Plaintiff's Title, 447 431-447 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 LEGISLATrS'E POWER. OVER THE COMPAlfT. 
 
 The Charter, a Contract within the Constitution of the United States, 448. — 
 Assent of the Corporation to Amendments, 449. — Form of the Grant or 
 Contract, 449. — Effect of the Constitutional Provision, 450. — Obligation 
 and Kemedy distinguished, 451. — Exclusive Rights not implied, 452. — 
 Express Grants of Exclusive Rights, 453. — Construction of Exclusive 
 Grants, 455. — Reserved Power to amend and repeal the Charter, 456. — 
 Limitations of the Power, 459. — Corporations subject to Police Laws, 460. 
 — Power to limit Rates and Charges of Transportation, 466. — State Leg- 
 islation as related to the Power of Congress to regulate Commerce, 468 448-471 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 Property Subject to Taxation, 472. — Corporate Property and Interests, how 
 taxed, 474. — State Methods, 476. — Exemptions from Taxation, 478. — 
 Construction of Statutes exemptmg from Taxation, 478. — Exemptions 
 implied or constructive, 479. — Local Assessments, 480. — Grant or Con- 
 tract of Exemption from Taxation, 480. — Surrender of Taxing Power not 
 presumed. Temporary Exemptions, 481. — Form of Grant or Contract, 
 482. — Construction of Grants of Exemption from Taxation, 483. — Ex- 
 emptions limited to Property required for the Purposes of the Railroad, 
 484. — Grant of Exemption from Taxation as affected by a Reserved 
 Power to amend, 485. — Transfer of the Exemption, 486. — Exemption of 
 the Instruments or Agencies of the United States, 487. — Remedies for 
 Illegal Assessments, 488 472-490 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE POWERS OF THE CORPORATION. 
 
 Limited Powers of a Corporation, 491. — The Rule of Strict Construction of 
 Corporate Powers, how to be applied, 491. — Powers affecting the Public 
 
 Interests to be construed strictly, 493. — Power of Eminent Domain, 494. 
 
 Power to construct Branches and Extensions, 495. — Powers within the 
 Location, 496. — Power as to Land limited generally to the Location, 496. 
 — Power to alienate the Franchise and Railroad, 496. — Power to hold 
 Property and maintain ti Railroad in a Foreign State, 497. — Power to 
 establish By-laws, 497. — Power to issue Shares of Stock, 498. — Power to 
 take Tolls, 498. —Power to discriminate in Charges for Transportation, 
 498. — Power to make Contracts, 499. — Extent and Limit of the Power to 
 make Contracts, how determined, 500. — Power to sell or mortgage Property 
 503. — Power to contract Debts, give Promissory Notes, and issue Bonds 
 508. — Power to lend Surplus Funds, to compromise Disputes, 504. — Power 
 to guarantee the Bonds of other Corporations, 504. — Power of the Company 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 to purchase and hold its own Stock, 505. — Power to purchase and hold 
 the Stock of other Corporations, 505. — Power to hold Real Estate, 506. — 
 Power to use Real Estate, 507. — Power to use Personal Property, 508. — 
 Power of the Company to make Contracts for Transportation beyond its 
 Line, 508. — Power to adopt the Acts and Contracts of Promoters, 511. — 
 Void Contracts, 511. — Contracts expressly or impliedly prohibited by 
 Statute, 511. — Contracts against Public Policy, for Lobby Services, against 
 Competition, or for a Particular Location, 512. — For Applications to the 
 Legislature, 514. — For the transfer of the Franchises and Railroad, 514. — 
 Contracts not within the Powers expressly or impliedly conferred by the 
 Charter. Ultra Vires, 515. — Meaning of the Term Ultra Vires, 516. — 
 Defence of Ukra Vires when not allowed. Estoppel, 516. — The Defence 
 not admitted where the Contract has been executed by one Party, 516. — 
 Not admitted when a General Power is used for an Unauthorized Purpose, 
 518. — Not admitted where the Stockholders have assented, unless the 
 Transaction involves a Public Wrong, 518.— Not admitted where it effects 
 a Legal Wrong, 519. — Remedy of Stockholders, 520. — Acts of Directors 
 and Agents when capable of Ratification, 521.— The Doctrine of Ultra 
 Fjres in England, 521 491-539 
 
 Ikdex 541 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Pagb 
 Abbot V. American Hard Rubber Co. 33, 
 
 37 
 V. Gloversville & K. Horse R. 283 
 Abbott V. Bait. & R. Steam Packet 
 
 Co. 500 
 
 V. Omaha Smelting Co. 6 
 
 Aberdeen R. v. Blaikie 86, 37 
 
 Abraham v. Reynolds 369 
 
 Ackerson v. Erie R. 292, 306, 308 
 
 Aokroyd v. Smith 135 
 
 Adams v. Hastings & D. R. 230, 236 
 
 ti. Saratoga & W. R. 145, 170, 
 
 190, 236 
 
 Adamson's Case 77 
 
 Adden v. White Mts. N. H. R. 215, 216, 
 
 223 
 Adderly v. Storm 80 
 
 Adolph V. Central Park N. & E. 
 
 R. 252, .342, 343 
 
 Agricultural Bank v. Burr 113 
 
 Agricultural Branch R. v. Winches- 
 ter 52, 60, 72, 85 
 Ahrens v. State Bank 10, 12 
 Aiken v. Western R. 202 
 Aikin v. Albany, V., & C. R. 135, 140 
 Alabama & F. R. v. Burkett 158, 214, 
 
 222, 228 
 V. Kenney 151, 152, 
 186 
 V. Rowley 78 
 
 V. Waller 375 
 
 Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. v.. Cen- 
 tral A. & M. Assoc. 501, 503 
 Albany Northern R. v. Brownell 156, 
 
 193, 457 
 
 V. Lansing 211, 213 
 
 Albany & S. R. v. Dayton 188 
 
 V. Osborn 476 
 
 Albany & W. S. R. v. Canaan 476 
 
 Albert v. Bleecker St., &c. R. 303 , 
 
 Albro V. Agawam Canal Co. 366, 367 
 
 Aldrich V. Cheshire R. 175, 177, 206 
 
 V. Drury 158, 159, 160 
 
 Aldrldge v. Great Western R. 314, 438, 
 
 441 
 Alexander v. McDowell County 103 
 
 Page 
 
 Alexander v. Milwaukie 198 
 
 Alexandria & F. R. v. Paunce 200 
 
 Alexandria & W. R. v. Brown 283, 285 
 
 Alger V. Lowell 295 
 
 V. Miss. & M. R. 404 
 
 Allegheny v. Ohio & P. R. 243 
 
 Allen V. Abbott 122 
 
 V. Central R. 286 
 
 V. Charlestown 222, 223, 224 
 
 V. Curtis 44 
 
 V. Jay 88 
 
 V. Levee Com'rs 190 
 
 17. London & S. W. R. 277, 280 
 
 V. Montgomery R. 80, 82, 85 
 
 V. New Gas Co. 383 
 
 V. Providence, W., & B. R. 186 
 
 V. Utiea, I., & E. R. 170, 183 
 
 V. Willard 287 
 
 Alley V. Adams County 108 
 
 Allison V. Louisville, H. C, & W. R. 97 
 
 AUman v. Havana, R., & E. R. 4, 24, 53 
 
 Allyn V. Boston & A. R. 299, 316, 320, 
 
 343, 346 
 
 V. Providence, W., & B. R. 187 
 
 Althorf V. Wolfe 304, 396 
 
 Alton & S. R. V. Carpenter 221, 402, 
 
 417 
 Alvis V. Whitney 108 
 
 American Cent. R. Co. v. Miles 31 
 
 American Coal Co. v. Consolidation 
 
 Coal Co. 458 
 
 American Railway-Frog Co.' v. Ha- 
 ven 25, 27 
 Ames V. Hilton 805 
 V. Lake Superior & M. R. 173 
 Amesbury t. Bowditch Mut. Fire 
 
 Ins. Co. 497, 498 
 
 Amey v. Allegheny City 93, 100 
 
 Amoskeag Man. Co. v. Goodale 270 
 
 Anderson v. Cape Fear Steamboat 
 
 Co. 433, 438 
 
 V. Com'rs 188 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 360 
 
 V. Newcastle & R. R. 8, 49 
 V. Rochester, L., & N. F. 
 
 R. Co. 236 
 
 V. Rome, W., & 0. R. 294 
 
xvm 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Anderson, L., & St. L. E. v. Ker- 
 
 nodle 170, 180, 230, 256 
 
 Andover v. County Com'rs 180, 256 
 
 Andover & M. Tump. Co. t. Gould 83 
 
 V. Hay 83 
 
 Andrew v. Spurr 59 
 
 Andrews v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 170 
 
 V. Hart 75 
 
 V. Hartford & N. H. R. 400 
 
 V. Mich. Cent. E. 14 
 
 Angus V. Dalton 291 
 
 Annapolis & E. E. a. Gantt 437, 438, 
 
 439, 442, 444 
 
 Anthony v. Atkinson 119 
 
 V. Jasper County 100 
 
 Appeal Tax Court v. Gill 473 
 
 V. Northern Cent. 
 
 B. 475 
 
 V. Patterson 473 
 
 V. Kice 482 
 
 V. St. Peter's Acad- 
 emy 482 
 V. Western Md. 
 
 E. 475 
 
 Applegate v. Ernst 474 
 
 Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilsou 277, 287, 368 
 
 V. North Am. Oil & 
 
 M. Co. 503 
 
 Arents v. Commonwealth 107 
 
 Argenti v. San Francisco 106 
 
 Arimondw. Green Bay &M. Canal Co. 196 
 
 Armington v. Barnet 481 
 
 Arms V. Conant 28 
 
 Armstrong v. Beadle 389 
 
 u. Lancashire & Y. R. 282 
 
 V. Perkins 94 
 
 Arnold v. Covington & C. Bridge 210 
 
 ij. Hudson Eiver E. 151, 196 
 
 Arnot V. Erie B. 504 
 
 Arthur v. Griswold 42 
 
 Artman v. Kansas Cent. R. 329 
 
 Artz V. Chicago, B. I., & P. E. 344, 347, 
 
 352 354 
 Ash V. Cummings 144, 161, 163^ 164 
 
 Ashbury B. Carriage & Iron Co. v. 
 
 Eiche 515, 516, 521, 527, 528, 532, 538 
 Ashby V. Eastern B. 184, 201, 207 
 
 Asheroft v. Eastern B. 134 
 
 Ashhurst v. Mason 25 
 
 Ashhurst's Appeal 36, 39 
 
 Ashley v. Port Huron 196 
 
 Ashmore v. Penn Steam Towing & 
 
 T. Co. 294 
 
 Ashtabula & N. L. E. u. Smith 46, 59, 
 
 63 
 Ashton V. Burbank 68, 85 
 
 Ashuelot Boot & Shoe Co. u. Hoit 48, 
 
 49, 76 
 
 Ashuelot Man. Co. v. Marsh 35 
 
 Aspinwall v. Daviess County 96, 98 
 
 V. Ohio & M. E. 28, 29 
 
 Atchison & N. E. v. Baty 463 
 
 V. Harper 464 
 
 V. Garside 198, 239, 
 
 241, 242, 250 
 
 Atchison, T., & S. F. E. v. Bales 4|8^ 4«^ 
 
 V. Blackshire 212, 
 
 213, 222, 229 
 
 V. CampbeU 441 
 
 V, Hammer 205 
 
 V. Hegwir 403, 
 
 427 
 
 u. Mecklim 132, 
 
 257 
 
 V. Stanford 437, 
 
 438, 439, 442, 
 
 446 
 
 K.Yates 410,416 
 
 Athol & E. E. V. Prescott 85 
 
 Athol Music Hall Co. v. Carey 49 
 
 Atkinson v. Atkinson 117 
 
 V. Atlantic & P. E. 446 
 
 V. Marietta & C. E. 6, 145, 255 
 
 0. Newcastle & G. W. Co. 265 
 
 Atlanta v. Central B. 156 
 
 V. Central E. & B. Co. 222 
 
 Atlanta & G. E. v. Fuller 178 
 
 Atlanta & E. A. L. E. v. Ayers 391, 397 
 
 V. CampbeU 382 
 
 Atlanta & W. P. E. v. Hodnett 58, 61, 
 
 139 
 
 V. Hudson 309, 417 
 
 Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Abbot 52, 54 
 
 Atlantic & G. E. v. AUen 481, 483, 484, 
 
 486 
 
 V. Georgia 2, 11, 485, 
 
 486, 487 
 
 0. Griffin 428 
 
 Atlantic & G. "W. R. v. Campbell 227 
 
 V. Dunn 305, 306 
 
 V. Koblentz 220 
 
 Atlantic & O. E. v. Sullivant 6, 145, 
 
 256, 259 
 Atlantic & P. E. u. Chicago, R. I., & 
 
 P. E. 193 
 
 V. St. Louis 5, 7, 33, 
 
 145, 235, 241, 242, 
 
 246, 247, 248, 255, 
 
 256, 261, 462, 495 
 
 Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. v. Union Par 
 
 cific E. 497, 517 
 
 Atlantic & E. A. L. B. v. Wood 302 
 
 Atlantic & St. L. E. E. c. County 
 
 Com'rs 183, 191 
 
 Atlantic, T., & 0. E. v. Johnston 26 
 
 Atlantic & W. P. E. v. Webb 377 
 
 Attleborough National Bank v. Eog- 
 
 ers 517 
 
 Attorney-General v. Bay State Min- 
 ing Co. 477 
 V. Birmingham & 
 
 O. J. B. 260 
 
 V. Boston 203, 260, 
 
 538 
 
 V. Delaware & B. 
 
 B. B. 168, 200, 251, 
 
 , 259 
 
 b. Ely, H.,&S.B. 156, 
 
 245 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 XIX 
 
 Attorney-General v. Germantown 
 
 & P. Turnp. 
 Eoad 450 
 
 V. Great Eastern 
 
 R. 44, 492, 502, 
 
 504, 508, 521, 528, 
 
 532, 538 
 
 t;. Great Northern 
 
 R. 520, 521, 538, 
 
 539 
 
 V. Hudson EiYer 
 
 R. 201 
 
 V. Hudson Tunnel 
 
 Co. 151, 199 
 
 V. Leeds 271 
 
 V. Lombard & S. 
 Streets Pass. 
 R. 242, 247, 251 
 V. Metropolitan R. 235, 
 236, 238, 240, 251 
 V. Miss. Valley & 
 
 S. I. R. U, 12 
 V. Morris & E. R. 156 
 V. New Jersey R. 
 
 & T. 269 
 
 V. New York & L. 
 B. R. 168, 170, 
 201, 268, 269, 271 
 V. Petersburg & R. 
 
 R. 12 
 
 V. Railroad Cos. 2, 5, 
 7,44,448,466,521 
 V. Stevens 7, 201 
 
 V. Tudor Ice Co. 44, 
 521, 538 
 V. Ware River R. 462 
 V. West Wiscon- 
 sin R. 255, 259, 
 260, 495 
 V. Winnebago, L., 
 & F. R. Plank 
 R. 475 
 
 Atwater w. Woodbridge 481 
 
 Auburn & C. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Douglass 492, 496 
 
 Audenreid v. Phil. & R. R. 498 
 
 Augur Steel Axle & G. Co. v. Whit- 
 tier 6 
 Augusta Bank v. Augusta 93, 107 
 Aurora v. West 93, 96, 101, 107, 
 
 108 
 Aurora Branch E. «. Grimes 324, 332, 
 
 341, 407 
 
 Aurora & C. R. v. Lawrenceburg 7 
 
 V. Miller 166 
 
 Austin V. Boston 488 
 
 V. Gulf, C, & S. F. R. 108 
 
 V. New York & E. R. 292 
 
 V. Rutland R. 169, 199 
 
 u. Wilson 306 
 
 Avery v. Maxwell 401,^412 
 
 V. Fox 200 
 
 Ayeock v. Wil. & W. E. 406, 407 
 
 Aylesworth v. Chicago, R. I., & P. 
 
 E. 419 
 
 B. 
 
 Babcoek v. New Jersey Stock Yard 
 
 Co. 494 
 
 u. Western R. 133, 134, 265, 
 
 494, 495 
 
 Bach V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. 30 
 
 Bachelder v. Heagan 431, 437 
 
 0. Hibbard 131 
 
 Bachman's Case 77, 80, 129 
 
 Backus V. Lebanon 142, 153 
 
 Bacon v. Charlton 298 
 
 V. Robertson 13, 14 
 
 Baglan Hall Colliery Co., In re 75 
 
 Bagnall v. London & N. W. R. 204, 
 
 209 
 
 Bagshaw v. Eastern Union R. 527, 529 
 
 V. Seymour 42 
 
 Bahia & S. F. R., In re 116 
 
 Bahrenburgh v. Brooklyn City, H. 
 
 P., & P. P. R. 336 
 
 Baile v. Calvert College Educational 
 
 Soc. 6, 53 
 
 Bailey v. Buffalo C. R. 31 
 
 V. Eastern R. 319 
 
 V. HoUister 72, 458 
 
 V. New Haven & N. R. 296, 353 
 
 V. Phil., W., & B. R. 199, 450 
 
 Baird v. C. R. I. & P. R. 377 
 
 Baker v. Allegheny Valley E. 381 
 
 V. Bolten 386 
 
 V. Boston 460 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & L. P. R. 131 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 169 
 
 u. Cree 256 
 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 176 
 
 Balch V. County Com'rs 182 
 
 Balcom v. Dubuque & S. C. R. 404 
 
 Baldwin v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 297, 
 
 303, 374 
 
 V. Western R. 295 
 
 Balfour v. Ernest 526 
 
 BaUou V. Ballou 171, 185 
 
 u. Farnum 281, 283, 285, 301, 302, 
 
 303 
 
 V. Jasper County 104 
 
 Baltimore v. Bait. & O. R. 32, 481, 482, 
 
 483, 492, 493, 499, 501,504, 
 
 506 
 
 V. Musgrave 172 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. R. 9 
 
 Baltimore City Pass. R. v. McDonnell 333, 
 
 335, 355 
 
 u. SewellllO, 113, 
 
 118, 120 
 
 V. Wilkinson 317 
 
 Baltimore & H. Turnp. Co. v. Union R. 
 
 150, 152, 153, 193, 495 
 Baltimore Marine Ins. Co. v. Dal- 
 
 rymple 120 
 
 Baltimore & 0. R. v. Bahrs 298, 341 
 
 u. Bloecher 301, 305 
 
 V. Boetler 295,314,332 
 
 V. Breinig 341, 342 
 
XX 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Baltimore & 0. K. v. Gary 20 
 
 V. Chase 200 
 
 V. Dorsey 438 
 
 V. Fitzpatrick 314, 
 
 315, 816, 319 
 
 V. Frery 391 
 
 V. Gallahue 15, 19, 
 
 110 
 
 V. Gettlo 893 
 
 V. Glenn 14, 15, 21 
 
 V. Harris 14, 20, 145 
 
 V. Lamborn 408, 426 
 
 V. Maryland 469, 470, 
 
 471 
 
 V. Miller 341 
 
 V. Mulligan 325, 403, 
 
 406, 407 
 
 V. Noell 15, 19, 394, 
 
 397, 398, 400 
 
 V. Sherman 323, 343, 
 
 391, 392 
 
 V. Shipley 302, 308, 
 
 315, 318, 434, 436, 
 
 438, 440, 441, 442 
 
 V. State 314, 315, 318, 
 
 326, 327, 331, 333, 
 
 , 341, 350, 365, 377, 
 
 380,391,392,396, 
 
 397, 399, 453 
 
 II. Strieker 872, 380 
 
 V. Supervisors 12, 482 
 
 V. Thompson 186 
 
 V. "Whitacre 300, 318, 
 
 822, 323, 324, 343, 
 
 345 
 
 V. Whittington 321, 
 
 323, 345, 376, 377, 
 
 382, 391, 393 
 
 V. Wightman 15, 19, 
 
 300, 804, 392, 394, 
 
 396, 397, 398 
 
 V. Woodward 876 
 
 Baltimore, P., & C. R. v. Highland 169 
 
 V. Johnson 228, 
 
 423, 424 
 
 V. Jones 810, 317, 
 
 323, 378 
 
 D.Lansing 212, 214 
 
 V. McClellan 409 
 
 V. Stoner 228 
 
 V. Thomas 422 
 
 Baltimore & P. R. v. Eeaney 151, 176, 
 
 180, 196, 241, 248, 
 
 263, 268 
 
 V. Magruder 175, 177, 
 
 190, 203, 206 
 
 Baltimore & P. Steamboat Co. v. 
 
 Brown 510 
 
 Baltimore & S. R. v. Compton 255, 260, 
 
 266 
 
 i;. Nesbit 171, 452 
 
 V. Woodruff 432, 433, 
 
 437, 438, 439 
 
 Baltimore & W. Tump. Co. v. Boone 305 
 
 Bancroft v. Boston & W. E. 317, 385 
 
 Banet v. Alton & S. E. 59, 67, 70, 72^ 7^3^ 
 
 Bangor Boom Co. v. Whitney 500 
 
 Bangor, 0., & M. E. v. Smith 5, 160, 261, 
 
 449, 457 
 
 Bangor & P. E. v. Chamberlain 192 
 
 V. Harris 480 
 
 V. McComb 189, 196, 212, 
 
 213, 215, 217, 220 
 
 Bangor & P. S. & S. Co., In re 124, 126 
 
 Bank v. Lanier , 116, 129 
 
 Bank of America v. McNeil 118 
 
 Bank of Ashland v. Jones 14, 504 
 
 Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' 
 
 Bank 129 
 
 Bank of Augusta v. Earle 14, 18 
 
 Bank of Commerce's Appeal 113 
 
 Bank Com'rs v. Bank of Brest 33 
 
 Bank of Middlebury v. Edgerton 2 
 
 V. Rutland & 
 
 W.E.30,32,518 
 
 Bank of Montgomery v. Reese 120 
 
 Bank of Penn. v. Commonwealth 482 
 
 Bank of Rome v. Rome 93, 95, 101, 104 
 
 Bank of Utica v. Smalley 113 
 
 Bankhead v. Brown 142, 144, 146 
 
 Bannon v. Bait. & 0. R. 801, 302, 305, 
 
 308, 812, 333, 341 
 
 V. MitcheU 272 
 
 Barbee «. Jacksonville & A. Plank 
 
 Road Co. 82 
 
 Barber v. Merriam 298 
 
 Bardstown & L. R. v. Metcalfe 449, 497 
 Bare v. Hoffman E. 2-30 
 
 Bargate v. Shortridge 520 
 
 Barker v. Hudson River E. 252 
 
 V. Midland R. 276 
 
 Barker's Case 25 
 
 BarksduU v. New Orleans & C. R. 336 
 Barley w. Chicago & A. R. 391, 394, 396, 
 
 397 
 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. E. 124, 125, 
 
 126 
 
 Barlow v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 131, 260 
 
 V. McKinley 158 
 
 Barnard v. Vt. & M. E. 30, 127 
 
 V. Wallis 2 
 
 Barned's Banking Co., In re 506 
 
 Barnes v. Brown 36, 3% 76 
 
 V. Lacon 87, 97, 100, 108, 104 
 
 V. Trenton Gas Light Co. 35 
 
 V. Ward 275 
 
 Barnett v. Chicago & L. H. R. 14 
 
 Barney v. Keokuk 200, 233, 235, 238, 
 
 240 
 
 Barr v. Oskaloosa 233, 235 
 
 Barrett v. Maiden & M. E. 267 
 
 V. Midland E. 332 
 
 V. Schuyler County loi 
 
 V. Singer Man. Co. 287 
 
 V. Stockton & D. E. 498 
 
 V. Third Av. R. 282, 313, 818, 
 
 322 
 
 Barringer v. Del. & H. C. Co. 310, 351, 
 
 368, 369 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXI 
 
 Barrington v. Miss. Cent. B. 52 
 
 Barron v. Baltimore 161 
 
 Barry v. St. Louis 287, 289 
 
 Barter v. Wheeler 281 
 
 Bartlett v. Drew 14 
 
 V. Dubuque & S. C. R. 417, 419 
 
 Barto V. Himrod 95 
 
 Barton v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 276 
 
 V. Port Jackson & U. F. Plank 
 
 Road Co. 505, 512 
 
 Bartonshill Coal Co. v. McGuire 369 
 
 V. Reid 359, ,362 
 
 Bartram v. Central Tump. Co. 453 
 
 Bass V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 433,434, 438, 
 
 489 
 
 Bassett v. Salisbury Man. Co. 168 
 
 V. St. Albans 80 
 
 Bateman v. Ashton-under-Lyne 501, 502, 
 
 614, 623, 527, 528, 582, 535 
 
 V. Mid-Wales R. 503, 526 
 
 Bates V. Androscoggin & K. R. 125, 126 
 
 Bates County v. Winters 98, 102, 103, 
 
 104, 125, 126 
 
 Bath's Case 77, 501 
 
 Battishill v. Reed 230 
 
 Batty V. Duxbury 249 
 
 Bauer v. Kansas Pacific R. 849 
 
 Baulec v. New York & H. R. 368, 369, 
 
 375, 383, 384 
 
 Bavington v. Pittsburg & S. R. 50, 60, 78 
 
 Baxter v. Boston & W. R. 409, 462 
 
 V. Second Av. R. 252, 319 
 
 V. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. 268 
 
 V. Troy & B. R. 343, 346 
 
 Bayard v. Farmers' & M. Bank 116, 117, 
 
 118 
 
 Bay City v. State Treasurer 89, 96 
 
 Bay City & E. S. R. o. Austin 291, 411 
 
 Bayley v. Eastern R. 329 
 
 u. Manchester, S., & L. R. 278, 
 
 279 
 
 Baylor v. Del., L., & W. R. 380 
 
 V. Bait. & O. R. 404 
 
 Bay State Brick Co. v. Foster 244 
 
 B. C. R. & M. R. V. Stewart 108 
 
 Beach v. Bay State Steamboat Co. 389 
 
 V. Miller 158 
 
 V. Smith 51, 62, 76 
 
 Beale v. Penn. R. 171, 172, 210 
 
 V. Railway Co. 305, 306 
 
 Bean v. Atlantic & St. L. R. 284, 446 
 
 Beaulieu v. PorUand Co. 382, 384 
 
 Beaver County v. Armstrong 108 
 
 Beck V. United New Jersey R. & C. 
 
 Co. 151 
 
 Beckett v. Midland R. Co. 240, 241 
 
 Beckle v. Union Township 100 
 
 Bedell v. Long Island R. 433, 440 
 
 Bedford v. Bagshaw 42 
 
 V. Han. & St. J. R. 438 
 
 Bedford R. v. Bowser 33, 50, 54, 60, 65, 
 
 77,78 
 
 Bee V. San Francisco & H. B. R. 30 
 
 Beekman v. Saratoga & S. R. 142, 143, 
 
 144, 154, 171, 173 
 
 Beene v. Cahawba & M. R. 82, 84 
 
 Beer Co. v. Massachusetts 460, 464 
 
 Beers v. Bridgeport Savings Bank 121 
 
 V. Bridgeport Spring Co. 122 
 
 V. Housatonic R. 317, 319, 323, 
 
 325, 341, 342, 405, 427 
 
 Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. 302, 
 
 324, 325, 343, 344, 350, 351, 353, 354, 
 
 355 
 
 Belair v. Chicago & N. W. R. 296, 381, 
 
 382, 383, 384 
 
 Belfast & M. L. B. u. Brooks 108 
 
 V. Cottrell 55, 56, 83,' 
 
 85,86 
 
 V. Moore 56, 61, 83, 
 
 459 
 
 Belknap v. Boston & M. R. 303, 305, 
 
 306, 308 
 
 Bell V. Gough 200 
 
 u. Midland R. 266, 272 
 
 V. Mobile & 0. R. 96,.98, 102 
 
 V. Ohio & P. B. 269 
 
 V. Quebec 200, 201 
 
 Bell's Gap R. v. Christy 511 
 
 Bellefontaine & I. R. a. Bailey 297 
 
 V. Schruyhart 264 
 
 Bellefontaine B. v. Hunter 294, 323, 
 
 343 
 
 V. Beed 421, 426 
 
 V. Snyder 310, 335, 338, 
 
 341, 342, 343, 344 
 
 V. Suman 420, 428 
 
 Bellinger, v. New York Cent. B. 162, 179, 
 
 197, 198, 203, 204, 205 
 
 Bellona Company's Case 28 
 
 Bellows V. Todd 143 
 
 Belmont v. Erie B. 127 
 
 Belo V. County Com'rs 484, 485 
 
 Beloit V. Morgan 102 
 
 Belton V. Baxter 313, 318, 320, 347 
 
 Beman v. BufCord 520, 627, 630 
 
 Bemis v. Conn. & P. B. B. 331, 364, 406, 
 
 407, 413, 414 
 
 V. Springfield 159, 210, 215, 226, 
 
 240 
 
 Benedict v. Goit 233, 236 
 
 Benham v. Dunbar 224 
 
 Bennet v. Camden & A. E. 188, 190 
 
 Bennett v. Bogg 91 
 
 u. Chicago & N. W. B. 403, 410, 
 
 425, 426, 428 
 
 V. New Jersey E. & T. Co. 282 
 
 Bennett's Case 38 
 
 Benson v. Albany 93 
 
 II. Heathorn 87 
 
 Bentley v. Mountain Lake Water 
 
 Co. 170, 172 
 
 Benton v. Central B. 299, 844 
 
 Berea Stone Co. v. Kraft 366 
 
 Berg V. Chicago, M., & St. P. B. 808, 360 
 Berliner v. Waterloo 100 
 
 Bernhard v. Rensselaer & S. B. 313, 318, 
 319, 320, 328, 332 
 Berringer v. Great Eastern B. 282 
 
 Berry v. Central B. 316, 317 
 
XXll 
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 Berry v. Fletcher 305 
 
 Berryman v. Cmcinnati Southern B. 60, 
 
 513 
 Berwick v. Alpena Harbor Co. 10 
 
 Besel V. New York Cent. & H. R. E. 364, 
 368, 369, 371, 872, 375, 376 
 Bessant v. Great Western R. 416 
 
 Bessex v. Chicago & N. W. B. 371, 377, 
 
 384 
 Best V. Hamand 149 
 
 Bestor v. Wathen 513 
 
 Bethje v. Houston & C. T. R. 428 
 
 Betts V. Great Eastern R. 149 
 
 Bevier v. Del. & H. C. Co. 433, 437, 441, 
 
 446 
 
 Bibb County v. Central R. & B. Co. 484 
 
 Biddlecom v. Newton 109 
 
 Bigelow V. Gregory 6 
 
 V. Miss. Cent. & T. R. 181 
 
 V. West Wisconsin R. 196, 199, 
 
 212 
 
 Biggerstaff v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. 
 
 R. 421 
 
 Big Grove v. Wells 100, 102 
 
 Bigley v. Williams • 294 
 
 Bilbee v. London, B., & S. C. R. 352 
 Binghamton Bridge Co., In re 454, 493 
 Binks V. South Yorkshire, R., & R. D. 
 
 Co. 275 
 
 Birchard v. Booth 303, 305 
 
 Bird V. W. & M. R. ■ 230 
 
 Birge v. Gardiner 332, 337 
 
 Birmingham Eire Ins. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth 119 
 Biscoe V. Great Eastern R. 168 
 Bish V. Bradford 14, 58, 66 
 V. Johnson 71 
 Bishop V. Brainerd 11, 20, 71, 458 
 Bishop of Winchester v. Mid-Hants 
 
 R. 169 
 
 Bissell V. Jeffersonville 100, 102 
 
 V. Kankakee 100 
 
 V. Mich. S. & N. I. R. 502, 510, 512, 
 
 516, 517, 518, 520, 526, 526 
 
 Bittinger v. Bell 93, 99, 105, 106, 108 
 
 Black V. Burlington, C. R., & M. R. 342, 
 
 349 
 
 17. Del. & R. Canal Co. 14, 29, 30, 
 
 33, 43, 74, 146, 169, 492, 493, 
 
 497, 503, 506, 520 
 
 V. Homersham 121 
 
 V. Huggins 43 
 
 V. Phil. & R. R. 250 
 
 V. Zacharie 113 
 
 Blaokett v. Bates 139 
 
 Blackmore v. Toronto St. R. ■ 273 
 
 Black River & M. R. v. Barnard 211, 218 
 
 Black River & U. R. u. Barnard 7, 65 
 
 V. Clarke 8, 64 
 
 Blackshire v. Atchison, T., & S. F. 
 
 R. 167, 171, 172 
 
 Blackstone Man. Co. v. Blackstone 14 
 
 Blackwell v. Old Colony R. 201 
 
 V. Wiswall 287, 291 
 
 Blaine v. Chesapeake & O. R. 404 
 
 Blair«.Mil.&P.R. 410,421,463 
 
 V. Rutherford gl 
 
 Blair Town Lot & L. Co. v. Walker 38 
 Blaisdell v. Portsmouth, G. F., & C. 
 
 R. 131 
 
 V. Winthrop 170 
 
 Blake v. Buffalo Creek R. 37, 38 
 
 V Ferris 281, 287, 289, 291 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. .359, 361, 366, 
 
 375, 384 
 
 V. Midland B. 394 
 
 V. Rich 158, 159, 174 
 
 V. Winona & St. P. E. 456, 498 
 
 Blakemore v. Bristol & E. R. 276 
 
 V. Glamorganshire Canal 
 
 Co. 255 
 
 Blaker v. New Jersey Midland B. 343, 
 
 345, 391 
 Blanchard v. Dedham Gas Light Co. 114 
 i;.Detroit,]i.,&L.M.R. 135, 
 136, 139 
 Bland v. Crowley 534, 536 
 
 Blanding v. Burr 93, 95 
 
 Blatchford v. New York & N. H. R. 128 
 Blattenberger v. Little Schuylkill 
 
 Nav. Co. 287 
 
 Blesch V. Chicago & N. W. R. 167, 170, 
 
 230, 236 
 
 38 
 
 349 
 
 104 
 
 57,62 
 
 166, 167, 
 
 179 
 
 201, 203, 204, 
 
 270 
 
 Bloodgood V. Mohawk & H. R. 144, 164, 
 
 165. 166, 171, 194, 272 
 
 Bloomfield & R. N. Gas Light Co. v. 
 
 Calkins 212, 213, 215, 228 
 
 Bloomfield & R. Nat. Gas Light Co. 
 
 V. Richardson 142, 144, 146 
 
 Blumenthall v. Brainerd 286 
 
 Blunt V. Walker 75, 506, 507 
 
 Blyth's Case 81 
 
 Board v. Texas & P. B. 101 
 
 Board of Commissioners v. Reynolds 40 
 Boatman Ins. & T. Co. b. Able 113 
 
 Bohannon v. Binns 12 
 
 Bohlman v. Green Bay & L. P. E. 163, 
 167, 169, 178 
 Boland v. Missouri R. 313, 320, 333 
 
 Boldt V. New York Cent. B. 364 
 
 Bonaparte v. Camden & A. R. 144, 162, 
 164, 168, 173, 194, 494 
 
 Bliss V. Matteson 
 
 V. Wilbraham 
 Block V. Com'rs 
 Blodgett V. Morrill 
 
 V. Utica & B. E. R. 
 
 Blood V. Nashua & L. R. 
 
 Boniface v. Belyea 
 Bonnell v. Del., L., & W. B. 
 
 281 
 
 819, 321, 
 
 344 
 
 Bennington Sugar Befining Co. 
 
 Thompson 
 Boody V. Rut. & B. B. 
 Booe t). Junction B. 
 
 Booker's Case 64, 65 70' 71 
 
 Boom Co. V. Patterson 16, 142, 143 i46 
 
 174, 217 
 
 505 
 
 75 
 
 69,72 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 XXUl 
 
 Booth V. Boston & A. R. 868, 369, 372, 
 373, 375, 376 
 V. Woodbury 91 
 
 Boothby ti.' Androscoggin & K. K. 138, 
 134, 175, 177, 263, 265 
 Bordentown & S. A. T. R. v. Cam- 
 den & A. R. & T. Co. 217, 268 
 Borland v. Miss. & M. R. 191 
 Borst V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. 320, 349, 
 
 354 
 Bostook V. North Staffordshire R. 157, 
 
 158, 496 
 
 Boston V. Richardson 201, 207 
 
 Boston & A. R. v. Greenbush 193, 506 
 
 In re 155, 156 
 
 V. Shanley 274 
 
 Boston, B., & G. R. v. WelUngton 53, 
 
 55, 65, 66, 76, 81, 85 
 
 Boston, C, & M. R. i/. Gilmore 503 
 
 u. State 268, 452, 
 
 461, 462 
 
 Boston Gas Light Co. v. Old Colony 
 
 & N. R. 151, 159, 160, 161, 207 
 
 Boston, H., & E. Co., In re 21 
 
 Boston, H. T., & W. R., In re 182, 194, 
 
 213, 218 
 
 Boston & L. R. v. Boston & M. R. 456 
 
 V. Commonwealth 123 
 
 V. Salem & L. R. 145, 
 
 153, 154, 162, 168, 
 
 454, 455 
 
 Boston & M. R. v. Babcock 137, 139 
 
 V. Bartlett 60, 137, 138, 
 
 141 
 
 V. Cambridge 479 
 
 V. Folsom 183, 190, 191 
 
 V. Lowell & L. R. 155, 
 
 157, 254, 258 
 
 0. Middlesex County 218 
 
 V. Midland R. 210 
 
 u. Montgomery 226 
 
 Boston & P. R. V. Midland R. 171, 210, 
 
 255, 258, 625 
 
 Boston & W. R. V. Old Colony R. 161, 
 
 176, 199, 207, 216, 
 
 218, 224, 228, 242 
 
 V. Western R. 194 
 
 Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston 
 
 & W. R. 147, 152, 154, 156, 254 
 
 Boswell V. Laird 287 
 
 BouGh V. Seven Oaks, M., & T. R. 125 
 Bourgoin v. La Compagnie 220, 527 
 
 Bowden v. Santos 80 
 
 Bower v. B. & S. W. R. 283 
 
 V. Peate 291 
 
 Bowler v. Lane 805, 394 
 
 Bowling Green & M. R. v. Warren 
 
 County 108 
 
 Bowlsby V. Speer 206 
 
 Bowman v. Parker 112 
 
 V. Troy & B. R. 402, 405, 406, 
 
 417, 425 
 
 V. Wathen 200 
 
 Boyoe v. Towsontown Station M. E. 
 
 Church 8 
 
 Boyce v. Trustees, &c. M. E. Church 500 
 Boyle V. Phil. & R. R. 498 
 
 Boynton v. Hatch 76 
 
 V. Peterborough & S. R. 185, 
 210 
 Brabitts v Chicago & N. W. R. 369, 
 
 373, 384 
 
 Brace v. New York Cent. R. 417 
 
 Brackett v. Lubke 286, 287, 290 
 
 Bradburn v. Great Western R. 304, 896 
 
 Bradley v. Ballarg 517 
 
 w. Boston & M. R. 314, 350 
 
 0. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. 415, 
 
 417, 421 
 
 V. Chester Valley R. , 452 
 
 V. Houldsworth ' 110 
 
 ». New York Cent. R. 345, 370 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 176, 
 
 197, 198, 491, 494 
 
 !j. Poole -42,61,112 
 
 V. Second Av. R. '295 
 
 V. Williams 38, 39 
 
 Bradshaw v. Lancashire & Y. R. 301, 391 
 
 V. Rogers 161 
 
 Bradstreet v. Bank Royalton 80 
 
 Bradt v. Benedict 10, 11 
 
 Brady v. Rensselaer 414, 416, 426 
 
 Brainard v. Boston & N. Y. R. 227 
 
 V. Clapp 160 
 
 V. Conn. River R. 261, 269, 270 
 
 V. Missisquoi R. 233, 236, 242 
 
 Branch v. Atlantic & G. R. 125, 497, 
 
 603 
 
 u. Charleston 487 
 
 Brand v. Hammersmith & C. R. 2, 176, 
 
 180 
 V. Schenectady & T. R. 341 
 
 Brandon v. Gulf City Cotton Press 
 
 & M. 311 
 
 Branham v. Record 62, 63 
 
 Branini;. Conn. &P. R. R.- 461,464 
 Braun v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 871, 
 
 372, 381 
 Brayton v. Pall River 146 
 
 Breed v. Eastern R. 186 
 
 Breedlove v. Martinsville & P. R. 78 
 
 Brehim v. Great Western R. 294, 311 
 Brennan v. Fair Haven & W. R. 812, 
 
 317, 337 
 
 Brewer v. Springfield 488 
 
 Brewster v. Hartley 24, 25 
 
 I'. Hough 481 
 
 V. Mich. Cent. E. 14 
 
 V. Stratman 88 
 
 Brickman v. South Carolina R. 371 
 
 Brickner v. New York Cent. R. 368, 372 
 
 Bridge v. Grand Junction R. 324 
 
 Bridge Co. o. Hoboken Co. 444, 455, 498 
 
 Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. 91, 93, 103 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 165, 
 
 156, 480 
 
 Bridgeport Bank v. New York & N. 
 
 H. R. 113, 116, 118, U9, 128 
 
 Bridges v. North London R. 313, 318, 
 
 319, 322, 329 
 
XXIV 
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 Bridges v. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. 368, 
 371, 372, 373, 381, 382 
 Briggs V. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 
 K. 351, 352, 432, 440, 441, 446 
 
 Brigham v. Agricultural Branch R. 254, 
 
 265 
 V. Mead 80 
 
 Bright V. Lord 121 
 
 V. Platte 186 
 
 Brightman v. Kirner 480 
 
 Brine v. Insurance Co. 451 
 
 Brisbine v. St. Paul& S. C. R. 187, 200, 
 
 201, 236 
 Bristol V. Chicago & A. R. 14 
 
 British & A. Tel. Co. v. Colson 46 
 
 British & Foreign Cork Co., In re 526 
 British Nation Life Ass. Assoc, In 
 
 re 81 
 
 Britton v. Great Western Cotton Co. 
 
 371, 381 
 Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co. 208, 209 
 Broadway Bank v. McElrath 114 
 
 Brock V. Conn. & P. R. E. 417 
 
 Brockenbrough v. James River & K. 
 
 Co. 86 
 
 Brockett v. Ohio & P. E. 21, 151, 160, 
 
 492 
 
 Brodie v. McCabe . 87, 105 
 
 Brokaw w. New Jersey, R. & T. Co. 277, 
 
 278, 279, 280, 291, 292 
 
 Bronenburg v. Madison County 108 
 
 Bronsou v. Coffin ' 401, 409, 416, 434 
 
 V. Kinzie 451 
 
 V. Southbury 333 
 
 Brooklyn w. Mtna. Life Ins. Co. 99, 101 
 
 V. Brooklyn City R. 250 
 
 Brooklyn Cent. R. v. Brooklyn City 
 
 R. 10, 11, 247, 252, 253 
 
 Brooklyn Cent. & J. R. v, Brooklyn 
 
 City R. 194, 236, 239 
 
 Brooklyn City & N. R. v. Coney I. & 
 
 B. R. 194, 239, 246 
 
 Brooklyn Crosstown R. v. Strong 44 
 Brooklyn Park Com'rs v. Armstrong 
 
 147, 157, 183, 191, 197 
 Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. u. 
 
 Brooklyn 11 
 
 Brooklyn, W., & N. R., In re 7, 11, 12, 
 
 145 
 Brooks V. Buffalo & N. F. R. 343, 345 
 V. Davenport & St. P. R. 212 
 V. New York & E. R. 414, 417, 
 429 
 V. SomerviUe 313, 320, 343 
 
 Brothers v. Cartter 367, 373 
 
 V. So. Car. R. 404 
 
 Broughton v. Manchester & S. Wa- 
 ter Works 5)2 
 V. Pensacola 107 
 Brown v. Adams 114 
 V. Beatty 142, 143, 178, 222 
 V. Buffalo & S. L. E. 335, 351, 
 390 
 V. Byroads 377 
 V. Cayuga & S. B. 179, 203, 271 
 
 Browne. Corey 151,212,226,229 
 
 V. Duplessis ■^ji°< £^' 
 
 V. European & N. A. R. 314, 319, 
 
 336 
 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 825, 331 
 
 V. Howard Fire Ins. Co. 116 
 
 V. Lehigh Coal & N. Co. 123 
 
 V. Maxwell 324, 333, 359, 360 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 344, 346, 349, 
 
 410 
 
 V. New York Cent. E. 844, 350, 
 
 355, 356, 406 
 
 V. Powell - 186 
 
 V. Providence, W., & B. R. 175, 
 
 206, 217, 223, 227 
 
 V. Ward 111 
 
 V. Winnisimmet Co. 500, 502, 
 
 508, 521, 525 
 
 V. Worcester 163, 220 
 
 Browne v. Monmouthshire R. 122 
 
 u. Providence, H., & F. R. 413, 
 
 415 
 
 Brownell v. Pacific R. 400 
 
 Browning v. Camden & W. R. T. 166, 
 
 167, 494 
 Brownlee v. Ohio, I., & L R. 8, 46, 68, 
 
 64,78 
 Bruffi). Mali 43, 128 
 
 Bruffett V. Great Western E. C. 9, 10, 13 
 Bruggerman v. True 173 
 
 Brundage v. Brundage 121 
 
 Brusberg v. M., L. S., & W. R. 439 
 
 Bryan v. Fowler 437 
 
 Bryant v. Altenbrand 334, 339 
 
 Brydon v. Stewart 367, 392 
 
 Bucher v. Dillsburg & M. R. 47, 50, 57 
 Buck V. Conn. & P. R. E. 249, 270 
 
 Buckfield Branch E. o. Irish 83 
 
 Buckley v. Knapp 303, 306 
 
 Bucksport & B. R. v. Brewer 57, 60, 61, 
 
 64,99 
 V. Buck 26, 53, 54, 
 56, 64, 65 
 Budd V. Monroe 118 
 
 Buell V. Buckingham 29, 36 
 
 V. Worcester 215 
 
 Buffalo & A. R. V. Carey 4, 6, 8, 64 
 
 Buffalo Bayou & B. & C. E. v. Fer- 
 ris 143. 163, 167, 222, 224 
 Buffalo, C, & N. Y. E. v. Pottle 69 
 Buffalo & E. R. V. Commonwealth 473 
 Buffalo & N. F. E. v. Buffalo 458 
 Buffalo & N. Y. City E. v. Dudley 45, 48, 
 50, 61, 68, 71, 72, 79; 82, 84, 85, 119, 
 
 459 
 Buffalo, N. Y., & E. E. v. Lampson 38, 
 
 140 
 Buffalo & N. Y. E. v. Brainard 142, 146, 
 
 147, 148 
 Buffalo & P. E. V. Hatch 4 49 
 
 Buffalo & S. L. R. v. Board of Super- ' 
 
 visors 475 
 
 Buffalo St. R. V. Leighton 253 
 
 Buffet V. Troy & B. R. 492, 600, 509 510 
 Buffium V. New York & B. R. ' 226 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXV 
 
 Buford V. Keokuk N. L. Packet Co. 503 
 Building Soc, In re 512 
 
 Bulger V. Albany B. 319, 3.33, 335 
 
 Bulkley v. New York & N. H. R. 426, 
 % 458, 462 
 
 Bull V. Griswold 305 
 
 BuUard v. Bank 129 
 
 Bunn V. Del., L., & W. R. 848 
 
 Bunting v. Central Pacific R. 320, 344 
 Burbridge v. New Albany & S. R. 186 
 Burchfield v. Northern Cent. B. 412 
 
 Bureau County v. Chicago, B., & Q. 
 
 B. 475 
 
 Burgwyn v. Whitfield 404 
 
 Burhop V. Milwaukie 61, 100 
 
 Burk V. Smith 66 
 
 Burke u. Brigham 182 
 
 V. Broadway & S. Av. R. 833 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. 436, 438, 439, 
 
 446 
 
 V. Norwich & W. R. 860, 369 
 
 V. Smith 33, 77 
 
 V. State 9 
 
 Burlington v. Beasley 88 
 
 Burlington, C. R., & M. R. v. Palmer 60, 
 
 62 
 Burlington & M. R. R. v. Boestler 57, 59, 
 
 60 
 V. County 
 
 Com'rs 489 
 V, Lancaster 
 
 County 478 
 
 V. Otoe 96 
 
 I'. Spearman 480 
 
 V. Westover 434, 
 
 486, 438, 441, 442 
 
 V. White 71 
 
 V. York County 478 
 
 Burlington & S. W. R. v. Counties 472 
 
 Burnes v. Atchison 93 
 
 V. Pennell 42, 61, 121, 122 
 
 Burnett v. N. & C. R. 159 
 
 Burns v. Boston & L. R. 316 
 
 w. Mil. & M. R. 163, 191 
 
 Burr V. Carbondale 101 
 
 Burrell v. Bushwick R. 110, 113, 119 
 
 Burrill v. Nahant Bank 24, 32, 34 
 
 Burritt V. New Haven 245, 248, 249, 250 
 
 Burroughs v. Housatonio R. 198, 262, 264, 
 
 431 
 
 V. North Carolina R. 121 
 
 Burt V. Farrar 49 
 
 V. Merchants' Ins. Co. 143 
 
 J,. Battle 124 
 
 V. Wigglesworth 218, 229 
 
 Burtis V. Buffalo & S. L. R. 510 
 
 Burton v. North Mo. R. 410 
 
 V. PhU., W., & B. R. 264, 277, 
 
 312, 348, 354 
 
 V. Wil. & W. R. 393, 396, 397 
 
 Busey v. Hooper, 4, 74, 84, 118, 119 
 
 Bush V. Steinman 286 
 
 Bushnell v. Beloit 94, 96, 101 
 
 Butler V. Dunham 93, 103 
 
 V. Fayette County 106 
 
 Butler u. Hunter 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 
 Butman v. Vt. Cent. R. 
 Butterfield v. Western R. 
 Butternutts cSb 0. Turnp. v. 
 Button V. Hudson River B. 
 
 Butts V. Wood 
 Butz V. Muscatine 
 Buxton V. North Eastern R. 
 Buzzell V. Laconia Man. Co, 
 Byrne v. New York Cent. & 
 
 289 
 
 313, 356 
 
 189, 190 
 
 299, 320, 343 
 
 North 60 
 
 295, 298, 299, 
 
 824, 326 
 
 29, 36, 38 
 
 94, 105, 451 
 
 409 
 
 367, 379 
 
 H. R.B. 293 
 
 C. B. U. P. R. V. Twine 230, 241 
 
 V. Smith 88, 100 
 
 C. D. & M. R. V. Olmstead 105 
 
 Cabot & W. S. Bridge Co. v. Chapin 52, 
 54, 55, 76 
 Cadell V. New York Cent. &H. R. R. 349 
 Cadigan v. Brown 251, 269 
 
 Cadle V. Muscatine W. R. 233, 235, 242, 
 
 250 
 
 Cadmus v. Central R. 189 
 
 Cagney v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 874, 380 
 
 Cahall V. Citizens B. Association 8 
 
 Cahill V. Eastman 196, 263 
 
 V. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co. 10, 12, 
 
 26, 29 
 
 Cain I). Chicago, R. I, & P. R. 280, 272 
 
 Cairo & F. R. v. Hecht 451 
 
 V. Turner 101, 162, 165, 
 
 170, 178 
 
 Cairo & St. L. R. f . Murray 427 
 
 V. People 463 
 
 V. Sparta 108 
 
 V. Warrington 462, 463 
 
 V. Woolsey 227, 290, 
 
 291, 427, 428, 429 
 
 Cairo & V. R. o. People 247 
 
 Cake V. Phil. & E. R. 158 
 
 Calder v. Bull 91 
 
 Caldwell v. Burke County 93 
 
 V. National Mohawk Valley 
 
 Bank 517 
 
 V. New Jersey Steamboat 
 
 Co. 306, 356, 433 
 
 Caledonian R. Co. v. Ogilvy 207, 209, 269 
 
 Caley v. Phil. & C. County R. 50, 60, 62 
 
 California P. R. v. Armstrong 219, 221 
 
 V. Frisbie 214 
 
 Calking v. Baldwin 177, 178 
 
 Calkins v. Barger 431 
 
 Callahan v. Burlington & M. R. R. 287, 
 
 289 
 
 V. Bean 338, 334 
 
 Callaway County v. Foster 96 
 
 Callender v. PainesviUe & H. R. 8, 256, 
 
 520 
 Gambles i-. Phil. & R. R. 454, 498, 
 
 499 
 Cambridge v. Charlestown Branch 
 R. 251 
 
xxvx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Camden & A. R. v. Briggs 452, 493, 498 
 V. Cbm'rs 481, 483 
 
 V. Hillegas 481, 483 
 Camden Horse E. v. Citizens Coach 
 
 Co. 253 
 
 Cameron v. Charing Cross R. 209, 246 
 Cameron Furnace Co. v. Penn. Canal 
 
 Co. 199 
 
 Camp V. Church Wardens 287, 289, 359 
 Camp Point Man. Co. v. Ballon 371, 379 
 Campbell v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 294, 
 
 879 
 V. Kenosha 102, 103 
 
 V. Miss. Union Bank 9, 10 
 V. Morgan 111, 113, 116 
 
 V. Paris & D. R. 106 
 
 V. Portland Sugar Co. 276 
 
 V. Rogers 386, 389 
 
 Camphell County v. Knoxville & K. 
 
 R. 99 
 
 Canal Co. v. Samson 82 
 
 Canandaigua & N. P. R. v. Payne 175, 
 211, 213, 216, 228 
 Candee v. Penn. R. 610 
 
 Cannon v. Trask 33 
 
 Canton v. Smith 108 
 
 Canyonville & G. Road Co. v. Ste- 
 phenson 194, 253 
 Cape Girardeau & B., M., & G. Road 
 
 Co. V. Renfroe 132, 168, 169, 233, 236 
 Cape Girardeau & St. C. M. R. v. 
 
 Dennis 189 
 
 Card V. New York & H. R. 831, 407 
 
 Cardot v. Barney 285 
 
 Carey v': Berkshire R. 268, 886, 395 
 
 V. Cincinnati & C. R. 11, 15 
 
 V. Day 393 
 
 Cargill II. Bower 42 
 
 Carl V. Sheboygan & F. E. 230, 241, 272 
 
 Carle v. Bangor & P. C^& R. Co. 359 
 
 Carleton v. Franconia, I., & S. Co. 275 
 
 Carli V. Stillwater & St. P. R. 171, 185, 
 
 210 219 223 
 
 Carlin v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R.' '299, 
 
 315, 322, 344 
 
 Carling's Case 39 
 
 Carlisle v. Cooper 269, 271 
 
 V. Saginaw Valley & St. L. 
 
 R. 46 
 
 V. Sheldon 283 
 
 V. South Eastern R. 122 
 
 V. Terre Haute & R. R. 60, 67, 
 
 68,72 
 
 Carman v. Steubenville & I. R. 175, 268, 
 
 287, 289 
 
 Carpenter v. County Com'rs 187 
 
 V. Jennings 222 
 
 V. Landaff 212, 223 
 
 V. Lathrop 100 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 122 
 
 V. Oswego & S. E. 167, 236, 
 
 250 
 
 Can- V. Georgia R. 178 
 
 V. Le Fevre 75 
 
 Carrington v. Ficklin 318 
 
 Carroll v. Minn. Valley R. |70 
 
 V. New York & N. H. E. 323 
 
 Carson V. Central R. im or? 
 
 V. Western R. 160. 264 
 
 Carter v. Berlin Mills C«. 287 
 
 V. Howe Machine Co. 273, 280 
 
 B.Thurston 200,227 
 
 Cary v. Cleveland & T. R. 501, 525 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N, R. 410 
 
 Case V. Northern Cent. E. 438 
 
 Casey v. New York Cent. & H. E. E. 
 
 295, 313, 333, 334, 344, 350, 353, 354 
 
 Cass V. Dillon 98, 96 
 
 u. Pittsburg, v., & C. E. 82, 48, 55, 
 
 66,58 
 
 Cass County v. Gillett 98, 101, 104 
 
 c. Johnston 95, 105 
 
 V. Jordan 95, 102 
 
 V. Shores 108 
 
 Cassady v. Lowry 108 
 
 Castello V. Landwehr 394 
 
 Caswell V. Chicago & N. W. E. 433, 436, 
 
 438 
 Catawissa E. v. Armstrong 315, 870, 394, 
 
 895, 396 
 Catchpole v. Ambergate 118 
 
 Cayuga Lake R. v. Kyle 4, 6, 64, 65, 
 
 66 
 Cayzer v. Taylor 367, 379 
 
 Cazeaux v. Mali 43, 128 
 
 CecU V. Pacific R. 421, 428, 429 
 
 Cedar Falls & M. R. v. Rich 63 
 
 Cedar Rapids & St. P. E. v. Spaf- 
 
 ford 513 
 
 Central Branch R. v. Lea 403, 427 
 
 Central Branch Union Pacific R. v. 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. 517 
 
 Central Branch Union P. R. v. Ho- 
 
 tham 300, 814 
 
 Central Branch U. P. E. v. Henigh 336, 
 
 387 
 Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell 158 
 
 Central City Horse E. v. Fort Clark 
 
 Horse R. 153, 155, 156, 258 
 
 Central Military Tract R. v. Rocka- 
 
 fellow 341, 403 
 
 Central Mills Co. v. New York & N. 
 
 E. R. 261 
 
 Central Ohio R. v. Holler 220 
 
 V. Lawrence 404, 406, 
 
 427 
 
 Central Pacific R. u. Pearson 188, 190, 
 
 215, 224, 226, 228 
 
 Central Plank Road Co. v. Clemens 65, 
 
 70 
 Central E. v. Collins 492, 506, 518, 520 
 II. Feller 336, 347 
 
 V. Hetfield 131, 179, 272 
 
 V. Merkel 180, 185 
 
 V. Moore 320, 825, 397 
 
 V. Penn. R. 4, 25, 144, 146, 
 190, 254, 259, 456 
 V. Sears 877 
 
 V. State • 244, 245, 251 
 
 V. "Valentine 133, 134 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 XXVU 
 
 Central E. & B. Co. v. Davis 325 
 
 V. Dixon 316 
 
 V. Georgia 11, 482, 
 486, 487 
 V. Grant 288 
 
 V. Kelley 297, 382 
 V. Papot 121 
 
 V. Sears 882 
 
 V. Ward 116, 117 
 Central B. of Venezuela v. Kisch 42, 61, 
 
 62 
 Central Tump. Co. v. Valentine 52, 55 
 Chaffee v. Boston & L. R. 314, 316, 318, 
 
 344, 350 
 
 Chaffin V. Cummings 79 
 
 Chagrin Falls & C. Plank R. v. Cane 233 
 
 Chamberlain v. Burlington 89 
 
 V. Mil. & M. R. 299, 360 
 
 V. Painesville & H. R. 26, 
 
 57, 59, 64 
 
 V. West End of London 208, 
 
 209, 216 
 
 Chamberlain's Case 187 
 
 Chambers v. Manchester & M. R. 502, 
 
 504, 512 
 
 V. Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. 291 
 
 V. St. Louis 507 
 
 Champion d. Jilemphis & C. R. 69, 70 
 
 Cliandler v. Brown 77 
 
 V. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 181, 
 
 187, 217, 220, 225, 226, 229 
 
 V. Keith 81 
 
 V. Monmouth Bank 31 
 
 V. Northern Cross R. 25, 79, 
 
 497 
 
 V. Siddle 81 
 
 Chapin v. Boston & P. R. 220, 225 
 
 V. Sullivan R. 159, 160, 402, 406, 
 
 409, 413, 414 
 
 Chapman v. Albany & S. R. 232, 236 
 
 V. Atlantic & St. L. R. 431, 
 
 445 
 
 V. Erie R. 375 
 
 V. Gates 164 
 
 </. Mad River & L. E. R. 59, 
 
 73, 520 
 
 V. New Haven R. 282 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 420 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 Tj -D 292 
 
 V. Oshliosh & M. R. 200, 241, 
 243 
 Charles v. Taylor 361 
 
 Charles River Bridge v. Warren 
 
 Bridge 453 
 
 Charleston & S. R. v. Blake 147, 188, 
 
 212 
 Charlestown v. County Com'rs 479 
 
 Charlestown Branch R. u. County 
 
 Com'rs 190, 210 
 
 Charlotte & S. C. R. v. Blakely 46, 48 
 
 Charlton v. Newcastle & C. R. 512, 620, 
 
 527, 530, 533, 53.5 
 
 Chase v. New York Cent. R. 230, 273 
 
 V. Sullivan R. 174 
 
 Chase v. Sutton Man. Co. 147, 233 
 
 V. Sycamore & C. R. 56, 78 
 
 V. VanderbUt 15, 121, 122, 125 
 
 V. Worcester 215 
 
 Chautauque County Bank v. Eisley 501 
 
 Cheale v. Kenward 119 
 
 Cheaney v. Hooser 91, 92 
 
 Cheeny v. Lafayette, B., & M. R. 31, 32 
 
 Cheeseborough's Case 162 
 
 Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis 454 
 
 Cheney v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 321, 347, 356 
 
 Cheraw & C. R. 47 
 
 Chesapeake & 0. C. Co. u. Bait. & Ohio 
 
 R. 5, 9, 12, 
 
 155, 257, 
 
 260, 448 
 
 V. Grove 175, 177 
 
 Chesapeake & 0. R. t. Halstead 220 
 
 0. Paine 110 
 
 V. Patton 220 
 
 V. Tyree 223 
 
 V. Virginia 487 
 
 Chesley v. Pierce ' 79 
 
 Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey 79, 83 
 
 Chestnutwood v. Hood 106, 108 
 
 Chetlaih v. Republic Life Ins. Co. 32, 
 
 44, 51, 65, 71, 505, 520 
 
 Chew V, Bank of Baltimore 119 
 
 Chicago V. Baer 480 
 
 V. Barbian 172 
 
 V. Huenerbein 425 
 
 L. Major 338, 339, 388, 392, 394 
 
 V. O'Brennan 303 
 
 V. Rock Island R. 170, 190 
 
 V. Rumsey 234 
 
 V. SchoUer 895, 396, 397 
 
 V. Sheldon 480, 482 
 
 V. Starr 338 
 
 V. Wheeler 191 
 
 Chicago & A. R. v. Adler 309, 312 
 
 u. Becker 310, 827, 
 
 329, 333, 885, 336, 
 
 348, 845, 355, 394 
 
 V. Clampit 438 
 
 V. Engle 855, 404, 406, 
 
 429 
 
 V. Flagg 301 
 
 V. Garvey 856, 896 
 
 V. Gregory 338, 339, 
 
 V. Gretzner 293, 322, 
 848 
 
 I/. Hogarth 328, 831 
 
 u. Jacobs 292, 343 
 
 V. Keefe 363, 364 
 
 V. Kellam 407 
 
 V. Langley 328 
 
 V. Maber 230 
 
 V. McLaughlin 386 
 
 V. McMorrow 406 
 
 V. Maher 185 
 
 V. Mahony 871, 380 
 
 V. Mock 328 
 
 V. Monroe 379 
 
XXVIU 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Chicago & A. E. v. Murphy 861, 363, 364 
 V. Murray 833 
 
 Chicago, B., 
 
 & Q. R. w: Rosenfeld 321 
 V. Seirer 419, 427 
 
 0. Pennell- 431, 433, 
 
 
 
 V. Siders 478 
 
 435, 436 
 
 
 
 V. Stumps 292, 822, 
 
 V. People 466 
 
 
 
 336, 346 
 
 V. Piatt 371, 373 
 
 
 
 V. Sykes 329 
 
 V. Quaintance 431, 433 
 
 
 
 D.Triplett 293,344, 
 
 437, 438, 439, 440 
 
 
 
 351, 356 
 
 V. Rush 364, 375, 377, 
 
 
 
 V. Van Patten 322, 
 
 378, 379 
 
 
 
 328, 343, 351 
 
 V. Saunders 419 
 
 
 
 t,. Wilson 150,151, 
 
 V. Shannon 293, 313, . 
 
 
 
 256 
 
 321, 371, 373, 383, 
 
 Chicago Citj 
 
 rR. 
 
 V. Allerton 33, 75 
 
 388, 394, 395, 396 
 
 
 
 V. Freeman 322 
 
 V. Smith 183 
 
 
 
 V. Henry 803 
 
 0. Springfield & N. 
 
 
 
 V. Lewis 295, 299, 300, 
 
 R. 176, 189, 221, 
 
 
 
 328 
 
 228, 229 
 
 
 
 V. People 247 
 
 V. SuUiran 372, 375 
 
 
 
 V. Young 821 
 
 V. Umphenour 418 
 
 Chicago, D., 
 
 & V. R. V. Coyer 108 
 
 V. Utley 416, 428 
 
 
 
 V. Smith 97 
 
 V. Wilson 308 
 
 Chicago & G. E. 
 
 R. V. Harney 379 
 
 Chicago Building Soc. v. Crowell 34, 517 
 
 Chicago & I. 
 
 R. 
 
 V. Hopkins 167, 187, 
 
 Chicago, B., &' Q. R. v. Bradfield 407 
 
 
 
 189, 210, 211, 216 
 
 V. Bryan 278, 305 
 
 
 
 V. Pinckney 97, 108 
 
 V. Caufeman 293, 
 
 
 
 V. Russell 373, 377 
 
 403, 405 
 
 Chicago & M 
 
 [.L 
 
 S. R. «. Sanford 173, 
 
 i>. Chamberlain 181, 
 
 
 
 182, 185 
 
 184, 190, 259 
 
 Chicago & M. R 
 
 . V. Bull 192 
 
 V. Cole 474, 476, 
 
 
 
 V. Patchin 403, 406, 
 
 478, 489 
 
 
 
 417 
 
 V. Coleman 35 
 
 Chicago, M., 
 
 & St. P. R. V. Ackley 466 
 
 V. Damerell 299, 
 
 
 
 V. Hall 198, 212, 
 
 331, 343 
 
 
 
 217 
 
 V. Dewey 316, 328, 
 
 
 
 V. Melville 220 
 
 333, 335 
 
 
 
 V. Pfaender 475 
 
 V. Dicljson 348, 349 
 
 Chicago & N. W 
 
 R. V. Barrie 407, 410, 
 
 V. Dunn 308, 309 
 
 
 
 419, 428 
 
 V. Farreli 410 
 
 
 
 V. Bayfield 279, 876, 
 
 V. Farrelly 428, 429 
 
 
 
 878, 379, 382, 
 
 V. Frary 489 
 
 
 
 396, 397 
 
 V. Gregory 321, 
 
 
 
 V. Bliss 365, 378 
 
 365, 377 
 
 
 
 !;. Boone County 475 
 
 V. Haggerty 462 
 
 
 
 V. Chicago & P. 
 
 V. Harwood 298, 
 
 
 
 R. 16, 20, 22, 
 
 328, 343, 351, 
 
 
 
 194, 218 
 
 352, 354, 394 
 
 
 
 V. Clark 327, 828, 
 
 V. Hazzard 301, 
 
 
 
 349 
 
 308, 321, 329 
 
 
 
 V. Coss 328 
 
 V. Iowa 448, 466, 
 
 
 
 D.Donahue 377,378, 
 
 468, 470, 471 
 
 
 
 380 
 
 V. Lee 292, 293, 
 
 
 
 U.Fillmore 276,294, 
 
 294, 321, 328, 
 
 
 
 308 
 
 331, 342, 344, 
 
 
 
 V. Fort Howard 488 
 
 , 347, 351, 352 
 
 
 
 V. Fuller 460, 462, 
 
 V. McGinnis 235, 
 
 
 
 469 
 
 241, 242 
 
 
 
 V. Goss 403, 425 
 
 V. McLallen 368, 
 
 
 
 V. Harris 419, 425 
 
 376 
 
 
 
 V. Hoag 230, 273, 311 
 
 V. Magee 419 
 
 
 
 V. Howard 298, 397, 
 
 V. Paddock 474, 478 
 
 
 
 400 
 
 V. Page 120 
 
 
 
 V. Jackson 865, 371, 
 
 V. Parka 308 
 
 
 
 372, 378, 381 
 
 I). Payne 322, 328 
 
 
 
 V. James 34 
 
 V. Riddle 294 
 
 
 
 V. McCahill 483, 438 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Chicago & N. W. E. v. Moranda 361, 363, 
 
 365, 397, 399 
 
 V. Peacock 292, 308 
 
 V. People 244, 247, 
 
 498, 513 
 
 V. Ryan 321 
 
 V. Soheuring 359, 
 
 371 
 
 V. Simonson 435 
 
 V. Sweeny 828, 343 
 
 V. Swett 371, 372 
 
 V. Taylor 356, 376 
 
 ... Ward 379 
 
 i;. Whitton 20, 344, 
 
 394 
 
 Chicago, N., & S. W. R. v. Newton 235, 
 
 246 
 Chicago & P. R. v. Francis 161 
 
 V. Stein 201, 230 
 
 Chicago, P., & S. W. R. v. Mar- 
 seilles 505 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. v. Austin 321, 322, 
 331, 396, 398 
 V. Bell 343, 345, 
 351 
 V. Carey 214, 215, 
 230 
 V. Davenport 488 
 i;. Grinnell 132 
 17. Houston 343, 
 345, 352 
 V. Joliet 155, 235, 
 244, 246, 251 
 V. Lake- 146, 147, 
 152 
 V. McKean 352 
 .,. Moffitt203,245, 
 270, 271, 286 
 V. People 478 
 n. Reidy 402 
 Chicago & R. I. R. v. Hutchins 280 
 V. McKean 293, 301, 
 305, 308, 321 
 V. Morris 388, 392, 
 394 
 V. Reid 408, 418 
 V. Still 292, 328, 343 
 V. Ward 425 
 V. Whipple 283, 290 
 Cliicago, St. P., & F. R. u. McCarthy 288, 
 
 290, 411 
 
 Chicago W. D. R, v. Bert 252 
 
 V. Mills 317 
 
 V. Rend 310, 342 
 
 Child V. Hearn 282, 401, 416 
 
 Childs V. Bank of Mo. 273 
 
 V. Central R. 255 
 
 Chiles V. Drake 305, 307 
 
 Chiniquy v. People 99 
 
 Chippendale's Case 39 
 
 Cliisholm V. Montgomery 100 
 
 Choppin V. New Orleans & C. R. 301 
 
 Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris 112, 113 
 
 Christ Church v. Phil. County 482, 483 
 
 Christian Union v. Yount 14 
 
 Chubb V. Upton 8, 12, 62, 64, 65, 80, 84 
 
 Church V. Sterling 140 
 
 Chy Lung v. Freeman 469 
 
 Cincinnati College v. Nesmith 241 
 
 Cincinnati, H., & D. R. v. Bunnell 412 
 
 V. Chester 393 
 
 V. Cole 466 
 
 V. Pontius 51(1 
 
 V. Street 425 
 
 I), Sulliyan 462 
 
 V. Waterson 408, 
 
 409, 423 
 
 Cmcinnati, H., & I. R. v. Bartlett 428 
 
 V. Ridge 423 
 
 Cincinnati, I., & C. R. v. Clarkson 75 
 
 Cincinnati & I. R. o. Zinn 151 
 
 Cincinnati, L., & C. R. i/. Danville & 
 
 V. R. 3, 7, 9, 
 
 26, 145 
 
 V. Ducharme 427, 
 
 428 
 
 Cincinnati & S. G. A. St. R. ;;. Cum- 
 
 minsville 233, 235, 241 
 
 Cincinnati & S. R. v. Longworth 212, 217 
 Cincinnati Street R. v. Smith 247 
 
 Cmcinnati, U., & Ft. W. R. v. Pearce 58, 
 
 79 
 Cincinnati, W., & M. R. u. Harris 409 
 V. Wells 108 
 Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. v. Clinton 
 
 County 90, 92, 93, 95, 105 
 
 Cincinnati & Z. R. v. Smith 297, 404, 407 
 Citizens' Coach Co. v. Camden Horse 
 
 R. 168 
 
 Citizens' Loan Assoc, v. Lyon 43 
 
 Citizens' St. R. W. Co. u. Carey 335 
 
 City V. Lamson 102 
 
 City Bank v. Bruce 25, 75, 505 
 
 City Hotel v. Dickinson 54, 64, 81, 85, 
 
 508 
 City of Buffalo, In re 144, 155, 156, 170, 
 
 190 
 City of Erie v. Erie Canal Co. 450, 465 
 Clapp V. Cedar County 89 
 
 V. Hudson River R. 308 
 
 Claremont Bridge v. Royce 14 
 
 Clark V. Baird 226 
 
 c Birmingham & P. Bridge 
 
 Co. 202, 203 
 
 V. Boston & A. R. 316, 821 
 
 V. Boston, C, & M. R. 174, 177 
 V. Chambers 311 
 
 c/. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 370 
 
 v. Continental Improvement 
 
 Co. 79 
 
 V. Des Jloines 100 
 
 u. Farrington 46,51,62,75,515 
 V. Foot 481 
 
 u. Fry 243, 288, 291 
 
 u. Hannibal & St. J. R. 178, 288, 
 410 
 V. Iowa City 107 
 
 V. Janesville 94. 96, 100, 101, 107 
 f. Monongahela Nav. Co. 51, 66 
 V. Saybrook 176 
 
XXX 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Clark V. Syracuse & U. E. 402, 414 
 
 V. Thomas 8, 65 
 
 V. Vt. & C. R. 179, 265, 274, 287, 
 
 409 
 
 Clarke" v. Birmingham & P. Bridge 
 
 Co. . 197, 199 
 
 V. Blackmar 247, 251 
 
 , V. Dickson 42 
 
 V. Hancock County 100, 101 ■ 
 
 V. Holmes 380, 382 
 
 V. Phil., W., & B. E. 469 
 
 V. Rochester " 93, 95 
 
 w. Rochester, L.,& N. P. E. 418 
 
 V. Thomas 26, 54 
 
 Clarke's Case 81 
 
 Clarke County v. Paris, W., & K. 
 
 Tump. , 47, 88, 98, 105 
 
 Clarkson v. Clarkson 123 
 
 V. Erie & N. S. Despatch 
 
 Co. 44 
 
 V. Hudson Riyer R. 171 
 
 Clary v. Iowa Midland R. 284, 285, 411, 
 
 412, 421 
 Claxton V. Lexington & B. S. E. 305, 
 
 393 
 Clayards v. Dethick 314, 328, 335 
 
 Clearwater v. Meredith 67, 69 
 
 Cleaveland v. Grand Trunk E. 438, 439, 
 
 440 
 V. Norton 492, 493 
 
 Cleghom v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 E. 295, 296, 306 
 
 Cleland v. Thornton 431, 446 
 
 Cleland's Case 75 
 
 Clem V. Newcastle & D. E. 58 
 
 Clemens v. Han. & St. J. E. 438, 444 
 
 Clement v. Canfield 284, 291, 411, 412 
 
 Cleveland, C, & C. E. v. Bartram 304 
 
 V. Crawford 313, 
 
 315, 316, 318, 
 
 324, 344 
 
 V. Elliot 407, 408 
 
 V. Keary 360, 366 
 
 V. Terry 312, 323, 
 
 324, 335, 341 
 
 Cleveland, C.C.,& I. R.U.Brown 418 
 
 V. Crossley 423 
 
 V. Elliot 312, 321, 
 
 323,343,351, 
 
 352 
 
 V. Swift 417 
 
 Cleveland & M. R. v. Robbins 230 
 
 V. Tappet 116 
 
 Cleveland, P., & A. R. Co. v. Erie 259, 261, 
 
 493 
 Cleveland & P. R. v. Ball 212, 213, 222, 
 
 226, 227 
 
 u. McConnell 421 
 
 V. Rowan 299, 397 
 
 V. Speer 12, 21, 147, 
 
 150, 151, 156, 160, 
 
 197, 235, 254, 258, 
 
 259, 261, 264, 492 
 
 Cleveland & T. R. v. Prentice 256 
 
 Cliff V. Midland R. 352, 353 
 
 Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & M. R. 235, 239, 
 
 246 
 
 Clinton Bridge, In re 202 
 
 dough V. Unity 172 
 
 Coakley v. North Penn. R. 394 
 
 Coale V. Han. & St. J. R. 438 
 
 Coates V. Mo., K., & T. R. 435, 438, 442 
 
 V. New York 460 
 
 V. Nottingham Water Works 
 
 Co. 126 
 
 Cobb V. Boston 151, 186, 216, 219, 
 
 225 
 
 Cochran v. Arnold 7, 8 
 
 Coe V. Columbus, P., & I. R. 169, 503 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. 139 
 
 V. New Jersey Midland 28, 34, 138, 
 
 140, 169, 256, 257, 260 
 
 Coffin V. Rich 458 
 
 Coggin V. Central R. 281, 286 
 
 Cogswell V. Bull 43 
 
 V. Oregon & C.R. 316, 320, 331, 
 
 335 350 
 
 Cohen v. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. R. '278, 
 
 279 
 
 V. Eureka & P. R. 301, 314, 320, 
 
 344, 346, 354 
 
 V. Wilkinson 527, 529 
 
 Colcough V. Nashville & N. R. 176, 178, 
 
 180, 184, 186 
 
 Cole V. Chicago & N. W. E. 421 
 
 V. Dyer 13 
 
 Cole Silver M. Co. v. Va. & G. H. 
 
 W. Co. 610 
 
 Coleman v. Marin County 108 
 
 !;. New York & N. H. E. 278, 
 
 282 
 
 V. Second Av. R. 36 
 
 Coles V. Bank of England 116 
 
 CoUett V. London & N. W. R. 274 
 
 CoUins V. Albany & S. R. 308 
 
 V. East Tenn., V., & G. E. 395 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. E. R. 431, 
 
 432, 437, 441, 446 
 
 V. Sherman 453 
 
 Colman v. Eastern Counties E. 604, 509, 
 
 523, 527, 529 
 
 Coloma V. Eaves 100, 104 
 
 Colorado Cent. E. v. MoUandin 197, 239 
 
 V. Ogden359, 368,371, 
 
 372, 377, 381 
 
 Colt V. Ives 113, 115 
 
 V. Sixth Av. E. 335 
 
 Columbia County v. King 93, 105 
 
 Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v. 
 
 Geisse 182, 184, 198, 199 
 
 Columbus, C, & I. C. E. v. Grant 
 
 County 103, 108 
 
 V. Troesch 364, 
 
 371, 373, 375, 383, 384 
 
 Columbus & I. C. E. v. Arnold 359, 361, 
 
 362, 363, 365, 366, 368, 371, 372 
 
 Columbus, P., & I. E. v. Indianapolis 
 
 & B. E. 140 
 
 V. Simpson 221 
 
 Columbus & S. E. v. Watson 140 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 XXXI 
 
 Columbus & X..R. v. Webb 359, 365, 371, 
 
 372 382 
 Colvill V. St. Paul & C. R. 175, 212,'215, 
 
 217, 226 
 Colvin V. Liberty & A. Tump. Co. 71 
 Combs V. New Bedford Cordage Co. 275 
 Comings v. Han. & C. M. R. 409 
 
 Commercial Bank v. lola 88 
 
 V. Kortright 118, 120 
 Commissioners v. Atlantic & N. C. R. 504 
 u.Portland&O. C. R. 465 
 Commissioners of Central Park, In 
 
 re 193 
 
 Commissioners of Inland Fisheries 
 V. Holyoke Water Power Co. 155, 193, 
 457, 459, 460, 492 
 Commissioners of Washington Park, 
 
 In re 172 
 
 Commonwealth v. Alger 201, 460 
 
 V. Allegheny Bridge 
 
 Co. 12 
 
 V. Allegheny County 105, 
 
 . 108 
 
 V. Bakeman 8 
 
 V. Boston & A. R. 389, 
 
 392 
 
 V. Boston & L. R. 282, 
 
 299, 388 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. 162, 
 
 177, 191, 201, 207, 
 
 215, 220 
 
 V. Boston & W. R. 300, 
 
 319, 321, 350, 352, 
 
 391, 392, 393, 400 
 
 V. Cent. Pass. R. 7, 10 
 
 V. Chesapeake & O. 
 
 R. 473, 481, 482 
 
 V. Cleveland, P., & 
 
 A. R. 472, 473, 476 
 
 V. Commercial Bank 12 
 
 V. Deerfield 250 
 
 V. Dickinson 152 
 
 i>. East Boston Ferry 393, 
 
 400 
 
 V. Eastern R. 392, 467, 
 
 460 
 
 V. Erie & N. E. R. 156, 
 
 235, 242, 243, 246, 
 
 258, 492, 493 
 
 V. Erie & P. R. 476 
 
 V. Essex Co. 9, 152, 450, 
 
 459, 460, 461, 463 
 
 V. Fayette County R. 458 
 
 V. Fisher 199 
 
 «. Fitchburg R. 2, 258, 
 
 260, 317, 319, 320, 
 
 351, 352, 354, 393 
 
 V. Franklin Canal Co. 147, 
 
 254 
 
 V. Hamilton Man. 
 
 Co. 473, 474 
 
 V. Haverhill 159, 160 
 
 V. Hicks 252, 259 
 
 V. LowellGas Light 
 
 Co. 474, 479 
 
 Commonwealth ». M'Williams 91 
 
 V. Metropolitan R. 339, 
 
 390, 391, 392, 395 
 
 V. Nashua & L. R. 243, 
 
 251 
 
 V. New Bedford 
 
 Bridge 243, 251, 267, 
 
 268, 450, 464 
 
 V. Ohio & P. R. 267 
 
 V. Old Colony & F. R. 
 
 R. 155, 251, 261, 
 
 269 
 
 i>. Penn. Canal 158, 450, 
 
 460, 464 
 
 t). Perkins 105 
 
 V. Pittsburg 105 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. R. 9, 10, 
 
 12, 21, 153, 164, 168 
 
 V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., 
 
 & C. R. 476 
 
 V. Power 276 
 
 V. Roxbury 201 
 
 V. Sanford 393 
 
 V. Smith 497, 503, 504, 
 512 
 V. Temple 252 
 
 V. Tenth Mass. Tump. 
 
 Co. 10, 12, 13 
 
 V. Tewksbury 461 
 
 V. Vt. & M. R. 251, 313, 
 
 314, 391 
 
 V. West Chester R. 2, 6, 
 
 52 
 
 V. Wilder 507 
 
 V. Williams 88 
 
 V. Wilson 464, 469 
 
 Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Crane 31 
 
 Comstock V. Des Moines Valley R. 421 
 
 Conant v. Griffin 394, 397, 399 
 
 V. Seneca County 113, 129 
 
 Concord v. Portsmouth Savings 
 
 Bank 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 
 
 Concord R. v. Greely 144, 146, 161, 183, 
 220, 224, 225, 228 
 Cone V. D., L., & W. R. 371 
 
 Coney Island & B. R., In re 254 
 
 Conger v. Burlington & S. W. R. 167, 170 
 Congreve v. Morgan 288 
 
 Conhocton Stone R. v. Buffalo, N. Y., 
 
 & E. R. 203, 204, 205, 271 
 
 Conklin v. Second Nat. Bank 129 
 
 ConUn V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 323 
 Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie R. 447 
 
 Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cleve- 
 land, C, & C. R. 505, 520 
 Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. New 
 
 York & N. H. R. 386, 396 
 
 Conn. & P. R. R. v. Bailey 12, "55, 57, 60, 
 
 64, 65, 70, 81, 83, 85 
 
 V. Baxter 58 
 
 V. Holton 159, 161, 261 
 
 Conn. River R. v. Clapp 188 
 
 V. County Com'rs 162, 
 
 190 
 
 Conner v. Paul 390 
 
xxxu 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Connolly v. Poillon 367 
 
 Connor v. Chicago, E. I., & P. E. 361 
 Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co. 32, 38 
 
 Conroy v. Vulcan Iron Works 382 
 
 Continental Improvement Co. v. 
 
 Stead 342, 349, 354 
 
 Contoocook V. E. v. Barker 53, 81 
 
 Contra Costa E. v. Moss 144, 146, 155, 
 
 156, 181 
 
 Converse v. Ft. Scott 100 
 
 V. Grand Eaplds & I. E. 257 
 
 V. Norwich & N. Y. Trans. 
 
 Co. 500, 510 
 
 Conway v. 111. Cent. E. 372 
 
 Conwell V. Springfield & N. E. 133 
 
 Conybeare v. New Brunswick & C. E. 62 
 
 Cook V. Berlin Woollen Mill Co. 36, 37, 43 
 
 V. Champlain Trans. Co. 433, 486, 
 
 438, 440 
 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. E. 368 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. E. 412, 417, 424 
 
 V. New York Cent. E. 313, 325, 341 
 
 V. Parham 359, 361, 367 
 
 V. South Park Com'rs 166, 173, 209, 
 
 220 
 
 V. State 484 
 
 Cook County v. Chicago, B., & Q. 
 
 E. 475, 488, 489 
 
 Cooke V. Oxley 60 
 
 Coolidge V. Brookline 514 
 
 Coombs V. New Bedford Cordage 
 
 Co. 360, 369, 376, 382 
 
 Coon V. Syracuse & U. E. 364, 365, 366 
 
 Cooper V. Central E. 296, 371 
 
 V. Frederick 77 
 
 V. McKee 79 
 
 V. Mil. & P. R. 360, 364, 375 
 
 V. Eandall 230 
 
 V. Sullivan County 99 
 
 Copeland v. Copeland 110 
 
 Copes V. Charleston 87, 94, 96, 103 
 
 Corcoran v. Holbrook 367, 368 
 
 Cordell v. New York Cent. & H. E. E. 159, 
 
 320, 343, 347, 350, 351, 355, 356 
 
 Corey v. Buffalo, C, & N. Y. E. 197, 236, 
 
 241 
 Cork & Y. E. V. Paterson 71 
 
 Corn Exchange Bank v. Cumberland 
 
 Coal Co. 34 ■ 
 
 Cornell v. Hichens 75 
 
 Corniok v. Eichards 115 
 
 Cornish v. Chicago, B., & Q. E. 206 
 
 Cornwall v. Mills 395 
 
 V. SulUvan E. 402, 409, 413, 
 
 423 
 
 CorreU v. B., C. E., & M. E. 355 
 
 Corry v. Londonderry & E. E. 125, 126 
 
 Corwiu V. New York & E. E. 402, 405, 
 
 415, 416, 426 
 
 Corwith V. Culver 8, 48, 58, 66, 79 
 
 Cosby V. Owensboro & R. E. 233, 235, 241 
 
 Cosgrove v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 E. E. 283, 293, 310, 351 
 
 V. Ogden 339 
 
 Costar V. New Jersey E. & T. Co. 181 
 
 Costello V. Johnson „ . ^ „ „ „^„^| 
 
 t. Syracuse, B., & N. Y. K. A66, 
 
 355, 356 
 
 Coster V. Albany 198 
 
 V. New Jersey E. & Trans. 
 
 Co. 174, 180, 183, 188, 189 
 
 V. Tide Water 142, 146 
 
 Cott V. Lewiston R. 203 
 
 Cotton V. Leon County 93, 95 
 
 V. Pqcasset Man. Co. 271 
 
 V. Wood 320 
 
 Cottrill V. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 384 
 
 Couch V. Watson Coal Co. 383 
 
 Coulter V. American Merchants' 
 
 Union Ex. Co. 329 
 
 Council Bluffs v. Kansas City 247 
 
 u. Kansas City, St. J., 
 
 & C. B. E. 246, 470 
 Countess of Eothes v. Kirkcaldy Wa- 
 ter Works Com'rs 204 
 County Com'rs v. Annapolis & E. 
 
 R. R. 482, 483 
 
 V. Chandler 100 
 
 u. Sisters of Charity 482 
 
 Courtright v. Deeds 28, 63, 65, 79 
 
 V. Strickler 63 
 
 Cousins V. Han. & St. J. R. 421 
 
 Covington v. Covington & C. Bridge 
 
 Co. 6, 22, 23, 452 
 
 Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Mayer 21, 
 
 28,29 
 Covington, C. C, & J. Plank Road 
 
 Co. V. Moore 49, 64 
 
 Covington & L. R. v. Bowler 36, 37, 39 
 
 Covington St. R. v. Covington 247 
 
 i>. Packer 304,394,397, 
 
 398 
 
 Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co. 7, 8, 14, 
 
 507 
 Cowles V. Cromwell 80 
 
 Cox V. Louisville, N. A., & C. R. 167, 178, 
 
 236, 240 
 
 I). New York Cent. & H. R. 308 
 
 Coy V. Utica Sn S. R. 246, 348 
 
 Coyle V. Bait. & 0. R. 294, 404 
 
 Cozart V. Georgia, R., & B. Co. 504, 519, 
 
 520 
 Cracken v. Hayward 451 
 
 Craig V. First Presbyterian Church 25, 
 
 29 
 
 V. Gregg ■ 44 
 
 V. New York, N. H., & H. R. 814, 
 
 321-, 850 
 
 V. Rochester City & B. R. 283, 236 
 
 Cram v. Bangor House Proprietary 29, 
 
 31 
 
 V. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 19 
 
 Cramer v. Burlington 296 
 
 V. Cleveland & P. R, 183 
 
 Crandall v. M'llrath 375 
 
 V. State 4Q9 
 
 Cranston v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 
 
 402, 404, 407 
 Crawford v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. E. 415, 417, 421 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXIU 
 
 Crawford v. North Eastern R. 126 
 
 Crawford County u. Louisville, N. 
 
 A., & St. L. A. L. R. 105, 108 
 
 Crawford County v. Pittsburg & E. 
 
 R. 108 
 
 Crawfordsville & W. B. v. "Wright 180, 
 259, 272, 277 
 Crease v. Babcook 9 
 
 Creed v. Penn. R. 324 
 
 Cregin v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. 304, 
 
 385, 391 
 Crill V. Rome 200 
 
 Crispin v. Babbitt 368, 369 
 
 Crissey v. Hestonville, M., & F. Pass. 
 
 R. 318, 319, 333 
 
 Crist V. Erie R. 433, 437, 439 
 
 Crittenden v. Wilson 178, 268 
 
 Crocker v. Crane 52, 65 
 
 V. New London, W., & P. R. 
 
 278, 291 
 V. Whitney 512 
 
 Croft V. Alison 279 
 
 Cromwell v. Sac County 103, 107, 108 
 Crosby ». Hanover 153 
 
 Cross V. Pickneyville Mill Co. 49, 51 
 
 V. Sackett 42 
 
 Crossley v. O'Brien 193 
 
 Crossman v. Penrose Perry Bridge 
 
 Co. 58, 61 
 
 Crowley v. Panama R. 389, 392 
 
 Crowner v. Watertown & R. R. 171, 172 
 Cruger v. Hudson River R. 173, 183 
 
 Crutchfield v. Richmond & D. R. 377, 
 378, 380, 381 
 Cruty V. Erie R. 370 
 
 Cuddeback v. Jewett 249 
 
 Cuff «. Newark &N.Y.R. 287,289,290, 
 
 291, 310 
 Culhane v. New York Cent & H. 
 
 R. R. 292, 290, 352 
 
 Culver V. Third Nat. Bank 78 
 
 Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman 15 
 Cumberland Coal & I. Co. v. Hoff- 
 man Coal Co. 15 
 Cumberland Coal & I. Co. v. Parish 36, 38 
 • V. Scally 366 
 • V. Sherman 36 
 Cumberland Marine R. v. Portland 480 
 Cumberland & 0. Canal Co. v. Hitch- 
 
 ings 230 
 
 Cumberland & 0. R. k. Barren County 
 
 98, 458 
 Cumberland & 0. R. k. Washington 
 
 County 98, 105 
 
 Cumberland & P. R. v. State 314, 318, 
 
 361, 366, 369, 371, 372, 375, 
 
 384, 391 
 
 Cumberland Valley R. v. Baab 59, 60 
 
 V. Hughes 274 
 
 V. McLanahan 
 
 131, 149, 158 
 
 Cumberland Valley R. Co.'s Appeal 
 
 498, 499 
 
 Cummings v. Collins 380 
 
 V. National Bank 490 
 
 Cunningham v. Edgefield & K. R. 68, 
 
 60,62 
 
 V. International R. 287, 
 
 288, 290 
 
 V. Vt. & M. R. 127 
 
 Cupp V. Seneca County 183 
 
 Curran v. Arkansas 13, 80 
 
 V. Shattuck 145, 170, 182 
 
 V. Warren C. & M. Co. 300 
 
 Currie v. White 111, 112, 114, 120, 121 
 
 Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co. 75,77, 505 
 
 V. Marietta & C. R. 145, 150, 496 
 
 V. West Side Patent Elevate 
 
 ed R. 248, 269 
 
 Curry V. Chicago & N. W. R. 415, 418, 
 
 425, 426, 428 
 
 V. Scott 124 
 
 Curtis V. Butler County 98 
 
 V. Eastern R. 159, 160, 175, 204, 
 
 206, 263, 495, 496 
 
 V. Leavitt 492, 501, 503, 521 
 
 V. Rochester & S. R. 300, 301, 308 
 
 V. St. Paul, S., & T. P. R. 215, 
 
 226, 227 
 
 V. Whipple 88 
 
 Curtis's Case 80 
 
 Cushman v. Smith 162, 163, 165, 178, 194 
 
 Custar V. Titusville Gas & W. Co. 35, 47, 
 
 58,61 
 Cutler V. Middlesex Factory Co, 83 
 
 Cutting V. Seabury 386 
 
 Cuyler v. Decker 329 
 
 D. 
 
 Daily v. New York & N. H. R. 393, 400 
 
 Daland v. Williams 123 
 
 Dale V. Del., L., & W. R. 294 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 381 
 
 Daley v. Norwich & W. R. 321, 332, 355 
 
 Dallas County «, McKenzie 103 
 
 Dalton V. Midland R. 119 
 
 V. South Eastern R. 394, 399 
 
 Dalton & M. R. v. McDaniel 80, 81 
 
 Dalzell V. Davenport 226, 228 
 
 Dana v. Bank of United States 32 
 
 Danburv & N. R. v. Norwalk 156 
 
 V. Wilson 45, 47, 48, 
 
 50, 64, 71, 74, 79, 
 
 82, 84, 85 
 
 Dand v. Kingscote 2 
 
 Daniel v. Metropolitan R. 300, 319 
 
 Daniels w. Chicago & N. W. R. 166, 167, 
 
 178, 180 
 V. C, I., & N. R. 209, 219 
 
 V. Clegg 333, 335 
 
 V. Hart 285, 446 
 
 V. Tearney 517 
 
 Danner v. So. Car. R. 428 
 
 Danville v. Railroad Co. 108 
 
 Danville, H., & W. R. v. Common- 
 wealth 164, 235, 244, 246, 251, 268 
 Danville L. & M. Co. v. Parks 478 
 DanviUe, L., & N. T. Co. v. Stewart 282 
 
XXXIV 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Darling v. Boston & A. R. 403, 406 
 
 V. Williams 891 
 
 Darlington v. United States 143, 170, 181 
 Darst V. Gale 34, 39, 517, 519, 521 
 
 Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1, 448, 
 
 449 491 
 Dascomb v. Buffalo & S. L. K. ' 343 
 Dater v. Troy Tump. Co. 272 
 
 Davenport v. Chicago, E. I., & P. R. 472, 
 
 475 
 
 V. Dows 490 
 
 V. Miss. & M. E. 473, 474, 475, 
 
 480 
 
 David V. South Western R. 397, 400 
 
 Davidson v. Boston & M. R. 184, 199, 210 
 
 V. Ramsey County 93, 97 
 
 V. State 462 
 
 V. Tulloch 42 
 
 Davies v. Mann 324, 327 
 
 Daviess County v. Howard 98, 99 
 
 V. Huidekoper 101, 104 
 
 Davis V. Burlington & M. R. R. 421, 422 
 
 V. C. & N. W. R. 285, 239 
 
 V. Charles River Branch E. 186, 
 
 187, 222, 225 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I, & P. E. 419 
 
 V. Detroit & M. E. 375, 378, 379, 
 
 380, 382, 388 
 
 V. Dumont 61 
 
 V. East Tenn. & G. R. 162 
 
 V. Kendallville 101 
 
 V. Lamoille County Plank Road 
 
 Co. 274 
 
 V. Leominster 249 
 
 V. London & B. R. 180 
 
 V. New York 233, 236, 247, 251, 
 
 269 
 
 V. New Tork Cent. & H. R. R. 824, 
 
 348, 344 
 
 V. New York, N. H., & H. R. 334 
 
 V. Oregon & C. R. 293, 295 
 
 V. Providence & W. R. 284, 446 
 
 V. Russell 166, 178 
 
 V. San Lorenzo R. 166, 195 
 
 Dawson v. Midland R. 413 
 
 Day V. Brooklyn City R. 278 
 
 V. Joiner 484 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 132, 424 
 
 V. Springfield 190 
 
 Dayton v. Borst 84 
 
 Dayton & C. R. v. Hatch 5, 32, 33, 54, 76 
 
 Dayton & M. R. v. Miami County 
 
 Infirmary 408, 427 
 
 Dayton & W. R. v. Marshall 172 
 
 Dayton, X., & B. E. v. Lewton 140, 169 
 
 Dean v. Gleason 475 
 
 V. Sullivan E. 409 
 
 Dearbon v. Boston, C, & M. E. 175, 176, 
 
 177, 179, 210, 218, 229 
 
 Debolt V. Ohio Life Ins. Co. 448, 481 
 
 De Camp v. Eveland 9 
 
 V. Miss. & M. E. 279 
 
 Decker v. Hughes 108 
 
 De Comeau v. Guild Farm Oil Co. 113, 
 
 116 
 
 Dedford v. Keiser 291 
 
 De Forest v. Jewett 871, 372, 879 
 
 De Forrest v. Wright 287 
 
 Degg V. Midland R. 370 
 
 De Graflfw. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 E. 360, 372, 379 
 
 De Grofl v. American Linen Thread 
 
 Co. 517 
 
 Deidrich v. Northwestern Union R. 200 
 De Lancey v. Insurance Co. 495 
 
 Delaney v. Mil. & St. P. R. 275, 320 
 
 Delaplaine v. Chicago & N. R. 200 
 
 Delaware County v. McClintock 87, 100, 
 
 106 
 Delaware Div. Canal Co. v. Common- 
 wealth 268, 271 
 Delaware & H. Canal Co. v. Carroll 366 
 V. Common- 
 wealth 472 
 Delaware, L., & W. R. v. Burson 181, 
 190, 191, 192, 
 214 
 V. Common- 
 wealth 478 
 V. Salmon 283, 
 433, 435, 442, 
 444, 446 
 V. Toffey 320, 
 352, 854 
 Delaware R. v. Tharpe 9, 70, 72, 78, 467 
 Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Camden 
 
 & A. R. 454^ 492 
 
 Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Raritan 
 
 & D. B. R. 167, 269 
 
 Delaware Railroad Tax 448, 469, 472, 473 
 474, 475, 482, 484, 487, 492 
 De Long v. Schimmel 259 
 
 Deming v. Houlton 101 
 
 Den V. Morris Canal & B. Co. 164 
 
 Denham v. County Com'rs 143 
 
 Denney v. Cleveland & P. R. 128 
 
 Dennistown v. New York & N. H. R. 20 
 Denny v. Lyon 118 
 
 Denver & E. G. E. v. Ailing 82 
 
 V. Canon City & 
 
 S.J.E. 257,258 
 In re 132 
 
 V. Olsen 403, 427 
 Denver, S. P., & P. R. v. Woodward 897, 
 ^ 400 
 
 Deppe V. Chicago, R. L, & p. E. 360, 
 ^ , ^ 368,452 
 
 Derby v. Framingham & L. R. 170 
 
 Derry v. Flitner 311 
 
 Des Moines o. Chicago, R. I., & p. 
 
 ^- ' 451 
 
 Des Moines Valley R. v. Graff 59 60 
 De Soto Bank v. Memphis 484 
 
 Despatch Line of Packets t>. Bellamy 
 
 Man. Co. 24 26 29 30 
 
 Detroit Daily Post v. McArthur ' 806 
 Detroit, E.R.,& I R.„. Barton 425 
 
 Detroit, L., & L. M. R."w. A^yres ^60 
 V. Starnes 60, 68 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 Detroit & M. E. v. Van Steinburg 296, 
 297, 299, 312, 314, 319, 320 
 Devany v. Vulcan Iron Works 368 
 
 De Varaigne v. Fox 147, 158 
 
 Deverson v. Eastern R. 295 
 
 Deville v. Boston & L. R. 316 
 
 V. Southern Pacific R. 324, 349 
 Devine v. Rand 305 
 
 Devitt V. Pacific R. .380 
 
 Dewing v. Perdicaries ■ 43, 113 
 
 De Witt V. Hastings 6, 8 
 
 Deyo V. New York Cent. R. 298, 299, 
 
 319, 320 
 Diamond v. Lawrence County 104, 107 
 Dibble v. Morris 303 
 
 V. New York & E. R. 392 
 
 Dibdin v. Riclimond & D. R. 369 
 
 Dickens v. New York Cent. R. 313, 388, 
 
 395 
 Dickenson v. Fitchburg 212, 217, 222, 
 225, 227, 229 
 Dickenson County v. National Land 
 
 Co. 488 
 
 Dickey v. Tennyson 182 
 
 Dickinson v. Worcester 205 
 
 Dickson v. Cliicago, R. I., & P. R. 230, 
 
 271 
 
 Diedrich w. Nortliwestern Union R. 167, 
 
 220, 226, 227 
 
 Dietrich v. Madison Relief Assoc. 500 
 
 V. Murdock 131, 146, 191, 219 
 
 Diggle V. London & B. R. 526 
 
 Dill V. Wabash Valley R. 58, 66 
 
 V. Wareham 106, 517 
 
 Dillon V. Union Pacific R. 380 
 
 Diman v. Providence, W., & B. R. 48, 59 
 
 Dimick v. Chicago & N. W. R. 347 351 
 
 Dimmick v. Brodhead 162, 165, 170 
 
 Dirapfel v. Ohio & M. R. 517 
 
 Dingley v. Boston 137, 147 
 
 Directors of the Poor v. Wrightsville, 
 
 Y., & G. R. 187 
 
 Disbrow v. Chicago & N. W. R. 169 
 
 District Attorney v. Lynn & B. R. 242, 
 
 251 269 
 Ditbemer v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. '324, 
 350, 384, 452, 464 
 Ditchett V. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. 
 
 R. 283, 284, 295, 337, 409, 411 
 
 Dixon V. Ranken 359 
 
 Dodd V. Salisbury & Y. R. 149 
 
 Dodge V. Burlington, C. R., & M. R. 352 
 
 V. Burns 191 
 
 V. County Com'rs 175, 176, 177, 
 
 206, 263 
 
 V. Platte County 96, 104 
 
 V. Woolsey 43, 44, 481 
 
 Doe V. Leeds & B. R. 140 
 
 Doggett V. 111. Cent. R. 377 
 
 V. Richmond & D. R. 428, 435, 
 
 444 
 
 Dolan V. Del. & H. C. Co. 345, 354 
 
 Donald u. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 411, 
 
 446 
 Donaldson v. Mil. & St. P. R. 315, 320 
 
 Donaldson v. Miss. & M. R. 267, 277, 346, 
 869, 394, 396, 400 
 Donnaher ii. State 246, 462 
 
 Donoho V. Vulcan Iron Works 333 
 
 Donoyan v, Springfield 223 
 
 Donworth v. Coolbaugh 10 
 
 Doolan v. Midland R. 262, 510, 511 
 
 Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co. 6 
 
 Doran v. Central Pacific E. 152 
 
 Dorian v. East Brandywine & W. R. 217 
 Dorris v. French 49, 64 
 
 V. Sweeney 49, 68 
 
 Dorsey v. Phillips & C. Const. Co. 374, 
 
 376, 381 
 Dougan u. Lake Champlain Trans. 
 
 Co. 294 
 
 Dougherty v. Shown 307 
 
 Doughty V. Somerville & E. R. 166, 174, 
 
 180, 182, 183, 195, 255 
 
 Douglass V. Boonsborough Turnp. 
 
 Road Co. 233 
 
 V. Chatham 93, 108 
 
 V. Pike County 94, 95 
 
 Douglass County v. BoUes 8, 100, 104, 
 
 107 
 Dovaston o. Payne 412 
 
 Dow V. Kansas Pacific R. 359, 363 
 
 Dowling V. Allen 382 
 
 V. Pontypool 168 
 
 Downie v. Hoover 45, 503 
 
 V. White 58 
 
 Downing v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 412, 
 
 426 
 V. Mt. Washington Road 
 
 Co. 493, 600, 501, 521 
 
 V. Potts 24, 26, 86 
 
 Downs V. New York Cent. R. 339 
 
 Dows V. Chicago 489 
 
 V. Naper 64, 78 
 
 Doyle V. Continental Ins. Co. 14 
 
 Drake v. Hudson River R. 232, 236, 241 
 0. Phil. & E. R. 402, 403, 405, 410, 
 423, 425 
 Drew V. Sixth Av. R. 277, 301, 339 
 
 DriscoU V. Newark & R. L. & C. Co. 263 
 V. West B. & C. Man. Co. 113, 
 129 
 Driver v. Western Union R. 171, 210, 212, 
 213, 216, 219 
 Dronberger v. Reed 163, 173 
 
 Drury v. Midland R. 161, 162, 167, 171, 
 180, 181, 184, 185, 201, 207, 211, 257 
 Duanesburg v. Jenkins 93, 97, 103 
 
 Dublin, W., & W. E. v. Slattery 276, 292, 
 313, 315, 320, 331, 344, 350, 351, 352 
 Dubuque v. Chicago, D., & M. R. 472, 478 
 V. 111. Cent. R. 472, 474, 475,483 
 Dubuque County v. Dubuque & P. R. 89 
 Dubuque & P. R. v. Litchfield 132, 494 
 V. Webster County 474 
 Dubuque & S. C. R. v. Dubuque 475 
 Duck River Valley N. G. R. v. Coch- 
 rane 171, 257 
 Duffy V. Chicago & N. W. R. 308, 314, 
 344, 345, 347 
 
XXXVl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Duffy V. New York & H. R. 415, 423, 424 
 Dugan V. Bridge Co. 202 
 
 Duggins V. Watson 278 
 
 Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan 
 
 Board 200, 208, 217 
 
 Duncuft u. Albrecht 110, 119 
 
 Dunhene v. Ohio Life Ins. Co. 388, 399 
 Dunlieth & D. Bridge Co. w. Dubuque 475, 
 
 479 
 Dunn V. Kyle 40 
 
 Dunnigan v. Chicago & N. W. R. 418 
 Dupee V. Boston Water Power Co. 503, 
 
 505 
 
 Durand v. Chicago & N. W. R. 421 
 
 Durfee v. Old Colony & F. R. R. 5, 30, 71, 
 
 72, 74, 459 
 
 Durgin v. Munson 379, 383 
 
 Durham v. Wil. & W. R. 406, 429 
 
 Dutchess & C. C. R. «. Mabbett 4, 47 
 
 Dutton V. Strong 200 
 
 Dwight V. Boston 473, 477 
 
 V. County Com'rs 226, 227, 229 
 
 V. Hampden 212, 217 
 
 Dyckman v. New York 181, 182, 183, 190, 
 
 191 
 Dyer v. Erie R. 283, 293, 329, 345, 349, 
 
 350, 353 
 
 V. Walker 12 
 
 Dynen v. Leach 374, 377, 380 
 
 E. 
 
 E. T. Va. & Ga. R. v. Scales 408 
 
 Eagan v. Fitchburg R. 314 
 
 V. Tucker 367 
 
 Eagle V. Kohn 99, 101 
 
 Eakright v. Logansport & N. I. R. 4, 26, 
 58, 65, 78 
 Fames v. Boston & W. R. 419, 420, 430 
 u. New England Worsted Co. 264 
 .,. Salem & L. R. 402, 403, 406, 
 413, 415, 416, 426 
 V. Worcester & N. R. 423 
 
 Earhart v. New Orleans & C. R. 386, 392 
 Earl Ferrers v. StafiEord & U. R. 169 
 Earl of Lindsey v. Great N. R. 139 
 
 Earl of Shrewsbury t>. North Staf- 
 fordshire R. 513, 528, 535 
 Earp's Appeal 123 
 East Anglian R. v. Eastern Counties 
 R. 506, 512, 514, 515, 516, 524, 527, 528, 
 532, 533, 539 
 East Boston Freight R. v. Eastern R. 505 
 East Brandywine & W. R. u. Rauck 212, 
 
 225 
 East Lincoln v. Davenport 71, 98, 100, 
 
 102, 103 
 
 East New York & J. R. v. Lighthall 35, 75 
 
 East Oakland v. Skinner 100 
 
 East Penn. B. v. Heister 212, 224, 226 
 
 f. Hottenstine 212, 226, 
 
 227 
 
 V. SchoUenberger 175, 196 
 
 East Saginaw City R. v. Bohn 337 
 
 East Saginaw Man. Co. v. East Sag- 
 
 inaw „ , ^°i 
 
 East Saginaw & St. C. R. v. Benham 184 
 East St. Louis & C. R. v. Gerber 411, 412 
 East St. Louis, P., & P. Co. v. High- 
 
 tower o2o, o7o, ooZ 
 
 East Tenn. & V. R. v. Gammon 30, 58, 
 
 67, 71 
 V. Love 151, 187, 222 
 East Tenn., V., & G. R. v. Hamblen 
 
 County 486 
 
 Easter v. Little Miami R. 424 
 
 Easterbrook v. Erie R. 230 
 
 Eastern Counties R. v. Broom 273, 277, 
 
 279, 280, 291 
 
 V. Hawkes 501, 506, 
 
 507, 513, 518, 
 
 532, 533 
 
 Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughn 86 
 
 Eastern R. v. Boston & M. R. 5, 33, 145, 
 
 146, 152, 153, 216, 217 
 
 V. Concord & P. R. 188, 194 
 
 V. Eehef Co. 445 
 
 Eastman v. Amoskeag 268 
 
 Easton Bank v. Commonwealth 482 
 
 Eaton V. Aspinwall 6, 7, 9, 52 
 
 ' V. Boston, C, & M. R. 133, 134, 158, 
 
 161, 162, 167, 169, 176, 177, 194, 
 
 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 204, 205, 
 
 206, 216, 219, 262, 263, 264, 268, 
 
 270 
 
 V. Boston & L. R. 282, 311 
 
 V. Erie R. 350, 352, 356 
 
 V. European & N. A. R. 266, 287, 
 
 288, 289 
 
 V. Fitchburg E. 353 
 
 Eaton & H. R. v. Hunt 22 
 
 Eberhart v. Chicago, M., & St. S. R. 161 
 
 Eckhert v. Long Island R. 329 
 
 Eclipse Tow Boat Co. v. Pontchar- 
 
 train R. Co. 499 
 
 Eddings v. Seabrook 214, 216 
 
 Edelraann v. St. Louis Transfer Co. 305, 
 
 306 
 
 Eden v. Lexington & F. R. 386, 391 
 
 Edgerly v. Emerson 29, 30, 31 
 
 Edgewood R. Co.'s Appeal 142, 144 
 
 Edmands v. Boston 184, 186, 209, 212, 
 
 216, 220, 224 
 
 Edson V. Central R. 407 
 
 Edwards v. Grand Junction R. 513 
 
 V. Han. & St. J. R. 421 
 
 V. Kearsey 451 
 
 V. London & N. W. R. 277, 280 
 
 V. Ottawa River R. 439 
 
 V. People 108 
 
 Edwardsville R. v. Sawyer 247- 
 
 Eggleston v. Columbia Tump. Road 293 
 
 V. New York &H. R. 131, 137 
 
 Ehle V. Chittenango Bank 121, 122 
 
 Ehrman v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. 507 
 
 Eidemiller v. Wyandotte City 166, 167 
 
 Eidman w. Bowman 33, 75, 124 
 
 Eilert v. Green Bay, &c. R. 293, 344 
 
 Eldridge v. Smith 149, 150, 484' 506 
 
TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 XXXVU 
 
 Elizabethtown, L., & B. S. R. v. 
 
 Combs 195, 233, 235, 241 
 
 Elizabethtown & P. E. v. Helm 213, 219, 
 
 222 228 
 Elkhart v. Ritter 30l', 302 
 
 Elkins V. Boston & A. R. 321, 333, 344, 
 
 350 
 
 Elliot V. Fitchburg R. 205 
 
 V. North Eastern R. 133, 134 
 
 Elliott V. Fair Haven & W. R. 236, 287, 
 
 239 
 
 V. Pray 275 
 
 V. St. Louis & I. M. E. 300, 391, 
 
 392 
 
 Ellis V. Boston, H., & E. R. 22, 24 
 
 V. Great Western R. 320, 349 
 
 V. London & S. W. E, 416 
 
 V. Portsmouth & R. R. 438 
 
 V. Shefeeld Gas Consumers' Co. 288 
 
 Ellison V. Mobile & 0. R. 50, 58 
 
 Ells V. Pacific R 181, 421 
 
 Ellsworth V. Central R. 176 
 
 Elmore v. Naugatuck R. 510 
 
 Elmwood V. Marcy 94, 98, 100, 103 
 
 Elwood V. New York Cent. R. 343 
 
 Ely V. Sprague 122 
 
 Embury v. Conner 142, 163, 191 
 
 Emerson v. Western Union R. 219 
 
 Emigh V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 273 
 
 V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 292 
 
 Emmitt v. Springfield, J., & P. R. 56 
 
 Empire v. Darlington 99, 102 
 
 Empire City Bank, In re 80, 183 
 
 Emporium Real Estate & M. Co. u. 
 
 Emrie 38 
 
 Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Conn. 
 
 River Co. 10, 11 
 
 Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford 
 
 & N. H. R. 142, 154, 155, 176, 185, 455 
 English V. New Haven & N. Co. 457 
 
 Ennis v. Wood River Branch E. 189 
 
 Enright v. San Francisco & S. J. E. 416, 
 
 423 
 Eppes V. Miss., G., & T. E. 8, 75, 76, 78 
 Erd V. Chicago & N. W. E. 435 
 
 Erickson v, Nesmith 15 
 
 Erie County v. Erie & W. Trans. Co. 
 
 480, 485 
 
 Erie &N. E.Jl.y. Casey 9,448 
 
 Erie & N. Y. City E. v. Owen 49 
 
 Erie R. v. Commonwealth 482 
 
 V. Decker 431, 440 
 
 V. Del., L., & W. R. 456 
 
 V. Pennsylvania 21, 473, 482 
 
 V. State 469 
 
 V. Stringer 20 
 
 Erie & W. Plank Road Co. v. Brown 
 
 50,51 
 Erlanger v. Sombrero Phosphate Co. 36 
 Ernest v. Nichols 29, 31, 526 
 
 Ernst V. Hudson River R. 312, 313, 316, 
 318,325,343,344,350,351, 
 362, 353, 354 
 Erskine v. Boston 192 
 
 Erwin v. Davenport 285 
 
 Esparto Trading Co., In re 81 
 
 Estabrook v. Erie R. 215 
 
 Estabrooks v. Peterborough & S. R. 175, 
 203, 204, 206 
 Estes V. Atlantic & St. L. R. 419, 427 
 European & N. A. R. v. Poor 36, 37, 38, 
 
 39 
 
 Evans v. Atlantic & P. R. 377 
 
 V. Burlington & M. R. 404 
 
 ti. Haefner 159, 189 
 
 V. Mo., I., & N. R. 167, 169, 170 
 
 Evansville & C. R. .;. Baum 278, 279, 280 
 
 ■ V. Dick 167, 196, 198 
 
 V. Hiatt 330, 331, 335 
 
 V. Lowdermilk 330, 
 
 391 
 
 V. Miller 173, 188 
 
 V. Smith 321 
 
 V. Wolf 338 
 
 Evansville, H., & N. R. v. Grady 169 
 
 Evansville, I., & C. S. L. E, v. Cochran 
 
 189, 226 
 V. Dunn 57 
 Evansville, 1, & C. S. L. E. v. Evans- 
 ville 99, 104, 108, 126 
 Evansville, L, & C. S. L. R. v. Fitzpat- 
 
 rick 214, 222, 228 
 
 EvansviUe, I., & C. S. L. R. u. Meeds 63 
 V. Shearer 69 
 Evansville Nat. Bank v. MetropoU- 
 
 tan Nat. Bank 129 
 
 Everhart v. Phil. & W. C. R. 67, 80 
 
 Eversfield v. Mid Sussex R. 149 
 
 Eward v. Lawrenceburgh & U. M. R. 178 
 Ewen V. Chicago & N. W. R. 336, 338, 
 
 396, 398 
 Ewing V. Chicago & A. R. 427 
 
 Eyler v. County Com'rs 243, 245, 249 
 Eyre's Case 180 
 
 F. 
 
 Factors' & T. Ins. Co. v. Marine Dry 
 
 Dock & S. Co. 35, 110, 116, 119 
 
 Fairbanks v. Fitchburg 218, 229 
 
 Fairfield v. Gallatin County 94, 96, 97 
 Falconer v. Buffalo & J. E. 96, 98, 99 
 Fall V. Sutter County 453 
 
 Fall Eiver Iron Works Co. v. Old 
 Colony & F. E. E. 13, 201, 254, 259, 
 269, 270 
 Fallon V. Central Park, N., & E. E. E. 
 
 338, 339 
 Fanning v. Long Island R. 410 
 
 Farley v. C. R. I. & P. R. 250 
 
 Farmers' & M. Bank v. Downey 36 
 
 V. Wassou 36, 112, 
 129 
 Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Chase 34 
 Farmers' Turnp. Road v. Coventry 268 
 Farmington Eiver W. P. Co. v. Coun- 
 ty Com'rs 190 
 Farnham v. Del. & H. C. Co. 12, 255, 261 
 Farnsworth v. Boston 186 
 
XXXVUl 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Farrand v. Chicago & N. W. K. 227 
 
 Farrar v. Walker 61, 62 
 
 Farrell Foundry v. Dart 35 
 
 Farrington v. Tennessee 448, 474, 481, 
 482, 483, 484 
 Farrow v. Vansittart 2 
 
 Farwell v. Boston & W. E. 359, 361, 862, 
 
 363, 370 
 Fash ». Third Av. R. 249 
 
 Faulkner v. Erie R. 373 
 
 V. Hebard 111 
 
 Favor v. Boston & L. R. 348, 350 
 
 Faivcett v. Laurie 122 
 
 V. York & N. M. R. 415 
 
 Faxton v. McCosh 473 
 
 Fay V. Harlan 298 
 
 V. Parker 306, 307 
 
 V. Salem & D. Aqueduct Co. 206 
 Featherstonhaugh v. Lee Moor Por- 
 celain Clay Co. 503 
 Fehr v. Schuylkill Nav. Co. 177, 180 
 Feital v. Middlesex E. 284, 510 
 Feiten v. Milwaukie' 172 
 Feltham v. England 366, 375 
 Fent V. Toledo, P., & W. R. 442, 444 
 Fenwick v. East London R. 160, 245, 496 
 Fernandes v. Sacramento City R. 312, 
 315 318 328 
 Fernow v. Dubuque & S. W. R.' 416*, 425 
 Fero V. BufEalo & S. L. R. 341, 355, 432, 
 
 436, 439, 441 
 Ferris v. Van Buskirk 416 
 Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park 460, 482, 
 
 494 
 Fettrick v. Dickenson 252 
 
 Ffooks V. South Western R. 73, 520 
 
 Fickle V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 429 
 Field V. Field 29 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 321, 436, 
 
 437, 438, 439 
 Fielder v. London, B., & S. C. R. 520 
 
 V. Montgomery & E. R. 93, 101 
 Fifield V. Northern R. 368, 369, 371, 377 
 Filliter v. Pliippard 431 
 
 Finch V. Central R. 426 
 
 Finley Shoe & L. Co. u. Kurtz 33 
 
 Fireman's Ins. Co., In re 119 
 
 First Baptist Church v. Schenectady 
 
 & T. E. 264 
 
 First National Bank v. Christopher 35 
 V. Davies 6 
 
 V. Gifford 35,36,113 
 V. Hendrie 60, 513 
 V. Hurford 58, 59 
 V. West River 
 
 R. 171, 172 
 
 V. Wheeler 104 
 
 First Parish hi Wobum v. Middlesex 216, 
 
 217 
 Fiser v. Miss. & T. R. 50, 52 
 
 Fisher v. Brown 118 
 
 V. Essex Bank 110, 111, 113, 114 
 V. Evansville & C. R. 59 
 
 V. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 403, 425 
 V. Warwick R. 189 
 
 Fisk V. Chicago, E. I., &P. E. 21, 76, 127 
 
 Fitch V. Buffalo, N. Y., & P. E. 405 
 
 V. New Haven, N. L., & S. E. 453, 
 
 202, 453, 455 
 
 V. Pacific E. 433, 435, 436, 437, 
 
 438, 439 
 
 Fitchburg E. v. Boston & M. E. 174, 189, 
 
 190, 192, 199 
 
 V. Gage 499 
 
 V. Grand Junction E. 457 
 
 V. Prescott 475 
 
 Fitzpatrick v. Fitchburg E. 295 
 
 V. New Albany & S. E. 363, 
 
 365 
 
 Flagg V. Palmyra 101, 105 
 
 V. Worcester 191, 192 
 
 Flanagan v. Great Western E. 37 
 
 Flash V. Conn 15 
 
 Flattes V. Chicago, E. I., & P. E. 408 
 
 Flemmg v. Chicago, D., & M. E. 175, 
 
 176,180,212,215,217 
 
 Flemming v. Western Pacific E. 314, 
 
 815, 323, 344 
 
 Fletcher v. Atlantic & P. E. 344, 352 
 
 V. Auburn & S. R. 198, 235, 236 
 
 V. Boston & M. E. 282 
 
 V. Great Western E. 160 
 
 Flike V. Boston & A. E. 359, 369, 872 
 
 Flinn v. PhU., W., & B. E. 359 
 
 Flint V. Flint 226, 227 
 
 V. Norwich & W. E. 319, 348 
 
 Flint & F. Plank E. v. WoodhuU 9 
 
 Flint & P. M. E. V. Dewey 36, 38 
 
 w. LuU 420,421,425 
 
 Flower v. London, B., & S. C. E. 149 
 
 V. Penn. E. 277, 333 
 
 Flynn v. Hattou 333 
 
 V. San Francisco & S. J. E. 434, 
 
 435 
 
 Foot V. New Haven & N. Co. 131 
 
 V. Eutland & W. E. 30 
 
 Foote V. Nichols 305 
 
 Force v. Batavia 100 
 
 Ford V. Chicago & N. W. E. 146, 147, 
 
 149, 178, 236, 240 
 
 V. Fitchburg E. 366, 368, 371, 372, 
 
 373, 378, 381 
 
 i;. London & S. W. E. 433 
 
 V. Monroe 386 
 
 Foreman v. Bigelow 81 
 
 Forest of Dean Coal M. Co., In re 41 
 
 Forrest v. Manchester, S., & L. E. 508, 
 
 514, 520, 527, 531 
 
 Forsyth v. Boston & A. R. 817 
 
 V. Hooper 286, 287 
 
 Fort V. Whipple 368 
 
 Fort Edward & Ft. M. Plank Road 
 
 V. Payne 60, 64, 82, 84 
 
 Fort Wayne & B. Turnp. Co. v. 
 
 Deam gl 
 
 Fort Wayne, J., & S. E. v. Gilder- 
 sleeve 374 382 
 Fort Wayne, M., & C. E. v. Hinebaugh 411 
 ». Mussetter 
 
 423, 424 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Fosdick V. Perrsyburg 93, 96 
 
 V. Sturges 76 
 
 Fobs v. Harbottle 43 
 
 Foster v. Chicago & A. E. 377 
 
 V. Cumberland VaUey R. Co. 192 
 
 V. Kenosha 94 
 
 V. Minn. Cent. R. 362, 364 
 
 Foullse V. San Diego & G. S. P. R. 517 
 
 Foulkes V. Metropolitan Dist. E. 274, 281, 
 
 282 
 Fountaine v. Carmarthen R. 526 
 
 Fowle V. Eastern R. 450 
 
 V. New Haven & N. Co. 230 
 
 Fowler v. County Com'rs 225, 227 
 
 V. Middlesex 226 
 
 Fowlkes V. Nashville & D. R. 890, 392, 
 
 395, 400 
 Fox V. AUensvllle, C. S., & V. Turnp. 
 
 Co. 53, 68 
 
 V. Sandford 359 
 
 V. Western Pacific R. 164, 165 
 
 Frank v. New Orleans & C. R. 396 
 
 Frankford & B. Turnp. Co. v. Phil. 
 
 & T. R. 431, 432, 433, 440, 441, 461, 
 
 462 
 Frankfort & K. R. v. Windsor 226 
 
 Franklin v. South Eastern B. 394, 399 
 Franklin Co. o. Lewiston Savings 
 
 Bank 492, 500, 506, 512, 517 
 
 Franklin Glass Co. v. Alexander 83 
 
 V. White 83 
 
 Fransden v. Chicago, R. I., & 0. R. 378, 
 
 384 
 
 Fraylor v. Sonora Mining Co. 31 
 
 Frazer v. Charleston 115 
 
 V. Freeman 279 
 
 V. Whalley 25 
 
 Frazier v. Penn. R. 277, 368, 875, 378, 
 
 379, 383 
 Freck v. Phil., W., & B. R. 298, 300, 323, 
 
 326, 331, 334 
 Freehold Mutual Loan Assoc, u. 
 
 Brown 10 
 
 Freeland v. Penn. R. 197 
 
 Freeman v. Machias Water Power 
 
 & M. Co. 28 
 
 u. Matlock 60, 63 
 
 Freidenheit v. Edmundson 307 
 
 Fremantle v. London & N. W. R. 313, 432, 
 
 433, 487, 441 
 
 Fremont Ferry & B. Co. v. Fuhr- 
 
 man 68 
 
 Fremont & M. Counties v. Burling- 
 ton & M. R. 132 
 French v. Gifford 43 
 V. Taunton Branch R. 314, 318, 
 344,356 
 V. Teschemaker 87 
 Frick V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 325, 
 
 327, 335, 355 
 Friedlander v. Slaughter-House Co. 116 
 Fries v. Southern Penn. R. & M. 165 
 Fritz V. Hobson 241 
 
 .,. Mil. & St. P. R. 427 
 
 Frost V. Frostburg Coal Co. 6, 7, 12 
 
 Frost V. Grand Trunk R. 317 
 
 Fry V. Lexington & B. S. R. 46, 53, 59, 
 
 67, 70, 71, 72, 84, 85 
 
 V. State 462, 464, 469 
 
 Frye v. Tucker 503 
 
 Fulgam V. Macon & B. R. 79 
 
 Fuller V. Dame 513 
 
 V. Edings 178 
 
 Fulton County v. Mississippi & W. 
 
 R. 102 
 
 Furman Street Case 211, 217 
 
 Furness v. Hudson River R. 177 
 
 Furst V. Second Av. R. 294 
 
 G. 
 
 Gaddis ii. Richland County 97, 98, 100, 
 
 103 
 Gafe V. Flescher 64, 80 
 
 Gage V. New Market R. 533 
 
 Gagg V. Vetter 313, 356, 431, 433, 439, 
 
 441 
 Gahagan v. Boston & L. R. 243, 293, 296, 
 
 316 321 
 
 Gale V. New York Cent. & H. R. R.' 248 
 
 Galena & C. U. R. v. Appleby 267, 462 
 
 V. Crawford 428 
 
 V. Dill 319, 349, 462 
 
 V. Griffin 421 
 
 V. Loomis 352, 429, 
 
 462 
 
 V. Jacobs 328 
 
 V. Pound 261 
 
 V. Welch 280 
 
 Galena & S. W. R. v. Birkbeck 212 
 
 V. Haslam 151, 159, 
 
 227 
 
 Galgay v. Great Southern & W. R. 204 
 
 Gallagher v. Fayette County R. 140, 513 
 
 V. Piper 364 
 
 Galloway v. London 491, 493, 515 
 
 Galpin v. Chicago & N. W. R. 326, 425 
 
 Galveston, H., & S. A. R. v. Le 
 
 Gierse 317, 388, 394, 463 
 
 Galveston R. v. Cowdrey 28 
 
 Gandy v. Chicago & N. W. R. 431,437, 
 
 438 
 
 Gannon v. Housatonic R. 370 
 
 Gardner v. Brookline 167, 217, 218, 224 
 
 V. London 527 
 
 ». Newburg 204 
 
 V. Smith 291, 401, 409, 411, 412 
 
 V. State 481, 484 
 
 Garrett v. Chicago & N. W. R. 435, 437, 
 
 439 
 V. Dillsburg & M. R. C. 7, 49, 51 
 V. Van Horn 101 
 
 Garrigus v. Parke County 108 
 
 Garrison v. New York 171 
 
 Gartland v. Toledo, W., & W. R. 360 
 Garwood v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 204, 205 
 
 Gaaway v. Atlanta & W. P. R. 306 
 
 Gaswiler v. Willis 30, 32 
 
xl 
 
 TABLE 01" CASES. 
 
 Gates V. B. C. E. & M. E. 324, 326, 350 
 Gavett V. Manchester & L. R. 317 
 
 Gaynor v. Old Colony & N. R. 313, 318, 
 
 Gear v. C. C. & D. R. 180, 207, 242, 243, 
 
 245 
 
 V. Dubuque & S. C. R. 172 
 
 Gelpcke v. Blake 58, 59, 77 
 
 V. Dubuque 87, 89, 94, 100, 108 
 
 George's Creek Coal & I. Co. v. New 
 
 Central Coal Co. 182 
 
 Georgia v. Atlantic & G. R. 476 
 
 Georgia R. v. Newsome 278, 348 
 
 Georgia, R., & B. Co. v. Kenney 382 
 
 V. McDade 380 
 
 V. Neely 404 
 
 V. Rhodes 360 
 
 Georgia Southern R. v. Reeves 135 
 
 Gerety v. Phil., W., & B. R. 345 
 
 Gerhard v. Bates 42 
 
 Gerke v. Cal. Steam Nav. Co. 294, 314, 
 
 438, 441 
 German Nat. Bank v. Meadowcroft 517 
 German Savings Bank v. WuLfekuh- 
 
 ler 505 
 
 Germantown Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 V. Dhein 518 
 
 Germantown Pass. R. v. Fitler 10, 14, 66, 
 80, 81, 86 
 Gerren v. Han. & St. J. R. 421 
 
 Getty V. Devlin 87 
 
 Geyer v. Western Ins. Co. 129 
 
 Gibbons v. Mobile & G. N. R. 93 
 
 V. Ogden 460 
 
 Gibson v. Columbia & N. E. Turnp. 
 
 Co. 66, 67 
 
 V. Erie E. 377, 379, 380 
 
 V. South Eastern E. 438 
 
 V. Wason 93 
 
 Giesy v. Cincinnati, W., & Z. E. 142, 143, 
 
 144, 146, 148, 149, 184, 192, 213, 222 
 
 Gifford V. New Jersey R. & T. Co. 30, 
 
 43, 455, 520 
 
 V. Thompson 123 
 
 Gilbert v. Halpin 286 
 
 Gilbert Elevated R., In re 147, 248 
 
 Gilchrist v. Little Rock 101 
 
 Giles V. Boston & M. E. 413, 414 
 
 V. TafE Vale R. 277 
 
 GiU B. Atlantic & G. W. R. 410, 411, 423, 
 
 424 
 v. Kentucky & C. Gold & S. M. 
 Co. 7, 64, 84 
 
 Gillain v. Sioux City & St. P. R. 415, 
 
 463 
 Gillenwater v. Madison & I. R. 363, 365 
 Gillespie v. Ft. Wayne & L. R. 8 
 
 Gillett V. Mo. Valley E. 273, 278 
 
 V. Western R. 248, 309 
 
 Gillham v. Madison County R. 205 
 
 Gilligan v. New York & E. R. 304 
 
 Gillinwater v. Miss. & A. R. 170 
 
 Gillis V. Penn. R. 275, 276, 330 
 
 Gillshannon v. Stoney Brook E. 366 
 Gillson V. Savannah & C. E. 169 
 
 Gilman v. Eastern R. 359, 366, 367, 369, 
 
 872, 375, 382, 383 ' 
 
 o. European & N. A. R. 411, 415, 
 
 422, 423 
 
 V. Philadelphia 202 
 
 V. Sheboygan ' 91, 475 
 
 t). Sheboygan & F. R. 162, 167, • 
 
 169, 185 
 
 Gilman, C, & S. R. v. Kelly 36, 37, 38, 39 
 
 Gilmer v. Lime Point 142, 143, 145, 146, 
 
 181 
 
 Ginnon v. New York & H. R. 314, 815, 
 
 317, 318, 330 
 
 Girtman v. Central R. & B. Co. 452 
 
 Glassey v. Hestonville, M., & F. 
 
 Pass. R. 333, 338 
 
 Gleadell v. Thomson 278 
 
 Cleaves v. Brick Church Turnp. 48 
 
 Glover v. Boston 146, 494 
 
 V. North Staffordshire R. 208 
 
 V. Powell 196, 200 
 
 Godbold V. Branch Bank of Mobile 41 
 
 Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. 279, 280, 
 
 305, 306, 308 
 
 Goddin v. Crump 92, 94 
 
 GofE V. Great Northern R. 273, 277 
 
 V. Winchester College 48 
 
 Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank 517 
 
 Goldsmith v. Augusta & S. R. 478 
 
 V. Central R. 478 
 
 V. Georgia E. 478 
 
 V. Eome R. 478 
 
 V. Southwestern R. 478 
 
 Goldstein v. Chicago, M., & St P. R. 315, 
 
 320, 349 
 Goodale v. Tuttle 204, 205 
 
 Gooday v. Colchester 138 
 
 Goodfellow V. Boston, H., & E. R. 350, 
 
 369 
 
 Goodin v. Cincinnati & W. C. Co. 44, 
 
 168, 170, 217, 233 
 
 V. Evans 5, 75, 76 
 
 Goodrich v. Reynolds 51, 61, 64, 78, 
 
 503 
 
 V. Wilder 75, 76 
 
 Goodsell V. Hartford & N. H. R. 395 
 
 Goodspeed u.-East Haddam Bank 273 
 
 Goodwin v. Boston & M. R. 192 
 
 V. Hardy 121 
 
 Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court 484 
 
 V. Comes 88, 91 
 
 Gorman v. Pacific R. 404, 408, 409, 463 
 
 Gorton v. Erie R. 348, 351, 852 
 
 Goshen v. Shoemaker 101 
 
 Goshen Tump. v. Hurtin 81 
 
 Goshorn v. Ohio County 19 
 
 Gonzales v. New York & H. R. 314, 315, 
 
 835, 343 
 
 Gould V. Hudson River E. 197, 199 
 
 V. Oneonta 79 109 
 
 V. Sterling 95^ iQl 
 
 Goundie v. Northampton Water Co. 507 
 
 Gourdier v. Cormack 287, 288 289 
 
 Government St. R. v. Hanlon 323 '324 
 
 329, 333, 334, 338 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Xli 
 
 Gowen v. Penobscot R. 166, 171, 177, 
 
 178, 179, 451, 452 
 
 Graff V. Pittsburg & S. R. 62, 77, 78, 80 
 
 Graham v. Columbus & I. C. R. 166, 167, 
 
 178 
 
 V. Connersville & N. C. J. R. 210, 
 
 219 
 
 V. La Crosse & M. R. 507 
 
 V. North Eastern B. 283 
 
 Grand Chute v. Winegar 100, 104 
 
 Grand Gulf & P. G. R. v. Buck 481 
 
 Grand Junction R. & D. Co. v. 
 
 County Com'rs 152, 180, 193, 256 
 
 Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis 198 
 
 Grand "Rapids & I. R. v. Heisel 195, 236, 
 
 239, 241, 242, 
 
 269 
 
 b.Horn 188, 212, 
 
 214 222 
 
 W.Huntley 293,' 297, 
 
 298, 354, 371 
 
 V. Judson 428 
 
 V. Martin 275, 297, 
 
 302 
 
 V. Sanders 504 
 
 Grand Rapids, N., &L. S. R. u. Alley 184 
 
 Grand Rapids, N., & L. S. R. v. 
 
 Grand Rapids & I. R. 193 
 
 Grand Tower Man. & T. Co. v. UU- 
 
 man 285 
 
 Grand Trunk R. v. Latham 280 
 
 V. Richardson 159, 432, 
 
 435, 436, 437, 440, 
 
 445, 446 
 
 Grant v. Brooklyn 303 
 
 V. Courier 93 
 
 V. Henry Clay Coal Co. 507 
 
 Gray v. Burlington & M. R. 140, 418, 424 
 
 V, Clinton Bridge 471 
 
 V. Iowa Land Co. . 33 
 
 V. Monongahela Nav. Co. 66, 68, 73 
 
 V. New York & V. Steamship 
 
 Co. 43 
 
 V. Portland Bank 124 
 
 V. St. Paul & P. R. 165, 236 
 
 Grayble v. York G. Turnp. Co. 51 
 
 Great Falls & C. R. v. Copp" 74 
 
 Great Laxey Mining Co. v. Clague 178 
 Great Luxembourg R. v, Magnay 36, 
 
 87, 39 
 Great Northern R. v. Manchester, S., 
 
 & L. R. 139 
 
 Great Northern R. v. Eastern Coun- 
 ties R. 527, 528, 533 
 Great Western R. «. Blake 282 
 V. Geddis 408 
 V. Haworth 436, 438, 
 440, 441 
 V. Helm 419 
 V. May 149 
 V. Miller 278, 292, 306 
 V. Morthland 421, 428, 
 429 
 V. Sutton 499 
 V. Thompson 403 
 
 Great Western R. v. Wheeler 35 
 
 Greaves v. Gouge 43, 44 
 
 Greeley v. Maine Cent. R. 205 
 
 Green v. Boody 178 
 
 V. Canaan 497 
 
 V. Fall River 224 
 
 V. Hudson River R. 388, 891, 394, 
 
 396 
 
 V. London Gen. Omnibus Co. 273 
 
 Greene v. Mumford 488 
 
 V. West Cheshire R. 139 
 
 Greenland v. Chaplin ' 310 
 
 Greenleaf v. Dubuque & S. C. R. 312, 381 
 
 V. 111. Cent. R. 299, 312, 313, 
 
 378, 381 
 
 Greenville & C. R. v. Cathcart 82 
 
 V. Coleman 70 
 
 «. Partlow 191, 212, 
 
 214, 261 
 
 V. Smith 46, 58 
 
 V. Woodsides 51, 75 
 
 Greenwich v. Easton & A. E. 156, 245, 
 
 251 
 Gregg V. Gregg 401 
 
 Gregory v. Patchett 43, 509, 510, 530, 531 
 Gribble v. Sioux City 426 
 
 Gridley v. Lafayette B. & M. R. 31, 32 
 Griffith V. Crawford County 93 
 
 Griffiths V. Wolfram 383 
 
 Grintner v. Kansas Pacific R. 132, 151 
 Grippen v. New York Cent. R. 323, 342, 
 343, 350, 352 
 Grizzle v. Frost 361, 382 
 
 Groff V. Cincinnati & I. R. 394, 396, 399 
 Grotenkempfer v. Harris 888, 895, 399 
 Grows 0. Maine Cent. R. 314, 343, 345, 
 
 354 
 Guernsey v. Burlington 88 
 
 Guillander u. Howell 18 
 
 Guy V. Baltimore 470 
 
 Gwathney v. Little Miami R. 271 
 
 H. 
 
 Haas V. Chicago & N. W. R. 320, 336, 
 344, 345, 355, 462 
 Hackett v. Ottawa 88, 104 
 
 Hackford v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 800, 313, 318, 320, 323 
 
 Hagan v. Providence & W. R. 301, 306 
 
 Hagan's Case 337 
 
 Hagar v. Brainard 186 
 
 V. Union Nat. Bank 122, 129 
 
 Hager v. Reed 111 
 
 Hahn v. Southern Pacific R. 241, 264 
 
 Haight V. Keokuk 200 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 343 
 
 V. New York Elevated R. 11, 343 
 
 Haldeman v. HiUborough & C. R. 113, 115 
 
 V. Penn. Cent. R. 158 
 
 Haley v. Mobile & 0. R. 306 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 440 
 
 HaU V. Brown 243, 251, 284, 294, 342 
 
 u. He Cuir 459, 470 
 
xlii 
 
 TABLE OF OASES. 
 
 HaU V. Pickering 134, 137, 166, 178 
 
 ^ V. Power 276 
 
 V. Rose HUl & E. R. 128 
 
 0. Sullivan R. 497 
 
 V. U. S. Ins. Co. 78, 80 
 
 V. Vermont & M. R. 31, 32, 511 
 
 Hallenback v. Hahn 93 
 
 Halligan v. Chicago & R. I. R. 272 
 
 Halloran v. New York & H. R. 405, 414, 
 
 417, 425 
 Hallows V. Femie 61 
 
 Halsey v. McLean 15 
 
 Halverson v. Nisen 359 
 
 Ham V. Salem 161, 210, 221, 225 
 
 Hambleton v. Central Ohio R. 116 
 
 Hamden v. New Haven & N. Co. 245, 249 
 Hamilton v. Annapolis & E. R. R. 12, 
 149, 162, 169, 189 
 V. Des Moines Valley R. 
 
 Co. 296, 377 
 
 V. Iron Mt. Co. 369 
 
 V. Newcastle & D. R. 503 
 
 V. New York & H. R. Co. 236 
 V. Pittsburg 101 
 
 V. Third Av. R. 306 
 
 Hamilton Avenue, In re 453 
 
 Hamilton & D. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Rice 45, 46, 49, 53, 82 
 
 Hamilton Man. Co. v. State 477 
 
 Hamilton & R. Hydraulic Co. v. Cin- 
 cinnati, H., & D. R. 131 
 Hamlin v. Meadville 96, 97, 100 
 Hammersmith & C. R. v. Brand 208, 209, 
 
 217,432 
 Hammett v. Little Rock & N. R. 66 
 
 Hammond v. Chicago & N. W. R. 419, 
 
 420 
 Hance v. Cayuga & S. R. 402, 406, 418 
 Hancock v. Chicot County 98, 100 
 
 Hand v. Savannah & C. R. 22 
 
 Hankins v. Lawrence 164 
 
 Hanlon v. Ingram 431 
 
 Hanna v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. R. 45, 70 
 Hannewinkle v, Georgetown 489 
 
 Hannibal v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 156 
 Hannibal R. & P. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Menefee 65 
 
 Hannibal & St. J. R. v. Husen 465, 468, 
 
 469, 470 
 V. Kenney 404, 472 
 V, Marion County 
 
 101 
 
 V. Muder 149, 150, 
 
 181, 188 
 
 V. Shacklett 479, 
 
 483 
 
 Hanover Junction & S. R. w. Halde- 
 
 man 7, 8, 50, 55, 56, 64 
 
 Hanover R. v. Coyle 294, 302, 803 
 
 Hanrathy v. Northern Cent. R. 364, 372, 
 
 379 
 
 Hansford v. Payne 390 
 
 Hanson v. European & N. A. R. 305, 808 
 
 V. Vernon 89 
 
 Hard v. Vt. & C. R. 361, 365, 366, 373 
 
 Hardcastle v. South Yorkshire R. 
 
 & R. D. Co. 275 
 
 Hardenbergh v. Van Keuren 97, 101 
 Harding v. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. 99 
 V. Stamford Water Co. 204 
 w. Townshend- 304,396 
 
 Hardman v. North Eastern R. 204 
 
 Hardy v. Merriweather 14, 58, 66, 75, 79, 
 
 503 
 
 V. North Carolina Cent. R. 377 
 
 Hare v. London & N. W. R. 502, 510, 512, 
 
 513, 520, 527, 533 
 
 Hargreaves v. Deacon 337 
 
 Haring v. New York & E. R. 312, 320, 
 
 352, 385 
 Harkins v. Standard Sugar Refinery 371, 
 
 372 
 Harlan v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 323, 
 324, 325, 342, 352 
 Harlow v. Marquette, H., & O. R. 170 
 Harper v. Erie R. 320 
 
 V. Indianapolis & St. L. R. 375, 
 376 
 V. Lexington & O. R. 182 
 
 Harriman v. Southam 8 
 
 Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 167, 
 168, 170, 174, 179, 230, 236, 240, 272 
 Harris v. Mobbs 311 
 
 1). San Francisco Sugar Refin- 
 ing Co. 120, 122 
 V. Stevens 276 
 V. Uebelhoer 333, 334, 335 
 Harrisburg, P. M., & L. R. w. Bucher 184 
 Harrisburg & P. R. v. Moore 224 
 Harrison v. Central R. 359, 371, 372, 373 
 V. Iowa Midland R. 189, 212, 226, 
 228 
 V. Lexington &F. R. 130, 137 
 V. Mexican R. 124, 125 
 V. Young 212, 453 
 Harshman v. Bates County 102, 104 
 Hart V. Boston, H., & E. R. 10, 23 
 V. Boston, R. B., & L. R. 464 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 348, 350, 
 
 851 
 
 u. Frontino & B. S. A. G. M. Co. 116 
 
 V. Western R. 445, 447 
 
 Hartfleld v. Roper 333 
 
 Hartford Bridge Co. v. Union Ferry 
 
 Co. 453, 493 
 
 Hartford & N. H. R. v. Andrews 390 
 
 V. Boormau 80 
 
 V. Croswell 67, 69 
 
 V. Kennedy 81, 84 
 
 V. New York & 
 
 N. H. R. 513 
 
 Hartridge v. Rockwell 25, 505 
 
 Harts V. Brown 37, 38, 89 
 
 Hartshorn v. South Reading 251, 269 
 
 Harty v. Central R. 819, 331, 343, 350 
 
 Hartz V. St. Paul & S. C. R. 230 
 
 Harvard Branch R. v. Rand 191 
 
 Harvard College v. Stearns 199, 201, 270 
 
 Harvey v. Eastern R. 3^7 
 
 V. Indianapolis, C, & D. R. 87 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 xliii 
 
 Harvey v. Lackawanna & B. R. 212, 216 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 
 294, 296, 811, 872, 873, 376 
 
 V. Thomas 142, 143 
 
 Hasbrouch v. Milwaukie 87 
 
 HaskeU v. New Bedford 163, 244, 250, 
 
 251 269 270 271 
 
 Haskin v. New York Cent. & H. R. R.'296, 
 
 876, 383 
 
 Haslam v. Galena & S. "W. R. 217 
 
 Hass V. Phil. & S. M. S. Co. 287, 384 
 
 Hasson v. Oil Creek & A. R. R. 160 
 
 Hastings v. Drew 14 
 
 V. Steamer Uncle Sam 297 
 
 Hatch V. Cincinnati & I. R. 156, 158, 169, 
 
 175, 212, 215, 233, 261 
 
 V. Dana 80, 81 
 
 V. Hawkes 191 
 
 V. Vt. Cent.R. 134, 161, 164, 179, 
 
 197, 198, 203, 204, 235, 263, 
 
 264, 266, 269, 270 
 
 Hatfield v. Central R. 230, 250 
 
 Hathaway «. Toledo, W., & W. R. 883 
 
 Havens v. Erie R. 362 
 
 V. Hartford & N. H. R. 292 
 
 Haverhill Bridge Proprietors v. 
 
 County Com'rs 162, 164, 146, 147, 162, 
 
 164 
 Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. 4, 
 
 5,6 
 Hawk V. Ridgway 305 
 
 Hawker v. Bait & 0. R. 294, 318, 408 
 Hawkes v. Eastern Counties R. 189, 523, 
 
 533, 534 
 
 Hawkins v. Carroll County 95, 101 
 
 V. County Comr's 186, 187 
 
 V. PaU River 229 
 
 V. Miss. & T. R. 70 
 
 V. Riley 305 
 
 Hawks V. Northampton 249 
 
 Hawley v. Harrall 191 
 
 u. Northern Cent. R. 313, 379, 
 
 380, 881, 384 
 
 Hawthorne v. Calef 458 
 
 Hay V. echoes Co. 160, 175, 263 
 
 Haycroft v. Lake Shore &M. S. R. 333, 
 
 334, 339 
 Hayden v. Smithville Man. Co. 292, 374, 
 
 376, 379 
 
 Hayes v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 250 
 
 V. Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. R. 222, 
 
 223, 228, 229, 497 
 
 V. Western R. 362, 364, 376 
 
 Haynes v. Burlington 203 
 
 V. East Tenn. & G. R. 360 
 
 V. Thomas 195, 238, 241 
 
 Hays V, Commonwealth 29, 461 
 
 V. Galion Gas Light & C. Co. 517 
 
 V. Houston & G. N. R. 306 
 
 V. Miller 272, 431, 441, 447 
 
 II. Ottawa, O., & F. R. V. R. 65, 71, 
 
 73 
 
 „. Pittsburg & S. R. 46, 62, 74, 78 
 
 V. Risher 144 
 
 Hayward v. National Bank 39 
 
 Haywood & P. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Bryan 61, 75, 76 
 
 Hayworth v. Junction R. 70, 76 
 
 Hazard v. Durant 30, 34, 40, 43 
 
 Hazen v. Boston & M. R. 169, 180, 210, 
 
 256, 269, 266, 496 
 
 Hazlehurst v. Freeman 268 
 
 V. Savannah, G., & N. A. 
 
 R. 126, 506, 617, 519 
 
 Head v. Providence Ins. Co. 612 
 
 Headen v. Rust 404 
 
 Healey v. New York 295 
 
 Heard v. Brooklyn 147, 158, 238 
 
 Hearne v. Southern Pacific R. 824, 826 
 
 Heaston v. Cincinnati & F. W. R. 8, 9, 
 
 64, 79, 86 
 
 Heath v. Barmore 130 
 
 V. Erie R. 48 
 
 V. Silverhorn 28 
 
 Heathcote v. North Staffordshire R. 514 
 
 Hedges v. Paquett 26, 30, 39 
 
 Hegan v. Eighth Av. R. 252 
 
 Hegar v. Chicago & N. W. R. 240, 242 
 
 Hegeman v. Western R. 308, 433, 461 
 
 Heil V. Glanding 381 
 
 Heine v. Levee Com'rs 105 
 
 Heiner v. Heuvelman 367 
 
 Heise v. Penn. R. 186, 187, 256 
 
 Helm V. Swiggett 118, 119, 129 
 
 Hemingway v. Fernandes 136 
 
 Hendee v. Pinkertbn 32, 83, 503, 507 
 
 Henderson v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 420 
 
 V. Lacon 42 
 
 V. New York 469 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 167, 
 
 168, 211, 216, 281, 286, 
 
 250 
 
 V. San Antonio & M. G. R. 61 
 
 Henderson & N. R. v. Dickerson 212, 213, 
 
 222 
 
 V. Leavell 59, 64 
 
 V. Moss 67 
 
 Hendricks v. Western & A. R. 391 
 
 Hendrickson v. New York & A. R. 85 
 
 Heuniker v. Contoocook Valley R. 176, 
 
 177 
 
 Henning i;. New York & N. H. R. 128 
 
 Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. 158, 159, 161, 
 
 166, 167, 212, 214, 226, 402, 
 
 408, 495 
 
 V. Great Northern R. 126 
 
 V. Pacific R. 175 
 
 V. Pittsburg & A. Bridge Co. 197 
 
 V. Rutland & B. R. 31 
 
 V. Southern Pacific R. 434, 438, 
 
 439, 441 
 
 V. Staten Island R. 382 
 
 V. Vermillion & A. R. 14, 51, 58, 
 
 66,75 
 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. 204 
 
 Henry County v. Nicolay 96, 100, 102 
 
 Hensley Township v. People 88 
 
 Hentz V. Long Island R. 170, 185, 236, 
 
 251, 254, 264, 269 
 
 Herbein v. Phil. & R. E. 191 
 
xliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Herbgh v. New Orleans & C. B. 359, 373, 
 
 378, 386 
 Heritage's Case 80 
 
 Herkimer Man. & H. v. Small , 81 
 
 Hermann v. New Orleans & C. R. 386, 
 
 396 
 Herrick v. Randolph 481 
 
 Herring v. Wilmington & R. R. 314, 331, 
 
 335 
 Hersh v. Northern Cent. R. 467 
 
 Herzo v. San Francisco 106, 517 
 
 Hester v. Memphis & C. R. 69, 70 
 
 Hestonville, M., & F. Pass. R. v. Con- 
 
 nell 336 
 
 HestonTille, M., &F. Pass. R. U.Phil- 
 adelphia 260 
 Hetfleld v. Central R. 131 
 Hewey v. Nourse 431 
 Hewitt V. Swift 278, 279, 280, 292 
 Heyl V. Phil., W., & B. R. 260 
 Heyman v. European Cent. R. 61 
 Heyward v. New York 142, 147, 233 
 Heywood v. Buffalo 489 
 Hibbard v. New York & E. R. 278 
 Hibblewhite v. McMorine 111 
 Hibbs V. Chicago & S. W. R. 166, 167, 170 
 Hibernia Tump. Co. ;;. Henderson 50 
 Hickey v. Boston & L. R. 299, 317, 330, 
 
 332 
 
 ... Chicago & W. I. R. 246, 247, 
 
 251 
 
 Hickok V. Hine 200, 201 
 
 Hicks V. Pacific R. 331, 332, 337, 355 
 
 Higbee v. Camden & A. R. & T. Co. 168, 
 
 241, 243, 251 
 
 Higgins V. Butcher 386 
 
 V. Chicago 191 
 
 V. Dewey 296, 431, 440 
 
 V. Watervliet Tump. Co. 278, 
 
 279 
 
 Highland Tump. Co. u. McKean 51 
 
 Hightower v. Thornton 13, 80 
 
 Hilboume v. Suffolk 224 
 
 Hildebrand v. Toledo, W., & W. R. 292 
 
 Hill V. Forsyth County 93 
 
 V. Gust 361, 382 
 
 u. Lane 42 
 
 V. Louisville & N. R. 851 
 
 V. Mohawk H. R. 220 
 
 V. Newichawanick Co. 113, 121 
 
 u. Hew Orleans, 0., & G. W. R. 801, 
 
 306 
 
 V. Portland & R. R. 293, 296, 349 
 
 V "Western Vt. R. 130, 133 
 
 Hill Man. Co. v. Boston & L. R. 510 
 
 Hilles V. Parrish 28, 88 
 
 Hilliard v. Chicago & N. W. R. 416, 417, 
 
 419 
 
 V. Richardson 287, 290, 291 
 
 Hills V. Boston & M. E. 134, 265, 496 
 
 V. Parker 285 
 
 Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. 236, 
 
 239, 246, 251, 268, 269 
 
 Hinckley v. Cape Cod R. 299, 800, 320, 
 
 344, 385 
 
 Hinckley v. Chicago, M., & St. P. E. 466 
 Hinde v. Wabash Nav. Co. 290 
 
 Hinds V. Barton 439 
 
 V. Harbou 383 
 
 V. Overacker 383 
 
 Hingham & Q. Bridge & T. Co. u. 
 
 Norfolk County 147 
 
 Hitchcock V. Danbury & N. E. 191 
 
 V. Galveston 517 
 
 Hoag V. Lake Shore & M. S. E. 443, 444 
 
 Hoagland v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. R. 53 
 
 I'. Han. & St. J. R. 510 
 
 Hoar V. Maine R. 277 
 
 Hobart v. Butte County 95 
 
 u. Ford 162 
 
 V. Mil. City R. 241 
 
 Hobbitt V. London & N. W. R. 287, 288, 
 
 289 
 Hobbs V. Memphis & C. R. 389 
 
 Hoboken Land Co. v. Hoboken 155 
 
 Hocum V. Weitheriek 300, 322 
 
 Hodencamp v. Second Av. E. 314 
 
 Hodges V. New England Screw Co. 40, 
 41, 506, 520 
 V. Rutland & B. R. 31 
 
 Hodgkins v. Eastern R. 364, 369 
 
 Hodgkinson v. Long Island R. 248, 268, 
 
 269 
 Hodgson V. Millward 305 
 
 Hoey V. Dublin & B. J. E. 380 
 
 Hoffer V. Penn. Canal Co. 175, 212 
 
 Hoffman v. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 
 R. 276 
 
 Hoffman Steam Coal Co. u. Cumber- 
 land Coal & I. Co. 37, 39 
 Hofnagle v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 364, 866, 368, 369 
 
 Hogan V. Cent. Pacific R. 359 
 
 Hoge V. Richmond & D. R. 482, 485, 486 
 Hogenscamp v. Paterson Horse R. 236 
 Holbert b. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. . 145, 
 
 167 
 
 Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co. 113, 
 
 116, 117, 118 
 
 V. mica & S. R. 800 
 
 Holden v. Fitchburg R. 365, 372, 373 
 
 .;. Rutland & B. R. 409 
 
 Holder v. Lafayette, B., & M. E. 31 
 
 Hole V. Sittingbourne & S. E. 288, 291 
 
 HoUaday v. Davis 38 
 
 V. Patterson 60, 513 
 
 HoUenbeck v. Berkshire R. 385 
 
 V. Rowley 294 
 
 HoUeran v. Bagnell 898 
 
 HoUingsworth v. Detroit 108 
 
 Holly V. Boston Gas Light Co. 333, 334 
 
 Holman v. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 351, 
 
 408, 429 
 
 Holmes v. North Eastern E. 275, 276 
 
 V. Sheridan 305 
 
 V. Wakefield 278, 292 
 
 V. Worthington 382 
 
 Holmes's Case 25 
 
 Holstine v. Oregon & C. R. 328 
 
 Holt V. Somerville 130, 148 146 157 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xlv 
 
 Holton V. Daly 384 
 
 V. Milwaukie 221 
 
 Holyoke v. Grand Trunk R. 293, 301, 
 
 302, 305 
 Holyoke Bank v. Goodman Paper 
 
 Man. Co. 64 
 
 Holyoke Co. v. Lyman 448, 4-50, 492 
 
 Home of the Friendless v. Rouse 481, 483, 
 
 493 
 
 Hone V. K., D., & M. R. 246 
 
 Honegsberger v. Second Av. R. 333 
 
 Honner v. 111. Cent. R. 359, 865, 871 
 
 Hood V. Finch 183 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 492, 500, 
 
 510 
 
 V. North Eastern R. 189 
 
 Hook V. Worcester & N. R. 420 
 
 Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co. 167, 178, 
 
 179, 196, 197, 262 
 
 V. Newton 305 
 
 V. Utica & M. Tump. Co. 157 
 
 Hooksett V. Amoskeag Man. Co. 252, 268 
 
 V. Concord R. 446 
 
 Hooper v. Bourne 149 
 
 Hope V. International Fin. Society 505 
 
 Hope Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Beck- 
 
 mann 5 
 
 Hopkins v. Atlantic & St. L. R. 801, 803, 
 
 304, 305, 306 
 
 V. Connell 285 
 
 V. Kansas Pacific R. 403, 427, 
 
 463 
 
 V. Western Pacific R. 250 
 
 Hoppin V. BufEum 24, 25, 27 
 
 Hopple V. Brown Township 100, 105 
 
 V. Hippie 100 
 
 Horn V. Atlantic & St. L. R. 405, 409 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. 462 
 
 Hornaday v. Indiana & I. C. R. 65 
 
 Hornback v. Cincinnati & Z. R. 135, 140, 
 
 169 
 
 Home V. Atlantic & St. L. R. 409, 418 
 
 V. Memphis & 0. R. 300 
 
 Hornstein v. Atlantic & G. W. R. 212, 223 
 
 Horton v. Thompson 97, 100 
 
 V. Townsend . 103 
 
 Hortsman v. Covington & L. R. 263 
 
 V. Lexington & C. R. 133, 134, 
 
 265 
 
 Kosher v. Kansas City 131, 205 
 
 V. Kansas City, St. J., & C. R. 131, 
 
 223, 226 
 
 Hotehkiss v. Auburn Cemetery R. 
 
 R. 185 
 
 Hotel Co. V. Wade 39 
 
 Houck V. Wacliter 270 
 
 Hougan v. Milwaukie & St. P. R. 134 
 Hough V. Texas & P. R. 368, 369, 871, 372, 
 
 381, 382 
 Houldsworth v. Glasgow Bank 42, 62, 81 
 Hounsell v. Smyth 275 
 
 Housatonic R. v. Lee & H. R. 155, 256 
 V. Waterbury 405 
 
 House D. Rochester 173, 191 
 
 Household Fire Ins. Co. v. Grant 46 
 
 Houston & G. N. R. v. Meador 288, 290, 
 
 291,411 
 
 V. Miller 304, 314, 
 
 360 
 
 V. Parker 204 
 
 V. Randall 308, 384 
 
 Houston & T. C. R. v. Dunham 373 
 
 u. Knapp 227 
 
 V. Moore 888 
 
 V. Nixon 351, 898 
 
 V. Terry 406 
 
 Houston & T. R. v. Oram 304, 371 
 
 Houston Tap. & B. R. v. Milburn 173 
 
 Hover v. Pepn. Co. 389 
 
 Howard Express Co. v. Wile 320 
 
 Howd V. Miss. Cent. R. 371, 375 
 
 Howe V. Newmai;ch 278, 279 
 
 Howe Machine Co. v. Gage 470 
 
 Howell V. Chicago & N. W. R. 15, 122, 
 
 123 
 Howells V. Landore Steel Co. 368 
 
 Howenstein v. Pacific E. 408 
 
 Howland v. Eldridge 105 
 
 V. Vincent 275 
 
 Hoyle V Plattsburgh & M. R. 86 
 
 Hoyt V. Quicksilver M. Co. 125 
 
 V. Thompson 29, 32, 34 
 
 Hoytt V. Jeffers 437, 439, 441 
 
 Hubbard v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. 
 
 B. R. 135, 140 
 
 Huck V. Chicago & A. R. 475, 478, 489 
 Huddersfield Canal Co. v. Buckley 80 
 Huddleston v. Lowell Machine Shop 381 
 Hudson V. Leeds & B. R. 131 
 
 V. L. & N. R. 348 
 
 Hudson & D. C. Co. v. New York & 
 
 E. R. 255, 269 
 
 Hudson River R. v. Outwater 171, 172, 
 
 210, 255 
 
 Huelsenkamp v. Citizens' R. 318 
 
 Huey V. Indianapolis & V. R. 411 
 
 Hughes II. Antietam Man. Co. 49, 53, 62, 
 
 69, 77, 78, 82, 85 
 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 407 
 
 V. Macfie 334, 337 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 279 
 
 V. Parker 6, 7, 24, 26 
 
 V. Providence & W. R. 270 
 
 Hulbert v. New York Cent. R. 317 
 
 Hull V. Sacramento Valley R. 488, 441 
 
 Humbolt V. Long IQO 
 
 Humphrey v. Pegues 481, 486 
 
 Hund V. Geier 338 
 
 Hunt V. Bennett 305 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. 302, 303, 350 
 
 V. Kansas & M. Bridge Co. 6, 8, 14, 
 
 53 
 
 u. Penn. R. 288 
 
 V. Salem 339 
 
 V. Smith 174, 180, 222, 256 
 
 Huntingdon & B. T. JM. R. & Coal 
 
 Co. V. Decker 294, 295, 368, 372, 875, 
 
 394 
 Huntington v. Central Pacific R. 476, 
 
 488, 489 
 
xlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Hurd V. Rutland & B. R. 401, 402, 408, 
 418,420,421,423 
 Hurdman v. North Eastern R. 205, 262 
 Hursh V. St. Paul & P. R. 165, 196 
 
 Hurst V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 297, 379 
 Hussey v. Manufacturers' & M. Bank 
 
 118, 120 
 
 Huston V. Cincinnati & Z. R. 424, 425 
 
 Hutchinson v. Western & A. R. 511 
 
 V. York, N., & B. R. 859, 361, 
 
 365, 369, 375, 392 
 
 Hutton V. Scarboro Cliff Hotel Co. 125 
 
 Huyett V. Phil. & R. R. 314, 342, 432, 
 
 438, 439, 441 
 
 Hyatt V. Adams 386, 391, 394, 400 
 
 V. Allen 120 
 
 Hyde Park v. Gay 161, 265 
 
 Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr 337 
 
 Iba V. Han. & St. J. R. 409, 420 
 
 Ihl V. Forty-Second St. R. 334, 336, 339, 
 
 395 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. v. Allen 265, 272 
 
 V. Arnold 404, 419, 
 
 420 
 
 V. Baches 328, 356, 394, 
 
 397, 398 
 
 V. Baker 404 
 
 V. Barron 283, 388, 891, 
 
 394, 396 
 
 V. Benton 351, 352 
 
 V. Bloomington 450, 
 
 461, 464, 465 
 
 V. Buckner 345 
 
 ■ V. Bull 410, 421, 422 
 
 V. Carraher 407 
 
 V. Copeland 510 
 
 V. Cox 359, 870 
 
 V. Cragin 295, 800, 322, 
 
 855, 389 
 
 V. Dickerson 418, 419 
 
 V. Downey 279 
 
 V Ebert 308 
 
 V. Finnigan 411, 426 
 
 V. Frazier 484, 435 
 
 V. Goddard 328, 343 
 
 V. Godfrey 260, 331, 382, 
 
 844 
 
 V. Goodwin 408, 408, 
 
 425, 478, 481 
 
 V. Grabble 272 
 
 V. Grabill 280, 264 
 
 V. Hall 328, 830 
 
 V. Hammer 275, 306, 
 
 828, 381 
 
 V. Hetherington 828, 
 
 330, 332, 343, 344, 
 
 852, 365 
 
 V. Hoffman 276 
 
 V. Houck 877, 882, 383 
 
 V. Hutchinson 295, 335 
 
 V. Irviu 481, 486, 609 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. v. Jewell 
 V. Kanouse 
 
 375, 378 
 
 274, 284, 
 
 411,412 
 
 V. Keen 364 
 
 V. McClelland 483, 435, 
 
 440 
 
 V. McKee 419, 420 
 
 V. McLean County 480, 
 
 481, 482, 489 
 
 V. Mafflt 328 
 
 V. Middlesworth 403, 
 
 404, 405 
 
 V. Mills 431, 432, 43.S, 
 
 434, 438 
 
 V. Modglin 377 
 
 V. Nunn 434, 441 
 
 V. Patterson 328, 371, 
 
 377 
 
 V. People 466, 468 
 
 V. Phelps 403, 408 
 
 u. PhUlips 800,341,871 
 
 V. Read 291 
 
 V. Reedy 291, 296, 403, 
 
 428 
 
 V. Rucker 256 
 
 V. Sutton 298, 302 
 
 V. Swearingen 411, 418, 
 
 419, 424 
 
 V. United States 151 
 
 V. Welch 308, 309, 377 
 
 V. Weldon 394, 895, 396, 
 
 398 
 
 V. Whalen 428, 430 
 
 V. Williams 421 
 
 V. Wren 407 
 
 Illinois Grand Trunk R. v. Cook 7, 65, 
 
 67,75 
 Illinois Linen Co. v. Hough 81 
 
 Illinois & M. Canal Co. v. Chicago & 
 
 R. I. R. 453 
 
 Illinois Midland R. u. Barnett 98, 101, 
 
 102, 105, 108 
 
 Illinois River R. v. Beers 5, 67, 71 
 
 V. Zimmer 5, 33, 49, 61, 
 
 67,72 
 
 Illinois & St. L. K. & C. Co. v. McClin- 
 
 tock 189, 220 
 
 IlUnois & W. R. u. Van Horn 189, 226, 
 
 229 
 Imlay v. Union Branch R. 174, 212, 236, 
 
 239 
 Imperial Merc. Credit Assoc, v. Cole- 
 man 36 
 Indian Canon Road Co. v. Robinson 453 
 Indiana Cent. R. v. Boden 196 
 V. Gapen 410 
 V. Hudelson 840 
 V. Hunter 210, 221 
 V. Leamon 421 
 V. Oakes 182 
 V. State 151, 162, 177 
 Indiana & E. Turnp. Co. v. Phillips 68 
 Indiana & I. C. R. v. McKernan 111 
 Indiana, N., & S. R. v. Attica 97, 99 
 Indiana R. v. Boden 167 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 Indianapolis, B., & W. R. v. Birney 301 
 V. Carr 376 
 
 V. Flanigan 328, 
 374 
 V. Hartley 289, 
 240 
 V, Hawley 241 
 V. McBrown 422 
 V. McLaugh- 
 
 Un 272 
 
 V. Smith 240 
 
 V. Toy 371, 373 
 
 Indianapolis, C, & L. R. t. Bonnell 417 
 
 V. Barter 402, 
 
 403 
 
 V. Warner 420, 
 
 422 
 
 Indianapolis & C. R. v. Adkins 420 
 
 V. Brewer 166 
 
 V. Caldwell 404, 
 
 410, 425 
 
 V. Guard 415, 420 
 
 V. Jewett 78 
 
 V. Kercheyal 463 
 
 tj. Kinney 402, 421 
 
 V. Love 371, 379 
 
 V, Lowe 421 
 
 V. McClure 402, 
 
 403, 410 
 
 V. McKinney 406, 
 
 415, 420 
 
 V. Means 428 
 
 V. Oestel 421 
 
 V. Paramore 433, 
 
 434, 436, 487 
 
 V. Parker 420, 421 
 
 u. State 245, 246, 
 
 247, 251 
 
 V. Townsend 415, 
 
 416 
 
 V. Wharton 430 
 
 Indianapolis Furnace & M. Co. v. 
 
 Herkimer 6 
 
 Indianapolis & M. R. v. Soloman 411 
 
 Indianapolis, P., & C. K. v. Anthony 278 
 
 V. Caudle 428, 
 
 430 
 
 V. Crandall 421 
 
 V. Irish 417 
 
 V. Keeley 328, 
 
 393, 394 
 
 V. Petty 423 
 
 V. Shimer 420, 
 
 423 
 
 V. Truitt 418 
 
 Indianapolis & St. L. R. v. Blackman 
 
 '^ 462 
 
 V. Christy 421 
 V. Evans 299, 
 314, 323, 328 
 V. Galbreath 356 
 V. Hall 419 
 
 V. Peyton 406 
 I). Smith 347 
 V. Smythe 171 
 
 Indianapolis & St. L. B. v. Stables 302, 
 
 319, 347, 350, 
 
 354 
 
 V. Stout 329 
 
 V. Vance 19, 473, 
 
 478 
 
 Indianapolis & V. R. a. McClaren 278, 
 
 321, 331 
 V. Newsome 259 
 IngersoU v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 346 
 
 V. Stockbridge & P. R. 284, 
 
 432, 445, 446 
 
 Ingraham v. Chicago, D., & M. R. 199, 
 
 235 
 Instone v. Frankfort Bridge Co. 82, 85 
 International & G. N. R. v. Doyle 374, 
 
 880 
 Iowa College v. Davenport 166 
 
 Iowa Homestead Co. v. Webster 
 
 County 474 
 
 Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster 505 
 
 Iowa & M. R. V. Perkins 46, 54 
 
 Iowa Northern Cent. R. v. Bliobenes 63 
 Ireland v. Oswego, H., & S. Plank R. 318 
 V. Palestine, B., N. P., & N. 
 W. Tump. Co. 451, 458 
 
 Irish V. Burlington & S. W. R. 131, 169, 
 
 170 
 Iron City Bank v. Pittsburg 458, 481, 
 
 482 
 
 Iron R. V. Ironton 147, 150, 151, 152 
 
 V. Lawrence Furnace Co. 466 
 
 Irvin V. New Orleans, St. L., & C. R. 473 
 
 V. Turnpike Co. 69, 68, 72 
 
 Isaacs V. Third Av. R. 279 
 
 Isabel V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 332, 336, 
 
 337, 338, 356 
 
 Isbell V. New York & N. H. R. 326, 327, 
 
 331, 403 
 Isham V. Buckingham 80, 113, 114 
 
 Isom V. Miss. Cent. R. 173, 210, 222 
 
 Jack V. Naber 58 
 
 Jackson v. Chicago & N.W. R. 408, 432, 
 433, 438, 441 
 V. Indianapolis & St. L. R. 323 
 V. Newark Plank Road Co. 121 
 V. New York Cent. R. 31 
 
 V. Rutland & B. R. 159, 401, 
 402, 404, 413, 414, 423 
 V. Second Av. R. 277, 278, 279 
 Jackson County v. Brush 99, 108 
 
 Jacksonville, A., & St. L. R. v. Cald- 
 well 189, 227 
 Jacksonville, N. W., & S. E. R. v. 
 
 Cox 134, 205 
 
 Jacksonville & S. R. v. Kidder 229 
 
 Jacob V. Louisville 222 
 
 Jacobs V. Louisville & N. R. 326 
 
 V. Peterborough & S. B. 137 
 
 Jacques v. Bridgeport Horse R. 304 
 
xlviii 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Jager v. Doherty 105, 106 
 
 James v. Cincinnati, H., & D. E. 50, 79, 
 
 512 
 V. Milwaukie 97 
 
 James River & K. R. v. Turner 223 
 
 Jamison v. Moon 805, 309 
 
 V. Springfield 181 
 
 Jarvis v. Santa Clara Valley E. 201 
 
 Jatho V. Green & C. St. P. R. 262 
 
 Jay Bridge Co. v. Woodman 83 
 
 JefEeris v. Phil., W., & B. R. 221, 431, 
 
 436 
 Jefferson & L. P. R. v. New Orleans 168, 
 
 192 
 JefEersonville, M., & I. R. v. Adams 403, 
 
 425 
 17. Beatty 421 
 V. Bowen 333, 
 338 
 V. Downey 412 
 V. Dunlap 426 
 V. Esterle 233, 
 242 
 V. Goldsmith 
 
 159, 320, 
 330, 382 
 V. Hendricks 
 
 323, 390, 
 
 393, 400 
 
 V. Huber 403, 
 
 410, 422, 429 
 
 V. Morgan 417 
 
 V. Nichols 423, 
 
 424 
 
 V. Parkhurst 
 
 421 
 V. Ross 410, 426 
 V. Sullivan 424 
 V. Underbill 
 
 403, 425 
 
 Jeffersonville R. v. Applegate 415 
 
 V. Gabbert 458, 463 
 
 V. Rogers 278 
 
 V. Swayne 390, 394 
 
 Jeffrey v. K. & D. M. R. 356 
 
 Jeffries V. Lawrence 87, 96 
 
 Jenkins v. Burlington & M. R. R. 63, 136 
 
 V. Charleston 473 
 
 ' V. Union Turnp. Co. 50 
 
 Jenner's Case 24 
 
 Jennings v. Penn. R. 437, 440 
 
 Jersey v. Yard 449 
 
 Jersey City v. Jersey City & B. R. 246 
 
 Jersey City & B. R. v. Jersey City 
 
 & H. Horse R. 194, 236, 238, 247, 252, 
 
 258 
 Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight 7, 168, 
 
 234 
 
 Jessnp V. Carnegie 6, 9 
 
 V. Louoks 260 
 
 Jetter v. New York & H. R. 313, 333, 
 
 339, 354 
 
 Jewett V. Klein 344 
 
 V. Lawrenceburg & U. M. R. 58 
 
 V. Valley R. 53, 58 
 
 John V. Bacon 282 
 
 V. Cincinnati, R., & Ft. W. R. 93 
 Johnson v. Albany & S. R. 77, 79, 82 
 V. Atlantic & St. L. R. 203, 204 
 V. Boston 370 
 
 V. Boston & M. E. 330 
 
 V. Bruner 818, 361, 382 
 
 V. Chicago, B.. & Q. R. 276 
 
 V. Chicago, E. I., & P. R. 807 
 V. Crawfordsville, F. K., & 
 
 Ft. W. R. 58, 65, 78 
 
 V. Griffin Banking & T. C. 495 
 
 V. Hudson River R. 299, 300, 
 
 320, 323, 324, 341, 346, 399, 
 
 498 
 
 V. Joliet & C. R. 146, 147, 164, 
 
 165, 182 
 
 V. Pensacola & G. R. 58, 70 
 
 vx Philadelphia 482 
 
 V. Richmond & D. R. 378 
 
 V. Salem, T., & C. B. Co. 249 
 
 V. Shrewsbury & B. R. 528, 535 
 
 V. Stark County 98, 101, 108 
 
 V. UnderhiU 112, 113, 114 
 
 V. Wells 302 
 
 V. West Chester & P. R. 815, 
 
 . . 317 
 
 V. Western & A. R. 380 
 
 V. Winona & St. P. R. 312 
 
 Johnson County v. January 100, 104 
 
 V. Thayer 100 
 
 Johnston v. Cleveland & T. R. 388, 392 
 
 V. Ewing Female University 49 
 
 V. Jones 26, 27, 30 
 
 V. Providence & S. R. 246, 251, 
 
 269 
 
 V. Rankin 161, 163, 191 
 
 Joint Stock Discount Co. u. Brown 606 
 
 Joliet V. Seward 328 
 
 Joliet & C. R. V. Healey 270 
 
 Joliet & N. I. R. «. Jones 410, 426 
 
 Jones V. Chicago & I. R. 215 
 
 V. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 518 
 
 V. FestiniOg R. 243, 267, 432 
 
 u. Galena & C. U. R. 463 
 
 V. Guaranty & I. Co. 603 
 
 V. Habersham 507 
 
 V. Keith 236 
 
 V. Milton & R. Turnp. Co. 58 
 
 V. Selignam 409, 412 
 
 V. Sheboygan & P. R. 426 
 
 V. Terre Haute & R. R. 121, 123 
 
 V. Waltham * 249 
 
 i>. Western Vt. R. 280, 495 
 
 V. Wills Valley R. 222 
 
 V. Witherspoon 404 
 
 Jordan v. Hayne 89, 108 
 
 V. Wells 285, 375 
 
 Joslyn V. Dow 109 
 
 V. Pacific Mail Steamship Co. 80 
 
 Joy V. Jackson & M. Plank Road 
 
 Co. 5, 67, 503 
 
 Judah V. American Live Stock Co. 64, 
 
 511 
 Judson V. Bridgeport 190 
 
TABLK OF CASES. 
 
 xlix 
 
 Junction R. v. Philadelpliia 159, 480 
 
 K. Reeve 29,30,31,56,75 
 V. Ruggles 130, 158, 261 
 
 Justice V. Nesquehouing Valley R 131, 
 161, 167, 219 
 
 K. 
 
 Kaes V. Mo. Pacific R. 404, 415, 463 
 
 Kain v. Smith 286, 371 
 
 Kaiser v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. 240 
 Kane v. Bloodgood 120 
 
 Kansas Cent. R. v. Allen 159, 161, 189 
 V. Fitzsimmons 287, 288, 
 314, 387 
 Kansas City v. Kansas P. R. 166, 172 
 Kansas City, Ft. S., & G. R. o. Ewing 411 
 Kansas City Hotel v. Hunt 64, 65 
 
 Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. R. v. 
 
 Campbell 181, 188 
 
 Kansas Pacific R. v. Brady 435, 436, 441 
 
 V. Butts 314, 431, 434, 
 
 437 
 
 V. Crammer 331 
 
 V. Cutter 394, 395, 396, 
 
 397 
 
 V. Little 368 
 
 V. Lundin 204, 806, 
 
 394, 397, 400 
 
 V. Mihlman 278 
 
 V. Miller 204, 294, 388, 
 
 394, 896, 399 
 
 V. Mower 461, 463 
 
 V. Pointer 294, 297, 
 
 303, 356 
 
 V. Prescott 488 
 
 V. Salmon 365, 368, 
 
 375, 376, 883, 384 
 
 V. Streeter- 178 
 
 V. Twombly 300, 318, 
 
 321 
 
 V. "Ward 330, 355 
 
 Karber v. Nellis 191 
 
 Karle a. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. 
 
 R. 312, 325, 327, 351 
 
 Karnes v. Rochester & G. V. R. 122 
 
 Karr v. Parks 336, 339 
 
 Karutli's Case 24 
 
 Katama Land Co. v. Jernegan 83 
 
 Kay V. Penn. R. 275, 312, 314, 310, 332, 
 383, 337, 338, 856 
 Kean v. Johnson 80, 43, 67, 74 
 
 Kearney v. Boston & W. R. 385, 386 
 V. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 345 
 1). London & B. & S. C. R. 320 
 Keech v. Bait. & W. R. 426, 428 
 
 Keegan v. Western R. 367, 371, 373 
 
 Keeley v. Erie R. 319 
 
 Keesee v. Chicago & N. W. R. 434, 435 
 Keffe V. Mil. & St. P. R. 337 
 
 Keith V. Cheshire R. 267 
 
 Keithsburg v. Prick 97, 101, 103 
 
 Keithsburg & E. R. v. Henry 213, 223 
 Keliher v. Conn. River R. 410 
 
 Keller v. New York Cent. R. 296, 313, 
 
 318 
 
 Kelley v. Boston Lead Co. 859 
 
 V. C, M., & St. P. R. 384 
 
 V. Silver Spring Co. 374, 379, 381 
 
 Kellinger v. Forty-Second St. U. 233, 
 
 236, 2:!9, 241, 246, 270 
 
 Kellogg V. Chicago & N. W. R. 435, 441, 
 
 442, 444 
 V. Malin 158 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 441 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 344, 345, 396 
 
 0. Stockwell 113, 114 
 
 Kelly V. Alabama & C. R. 503 
 
 ». New York 287, 289 
 
 V. New York & M. B. R. 187 
 
 Kelsey v. King 234 
 
 Kemper v. Louisville 196 
 
 Kenerson i>. Henry 227 
 
 Kenicott v. Supervisors 87, 100, 104 
 
 Kennayde u. Pacific R. 314, 319, 827, 351 
 
 Kennebec & P. R. v. Jarvis 53, 82 
 
 V. Kendall 81, 83, 84, 
 
 497 
 
 V. Palmer 45, 49, 82 
 
 V. Portland & K. 
 
 R. 497 
 
 V. Waters 57 
 
 Kennedy v. Cotton 9 
 
 V. Indianapolis & C. R. 285 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 178 
 
 17. North Mo. R. 305, 306, 308, 
 
 342 
 
 Kenney v. Central R. 877 
 
 V. Han. & St. J. R. 434, 437, 438, 
 
 489 
 
 Kenosha n. Lamson 94, 107 
 
 Kenosha R. & R. I. R. v. Marsh 68, 72 
 
 Kent V. Freehold L. & B. Co. 42 
 
 u. New York Cent. R. 464 
 
 u. Quicksilver Mining Co. 125, 497, 
 
 503, 517, 519 
 
 Kent Coast R. v. London, C, & D. R. 
 
 512, 515 
 Kenton County Court v. Bank Lick 
 
 Tump. Co. 5, 255, 260 
 
 Kentucky Cent. R. o. Dills 306 
 
 V. Lebus 403, 428 
 
 Kentucky Improvement Co. v. Slack 1, 
 
 98, 472 
 Kenyon v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 335 
 
 Kepling v. Todd 77 
 
 Keppel V. Bailey 135 
 
 V. Petersburg R. 117, 121, 122 
 Kerr v. Forgue 333 
 
 Kerr's Case 144, 152, 153, 194 
 
 Kerwhacker v. Cleveland, C., & C. 
 
 R. 324, 326, 401, 404, 407, 408 
 
 Kesler v. Smith 393, 394, 397 
 
 Ketchum v. Stevens 112 
 
 V. St. Louis 107 
 
 Keyport & M. P. S. Co. v. Farmers' 
 
 Trans. Co. 200, 494 
 
1 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Kidder v. Oxford 220 
 
 Kidwelly Canal Co. v. Eaby 49 
 
 Kile u. Yellowhead 191 
 
 Kilpatrick v. Penrose Ferry Bridge 
 
 Co. 31 
 
 Kimmell v. Geeting 88 
 
 Kincaid v. Dwinelle 10 
 
 Kinealy v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. E. 260, 
 
 266 
 King V. Bank of England 119 
 
 V. Boston & W. E. 360, 367, 878 
 V. Iowa Midland E. 180, 224 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. E. R. 288, 
 290, 291, 371 
 u. Ohio & M. R. 125 
 
 V. Patterson & H. R. E. 121 
 
 V. Severn & W. E. 260 
 
 V. Wilson 89, 94, 95 
 
 V. Worcester & B. Canal Nav. 
 
 Co. 119 
 
 {See Eex.) 
 King's County Elevated R., In re 248 
 Kinney v. Crocker 286, 802 
 
 Kip B. New York & H. E. 151 
 
 Kirkpatriek v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 372, 384 
 
 Kirksey v. Florida & G. Plank Road 
 
 Co. 82, 84 
 
 Kirtland v. Hotchkiss 472, 473 
 
 Kishacoquillas & C. Turnp. Eoad 
 
 Co. V. McConaby 61, 62, 64 
 
 Kissenger v. New York & H. R. 350, 354 
 Kitchen v. Cape .Girardeau & S. L. 
 
 R. 501 
 
 Klein v. Alton & S. E. 51, 82 
 
 V. Jewett 285, 301, 346 
 
 Kline v. Central Pacific R. 338 
 
 V. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. 
 
 R. 296, 803 
 
 Kuapp V. McAulay 169 
 
 Knauft V. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. 187, 
 
 220 
 
 Kneeland v. Milwaukie 476 
 
 Knight V. Abert 405 
 
 V. Carrolton 243 
 
 V. Fox 286 
 
 V. Pontchartrain R. 317, 324 
 
 V. Portland, S., & P. E. 276 
 
 V. Toledo & W. E. 426 
 
 Knorr v. Germantown E. 260 
 
 Knowlton v. Congress & E. S. Co. 75, 78, 
 
 127 
 Knox County v. Aspinwall 100, 104, 105, 
 
 107 
 V. Nichols 93 
 
 Koch V. Williamsport Water 164, 177, 178 
 Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron 
 
 Co. 36, 88 
 
 Kolil V. United States 142, 143, 184, 186 
 Kohlhepp V. West Eoxbury 180, 256 
 Koons V. St. Louis & I. M. E. 296, 337 
 Kortright v. Commercial Bank 113 
 
 Koutz V. Toledo, W., & W. R. 420, 427 
 Kramer «. Cleveland & P. R. 144, 147, 
 
 173, 221 
 
 Kroy V. Chicago, R. 1, & P. R. 377, 378, 
 
 380 
 Kucheman v. C, C, & D. E. 213, 242, 
 
 244 
 
 Kuhn V. Chicago, E. I., & P. E. 404, 425 
 
 V. Jewett 442, 443 
 
 Kumler v. Junction Rf 365 
 
 E. N. & E. V. Fox 308 
 
 V. Melton 356 
 
 L. R. & F. S. R. V. Payne 428, 463 
 
 Lackawanna & B. E. v. Doak 432, 483, 
 
 438 
 Lackey v. Eichmond & L. Turnp. E. 48, 
 
 59,78 
 Lackland v. North Mo. R. 235, 241, 243 
 LaCrosse & M. E. v. Seeger 218 
 
 Ladd V. New Bedford R. 373, 374, 379, 
 
 . 381 
 
 V. Southern Cotton Press & M: 
 
 Co. 466 
 
 Ladies' Collegiate Institute v. French 7 
 
 Lafayette v. Cox 87 
 
 Lafayette, B., & M. R. v. Winslow 226, 
 
 229 
 
 Lafayette & I. E. v. Adams 330, 355 
 
 V. Huffman 333, 335 
 
 i>. Shriner402,403,414, 
 
 420, 427 
 
 Lafayette, M., & B. R. v. Geiger 87, 93, 
 
 95, 108 
 
 V. Murdoch 179, 
 
 210, 215, 216, 
 
 233, 236, 242 
 
 Lafayette Plank Eoad Co. v. New 
 
 Albany & S. E. 152, 153, 180, 193, 453 
 Lafferty v. Han. & St. J. R. 422 
 
 Laflin & R. P. Co. v. Sinslieimer 12 
 
 LaGrange v. State Treasurer 32, 43 
 
 LaGrange & M. R. v. Rainey 10, 11, 12 
 Lail V. Mt. Sterling Coal Eoad Co. 53, 65 
 Laing v. Colder 301, 303 
 
 Lake v. Virginia & T. E. 455 
 
 Lake Erie, W., & St. L. E. v. Heath 173 
 Lake Ontario, A., & N. Y. E v. 
 
 Mason 4, 45, 46, 49, 62, 78, 79 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. v. Berliuk 328, 
 
 355 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. v. Cincinnati, 
 
 S., & C. R. 152, 194, 217, 218, 
 
 461, 463 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. v. Clemens 343, 
 
 351 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. v. Fitzpat- 
 
 rick 371, 376, 381, 384 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. v. Hart 344 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. v. Knittal 380 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. v. Miller 299, 312, 
 313, 315, 316, 320, 323, 324, 328, 331, 
 335, 344, 345, 358 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. v. Eoy 317, 377, 
 
 378, 379 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 li 
 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. v. Sunder- 
 land 328, 843, 345, 352, 854, 394, 396 
 Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson 289 
 Lake Superior & M. R. v. Greve 159, 212 
 Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery 
 
 Co. 461 
 
 Lalor V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 323, 379 
 
 Lamb v. B., C. R., & M. R. 108 
 
 V. Lane 173 
 
 V. North London R. 494 
 
 V. Walker 230 
 
 Lambeth v. North Carolina R. 817, 329 
 
 Lambkin v. South Eastern R. 308 
 
 Lamoille Valley R. v. Fairfield 87, 108 
 
 L'Amoreux v. Gould 60 
 
 Lamphear v. Buckingham 284, 285, 392 
 
 Lamphier v. Worcester & N. R. 270 
 
 Lance's Appeal 159 
 
 Land v. Coffin 507 
 
 Land Grant R. T. Co. v. Coffey 
 
 County 15 
 
 Landon v. Litchfield 481 
 
 Lane v. Atlantic Works 810, 311, 337 
 
 V. Brainerd 29, 30, 46, 47, 57, 64, 77 
 
 V. Crombie 299 
 
 Lane Co. v. Oregon 472 
 
 Lang y. Holiday Creek R. 316, 323 
 
 V. Holiday Creek, R., & C. M. 
 
 Co. 299, 326, 344, 352 
 
 Langan v. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. 352 
 
 Langford v. United States 161 
 
 Langhoffw. Mil. & P. R. 319, 320, 321, 
 
 345, 355 
 Langley v. Boston & M. R. 283 
 
 Langlois v. Buffalo & R. R. 409 
 
 Langsdale v. Bouton 31 
 
 Laning v. New York Cent. R. 866, 368, 
 369, 371, 372, 375, 377, 379, 381, 382, 
 383, 384 
 Lanman v. Lebanon Valley R. 10, 30, 74, 
 
 449, 603 
 
 Lansing v. County Treasurer 105 
 
 Lantz V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 428 
 
 Lathrop v. Junction R. 258 
 
 V. Kneeland 128 
 
 Latimer v. Aylesbury & B. R. 169 
 
 Latty V. B., C. R., & M. R. 421 
 
 Laude v. Chicago & N. W. R. 420 
 
 Lawler v. Androscoggin R. 292, 366 
 
 Lawrence r. Boston 186, 226 
 
 V. Combs 401, 413 
 
 V. Great Northern R. 180, 204, 
 
 209 
 
 V. Mil., L. S., & W. R. 419, 
 
 426, 428, 429 
 
 Lawrence County v. North Western 
 
 R. 108 
 
 Lawrence County's Appeal 108 
 
 Lawrence R. v. Com'rs 4-52 
 
 Laws V. North Car. R. 404 
 
 Lawson v. Mil. & N. R. 94, 108 
 
 u. Price 273 
 
 V. Schnellen 99, 108 
 
 Law ton v. Fitch burg R. 423, 425 
 
 Leacli V. Fobes 119 
 
 Leavenworth t). Barnes 100 
 
 Leavenworth County v. Miller 93, 96 
 Leavenworth, L., & G. R. v. Cook 432 
 Leavenworth, L., & G. R. o. Douglas 
 
 County 93, 103 
 
 Leavenworth, L., & G. R. v. United 
 
 States 132, 494 
 
 Leavitt v. Palmer 69, 612 
 
 Leazure v. Hillegas 507 
 
 Le Baron r. Joslin 299, 323 
 
 Lechmere Bank o. Boynton 7 
 
 Le Clair v. St. Paul & P. R. 878, 381 
 
 Leduke v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 344, 352 
 
 Lee V. Barkhampstead 249 
 
 V. Detroit Bridge & Iron Works 383 
 
 V. Milner 494 
 
 V. Pembroke Iron Co. 162, 167, 196, 
 
 202 
 
 V. Tebo & N. R. 188, 223 
 
 uf Union R. 311 
 
 Lee County v. Rogers 102, 104 
 
 Leffingwell v. Warren 94 
 
 Lehigh Valley R. v. Hall 814, 346 
 
 V. Lazarus 175, 215, 
 
 433 
 
 V. McFarlan 129, 164, 
 
 196 
 
 V. Trone ■ 198, 200, 201 
 
 Lehman v. Brooklyn 333 
 
 V. Warner 7, 12, 64, 65 
 
 Lehmicke v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. 147, 
 
 226 226 
 
 Leisse v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 146,' 172 
 
 Leland v. Hayden 123 
 
 Lemmon v. Chicago & N. W. R. 418 
 
 Leonard v. Collins 371, 372 
 
 V. New York Cent & H. R. 
 
 R. 318, 344 
 
 Leonardsville Bank v. Willard , 8 
 
 Le Roy v. Globe Ins. Co. 121 
 
 Lesher v. Wabash Nav. Co. 290 
 
 Leslie v. Lewiston 333 
 
 V. St. Louis 170, 181 
 
 Lester v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. 
 
 R- 435, 439 
 
 Leverin v. Cole 185 
 
 Levering v. Phil., G., & N. R. 164, 165, 
 
 167, 170 
 
 Levisee v. Shreveport City R. 31, 32 
 
 Leviston v. Junction R. 82, 177 
 
 Lewey's Island R. v. Bolton 66, 86 
 
 Lewis V. Bait. & 0. R. 311, 315, 316, 326 
 
 V. Barbour County 104 
 
 V. London, C, & D. R. 319 
 
 V. St. Albans I. & S. Works 40, 43 
 
 V. St. Louis & I. M. R. 368, 369, 
 
 373, 380, 382 
 
 V. Shreveport 87, 98, 100 
 
 V. Wilmington & M. R. 185 
 
 Lexington v. Butler 100, 107 
 
 Lexington & 0. R. v. Applegate 153, 196, 
 
 235, 241 
 
 V. Bridges 41 
 
 V. Ormsby 139, 168, 
 
 170 
 
lii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Lexington & W. C. K. u. Chandler 49, 53, 
 
 78 
 V. Fitchburg R. 194 
 V. Staples 86 
 
 Libby v. Chicago, E. I., & P. R. 445 
 
 Liddle v. Keokuk, Mt. P., & M. R. 412 
 I/iddy V. St. Louis R. 355 
 
 Limehouse Works Co., In re 75 
 
 Limestone County v. Rather 105 
 
 Limpus V. London Gen. Omnibus Co. 278, 
 
 279 
 Lincoln v. Colusa Co. 181, 182 
 
 V. Saratoga & S. R. 228, 297, 302 
 Lindell v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 178 
 
 Linder v. Carpenter 513 
 
 Linfield v. Old Colony R. 284, 350 
 
 Linnehan v. Sampson 319, 329 
 
 Linton v. Smith 287 
 
 Lippincott v. Pana 98, 100, 102, 104 
 
 List V. Wheeling 94, 96, 98 
 
 Little V. Dublin & D. R. 178 
 
 V. Lathrop 412 
 
 Little Miami & C. & X. R. Cos. v. 
 
 Dayton 152, 155 
 
 Little Miami R. v. Collett 222 
 
 V. Com'rs 451 
 
 V. Greene County 243, 
 
 244, 245 
 
 V. Naylor 255, 266, 270 
 
 V. Stevens 360, 366 
 
 V. Wetmore 277, 279, 280 
 
 Little Rock & P. S. R. v. Barker 394, 398 
 
 Little Schuylkill Nav. R & C. Co. v. 
 
 Norton 880, 331 
 
 Littleton Man. Co. v. Parker 53 
 
 Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co. 53, 54, 55 
 Livingston v. Lyncfi 66 
 
 Livingston County v. Darlington 88 
 
 Lloyd V. Pacific R. 421 
 
 Loan Association v. Stonenietz 81 
 
 V. Topeka 87, 88 
 
 Locke V. St. Paul & P. R. 402, 403, 406, 
 
 428 
 V. Sioux City & P. R. 294, 382 
 Locke's Appeal 95 
 
 Lockhart v. I4chtenthaler 282 
 
 V. Van Alstyne 125, 126 
 
 Lockport & B. R., In re 181, 194, 218 
 Lockwood V. Mechanics' National 
 
 Bank 26, 29, 129 
 
 Lodge V. Phil., W., & B. R. 149, 150 
 
 Lofton V. Vogles ■ ^9i\ 
 
 Logansport, C., & S. R. v. Buchanan 210 
 Lohnian v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. 168, 
 
 170, 183 
 Loker v. Damon 273 
 
 London & B. R. v. Wilson 66 
 
 London, B., & S. C. R. v. London & 
 
 S. W. R. 527, 630, 537 
 
 London, B., & S. C. R. v. St. Giles 480 
 London Dock Co. v. Sinott 526 
 
 London, H., & C. B. Bank, In re 505 
 London India Rubber Co., In re 126 
 
 London & N. W. R. v. Lancashire & 
 Y. R. 270 
 
 London & S. W. R. v. Blackmore 149 
 Long V. Fuller 163 
 
 V. Morrison 386, 391, 394 
 
 Long's Appeal 452 
 
 Long Branch Com'rs v. West End R. 
 
 144, 156, 243, 244, 259 
 
 Long Island R. v. Bennett 182, 183 
 
 In re 24, 25, 26, 86, 175, 
 
 219, 408 
 
 Longabaugh v. Virginia City & T. R. 432, 
 
 433, 486, 436, 437, 439, 442 
 
 Longman v. Grand Junct. Can. Co. 441 
 
 Loop V. Chamberlain 167, 178 
 
 Lord V. Brooks 123 
 
 V. Wormwood 412 
 
 Loring v. Salisbury Mills 116, 118, 119 
 
 Losee v. Buchanan 264, 431 
 
 Lothrop V, Stedman 9, 14 
 
 Loud V. Charlestown 488 
 
 Louisiana & F. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Pickett 173, 221, 223 
 
 Louisiana Paper Co. v. Waples 74 
 
 Louisville, C, & C. R. v. Letson 16 
 
 Louisville, C, & L. E. v. Case 393, 394 
 V. Cavens 367 
 V. Common- 
 wealth 482 
 V. Mahony 394, 
 397, 400 
 Louisville & C. R. v. Richardson 431, 441 
 Louisville & F. R. v. Ballard 401, 408, 406, 
 
 407 
 V. Brown 233, 235, 403 
 Louisville, N. A., & C. R. v. Richard- 
 son 436 
 </. Smith 422 
 V. Spain 416, 
 429 
 V. Whitesell 426 
 Louisville, N. A., & St. L. A. L. R. v. 
 
 Dryden 173 
 
 Louisville & N. Branch Tump. Co. 
 
 V. Nashville & K. Turnp. Co. 255 
 
 Louisville & N. E. u. Bowler 368 
 
 V. Brown 428 
 
 K.Burke 377, 395, 396, 
 
 452 
 
 V. Collins 360, 367 
 
 V. Commonwealth 349 
 
 V. Connor 300, 391 
 
 V. Davidson County 
 
 Court 92,94,95, 
 
 105 
 
 V. Filbern 360 
 
 V. Fox 293 
 
 V. Gaines 481, 486, 489 
 
 ». Glazebrook 214 
 
 V. Mahony 360 
 
 V. Robinson 360 
 
 V. Sickings 317 
 
 B. State 243, 244, 246, 
 
 246, 474, 475 
 
 V. Tennessee 95, 101 
 
 V. Thompson 75, 131, 
 
 212, 222 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 im 
 
 LouisTille & N. R. v. Wainscott 403, 
 
 407 
 V. Yandell 361 
 
 Louisville & 0. Turnp. Koad Co. v. 
 
 Ballard 452 
 
 Louisville & P. C. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth 480 
 V. Murphy 314, 
 319, 322, 333 
 Louisville & P. R. v. Louisville City 
 
 K. 455 
 
 Lovegrove v. London, B., & S. C. R. 359, 
 
 364 
 Lovejoy v. Boston & L. R. 377, 380 
 
 Lovell V. Howell 369, 361, 362 
 
 Lovett V. Salem & S. D. R. 330, 338, 
 
 339 
 
 Low V. Central Pacific R. 504 
 
 V. Conn. & P. R. R. 48, 511, 513 
 
 Lowe V. E. & K. R. 47, 60 
 
 Lowell V. Boston 87, 88 
 
 V. Boston & L. R. 249, 277, 
 
 287 
 
 Lowell & L. R. V. Boston & L. R. 256 
 
 Lowery v. Brooklyn City & N. R. 250 
 
 Lowndes Co. v. Bowie 163 
 
 Lowry u. Commercial & F. Bank 117, 
 
 118 
 Luby V. Hudson River R. 294 
 
 Lucas V. New Bedford & T. R. 299, 317 
 V. New York Cent. R. 386, 392 
 Ludlow V. Hudson River R. 134, 265 
 V. New York & H. R. 137 
 
 Luling V. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. 121, 122 
 Lum V. Robertson 13 
 
 Lumsden v. Milwaukie 167 
 
 Lunatic Hospital v. Worcester County 
 
 187 
 Lund V. New Bedford 170, 259 
 
 Lunt V. London & N. W. R. 322, 353, 
 
 354 
 
 Luse V. Isthmus Transit Co. 35 
 
 Lycett V. StafCord & U. R. 169 
 
 Lyde v. Eastern Bengal R. 508, 510, 532 
 
 Lygo V. Newbold 332, 334 
 
 Lyman v. Boston & W. R." 445, 458, 464 
 
 V. Phil., W., & B. R. 343 
 
 V. Union R. 2.52 
 
 Lynch v. Nurdin 334 
 
 V. Smith 333, 339 
 
 Lynde v. Winnebago County 104, 108 
 
 Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. Mass. 
 
 Glass Co. 30, 508 
 
 Lyndsay v. Conn. & P. R. R. 428 
 
 Lynn v. Mount Savage Iron Co. 135 
 
 Lyon V. Detroit, L., & L. M. R. 378 
 
 0. Ewings 75 
 
 V. Fish Mongers' Co. 200 
 
 V. Green Bay & M. R. 180, 185, 
 
 190, 194, 203, 210, 218, 219 
 
 V. Hancock 305 
 
 V. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. 249 
 
 Lyons '«. Erie R. 305 
 
 , . Orange, A., & M. R. 5, 6 
 
 Lyster's Case 29 
 
 M. 
 
 M. & C. R. V. Bacon 60 
 
 M., O., & R. R. V. Mayor 87 
 
 Mabey v. Adams 42 
 
 McAleer v. Horsey 112 
 
 McAllister ti. Indianapolis & C. R. 58 
 McAndrews v. Burns 361, 362, 365, 367 
 McAuley v. Columbus, C, & I. R. 7 
 
 V. Western Vt. R. 140, 166, 
 169, 170 
 McAunich v. Miss. & M. R. 471 
 
 McCafferty v. Spuytea Duyvil & P. 
 
 M. R. 287, 290, 291 
 
 McCaig V. Erie R. 437 
 
 McCall V. Byram Man. Co. 28 
 
 V. Chamberlain 274, 284, 410, 412, 
 
 415 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 345 
 
 McCallie v. Chattanooga 96 
 
 McCandless's Appeal 2, 144 
 
 McCarthy v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 389 
 
 V. Lavasch 64 
 
 McCarty v. Del. & H. C. Co. 330 
 
 </. Selinsgrove & N. B. R. 58, 
 
 60,78 
 
 McCIellan v. Scott 61, 112, 139 
 
 McClinton v. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. 
 
 R. 151, 163, 165, 167, 170 
 
 McCluer v. Manchester & L. R. 284, 516 
 McClure v. Mo. River, Ft. S., & G R. 60, 
 
 136, 513 
 
 V. Owen 89 
 
 V. Oxford 100, 104 
 
 McCord V. Ohio & M. R. 79, 128 
 
 McCormick v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 419 
 
 V. Kansas City, St. J., & 
 
 C. B. R. 180, 205 
 
 V. Penn. Cent. R. 15 
 
 MoCosker v. Long Island R. 369 
 
 McCoun V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 437, 441 
 
 McCoy V. Cal. Pacific R. 426, 428 
 
 McCray v. Junction R. 69 
 
 McCrea v. Port Royal R. 452 
 
 McCready v. So. Car. R. 441 
 
 McCulloch V. Maryland 91, 487, 492 
 
 McCuUough V. Moss 500 
 
 McCully V. Clarke 431, 437, 438, 441 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. R. 47, 65, 66, 
 
 77 
 
 McCummons v. Chicago & N. W. R. 437 
 
 McDaniels v. Flower Brook M. Co. 25 
 
 McDermott v. Pacific R. 373 
 
 McDonald v. Haughton 38 
 
 V. Mallory 389 
 
 McDonnell v. Pittsfield & N. A. R. 403, 
 
 405, 406, 411, 413, 414 
 
 McDonough v. Oilman 271 
 
 MacDougall v. Gardiner 44 
 
 V. Jersey Imperial Hotel 126 
 
 McDowell V. New York Cent. R. 419 
 
 McDuflbe v. Portland & R. R. 498, 499 
 
 McEUienuy's Appeal 37 
 
Hv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 McEIrath v. Pittsburg & S. B. 22, 452 
 
 McElroyu. Nashua, &L.E. 281,283 
 
 McFadden v. Jolinson 185 
 
 McFerran v. Alloway 91, 97 
 
 McGee v. Mathis 481 
 
 McGlynn v. Erodie 380 
 
 McGowan v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 364, 382 
 
 McGrath v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 E. 284, 299, 318, 333, 335, 344, 345, 350, 
 
 351, 352, 353, 354, 3S6, 386, 390, 391, 
 
 398, 412 
 
 McGregor v. Birdsall 89 
 
 MacGregor b. Dover & D. E. 512, 522, 
 
 627, 528, 632, 533 
 
 McGregor v. Erie R. 22 
 
 Mclntire v. State 221 
 
 V. Western N. C. E. 178 
 
 Mclntyre v. Easton & A. R. 186 
 
 V. New York Cent. B. 303, 329, 
 
 394, 395, 396, 398 
 
 McKay's Case 39 
 
 McKee v. Bidwell 318, 319, 320 
 
 McKeen v. Delaware Div. Canal Co. 197, 
 
 199 
 V. Northampton County 473 
 McKenna v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 330, 335 
 
 McKeon v. Citizens' R. 307, 322 
 
 McKinley v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 421 
 McKinney v. Monongahela Nav. Co. 177 
 V. Ohio & M. R. 285 
 
 McKnight v. Iowa & M. R. 360 
 
 McKonkey v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 354, 
 
 406 
 McLaren v. Pennington 9 
 
 McLauchlin v. Charlotte & S. C. R. 178, 
 
 285 
 McLaughlin v. Detroit & M. R. 34, 126, 
 
 127, 521 
 
 McLeod V. Burroughs 453 
 
 V. Savannah, A., & G. B. 455 
 
 McLendon v. Anson County 105 
 
 V. West Point & A. R. 185 
 
 McMahan v. Morrison 10, 11 
 
 McMahon v. Davidson 359 
 
 V. Cincinnati & C. S. L. R. 222 
 
 V. New York 336, 398 
 
 V. Northern Cent. R. 301, 316, 
 
 319, 320, 326, 333 
 
 V. Second Av. E. 250 
 
 McManus v. Carmichael 200 
 
 V. Crickett 279 
 
 V. Phila. & E. R. C. 127 
 
 McMasters v. Reed 503 
 
 McMillan v. Boyles 89 
 
 V. Burlington & M. R. 333 
 
 V. Lee County 108 
 
 V. Maysville & L. R. 59, 63 
 
 D. Mich. S. & N. I. R. 284 
 
 V. Saratoga & W. R. 378, 382, 
 
 392 
 
 V. Union Press-Brick 
 
 Works 371, 384 
 
 McMillen v. Lee County 89 
 
 V. Boyles 89 
 
 McNaniara v. North Pacific R. 314 
 
 McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank 25, 113, 118 
 McPadden v. New York Cent. R. - 313 
 McPheeters v. Han. & St. J. R. 404, 407, 
 
 420 
 McPherson v. Foster 101, 516, 618 
 
 McPike V. Pen 108 
 
 McRae v. Atlantic & N. C. R. 58 
 
 V. Russell 51 
 
 McRee v. Wil. & R. E. 465 
 
 McWhorter v. People 95, 108 
 
 Mc Williams v. Detroit Cent. M. Co. 290, 
 
 366 
 Macedon & B. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Lapham 67, 68, 69, 71 
 
 Macedon & B. Plank Road Co. o. 
 
 Snediker 60 
 
 Machinists' Nat. Bank ». Field 116 
 
 Mackay v. Central R. 389 
 
 V. New York Cent, R. 325, 344, 
 
 345,347 
 
 Mackie v. Central R. 418, 419, 429, 463 
 
 Macon v. Macon & W. R. _ 456 
 
 Macon & A. R. v. Bowen ' 182 
 
 V. Goldsmith 478 
 
 V. Mayes 283, 290 
 
 V. Vason 65, 77, 78, 85 
 
 Macon County v. Shores 96, 101, 103, 
 
 104 
 Macon & W. R. v. Davis 312, 321, 325, 
 
 341, 350 
 
 V. Johnson 296, 323, 397, 
 
 400 
 
 V. McConnell 436 
 
 V. Winn 307, 318, 314 
 
 Mad River & L. E. R. v. Barber 871, 375, 
 
 376, 379, 380, 382 
 
 Maddox v. Graham 93, 101, 105 
 
 Madison County v. People 108 
 
 Madison & I. R. «. Bacon 359', 392 
 
 V. Norwich Savings 
 
 Bank 504, 618 
 
 V. Taffe 321, 355 
 
 V. Whiteneck 463 
 
 Madison, W., & M. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Watertown & P. Plank Road Co. 500, 
 
 501, 504 
 
 Maghee v. Camden & A. R. 510 
 
 Maginnis v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 320, 856 
 
 Maguire v. Middlesex R. 295 
 
 Mahan v. Utiea & S. R. 286 
 
 V. Wood 65 
 
 Mahany v. Kephart 15 
 
 Mahar «. Grand Trunk R. 299, 314, 818 
 Mahaska County R. v. Des Moines 
 
 Valley R. 30, 255 
 
 Maher v. Atlantic & P. R. 314, 327, 854, 
 
 406 
 Mahler v. Norwich & N. Y. T. Co. 389 
 Mahon v. New York Cent. R. 230, 286, 
 
 237 
 Mahone v. Manchester & L. R. 16 85 
 Mahoney v. Atlantic & St. L. B. 283, 284 
 Maine v. North Eastern R. 272 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Iv 
 
 Maine Cent. R. v. Maine 11, 481, 485, 
 
 486, 487 
 Malecelc v. Tower Grove & L. R. 294, 305 
 Mali V. Lord 277, 279 
 
 Malone v. Hathaway 366, 367, 368 
 
 V. Hawley 801, 303 
 
 V. Murphy 307 
 
 V. Toledo 147, 157, 158, 221, 233, 
 234 
 Maloy V. New York Cent. R. 808, 313 
 Maltby v. North 8 
 
 V. Northwestern Va. R. 65 
 
 V. Reading & C. R. 20, 473 
 
 Manchester, S. J., & A. R. (/. Fuller- 
 ton 349 
 Manchester, S., & L. R. v. Wallis 413, 
 
 414 
 Manderson v. Com. Bank of Penn. 46 
 Mangam v. Atterton 334, 337 
 
 0. Brooklyn R. 334, 338, 339 
 Manheim P. & L. Tump. Co. v. Arndt 69 
 Manley v. St. Helens, C, & R. Co. 245, 
 
 270 
 
 V. WU. & W. R. 825, 332, 267, 
 
 335 
 
 Mann v. Cook 77, 80, 84 
 
 V. Currie 77, 80, 84 
 
 V. Oriental Print Works 367, 379 
 
 V. Pentz 77, 80 
 
 Mansfield, C, & L. M. R. v. Brown 47, 59 
 
 V. Clarke 149, 
 
 177 
 
 V. Stout 59, 63 
 
 Mansfield Coal & C. Co. v. McEnery 296, 
 
 372, 373, 379, 381, 882, 394, 397, 398 
 
 Manville v. Cleveland & T. R. 361, 362, 
 
 863, 365 
 Marble w. Worcester 310 
 
 Marble Co. v. Ripley 139 
 
 March v. Eastern R. 21, 43, 121, 520 
 
 V. Portsmouth & C. R. 203, 220, 
 224 
 100, 104 
 275 
 69 
 315, 318, 
 822, 344 
 V. Stephenson 415 
 
 Marion County v. Clark 100 
 
 Marion & M. V. R. v. Hodge 503 
 
 V. Ward 166, 180 
 Market St. R. v. Central R. 235, 253 
 Marlborough Branch R. Co. v. Arnold 48, 
 
 Marlborough Man. Co. v. Smith 113 
 
 Marquette, H., & O. R. v. Handford 295, 
 
 345 
 
 V. Spear 382, 436 
 
 Marseilles Extension R., In re 505 
 
 Marseilles Land Co. v. Aldrich 44 
 
 Marsh v. Burroughs 80 
 
 V. Fairburg, P., & N. W. R. 513 
 
 V. Fulton County 68, 98, 100, 102, 
 
 106 
 
 V. New York & E. R. 402, 465 
 
 Marcy w. Oswego 
 Marfell v.- South Wales R. 
 Marietta & C. R. u. Elliot 
 
 V. Picksley 
 
 Marsh v. New York & H. R. 425 
 
 V. New York & N. E. R. 414 
 
 u. South Carolina R. 360 
 
 Marsh's Case 181 
 
 Marshall v. Bait. & 0. R. 613 
 
 V. Chicago & G. E. R. 298, 400 
 
 V. Silliman 97, 103, 108 
 
 w. York, N.,&B. R. 274 
 
 Marshall County v. Cook 100 
 
 Martin v. Mobile & 0. R. 14 
 
 V. O'Brien 454 
 
 V. Pensacola & G. R. 58, 59, 70 
 
 V. Western Union R. 439 
 
 Martin's Case 162 
 
 Mason v. Brooklyn City, & N. R. 255, 256, 
 
 258 
 
 V. Kennebec & P. R. 160, 174, 175, 
 
 177 
 
 V. Lake Erie, E., & S. W. R. 158 
 
 V. Messenger 183 
 
 Mass. Cent. R. v. Boston, C, & F. R. 152, 
 
 218 
 Mass. General Hospital v. State Mut- 
 
 iiSil .A.S8 Co 45T 
 
 Massoth ». Del. & H. C. Co. 283, 299, 318, 
 
 320, 346, 350 
 
 Masterton v. Mt. Vernon 303 
 
 Mathenv v. Golden 481, 489 
 
 Mathew's v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 131, 
 
 167, 170, 179, 265 
 
 Matson v. Baird 268 
 
 Matteson v. New York Cent. R. 297, 298 
 
 Matthews v. Warner 392, 394 
 
 V. Kelsey 243 
 
 Matze V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 275, 
 
 332 
 Maunsell ». Midland Great Western 
 
 R. 504, 527, 531 
 
 Maus V. Logansport, P., & B. R. 476 
 Maux Ferry Gravel Road Co. v. 
 
 Branegan 31 
 
 Maxcy v. Williamson County 101 
 
 Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co. 132, 170 
 May V. Memphis Branch R. 55, 70 
 
 Mayberry v. Concord R. ' 413, 414 
 Mayer v. Child 110 
 
 Maynard v. Boston & M. R. 403, 406, 
 
 413, 414 
 Mayo V. Boston & M. R. 319 
 
 Mayor v. Lord 100, 105 
 
 Maysville & L. R. v. Herriek 305, 308 
 Meacham v. Fitchburg R. 212, 223, 224 
 Mead v. New York, H., & N. R. 2, 7, 15, 
 
 22 
 Meader v. Lowry 98 
 
 Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray 71 
 
 Meara v. Holbrook 285, 392 
 
 Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' Bank 
 
 111, 129 
 V. New York & N. 
 H.R. Ill, 113,118, 
 128 
 Mechanics' Banking Assoc, v. New 
 
 York & S. White Lead Co. 504 
 
 Mechanics' Foundry & M. Co. «. Hall 83 
 
Ivi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Mechanics' National Bank v. Burnet 
 
 Man. Co. 26, 27 
 
 Mechanics' & T. Bank v. Debolt 481 
 Meesel v. Lynn & B. R. 317 
 
 Mehan v. Syracuse, B., & N. Y. R. 379, 
 
 381 
 
 Melendy v. Keen 61 
 
 Mellen v. Morrill 275 
 
 ij. Western R. 177, 179, 203 
 
 Melvin v. Hoitt 27, 45, 47 
 
 V. Lamar Ins. Co. 58, 77, 80 
 
 V. Lisenby 95 
 
 Memphis v. Ensley 484 
 
 V. Farrington 484 
 
 Memphis Branch E. v. Sullivan 53, 55, 
 
 70 
 
 Memphis & C. R. v. Bibb 408 
 
 </. Copeland 316, 323, 
 
 351 
 
 V. Lyon 406, 408, 463 
 
 V. Neighbors 137 
 
 V. Payne 166, 167, 178 
 
 V. Smith 428 
 
 V. Thomas 363, 377 
 
 V. Whitfield 313, 314, 
 
 323 
 
 Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis 144 
 
 Memphis & 0. R. v. Hicks 201, 202 
 
 Menaslia v. Hazard 101, 102, 104 
 
 Mendelsohn v. Anaheim Lighter Co. 306 
 
 Mendenhall v. West Chester & P. R. 452 
 
 Mentges v. New York & H. E. 408, 406 
 
 Mentz V. Second Av. R. 308, 347 
 
 Mercantile Trading Co., In re 75 
 
 Mercer County v. Coovert 68 
 
 V. Hackett 100, 104, 107 
 
 V. Hubbard 101 
 
 u. Kentucky River 
 
 Nav. Co. 99 
 
 t;. Pittsburg &E. R. 98, 
 99, 102, 108 
 Mercer & S. R. v. Delaware & B. B. 
 
 R. 167 
 
 Merchants' Bank v. Livingston 118 
 
 Merchants' National Bank v. Rich- 
 ards 113, 115 
 Meredith v. Sayre 168 
 Meriam v. Brown 131, 219 
 Merrick v. Amherst 88 
 V. Penn. Coal Co. 81, 36, 38, 39 
 V. Reynolds Engine & G. Co. 6 
 fc. Van Santvoord 14, 28, 29 
 Merrill v. Gamble 66, 128 
 V. Reaver 60, 65, 66, 128 
 V. Welsher '99 
 Merritt v. Northern R. 132 
 Messenger v. Penn. R. 499, 513 
 Metallic Compression Casting Co. v. 
 
 Fitchburg R. 161, 265 
 
 Metcalf V. Baker 303 
 
 Metropolitan City R. u. Chicago W. 
 
 D. R. 152, 153, 154 
 
 Metropolitan Dist. R. i: Sharpe 191 
 
 Metropolitan R. ./. Highland R. 194, 218, 
 
 467 
 
 Metropolitan R. v. Jacksen 313, 815, 318 
 
 V. Quinoy R. 194, 253, 
 
 457 
 
 Mettler v. Eastern & A. E. 167, 191, 210, 
 
 220 
 
 Meyer v. Lindell R. 252 
 
 V. Midland Pacific E. 288, 335, 
 
 355 
 
 V. Muscatine 87, 100, 108 
 
 V. North Mo. E. 420 
 
 V. Pacific E. 295, 321 
 
 V. People's R. 327 
 
 V. Second Av. R. 278 
 
 Miami Coal Co. v. Wigton 145 
 
 Michigan A. L. R. v. Barnes 184, 185, 
 
 188 
 
 Michigan Cent. R. v. Anderson 432, 436 
 
 V. Austin 374 
 
 V. Campau 344 
 
 V. Dolan 360, 362, 
 
 867, 375 
 
 V. Leahy 370 
 
 V. Mich. S. R. 454 
 
 < V. Porter 474 
 
 Michigan M. & C. R. v. Bacon 63 
 
 Michigan Southern & N. I. R. ».' 
 
 Fisher 403, 408 
 
 Michoud V. Girod 36 
 
 Mickles v. Rochester City Bank 10, 39 
 Mieou V. Tallassee Bridge Co. 454 
 
 Middleport v. jEtna Life Ins. Co. 98, 108 
 Middlesex R. u. Boston & C. R. 497 
 
 V. Charlestown 480 
 
 V. Wakefield 253, 461, 463 
 Middlesex Tump. Co. v. Locke 68, 81 ■ 
 V. Swan68, 81, 83 
 Midland Great Western R. v. Gor- 
 don 49, 66, 70 
 Midland R. v. Daykin 405, 414 
 V. Great Western R. 513, 
 528, 530, 536 
 Mifflin V. Harrisburg, P. M., & L. R. 174, 
 
 175, 191 
 
 Milburn v. Cedar Rapids 235, 239 
 
 Miles V. Han. & St. J. R. 410 
 
 Milhau ij. Sharp 232, 236, 247, 269, 270 
 
 Military Parade Ground, In re 172 
 
 Miller v. Auburn & S. R. 131, 236 
 
 V. Brown 181 
 
 V. Ewer 28 
 
 V. Hanover Junction & S. E. 58, 
 
 62 
 V. m. Cent. E. 12.3, 124 
 
 V. Long Island E. 244, 251, 269, 
 272 
 V. New York & E. E. 557 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. E. 64, 66, 126 
 V. Prairie Du Chien & M. E. 201 
 V. Rutland & W. E. 503, 521 
 
 V. St. Louis E. 317 
 
 V. Second Jefferson Building 
 
 Assoc. 77 
 
 V. State 27, 448, 451, 457, 458, 
 
 459, 460 
 
 V. Wild Cat Gravel Eoad Co. 58 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Ivii 
 
 MiUiman v. Oswego & S. E. 460, 465 
 Hills V. Boston & A. R. 816 
 
 u. Northern R. 125 
 
 u. Stewart 85 
 
 Milner v. Pensacola 97, 101, 107 
 
 Milnor v. New York & N. H. R. 510, 511 
 Milwaukie & C. R. v. Hunter 300, 320 
 Milwaukie & I. R. v. Field 58, 68, 126 
 Milwaukie & M. R. w.Eble 175, 212, 222, 
 
 224, 228 
 
 V. Finney 280, 306 
 
 Milwaukie & St. P. E. u. Arms 305, 306 
 
 V. Crawford 485 
 
 V. Faribault 156 
 
 V. Kellogg 296, 
 
 310, 311, 440, 
 
 443, 444, 447 
 
 V. Milwaukie 484, 
 
 485 
 
 Mine Hill & S. H. R. v. Lippincott 255 
 
 Miners' Bank v. United States 9 
 
 Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbaeh 502, 503, 
 
 516, Sl7, 518, 525 
 
 Minneapolis & St. L. R. v. Bassett 51 
 
 Minnesota Cent. R. v. Doran 224 
 
 V. McNamara 223, 
 
 224 
 
 Minnesota Valley R. «. Doran 188, 212, 
 
 223 
 
 Minor v. Mechanics' Bank 6, 62 
 
 Minot V. Paine 123 
 
 V. West Roxbury 614 
 
 Miss. Cent. R. v. Caruth 204 
 
 V. Mason 204 
 
 V. Miller 404, 429 
 
 Miss. & M. R. V. Byington 191 
 
 V. Howard 501, 505, 521 
 
 V. Rosseau 182 
 
 Miss., O., & R. R. R. ./. Cross 58, 65, 66 
 
 V. Gaster 9, 65, 78 
 
 Miss. R. V. McDonald 222 
 
 Miss. River Bridge Co. v. Lonergan 202, 
 
 203 
 
 Miss. Society v. Musgrove 450 
 
 Miss. & T. R. V. Devaney 219, 225 
 
 V. Harris 52 
 
 Missouri, K., & T. R. u. Davidson 431, 
 
 445 
 V. Haines 212, 229 
 V. Ward 166, 179 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. E. c. 
 
 Blake 489 
 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. E. v. 
 
 Brickley 138 
 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. R. v. 
 
 Morris 474, 475, 489 
 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. R. v. 
 
 Owen 178, 187, 220, 226 
 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. E. v. 
 
 Shepard 182, 183 
 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. R. v. 
 
 Wheaton 489 
 
 Missouri River Packet Co. v. Han- 
 nibal & St. J. R. 271 
 Missouri River R. o. Richards 31 
 
 Mitchell V. City of Glasgow Bank 81 
 V. Deeds 7, 8, 9, 35, 61 
 
 V. Illinois & St. L. R. 189, 219 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 343, 346, 396 
 
 17. Penn. R. 359 
 
 V. Rome R. Co. 51, 67 
 
 V. Thornton 222 
 
 V. Vt. Copper Min. Co. 85 
 
 Mix ». Lafayette, B., & M. R. 241 
 
 Moale V. Baltimore 91 
 
 Mobile & G. R. v. Peebles 489 
 
 Mobile & M. R. v. Blakely 331 
 
 i). Clanton 383 
 
 V. Smith 359, 864, 365, 
 
 366, 368, 369, 375 
 
 V. Steiner 449, 452, 458 
 
 Mobile & 0. R. ». Franks 464, 492 
 
 u. Moseley 481, 490 
 
 V. State 9, 462 
 
 V. Thomas 366, 372, 382, 
 
 383 
 
 V. Williams 404, 428 
 
 V. Yandal 47 
 
 Moers v. Reading 94, 95 
 
 Mohawk v. Hudson E. 25 
 
 Mohawk & H. R. v. Arteher 183 
 
 V. Clute 476 
 
 In re 117 
 
 Mohawk Bridge Co. i;. Utica & S. 
 
 R. 258, 269, 269, 455 
 
 Monadnock E. v. Felt 55, 56, 57 
 
 V. Peterborough 102 
 
 Monahan v. Keokuk & D. M. B. 406 
 
 Monmouth Co. Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Hutchinson 447 
 
 Monmouth Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. 
 
 Lowell 29, 34, 75 
 
 Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Kirk 197, 
 
 199, 202 
 
 Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon 197, 198, 
 
 235, 450, 458 
 
 Monroe v. Ft. Wayne, J., & S. R. 8, 53, 
 
 64 
 Montclair R. i/. Benson 225 
 
 Monterey & S. V. R. v. Hildreth 4, 46, 48 
 Montgomery v. Montgomery & W. 
 
 Plank Road Co. 517 
 
 Montgomery & W. P. R. ;;. Branch 13 
 
 V. Varner 228 
 
 V. Walton 171 
 
 Montmorency Gravel Road Co. u. 
 
 Rock 214 
 
 Montmorency Gravel Road Co. v. 
 
 Stockton 212, 214 
 
 Montpelier & W. E. E. v. Langdon 8, 55, 
 
 64,65 
 Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe 
 
 Works 280, 504, 518, 525 
 
 Mooney v. Hudson River R. 308 
 
 Moore v. Bank of Commerce 112 
 
 0. Boston 185 
 
 0. Central R. 314, 321, 323, 341, 
 
 345 
 
 V. Fitchburg E. 277, 278, 292 
 
Iviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Moore v. Hudson Eiver R. 
 
 71 
 
 V. Jones 
 
 80 
 
 V. Moore 
 
 110 
 
 Moorhead v. Little Miami R. 
 
 255 
 
 Moran v. Com'rs 
 
 104 
 
 V. Miami County 
 
 100 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 364, 365 
 
 Morgan v. Bowman 287 
 
 V. Chicago & N. E. R. 183, 219 
 
 V. Louisiana 2, 486 
 
 V. Monmouth Plank Road Co. 163 
 
 V. New Orleans 1, 43 
 
 V. Skiddy 42 
 
 V. Vale of Neath R. 361, 362, 364 
 
 Morgan County v. Thomas 66, 101 
 
 Morrill v. Boston & M. R. 27, 35 
 
 Morris v. Cheney 45, 503 
 
 V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 301, 326 
 
 V. Gleason 371, 380 
 
 .;. Morris County 93 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 421 
 
 Morris & B. Co. v. Nathan 55 
 
 Morris Canal & B. Co. v. Central R. 168, 
 
 492 
 V. Fagin 168, 269 
 V. Jersey City 489 
 V. Nathan 55, 56 
 V. Eyerson 271 
 Morris & E. R. w. Blair 157, 172,210,256, 
 
 257, 258 
 
 V. Central R. 145, 152, 
 
 155, 194, 255, 256, 
 
 259, 495 
 
 V. Haslan 321, 342, 343, 
 
 845 
 
 V. Hudson Tunnel R. 
 
 167, 195, 232, 236 
 
 V. Newark 155, 197, 246 
 
 ' V. Prudden 251, 269, 271 
 
 V. State 431 
 
 V. Sussex R. 492, 501, 
 
 512, 525 
 
 Morrisey v. Eastern R. 275, 330, 335 
 
 Morrison v. Bucksportft B. R. 205, 261, 
 
 262 
 
 V. Erie R. 338 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 427, 
 
 429 
 
 Morse v. Brainerd 510 
 
 V. Copeland 131 
 
 V. Rutland & B. R. 402, 407, 413, 
 
 414, 427 
 
 V. Swits 42 
 
 Morss V. Boston & M. R. 214, 221, 424 
 
 Morton Gravel Road Co. v. Wysong 498 
 
 Morville v. American Tract Soc. 517 
 
 Mosely v. Chamberlain 360 
 
 Moses V. Boston & M. R. 511 
 
 V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 235, 
 
 237, 239 
 
 Moshier v. Utica & S. R. 842, 348 
 
 Moss V. Johnson 365 
 
 u. Pacific E. 375 
 
 u. Syers 125 
 
 Moss's Appeal 123 
 
 Mott V. Hudson River R. 161, 265 
 
 V. Penn. R. 481 
 
 Moulton V. Raymond 88 
 
 Moultrie County w. Rockingham Ten 
 
 Cent Savings Bank 98 
 
 Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith 107, 449 
 
 Mousseaux v. Urquhart 24, 25 
 
 Mowrey v. Central City R. 313, 333, 334 
 
 V. Indianapolis & C. R. 30, 70, 
 
 71, 74, 459, 520 
 
 Mt. Holly, L., & M. Tump. v. Ferre 113 
 
 Mt. Sterling Coalroad Co. v. Little 48 
 
 Mt. Vernon v. Hovey 101, 102, 105 
 
 Mt. Washington Road Co., In re 146, 173, 
 
 175, 212, 216, 223 
 
 Mud Creek Draining Co. v. State 13 
 
 Mudgett V. Morrell 78 
 
 Muldowney v. lU. Cent. R. 296, 297, 301, 
 
 322, 871, 877, 380 
 
 Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. 297, 317, 
 
 318 
 Mulhau V. Sharp 251 
 
 Mulherrin v. Del., L., & W. R. 330, 377, 
 
 378 
 MuUan v. Phil. & S. M. Steamship 
 
 Co. 294, 861, 367, 368, 384 
 
 MuUaney v. Spence 337 
 
 MuUer o. Dows 22 
 
 Mulligan v. Curtis 3.39 
 
 MuUiner v. Midland R. 149, 497 
 
 Mumford v. Oxford, W., & W. E. 272 
 Mumma v. Potomac Co. 10, 13 
 
 Munch V. New York Cent. R. 419, 426 
 Munger v. Tonawanda R. 383, 401, 402, 
 
 406 
 Munkers v. Kansas City, St. J.,- & C. 
 
 B. R. 205 
 
 Munn V. Barnum 111 
 
 V. lUmois 462, 465, 466, 467, 468, 
 470, 408 
 Munns «. Isle ofWight R. 169 
 
 Munson v. Lyons 103, 104 
 
 Munt V. Shrewsbury & C. E. 527, 529 
 Murch V. Concord R. 274, 284 
 
 Murdock v. Prospect Park & C. I. 
 
 R. 131, 168, 236 
 
 V. Warwick 349 
 
 Murphy v. Boston & A. R. 364 
 
 V. Chicago 235 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. 435, 436, 
 
 441 
 
 V. Chicago, E. I., & P. R. 299, 
 
 820, 323, 326, 331 
 
 t>. Deane 299, 323, 324, 325, 326, 
 
 327 
 
 V. Iron Mountain R. 383 
 
 V. New York Cent. E. 293, 298 
 
 V. Smith 360, 367 
 
 Murray v. Charleston 473 
 
 V. County Com'rs 159, 240 
 
 V. Hudson Eiver E. 301, 308 
 
 V, Lardner 107 
 
 V. New York Cent. E. 418 
 
 V. So. Car. E. 359, 404, 428 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 lix 
 
 Murray w. Stevens 118,119 
 
 V. Vanderbilt 38 
 
 Muscatine v. Miss. & M. R. 101, 105,475 
 Muscatine Western R. v. Horton 89 
 
 Musser v. Fairmount & A. St. E. 247 
 Mussina v. Goldthwaite 43 
 
 Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Stokes 5 
 
 Mutual Savings Bank & B. Assoc. 
 
 V. Meriden Agency Co. 506 
 
 Myers v. Johnson 89 
 
 N. 
 
 N. E. E. V. Rodriguea 50, 58, 82 
 
 Nagle V. Allegheny Valley R. 314, 335, 
 
 336, 343 
 V. MuUison 305 
 
 Naglee v. Pacific Wharf Co. 113, 114 
 Nail V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 410 
 
 Nant-Y-Glo & B. I. Co. v. Grave 39 
 
 Napa Valley E. E. v. Napa County 93, 
 
 105 
 Napier v. Poe 51 
 
 Nash V. Sharpe 803 
 
 Nashua Fire Ins. v. Moore 26 
 
 Nashua Lock Co. o. Worcester & N. 
 
 E. 510 
 
 Nashville v. First Nat. Bank 107 
 
 Nashville & C. E. v. Anthony 404 
 
 V. Carroll 282, 323, 
 
 325, 363 
 
 V. Cowardin 149, 150 
 
 V. Eakin 389 
 
 V. Peacock 415 
 
 V. Prince 395, 396, 397 
 
 V. Smith 395 
 
 V. Sprayberry 889 
 
 V. Starnes 279 
 
 V. Stevens 395, 396 
 
 Nashville & D. R. v. Comans 410 
 
 V. Jones 863, 396 
 
 Nashville & N. W. E. v. Jones 60, 63 
 
 Nason v. Woonsocket Union E. 229 
 
 Nathan v. Whitlock 77, 80 
 
 National Bank i;. Commonwealth 473, 
 
 475, 488 
 
 V. Graham 262, 280, 511, 
 
 520 
 
 V. Yankton County 103 
 
 National Car Brake Shoe Co. i^. L. 
 
 S. & M. S. E. Co. 273 
 
 National Condensed Milk Co. v. Bran- 
 
 denburgh 16 
 
 National Docks R. v. Central R. 7, 13, 
 
 144, 145, 148, 259 
 
 National Peraberton Bank v. Porter 516, 
 
 517 
 National Permanent Benefit Building 
 
 Soc, In re 612 
 
 National R. v. Eastern & A. R. 155 
 
 National Security Bank v. Cushman 36 
 Natoma Water & M. Co. v. Clarkin 507 
 Naugatuck E. v. Waterbury Button 
 Co. 312, 510 
 
 Neal V. Gillett 323, 332 
 
 V. Knox & L. B. 185 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. E. 172, 210 
 
 V. Saline County 101 
 
 Nebraska City v. Campbell 302 
 
 Needham v. Grand Trunk E. 889, 391, 
 
 393, 394, 400 
 
 V. San Francisco & S. J. R. 323, 
 
 324, 326, 327, 331, 403, 406 
 
 Nefzger v. Davenport & S. P. E. 106 
 
 Neild V. London & N. W. E. 205 
 
 Neiller v. Kelley 119, 120 
 
 Nelson v. Atlantic & P. R. 317 
 
 u. Blakely 6 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 297, 299 
 
 V. Luling 42 
 
 V. Vt. & C. R. 283, 284, 411, 461, 
 
 463, 465 
 
 Nesbitt V. Trumbo 142 
 
 Neuse River Nav. Co. v. Newbern 75, 76 
 
 Neustadt v. 111. Cent. R. 481, 482, 483 
 
 New Albany v. Burke 77, 102 
 
 New Albany & S. R. v. Connelly 164 
 
 V. McCormick 56, 
 
 59, 78, 79 
 
 V. Fields 58, 64 
 
 V. McNamara 403 
 
 V. Maiden 415, 423 
 
 V. O'Daily 235 
 
 i>. Pickens 64, 78, 
 
 417 
 
 V. Tilton 463 
 
 New Bedford & B. Turnp. Co. v. 
 
 Adams 81, 83 
 
 New Bedford R. v. Old Colony R. 286 
 New Brunswick & C. R. & L. Co. v. 
 
 Conybeare 42 
 
 New Brunswick & C. R. & L. Co. v. 
 
 Muggeridge 42 
 
 New Central Coal Co. v. George's 
 Creek Coal & I. R. 5, 142, 144, 146, 
 149, 167, 261 
 New England Express Co. v. Maine 
 
 Cent. R. 498, 613 
 
 New Hamp. Cent. R. v. Johnson 46, 48, 
 53, 54, 56, 81, 83, 85 
 New Haven v. City Bank 483 
 
 V. Fair Haven & W. E. 480 
 New Haven & D. R. v. Chapman 6, 67, 
 72, 73, 458, 459 
 New Haven & N. Co. v. Hayden 35, 514 
 V. Northamp- 
 ton 191 
 New Jersey w. Wilson 481 
 V. Yard 481, 482, 483, 486 
 New Jersey Ex. Co. v. Nichols 300, 303, 
 
 320 
 New Jersey Midland E. v. Straight 69 
 V. Van Sycle 
 
 130, 131 
 
 New Jersey R. & T. Co. v. West 320 
 
 V. Suydam 188, 
 
 190 
 
 New Jersey S. E. v. Long Branch 
 
 Com'rs 12, 154, 155 
 
Ix 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 New Orleans v. Graihle 93, 96 
 
 New Orleans & C. R. v. New Orleans 243 
 New Orleans, F., & H. Steamship 
 
 Co. V. Ocean Dry Dock Co. 492, 506 
 New Orleans, J.,& G. N. B. v. Bailey 276, 
 
 306, 341 
 
 V. Enochs 428 
 
 V. Field 404, 
 
 406 
 
 V. Harris 6, 67, 
 
 69, 450 
 
 J). Harrison 279, 
 
 370 
 
 V. Hemphill 183 
 
 i>. Hughes 359, 
 
 362, 865 
 
 V. Hurst 305, 
 
 308 
 
 u. Mitchell 344 
 
 u. Statham 308 
 
 New Orleans, M., & 0. R. v. Dunn 106 
 
 V. Frederick 
 
 170, 183, 200 
 K. Hanning 276, 
 289 
 V. New Or- 
 leans 246 
 New Orleans, M., & T. R. v. Southern 
 
 & A. Tel. 164 
 
 New Orleans, 0., & G. W. R. v. La- 
 garde 219,221, 222 
 New Orleans P. R.' v. Gay 167, 221 
 New Orleans, St. L., & C. R. v. Mc- 
 Donald 93, 97 
 New York v. Bailey 272, 287, 291 
 V. New England Transfer 
 
 Co. 455 
 
 V. Second Av. R. 247, 451 
 
 New York & B. B. R., In re 155, 156 
 
 New York & B. E., In re 256, 267, 
 
 259 
 New York & C. R. v. Gunnison 145, 150 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R., In re 148, 
 149, 150, 151, 155, 165, 171, 180, 188, 
 217, 236, 246 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. o. Met- 
 ropolitan Gas Light Co. 144, 152 
 New York Cent. E. v. Buffalo & N. 
 
 Y. & E. R. 133 
 
 New York City & N. E. v. Central 
 
 Union Tel. Co. 157 
 
 New York & E. R. v. Sabin 472, 479, 
 
 482 
 
 V. Skinner 319, 401, 
 
 402, 403, 406 
 
 V. Young 145, 147, 
 
 196, 197, 199, 266 
 
 New York Elevated R. u. Com'rs of 
 
 Taxes 482 
 
 New York Elevated R., In re 7, 11, 12, 
 
 147, 182, 183, 248 
 
 New York Exchange Co. v. DeWolf 55 
 
 New York, H., & N. R. v. Boston, H , 
 
 & E. R. 153, 156, 261 
 
 New York, H., & N. R. v. Hunt 65 
 
 New York & H. R. v. Forty- Second 
 
 St. & G. St. F. R. 194, 246, 253 
 
 New York & H. E., In re 144 
 
 V. Kip 143, 145, 149, 
 
 150, 493, 494 
 
 V. Morrisiania 480 
 
 V. New York 247 
 
 New York & N. H. R. v. Ketchum 31, 
 
 32, 511 
 
 V. New Haven 480 
 
 V. Schuyler 40, 
 
 113, 119, 128, 
 
 129 
 
 New York & O. M. R. v. Van Horn 50, 
 
 61, 452 
 Newark & N. Y. R. v. Newark 156 
 
 Newark Plank Road v. Elmer 201 
 
 Newbery v. Garland 42 
 
 Newby v. Platte County 142, 143, 213, 
 
 221, 223 
 
 V. Von Oppen 15 
 
 New Castle & F. R. v. McChesney 196 
 
 Newcastle & R. R. v. Peru & I. E. 152, 
 
 264, 463 
 Newcomb v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. 447 
 
 V. Reed 6 
 
 Newell V. Smith 286 
 
 Newhall v. Galena & C. U. R. 71, 72, 493 
 V. Sanger 132 
 
 Newson ;;. New York Cent. E. 276 
 
 Newton v. Agricultural Branch R. 261, 
 
 266 
 
 V. Commissioners 449, 450 
 
 V. Fay 111 
 
 V. Keech 109 
 
 Ney V. Swinney 182 
 
 Niagara Falls & L. O. R. v. Hotehkiss 171 
 
 Niantic Savings Bank v. Douglas 97, 101, 
 
 102 
 
 Nichol V. Nashville 92, 94 
 
 Nicholls V. Great Western R. 344 
 
 Nichols V. Boston 271 
 
 V. Bridgeport 91, 170, 190, 221, 
 
 223 
 
 V. Middlesex R. 317 
 
 V. Somerset &K. R. 165, 178, 450 
 
 Nicholson v. Erie R. 275, 332 
 
 V. Lancashire & Y. E. 329 
 
 V. New York & E. E. 236 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 178, 
 
 223, 242 
 
 Nickerson v. Tirrell 275 
 
 Nioolay v. St. Clair County 93, 101 
 
 Nicoll V. New York & E. E. 130, 136, 137, 
 
 506 
 Ninth Avenue, In re 156 
 
 Ninth Avenue R. v. New York Ele- 
 vated R. 248 
 Nippenose Man. Co. v. Stadon 60, 60 
 Nitro-Glycerine Cases 273, 437 
 Nitro-Phosphate & O. C. M. v. Lon- 
 don & St. K. Docks Co. 204 
 Nixon V. Brownlow 71 
 Noble V. Callender 58 
 V. Cunningham 278 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixi 
 
 Noble V. Viricennes 108 
 
 Noesen v. Port Washington 72 
 
 Noll V. Dubuque, B., & M. E. 158, 2B0 
 Nolton V. Western R. 274 
 
 Noonan v. Albany 205 
 
 Norfolk & P. R. V. Ormsby 333, 384, 355 
 Norris v. Androscoggin R. 409, 410, 411, 
 
 462, 463 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. 133, 204 
 
 Norristown v. Moyer 249 
 
 Norristown, H., & St. L. Tump. Co. 
 
 V. Burket 167 
 
 North Avenue, In re 162 
 
 North Beach & M. R. Co.'s Appeal 480 
 North Branch Passenger R. v. City 
 
 Passenger R. 492 
 
 North Carolina R. v. Com'rs 489 
 
 V. Leach 58, 60, 70, 73 
 
 V. Moore 604 
 
 North Chicago Rolling Mills Co. v. 
 
 Monka 372 
 
 North East & S. W. A. R., Zn re 461 
 
 North Eastern R. v. Barker 258 
 
 V. Crossland 134 
 
 V. Sineath 175, 214, 
 
 402, 404 
 
 V. Wanless 351 
 
 North Hudson County R. v. Booraem 219 
 
 North Mo. R. v. Lackland 147, 172 
 
 V, Maguire 482 
 
 V. Winkler 63 
 
 North Penn. R. v. Adams 108 
 
 V. Davis 151, 186 
 
 V. Heileraan 319, 342, 343 
 
 V. Mahoney 333 
 
 V. Rehman 403, 405, 406 
 
 V. Robinson 312, 394 
 
 V. Stone 265 
 
 North Reading v. County Com'rs 187 
 
 North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., 
 
 In re 25, 117 
 
 Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. 
 
 Shaw 511, 517 
 
 North Western University v. People 481 
 Northern Cent. M. R. v. Eslow 46 
 
 Northern Cent. R. v. Baltimore 156, 194, 
 
 245 
 
 d. Canton County 131, 
 
 219 
 
 V. Commonwealth 251 
 
 V. Jackson 20, 473 
 
 V. Scholl 292 
 
 V. State 299, 312, 314, 
 
 315, 318, 319, 322, 
 
 326, 344, 346, 377 
 
 Northern Ind. R. v. Connelly 480 
 
 Northern Pacific R. v. Barnesville & 
 
 M. R. 269 
 
 V. St. Paul, M., 
 &M.R. 153,166 
 Northern R. v. Concord & C. R. 152, 153, 
 
 257 
 
 V. Concord R. 38 
 
 V. Miller 71, 72, 82, 84, 85 
 
 Northrup v. Newton & B. Turnp. Co. 113 
 
 Norton v. Eastern R. 311, 348, 350, 351 
 
 V. London & N. W. R. 149, 157, 
 
 159, 160, 260, 496 
 
 p. WaUkill Valley R. 183 
 
 V. Wiswall 283, 287, 288, 291, 391 
 
 Norwich v. Hampshire 91 
 
 V. Norfolk R. 500, 601, 502, 506, 
 
 507, 613, 514, 518, 523, 528, 
 
 632, 633, 634 
 
 Norwich & L. Nav. Co. v. Theobold 53 
 
 Norwich & W. R. v. Killingly 245 
 
 Noyes v. Rutland & B. R. 510, 518 
 
 V. Smith 371, 373 
 
 V. Spaulding 71, 73, 111, 113 
 
 Nugent V. Cincinnati, H., & I. S. L. 
 
 R. 61 
 
 V. Supervisors 47, 71, 98, 102 
 
 Nutter V. Lexington & W. C. R. 62, 53, 
 
 54,75 
 Nutting V. Thomasson 116, 117, 118 
 
 O. 
 
 Oakes v. Turquand 62, 81 
 
 Oakland Co. v. Oakland, B., & F. V. 
 
 R. 152 
 
 Oakland R. v. Fielding 248, 274, 304, 333 
 O'Bannon v. Louisville, C, & L. R. 403 
 O'Brian v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 
 Co. 127 
 
 O'Brien v. Wetherell 14 
 
 Occidental Ins. Co. v. Ganzhorn 61 
 
 Occum Co. V. Sprague Man. Co. 620 
 
 O'Connell v. Bait. & O. R. 364, 366 
 
 O'Connor v. Adams 361, 376, 382 
 
 V. Roberts 366 
 
 O'Donald v. Evansville, I., & C. S. L. 
 
 R. 9, 57 
 
 O'Donnell v. Allegheny Valley R. 365 
 
 V. Bailey 481 
 
 V. Mo. Pacific R. 316, 327 
 
 V. New York & H. R. 308, 313, 
 
 314, 347 
 
 O'Flaherty v. Union R. 333, 338 
 
 Ogden V. Kirby 63 
 
 Ogdensburg, C, & R. R. v. Wolley 51 
 
 Ogdensburg & L. C. E. u. Pratt 610 
 
 V. Vt.&C.R. 14, 
 
 611, 521 
 
 Ogdensburg, E., & C. E. v. Frost 4, 51, 
 
 82, 84, 85 
 
 Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co. 62, 80 
 
 O'Harat;. Penn. R. 170,180,181,188 
 
 Ohio Cemetery Co. ». Philadelphia 480 
 
 Ohio City v. Cleveland & T. R. 123, 127 
 
 Ohio, I., & I. R. V. Cramer 75, 76, 78 
 
 Ohio Ins. Co. ;;. Nunnemacher 124 
 
 Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 97, 481, 
 
 482 
 Ohio & M. R. V. Bath 219 
 
 V. Brubaker 401 
 
 V. Clutter 410 
 
 V. Davis 281, 285 
 
 V. Dickerson 301 
 
Ixii 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Ohio & M. E. V. Dunbar 283 
 
 V. Eaves 351, 408, 425 
 V. Fitch 285 
 
 V. Fowler 426 
 
 V. Hammersley 359, 360 
 V. Lacliey 450 
 
 V. McCarthy 501, 502, 510, 
 519 
 V. McCleland 463 
 
 V. McPherson 26, 28 
 
 V. Porter 294, 828, 432, 434 
 V. Rowland 420, 421 
 
 V. Schiebe 317 
 
 V. Selby 323 
 
 V. Shanefelt 433, 434, 435 
 V. Stratton . 338 
 
 V. TindaU 365, 391, 394, 
 398, 399 
 V. Wheeler 16, 19 
 
 Ohio & P. R. V. Wallace 188 
 
 Oil Creek & A. E. B. v. Keighron 310, 
 
 443 
 o.Penn. Trans. 
 Co. 517 
 
 O'Keefe v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 295, 
 
 323, 328 
 Olcott V. Supervisors 93, 94, 96 
 
 V. Tioga R. 34, 35, 503, 509, 621 
 Old Colony & F. E. R. v. Plymouth 
 
 Co. 152, 193, 218 
 
 Old Colony R. u. Evans 137, 139, 141, 506 
 
 U.Miller 161, 171, 172,209, 
 
 210 220 221 
 
 Oldfield V. New York & H. R. ' 339,'388, 
 
 394, 395, 397 
 
 Oldtown & L. R. v. Veazie 8, 53, 54, 451, 
 
 460 
 
 Oleson V. Green Bay & L. P. E. 94 
 
 Oliver v. Memphis & L. R. R. 481, 489 
 
 V. Washington Mills 473 
 
 Oliver Lee's Bank, In re 458 
 
 O'Mara o. Del. & H. C. Co. 316, 328 
 
 V. Hudson River E. 296, 333, 335, 
 
 351, 356, 395, 398 
 
 Ominger v. New York Cent. & H. K. 
 
 R. 345, 359 
 
 O'Neal V. King 63 
 
 O'Neill V. Keokuk & D. M. R. 377 
 
 Onthank v. Lake Shore & M. S. E. 133 
 Opdyke v. Pacific R. 504 
 
 Orange & A. R. v. Alexandria 474, 475, 
 
 479, 480 
 
 V. Fulvey 120 
 
 Oregon & C. R. o. Barlo'w 179, 180, 210, 
 
 215 
 Oregon Cascade R. Co. v. Baily 145, 162, 
 
 156, 227 
 Oregon Cent. B. c^. Sooggin 48, 68, 
 
 62,64 
 V. Wait 222 
 
 Orleans i'. Platts 104 
 
 Orleans, F., & H. Steamship Co. v. 
 
 Ocean Dry Dock Co. 500 
 
 Ormond v. Holland 367 
 
 Ormsby v. Vt. Copper M. Co. 11, 28 
 
 OroviUe & V. E. a. Plumas County 6, 8, 
 
 12 
 
 Orr V. Bigelow 113, 120 
 
 V. Quimby 143, 163, 164, 177, 178, 194 
 
 Osage Valley & S. K. E. v. Morgan 93 
 
 Osborn w. Gillett 386 
 
 Osborne v. Brooklyn City E. 251, 269 
 
 V. Humphrey 481 
 
 V. Knox & L. R. 370, 374, 377 
 
 V. Mobile 469 
 
 V. Morgan 383 
 
 u. New York & N. H. E. 485 
 
 Osgood V. King 75, 76, 80 
 
 Oskaloosa Agricultural Works v. 
 
 Parklmrst 55 
 
 Ossipee Hosiery & W. Man. Co. v. 
 
 Canney 517, 518 
 
 Ostertag v. Pacific E. 316, 336 
 
 Oswego Falls Bridge v. Fish 463 
 
 Otis V. Janesville 283 
 
 Ottawa V. Chicago & E. I. E. 489 
 
 Ottawa, O., & F. E. V. E. v. Hall 48 
 
 V. Black 44, 46, 
 
 65, 71, 73, 
 
 101, 102 
 
 Otter V. Brevoort Petroleum Co. 76 
 
 Overend & G. Co. v. Gibb 41 
 
 Overmyer v. Williams 606 
 
 Overton v. Freeman 286, 288 
 
 Owen V. New York Cent. R. 380 
 
 V. Whitaker 27 
 
 Owens V. Hannibal & St. J. E. 313, 408 
 
 Owners of Ground v. Albany 183 
 
 Owsley V. Montgomery & W. P. E. 273 
 
 Oxford Tump. Co. v. Bunnel 113 
 
 Pacific E. V. Cass County 475, 482 
 
 0. Chrystal 213, 223 
 
 V. Houts 326, 355 
 
 V. Hughes 71, 73 
 
 i>. Ketchum 32 
 
 V. Leavenworth City 247 
 
 V. Lindell 256 
 
 1^. Maguire 482, 483 
 
 V. Eenshaw 67, 71, 459 
 
 V. Seely 492, 506, 607, 513 
 
 w. Thomas 35 
 
 Pack V. New York 287, 289, 391 
 
 Packard v. 111. Cent. R. 421 
 
 Packer v. Sunbury & E. R. 155 
 
 Paducah & M. R. v. Hoehl 300, 349, 350, 
 
 355 
 
 V. Stovall 186, 222, 224 
 
 Page V. Chicago, M., & St. P. E. 161 
 
 V. Heineberg 130, 507 
 
 V. Smith 124 
 
 Paige V. Smith 286 
 
 Paine v. Boston 224, 225 
 
 V. Lake Erie & L. E. 38, 40 
 
 V. Wright 474, 490 
 
 Painesville & H. E. v. King 126, 127 
 
 Painter u. Pittsburg 287^ 291 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixiii 
 
 Pakalinsky v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 E. R. 351, 352 
 
 Paola & F. E. E. v. Anderson County 108 
 
 Paris V. Mason 222 
 
 Park V. C. & S. W. R. 250 
 
 V. O'Brien 817 
 
 Parke's Appeal 147, 254, 259 
 
 Parker v. Adams 352 
 
 V. Allegheny Valley R. 294 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. 206, 207, 250 
 
 V. Dubuque & S. W. R. 407 
 
 V. Long Island R. 806 
 
 V. Mason 123 
 
 u. Massachusetts R. 464 
 
 V. Metropolitan R. 457, 458, 459 
 
 V. Northern Cent. M. R. 46, 64 
 
 V. Portland Publishing Co. 275, 
 
 293 
 
 V. Redfield 481 
 
 V. Rensselaer & S. R. 284, 412, 417 
 
 V. Scogin 93 
 
 V. Smith 99, 100, 102 
 
 V. Thomas 57, 59, 63 
 
 Parks V. Boston 186, 209, 212, 220 
 
 .,. EvansTiUe, L, & C. S. L. R. 57, 
 
 59,62 
 
 V. Hampden County 222 
 
 Parish v. Wheeler 509, 517 
 
 Parmelee v. Chicago 480, 482 
 
 V. Oswego & S. E. 132, 136, 144 
 
 Parmley v. St. Louis, L M., & S. R. 488 
 
 Parrot v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 198, 241, 
 
 242, 250, 270 
 
 Parrott v. Byers 113, 11^ 
 
 V. City of Lawrence 455 
 
 Parsons v. Howe 266, 496 
 
 V. Jackson 501 
 
 Partridge i\ Badger 78, 503 
 
 Passenger R. Co. v. Young 277, 278 
 
 Paterson v. Arnold 7 
 
 V. Wallace 367, 392 
 
 Paterson & P. H. R. v. Paterson 246 
 
 Patten v. Northern Cent. E. 176,208,212, 
 
 215, 216, 248 
 
 Patterson v. Burlington & M. R. 299 
 
 V. Chicago, D., & V. R. 166, 
 
 197 239 
 
 V. Phil., W., & B. R. ' 331 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. R. 368, 372, 
 
 381 
 
 V. Yuba County 93, 95, 96 
 
 Paul V. Connersville & N. J. E. 132, 136 
 
 j;. Detroit 146 
 
 V. Kenosha 106, 517 
 
 Paul & P. R. V. Schurmeir 241 
 
 Paulmier i>. Erie E. 376, 879, 393, 394, 395, 
 
 396 
 Pawlet V. Rutland & W. R. 288 
 
 Payne v. Cliicago, li. I-, & P- R. 321, 352 
 Payson v. Sioever 33, 67, 70, 80 
 
 Peabody v. Flint 48, 520 
 
 Peachey v. Rowland 286, 288 
 
 Pearce v. Madison & L R. 497, 500, 510, 
 
 512 
 Pearl Street Case 188, 226 
 
 Pearson v. Cox 286 
 
 V. Johnson 166, 167 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 426, 427 
 
 Pearson's Case 39 
 
 Peavey v. Calais R. 145, 255, 258 
 
 Peck V. New York Cent. 308 
 
 V. San Antonio 95 
 
 Peckham v. Van Wagenen 121 
 
 Peddicord v. Bait., C, & E. M. Pass. 
 
 R. 236 
 
 Peek r. Gurney 42 
 
 Peeples v. Brunswick & A. R. 278 
 
 Peik V. Chicago & N. W, R. 22, 449, 457, 
 
 458, 460, 466, 468, 470 
 
 Pekin v. Breretoij 235, 241 
 
 V. Mukel 241 
 
 Pelton V. National Bank 490 
 
 Pendergrast v. Stockton 129 
 
 Pendleton v. Amy 100 
 
 Pendleton St. R. v. Shires 341 
 
 V. Stallman 252, 322, 
 
 323, 326, 341 
 
 Pendril v. Second Av. R. 313 
 
 Peninsular Bank v. Hanmer 89 
 
 Peninsular E. Co. v. Duncan 46 
 
 Pennock v. Coe 259 
 
 Pennsylvania K. Wheeling &B. Bridge 
 
 Co. 202 
 
 Penn. Canal Co. v. Bentley 300, 319 
 
 Penn. Co. v. Hankey 377 
 
 V. Lynch 879 
 
 Penn , D., & M. Steam Nav. Co. v. 
 
 Dandridge 500 
 
 Penn. & N. Y. Canal & E. v. Billings 158 
 
 V. Lacey 442, 
 
 443, 444 
 
 Penn. & N. Y. E. & C. Co. v. Bunnell 212, 
 
 224, 227 
 Penn. & 0. Canal Co. v. Graham 180, 243, 
 248, 270, 274 
 V. Webb 67 
 
 Penn. E. v. Adams 399 
 
 V. Aspell 317 
 
 V. Bantom 399 
 
 V. Barnett 313, 318, 319, 348 
 V. Brooks 294, 295, 296, 301, 
 303 
 II. Bruner 180, 257 
 
 V. Butler 304, 394, 396, 398 
 V. Commonwealth 469 
 
 V. Dale 303 
 
 V. Duquesne Borough 250 
 
 V. German Lutheran Con- 
 gregation 173, 188, 189 
 V. Goodman 298, 300, 304, 342, 
 348, 394 
 V. Graham 301 
 V. Heaston 189 
 V. Heister 221 
 V. Henderson 394, 400 
 V. Hope 441, 442, 443, 444 
 Jn re 165, 156 
 V. Jones 260 
 t>. KeUer 388, 394, 395, 396, 
 
Ixiv 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Penn. R. v. Kelly 304, 308, 311, 333 
 
 <j. Kerr 310, 448 
 
 V. Krick 323 
 
 V. Langdon 317 
 
 V. Lewis 332, 338, 339, 354, 
 
 355 
 
 V. McCloskey 394 
 
 V. McTighe 300 
 
 V. Matthews 320, 342, 347, 353 
 
 V. Morgan 336 
 
 V. National R. 498, 454, 456 
 
 V. New York & L. B. R. 162, 
 
 199 
 
 V. Ogier 308, 313, 315, 394, 395, 
 
 396 
 
 V. Philadelphia 87 
 
 V. Porter 170, 181, 182, 188, 
 
 256 
 
 V. Eathgeb 315, 316, 343 
 
 V. Riblet 402, 463 
 
 M. Sinclair 330 
 
 V. Stranahan 437, 439 
 
 V. Toomey 279 
 
 V. Vandiver 273, 277, 278, 308, 
 
 394 
 
 V. Weber 300, 315, 346 
 
 V. Weiss 346 
 
 V. Werner 300, 328, 329, 346 
 
 V. White 345 
 
 V. Zebe 304, 305, 308, 394, 395, 
 
 396, 398 
 
 Penn. E. Co.'s Appeal IIS 
 
 Penny's Case 188, 208, 209, 216 
 
 Penobscot & K. E. v. Bartlett 45, 52, 54, 
 
 83 
 
 V. Dunn 8, 26, 30, S3, 
 
 56, 77, 83 
 
 Penobscot E. v. Dumraer 55, 74, 77, 78, 
 
 83 
 
 V. White 50, 54, 55, 59, 61, 
 
 74,77 
 
 Penrice v. Wallis 167, 222 
 
 Penrose v. Erie Canal Co. 461 
 
 Pensaoola Tel. Co. v. Western Union 
 
 Tel. Co. 468, 471 
 
 People V. Albany Hospital 27 
 
 V. Albany & S. E. 26, 27 
 
 V. Albany & V. R. 260 
 
 V. Allen 105, 109 
 
 V. Barger 481 
 
 V. Barker 476 
 
 V. Batchellor 89, 93, 97, 105 
 
 V, Beardsley 477 
 
 V. Boston & A, R. 457, 459, 461, 
 464 
 u. Brighton 190 
 
 V. Bristol & R. Turnp. Co. 13, 260 
 V. Brooklyn 91, 249 
 
 V. Brown 104, 109 
 
 V. Canal Appraisers 200 
 
 v. Canal Board 263, 514 
 
 V. Cass County 105 
 
 V. Cassity 476, 477 
 
 V. Central Car. & M. Co. 121 
 
 V. Central Cross-Town R. 261 
 
 People V. Central Pacific R. 488 
 
 V. Central E. 292 
 
 V. Chambers 6 
 
 V. Chapman 95 
 
 V. Chicago 69 
 
 «. Chicago & A. E. 245, 246, 
 
 248 
 V. Clark 103 
 
 V. Clayton 99 
 
 V. Cline 101 
 
 V. Com'rs 488 
 
 V. Com'rs of Taxes 477, 478, 482 
 t;. Crockett 119, 129 
 
 V. Detroit & H. Plank Eoad 
 
 Co. 258, 268 
 
 V. Deyoe 109 
 
 V. Dupuyt 93 
 
 V. Elmore 113 
 
 V. Plagg 97 
 
 V. Fort Edward 98 
 
 V. Franklin 109 
 
 V. Fredericks 476 
 
 V. Glann 105 
 
 V. Green 246 
 
 V. Harp 95, 108 
 
 V. Hatch 109 
 
 V. Henshaw 93, 109 
 
 V. Hills . 26, 458 
 
 V. Hillsdale & C. Tump. Co, 11, 
 
 167 
 V. Hitchcock 109 
 
 V. Holden ' 56, 63 
 
 V. Hulbert 109 
 
 V. Humphrey 142, 143 
 
 t'. IngersoU 44 
 
 V. Jackson County 98, 103 
 
 w.Jacksun&M. Plank E. 13,450 
 V. Kerr 232, 238, 239, 240, 241, 
 
 246 
 V. Kingston & M. Turnp. E. 
 
 Co. 260 
 
 V. Kinskern 183 
 
 V. Laenna 108 
 
 V. Law 232, 236, 239, 246 
 
 V. Lockport 183 
 
 V. Logan County 101, 102, 105, 
 
 108 
 V. McEoberts 166 
 
 V. Manhattan Co, 11, 12 
 
 V. Mead 101, 104 
 
 V. Michigan Southern E. 173 
 
 V. Miss. & A. E. 12 
 
 V. Mitchell 87, 103, 104, 105 
 
 V. Morgan 109 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 245, 
 246, 254 
 V. New York Cent. R. 244, 247 
 V. New York & H. E, 253, 255 
 V. Northern E, 10, 13 
 
 V. Oldtown 105, 108 
 
 V. Oliver 109 
 
 V. Peck 109 
 
 V. Phillips 27 
 
 V. Pittsburg E. 144 
 
 V. Rensselaer & S. R. 13 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixv 
 
 People V. River Kaisin & L. E. E. 
 
 12, 
 
 515 
 409 
 482 
 
 V. Rochester & S. L. R. 
 0. Roper 
 V. Salem 88, 89 
 
 V. Santa Anna 108 
 
 V. Sawyer 109 
 
 V. Smith 109, 142, 146, 147, 182 
 V. Soldiers' Home 481 
 
 V. Spencer 99 
 
 V. Stebbins 248 
 
 o. SterUng Man. Co. 30, 32 
 
 V. Stockton & v. R. 4, 52, 75 
 
 V. Sturterant 251, 269 
 
 V. Suffern 109 
 
 V. Supervisors of Niagara 476 
 V. Syracuse 172 
 
 V. Tallman 182 
 
 V. Tazewell County 108 
 
 V. Twaddell 25, 26, 29 
 
 V. Wagner 109 
 
 V. Walsh 234 
 
 V. Walter 109 
 
 V. Waterford & S. Tump. Co. 11 
 V. Waynesville 99 
 
 V. White 157 
 
 People's Bank v. Gridley 114 
 
 People's Ferry v. Balch 49, 56 
 
 People's Pass. E. u. Baldwin 247, 253, 
 
 255 
 People's R. v. Memphis R. 247 
 
 Peoppers v. Mo., K., & T. R. 442 
 
 Peoria, A., & D. R. v. Sawyer 216 
 
 Peoria Bridge Assoc, v. Loomis, 301, 305, 
 
 306, 408 
 Peoria & 0. R. o. Elting 48, 67, 82, 84 
 Peoria, P., & J. R. v. Barton 417, 418, 
 
 428 
 
 V. Black 223 
 
 V. Champ 407, 426, 
 
 427 
 
 V. Laurie 187, 222 
 
 V. Peoria & S. R. 152, 
 
 156 
 
 V. Siltman 293, 351 
 
 Peoria & R. I. R. «. Birkett 214, 229 
 
 i;. MoClenahan 408 
 
 V. Preston 53, 70 
 
 V. Schertz 166 
 
 Perigo V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 380 
 
 Perkins v. Eastern R. 402, 413, 422, 
 
 427 
 V. Lewis 93 
 
 V. Mo., K., & T. R. 278, 305 
 
 V. New York Cent. E. 24 
 
 V. Portland 510, 519 
 
 V. Port Washington 72 
 
 u. Sanders 5, 53 
 
 u. Union Button Hole & E. 
 U. Co. Ill 
 
 Perley v. Boston, C, & M. R. 177, 179, 
 
 189 
 V. Eastern R. 431, 442, 446 
 
 Perrine v. Chesapeake & D. Canal 
 Co. , 492, 498 
 
 Perry v. Dubuque Southwestern E. 419 
 
 y. Keene 93, 97 
 
 V. Marsh 367, 376 
 
 u. New Orleans, M., & C. R. 246, 
 
 247 
 
 V. Southern Pacific R. 444 
 
 V. Wilson 162, 167 
 
 V. Worcester 177, 203 
 
 Peru & I. R. V. Hanna 480 
 
 V. Hasket 422 
 
 Peruvian E. v. Thames & M. M. Ins. 
 
 Co. 526 
 
 Peters v. Eylands 281 
 
 V. St. Louis & I. M. E. 464 
 
 Peterson v. Eerreby 166 
 
 V. 111., L., & L. Co. 44, 505 
 
 V. New York 521 
 
 Pettibone v. LaCrosse & M. R. 168, 169, 
 
 170, 178 
 Pettis V. Johnson 244, 247, 251, 271 
 
 V. Providence 187 
 
 Petty V. Myers 93 
 
 Phelps V. New Haven & N. R. 425 
 
 Philadelphia v. Dyer ' 172, 220 
 
 V. Lombard & S. Sts. 
 
 P. R. 247 
 
 V. Phil., W., & B. R. 480 
 
 V. Scott 199 
 
 V. Weller 249 
 
 Phil. Assoc. V. Wood 88 
 
 Phil. City Pass. R. v. Hassard 315, 383, 
 
 336, 387 
 V. Henrice 295, 296, 
 
 Phil. & E. R. V. Cake 188, 190 
 
 V. Catawissa R. 44, 493 
 
 Phil., G., & N. R. V. Johnson 191 
 
 V. Wilt 279, 291 
 
 Phil. & E. E. V. Derby 274, 278 
 
 V. Gilson 224 
 
 V. Hendrickson 431, 436, 
 
 440 
 
 V. Hunnewell 159, 275, 330, 
 
 335 
 
 V. Killips 318, 348, 352, 353, 
 
 354 
 
 V. Long 333, 335, 338, 355 
 
 V. Philadelphia 152 
 
 V. Schultz 431, 435 
 
 </. Spearen 319, 331, 332, 
 
 335 
 
 V. Yeiser 175, 177,215,262, 
 
 264, 431, 433, 437, 439 
 
 u. Yerger320,431,433,441 
 
 Phil. & T. R. V. Hagan 350 
 
 In re 197, 235, 240, 246 
 
 Phil., W., & B. R. V. Appeal Tax 
 
 Court 475 
 
 V. Bayless 480, 483 
 V. Bowers 448, 464, 
 466 
 V. Constable 442 
 u.Cowell 47, 121,122 
 V. Gessner 189, 220 
 V. Larkin 305 
 
Ixvi 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 PhU.,W.,& B. E. W.Maryland 244 
 
 V. Philadelphia 193 
 
 K.Phil. & H. 
 
 Steam T. Co. 202, 
 
 289, 291 
 
 V. Quigley 273, 277, 
 
 305, 306 
 
 V. Stinger 348, 349 
 
 V. Williams 147, 150, 
 
 151,177,185,255 
 
 Phil. & W. C. B. V. Hickman 50, 51, 
 
 56, 75, 76, 77, 78 
 
 Phil. & "W. R. V. Maryland 482, 487 
 
 Phillips V. Albany 94, 108 
 
 V. Covington & C. Bridge Co. 55, 
 
 75 
 
 V. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. 235, 240, 
 
 242, 246, 250 
 
 V. London & S. W. K. 304, 308 
 
 «. South Western R. 301, 303, 
 
 309 
 
 V. Wickham 25 
 
 Phillipsburg Bank v. Lackawanna E. 
 
 Co. 20 
 
 Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger 8, 
 
 49,84 
 In re 80 
 
 Phosphate of Lime Co. v. Green 519 
 
 Piatt V. American Cent. B. 93 
 
 V. Covington & C. Bridge Co. 455 ' 
 Pickard v. Smith 290 
 
 Pickert v. Eidgefleld Park E. 168, 169, 
 
 170 
 
 Pierce v. Concord R. 284, 446 
 
 ■;. Emery 503 
 
 V. Keator 134 
 
 V. Millay 301, 306, 308 
 
 V. Somersworth 233 
 
 V. Worcester & N. R. 179, 215, 
 
 433, 445 
 
 Piggot V. Eastern Counties 438, 439 
 
 Pike V. Bangor & C. S. L. R. 34, 53, 75 
 
 Pingry v. Washburn 450, 513 
 
 Pinkerton v. Boston & A. E. 171, 172, 
 
 180, 181, 183, 186, 266 
 
 V. Manchester & L. E. 110, 
 
 115, 120 
 
 Pinkham v. Chelmsford 191, 218, 226, 
 
 229 
 Pinney v. Berry 230 
 
 Piper V. New York Cent. & H. E. E. 374 
 Piper's Appeal 188 
 
 Piscataqua ' Bridge v. New Hamp. 
 
 Bridge 142, 154, 455 
 
 Piscataqua Perry Co. v. Jones 49, 51, 58, 
 81, 83, 85 
 Pitkin V. Long Island E. 132, 424 
 
 Pittsburg V. Penn. R. 256, 495 
 
 V. Scott 164 
 
 Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. R. v. Cald- 
 well 333, 336, 337 
 Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. R. v. Don- 
 ahue 278, 279, 301, 808 
 Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. E. v. Pear- 
 son 338, 339 
 
 Pittsburg & C. E. «. Allegheny 
 
 County 126, 127, 492, 497, 518 
 
 Pittsburg & C. E. v. Andrews 301, 317 
 V. Byers 77 
 
 V. Clarke 30, 31, 80, 
 113,114,129 
 V. Graham 77 
 
 V. McClurg 316,317 
 V. Plummer 48, 77 
 u. Eose 226 
 
 V. Sentmeyer 380 
 V. Southwest Penn. 
 
 E. 457, 462, 463 
 V. Stewart 85, 46, 50, 
 75 
 Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. v. Bowyer 421 
 K.Brown 269, 
 462 
 V. Campbell 
 283, 434, 
 438, 446 
 V. Culver 431 
 V. Currant 412 
 «. Eby417,418 
 V. Hannon 412 
 V. Hine 400 
 V. Krouse 329 
 V. Krutson328, 
 355 
 V. Nelson 433, 
 434 
 V. Smith 423 
 g. Thompson 
 300, 304, 
 396 
 V. Wooley 35 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Bing- 
 ham 159, 275, 276 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Bum- 
 stead 336, 338, 339 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Collins 330 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Com- 
 monwealth 472, 473 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. o. Devin- 
 
 ney 362, 365, 366 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Evans 330 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Gille- 
 land 179, 180, 203, 204, 218, 
 
 262 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Karns 292, 
 
 326 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. u. Lewis 364, 
 
 366 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. „. Meth- 
 
 ven 427 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Powers 303, 
 
 863, 365, 376 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. v. Ruby 383 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. V. Slus- 
 
 ser 306, 322 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Swin- 
 
 ney 189 
 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. v. Vinlng 338, 
 
 338 
 Pittsburg & S. E. v. Gazzam 46, 47, 68 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Ixvii 
 
 Pittsburg, v., & C. R. v. Bentley 184, 
 
 212, 216 
 0. Rose 216, 221, 
 224, 228 
 Pitzman v. Freeburg 87 
 
 Pitzner v. Shinnick 425, 427, 428 
 
 Pixley V. Western Pacific R. 35 
 
 Plank V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 371 
 Plank Road Co. v. Husted 481 
 
 Plant V. Long Island R. 232, 234, 236, 
 
 248 
 Plaster v. 111. Cent. R. 408, 428 
 
 Plate V. New York Cent. R. 230 
 
 Platte V. Bright 186 
 
 Platteville v. Galena & S. W. R. 103, 
 
 495, 520 
 Pleasants i>. North Beach & M. R. 
 
 306, 
 
 308 
 
 150, 506 
 
 419, 423, 
 
 424, 426 
 
 91, 92, 93, 95 
 
 130, 158 
 
 101 
 
 348, 351, 353 
 
 116, 119 
 
 182, 194 
 
 179, 185 
 
 236 
 
 Plymouth R. v. Colwell 
 Poler V. New York Cent. R, 
 
 Police Jury v. M'Donogh 
 Pollard V. Maddox 
 
 u. Pleasant Hill 
 Pollock V, Eastern R. 
 
 V. National Bank 
 
 Polly V. Saratoga & W. R. 
 
 Pomeroy v. Chicago & M. R. 
 
 V. Mil. & C. R. 
 
 V. New York & N. H. R. 20 
 
 Pompton V. Cooper Union 104 
 
 Pond V. Vt. Valley R. 27, 43 
 
 Pontchartrain R. «. Lafayette & P. R. 456 
 
 V. New Orleans & C. 
 
 R. 454, 455 
 
 V. Orleans Nav. Co. 454 
 V. Paulding 41 
 
 Ponton V. Wil. & W. R. 359 
 
 Poole V. North Carolina R. 335 
 
 Port V. Russell 36, 38 
 
 Port Clinton R. ». Cleveland & T. 
 
 R. 
 
 Port Royal R. v. Hammond 
 Portal V. Emmens 
 Porter v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 
 
 139 
 
 15 
 
 79 
 
 372, 380, 
 
 381 
 
 107 
 
 235, 241 
 
 170 
 
 V. Janesville 
 
 V. North Mo. R. 
 
 V. Purdy 
 
 V. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. 472, 
 
 474, 476, 478, 489 
 
 Portland v. Atlantic & St. L. R. 249 
 
 V. Portland Water Co. 481 
 
 Portland & 0. C. R. v. Grand Trunk 
 
 R. 452 
 
 Portland & O. R. v. Standish 108 
 
 Portland, S., & P. R. v. Boston & M. 
 
 R. 462, 463 
 V. County 
 
 Com'rs 257 
 
 V. Graham 86 
 
 V. Saco 475, 484 
 
 Portsmouth Bridge Co. o. Nance 498 
 
 Pott V. Flather 120 
 
 Potter V. Bunnell 245, 285 
 
 Potter «. Chicago & N. W. R. -394, 396, 
 
 397 398 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. ' 360 
 
 11. Metropolitan IDiat. R. 391 
 
 Potts V. Port Carlisle, D., & R. Co. 372, 
 
 375 
 Poughkeepsie & S. P. Plank Road 
 
 Co. V. Griffin 46, 72 
 
 Poulton V. London & S. W. R. 273, 277, 
 
 278, 280 
 
 Pound V. Turck 202 
 
 Powell V. New York Cent. & H. R. 345 
 
 V. St. Joseph 410 
 
 Power V. Bears 163, 165, 167, 173 
 
 Powers V. Council Bluffs 230 
 
 V. Dougherty County 93 
 
 b. Hazelton & L. R. 7, 145, 181, 
 
 212, 217 
 
 V. Humeri 191 
 
 Prather v. Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. 146, 
 
 149, 150, 151, 159, 163, 164, 180, 256 
 
 Pratt V. American Cent. R. 101 
 
 u. Atlantic & St. L. R. 445, 446, 
 
 462, 464 
 
 V. People 108 
 
 V. Pratt 30, 122, 520 
 
 V. Taunton Copper Co. 116 
 
 Prendegast v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 338, 339 
 
 Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. R. 159, 160, 
 
 161, 207, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 220, 
 
 221, 224, 225, 264 
 
 Presbyterian Society of Waterloo v. 
 
 Auburn & S. R. 236 
 
 Prescott V. Eastern R. 348 
 
 Preston v. Dubuque & P. R. 159 
 
 V. Liverpool, M., & N. J. R. 513, 
 534 
 Prettyman v, Tazewell County 93, 96 
 Price V. Grand Rapids & I. R. 29, 45, 
 
 74 
 
 V. Henagan 372, 377, 382 
 
 V. Houston Direct Nav. Co. 359 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 215, 229 
 
 V. New Jersey R. & T. Co. 403, 
 
 406, 407 
 
 V. Price 110 
 
 V. Weehawken Ferry Co. 219 
 
 Prideaux v. Mineral Point 282, 283 
 
 Priestly v. Fowler 359, 362, 493 
 
 Pritchard v. LaCrosse & M. R. 403 
 
 Proctor V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 392 
 
 Proetz V. St. Paul Water Co. ' 179 
 
 Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 
 Lowell Horse R. 249 
 
 Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 Nashua & L. R. 158, 159, 175, 176, 203, 
 206, 207, 215, 216, 217, 240, 242, 260, 
 263, 266, 270, 50^ 
 Prospect Park & C. I. R., In re 151, 181, 
 188, 211, 213, 236 
 Prospect Park & C. I. R. v. Washing- 
 ton Cemetery 189 
 Prosser v. Wapello County 228 
 Protection Life Ins. v. Osgood 76, 118 
 
Ixviii 
 
 TABLE OF CA'SBS. 
 
 Protzman u. Indianapolis & C. E. 149, 
 
 176, 195, 196, 233, 241, 263 
 
 Prouty V. Lake Shore & M. S. K. 126 
 
 V. Mich. S. & N. I. K. 15, 122, 
 
 126 
 Providence Bank v. Billings 91, 482 
 
 Providence & W. R. v. Wright 479, 480 
 Provolt V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 163, 
 
 169, 170 
 Pryor v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 354, 
 
 407 
 Pugh V. Golden Valley R. 156, 203, 245 
 PuUan V. Cincinnati & C. A. L. E. 497 
 Pullman v. Upton 8, 80 
 
 Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker 310 
 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. 161, 196 
 Pumphrey y. Baltimore 449 
 
 Purdy o. New York & N. H. R. 412, 
 
 415 
 Pusey V. Wright 140, 513 
 
 Putnam v. New Albany 76, 77, 80, 103 
 Pym !>. Great Northern R. 393, 394 
 
 Pyne v. Chicago, &c. R. 360 
 
 Q. 
 
 119 
 245 
 
 Queen v. Shropshire Union R. 
 V. Wycombe R. 
 
 {See Eegina.) 
 Quested w. Newburyport Horse R. 284 
 Quigley v. Cent. Pacific R. 16, 301, 302, 
 
 305, 306 
 Quimbyy. Boston &M.R. 275,276 
 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. 158, 214, 296, 
 408 
 Quin V. Moore 388, 393, 394, 395 
 
 Quincy v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 247 
 
 Quincy, A., & St. L. R. v. Wellhoener 351, 
 
 408 
 Quincy Bridge Co. v. Adams County 22, 
 
 472 
 Quincy, M., & P. R. v. Kellogg 180, 183, 
 
 191, 256 
 
 «. Morris 93, 97 
 
 V. Ridge 212, 223 
 
 Quincy Mining Co. v. Kitts 368, 375 
 
 Quinn v. 111. Cent. R. 317 
 
 R. 
 
 Racine County Bank v. Ayres 60, 68, 126 
 Racine & M. R. v. Farmers' Loan & 
 
 T. Co. 8, 19, 20 
 
 RadclifiEe v. Brooklyn 197 
 
 Rader v. Southeasterly Road Dist. 449, 
 
 451 
 Radley v. London & N. W. R. 324, 325 
 Ragsdale v. Memphis & C. R. 364 
 
 Kaiford v. Miss. Cent. R. 404, 406 
 
 Railroad Co. v. Berks County 479 
 
 Railroad Com'rs v. Portland & 0. C. 
 
 R. 464 
 
 Railroad Companies v. Gaines 483, 486 
 
 Railsback v. Liberty & A. Tump. 
 
 Co. 58, 71 
 
 Railway Co. v. Ailing 132 
 
 Raleigh & A. A. L. R. v. Wicker 214, 
 
 223 
 Raleigh & G. R. v. Davis 144, 147, 164, 
 
 165, 173 
 
 V. Reid 481 
 
 Eamsden v. Boston & A. R. 278 
 
 V. Manchester, S. J., & A. 
 
 R. 248 
 
 Ramsey v. Erie R. 39, 520 
 
 V. Gould 520 
 
 Rand v. Hubbell 123 
 
 V. Townsend 185 
 
 V. White Mountains R. 120 
 
 Randall v. Elwell 476 
 
 Randle v. Pacific R. 264, 268 
 
 Randolph County v. Post 98, 99, 100 
 
 Ransom v. New York & E. R. 301 
 
 Raphael v. Thames Valley R. 140 
 
 Raritan & Del. B. R. u. Del. & R. 
 
 Canal Co. 154, 455, 456 
 
 Rashdale v. Ford 42 
 
 Rathbone v. Tioga Nav. Co. 49 
 
 Rattray v. Cork & M. R. 380 
 
 Rau V. Minn. Valley R. 180, 263 
 
 Ranch v. Lloyd 277, 281, 311, 316, 333 
 Ray County v. Vansycle 96, 101, 102 
 Read v. Great Eastern E. 392 
 
 V. Morse 431, 432, 433, 441 
 
 Reading & C. R. v. Latshaw 437 
 
 Reading R. v. Boyer 184 
 
 Eeckner v. Warner 163, 192 
 
 Red River R. v. Young 51 
 
 Redd V. Henry County 101, 103, 106, 108 
 Eeddall v. Bryan 143 
 
 Redding v. South Carolina R. 277, 278, 
 
 319 
 
 Redmond v. Hoge 15 
 
 Eeed v. Deerfield 313 
 
 V. Hanover Branch E. 184, 186, 
 
 220 
 
 V. Louisville Bridge Co. 149 
 
 V. Eichmond & St. E. 47 
 
 Reedie v. London & N. W. E. 281, 287, 
 
 288, 289, 291 
 
 Eees V. Chicago 191 
 
 V. Watertown 105 
 
 Reese v. Bank of Montgomery 124 
 
 V. Fisher 129 
 
 Reeves v. Del., L., & W. E. 323, 343, 849, 
 
 354, 365 
 
 V. Wood County 142 
 
 Eegents of University v. Williams 449 
 
 Eegina v. Birmingham & G. R. 260 
 
 V. Brown 217 
 
 V. Great North of England 
 
 R. 244, 246, 251, 267 
 
 V. Liverpool, M., & N. R 119 
 V. London & N. W. R. 187, 256, 
 260 
 V. Eynd 200 
 
 V. Scott 246 
 
 V. Sherwood 190 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixix 
 
 Regina v. Wilson 251 
 
 V. Wycombe R. 156 
 
 (i)ee Queen.) 
 Reiger v. Beaufort 95 
 
 Reineman v. Covington, C, & B. H. R. 93 
 Reitenbaugli v. Cliester VaUev R. 181, 
 
 183, 197 
 
 V. Ludwick 120 
 
 Rensselaer & S. R. v. Davis 4, 142, 144, 
 
 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 191, 506 
 
 Rensselaer & S. R., In re 175, 408 
 
 Rensselaer & W. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Barton 84 
 
 Rensselaer & W. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 Wetsel 53 
 
 Renwick v. D. & N. W. R. 186, 200, 213 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 293, 345, 
 
 351 
 
 Revere v. Boston 192 
 
 Rex V. Pease 156, 156, 268, 432 
 
 V. Westwood 6 
 
 (■See King.) 
 
 Rexford ;;. Knight 147, 157, 158, 162, 
 
 164, 221, 233 
 
 Reynolds v. Dunkirk & S. L. R. 130 
 
 V. Myers 8 
 
 u. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 299, 333, 336, 346 
 
 Rhey v. Ebensburg & S. Plank Road 
 
 Co. 69 
 
 Rhinebeck & C. R., In re 171, 172 
 
 Rhys V. Dare Valley R. 220 
 
 Ricard v. North Penn. R. 360 
 
 Rice V. Boston & W. R. 136 
 
 V. Minnesota & N. R. 132, 493, 494 
 
 V. Rock Island & A. R. 7, 64, 70 
 
 Rice's Appeal 37 
 
 Rich V. Chicago 173 
 
 Richards v. Des Moines Valley R. 167 
 
 V. Merrimack & C. R. R. 503 
 
 Richardson v. Cooper 378 
 
 u. Milburn 401 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 347, 
 
 350, 389, 392 
 
 V. Sibley 497, 512 
 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. 197, 198, 235, 
 
 263 
 
 V. Vt. & M. R. 22, 126, 127 
 
 Riche V. Ashbury R. Carriage & Iron 
 
 Co. 502, 512, 519, 522, 526, 537 
 
 Richey v. Mo. Pacific R. 300, 345, 346 
 
 Richland County v. People 97, 100, 103 
 
 Richmond v. County Com'rs 485 
 
 V. Daniel 474 
 
 V. Richmond & D. R. 481, 483 
 
 V. Russell 286 
 
 V. Sacramento Valley R. 404 
 
 Richmond & D. R. </. Anderson 297, 316, 
 
 323, 326, 331, 391 
 
 V. Morris 317 
 
 Richmond, F., & P. R. ■'. Louisa R, 153, 
 
 154, 454, 455 
 
 V. Richmond 461, 
 
 462 
 
 V. Snead 36 
 
 Richmond & L. Tump. Road Co. v. 
 
 Rogers 212, 453 
 
 Ricket V. Metropolitan R. 208, 209, 216, 
 
 240 
 Rieketts v. East & W. I. Docks & B. 
 
 J. R. 413 
 
 Ridgefield & N. Y. R. ... Brush 64, 55, 57, 
 
 75 
 V. Reynolds 66, 64 
 Riggs V. Johnson County 105 
 
 Rikhoff V. Brown's Rotary S. S. M. 
 
 Co. 49, 79 
 
 Ring V. Johnson 80 
 
 Rio Grande R. v. Brownsville 246, 251, 
 
 258 
 
 Ripley v. Sampson 83 
 
 Rippe 0. Chicago, D., & M. R. 200, 201 
 
 Risley v. Indianapolis, B., & W. R. 34, 39 
 
 Ritchie v. Franklin County 103 
 
 Rittenbaugh v. Chester Valley R. 188 
 
 Robb V. Maysville & Mt. S. T. R. 212 
 
 Robbins v. Chicago 288, 290, 291 
 
 V. MU. & H. R. 174, 176, 187, 
 
 210 212 213 
 
 Roberts v. BoUes 94, 97,' 101,' 107 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. 245 
 
 V. Great Western R. 421 
 
 V. Mason 304, 305, 307 
 
 V. Mobile & 0. R. 61 
 
 V. Smith 371 
 
 V. Stark 183 
 
 Robertson v. Atlantic & P. R. 421 
 
 V. Knapp 226, 227 
 
 \i. New York & E. R. 277, 317, 
 
 330 
 
 V. Rockford 96, 102 
 
 V. Sibley 14 
 
 Robinson v. Bidwell 93 
 
 V. Chartered Bank 112 
 
 V. Cone 314, 332, 335 
 
 V. Fitchburg & W. R. 293, 294, 
 
 296, 298, 299 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. 418 
 
 V. Houston & T. C. R. 359, 363, 
 
 366, 376, 380 
 
 V. New York & E. R. 162, 167, 
 
 203, 204, 206, 263, 268 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 283, 320 
 
 u. Pioche 295 
 
 V. Pittsburg & C. R. 56, 58, 62 
 
 V. Smith 40, 43 
 
 V. Webb 278, 288, 289, 291 
 
 V. West Penn. R. 158 
 
 ^. Western Pacific R. 300, 308, 
 
 321, 322, 323, 324, 342, 356 
 
 Rochester v. Alfred Bank 100 
 
 Rochester & G. V. R. v. Beckwith 188 
 
 Rochester & S. R. v. Budlow 211, 228 
 
 Rochester Water Com'rs, In re 152, 156 
 
 Rochester Waterworks Co. v. Wood 173 
 
 Rock V. Wallace 89 
 
 Rock Creek v. Strong 101, 104 
 
 Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. v. Byam 292, 
 
 342, 343 
 
Ixx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Bockford, R. I., & St. L. E. v. Connell 428 
 
 V. Delaney 328, 
 
 333, 395, 398 
 
 V. Hillmer 293, 
 
 328,347,354 
 
 V. Irish 427 
 
 V. Lynch 410, 
 
 424,428 
 
 V. McKin- 
 
 ley 189, 228 
 
 w.RafEerty404 
 
 V. Rogers 434 
 
 V. Sage 31, 511 
 
 Rockwell V. Elkhorn Bank 504, 512 
 
 Rodemacher v. Milwaukie & St. P. 
 
 R. 445 
 
 Roe V. Birkenhead, L., & C. J. R. 273, 
 
 279, 280 
 
 Rogan V. Watertown 94, 97 
 
 Rogers v. Bridgeport 87 
 
 V. Burlington 100 
 
 V. Hastings & D. R. 30, 31, 32 
 
 V. Kennebec & P. R. 176, 179, 197, 
 
 199, 202 
 
 b. Lafayette Agricultural 
 
 "Works 30, 43 
 
 V. Newburyport R. 410, 426, 429 
 
 V. St. Charles 172, 181 
 
 V. Smith 103 
 
 V. Wheeler 285 
 
 Rohback v. Pacific R. 364 
 
 Rolke V. Chicago & N. W. E. 434, 439 
 
 Rollins V. Clay 33 
 
 Romaine v. Van Allen 120 
 
 Rome R. v. Rome 483 
 
 Rood V. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 467 
 
 V. New York &E. R. 133, 272, 431, 
 
 437, 447 
 
 Roof V. Charlotte, C, & A. R. 428 
 
 Rooney v. Sacramento Valley R. 187 
 
 Root V. Great Western R. 510 
 
 Rosa V. Mo., K., & T. R. 185, 187 
 
 Rose V. Boston & A. B. 364, 367, 368, 
 
 869, 376, 382 
 
 u.. Bridgeport 108 
 
 V. Des Moines Valley R. 396 
 
 V. San Antonio & M. G. R. 60 
 
 Rosenbach v. Salt Springs 129 
 
 Boss V. Boston & W. R. 435, 439, 445 
 
 V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 68, 74 
 
 V. Curtis 104 
 
 V. Elizabethtown & S. S. R. 184 
 
 V. Estates Investment Co. 42, 61 
 
 V. Lafayette & I. R. 78 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 365 
 
 Ross County Bank v. Lewis 481 
 
 Roth V. Mil. & St. P. R. 320, 330 
 
 Roundout & 0. R., In re 188 
 
 Rounds V. Del., L., & W. R. 278, 279, 
 
 330 
 Bourke v. White Moss Colliery Co. 286, 
 
 389, 363 
 
 Bowe V. Granite Bridge Co. 200 
 
 V. Greenville & C. B. 404 
 
 Bowell V. Bailroad Co. 446 
 
 Rowland v. Cannon 391 
 
 Rowley v. London & North Western 
 
 R. 302 
 
 Eoxbury v. Boston & P. R. 457 
 
 Royal Bank of India's Case 506 
 
 Royal British Bank v. Turquand 526 
 Ruby V. Shain 101 
 
 Ruffner v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 437 
 Ruggles V. People 461, 466, 468 
 
 Bundle v. Del. & R. Canal Co. 200 
 
 Bunyon v. Central B. 323, 342 
 
 Busch V. Des Moines County 105 
 
 Buss V. Steamboat War Eagle 301, 308, 
 
 322 
 
 Bussell V. Burlington 228 
 
 V. Hanley 404, 419, 420 
 
 V. Horn Pond Branch E. 226, 227 
 
 V. Hudson Eiver R. 365 
 
 V. Wakefield .Water Works 43, 
 
 532 
 
 Rust V. Low 401, 412, 414 
 
 Rutland & B. R. v. Lincoln 47 
 
 V. Proctor 507, 509, 512, 
 
 517 
 
 u. Thrall 34,65,67,70, 
 
 74, 78, 81, 85, 86, 
 
 124, 125, 126, 127 
 
 Ryan v. Central Pacific R. 132 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. 363, 364 
 
 V. Cumberland V. R. 365, 366 
 
 V. Fowler 367 
 
 t>. Leavenworth, A., & N. W. 
 
 R. 14, 35, 38, 43, 121, 506 
 
 V. Lynch 100 
 
 V. New York Cent. B. 301, 310, 
 
 443 
 
 V. Varga 101 
 
 Byckman v. Gillis 134 
 
 Ryder v. Alton & S. R. 9, 47, 51, 65, 77, 
 
 80, 121 
 Ryder's Case 112 
 
 Sabin v. Vt. Cent. R. 175, 176, 177, 179, 
 197, 206, 263, 266, 291 
 Sacramento Valley R. v. Moffat 187, 214 
 Safford v. Drew 392 
 
 Sage V. Dillard 451, 458 
 
 In re 22 
 
 Sagory v. Dubois 80, 84 
 
 St. Charles Man. Co. v. Britton 47 
 
 St. Clair County Turnp. Co. v. Illinois 
 
 492, 494 
 
 St. John V. Erie R. 124, 125, 126 
 
 St. Joseph V. Han. & St. J. R. 482 
 
 V. Savill 510 
 
 St. Joseph & D. C. R. v. Buchanan 
 
 County 93,96, 
 
 108 
 
 V. Callender 166, 
 
 167, 169 
 
 V. Chase 294, 434, 
 
 435, 439, 440, 
 
 441, 442 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixxi 
 
 St. Joseph &D. C. K. u. Orr 191, 210, 222, 
 
 225 
 
 V. Ryan 513 
 
 St. Joseph Township v. Rogers 87, 93, 
 
 95, 100, 102 
 
 St. Louis V. Alexander 93, 95 
 
 V. Ferry Co. . 474 
 
 St. Louis, A., & C. R. u. Dalby 277, 291, 
 
 292 
 St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. u. Gilham 433, 
 
 441 
 St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. v. Lidianapo- 
 
 lis & St. L. R. 20 
 
 St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. v. Under 410 
 V. Manly 293, 
 312, 322, 331, 
 335 
 St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. v. Mont- 
 gomery 438 
 St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. v. Todd 424, 
 
 426 
 
 St. Louis, I. M., & S. E. V. Loftin 481, 
 
 482, 483, 484 
 
 St. Louis, J., & C. R. u. Mathers 513 
 
 V. Mitchell 214, 
 
 229 
 
 V. Trustees 156 
 
 St. Louis, L., & D. R. v. Wilder 163, 172, 
 
 186 
 St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co. v. Good- 
 fellow 129 
 St. Louis R. Co. 0. Northwestern St. 
 
 Louis R. 7, 448 
 
 St. Louis & S. E. R. V. Britz 364, 377, 379 
 
 V. Casner 429 
 
 V. Mathias 344, 350, 
 
 351, 355 
 
 V. Teters 172, 215 
 
 St. Louis & St. J. R. 0. Richardson 188, 
 
 223 
 
 St. Louis, v., & T. H. R. ... Bell 337 
 
 u. Brown 212, 
 
 224 
 
 V. Capps 205, 
 
 216, 242 
 
 V. Dunn 328, 
 
 354, 355 
 
 V. Haller 242 
 
 V. MoUet 214, 
 
 215, 417 
 
 St. Paul & P. R. V. Parcher 486 
 
 V. St. Paul 480 
 
 V. Schurmeir 200 
 
 St. Paul & S. C. R. V. Matthews 187, 212 
 
 V. Murphy 188, 210, 
 
 212, 226, 418 
 
 St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. v. Robbins 45 
 
 St. Paul Water Co. v. Ware 288, 289 
 
 St Peter v. Denison 145, 160, 496 
 
 St. Peter's Church v. Beach 304 
 
 Salem v. Eastern R. 183, 261, 268, 494 
 
 Salem Mill Dam Co. v. Ropes 52, 55, 83 
 
 Salisbury Mills w. Townsend 116, 117, 
 
 119 
 Salmon v. Richardson 42 
 
 Salomons v. Laing 527, 529 
 
 Salt Co. V. Brown 144 
 
 Salter v. Utica & B. R. R. 293, 343, 344, 
 
 346 
 Salters v. Del. & H. C. Co. 294, 374 
 
 Sammon v. New York & H. R. 364, 377, 
 
 384 
 
 Samuels v. HoUaday 43 
 
 San Antonio v. Gould 94 
 
 V. Jones 94 
 
 V. Lane 94, 101, 107, 108 
 
 V. MehafEy 94, 104 
 
 San Francisco, A., & S. R. v. Caldwell 143, 
 
 212, 221 
 San Francisco & A. Water Co. v. Ala- 
 meda Water Co. 170, 181 
 San Francisco & S. J. R. v. Mahoney 166, 
 
 187, 210 
 San Jos(5 v. San Jose & S. C. R. 474 
 
 Sanborn v. Belden 165 
 
 Sandford v. Catawissa, W., & E. R. 498, 
 
 513 
 Sandham v. Chicago, R. L, & P. R. 407 
 Sands v. Sanders 78 
 
 Sandusky & C.-R. o. Sloan 408, 427 
 
 Sandusky City Bank v. Wilbor 481 
 
 Sanford v. Eighth Av. R. 279 
 
 Sangamon & M. R. v. Morgan County 475, 
 
 476 
 Sanger v. Upton 8, 58, 65, 79, 80, 81, 84 
 Sankey v. Terre Haute & S. W. R. 105 
 Santa Clara Mining Assoc, y. Meredith 32, 
 
 34 
 
 Santa Cruz R. v. Schwartz 56 
 
 Sapp V. Northern Cent. R. 497 
 
 Sargent v. Boston & L. R. 499, 513 
 
 V. Franklin Ins. Co. 110, 112, 
 
 113 129 
 
 V. Ohio & M. R. ' 235 
 
 V,. Webster 29, 30, 33 
 
 Sater u. ISurhngton & Mt. P. Plank 
 
 R. 175, 212, 219, 226 
 
 Satterlee v. Matthewson 90 
 
 Sauter v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 305, 
 
 399 
 
 Savannah, A., & G. R. v. Shiels 241 
 
 Savannah & M. R. v. Shearer 394 
 
 Savannah & T. R. v. Savannah 246 
 
 Savings Bank v. Nashua 473 
 
 Sawyer v. Hoag 76, 77, 80 
 
 V. Northfield 249 
 
 V. Rutland & B. R. 274 
 
 V. Vt. & M. R. 409, 414 
 
 Sayer v. New Y'ork & H. R. 136 
 
 Sayles v. Chicago & N. W. R. 273 
 
 Scaine v. Belleville 451 
 
 Scales V. Pickering 494 
 
 Scarce v. Indiana & I. R. 79 
 
 Scarlett v. Academy of Music 47, 55, 57, 
 
 58,78 
 SchaWe v. Han. & St. J. R. 422 
 
 Schaffer v. Burnham 88 
 
 i>. Mo. Home Ins. Co. 62 
 
 Schappert v. Ringler 299 
 
 Schenck v. Andrews 76 
 
Ixxii 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Schenectady & S. Plank Eoad Co. v. 
 Thatcher 53, 64, 67, 71, 72, 78, 80, 
 
 459 
 
 Schermerhorn v. Hudson River B. 422 
 
 Schierhold v. North Beach & M. R. 318, 
 
 319, 320, 334, 389 
 
 Schmidt v. Chicago & N. W. R. 828, 355 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. E. 808, 333, 337, 
 
 409 
 
 Schneir v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 428 
 
 Schooner Norway v. Jensen 371 
 
 Schopman v. Boston & W. R. 274 
 
 Schroeder v. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 298, 
 
 360 
 Scholar v. Hudson River R. 288, 289 
 Schuler v. Northern L. & P. T. R. 171 
 Schultz V. Pacific R. 300, 319, 892 
 
 Sehurmeier v. St. Paul & P. R. 236 
 
 Schuyler County v. Eock Island & 
 
 A. R. 100 
 
 V. Thomas 96, 102 
 
 Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Berks County 480 
 
 V. Farr 212 
 
 V. McDonough 179 
 
 V. Thoburn 212 
 
 Schwier v. New York Cent. & H. B. 
 
 E. 335 
 
 Scipio V. Wright 94, 101 
 
 Scotland County v. Mo., I., & N. R. 458, 
 481, 483, 486 
 V. Thomas 71, 96, 102 
 Scott V. Central R. & B. Co. 121, 122 
 V. Depuyeter • 40, 41 
 
 V. Dixon 42 
 
 V. Dublin & W. B. 326, 327 
 
 V. Eagle Ins. Co. 122 
 
 V. St. Paul & G. B. 212 
 
 V. Wil. & B. E. ■ 428 
 
 Scottish North Eastern R. v. Stew- 
 art 501, 514, 528, 525, 534, 535 
 Scudder v. Woodbridge 361 
 Seaman v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 399 
 Searle v. Lackawanna & B. E. 176, 212, 
 
 213, 217 
 
 V. Lindsay 365 
 
 Seaver v. Boston & M. E. 297, 365 
 
 Secombe v. Mil. & St. P. E. 9, 143, 147, 
 
 151, 189 
 Seeley v. Peters 404 
 
 Seibert v. Erie R. 293, 322 
 
 Seifert v. Brooks 182, 183 
 
 Seizer v. Mali 42, 128 
 
 Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 131, 
 177, 178, 196, 107, 256, 266 
 Selma & G. R. E., In re 93, 105 
 
 Selraa, M., & M. R. u. Anderson 53, 61, 
 
 62 
 Selma & M. R. v. Knapp 228 
 
 Selma, E., & D. R. v. Keith 179, 218, 225, 
 
 226 
 
 V. Lacy 389 
 
 V. Webb 278 
 
 Selma & T. E. v. Tipton 48, 51, 82, 84 
 
 Seneca Eoad Co. v. Auburn & R. E. 162, 
 
 193, 263 
 
 Senior v. Metropolitan R. 208, 209, 216, 
 
 223 
 V. Ward 377 
 
 Serandat v. Saisse 289 
 
 Sevenoaks, M., & T. E. v. London, 
 
 C, & D. R. 159, 496, 527 
 
 Severin v. Cole 186 
 
 Sewall V. Boston Water Power Co. Ill, 
 
 115, 120 
 Sexton V. North Bridgewater 226, 227, 
 
 229 
 
 Seybert v. Pittsburg 98 
 
 Seymour v. Chicago, B., & Q. E. 282 
 
 ['. Greenwood 278 
 
 V. Sturgess 80, 84 
 
 Shackleford v. New Orleans, J., & 6. 
 
 N. R. 32 
 
 Shamokin Valley & P. R. v. Malone 13 
 
 Shamokin Valley R. v. Livermore 480 
 
 Shand v. Gage 12 
 
 Shauny v. Androscoggin Mills 366, 371, 
 
 372, 378, 381 
 
 Sharpless v. Philadelphia 90, 91, 92 
 
 Sharrod v. London & N. W. R. 291 
 
 Shattuck V. Stoneham Branch R. 223, 
 
 224, 226, 227, 228 
 
 V. Wilton B. 220 
 
 Shaw V. Boston & W. R. 294, 298, 300, 
 
 303, 308, 341, 348, 352 
 
 V. Charlestown 172, 226, 227, 228 
 
 V. Dennis 91 
 
 V. Holland 120 
 
 V. Norfolk County R. 32, 33 
 
 V. Spencer 111, 118 
 
 ShawmutBank«.Plattsburg&M.B. 509 
 
 Shea V. KnoxviUe & K. R. 40 
 
 V. Mabry 40 
 
 V. Portrero & B. V. B. 252, 303 
 
 V. Sixth Av. B. 252, 278, 332 
 
 Sheaf V. Utica & B. R. R. 415 
 
 Sheboygan v. Sheboygan & F. R. 251, 
 
 269 
 Sheehan v. Good Samaritan Hospi- 
 tal 480 
 Sheffield v. Rochester & L. R. 320, 821, 
 343, 345, 352 
 Shelby County v. Cumberland & 0. 
 
 R. 93, 99, 103, 105 
 
 Shelby R. v. Louisville, C, & L. R. 26 
 Shelbyville Lateral Branch R. v. 
 
 Lewark 276 
 
 Sheldon v. Hudson River R. 431, 436, 
 
 437, 439, 441 
 
 Shellington v. Howland 114 
 
 Shelton v. Banks 2 
 
 Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. E. 415, 
 
 422, 423, 426 
 
 Shepardson v. Mil. & B. R. 163, 174 
 
 Shepley v. Atlantic & St. L. R. 497 
 
 Sheridan v. Brooklyn City & N. R. 282, 
 
 313, 319, 836 
 
 Sherley v. Billings 280, 308 
 
 Sherman u. Fitch 80, 34 
 
 0. Mil., L. S., & W. E. 166, 170, 
 
 178, 236 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Ixxiii 
 
 Sherman v. Rochester & S. R. 859, 362, 
 
 364, 366, 392 
 
 V. Smith 458 
 
 V. Western Stage Co. 313, 323, 
 
 324, 392, 395, 396, 400 
 
 Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. 184, 187, 
 
 191, 210, 212, 216, 218, 219, 226, 227 
 
 Shewalter v. Pirner 607 
 
 Shields v. Ohio 11, 457, 458, 459, 487 
 
 Shipley v. Bait. & P. R. 222, 223 
 
 V. Mechanics' Bank 119 
 
 Shipper v. Penn. R. 468, 499 
 
 Shitz V. Berks , 91 
 
 Short V. Bait. City Pass. R. 253 
 
 Sliorter v. Smith 453 
 
 Shrewsbury & B. R. v. London & N. 
 
 W. R. 513, 523, 533 
 
 Shrewsbury & B. R. v. North West- 
 ern R. 501, 502, 528, 531 
 Shrewsbury & B. R. v. Stour Valley 
 
 R. 139 
 
 Shropshire Union R. & C. Co. v. 
 
 Queen 118, 119 
 
 Shurtz V. Schoolcraft & T. R. R. 53 
 
 Shute V. Chicago & M. R. 162, 165 
 
 Sibley v. Mobile 105 
 
 Sidener v. Morristown, H., & St. L. 
 
 Tump. 166, 167 
 
 Sika V. Chicago & N. W. R. 410 
 
 Silver Hook Road v. Greene 34, 75 
 
 Simm V. Anglo-Am. Tel. Co. 116 
 
 Simmons u. New Bedford, V., & N. 
 
 S. Co. 296, 311, 314 
 
 V. St. Paul & C. R. 226 
 
 Simms v. Memphis, C, & L. R. 164, 192 
 
 Simons v. Vulcan Oil & M. Co. 37 
 
 Simonsou v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 297, 
 
 303 
 Simpson v. Denison 527, 530 
 
 V. Lord Howden 513 
 
 V. Moore 123 
 
 V. Westminster Palace Ho- 
 tel 508 
 Sims V. Macon & W. R. 294 
 Sinclair v. Penn. R. 344 
 Singh V. Koonj Behari Pattuk 205 
 Singleton v. Eastern Counties R. 334 
 Sinnett v. Moles 61, 103 
 Sinnickson v. Johnson 161, 162, 167, 197, 
 
 268 
 
 Sinram v. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 402 
 
 Sioux City & P. R. v. Scott 315 
 
 V. State 315 
 
 V. Stout 317, 318, 
 
 333, 337 
 
 Sisson V. Cleveland & T. R. 294, 296 
 
 Sixth Avenue R. v. Gilbert Elevated 
 
 R. 239, 248, 253 
 V. Kerr 151, 152, 193, 
 194, 253 
 Skipp V. Eastern Counties R. 359, 380 
 Slack V. Maysville & L. R. 90, 92, 93, 95 
 Slater v. Mersereau 282, 287 
 
 Slatten v. Des Moines Valley R. 176, 198, 
 
 241 
 
 Slattery v. Toledo & W. R. 362, 364, 365 
 
 Sloan V. Paciflc R. 466 
 
 Slosson V. B. C. R. & N. R. 445 
 
 Small V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 215,404, 
 
 410, 421, 428, 433, 435, 437, 
 
 438, 445 
 
 V. Herkimer Man. & H. Co. 85 
 
 Smart v. Portsmouth & C. R. 167, 169, 
 
 170, 171, 172, 174 
 
 Smead v. Indianapolis, P., & C. R. 503, 
 
 504 
 u. Union Township 93, 101 
 
 Smith V. Allison 63 
 
 V. Alvord 28 
 
 V. Board of Water Com'rs 35 
 
 V. Boston 198 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. 71 
 
 V. Chicago, A., & St. L. R. 167 
 V. Chicago, C, & D. R. 417, 425, 
 426 
 V. Clarke County 101, 104 
 
 V. Eastern R. 410, 428 
 
 V. Exeter ' 473 
 
 V. Gower 66, 79 
 
 V. Great Western R. 208 
 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 312, 436, 
 437 
 V. Helmer 164 
 
 V. Henry County 89 
 
 V. Hestonville, M., & F. Pass. 
 
 R. 338 
 
 V. HoUet 45, 63 
 
 V. Indiana & I. R. 78 
 
 V. Lansing 38 
 
 V. Leavenworth 489 
 
 V. London & S. W. R. 432, 434, 
 
 437, 442 
 
 V. Miss. & A. R. 7 
 
 V. Mut. Life Ins. Co. 14 
 
 V. Nashua & L. R. 500, 511 
 
 V. New York & H. R. 356, 370, 
 
 374 
 
 V. New York & 0. M. R. 424 
 
 V. Old Colony & N. R. 432, 439, 
 
 441 
 
 V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 301, 
 
 302, 304 
 
 V. Pratteville Man. Co. 32, 122 
 
 V. Sac County 103 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 372, 
 
 374, 380 
 
 Snead v. Indianapolis, P., & C. R. 449 
 
 Snow V. Boston & M. R. 189, 226, 227 
 
 i,. Housatonic R. 248, 316, 370, 
 
 372, 377, 378, 381, 384 
 
 Snyder v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 277, 279 
 
 V. Portsmouth, C, & St. L. 
 
 T> 323 
 
 V. Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. 432, 
 
 434, 435 
 
 V. Western Union R. 212, 215, 
 
 226, 227, 229 
 
 Society for Savings v. New London 99, 
 
 Sohier v. Trinity Church 460 
 
Ixxiv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Solen V. Virginia & T. E. 318, 319, 344, 
 
 346 
 Solomon v. Central Park, N., & E E. 
 
 E. 314, 317 
 
 Somerset & K. E. v. Cushing 53, 54 
 
 Somerset R. v. Clark 53, 86 
 
 Somerville & E. E. o. Doughty 174, 175, 
 212, 213, 215, 217 
 Soulard v. St. Louis 178 
 
 South Carolina v. Georgia 202 
 
 South Carolina E. v. Blake 151, 255 
 
 u. Columbia & A. 
 
 E. 455 
 
 In re 255 
 
 V. Moore 201, 270 
 
 V. Steiner 167, 236 
 
 South Georgia & T. E v. Ayres 69, 73, 79 
 
 South Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray, 6, 8, 27, 
 
 81, 458 
 
 South & N. A. E. o. Chappell 280 
 
 V. Jones 407 
 
 V. McLendon 301, 305 
 
 V. SuUiran 394 
 
 V. Thompson 344, 350, 
 
 354 
 
 South Ottawa v. Perkins 87, 94, 100, 103 
 
 South Park Com'rs v. Dunlevy 210, 217, 
 
 220 
 
 South Wales E. v. Eedmond 499, 501, 
 
 502, 509, 527, 529, 
 
 535 
 
 V. Wythes 139 
 
 South Western E. v. Paulk 394, 396, 400, 
 
 452 
 V. Thomason 116 
 
 South Yorkshire E. v. Great North- 
 ern E. 501, 502, 523, 528, 530, 532, 535 
 Southard v. Central E. 130 
 
 Southern Cent. E. v. Moravia 79 
 
 Southern Cotton Press Co. v. Brad- 
 ley 395 
 Southern Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Lanier 51 
 Southern Minn. E. v. Stoddard 254 
 Southern Pacific E. v. Eaymond 150 
 V. Eeed 237 
 V. Wilson 184 
 Southern Penn., I., & E. v. Stevens 67 
 Southern Plank Eoad Co. v. Hixon 62 
 Southern E. o. Jackson 483 
 Southgate v. Atlantic & P. E. 34, 35 
 Southside E. v. Daniel 180, 204 
 Southwark E. v. Philadelphia 193, 253 
 Southwestern E. v. Hankerson 295 
 u. Southern & A. 
 Tel. Co. 145, 163, 
 193 
 Southworth v. Old Colony & N. E. 349 
 Soward v. Chicago & N. W. E. 420 
 Spangler v. Indiana & I. C. 66, 78 
 Spangler's Appeal 197 
 Spargo's Case 75 
 Sparhawk v. Union Pass. E. 269, 270 
 Sparrow v. Evansville & C. E. 71 
 Spartanburg & U. E. v. De Graffen- 
 reid 60 
 
 Spaulding v. Chicago & N. W. E. 432, 
 434, 438, 441 
 Spear v. Crawford 79, 506, 507 
 
 V. Hart 121 
 
 Speer v. Mo., K., & T. E. 292 
 
 Spence v. Chicago & N. W. E. 427 
 
 Spencer v. Hartford, P., &E. E. 180, 204, 
 
 265 
 
 V. 111. Cent. E. 326, 345 
 
 V. Mil. & P. E. 317 
 
 V. Utica & S. E. 324, 345 
 
 Spering's Appeal 40, 41 
 
 Spicer v. Chicago & N. W. E. 301 
 
 Spinner v. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 
 E. 402, 406, 415, 419, 420 
 
 Spofford V. Bucksport & B. E. 170, 181 
 
 V. Harlow 314, 330 
 
 Sprague v. Cocheco Man. Co. 118 
 
 ^. Hartford, P., & F. E. 20, 21, 
 
 22 
 
 V. lUinois Eiver E. 30, 68, 70, 
 
 72,73 
 
 V. Smith 284,^285 
 
 Sprigg V. Western Tel. Co. 67, 71 
 
 Spring Valley Water Works v. San 
 
 Francisco 184, 187 
 
 Springfield v. Conn. Eiver Co. 155, 251, 
 
 258 
 Springfield & I. S. E. E. v. Andrew 406, 
 
 408 
 Springfield & I. S. E. v. Cold Spring 99 
 Springport v. Teutonia Savings Bank 106, 
 
 109 
 Sprong V. Boston & A. E. 377 
 
 Spurrier v. Wirtner 183 
 
 Stacey v. Vt. Cent. E. 140, 171, 172 
 
 Stackpole v. Healy 412 
 
 i>. Seymour 118, 119 
 
 Stackus V. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 
 E. 345 
 
 Stallknecht v. Penn. E. 389 
 
 Stanford ;;. Worn 170 
 
 Stange v. Hill 250 
 
 Stanley v. Chester & B. E. 513 
 
 V. Davenport 286, 247, 248 
 
 Stanton v. Alabama & C. E. 101 
 
 Stapley v. London, B., & S. C. E. 345, 
 
 352, 353 
 Star Brick Co. v. Eidsdale 8 
 
 Starin v. Genoa 93, 95, 101 
 
 Stark V. Sioux City & P. E. 160 
 
 Starr v. Camden & A. E. 155, 236 
 
 Starrett v. Eockland Fire & M. Ins. 
 
 Co. 48, 49 
 
 Starry v. Dubuque & S. W. E. 299, 321, 
 
 344 
 
 State V. American Ex. Co. 469 
 
 c. Armell 256, 266, 496 
 
 V. Atlantic City 250 
 
 V. Auditor of Athens County 481 
 
 V. Bailey 10, 75, 256 
 
 V. Baltimore & O.E. 121, 123, 267, 
 
 268, 304, 308, 323, 324, 333, 
 
 341, 391, 394, 396, 399, 449, 
 
 450, 481, 483, 485, 492 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixxv 
 
 State V. Bank of La. 122 
 
 V. Bank of Smyrna 481, 482 
 
 V. Berry 481, 483 
 
 V. Bissell 89 
 
 V. Boston, C, & M. R. 13, 14 
 
 V. Branin 484 
 
 V. Brown 130, 158 
 
 V. Building Assoc. 505 
 
 V. Carrigan 219, 469 
 
 V. Central Pacific R. 476 
 
 V. Cincinnati Gas Light & C. 
 
 Co. 13, 247 
 
 V. Cincinnati & O. R. 172 
 
 V. Clark 93, 96 
 
 V. Collector of Middle Town- 
 ship 485 
 V. Columbus Gas Light & C. 
 
 Co. 461, 462, 466 
 
 V. Com'r Railroad Taxation 10, 
 457, 477, 481, 485, 487 
 h. Consolidated European & N. 
 
 A. R. 285, 391, 392 
 
 V. Consolidation Coal Co. 13, 497 
 V. Cumberland & P. R. 469 
 
 V. Daviess County 99 
 
 V. Dawson 5 
 
 V. Del., L., & W. E. 20 
 
 V. Dexter & N. R. 481, 483, 486 
 u. Dickson 171 
 
 V. East Orange 462 
 
 V. Easton & A. R. Co. 152, 186, 194 
 V. Elizabeth . 480 
 
 V. Pagan 7, 11, 12 
 
 V. Ferris 24, 25 
 
 V. Foley 252 
 
 V. Fourth N. H. Tump. Co. 12 
 V. Fuller 484 
 
 V. Garoutte 98, 100, 102 
 
 V. Gilmore 392 
 
 V. Goll 27 
 
 V. Gorham 246, 249, 250, 251 
 
 V. Grand Trunk R. 386, 390, 391 
 V. Graves 172 
 
 V. Great Works Milling Man. 
 
 Co. 267 
 
 V. Greene County 96, 102 
 
 V. Haight 475, 485 
 
 V. Hamilton 474, 475 
 
 V. Hancock 483, 484, 492 
 
 V. Hancock County 104 
 
 V. Han. & St. J. R. 479 
 
 V. Hartford & N. H. R. 244, 260, 
 
 513 
 V. Hastings 102 
 
 V. Hoboken 242 
 
 V. Hood 483 
 
 V. Hudson Tunnel R. 187, 190, 259 
 V. Hug 172 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. 476 
 
 V. Jersey City 451, 462, 480 
 
 V. Kirkwood 132 
 
 V. Lake City 102, 103, 107 
 
 V. Lancaster County 98 
 
 V. Laverack 234, 236 
 
 V. Legget 484 
 
 State V. Lime 101, 102 
 
 V. Linn County Court 93 
 
 ^. McDaniel 24, 27 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. 390, 391, 392, 
 481, 482 
 V. Manchester & L. R. 293, 311, 
 319, 322, 324, 325, 326, 386, 
 391, 398 
 V. Mansfield 150, 484 
 
 V. Metz 22 
 
 V. Miller 9, 485 
 
 V. Mil., L. S., & "W. R. 12, 13, 28 
 V. Minton 485 
 
 V. Miss., 0., & R. R. R. 12 
 
 V. Montclair R. 155, 190 
 
 V. Morris & E. R. 243, 277, 291 
 V. Mutchler 477 
 
 V. Nemaha County 93, 102 
 
 V. New Haven & N. Co. 245, 457, 
 461 
 V. New Orleans, J., & G. N. R. 27 
 V. Newark 480, 482, 485, 506 
 
 </. Northern Cent. R. 9, 21, 457, 487 
 V. Norwalk & D. Turnp. Co. 255 
 V. Norwich & W. R. 483 
 
 V. Noyes 10, 11, 448, 450, 454, 465 
 V. Ohio & M. R. 268 
 
 V. Osawkee 88 
 
 V. Parker 482 
 
 V. Penn. & 0. Canal Co. 12, 13 
 V. Person 458, 475 
 
 u. Phil., W., & B. R. 298, 320, 352, 
 353, 356 
 V. Railroad Com'rs 10, 472, 477 
 V. Receiver of Taxes 259 
 
 V. Ripley 108 
 
 V. Rives 10, 158 
 
 V. Rombauer 119 
 
 V. Roosa 5 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 495 
 V. Saline County 99 
 
 V. Severance 474, 475 
 
 V. Seymour 162, 195 
 
 V. Smith 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 47, 505 
 u. South Minn. R. 486 
 
 u. Southern Pacific R. 13, 461, 462 
 V. Sullivan County 96 
 
 V. Tupper 243, 264 
 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. 242, 243, 267, 268, 
 285 
 V. Vincennes University 11 
 
 V. Wapello 89 
 
 V. Warren Foundry & M. Co. 119 
 V. Wetherill 477, 485 
 
 V. Wheadon 108 
 
 V. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co. 471 
 V. Wilmington & M. R. 202, 203 
 V. Winona & St. P. R. 466, 486 
 V. Woodruff 484 
 
 V. Wright 27 
 
 State Bank v. Fox 505 
 
 V. Knoop 481, 482 
 
 State Board of Agriculture v. Citizens 
 
 St. R. 517 
 
 State Freight Tax 469 
 
Ixxvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 State Railroad Tax Cases 472, 473, 474, 
 
 475, 476, 478, 488, 489, 490 
 
 State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds 469, 
 
 472, 473 
 State Tax on Railway Gross Re- 
 ceipts 469,475 
 State Tel. Co. v. Alta Tel. Co. 454 
 Steam Navigation Co. v. Weed 517 
 Steamboat Magnolia v. Marshall 201 
 Steamship Dock Co. v. Heron 129 
 Stearns v. Atlantic & St. L. R. 284, 446, 
 
 451, 464 
 
 V. Old Colony & F. R. R. 402, 
 
 409, 462 
 
 Stebbins v. Leowolf 112 
 
 V. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co. 129 
 
 Steel V. South Eastern R. 287 
 
 Steele v. Central R. 816, 332, 378 
 
 Steffen v. Chicago & N. W. R. 372, 382, 
 
 384 
 
 Stein V. Burden 178 
 
 V. Mobile 93, 95, 96 
 
 V. Railway Co. 400 
 
 Steines v. Franklin County 100 
 
 Steinmetz v. Versailles & 0. Tump. 
 
 Co. 65 
 
 Steinweg v. Erie R. 24, 433, 440, 441 
 Stephen v. Smith 284 
 
 Stephens v. Benton 128 
 
 V. Davenport & St. P. R. 284 
 Sterhng Bridge Co. v. Pearl 324, 328 
 Stetler v. Chicago & N. W. R. 282, 370, 
 
 379 
 Stetson V. Bangor 233 
 
 V. Chicago & E. R. 166, 197, 239, 
 240 
 Steuart v. Baltimore 195 
 
 Steubenville & I. R. v. North Town- 
 ship 93 
 Stevens v. Corbitt 60, 63 
 V. Davenport & St. P. R. 411 
 V. Davison 33 
 V. Erie R. 201, 259, 269 
 V. Middlesex Canal 162, 167, 
 177 
 V. Paterson & N. R. 151, 168, 199 
 V. Rutland & B. R. 30, 66, 67, 73, 
 74 
 V. South Devon R. 122, 125 
 V, Stevens 131 
 Stevenson v. Atlantic & P. R. 351 
 V. Jewett 368, 369, 371 
 Steves V. Oswego & S. R. 320, 343, 352 
 Stewart v. Brooklyn C. R. 279 
 V. Burlington & M. R. 427 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. 412, 427 
 V. Erie & W. Trans. Co. 510, 513 
 ■/. Lehigh Valley R. 36, 37, 39, 
 513 
 V. Palmer 182, 183 
 V. Polk County 89, 97 
 V. Raymond R. 166 
 Stewart's Appeal 168, 497 
 Stillson V. Hannibal & St. J. R. 316, 338, 
 
 342 
 
 Stimpson v. Railroads 304 
 
 Stinson v. New York Cent. R. 276 
 
 V. Thornton 118 
 
 Stinson's Case 213, 224 
 
 Stockport, T.,&A. R., 7n re 208,215,217 
 Stockton & D. R. v. Brown 147 
 
 Stockton & H. R. v. Leeds & T. R. 514 
 Stockton & L. G. R. v. Stockton & C. 230 
 Stockton & V. R. v. Stockton 63, 88, 93, 
 
 108, 472 
 Stoddard v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 376, 
 
 381 
 
 u. Shetucket Foundry Co. 121 
 
 Stodghill V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 175, 178, 
 
 203, 206, 263 
 
 Stokes V. Lebanon & S. Turnp. Co. 82 
 
 V. Scott 89 
 
 Stone V. Cheshire R. 287 
 
 0. City & County Bank 62, 81 
 
 V. Codman 287 
 
 V. Faurbury, P., & N. R. 235, 241, 
 
 242 
 
 V. Great Western Oil Co. 6, 8, 48, 
 
 65 
 
 „. Hackett 113, 114 
 
 V. Mississippi 448, 460 
 
 V. Western Trans. Co. 369 
 
 V. Wisconsin 456, 458, 459, 466, 468 
 
 Stoneham Branch R. v. Gould 85, 86 
 
 Stoneman v. Atlantic & P. R. 408, 429 
 
 Stoner v. Shugart 404 
 
 Stoops V. Greensburgh & B. Plank 
 
 Road Co. 48, 64 
 
 Storer v. Great Western R. 139 
 
 Storrs V. Utica 287, 290 
 
 Story V. Jersey City & B. P. Plank 
 
 Road Co. 457, 459, 514' 
 
 Stourbridge Canal Co. v. Wheeley 493, 
 
 498 
 
 Stover V. Bluehill 305 
 
 Stowell V. Flagg 177 
 
 Stoystown & G. Turnp. R. a. Craver 35 
 
 Strahlendorf v. Rosenthal 376 
 
 Strang v. Beloit & M. R. 173, 180, 256 
 
 Strange i;. Hill 239 
 
 V. Houston & T. C. R. 113, 116, 
 
 118 
 
 Strasburg R. Co. v. Echternacht 48 
 
 Stratton v. Central City R. 322 
 
 Strauss v. Eagle Ins. Co. 500, 501, 518 
 
 Strickland v. Miss. R. 93 
 
 Strohecker v. Alabama & C. R. 150 
 
 Strout V. Natoma Water & M. Co. 114 
 
 Struthers v. Clark 120 
 
 V. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. 197, 
 
 217, 235, 244, 246, 254 
 
 Stuart V. Hawley 431, 437 
 
 v. London & N. W. R. 138,' 139, 
 
 528, 532 
 
 V. Valley R. 46, 48 
 
 Stubley v. London & N. W. R. 320, 352, 
 
 353 
 Stucke V. Mil. & M. R. 402 403 
 
 Studwell V. Rich ' 404 
 
 Sturge V. Eastern Union R. 125 126 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Ixxvii 
 
 Sturges V. Knapp 
 
 620 
 
 V. Vanderbilt 
 
 10, 11 
 
 Sturgis V. Robbins 
 
 437 
 
 V. Stetson 
 
 76 
 
 Stuyvesant v. Pearsall 
 
 247 
 
 Sullivan v. India Man. Co. 360, 379, 382 
 
 V. Louisville Bridge Co. 380 
 
 V. Miss. & M. R. 359 
 
 V. Toledo, W-.S W. K. 359, 360 
 
 V. Waters 275 
 
 Sumner v. Marcy 506 
 
 Sunbury & E. R. v. Hummell 175, 176, 
 
 197, 198, 215, 264, 433 
 
 Supervisors v. Durant 105 
 
 V. Galbraith 06, 101, 104 
 
 V. Rogers 105 
 
 V. Schenck 100 
 
 V. United States 94, 105, 106 
 
 V. Wisconsin Cent. R. 94, 
 
 514 
 
 Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors 489 
 
 Sussex R. w. Morris & E. R. 510, 513 
 
 Sutherland v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 292, 321, 343, 352 
 
 SutlifE V. Cleveland & M. R. 122 
 
 Sutton V. Louisville 222 
 
 u. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 R. 275, 318, 832, 356 
 
 Suydam v. Grand St. & N. R. 312, 321 
 
 V. Moore 410, 463 
 
 Swainson v. North Eastern R. 362, 370 
 
 Swan V. Middlesex 226, 227 
 
 V. Williams 142, 143, 182, 183 
 
 Swartout v. Chicago & N. W. R. 447 
 
 Swartwout v. Mich. A. L. R. 7, 8, 45, 58, 
 
 64, 65, 77 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 R. R. 416 
 
 Swatara R. Co. v. Brune 58, 75 
 
 Swayze v. New Jersey Midland Co. 222 
 
 Swearingen v. Mo. K. & T. R. 410, 421 
 
 Sweatt ;;. B., H., & E. R. 1, 2 
 
 Sweeney v. Boston & A. R. 161, 265 
 
 V. Old Colony & N. R. 275, 329 
 
 Sweet V. Buffalo, N. Y., & P. R. 158, 239 
 
 V. Hulbert 89, 93, 97, 109 
 
 Swenson v. Lexington 249 
 
 Swett V. Cutts 204, 205 
 
 Swift V. Winterbotham 42 
 
 Sykes v. Columbus 87, 97, 100, 103 
 
 Symouds v. Cincinnati 221 
 
 Swinney v. Ft. W., M., & C. R. 215 
 
 Syracuse, P., & 0. R. w. Gere 52, 58 
 
 T. 
 
 Taber v. Cincinnati, L., & C. R. 506 
 
 Taft V. Hartford, P., & F. R. 126 
 
 Taggart v. Western Md. R. 7, 45, 47, 50, 
 
 60, 66, 67, 77 
 
 Talbot V. Dent 92, 93, 95 
 
 V. Hudson 142, 143, 146, 148, 163 
 
 Talbot County v. Queen Anne's 
 
 County 202 
 
 Talmadge v. Rensselaer & S. R. 402, 410, 
 
 423 
 Tanner v. Louisville & N. R. 294, 3:i5, 
 
 327, 831 
 Tar River Nav. Co. v. Neal 82 
 
 Tarrant v. Webb 367, 375 
 
 Tarwater ». Hannibal & St. J. R. 314, 
 
 404 
 
 Tasker v. Wallace 75, 76 
 
 Tate V. M., K., & T. R. 226, 241 
 
 i>. Ohio & M. R. 235, 241 
 
 Taunton & S. B. Turnp. Co. v. Whit^ 
 
 ing 81, 504 
 
 Taylor v. Atlantic & G. W. R. 22 
 
 V. Cedar Rapids & St. P. R. 63, 
 
 136, 137, 513 
 
 V. Chichester & M. R. 501, 502, 
 
 513, 514, 516, 521, 622, 526, 
 
 527, 629, 532, 533, 534, 536, 
 
 586 
 
 u. Fletcher 57, 61 
 
 u, Griswold 25 
 
 V, Miami Exporting Co. 505 
 
 V. New York & L. B. R. 158, 159, 
 
 160 
 
 V. Newberne 93 
 
 V. Pettijohn 170 
 
 c^. Plymouth 265 . 
 
 V. Ross County 96 
 
 V. Stockwell 451 
 
 V. Western Pacific R. 394, 397 
 
 Taylor's Case 36 
 
 Teague v. Irwin 41 
 
 Teall «. Barton 431,440 
 
 Tebbutt V. Bristol & E. R. 277 
 
 Teick V. Carver County 166, 170, 178 
 
 Telfer v. Northern R. 321, 331, 334, 342, 
 
 345, 354, 393, 394, 396, 398 
 
 Tempest v. Kilner 110, 120 
 
 Tenbrooke v. Jahke 185 
 
 Ten Eyck v. Del. & R. Canal Co. 196, 
 
 204, 268 
 0. Keokuk 89 
 
 Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank 62 
 Tennessee v. Snead 451 
 
 Tennessee & A. R. o. Adams 156, 178, 
 243, 246, 258 
 Tennessee & C. R. ". Moore 449 
 
 Terre Haute, & A. R. v. Earp 70 
 
 Terre Haute, A., & St. L. R. v. Va- 
 
 natta 308 
 
 Terre Haute & I. R. v. Fitzgerald 278 
 
 0. Graham 278, 
 
 330, 331, 332 
 
 V. McKinley 180 
 
 Terre Haute & R. R. v. Smith 423, 424 
 
 Terry v. Jewett 313, 344, 845, 351, 397 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 402, 428 
 
 Tewksbury v. Bucklin 401 
 
 Thacher v. Dartmouth Bridge Co. 145, 
 
 162 
 Thames Steamboat Co. v. Housa- 
 
 tonic R. 279, 291 
 
 Thayer v. Arnold 401 
 
 V. New Bedford R. 199 
 
Ixxviii 
 
 TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Thayer v. St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. 366, 
 
 379, 410 
 Thigpen v. Miss. Cent. E. 58 
 
 Thirteentii & F. Sts. Pass. R. v. 
 
 Boudrou 317, 324, 327 
 
 Thomas v. Allegheny County 94 
 
 V. Brownsville, Ft. K., & P. 
 
 R. 38, 39, 40 
 
 V. Leland 91 
 
 V. Port Hudson 89 
 
 V. Richmond 100, 106, 517 
 
 V. West Jersey R. 496, 515 
 
 Thompson v. Androscoggin R. I. Co. 162, 
 
 176, 195, 196, 197, 200, 
 
 204, 262, 264, 268, 294 
 
 V. Central R. & B. Co. 360 
 
 V. Erie R. 122, 126 
 
 V. Grand Gulf R. & B. 166 
 
 V. Kelly 93, 96 
 
 V. Lambert 517 
 
 V. McElarney 131 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 229 
 
 V. New Orleans & C. R. 283 
 
 V. New York & H. R. 12, 453 
 
 V. North Eastern R. 328 
 
 V. Peru 96 
 
 V. Pittston 88 
 
 V. Waters 14 
 
 Thomson v. Kansas Pacific R. 472, 488 
 
 V. Lee County 87, 93, 94, 102, 107 
 
 Thorington v. Gould 5, 26, 33 
 
 Thornburgh v. Newcastle & D. R. 58 
 
 Thornton v. Marginal Freight R. 9 
 
 Thorogood v. Bryan 282 
 
 Thorp V. WoodhuU 52 
 
 Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. 448, 461, 468, 
 
 465, 481 
 Thrasher v. Pike County R. 46, 48, 68 
 Thrings v. Central Park R. 319 
 
 Thurber v. Harlem, B. M., & F. R. 312, 
 316, 318, 319, 333, 334, 336, 347 
 Tiarks v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 421 
 
 Tibbetts v. Knox & L. R. R. 287, 289 
 Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer 212 
 Tillett V. Charing Cross Bridge Co. 139 
 Tilley v. Hudson River R. 302, 388, 394, 
 
 896, 398 
 Timmons v. Cent. 0. R. 377 
 
 Tinkham v. Erie R. 136, 137 
 
 Tinney v. Boston & A. R. 864, 872, 376 
 Tinsman v. Belvidere Del.R. 167, 197, 
 198, 201, 204, 216, 217, 268, 494 
 Tisdale v, Harris 110 
 
 Titcomb v. Fitohburg R. 250, 348 
 
 V. Union Marine & Fire Ins. 
 
 Co. 110 
 
 Titus V. Cairo & F. R. 84 
 
 V. Catawissa R. 511 
 
 V. Great Western Tump. R. 128 
 
 Tobin V. Portland, S., & P. R. 275, 276 
 
 Todd 0. Austin 181 
 
 V. Kankakee & I. E. R. 222, 224 
 
 V. Old Colony & F. R. R. 317 
 
 V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 135 
 
 i;. Taft 119 
 
 Toledo Bank v. Bond 448 
 
 V. Toledo 481 
 
 Toledo, P., & W. R. v. Arnold 430 
 
 u. Bray 407 
 
 V. Conroy 296, 371, 
 
 372, 373 
 
 V. Deacon 404, 406, 
 
 429, 462 
 
 V. Delehanty 410 
 
 V. Foster 354 
 
 V. Ihgraham 404, 407 
 
 V. Johnston 425 
 
 V. Lavery 410 
 
 V. Logan 410 
 
 V. Pence 410, 429 
 
 V. Pindar 433, 435, 
 
 439, 441, 442 
 
 V. Rumbold 274, 284, 
 
 411 
 
 V. Sweeney 422 
 
 V. Wickery 428 
 
 Toledo & W. R. i.. Daniels 147, 150, 151, 
 
 256, 418 
 V. Fowler 419 
 
 ». Goddard 294,814,321, 
 323, 324 
 V. Lafayette 474, 485, 489 
 V. Smith 309 
 
 V. Thomas 416, 426 
 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. o. Asbury 371, 374, 
 
 377 
 
 V. Barlow 410 
 
 V. Black 377 
 
 V. Brooks 399 
 
 w. Carey 420, 426 
 
 V. Cohen 418, 419 
 
 V. Cole 401 
 
 V. Corn 433, 434 
 
 V. Durkin 851, 359 
 
 V. Eddy 378 
 
 V. Fredericks 371 
 
 V. Furgusson 408, 
 
 415, 426 
 
 V. Grable 338 
 
 V. Green 160 
 
 V. Crush 276 
 
 V. Harmon 321, 348 
 
 V. Howell 421 
 
 V. Ingraham 371, 
 
 372, 381 
 
 V.Jacksonville 462, 
 
 466 
 
 V. Jones 331, 344, 
 
 345, 351, 352 
 
 V. Larmon 431, 436, 
 
 438 
 
 u. McGinnis 356, 
 
 403, 421 
 
 V. Maxfleld 436, 489, 
 
 442 
 
 V. Miller ' 355 
 
 V. Milligan 430 
 
 V. Moore 865, 371, 
 
 878, 888, 884 
 
 V. Morrison 205 
 
TABLE OP CASES. 
 
 Ixxix 
 
 Toledo.W., & W. R. v. Muthersbaugh 
 
 442, 444 
 
 V. Tfelson 418 
 
 V. O'Conner 328, 
 
 355, 363, 365 
 
 V. Owen 421 
 
 V. Shuukman 843 
 
 V. Spangler 421 
 
 V. Stevens 430 
 
 V. Wand 433, 434 
 
 Toll Bridge Co. v. Osborn 500 
 
 Tombs V. Rochester & S. R. 423, 465 
 
 Tomlin i;. Dubuque, B., & M. R. 199, 
 
 200 
 
 V. Tonica & P. R. 78 
 
 Tomlinson v. Branch 481, 487 
 
 V. Derby 303 
 
 i,. Jessup 457, 459, 481, 485, 
 
 486 
 
 Tonawanda E. v. Hunger 414 
 
 Tonica & P. R. v. McNeely 49 
 
 V. Roberts 189 
 
 V. Stein ' 47, 57 
 
 V. Unsicker 189, 214 
 
 Toomey v. London, B., & S. C. R. 320 
 
 Topping V. Bicliford 8 
 
 Totten V. Tison 124 
 
 Towanda Bridge Co., In re 153 
 
 Tower v. Providence & W. R. 402, 403 
 
 Towle V. Eastern R. 235 
 
 Town V. Blackberry 191 
 
 Towne v. Nashua & L. R. 405 
 
 Towns V. Cheshire R. 413, 414, 417 
 
 Townsend v. Chicago & A. R. 164, 189 
 
 V. Mclver 119 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 E. R. 306 
 
 Townsend's Case 143, 145, 146, 147, 179 
 Tracy v. Talmage 517 
 
 V. Troy & B. R. 411, 416, 417 
 
 Traer v. Stuart 64 
 
 Trammell v. Pennington 108 
 
 Trask v. Maguire 486 
 
 Traveller's Life Ins. Co. v. Mosley 298 
 Traver v. Eighth Av. R. 304 
 
 Treadwell v. Hancock County 101 
 
 V. Salisbury Man. Co. 30, 503 
 Tredway v. Sioux City & St. P. R. 416, 
 
 463 
 Tremain v. Cohoes Co. 175, 263 
 
 Trenton Water Power Co. ti. Cham- 
 bers 131 
 Trenton Water Power Co. v. Raff 196, 
 197, 198, 205 
 Trice v. Han. & St. J. R. 463 
 Trinity College v. Hartford 181 
 Trist V. Child 613 
 Trogden v. Winona & St. P. E. 185 
 Trott V. Sarchett 69 
 Trout V. Va. & T. R. 414 
 Trow V. Vt. Cent. R. 812, 325, 326, 404, 
 
 408, 414 
 
 Troxler v. Richmond & D. R. 434, 442 
 
 Troy V. Cheshire R. 176, 177, 230, 252 
 
 t:. Troy & L. R. 247 
 
 Troy & B. R. v. Lee 175, 188, 189, 211, 
 
 226 
 V. Northern Tump. Co. 
 
 175, 188, 213, 216, 
 22B, 228 
 f. Potter 158, 159, 161, 
 169, 191, 210, 261 
 V. Tibbitts 46, 82, 84, 126 
 V. Warren 46 
 
 Troy & G. R. ". Gray 65 
 
 V. Newton 52, 53, 55, 60 
 Troy & L. R. v. Kane 480 
 
 Troy & R. R. v. Kerr 51, 67, 71, 82 
 
 Troy Turnp. & R. v. M'Chesney 81, 82 
 Trundy v. Hartford & N. Y. Steam- 
 boat Co. 34 
 Trunick v. Smith 2 
 Trustees of College Point v. Dennett 217 
 Tuckahoe Canal Co. u. Tuckahoe & 
 
 J. R. 162, 453 
 
 Tucker v. Erie & N. E. E. 182, 190 
 
 V. Ferguson 482, 483 
 
 V. Henniker 325 
 
 V. Mass. Cent. R. 226, 228 
 
 V. New Hamp. Savings Bank 107 
 
 Tuckerman v. Brown 57, 77 
 
 Tuff V. Warman 324, 325, 326 
 
 Tufts V. Charlestown 213 
 
 Tunney v. Midland R. 365, 369 
 
 Turner v. North Beach & M. R. 308 
 
 V. Sheffield & R. R. 180 
 
 Turnpike Co. u. State 10, 453 
 
 Turnpike Road Co. v. Brosi 186 
 
 Turnpike Soc. v. Hosmer 255 
 
 Turquand v. Marshall 32, 41 
 
 Turrill v. 111. Cent. R. 273 
 
 Tuttle V. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 304 
 
 V. Mich. A. L. R. 65, 70 
 
 Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury 39 
 
 Twomley v. Central Park, N., & E. 
 
 R. R. 328 
 
 Tyler v. Beacher 146 
 
 Tyng V. Commercial Warehousing Co. 
 
 494 
 
 Tyrrell v. Eastern R. 314 
 
 Tyson v. K. & D. M. R. 420, 423 
 
 V. South & N. A. E. 368, 369, 375 
 
 U. 
 
 Unangst's Appeal 140, 169 
 
 Uncas National Bank v. Eith 503 
 
 Underhill v. New York & H. E. 414, 465 
 V. Saratoga & W. R. 136 
 
 Underwood v. New York & N. H. R. 122 
 Unger v. Forty-Second St. R. 252 
 
 Union Agricultural & S. Assoc, v. 
 
 Neill 67 
 
 Union Bank v. Laird 113, 129 
 
 Union Branch R. v. East Tenn. & G. 
 
 R. 12, 22 
 
 Union Gold Mining Co. v. Rocky 
 
 Mt. Nat. Bank 34 
 
 Union Hotel v. Hersee 56 
 
Ixxx 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Union Improvement Co. o. Com- 
 monwealth 458 
 Union Locks & Canals v. Towns 68 
 Union Pacific E. v. Burlington & M. 
 
 R. R. 152, 153 
 
 V. Com'rs 488 
 
 V. Fort 361, 379, 382 
 
 V. Hall 201, 258 
 
 V. Hause 288, 806, 307 
 
 V. Lincoln County 488, 
 
 490 
 
 V. McShane 488 
 
 V. Milliken 375 
 
 V. Nichols 365 
 
 V. Peniston 449, 472, 
 
 488 
 
 V. Rollins 312, 318 
 
 V. United States 125, 
 
 126, 458, 466 
 
 V. Young 308, 375 
 
 Union Pass. E. v. Philadelphia 458, 459, 
 
 481, 482, 483 
 
 Union R. v. Cambridge 463 
 
 Union Turnp. Co. v. Jenkins 82 
 
 Union Village & J. E., In re 175, 215, 
 
 216 
 United Land Co. v. Great Eastern E. 161 
 United Society of Shakers v. Under- 
 wood 42 
 United States v. Badger 105 
 u. Bait. & 0. R. 473 
 V. Burlington & M. R. 132 
 V. Chicago 152, 153 
 V. Clark County 97, 100, 
 105, 106 
 V. Keokuk 105 
 V. Land in Monterey 
 
 County 219 
 
 V. Little Miami, C, & 
 
 X. R. 10 
 
 V. Macon County 98, 106 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 202 
 V. New Orleans 98, 105 
 V. Railroad Bridge Co. 151 
 V. Reed 182 
 
 V. Union Pacific E. 32, 36, 
 38, 44, 449, 521, 538 
 V. Vaughn 115 
 
 United States Bank v. Planters' 
 
 Bank 449 
 
 United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver 35 
 
 United States Rolling-Stoek Co., In 
 
 re 22 
 
 University v. North Carolina R. 415 
 
 Unthank v. Henry County Turnp. 78 
 
 Upham V. Worcester 222 
 
 Upton V. Burnham 79, 81 
 
 V. Englehart 61, 62, 79 
 
 V. Hansbroigh 58, 64, 80 
 
 V. South Reading Branch R. 222, 
 
 223 225 
 
 V. Tribilcock 58, 62, 77, 80, 84 
 
 Urbanek v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 293 
 
 Utioa, C, & S. V. E., In re 174, 175, 196, 
 
 211, 218, 215 
 
 Utica & S. R. V. Brinckerhoffl 60 
 
 Utley V. Union Tool Co. ■ 6 
 
 Vail V. Hamilton 25 
 
 V. Morris & E. E. 180, 181, 183, 190, 
 256, 257 
 Valley E. v. Bohm 208 
 
 Valtez V. Ohio & M. E. 361, 362, 363, 864 
 Van Allen v. Assessors 488 
 
 V. Illinois Cent. R. 120 
 
 Van Cott V. Van Brunt 75, 76 
 
 Van Doren v. Olden 123 
 
 Van Dyck v. McQuade 40 
 
 Van Hoffman v. Quincy 105, 481 
 
 Van Hostrup v. Madison City 102 
 
 Van Rensselaer v. Albany & S. R. 135 
 Van Schaick v. Hudson River R. 316 
 Van Wickle v. Camden & A. R. & 
 
 T. Co. 183 
 
 Vance v. Erie R. 273 
 
 Vandall v. South S. F. Dock Co. 515 
 Vandegrift v. Delaware R. 214, 220, 402, 
 
 424, 425 
 
 V. Eediker 402, 403, 414 
 
 Vanderbilt v. Adams 460 
 
 V. Richmond Turnp. Co. 277, 
 
 278 
 
 Vanderkar v. Rensselaer & S. E. 417 
 
 Vanderpool v. Husson 287, 291 
 
 Vandeventer v. New York & N. H. 
 
 R. 389 
 
 Vandine v. Burpee 2a7 
 
 Varick v. Smith 142, 143, 200 
 
 Vary v. B. C. R. & M. R. 282 
 
 Vaughau v. Menlove 431 
 
 V. Taff Vale R. 176, 180, 209, 
 432 
 Vawter v. Ohio & M. R. 58, 79 
 
 Veazie v. Mayo 253, 462, 463, 465 
 
 V. Penobscot R. 245, 248, 249, 
 290 
 Veeder v. Lima 101 
 
 Veghte V. Raritan Water Power Co. 131 
 Veiller v. Brown 80 
 
 Venice v. Breed 109 
 
 <;. Murdock 100 
 
 V. Woodruff 101, 106, 129 
 
 Vermont Cent. R. u. Baxter 176, 177, 
 179, 191, 287, 290 
 V. Burlington 484, 488 
 V. Clayes 50, 51, 75, 
 82 
 V. Hills 133 
 
 Vermont & C. E. v. Vt. Cent. E. 9, 11, 
 449, 497, 512 
 Vermont & M. E. v. County Com'rs 190 
 V. Eitchburg E. 457, 
 458 
 Vermont Mining & Q. Co. v. Wind- 
 ham Co. 49 
 Vicksburg v. Lombard 101 
 Vicksburg & J. R. v. Patton 326, 404 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixxxi 
 
 Vicksburg & M. R. v. Rugsdale 137 
 
 V. Wilkins 377, 380 
 Vicksburg, S., & T. R. v. Calderwood 
 
 222, 223 
 V. McKean 51, 58 
 V. Ouachita 93 
 
 Vilas V. Mil. & M. R. 
 Vilhac V. Stockton & I. R. 
 Vina! v. Dorchester 
 Vincent v. Cliicago & A. R. 
 Virginia & T. R, v. Elliot 
 
 V. Henry 
 
 168, 169 
 
 165 
 
 249 
 
 499 
 
 150, 173, 188, 
 
 213 
 
 188, 189, 196, 
 
 2)2, 225 
 
 V. Lovejoy 190, 224 
 
 V. Lynch 187, 241, 242 
 
 V. Lyon County 63, 99 
 
 Visseher v. Hudson River R. 171 
 
 Voak V. Northern Cent. R. 293, 329, 350, 
 
 351 
 Voeghty t'. Pittsburg & Ft. W. R. 186 
 Von Hoffman v. Quinoy 451 
 
 Vose V. Lancashire & Y. R. 360, 362, 370, 
 
 376 
 Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co. 42, 
 
 46,61 
 
 W. 
 
 Wabash & E. Canal v. 
 
 Spears 196, 
 
 
 
 235, 262, 
 
 Wabash R. v. Brown 
 
 
 285, 286, 
 
 u. Henks 
 
 
 328, 354, 
 
 V, Jones 
 
 
 
 Waddell's Appeal 
 
 
 
 Wade V. Leroy 
 
 
 
 V. Thayer 
 
 
 305, 
 
 Wademan r. Albany & S. 
 
 R. 409, 
 
 Wadhanis v. Lackawanna & B. R. 
 
 Waffle V. New York Cent. R. 
 Wager v. Troy Union R. 236, 
 
 Wagner v. Cleveland & T. R. 161, 
 I'. Long Island R. 
 V. Meety 99, 100, 
 
 Waito w. Nortli Eastern R. 334, 
 
 Wakefield i: Boston & M. R. 
 u. Conn. & P. R. R. 
 0. Newell 
 Wakeman v. Dalley 
 Waldele v. Xew York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. 298, 320, 346, 
 
 Waldo V. Chicago, St. P., & F. R. 61 
 506, 507, 
 i>. Goodsell 
 Waldron v. Portland, P., & C. R. 
 
 V. Portland, S., & P. R. 419, 
 
 424, 428, 
 
 c/. Rensselaer & S. R. 410, 
 
 Walker v. Boiling 359 
 
 V. Boston 226 
 
 V. Boston & M. R. 173, ISO. 
 
 188, 
 
 205, 
 270 
 409 
 355 
 328 
 144 
 302 
 306 
 418 
 165, 
 182 
 205 
 240 
 219 
 205 
 102 
 338 
 189 
 352 
 205 
 42 
 
 350 
 75, 
 515 
 400 
 430 
 420, 
 429 
 414, 
 463 
 367 
 227 
 183, 
 190 
 
 Walker v, Caywood 233 
 
 V. Chicago, R. L, & P. R. 169 
 u. Cincinnati 93, 96 
 
 V. IJevereaux 65 
 
 V. Erie R. 303 
 
 V. Mobile & 0. R. 47, 58 
 
 V. Old Colony & N. R. 203, 205, 
 206, 207, 213, 217, 264 
 
 1/. South Eastern R. 
 
 V. Ware, H., & B. E. 
 
 V. Wilson 
 Wall St., In re 
 Wallace v. Long Island R. 
 
 V, Loomis 
 Waller v. South Eastern R. 
 
 273, 277, 
 
 278, 280 
 
 189 
 
 305 
 
 219 
 
 39 
 
 4 
 
 359, 361, 
 
 365 
 
 Walsh V. Barton 507 
 
 V. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 307 
 
 V. Va. & T. R. 414, 422, 428 
 
 Walters v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 319, 
 
 322, 333, 334, 335, 336, 390, 391, 397, 
 
 398, 400 
 
 Walther v. Pacific R. 429 
 
 „. Warner 143, 162, 163, 165, 166, 
 
 195 
 
 Walton V. St. Louis, L M., & S. R. 422 
 
 Walworth v. Brackett 6 
 
 Walworth County Bank v. Farmers' 
 
 Loan & T. Co. 34 
 
 Wamesit Power Co. u. Allen 170, 259 
 Wanless v. North Eastern R. 345, 353, 
 
 354 
 Wapello V. B. & M. R. 89, 106, 517 
 
 Warhurton v. Great Western R. 363, 
 
 570 
 Ward V. Griswoldville Man. Co. 81 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 432, 435, 436 
 
 V. South Eastern R. 
 
 117 
 
 Warden i\ Union Pacific R. 
 
 38 
 
 Warden, &c. of Dover Harbor v. 
 
 South 
 
 Eastern R. 
 
 508 
 
 Wardrobe v. Cal. Stage Co. 
 
 306, 307 
 
 Warehousing Co. v. Badger 
 
 66 
 
 Warner v. Callender 
 
 63, 259 
 
 V. Erie R. 359, 366, 368 
 
 , 373, .184 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 
 
 295, 299, 
 
 342, 34.3 
 
 345. .S54 
 
 Warren v. Fitchburg R. 299, 
 
 320, 3--'.), 
 
 
 344, 354 
 
 V. K. & D. M. R. 
 
 423 
 
 V. St. Paul & P. R. 142, 
 
 147, 148, 
 
 165 
 
 210, 220 
 
 Warren County v. Marcy 
 
 101, 104 
 
 Warren R. v. State 
 
 245 
 
 Warwick Institution v. Providence 183, 
 
 
 187 
 
 Warwick R. o. Cady 
 
 53 
 
 Washburn v. Nasliville & C. R. 
 
 3B8, 
 
 
 369 
 
 / 
 
 Washington & B. Turnp. Co. v. Mary- 
 land 13 
 
 Washington & B. Turnp Road v. Bait. 
 & 0. R. 453 
 
 Washington Bridge Co. v. State 448 
 
Ixxxii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Washington Cemetery v. Prospect 
 Park & C. I. B. 157, 158, 159, 192, 221, 
 236, 240 
 Washington & G. R. v. Gladraon 300, 833 
 Washington Parle Com'rs, In re 257 
 
 Washington University v. Rouse 481 
 Wasmer v. D. L. & W. K. 245, 284, 349, 
 
 855 
 Water Valley Man. Go. v. Seaman 51, 61, 
 
 62 
 Water Works v. Burkhart 146, 147, 158 
 Waterbury v. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. 
 
 It. 157, 194, 257 
 
 V. Hartford, P., & F. R. 244 
 u. Merchants' Union Ex. 
 Co. 520 
 
 Waterford, W. W., & D. R. v. Dal- 
 
 biac 53 
 
 Waterman v. Conn. & P. R. R. 179, 205 
 V. Troy & G. R. 127 
 
 Waters v. Moss 404 
 
 Watertown v. Mayo 460 
 
 Watkins v. Atlantic At. R. 319 
 
 Watson V. New York Cent. R. 151, 157, 
 
 185, 451 
 
 0. Pittsburg & C. R. 197, 198, 
 
 212, 214, 227, 229 
 
 V. Tripp - 249 
 
 Watterson v. Allegheny Valley B. 613 
 
 Watts's Appeal 32, 36, 89, 40, 41 
 
 Way V. 111. Cent. R. 296, 380, 382 
 
 Wayland i;. County Com'rs 479 
 
 Wayne County u. Del. & H. Canal 
 
 Co. 480 
 
 Wear v. Jacksonville & S. R. 78 
 
 Weaver v. Barden 110, 111, 118 
 
 Webb V. Direct London & P. R. 138, 189, 
 
 513, 528, 532 
 
 V. Earle 126 
 
 V. Lafayette County 95 
 
 V. Manchester & L. R. 149, 494 
 
 V. Portland & K. R. 284, 314 
 
 V. Rennie 372 
 
 V. Rome, W., & O. R. 431, 432, 483, 
 
 434, 489, 441, 442, 443 
 
 Webber v. Eastern R. 225, 228 
 
 Weber v. Lee County 105 
 
 V. Morris & E. E. 446, 447 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 313, 
 
 318, 319, 320, 341 , 343, 344, 
 
 345, 346, 350, 352, 353 
 
 Webster v. Hudson River R. 282 
 
 ti. Upton 80,84,114,119 
 
 Wedgwood v. Chicago & N. W. R. 371, 
 
 377 
 
 Weed V. Panama Co. 280 
 
 Weger v. Penn. R. 364, 369, 875 
 
 Weiuk V. Lander 333 
 
 Weir V. Barnett 42 
 
 J). St. Louis & I. M. R. 421 
 
 V. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. 144, 147, 
 
 148, 149, 165, 183, 223 
 
 Weisbrod v. Cliicago & N. R. 2-50 
 
 Weismer v. Douglas 88, 100 
 
 Weiss V. Penn. R. 299, 300, 346, 348 
 
 Welch V. Mil. & St. P. R. 213 
 
 V. North Eastern R. 304 
 
 V. Ste. Genevieve 105 
 
 Welfare v. London & B. R. 276, 319 
 
 Wellcome v. Leeds 248, 245, 249, 250 
 Wellersburg & W. N. Plank Road Co. 
 
 V. Hoffman 50 
 
 Wellington v. Petitioners 91 
 
 Wells V. Howell 401 
 
 V. Rahway White Rubber Co. 29 
 
 V. Somerset & K. R. 151 
 
 Wellsboro v. New York & C. R. 89, 98, 
 
 99 109 
 
 Welsh V. St. Paul & P. E. ' 108 
 
 Werely v. Persons 298 
 
 Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co. 270 
 
 West V. Bancroft 234 
 
 V. Louisville, C, & L. E. 204, 244, 
 
 271 
 
 V. Madison County Ag. Board 503, 
 
 517 
 
 V. St. l,ouis, v., & T. H. R. 287, 
 
 290 
 
 West Branch & S. Canal Co. v. MuU- 
 
 iner 196 
 
 West Chester & P. R. «. Jackson 121, 
 
 124, 126 
 V. McElwee 294, 
 319 
 V. Thomas 81 
 West Newbury v. Chase 226, 227 
 
 West of England Bank, In re 504 
 
 West PhU. Pass. E. Co. a. Philadel- 
 phia 248 
 West River Bridge Co. v. Dix 142, 143, 
 153, 154, 155 
 West Virginia Trans. Co. v. Vol- 
 canic, O., & C. Co. 170, 181 
 West Wisconsin E. v. Board of Su- 
 pervisors 458, 480, 481 
 Western & A. E. v. Adams 360 
 V. Strong 389 
 Western Bank v. Tallman 75 
 Western Md. E. v. Manro 50 
 V. Patterson 261 
 Western North Carolina B. u. Eol- 
 
 lins 9, 13, 486 
 
 Western Pacific E. v. Eeed 189 
 
 V. Tevis 256 
 
 Western Penn. R. v. Hill 212, 216 
 
 V. Johnston 158, 162, 
 167, 170, 185 
 Western R. ^. Avery 77, 82 
 
 V. Babcock 137, 138, 139, 141 
 V. Nolan 489 
 
 Western Trans. Co. v. Scheu 475 
 
 Western Union R. v. Fulton 462 
 
 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Davenport 116 
 V. Mayer 469 
 u. Rich 159, 160, 
 193 
 V. Richmond 488 
 V. Union Pa- 
 cific R. 139 
 Westfall V. Erie R. 294 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixxxiii 
 
 Weston V. Bear River & A. W. & M. 
 
 Co. 113, 114 
 
 Weston's Case 112 
 
 Wetmore v. Law 239, 247, 251 
 
 V. Story 232, 236, 269 
 
 Weturakau. Winter 93 
 
 Weyant v. New York & H. R. 281 
 
 Woyauwega v. Ayling 101 
 
 Wliaalan v. Mad River & L. E. R. 364, 
 
 366 
 
 Wlialen v. Centenary Ciiurch 368 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 295, 
 
 308, 327 
 
 Wheatley v. Baugh 204 
 
 Wheaton «. Nortli Beach & M. R. 308 
 
 Wlieeler v. Erie R. 419 
 
 V. Essex Public Road 163 
 
 V. Rocliester & S. R. 171, 418 
 
 V. San Francisco & A. R. 509, 
 
 510 
 
 V. Stone 201 
 
 Wheeler's Case 26, 124 
 
 Wheeling v. Baltimore 20 
 
 Wheelock v. Boston & A. R. 315, 316, 
 
 317, 318, 319, 329, 344, 354 
 
 V. Kost . 65, 80 
 
 Whirley v. Wliiteman 337 
 
 Whitaker v. Delaware & H. C. Co. 201, 
 
 203, 204 
 
 Whitbeck v. Dubuque & P. R. 404 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 446 
 
 Whitclier v. Benton 182 
 
 Whitcomb v. Vt. Cent. R. 179 
 
 White V. Ballou 296 
 
 u. Charlotte & S. C. R. 175, 212 
 
 V. Colorado Cent. R. 442 
 
 V. Concord R. 405, 423, 428 
 
 V. Hart 451 
 
 V. Lang 327 
 
 V. Nashville & N. W. R. 164, 165, 
 
 167, 170, 171 
 
 V. Quincy 249, 250, 457, 458 
 
 II. South Shore R. 206 
 
 V. Syracuse & U. R. 71, 459, 506 
 
 V. Utica & B. R. R. 406, 415 
 
 White Hall & P. R. v. Myers 59, 61, 71 
 
 White Mts. R. d. Eastman 54, 56, 57, 62, 
 
 77, 79, 81, 83 
 
 White River Tump. Co. v. Vt. 
 
 Central R. 147, 152, 155, 176, 218, 453 
 White Water Valley Canal Co. v. 
 
 Valette 503 
 
 White Water Valley R. u. McClure 176, 
 
 212,214,222 
 
 V. Quick 422 
 
 Whiteacre v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 210, 
 
 220 
 
 Whitehouse v. Androscoggin R. 175, 176, 
 
 179, 206, 263, 266 
 
 Whiteman v. Wilmington & S. R. 144, 
 
 146, 170, 173, 221, 272 
 
 Whitesell v. Northampton County 473 
 
 Whitfield V. South Eastern R. 273 
 
 V. Westbrook 303 
 
 „. Wliicfleld 305 
 
 Whitford v. Panama R. 385, 886, 389, 
 
 391, 392, 394 
 
 Whiting 0. Potter 103 
 
 </. Sheboygan & F. L. R. 88, 94, 
 
 97 
 
 Whitman v. Boston & M. R. 137, 184, 
 
 187, 189, 216, 220, 222, 224, 226, 227 
 
 Whitney v. Atlantic & St. L. K. 284,411 
 
 V, Boston 226 
 
 V. Clifford 288 
 
 V. Hitchcock 306 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. 321, 342, 348, 
 
 349 
 
 V. New Haven 138 
 
 Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow 516, 517, 
 
 519 
 
 Whitson V. Franklin 462 
 
 Whittenton Mills v. Upton 512 
 
 Whittier v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 300 
 
 .,. Portland & K. R. 176, 197, 
 
 235 
 
 Whittlesey v. Frantz 45 
 
 V. Hartford, P., & F. R. 186, 
 
 191 
 
 Whorter v. People 102 
 
 Wiggett V. Fox 370 
 
 Wight V. Shelby R. 48, 49, 58, 62, 64 
 
 V. Springfield & N. L. R. 24 
 
 Wigmore v. Jay 359, 361, 392 
 
 Wilbrand v. Eighth Av. R. 252 
 
 Wilby V. West Cornwall R. 510 
 
 Wilcox V. Rome, W., & 0. R. 343, 344, 
 
 346, 352 
 Wilder v. Maine Cent. R. 424, 426, 462, 
 
 463 
 Wilds V. Hudson River R. 318, 323, 324, 
 341, 342, 343, 315, 354 
 Wiley V. Silliman 97, 98, 103 
 
 Wilkin V. St. Paul & P. R. 147, 183 
 
 Wilkinson v. Peru 97, 101, 106 
 
 0. Providence Bank 119 
 
 Willamette Freighting Co. v. Stannus 53 
 Willard v. Cambridge 270 
 
 Willcock's Case 25, 29 
 
 Willetts V. Buffalo & R. R. 333, 335, 391 
 William & A. Streets, In re 188, 211 
 
 Williams v. Cammack 91 
 
 V. Cheney 8 
 
 V. Clough 380 
 
 V. Detroit 91 
 
 V. Duanesburg 89, 93, 94, 97, 
 ^03 
 V. Franklin T. A. Associ- 
 ation 6, 8 
 V. Great Western R. 300, 337, 
 497 
 V. Hall 93, 108 
 r. Hartford &N.H.R. 181, 
 183 
 V. Mich. Cent. R. 401, 402, 403, 
 414 
 V. Natural Bridge Plank 
 
 R 233 
 
 V. New Albany & S. R. 402, 
 
 403, 410, 4U 
 
Ixxxiv 
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 "WiUiams v. New York Cent. R. 232, 236, 
 
 240 
 
 1,. Roberts 97, 100, 103, 104 
 
 V. Savage Man. Co. 25, 505 
 
 Williamson v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 513 
 
 V. Keokuk 100 
 
 V. Western Stage Co. 305, 
 
 308 
 
 Williamston & T. R. v. Battle 131, 169 
 
 Willing V. Baltimore R. 189 
 
 Williuk 0. Morris Canal & B. Co. _ 10 
 
 Willis V. Long Island R. 317 
 
 Williston V. Mich. S. & N. I. R. 14, 15, 
 
 126 
 
 Wills V. Lynn & B. R. 317 
 
 Wilmer v. Atlanta & B. A. L, R. 23 
 
 Wilmington & M. R. «. Saunders 12 
 
 V. Wright 48 
 
 Wilmington & R. R. v. High 167 
 
 «.Reid 448,481,483 
 
 V. RoV)eson 55, 56 
 
 ... Stauffer 175, 212, 
 
 215 
 
 Wilson V. Atlantic & St. L. R. 119 
 
 u. Caneadea 109 
 
 V. Central Bridge 10, 25 
 
 V. Central Road 37 
 
 V. Cunningham 2 
 
 V. European & N. A. R. 185, 186 
 
 V. Furness R. 139, 536 
 
 V. Little 111 
 
 V. Lynn 146, 170, 180, 257 
 
 V. Madison, &c. R. 364 
 
 V. Mathews 120 
 
 V. Merry 359, 366, 367, 369 
 
 V. Miers 503 
 
 V. Northampton & B. J. R. 513 
 
 V. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. 
 
 R. 212, 216, 222 
 
 V. Salamanca 102, 104 
 
 V. Watertown 249 
 
 V. Wil. & M. R. 428 
 
 Wiltbank's Appeal 123 
 
 Wilton V. Middlesex R. 278, 292 
 
 Winans v. New York & E. R. 273 
 
 Wincliam Shipbuilding, B., & S. 
 
 Co., In re 81 
 
 Winchester v. Case 328 
 
 Winchester & P. R. v. Washington 180, 
 
 220 
 Winck V. Birkenhead, L., & C. J. R. 520, 
 
 527, 530 
 Windham Man. Co. v, Hartford, P., 
 
 & F. R. 140 
 
 Winebiddle v. Penn. R. 187, 188, 189 
 
 Winn V. Macon 93 
 
 Winnisimmet Co. v. Grueby 188, 225 
 
 Winona & St. P. R. v. Blake 466 
 
 V. Denman 196, 210, 
 
 * 212 214 
 
 V. Waldron 196,'212, 
 
 214, 222, 223, 
 
 228 
 
 Winslow V. Gifford • 194 
 
 Winston v. Tennessee & P. R. 94, 106 
 
 Winter v. Belmont Mining Co. 113 
 
 0. Muscogee R. 67, 69 
 
 Wisconsin River Improvement Co. 
 
 V. Manson 202 
 
 Wiseman v. Booker 410 
 
 Wiswall V. Brinson 287 
 
 V. Greenville & R. Plank 
 Road Co. 500, 520 
 
 Witherell v. Mil & St. P. R. 403, 407 
 Withers v. Buckley 161, 162 
 
 Witter V. Miss., 0., & R. R. R. 69, 70 
 Woburn v. Boston & L. R. 249 
 
 Wolfe V. Covington & L. R. 2.35 
 
 Wolfkiel V. Sixth Av. R. 313, 318 
 
 Wolsey 0. Lake Shore & M. S. R. 378 
 Wonder v. Bait. & 0. R. 361, 365, 366, 
 
 372, 374 
 
 Wood V. Bedford & B. R. 497, 603 
 
 V. Goodwin 20 
 
 V. Lawrence County 100 
 
 V. New Bedford Coal Co. 359 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 378 
 
 !.. Whelan . 503, 511, 521 
 
 Wood's Appeal 118 
 
 Wood Hydraulic H. M. Co. o. King 28, 
 
 32 
 Woodfolk V. Nashville & C. R. 212, 213, 
 
 222 
 
 Woodford v. Mich. S. & N. L R. 389 
 
 Woodlawn Cemetery v. Everett 460 
 
 Woodley v. Metropolitan Dist. R. 380, 384 
 
 Woodruff i: Okaloona 100, 104 
 
 Woods V. Lawrence County 98 
 
 V. Nashua Man. Co. 177 
 
 Woodson V. Brassfield 95 
 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. 437, 438, 
 
 439 
 
 Woodward v. Calhoun County 99 
 
 ^. Chicago & N. W. R. 388, 
 
 392 
 
 0. Webb 196, 197 
 
 Woolfolk V. Macon & A. R. 428 
 
 Woolson V. Northern R. 402, 413, 414 
 
 Woonsocket Union R. v. Sherman 57, 
 
 63,77 
 
 Worcester v. Great Falls Man. Co. 217 
 
 V. Norwich & W. R. 145, 457 
 
 V. Western R. 159, 479 
 
 Worcester Med. Institution v. Harding 8 
 
 Worcester & N. R. v. Hinds 52, 53 
 
 V. Railroad Com'rs 
 
 155, 190, 194, 457 
 
 Worcester Turnp. Co. v. Willard 81, 82 
 
 Workman v. Campbell 513 
 
 Works V. Junction R. 255, 495 
 
 Worley v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 386, 
 
 388 
 Worster v. Forty-Second St. & G. S. 
 
 R. 249 
 
 Worthington v. Sebastian / 473 
 
 Wray v. Evens 287, 289 
 
 Wright V. Bishop 106 
 
 V. Bundy 28 
 
 V. Carter 233 
 
 t;. Holbrook 287 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Ixxxv 
 
 Wright V. 111. & M. T. Co. 323 
 
 V. London & N. W. R. 276 
 
 V. Maiden & M. R. 312, 316, 3.33, 
 
 334, 338 
 
 V. Nagle 453 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 351, 362, 
 
 864, 366, 371, 375, 376, 379, 
 
 380, 382, 383, 384 
 
 V. Oroville Mining Co. 32, 43 
 
 V. Soott 496 
 
 V. Vt. & M. R. 126, 127 
 
 Wyatt V. Citizens R. 317 
 
 V. Great Western R. 316 
 
 V. Williams 386 
 
 Wyman v. American Powder Co. 118, 120 
 
 V. Eastern R. 174 
 
 V. Lexington & W. C. R. 224, 
 
 225, 228 
 
 V. Penobscot & K. R. 284, 411 
 
 Wynne v. Price 114, 119 
 
 Wyoming Coal & T. Co. v. Price 158 
 
 Y. 
 
 Yates V. Milwaukie 
 V. Squires 
 V. Van de Bogert 
 
 200 
 
 278 
 
 180, 18.3, 503, 
 
 506,507 
 
 Yeaton v. Bank of Old Dominion 457 
 Yeazel v. Alexander 470 
 
 Yonge u. Kinney 397 
 
 York & C. R. V. Pratt 53, 82, 83 
 
 V. Ritchie 86 
 
 York & M. L. R. v. Winans 273, 281, 
 
 283, 497 
 
 York & M. N. R. v. Hudson 37, 40 
 
 York & Y. R., In re 512 
 
 Yost's Case 163 
 
 Young V. Chicago & N. W. R. 203, 271 
 
 V. Harrison 217 
 
 V. Montgomery & E. R. 101 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. 369 
 
 V. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 422 
 
 V. Yarmouth 249 
 
 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. 506, 
 
 506, 519, 620 
 
 V. Hackensack & N. Y. R. 72, 
 
 451, 459, 460 
 
 V. Jersey City & B. R. 261 
 
 Zack V. Penn. R. 180, 182, 188 
 
 Zeigler v. Day 364, 366, 369 
 
 u. Northeastern R. 341, 344, 364 
 
 V. South & N. A. R. 463 
 
 Zimmerman v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 325, 
 
 352 
 Zirkel v. Joliet Opera House Co. 77 
 
 Zoebisch v. Tarbell 275 
 
 Zorger «. Rapids 108 
 
THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE EXISTENCE OP THE CORPOEATION. 
 
 Definitions. — A corporation is an artificial being, created by 
 law, and composed of individuals, who subsist as a body politic 
 under a special denomination, with the capacity of perpetual suc- 
 cession, and of acting in several respects as a natural person.^ 
 The right of being and acting as a corporation is a franchise 
 granted by the sovereign power. The body thus created has an 
 identity distinct from that of the individual corporators ; and its 
 property, rights, and liabilities are distinct from theirs.^ A cor- 
 poration is private when founded by private individuals, or its 
 stock is owned by them ; and it is public when it is created for 
 the purposes of government, or the whole interest is in the pub- 
 lic. The charter of a private corporation, unlike that of a public 
 corporation, is a contract, the obligation of which cannot, under 
 the Constitution of the United States, be impaired by State legis- 
 lation.^ 
 
 Railroad companies are private civil corporations, and may be 
 created by special acts of legislation or established under general 
 laws.* They are called more specifically commercial and busi- 
 
 1 2 Kent Com. 267. A corporation's Morgan v. New Orleans, M., & C. E. Co., 
 
 survival of changes in membership has 1 V7oods, 16. 
 
 been thought to be better expressed by ' Dartmouth College i'. Woodward, 
 
 the terms " continuous identity " than by 4 Wheat. 518 ; 2 Kent Com. 275. 
 
 those of " perpetual succession," as un- * Sweatt v. Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 3 
 
 limited duration is not an essential condi- Clifford, 339. A company may be a rail- 
 
 tion of corporate existence. Green's road corporation within the meaning of 
 
 Brice's Ultra Vires (2d Am. ed.), statutes, although authorized to do other 
 
 p_ 8_ kinds of business than transportation by 
 
 '•i The stockholder has no legal inter- railroad. Kentucky Improvement Co. v. 
 
 est in the property of the corporation. Slack, 100 U. S. 648. 
 
2 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 ness corporations, to distinguish them from eleemosynary corpora- 
 tions.i They are invested with the usual privileges and incidents 
 of corporations, and with certain peculiar and extraordinary pow- 
 ers necessary for effecting the purposes for which th?y are estab- 
 lished.^ 
 
 A private individual may construct and work a railroad, if he 
 can obtain a right of way by purchase.^ Such private railroads may 
 be built by a person on his own land, or on the land of another 
 by purchase of a right of way, or by reserving a way-leave over 
 lands sold or demised.* The early legislation for railroads in the 
 United States contemplated iron turnpikes, to be used by private 
 persons, with their carriages, upon payment of tolls , but this 
 mode of working them was found to be impracticable.* They were 
 sometimes declared by statute to be public highways ; and the 
 company furnished the motive power, while individuals put their 
 own cars on the tracks.^ They are now, when designed for pub- 
 lic use, constructed and managed usually by corporations, though 
 sometimes by the State, or by individuals, trustees of bondhold-' 
 ers, or receivers acting under judicial appointment. 
 
 Mode of creating the Corporation. — Formerly, corporations were 
 usually created by special acts of legislation, called charters, 
 which enumerated at length their powers and duties ; '^ and the 
 charters of corporations of the same kind were, in the same State, 
 quite uniform in many of their provisions.^ General laws, from 
 
 1 Sweatt V. Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 3 'No particular form of words is re- 
 Clifford, 339, 347, 348. quired to create a corporation. Common- 
 
 2 The powers and privileges of corpo- wealth v. West Chester R. Co., 3 Grant, 
 rations are called franchises. For recent 200. A grant of corporate powers has 
 definitions of the term " franchises " see such an effect : lb. ; Angell & A. on 
 Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217, 221; Corp. §§ 76, 77; 2 Kent Com. 276; but 
 Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. the statute must contain language in- 
 359, 365. dicating an intention to create a corpo- 
 
 3 Bank of Middlebury v. Edgerton, 30 rate body. Shelton v. Banks, 10 Gray, 
 Vt. 182, 190 ; Stewart's Appeal, 56 Pa. St. 401. While a legislative recognition cures 
 413 ; McCandless's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. defects of organization, it will not alone 
 210 ; Brand v. Hammersmith & C. R. Co., create a corporation. Attorney-General 
 L. R. 2 Q. B. 223, 232, L. R. 4 H. L. 171. ». Railroad Cos., 35 Wis. 425, 602. The 
 
 * Dand v. Kingsoote, 6 M, & W. 174 ; recognition of a corporation formed by 
 Farrow v. Vansittart, 1 Eng. R. & C. 602; the union of two corporations gives va- 
 Barnard v. Wallis, 2 Eng. R. & C. 162 ; lidity to the consolidation. Mead v. New 
 Walford on Railways, pp. 2-10 ; Wilson v. York, H , & N. R. Co., 45 Conn. 199, 218. 
 Cunningham, 3 Cal. 241. 8 See "Index of the Special Railroad 
 
 * Commonwealth «. Fitchburg R. Co., Laws of Massachusetts, 1826-1873," by 
 12 Gray, 180. E. L. Pierce, Boston, 1874, pp. 493;' also 
 
 8 Trunick v. Smith, 63 Pa. St. 18. " Table of Raih-oad Charters " of New 
 
COEPORATB EXISTENCE. 3 
 
 time to time, enacted provisions applicable to all corporations, or 
 to those of a certain class ; and the effect of such laws has been 
 to reduce the essential provisions of each charter to a smaller 
 number of particulars. 
 
 General Laws authorizing the Formation of CorporationB. — In sev- 
 eral States, general laws for the formation of railroad corporations 
 have dispensed with applications to the legislature for special acts 
 of incorporation. Such laws were enacted in New York in 1848 
 (later act in 1850), in Illinois in 1849, Ohio in 1854, Michigan in 
 1855, and Massachusetts in 1872. Generally, they prescribe that 
 individuals, not less than a number stated, are to sign articles of 
 association, which name certain provisional directors, and set forth 
 several particulars descriptive of the enterprise, such as termini, 
 route, and amount of capital stock, each agreeing to take a cer- 
 tain amount of the stock, and paying for a per cent of the same 
 in cash to the directors or their treasurer ; and that the articles 
 ' of association, with proper affidavits, are to be filed in some pub- 
 lic repository, as the office of the Secretary of State, or with some 
 local recording officer. The filing or recording, with the addi- 
 tion, perhaps, of the certificate of some public officer that the 
 statutes have been complied with, has the effect of a charter, and 
 creates the corporation.^ In some States the directors are re- 
 quired, as preliminary to the recording and certificate, to deter- 
 mine the route by agreement with the local authorities, while in 
 others it is sufficient to state in the articles the cities or towns in 
 which the railroad is to be maintained, leaving to subsequent pro- 
 ceedings todetermine the precise route. Where the legislature 
 creates a railroad corporation, it decides in each case the utility 
 of the enterprise ; while, under general laws for the formation of 
 railroad companies, the subscribers themselves may be allowed 
 to decide it. It is assumed by such general legislation that the 
 risk which the subscribers undertake in advancing and pledging 
 capital is sufficient proof of the public exigency and of their 
 good faith. 
 
 The general law in some cases authorizes, in the first instance, 
 a provisional association with limited powers, which is to become 
 
 York in McMaster's " New York Rail- i Cincinnati, L., & C. R. Co. v. Dan- 
 road Law ; " " Railroad Laws and Chai^ ville & V. R. Co., 75 111. 118. 
 ters," Boston, 1851. 
 
4 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 a corporation on the performance of certain conditions, such as 
 the paj'ment or subscription of a certain amount of capital stock.^ 
 
 Several copies of the articles of association, signed by different 
 subscribers, will be treated as one set.^ A substantial compliance 
 with the statute is sufficient to make the organization valid.^ The 
 subscription of a firm name is a compliance with a statute requir- 
 ing each subscriber to subscribe " his name." * An estimate of 
 the length of the road being required, an approximate one is suf- 
 ficient.^ Corporate existence is not defeated by the omission of 
 a clause in the affidavit stating the intent of the subscribers," or 
 by an insufficient or incorrect statement of the termini and route,'' 
 or the withdrawal of corporators after the corporation has come 
 into existence,^ or the omission of the names of the directors in 
 the articles ; ^ but the articles, unless complete in substance, will 
 not hold the subscribers.^" Non-resident persons may, unless ex- 
 cluded by the terms of the statute, be original corporators.^^ 
 
 Whether any particular parcel of land is required for corporate 
 purposes is, within certain limits, often left to the discretion of 
 the company which is created under such a general law ; but the 
 exercise of such discretion may be subject to revision by a court 
 or special tribunal. ^^ 
 
 In some States the constitution prohibits the creation of corpo- 
 rations, except under general laws. This provision does not 
 prohibit the legislature from passing a special act, changing the 
 name of an existing corporation, or giving it power to purchase 
 additional property .^^ 
 
 Acceptance of the Grant. — Individuals cannot be made corpora- 
 tors against their will ; and in order to create a private corpo- 
 
 1 Allman v. Havana, R., &E. R. Co., 88 8 Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15. 
 
 111. 521 ; Hawea v. Anglo-Saxon Petro- ' Eakright v. Logansport & N. I. E. 
 
 leum Co., 101 Mass. 385. Co., 13 Ind. 404. 
 
 2 Lake Ontario, A., & N. T. E. Co. v. i» Dutcliess & C. R. Co. v. Mabbett, 58 
 Mason, 16 N. Y. 451. N. Y. 397; Monterey & S. V. R. Co. v. 
 
 ' People V. Stockton & V. R. Co., 45 Hildreth, 53 Cal. 128. 
 
 Cal. 306. n Central R. Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 4 
 
 * Ogdensburg, R.,&a R. Co. w. Frost, Stewart (N. J.), 475, 6 Stewart (N. J.), 
 
 21 Barb. 541. 756. 
 
 , 5 Buffalo & P. R. Co. V. Hatch, 20 i^ Act of New York, 1850, ch. 140, 
 
 N. Y. 157. §§ 14, 15; Act 1869, ch. 260; Rensse- 
 
 » Buffalo & A. R. Co. v. Cary, 26 laer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 
 
 N. Y. 75. 187. 
 
 ' Cayuga Lake R. Co. v. Kyle, 64 " Wallace i>. Loomls, 97 U. S. 146. 
 N. Y. 185, 5 Thomp. & C. 659. 
 
CORPORATE EXISTENCE. 5 
 
 ration there must be an acceptance of the grant by the grantees.' 
 The grant may be withdrawn before the acceptance, even where 
 there is no reserved power of withdrawal.^ The acceptance, in order 
 to be eifective, must be unconditional and complete.^ The grantees, 
 by their acceptance of the charter or of an amendment, take it as a 
 whole, cum onere.* The acceptance, unless a mode is prescribed by 
 statute, may be implied as well as express ; ^ and none is required 
 where the parties to whom the grant was made applied for it.^ 
 
 The acceptance may be implied from acts indicating an inten- 
 tion to accept, — as from the use of corporate powers, and the 
 performance of corporate acts authorized by the grant.'^ The 
 acceptance of new grants or amendments by an existing corpora- 
 tion may likewise be express or implied, and, when beneficial, is 
 to be presumed.^ The acceptance of a charter is presumed only 
 when it names the corporators, and the conditions precedent have 
 been complied with.^ It may be shown by corporate acts which 
 without such new grant or amendment would be unlawful.'" 
 An express acceptance may be made by a majority of the stock- 
 holders ; '' or by the directors when the matter is within the scope 
 of their authority, and the statute does not expressly or by im- 
 plication require the action of the stockholders.'^ The validity of 
 amendments which the corporation refuses to accept, or to which 
 
 1 Angell & A. on Corp. §§ 81-87 ; Covington v. Covington & C. Bridge Co., 
 State V. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40. 10 Bush, 69 ; Thorington v. Gould, 59 Ala. 
 
 2 State I/. Roosa, 11 Ohio St. 16, 28; 461; Hope Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Beck- 
 Chesapeake &0. C. Co. w. Bait. & 0. R. Co., "mann, 47 Mo. 93; Illinois River R. Co. c 
 4 Gill & J. 1 ; State v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40. Zimmer, 20 111. 654. 
 
 8 Angell & A. on Corp. § 85. 8 Bangor, 0., & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 47 
 
 * Rex V. Westwood, 4 B. & C. 781 ; Me. 34. 
 
 Kenton County Court v. Bank Lick Tump. ' Attorney-General v. Railroad Cos., 35 
 
 Co., 10 Bush, 529. See, as to acceptance of Wis. 425, 601. 
 
 the charter in the case of conditions pre- ^^ Kenton County Court v. Bank Lick 
 
 cedent which are essential to corporate Turnp. Co., 10 Bush, 529; Atlantic & P. R. 
 
 existence, Lyons v. Orange, A., & M. R, Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228, 3 Mo. App. 
 
 Co., 32 Md. 18; Perkins v. Sanders, 56 315. 
 
 Miss. 733, 738, 739. . " Durfee v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 
 
 5 Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 5 Allen, 230 ; New Orleans, J., & 6. N. R. 
 111. 654, 661 ; Angell & A. on Corp. § 83. Co. v. Harris, 27 Miss. 517 ; Joy v. Jack- 
 
 6 Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum son & M. Plank Road Co., 11 Mich. 155. 
 Co., 101 Mass. 385 ; Perkins v. Sanders, '^ Eastern R. Co. v. Boston & M. II., 
 56 Miss. 733; State u. Dawson, 22 lud. Ill Mass. 125; Dayton & C. R. Co. o. 
 272. Hatch, 1 Disney, 84; Mutual Fire Ins. 
 
 ' Lyons v. Orange, A., & M. R. Co., 32 Co. v. Stokes, 9 Phil. (Pa.) 80; Illinois 
 
 Md. 18 ; New Central Coal Co. v. George's River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654; lUi- 
 
 Creek Coal & I. R- Co., 37 Md. 537, 556 ; nois River R. Co. v. Beers, 27 111. 185; 
 
 Dayton & C. R. Co. v. Hatch, 1 Disney, Goodin v Evans, 18 Ohio St. 150; Angell 
 
 84 ; Goodin v. Evans, 18 Ohio St. 150 ; & A. on Corp. § 84 ; post, p. 33. 
 
6 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 some portion of the stockholders object, depends upon the power 
 of the legislature to amend charters.^ 
 
 Essential Conditions of Existence. — A corporation may exist and 
 remain in the full enjoyment of its franchises, notwithstanding 
 irregularities in its creation, and its neglect of statute require- 
 ments in its organization and proceedings.^ Thus, the non- 
 payment of the instalment required by law to be paid at the 
 time of the subscription does not prevent corporate existence ; ^ 
 but, if made a condition precedent, the proceedings may for want 
 thereof be declared invalid on quo warranto.* The subscription 
 of the whole amount of the capital stock is not essential to such 
 existence, unless made so by statute.^ The conditions which the 
 statute makes essential to corporate life must be complied with.^ 
 A subscription to the articles of a manufacturing corporation 
 may be essential to its existence, while the filing of a certificate 
 of organization in a public repository may not be.' But in the 
 case of railroad corporations created under the usual provisions 
 of general laws, the recording of the articles of association (and 
 the issue of a certificate of such recording, where one is required) 
 seems essential to corporate existence.* If the conditions neces- 
 sary to corporate existence and organization have not been com- 
 plied with, the company cannot proceed to take land under statutes 
 authorizing corporations to exercise the right of eminent domain.^ 
 
 > New Haven & D. R. Co. „. Chap- ' Utley v. Union Tool Co., 11 Gray, 
 
 man, 38 Conn. 56 39; Merrick u. Reynolds Engine & G. 
 
 2 Hughes V. Parker, 19 N. H. 181, 20 Co., 101 Mass. 381 ; Hawes v. Anglo- 
 
 N. H. 58; Dooley D.Cheshire Glass Co., 15 Saxon Petroleum Co., id. 385; Augur 
 
 Gray, 494 ; Newcomb v. Reed, 12 Allen, Steel Axle & G. Co. v. Whittier, 117 Mass. 
 
 362; Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98; 451; First National Bank r. Davies, 43 
 
 South Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray, 30 Me. Iowa, 424. But see Bigelow v. Gregory, 
 
 547 ; Buffalo & A. R. Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 73 111. 197. 
 
 75; Cayuga Lake R. Co. v. Kyle, 64 N. « Buffalo & A. R. Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 
 
 Y. 185, 5 Thomp. & C. 659 ; Oroville & 75 ; Baile v. Calvert College Educational 
 
 V. R. Co. V. Plumas County, 37 Cal. 354 ; Soc., 47 Md. 117 ; De Witt v. Hastings, 40 
 
 Frost V. Frostburg Coal Co., 24 How. N. Y. Superior, 463 ; Jessup v. Carnegie, 
 
 278. See ante, p. 4. 44 N. Y. Superior, 260 ; Abbott v. Omaha 
 
 " Commonwealth v. West Chester R. Smelting Co., 4 Neb. 416; Indianapolis 
 
 Co., 3 Grant, 200; Eaton v. Aspinwall, Fumace&M. Co. ». Herkimer, 46 Ind. 142; 
 
 19 N. Y. 119. Nelson v. Blakey, 47 Ind. 38; Hunt v. 
 
 * People V. Chambers, 42 Cal. 201. Kansas &M. Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 412. See 
 
 5 Minor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Peters, Stone v. Great Western Oil Co., 41 111. 85 j 
 
 46. Oroville & V. R. Co. v. Plumas County, 
 
 <•■ Lyon V. Orange, A., & M. E. Co., 32 37 Cal. 354. 
 
 Md.l8; Williams w. Franklin T. A. Assoc, ^ Atlantic & O. R. Co. ii. Sullivant, 5 
 
 26 Ind. 310. Ohio St. 276; Atkinson ». Marietta & C 
 
COKPOBATE EXISTENCE. 7 
 
 Equity will enjoin the proceedings where subscriptions and 
 payments essential to corporate life have not been made as re- 
 quired by law ; ^ but it will not restrain a corporation de facto 
 from exercising the corporate powers merely because of bad faith 
 in its promoters or corporators, or of irregularities in its organiza- 
 tion, or of the non-user or misuser of its powers.^ 
 
 Organization. — The mode of organizing is usually prescribed by 
 statute. Irregularities in organization cannot be taken advan- 
 tage of collaterally.^ They may be waived by the State, and 
 legislative recognition of the corporation as a subsisting one is 
 such a waiver ; * but such a recognition does not of itself create 
 a corporation where there is no corporation de facto. ^ Fraud in 
 the organization, or in the action of the promoters when applying 
 for the charter, cannot be inquired into collaterally if at all.^ 
 The power to organize is not exhausted by a first attempt which 
 results in a defective organization.'^ The power to take associ- 
 ates, given in the usual terms, confers a privilege, but does not 
 impose a duty.^ 
 
 R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21 ; Powers v. Hazel- 
 ton & L. R. Co., 33 Ohio St. 429 ; Brook- 
 lyn W. & N. R. Co., In re, 72 N. Y. 245, 
 75 N. Y. 335, 19 Hun, 314. 
 
 1 Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 2 
 Stewart (N. J.), 242. 
 
 2 National Docks R. Co. v. Central R. 
 Co., 5 Stewart (N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart (N. 
 J.), 475; Attorney-General o. Stevens, 
 Saxton, 369. 
 
 ' Frost V. Frostburg Coal Co., 24 
 How. 278, 283 ; Rice v. Rock Island & A 
 R. Co., 21 111. 93 ; Illinois Grand Trunk 
 R. Co. I'. Cook, 29 111. 237 ; Cincinnati, L., 
 & C. R. Co. V. Danville & V. R. Co., 75 
 III. 113 ; Hanover Junction & S. R. Co. v. 
 Haldeman, 82 Pa. St 36,46; Cochrane. 
 Arnold, 58 Pa. St. 399 ; Commonwealth v. 
 Cent. Pass. R. Co., 52 Pa. St. 506 ; Aurora 
 
 6 C. R. Co. u. Lawrenceburg, 66 Ind. 80; 
 Gill V. Kentucky & C. Gold & S. M. Co., 
 
 7 Bush, 635 ; Swartwout v. Mich. A. L. 
 R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, 394 ; Taggart v. 
 Western Md. R. Co., 24 Md. 563 ; Eaton 
 V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119; Lehman v. 
 Warner, 61 Ala. 455. 
 
 4 Black River & U. R. Co. v. Barnard, 31 
 Barb. 268 ; New York Elevated R. Co., In 
 re, 70 N. Y. 327 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228, 3 Mo. App. 315 ; St. 
 Louis R. Co. V. Northwestern St. Louis 
 R. Co., 2 Mo. App. 69 ; Cowell v. Colorado 
 Springs Co., 3 Col. 82, 100 U. S. 55; 
 Mead v. New York, H., & N. R. Co., 45 
 Conn. 199 ; McAuIey v. Columbus, C, & 
 I. C. R. Co., 83 111. 348 ; Illinois Grand 
 Trunk R. Co. v. Cook, 29 111. 237 ; Mit- 
 chell V. Deeds, 49 111. 416, 419 ; Baltimore 
 & 0. R. Co. V. Marshall County, 3 W. 
 Va. 319. 
 
 5 Attorney General u. Railroad Cos., 
 35 Wis. 425, 602. 
 
 6 Garrett v. Dillsburg & M. R. Co., 78 
 Pa. St. 465 ; Smith v. Miss. & A. R. Co., 
 6 S. & M. 179 ; Powers v. Hazelton & L. 
 R. Co., 33 Ohio St. 429 ; State v. Fagan, 
 22 La. An. 545. See, as to fraud in 
 attempting to organize under a general 
 law, Paterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410 ; 
 National Docks R. Co. d. Central R. Co., 
 5 Stewart (N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 
 475. 
 
 ' Ladies Collegiate Institute v. French, 
 16 Gray, 196. 
 
 8 Hughes V. Parker, 20 N. H. 58, 19 N. 
 H 181 ; Frost v. Frostburg Coal Co., 24 
 How. 278. See Lechmere Bank v. Boyn- 
 ton, 11 Cush. 369. 
 
8 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 A body which has organized and acted as a corporation is 
 estopped from denying its corporate existence.^ The estoppel, 
 however, takes place only when the body has acted under color 
 of law, and not where there is no law authorizing its creation, or 
 there is a failure to comply with requirements essential to cor- 
 porate existence.^ A subscriber or stockholder who has partici- 
 pated in the proceedings of a de facto corporation, or otherwise 
 acquiesced in its proceedings, is estopped from denying its exist- . 
 ence or setting up irregularities in its proceedings.^ A party, by 
 contracting with a corporation, admits its corporate existence.* 
 
 Proof of Existence. — The existence of a corporation may be 
 proved by its charter (or, when created under a general law, by 
 an equivalent record or certificate) and the use of corporate powers ; 
 and the subsequent acquisition of franchises may be proved in the 
 same manner.^ Its competency to sue in that capacity is admitted 
 by a plea of the general issue or a plea to the merits,® but it must, as 
 plaintiff, prove its corporate character when it is denied by a plea 
 in abatement.^ Proof of organization and user is a sufficient 
 
 1 Callender v. PainesTille & H. E. Co., 
 11 Ohio St. 516 ; Eacine & M. E. Co. v. 
 Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 49 111. 331 ; Eey- 
 nolds u. Myers, 51 Vt. 444, 455. 
 
 ^ Harriman v. Southam, 16 Ind. 190; 
 Heaston v. Cincinnati & F. W. R. Co., 
 id. 275 ; Gillespie v. Ft. Wayne & S. B. 
 Co., 17 Ind. 243 ; Williams v. Franklin T. 
 A. Assoc, 26 Ind. 310 ; Boyee v. Towson- 
 town Station M. E. Church, 46 Md. 359. 
 
 » Sanger v. XJpton, 91 TJ. S. 56 ; Chubb 
 V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 ; Black Eirer & U. 
 R. Co. V. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 ; BufCalo & A. 
 R. Co. V. Cary, 26 N.Y. 75 ; Phoenix Ware- 
 housing Co. V. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 6 
 Hun, 293 ; Swartwout v. Mich. A. L. R. 
 Co., 24 Mich. 389 ; Monroe v. Ft. Wayne, 
 J., & S. E. Co., 28 Mich. 272; Maltby v. 
 North. W. Va. R. Co., 16 Md. 422; Mont- 
 pelier & W. E. E. Co. v. Langdon, 46 Vt. 
 ■284, 45 Vt. 137 ; Hunt v. Kansas & M 
 Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 412 ; Hanover Junc- 
 tion & S. E. Co. V. Halderaan, 82 Pa. St. 
 36 ; Corwith w. Culrer, 69 111. 502; Clarke 
 V. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46, 62. 
 
 * Black River & U. E. Co. v. Clarke, 
 25 N. Y. 208; Worcester Med. Insti- 
 tution V. Harding, 11 Cush. 285; Wil- 
 liams V. Cheney, 3 Gray, 215, 220; 
 Topping V. Bickford, 4 Allen, 120; 
 
 Douglass County v. Bolles, 94 TJ. S. 104; 
 Cochran i>. Afnold, 58 Pa. St. 399; 
 Mitchell V. Deeds, 49 111. 416 ; Callender 
 V. Painesville, & H. E. Co., 11 Ohio St. 
 516 ; Anderson v. Newcastle & R. R. Co., 
 12 Ind. 376 ; Heaston v. Cincinnati & Ft. 
 W. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275; Brownlee v. 
 Ohio, I., & L R. Co., 18 Ind. 68 ; Eppes 
 V. Miss., G., & T. R. Co., 35 Ala. 33; 
 Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co., 3 Col. 82, 
 100 U. S. 56 ; Cahall v. Citizens' B. Assoc, 
 61 Ala. 232; South Meadow Dam Co. •>. 
 Gray, 30 Me. 547. 
 
 5 Commonwealth v. Bakeman, 105 
 Mass. 53; South Meadow Dam Co. v. 
 Gray, 30 Me. 547 ; Leonardsville Bank 
 V. Willard, 25 N. Y. 574 ; De Witt v. 
 Hastings, 40 N. Y. Superior, 463; Rey- 
 nolds V. Myers, 51 Vt. 444 ; Swartwout v. 
 Mich. A. L. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, 394 ; 
 Stone V. Great Western Oil Co., 41 111. 
 85. 
 
 8 Star Brick Co. v. Ridsdale, 7 Vroom, 
 220; Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328; 
 Oldtown & L. R. Co. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 
 571 ; Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, id. 
 587 ; Heaston v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. E. 
 Co., 16 Ind. 275, 278. 
 
 ' Oroville & V. E. Co. v. Plumas 
 County, 37 Cal, 354. 
 
COEPOBATB EXISTENCE. 9 
 
 answer to a plea of nul tiel corporation ; but a grant from the 
 State must be shown in a direct proceeding for a forfeiture.^ 
 The corporation as a plaintiff need not aver its corporate charac- 
 ter when it is indicated by its name.^ Its books are evidence of 
 its proceedings.* The judgment of the court of a State, upon the 
 question whether a corporation exists under its laws, will be 
 taken as conclusive upon the question when raised in the courts 
 of other States or of the United States.* 
 
 Termination of Corporate Existence. Repeal of Charter. — The 
 legislature, having reserved the power to repeal the charter, may 
 at pleasure terminate corporate existence ; ^ but, in the absence 
 of such a reserved power, the charter cannot, under the national 
 constitution, be taken away except for cause.^ If the reserved 
 power is, by its terms, to be exercised only in case of a default or 
 abuse of corporate powers, the legislature, it has been held, is not 
 the final judge, whether such cause of forfeiture has occurred, 
 and the question of default or abuse is still open to judicial 
 inquiryj The repeal does not take away the rights of creditors 
 and stockholders in the corporate property.* 
 
 Certainly in the absence of a reserved power of repeal, the 
 
 1 Mitchell V. Deeds, 49 III. 416; Cin- v. Northern Cent. E. Co., 44 Md. 131, 164; 
 cinnati, L., & C. R. Co. u. Danville & V. Campbell v. Miss. Union Bank, 6 How. 
 R. Co., 75 111. 113; Eaton v. Aspinwall, (Miss.) 625, 653. 
 
 19N. Y. 119. ' Crease v. Babcock, 23 Pick. 334; 
 
 2 O'Donaldu. Evansville, I., & C. S. L. Commonwealth o. Essex Co., 13 Gray, 
 R. Co., 14 Ind. 259 ; Heaston v. Cincinnati 239, 253 ; Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. 
 & Ft. W. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275, 278 ; Ken- Bait. & 0. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 122 ; Erie 
 nedy v. Cotton, 28 Barb. 59; Miss., 0., & & N. E. R. Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287, 
 R. R. R. Co. V. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455. As to 1 Grant, 274 ; Commonwealth v. Pitta- 
 tlie allegation in a criminal proceeding, burg & C. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 26, 46 ; Dela- 
 see Burke v. State, 34 Ohio St. 79. ware & R. Co. v. Tharp, 5 Barring. (Del.) 
 
 8 Ryder v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 111. 516. 454 ; Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 
 
 * Secombe «. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 23 573 ; Flint & F. Plank R. Co. v. WoodhuU, 
 
 Wall. 108; Jessup v. Carnegie, 80 N. Y. 25 Mich. 99; Baltimore v. Pittsburg & 
 
 441. C. R. Co., 1 Abbott, U. S. 9. In Miners' 
 
 s Thornton w. Marginal Freight R. Co., Bank w. United States, 1 Greene (Iowa), 
 
 123 Mass. 32; Lotlirop v. Stedman, 13 553, the power of the legislature to decide 
 
 Blatch. 134, 42 Conn. 583; Baltimore v. finally the question of abuse is recognized. 
 
 Pittsburg, & C. R. Co., 1 Abbott, U. S. 9 ; In Crease v. Babcock, 23 Pick. 334, the 
 
 Mobile & 0. R. Co. i . State, 29 Ala. 573 ; effect of the decision is that the legisla- 
 
 Bruffett V. Great Western R. Co., 25 111. ture may determine the existence of a 
 
 853 ; Western North Carolina R. Co. a. default where the power to determine it 
 
 Rollins, 82 N. C. 523 ; State v. Miller, 1 has been reserred. See De Camp v. Eve- 
 
 Vroora, 368, 2 Vroom, 521 ; McLaren v. land, 19 Barb. 81 ; Vermont & C. R. Co. 
 
 Pennington, 1 Paige, 102 ; Angell & A. on v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 34 Vt. 1, 56, 57. 
 Corp. § 767. * Thornton v. Marginal Freight R. Co., 
 
 6 MiUer v. State, 15 Wall. 478 ; State 123 Mass. 32. 
 
10 THE LAW OF KAILKOADS. 
 
 question whether there has been a default or non-compliance with 
 a condition subsequent by the corporation is a judicial question.^ 
 A special charter may, under the reserved power, be repealed by 
 a general law ; ^ but the mere repeal of a general law authorizing 
 the formation of corporations does not affect corporations already 
 created under it.^ 
 
 A statute may provide a judicial proceeding for dissolving a 
 corporation and winding up its affairs, on account of its aban- 
 donment of its business ; and it is no defence to the proceeding 
 that such abandonment has not been voluntary, or that a decree 
 in bankruptcy has been passed against the corporation, or that it 
 has received similar charters from other States, as the proceeding 
 for winding up will affect only its franchise within the State.* 
 
 Modes of terminating Corporate Existence. — Corporate existence 
 may be terminated by the surrender of the charter and its ac- 
 ceptance by the State ; ^ or by due proceedings under statutes 
 authorizing a dissolution and winding up.^ It is not terminated 
 by an omission to elect directors ; '' or by a lease or sale of all the 
 corporate property ; ^ or by insolvency ; ^ or by the appointment of 
 a receiver ; i" although an absolute and permanent inability to per- 
 form corporate duties arising from such causes would justify a 
 
 1 State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ; Brook- Com. 311 ; Gen. Stat. Mass. ch. 68, § 35 ; 
 lyn Cent. R. Co. v. Brooklyn City R. Co., English Companies' Act, ch. 89, 1862, 
 32 Barb. 358 ; Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 § 79. 
 
 N. Y. 384. ' Cahill v. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 
 
 2 State w. Com'r of Railroad Taxation, Doug. (Mich.) 124. 
 
 8 Vroom, 228, 9 Vroom, 472. e Commonwealth v. Cent. Pass. R. Co., 
 
 3 Donworth v. Coolbaugh, 5 Iowa, 52 Pa. St. 506 ; Bruffett v. Great Western 
 300 {Freehold Mut. Loan Assoc. V.Brown, R. Co., 25 111. 353; State v. Rives, 5 
 2 Stewart (N. J.), 121; Bewick u. Al- Ired. 297, 309 ; Commonwealth ». Tenth 
 pena Harbor Co., 39 Mich. 700. Mass. Turnp. Co., 5 Cush. 509; United 
 
 * Hart !). Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 40 States v. Little Miami, C, & X. R. Co. 
 
 Conn. 524; Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 (U. S. C. C. S. D. Ohio, March, 1880), 9 
 
 Wall. 210; Commonwealth v. Pittsburg Reporter, 676. 
 & C. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 26, 43. 9 Germantown Pass. R. Co. v. Fitler, 
 
 5 Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Peters, 60 Pa. St. 124, 132 ; State v. Bailey, 16 
 281, 287 ; Wilson v. Central Bridge, 9 R. I. Ind. 46 ; Cahill v. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. 
 590; Lauman u. Lebanon Valley K. Co., Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Mickles v. 
 30 Pa. St. 42; McMahan v. Morrison, Rochester City Bank, 11 Paige, 118; 
 16 Ind. 172 ; La Grange & M. R. Co. Bradt v. Benedict, 17 N. Y. 93 ; People v. 
 V. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420, 437-439 ; Enfield Northern R. Co., 42 N. Y. 217. 
 
 Toll Bridge Co. v. Conn. River Co., 7 i» Willink v. Morris Canal & B. Co., 3 
 
 Conn. 28, 45; Campbell v. Miss. Union Green, Ch. 377 ; State r. Railroad Com'rs, 
 
 Bank, 6 How. (Miss.) 625; Angell & A. 12 Vroom, 235; Kincaid v. Dwinelle 59 
 
 on Corp. §§ 772, 778. N. Y. 548; Ahrens v. State Bank. 3 s! C. 
 
 6 Angell & A. on Corp. ch. 22 ; 2 Kent 401. 
 
COKPOKATE EXISTENCE. 11 
 
 judgment of forfeiture. It is not dissolved by a mere failure to 
 perform the conditions subsequent on which its duration depends, 
 and such conditions can be taken advantage of only by the 
 State.^ It may be dissolved by the death of all its members, or 
 the loss of an integral part of its organization ; but, in this last 
 case, only when it has lost the capacity to restore itself.^ It 
 may be dissolved by a consolidation with another company, oi 
 a transfer of its franchises under authority of law.^ A dissolution 
 will take effect without a judicial declaration, where the statute 
 prescribes that it shall take effect in a certain event, as upon the 
 expiration of a certain period,* or upon a failure to begin or com- 
 plete the construction of the road within a time named .^ If 
 corporate existence depends on the commencement of the con- 
 struction of the road within a certain time, the condition is not 
 fulfilled by another company, as a lessee, beginning the work.^ 
 
 Forfeiture. — The nonuser or misuser of its franchises by a 
 corporation, or its breach of the conditions on which its duration 
 is, by the law of its creation, made to depend, is a cause of for- 
 feiture. Such defaults, however, do not of themselves work a 
 forfeitui'e, but they take effect only when judicially determined 
 in a direct proceeding instituted for the purpose.'^ A nonuser or 
 misuser is a ground of forfeiture, although not expressly declared 
 
 1 Brooklyn Cent. E. Co. v. Brooklyn » Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384 , 
 City R. Co., 32 Barb. 358 ; People v. Man- La Grange & M. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 Cold, 
 hattan Co., 9 Wend. 351 ; La Grange & M. 420. See Carey v. Cincinnati & C. R. Co., 
 E. Co. t. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420, 432 ; State 5 Iowa, 357, 367. 
 
 V. Fagan, 22 La. An. 545; Haight v. New 6 Brooklyn, W., & N. R. Co., In re, 72 
 
 York Elevated R. Co., 49 How. Pr. 20 ; N. Y. 245, 75 N. Y. 335, 19 Hun, 314, 55 
 
 New York Elevated R. Co., In re, 70 N.Y. How. Pr. 14 ; Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. 
 
 327, 338, 3 Abbott, N. C. 306 ; Angell & v. Brooklyn, 78 N. Y. 524 ; Oakland R. 
 
 A. on Corp. § 777. Co. v. Oakland, B., & F. V. R. Co., 45 
 
 2 Attorney- General v. Miss. Valley & S. Cal. 365. 
 
 I. R. Co., 51 Miss. 602 ; Bradt v. Benedict, 6 Brooklyn, W., & N. R. Co., In re, 19 
 
 17 N. Y. 93, 98 ; State u. Vincennes Uni- Hun, 314, 72 N. Y. 245, 75 N. Y. 335. 
 versity, 5 Ind 77, 80 ; Angell & A. on ' State v. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ; Enfield 
 
 Corp. §§ 768, 770. Toll Bridge Co. v. Conn. River Co., 7 Conn. 
 
 3 Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319 ; Bishop 28, 46 ; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 
 I!. Brainerd, 28 Conn. 289; McMahan v. 351 ; People v. Hillsdale & C. Tump. Co., 
 Morrison, 16 Ind. 172. Whether the 23 Wend. 254 ; Brooklyn Cent. R. Co. i;. 
 consolidation effects an extinction of the Brooklyn City R. Co., 32 Barb. 358 ; 
 former corporation is a question of legisla- Ormsby u. Vt. Copper M. Co., 65 Barb, 
 live intent. Central R. & B. Co. v. Georgia, 360 ; Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384 ; 
 92 U. S. 666; Maine Cent. R. Co. «. Maine, People v. Waterford & S. Tump. Co., 3 
 96 U. S. 489; Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Geor- Abbott Ct. App. 580; Vermont & C. R. 
 gia,98 D. S. S5Q;post, Chap. XVIU.p. 487. Co. v. Vt. Cent. E. Co., 34 Vt. 1, 56 ; Peo- 
 
12 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 to be such by statute.^ A mere intention to violate corporate 
 duty, or the obtaining of a charter from another State, is not a 
 cause of forfeiture ; ^ and generally such cause must be a wilful 
 abuse or culpable neglect, and not a mere omission or non-feas- 
 ance.^ The court, when a cause of forfeiture is shown, has no 
 discretion to refuse a judgment upon the ground that the for- 
 feiture is against the public interest.* 
 
 A cause of forfeiture which has not been judicially declared 
 in a direct proceeding cannot be taken advantage of collaterally.^ 
 The State alone having the right to insist on a forfeiture can 
 waive it, directly or by implication.® The waiver will not, how- 
 ever, revive a corporation which by its default has ceased to exist, 
 where the legislature is prohibited by the constitution from grant- 
 ing special charters.^ 
 
 Quo 'Warranto and Scire Paqias. — The proceeding against a 
 corporation for usurpation, nonuser, or misuser of a franchise is 
 
 pie V. River Raisin & L. E. R. Co., 12 
 Mich. 389 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Su- 
 pervisors, 3 W. Va. 319 ; La Grange & M. 
 R. Co. V. Rainey, 7 Cold. 420 ; Alirens v. 
 State Bank, 3 S. C. 401 ; Shand v. Gage, 
 
 9 S. C. 187 ; Chesapeake & 0. Canal Co. v. 
 Bait. & 0. R. Co., 4 GiU & J. 1, 106, 107. 
 
 1 Commonwealth v. Commercial Bank, 
 28 Pa. St. 383 ; Attorney-General «. Pe- 
 tersburg & R. R. Co., 6 Ired. 456 ; State 
 V. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 45 Wis. 579. 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 Co., 58 Pa. St. 26. 
 
 8 Attorney-General u. Miss. Valley & 
 S. L R. Co., 51 Miss. 602; Common- 
 wealth V. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. St. 
 383 ; Angell & A. on Corp. § 776. 
 
 i State V. Penn. & 0. Canal Co., 28 
 Ohio St. 121. 
 
 5 Chesapeake & 0. C. Co. v. Bait. & 
 0. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 121 ; Cahill v. 
 Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 
 124; Hamilton v. Annapolis & E. R. 
 Co., 1 Md. Ch. 107; Laflin & R. P. 
 Co. V. Sinsheimer, 46 Md, 315 ; Frost v. 
 Frostburg Coal Co., 24 How. 278 ; Chubb 
 V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; New Jersey 
 Southern R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 
 
 10 Vroom, 28 ; Commonwealth v. Alle- 
 gheny Bridge Co., 20 Pa. St. 185; Dyer 
 !). Walker, 40 Pa. St. 157 ; Cleveland & 
 P. B. Co. V. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 326; Farn- 
 
 ham V Del. & H. C. Co., 61 Pa. St. 
 266, 271 ; Thompson v. New York & H. 
 R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 625; New York 
 Elevated R. Co., In re, 70N.Y. 327 ; Conn. 
 & P. R. R. Co. V. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465 ; Wil- 
 mington & M. R. Co. V. Saunders, 3 Jones 
 (N. C), 126; Lehman v. Warner, 61 Ala. 
 455 ; State v. Fagan, 22 La. An. 545 ; Union 
 Branch R. Co. v. East Tenn. & G. R. Co., 
 I 14 Ga. 327 ; Ahrens v. State Bank, 3 S. C. 
 401, 407 ; Bohannon v. Binns, 31 Miss. 
 355 ; La Grange & M. R. Co. v. Rainey, 7 
 Cold. 420 ; Angell & A. on Corp. § 777 ; 
 2 Kent Com. 312. 
 
 ^ People V. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 
 351 ; New York Elevated R. Co., In re, 70 
 N. Y. 327 ; People t). Miss. & A. R.Co., 14 111. 
 440; Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 Co., 58 Pa. St. 26, 49 ; Farnham v. Del. 
 & H. C. Co., 61 Pa. St. 265; Attorney- 
 General V. Petersburg & R. R. Co., 6 Ired. 
 456 ; State v. Miss., 0., & R. R. R. Co., 20 
 Ark. 496; La Grange & M. R. Co. v. 
 Rainey, 7 Cold. 420; Commonwealth «. 
 Tenth Mass. Turnp. Co., 11 Cush. 171 ; 
 State V. Fourth N. H. Tump., 15 N. H. 
 162. 
 
 ' Brooklyn, W., & N. R. Co., In re, 75 
 N. Y. 836, 72 N. Y. 245, 19 Hun, 814, 55 
 How. Pr. 14; People v. Manhattan Co., 
 9 Wend. 351 ; Oroville & V. B. Co. v. 
 Plumas County, 37 Cal. 354. 
 
CORPORATE EXISTENCE. 13 
 
 by scire facias, or an information in the nature of a quo warranto, 
 each prosecuted at the instance and on behalf of the State. The 
 former can be used only against a corporation, legally existing 
 and capable of acting, which has abused its power, while the 
 latter is available both against a legally existing corporation 
 guilty of such abuse and against individuals unlawfully assuming 
 to be a corporation.^ When the proceeding is for ousting parties 
 claiming to be a corporation without warrant of law, it must be 
 against individuals ; for if against the corporation, the information 
 admits its present or former existence.^ When it is for excluding 
 a corporation ' from franchises which it has usurped, it may be 
 filed against the corporation, and the judgment will be of ouster 
 from such franchises, but not of dissolution.* 
 
 The granting of leave to file the information is within the dis- 
 cretion of the court.* The attorney-general or proper prosecut- 
 ing ofi&cer may institute the suit without a special authority or 
 direction from the legislature.^ A statute penalty for a default, 
 or a reserved power of repeal, does not exclude these remedies.^ 
 Damages are not awarded on a judgment on quo warranto.'' 
 
 Corporate Property in the Event of a Dissolution. — The capi- 
 tal of a corporation becomes, upon its dissolution, a fund to 
 be administered in equity for the payment of creditors, and 
 afterwards for distribution among stockholders.* The creditors 
 
 1 Chesapeake & O. C. Co. v. Balti- » State v. Penn. & 0. Canal Co., 23 
 
 more & O. B. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 121 ; Ohio St. 121 ; People v. Rensselaer &. S. 
 
 Washington & B. Turnp. Co. v. Mary- B. Co., 15 Wend. 113. 
 land, 19 Md. 239, 287 ; People v. Rensse- < Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old 
 
 laer & S. R. Co., 15 Wend. 113 ; People v. Colony & F. R. B. Co., 5 Allen, 221, 224 ; 
 
 Bristol & R. Tump. Co., 23 Wend. 222, Cole v. Dyer, 29 Ga. 434. 
 235 ; People v. Northern R. Co.; 42 N. Y. 5 State v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 24 
 
 217 ; State v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co , Tex. 80. 
 
 45 Wis. 579 ; Commonwealth o. Tenth « People w. Bristol & R. Turnp. Co., 23 
 
 Mass. Turnp. Co., 5 Cush. 509 ; State v. Wend. 222, 244 ; Washington & B. Turnp. 
 
 Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433 ; Peo- Co. v. Maryland, 19 Md. 239, 287 : State 
 
 pie V. Jackson & M. P. R. Co., 9 Mich. 285 ; v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 2i Tex. 80. 
 Bruffett V. Great Western R. Co., 25 111. ' Pall Rirer Iron Works Co. v. Old 
 
 353 ; State v. Consolidation Coal Co., 46 Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 221, 
 
 Md. 1; National Docks R. Co. v. Central 225. 
 
 R. Co., 5 Stewart {N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart 8 Mumma u. Potomac Co., 8 Peters, 
 
 (N. J.),475; Angell & A. on Corp. ch.21, 281; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304; 
 
 22; 2 Kent Com. 313; Grant on Corp. Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 480; Lum 
 
 295-305. "• Robertson, 6 Wall. 277 ; Hightower v. 
 
 * People V. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 15 Thornton, 8 Ga. 486 ; Montgomery & W. 
 
 Wend. 113 ; State v. Cincinnati Gas Light P. R. Co. v. Branch, 59 Ala. 139 ; Sham- 
 
 & C. Co., 18 Ohio St. 262 ; Mud Creek okin Valley & P. R. Co. i'. Malone, 85 
 
 Draining Co. v. State, 43 Ind. 236. Pa. St. 25 ; Western North Carolina B. 
 
14 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 have a lien on the assets, and may follow them into the hands of 
 stockholders and persons who are indebted to the corporation.^ 
 The rights of stockholders in the assets are subordinate to those 
 of creditors.^ 
 
 Domicile of the Corporation. — The home or domicile of a corpo- 
 ration is within the State which created it. It exists only by 
 force of law, and cannot live beyond the jurisdiction of that law. 
 But it may, by the comity of States, perform acts elsewhere. 
 Thus, when authorized by the law which created it, it may make 
 contracts, own property real or personal, and sue in other States, 
 when admitted to do so by their law or policy,^ and the permis- 
 sion to do this is implied unless a refusal is expressed in some 
 affirmative way.* The corporation may own and operate rail- 
 roads in a foreign State under due authority of its statutes.^ A 
 State may, however, at will license or refuse to license foreign 
 corporations to act within its jurisdiction.® The particular domi- 
 cile of a corporation within a State depends upon the language of 
 its statutes.'' 
 
 The purely local existence of a corporation has been held to 
 exempt it from liability to be sued in other States, although hav- 
 ing a place of business and carrying on business in them, except 
 by means of an attachment of its property, or under an express 
 statute provision ; ^ but some authorities maintain, with good rea- 
 
 Co. V. Rollins, 82 N. C. 523 ; Lothrop Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208, 38 Barb. 
 
 V. Stedman, 42 Conn. 583, 13 Blatch. 574 ; Bank of Ashland v. Jones, 16 Ohio 
 
 134. St. 145, 157. 
 
 1 Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N. Y 587 ; * Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co., 100 
 
 Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9 ; Hardy v. U. S. 55, 3 Col. 82. 
 Merriweather, 14 Ind. 203 ; Bish v. Brad- * Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 
 
 ford, 17 Ind. 490 ; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 Wall 65 ; Martin v. Mobile & 0. E. Co., 
 
 How. 480 ; Gerraantown Pass. R. Co. v. 7 Bush, 116 ; Hunt v. Kansas & M. Bridge 
 
 Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124 ; Henry v. Vermil- Co., 11 Kan. 412 ; post, Chap. XIX. p. 497. 
 lion & A. R. Co., 17 Ohio, 187; Robert- " Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. 
 
 son V. Sibley, 10 Minn. 323. S. 535. 
 
 ^ Ryan v. Leavenworth, A., & N. W. ' Bristol v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 15 
 
 Co., 21 Kan. 365. 111. 436. 
 
 3 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, * Andrews v. Mich. Cent. R. Co , 99 
 
 519, 588 ; Christian Union y. Yount, 101 Mass. 534 ; Williston v. Mich. S. & N. I. 
 
 U. S. 352; Black ». Del. & R. Canal R. Co., 13 Allen, 400; Smith v Mut. 
 
 Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 422, 9 C. E. Life Ins. Co., 14 Allen, 336 ; Blackstone 
 
 Green, 455 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Man. Co. v. Blackstone, 13 Gray, 488 ; 
 
 Glenn, 28 Md. 287 ; O'Brien u. Weth- Brewster v. Mich. Cent R. Co., 5 How. 
 
 erell, 14 Kan. 616 ; State v. Boston, Pr. 183 ; Barnett v. Chicago & L. H. R. 
 
 C, & M. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433; Clare- Co., 6 Thomp. & C. 358, 4 Hun, 114; 
 
 mont Bridge v. Royce, 42 Vt. 730 ; Thomp- Ogdensburg & L. C. R. Co. v. Vt. & C. R. 
 
 son u. Waters, 25 Mich. 214 ; Merrick v. Co., 6 Thomp. & C. 488, 489, note. 
 
CORPORATE EXISTENCE. 15 
 
 son, its liability to be sued within a foreign jurisdiction, where it 
 has a place of business, upon causes of action arising therein.^ 
 A corporation, by leasing a road in a foreign State and operating 
 it as owner, becomes the citizen of such State for the purpose of 
 jurisdiction, and a suit against it therein is not subject to removal 
 to the national tribunals.^ A corporation created by the legis- 
 lation of different States may be sued as a domestic cor- 
 poration in each.^ Suits and proceedings which relate to the 
 internal economy of a corporation, such as for enforcing the 
 peculiar rights and liabilities of members,* or determining who 
 are the rightful officers, or compelling the directors to declare and 
 pay dividends or perform other duties,^ or declaring a forfeiture 
 of the franchises,^ or dissolving the corporation and winding up its 
 affairs, can be brought only in the domestic jurisdiction. 
 
 A mandamus will not be issued to enforce a municipal subscrip- 
 tion to a foreign corporation.'^ 
 
 A court of equity will not compel a domestic corporation to 
 perform acts in a foreign State from which it has received a char- 
 ter,8 but it will, under some circumstances, take jurisdiction as to 
 property in another State, where the person against whom relief 
 is sought is within the State.^ 
 
 A court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter will obtain 
 jurisdiction of a foreign corporation by its consent, which may be 
 expressed by an appearance by attorney, and answering generally 
 to the action.!" 
 
 The deed of a corporation executed in the State creating it, and 
 valid by its laws, will be held valid in other States.^^ 
 
 1 Newby v. Von Oppen, L. R. 7 Q. B. derbilt, 37 N. Y. Superior, 334, 62 N. Y. 
 293; National Condensed Milk Co. v. 307. But see Proutyw. Mich. S. &N. I.E. 
 Brandenburgh, 11 Vroom, 111 ; Cumber- Co., 4 Thomp. & C. 230, 1 Hun, 655 ; Red- 
 land Coal Co. V. Sherman, 8 Abbott Pr. mond v. Hoge, 3 Hun, 171, 13 Abbott Pr. 
 243 ; Cumberland Coal & I. Co. v. Hoff- N. s. 332. 
 
 man Coal Co., 30 Barb. 159. ^ Carey v. Cincinnati & C. R. Co., 5 
 
 2 Baltimore & O. E. Co. v. WigKtman, Iowa, 357. 
 
 29 Gratt. 431 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. o. ^ Land Grant R. T Co. v. Coffey 
 
 Noell, 32 Gratt. 394. County, 6 Kan. 245. 
 
 s Mahany v. Kephart, 15 W. Va. 609 ; » po^t Royal R. Co. v. Hammond, 58 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. c. Gallahue, K Ga. 523. 
 
 Gratt. 655. ' Mead v. New York H. & N. R. Co., 
 
 * Erickson v. Nesmith, 4 Allen, 233 ; 45 Conn. 199. 
 
 Halaey v. McLean, 12 Allen, 438. Contra, w McCormick u. Penn. Cent. R. Co., 49 
 
 Flash V. Conn, 16 Fla. 428. N. Y. 203. 
 
 6 Williston V. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., " Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 
 
 18 Allen, 400 , Howell v. Chicago & N. Md. 287. 
 W. R. Co., 51 Barb. 378 ; Chase v. Van- 
 
16 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 A corporation is, for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the 
 courts of the United States, a citizen of the State creating ,it,i and 
 an affidavit in its behalf, for the purpose of removing an action 
 from a State to a national court, may be sworn to by an officer 
 duly authorized to act for it.^ 
 
 The Status of a Railroad Corporation Established in Different 
 States. — The status of a corporation, owning a railroad which 
 extends into different States, presents difficulties growing out of 
 its relation to distinct sovereignties with their legislative and 
 judicial systems more or less conflicting or divergent. A refer- 
 ence to the principles of international law, public and private, 
 may help to define it. 
 
 A state or nation has exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction 
 within its limits. This fundamental doctrine includes all matters 
 relating to property or persons, — as the title to real and personal 
 property, and the conditions of its use and transfer ; the validity 
 of contracts ; the civil condition, rights, and obligations of per- 
 sons, artificial bodies or institutions, public and private ; the 
 remedial system ; police regulations ; .in short, everything to 
 which the functions of government pertain. It necessarily fol- 
 lows that within its limits no other State can, by its laws, govern 
 or regulate in any of these respects. Foreign laws may take 
 effect in a State to a greater or less degree, but this is by virtue 
 of its express or tacit consent under the comity which prevails 
 between States ; and this consent may be given or withheld in 
 its discretion. A foreign corporation may act within it by its 
 permission, and this permission may be given upon such terms as 
 it may see fit to impose.^ These principles define the relation 
 between the States of this Union as well as the relation between 
 independent nations. 
 
 It results from these principles that one State cannot, without 
 the express or implied consent of another State, confer powers 
 upon a corporation created by itself to be exercised in that other 
 
 1 Louisville, C, & C. R. Co. «. Letson, Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Chicago & P. 
 
 2 How. 497 ; Oliio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, E, Co., 6 Biss. 219. 
 
 I Blaclc, 286 ; Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 2 Malione v. Manchester & L R- Co., 
 TJ. S. 403 ; Quigley v. Cent. Pacific R. Co., Ill Mass. 72 ; Quigley </. Cent. Pacific 
 
 II Nev. 350, 357. As to the effect of its as- R. Co., 11 Nev. 350. 
 
 sociation with a domestic corporation, see 3 Wheaton's International Law, §§ 77, 
 
 79 ; Wharton's Confl. Laws, ch. 7.' 
 
CORPOBATE EXISTENCE. 17 
 
 State, as to hold real or personal property, to buy or condemn 
 land for a railroad, or use it for profit, or to pursue remedies in the 
 courts of such State. But with the consent of such State, express 
 or implied, it may authorize the corporation to do any of these acts. 
 These privileges differ in degree, but not in kind, from the com- 
 mercial powers generally allowed to foreign corporations. The 
 power of a foreign corporation to exercise some of these functions 
 in a State may be implied from its general policy, while others, 
 as that of eminent domain, can only be derived from an express 
 statute. 
 
 There is, then, no principle of public law which prohibits a 
 State from authorizing a foreign corporation to extend a railroad 
 into its own territory, and for that purpose to buy or take land, 
 and, after its construction, to maintain and operate it. The cor- 
 poration still remains one corporation, a domestic corporation in 
 the State which created it, and a foreign corporation in the other, 
 enjo3'ing the franchises conferred by its charter in the one, and 
 the powers derived from the enabling act in the other. There 
 certainly is no reason for treating it as two corporations severed 
 by the boundary line of the two States. 
 
 The question is not so simple where two States by common 
 legislation create the same corporation. In this case it is not 
 merely the creature of one State with enlarged powers derived 
 from the other, but it is as much the creature of one State as of 
 the other. If, however, the intent of the legislation of both was 
 to make one corporation only, there is no legal or constitutional 
 necessity for treating it as two corporations in any suits or pro- 
 ceedings by or against it. The theory of two corporations exist- 
 ing in one thus created is a mere conception of the mind, and 
 does not rest upon any legislative intent or the actual state of 
 things. It fails likewise to be of practical use in determining the 
 respective rights of the corporation and of the public, and in 
 adjusting to them the proper remedies. The corporation in each 
 State has a common stock, the same shareholders, and the same 
 property, thus answering the essential conditions of unity, and 
 there are no analogies for treating it as a duality. 
 
 The unity of the corporation is consistent with its being sub- 
 ject to different laws in the different jurisdictions. In this respect 
 it does not differ from insurance or other corporations, which may 
 have certain powers in the State creating them and have less or 
 
 2 
 
18 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 greater powers in other States in which, by comity, they are per- 
 mitted to act. The railroad and franchise may be held by a 
 different tenure in each State, with greater capacity for alienation, 
 and greater liability to forfeiture in one than in the other. They 
 may be capable of mortgage or sale, or be subject to execution in 
 one State and not in the other, so that the ownership of the road 
 may become severed, — the corporation still owning the part 
 lying in one State and ceasing by voluntary or involuntary alien- 
 ation to own the part lying in the other. Legislative and judicial 
 proceedings may terminate its capacity to act in one State, while 
 its capacity to act in another remains. These propositions are 
 but illustrations of the exclusive sovereignty or jurisdiction of a 
 State within its own Hmits. Still further, upon the fundamental 
 principle which places real and personal property under the local 
 laws of its site, a State may, for the purpose of protecting its 
 own citizens, cause the property of either kind belonging to a 
 foreigner or foreign corporation found within its limits to be 
 applied to the payment of domestic creditors as against an assign- 
 ment in bankruptcy made in the State of his domicile ; ^ but this 
 power of a State may, as between the States of this Union, be con- 
 trolled by the operation of a national bankrupt act. 
 
 It may be remarked that, owing to the peculiar character of 
 railroad corporations as regards the nature of their property, 
 their franchises, and public duties, when owning and operating a 
 road lying in different States, the co-operating legislative and 
 judicial action of such States is necessary to prevent great embar- 
 rassment and complication as to the rights of stockholders and 
 creditors ; but this circumstance does not make a corporation a 
 duality, which the power or powers creating it by fair construc- 
 tion intended to have exist and act as a unity. 
 
 The suggestion is ventured that the figurative language of 
 Chief Justice Taney, often quoted, has not been of practical use 
 in determining the status of a corporation established by or re- 
 ceiving powers from different States.^ While properly descriptive 
 
 1 Wharton's Confl. Laws, §§ 386-392, exists only in contemplation of law, and 
 
 840-852 ; Story's Confl. Laws, §§ 390-410 ; by force of tlie law ; and where that law 
 
 2 Kent Com. 406-408; Wheaton's Inter- ceases to operate, and is no longer obliga- 
 
 national Law, § 88 ; GuiUander v. Howell, tory, the corporation can have no exist- 
 
 35 N. Y. 657. ence. It must dwell in the place of its 
 
 '' " A corporation can have no legal creation, and cannot migrate to another 
 
 existence out of the boundaries of the sovereignty." Bank of Augusta u Earle, 
 
 sovereignty by which it is created. It 13 Pet. 519, 588. Taney, C. J. 
 
CORPORATE EXISTJENCB. 19 
 
 of the local character and capacity of a corporation in the absence 
 of express or implied authority from other States, it gives little aid 
 in determining the status of a corporation which has received 
 such additional authority. 
 
 The doctrine that there are necessarily two corporations where 
 the legislatures of two States, by co-operating acts, authorize the 
 same persons or body with the same name, powers, liabilities, and 
 an identity of capital stock, to construct and maintain a railroad 
 in the two States, has found some support ; ^ but according to 
 the better view, the question whether there is a unity in the 
 corporation and in the proprietorship of the road is always one 
 of legislative intent, and not of legislative power or legal pos- 
 sibility. Several States may, by competent legislation, unite in 
 creating the same corporation or in combining several pre-exist- 
 ing corporations into a single one. One State may make a cor- 
 poration of another State, as there organized and conducted, a 
 corporation of its own as to any property within its territorial 
 jurisdiction.^ A State may, by an enabling act, authorize a cor- 
 poration created in another State to build and operate a railroad 
 within its limits without creating a new corporation. Thus, where 
 the State of Maryland incorporated the Baltimore and Ohio Rail- 
 road Company to construct a railroad from the city of Baltimore 
 to the Ohio River, in the States of Maryland and Virginia, and 
 subsequently the State of Virginia granted to the company within 
 its territory the same rights and privileges, and subjected it to 
 the same obligations as had been granted and imposed by the 
 State of Maryland in the act referred to, it was held that after 
 such enabling act it remained one and the same corporation in 
 name, locality, capital stock, and management, with only ex- 
 tended powers and an enlarged sphere of operations, being still 
 a Maryland corporation with a license in Virginia of a broad and 
 comprehensive character. The company, being further authorized 
 by Congress to extend a branch into the District of Columbia, 
 still remained a Maryland corporation, with a license to build and 
 operate a railroad in the national territory. It was, therefore, 
 
 1 Ohio & M. R. Co. V.Wheeler, 1 Black, ]2 Gratt. 655 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. 
 286 ; Racine & M. R. Co. v. Farmers' Loan Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431 ; Baltimore & 
 & T. Co., 49 III. 331. See Cram v. O. R. Co. v. Noell, 82 Gratt. 394; Cos- 
 Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 5 Rob. (N. Y.) horn v. Ohio County, 1 W. Va. 308; 
 226. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. "Vance, 
 
 2 Baltimore & O. B. Co. u. Gallahue, 96 U. S. 450. 
 
20 THE LAJW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 held in a suit against the corporation, brought in the District of 
 Columbia, for an injury, upon a part of the road lying in Virginia, 
 to a passenger who had bought a ticket in the District for a pas- 
 sage from the city of Washington over the road through Maryland 
 and Virginia to a place in Ohio, that the corporation created by 
 the State of Maryland was the same in the different jurisdictions, 
 and was liable to a suit in the District of Columbia, where it was 
 permitted to exercise its authority upon the implied condition of 
 consenting to be sued there for an injury occurring upon the part 
 of the road lying outside of the District.^ 
 
 But a permission to a foreign corporation to hold property 
 and manage a railroad within the State does not of itself make 
 it a domestic corporation.^ A corporation created by differ- 
 ent States is one corporation in both States. A mortgage made 
 by a corporation created by different States, with a road lying 
 partly in each, and conveying its entire road, is treated as one 
 mortgage. Thus, where a company owning a railroad lying in 
 two different States, under charters from each, mortgages the 
 whole road and franchise, and its right to redeem in one State is 
 sold on execution, the purchaser of the equity will be allowed, in 
 that State, to redeem the whole road from the mortgage.^ 
 
 A corporation created by the legislation of two States, and 
 owning a line of road extending from a place in one State to a 
 place in the other, was treated as one corporation in determining 
 the limits of the taxing power of a State. Bonds having been 
 issued by the corporation, secured by a mortgage of the entire 
 road, it was held that a tax upon the bonds by one of the States 
 would be a tax upon property and interests beyond its jurisdic- 
 tion, and therefore beyond its powers.* 
 
 Such a corporation is held to have a legal domicile in each 
 
 1 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 Ohio St. 468 ; State v. Del., L., & W. 
 Wall. 65; CMcago & N. W. R. Co. v. R- Co., 1 Vroom, 473, 2 Vroom, 531; 
 Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 ; Wheeling u. Dennistoun v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 
 Baltimore, 1 Hughes, 90 ; Poraeroy v. 1 Hilton, 62. See Phillipsburgh Bank 
 New York & N. H. R. Co., 4 Blatch. 120 ; v. Lackawanna R. Co., 3 Dutch. 206; 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. «. Chicago & P. Sprague v. Hartford, P., & F R. Co., 5 R. 
 R. Co., 6 Biss. 219 ; St. Louis A. & T. I- 233. 
 
 H. R. Co. V. Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. ^ Wood v. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260. See 
 
 (TJ. S. C. C. Ind., October, 1879), 12 Chi- Racine & M. R. Co. o. Farmers' Loan & 
 
 cago Leg. News, 73, 9 Reporter, 103; T. Co., 49 111. 331. 
 Bishop V. Brainard, 28 Conn. 289, 299. 4 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Jackson, 
 
 2 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Gary, 28 7 Wall. 262. But see Maltby v. Read- 
 Ohio St. 208 ; Erie R Co v. Stringer, 32 ing & C. E. Co., 52 Pa. St. 140. 
 
CORPORATE EXISTENCE. 21 
 
 State, and may hold meetings and transact corporate business in 
 each.^ 
 
 A tax upon the income and property of a corporation owning 
 a railroad which runs through different States is properly appor- 
 tioned by taking the whole income or value of the franchise, and 
 the length of the road in each State, as the basis of taxation.^ 
 
 The question, whether a corporation created in two States, and 
 operating a railroad in them, is to be considered as one or two 
 corporations, has been raised in proceedings in bankruptcy. It 
 was held that whether it was one corporation, or two corporations 
 chartered by different States, with a common interest, common 
 property, common stock, and one set of creditors ; or whether it 
 was an anomalous body, not precisely answering either of these 
 descriptions, whatever its character in these respects, — the Dis- 
 trict Court of the United States within each State in which the 
 corporation is thu^ established has jurisdiction in bankruptcy 
 against it, and the court for the district in which the petition is 
 first .filed acquires exclusive jurisdiction.^ 
 
 A railroad corporation, created and exercising its franchises, 
 and having its property in different States, may be restrained in 
 one from using its corporate funds for other than corporate pur- 
 poses in both States.^ Such a corporation remains a domestic 
 corporation in each State, although established in another.^ It 
 does not, by obtaining a charter from another State, relieve itself 
 from its obligations or change its relation to the State which 
 created it.^ 
 
 Charters granted in similar terms by two States to a railroad 
 company have been said to create a compact between them, to be 
 construed liberally with reference to its objects, and not accord- 
 ing to the local usages of either.' This statement, however, 
 refers only to the spirit with which such a charter granted by 
 
 1 Covington & C. Bridge Co. ... Mayer, Glenn, 28 Md. 287, 320; March v. East- 
 31 Oliio St. 317. ern R. Co., 40 N. H. 548, 577 ; Fisk v. 
 
 2 Delaware Railroad Tax Case, 18 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 4 Abbott 
 Wall. 206 ; Erie R. Co, v- Pennsylvania, Pr. n. s. 378. 
 
 21 Wall. 492 ; State Railroad Tax Cases, * Sprague v. Hartford, P., & F. R. Co., 
 
 92 U. S. 575, 611. See post, Chap. 'S.YUl. 5 R I. 233. 
 
 p. 473. 6 Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 
 8 Boston, H., & E. R. Co., In re, 9 Co., 58 Pa. St. 26. 
 Blatch. 101, 409 '' Brocket v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 14 Pa. 
 
 ♦ State V. Northern Cent. R. Co,, 18 St. 241, 244; Cleveland & P. R. Co. u. 
 
 Md. 193, 215; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325. 
 
22 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 different States to the same corporation is to be construed. It 
 cannot be understood literally, as the Constitution of the United 
 States forbids a State, without the consent of Congress, to enter 
 into any agreement or compact with another State. ^ The effect 
 of such concurrent legislation is not to make the body a corpora- 
 tion of two States, created by their joint act, but to make the 
 same body a corporation of each State.^ 
 
 A grant of authority to a foreign corporation, to exercise its 
 franchises and hold property in a State, does not confer jurisdic- 
 tion on the courts of the foreign State as to such property. Thus, 
 where two corporations of different States are consolidated under 
 lawful authority, one of which was subject in one State to a 
 mortgage prior to such consolidation, the courts of the other 
 State do not thereby acquire jurisdiction so as to enforce a fore- 
 closure of the mortgage.^ 
 
 Where a railroad, lying partly in one State and partly in another, 
 is subject to a mortgage, the courts of one State, having juris- 
 diction of the mortgagor and trustees under the mortgage, may 
 order the sale of the road as an entirety ; but such sale would be 
 subject to liens existing in the other State.* 
 
 A consolidated railroad corporation, formed by the union of 
 two corporations, each created by a different State, is, so far as 
 property and business within each State are concerned, subject, 
 unless otherwise provided in the act of consolidation, to the same 
 * control therein as before,^ and in each State is to be treated as a 
 domestic corporation.^ It is, as to property within each State, 
 subject, in the appointment of receivers and otherwise, to the juris- 
 diction of its courts.^ The Circuit Court of the United States, 
 for a district in one State, has been held to have jurisdiction to 
 
 1 Art. I. § 10. See Union Branch 444 ; Hand v. Savannah & C. R. Co., 12 
 R. Co. u. East Tenn. & G. R. Co., 14 Ga. S. C. 314, 366 ; Mead v. New York, H., & 
 327 ; Covington v. Covington & C. Bridge N. R. Co., 45 Conn. 199. 
 
 Co., 10 Bush, 69, 79. 6 pejk „. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 
 
 2 Quincy Bridge Co. v. Adams County, IT. S. 164. 
 
 88 111. 615 ; McGregor v. Erie R. Co., 6 6 Sage, In re, 70 N. Y. 220 ; MuUer v. 
 
 Vroom, 115 ; State v. Metz, 3 Vroom, 199 ; Dows, 94 U. S. 444. 
 
 Sprague v. Hartford, P., & F. R. Co., 5 ^ United States RoUing-Stock Co., 
 
 R. I. 233; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. In re, 57 How. Pr. 16, 55 How. Pr. 286 ; 
 
 Chicago & P. R. Co., 6 Biss. 219. Taylor v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 57 
 
 ' Eaton & H. R. Co. v. Hunt, 20 Ind. How. Pr. 9, 55 How. Pr. 275 ; Ellis v. 
 
 457. Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 107 Mass. 1 ; 
 
 * McElrath v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., Richardson v. Vt.. & M. R. Co., 44 "Vt. 
 
 55 Pa. St. 189, MuUer v. Dows, 94 U. S. 613. 
 
COEPOEATE EXISTENCE. 23 
 
 appoint a receiver for an entire line, whether lying within or 
 without the State.^ 
 
 A corporation which has received similar charters from dif- 
 ferent States may be dissolved and wound up in each one with- 
 out its franchise in the other States being affected.^ Its charter 
 may be amended in one State, so as to control its action and 
 property therein, although the amendment may be contrary to 
 some statutory or constitutional provision of another State which 
 has granted it a charter.* 
 
 1 Wilmer v. Atlanta & R. A. L. R. Co., » Covihgton v. Covington & C. Bridge 
 2 Woods, 409. R. Co., 10 Bush, 69. 
 
 '^ Hart V. Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 40 
 Conn. 524. 
 
24 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE DIEECTION OF THE COEPOEATION. 
 
 The affairs of commercial or business corporations are con- 
 ducted by a board of official managers, usually called directors. 
 As the corporation is only a legal existence and not a living per- 
 sonality, the directors become, in a practical sense, the corporation 
 itself, so far, at least, as its relations to the public are concerned.^ 
 The right to elect such officers is inherent in the body ; but their 
 number and the mode of their election are usually prescribed by 
 statute.^ In the case of corporations organized under a general 
 law, a provisional board of directors with limited powers is usually 
 to be named in the articles of association.' 
 
 Qualifications of Directors and Voters. — The qualifications of 
 directors, unless prescribed by statute, may be determined by the 
 corporation. The director need not be a stockholder where the 
 statute or by-laws are silent as to such a requirement.* If he is 
 required to be such, he may qualify between his election and 
 acceptance ; ® and if he appears by the books to be an owner of 
 stock, he is eligible for the office, although the beneficial interest 
 is in another.® 
 
 The books of the corporation, containing the names of the 
 stockholders, determine who are entitled to vote at its meet- 
 ings.'^ The right to vote depends on the record title, and not 
 on the actual ownership.^ The corporation may, by by- 
 laws, regulate the voting upon stock except as provided by 
 
 1 Perkins v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 117 Mass. 226 ; State v. McDaniel, 22 Ohio 
 N. Y. 196, 213 ; Steinweg v. Erie R. Co., St. 354 ; Despatch Line of Packets u. 
 43 id. 123, 126 ; Burrill v. Nahant Bank, Bellamy Man. Co., 12 N. H. 205. 
 
 2 Met. 163. Legally the directors are dis- * Karuth's Case, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 506. 
 
 tinct from the corporation. Ellis v. Eos- See Jenner's Case, L. R. 7 Oh. Div. 132. 
 ton, H., & E. R. Co., 107 Mass. 1, 13. e gtate v. Ferris, 42 Conn. 560. 
 
 2 Hughes V. Parker, 20 N. H. 58; ' State K.Ferris, 42 Conn. 560; Hoppin 
 Brewster v. Hartley, 87 Cal. 15 ; 2 Kent v. Buffum, 9 R. I. 513 ; Long Island R. Co., 
 Com. 293-295. In re, 19 Wend. 37; Downing v. Potts, 
 
 5 AUman v. Havana R. & E. R. Co., 88 3 Zab. 66. 
 Ill- 521. 8 Mousseaux v. TJrquhart, 19 La. An. 
 
 * Wight V. Springfield & N. L. E. Co., 482. 
 
COBPOKATB DIRECTION. 25 
 
 statute.^ The right to vote by proxy is not a general right, 
 but exists only under special authority of law.^ A non-resi- 
 dent may be a corporator.^ Ordinarily, the general and legal 
 owner of stock holds the right to vote upon it. Thus the 
 right belongs to the pledgor unless he makes a transfer on the 
 books to the pledgee ; * to the vendor until the assignment is 
 recorded on the books ;^ to the trustee who appears by them 
 to be the legal owner ; ® to the duly qualified administrator ; ^ 
 and to a bankrupt voting with his assignee's consent.^ 
 
 The right to vote on shares of the capital stock is suspended 
 while they are held by the corporation itself, whether standing on 
 the books in its own name or that of a trustee or pledgee ; for other- 
 wise the directors might, by means of such votes, perpetuate them- 
 selves in ofSce.^ Stock so held by the corporation may be sold, 
 where the legal effect of its ownership has not extinguished or 
 merged it ; and the right of purchasers to vote is not affected by 
 the motive of the officers in selling the same to their favorites.^" 
 The directors, however, may be restrained, it has been consid- 
 ered, from using the power to sell such stock where their pur- 
 pose was thereby to control an election.^^ 
 
 Elections. — The corporation may, in the absence of statute 
 provisions, regulate by by-laws the inode of electing directors. ^^ 
 Where statute provisions concerning elections are construed to be 
 
 1 Chandler v. Northern Cross R. Co., ' North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., 
 
 18 UL 190; Brewster v. Hartley, 37 /n re, 63 Barb. 556. 
 Gal. 16. * State v. Ferris, 42 Conn. 560. 
 
 ^ Phillips V. Wickham, 1 Paige, 590, '> Holmes's Case, 5 Cowen, 426 ; Will- 
 
 698; People v. Twaddell, 18 Hun, 427; cocks's Case, 7 Cowen, 402 ; VaiU. Hamil- 
 
 Taylor v. Griswold, 2 Green (N. J.), 222 ; ton, 20 Hun, 356, 359 ; American Railway- 
 
 Craig v. First Presbyterian Church, 88 Frog Co. .;. Haven, 101 Mass. 398 ; State 
 
 Pa. St. 42 ; 2 Kent Com. 294, 295 ; An- v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 ; Brewster v. Hart- 
 
 gell & A. on Corp. §§ 128-130. ley, 37 Cal. 15 ; Mousseaux v. Urquhart, 
 
 ' Central R. Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 4 19 La. An. 482. As to the right of con- 
 Stewart (N. J.), 475,6Stewart(N. J.), 755. tribution between directors who buy 
 
 * Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15; shares for a corporation under an ultra 
 
 McDaniels u. Flower Brook M. Co., 22 vires resolution, see Ashhurst v. Mason, L. 
 
 Vt. 274 ; Hoppin v. Buflfum, 9 R. I. 513 ; R. 20 Eq. Cas. 225. 
 Willcocks's Case, 7 Cowen, 402, 411 ; Bar- w State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 ; Hart- 
 
 ker's Case, 6 Wend. 509; Angell & A. ridge v. Rockwell, R. M. Charlton (Ga.), 
 
 on Corp. §§ 131, 132. 260 ; Williams v. Savage Man. Co., 3 Md. 
 
 s McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Ch. 418 ; City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507. 
 Y. 826, 331, 332. " Fraser v. Whalley, 2 Hem. & M. 10. 
 
 « Hoppin V. BufEum, 9 R. I. 513 ; Wil- See State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266. 
 son V. Central Bridge, 9 R. I. 590 ; Mo- '^ Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15 ; 
 
 hawk V. Hudson R. Co., 19 Wend. 135. Long Island R. Co., In re, 19 Wend. 37. 
 
Zb THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 directory only, they do not avoid elections in which they were 
 not observed.^ Thus a provision which requires an election to be 
 held at a particular time, as at the annual meeting, is treated as 
 of this character, so that an election at another time, though 
 irregular, does not affect the title of the directors so far as their 
 general relations to the public are concerned.^ An election is 
 legal, although in an emergency there was a departure from ordi- 
 naiy modes of procedure.^ An acceptance of the office is essen- 
 tial, but the acceptance need not be express.* An election may 
 be declared void for the rejection of legal and the counting of 
 illegal votes, which changed the result ; and for substantial irreg- 
 ularities, surprise, and fraud.^ 
 
 Notice of Meetings. — Meetings of stockholders, in order to be 
 valid, must be notified in the manner prescribed by the statute.^ 
 The election of directors at a meeting not notified in the man- 
 ner prescribed, cannot be questioned collaterally.^ 
 
 Officers de Facto. — The title and acts of officers de facto can- 
 . not be questioned collaterally in a suit at law or in equity ; and 
 their acts bind the corporation in the same manner as if they 
 held their offices de jure.^ Directors holding over after the expi- 
 ration of their terms, to whom no successors have been chosen, 
 are officers de facto, unless, by statute, their places become 
 vacant on the expiration of their terms.® In proceedings to 
 
 ' Downing ». Potts, 3 Zab. 66; 2 Kent Co., 5 Stewart (N. J.), 236; Despatch 
 
 Com. 295. ' Line of Packets v. Bellamy Man. Co., 
 
 2 Hughes V. Parker, 20 N. H. 58; 12 N. H. 205; Hughes u. Parker, 20 
 Nashua Fire Ins. Co. v. Moore, 55 N. H. N. H. 58 ; Nashua Fire Ins. Co. ». Moore, 
 48 ; Angell & A. on Corp. §§ 286, 287. 55 N. H. 48 ; Penobscot & K. K. Co. v. 
 
 3 Wheeler's Case, 2 Abbott Pr. n. s. Dunn, 39 Me. 587, 599 ; Buekspoft & B. 
 361. R. Co. V. Buck, 68 Me. 81, 65 Me. 586 ; 
 
 * Lockwood V. Mechanics' National Cahill v. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 
 Bank, 9 K. I. 308, 341. Doug. (Mich.) 124 ; Cincinnati, L., & C. R. 
 
 6 Long Island R. Co., In re, 19 Wend. Co. v. Danville & V. R. Co., 75 111. 113 ; 
 
 37 ; People v. Albany & S. R. Co., 1 Lans. Atlantic T. & 0.,R. Co. v. Johnston, 70 
 
 308, 55 Barb. 344; Johnston v. Jones, 8 N. C. 348; Ohio & M. R. Co. ». McPher- 
 
 C. E. Green, 216. Whether a director son, 35 Mo. 18 ; Chamberlain v. Paines- 
 
 may vote for himself for president, see ville & H. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 225 ; Clarke 
 
 Hedges v. Paquett, 3 Oreg. 77. v. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46, 58 ; Eakright 
 
 « Shelby R. Co. v. Louisville, C, & L. v. Logansport & N. I. R. Co., 13 Ind. 
 
 R. Co., 12 Bush, 62. 404; 2 Kent Com. 295. 
 
 ' Chamberlain ». Painesville & H. R. ' Thorington v. Gould, 69 Ala. 461 ; 
 
 Co., 15 Ohio St. 226. People v. Twaddell, 18 Hun, 427 ; Penob- 
 
 * People V. Hills, 1 Lans. 202 ; Me- scot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587, 
 chanics' National Bank v. Burnet Man. 599. 
 
COEPOKATE DIEECTIOK. 27 
 
 restrain directors from illegal action, it is not necessary to prove 
 their title de Jure; but it is sufficient to show that they are act- 
 ing as directors.' A clerk continues in office until his successor 
 is appointed, unless his term is limited by statute or by-law.^ 
 
 Remedy for Illegal Elections. — The usual remedy for determin- 
 ing the title to corporate offices is by quo warranto, in which a 
 judgment of ouster is given against parties who have usurped 
 them.* The judgment will not have the effect to give the elec- 
 tion to the defeated party, who claims to have had a majority of 
 votes, but to require a new election.* The remedy is criminal in 
 form, but civil in nature, and is granted at discretion ; * and, the 
 issue being a legal one, there may be a trial by jury.^ Mandamus 
 will lie, on the petition of the corporation, to compel the surren- 
 der to its lawful officers of its books and papers held by persons 
 who have usurped the offices by means of, illegal votes, although 
 the usurpers are in possession under a claim of right, and are 
 exercising the functions annexed to the offices.' It is a proper 
 remedy to compel officers to call a meeting for an election.^ A 
 court of equity will not entertain a bill to determine the validity 
 of an election, but, having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of a 
 controversy, — as, for instance, a breach of trust, — it may, for 
 the purposes of the suit, pass upon the title to an office,, and 
 restrain parties unlawfully claiming it ; the decree, however, will 
 not effect an ouster or determine finally the title.^ 
 
 Place of Meeting of the Corporation and of the Directors. — Upon 
 the principle that the legal existence of a corporation is confined 
 to the limits of the sovereignty creating it, its corporate meetings 
 should be held within those limits. This restriction applies to all 
 
 1 Morrill o. Boston & M. R., 58 N, H. 68. 6 People v. Albany & S. R. Co., 57 N. 
 
 " South Meadow Dam Co. o. Gray, 30 Y. 161, 5 Lans. 25. 
 
 Me. 547. ^ American Railway-Frog Co. v. 
 
 » State V. McDaniel, 22 Ohio St. 354 ; Haren, 101 Mass. 398 ; Melvin v. Hoitt, 
 
 Hoppin V. Buffum, 9 E. I. 513 ; People v. 52 N. H. 61 ; State v. Goll, 3 Vroom, 
 
 Albany & S. R. Co., 1 Lans. 308, 65 285; Angell & A. on Corp. ch. 20. 
 
 Barb. 344 ; Owen v. Whitaker, 5 C. E. ^ People v. Albany Hospital, 61 Barb. 
 
 Green, 122 ; State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 ; 397 ; State v. Wright, 10 Nev. 167 ; Owen 
 
 State V. New Orleans, J., & G. N. R. v. Whitaker, 5 C. E. Green, 122. 
 
 Co., 20 La. An. 489; Miller v. State, 15 » Johnston v. Jones, 8 C. E. Green, 
 
 Wall. 478 ; Angell & A. on Corp., ch. 21. 216 ; Mechanics' National Bank v. 
 
 * State V. McDaniel, 22 Ohio St. 354; Burnet Man. Co., 5 Stewart (N. J.), 286; 
 
 People V. Phillips, 1 Den. 388. Pond v. Vt. VaUey R. Co., 12 Blatch. 
 
 « State V. McDaniel, 22 Ohio St. 354 ; 280. 
 State V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266. 
 
28 THE LAW OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 meetings of stockholders, and particularly to the meeting for 
 organization. Accordingly, it has been held that corporate action, 
 like the election of directors and the making of assessments upon 
 stock, at meetings held without the State, is illegal. Some 
 authorities go to the length of treating it as a nullity,^ while 
 others regard it only as voidable, and hold the corporation to be 
 estopped from setting up the defence ; ^ and parties who have 
 contracted with it, or recognized its action, to be estopped from 
 taking advantage of the irregularity .^ A corporation may, how- 
 ever, unless prohibited by statute, perform many acts outside of 
 the jurisdiction which created it, — such as making contracts, and 
 doing various kinds of business.* The directors may, when per- 
 sonally outside of the State, make such contracts and do such busi- 
 ness in its behalf ; and they may, according to the current of the 
 authorities, when so absent from the domicile of the corporation, 
 hold meetings for the transaction of business. They are, when 
 so met, regarded as acting in the capacity of agents of the cor- 
 poration rather than as the corporation itself.^ Thus they may 
 at such meetings execute contracts, deeds, and mortgages, or 
 authorize their execution,^ appoint a secretary,^ or even, it has 
 been considered, issue certificates of stock.* 
 
 A corporation which has received a charter in like terms from 
 different States may hold its meetings in each.® The corporation, 
 by keeping its principal place of business and its records, and hold- 
 ing its meetings in a foreign State, has been deemed to have com- 
 mitted a breach of duty, which would be a sufficient ground for 
 declaring a forfeiture of its charter.^" Its acts have also been 
 
 1 Miller v. Ewer, 27 Me. 509 ; Freeman 6 Arms v. Conant, 36 Vt. 744; Wright 
 V. Macliias Water Power & M. Co., 38 v. Bundy, 11 Ind. 398; Bellows v. Todd, 
 Me. 343 ; Ormsby v. Vt. Copper M. Co., 39 Iowa, 209 ; Galveston R. Co. v. Cow- 
 56N.Y.623; Hillest) Parrish, 1 McCarter drey, 11 Wall. 459; Coe v. New Jersey 
 (N. J.), 380; Aspinwall v. Oliio & M. R. Midland R. Co., 4 Stewart, 105, 117; 
 Co., 20 Ind. 492. Wood Hydraulic H. M. Co. v. King, 45 
 
 2 Heath v. Silverthorn L. M. & S. Co., Ga. 34 ; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McPherson, 
 39 Wis. 146. 35 Mo. 13. 
 
 3 Ohio & M. R. Co. u. McPherson, 35 ' McCall v. Byram Man. Co., 6 Conn. 
 Mo. 13. 428. 
 
 « Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. ' Courtright v. Deeds, 87 Iowa, 503. 
 
 208, 38 Barb. 674. But see Hilles v. Parrish, 1 McCarter 
 
 6 Ohio & M. R. Co. V. McPherson, 35 (N. J.), 380. 
 
 Mo. 13 ; Wood Hydraulic H. M. Co. v. » Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Mayer, 
 
 King, 45 Ga. 34 ; Smith v. Alvord, 63 31 Ohio St. 317. 
 
 Barb. 415; Coe v. New Jersey Midland i" State v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 45 
 
 R. Co, 4 Stewart, 105, 117. Wis. 579. 
 
COEPOKATE DrEECTION. 29 
 
 denied validity where it had, by holding its meetings and doing 
 other corporate action abroad, practically transferred itself to 
 another State.^ 
 
 Rule of the Majority . a Quorum. — The majority governs in the 
 management of corporations. This rule is subject to the usual 
 statute provision which allows voting by shares instead of voting 
 per capita? What constitutes a quorum for the transaction of 
 business may be regulated by statute ; but if not, at a meeting of 
 the whole body, — that is, the stockholders, a majority of those 
 present determines corporate action ; while at a meeting of a 
 select and definite body, as the board of directors, a majority is 
 required for a quorum ; and then a majority of such quorum 
 decides.^ 
 
 The rules of the common law as to the number of votes required 
 for corporate action may be varied by statute,* and by reasonable 
 by-laws of the corporation. A by-law making five out of twenty- 
 three directors a quorum has been held valid ; ^ and the number 
 who usually act has been held to be a quorum.® An interested 
 director should not be counted as a part of the quorum.'' The 
 whole number should have an opportunity to be present, although 
 a less number is made a quorum ; but if the statute declares a 
 certain number to be a quorum, and neither the statute nor the 
 by-laws require notice, a notice to the rest is not essential to the 
 validity of the action of the number named.^ Meetings of direct- 
 ors are presumed to have been legally notified, and formality in 
 
 1 Aspinwall u. Ohio & M. R. Co., 20 Twaddell, 18 Hun, 427, 430 ; Cram v. Ban- 
 Ind. 492. But see Merrick v. Van Sant- gor House Proprietary, 12 Me. 354 ; Mon- 
 voord, 34 N. Y. 208. mouth Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lowell, 59 Me. 
 
 2 Angell & A. on Corp. § 499; Cush- 504; Sargent v. Webster, 13 Met. 497; 
 ing's Law and Practice of Legislative Despatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy 
 Assemblies, §§ 115, 412; Black v. Del. Man. Co., 12 N. H. 205 ; Edgerly 71. Emer- 
 & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, son, 23 N. H. 555; Wells v. Rahway 
 407, 9 C. E. Green, 455 ; Covington v. White Rubber Co., 4 C. E. Green, 402 ; 
 Covington & C. Bridge Co., 10 Bush, 69. Lockwood v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 9 
 The privilege of " cumulative " voting R. I. 308 ; Buell v. Buckingham, 16 
 in the election of directors is allowed by Iowa, 284 ; 2 Kent Com. 293; Angell & 
 the constitution of Pennsylvania. Hays A. on Corp. §§ 501, 502. 
 
 V. Commonwealth, 82 Pa. St. 518. * Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565; 2 
 
 ' Willcocks's Case, 7 Cowen, 402 ; Kent Com. 293. 
 
 Field 1;. Field, 9 Wend. 394, 403; Craig u. ^ Hoyt v. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 207. 
 
 First Presbyterian Church, 88 Pa. St. 42; b Lyster's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. 233. 
 
 Cahill V. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 ' Butts v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 317; Er- 
 
 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Price v. Grand nest u. NichoUs, 6 H. L. C. 401, 416. 
 
 Rapids & 1. R. Co., 13 Ind. 58 ; Junction » Edgerly v. Emerson, 23 N. H. 555; 
 
 R. Co. V. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236 ; People v. State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266. 
 
30 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 the notice is not required.^ The majority, whether directors or 
 stockholders, may be restrained when it undertakes to deal with 
 the corporate property in a manner not authorized by law ; but 
 equity- will not interfere, at the instance of a minority, to control 
 the discretion of the majority when acting within its powers.^ 
 Statutes sometimes require the assent of a larger proportion than 
 a majority of the stockholders, as essential to corporate action.^ 
 The corporation cannot, without the unanimous consent of the 
 stockholders, condone gratuitously the fraud of its oflBcers.* 
 
 Mode in which Directors act. — The regular mode by which 
 directors act is by vote at a meeting ; but the separate assent of 
 a majority is held in ordinary matters, as in the appointment of 
 agents, to be equivalent to formal action where they are accus- 
 tomed to act by giving their assent separately.^ Such assent may 
 be implied as well as express, and it, may be implied from ac- 
 quiescence and the course of business.® But corporate acts which 
 can be done by the directors only should be done by them as a 
 board at a meeting, and not by separate assent ; ^ and the direct- 
 ors, in order to make the act a corporate one, should act as direct- 
 ors, and not in some other capacity.^ A by-law which prescribes 
 a mode of action may be modified by practice,^ but a statute pre- 
 
 1 Sargent v. Webster, 13 Met. 497 ; ' Joslyn v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 
 Penobscot & K. R. Co. o. Dunn, 39 Me. 12 Abbott Pr. n. s. 329. 
 
 587, 600 ; Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565; * Hazard v. Durant, 11 E. I. 195. 
 
 Mahaska County R. Co. v. Des Moines 5 Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland & 
 
 Valley R. Co., 28 Iowa, 487. W. R. Co., .80 Vt. 159 ; Foot v. Rutland 
 
 2 Stevens v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 29 & W. R. Co., 82 Vt. 633 ; Bradstreet v. 
 Vt. 545 ; Kean v. Johnson, 1 Stock. 401 ; Bank of Royalton, 42 Vt. 128; Rogers v. 
 GifEord v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 2 Hastings & D. R. Co., 22 Minn. 25; Bee 
 Stock. 171 ; Black v. Del. & R. Canal Co., v. San Francisco & H. B. R. Co., 46 Cal. 
 7 C. E. Green, 130, 9 C. E. Green, 456 ; 248. 
 
 Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. Co., 30 " Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59; 
 Pa. St. 42 ; Mowrey v. I«dianapolis & C. Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. Mass. Glass 
 R. Co., 4Biss. 78; Treadwelli). Salisbury Co., Ill Mass. 815; Pittsburg & C. R. 
 Man. Co., 7 Gray, 398 , Durfee v. Old Co. v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146, 152. 
 Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 2.30; ' Johnston «. Jones, 8 C. E. Green, 216; 
 Barnard w.Vt. & M. R. Co., 7 Allen, 512; Junction R. Co. v. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236; 
 Rogers v. Lafayette Agricultural Works, Despatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy 
 52 Ind. 296 ; Sprague v. Illinois River R. Man. Co., 12 N. H. 205 ; Edgerly v. Em- 
 Co., 19 111. 174; Bach v. Pacific Mail erson, 23 N. H. 555, 567 ; Pittsburg & C. 
 Steamship Co., 12 Abbott Pr. n. s. 373 ; R. Co. v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146. 
 Hedges v. Paquett, 3 Oreg. 77 ; East Ten- s Qashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 11. See 
 nessee & V. R. Co. o. Gammon, 5 Sneed, People v. Sterling Man. Co., 82 111. 457. 
 567 ; Pratt v. Pratt, 83 Conn. 446. ^ Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Clarke, 29 
 
 Pa. St. 146. 
 
COEPOEATB DIRECTION. 31 
 
 scribing a mode must be followed.^ A record of the votes of di- 
 rectors is not essential to their validity, and they may be proved 
 by parol evidence ; but a record, if made, is the best evideuce of 
 their action.^ 
 
 Compensation of Directors. — The directors are presumed to per- 
 form the duties of their trust gratuitously. They are not entitled 
 to compensation, even for services outside of the ordinary duties 
 of their office, unless it is expressly stipulated before the services 
 are rendered ; but an express contract by the board to pay a fixed 
 or reasonable sum is binding. Some authorities require a vote or 
 resolution as evidence of the agreement, while others do not re- 
 gard such formal action as essential where there is an actual em- 
 ployment.3 A subsequent vote of the board to pay a director for 
 his services, where there was no previous agreement, is not bind- 
 ing.* The expectation of a director that he was to receive com- 
 pensation, there being no previous vote or promise, does not 
 entitle him to it.® 
 
 The rule which excludes compensation applies to the president 
 chosen by the directors from their own number,^ and also to a 
 treasurer, when a director ; ' but not to officers and agents not 
 being directors, who are entitled to recover on a quantum meruit 
 where no price is fixed .^ It does not prevent recovery for 
 advances of money on an implied promise to repay.^ 
 
 1 Pittsburg & C. R. Co. u. Clarke, Pa. St. 534 ; Holder v. Lafayette, B., & 
 29 Pa. St. 146, 152. M. R. Co., 71 111. 106 ; New York & N. 
 
 2 Edgerly ». Emerson, 23 N. H. 655 ; H. R. Co. o. Ketchum, 27 Conn. 170 ; 
 Cram i-. Bangor House Proprietary, 12 Maux Ferry Gravel Road Co. v, Brane- 
 Me. 354 ; Langsdale v. Bouton, 12 Ind. gan, 40 Ind. 361, 
 
 467. See Junction R. Co. v. Reeve, 15 ' New York & N. H. R. Co. ». Ketchum, 
 
 Ind. 236. 27 Conn. 170. 
 
 8 Hall. V. Vt. & M. R. Co., 28 Vt. 401 ; » Merrick v. Peru Coal Co., 61 III. 472 ; 
 Henry v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 435 ; Gridley v. Lafayette B., & M. R- Co., 71 
 Hodges V. Rutland & B. R. Co., 29 Vt. 111.200; Levisee. «. Shreveport City R. 
 220 ; Chandler v. Monmouth Bank, 1 Co., 27 La. An. 641 ; KilpatricH v. Pen- 
 Green (N. J.), 255 ; American Cent. R. Co. rose Ferry Bridge Co., 49 Pa. St. 118. See 
 V. Miles, 52 111. 174 ; Rockford, R. I., & St. Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Crane, 6 Met. 
 L. R. Co. V. Sage, 65 111. 328 ; Gridley v. 64. 
 
 Lafayette, B., & M. R. Co., 71 111. 200; ' Holder o. Lafayette, B.,& M R. Co., 
 
 Cheeny o. Lafayette, B., & M. R. Co., 71 111. 106. 
 
 68 111. 570, 87 111. 446 ; Illinois Linen Co. ^ Rogers v. Hastings & D. R. Co., 22 
 V. Hough, 91 111. 63 ; Maux Ferry Gravel Minn. 25 ; Missouri River R. Co. v. Rich- 
 Road Co. V. Branegan, 40 Ind. 361 ; Butts ards, 8 Kan. 101 ; Fraylor v. Sonora Min- 
 V. Wood, 37 N. Y. 317 ; Jackson v. New ing Co., 17 Cal. 594 ; Angell & A. on Corp. 
 York Cent. R. Co., 2 Thomp. & C. 653 , § 317. 
 
 Bailey v. Buffalo C. R. Co., 14 Hun. 483; » Merrick ». Peru Coal Co., 61 111. 472 ; 
 
 Angell & A. on Corp. § 317. Gridley v. Lafayette, B., & M. R. Co., 71 
 
32 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 The presumption that a director's service is gratuitous is by 
 some authorities held not to apply to services which are of a 
 special or extraordinary character, or lie outside of a director's 
 duty.i Thus, while his services in procuring contracts for con- 
 struction have been held to pertain to such duty, his services in 
 soliciting and obtaining subscriptions to the capital stock have 
 been held to be outside of it, the implication being in favor of an 
 agreement to compensate for the latter but not for the former.^ 
 In one case the presumption that the service was gratuitous was 
 held to apply only to attendance at meetings of the board,^ 
 
 Powers of Directors. — The directors have generally, except as 
 limited by statute, the powers of the corporation, and exercise an 
 original rather than a delegated authority. The stockholders 
 elect the directors, and exercise such other powers as are con- 
 ferred upon them by statute ; but the immediate government and 
 direction of the corporation belong to the directors.* The powers 
 conferred on the directors must be executed by them, and cannot 
 be executed by the stockholders.^ The discretion of directors 
 exercised in good faith upon matters within their powers are not 
 subject to judicial revision.® They represent the corporation in 
 the courts, and can alone be heard in its behalf, except in a proper 
 proceeding against them for a breach of trust.^ 
 
 1 Hall V. Vt. & M. R Co., 28 Vt. 401 ; 84, 91 ; Wright v. OroviUe Mining Co., 
 Gridley v. Lafayette, B., & M. R. Co., 71 40 Cal. 20 ; Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 
 111. 200 ; New Tork & N. H. R. Co. v. 370 ; ciietlain v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 
 Ketchum, 27 Conn. 170 ; Rogers v. Hast- 86 111. 220 ; Angell & A. on Corp. §§ 231, 
 ings & D. R. Co., 22 Minn. 25; Santa 279, 280, 299. A by-law sometimes con- 
 Clara Mining Assoc, v. Meredith, 49 Md. fers the power expressly. Hendee v. 
 389. See Levisee v. Shreveport City R. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381. The authority 
 Co., 27 La An. 641. of the corporation may be presumed from 
 
 ^ Cheeneyt). Lafayette, B., & M, R. acquiescence. Miller w. Rutland & W. R. 
 
 Co., 68 111. 570, 87 111. 446. See Hall v- Co., 36 Vt. 452. 
 
 Vt. & M. R. Co., 28 Vt. 401 ; New York 6 Qashwiler v. Willis, 33 Cal. 11 ; 
 
 & N. H. R. Co. V. Ketchum, 27 Conn. 170. Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 
 
 3 Shackelford v. New Orleans, J., & G. 27. See People v- Sterling Man. Co., 82 
 
 N. R. Co., 37 Miss. 202. Bl. 457. 
 
 * Dana v. Bank of United States, 5 W. 6 Baltimore v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 21 
 & S. 223, 240; Bank of Middlebury v. Md. 50; Lagrange v. State Treasurer, 24 
 Rutland & W. R. Co., 30 Vt. 159 ; Miller Mich. 468 ; Cass v. Pittsburg, V., & C. R. 
 V. Rutland & W. R. Co., 36 Vt. 452 ; State Co., 80 Pa. St. 31 ; Smith v. Prattville 
 V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 ; Shaw v. Norfolk Man. Co., 29 Ala. 503 ; Turquand v. Mar- 
 County R. Co., 16 Gray, 407 ; Burrill v. shall, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 376, L. R. 6 Eq. 
 Nahant Bank, 2 Met. 163 ; Conro v. Port Cas. 112. 
 
 Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 27 ; Hoyt v. 7 United States v. Union Pacific R. 
 
 Thompson, 19 N. Y. 207, 216 ; Wood Hy- Co., 98 U. S. 569, 611 ; Denver & R. G. 
 
 draulic Hose M. Co. v. King, 45 Ga. 34 ; R. Co. v. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463 ; Pacific R. 
 
 Dayton & C. R. Co. v. Hatch, 1 Disney, Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289. 
 
CORPORATE DIRECTION. 83 
 
 Their discretion in paying the funds of the corporation for in- 
 juries and losses to parties having a just but not a strictly legal 
 claim will not be controlled where they have acted in good faith 
 for its interests.^ They have been restrained from fixing a time 
 for the meetings of the company for the purpose of preventing 
 shareholders from exercising their voting powers.^ 
 
 The directors may borrow money for the corporation, issue its 
 bonds for loans obtained for it, sell, lease, and mortgage its prop- 
 erty.* They may cancel bonds which are a lien on the road, and 
 have become the property of the corporation,* and sell the shares 
 of the capital stock of which the corporation itself is the owner.* 
 They may, on behalf of the corporation, accept amendments of 
 its charter,* and institute and carry on proceedings for taking 
 land which it has been authorized to takeJ They cannot alienate 
 any property or franchises which the corporation itself cannot 
 alienate ; and their power is by some autliorities restricted still 
 further, so as to disable them from making, without special 
 authority, any organic and fundamental changes, such as increas- 
 ing the capital stock,^ or alienating property or rights which are 
 essential to the transaction of the corporate business.® They 
 cannot release certain subscribers to the capital stock from their 
 liability to pay for the same, where such release would be a fraud 
 upon other subscribers.^" 
 
 The deed of a corporation, executed by its officers in its behalf, 
 is presumed to be its deed.^^ It should, in order to take effect as 
 
 • 
 
 1 Taunton v. Royal Ins. Co., 2 H. & M. 34 Mich. 89. But see, as to the effect of 
 135. acquiescence by the corporation in such 
 
 2 Cannon v. Trask, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. increase by tlie directors, Payson v. 
 669. Stoever, 2 Dill. 427. 
 
 ' Black V. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. ' Abbot v. American Hard Rubber 
 
 Green, 130, 407, 9 C. E. Green, 455 ; Co., 33 Barb. 578 ; Stevens v. Davison, 18 
 
 Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381; Sar- Gratt. 819; RoUins v. Clay, 33 iMe. 132; 
 
 gent i;. Webster, 13 Met. 497. Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390, 395 ; Black 
 
 * Shaw V. Norfolk County R. Co., 16 v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green. 
 
 Gray, 407. 130, 407, 9 C. E. Green, 455 ; Bedford K. 
 
 6 State V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 ; Bank 
 
 s Eastern R. Co. u. Boston & M. R., Com'rs v. Bank of Brest, Harrington 
 
 111 Mass. 125; Dayton & C. R. Co. v. (Mich.), 106. 
 
 Hatch, 1 Disney, 84 ; Illinois River R. Co. "> Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 
 
 V. Zimmer, 20 111. 654, 661 ; ante, p. 5. 29. See Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390 ; 
 
 ' Eastern R. Co. v. Boston & M. R., Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 
 
 Ill Mass. 125. 587. 
 
 8 Chicago City R. Co. v. Allerton, 18 " Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 
 
 Wall. 233 ; Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. Mo. 228, 3 Mo. App. 315 ; Thorington v. 
 
 444 ■ Flnley Shoe & L. Co. v. Kurtz, Gould, 59 Ala. 461. 
 
34 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 its deed, be executed in its name ; but if the officers, having due 
 authority to make the deed in its behalf, execute it in their own 
 name, it will be treated as an equitable mortgage.^ 
 
 Wherever the corporation can authoi'ize the directors to do 
 an act, its subsequent ratification is equivalent to a previous 
 authority .2 The State also may, by a subsequent legislative act, 
 give validity to their unauthorized acts.^ 
 
 Power to Delegate. — The directors may delegate their powers 
 to agents; and the president or other officer, or a committee 
 which may be less than a quorum of the board of directors, may 
 be such agents. The power may be conferred by previous 
 authority, or by subsequent ratification ; * by acts implying a dele- 
 gation or ratification as well as expressly.^ Where a duty 
 imposed by statute requires the exercise of the personal discretion 
 of the directors, it cannot be delegated.® The directors cannot 
 delegate the power to make calls, but may adopt the action of 
 the executive committee in making them.'^ 
 
 Authority of the President or other Director. — The president or 
 other director has no implied authority derived from his office to 
 act as the agent of the corporation ; but, like other agents, he 
 must derive his power from the board of directors. Thus the 
 president cannot, by virtue of his office, make contracts for the 
 corporation, or sell its property or bonds, or release parties frem 
 liability to it under existing contracts.^ But he is often em- 
 powered by the by-laws or resdlutions of the board, or by usage, 
 
 1 Miller v. Rutland & AV. R. Co., 36 Vt. 640, 2 Col. 248 ; Southgate v. Atlantic 
 452. See Sherman v. Fitcli, 98 Mass. 59. & P. R. Co., 61 Mo. 89. 
 
 2 McLaughlin v. Detroit & M. R. Co., « Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 
 8 Mich. 100. 536. 
 
 3 Coe V. New Jersey Midland R. Co., ' Monmouth,Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Low- 
 4 Stewart (N. J.), 105, 117. ell, 59 Me. 504 ; Pike i: Bangor & C. S. L. 
 
 * Hoyt V. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 207; R. Co., 68 Me.445 ; Rutland &B.R. Co. w. 
 Olcott V. Tioga R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546, 558; Thrall, 36 Vt. 636 ; Farmers' Mut. Fire 
 Miller v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 30 Vt. Ins. Co. v. Chase, 56 N. H. 341 ; Silver 
 452; BurriU v. Naliant Bank, 2 Met. 163; Hook Road v. Greene, 12 R. L 164. 
 Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. I. 195 ; Chicago » Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Ris- 
 & N. W. R. Co. V. James, 24 Wis. 388; ley u. Indianapolis, B. & W. R. Co., 1 Hun, 
 Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59 ; Darst v. 202 ; Trundy v Hartford & N. Y. Steam- 
 Gale, 83 111. 136; Angell & A. on Corp. boat Co., 6 Rob. 312; Corn Exchange 
 § 209. Banki'.CumberlandCoaICo.,lBosw.436; 
 
 6 Chicago Building Soe. v. Crowell, Titus v. Cairo & F. R. Co., 8 Vroora, 98 ; 
 
 65 111. 453 ; Santa Clara Mining Assoc, o. Walworth County Bank v. Farmers' Loan 
 
 Meredith, 49 Md. 389 ; Union Gold Min- & T. Co., 14 Wis. 326, 16 Wis. 629 ; Chi- 
 
 ing Co. V. Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank, 90 U. S. cago & N. W. R. Co. v. James, 22 Wis. 
 
CORPORATE DIRECTION. 
 
 35 
 
 to act for the corporation in divers matters ; ^ and a subsequent 
 ratification is equivalent to a previous authority.^ When author- 
 ized by a by-]a\y to act as the company's business and financial 
 agent, his authority is confined to its ordinary business, and does 
 not extend to the selling or mortgaging of its property ; ^ but a 
 managing officer has an implied authority to employ an attorney 
 or legal adviser,* or a physician to attend an employee injured 
 in the company's service.* The president's admissions bind the 
 corporation only when made within the scope of his authority, 
 and as a part of the res gestce.^ 
 
 A Director's Knowledge. — Notice to a director, or his knowl- 
 edge, affects the corporation only when the notice is given to him, 
 or the knowledge is acquired by him while he is acting as its 
 agent or in an official capacity, and his mere private and personal 
 knowledge cannot be imputed to it.'' The corporation is not 
 affected with his knowledge where he is acting adversely to it,* 
 or in a transaction occurring after his service as an officer has 
 ended.^ Notice to the board of directors when in session binds 
 the corporation.^" 
 
 194; New Haven & N. Co. v. Hayden, 
 107 Mass. 525 ; Malione w. Manchester & 
 L. R. Co., Ill Mass. 72; Custar w. Titus- 
 ville Gas & W. Co., 63 Pa. St. 381; 
 HendiicUson u. New York & A. R. Co. 
 (N. Y. Supreme Ct, April, 1880), 10 N. Y. 
 Week. Dig. 33. But see Richmond F. & 
 P. R. Co. V. Snead, 19 Gratt. 354. 
 
 1 Ciiicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Coleman, 
 18 HI. 207 ; Mitchell v. Deeds, 49 III. 416 ; 
 East New York & J. R. Co. v. Lighthall, 
 6 Rob. 407 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. 
 Stewart, 41 Pa. St. 54. Under a statute 
 of New Hampshire the directors are pre- 
 sumed to be the general agents of the 
 corporation. Morrill v. Boston & M. R , 
 
 ' 58 N. H. 68. 
 
 2 Olcott V. Tioga R. Co., 27 NY. 546 ; 
 Pixley V. Western Pacific R. Co., S?, Cal. 
 183; Southgate w. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 
 61 Mo. 89; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Woolley, 12 Bush, 451. 
 
 ' Lnse u. Isthmus Transit R. Co., 6 
 Grog. 125. 
 
 * Soiithgate v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 
 61 Mo. 89. 
 
 5 Pacific R. Co. V. Thomas, 19 Kan. 
 256. 
 
 * Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Coleman, 
 18 III. 297 ; Stoystown & G. Tump. R. Co. 
 V. Craver, 45 Pa. St. 386 ; Angell & A. on 
 Corp. § 309. 
 
 ' United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 3 
 Md. Ch. 381 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. 
 Co. V. Woolley, 12 Bush, 451; Farrell 
 Foundry v. Dart, 26 Conn. 376 ; Smiih v. 
 Board of Water Com'rs, 38 Conn. 208; 
 Great Western li. Co. v. Wheeler, 20 Mich. 
 410; National Security Banki;. Cushnian, 
 121 Mass. 490; First National Bank v. 
 Christopher. 1 1 Vroom, 435 ; First National 
 Bank v. Giflord, 47 Iowa, 575; Wharton 
 on Agency, §§ 183, 184, 673; Story on 
 Agency, § 140, b, c, d. In Factors' & 
 T. Ins. Co. c. Marine Dry Dock & S. Co., 
 31 La. An. 149, it is held that " a corpora- 
 tion must be held to know what its presi- 
 dent and chief officers know." 
 
 8 Barnes v. Trenton Gas Light Co , 12 
 C. E. Green, 33; First National Bank v. 
 Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575. See Ryan v. 
 Leavenworth, A., & N. W. R. Co., 21 
 Kan. 365, 405. 
 
 » Great Western R. Co. ■.. Wheeler, 20 
 Mich. 419. 
 i« Angell & A. on Corp. §§ 305, 309. 
 
36 THE LAW OF EAILBOADS. 
 
 Directors as Trustees. — Directors, though not technically trus- 
 tees, stand in a fiduciary relation to the corporation, and are under 
 the disabilities of trustees. They are bound to use their best judg- 
 ment and skill in the service of the corporation, and are not allowed 
 to enter into contracts and relations which are likely to bring 
 into conflict their duty and their self-interest, and tempt them to 
 be unfaithful to the superior obligations they have assumed. A 
 director, therefore, as a buyer for the corporation, cannot buy of 
 himself, or, as a seller for the corporation, become the purchaser ; 
 or, being its agent and trustee, contract with himself, or take 
 positions or acquire interests adverse to his trust, or secure to 
 himself advantages not common to other stockholders.^ The 
 rlile is so strict that it does not permit, as against a disapproving 
 cestui que trust, an inquiry into the good faith and fairness of a 
 transaction which comes within it.^ The right of disapproval 
 belongs, however, only to the cestui que trust.^ 
 
 A director is a trustee, not only when participating in the meet- 
 ings of the board, or in executing powers specially delegated to 
 him, but he is always a trustee while he remains a director. The 
 knowledge which he has obtained as director cannot, while he con- 
 tinues in office, be used for his private advantage.* The fact that 
 
 1 Great Luxembourg E. Co. v. Mag- debtor, although the latter is indebted also 
 
 nay, 25 Bear. 586 ; Aberdeen R. Co. v. to the corporation. Farmers' & M. Bank 
 
 Blailiie, 1 Macq. 461 ; Michoud v. Girod, v. Wasson, 48 Iowa, 336. 
 
 4 How. 503 ; Koehlerw. Black River Falls ^ Stewart o. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 9 
 
 Iron Co., 2 Black, 715 ; Cumberland Coal Vroom, 505 ; Gilraan, C, & S. R. Co. v. 
 
 & I. Co. V. Sherman, 30 Barb. 553; Butts Kelly, 77 111. 426 ; Flint & P. M. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Wood, 37 N. Y. 317, 38 Barb. 181 ; Dewey, 14 Mich. 477 ; Aberdeen R. Co. ».. 
 
 Coleman v. Second At. R. Co., 38 N. Y. Blaikie, 1 Macq. 461. Some authorities 
 
 201, 48 Barb. 371 ; Barnes v. Brown, 80 hold that the transaction will stand if, the 
 
 N. Y. 527 ; Farmers' & M. Bank i\ Dow- director on whom is the burden of proof 
 
 ney, 53 Cal. 466 ; Port v. Russell, 36 Ind. establishes its perfect fairness, adequacy, 
 
 ■60 ; Cook V. Berlin Woollen Mill Co., 43 and equity : Cumberland Coal & I Co.- 
 
 Wis. 433 ; Cumberland Coal & I. Co. v. v. Parish, 42 Md. 598 ; Ashhurst's Appeal, 
 
 Parish, 42 Md. 598 ; Covington & L. R. 60 Pa. St. 290 ; Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 
 
 Co. u. Bowler, 9 Bush, 468 ; First National 370; while others go even farther, and . 
 
 Bank v. Glfford, 47 Iowa, 575 ; European treat the contract valid in the absence of 
 
 &N. A. R. Co. V. Poor, 59 Me. 277; 1 proof of fraud. Buell ». Buckingham, 16 
 
 Story Eq. Jur. § 322. SeeErlangerw.New Iowa, 284; Merrick t). Peru Coal Co., 61 
 
 Sombrero Phosphate Co., L. R. 3 App. HI. 472. 
 
 Cas. 1218. The rule of the civil law was 3 Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 9 
 
 the same. Tutor rem pupili emere non po- Vroom, 505 ; United States v. Union 
 
 test: idemque porrigendum est ad similia; Pacific R. Co., 98 U. S. 569,609, 610; Tay- 
 
 id est ad curatares, procuratores, et qui nego- lor's Case, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 390. 
 
 tia aliena gerunt. A director may secure a * Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & M. R. Co., 54 
 
 personal debt to himself by a pledge of N. Y. 314. See Imperial Merc. Credit 
 
 shares in the corporation owned by the Assoc, v. Coleman, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 855. 
 
COEPOKATE DIRECTION. 37 
 
 he abstained from participating in the action of the directors at 
 the time of the prohibited transaction does not remove the taint, 
 as it was his duty to be active in his trust, and for that purpose 
 to keep himself clear of embarrassing positions.^ Nor will it 
 avail a trustee, seeking to maintain the contract, that it was the 
 best one which could have been made for the corporation.^ The 
 rule is the same, whether the director entered into the contract at 
 its inception, or acquired an interest in it subsequently ; ^ whether 
 lie was a sole director, or one of a body ; whether he was a sole 
 or joint contractor, or whether the contract made while he was a 
 director was modified after he ceased to be such.* It has been 
 held to disable him from receiving a share of the profits of a con- 
 tract made with another corporation of which he is a member, 
 whether he was a member at the time or became one later.* 
 The contract is voidable by the corporation against other par- 
 ties who, being co-contractors with the director, knew his fidu- 
 ciary character.^ 
 
 A director cannot buy corporate property directly or indi- 
 rectly ; ^ he cannot buy at a sale on execution,^ or at a judicial 
 sale.^ He cannot make a profit out of sales made by him to the 
 corporation, as by buying at one price for himself and selling at a 
 higher one to the corporation ; i" nor can he enforce an executory 
 contract for furnishing supplies to the corporation." He cannot 
 make a profit out of shares of the capital stock belonging to the 
 corporation, which were placed in his hands for sale,^^ or receive 
 
 where the articles of association were Coal Co. v. Cumberland Coal & I. Co., 16 
 
 construed as allowing a director to have Md. 456. 
 
 an interest in business brought by him to ' Hoyle v. Plattsburgh & M. E. Co., 54 
 
 the company. N. Y. 314 ; but qtuBre as to his right to 
 
 ' Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 9 buy at a sale on an execution in his own 
 
 Vroom, 605. favor, or on a prior execution, where he 
 
 2 lb. ; Aberdeen R. Co. u. Blaikie, 1 could not otherwise protect himself. Id. 
 
 Macq. 461. See Harts v. Brown, 77 111. 226. 
 
 ' European & N. A. R. Co. v. Poor, 59 » Covington & L. E. Co. v. Bowler, 9 
 
 Me. 277. Bush, 468. 
 
 * Aberdeen R. Co. </. Blaikie, 1 Macq. i" Great Luxembourg R. Co. ti. Magnay, 
 
 481, 25 Beav. 586 ; Benson v. Heathorn, 1 Y. & 
 
 ' Oilman, C, & S. R. Co. ^. Kelly, 77 C. 326 ; Simons v. Vulcan Oil & M. Co., 
 
 111. 426. ' 61 Pa. St. 202 ; McEIhenny's Appeal, 61 
 
 ' Hoffman Steam Coal Co. v. Cumber- Pa. St. 188 ; Rice's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 168; 
 
 land Coal & I. Co., 16 Md. 456 ; Blake v. Getty v. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403. 
 
 Buffalo Creek R. Co., 56 N. Y. 485. " Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blaikie, 1 Macq. 
 
 ' Abbot V. American Hard Rubber 461 ; Flanagan v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 Co. 33 Barb. 578 ; Wilson v. Central L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 116. 
 
 Bridge, 9 R. I. 590 ; Cook v. Berlin Wool- " York & M. N. R. Co. v. Hudson, 16 
 
 len Mill Co., 43 Wis. 433 ; Hoffman Steam Beav. 485. 
 
38 THE LAW OF EATLKOADS. 
 
 a consideration for selecting a particular route for the railroad.* 
 He cannot have an interest in contracts for the construction of 
 the railroad made by the corporation with contractors ; and the 
 corporation may recover of him the profits he has received there- 
 from.2 He cannot hold for himself property which it was his 
 duty to acquire for the corporation ; and, if acquired by him, he 
 will hold the same as trustee for it. Thus, if he takes a deed 
 of land to himself which he was deputed to buy for the corpora- 
 tion, or which, as a part of the location, is essential to its busi- 
 ness, the purchase will inure to its benefit.^ He cannot treat 
 purchases made by himself for the corporation as his own pur- 
 chases in order to make a profit thereby.* 
 
 A director cannot, as a creditor of the corporation, secure an 
 advantage to himself which is not common to all its creditors ; * 
 nor can he purchase claims against it on his own account, and 
 any purchase made by him will inure to its benefit ; ® nor can he 
 pledge or assign corporate property for the security or payment 
 of his individual debt.'^ A vote of the directors transferring 
 property to any one of their number without consideration, or 
 simply to induce him to do his duty, is void.* Agreements for 
 influencing the action of the directors to the prejudice of the cor- 
 poration, or to enable the directors to keep the control of its man- 
 agement, are void.^ A director who receives from the promoters 
 of the company a gift of shares, as an inducement to become a 
 
 1 Holladay v. Davis, 5 Oreg. 40. Coal & I. Co. ». Parish, 42 Md. 598 ; Ben- 
 
 " European & N. A. E. Co. v. Poor, 59 nett's Case, 18 Beav. 339. See Smith 
 
 Me. 277 ; Flint & P. M. R. Co. ;;. Dewey, v. Lansing, 22 N. Y. 520 ; Murray v. Van- 
 
 14 Mich. 477 ; Oilman, C, & S. E. Co. v. derbilt, 39 Barb. 140. He may buy the 
 
 Kelly, 77 111. 420 ; Paine u. Lake Erie & bonds of the corporation. Harts v. Brown, 
 
 L. E. Co., 31 Ind. 283 ; Port v. Russell, 36 77 III. 226. 
 
 Ind. 60; Eyan v. Leavenworth, A., & N. « Kimmell v. Geeting, 2 Grant, 125; 
 
 W. E. Co., 21 Kan. 365 ; VFardell w. Union McDonald c-. Haughton, 70 N. C. 393; 
 
 Pacific R. Co., 4 Dill. 380 ; 5 Cent. Law Brewster v. Stratman, 4 Mo. App. 41 ; 
 
 J. 527 ; United States v. Union Pacific R. European & N. A. E. Co. v. Poor, 59 Me. 
 
 Co., 98 U. S. 569, 610 ; Thomas v. Brown- 277, 279 ; Eyan v. Leavenworth, A., & N. 
 
 ville. Ft. K., & P. E. Co. (U. S, C. C, D. W. E. Co., 21 Kan. 365, 398. But see 
 
 Neb., May, 1880), 2 Fed. Eep. 877. Bradly v. Williams, 3 Hughes, 20 ; Merrick 
 
 " 3 Blake v. Buffalo Creek E. Co., 56 N. ». Peru Coal Co., 61 111. 472. 
 
 Y. 485; Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co. v. 7 Conro u. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 
 
 Lampson, 47 Barb. 533. Barb. 27. 
 
 * Blair Town Lot & L. Co. .,. Walker, 8 Hilles v. Parrish, 1 McCarter (N. J.), 
 
 50 Iowa, 376. 880 ; Butts v. Wood, 87 N. Y. 817, 38 
 
 ' Koehler v. Black Eiver Falls I. Co., 2 Barb. 181. 
 
 Black, 715; Emporium Eeal Estate & M. 'Bliss v. Matteson, 45 N. Y. 22; 
 
 Co. c<. Emrie, 54 111. 345 ; Cumberland Northern E. v. Concord E., 50 N. H. 166. 
 
COKPOEATB DIEECTION. 39 
 
 director, may be compelled to restore them, or to account to the 
 company for their highest value while in his possession.^ 
 
 A director may lend money to, or make advances for, the cor- 
 poration,^ and he is entitled to reimbursement for advances in its 
 behalf made in good faith, although it had no power to borrow.^ 
 A mere stockholder does not stand in a fiduciary relation to the 
 corporation.* 
 
 The contracts and transactions of a director, which involve a 
 breach of his duty as trustee, are not void but voidable ; and they 
 are voidable only at the election of the corporation.^ Its right of 
 election must be exercised within a reasonable time, and is lost 
 by acquiescence.® It must adopt or repudiate the contract or 
 transaction altogether, and it must not disable itself from putting 
 the director in the position he was in before it elected to reject^ 
 If it repudiates his purchase of the corporate property, it must 
 reimburse him for the amount paid by him.^ 
 
 The corporation may ratify the director's acts which are con- 
 structively a breach of trust,^ but the ratification without a 
 knowledge of the facts will not estop it from repudiating the 
 transaction.!" Its acquiescence is not to be presumed from its 
 rejection of the director's unreasonable propositions. ^^ A direc- 
 
 1 Nant-Y-Glo & B. I. Co. v. Grave, tween the two corporations, at the in- 
 li. R. 12 Ch. Div. 738 ; McKay's Case, L. stance merely of a stockholder of either, 
 R. 2 Ch. Div. 1 ; Pearson's Case, L. K. 5 against its will. Wallace v. Long Island 
 Ch. Div. .336 ; Carling's Case, L. R. 20 R. Co., 12 Hun, 460. 
 
 Eq. Cas. 580. " Ashhurst's Appeal, GO Pa. St. 290 ; 
 
 2 Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370 ; Twin- 
 S. 687; Bradly v. Williams, 3 Hughes, Lick Oil Co. u. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587 j 
 36 ; Merrick v. Peru Coal Co., 01 111. 472 ; Hayward v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 611 ; 
 Harts V. Brown, 77 111. 226 ; Darst v. Ramsey v. Erie R. Co., 7 Abbott Pr. n. s. 
 Gale, 83 111. 136 ; Hotel Co. u. Wade, 97 156. But see Thomas !>. Brownville, Ft. 
 U. S. 13. K., & P. R. Co. (U. S. C. C, D. Neb., 
 
 « Chippendale's Case, 4 De Gex, M. & May, 1880), 2 Fed. Rep. 877. 
 
 G. 19. ' Great LuxembourgR. Co. !).Magnay, 
 
 * Miekles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 25 Beav. 586 ; Risley v. Indianapolis, B., 
 
 Paige, 118, 127; Merrick i>. Peru Coal Co., & W. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 240, 1 Hun, 202, 
 
 61 111 472. 4 Thomp. & C. 13 ; Peninsular Bank v. 
 
 » European & N. A. R. Co. v. Poor, 59 Hanraer, 14 Mich. 208. 
 
 Me. 277 ; Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., « Covington & L. R. Co. i^. Bowler, 9 
 
 9 Vroom, 505 ; Risley v. Indianapolis, B., Bush, 468. 
 
 & W. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 240, 1 Hun, 202, 9 Hotel Co. v. Wade, 97 U. S. 13. 
 
 4 Thomp. &C. 13; Barnes w. Brown (N.Y. « Hoffman Steam Coal Co. k. Cumber- 
 
 Ct. App., 80 N. Y. 527), 10 N. Y. Week, land Coal & I. Co., 16 Md. 456 ; Gilman, 
 
 Dig. 227 ; Hedges v. Paquett, 3 Oreg. 77. C, & S. R. Co. v. Kelly, 77 111. 426. 
 
 The fact that two corporations have, i^ Covington & L. E. Co. v. Bowler, 9 
 
 to some extent, the same directors, is not Bush, 468. 
 sufficient of itself to avoid a contract be- 
 
40 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 tor's fraud cannot be condoned by the board of directors, or by 
 the stockholders, without unanimous consent.^ A director does 
 not stand in the relation of a trustee to individual stockholders : 
 and his superior knowledge of the value of the shares of the capi- 
 tal stock, gained through his official position, will not, in the 
 absence of fraudulent statements, affect his transactions with 
 them in the purchase or sale of shares.^ 
 
 Diligence in the Trust. — The directors are liable to the cor- 
 poration for their own frauds and breaches of trust, and for those 
 of subordinate agents, at which they have connived.^ Their lia- 
 bility is not confined to losses in transactions from which they 
 have derived or sought some personal advantage. They are 
 bound, in the discharge of their duties, to act in good faith and 
 use ordinary diligence, but they are not liable for losses arising 
 from mistakes of judgment. Thus they are liable for embezzle- 
 ments by of&cers and agents whom they have appointed or kept 
 in office, with knowledge that they were unworthy of trust. A 
 director is not, however, a surety for the fidelity of such offi- 
 cers and agents ; and where he took ordinary precautions, and 
 had no grounds of suspicion, he is not liable for their mis- 
 conduct, even though the fraud covered a long period, and a 
 special scrutiny would have disclosed it. What should be the 
 character of the supervision of directors over subordinate agents, 
 how frequent and minute should be their examination of the 
 books and property of the corporation, when their observation of 
 the conduct of such agents may be in a great measure perfunc- 
 tory, and when it must approach to espionage, — these and other 
 considerations determining their liability must depend upon the 
 facts of the case, the customs of the business, and the circum- 
 stances inviting confidence or suspicion.* 
 
 A director is not liable for ruinous investments of the cor- 
 
 1 Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. I. 195; Works, 50 Vt. 477 j York & N. M. R. 
 
 Paine v. Lake Erie & L. R. Co., 31 Ind. Co. v. Hudson, 16 Beav. 485; Sliea v. 
 
 283, 348 ; Tliomas v. Brownville, Ft. K., Mabry, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 319 ; Slica v. Knox- 
 
 & P. R. Co. (U. S. C. C, D. Neb., May, ville & K. R. Co., 6 Baxter, 277 ; Van 
 
 1880), 2 Fed. Rep. 877. Dyck v. McQuade, 45 N. Y Superior, 
 
 * Board of Commissioners w. Reynolds, 620. 
 44 Ind. 509. 4 Scott v Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 513 , 
 
 " Angell & A. on Corp. § 314 ; Robin- Spering's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11 ; Dunn v. 
 
 son V. Smith, 3 Paige, 222; Spering's Kyle, 14 Bush, 134; Hodges ». New 
 
 Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11; Watts's Appeal, 78 England Screw Co., 1 R. I. 312, 3 R. I. 
 
 Pa. St. 370 ; Lewis v. St. Albans I. & S. 9. See New York & N. H R. Co. v. 
 
COEPORATE DIRECTION. 41 
 
 porate property, except when made in bad faith or with orassa 
 Hegligentia ; and, in determining his liability, courts will not 
 exact of him the high degree of caution which is approved by 
 the judicial mind, but will judge his conduct by what was at the 
 time customary and generally thought proper in such transactions.^ 
 It is suggested by some authorities, that not being technically a 
 trustee, and being elected by stockholders, he is to be held to a 
 less rigid liability than ordinary trustees.^ Directors are not 
 liable for losses occasio&ed by honest mistakes of the law ; as 
 where in good faith they make a prohibited investment, or per- 
 form acts ultra vires, or declare a dividend when there are no 
 funds which can be legally appropriated for the purpose.^ Stock- 
 holders who have known and acquiesced in the illegal trans- 
 actions cannot hold the directors responsible for losses occasioned 
 by such transactions.* 
 
 Liability to the Public for Fraud. — A director who has made 
 false statements, knowing them to be such, as to the condition 
 of the corporation, or as to material facts affecting the value of 
 its capital stock, is liable to parties to whom he made them, who 
 relied upon his statements, and who suffered injury by giving 
 them credit.^ The action being one for deceit, the statement, 
 to be actionable, must be false, material in its kind, and have had 
 the effect to mislead the injured party. Fraud of this kind may 
 be committed in the way of false representations in a prospectus or 
 report printed for general circulation. Any one who, relying upon 
 such false representations, purchases the stock from the corpora- 
 tion, or from any owner thereof, has a right of action against any 
 one or more directors who issued or sanctioned them ; and no 
 
 Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 57. The directors L. R. 6 Eq. 112 ; Spering's Appeal, 71 
 
 are not bound to require a bond of tlie Pa. St. 11. 
 
 treasurer where such is not the practice. 2 Spering's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11. 
 Scott V. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 613. But 3 Scott v. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 513; 
 
 a president has been lield liable for not Spering's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11; Watts's 
 
 requiring a bond where the by-laws im- Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370 ; Hodges v. New 
 
 posed on him the duty of requiring one. England Screw Co., 1 R. I. 312, 3 R. 1. 
 
 Pontchartrain R. Co. v. Paulding, 11 La. 9 ; Godbold u. Branch Bank of Mobile, 
 
 41. As to his liabihty for omitting to 11 Ala. 191; Lexington & O. R. Co. o. 
 
 bring a suit to recover a debt due to the Bridges, 7 B. Mon. 656. See Turquand 
 
 corporation, see Forest of Dean Coal M. v. Marshall, L. R. i Ch. App. 376, L. R. 
 
 Co., In re, L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 460. 6 Eq. Cas. 112. 
 
 J Overend & G. Co. c. Gibb, L. R. 5 * Scott v. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. 513 ; 
 
 H. L. 480, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 701 ; Tur- "Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370. 
 quand i;. Marshall, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 376, 6 Teague v. Irwin, 127 Mass. 217. 
 
42 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 other relation or privity between the parties need be shown.* 
 The false statement, which was an inducement to the investmenf, 
 need not have been the only inducement in order to make it 
 actionable.^ Where such false papers have been adopted by the 
 corporation, its contract, as for the sale of its capital stock, with 
 a part}" who put faith in them, may be set aside at his instance.* 
 The liability of directors for such publications is to be confined to 
 statements of fact, peculiarly within their knowledge, and there- 
 fore attracting and justifying the special confidence of the public. 
 Mere general declarations, although greatly exaggerated, of the 
 prospects of an enterprise, do not, when proving erroneous, sub- 
 ject them to'liability, these being matters of opinion in relation 
 to whidh the public should be on its guard.* The director's 
 knowledge of the fraud, and participation in it, must be proved, 
 and cannot be inferred merely from his oiBcial character ; ^ and if 
 the false statements are made by agents, it must be shown that 
 he authorized such agents to make them.^ Each director is liable 
 for his own fraud, and not for that of his colleagues in which he 
 did not participate.^ A director is not liable for an incorrect state- 
 ment of a matter of law.^ 
 
 1 Morgan v. Skid(ly,62 N. Y. 319, 36 
 N. Y. Superior, 162; Nelson v. Luling, 36 
 N. Y. Superior, 544 ; Newbery t'. Gar- 
 land, 31 Barb. 121 ; Morse v. Swits, 19 
 How. Pr. 275; Cross v. Sackett, 2 Bosw. 
 617 ; Vreeland w. New Jersey Stone Co., 
 2 Stewart (N. J.), 188; Salmon v. Rich- 
 ardson, 30 Conn. 360 ; United Society of 
 Shakers v. Underwood, 9 Bush, 609 ; 
 Scott D. Dixon, 1 El. & E. 1099; Ger- 
 hard V. Bates, 2 EI. & Bl. 476 ; Clarke u. 
 Dickson, 6 C. B. n. s. 453; Swift v. 
 Winterbotham, L. K. 8 Q. B. 244; 
 Davidson v. TuUoch, 3 Macq. 783 ; Burnes 
 V. Pennell, 2 H. L. Cas. 497; Ross ^. 
 Estates Investment Co., L. R. 3 Eq. Ciis. 
 122 ; Kent v. Freehold L. & B. Co., L. R. 
 
 4 Eq. Gas 588; Hill c. Lane, L. R. 11 
 Eq. Cas. 215; Bigelow on Fraud, ch. 1, 
 § 6. See Seizer v. Mali, 32 Barb. 76 ; 
 HouUlsworth v. Glasgow Bank, L. R. 5 
 App. Cas. 317 ; Henderson v. Lacon, L. R. 
 
 5 Eq. Cas. 249. The case of Peek ... 
 Gurney, L. R. 6 H. L. 377 (which over- 
 rules Bagshaw v. Seymour, 18 C. B. 903, 
 and Bedford v. Bagshaw, 4 H. & N. 538), 
 
 limits the liability of the directors to 
 parties who purchased of them, or were 
 directly misled by them. 
 
 2 Morgan v. Skiddy, 62 N. Y. 319, 
 36 N. Y. Superior, 152 ; Clarke v. Dick- 
 son, 6 C. B. N. s. 453. 
 
 '■> New Brunswick & C. R. & L. Co. ». 
 Conybeare, 9 H. L. Cas. 711, 1 Giffard, 
 339; Central R. Co. v. Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. 
 99; New Brunswick & C. R. & L. Co. 
 V. Muggeridge, 1 Drewry & S. 363. See 
 Bradley v. Poole, 98 Mass. 169. 
 
 4 Morgan v. Skiddy, 62 N. Y. 319, 
 36 N. Y. Superior, 152 ; New Brunswick 
 & C. E. & L. Co. V. Conybeare, 9 H. & L. 
 Cas. 711. 
 
 6 Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27; 
 Arthur ;). Griswold, 55 N. Y. 401 ; Mabey 
 V. Adams, 8 Bosw. 846. 
 
 6 Weir V. Barnett, L. R. 3 Exch. Div. 
 32. 
 
 ' Cargill V. Bower, L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 
 502 (explaining Peek v. Gurney, L. B. 6 
 H. L. 377). 
 
 B Rashdale v. Ford, L. B. 2 Eq. Cas. 
 760. 
 
COEPOBATE DIEECTION. 43 
 
 The directors are liable to the bona fide purchasers of spurious 
 or overissued stock which they have fraudulently issued, whether 
 such purchasers obtained it immediately from the directors or 
 by assignment from other holders.-' 
 
 A bill against directors for abuse of trust is not multifarious for 
 uniting various grounds of complaint, some applying only to a 
 part of the directors, and other gi-ounds applying only to other 
 directors.^ The jurisdiction of equity against directoi-s for a 
 waste or misapplication of the corporate funds is not excluded 
 by the existence of a concurrent remedy at law.* 
 
 Suits against Directors. — A suit in equity may be sustained by 
 the corporation against a director for fraud or breach of trust ; 
 and where the directors, being requested, refuse to bring a suit 
 in the name of the corporation, a stockholder may bring the suit 
 in his own name, for himself and others similarly situated, mak- 
 ing proper allegations and joining the corporation as defendant.* 
 This remedy is confined to fraud and breaches of trust, and 
 cannot be used to recover debts due to and property belong- 
 ing to the corporation.^ Stockholders have a remedy in equity 
 to prevent violations of the charter or acts uUra vires amounting 
 to a breach of trust, or endangering the existence of the corpora- 
 
 1 BrufE !,■. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; Gaze- Valley R. Co., 12 Blatch. 280; Peabody 
 
 aux i;. Mali, 25 Barb, 578. See post, v. Flint, 6 Allen, 52 ; Black i'. liuggins, 
 
 Chap, v., The Capital Stock p. 127. 2 Tenn. Ch. 780; Marcli v. Easlern R. 
 
 2 "Lewis V. St. Albans I. & S. Works, Co., 40 N. H. 548, 43 N. H. 515 ; Ryan «. 
 
 50 Vt. 477. Leavenworth, A., & N. R. Co., 21 Kan. 
 
 ' Citizens' Loan Assoc, v. Lyon, 2 365 ; French o. Gifford, 30 Iowa, 148 ; 
 
 Stewart (N. J.), 110. Foss v. Harbottle, 2 Hare, 461 : Gregory 
 
 * Robinson v. Smith, 3 Paige, 222; v. Patchett, 33 Beay. 595; Russell v. 
 Greaves v. Gouge, 69 N. Y. 154, 16 Ab- Wakefield Water Works Co., L. R. 20 
 bott Pr. N. s. 377 ; Gray v. New York & Eq. Cas. 474 ; Angell & A. on Corp. 
 V. Steamship Co., 3 Hun, 383 ; Kean v. § 312. As to the mode of making and 
 Johnson, 1 Stock. 401 ; Gifford v. New alleging the request, see Hazard v. Da- 
 Jersey R. & T. Co., 2 Stock. 171 ; Black rant, 11 R. I. 195 ; Brewer v. Boston The- 
 V. Del. & R. C. Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, atre, 104 Mass. 878. A request is not 
 9 C. E, Green, 455 ; Hazard v. Durant, 11 always required. Mussina v. Golilthwait, 
 R.I. 195; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 34 Tex. 125; Rogers v. Lafayette Agri- 
 831 ; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 193 ; cultural Works, 52 Ind. 296 ; Brewer o. 
 Morgan u. New Orleans, M., & C. R. Co., Boston Theatre, 104 Mass. 378; Heath v. 
 1 Woods, 15; Cogswell v. Bull, 39 Cal. Erie R. Co., 8 Blatch. 847. 
 820; Wright o. Oroville Mining Co., 40 ^ Lagrange v. State Treasurer, 24 
 Cal. 20 ; Lagrange v. State Treasurer, 24 Mich. 468 ; Samuels v. Holladay, Wool- 
 Mich. 468; Cook v. Berlin Woollen Mill worth, 400, McCahon (Kan.), 214; Eus- 
 Co., 43 Wis. 433 ; Rogers v. Lafayette Ag- sell v. Wakefield Water Works Co., L. E. 
 ricultural Works, 62 Ind. 296; Heath w. 20 Eq. Cas. 474. 
 Erie R. Co., 8 Blatch. 347 ; Pond v. Vt. 
 
44 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 tion.^ A shareholder's bill has been maintained against the di- 
 rectors for fraud or improper conduct in preventing the majority 
 from exercising a proper control over the company's affairs.^ One 
 must be, in fact, a stockholder in order to have a locus standi in 
 such suits.^ An action at law by a stockholder is not maintaina- 
 ble against directors for losses caused by their default.* The 
 property of the corporation is a trust fund, which, when wrong- 
 fully disposed of by the directors or illegally withdrawn by stock- 
 holders, may be followed into the hands of parties having notice.* 
 
 The corporation may maintain an action at law against an offi- 
 cer for a fraudulent issue of certificates for shares in its capital 
 stock.* 
 
 The right to proceed in equity against the officers of private 
 corporations for breaches of trust belongs to the corporation or to 
 stockholders. The government, while it may pursue remedies 
 for the forfeiture of the charter, or to restrain acts ultra vires, has 
 no such interest, as trustee, in the property of the corporation 
 as entitles it to pursue the directors for breaches of trust. 
 This was held in a suit brought by the Attorney-General of the 
 United States under the direction of the act of Congress, March 
 3, 1873, against the Union Pacific Railroad Company and numer- 
 ous other parties." 
 
 ' Manderson». Com. BankofPenn.,28 Co., 6 Brad. (lU.) 257; Clarkson i>. Erie 
 
 Pa. St. 379 ; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. & N. S. Dispatch, 6 Brad. (111.) 284. See 
 
 331 ; Ottawa, 0., & F. E. V. R. Co. v. ante, pp. 13, 14, and post, pp. 80, 81. 
 Black, 79 111. 262 ; Chetlain v. Republic « Brooklyn Crosstown R. Co. v. Strong, 
 
 Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220 ; MarseiUes Land 75 N. Y. 591. 
 Co. V. Aldrich, 86 111. 504. ' United States v. Union Pacific R. 
 
 2 MacDougaU v. Gardiner, L. E. 20 Cos., 98 U. S. 569, 8 Am. Law Rev. (Jan. 
 
 Eq. Cas. 383. 1874), p. 356. See People v. IngersoU, 58 
 
 Phil. & E. R. Co. V. Catawissa R. Co., N. Y. 1 ; Attorney-General v. Railroad 
 
 53 Pa. St. 20. Cos., 35 Wis. 425 ; Attorney-General v. 
 
 < Craig V. Gregg, 83 Pt. St. 19 ; Allen Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 239 ; Attor- 
 
 !'. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456 ; Greaves v. Gouge, ney-General v. Great Eastern R. Co., 
 
 69N.Y. 154. L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 449; Green's Brice's 
 
 ' Goodin v. Cincinnati & W. C. Co., Ultra Vires, Part IV. ch. v. (2d Am. ed.), 
 
 18 Ohio St. 169; Peterson v. lU., L., & L. pp. 698-714. 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 45 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 The capital stock of a corporation is derived from the contri- 
 butions of individuals who agree to take a certain proportion 
 thereof, designated by shares, and thereby become liable as its 
 stockholders. The agreement to take stock requires the same 
 essential elements as other contracts ; to wit, a consideration, 
 the existence and assent of the parties, and mutuality of obli- 
 gation.i The interest in the stock acquired by the subscrip- 
 tion is the consideration of the agreement to take shares in it.^ 
 The contract, as usually drawn, is several and not joint.^ Being 
 one to be performed in the State creating the corporation, it 
 is to be construed by its law, although made in another State.* 
 The company's right to the subscription is assignable by its 
 own act,^ or by operation of law as in a lawful consolidation 
 with another corporation.® 
 
 Form of the Agreement to take Shares. — The assent to take shares 
 in the stock of a company is ordinarily manifested by the subscrip- 
 tion of one's name in its books, or on some paper in the posses- 
 sion of its officers or agents, under an appropriate formula, 
 with the number of shares which the subscriber agrees to take 
 placed opposite to his name. The agreement may be made 
 in other modes, where no particular one is prescribed by the 
 
 1 Melvin v. Hoitt, 52 N. H. 61, 67; O., & P. R. V. R. Co. u. Black, 79 111. 
 
 Taggart o. Western Md. R. Co., 24 Md. 262. 
 
 563. " Price v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 18 
 
 ii Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dud- Ind. 137 ; Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y. 
 
 ley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Lake Ontario, A, & N. 456. 
 
 Y. R. Co. V. Mason, 16N. Y. 451 ; Hamilton * Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 12 
 
 & D. Plank Road Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157, Gray, 244. 
 
 165 ; Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 ^ Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451 ; Downie 
 
 Conn. 435, 453 ; Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Hoover, 12 Wis. 174 ; Smith v. Hollett, 
 
 V. Palmer, 34 Me. 366 ; St. Paul, S., & 34 Ind. 519. 
 
 T. F. R. Co. V. Robbins, 23 Minn. 439. ^' Hanna v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. R. Co., 
 
 Whether an agreement is a subscription 20 Ind. 30 ; Swartwout v. Mich. A. L. 
 
 for, or a purchase of stock, see Ottawa, R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, 404. 
 
46 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 charter, provided the one adopted is such as to bind both par- 
 ties.^ It may, like other agreements, be made by letter.^ If 
 the incorporating act expressly or impliedly prescribes an ex- 
 clusive mode of making the agreement, it must be followed in 
 order to hold a subscriber.^ Thus, under the general plank-road 
 law,* and the general railroad law of New York,^ subscriptions 
 are alone binding when made to the articles of association. 
 There may, however, be several copies of the same set of articles, 
 each signed by a different list of subscribers.® A written sub- 
 scription is the usual mode prescribed by statute.^ The sub- 
 scriber will be bound, although his assent is not in the form 
 prescribed by statute, if it is supported by an independent 
 consideration and has been accepted by the corporation.^ Sub- 
 scriptions are sometim.es made on a paper separate from the 
 corporate books or articles of association, with an express or 
 implied authority to the person . holding the paper to transfer 
 them to such books ; ® and whea so transferred, the books have 
 been held original evidence of the subscriptions.^" 
 
 Defective Subscriptions. — If the articles are, bj' reason of blanks, 
 wanting in substantial particulars, as, for instance, the names of 
 
 iFryo.Lexington&B. S.R. Co.,2Met. « Carlisle v. Saginaw Valley & St. L. 
 
 (Ky.) 314 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Stew- R. Co., 27 Mich. 315; Parker v. Northern 
 
 art, 41 Pa. St. 54. Cent. M. R. Co., 33 Mich. 23 ; Nortliern 
 
 2 Household Fire Ins. Co. v. Grant, L. Cent. M. R. Co. v. Eslow, 40 Mich. 
 R. 4 Exch. Div. 216 (overruling British 222. 
 
 & A. Tel. Co. V. Colson, L. R. 6 Exch. 9 Ashtabula & N. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 
 
 108). 15 Ohio St. 328 ; Brownlee v. Ohio, I., & 
 
 3 Charlotte & S. C. R. Co. r. Blakely, I. R. Co., 18 Ind. 68 ; New Hamp. Cent. 
 8 Strob. 245; Carlisle v. Saginaw Valley R. Co. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; Green- 
 & St. L. R. Co., 27 Mich. 315 ; Parker v. vilie & C. R. Co. v. Smith, Rich. 91 ; 
 Northern Cent. M. R. Co., S3 Mich. 23 ; Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565 ; Hamil- 
 Monterey & S. V. R. Co. v. Hildreth, 53 ton & D. Plank Road Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 
 Cal. 123. 157; Stuart v. Valley R. Co., 32 Gratt. 
 
 * Ponghkeepsie & S. P. Plank Road 146. An agreement to subscribe when 
 
 Co. V. Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150. the books shall be opened does not make 
 
 5 Troy & B. R. Co. v. Tibbitts, 18 Barb, a person a subscriber and liable for calls, 
 
 297 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Warren, 18 though he may be li.able in damages for 
 
 Barb. 310. But see Peninsular R. Co. v. breach of his agreement. Thrasher ». 
 
 Duncan, 28 Mich. 130. Pike County R. Co., 25 111. 393. A person 
 
 ° Lake Ontario, A., & N. Y. R. Co. v. may become a stockholder without any 
 
 Mason, 16 N. Y. 451. subscription, by simply paying for and 
 
 'Pittsburg & S. R. Co. o. Gazzam, 32 receiving his stock. Clark u. Farrington, 
 
 Pa. St. 340 ; Vreeland v. New Jersey 11 Wis. 306, 326. 
 
 Stone Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 188. See "> Iowa & M.R. Co. t>. Perkins, 28 Iowa, 
 
 Hays V. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 281 ; Stuart v. Valley R. Co., 82 Gratt. 
 
 81. 146. 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 47 
 
 directors, subscribers are not bound, unless an authority is given 
 to fill the blanks, or a subsequent insertion is ratified.^ Where 
 a person subscribes a blank paper with an oral agreement that it 
 is to take effect as a subscription only on certain conditions, these 
 must be complied with in order to hold him.^ An irregular or 
 defective subscription may be made valid by the subscriber's act- 
 ing as stockholder or director.^ A municipal subscription may be 
 made by a mere vote or resolution, without a formal signature to 
 any book or paper, and as soon as accepted is binding on the 
 municipality.* 
 
 Subscriptions by Agents. — A person in whose behalf an unau- 
 thorized subscription has been made may ratify it. His ratifica- 
 tion will be implied from his acting as stockholder, or from his 
 acquiescence accompanied with knowledge." The corporation may 
 accept or reject subscriptions obtained by persons who were not 
 authorized to act for it ; ® and parol evidence is admissible to show 
 an acceptance.'' But subscriptions taken by unauthorized per- 
 sons are, until accepted by the corporation, subject to revocation 
 by subscribers.* An agent to procure subscriptions has no im- 
 plied authority to assent to a cancellation of them.^ The substi- 
 tution of one subscriber for another can only be consummated by 
 consent of parties and an entry on the books.''' A person who 
 subscribes for another without authority becomes himself liable as 
 a subscriber.^! 
 
 1 Dutchess & C. C. R. Co. v. Mabbett, ratification. Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Lin- 
 58 N. Y. 3a7 ; Reed v. Riclimond St. R. coin, 23 Vt. 206. 
 
 Co., 50 Ind. 342. « Walker v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 34 
 
 2 Biiolier V. DiUsburg & M. R. Co., 76 Miss. 245; Melvin v. Hoitt, 52 N. H. 61 ; 
 Pa. St. 306 ; Tonica & P. R. Co. </. Stein, Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Yandal, 5 Sneed, 
 21 111. 96. 294; Taggart v. Western Md. R. Co., 24 
 
 ' St. Charles Man. Co. v. Britton, 2 Md. 503. 
 
 Mo. App. 290; Danbury & N. R. Co. v. ^ Mansfield, C, & L. M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Wilson, 22 Conn. 435; Lane v. Brainerd, Brown, 26 Oliio St. 223. 
 
 80 Conn, 565. * Lowe v. E. & K. R. Co., 1 Head, 
 
 * Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241; 659. Sue Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 
 
 Clarlve County Court v. Paris, W., & K. 46 Md. 132, 153. 
 
 R. Tunip. Co., 11 B. Monr. 143; State v. ' Lowe y. E. & K. R. Co., 1 Head, 659; 
 
 Lime, 23 Minn. 521. Custar v. Titusville Gas & W. Co., 63 
 
 ^ Penobscot R. Co. v. Pummer, 40 Pa. St. 881. An agent to obtain sub- 
 
 Me. 172; Phil., W., & B. R. Co. v. Cowell, scriptions cannot cancel his own. Cheraw 
 
 28 Pa. St. 329;' McCully u. Pittsburg & C. & C. R. Co. v. White, 10 S. C. 155. 
 
 R. Co., .<?2 Pa. St. 25 ; Pittsburg & S. R. '» Ryder v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 Dl. 
 
 Co. V. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340. A mere 516. 
 
 declaration by a party to strangers, that " State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266. 
 he lias a certain amount of stock, is not a 
 
48 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 Delivery of the Subscription ; Escrow. — A subscription takes effect 
 when it is actually or constructively received by the company, 
 through its officers or agents. If the subscriber being an officer 
 or agent holds the subscription book or paper as the company's 
 agent, his own subscription is binding on him, even while the 
 book or paper continues in his hands.^ If a subscriber desires his 
 subscription to remain an escrow, he should deliver it to a third 
 party for that purpose, and not to a person authorized to receive 
 subscriptions for the company .^ But a director of the company 
 who is not authorized to receive subscriptions, may hold one as 
 an escrow.^ Parol evidence is admissible to show the conditions 
 on which the paper was delivered.* 
 
 Subscriptions before the Existence or Organization of the Corpora- 
 tion. — The subscription being a promise, it is a familiar require- 
 ment of the common law that there miist be a party in esse 
 competent to receive it, or it will not bind the maker. No action, 
 therefore, can be maintained by the company against a person who, 
 before it was incoi-porated, signed with others a paper agreeing to 
 take a certain amount of stock in it, there being no act of his 
 subsequent to the incorporation in affirmance of his former 
 promise.^ But when the charter is granted, the corporation 
 comes into existence and acquires the capacity to receive sub- 
 scriptions to its capital stock, although while it remains unorgan- 
 ized its right to enforce them is suspended.^ 
 
 1 New Hampshire Cent. R. Co. o. nold, 9 Gray, 159 ; Diman v. Providence, 
 Johnson, 30 N. H. .3H0; Corwith v. Cul- W., & B. R. Co., 5 R. I. 130 ; Danbury & 
 ver, 69 111. 502. See I'ittsburg & C. R. N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435, 453; 
 Co. 0. Plumnier, 37 Pa. St. 413. BufCalo & N. Y. City R. Co. ... Dudley, 
 
 2 Wight V. Shelby R. Co., 16 B. Monr. 14 N. Y. 336 ; Lackey v. Richmond & L. 
 4 ; Cass v. Pittsburg, V., & C. R. Co., 80 Tump. R. Co., 17 B. Monr. 43; Selnia & 
 Pa. St. 31. T. R. Co. u. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787 ; Stoops v. 
 
 8 Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. R. Co. v. Greensburgh & B. Plank Road Co., 10 
 
 Hall, 1 Brad. (111.) 612. Ind. 47 ; Monterey & S. V. R. Co. v. Hil- 
 
 4 Id. dreth, 58 Cal. 123; Oregon Cent. R. Co. 
 
 * Strasburg R. Co. v. Echternacht, 21 v. Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161 ; Low v. Conn. 
 Pa. St. 220; Cleaves v. Brick Church & P. R. R. Co , 4-5 N. H. 370, 376; Ash- 
 Tump. Co., 1 Sneed, 491 ; Thrasher v. uelot Boot & Shoe Co. v. Hoit, 56 N. H. 
 Pike County R. Co., 25 111. 393 ; Mt. 548. But see Wilmington & M. R. Co. v. 
 Sterling Coalroad Co. u. Little, 14 Bush, Wright, 5 Jones (N. C), 304 ; Charlotte 
 429; Goffi). Winchester College, 6 Bush, & S. C. R. Co. v. Blakely, 3 Strob. 245; 
 443 ; Monterey & S. V. R. Co. v. Hil- Starrett v. Rockland Fire & M. Ins. Co., 
 dreth, 53 Cal. 123. But see Peoria & O. 65 Me. 374; Stone o. Great Western Oil 
 R. Co. 0. Elting, 17 111. 429. Co., 41 111. 85. The company may take 
 
 6 Marlborough Branch R. Co. v. Ar- a grant after the charter incorporation, 
 
THE CREATION Off THE CAPITAL STOCK. 49 
 
 Several persons may, however, even before a charter has been 
 obtained, agree with each other to take and pay for a certain num- 
 ber of shares in the stock of a corporation not yet created, and 
 may designate some one as their common representative to 
 collect and sue. for the amounts, or confer a like authority on the 
 corporation itself ; and the subscription so drawn may be enforced 
 by the appointed person or by the corporation when it comes into 
 existence.^ But the legal formation of a corporation for the pur- 
 pose specified in the subscription is a condition precedent to the 
 subscriber's obligation."^ 
 
 ) Some authorities regard an organization of the corporation as 
 essential to its existence ; ^ but, if so regarded, a ratification by 
 the subscriber, after such organization, of a subscription which 
 
 1 preceded it will make the subscription binding ; and such ratifi- 
 cation will be implied from the payment of assessments or from 
 acting as stockholder.* 
 
 In the case of corporations formed under a general law, the 
 recording of articles of association or an official certificate takes 
 the place of a charter.^ Such a law may contemplate, as one of 
 
 j the early steps, the creation of a certain amount of capital stock, 
 and impose an obligation on subscribers before such record or 
 
 /issue.® In some States, however, they are not bound until the 
 articles are duly filed.'' 
 
 although prior to organization. Vermont * Lexington & W. C. R. Co. v. Chand- 
 
 Mining & Q. Co. v. Windham County ler, 13 Met. 311 ; Kennebec & P. R. Co. 
 
 Bank, 44 Vt 489 ; Rathbone v. Tioga v. Palmer, 34 Me. 366 ; Chaffin v. Cum- 
 
 Nav. Co., 2 W. & S. 74. mings, 37 Me. 76 ; Penobscot R. Co. v. 
 
 1 Athol Music Hall Co. v. Carey, 116 Dummer, 40 Me. 172. 
 Mass. 471 ; Ashuelot Boot & Shoe Co. </. ' Ante, Chap. I. p. 3. 
 
 Holt, 56 N. H. 548. See People's Ferry e Hughes v. Antietam Man. Co., 34 
 
 V. Balch, 8 Gray, 803. Some authorities Md. 316 ; Cross v. Pickneyville Mill Co., 
 
 treat as binding subscriptions in contem- 17 111. 54; Coyington, C, C, & J. Plank 
 
 plation of a corporation to be formed, Road Co. v. Moore, 3 Ind. 510 ; Anderson 
 
 which may be enforced by the corpora- v. Newcastle & R. R. Co., 12 Ind. 376 ; 
 
 tion when created. Tonica & P. R. Co. Hamilton & D. Plank Road Co. v. Rice, 7 
 
 V. McNeely, 21 III. 71; Johnston u.Ewing Barb. 157. 
 
 Female University, 35 111. 518 ; Dorris v. ^ Lake Ontario, A , & N. Y. R. Co. v. 
 
 French, 6 Thomp. & C. 681 ; Hughes v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 ; Buffalo & P. R. 
 
 Antietem Man. Co., 34 Md. 316 ; Kid- Co. . . Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157, 161 ; Phoenix 
 
 welly Canal Co. u. Raby, 2 Price (Exch.), Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 
 
 93 ; Midland Great Western R. Co. v. 299, 6 Hun, 293 ; Burt v. Farrar, 24 Barb. 
 
 Gordon, 16 M. & W. 804. 518 ; Erie & N. Y. City R. Co. v. Owen, 
 
 2 Dorris v. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463. See 32 Barb. 616; Garrett v. Dillsburg & M. 
 Hughes V. Antietam 'Man. Co., 34 Md. R. Co , 78 Pa. St. 465 ; Ashuelot Boot & 
 316. Shoe Co. v. Holt, 56 N. H. 548; Rikhoff 
 
 = Starrett v. Rockland Fire & M. Ins. v. Brown's Rotary S. S. M. Co., 68 Ind. 
 Co., 66 Me. 874. 888. 
 
'50 THE LAW OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 Commissioners with special and limited powers are sometimes 
 appointed by the State to receive contributions to the capital 
 stock, and superintend the proceedings for organization, their 
 functions ending when the organization has been effected. Their 
 powers differ from those of directors, being generally more 
 restricted, particularly as to allowing any conditional subscrip- 
 tions and payments in other modes than by money .^ In Penn- 
 sylvania, while conditional subscriptions may be received by a 
 corporation, the conditions in subscriptions received by commis- 
 sioners are void, and the liability of the subscriber is absolute.^ 
 
 Non-payment of the First Instalment. — The failure of the sub- 
 scriber to pay a certain per cent, usually five or ten, on the amount 
 subscribed, which the charter or statute requires to be paid at the 
 time of the subscription, has been held in some States essential 
 to the validity of the subscription ; and the rule has been consid- 
 ered to be of especial force where subscriptions are received 
 prior to a complete organization of the corporation. The statute 
 is construed as prohibiting a subscription which is not accom- 
 panied by the payment in cash, and to make such a payment a 
 condition precedent to the subscriber's right to stock ; and the 
 company not being bound to treat the subscription as valid, there 
 is no mutuality of obligation.^ This defence has been treated 
 in other States as unconscionable by enabling a party to take 
 advantage of his own wrong. It is rejected altogether in several 
 States, such payment being held to be a requirement which 
 
 1 Vennont Cent. R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 St. 54 ; Bedford E. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. 
 Vt. 30; BufCalo & N. Y. City K. Co. v. St. 29; Nippenose Man. Co. v. Stadon, 
 Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Danbury & N. R. 68 Pa. St. 256 ; Caley v. Phil. & C. County 
 Co. V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435 ; Lane v. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363 ; Hanover Junc- 
 Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565 ; James v. Cincin- tion & S. R. Co. v. Haldeman, 82 Pa. 
 nati, H., & D. R. Co., 2 Disney, 261 ; St. 36. 
 
 Wellersburg & W. N. Plank Road Co. «. » Jenkins v. Union Tump. Co., 1 Caines 
 
 Hoffman, 9 Md. 559 ; Ellison v. Mobile & Cas. in Error 86 (overruling 1 Caines, 
 
 O. R. Co., 36 Miss. 572 ; N. E. R. Co. v. 381) ; New York & 0. M. R. Co. v. Van 
 
 Rodrigues, 10 Rich. 278. The notice of Horn, 57 N. Y. 473 ; Hibernia Tump. Co. 
 
 the opening of books may be given by a v. Henderson, 8 S. & R. 219 ; Buclier v. 
 
 majority of those authorized by the char- Dillsburg & M. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 306 ; 
 
 ter to give it. Penobscot R. Co. ». White, Taggart v. Western Md. R. Co., 24 Md. 
 
 41 Me. 512. 563 ; Western Md. R. Co. v. Manro, 32 
 
 2 Erie & W. Plank Road Co. v. Brown, Md. 280 ; Fiser v. Miss. & T. R. Co., 32 
 25 Pa. St. 156 ; Phil. & W. C. R. Co. v. Miss. 359. A statute taking away this 
 Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318 ; Bavington v. defence will not be construed as retro- 
 Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 34 Pa. St. 358 ; spective. New York & O. M. R. Co. v. 
 Pittsburg & C. E. Co. v. Stewart, 41 Pa. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473. 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 51 
 
 the corporation may waive.^ The defence also, if admitted, is 
 limited to cases where it appears to be the clear intention of the 
 statute that the payment of the cash instalment shall be a con- 
 dition precedent to the subscriber's liability.^ It does not 
 extend to cases where an agreement only, but not a statute, 
 requires the payment at the time of subscription.^ 
 
 .A person who has acted as a stockholder, notwithstanding the 
 non-payment, has been held estopped from setting up the 
 defence ; * but a mere statement in the subscription paper that 
 the amount has been paid does not have that effect.^ The 
 defence is not available to a subscriber who, being himself a com- 
 missioner, and under an official duty to require a cash payment, 
 is not allowed to take advantage of his own default.® So, also, 
 an agent for receiving subscriptions, who failed to pay when he 
 svibscribed, but who subsequently, in the settlement of his account 
 for services, charged himself with the amount of the instalment, 
 was held bound by his subscription.'^ 
 
 The subscriber has been held bound where he gave a note for 
 the first instalment, which he afterwards paid ; ^ and even the 
 note itself, before payment, has been treated as a sufficient com- 
 pliance with the statute to make his subscription binding.^ The 
 subscriber may pay the instalment by a check, upon which an 
 
 ^ Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. "• Brown, 25 Pa. St. 156 ; Greenville & 
 
 H. 491 ; Illinois Eiver R. Co. v. Zimmer, C. R. Co. v. Woodsides, 5 Rich. 145 ; Hay- 
 
 20 111. 654 ; Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. wood & P. Plank Road Co. v. Bryan, 6 
 
 490 ; Wight V. Shelby R. Co., 16 B. Jones (N. C), 82. 
 
 Monr. 4 ; Southern Life Ins. & T. Co. v. ' New York & O. M. R. Co. v. Van 
 
 Lanier, 5 Fla. 110, 152; Red River R. Horn, 57 N. Y. 473. 
 
 Co. V. Young, 6 Rob. (La.) 39; Vicks- ^ Ryder v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 HI. 
 
 burg, S., & T. R. Co. v. McKean, 12 La. 516 ; Cross v. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 
 
 An. 638 ; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. u. III. 54, 57 ; Grayble v. York & G. Tump. 
 
 Bassett, 20 Minn. 535 ; Stuart v. Valley Co., 10 S. & R. 269 ; Highland Turnp. Co. 
 
 R. Co., 32 Gratt. 146 ; Garrett i;. Dills- v. McKean, 11 Johns. 98. 
 
 burg & M. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 465. ' Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116, 28 Barb. 
 
 ' Judah V. American Live Stock Ins. 264. 
 
 Co., 4 Ind. 333; Henry v. Vermillion & ^ Selma & T. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 
 
 A. R. Co., 17 Ohio, 187 ; Mitchell v. Rome 787, 807 ; Klein v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 
 
 R. Co., 17 Ga. 574, 588 ; Napier v. Poe, 111. 514 ; Ogdensburgh, C, & R. R. Co. u. 
 
 12 Ga. 170, 184 ; Troy & R. R. Co. v. WoUey, 1 Keyes, 118, 3 Abbott Ct. App. 
 
 Kerr, 17 Barb. 581, 601 ; Ogdensburgh, R., 398. 
 
 & C. R. Co. V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541 ; Phil. ^ Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 
 
 & W. C. R. Co. V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. Vt. 30 ; Greenville & C. R. Co. v. Wood- 
 
 8X8. sides, 5 Rich. 145 ; McEae v. Russell, 12 
 
 8 Water Valley Man. Co. v. Seaman, Ired. 224 ; Clark v. Farrington, 11 Wis. 
 
 53 Miss. 655. 306; Blair v. Rutherford, 31 Tex. 465; 
 
 ' Clark V. Monongahela Nav. Co., 10 Chetlain v. Republic Life Ins. Co., 86 HL 
 
 Watts, 364 ; Erie & W. Plank Road Co. 220. 
 
62 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 action against him may be maintained.^ The first instalment, 
 which is required to be paid at the time of the subscription, may 
 be paid in advance.^ A subscriber may ratify a payment made 
 in his behalf by an unauthorized person.^ A subscription, in- 
 valid for want of payment at the time, is affirmed by a subse- 
 quent payment, which may also include other instalments.* The 
 non-payment of the Instalment is not a defence to a suit by a 
 creditor of the corporation against a stockholder to enforce a 
 statute Hability;^ nor does it affect the validity of the charter.^ 
 
 The violation of statute provisions prohibiting the company 
 from beginning the construction of its road until a certain amount 
 has been paid in is not a defence to a suit for assessments.'' 
 
 Pull Number of Shares not taken. — The taking up of the entire 
 capital stock as fixed by law is a condition precedent, even though 
 not so expressly declared, to the liability of subscribers to pay 
 assessments for the general purpose of the corporation. The 
 amount may be determined by the charter, or by the action of 
 the corporation or of its directors in pursuance thereof, or by the 
 subscription paper itself ; and in each case the whole number of 
 shares must be taken, before subscribers can be held. The rule 
 is founded in the reason that without it a subscriber's propor- 
 tionate interest and risk in the enterprise would be varied with- 
 out his consent. He has a right also to insist that the whole 
 amount which was deemed essential to the success of the en- 
 terprise should be obtained before it is undertaken.* 
 
 1 Syracuse, P., & 0. R. Co. v. Gere, 4 act may be computed on the aggregate 
 Hun, 392, 6 Thomp. & C. 636 ; People v. amount paid in, even though it has not 
 Stockton & V. R. Co., 45 Cal. 306. See been paid on some of the shares. Lake 
 Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211 ; Thorp Ontario, A., & N. Y. R. Co. v. Mason, 16 
 i;. Woodhull, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411. N. Y. 451. 
 
 2 Barrington v. Miss. Cent. R. Co., 32 3 Salem Mill Dam Co. v. Ropes, 6 Pick. 
 Miss. 370. 23, 9 Pick. 187 ; Central Tump. Co. v. Val- 
 
 3 Miss. & T. R. Co. V. Harris, .36 Miss, entine, 10 Pick. 142; Cabot &W. S. Bridge 
 17. • ■ Co. V. Chapin, 6 Cush. 50 ; Worcester & N. 
 
 4 Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116, 28 R. Co. v. Hinds, 8 Cush. 110 ; Atlantic Cot- 
 Barb. 254; Black River & U. R. Co, v. ton Mills K.Abbott, 9 Cush. 423 ;Stoneham 
 Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 ; Fiser v. Miss. & T. Branch R. Co. v. Gould, 2 Gray, 277 ; Nut- 
 R. Co., 32 Miss. 359. t.ert).Lexington&W.C.R.Co.,6Gray,85; 
 
 5 Eaton V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119. Troy & G. R. Co. v. Newton, 8 Gray, 696; 
 
 6 Commonwealth v. West Chester R. Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 12 Gray, 
 Co., 3 Grant, 200. 244 ; Oldtown & L. R. Co. v. Veazle, 39 Me. 
 
 ' Agricultural Branch R. Co. v. Win- 671 ; Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 
 Chester, 13 Allen, 29. The ten per cent Me. 587 ; Penobscot R. Co. v. Dummer, 40 
 on the capital required by the New York Me. 172 ; Somerset & K. R. Co. v. Gushing, 
 
THE CEBATION OP THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 63 
 
 If the number of shares is not fixed by the charter, the pre- 
 sumption is, that it is to be fixed by the stockholders or directors.^ 
 Where, under the act, the directors are to determine the number 
 from time to time, no assessment can be laid till it has been deter- 
 mined.2 The directors may determine it by a direct vote, fixing 
 the number ; or impliedly, by a vote to close the books when a 
 certain number of shares have been taken.* 
 
 But if the taking up of the entire capital stock appears, by the 
 true construction of existing laws or by the agreement, not in- 
 tended to be a condition precedent to the right of the corpora- 
 tion to recover the calls, the subscriber will be liable, although 
 the full amount has not been taken.* So, also, he wiU be liable 
 where the statute, while imposing a maximum and minimum 
 
 45 Me. 524 ; Somerset R. Co. .). Clarke, 61 
 Me. 379; Littleton Man. Co. c. Parker, 14 
 N. H. 54.3 ; New Hamp. Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; Contoocook V. R. 
 Co. V. Barker, 32 N. H. 363; Shurtz v. 
 Schoolcraft & T. R. R. Co., 9 Mich. 269; 
 Monroe v. Ft. Wayne, J., & S. R. Co., 28 
 Mich. 272 ; AUman v. Havana, R., & E. R. 
 Co., 88 111. 521 ; Livesey v. Omaha Hotel 
 Co., 6 Neb. 60 ; Hughes v. Antietam Man. 
 Co., 34 Md. 816; Baileu. Calvert College 
 Educational See, 47 Md. 117 ; Memphis 
 Branch R. Co. v. Sullivan, 67 Ga. 240; 
 Selma, M., & M. R. Co. v. Anderson, 61 
 Miss. 829 ; Peoria & R. I. R. Co. v. Pres- 
 ton, 36 Iowa, 115 ; Norwich & L. Nav. 
 Co. V. Theobald, Moody & M. 151. An 
 express statute requirement that a certain 
 amount shall be subscribed before the 
 corporation can act must be complied 
 with. Fry v. Lexington & B. S. R. Co ,2. 
 Met. (Ky.) 314. See Lail v. Mt. Sterlhig 
 Coal Road Co., 13 Bush, 32. The legis- 
 lature, it has been held, cannot, by a re- 
 duction of the amount fixed by the 
 charter, make a previous subscription 
 binding which was invalid by the reason 
 of the full amount so fixed not having been 
 taken. Oldtown & L. R. Co. v. "Veazie, 39 
 Me. 571. 
 
 1 Somerset &, K. R. Co. v. Cushing, 45 
 Me. 524 ; Somerset R. Co. v. Clarke, 61 
 Me. 379 ; Pike v. Bangor & C. S. L. R. Co., 
 68 Me. 445. In Bucksport & B. R. Co. c;. 
 Buck, 65 Me. 536, 68 Me. 81, a distinction 
 is taken between an action on the contract 
 of subscription and a proceeding for for- 
 feiture, — holding it not necessary to fix 
 
 the amount of the capital stock in order 
 to maintain the action on the contract ; 
 but the distinction is not justified by the 
 authorities. 
 
 2 Worcester & N. R. Co. v. Hinds, 8 
 Cush. 110 ; Troy & G. R. Co. v. Newton, 8 
 Gray, 696. 
 
 8 Lexington & W. C. R. Co. v. Chan- 
 dler, 13 Met. 311 ; Troy & G. R. Co. v. 
 Newton, 8 Gray, 596, 599 ; Bucksport & B. 
 R. Co. 0. Buck, 66 Me. 636, 68 Me. 81. 
 
 * Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Jarvis, 34 Me. 
 360 ; York & C. R. Co. v. Pratt, 40 Me. 447 ; 
 Somerset & K. R. Co. «. Cushing, 45 Me. 
 524, 532 ; Lexington & W. C. R. Co. v. 
 Chandler, 13 Met. 311 ; Nutter v. Lexing- 
 ton & W. C. R. Co., 6 Gray, 85; Boston, 
 B., & G. R. Co. V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 
 79; Warwick R. Co. v. Cady, 11 R. 1. 131 ; 
 Hunt V. Kansas & M. Bridge Co., 11 Kan. 
 412 ; Jewett v. Valley R. Co., 34 Ohio St. 
 601 ; Hoagland v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. R. 
 Co., 18 Ind. 452; Fox v. AUensville, C, S., 
 & V. Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31 ; Hamilton & 
 D. Plank Road Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157 ; 
 Rensselaer & W. Plank Road Co. v. Wet- 
 sel, 21 Barb. 56 ; Lail v. Mt. Sterling Coal 
 Road Co., 13 Bush, 32 ; Perkins v. San- 
 ders, 56 Miss. 733; Willamette Freighting 
 Co. V. Stannus, 4 Oreg. 261 ; Schenectady 
 & S. Plank Road Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 
 102; Waterford, W.,W., & D. R. Co. v. Dal- 
 biac, 6 Exch. 443. See Minor p. Mechan- 
 ics' Bank, 1 Peters, 46. It is not a defence 
 to a suit against a subscriber that neither 
 the charter nor any existing law fixes the 
 number or par value of shares. Kirksey 
 V. Florida & G. Plank Road Co., 7 Fla. 23. 
 
64 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 limit, neither fixes the entire amount nor requires the corporation 
 to fix it.i Where the act fixes a maximum and minimum capital, 
 and authorizes assessments as soon as the latter is reached, the com- 
 pany can make assessments as soon as the minimum capital has 
 been subscribed, without first determining the ultimate capital.^ 
 
 The rule requiring the full number to be taken does not apply 
 where stockholders have the privilege of subscribing for a cer- 
 tain number of shares in new stock before it is offered to the 
 public ; and they are liable on their subscriptions, although the 
 whole number is not issued.^ The agreement may also be so 
 drawn as to bind subscribers, where no action has been taken 
 to fix the amount of the capital stock.* 
 
 A statute requiring a certain amount to be subscribed before 
 the work of construction begins has been construed as not pro- 
 hibiting assessments prior to the subscription of that amount.^ 
 If a fixed amount is not required by the charter or the agree- 
 ment, the subscriber is liable, although the company has not 
 fixed the amount.^ 
 
 A subscriber may be estopped from setting up this defence by 
 co-operating in acts of the company which cannot properly be 
 done except on the assumption that the subscribers intend to 
 proceed with the enterprise before the stock is fully taken up.'' 
 But he is not estopped by the payment of instalments, with- 
 out proof of his knowledge of the defect at the time of such 
 payment.^ Nor does he waive his right by a payment with 
 knowledge that some of the subscriptions which are a part of 
 the full amount are invalid, where other material facts are mis- 
 represented to him.^ 
 
 » Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 12 Cush. 50, 53 ; Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Ab- 
 
 Gray, 244. bott, 9 Cush. 423 ; New Hamp. Cent. R. 
 
 2 White Mts. R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 Co. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 407 ; Clarke v. 
 
 N. H. 124. A special subscription in aid Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46 ; Dayton & C. R. 
 
 of construction is binding, although the Co. v. Hatch, 1 Disney, 84 ; Bedford R. 
 
 full amount is not taken. Iowa & M. R. Co. ». Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29. But see 
 
 Co. V. Perkins, 28 Iowa, 281. Old Town & L. R. Co. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 
 
 8 Nutter V. Lexington & W. C. R. Co., 571, where it is held that, the action of 
 
 6 Gray, 85. the corporation being in violation of law, 
 
 < Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Buck, 65 the subscriber cannot waive the obiec- 
 
 Me. 536, 68 Me. 81. tion. 
 
 6 Penobscot R. Co. v. White, 41 Me. s Somerset & K. R. Co. v. Gushing, 45 
 
 512. Me. 524 ; Old Town & L. R. Co. v. Veazie, 
 
 6 City Hotel of Worcester v. Dickin- 39 Me. 571 ; Livesey v. Omaha Hotel, 5 
 
 son, 6 Gray, 586. Neb. 50. 
 
 '' Cabot & W. S. Bridge v. Chapin, 6 ^ Ridgefield & N. Y. R. Co. v. Brush, 
 
THE CKBATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 55 
 
 The subscriptions, to the amount required by the charter or 
 agreement, must be bona fide and binding on the subscribers.^ 
 They should be made by persons apparently responsible,^ though 
 their insolvency subsequently occurring or even existing at the 
 time will not, where the subscription is taken in good faith, ex- 
 clude it from the count.^ The subscription in order to be counted 
 must not be on conditions which have not been performed or 
 waived,* or be payable in the depreciated stock of another corpo- 
 ration,^ or be made by one person for another without authority,® 
 or be of a nominal and fictitious character.'' They must not be 
 accompanied by conditions and privileges peculiar to some and 
 not common to all.^ Those of contractors are to be included, 
 if they are bound like other subscribers ; but not otherwise.^ 
 The subscription of the party sued is to be counted as a part 
 of the required amount. i** If by the agreement or by statute 
 the directors are to determine whether the amount has been 
 obtained, the subscriber is bound by their decision made in good 
 faith." 
 
 The condition, that the full amount of the capital stock shall 
 be subscribed, may be waived by the subscriber. ^^ An express 
 agreement that the subscription shall be binding upon a certain 
 
 43 Conn. 86; Morris & B. Co. v. Nathan, 31 N. Y. 273; Lewey's Island R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Hall (N. Y.), 239. Bolton, 48 Me. 451. 
 
 1 Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Cottrell, 66 ' Phillips v. Covington & C. Bridge 
 Me. 185; Monadnock R. Co. v. Pelt, 52 Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 219; New York, H., & 
 N. H. 379. N. R. Co. v. Hunt, 39 Conn. 75 ; Ridge- 
 
 2 Penobscot R. Co. v. Duramer, 40 Me. field & N. Y. R. Co. v. Brush, 43 Conn. 
 172 ; Penobscot R. Co. o. White, 41 Me. 86 ; Troy & G. R. Co. y. Newton, 8 Gray, 
 512; Lewey's Island R. Co. v. Bolton, 48 596; Boston, B., & G. R. Co. v. Welling- 
 Me. 451 ; Phillips v. Covington & C. ton, 113 Mass. 79. 
 
 Bridge" Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 219. 1° Scarlett m. Academy of Music, 46 Md. 
 
 8 Salem Mill Dam Co. v. Ropes, 9 Pick. 132 ; Montpelier & W. R. R. Co. o. Lang- 
 
 187, 6 Pick. 23 ; Penobscot R. Co. u. don, 45 Vt. 137, 46 Vt. 284. 
 
 Dummer, 40 Me. 172. n Cass v. Pittsburg, V., & C. R. Co., 80 
 
 < Central Tump. Co. v. Valentine, 10 Pa. St. 31 ; Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. 
 
 Pick. 142 ; Troy & G. R. Co. v. New- Bailey, 24 Vt. 465 ; Penobscot R. Co. v. 
 
 ton, 8 Gray, 696, 1 Gray, 544 ; Boston, White, 41 Me. 512 ; Morris Canal & B. 
 
 B , & G. R. Co. V. Wellington, 113 Co. v. Nathan, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 239. See 
 
 Mass. 79, 86 ; Oskaloosa Agricultural Belfast & M. L. B. Co. v. Cottrell, 66 Me. 
 
 Works u. Parkhurst, 6 Northwest. Rep. 185. 
 
 235. ^ Hanover Junction & S . R. Co. w. Halde- 
 
 6 Cabot & W. S. Bridge v. Chapin, 6 man, 82 Pa. St. 36 ; Wilmington & R. R. 
 
 Cush. 50. Co. V. Robeson, 5 Ired. 391 ; Montpelier 
 
 6 Salem Mill Dam Co. v. Ropes, 9 Pick. & W. R. R. Co. v. Langdon, 45 Vt. 137, 
 
 187, 6 Pick. 23. 46 Vt. 284 ; May v. Memphis Branch 
 
 ' Memphis Branch R. Co. v. Sullivan, R. Co., 48 Ga. 109 ; Memphis Branch R. 
 
 57 Ga. 240. Co. v. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240; Livesey v. 
 
 8 New York Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, Omaha Hotel, 6 Neb. 50. 
 
66 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 amount less than the full amount being subscribed is such a 
 waiver.^ But a subscriber's attendance at corporate meetings, 
 even one at which an assessment was voted, where he does not 
 appear to have taken a part in the meeting, is not a waiver.^ 
 
 Conditions in General. — Conditions contained in a subscription 
 are binding on the corporation, and, when not performed, are a 
 defence to a suit against a subscriber.** Thus the company, in 
 order to maintain an action for calls, must prove the substantial 
 performance of a condition requiring that a certain amount, or an 
 amount sufficient to complete the enterprise or to carry it to a 
 certain point, has been subscribed.* The subscriber is entitled 
 before suit to notice that the condition has been performed.^ If 
 the agreement submits the question of the performance to the 
 decision of the directors, their decision, made in good faith, is 
 conclusive.^ A subscription upon a condition is not binding on the 
 subscriber until it is accepted by the company.'^ A reserved 
 right to withdraw a subscription must be exercised seasonably, 
 or a waiver will be implied.^ 
 
 The written condition, in order to be a part of the subscription, 
 must be inserted at the time of signing and not subsequently, 
 except with the consent of parties.^ If contained in a separate 
 paper executed at the same time with the subscription, it is valid, 
 unless it involves a fraud on other subscribers.^" A memorandum 
 added to the subscription is presumed to have been made at 
 the time.^^ Parol evidence is admissible to show that a subscrip- 
 
 1 Emmitt v. Springfield, J., & P. E. Co., Chase v. Sycamore & C. E. Co., 38 111. 
 31 Ohio St. 23 ; Bucksport & B. E. Co. 215 ; People v. Holden, 82 111. 93 ; Morris 
 V. Buck, 65 Me. 536, 68 Me. 81. Canal & B. Co. v. Nathan, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 
 
 2 Eidgefield & N..Y. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 289 ; Union Hotel Co. ^. Hersee, 15 Hun, 
 46 Conn. 375. 371. 
 
 3 Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390 ; Bel- 6 Chase v. Sycamore & C. R. Co., 38 
 fast & M. L. E. Co. v. Moore, 60 Me. 111. 215. But see New Albany & S. K. 
 661. Co. !!. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499. 
 
 4 People's Ferry Co. v. Balch, 8 Gray, ^ Cajg „_ Pittsburg, V., & C. R. Co., 80 
 303 ; Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Pa. St. 31. 
 
 Me. 587 ; Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Buck, ' Junction R. Co. v. Reeve, 15 Ind. 
 
 65 Me. 536, 68 Me. 81 ; Belfast & M. L. R. 236. 
 
 Co. V. Cottrell, 66 Me. 186 ; Santa Cruz 8 Wilmington & R. R. Co. v. Robeson, 
 
 E. Co. V. Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106 ; Phil. & 5 Ired. 391. 
 
 W. C. R. Co. V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 818 ; 9 New Hamp. Cent. R. Co. v. Johnson, 
 
 Cass V. Pittsbm-g, V., & C. R. Co., 80 Pa. 30 N. H. 390. 
 
 St. 81 ; Hanover Junction & S. R. Co. v. i" White Mts. R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. 
 
 Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 36 ; Ridgefield & H. 124. 
 
 N. y. R. Co. V. Reynolds, 46 Conn. 375 ; " Robinson v. Pittsburg & C. E. Co., 
 
 Monadnook E. Co. v. Felt, 62 N. H. 379 ; 32 Pa. St. 334. 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 57 
 
 tion on an independent paper was to be annexed to the books, 
 only on compliance with certain conditions.^ 
 
 Waiver of Condition. — A condition which is inserted for the 
 benefit of the subscriber may be waived by him.^ Thus, the con- 
 veyance by the subscriber of land to the company which was the 
 consideration of the stock, and the acceptance of a certificate 
 thereof, is a waiver of the condition.^ A waiver may, where 
 the intention to waive appears from the transaction, be implied 
 from the subscriber's giving a promissory note for the amount of 
 his subscription,* but it will not ordinarily be implied from mere 
 silence.^ The condition may be waived or qualified by another 
 clause of the agreement which is inconsistent with it.® 
 
 Parol Agreements and Representations. — By a familiar rule gov- 
 erning contracts, parol agreements are merged in a written 
 contract. Even agreements in writing not contained in the 
 subscription for stock, which are made with a part of the 
 subscribers, and concealed from the rest, cannot vary the con- 
 tract, which is common to all. Parol representations as to the 
 character of the enterprise, making it more attractive to particu- 
 lar subscribers, cannot vary fhe written subscription ; and 
 private arrangements securing special privileges to particular 
 subscribers, or relieving them altogether of liability, are a fraud 
 on other subscribers who are not admitted to the privilege or 
 exemption. Therefore, such representations and arrangements 
 are not a defence in a suit against a subscriber to or with whom 
 they were made, and, having no legal effect upon his subscrip- 
 tions, cannot be set up as a defence by other subscribers.^ 
 
 1 Tonica &P. R. Co v. Stein, 21 111. Taylor i>. Fletcher, 15 Ind. 80 ; EvansTille, 
 98 ; Bucher v. Dillsburg & M. K. Co., 76 I., & C. S. L. R. Co. v. Dunn, 17 Ind. 603 ; 
 Pa. St. 306. As to evidence admissible Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213 ; Render- 
 where the description of the name is de- son & N. R. Co. v. Moss, 2 Duvall, 
 fective or uncertain, see Monadnock R. 242. 
 
 Co. V. Felt, 52 N. H. 879; Scarlett v. 5 Burlington &M.R.R. Co. u. Boestler, 
 
 Academy of Music, 46 Md. 132 ; Angell 15 Iowa, 555 ; Bucksport & B. B. Co. o. 
 
 & A. on Corp. § 647. Brewer, 67 Me. 295. 
 
 2 Chamberlain v. Painesville & H. R. 6 Woonsocket Union R. Co. v. Sher- 
 Co., 15 Ohio St. 225 ; Lane v. Brain- man, 8 R. I. 564. 
 
 erd, 80 Conn. 565, 579 ; ante, p. 55. 1 Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 Vt. 
 
 8 Parks 1). EvansviUe, I., & C. S. L. R. 465; Blodgett v. MorriU, 20 Vt. 509; 
 
 Co., 23 Ind. 567. Kennebec & B. R. Co. o. Waters, 34 Me. 
 
 * Chamberlain v. Painesville & H. R. 369 ; White Mts. R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. 
 
 Co., 15 Ohio St. 225 ; O'Donald v. Evans- H. 124 ; Ridgefield & N. Y. R. Co. v. Brush, 
 
 ville, I., & C. S. L. R. Co., 14 Ind. 259 ; 43 Conn. 86, 99 ; Tuckerman v. Brown, 33 
 
58 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 It is, therefore, no defence to an action to recover assessments 
 that the subscriber has been misled by the parol, statements or 
 agreements of persons assuming to act for the company as to 
 the location to be adopted,^ the time and mode of payment,^ the 
 resources of the company,^ the value or cost of the road and 
 franchise,* or tlie place where, or particular purpose for which 
 the funds are to be expended,^ or as to the action of another cor- 
 poration involving a question of corporate power,^ or as to the 
 legal effect of the agreement.^ Still more, it is immaterial what 
 was the belief and expectation of a subscriber as to the character 
 
 N. Y. 297 ; Syracuse, P., & 0. E. Co. v. 
 Gere, 4 Hun, 392, 6 Thomp. & C. 636; 
 Jones V. Milton & R. Tump. Co., 7 Ind. 
 547 ; Cincinnati, U., & Ft. W. E. Co. v. 
 Pearce, 28 Ind. 502 ; Fox v. AUensyille, 
 C. S., & V. Tump. Co., 46 Ind. 31; Robin- 
 son V. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 
 334 ; Custar i>. Titusville Gas & W. Co., 63 
 Pa. St. 381 ; Cass v. Pittsburg V. & C. R. 
 Co., 80 Pa. St. 31; Miller v. Hanover 
 Junct. & S. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 95 ; McCarty 
 V. Selinsgrove & N. B. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 
 332; Corwith v. Culver, 69 111. 502; Mel- 
 vin V. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446 ; McEae* 
 V. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 5 Jones Eq. 
 395 ; Henry v. Vermillion & A. R. Co., 17 
 Ohio, 187 ; Noble v. Callender, 20 Ohio St. 
 199 ; Jewett v. Valley R. Co., 34 Ohio St. 
 601 ; Jack v. Naber, 15 Iowa, 450; Downie 
 V. White, 12 Wis. 176; Swartwout, </. 
 Mich. A. L. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389 ; Mar- 
 tin V. Pensacola & G. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370 ; 
 Johnson ». Pensacola & G. R. Co., 9 Fla. 
 299; Cunningham v. Edgefield & K. E. 
 Co., 2 Head, 23 ; Sanger v. Upton, 91 
 U. S. 56 ; Upton v. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. 
 417. But see Jewett v. Lawrenceburgh & 
 U. M. R. Co., 10 Ind. 539 ; Conn. & P. R. 
 R. Co. V. Baxter, 32 Vt. 805 ; Swatara R. 
 Co. V. Brune, 6 Gill, 41. 
 
 1 Wight V. Shelby R. Co., 16 B. Monr. 
 4; Railsbaek v. Liberty & A. Turnp. 
 Co., 2 Ind. 656; Johnson v. Crawfords- 
 ville R. Co., 11 Ind. 280; Eakright v. 
 Logansport & N. I. E. Co., 13 Ind. 404 ; 
 McAllister v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 15 
 Ind. 11 ; Fox v. Allensville, C. S., & V. 
 Turnp. Co., 46 Ind. 31 ; Miller v. Wild 
 Cat Gravel Road Co., 57 Ind. 241 ; North 
 Carolina R. Co. v. Leach, 4 Jones (N. C), 
 340 ; Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 46 
 
 Md. 132; Gelpcke v. Blake, 15 Iowa, 387, 
 19 Iowa, 263 ; First National Bank v. Hur- 
 ford, 29 Iowa, 579 ; Mies., O., & R. E. 
 E. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443 ; Ellison v. 
 Mobile & O. E. Co., 36 Miss. 572 ; East 
 Tenn. & V. R. Co. v. Gammon, 5 Sneed, 
 567 ; McCarty v. Selinsgrove & N. B. R. 
 Co., 87 Pa. St. 332; Dili v. Wabash 
 Valley R. Co., 21 111. 91. 
 
 2 Thornburgh v. Newcastle & D. R. Co., 
 14 Ind. 499; Miller v. Wild Cat Gravel 
 Road Co., 57 Ind. 241 ; Thigpen v. Miss. 
 Cent. E. Co., 32 Miss. 347 ; Upton v. Tri- 
 bilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Custar v. Titusville 
 Gas &W. Co., 63 Pa. St. 381; Cass v. 
 Pittsburg, v., & C. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 31 ; 
 Swartwout v. Mich. A. L. R. Co., 24 
 Mich. 389. 
 
 3 Hardy v. Merriweather, 14 Ind. 203 ; 
 Bish V. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490; Brown- 
 lee V. Ohio, L, & I. R. Co., 18 Ind. 68 ; 
 Walker v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 34 Miss. 
 245. 
 
 * Vawter v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 14 Ind. 
 174; Grossman v. Penrose Ferry Bridge 
 Co., 26 Pa.'St. 69; Cass v. Pittsburg, V., 
 & C. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 31. 
 
 ^ Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 
 N. H. 491. See Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. 
 Hodnett, 36 Ga. 669 ; Milwaukie & I. R. 
 Co. V. Field, 12 Wis. 340. 
 
 * Johnson v. Crawfordsville R. Co., 11 
 Ind. 280. 
 
 ' Clem V. Newcastle & D. E. Co., 9 Ind. 
 488 ; New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Fields, 10 
 Ind. 187 ; Greenville & C. R. Co. v. Smith, 
 6 Rich. 91 ; N. E. E. Co. u. Eodrigues, 10 
 Rich. 278; Vicksburg, S., & T. R. Co. v. 
 McKean, 12 La. An. 638 ; Upton v. Tribil- 
 cock, 91 U. S. 45; Oregon Cent. R. Co. u. 
 Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161. 
 
THE CBEATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 59 
 
 and success of the enterprise, or his motives in engaging in it, or 
 the circumstances under which he signed.^ 
 
 Conditions contained in agreements between subscribers in 
 advance of an organization of the corporation will not affect the 
 subscription.^ 
 
 Equity will not reform the contract of subscription by insert- 
 ing a condition, except on proof that the parties intended at the 
 time of executing it to insert it, and that it was omitted by fraud, 
 accident, or mistake of fact.^ The mistake must have been that 
 of both parties, not of one only. Thus, relief was refused to a 
 person who claimed that he intended to subscribe for only half the 
 amount for -which he had in fact subscribed, where it appeared 
 that the subscription was in accordance with the understanding 
 of the company.* 
 
 Subscriptions Conditional upon the Location. — An agreement is 
 not unfrequently signed by persons interested in a particular 
 locality, by which they promise to take stock in a railroad com- 
 pany, provided a particular route is adopted by it. Such condi- 
 tional subscriptions have been sustained, when not expressly 
 prohibited, and not in conflict with public policy. The persons 
 subscribing to them are not stockholders or liable to assessments 
 until the company has performed the condition upon which the 
 undertaking depends ; and when that is done, they become stock- 
 holders by force of the agreement, and the subscription becomes 
 absolute.^ 
 
 1 Lackey v. Richmond & L. Tump. Co., Trott v. Sarchett, 10 Ohio St. 241 ; Cham- 
 17 B. Monr. 43 ; Fry v. Lexington & B. S. berlain v. Painesville & H. R. Co., 15 Ohio 
 R. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 314; Penobscot R. Co. St. 225; Aslitabula & N. L. R. Co. v. 
 V. Wliite, 41 Me. 612 ; Banet v. Alton & Smith, 15 Oiiio St. 828 ; Mansfield, C, & 
 S. R. Co., 13 111. 504, 509 ; Irvin v. Turn- L. M. R. Co. o. Brown, 26 Oliio St. 223 ; 
 pike Co., 2 Penrose & W. 466. Mansfield, C, & L. M. R. Co. «. Stout, 26 
 
 2 White Hall & P. R. Co. v. Myers, 16 Ohio St. 241 ; Fisher v. Evansville & 
 Abbott Pr. N. s. 34. C. R. Co., 7 Ind. 407 ; Evansville, I., & C. S. 
 
 3 Gelpcke u. Blake, 15 Iowa, 387, 19 R. Co. v. Shearer, 10 Ind. 244 ; New Al- 
 lowa, 263; Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. bany & S. R. Co. v. McCormick, 10 Ind. 
 19. See Andrew u. Spurr, 8 Allen, 499; Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213; 
 412. Parks v. Evansville, I., & C. S. L. R. Co., 23 
 
 * Diman v. Providence, W., & B. R. Ind. 567 ; Cumberland Valley B. Co. r. 
 
 Co., 6 R. I. 130. There was also in this Baab, 9 Watts, 458 ; Rhey v. Ebensburg & 
 
 case negligence in notifying the corpora- S. Plank Road Co., 27 Pa. St. 261 ; Caley 
 
 tionof the mistake. u.Phil.&C. County R. Co.,80Pa. St. 363; 
 
 6 McMillan v. Maysville & L. R. Co., Martin o. Peusacola & G. R. Co., 8 Fla. 
 
 16 B. Monr. 218 ; Henderson & N. R. Co. 370 ; Burlington & M. R. Co. v. Boestler, 
 
 V. Leavell, 16 B. Monr. 358 ; Chapman v. 16 Iowa, 666 ; Des Moines Valley R. Co. 
 
 Mad River & L. E. R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 119 ; v. Graff, 27 Iowa, 99 ; First National Bank 
 
60 
 
 THE LAW OF KAILKOADS. 
 
 Personial agreements in the form of a note or subscription or a 
 bond to convey land, by persons who may or may not become 
 stockholders, to pay a certain sum on the road being constructed 
 or laid out on a certain route, are binding ; and the perform- 
 ance of the condition is a valid consideration for the agreement.^ 
 
 In New York, such subscriptions, conditioned upon the adoption 
 of a certain route, have been held void as against public policy, 
 for the reason that they tend to defraud those who subscribe ab- 
 solutely, and to induce a location which will subserve private 
 interests to the public detriment.'^ The subscriber's agreement, 
 unless the company agrees at the time to adopt the route, is con- 
 sidered to lack mutuality and a consideration.^ In Pennsylvania, 
 conditional subscriptions are valid when made to the corporation ; 
 but when made to the commissioners before the charter is 
 granted, the condition is void and the subscription absolute.* 
 
 The subscription agreement may provide as a condition that 
 the road, or a section thereof, shall be put under contract to a cer- 
 tain place,^ or within a time named,® or that the construction 
 
 V. Hurford, 29 Iowa, 579 ;Memll v. Keaver, 
 50 Iowa, 404; Taggart «. Western Md. 
 R. Co., 24 Md. 563, 594 ; Eaeine County 
 Bank v. Ayres, 12 Wis. 512; Detroit, 
 I>., & L. M. R. Co. V. Starnes, 38 Mich. 
 698; Lowe v. E. & K. R. Co., 1 Head, 659 ; 
 Nashville & N. W. R. Co. v. Jones, 2 
 Cold. 574 ; Spartanburg & U. R. Co. v. De 
 Graffenreid, 12 Rich. 675; Bucksport & 
 B. R. Co. y. Brewer, 67 Me. 295. Per- 
 formance within the time stipulated is 
 essential. Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. 
 Boestler, 15 Iowa, 555 ; Freeman i^. Mat- 
 lock, 67 Ind. 99. Subscriptions may, un- 
 der statutes, be made for particular sec- 
 tions of the railroad. Agricultural Branch 
 R. Co. V. Winchester, 13 Allen, 29. 
 
 . 1 Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. Baab, 9 
 Watts, 458 ; Des Moines Valley R. Co. v. 
 Graff, 27 Iowa, 99 ; Burlington, C, R., & 
 M. R. Co. V. Palmer, 42 Iowa, 222 ; First 
 National Bank v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402; 
 Carlisle v. Terre Haute & R. R. Co., 6 
 Ind. 316 ; Berryman v. Cincinnati South- 
 ern R. Co., 14 Bush, 755 ; McClure v. Mo. 
 River, F. S., & G. E. Co., 9 Kan. 373; 
 Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458; Mich., 
 M., & C. R. Co. V. Bacon, 33 Mich. 466; 
 Rose V. San Antonio & M. G. R. Co., 31 
 Tex. 49. 
 
 2 Utica & S. R. Co. v. Brinckerhoff, 21 
 Wend. 139 ; Maeedon & B. Plank Road 
 Co. y. Snediker, 18 Barb. 317 ; Butternutts 
 & O. Turnp. v. North, 1 Hill, 518 ; Fort Ed- 
 ward & Ft. M. Plank Road Co. v. Payne, 
 15 N. Y. 583 (overruling 17 Barb. 567). 
 See Holladay v. Patterson, 5 Oreg. 177. 
 
 8 Utica & S. R. Co. v. Brinckerhoff, 21 
 Wend. 139 ; Maeedon & B. Plank Road 
 Co. V. Snediker, 18 Barb. 317. In these 
 cases Cooke v. Oxley, 3 Term R. 653, was 
 relied on, a ease which is now generally 
 discredited as an authority. See Boston 
 & M. R. V. Bartlett, 3 Cush, 224 ; L'Amo- 
 reux V. Gould, 7 N. Y. 349 ; Conn. & P. 
 R. R. Co. V. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465, 478. 
 
 * Bavington v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 
 34 Pa. St. 358 ; Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser, 
 48 Pa. St. 29 ; Nippenose Man. Co. v. 
 Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256 ; Caley v. Phil. & 
 C. County R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363 ; McCar- 
 ty V. Selinsgrove & N. B. R. R. Co., 87 Pa. 
 St. 332 ; Taggart v. Western Md. R. Co., 
 24 Md. 563; North Carolina R. Co. v. 
 Leach, 4 Jones, 340. 
 
 s Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Baxter, 32 
 Vt. 805 ; Troy & G. R. Co. «. Newton, 8 
 Gray, 598, 1 Gray, 544. 
 
 « Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Boest- 
 ler, 15 Iowa, 555. 
 
THE CEBATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 61 
 
 shall be advanced to a certain stage,^ or that bonds of the corpo- 
 ration shall be delivered to the subscriber,^ or that the road shall 
 have a location satisfactory to him.^ 
 
 Fraud on Subscribers. — Fraud practised by the company on a 
 subscriber which induced his subscription has been held a good 
 defence to suits for calls.* This defence is usually founded in 
 statements known to be false by its official managers, and made by 
 them or by agents in their behalf, concerning the financial condi- 
 tion and earnings of the company, the amount subscribed, or 
 other material facts calculated to tempt subscribers.^ They may 
 be made by officers and agents directly to subscribers, or through 
 a prospectus issued by the company to the public for the purpose 
 of obtaining subscriptions.® When made by persons not acting 
 as authorized agents of the company, although officers or stock- 
 holders, they do not affect the validity of the subscriptions.'^ 
 
 Equity will set aside a contract of subscription when procured 
 by fraud.* The fraud of the company in the sale of its stock 
 entitles the vendee to rescind it and recover the considera- 
 tion.^ 
 
 1 Roberts v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 32 
 Miss. 373 ; Taylor v. Fletcher, 15 Ind. 80. 
 
 2 Belfast & M. L. R. Co. o. Moore, 60 
 Me. 561. 
 
 3 Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Brewer, 67 
 Me. 295. 
 
 * Kishacoquillas & C. Turnp. Road Co. 
 •i. McConaby, 16 S. & R. 140; Crossman 
 V. Penrose Ferry Bridge Co., 26 Pa. St. 69 ; 
 Custar d. Titusville Gas & W. Co., 63 
 Pa. St. 381 ; Melendy t,. Keen, 89 III. 
 395; Cunningham v. Edgefield & K. R. 
 Co., 2 Head, 23; Henderson o. San An- 
 tonio & M. G. R. Co., 17 Tex. 560; Occi- 
 dental Ins. Co. V. Ganzhorn, 2 Mo. App. 
 205; Upton v. Engelhart, 3 Dill. 496; 
 Farrar v. Walker, 3 Dill. 506, note ; Sin- 
 nett V. Moles, 38 Iowa, 25. See Bradley 
 [>. Poole, 98 Mass. 169 ; Mitchell v. Deeds, 
 49 111. 416. 
 
 6 Waldo V. Chicago, S. P., & F. R. Co., 
 14 Wis. 575; Burhop v. Milwaukie, 18 
 Wis. 431 ; McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81 ; 
 Selma, M., & M. R. Co. v. Anderson, 51 
 Miss. 829; Water Valley Man. Co. i). Sea- 
 man, 53 Miss. 655 ; Vreeland v. New Jer- 
 sey Stone Co.,2 Stewart (N. J.), 188; Hen- 
 derson V. San Antonio & M. G. R. Co., 
 17 Tex. 560 ; Davis v. Dumont, 37 Iowa, 
 
 47; Melendy a. Keen, 89 111. 395; Nu- 
 gent V. Cincinnati, H., & I. S. L. R. Co., 
 2 Disney, 302. This last case was a bill in 
 equity to set aside a conveyance of real es- 
 tate made in payment of the subscription. 
 See Burnes v. Pennell, 2 H. L. Cas. 497, 
 530. Lord Brougham : " You must show 
 that there has been some specific fraudu- 
 lent conduct on the part of the directors, 
 some grossly fraudulent conduct, which 
 gave rise to the particular contract in ques- 
 tion." 
 
 8 Central R. Co. of Venezuela v. Kisch, 
 L. R. 2 H. L. 99 ; Heyman v. European 
 Cent. R. Co., L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 154. 
 
 ' Fort Wayne & B. Turnp. Co. v. Deam, 
 10 Ind. 563 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. 
 V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; White Hall & 
 P. R. Co. V. Myers, 16 Abbot Pr. n. s. 34 ; 
 Penobscot R. Co. o. White, 41 Me. 512 ; 
 Goodrich u. Reynolds, 31 111. 490, 497. 
 See Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. u. Hodnett, 
 36 Ga. 669. 
 
 ' Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., 2 
 Stewart (N. J.), 188; Ross v. Estates In- 
 vestment Co., L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 122 ; Hal- 
 lows V. Fernie, L. R. 3 Eq. Cas. 520. 
 
 9 McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81. See At- 
 lanta & W. P. R. Co. «. Hodnett, 36 Ga. 669. 
 
62 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 The subscriber cannot defend on the ground of fraud where he 
 did not rely or act on the statement,^ or it did not result in injury 
 to him,2 or where it declared only opinions instead of facts, or 
 where it declared facts of which the subscriber had means of knowl- 
 edge,^ or where it would not have misled him if he had known 
 the law.* The right to repudiate his subscription on account of 
 fraud must — it being a voidable, and not a void contract — 
 be seasonably exercised,^ especially when asserted against the 
 creditors of the company.^ The subscriber cannot set up in 
 defence a fraud to which he was in law or fact a party.' It may 
 be added that the contract of subscription being in a sense a mut- 
 ual or " trilateral " one, — one involving the subscribers in a com- 
 mon interest and risk, — a subscriber ought not to be allowed this 
 defence where his release would be injurious to other innocent 
 subscribers who may be presumed to have taken or retained an 
 interest in the enterprise, relying on his as on other subscrip- 
 tions.* 
 
 Construction of Written Conditions. — The construction of writ- 
 ten conditions should be reasonable and such as will facilitate the 
 object of the enterprise, and should have regard to a substantial 
 
 1 Burlington, C, R., & M. R. Co. v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L. 325; Tennent 
 Palmer, 42 Iowa, 222 ; Oregon Cent. R. v. City of Glasgow Bank, L. R. 4 App. 
 Co. V. Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161. Cas. 615 ; Houldsworth v. Glasgow Bank, 
 
 2 Branhamu. Record, 42 Ind. 181. See L. R. 5 App. Cas. 317; Stone u. City & 
 Water Valley Man. Co. v. Seaman, 53 County Bank, L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 282. 
 Miss. 655. ' Kishacoquillas & C. Tump. Road Co. 
 
 3 Oregon Cent. R. Co. v. Scoggin, 3 v. McConaby, 16 S. & R. 140 ; Graff v. 
 Oreg. 161; Hughes v. Antietam Man. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489; 
 Co., 34 Md. 816; Conybeare v. New Hays v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 38 Pa. 
 Brunswick & C. R. Co., 1 Giff. Ch. 339, St. 81 ; Southern Plank Road Co. v. 
 9 H. L. Cas. 711. Hixon, 5 Ind. 165; Crocker v. Crane, 
 
 * Selma, M., & M. R. Co. v. Anderson, 21 Wend. 211 ; Clark v. Farrington, 11 
 
 51 Miss. 829; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 Wis. 306; White Mts. R. Co. «.. Eastman, 
 
 U. S. 45; Wight v. Shelby R. Co., 16 34N. H. 124; Minor w. Mechanics' Bank, 
 
 B, Monr. 4. 1 Peters, 46 ; Blodgett v. Morrill, 20. Vt. 
 
 6 Parks V. Evansville, I., & C. S. L. 509. 
 R. Co., 23 Ind. 567 ; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. ^ Qrafl v. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 31 Pa. 
 
 Co , 22 How. 380; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 St. 489 ; Robinson v. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 
 U. S. 45; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; Co., 32 Pa. St. 3.34; Caley v. Phil. & C. 
 
 Upton u.Engelhart, 3 Dill. 496; Farrar County R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363; Miller 
 
 V. Walker, 3 Dill. 506, note ; Central R. v. Hanover Junction R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 95, 
 
 Co. of Venezuela v. Kiach, L. R. 2 H. L. 99 ; Schaeffer v. Mo. Home Ins. Co., 46 Mo. 
 
 99 ; Cunningham v. Edgefield & R. R. Co., 248. The same suggestion applies in favor 
 
 2 Head, 23. of creditors. Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 
 
 6 Upton u. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 ; 22 How. 380 ; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 
 
 Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; Oakes v. 665. 
 
THE CKBATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 63 
 
 compliance with the agreement rather than to a severely literal 
 execution of its terms.' It appearing to be the intent to create 
 a fund to be used for the construction of the road, the condition 
 as to the location and construction will be satisfied when the road 
 has been finally located on the required route, although not as 
 yet constructed.^ If the condition is that the road shall " pass 
 through " or be built in a certain place, it is fulfilled by a per- 
 manent location before actual construction.^ Where the road is 
 to be located within a certain distance from a given point, the 
 distance is to be measured by a direct line, and not by the travelled 
 route.* A condition that the road shall be completed and the 
 cars running to a certain place is complied with by the running 
 of hired cars.^ If the state of the road is such that the cars can 
 be run with reasonable safety and regularity, the condition is 
 complied with although it may not be finished in every par- 
 ticular.® If the road is built by another corporation which has 
 succeeded to the powers of the one to which the subscription 
 was made, the subscriber is holden.'^ Where the construction 
 of a road is a condition, it must be performed within a reason- 
 able time, if no certain period is fixed.^ Proof of the cir- 
 cumstances attending the agreement is admissible to show its 
 meaning.® 
 
 The subscription may be so drawn as to make the promise of 
 the subscriber and the condition obligatory on the company in- 
 dependent stipulations, as where the day fixed for payment may 
 
 1 People V. Holden, 82 III. 93. Co. v. Stout, 26 Ohio St. 241 ; Woon- 
 
 2 McMillan v. Maysville & L. R. Co., Socket Union R. Co. v. Sherman, 8 R. I. 
 15 B. Monr. 218 ; Evansville.I., & C. S. L. 564 ; North Missouri R. Co. «. Winkler, 
 R. Co. ... Meeds, 11 Ind. 273 ; Miller v. 29 Mo. 318. 
 
 Pittsburg & C. R. Co,, 40 Pa. St. 237. For « Cedar Falls & M. R. Co. v. Rich, 33 
 
 other cases as to construction of condi- Iowa, 113; Courtright v. Strickler, 37 
 
 ,tions,seeNashville&N.W.R. Co.i'. Jones, Iowa, 382. See Virginia & T. K. Co. t'. 
 
 2 Cold. 574 ; Branham v. Record, 42 Ind. Lyon County, 6 Nev. 68, 71 ; Stockton R. 
 
 181 ; Iowa Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Blio- Co. v. Stockton, 51 Cal 328. 
 
 benes, 41 Iowa, 267; Taylor w. Cedar Rap- ^ Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503. 
 
 ids & St. P. R. Co., 25 Iowa, 371 ; Jen- « Freeman o. Matlock, 67 Ind. 99 ; 
 
 kins f. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 29 Iowa, Ogden v. Kirby, 79 111. 555. 
 
 255 ; O'Neal v. King, 3 Jones (N. C), 517. ' Detroit, L.,& L. M. R. Co. v. Starnes, 
 
 As to what is " a location," as the term is 38 Mich. 698 ; Mich. M. & C. R. Co. o. 
 
 used in such contracts, see Smith i'. AUi- Bacon, 33 Mich. 466. 
 
 son, 23 Ind. 366; Parker v. Thomas, 28 " Smith y.HoUett, 34 Ind. 519; Stevens 
 
 Ind. 277, 19 Ind. 213. v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. 458. 
 
 » Ashtabula & N. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 15 ' Detroit, L., & L. M. R. Co. v. Starnes, 
 
 Ohio St. 328 ; Warner v. Callender, 20 88 Mich. 698. 
 Ohio St. 190 ; Mansfield, C, & L. M. R. 
 
64 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 happen before the road is built.^ A mere stipulation that the 
 instalments when collected shall be applied in a certain way does 
 not create a condition precedent, as the money itself is required 
 to carry the project into effect.^ In such cases the subscriber 
 will be bound by his subscription, but entitled to the remedies of 
 a stockholder in enforcing a proper application of the amount paid. 
 Whether a condition is a precedent or subsequent one is a ques- 
 tion of intent, to be determined not only by the terms in which 
 it is stated, but by the whole contract.^ 
 
 Irregular or Illegal Action of the Corporation. — Irregularities in 
 the organization and action of a corporation existing de facto, 
 under color of law, or its commission of acts which would justify 
 a forfeiture, are not a defence to a suit upon a subscription. Such 
 matters cannot be inquired into collaterally, but only in a direct 
 proceeding on the part of the State.* A fortiori the subscriber 
 cannot set up irregularities where he has consented to or waived 
 them by his action as stockholder or director,^ or where the State 
 
 1 Fort Edward & Ft. M. Plank Road 
 Co. V. Payne, 17 Barb. 567, 679, 580, 
 15 N. Y. 58.3 ; Henderson & N. R. Co. 
 V. Leavell, 16 B. Monr. 358 ; Chamber- 
 lain V. Painesville & H. R. Co., 15 Ohio 
 St. 225. 
 
 2 New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Pickens, 
 5 Ind. 247 ; New Albany & S. R. Co. v. 
 Fields, 10 Ind. 187 ; Lane v. Brainerd, 30 
 Conn. 565; Miller v. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 Co., 40 Pa. St. 237 ; Traer v. Stuart, 46 
 Iowa, 15. See Milwaukie & N. I. R. Co. 
 V. Field, 12 Wis. 340. 
 
 8 Bucksport & B. R. Co. u. Brewer, 67 
 Me. 295. 
 
 * Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 
 Vt. 465 ; Montpelier & W. R. R. Co. «. 
 Langdon, 46 Vt. 284, 45 Vt. 137 ; Bucks- 
 port & B. R. Co. V. Buck, 68 Me. 81, 66 
 Me. 536; Black River & U. R. Co. v. 
 Clarke, 26 N. Y. 208; Buffalo & A. R. Co. 
 V. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75 ; Cayuga Lake R. Co. 
 V. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185, 6 Thomp. & C. 659; 
 Dorris v. French, 4 Hun, 292; Holyoke 
 Bank v. Goodman Paper Man. Co., 9 
 Gush. 576; City Hotel v. Dickinson, 6 
 Gray, 586; Kishacoquillas & C. Turnp. 
 Road Co. V. McConaby, 16 S. & R. 140 ; 
 Hanover Junction & S. R. Co. v. Halde- 
 man, 82 Pa. St. 86; Chubb v. Upton, 95 
 
 U. S. 665 ; Upton v. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. 
 417 ; Wight v. Shelby R. Co., 16 B. Monr. 
 4; Gill V. Ky. & C. Gold & S. M. Co., 7 
 Bush, 635; Gaff v. Flesher, 33 Ohio St. 
 107 ; Covington, C.,,C., & J. Plank Road 
 Co. V. Moore, 3 Ind. 510 ; Judah v. Ameri- 
 can Live Stock Ins. Co., 4 Ind. 333 ; Stoops 
 V. Greensburgh & B. Plank Road Co., 10 
 Ind. 47 ; Heaston v. Cincinnati & Ft W. R. 
 Co., 16 Ind. 275 ; Brownlee v. Ohio, I., & 
 I. R. Co., 18 Ind. 68 ; Rice v. Rock Isl- 
 and & A. R. Co., 21 111. 93 ; Goodrich v. , 
 Reynolds, 31 111. 490; McCarthy v. La- 
 vasche, 89 III. 270; Dows o. Naper, 91 
 111. 44 ; Swartwout v. Mich. A. L. R. Co., 
 24 Mich. 389 ; Monroe v. Ft. Wayne, J., 
 & S. R. Co., 28 Mich. 272 ; Parker v. 
 Northern Cent. Mich. R., 33 Mich. 23; 
 Kansas City Hotel v. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126 ; 
 Oregon Cent. R. Co. v. Scoggiu, 3 Oreg. 
 161; Booker's Case, 18 Ark. 338; Leh- 
 man V. Warner, 61 Ala. 455. 
 
 5 Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 
 Conn. 435; Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 
 565; Ridgefield & N. Y. R. Co. v. Rey- 
 nolds, 46 Conn. 375; Bucksport & B. R. 
 Co. V. Buck, 68 Me. 81, 65 Me. 536; 
 Schenectady & S. Plank Road Co. v. 
 Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 ; Phoenix Ware- 
 housing Co. V. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 65 
 
 has confirmed the defective proceedings of the corporation. ^ 
 The subscriber admits by his subscription the existence and 
 organization of the corporation. ^ 
 
 Generally the subscriber cannot avail himself of collateral 
 matters in defence, — as, that the board of directors or commis- 
 sioners did not, in distributing stock or in any matter intrusted to 
 their discretion, act impartially and treat all alike ; ^ or that stock- 
 holders have given their proxies to certain parties, or with a cer- 
 tain purpose ; * or that the company has issued preferred stock ; ^ 
 or done business at other places than that fixed by law ; ^ or that 
 its name has been changed by the legislature ; ' or that the arti- 
 cles of association contain an incomplete or defective descrip- 
 tion of the route and termini ; ^ or that the meetings of the 
 corporation have not been legally notified ; ^ or that the election 
 of the directors was not legal ; ^^ or that the corporation or 
 directors have done illegal acts, or acts which are void, as unau- 
 thorized by the charter,ii or mismanaged the corporate business ;^2 
 
 6 Hun, 293; Black River & U. E. Co. 
 I'. Barnard, 31 Barb. 258; McCuUy v. 
 Pittsburg & C. K. Co., 32 Pa. St. 25; 
 Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 ; 
 Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 ; Stone v. 
 Great Western Oil Co., 41 111. 85 ; Corwith 
 V. Culver, 69 111. 502 ; Wheelock v. Kost, 
 77 111. 296; Central Plank Road Co. v. 
 Clemens, 16 Mo. 359 ; Kansas City Hotel 
 Co. V. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126; Clarke v. 
 Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46, 62; Maltby v. 
 Northwestern Va. R. Co., 16 Md. 422; 
 Macon & A. R. Co. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 
 314. 
 
 1 Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cook, 
 29 111. 237 ; Black River & U. R. Co. v. Bar- 
 nard, 31 Barb. 258. 
 
 2 Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; Lail 
 V. Mt. Sterling Coal Road Co., 13 Bush, 
 32; Lehman v. Warner, 61 Ala. 455; 
 Montpelier & W. R. R. Co v. Langdon, 
 46 Vt. 284 ; ante. Chap. I. p. 8. 
 
 8 Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 
 Vt. 465 ; Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211 ; 
 Walker w. Devereaux, 4 Paige, 229 ; Swart- 
 wout V. Mich. A. L. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389. 
 
 * Ryder v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 HI. 
 616. 
 
 5 Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 
 Vt. 536. 
 
 « Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 
 503. 
 
 7 Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Buck, 68 
 Me. 81, 65 Me'. 536. See Mahan u.Wood, 
 44 Cal. 462. 
 
 ' Cayuga Lake R. Co. v. Kyle, 64 
 N. Y. 185, 5 Thomp. & C. 659 ; Boston, 
 B., & G. R. Co. V. Wellington, 113 
 Mass. 79. 
 
 8 Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Buck, 68 
 Me. 81, 65 Me. 536. 
 
 1° Johnson u. Crawfordsville, F. K., & 
 Ft. W. R. Co., 11 Ind. 280; Eakright v. 
 Logansport & N. L R. Co., 13 Ind. 404; 
 Steinmetz v. Versailles & O. Tump. Co., 
 57 Ind. 457. 
 
 " Hays V. Ottawa, O., & F. R. V. R. Co., 
 61 111. 422 ; Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. R. Co. 
 V. Black, 79 111. 262 ; Chetlain v. Republic 
 Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220; Hannibal, R., & 
 P. Plank Road Co. u. Menefee, 25 Mo. 
 547 ; Merrill v. Rearer, 50 Iowa, 404 ; 
 Booker's Case, 18 Ark. 338 ; Mississippi, 
 O., & R.' R. R. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443 ; 
 Miss., 0., & R. R. R. Co. .;. Gaster, 24 
 Ark. 96, 20 Ark. 455. Irregular proceed- 
 ings for consolidation were held to release 
 the subscriber in Tuttle v. Mich. A. L. R. 
 Co., 35 Mich. 247. 
 
 " Hornaday v. Indiana & I. C. R. Co., 9 
 Ind. 263; Chetlain v. Republic Life Ins. 
 Co., 86 111. 220; Merrill v. Reaver, 60 
 Iowa, 404. 
 
66 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 or that the location of the road as filed is defective ; ^ or that its 
 construction did not begin within the time fixed by the charter ; ^ 
 or that there has been delay or even a suspension in prosecut- 
 ing the work ; ^ or that the road has not been completed, and is 
 not likely to be ; * or that there has been a nonuser or misuser of 
 franchises ; ^ or that the corporation has become insolvent ; ^ or 
 even that the enterprise has been finally abandoned where funds 
 are required to pay the corporate debts.^ But requirements 
 essential to the validity of calls must be complied with.^ 
 
 Amendments of the Charter ; Change in the Scheme. — The rela- 
 tion between the shareholder and the company is one of contract, 
 defined in the subscription and in the charter and existing laws 
 applicable thereto. Like the member of a partnership or joint- 
 stock company, he contributes his funds to the common stock for 
 a special purpose ; and a diversion of the same to an enterprise 
 entirely different from the one originally contemplated is a breach 
 of trust, entitling him to equitable remedies.^ It is not, indeed, 
 every change, however formal or immaterial, which is to be 
 regarded as altering his contract with the company, and discharg- 
 ing him from liability upon his subscription. The power of the 
 State to impose police regulations, without having that effect, 
 cannot be questioned. Nor will unimportant changes in the 
 location of its road, or in its organization, when auxiliary to the 
 original purpose and beneficial to the company and the interest 
 of the subscriber, release him from liability on his subscription.^" 
 Such are amendments extending the time for beginning or com- 
 
 1 Boston, B., & G. E. Co. «. Welling- 294, 6 Hun, 293 ; Morgan County v. 
 
 ton, 113 Mass. 79 ; Cayuga Lake R. Co. Thomas, 76 111. 120, 141. Aliter, if noth- 
 
 V. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185, 5 Thomp. & C. 659. ing is done under the charter within the 
 
 ^ Taggart v. Western Md. E. Co., 24 time limited by statute. McCuUy v. Pitts- 
 
 Md. 563. burg & C. E. Co., 82 Pa. St. 25. 
 
 3 Gibson v. Columbia & N. E. Tump. « Spangler ». Indiana & I. C. E. Co., 21 
 
 Co., 18 Ohio St. 396 ; Miller v. Pittsburg 111. 276. An illegal increase of capital 
 
 & C. E. Co., 40 Pa. St. 237. stock was held to be a defence to a note 
 
 < Smith V. Gower, 2 Duvall, 17. given for stock. Merrill v. Gamble, 46 
 
 5 Hammett u. Little Rock & N. E. Co., Iowa, 616; Merrill v. Beayer, 46 Iowa, 
 
 20 Ark. 204 ; Mississippi, 0., & E. E. E. 646. 
 Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443. » Livingston v. Lynch, 4 Johns. Ch. 
 
 « Dill V. Wabash Valley R. Co., 21 111. 573 ; Stevens v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 29 
 
 91 ; Germantown Pass. R. Co. v. Pitler, Vt. 545. 
 
 60 Pa. St. 124 : Henry v. Vermillion & A. i" London & B. E. Co. v. Wilson, 
 
 E. Co., 17 Ohio, 187. 6 Bing. N. C. 135; Midland Great 
 
 ' Hardy v. Merriweather, 14 Ind. 203 ; Western E. Co. «. Gordon, 16 M. & W. 
 
 Bish V. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490 ; Phoenix 804 ; Clark v. Monongahela Nav. Co., 10 
 
 Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. Watts, 364 ; Gray v. Monongahela Nav. 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 67 
 
 pleting the construction of the railroad ; ^ abbreviating the time 
 for notice of calls ; ^ regulating the mode of paj'ment ; ^ extend- 
 ing the duration of the corporation to an inconsiderable degree ; * 
 changing the mode of appointing directors ; ^ transferring to the 
 directors the power to increase the capital stock heretofore exer- 
 cised by the stockholders ; ^ authorizing the issue of preferred 
 stock,'^ or a mortgage of the railroad and other property.^ 
 But where, without the assent of the shareholder, the company 
 procures from the legislature an alteration of its charter, which 
 works a fundamental change in the purpose and business con- 
 templated therein, and superadds to the original undertaking, or 
 substitutes for it, a new and very different undertaking, he may 
 well say, Non hoec in foedera veni. He subscribed to a certain 
 enterprise, defined by the charter and existing law ; and that 
 enterprise having been changed without his assent, he is dis- 
 charged from the obligation of the contract by a breach of the 
 same on the part of the company. The legislative sanction to 
 the alteration cannot divest him of his rights under the con- 
 tract, as the obligation cannot be impaired by the State.^ 
 
 An illustration of such a fundamental change would be the 
 conversion of a corporation for maintaining a railroad into 
 
 Co., 2 W. & S. 156 ; Penn. & O. Canal » Joy v. Jackson & M. Plank Eoad Co., 
 
 Co. V. Webb, 9 Ohio, 136 ; Hartford & 11 Mich. 155. 
 
 N. H. R. Co. V. Croswell, 5 Hill, 383 ; New ^ Hartford & N. H. R. Co. v. Cros- 
 
 Orleans, J., & G. N. R. Co. v. Harris, 27 well, 5 Hill, 383 ; Troy & R. R. Co. v. 
 
 Miss. 517 ; Schenectady & S. Plank Road Kerr, 17 Barb. 581 ; Macedon & B. Plank 
 
 Co. V. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 ; Peoria & Road Co. v. Lapham, 18 Barb. 312 ; Kean 
 
 O. R. Co. V. Elting, 17 111. 429 ; Sprigg v. v. Johnson, 1 Stock. 401 ; New Orleans, 
 
 Western Tel. Co., 46 Md. 67 ; Clearwater J., & G. N. R. Co. v. Harris, 27 Miss. 517 ; 
 
 V. Meredith, 1 Wall. 26. Winter v. Muscogee R. Co., 11 Ga. 438, 
 
 1 Taggartu. Western Md. R. Co., 24 453; Pacific R. Co. i-.Renshaw, 18 Mo. 210; 
 Md. 563. Banet v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 111. 504; 
 
 2 Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 Carlisle v. Terre Haute & R. R. Co., 6 
 111. 654 ; Illinois River E. Co. v. Beers, 27 Ind. 316 ; Fry v. Lexington & B. S. R. Co., 
 111. 185. 2 Met. (Ky.) 314 ; Stevens v. Rutland & B. 
 
 8 Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 R. Co., 29 Vt. 545 ; Everhart .;. Phil. & 
 
 III. 654. W. C. R. Co., 28 Pa. St. 339 ; Southern 
 
 * Union Agricultural & S. Assoc, u. Penn., I., & R. Co. v. Stevens, 87 Pa. St. 
 
 Neill, 31 Iowa, 95. 190. The company has been enjoined 
 
 5 New Haven & D. E. Co. v. Chap- from collecting subscriptions in such a 
 
 man, 38 Conn. 56. case. Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co. v. 
 
 « Payson v. Stoever, 2 Dill. 427 ; East Cook, 29 111. 237. A stockholder whose 
 
 Tenn. & V. E. Co. v. Gammon, 5 Sneed, stock has been forfeited is not relieved 
 
 567. from the payment of a note for his stock 
 
 ' Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 by a material amendment. Mitchell </. 
 
 Vt. 536 ; Everhart v. Phil. & W. C. E. Co., Home R. Co., 17 Ga. 574. 
 28 Pa. St. 339. 
 
68 , THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 one for carrying on the business of banking or manufacturing, 
 or running steamboats exclusively, or for maintaining a rail- 
 road which has an entirely different location, or which runs in 
 an opposite direction from the one originally contemplated.^ So, 
 also, where a party subscribes for stock in a corporation, the 
 division of its railroad into different parts, and the creation of 
 several corporations, each to be the proprietor of a distinct part, 
 releases him from liability, and the subscription cannot be 
 enforced by the new corporations.^ But the mere division of the 
 road into sections, and the apportionment of the subscriptions to 
 the different sections with reference to the residence of sub- 
 scribers, — the unity of the corporation not being disturbed, — does 
 not release the subscriber.^ One corporation cannot recover on 
 a subscription to another, however identical the object, name, or 
 persons who have subscribed.* 
 
 The doctrine that the subscriber is discharged by amendments 
 of the charter was applied at an early day to turnpike and other 
 corporations in which parties were induced to take stock, less as 
 an investment than on account of some convenience or advantage 
 peculiar to themselves. The change in the course of the turn- 
 pike by authority of an amendment to the charter, or of some en- 
 .largement of corporate powers, was held to release the subscriber.^ 
 This doctrine, which was thus applied to enterprises of a nar- 
 
 1 Kenosha, E., & E. I. E. Co. v. Marsh, scription to either of those substituted for 
 17 Wis. 13 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City E. Co. it. 
 
 V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336, 348 ; Sprague v. s Rogg „. Chicago, B., & Q. E. Co., 77 
 
 Illinois Eiver E. Co., 19 111. 174. The lU. 127 ; Illinois Eiver E. Co. v. Zim- 
 
 conversion of a " life and accident " in- mer, 20 III. 654. 
 
 surance company into a " fire, marine, * Thrasher v. Pike County E. Co., 25 
 
 and inland " insurance company, was held 111. 393. But a mere change of name 
 
 to release a subscriber. Ashton v. Bur- does not make a different corporation, 
 
 bank, 2 Dill. 435. See Dorris v. Sweeney, Eacine County Bank v. Ayres, 12 Wis. 
 
 60 N. Y. 463. The legislature cannot 512 ; Milwaukie & N. I. E. Co. v. Field, 
 
 convert a promise to contribute to a 12 Wis. 340. 
 
 specified object into an agreement to take ^ Middlesex Turnp. Co. v. Locke, 8 
 
 stock in a particular corporation. Pitts- Mass. 268 (1811) ; Middlesex Turnp. Co. 
 
 burg & S. E. Co. V. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. v. Swan, 10 Mass. 384 (1813) ; Union 
 
 340. Locks & Canals i;. Towne, 1 N. H. 44 ; 
 
 2 Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. Indiana & E. Turnp. Co. w. Phillips, 2 Pen- 
 676, 21 111. 338 ; Carlisle v. Terre Haute rose & W. 184 ; Mercer County v. Coo- 
 & R. E. Co., 6 Ind. 316; Indiana & E. vert, 6 W. & S. 70; Macedon & B. Plank 
 Turnp. Co. v. Phillips, 2 Penrose & W. Eoad Co. v. Lapham, 18 Barb. 312 ; Fre- 
 184. In Marsh v. Fulton County, the mont Ferry & B. Co. o. Fuhrman, 8 Neb. 
 defendant county had voted a subscrip- 99. But see Irvin u. Turnpike Co., 2 
 tion to the original corporation, which, it Penrose & W. 466 ; Gray v. Mononga- 
 was held, could not take effect as a sub- hela Nav. Co., 2 W. & S. 156. 
 
THE CKEATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 69 
 
 row scope, and before the law of corporations had been devel- 
 oped, was held to be a good defence when first set up by the 
 subscribers to stock in railroad corporations. Thus, in the ear- 
 liest case in which a subscriber for such stock maintained this 
 defence, it was held that he was released where the corporation 
 procured an amendment authorizing it to purchase and hold 
 steamboats, to be used in connection with its railroad, and to in- 
 crease its capital stock for the purpose, thus making a longer line 
 of transportation than that fixed by the termini of the railroad. It 
 was considered that a radical change or alteration in the charter, 
 admitting new and additional objects and responsibilities, could 
 not bind dissenting subscribers, and that the amendment in ques- 
 tion had superadded a new and very different enterprise to the 
 original undertaking. ^ 
 
 The vexed question as to the effect of amendments, which have 
 been accepted by the corporation, upon the liability of subscribers 
 most frequently occurs in the case of changes in route or termini, 
 or the extension or shortening of the line, or the merger of the 
 corporation in a new corporation, or a sale of the railroad and 
 franchise ; and here the authorities are in an irreconcilable con- 
 flict. Thus it has been held, following the early cases already 
 referred to, that a substantial change of route, so as to remove 
 the enterprise from a county which was a part of. the contem- 
 plated route,^ or a substantial change of the termini,^ the exten- 
 sion of the line by the construction of a material addition, or by 
 transportation by water,* a large increase of the capital stock,* 
 the sale of the railroad,^ or a consolidation with another corpora- 
 tion,^ — ' each change being made under the authority of an 
 amendatory act, — released the subscriber. But, on the other 
 
 1 Hartford & N. H. R. Co. w. Croswell, « South Georgia & F. R. Co. v. Ayres, 
 5 Hill, 383 (1843). 56 Ga. 230. In New Orleans, J., & G. N. 
 
 2 Hester v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 32 R. Co. v. Harris, 27 Miss. 517, it was held 
 Miss. 378 ; Champion v. Memphis & C. R. that the sale authorized by an amenda- 
 Co., 36 Miss. 692 ; Witter v. Miss., 0., & tory act which was accepted by the cor- 
 R R. R. Co., 20 Ark. 463 ; Buffalo, C, & poration was void, and, notwithstanding 
 N. Y. R. Co. V. Pottle, 23 Barb. 21. his assent to it, he did not become liable 
 
 ' Manheim P. & L. Tump. Co. v. to the purchasing corporation, but re- 
 
 Arndt, 31 Pa. St. 317 ; Winter v. Musco- mained liable to the one for whose stock 
 
 gee R. Co., 11 Ga. 438. he had subscribed. 
 
 * Marietta & C. R. Co. v. Elliott, 10 ' McCray v. Junction R. Co., 9 Ind. 
 
 Ohio St. 57 ; Hartford & N. H. R. Co. v. 358, 359 ; Booe v. Junction R. Co., 10 
 
 Croswell, 5 Hill, 383 ; Macedon & B. Plank Ind. 93 ; New Jersey Midland R. Co. v. 
 
 Road Co. V. Lapham, 18 Barb. 812. Strait, 6 Vroom, 322 ; Clearwater v. 
 
 5 Hughes V. Anlietam Man. Co., 34 Meredith, 1 Wall. 25. 
 Md. 316. 
 
70 THE LAW OP RAILEOADS. 
 
 hand, it has been held, even in jurisdictions where the general 
 doctrine that fundamental amendments release a subscriber is 
 accepted, that such changes as the following, when auxiliary to 
 and promotive of the original scheme, did not release him ; as, 
 subscriptions for the stock of other companies,^ the substitu- 
 tion of water transportation for a part of the Hne,^ the reduc- 
 tion of the length of the road,^ changes of termini and route to 
 the extent of several miles, and a deviation from the county 
 where the subscriber lived, or was interested in real estate,* the 
 building of branches and extensions,^ and consolidations with 
 companies which were the owners of connecting or intersecting 
 railroads.® 
 
 The impracticability of drawing any definite line between 
 amendments which are fundamental, and could not have been 
 contemplated by a subscriber at the time he entered into the 
 contract, and those which are merely auxiliary to the purpose of 
 the corporation as defined by the charter, is confessed by the tri- 
 bunals which have held a radical departure from that purpose to 
 be a defence ; and the view is taken that each case must be de- 
 termined by its own circumstancesJ 
 
 A subscriber is not released, even by a material amendment, 
 where he is not injured by it ; as where it has not been acted 
 upon,^ or wh.ere the corporation has been permanently enjoined 
 from using the powers conferred by it.® So, also, he is not re- 
 leased where he has himself expressly or by his acts assented to 
 the changes or acquiesced in them.^" 
 
 1 Terre Haute & A. R. Co. v. Earp, 21 ' Hester v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 32 
 111. 291. Miss. 378 ; Champion v. Memphis & C. R. 
 
 2 Midland G. W. R. Co. v. Gordon, 16 Co., 35 Miss. 692. 
 
 M. & W. 804. 8 Fry „. Lexington & B. S. R. Co., 2 
 
 8 Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 Vt. Met. (Ky.) 314 ; Hawkins v. Miss. & T. R. 
 
 465, 479. Co., 35 Miss. 688 ; Johnson v. Pensacola 
 
 * Banet ». Alton & S. R. Co., 13 111. & G. R. Co., 9 Fla. 299 ; Booker's Case, 
 
 504 ; Delaware R. Co. v. Tharp, 1 Houst. 18 Ark. 338. 
 
 149 ; Johnson v. Pensacola & G. R. Co., » Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 
 
 9 Fla. 299; Central Plank Road Co. o. 536. 
 
 Clemens, 16 Mo. 359. lo Hay worth v. Junction R. Co., 13 Ind. 
 
 6 Greenville & C. R. Co, v. Coleman, 5 348 ; Witter v. Miss., O., & R. R. R. Co., 
 
 Rich. 118 ; Peoria & R. I. R. Co. v. Pres- 20 Ark. 463 ; Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser, 
 
 ton, 35 Iowa, 115 ; Rice v. Rock Island 48 Pa. St. 29 ; North Carolina R. Co. v. 
 
 & A. R. Co., 21. 111. 93. Leach, 4 Jones, 340 ; Martin v. Pensacola 
 
 » Sprague v. Illinois River R. Co., 19 & G. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370; May v. Memphis 
 
 111. 174 ; Hanna v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. R. B. R. Co., 48 Ga. 109 ; Memphis Branch 
 
 Co., 20 Ind. 30. But see TutUe v. Mich. R. Co. v. SuUiva-n, 57 Ga. 240 ; Payson v. 
 
 A. L. E. Co., 35 Mich. 247. Stoever, 2 Dill. 427 ; Mowrey v. Indian- 
 
THE CREATION OP THE CAPITAL STOCK. 71 
 
 A subscriber is not released by corporate action, although 
 fundamental, which is authorized by laws existing when the 
 subscription was made, and presumably entering into the 
 contract. Thus, if such laws authorized a consolidation with 
 other corporations or an alteration in the route, the execution 
 of the authority does not release the subscriber.^ The same 
 rule applies where the change is authorized by the subscription 
 itself.2 
 
 A reservation of legislative power to alter or amend the char- 
 ter contained in the charter itself, or some prior general law, 
 enters into the contract of subscription ; and a person who takes 
 stock in view of such a reservation assents in advance to such 
 alterations and amendments as may be made in pursuance 
 thereof. Thus, where this power is reserved, the subscriber is not 
 released by the increase or reduction of the capital stock,^ sub- 
 scriptions to the capital stock of other corporations,* the exten- 
 sion of the railroad,^ the construction of branches,^ the sale or 
 lease of the road,' consolidations with other corporations,^ a new 
 organization under an amended or substituted charter,^ the in- 
 crease of the liability of stockholders,^" the extension of the time 
 
 apolis & C. R. Co., 4 Biss. 78 ; Booker's Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 ; Buffalo & N. Y. 
 
 Case, 18 Ark. 338 ; Chetlain v. liepub- City R. Co. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Troy 
 
 lie Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220. & R. R Co. v. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581 ; Moore v. 
 
 1 Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241 ; Hudson River R. Co., 12 Barb. 156 ; White 
 East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. 801 ; Hall & P. R. Co. v. Myers, 16 Abbott Pr. 
 Colvin V. Liberty & A. Turnp. Co., 2 Ind. n. s. 84 ; Pacific R. Co. v. Hughes, 22 Mo. 
 511 ; Railsback v. Liberty & A. Turnp 291. 
 
 Co., 2 Ind. 656 ; Sparrow v. Evansville & * White v. Syracuse & U. R. Co., 14 
 
 C. R. Co., 7 Ind. 369 ; Bish v. Johnson, 21 Barb. 569. 
 
 Ind. 299 ; Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 420; ' Pacific R. Co. v. Renshaw, 18 Mo. 
 
 Fry !,•. Lexington & B. S. K. Co., 2 Met. 210 ; Pacific R. Co. v. Hughes, 22 Mo. 
 
 (Ky.) 314 ; Newhall v. Galena & C. U. R. 291 ; Durfee v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 
 
 Co., 14 III. 273 ; Hays v. Ottawa, 0., & F. 5 Allen, 230. 
 
 R. V. R. Co., 61 111. 422; Ottawa, 0., & « Schenectady & S. Plank Road Co. 
 
 F. R. V. R. Co. u. Black, 79 111. 262; v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102; Buffalo & 
 
 Mowrey v. Indianapolis & C. E. Co., 4 N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 
 
 Biss. 78 ; Maeedon & B. Plank Road Co. v. 336 ; Northern R. Co. u. Miller, 10 Barb. 
 
 Lapham, 18 Barb. 312 ; Danbury & N. R. 260. 
 
 Co. V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435; East Tenn. ' Troy & R. R. Co. ^. Kerr, 17 Barb. 
 
 & V. R. Co. V. Gammon, 5 Sneed, 567 ; 581 ; post, Chap. XVII. p. 458. 
 
 Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. White, 5 ' Bishop v. Brainerd, 28 Conn. 289 ; 
 
 Iowa, 409. Smith v. Boston & M. R., 6 Allen, 262, 
 
 2 Cork & Y. R. Co. v. Paterson, 16 C. B. 275 ; Scotland v. Thomas, 94 U. S. 682. 
 414 ; Nixon v. Brownlow, 2 H. & N. 465, » Sprigg v. Western Tel. Co., 46 Md. 
 3 H. & N. 686. See Illinois River R. Co. v. 67. 
 
 Beers, 27 111. 185. ^^ Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray, 30 Me. 
 
 3 Schenectady & S. Plank Road Co. v. 547. 
 
72 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 for completing the railroad,i or other similar changes, made under 
 the authority of amendatory acts. 
 
 The doctrine, that the legislative reservation of power to amend 
 the charter requires the subscriber to submit to such amendments 
 as may be afterwards made in pursuance thereof, is usually stated 
 with a qualification. It does not, as commonly defined, justify 
 such radical and fundamental changes as divert the corporation 
 from its original purpose, or work a revolution in its character and 
 objects.^ A subscriber, it has been held, is, notwithstanding the 
 reservation, released by an extension and consolidation under 
 legislative authority, which practically substitutes a new enter- 
 prise for the original one.^ The reserved power cannot be used 
 to impair the obligation of contracts with third parties, or to 
 destroy vested rights.* 
 
 The motives and inducements peculiar to a subscriber — those, 
 for instance, arising from his place of living, or from the nearness 
 of his property to the railroad — have been pressed in his defence 
 where changes in the enterprise have made it in these respects 
 less attractive and beneficial to him ; but the better view is that 
 the investment is to be conclusively presumed to have been made 
 with reference to general considerations common to all subscribers, 
 such as expected profits from the enterprise, and public conven- 
 ience, and not_ with reference to incidental or local advantages, 
 which might influence one and not another.^ 
 
 The doctrine that a subscriber may resist payment of his sub- 
 scription by setting up material alterations in the scheme de- 
 scribed in the charter has not proved satisfactory in practice to 
 
 1 Agricultural Branch R. Co. v. Win- 17 Wis. 13; Noeseh v. Port Washington, 
 Chester, 13 Allen, 29 ; Poughkeepsie & S. 37 Wis. 168 ; Perkins v. Port Washing- 
 P. Plank Road Co. v. Griffin, 24 N. Y. ton, 37 Wis. 177; Zabriskie v. Hacken- 
 150; Bailey v. HoUister, 26 N. Y. 112. sack & N. Y. R. Co., 3 C. E. Green, 
 But the granting and use of such a power 178. 
 
 is not a fundamental change which re- * New Haven & D. R. Co. v. Chap- 
 leases a subscriber, even where there is man, 38 Conn. 56 ; Durfee v. Old Colony 
 no reserved power of amendment. & P. R. R. Co., 5 Allen. 230, 247 ; Car- 
 
 2 Durfee v. Old Colony & P. R. R. Co., lisle v. Terre Haute & R. R. Co., 6 Ind. 
 
 5 Allen, 230, 247 ; Northern R. Co. v. 316. 
 
 Miller, 10 Barb, 260 ; Schenectady & S. 5 jrvin !•. Turnp. Co., 2 Penrose & W. 
 
 Plank Road Co. «. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 466 ; Banet v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 111. 
 
 102 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dud- 504 ; Sprague v. Illinois River R. Co., 19 
 
 ley, 14 N. Y. 336, 348 ; Newhall v. Galena 111. 174 ; Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 
 
 6 C. U. R. Co., 14 111. 273 ; Booe v. June- 20 111. 654 ; Fry t>. Lexington & B. S. R. 
 tion R. Co., 10 Ind. 93 ; post, p. 459. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 314 ; Delaware R. Co. v. 
 
 8 Kenosha, R., & R. I. R. Co. v. Marsh, Tharp, 1 Houst. 149. 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 73 
 
 the judicial mind, and it has rarely availed him as a defence. 
 The express contract, it may be noted, is merely for the pay- 
 ment of a certain sum for a certain interest in the corporation, 
 and it is one which amendments do not directly disturb.^ The 
 doctrine in question imports into the contract a condition which 
 the parties did not see fit to express in it, and admits, against the 
 general rule, inquiry into collateral matters. If the changes are 
 legal, — that is, authorized by a statute which is itself constitu- 
 tional, • — the subscriber is to be presumed to have contemplated 
 them when he subscribed ; and if they are not legal, he has the 
 stockholder's remedy in equity to prevent them by an injunction.^ 
 This view applies to corporate investments generally, and it 
 applies peculiarly to railroad enterprises which involve large pub- 
 lic interests, and which naturally and wisely develop from local 
 highways to extended lines of communication.^ 
 
 What alterations in the charter and business of the company 
 are a violation of the rights of a stockholder has been determined 
 in cases where he has sought from a court of equity an injunction 
 against the use of the corporate funds for purposes not contem- 
 plated in the original scheme. He is entitled to this remedy 
 where the corporation commits a breach of trust by applying its 
 funds to works not authorized by statute, or to works which a 
 statute a'ssumes to authorize in violation of the provision of the 
 national Constitution for the protection of contracts. Thus, an 
 amendatory act authorizing the extension of a railroad, of about 
 a hundred miles in length, to the extent of thirty additional miles, 
 was held a fundamental alteration of the charter, and the com- 
 pany was enjoined at the suit of a stockholder from applying its 
 general funds, which were contributed before the amendment, 
 to the extension authorized by it.* An injunction has been 
 
 1 Gray v. Monongahela Nav. Co., 2 " Pacific R. Co, v. Hughes, 22 Mo. 
 W. & S. 156; Delaware R. Co. v. Tharp, 291; New Haven & D.,R. Co. «. Chap- 
 1 Houst. 149. man, 38 Conn. 56 ; Ffooks v. South West- 
 
 2 Haysu. Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. R. em .R. Co., 1 Sraale & G. 142, 162. 
 Co., 61 111. 422 ; Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. The character of railroad corporations in 
 R. Co. V. Black, 79 111. 262 ; Pacific R. this regard is intelligently treated in two 
 Co. V. Hughes, 22 Mo. 291 ; North Carolina well-reasoned cases in Illinois. Banet v. 
 R. Co. V. Leach, 4 Jones (N. C), 340; Alton & S. R. Co., 13 III. 504; Sprague 
 Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 420, 430. In v. Illinois River R. Co., 19 HI. 174. 
 South Georgia & F. R. Co. v. Ayres, 56 Ga. * Stevens a. Rutland & B. R. Co., 29 
 230, the subscriber was held to be re- Vt. 645 ; Chapman v. Mad River & L. 
 leased by illegal proceedings for consoli- E. R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 119. 
 
 dation. 
 
74 THE LAW OF EAILBOADS. 
 
 granted at the suit of a stockholder, to prevent a sale of the 
 road, or a consolidation of the corporation with other corpora- 
 tions.i But the right to this remedy may be lost by assent to 
 the change, or by acquiescence or unreasonable delay; ^ and it 
 is available only to those who have complied with the terms of 
 their subscription.^ The company, while being enjoined from 
 using its original funds for the new and different undertak- 
 ing, has been allowed to apply to it any new funds obtained 
 for the specific purpose.* The State may also, in the exercise of 
 its right of eminent domain, condemn a stockholder's shares, 
 and authorize sales and consolidations which would otherwise be 
 unconstitutional, by requiring the corporation to pay to dissent- 
 ing stockholders the market value of their shares.^ If a right 
 to amend the charter is reserved, a stockholder is not entitled 
 to an injunction to prevent extensions and consolidations, at least 
 where they do not amount to an undertaking different in kind 
 from that originally authorized.^ 
 
 Calls and Assessments. — The conditions which the Statute pre- 
 scribes, as precedent to the collection of the subscriptions, must 
 be complied with. Thus, the formal action of the directors or 
 stockholders directing a call to be made, and perhaps also ap-' 
 pointing a time and place of payment, may be required' in order 
 to fix the subscriber's liability^ Several calls may be made by 
 one vote .8 If a vote of three-fourths of the stockholders is 
 essential to a call, the subscriber will not be liable, without such 
 a vote, to an action brought by the trustees in bankruptcy.® 
 
 The company cannot make assessments to an amount beyond 
 the limit fixed by the charter. i" The directors cannot, unless 
 
 1 Kean v. Johnson, 1 Stock. 401 ; 297 ; Price v. Grand Rapids & I. E. Co., 18 
 
 Mowrey v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 4 Ind. 137 ; Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 
 Biss. 78. But see Lauman v. Lebanon son, 22 Conn. 435, 454 ; Rutland & B. R. 
 
 Valley R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 42. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 ; Penobscot R. 
 
 ^ See post, chapter on Coepokate Co. i^. White, 41 Me. 512 ; Hays v. Pitts- 
 
 PowERS. burg & S. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 81 ; Louis- 
 
 ' Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15. iana Paper Co. v. Waples, 3 Woods, 
 
 * Stevens v. Rutland & B. B. Co., 29 34. 
 
 Vt. 545. 8 Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 85 
 
 5 Black V. Delaware & R. Canal Co., Vt. 536 ; Penobscot R. Co. v. Dummer, 
 
 9 C. E. Green, 455, 7 C. E. Green, 130. 40 Me. 172. 
 
 « Durfee v. Old Colony & F. R. R. » Louisiana Paper Co. v. Waples, 3 
 
 Co., 5 Allen, 230. Woods, 34. 
 
 ' Banet v. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 III. 1° Great Falls & C. E. Co. v. Copp, 38 
 
 504; Ross v. Lafayette & L R. Co., 6 Ind. N. H. 124. 
 
THE OEEATION OP THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 75' 
 
 authorized by statute, increase the capital stock.^ Where the 
 directors are authorized to make the assessment, a majority must 
 act in directing it and determining the amount. The power 
 involves the exercise of judgment and discretion, and cannot be 
 delegated.^ . 
 
 Payment, Modes of. — The subscriptions should be paid in 
 money, unless the statute otherwise provides, as this mode of 
 payment alone secures equality of contribution among subscribers.^ 
 A check payable in prcesenti, and drawn on funds actually on 
 deposit, is treated as the equivalent of cash.* But payment in 
 other modes has been recognized as a proper satisfaction of the 
 subscription : as, promissory notes or bonds of the subscriber, 
 secured by mortgage,^ or even unsecured;^ the stock of other 
 corporations,'' and even other stock of the corporation for the 
 capital stock of which the subscription was made ; ^ real estate ; ^ 
 labor and materials, particularly such as are used in the construc- 
 tion of the raikoiad ; i" damages for land taken by the company, 
 
 1 Chicago City R. Co. u. AUerton, 18 
 Wall. 233; Eidman u. Bowman, 58 111. 
 444. 
 
 2 Monmouth Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Low- 
 ■ell, 59 Me. 504 ; Pike v. Bangor & C. S. L. 
 
 E. Co., 68 Me. 445 ; Silver Hook Road v. 
 Greene, 12 R. 1. 164 ; ante, Chap. II. p. 34. 
 
 ' Neuse River Nav. Co. v. Newbern, 
 7 Jones (N. C), 275 ; Barnes v. Brown, 
 11 Hun, 315, 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 227 ; 
 Tasker u. Wallace, 6 Daly, 364; Knowl- 
 ton V. Congress & E. S. Co., 67 N. Y. 518, 
 642 ; Henry v. Vermillion & A. R. Co., 17 
 Ohio, 187 ; Cleland's Case, L. R. 14 Eq. 
 Cas. 887. See Beach u. Smith, 30 N. Y. 
 116, 28 Barb. 254. 
 
 * People V. Stockton & V. R. Co., 46 
 Cal. 306. 
 
 5 Clark 0. Farrington, 11 Wis. 306; 
 Blunt V. Walker, 11 Wis. 334 ; Cornell v. 
 Hichens, 11 Wis. 353; Waldo v. Chicago, 
 St. P., & F. R. Co., 14 Wis. 575 ; Lyon 
 V. Ewings, 17 Wis. 61 ; Andrews v. Hart, 
 17 Wis. 297 ; Western Bank v. Tallman, 
 17 Wis. 530; Cincinnati, I., & C. R. Co. v. 
 Clarkson, 7 Ind. 595; Hardy v. Merry- 
 weather, 14 Ind. 203 ; State v. Bailey, 16 
 Ind. 46 ; Carr v. LeFevre, 27 Pa. St. 413; 
 Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cook, 29 
 111. 237. 
 
 8 Goodrich v. Wilder, 31 111. 490 ; Ver- 
 mont Cent. R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30 ; 
 
 Greenville & C. R. Co. v. Woodsides, 5 
 Rich. 145. See Nutter v. Lexington & 
 W. C. R. Co., 6 Gray, 85. 
 
 7 East New York & J. R. Co. «. Light- 
 hall, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 407 ; Swatara R. Co. 
 V. Brune, 6 Gill, 41. Stock was paid for 
 in " Confederate bonds " in Mercantile 
 Trading Co., In re, L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 131. 
 
 8 City Bank of Columbus b. Bruce, 17 
 N. Y. 507 ; Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 
 56 N. H. 262. 
 
 ° Cincinnati, I., & C. R. Co. v. Clarkson, 
 7 Ind. 595; Junction R. Co. </. Reeve, 
 15 Ind. 236; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 
 46; Goodin v. Evans, 18 Ohio St 
 150 ; Osgood v. King, 42 Iowa, 478 ; Bag- 
 Ian Hall Colliery Co., In re, L. R. 5 Ch. 
 App. 346 ; Spargo's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 
 407 ; Limehouse Works Co., In re, L. R. 
 17 Eq. Cas. 169. 
 
 10 Haywood & P. Plank Road Co. v. 
 Bryan, 6 Jones (N. C), 82 ; Ohio, I, & I. 
 R. Co. V. Cramer, 23 Ind. 490 ; Phil. & 
 W. C. R. Co. V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 
 318; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Stewart, 41 
 Pa. St. 54; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Thompson, 18 B. Monr. 735 ; Phillips v. 
 Covington & C. Bridge Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 
 219; Eppes u. Miss., G., & T. R. Co., S5 
 Ala. 38 ; Van Cott v. Van Brunt, 2 Ab- 
 bott N. C. 288; Ridgefield & N. Y. R. Co. 
 V. Brush, 43 Conn. 86 ; Boody v. Rut. & 
 
76 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 or any legal liability incurred by it ; ^ but the assignment of 
 patent-rights, of unascertained value, is not a proper payment.^ 
 The directors cannot, in fraud of creditors, put a value on prop- 
 erty, so received in payment, in excess of its known real value.^ 
 The payment should be real and bona fide, and"not i;ctitious and 
 simulated ; * but its validity will not, in the absence of fraud, be 
 . affected by a subsequent depreciation in the value of the prop- 
 erty received in payment.* The authority to receive payment 
 otherwise than in money is sometimes expressly given by stat- 
 ute.® In Pennsylvania, the commissioners appointed to receive 
 subscriptions can take payment only in cash, but this restriction 
 does not apply to the corporation when fully organized.'^ Where 
 the subscriber makes default in his agreement to pay in mate- 
 rials, he becomes liable for the, amount in money .^ If he has his 
 election whether to pay in money or some equivalent, a suit can- 
 not be maintained against him for the amount of his subscrip- 
 tion, until he has had an opportunity to elect.^ Payment by 
 instalments cannot be enforced in the case of subscriptions pay- 
 able in work and materials.^" 
 
 The company cannot lawfully issue shares to subscribers on 
 the payment of less than their par value ; and th;s restriction 
 has been applied also to the issue of bonds convertible into stock.^^ 
 But it may, when it becomes after an original issue the owner of 
 its own stock by purchase or forfeiture, sell the same like any 
 other owner.i^ 
 
 Compromises; Settlements in Fraud of Creditors and Stock- 
 holders. — The company may, in good faith, and when not insol- 
 
 B. E. Co., 24 Vt. 660 ; Cabot & W. S. ' Ante, p. 50, cases cited in note 2. 
 Bridge Co. v. Chapin, 6 Cush. 50 ; Boston, ^ Haywood & P. Planli Road Co. v. 
 
 B., & G. R.Co. V. Wellington, 113 Mass. Bryan, 6 Jones (N. C), 82; Hay worth ». 
 
 79 ; Ashuelot Boot & Shoe Co. v. Hoit, 56 Junction R. Co., 13 Ind. 348. 
 N. H. 548-558. " Eppes v. Mississippi, G., & T. R. Co., 
 
 1 Phil. & W. C. R. Co. V. Hickman, 35 Ala. 33. 
 
 28 Pa. St. 318. w Ohio, I., & L R. Co. v. Cramer, 23 
 
 2 Tasker v, Wallace, 6 Daly, 364. Ind. 490. 
 
 ' Osgbod V. King, 42 Iowa, 478; " Sturges u. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246; Fos- 
 
 Boynton xi. Hatch, 47 N. Y. 225 ; dick w. Sturges, 1 Biss. 255 ; Putnam v. 
 
 Schenck v. Andrews, 57 N. Y. 133 ; Van New Albany, 4 Biss. 365 ; Sawyer u. 
 
 Cott V. Van Brunt, 2 Abbott N. C. 283. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 ; Knowlton v. Con- 
 
 * Sawyer u. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 ; gress & E. S. Co., 57 N.Y. 518, 542 ; Fisk 
 
 Boynton v. Hatch, 47 N. Y.226. v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 63 Barb. 
 
 5 Protection Life Ins. Co. v. Osgood, 513 ; Neuse River Nav. Co. v. Newbern, 
 
 93 111.69. 7 Jones (N. C), 275. 
 
 » Dayton & C. R. Co. v. Hatch, 1 Dis- i" Otter v. Brevoort Petroleum Co., 50 
 
 ney, 84 ; Goodin v. Evans, 18 Ohio St. 150. Barb. 247. 
 
THE CREATION OP THE CAPITAL STOCK. 77 
 
 vent, compromise disputes with subscribers, and release a part of 
 the amount subscribed in order to secure the residue.^ But 
 agreements made by the directors with a subscriber, which re- 
 lease him from liability upon his subscription, or are otherwise 
 contrary to the equal rights and obligations of stockholders, or 
 woi'k a fraud upon the creditors of the corporation, are void.^ 
 
 Statute of Limitations. — The Statute of Limitations begins to 
 run on calls from the time they are duly made.^ It has been 
 held to bar the right to enforce the subscription where no call 
 has been made within the statute period of limitation for suits on 
 contracts.* But where a subscriber has retained in his possession 
 the book containing the subscription, the statute does not begin to 
 run till he has delivered it to the company.^ A subscriber is not 
 entitled to a certificate of stock, without payment of all caUs, 
 including those barred by the statute.^ 
 
 Proof of Subscriptions. — The records of the company are com- 
 petent and prima facie evidence in suits against subscribers whose 
 subscriptions have been otherwise proved, to prove the subscrip- 
 tion of the required number of shares and other proceedings 
 necessary to the making of assessments.'^ Signatures are proved 
 
 1 Phil. & W. C. R. Co. V. Hickman, 28 Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489 ; 
 Pa. St. .318; Miller v. Second Jefferson Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29; 
 Building Assoc, 50 Pa. St. 32 ; Macon & Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 
 A. R. Co. V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314. See 587, 601 ; Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 
 Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 ; New 56 N. H. 262 ; Hughes v. Antietam Man. 
 Albany v. Burke, 11 Wall. 96 ; Cooper v. Co., 34 Md. 316. 
 
 Frederick, 9 Ala. 738 ; Penobscot & K. R. 3 Gibson v. Columbia & N. R. Turnp. & 
 Co. V. Dunn, 39 Me. 587, 601 ; Gelpcke v. B. Co., 18 Ohio St. 896 ; Taggart v. 
 Blake, 19 Iowa, 263 ; Putnam v. New Western Md. R. Co., 24 Md. 563 ; West- 
 Albany, 4 Biss. 365 ; Bedford R. Co. v. em R. Co. v. Avery, 64 N. C. 491. 
 Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 ; Adamson's Case, * Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Byers, 32 
 L. R. 18 Eq. Cas. 670 ; Bath's Case, L. R. Pa. St. 22 ; McCully v. Pittsburg &-C. R. 
 
 8 Ch. Div. 334 ; Kepling v. Todd, L. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 25 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. 
 3 C. P. Div. 350. V. Graham, 36 Pa. St. 77. 
 
 2 Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178 ; Mann ^ Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Plummer, 
 V. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch. 257 ; Mann v. 37 Pa. St. 413. 
 
 Currie, 2 Barb. 294 ; Nathan v. Whitlock, « Johnson v. Albany & S. E. Co., 54 N. 
 
 9 Paige, 152 ; Tuckerman v. Brown, 33 Y. 416. 
 
 N. Y. 297 ; Burke v Smith, 16 Wall. 390 ; ' White Mts. R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. 
 
 Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610; Upton v. H. 124; Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 
 
 Tribilcock, 91 U S 45 ; Bachman's Case, 39 Me. 587 ; Penobscot R. Co.u. Dummer, 
 
 12 Nat. Bank. Reg. 223; Chandler v. 40 Me. 172 ; Penobscot R. Co. w. White, 41 
 
 Brown, 77 111. 333 ; Zirkel v. Joliet Opera Me. 512 ; Marlborough Branch R. Co. u. 
 
 House Co , 79 111. 334 ; Melvin v. Lamar Arnold, 9 Gray, 159 ; Woonsocket Union 
 
 Ins. Co., 80 111. 446 ; Swartwout v. Mich. R. Co. o. Sherman, 8 R. I. 564 ; Lane v. 
 
 A. L. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389 ; Graff v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. 565 ; Ryder v. Alton 
 
78 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 by the admissions of the parties, or the testimony of persons who 
 were present when they were made.'' 
 
 Demand and Notice. — Demand of payment of calls, or notice of 
 time and place for payment, need not precede a suit against the 
 subscriber, unless prescribed by statute.^ Nor is any demand 
 required where the time of payment is fixed by the agreement.^ 
 A demand by personal notice or by publication, when prescribed 
 by statute, must be made ; * and when so prescribed, should be 
 averred in the declaration to have been made.^ When a notice by 
 publication is required, the mode has been held directory, and sat- 
 isfied by personal notice.® If the mode is not prescribed, notice 
 by publication is sufBcient.^ The requirement may be waived by 
 the subscriber.^ The omission to give a notice of assessments to 
 the governor of the State, as required by statute, cannot be 
 
 & S. R. Co., 13 111. 516 ; Culver v. Third 
 Nat. Bank, 64 111. 528 ; Dows v. Naper, 91 
 111. 44 ; Bavington v. Pittsburg & S. E. 
 Co., 34 Pa. St. 358 ; Bedford R. Co. v. 
 Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 ; Breedlove v. Mar- 
 tinsville & P. E. Co., 12 Ind. 114; Macon 
 & A. E. Co. V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314. See 
 Partridge i'. Badger, 25 Barb. 146. In 
 Chase v. Sycamore & C. E. Co., 38 111. 
 215, they were held not admissible against 
 parties subscribing on conditions which 
 have not been performed. On proof of 
 loss of books and original subscription 
 papers, parol evidence is admissible. Graff 
 V. Pittsburg & S. E. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489 ; 
 Hays V. Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 
 81 ; Indianapolis & C. E. Co. v. Jewett, 
 16 Ind. 273, 10 Ind. 539. 
 
 1 Phil. & W. C. R. Co. V. Hickman, 28 
 Pa. St. 818, 328. Subscriptions are not 
 to be proved by mere records. Mudgett 
 V. Morrell, 33 Cal. 25. 
 
 2 New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Pickens, 
 5 Ind. 247; Ross v. Lafayette & I. R. 
 Co., 6 Ind. 297 ; New Albany & S. R. Co. 
 V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499 ; Johnson v. 
 Crawfordsville R. Co., 11 Ind. 280 ; Smith 
 V. Indiana & L R. Co., 12 Ind. 61 ; Breed- 
 love V. Martinsville & F. R. Co., 12 Ind. 
 114; Eakright D. Logansport & N. I. E. 
 Co., 13 Ind. 404 ; Brownlee v. Ohio, I., & L 
 E. Co., 18 Ind. 68 ; Lake Ontario, A., & 
 N. Y. R. Co. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 ; 
 Eppes V. Miss., G., & T. E. Co., 35 Ala. 
 83; Macon & A. R. Co. v. Vason, 57 
 Ga. 314; Penobscot E. Co. v. Dummer, 
 
 40 Me. 172 ; Hughes v. Antietam Man. Co., 
 
 34 Md. 316. Contra, Alabama & F. 
 R. Co. u. Rowley, 9 Fla. 508. A de- 
 mand has been held necessary where the 
 subscription is payable in work and mate- 
 rials. Ohio, I., & I. R. Co. V. Cramer, 23 
 Ind. 490. 
 
 3 Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490; 
 New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Pickens, 5 
 Ind. 247. 
 
 * Unthank v. Henry County Turnp. 
 Co., 6 Ind. 125 ; McCarty v. Selinsgrove 
 & N. B. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 332 ; Banet v. 
 Alton & S. E. Co., 13 111. 504 ; Spangler 
 V. Indiana & I. Cent. E. Co., 21 111. 
 276; Wear v. Jacksonville & S. E. 
 Co., 24 111. 593; Tomlin v. Tonica & 
 P. E. Co., 23 111. 429; Macon & A. 
 E. Co. V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 ; Lackey 
 V. Eichmond & L. Turnp. Co., 17 B. 
 Monr. 43 ; Eutland & B. E. Co. v. Thrall, 
 
 35 Vt. 536 ; Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 239; 
 Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 46 Md. 
 132. 
 
 s Miss., O., & E. E. E. Co. v. Gaster, 
 20 Ark. 455; Alabama & P. E. Co. o. 
 Eowley, 9 Fla. 508. 
 
 « Lexington & W. C. E. Co. v. Chand- 
 ler, 13 Met. 311 ; Miss., O., & R. R. R. 
 Co. V. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455 ; Schenectady 
 & S. Plank Road Co. v. Thatcher, 11 
 N. Y. 102. 
 
 ' Hall V. United States Ins. Co., 5 
 Gill, 484. 
 
 8 Eutland &B. R. Co. u. ThraU, 35 Vt. 
 536. 
 
THE CKEATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 79 
 
 availed of by a subscriber as a defence.^ The statute may pre- 
 scribe a notice as essential to a forfeiture of stock without requir- 
 ing it to precede a suit for calls.^ 
 
 Interest. — A subscriber is liable for interest from the time of 
 his default.^ 
 
 The Certificates ; Tender ; Effect of Holding. — The delivery of a 
 certificate, or formal allotment of shares, to a subscriber is not nec- 
 essary to hold him as such.* The certificate is evidence of own- 
 ership, but is not essential to his title. It need not be tendered 
 before suit is brought for the calls ; ^ but the company must be in 
 a condition to issue the shares, and cannot maintain an action for 
 the calls, if it has already issued the full number authorized by 
 law.^ Where a subscriber agrees to pay for stock upon the delivery 
 of a certificate to him, or upon the performance of a condition, the 
 company must, in order to recover upon the agreement, prove a 
 tender of the certificate.'^ The subscriber is not entitled to a 
 certificate without payment of all calls, including those barred by 
 the Statute of Limitations.^ The possession of a certificate, or the 
 record of a transfer on the company's books, is not necessary to 
 hold a party as a stockholder in proceedings to subject him to lia- 
 bility for the debts of the corporation ; ® but its possession is 
 prima facie evidence of ownership.!** 
 
 1 White Mts. K. Co. v. Eastman, 34 Co. v. Dudley, 14 N. T. 336 ; Smith v. 
 N. H. 124. Gower, 2 Duvall, 17 ; Fulgam v. Macon 
 
 2 Lake Ontario, A., & N. Y. R. Co. v. & B. R. Co., 44 Ga. 597 ; South Georgia 
 Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 ; Heuston v. Cincin- & F. R. Co. v. Ayres, 56 Ga. 230. But 
 nati & F. W. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275, 281. the terms of the contract .may require a 
 
 ' Gould V. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298, 3 tender as precedent to a suit for the 
 
 Hun, 401 ; Southern Cent. R. Co. v. Mora- amount. Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 
 
 via, 61 Barb. 180; Rikhoff i>. Brown's 503. 
 
 Rotary S. S. M. Co., 68 Ind. 388 ; Upton v. o McCord v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 13 Ind. 
 
 Burnham, 3 Biss. 520. As to a contract to 220. 
 
 forbear a suit for calls, see Scarce v. Indi- ' Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503 ; 
 
 ana & I. R. Co., 17 Ind. 193, 23 Ind. 223. Cooper v. McKee, 49 Iowa, 286 ; Clark v. 
 
 < Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 Continental Improvement Co.,57 Ind. 135. 
 
 Conn. 435, 453 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. ^ Johnson v. Albany & S. R. Co., 54 
 
 Co. o. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Chester N. Y. 416. 
 
 Glass Co. V. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94. ^ Chaffin v. Cummings, 37 Me. 76, 
 
 s New Albany & S. R. Co. v. McCor- 83 ; Chesley v. Pierce, 32 N. H. 388, 
 
 mick, 10 Ind. 499 ; Vawter w. Ohio & M. 402; Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. 20; 
 
 R. Co., 14 Ind. 174 ; Hardy v. Merri- Corwith v. Culver, 69 111. 502 ; Upton v. 
 
 weather, 14 Ind. 203; Cincinnati, U., & Burnham, 8 Biss. 431, 520; Upton v. 
 
 Ft. W. R. Co. V. Pearce, 28 Ind. 502; Engelhart, 3 Dill. 496; Portal !•. Eramens, 
 
 Chandler v. Northern Cross R. Co., 18 111. L. R. 1 C. P. D. 201. 
 
 190 ; James v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co., i" Courtright v. Deeds, 37 Iowa, 503 ; 
 
 2 Disney, 261 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56. 
 
80 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 Transfer of Shares ; Effect on Liability for Calls. — A transfer 
 of his share by a subscriber, in such form as to substitute the 
 assignee in his place as a stockholder, releases the subscriber 
 from subsequent calls, although he still remains liable for pre- 
 vious calls. When by the transfer he is released, the assignee, 
 although holding the shares only as collateral security, becomes 
 liable in his stead.' The assent of the corporation to the transfer 
 is essential to the release of the original subscriber.^ But a trans- 
 fer, in order to relieve the prior stockholder, must be lona fide 
 and without any secret trust in his favor ; and it will be treated 
 as only colorable when made to irresponsible parties in order to 
 defeat creditors.^ 
 
 Subscriptions, a Trust Fund. — The unpaid subscriptions are a 
 trust fund for the payment of creditors ; and releases and arrange- 
 ments made by the directors with subscribers which are in fraud 
 of their rights are void. Such subscriptions may. be reached by 
 the creditors in equity, and by assignees in bankruptcy and 
 receivers.* A stockholder is liable to creditors for the unpaid 
 balance, although the certificate bears on its face the term " non- 
 
 1 Huddersfleld Canal Co. v. Buck- » Veiller o. Brown, 18 Hun, 571; 
 ley, 7 Term R. 36; Webster v. Up- Gaff b. Flesher, 33 Ohio St. 107 ; Nathan 
 ton, 91 U. S. 65 ; Pullman v. Upton, 96 v. Whitlock, 9 Paige, 152 ; Bowden v. 
 U. S. 328 ; Moore v. Jones, 3 Woods, 53 ; Santos, 1 Hughes, 158. 
 
 Adderly v. Storm, 6 Hill, 624 ; Schenec- < Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 ; Cur- 
 tady & S. Plank Road Co. v. Thatcher, ran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 ; Ogilvie v. 
 11 N. Y. 102; Empire City Bank, /n re, Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380; Upton v. 
 18 N. Y. 199 ; Isham v. Buckingham, 49 Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 ; Sanger v. Upton, 
 N. Y. 216 ; Cowles v. Cromwell, 25 Barb. 91 U S. 56 ; Webster w. Upton, 91 U. S- 
 413; Allen v. Montgomery R. Co., 11 65; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; 
 Ala. 437, 451 ; Hartford & N. H. R. Co. o. Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 ; Upton 
 Boorman, 12 Conn. 530 ; Hall v. United v. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. 417 ; Putnam w. 
 States Ins. Co., 5 Gill, 484; Brigham v. New Albany, 4 Biss. 365; Payson v. 
 Mead, 10 Allen, 245; Wheelocki'.Kost, 77 Stoever, 2 Dill. 427; Marsh v. Bur- 
 111. 296 ; Curtis's Case, L. R. 6 Eq. Cas. roughs, 1 Woods, 463 ; Bowden v. Santos, 
 455; Heritage's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. Cas. 5; 1 Hughes, 158; Bachman's Case, 12 Nat. 
 Angell & A. on Corp. § 534. In Seymour Bank. Reg. 223; Bassett v. St. Alban's 
 V. Sturges, 26 N. Y. 134, the purchaser of Hotel Co., 47 Vt. 313 ; Melvin v. Lamar 
 stock was held entitled to elect to pay Ins. Co., 80 111. 446, 459 ; Gaff «. Elesher, 
 the unpaid instalments or to forfeit his 33 Ohio St. 107; Hightower v. Thorn- 
 stock, ton, 8 Ga. 486 ; Dalton & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Everhart v. Phil. & W. C. R. Co., 28 McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191 ; Osgood v. King, 
 Pa. St. 339 ; Pittsburg & C. R, Co. v. Clarke, 42 Iowa, 478 ; Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 
 29 Pa. St. 146; Graff v. Pittsburg & S. R. 178; Mann v. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch. 257 ; 
 Co., 31 Pa. St. 489 ; Ryder v. Alton & S. Sagory «. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. 466 ; Mann 
 R. Co., 13 111. 516 ; Allen v. Montgomery R. v. Currie, 2 Barb. 294 ; Nathan v.Whitlock, 
 Co., 11 Ala. 437, 451 ; Gaff v. Flesher, 33 9 Paige, 152 ; Phoenix Warehousing Co., 
 Ohio St. 107. In re, 67 N. Y. 294, 6 Hun, 293 ; German- 
 
THE CREATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 81 
 
 assessable."^ The remedy of creditors is by a bill in equity 
 rather than by a writ of mandamus requiring the directors to 
 make calls.^ They may pursue one or more delinquent subscrib- 
 ers without joining the whole number, and without an account 
 being taken of other corporate indebtedness.^ But some author- 
 ities require a call or equivalent action, under the direction of 
 the court, based on the indebtedness of the corporation, to pre- 
 cede a suit in favor of creditors.* Innocent purchasers, in open 
 market, of shares of stock issued by the corporation to subscribers 
 who have not made legal payments therefor, are not liable to 
 creditors, but the remedy of the latter is against the guilty parties 
 only.* 
 
 Remedies against Subscribers. — The remedy of the company 
 against a delinquent shareholder may be one or both of two 
 different kinds, — by a sale of his share on his default, or 
 by a suit at common law upon the subscription. It is usually 
 provided in the charter or by some general law, that, in case of his 
 default in paying his subscription, his share may be declared for- 
 feited by the company, and sold. This special remedy is not exclu- 
 sive, but only cumulative ; and with great uniformity it is decided, 
 that the shareholder is still liable on an express promise to pay the 
 amount of his subscription.^ The express promise is founded on a 
 
 town Pasa. R. Co. v. Filler, 60 Pa. St. 5 Foreman v. Bigelow (U. S. C. C, D. 
 
 124; Westchester & P. R. Co. v. Thomas, Mass.), 7 Reporter, 137. 
 
 2 Phil. 344 ; ante, p. 13. As to who are * Worcester Turnp. Co. v. Willard, 5 
 
 held as contributories under the EngUsh Mass. 80; New Bedford & B. Turnp. Co. 
 
 Winding-up Act, see Oakes v. Turquand, v. Adams, 8 Mass. 138 ; Middlesex Turnp. 
 
 L. R. 2 H. L. 325 ; Mitchell «. City of Co. v. Locke, 8 Mass. 268 ; Taunton & 
 
 Glasgow Bank, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 024 ; S. B. Turnp. Co. v. Whiting, 10 Mass. 
 
 Houldsworth v. Glasgow Bank, L. R. 5 327; Middlesex Turnp. Co. v. Swan, 10 
 
 App. Cas. 317; BIyth's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. Mass. 384; City Hotel of Worcester v. 
 
 Div. 140 ; Clarke's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. Div. Dickinson, 6 Gray, 586 ; Boston, B., & G. 
 
 635; British Nation Life Ass. Assoc., In re, R. Co. v. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 ; New 
 
 8 Ch. Div. 679; Wincham Shipbuilding, Hampshire Central R. v. Johnson, 30 N. 
 
 B., & S. Co., /)i re, L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 329 ; H. 390; Contoocook Valley R. Co. v. 
 
 Esparto Trading Co., In re, L. R. 12 Ch. Barker, 32 N. H. 363 ; White Mts. R. Co. 
 
 Div. 191 ; Stone u. City & County Bank, v. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124 ; Piscataqua 
 
 L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 282 ; ante, p. 44. Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 ; Rutland 
 
 1 Upton V. Burnliam, 3 Biss. 520. & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 ; Con- 
 
 2 Ward V. Griswoldville Man. Co., 16 necticut & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 Vt. 
 Conn. 593, 601 ; Dalton & M. R. Co. v. 465 ; South Bay Meadow Dam Co. v. 
 McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191 ; Hatch v. Dana, Gray, 30 Me. 547, 552 ; Kennebec & P. 
 101 U. S. 205. ^- Co. V. Kendall, 31 Me. 470; Hartford 
 
 3 Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205. & N. H. R. Co. u. Kennedy, 12 Conn.. 
 * Chandler v. Keith, 42 Iowa, 99; 499; Goshen Turnp. Co. o. Hurtin, 9 
 
 Chandler v. Siddle, 3 Dill. 477. See San- Johns. 217 ; Herkimer Man. & H. Co. r. 
 ger V. Upton, 91 U. S. 56. Small, 21 Wend. 273 ; Troy Turnp. & R. 
 
 6 
 
82 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 valid consideration ; viz., the interest which the subscriber is 
 thereby to receive in the stock of the company and in its profits.^ 
 The common-law remedy of a suit on an express promise contained 
 in the subscription also exists where the charter declares that, upon 
 the failure to pay the calls, " the stock shall be forfeited to the com- 
 pany with the instalments which may have been paid ; " ^ and 
 the same rule applies where the clause of forfeiture is inserted in 
 the subscription, by the terms of which the non-payment is " on 
 pain of forfeiting previous instalments." ^ 
 
 It is a question involving much conflict of judicial opinion, 
 whether where the statute remedy of forfeiture is given, 
 and the subscriber has made no express promise to pay assess- 
 ments, and no personal liability to pay them is expressly im- 
 posed on him in the charter, they may be recovered of him in 
 a suit upon an implied agreement to pay them. It was decided 
 in Massachusetts at an early day that, in the absence of an 
 express promise, an action could not be maintained on a mere 
 agreement to take shares. It was considered that a corporation 
 has no power at common law to make assessments on the corpo- 
 rators for its use ; that where this power is given by statute, the 
 general rule applies that when a statute gives a new power, and 
 at the same time provides the means of executing it, those who 
 assume to execute the power can execute it in no other way ; and 
 therefore where one simply engages to take, or, in other words, to 
 
 Co. V. M'Chesney, 21 Wend. 296 ; North- 6 Fla. 262 ; Kirksey „. Tlorida & G. 
 
 ern R. Co. v. Miller, 10 Barb. 260; Troy Plank Road Co., 7 Fla. 23; Tar River 
 
 & R. R. Co. V. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581 ; Ft. Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks, 520; Western 
 
 Edward & Tt. M. Plank Road Co. v. R. Co. v. Avery, 64 N. C. 491 ; Hughes 
 
 Payne, 17 Barb. 567 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Antietam Man. Co., 34 Md. 316. 
 V. Tibbltts, 18 Barb. 297, 300 ; Ogdens- i Worcester Tump. Co. u. Vfillard, 5 
 
 burgh, R., & C. R. Co. v. Frost, 21 Barb. Mass. 86 ; Union Tump. Co. ■;. Jenkins, 
 
 541 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dud- 1 Caines, 381 ; Ft. Edward & Ft. M. 
 
 ley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Klein v. Alton & S. Plank Road Co. v. Payne, 17 Barb. 567 ; 
 
 R. Co., 13 111. 514 ; Peoria & O. R. Co. Hamilton & D. Plank Road Co. v. Rice, 7 
 
 V. Elting, 17 111. 429 ; Stokes v. Lebanon Barb. 164 ; Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 & S. Turnp. Co., 6 Humph. 241 ; Green- Palmer, 34 Me. 366 ; Kennebec & P. R. 
 
 ville & C. R. Co. c. Cathcart, 4 Rich. 89; Co. v. Jarvis, 34 Me. 360; York & C. R. 
 
 N. E. R. Co. V. Rodrigues, 10 Rich. Co. v. Pratt, 40 Me. 447 ; Vermont Cent. 
 
 278 ; Beene v. Cahawba & M. R. Co., 3 R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30 ; Danbury & 
 
 Ala. 660; Selma & T. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 436; Selma 
 
 Ala. 787 ; Allen v. Montgomery R. Co., & T. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787 ; Levis- 
 
 11 Ala. 437, 450; Freeman v. Winches- ton "• Junction R. Co., 7 Ind. 597. 
 ter, 10 Smedes & M. 577 ; Instone v. ^ Selma & T. R. Co. v. Tipton 5 Ala 
 
 Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 Bibb, 576; 787. 
 
 Canal Co. v. Samson, 1 BInney, 70 ; Bar- ' Troy Tump. & R. Co. v. M'Chesney, 
 
 bee V. Jacksonville & A. Plank Road Co., 21 Wend. 296. 
 
THE CREATION OP THE CAPITAL STOCK. 83 
 
 become the proprietor of, a certain number of shares without prom- 
 ising to pay assessments, there is no implied promise to pay them, 
 and the only remedy of the coi-poration against him, when delin- 
 quent, is by a sale of his shares, as provided by the statute.^ The 
 rule as thus held is approved in Maine,^ New Hampshire,^ and 
 Vermont.* 
 
 The term " fill," in an agreement to " take and fill " a cer- 
 tain number of shares, is of the same import as the term " pay," 
 and binds the subscriber personally.^ If the agreement admits 
 a personal liability, and gives the corporation the right to enforce 
 it by the usual means for enforcing contracts, such terms ar« 
 treated as equivalent to an express promise.^ A promise to pay 
 is not to be implied from conditions which do not contain words 
 of promised A provision of the charter making the subscriber 
 liable for the balance remaining due after a sale of his shares does 
 not, in the absence of an express promise, make him liable upon 
 the subscription itself.^ 
 
 The doctrine of the decisions in Massachusetts was rejected in 
 Connecticut, where it was held that the taking of stock in a 
 corporation creates a contract, express or implied, to pay for it as 
 provided in the charter, which may be enforced like an express 
 promise ; and that this construction is demanded by the objects of 
 the corporation, which can be successfully carried into effect only by 
 the payment of the amount subscribed. The transaction between 
 it and the subscriber was treated in effect as an offer on its part 
 
 1 Andover & M. Tump. Co. v. GouM, ' Franklin Glass Co. v. Alexander, 2 N. 
 6 Mass. 40 ; Andover & M. Turnp. Co. H. 380 ; New Hamp. Cent. R. v. Johnson, 
 V. Hay, 7 Mass. 102; New Bedford & B. 30 N. H. 390, 403 ; White Mts. R Co. v. 
 Turnp. Co. a. Adams, 8 Mass. 138 ; Eastman, 34 N. H. 124 ; Piscataqua Ferry 
 Middlesex Turnp. Co. v. Swan, 10 Mass. Co. o. Jones, 39 N. H. 491. 
 
 384 ; Franklin Glass Co. v. White, 14 * Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 
 
 Mass. 286 ; Chester Glass Co. o. Dewey, Vt. 465. 
 
 16 Mass. 94 ; Salem Mill Dam Co. v. 5 Buckfield Branch R. Co. v. Irish, 89 
 
 Ropes, 6 Pick. 23 ; Ripley v. Sampson, 10 Me. 44; Penobscot & K. R. Co. v. Dunn, 
 
 Pick. 871 ; Cutler o. Middlesex Factory 39 Me. 587 ; Penobscot R. Co. v. Dum- 
 
 Co., 14 Pick. 483; Mechanics' Foundry mer, 40 Me. 172; York & C. R. Co. v 
 
 & M. Co. 0. Hall, 121 Mass. 272 ; Katama Pratt, 40 Me. 447 ; Penobscot & K. R. Co. 
 
 Land Co. v. Jernegan, 126 Mass. 155; u. Bartlett, 12 Gray, 244. 
 
 Sedgwick on Statutory and Constitu- « Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 
 
 tional Law, ch. viii. pp. 841-345. Vt. 465. 
 
 2 Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Kendall, 31 ' Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Moore, 60 
 Me. 470 ; Jay Bridge Co. v. Woodman, 31 Me. 561 ; Belfast & 61. L. R. Co. <.. Cot- 
 Me. 573 ; Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Moore, trell, 66 Me. 185. 
 
 60 Me. 561 ; Belfast & M. L. R. Co. ./. Cot- » Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Moore, 60 
 trell, 66 Me. 185. Me. 561. 
 
84 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 to sell him shares at a given price, and an acceptance of the same 
 by him, which, by legal implication, amounts to a promise, and 
 creates an obligation, on his part to pay the price agreed when 
 lawfully required. The doctrine that where a new power is 
 given by a statute, which also prescribes the mode of its execu- 
 tion, those who assume to exercise the power can exercise it in 
 no other way, was regarded as inapplicable to beneficial statutes 
 in civil cases. Regarding the power to sue as arising from, the 
 contract of subscription, this is not taken away by an affirmative 
 statute giving an additional remedy.^ The same view is adopted 
 in New York, where the subscription is construed, even when a 
 right of forfeiture is given to the company, to be a contract 
 express or implied to pay for the stock, which maybe enforced by 
 suit as well as by the forfeiture ; ^ and this doctrine is accepted 
 in other States, where it is decided, in order to hold the sub- 
 scriber, that it is only necessary that the writing should show an 
 intention to become a stockholder, arid the number of shares taken, 
 if the terms of the subscription do not distinctly exclude personal 
 liability.^ 
 
 The personal liability of subscribers and of parties who received 
 certificates, without making an express promise, has been en- 
 forced in favor of the creditors of an insolvent corporation.* 
 
 Even in those States in which an express promise is essential 
 to a right of action, if the statute remedy of forfeiture is given, 
 the subscriber will be personally liable if the charter provides 
 the alternative remedies of a suit and of a forfeiture.^ 
 
 1 Hartford & N. H. R. Co. v. Kennedy, » Beene v. Cahawba & M. R. Co., 3 
 12 Conn. 499; Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. Ala. 660; Selma & T. R. Co. u. Tipton, 5 
 178 ; Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 Ala. 787 ; Peoria & 0. R. Co. ;;. Elting, 17 
 Conn. 435. 111. 429, 432; Kirksey v. Florida & G. 
 
 2 Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb. 294 ; Sagory Plank Road Co., 7 Fla. 23 ; Fry v. Lexing- 
 i\ Dubois, 3 Sandt. Ch. 466 ; Northern R. ton & B. S. R. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 314; 
 R. Co. 0. Miller, 10 Barb. 260; Troy & Gill v. Kentucky & C. Gold & S. M. Co., 
 Boston R. Co. <,. Tibbitts, 18 Barb. 297, 7 Bush, 638 ; Busey o. Hooper, 35 Md. 
 300 ; Ogdensburg, R., & C. R. Co. v. Frost, 15. 
 
 21 Barb. 541 ;■ Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. * Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; 
 
 i\ Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Rensselaer & Sanger w. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Webster v. 
 
 W. Plank Road Co. a. Barton, 16 N. Y. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 ; Chubb v. Upton, 95 
 
 467, note; Dayton v. Borst, 31 N. Y. U. S. 665; Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. 
 
 435; Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Bad- Ch. 466; Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb. 294; 
 
 ger, 67 N. Y 294, 6 Hun, 293. But see Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 
 
 Fort Edward & Ft. M. Plank Road Co. u. N. Y. 294, 6 Hun, 293. But see Seymour 
 
 Payne, 17 Barb. 567 ; Seymour v. Stur- v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134. 
 gess, 26 N. Y. 134. ^ Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Kendall, 31 
 
THE CBEATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 85 
 
 The right of the company to enforce a forfeiture is not treated 
 as a pledge or mortgage ; and its exercise operates as a satis- 
 faction of the contract, and excludes the company from suing 
 upon the subscriptions when the shares sell for less than their par 
 value, and the subscriber from recovering the surplus if they sell 
 for more than their par value. ^ But a mere threat of forfeiture, 
 or unsuccessful attempt to sell the shares, will not deprive the 
 company of the remedy by action.^ 
 
 A subscriber ceases with the forfeiture to be a stockholder, 
 and is not liable as such under statutes to creditors of the cor- 
 poration, although the corporate debt was contracted before the 
 forfeiture.^ The remedy upon an express promise may be en- 
 forced without first resorting to the remedy by forfeiture given 
 by statute,* or by the agreement.^ The subscriber may tender 
 the amount at any time before the sale.^ 
 
 The right may be given to a corporation, by statute, to recover 
 after the forfeiture and sale the amount for which the share sells 
 less than its par value.'^ This right cannot be enforced without 
 a formal declaration of a forfeiture, and the corporation can- 
 not, after substituting other subscribers for those who fail to pay, 
 recover of the original subscribers the difference between the 
 amount subscribed and the amount realized upon a sale.^ It does 
 not exist where the corporation has not complied with the con- 
 ditions of the subscription.^ The power to declare a forfeiture of 
 the shares for non-payment of calls is derived only from express 
 statute provision, and usually depends on certain conditions, as a 
 
 Me. 470 ; Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Bailey, 586 ; New Hamp. Cent. K. Co. v. John- 
 
 24 Vt. 465 ; Fry v. Lexington & B. S. R. son, 30 N. H. 390 ; Piscataqua Ferry 
 
 Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) \14. Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491 ; Hughes v. 
 
 1 Small V. Herkimer Man. & H. Co., 2 Antietam Man. Co., 84 Md. 316. 
 
 N. Y. 330 (overruling 21 Wend. 273, and 5 Boston, B., & G. R. Co. o. Welling- 
 
 2 Hill, 127) ; Northern R. Co. v. Miller, ton, 113 Mass. 79. 
 
 lOBarb. 260, 277; Ogdensburg, R., & C. « Mitchell v. Vt. Copper Min. Co., 
 
 R. Co. D.Frost, 21 Barb. 543, 544; Buffalo 67 N. Y. 280, 40 N. Y. Superior, 
 
 & N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 406. 
 
 336 ; Ashton v. Burbank, 2 Dill. 435 ; ' Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 
 
 Rutland & B. R. Co. o. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536, Conn. 435, 456 ; New Hamp. Cent. R. 
 
 653; Macon & A. R. Co. v. Vason,57 Ga. Co. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; Agricul- 
 
 314: Allen II. Montgomery R. Co., 11 Ala. tural Branch R. Co. o. Winchester, 13 
 
 437_ Allen, 29. 
 
 2 Instone v. Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 s Athol & E. R. Co. v. Prescott, 110 
 Bibb, 576 ; Macon & A. R. Co. v. Vason, Mass. 213. 
 
 57 Ga. 314. ' Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Cottrell, 66 
 
 » Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384. Me. 185 ; Stoneham Branch R. Co. v. 
 
 < City Hotel o. Dickinson, 6 Gray, Gould, 2 Gray, 277. 
 
86 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 prescribed notice and mode of sale. If these are not strictly com- 
 plied with, or if the assessment itself is illegal, the sale will be 
 void, and the shareholder will not be liable for the deficit.^ Thus, 
 the sale wUl be void where the notice does not purport to be 
 given by the proper officer of the company ,2 or fails to state the 
 place of sale,^ or where the sale is private and not at public auc- 
 tion as required,* or is made for the payment of several assess- 
 ments, one of which is illegal.^ The company is not required 
 to declare a forfeiture on the subscriber's first default, but 
 may defer the exercise of the power tUl the maturity of all the 
 instalments.^ 
 
 1 York & C. R. Co. v. Eitchie, 40 Me. 
 425 ; Lewey's Island R. Co. v Bolton, 48 
 Me. 451 ; Somerset R. Co. v. Clarke, 61 
 Me. 379 ; Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Cot- 
 trell, 66 Me. 185; Rutland & B. R. 
 Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 ; Germantown 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124; 
 Heaston v. Cincinnati & Ft. W. E. Co., 
 16 Ind. 275 ; Downing v. Potts, 3 Zab. 
 66 ; Johnson v. Albany & S. R. Co., 40 
 How. Pr. 193 ; Long Island R. Co., In re, 
 19 Wend. 37 ; Eastern Plank Road Co. v. 
 Vaughan, 20 Barb. 155. In Vermont, a 
 sale has been held not essential to a for- 
 
 feitiire under the statute. Rutland & B. 
 R. Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536. 
 
 2 Portland, S., & P. R. Co. v. Graham, 
 11 Met. 1. 
 
 8 Lexington & W. C. R. Co. v. 
 Staples, 5 Gray, 520. 
 
 * Portland, S., & P. R. Co. v. Graham, 
 11 Met. 1. 
 
 5 Stoneham Branch R. Co. v. Gould, 
 2 Gray, 277 ; Lewey's Island R. Co. .;. 
 Bolton, 48 Me. 451. 
 
 6 Broekenbrough v. James Riyer & K. 
 Co., 1 Patton & H. (Va.) 94. 
 
MUNICIPAL SUBSCEIPTIONS. 87 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 The Power to subscribe not an Ordinary Municipal Power. — 
 Municipal corporations, as counties, cities, and towns, cannot by 
 virtue of their ordinary powers, and without special authority of 
 statute, subscribe for the stock of railroad companies, or aid 
 them by grants or donations.' The power is derived only from 
 express grant, and is not to be implied.^ 
 
 Legislative Poiver to authorize -Municipal Subscriptions. — The 
 power of the legislature to confer the authority, where the Con- 
 stitution is silent upon the subject, has been one of the most con- 
 tested questions of constitutional law. Whether the amount 
 subscribed or granted is to be raised by a tax or by a loan, the 
 right to levy the tax immediately or ultimately is involved. 
 The right to make the subscription or grant depends therefore 
 on the right to levy a tax for the purpose.^ 
 
 The power of taxation is 'subject to certain limitations inherent 
 in the power itself, and binding on the legislature, even if they 
 are not expressly declared in the Constitution. The legislature 
 has a large and not easily defined discretion as to the objects to 
 which it may be applied, but its discretion is not absolute and 
 unlimited. A tax can be imposed only for a public purpose, or 
 
 1 Thompson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. Lawrence, 42 Iowa, 498 ; Hasbrouch v. 
 
 327; Kenicott u. Supervisors, 16 Wall. Milwaukie, 13Wis.37 ; M., 0., &R.R. Co. 
 
 452 ; St. Joseph Township v. Rogers, 16 v. Mayor, 23 Ark. 300 ; Brodie v. Mc- 
 
 Wall. 644 ; South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 Cabe, 33 Ark. 690 ; French v. Tcsche- 
 
 U. S. 260, 262 ; Lewis v. Shreveport, 3 maker, 24 Cal. 518. 
 Woods, 205 ; People v. Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 2 pitzman v. Freeburg, 92 III. Ill ; 
 
 551 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 47 Pa. Sykes v. Columbus, 55 Miss. 115. See 
 
 St. 189 ; Lamoille Valley R. Co. v. Fair- Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 220 ; Meyer 
 
 field, 51 Vt 257; Lafayette v. Cox, 5 v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384; Rogers v. 
 
 Ind. 38 ; Harvey v. Indianapolis, C, & D. Bridgeport, 3 Wall. 654 ; Copes v. Charles- 
 
 R. Co., 32 Ind. 244 ; Lafayette, B., & M. town, 10 Rich. 491. 
 R. Co. V. Geiger, 34 Ind. 85 ; Delaware ' Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 
 
 County 0. McClintock, 51 Ind. 325; 655, 660; Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 
 
 Barnes u. Lacon, 84 III. 461 ; Jeffries v. 454, 460. 
 
88 THE LAW OP BAILROADS. 
 
 purpose of government. It cannot be laid for a private interest, 
 or the mere benefit of individuals. The judicial department 
 determines whether the purpose is a public one ; and when it 
 is judicially found to be of that character, the legislative depart- 
 ment determines, in its discretion, the exigency which requires 
 the tax, and the amount to be levied. Whether a purpose is to 
 be regarded as public or not will depend much on the considera- 
 tion whether it is one for which governments by long usage have 
 provided, or one which is ordinarily left to private enterprise and 
 liberality ; 'but the decision must necessarily be largely influenced 
 by the arguments of public policy which often govern jurists as 
 well as statesmen.^ If the object is in its essential character 
 private, that is, one which concerns primarily the interest of 
 individuals, it does not become public by reason of its incidental 
 advantages to the community, however great they may be.'^ An 
 object may also be a public use with reference to one power of 
 government, as that of eminent domain, and be private as to 
 another power, as that of taxation.^ 
 
 The taxing power, being limited to public purposes, cannot be 
 used to aid private manufacturing enterprises,* or private educa- 
 tional institutions ;^ to make loans to land-owners for rebuilding, 
 where property has been destroyed by an extensive fire ; ^ to pro- 
 vide farmers, in case of a failure of crops, with grain for seed 
 and feed ;'' or to refund commutation money paid by drafted 
 persons,® — these objects being regarded as private in their 
 character, although affecting a large number of persons.® 
 
 1 Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Assoc, v. Wood, 39 Pa. St. 73. See Hens- 
 Wall. 65.5, 664 ; People u. Salem, 20 ley Township v. People, 84 III. 544. 
 Midi. 462; Cooley on Taxation, ch. iv. ^ Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454. 
 
 2 Lowell V. Boston, 111 Mass. 454. ' State v. Osawkee, 14 Kan. 418. 
 
 3 People V. Salem, 20 Mich. 452; 8 Thompson v. Pittston, 59 Me. 545; 
 Cooley on Const. Lira. 264, note. But Moulton v. Raymond, 60 Me. 121. 
 
 see Whiting v. Sheboygan & F. L. R. Co., ' It has been held constitutional to 
 
 25 Wis. 167; Stockton & "V. R. Co. v. authorize towns and cities to give aid to 
 
 Stockton, 41 Cal. 147. State educational and reformatory insti- 
 
 * Allen V. Jay, 60 Me. 124 ; Opinions tutions within their limits, or to a public 
 of .Judges, 58 Me. 690 ; Loan Association grist-mill, or to subscribe for the stock of 
 I'. Topeka, 20 Wall. 656 ; C. B. U. R. Co. a turnpike company. Merrick v. Am- 
 V. Smith, 23 Kan. 745; Commercial Bank herst, 12 Allen, 500; Gordon v. Comes, 
 V. lola, 2 Dill. 353 ; Weisiner v. Douglass, 47 N. Y. 608 ; Burlington v. Beasley, 94 
 64 N. Y. 1, 4 Hun, 201. See Hacket o. U. S. 310; Livingston County v. Darling- 
 Ottawa, 99 U. S. 86; Guernsey v. Bur- ton, 101 U. S. 407; Commonwealth v. 
 lington, 4 Dill. 372. Williams, 11 Pa. St. 61 ; Clarke County 
 
 5 Curtis V. Whipple, 24 Wis. 350; Jen- v. Paris, W., & K. R. Turnp. Co., 11 B. 
 
 kins V. Audover, 103 Mass. 94 ; Phila. Monr. 143. 
 
MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 89 
 
 A railroad owned and managed by individuals or by a private 
 corporation is essentially private property, and a private interest, 
 and, having that character, is not a purpose to which the taxing 
 power can be properly applied.^ It is removed in its essential 
 character from public highways, which are maintained and used 
 at will by the public. The corporation may indeed be put under 
 special public supervision, and be required, as the consideration 
 of the grant of its franchises, to perform certain duties to the 
 public, — these being conditions which are at times imposed also 
 on interests confessedly private ; but it nevertheless remains a 
 private enterprise created and carried on for the benefit of the 
 owners, whether corporate or individual. According to these 
 principles, the legislature of a State, without a special power 
 given by its Constitution, cannot authorize municipalities to sub- 
 scribe for the stock of railroad corporations or grant aid to them, 
 or to issue bonds, obtain loans, and impose taxes for the purpose. 
 This doctrine is held in Michigan ; ^ it was held in Iowa, in deci- 
 sions since overruled ; ^ it has been declared in numerous dis- 
 senting opinions ; and it has been earnestly enforced by publicists 
 against an accumulation of decisions.* A system which puts the 
 property of tax-paying citizens against their will into a railroad 
 corporation is little better than confiscation. It has proved a 
 
 1 People V. BatcheUor, 53 N. Y. 128, len v. Boyles, 6 Iowa, 304 (1858) ; Mc- 
 139, 140. Millen v. Lee County, 6 Iowa, 391 (1858). 
 
 2 People V. Salem, 20 Mich. 452 ; Bay It was held unconstitutional in Stokes 
 City u. State Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499; v. Scott, 10 Iowa, 166 (1859); State u. 
 Tliomas u. Port Hudson, 27 Mich. 320. Wapello, 13 Iowa, 388 fl862) ; Myers v. 
 The question appears to be still open Johnson, 14 Iowa, 47(1862); McMillan 
 to controversy in New York. See Wil- v. Boyles, 14 Iowa, 107 (1862) ; Rock 
 liams V. Duanesburg, 66 N. Y. 129; v. Wallace, 14 Iowa, 593 (1863); Smith 
 Wellsboro' v. New York & C. R. Co., 76 v. Henry County, 15 Iowa, 385 (1863) ; 
 N. Y. 182; Sweet v. Hulbert, 5 Barb. Ten Eyck u. Keokuk, 15 Iowa, 486 
 312. The railroad, when owned by a pri- (1863); Chamberlain v. Burhngton, 19 
 vate corporation, is regarded as an enter- Iowa, 395 (1865); McClure u. Owen, 26 
 prise of a private character, and not justi- Iowa, 243 (1868) ; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 
 fyinjj taxation in its behalf; but the Court Iowa, 29 (1869) ; and still later held con- 
 of Appeals adopts the distinction, that, stitutional in Stewart v. Polk County, 
 though the legislature may authorize, it 30 Iowa, 9 (1870) ; McGregor v. Birdsall, 
 cannot compel, the municipality to em- 32 Iowa, 149 (1871) ; Jordan v. Hayne, 36 
 bark in the enterprise. People v. Batch- Iowa, 9 (1872) ; Muscatine Western R. 
 ellor, 53 N. Y. 128. Co. o. Horton, 38 Iowa, 33 ; Wapello v. 
 
 8 Such legislation was held eonstitu- B. & M. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 585; Gelpcke r. 
 
 tional in Dubuque County v. Dubuque & Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; King v. Wilson, 
 
 P. R. Co., 4 Greene, 1 (1853) ; State v. 1 Dill. 555. 
 
 Bissell, 4 Greene, 328 (1854); Clapp v. * Cooley on Const. Lim. pp. 261-266; 
 
 Cedar County, 5 Iowa, 15 (1857) ; Ring Dillon on Munic. Corp. §§ 104, 105. 
 V. Johnson, 6 Iowa, 265 (1858) ; McMU- 
 
90 THE LA"W OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 calamity in most instances, and has encouraged a spirit of repu- 
 diation in communities which have suffered from improvident 
 investments. 
 
 The legislative power to impose taxes has not, however, heen 
 generally regarded as subject to these inherent limitations. The 
 prevailing view may be stated as follows : ' — 
 
 The legislature of a State, under the general grant of legisla- 
 tive power, may exercise all powers which are properly legis- 
 lative, and not prohibited either expressly or by necessary 
 implication, by the Constitution of the State or by that of the 
 United States. Its authority has thus a double limitation. It 
 cannot, in the first place, violate the fundamental law of the 
 State or of the United States, either by usurping powers which 
 the people have reserved to themselves, or which they have 
 granted to the national government. In the second place, it 
 cannot invade the co-ordinate departments of the State govern- 
 ment, and, under color of making laws, usurp judicial functions. 
 As a limitation of the latter class, its power to take the property 
 of one citizen and give it to another has been denied, as being a 
 judicial function.^ It is, however, entitled to a liberal construc- 
 tion of its powers, and its acts should not be declared void by the 
 judiciary, unless they are clearly in conflict with the prohibitions 
 of the State or National Constitutions, either expressed or neces- 
 sarily implied. The constitutionality of an act may be question- 
 able ; but it is contrary to just principles of government for one 
 department on doubtful implications to annul what another must 
 be presumed to have established on settled conviction. The act 
 may seem unwise and hostile to the general plan and spirit of the 
 government ; but it is not within the province of the judiciary to 
 pass upon the policy of statutes, or their consistency with any 
 political theory. Considerations of public policy, except so far as 
 they may serve to indicate the intention of the legislature, and 
 aid in the interpretation of its acts, are to be addressed to that 
 department alone.^ 
 
 1 The leading case in which the ques- & Lewis, J., see 2 Am. Law Keg. pp. 
 
 tion was first elaborately discussed — 27, 85. 
 
 the power of the legislature to authorize 2 gharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 
 
 these municipal investments being sus- 160, 161, 169; Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co. 
 
 tained by a majority of the court against v. Clinton County, 1 Ohio St. 77, 86 ; 
 
 dissenting opinions — was that of Sliarp- Slack v. Maysville & L. E. Co., 13 B. 
 
 less V. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 147 (1863). Monr. 1, 22. 
 
 For the dissenting opinions of Lowrie, J., ' Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Peters, 
 
MUNICIPAL StrBSCEIPTIONS. 91 
 
 The levying of taxes for the objects of the government is within 
 the unquestionable scope of legislative power. The determina- 
 tion of what those objects shall be, and who shall bear the burden 
 of the taxation, where there are no special constitutional limita- 
 tions, belongs exclusively to the legislature.-' It may levy taxes 
 for public improvements, as highways, bridges, turnpikes, aque-' 
 ducts ; and it is within its discretion to determine how large a 
 community is interested therein and ought to be taxed therefor. 
 As a municipal corporation is a part of the government, its 
 powers, in the absence of constitutional restrictions, may be 
 abridged or enlarged by the legislature, and it may be author- 
 ized by that body to levy taxes for public purposes upon the 
 property and persons within its limits.^ And it is no objection 
 to the validity of the tax that private individuals have already 
 become personally liable for the improvements.^ The power of 
 taxation may be abused, both in the objects for which, and the 
 persons on whom, it is exercised ; but the only remedy is with the 
 people, who can change the legislature. It is, from its nature, 
 unlimited in its extent, as the exigencies of the government can- 
 not be prescribed in advance.* 
 
 The constitutional provision, "nor shall private property be 
 taken for public use without just compensation," is not in conflict 
 with the taxing power. This power has been considered as one 
 entirely independent, and not contemplated in the constitutional 
 prohibition.^ The payment of a tax is one's contribution of his 
 share of the public burden ; but when his property is taken in 
 the exercise of the right of eminent domain, he contributes 
 more than his share of the public burden, and is entitled to 
 special compensation.^ 
 
 380 ; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 ; Bennett 11 Pa. St. 61 ; Williams v. Cammack, 27 
 
 I'. Bogg, 1 Baldwin, 74 ; Wellington v. Miss. 209 ; Williams v. Detroit, 2 Mich. 
 
 Petitioners, 16 Pick. 95 ; Commonwealth 560. 
 
 V. M' Williams, 11 Pa. St. 61; Police ' Thomas v. Leland, 24 Wend. 65; 
 
 Jury V. M'Donough, 8 La. An. 361 ; Sharp- Shaw v. Dennis, 5 Oilman, 405. 
 
 less V. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 147, 164; * M'CuUoch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 
 
 Booth V. Woodbury, 32 Conn. 118. 428, 430 ; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 
 
 1 People V. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419, Peters, 514, 561-563. 
 
 422, 426, 427 ; Gordon v. Cornes, 47 N. Y. ^ Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. Co., 15 
 
 608 ; McFerran v. AUoway, 14 Bush, 580. Conn. 475 ; Booth v. Woodbury, 32 Conn. 
 
 2 Norwich v. Hampshire, 13 Pick. 60 ; 118 ; Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 
 Shitz V. Berits, 6 Barb. 80 ; Cheaney v. 147, 166, 167 ; Williams v. Cammack, 27 
 Hooser, 9 B. Monr. 330 ; People v. Brook- Miss. 209 ; Williams «. Detroit, 2 Mich, 
 lyn, 4 N. Y. 419; Nichols v. Bridgeport, 560 ; Oilman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black, 510. 
 23 Conn. 189; Moale v. Baltimore, 5 « People ■/. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419, 
 Md. 314 ; Commonwealth v. M'Williams, 422. 
 
92 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 The implied limitations of the legislative department may be 
 invoked to arrest a gross abuse of the taxing power; as where 
 the community taxed can have no possible interest in the expen- 
 ditures, and derive no possible benefit from them. To justify 
 the interposition of the judiciary, however, in declaring a law 
 enacted as a tax-law void, the tax must be for a purpose in 
 which the community taxed has palpably no interest, — in a 
 case where it is apparent that a burden is imposed for the bene- 
 fit of others, and where it would be so pronounced at first 
 blush.i But this principle does not require that the public 
 improvement for which a community may be rightfully taxed 
 shall lie entirely within its local limits. If it may fairly be 
 supposed to be tributary in a special manner to the interests 
 of the community, as by facilitating its commerce, it is a lawful 
 subject of local taxation.^ 
 
 Railroads are modern inventions ; but they come legitimately 
 within the designation of public improvements, designed to pro- 
 mote the general convenience and prosperity by furnishing means 
 of internal communication. As such, the State may construct 
 them itself, and, having the choice of means, may authorize and 
 employ a private company to construct them, or, uniting with the 
 company in the work, 'contribute to its capital stock, and raise 
 money for the purpose by levying taxes on the local communities 
 specially interested therein. The legislature, having the control 
 of subordinate municipal organizations, and the power to enlarge 
 or abridge their powers, may make them its instruments in carry- 
 ing out this object, and may require or authorize them to make 
 the subscription, and to levy taxes and issue bonds to pay the 
 calls.^ 
 
 Upon these considerations, municipal corporations — as towns, 
 cities, and counties — have been held authorized, unless pro- 
 hibited by the State Constitution, when acting by legislative 
 authority, to subscribe to the stock of railroad companies, and for 
 the purpose of raising money to meet the subscription, to issue 
 
 1 Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Monr. 330, 155 ; Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. R. Co. v. 
 341-346 ; Talbot v. Dent, 9B. Monr. 626 ; Clinton County, 1 Ohio St. 77, 98 ; Nichol 
 Slack V. Maysville & L. R. Co., 13 B. v. Nashville, 9 Humph. 252. 
 
 Monr. 1, 31-38; Sharpless v. Philadel- « Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co. v. Clin- 
 
 phia, 21 Pa. St. 147, 168. ton County, I Ohio St. 77, fe-97 ; Slack 
 
 2 Talbot V. Dent, 9 B. Monr. 526, 535, v. Maysville & L. R. Co., 13 B. Monr. 1, 
 538 ; Police Jury v. McDonogh, 8 La. An. 22 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Davidson 
 341 ; Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. County, 1 Sneed, 687, 666, 667 ; Sharp- 
 147, 171 ; Goddin v. Crump, 8 Leigh, 120, less v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 147, 169. 
 
MtTNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 93 
 
 bonds and levy taxes on the persons and property within their 
 limits.! The great number of the authorities, although generally 
 
 1 United States : Amey «. Allegheny 
 City, 24 How. 364 ; Thomson v. Lee Coun- 
 ty, 3 Wall. 327; St. Joseph Township u. 
 Rogers, 16 Wall. 667, 1 Dill. 338 ; Olcott 
 V. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678. 
 
 Alabama : Stein v. Mobile, 24 Ala. 591 ; 
 Wetumpka v. Winter, 29 Ala. 651 ; Gib- 
 bons f. Mobile & G. N. R. Co., 36 Ala. 
 410 ; Selma & G. R. R. Co., In re, 45 Ala. 
 696 ; Fielder v. Montgomery & E. R. Co., 
 51 Ala. 178. 
 
 California: Pattison v. Yuba County, 
 13 Cal. 175 ; Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 
 343 ; Robinson u. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 879 ; 
 Napa Valley R. R. Co. o. Napa County, 
 30 Cal. 435; Stockton & V. R. R. Co. v. 
 Stockton, 41 Cal. 147. 
 
 Connecticut: Bridgeport v, Housatonic 
 R. Co., 15 Conn. 475 ; Douglas v. Chat- 
 ham, 41 Conn. 211. 
 
 Florida : Cotton v. Leon County, 6 Fla. 
 610 ; Columbia County „. King, 13 Fla. 
 451. 
 
 Georgia : Winn v. Macon, 21 Ga. 275 ; 
 Powers V. Dougherty County, 23 Ga. 
 65. 
 
 Illinois : Prettyaian v. Tazewell County, 
 19 111. 406 ; Johnson v. Stark County, 24 
 III. 75; Perkins ,.. Lewis, 24 111. 208; 
 Butler V. Dunham, 27 111. 474; Piatt 
 V. American Cent. R. Co., 29 111. 54; 
 Chicago, D., & V. R. Co. y. Smith, 62 111. 
 268 ; Quincy, M., & P. R. Co. v. Morris, 
 84 111. 410. See People v. Dupuyt, 71 111. 
 651. 
 
 Indiana : Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74 ; 
 Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. u. Geiger, 34 
 Ind. 185 ; John v. Cincinnati, R., & Ft. W. 
 R. Co., 35 Ind. 539 ; Petty v. Myers, 49 
 Ind. 1 ; Williams v. Hall, 65 Ind. 129, 1 32 ; 
 Bittinger v. Bell, 65 Ind. 445, 460. 
 
 Iowa : See ante, p. 89. 
 
 Kansas: Barnes v. Atchison, 2 Kan. 
 454; Leayenworth County v. Miller, 7 
 Kan. 479 ; State o. Nemaha County, 7 
 Kan. 542 ; Morris b. Morris County, 7 Kan. 
 576 ; Leayenworth, L., & G. R. Co. v. 
 Douglas County, 18 Kan. 169. 
 
 Kentucky : Talbot o. Dent, 9 B. Monr. 
 526; Slack u. Maysyille & L. R. Co., 
 13 B. Monr. 1 ; Maddox v. Graham, 2 
 Met. 56; Shelby County u. Cumberland 
 & 0. R. Co., 8 Bush, 209. 
 
 Louisiana: Police Jury v. McDonogh, 
 
 8 La. An. 341 ; New Orleans v. Graihle, 
 
 9 La. An. 561 ; Parker v. Scogin, 11 La. 
 An. 629 ; Vicksburg, S., & T. R. Co. u. 
 Ouachita, 11 La. An. 649. 
 
 Maine: Augusta Bank u. Augusta, 49 
 Me. 507. 
 
 Minnesota: State v. Clark, 23 Minn. 
 422; Davidson u. Ramsey County, 18 
 Minn. 482. 
 
 Mississippi: Strickland u. Miss. R. Co., 
 cited 27 Miss. 209, 224 ; New Orleans, St. 
 L., & C. R. Co. V. McDonald, 53 Miss. 240. 
 
 Missouri: St Louis v. Alexander, 23 
 Mo. 483; St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. ». 
 Buchanan County, 39 Mo. 485 ; State v. 
 Linn County Court, 44 Mo. 504; Osage 
 Valley & S. K. R. Co. o. Morgan, 53 Mo. 
 156 ; Nicolay v. St. Clair County, 3 Dill. 
 163. 
 
 Nebraska : Hallenback v. Hahn, 2 Neb. 
 377 ; Reineman v. Covington, C, & B. 
 H. R. Co., 7 Neb. 310. 
 
 Nevada : Gibson v. Wason, 5 Nev. 283. 
 
 New Hampshire: Perry v. Keene, 56 
 N; H. 514. 
 
 New York: Bank of Rome v. Rome, 18 
 N. Y. 38 ; Starin v. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439, 
 29 Barb. 442; Clarke v. Rochester, 28 
 N. Y. 605, 24 Barb. 446, 13 How. Pr. 
 204; Duanesburg v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 
 177, 46 Barb. 294, 40 Barb. 574; 
 Williams v. Duanesburg, 66 N. Y. 129 ; 
 Grant v. Courier, 24 Barb. 232 ; Ben- 
 son V. Albany, 24 Barb. 248 ; People 
 <•■. Henshaw, 61 Barb. 409. But see Peo- 
 ple V. Batchelior, 53 N. Y. 128 ; Sweet v. 
 Hulbert, 51 Barb. 312. 
 
 North Carolina : Taylor v. Newberne, 2 
 Jones Eq. 141 ; Caldwell v. Burke County, 
 4 Jones Eq. 323 ; Hill v. Forsythe County, 
 67 N. C. 367. 
 
 Ohio: Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co. v. 
 Clinton County, 1 Ohio St. 77 ; Steuben- 
 ville & I. R. Co. V. North Township, 1 
 Ohio St. 105 ; Cass v. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 
 607 ; Thompson v. Kelly, 2 Ohio St. 
 647 ; Smead v. Union Township, 8 Ohio 
 St. 394; Knox County v. Nichols, 14 
 Ohio St. 260; Fosdick v. Perrysburg, 
 14 Ohio St. 472 ; Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 
 Ohio St. 14. But see Griffith v. Crawford 
 County, 20 Ohio, 609, 622. 
 
94 THE LAW OP BAILBOADS. 
 
 in support of the power, shows how questionable it has seemed to 
 jurists, and how vigorously it has been contested. 
 
 Construction of State Constitutions and Statutes by the National 
 Tribunals. — The Supreme Court of the United States will, as a 
 general rule, follow the settled construction placed by the courts 
 of a State upon its own Constitution and statutes, where no ques- 
 tion arises under the National Constitution.^ But it will not 
 adhere to its own construction, which was contrary to one al- 
 ready given, without its knowledge, by the State court, and will, 
 when the question again arises, follow the construction of the 
 State court.^ The decision of the State court overruling prior 
 decisions is not to have a retroactive effect, so as to impair 
 the obligation of a contract. Thus, if municipalities have ob- 
 tained loans and issued bonds under legislation which the State 
 court has held constitutional, a later decision of such court, hold- 
 ing the legislation unconstitutional, will not affect the validity of 
 bonds issued under the earlier construction.^ The Supreme 
 Court of the United States will follow the guidance of its own 
 judgment where the State court has at different times come to 
 opposite conclusions.* 
 
 Pennsylvania : Sharpless v. Philadelphia, boygan & F. R. Co., 2-5 Wis. 167. See 
 
 21 Pa. St. 147 ; Moers v. Reading, 21 Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 ; Olcott 
 
 Pa. St. 188 ; Thomas v. Allegheny v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678. 
 County, 32 Pa. St. 218; Armstrong v. The constitutionality of the legislation 
 
 Perkins, 43 Pa. St. 400. is assumed in Minnesota and West Vir- 
 
 South. Carolina: Copes v. Charleston, ginia. 
 10 Rich. 491. 1 Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 
 
 Tennessee : Nichol v. Nashville, 9 599 ; Supervisors u. United States, 18 _ 
 
 Humph. 252 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wall. 71, 82 ; Elmwood v. Marcy, 92 
 
 Davidson County Court, 1 Sneed, 637; U. S. 289; Scipioy. Wright, 101 TJ. S. 665; 
 
 Winston v. Tennessee & P. R. Co., 57 King v. Wilson, 1 Dill-. 555. See Roberts 
 
 Tenn. 60. v. BoUes, 101 U. S. 119. Upon the ques- 
 
 Texas : San Antonio v. Jones, 28 tion whether legislative action was such 
 
 Texas, 19 ; San Antonio v. Lane, 32 Texas, that a bill became a statute. It will follow 
 
 405 ; San Antonio v. Gould, 34 Texas, 49. the decision of the highest court of the 
 
 Virginia: Goddin v. Crump, 8 Leigh, 120. State. South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 
 
 West Virginia: List v. Wheeling, 7 260. 
 W. Va. 501. 2 Fairfield .,. Gallatin County, 100 U. 
 
 Wisconsin : Clark v. Janesville, 10 Wis. S. 47. 
 136 ; Bushnell v. Beloit, 10 Wis. 195 ; 3 Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175 ; 
 
 Phillips «. Albany, 28 Wis. 340 ; Rogan K. Thomson «. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; 
 
 Watertown, 30 Wis. 259 ; Lawson v. Mil- Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575 ; Kenosha 
 
 waukie & N. R. Co., 30 Wis. 597 ; Oleson v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 ; Olcott v. Super- 
 
 K. Green Bay &L. P. R. Co., 36 Wis. 383; visors, 16 Wall. 678; Douglass v. Pike 
 
 Supervisors v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., County, 101 U. S. 677 ; Williams v. 
 
 121 Mass. 460. But see, con(ra, Foster u. Duanesburg, 66 N. Y. 129. 
 Kenosha, 12 Wis. 616 ; Wliiting v. She- * San Antonio v. MehafEy, 96 U. S. 
 
MUNICIPAL SUBSCKIPTION8. 95 
 
 Vote of Citizens constitutional. — The submission by the legis- 
 lature of the question, whether the subscription shall be made 
 by a municipality, to a vote of the qualified voters, has been eon- 
 tested as an unauthorized delegation of legislative power, but 
 such a submission has generally been held constitutional.^ 
 
 What constitutes a Majority. — Where a majority or other pro- 
 portion of the legal voters is required for a subscription, a majority 
 of those voting is presumed to be intended.^ 
 
 Each Tax-payer allowed a Share. — A law authorizing the sub- 
 scription by a municipal corporation to the stock of a railroad 
 company is not unconstitutional, because it provides that a tax- 
 payer shall be entitled to his pro rata share of the stock, and to 
 a certificate therefor, when he shall have paid a certain amount 
 of the tax. The provision is not open to the objection that it 
 makes him a stockholder without his consent.^ 
 
 State Constitutional Restrictions. — Several State Constitutions 
 contain provisions concerning municipal investments in railroad 
 and other similar corporations, either prohibiting them altogether, 
 or restricting them as to the proportion of the popular, vote re- 
 quired, and the limit of the amount which is to be calculated at 
 a certain per cent on the valuation of the taxable property in the 
 municipality.* Constitutional provisions which prohibit or re- 
 
 812 ; Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, Cal. 23 ; Stein v. Mobile, 24 Ala. 591. But 
 
 16 How. 416, 432. See Peck v. San An- see Barto v. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483. 
 
 tonio, 51 Texas, 490. But see King v. '' St. Joseph Township v. Rogers, 16 
 
 Wilson, 1 Dill. 555. Wall. 644 ; Cass County v. Johnston, 95 
 
 1 Talbot u. Dent, 9 B. Monr. 526 ; U. S. 360 ; Cass County v. Jordan, 95 TJ. 
 
 Slack V. Maysville & L. R. Co., 13 B. S. 373; Douglass u. Pike County, 101 
 
 Monr. 1 ; Moers v. Reading, 21 Pa. St. U. S. 677 ; Reiger v. Beaufort, 70 N. C. 
 
 188 ; Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 491 ; 319 ; People v. Harp, 67 111. 62 ; Melrin 
 
 Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co. v. Clinton v. Lisenby, 72 111. 63 ; Louisville & N. R. 
 
 County, 1 Ohio St. 77 ; Police Jury v. Co. v. Tennessee, 8 Heisk. 663. But see 
 
 McDonough, 8 La. An. 341 ; Cotton v. McWliorter v. People, 65 111. 290 ; Peo- 
 
 Leon County, 6 Fla. 610; Louisville & pie u. Chapman, 66 111. 137; Hawkins w. 
 
 N. R. Co. V. Davidson County Court, 1 Carroll County, 50 Miss. 735 ; Woodson v. 
 
 Sneed, 637 ; St. Louis v. Alexander, 23 Brassfield, 67 Mo. 331 ; Webb v. Lafay- 
 
 Mo. 483 ; Bank of Rome v. Rome, 18 N: Y. ette County, 67 Mo. 353. 
 
 38 ; Starin v. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439, 29 Barb. s Talbot u. Dent, 9 B. Monr. 526 ; 
 
 442; Gould v. Sterling, 23 N. Y. 456; Slack v. Maysville & L. R. Co., 13 B. 
 
 Clarke v. Rochester, 28 N. Y. 605, 24 Monr. 1 ; Police Jury .;. McDonough, 8 
 
 Barb. 446 ; Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. v. La. An. 341, 360 ; Cotton v. Leon County, 
 
 Geiger, 34 Ind. 185 ; Patterson v. Yuba 6 Fla. 611. 
 
 ■County, 13 Cal. 175 ; Blanding v. Burr, * See Constitutions (or recent amend- 
 
 13 Cal. 343 ; Hobart r. Butte County, 17 ments thereof) of New York, Pennsyl- 
 
96 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 strict municipal investments in railroads are construed as pros- 
 pective only, and not affecting previous special grants of authority.^ 
 A restriction which applies in terms to the State does not extend 
 to its municipal subdivisions, which, notwithstanding the restric- 
 tion, may be authorized by the legislature to make the invest- 
 ments.^ A restriction on a county does not limit a city.^ 
 
 A constitutional provision forbidding the legislature to author- 
 ize municipalities to become stockholders in corporations, or to 
 loan their credit in aid of them, has been held not to prohibit 
 an act authorizing municipalities to build and own a railroad in 
 which they have a special interest, and to raise money by taxa- 
 tion, and issue bonds therefor.* 
 
 Modes and Extent of Aid, and Conditions to be observed. — A 
 municipality may be authorized to aid a railroad lying partly or 
 wholly outside of its limits, or even without the State.^ The aid 
 may be in the form of a donation, subsidy, or loan of credit, as 
 well as in that of a subscription for stock.® Whether a particular 
 
 vania, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, 
 Mississippi, Minnesota, Nebraska, and 
 West Virginia. 
 
 1 Cass V. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 607 
 Thompson v. Kelly, 2 Ohio St. 647 ; Fos- 
 dick V. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio . St. 472 
 Callaway County v. Foster, 93 U. S. 567 
 Scotland County v. Thomas, 94 U. S.682 
 Henry County v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619 
 Eay County v. Vansycle, 96 U. S. 675 
 Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272, 
 278 ; Schuyler County v. Thomas, 98 U, 
 S. 169 ; Supervisors v. Galbraith, 99 U. S 
 214 ; Fairfield v. Gallatin County, 100 U. 
 S. 47 ; Slack v. Mays ville & L. R. Co., 13 B, 
 Monr. 1 ; State o. Clark, 23 Minn. 422 
 State V. Sullivan County, 61 Mo. 622 
 Smith V. Clark County, 54 Mo. 58 
 State V. Green County, 54 Mo. 540 
 Dodge V. Platte County, 16 Hun, 285. 
 But see Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 22 
 How. 864 ; List v. Wheeling, 7 W. Va. 
 501 ; Falconer u. Buffalo & J. R. Co., 69 
 N. Y. 491. A general law prohibiting 
 such investments has been held to repeal 
 special acts. JefEries a. Lawrence, 42 
 Iowa, 498. 
 
 2 Cass V. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 607; 
 Thompson v. Kelly, ? Ohio St. 647 ; 
 Prettyman v. Tazewell County, 19 111. 
 
 406 ; Robertson v. Rockford, 21 HI. 451 ; 
 People V. Chicago, 51 111. 1, 34 ; Slack v. 
 Maysville & L. R. Co., 13 B. Monr. 1; 
 Clark V. Janesville, 10 Wis. 137 ; Bush- 
 nell V. Beloit, 10 Wis. 195; Aurora w. 
 West, 9 Ind. 74 ; Leavenworth County v. 
 Miller, 7 Kan. 479 ; Pattison v. Yuba 
 County, 13 Cal. 175; New Orleans v. 
 Graihle, 9 La. An. 561. But see Bay 
 City u. State Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499; 
 Concord v. Portsmouth Savings Bank, 
 92 U.. S. 625. 
 
 8 Thompson r. Peru, 29 Ind. 305. 
 
 * Walker i: Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14, 
 1 Cincinnati Superior Court, 121. But 
 see the construction given to this provi- 
 sion in Taylor u. Ross County, 23 Ohio 
 St. 22. 
 
 5 Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Otoe, 
 16 Wall. 667 ; Bell v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 
 4 Wall. 598; Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 
 Ohio St. 14; St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. 
 !>. Buchanan County, 39 Mo. 485 ; Quincy, 
 M., & P. R. Co. V. Morris, 84 111.410; 
 McCallie v. Chattanooga, 3 Head, 317; 
 Copes V. Charleston, 10 Rich. 491 ; Stein 
 V. Mobile, 24 Ala. 591. 
 
 « Burlington & M. R. E. Co. v. 
 Otoe, 16 Wall. 667 ; Olcott v. Super-' 
 visors, 16 Wall. 678; Hamlin v. Mead- 
 
MUNICIPAL STJBSCKIPTIOKS. 97 
 
 tax-payer is to be benefited by the scheme, is a legislative, and 
 not a judicial question.^ The enabling statute usually limits the 
 amount and prescribes the terms of the bonds to be issued in 
 payment ; but, if it omits to do so, the municipality may exercise 
 its discretion on these points.^ 
 
 The legislature may confer the power to subscribe on a cor- 
 poration hereafter to be created.^ It may confer upon some offi- 
 cial board the power to determine whether a subscription shall 
 be made for the municipality, without submitting the question 
 to a popular vote.* If it is a proper exercise of the taxing power 
 for the legislature to authorize municipalities to invest in rail- 
 ways, it is likewise a proper exercise of that power to require 
 them to do so, and to dispense with the consent of the citizens.^ 
 But it has been held by some courts that, while the municipality 
 can be authorized, it cannot be compelled to make such invest- 
 ments, and that the legislature cannot ratify subscriptions made 
 without the consent of the tax-payers.^ As cities, towns, and 
 counties are public corporations and a part of the machinery of 
 the State, the power to compel and the power to authorize ought 
 to be presumed to be coincident. 
 
 If the legislature cannot authorize a municipal investment in 
 railroads without the consent of the tax-payers, it cannot, by a 
 subsequent act, validate proceedings in which such consent is 
 wanting.' Municipal authorities, which have no original author- 
 
 ville, 6 Neb. 227 ; Chicago, D., & V. R. Marshall v. Silliman, 61 111. 218 ; Quincy, 
 
 Co. V. Smith, 62 111. 268 ; Chicago & I. R. M., & P. R. Co. v. Morris, 84 111. 410 ; 
 
 Co. V. Pinckney, 74 111. 277; Rogan r. Roberts v. BoUes, 101 U. S. 119; Mil- 
 
 Watertown, 30 Wis. 259 ; New Orleans, ner v. Pensacola, 2 Woods, 632 ; Duanes- 
 
 St. L., & C. R. Co. V. McDonald, 63 Miss, burgh v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 177. See Wil- 
 
 240; Davidson v. Ramsey County, 18 liams v. Roberts, 88 111. 11; Richland 
 
 Minn. 482; Stewart w. Polk County, 30 County v. People,' 3 Brad. (111.) 210; 
 
 Iowa, 9. But see Whiting v. Sheboygan Perry v. Keene, 58 N. H. 40. 
 
 & F. L. R. Co., 25 Wis. 167 ; Sweet «. « People v. Flagg, 46 N.Y. 401. 
 
 Hulbert, 51 Barb. 312. The term " dona- « People v. Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 128 ; 
 
 tion" in a statute means an absolute gift Williams v. Duanesburgh, 66 N. Y. 129; 
 
 without a consideration. Indiana, N., & Horton v. Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513, 7 
 
 S. R. Co. u. Attica, 56 Ind. 476 ; Wilkin- Hun, 452 ; Hardenbergh v. Van Keuren, 
 
 son u. Peru, 61 Ind. 1. See Concord v. 16 Hun, 17 ; Marshall v. Silliman, 61 111. 
 
 Portsmouth Savings Bank, 92 U. S. 625 ; 218 ; Barnes v. Lacon, 84 111. 461 ; Gaddis 
 
 Fairfield u. Gallatin County, 100 U. S. 47. w. Richland County, 92 111. 119; Sykes 
 
 1 McFerran v. AUoway, 14 Bush, 580. v. Columbus, 55 Miss. 115 ; Allison v. 
 
 2 Niantic Savings Bank v. Douglas, Louisville, H., C, & W. R. Co , 10 Bush, 1. 
 5 Brad. (111.) 579 ; United States v. Clark ^ People v. Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 128; 
 County, 96 U. S. 211. Horton v. Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513; Har- 
 
 8 James w. Milwaukie, 16 Wall. 159. denbergh ./. Van Keuren, 16 Hun, 17; 
 4 Keithsburg v. Frick, 34 111. 405; MarshaU v. SiUiman, 61 111. 218; WUey » 
 
98 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 ity to make a subscription, cannot, by a ratification, give validity 
 to their own unauthorized acts.^ The State may, after a sub- 
 scription has been authorized by a popular vote, and before it 
 has been actually made, take away the power to subscribe. Such 
 a repeal of authority, whether by a legislative act or constitutional 
 amendment, does not impair the obligation of a contract, as no 
 contract with the railroad company exists until the subscription 
 has been made.^ The agreement to take stock may, however, be 
 made without a manual subscription, as by a resolution or vote 
 of the municipal authorities which is designed to have that effect ; ^ 
 but such vote or resolution, in order to be equivalent to a subscrip- 
 tion, must be final in character, and be passed for the purpose of 
 completing the agreement.* 
 
 The power to subscribe for the stock of railroad companies or 
 otherwise to aid such enterprises being derived from statutes only, 
 the terms of the statute must be followed.* Thus the power to 
 donate money and levy a tax for the purpose does not authorize 
 the borrowing of money and issuing of bonds.^ The statute 
 which confers the authority is to be construed reasonably.'^ The 
 authority to subscribe includes the power to issue bonds and to 
 levy a tax.^ A company owning and working a narrow-guage 
 railroad,^ and a company owning and working a railroad and at 
 the same time carrying on other kinds of business,^" are within 
 the description of a railroad company contained in a statute 
 
 Silliman, 62 111. 170; Elmwood v. Marey, Clarke County v. Paris, W., & K. K. T. 
 92 U. S. 289. Co., 11 B. Monr. 143 ; Illinois Midland K. 
 
 1 Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. Co. v. Barnett, 85 111. 313. 
 
 676 ; Mercer County v. Pittsburg & E. R. < Bates County v. Winter, 97 U. S. 83. 
 
 Co., 27 Pa. St. 389; Lewis v. Shreveport, 5 Gaddis v. Richmond County, 92 111. 
 
 3 Woods, 205. 119 ; People v. Jackson County, 92 lU. 
 
 2 Aspinwall v. Daviess County, 22 441 ; Daviess County v. Howard, 13 Bush, 
 How. 364 ; Concord v. Portsmouth Sav- 101 ; Bell v. Mobile & 0. R. Co., 4 Wall, 
 ings Bank, 92 U. S. 625; State v. Gar- 598 ; Wellsboro' v. New York & C. R. Co., 
 routte, 67 Mo. 445 ; List v. Wheeling, 7 76 N. T. 182. 
 
 W. Va. 501 ; Cumberland & 0. R. Co. ^ Middleport v. Mtna. Life Ins. Co., 82 
 
 V. Washington County, 10 Bush, 564; III. 562 ; Lippincott u. Pana, 92 111. 24. 
 
 Cumberland & O. R. Co. v. Barren ' Curtis «. Butler County, 24 How. 435; 
 
 County, 10 Bush, 604. See Falconer v. Woods v. Lawrence County, 1 Black, 386. 
 
 Buffalo & J. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 491, 7 Hun, 8 Seybert v. Pittsburg, 1 WaU. 272; 
 
 499 ; People v. Fort Edward, 70 N. Y. United States v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 
 
 28 ; State v. Lancaster County, 6 Neb. 381 ; United States v. Macon County, 99 
 
 214. • U. S. 582 ; Hancock v. Chicot County, 32 
 
 ' Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241 ; Ark. 575, 583. 
 
 Moultrie County v. Rockingham Ten ^ Meader v. Lowry, 45 Iowa, 684. 
 
 Cents Savings Bank, 92 U. S. 631 ; East i" Randolph v. Post, 93 U. S. 502. See 
 
 Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. 801 ; Kentucky Improvement Co. v. Slack, 100 
 
 Cass County o. GUlett, 100 U. S. 585; U. S. 648. 
 
MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 99 
 
 which authorizes municipal subscriptions to the stock of such 
 companies. 
 
 The conditions and restrictions of the power to subscribe, as 
 conferred by statute, must be fully complied with. If there is a 
 failure in this regard, a mandamus will not be issued to compel 
 the issue of the bonds,i and an injunction will be granted, on the 
 petition of tax-payers, to restrain the municipality from making a 
 subscription,^ or to restrain the company from using the bonds, if 
 already in their possession.^ A municipal corporation, like an 
 individual, is not bound by its subscription, unless the conditions 
 expressed therein are complied with.* It may, however, waive 
 the conditions, and a waiver has been implied from its delivery 
 of its bonds to the company in payment of its subscription.^ "A 
 municipality, having legislative authority to make a subscription 
 not exceeding a certain amount, does not exhaust its power by 
 one subscription of a smaller sum, but may make additional sub- 
 scriptions, amounting to an aggregate which does not exceed the 
 legal limit.^ The rejection, by a popular vote, of a proposi- 
 tion to make a subscription duly authorized by the legislature, 
 does not disable the municipality from submitting the proposition 
 anew to the voters, whose affirmative action in the later vote will 
 be valid.^ 
 
 1 State V. Saline County, 45 Mo. 242 ; Knoxville &K. R. Co., 6 Cold. 598 ; State 
 
 Springfield & I. S. R. Co. v. Cold Spring, v. Daviess County, 64 Mo. 30 ; Cooper v. 
 
 72 111. 603 ; Shelby County v. Cumber- Sullivan County, 65 Mo. 542 ; Wagner v. 
 
 land & 0. R. Co., 8 Bush, 209. Meety, 69 Mo. 150; Falconer v. Buffalo 
 
 = Mercer County v. Pittsburg & E. R. & J. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 491 ; People v. Clay- 
 Co., 27 Pa. St. 390 ; Harding v. Rockford, ton, 88 HI. 45 ; People v. Waynesville, 88 
 R. I., & St. L. R. Co., 65 111. 90; Jackson 111. 469 ; Parker v. Smith, 3 Brad. (111.) 
 County V. Brush, 77 111. 59; People v. 356; Bittinger w. Bell, 65 Ind. 445 (dis- 
 Waynesville, 88 111. 469 ; People v. Spen- tinguishing Indiana, N., & S. R. Co. v. 
 cer, 55 N. Y. 1 ; Falconer v. Buffalo & J. R. Attica, 56 Ind. 476) ; Merrill u. Welsher, 
 Co., 69 N. Y. 491 ; Wellsboro' v. New York 50 Iowa, 61 ; ante, p. 56. 
 & C. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 182 ; Shelby County » Chiniquy v. People, 78 III. 570; 
 V. Cumberland & O. R. Co., 8 Bush, 209 ; Evansville, I., & C. S. R. Co. v. Evans- 
 Mercer County V. Kentucky River Nav. ville, 15 Ind. 395 ; Randolph County v. 
 Co.,8BUsh, 300; Daviess County w. How- Post, 93 U. S. 502; Brooklyn i-. JEtna 
 ard, 13 Bush, 101 ; Lawson v. Schnellen, Life Ins. Co., 99 U. S. 362. But see Eagle 
 33 Wis. 288 ; Wagner v. Meety, 69 Mo. v. Kohn, 84 111. 292 ; Parker v. Smith, 3 
 150; Concord •.. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, Brad. (111.) 356. 
 92 U. S. 625. ° Empire v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 87 ; 
 
 » Mercer County v. Pittsburg & E. R. People v. Waynesville, 88 Bl. 469. 
 Co., 27 Pa. St. 389. ' Society for Savings v. New London, 
 
 * Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Brewer, 67 29 Conn. 174 ; Woodward v. Calhoun 
 
 Me. 295; Virginia & T. R. Co. v. Lyon County (U. S. D. C, N. D. Miss.), 2 
 
 County, 6 Nev. 68 ; Campbell County v. Cent. Law Jour. 396. 
 
100 
 
 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 Validity of Municipal Bonds. — If there is no authority to sub- 
 scribe and issue bonds for the payment of a subscription, or con- 
 ditions essential to the exercise of the power have not been 
 complied with, the bonds will be void, even in the hands of a 
 hona fide purchaser.^ But if the power exists, and the only 
 objection is that it has been defectively executed, as where there 
 are mere irregularities in its exercise, or there is a mere failure 
 to comply with conditions which are not essential to its exist- 
 ence, the municipality will be estopped from taking advantage 
 of such omissions and defects in a suit upon bonds held by a 
 hona fide owner. The authorities are, however, not uniform in 
 distinguishing conditions and requirements which are essential, 
 from those which are merely incidental and directory .^ 
 
 1 Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 
 676 ; Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; 
 Elmwood K. Marcy, 92 U. S. 289; East 
 Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U. S. 255 ; South 
 Ottawa V. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260; McClure 
 V. Oxford, 94 U. S. 429 ; Concord v. Ports- 
 mouth Bank, 92 U. S. 625 ; Anthony v. 
 Jasper County, 101 U. S. 693, 4 Dill. 136 ; 
 Chisholm o. Montgomery, 2 Woods, 584 ; 
 Lewis I/. Shreveport, 8 Woods, 205; 
 Weismer v. Douglas, 64 N. Y. 91 ; Horton 
 ». Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513 ; Hopple v. 
 Brown Township, 13 Ohio St. 311; 
 Beckle v. Union Township, 15 Ohio St. 
 437 ; Hopple v. Hippie, 33 Ohio St. 116 ; 
 Clark V. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136 ; Roches- 
 ter V. Alfred Bank, 18 Wis. 432 ; Berliner 
 V. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 378 ; Burhop v. Mil- 
 waukie, 21 Wis. 257 ; Missouri River, F., 
 & G. R. Co. V. Miami County, 12 Kan. 
 230 ; Steines v. Franklin County, 48 Mo. 
 167 ; Carpenter v. Lathrop, 51 Mo. 483 ; 
 State V. Garroutte, 67 Mo. 445 ; Wagner v. 
 Meety, 69 Mo. 150 ; Sykes v. Columbus, 
 55 Miss. 116 ; Woodruff v. Okaloona, 57 
 Miss. 806 ; Clark v. Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 
 199 ; Williamson v. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 88 ; 
 Schuyler County v. Rock Island & A. R. 
 Co., 25 111. 181; Clarke v. Hancock 
 County, 27 HI. 805; Marshall County «. 
 Cook, 38 111. 44 ; Force v. Batavia, 61 111. 
 99; Bissell v. Kankakee, 64 111. 249 ; Big 
 GroTB V. Wells, 65 111. 263; Ryan v. 
 Lynch, 68 111. 160 ; Barnes v. Lacon, 84 
 111. 461 ; Williams v. Roberts, 88 111. 11; 
 Llpplncott V. Pana, 92111. 24, 2 Brad. (111.) 
 466 ; Gaddis v. Richland County (111. S. 
 
 C), 12 Chicago Leg. News, 121 ; Richland 
 County V. People, 8 Brad. (111.) 211 ; Par- 
 ker V. Smith, 3 Brad. (III.) 356; Delaware 
 County V. McClintock, 51 Ind. 325 ; Ham- 
 lin V. Meadville, 6 Neb. 227 ; Hancock v. 
 Chicot County, 32 Ark. 575 ; C, B., U., 
 P. R. Co. V. Smith, 23 Kan. 745. 
 
 2 Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 
 539, 24 How. 376; Bissell v. JefCerson- 
 ville, 24 How. 287 ; Amey v. Allegheny 
 City, 24 How. 364 ; Wood v. Lawrence 
 County, 1 Black, 386; Moran v. Miami 
 County, 2 Black, 722 ; Mercer County v. 
 Hacket, 1 Wall. 83; Gelpcke v. Du- 
 buque, 1 Wall. 175 ; Meyer v. Muscatine, 
 1 Wall. 384; Rogers v. Burlington, 3 
 Wall. 654; Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 
 Wall. 772; Mayor v. Lord, 9 Wall. 409; 
 Pendleton v. Amy, 13 Wall. 297 ; Lexing- 
 ton V. Butler, 14 Wall. 282 ; Grand Chute 
 V. Winegar, 15 Wall. 355; Kenicott v. 
 Supervisors, 16 Wall. 452, 6 Biss. 138; 
 St. Joseph Township v. Rogers, 16 Wall. 
 644; Coloma o. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484; 
 Venice v. Murdock, 92 U. S. 494; Con- 
 verse V. Fort Scott, 92 U. S. 503 ; Marcy 
 V. Oswego, 92 U. S. 637; Humboldt ». 
 Long, 92 U. S. 642 ; Randolph v. {"ost, 93 
 XJ. S. 502 ; Leavenworth v. Barnes, 94 U. 
 S. 70; Douglass County o. Bolles, 94 U. 
 S. 104; Johnson County v. January, 94 
 U. S. 202 ; Marion County v. Clark, 94 U. 
 S. 278; Johnspn County ». Thayer, 94 
 U. S. 631 ; East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 
 U. S. 801 ; Henry v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619 ; 
 County Com'rs v. Chandler, 96 U. S. 205; 
 United States v. Clark County, 96 U. S. 
 
MUNICIPAL STJBSCEIPTIONS. 
 
 101 
 
 Various Defences. — Collateral matters, as the irregular organ- 
 ization of the corporation, cannot be set up in defence to a 
 suit upon the bonds.^ Nor is it a defence, where the bonds were 
 issued after the organization had been completed, that the cor- 
 poration was not fully organized before the popular vote author- 
 izing the subscription was taken.^ A change of the corporate name 
 does not affect the validity of the bonds.^ The acts of the cor- 
 poration or its officers, which are illegal or ultra vires, are not a 
 defence, as the municipality will have the remedies of a stock- 
 holder against them.* Nor can the municipality set up in defence 
 the acts of the corporation, enlarging or varying the enterprise 
 by the lease or purchase of other railroads, or consolidations with 
 other companies, which were done in pursuance of authority con- 
 
 211 ; Rock Creek v. Strong, 96 XJ. S. 271 ; 
 Eay V. Vansycle, 96 U. S. 675; Warren 
 County V. Marcy, 97 U. S. 96 ; Daviess 
 County V. Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98 ; Wey- 
 auwega o. Ayling, 99 U. S. 112 ; Super- 
 visors V. Galbraith, 99 U. S. 214 ; Brook- 
 lyn V. Mtaa, Life Ins. Co., 99 U. S. 362 ; 
 Cass -County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585; 
 Roberts v. Bolles, 101 U. S. 119 ; Gilchrist 
 V. Little Rock, 1 Dill. 261 ; Muscatine v. 
 M. & M. E. Co., 1 Dill. 536; Nicolay 
 K. St. Clair County, 3 DiU. 163 ; Pollard v. 
 Pleasant Hill, 3 Dill. 195; Stanton v. 
 Alabama & C. R. Co., 2 Woods, 523; 
 Toung 0. Montgomery & E. R. Co., 2 
 Woods, 606 ; Milner v. Pensacola, 2 
 Woods, 632; Davis v. Kendallville, 5 
 Biss. 280; Bank of Rome v. Rome, 19 
 N. Y.^0, 27 Barb. 65 ; Hardenbergh v. Van 
 Keuren, 16 Hun, 17, 25; Society of Sav- 
 ings V, New London, 29 Conn. 174 ; Dem- 
 ing V. Houlton, 64 Me. 254 ; Hamilton v. 
 Pittsburg, 34 Pa. St. 496 ; Garrett v. Van 
 Home, 7 Ohio St. 327 ; Smead v. Union 
 Township, 8 Ohio St. 394 ; Treadwell v. 
 Hancock County, 12 Ohio St. 596, 11 
 Ohio St. 183 ; Goshen v. Shoemaker, 12 
 Ohio St. 624, 14 Ohio St. 569 ; Maddox 
 V. Graham, 2 Met. (Ky.) 56; Johnson v. 
 Stark County, 24 Bl. 75 ; Clarke v. Han- 
 cock, 27 111. 305 ; Pratt v. American Cent. 
 R. Co., 29 111. 54 ; Keithsburg v. Frick, 34 
 111. 405 ; Mercer County v. Hubbard, 45 
 111. 139; People v. Cline, 63 111. 394; 
 Maxcy v. Williamson County, 72 111. 207 ; 
 Morgan County v. Thomas, 76 111. 120 ; 
 Burr V. Carbondale, 76 111. 455 ; Eagle v. 
 Eohn, 84 lU. 292; Niantic Savings Bank 
 
 V. Douglass, 6 Brad. (Dl.) 579; Ryan u. 
 Varga, 87 Iowa, 78; Mt. Vernon u. 
 Hovey, 52 Ind. 563 ; Wilkinson v. Peru, 
 61 Ind. 1; Flagg v. Palmyra, 33 Mo. 
 440 ; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Marion 
 County, 36 Mo. 294; Barrett v. Schuy- 
 ler County, 44 Mo. 197; Neal u. Saline 
 County, 48 Mo. 390 ; Smith u.- Clarke 
 County, 54 Mo. 58; Hawkins v. Carroll 
 County, 50 Miss. 735 ; Vicksburg v. Lom- 
 bard, 51 Miss. Ill ; Clark v. JanesvUle, 
 10 Wis. 136, 13 Wis. 414; BushneU v. 
 Beloit, 10 Wis. 195; State v. Lime, 23 
 Minn. 621 ; San Antonio v. Lane, 32 Tex. 
 405 ; Board v. Texas & P. R. Co., 46 Tex. 
 316 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Tennessee, 
 8 Heisk. 663 ; Fielder v. Montgomery & 
 E. R. Co., 51 Ala. 178; Redd v. Henry 
 County, 31 Gratt. 695. But see Aurora 
 V. West, 22 Ind. 88 ; Veeder v. Lima, 19 
 Wis. 280 ; McPherson v. Foster, 43 Iowa, 
 48; Starin v. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439; Gould 
 V. Sterling, 23 N. Y. 456 ; People v. Mead, 
 24 N. Y. 114, 36 N. Y. 224 ; Venice v. 
 Woodruff, 62 N. Y. 462 (overruled in 92 
 U. S. 494, 502, note) ; Scipio v. Wright, 
 101 U. S. 665. 
 
 1 Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. 
 272 ; Smith v. Clarke County, 54 Mo. 58. 
 
 " Daviess County v. Huidekoper, 98 U. 
 S. 98. But see Ruby v. Shain, 54 Mo. 
 207. 
 
 " Menasha v. Hazard, 12 Chicago Leg. 
 News, 329. 
 
 * People V. Logan County, 63 111. 374 ; 
 Ottawa, O., & F. E. V. R. Co. v. Black, 79 
 111. 262 ; Illinois Midland R. Co. v. Bar- 
 nett, 85 111. 313 ; ante, p. 65. 
 
102 THE LAW OF EAILEOABS. 
 
 ferred by statutes which existed when the subscription was voted, 
 or were, afterwards enacted under a reserved power.^ Oral mis- 
 representations made to voters on behalf of the company as to 
 the route of the railroad are immaterial.^ But an election car- 
 ried by illegal votes will be a defence to a mandamus to compel 
 a subscription in accordance with it.^ 
 
 No formal acceptance by the company of the municipal sub- 
 scription is required in order to bind the municipality. It is 
 sufficient if the company complies with its terms.* 
 
 A municipality can vote a subscription only to the corporation 
 authorized to receive it, and the subscription can be made only to 
 the corporation designated in the vote ; ^ but the subscription 
 may, after the vote has been taken, be made to a corporation into 
 which the one named in the vote has been lawfully consolidated.® 
 The body with which the power to determine the subscription 
 is lodged cannot delegate it.' The subscription can be made 
 only to the enterprise authorized by the statute ; but the pur- 
 pose of the statute will be considered in construing its terms.^ 
 
 " Defects cured by Legislation. — Want of authority or defects in 
 the proceedings may be cured by subsequent legislation.® The 
 
 1 Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241, But see State v. Lake City, 25 Minn. 
 3 Biss. 105 ; Scotland County v. Thomas, 404. 
 
 94 U. S. 682 ; East Lincoln v. Davenport, * State v. Lime, 23 Minn. 521 ; State v. 
 
 94 U. S. 801 ; Cass County v. Jordan, 95 Hastings, 24 Minn. 78. 
 XJ. S. 373; Henry County v. Nieolay, 95 « Big Grove v. Wells, 65 HI. 263; Mo- 
 
 TJ. S. 619 ; Schuyler County v. Thomas, Whorter v. People, 65 El. 290 ; Bell v. 
 
 98 TJ. S. 169 ; Wilson v. Salamanca, 99 U. Mobile & 0. R. Co., 4 Wall. 598 ; Marsh 
 
 S. 499 ; Empire v. Darlington, 101 TJ. S. v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676 ; New Al- 
 
 87 ; Menasha v. Hazard, 12 Chicago Leg. bany v Burke, 11 Wall. 96 ; Bates County 
 
 News, 829 ; State v. Greene County, 64 v. Winters, 97 XJ. S. 83 ; Fulton County 
 
 Mo. 540 ; Robertson v. Rockford, 21 111. v.- Mississippi & W. R. Co., 21 111. 338. 
 
 451 ; People v. Logan County, 63 HI. 374 ; See Ray County v. Vansycle, 96 U. S. 
 
 Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. E. Co. v. Black, 675. 
 
 79 111. 262 ; Illinois Midland R. Co. v. 6 gee cases cited supra, note 1. 
 Barnett, 85 111. 313 ; Edwards v. People, ' Monadnock R. Co. v. Peterborough, 
 
 88 111. 340 ; Lippincott v. Pana, 92 HI. 24, 49 N. H. 281 ; Mercer County v. Pitts- 
 
 2 Brad. (111.) 466 ; Niantic Savings Bank burg & E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 389. 
 D.Douglass, 5 Brad. (111.) 579; Mt. Ver- b Van Hostrup v. Madison City, 1 
 
 non V. Hovey, 52 Ind. 563. But see State Wall. 291 ; State f. Hastings, 24 Minn. 
 
 .-. Nemaha County, 10 Kan. 569 ; Harsh- 78 ; Parker v. Smith, 3 Brad. (111.) 356. 
 man v. Bates County, 92 U. S. 569, 3 Dill. s Bissell v. Jeffersonville, 24 How. 287 ; 
 
 150; Stateu. Garroutte,67Mo.445; Wag- Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; 
 
 ner v. Meety, 69 Mo. 150 ; ante, pp. 66-74. Campbell o. Kenosha. 5 Wall. 194 ; Lee 
 
 2 Illinois Midland R. Co. v. Barnett, 85 County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 181 ; Beloit v. 
 Ill- 313' Morgan, 7 Wall. 619 ; City v. Lamson, 9 
 
 8 People V. Logan County, 63 111. 374. Wall. 477 ; St. Joseph Township v. Eog- 
 
MUNICIPAL STJBSCEIPTIONS. 
 
 103 
 
 conditions may be changed or waived by the legislature even 
 pending litigation.^ The legislature may, by a subsequent act 
 of ratification, give validity to a subscription which the mu- 
 nicipality had not the power at the time to make ; ^ but it can- 
 not give validity to an illegal subscription, if, prior to the ratifying 
 act a constitutional provision forbidding such investments has 
 taken effect.^ Some authorities hold that it cannot by a ratifi- 
 cation give validity to subscriptions which are void for want 
 of compliance with the statute.* 
 
 Congress may by a ratifying act give validity to the unauthor- 
 ized proceedings of a municipal corporation of a Territory in 
 voting a subscription to the stock of a railroad company.^ 
 
 Estoppel. — The municipality is estopped from setting up the 
 invalidity of its bonds while it retains the stock which was issued 
 in exchange for them.^ The fraud or misconduct of agents of the 
 corporation,^ or of public officers by whom the bonds were issued,^ 
 is not a defence to a suit by a bona fide bondholder. The 
 
 ers, 16 Wall. 644 ; South Ottawa v. Per- 
 kins, 94 U. S. 260; Dallas County v. 
 MacKenzie, 94 U. S. 660 ; Bates County v. 
 Winters, 97 U. S. 83; Putnam v. New 
 Albany, 4 Biss. 365 ; People v. Mitchell, 36 
 N. Y. 551, 46 Barb. 208 ; Duanesburg v. 
 Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 177, 46 Barb. 294, 40 
 Barb. 574; Williams v. Duanesburg, 66 
 N. Y. 127; Rogers v. Smith, 5 Hun, 475; 
 Alexander v. McDowell County, 70 N. C. 
 208 ; Shelby County v. Cumberland & 0. 
 R. Co., 8 Bush, 209; Redd v. Henry 
 County, 31 Gratt. 696; Keithsburg v. 
 Frick, 34 111. 405 ; Copes v. Charleston, 
 10 Rich. 491 ; Bridgeport v. Housatonic 
 R. Co., 15 Conn. 475 ; Sykes v. Columbus, 
 55 Miss. 115. See ante, p. 97. 
 
 1 Duanesburg o. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 
 177 ; People v. Clark, 53 Barb. 171. But 
 see Columbus, C, & I. C. R. Co. v. Grant 
 County, 66 Ind. 427. 
 
 * Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. Co., 15 
 Conn. 475: Shelby County v. Cumber- 
 land & 0. R. Co., 8 Bush, 209 ; Campbell 
 V. Kenosha, 6 Wall. 194 ; Ritchie v. Frank- 
 lin County, 22 Wall. 67 ; Keithsburg v. 
 Frick, 34 111. 405 ; Copes v. Charleston, 10 
 Rich. 491. 
 
 ' Sykes v. Columbus, 55 Miss. 115; 
 People V. Jackson County, 92 111. 441; 
 
 Richland County v. People, 3 Brad. (111.) 
 210. 
 
 4 Marshall v. Silliman, 61 111. 218; 
 Wiley II. Silliman, 62 111. 170 ; Barnes v. 
 Lacon, 84 111. 461 ; Williams v. Roberts, 
 88 111. 11 ; Gaddis v. Richland County, 92 
 111. 119; Richland County v. People, 3 
 Brad. (111.) 210 ; Elmwood v. Marcy, 92 
 U. S. 289. 
 
 6 National Bank v. Yankton County, 
 101 U. S. 129. 
 
 * Munson v. Lyons, 12 Blatch. 539; 
 Whiting V. Potter (U. S. C. C, N. D. 
 N. Y., May, 1880), 2 Fed. Rep. 617. But 
 see Horton v. Townsend, 71 N. Y. 513, 
 524. 
 
 ' East Lincoln v. Davenport, 94 U. S. 
 801 ; Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272. 
 Compare State v. Lake City, 25 Minn. 
 404. See as to fraud in influencing TOtes 
 at the voting upon such subscriptions, 
 Butler V. Dunham, 27 111. 474 ; Sinnett v. 
 Moles, 38 Iowa, 26 ; Platteville v. Galena 
 & S. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 493 ; Leaven- 
 worth, L., & G. R. Co. V. Douglass 
 County, 18 Kan. 169. 
 
 8 Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51, 
 94 XJ. S. 351; Smith v. Sac County, 11 
 Wall. 139; Cass County v. Green, 66 Mo. 
 498. 
 
104 THE LAW OF BATLKOADS. 
 
 officers of a municipality who have as its agents received its 
 funds to pay the interest on its bonds, cannot contest their 
 legality, even though at the time acting under the instructions of 
 a town meeting.^ 
 
 Conclusive Acts and Certificates. — The certificates or acts and 
 decisions of certain public officers, boards, and tribunals may by 
 statutes be made conclusive proof that proper legal steps have 
 been taken in order to make a valid subscription ; and they will 
 exclude inquiry into such matters in suits upon the bonds.^ A 
 similar effect, where the power to subscribe exists, has been given 
 to recitals in the bond itself when made by an officer or board 
 authorized to decide whether the conditions precedent to a lawful 
 issue have been complied with.^ If the bond recites that it is 
 issued for a municipal purpose, the city cannot set up that it was 
 issued for a different and unauthorized purpose.* The recital will 
 have, it has been held, no effect where the power to subscribe 
 does not exist.^ The recitals of the bonds themselves may be 
 such as to affect the public with notice of their invalidity.^ The 
 doctrine of constructive notice arising from lis pendens does not 
 apply to such negotiable securities, purchased before maturity.^ 
 
 1 Rosst). Curtiss, 31N. Y. 606; People ren County u. Maroy, 97 TJ. S. 96; Da- 
 
 V. Mead, 36 N. Y. 224; People o. Brown, viess County v. Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98; 
 
 55 N. Y. 180, 187 ; First National Banlt v. WUsou v. Salamanca, 99 U. S. 499 ; Super- 
 
 WHeeler, 72 N. Y. 201. visors v. Galbraith, 99 U. S. 214; Orleans 
 
 " Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. v. Piatt, 99 U. S. 676; Hackett v. Ottawa, 
 539; Mercer County v. Haeket, 1 Wall. 99 U. S. 86; Pompton v. Cooper Union, 
 83; Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 101 U. S. 196; Menasha v. Hazard, 12 
 355 ; Lynde v. Winnebago County, 16 Chicago Leg. News, 329 ; Dodge v. Platte 
 Wall. 6 ; Kenicott <>. Supervisors, 16 County, 16 Hun, 285, 290 ; Smith v. Clark 
 Wall. 452 ; Kock Creek v. Strong, 96 TJ. County, 54 Mo. 58. Contra, Woodruff v. 
 S. 271 ; Macon County v. Shores, 97 U. S. Okaloona, 67 Miss. 806. 
 272, 279 ; Block v. Com'rs, 99 U. S. 686; « Hackett v. Ottawa, 99 U. S. 86. 
 Munson v. Lyons, 12 Blatcli. 539 ; Ballon •- Barnes v. Lacon, 84 111. 461 ; Wil- 
 li. Jasper County (U. S. C. C, S. D. 111.),, liams v. Roberts, 88 111. 1 ; Lippincott o. 
 8 Fed. Rep. 620, 10 Reporter, 449; Bank Pana, 92 111. 24, 2 Brad. (111.) 466. 
 of Rome v. Rome, 19 N. Y. 20 ; People v. « Harshman v Bates County, 92 U. S. 
 Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 551, 45 Barb. 208 ; 569 ; McClure a. Oxford, 94 U. S. 429 ; 
 State V. Hancock County, 12 Ohio St. Bates County v. Winters, 97 U. S. 88; 
 596; Evansville, L, & C. S. R. Co. v. Lewis k. Barbour County (U. S. C. C.,D. 
 Evansville, 15 Ind. 395. Kan.), 3 Fed. Rep. 191. See Wilson v. 
 
 » Moran u. Com'rs, 2 Black, 722 ; Co- Salamanca, 99 U. S. 499. 
 lona V. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484 ; Marcy v. ^ Warren County v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 
 
 Oswego, 92 U. S. 637 ; Douglas County 96 ; Cass County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585. 
 
 V. BoUes, 94 U. S. 104 ; Johnson County See Diamond v. Lawrence County, 37 Pa. 
 
 V. January, 94 U. S. 202 ; San Antonio v. St. 353 ; Lee County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 
 
 Mehaffy, 96 D. S. 312, 51 Tex. 490 ; War- 181. 
 
MUNICIPAIi SUBSCEIPTIONS. 
 
 105 
 
 Mandamus. — The writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy 
 of the railroad corporation to compel municipal officers to comply 
 with the requirements of the statute authorizing a municipal sub- 
 scription.i It is the remedy of a holder of municipal bonds for 
 enforcing the municipal obligation to provide means by taxation 
 for paying the interest and principal as each becomes due.^ The 
 relator must clearly establish his right, or the writ will not be 
 granted.^ 
 
 Mandamus issued by the National Courts. — The Circuit Courts 
 of the United States, in suits pending in them, will issue the writ 
 of mandamus commanding the proper local officers of the State to 
 assess and collect a tax for the satisfaction of judgments rendered 
 in said courts on municipal bonds, and an injunction from a State 
 court is not a sufficient answer to the writ ; * but they will not, 
 on account of the evasions of duty Iqj the local authorities, 
 appoint officers of their own to assess and collect the tax.^ 
 
 1 Cincinnati, W., & Z. E. Co. v. Clin- 
 ton County, 1 Ohio St. 77; Clarke 
 County V. Paris, W., & K. R. Turnpike 
 Co., U B. Mohr. 143; Cumberland & 0. 
 R. Co. V. Washington County, 10 Bush, 
 564 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Davidson 
 County, 1 Sneed, 637 ; People v. Mitchell, 
 35 N.Y. 551; Howland o. Eldredge, 43 
 N. Y. 457 ; People v. Allen, 52 N. Y. 538; 
 Selma & G. R. Co., In re, 45 Ala. 696 ; 
 People V. Logan County, 63 111. 374; 
 People u. Glann, 70 111. 232; People v. 
 Cass County, 77 111. 438; lUinois Mid- 
 land R. Co. 17. Barnett, 85 111. 313 ; Napa 
 Valley R. Co. v. Napa County, 30 Cal. 
 435. But see Crawford County v. Louis- 
 ville, N. A., & St. L. A. L. E. Co., 39 Ind. 
 192 ; Sankey v. Terre Haute & S. W. E. 
 Co., 42 Ind. 402 ; Mt. Vernon v. Hovey, 
 52 Ind. 563 ; Jager v. Doherty, 61 Ind. 
 528; Bittinger v. Bell, 65 Ind. 445; Peo- 
 ple V. Batehellor, 53 N. Y. 128; C, D., & 
 M. R. Co. V. Olmstead, 46 Iowa, 316. 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Allegheny Coun- 
 ty, 32 Pa. St. 218; Commonwealth v. 
 Pittsburg, 34 Pa. St. 496 ; Commonwealth 
 V. Allegheny County, 37 Pa. St. 237; 
 Commonwealth v. Pittsburg, 43 Pa. St. 
 391; Commonwealth v. Perkins, 43 Pa. 
 St. 400 ; Clarke County v. Paris, W., & 
 K. R. Tump. Co., 11 B. Monr. 143; 
 Maddox v. Graham, 2 Met. (Ky.) 56; 
 
 Shelby County v. Cumberland & 0. E. Co., 
 8 Bush, 209 ; McLendon v, Anson Coun- 
 ty, 71 N. C. 38; Limestone County v. 
 Rather, 48 Ala. 433 ; Flagg v. Palmyra, 
 33 Mo. 440; Columbia County v. King, 
 13 Fla. 452; Hopple v. Brown Town- 
 ship, 13 Ohio St. 311. 
 
 3 People V. Oldtown, 88 111. 202. 
 
 * Knox County v. Aspinwall, 24 How. 
 376 ; Supervisors v. United States, 4 
 Wall. 435; Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 
 Wall. 535 ; Riggs n Johnson County, 6 
 Wall. 166 ; Weber v. Lee County, 6 Wall. 
 210; United States u. Keokuk, 6 Wall. 
 514, 518 ; Supervisors v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 
 175; Butz 0. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575; 
 Mayor v. Lord, 9 Wall. 409 ; Supervisors 
 V. Durant, 9 Wall. 415 ; Cass County v. 
 Johnston, 95 U. S. 360; United States 
 V. Clark County, 96 U. S. 211 ; United 
 States V. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381; 
 Welch V. Ste. Genevieve, 1 Dill. 130; 
 Lansing v. County Treasurer, 1 Dill. 
 522 ; Muscatine v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 1 
 Dill. 536 ; Rusch v. Des Moines County, 
 Woolworth, 313 ; United States v. Badger, 
 6 Biss. 308 ; Sibley v. Mobile, 3 Woods, 
 535 ; Brodie v. McCabe, 33 Ark. 690. 
 
 6 Rees V. Watertown, 19 Wall. 107; 
 Heine v. Levee Com'rs, 19 Wall. 655, 1 
 Woods, 246. 
 
106 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 They will not issue the writ to compel municipal officers to do 
 acts which. they are not authorized to do by the laws of the 
 State.i 
 
 Injunction against Issue of Bonds and Collection of Tax, — The 
 
 municipal corporation may be enjoined at the suit of tax-payers 
 from making illegal subscriptions, and issuing bonds or raising 
 money by taxation therefor.^ After the bonds have been issued, 
 the injunction will be granted only when the municipality has a 
 valid defence to them.^ A court of equity may, on a proper 
 case shown, decree the cancellation of municipal bonds illegally 
 issued.* 
 
 Hemedies against Municipality. — A municipal corporation, hav- 
 ing received the. money on bonds which have been held void for 
 mere want of power to issue them, ought in justice to refund the 
 amount, and it is liable therefor to a bona fide bondholder in an 
 action for money had and received.^ While the doctrine of 
 ultra vires may be admitted with more reason as a defence in 
 the case of municipal than of private corporations, it is, even 
 as to the former, one which ought to be confined within 
 narrow limits. If tax-paying citizens fail to resort to prevent- 
 ive remedies, and allow bonds to be issued, and the pro- 
 ceeds paid into the municipal treasury, a rule of law which 
 permits the municipal corporation to repudiate its promise, while 
 it retains the consideration, violates the fundamental principles 
 
 1 Supervisors v. United States, 18 railroad company has been held in In- 
 Wall. 71 ; United States v. Clark County, diana not to be a proper party defendant 
 96 U. S. 211 ; United States v. Macon to the proceeding. Jager v. Doherty, 
 County, 99 U. S. 682. 61 Ind. 528; Bittinger v. Bell, 65 Ind. 
 
 2 Chestnutwood v. Hood, 68 111. 132; 445. 
 
 Campbell v. Paris & D. R. Co., 71 111. 611 ; 8 Wilkinson v. Peru, 61 Ind. 1. 
 Wright V. Bishop, 88 III. 302 ; New Or- * Springport v. Teutonia Savings 
 
 leans, M., & C. R. Co. v. Dunn, 51 Ala. Bank, 75 N. Y.397 (distinguishing Venice 
 
 128 ; Redd v. Henry County, 81 Gratt. v. Woodruff; 62 N. Y. 462). 
 695 ; Winston v. Tennessee & P. R. Co., 5 Dill v. Wareham, 7 Met. 438 ; Ar- 
 
 1 Baxter (Tenn.), 60; Nefzger v. Daven- genti a. San Francisco, 16 Cal. 255; Paul 
 
 port & St. P. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 642 ; Dela- v. Kenosha, 22 Wis. 266 ; Wapello Coun- 
 
 ware County v. McClintock, 51 Ind. 325. ty v. B. & M. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 585 ; Marsh 
 
 But tlie tax-payer cannot, where the col- v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676. See 
 
 lection of the tax might have been re- Herzo v. San Francisco, 33 Cal. 134; but, 
 
 sisted, recover the amount of the munici- contra, where the contract is prohibited by 
 
 pal treasurer after it has been collected a penal law, or founded on an immoral 
 
 and paid to the railroad company. Butler consideration, Thomas v. Richmond, 12 
 
 V. Fayette County, 46 Iowa, 326. The Wall. 349. 
 
MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 107 
 
 of morality and good government. A bond issued by a public 
 authority ought to be the symbol of faith and honor.^ 
 
 The rights of creditors are not affected by amendments of 
 municipal charters, or the substitution of a new charter for the 
 old one, where the substantial identity of the corporation is pre- 
 served.2 They survive in case of the extinction of the municipal 
 body by legislative act against the municipal corporation in which 
 it has been merged, at least to the extent to which the latter has 
 succeeded to the property of the former.^ 
 
 A municipality may, under an appropriate statute provision, 
 have an equitable lien on the earnings of a corporation to which 
 it has made a loan.* 
 
 Bonds and Coupons. — Bonds with coupons payable to bearer, 
 though under seal, are negotiable and pass by delivery, and in 
 the hands of bona fide holders are not subject to the equities 
 between the original parties.^ They may be sued by the holder 
 in his own name.^ Coupons are suable without the production 
 of the bonds,^ and the Statute of Limitations begins to run on 
 each coupon upon its maturity.^ A coupon, it has been held, 
 is only negotiable when it contains a^t words on its face, giving 
 it that character.^ The bona fide holder may recover the full 
 amount of the bond, although he paid a less sum for it.^" The 
 fact that a coupon is overdue and unpaid does not affect the 
 position of one who is a bona fide purchaser of the bond as to 
 the bond and coupons not yet matured.'^ The bond may, by 
 
 1 See Douglas County v. BoUes, 94 327 ; Aurora o. West, 7 Wall. 82, 105 ; 
 U. S. 104. Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 ; Crom- 
 
 2 Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. well v. Sac County, 94 U. S. 351, 362 ; 
 266; Milner v. Pensacola, 2 Woods, 632. Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 750; 
 
 8 Mount Pleasant o. Beckwith, 100 Nashville v. First Nat. Bank, 1 Baxter 
 U. S. 514. See State v. Lake City, 25 (Tenn.), 402. But see Clarke </. Janes- 
 Minn. 404. ville, 1 Biss. 98. 
 
 * Ketchum v. St. Louis, 101 U. S. » Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583 
 
 306. (distinguishing Kenosha u. Lamson, 9 
 
 6 Mercer County v. Hacket, 1 Wall. Wall. 477, and Lexington v. Butler, 14 
 
 83; Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110; Wall. 282). 
 
 Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51, 94 » Augusta Bank v. Augusta, 49 Me. 
 
 U. S. 351 ; San Antonio v. Lane, 32 Tex. 507. But see Porter v. Janesville (U. S. 
 
 405; Tucker o. New Hamp. Savings C. C, W. D. Wis.), 3 Fed. Rep. 617. 
 
 Bank, 58 N. H. 83. " Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 
 
 6 Roberts v. BoUes, 101 U. S. 119. 51. But see Diamond v. Lawrence 
 
 ^ Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. County, 37 Pa. St. 353. 
 
 639; Thompson v. Lee County, 3 WaU. " Id. 
 
108 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILBOADS. 
 
 its terms, be made payable and sold beyond the limits of the 
 State or county where it was issued.^ The holder of coupons, 
 in an action to recover upon them, is entitled to interest upon 
 them as a part of his damages.^ 
 
 MisceUaneous Points. — Various points relating to the proceed- 
 ings under statutes authorizing municipal subscriptions have 
 been passed upon, but it does not seem necessary to note them 
 further than by reference to the cases.^ 
 
 1 Meyer v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384; 
 Lynde v. Winnebago County, 16 Wall. 6 ; 
 Evansville, I., & C. S. L. K. Co. v. Evans- 
 ville, 15 Ind. 395. But see People v. Taze- 
 well County, 22 111. 147 ; Johnson v. Stark 
 County, 24 111. 75. 
 
 2 Gelpcke u. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175, 
 206 ; Aurora v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 105 ; 
 Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51, 94 
 U. S. 351; HoUingsworth u. Detroit, 3 
 McLean, 472; Beaver County v. Arm- 
 strong, 44 Pa. St. 63; North Penn. R. 
 Co. V. Adams, 54 Pa. St. 94; San An- 
 tonio V. Lane, 32 Tex. 405; Welsh v. 
 St. Paul & P. B. Co., 25 Minn. 314. But see 
 Eose V. Bridgeport, 17 Conn. 243. 
 
 * State V. Ripley, 9 Ind. 310 ; Evans- 
 ville, I., & C. S. L. R. Co. V. Evansville, 
 15 Ind. 395; Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. 
 V. Geiger, 34 Ind. 185 ; Garrigus v. Parke 
 County, 39 Ind. 66; Crawford County 
 V. Louisville, N. A., & S. L. A. L. R. 
 Co., 39 Ind. 192 ; State ..'. Wheadon, 39 
 Ind. 520 ; Cincinnati, W., & M. R. Co. v. 
 Wells, 39 Ind. 539 ; Detroit, E. R., & I. 
 R. Co. V. Bearss, 39 Ind. 598; Bronen- 
 berg i!. Madison County, 41 Ind. 502 ; 
 Noble V. Vincennes, 42 Ind. 125; Alvis 
 V. Whitney, 43 Ind. 83 ; Williams v. Hall, 
 65 Ind. 129; Bittinger v. Bell, 65 
 Ind. 445; Columbus, C, & I. C. R. 
 Co. V. Grant County, 65 Ind. 427 ; People 
 V. Tazewell County, 22 111. 147; Pratt 
 V. People, 29 111. 54 ; People v. Logan 
 County, 45 111. 162 ; Madison County v. 
 People, 58 111. 456 ; Marshall v. Silliman, 
 61 III. 218 ; McWhorter v. People, 65 111. 
 290 ; People v. Santa Anna, 67 III. 57 ; Peo- 
 ple V. Harp, 67 111. 62 ; People v. Laenna, 
 67 111. 65 ; Decker v. Hughes, 68 111. 33 ; 
 Chestnutwood v. Hood, 68 111. 132 ; Chicago 
 & I. B. Go. V. Pinckney, 74 lU. 277 ; Alley 
 
 V. Adams County, 76 Bl. 101; Jackson 
 County V. Brush, 77 Bl. 59 ; Cairo & St. 
 L. R. Co. 0. Sparta, 77 111. 505; Chicago, 
 D., & V. R. Co. V. Coyer, 79 111. 373 ; 
 Middleport v. Mtna. Life Ins. Co., 82 El. 
 562 ; Blinois Midland R. Co. v. Barnett, 
 85 111. 313; People v. Oldtown, 88 lU. 
 202; Edwards b. People, 88 HI. 340; 
 McMillan v. Lee County, 3 Iowa, 311 ; 
 Jordon v. Hayne, 36 Iowa, 9 ; Zorger v. 
 Rapids, 36 Iowa, 175 ; B., C. R., & M. R. 
 Co. V. Stewart, 39 Iowa, 267 ; Lamb v. 
 B., C. R., & M. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 333 ; 
 Casady v. Lowry, 49 Iowa, 523; Phil- 
 lips V. Albany, 28 Wis. 340 ; Lawson v. 
 Mil. & N. R. Co., 30 Wis. 597 ; Lawson w. 
 Schnellen, 33 Wis. 288; St. Joseph & 
 D. C. R. Co. V. Buchanan County, 39 
 Mo. 485; McPike ^. Pen, 51 Mo. 63; 
 Paola & F. R. R. Co. v. Anderson County, 
 16 Kan. 302 ; Redd v. Henry County, 31 
 Gratt. 695 ; Trammell v. Pennington, 45 
 Ala. 673 ; Austin v. Gulf, C, & S. E. R. 
 Co., 45 Tex. 234 ; Bowling Green & M. 
 R. Co. V. Warren County, 10 Bush, 711 ; 
 Danville v. Railroad Co., 43 Vt. 144; 
 Lamoille Valley R. Co. v. Fairfield, 51 Vt. 
 257; Douglass v. Chatham, 41 Conn. 
 211 ; Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v. Brooks, 
 60 Me. 568; Portland & 0. R. Co. v. 
 Standish, 65 Me. 63; Canton v. Smith, 
 65 Me. 203 ; Cass County v. Shores, 95 
 U. S. 376; Coleman v. Marin County, 
 50 Cal. 493 ; Stockton R. Co. v. Stock- 
 ton, 51 Cal. 328 ; Mercer County v. Pitts- 
 burg & E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 389 ; Craw- 
 ford County V. Pittsburg & E. R. Co., 32 
 Pa. St. 141; Lawrence County xi. North 
 Western R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 144 ; Common- 
 wealth V. Allegheny County, 32 Pa. St. 
 218 ; Commonwealth v. Allegheny Coun- 
 ty, 37 Pa. St. 237; Lawrence County's 
 
MXJNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. 
 
 109 
 
 Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 87 ; People v. Sawyer, 
 52 N. Y. 296 ; People v. Allen, 52 N. Y. 
 538 ; People v. Smith, 55 N, Y. 135 ; Peo- 
 ple V. Brown, 55 N. Y. 180 ; People v. Mor- 
 gan, 55 N. Y. 587, 1 Thomp. & C. 101 ; 
 People V. Suffern, 68 N. Y. 821 ; Gould v. 
 Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298; Springport w. 
 Teutonia Savings Bank, 75 N. Y. 397 ; 
 Wellsboro' v. New York & C. R. Co., 76 
 N. Y. 182 ; Sweet v. Hulbert, 51 Barb. 
 812 ; People v. Hulbert, 59 Barb. 446 ; 
 People V. Henshaw, 61 Barb. 409 ; People 
 V. Feck, 62 Barb. 545 ; Newton v. Keecb, 
 
 9 Hun, 355; Biddlecom u. Newton, 13 
 Hun, 582 ; Wilson v. Caneadea, 15 Hun, 
 218; Joslyn v. Dow, 19 Hun, 494; Peo- 
 ple V. Hatch, 1 Thomp. & C. 113, 65 Barb. 
 430; Venice o. Breed, 1 Thomp. & C. 
 130, 65 Barb. 597 ; People v. Wagner, 1 
 Thomp. & C. 221; People v. Oliver, 1 
 Thomp. & C. 670 ; People v. Hitchcock, 
 
 2 Thomp. & C. 134 ; People v. Deyoe, 2 
 Thomp. & C. 142; People v. Franklin, 
 
 3 Thomp. & C. 794; People v. Walter, 
 
 4 Thomp. & C. 638, 2 Hun, 385. 
 
110 THE LAW OP RAILBOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 Incidents of Shares. — Shares in corporations, though not visible 
 or tangible, are property, and have in general the incidents of 
 property. They can be sold and attached on mesne process, and 
 seized on execution. They are not choses in action, though in 
 some respects analogous to them. They are usually treated as 
 personal property, although the corporation itself is the owner of 
 real estate. They entitle the holder to the right to participate, in 
 a certain proportion, in the management, and to share in the net 
 profits of the corporation, and, upon its dissolution, in the surplus 
 of its capital remaining after the payment of its debts. They are 
 not dowable, or within 'the provisions of the Statute of Frauds 
 respecting real estate, but are within those respecting personal 
 estate.^ The certificate is the evidence of the ownership of a cer- 
 tain interest in the property of the corporation.^ 
 
 Liable to Attachment. — Shares in corporations are usually 
 liable to attachment and execution, and to a garnishee or trustee 
 process ; but a creditor's remedy for subjecting them to the pay- 
 ment of debts varies under the legislation of the different States.' 
 By one method, the officer serving the process is required to 
 leave a copy thereof with the recording officer of the corpora- 
 tion, and, after a sale on the execution, the recording officer is 
 
 1 .Greenl. Cruise, tit. 1, § 3 ; Bradley Mayer v. Child, 47 Cal. 142. In Ken- 
 
 V. Holdsworth, 3 M. & W. 422 ; Tempest v. tucky the shares are held to be real estate. 
 
 Kilner, 3 C. B. 249 ; Duncuft v. Albrecht, Price v. Price, 6 Dana, 107 ; Copeland v. 
 
 12 Sim. 189 ; Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Copeland, 7 Bush, 349. As to a donatio 
 
 Co , 8 Pick. 90, 96 ; Tisdale v. Harris, 20 causa mortis of shares, see Moore v. Moore, 
 
 Pick. 9 ; Fisher v. Essex Bank, 5 Gray, L. R. 18 Eq. Cas. 474. 
 
 373 ; Pinkerton v. Manchester & L. R. ^ Factors' & T. Ins. Co. v. Marine Dry 
 
 Co., 42 N. H. 424, 451 ; Baltimore City Dock & S. Co., 31 La. An. 149. 
 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Sewell, 36 Md. 238 ; " Titcomb v. Union Marine & Fire Ins. 
 
 Weaver v. Barden, 49^. V. 286 ; Burrall Co., 8 Mass. 326 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. 
 
 V. Bushwlck R. Co., 75 N. Y. 211; Cliesa- v. Gallahue, 12 Gratt. 655; Chesapeake 
 
 peake & 0. R. Co. v. Paine, 29 Gratt. 502; & O. R. Co. u. Paine, 29 Gratt. 502. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. HI 
 
 required to give to the purchaser a certificate of the shares levied 
 upon and sold.^ The purchaser at a sale on execution succeeds 
 only to the debtor's rights as against the lien of the corporation.^ 
 
 Not Negotiable. — The certificates of stock, although assignable, 
 so as to pass an equitable title, are not negotiable instruments 
 in the sense of the commercial law.^ 
 
 Pledge of Shares. — A transfer of shares, absolute on its face, 
 may be shown by parol evidence to have been made as collateral 
 security for a debt, and a bill in equity may be maintained to 
 redeem them.^ Shares held as a pledge can be sold only at pub- 
 lic auction, and after demand of payment, with notice of time and 
 place of sale.^ 
 
 Sale of Shares ; Delivery and Payment. — Where delivery of 
 stock and payment therefor are by the contract to be concurrent 
 acts, neither payment nor tender by the buyer, nor actual de- 
 livery by the seller, is necessary in order to give the party who is 
 ready and offers to perform a right of action against the party 
 who refuses. The vendor, when able to perform his agreement, 
 may recover the price without first executing a transfer of the 
 certificate to the vendee.^ Where a subscriber fails to pay the 
 calls, or act in any way as a corporator, thus showing his purpose 
 to abandon the contract, the corporation may, without selling the 
 shares, cancel the subscription, and is not liable thereafter for 
 refusing to deliver the certificate to him.^ 
 
 A contract for the sale of shares, deliverable at a future day, 
 where an actual transfer is intended, is valid at common law, 
 although the vendor is not at the time the owner of shares, and has 
 not entered into a contract to buy them.^ Such sales of stock, 
 
 1 Gen. Stat. Mass. ch. 123, §§ 59-61, 5 Wilsons. Little, 2N. Y. 443; Brown 
 
 ch. 133, §§ 43-48 ; Fislier v. Essex Bank, v. Ward, 3 Duer, 660 ; Indiana & I. C. R. 
 
 5 Gray, 873. Co. v. McKernan, 24 Ind. 62. 
 
 '^ Mechanics' Bank w. Merchants' Bank, « Munn v. Barnum, 24 Barb. 283; 
 
 46 Mo. 513. Currie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822, 1 Sweeny, 
 
 ^ Mechanics' Bank u. New York & N. 166; Hager v. Reed, 11 Ohio St. 626; 
 
 H. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599, 623 ; Weaver v. Faulkner v. Hebard, 26 Vt. 452. 
 
 Barden, 49 N. Y. 286 ; Sewall v. Boston ' Perkins v. Union Button Hole & E. 
 
 Water Power Co., 4 AUen, 277, 282 ; M. Co., 12 Allen, 273. 
 
 Shaw 0. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382, 388; « Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 5 M. & W. 
 
 Campbell v. Morgan, 4 Brad. (111.) 100. 462 ; Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 420 ; Cur- 
 
 * Newton v. Fay, 10 Allen, 505. rie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822, 1 Sweeny, 166. 
 
112 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 where the vendor is not an owner at the time, are sometimes 
 prohibited by statute.^ The purchaser on a sale in prcesenti is 
 entitled to the dividends thereafter declared.^ Subject to some 
 exceptions, the vendor warrants his title to the shares.^ 
 
 Fraud in Sales. — A vendor's fraud avoids a sale of stock, and 
 the vendee can recover of him the price paid.* Fraud in the sale 
 of shares is actionable.^ The vendee may, in an action on the case 
 against the vendor for his fraudulent-representations, recover the 
 difference between the value of the stock at the time of the sale 
 and what the value would have been if the facts represented had 
 been true.® 
 
 Transfers ; Regulations and Restrictions. — The corporation may 
 by by-laws regulate, but it cannot unreasonably restrict, transfers 
 of shares.^ It cannot exercise a discretionary power in permitting 
 them ; ^ or limit the owner as to the persons to whom he may make 
 the transfer ; ^ or create a lien in its own favor on the shares ; '" 
 or make the approval of the board of directors essential to a valid 
 transfer, where such approval would defeat the rights of third 
 parties.i^ 
 
 Mode and Effect of the Transfer. — The shares of the capital 
 stock are assignable in the manner provided by statute or the 
 by-laws.i2 These usually prescribe a mode of transfer which 
 requires as the last step a record thereof on the company's books, 
 and the issue of a new certificate ; and they frequently add a 
 provision, that the shares are transferable only in the mode pre- 
 scribed. Different views have been taken as to the legal effect 
 of an exclusive mode thus declared. A transfer on the books 
 has sometimes been treated as " the originating act in the change 
 
 1 Kyder's Case, 1 De Gex & J. 317 ; 7 Sargent «. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 
 Stebbins V. Leowolf, 3 Cusi,. 137. 90 ; Moore .. Bank of Commerce, 52 Mo. 
 
 2 Curne v. White, 45 N. Y. 822, 1 877. 
 
 ^T°9nQ ^^^ • ■^°^°'°" "■ U"'^^'''^'"' S2 « Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 20, 
 
 r-K- * I o. , L. E. 6 Eq. Cas. 238. See Robinson v. 
 
 3 Ketchum w^Stevens, 19 N. T. 499. Chartered Bank, L. E. 1 Eq. Cas. 32. 
 
 4 Bradley „. Poole 98 Mass. 169. See » Chouteau Spring Co. «. Harris, 20 
 an^e. Chap. II. pp. 41, 42, Chap. IV. pp.61, Mo. 382. 
 
 62. As to fraud of the company in its lo See post, p. 129. 
 
 ol'w-^ t""^' '^^ McClellan .. Scott, n Farmers' & M. Bank ,,. Wa38on,48 
 
 2* Wis. 81. lo^a, 336. 
 
 6 McAleero. Horsey, 35 Md. 439. 12 Angell & A. on Corp. ch xvi 
 
 ° Bowman v. Parker, 40 Vt. 410. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 113 
 
 of title," so that an unrecorded assignment conveyed no title to 
 the vendee.^ But the prevailing view gives full effect to the 
 assignment as between the parties, and makes it inoperative, — for 
 the reason that it is not entered on the company's books, as 
 required by the charter or by-laws, — only when the rights of the 
 corporation or of innocent third parties are concerned. Accord- 
 ing to the usual practice in selling shares, the stockholder signs a 
 form of transfer on the certificate, which includes a power of 
 attorney to transfer the shares, leaving a blank for the name 
 of the attorney, which, although under seal, may be filled 
 by the purchaser. A transfer in this form, though not entered 
 on the company's books as required, passes the title to the ven- 
 dee, subject to the equities of the corporation, and of innocent 
 purchasers who, without knowledge of the transfer, obtain title 
 by an assignment, as provided by the charter or by-laws.^ 
 
 A transfer on the books completes the title of the vendee as 
 between him and the corporation, without the issue of a certifi- 
 cate, which is only additional evidence of title.^ The assignee 
 
 1 Oxford Tump. Co. v. Bunnel, 6 
 Conn. 652 ; Marlborough Man. Co. v. 
 Smith, 2 Conn. 579 ; Northrop v. Newton 
 & B. Tump. Co., 3 Conn. 544. These 
 cases have been approved in a few in- 
 stances. Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Clarke, 
 29 Pa. St. 146, 151, 152 ; Fisher v. Essex 
 Bank, 5 Gray, 373, 383. More recently, an 
 assignment which does not comply with 
 the mode prescribed by the charter or by- 
 laws has been held in Connecticut to con- 
 vey an equitable title. Colt v. Ives, 31 
 Conn. 25; Isham v. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 
 216; Stone v. Hackett, 12 Gray, 227, 
 231. 
 
 '^ Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 
 90; Stone u. Hackett, 12 Gray, 227; 
 Union Bank v. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390 ; Bank 
 of Utica V. Smalley, 2 Cowen, 770; Kort- 
 right V. Commercial Bank, 20 "Wend. 91, 
 22 Wend. 348 ; Mechanics' Bank v. New 
 York & N. H. R. Co , 13 N. Y. 599, 624; 
 Orr V. Bigelow, 14 N. Y. 556 ; New York 
 & N. H. R. Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 
 80 ; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 
 325, 331 ; Isham v. Buckingham, 49 N. 
 Y. 216 ; Johnson v. Underbill, 52 N. Y. 
 203 ; Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 
 57 N. Y. 616 ; Burrall i: Bushwick R. Co., 
 75 N. Y. 211 ; De Comeau v. Guild Farm 
 
 Oil Co., 3 Daly, 218 ; Driscoll v. West B. & 
 C. Man. Co., 36 N. Y. Superior, 488, 59 
 N. Y. 96 ; Hill v. Newichawanick Co., 48 
 How. Pr. 427; Bridgeport Bank v. New 
 York & N. H. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231 ; Mount 
 Holly, L., & M. Turnp. v. Ferre, 2 C. E. 
 Green, 117; Noyes o. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 
 420; Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. 
 Sewell, 35 Md. 238 ; Black v. Zacharie, 3 
 How. 483, 513 ; Dewing «. Perdicaries, 96 
 U. S. 193, 1S6 ; Conant v. Seneca County 
 Bank, 1 Ohio St. 298, 306; Haldeman v. 
 Hillsborough & C. R. Co., 2 Handy (Cin- 
 cinnati), 101 ; Campbell f. Morgan, 4 
 Brad. (111.), 100; Kellogg v. Stockwell, 75 
 III. 68; Boatman's Ins. & T. Co. v. Able, 
 48 Mo. 136; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. 
 Richards, 6 Mo. App. 454 ; Weston r 
 Bear River & A. W. & M. Co., 5 Cal. 180, 
 6 Cal. 425; Naglee v. Pacific Wharf Co., 
 20 Cal. 529 ; People v. Elmore, 35 Cal. 
 653; Parrott ... Byers, 40 Cal. 614; 
 Winter v. Belmont Mining Co., 53 Cal. 
 428 ; Strange v. Houston & T. R. Co. (Tex. 
 S. C), 10 Reporter, 28, 22 A. L. J. 153. 
 
 8 Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 24 Me. 
 256 ; Chouteau Spring Co. c. Harris, 20 
 Mo. 382; Bank of Commerce's Appeal, 73 
 Pa, St. 59 ; First National Bank i'. Gifford, 
 47 Iowa, 575. 
 
 8 
 
114 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 has not, until he has acquired the legal title, a right of action 
 in his own name against the corporation.^ 
 
 The vendor, until the transfer is made on the books of the 
 company, as required by statute, remains liable for calls and 
 for the debts of the corporation, under statutes imposing a 
 personal liability on stockholders ; ^ but he may recover of the 
 vendee the calls made since the assignment which he has been 
 required to pay, and by bill in equity compel the vendee to 
 record the transfer.^ The vendee may also recover of the vendor 
 the dividends declared by the company after the sale and re- 
 ceived by the vendor.* 
 
 The corporation may waive conditions of transfer established 
 by its by-laws, and be estopped by its omissions from setting 
 up such conditions in its own favor even when prescribed by 
 statute. Thus, it cannot insist in a suit for calls that there was 
 no record of the defendant's transfer upon its books, as required 
 by its rules and a statute, where it neglected after request to 
 make the record, and treated the transferee as the owner.^ 
 
 Adverse Claims of Attaching Creditors and Purchasers. — The 
 rights of attaching creditors and of purchasers, whose title has 
 not been registered on the company's books, as required by law, 
 have been adjusted differently in different jurisdictions. Where 
 the statute provides that the shares shall be transferable only on 
 the company's books, an assignment without a compliance with 
 this requirement has been held not to avail against an attachment 
 of the shares by a creditor of the vendor.^ Even where the stat- 
 ute does not prescribe such a record as an exclusive mode, but 
 
 1 Brown u. Adams, 5 Biss. 181. 24, where, however, the word "only'' 
 
 2 Pittsburg & C. K. Co. v. Clarke, 29 was omitted from the provision. It Is 
 Pa. St. 146 ; Shellington v. Howland, 53 implied in the reasoning of the Massachu- 
 N. Y. 371. setts cases cited above that the transfer 
 
 ' Johnson v. Underbill, 52 N. Y. 203; is of no effect even as between the ven- 
 
 "Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 ; Kellogg dor and vendee, until recorded at the 
 
 V. Stockwell, 75 111. 68 ; Wynne v. Price, office or delivered there for record. But 
 
 3 De Gex & S. 310. see Stone v. Hackett, 12 Gray, 227, 231. 
 
 4 Currie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822, 1 The doctrine stated in the text is quali- 
 Sweeny, 166. fied in California, where it is held that it 
 
 5 Ishara V. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. does not apply if tlie purchaser at a sale 
 216. on execution has notice of the previous 
 
 6 Fisher v. Essex Bank, 5 Gray, 373 ; assignment. Weston v. Bear River & A. 
 Blanchard v. Dedham Gas Light Co., 12 W. & M. Co., 6 Cal. 425, 5 Cal. 186; Strout 
 Gray, 213 ; People's Bank v. Gridley (111. v. Natoma Water & M. Co., 9 Cal. 78 ; Na- 
 S.C, June, 1879), 8 Reporter, 76. Contra, glee u. Pacific Wharf Co., 20 Cal. 629; 
 Broadway Bank v. McElrath, 2 Beasley, Parrott u. Byers, 40 Cal. 614. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 115 
 
 simply requires it to be made, the failure to make it, leaving the 
 vendor, according to the record, in the apparent possession of the 
 stock, is held prima facie, and, if unexplained, conclusive evidence 
 of a secret trust so as to make the imperfect transfer void as against 
 attaching creditors. It was considered that, applying the rules 
 which govern the sale and delivery of other personal property, 
 the transfer is invalid, where the vendee fails to obtain the indi- 
 cia of ownership and muniments of title appropriate to this kind 
 of property, and there is therefore an omission to complete the 
 transaction in the authentic manner designated bj'' law ; ^ but if 
 due diligence was used to perfect the transfer, it will take effect 
 against an attachment intervening between the execution of the 
 assignment and the act of recording on the company's books.^ 
 In other jurisdictions, where the statute provision requiring an 
 entry of the transfer on the company's books is regarded as 
 only intended for the company's protection, and one which it 
 may waive, an attaching creditor obtains only the right belong- 
 ing to the debtor at the time of the service of process, and his 
 attachment will not prevail against a prior unrecorded sale or 
 lien.^ 
 
 The effect of an assignment of the share on the liability of the 
 subscriber for calls,* and on the right to vote upon shares,^ has been 
 already treated. 
 
 Liability of the Corporation for 'Wrongful Transfers. — A stock- 
 holder, unless chargeable with negligence, is not bound by altera- 
 tions obvious on the face of his assignment, by which a larger 
 number of shares is conveyed than the number written by him- 
 self, and may recover of the corporation, which is put on inquiry 
 by the appearance of the paper itself, damages for transferring 
 the excess.® 
 
 A stockholder cannot, without negligence on his part, be de- 
 prived of his shares by a forged transfer. If the company, mis- 
 led by a forgery, cancels his certificate and issues a new one to an 
 
 1 Pinkerton i: Manchester & L. R. Co., 519 ; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Richards, 
 42 N. H. 424. 6 Mo. App. 454 ; Cornick v. Richards, 3 
 
 2 Pinkerton V. Manchester & L. R. Co., Lea (Tenn.), 1. See also United States 
 42 N. H. 424 ; Colt v. Ives, 31 Conn. 25. v. Vaughan, 3 Binney, 394. 
 
 3 Haldeman v. Hillsborongh & C. R. * Ante, p. 80. 
 Co., 2 Handy (Cincinnati), 101 ; Pe Co- « Ante, pp. 24, 25. 
 
 mean v. Guild Farm Oil Co., 3 Daly, ^ Sewall v. Boston "Water Power Co., 
 
 218 ; Fraser t.-. Charleston, 11 S. C. 486, 4 Allen, 277. 
 
116 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 innocent person who derives title under the forged transfer, he is 
 entitled to have his name restored to its books, and to the issue 
 of a new certificate to him, and to be paid the dividends which 
 would have been payable to him if his title had not been inter- 
 fered with.^ But he may forfeit his right by culpable conduct or 
 negligence.^ As between the corporation which is not charge- 
 able with negligence and an innocent person claiming under the 
 forged transfer, the loss will fall on the latter.^ 
 
 A corporation, as the trustee of its stockholders and the cus- 
 todian of the record. of the ownership and transfer of stock, is 
 bound to use due care to prevent unauthorized transfers. It is 
 its duty, whenever there are circumstances within its knowledge 
 calculated to excite suspicion, to inquire as to the title of the per- 
 son presenting a paper which purports to be a transfer, and request- 
 ing to be recorded as the owner.* It will incur liability to an 
 innocent transferee if it fails to require the surrender of the cer- 
 tificate or proof of its loss, where such precautions are required by 
 its by-laws or by statute, or the terms of the certificate.^ 
 
 A corporation, by issuing a certificate which it is by law 
 authorized to issue, it has been held, makes thereby a continuing 
 affirmation of the ownership of the share by the person designated 
 ill it as stockholder until it is withdrawn in some manner recog- 
 nized by law, and it is estopped from denying his title in a suit 
 brought against it by parties claiming through him.^ 
 
 The purchaser of shares is not bound to look beyond the cer- 
 
 1 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Daven- Pa. St. 80; Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 
 port, 97 U. S. 369; Pratt v. Taunton 109 Mass. 115 ; Loring f. Salisbury Mills, 
 Copper Co., 123 Mass. 110; Brown v. 125 Mass. 138; Western Union Tel. Co. 
 Howard Pire Ins. Co., 42 Md. 384; Ham- v. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369 ; Campbell v. 
 bleton v. Central Ohio R. Co., 44 Md. 551; Morgan, 4 Brad. (111.) 100; Cleveland & 
 Pollock f. National Bank, 7 N. Y. 274. M. R. Co. v. Tapett (Ohio S. C), 22 A. 
 
 2 Coles V. Bank of England, 10 Ad. & L. J. 117. 
 
 K 4.37 ; Penn. R. Co.'s Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 5 Factors' & T. Ins. Co. o. Marine Dry 
 
 80; Fnedlander v. Slaughter House Co., Dock & S. Co., 31 La. An. 149; Bank v. 
 
 ^^ , ■ ■^"- ^^^- Lanier, 11 Wall. 369 ; Bridgeport Bank v. 
 
 ,., £'!!"^" "■ ^"'"^''^ ^ire Ins. Co., 42 New York & N. H. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231, 
 
 Md. 384 ; Hambleton v. Central Ohio R. 270. 
 
 Co 44 Md^ 551 ; Simra v. Anglo-Ara. 6 Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 
 
 lei. Co L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 188 (comment- N. Y. 616 ; Strange v. Houston & T. C. 
 
 ',"o°^ .f.'" ^^; ^- ^- ^°- '^" "' ^- ^- ^- C°- (S- C- Tex.), 10 Reporter, 28, 22 
 
 A % \,A ^""^ ^^'"■* "• J^™nt'"o & B. S. A. L. J. 153. But see Simm v. Anglo- 
 
 A. It. M. Co., L. R. 5 Exch. 111). But Am. Tel. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. Div 188 ■ 
 
 see Machinists' Nat. Bank ... Field, 126 Central R. & B. Co. v. Ward 37 Ga' 
 
 ^^f • ^^S- 615, 631 ; South Western R. Co.'d. Thom- 
 
 4 Bayard v. Farmers' & M. Bank, 52 ason, 40 Ga. 408 ; Nutting v. Thomasson 
 
 Pa. St. 232; Penn. R. Co.'s Appeal, 86 57 Ga, 418,46 Ga. 34. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 117 
 
 tificates issued by the corporation, and examine its books in 
 search of the validity of earlier assignments.^ The company 
 having registered a person as a stockholder cannot displace him, 
 except in favor of one who has a better title.^ 
 
 The acts of the corporation under a statute and order of the 
 Confederate States in erasing the names of certain stockholders 
 from its books, and inserting those of purchasers under a sale 
 made in pursuance of such statute and order, being void, the cor- 
 poration is not liable to the purchasers or their assignees for their 
 failure to obtain a title.^ 
 
 Transfers by Executors, Administrators, Trustees, and Assignees in 
 Bankruptcy. — Shares standing in the name of a stockholder may 
 be transferred by his administrator, executor, or assignee ia bank- 
 ruptcy, or by a trustee having the legal title ; but where the per- 
 son assuming to make the transfer is an executor or trustee, the 
 corporation, it has been held, must take notice of the limitations 
 of his trust, and is liable when a transfer is made in violation 
 thereof.* So, also, it is liable when it is privy to assignments 
 known by it to be made by persons acting in a fiduciary character 
 in violation of their duty.^ An administrator duly qualified as 
 such succeeds by operation of law to the legal title of the de- 
 cedent stockholder, and may vote at the election of directors.® 
 A foreign executor or administrator has the same powers, and 
 does not require a domestic reappointment.' 
 
 Sales by Agents and Trugfees in Breach of Trust. — Where the 
 stockholder executes an assignment and power, in the usual 
 form, to his agent or trustee, and thus clothes him with the 
 apparent title, such agent or trustee may, contrary to iustruc- 
 
 1 Lowry o. Commercial & F. Bank, 8 Allen, 15. See Nutting w. Thomasson, 
 Taney, 310; Bayard c.-. Farmers' & M. 57 Ga. 418. Where shares stand on the 
 Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232 ; Salisbury Mills y. books in the name oX a person with the 
 Townsend, 109 Mass. 115; Holbrook v. affix of "cashier," his resignation as 
 New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 61G. As to cashier and the election of a successor do 
 the effect of lis pendens, see this last case, not alone work a transfer of the trust. Mo- 
 
 2 Ward V. South Eastern R. Co., 2 El. hawk & H. R. Co., In re, 19 Wend. 135. 
 & El. 812. ■ ^ Lowry v. Commercial & F. Bank, 
 
 » Central R. & B. Co. v. Ward, 37 Ga. Taney, 310. 
 515. See Keppel v. Petersburg R. Co., « North Shore Staten Island Ferry Co., 
 
 Chase's Dec. 167. I" ''«. 63 Barb. 556. 
 
 * Bayard v. Farmers' & M. Bank, 52 ' Middlebrook i;. Merchants' Bank, 3 
 
 Pa. St. 282 ; Lowry v. Commercial & F. Keyes, 135 ; Hutchms >,. State Bank, 12 
 
 Bank, Taney, 310 ; Atkinson v. Atkinson, Met. 421. 
 
118 THE LAW OP EAILROADS. 
 
 tions and in breach of trust, in order to obtain a loan to himself, 
 convey a good title to an innocent purchaser, who will be entitled 
 to a certificate from the corporation. By executing and deliver- 
 ing the instrument he held out the agent or trustee to be the 
 true owner, and he is estopped from asserting his own title 
 against those who have been misled by his act.^ But if the pur^ 
 chaser received actual notice of the fiduciary character of the 
 apparent owner, or the certificate itself, by indicating it, put him 
 on inquiry, an assignment, known to him to be made for the pur- 
 pose of securing a private debt of the agent or trustee, will not 
 be valid against the real owner.^ Where an administrator, who 
 is allowed by law to sell only at public auction, sells shares at 
 private sale, the sale is voidable, as the vendee must have known 
 the capacity in which, and the law under which, the adminis- 
 trator acted; the vendee, however, may convey a good title to 
 other purchasers who are ignorant of the defect.^ 
 
 Remedies at Law. — An action, either case or assumpsit, lies 
 against a corporation for a wrongful refusal to issue a certificate, 
 or permit a transfer of shares, to the party entitled thereto ; * or- 
 for cancelling a certificate and allowing a transfer in violation of a 
 stockholder's rights.^ A suit against the corporation for refusing 
 
 1 McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. Sprague v. Cocheco Man. Co., 10 Blatch. 
 325,55 Barb. 59; Weaver ... Barden, 49 173; Lowry v. Commercial & F. Bank, 
 N. Y. 286 ; Holbrook w. New Jersey Zinc Taney, 310 ; Shropshire Union B. & C. 
 Co., 57 N. Y. 616 ; Loring u. Salisbury Co. v. Queen, L. R. 7 H. L. 496, L. E. 8 
 Mills, 125 Mass. 138; Stinson v. Thorn- Q. B. 420, 
 
 ton, 56 Ga. 377 ; Bayard ;;. Farmers' & M. s Nutting v. Thoraasson, 46 Ga. 84. 
 Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232 ; Strange v. Hous- ■> Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 20 
 ton & T. C. R. Co. (Tex. S. C), 10 Re- Wend. 91, 22 Wend. 348 ; Mechanics' 
 porter, 28; Wood's Appeal (Penn. S. C), Bank v. New York & N. H. Co., 13 N. Y. 
 10 Reporter, 125. The case of McNeil v. 599, 624 ; Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc 
 Tenth Nat. Bank is distinguished in Mer- Co., 57 N. Y. 616; Busey v. Hooper, 35 
 chants' Bank v. Livingston, 74 N. Y. 223. Md. 15; Baltimore City Pass. B. Co. ». 
 Where the assignment was made in blank, Sewell, 35 Md. 238 ; Hussey v. Manufac- 
 to be used for a particular purpose, and turers' & M. Bank, 10 Pick. 415 ; Wyman 
 the person receiving it, after filling the v. American Powder Co., 8 Cush. 168; 
 blank with one name, erased it and in- Murray v. Stevens, 110 Mass. 95; Stack- 
 serted another, his authority to fill the pole v. Seymour, 127 Mass. 104 ; Bridge- 
 blank was held to be exhausted by the port Bank v. New York & N H R Co., 
 first insertion. Denny v. Lyon, 38 Pa. St. 30 Conn. 231 ; Helm v. Swiggett, 12 Ind. 
 ^^- 194 ; Protection Life Ins. Co. v. Osgood, 
 
 2 Shaw u. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; 93 111. 69 ; Bank of America y. McNeil, 10 
 Fisher v. Brown, 104 Mass. 259; Loring Bush, 54 ; Catchpole v. Ambergate, N., & 
 c. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. 138; Mer- B., & E. J. R. Co., 1 El. & B. Ill 
 chants' Bank v. Livingston, 74 N. Y. 223; » McNeil o. Tenth Nat. Bank 46 N 
 Budd V. Munroe, 18 Hun, 316. See Y. 325, 332; Factors' & T. Ins 'co </. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 119 
 
 to transfer stock should be preceded by a demand made at a time 
 and place when it cannot rightfully refuse to comply .^ Trover 
 will lie against a pledgee selling without notice.^ 
 
 Mandamus. — The writ of mandamus has been issued to compel 
 a corporation to perform its duty in issuing certificates and trans- 
 ferring shares.* It was, however, denied by Lord Mansfield in 
 such a case,* and, there being a complete remedy by action, the 
 writ ought not, according to the better authorities, to be 
 granted.^ 
 
 Remedy in Equity. — Equity will enforce specific performance 
 of an agreement to transfer shares in a corporation,^ and will at 
 the suit of a vendor compel the vendee to record a transfer, so as 
 to substitute him as a stockholder in place of the vendor.'^ It 
 will compel the corporation to issue or transfer shares to a party 
 entitled to the issue or transfer.* It will compel such a transfer to 
 a bankrupt's assignee, who has succeeded to his rights.^ The cor- 
 poration may maintain a bill of interpleader against opposing 
 claimants of dividends.^" 
 
 Measure of Damages. — In suits between a vendor and a vendee 
 of shares for breach of contract to purchase or deliver them, the 
 
 Marine Dry Dock & S. Co., 31 La. An. Staekpole v. Seymour, 127 Mass. 104 ; 
 
 149; Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 109 Fireman's Ins. Co.; In re, 6 Hill, 243; 
 
 Mass. 115 ; Loring v. SaUsbury Mills, 125 State v. Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155 ; Birming- 
 
 Mass. 138. ham Fire Ins. Co. «. Commonwealth 
 
 1 Neiler v. Kelley, 69 Pa. St. 403. (Penn. S. C), 9 Reporter, 186; Shrop- 
 
 2 Bridgeport Bank v. New York & N. shire Union R. & C. Co. v. Queen, L. R. 
 H. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231. 7 H. L. 496, L. R. 8 Q. B. 420. 
 
 8 Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. C. 25 ; * Leach v. Fobes, 11 Gray, 506 ; Todd 
 People V. Crockett, 9 Cal. 112 ; King v. v. Taft, 7 Allen, 371 ; Anthony v. Atkin- 
 Worcester & B. Canal Nav. Co., 1 Man. & son, 2 Sweeny (N. Y.), 228; Duncuft v. 
 R. 529 ; Regina v. Liverpool, M., & N. R. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189 ; Cheale v. Ken- 
 Co., 16 Jur. 949, 11 Eng. L. & Eq. 408 ; ward, 3 De Gex & J. 27. 
 Queen v. Shropshire Union R. & C. Co., 7 Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 ; 
 L. R. 8 Q. B. 420 ; Moses on Mandamus, Wynne v. Price, 3 De Gex & S. 310. 
 p. 108. See Helm v. Swiggett, 12 Ind. " Chew v. Bank of Baltimore, 14 Md. 
 194 299 ; Pollock v. National Bank, 7 N. Y. 
 
 * King V. Bank of England, Douglass, 274 ; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. u. Dud- 
 
 524 ; State v. "Warren Foundry & M. Co., ley, 14 N. Y. 336, 347 ; Burrall v. Bush- 
 
 3 Vroom, 439; Shipley v. Mechanics' wick R. Co., 75 N. Y. 211. 
 
 Bank 10 Johns. 484; New York & N. » Wilson v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 H. R. Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 85; (U. S.D. C, D. Me., Feb. 1880), 2 Fed. 
 
 Wilkinson u. Providence Bank, 3 R. I. Rep. 459. 
 
 22. See Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15, i" Salisbury Mills c. Townsend, 109 
 
 25 Mass. 115. See Dalton v. Midland K. 
 
 6 Murray v. Stevens, 110 Mass. 95; Co., 12 C. B. 458, 13 C. B. 474. 
 
120 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 measure of damages is the difference between the contract price 
 and the market value at the time of the breach.i A party, sub- 
 scribing for shares at the request of another, who agrees to take 
 them and indemnify him, may recover of the person so agreeing 
 the amount advanced, with interest, on the latter's refusal to ful- 
 fil the agreement, and is not hmited to the amount paid, less the 
 market value at the time of the refusal.^ In an action on a guar- 
 anty that the shares sold shall yield certain annual dividends for 
 a certain period, the measure of damages is the difference between 
 the actual value of the shares and their value if they had proved 
 to be of the stipulated quality.^ In an action brought by a person 
 entitled to a certificate of shares against a corporation wrongfully 
 refusing to issue it to him, the measure of damages is the value of 
 the stock at the time of the demand, with interest and with divi- 
 dends, if any, added.* The rule is the same where, the consider- 
 ation having been paid, the action is brought against parties, other 
 than the corporation, for a conversion of the stock or for breach 
 of contract to deliver shares.^ 
 
 Dividends. — Dividends are corporate funds derived from the 
 earnings of the corporation, and appropriated by a corporate act 
 to be divided among the stockholders. A holder of shares has no 
 legal title to any part of the profits on hand until a division is made.® 
 But when a dividend is declared, the share of each stockholder 
 in the net income is thus severed from the common fund, and he 
 can recover it in an action of assumpsit.'^ He may also, where 
 
 1 Eand v. White Mountains R., 40 highest market price between the time of 
 N. H. 79 ; Currie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822, the conversion and the time of the com- 
 1 Sweeny, 166 ; Shaw d. Holland, 15 M. mencement of the action or of the trial ; 
 & W. 136 ; Pott V. Flather, 5 Eng. Rail, but they are not in harmony with the pre- 
 & Can. Cas. 85 ; Tempest v. ICilner, 3 C. vailing view. Commercial Bank v. Kort- 
 B. 249, 253. right, 22 Wend. 348 ; Wilson v. Matthews, 
 
 2 Orr V. Bigelow, 14 N. T. 556. 24 Barb. 295 ; Romaine v. Van Allen, 26 
 
 3 Struthers v. Clark, 30 Pa. St. 210. N. Y. 309 ; Van Allen u. Illinois Cent. R. 
 * Hussey v. Manufacturers' & M. Bank, Co., 7 Bosw. 515 ; Bank of Montgomery 
 
 10 Pick. 415; Wyman v. American Pow- v. Reese, 26 Pa. St. 143; Reitenbaugh v. 
 
 der Co., 8 Cush. 168 ; Sewall v. Boston Ludwick, 31 Pa. St. 131 ; Neiler v. Kelley., 
 
 Water Power Co., 4 Allen, 277 ; Balti- 69 Pa. St. 403. 
 
 more City Pass. R. Co. u. Sewall, 35 Md. ^ Orange & A. R. Co. v. Fulvey, 17 
 
 238 ; Pinkerton v. Manchester & L. R. Gratt. 366. 
 
 Co., 42 N. I-I. 424. See Baltimore Marine ^ Hyatt v. Allen, 56 N. Y. 55.3. See 
 
 Ins. Co. V. Dalryraple, 25 Md. 269, 304. Harris v. San Francisco Sugar Refining 
 
 Some authorities have admitted as a rule Co., 41 Cal. 393 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. 
 
 of damages for the conversion of property, v. Page, 1 Biss. 461. 
 
 subject like stock to much fluctuation, the ' Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. 90 ; 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 121 
 
 the other stockholders have received a dividend, without an 
 amount being set apart for him, recover of the corporation his 
 proportionate share ; ^ but he cannot recover of another stock- 
 holder who may have received more than he would be entitled to 
 on an equal division.^ Equity, it has been held, will compel the 
 payment of a dividend which has been declared.^ The divi- 
 dend can be made only from profits, and not from the capital 
 stock.* 
 
 The dividends must be general and equal on all the stock, 
 without discrimination in favor of particular stockholders ; ° and 
 equity will interfere to control directors who undertake to dis- 
 criminate between stockholders.^ Dividends belong, irrespective 
 of the time when earned, to the person who is the owner of the 
 stock when they are declared, and not to any prior owner;'' and 
 the rule is the same, although the order declaring them makes 
 ' them payable at a later date, between which and the time of de- 
 claring them the shares have been sold.^ In the case of a sale in 
 prcesenti, the vendor becomes a quasi trustee for the purchaser, 
 who is entitled to all dividends accruing thereafter.^ A person 
 who has become a stockholder by the conversion of the com- 
 pany's bonds into stock has the same rights as other stock- 
 holders.i" A stockholder who has received new stock for his 
 
 Le Eoy u. Globe Ins. Co., 2 Edw. Ch. ' Burnes v. PenneU, 2 H. L. Cas. 497, 
 
 667; Scott v. Central E. & B. Co., 52 531. 
 
 Barb. 45 ; Chase v. Vanderbilt, 37 N. Y. ^ Ryder u. Alton & S. R. Co., 13 111. 
 
 Superior, 334 ; Ehle v. Chittenango 516 ; Jones v. Terre Haute & R. R. Co., 
 
 Bank, 24 N. Y. 548 ; Keppel u. Petersburg 57 N. Y. 196, 29 Barb. 353. 
 
 R. Co., Chase's Dec. 167 ; King v. Pater- « Luling v. Atlantic Hut. Ins. Co., 45 
 
 son & H. R. R. Co., 5 Dutcher, 82, 504 ; Barb. 510. 
 
 State V. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 6 Gill, ' Brundage v. Brundage, 65 Barb. 397, 
 
 363; Philadelphia, W., & B. R. Co. v. 1 Thomp. &C. 82; Jones v. Terre Haute 
 
 Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329; Westchester & & R. R. Co., 57 N. Y. 196, 29 Barb. 
 
 P. R. Co. u. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321. In 353 ; Hill v. Newichawanick Co., 48 How. 
 
 a suit for a dividend the question of Pr. 427 ; Goodwin v. Hardy, 57 Me. 143 ; 
 
 profits cannot be inquired into. Scott v. Central R. & B. Co. o. Papot, 59 Ga. 342 ; 
 
 Central R. Co., 52 Barb. 45. March v. Eastern R. Co., 43 N. H. 515 ; 
 
 1 Stoddard v. Shetucket Foundry Co., Ryan v. Leavenworth, A., & N. W. R. 
 34 Conn. 542;. Jackson v. Newark Plank Co., 21 Kan. 365, 402; Black u. Homer- 
 Road Co., 2 Vroom, 277. sham, L. R. 4 Exch. Div. 24. 
 
 2 Peckham v. Van Wagenen, 45 N. Y. » Spear v. Hart, 3 Rob. 420 ; Bright v. 
 Superior, 328. Lord, 51 Ind. 272. Contra, Burroughs v. 
 
 8 Beers v. Bridgeport Spring Bank, North Carolina R. Co., 67 N. C. 376. 
 
 24 Conn. 17. Mandamus is not a proper » Currie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822, 1 
 
 remedy to compel the payment of a divi- Sweeny, 166. 
 
 dend which has been declared. People " Jones v. Terre Haute & R. R.Co., 57 
 
 u. Central Car. & M. Co., 41 Mich. 166. N. Y. 196. 
 
122 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 dividends is not entitled to a dividend in money.^ A bondholder 
 who has been paid his interest and is entitled to stock for his 
 bonds, is entitled to stock only to the amount of the principal of 
 his bonds.^ The Statute of Limitations does not begin to rtin on 
 dividends until demand and refusal.^ 
 
 The making of dividends is a customary power of the direc- 
 tors ; and whether the net- profits of a corporation shall be used 
 for improvements or other lawful purposes in its business, or be 
 divided among the stockholders, is peculiarly a matter within 
 their discretion. This discretion has, however, been held subject 
 to judicial control. Equity has intervened at the suit of stock- 
 holders to compel them to declare a dividend where there appeared 
 to have been a wilful abuse of discretion, or bad faith, or a per- 
 verse refusal to declare one.* But as the making of a dividend 
 concerns the internal management of the corporation, this remedy 
 will be applied only in the State which created it.^ Equity will 
 enjoin the making of a dividend when there are no funds applica- 
 ble to the purpose, or where it is prohibited by statute ; ® and it 
 will intervene to restrain the directors from paying a dividend to 
 the holders of spurious stock ; ' or from making a partial and 
 unequal dividend.^ Dividends are presumed to be payable in 
 lawful money .^ A demand should precede an action for a 
 dividend.'" 
 
 1 Harris v. San Francisco Sugar Eefln- 307. Contra, Prouty v. Mich. S. & N. 
 ing Co., 41 Cal. 393. I. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 363, 4 Thomp. & C. 
 
 2 Sutliff V. Cleveland & M. R. Co., 24 230, 1 Hun, 655. 
 
 Ohio St. 147. 6 Carpenter v. New York & N. H. 
 
 8 Philadelphia, W., & B. R. Co. u. Cow- R. Co., 5 Abbott Pr. 277 ; Browne ». Mon- 
 
 ell, 28 Pa. St. 329. mouthshire R. Co., 13 Beav. 32 ; Carlisle 
 
 * Beers v. Bridgeport Spring Co., 42 v. South Eastern R. Co., 1 Mac. & G. 
 
 Conn. 17 ; Pratt v. Pratt, 33 Conn. 446 ; 689 ; Fawcett v. Laurie, 1 Drewry & S. 
 
 Smith u. PrattvilleMan. Co.,29AIa. 503; 192; Allen v. Abbot, 30 Law Times, 
 
 Scott V. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 7 Paige, 198 ; 316 ; Burnes v. Pennell, 2 H. L. Cas. 497, 
 
 Ely u. Sprague, Clarke (N. Y.), 351; 531. 
 
 Thompson v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 468 ; ' Underwood v. New York & N. H. R. 
 
 Karnes v. Rochester & G. V. R. Co., 4 Ab- Co., 17 How. Pr. 537. 
 bott Pr. N. s. 107 ; State v. Bank of La., 6 s Luling v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 45 
 
 La. 746 ; Harris v. San Francisco Sugar Barb. 510. 
 
 Refining Co., 41 Cal. 393 ; Stevens v. ^ Ehle v. Chittenango feank, 24 N. Y. 
 
 South Devon R. Co., 9 Hare, 313 ; 548. As to dividends payable in Confed- 
 
 Browne a. Monmouthshire R. Co., 13 erate currency, see Scott v. Central R. & 
 
 Beav. 32. B. Co., 52 Barb. 46 ; Keppel v. Petersburg 
 
 5 Williston V. Mich. S. &N. I. R. Co., 13 R. Co., Chase's Dec. 167. 
 Allen, 400; Howell u. Chicago & N. W. l" Scott v. Central R. & B. Co., 52 
 
 R. Co., 51 Barb. 378; Chase v. Vander- Barb. 45; Hagar v. Union Nat. Bank, 63 
 
 bill. 37 N. Y. Superior, 334, 62 N. Y. Me. 509. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 123 
 
 Stock Dividends. — Dividends of stock have been issued where 
 there were net earnings, properly applicable for the purposes of a 
 dividend in cash, and it was deemed expedient to retain the amount 
 in order to make permanent improvements or pay debts. They 
 can only be made where there is a power to increase the capital 
 stock to the extent of such dividends.^ New stock has been 
 issued with the privilege given to present stockholders to take it 
 by paying the par value or a less sum.^ Bonds convertible into 
 stock have also been issued.^ 
 
 Where there are distinct interests in stock, created under a will 
 or trust, the owner of one being entitled to the income for life, 
 and the owner of the other to the remainder or principal, the 
 right to share in the surplus earnings, in the form of extra or 
 stock dividends, may come in question. Some courts undertake 
 an inquiry as to the time when the surplus fund was earned, 
 treating it as capital, if accruing before the testator's death, and 
 income, if accruing afterwards ; * but others decline to inquire 
 into the accounts and affairs of the corporation, and adopt a more 
 definite rule, treating cash dividends, however large, as income, 
 and stock dividends as capital, and determining whether a divi- 
 dend is an apportionment of stock, or a division of profits by the 
 substance and intent of the action of the corporation, as shown 
 by its votes.^ 
 
 Rights of Stockholders upon an Increase of Capital Stock. — It 
 was held at an early period that the stockholders of a corporation 
 have each a prior right, to the exclusion of the public, to a pro- 
 
 1 Howell V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., " Denney v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 28 
 51 Barb. 378; Miller v. 111. Cent. R. Co., Ohio St. 108; Jones v. Terre Haute & R. 
 24 Barb. 312 ; State v. Bait. & O. R. Co., R. Co., 57 N. Y. 196, 29 Barb. 353. 
 6 Gill, 363 ; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Com- < Earp's Appeal, 28 Pa. St. 368 ; Wilt- 
 monwealth, 100 Mass. 399. Holders of bank's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 256 ; Van Doren 
 scrip convertible into shares of stock, and v. Olden, 4 C. E. Green, 176; Clarkson v. 
 entitling the holders to cash dividends, Clarkson, 18 Barb. 646; Simpson v. 
 are, after the conversion and the pay- Moore, 30 Barb. 637; Lord v. Brooks, 
 ment of the funded debt, entitled only to 52 N. H. 72. New shares, subscribed for 
 dividends accruing after such conversion at par by stockholders, are capital. Moss's 
 and payment. Brown v. Lehigh Coal & Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 264. 
 N. Co., 49 Pa. St. 270. Dividends of * Minot v. Paine, 99 Mass. 101 ; Da- 
 stock have been issued to pay interest on land ^. "Williams, 101 Mass. 571 ; Leland 
 Btock. Ohio City v. Cleveland & T. R. v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 642; Rand v. Hub-. 
 Co., 6 Ohio St. 489. tell. "5 Mass. 461 ; Gifford v. Thomp- 
 
 a Wiltbank's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 256; son, 115 Mass. 478. See Parker v. Mason, 
 
 Moss's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 265. 8 R. L 427. 
 
124 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 portionate share of any increase of the capital stock ; ^ but this 
 doctrine, which was based on an analogy derived from the rela- 
 tion of partners, cannot well be applied to a corporation which 
 exists independently of the stockholders, with its economy and 
 modes of action defined by statute.^ The right, where it is held 
 to exist, may be waived ; ^ and it is to be applied only to origi- 
 nal issues, and not to reissues of stock of which the corporation 
 has become the owner by purchase.* 
 
 Preferred Stock. — The issue of preferred stock is a mode by 
 which a corporation obtains funds for its enterprise, without 
 borrowing money and contracting a debt. Its holders are a 
 privileged class, who are entitled to dividends of a certain per 
 cent, payable out of net earnings in priority to any dividends 
 upon the ordinary stock.^ The power of a corporation to dis- 
 tinguish between its stockholders, and to form them into classes, 
 even in the original creation of its capital stock, may well be 
 doubted, as such a discrimination would often be contrary to the 
 policy and scheme of legislation concerning the duties and liabili- 
 ties of corporations and their members ; but the reason is much 
 stronger against the inference of a power to establish, at a later 
 period, an inequality among the corporators. Each shareholder, 
 by virtue of his contract as subscriber for or purchaser of stock, 
 has a right in the net earnings equal, in proportion to the num- 
 ber of his shares, to that of every other shareholder ; and the 
 issue of preferred stock defeats this equal distribution of the net 
 income, and impairs the vested rights of the holders of the ordi- 
 nary stock. The weight of authority is against the power of the 
 corporation, without special authority, to issue preferred stock, 
 
 i,Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364 L. R. 19 Eq. Cas. 358 ; Bangor & P. S. & 
 
 (1807); Reese v. Bank of Montgomery, S. Co., In re, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 59. It 
 
 31 Pa. St. 78; Eidman !). Bowman, 58 111. has sometimes been treated as only a 
 
 444 ; Wheeler's Case, 2 Abbott Pr. n. s. mode of borrowing money. West Chester 
 
 361. & P. R. Co. V. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321. 
 
 '^ Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunnemacher, 15 The preferred stock is sometimes issued 
 
 Ind. 294; Curry w. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270 ; to creditors, and the corporate debt is 
 
 Miller v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 24 Barb, thus converted into stock. Bailey v. Han- 
 
 312. nibal & St. J. R. Co., 17 Wall. 96. 1 Dill. 
 
 3 Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444. 174; St. John v. Erie R. Co., 22 Wall. 
 
 * Page V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266. 136, 10 Blatch. 271. The holders of such 
 
 ' Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 stock sometimes become creditors by its 
 
 Vt. 536, 545, 546 ; Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio conversion into bonds. Totten v. Tison, 
 
 St. 116. See Harrison v. Mexican R. Co., 54 Ga. 139. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 125 
 
 after the original capital has* been obtained.^ A shareholder may 
 waive his right to object to the issue of preferred stock, where 
 the statute does not prohibit it, by formal assent or acquiescence.^ 
 
 Dividends on Preferred Stock. — The dividends on preferred 
 stock are payable only out of net earnings which are applicable 
 to the payment of dividends ; and the interest on the bonded or 
 otlier interest-bearing debt, even though contracted after the 
 issue of the preferred stock, and the rent upon leases made after 
 the issue thereof, should be first paid.^ The preferred stock- 
 holders have no lien on the property and franchises against the 
 bondholders under a mortgage, even when made subsequently to 
 the issue of the preferred stock.* The preferred stockholders, 
 according to the plan usually adopted, after being paid their 
 dividends, have no share in a further dividend from the same net 
 profits until the ordinary stockholders are paid a certain dividend 
 to which they are by the plan entitled.^ 
 
 An agreement to pay dividends on preferred stock,_ except out 
 of net earnings, is against public policy and void.^ The preferred 
 stockholder is entitled to his dividend out of net income when- 
 ever accruing ; and if there is a deficit one yekr, which prevents 
 a dividend, he is entitled to a dividend for such year from the 
 
 1 Kent V. Quicksilver M. Co., 78 N. Y. deductions are to be made from gross 
 
 159, 12 Hun, 53 ; Harrison v. Mexican earnings, in order to find the net earn- 
 
 R. Co., L. R. 19 Eq. Cas. 358 ; Hutton ings, and the distinction between expenses 
 
 V. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co , 2 Drewry for construction and ordinary expenses, 
 
 6 S. 521 ; Sturge v. Eastern Union R. Co., see Union Pacific R. Co. u. United States, 
 
 7 De Gex, M. &' G. 158 ; Moss v. Syers, 99 U. S. 402, 418 ; Corry v. Londonderry 
 32 Law J. Ch. 711 (1863), 11 Weekly & E. R. Co., 29 Beav. 263; Bouch v. 
 Rep. 1046. Contra, Hazelhurst v. Savan- Seven Oaks, M., & T. R. Co., L. R. 4 
 nah, G., & N. A. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13. See Exch. Div. 133; Mills v. Northern R. Co., 
 Stevens v. South Devon R. Co., 9 Hare, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 621. 
 
 313. * King V. Ohio & M. R. Co. (U. S. C. 
 
 = Kent V. Quicksilver M. Co., 78 N. Y. C, D. Ind., Feb. 1880), 12 Chicago Leg. 
 
 159, 12 Hun, 53 ; Hoyt v. Quicksilver M. News, 219, 9 Reporter, 431. 
 
 Co., 17 Hun, 169; Hazelhurst v. Savan- 5 Bailey v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 
 
 nah, G., & N. A. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13, 54; 17 Wall. 96, 1 Dill. 74. As to the effect 
 
 Rutland & B. R. Co. t. Thrall, 35 Vt. of a consolidation on dividends which were 
 
 536 ; Branch v. Atlantic & G. R. Co., 3 in arrears at the time it took place, see 
 
 Woods, 481. Chase v. Vanderbilt, 62 N. Y. 307, 37 N. 
 
 3 Bates V. Androscoggin & K. R. Co., Y. Superior, 334 ; Prouty v. Lake Shore 
 
 49 Me. 491 ; Bailey v. Hannibal & St. J. & M. S. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 363, 1 Hun, 655. 
 
 R. Co., 17 Wall. 96, 1 Dill. 174; St. John 6 Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., 22 Wall. 136, 10 Blatch. 76. Parol evidence is not admissible to 
 
 271 ; Union Pacific R. Co. v. United vary the written agreement. Bailey v. 
 
 States, 99 U. S. 402; Taft v. Hartford, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 17 Wall. 96, 1 
 
 P., & F. R. Co., 8 R. I. 310. As to what Dill. 174. 
 
126 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 profits of succeeding years, before any dividend can be made on 
 the common stock.^ But some agreements confine the right to 
 such dividends to the earnings of the current year.^ Preferred 
 stockholders may enforce their right to a dividend by a bill in 
 equity,^ and, according to some authorities, by an action at law.* 
 They are not entitled to equitable remedies to prevent the cor- 
 poration creating a lien on the road to secure a debt, the inter- 
 est of which is to be paid before dividends can be declared on the 
 preferred stock.* 
 
 Interest upon Capital Stock. — The payment of interest upon 
 shares of the capital stock, except out of net income, is manifestly 
 against public policy. In effect it reduces the capital stock itself, 
 or involves the borrowing of money by the corporation to pay 
 interest to its own members, and virtually to itself. It is equiva- 
 lent to a dividend declared without funds from which it can be 
 lawfully made. Such a payment is therefore illegal, except by 
 express authority of statute.® But the payment of interest out of 
 net income, during the period that subscriptions are being taken, 
 is a fair mode of adjusting the right of stockholders who pay at 
 different times.' * 
 
 1 Prouty V. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 1 Hun, 655, 52 N. Y. 363. See Richardson 
 Hun, 655, 4 Thomp. & C. 230, 52 N. Y. v. Vt. & M. R. Co., 44 Vt 613. 
 
 363 ; Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. * Bates v. Androscoggin & K. R. Co., 
 76 ; Taft v. Hartford, P., & F. R. Co., 8 R. 49 Me. 491 ; West Chester & P. R. Co. v. 
 I. 310, 334 ; Henry v. Great Northern R. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321. But see Willis- 
 Co., 4 Kay & J. 1, 1 De Gex & J. 606 ; ton v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 13 Allen, 
 Crawford v. North Eastern R. Co., 3 Kay 400. 
 
 & J. 723 ; Corry v. Londonderry & E. R. 6 Thompson v. Erie R. Co., 11 Abbott 
 
 Co., 29 Beav. 263 ; Coates v. Nottingham Pr. u. s. 188, 45 N. Y. 468. 
 
 Water Works Co., 30 Beav. 86 ; Sturge v. « Miller v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 40 
 
 Eastern Union R. Co., 7 De Gex, M. & G. Pa. St. 237, 239 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 158 ; Webb v. Earlei L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. Allegheny County, 63 Pa. St 126, 136 ; 
 
 556. As to priority in a division of the Painesville & H. R. Co. v. King, 17 Ohio 
 
 assets upon a winding up of the corpora- St. 534 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Tibbets, 18 
 
 tion, see London India Rubber Co., In re. Barb. 297 ; Macdougall v. Jersey Imperial 
 
 L. R. 6 Eq. Cas. 519; Bangor & P. S. & Hotel, 2 Hem. & M. 528. But see Mil- 
 
 S. Co., In re, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 59. waukee & N. I. R. Co. v. Field, 12 Wis. 
 
 2 St. John V. Erie R. Co., 22 Wall. 136, 340 ; Racine County Bank v. Ayers, 12 
 
 10 Blatch. 271. See Union Pacific R. Co. Wis. 512; Evansville, I., & C.»S. L. R. 
 V. United States, 99 U. S. 402, 426. Co. o. Evansville, 15 Ind. 395, 415 ; Mc- 
 
 * Bailey v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., Laughlin v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 8 Mich. 
 
 13 Wall. 136, 1 Dill. 174; St. John v. 100. 
 
 Erie R. Co., 22 Wall. 136, 10 Blatch. 271 ; ' Wright v. Vt. & M. R. Co., 12 Cush. 
 
 Thompson v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 468, 68, 76; Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 
 
 11 Abbott Pr. N. s. 188 ; Prouty v. Mich. 85 Vt. 536, 544 ; Richardson v. Vt. & M. 
 S. & N. I. R. Co., 4 Thomp. & C. 230, 1 R. Co., 44 Vt. 613, 618. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 127 
 
 It is sometimes provided by statute or agreement that interest 
 shall be payable on stock until the completion of the road, or 
 it is opened for use ; ^ and when so provided, the agreement does 
 not create an absolute liability, or put the stockholder on the 
 footing of a creditor, but by true construction the interest is pay- 
 able only out of earnings which are available for dividends.^ 
 
 The right of a stockholder to an interest dividend payable at a 
 future time, if the corporation is able to pay it, depends on the 
 ability of the corpoi-ation, which is to be judicially determined.^ 
 
 The power to increase the capital stock within the limits 
 allowed by statute is usually to be exercised by the stockholders, 
 and not by the directors.* 
 
 A corporation, even a foreign one, may be enjoined from issuing 
 certificates of stock beyond the lawful limit.^ 
 
 Money paid to a corporation for shares of stock which were 
 part of a contemplated illegal issue, may be recovered by the sub- 
 scriber who has not received his shares.® 
 
 Overissues of Capital Stock. — The amount of capital stock and 
 the number of shares, when fixed by law, cannot be increased 
 either by the formal act of the corporation, or by the unauthorized 
 or fraudulent act of its officers and agents. An overissue of 
 stock being thus void, the bona fide purchasers of spurious 
 certificates do not become stockholders. A corporation being, 
 however, responsible like a natural person for the torts of its 
 agents while engaged in the course of their employment, although 
 they may at the time exceed the powers conferred by the charter, 
 is liable in damages to innocent purchasers of shares which have 
 been issued in excess of the legal limit of the capital stock, by 
 agents authorized to issue certificates. Where it has conferred 
 
 1 Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Allegheny » Barnard v. Vt. & M. E. Co., 7 Allen, 
 County, 63 Pa. St. 126; McManus v. 612. 
 
 Phila. & R. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 330; Ohio « Ante, p. 33. 
 
 City V. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 6 Ohio St. ^ O'Brian v. Chicago, R. L, &P. R. Co., 
 
 489 ; McLaughlin v. Detroit & M. R Co., 36 How. Pr. 24 ; Fisk v. Chicago, R. I., 
 
 8 Mich. 100. & P- R- Co., 36 How. Pr. 20, 53 Barb. 513 ; 
 
 2 Weight V. Vt. & M. R. Co., 12 Cush. Belmont v. Erie R. Co., 52 Barb. 637. The 
 68; Waterman v. Troy & G. R. Co., jurisdiction for this purpose over a foreign 
 8 Gray, 433; Cunningham v. Vt. & M. corporation is questionable. See ante, 
 R. Co., 12 Gray, 411 ; Barnard v. Vt. Chap. L p. 15. 
 
 4. M. R. Co., 7 Allen, 512 ; Richardson v. « Knowlton v. Congress & E. S. Co., 
 
 Vt. & M. R. Co., 44 Vt. 613 ; Rutland & B. 14 Blatch. 364. Contra, s. c, 57 N. Y. 
 
 R. Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536, 543 ; Paines- 518. 
 ville & H. R. Co. v. King, 17 Ohio St. 534. 
 
128 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 the authority to issue certificates, it is liable for its abuse to inno- 
 cent persons. The limitation of the agent's authority by extrinsic 
 facts, which from their nature are particularly within his knowl- 
 edge, — as that it is to be exercised only in case of a transfer of 
 shares and a surrender of the certificate, — does not relieve the 
 corporation which is bound by his representation that those facts 
 exist, and such representation is implied from his act of issuing 
 the certificates. The liability of the corporation for such spurious 
 certificates being founded on an unlawful act and resulting injury, 
 may be enforced without further privity by any hona fide holder, 
 whether the certificates were issued directl}' to him or to others 
 from whom his title is derived.^ 
 
 The same rule of corporate liability for overissued shares 
 applies where the officers issued the certificate originally to them- 
 selves in the same form as to stockholders generally.^ 
 
 The burden of proof is on the corporation to show, in an action 
 against it for refusing to transfer stock, that a certificate signed 
 by its proper agents does not represent genuine stock.^ 
 
 Where the corporation has issued the full number of shares, it 
 cannot recover on subscriptions of additional stock,* and a sub- 
 scriber cannot acquire title thereto by a subscription.^ 
 
 1 New York & N. H. E. Co. K. Schuy- 484; Henning i\ New York & N. II. 
 
 ler, 34 N. Y. 30, 17 N. Y. 592, 38 Barb. R. Co., 9 Bosw. 283. But in the later 
 
 534 ; Bridgeport Bank v. New York Sf. N. case of New York & N. H. R. Co v. 
 
 H. R, Co., 30 Conn. 231 ; Bruff W.Mali, 36 Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, his authority 
 
 N. Y. 200; Titus V. Great Western Turnp. was found to have heen more general, 
 
 R. Co., 61 N. Y. 237 ; Blatchford v. New and to have extended to the issuing of 
 
 York & N. I-I. R. Co., 5 Abbott Pr. certificates in the same form to original 
 
 276 ; Cazeanx v. iMali, 25 Barb. 578. See subscribers and purchasers where there 
 
 Seizer v. Mali, 32 Barb. 76, 6 Abbott was no such transfer and surrender. The 
 
 Pr. 270, note ; Hall v. Rose Hill & E. corporation was held chargeable with the 
 
 Road Co., 70 III. 673. The doctrine negligence of its directors, who with 
 
 of the text is contained in elaborate proper diligence could have prevented the 
 
 judgments relating to the overissue of fraud in question. 
 
 the stock of the New York and New Haven As to issuing bonds in excess of the 
 
 Railroad Company by R. Schuyler, its aggregate amount secured by a mortgage, 
 
 president and transfer agent. In the containing the recital that they are so 
 
 early stage of tlie litigation his agency secured, see Stephens r. Benton, 1 
 
 appeared by the evidence to be limited to Duvall, 112. 
 
 an issue of certificates wliere there was a 2 xitus !•. Great Western Turnp. Road, 
 
 transfer of shares on the company's books, 61 N. Y. 237, 5 Lans. 250. 
 accompanied by a surrender of the pre- 3 Bridgeport Bank v. New' York & N. 
 
 viousowner'scertificate, and, aceordingto H. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231. See Merrill ". 
 
 this view of the facts, the corporation was Gamble, 46 Iowa, 615 ; Merrill v. Reaver, 
 
 considered not liable for his issue of cer- 50 Iowa, 404. 
 
 tificates, without such transfer and sur- « MoCord v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 13Ind. 
 
 render. Mechanics' Bank c. New York 220. 
 & N. H. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599, 4 Duer, ' Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 Barb. 432. 
 
THE CAPITAL STOCK. 129 
 
 The corporation may, where the overissued shares are held by 
 numerous parties, maintain as the proper representative of the 
 genuine stockholders a bUl in equity against the holders of the 
 disputed certificates to test their validity, to procure a cancellation 
 of those found to be spurious, and to determine the liability of the 
 corporation in damages to such holders. This remedy is applied 
 in order to remove a cloud from the titles of the lawful owners, and 
 as a bill of peace to quiet titles and prevent a multiplicity of 
 actions. Such a suit may be maintained by a foreign as well as a 
 domestic corporation.^ 
 
 Lien of the Corporation. — At common law the corporation has 
 no lien on a stockholder's shares for debts owing by him to it, 
 and cannot obtain such lien by a by-law assuming to give it ; ^ 
 but the right is sometimes given by statute.^ A power given by 
 statute to regulate the transfer of stock has been held to author- 
 ize a by-law which conferred the lien.* The lien exists only 
 against a record-owner.^ A lien, when existing, will prevail 
 against a vendee whose title has not been recorded on the books 
 as provided by the by-laws ; ^ but it will not prevail in favor 
 of claims of the corporation arising subsequent to its being noti- 
 fied of the sale.'' 
 
 1 New York & N. H. R. Co. v. Schuy- 655 ; Rosenback v. Salt Springs Nat. 
 ler, 17 N. Y. 592, 34 N. Y. 30. There were Bank, 53 Barb. 495 ; Hagar v. Union Nat. 
 three hundred and twenty-six defendants Bank, 63 Me. 509. 
 
 in this suit. See Venice v. Woodruff, 62 = Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Clarke, 29 
 
 N. Y. 462, 470; Lehigh Valley R. Co. Pa. St. 146; Reese v. Fisher, 14 Md. 271. 
 
 V. McFarlan, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 730. * Lockwood v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 
 
 2 Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers' 9 R. I. 308 ; St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co. 
 Bank, 20 N. Y. 501 ; DriscoU u. West B. v. Goodfellow, 9 Mo. 149 ; MecTianics'' 
 & C. Man. Co., 59 N. Y. 96, 36 N. Y. Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 45 Mo. 513; 
 Superior, 488 ; Steamship Dock Co. v. Geyer v. Western Ins. Co., 3 Pittsburg, 
 Heron, 52 Pa. St. 280 ; Sargent v. Franklin 41. A by-law when giving a lien will oper- 
 Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 90 ; Farmers' & M. Bank v. ate only prospectively. People v. Crock- 
 Wasson,48Iowa, 336. Confra, Pendergrast ett, 9 Cal. 112. 
 
 V. Stockton, 2 Sawyer, 108 ; Baehman's * Helm v. Swigget, 12 Ind. 194. But 
 
 Case, 12Nat. Bank. Reg. 223. See Bank r. see Stebbins v. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co., 3 
 
 Lanier, 11 Wall. 369 ; BuUard v. Bank, 18 Paige, 350. 
 
 Wall. 589, 594 ; Evansville Nat. Bank v. « Union Bank v. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390. 
 
 Metropolitan Nat. Bank, 2 Biss. 527; ' Conant „. Seneca County Bank, 1 
 
 Conklin v. Second Nat. Bank, 45 N. Y. Ohio St. 298. 
 
 9 
 
130 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PTJBCHASE OP EIGHT OF WAY, AND AGREEMENTS WITH LAND- 
 OWNERS. 
 
 The power of a railroad corporation to purchase real estate or 
 interests therein for its purposes is usually conferred by statute, 
 but, if not expressly granted, it may be inferred as incidental to 
 the general powers of the corporation limited in each case to its 
 legitimate purposes.^ 
 
 Title or Interest acquired. — A railroad company may acquire by 
 purchase a title in fee to lands necessary for its use, and convey 
 the same title.^ It will acquire a fee as the grantee in a deed 
 conveying land in the terms hj which a fee is granted to individ- 
 uals.^ It may convey under authority of law to another cor- 
 poration the interest in land which it has acquired by purchase 
 for a right of way, to be used by the purchaser for the same pur- 
 pose.* A deed of a right of way to the company grants, where 
 the intention to convey a fee does not appear, a perpetual ease- 
 ment.^ A conveyance for railroad purposes creates a qualified 
 or determinable fee liable to be divested if the estate is used for 
 other purposes.® 
 
 Statute of Frauds. — An action at law will not lie against the 
 company for the price of land sold to it, where no written contract 
 conforming to the requirements of the Statute of Frauds has been 
 entered into between the parties, subscribed by the vendor, and 
 assented to or accepted by the purchaser^ 
 
 1 Post, Chap. XIX., Corporate Pow- B. Monr. 470 ; Junction E. Co. v. Eug- 
 EKS, p. 505. gles, 7 Ohio St. 1 ; Pollard v. Maddox, 28 
 
 2 Nicoll V. New York & E. E. Co., 12 Ala. 321 ; Southard v. Central E. Co., 2 
 N. Y. 121, 12 Barb. 460; Heath v. Bar- Dutcher, 13; New Jersey Midland E. Co. 
 more, 50 N. Y. 302 ; Hill v. Western Vt. v. Van Syckle, 8 Vroom, 496. 
 
 R. Co., 25 Vt. 68 ; State v. Brown, 3 « Junction E. Co. v. Euggles, 7 Ohio 
 
 Dutcher, 13 ; Holt v. Somerville, 127 St. 1. See Nicoll v. New York & E. E. 
 
 Mass. 408. Co., 12 N. Y. 121, 12 Barb. 460. 
 
 8 Page V. Heineberg, 40 Vt. 81 ; Yates " State v. Brown, 3 Dutcher, 13. 
 V. Van de Bogert, 56 N. Y. 526. 7 Reynolds v. Dunkirk & S. L. E. Co., 
 
 * Harrison v. Lexington & P. E. Co., 9 17 Barb. 613. 
 
AGREEMENTS WITH LAND-0"WNBBS. 
 
 131 
 
 Rights in Land under a liicense. — A permanent interest in land 
 by way of easement cannot be acquired by a parol license. Thus, 
 a license to lay railroad tracks and construct other works on a 
 person's land, or to erect structures within the company's location 
 which would otherwise be an actionable nuisance, is revocable ; ^ 
 and the license may be revoked as well by a subsequent owner of 
 the land as by the land-owner who gave it.^ It will, however, 
 until revoked, justify the acts coming within it;^ but the licensee is 
 liable for injuries arising from want of care and skill.* The mere 
 non-user of an easement duly acquired will not impair the right to 
 it.^ The deed of an easement is not revocable.^ The company 
 may, on a license being revoked, remove the rails which it has 
 laid on the track ; ' but if they are laid wrongfully, they become 
 a part of the realty, and it cannot enter to remove them.^ 
 
 Distinctions have been admitted in some jurisdictions, though 
 denied elsewhere, in favor of executed licenses, particularly 
 where expense has been incurred by the licensee, and also in 
 favor of acts done under a license on the land of the Ucensee ; 
 but it does not seem necessary to dwell on them in this connec- 
 tion.® 
 
 1 Miller v. Auburn & S. R. Co., 6 HiU, 
 61 ; Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 
 29 N. Y. 634, 24 Barb. 362.; Murdock v. 
 Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 
 579 ; Eggleston v. New York & H. R. Co., 
 35 Barb. 162; Hetfield v. Central R. Co., 
 
 5 Butcher, 571, 206 ; Foot v. New Haven 
 
 6 N. R. Co., 23 Conn. 214 ; Mathews v. 
 St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 434; 
 Blaisdell v. Portsmouth, G. P., & C. R. Co., 
 51 N. H. 483 ; Irish v. B. & S. W. R. Co., 
 44 Iowa, 380 ; Hosher v. Kansas City, St. 
 J., & C. R. Co., 60 Mo. 329 ; Stevens v. 
 Stevens, 11 Met. 251 ; Morse v. Copeland, 
 2 Gray, 302; Batchelder v. Hibbard, 58 
 ■N. H. 269. See Hamilton & R. Hydraulic 
 
 Co. V. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co., 29 Ohio 
 St. 341. 
 
 2 Foot V. New Haven & N. Co., 23 
 Conn. 214. 
 
 s Milter v. Auburn & S. R. Co., 6 Hill, 
 61; Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 
 29 N. Y. 634, 24 Barb. 362; Foot v. New 
 Haven & N. Co., 23 Conn. 214 ; Blaisdell 
 V. Portsmouth, G. F., & C. R. Co., 51 N. 
 H. 483 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. ti. Thomp- 
 son, 18 B. Monr. 735. 
 
 * Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 
 29 N. Y. 634. 
 
 6 Barlow ti. Chicago, R. I., &P. R. Co., 
 29 Iowa, 276 ; Veghte v. Raritan Water 
 Power Co.,4 C. E. Green, 142, 156, 6 C. E. 
 Green, 463, 480. 
 
 6 New Jersey Midland R. Co. v. Van 
 Syckle, 8 Vroom, 496 ; Hudson v. Leeds 
 & B. R. Co., 16 Q. B. 796. 
 
 ' Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Canton 
 County, 30 Md. 347 ; Justice v. Nesque- 
 honing Valley R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 82; 
 Dietrich v. Murdock, 42 Mo. 279. 
 
 ^ Merriam v. Brown, 128 Mass. 391. 
 
 " Trenton Water Power Co. <i. Cham- 
 bers, 1 Stock. 471 ; Veghte o. Raritan 
 Water Power Co., 4 C. E. Green, 142, 6 
 C. E. Green, 463 ; Central R. Co. v. Het- 
 field, 5 Dutcher, 206; Cumberland Val- 
 ley R. Co. ... McLanahan, 59 Pa. St. 23 ; 
 Thompson v. McElarney, 82 Pa. St. 174 ; 
 Foot !). New Haven & N. Co., 23 Conn. 
 214; Batchelder v. Hibbard, 58 N. H. 
 269 ; Baker v. Chicago, R. I., & L. P. R. 
 Co., 57 Mo. 265 ; Hosher v. Kansas City, 
 St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 60 Mo. 329 ; Wil- 
 liamston & T. R. Co. v. Battle, 66 N. C 
 
132 THE LAW 01" EAILBOADS, 
 
 The company cannot grant an easement except by writing. 
 Thus, it is not bound by a parol agreement to maintain a turnout 
 and station at a certain place, and stop trains there ; ^ or to lay 
 down a track on the railroad alongside of the adjoining owner's 
 land, and deliver and receive stock thereon.^ 
 
 The use by the company of a piece of land for a location is not 
 notice to a subsequent bona fide purchaser of an unrecorded grant 
 to the company .3 
 
 State Grants. — Grants of land, like other grants from the State, 
 are, when ambiguous in terms, construed in favor of the State, 
 and nothing passes, beyond what is clearly expressed. The 
 grant is irrevocable, but it does not imply a warranty, and 
 only the estate passes which the State had at the time.*. The 
 validity of the grant can be contested, and a cause of forfeiture 
 taken advantage of only in a direct proceeding by the State.* 
 A general grant of public lands, usually in alternate sections, 
 by the United States for the purpose of aiding a railroad will 
 be construed to exclude land previously appropriated to another 
 purpose. Thus, where the road is to pass through Indian reser- 
 vations, the grant will not give a title to alternate sections in 
 territory set apart for the use of an Indian tribe under a treaty.^ 
 
 Construction of Grants to the Company. — A grant to the com- 
 pany for its purpose carries with it, so far as the grantor can 
 confer it, an authority to do all that is necessary to accomphsh 
 
 540; Maeon & A. R. Co. v. Bowen,45 Ga. of various grants by the United States 
 
 531 ; Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 41 for railroads, see State v. Kirkwood, 14 
 
 Mich. 453; Cape Girardeau & B., M., & Iowa, 162; Fremont & M. Counties v. 
 
 G. R. Co. V. Renfroe, 58 Mo. 265 ; Wash- Burlington & M. R. Co., 22 Iowa, 91 ; 
 
 burn's Easements & Servitudes, ch. i. Leavenworth, L., & G. R. Co. v. United 
 
 § 2, p. *19, ch. V. § 7, p. »560 ; Washburn States, 92 U. S. 733 ; Newhall v. Sanger, 
 
 onRealProperty, vol. i.bk. i. ch. 12, §2, 92 U. S. 761; United States v. Bur- 
 
 pp. 628-640, 3 Kent Com. p. 452 [604], lington & M. R. Co., 98 U. S. 334; Ryan 
 
 "°'^- V. Central Pacific R. Co., 99 U. S. 882, 
 
 1 Pitkmw. Long Island R. Co., 2 Barb. 5 Sawyer, 260; Railway Co. v. Ailing, 
 
 Ch- 221. 99 u. S. 463; Denver & R. G. E. Co., 
 
 - Day V. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 In re, 101 U. S. 711 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. 
 
 ^^^^- ^^- E. Co. V. Mecklim, 23 Kan. 167. 
 
 Merritt v. Northern R. Co., 12 Barb. e Parmelee v. Oswego & S. E. Co., 7 
 
 605. But see Paul v. Connersville & N. J. Barb. 599 ; Chicago, R. I., & P. E. Co. v. 
 
 E. Co., 51 Ind. 527. Grinnell, 51 Iowa, 476. 
 
 * Dubuque & P. E. Co. u. Litchfield, e Leavenworth, L., & G. R. Co. v. 
 
 23 How. 66 ; Rice v. Minnesota & N. R. United States, 92 U. S. 733. See Grint- 
 
 Co., 1 Black, 850. As toihe construction ner v. Kansas Pacific E. Co., 23 Kan. 642. 
 
AGREEMENTS WITH LAND-OWNERS. 133 
 
 the principal object. Thus, the grant of full license and author- 
 ity to locate, construct, repair, and forever maintain and use a 
 railroad over the grantor's land, and to take his land therefor to 
 the extent authorized by the charter, empowers the company to 
 lay ditches in connection with culverts, which extend into his 
 land, and to deepen the bed of a mountain stream in his land ; 
 such excavations, although beyond the limits of its location, being 
 necessary to the construction and maintenance of the road.^ A 
 deed of land to the company will carry with it the privileges then 
 appurtenant to it, and parol evidence is inadmissible to show 
 that they were excluded by the agreement.^ A grant of an ease- 
 ment, as to lay a pipe for a watercourse, made in general and 
 indefinite terms, will become fixed and certain, as to place and 
 extent, by the selection or acts of the parties.^ 
 
 Conveyances and bonds to convey land to a railroad corpora- 
 tion are, unless a contrary intent appears, construed, as to the 
 quantity and estate, with reference to the power to take land 
 under the right of eminent domain. Thus, the bond of a land- 
 owner to sell such land owned by him as should be required for 
 the road was held to bind him only to convey such land as was 
 required for depot accommodations, and such an easement therein 
 as could be taken ; but as to the quantity required for the pur- 
 pose, the decision of the directors, acting in good faith, was held 
 not open to judicial revision.* Land conveyed to a company will 
 be presumed to have been acquired for its purposes.^ 
 
 A deed of land to the company for its location is presumed to 
 include a license to do what is lawful in the construction and 
 management of its road, to the same extent and with the same 
 effect as if the land had been compulsorily taken ; and it is there- 
 fore construed to release a claim for injury to other land of the 
 grantor, or for other damages to which he would have been en- 
 titled if the land had been taken by proceedings in invitum.^ 
 
 1 Babcock o. "Western R. Co., 9 Met. * Hill v. Western Vt. R. Co., 32 Vt. 
 553; Central R. Co. v. Valentine, 5 68. 
 
 Dutcher, 561. 60. See Elliot v. Eastern *■ Yates v. Van de Bogert, 56 N. Y. 
 
 R. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 333. 526. 
 
 2 Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Hills, 23 « Norris v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 28 Vt. 
 Vt. 681 ; Central R. Co. v. Valentine, 5 99 ; Rood v. New York & E. R. Co., 
 Dutcher, 561, 60. Land does not pass as 18 Barb. 80 ; Conwell v. Springfield & N. 
 appurtenant to land. New York Cent. R. Co., 81 111.232; Hortsman y. Le.xing- 
 R. Co. V. Buffalo & N. Y. & E. R. Co., 49 ton & C. R. Co., 18 B. Monr. 218 ; Booth- 
 Barb. 501. • ^J "• Androscoggin R. Co., 51 Me. 318. 
 
 8 Onthank v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. See Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R., 52 N. H. 
 Co., 71 N. Y. 194, 8 Hun, 131. 504. 
 
134 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the deed, the company remains liable for 
 injuries arising from the negligent and unskilful construction 
 of its road.i 
 
 The company may use for railroad purposes the land conveyed 
 to it for a location, although such use may be incidentally inju- 
 rious to the land-owner. Thus, it can dig a well which dimin- 
 ishes the supply of water in a Spring on the grantor's land.^ But 
 it has no right to enter on his land, except as authorized by the 
 deed.3 
 
 A deed of land described as covered by " the location of the 
 railroad," which had not yet been made, will convey what is 
 thereafter fixed upon under an existing power, but not land 
 which is covered by a new location adopted Under a power ob- 
 tained by a subsequent statute.* 
 
 Reservations in deeds to the company are to be construed so 
 as to adjust reasonably the rights of the grantor with the pur- 
 poses and operations of the company.^ The reservation of a 
 right by the grantor to mow and cultivate the land conveyed to 
 the railroad, includes a personal privilege or right to enjoy profits, 
 but not an easement appurtenant to the remaining portion of his 
 land.® A clause in a deed of land to a railroad corporation, " re- 
 serving to myself the right of passing and repassing and repairing 
 my aqueduct logs forever, through a culvert six feet wide and 
 rising in height to the superstructure of the railroad, to be built 
 and kept in repair by said company," operates as a reservation, 
 and not as an exception, and vests in the grantor an estate for 
 life only.^ 
 
 A grantor, conveying land to the company for railroad pur- 
 poses, does not retain the right to support for his adjoining land.^ 
 The company, under English acts, obtains by deed the right to 
 support.^ 
 
 .^l^^l? "■ ^*- ^^°*- ^- ^°' 25 Vt. T Ashcroft V. Eastern R. Co., 126 
 
 49, (0; Hortsman v. Lexington & C. R. Mass. 196. 
 
 Co^lSB. Monr. 218; Jacksonville, N., & 8 Ludlow v. Hudson River R. Co., 4 
 
 b. B. Co. ». Cox, 91 111. 500; Ludlow v. Hun, 239; Ryckman v. Gillis, 57 i^. Y. 
 
 Hudson River R. R. Co, 6 Lans. 128. 68, 6 Lans. 79 ; . Babcock .. Western R. 
 
 Hougan V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 9 Met. 553; Hortsman v. Lexington 
 
 ■»' ^-n ' ^^- & C. R. Co., 18 B. Monr. 219 ; Boothby 
 
 UiUs V. Boston & M. R. Co., 18 N. v. Androscoggin R. Co., 51 Me. 818; 
 
 ^•/'^^- Eaton V. Boston, C, & M. K, 61 N. H. 
 
 ' Hall V. Pickering, 40 Me. 548. 504, 524. 
 
 6 Central R. Co. v. Valentine, 5 » North Eastern R. Co. v. Crossland, 
 
 Butcher, 561, 60. 2 John. & H. 565 ; Elliot v. North Eastern 
 
 e Pierce v. Keator, 70 N. Y. 419. E. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 333. 
 
AGREEMENTS WITH LAND-OWNERS. 135 
 
 The corporation cannot obtain a title by acts of land-owners 
 which would effect a dedication to the public use for a highway.^ 
 
 Covenants running with the Land. — The land-owner may, by a 
 covenant running with the land, bar the claims of himself and 
 subsequent owners for damages arising from the unskilful con- 
 struction of the company's works.^ The company may, by a 
 covenant running with the land, bind itself to maintain at cer- 
 tain places stations or farm crossings, either by an instrument 
 signed by itself, or by accepting a deed which imposes the obli- 
 gation.^ 
 
 Covenants which from their nature do not inhere in the land 
 cannot be attached to it at the caprice of owners. Thus, a cove- 
 nant of the company to have a terminus at a certain place, and 
 not to extend the road beyond it, will not bind another corpo- 
 ration which succeeds to the ownership of the road.* So, also, 
 the covenant of the owner of a quarry near the railroad to trans- 
 port its products over the railroad does not bind a subsequent 
 owner of the quarry.^ 
 
 Covenants and Conditions. — Words which are not in form either 
 a covenant or a condition will be construed as one or the other, 
 where, without such a construction, the party for whose benefit 
 the provision is made would be without remedy.^ Whether a 
 provision is to be construed as a covenant or a condition is to be 
 determined by its legal character ; and if it appears to be in 
 form and terms a condition, an erroneous impression of the par- 
 ties as to its effect, or even their use of the word " covenant," 
 will not make.it a covenant.^ A mere stipulation in a deed to 
 the company that it is to maintain the fences is not a condition.^ 
 Equity, it has been held, will enforce specific performance of 
 conditions.^ 
 
 1 Todd V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. See Hemingway v. Fernandes, 13 Sim. 
 Co., 19 Ohio St. 514. 228. 
 
 2 Van Rensselaer v. Albany & S. R. 6 Aikin v. Albany, V., & C. R. Co., 26 
 Co., 1 Hun, 507, 3 T. & C. 620. Barb. 289. 
 
 8 Aikin v. Albany, V., & C R- Co., 26 ^ Blanchard v. Detroit, L., & L. M. R. 
 
 Barb. 289 ; Georgia Southern R. Co. v. Co., 31 Mich. 48 
 
 Beeves (Ga. S. C), 10 Reporter, 361. s Hornback v. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co. 
 
 < Lynn v. Mount Savage Iron Co., 84 20 Ohio St. 81. 
 
 Md. 603. * Aikin v. Albany, V., & C. R. Co., 26 
 
 5 Keppell V. Bailey, 2 Mylne &K.517; Barb. 289; Hubbard v. Kansas City, St. 
 
 Ackroyd v. Smith, 10 C B. 164, 187, 188. J., & C. B. B. Co., 63 Mo. 68. 
 
136 THE LAW OF RAILROADS, 
 
 The most frequent conditions in deeds to a railroad company 
 (usually conditions subsequent) are such as provide for a partic- 
 ular location or site for a station.^ A condition is entire, and the 
 grantor on a re-entry for a breach takes the whole land granted.^ 
 A condition that a part of the land shall be kept open for a pub- 
 lic street is valid.^ A contract to convey land to a company, on 
 condition that a certain location of the road or a certain site for 
 a station is adopted, is not against public policy.* 
 
 Conditions Precedent or Subsequent. — Land may be conveyed to 
 a railroad company for its purposes, on a condition precedent or 
 subsequent ; and to which class the condition is to be referred 
 does not depend on technical words, but will be determined from 
 the nature of the transaction and the intention of the parties as 
 appearing from the conveyance.^ If the act or condition does 
 not necessarily precede the vesting of the estate, but may accom- 
 pany or follow the vesting, and may as well be performed after 
 as before the vesting ; or if, from the nature of the act to be 
 performed, and the time required for its performance, it is 
 evidently the intention of the parties that the estate shall vest, 
 and the grantee perform the act after taking possession, — then 
 the condition is subsequent.^ A breach of a condition subsequent 
 works a forfeiture. Thus, the grantor or his heirs may recover 
 land conveyed to the company for the permanent location of a 
 station when it is abandoned by the company for that purpose.'^ 
 
 The breach of the condition where the grant is in fee may be 
 taken advantage of by the grantor and his heirs, but not by a 
 person to whom he has conveyed his interest before or after 
 the breach ; ^ or even by the heir when claiming under a deed.^ 
 Conditions subsequent are not favored in law, and will receive 
 a strict construction. The omission to perform the condition 
 
 1 Taylor v. Cedar Rapids & St. P. R. N. Y. 121. See Sayer v. New York & H. 
 Co., 25 Iowa, 371 ; Jenkins v. Burlington R. Co., 3 Duer, 54. 
 
 & M. E. Co., 29 Iowa, 255 ; Blanchard v. 6 Parmelee v. Oswego & S. R. Co., 6 
 Detroit, L., & L. M. R. Co., 81 Mich. 43. N. Y.' 74, 7 Barb. 599; Underbill i;. Sara- 
 See, as to the construction of conditions in toga & W. R. Co., 20 Barb. 455. 
 subscriptions, ante, Cbap. III. p. 62. ^ Indianapolis, P., & C. R. W. Co. v. 
 
 2 Tinkham v. Erie R. Co., 53 Barb. Hood, 66 Ind. 580. 
 
 393- 8 Underbill v. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 
 
 ' Id. 20 Barb. 455 ; NicoU v. New York & E. R. 
 
 * McClure v. Mo. Rivei^ F. S., & G. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 121 ; Paul v. Connersville 
 
 Co., 9 Kaa. 373. But see Chap. XIX. & N. J. R. Co., 51 Ind. 527. 
 
 P- 513. 9 Rice V. Boston & W. R. Co., 12 
 
 5 Nicoll V. New York & E. R. Co., 12 Allen, 141. 
 
AGREEMENTS WITH LAND-OWNERS. 137 
 
 in a deed which vests the fee-simple does not ipso facto deter- 
 mine the estate, but only renders it liable to be defeated at the 
 election of the grantor and his heirs, to be signified by some 
 act equivalent to a re-entry at common law.^ The forfeiture for 
 a breach may be waived, and, when once waived, the court will 
 not assist it. Thus, a condition that the conveyance shall be 
 void if the railroad is not completed by a certain day, may, where 
 it is completed at a later day, be waived by acts of the grantor, 
 showing his acquiescence and recognition of the corporation as 
 the owner of the land conveyed by him.^ 
 
 Equity will not lend its aid to enforce a forfeiture for breach of 
 a condition subsequent ; but where there is no adequate remedy at 
 law, and the right is clear, it will take jurisdiction to cancel the 
 deed as a cloud on the title of the grantor who has asserted his 
 right to a forfeiture.^ 
 
 Bonds to Convey ; Specific Performance. — The company may 
 obtain the right to land for its location and other purposes, by 
 bonds or written contracts to convey. It may enforce in equity 
 the specific performance of such contracts signed by parties 
 agreeing to convey land to it,* or to buy land of it.^ The con- 
 tract cannot be enforced by a party who has signed it against one 
 who has not signed it,^ but may be enforced against the signing 
 party by the other party, who, though not signing, has acted upon 
 the contract.^ The bond or contract to convey land to the com- 
 pany does not give it a right to enter on the land against the 
 owner's will, but it must resort to its equitable remedy to obtain 
 possession and a legal title.^ 
 
 A decree of specific performance will not be granted where it 
 is inequitable, but the party seeking it will be left to his remedy at 
 
 ' Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Neighbors, 51 Miss. 412 ; Vicksburg & M. R. Co. 
 
 51 Miss. 412 ; Nieoll v. New York & E. R. v. Ragsdale, 54 Miss. 200. 
 Co. 12 N. Y. 121 ; Hall v. Pickering, 40 * Boston & M. R. Co. v. Babcock, 3 
 
 Me! 548. See Taylor v. Cedar Rapids & Cush. 228. 
 
 St. P. R. Co., 25 Iowa, 371. If the aban- ^ old Colony R. Co. u. Evans, 6 Gray, 
 
 donment of the road is the condition, the 25. , „ o tj r. 
 
 breach must be judicially declared in « Jacobs v. Peterborough & S. K. Co., 
 
 order to be taken advantage of. Harrison 8 Cush. 223 ; Boston & M. R. v. Bartlett, 
 
 V. Lexington & O. R. Co., 9 B. Monr. 10 Gray, 384. ^ ^ 
 
 47(j 7 Old Colony R. Co. v. Evans, 6 Gray, 
 
 2 Ludlow V New York & H. R. Co., 12 25 ; Western R. Co. v. Babcock, 6 Met.346. 
 Barb. 440; Tinkham v. Erie R. Co., 53 ^ Whitman «. Boston &M. R., 3 Allen, 
 
 Barb 393. ^^^ ' ^gg'eston v. New York & H. R. Co., 
 
 8 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Neighbors, 35 Barb. 162. 
 
138 THE LAW OF EAILEOABS. 
 
 law.^ Thus, where the location of a railroad or highway, for 
 which the land was purchased, is abandoned, the vendor, who 
 has remained in possession, cannot maintain a bill for specific 
 performance.^ 
 
 The party seeking a specific performance must not be charge- 
 able with laches, or have waited until there has been a change of 
 circumstances which would make the decree inequitable.^ Nor 
 will it be granted where the defendant shows that the agreement is 
 void by proof of fraud or duress which would avoid it at law ; or 
 that, without any gross laches of his own, he was led into a mis- 
 take by an uncertainty or obscurity in the descriptive part of the 
 agreement by which he in fact mistook one line or one monument 
 for another, and the agreement applied to a different subject 
 from what he understood at the time ; or that the bargain was hard, 
 unequal, or oppressive, and would operate in a manner different 
 from what was in the contemplation of the parties when it was 
 executed ; but the burden of proof is on the defendant to show 
 these facts. It is, however, no defence to a bill praying for 
 specific performance that the consideration was inadequate, unless 
 the inadequacy is so gross, and the proof of it so clear, as to lead 
 to a reasonable conclusion of fraud or mistake. And where a 
 person has stipulated, for a certain consideration, to permit a com- 
 pany to construct a railroad over his land, by any one of two or 
 more routes, and upon the road being definitely located, to convey 
 the land to the company for certain sums varying according to the 
 route chosen by it, — he cannot defend against a bill for specific 
 performance of his agreement, by showing that he was induced 
 to believe, either by his own notions or the representations of third 
 persons as to the preference of one route over another, that the 
 company would select a route different from that finally adopted; 
 nor by showing that the company or its agents had made repre- 
 sentations as to the probability that one route would be adopted 
 in preference to another, or as to the relative advantages of each 
 route. All such matters must be considered as merged in the agree- 
 ment; and if the land-owner intended to claim larger compensation 
 
 1 Coe V. New Jersey Midland R. Co., Gooday v. Colchester, &c. E. Co., 17 
 4 Stewart (N. J.), 105. Beav. 132. 
 
 2 Whitney v. New Haven, 28 Conn. ^ Boston & M. R. v. Bartlett, 10 Gray, 
 624. See Webb v. Direct London & P. 384; Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. E. Co. 
 R. Co., 9 Hare, 129, 1 De Gex, M. & G. v. Brickley, 21 Kan. 275 ; Western E. Co. 
 521; Stuart v. London & N. W. R. Co., v. Baboock, 6 Met. 346. 
 
 15 Beav. 513, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 721; 
 
AGEEEMENTS WITH LAND-OWNEES. 139 
 
 in case one route should be adopted rather than another, he should 
 have stipulated for the alternative in the agreement. Nor can he 
 allege a mistake which arose from his not reading or hearing the 
 agreement read, when he had the means offered him of doing so.^ 
 
 Deeds of land to the company, made in payment of subscrip- 
 tions for shares in the capital stock, may be set aside in equity 
 when obtained by the fraud of the company .^ 
 
 Equity will require the company to perform its agreement to 
 make erections for the land-owner's benefit, although he may also 
 have an action for damages.^ 
 
 Equity will not specifically enforce agreements which are 
 doubtful in meaning or indefinite and defective in important 
 details, or leave material matters to the discretion of the party 
 against whom a decree is sought.* The remedy of specific per- 
 formance is appropriate to the enforcement of obligations where 
 it can take effect at once, and not where it involves a prolonged 
 control of personal acts requiring skiU and discretion, as in the 
 case of agreements to run trains, or to stop them at stations, or to 
 work railroads ; ^ but the breach of such a contract may be re- 
 strained by injunction.^ 
 
 Where two railroad companies agreed together to build a 
 road between certain points, and to meet each other at a given 
 place, and to have the charges of transportation, the meeting of 
 the cars and of the through freight trains, arranged by both com- 
 panies in order to make a through business connection, an injunc- 
 
 1 "Western R. Co. v. Babcock, 6 Met. 6 H. L. Cas. 331, 351-3'53, 355, 369, 377, 
 346. As to mutual mistake in the de- 379, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 737, 757, 759. 
 scription, see Old Colony R. Co. v. Evans, * Port Clinton R. Co. v. Cleveland & 
 6 Gray, 25. T. R. Co., 13 Ohio St. 544 ; Blanchard v. 
 
 2 Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Hodnett, Detroit, L., & L. M. R. Co., 31 Mich. 43 ; 
 86 Ga. 669 ; McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81. Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 358. 
 
 3 Storer v. Great Western R. Co., 2 See English cases. Earl of Lindsey v. 
 Younge & C. 48 ; Wilson v. Furness R. Great N. R. Co., 10 Hare, 664 ; Shrews- 
 Co L R 9 Eq. Cas. 28 ; Greene v. West bury & B. R. Co. v. Stour Valley R. 
 Cheshire R. Co., L. R. 13 Eq. Cas. 44. Co., 2 De Gex, M. & G. 866 ; Great 
 
 * Boston & M. R. c/. Babcock, 3 Cush. Northern R. Co. v. Manchester, S., & L. R. 
 
 228 ; Blanchard v. Detroit, L., & L. M. R. Co., 5 De Gex & S. 138 ; Storer v. Great 
 
 Co. 31 Mich. 43 ; Lexington & 0. R. Co. Western R. Co., 2 Younge & C. 48 ; Hood 
 
 V. Ormsby, 7 Dana, 276 ; South Wales R. v. North Eastern R. Co., L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 
 
 Co. V. Wythes, 5 De Gex, M. & G. 880, 1 666 ; Blackett v. Bates, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 
 
 Kay & J. 186 ; Webb v. Direct London & 117. 
 
 N W R Co 1 De Gex M. & G. 521, 9 « Western Union Tel. Co. v. Union 
 
 Hare 129 • Stuart v. London &N.W. R. Co., Pacific R. Co. ( U. S. C. C, D. Kan.), 3 Fed. 
 
 1 De Gex M & G. 721, 15 Beav. 518 ; Til- Rep. 423, 3 Fed. Rep. 721 ; Coe v. Louis- 
 
 lett V. Charing Cross Bridge Co., 26 Beav. viUe & N. R. Co. (U. S. C. C, M. D. Tenn.), 
 
 419 ; Hawkes v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 3 Fed. Rep. 775. 
 
140 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 tion was granted at the suit of one to. restrain the other from 
 changing the gauge of its road so as to break the connection.^ 
 
 Specific performance of an agreement bj the company to main- 
 lain cattle-guards will not be granted at the suit of the land- 
 owner.2 It has, however, been considered a proper remedy, to be 
 administered with discretion, to enforce a contract to maintain a 
 turnout and side-track for the accommodation of the business of 
 the owner of an adjacent warehouse.^ Equity will not enforce 
 a specific performance which would interfere with the public 
 safety or couTenience.* 
 
 Resulting Trusts. — Equity will enforce resulting trusts created 
 by the payment of the purchase-money from the funds of the 
 company, and compel parties taking the legal title to convey the 
 same to it.^ 
 
 Remedy against the Company for Breach of its Contract of Purchase. 
 
 — A breach of the contract by which a company has obtained 
 land for its location does not make its possession unlawful. If 
 the stipulation which it has not complied with is not a condition, 
 the vendor's remedy is an action for the breach, and he cannot 
 maintain an action of ejectment or trespass, or a bill in equity to 
 restrain the company from using the land.® The vendor has 
 been held in some cases where there was such a breach entitled 
 to an equitable lien on the estate sold ,7 and even to an injunction 
 to prevent an irreparable injury, from which the company had 
 agreed to refrain.^ 
 
 If the company enters on land under a contract of purchase 
 which is not carried into effect, an action for use and occupation 
 cannot be maintained against it.^ 
 
 1 Columbus, P., & I. R. Co. v. Indian- 47 Barb. 533 ; Coe v. New Jersey Mid- 
 apolis & B. R. Co., 5 McLean, 450. land R. Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), 105. 
 
 2 Columbus & S. R. Co. v. Watsop, 26 ^ Puggy v. Wright, 31 Pa. St. 387 ; 
 Ind. 50. But see Aikin v. Albany, V., & Gallagher v. Fayette County R. Co., 38 
 C. R. Co., 26 Barb. 289. See Gray c. Pa. St. 102; Hornback ». Cincinnati & Z. 
 Burlington R. Co., 37 Iowa, 119. R. Co., 20 Ohio St. 81 ; Hubbard v. Kan- 
 
 8 Windham Man. Co. v. Hartford, P., sas City, St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 63 Mo. 68 ; 
 
 & F. R. Co., 23 Conn. 373. Doe v. Leeds & B. R. Co., 16 Q. B. 796. 
 
 < Raphael v. Thames Valley R. Co., ' Dayton, X., & B. R. Co. v. Lewton, 
 
 L. R. 2 Eq. Cas. 37. 20 Ohio St. 401 ; McAulay v. Western Vt. 
 
 6 Church V. Sterling, 16 Conn. 388 ; R. Co., 33 Vt. 311. 
 Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co. v. Lampson, 8 Unangst's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 128. 
 
 » Stacy u.Vt. Cent. R. Co., 32 Vt. 551. 
 
AGREEMENTS WITH LAND-OWNEES. 141 
 
 Damages for Breach of Contract to convey. — In an action at law 
 for breach of a contract for the sale of land, the measure of dam- 
 ages is the difference between the price fixed by the contract, 
 and the market value at the time of the breach.^ 
 
 Where a person who has agreed to convey land, for a certain 
 sum, to the company for its road, refuses to perform the agree- 
 ment, and in a special proceeding obtains an assessment of his 
 damages caused by the laying out of the road over his land, the 
 measure of damages for which he is liable on the breach of his 
 agreement has been held to be the excess of the sum assessed in 
 the proceeding over the price fixed in the agreement.^ 
 
 1 Old Colony R. Co. v. Evans, 6 Gray, = -Western E. Co. v. Babcock, 6 Met. 
 25 ; Boston & M. R. v. Bartlett, 10 Gray, 346. 
 884. 
 
142 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 LAND AND INTERESTS THEREIN ACQUIRED BY THE EIGHT OF 
 EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 Source of the Power. — The right of eminent domain, or right 
 to take private property for public use, has been referred to the 
 feudal theory of tenure, to implied compact, and public necessity ; 
 but upon whatever principle it is asserted, it is an inherent sover- 
 eign power of the State. ^ Its limitations are that compensa- 
 tion must be made to the owner, or otherwise the taking would 
 be confiscation ; and that the object must be public, for, if merely 
 private, it would be in effect the mere transfer of the property 
 of one person to another, which is not a legislative function.^ 
 
 The right of eminent domain, being an essential attribute of 
 sovereignty, exists even when not expressly conferred by the 
 State Constitution ; ^ and its continued exercise being necessary 
 to the existence and well-being of the State, it cannot in the 
 opinion of jurists be surrendered by a legislative act.* 
 
 The power exists in territorial governments which are invested 
 with general legislative power.^ It belongs to the national gov- 
 ernment, and may be exercised by it within the States to the 
 
 1 Enfield Toll Bridge Co. u. Hartford W., & Z. R. Co., 4 Ohio St 308, 326 ; 
 
 & N. H. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40, 61 ; Beek- Reeves v. Wood County, 8 Ohio St. 338; 
 
 man v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 3 Paige, 45, Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417 ; Coster 
 
 72,73; Hey ward w. New York, 7 N.Y. 314, v. Tide Water Co., 3 C. E. Green, 54; 
 
 324 ; Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 New Central Coal Co. v. George's Creek 
 
 N.Y. 137 ; West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, Coal & I. Co., 37 Md. 537, 559 ; Nesbitt v. 
 
 6 How. 507, 532, 533, 539 ; Kohl ». United Trumbo, 39 HI. 110 ; Bankhead v. Brown, 
 
 States, 91 U. S. 367, 372 ; Boom Co. 25 Iowa, 540 ; Edgewood R. Co.'s Appeal, 
 
 V. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 406; People 79 Pa, St. 257; Newby u. Platte County, 
 
 V. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471 ; Gilmer v. 25 Mo. 259. 
 
 Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229, 250; 2 Kent » Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227 ; Boom 
 
 Com. 339. Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403; Har- 
 
 " Beekman v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 3 vey u. Thomas, 10 Watts, 63. 
 Paige, 45 ; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137 ; * Piscataqua Bridge v. New Hamp. 
 
 Embury v. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511 ; BufCalo Bridge, 7 N. H. 35, 69; Backus v. Leb- 
 
 & N. Y. R. Co. „. Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100, anon, U N. H. 19, 24. 
 108; People v. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595; 5 Swan w. Williams, 2 Mich. 427; War- 
 
 Bloomfield & R.Nat. Gas LiglitCo. V.Rich- ren v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 18 Minn, 
 
 ardson, 68 Barb. 437 ; Giesy v. Cincinnati, 384. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 143 
 
 extent necessary for executing the powers conferred upon it by 
 the Constitution.^ The exercise of the power by the States in 
 its behalf has sometimes been justified ;2 but the better opinion is 
 that each sovereignty can constitutionally act only for itself, and 
 use the power only for its own purposes.^ The exercise of the 
 power by the States cannot be controlled by the United States.* 
 
 A Public TTse. — The right of eminent domain may be resorted 
 to for a public use ; that is, for an object which concerns the 
 public interest, convenience, or safety. Its exercise, when 
 reasonably required by the public exigencies or convenience, is 
 within the discretion of the legislature. It has been used for the 
 purposes of public roads, turnpikes, canals, ferries, bridges, tele- 
 graphs, parks, mill-sites, for the draining of marshes, and bringing 
 water and gas into cities and villages. Railroads have uniformly 
 been regarded as public improvements, for which the State is 
 justified in calling into exercise the sovereign right of eminent 
 domain ; and they are still of that character, although operated by 
 private corporations, which exclusively collect and enjoy the tolls 
 for persons and merchandise carried upon them.^ 
 
 To make the use a public one, neither the whole nor a consid- 
 erable part of the public need have a direct interest in it. The 
 immediate pecuniary benefit may appear to inure to the advan- 
 tage of comparatively few people, and yet the use be in its nature 
 public.^ On this principle, railroads connecting private mines 
 with lines of traffic, and solely or chiefly useful for that pur- 
 pose, have been held to be a public use ; ^ and it has been 
 
 1 Kohl V. United States, 91 U. S. 367 ; How. 507, 537; Bellona Company's Case, 
 Darlington v. United States, 82 Pa. St. 3 Bland Ch. 442 ; Secombe v. Milwaukie 
 382. & St. P. R. Co., 23 Wall. 108 ; Giesy v. 
 
 2 Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444 ; Gil- Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 
 mert). Lime Foint, 18 Cal. 229; Burt v. 308, 326; Holt v. Somerville, 127 Mass. 
 Merchants' Ins. Co., 106 Mass. 356 ; Orr 408 ; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427 ; Peo- 
 B. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590. pie v. Salem, 20 Mich. 452 ; Brown v. 
 
 » People V. Humphrey, 23 Mich. 471 ; Beatty, 34 Miss. 227 ; Walther v. Warner, 
 
 Kohl V. United States, 91 U. S. 367 ; Bar- 25 Mo. 277 ; Newby v. Platte County, 25 
 
 lington V. United States, 82 Pa. St. 382 Mo. 258 ; San Francisco, A., & S. R. Co. 
 
 ^ Boom Co. V. Patterson, 98 U. S. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367 ; Buffalo Bayou, 
 
 403. B., & C. R. Co. u. Ferris, 26 Texas, 
 
 ' Beekman v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 588. 
 8 Paige, 45; Varick v. Smith, 6 Paige, « Talbot w. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417, 425; 
 
 137 ; Townsend's Case, 39 N. Y. 171 ; Denham v. County Com'rs, 108 Mass. 
 
 New York & H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 202 ; 'Gilmer v. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229. 
 546; West River Bridge Co, v. Dix, 6 ' Harvey v. Thomas, 10 Watts, 63; 
 
144 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 deemed a legitimate exercise of the power to condemn land for 
 tracks connecting a company's railroad with an elevator or 
 abattoir used in its business.^ It cannot, however, be resorted 
 to for a railroad or other way which is purely private in its 
 character.^ The power may be conferred by a general law 
 creating corporations with the right to construct railroads lying 
 wholly within a single city or town.^ The State may intervene 
 by a proper proceeding against a corporation to enjoin its abuse 
 of the power of eminent domain in taking property for a private 
 use ; * and equity will restrain such abuse at the suit of indi- 
 viduals who suffer thereby special injury.^ 
 
 Delegation of the Power. — The State may delegate the power of 
 eminent domain. The uses for which the power is invoked, 
 rather than the instruments employed in its exercise, are the test 
 of its existence. A railroad corporation is under a legal obliga- 
 tion to serve the public for a reasonable and uniform toll, and 
 cannot refuse one and accommodate another at its pleasure. In 
 view of its purposes and obligations, the power of eminent do- 
 main may be exercised by the State to provide it with a right of 
 way.^ The State may confer the power of eminent domain on an 
 individual as well as a corporation ; ' and on a foreign as well as a 
 
 Hays ». Eisher, 32 Pa. St. 169; Bank- 4 Stewart (N. J.), 475, 494, 5 Stewart 
 
 head v. Brown, 25 Iowa, 540; Contra (N. J.), 755. 
 
 Costa R. Co. V. Moss, 23 Cal. 323 ; New e Beekman v. Saratoga & S. E. Co., 3 
 
 Central Coal Co. v. George's Creek Coal Paige, 45 ; Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. E. 
 
 & I. Co., 37 Md. 537. Co., 14 Wend. 51, 18 Wend. 9; Parme- 
 
 1 New York Cent. & H. E. E. Co. v. lee v. Oswego & S. E. Co., 7 Barb. 599, 
 
 Metropolitan Gas Light Co., 63 N. Y. 326, 625 ; Kerr's Case, 42 Barb. 119 ; Eens- 
 
 5 Hun, 201, 6 Hun, 149. selaer & S. E. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137 ; 
 
 2 McCandless's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 210 ; New York & H. E. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 
 Edgewood R. Co.'s Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 257 ; 546 ; City of Buffalo, In re, 68 N. Y. 167 ; 
 Waddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 90 ; Central Bloomfield & E. Nat. Gas Light Co. v. 
 R. Co. V. Penn. E. Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), Eichardson, 63 Barb. 437; Ealeigh & G. 
 475, 494, 5 Stewart (N. J.), 755; Mem- E. Co. v. Davis, 2 Dev. & Bat. 451; En- 
 phis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 4 Cold. 419 ; field Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford & N. H. 
 Salt Co. «. Brown, 7 W. Va. 191. See E. Co., 17 Conn. 40; Bonaparte k. Camden 
 article on "The Constitutionality of Pri- & A. E. Co., Baldwin, 205; Swan v. Wil- 
 vate Ways," 6 Am. Law Rev. 197. liaras, 2 Mich. 427 ; Giesy v. Cincinnati, 
 
 8 Long Branch Com'rs v. West End W., & Z. R. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308; 
 
 R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 566 ; National Kramer v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 5 Ohio 
 
 Docks R. Co. V. Central R. Co., 5 Stewart St. 40 ; Concord R. Co. v. Greely, 17 N. H. 
 
 (N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart (N.J. ), 475. 47; Ash i;. .Cummings, 50 N. H. 591; 
 
 < People V. Pittsburg R. Co., 53 Cal. Weir v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 18 
 
 694. Minn. 155 ; Whiteman v. Wilmington & 
 
 6 Edgewood R. Co.'s Appeal, 79 Pa. S. E. Co., 2 Harring. (Del.) 514. 
 St. 257 ; Central R. Co. v. Penn. E. Co., 1 Ash v. Cufflmings, 50 N. H. 591. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 145 
 
 domestic corporation ; ^ but a power conferred in terms on domes- 
 tic corporations does not extend by implication to foreign cor- 
 porations.^ A de facto corporation may be clothed with the 
 power ; and in proceedings for condemnation the regularity of its 
 organization cannot be questioned,^ provided there is a conform- 
 ity to law suificient to create and maintain corporate existence.* 
 The power, when conferred on a corporation, ceases with the ter- 
 mination of corporate existence, and with the expiration of the 
 period limited for the taking of land.^ It is conferred as a per- 
 sonal trust and confidence, and cannot be delegated or assigned. 
 It cannot, therefore, when conferred on a railroad corporation, be 
 exercised, without express statute provision, by a lessee of the 
 railroad, or by a person employed to build it.^ When conferred on 
 a corporation, the action of the directors in exercising it is ordi- 
 narily deemed corporate action.^ 
 
 The delegated power to take private property for public uses 
 is in derogation of common right, and exists only when conferred 
 by statute, and to the extent it is so conferred. Statutes grant- 
 ing it, while they are to be construed reasonably, so as to effect 
 the evident purpose of the legislature, are not to be extended by 
 inference and implication beyond the fair import of the terms 
 expressed. The power is presumed to exist only when required 
 by the public necessity ; but such necessity need not be con- 
 trolling in the particular instance.^ 
 
 1 Townsend's Case, 39 N. Y. 171, 24 6 Brooklyn, W., & N. R. Co., In re, 72 
 Barb. 658; Black w. Delaware & R. 'Canal N. Y. 245, 75 N. Y. 385, 19 Hun, 314; 
 Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 418, 9 C. E. Green, Peavey v. Calais R. Co., 30 Me. 498; At- 
 455 ; New York & E. R. Co. v. Young, 33 lantie & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 
 Pa. St. 175 ; Gilmer b. Lime Point, 18 Cal. 228, 250, 3 Mo. App. 315 ; Morris & E. R. 
 229, 261 ; Southwestern R. Co. v. South- Co. v. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 205, 210. 
 ern & A. Tel. Co., 46 Ga. 43 ; Baltimore ° Worcester v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 
 & 0. R. Co. V. Harris, 12 Wall. 65. 109 Mass. 103 ; St. Peter v. Denison, 58 
 
 2 Holbert v. St. Louis, K, C, & N. R. N. Y. 416. 
 
 Co., 45 Iowa, 23. ' Eastern R. Co. v. Boston & M. R., 
 
 ' Cincinnati, L., & C. R. Co. v. Dan- 111 Mass. 125. 
 
 Tllle & V. R. Co., 75 III. 113 ; McAuley v. ' Adams v. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 10 
 
 Columbns, C, & I. C. R. Co., 83 111. 848 ; N. Y. 328; Rensselaer & S. R. Co. «. 
 
 National Docks R. Co. v. Central R. Co., Davis, 43 N. Y. 137, 146 ; New York & 
 
 5 Stewart (N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart (N. J.), H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546 ; New York 
 
 475; Oregon Cascade Co. v. Baily, 3 Oreg. & C. R. Co. u. Gunnison, 3 Thomp. & C. 
 
 64. 632 ; Currier v. Marietta & C. R. Co., 11 
 
 * Atlantic & O. R. Co. v. SuUivant, 5 Ohio St. 228 ; Miami Coal Co. v. Wigton, 
 
 Ohio St. 276 ; Atkinson v. Marietta & C. 19 Ohio St. 560 ; Curran v. Shattuck, 24 
 
 R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21 ; Powers v. Hazel- Cal. 427 ; Thacher v. Dartmouth Bridge 
 
 ton & L. R. Co., 33 Ohio St. 429. See Co., 18 Pick. 501 ; Boston & L. R. Co. v. 
 
 ante, Chap. I. pp. 6, 11. Salem & L. R. Co., 2 Gray, 1, 36, 37; 
 
 10 
 
146 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 What is a Public tJse, a Judicial Question. — Whether a USB IS a 
 public one, for which private property may be taken, is a judicial 
 question ; and it is for the judicial department to determine 
 whether a use for which the legislature has assumed to authorize 
 its appropriation is of a public nature. If the use itself is found 
 to be only private, or, further, if the use being public, the appro- 
 priation can in no respect be subservient thereto, it is the duty 
 of the judicial department to protect the citizen by proper reme- 
 dies from the taking of his property, whether attempted in open 
 disregard, or under color, of law. But otherwise than in deter- 
 mining whether the use is public, and whether just compensation 
 has been made or provided for by an adequate remedy, the power 
 of eminent domain is a political power vested in the legislative 
 department, and, in the absence of constitutional restrictions, is 
 to be exercised in its discretion, on such occasions and by such 
 methods as it may see fit.^ v 
 
 Legislative Discretion as to the Exercise of the Power for a Public 
 Use. — The power to decide whether there is a necessity, emer- 
 gency, or exigency (which are in this connection equivalent and 
 interchangeable terms), justifying a particular enterprise of a 
 class which is judicially found to be a public use, is, in the 
 absence of a constitutional provision to the contrary, solely a 
 legislative function ; ^ and the legislative discretion is, in this 
 respect, of that plenary character that not only it cannot be 
 
 GloTer V. Boston, 14 Gray, 282 ; Wilson 475, 487, 5 Stewart (N. J.'), 755 ; New Cen- 
 
 V. Lynn, 119 Mass. 174 ; Prather v. Jefter- tral Coal Co. v. George's Creek Coal & I. 
 
 Bonville, M., & L R. Co , 52 Ind. 16, 36. Co., 37 Md. 537,560; Giesr v. Cincinnati, 
 
 But see Leisse v. St. Louis & I. M. R. W., & Z. R. Co., 4 Oliio St. 308, 325 ; GiU 
 
 Cc, 3 Mo. App. 105. nier ». Lime Point, 18 Cal. 229 ; Contra 
 
 1 Buflfalo & N. y. R. Co. v. Brainard, Costa R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323 ; Bank- 
 
 9 N. Y. 100, 108 ; People !.■. Smitli, 21 N. liead v. Brown, 25 Iowa, 540 ; Jolinson v. 
 
 Y. 595; Townsend's Case, 39 N. Y. 171 ; Joliet & C. R. Co., 23 III. 202 ; Chicago, 
 
 Brooklyn Park Conn'rs u. Armstrong, 45 R., I., & P. R. Co. v. Lake, 71 111. 333 ; 
 
 N. Y. 234 ; Deanville Cemetery Assoc, In Water Works Co. v. Burkliart, 41 Ind. 
 
 re, 66 N. Y. 569, 5 Hun, 482 ; Bloomfield 364; Dietrich v. Murdoch, 42 Mo. 279; 
 
 & R. Nat. Gas L. Co. v. Richardson, 63 Concord R. Co. v. Greely, 17 N. H. 47; 
 
 Barh. 437 ; Talbot v. Hudson, 16 Gray, Mount Washington Road, In re, 35 N. H. 
 
 417 ; Haverhill Bridge Proprietors v. 134 ; Ford v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 County Com'rs, 103 Mass. 120; Eastern 14 Wis. 609; Boom Co. u. Patterson, 
 
 R. Co. i;. Boston &M. R., Ill Mnss. 125; 98 U. S. 403; Whiteman v. Wilming- 
 
 Brayton u. Fall River, 124 Mass. 95; ton & S. R. Co., 2 Harring. 514. 
 
 Holt V. Somerville, 127 Mass. 408 ; Tyler ' Supra, note 1. In some States the 
 
 V. Bencher, 44 Vt. 648; Coster v. Tide Constitiition requires a jury to deter- 
 
 Water Co., 3 C. E. Green, 54; Central mine the necessity. Paul v. Detroit, 32 
 
 R. Co. I/. Penn. R. Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), Mich! 108. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 147 
 
 revised by the judiciary, but citizens whose property is taken 
 are not entitled to have notice and be heard as to the expediency 
 of the appropriation.! The legislative discretion comprehends the 
 amount of property required for the public use ; ^ the duration of 
 the power ; ^ the extent of the estate to be taken, whether an ease- 
 ment or the fee ; * the choice of methods and proceedings in taking 
 the property, in determining the necessit}' of the taking, and in 
 preventing a perversion of the property taken from its legitimate 
 use.^ 
 
 The legislature may itself declare specifically the property to 
 be taken for a public use, or it may confer the power on some 
 impartial public body or tribunal, or even on the person or corpo- 
 ration in which the title is to be vested by the proceedings. In 
 the case of railroads, it may, by a special act creating a corpora- 
 tion, describe fully the location, or appoint only the termini and 
 principal points, leaving the selection of the precise location to 
 the choice of the corporation.^ It may by general law confer 
 such powers on corporations to be created as well as on those 
 already existing ; and even authorize corporations, thereafter to 
 be created by individuals after certain proceedings, to build rail- 
 
 1 People V. Smith, 21 N. T. 595 ; - St. Paul & P. R. Co., 16 Minn. 271 ; Weir 
 New York Elevated R. Co., In re, 70 N. v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 
 Y. 327; Johnson v. Joliet & C. R. Co., 155; Lehmicke v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. 
 23 111. 202. Co., 19 Minn. 464. See North Mo. R. Co- 
 
 2 Hingham & Q. Bridge & T. Co. v. v. Lackland, 25 Mo. 515. 
 
 Norfolk County, 6 Allen, 353. ° Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston 
 8 Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Daniels, 16 &' W. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360; Haverhill 
 Ohio St. 390 ; Phil., W., & B. R. Co. v. Bridge Proprietors v. County Com'rs, 103 
 Williams, 54 Pa. St. 103. Mass. 120 ; White River Turnp. Co. v. Vt. 
 < Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Cent. R. Co., 21 Vt. 590 ; Buffalo & N. Y. 
 Ind. 364 ; De Varaigne v. Fox, 2 Blatch. R. Co. v. Brainard, 9 N. Y. 100 ; People 
 95 ; Hey ward v. New York, 7 N. Y. 314 ; v. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595 ; Rensselaer & S. 
 Rexford v. Knight, 11 N. Y'. 308; Brook- R. Co. <;. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137; New York 
 lyn Park Com'rs v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. Elevated R. Co.,/n re, 70 N. Y. 327 ; Gil- 
 234, 3 Lansing, 429 ; Heard v. Brooklyn, bert Elevated R. Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 361, 
 60 N. Y. 242; Chase v. Sutton Man. Co., 9 Hun, 303; Iron R. Co. •,. Ironton, 19 
 4 Cush. 152 ; Dingley v. Boston, 100 Mass. Ohio St. 299 ; Ford i-. Chicago & N. W. 
 544 ; Malone v. Toledo, 34 Olio St. 541, R. Co., 14 Wis. 609 ; Weir v. St. Paul, 
 28 Ohio St. 643; Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. S., & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155; War- 
 Davis, 2 Dev. & B. 451, 467. This dis- ren v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 384 ; 
 crelion may he vested in the corporation. Cliicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Lake, 71 
 Charlestown & S. R. Co. v. Blake, 12 111. 333; Commonwealth y. Franklin Canal 
 Rioh. 634: Co., 21 Pa. St. 117 ; New York & E. R. Co. 
 6 Townsend's Case, 39 N. Y. 171, 24 v. Young, 33 Pa. St. 175; Cleveland & P. 
 Barb. 658 ; Secombe v. Mil. & St. P. R. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325 ; Parke's 
 Co., 23 Wall. 108 ; Kramer v. Cleveland Appeal, 64 Pa. St. l-l" ; Stockton & D. 
 & P. R. Co., 5 Ohio St. 140 ; Wilkin v. R. Co. v. Brown, 9 H. L. C. 246. 
 
148 THE LAW OP BAILKOADS. 
 
 roads on any routes selected by them, and to take private prop- 
 erty therefor. It is assumed, where such large discretion in 
 constructing and maintaining a railroad is confided to the cor- 
 poration, that the pecuniary interest of parties who invest their 
 capital will be identical with the public interest. It is custom- 
 ary, however, to control that discretion both as to the route, and 
 even the enterprise itself, through the intervention of a judicial 
 tribunal or some administrative board ; but the extent of such 
 control, where just compensation is made, is purely a matter of 
 legislative choice.^ 
 
 In New York, the power to determine the necessity and ex- 
 tent of the appropriation is vested by statute in the court, and 
 the land-owner may contest the question upon an application 
 of the company for the taking of land. The burden of proof is 
 on the company to show the necessity.^ 
 
 If the legislature itself declares specifically the property re- 
 quired for a conceded public use, such declaration of the public 
 necessity is conclusive on the judicial department, at least unless 
 the property so declared cannot in any way serve the use in 
 question, and the legislative act appears to be a mere attempt, 
 under color of law, to transfer the property of one citizen to 
 another.^ But more often the legislature refrains from a descrip- 
 tion of the property, and delegates a power of selection to the 
 .corporation, subject in some cases to the approval of a tribunal 
 of some sort ; and when this course is taken, questions are 
 likely to arise as to what property is required for the railroad 
 or public use. 
 
 Occasions for Use of the Power ; the Necessity or Exigency 
 requiring its Exercise. — The necessity or exigency, which jus- 
 tifies the exercise of the power of eminent domain, relates rather 
 to the nature of the property and the uses to which it is to be 
 apphed, than to the circumstances of the particular case. Thus, 
 where the corporation, in the exercise of discretion conferred 
 by statute, has selected land adapted to its purposes, it is not 
 a valid objection to its appropriation, where no wanton motive 
 
 1 Buffalo & N. y. R. Co. v. Brainard, 2 Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Davig, 43 N. 
 
 9 N. Y. 100 ; Weir v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. Y. 137 ; New York Cent. R. Co., In re, 66 
 
 R. Co., 18 Minn. 155; Warren v. St. Paul N. Y. 407. 
 
 & P. R. Co., 18 Minn. 384; National » Talbot u. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417, 
 
 Docks R. Co. V. Central R. Co., 5 Stew- 424; Giesy v. Cincinnati, W., & Z. E.Cb., 
 
 art (N. J.), 765, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 475. 4 Ohio St. 808, 825. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 149 
 
 appears, or great mischief is likely to ensue, that other land in 
 the vicinitj', which could have been obtained by purchase, would 
 serve its purposes as well,i or that it is already holding under 
 a lease the estate which it seeks to take.^ The discretion of the 
 corporation in the choice of land to be taken, when conferred 
 by statute, is not subject to judicial revision, where the purpose 
 for which it is taken is lawful, and no bad faith on the part 
 of the corporation appears.^ 
 
 Equity has interposed, at the suit of land-owners, to prevent an 
 abuse of the power, where the corporation was authorized to take 
 property without resort to a judicial or other public authority ; * 
 but the extent of the power has been defined mostly in cases 
 where the corporation has filed, under statutes, a petition for the 
 condemnation of property. The power has been limited to a 
 reasonable necessity, to the exclusion of subsidiary and extra- 
 ordinary purposes. Thus, it has been held to be properly used 
 to acquire land for a right of way, station grounds, station-houses 
 for passengers, and approaches thereto, engine-houses, and ware- 
 houses for receiving, storing, and delivering goods,^ cattle-yards 
 
 1 New York & H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. 
 Y. 546 ; Giesy v. Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. 
 Co., 4 Ohio St 308 ; Ford v. Cliicago & 
 N. W. R. Co., 14 Wis. 609. See Prather 
 V. Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co., 52 Ind. 
 16, 37. 
 
 2 New York & H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 
 N. Y. 546, 67 N. Y. 227. It was held in 
 New Central Coal Co. v. George's Creek 
 Coal & I. Co., 37 Md. 537, 663, that a 
 corporation could not take land for a 
 right of way where it is already the 
 owner of land equally useful for its pur- 
 poses. 
 
 » Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484 ; Lodge 
 V. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 8 Phil. 345. 
 
 * Eversfield v. Mid-Sussex R. Co., 1 
 Giffard Ch. 153, 3 De Gex & J. 286 ; Dodd 
 V. Salisbury & Y. R. Co., 1 Giffard Ch. 158, 
 5 Jur. N. 8. 782, 33 L. T. 311 ; Webb v. 
 Manchester & L. R. Co., 4 Mylne & C. 
 116; Flower e. London, B., & S. C. R. 
 Co., 2 Drewry & S. 330. Whether the 
 saving of expense justifies the taking of a 
 particular piece of land, see Dodd v. Salis- 
 bury & Y. R. Co., supra. As to the recov- 
 ery of "superfluous land" by the owner 
 under English Statutes, 1845, 8 & 9 Vict. 
 c. 18, §§ 127, 128, see Great Western R. Co. 
 
 V. May, L. R. 7 H. L. 283, L. R. 8 Q. B. 26, 
 L. R. 7 Q. B. 364: London & S. W. R. 
 Co. ... Blackmore, L. R. 4 H. L. 610; 
 Betts V. Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. 8 
 Exch, 294, L. R. 3 Exch. Div. 182; 
 Hooper v. Bourne, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 258,« 
 L. R. 5 App. Cas. 1 ; MuUiner v. Midland 
 R. Co., L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 611 ; Best v. 
 Hamand, L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 1 ; Norton 
 V. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 13 Ch. 
 Div. 268, 9 Ch. Div. 623. 
 
 « Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 
 N. Y. 137 ; New York & H. R. Co. v. Kip, 
 46 N. Y. 546, 67 N. Y. 227, 6 Hun, 24 ; New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., In re, 77 N. Y. 
 248 ; Mansfield, C, & L. M. R. Co. v. Clark, 
 23 Mich. 519; Reed v. Louisville Bridge 
 Co., 8 Bush, 69 ; Hamilton v. Annapolis & E. 
 R. R. Co., 1 Md. 553; Giesy v. Cincinnati, 
 W., & Z. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308 ; Weir v. 
 St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 
 155, 167; Nashville & C. R. Co. ... Cow- 
 ardin, 11 Humph. 348; Protzman «. In- 
 dianapolis & C. R. Co., 9 Ind. 467 ; South 
 Carolina R. Co. v. Blake, 9 Rich. 228; 
 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Muder, 49 
 Mo. 165. See Cumberland Valley R. 
 Co. V. McLauahan, 59 Pa. St. 23 ; post. 
 Chap. XVni., Taxation. 
 
150 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 fot stock transported on the railroad,^ shops for the repair of cars 
 and locomotives,^ turnouts and side-tracks,^ springs to supply its 
 tanks,* land for the deposit of waste earth,^ additional tracks on 
 the entire route,^ and a location wide enough to admit a telegraph 
 line for its use. ^ 
 
 The power cannot be used to acquire property for the purpose 
 of speculation or sale, preventing competition, aiding collateral 
 enterprises remotely connected with the management of the rail- 
 road, or facilitating prospective business which cannot reasonably 
 be expected ; ^ and it has been deemed essential that the land to be 
 condemned should be such as ought, from necessity and usage, to 
 be contiguous to the railroad. Thus, it has been held that the cor- 
 poration cannot take land for the dwellings of operatives,^ or the 
 manufacture of railway carriages,^" or for procuring gravel for the 
 construction of the road,'! or for a wharf,'^ or for a temporary right 
 of way during the construction of its main track. '^ In determin- 
 ing the amount to be taken, reference may be had, to a reasonable 
 extent, to the prospective wants of the company, and its necessity 
 and convenience in the forwarding and transshipment of merchan- 
 dise.!* ■ 
 
 The power to take property may be limited to the original con- 
 struction of the road, or it may, where such appears to be the 
 
 . J New York Cent. R. Co., In re, 63 N. » Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 
 
 Y. 326. N. Y. 137. 
 
 2 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Wilson, » Rensselaer & S. R. Co., v. Davis, 43 
 
 17 III. 123 ; Low v. Galena & C. U. R. Co., N. Y. 137 ; State w. Mansfield, 3 Zab. 510 ; 
 
 18 111. 824; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Cowardin, U 
 Muder, 49 Mo. 165; Virginia & T. R. Co. Humph. 348 ; Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 
 V. Elliott, 5 Nev. 358 ; State v. Mansfield, 484. 
 
 3 Zab. 510. See Southern Pacific R. Co. i" Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484; New 
 
 V. Raymond, 53 Cal. 223. York & E. H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546, 
 
 8 Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Daniels, 16 6 Hun, 24. 
 
 Ohio St. 390; Philadelphia, W., & B. R. n New York & C. R. Co v. Gunnison. 
 
 Co. V. Williams, 54 Pa. St. 103 ; Cleve- 1 Hun, 496, 3 Thomp. & C. 682. 
 
 land & P. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325. " Iron R. Co. v. Ironton, 19 Ohio St. 
 
 * Strohecker v. Alabama & C. R. Co., 299. 
 
 42 Ga. 509. is Currier v. Marietta & C. R. Co., 11 
 
 6 Lodge V. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 8 Ohio St. 228. Lands held for a canal 
 
 Phil. 845. basin, where the railroad has no canal 
 
 ■ « New York Central R. Co., In re, 67 connection, is not protected from devy 
 
 Barb. 426. ' and execution. Plymouth R. Co. „. Col- 
 
 ' Prather v. Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. well, 39 Pa. St. 337. 
 
 Co., 52 Ind. 16. The power to take land 14 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., In 
 
 for lateral roads is not to be implied, re, 77 N. Y. 248 ; Lodge v. Phil., W., & 
 
 Baltimore & H. Tump. Co. v. Union R. B. R. Co., 8 Phil. 345. 
 Co., 35 Md. 224. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 151 
 
 intent of the statute, authorize appropriations from time to time 
 to supply the demands of increased business.^ 
 
 Property Subject to the Right of Eminent Domain. — As a general 
 rule, all property is subject to this right, irrespective of the use 
 to which it has already been applied, or the different estates and 
 interests held in it. The following, like other property, are sub- 
 ject to condemnation : Incorporeal hereditaments, as rights of 
 way ; ^ the right to a flow of water ; ^ the easement of one corpo- 
 ration within the location of another ; * leasehold estates ; ^ land 
 subject to a lease or mortgage,® or to a judgment lien,^ or owned 
 by parties under disability ; ^ land used as the site of wharves,^ or 
 of dwelling-houses ; ^^ land under water ; ^^ land already occupied 
 by the corporation under a lease, ^^ or under a defective title, '^ or 
 without color of right ; ^* a subterranean right of way ; '^ land owned 
 by the State itself; ^^ the public lands of the United States not 
 already appropriated to specific national uses." 
 
 1 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Wilson, 
 17 111. 123j Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Dan- 
 iels, 16 Ohio St. 390; South Carolina R. 
 Co. V. Blake, 9 Rich. 228; Philadelphia, 
 W., & B. R. Co. V. Williams, 54 Pa. St. 
 103 ; New York Cent. R. Co., In re, 67 
 Barb. 426 ; Prather v. Jeffersonville, M., 
 & I. R. Co., 52 Ind. 16 ; Beck v. United 
 New Jersey R. & C. Co., 10 Vroom, 45. 
 See post, Chap. IX. pp. 255, 256. 
 
 2 Philadelphia, W., & B. R. Co. v. 
 Williams, 54 Pa. St. 103; Boston Gas 
 Light Co. o. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 14 
 Allen, 444; Galena & S. W. R. Co. v. 
 Haslam, 73 111. 494; Sixth Avenue E. 
 Co. V. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330. 
 
 * Arnold v. Hudson River R. Co., 55 
 N Y. 661, 49 Barb. 108. 
 
 * Cincinnati & I. R. Co. v. Zinn, 18 
 Ohio St. 417. 
 
 s Cobb V. Boston, 109 Mass. 438. 
 
 6 New York Cent. R. Co., In re, 20 
 Barb. 419 ; North Penn. R. Co. v. Davis, 
 26 Pa. St. 238 ; Alabama & F. R. Co. v. 
 Kenney, 39 Ala. 307 ; Kip v. New York & 
 H. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 227, 46 N. Y. 546, ,6 
 Hun, 24. 
 
 ' Watson V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 47 N. Y. 157. 
 
 8 East Tenn. & V. R. Co. v. Love, 3 
 Head, 63. 
 
 » Boston & W. E. Co. v. Old Colony 
 
 R. Co., 12 Cush. 605, 3 Allen, 142; Iron 
 R. Co. V. Ironton, 19 Ohio St. 299; New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., In re, 77 N. 
 Y. 248. 
 
 w Brocket v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 14 Pa. 
 St. 241 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Speer, 
 56 Pa. St. 325; Wells v. Somerset & K. 
 R. Co., 47 Me. 345. 
 
 11 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., In 
 re, 77 N. Y. 248. 
 
 12 Kip V. New York & H. E. Co., 67 
 N. Y. 227. 
 
 w Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co., In re, 
 67 N. Y. 371, 8 Hun, 30. 
 
 1* Secombe v. Mil. & St. P. E. Co., 23 
 Wall. 108 ; McClinton v. Pittsburg, Pt 
 W., & C. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 404. 
 
 16 Brown v. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495; 
 Baltimore & P. R. Co. y. Reaney, 42 Md. 
 117. 
 
 16 Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. State, 3 Ind. 
 421. The right to take the land of the 
 State, under navigable waters, was held 
 not to be given in Stevens v. Paterson & 
 N. R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 126 ; Attorney- 
 General I). Hudson Tunnel Co., 12 C. E. 
 Green, 176. 
 
 " United States v. Railroad Bridge 
 Co., 6 McLean, 517 ; Grintner u. Kansas 
 Pacific R. Co., 23 Kan. 642; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. u. United States (Court of Claims), 
 20 Law Reporter, 630 ; Union Pacific R. 
 
152 
 
 THE LAW OP EAILBOABS. 
 
 Property of Corporations. — The property of a corporation is, 
 like that of an individual, subject to condemnation for a public 
 use. If not held for a public use, it is equally liable with similar 
 property of individuals to be taken under the right of eminent 
 domain.^ But even if so held for a public use, that is, being prop- 
 erty acquired or subject to acquisition under the right of emi- 
 nent domain, it may be taken for another public use ; and it is 
 immaterial if the new^ public use to which it is appropriated be 
 one of a similar character. Thus, upon compensation beitag 
 made, the locations of highways, turnpikes, and canals may be 
 taken for those of railroads,^ and the location of a railroad, owned 
 by one corporation, may be taken for the use of another,^ or for 
 a highway;* and it is for the legislature to determine, upon a 
 view of the public necessity and convenience, which of these 
 uses shall yield to the other.^ One railroad company may be 
 authorized, upon making compensation, to cross and use the 
 tracks of another company,® or to take the latter's interest in 
 a public highway.' A State may authorize such interferences 
 with the location of a railroad company which derives its fran- 
 
 co. V. Burlington & M. K. B. Co. (U. S. 
 C. C, D. Neb.), 3 Fed. Kep. 106, 13 
 Chicago Leg. News, 17, 10 Reporter, 
 357 ; United States v. Chicago, 7 How. 
 185, 189, But not against the para- 
 mount title of the United States. Doran 
 V. Central Pacific B. Co., 24 Cal. 245. 
 
 1 New York, C, & H, B. B. Co. o. Met- 
 ropolitan Gas Light Co., 68 N. Y. 326, 5 
 Hun, 201, 6 Hun, 149 ; Bochester Water 
 Com'rs, In re, 66 N. Y. 413; Peoria, 
 P., & J. B. Co. V. Peoria & S. B. Co., 66 
 111. 174 ; Iron B. Co. ti. Ironton, 19 Ohio 
 St. 299 ; Alabama & F. B. Co. v. Kenney, 
 39 Ala. 307. 
 
 " Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston 
 & W. E. Co., 23 Pick. 360 ; White Elver 
 Turnp, Co. V. Vt. Cent. B. Co., 21 Vt. 
 590; Lafayette Plank Boad Co. v. New- 
 Albany & S. B. Co., 13 Ind. 90, 
 
 3 Eastern E. Co. v. Boston & M. E., 
 Ill Mass. 125; Sixth Avenue B. Co. 
 V. Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330 ; Oakland B. Co. v. 
 Oakland, B., & F. V. E. Co., 45 Cal. 365, 
 876 ; Oregon Ossoade E. Co. v. Bally, 
 3 breg. 164; Northern E. Co. v. Con- 
 cord & C. E. Co., 27 N. H. 183 ; Com- 
 monwealth V. Dickinsop, 9 Phil. 561. 
 
 ' Old Colony & F. E. E. Co. v. Ply- 
 mouth Co., 14 Gray, 155; Little Miami 
 & C. & X. E. Cos. 0. Dayton, 23 Ohio St. 
 510 ; Iron E. Co. v. Ironton, 19 Ohio St, 
 299 ; Chicago, B. 1, & P. E. Co. v. Lake, 
 71 111. 333 ; Phil. & E. B. Co. v. Philadel- 
 phia, 47 Pa. St. 325. 
 
 ' Commonwealth v. Essex Co., 13 
 Gray, 239, 247; Eastern B. Co. ». Boston 
 &M. B, 111 Mass. 126,131. 
 
 Morris & B. E. Co. v. Central B, Co., 
 2 Vroom, 205; State v. Bastoji & A, 
 
 E. Co., 7 Vroom, 181 ; Grand Junction E. 
 & D. Co. V. County Com'rs, 14 Gray, 
 553; Mass. Cent. E. Co. v. Boston, C, & 
 
 F. B. Co., 121 Mass. 124; Newcastle & B. 
 E. Co. V. Peru & I. E. Co., 3 Ind. 464; 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. Co. v. Cincin- 
 nati, S., & C. B. Co., 30 Ohio St. 
 604; Kerr's Case, 42 Barb. 119; Sixth 
 Avenue B. Co. v. Kerr, 45 Barb. 138; 
 Baltimore & H. Turnp. Co. v. Union E. 
 Co., 35 Md. 224. In some States, com- 
 pensation for the mere right to cross a 
 track is not required. Post, p, 
 
 ' Metropolitan City E, Co. v. Chicago 
 W. D. E. Co., 87 111. 817. 
 
EMINEKT DOMAIN. 153 
 
 chise from the United States.^ But the right to take property 
 already appropriated to a public use, to the extent of destroying 
 or greatly injuring such use, ought clearly to appear.* 
 
 Franchises. — The franchise of the corporation derived from a 
 grant by the State, as well as its other property, is subject to be 
 condemned for the purposes of a railroad company. It is an 
 incorporeal hereditament, and, as well as easements, or any kind 
 of real or personal estate, may be taken for a public use. The 
 State, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, may impair 
 its value, or even extinguish it, upon compensation being made. 
 The taking of the franchise does not impair the obligation of the 
 contract implied in the grant, but is the exercise of an inde- 
 pendent power, acting not on the contract, but on the property 
 acquired thereby.^ 
 
 Exclusive Grants. — Franchises under which exclusive rights are 
 granted are, like other franchises, subject to the right of eminent 
 domain. The legislature may, unless restrained by the State Con- 
 stitution, grant franchises more or less extensive ; and may, with 
 a view of inspiring confidence in the undertaking, stipulate in the 
 grant that no other like enterprise shall for a limited time, or 
 indefinitely, be authorized within a certain distance from the line 
 of the one authorized thereby. Such a grant is a contract, 
 within the meaning of the national Constitution. The grant 
 itself is irrevocable, but the whole franchise, including the exclu- 
 sive right, remains subject to the right of eminent domain. The 
 
 ^ Union Pacific R. Co. v. Burlington v. Boston & M.R., 111 Mass. 125; Lexing- 
 
 & M. R. R. Co. (U. S. C. C, D. Neb.), 3 ton & O. R. Co. v. Applegate, 8 Dana, 
 
 Fed. Rep. 106, 13 Cliieago Leg. News, 17, 289 ; Backus ». Lebanon, 11 N. H. 19 ; 
 
 10 Reporter, 357 ; Northern Pacific R. Northern R. Co. v. Concord & C. R. Co., 
 
 Co. i>. St. Paul, M., & M. R. Co. (U. S. 27 N. H. 183 ; Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. 
 
 C. C, D. Minn.), 3 Fed. Rep. 702. H. 404; New York, H., & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 New York, H., & N. R. Co. v. Bos- Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196; 
 
 ton, H., & E. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196 ; East- Baltimore & H. Turnp. Co. b. Union R. 
 
 em R.'co. v. Boston & M. R., Ill Mass. Co., 35 Md. 224; Kerr's Case, 42 Barb. 
 
 125; Central City Horse R. Co. f. Fort 119; Commonwealth k. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 
 Clark Horse R. Co., 81 111. 523 ; United Co:, 58 Pa. St. 26, 50 ; Commonwealth v. 
 
 States V. Chicago, 7 How. 185, 195. Penn. Canal Co., 66 Pa. St. 41, 57 ; To- 
 
 " West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 wanda Bridge Co., In re (Penn. S. C), 
 
 How. 507, 534; Richmond, F., & P. R. 87 Leg. Int. 389; Lafayette Plank Road 
 
 Co. V. Louisa R. Co., 13 How. 71 ; Bos- Co. v. New Albany & S. R. Co., 13 Ind. 
 
 ton & L. R. Co. V. Salera & L. R. Co., 2 90 ; Metropolitan City R. Co. v. Chicago 
 
 Gray, 1 ; Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 4 W. D. R. Co., 87 111. 317. 
 Gray, 474, 15 Gray, 106 ; Eastern R. Co. 
 
154 THE LAW OP EAILBOADS. 
 
 legislature may therefore, where a company's charter has provided 
 that no other railroad shall be authorized within a certain dis- 
 tance from its location, authorize another railroad within such 
 distance, upon just compensation being made to the corporation 
 which is thus deprived of the benefit of its exclusive grant.^ 
 
 The exclusive right is, however, not to be implied ; and the 
 company enjoying a franchise without' being protected by an 
 express exclusive grant is without remedy if a railroad company 
 is authorized to construct a road so near to it as essentially to 
 diminish its revenues. This is in accordance with the well- 
 settled principle, that the grant of franchises by the public in 
 matters which concern the public interests is to be construed 
 strictly, and that nothing passes by implication, and no rights are 
 taken from the public or given to the corporation beyond those 
 conveyed by the words of the grant naturally and properly con- 
 strued.2 
 
 The franchise of a corporation can be taken for a public use 
 only, which is real and not merely pretended. As this right 
 may be exercised both for and against a railroad company, it 
 would seem that its franchise could not be condemned for another 
 company, incorporated for precisely the same public use, — as 
 where both companies had the same line and termini, were oper- 
 ated in the same manner, and answered the same public pur- 
 poses. This would be substantially taking the property of one 
 company and transferring it to another for a mere private pur- 
 pose, in derogation of the first grant, not justified by the right 
 of eminent domain, and beyond the proper scope of legislative 
 power.^ 
 
 Presumption agcdnst Interference with Earlier Grants for Public Use. 
 — The grant of a power in general terms to take land for a pub- 
 lic use is, however, presumed not to authorize a substantial inter- 
 
 1 Richmond, F., & P. R. Co. v. Louisa Metropolitan City R. Co. v. Chicago 
 
 R. Co., 13 How. 71; Boston & L. R. Co. W. D. R. Co., 87 111. 317. 
 V. Salem & L. R. Co., 2 Gray, 1 ; Enfield ^ See cases cited ante, note 1. Post, 
 
 Toll Bridge Co. «. Hartford & N. H. R. Chap. XVII., Legislative Power, p. 
 
 Co., 17 Conn. 40, 454 ; Piscataqua Bridge 462, and Chap. XIX., Cokpokatb Pow- 
 
 V. New Hanip. Bridge, 7 N. H. 35 ; New ers, p. 493. 
 
 Orleans, M., & T. R. Co. c. Southern & A. ' Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston 
 
 Tel. Co., 53 Ala. 211 ; Raritan & D. B R. & W. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360, 393 ; Beekman 
 
 Co. V. Delaware & R. C. Co., 3 C. E. v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 3 Paige, 45; 
 
 Green, 546 ; New Jersey Southern R. Co. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 
 
 V. Long Branch Com'rs, 10 Vroom, 28 ; 507, 537, per M'Lean, J. 
 
BMIKENT DOMAIN. 155 
 
 ference with a prior grant or an earlier appropriation to another 
 public use.i But this principle is not to be applied so as to 
 defeat the subsequent grant, where by fair construction both uses 
 can stand together.^ And the power to interfere with, impair, 
 and even destroy the value of the earlier grant, may result 
 from express words, or necessary implication either from the 
 language of the later grant or from its being shown by the 
 application of the terms of the later grant to the subject-matter 
 that the railroad or other way cannot by reasonable intendment 
 be laid in any other manner and on any other line.^ Thus, if a 
 railroad is authorized between certain points, and if necessarily 
 or in the usual and convenient course it will cross highways or 
 other railroads, it may be laid across them, even without any 
 express -reference to them in the authority. Such crossing, being 
 necessary to the enjoyment of the second grant, and not essen- 
 tially impairing the first, is presumed to be authorized. But, on 
 the other hand, the right to take exclusively the location made 
 under the first grant, or any part of it, or to lay tracks longitu- 
 dinally for a considerable distance upon it, ought to be expressly 
 conferred, or implied only where otherwise effect could not be 
 given to the second grant.* 
 
 1 Packer v. Sunbury & E. R. Co., 19 Co. v. Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 36 Conn. 
 Pa. St. 211 ; Penn, R. Co., In re, 37 Leg. 196; Bridgeport v. New York & N. H. R. 
 Int. 125 ; Chesapeake & 0. Canal Co. v. Co., 36 Conn. 255 ; Central City Horse R. 
 Bait. & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1 ; West Co. v. Ft. Clark Horse R. Co., 81 111. 523; 
 River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 543; Contra Costa R. Co. w. Moss, 23 Cal. 
 Commissioners of Inland Fisheries v. 323 ; Rex v. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30. 
 Holyoke Water Power Co., 104 Mass. * Springfield v. Conn. River R. Co., 4 
 446 ; Boston & A. R. Co., In re, 53 N. Y. Cush. 63 ; Commonwealtli v. Old Colony 
 574 ; City of Buffalo, In re, 68 N. Y. 167 ; & F. R. R. Co., 14 Gray, 93 ; Commis- 
 New YorkCent. &H. R. R.Co.,/nre, 77N. sioners of Inland Fisheries v. Holyoke 
 Y. 248 ; New York & B. B. R. Co., In re, Water Power Co., 104 Mass. 446; Housa- 
 20 Hun, 201 ; Hatch ». Cincinnati & I. R. tonic R. Co. v. Lee & H. R. Co., 118 
 Co., 18 Ohio St. 92; State d. Montclair R. Mass. 391; Worcester & N. R. v. Rail- 
 Co., 6 Vroom, 328. road Com'rs, 118 Mass. 561 ; Boston & 
 
 2 Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston M. R. v. Lowell & L. R. Co., 124 Mass. 
 & W. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360 ; Morris & E. 368 ; City of Buffalo, In re, 68 N. Y. 167, 
 R. Co. V. Newark, 2 Stock. 352 ; CShicago, 64 N. Y. 547 ; Starr v. Camden & A. R. 
 R. I.. & P. R. Co. V. Joliet, 79 111. 25; Co., 4 Zab. 592; Morris & E. R. Co. v. 
 Little Miami, C, & X. R. Co. v. Dayton, Newark, 2 Stock. 352, 361 ; Morris & 
 23 Ohio St. 510. E- R- Co. v. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 
 
 3 Springfield v. Conn. River R. Co., 4 205 ; Hobnken Land Co. u. Hoboken, 6 
 Cush. 63 ; White River Tump. Co. v. Vt. Vroom, 205 ; State v. Montclair R. Co., 6 
 Cent. R. Co. 21 Vt. 590 ; Enfield Toll Vroom, 328 ; National R. Co. v. Eastern 
 Bridge Co. v. Hartford & N. H.R. Co., 17 & A. R. Co., 7 Vroom, 181 ; New Jersey 
 Conn. 40, 454 ; Nejv York, H., & N. R. Southern R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 
 
156 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 A general power to take land belonging to the State does not 
 authorize the taking of such as is already applied to a specific 
 public use.^ A general power to take land does not include land 
 already appropriated to a public park.^ This presumption against 
 the taking of property already appropriated to a public use does 
 not extend to land held by a corporation simply as property, and 
 not used for or necessary to a public use ; * and it does not 
 exclude the acquisition of an easement, which may be enjoyed 
 without detriment to the prior use.* 
 
 The presumption not only limits the power of a railroad cor- 
 poration in taking land already appropriated to a public use, but 
 it protects the location of the railroad from being taken for public 
 highways, unless the taking is clearly authorized by statute. Thus, 
 the power of a city or town to lay highways includes the power 
 to lay them across existing railroads, but not the power to lay them 
 longitudinally upon the location of the railroad, or otherwise to 
 interfere essentially with it.^ So, also, a general power to lay out 
 streets will not authorize the laying of them across the station 
 grounds of a company so as to impair its easement.® A general 
 power to take land for a canal does not authorize the taking of 
 land already appropriated to the use of a railroad.'^ A general 
 power to erect fixtures for a telegraph line upon highways and 
 
 10 Vroom, 28 ; Attorney-General ». Mor- 2 Boston & A. E. Co., In re, 53 N. Y. 
 
 ris & E. R. Co., 4 C. E. Green, 386 ; New- 575 ; New York & B. B. R. Co., In re, 20 
 
 ark & N. Y. R. Co. v. Newark, 8 C. E. Hun, 201. See Ninth Avenue, In re, 45 
 
 Green, 515 ; Greenwich o. 'Easton & A. N. Y. 729. 
 
 R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 217, 10 C. E. s Rochester Water Com'rs, In re, 66 
 
 Green, 565 ; Long Branch Com'rs v. West N. Y. 413 ; Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. v. 
 
 End R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 566; Peoria & S. R. Co., 66 III. 174. 
 Commonwealth v. Erie & N. E. R. * Rochester Water Corn're, In re, 66 
 
 Co., 27 Pa. St. 339, 352; Cleveland N. Y. 413. 
 
 & P. R. Co. V. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 825 ; 6 Albany Northern R. Co. v. Brownell, 
 
 Cake V. Phil. & E. B. Co., 87 Pa. St. 307 ; 24 N. Y. 845 ; City of Buffalo, In re, 68 
 
 Penn. R. Co., /n re, 37 Leg. Int. 125; Ten- N. Y. 167, 64 N. Y. 547; New Jersey 
 
 nessee & A. R. Co. v. Adams, 3 Head, Southern R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 
 
 596 ; Contra Costa R. Co. v. Moss, 23 10 Vroom, 28 ; Bridgeport v. New York & 
 
 Cal. 323 ; Oregon Cascade R. Co. v. Baily, N. H. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255 ; Danbury & 
 
 3 0reg. 164; Central City Horse R. Co. u. N. R. Co. v. Norwalk, 37 Conn. 109; 
 
 Ft. Clarke Horse R. Co., 81 111. 523 ; Hannibal v. Hannibal & St. J. E. Co., 49 
 
 Rex V. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30 ; Regina v. Mo. 480 ; Northern Central R. Co. v. Bal- 
 
 Wycombe R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 310 ; At- timore, 46 Md. 425; Atlanta v. Central 
 
 torney-General v. Ely, H., & S. R. Co., L. E. Co., 53 Ga. 120. 
 
 R. 4 Ch. App. 194, L. R. 6 Eq. Cas. 106; 6 Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Fari- 
 
 Pugh V. Golden Valley R. Co., L. R. 12 banlt, 23 Minn. 167.S7-^UfSf0 2^ )U' 
 Ch. Div. 274. 7 city of Buffalo, In re, 68 N*. Y. 167, 
 
 1 St. Louis, J., & C. E. Co. V. Trus- 64 N. Y. 647. 
 tees, 43 111. 303. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 157 
 
 other land does not authorize their erection within the location of 
 a railroad company. ^ 
 
 Where the routes selected by two companies, incorporated to 
 construct independent lines, interfere, — the termini only of each 
 being prescribed, and there being no necessary conflict on the 
 face of the charter, or in their objects, — the prior right to par- 
 ticular land attaches to the company which first actually surveys 
 and adopts a route, and files its survey according to law.^ 
 
 A corporation created under a statute which authorizes indi- 
 viduals to form a I'ailroad corporation and obtain a location by 
 agreement with certain public authorities, cannot take land 
 within the location of other companies.^ The respective rights 
 of parties claiming under earlier and later grants for public uses 
 will be considered in a subsequent chapter.* 
 
 Estate or Interest taken. — The State may take the fee or a less 
 estate for a public use. It is not less a legislative function to 
 determine what estate in point of duration the pubhc exigency 
 requires to be condemned, than to determine the existence of the 
 public exigency which requires the condemnation of any estate.^ 
 
 Whether the legislative intent is to take the fee or only an 
 easement, depends rather upon the general tenor and purposes of 
 the statute than upon the use or omission of technical terms. The 
 taking of the entire interest in property may be authorized with- 
 out using the words " fee simple ; " ® and even the use of these or 
 equivalent terms may grant only a qualified ownership, a base 
 and determinable fee, limited to the purposes of the grant, and 
 expiring when the property ceases to be used for those purposes.'^ 
 The taking of a greater interest than is necessarj^ to satisfy the 
 
 1 New York City & N. B. Co. v. Cen- i>. New York Cent. E. Co., 1 Sheldon, 159, 
 tral Union Tel. Co. (N. Y. Supreme 47 N. Y. 157 ; Dingley v. Boston, 100 Mass. 
 Ct., May, 1880), 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 544; Gardners. Brookline, 127 Mass. 358; 
 237 21 Hun 261. Holt w. Somerville, 127 Mass. 408; Malone 
 
 2 Morris & E. R. Co. v. Blair, 1 Stock, v. Toledo, 84 Ohio St. 541, 28 Ohio St. 
 635 ; Waterbury v. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. 643 ; New Orleans P. R. Co. c. Gay, 
 R. Co., 54 Barb. 388. 31 La, An. 430. 
 
 ' Boston & M. R. ». Lowell &L. R. Co., ' Hooker v. Utica & M. Tump. Co., 12 
 
 124 Mass. 368. Wend. 371 ; People v. White, 11 Barb. 
 
 * Chap. IX., The Location. 26; Malone v. Toledo, 28 Ohio St. 643, 
 
 6 Ante, p. 147. 655, 656, 34 Ohio St. 541 ; Bostock 
 
 " Brooklyn Park Com'rs P.Armstrong;, v. North StaflFordshire R. Co., 3 Smale, 
 
 45 N. Y. 234, 3 Lans. 429; Washington & G. 28.S ; 5 De Gex & S. 584, 4 El. & B. 
 
 Cemetery v. Prospect Park & 0. 1 R. Co., 798 ; Norton v. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 68 N. Y. 591, 7 Hun, 655; Rexford v. L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 623, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 
 
 Knight, 11 N.Y. 308, 16 Barb. 627; Watson 268. 
 
158 
 
 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 language and object of the statute is not to be presumed.' 
 Where, by proper construction of the statute, the fee is taken, 
 the land does not revert to the owner when the public use 
 
 ceases.' 
 
 The grant of a right to take land " for the purposes of a rail- 
 road " authorizes the taking of only an easement, leaving the fee 
 with the owner to whom the right of possession reverts on the 
 cessation of the public use;^ and this is the limited interest 
 usually given by statutes authorizing the condemnation of land for 
 railroads.* The property is, however, to be deemed taken for a 
 public use itself, rather than for the peculiar use and enjoyment 
 by the party to whose possession it passes. It does not therefore 
 revert to the owner upon a mere transfer of the railroad to 
 another company,^ nor upon its appropriation to another similar 
 public use.? 
 
 Where only an easement is taken for the purposes of a railroad, 
 and the land is applied to other uses, the owner is entitled to 
 legal and equitable remedies to establish his right.'' But such 
 misappropriation cannot be taken advantage of collaterally.* 
 
 \ 1 Washington Cemetery v. Prospect 
 Park & C. I. li. Co., 68 N. Y. 591, 7 Hun, 
 655. 
 
 ^, 2 Rexford v. Knight, 11 N. Y. 308; 
 Sweet V. Buffalo, N. Y., & P. R. Co., 13 
 Hun, 64.3 ; De Varaigne v. Fox, 2 Blatch. 
 95 ; Haldeman v. Penn. Cent. R. Co., 50 
 Pa. St. 425 : Robinson v. West Penn. R. 
 Co., 72 Pa, St. 316 ; Wyoming Coal &T. 
 Co. u. Price, 81 Pa. St. 156 ; Penn. & N. Y. 
 Canal & R. Co. v. Billings (Penn. S. C, 
 May, 1880), 37 Leg. Intel. 332; Water 
 Works Co. v. Burkhart, 4l Ind. 364; 
 Mason v. Lake Erie, E., & S. W. R. Co. 
 (U. S. C. C, D. Ind.), 1 Ped. Rep. 
 712. 
 
 ' Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 Nashua & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 1 ; Blake 
 «. Ricli, 34 N. H. 282; Eaton v. Boston, 
 C, & M. 11. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 515; Heard 
 V. Brooklyn, 60 N. Y. 242; Western 
 Penn. R. Co. u. Johnston, 59 Pa. St. 290; 
 State V. Brown, 3 Butcher, 13 ; Taylor v. 
 New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 Vrooni, 28 ; 
 Quimby v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 23 Vt. 887 ; 
 Troy & B. R. Co. v. Potter, 42 Vt. 265, 
 274. Accordingly, the location of a rail- 
 road is held not to be a breach of a cove- 
 nant of seisin contained in an owner's 
 
 deed of land within it to a third party, 
 though a breach of the covenant against 
 incumbrances. Kellogg v. Malin, 50 Mo. 
 496; Beach v. Miller, 51 111. 206; Bar- 
 low V. McKinley, 24 Iowa, 69. 
 
 * Alabama & P. R. Co. v. Burkett, 42 
 Ala. 83, 91 ; Aldrich u. Drury, 8 R. L 
 554; Kansas Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 22 
 Kan. 285. 
 
 5 State V. Rives, 5 Ired. 297 ; Henry v. 
 Dubuque & P. R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288 ; 
 Noll V. Dubuque, B., & M. R. Co., 32 
 Iowa, 66 ; Junction R. Co. v. Ruggles, 7 
 Ohio St. 1 ; Pollard u. Maddox, 28 Ala. 
 321. 
 
 8 Haldeman v. Penn. Cent. R. Co., 50 
 Pa. St. 425 ; Hatch v. Cincinnati & I. R. 
 Co., 18 01\io St. 92, 120 ; Malone v. To- 
 ledo, 28 Ohio St. 643, 656, 34 Ohio St. 
 541. 
 
 ' Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 Nashua & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 1 ; Cum- 
 berland Valley R. Co, v. McLanahan, 69 
 Pa. St. 23; Bostock v. North Stafford- 
 shire R. Co., 3 Smale & G. 283, 5 De Gex 
 & S. 584, 4 El. & Bl. 798. 
 
 ^ Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 Nashua & L. E. Co., 104 Mass. 1. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 159 
 
 Though only an easement is taken for the public use, no deduc- 
 tion is made, in practice, in the assessment of damages for the 
 reversionary right.^ 
 
 The Company's Right of Possession exclusive within the Loca- 
 tion. — The interest of a railroad company in its location, al- 
 though technically an easement, is not limited to an ordinary 
 right of way, such as is acquired for highways, but it justifies a 
 use of the land for all the purposes of a railroad.^ Its posses- 
 sion, except at crossings established by law, is permanent in its 
 nature, and practically exclusive, such possession being essential 
 to a safe and effective working of its machinery.^ It may within 
 its location erect buildings required in its business,* or allow 
 others to erect them ; ^ maintain a line of telegraph for its own 
 use ; ^ use the materials found within it, as stone, gravel, and 
 timber, in the construction and repair of any part of its line ; '^ 
 
 1 Murray v. County Com'rs, 12 Met. 
 455 ; Bemis v. Springfield, 122 Mass. 110, 
 118; Washington Cemetery v. Prospect 
 Paric & C. I. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 591. 
 
 2 Jackson v. Kutland & B. R. Co., 25 
 Vt. 150, 159 ; Henry e. Dubuque & P. R. 
 Co., 2 Iowa, 288 ; post, Chap. XIX, p. 496. 
 
 ' Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 
 574 ; Curtis v. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, 
 55 ; Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 
 103 Mass. 1 ; Proprietors of Locks & 
 Canals v. Na.shaa & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 
 1; Jackson v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 
 25 Vt. 150, 159 ; Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. 
 Holton, 32 Vt. 43; Troy & B. R. Co. v. 
 Poller, 42 Vt. 265; Aldrioh V. Drury, 8 
 R. I. 5-54; Hatch !,■. Cincinnati & I. R. 
 Co., 18 Ohio St. 92, 122; Pittsburg, Ft. 
 W., & C. R. Co. V. Bingham, 20 Ohio St. 
 364, 370 ; Lake Superior & M. R. Co. v. 
 Greve, 17 Minn. 322 ; Burnett v. N. & C. 
 R. Co.. 4 Siieed, 628; Jcffersonville, M., 
 & I. R. Co. V. Goldsmith, 47 Ind. 43 ; Dis- 
 brow i: Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 70 111. 
 246 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Hummell, 44 
 Pa. St. .375 ; Junction R. Co. ;;. Philadel- 
 phia, 88 Pa. St. 424 ; Cordell v. New 
 York Cent. R Co., 70 N. Y. 119, 64 N. Y. 
 535 ; Norton i'. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 023, 13 Ch. Div. 268 
 Contra, Kansas Cent. R. Co. p. Allen, 22 
 Kan. 285. Under an agreement by which 
 
 a company succeeds to the use of a rail- 
 road, its possession is exclusive against 
 the company owning it. Sevenoaks, M., 
 & T. R. Co. V. London, C, & D. R. Co., 
 L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 625. 
 
 ^ Worcester v. Western R. Co., 4 Met. 
 564; Commonwealth v. Haverhill, 7 Allen, 
 523 ; Boston Gas Light Co. v. Old Colony 
 & N. R. Co., 14 Allen, 444 ; Proprietors of 
 Locks & Canals v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 
 104 Mass. 1 ; Lance's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 
 16. 
 
 5 Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 
 91 U. S. 454 ; Western Union Tel. Co. ■;. 
 Rich, 19 Kan. 517. 
 
 1= Prather v. Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. 
 Co., 52 Ind. 16; Western Union Tel. 
 Co. V. Rich, 19 Kan. 517. 
 
 7 Chapin u. Sullivan R., 39 N. H. 
 564 ; Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. Co., 2 
 Iowa, 288 ; Aldrich i'. Drury, 8 R. I. 554 ; 
 Taylor v. New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 
 Vroora, 28. It cannot use the timber for 
 fuel. Preston v. Dubuque & P. R. Co., 
 11 Iowa, 15. The statutes of New Hamp- 
 shire have been held not to authorize the 
 use of timber found within the location 
 for the purposes of construction. Blake u. 
 Rich, 34 N. H. 282. Minerals below the 
 bed of the road belong to the land-owner. 
 Evans v. Haefner, 29 Mo. 141 ; Blake v. 
 Rich, 34 N. H. 282. As to the property 
 
160 THE LAW OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 cut growing trees, whether used for shade, ornament, or fruit, 
 as well after as at the time of construction ; ^ remove dwell- 
 ing-houses from it ; ^ erect fences along the track, which will 
 exclude adjoining owners from crossing ; ^ and trim the hedges 
 which overhang its location.* It may use its location for all the 
 purposes of a railroad, but for no other, and it is itself the judge 
 of the exigency requiring such use in each case.* It may lay 
 its tracks, side tracks as well as main tracks, at any place within 
 the location, and shift them from place to place within it ; ^ and 
 also lay them on land acquired by purchase, or on land of indi- 
 viduals with their consent.^ 
 
 The company cannot, as to land taken under the right of emi- 
 nent domain, do acts which, though lawful in a private land- 
 owner, are altogether outside of railroad purposes. Thus, it 
 cannot by means of hoardings'shut out the light from an adjoining 
 proprietor who has not acquired a presumptive right to it.^ It 
 cannot, it has been held, merely to save expense, erect and work 
 a mortar-mill -which causes a noise and vibration injurious to a 
 tradesman's business.* 
 
 The company is authorized to use the materials found within 
 the location only for the purposes of the railroad, without the 
 right to sell them ; i" nor does its right extend beyond its location, 
 so as to justify a use of the adjoining land.^^ The land-owner, 
 where a right of way is not reserved by agreement or fixed 
 by statute, has no right to cross a location which has divided 
 
 in the minerals under the English act, see Curtis v. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, 55, 
 
 Fletcher v. Great Western E. Co., 4 H. 58. 
 
 & N. 242, 5 H. & N. 689. The land- « Commonwealth ». Haverhill, 7 Allen, 
 
 owner may lay pipes under the railroad in 523 ; Stark v. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 43 
 
 a manner not to interfere with the com- Iowa, 501 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 pany's use of its location. Hasson v. Oil Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325. 
 
 Creek & A. R. R. Co., 8 Phil. 556. 1 Bangor, O., & M. R. Co. a. Smith, 
 
 1 Brainard u. Clapp, 10 Cush. 6 ; Wes- 47 Me. 34, 49 Me. 9. 
 
 tern Union Tel. Co. v. Rich, 19 Kan. 517. 8 Norton v. North Xondon & N. W. R. 
 
 2 Brocket v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 14 Pa. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 623, 13 Ch. Div. 
 St. 241. 268. 
 
 3 Boston Gas Light Co. v. Old Colony » Fenwick v. East London R. Co., L. 
 & N. R. Co., 14 Allen, 444; Presbrey v. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 544. 
 
 Old Colony R. Co , 103 Mass. 1 ; Carson i« Aldrich v. Drury, 8 R. I. 554 ; Tay- 
 
 V. Western R. Co., 8 Gray, 423 ; Mason v. lor v. New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 Vroom, 
 
 Kennebec & P. R. Co., 31 Me. 216. 28; Chapin v. Sullivan R. Co., 39 N. H. 
 
 * Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Green, 564. 
 
 67 111. 199. 11 Hay i;. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159 ; St. 
 
 ' Brainard v. Clapp, 10 Cush. 6 ; Peter v. Denison, 58 N. Y. 416. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 161 
 
 his land ; ^ nor can he enter upon it to remove grass or 
 turf.2 
 
 The company, on abandoning its road, may remove structures, 
 as stone piers, which it has erected in the course of construction, 
 although firmly imbedded in the earth. ^ 
 
 The company's right to its location must, like other rights of 
 proprietorship, yield to temporary public exigencies. Thus, fire- 
 men in the service of a city may lay a hose across the track for 
 the purpose of extinguishing a fire.'* 
 
 Compensation required. — The Constitution of the United States 
 provides, in the fifth article of the amendments, " Nor shall pri- 
 vate property be taken for public uses without just compen- 
 sation." This clause restricts the power of Congress, but not 
 that of the States.^ A similar provision, designed to protect pri- 
 vate rights, is generally found in the constitutions of the several 
 States.^ The right to compensation is, however, incident to 
 the exercise of the power, and exists although not affirmed 
 by the Constitution.'^ The construction of the provision in the 
 
 1 Conn. &P. R. R. Co. v. Holton, 32 Vt. 
 43 ; Boston Gas Light Co. v. Old Colony 
 & N. R. Co., 14 Allen, 444; Ham v. 
 Salem, 100 Mass. 350; Presbrey v. Old 
 Colony R. Co., 103 Mass. 1 ; Old Colony 
 R. Co. V. Miller, 125 Mass. 1 ; Drury v. 
 Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571, 584. But 
 see Kansas Central R. Co. v. Allen, 22 
 Kan. 285. The crossing, when estab- 
 lished by law or agreement, may be used 
 hereafter for proper purposes, without 
 being limited to the extent of use prac- 
 tised when it was established. United 
 Land Co. v. Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. 
 10 Ch. App. 586, L. R. 17 Eq. Cas. 158. 
 
 2 Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Holton, 32 
 Vt. 43 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Potter, 42 
 Vt. 265. 
 
 s Wagner v. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 
 22 Ohio St. 563 ; .Justice v. Nesquehoning 
 Valley R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 28. See ante, 
 Chap. VI. p. 1.31. 
 
 * Metallic Compression Casting Co. v. 
 Fitchburg R. Co., 109 Mass. 277 ; Hyde 
 Park V. Gay, 120 Mass. 589 ; Sweeney v. 
 Boston & A. R. Co., 128 Mass. 6. See 
 Mott V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 1 Rob- 
 ertson, 585, 8 Bosw. 345. 
 
 5 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 ; 
 Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84 ; Pura- 
 
 pelly V. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166;, 
 Concord R. v. Greely, 17 N. H. 47 ; Cairo & 
 F. R. Co. V. Turner, 31 Ark. 494. Whether 
 compensation for property taken by the 
 United States can be recovered in tlie 
 Court of Claims, see Langford v. United 
 States, 101 U. S. 341. 
 
 s The Constitution of Illinois, which re- 
 quires compensation for property " taken 
 or damaged," does not require compensa- 
 tion beyond the value of the part taken, 
 where the owner's remaining property is 
 not depreciated in value. Chicago & P. 
 R. Co. u. Francis, 70 111. 238 ; Page v. 
 Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co., 70 111. 324; 
 Eberhart v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co., 
 70 111. .347. 
 
 ' Sinnickson v. Johnson, 2 Harrison, 
 129; Hatch v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 49, 66 ; Mount Washington Road Co., 35 
 N. H. 134 ; Ash v. Cummings, 50 N. H. 
 591 ; Eaton u. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 
 N. H. 504, 510 ; Pumpelly v. Green Bay 
 Co., 13 Wall. 166; Martin's Case, 13 Ark. 
 198, 206 ; Cairo & F. R. Co. u. Turner, 31 
 Ark. 494; Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. 
 Co., 10 Iowa, 540; Johnston v. Rankin, 
 70 N. C. 550; Bradshaw v. Rodgers, 20 
 Johns. 103. 
 
 11 
 
162 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 constitution of a State by its own highest court is not subject to 
 review in the Supreme Court of the United States.' The right 
 to compensation exists where property is permanently appropri- 
 ated for the public health and safety.^ The right survives 
 changes in the possession of the land taken, and is in the nature of 
 a lien or incumbrance on it.^ The constitutional restriction does 
 not apply to public property.* The State may waive compensation 
 when public property is taken, but its intention to do so is not 
 to be presumed.^ 
 
 Adequate and Certain Provision for Compensation. — The Consti- 
 tutional prohibition requires that the statute which authorizes the 
 taking should provide an adequate and certain remedy by which 
 the compensation may be obtained, or otherwise the statute is 
 void, and the owner is entitled to legal and equitable remedies 
 for the protection of his property against acts and proceedings 
 under color of the statute.^ This constitutional limitation, placed 
 universally on the legislative power in the United States, should 
 be noted in any comparison of English and American decisions.' 
 
 The omission of an adequate provision for compensation, as 
 required by the Constitution, in the act authorizing the condem- 
 nation, may be remedied by a subsequent act,^ but not, it has 
 been held, so as to give validity to proceedings instituted before 
 the amending act took effect.^ The want of such a provision and 
 
 1 Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84. Iron Co., 57 Me. 481 ; Dimmiok v. Brod- 
 
 2 Cheesebrough's Case, 78 N. Y. 232. head, 75 Pa. St. 464 ; Sinnickson u. John- 
 ' Drury «. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. son, 2 Harrison, 129; Bonaparte v. 
 
 571; Western Penn. K. Co. «. Johnston, Camden & A. K. Co., Baldwin, 205; 
 
 59 Pa. St. 290 ; Gilman v. Sheboygan & Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 
 
 F. R. Co., 40 Wis. 653. 504 ; Bellinger v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 4 Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. State, 3 Ind. 23 N. Y. 42; Rexford v. Knight, 11 N. Y. 
 
 421 ; Hobart v. Ford, 6 Nev. 77. 308, 15 Barb. 627 ; Robinson o. New 
 
 6 Commonwealth v. Boston & M. R., York & E. R. Co., 27 Barb. 512 ; Seneca 
 
 3 Cush. 25 ; North Avenue, In re, 45 N. Road Co. v. Auburn & R. R. Co., 5 Hill, 
 
 Y. 729. But see Penn. R. Co. v. New 170; Walther k. Warner, 25 Mo. 277, 285 ; 
 
 York & L. B. R. Co., 8 C. E. Green, 157 ; Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuekahoe & J. R. 
 
 Davis V. East Tenn. & G. R. Co., 1 R. Co., 11 Leigh, 42, 77 ; Hamilton w. An- 
 
 Sneed, 94. napolis & E. R. R. Co., 1 Md. Ch. 107. 
 
 " Perry v. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393 ; Ste- ' Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 
 
 vens V. Middlesex Canal, 12 Mass. 466 ; N. H. 504, 516 ; Thompson v. Androscog- 
 
 Thacher v. Dartmouth Bridge, 18 Pick, gin Co., 54 N. H. 545, 556. 
 
 501 ; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Salem & L. R. 8 Bonaparte v. Camden & A. R. Co., 
 
 Co., 2 Gray, 1, 36, 37 ; Haverhill Bridge Baldwin, 205 ; State v. Seymour, 6 
 
 Proprietors v. County Com'rs, 103 Mass. Vroom, 47, 56 ; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. 
 
 120; Conn. River R. Co v. County Turner, 31 Ark. 494; Shute «. Chicago 
 
 Com'rs, 127 Mass. 50; Drury i,. Middle- & M. R. Co., 26 111. 436. 
 
 sex R. Co., 127 Mass. 571 ; Cushraan v. i Conn. River R. Co. u. Com'rs, 127 
 
 Smith, 34 Me. 247 ; Lee v. Pembroke Mass. 50. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 163 
 
 other defects may be waived by the owner so as to bind himself 
 and others claiming under him.^ 
 
 Adequate Remedy providing Compensation. — Where property is 
 taken by the State, or one of its municipal subdivisions, a certain 
 and expeditious way of recovering the compensation is deemed 
 an adequate remedy. The pledge of the public faith dispenses 
 with the need of an actual payment or security prior to the 
 appropriation.^ The statute should at least, even in this case, 
 direct a payment from the public treasury, and not leave the 
 citizen to resort only to some uncertain and contingent fund.^ 
 But where a private corporation is exercising the right of eminent 
 domain by delegation, the citizen is entitled to further protection, 
 and some existing law must provide an efficient remedy by which 
 he can obtain payment of compensation, or adequate security for 
 such payment, before his property can be appropriated. The 
 statute should provide not only a mode of assessing damages, but 
 a definite and certain fund from which they are payable, and an 
 appropriate remedy for enforcing its application. A right of 
 action merely — the satisfaction of the judgment depending on 
 the solvency of the corporation — is not a sufficient remedy.* 
 
 Time •when Compensation mnst be made. — The time when the 
 compensation must be made varies according to the terms of the 
 constitutional provision and the different constructions applied to 
 it. If the actual payment of the compensation were required to 
 precede an entry for construction, the entry would be delayed until 
 the amount, when not agreed upon, had been finally determined 
 
 1 Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 170; Dronberger v. Reed, 11 Ind. 420; 
 208 ; Provolt v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247, 254. 
 
 Co., 57 Mo. 256 ; Brown v. Worcester, 13 ^ Conn. River R. Co. v. County 
 
 Gray, 31 ; Embury v. Conner, 3 N. T. Com'rs, 127 Mass. 50. 
 511 ; Brooklyn Park Com'rs v. Arm- * Ash v. Cummings, 50 N. H. 591 ; Orr 
 
 strong, 45 N. Y. 234 ; Burns u. Mil. & M. v. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590, 594 ; Shepard- 
 
 R. Co., 9 Wis. 450; Johnston v. Rankin, son v. Mil. & B. R. Co., 6 Wis. 605; 
 
 70 N. C. 550 ; Morgan v. Monmouth Plank Power v. Bears, 12 Wis. 213 ; Bohlman 
 
 Road Co., 2 Dutcher, 99 ; Reckner v. v. Green Bay & L. P. R. Co., 30 Wis. 
 
 Warner, 22 Ohio St. 275, 293. 105; Walther v. Warner, 25 Mo. 277; 
 
 2 Talbot V. Hudson, 16 Gray, 417 ; Provolt v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 
 Ash w. Cummings, 50 N. H. 591 ; Orr o. 57 Mo. 256; Southwestern R. Co. v. 
 Quimby, 54 N. H. 590 ; Walther v. War- Southern & A. Tel. Co., 46 Ga. 43 ; Buf- 
 ner, 25 Mo. 277 : Lowndes Co. v. Bowie, falo Bayou, B. & C. R. Co., v. Ferris, 2 
 34 Ala. 461; Wheeler v. Essex Public Tex. 588 ; McCIinton w. Pittsburg, Ft. W., 
 Road, 10 Vroom, 291; Yost's Case, 17 & C. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 404; St. Louis, 
 Pa. St. 524 ; Long v. Fuller, 68 Pa. St L., & D. R. Co. u. Wilder, 17 Kan. 239. 
 
164 THE LAW OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 by legal proceedings ; and such delay would often result in serious 
 detriment to public interests. Now, although the prepayment 
 may be necessary for absolute security, it is not essential to the 
 reasonable certainty of compensation which the Constitution is 
 presumed to have had in view. The legislature is to be allowed 
 a measure of discretion in providing means for giving effect to 
 the provision which will at the same time not interfere with the 
 general welfare. The provision, too, it should be noted, does not 
 undertake to secure the citizen against all injuries to his property, 
 but only against a taking, — a term which designates a final trans- 
 fer of title to property, or its permanent subjection to an ease- 
 ment. Accordingly, if the statute provides a mode of fixing the 
 amount of the compensation, which the owner can initiate, and 
 gives him the right to require security for its payment, when 
 finally ascertained, leaving him legal and equitable remedies for 
 reclaiming possession in case it is not paid, his constitutional 
 right has been respected, although, in the possible event of the 
 insolvency of the corporation to which the right of eminent 
 domain has been delegated, and of its sureties, he may suffer 
 during the pendency of proceedings from the interference with 
 his property and the construction of public works upon it. It 
 has, therefore, been held that, in the absence of a distinct 
 provision in the Constitution requiring the prepayment of com- 
 pensation, such prepayment need not precede an entry for the 
 construction of a railroad, if some existing law affords an ade- 
 quate remedy for obtaining it ; ^ and the provision is complied 
 with, if, in place of such prepayment, a deposit of a certain 
 
 1 Bloodgood V. Mohawk & H. R. Co., Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49 66 28 Vt 142- 
 
 14 Wend. 51, 18 Wend. 9; Rexford v. Hankins v. Lawrence, ' 8 Blackf. 266'; 
 
 Knight, 11 N. Y. 308, 15 Barb. 627 ; Chap- New Albany & S. R. Co. u Connelly 7 
 
 man «. Gates, 54 N. Y. 132; Smitli v. Ind. 32; Jeffersonville M & I R Co. 
 
 Helraer, 7 Barb. 416,426; Fox v. West- v. Daugherty, 40 Ind. 33- Prather v. 
 
 ern Pacific R. Co., 31 Cal. 538; Raleigh Jeffersonville, M., & I. R Co 52 Ind. 
 
 & G. R. Co.j. Davis 2 Dev. & B. 451 ; 16, 41 ; Bonaparte v. Camden '& A. R. 
 
 Levering «. Ph,l., G., & N. R. Co., 8 W. Co., Baldwin, 205; Ash «. Cummings, 50 
 
 & S. 459; Pittsburg v. Scott, 1 Pa. St. N. H. 591; Orr v. Quimby 54 N. H. 590; 
 
 309 ; Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. Johnson v. Joliet & C. R. Co., 23 111. 202 ; 
 
 Co., 58 Pa. St. 26 ; Koch v. Williamsport Townsend v. Chicago & A R Co 91 
 
 Water Co., 65 Pa. St. 288 ; Danville, H., & III. 545 ; Haverhill Bridge Proprietors o. 
 
 W. R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 73 Pa. St. County Com'rs, 103 Mass. 120; White v. 
 
 29 ; Den v. Morris Canal & B. Co., 4 Zab. Nashville & N. W. R. Co., 7 Heisk. 518 ; 
 
 587 ; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. McFarlan, Simms v. Memphis, C, & L R Co 12 
 
 4 Stewart (N.J. ), 706, 722, 730, 3 Stew- Heisk. 621. 
 art (N. J.), 180; Hatch v. Vermont 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 165 
 
 amount in court, or a bond with sufficient sureties, — the amount 
 and sufficiency to be determined by some impartial tribunal or 
 body, — is required.^ 
 
 The constitutional provision, it has been decided, does not re- 
 quire the payment of the compensation to precede an exclusive 
 occupation of private property temporarily, as an incipient proceed- 
 ing to the acquisition of a title or easement, but only the acqui- 
 sition of the title or easement, or a permanent appropriation. If, 
 however, compensation is not made or tendered within a reasonable 
 time after the exclusive occupancy has commenced, the right to 
 continue it will cease, and the parties whose possession has become 
 illegal will be liable as trespassers.^ The company is at once a tres- 
 
 1 New York Central & H. R. R. Co., 
 Inre, 60 N. Y. 116; Fox v. Western 
 Pacific R. Co., 31 Gal. 638 ; Cairo & F. 
 R. Co. V. Turner, 31 Ark. 494 ; Wadhams 
 V. Lackawanna & B. R. Co., 42 Pa. St. 
 303 ; McClinton v. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. 
 R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 404 ; Fries v. Southern 
 Penn., R., & M. Co., 85 Pa. St. 73; 
 Powers V. Bears, 12 Wis. 213 ; Gray v. 
 St. Paul & P. R. Co., 13 Minn. 315; 
 Hursh V. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 17 Minn. 
 439; Weir v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 
 18 Minn. 155 ; Warren v. St. Paul & P. 
 R. Co., 18 Minn. 384 ; Curtis v. St. Paul, 
 S., & T. F. R. Co., 21 Minn. 497 ; John- 
 son V. Joliet & C. R. Co., 23 111. 202; 
 Shute V. Chicago & M. R. Co., 26 111. 
 436. Contra, Sanborn v. Belden, 51 Cal. 
 266 ; Vilhac o. Stockton & I. R. Co., 53 
 Cal. 208. If the bond is not paid, an in- 
 junction may be obtained. Cairo & T. F. 
 R. Co. V. Turner, 31 Ark. 494. But see 
 Fries v. Southern Penn., R., & M. Co., 85 
 Pa. St. 73. Failure to apply for a bond 
 does not waive the right to an injunction 
 for non-payment. White v. Nashville & 
 N. R. Co., 7 Heisk. 518. The bond must 
 be approved as required by law. Dim- 
 mick V. Brodliead, 75 Pa. St. 464. 
 
 2 In Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. 
 R. Co., 14 Wend. 51, it was considered 
 that, after an unreasonable delay in mak- 
 ing compensation, the owner would be 
 entitled to an ample remedy ; but whether 
 the parties, acting under color of legisla- 
 tive authority, were trespassers or not, 
 was not decided. In Cushman v. Smith, 
 34 Me. 247, the following conclusions 
 were arrived at by the court: "(1.) The 
 
 clause in constitutions which prohibits 
 the taking of private property for public 
 use was not designed to operate, and it 
 does not operate, to prohibit the legisla- 
 tive department from authorizing an ex- 
 clusive occupation of private property 
 temporarily, as an incipient proceeding 
 to the acquisition of a title to it or to an 
 easement in it. (2.) It was designed to 
 operate, and it does operate, to prevent 
 the acquisition of any title to land or to 
 an easement in it, or to a permanent ap- 
 propriation of it from an owner for pub- 
 lic use, without the actual payment or 
 tender of a just compensation for it. (3.) 
 That the right to such temporary occu- 
 pation as an incipient proceeding will be- 
 come extinct by an unreasonable delay 
 to perfect proceedings, including the act- 
 ual payment or tender of compensation 
 to acquire a title to the land or of an 
 easement in it. (4.) That an action of 
 trespass quare clausum may be main- 
 tained to recover damages for the con- 
 tinuance of such occupation, unless com- 
 pensation or a tender of it be made within 
 a reasonable time after the commence- 
 ment of it. (5.) That under such cir- 
 cumstances an action of trespass or an 
 action on the case may be maintained to 
 recover damages for all the injuries occa- 
 sioned by the prior occupation." Nichols 
 V. Somerset & K. R. Co., 43 Me. 356 ; Fox 
 V. Western Pacific R. Co , 31 Cal. 538 ; 
 Levering o. Phil., G., & N. R. Co., 8 W. 
 & S. 459 ; Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Davis, 
 2 Dev. & Bat. 451, 464; Walther v. War- 
 ner, 25 Mo. 277. 
 
166 THE LAW" OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 passer, if, being entitled only to enter for the temporary purpose, 
 it asserts a greater right, to wit, that of permanent occupation.^ 
 
 Some authorities regard a payment or tender of the compen- 
 sation as a condition precedent to an entry for the construction 
 of the road, even in the absence of any clause in the Consti- 
 tution expressly requiring such prepayment.^ 
 
 Several State constitutions provide that private property shall 
 not be taken for public use without compensation being first 
 made, or contain similar terms. The effect of this provision is 
 to require the payment or tender of the compensation to precede 
 an entry for the construction of the railroad.^ The prepayment 
 has, in some cases, been required by statute, when not required 
 by the Constitution.* 
 
 Under a constitutional or statute provision making prepayment 
 or tender of compensation a condition precedent to an entry, the 
 owner is entitled to the possession until the compensation as 
 finally determined is paid or tendered ; and, pending an appeal 
 from an assessment, he may retain such possession.^ In some 
 jurisdictions where prepayment is required, the company is 
 allowed to enter, on paying or depositing the assessment first 
 made.^ 
 
 1 Hall V. Pickering, 40 Me. 548; K., & T. R. Co. v. Ward, 10 Kan. 352; 
 Gowen v. Penobscot R. Co., 44 Me. St. Joseph & D, C. R. Co. v. Callender, 
 140; Davis v. Russell, 47 Me. 443. 13 Kan. 496 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Bloodgood V. Mohawk & H. R. Co., Brower, 12 Ind. 874 ; Sidener v. Norris- 
 18 Wend. 9 ; Blodgett v. Utica & B. R. K. town, H., & St. L. Tump. Co., 23 Ind. 623 ; 
 Co., 64 Barb. 580; Walther v. Warner, 25 Graham v. Columbus & I. C. R. Co., 27 
 Mo. 277; San Prancisco & S. J. R. Co. v. Ind. 260; Aurora & C. R. Co. v. Miller, 
 Mahoney, 29 Cal. 112 ; Cook v. South Park 56 Ind. 88 ; Sherman u. Mil., L. S., & W. 
 Com'rs, 61 111. 115; People v. MoRob- R. Co., 40 Wis. 645; Teick v. Carver 
 erts, 62 111. 88. In Illinois, prepayment County, 11 Minn. 292 ; Northern Pacific R. 
 for consequential injuries need not pre- Co. v. St. Paul, M., & M. R. Co. (U. S. 
 cede an occupation. Stetson v. Chicago C. C, D. Minn.), 8 Fed. Rep. 702. 
 
 & E. R. Co., 75 111. 74 ; Patterson v. Chi- i McAulay ».' Western Vt. R. Co., 33 
 
 cago, D , & V. R. Co., 76 111. 588; Peoria Vt. 311 ; Marion & M. V. R. Co. ». Ward, 
 
 & R. I. R. Co. V. Schertz, 84 111. 135. 9 Ind. 123. 
 
 3 Doughty !.■. SomerviUe & E. R. Co., 6 Browning v. Camden & W. R. T. Co., 
 3 Halst. Ch. 51 ; Thompson v. Grand Gulf 3 Green Ch. 47 ; Iowa College v. Daven- 
 R. & B. Co., 3 How. (Miss.) 240; Stewart port, 7 Iowa, 213; EidemiUer v. Wyan 
 V. Raymond R. Co., 7 Smedes & M. 568; dotte City, 2 Dill. 376 ; St. Joseph & D. 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Payne, 37 Miss. C. R. Co. v. Callender, 13 Kan. 496 ; Kan 
 700; Pearson v. Johnson, 54 Miss. 259; sas City v. Kansas P. R. Co., 18 Kan 
 Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. Co., 10 Iowa, 331 ; Davis «. San Lorenzo R. Co., 47 
 540; Daniels v. Chicago, I., & N. W. R. Co., Cal. 517 ; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. St, 
 35 Iowa, 129, 41 Iowa, 52 ;Hibbs W.Chicago Paul, M., & M. R. Co. (U. S. C. C, D, 
 & S. W. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 840 ; EidemiUer Minn.), 3 Fed. Rep. 702. 
 
 I). Wyandotte City, 2 Dill. 376 ; Missouri, « Peterson v. Perreby, 80 Iowa, 327 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 16T 
 
 Remedies of Land-O'wiierB to 'whom Compensation has not been 
 made. Actions at Law and Remedy in Equity. — A company enter- 
 ing on land for the construction of the road without complying 
 with the statute provisions for compensation, or assuming to 
 act under a statute which does not provide compensation as 
 required by the Constitution, is liable to an action of trespass,^ 
 or of ejectment,^ and to be enjoined in equity 5^ and these reme- 
 dies are likewise available to the owner against any parties who 
 claim under the company which made the entry.* 
 
 Mercer & S. R. Co. v. Delaware & B. B. 
 R. Co., 11 C. E. Green, 464 ; Mettler v. 
 Easton & A. R. Co., 10 C. E. Green, 214. 
 The money when so deposited remains at 
 the risk of the company. Blackshire u. 
 Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co., 13 Kan. 
 514. 
 
 1 People V. Hillsdale & C. T. Co., 2 
 Johns. 190 ; Perry v. Wilson, 7 Mass. 393 ; 
 Stevens v. Middlesex Canal, 12 Mass. 466 ; 
 Robinson v. New York & E. R. Co., 27 
 Barb. 512, 520 ; Blodgett v. Utica & B. R. 
 R. Co., 64 Barb. 680 ; Sinnickson v. John- 
 son, 2 Harrison, 129 ; Tinsman v. Belvi- 
 dere Del. R. Co., 2 Dutcher, 148, 174; 
 Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co., 14 
 Conn. 146, 15 Conn. 312; Lee v. Pem- 
 broke Iron Co., 57 Me. 481 ; Justice v. 
 Nesquehoning Valley R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 
 28 ; Smart v. Portsmouth & C. R. Co., 20 
 N. H. 233; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. 
 Co., 51 N. H. 504; Henry v. Dubuque 
 & P. R. Co., 10 Iowa, 640 ; Loop v. Cham- 
 berlain, 20 Wis. 135 ; Sherman v. Mil, L. 
 S., & W. R. Co., 40 Wis. 645; Blesch v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 183 ; 
 Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Dick, 9 Ind. 
 433 ; Indiana R. Co. v. Boden, 10 Ind. 96 ; 
 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Payne, 37 Miss. 
 700 ; Soutli Carolina R. Co. v. Steiner, 44 
 Ga. 546 ; Buffalo Bayou, B., & C. R. Co. 
 V. Ferris, 26 Tex. 588. An unlawful oc- 
 cupation is a continuing trespass. Ma- 
 thews V. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 
 434. 
 
 2 Daniels v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 35 Iowa, 129, 41 Iowa, 53 ; Oilman v. 
 Sheboygan & F. R. Co., 40 Wis. 653; 
 Conger i'. Burlington & S. W. R. Co., 41 
 Iowa, 419 ; Holbert v. St. Louis, K. C, 
 & N R. Co., 45 Iowa, 23; Carpenter v. 
 Oswego & S. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 655; Lev- 
 
 ering V. Phil., G., & N. R. Co., 8 W. & 
 S. 459 ; McClinton v. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & 
 C. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 404 ; Wilmington & 
 R. R. Co. V. High, 89 Pa. St. 282, 286 ; 
 Graham v. Columbus & I. C. R. Co., 27 
 Ind. 260 ; Cox v. Louisville, N. A., & C. 
 R. Co., 48 Ind. 178, 194 ; Smith v. Chi- 
 cago, A., & St. L. R. Co., 67 111. 191 ; 
 Chicago & I. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 90 111. 
 316 ; Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 
 Co., 17 Minn. 215 ; St. Joseph & D. C. K. 
 Co. V. Callender, 13 Kan. 490; Pearson 
 V. Johnson, 54 Miss. 259. 
 
 ' Browning v. Camden & W. R. Co., 
 3 Green Ch. 47 ; Delaware & R. Co. v. 
 Raritan & D. B. Co., 1 C. E. Green, 321, 
 381 ; Morris & E. R Co. v. Hudson Tun- 
 nel R. Co., 10 C. E. Green, 384 ; New Cen- 
 tral Coal Co V. George's Creek Coal & I. 
 Co., .37 Md. 537, 666 ; Henderson «. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 423 ; Lums- 
 den V. Milwaukie, 8 Wis. 485; Powers v. 
 Bears, 12 Wis. 213; Bohlman v. Green 
 Bay & L. P. R. Co., 30 Wis. 105 ; Died- 
 rich V. Northwestern Union R. Co., 33 
 Wis. 219 ; Gilman v. Sheboygan & F. R. 
 Co., 40 Wis. 643; Eidemiller v. Wyan- 
 dotte City, 2 Dill. 376 ; Richards v. Des 
 Moines Valley R. Co., 18 Iowa, 269; 
 Hibbs V. Chicago & S. W. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 
 340 ; Holbert v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 
 Co., 45 Iowa, 23 ; Sidener u. Norristown, 
 H., & St. L. Tump. Co., 23 Ind. 623; 
 Norristown, H., & St. L. Tump. Co. v. 
 Burket, 26 Ind. 53 ; Evans v. Mo., I., & N. 
 R. Co., 64 Mo. 453 ; Penrice v. Wallis, 
 37 Miss. 172 ; White v. Nashville & N. R. 
 Co., 7 Heisk. 518. 
 
 « Gilman v. Sheboygan & F. R. Co., 40 
 Wis. 653 ; Western Penn. R. Co v. John- 
 ston, 59 Pa. St. 290 ; Drury v. Midland K. 
 Co., 127 Mass. 571. 
 
168 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 Injunctions, when granted. — The remedy by injunction is granted 
 in the discretion of the court, and may be applied to enjoin the 
 company from entering to construct its road without proper 
 authority, or without having taken the steps required by law, 
 wherever irreparable injury to a land-owner is impending, and 
 his right is clear, and an action at law would not be a com- 
 plete remedy.! It may be resorted to for the protection of fran- 
 chises where the attempted appropriation does not conform to 
 the constitutional and legal method.^ It has been granted to 
 restrain the company from the negligent use of its powers to the 
 injury of the land-owner.^ The remedy is denied where it is not 
 sought seasonably,* or where the complainant has by some agree- 
 ment or by his conduct given an actual or implied assent to 
 the illegal entry, and expensive works have been constructed.^' 
 It is sometimes withheld temporarily, to give the company an 
 opportunity to obtain the land by negotiation or legal proceed- 
 ings ; ® and the company has even been allowed, when enjoined for 
 not having complied with the constitutional provision, to obtain 
 a title by paying the compensation found due by the court.^ 
 
 Release of Right to Compensation. — The land-owner may re- 
 lease his right to compensation, but the release is not to be 
 extended beyond its terms. Thus, a release of damages occa- 
 sioned by the construction of the railroad upon his own land 
 
 1 Bonaparte v. Camden & A. R. Co., * Attorney-General v. New York & L. 
 Baldwin, 205; Morris Canal & B. Co. v. B. R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 49; Bassett v. 
 Central R. Co., 1 C. E. Green, 419 ; Ste- Salisbury Man. Co., 47 N. H. 426. 
 
 vens V. Paterson & N. R. Co., 6 C. E. 5 Pickert v. Ridgefield Park K. Co., 
 
 Green, 126 ; Higbee v. Camden & A. R. 10 C. E. Green, 316 ; Attorney-General 
 
 & T. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 435; Morris v. Del. & B. B. R. Co., 12 C. E. Green, 
 
 Canal & B. Co. v. Fagin, 7 C. E. Green, 1; Meredith u. Sayre, 5 Stewart (N. J.), 
 
 430; Citizens' Coach Co. v. Camden 557 ; Pettibone d. LaCrosse & M. R. Co., 
 
 Horse R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 299, 14 V^^is. 443; Vilas v. Mil. & M. R. Co, 
 
 1 Stewart (N. J.), 145; Stewart's Ap- 15 Wis. 233 ; Goodin u. Cincinnati & W. 
 
 peal, 56 Pa. St. 413 ; Bassett v. Salis- C. Co., 18 Ohio St. 169 ; Jefferson & L. 
 
 bury Man. Co., 47 N. H. 426 ; Harring- P. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 31 La. An. 
 
 ton V. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 478 ; Cape Girardeau & B. M. G. Road 
 
 215. See Cowling v. Pontypool, C, & N. v. Renfroe, 58 Mo. 265; Lexington & 0. 
 
 R. Co., L. R. 18 Eq. Cas. 714. The R. Co. v. Ormsby, 7 Dana, 276. But see 
 
 amount of damage is immaterial where Murdock v. Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co., 
 
 the company e.xceeda its statutory pow- 73 N. Y. 579. 
 
 ers. Commonwealth v. Pittsburg & C. R. « Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 
 
 Co., 24 Pa. St. 159. Co., 17 Minn. 215, 228 ; Lohman v. St. 
 
 2 Boston & L. R. Co. v. Salem & L. R. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 174. 
 Co., 2 Gray, 1 ; Jersey City Gas Co. v. ' Henderson v. New York Cent. R. 
 Dwight, 2 Stewart (N. J.), 242. Co., 78 N. Y. 423, 17 Hun, 344. See post, 
 
 '^ Biscoe V. Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. p. 230. 
 16 Eq. Cas. 636. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 169 
 
 does not release damages occasioned to his remaining land by 
 its construction upon the land of another.^ 
 
 Waiver, Acquiescence, Laches. — The land-owner may, even by 
 parol, waive the right, where it exists, to prepayment as a condi- 
 tion precedent to an entry for construction, and having waived it 
 he cannot treat the company's possession as unlawful. The 
 waiver may be made by a contract with the company for the pay- 
 ment of the compensation at a time subsequent to the entry, and 
 the contract has the effect of converting the owner's lien on 
 the land into a debt.^ The company's breach of the conditions 
 subsequent in the contract does not entitle him to reclaim pos- 
 session,^ although the contract expressly reserves legal and equi- 
 table remedies.^ Some authorities recognize the existence of a 
 land-owner's lien, like a vendor's, where the company fails to 
 perform the conditions on which he allowed it to enter without 
 prepayment of the compensation.^ 
 
 A land-owner's delay in enforcing his rights does not effect a 
 waiver of his right to prepayment ; ^ but a clear acquiescence in 
 
 1 Eaton V. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 
 N. H. 504. 
 
 2 McAulay v. Western Vt. E. Co., 33 
 Vt. 311 ; Knapp r. McAuley, 39 Vt. 275; 
 Troy & B. R. Co. v. Potter, 42 Vt. 265 ; 
 Austin 0. Rutland R. Co., 45 Vt. 215, 
 239 ; Smart v. Portsmouth & C. R. Co., 
 20 N. H. 233 ; Hornback v. Cincinnati & 
 Z. R. Co., 20 Ohio St. 81 ; Pettibone v. 
 LaCrosse & M. R. Co., 14 VS^is. 443; 
 Vilas V. Mil. & M. R. Co., 15 Wis. 233; 
 Blade c. Del'. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. 
 Green, 130, 420, 9 C. E. Green, 455; 
 Pickert v. Ridgefield Park R. Co., 10 C. 
 E. Green, 316 ; Coe v. New Jersey M. R. 
 Co., 3 Stewart (N. J.), 21; Ba,ker v. 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 57 Mo. 265 ; 
 Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. v. Highland, 
 48 Ind. 381 ; Williaraston & T. R. Co. o. 
 Battle, 66 N. C. 540. 
 
 8 See cases cited in note 2. But see 
 Evansville, H., & N. R. Co. v. Grady, 6 
 Bush, 144 ; Unangst's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 
 128. An agreement to stay execution on 
 a judgment for damages for a certain 
 time does not take away the right to an 
 injunction upon non-payment at its ex- 
 piration. Irish V. Burlington & S. W. R. 
 Co., 44 Iowa, 380. 
 
 « Coe V. Columbus, P., & I. R. Co., 10 
 Ohio St. 372, 411. In England, the un- 
 paid vendor is not entitled to an injunc- 
 tion till he has obtained a judgment. 
 Latimer v. Aylesbury & B. R. Co., L. R. 
 9 Ch. Div. 385. 
 
 6 McAulay v. Western Vt. R. Co., 33 
 Vt. 311 ; Knapp v. McAuley, 39 Vt. 275; 
 Provolt V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 57 
 Mo. 256, 69 Mo. 633; Evans u. Mo., I., & 
 N. R. Co., 64 Mo. 453; Dayton, X., & B. 
 R. Co. V. Lewton, 20 Ohio St. 401 ; Gill- 
 son V. Savannah & C. R. Co., 7 S. C. 173. 
 See Hamilton v. Annapolis & E. R. R. Co., 
 1 Md. Ch. 107 ; Walker v. Ware, H., & B. 
 R, Co., L. R. 1 Eq. Cas. 195 ; Bishop of 
 Winchester v. Mid-Hants R. Co., L. R. 5 
 Eq. Cas. 17 ; Munns v. Isle of Wight R. 
 Co., L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 653 ; Lycett v. Staf- 
 ford & tr. R. Co., L. R. 13 Eq. Cas. 261 ; 
 Earl Ferrers v. Stafford & U. E. Co., L. R. 
 13 Eq. Cas. 524. 
 
 6 Walker v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 
 57 Mo. 275 ; Cape Girardeau & B., M., & 
 G. Road Co. v. Renfroe, 58 Mo. 265; 
 Evans v. Mo., I., & N. R. Co., 64 Mo. 453 ; 
 St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. Callender, 13 
 Kan. 496; Bohlman v. Green Bay & L. P. 
 R. Co., 30 Wis. 105 ; Gilman v. Sheboygan 
 
170 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 the company's taking possession and constructing its works under 
 circumstances making it his duty to resist the entry, if he intended 
 afterwards to set up that it was illegal, will be treated as a 
 waiver.i The waiver, however, while depriving him of the right 
 to dispossess the company, does not deprive him of the right to 
 damages under the special remedy .^ The effect of a parol license 
 to enter on land has already been considered.^ 
 
 Strict Compliance with the Statute required. — The company 
 in exercising the power of eminent domain must perform the 
 conditions which the statute requires to precede the taking, 
 and must strictly pursue the authority conferred and take the 
 steps required.* An entry without the consent of the owner, 
 or without complying with the conditions required, is actionable.^ 
 But where junisdiction has been acquired, the proceedings cannot 
 be attacked collaterally.® 
 
 & F. R. Co., 40 Wis. 653 ; Blesch v. Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 183 ; Mathews v. 
 St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 434; 
 Hibbs V. Chicago & S. W. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 
 340 ; Irish v. Burlington & S. W. R. Co., 44 
 Iowa, 380; White v. Nashville & N. W. 
 R. Co., 7 Heisk. 518. 
 
 1 McAulay v. Western Vt. R. Co., 33 
 Vt. 311 ; Provolt v. Chicago, R. I, & P. R. 
 Co., 57 Mo. 256, 69 Mo. 633 ; Attorney- 
 General V. New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 C. E. 
 Green, 49 ; Piokert v. Ridgefield Park R. 
 Co., 10 C. E. Green, 316 ; Cairo & F. R. 
 Co. V. Turner, 31 Ark. 494, 510; Petti- 
 bone V. LaCrosse & M. R. Co., 14 Wis. 
 443 ; Andrews v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 
 22 Wis. 288; Lexington & 0. R. Co. v. 
 Orrasby, 7 Dana, 276; Taylor v. Petti- 
 john, 24 111. 312 ; Goodin ./. Cincinnati & 
 W. Canal Co., 18 Ohio, 169; Hentzw. Long 
 Island R. Co., 13 Barb. 646; Harlow v. 
 Marquette, H., & 0. R. Co., 41 Mich. 336. 
 But see Conger v. Burlington & S. W. R. 
 Co., 41 Iowa, 419; Evans v. Mo., I., & N. 
 R. Co , 64 Mo. 453. 
 
 2 Western Penn. R. Co. ■;. Johnston, 
 59 Pa. St. 290; Smart w. Portsmouth &C. 
 R. Co., 20 N. H. 233 ; Harrington i>. St. 
 Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215; Har- 
 low V. Marquette & 0. R. Co., 41 Mich. 
 336 ; Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 41 
 Mich. 453. 
 
 8 Ante, Chap. VI. p. 131. 
 * Adams v. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 10 
 N. Y. 328 ; City of Buffalo, In re, 78 N. Y. 
 
 362; New York & B. E. Co., In re, 62 
 Barb. 85 ; Levering v. Phil., G., & N. E. 
 Co., 8 W. & S. 459; O'Hara v. Penn. E. 
 Co., 25 Pa. St. 445 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Port«r, 
 29 Pa. St. 165 ; Dimmick v. Brodhead, 75 
 Pa. St. 464 ; Darlington v. United States, 
 82 Pa. St. 382; West Va. Trans. Co. v. 
 Volcanic O. & C. Co., 5 W. Va. 382; 
 Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water Co., 13 
 Cal. 306 ; Curran v. Shattuck, 24 Cal. 427 ; 
 Stanford v. Worn, 27 Cal. 171 ; San Fran- 
 cisco & A. Water Co. v. Alameda Water 
 Co., 36 Cal. 639 ; Anderson, L., & St. L. 
 R. Co. u. Kernodle, 54 Ind. 314; Gillin- 
 water v. Miss. & A. R. Co., 13 111. 1; Chi- 
 cago V. Rock Island R. Co., 20 El. 286 ; 
 Leslie v. St. Louis, 47 Mo. 474 ; Teick v. 
 Carver County, 11 Minn. 292 ; Lohman ». 
 St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 174; 
 New Orleans, M., & C. R. Co. v. Frederic, 
 46 Miss. 1 ; Nichols v. Bridgeport, 23 Conn. 
 189, 208 ; Spofford v. Bucksport & B. R. 
 Co., 66 Me. 26 ; Blaisdell v. Winthrop, 118 
 Mass. 138; Wilson v. Lynn, 119 Mass. 
 174 ; Derby v. Framingham & L. R. Co., 
 119 Mass. 516 ; Wamesit Power Co. v. Al- 
 len, 120 Mass. 352 ; Lund i-. New Bedford, 
 121 Mass. 286 ; White v. Nashville & N. 
 W. R. Co., 7 Heisk. 518 ; Whiteman «. Wil- 
 mington & S. R. Co., 2 Harrlng. (Del.) 514. 
 
 6 Sherman v. Mil., L. S., & W. E. Co., 
 40 Wis. 645; Hibbs v. Chicago & S. W. 
 R. Co., .39 Iowa, 340. 
 
 8 Porter o. Purdy, 29 N. Y. 106 ; Al- 
 len V. Utica, I., & E. R. Co., 15 Hun, 80. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 171 
 
 A corporation which has omitted certain required steps, as the 
 filing of a location, will be estopped to deny that it has taken the 
 land where it has entered upon it, and begun the construction of 
 the road.^ 
 
 Vesting of Title. — The title to land, for taking which proceed- 
 ings have been commenced, vests in the company only when it 
 has fully complied with the conditions precedent, and paid or 
 deposited the compensation, as required by law ; ^ and, until the 
 title has vested by the performance of the essential conditions, 
 the legislature may authorize an award of damages already made 
 to be vacated, and a new one to be made.^ The company 
 acquires its title upon performing the final award or judgment : it 
 has then a right to enter without a deed from the owner, or any 
 legal process ; * but such process is sometimes provided by statute.^ 
 
 When Proceedings to take Land may be abandoned. — The 
 right of the company to abandon proceedings for condemna- 
 tion, without remaining liable to make compensation as for a 
 taking, varies in different jurisdictions. The taking is the critical 
 act which should conclude both parties ; but there is not an 
 accord in the authorities as to what is to be deemed a taking, — 
 whether the final payment or deposit of the amount fixed, — or 
 some earlier act or legal proceeding. The title is not, indeed, 
 transferred until an actual payment, but the obligations of the 
 parties may be fixed before such payment.^ 
 
 1 Boston & P. E. Co. v. Midland R. Co., » Baltimore & S. K. Co. v. Nesbit, 10 
 
 1 Gray, 340, 361; Drury v. Midland R. How. 395; Garrison v. New York, 21 
 
 Co., 127 Mass. 571, 580. See Duck River Wall. 196 ; Gowen v. Penobscot R. Co., 
 
 Valley N. G. R. Co. v. Cochrane, 3 Lea 44 Me. 140. See Smart v. Portsmouth & 
 
 (Tenn.), 478. C. R. Co., 20 N. H. 233. 
 
 ^ Bloodgood V. Mohawk & H. R. Co., * Beekman v, Saratoga & S. R. Co., S 
 
 18 Wend. 9, 19; Beekman v. Saratoga & Paige, 45, 76; State v. Dickson, 3 Mo. 
 
 S. R. Co., 3 Paige, 45, 76 ; Clarkson v. App. 464 ; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hudson River R. Co., 12 N. Y. 304; Bal- Smythe, 45 Ind. 322 ; Niagara Falls & L. 
 
 lou V. Ballou, 78 N. Y. 325; Wheeler v. 0. R. Co. v. Hotclikiss, 16 Barb. 270. 
 Rochester & S. R. Co., 12 Barb. 227; ^ New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 
 Crowner v. Watertown & E. R. Co., 9 In re. 60 N. Y. 116, 2 Hun, 482. 
 How. Pr. 457 ; Stacey c. Vt. Cent. R. ^ Rhinebeck & C. R. Co., In re, 67 N. 
 
 Co., 27 Vt. 39; Montgomery & W. P. Y. 242, 8 Hun, 34; Hudson River R. 
 
 R. Co. V. Walton, 14 Ala. 207; Schuler Co. k. Cutwater, 3 Sand. 689 ; Visscher u. 
 
 V. Northern L. & P. T. R. Co., 3 Whart. Hudson River R. Co., 15 Barb. 37 ; First 
 
 555; Blackshire v. .Atchison T. & S. R. National Bank u. West River R. Co., 49 
 
 Co., 13 Kan. 514; White •>. Nashville & Vt. 167, 46 Vt. 633; Beale v. Penn. R. 
 
 N. W. E. Co., 7 Heisk. 518, 539 ; Driver v. Co., 86 Pa. St. 509 ; Pinkerton v. Boston 
 
 Western Union R. Co., 32 Wis. 569 ; Carli & A R. Co., 109 Mass. 527 ; Old Col- 
 
 V. Stillwater & St. P. R. Co., 16 Minn. 260. ony R. Co. v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1. 
 
172 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 In some jurisdictions the company may abandon at any time 
 before payment ; ' in others, only prior to a final determination of 
 the damages ; ^ in others, only prior to the final fixing of the 
 location ; ^ and in England the company is bound as soon as it 
 gives the " notice to treat " a land-owner.* A companj"^ cannot, 
 after a final award of damages, abandon the proceeding and insti- 
 tute another with a view of obtaining an award of a less amount.^ 
 It may abandon at any time illegal proceedings.® The owner has 
 been held entitled to damages where the company, in the exer- 
 cise of a legal right,, abandons the proceedings ; ^ and even to 
 damages, where no possession is taken, for loss of rent or inability 
 to put the premises to profitable use while they were liable to be 
 taken under the pending proceedings.® 
 
 Mode of determining and obtaining the Compensation. — The com- 
 pensation for property taken for a public use is usually ascertained, 
 not by an action at law, but by means of a special remedy pro- 
 vided by statute. Some board or tribunal, called commission- 
 ers or viewers, are empowered to appraise the damages, usually 
 with the right of appeal to a jury. 
 
 1 Stacey v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. » g^aw v. Chariestown, 3 Allen, 538 ; 
 39, .32 Vt. 551 ; Gear v. Dubuque & S. Pinkerton v. Boston & A. R. Co., 109 
 C. R. Co., 20 Iowa, 523 ; State 'v. Cin- Mass. 527 ; Old Colony R. Co. v. Miller, 
 cinnati & 0. R. Co., 17 Ohio St. 103 ; 125 Mass. 1 ; Clough v. Unity, 18 N. H. 
 State V. Graves, 19 Md. 351 ; Blackshire 75 ; Smart v. Portsmouth & C. E. Co., 20 
 V. Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co., 13 Kan. N. H. 233 ; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Blair, 1 
 514; St. Louis, L , & D. R. Co. v. Wilder, Stock. 635. 
 
 17 Kan. 239 ; Kansas City v. Kansas P. * Hodges's Law of Railways, ch. ir., 
 
 R. Co., 18 Kan. 331 ; St. Louis & S. E. R. " The notice to treat," pp. 170-174 ; 
 
 Co. V. Teters, 68 111. 144 ; Chicago v. Bar- Stacey o. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. 39, 
 
 bian, 80 111. 482 ; North Missouri R. Co. v. 47, 48 ; Gear v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 
 
 Lackland, 25 Mo. 515 ; State v. Hug, 44 20 Iowa, 523, 528 ; North Missouri R. Co. 
 
 Mo. 116 ; Leisse v. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., v. Lackland, 25 Mo. 515, 528. 
 
 2 Mo. App. 105; Rogers v. St. Charles, 5 Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water 
 
 3 Mo. App. 41. See Baltimore v. Mus- Co., 13 Cal. 306 ; Rogers v. St. Charles 
 grave, 48 Md. 272 ; Feiten u. Milwaukie, City, 3 Mo. App. 41. 
 
 47 Wis. 494. 6 First National Bank v. West River 
 
 2 Neal V. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 31 R. Co., 49 Vt. 167, 46 Vt. 633. 
 
 Pa. St. 19, 2 Grant, 137 ; Philadelphia v. ' Gear v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 
 
 Dyer, 41^Pa. St. 463 ; Beale v. Penn. R. 20 Iowa, 523. The land-owner may, in 
 
 Co., 86 Pa. St. 509 ; Hudson River R. Co. some jurisdictions, resort to the special 
 
 V. Cutwater, 3 Sandf. 689; Com'rs of remedy to obtain compensation for a 
 
 Washington Park, In re, 56 N. Y. 144; temporary dispossession, and the aban- 
 
 Military Parade Ground, In re, 60 N. Y. donment would reduce the damages. See 
 
 319 ; Rhinebeck & C. R. Co., In re, 67 N. Pinkerton o. Boston & A. R. Co., 109. 
 
 Y. 242, 8 Hun, 34 ; People v. Syracuse, Mass. 527. 
 
 78 N. Y. 56 ; Crowner v. Watertown & R. » Leisse v. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 2 
 
 R. Co., 9 How. Pr. 457 ; Dayton & W. R, Mo. App. 105; but quaere. 
 Co. V. Marshall, 11 Ohio St. 497. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 173 
 
 The general proYision in the National and State Constitutions 
 securing the right of tuial by jury in civil cases is construed not 
 to apply to such an appraisement. It relates to the trial of 
 issues of fact, and not to collateral questions of damages, in which 
 no suit is pending.^ In some States, however, the appraisement 
 is held to be ^ judicial inquiry, under the Constitution, entitling 
 a party whose property is taken to a jury.^ The uniform practice 
 in the State has been relied on in the construction of the consti- 
 tutional provision.^ 
 
 The mode of determining the compensation is within the dis- 
 cretion of the legislature ;* but it must be one which confides 
 the duty of appraisement to an impartial tribunal.^ The com- 
 pany has no cause of complaint against an award, in the fact tiiat 
 some members of the tribunal had an interest in its favor.^ 
 Where the Constitution prescribes a mode, it is not competent for 
 the legislature to substitute another.'' A constitutional provision 
 which requires a jury has been held in some States to require a 
 jury of twelve persons, acting unanimously ; ^ but in New York 
 it has been held that the legislature may constitute a jury of a 
 less number, and authorize it to decide by a vote less than a 
 unanimous one.^ In some States the trial is not required to be 
 
 1 Beekman v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 3 EvansTille & C. K. Co. v. Miller, 30 Ind. 
 Paige, 45, 75 ; Bonaparte v. Camden & A. 209, where, as the case was in equity, 
 E. Co., Baldwin, 205 ; Whitenian v. Wil- such a trial was held not to be required, 
 mington & S. R. Co., 2 Harring. 514 ; ' Mount Washington Road Co., In re, 
 Raleigh & G. R. Co. ./. Davis, 2 Dev. & 35 N. H. 1-34 ; Lake Erie, W., & St. L. R. 
 B. 451, 464; Kramer v. Cleveland & P. Co. v. Heath, 9 Ind. 558. 
 
 R. Co., 5 Ohio St. 140 ; Louisiana & F. * Virginia & T. R. Co. v. Elliot, 5 
 
 Plank Road Co. t'. Pickett, 25 Mo. 535 ; Nev. 358 ; Kramer v. Cleveland & P. R. 
 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Lutheran Congregation, Co., 5 Ohio St. 140. 
 
 53 Pa. St. 445; Dronberger v. Reed, 11 ^ Powers v. Bears, 12 Wis. 213; Peo- 
 
 Ind. 420; Mount Washington Road Co., 35 pie v. Michigan Southern R. Co., 3 Mich. 
 
 N. H. 134 ; Buffalo Bayou, B., & C. R. Co. 496 ; Ames v. Lake Superior & M. R. Co., 
 
 V. Ferris, 26 Texas, 588 ; Houston Tap & 21 Minn. 241 ; Buffalo Bayou, B., & C. R. 
 
 B. R. Co. V. Milburn, 34 Texas, 224; Co. t. Ferris, 26 Texas, 588. See Walker 
 
 Ames V. Lake Superior & M. R. Co., 21 v. Boston & M. R., 8 Cush. 1. 
 
 Minn. 241 ; Bruggerman v. True, 25 Minn. « Strang v. Beloit & M. R. Co., 16 Wis. 
 
 123. The clause in the United States 635. 
 
 Constitution does not apply to proceed- 7 Rochester Water Works Co. u. Wood, 
 
 ings under State laws. Lake Erie, W., 60 Barb. 137; House v. Rochester, 15 
 
 & St. L. R. Co. V. Heath, 9 Ind. 558. Barb. 517. 
 
 2 Isom .;. Miss. Cent. R. Co., 36 Miss. ° Lamb v. Lane, 4 Ohio St. 167 ; Chi- 
 300; Lake Erie, W., & St. L R. Co. v. cago & M. L. S. R. Co. v. Sanford, 23 
 Heath, 9 Ind. 558 ; Louisville, N. A., & St. Mich. 418. 
 
 L. A. L. R. Co. V. Dryden, 39 Ind. 393 ; » Cruger v. Hudson River E. Co., 12 
 Rich V. Chicago, 59 111. 286 ; Cook v. South N. Y. 190. 
 Park Commissioners, 61 III. 115. See 
 
174 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 at the bar of the court, but may be before a jury sitting under 
 the direction of the sheriff or other presiding officer.^ The pro' 
 ceeding is in the nature of a suit at law, within the meaning 
 of the national Constitution, and, if the controversy is between 
 citizens of different States, may be removed to a national 
 court.2 The remedy should be available to the land-owner 
 as well as to the corporation which is authorized to take his 
 property. 3 
 
 A peculiar method has sometimes been adopted by which the 
 State takes the land and pays the compensation from funds 
 deposited in its treasury by the company, and then leases the 
 right of way to the corporation. When the assessed damages 
 are not deposited, the land-owner, waiving the -trespass for an 
 entry without deposit or payment, may recover the amount 
 in an action against the company.* 
 
 The proceedings for the assessment of damages, unless other- 
 wise provided, may be instituted as well after as before the com- 
 pany has entered for the construction of the road.^ Generally, 
 the company may apply for the assessment of an owner's dam- 
 ages when it has filed a map covering his land, although not 
 having yet filed a map of the entire Une.^ 
 
 Extent and Application of the Special Remedy. — The special 
 remedy provided by statute for the assessment of " the dam- 
 ages sustained by the owner of land," or " occasioned by laying 
 out and making and maintaining the road, or by taking any land or 
 materials," or granted in other equivalent terms, is usually con- 
 strued to. include not only the value of the land taken, but, 
 also, where land is taken, the injury to the owner's remaining 
 land, which may arise in the proper construction of the road from 
 various causes, — as the increased difSculty of communication be- 
 tween the parts of the severed tract ; ^ the inconvenient shape in 
 
 1 G. S. Mass. ch. 43 ; FitchburK R- ' Coster v. New Jersey R. & Trans. 
 
 Lo.u. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. 58; Wy- Co.,3 Zab. 227, 4 Zab. 730. 
 
 Eastern R. Co., 128 Mass. 346. « Hunt v. Smith, 9 Kan. 137 ; Doughty 
 
 man v. 
 
 403 
 
 2 Boom Co. V. Patterson, 98 U. S. w. Somerville & E.R. Co., 1 Zab. 442: 
 
 ^ Mason v. Kennebec & P. R. Co., 31 
 
 » Shepardson v. Mil. & B. R. Co., 6 Me. 215; Clark v. Boston, C, & M. R. 
 
 Wis. 605 ; Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. Co., 24 N. H. 114 ; Imlay v. Union Branch 
 
 R. Co., 17 Minn. 215. r. Co., 26 Conn. 249 ; Robbins v. Mil. & 
 
 ' Smart v. Portsmouth & C. R. Co., 20 H. R. Co., 6 Wis. 636 ; XJtioa, C, & S. R. 
 
 N. H. 233; Chase v. Sullivan R. Co., 20 Co., In re, 56 Barb. 456; Somerville & E. 
 
 N. H. 195 ; Blake v. Rich, 34 N. H. 282. R. Co. v. Doughty, 2 Zab. 495 ; Mifflin v. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 175 
 
 which the remaining land is left ; ^ the cost of new fences required 
 in consequence of the construction of the railroad; ^ the weakening 
 of the natural support of the remaining land ; ^ the withdrawal of 
 water from springs upon it ; * injury to it from the percolation 
 of water ; ^ the turning of streams of water on land, when neces- 
 sary in the construction of the road ; ® the diversion of streams of 
 water, so as to lessen the supply of a mill,^ or to expose a per- 
 son's land to an overflow;^ the exposure of land to drifts of 
 sand from the railroad ; ^ the throwing of stones upon it by means 
 of blasting rocks within the location ; i" the deposit of earth and 
 stone on the remaining land under the authority of a statute ; ^^ 
 and the increased exposure to fire, so far as it depreciates the 
 value of the owner's remaining land ; ^^ but injuries of a remote 
 or speculative character, such as loss of business or custom, suf- 
 fered by the owner of real estate, are not within the statute.^^ 
 
 Harrisburg, P., M'., & L. R. Co., 16 Pa. St. 
 182. 
 
 1 Mifflin V. Harrisburg, P., M., & L. K. 
 Co., 16 Pa. St. 182; White b. Charlotte & 
 S. C. R. Co., 6 Rich. 47. 
 
 2 Mason v. Kennebec & P. R. Co., 31 
 Me. .215; Somerville & E. R. Co. v. 
 Doughty, 2 Zab. 495, 613 ; Henry v. Pacific 
 R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288 ; Sater v. Burlington 
 & Mt. P. R. Co., 1 Iowa, 386, 391 ! Mil- 
 waukee & M. R. Co. V. Eble, 4 Chandler 
 (Wis.), 72; North Eastern R. Co. v. Sin- 
 eath, 8 Rich. 185. The expense of one 
 half of the cost of fencing was allowed in 
 Rensselaer & S. R. Co., In re, 4 Paige, 
 553. See Long Island R. Co., In re, 3 
 Edw.'Ch. 487. 
 
 ' Boothby v. Androscoggin R. Co., 51 
 Me. 318. 
 
 * Aldrich v. Cheshire R. Co., 21 N. H. 
 359. 
 
 5 Hofifer V. Penn. Canal Co., 87 Pa. St. 
 221. 
 
 « Curtis 0. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, 
 55, 98 Mass. 428; Estabrooks v. Peter- 
 borough & S. R. Co., 12 Cush. 224. See 
 Stodghill V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 43 
 Iowa, 26. 
 
 ' Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Magruder, 
 34 Md. 79. 
 
 8 Chesapeake & O. C. Co. <^. Grove, 11 
 G. & J. 398. 
 
 ' Dearborn v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 
 24 N. H. 179. 
 
 10 Sabin v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 
 363; Dodge v. County Com'rs, 3 Met. 
 380 ; Brown v. Providence, W., & B. R. 
 Co., 5 Gray, 35 ; Curtis v. Eastern R. Co., 
 14 Allen, 55, 58, 98 Mass. 428 ; White- 
 house V. Androscoggin R, Co., 52 Me. 208. 
 See Hays v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 159 ; Tre- 
 main v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 163 ; Carman 
 u. Steubenville & I. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 399. 
 
 11 East Penn. R. Co. u. Schollenberger, 
 54 Pa. St. 144. 
 
 12 Wilmington & R. R. Co. ■;. Stauffer, 
 60 Pa. St. 374; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. 
 Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366 ; Somerville & E. R. 
 Co. V. Doughty, 2 Zab. 495; Colvill v. 
 St. Paul & C. R. Co., 19 Minn. 283; 
 Hatch V. Cincinnati & I. R. Co., 18 Ohio 
 St. 92, 124 ; Proprietors of Locks & Canals 
 V. Nashua & L R. Co., 10 Cush. 385, 392; 
 Utica, C, & S. V. R. Co., In re, 56 Barb. 
 456. Some authorities hold such a risk 
 to be too uncertain and contingent to be 
 considered in an assessment. Sunbury 
 & E. R. Co. V. Hummell, 27 Pa. St. 90; 
 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Lazarus, 28 
 Pa. St. 203; Patten v. Northern Cent. 
 R. Co., 33 Pa. St. 426. See Fleming u. 
 Chicago, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 353. 
 
 i» Canandaigua & N. F. R. Co. v. Payne, 
 16 Barb. 273 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. North- 
 ern Turnp. Co., 16 Barb. 100; Troy & B. 
 R. Co. V. Lee, 13 Barb. 169 ; Union Village 
 & J. R. Co., In re, 53 Barb. 457 ; Utica, 
 C, & S. V. R. Co., In re, 66 Barb. 456 ; 
 Mount Washington Road Co., In re, 35 
 N. H. 134 ; Proprietors of Locks & Canals 
 
176 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 The special remedy extends to all acts which the company 
 is authorized to do, and for which it is made liable, including 
 such consequential injuries as it is required to compensate.^ It 
 is the exclusive remedy, not only for the owner of the fee, but 
 for all parties having interests entitling them to compensation .^ 
 It may include injuries from excavations and erections within the 
 location to adjoining land outside ; ^ the value of materials taken 
 under the statute outside of the location ; * and injuries occasioned 
 to land not within the location, and not a part of any tract lying 
 within it.^ But some statutes are of a more limited scope, and 
 confine the remedy to cases where land or materials are taken.® 
 A statute of New Hampshire, which was construed with refer- 
 ence to acts relating to the assessment of damages to the owners 
 of land required for highways, was held not to extend to injuries 
 to persons whose land was not included in the location of the rail- 
 road. Accordingly, a land-owner, owning land outside of the 
 location which had been flooded in consequence of the company's 
 works within it, was held not entitled to the special remedy ; but, 
 as his constitutional right had been invaded, without any remedy 
 being given by statute, he was allowed to maintain his action at 
 common law.^ 
 
 The special remedy is appropriate to the taking of, or an injury 
 to, the franchise of a bridge or turnpike corporation.^ It may 
 
 V. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Gush. 385; « Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Baxter, 22 
 
 Boston & W. R. Co. v. Old Colony R. Co., Vt. 365 ; White Water Valley R. Co. ». 
 
 12 Cush. 605; Sunbury & E. R. Co. d. McClure, 29 Ind. 5.36; Baker v. Hanni- 
 
 Huinmell,27 Pa. St. 99; Searle v. Laeka- bal & St. J. R. Co., 36 Mo. 543. 
 wanna & B. R. Co., 33 Pa. St. 57 ; Flem- * Dodge v. County Cora'rs, 3 Met. 
 
 ing D. Chicago, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 380; Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Bax- 
 
 353 ; Eobbins v. Milwaukie & H. R. Co,, 6 ter, 22 Vt. 365 ; Sabin v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., " 
 
 ■Wis. 636. 25 Vt. 363 ; Whitehouse v. Androscoggin 
 
 ' Ellsworth t). Central R. Co., 5 Vroom, R. Co., 52 Me. 208. 
 93 ; Henniker v. Contoocook Valley R. « Rogers v. Kennebec & P. E. Co., 35 
 
 Co., 29 N. H. 146; Colcough v. Nashville Me. 319; Whittier v. Portland & K. R. 
 
 & N. R. Co., 2 Head, 171 ; Vaughan a. Co., 38 Me. 26; Eaton v. B., C, & M. R., 
 
 Taff Vale R. Co., 5 H. & N. 670 ; Brand 51 N. H. 504 ; Thompson v. Androscoggin 
 
 V. Hammersmith & C. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 58 N. H. 108 ; Troy 
 
 B. 223; Slatten c. Des Moines Valley u. Cheshire R. Co., 23 N. H. 83; Protzman 
 R. Co., 29 Iowa, 148; Chicago & A. R. «. Indianapolis &C.R. Co., 9 Ind. 467; Bal- 
 Co. V. Springfield & N. R. Co., 67 111. timore & P. R. Co. «. Reaney, 42 Md.ll7. 
 1*2. 7 Eaton V. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. 
 
 2 Colcough V. Nashville & N. R. Co., 2 H. 504 ; Clark v. Saybrook, 21 Conn. 813. 
 ^^^^' ^''l- ' White River Turnp. Co. v. Vt. Cent. 
 
 8 Bradley k. New York & N. H. E. E. Co., 21 Vt. 590; Enfield Toll Bridge 
 
 Co., 21 Conn. 294; Dearborn v. Boston, Co. u. Hartford & N. H. E. Co. 17 Conn. 
 
 C, & M. R. Co., 24 N. H. 179. 454. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 177 
 
 also be availed of by the State for obtaining damages to prop- 
 erty held by it, as a body corporate, where, under the same 
 circumstances, a citizen's right to compensation would be within 
 it.i The State may, however, grant to the company the right 
 to take its own property without requiring compensation.^ 
 
 The Statute Remedy exclusive. — The special remedy pro- 
 vided by statute for determining the compensation for property 
 taken is exclusive. One who is acting under lawful authority 
 cannot be made liable as a wrong-doer for his acts and their 
 necessary consequences; and where a special remedy conforming 
 to the Constitution is provided by statute under which the owner 
 may obtain compensation, he is confined to such remedy, and 
 cannot maintain an action at common law. The special remedy 
 usually applies to all injuries for which the company, acting 
 under legislative authority, is liable, whether they are actionable 
 at common law or only remediable by reason of the statute. The 
 final award is a bar to an action for any injury which the ap- 
 praisers could have legally estimated, irrespective of their action 
 upon the claim for injury, or even their knowledge or ignorance 
 of its existence. They are conclusively presumed to have per- 
 formed their duty, except in a direct proceeding to set aside the 
 award, or on appeal.* 
 
 1 Commonwealth v. Boston & M. R., C, & M. R. Co., 57 N. H. 212; Fumess 
 3 Cush. 25. V. Hudson River R. Co., 5 Sandf . 551 ; 
 
 2 Indiana Cent. R. Co. </. State, 3 Ind. Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667 ; Selden 
 421. V. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 
 
 8 Stowell V. Flagg, 11 Mass. 364 ; 634, 24 Barb. 362 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. 
 Stevens v. Middlesex Canal, 12 Mass. Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366 ; MeKinney v. Monon- 
 466 ; Dodge o. County Com'rs, 3 Met. gahela Nav. Co., 14 Pa. St. 65 ;, Phil., W., 
 380; Mellen v. Western R. Co., 4 Gray, & B. R. Co. v. Williams, 54 Pa. St. 103; 
 301; Perry v. Worcester, 6 Gray, 544; Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. McLana- 
 Mason v. Kennebec & P. R. Co., 31 han, 59 Pa. St. 23 ; Koch v. Williamsport 
 Me. 215; Gowen t-. Penobscot R. Co., 44 Water Co., 65 Pa. St. 288; Fehr v. 
 Me. 140 ; Boothby v. Androscoggin & K. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 69 Pa. St. 161 ; 
 R. Co. 51 Me. 318 ; Vermont Cent. R. Chesapeake & O. C. Co. v. Grove, 11 Gill 
 Co. V. Baxter, 22 Vt. 365; Sabin v. Vt. & J. 398; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Ma- 
 Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 363: Woods v. gruder, 34 Md. 79; Winchester & P. R. 
 Nashua Man. Co., 4 N. H. 527 ; Aldrich Co. v. Washington, 1 Rob. (Va.) 67; 
 V. Cheshire R. Co., 21 N. H. 359 ; Troy i-. Hueston v. Eaton & II. R. Co., 4 Ohio 
 Cheshire R. Co., 23 N. H. 83; Clark v. St. 685 ; Little Miami R. Co. v. White- 
 Boston, C, & M. R. Co.. 24 N. H. Ill ; acre, 8 Ohio St. 590; Null v. Whitewater 
 Dearborn v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co , 24 V. Canal Co., 4 Infl. 431 ; Lafayette & I. R. 
 N. H. 179; Henniker w Contooeook Valley Co. v. Smith, 6 Ind. 249 ; New Albany & 
 R. Co. 29 N. H. 146 ; Eaton v. Boston, S. R. Co. u. Connelly, 7 Ind. 32, 85 ; Levis- 
 C. & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 504; Orr i: ton u. Junction R. Co., 7 Ind. 597; Mc- 
 Quimby, 54 N. H. 590 ; Perley r. Boston, Cormack v. Terre Haute &R. R. Co., 9 Ind. 
 
 12 
 
178 
 
 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 The special remedy is exclusive as to both parties where each 
 may resort to it. If either may be the actor, neither can com- 
 plain that the other did not first proceed under it. The owner 
 cannot, therefore, maintain an action at common law, where he fails 
 to resort to the remedy provided for him by the statute.^ But 
 if the company alone has the power, or is under a special obliga- 
 tion, to carry it into effect, and is in default for not having done 
 so within a reasonable time, the injured owner is not deprived 
 of his remedy by action.^ 
 
 Generally, where the State Constitution is construed to require 
 a payment of the compensation to precede an entry for construc- 
 tion, the company is held to be under a prior obligation to initiate 
 the proceedings for an assessment, and if it enters without doing 
 so, it is a trespasser.^ But if the owner waives the condition 
 precedent, he will be cdnfined to the statute remedy'.* 
 
 283^ Lafayette Plank Road Co. v. New 
 Albany & S. R. Co., 13 Ind. 90; Indiana 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Oakes, 20 lad. 9; Green 
 V. Boody, 21 Ind. 10; Pettibone i-. La 
 Crosse & M. R. Co., 14 Wis. 44.3 ; Ford v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 14 Wis. 609; 
 Kennedy v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 22 Wis. 
 581 ; Slierman v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 
 40 Wis. 645 ; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Turner, 
 31 Ark. 494 ; Mclntire v. Western N. C. 
 R. Co., 07 N. C. 278 : Brown v. Beatty, 34 
 Miss. 227; McLauclilin v. Cliarlotte & S. 
 C. R. Co., 5 Rich. 583; Fuller v. Edings, 
 1 1 Rich. 239 ; Colcough v. Nashville & N. 
 R. Co., 2 Head, 171 ; Tenn. & A. R. Co. v. 
 Adams, 3 Head, 596 ; Daniels v. Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co., 35 Iowa, 129; Stodghill 
 V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 26 ; 
 Clark V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 36 Mo. 
 202; Lindell v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 
 36 Mo. 543; Teiek v. Carver County, 11 
 Minn. 292; Great Laxey Mining Co. v. 
 Clague, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 115; Little v. 
 Dublin & D. R. Co., 7 Ir. C. L. 82. In 
 Georgia, the special remedy is held not to 
 be exclusive. Carr v. Georgia R. Co., 1 
 Ga. 524." See Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 
 Cowen, 165. 
 
 1 Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667 ; 
 Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co., 29 
 N. Y. 6.S4, 641, 24 Barb. 362; Orr v. 
 Quimby, 54 N. H. 590, 602; Koch v. 
 Williamsport Water Co., 65 Pa. St. 288 ; 
 Mclntire v. Western N. C. R. Co., 67 
 
 N. C. 278 ; Cairo & F. R. Co. </. Turner, 
 31 Ark. 230 ; Daniels v. Chicago & N. W. 
 R. Co., 35 Iowa, 129 ; Lindell «. Hannibal 
 & St. J. R. Co , 36 Mo. 543 ; Soulard v. 
 St. Louis, 36 Mo. 546 ; Atlanta & G. R. 
 Co. V. Fuller, 48 Ga. 423. See Hooker v. 
 New Haven & N. Co., 15 Conn. 312, 14 
 Conn. 146. 
 
 2 Pettibone v. La Crosse & M. R. Co., 
 14 Wis. 443; Loop o. Chamberlain, 20 
 Wis. 135; Bohlman v. Green Bay & L. P. 
 R. Co., 30 Wis. 105 ; Sherman v. Mil., L., 
 & W. R. R. Co., 40 Wis. 645; Blesch v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 183 ; Stein 
 V. Burden, 24 Ala. 130; Kansas Pacific 
 R. Co. y. Streeter, 8 Kan. 133 ; Eward v. 
 Lawrenceburgh & U: M. R. Co., 7 Ind. 
 711 ; Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247 ; Hall 
 V. Pickering, 40 Me, 548; Nichols w. Som- 
 erset & K. R. Co., 43 Me. 356 ; Gowen v. 
 Penobscot R. Co., 44 Me. 140; Davis 
 V. Russell, 47 Me. 443. See Bradley v. 
 York & N. H. R. Co., 21 Conn. 294 ; Nich- 
 olson V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 22 
 Conn. 74 ; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Trout, 32 
 Ark. 17. 
 
 8 Graham v. Columbus & I. C. R. Co., 
 27 Ind. 260 ;' Cox v. Louisville, N. A., & 
 C. R. Co., 48 Ind. 178 ; Memphis & C. R. 
 Co. V. Payne, 37 Miss. 700; Missouri 
 River, F. S., & G. R. Co. v. Owen, 8 
 Kan. 409. 
 
 * Sherman v. Milwaukie, L. S., & W. 
 R. Co., 40 Wis. 645. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN, 179 
 
 The legislature may, subsequent to the taking, allow the owner 
 a further remedy where neither party has applied for an assess- 
 ment.^ 
 
 Acta of Trespass or Negligence not within the Special Remedy.^ — 
 
 The special remedy does not extend to acts of trespass commit- 
 ted by the company before its possession became lawful, or at 
 other times.^ Their inclusion in the assessment does not bar a 
 right of action,* which belongs to the person who was the owner 
 when they were committed.^ In a proceeding for condemnation, 
 the amount recovered by the land-owner for an unlawful entry 
 made by the company before the proceedings were commenced are 
 not to be deducted from the damages to which he is entitled for 
 the taking.^ 
 
 The appraisers are to presume that the company will execute 
 its work properly, and not exceed its powers ; and they cannot 
 award damages on the supposition that it will be guilty of a 
 breach of duty. They are to assess the damages for those acts only 
 which are authorized by statute. Therefore the special proceed- 
 ing will not bar the remedy at common law where the company 
 exceeds its authority, or negligently or unskilfully performs its 
 work, so as to occasion unnecessary damage.^ This rule applies, 
 
 1 Gowen v. Penobscot R. Co., H Me. ' Mason v. Kennebec & P. R. Co., 31 
 140. See ante, -p. 171. Me. 215; Rogers v. Kennebec & P. R. 
 
 2 Some points stated in tliis connec- Co., 3-3 Me. 215 ; Wliitehouse v. Andros- 
 tion recur later, where tlie liability at coggin R. Co., 52 Me. 208; Vermont 
 common law for torts is treated. Chap. Cent. R. Co. v. Baxter, 22 Vt. 365; 
 X. p. 206. Hatch v.Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 63, 28 
 
 ' Blodgett V. Utica & B. R. R. Co., 64 Vt. 142 ; Sabin o. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 
 
 Barb. 580 ; Townsend's Case, 39 N. Y. Vt. 363 ; Whitcomb v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 
 
 171 ; McClinton ■;. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & 25 Vt. 09 ; Clark v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 28 
 
 C. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 404 ; Missouri. K., Vt. 103 ; Waterman c. Conn. & P. R. R. 
 
 & T. R. Co. I. Ward, 10 Kan. 352; Co., 30 Vt. 610 ; Dearborn p. Boston, C, 
 
 Proelz V. St. Paul Water Co., 17 Minn. & M. R. Co., 24 N. H. 179, 187 ; Eaton v. 
 
 163 ; Matthews v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., Boston, C, & M. R. Co , 51 N. H. 504, 515 ; 
 
 18 Minn. 434 ; Selma, R., & D. R. Co. v. Perley v. Buston, C, & M. R. Co., 57 
 
 Keitli, 53 Ga. 178; Oregon & C. R. Co. N. H. 212; Dodge v. County Com'rs, 
 
 i: Barlow, 3 Oreg. 311. See Pomeroy y. 3 Met. 380, 383; Proprietors of Locks & 
 
 Chicago & M. R. Co., 25 Wis. 041. Canals ... Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cash. 
 
 * Pierce v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 105 385 ; H^izen i-. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 
 
 Mass. 199. See Claj-k v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 574 ; Melien v. Western R. Co., 4 Gray, 
 
 28 Vt. 103. 301 ; Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co., 15 
 
 5 Central R. Co. ;;. Hetfleld, 5 Dntcher, Conn. 312, 14 Conn. 146 ; Brown v. Cayu- 
 
 200 ; Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. ga & S. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 486 ; Bellinger v. 
 
 Co., 17 Minn. 215. New York Cent. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 42; 
 
 ^ L.ifayette, M., & B. R. Co. v. Mur- Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. McDonougli, 33 
 
 dock, 68 Ind. 137. I'a. St 73 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. 
 
180 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 although the faulty construction precedes the assessment.^ An 
 action will lie for injuries arising from a negligent or unskilful 
 eonstrnction, where the owner has conveyed a right of way or 
 executed a release of damages.^ 
 
 Description of Property and Injury. — The description in the 
 pleadings, the report of the commissioners, and the location filed, 
 must be given with sufficient certainty, so as to leave no practical 
 question as to the identity of the property taken .^ Omissions 
 and ambiguities in the written description may be cured by a 
 plan or map, to which reference is made ; * or by possession taken 
 by the company and acquiesced in by the land-owner.^ A peti- 
 tion for the appraisement of damages need not describe in detail 
 the extent of the injury, or the precise mode in which it occurred ; 
 but it is sufficient to state in general terms that certain de- 
 
 445; Zack v. Penn. R. Co., 25 Pa. St. 
 
 V. Gilleland, 56 Pa. St. 445; Penn. & 0. 
 Canal Co. </. Graham, 63 Pa. St. 290; 
 Fehr v. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 69 Pa. St. 
 161 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Reaney, 
 42 Md. 117, 130; Crawfordsville R. Co.!;. 
 Wright, 5 Ind. 252; Lafayette Plank 
 Road Co. V. New Albany & S. R. Co., 13 
 Ind. 90; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
 McKinley, 33 Ind. 274 ; Fleming v. Chi- 
 cago, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 353; 
 King ii. Iowa Midland R. Co., 34 Iowa, 
 458 ; Daniels v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co , 
 35 Iowa, 129 ; Gear v. C. C. & D. R. Co., 
 43 Iowa, 83, 39 Iowa, 23 ; Rau v. Minn. 
 Valley R. Co., 13 Minn. 442; Lyon o. 
 Green Bay & M. R. Co., 42 Wis. 538 ; 
 McCormick v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. 
 B. R. Co., 57 Mo. 433 ; Oregon & C. R. 
 Co. V. Barlow, 3 Oreg. 311; Winchester 
 & P. R. Co. V. Washington, 1 Rob. (Va.) 
 67 ; Southside R. Co. v. Daniel, 20 Gratt. 
 344 ; Colcough v. Nashville & N. R. Co., 
 2 Head, 171 ; Eyre's Case, 3 Nev. & M. 
 622 ; Lawrence i>. Great Northern R. Co., 
 IB Q. B. N. s. 643 ; Turner v. Sheffield 
 & R. R. Co., 10 M. & W. 425 ; Davis v. 
 London & B. R. Co., 1 M. & G. 799 ; 
 Vaughan v. Taff Vale R. Co., 5 H. & N. 
 079 ; Brand w. Hammersmith & C. R. Co., 
 L. R. 2 Q. B. 223, L. R. 4 H. L. 171. 
 
 1 King V. Iowa Midland R. Co., 34 
 Iowa, 458. 
 
 2 Spencer v. Hartford, P., & F. R. Co., 
 10 R. L 14. See ante, Chap. VI. p. 134. 
 
 8 O'Hara v. Penn. R. Co., 25 Pa. St. 
 
 394 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Porter, 29 Pa. St. 
 165; Penn. R. Co. v. Bruner, 55 Pa. St. 
 318 ; Vail v. Morris & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. 
 189 ; Doughty v. Sonierville & E. R. Co., 
 1 Zab. 442 ; Coster v. New Jersey, R., & 
 T. Co., 3 Zab. 227 ; Walker v. Boston & 
 M. R., 3 Cush. 1, 15 ; Grand Junction R. & 
 D. Co. !;. County Com'rs, 14 Gray, 553 ; 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., In re, 70 
 N. Y. 191 ; Marion & M. V. R. Co. „. 
 Ward, 9 Ind. 123; Prather v. JefEerson- 
 ville, M., & I. R. Co., 52 Ind. 16, 40 ; 
 Anderson, L., & St. L. R. Co. v. Kernodle, 
 54 Ind. 314 ; Central R. Co. v. Merkel, 32 
 Tex. 723. See post, The Location, p. 256. 
 The petition may be ainended. Penn. 
 R. Co. V. Porter, 29 Pa. St. 165 ; Grand 
 Junction R. & D. Co. v. County Com'rs, 
 14 Gray, 553. 
 
 * Hazen u. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 
 574 ; Andover v. County Com'rs, 5 Gray, 
 393; Grand Junction, R., & D. Co. v. 
 County Com'rs, 14 Gray, 553 ; Pinkertqn 
 V. Boston & A. E, Co., 109 Mass. 527 ; 
 Wilson V. Lynn, 119 Mass. 174 ; Kohlhepp 
 V. West Roxbury, 120 Mass. 596 ; Strang 
 » Beloit & M. R. Co., 16 Wis. 635; Hunt 
 V. Smith, 9 Kan. 137 ; Quincy, M., & P. 
 R. Co. V. Kellogg, 54 Mo. 334. Aliter as 
 to a reference to a deed. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. E. Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 
 191. 
 
 s Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 
 571, 580. 
 
EMINEKT DOMAIN. 181 
 
 scribed property has been appropriated under the statute.^ Under 
 a petition which prays for compensation for the taking, damages 
 may be awarded for the injury to the petitioner's remaining 
 land.2 The jury is not required to state the items of damage in 
 their verdict.^ 
 
 Averment and Proof of Inability to agree. — A statute provision, 
 giving a special remedy if the parties are unable to agree as to 
 the amount of compensation, has been held by many authorities 
 to make an effort to agree a condition precedent to an applica- 
 tion for an assessment, and to require an averment and proof of 
 the inability to agree, as essential to jurisdiction ; * and a similar 
 effect is given to a provision which authorizes a condemnation, 
 where the parties are unable to agree as to the necessit}'' of the 
 taking, and the extent of land to be taken.^ Another and more 
 reasonable view is that such reference to the agreement of the 
 parties is a mere recognition of their right to fix the amount of 
 compensation, and to convey and receive a title without the 
 intervention of judicial proceedings, and that the failure to agree 
 is not a fact which need be alleged or proved in order to give 
 jurisdiction.^ The requirement is satisfied by proof of any cir- 
 cumstances showing that the parties could not agi'ee as to the 
 amount of the price or damages ; and formal negotiations need 
 not be shown.' Even the commencement of proceedings for de- 
 
 1 Pinkerton v. Boston & M. R., 109 Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165 ; Elk v. Pacific 
 
 Mass. 627; Drury v. Midland R. Co., R. Co., 51 Mo. 200; Jamison v. Spring- 
 
 127 Mass. 571 ; Grand Junction R. & D. field, 53 Mo. 224; Kansas City, St. J., & 
 
 Co. V. County Com'rs, 14 Gray, 553. C. B. R. Co. o. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585 ; 
 
 '■> Chandler i). Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, Rogers v. St. Charles, 3 Mo. App. 41 ; 
 
 125 Mass. 544. Gilmer v. Lime Point, 19 Cal. 47 ; Contra 
 
 « Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. r. Burson, Costa C. M. R. Co. v. Moss, 23 Cal. 323 ; 
 
 61 Pa. St. 369. Lincoln v. Colusa Co., 28 Cal. 662; San 
 
 * Vail V. Morris & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. Francisco & A. W. Co. v. Alameda Water 
 
 189 ; Reitenbaugh u. Chester Valley R. Co., 36 Cal. 639. See Miller v. Brown, 56 
 
 Co., 21 Pa. St. 100; O'Hara v. Penn. R. N. Y. 383. 
 
 Co., 25 Pa. St. 445 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 5 Spofford v. Bucksport & B. R. Co., 
 
 Porter, 29 Pa. St. 165 ; Darlington v. 66 Me. 26. 
 
 United States, 82 Pa. St. 382 ; Dyckman « Bigelow v. Miss. Cent. & T. R. Co., 
 
 V. New York, 6 N. Y. 434 ; Pros- 2 Head, 624. See Coster v. New Jersey 
 
 pect Park & C. I. R. Co., In re, 67 R. & T. Co., 3 Zab. 227. 
 
 N. Y. 371 ; Marsh's Case, 71 N. Y. 315 ; ' Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co., In re, 
 
 Lockport & B. R. Co., In re, 77 N. Y. 67 N. Y. 371 ; Williams <-. Hartford & N. 
 
 657 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Cham- H. R. Co., 13 Conn- 397 ; Trinity College 
 
 berlain, 84 111. 333 ; Powers v. Hazelton v. Hartford, 32 Conn. 452 ; Todd v. Aus- 
 
 & L. R. Co., 33 Ohio St. 429 ; Leslie v. St. tin, 34 Conn. 78 ; West Virginia Trans. 
 
 Louis, 47 Mo. 474; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. ti. Volcanic O. & C. Co., 5 W. Va. 
 
182 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 termining the compensation has been held sufficient to signify an 
 election not to agree.^ The failure to agree may be shown by 
 affidavit ; ^ and it need not be shown by affirmative proof w^here 
 the allegation is made in the petition and not put in issue bj the 
 answer or at the trial.^ The omission in the petition of the alle- 
 gation of a failure to agree may be cured by amendment.* Where 
 the inability to agree appears of record, it cannot be contested in 
 a collateral proceeding.^ The omission of an attempt to agree 
 may be vi^aived by the parties.® The statute requirement does 
 not apply where the persons whose land or interests are taken are, 
 by reason of nonage or other disability, incapable of making a 
 Yoluntary conveyance.^ 
 
 Notice to Land-owners. — Under the usual constitutional provi- 
 sion, parties are not entitled to notice of a hearing upon the 
 question of the necessity and expediency of appropriating their 
 property to a public use, though such notice is sometimes re- 
 quired by statute.^ Notice of the application for the appointment 
 of appraisers, and of the time and place of their meeting, to 
 assess the damages, is usually directed by statute, and, upon 
 general principles of justice, ought to be ordered in the absence 
 of any statute requirement.^ The denial of all opportunity to be 
 heard on the right to, and amount of, compensation would be de- 
 priving the citizen of his property without "due process of law." '" 
 
 382 ; Columbia & D. Bridge Co. v. Geise, ' People v. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595; New 
 
 5 Vroora, 268, 6 Vroom, 558 ; Doughty i'. York Elevated R. Co., 70 N. Y. 327 ; 
 
 Somerville & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. 442. Long Island R. Co. a. Bennett, 10 Hun, 
 
 1 Burt V. Brigham, 117 Mass. 307 ; 91 ; Johnson v. Joliet & C. R. Co., 23 111. 
 Wadhams v. Lackawanna & B. R. Co., 42 202 ; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 427 ; 
 Pa. St. 303. But see Lincoln v. Colusa Harper v. Lexington & 0. R. Co., 2 Dana, 
 Co., 28 Cal. 662. 227 ; George's Creek Coal & L Co. v. New 
 
 2 Tucker v. Erie & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. Central Coal Co., 40 Md. 425 ; Zack ». 
 St. 281. Penn. R. Co., 25 Pa. St. 394. See Sei- 
 
 s Boston, H. T., & W. R. Co., In re, fert v. Brooks, 34 Wis. 443 ; ante, pp. 
 
 79 N. Y. 64. 146, 147. 
 
 4 Penn. R. Co. v. Porter, 29 Pa. St. 165. » Curran v. Shattuck, 24 Cal. 427 ; 
 
 5 ]5yckman v. New York, 5 N. Y. 434 ; People v. Tallman, 36 Barb. 222 ; Polly 
 Miss. & M. R. Co. V. Rossean, 8 Iowa, v. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 9 Barb. 449; 
 873; Wadhams v. Lackawanna & B. R. Dickey b. Tennison, 27 Mo. 373; Mis- 
 Co., 42 Pa. St. 303 ; Ney o. Swinney, 36 souri River, F. S., & G. R. Co. v. Shep- 
 Ind. 454. Contra, Chicago & M. L. S. R. ard, 9 Kan. 647 ; Whitcher v. Benton, 48 
 Co. tf. Sanford, 23 Mich. 418. N. H. 167 
 
 6 United States a. Reed, 56 Mo. 565. " Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183. See 
 ' Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Cakes, 20 Johnson «. Joliet & 0. B. Co., 23 lU. 
 
 Ind. 9 ; Balch v. County Com'rs, 108 Mass. 202. 
 106. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 183 
 
 The proceeding is in rem, against the land itself, and the kind 
 of notice is within the discretion of the legislature : it may be 
 constructive, to wit, by publication, as well as personal.^ The 
 duty to give notice may be implied from the provisions of a stat- 
 ute, when not expressly enjoined.^ The proceedings are invalid 
 if the notice required by statute is not given.* The omis- 
 sion may, however, be waived by an appearance, and contest- 
 ing the proceedings on the merits, but not merely by appearing 
 and objecting to their regularity.* Where jurisdiction has been 
 acquired, it will not be taken away by a failure to give the 
 notice.^ An act authorizing the taking of property is not un- 
 constitutional for the reason that it does not require a notice, 
 and the court may order one to be given.* The notice must con- 
 form to the statute, but, when the form or mode is not prescribed, 
 it should be such as to apprize the owner of the proceedings to 
 be instituted, and the property to be taken.^ 
 
 Joinder of Parties. — Parties having joint or several, legal or 
 equitable, interests in the same estate are usually, by practice 
 
 1 Cupp V. Seneca County, 19 Ohio St. 
 173; New Orleans, J., & G. N. R. Co. v. 
 Hemphill, 35 Miss. 17; Owners of 
 Ground v. Albany, 15 Wend. 374 ; Em- 
 pire City Bank, In re, 18 N. Y. 199; 
 Stuart •>. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183 ; Mason 
 V. Messenger, 17 Iowa, 261 ; Missouri 
 Eiver, E. S., & G. R. Co. v. Shepard, 9 
 Kan. 647 ; Wilkin v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 
 16 Minn. 271 ; Weir v. St. Paul, S., & T. 
 F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 155. See Walker v. 
 Boston & M. R., 8 Cush. 1 ; Salem v. 
 Eastern R. Co., 98 Mass. 431, 448. 
 
 2 Atlantic & St. L. R. R. Co. c. Cum- 
 berland County Com'rs, 51 Me. 36. 
 
 3 People V. Knlskern, 54 N. Y. 52; 
 People V. Lockport & B. R. Co , 13 Hun, 
 211 ; Norton o. WallkiU Valley R. Co., 
 63 Barb. 77 ; Hood v. Finch, 8 Wis. 381 ; 
 Anderson v. Com'rs, 12 Ohio St. 635; 
 New Orleans, M., & C. R. Co. u. Frederic, 
 46 Miss. 1 ; Morgan v. Chicago & N. E. 
 R. Co., 36 Mich. 428 ; Chicago & A. R. 
 Co. u. Smith, 78 111.96; Warwick Institu- 
 tion V. Providence, 12 R. I. 144. An in- 
 junction will not be granted to restrain 
 the company on account of the omission 
 of notice without allowing an opportunity 
 to give one. Lohman v. St. Paul, S., & 
 T. F. R. Co., 18 Minn. 174. 
 
 * Mohawk & H. R. R. Co. v. Art- 
 
 clier, 6 Paige, 83; Dyckman v. New 
 York, 5 N. Y. 434; Cruger v. Hud- 
 son River R. Co, 12 N. Y. 190; Long 
 Island R. Co. u. Bennett, 10 Hun, 91 ; 
 Walker u. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. 
 1 ; Concord R. Co. v. Greely, 17 N. H. 
 47; Boston & M. R. v. Folsom, 46 
 N. H. 64; Roberts v. Stark, 47 N. H. 
 223; Kramer v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 
 5 Ohio St. 140 ; Qamcy, M., & P. R. Co. 
 V. Kellogg, 54 Mo. 334 ; Spurrier v. Wirt- 
 ner, 48 Iowa, 486 ; Seifert v. Brooks, 34 
 Wis. 443. See Atlantic & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 Cumberland County Com'rs, 51 Me. S6. 
 
 5 Allen V. Utica, I., & E. R. Co., 15 
 Hun, 80. 
 
 >> Swan I'. Williams, 2 Mich. 427. 
 
 ^ Van Wickle v. Camden & A. R. & T. 
 Co., 2 Green (N. J.), 162; Doughty v. 
 Somerville & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. 442, 447 ; 
 Vail V. Morris & E. R. Co., 1 Ziib. 189; 
 Coster V. New Jersey R. Co., 3 Zab. 227, 
 2.S2, 233, 4 Zab. 730, 733 ; Reitenbaugh v. 
 Chester Valley R. Co., 21 Pa. St. 100 ; 
 Williams v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co., 13 
 Conn. 397; Quincy & P. R. Co. v. Taylor, 
 43 Mo. 35 ; Quincy, M., & P. R. Co. v. 
 Kellogg, 54 Mo. 334 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 V. Smith, 78 III. 96 ; New York Elevated 
 R. Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 327. 
 
184 THE LAW OP BAILED ADS. 
 
 or by statute, allowed, and sometimes are required, to join in a 
 proceeding for determining, the compensation ; and the statute 
 usually provides a mode for apportioning the total amount 
 among them, according to the value of their respective interests.^ 
 The following are instances of such joinder : the vendor and the 
 vendee under a written contract of sale ; ^ a widow with a right of 
 dower and the heirs ; ^ a lessor and a lessee ; * a life tenant and the 
 owner of the remainder in fee ; ^ partners owning real estate as a 
 firm, although the legal title may be in only one of them.® One 
 tenant in common cannot recover in his own name damages for 
 injury to the interest of his co-tenantsJ A person having an 
 interest in the estate which does not entitle him to compensation 
 need not be joined.^ Where different claimants join in a petition 
 for the assessment of damages, the jurj^ may find the damages as 
 an entirety.* 
 
 Under a statute of Ohio, the owners of different parcels may 
 be joined,- eacli owner being entitled to a separate trial, and per- 
 sons having different interests in the same parcel may be joined.^" 
 A statute of Massachusetts requires an estate in which there 
 are different interests to be valued as one estate, in like manner 
 as if owned by one person in fee-simple, and provides that the 
 entire sum so awarded be apportioned among the owners of the 
 different estates. By this method the total amount of compensa- 
 tion is the same, whether there is a unity or subdivision of inter- 
 ests.ii 
 
 1 Grand Rapids, N., & L. S. E. Co. v. 105 Mass. 303 ; Sherwood v. St. Paul & 
 Alley, 34 Mich. 16 ; East Saginaw & St. C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 127. 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Benham, 28 Mich. 459; ^ Harrisburg, P. M., & L. R. Co. v. 
 
 Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Wilson, 49 Cal. Bueher, 7 Watts, 33. 
 
 396. 8 Davidson v. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. 
 
 2 Ashby V. Eastern R. Co., 5 Met. 368 ; 91. 
 
 Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. Nashua ^ East Saginaw & St. C. R. Co. v. 
 
 & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385; Pinkerton v. Benham, 28 Mich. 459; Michigan A. L. R. 
 
 Boston & A. R. Co., 109 Mass. 527 ; Co. v. Barnes, 6 North West. Rep. 651. 
 
 Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571, w Qiesy v. Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co.. 
 
 578 ; Colcough v. Nashville & N. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 308;. Kohl v. United States, 91 
 
 2 Head, 171. U. S. 867. 
 
 3 Columbia & D. Bridge Co. v. Geise, " Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 5 Vroom, 268, 6 Vroom, 558. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush 385 ; Ed- 
 
 < Kohl J). United States, 91 U. S. 367. mands v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535. See 
 
 6 Pittsburg, v., & C. R. Co. u. Bent- Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 
 
 ley, 88 Pa. St. 178. See Reading R. Co. 84 111. 333 ; Spring Valley Water Works 
 
 V. Boyer, 13 Pa. St. 497. v. San Francisco, .22 Cal. 434 ; Ross v. 
 
 " Whitman v. Boston & M. R., 3 Allen, Elizabethtown & S. R. Co., Spencer (N. 
 
 133 ; Reed v. Hanover Branch R. Co., J.), 230. An award cannot aggregate in 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 185 
 
 Persons entitled to Compensation. — The right to the compensa- 
 tion accrues and takes effect at the time of the taking, though it 
 may be ascertained and declared afterwards. It belongs, there- 
 fore, to the person who is the owner at the time of the taking, and 
 does not, without an express stipulation, pass to a purchaser by a 
 subsequent conveyance, although containing covenants of war- 
 ranty. i The waiver of such owner will bind parties claiming 
 under hira.^ The owner of an equitable interest may, but need 
 not, be joined.^ The right to compensation for land taken but 
 not paid for during the- lifetime of an owner, survives to the 
 executor or administrator ; * but if land belonging to the estate of 
 an intestate person is taken, the heir is entitled to the compensa- 
 tion.^ The owner's right is not affected by changes in the pro- 
 prietorship of the railroad.^ 
 
 Statutes which provide a remedy to owners of land taken are 
 construed to include all persons who have pi-oprietary interests 
 capable of being taken, whether in possession, reversion, or re- 
 mainder, as owners of rights of way or other easements,' mortga- 
 gees,^ married women in case of injury to their separate estate,^ 
 and owners of franchises issuing out of land ; ^^ but they do not 
 include a judgment creditor,^^ or a trespasser in possession. ^^ The 
 
 one sum the value of lands owned sever- Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571, 
 
 ally by different owners. Chicago & M. 578. 
 
 L. ^. R. Co. V. Sanford, 23 Mich. 418. * Moore v. Boston, 8 Cush. 274 ; 
 
 1 Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. Hotclikiss v. Auburn & R. R. Co , 36 
 571, 678 ; Rand v. Townshend, 26 Vt. 670 ; Barb. 600. 
 
 Lewis V. Wilmington & M. R. Co., 11 * Boynton v. Peterborough & S. E. 
 
 Rich. 91 ; Pomeroy v. Chicago & M. R. Co., 4 Cush. 467 ; Neal u. Knox & L. R. 
 
 Co., 25 Wis. 641 ; Central R. Co. v. Merkel, Co , 61 Me. 298 ; Ballou v. Ballou, 78 N. 
 
 82 Tex. 723 ; McLendon v West Point & Y. 325. 
 
 A. R. Co., 54 Ga. 293 ; Carli v. Stillwater " Western Penn. R. Co. v. Johnston, 
 
 & St. P. R. Co., 16 Minn. 260; Trogden 59 Pa. St. 290; Drury v. Midland R. Co., 
 
 V. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 198 ; 127 Mass. 571; Gilman v. Sheboygan & F. 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. ■.-. Maher, 91 111. R. Co., 40 Wis. 653. 
 
 312: McFadden t,. Johnson, 72 Pa. St. ' Phil., W., & B. R. Co. v. Williams, 
 
 335 ; Tenbrooke v. Jahke, 77 Pa. St. 392 ; 54 Pa. St 103. 
 
 Allyn V. Providence, W., & B. R. Co., 4 « Leverin v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 463 ; Wil- 
 
 R. I. 457 ; Paducah & M. R. Co. v. Stovall, son v. European & N. A. R. Co., 67 Me. 
 
 12 Heisk. 1. Such owner only can object 358 ; Michigan A. L. R. Co. u. Barnes, 40 
 
 to a location on the ground of damage to Mich. 383. 
 
 his property. Hentz .-. Long Island R. ' Lyon a. Green Bay & M. R. Co., 42 
 
 Co., 13 Barb. 646. Wis. 538. 
 
 2 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 39 HI. i" Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hartford 
 205 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Mor- & N. H. R. Co., 17 Conn. 454. 
 
 gan! 72 111. 155; Central R. Co. t>. Het- " Watson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 field, 5 Dutcher, 206. 47 N. Y. 157, 1 Sheldon, 159. 
 
 8 Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. " Rosa v. Mo., K., & T. R. Co., 18 
 
 Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385 ; Kan. 124. 
 
186 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 terms "persons interested" are allowed a more comprehensive 
 signification than the word " owners." ' 
 
 A mortgagee is included in the terms " parties interested " who 
 are to receive notice.^ Where the award is made to the mortga- 
 gor, the legal owner may in equity secure his interest, which has 
 by the condemnation been converted into money.^ 
 
 The vendee in a written contract of sale, made before the tak- 
 ing, the conditions of which he has fulfilled, may maintain a 
 petition for damages,* or prosecute his claim in the name of the 
 vendor.* The trustee, and not the cestui que trust, is the proper 
 person to petition for an assessment of the damages ; ^ but he need 
 not describe himself as trustee in the petition.^ The company 
 cannot take advantage of tlie objection that the cestui que trust 
 is joined with the trustee in the petition for damages.* 
 
 The lessor and the lessee are each entitled to compensation for 
 the injury suffered by each respectively, except where the lease 
 reserves the entire damages to the lessor.^ The lessee is entitled 
 to the value of a new lease made before, the taking, which was 
 to take effect on the expiration of an existing one.^" He is en- 
 titled to be allowed the value of a covenant of renewal. ^^ 
 
 Tlie omission of interested parties from the award will not 
 invalidate the proceedings as to those included,'^ gr as to one 
 who, though omitted, has accepted his share of the amount 
 awarded. ^^ • 
 
 1 State V. Easton & A. E. Co., 7 " Reed v. Hanover Branch R. Co., 105 
 Vmom, 181. Mass. 303. 
 
 2 Wilson V. European & N. A. R. Co., ' Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. 198 ; Ed- 
 67 Me. 358 J Piatt v. Bright, 2 Stewart mands «. Boston, 108 Mass. 535; Cobb i'. 
 (N. J.), 128, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 81, 5 Boston, 109 Mass. 438 ; Lawrence u. Bos- 
 Stewart (N. J.), 362; Severin w. Cole, 38 ton, 119 Mass. 126; Burbridge i'. New 
 Iowa, 463; Hagar v. Brainard, 44 Vt. Albany & S. R. Co., 9 Ind. 546 ; Turn- 
 294. But see Breed v. Eastern R. Co., 5 pike Road v. Brosi, 22 Pa. St. 29 ; Brown 
 Gray, 470, note; Farnsworth v. Boston, v. Powell, 25 Pa. St. 229; Heise v. Penn. 
 126 Mass. 1. R. Co., 62 Pa. St. 67 ; Voeghty v. Pitts- 
 
 3 Bright 17. Piatt, 5 Stewart (N. J.), burg & Ft. W. R. Co., 2 Grant, 243; 
 362, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 81, 2 Stewart Colcough „. Nashville & N. W. R. Co., 2 
 (N. J.), 128. Head, 171; Renwick ». D. & N. W. R. 
 
 » Pinkerton v. Boston & A. R. Co., Co., 49 Iowa, 664 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 
 109 Mass. 527; St. Louis, L., & D. R. v- Thompson, 10 Md. 76; Kohl v. United 
 
 Co. 0. Wilder, 17 Kan. 2.39. States, 91 U. S. 3H7. 
 
 5 Mclntyre v. Easton & A. R. Co., 11 i" Cobb o. Boston, 109 Mass. 438. 
 
 C. E. Green, 425. " North Penn. R. Co. v. Davis, 26 Pa. 
 
 « Davis V. Charles River Branch R. St. 238; Alabama & F. R. Co. v. Ken- 
 Co., 11 Cush. 506 ; State v. Easton & A. ney, 39 Ala. 307. 
 R. Co., 7 Vroom, 181. 12 State v. Easton & A. R. Co., 7 
 
 ' Hawkins v. County Com'rs, 2 Allen, Vroom, 181. 
 
 254. W Whittlesey i'. Hartford, P., & F. R. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 187 
 
 Proof of Title. — The claimant of compensation for property 
 taken must aver and prove his title ; and the company may dis- 
 pute his title, although it had included his name as a reputed 
 owner in the written location of the railroad. ^ But a petition 
 filed by the company against a person for the taking of his prop- 
 erty and the assessment of damages, admits his title.^ In some 
 jurisdictions the special tribunal passes upon the title ; ^ while in 
 others it cannot pass upon the right to compensation, but only 
 determines the amount which the court is to distribute among 
 the claimants.* 
 
 Proof of actual possession, under a claim of title in fee, is 
 prima facie evidence of such title in proceedings for the assess- 
 ment of damages for land taken.^ Proof of a deed to the party 
 claiming the damages creates the same presumption.^ One who 
 has only a base or qualified fee may recover the full amount of 
 the damages.'' Tlie true owner may maintain his right to the 
 damages assessed against a trespasser or claimant who has no 
 title to them.^ 
 
 Right to open and close. — The party claiming damages is deemed ' 
 the actor or plaintiff, and has the right to open and close, both 
 
 Co., 23 Conn. 421. But see as to the 7Cal. 577; Spring Valley Water Works 
 effect of the omission where tlie statute, v. San Franeisoo, 22 Cal. 434 ; San Fran- 
 requiring the names of interested parties cisco & St. J. R. Co. v. Malioney, 29 Cal. 
 to be included in the award or report, has 112; Mansfield, C, & L. M. R. Co. v. 
 not been complied with. Pettis w. Provi- Clark, 23 Mich. 519; State v. Hudson 
 dence, 11 R. I. 372; Warwick Institution Tunnel R. Co., 9 Vroom, 17; Regiiia v. 
 V. Providence, 12 R. 1. 144 ; North Reading London & N. W. R. Co., 3 El. & B. 443. 
 I/. County Com'rs, 7 Gray, 109. ^ Missouri River, Ft, S., & G. R. Co. 
 
 1 Directors of tlie Poor v. Wrights- v. Owen, 8 Kan. 409 ; Hawkins v. County 
 ville, Y., & G. R. Co., 7 W. & S. 236; Com'rs, 2 Allen, 254; Chandler «. Jamaica 
 Allyn i>. Providence, W., & B. R. Co , 4 Pond Aqueduct Co., 125 Mass. 544; State 
 R. I. 457; Robbins v. Mil. & H. R. Co., 6 Lunatic Hospital v. Worcester County, 1 
 Wis. 636; Kelly v. New York & M. B. R. Met. 437; St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. u. 
 Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 311. Contra, Matthews, 16 Minn. 341 ; Sherwood v. 
 Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. v. Laurie, 63 111. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 127 ; 
 264. See Knauft v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. Sacramento Valley R. Co. v. Moffatt, 7 
 R. Co., 22 Minn. 173; Brisbine v. St. Cal. 577; Virginia & T. R. Co. u. Lynch, 
 Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114. 13 Nev. 92; Chamberlain's Case, L. R. 
 
 2 Chicago & I. R. Co. u. Hopkins, 90 14 Ch. DIv. 323. But see Robbins v. Mil. 
 111. 316. & H. R. Co., 6 Wis. 636. 
 
 ' Directors of the Poor v. Wrights- '' Whitman v. Boston & M. R., 3 
 
 ville, Y., & G. R. Co., 7 W. & S. 236; Allen, 133. 
 
 Winebiddle v. Penn. R. Co., 2 Grant, 32 ; ' Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aque- 
 
 Carpenter v. County Com'rs, 21 Pick, duct Co., 125 Mass. 544. 
 258 ; Davis v. Charles River Branch R. ' Rooney v. Sacramento Valley R. 
 
 Co.,' 11 Cush. 506 ; Heise v. Penn. R. Co., Co., 6 Cal. 638 ; East Tenn. & V. R. Co. 
 
 62 Pa. St. 67. "• Love, 3 Head, 63 ; Rosa v. Mo., K., & 
 
 * Sacramento VaUey R. Co. v. Moffat, T. R. Co., 18 Kan. 124. 
 
188 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 before the special tribunal or on appeal, and whether the petition 
 for an assessment was filed by himself or by the company.^ 
 
 The Award or Verdict. — The award of the appraisers may be 
 set aside for the reason that it is made on illegal evidence, 
 or based on erroneous principles, or that the damages are 
 grossly inadequate or excessive, or for the misconduct of the 
 appraisers ; but not for any technical departure from established 
 rules, or merely because the award appears to be less or greater 
 than the damages sustained.^ It will be set aside for the omission 
 of essential statements which the statute requires it to make.^ 
 The objection that the appraisers have committed an error in law, 
 if not apparent on the record, must be supported by proof.* The 
 special tribunal is, in some jurisdictions, not limited to strictly 
 legal evidence ; and if there has been error in this respect, the 
 award will be allowed to stand, where no injustice appears to 
 have been done. As the appraisers are usually allowed to take 
 a view and to act upon the knowledge obtained from a personal 
 inspection, there is a practical difficulty in setting aside their 
 award on the ground that it is against evidence, or excessive or 
 inadequate in amount.* 
 
 • Conn. River R. Co. v. Clapp, 1 & St. J. R. Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165, 
 
 Cush. 559; Winnisimmet Co. v. Grue- 166; Lee v. Tebo & N. R. Co., 53 Mo. 
 
 by, 111 Mass. 543; Minnesota Valley R. 178; Kansas City, St. J., & C. R. R. Co. 
 
 Co. V. Doran, 17 Minn. 188 ; St. Paul & v. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585 ; Virginia & T. 
 
 S. C, R. Co. V. Murphy, 19 Minn. 500; R. Co. v. Elliott, 5 Nev. 358; Virginia & 
 
 Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Miller, 30 Ind. T. R. Co. v. Henry, 8 Nev. 165 ; Michigan 
 
 209; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Horn, A. L. R. Co. v. Barnes, 6 Northwest. Rep. 
 
 41 Ind. 479; Charleston & S. R. Co. v. 651; Eastern R.Co. v. Concord & P. R. 
 
 Blake, 12 Rich. 634. ' Co., 47 N. H. 108; Walker v. Boston & 
 
 2 Winebiddle v. Penn. R. Co., 2 Grant, M. R., 3 Cush. 1 ; Pennv's Case, 7 El. & 
 
 32; Penn. R. Co. v. Lutheran Congrega- Bl. 660. 
 
 tion, 53 Pa. St. 445; Pearl Street Case, s Ohio & P. R. Co. v. Wallace 14 Pa. 
 
 19 Wend. 651 ; Troy & B, R. Co. v. Lee, St. 245 ; Reitenbaugh ... Chester Valley 
 
 13 Barb. 169 ; New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co., 21 Pa. St. 100 ; Zack v. Penn. R. 
 
 Co., In re, 64 N. Y. 60, 5 Han, 105, 15 Co., 25 Pa. St. 394; O'Hara v. Penn. R. 
 
 Hun, 63; Prospect Park & C. L R. Co., Co., 25 Pa. St. 445; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 
 In re, 13 Hun, 345, 16 Hun, 261 ; Roches- Porter, 29 Pa. St. 165 ; Phil. & E. R. Co. 
 
 ter & G. V. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 10 How. v. Cake, 37 Leg. Int 425 
 
 Pr. 168 ; Rondout & 0. R. Co., In re, 38 * Coster v. New Jersey R. Co., 3 Zah. 
 
 How. Pr. 18, ; Albany & S. R. Co. v. 227, 4 Zab. 730; Central Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 Dayton, 10 Abbott Pr. n. s. 182; New Pearson, 35 Cal. 247; Hannibal & St. J. 
 
 Jersey R. & T. Co. v. Suydani, 2 Harri- R. Co. v. Muder, 49 Mo. 165- Penny's 
 
 son, 25; Bennet v. Camden & A. R. Co., Case, 7 El. & Bl. 660. See Penn. R. Co. 
 
 2 Green (N. J.), 145 ; Piper's Appeal, 32 v. Lutlieran Congregation, 53 Pa. St. 445. 
 
 Cal. 530; Central Pacific R. Co. v. Pear- » William & A. Streets, In re 19 Wend, 
 
 son, 35 Cal. 247 ; St. Lonis & St. J. R. 678 ; Troy & B. R. Co. .. Northern Turnp. 
 
 Co. V. Richardson, 45 Mo. 466; Hannibal Co., 16 Barb. 100; Troy & B R Co w 
 
EMINENT DOMAEN. 
 
 189 
 
 The verdict of a jury empanelled to assess the damages may be 
 set aside for misconduct, or when clearly against evidence, or for 
 omissions of proper instructions when asked, or when the dam- 
 ages are clearly inadequate or excessive, but not because they 
 appear to fall. below or exceed what the court which is asked to 
 correct the verdict might have found.^ 
 
 The award of the special tribunal is not admissible as evidence 
 on a trial by jury on appeal.^ The judgment will be rendered 
 on the verdict of the jury though it may be less than the award.* 
 The land-owner may recover the amount of the final award, 
 although the company gave a bond as security for the payment 
 of the damages which should be found due, and he is not required, 
 instead of enforcing the award, to bring an action upon the bond.* 
 
 The final award by the special tribunal is a judicial act, and 
 unless set aside by proper proceedings is like a judgment, res 
 judicata, and cannot be impeached collaterally.^ An action can- 
 not afterwards be maintained on the ground that the appraisers 
 did not consider certain injuries,® or were misled by representa- 
 tions of the company's agents that the road was to be constructed 
 
 Lee, 13 Barb. 169 ; Prospect Park & C. I. 
 R. Co. V. Washington Cemetery, 20 Hun, 
 184 ; Coster v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 
 3 Zab. 227, 4 Zab. 730 ; Virginia & T. R. 
 Co. V. Henry, 8 Nev. 165 ; Winebiddle v. 
 Penn. R. Co , 2 Grant, 32 ; Willing v. 
 Baltimore R. Co., 5 Whart. 460 ; Evans- 
 ville, I., & C. S. L. R. Co. v. Cochran, 10 
 Ind. 560 ; Chicago & I. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 
 90 111. 316; Western Pacific R. Co. o. 
 Reed, 35 Cal. 621. It has been held that 
 a jury taking a view must base their ver- 
 dict on evidence given in court. Ham- 
 son 0. Iowa Midland R. Co.. 36 Iowa, 
 323 Contra, Mitchell !'. 111. & St. L. R. & 
 C. Co., 85 111. 566. See Pittsburg, Ft. W., 
 & C. R. Co. V. Swinney, 59 Ind. 100; 
 Bangor & P. R. Co. v. McComb, 60 Me. 
 290; Wakefield v. Boston & M. R., 
 63 Me. 385. The granting or refusal of 
 a view is, in the absence of a statute re- 
 quirement, a matter of judicial discretion. 
 Snow V. Boston & M. R., 65 Me. 230; 
 Galena & S. W. R. Co. v. Haslani, 73 111. 
 494; Kansas Cent. R. Co. «. Allen, 22 
 Kan. 285. 
 
 1 Illinois & W. R. Co. v. Von Horn, 18 
 111. 257 ; Jacksonville, A., & St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Caldwell, 21 111. 75 ; Tonica & P. R. Co. 
 
 v. Unsicker,-22 111. 221; Tonica & P. R. 
 Co. V. Roberts, 22 111. 224 ; Illinois & St. 
 L. R. & C. Co. V. McClintock, 63 111. 514; 
 Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Kinley, 64 111. 338; Cape Girardeau & S. 
 C. M. R. Co. V. Dennis, 67 Mo. 438; 
 Willing V. Bait. R. Co., 5 Whart. 460; 
 Penn. R. Co. a. Heister, 8 Pa. St. 445; 
 Penn. R. Co. v. German Lutheran Con- 
 gregation, 53 Pa. St. 445; Phil., W., & B. 
 R. Co. V. Gesner, 20 Pa. St. 240; Cad- 
 mus V. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 179 ; 
 Fitchburg R. Co. u. Boston & M. R., 3 
 Cush. 58 ; Whitman v. Boston & M. R., 
 3 Allen, 133. 
 
 2 Ennis v. Wood River Branch R. Co., 
 12 R. I. 73. 
 
 8 Id. 
 
 « Fisher v. Warwick R. Co., 12 R. L 
 287. 
 
 5 Secombe «. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 23 
 Wall. 108; Hamilton r. Annapolis & E. R. 
 R. Co., 1 Md Ch. 107 ; Butman u.Vt. Cent. 
 R. Co., 27 Vt. 500; Evans v. Haefner, 29 
 Mo. 141 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Spring- 
 field & N. W. R. Co., 67 111. 142 ; Town- 
 send V. Chicago & A. R. Co., 91 111. 545. 
 
 « Perley i'. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 
 57 N. H. 212. 
 
190 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 in a manner less injurious to the land-owner than that which 
 was in fact subsequently adopted.' But facts essential to the 
 juiisdiction of the tribunal before which the proceedings were 
 had may be contested collaterally.^ Proof has been admitted in 
 an action of tort to show that the jury in the special remedy 
 considered the injury for which the action was brought ; ^ but 
 the better view is, that it must be presumed conclusively, ex- 
 cept in a direct proceeding to set aside the award, that all proper 
 elements of damage were included, and no other.* 
 
 The special tribunal for assessing damages — commissioners, 
 appraisers, or viewers — exercises a special delegated power, and it 
 should appear on the face of the proceedings that they acted in 
 the appointed mode.* But where the jurisdiction of an inferior 
 tribunal is shown, the presumption is in favor of the regularity of 
 its action.^ 
 
 Certiorari. — The proceedings of inferior tribunals in the taking 
 of land may be inquired into and quashed on certiorari;'' and 
 they may be restrained by a writ of prohibition where the taking 
 is unlawful.^ Tlie remedy of certiorari is granted in the discre- 
 tion of the court.^ It is not available where there is a specific 
 
 1 Butman v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. Green (N. J.), 145 ; New Jersey, R., & T. 
 ^00- Co. V Suydam, 2 Harrison, 'lb ; Vail o. 
 
 2 Adams v. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 10 Morris & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. 189 ; Doughty 
 N. Y. 328. See Dyckman c. New York, v. Somerville & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. 442; 
 5 N. Y. 4o4. State v. Montclair R. Co., 6 Vroom, 328; 
 
 8 Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Magruder, State v. Hudson TunnelU. Co., Vroom, 
 
 31 M<1 79. 548 ; Central R. Co. 6-. Penn. R. Co., 4 
 
 * Tucker f. Erie & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. Stewart (N. J), 475, 492 ; Delaware, L., 
 
 St. 281 ; ante, p. 177. & W. R. Co. v. Burson, 61 Pa. St. 369; 
 
 5 New Jersey.R., &T. Co. y. Suydam, Cliarlestown Branch R. Co. o. County 
 
 2 Harrison, 25; Central Pacific R. Co. Com'rs, 7 Met. 78; Fitchburg R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247 ; Virginia & T. R. Boston & M. R , 3 Cush. 58 ; Cliarles 
 
 Co. V. Lovejoy, 8 Nev. 100; People u. River Branch R. ^. County Com'rs, 7 
 
 Brigliton, 20 Mich. 57 ; Nicliols v. Bridge- Gray, .389 ; Farmington River W. P. Co. 
 
 port, 23 Conn. 189, 208; Judson i'. Bridge- u. County Com'rs, 112 Mass. 206 ; Wor- 
 
 port, 25 Conn. 426 ; Cliicago u. Rock cester & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com'rs, 
 
 Island R. Co., 20 111. 286 ; Lyon i-. Green 118 Mass. 561 ; Boston & M. R v. Folsom, 
 
 Bay & M. R. Co., 42 Wis, 538 ; City of 46 N. H. 64 ; Allen v. Levee Com'rs, 57 
 
 Buffalo, In re, 78 N. Y. 362; Phil. & E. R. Miss. 1G3. 
 
 Co. y. Cake (Penn. S.C), 9 Weekly Notes ' Vermont & M. R. Co. v. County 
 
 of Cases, 72. See Walker v. Boston & M. Com'rs, 10 Cush. 12 ; Day v. Springfield, 
 
 R., 3 Cush. 1. 102 Mass. 310 ; Conn. River R. Co. v. 
 
 « Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. .. Cham- County Com'rs, 127 Mass. 50, 57. 
 
 berlain, 84 111. 383. b Regina v. Sheward, L.'r. 5 Q B. 
 
 ' Bennet u. Camden & A. R. Co., 2 Div. 179. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIK. 191 
 
 remedy, and it does not lie where, though formal and technical 
 errors exist, substantial justice has been done.^ 
 
 Waiver of Irregularities. — Irregularities and defects in the pro- 
 ceedings for taking property and for assessing the damages may 
 be waived by the owner. His acceptance of the compensation 
 awarded estops him from setting up such irregularities, and 
 effects a transfer of the property as fully as if the proceedings 
 had been in all respects legal.'^ A waiver of the irregularities 
 will be implied from his initiation of proceedings for the assess- 
 ment of the damages,^ from a voluntary- appearance in which he 
 contested only the amount of the damages,* from an appeal from 
 the award,^ and from acquiescence.^ An acceptance of the award 
 is also a waiver of the appeal.' The company is estopped from 
 setting up irregularities which it caused or has waived by its own 
 acts.^ 
 
 Costs. — Costs are recoverable in proceedings for condemnation 
 only when given by the statute ; ^ but some provision allowing 
 them is usually made.^" The company against whom damages 
 are awarded on appeal is " the losing party " under the statute 
 giving damages against such party, although the amount awarded 
 
 1 Boston & M. R. v. Folsom, 46 N. H. 5 Delaware,!.., & W. R. Co. w.Burson, 
 
 64. 61 Pa. St. 369 ; Borland v. Miss. & M. R. 
 
 " Dodge V. Burns, 6 Wis. 514; Burns Co., 8 Iowa, 148; Johnston v. Rankin, 70 
 
 V Mil. & M. R. Co., 9 Wis. 450; Karber N. C. 550. 
 
 V. Nellis, 22 Wis. 215 ; Hawley v. Ilarrall, « Dietrich -. Murdock, 42 Mo. 279. 
 
 19 Conn. 142; Whittlesey w. Hartford, P., ' Miss. M. R. Co. v. Byington, 14 
 
 & F. R. Co., 23 Conn. 421 ; Hitchcock v. Iowa, 572. 
 
 Danbury & N. R. Co., 25 Conn. 516 ; Em- 8 st. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. Orr, 8 
 
 bury V. Conner, 3 N. Y. 511; Brooklyn Kan. 419; Higgins u. Chicago, 18 111. 
 
 Park Cora'rs v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 231 ; 276 ; Chicago v. Wheeler, 25 III. 478. 
 Hatch V. Hawkes, 126 Mass. 177 ; Troy & ^ Metier </. Easton & A. R. Co., 8 
 
 B. R. Co. V. Potter, 42 Vt. 265 ; Quincy, Vroom, 222 ; Greenville & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 M., & P. R. Co. V. Kellogg, 54 Mo. 834 ; Partlow, 6 Rich. 286 , Phil., G., & N. R. 
 
 Town c. Blackberry, 29 III. 137 ; Rees v. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Wliart. 275 ; Herbein v. 
 
 Chicago, 38 III. 322 ; Kile v. YcUowhead, Phil. & R. R. Co., 9 Watt9,'272; Sherwood 
 
 80 III. 208. But see House v. Rochester, v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 122. 
 15 Barb. 517. The acceptance of the '" Commonwealth v. Boston & M. E., 
 
 compensation is held not to waive the 3 Cusli. 23; Harvard Branch R. Co. v. 
 
 trespass committed by an unauthorized Rand, 8 Cush. 218 ; New Haven & N. Co. 
 
 entry. Powers v. Hurmert, 51 Mo. 13G. v. Northampton, 102 Mass. 116; Vermont 
 
 ' Pinkliam ■,. Chelmsford, 109 Mass. Cent. R. Co. !.. Baxter, 22 Vt. 365; Rens- 
 
 225 ; Fitchburg R. Co. c. Boston & M. R., selaer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 55 N. Y. 145 ; 
 
 3 Cush. 58 ; Flagg w. Worcester, 8 Cush. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co. v. County 
 
 69. Com'rs, 28 Me. 112; Metropolitan Dist. 
 
 * Dyckman v. New York, 6 N. Y. 434. R. Co. v. Sharpe, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 425. 
 
192 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 on appeal is less than that found by the tribunal from which the 
 appeal was taken.^ Costs, when recoverable, are on the same 
 footing as damages, and are to be paid before the company's title 
 
 vests.^ 
 
 Limitation to the Remedy. — The special remedy is not barred 
 by the Statute of Limitations, which is construed to apply only to 
 actions at common law ; but it is usually barred by some express 
 provision in the statute which creates the remedy.^ It is within 
 the power of the legislature to make such a limit for applications 
 for damages.* 
 
 Property and Rights requiring Compensation. — It is proper now 
 to consider what acts done under the authority of the State are 
 a taking of private property in the constitutional sense. 
 
 Land occupied permanently. — The owner is entitled to com- 
 pensation for land and materials appropriated for permanent use, 
 as for a railroad, to be estimated at their market value.^ The 
 owners of a cemetery are entitled to compensation for the laying 
 out of a railroad track across it.^ 
 
 Injuries to Franchises. — The grant of an exclusive right to build 
 a railroad within certain limits, which takes effect as a contract, 
 is a franchise which is deemed to be taken and to require com- 
 pensation when another railroad is authorized within such limits ; 
 but such exclusive right does not exist without an express 
 grant.'^ 
 
 Property acquired under the Right of Eminent Domain. — Prop- 
 erty acquired by a corporation for a public use, whether its 
 estate is an easement or a fee, is private property, and cannot 
 
 1 Banpor & P. R. Co. v. Chamberlain, The Statute of Limitations wns held to 
 
 60 Me. 285 ; Goodwin v. Boston & M. R., apply in Foster v. Cumberland Valley R. 
 6.3 Mo. 363. Co., 23 Pa. St. 371. 
 
 2 Chicago & M. R. Co. v. Bull, 20 111. * Sinims v. Memphis, C, & L. R. Co.', 
 218. 12 Heisk. 621; Reckner v. ■Warner, 22 
 
 s Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Burson, Ohio St. 275. 
 
 61 Pa. St. 369 ; McClinton v. Pittsburg, ^ Qiesy v. Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co., 
 Ft. W., & C. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 404 ; Jef- 4 Ohio St. 308. 
 
 ferson & L. P. R. Co. u. New Orleans, 31 ^ Washington Cemetery v. Prospect 
 
 La. An. 478 ; Flagg v. Worcester, 13 Park & C. I. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 591, 7 Hun, 
 
 Gray, 601; Erskine v. Boston, 14 Gray, 655, 20 Hun, 184. 
 216; Revere v. Boston, 14 Gray, 218. ' ^n(c, pp. 163, 164. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 193 
 
 be taken for another public use without compensation ; and the 
 corporation is entitled to compensation although the legislature 
 reserved the power to alter and repeal its charter.^ The appro- 
 priation of a part of its location to the exclusive use of another 
 company is clearly a taking of its property ; but there is a dis- 
 tinction between easements which are to be deemed a taking, and 
 duties which the State may impose in the exercise of its power to 
 regulate private and public rights.^ 
 
 The erection and maintenance by a telegraph company of suit- 
 able structures for its line within the location entitles the rail- 
 road company to compensation.^ The right of the company to 
 occupy a public highway with its railroad has been held a fran- 
 chise for the taking of which compensation must be made.* But 
 the inclusion of its location within a public park is not such a 
 taking.^ 
 
 Highway Crossings. — The laying out of a highway across land 
 of a railroad company which is used for a station, or for other 
 purposes than a right of way, is a taking of its property entitling 
 it to compensation.^ So, also, it is entitled to compensation 
 where the highway appropriates lengthwise a part of its right 
 of way.' The laying out of a highway across the company's 
 track, without further interference with it, is, however, not a 
 taking of its property. The State, in authorizing the crossing, 
 simply regulates and adjusts private rights with reference to 
 public interests, and exercises its reserved police power.^ The 
 crossing should be laid in a manner to cause as little injury as 
 
 1 Grand Rapids, N., & L. S. K. Co. v. See Lafayette Plank Road Co. v. New 
 
 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 35 Mich. 265; Albany & S. R. Co., 13 Ind. 90. 
 Old Colony & F. R. Co. v. Plymouth ^ Albany Northern R. Co. v. Brownell, 
 
 County, 14 Gray, 155 ; ante, p. 152. 24 N. Y. 345; Boston & A. R. Co. v. Green- 
 
 " See infra, note 7. bush, 52 N. Y. 510, 5 Lans. 461 ; Sixth 
 
 ' Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. Chicago, R. Avenue R. Co. v. Kerr, 45 Barb. 138. 
 
 I., & P. R. Co., 6 Biss. 158; Southwestern But see Old Colony & F. R. R. Co. o. 
 
 R. Co. V. Southern & A. Tel. Co., 46 Ga. Plymouth County, 14 Gray, 155 ; Grand 
 
 43. See Western Union R. Co. v. Rich, Junction, R., & D. Co. v. County Com'rs, 
 
 19 Kan. 617. 14 Gray, 553 ; Com'rs on Inland Fisheries 
 
 * Southwark R. Co. o. Phil., 47 Pa. St. v. Holyoke Water Power Co., 104 Mass. 
 
 825. 446, 457 ; post, pp. 217, 218. As to the 
 
 5 Com'rs of Central Park, In re, 63 right of a turnpike company to compen- 
 
 Barb. 282. sation when a railroad crossing is con- 
 
 " Albany Northern R. Co. ». Brown- structed upon the turnpike. Baltimore 
 
 ell, 24 N. Y. 345; Phil., W., & B. R. Co. & H. Turnp. Co. v. Union R. Co., 35 
 
 t). Philadelphia, 9 Phil. 563. Md. 224; Seneca Road Co. v. Auburn 
 
 ' Crossley v. O'Brien, 24 Ind. 325. & R. R. Co., 5 HiU, 170. 
 
 13 
 
194 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 possible to the previous use, and the railroad company is entitled 
 to compensation where the crossing is so constructed as to result 
 in serious inconvenience.^ 
 
 Railroad Crossings. — Where a company's location is subjected 
 to a railroad crossing, in a manner not substantially interfering 
 with the use thereof, or causing damage to the road-bed, its prop- 
 erty is not taken in the constitutional sense.^ But the use of its 
 rails for running trains,^ or the laying of tracks upon its location^ 
 by another company, under authority of law, is such a taking. 
 The grant of a right to one company to lay a track on a highway 
 is not exclusive, and similar rights may be given to other com- 
 panies without compensation for injury to the earlier franchise.^ 
 
 Preliminary Surveys. — Preliminary surveys and explorations 
 for determining the route of a railroad may be authorized by 
 the State, without compensation being previously paid or se- 
 cured to the owner, even though the Constitution requires the 
 payment of compensation to precede a taking. No estate is 
 thereby taken, and the owner is not deprived of the use and 
 enjoyment of his property. The entry, however, to be justified 
 on this ground, must be for a temporary purpose, and accom- 
 panied with no unnecessary damage.^ But the occupation be- 
 
 1 Northern Cent. R. Co. U.Baltimore, 46 Co. v. Western R. Co., 14 Gray, 253; 
 Md. 425 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Lexington & W. C. R. Co. v. Fitchburg R. 
 Chicago & P. R. Co., 6 Biss. 219. Co., 14 Gray, 266 ; Sixth Avenue R. Co. 
 
 2 Brooklyn Cent. & J. R. Co. v. v. Kerr, 45 Barb. 38. 
 
 Brooklyn City R. Co., 33 Barb. 420; * Worcester & N. R. Co. v. Railroad 
 
 Kerr's Case, 42 Barb. 119 ; New York & Com'rs, 118 Mass. 561. 
 
 H. R. Co. V. Forty-Second St. & G. St. F. 5 Brooklyn City & N. R. Co. v. Coney 
 
 R. Co., 50 Barb. 309; Lake Shore & M. Island & B. E. Co., 35 Barb. 364; New 
 
 S. R. Co. V. Cincinnati, S., & C. E. Co., York & H. R. Co. v. Forty-Second St. & 
 
 30 Ohio St. 604. See Morris & E. R. Co. G. St. F. R. Co., 60 Barb. 285, 309 ; 
 
 V. Central E. Co., 2 Vroom, 205; State Metropolitan E. Co. v. Highland E. Co., 
 
 V. Easton & A. R. Co., 7 Vroom, 181; 118 Mass. 290; Canyonville & G. Road 
 
 Eastern R. Co. v. Concord & P. E. Co., Co. v. Stephenson, 8 Oreg. 263. See 
 
 47 N. H. 108. The right to compen- Waterbury v. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. E. • 
 
 sation for the crossing may be given by Co., 54 Barb. 388. 
 
 statute. Lockport & B. R. Co., In re, 77 « Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 
 N. y. 557, 15 Hun, 365, 19 Hun, 38 ; Bos- 14 Wend. 61, 18 Wend. 9; Polly v. Sara- 
 ton, Hoosac Tunnel, & W. R. Co., In re, toga & W. R. Co., 9 Barb. 449 ; Bonaparte 
 79 N. Y. 64, 58 How. Pr. 167 ; post, v. Camden & A. R. Co., Baldwin, 205 ; 
 pp. 217, 218. Winslow v. GifEord, 6 Cush. 327 ; Cush- 
 8 Jersey City & B. E. Co. v. Jersey man v. Smith, 34 Me. 247; Eaton v. Bos- 
 City & H. Horse R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, ton, C, & M. E. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 525; 
 61 ; Metropolitan R. Co. v. Quincy R. Orr u. Quimby, 54 N. H. 590 ; Lyon ». 
 Co., 12 Allen, 262. See Boston & W. E. Green Bay & M. E. Co., 42 Wis. 638; 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 195 
 
 comes a taking when it extends to an interference with the 
 owner's use, or to the construction of works upon the land, or to 
 acts which are in the nature of waste.^ 
 
 Rights of Laud-owners in Highways. — The owners of land lying 
 upon highways are generally, whether owners of the fee of the 
 highway or not, held to have an interest in the highway and rights 
 of access and use, at least so long as it is maintained, which, 
 though subject to regulation and modification for purposes of 
 repair and improvement, require compensation when they are 
 seriously obstructed by private corporations acting under public 
 authority .2 In the next chapter the rights of such proprietors 
 will be more fully treated.^ 
 
 Interference ■with the Owner's Use ; Flooding of Land. — The term 
 "property" comprehends the rights which pertain to the owner- 
 ship of things real or personal, and a substantial invasion of those 
 rights, under authority of law, is a taking in the constitutional 
 sense.* A permanent and exclusive appropriation to a public 
 use, or an entire divesting of the title, is not essential to a taking ; 
 but it is sufficient if the owner is deprived of, or seriously in- 
 terrupted in, the ordinary use of the land or other subject of 
 property. His right of use for all lawful purposes is the most 
 essential quality of property, and includes the right to exclude 
 others from such use. " Where real estate is actually invaded by 
 superinduced additions of water, earth, sand, or other material, or 
 by having any artificial structure placed on it, so as to effectually 
 destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a taking within the meaning 
 of the Constitution." ^ Thus, the flooding of land continuously, 
 or even intermittently, caused by the construction of a dam or 
 of other erections for a public use, is a taking which requires 
 
 Neal p. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. S. R. Co. v. Combs, 10 Bush, 382, 388 ; 
 
 19, 2 Grant, 137 ; Walther v. Warner, 25 Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38 ; Protzman 
 
 Mo. 277 ; Doughty v. Somerville & E. R. v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 9 Ind. 467 ; 
 
 Co.,3HaIst. Ch. 61,63; State ». Seymour, Grand Rapids & S. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 
 
 6 Vroom, 47 ; Steuart v. Baltimore, 7 Md. Mich. 62, 71. 
 600. ' Chap. Vni. 
 
 1 Davis V. San Lorenzo R. Co., 47 Cal. * Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 
 
 617; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Hudson Tun- N. H. 504, 511; Thompson v. Androscog- 
 
 nel R. Co., 10 C. E. Green, 384. See gin R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 551, 58 N. H. 
 
 ante, p. 165.' 108; East Penn. R. Co. v. SohloUenber- 
 
 2' Lexington & O. R. Co. v. Applegate, ger, 54 Pa. St. 144. 
 8 Dana, 289, 294 ; Elizabethtown, L., & B. « 13 WaU. 166, 181, MiUer, J. 
 
196 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 compensation.^ An easement is property protected by the Con- 
 stitution.2 
 
 Some authorities, however, do not regard certain interferences 
 with interests in property, which, but for legal authority, would 
 be actionable, as a taking. Thus, the Constitution has been held 
 not to require compensation where the company, with proper 
 authority and with due care and skill, diverts the water of a 
 stream from its natural channel to the injury of a riparian pro- 
 prietor, or, in consequence of proper dams erected by it, throws 
 the water on land near its location.^ 
 
 Actionable Injuries. Depreciation in Value of Land not taken. — 
 The constitutional provision is considered by some jurists to pro- 
 tect private property against all injuries (except trespasses of a 
 purely technical and nominal character) which would be action- 
 able at common law but for the authority conferred by the State.* 
 It is construed as requiring compensation, not only for the land 
 actually taken, but also for injury to the owner's remaining land, 
 to the extent that his entire estate is depreciated in value by 
 the taking ; ^ and for actionable injuries the land-owner will be 
 entitled to his common-law remedies where no special remedy is 
 provided by statute.'' 
 
 1 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 "Wall. Co., 29 N. Y. 634 ; New York & E. E. Co. 
 
 166; Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co , 14 „. Young, 33 Pa. St. 175; Woodward v. 
 
 Conn. 146, 15 Conn. 312 ; Glover v. Pow- Webb, 65 Pa. St. 254. But see post, p. 200. 
 ell, 2 Stock. 211, 229; Ten Eyck v. Del. 4 West Brancli & S. Canal Co. v. Mul- 
 
 & R. Canal Co., 3 Harrison, 200; Trenton liner, 68 Pa. St. 357 ; New Castle & P. E. 
 
 Water Power Co. v. Raff, 7 Vroom, 335 ; Co. v. McChesney, 85 Pa. St. 522. 
 Lehigh Valley E. Co. v. McFarlau, 4 5 Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. E. Co., 51 
 
 Stewart (N. J.), 706, 726, 730, 3 Stewart N. H. 504. 
 
 (N. J), 180; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. 6 vVinona & St. P. E. Co. v. Waldron, 
 
 E. Co., 51 N. H. 504; Thompson v. 11 Minn. 515,539; Winona & St. P. E. 
 
 Androscoggin E. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, Co. v. Denman, 10 Minn. 267 ; Hursh v. 
 
 58 N. H. 108; Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co., St. Paul & P. E. Co., 17 Minn. 439, 449; 
 
 57 Me. 481 ; Kemper v. Louisville, 14 Utica, C, & S. V. E. Co., In re, 56 Barb. 
 
 Bush, 87, 93; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 456; Bangor & P. E. Co. v. McComb, 60 
 
 324; Arimond v. Green Bay & M. Canal Me. 290; Bigelow v. West Wisconsin E. 
 
 Co., 31 Wis. 316 ; Grand Rapids Booming Co., 27 Wis. 478 ; Virginia & T. R. Co. 
 
 Co. V. Jarvis, '30 Mich. 308; Ashley v. w. Henry, 8 Nev. 165. 
 Port Huron, 35 Mich. 296 ; EvansviUe & ^ Evansville & C. E. Co. v. Dick, 9 
 
 C. E. Co. u. Dick, 9 Ind. 433 ; Wabash & Ind. 433 ; Protzman v. Indianapolis & C. 
 
 E. Canal v. Spears, 16 Ind. 441. E. Co., 9 Ind. 467 ; Indiana Cent. E. Co. 
 
 Arnold 1-. Hudson EiverR. Co., 55 N. v. Boden, 10 Ind. 96; Eaton v. Boston, 
 
 Y. 661, 49 Barb. 108. C, & M. E. Co., 51 N. H. 504 ; Thompson 
 
 Bellinger v. New York Cent. E. Co., v. Androscoggin R. I. Co., 54 N H 545, 
 
 23 N. Y. 42; Selden „. Del. & H. Canal 58 N. H. 108; Baltimore & P. E. Co. v. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 197 
 
 Consequential Injuries. — Consequential injuries not actionable 
 at common law do not amount to a taking of private property, 
 so as to require compensation under the constitutional restric- 
 tion. A person suffering incidental injury from the reasonable 
 use by another of his own property — which, in technical phrase, 
 is damnum absque injuria — is without remedy at common law. 
 The restriction is interpreted as designed not to give new rights, 
 but to protect those already existing. i As a general rule, a person 
 is not liable at common law for damages which result to another 
 from the reasonable use of his own property. Where there are 
 no prescriptive rights, and the acts complained of do not amount 
 to a nuisance, he may, using due care and skill, make erections 
 and excavations on his own land, and carry on business upon 
 it, without becoming liable in damages to others who may suffer 
 incidentally from his lawful use of his property.^ This rule 
 determines the liability of railway companies at common law, and 
 is applied in construing the provision of the Constitution. Thus, 
 except on proof of negligence or unskilfulness, they are not 
 responsible for injuries caused by the issuing of sparks from their 
 
 Reaney, 42 Md. 117; Hooker v. New 
 Haven & N. Co., 14 Conn. 146, 15 Conn. 
 812; Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 
 Dutcher, 148 ; Trenton Water Power Co. 
 V. Raff, 7 Vroom, 335, 343; Sinnickson v. 
 Johnson, 2 Harrison, 129. 
 
 1 Radcliffe v. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195 ; 
 Gould V. Hudson River R. Co., 6 N. Y. 
 622, 635, 12 Barb. 61G ; Bellinger v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 42 ; Selden 
 V. Del. & H. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 634 ; 
 Coster V. Albany, 43 N. Y. 399 ; Brook- 
 lyn Park Com'rs v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 
 234, 245 ; Corey v. Buffalo, C, & N. Y. 
 R. Co., 23 Barb. 482; Hatch v. Vt. 
 Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 61, 28 Vt. 142; 
 Richardson v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 465; Phil. & T. R. Co., In re, 6 Whart. 
 25; Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coons, 6 
 W. & S. 101, 114; Henry v. Pittsburg 
 & A. Bridge Co., 8 W. & S. 85; Mifflin 
 V. Harrisburg, P., M., & L. R. Co., 16 
 Pa. St. 182, 193; Reitenbaugh v. Ches- 
 ter Valley R. Co., 21 Pa. St. 100 ; Sun- 
 bnry & E. R. Co. v. Hummell, 27 Pa. 
 St. 99 ; New York & E. R. Co. v. Young, 
 33 Pa. St. 175; Watson v. Pittsburg & 
 C. R. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469 ; Clarke v. Bir- 
 mingham & P. Bridge Co., 41 Pa. St. 
 
 147 ; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Kirk, 
 46 Pa. St. 112 ; McKeen v. Delaware Div. 
 Canal Co., 49 Pa. St. 424 ; Cleveland & 
 P. R. Co. V. Speer, 66 Pa. St. 325; 
 Spangler's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 387 ; Wood- 
 ward 1!. Webb, 65 Pa. St. 254; Freeland 
 V. Penn. R. Co., 66 Pa. St. 91; Struthers 
 V. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 
 282; Morris & E. R. Co. „. Newark, 2 
 Stock. 352, 359 ; Rogers v. Kennebec & 
 P. R. Co., 35 Me. 319, 323 ; Whittier v. 
 Portland & K. R. Co., 38 Me. 26 ; Bradley 
 V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 21 Conn. 
 294; Colorado Cent. R. Co. v. Mollan- 
 din, 4 Col. 154 ; Stetson u. Chicago & 
 E. R. Co., 75 111. 74; Patterson v. Chi- 
 cago, D., & V. R. Co., 75 111. 588. The 
 doctrine is fuUv treated in Eaton v. Bos- 
 ton, C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 604, and 
 the text of the author's earlier work is 
 cited on pp. 520, 521. It is also elabo- 
 rately discussed in Thompson v. Andros- 
 coggin R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 58 N. H. 
 108. 
 
 2 Radcliffe b. Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 195 ; 
 Hatch V. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 28 
 Vt. 142; Sabin v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 
 Vt. 363. 
 
198 THE LAW OF EAILROADS, 
 
 engines,^ or by excavations and embankments in the highway 
 which render access to real estate lying upon it less convenient.* 
 Nor is a person's property deemed to be taken so as to require com- 
 pensation where he is subjected in its use to annoyances, like those 
 of smoke and noise.^ The discontinuance of a street or bridge, 
 whereby access to a person's land is made more difficult, is not 
 an injury for which the Constitution secures compensation.* 
 
 Some ■ authorities attempt a distinction between acts done 
 under authority of law by a municipal or other public body iu 
 the execution of a public trust, and similar acts done under 
 like authority by a private corporation acting primarily for a 
 private advantage. They hold the latter responsible for certain 
 injuries, called consequential, for which the former are held not 
 liable.^ This distinction ought not, however, to be applied in the 
 construction of the constitutional restriction. The use, appro- 
 priation, and effect produced, and not the agent which exercises 
 the power of eminent domain, ought to determine whether there 
 is a taking of private property. 
 
 Rights as affected by Statutes. — Statutes, which require in gen- 
 eral terms compensation for injuries sustained by individuals in 
 consequence of a public improvement, are sometimes cpnstrued 
 to provide a special remedy for those injuries, and those only which 
 would be actionable if committed without statute authority.® 
 Other statutes are construed as giving a remedy for certain conse- 
 quential injuries which are not actionable at common law.' On 
 
 1 Burroughs v. Housatonie E. Co., 15 "Vt. 142. See Chicago, M., & St. P. E. 
 Conn. 124 ; Phil. & R. E. Co. o. Yeiser, 8 Co. v. Hall, 90 111. 42. 
 
 Pa. St. 366 ; Sunbury & E. E. Co. v. * Smith v. Boston, 7 Cush. 254 ; Coster 
 
 Hummell, 27 Pa. St. 99. ». Albany, 43 N. Y. 399. 
 
 2 Hatch V. Vt. Cent. E. Co., 25 Vt. 5 Alexander v. Milwaukie, 16 Wis. 
 49, 28 Vt. 142 ; Richardson v. Vt. Cent. 247 ; Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. E. Co., 
 R. Co., 25 Vt. 465 ; Slatten v. Des Moines 2 Dutcher, 148 ; Trenton Water Power 
 Valley E. Co., 29 Iowa, 148 ; Bradley v. Co. v. Eaff, 7 Vroom, 335 ; Evansville & 
 New York & N. H. B. Co., 21 Conn. 294. C. E. Co. v. Dick, 9 Ind. 433 ; Eaton ». 
 But see ante, p. 195, and post, Chap. VIII. Boston, C, & M. E., 51 N. H. 504, 527. 
 p. 241. The case of Fletcher v. Auburn « Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. ». 
 & S. E. Co., 25 Wend. 462, has been Geisse, 6 Vroom, 558, 5 Vroom, 268; 
 overruled. See Bellinger v. New York Lehigh Valley E. Co. v. Trone, 28 Pa. St. 
 Cent. E. Co., 23 N. Y. 42, 52. 20G. See joos<, p. 208. 
 
 « Parrot v. Cincinnati, H., & D. E. Co., ' Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon, 6 
 
 10 Ohio St. 624 ; Watson v. Pittsburg & Pa. St. 379 ; Bradley v. New York & N. 
 
 C. E. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469; Atchison & H. E. Co., 21 Conn. 294; Hatch v. Vt. 
 
 N. E. Co. V. Garside, 10 Kan. 552, 567 ; Cent. E. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 60. 
 Hatch V. Vt. Cent. E. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 28 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 199 
 
 the other hand, as already seen, the statute remedy may be 
 more limited than the right secured by the Constitution, and to 
 the extent that such remedy fails to protect the right, the rem- 
 edy at common law remains.^ 
 
 A constitutional provision, requiring just compensation for 
 property taken, and a statute providing for the assessment of 
 damages for " the value of the land taken," are construed to be 
 of the same import, and to include the value of land covered by 
 the location and the injury to the residue of the owner's land.^ 
 A statute giving a special remedy to a party " injured " by the 
 construction of the railroad is construed as substituting a special 
 remedy for those existing at common law, and as confined to 
 injuries which would be actionable but for the statute authority .^ 
 
 Rights in Navigable and Other "Waters. — Different views have 
 been taken of the right of liparian proprietors to access to, 
 and to the use of, navigable waters. According to one view, the 
 State, being the owner, in its sovereign capacity, of the land 
 under navigable waters, including the shore between high and 
 low water mark, the riparian proprietor is not entitled to compen- 
 sation under the constitutional provision when his access to the 
 water is obstructed or taken away. His right is deemed to be of 
 a public and not of a private nature, being shared by him in 
 common with all citizens. Therefore the legislature may, with- 
 out requiring compensation, authorize a railroad to be laid below 
 high-water mark, constructed with embankments or other erec- 
 tions, which obstruct or cut off the riparian proprietor's access to 
 the water, and prevent the valuable use of his land for wharfage.* 
 
 1 See ante, pp. 167, 176, 196. Bridge Co., 41 Pa. St. 147 ; Monongar 
 
 2 Bigelow V. West Wisconsin E. Co., hela Bridge Co. u. Kirk, 46 Pa. St. 112 ; 
 27 Wis. 478. McKeen v. Delaware Div. Canal Co., 49 
 
 8 Columbia Delaware Bridge Co. v. Pa. St. 424 ; Philadelphia v. Scott, 81 Pa. 
 
 Geisse, 6 Vroom, 558, 5 Vroom, 268. St. 80 ; Cameron Furnace Co. v. Penn. 
 
 * Gould V. Hudson River R. Co., 6 N. Canal Co., 2 Pearson, 208 ; Bailey v. 
 Y. 522, 12 Barb. 616 ; Stevens v. Pater- Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 4 Harring. (Del.) 
 son & N. R. Co., 6 Vroom, 682, 5 C. E. 389 ; Rogers v. Kennebec & P. E. Co., 35 
 Green, 126 ; Penn. R. Co. i^. New York & Me. 319 ; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R., 
 L. B. R. Co., 8 C. E. Green, 157; Attor- 51 N. H. 504, 524 ; Austin v. Rutland R. 
 ney-General v. Hudson Tunnel Co., 12 C. Co., 45 Vt. 216 ; Fitchburg R. Co. v. 
 E. Green, 176 ; Tomlin v. Dubuque & M. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. 58, 88 ; Davidson 
 R. Co., 32 Iowa, 106; Ingraham v. Chi- v. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. 91, 105; Bos- 
 cage, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 249 ; Com- ton & W. R. Co. v. Old Colony R. Co., 12 
 monwealth v. Fisher, 1 Pen. & W. 462; Cush. 605; Harvard College v. Stearns, 
 New York & E. R. Co. v. Yeung, 33 Pa. 15 Gray, 1 ; Thayer v. New Bedford R. 
 St. 175 ; Clarke v. Birmingham & P. Co., 125 Mass. 253. A statute may give 
 
200 ' THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 According to the other view, the riparian proprietor's right of 
 access to navigable waters is, irrespective of his title to the water- 
 bed, appurtenant to his land, and though subject to the public 
 right of navigation and to regulation for the public convenience, 
 is private property of which he cannot be deprived without com- 
 pensation.i His right to the use of wharves and landing-places,^ 
 and to a fishery ,3 is within the constitutional provision. 
 
 ■What are Navigable Waters. — By the common law as held in 
 England, waters are deemed navigable only when they are sub- 
 ject to the ebb and flow of the tide ; but in the United States 
 they are deemed navigable irrespective of the ebb and flow of 
 the tide, when they are in fact navigable. Accordingly, the 
 riparian proprietor on a river which is in fact navigable has been 
 held not entitled to compensation where the State authorizes the 
 construction of public works on its bed, which result in injury to 
 the owners of land upon its shore.* Some authorities, however, 
 distinguish between tidal rivers — those which are navigable in the 
 sense of the common law — and non-tidal rivers, which are in fact 
 navigable ; and such authorities recognize the title of the riparian 
 proprietor to the bed of rivers of the last description.^ 
 
 compensation for riparian riglits where Exch. 306 ; Lyon v. Fish Mongers' Co., L. 
 
 the Constitution does not require it. Ren- E. 1 App. Cas. 662 ; Bell v. Quebec, L. B. 
 
 wick V. D. & N. W. R. Co., 49 Iowa, 5 App. Cas. 84 ; Regina v. Rynd, 16 Irish 
 
 664. If the riparian proprietor is under C. L. 29. 
 
 the law the owner of tlie soil between ^ Dutton v. Strong, 1 Black, 23; St. 
 
 high and low water mark, he is entitled to Paul & P. R. Co. v. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 
 
 compensation for the injury caused by 272; Rippe w. Chicago, D., & M. R. Co., 
 
 the company's erections or works above 23 Minn. 18. 
 
 low-water mark. Lehigh Valley R. Co. s Alexander & F. R. Co. v. Faunce, 
 
 V. Trone, 28 Pa. St. 206. 31 Gratt. 761. 
 
 1 Yates V. Milwaukie, 10 Wall. 497; * Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324; 
 
 Bowman v. Wathen, 2 McLean, 376; Rundle v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 14 
 
 Avery !). Fox, 1 Abbott U. S. 246 ; Bell How. 80; McManus v. Carmichael, 3 
 
 V. Gough, 3 Zab. 624, 2 Zab. 441, 1 Zab. Iowa, 1 ; Haight v. Keokuk, 4 Iowa, 199 ; 
 
 156 ; Keyport & M. P. S. Co. v. Farmers' Tomlin v. Dubuque, B., & M. R. Co., 32 
 
 Trans. Co., 3 C. E. Green, 13 ; Chapman Iowa, 106 ; Renwick v. D. & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 V. Oshkosh & M. R. Co., 33 Wis. 629; 49 Iowa, 664; People «. Canal Appraisers, 
 
 Delaplaine v. Chicago & N. R. Co., 42 Wis. 33 N. Y. 461 ; Crill v. Rome, 47 How. Pr. 
 
 214 ; Diedrich v. Northwestern Union R. 398 ; Thompson v. Androscoggin R. L 
 
 Co., 42 Wis. 248, 47 Wis. 662 ; Brisbine Co., 54 N. H. 545, 58 N. H, 108; Carter 
 
 V. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114 ; v. Thurston, 58 N. H. 104. See At- 
 
 Thompson v. Androscoggin R. I. Co., 58 torney-General v. Delaware & B. B. R. 
 
 N. H. 108, 54 N. H. 545 ; Baltimore & Co., 12 C. E. Green, 1, 631 ; New Or- 
 
 O. R. Co. V. Chase, 43 Md. 23 ; Hickok v. leans, M., & C. R. Co. v. Frederic, 46 
 
 Hine, 23 Ohio St. 523 ; Duke of Buc- Miss. 1 ; Rowe v. Granite Bridge Co., 21 
 
 cleuch V. Metropolitan Board, L. R. 5 H. Pick. 344 ; Glover v. Powell, 2 Stock. 211. 
 
 L. 418, L. R. 5 Exch. 221, L. R. 3 ' Varick w. Smith, 9 Paige, 547 ; Rippe 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 201 
 
 Colonial Ordinances. — Under a colonial ordinance of Massa- 
 chusetts, the flats on an arm of the sea where the tide ebbs and 
 flows, to the extent of one hundred rods, are appurtenant to the 
 upland.1 The owner of the wharf or upland is, by virtue of this 
 ordinance, entitled to compensation for the injury caused by the 
 construction of a railroad upon the flats within that limit.^ 
 
 Remedies against Unla^vful Obstruction of Navigable Waters. — 
 The unlawful obstruction of navigable waters is indictable as an 
 infringement of a public right, and is actionable only when an 
 individual suffers special damage, differing in kind from that 
 suffered by others.^ Individuals suffering special damage are 
 entitled to an injunction to restrain the nuisance.* 
 
 Authority to obstruct Navigation, how acquired. — The free navi-' 
 gation of navigable rivers is a public right, and the power to 
 obstruct or change their course must be clearly given ; and when 
 not conferred, such obstruction is a public nuisance. The right to 
 cross them by suitable structures, and in a manner that will not 
 destroy or seriously impair their public use, may be implied where 
 they intervene in a location which is defined by statute, or selected 
 in the reasonable exercise of a discretion conferred by statute.^ 
 
 Bridges across Navigable Waters. — Congress, under its power 
 to regulate commerce among the States, may authorize bridges 
 
 V. Chicago, D., & M. R. Co., 23 Minn. 18 ; 1 ; Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. K. Co., 
 
 Brisbine v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 23 2 Dutcher, 148 ; South Carolina R. Co. v. 
 
 Minn. 114; Chicago & P. R. Co. v. Stein, Moore, 28 Ga. 398; Jarvis v. Santa Clara 
 
 75 111. 41 ; Steamboat Magnolia v. Mar- Valley R. Co., 52 Cal. 438 ; Bell v. Que- 
 
 shall, 39 Miss. 109. In Pennsylvania, the bee, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 84. 
 owner of land lying on a navigable river * Hickok v. Hine, 28 Ohio St. 523. 
 
 owns the soil to low-water mark. Le- ' Attorney-General v. Stevens, Saxton 
 
 high Vfilley R. Co. v. Trone, 28 Pa. St. 206. (N. J.), 369 ; Attorney-General v. Hudson 
 
 1 Commonwealth w. Alger, 7 Cush. 53; River R. Co., 1 Stock. 526; Newark 
 Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray, 451 ; Plank Road v. Elmer, 1 Stock. 754 ; 
 Boston V. Richardson, 105 Mass. 351; Stevens i». Erie R. Co., 6 C.E. Green, 259; 
 Wlieeler v. Stone, 1 Cush. 313. Attorney-General v. New York &L. B. R. 
 
 2 Ashby V. Eastern R. Co., 5 Met. 368; Co., 9 C. E. Green, 49 ; Fall River Iron 
 Commonwealth v. Boston & M. R., 3 Works Co. v. Old Colony & F. R. Co., 5 Al- 
 Cush. 25 ; Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 len, 221 ; Hickok v. Hine, 23 Ohio St 523 ; 
 Mass. 571, 583. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 
 
 ' Blood W.Nashua &L. R. Co., 2 Gray, 343; Memphis & O. R. Co. v. Hicks, 5 
 
 137 ; Harvard College v. Stearns, 15 Gray, Sneed, 427 ; Whitaker v. Delaware & H. 
 
 1; Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old C. Co., 87 Pa. St. 34. See Miller v. 
 
 Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 221 ; Prairie du Chien & M. K. Co., 34 Wis. 
 
 Blackwell v. Old Colony R. Co., 122 Mass. 633. 
 
202 THE LAW OP RAILKOADS. 
 
 ' across navigable waters ; and private persons, as riparian proprie- 
 tors or owners of ferries, whose use of the waters is thereby 
 obstructed, have no right of action.^ A State may authorize 
 bridges over navigable waters, and otherwise control and ob- 
 struct the use of such waters, subject, however, to the para- 
 mount authority of Congress to regulate international and 
 inter-state commerce.^ 
 
 The power to build a bridge across a navigable river carries 
 with it the power to erect such piers and other structures as are 
 usual in the construction of bridges authorized for the same pur- 
 pose.* The conditions imposed in the act authorizing the bridge 
 must be complied with ; and a failure to comply with them gives 
 a right of action to a party suffering special damage thereby.* 
 The obstruction of a navigable river so as to cause land to be 
 overflowed, or ancient mill-rights to be injured, entitles the 
 owner of the land or rights to compensation.^ 
 
 A company having begun the erection of a bridge across navi- 
 gable waters, under authority of its charter, and afterwards dis- 
 continuing the erection, is required to remove the obstructions to 
 navigation which it has thereby caused. Thus, where the con- 
 tractors had placed piles in a river which were cut off a few feet 
 under the surface of the water, the company was held liable for 
 an injury to a steamboat which came in collision ii^ith them.^ 
 
 Ferries across Navigable ^Waters. — The power to establish a 
 ferry for crossing navigable or other waters may be given 
 to a railroad company expressly or by implication ; ^ but such 
 ferry is to be used only for the purposes of travel by the rail- 
 road, and not as a general ferry to the injury of an existing 
 ferry franchise.^ 
 
 ' Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & B. a Clarke v. Birmingham & P. Bridge 
 
 Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 13 How. 518; Co., 41 Pa. St. 147; Monongahela Bridge 
 
 Clinton Bridge, In re, 10 Wall. 454 ; South Co. v. Kirk, 46 Pa. St. 112. 
 
 Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U. S. 4; Miss. 4 Dugan v. Bridge Co., 27 Pa. St. 303; 
 
 River Bridge Co. v. Lonergan, 91 HI. 508. Memphis & O. R. Co. v. Hicks, 5 Sneed, 
 
 2 Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & B. 427 ; Rogers v. Kennebec & P. R. Co., 35 
 
 Bridge Co., 13 How. 518, 18 How. 421 ; Gil- Me. 319. 
 
 man v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713 ; Pound 5 Lee v. Pembroke Iron Co., 57 Me. 
 
 V. Turck, 95 U. S. 459 ; Clinton Bridge, In 481. 
 
 re, 1 Woolw. 150, 10 Wall. 454 ; United « Phil. W., & B. R. Co. v. Phil. & H. 
 
 States I). Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 6 Biss. 410, Steam T. Co., 23 How. 209. 
 
 419; Wisconsin Riverlmprovement Co. !). ' State v. Wilmington & M. R. Co., 
 
 Manson, 43 Wis. 266; Talbot County v. Busbee (N. C), 234, 
 
 Queen Anue's County, 50 Md. 245, 261, 8 Fitch y. New Haven, N.L.,&S.R. Co., 
 
 262. 30 Conn. 38 ; Aikin v. Western R. Co., 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 203 
 
 Where a discretion as to crossing waters by a bridge or ferry, 
 or as to its location, is given to the company, the exercise of such 
 discretion is not reviewable.^ 
 
 Interference -with the Flow of Streams in their Natural Course. — 
 The general power to construct a railroad authorizes the crossing 
 of streams which are not navigable, and even their diversion 
 from their natural course, to the extent the diversion is necessary 
 in the proper construction of the railroad ; but a substantial 
 diversion, when not expressly authorized, is not permitted, where 
 it can be avoided in the due execution of the works.^ The diver- 
 sion can be justified only on the ground of necessity, and not on 
 the ground merely that it will diminish the expense of construc- 
 tion.2 -pj^g duty to restore the stream, as far as practicable, to its 
 original course, and to make and maintain sufficient culverts and 
 openings for the water so as to prevent unnecessary injury to 
 land-owners, is often imposed by statute ; but the duty is pre- 
 sumed to be equally incumbent in the absence of an express 
 requirement.* The company is liable to an action for injuries 
 arising from its default in this regard, as compensation is pre- 
 sumed to have been awarded under the special remedy on the 
 basis of its performance of its duty.^ This liability to a land- 
 
 20 N. Y. 370, 30 Barb. 38 ; State v. Wil- 214 ; Kobinson v. New York & E. R. Co., 
 
 mington & M. R. Co., Busbee (N. C), 27 Barb. 512 ; Walker k. Old Colony & N. 
 
 234. A ferry can only be established R. Co., 103 Mass. 1, 16 ; Proprietors of 
 
 by authority of the government. Attor- Looks & Canals v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 
 
 ney-General u. Boston, 123 Mass. 460, Cush. 385 ; March v. Portsmoutli & C. R. 
 
 478. The grantee of a ferry franchise Co., 19 N. H. 372 ; Hatch u. Vt. Cent. R. 
 
 .holds it subject to the commercial power Co., 28 Vt. 142; Haynes v. Burlington, 
 
 of Congress. Miss. River Bridge Co. c/. 38 Vt. 350; Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 
 Lonergan, 91 111. 508. Co. v. Moffitt, 75 111. 524 ; Pittsburg, Ft. 
 
 ' Stephens & C. Trans. Co. v. Central W., & C. R. Co. v. Gilleland, 56 Pa. St. 
 
 R. Co., 5 Vroom, 280; Attorney-General 445; Young a. Chicago & N. R. Co., 28 
 
 V. New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 C. E. Wis. 171 ; Lyon v. Green Bay & M. B. 
 
 Green, 49 ; Clarke v. Birmingham & P. Co., 42 Wis. 538 ; Valley R. Co. </. Bohm, 
 
 Bridge Co., 41 Pa. St. 147. 34 Ohio St. 114. 
 
 2 Johnson v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., * Bellinger v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 35 N. H. 569 ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. 23 N. Y. 42 ; Conliocton Stone R. Co. v. 
 
 Magruder, 34 Md. 79 ; Whitaker v. Dela- BufEalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 3 Hun, 523, 
 
 ware & H. Canal Co., 87 Pa. St. 34. But 61 N. Y. 573 ; Proprietors of Locks & 
 
 see Stodghill v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., Canals v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 
 
 43 Iowa, 26. 385 ; Estabrooks v. Peterborough & S. R. 
 
 8 Pugh 1'. Golden Valley B. Co., L. R. Co., 12 Cush. 224 ; Blood v. Nashua & L. 
 
 12 Ch. I")iv. 274, 42 L. T. R. n. s. 863. R. Co., 2 Gray, 137 ; Mellen v. Western 
 
 See post, Chap. VIII. p. 245. R. Co., 4 Gray, 301 ; Perry v. Worcester, 
 
 4 Brown v. Cayuga & S. R. Co., 12 N. 6 Gray, 544; Walker v. Old Colony & F. 
 
 Y. 486 ; Cott v. Lewiston R. Co., 36 N.Y. R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 10 ; Johnson v. At- 
 
204 
 
 THE liAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 owner exists whether any part of his land is taken or not.^ The 
 company, it has been held, is not bound to provide culverts 
 which may be required only for extraordinary floods.^ 
 
 The company is liable to an action for conducting water, which 
 was opened up by its excavations, through an artificial channel 
 upon an owner's land, where such a mode of discharging the water 
 is not reasonably necessary to the maintenance of the railroad.^ 
 It is not liable for the diversion of subterranean water caused by 
 excavations within its location where such water is not running 
 in a well-defined stream.* It is not liable for the gradual wash- 
 ing away of adjoining land in consequence of a change of current 
 caused by necessary structures which it has made within the 
 location ; ^ and, having diverted water in a lawful and proper 
 manner, it is not required thereafter to take further precautions to 
 prevent injury to land-owners.^ 
 
 The right of each owner of land lying upon a stream to the 
 reasonable use of its water, and to have it flow in its ordinary 
 course, is protected by the Constitution, and he is entitled to 
 legal and equitable remedies against persons who divert or ob- 
 struct it to his material injury.' The company's use of the stream 
 
 lantie & St.L. R. Co.,35N. H. 569; Spen- 
 cer V. Hartford, P., & F. R. Co., 10 R. I. 
 14; Whitaker v. Del. & H. C. Co., 87 
 Pa. St. 34 ; Houston & G N. R. Co. v. 
 Parker, 50 Tex. 330 ; West v. Louisville, 
 C, & L. R. Co., 8 Bush, 404 ; Southside 
 R. Co. V. Daniel, 20 Gratt. 844; Law- 
 rence V. Great Northern R. Co., 16 Q. B. 
 K. s. 643; Bagnall v. London & N. W. 
 R. Co., 7 H. & N. 423. 
 
 1 Hatch V. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49 ; 
 Eaton u. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. 
 H. 504 ; Miss. Cent. R. Co. v. Caruth, 51 
 Miss. 77 ; Miss Cent. E. Co. v. Mason, 
 51 Miss. 234. 
 
 2 Pittsburg, Ft W., & C. R. Co. v. 
 Gilleland, 56 Pa. St. 445; Bellinger v. 
 New York Cent. E. Co., 23 N. Y. 42; 
 Conhocton Stone Road Co. v. Buffalo, N. 
 Y., & E. R. Co , 3 Hun, 523, 51 N. Y. 573. 
 See Houston & G. N. E. Co. v. Parker, 50 
 Tex. 330, 345 ; Kansas Pacific E. Co. v. 
 Miller, 2 Col. 442, 468 ; Kansas Pacific R. 
 Co. V. Lundin, 3 Col. 94, 99 ; Nitro Phos- 
 phate & 0. C. M. Co. V. London & St. K. 
 Docks Co., L. R. 9 Ch. Div. 503 ; Countess 
 of Rothes u. Kirkcaldy Water Works 
 
 Com'rs, 6 Gas. Ct. Sessions, 4th ser. 
 (Scotch), 974. 
 
 5 Curtis V. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, 
 55, 98 Mass. 428. 
 
 * Galgay v. Great Southern & W. E. 
 Co., 4 Irish C. L. 456 ; Hardman f. North 
 Eastern E. Co., L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 168 ; 
 Goodale w.Tuttle, 29 N. Y. 459 ; Wheatley 
 V. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 528 ; Swett v. Cutts, 
 50 N. H. 439, 446. 
 
 6 Henry v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 30 Vt. 
 638. 
 
 6 Norris v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 28 Vt. 
 99. 
 
 ^ Gardner v. Newburgh, 2 Johns. Ch. 
 162 ; Garwood v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 17 Hun, 356 ; Robinson v. New 
 York & E. R. Co., 27 Barb. 512 ; Hatch v. 
 Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 28 Vt. 142; 
 Harding v. Stamford Water Co., 41 Conn. 
 87 ; Blood v. Nasliua & L. R. Co., 2 Gray, 
 137 ; Estabrooks v. Peterborough & S. R. 
 Co., 12 Cush. 224 ; Eaton v. Boston, C, & 
 M. E. Co., 51 N. H. 504; Thompson v. 
 Androscoggin R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 
 68 N. H. 108; Ten Eyck v. Del. & 
 R. C. Co., 3 Harrison, 200 ; Tinsman v. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN". 205 
 
 for supplying railway engines with water, in a manner not causing 
 perceptible injury to the owner, is not actionable.^ 
 
 Surface "Water. — The diversion, by the company, of surface 
 water accumulated from rain and snow, and not running in a 
 defined watercourse, by means of excavations and erections 
 within the location, is not actionable, or an injury entitling the 
 land-owner to compensation under the Constitution ; ^ but this 
 doctrine is not accepted in several States.^ The company may 
 turn the surface water into natural streams, although by so doing 
 it increases the volume of water to the injury of a proprietor 
 below.* It is liable to an action where the injury, resulting from 
 the diversion, is caused by its want of proper care and skill in 
 the construction of its works.^ The turning of the surface water 
 on an adjoining piece of land may, under statutes, be an element 
 of damage where a part of the land is taken.^ 
 
 Ponds. — In Massachusetts, great ponds are public property ; 
 and the riparian proprietor is not entitled to compensation for 
 the injury occasioned by the drawing off the water under legisla- 
 
 Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 Dnteher, 148; E. I. 75; Atchison, T., & S. V. R. Co. 
 
 Trenton Water Power Co. v. Raff, 7 v. Hammer, 22 Kan. 763; Hunkers v. 
 
 Vroom, 335. Compare Bellinger v. New Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 60 
 
 York Cent. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 42. See, as Mo. 834. 
 
 to water flowing through an artificial " Gillham v. Madison County R. Co., 
 
 channel, Singh v. Koonj Behari Pattuk, 49 111. 484 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 L. R. 4 App. Cas. 121 ; Nield v. London & Morrison, 71 111. 616 ; St. Louis, V., & T. 
 
 N. W. R. Co., L. R. 10 Exch. 4 ; and as H. R. Co. v. Capps, 72 111. 188 ; Jackson- 
 
 to the right of the company to protect its ville, N. W., & S. E. E. Co. v. Cox, 91 111. 
 
 works against unusual injury, by struc- 500 ; Wabash & E. Canal Co. v. Spears, 
 
 tures which cause an overflow on the ad- 16 Ind. 441 ; Hurdman u. North Eastern 
 
 joining land, Nield v. London & N. W. E. E. Co., L. R. B C. P. Div. 168. See Swett 
 
 Co., L. R. 10 Exoh. 4. "• Cutts, 50 N. H. 439 ; Eaton v. Boston, 
 
 1 Elliot V. Fitchburg R. Co., 10 Cush. C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 531, 533 ; 
 191. But see Garwood v. New York Cornish v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 49 
 Cent. & H. R. R Co., 17 Hun, 356. Iowa, 378 ; MoCormick v. Kansas City, 
 
 2 Dickinson v. Worcester, 7 Allen, 19; St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 70 Mo. 359, 57 Mo. 
 Greeley v. Maine Cent. R. Co , 53 Me. 200; 433. 
 
 Morrison v. Bucksport & B. R. Co., 67 * Waffle v. New York Cent. E. Co., 58 
 
 Me. 353 ; Wagner v. Long Island R. Co., Barb. 413, 53 N. Y. 11. But see Noonan 
 
 2 Hun, 633, 5 Thomp. & C. 163 ; Conhocton v. Albany, 79 N. Y. 470. 
 Stone Road Co. v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. s Kosher ». Kansas City, St. J., & C. 
 
 R. Co., 5 Thomp. & C. 651, 3 Hun, 523, B. E. Co., 60 Mo. 329; Waterman «. 
 
 52 Barb. 390, 61 N. Y. 573 ; Goodale v. Conn. & P. E. R. Co., 30 Vt. 610. 
 Tuttle, 29 N. Y. 459 : Bowlsby v. Speer, * Walker v. Old Colony & N. R. Co, 
 
 2 Vroom, 361 ; Wakefield v. Newell, 12 103 Mass. 10. 
 
206 THE LAW OP BAILKOADS. 
 
 tiTe authority, whereby his dwelling-house has become uncom- 
 fortable and unfit for the purposes for which it was designed.^ 
 
 Remedies for Injury to Riparian Rights. — The rule which makes 
 the special remedy exclusive as to all injuries included within it, 
 and limits the injured person's right of action at common law to 
 unauthorized acts, or to the negligent use of lawful powers, ap- 
 plies in determining the remedies of persons who suffer injury by 
 the diversion of streams.^ An action at common law will lie 
 where the act authorizing an interference with the riparian pro- 
 prietor's right does not provide compensation.^ 
 
 Construction of certain Statutes which provide Compensation. 
 Statute of Massachusetts. — The statute of Massachusetts imposes 
 on the company the liability to " pay all damages occasioned by 
 laying out and making and maintaining its road, or by taking 
 any lands or materials " therefor, and provides a special remedy 
 for assessing such damages. The remedy is held to apply not 
 only to land included within the location, but also to all direct 
 physical injuries done to property outside of it, under authority 
 of the statute. Thus, it includes injuries to land outside of the 
 location whenever committed in the due exercise of powers 
 granted, — as, for instance, those caused by blasting rocks which 
 are thrown on the adjacent land ; * by discharging on the adjacent 
 land surface water,^ or underground water opened up by excava- 
 tions ; ^ by drawing off the water of a well or spring outside of 
 the location, in consequence of excavations ; ' by the diversion 
 of watercourses ; ^ the disturbance of rights of flowage ; ^ the ob- 
 
 1 Fay V. Salem & D. Aqueduct Co., Ill 6 Walker v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 
 Mass. 27. 103 Mass. 10. 
 
 2 Estabrooks u. Peterborough & S. E. » Curtis v. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, 
 Co., 12 Gush. 224 ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. 65, 98 Mass. 428. 
 
 ^. Magruder, 34 Md. 79 ; an(e, p. 177. ^ Parker v. Boston & M, R., 3 Cush. 
 
 3 Robinson v. New York & E. R. Co., 107 ; Aldrich v. Chesliire R. Co., 21 N. H. 
 27 Barb. 512; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. 859. 
 
 R., 51 N. H. 504. 8 Estabrooks v. Peterborough & S. R, 
 
 4 Dodge V. County Com'rs, 3 Met. 380; Co., 12 Cush. 224 ; Proprietors of Locks 
 Brown v. Providence, W., & B. R. Co., & Canals v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 
 5 Gray, 35; Curtis v. Eastern R. Co., 14 385. But see Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. 
 Allen, 55, 98 Mass. 428. Contra, for a R. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 523; Stodghill ». 
 neglect to remove them, which would be Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 43 Iowa 26 
 actionable, Sabin v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 9 White v. South Shore R. Co., 6 Cush. 
 Vt. 363; Wliitehouse v. Androscoggin 412. 
 
 Co., 52 Me. 208. 
 
EMINEKT DOMAIN. 207 
 
 structiorl of a right of way appurtenant to land outside of the 
 location ; ^ and injuries to property in wharves and flats.^ But the 
 depreciation in the value of land not taken, resulting, not from 
 any works of the company so near as to cause direct physical 
 damage, but from inconveniences common to the community, — 
 as where a railroad is laid across a highway leading to the estate, 
 — is not an injury within the statute.' 
 
 English Statutes. — The liability of railway companies in Eng- 
 land for land taken and injuries done in the lawful execution of 
 their works is determined by two acts of Parliament, passed in 
 1845, which prescribe a special remedy for injuries sustained 
 thereby. The first, " The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act," ch. 
 18, 8 & 9 Vict., provides, § 68, a remedy for " any party " who 
 " shall be entitled to any compensation in respect of any lands, or 
 of any interest therein, which shall have been taken for or injuri- 
 ously affected by the execution of the works." The second, " The 
 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act," ch. 20, 8 & 9 Vict., provides, 
 § 6, that " in exercising the power given to the company by the 
 special act to construct the railway, and to take lands for the pur- 
 pose, . . . the company shall make to the owners and occupiers of, 
 and all other parties interested in, any lands taken or used for the 
 purposes of the railway, or injuriously affected by the construc- 
 tion thereof, full compensation for the value of the lands so taken 
 or used, and for all damage sustained by such owners, occupiers, 
 and other parties, by reason of the exercise, as regards such lands, 
 of the powers by this or the special act, or any act incorporated 
 therewith, vested in the company ; " and further, § 16, that the 
 company " may do all other acts necessary for making, maintain- 
 ing, altering, or repairing and using the railway, provided al- 
 ways that, in the exercise of the powers by this or the special act 
 granted, the company shall do as little damage as can be, and 
 shall make full satisfaction in manner herein, and in the special 
 
 1 Parker i'. Boston & M. K., 3 Cush. ' Proprietors of Locks & Cana.l3 u. 
 107 ; Boston Gas Light Co. v. Old Colony Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385 ; Pres- 
 & N. R. Co., 14 Allen, 444. brey v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 103 
 
 2 Ashby «. Eastern R. Co., 5 Met. Mass. 1 ; Walker v. Old Colony & N. R. 
 868 ; Commonwealth v. Boston & M. R., Co., 103 Mass. 10; Caledonian R. Co. v. 
 8 Cush. 25; Boston & W. R. Co. v. Ogilvy, 2 Macq. 229. See Boston & M. R. 
 Old Colony R. Co., 12 Cush. 605 ; Boston v. Old Colony R. Co., 12 Cush. 605; Gear 
 ■.-. Richardson, 105 Mass 851, 363 ; Drury f. C. C. & D. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 83. 
 
 V. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571, 583. 
 
208 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 act, and aily act incorporated therewith, provided to all parties 
 interested for all damage by them sustained by reason of the ex- 
 ercise of such powers." ^ 
 
 These acts are construed as securing, but not enlarging, ex- 
 isting rights, and as supplying a new remedy only where one 
 would have been available at common law if the act complained 
 of had not been authorized by Parliament. In determining 
 whether land, not taken, has been " injuriously affected," so as 
 to entitle the owner to compensation, such injuries are to be 
 considered, and such only as would have been actionable if the 
 company had proceeded without statutory powers.^ Thus, the 
 overlooking of the premises from the railway and the obstruction 
 of a view,^ or the vibration, smoke, and noise caused by passing 
 trains,* although depreciating the market value of land, are held 
 not to "injuriously affect" it in the sense of the statute. But 
 the obstruction of a private right of way, appurtenant to an estate, 
 by means of gates erected by the company, was held to entitle the 
 owner of the estate, though it was not crossed by the railway, to 
 compensation.^ If, however, land is taken under the act, the own- 
 er's compensation is not limited to injuries actionable at common 
 law ; but he is, in such a case, entitled to compensation for the 
 depreciation in the value of his estate arising from the vibration, 
 smoke, or sparks caused by or issuing from the engines, or from 
 loss of the " amenities," as of view and privacy.^ 
 
 The peculiar terms used in the acts, as " the execution of the 
 works," " the construction " of the railway, and " the exercise of 
 
 » There is a difficulty in stating the perial Gas Co., 7 De Gex, M. & G. 436, 
 
 construction of these acts, growing out of 456. See ante, p. 199. 
 the conflicting cases, the dissenting opin- ' Penny's Case, 7 El. & B. 660. 
 ions, and the reversal of judgments. In * Hammersmith & C. E. Co. v. Brand, 
 
 Eickett V. Metropolitan E. Co , L. R. 2 H. L. E. 4 H. L. 171, L. R. 2 Q. B. 223, 
 
 L. 175, where the cases are reviewed, L. E. 1 Q. B. ISO. 
 
 the Lord Chancellor, Chelmsford, con- 6 Glover a. North Staffordshire B. 
 
 fessed, " It appears to me to be a hope- Co., 16 Q. B. n. s. 912. 
 less task to attempt to reconcile the cases ^ Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan 
 
 upon the subject." Board of Works, L. E. 5 H. L. 418, L. E. 
 
 2 Glover v. North Staffordshire R. Co., 5 Exch. 221, L. E. 3 Exch. 306 ; Stockport, 
 
 16 Q. B. N. s. 912; Ricket v. Metro- T., & A. E. Co., /n ?-e, 33 Law Jour. n. s. 
 
 politan R. Co., L. R. 2 H. L. 175, 5 B. & 251 ; Hammersmith & C. R. Co. v. Brand, 
 
 S. 149, 156 ; Hammersmith & C. E. Co. L. E. 4 H. L. 171, L. E. 2 Q. B. 223, L. E. 
 
 V. Brand, L. E. 4 H. L. 171, L. E. 2 Q. B. 1 Q. B. 130 ; post, p. 216. See Patton v. 
 
 223, L. E. 1 Q. B. 130 ; Senior v. Metropol- Northern Cent. R. Co., 33 Pa. St. 426. As 
 
 itan R. Co., 2 H. & Colt. 25S; Chamber- to injuries to mineral property, see Smith 
 
 lain V. West End of London & C. P. R. v. Great Western E. Co., L. R. 3 App. 
 
 Co., 2 B. & S. 605; Broadbent v. Im- Cas. 166. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 209 
 
 the powers," have been thought by some judges to limit the com- 
 pensation to injuries occasioned by the construction of the railway 
 to the exclusion of those occasioned by its mere use ; but other 
 authorities have rejected this narrow construction.^ 
 
 The remedy provided by these statutes, while including only 
 actionable injuries as an independent ground for compensation, 
 has been considered not to extend to all such injuries. It does 
 not apply to injuries from the company's works which, if com- 
 mitted without the authority conferred by statute, would be a 
 public nuisance causing special damage and giving a private right 
 of action. Thus, the land-owner was held not entitled to compen- 
 sation where, without any of his land being occupied, a railway 
 under due authority was constructed with gates across a public 
 road, which was the principal access to his estate, thereby sub- 
 jecting him to interruption in passing to and fro, to the frighten- 
 ing of his horses,^ or to the loss of business and good-will.^ A 
 distinction is taken in some cases between an injury to land whicji 
 is within the statute and an injury to the owner in the way of 
 inconveniences essentially personal in their nature, which is not 
 within it.* The statute remedy excludes actions at law for in- 
 juries to which it applies.^ It does not extend to any acts not 
 authorized by the statute ; ® or to injuries arising from the negli- 
 gent or unskilful construction of the company's works, or from 
 default in not complying with the statute.'^ 
 
 Damages, of what Time assessed. — The damages are assessed as of 
 the time of the taking.^ In different jurisdictions the act of taking 
 
 1 Hammersmith & C. B. Co. v. Brand, smith & C. R. Co. i/. Brand, L. R. 4 H. L. 
 L. B. 4 H. L. 171, 186, 198, L. B. 2 Q. B. 171, 198. 
 
 223, L. R. 1 Q. B. 130; Penny's Case, 7 El. ^ Vauglian v. Ta£E Vale B. Co., 5 H. & 
 
 & B. 6f>0. N. 679, 3 H. & N. 743 ; Hammersmith & C. 
 
 2 Caledonian R. Co. v. Ogilvy, 2 Macq. R. Co. o. Brand, L. B. 4 H. L. 171, L. B. 
 229. 2 Q. B. 223, L. R. 1 Q. B. LSO ; ante, p. 177. 
 
 ' Ricket V. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. * Lawrence v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 
 2 H. L. 175, 5 B. & S. 140, 156 ; Cameron 16 Q B. 643 ; Broadbent v. Imperial Gas 
 
 V. Charing Cross R. Co., 19 C. B. n. s. Co.. 7 De Gex, M., & G. 436; ante, p. 179. 
 764, 16 C. B. N. 8. 430. But see Chamber- ' Bagnall o. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 lain V. West End of London & C. P. R. 7 H. & N. 423 ; Broadbent v. Imperial Gas 
 
 Co., 2 B. & S. 605 ; Senior v. Metropolitan Co., 7 De Gex, M. & G. 436 ; ante, p. 179. 
 R. Co., 2 H. &Colt. 258. ^ Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. 198; Ed- 
 
 * Chamberlain v. "West End of Lon- mands v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535 ; Old 
 
 don & C. P. R. Co., 2 B. & S. 617; Colony R. Co. v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1; 
 
 •Bicket V. Metropolitan B. Co., L. R. 2 H. Daniels v. C. I. & N. B. Co., 41 Iowa, 
 
 L. 175, 5 B. & S. 149, 156; Hammer- 62; Cook v. South Park Com'rs, 61 
 
 14 
 
210 THE LAW OF KAILKOADS. 
 
 is fixed at different stages in the proceedings for condemnation, 
 — as at the time of the filing of the location in some public repos- 
 itory, as required by statute,^ though on a failure to comply with 
 the statute other acts maybe deemed a taking; ^ the time of mak- 
 ing the assessment or award ; ^ the filing or approval of the award ,•* 
 the commencement of proceedings to condemn;^ the filing of the 
 petition to condemn ; ^ the beginning of the construction ; ^ and 
 the trial of the question of damages on appeal.^ 
 
 Measure of Damages. General Rule. Difference in Market Value 
 of the Tract or Lot before and after the Taking. — Where the owner's 
 whole tract or lot is taken, its market value at the time of the 
 taking is the measure of compensation. Where only a part of 
 the same tract or lot is taken, it must be treated not as a separate 
 and independent piece, but in its relation to the part not taken. 
 The injury to the remaining tract or lot may be far greater than 
 the value of the strip appropriated for the location, if estimated 
 by the proportion its superficial area bears to that of the whole 
 tract or lot. The "company can rarely consult individual conven- 
 ience, or harmonize with the owner's plan of utilizing his estate, 
 but it must determine its route and grade with reference chiefly 
 
 111. 115; Chicago & I. R. Co. v. Hopkins, ' Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Denman, 
 
 90 111. 316 ; Bobbins i-. Mil. & H. R. Co., 10 Minn. 267 ; Carli v. Stillwater & St. P. 
 
 6 Wis. 636 ; Isom v. Miss. Cent. R. Co., K. Co., 16 Minn. 260 ; Warren v. St. P. 
 
 36 Miss. 300; Graham v. Connersville & & P- R- Co., 18 Minn. 384; St. Paul & S. 
 
 N. C. J. R. Co., 36 Ind. 468. C. R. Co. u. Murpliy, 19 Minn. 500 ; Sher- 
 
 1 Charlestown Branch R. Co. o. Coun- wood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn, 
 ty Com'rs, 7 Met. 78 ; Davidson v. Boston 122 ; Whitacre v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 
 & M. R., 3 Cush. 91 ; Boynton v. Peter- 24 Minn. 311 ; Metier v. Easton & A. R. 
 borough & S. R. Co., 4 Cush. 467 ; Boston Co., 8 Vroom, 222 ; Dearborn v. Boston, 
 
 6 M. R. V. Midland R. Co., 1 Gray, C, & M. R., 24 N. H. 179. 
 
 340, 360 ; Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 * Driver v. Western Union R. Co., 32 
 
 Gray, 574 ; Whitman v. Boston & M. R., Wis. 569 ; Lyon v. Green Bay & M. R. 
 
 7 Allen, 313, 326 ; Ham u. Salem, 100 Co., 42 Wis. 538 ; St. Joseph & D. R. Co. 
 Mass. 350; Bemis v. Springfield, 122 w. Orr, 8 Kan. 419 ; Neal a. Pittsburg & C. 
 Mass. 110; Old Colony R. Co. v. Miller, R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 19; Beale v. Penn. R. 
 125 Mass. 1 ; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Blaii-, Co., 86 Pa. St. 509; Hudson River R. Co. 
 1 Stock. 635 ; Logansport, C, & S. R. Co. v. Cutwater, 3 Sand. 689. 
 
 V. Buchanan, 52'Ind. 163; Lafayette, M., ^ Oregon & C. E. Co. v. Barlow, 3 
 
 &B. R. Co. 11. Murdock, 68Ind. 137. See Oreg. 311. 
 
 San Francisco & S. J. R. Co. o. Malioney, " South Park Com'rs v. Dunlevy, 91 
 
 29 Cal. 112; an(e, p. 171. 111. 49. 
 
 2 Davidson v. Boston & M. R., 3 ' Indiana Cent. R. Co. ti Hunter, 8 Ind. 
 Cush. 91, 106 ; Boston & P. R. Co. 74 ; Logansport, C, & S. R. Co. v. Bu- 
 V. Midland R. Co., 1 Gray, 340, 861 ; chanan, 52 Ind. 163. 
 
 Troy & B. R. Co. u. Potter, 42 Vt. * Arnold v. Covington & C. Bridge, 1 
 
 265. Duvall, 372. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 211 
 
 to its general scheme and the safe and profitable working of 
 the railroad. The particular use, also, to which the part taken 
 is to be devoted may interfere with the enjoyment and af- 
 fect the value of the remaining land to a far greater degree 
 than if the part taken was to be devoted to the ordinary pur- 
 poses for which the whole tract was available before the tak- 
 ing. The owner may therefore be injured not merely by the 
 subtraction of so many feet or acres from his estate, valued as if 
 sold for an ordinary purpose and according to a plan devised for 
 the most profitable use of the whole, but still more by the 
 mode of the taking and its effect on the property which is left, 
 viz., the way in which the railroad cuts the tract or lot, as 
 diagonally, by a curve, or otherwise ; the inconvenient shape 
 in which the remaining part is left ; the depth of excavations 
 or height of embankments ; the obstruction or entire inter- 
 ruption of access to public or private ways ; the division of 
 the tract or lot into different parts, so that persons or cattle 
 cannot pass from one to the other, or, if at all, only with greater 
 or less difficulty and danger ; and the exposure of the owner's 
 property, as buildings, forests, and crops, to particular injury from 
 proximity to the railroad. Accordingly, in the interpretation of 
 statutory and constitutional provisions which require compensa- 
 -tion for the value of land taken, or for damages occasioned, or for 
 the injurious affecting of property, or which use other like terms, 
 the owner is held entitled not only to the value of the part ap- 
 plied to the exclusive use of the company, but to compensation for 
 injury to the remaining portion of the same lot or tract. The gen- 
 eral rule of damages, which covers the part taken and the injury 
 to the remaining land, is, that the owner is entitled to the differ- 
 ence between the market value of the whole lot or tract before, 
 the taking, and the market value of what remains to him after 
 such taking. 1 Damages to the owner's remaining property are 
 recoverable, though not specially alleged.^ 
 
 1 Henderson v. New York Cent. R. Co., v. Lansing, 16 Barb. 68 ; Hochester & 
 78 N. Y. 423, 17 Hun, 844; Fiirnian S. R. Co. v. Budloiig, 6 How. Pr. 467; 
 Street Case, 17 Wend. 049; William & TJtica, C, & S. R. Co., In re, 56 Barb. 
 A. Streets, In re, 19 Wend. 678, 690 ; 456 ; Pouglikeepsie & E. R. Co., In re, 
 Troy & B. R. Co. r. Lee, 13 Barb. 169; 63 Barb. 151; Black River & M. R. 
 Canandaigua & N. F. R. Co. v. Payne, Co. v. Barnard, 9 Hun, 104; Prospect & 
 16 Barb. 273; Albany & N. R. Co. C. L R. Co., /« re, 13 Hun, 345, 16 Hun, 
 
 2 Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571, 581. But see Chicago & I. R. Co. v. 
 Hopkins, 90 111. 316. 
 
212 
 
 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 Damages limited to the Particular Tract or Lot. — The owner's 
 compensation for the injury to his remaining land is limited to 
 the parcel or tract of which the land taken formed a part, and is 
 not to be extended to other lots or estates of the same proprietor, 
 which are separate and distinct from the one which has been in 
 part appropriated to the public use.^ But a mere nominal divi- 
 
 261 ; BloomfieW & R. N. Gas Light Co. v. 
 Calkins, 1 Thomp. & C. 5i9; Parks v. 
 Boston, 15 Pick. 198 ; Meaeham v. Fitch- 
 burg K. Co., 4 Cush. 291, 299; Dwight v. 
 Hampden, 11 Cush. 201 ; Dickenson v. 
 Fitchburg, 13 Gray, 546 ; Presbrey v. Old 
 Colony & N. E. Co., 103 Mass. 1 ; Ed- 
 mands v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535 ; Mount 
 Washington Road Co., In re, 35 N. H. 134 ; 
 Carpenter v. LandafE, 42 N. H. 218 ; Ban- 
 gor & P. R. Co. V. McComb, 60 Me. 290; 
 Imlay v. Union Branch R. Co., 26 Conn. 
 249 ; Schuylkill Nav. Co. u. Thoburn, 7 
 S. & R. 411 ; Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Farr, 
 4 W. & S. 362 ; Searle v. Lackawanna & 
 B. E. Co., 33 Pa. St. 57 ; Patten v. Northern 
 Cent. E. Co., 33 Pa. St. 426 ; Watson v. 
 Pittsburg & C. E. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469 ; 
 East Penn. R. Co. v. Heister, 40 Pa. St. 
 63 ; Brown v. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495 ; East 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Hottenstine, 47 Pa. St. 28 ; 
 Harvey v. Lackawanna & B. E. Co., 47 
 Pa. St. 428 ; Hornstein u. Atlantic & G. 
 W. E. Co., 51 Pa. St. 87 ; Western Penn. 
 E. Co. V. Hill, 56 Pa St. 460; Wilming- 
 ton & E. R. Co. .,■. Stauffer, 60 Pa. St. 
 374; East Brandy wine & W. E. Co v. 
 Eauck, 78 Pa. St. 454; Penn. & N. Y. R. 
 & C. Co. V. Bunnell, 81 Pa. St 414 ; Hoffer 
 V. Penn. Canal Co., 87 Pa. St. 221 ; Pitts- 
 burg, v., & C. E. Co. V. Bentley, 8>^ Pa. St. 
 178 ; Tide Water Canal .Co. v. Arclier, 9 
 Gill & J. 479 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. o. 
 Ball, 5 Ohio St. 568; Hatch v. Cincinnati 
 & I. R. Co., 18 Ohio St. 92; Cincinnati & 
 S. E. Co. V. Longworth, 30 Ohio St. 108 ; 
 Powers V. Hazelton & L. R. Co., 33 Ohio St. 
 429 ; Sater v. Burlington & Mt. P. Plank 
 E. Co., 1 Iowa, 386 ; Henry v. Dubuque 
 & P. E. Co., 2 Iowa, 288. 309 ; Fleming a. 
 Chicago, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 353 ; 
 Harrison v. Iowa Midland R. Co., 36 
 Iowa, 323 ; Brooks v. Davenport & St. P. 
 R. Co., 37 Iowa, 99 ; White Water Val- 
 ley R. Co. !;. McClure, 29 Ind. 536 ; Grand 
 Rapids & I R. Co. v. Horn, 41 Ind. 479 ; 
 Montmorency Gravel Eoad Co. v. Stock- 
 ton, 43 Ind. 328 ; Baltimore, P., & C. E. 
 
 Co. V. Lansing, 52 Ind. 229; Wilson «. 
 Eockford, E. I., & St. L. E. Co., 59 III. 
 273; Galena & S. W. E. Co. «. Birkbeck, 
 70 III 208; Chicago, M., & St. P. E. Co. 
 V. Hall, 90 111. 42 ; Winona & St. P. E. Co. 
 V. Denman, 10 Minn. 267 ; Winona & St. 
 P. R. Co. w.Waldron, 11 Minn. 515 ; Minne- 
 sota Valley R. Co. v. Doran, 17 Minn. 188 ; 
 Lake Superior & M. R. Co. v. Greve, 17 
 Minn. 322; Colvill v. St. Paul & C. E. Co., 
 19 Minn. 283 ; St. Paul & S. C. E. Co. v. 
 Murphy, 19 Minn. 500 ; Scott v. St. Paul & 
 C. B. Co., 21 Minn. 323 ; Milwaukie & M. 
 E. Co. V. Eble, 4 Chandler (Wis,), 72; 
 Bobbins v. Mil. & H. B. Co., 6 Wis. 636 ; 
 Snyder v. Western Union R. Co., 25 
 Wis. 60 ; Bigelow v. West Wisconsin R. 
 Co., 27 Wis. 478 ; Driver y. Western Union 
 R. Co., 32 Wis. 569; Greenville & C. R. 
 Co. V. Partlow, 5 Rich. 428; White v. 
 Charlotte & S. C. R. Co., 6 Rich. 47; 
 Charleston & S. R. Co. u. Blake, 12 Rich. 
 634 ; Virginia & T. R. Co. u. Henry, 8 
 Nev. 165; Somerville & E. R. Co. u. 
 Doughty, 2 Zab. 495 ; Harrison v. Young, 
 9 Ga. 359, 364; Missouri, K., & T. R. 
 Co. V. Haines, 10 I^an. 439 ; Atchison, T., 
 & S. F. R. Co. V. Blaukshire, 10 Kan. 477 ; 
 San Francisco, A., & S. R. Co. v. Cald- 
 well, 31 Cal. 367 ; Woodfolk v. Nashville 
 & C. R. Co , 2 Swan (Tenn.), 422; Hender- 
 son & N. R. Co. V. Dickerson, 17 B.Monr. 
 173 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Thompson, 
 
 18 B. Monr 735 ; Richmond & L. Tump. 
 Road Co. B.Rogers, 1 Duvall, 135; Robby. 
 Maysville & Mt. S. T. R. Co., 3 Met. 
 (Ky.) 117; Quincy, M., & P. R. Co. «. 
 Eidge, 57 Mo. 599. 
 
 1 Fleming v. Chicago, D., & M. E. Co., 
 34 Iowa, 353 ; New York Cent. & H. E. E. 
 Co., 6 Hun, 149 ; Bangor & P. B. Co. v. 
 McComb, 60 Me. 290 ; Minnesota Valley 
 E. Co. ^. Doran, 15 Minn. 230 ; St. Paul 
 & S. C. R. Co. V. Matthews, 16 Minn. 
 341 ; St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 
 
 19 Minn. 500 ; Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. 
 R. Co., 21 Minn. 127 ; St. Louis, V., & T. 
 H. R. Co. V. Brown, 58 111. 61. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 213 
 
 sion into lots, or even a division by a highway, does not prevent 
 the different lots being treated as an entirety, where they are still 
 used together, and held for a common purpose.^ 
 
 The Owner's Fancy or Sentiment and the Company's Necessity not 
 to be regarded in the Estimate. — The fair market value of the 
 property taken, as it was at the time of the taking, — not the 
 estimate derived from fancy, local attachment, or otherwise, 
 which the owner may put upon it, oi", on the other hand, the 
 price which it would bring at a forced sale, — is the true meas- 
 ure of the owner's compensation.^ Nor is the unwillingness of 
 the owner to part with his property, or the necessity of the com- 
 pany,^ or the adaptation of the land to the purposes of the rail- 
 road,* a proper element for consideration. 
 
 The Use for a Railroad to be considered. — The use tO which the 
 land taken is to be put, as for the running of railway trains, is to 
 be regarded in determining the compensation ; ^ but the deprecia- 
 tion arising from annoyances which do not differ in kind from 
 those suffered by the community in general is not to be taken 
 into account.® 
 
 Particular Injuries. — In calculating the damages it has been 
 customary to estimate particular injuries resulting to the own- 
 
 1 Keitheburg & E. R. Co. v. Henry, 79 5 Ohio St. 508 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. 
 
 111. 290 ; Robbins v. Mil. & H. R. Co., 6 Co. ■/. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 477 j Kuche- 
 
 Wis. 636 ; Welch «. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., man v. C. C. & D. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 
 
 27 Wis. 108; Driver d. Western Union R. 366, 376; Newby v. Platte County, 25 
 
 Co., 32 Wis. 569 ; Renwick v. V>. & N. W. Mo. 258 ; Pacific R. Co. v. Chrystal, 25 
 
 R. Co., 49 Iowa, 664. Mo. 544. A narrow construction of the 
 
 ' Giesy v. Cincinnati, W., & Z. R. Co., terms of the General Railroad Act of 
 
 4 Ohio St. 308, 331 ; Somerville & E. R. New York excludes the consideration of 
 
 Co. V. Doughty, 2 Zab. 495 ; Elizabeth & injury caused to the remaining land by 
 
 P. R. Co. w. Helm, 8 Bush, 681 ; Virginia the use of the part taken for railroad pur- 
 
 & T. R. Co. V. Elliott, 5 Nev. 358 ; Wood- poses. Albany Northern R. Co. c. Lan- 
 
 folk II. Nashville & C. R. Co., 2 Swan sing, 16 Barb. 68; Troy & B. R. Co. o. 
 
 (Tenn.), 422; Tufts v. Charlestown, 4 Northern Tump. Co., 16 Barb. 100; 
 
 Gray, 537 ; Searle v. Lackawanna & B. R. Canandaigua & N. F. R. Co. v. Payne, 16 
 
 Co., 33 Pa. St. 57. Barb. 273 ; Black River & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 ' Henderson & N. R. Co. v. Dickerson, Barnard, 9 Hun, 104 ; Prospect Park & C. 
 
 17 B. Monr. 173 ; Virginia & T. R. Co. n. I. R. Co., 13 Hun, 345. But see a differ- 
 
 Elliott, 5 Nev. 358 ; Henry v. Dubuque & ent interpretation of the act in Utica, C, 
 
 P. R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288, 310. & S. R. Co., In re, 56 Barb. 456 ; Bloom- 
 
 * Stinson's Case, 6 Northwest Rep. field & R. N. Gas Light Co. v. Calkins, 
 
 784; Boston, H., T., & W. R. Co, In re, 10 1 Thomp. & C. 549. 
 
 N. Y. Week. Dig. 527. « Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 
 
 6 Bangor & P. R. Co. v. McConib, 60 103 Mass. 1 ; Walker v. Old Colony & N. 
 
 Me. 290 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Ball, R. Co., 103 Mass. 10. 
 
214 THE LAW OF BATLEOADS. 
 
 er's estate from the construction and working of the railroad. 
 This may often, in practice, be a convenient way of reaching the 
 result. The final test, however, where a part only is taken, is 
 the difference between the market value of the whole before 
 and the market value of the residue after the taking ; and the 
 Owner is entitled to such difference and to no more.^ If, after 
 allowing him such difference, damage for specific causes of depre- 
 ciation were awarded, he would receive double compensation.^ 
 
 Expense of Fencing. — The expense of making and maintaining 
 additional fences, which falls upon the land-owner in conse- 
 quence of the construction of the railroad, is to be considered in 
 the assessment of his damages ;^ but not where the duty of fenc- 
 ing is imposed on the company,* or where no fence will be re- 
 quired.® Such expense, also, should be regarded only to the 
 extent that it depreciates the value of the remaining land.^ 
 
 Ezpense of Changes and New Erections by the Land-o'wner. — The 
 owner is entitled to have included in his damages the depreciation 
 in the value of his property, caused by the necessity of changes and 
 erections which are required to restore the part not taken to a 
 condition for use. As a mode of determining the depreciation, it 
 
 1 Henry v. Dubuque & P. K. Co., 2 ware R. Co., 2 Houst. 287; Morss v. 
 Iowa, 288, 310. See Presbrey v. Old Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 536; Quim- 
 Colony & N. R. Co., 103 Mass. 1 ; St. by ». Vt. Cent. R. Co., 23 Vt. 387 ; Wi- 
 Louis, v., & T. H. R. Co. v. MoUett, 59 nona & St. P. R. Co. v. Denman, 10 Minn. 
 lU. 235. 267 ; Raleigli & A. A. L. R. Co. w. Wicker, 
 
 2 Chicago, R. 1., & P. R. Co. v. Carey, 74 N. C. 220 ; Sacramento Valley R. Co. 
 90 111. 514. V. MofEatt, 6 Cal. 74 ; California Pacific 
 
 8 Evansville, I., & C. S. L. R. Co. v. R. Co. v. Frisbie, 41 Cal. 356. But see 
 
 Fitzpatrick, 10 Ind. 120 ; White Water Alabama & F. R. Co. .-. Burkett, 46 Ala. 
 
 Valley R. Co. v. McClure, 29 Ind. 636 ; 569. 
 
 Montmorency Gravel Road Co. y. Rock, 41 < Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron, 
 
 Ind. 263 ; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. 11 Minn. 515. Wliere the company was 
 
 Horn, 41 Ind. 479 ; Montmorency Gravel held bound to maintain one half of the 
 
 Road Co. V. Stockton, 43 Ind. 328 ; Balti- fence, it was held liable in the assessment 
 
 more, P., & C. R. Co. «. Lansing, 52 Ind. to the cost of the otlier half which would 
 
 229 ; Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. i-. John- fall on the owner. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 
 
 son, 59 Ind. 188 ; Tonica & P. R. Co. v. 4 Paige, 553 ; Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. 
 
 Unsicker, 22 111. 221 ; St. Louis, J., & C. Co., 2 Iowa, 288, 305. 
 R. Co. V. Mitchell, 47 111. 165 ; Peoria & * No,.ti, Eastern R. Co. v. Sineath, 8 
 
 R. I. R. Co. V. Birkett, 62 111. 332 ; Rich. 185 
 
 Greenville & C. R. Co. v. Partlow, 5 Rich. « Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Burson, 
 
 428; Eddings v. Seabrook, 12 Rich. 504; 61 Pa. St. 36f); Penn. & N. Y. R. & C. B. 
 
 Watson V. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 37 Pa. Co. v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. St. 414; Henry w- 
 
 St. 469 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. V. Glaze- Dubuque & P. R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288, 
 
 brook, 1 Bush, 325 ; Vandergrift v. Dela- 810. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 215 
 
 is proper to consider the expense which a prudent man would 
 reasonably incur for that purpose, but not the expense which an 
 owner, for personal reasons, might see fit to incur; and the 
 allowance on account of such changes and erections, should not 
 exceed the depreciation in the value of the property which 
 results from the necessity of making them.^ Likewise the cosi 
 of removing an obstruction which the land-owner may rightfully 
 remove may be a proper mode of calculating his damages.^ He 
 is not entitled to the expense of removing personal property from 
 the land taken.^ 
 
 Exposure to Fire. — The exposure to fire communicated from 
 the company's engines, involving imminent and appreciable dan- 
 ger to buildings situated on the residue of an estate which is in 
 part taken, is to be considered in the assessment of damages, to 
 the extent it diminishes the market value of the remaining land.* 
 A statute liability imposed on the company, irrespective of its 
 care or negligence, for injuries from fire so communicated, does 
 not exclude such exposure as an element of damage, although 
 the owner's indemnity, secured by the statute, should be taken 
 into account in estimating the depreciation caused by the prox- 
 imity of the company's trains.* 
 
 1 Chase v. Worcester, 108 Mass. 60; Minn. 283; Curtis v. St. Paul, S.,&T. F 
 Buell V. Worcester, 119 Mass. 372; Bemis E. Co., 20 Minn. 28; Oregon & C. B. Co. 
 V. Springfield, 122 Mass. 110 ; Common- v. Barlow, 3 Oreg. 311 ; St. Louis & S. R. 
 wealth V. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. 25, 53 ; Co. v. Teters, 68 111. 144 ; Jones u. Chi- 
 Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 103 cago & I. R. Co., 68 111. 380 ; Swinney 
 Mass. 1,5; St. Louis, V., & T. H. R. Co. v. Ft. W., M., & C. R. Co., 59 111. 205; 
 V. Mollett, 59 111. 235 ; Price v. Mil. & St. Small v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 50 
 P. R. Co., 27 Wis. 98 ; Estabrook v. Erie Iowa, 838 ; Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. v. 
 R. Co., 51 Barb. 95. Murdock, 68 Ind" 137 ; Stockport, T., & A. 
 
 2 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Carey, R. Co., Tn re, 33 Law Journ. n. s. 251. 
 90 III. 514. Some authorities regard the risk as too 
 
 ' Central Pacific R. Co. v. Pearson, 35 uncertain and contingent to be considered. 
 
 Cal. 247. Sunbury & E. R. Co. y. Hummell, 27 Pa. 
 
 * Utlca, C, & S. B. Co., In re, 56 Barb. St. 99 ; Lehigh Valley R. Co. i>. Lazarus, 
 
 456 ; Bloomfield & R. N. Gas Light Co. u. 28 Pa. St. 203 ; Patten v. Northern Cent. 
 
 Calkins, 1 Thomp. & C. 549 ; Wilmington R. Co., 33 Pa. St. 426 ; Union Village & 
 
 &R.R.C0.B. Stauffer,60Pa.St.374;Phil. J. R. Co., ?n re, 53 Barb. 457. See Flem- 
 
 & R. R. Co. ti.Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 36G ; Somer- ing v. Chicago, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 
 
 ville & B. R. Co. v. Doughty, 2 Zab. 495 ; 3-53. 
 
 Hatch V. Cincinnati & I. R. Co., 18 Ohio ^ pierce v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 105 
 
 St. 92, 124; Proprietors of Locks & Canals Mass. 199; Bangor & P. R. Co. „. Mc- 
 
 i>. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385, 392 ; Comb, 60 Me. 290 ; Adden v. White Mts. 
 
 Snyder i'. Western Union R. Co., 25 Wis. N. H. R. Co., 55 N. H. 413. 
 60; ColviU v. St. Piul & C. R. Co.. 19 
 
216 THE LA"W OF BAILBOADS. 
 
 Rents. Interruption of Facilities of Communication. — Among 
 elements of damage to be regarded are the difficulty of renting, 
 and loss of rents,' and of crossing from one part to another of 
 divided premises;^ and the interruption of facilities of business 
 and communication attached to the estate.* 
 
 Remote and Fanciful Injuries. — Loss of profits, business, and 
 good-will are not substantive grounds for damages,* nor are they 
 to be specifically considered in estimating the injury caused by the 
 taking of land ; ^ but evidence of the kind and amount of business 
 done, and of the effect upon the business resulting from the rail- 
 road, has been admitted as one mode of calculating the injury.^ 
 
 Mere inconveniences and annoyances, as the overlooking of the 
 premises and obstruction of view,'' increased competition resulting 
 from the railroad,® the larger number of residents or visitors at- 
 tracted to the locality by means of it, and interfering with the 
 owner's privacy,^ are to be rejected. It is not easy to draw the 
 line between inconveniences resulting from social progress to 
 the community at large, though falling unequally on individuals, 
 which are to be borne without compensation,'" and those which 
 
 1 Pittsburg, v., & C. R. Co. v. Rose, « Eddings v. Seabrook, 12 S. C. 504; 
 
 74 Pa. St. 362 ; Henderson v. New York Canandaigua & N. F. R. Co. v. Payne, 16 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 17 Hun, 344, 78 N. Y. 423. Barb. 273 ; Union Village & J. R. Co. v. 
 
 ^ Wilson V. Rockford, R. I., & St.'L. Aikin, 53 Barb. 457; Edmands v. Boston, 
 
 R. Co., 69 111. 273 ; Peoria, A., & D. R. 108 Mass. 535; Cobb v. Boston, 109 Mass. 
 
 Co. V. Sawyer, 71 111. 361 ; Chicago & I. 438. 
 
 R. Co. V. Hopkins, 90 111. 316 ; Sherwood « Boston & W. R. Co. v. Old Colony 
 
 V. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 127 ; R. Co., 12 Cush. 605, .3 Allen, 142; Ed- 
 
 Pittsburg, v., & C. R. Co. v. Bentley, 88 mands v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535; Driver 
 
 Pa St. 178. V. Western Union R. Co., 32 Wis. 569; 
 
 3 Boston & W. R. Co. v. Old Colony B. Western Penn. R. Co. v. Hill, 56 Pa. St. 
 
 Co., 12 Cush. 605, 3 Allen, 142; Eastern 460; Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. r. Boston & M. R., Ill Mass. 125, 21 Minn. 127 ; Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. 
 
 132. V. Murdock, 68 Ind. 137. But see Whit- 
 
 * Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. man v. Boston, & M. R., 3 Allen, 133, 7 
 
 Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385, 389 ; Allen, 313 ; St. Louis, V., & T. H. R. Co. 
 
 Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 v. Capps, 67 III. 607, 72 111. 188. 
 
 Butcher, 148, 171 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. ^ Penny's Case, 7 El. & Bl. 660. 
 
 Northern Turnp. Co., 16 Barb. 100 ; » Harvey v. Lackawanna & B. R. Co., 
 
 Mount Washington Road, Tn re, 35 N. H. 47 Pa. St. 428 ; Adden v. White Mts. R. 
 
 134; Eaton D.Boston, C.,&M. R. Co., 61 N. Co., 55 N. H. 413; Mount Washington 
 
 H. 504, 527. See Ricket v. Metropolitan Road Co., In re, 35 N. H. 134, 146. 
 
 R. Co., L. R. 2 H. L. 175, 6 B. & S. 149 ; » Patten v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 33 
 
 Cameron v. Charing Cross R. Co., 19 C. Pa. St. 426 ; First Parish of Woburn v. 
 
 B. N. s. 764, 16 C. B. n. s. 480 ; Chamber- Middlesex, 7 Gray, 106. See ante, p. 208. 
 
 Iain V. West End of London & C. P. R. '» Patten v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 33 
 
 Co., 2 B. & S. 605, 617 ; Senior v. Metro- Pa. St. 426, 433, 434. 
 politan R. Co., 2 H. & C. 268. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 217 
 
 are direct and peculiar to an individual, and entitling him to reim- 
 bursement for his private loss. But the authorities tend to this 
 result, — that inconveniences not involving any immediate physi- 
 cal injury, such as smoke, vibration, and noise, caused by passing 
 trains, are not an independent ground for compensation ; but so 
 far as they arise from the taking of a person's property, and affect 
 it in a direct and peculiar way, they may, when a part of his lot 
 or tract is taken, be admitted in estimating the depreciation in the 
 value of his entire estate.^ 
 
 Present Use of the Land, and Capacity for other Uses. — The 
 particular use to which the land is applied at the time of the 
 taking is not the test of its value, but its availability for any 
 valuable or beneficial uses to which it would be likely to be put 
 by men of ordinary prudence, should be taken into account.^ 
 It has been well said that the compensation " is to be esti- 
 mated by reference to the uses for which the property is suitable, 
 having regard to the existing business and wants of the com- 
 munity, or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate 
 future." ^ But merely possible or imaginary uses, or the specu- 
 lative schemes of its proprietor, are to be excluded.* It is proper 
 
 1 Bangor & P. R. Co. v. MeComb, 11 Cush. 201 ; Eastern R. Co. v. Boston & 
 60 Me. 290; Proprietors of Locks & M. R., Ill Mass. 125,132; Chandler v. 
 Canals v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co., 125 Mass. 
 385; Presbreyu. Old Colony &N. R. Co., 844; Gardner v. Brookline, 127 Mass. 
 103 Mass. 1; Walker o. Old Colony & 358, 362; Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 
 N. R. Co., 103 Mass. 10; Strulhers v. Mass. 571, 582; Goodin y. Cincinnati &W. 
 Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. Canal Co., 18 Ohio St. 169; Cincinnati & 
 282 ; Bordentown & S. A. Tump. Co. u. S. R. Co. v. Longwortli, 30 Ohio St. 108 ; 
 Camden & A. R. Co., 2 Harrison, 314; Tins- Colvill u. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 19 Minn, 
 man v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 Dutcher, 283 ; Haslam v. Galena & S. W. R. Co., 64 
 148, 171; New York Cent. & H. R. R. 111. 353; South Park Com'rs i>. Dun- 
 Co., In re, 15 Hun, 63; Chicago, M., levy, 91 111. 49; Young v. Harrison, 17 
 & St. P. R. Co. V. Hall, 90 111. 42 ; Hammer- Ga. 30 ; Regina v. Brown, L. R. 2 Q. B. 
 smith & C. R. Co. v. Brand, L. R. 4 H. L. 630. Its use for the sale of intoxicating 
 i71, L. R. 2 Q. B. 223, L. R. 1 Q. B. 130 ; liquors is not a reason for reducing the 
 Duke of Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board damages. Brown v. Providence, W., & 
 of Works, L. R. 5 Exch. 221; Stockport, B. R. Co., 5 Gray, 35. 
 
 T., & A. R. Co., In re, 33Law Journ. n. s. ' Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, 
 
 251 ; ante, pp. 198, 208. 408. 
 
 2 Furman Street, In re, 17 Wend. 649, * Searle v. Lackawanna & B. R. Co., 
 669, 670 ; New York Cent. & H. R. R. 33 Pa. St. 57 ; Dorian v. East Brandywine 
 Co., Inre, 6 Hun, 149 ; Trustees of College & W. R. Co., 46 Pa. St. 520 ; Fleming «. 
 Point V. Dennett, 5 Thomp. & C. 217; Cliicago, D., & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 353; 
 Somerville & E. R. Co. v. Doughty, 2 Worcester v. Great Falls Man. Co., 41 
 Zab. 495; First Parish in Woburn v. Mid- Me. 159 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. 
 dlesex, 7 Gray, 106 ; Dickenson v. Fitch- Cincinnati, S., & C. R. Co., 30 Ohio St. 
 burg, 13 Gray, 546 ; Dwight v. Hampden, 604, 624 ; Powers v. Hazelton & L. R. Co., 
 
218 THE LA"W OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 to put in evidence the present, but not the probable future use of 
 the land, or the intentions of the owner as to such use.-' 
 
 Damages to the Company for Highway and Railroad Crossings. — 
 Where a railroad company is entitled under statutes to compen- 
 sation for other railroads or for highways being laid across its 
 right of way, the damages may include the value of the title or 
 interest taken, and the cost of changes and new structures re- 
 quired by reason of the crossing, but not the inconvenience 
 and interruption occasioned to its business or the increased ex- 
 pense of complying with police regulations imposed by the State for 
 the public convenience and safety.^ Benefits arising from a prob- 
 able increase of travel on the railroad to be caused by the highway, 
 are not to be deducted from the company's damages.^ When a 
 street-railway company is entitled to receive compensation from 
 another company, which has been authorized to run cars upon 
 its tracks, the damages are to include compensation for the use 
 and wear of its tracks, but not for the diminution in its profits 
 or in the value of its franchise.* 
 
 A Proper Construction to be assumed in the Assessment. — Dam- 
 ages are to be assessed upon the assumption that the road will be 
 constructed with due care and skill, and with proper precautions 
 necessary to prevent unnecessary injury to land-owners.* 
 
 Damages by Agreement. — The parties may settle by agreement 
 the amount of damages, notwithstanding a mode is provided by 
 statute.^ A release of damages, caused by the laying out and 
 
 33 Ohio St. 429 ; Burt .;. Wigglesworth, & W. R. Co., In re, 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 
 
 117 Mass. 302; Gardner v. Brookliiie, 127 527, 58 How. Pr. 167 ; Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Mass. 358; Sehna, K., & D. R. Co. «. R. Co. u. Chicago & P. R. Co., 6 Diss. 
 
 Keith, 53 Ga. 178. 219 ; White River Tump. Co. v. Vt. Cent. 
 
 1 Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 R. Co , 21 Vt. 590. 
 
 Minn. 127 ; Pinkham v. Chelmsford, 109 » Old Colony & F. R. R. Co. v. Ply-- 
 
 Mass. 225; Fairbanks u. Fitchburg, 110 mouth County, U Gray, 155; Boston & 
 
 Mass. 224. M. R. v. Middlesex County, 1 Allen, 324. 
 
 2 Old Colony & F. R. R. Co. v. Ply. * Metropolitan R. Co. v. Highland St. 
 mouth County, 14 Gray, 155 ; Mass. Cent. R. Co , 118 Mass. 290. 
 
 R. Co. V. Boston, C, & F. R Co., 121 5 Dearborn v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 
 
 Mass. 124 ; Boston & W. R, Co. v. Old 24 N. H. 179 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. 14. 
 
 Colony R. Co., 12 Cush. 605; Lake Shore Co. „. Gilleland, 56 Pa St. 445; Lyon v. 
 
 & M. S. R. Co. o. Cincinnati, S., & C. R. Green Bay&M. R. Co., 42 Wis. 588 ; ante, 
 
 Co., 30 Ohio St. 604 ; ante, p. 196. See p. 179. 
 
 Lockport & B. R Co., In re, 77 N. Y. 557, "' La Crosse & M. R. Co. v. Seeger, 4 
 
 15 Hun, 3(35, 19 Hun, 38; Boston, H. T., Wis. 268. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 219 
 
 construction of the railroad, is presumed to include those only 
 which are recoverable under the special remedy.^ 
 
 Impiovements while Proceedings are pending, or during an Illegal 
 Possession. — The owner is entitled to the value of his land in its 
 improved condition at the time of the taking, although he has made 
 improvements with knowledge of the contemplated railroad.^ If 
 the company has, with his consent or under color of right, as in 
 the case of proceedings found afterwards to be irregular, made 
 an entry, and laid tracks, or constructed other works which 
 are fixtures, the owner is only entitled to the value iitrespec- 
 tive of such improvements.^ If its entry and possession are 
 altogether wrongful, he has been held entitled to the increased 
 value derived from its works ; * but this claim cannot be sustained 
 on the ground of his right to just compensation, and should be 
 rejected where the company's trespass is merely technical, and 
 in no respect wanton and malicious.® The laying of the rails or 
 similar structures differs essentially from the ordinary transaction 
 of placing fixtures on real estate, and is not governed by the 
 same rules.^ The company can enter to remove rails which it 
 has laid under a license ; ^ but not where it has laid them without 
 lawful authority, as when it has failed to pay compensation and 
 file a location, as required by law.^ 
 
 The owner is not entitled to the increase of value derived from 
 the contemplated railroad as a part of his damages.® 
 
 * Eaton V. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 Iowa, 52 ; Lyon v. Green Bay & M. R. 
 N. H. 504. As to fraud in procuring a re- Co., 42 Wis. 538; Morgan i/. Cliicago & 
 lease of damages, see Oliio & M. R. Co. N. R. Co., 89 Mich. 675. 
 
 V. Batli, 11 Ind. 538. *■ Justice v. Nesquehoning Valley R. 
 
 " Driver v. Western Union R. Co., 32 Co., 87 Pa. St. 28 ; Northern Cent. R. Co. 
 
 Wis. 569; Wall Street, /n re, 17 Barb. 617 ; v. Canton Co., 30 Md. 347; Wagner «. 
 
 State V. Carragan, 7 Vroom, 52 ; Sher- Cleveland & T. R. Co., 22 Ohio St. 563. 
 
 wood V. St. P. & C. II. Co., 21 Minn. 122. But see Price v. Weehawken Ferry Co., 
 
 ' Emerson v. Western Union .R. Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), 31. 
 75 111. 176; Mitchell v. Illinois & St. L. ' Northern Central R. Co. v. Canton 
 
 R. Co., 85 111. 566 ; North Hudson County Co., 30 Md. 347 ; Dietrich v. Murdock, 
 
 E. Co. V. Booraem, 1 Stewart (N. J.), 42 Mo. 279. 
 
 450; Price o. Weehawken Ferry Co., 4 8 Meriam v. Brown, 128 Mass. 301. 
 Stewart (N. J.), 31 ; Miss. & T. R. Co. v. o New Orleans, 0., & G. W. R. Co. v. 
 Devaney, 42 Miss. 555 ; Justice w. Nesque- Lagarde, 10 La. An. 150; Sater v. Bur- 
 honing Valley R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 28. lington & Mt. P. Plank Road Co., 1 Iowa, 
 
 * Graham r. Connersville & N. C. J. R. 886 ; Elizabethtown & P. R. Co. v. Helm, 
 Co., 86 Ind. 463; Long Island R. Co., In 8 Bnsh, 681 ; Carli v. Stillwater & St. P. 
 re, 6 Thomp. & C. 298; United States v. R. Co., 16 Minn. 260. But see, as to the 
 Land in Monterey County, 47 Cal. 515. increase resulting from tlie public ex- 
 
 * California P. R. Co. v. Armstrong, pectation of the improvement, Cobb v. 
 46 Cal. 85; Daniels v. C, L, & N. Co., 41 Boston, 112 Mass. 181, 183. 
 
220 
 
 THE LAW OP EAILBOADS. 
 
 I 
 
 Interest. — Interest from the time of the taking, or the time when 
 the land-owner became entitled to the compensation, to the time 
 of the award or verdict, is to be added to the ^.mount of damages 
 found due to the party, ^ even though the amount may have been 
 deposited in court,^ or the land-owner has not pressed his suit.^ 
 The land-owner is entitled to interest from such time, although 
 he remains, by the permission of the company, in possession for 
 some time after.* But interest is not recoverable for the period 
 when the company could not lawfully have had possession.^ The 
 verdict is presumed to include interest, when the jury were in- 
 structed that the plaintiff was entitled to it, and is not to be 
 added in the judgment to the verdict.® 
 
 Privileges and Reservations to the Land-owner, when to be de- 
 ducted. — The tribunal for assessing the damages must, unless 
 otherwise provided by statute, assess them only in money, and 
 cannot reduce them by imposing conditions on the company and 
 reserving easements, like rights of way across the railroad, to 
 the land-owner,^ or by taking into account contemplated im- 
 provements and erections which the company is not bound by 
 agreement or statute to make, or favors and privileges which 
 
 1 Parks 0. Boston, 15 Pick. 198, 203 ; 
 Commonwealth v. Boston & M. R., 3 
 Cusli. 26; Whitman v. Boston & M. R., 7 
 Allen, 313, 326 ; Presbrey v. Old Colony 
 & N. R. Co., 103 Maes. 1 ; Reed v. Han- 
 over Branch R. Co., 105 Mass. 303 ; Ed- 
 mands v. Boston, 108 Mass. 535 ; Kidder 
 V. Oxford, 116 Mass. 165; Old Colony R. 
 Co. .). Miller, 125 Mass. 1 ; Chandler o. 
 Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co., 125 Mass. 
 644 ; Bangor & P. R. Co. u. McComb, 60 
 Me. 290, 302 ; Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. 
 R. Co. V. Owen, 8 Kan. 409 ; Phil., W., & 
 B R. Co. V. Gesner, 20 Pa. St. 240 ; Dela- 
 ware, L., & W. R. Co. V. Burson, 61 Pa. 
 St. 369 ; Metier v. Easton & A. R. Co., 8 
 Vroora, 222 ; Knauft u. St. Paul, S., &T. F. 
 R. Co., 22 Minn. 173 ; Rhys v. Dare Val- 
 ley R. Co., L. R 19 Eq. Cas. 93. See 
 Illinois & St. L. R. Co. o. McClintock, 68 
 111. 296 ; March v. Portsmouth & C. R. 
 Co., 19 N. H. 372 ; Concord R. Co. u. 
 Greely, 23 N. H. 237 ; Shattuck v. Wilton 
 R., 23 N. H. 269; Cook v. South Park 
 Com're, 61 111. 115. 
 
 2 Atlantic & G. W. E. Co. v. Koblentz, 
 21 Ohio St. 334. 
 
 s Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 
 571, 685. 
 
 < Philadelphia v. Dyer, 41 Pa. St. 463 ; 
 Old Colony R. Co. v. Miller, 125 Mass. 1, 
 5. See Warren v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 
 21 Minn. 424. 
 
 ' South Park Com'rs v. Dunlevy, 91 
 111. 49. 
 
 " Diedrich v. Northwestern Union R. 
 Co., 47 Wis. 662. But see Warren v. St. 
 Paul & P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 424 ; Whit- 
 acre V. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 24 Minn. 
 311. 
 
 ' Hill V. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 7 N. Y. 
 152, 5 Denio, 206 ; Winchester & P. R. 
 Co. V. Washington, 1 Rob. (Va.) 67; 
 Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. i;. Patton, 6 W. 
 Va. 147 ; Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. Hal- 
 stead, 7 W. Va. 301 ; Central Ohio R. Co. 
 V. Holler, 7 Ohio St. 220 ; Chicago, M., & 
 St. P. R. Co. 0. Melville, 66 111. 329; 
 Vandegrift v. Delaware 11. Co., 2 Houst. 
 287 ; Bourgoin v. La Compagnie, L. R. 5 
 App. Cas. 881. See Chapin v. Boston & 
 P. R. Co., 6 Cush. 422; Brown v. Worces- 
 ter, 13 Gray, 31. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 221 
 
 it may voluntarily grant to the land-owner,^ even though he 
 may have already used them.^ The tribunal is sometimes author- 
 ized by statute to impose such conditions, and, when so imposed, 
 their due performance is to be assumed and allowed for in the 
 assessment of the damages ; ^ but it cannot, without special stat- 
 ute authority, impose obligations on the land-owner.* 
 
 Deduction of Benefits. — The "just compensation " secured by 
 the Constitution need not exceed the injury suffered. These 
 terms are appropriate only to an injury or loss, and where none 
 is found finally to occur, on a comparison of advantages and 
 disadvantages, a payment of money is not required by any rule of 
 justice. The cost of public improvements should not be swollen 
 by the exactions of citizens who have already received full satis- 
 faction in the peculiar and direct increase of the value of their 
 property caused by svich improvements. Accordingly, in deter- 
 mining the amount of the compensation, the benefits accruing to 
 the owner's remaining property may be deducted from the sum of 
 his damages, which is computed upon the value of the property 
 appropriated and the injury to his remaining estate.^ In some 
 jurisdictions they have been held to be the subject of deduction 
 even when common to the community, and not peculiar to the 
 individual.^ 
 
 The terms " just compensation," used in constitutions, have, 
 on the theory that money only is intended by them, been held 
 in some jurisdictions to exclude an allowance for benefits as a 
 deduction from the value of the land taken, though admitting them 
 
 1 Ham V. Salem, 100 Mass. 350 ; Pres- Indiana Cent R. Co. v. Hunter, 8 Ind. 
 breyu. OldColony &N. R. Co., lOSMass. 74; Holton v. Milwaukie, 31 Wis. 27; 
 1; Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. Nichols v. Bridgeport, 23 Conn. 189; 
 571 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Springfield New Orleans, O., & G. W. R. Co. ;;. 
 & N. W. R. Co., 67 111. 142 ; Pittsburg, Lagarde, 10 La. An. 150 ; Rexf ord o. 
 v., & C. R. Co. i). Rose, 74 Pa. St.-362. Knight, 15 Barb. 627 ; Newby v. Platte 
 
 2 Old Colony R. Co. v. Miller, 125 County, 25 Mo. 258 ; Louisiana & F. Plank 
 Mass. 1. Road Co. v. Pickett, 25 Mo. 635; Penn. 
 
 8 Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., R. Co. v. Heister, 8, Pa. St. 445; White- 
 
 103 Mass. 1 ; Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 man v. Wilmington & S. R. Co., 2 Har- 
 
 Cush. 536. ring. (Del.) 514. 
 
 « Jefferis v. PhU., W., & B. R. Co., 3 ^ California P. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 
 
 Houst. 447. 46 Cal. 85; San Francisco, A., & S. R. 
 
 6 Symonds v. Cincinnati, 14 Ohio, 147 ; Co. v. Caldwell, 31 Cal. 367 ; Alton & S. 
 
 Kramer !). (Ueveland & P. R. Co., 5 Ohio R. Co. v. Carpenter, 14 111. IWO; New 
 
 St. 140; Columbus, P., & I. R. Co. v. Orleans?. R. Co. «. Gay, 31 La. An. 430. 
 
 Simpson 5 Ohio St. 251; Malone v. See Washington Cemetery v. Prospect 
 
 Toledo, '34 Ohio St. 541, 28 Ohio St. Park & C. I. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 591. 
 643; Molntire v. State, 5 Blackf. 384; 
 
222 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 as an offset to the injury done to the owner's remaining land.' 
 But a distinction between his right to the possession of the 
 piece occupied exclusively for tlie public use, and his right to be 
 protected in the enjoyment of his remaining land, does not seem 
 substantial.^ These terms have been sometimes held to prohibit 
 the offset of benefits even as against damages to the remaining 
 land. 3 
 
 The deduction of benefits in the assessment of damages is pro- 
 hibited by the constitutions of some States, — as Ohio,* Kansas,^ 
 and Alabama ; ^ and by statutes in other States.^ 
 
 The Deduction limited to Peculiar Benefits. — The benefits which 
 maj"- be considered in reduction of the damages are generally con- 
 fined to such as are direct and peculiar to the owner, excluding 
 those which he shares with other members of the community 
 whose property is not taken. This rule prevails where the stat- 
 ute expressly authorizes the deduction of benefits, or, being silent 
 on the point, is held not to prohibit it.^ The exclusion of common 
 
 ' Sutton V. Louisville, 5 Dana, 28; 
 Jacob (,-. Louisville, 9 Dana, 114 ; Hen- 
 derson & N. R. Co. V. Dickerson, 17 B. 
 Monr. 173 ; Louisville & N. K. Co. i: 
 Thompson, 18 B. Monr. 735 ; Elizabeth- 
 town & P. R. Co. V. Helm, 8 Bush, 681 ; 
 New Orleans, O., & G. W. R. Co. v. La- 
 garde, 10 La. An. 150; Vicksburg, S., & 
 T. R. Co. V. Calderwood, 15 La. An. 481 
 Jones V. Wills Valley R. Co., 30 Ga. 43 
 Atlanta f. Central R. & B. Co., 53 Ga, 
 120 ; Hayes v. Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. R. 
 Co., 54 111. 373 ; Wilson v. Rockford, R. 
 I., & St. L. R. Co., 50 111. 273 ; Peoria, 
 P., & J. R. Co. V. Laurie, 63 III. 264 ; Car- 
 penter V. Jennings, 77 III. 250 ; Todd v. 
 Kankakee & 1. R. R. Co., 78 111. 530; 
 Oregon Cent. R. Co. t>. Wait, 3 Greg. 91 ; 
 Woodfolk u. Nashville & C. R. Co., 2 
 Swan, 422; East Tenn. & V. R. Co. v. 
 Love, 3 Head, 63 ; Paducali & M, R. Co. 
 V. Stovnll, 12 Heisk. 1 ; Miss. R. Co. <,-. 
 McDonnld, 12 Heisk. 54; Mitchell v. 
 Thornton, 21 Gratt. 164; Milwaukie & 
 M. R. Co. V. Eble, 4 Chandler (Wis), 
 72; Buffalo Bayou, B., & C. R. Co. v. 
 Ferris, 26 Tex. 588; Paris a. Mason, 37 
 Tex. 447 ; Shipley v. Bait. & P. R. Co., 
 34 Md. 336. 
 
 2 Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron, 
 11 Minn. 515, 538. 
 
 5 Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227 ; Isom 
 V. Miss. Cent. R. Co., 36 Miss. 300; Peu- 
 rice V. Wallis, 37 Miss. 172. 
 
 * Giesy «. Cincinnati, W., & Z. E. Co., 
 4 Ohio St. 308 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. 
 Ball, 5 Ohio St. 568 ; Little Miami R. Co. 
 V. Collett, 6 Ohio St. 182. 
 
 5 St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. Orr, 8 
 Kan. 419 ; Hunt v. Smith, 9 Kan. 137 ; 
 Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. v. Black- 
 shire, 10 Kan. 477. 
 
 " Alabama & F. R. Co. v. Burkett, 46 
 Ala. 569, 579. 
 
 ^ McMahon v. Cincinnati, & C. S. L. 
 R. Co., 5 Ind. 413; Newcastle & R. Co. v. 
 Brumback, 5 Ind. 543 ; Evansville, I., & 
 C. S. L. R. Co. u. Fitzpatrick, 10 Ind. 
 120; White Water Valley R. Co. v. 
 McClure, 20 Ind. 536 ; Grand Rapids &L 
 R. Co. V. Horn, 41 Ind. 479; Swayze ». 
 New Jersey Midland R. Co., 7 Vroom, 
 295. 
 
 ' Meacham v. Fitchburg R. Co., 4 
 Cush. 291 ; Upton u. South Reading 
 Branch R. Co., 8 Cush. GOO ; Davis v. 
 Charles River Branch R. Co., 11 Cush. 
 506 ; Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13 Gray 
 546; Whitman v. Boston & M. E., 7 
 Allen, 313, 3 Allen, 133; Allen w. Charles- 
 town, 109 Mass. 243; Upham v. Worces- 
 ter, 113 Mass. 97; Parka v. Hampden 
 
( 
 EMINENT DOMAIN. 223 
 
 benefits is put on the ground that their admission would impose 
 on certain individuals unequal burdens for the common good, by 
 exacting contributions only from those whose property has been 
 taken, and relieving others who are to derive an equal advantage 
 from the public work. To this reason may be added another, — 
 that common benefits are of "sueh a general and indefinite char- 
 acter as not to admit of any certain or approximate calculation. 
 
 The distinction between common and peculiar benefits is not 
 clearly drawn. The rise of real estate in a town or place, conse- 
 quent upon new facilities of communication, which tend to in- 
 crease its population, attract business, and promote its prosperity, 
 is clearly a general advantage. The distinction operates chiefly to 
 exclude as an offset to a land-owner's damages the consideration 
 of the increased salable value of his real estate, so far as it is 
 derived from such additional facilities, conveniences, and attrac- 
 tions.^ But if the benefit is particular in its nature and effect, it 
 is the subject of dediiction, although several or many share in it. 
 Thus, if the construction of a railway should cause the draining 
 of land owned in severalty by a number of proprietors, the 
 benefit to each estate would be peculiar and direct, and should be 
 estimated in reduction of the damages.^ Other illustrations of 
 such a benefit, even when shared by other persons, are the loca- 
 tion of a railway station on or near the land-owner's lot ; ^ the 
 filling up of a canal in which he had an interest, with a benefit 
 
 County, 120 Mass. 395; Mount Washing- Minnesota "Valley R. Co. v. Doran, 17 
 
 ton Eoiid, In re, 35 N. H. 134 ; Carpen- Minn. 188; Weir v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. 
 
 ter V. Lantluff, 42 N. U. 218; Adden v. R. Co., 18 Minn. 1-55; James River & K. 
 
 White Mis. N. 11. R., 55 N. H. 413; R. Co. v. Turner, 9 Leigh, 313; Chesa- 
 
 Nicholson v. New York & N. H. 11. Co., peake & 0. R. Co. v. Tyree, 7 W. Va. 
 
 22 Conn. 74, 88 ; Nichols v. Bridgeport, 693 ; Raleigh & A. A. L. li Co. v. Wicker, 
 
 28 Conn. 189; Hornstein v. Atlantic & G. 74 N. C. 220; Shipley v. Bait. & P. R. 
 
 W. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 87 ; Newby v. Co., 34 Md. 336 ; Vicksburg, S., & T. R. 
 
 Platte County, 25 Mo. 258,275; Louisi- Co. v. Calderwood, 15 La. An. 481; 
 
 ana & F. Plank R. Co. v. Pickett, 25 Senior v. Metropolitan R. Co., 2 H. & 
 
 Mo. 535; Pacific R. Co. v. Chrystal, 25 Mo. Colt. 258. 
 
 544; St. Louis & St. J. R. Co. V. Richard- ' Meacham v. Fitchburg R. Co., 4 
 Bon, 45 Mo. 466; Lee v. Tebo & N. R. Co., Cush. 291, 297 ; Upton i . South Reading 
 53 Mo. 178 ; Quincy, M., & P. R. Co. i/. Branch R., 8 Cush. 600; Allen v. Charles- 
 Ridge, 57 Mo. 599; Hoslier v. Kansas town, 109 Mass. 243, 246; Adden v. 
 City, St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 60 Mo. 303 ; White Mts. N. H. R., 55 N. H. 413. 
 Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. i: Black, 58 111. ^ Donovan v. Springfield, 125 Mass. 
 83; Keithsburg & E. R. Co. v. Henry, 79 371. 
 
 111. 290 ; Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Wal- ' Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch R., 6 
 
 dron, 11 Minn. 615; Minnesota Cent. R. Allen, 115; Browne. Providence, W., & 
 
 Co. V. McNaraara, 13 Minn. 508; Carii v. B. R. Co., 5 Gray, 35; Hayes v. Ottawa, 
 
 Stillwater & St. P. R. Co., 16 Minn. 260; 0., & F. R. V. R. Co., 54 111. 373. 
 
224 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS.' 
 
 accruing to his estate ; ^ and a more convenient access or wider 
 front.2 
 
 The Deduction limited to the Particular Tract which is in part 
 taken. — The deduction is also limited to benefits affecting the 
 same tract or lot, to the exclusion of those which affect only other 
 separate and distinct property of the same owner.^ In taking 
 additional land after the original construction of the railroad, no 
 deduction is to be made for an appreciation in value, caused by 
 such original construction.* 
 
 A benefit which is only personal knd not affecting the land 
 itself, as the owner's profits in selling materials to the company 
 is not to be deducted.^ 
 
 Evidence. Sales of Other Similar Land. — Actual sales of Other 
 similar land in the vicinity, made near the time at which the value 
 of the land taken is to be determined, are admissible as evidence 
 to determine the amount of compensation; but such other land, 
 to be a standard of comparison, must be similar in character and 
 situation, and the sale must not have been remote in time.^ 
 Whether there is the required similarity in the land, and near- 
 ness in time, so as to make the evidence admissible, is largely in 
 the discretion of the officer or judge presiding.'' His discretion, 
 
 1 Whitman v. Boston & M. R. Co., 3 Co., 13 Met. 316; Boston & W. R. Co. v. 
 Allen, 183, 7 Allen, 313. See Milwaukie Old Colony & F. E. R. Co., 3 Allen, 142 
 &M. B. Co. V. Eble, 4 Chandler (Wis.), Paine v. Boston, 4 Allen, 168; Benham 
 72. V. Dunbar, 103 Mass. 365 ; Edinands v. 
 
 2 Allen V. Charlestown, 109 Mass. 243; Boston, 108 Mass. 535; March v. Ports- 
 Hilbourne v. Suffolk, 120 Mass. 393. mouth & C. R. Co., 19 N. H. 372; Con 
 
 3 Meaeham v. Fitehburg R. Co., 4 cord R. Co. v. Greely, 23 N. H. 237 
 Cush. 291, 298; St. Louis. V., & T. H. King v. Iowa Midland R. Co., 84 Iowa| 
 E. Co. V. Brown, 58 111. 61 ; Todd v. 458. Contra, East Penn. R. Co. !■. Hies 
 Kankakee & I. R. Co., 78 111. 530; Buf- ter, 40 Pa. 53; Pittsburg, V., &C.R. Co 
 falo Bayou, B., & C. R. Co. v. Ferris, 26 v. Rose, 74 Pa. 362 ; Penn. & N. T. R. & 
 Tex. 588 ; Paducah & M. R. Co. t). Stovall, C. Co. v. Bunnell, 81 Pa. 414; Central 
 1 Heisk. 1 ; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Pacific R. Co. v. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247 ; 
 Gilson, 8 Watts, 243 ; Harrisburg & P. Stinson's Case, 6 Northwest. Rep. 786. 
 E. Co. V. Moore, 4 Week. Not. Cas. 532. ' Shattuek v. Stoneliara Branch E. 
 
 * Virginia & T. R. Co. v. Lovejoy, 8 Co., 6 Allen, 115; Presbrey v. Old Col- 
 
 Nev. 100. ony & F. R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 1 ; Beu- 
 
 5 Minnesota "Valley R. Co. v. Doran, ham v. Dunbar, 103 Mass. 365 ; Green v. 
 
 17 Minn. 188. As to a benefit derived Fall River, 118 Mass. 262; Gardner v. 
 
 from the removal of a cemetery caused Brookline, 127 Mass. 358, 863 ; Montclair 
 
 by the railroad, see Minn. Cent. R. Co. v. R. Co. v. Benson, 7 Vroom, 567 ; Stin- 
 
 McNamara, 13 Minn. 508. son's Case, 6 Northwest. Eep. 784. 
 
 ' Wyman u. Lexington & W. C. E. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 225 
 
 however, is not unlimited, and if he admits evidence of other 
 sales of land so dissimilar in position and capacity for use, or of 
 sales so remote in time that they could afford no just measure 
 of the value of the land taken, or if he rejects evidence of sales 
 which clearly ought to have been admitted, a new trial will 
 be granted.! Voluntary sales of similar land in the vicinity, 
 made to the company, are admissible to prove the value of the 
 land in question ; but an amount fixed by a jury or arbitrators, or 
 paid compulsorily,^ or as a compromise, or by agreement with the 
 owner as a gross sum both for the land purchased and damages to 
 the residue,^ is to be excluded as evidence. The price paid by 
 the owner for his land, though open to explanation, is admissible 
 against him.* 
 
 Offers and Admissions. — Offers made by third parties for the 
 land in controversy are not admissible to prove its value ; ^ nor 
 are they admissible when made by the company by way of com- 
 promise, or in settlement of damages.® Such offers for the pur- 
 chase of bther lands, similarly situated, or agreements for their 
 purchase, which have not been carried into effect, are also to be 
 rejected.'' The owner's declarations and admissions as to the 
 value of his land are admissible against him.^ 
 
 Opinions as to Value.' — The opinions of witnesses, conversant 
 with the value of the land taken, are admissible to prove such 
 value ; and, where a part only is taken, to prove the value of 
 the whole before the taking, and the value of what remains after 
 the taking.® They are admissible where a lessee petitions' for 
 
 ' Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Co., 8 Cush. 600 ; Davis v. Charles Eiver 
 
 Co., 122 Mass. 305 ; Paine v. Boston, 4 Branch R. Co., 11 Cush. 506. 
 
 Allen, 169. ' Davis v. Charles River Branch R. 
 
 'i Wyman v. Lexington & W. C. R. Co., Co., 11 Cush. 506 ; Chapin v. Boston & P. 
 
 13 Met. 316, 326 ; White v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 6 Cush. 422 ; Winnisimmet Co. v. 
 
 Co., 4 Cush. 440; Bemis u. Springfield, Grueby, 111 Mass. 543; Montclair R. Co 
 
 122 Mass. 110. v. Benson, 7 Vroom, 557; Lehmicke v. 
 
 8 Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 19 Minn. 
 
 108 Mass. 1; Cobb ... Boston, 112 Mass. 464; ConcordR.Co.v.Greely,23N.H.237. 
 
 181. ^ East Brandywine & W. R. Co. o. 
 
 * Ham V. Salem, 100 Mass. 350. Ranck, 78 Pa. St. 454; Concord R. Co. ^. 
 
 5 Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13 Gray, 546 ; Greely , 23 N. H. 237, 242. See Webber 
 Fowler V. County Com'rs, 6 Allen, 92 ; «. Eastern R. Co., 2 Met. 147. As to ad- 
 Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571, mission of the owner's sworn statements 
 582 ; St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. On, 8 made to assessors for the purposes of tax- 
 Kan. 419 ; Selma, R., & D. R. Co. e. Keith, ation, see Virginia & T. R. Co. v. Henry, 
 63 Ga. 178. 8 Nev. 165. 
 
 •^ Upton V. South Reading Branch R. ' Wymani). Lexington &W.C. R. Co., 
 
 15 
 
226 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 damages to prove the rental value of the property leased.^ Such 
 witnesses are competent, not strictly as experts, having ■ peculiar 
 skill or scientific attainments, but as persons having particular 
 knowledge of facts in issue.^ They need not have been the 
 owners, or even the buyers or sellers of land, or have heard of 
 sales directly from buyers or sellers ; but it is only necessary that 
 they should be acquainted with the property taken, and have 
 acquired in some way information sufficient to qualify them to 
 give an opinion.^ The test has been met in some cases by slight 
 evidence,* but at least some special opportunities for forming a 
 judgment should appear.^ Whether the witness is qualified to 
 give an opinion is a question largely within the discretion of the 
 judge or officer presiding at the trial.^ 
 
 The following have been admitted to testify as to the value 
 
 13 Met. 316 ; Walker v. Boston, 8 Cush. 
 279 ; Dwight v. County Com'rs, 11 Cush. 
 201 ; Shaw v. Charlestown, 2 Gray, 107 ; 
 Eussell V, Horn Pond Branch K. Co., 4 
 Gray, 607; West Newbury v. Chase, 5 
 Gray, 421 ; Fowler v. Middlesex, 6 Allen, 
 92 ; Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch R., 6 
 Allen, 115 ; Swan v, Middlesex, 101 Mass. 
 173; Sexton v. North Bridgewater, 116 
 Mass. 200; Tucker v. Mass. R. Co., 118 
 Mass. 546 ; Snow v. Boston & M. R., 65 Me. 
 230 ; Pearl Street Case, 19 Wend. 651 ; 
 Troy & B R. Co. v. Lee, 13 Barb. 169 ; 
 Troy & B R. Co. v. Northern Tump. Co., 
 16 Barb. 100, 104 ; Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 
 183 ; Robertson v. Knapp, 85 N. Y. 91 ; 
 Sater v. Burlington & Mt. P. Plank Road, 
 1 Iowa, 386 ; Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. 
 Co., 2 Iowa, 288, 311; Dalzell v. Daven- 
 port, 12 Iowa, 437 ; Harrison v. Iowa 
 Midland R. Co., 36 Iowa, 323 ; East Penn. 
 R. Co. u. Heister, 40 Pa. St. 53 ; Brown 
 0. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495; East Penn. R. 
 Co. V. Hottenstine, 47 Pa. St. 28; Pitts- 
 burg & C. R. Co. V. Rose, 74 Pa. St. 
 362 ; Illinois & W. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 
 
 18 111. 257; Lafayette, B., & M. B. 
 Co. i>. Winslow, 66 111. 219; Evans- 
 ville, I., & C. S. L. R. Co. v. Cochran, 10 
 Ind. 560 ; Frankfort & K. R. Co. v. Wind- 
 sor, 51 Ind. 238 ; Simmons v. St. Paul 
 & C. R. Co., 18 Minn. 184 ; Colvill a. St. 
 Paul & C. R. Co., 19 Minn. 283;Lehmicke 
 V. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 19 Minn. 
 464 ; St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. v. Murphy, 
 
 19 Minn. 500 ; Curtis v. St. Paul, S., & T. 
 
 F. R. Co.,,20 Minn. 28; Sherwood v. St. 
 Paul & C. R. Co., 21 Minn. 127 ; Hosher 
 V. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 60 
 Mo. 303 ; Tate v. M., K., & T. R. Co., 64 
 Mo. 149 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Ball, 
 5 Ohio St. 568; Snyder v. Western 
 Union R. Co., 25 Wis. 60 ; Missouri River, 
 Ft. S., & R. Co. V. Owen, 8 Kan. 409; 
 Selma, R., & D. R. Co. v. Keith, 53 Ga. 178. 
 
 1 Lawrence v. Boston, 119 Mass. 126. 
 
 2 Shattuck V. Stoneham Branch R. 
 Co., 6 Allen", 115; Swan v. Middlesex, 
 101 Mass. 173; Pinkham v. Chelmsford, 
 109 Mass. 225 ; Snow v. Boston & U. E., 
 65 Me. 2.30; Frankfort & K. R. Co. v. 
 Windsor, 51 Ind. 238; Diedrichw. North- 
 western U. R. Co., 47 Wis. 662. 
 
 ' Whitman w. Boston &M. R., 7 Allen, 
 313. It is not required that the witness 
 should himself have been upon the land. 
 Lehmioke v. St. Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 
 19 Minn. 464. 
 
 * Whitman v. Boston & M. R., 7 Al- 
 len, 318 ; Lehmicke v. St. Paul, S., & T. 
 F. E. Co., 19 Minn. 464. 
 
 5 Flint V. Flint, 6 Allen, 34 ; Whitney 
 V. Boston, 98 Mass. 312 ; Boston & M. E. 
 V. Montgomery, 119 Mass. 114; Buffumu. 
 New York & B. E. Co., 4 E. I. 221 ; Cen- 
 tral Pacific E. Co. V. Pearson, 35 Cal. 247. 
 
 " Swan V. Middlesex, 101 Mass. 173 ; 
 Tucker v. Mass. Cent. E. Co., 118 Mass. 
 546; Boston & M. E. i,-. Montgomery, 
 119 Mass. 114; Lawrence v. Boston, 119 
 Mass. 126; Chandler v. Jamaica Pond 
 Aqueduct Co., 125 Mass. 544. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 
 
 227 
 
 of the land taken : municipal assessors accustomed to appraise 
 property for the purpose of taxation,i although their official valu- 
 ations are not admissible ; ^ county commissioners or selectmen 
 who have assessed damages for land taken for public use ; ^ per- 
 sons living near, who have bought and sold, or have known 
 by hearsay of sales ; * farmers resident in the neighborhood 
 who are acquainted with the property, and have in some way 
 become qualified to give an opinion as to its value ; ^ and other 
 persons living in the neighborhood are, it has been held, presumed 
 to have sufficient knowledge to testify as to the value, leaving the 
 weight of their testimony to be determined by the jury.^ 
 
 Opinions as to the Amount of Damage. — Opinions are admis- 
 sible as to the amount of damage or benefit resulting to an 
 estate from the construction and working of a railroad.^ The 
 amount may also be calculated by comparing the valuations of 
 the property before and after the taking, as made by the wit- 
 nesses,® — a method which is relieved of the objection that the 
 amount of the damages is the issue to be found by the jury.^ 
 
 I Whitman v. Boston & M. R., 7 Al- 
 len, 313 ; Swan v. Middlesex, 101 Mass. 
 173 ; Sexton v. North Bridgewater, 116 
 Mass. 200; Chandler v. Jamaica Pond 
 Aqueduct Co., 12-5 Mass. 544. 
 
 ^ Brown o. Providence, W., & B. R. 
 Co., 5 Gray, 85 ; Flint u. Flint, 6 Allen, 
 34; Kenerson v. Henry, 101 Mass. 152; 
 Oregon Cascade R. Co. v. Baily, 3 Oreg. 
 164. 
 
 ' Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13 Gray, 
 546; Fowler v. County Coni'rs, 8 Allen, 
 92 ; Webber v. Eastern R. Co., 2 Met. 147. 
 
 * Walker o. Boston, 8 Cush. 279 
 Russell V. Horn Pond Branch R. Co., 4 
 Gray, 607 ; Fowler v. County Com'rs, 6 
 Allen, 92; Pinkham v. Chelmsford, 109 
 Mass. 225; East Penn. R. Co. o. Hotten- 
 Btine, 47 Pa. St. 28. 
 
 6 Walker v. Boston, 8 Cush. 279 ; Rus- 
 sell ti. Horn Pond Branch R. Co., 4 Gray, 
 607; West Newbury v. Chase, 5 Gray, 
 421 ; Synder v. Western Union R. Co., 25 
 Wis. 60; Robertson ./. Knapp, 35 N. Y. 
 91. 
 
 » Penn. &N. Y. R. & C. Co. v. Bunnell, 
 81 Pa. St. 414. 
 
 ' Vandine o. Burpee, 13 Met. 288; 
 
 Brainard v. Boston & N. Y. R. Co., 12 
 Gray, 407 ; Shattuck v. Stoneham Branch 
 R. Co., 6 Allen, 115; Swan v. Middlesex, 
 101 Mass. 173 ; Jacksonville, A., & St. L. 
 R. Co. V. Caldwell, 21 111. 75; Galena & 
 S. W. R. Co. V. Haslam, 73 111. 494; 
 Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Woosley, 85 111. 
 370 ; Snyder v. Western Union R. Co., 25 
 Wis. 60 ; Diedrich v. Northwestern Union 
 R. Co., 47 Wis. 662 ; Snow v. Boston &M. 
 B., 65 Me. 230. ' 
 
 » Snow u. Boston & M. R., 65 Me. 
 230; Farrand v. Chicago &N. W. R. Co., 
 21 Wis. 435 ; Diedrich v. Northwestern 
 Union R. Co., 47 Wis. 662; Curtis v. St. 
 Paul, S., & T. F. R. Co., 20 Minn. 28 ; 
 Sherwood v. St. Paul & C. R. Co., 21 
 Minn. 127 ; Shaw v. Charlestown, 2 Gray, 
 107 ; Dwight v. County Com'rs, 11 Cush. 
 201; Swan w. Middlesex, 101 Mass. 173; 
 Carter v. Thurston, 58 N. H. 104 ; Houston 
 & T. C. R. Co. 0. Knapp, 51 Tex. 592, 
 569. See Watson v. Pittsburg & C. R. 
 Co., 37 Pa. St. 469. 
 
 ' This is the ground on which the evi- 
 dence has been excluded in some cases. 
 Atlantic & G. W. R. Co. v. Campbell, 
 4 Ohio St. 583 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. 
 
228 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 Some authorities confine the witness to a statement of the par- 
 ticular injuries, leaving the jury to estimate the compensation 
 due on account of them to the land-owners.^ 
 
 Opinions on Various Matters affecting the Damages. — Opinions as 
 to the value of other lands similar to that in controversy ,2 or as to 
 the effect of the construction of the railroad upon such other lands,^ 
 are not admissible. Witnesses having special knowledge and expe- 
 rience in such matters may testify to the increased expense and in- 
 convenience of carrying on a farm by reason of the railroad ; * to 
 the benefit likely to result to land from the location of a station 
 near it; ^ the probable injury which a particular structure or erec- 
 tion would cause to the remaining land ; ^ the effect of operating 
 a railroad on .the rate of insurance,'^ or on the rent ^ of buildings 
 situated near it ; and the capacity of the land for valuable uses.^ 
 But the inquiry must be of a nature which admits of a judgment, 
 founded on experience, and not one which admits only of specu- 
 lation and conjecture.^" Thus, opinions are inadmissible as to the 
 value of a reversion in a railway location, where it is impossible 
 to determine the duration of an existing easement.'^ Opinions as 
 to matters indefinite and prospective in their nature, — such, for 
 
 V. Ball, 5 Ohio St. 568 ; Chicago & A. E. 480 ; Concord R. Co. v. Greely, 23 N. H. 
 
 Co. V. Springfield & N. W. E. Co., 67 111. 237. 
 
 H2. 4 Eockford, R. I., & Sf. L. E. Co. v. 
 
 1 Rochester & S. E. Co. v. Budlong, McKinley, 64 111. 338 ; Milwaukie & M. 
 6 How. Pr. 467; Troy & B. R. Co. u. R. Co. v. Eble, 4 Chandler (Wis.), 72; 
 Northern Tump. Co., 16 Barb. 100; Can- Tucker v. Mass. Cent. R. Co., 118 Mass. 
 andaigua & N. F. R. Co. v. Payne, 16 646 ; Winona & St. P. R. Co. v. Waldron, 
 Barb. 273 ; Lincoln v. Saratoga & S. E. Co., 11 Minn. 515. 
 
 23 Wend. 425 ; Bloomfield & R. Nat. Gas ^ Hayes v. Ottawa, O., & F. R. V. E. 
 
 Light Co. V. Calkins, 1 Thomp. & C. 549 ; Co., 54 III. 373 ; Shaw v. Charlestown, 2 
 
 Montgomery & W. P. R. Co. v. Varner, Gray, 107. 
 
 19 Ala. 185 ; Alabama & F. R. Co. v. « Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 
 
 Burkett, 42 Ala. 83 ; Eyansville, I., & C. Co., 125 Mass. 544. 
 
 S. E. Co. V. Fitzpatriok, 10 Ind, 120 ; ' Webber v. Eastern R. Co., 2 Met. 
 
 Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 147. 
 
 Ind. 247, 480 ; Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. « Selma&M. E. Co. v. Knapp,42 Ala. 
 
 /■. Stoner, 59 Ind. 579 ; Elizabethtown & 480 ; Pittsburg, V., & C. E. Co. v. Rose, ■ 
 
 P. R. Co. V. Helm, 8 Bush, 681 ; Dalzell 74 Pa. St. 362. 
 
 V. Davenport, 12 Iowa, 437 ; Prosser v. ' Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 
 
 Wapello County, 18 Iowa, 327; Russell Co., 125 Mass. 544. 
 
 7>. Burlington, 30 Iowa, 262 ; Harrison v. i" Elizabethtown & P. R. Co. v. Helm, 
 
 Iowa Midland R. Co., 36 Iowa, 323. 8 Bush, 681 ; Central Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Wyman v. Lexington & W. C. R. Pearson, 85 Cal. 247 ; Troy & B. E. Co. 
 Co., 13 Met. 316; Shattuck v. Stonehara v. Northern Tump. Co., 16 Barb. 100. 
 Branch E. Co., 6 Allen, 115. n Boston & W. E. Co. v. Old Colony & 
 
 s Selma & M. E. Co. v. Knapp, 42 Ala. F. E. Co., 3 Allen, 142. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 229 
 
 instance, as the rental value of land which is vacant, if a suitable 
 and proper building were erected upon it,^ or as to the probable 
 future use of the property ,2 — are to be excluded. An opinion 
 on a question of legal duty is not admissible.^ 
 
 Ground3 for Opinions. — Witnesses testifying to the value or 
 amount of injury may, when examined in chief, state the facts 
 and reasons on which their opinions are founded.* They have 
 even been allowed to repeat, as such reasons, the statements 
 made to them by third parties ; but the jury ought to be instructed 
 to disregard hearsay evidence introduced in this way. Such wit- 
 nesses may be asked as to their having previously testified in sim- 
 ilar hearings, in order to test their qualification.^ 
 
 Proof of Mode of Construction. — In case of the assessment of 
 damages before the construction of the railroad, proof of what 
 is required in its legal and proper construction is admissible.^ 
 The company's plans may be shown in evidence for this pur- 
 pose.'^ Where the assessment is made after the construction, the 
 jury may consider the state of facts existing at the time of the 
 trial .^ 
 
 Damages Recoverable for an ITnlaTvful Entry. Injuries of a Perma- 
 nent Nature. — The Special remedy applies only to a legal appropri- 
 ation of private property, and the remedies at common law are 
 
 1 Burt V. Wigglesworth, 117 Mass. v. Haines, 10 Kan. 439 ; Atchison, T., & 
 
 302; Gardner v. Brookline, 127 Mass. S. F. R. Co. 0. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 
 
 308. 477. 
 
 ^ Fairbanks v. Fitchburg, 110 Mass. * Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct 
 
 224 ; Pinkham v. Chehnsford, 109 Mass. Co., 125 Mass. 544. 
 225, ° Nason v. 'Woonsocket Union E. Co., 
 
 8 Chicago & A. R. Co. o. Springfield 4 R. I. 377. See Thompson v. Mil. & St. 
 
 & N. W. R. Co., 67 111. 142. P. R. Co., 27 Wis. 93 ; Price v. Milwaukie 
 
 < Dickenson v. Fitchburg, 13 Gray, & St. P. R. Co., 27 Wis. 98. 
 546; Dwight v. County Com'rs, 11 Cush. ' Jacksonville & S. R. Co. v. Kidder, 
 
 201 ; Sexton v. North Bridgewater. 116 21 111. 131; St. Louis, J., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Mass. 200; Hawkins v. Fall River, 119 Mitchell, 47 111. 165; Peoria & R. I. R. 
 
 Mass. 94 ; Gardner v. Brookline, 127 Mass. Co. v. Birkett, 62 111. 332. The com- 
 
 358; Brown v. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495; pany is held in the Illinois cases to be 
 
 Illinois & W. R. Co. v. Von Horn, 18 111. liable to an action for injury caused by 
 
 257 ; Lafayette, B., & M. R. Co., v. Wins- deviation from its plans, 
 low, 66 111. 219 ; Snyder v. Western ' Hayes v. Ottawa, 0., & F. R. V. R. 
 
 Union R. Co., 25 Wis. 60. The witness Co., 54 111. 373; Dearborn v. Boston, C, 
 
 may be cross-examined as to the reasons & M. R. Co., 24 N. H. 179. See Watson 
 
 of his opinion. Missouri, K., & T. R. Co. v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 37 Pa. St. 469. 
 
230 THE LAW OP KAILBOADS. 
 
 available where the appropriation is without authority of law.^ If 
 the company makes an unlawful entry to construct its road, it is 
 liable in an action of trespass for the injury accruing prior to 
 the commencement of the action. The satisfaction of the judg- 
 ment does not, however, like the payment of the award in pro- 
 ceedings for condemnation, make the appropriation legal, but the 
 company remains liable to successive actions of trespass for the 
 continuing nuisance.^ The damages must, therefore, be limited 
 to the injury resulting prior to the suit, and cannot include com- 
 pensation for the permanent depreciation of the property. Upon 
 a bill in equity, praying for an injunction to restrain the com- 
 pany from continuing the nuisance, the damages are limited to 
 the injuries suffered prior to the suit.^ But where the injury is 
 necessarily of a permanent nature, such as the flooding of land 
 caused by the company's structures, or the depreciation of the 
 adjoining owner's property by the laying of its tracks on the 
 highway, the damages, recoverable in an action of trespass, will 
 include the entire injury, and the judgment will be a bar to 
 actions for subsequent injury arising from the same cause.* 
 
 A court of equity may, upon a bill to enjoin a company which has 
 unlawfully entered upon the permanent occupation of private prop- 
 erty for the construction of a railroad, without paying compensa- 
 tion, allow, as incident to equitable relief, and as the alternative of 
 a perpetual injunction, the payment of damages to the land-owner 
 
 1 Ante, p. 179. » Bird v. W. & M. K. Co., 8 Eich. Eq. 
 
 2 Mahon v. New York Cent. R. Co., 46. 
 
 24 N. T. 658 ; Plate v. New York Cent. « Troy v. Cheshire R. Co., 23 N. H. 
 
 R. Co., 37 N. Y. 472 ; Carl ». Sheboygan 88 ; Fowle v. New Haven & N. Co., 107 
 
 & F. R. Co., 46 Wis. 625; Blesch v. Mass. 352, 112 Mass. 334; Powers ». 
 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 183 ; Council Bluffs, 45 Iowa, 652 ; Cooper v. 
 
 Cumberland & O. Canal v. Hitchiugs, 65 Randall, 59 111. 317 ; Chicago & P. E. Co. 
 
 Me. 140 ; Hatfield v. Central R. Co., 4 ». Stein, 75 111. 41 ; Chicago & N. W. E. 
 
 Vroom, 251; Bare v. Hoffman R. Co., 79 Co. v. Hoag, 90 111. 339; Chicago, R. I., 
 
 Pa. St. 71 ; Anderson, L., & St. L. R. Co. & P. R. Co. v. Carey, 90 111. 514; Chicago 
 
 V. Kernodle, 54 Ind. 314; Harrington v. & A. R. Co. v. Maher, 91 111. 312; Chase 
 
 St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215; v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 Barb. 273; 
 
 Adams v. Hastings & D. R. Co., 18 Minn. Easterbrook v. Erie R. Co., 51 Barb. 94 ; 
 
 260 ; Hartz v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co., 21 C. B. U. P. R. Co. c/. Twine, 23 Kan. 
 
 Minn. 358; Pinney v. Berry, 61 Mo. 359; 685; Dickson v. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 
 
 Cleveland & M. R. Co. v. Bobbins (Ohio Co. (Mo. S. C, April, 1880), 10 Reporter, 
 
 S. C, Jan. 1880), 10 Reporter, 276 ; Cain 247 ; Lamb v. Walker, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 
 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. (Iowa S. C), 389. Compare cases cited in the preced- 
 
 21 Albany L. J. 95 ; Battishill v. Reed, 18 ing note, several of which are in conflict 
 
 C. B. 696. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. with those cited in this note. 
 Grabill, 60 111. 241 ; Stockton & L. G. R. 
 Co. V. Stockton & C. R. Co., 53 Cal. 11. 
 
EMINENT DOMAIN. 231 
 
 for his entire injury ; and the company, upon paying the amount, 
 will have the right of permanent use in like manner as if due 
 proceedings had been had, with the appraisement and payment 
 of damages, as provided by the special remedy.^ 
 
 Henderson v. New York Cent. R. Co., 78 N. T. 423, 17 Hun, 434. 
 
232 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 KAILEOADS UPON HIGHWATS, 
 
 The rights of the owners of land lying upon highways and 
 streets, as affected by the laying of railroads upon or across 
 them, will be chiefly treated in this chapter ; but various obliga- 
 tions of the owners and managers of such railroads to the public 
 will be incidentally referred to. The uses to. which highways 
 may be put under the public right acquired by the original tak- 
 ing, and the conditions under which the adjoining owners are 
 entitled to compensation when railroads worked by steam or 
 horse power are laid upon them, will be especially considered. 
 
 In determining the rights of land-owners it is not material 
 whether the land for the street was originally dedicated gratui- 
 tously by the owner, or appropriated by the State by compulsory 
 proceedings.! A distinction has been suggested between highways 
 in the open country, and streets within the limits of cities or 
 populous villages, according to which the latter may be used for 
 more various uses than the former, as for laying gas and water 
 pipes, or for any other like purposes conducive to the comfort 
 and health of the inhabitants.^ But as both the highway and 
 the street are appropriated for the same general purpose, and a 
 highway in a district sparsely inhabited at one time may, by the 
 growth of population, become a street in a city, this distinction 
 does not appear to rest on a sound basis.^ 
 
 It seems, on principle, immaterial in determining the proper 
 uses of a highway whether the adjacent owner retains the 
 fee in the street. If "he retains it, the easement granted to the 
 public should be deemed broad enough for all modes of travel 
 consistent with the primary and general one; and even if the 
 
 1 Williams v. New York Cent. R. Co., 18 Barb. 222, 246, 16 N. Y. 97 ; Wetmore 
 18 Barb. 222, 16 N. Y. 97 ; Drake v. Hud- v. Story, 22 Barb. 414, 486, 3 Abbott Pr. 
 son River R. Co., 7 Barb. 508. 262 ; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 201, 
 
 2 Chapman v. Albany & S, R. Co., 10 215. 
 
 Barb. 860 ; Plant v. Long Island R. Co., » People v. Law, 34 Barb. 494 ; Morris 
 10 Barb. 26 ; Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb. & E. R. Co. v. Hudson Tunnel R. Co., 10 
 193 ; Williams v. New York Cent. R. Co., C. E. Green, 884. 
 
BAILKOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 233 
 
 public has acquired the fee, he has still an interest in the street 
 for access and passage which is entitled to protection,^ 
 
 Changes of Use, when a new Taking. . — The use of property taken 
 by the right of eminent domain is not confined to the precise 
 mode or kind of use which was in view at the time of the taking, 
 but may extend to other modes which were then unpractised and 
 unknown. When property has been taken for a public use, and 
 full compensation made for the fee or a perpetual easement, its 
 subsequent appropriation to another public use — certainly if one 
 of a like kind — does not require further compensation to the 
 owner.2 Nor is such compensation required where there is a 
 change in the person or body enjoying and controlling the 
 property taken, or in the conditions upon which the public may 
 use it. Accordingly, the adjoining owner is not deprived of 
 any constitutional right when a highway is transferred to a pri- 
 vate corporation . charged with the duty of maintaining it and 
 invested with the power of taking tolls,^ nor when a turnpike 
 becomes free to public travel.* There is no change of use in- 
 volving a new taking when, under legislative authority, the loca- 
 tion of a plank-road or canal is converted into that of a highway," 
 or of a railroad.^ 
 
 Highways may be used, under legislative authority, for other 
 
 1 Haynes K. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38 ; Protz- St. 523, 545, 548; Benedict v. Goit, 3 
 
 man v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 9 Ind. Barb. 459 ; Davis v. New York, 14 N. Y. 
 
 467, 469 ; Cincinnati & S. G. A. St. K. Co. 506, 516 ; Walker v. Caywood, 31 N. Y. 
 V. Cumminsville, 14 Oliio St. 523, 546 ; . 51 ; Craig v. Rochester City & B. R. Co., 
 
 Louisville & F. R. Co. v. Brown, 17 B. 89 N. Y. 404, 412; Wright v. Carter, 3 
 
 Monr. 763, 775; Cosby v. Owensboro & Dutcher, 76; Douglass v. Boonsborough 
 
 R. R. Co., 10 Bush, 288 ; Elizabethtown, Tump. Road Co., 22 Md. 219. But see 
 
 L., & B. S. R. Co. V. Combs, 10 Bush, Williams v. Natural Bridge Plank R. Co., 
 
 382 ; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. o. 21 Mo. 580 ; Cape Girardeau & B. M. & 
 
 Esterle, 13 Bush, 667 ; Cadle v. Musca- G. Road Co. v. Renfroe, 56 Mo. 265. 
 tine W. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 11 ; Barney v. * Murray v. County Com'rs, 12 Met. 
 
 Keokuk 94 U. S. 324, 340 ; Kellinger v. 455. See Stetson v. Bangor, 60 Me. 313. 
 Forty-Second Street R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206. » Malone v. Toledo, 28 Ohio St. 643, 
 
 The vacation of a highway is not an action- 34 Ohio St. 541. 
 
 able injury. Barr t». Oskaloosa, 45 Iowa, « Brainard v. Missisquoi R. Co., 48 
 
 275 • Gray v. Iowa Land Co., 26 Iowa, 387. ,Vt. 107 ; Hatch v. Cincinnati & I. R. Co., 
 
 a' Chase o. Sutton Man. Co., 4 Cash. 18 Ohio St. 92, in which compensation 
 
 152; Pierce v. Soniersworth, 10 N. H. was allowed for the special damage caused 
 
 869 • Hey ward v. New York, 7 N. Y. 814 ; by the change ; Goodin v. Cincinnati & W. 
 
 Rex'ford v. Kniglit, 11 N. Y. 308. Canal Co., 18 Ohio St. 169. See Lafayette, 
 
 » Chagrin Falls & C. Plank R. Co. v. M., & B. R. Co. v. Murdock, 68 Ind. 187. 
 
 Cane, 2 Ohio St. 419 ; Cincinnati & S. G. As to the use of the location for a Une of 
 
 A. St. R. Co. V. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio telegraph, see ante, p. 159. 
 
234 THE LAW OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 purposes than mere travel, as for drains, sewers, water and gas 
 pipes, and tunnels, which promote the general health or conven- 
 ience, without further compensation to the adjoining owner ;^ 
 but not, it has been held, for a market.^ The right of laying 
 gas-pipes in the highway is, however, a franchise which can be 
 derived only from the State.^ 
 
 A Railroad in a Highway not necessarily a Different Use. — The 
 
 purpose of opening a highway or street is, to provide the public 
 with a right of passage for persons on foot or riding in carriages 
 or other kinds of vehicles. The use for which this public right 
 is obtained is not confined to the same species of vehicles, 
 drawn by the same kind of power that prevailed at the time 
 of the dedication or appropriation, but admits of the passage 
 and repassage of such other vehicles, operated in such a mode 
 and by such forces as an advanced civilization may require for 
 the general convenience. The improved method of conveyance 
 may incidentally increase or depreciate the value of property on 
 the highway ; but, provided the right of ingress and egress, of 
 passage and repassage, is left reasonably free to the adjoining 
 owner, the injury is one which the law does not recognize. A 
 railroad laid out over or upon a highway or street, under proper 
 legal authority, is within the legal intent of the original seques- 
 tration or dedication, and is not an invasion of private right 
 entitling the owner to compensation by virtue of the constitu- 
 tional prohibition, provided it is so laid and constructed as not 
 to be incompatible with the use of the highway in the other 
 usual, modes of passage and conveyance. It is not necessarily 
 a nuisance, even in a large city, although it may to a certain 
 extent interrupt the free passage of other kinds of vehicles ; and 
 unless unreasonable or permanently exclusive in its occupation of 
 the highway, when authorized by competent authority, it is not 
 an invasion of private rights. The statute which authorizes the 
 structure to be laid legalizes the obstruction, and is a defence to 
 an action or an indictment. The exclusive right to take tolls from 
 persons who are carried in its cars, vested in a private corporation 
 
 1 West V. Bancroft, 32 Vt. 367 ; Plant may be used for a boulevard. People v. 
 
 V. Long Island R. Co., 10 Barb. 26 ; Kel- Walsh, 13 Chicago Leg News, 23. 
 sey V. King, 82 Barb. 410 ; Malone v. To- 2 State v. Laverack, 5 Vroom, 201 
 ledo, 28 Ohio St. 643, 34 Ohio St. 641 ; » Jersey City Gas Co. u. Dwight, 2 
 
 Chicago V. Eumsey, 87 111. 348. Streets Stewart (N. J.), 242. 
 
KAILEOADS tJPON HIGHWAYS. 
 
 235 
 
 or individuals, does not make such a use of the highway a diver- 
 sion from its original purpose any more than if a like structure 
 were laid by the city or town.^ 
 
 A Railroad in a Highway held in Several States to be a Different 
 and Additional Use. — The law, however, as to the rights incident 
 to the ownership of land upon highways is, in certain jurisdictions) 
 held otherwise than as here stated. A railroad, with tracks laid 
 under statute authority on the highway by individuals or a pri- 
 vate corporation, with the right to take tolls for carrying persons 
 and goods, even when a reasonable passage for ordinary vehicles 
 is preserved, has sometim'es been treated as an appropriation of 
 the highway to a new and distinct use entirely foreign to the 
 original one, and subjecting it to an additional servitude and 
 easement, which, even without any special damage, is a taking of 
 private property requiring compensation to the adjoining owner, 
 who by legal presumption is deemed to be the owner of the fee 
 of the highway. The Court of Appeals of New York, reviewing 
 the earlier and conflicting decisions,^ adopted in 1857 this view. 
 
 1 Lexington & O. R. Co. v. Applegate, 
 8 Dana, 289; Wolfe v. Covingt6n & L. 
 R. Co., 15 B. Monr. 404 ; LouisviUe & F. 
 E. Co. V. Brown, 17 B. Monr. 763 ; Cosby 
 V. Owensboro & R. R. Co., 10 Bush, 288; 
 Elizabethtown, L., & B. S. R. Co. v. 
 Combs, 10 Bush, 382 ; Phil. & T. R. Co., 
 In re, 6 Whart, 26 ; Monongahela Nav. 
 Co. V. Coons, 6 W. & S. 101 ; Common- 
 wealth V. Erie & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 
 339 ; Snyder v. Penn. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 
 340; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 
 Pa. St. 326 ; Danville, H., & W. R. Co. u. 
 Commonwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29 ; Phillips v. 
 Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177 ; 
 Struthers v. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 
 87 Pa. St. 282; Brown v. Duplessis, 14 
 La. An. 842; Moses v. Pittsburg, Ft. 
 W., & C. R. Co., 21 111. 516 ; Murphy v. 
 Chicago, 29 HI. 279 ; Stone v. Fairbury, 
 P., & N. W. R. Co., 68 111. 394; Chicago, 
 R. I., & P. R. Co. V. Joliet, 79 111. 25 ; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 79 
 111. 269; Porter v. North Mo. R. Co., 33 
 Mo. 128 ; Lackland v. North Mo. R. Co., 
 34 Mo. 259 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. St. 
 Louis, 66 Mo. 228, 3 Mo. Ap. 315; Mil- 
 burn V. Cedar Rapids, 12 Iowa, 246 ; Clin- 
 ton V. Cedar Rapids & M. R. E. Co., 24 
 
 Iowa, 455 ; Ingraham v. Chicago, D., & 
 M. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 669, 34 Iowa, 249 ; 
 Chicago, N., & S. W. R. Co. w. Newton, 
 36 Iowa, 299; Cadle v. Muscatine W. 
 R. Co., 44 Iowa, 11 ; Barr v. Oskaloosa, 
 45 Iowa, 275; Davis v. C. & N. W. R. 
 Co., 46 Iowa, 389; Barney v. Keokuk, 94 
 U. S. 324 ; Whittier v. Portland & K. R. 
 Co., 38 Me. 26; Attorney-General v. 
 Metropolitan R., 125 Mass. 516; Mc- 
 Lauchlin u. Charlotte & S. C. R. Co., 5 
 Rich. 683 ; Hatch u. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 
 Vt. 49 ; Richardson v. Vt. Cent. B. Co., 
 26 Vt. 465; Brainard v. Missisquoi R. Co., 
 48 Vt. 107 ; Cincinnati & S. G. A. St. R. 
 Co. V. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; 
 Sargent v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 1 Handy 
 (Cmcinnati), 62; Tate v. Ohio & M. R. 
 Co., 7 Ind. 479; New Albany & S. R. Co. 
 V. O'Daily, 12 Ind. 551 ; Wabash & E. 
 Canal v. Spears, 16 Ind. 441 ; Market St. 
 R. Co. V. Central E. Co., 51 Cal. 583. See 
 Pekin v. Brereton, 67 III. 477 ; Towle v. 
 Eastern E. Co., 17 N. H. 519, 18 N. H. 
 547. 
 
 ^ The following cases were thought to 
 sustain the conclusion to which the Court 
 of Appeals came in holding the railroad 
 to be a new use : Fletcher v. Auburn & S. 
 
236 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 and has continued to apply it to steam railroads ; ^ and its author- 
 ity has had a sensible effect on the course of judicial opinion in 
 this country.^ The same court has with logical consistency ap- 
 plied the doctrine to street railways worked by animal power,^ 
 while in other States a distinction has been taken between the 
 two kinds of railroads.* The doctrine which treats a railroad, 
 
 R. Co., 25 Wend. 462; Mahan v. TJtioa & 
 S. R. Co., Lalor's Sup. to Hill & Denio, 
 156 ; Presbyterian Society of Waterloo v. 
 Auburn & S. R. Co., 3 Hill, 567 ; Miller 
 V. Auburn & S. R. Co., 6 Hill, 61 ; Bene- 
 dict V. Goit, 3 Barb. 459. But the cur- 
 rent of authorities in that State was at 
 that time otherwise. Drake v. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 7 Barb. 508 ; Plant v. Long 
 Island R. Co., 10 Barb. 26 ; Chapman v. 
 Albany & S. R. Co., 10 Barb. 360 ; Adams 
 V. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 11 Barb. 514; 
 Hentz V. Long Island R. Co., 13 Barb. 
 646; Milhau v. Sharp, 15 Barb. 193; 
 Wetmore v. Story, 22 Barb. 414, 3 Abbott 
 Pr. 262: Corey v. Buffalo, C, & N. Y. R. 
 Co., 23 Barb. 482 ; Anderson v. Roches- 
 ter, L., & N. F. R. Co., 9 How. Pr. 553; 
 Hamilton v. New York & H. R. Co., 9 
 Paige, 171. The case of Fletcher v. Au- 
 burn & S. R. Co., 25 Wend. 462, has been 
 the subject of much comment. See Chap- 
 man V. Albany & S. R. Co., 10 Barb. 360, 
 366 ; Corey v. Buffalo, C, & N. Y. R. Co., 
 23 Barb. 482; Radcliff o. Brooklyn, 4 
 N. Y. 195, 205; Davis v. New York, 14 
 N. Y. 506, 521 ; Kellinger v. Forty-Second 
 St. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206, 211. 
 
 ' Williams v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 16 N. Y. 97, 18 Barb. 222; Henderson v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 423, 17 
 Hun, 344 ; Carpenter v. Oswego & S. R. 
 Co., 24 N. Y. 655 ; Mahon v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 658; Wager v. 
 Troy Union R. Co., 25 N. Y. 526 ; Craig 
 V. Rochester City & B. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 
 404, 39 Barb. 494 ; Washington Cemetery 
 V. Prospect Park & C. I. R. Co., 68 N. Y. 
 591, 7 Hun, 655 ; Murdock v. Prospect 
 Park & C. I. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 579, 
 10 Hun, 598 ; New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., In re, 15 Hun, 63 ; Prospect Park 
 & C. L R. Co., In re, 13 Hun, 345, 16 
 Hun, 261. The case of Williams v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., commenced in 1853, 
 still lingers in the courts of New York, 
 and twenty-six years after the suit was 
 brought (the plaintiff having died) re- 
 
 appeared, in 1879, in the Court of Appeals 
 under the name of Henderson, his repre- 
 sentative, as plaintiff, 78 N. Y. 423. See 
 Brooklyn Cent. & J. R. Co. v. Brooklyn 
 City R. Co., 33 Barb. 420, and People v. 
 Law, 34 Barb. 494, for comments restrict- 
 ing the authority of Williams v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co. to its precise facts. 
 
 2 Gray v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 13 
 Minn. 315 ; Harrington v. St. Paul & S. 
 C. R. Co., 17 Minn. 215; Adams v. Has- 
 tings & D. R. Co., 18 Minn. 260 ; Brisbine 
 V. St. Paul & Sr C. R. Co., 23 Minn. 114; 
 Schurmeier v. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 10 
 Minn. 82, 7 Wall. 272 ; Starr v. Camden 
 & A. R. Co., 4 Zab. 592 ; State v. Laver- 
 ack, 5 Vroom, 201 ; Hinchman v. Pater- 
 son Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75; 
 Jersey City & B. R. Co. v. Jersey City & 
 H. Horse R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 61 ; Mor- 
 ris & E. R. Co. V. Hudson Tunnel R. Co., 
 10 C. E. Green, 384 ; Nicholson v. New 
 York & E. R. Co., 22 Conn. 74; Imlay v. 
 Union Branch E. Co., 26 Conn. 249; 
 Jones D. Keith, 37 Tex. 394 ; South Caro- 
 lina R. Co. V. Steiner, 44 Ga. 546 ; Cox ». 
 Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co., 48 Ind. 
 178 ; Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. i/. Mur- 
 dock, 68 Ind. 137 ; Ford v. Chicago & N. 
 W. R. Co., 14 Wis. 609; Pomeroy v. Mil, 
 & C. R. Co., 16 Wis. 640; Sherman v. 
 Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 40 Wis. 646; 
 Blesch V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 
 Wis. 183 ; Cape Girardeau & B. M. & G. 
 Road V. Renfroe, 58 Mo. 265. 
 
 ' Craig V. Rochester City & B. R. Co., 
 39 N. Y. 404, 39 Barb. 494. 
 
 * Elliott V. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 
 32 Conn. 574; Hogenscamp o. Paterson 
 Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 83 ; Jersey 
 City & B. R. Co. v. Jersey City & H. 
 Horse R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 61 ; State 
 V. Laveraek, 5 Vroom, 201 ; Peddicord v. 
 Bait., C, & E. M. Pass. R. Co., 34 Md. 
 463; Attorney-General v. Metropolitan 
 R., 125 Mass. 615 ; Grand Rapids & I. R. 
 Co. V. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62; Stanley v. 
 Davenport, 6 Northwest. Rep. 706. 
 
KAILEOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 237 
 
 when laid on a highway, as a new easement, has been applied 
 where it is laid on a turnpike,^ and where a second railroad has 
 been laid on a highway after the owner has received compensa- 
 tion for the laying of the first.^ 
 
 The points of the argument leading to this result are as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 1. The grant of a right to lay and use the rails and occupy a 
 part of the highway to certain individuals or a private corpora- 
 tion is a discrimination against the equal rights of all in the com- 
 mon highway. 2. The company's occupation of the rails and 
 space included within them is iexclusive while its vehicles are 
 passing, and is an interference with such equal rights. 3. The 
 railroad is most likely to injure the land-owner, whereas a high- 
 way is quite likely to benefit him. 4. In the assessment of com- 
 pensation when land is taken for a highway, incidental damages 
 to the remaining land are allowed, and benefits are deducted, and 
 even contributions exacted with reference to the particular use 
 for a highway, — a basis of calculation which may prove entirely 
 unjust to the land-owner when permission is given to lay and use 
 rails on the highway. 5. The use for a railroad may survive the 
 use for a highway, and defeat the owner's reversionary right. 
 These considerations apply to railroads worked by animal power 
 as well as to those worked by steam, any difference between the 
 two kinds being in degree and not in kind. 
 
 With reference to these points in order, it may be remarked 
 briefly, — 
 
 1. Whether there is a new taking requiring compensation 
 under the Constitution depends upon the nature of the use itself, 
 and not upon the persons who are to manage or control it. The 
 owner's right or injury is the same whether the State or any of 
 its subdivisions, or any citizen by delegation of power, is to lay 
 and use the rails. Further, the State may, under its police power, 
 regulate the use of highways, and, acting in its discretion for the 
 common good, allow on conditions certain privileges and powers 
 to certain persons and bodies not allowed to all, without such per- 
 mission being a taking of property .^ 2. Such occupation is, indeed, 
 necessarily exclusive while the railway carriages are passing, as 
 
 1 Mahon v. New York Cent. R. Co., ' Elliott v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 32 
 24 N. Y. 658. Conn. 579, 581-584 ; Moses v. Pittsburg, 
 
 2 Southern Pacific R. Co. «. Reed, 41 Ft. W., & C. R. Co., 21 111. 516, 522. 
 Cal. 256. 
 
238 THE LAW OP BAILBOADS. 
 
 two bodies cannot under a physical law occupy the same space at 
 a time; such temporary exclusive occupation, however, is not 
 peculiar to railway carriages, but attaches to all carriages while 
 passing or stopping. At other times the space covered by the rails, 
 and even the rails themselves, are open to general use. The State 
 may indeed give a better right within such allotted space to the 
 proprietors of the railway carriages ; but this is merely the exer- 
 cise of a police power which would justify the allotment of certain 
 limits at certain times to omnibuses or other peculiar vehicles 
 within the highway, accompanied with superior rights at such 
 times within those limits.^ It may be noted that this as well as the 
 preceding point relates to the common rights of all citizens, and 
 not to the peculiar rights of an adjoining land-owner, and is there- 
 fore not pertinent to an inquiry concerning his individual rights. 
 3. The accidental circumstance of a possible injury or probable 
 benefit is not a final test upon the question whether or not a cer- 
 tain new mode of using a highway is in itself a taking of private 
 property. 4. Waiving the inquiry under what conditions the Con- 
 stitution secures a right to compensation for damages to land not 
 actually appropriated, it is quite true that an owner whose com- 
 pensation has been adjusted with reference to the advantages of 
 a highway, but without reference to its subsequent partial use for 
 a railway, may suffer practical injustice if. not allowed further 
 compensation for such subsequent use. But, on the other hand, 
 when property is taken for public use, the compensation ought to 
 be so adjusted as to be final, neither entitling him to more, nor 
 requiring him to refund by reason of later authorized modes of 
 using the property taken. The circumstance that improved or 
 different modes of enjoying the public use have affected injuri- 
 ously or beneficially his remaining estate is but one of the inci- 
 dents to which all property is subject in civilized life, not only 
 from the use of highways, but from the use of adjacent land and 
 the various changes in the community. 6. The reversionary 
 right, to take effect after a present ownership which may last 
 forever, is too remote and contingent to be of appreciable value, 
 or to be regarded as property requiring compensation on an 
 appropriation to another use.^ 
 
 1 Jersey City & B. R. Co. v. Jersey 2 People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 211 ; 
 
 City & H. Horse R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, Barney v. Keokulc, 94 U. S. 324, 340. 
 
 61, 69, 70 ; Attorney-General v. Metro- See Heard v. Brooklyn, 60 N. Y. 242. 
 politan R., 126 Mass. 516. 
 
KAILE0AD8 UPON HIGHWAYS. 
 
 239 
 
 The Court of Appeals has shown a distrust of its doctrine by- 
 excluding from it streets and highways in which the fee is 
 deemed to have been acquired by the public, although held in 
 trust for the people, to be used for streets only, and even if sub- 
 ject to the owner's reversionary right. Upon such highways it 
 holds that the legislature may authorize a railway to be laid and 
 worked without compensation to the adjoining owners.^ 
 
 The owners of land on a public highway, by legal presumption, 
 hold the fee to its centre, subject to the public easement.^ The 
 State may authorize the taking of the fee for a public use, and 
 the question, whether the fee or only an easement has been taken, 
 is one of legislative intent Whether the owner or the public 
 holds the fee has been sometimes deemed a decisive point in 
 determining whether the laying of a railroad in a street is a tak- 
 ing of the property of the adjoining owner ; ^ but, as already sug- 
 gested, the constitutional question ought to be decided on less 
 technical and more substantial grounds. 
 
 1 People V. Kerr, 27 N. T. 188, 37 
 Barb. 357, 38 Barb. 869 ; Kellinger v. Forty- 
 Second St. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206 ; Sixth 
 Avenue K. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., 
 43 N. Y. Superior, 292, 41 N, Y. Superior,' 
 489. See Brooklyn Cent. & J. R. Co. v. 
 Brooklyn City R. Co., 33 Barb. 420 ; Peo- 
 ple V. Law, 34 Barb. 494, 503 ; Wetmore 
 V. Law, 34 Barb. 515 ; Brooklyn City & 
 N. E. Co. V. Coney I. & B. R. Co., 35 
 Barb. 364. Contemporaneously with the 
 decision of the Court of Appeals (1857), a 
 similar result was reached in Connecticut, 
 where the Supreme Court of Errors laid 
 stress on the view that property taken 
 under highway acts could, by the true 
 intent of the original act of condemnation, 
 be used only for a highway as generally 
 existing at the time of the appropriation, 
 and that, there being no legal identity 
 between a common highway and a rail- 
 road, the highway cannot be used for a 
 railroad, although an ample roadway is 
 left for vehicles and passengers on foot. 
 The court seemed to go so far as to hold 
 that on this technical ground of want of 
 legal identity a railroad could not be laid 
 on a highway without proceedings for a 
 new taking, even thougli it causes no 
 injury or inconvenience to the land-owner. 
 Imlay v. Union Branch R. Co., 26 Conn. 
 
 249. But see Elliott v. Pair Haven & W. 
 E. Co., 32 Conn. 579. 
 
 ^ 3 Kent Com. 4.32, 433 ; Hinchman «. 
 Paterson Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75, 
 82 ; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 
 38 Mich. 62, 72. 
 
 ' For cases where the public, being 
 held to be the owner of the fee of the 
 highway, the land-owner has been held 
 not entitled to compensation, see People 
 V. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 37 Barb. 357, 38 
 Barb. 369 ; Kellinger v. Forty-Second St. 
 R. Co., 50 N. Y. 306 ; Sweet v. Buffalo, 
 N. Y., & P. R. Co., 13 Hun, 643; Carson 
 V. Central R. Co., 35 Cal. 325; Moses v. 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co., 21 111. 516 ; 
 Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. v. Hartley, 
 67 111. 439 ; Stetson v. Chicago & E. R. 
 Co., 75 111. 74; Patterson v. Chicago, 
 D., & V. R. Co., 75 ni. 588; Atchi- 
 son & N. E. Co. 0. Garside, 10 Kan. 
 552 ; Colorado Cent. E. Co. v. Mollandin, 
 4 Col. 154; Milburn v. Cedar Eapids, 12 
 Iowa, 246 ; Clinton v. Cedar Eapids & M. 
 R. Co., 24 Iowa, 455 ; Davis v. C. & N. W. 
 R. Co., 46 Iowa, 389. See review of the 
 authorities in Kucheman v. C. C. & D. R. 
 Co., 46 Iowa, 366. See Stange v. Hill, 
 7 Northwest. Rep. 115 ; Grand Rapids & 
 I. R. Co. V. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62 ; and for 
 other cases where there was held to be a 
 
240 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 Some jurists have regarded property taken for public use as 
 subject, without further compensation, to any public use to 
 which the legislature may see fit to apply it, irrespective of the 
 particular purpose which was in view at the time of the original 
 taking.^ This doctrine may in some cases work a hardship, and 
 it is fraught with some danger to private rights ; but it relieves 
 the right of eminent domain of vexatious refinements and specu- 
 lations. It derives support from the consideration that, in prac- 
 tice, whether an easement or the fee is taken, the full value of 
 the land taken is given as compensation.^ But whether so broad 
 a doctrine is adopted or not, the use should not be limited by 
 constitutional construction to the particular modes applied at the 
 time of the taking, to the exclusion of those subsequently invented 
 and practised, at least where the new mode still admits the rea- 
 sonable enjoyment of the original use.^ 
 
 The denial of the owner's constitutional right to compensation 
 does not involve a denial of the duty of the legislature in many 
 instances to give a remedy by statute, the constitutional right not 
 being commensurate with natural justice.* If the owner suffers 
 substantial and peculiar injury from a new mode of using the 
 highway, the legislature should require further compensation, 
 irrespective of the kind of estate taken, or of distinctions between 
 different modes of public conveyance which are likely to improve 
 and vary from time to time. 
 
 Statutes which in general terms allow parties compensation for 
 property injured are construed as allowing it, in case of structures 
 on highways, only for injuries which are immediate and direct.^ 
 
 private ownership of tlie fee requiring lone v. Toledo, 28 Ohio St. 643, 34 Ohio 
 
 compensation, see Williams v. New York St. 541 ; Cooley's Const. Lira. [*555]. 
 Cent. R. Co., 16 N. Y. 97 ; Wager v. Troy 2 Murray v. County Com'rs, 12 Met. 
 
 Union R. Co., 25 N. Y. 526 ; Ford v. 457 ; Bemis v. Springfield, 122 Mass. 110, 
 
 Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 14 Wis. 609; 118; Washington Cemetery v. Prospect 
 
 Hegar v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 Park & C. I. R. Co., 68 N. Y.591. 
 Wis. 624 ; Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. s Barney c, Keokuk, 94 U. S. 324 ; 
 
 R. Co., 17 Minn. 215 ; Kaiser v. St. Paul, Attorney-General v. Metropolitan R. Co., 
 
 S., & T. F. R. Co., 22 Minn. 149 ; Cox 125 Mass. 515. 
 
 V. Louisville, N: A., & C. R. Co., 48 4 Mifflin v. Harrisburg, P. M., & S. R. 
 Ind. 178 ; Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co., 16 Pa. St. 182. See Phillips v. Dun- 
 Co. V. Smith, 52 Ind. 428 ; Indianapo- kirk, W., & P. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177. 
 lis, B., & W. R. Co. u. Hartley, 67 111. s Proprietors of Locks & Canals 8, 
 439 ; Stetson v. Chicago & E. R. Co., 75 Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385. For 
 111. 74. English cases see Beckett v. Midland R 
 1 Phil. &T. R. Co., /n j-e, 6 Whart. 25, Co., L. R. 3 C. P. 82; Ricket v. Metro- 
 45 ; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 192 ; Ma- politan E. Co., L. R. 2 H. L. 175. 
 
RAILROADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 
 
 241 
 
 Deprivation of the Land-owner's Access to and TTse of the High- 
 way or Street is a taking of his Property. — While the laying of a 
 railroad on a highway without any peculiar or direct injury to 
 the land-owner is not a taking of his property, changes in its sur- 
 face and erections which destroy or materially obstruct his access 
 to and use of it, and cause him special damage, may be treated 
 as such taking ; and this is the substantial result of many well- 
 considered authorities.* Exposure to noise and smoke, deten- 
 tion and danger in crossing, the frightening of horses, and similar 
 inconveniences and discomforts, not amounting to a practical 
 obstruction, are, however, not a taking of private property ;2 
 nor are such injuries, when not caused by negligence, actionable.^ 
 
 The taking of the entire location of a plank-road for a railroad 
 entitles the owner of land lying on the plank-road to compensa- 
 tion for the expense of building a private road to the public 
 highway, which is an injury peculiar to him ; but not to com- 
 pensation for being deprived of the use of the plank-road, this 
 
 1 Cincinnati S. G. A. St. E. Co. 
 V. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 523; Cin- 
 cinnati College V. Nesmith, 2 Cincin- 
 nati (Superior Ct ), 24; Lexington & 
 0. R. Co. V. Applegate, 8 Dana, 289, 
 294 ; Cosby v. Owensboro & R. R. Co., 
 10 Bush, 288 ; Elizabethtown, L., & B. 
 S. R. Co. V. Combs, 10 Bush, 382 ; St. 
 Paul & P. R. Co. V. Schurmeir, 7 Wall. 
 272, 10 Minn. 82; Drake v. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 7 Barb. 508 ; Corey v. Buf- 
 falo, C, & N. Y. R. Co., 23 Barb.' 482 ; 
 People V. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188,215; Kel- 
 linger v. Forty-Second St. R. Co., 50 N.Y. 
 206; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 88; Tate 
 V. Ohio & M. R. Co., 7 Ind. 479; Protz- 
 man v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 9 Ind. 
 467 ; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 
 38 Mich. 62; Slatten v. Des Moines Val- 
 ley R. Co., 29 Iowa, 148 ; Stone v. Fair- 
 bury, P., & N. R. Co., 68 111. 394; Indian- 
 apolis, B., & W. R. Co. V. Hawley, 67 111. 
 439; Pekin v. Mukel, 77 111. 66; Chi- 
 cago, B., & Q. R. Co. V. McGinnis, 79 III. 
 269 ; Hobart v. Mil. City R. Co., 27 Wis. 
 194 ; Chapman v. Oshkosh & M. R. R. 
 Co., 33 Wis. 629 ; Carl v. Sheboygan & 
 F. R. Co., 46 Wis. 625 ; C. B. U. & P. 
 R. Co. V. Twine, 23 Kan. 585; Savan- 
 nah, A,, & G. R. Co. V. Shiels, 33 Ga. 
 601, 616; Lackland v. North Mo. R. 
 
 Co., 31 Mo. 180; Porter v. North Mo. R. 
 Co., 33 Mo, 128; Tate v. McK. & T. R. 
 Co., 64 Mo. 149 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. 
 V. St. Louis, 3 Mb. App. 315; Virginia & 
 T. R. Co. V. Lynch, 13 Nev. 92; Fritz 
 V. Hobson, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 542 (with 
 notes, 19 Am. Law Reg. n. s. 615, 624- 
 637). 
 
 2 Parrott v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 
 Co., 10 Ohio St. 624; Atchison & N. R. 
 Co. V. Garside, 10 Kan. 552; Higbee 
 V. Camden & A. R. Co., 4 C. E. Green, 
 276; Hobart ... Mil. City R. Co., 27 
 Wis. 194 ; Stone v. Fairbury, P., & N. 
 R. Co., 68 111. 394. See Mix v. Lafayette, 
 B., & M. R. Co., 67 111. 319; Pekin .-. 
 Brereton, 67 111. 477 ; ante, Chap. VII. p. 
 198. The taking away of the natural 
 support of buildings by means of exca- 
 vations in the highway has been held to 
 be a taking of private property. Balti- 
 more & P. R. Co. V. Reaney, 42 Md. 
 117. 
 
 " Hahn v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 51 
 Cal. 605 ; ante, Chap. VIi: p. 197 ; post. 
 Chap. X. p. 264. Th.e English cases in 
 which an interference by a railway 
 company with the highway are held to 
 " injuriously affect " the land-owner are 
 reviewed in Beckett v. Midland R. Co., 
 L. R. 3 C. P. 82. 
 
 10 
 
242 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 being an injury which he suffers in common with other citizens.^ 
 But the owner of the fee of a canal has been held entitled to 
 damages where a railroad was laid upon its location.^ 
 
 Measure of Damages for Injuries to Land-owners caused by the 
 Use of the Highway for a Railroad. — Where compensation is 
 allowed to a land-owner for an authorized use of the highway by 
 a railroad company, he is entitled to damages for the deterioration 
 of his property, and the interruption of his business during the 
 construction.^ But damages are recoverable only for injuries 
 which are direct and immediate, to the exclusion of those which 
 are suffered by the whole community.* The damages are as- 
 sessed in the special proceeding on the basis of a compliance with 
 the law, not including damages for breach of duty or negligence.^ 
 Where the road has been constructed in an improper manner 
 upon a street, the land-owner has been held entitled to recover in 
 an action the difference between the value of his property with 
 the road as constructed, and its estimated value with the road 
 properly constructed.^ 
 
 Obstruction of Highways lawful only when, and to the Extent, 
 authorized by Statute. — The right to obstruct highways, to place 
 rails and other erections upon them, or to use them for other pur- 
 poses than travel, exists only under statutes, which confer the 
 authority expressly or by clear implication ; '' and the right can- 
 not, without a practical necessity, be implied, to the extent of a 
 serious interference with the public right of passage, from agen- 
 
 1 Brainard v. Missisquoi R. Co., 48 Vt. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 624 ; Atchison & N. R. 
 107. Co. V. Garside, 10 Kan. 552, 567 ; Stone 
 
 2 Lafayette, M., & B. R. Co. u. Mur- v. Fairbury, P., & N. "W. R. Co., 68 111. 
 dock, 68 Ind. 137. But see ante, p. 233. 394. See Nicholson v. New York & N. H. 
 
 8 St. Louis, v., & T. H. R. Co. v. R. Co., 22 Conn. 74. 
 Capps, 67 111. 607, 72 111. 188; Chicago, » Gear v. C. C. & D. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 
 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. McGinnis, 79 III. 269; 83, 39 Iowa, 23 ; ante, Chap. VII. p. 179. 
 St. Louis, v., & T. H. R. Co. v. Haller, 6 Cadle v. Muscatine W. R. Co., 44 
 
 82 111. 208; Grand Rapids & L R. Co. v. Iowa, H. 
 
 Heisel, 38 Mich. 62 ; Jeffersonville, M., & ^ Commonwealth v. Erie & N. E. R. 
 I. R. Co. a. Esterle, 13 Bush, 667 ; Hegar Co., 27 Pa. St. 389 ; Phillips v. Dunkirk, 
 V. Chicago & N. R. Co., 26 Wis. 624; W.,& P. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177; Attorney- 
 Gear V. C. C. & D. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 23, 48 General v. Lombard & S. Streets Pass. E. 
 Iowa, 83 ; Kucheman v. C. C. & D. R. Co., 10 Phil. 352, 32 Leg. Int. 238; State 
 Co., 46 Iowa, 366. „. Hoboken, 6 Vroom, 205; State v. Vt. 
 
 « Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. 103 ; Virginia & T. R. 
 
 Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385 ; Bos- Co. v. Lynch, 13 Nev. 339 ; Atlantic & P. 
 
 ton & W. R. Co. V. Old Colony R. Co., 12 R. Co. v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 315, 66 
 
 Cush. 605; Parrott v. Cincinnati, H., & D. Mo. 228. See ante, Chap. VII. p. 165. 
 
EAILEOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 243 
 
 eral grant to construct a railroad between certain termini.^ The 
 right, however, to occupy the highway to the extent of a reason- 
 able necessity is often implied.^ The right to cross or pass along 
 a highway does not include the right to build permanent struc- 
 tures upon it, or to use it for a freight yard, or any exclusive pur- 
 pose, but is limited to a reasonable use by crossing, passing, and 
 repassing, consistent with the earlier public right.^ The power 
 to establish a railroad in a public street includes the power to 
 make a turnout, so as to communicate with a station on the 
 street.* The company may use the highway for making up trains 
 and shifting cars ; but such use of the highway can be made only to 
 a reasonable extent, and in a manner consistent Mdth other lawful 
 modes of using it.^ It may stop its cars temporarily in the high- 
 way, in which its tracks are laid, for lading and unlading freight, 
 where this can be done without serious interference with the 
 ordinary uses of the highway.^ 
 
 Liability for Nuiaancea on the Highway. — The company is liable 
 as for a nuisance for using steam power on a highway without 
 legal authority;^ crossing it in a manner not allowed by statute, 
 or without complying with the conditions precedent ; ^ neglecting 
 to keep bridges in repair ; ^ or to provide a draw in a bridge, 
 when so required by law ; i" delaying unreasonably either to re- 
 move obstructions which it was authorized to create temporarilj', 
 
 1 Long Branch Com'rs v. "West End * New Orleans & C. E. Co. o. New 
 R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 566; Little Orleans, 1 La. An. 128; Knight u. Car- 
 Miami E. Co. V. Greene County, 31 Ohio roUton, 9 La. An. 284. 
 St. 338 ; Louisville & N. E. Co. v. State, ^ Gahagan t. Boston & L. E. Co., 1 
 3 Head, 62-3 ; Eyler v. County Com'rs, 49 Allen, 187 ; State v. Vt. Cent. E. Co., 
 Md. 257. The right to build a railroad 27 Vt. 103 ; State v. Morris & E. E. Co., 
 over highways authorizes » crossing at a 3 Zab. 360, 1 Dutcher, 437. See Clark v. 
 level, or running lengthwise on them. Fry, 8 Ohio St. 358, 373. 
 Gear K. C. C. & D. E. Co., 43 Iowa, 83. " Mathews v. Kelsey, 58 Me. 56. But 
 
 ■^ Long Branch Com'rs v. West End see State v. Morris & E. E. Co., 1 
 
 R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 566. Dutcher, 437, 3 Zab. 360. 
 
 i Allegheny v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 26 ' States. Tupper, Dudley (S. C), 135; 
 
 Pa. St. .3-55 ; Commonwealth v. Erie & N. Jones v. Festiniog E. Co., L. E. 3 Q. B. 
 
 E. E. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339 ; Gahagan u. 733. 
 
 Boston & L. E. Co., 1 Allen, 187 ; State « Wellcome v. Leeds, 51 Me. 313 ; 
 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. 103 ; Lackland Commonwealth v. Nashua & L. E. Co., 2 
 
 V. North Mo. E. Co.. 31 Mo. 180; Chap- Gray, 54. 
 
 man v. Oshkosh & M. R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 9 Penn. & 0. R. Co. ... Graham, 63 Pa. 
 
 629 638; State v. Morris & E. R. Co., 1 St. 290. 
 
 Dutcher 437, 3 Zab. 360 ; Higbee w. Cam- i» Commonwealth v. New Bedford 
 
 den & a' R. Co., 4 C. E. Green, 276 ; Ten- Bridge, 2 Gray, 339 ; Commonwealth v. 
 
 nessee & A. E. Co. v. Adams, 3 Head, 596. Nashua & L. E. Co., 2 Gray, 54. 
 See Hall i;. Brown, 54 N. H. 495, 58 N. H. 93. ^ . 
 
244 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 or to substitute a new highway for an existing one, which it has 
 occupied with its works.^ Neither the use of steam power on the 
 highway, nor the placing of gates at crossings for public safety, is 
 a nuisance when authorized by statute.^ 
 
 The right to maintain a niiisance in the highway cannot be 
 acquired by prescription ; ^ but a city or town may be estopped 
 by acts and acquiescence from setting up that the use of public 
 grounds for a railroad is unauthorized.* 
 
 Mode of Crossing. — The right to a location across a highway 
 carries with it the right to lay as many tracks as are essential 
 to the convenient transaction of the company's business ; and, 
 while leaving it safe and convenient for travellers, to alter the 
 surface to the extent necessary for properly laying and using 
 them.* The right to cross the highway does not authorize an 
 appropriation of any part of it, or a material interference with 
 public travel.® 
 
 The election of the company to cross under or over a highway, 
 when the power of choice is conferred by statute, is not, when 
 made in good faith, subject to judicial control ; "^ nor is the 
 decision of a board or tribunal, which is authorized by statute 
 to determine the mode of altering the highway, open to review by 
 the court.^ The statute may, by implication, authorize a change 
 in the mode of crossing, — as from one at grade to one by 
 tunnel.^ 
 
 Diversion of Highways. — The right to divert a highway is not 
 easily implied. It is not inferred from a right to change its grade 
 
 1 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. State, 3 5 Commonwealth a. Hartford & N. H. 
 
 Head, 523; Danville, H., & W. R. Co. v. R. Co., 14 Gray, 379. 
 
 Commonwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29 ; Regina v. « Little Miami R. Co. v. Greene 
 
 GreatNorthof England R. Co., 9 Q.B 315. County, 31 Ohio St. 338; ante. Chap. 
 
 ■' Miller v. Long Island R. Co. (U. S. VII. p. 155. Whether in a particular 
 
 C. C, E. D. N. Y.), 10 Reporter, 197. case it can cross longitudinally, or only 
 
 8 Philadelphia, W., & B. R. Co. v. at right angles, see Long Branch Com'rs ' 
 Maryland, 20 Md. 157; Little Miami R. k. West End R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 566. 
 Co. V. Greene County, 31 Ohio St. 338 ; ' People v. New York Cent. R. Co., 74 
 Pettis V. Johnson, 56 Ind. 139 ; Bay State N. Y. 302, 12 Hun, 195 ; Struthers v. Dun- 
 Brick Co. D.Foster, 115 Mass. 431. See kirk, W., & P. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 282; 
 Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208; ante, Chap. VII. p. 149; post, Chap. IX. 
 West V. Louisville, C, & L. R. Co., 8 p. 255. 
 Bush, 404. 8 Waterbury v. Hartford, P., & F. E. 
 
 * Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Joliet, Co., 27 Conn. 146. 
 
 79 III. 25; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. » Central E. Co. u. State, 3 Vroom. 
 
 People, 91 111. 251. 220. 
 
KAILKOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 245 
 
 at a crossing.^ The diversion cannot be justified on the ground 
 of mere economy in construction, but only on the ground of 
 necessity or public convenience.^ When the right to divert 
 exists, it must be exercised reasonably, with due regard to the 
 convenience and safety of travellers upon the highway.* 
 
 Duty to restore the Highway to its Original Condition. — The 
 
 laying of a railroad across highways often requires excavations 
 and erections, and a greater or less change in the surface. The 
 duty, however, to restore the highway as far as may be to its 
 former condition, and to erect and maintain structures necessary 
 for such restoration, is presumed to be incumbent on the com- 
 pany, even without any express requirement imposed by statute.* 
 The duty to restore it to its former condition so as not to inter- 
 fere materially with its usefulness, and to make the crossing safe 
 and convenient for the public, is usually imposed by statute.^ It 
 is a continuing duty,® and binds other corporations which suc- 
 ceed to the ownership or possession of the railroad.^ It is to 
 be substantially rather than literally performed.^ Whether it is 
 to be performed with reference to the growth of the community, 
 so as to require improvements and alterations adapted to the 
 increased use of the highwaj', is a question to be determined by 
 the terms and intent of the statute.^ Its performance may be 
 
 1 Warren R. Co. v. State, 5 Dutcher, R. Co., 35 Wis. 679 ; People v. New 
 353. York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 74 N. Y. 302, 
 
 2 Norwich & W. R. Co. v. Killingly, 12 Hun, 195 ; Wasmer v. D. L. & W. R. 
 25 Conn. 402 ; Greenwich v. Easton & A. Co., 80 N. Y. 212. 
 
 R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 217 ; Queen v. e Wellcome o. Leeds, 51 Me. 313 ; 
 
 Wycombe R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 310 ; Central R. Co. v. State, 3 Vroom, 220 ; 
 
 Fenwick v. Ea-st London R. Co., L. R. 20 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. t. Moffitt, 75 
 
 Eq. Cas. 544 ; Attorney-General v. Ely, 111, 524 ; Eyler u. County Com'rs, 49 Md. 
 
 H., & S. R. Co., L. R. 4 Ch. App. 194, L. R. 257. 
 
 6 Eq. Caa. 106 ; Pugh b. Golden Valley R. ' People v. Chicago &. A. R. Co., 67 
 
 Co., L. R. 12 Ch. Div. 274 ; ante, Chap. 111. 118 ; Little Miami R. Co. ». Greene 
 
 VII. p. 203. County, 31 Ohio St. 338; Wasmer v. D. 
 
 8 Veazie v. Penobscot R. Co., 49 Me. L. & W. R. Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 
 
 119 ; Potter v. Bunnell, 20 Ohio St. 150 ; 100, 80 N. Y. 212. 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. State, 3 Head, 8 Little Miami R. Co. v. Greene County, 
 
 623. SI Ohio St. 338 ; Roberts v. Chicago & 
 
 * Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Baltimore, N. W. R. Co., 35 Wis. 679. 
 46 Md. 425 ; Eyler ■;. County Com'rs, ' Burritt v. New Haven, 42 Conn. 174 ; 
 
 49 Md. 257 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. o. State v. New Haven & N. Co., 45 Conn. 
 
 State, 37 Ind. 489, 502. 331 ; Manley v. St. Helens, C, & R. Co., 
 
 5 Gear v. C. C. & D. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 2 Hurl. & N. 840. The company is not 
 
 83 • Hamden v. New Haven & N. Co., 27 bound to erect screens or guards between 
 
 Conn. 158 ; Roberts v. Chicago & N. W. its raiboad and a highway, unless the 
 
246 
 
 THE LAW OP EAILBOADS. 
 
 enforced by mandamus,^ or in equity ,2 and its breach is punish- 
 able by indictment.^ 
 
 The company is sometimes authorized to substitute a new high- 
 way for the old one, and it is a question of statutory construc- 
 tion whether it must open the new road for use before occupying 
 the old one.* 
 
 Legislative Power over Highways. — The legislature, unless re- 
 stricted by the State Constitution, may even, without the consent 
 of a municipality, and without allowing it compensation, author- 
 ize railroads to be laid in its highways. If the city or town is 
 deemed the owner of the fee, it holds the interest as trustee of 
 the public, without title to compensation as a proprietor.^ The 
 statute, however, may require the consent of the municipality.^ 
 
 Limitations of Power of Municipal Corporations over Highways. — 
 A municipal corporation cannot, by virtue of its ordinary powers, 
 confer a franchise on individuals or a private corporation to lay 
 
 statute imposes the duty. Coy «. Utica 
 & S. R. Co., 23 Barb. 643. 
 
 1 People V. Green, 58 N. Y. 152 ; Peo- 
 ple V. New York Cent. & H. R. E. Co., 74 
 N. y. 302; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. 
 State, 37 Ind. 489 ; People v. Chicago & 
 A. R. Co., 67 Dl. 118 ; State v. Gorham, 37 
 Me. 451. 
 
 2 Johnston v. Providence & S. E. Co., 
 10 R. I. 365. 
 
 3 People V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 74 N. Y. 302, 12 Hun, 198 ; State v. 
 Gorham, 37 Me. 451. 
 
 * Danville, H., & W. R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29 ; Louisville & N. 
 E. Co. V. State, 3 Head, 523; Eegina v. 
 Scott, 3 Q. B. 853; Regina v. Great North 
 of England R. Co., 9 Q. B. 315. See Phil- 
 lips V. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 78 Pa. 
 St. 177. 
 
 6 Morris & B. R. Co. v. Newark, 2 
 Stock. 352 ; Hinchman v. Paterson Horse 
 E. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75 ; Jersey City v. 
 Jersey City & B. R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 
 360 ; Paterson & P. H. R. Co. v. Paterson, 9 
 C. E. Green, 158; Phil. & T. R. Co., In 
 re, 6 Whart. 25 ; Commonwealth v. Erie 
 & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339, 354 ; Dan- 
 ville, H., & W. R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 
 73 Pa. St. 29; Struthers v. Dunkirk, W., 
 & P. R. Co., 87 Pa. St. 282; Tennessee & 
 
 A. R. Co. !). Adams, 3 Head, 596 ; Perry 
 V. New Orleans, M., & C. E. Co., 55 Ala. 
 413; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 37 
 Barb. 357, 88 Barb. 369; Kellinger v. 
 Forty-Second St. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 206; 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., In re, 
 77 N. Y. 248 ; People v. Law, 34 Barb. 
 494; Brooklyn City & N. R. Co. v. Coney 
 Island & B. R. Co., 35 Barb. 364 ; New 
 York & H. B. Co. v. Forty-Second St. 
 R. Co., 50 Barb. 309; Clinton v. Cedar 
 Rapids & M. R. Co., 24 Iowa, 455 ; Chicago, 
 N., & S. W. R. Co. y. Newton, 36 Iowa, 299 ; 
 Hone V. K. & D. M. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 636 ; 
 Council Bluffs v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. 
 
 B. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338; Chicago, R. L, 
 & P. R. Co. V. Joliet, 79 111. 25 ; Savannah 
 & T. R. Co. V. Savannah, 45 Ga. 602; 
 Rio Grande R. Co. u. Brownsville, 45 
 Tex. 88; New Orleans, M., & C. R. Co. 
 V. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 617, 478. 
 But see Donnaher v. State, 8 S. & M. 
 649. In Missouri, the legislature cannot, 
 under the State Constitution, authorize 
 railroads in streets without the consent of 
 the municipal corporation. Atlantic & 
 P. R. Co. V. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 315, 
 66 Mo. 228. 
 
 Hickey ;;. Chicago & W. I. R. Co., 6 
 Brad. (111.) 172. 
 
EAILEOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 247 
 
 railroad tracks on highways, and to run cars upon them, and 
 receive fares from passengers ; ^ but it may derive the power by 
 grant from the legislature, or its unauthorized exercise of the power 
 may be ratified by statute.^ When the power has been conferred, 
 the courts will not supervise its exercise.^ The power conferred 
 on a municipal corporation, to authorize a street railroad, does not 
 include the power to make an exclusive grant.* The right when 
 granted will pass to a company, which succeeds by due authority 
 of law to the franchises of the company to which the grant was 
 made.* 
 
 A municipality cannot, where its assent is not required by the 
 statute, impose conditions on a railroad company which has been 
 authorized by the legislature to lay tracks in the streets.® Where 
 its assent is required, it may, it has been held, qualify the assent 
 by conditions.'^ The conditions of a license accepted by the com- 
 pany become a contract imposing a liability until the license is 
 revoked.^ Where the statute authorizes the laying of rails on a 
 highway, with the assent of the municipal body, such assent, 
 when given, is irrevocable.® Its power to assent has been held 
 to be exhausted by a refusal to assent. i" The power of a city to 
 
 1 Davis V. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 3 B., & Q. R. Co., 92 111. 21 ; Cairo & V. R. 
 Duer, 119, 2 Duer, 66.3 ; Milhau v. Sharp, Co. v. People, 92 III. 170 ; EdwardsviUe R. 
 27 N. Y. 611, 16 Barb. 193, 28 Barb. Co. v. Sawyer, 92 Bl. 377. 
 
 228 ; New York & H. R. Co. v. New ' Cairo & V. R. Co. ». People, 92 III. 
 
 York, 1 Hilton, 562 ; Stuyvesant v. Pear- 170. 
 
 Ball, 15 Barb. 244 ; People v. New York ^ State v. Cincinnati Gas Light & C. 
 
 & H. R. Co., 45 Barb. 73; Hickey v. Co., 18 Ohio St. 262; Cincinnati Street R. 
 
 Chicago & W. I. R. Co., 6 Brad. (111.) Co. v. Smith, 29 Ohio St. 291. 
 172; People's R. Co. v. Memphis R. Co., ^ Quincy v. Chicago, B., & Q. E. Co., 
 
 10 Wall. 38, i Cold. (Tenn.) 406; Perry 94 III. 537. 
 
 V. New Orleans, M., & C. R. Co., 55 Ala. ^ Council Bluffs v. Kansas City, St. J., 
 
 413 ; Covington Street R. Co. v. Coving- & C. B. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338. As to 
 
 ton, 9 Bush, 127 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. waiver of a condition by the city, see Chi- 
 
 St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228, 3 Mo. App. 315; cago City R. Co. v. People, 78 111. 541. 
 Attorney-General v. Lombard & S. Sts. ' Pacific R. Co. v. Leavenworth City, 
 
 Pass. R. Co., 10 Phil. 352, 32 Leg. Int. 238. 1 Dillon, 393; New York & H. R Co. v. 
 
 See Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. State, 37 New York, 1 Hilton, 562. See Jersey 
 
 Ind. 489; Pettis U.Johnson, 56 Ind. 139. In City & B. R. Co. v. Jersey City & H. 
 
 Iowa, the city or town may permit the Horse R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 61. 
 streets to be used for railroads operated * Troy v. Troy & L. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 
 
 by horse power, but not for those operated 657. See New York v. Second Av. R. 
 
 by steam power. Stanley v. Davenport, Co., 34 Barb. 41 ; Philadelphia o. Lom- 
 
 6 Northwest. Rep. 706, 2 Northwest. Rep. bard & S. Sts. P. R. Co., 3 Grant, 403; 
 
 1064. People's R. r. Memphis R., 10 Wall. 38. 
 
 2 Clarke v. Blackmar, 47 N. Y. 150; ' Brooklyn Cent. R. Co. v. Brooklyn 
 People V. Law, 34 Barb. 494; Wetmore City R. Co., 32 Barb. 358; People's Pass. 
 V. Law, 34 Barb. 515 ; Brown v. Duplessis, R. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 Leg. Int. 424. 
 
 14 La. An. 842 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. '» Musser v. Fairmount & A. St. E. Co., 
 V. People, 91 111. 251 ; Quincy v. Chicago, 5 Pa. L. J. (Clark) 466. 
 
248 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 regulate the use of streets by railroad companies is often expressly 
 conferred,^ and may be implied as included in its general power 
 over streets.^ A city is liable to a land-owner suffering special 
 damage from the laying of a railroad in the highway which 
 without legal authority it authorized to be laid.^ 
 
 Underground and Elevated Railroads. — The legislature may au- 
 thorize a railroad to be constructed under as well as upon high- 
 ways ; and, when so constructed, tlie rights of land-owners are 
 determined by the same principles as if they were built upon the 
 surface.* It may also authorize " elevated railroads," or railroads 
 running lengthwise upon structures raised above the highway.^ 
 Authority to build tunnels under the streets of a city may be 
 given by implication.® 
 
 Liability of the Company to Travellers on the Highway for Defec- 
 tive Crossings or laying of Tracks. — A railroad company which is 
 authorized to cross highways is under a legal duty to construct 
 its road across them in a reasonable manner, with reference to 
 the double use of the crossing for its own purposes, and for those 
 of ordinary travelling. It is bound to keep the crossing as safe 
 and convenient for public travel as is practicable, and is liable to 
 individuals using the highway for injuries caused by defects and 
 obstructions created by it which could have been avoided with 
 reasonable precautions.^ The same obligation rests upon a com- 
 
 1 Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 3 v. Gilbert Elevated E. Co., 41 N. Y. 
 Mo. App. 315, 66 Mo. 228. Superior, 489, 43 N. Y. Superior, 292; 
 
 2 Vilest Pliil. Pass. R. Co. v. Philadel- Haight v. New York Elevated R. Co.) 
 phia, lOPiiil. 70. 49 How. Pr. 20; Patten «. New York 
 
 8 Stanley v. Davenport, 2 Nortliwest. Elevated R. Co., 3 Abbott N. C. 306 ; 
 
 ^«P- 60*- Ninth Avenue E. Co. .;. New York Ele- 
 
 < Plant V. Long Island R. Co., 10 vated R. Co., 3 Abbott N. C. 347 ; Sixth 
 
 Barb. 26 ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Rea- Avenue R. Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., 
 
 ney, 42 Md. 117. See Hodgkinson i;. 3 Abbott N. C. 372 ; Currier w. West Side 
 
 Long Island R. Co., 4 Edw. Ch. 411 ; Patent Elevated R. Co., 6 Blatch. 487. 
 Eamsden v. Manchester, S. J., & A. R. e Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Reaney, 42 
 
 Co., 1 Exch. 723. jyjj i^-j ' 
 
 5 For various questions concerning 7 Snow v. Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen, 
 
 this mode of "rapid transit" arising in 441; Gillett v. Western R. Co., 8 Allen, 
 
 New York, see New York Elevated R. 660 ; Oakland R. Co. v. Fielding, 48 Pa. 
 
 Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 327, 7 Hun, 239, 3 St. 320; Penn. & O. C. Co. v. Graham, 63 
 
 Abbott N. C. 401; Gilbert Elevated R. Pa. St. 290; Veazie v. Penobscot E. Co., 
 
 Co., In re, 70 N. Y. 361, 9 Hun, 303; 49 Me. U9; Burritt ;;. New Haven, 42 
 
 People V. Stebbins, 20 Hun, 26; Kings Conn. 174; People v. Chicago & A. E. 
 
 County Elevated E. Co., In re, 20 Hun, Co., 67 111. 118; Gale v. New York Cent. 
 
 217, 18 Hun, 378; Sixth Avenue E. Co. & H. E. E. Co., 76 N. Y. 594, 13 Hun 1; 
 
EAILROADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 249 
 
 pany when under authority of law it lays a track upon and along 
 the highway.^ 
 
 Liability of the City or Tovrn for Injuries to Travellers on the High- 
 ■way, caused by Defective Construction of Railroads upon or across the 
 Highway. — A town or city which is by law bound to keep the 
 highway safe and convenient for public travel is not relieved of 
 the duty by the fact that the defects or obstructions were caused 
 by a railroad company, where it has the power to remove them ; 
 but it remains liable to travellers who suffer injury from such 
 defects and obstructions, even though the injured person has also 
 a right of action against the company .^ The town or city is not, 
 however, liable where it has no power to remove the obstruction; ^ 
 and it is not liable for injuries caused by the unlawful running of 
 trains.* Some statutes expressly or by construction relieve the 
 town entirely from responsibility for defects in the works law- 
 fully constructed by the company on highways, and place it 
 exclusively on the company.^ 
 
 Liability of the Company to indemnify the City or Town. — A city 
 or town which has been compelled to pay damages for injuries 
 caused by the default of the company, may recover the amount 
 of the company, including, where proper notice has been given of 
 the pendency of the suit, costs and expenses.® This right to 
 
 Lyon V. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. Co., Conn. 213; Swenson «. Lexington, 69 
 
 6 Mo. App. 516. The company is not Mo. 157; Eyier v. County Com'rs, 49 
 
 liable directly to an individual for mere Md. 257 ; Watson v. Tripp, 11 E. I. 98. 
 non-feasance in making a proper cross- « Jones v. Waltham, 4 Cush. 299 ; 
 
 ing. Buck v. Conn. & P. K. R- Co., 42 Davis v. Leominster, 1 Allen, 182 ; Young 
 
 Yj 3'7Q V. Yarmoutli, 9 Gray, 386; Johnson v. 
 
 'i Fash V. Third Av. R. Co., 1 Daly, Salem, T., & C. B. Co., 109 Mass. 522. 
 148' Worster v. Forty-Second Street & * Vinal v. Dorchester, 7 Gray, 421. 
 
 G S R Co 50 N. Y. 203; Cuddeback ^ Sawyer v. Northfield, 7 Cush. 490; 
 
 .. Jewett, 20 Hun, 187. White v. Quincy 97 Mass. 430. See 
 
 2 Davis V. Leominster, 1 Allen, 182; Burritt w. New Haven, 42 Conn. 174; 
 
 Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. Lowell Lee v. Barkhampstead, 46 Conn. 213. 
 Horse R Co., 109 Mass. 221; Johnson v. ^ Lowell v. Boston & L. R. Co., 23 
 
 Salem T & C B. Co., 109 Mass. 522 ; Pick. 24 ; Proprietors of Locks & Canals 
 
 Hawks «. Northampton, 116 Mass. 420; w. Lowell Horse R. Co., 109 Mass. 221; 
 
 Batty V Duxbury 24 Vt. 155; Wellcome Wobum v. Boston & L. R. Co., 109 Mass. 
 
 V. Leeds, 51 Me. 313 ; People v. Brooklyn, 283 ; State v. Gorham, 37 Me. 451 ; Veazie 
 
 65 N Y'349-Wilsonr.Watertown, 3Hun, v. Penobscot R. Co., 49 Me. 119; Port- 
 
 608; Norris'town v. Moyer, 67 Pa. St. land v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 66 Me. 
 
 355' Philadelphia u. Weller, 4 Brewster, 485; Hamden v. New Haven & N. Co., 27 
 
 24 • Hamden v. New Haven & N. Co., 27 Conn. 158; Wilson v. Watertown, 3 Hun, 
 
 Conn 158; Lee v. Barkhampstead, 46 508 ; Batty w. Duxbury, 24 Vt. 155. 
 
250 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 recover over of the company has been sustained where its duty 
 was based on a contract with the municipal corporation.^ 
 
 If a railroad company is bound to keep a highway crossing in 
 repair, and refuses to perform the duty, the ofScers of the city or 
 town who are bound to see that it is kept safe for travel may 
 repair it, and recover the expense of the corporation.^ 
 
 . Bridges over Highways. — The word " bridge," in statutes 
 which require a railroad company to build aud keep in repair 
 bridges at crossings of highways, has been defined to mean the 
 entire structure, including the approaches, although a part of the 
 structure may be outside of the location.^ The term " bridge," 
 in statutes, is not confined to structures for crossing waters, but 
 signifies as well crossings of public ways on land.* A crossing 
 includes an embankment, which is a necessary part of it.^ 
 
 Remedies for Unlawful Use of the Highway. — A land-owner may, 
 irrespective of the ownership of the fee, maintain an action for 
 unlawful obstructions of the highway causing him special damage, 
 as for the laying of a railroad upon it without authority of law, or 
 in a manner not authorized,^ and may also maintain ejectment 
 against parties unlawfully occupying a highway the fee of which 
 belongs to him.'^ The land-owner may waive his right to object 
 to the laying of the railroad on a highway.^ He may maintain 
 an action for an unskilful construction of a railroad on the high- 
 way, whereby he suffers damage.® He may recover against the 
 
 1 Brooklyn v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 251 ; Parrot v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co., 
 47 N. y. 475 ; McMahon v. Second Av. 3 Ohio St. 330 ; Hopkins v. Western 
 R.Co., 75N. Y.231, 11 Hun, 347 ; Lowery Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 190; Atchison & 
 V. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 28. N. R. Co. v. Garside, 10 Kan. 652 ; Park 
 
 2 Penn. R. Co. v. Duquesne Borough, c C. & S. W. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 636 ; Stange 
 46 Pa. St. 223 ; Wellcome v. Leeds, 51 v. Hill, 7 Northwest. Rep. 115. See Black 
 Me. 313. „. Phil. & R. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 249. 
 
 5 Parker v. Boston & M. R., 3 Cush. ' Carpenter v. Oswego & S. R. Co., 24 
 
 107 ; Commonwealth v. Deerfield, 6 Allen, N. Y. 655 ; Henderson r. New York Cent. 
 
 449, 455 ; Titcomb v. Fitchburg R. Co., 12 R. Co., 17 Hun, 344 ; Weisbrod v. Chi- 
 
 Allen, 254; White «. Quincy, 97 Mass. cago & N. R. Co., 21 Wis. 602 ; Pliillips ». 
 
 430 ; Burritt v. New Haven, 42 Conn. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 177. 
 
 174 ; Hayes u. New York Cent. & H. R. See Sweet v. Buffalo, N. Y., & P. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co., 6 Hun, 63. 13 Hun, 643. 
 
 < State V. Gorham, 37 Me. 451. 8 state v. Atlantic City, 5 Vroom, 99; 
 
 5 Farley a. C. K. I. & P. R. Co., 42 Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 
 
 Iowa, 234. 208. 
 
 « Park V. C. & S. W. R. Co., 43 Iowa, » Cadle v. Muscatine W. E. Co., 44 
 
 636 ; Hatfield v. Central R. Co., 4 Vroom, Iowa, 11. 
 
EAILBOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 
 
 251 
 
 company for obstruoting the highway by its trains contrary to 
 statute, upon proof of an injury caused by its default.^ 
 
 A railroad laid upon or across a highway,^ or a turnpike,^ with- 
 out legal authority, or in a manner not authorized, is indictable as 
 a nuisance ; but when duly constructed under such authority it 
 is not indictable, although it may obstruct travel on the high- 
 way.* The nuisance may be enjoined at the instance of a person 
 suffering special damage ; ^ or of the municipal authorities having 
 the control of the highway ; ^ or of the proper law-officer of the 
 State, who may file an information ex officio, or on the relation 
 of persons having an interest.^ 
 
 Mandamus lies on the petition of the city or town, where there 
 is no other adequate remedy, to compel the company to erect 
 structures, and construct and maintain its road upon or across 
 highways in the manner required by statute.^ 
 
 1 Hall V. Brown, 54 N. H. 495, 58 N. 
 H. 93. 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Nashua & L. R. 
 Co., 2 Gray, 54 ; Commonwealth v. New 
 Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray, 339 ; Common- 
 wealth t. Vt. & M. R. Co., 4 Gray, 22 ; 
 Commonwealth v. Old Colony & F. R. R. 
 Co., 14 Gray, 93; Central R. Co. v. State, 
 3 Vroom, 220 ; Davis v. New York, 14 N. 
 Y. 506, 525; Regina v. Great North of 
 England R. Co., 9 Q. B. 315 ; Regina v. 
 Wilson, 18 Q. B. 348. 
 
 ' Northern Central R. Co. v. Common- 
 wealth, 9 Weekly Notes of Cases, 129. 
 
 * Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co., 
 2 C. E. Green, 75; Danville, H., & W. K. 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29; 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Joliet, 79 
 111. 25 ; Hentz v. Long Island R. Co., 13 
 Barb. 646 ; -post, Chap. X. p. 267. 
 
 ' Brainard v. Conn. River R. Co., 7 
 Cush. 506 ; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 
 Mass. 208 ; Hartshorn v. South Reading; 
 8 Allen, 501 ; Zabriskie v. Jersey City & B. 
 R. Co., 2 Beas. 314 ; Higbee v. Camden & 
 A. R. Co., 4 C. E. Green, 276; People o. 
 Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263; Davis ... New 
 York, 14 N. Y. 506 ; Mulhau !>. Sharp, 27 
 N. Y. 611, 15 Barb. 198, 17 Barb. 435, 28 
 Barb. 228 ; Clarke v. Blackmar, 47 N. Y. 
 160; Wetmore o. Story, 22 Barb. 414; 
 Pettis i>. Johnson, 56 Ind. 189 ; Hiekey v. 
 Chicago & W. I. R. Co,, 6 Brad. (111.) 172; 
 Osborne v. Brooklyn City B. Co , 5 Blatch. 
 
 366 ; Miller v. Long Island R. Co. (U. S. 
 C. C, E. D.), 10 Reporter, 197. Whether 
 owners of distinct parcels of real estate 
 may join in a bill to enjoin a nuisance 
 common to all, see Hinchman v. Pater- 
 son Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75; 
 Morris & E. R. Co. o. Prudden, 5 C. E. 
 Green, 530 ; Cadigan v. Brown, 120 Mass. 
 493 ; post. Chap. X. p. 269. 
 
 ^ Springfield v. Conn. River R. Co., 4 
 Cush. 63 ; Greenwich v. Easton & A. B. 
 Co., 9 C. E. Green, 217 ; Johnston v. Provi- 
 dence & S. R. Co., 10 R. L 365; Rio 
 Grande R. Co. v. Brownsville, 45 Tex. 
 88. See Sheboygan v. Sheboygan & F. 
 R. Co., 21 Wis. 667. 
 
 T District Attorney v. Lynn & B. R. 
 Co., 16 Gray, 242; Attorney-General v. 
 Metropolitan B. Co., 125 Mass. 515 ; 
 Davis V. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 526 ; 
 Higbee v. Camden & A. R. Co., 4 C. E. 
 Green, 276 ; Attorney-General v. Dela- 
 ware & B. B. R. Co., 12 C. E. Green, 
 1, 631 ; Attorney-General v. Lombard & 
 S. Sts. Pass. R. Co., 10 Phil. 352. The 
 proceeding, though instituted on the re- 
 lation of private persons, is under the 
 control of the law officer who filed it. 
 People V. Central Cross-Town R. Co., 21 
 Hun, 476. 
 
 ' Cambridge v. Charlestown Branch 
 R.Co., 7 Met. 70; State o. Gorhani, 37 
 Me. 451 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. 
 State, 37 Ind. 489. 
 
252 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 A town or city, which is bound to maintain highways, has been 
 held to have such an interest in them, and in bridges and structures 
 forming a part of them, as to entitle it to maintain an action 
 against a railroad company for injuries to them.^ 
 
 Street Railway Companies. Respective Rights of the Company, 
 and of the Public in the Use of the Street. — A street-railway com- 
 pany owns the structure laid by it on the highway, and has a 
 superior right to the space covered by its track. Its cars are 
 confined to a fixed line of movement, and upon that line have 
 precedence over other carriages which can pass on the remain- 
 ing surface of the highway .^ The public on foot or in car- 
 riages may cross its track, and travel on the space covered 
 by it when its cars are not passing, and even incidentally, though 
 not to the obstruction or inconvenience of the railway cars, 
 drive ordinary carriages upon its rails. A person driving his 
 carriage on the track should keep on the lookout for the railway 
 cars, so as to leave the track without retarding their movement.* 
 The company, in the exercise of this superior, though not exclu- 
 sive, "right to its track must use the reasonable care allowed 
 by its mode of movement so as not to injure persons lawfully 
 using the street in other ways, and similar care is incumbent on 
 such persons.* Having a property in the structure which it has 
 laid for its purposes, and also a franchise, its rails cannot be used 
 by other competing common carriers driving railway or other 
 carriages, without special legislative authority. Such a use is a 
 direct interference with its franchise, entitling it to compensation, 
 
 1 Troy V. Cheshire R. Co., 23 N. H. Co., 15 N. Y. 380; Adolph w. Central Park, 
 83; Hooksett v. Araoskeag Man. Co., 44 N., & E. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 530, 65 N. Y. 
 N. H. 105; Greenwich v. Easton & A. 554, 33 N. Y. Superior, 186, 43 N. Y. 
 R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 217, 220. Superior, 199; Chicago W. D. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Temple, 14 Gray, Bert, 69 111. 388. 
 
 69 ; Commonwealth v. Hicks, 7 Allen, * Shea u. Portrero & B. V. R. Co., 44 
 
 573; State v. Foley, 31 Iowa, 527 ; Jatho Cal. 414; Lynam o. Union R. Co., 114 
 
 1'. Green & C. St. Pass. R. Co., 4 Phil. 24; Mass. 83 ; Unger v. Forty-Second St. R. 
 
 Hegan v. Eighth Av. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 380; Co., 51 N. Y. 497 ; Shea v. Sixth Av. R. 
 
 Adolph V. Central Park, N., & E. R. R. Co., Co., 62 N. Y. 180 ; Baxter v. Second Av. 
 
 76 N. Y. 530, 65 N. Y. 554, 33 N. Y. Supe- R. Co., 3 Rob. 510 ; Adolph v. Central 
 
 rior, 186, 43 N. Y. Superior, 199 ; Barker Park, N., & E. R. R. Co., 33 N. Y. Superior, 
 
 0. Hudson River R. Co., 4 Daly, 274. ]86, 43 X. Y. Superior, 199, 65 N. Y. 554, 
 
 3 Jersey City & B. R. Co. v. .lersey 76 N. Y. 530 ; Brooklyn Cent. R. Co. o. 
 City & H. Horse R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 61, Brooklyn City R. Co., 32 Barb. 358 ; Com- 
 69 ; Wilbrand v. Eighth Av. R. Co., 3 nionwealth v. Temple, 14 Gray, 69 ; Meyer 
 Bosw. 314; Fettriek «. Dickenson, 22 w. Lindell R. Co.,6 Mo. App. 27; Pendle- 
 How. Pr. 248 ; Hegan v. Eighth Av. E. ton St. E. Co. v. Stallman, 21 Ohio St. 1. 
 
BAILEOADS UPON HIGHWAYS. 253 
 
 and differs essentially from an incidental use of its rails by the 
 general public.^ The grant to a street-railway company is not 
 by implication exclusive, and a grant may afterwards be made to 
 another company to use other parts of the street for a competing 
 line, without compensation being made for the injury to the 
 earlier grant arising from such competition.^ The municipal 
 authorities retain the control of highways on which street rail- 
 ways are laid, and may make necessary repairs and improve- 
 ments of the highway, which cause a temporary inconvenience 
 or obstruction to the movements of the railway cars.^ 
 
 The 3tate retains its police povrer to require of corporations 
 already created further safeguards in the crossing and use of 
 streets.* A license by a charter to a street-railroad company to 
 make a connection with another railroad owned by a city, does not 
 involve a guaranty that the city shall maintain the railroad with 
 which the connection is to be made." 
 
 The power to lay a double track in a street may be exercised 
 by laying one track at one time, and the other subsequently.* 
 The power to lay such a track is presumed to mean two sets of 
 tracks upon the same location, so that cars can be run on the 
 same route in opposite directions, and not two sets of tracks in 
 different streets.'^ 
 
 The company may remove snow from its track to another part 
 of the street, but it must exercise the right reasonably, avoiding 
 unnecessary injury to the owners of property.^ 
 
 1 Metropolitan R. Co. v. Quincy R. Second St. R. Co., 50 Barb. 285, 809 j 
 Co., 12 Allen, 262 ; Sixth Av. R. Co. v. Sixtli Avenue R. Co. o. Gilbert Elevated 
 Kerr, 72 N. Y. 330, 45 Barb. 138; Jersey R. Co., 43 N. Y Superior, 292, 41 N. Y. 
 City & B. R. Co. v. Jersey City & H. Superior, 489; Canyonville & G. Road 
 HorseR. Co., 5 C. E.Green, 61; Camden Co. v. Stephenson, 8 Oreg. 263. See 
 Horse R. Co. v. Citizens Coach Co., 1 Market St. R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 51 
 Stewart (N. J.), 146,2 Stewart (N. J.), Cal. 583. 
 
 299, 4 Stewart (N. J.), 525; Brooklyn = Middlesex R. Co. v. Wakefield, 103 
 
 Cent. R. Co. i;. Brooklyn City R. Co., 32 Mass. 261. 
 
 Barb. 358 ; Buffalo Street R. Co. v. Leigh- * Veazie v. Mayo, 45 Me. 560, 49 Me. 
 
 ton, 10 Reporter, 149; Central City Horse 156. 
 
 E. Co. u. Ft. Clark E. Co., 81 111. 523 ; * Southwark R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 
 
 ante, Chap. VII. pp. 194, 217, 218. Stat- 47 Pa, St. 314. 
 
 utes provide for the use by one street ^ People's Pass. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 37 
 
 railroad company of another company's Leg. Int. 424. 
 
 track, by paying compensation. Brook- ' People v. New York & H. R. Co., 45 
 
 lyn, W., & N. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 245, 19 Barb. 73. 
 
 g„j, 314. 8 Short V. Bait. City Pass. E. Co., 50 
 
 2 New York & H. R. Co. v. Forty- Md. 73. 
 
254 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE LOCATION. 
 
 Choice of Location. — The charter or special legislative act 
 creating the corporation may define in detail the location ; ^ or 
 indicate the termini and general route, leaving the company to 
 fix its line within certain limits in some plan to be recorded ; * or, 
 as under general railroad laws, the general and particular location 
 may be left to the determination of the corporation, subject to the 
 approval or revision of certain public authorities.^ Whether ai 
 charter justifies a certain location, and whether a recorded loca- 
 tion applies to particular land, is a question for judicial construc- 
 tion. 
 
 Where only the general termini and route are prescribed by the 
 legislature, the location in other respects, including the precise 
 termini and intermediate points, is usually left to the election of the 
 company ; and the exercise of its discretion, where it acts in good 
 faith and within the limits of its powers, cannot be reviewed by 
 the courts.* But the company cannot abuse such discretion and 
 depart from the purpose of its charter by building another rail- 
 road than that intended by the legislature.^ 
 
 Power of Choice, when exhausted. Change of Location. — The 
 
 power of the company to determine its location, when once 
 exercised, is exhausted. It may have a discretion as to its ter^ 
 mini or the selection of its intermediate points, or its route 
 
 1 Coney Island & B. R. Co., In re, 12 325 ; Parke's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 137 ; 
 Hun, 451. Struthers v. Dunkirk, W., & P. R. Co., 
 
 2 Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston 87 Pa. St. 282 ; Newcastle & R. R. Co. v. 
 & W. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360; ante, Ch. VII. Peru & I. R. Co., 3 Intl. 464; Southern 
 P- 147. Minn. R. Co. ... Stoddard, 6 Minn. 150 ; 
 
 8 Boston & M. R. v. Lowell & L. R., Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony 
 
 124 Mass. 368 ; ante. Chap. VII. pp. 147, & F. R. R. Co., 6 Alien, 221. 
 148. 5 Brigham u. Agricultural Branch R. 
 
 ' Hentz V. Long Island R. Co., 13 Co., 1 Allen, 816; Commonwealth v. 
 
 Barb. 646 ; People t'. New York Cent. Franklin Canal Co., 21 Pa. St. 117 ; Cen- 
 
 & H R. R. Co., 74 N. Y. 302, 12 Hun, 195 ; tral R. Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 4 Stewart 
 
 Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Speer, 56 Pa. St. (N. J.), 476, 6 Stewart (N. J.), 755. 
 
THE LOCATION. 255 
 
 between certain fixea points, but, having exercised the discretion, 
 it cannot change the location without legislative authority. This 
 is in accordance with the ancient rule of the common law, 
 that, " if a man once determines his election, it shall be deter- 
 mined forever." ^ 
 
 The power to change the location, to a certain extent, is some- 
 times given by statute ; ^ but when given, it is to be strictly con- 
 strued. Thus, an authority to vary the route and change the 
 location after a selection, is construed not to be an authority 
 to change the location after the road is constructed.^ A power 
 to change the route does not include the power to change the 
 terminal points.* The power to lay double tracks is not ex- 
 hausted by the laying of one set, and may be used subsequently 
 to lay another set.^ 
 
 Expiration of Power. — The power of the company to take 
 lands may be determined by the expiration of the time within 
 which, by the charter, it is required to be exercised.^ But the 
 language of the statute may be comprehensive enough to autho- 
 rize the condemnation of land after the completion of the road, 
 when required for its maintenance and operation.'^ Thus, where 
 
 1 Com. Dig. tit. "Election," C. 2; Co., 1 Gray, 340; Hudson River R. Co. ». 
 State V. Norwalk & D. Tump. Co., 10 Cutwater, 3 Sand. 689 ; Mahaska County 
 Conn. 157 ; Turnpike Soc. v. Hosmer, 12 R. Co. v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 28 
 Conn. 361, 364 ; Hudson & D. C. Co. Iowa, 437. See Baltimore & S. R. Co. 
 r. New York & E. R. Co., 9 Paige, 323; v. Compton, 2 Gill, 20, where a land- 
 Mason V. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 35 owner brought an action of damages for 
 Barb. 373 ; People v. New York & H. R. removal of the location from his land. 
 Co., 45 Barb. 73 ; Doughty v. Somerville * Moorhead v. Little Miami R, Co., 17 
 & E. R. Co., 1 Zab. 442, 469 ; Morris & E. Ohio, 340 ; Little Miami R. Co. v. Naylor, 
 R. Co. V. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 205; 2 Ohio St. 235; Atkinson ». Marietta & C. 
 Louisville & N. Branch Tump. Co. u. E. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21. 
 
 Nashville & K. Tump. Co., 2 Swan * Attorney-Generai v. West Wisconsin 
 
 (Tenn), 282 ; Mine Hill & S. H. R. Co. v. R. Co., 36 Wis. 466. 
 
 Lippincott, 86 Pa. St. 468 ; Atlantic & P. ^ Philadelphia, W., & B. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 
 R. Co. V. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 315, 66. liams, 54 Pa. St. 103 ; People's Pass. E. 
 
 Mo. 228, 248 ; Brigham v. Agricultural Co. v. Baldwin, 37 Leg. Int. 424. 
 
 Branch R. Co., 1 Allen, 316 ; Kenton « Peavey v. Calais R. Co., 30 Me. 498 ; 
 
 County Court v. Bank Lick Tump. Co., Morris & E. R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 2 
 
 10 Bush, 529 ; Biakemore v. Glamorgan- Vroom, 205 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. u. St. 
 
 shire Canal Co., 1 My. & Keene, 154, 1 CI. Louis, 66 Mo. 228, 250, 3 Mo. App. 315 ; 
 
 & Fin. 262, 3 You. & Jerv. 60, 1 Am. Rail. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Rucker, 14 111. 
 
 Cas. 151, notes. See Works y. Junction R. 353; Regina w. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co., 5 M'Lean, 425; South Carolina R. 16 Q. B. u. s. 864; ante, Chap. VII. p. 
 
 Co., In re, 2 Rich. 434 ; South Carolina 145. 
 
 R. Co. V. Blake, 9 Rich. 228; Mississippi ^ Childs v. Central R. Co., 4 Vroom, 
 
 & T. R. Co. V. Devaney, 42 Miss. 555. 823; Phil., W., & B. R. Co. v. Williams, 
 
 2 Boston & P. R. Corp. v. Midland R. 54 Pa. St. 103 ; Farnham v. Del. & H. C. 
 
256 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 a railroad company was authorized to " maintain and continue a 
 railroad, with a single and double track, and with such appen- 
 dages as may be deemed necessary for the convenient use of the 
 same," it was held that the power to acquire land by condemna- 
 tion for workshops, and whatever is included in the term " ap- 
 pendages," is not exhausted by an apparent completion of the 
 road, where the increase of its business requires land for those , 
 purposes.! The power to build branches has been held to expire 
 with the power to build the original or main road.^ 
 
 Identity of the Property taken. Certainty in the Description of 
 the Location. — A written description, usually called the location or 
 survey, duly verified and deposited or recorded, as required by 
 statute, in most jurisdictions determines finally, by metes and 
 bounds, the particular property taken,^ and becomes the perma- 
 nent record evidence of the amount taken, which cannot be con- 
 trolled by extrinsic proof.* This description, aided by maps and 
 documents, properly referred to, must identify clearly the prop- 
 erty taken, and show with reasonable certainty the limits of 
 the taking. The owner is entitled to know precisely what is 
 taken and what is left.^ A plan or map, referred to, may be used 
 to explain the written description, and to aid it when it is defec- 
 tive ; ® but the plan, in order to assist the description, must be 
 
 Co., 61 Pa. St. 265 ; Selden v. Del. & H. Roxbury, 120 Mass. 596 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 
 C. Co., 29 N. Y. 634 ; ante. Chap. VII. pp. Porter, 29 Pa. St. 165 ; Heise v. Penn. R. 
 
 151, 152. Co , 62 Pa. St. 67 ; Vail v. Morris & E. 
 
 1 Cliicago, B., & Q. R. Co. w. Wilson, R. Co., 1 Zab. 189; New York & B. R. 
 17 111. 123 ; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Dan- Co., In re, 62 Barb. 85 ; State v. Armdl, 
 iel?, 16 Ohio St. 390 ; ante, Cliap. VII. 8 Kan. 288 ; Atlantic & 0. R. Co. v. Sulli- 
 pp. 150, 151. vant, 5 Ohio St. 276 ; Callender v. Paines- 
 
 2 Morris & E. R. Co. v. Central R. Co., ville & H. R. Co., 11 Ohio St. 516 ; Cleve- 
 2 Vroom, 205 ; Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. land & T. R. Co. v. Prentice, 13 Oliio St. 
 St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 315,325, 66 Mo. 373; State y. Bailey, 19 Ind. 452 ; Prather 
 228. See Pittsburg c. Penn. R. Co., 48 v. Jefeersonville, M., & I. R. Co., 52 Ind. 
 Pa. St. 355. 16, 40; Anderson, L., & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 
 8 Baker v. Gee, 1 Wall. 333 ; Pacific Kernodle, 54 Ind. 314, 318 ; ante, Chap. 
 
 R. Co. V. Lindell, 39 Mo. 329 ; Western VII. p. 180. 
 
 Pacific R. Co. V. Tevis, 41 Cal.489; Mor- « Hazen v. Boston & M. R.. 2 Gray, 
 
 ris & E. R. Co. v. Blair, 1 Stock. 635 ; 574 ; Andover v. County Com'rs, 5 Gray, 
 
 Coe v. New Jersey Midland R. Co., 4 393; Grand Junction, R., & D. Co. v. 
 
 Stewart {N. J.), 105, 146. County Com'rs, 14 Gray, 553 ; Pinkerton 
 
 4 Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, v. Boston & A. R. Co., 109 Mass. 627 ; 
 574 ; Lowell & L. R. Co. u. Boston & L. Hunt v. Smith, 9 Kan. 137 ; Quincy, M., 
 R. Co., 7 Gray, 27. & p. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 54 Mo. 334. See 
 
 5 Strang v. Beloit & M. R. Co., 16 Mason v. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 85 
 Wis. 635 ; Housatpnic R. Co. u. Lee & H. Barb. 373 ; Vail v. Morris & E. R. Co., 1 
 R. Co., 118 Mass. 391 ; Kohlhepp v. West Zab. 189. 
 
THE LOCATION. 257 
 
 intelligible without the aid of parol evidence,^ and must be 
 referred to in the description.^ Another paper, although not 
 annexed, may by reference be made a part of the instrument 
 which contains the description, and supply its defects.^ The 
 quantity is sufficiently definite when it can be calculated from 
 courses and distances stated on a plan which is a part of the 
 report made by the viewers.* Where a map is required by 
 statute, it should be sufficiently exact and complete, and capable, 
 by application to the land, of defining precisely what is taken.^ 
 Possession taken by the company, and acquiesced in by the land- 
 owner, will give certainty to an ambiguous description.® The 
 erection of visible and substantial monuments has sometimes 
 been required. '^ 
 
 A survey, followed by occupancy, for the purpose of con- 
 structing a railroad, may determine the location, so as to give a 
 priority against other companies attempting to appropriate the 
 land within it.^ 
 
 Conflicting Grants. Priority of Location. — Where the grants of 
 a definite location made by the State are inconsistent, the earlier 
 one will prevail.^ But if there is no confiict on the face of the 
 charters, — as in the case of a general power to build a railroad 
 between two points, with the right of selecting the particular 
 route, — the title to specific land will be with the company 
 which has priority in taking the land and perfecting its location.^" 
 Where, under general laws, individuals may create a railroad 
 corporation and obtain a location by agreement with certain 
 public authorities, a corporation so organized cannot take land 
 
 1 Portland, S., & P. R. Co. v. County 8 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Canon 
 Com'rs, 65 Me. 292. City & S. J. R. Co., 99 U. S. 463, 101 
 
 2 Wilson V. Lynn, 119 Mass. 174. U. S. 711 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. v. 
 
 3 "Washington Park Com'rs, In re, 52 Mecklim, 23 Kan. 167. 
 
 N. Y. 131. " Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Bait. 
 
 * Penn. R. Co. o. Bruner, 55 Pa. St. & O. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1, 144; Mor- 
 
 318. ris & E. R. Co. v. Blair, 1 Stock. 635, 
 
 8 New York & B. R. Co., In re, 62 644. 
 
 Barb. 85 ; Converse v. Grand Rapids & I. '" Morris & E. R. Co. v. Blair, 1 Stock. 
 
 R. Co., 18 Mich. 459. 635, 644 ; Waterbury v. Dry Dock, E. B., 
 
 « Drury w. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. & B. R. Co., 54 Barb. 388; Coe v. New 
 
 571 578- Duck River Valley N. G. R. Jersey Midland R. Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), 
 
 Co.'y Cochrane, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 478. 105, 146; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Caiion 
 
 7 Northern R. Co. v. Concord & C. R. City & S. J. R. Co., 99 U. S. 463, 101 
 
 Co., 27 N. H. 183; Vail v. Morris & E. R. U. S. 711. 
 Co., 1 Zab. 189. 
 
 17 
 
258 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 already appropriated for the location of another company .^ If 
 a narrow defile is a necessary route for two companies, the court, 
 while the location will belong to the company which has priority, 
 will make proper orders authorizing the other company to use 
 the track upon just and equitable terms.^ 
 
 Construction of Statutes granting a Location. — Statutes defin- 
 ing a location should have a reasonable construction with refer- 
 ence to the subject-matter and the" public object of the grant.^ 
 A charter which authorizes the construction of a railroad " to the 
 place of shipping lumber," on a tide-water river, does not limit the 
 location to the upland or to the shore, but authorizes the exten- 
 sion of the road across the flats and over tide-water to a conven- 
 ient place for reaching vessels.* The extension of the boundaries 
 of a city or town, named as a part of the location, does not en- 
 large the powers of the company, but the location remains lim- 
 ited to the municipality as bounded at the time the grant was 
 made.^ The mere enumeration of certain places through which the 
 road is to pass does not require that it shall pass through them in 
 the order named.^ 
 
 Meaning of Various Terms used in defining Routes and Termini. — 
 
 The terms "beginning or ending ai " a place, and the terms 
 " beginning /rom " and " running to " it, are inclusive, and, unless 
 a contrary intent appears from the statute, they authorize a loca- 
 tion within such place.''' A grant of power to build a railroad 
 
 1 Bolton & M. K. u. Lowell & L. 6 Commonwealth v. Erie &N. E. E. 
 R. Co., 124 Mass. 368 ; ante, Chap. VII. Co., 27 Pa. St. 3.39 ; People v. Detroit & 
 pp. 154-157. H. Plank Eoad Co., 37 Mich. 195. 
 
 2 Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Canon ^ Commonwealth v. Fitchburg R. Co., 
 City & S. J. R. Co., 99 U. S. 463, 101 8 Cush. 240. 
 
 U. S. 711. See Springfield v. Conn. River ' Farmers' Tump. Road v. Coventry, 
 
 R. Co., 4 Cush. 63, 72; Lathrop v. June- 10 Johns. 389.; Mohawk Bridge Co. v. 
 
 tion R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 41. Utica & S. R. Co., 6 Paige, 554; Mason w. 
 
 3 Farmers' Tump. Road v. Coventry, Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 35 Barb. 373 ; 
 10 Johns. 389 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 
 Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325 ; Morris & E. R. 343 ; Moses v. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 
 Co. V. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 205. Pe- Co., 21 111. 516; Commonwealth v. Erie 
 titions and plans presented to the legisla- & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339 ; Tennes- 
 ture are not admissible to affect the con- see & A. R. Co. v. Adams, 3 Head, 696 ; 
 struction of the charter. Commonwealth Rio Grande R. Co. v. Brownsville, 45 Tex. 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Cush. 240 ; Boston 88 ; Hazlehurst v. Freeman, 52 Ga. 244. 
 & P. R. Co. V. Midland R. Co., 1 Gray, But see North Eastern R. Co. v. Barker, 
 340, 366. 8 Rich. 177. It has been held that, under 
 
 ^ Peavey v. Calais R. Co., 30 Me. the general railroad law of New Jersey, 
 498. botli termini may be within the same city 
 
THE LOCATION. 259 
 
 " between " two places carries the right to extend it into each 
 place.-' The power to construct a railroad " along " a river au- 
 thorizes its construction by the side but not upon the bed of the 
 
 Burden of Proof on the Company in justifying its Acts as being 
 within the liocation. — The burden of proof'is on the company, in 
 justifying an entry for the construction of its railroad, to show 
 that it was made on land included within the location .^ The 
 filing of the location, as required by statute, is in some States 
 deemed the act of taking, although the company is allowed on 
 certain conditions to enter at an earlier period for the purpose of 
 constructing the road ; and it becomes liable in trespass for an 
 entry on land if it does not file the location as required by stat- 
 ute, or if the location, as filed, does not cover the land entered 
 upon.* 
 
 Purposes for which the Location may be used. — The estate or 
 interest of the company, and the uses to which it may apply its 
 location, have been treated in an earlier chapter.® 
 
 or town. Long Branch Com'rs v. West construction of statute provisions au- 
 
 End R. Co., 2 Stewart (N. J.), 666 ; Na- thorizing " connections " with other rail- 
 
 tional Docks R. Co. o. Central R. Co., roads, see Cleveland, P., & A. R. Co. v. 
 
 6 Stewart (N. J.), 755, 4 Stewart (N. J.), Erie, 27 Pa. St. 380; Cleveland & P. R. 
 
 475. For the construction of the term Co. v. Speer, 66 Pa. St. 325 ; Parke's Ap- 
 
 " near," see Parke's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. peal, 64 Pa. St. 137 ; Pennock v. Coe, 23 
 
 137 ; Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica & S. How. 117 ; Attorney-General v. Delaware 
 
 R. Co., 6 Paige, 564 ; Warner v. Callen- & B. B. R. Co., 12 C. E. Green, 631, 645 ; 
 
 der, 20 Ohio St. 190. For the construe- Long Branch Com'rs v. West End R. Co., 
 
 tion of the term "at," see State v. R«- 2 Stewart (N. J.), 5^6; Chicago, B., & Q. 
 
 ceiver of Taxes, 9 Vroom, 299; Mason R. Co. v. Chamberlain, 84 111., 333. 
 V. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 35 Barb. ^ Morris & E. R. Co. v. Central R. Co., 
 
 373 ; Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica & S. 2 Vroom, 205, 212. 
 
 R. Co., 6 Paige, 654. For the construe- 2 Stevens v. Erie R. Co., 6 C. E. 
 
 tion of the terms " at or near," or " within Green, 259. 
 
 or near," see Fall River Iron Works v. 3 Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 
 
 Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 674 ; New York & B. R. Co., In re, 62 
 
 221 ; State v. Hudson Tunnel R. Co., 9 Barb. 85 ; Atlantic & 0. R. Co. v. SuUi- 
 
 Vroom, 648 ; Central R. Co. o. Penn. R. vant, 5 Ohio St. 276 ; Crawfordsville & 
 
 Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), 475, 5 Stewart W. R. Co. v. Wright, 6 Ind. 252. Proof 
 
 (N.'j.), 755. The term " near " has been of actual enjoyment and use is sufficient 
 
 held so' indefinite as to make the descrip- in criminal cases. Commonwealth v. 
 
 tion of a particular location fatally defec- Hicks, 7 Allen, 673. 
 tive. Indianapolis & V. R. Co. v. New- * Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 
 
 Bom, 64 Ind. 121 ; De Long r. Schimmel, 574 ; Wamesit Power Co. v. Allen, 120 
 
 58 Ind. 64. " Or " may be construed to Mass. 352 ; Lund v. New Bedford, 121 
 
 mean " and." Attorney-General v. West Mass. 286 ; ante, Chap. VII. pp. 209, 210. 
 Wisconsin R. Co., 36 Wis. 466. For the ' Chap. VII. pp. 167-161. 
 
260 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 Title to Location as affected by Non-user, Misuser, and Adverse 
 tTse. — The company's right to its location is not defeated or 
 impaired by a non-user ; ^ nor is the discontinuance of certain 
 trains a cause of forfeiture,^ while an entire cessation of all pub- 
 
 I lie use is such a cause.^ The land-owner may, in case of mis- 
 appropriation, maintain his right by a writ .of entry.* A writ of 
 mandamus has been held a proper remedy to compel the corpo- 
 ration to work its railway.^ The right to complain of a discon- 
 tinuance of trains, or o change in the management of the road, 
 is a public right to be asserted by the State, and not a private 
 right to be asserted by individuals, who suffer only as a part of 
 the public.^ A company may lose its right to its location by per- 
 mitting another company to take the laud included within it, and 
 
 j to build a road upon itJ 
 
 The company having no power to grant an easement within its 
 location for travel, such an easement cannot be acquired bj' pre- 
 scription ; 8 and a parol license to pass over or otherwise use the 
 location is revocable.^ But it may, it has been held, allow the 
 adjoining owner to obtain title by adverse possession, where by 
 its conduct it shows its purpose to abandon to him its location, or 
 a part thereof.^" 
 
 The land included in a location reverts, on its ceasing to be 
 held for a public use, to the original owner.^^ But a transfer of 
 
 1 Barlow v. Chicago, E. I., & P. E. Aid. 646 ; Kegina v. Birmingham & G. E. 
 Co., 29 Iowa, 276 ; Noll v. Dubuque, B., & Co., 2 Q. B. n. s. 4T; Eegina v. London & 
 M. E. Co., 32 Iowa, 66 ; Hestonville, M., N. W. R. Co., 16 Q. B. n. s. 864. 
 
 & F. Pass. E. Co. V. Philadelphia, 89 Pa. « Kinealy v. St. Louis, K., C, & N. E. 
 
 St. 210. Co., 69 Mo. 658. But see Baltimore & S. 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Pitchburg E. Co., R. Co. v. Compton, 2 Gill, 20. Compare 
 12 Gray, 180. Knorr v. Germantown E. Co., 5 Whart. 
 
 y 8 People v. Albany & V. E. Co., 24 N. 256. 
 
 "TT. 261, 37 Barb. 216, 19 How. Pr. 523 ; ? Coe <;. New Jersey Midland E. Co., 
 
 People 0. Kingston & M. Tump. E. Co., 4 Stewart (N. J.), 105, 146; Chesapeake 
 
 23 Wend. 193 ; People v. Bristol & R. & 0. Canal Co. v. Bait. & 0. E. Co., 4 
 Tump. Co., 23 Wend. 223 ; Attorney- Gill & J. 1. 
 
 General v. West Wisconsin E. Co., 36 8 gapp „, Northern Cent. E. Co. (Md. 
 
 Wis. 466; Kenton County v. Bank Lick C. & App., October, 1878), 8 Eeporter, 
 
 Tump. Co., 10 Bush, 529. 334, 51 Md. 115. 
 
 < Proprietors of Locks & Canals o. • « Penn. E. Co. v. Jones, 50 Pa. St. 
 
 Nashua & L. E. Co., 104 Mass. 1. 417 ; Heyl v. Phil., W., & B. E. Co., 51 
 
 ' State V. Hartford & N. H. R Co., 29 Pa. St. 469 ; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. God- 
 Conn. 538 ; People v. Albany & V. E. Co., frey, 71 111. 500 ; ante, Chap. VI. p. 131. 
 
 24 N, Y. 261, 268, 37 Barb. 210, 19 How. w Norton v. London & N. W. E. Co., 
 Pr. 323 ; Attorney-General v. Boston, 123 L. E. 9 Ch. Div. 623, L. E. 13 Ch. Dir. 
 Mass. 460, 475 ; Attorney-General u. Bir- 268. 
 
 mingham & 0. J. E. Co., 4 De Gex & S. " Jessup v. Loucks, 55 Pa. St. 350. 
 490; King v. Severn & W. E. Co., 2 B. & 
 
THE LOCATION. 261 
 
 the location, under authority of law, to another corporation, to be 
 used for the same or similar purpose, does not have this effect.^ 
 
 Title to Location, how questioned. — The record of a court of 
 competent jurisdiction authorizing the condemnation cannot be 
 impeached collaterally .^ But the land-owner may dispute a loca- 
 tion which is void under the statute.^ Acts done under color of 
 the charter can be questioned only by the State.* The owner 
 of land, at the time of the taking, can alone question the va- 
 lidity of the location ; ^ and he can question only the location 
 upon his own land.^ He cannot interfere to prevent the construc- 
 tion of the railroad on a location lawfully acquired, where the 
 company proceeds to complete the construction after the period 
 fixed by statute for its completion.'' 
 
 Illegal Location confirmed. — The legislature may confirm an 
 illegal location, but the confirming statute will not be presumed 
 to relieve the company from liabilities to individuals, or to the 
 public, which existed at the time of the confirmation.® 
 
 Bill in Equity to reform a Defective Location. — Equity will not 
 reform a location on a bill brought by a land-owner on the ground 
 that the company's agent, without its authority or knowledge, 
 agreed with him by parol that the location should be of a certain 
 width, which was less than that of the location as filed.® 
 
 Trespassers upon a Location liable to an Action at Common 
 Law. — The company may .maintain actions of tort for unlaw- 
 ful entries upon its location.^" 
 
 1 Junction E. Co. u. Euggles, 7 Ohio ° Newton v. Agricultural Branch R. 
 St. 1 ; Hatch v. Cincinnati & I. R. Co., 18 Co., 15 Gray, 27. 
 
 Ohio St. 92 ; ante. Chap. VIII. p. 233. ' Atlantic & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 
 
 2 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Pound, 22 Mo. 228, 3 Mo. App. 315. 
 
 111. 399 ; Western Md. R. Co. v. Patterson, ^ Commonwealth v. Old Colony & F. 
 
 37 Md. 125 ; New Central Coal Co. v. R. R. Co., 14 Gray, 93 ; Salem v. Eastern 
 
 George's Creek Coal & I. Co., 37 Md. R. Co., 98 Mass. 431. 
 
 537 ; Cleveland, P., & A. R. Co. v. Erie, ° Central Mills Co. w. New York & N. 
 
 27 Pa. St. 380 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. E. R. Co., 127 Mass. 537. 
 
 Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325. " Conn. & P. R. R. Co. v. Holton, 32 Vt. 
 
 ' New York, H., & N. R. Co. v. Boston, 43 ; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Potter, 42 Vt. 
 
 H., & B. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196. 265 ; Bangor, O., & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 
 
 < Farnham v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 47 Me. 34, 49 Me. 9 ; Morrison v. Bucks- 
 
 61 Pa. St. 266. port & B. R. Co., 67 Me. 353; Greenville 
 
 « Hentz V. Long Island R. Co., 13 Barb. & C. E. Co. v. ParUow, 14 Rich. 237. 
 646. 
 
262 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 LIABILITY FOE TOKTS IN GENERAL. 
 
 Injuries to Real Estate. — The liability of a railroad company for 
 torts or actionable injuries to real estate is substantially the same 
 as that of individuals, and it is not limited to the legal capacity of 
 the corporation.^ It is in general determined by the principle de 
 utere tuo id alienam non Icedas, as applied to the relations of indi- 
 viduals ; but under statutes the citizen may have larger rights 
 against the company than at common law.^ Whether the land- 
 owner's redress is by action at law will depend on the scope and 
 limits of the special remedy usually provided by statute for inju- 
 ries to private property, which are authorized by the State in the 
 exercise of its right of eminent domain. 
 
 statute Remedies exclusive. — Usually, where the legislature 
 authorizes the taking of private property for a public use, it pro- 
 vides, as already stated, a special remedy for determining his 
 compensation ; and this remedy excludes actions at common law 
 for all acts and proceedings which are within the statute and its 
 remedy.^ The special remedy, however, does not exclude actions 
 at common law for injuries which were not authorized by statute, 
 or for those which result from the negligent and unskilful use of 
 powers conferred by the statute.* The special remedy is more 
 comprehensive in some States than in others, and, therefore, an 
 interference with private rights which comes within it in one 
 
 1 National Bank ». Graham, 100 U. S. 321 ; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. E. Co., 51 
 699, 702, Swayne, J. : " Corporations are N. H. 504 ; Thompson v. Androscoggin E. 
 liable for every wrong they commit, and I. Co., 64 N. H. 545, 58 N. H. 108 ; Wa- 
 in such cases the doctrine of ultra vires bash & E. Canal «. Spears, 16 Ind. 441 1 
 has no application." See Doolan v. Mid- Morrison v. Bucksport & B. E. Co., 67 
 land E. Co., L. E. 2 App. Cas. 792. Me. 853 ; Hurdman v. North Eastern R. 
 
 2 Phil. & E. E. Co. V. Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. Co., L. E. 3 C. P. Div. 168. 
 
 ■866 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W , & C. E. Co. u. » Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, 
 
 Gilleland, 56 Pa. St. 445; Burroughs «. p. 177. 
 
 Housatonic E. Co., 15 Conn. 124 ; Hooker * Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, 
 
 u. New Haven & N. Co., 15 Conn. 312, p. 179. 
 
LIABILITY FOK TOETS. 263 
 
 State will in another be a cause of action at common law.^ 
 Thus, actions at law have been maintained against the railroad 
 company, where, under due authority of law and in the prudent 
 construction of its works, it diverted streams of water from their 
 natural course, depriving the land-owner of his right to the rea- 
 sonable use of the water ; ^ turned water upon laud of persons not 
 crossed by the railroad ; ^ disturbed the natural support of the 
 adjoining proprietor's soil ; * threw stones in blasting on land out- 
 side of its location ; ^ changed the grade of a street, and laid 
 tracks on it to the injury of the owner of land lying on it ; ^ and 
 constructed its road upon a turnpike to the injury of the company 
 owning it.'' Some, if not all, of these injuries, when resulting 
 from the lawful and proper construction of the railroad, are in 
 other States held to be included within the special remedy .^ The 
 points here noted have been already considered in an earlier 
 chapter, where the authorities are cited and illustrations given.^ 
 
 Consequential Injuries not actionable. — The company, like any 
 other proprietor, is not liable at common latw for injuries result- 
 ing to others from the use of its location, where it conducts 
 its business with proper care and skill, and does not exceed its 
 powers. It is entitled to do within its location the things neces- 
 sary and usual in the construction, maintenance, and working of 
 its railroad, and is not responsible, except under statutes, for 
 damage suffered in the reasonable exercise of this right.^" Thus, 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, ^ Carman v. Steubenville & I. R. Co., 4 
 p. 176. Ohio St. 399; Hay v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 
 
 2 Stodghill V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 159; Tremain v. Cohoes Co., 2 N. Y. 
 Co., 43 Iowa, 26 ; Kobinson v. New York 163. For liability for a personal injury 
 & E. R. Co., 27 Barb. 512. by negligence in blasting, see Driscoll v. 
 
 3 Eaton V. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 Newark & R. L. & C. Co., 37 N. Y 637. 
 N. H. 504 ; Robinson v. New York & E. ^ Protzman v. Indianapolis & C. R. 
 R. Co., 27 Barb. 512. Co., 9 Ind. 467 
 
 * Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Reaney, 42 ' Seneca Road Co v. Auburn & R. R. 
 
 Md. 117 ; Richardson v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., Co., 5 Hill, 170. 
 
 25 Vt. 465 ; Hatch v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 ^ Dodge v. County Com'rs, 8 Met. 
 
 Vt. 49, 63 ; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. 380 ; Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 
 Co , 51 N. H. 504, 521, 528, 529 ; People v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385; Curtis 
 
 Canal Board, 2 Thomp. & C. 275. But v. Eastern R. Co , 14 Allen, 55, 98 Mass. 
 
 see Boothby K.Androscoggin & K. R. Co., 428; Boothby u. Androscoggin & K. R. 
 
 51 Me. 318; Hortsraan v. Covington & L. Co., 61 Me. 318; Whitehouse v. Andros- 
 
 R. Co., 18 B. Monr. 218. The company is coggin & K. R. Co., 52 Me. 208; Sabin w. 
 
 liable for injuries arising from such ex- Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 363. 
 
 cavation when not conducted with proper ' Ante, Chap. VIL, pp. 174-177. 
 
 precautions. Rau y. Minn. Valley R. Co., "> See authorities cited on(e. Chap. VII. 
 
 18 Minn. 442; Cahill v. Eastman, 18 pp. 197, 198. 
 Minn. 324. 
 
264 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 when using due care and skill in the construction and operation 
 of its road and machinery, it is not liable at common law for fires 
 communicated to property by sparks issuing from its engines ; ^ 
 for injuries caused by the explosion of its steam-boilers ; ^ for 
 injuries to cattle frightened by the headlights or noise of its 
 engines ; ^ for inconveniences like noise, smoke, sparks, stench, 
 or jarring caused by its trains ; * or for the accumulation of snow 
 on the adjoining owner's land caused by structures erected within 
 the location to prevent the tracks being obstructed by snow.^ 
 
 Injuries caused by the Lawful Use of the Location not action- 
 able. — The company's right to its location, except at the cross- 
 ings of ways established by law, is practically exclusive, and it 
 may within it do all acts necessary and proper for the construction 
 and operation of its road. The company is presumed to have 
 paid compensation to the land-owner in the mode prescribed by 
 statute for all injuries necessarily resulting from the proper ex- 
 ecution of the authority conferred upon it. Accordingly, it is 
 hot liable for injuries to adjoining owners arising from the lawful 
 use of its location.® Its right to its location is, however, limited 
 to the uses for which the property was taken, and is not equal to 
 that of an ordinary proprietor, who may use his land for all law- 
 ful purposes.'^ 
 
 The Company's Right to its Location Subject to Public Exigen- 
 cies. — The company's right to the exclusive possession of its 
 
 1 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. Mass. 1 ; Walker v. Old Colony & N. E. 
 366; Sunbury & E. R. Co. w. Hummell, Co., 103 Mass. 10. See two early con- 
 27 Pa. St. 99 ; Burroughs v. Housatonie flicting eases in New York, in both of 
 E. Co., 15 Conn. 124 ; Thompson w. An- which there was the same plaintiff, being 
 droscoggin R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 556, actions for running trains illegally on 
 58 N. H. 108. The company's liability Sunday during public worship in the 
 for injuries by fire, at common law and vicinity of and to the annoyance of a re- 
 under statutes^ will be treated in Chap, ligious society. First Baptist Church v. 
 XVI. Schenectady & T. R. Co., 5 Barb. 79 
 
 2 Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476. First Baptist Church •,. Utica & S. R 
 
 3 Bellefontaine & I. R. Co. «. Schruy- Co., 6 Barb. 313. Compare Hatch v. Vt, 
 hart, 10 Ohio St. 116 ; Hahn u. Southern Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 62; State v. Tup 
 Pacific R. Co., 51 Cal. 605. per, Dudley (S. C), 135; ante. Chap. VII 
 
 « Randle v. Pacific R. Co., 65 Mo. 325; pp. 197, 198, 208, 217. 
 Hentz w. Long Island R. Co., 13 Barb. ^ Carson v. Western R. Co., 8 Gray, 
 
 646 ; Cleveland & P. R, Co. v. Speer, 56 423 ; Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co. 51 
 
 Pa. St. 326; Burton v. Phil., W., & B. R. N. H. 504, 527. 
 
 Co., 4 Harring. (Del.) 252; Illinois Cent. ° Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, pp. 
 
 R. Co. V. Grabill, 50 111. 241 ; Eames v. 159-161, 197. 
 
 New England Worsted Co., 11 Met. 570; '' Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, p. 
 
 Presbrey v. Old Colony & N. E. Co., 103 160. 
 
LIABILITY FOB TORTS. 265 
 
 right of way must yield at times to superior public exigencies. 
 The proper public authorities, acting upon the maxim, salus 
 populi guprema est lex,^ may, in order to extinguish a fire, lay a 
 hose across the track ; and the company is liable to the town or 
 city which owns the engine, when, after due warning or notice, it 
 wilfully or negligently isevers the hose by running the train over 
 it.2 It is likewise liable, when thus in default, for the burning 
 of a building which but for its unlawful act would have been 
 saved ; and its wrong is deemed the proximate cause of the in- 
 jury .^ The proper public officers may enter on the track to build 
 or repair public highways and bridges which are lawfully laid 
 across it.* 
 
 Grants and Licenses. — A grant or license, or request from the 
 land-owner, will justify the company's interference with his 
 property which would otherwise be a trespass. The grant of 
 land for the purposes of the railroad, or of authority to build 
 and maintain it, implies a license to do all acts necessary and 
 proper for the construction and maintenance of the railroad, and 
 such grant is a defence to actions of tort for acts coming within 
 it.^ A grant or license, while justifying acts within it, will not re- 
 lieve the company from liability to an action for the consequences ■ 
 of its want of care and skill in constructing and managing the 
 authorized works.^ 
 
 Injuries from the Choice of or Changes in the Location, — Where 
 the company has a discretion in the choice of a location, it is not 
 liable to an action for selecting one rather than another, on the 
 ground that another would have been less injurious to the land- 
 owner.^ A land-owner who suffers injury which is common to 
 
 1 Taylor v. Plymouth, 8 Met. 462, ton & C. R. Co., 18 B. Monr. 219 ; Hills 
 456. V. Boston & M. R., 18 N. H. 179 ; Ludlow 
 
 2 Hyde Park v. Gay, 120 Mass. 589. v. Hudson Elver R. Co., 4 Hun, 239 ; 
 8 Metallic Compression Casting Co. y. Clark v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 28 Vt. 103 ; 
 
 Fitchburg R. Co., 109 Mass. 277 ; Atkin- Mathews v. St. Paul & S. C. B. Co., 18 
 
 son V. Newcastle & G. W. Co., L. R. 6 Minn. 434 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Allen, 
 
 Exch. 404. But see Mott v. Hudson 39 111. 205 ; ante, Chap. VI, pp. 132-134. 
 River R. Co., 1 Robertson, 585, 8 Bosw. ^ Selden v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 
 
 346. 29 N. Y. 634, 24 Barb. 362; Hatch v. 
 
 * Sweeney v. Boston & A. R. Co., 128 Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 69, 70 ; Spen- 
 
 Mass. 5 ; North Penn, R. Co. v. Stone, 3 cer v. Hartford, P., & F. R. Co., 10 R. I. 
 
 Phil. 421. 14; ante, Chap. VI. p. 134; Chap. VIL 
 
 5 Babcock u. Western R. Co., 9 Met. p. 180. 
 553 ; Boothby v. Androscoggin & K. R. ' New York & E. R. Co. v. Young, 33 
 
 R. Co., 51 Me. 318; Hortsman v. Lexing- Pa. St. 175. 
 
266 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 other citizens in the vicinity in the depreciation of his property, 
 by the removal of the company's location to some point more 
 remote from his property, has no right of action against the com- 
 pany.i A deviation from the lawful location at one point cannot 
 be taken advantage of by a person who owns land at another point, 
 which is included within it.^ The company is liable for an entry 
 to make a new location after its power has been exhausted.^ 
 
 Actions for Trespasses and Abuse of Powers. — The statute 
 remedy does not exclude actions at common law for injuries 
 which the special tribunal had no right to take into account. In 
 an assessment it is presumed that the company will execute its 
 authority in a lawful and proper manner. Therefore, where it 
 transcends or abuses its powers to a person's injury, he has his 
 remedy at common law.* 
 
 The company is liable to an action at common law for a tres- 
 pass which preceded an entry or occupation under due and 
 legal proceedings.^ It is liable to an action where it constructs 
 its road outside of its location ; ® or without authority appropriates 
 materials outside of it ; '^ or enters on the adjoining land to con- 
 struct a drain ; ^ or to use such land as a cart-way or for other 
 purposes ; ^ or unlawfully obstructs an easement, as a right of 
 drainage, passage, or access.^" 
 
 It is liable to an action for injuries caused by the negligent 
 and unskilful construction of its road." Thus, while necessary 
 injuries caused to land-owners in the blasting of rocks within the 
 location may be within the special remedy, it is liable to an action 
 if it fails, within a reasonable time, to remove them from the 
 adjoining land on which they were thrown.^^ ^ jg li^jgig f^j, ^j^g 
 
 1 Kinealy v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. ^ Parsons v. Howe, 41 Me. 218. 
 
 Co., 69 Mo. 658. But see Baltimore & S. * State v. Armell, 8 Kan. 288. 
 
 R. Co. V. Compton, 2 Gill, 20. 9 Sabin ... Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 
 ■^ Newton v. Agricultural Branch R. 363. 
 
 Co., 15 Gray, 27. lo Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. 
 
 = Little Miami R. Co. v. Naylor, 2 Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385 ; Bell 
 
 Ohio St. 235; ante, Chap. IX. pp. 254, 255. u. Midland R. Co., 10 C. B. n. s. 287. 
 
 * Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, " Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, p. 
 
 p. 179. 179. 
 
 6 Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, ^^ gatin v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 
 P- 179. 363; Whitehouse w. Androscoggin R. Co., 
 
 <> Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 52 Me. 208; ante. Chap. VII., Eminent" 
 
 574 ; Eaton v. European & N. A. R. Co., Domain, p. 175. 
 69 Me. 520, 637. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 267 
 
 unauthorized diversion of streams from their natural course, and 
 for not maintaining adequate culverts and openings for their 
 passage, whereby land-owners suffer injury,^ Various inter- 
 ferences with waters and highways, entitling persons to compen- 
 sation, either hj a special remedy or by an action at law, have 
 been treated in two preceding chapters.^ 
 
 A company entering on private property for the construction 
 of its road, without taking the steps and complying with the con- 
 ditions prescribed by the Constitution and statutes, is a tres- 
 passer, and liable to an action at law. This point has been already 
 considered.^ 
 
 The company is liable for injuries resulting from its unlawful 
 acts. Thus, it is liable for fire communicated from its engines, 
 even in the absence of negligence, where it has not the right to 
 use locomotive engines propelled by steam.* 
 
 Penal Actions. — Penal actions against railroad corporations for 
 the enforcement of police regulations, or for compelling the per- 
 formance of certain duties, either at the suit of parties interested 
 or of common informers, are sometimes authorized by statutes.^ 
 They may be prosecuted for the illegal acts of the company's 
 servants, done with its express or implied authority.® A party 
 availing himself of this remedy must bring himself strictly within 
 it.'^ The legislature may remit a penalty which is recoverable by 
 a municipal corporation.^ Police regulations are also enforced by 
 information.® 
 
 Liable to Indictment Nuisances. Breach of Duty. — A corpora- 
 tion may be prosecuted by indictment for a nuisance, consisting 
 in a misfeasance as weU as for one consisting in a non-feasance.^" 
 
 1 Ante, Ch. VII., Eminent Domain, p. ^ Commonwealth v. Ohio & P. E. Co., 
 203. 1 Grant, 329. 
 
 2 Chap. VII, Eminent Domain, pp. '' Keith v. Cheshire E. Co., 1 Gray, 
 203-206 ; Chap. VIII., Railroads upon 614. 
 
 Highways. ^ State v. Bait. & O. E. Co., 3 How. 
 
 8 Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Domain, 534, 12 Gill & J. 399. 
 
 p. 170. » State u. Vt. Cent. E. Co., 28 Vt. 
 
 4 Jones V. Festiniog R. Co., L. E. 3 Q. 583. 
 
 B. 733. ^^ Commonwealth v. New Bedford 
 
 ' Galena & U. E. Co. v. Appleby, 28 Bridge, 2 Gray, 339; State c. Vt. Cent. 
 
 111. 283 ; Commonwealth v. Ohio & P. E. E. Co., 27 Vt. 103 ; Donaldson v. Miss. & 
 
 Co., 1 Grant, 329 ; Barrett v. Maiden & M. E. Co., 18 Iowa, 280 ; Eegina v. Great 
 
 M. E. Co., 3 Allen, 101. North of England E. Co., 9 Q. B. 815. 
 
268 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 Generally it is not indictable for misfeasances, unless they are 
 of the nature of nuisances.^ It is liable under statutes to indict- 
 ment for breach of public duty, where it would not be liable at 
 common law, as for fatal injuries caused by its negligence.^ It 
 may be indicted for the violation of Sunday laws.* The indictable 
 act may be done by agents or servants acting with its express 
 or implied authority.* The company may, at common law or 
 under statutes, be liable for nuisances injurious to the public 
 health.6 
 
 A summons may be issued to the corporation upon the indict- 
 ment, and judgment entered on its default.® 
 
 Acts authorized by Law not Subject to Indictment. — ActS and 
 proceedings of the company within the authority of statutes are 
 not indictable. It would be absurd for the State to punish an 
 act which it had directed or sanctioned.'^ The authority, how- 
 ever, will not in all cases relieve the company from liability 
 for injuries to individuals, and it will not be presumed to have 
 that effect.^ It will not be a defence against actions for damages 
 where it interferes .with the constitutional right to compensation 
 for property taken ; ^ but it will be a defence against actions for 
 
 Contra, State v. Great Works Milling son o. Long Island R. Co., 4 Edw. Ch. 
 
 Man. Co., 20 Me. 41 ; State v. Ohio & M. 411 ; Baxter v. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. 
 
 K. Co., 23 Ind. 362. R. Co., 61 Barb. 428 ; Danville, H., & W. 
 
 1 Delaware Div. Canal Co. v. Common- R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29 ; 
 wealth, 60 Pa. St. 367; Commonwealth Thompson w. Androscoggin R. I. Co., 54 
 V. New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray, 339. N. H. 545, 555, 58 N. H. 108 ; People 
 
 2 Carey v. Berkshire R. Co., 1 Cush. v. Detroit & H. Plank Road Co., 37 Mich. 
 475 ; Boston, C, & M. R. Co. d. State, 32 195 ; Randle v. Pacific R. Co., 65 Mo. 325. 
 ^- H- 215. 8 Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 
 
 8 State V. Bait. & 0. B. Co., 15 W. Va. 2 Dutch. 148 ; Hooksett w. Aoloskeag 
 
 ^^^- Man. Co., 44 N. H. 105, 110 ; Eaton v. 
 
 4 Boston, C, & M. B. Co. v. State, 32 Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 
 N. H. 215 ; State v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 510 ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Beaney, 
 Vt. 103. 42 Md. 117, 133. 
 
 5 Delaware Div. Canal Co. i;. Common- » Crittenden o. Wilson, 5 Cowen, 
 wealth, 60 Pa. St. 367 ; Salem v. Eastern 165 ; Robinson v. New York & E. R. 
 R. Co., 98 Mass. 431. Co., 27 Barb. 512, 520; Sinnickson v. 
 
 6 Boston, C, & M. R. Co. v. State, 32 Johnson, 2 Harrison, 129; Ten Eyck v. 
 N- H. 215. Del. & R. Canal, 3 Harrison, 200; Tins- 
 
 "' Rex V. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30 ; Matson man v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 Dutcher, 
 
 V. Baird, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1082, 1088 ; 148, 174, 1 Dutcher, 255 ; Eastman v. 
 
 Bordentown & S. A. T. R. v. Camden & A. Amoskeag Man. -Co., 44 N. H. 143, 160 ; 
 
 R. & T. Co, 2 Harrison, 314; Hincliman Eaton v. Boston, C, & M. R. Co., 51 N. 
 
 V. Paterson Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, H. 504, 610 ; Thompson v. Androscoggin 
 
 75 ; Attorney-General v. New York & L. R. L Co., 54 N. H. 545, 58 N. H. 108; 
 
 B. R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 49, 55 ; Hodgkin- ante, Chap. VIL p. 167. 
 
LIABILITY FOK TOETS. 
 
 269 
 
 injuries not deemed a taking of property within the meaning of 
 the Constitution, which but for such authority would be action- 
 able.^ The confirmation, by statute, of an illegal location is no 
 ground for arresting judgment on an indictment for a nuisance 
 on which the company had been convicted before the passage of 
 the statute.^ 
 
 Equitable Remedies against Nuisances. — Equity will enjoin the 
 company from maintaining a public nuisance at the instance of 
 the proper public officer acting on behalf of the State, or on the 
 relation of private parties having an interest ; ^ and also at the 
 suit of private parties suffering injury peculiar in kind and degree 
 as distinguished from that suffered by the public generally.* The 
 remedy is available to cities and towns in the case of unlawful 
 interferences with the highway.^ To obtain the equitable 
 remedy, these conditions should concur : 1. A right clearly estab- 
 lished.^ 2. No other adequate remedy available.'^ 3. An appli- 
 cation for the remedy, even when on behalf of the State, made 
 without unreasonable delay.^ If the nuisance is indictable. 
 
 1 Hatch V. Vt. Cent. B. Co., 25 Yt. 49, 
 61 ; Grand Eapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 
 38 Mich. 62, 70; Caledonian R. Co. v. 
 Ogilvy, 2 Macq. 229; Pittsburg, C.,& St. 
 L. R. Co. K. Brown, 67 Ind. 45. 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Old Colony & F. 
 E. R. Co., U Gray, 93. 
 
 3 People V. Sturtevapt, 9 N. Y. 263 ; 
 Davis 0. New York, '14 N. Y. 506, 526 ; 
 Wetmore v. Story, 22 Barb. 414 ; District 
 Attorney i'. Lynn & B. R. Co., 16 Gray, 
 242; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 
 208, 216 ; Delaware & R. C. Co. u. Rari- 
 tan &D. B. R. Co., PC. E. Green, 321, 
 381; ante, Chap. VIII. p. 251, Chap. 
 VII. p. 168. 
 
 •» Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co., 
 2 C. E. Green, 75; Brainard v. Conn. 
 River R. Co., 7 Cush. 506 ; Hartshorn v. 
 South Reading, 3 Allen, 501 ; Fall River 
 Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony & F. R. R. 
 Co., 6 Allen, 221 ; Cadigan v. Brown, 
 120 Mass. 493; Hudson & D. C. Co. ». 
 New York & E. R. Co., 9 Paige, 323; 
 Davis .-. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 526; 
 Milhau V. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611 ; Osborne 
 V. Brooklyn City R. Co., 5 Blatch. 366; 
 Currier v. West Side Elevated R. Co., 6 
 Blatch. 487 ; Miller v. Long Island R. Co. 
 
 {V. S. C. C, E. D. N. Y.), 10 Reporter, 
 197 ; Sparhawk v. Union Pass. E. Co., 64 
 Pa. St. 401. 
 
 5 Johnston v. Providence & S. R. Co., 
 10 R. I. 365. 
 
 6 Mohawk Bridge v. Utica& S. E. Co., 
 6 Paige, 554 ; Sheboygan v. Sheboygan & 
 F. R. Co., 21 Wis. 667, 671 ; District At- 
 torney I'. Lynn & B. R. Co., 16 Gray, 
 242 ; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 
 208, 216 ; Bell v. Ohio & P. E. Co., 25 Pa. 
 St. 161 ; Sparhawk v. Union Pass. E. Co., 
 54 Pa. St. 401 ; Northern Pacific E. Co. v. 
 Barnesville & M. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 172. 
 
 ' Attorney-General v. New Jersey E. 
 & T. Co., 2 Green Ch. 136 ; Hinchman v. 
 Paterson Horse E. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75 ; 
 Morris & E. E. Co. v. Prudden, 5 C. E. 
 Green, 530 ; Stevens v. Erie E. Co., 6 C. 
 E. Green, 259; Carlisle v. Cooper, 6 C. 
 E. Green, 576 ; Morris Canal & B. Co. v. 
 Fagin, 7 C. E. Green, 430; Hudson & D. 
 C. Co. V New York &'£. E. Co., 9 Paige, 
 323 ; Hodgkinson v. Long Island R. Co., 
 4 Edwards Ch. 411. 
 
 8 Attorney-General v. New York & L. 
 B. R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 49; Hentz v. 
 Long Island R. Co., 13 Barb. 646. Equity 
 will not interfere to require what will not 
 
270 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 an injunction will be granted only in a case of peculiar emer- 
 gency.i 
 
 An injunction has been granted to restrain one railroad com- 
 pany from obstructing the access to the station of another com- 
 pany by means of a fence erected partly on a public way and 
 partly on the latter company's land.^ 
 
 Action for a Nuisance. — An individual has a private right of 
 action for an injury caused by a public nuisance which has been 
 created by the company^ as by the unlawful use of highways 
 and navigable waters, only when special damage to him combines 
 with the breach of public duty by the company. If the wrong, 
 suffered by him is only the same as that suffered by the public at 
 large, he has no personal right of action ; and this rule applies, 
 although from the circumstances in which he happens to be 
 placed he may suffer more frequently and more severely than 
 others. It is only when he suffers some special damage, differing 
 in' kind from that which is common to others, that a personal 
 remedy accrues to him. This rule applies equally where equita- 
 ble relief or legal remedies are sought by a party .^ An individual 
 having a private right of action for a nuisance may enter to 
 abate it.* 
 
 Continuance of the Nuisance. Notice. — The company is n ot lia- 
 ble in damages for the continuance of a nuisance erected by a 
 previous owner, or by a company to whose road it has succeeded 
 
 serve any useful purpose of the plaintiff, v. Vt. Cent. R Co., 28 Vt. 142, 147, 25 "Vt. 
 
 and will at the same time be injurious to 49 ; Buck v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 
 
 the defendant. Joliet & C. R. Co. v. 370; Hughes u. Providence & W. R. Co., 
 
 Healey, 94 111. 416. 2 R. I. 493 ; Little Miami R. Co. c. Nay- 
 
 1 See cases cited aMe, note 7, p. 269. lor, 2 Ohio St. 235^ Parrot v. Cincinnati, 
 
 " London & N. W. R. Co. v. Lanca- H., & D. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 330 ; Penn. & 
 
 shire & Y. R. Co., L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. 174. O. C. Co. v. Graham, 63 Pa. St. 290; 
 
 3 Brainard .;. Conn. River R. Co., 7 South Carolina R. Co. v. Moore, 28 Ga. 
 
 Cush. 506 ; Proprietors of Locks & Canals 398 ; Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Moffitt, 
 
 V. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 386, 76 III. 524 ; Wabash & E. Canal w. Spears, 
 
 388 ; Blood c. Nashua & L. R. Co., 2 16 Ind. 441 ; Houck t>. Wachter, 34 Md. 
 
 Gray, 137, 140; Harvard College v. 265; Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611; 
 
 Stearns, 15 Gray, 1 ; Willard u. Cam- Kellinger v. Forty-Second St. R. Co., 50 
 
 bridge, 3 Allen, 874 ; Wesson v. Wash- N. Y. 206 ; Sparhawk u. Union Pass. R. 
 
 burn Iron Co., 13 Allen, 95 ; Fall River Co., 54 Pa^ St. 401 ; Manley v. St. Helen's 
 
 Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony & F. R. R. C. & R. Co., 2 Hurl. & N. 840 ; ante, Chap. 
 
 Co., 5 Allen, 221, 224 ; Haskell v. New Bed- VII. p. 201, Chap. VIIL p. 250. 
 
 ford, 108 Mass. 208; Lamphiery. Worcester * Amoskeag Man. Co. v. Goodale, 46 
 
 & N. R. Co., 33 N. H. 495 ; Eaton v. Bos- N. H. 53. 
 
 ton & M. R., 51 N. H. 504, 523, 524 ; Hatch 
 
LIABILITY POE TORTS. 271 
 
 by purchase, without proof of notice, or at least knowledge, of the 
 nuisance.^ Some authorities hold a request to abate as also essen- 
 tial where the proceeding is against a company succeeding to the 
 road of another which created the nuisance, on the ground that 
 acquiescence is to be assumed in case the request is not made ; ^ 
 but the authorities are not uniform to this effect.^ The com- 
 pany complained of may be so identified by consolidation or other- 
 wise with the one which created the nuisance as to make further 
 notice or request unnecessary.* The person who erected the 
 nuisance is not entitled to notice.^ 
 
 The corporation may be required to abate a nuisance, although 
 created by it on the land of another.^ It is not liable as for a 
 nuisance where structures within the exclusive control of another 
 corporation are placed, under authority of law, within its loca- 
 tion.'^ 
 
 Lapse of Time as affecting a Nuisance. — The right to maintain a 
 nuisance cannot be obtained by lapse of time, at least for a period 
 less than the Statute of Limitations.^ 
 
 Navigable Waters and Highways. — The liability of the company 
 to indictment or an action for the obstruction of navigable 
 waters® and highways,^'' has been already treated. 
 
 Right of Action in the Person who was the Owner at the Time of 
 the Injury. — The right of action for a tort to real estate belongs 
 
 1 Conhocton Stone Road v. Buffalo, N. ^ Delaware Dir. Canal Co. v. Com- 
 T., & E. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 673, 5 Thomp. & monwealth, 60 Pa. St. 367. 
 
 C. 651, 52 Barb. 390, 3 Hun, 523. See ' Gwathneyi). Little Miami R. Co., 12 
 
 Brown v. Cayuga & S. R. Co., 12 N. Y. Ohio St. 92. 
 
 486. '■ Cotton v. Pocasset Man. Co., 13 Met. 
 
 2 West u. Louisville, C, & L. R. Co., 429; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 
 8 Bush, 404 ; McDonough v. Oilman, 3 208 ; Attorney-General v. Leeds, L. R. 5 
 Allen, 264 ; Nichols o. Boston, 98 Mass. Ch. App. 583 ; West v. Louisville, C, & 
 39, 43, L. R. Co., 8 Bush, 404 ; Young v. Chicago 
 
 » Morris Canal & B. Co. v. Ryerson, 3 & N. W. R. Co., 28 Wis. 171 ; Morris & 
 
 Dutcher, 457; Conhocton Stone Road v. E. R. Co. v. Prudden, 5 C. E. Green, 530; 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 573; Carlisle v. Cooper, 6 C. E. Green, 576, 
 
 Dickson v. Chicago, E. I., & P. R- Co. 591 ; Pettis v. Johnson, 56 Ind. 139 ; ante, 
 
 (Mo. S. C), 10 Reporter, 247. Chap. VIII. p. 244. See Attorney-Gen- 
 
 ♦ Chicago, R. I., & P. E. Co. v. Moffitt, eral v. New Yx)rk & L. B. E. Co., 9 C. E. 
 
 75 111. 524. Green, 49. ' 
 
 ' Missouri River Packet Co. v. Hanni- » Ante, Chap. VIL, Eminent Do- 
 
 bal & St. J. R. Co. (U. S. C. C, W. D. main, p. 201. 
 
 Mo., May, 1880), 2 Fed. Rep. 286. i" Ante, Chap. VIII., Railkoads on 
 
 Highways, pp. 243, 250, 251. 
 
272 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 to the person owning it at the time the injury was committed, 
 and does not pass to a purchaser ; ^ but a vendee in possession 
 under a contract of sale may maintain the action.^ 
 
 Reversioners. Parties in Possession. — Reversioners may maio- 
 tain an action for injuries to real estate which are permanent in 
 their nature.^ The party in possession has a right of action for 
 an injury to the possession.* The wife, having a sole and sepa- 
 rate estate of her own, can alone maintain an action for an injury 
 to the reversion ; but the husband may join with her in an action 
 for an injury to the possession.^ 
 
 Proof of Title. — Possession of real estate under a claim of title 
 is sufficient prima facie evidence of title to sustain an action of 
 trespass.® 
 
 Form of Action. — The company is liable to an action of tres- 
 pass quare clausum, and to an action on the case for injuries to 
 real estate, which are committed without legal authority.''' 
 
 Damages to Real Estate. Permanent Injuries. — The measure of 
 damages for an injury of a permanent character, as by the flood- 
 ing of land caused by permanent structures, and the effect of a 
 judgment in one action as a bar to actions for subsequent injuries, 
 have already been considered.^ 
 
 Duty of the Ov7ner to endeavor to save his Property. — A person 
 whose property has been injured by the negligence of the com- 
 
 1 Illinois Cent. R Co. i;. Allen, 39 111. 15 111. 558 ; Cain d. Chicago, R. I., & P. 
 205 ; Central R. Co. v. Hetfield, 5 Dutcher, R. Co., 21 Albany L. J. 95. 
 
 206 ; Harrington v. St. Paul & S. C. R. 5 Hlinois Cent. R. Co. v. Grable, 46 
 
 Co., 17 Minn. 215. The right to compen- 111. 445; Indianapolis, B., & W. E. Co. v. 
 
 sation for a taking of the land under the McLaughlin, 77 111. 275. 
 
 right of eminent domain belongs also to ^ Carl i>. Sheboygan & F. R. Co., 46 
 
 the person who was the owner at the time Wis. 625. 
 
 of the taking. Ante, Chap. VII. p. 185. ' Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 
 
 2 Hays V. Miller, 6 Hun, 320 ; Miller 18 Wend. 9 ; Dater v. Troy Tump. 
 V. Long Island R. Co., 9 Hun, 194 ; Rood Co., 2 Hill, 629 ; New York v. Bailey, 2 
 V. New York & E. R. Co., 18 Barb. 80. Denio, 433, 439; Whiteman v. Wilming- 
 
 3 Bell V. Midland R. Co., 10 C. B. n s. ton & S. R. Co., 2 Harring. 514; Craw- 
 287 ; Mumford v. Oxford, W , & W. R. fordsviUe & W. R. Co. v. Wright, 5 Ind. 
 Co., 1 Hurl. & N. 34 ; Indianapolis, B., & 252 ; Main v. North Eastern R. Co., 12 
 W. R. Co. V. McLaughlin, 77 111. 275; Rich. 82 ; anie. Chap. VIL pp. 167, 179. 
 Bannon v. Mitchell, 6 Brad. (111.) 17. 8 Ante, Chap. VII., Eminent Do- 
 
 * Halligan v. Chicago & R. I. R. Co., main, pp. 229-281. 
 
LIABILITY FOK TOKTS. 273 
 
 pany should make reasonable efforts to prevent an increase of 
 the injury, and, if he fails to do so, he cannot recover for such 
 increased injury.' Nor can he recover where he voluntarily 
 exposes his property to injury.^ 
 
 Actions for Various Torts. — The company is liable to actions 
 for false imprisonment,^ malicious prosecution,* and libel, with 
 the same protection for privileged communications and the same 
 liability for abusing the privilege as in the case of individuals.^ 
 A railroad company is hable to an action at law and subject to 
 equitable remedies for the infraction of patent-rights in the same 
 manner as an individual.^ The company's liabilitj'' for over-issues 
 of stock,^ and the liability of the directors for false representa- 
 tions as to its value,^ have already been considered. 
 
 Injuries from Explosive Substances. — The company is liable 
 for injuries to persons and property resulting from explosive 
 substances which it is transporting as a common carrier only 
 when it is chargeable with negligence ; and it is not presumed to 
 have notice of the dangerous character of the packages in its 
 custody.^ It may, when it receives for transportation packages 
 containing such substances, without being informed by their 
 appearance or otherwise of the contents, recover of the persons 
 who, knowing their contents, delivered the packages without giv- 
 ing notice of their character, the damages resulting from the ex- 
 
 1 Loker v. Damon, 17 Pick. 284 ; v. Montgomery & W. P. R. Co., 37 Ala. 
 Chase v. New York Cent. R. Co., 24 Barb. 560. In Green v. London Gen. Omnibus 
 273 ; Lawson v. Price, 45 Md. 123 ; Kansas Co., 7 C. B. n. s. 290, an action was sus- 
 Pacific R. Co. V. Mihlman, 17 Kan. 224. tainedagainst thedefendants formalicious 
 
 2 Ciiicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Hoag, 90 interference with the plaintiff's rights. 
 111. 3.39. ° Phil, W., & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 
 
 ' Eastern Counties R. Co. b. Broom, 6 How. 202; Penn. R. Co. v. Vandiver, 42 
 
 Exch. 314; Roe ti. Birkenhead, L., & C. Pa. St. 365, 370; Whitfield v. South 
 
 J. R. Co., 7 Exch. 36 ; Goffi v. Great Eastern R. Co., El., Bl. & El. 115. 
 Northern R. Co., 3 El. & E. 672; Poulton 6 York & M. L. R. Co. v. Winans, 17 
 
 V. London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. How. 30 ; Winans r. New York & E. R. 
 
 6.34 ; Owsley i'. Montgomery & W. P. R. Co , 21 How. 88 ; Winans v. Schenectady 
 
 Co., 37 Ala. 560. But see Childs u. Bank & T. R. Co., 2 Blatch. 279; Sayles v. 
 
 of Mo., 17 Mo. 213. Chicago&N. W. R. Co.,lBiss. 468, SBiss. 
 
 * Vance v. Erie R. Co., 3 Vroom, 334; 52; Turrill I'.Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 Biss. 66, 
 
 Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 290; 72; Emigh v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 
 
 Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank, 22 1 Biss. 400 ; Nat. Car Brake Shoe Co. v. 
 
 Conn. 580 ; Walker v. South Eastern R. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 219. 
 Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 640. But see Childs v. ' Chap. V. pp. 127-129. 
 Bank of State of Mo., 17 Mo. 213 ; Gillett 8 Chap II. pp. 41-43. 
 V. Mo. Valley E. Co., 55 Mo. 315 ; Dwsley ' Nitro-Glycerine Case, 15 Wall. 524. 
 
 18 
 
"-I 
 
 274 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 plosion of the substances to its property or to the goods of others 
 which were in its custody as a carrier. Several persons, each 
 delivering independently, and without knowledge of the acts of 
 the others, different substances of an explosive character which 
 by combination become dangerous, and each failing to give the 
 company due notice of the contents of his package, may be joined 
 in an action brought by the company.^ 
 
 Breach of Public Duty. — The company is responsible to a party 
 for the breach of a public duty causing him special damage, and 
 a privity of contract between him and the company is not neces- 
 sary to entitle him to an action for the injury .^ Thus, if it is 
 bound to keep a bridge at a highway crossing in repair, it is liable 
 to a traveller who suffers an injury from its default.^ Its obliga- 
 tion to keep its railroad in a safe and proper condition for use is 
 imposed not only for the benefit of its servants and passengers, 
 but as a public duty, independent of contract, and coextensive 
 with the lawful use of the road.* Thus, where one company, 
 by agreement or otherwise, has a right to run its trains over the 
 road of another company, the servants of the former company 
 may maintain an action against the company owning the road 
 for an injury occasioned by the improper and negligent manage- 
 ment of the switch, which it was the duty of the latter company 
 to keep in the proper place.^ Under this rule the company is 
 liable, as elsewhere shown, for injuries resulting from its neglect 
 to fence its track, when required by statute.^ 
 
 . Duty to Persons entering on its Premises by Invitation or Induce- 
 ment. — The company is under a duty to keep its premises safe 
 
 1 Boston & A. R. Co. u. Shanly, 107 * Phil. & R. R. Co. <;. Derby, 14 How. 
 Mass. 568. 468, 485. 
 
 2 Marshall v. York, N., & B. R. Co., 6 Sawyer u. Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 
 11 C. B. 656; CoUett v. London & N. W. Vt. 370; Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. 
 R. Co., 16 Q. B. 984; Foulkes v. Metro- Hughes, 11 Pa. St. 141; Nolton v. West- 
 politan Dist. R. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. Div. ern R. Co., 10 How. Pr. 97, 15 N. Y. 444. 
 267, L. R. 5 C. P. Dlv. 157 ; Davis v. But see Murch ^. Concord R. Co., 29 N. 
 Lamoille County Plank Road Co., 27 Vt. H. 9. Compare Schopman v. Boston & 
 602 ; Penn. & 0. C. Co. v. Graham, 63 Pa. W. R. Co., 9 Cush. 24. 
 
 St 290 ; Broom's Common Law (4th ed.), 6 Clark v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 28 Vt. 103; 
 
 655-670. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kanouse, 39 111. 
 
 3 Penn. & O. C. Co. v. Graham, 63 Pa. 272 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Rum- 
 St. 290. But quare, where the defect bold, 40 111. 143 ; McCall v. Chamberlain, 
 was caused by a third person without 13 Wis. 637 ; post, Chap. XV., Injuries 
 the company's knowledge. Oakland R. to Cattle. 
 
 Co. V. Fielding, 48 Pa. St. 320. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 275 
 
 for public use, where it expressly or by its conduct invites or 
 induces such use, and it is liable to a person using them under 
 such invitation or inducement, who suffers injury from the defec- 
 tive condition of the place used, or the management of the trains 
 at such place. ^ Thus, where it adapts a private crossing to travel, 
 and allows it to be used as a highway, and stations a flagman to 
 give signals of coming trains, it is liable for an injury to a person 
 who, obeying the signal, passes over the crossing, and is injured 
 by the flagman's negligence.^ So, also, it has been held liable for 
 negligence to persons whom it allowed to use its track on pay- 
 ment of toU.^ Its duty to keep the approaches to the railroad in 
 a safe condition may extend to places within the limits of a public 
 highway.* 
 
 But the duty and liability to keep its premises safe for public 
 use do not arise out of a bare license or permission to use its 
 premises.^ Still less do they exist in favor of a trespasser, al- 
 though the company will be liable even to him for a wanton injury .^ 
 The company is not liable to persons who, straying from the high- 
 ways, fall into excavations within its location, where it is in no de- 
 fault as to providing fences or guards.^ Nor is it liable where the 
 person entering on its premises has, by the want of ordinary 
 care, contributed to the injury.^ 
 
 The company is under a special duty to persons who come 
 
 1 Kay V. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269; 1 Hun, 417, 3 Thomp. & C. 513; Sweeny 
 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. Bing- v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 10 Allen, 368, 
 ham, 29 Ohio St. 364 ; Tobin v. Portland, 373 ; Parker v. Portland Publishing Co., 
 S., & P. R. Co., 59 Me. 183 ; Quimby ». 69 Me. 173 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 
 Boston & M. R., 69 Me. 340 ; Elliott v. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Oliio St. 364 ; Holmea 
 Pray, 10 Alien, 378 ; Zoebisch v. Tarbell, v. North Eastern R. Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 
 10 Allen, 385 ; Carleton v. Franconia, I., & 254, 257 ; Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. 
 S. Co., 99 Mass. 216 ; Combs v. New Bed- n. s. 731 ; Sullivan v. V\^aters, 14 Irish C. 
 ford Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 572 ; Mellen L. 460 ; Blackmore v. Toronto St. R. Co., 
 V. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545; Nickerson v. 38 Upper Can. Q. B. 172. But see De- 
 Tirrell, 127 Mass. 236 ; Grand Rapids & laney v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 33 Wis. 67. 
 I. R. Co. u. Martin, 41 Mich. 667. " Gillis v. Penn. R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 
 
 2 Sweeny b. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 129 ; Morrissey v. Eastern R., 126 Mass. 
 10 Allen, 368. 377. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ham- 
 
 8 Mar'fell v. South Wales R. Co., 8 C. mer, 72 III. 347. 
 B. N. s. 525. ' Rowland v. Vincent, 10 Met. 371 ; 
 
 i Quimby v. Boston & M. R., 69 Me. Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 392 ; HounseU 
 
 340. V. Smyth, 7 C. B. n. s. 731 ; Hardcastle v. 
 
 6 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Hummell, 44 South Yorkshire R. & R. D. Co., 4 H. & 
 
 Pa. St. 375 ; Nicholson v. Erie R. Co., 41 N. 67 ; Binks v. South Yorkshire R. & R. 
 
 N. Y. 526 ; Sutton v. New York Cent. & D. Co., 3 B. & S. 244. 
 H. R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 243, 4 Hun, 760; 8 Parker v. Portland Publishing Co., 
 
 Matze I'. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 69 Me. 173. 
 
276 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 upon its premises for the purpose of doing business with it as a 
 common carrier. In this case it gives an invitation as well as a 
 license, and does so under the expectation of profit therefroip. It 
 must provide and maintain for them safe approaches to the sta- 
 tion and safe platforms, and work its engines and machinery in a 
 proper manner with reference to such use. Among those to 
 whom it is under this obligation are persons who come to re- 
 ceive or deliver freight ; ^ passengers arriving or departing by its 
 trains ; ^ hackmen who carry them to and from the station ; ^ and 
 even, it seems, persons who are on the premises to " welcome the 
 coming, speed the parting guest ; " * but it does not extend to those 
 who resort to its premises from curiosity, as to sts an excursion 
 party or a distinguished person who is upon a train, or to witness 
 any other spectacle.^ ^The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to 
 show that the place where the injury was received was an ap- 
 proach to the station constructed by the company and under its 
 control.® 
 
 The license which the company gives to the public generally 
 to enter its stations is revocable at its pleasure as to all persons 
 who are not there on business connected with the road.' The 
 company may use reasonable force to remove from its stations all 
 persons who refuse to comply with its lawful regulations.^ The 
 
 1 Newson v New York Cent. R. Co., v. London & B. R. Co., L. E. 4 Q. B. 
 29 N. Y. 383 ; Stinson v. New York Cent. 693. 
 
 R. Co., 32 N. Y. 333 ; Barton v. New 3 Tobin v. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 
 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 1 Thomp. & 59 Me. 183; Quimby v. Boston & M. R., 
 
 C. 297 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. o. Fill- 69 Me. 340. 
 
 more, 57 111. 265 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. * Gillis v. Penn. R. Co , 59 Pa. St. 129 ; 
 
 Co. «. Crush, 67 111. 262 ; Illinois Cent. R. Dublin, W., & W. R. Co. v. Slattery, L. 
 
 Co. V. Hoflfman, 67 111. 287 ; Campbell u. R. 3 App. Cas. 1155, I. R. 8 C. L. 531, 
 
 Portland Sugar Co., 62 Me. 552 ; New I. R. 10 C. L. 256. 
 
 Orleans, M., & C. R. Co. v. Hanning, 15 5 Qillis v. Penn. R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129. 
 
 Wall. 649 ; Shelbyville Lateral Branch 6 Quimby v. Boston & M. R., 69 Me. 
 
 R. Co. w. Lewark, 4 Ind. 471 ; New Or- 340. 
 
 leans, J., & G. N. R. Co. v. Bailey, 40 ' Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79 ; Pitts- 
 Miss. 395; Holmes o. North Eastern R. burg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. Bingham, 29 
 <.;o., L. R. 4 Exch. 254, L. R. 6 Exch. Ohio St. 364, 371 ; .Johnson v. Chicago, 
 123 ; Wright v. London & N. W. R. Co., B., & Q. R. Co., 51 Iowa, 25 ; Barker 
 L. R. 10 Q B. 298, L. R. 1 Q. B. Dir. ... Midland R. Co., 18 C. B. 46. See, 
 252. See Blakemore o. Bristol & E. R. as to effect of notices and warnings 
 Co., 8 El. & Bl. 1035. which are not enforced, Dublin, W., & 
 
 2 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. ... W. R. Co. v. Slattery, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 
 Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364, 373 ; Gillis o. 1155. 
 
 Penn. R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129 ; Hoffman i>. 8 Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Met 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 75 N. 596 ; Hall v. Power, 12 Met. 482 ; Harris 
 
 Y. 605, 13 Hun, 589 ; Knight v. Portland, v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79 ; Gillis v. Penn. E. 
 
 S., & P. R. Co., 56 Me. 234. See Welfare Co., 69 Pa. St. 129, 141. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOKTS. 277 
 
 exclusive nature of the company's right to its location, except 
 at crossings fixed by law, has already been considered.^ 
 
 Liability for Torts of Servants. — A railroad company is liable to 
 an action for the tortious acts of its servants while acting in the 
 course of tlieir employment, and within the powers conferred by 
 the charter.2 Generally, in determining the liability of a cor- 
 poration, the acts of the directors in their official capacity are 
 deemed the acts of the corporation ; and the same rule applies 
 to superior officers acting within the scope of the authority con- 
 ferred by the corporation.^ 
 
 The employees of the company, both of the higher and the 
 subordinate class, who are engaged in service at its stations or 
 on its trains, are presumed to be authorized by it to do such ser- 
 vice, and to perform the acts usually incident to their positions ; 
 and it is liable for their tortious acts which are performed in the 
 course of such service.* The conductor is, by usage, its respon- 
 sible agent in the conduct of the train.^ A servant has not an 
 implied authority to do acts outside of the kind of service in 
 which he is employed.^ Whether an act of the servant is within 
 the course of his employment is a question of fact for the jury 
 under the instructions of the court.' 
 
 The company is liable for the acts of its servants in the course 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. VII. p. 159. 822; GofE v. Great Northern R. Co., 3 El. 
 
 2 Lowell 0. Boston & L. R. Co., 23 & El. 672 ; Poulton v. London & S. W. R. 
 Pick. 24, 31 ; Moore v. Eitthburg R. Co., Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 534; St. Louis, A., & 
 4 Gray, 465; Burton v. Phil., W., & B. R. C. R. Co. v. Dalby, 19 111. 353, 375; Drew 
 Co., 4Harring. (Del.)252; Brokaw i>. New v. Sixth At. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 49; Drew 
 Jersey R. & T. Co., 3 Vroom, 328; Craw- v. Sixth Av. R. Co., 1 Abbott Ct. App. 
 fordsville & W. R. Co. v. Wright, 5 Ind. 556; Passenger R. Co. v. Young, 21 Ohio 
 252 ; State u. Morris & E. R. Co., 3 Zab. St. 518. 
 
 360, 367 ; Phil., W.,& B. R. Co. u. Quig- ^ Ranch v. Lloyd, 31 Pa. St 358, 365. 
 
 ley, 21 How. 202; Penn. R. Co. i;. Van- « Edwards v. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 diver, 42 Pa. St. .365 ; Donaldson r. Miss. L. R. 5 C. P. 445 ; Walker v. South Eastern 
 
 & M. R. Co., 18 Iowa, 280 ; Passenger R. R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 640 ; Allen v. London 
 
 Co. V. Young, 21 Ohio St. 518 ; Eastern & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B 65; Little 
 
 Counties R. Co. o. Broom, 6 Exch. 314 ; Miami R. Co. v. Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 
 
 Tebbutt V. Bristol & E. R. Co., L. R. 6 110; Mali v. Lord, 39 N. Y. 381; Flower 
 
 Q B. 73. V. Penn. R. Co., 69 Pa. St. 210, 214; Sny- 
 
 ' Brokaw v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., der v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 
 
 3 Vroom, 328, 332 ; Frazier v. Penn. R. 413 ; Hoar v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 
 
 Co., 38 Pa. St. 104 , Ardesco Oil Co. v. 65 ; Robertson v. New York & E. R. Co., 
 
 Gilson, 63 Pa. St. 146 ; ante, Chap. II. 22 Barb. 91. 
 
 pp. 24, 32. See Vanderbilt v. Richmond ' Jackson o. Second Ave. R. Co., 47 
 
 Tump. Co., 2 N. Y. 479. N. Y. 274 ; Redding v. South Carolina R. 
 
 * GUes V. Taflf Vale R. Co., 2 EI. & Bl. Co., 3 S. C. n. s. 1. 
 
278 
 
 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 of their employment, both in the rightful use and in the abuse of 
 the powers conferred upon them ; and when they keep within the 
 course of their employment, it is responsible for their negligence 
 or wrongful act, although they are acting against its instructions, 
 or even wilfully.^ This rule applies where the servant exercises a 
 power conferred by the company on an occasion or under circum- 
 stances when its exercise is unlawful, as when a conductor or 
 other servant, having the power to remove passengers from the 
 company's carriages who have no right to remain in them, re- 
 moves a passenger 'who has such right ; ^ and also when the ser- 
 vant so authorized uses the power in a case when it is lawful 
 to use it, but in an unlawful manner, as with excessive force, 
 or with a wrongful kind of force, or at a time or place when a 
 regard for human life and limb forbids its use.^ The company is 
 
 1 Phil. & E. R. Co. .-. Derby, 14 How. 
 468; Rounds v. Delaware, L., & W. R. 
 Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 136, 3 Hun, 329 ; Cohen 
 V. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 
 170, 40 N. Y. Superior, 368; Hibbard v. 
 New York & E. E. Co., 15 N. Y. 455, 
 467 ; Higgins v. Watervliet Tump. Co., 
 46 N. Y. 23 ; Gleadell a. Thomson, 56 
 N. Y. 194; Shea v. Sixth Av. E. Co., 
 62 N. Y. 180 ; Meyer v. Second Av. E. 
 Co., 8 Bosw. 305; Day v. Brooklyn City 
 E. Co., 12 Hun, 435; Howe v. Newniarch, 
 12 Allen, 49 ; Eamsden v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co., 104 Mass. 117 ; Coleman v. New York 
 & N. H. R. Co., 106 Mass. 160 ; Wilton 
 V. Middlesex E. Co., 107 Mass. 108, 125 
 Mass. 130; Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. Co. 
 V. Donahue, 70 Pa. St. 119; Robinson v. 
 Webb, 11 Bush, 464, 482; Yates v. 
 Squires, 19 Iowa, 26 ; Noble v Cunning- 
 ham, 74 111. 51; Duggins u. Watson, 15 
 Ark. 118, 127; Evansville & C. E. Co. v. 
 Baum, 26 Ind. 70 ; Jeffersonville R Co. 
 V. Rogers, 38 Ind. 116; Indianapolis, P., 
 & C. E. Co. V. Anthony, 43 Ind. 183; 
 Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Graham, 46 
 Ind. 239; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
 Fitzgerald, 47 Ind. 79 ; Indianapolis & V. 
 E. Co. 0. McClaren, 62 Ind. 566; Red- 
 ding V. South Carolina R. Co., 3 S. C. 
 N. B. 1 ; Peeples v. Brunswick & A. R. 
 Co., 60 Ga. 281 ; Georgia R. Co. «. New- 
 some, 60 Ga. 492; Perkins v. Mo., K., 
 & T. R. Co., 55 Mo. 201, 212; Gillett o. 
 Mo. Valley E. Co., 65 Mo. 315; Passen- 
 ger E. Co. u. Young, 21 Ohio St. 618; 
 
 Limpus V. London Gen. Omnibus Co., 1 
 Hurl. & C. 526. But ^see Crocker v. New 
 London, W., & P. E. 'Co., 24 Conn. 249 ; 
 Vanderbilt v. Eichmond Tump. Co., 2 N. 
 Y. 479 ; Selma, E., & D. E. Co. v. Webb, 
 49 Ala. 240. 
 
 2 Moore v. Fitchburg E. Co., 4 Gray, 
 465 ; Higgins v. Watervliet Turnp. Co., 
 46 N. Y. 23: Rounds v. Delaware, L., & 
 W. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 3 Hun, 329; 
 Great Western R. Co. v. Miller, 19 Mich. 
 305; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. «. Bryan, 
 90 111. 126 ; Poulton u. London & S. W. 
 E. Co., L. E. 2 Q. B. 534 ; Bayley v. 
 Manchester, S., & L. R. Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 
 148, L. R. 7 C. P. 415. 
 
 ' Jackson v. Second Av. E. Co., 47 
 N. Y. 274 ; Rounds v. Delaware, L., & W. 
 R. Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 3 Hun, 329; Cohen 
 V. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 
 170, 8 J. & S. 368 ; Hewett v. Swift, 3 
 Allen, 420 ; Howe v. Newniarch, 12 Allen, 
 49; Holmes v. Wakefield, 12 Allen, 580; 
 I'amsden o. Boston & A. R. Co., 104 
 Mass. 117; Penn. R. Co. v. Vandiver, 42 
 Pa. St. 365 ; Brokaw v. New Jersey R. & 
 T. Co., 3 Vroom, 328 ; Seymour v. Green- 
 wood, 7 Hurl. & N. 355, 6 Hurl. &N. 359; 
 Walker v. Soulh Eastern R. Co., L. R. 5 
 C. P. 640, 643. " A person who puts 
 another in his place to do a class of acts 
 in his absence, necessarily leaves him to 
 determine, according to the circumstances 
 that arise, when an act of that class is to 
 be done, and trusts him for the manner 
 in which it is done ; and consequently he 
 
LIABILITY FOR TORTS. 
 
 279 
 
 responsible, also, for the circumstances of aggravation accom- 
 panying the act for which it is liable.^ 
 
 The doctrine, which once obtained, that the master is not 
 liable for the wilful wrong of his servant ^ is now "understood 
 as referring to an act of positive and designed injury not done 
 with a view to the master's service, or for the purpose of exe- 
 cuting his orders." * 
 
 The company, however, is not liable for the torts of a servant 
 outside of the course of his employment, as when he is acting 
 with a view to effect an independent purpose of his own, and 
 not to execute the orders of the company ; and he is not deemed 
 in such act to be its servant, although employed generally at the 
 time in its service.* It is here, as is often the case, easier to state 
 the limitation of the doctrine than to apply it. Whether the ser- 
 vant did the act with a view to his master's service, or to serve a 
 purpose of his own, is a question for the jury.^ 
 
 The authority to use force may be derived from express order, 
 or from ratification,® or from rules and regulations,' or from a 
 direction or duty which implies the use of force. ^ The authority 
 
 is held answerable for the wrong of the 
 person so intrusted, either in the manner 
 of doing such an act, or in doing such an 
 act under circumstances in which it ought 
 not to have been done; provided that 
 what was done was done, not from any 
 caprice of the servant, but in the course 
 of the employment." Bayley v. Manches- 
 ter, S., & L. R. Co., L. E. 7 C. P. 415, 
 420, WiUes, J. 
 
 1 Sanford v. Eighth Av. R. Co., 23 N. 
 Y. 343 ; Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 57 Me. 202. 
 
 2 McManus v. Crickett, 1 East, 106 
 (1800), Lord Kenyon. 
 
 8 Cohen v. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. R. 
 Co., 69 N. Y. 170, 174. 
 
 * Rounds I). Delaware, L., & W. R. 
 Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 136 ; Cohen v. Dry 
 Dock, E. B., & B. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 170; 
 Mali V. Lord, 39 N. Y. .<?81 ; Eraser „. 
 Freeman, 43 N. Y. 566 ; Higgins r. Water- 
 vliet Tump. Co., 46 N. Y. 23, 27 ; Isaacs 
 i>. Third Av. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 122; 
 Jackson v. Second Av. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 
 274, 277 ; Hughes v. New York & N. H. 
 R. Co., 36 N. Y. Superior, 222 ; Stewart 
 V. Brooklyn C. R. Co., 9 Reporter, 759 ; 
 Howe V. Newmareh, 12 Allen, 49, 57; 
 
 De Camp v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 12 Iowa, 
 348; Evansville & C. R. Co.w. Baum, 26 
 Ind. 70; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Downey, 
 18 III. 259 ; Phil., G., & N. E. Co. v. Wilt, 
 4 Whart. 143 ; Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. 
 R. Co. 0. Donahue, 70 Pa. St. 119; Penn, 
 R. Co. „. Toomey, 37 Leg. Int. 105; New 
 Orleans, J., & G. N. R. Co. v. Harrison, 
 48 Miss. 112; Little Miami R. Co. u. 
 Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110; Thames 
 Steamboat Co. o. Housatonic R. Co., 24 
 Conn. 40 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Bay- 
 field, 37 Mich. 205 ; Snyder v. Hannibal 
 & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 413; Croft v. 
 Alison, 4 B. & Aid. 590 ; Limpus v. Lon- 
 don Gen. Omnibus Co., 1 Hurl. & C. 526. 
 See Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Starnes, 9 
 Heisk. 52. 
 
 5 Cohen !-. Dry Dock, E. B., & B. R. 
 Co., 69 N. Y. 170, 40 N. Y. Superior, 868. 
 
 '' Eastern Counties R. Co. v. Broom, 6 
 Exch. 814 ; Roe v. Birkenhead, C, & L. 
 R. Co., 7 Exch. 36. 
 
 7 Brokaw v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 
 3 Vroora, 328, 881, 332. 
 
 9 Hewett „. Swift, 3 Allen, 420, 425; 
 Howe u. Newmareh, 12 Allen, 49, 56 ; 
 Higgins V. Watervliet Turnp. Co., 46 N. 
 Y. 23, 26. 
 
280 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 of agents to do acts on behalf of the company which it cannot 
 itself lawfully do, or which are outside of the course of their 
 employment, exists only when expressly conferred or implied 
 from ratification.! jtg capacity to bind itself by acts which are 
 ultra vires will be considered in another connection.^ It is not a 
 defence that the particular act by which the injury was inflicted 
 was not authorized by the charter.^ 
 
 The liability of the company as a common carrier for injuries 
 to passengers committed by its servants is governed by the pecu- 
 liar obligations of its contract as implied by law, and not merely 
 by the general duty incumbent on all persons in their conduct 
 towards each other, and growing out of social relations ; and it 
 is liable on its contract for safe transportation, although the par- 
 ticular servant inflicting the injury is at the time acting beyond 
 his actual or implied authority.* Some authorities, however, do 
 not seem to observe this distinction, and impose on it the same 
 liability to passengers as to strangers.^ 
 
 The servant is liable to the injured person for his own wrong- 
 ful act ; but an officer of a corporation who merely transmits its 
 order to subordinate servants, without doing anything to make 
 it his own, is not liable.^ The servant is liable over to the com- 
 pany for the damages resulting from his negligence, including, 
 when notified of the pending suit, counsel fees and costs.^ 
 
 "What makes the Wrong-doer a Servant of the Company. — The 
 
 question, whether one railroad company or some other company 
 or individual is liable for the negligence of a servant, will de- 
 pend on the question whether he is the servant of one or another 
 company each of which is using the same track or has some con- 
 
 1 Carter v. Howe Machine Co., 51 Md. 61 Ala. 527 ; National Bank v. Graham, 
 290 ; Roe v. Birkenhead, L., & C. J. R. 100 U. S. 699. 
 
 Co., 7 Exch. 36 ; Eastern Counties R. * Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 57 
 Co. w. Broom, 6 Exch. 314; Poulton v. Me. 202; Milwaukie & M. R. Co. v. Fin- 
 London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. ney, 10 Wis. 388 ; Weed »,. Panama R. 
 534; Allen v. London & S. W. R. Co., L. Co., 17 N. Y. 362; Sherley v. Billings, 8 
 R. 6 Q. B. 65- Edwards v. London & N. Bush, 147. 
 
 W. R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 445 ; Walker v. 6 Little Miami R. Co. o. Wetmore, 19 
 
 South Eastern R. Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 640. Ohio St. 110; Evansville & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Post, Chap. XIX. See Monument Baum, 26 Ind. 70. 
 
 Nat. Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57, ^ Hewett v. Swift, 3 Allen, 420. 
 59 ; Brokaw v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., ' Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Latham, 63 
 
 8 Vroom, 326, 332 ; Jones v. Western Vt. Me. 177 ; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Welch, 
 
 R. Co., 27 Vt. 399. 24 III. 31 ; Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. 
 
 3 South & N. A. E. Co. V. Chappell, Hutchins, 34 111. 108. 
 
LIABILITY FOK TOUTS. 281 
 
 nection witli the motive power. As a general rule, the person 
 committing the injury will be considered the servant of the com- 
 pany which employs and pays him, exercises the right to dis- 
 charge him, and whose orders he is bound to obey.^ Thus, where 
 the plaintiff was thrown from his wagon in a collision with a rail- 
 road car belonging to one company, but drawn by horses owned 
 by another company, and driven by a driver in the latter's employ, 
 the latter company was held liable for the injury occasioned by 
 the driver's negligence.^ 
 
 The company may make itself liable by contract for the tortious 
 acts of the servants of another company. Thus, where the owners 
 of passenger cars agreed to carry a passenger, although the motive 
 power was furnished by the State, between which and the com- 
 pany there was a contract for the running of the cars, and the 
 power was under the control of the State's agents, through whose 
 negligence the passenger was injured, the owners of the passenger 
 cars were held liable. The servants of the State were, as between 
 the passenger and the owners of the cars,^ro hae vice the servants 
 of such owners.^ 
 
 Two companies, or a company and an individual, may render 
 themselves both liable for the torts of a servant, where, although 
 he may be employed by one, both are partners in the profits of the 
 business in which the injury is inflicted, or are joint participators 
 in the wrong.* Thus, a company organized under a charter from 
 the State of Pennsylvania was held liable for the infraction of a 
 patent-right respecting cars which were run on its track, although 
 the entire capital stock of the company was held by a connecting 
 railroad company incorporated in Maryland, which operated the 
 road by its agents, — it appearing that the Pennsylvania com- 
 pany owned the motive power, and contributed to the expense 
 of operating the railroad, of fitting and repairing the cars, and 
 paying the officers and agents.® 
 
 • 
 
 1 Blake v. Ferris, 5 N. Y. 48 ; Boniface McElroy v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 4 Cush, 
 V. Relyea, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 397; Rauch v. 400. 
 
 Lloyd, 31 Pa. St. 358; Ohio & M. R. Co. < Peters v. Ryland, 20 Pa. St. 497 
 
 «. Davis, 23 Ind. 558 ; Ballou u. Farnum, Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9, 27: 
 
 9 Allen 47 ; Coggin v. Cent. R. Co., 62 Foulkes v. Metropolitan Dist. R. Co., L. 
 
 Ga. 685; Reedie v. London & N. W. R. R. 6 C. P. Div. 157, L. R. 4 C. P. Div, 
 
 Co., 4 Exch. 244. 267. 
 
 2 Weyant v. New York & H. R. Co., 3 ' York & M. L. R. Co. v. Winans, 17 
 Duer, 360. How. 30. 
 
 s Peters v. Ry lands, 20 Pa. St. 497; 
 
282 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 A company, having through its servants the exclusive control 
 and direction of a train, is liable for injuries caused by the negli- 
 gent management of the train by its servants, or by a defective 
 track, although the engine and cars,^ or the railroad belong to 
 another company,^ or the company is using the land of a private 
 owner outside of its location by his consent,^ or the negligence 
 of another company using the same track contributed to the 
 injury.* A company is liable to passengers riding on its trains, 
 although they purchased their tickets of other companies.® 
 
 Two companies, by their servants, being both in control of a 
 train, are each liable for an injury caused by negligence in its 
 management.^ If an injury happens by a collision between the 
 trains of two companies caused by their common negligence, 
 they are liable in a joint action to the injured party .^ 
 
 A passenger riding in a train, over whose movement he has no 
 control, is not so identified with the company which is operating 
 it as to have imputed to him the negligence of its servants, and 
 can maintain an action against another company for an injury 
 suffered by him in a collision resulting from the concurring 
 negligence of both companies.^ Nor does the concurring negli- 
 gence of any third person defeat the injured person's right to 
 recover against a company by whose negligence he has suffered.* 
 
 A person riding in the carriage of another by invitation, and 
 having no control over its movement, has been held, in case of a 
 collision with a railway train, not to be affected by the contribu- 
 
 1 Fletcher v. Boston & M. U., 1 Al- Berringer v. Great Eastern R. Co., h. R. 
 len, 9. 4 C. P. Dir. 163. 
 
 2 Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Carroll, 6 » Chapman v. New Haven R. Co., 19 
 Heisk. 347; Stetler v. Chicago & N. W. N. Y. 341; Colegrove v. New York & N. 
 R. Co., 46 Wis. 497; Seymour y. Chicago, H. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 492, 6 Duer, 382; 
 B., & Q R. Co., 3 Biss. 43; Great West- Barrett ,,. Third Av. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 
 em R. Co. v. Blake, 7 Hurl. & N. 987 ; 628 ; Bennett v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 
 John «. Bacon, L. R. 3 C. P. 437. 7 Vroom, 225; Danville, L., & N. Tump. 
 
 3,Commonwealth v. Boston & L. R. Co. «. Stewart, 2 Met. (Ky.) 119. Contra, 
 
 Co., 126 Mass. 61. Thorogood ■;. Bryan, 8 C. B. 115; Child 
 
 * Eaton V. Boston & L. R. Co., 11 v. Hearn, L. R. 9 Exch. 176; Armstrong 
 
 Allen, 500. „. Lancashire & Y. R. Co., L. R. 10 Exch. 
 
 6 Eoulkes V. Metropolitan Dist. R. 47 ; Lookhart v. Liclitenthaler, 46 Pa. St. 
 
 Co., L. R. 5 C. P. Div. 157, L. R. 4 C. 151. See Prideaux v. Mineral Point, 43 
 
 P. Div. 267. Wis. 513, 526. 
 
 6 Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Carroll, 6 » Sheridan v. Brooklyn City & N. R. 
 
 Heisk. 847; Vary®. B., C, R., & M. R, Co., 36 N. Y. 39; Webster v. Hudson 
 
 Co., 42 Iowa, 246. River R. Co., 38 N. Y. 260; Slater v. Mer- 
 
 ^ Colegrove v. New York & N. H. R. sereau, 64 N. Y. 138, 147. 
 Co., 20 N. Y. 492, 6 Duer, 382. But see 
 
LIABILITY FOE TORTS. 283 
 
 tory negligence of the driver, if he is a fit person to manage a 
 horse ; ^ but, in view of the conflicting authorities, the doctrine 
 is open to further consideration.^ The wife will be affected by 
 her husband's negligence when riding in a carriage of which he 
 is the driver.2 
 
 IiiabUity of the Company for Injuries committed by Lessees and 
 others using its Track, and Liability of Lessees. — The company can- 
 not, in the absence of special statute authority and exemption, 
 divest itself of responsibility for the torts of persons operating its 
 road by transferring its corporate powers, or leasing the road to 
 them. It cannot by its own act absolve itself from its public obli- 
 gations without the consent of the legislature.* It is liable for 
 injuries to its passengers caused by the negligence of another 
 company which it allows to use its road.^ 
 
 The lease of a railroad under due authority of law effects a 
 transfer of rights and liabilities in its management, so that the 
 corporation owning the railroad is discharged from responsibility 
 for the lessee's torts ; ^ but the corporation will remain liable if 
 it continues, notwithstanding the lease, to operate the railroad," 
 or allows it to be operated in its corporate name,^ or fails to re- 
 quire other companies using the track to take proper precautions 
 where it has the power to require them.^ Lessees who permit 
 another company under contract to use the road are liable for 
 its torts.i" Statutes imposing police and other duties and liabili- 
 ties on railroad companies are usually construed to apply to cora- 
 
 1 Robinson v. New York Cent. & H. R. North Eastern R. Co., 18 G. B. n. s. 229 ; 
 R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11, 65 Barb. 146 ; Dyer Thompson v. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 
 V. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228 ; Cosgrove v. 10 La. An. 403. 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 13 Hun, = Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Barron, 5 
 
 329; Massoth u. Del. & H. C. Co., 64 Wall. 90, 1 Biss. 412, 453; McEIroy v. 
 
 N. Y. 524. Nashua & L. R. Co., 4 Cusb. 400. 
 
 2 Prideaux u. Mineral Point, 43 Wis. ^ Mahoney v Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 
 513 • Otis V. Janesville, 47 Wis. 422. 68 Me. 68 ; Ditchett v. Spuyten Duy vil & 
 
 3' Carlisle v. Sheldon, 38 Vt. 440. P. M. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 425, 5 Hun, 165. 
 
 4 Nelson v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 26 Vt. See Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 618. 
 
 717; York & M. L. R. Co. v. Winans, 17 ' Ballon v. Farnum, 9 Allen, 47, 11 
 
 How. 30; Alexandria & W. R. Co. v. Allen, 73; Alexandria & W. R Co. ... 
 
 Brown 17 Wall. 445 ; Langley v. Boston Brown, 17 Wall. 445. 
 
 & M. R., 10 Gray, 103 ; Ohio & M. R. " Bower v. B. & S. W. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 
 
 Co. V. Dunbar, 20 111. 623; Chicago & R. 546. 
 
 I. R. Co. V. Whipple, 22 111. 105; Macon » Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. ... Sal- 
 
 & A R Co. V. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355; Abbot men, 10 Vroom, 299. 
 
 1-. Gloversville & K. Horse R. Co., 21 '» Pittsburg, C.. & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 
 Albany L. J. 193. See Graham <^. Campbell, 86 111. 443. 
 
284 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 panies and persons who are in possession under contracts with, 
 or by permission of, the company owning the railroad.^ 
 
 The lessees of a raih'oad are presumed, by virtue of a lease 
 duly authorized by law, to succeed to the powers and obligations 
 of the lessor corporation, and are therefore liable for the torts of 
 their servants in its management.^ They cannot, it has been held, 
 set up in defence the illegality of the lease.* Some statutes 
 make the lessor company liable for the negligence of the lessee's 
 servant in the working of the road.* 
 
 Statutes which for the public security make certain conditions 
 in the construction and use of the railroad are sometimes held to 
 affect both the corporation owning the road, and other parties 
 using the road by its permission under a lease or contract author- 
 ized by law. Thus, if the duty to fence is prescribed, and in con- 
 sequence of an omission of the duty cattle are killed by the trains 
 of the company which uses the road under lease or contract, 
 such company and also the company owning the railroad are both 
 liable, — the former for using the road, and the latter for permitting 
 its use in a defective condition.* But some statutes are construed 
 to impose liability resulting from the omission of the legal duty 
 only on the company, whether lessor or lessee, which inflicted 
 the injury.^ The lessee by whose act cattle were killed was held 
 not relieved from liability under a statute by the fact that by the 
 terms of the lease his trains were to be operated in subordination 
 
 1 Linfield o. Old Colony R. Co., 10 * Quested c. Newburyport Horse R. 
 Cush. 562 ; Davis v. Providence & W. R. Co., 127 Mass. 204. 
 
 Co., 121 Mass. 1.34; Stephen «.' Smith, 29 » Whitney v. Atlantic & St. L. E. Co., 
 Vt. 160 ; Pierce v. Concord R. Co., 51 N. 44 Me. 362 ; Stearns v. Atlantic & St. L. 
 H. 590 ; Hall v. Brown, 54 N. H. 495, 58 R. Co., 46 Me. 95 ; Wyman v. Penobscot 
 N. H. 93 ; Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 & K. R. Co., 46 Me. 162 ; Webb v. Port- 
 Conn. 237 ; MoCall v. Chamberlain, 13 land & K. R. Co., 57 Me. 117 ; Bean v. 
 Wis. 637. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 63 Me. 293; In- 
 
 2 Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. 421 ; Ma- gersoU v. Stockbridge & P. R. Co., 8 
 honey v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 63 Me. Allen, 438 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Ka- 
 68; Davis v. Providence & W. R. Co., 121 nouse, 39 111. 272; Toledo, P., & W. R. 
 Mass. 134 ; Pierce v. Concord R. Co., 51 Co. v. Rumbold, 40 III. 143 ; Nelson v. Vt. 
 N. H. 590 ; Hall <■. Brown, 54 N. H. 495, & C. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717 ; Clement v. Can- 
 68 N. H. 93; McMillan v. Mich. S. & N. field, 28 Vt. .302; McGrath v. New York 
 I. R. Co., 16 Mich. 79, 102; Ditchett v. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522. But 
 Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. Co., 67 N. Y. see Parker v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 16 
 425, 5 Hun, 165 ; Wasraer v. D. L. & W. Barb. 315 ; Murch v. Concord R. Co., 29 
 E. Co., 80 N. Y. 212. N. H. 935. 
 
 ' McCluer v. Manchester & L. R. Co., ^ Stephens v. Davenport & St. P. R. 
 
 13 Gray, 124 ; Feital v. Middlesex R. Co., Co., 36 Iowa, 327 ; Clary v. Iowa Midland 
 
 109 Mass. 398 ; Sprague v. Smith, 29 Vt. E. Co., 37 Iowa, 344. 
 421, 425. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 285 
 
 to time-tables fixed by the lessor, and that the latter was to keep 
 up repairs and fences.^ 
 
 Mortgagees and Trustees. — The company is not liable, at com- 
 mon law or under statutes imposing liability for injuries resulting 
 in death, for the negligence of mortgagees who are operating the 
 road.2 Trustees of bondholders, under a mortgage, who are en- 
 gaged in operating it, are liable for the torts of their servants ; ^ 
 and, in general, when acting under a mortgage made with due 
 authority of law, they succeed to the duties and liabilities of the 
 corporation.* 
 
 Receivers. — A railroad corporation is not liable in a civil or 
 X criminal proceeding for the torts committed in its management, 
 while it is under the exclusive control of receivers appointed by 
 a competent court. The possession of the receiver is the posses- 
 sion of the court.^ The company will, however, remain liable if it 
 retains the entire or partial control of the road, or allows the receiver 
 to use its name.^ Such receivers, while operating the road only 
 in their official capacity, stand on the footing of public officers, 
 and are not personally liable for the torts of servants whom they 
 employ in their official capacity ; " but they may be sued by leave 
 of court, and satisfaction obtained for such injuries out of the 
 funds of the company in their hands.^ The action, when brought 
 against the receivers, will be determined by the same principles 
 as if the corporation were the defendant.^ Some authorities, 
 
 1 Clary v. Iowa Midland E. Co., 37 ° Alexandria & W. E. Co. v. Brown, 
 Iowa, 344. 17 Wall. 445. 
 
 2 State V. Consolidated European & N. ' Cardot v. Barney, 63 N. Y. 281 ; 
 A. E. Co., 67 Me. 479. But see Grand Hopkins v. Connell, 2 Tenn. Ch. 323; Er- 
 Tower Man. & T. Co. v. Ullman, 89 111. win v. Davenport, 9 Ueisk. 44. Tlip pns- 
 244. session of tlie receiver is not necessarily 
 
 ' Ballon V. Farnum, 9 Allen, 47, 11 a valid defence at law, and tlie court 
 
 Allen, 73; Sprague r. Smith, 29 "Vt. 421 ; whicli appointed him may in its disere- 
 
 Lamphear v. Buckingliam, 33 Conn. 237 ; tion allow the action to proceed. Hills v. 
 
 Eogers v. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 598 ; Barter Parker, 111 Mass. 508. 
 
 ti. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9. " Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137 ; 
 
 * Daniels^?. Hart, 118 Mass. 54-3. Klein u. Jewett, 11 C. E. Green, 474 ; 
 
 ^ State V. Vt. Cent. E. Co., 30 Vt. 108 ; Jordan v. Wells, 3 Woods, 527 ; Kennedy 
 
 Ohio & M. E. Co. V. Davis, 23 Ind. 553 v. Indianapolis & C. K. Co. (U. S. C. C , 
 
 (qualifying Ohio & M. E. Co. v. Fitch, 20 S. D. Ohio), 10 Eeporter, 359, 11 Cent. 
 
 Ind. 498, and McKinney v. Ohio & M. E. L. J. 89. 
 
 Co., 22 Ind. 99). See Hopkins v. Connell, ^ Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137 ; 
 
 2 Tenn. Ch. 323; Wabash E. Co. v. Potter y. Bunnell, 20 Ohio St. 150; Klein 
 
 Brown, 5 Brad. (111.) 590. v. Jewett, 11 C. E. Green, 474. 
 
286 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 however, impose on them a full personal liability as common 
 carriers when they are doing business as such.' 
 
 Liability incurred by a Consolidation. — A corporation which 
 acquires by a purchase or consolidation the roads of other com- 
 panies, may, by force of the statute which authorizes the transfer, 
 become liable for the antecedent torts of such companies.^ 
 
 Liability for Contraotora and their Servants. — The company is, in 
 general, responsible for the torts of only such persons as sustain 
 towards it the relation of agents or servants. The relation of 
 master and servant does not arise where the employee, in the 
 exercise of an independent employment, and not being under the 
 immediate direction of the employer, is acting in pursuance of an 
 entire contract, by w^hich he has agreed to execute a job or piece 
 of work on certain terms. When the work is so let out, the 
 employer is not liable for the acts of the contractor, or of his 
 sub-contractors, or of the servants of either, the persons thus 
 employed not being in law his servants. The test which deter- 
 mines whether the relation is that of master and servant, or of 
 contractor and contractee, is, whether the employer retains the 
 power of selecting, directing, and discharging the workmen, the 
 retention of which power makes him responsible as a master, and 
 the surrender of which relieves him of liability as such.^ 
 
 This doctrine (overruling Bush v. Steinman (1799), 1 Bos. & 
 Pul. 404) is well established in England.* Thus, where the com- 
 pany had let out a portion of its line for construction to a con- 
 tractor, and workmen employed by him in constructing a bridge 
 over a public highway negligently caused the death of a per- 
 son passing along the highway, by allowing a stone to fall 
 upon him, the company was held not liable, notwithstanding 
 
 1 Blumenthal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402 ; s Brackett v. Lubke, 4 Allen, 138 ; 
 Newell V. Smith, 49 Vt. 255 ; Paige u. Forsyth v. Hooper, 11 Allen, 419. 
 Smith, 99 Mass. 395; Kinney v. Crocker, * Knight r. Fox, 5 Exch. 721; Over- 
 18 Wis. 74; Allen o. Central R. Co., 42 ton v. Freeman, 11 C. B. 867; Peachey o. 
 Iowa, 683; Wabash R. Co. v. Brown, 5 Rowland, 13 C. B. 182; Rourke v. White 
 Brad. (111.) 690, 595; Kain v. Smith, 80 Moss Colliery Co., L. R. 2 C. P. Div. 205; 
 N- Y. 458. Pearson v. Cox, L. R. 2 C. P. Div. 369 ; 
 
 2 New Bedford R. Co. v. Old Colony R. Richmond v. Russell, 1 1 Gas. Ct. Session, 
 Co., 120 Mass. 397 ; Chicago, R. I., & P. 2d series (Scotch), 1035, 12 Cas. Ct. Sea- 
 R. Co. V. Moffitt, 75 111. 524; Coggin v. sion, 2d series (Scotch), 887; Gilbert v. 
 Central R. Co., 62 Ga. 685. Halpin, 3 Ir. Jur. n. s. 300. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 287 
 
 in the contract it reserved the power of removing careless 
 and incompetent workmen.^ So, where the workmen employed 
 by a contractor who had entered into an agreement with the 
 company to do the work, while excavating a road for the pur- 
 pose of making an embankment for the railway, cut into a drain 
 or culvert, whereby the water was discharged upon the plain- 
 tiff's land, and his crops were damaged, the company was held 
 not responsible, although it employed its own surveyor to super- 
 intend the work.2 The persons doing the injury were selected 
 and controlled, not by the company, but by the contractor, and 
 therefore deemed to be his servants only. 
 
 The same doctrine prevails in this country .^ Thus, where the 
 company has let out the construction of its road to a person, it is 
 not liable for injuries caused by the negligence or unlawful con- 
 duct of such contractor, or of any sub-contractor, or of the ser- 
 vants of either, in the blasting of rocks thrown on an adjoining 
 owner's land ; ^ the setting of fires which escape and burn prop- 
 erty outside of the location ; ^ an unlawful entry on land ; ^ the 
 use of nitro-glycerine in blasting ; '' leaving down the fence, 
 whereby a land-owner's cattle strayed ; ^ leaving stones in the 
 
 ' Reedie w. London &,N. W. R. Co., 4 52; Blattenberger v. Little Schuylkill 
 
 Exdi. 244 ; Hobbit v. London & N. W. R. Nav. Co., 2 Miles (Penn.), 309; Barry v. 
 
 Co., 4 Exch. 254. St. Louis, 17 Mo. 121 ; Morgan v. Bow- 
 
 2 Steel V. South Eastern R. Co., 16 C. man, 22 Mo. 538 ; De Forrest v. Wright, 
 
 B. 550. 2 Mich. 368 ; Kansas Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 ' Hilliard v. Richardson, 3 Gray, 349; Fitzsimmons, 18 Kan. 34, 22 Kan. 686; 
 
 Linton V. Smith, 8 Gray, 147 ; Brackett w. Cunningham u. International R. Co., 51 
 
 Lubke, 4 Allen, 138; Forsyth u. Hooper, Tex. 503; Camp v. Church Wardens, 7 
 
 11 Allen, 419; Blake y. Ferris, 5 N.Y. 48; La. An. 321. But see Wiswall t;. Brinson, 
 
 Pack V. New York, 8 N. Y. 222 ; Storrs 10 Ired. 554 ; Stone v. Codman, 15 Pick. 
 
 v. Utica, 17 N. Y. 104; Slater v. Mer- 297; Lowell v. Boston & L. R. Co., 23 
 
 sereau, 64 N. Y. 138 ; Blackwell v. Wis- Pick. 24 ; New York „. Bailey, 2 Denio, 
 
 wall, 24 Barb 355 ; Norton v. Wiswall, 26 433 ; Stone v. Cheshire R. Co., 19 N. H. 
 
 Barb. 618; Vanderpool v. Husson, 28 Barb. 427. 
 
 196 ; Gonrdier v. Cormaok, 2 E. D. Smith, « McCafferty v. Spuylen Duyvil & P. 
 
 254; Barrett!). Singer Man. Co., 1 Sweeny, M. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 178; Pack'w. New 
 
 545; Eaton v. European & N. A. R. Co., York, 8 N. Y. 222; Kelly v. New York, 
 
 59Me. 520; Painter U.Pittsburg, 46 Pa. St. UN. Y. 432; Tibbetts v. Knox & L. R. 
 
 218 ; Allen v. Willard, 57 Pa. St. 374 ; Ar- R. Co., 62 Me. 437. 
 desco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Pa. St. 146; » Eaton v. European & N. A. R. Co., 
 
 Wray v. Evans, 80 Pa. St. 102 ; Hass v. 59 Me. 520 ; Callalian v. Burlington & M. 
 
 Phil. & S. M. S. Co., 88 Pa. St. 269; Bos- R. R. Co., 23 Iowa, 562. 
 well V. Laird, 8 Cal. 469 ; Carman v. Steu- 6 Clark v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 28 Vt. 103 ; 
 
 benville& L R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 399 ; West Eaton v. European & N. A. R. Co., 59 
 
 V. St. Louis, v., & T. H. R. Co., 63 111. 645 ; Me. 520. 
 
 Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Baxter, 22 Vt. ' Cuff v. Newark & N. Y. R. Co., 6 
 
 365, 372 ; Wright v. Holbrook, 62 N. H. Vroom, 17. 
 120; Carter D. Berlin MUls Co., 58 N. H. » Clark v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 28 Vt. 
 
288 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 highway to the injury of travellers ; ^ drawing cars on the rail- 
 road, the horses and drivers being under the control of the 
 contractor ; ^ the erection of buildings under a contract, with speci- 
 fications;^ the transfer of freight at a certain rate agreed upon 
 from vessels to the railroad, although the machine belonged to 
 the company;* or the working of trains and engines upon the 
 track during the construction of the road, whereby personal 
 injuries were suffered by persons riding upon them or engaged 
 upon the track.^ 
 
 The company is not liable where the act complained of is 
 purely collateral to the matter contracted to be done, and arises 
 indirectly in the course of the performance of the work.^ 
 
 The Company liable when it authorizes or participates in the Con- 
 tractor's Tortious Act. — To the general rule there are some excep- 
 tions which require to be noted. It does not protect an employer 
 who has co-operated in the injurious act, and become a joint par- 
 ticipator in the wrong. In such a case the relation of master and 
 servant need not exist in order to render the company liable for 
 the acts of persons whom it has employed to do the tortious act. 
 Therefore it is liable when it authorizes a person who carries on 
 an independent employment to do an act which necessarily pro- 
 duces the injury, or employs him to do an unlawful act, or one 
 amounting to a nuisance,'^ or the injury results directly from the 
 acts which the contractor agreed to do;^ but it will be presumed 
 
 103; Clark v. Hannibal & St. J, R. Co., 36 ' Ellis v. Sheffield Gas Consumers Co., 
 
 Mo. 202. Contra, Chicago, St. P., & F. R. 2 El. & Bl. 767 ; Overton v. Freeman, 11 
 
 Co. V. McCarthy, 20 111. 385. C. B. 867, 873, 874 ; Peaehey v. Rowland, 
 
 1 Pawlet V. Rutland & W. R. Co., 28 13 C. B. 182; Reedie v. London & N. W. 
 "^t- 297. R. Co., 4 Exch. 244 ; Hobbit v. London 
 
 2 Schular ti. Hudson River R. Co., 38 & N. W. R. Co., 4 Exch. 254 ; Gourdier v. 
 ^^^^- ^5^- Cormack, 2 E. D. Smith, 254; King !>. 
 
 8 Hunt V. Penn. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 475. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 
 
 4 King V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 181, 4 Hun, 769 ; Congreve n. Morgan, 5 
 Co., 66 N. Y. 181, 4 Hun, 769. Duer, 495 ; Norton v. Wiswall, 26 Barb. 
 
 5 Kansas Cent. R. Co. ,: Fitzsimmons, 618, 627 ; Eaton v. European & N. A. R. 
 18 Kan. 34; Meyer v. Jlidland Pacific R. Co., 59 Me. 520, 5-32, 534; Clark v. Fry, 
 Co., 2 Neb. 319; Union P.acific R. Co. v. 8 Ohio St. 358; Robinson e;. Webb, U 
 Hause, 1 Wyoming, 27 ; Central R. & B. Bush, 464, 477-480; Houston & G. N. R. 
 Co. V. Grant, 46 Ga. 417 ; Cunningham Co. v. Meador, 50 Tex. 77, 84. 
 
 V. International R. Co., 51 Tex. 503. s Robbins v. Chicago, 4 Wall. 657, 2 
 
 » Hole V. Sittingbourne & S. R. Co., 6 Black, 418 ; St. Paul Water Co. v. Ware, 
 
 Hurl. & N. 488, 497 ; Robbins v. Chicago, 16 Wall. 566 ; Whitney v. Clifford, 46 
 
 4 Wall. 657, 679, 2 Black, 418; St. Paul Wis. 138 ; Hole v. Sittingbourne & S. R. 
 
 Water Co. v. Ware, 16 Wall. 566, 577. Co., 6 Hurl. & N. 488. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 289 
 
 that a person who was employed to do a lawful act was employed 
 to do it in a lawful manner, with due care and skill. ^ The com- 
 pany has been held liable for damages to an adjacent building, by 
 the blasting of solid rock by contractors in the construction of 
 their railroad, without any carelessness on their part, where in its 
 contract with them it provided for the removal of solid rock by 
 blasting.^ It will be responsible for injuries occasioned by un- 
 lawful obstructions created by a contractor under the direction 
 of the servants or officers of the company, and for its use and 
 convenience;^ or where the work is done under its immediate 
 superintendence, although, as between the parties, the relation 
 may be that of employer and contractor.* 
 
 Efiect of Reservations in the Contract. — Certain powers reserved 
 to the employer are consistent with the relation of contractor and 
 contractee. Thus, a power to direct the discharge of incompe- 
 tent workmen,^ or to terminate the contract if the performance 
 is unsatisfactory,^ or to supervise generally the work,'' or to give 
 further directions which relate to the results of the work and not 
 the manner of its performance,^ does not, where the employment 
 is under a contract for the execution of a certain job or work, and 
 the choice and direction of the servants still remain with the con- 
 tractor, make the relation that of master and servant. Provisions 
 inserted in the contract., making the contractor liable for injuries 
 caused by his negligence, and allowing the company to withhold 
 payments under the contract on account of them, do not affect 
 the relation of the company to third parties and inure to their 
 benefit.^ 
 
 1 Butler V. Hunter, 7 Hurl. & N. 826. ^ Wray v. Evans, 80 Pa. St. 102 ; 
 
 2 Carman v. SteubenviUe & I. K. Co., Schular v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 Barb. 
 4 Ohio St. 399. 65-3, 655. 
 
 3 Phil W & B. R. Co. r. Phil. & H. '' Eaton v. European & N. A. R. Co., 
 Steam Towboat Co., 23 How. 209. 59 Me. 520, 533 ; Barry v. St. Louis, 17 
 
 * Carman v. SteubenviUe & I. R. Co., Mo. 121. But see New Orleans, M., & C. 
 4 Ohio St 399 414, 415; New Orleans, R. Co. u. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649. 
 
 M., & C. R. Co. u. Hanning, 15 Wall. » Pack u. New York, 8 N. Y. 222 ; 
 
 649 ; Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Erickson, Kelly v. New York, 11 N. Y. 432 ; Gour- 
 
 39 Mich. 492 ; Camp ;•. Church Wardens, dier v. Cormack, 2 E. D. Smith, 2ol ; 
 
 7 La. An. 321 ; Serandat .. Saisse, L. R. Schular v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 Barb. 
 
 IPC. 152. 653 ; Callahan v. Burlington & M. R. R. 
 
 * Cuff V. Newark & N. Y. R. Co., 6 Co., 28 Iowa, 562. 
 
 Vroom 17 ; Robinson v. Webb, 11 Bush, » Tibbetts v. Knox & L. R. Co., 62 
 464- Reed ie !>. London & N. W. R. Co., Me. 437. See St. Paul Water Co. v. 
 4 Exch. 244 ; Hobbit «. London & N. W. Ware, 16 Wall. 566 ; Blake v. Ferris, 5 N. 
 R. Co., 4 Exch. 254. Y. 48. 
 
 19 
 
290 THE LAW OF KAILROADS. 
 
 Liability for the Exercise by the Contractor of the Delegated Power 
 of Eminent Domain. — The rule, which exempts the company from 
 liability for injuries done by a person acting under a contract with it 
 and carrying on an independent employment, has sometimes been 
 held not to apply where he is by delegation exercising the right 
 of eminent domain conferred by the State, or doing some act 
 under a power given by the charter which, but for such power, 
 would be unlawful; and in such cases the company has been held 
 liable for his acts. There are reasons of public policy for hold- 
 ing the company to a faithful execution of extraordinary powers 
 conferred upon it, and not permitting it to transfer its responsi- 
 bility ; but this exception to the general rule should not be ex- 
 tended to tortious acts which were not committed in the execution 
 of powers conferred by the charter.^ The exception is also to 
 be strictly limited to the exercise of extraordinary powers which 
 the State confers in the exercise of the right of eminent domain. 
 Thus, the company is not liable for injuries to persons carried by 
 the contractor on his construction trains.^ 
 
 Duties under Statutes not to be delegated. — A party cannot, by 
 an act of his own, relieve himself of a duty imposed by law. He 
 cannot discharge himself by shifting it upon another.^ This rule 
 has been applied to municipal corporations, which, being bound 
 to keep a highway safe for travel, are liable for the consequences 
 of obstructions and defects caused by the immediate act of con- 
 tractors.* The duty is independent of the means by which the 
 obstruction or defect was occasioned.^ The rule applies to public 
 duties imposed by statute on railroad companies." Thus, if the 
 
 > Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Baxter, 22 s Brackett v. Lubke, 4 Allen, 138 ; 
 
 Vt. 365, 372 ; Lesher u. Wabash Nav. Houston & G. N. R. Co. </. Meador, 50 
 
 Co., 14 111. 85; Hinde o. Wabash Nav. Tex. 77 ; Pickard v. Smith, 10 C. B. N. s. 
 
 Co., 15 III. 72; Chicago, St. P., & F. R. 470. 
 
 Co. V. McCarthy, 20 111. 385; Chicago & * Storrs v. Utica, 17 N. Y. 104; Eob- 
 
 R. I. R. Co. V. Whipple, 22 111. 105; bins u. Chicago, 2 Black, 418, 4 Wall. 
 
 West V. St. Louis, V., & T. H. R. Co., 657. 
 
 63 III. 545 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. ^ Cuff v. Newark & N. T. R. Co., 6 
 
 Woosley, 85 111. 370 ; Macon & A. R. Co. Vroom, 17, 25. 
 
 V. Mayes, 49 Ga. 365, 360 ; Houston & G. « Cuff v. Newark & N. X. R. Co., 6 
 
 N. R. Co. V. Meador, 50 Tex. 77 ; Cun- Vroom, 17, 24 ; King v. New York Cent, 
 
 ninghara v. International R. Co., 51 Tex. & H. R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 181, 185; Mc- 
 
 503 ; Veazie v. Penobscot R. Co., 49 Me. Cafferty i'. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. 
 
 110; Hilliard u. Richardson, 3 Gray, 349, Co., 61 N. Y. 178, 189; Mc Williams v. 
 
 .362-366. Detroit Cent. Mills Co., 31 Mich. 274; 
 
 ^ Cunningham v. International R. Co., Veazie v. Penobscot R. Co., 49 Me. 119; 
 
 51 Tex. 503. Chicago & R. L R. Co. c. Whipple, 22111. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 291 
 
 company is required to keep its track fenced, it is liable for in- 
 juries caused by its default, although at the time the road was in 
 the bands of a lessee or contractor.^ 
 
 Nuisances created by a Contractor. — Where the relation is that 
 of contractor and contractee, the fact that the injury to a-third 
 party is caused by some negligent or unlawful works of the con- 
 tractor upon real estate does not make its owner liable unless the 
 work itself is a nuisance.^ But the land-owner has been held 
 liable for the acts of the contractor where the works amount to 
 a nuisance,^ or were such as from the ordinary course of things 
 were likely to produce the injury.* The company has been held 
 liable for obstructions to navigation created by contractors, and 
 remaining after it terminated the contract with them.^ 
 
 Form of Action against the Company for the Torts of its Agents. — 
 The company is liable in the same forms of action for the torts of 
 its servants to which individuals are liable for the torts of their 
 servants.^ An action of trespass lies against it where the ser- 
 vant's act is authorized or ratified,^ but case is the proper remedy 
 where the gist of the action is his negligence.^ Trespass lies 
 
 106 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Woosley, 85 York v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433, 445, 3 HUl, 
 
 III. 370 ; Hole v. Sittingbourne & S. R. 531 ; Vanderpool v. Husson, 28 Barb. 
 
 Co., 6 Hurl. & N. 488. 196. 
 
 1 Gardner v. Smith, 7 Mich. 410, 420 ; * Bower v. Peate, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 
 Bay City & E. S. R. Co. v. Austin, 21 321 ; Angus v. Dalton, L. R. 4 Q. B. Div. 
 Mich. 390; Nelson v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 162. 
 
 26 Vt. 717 ; Clement v. Canfield, 28 Vt. * Phil., W., & B. R. Co. u. Phil. & H. 
 
 302 ; Houston & G N. R. Co. v. Meador, Steam Towboat Co., 23 How. 209, 5 Am. 
 
 50 Tex. 77. But see Blackwell ./. Wis- Law Reg. p. 280. 
 
 wall, 24 Barb. 355 ; Norton «.WiswalI, 26 ' State v. Morris & E. R. Co., 3 Zab. 
 
 Barb. 618 ; Blake v. Ferris, 5 N. Y. 48. 360, 367 ; Brokaw t,. New Jersey R. & T. 
 
 2 Cuff V. Newark & N. Y. R. Co., 6 Co., 3 Vroom, 328. 
 
 Vroom 17 ■ Hilliard u. Richardson, 3 ' St. Louis, A., & C. R. Co. v. Dalby 
 
 Gray 349 • Chambers v. Ohio Life Ins. 19 HI. 353, 372 ; IlHnois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 & T. Co., 1 Disney, 327 ; Painter v. Pitts- Read, 37 111. 484, 508 ; Crocker v. New 
 
 burg, 46 Pa. St. 213, 222 ; Blake v. Ferris, London, W., & P. R. Co., 24 Conn. 249, 
 
 5 N. Y. 48, 61-65 ; McCafferty v. Spuy- 266 ; Eastern Counties R. Co. v. Broom, 
 
 ten Duyvil'& P. M. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 178 ; 6 Exch. 314. 
 
 King V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., » Phil., G., & N. R. Co. v. Wilt, 4 
 
 66 N. Y. 181, 4 Hun, 769; Robinson i-. Whart. 143; Thames Steamboat Co. v. 
 
 Webb 11 Bush 464; Ryan v. Curran, 64 Housatonic R. Co., 24 Conn. 40, 53; Illi- 
 
 Ind. 346; Reedie v. London & N. W. R. nois Cent. R. Co. v. Reedy, 17 III. 580; 
 
 Co 4 Exch. 244. Brokaw v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 3 
 
 ' Clark V Fry 8 Ohio St. 358 ; Rob- Vroom, 328, 381 ; Sharrod v. London & 
 
 bins V Chicago, 2 Black, 418, 4 Wall. N. W. R. Co., 4 Exch. 580. See Sabin v. 
 
 657 • Deford v. Keyser, 30 Md. 179 ; New Vt. Cent. R. Co., 26 Vt. 363. 371. 
 
292 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 where his act was one of unjustifiable force, or was in itself un- 
 lawful ; 1 but even then an action on the case may lie against 
 the corporation.^ These technical distinctions are disregarded 
 in modern codes of practice.^ 
 
 Actions for personal injuries are transitory, and maybe brought 
 for an injury committed in another State,* or in a Territory; ° but 
 jurisdiction will be taken as a matter of comity rather than of 
 right, where not only the tort was committed, but the parties are 
 resident in such other State.® A foreign corporation committing 
 torts in other States is liable therefor in such States upon the 
 same principles as apply to domestic corporations.^ 
 
 Although a child has recovered damages against a corporation 
 for an injury, the parent may recover for the loss of service occa- 
 sioned thereby.^ The corporation and its servant, by whose act 
 the injury was done, may be joined in an action of tort in the 
 nature of trespass.^ 
 
 The defendant's negligence must be distinctly charged in the 
 declaration.!" 
 
 Evidence. Positive and Negative Testimony. — Positive testi- 
 mony is allowed a greater weight in the law of evidence than 
 negative testimony. Thus, the testimony of persons who gave, or 
 saw, or heard signals given, is of superior value to that of persons 
 who can only swear that they did not see or hear them." The 
 
 1 St. Louis, A., & C. R. Co. w. Dalby, 465; Hewett v. Swift, 3 Allen, 420; 
 19 111. 353 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Holmes u. Wakefield, 12 Allen, 580 ; 
 Peacock, 48 111. 253 ; Hewett v. Swift, 8 Brokaw v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 3 
 Allen, 420. See Emigh v. Pittsburg, Ft. Vroom, 328. 
 
 W., & C. R. Co., 4 Biss. 114. lo Lawler v. Androscoggin R. Co., 62 
 
 2 Havens v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co., Me. 463; Hayden v. Smitliville Man. Co., 
 28 Conn. 69, 86. 29 Conn. 548 ; Hildebrand v. Toledo, W., 
 
 8 Hewett V. Swift, 3 Allen, 420. & W. R. Co., 47 Ind. 399. 
 
 4 Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., 2 Vroom, u Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Still, 19 
 309; Northern Cent. R. Co..;. SchoU, 16 III, 499; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. 
 ^^- ^31- Stumps, 55 III. 367 ; Chicago & A. R Co. 
 
 5 Speer v. Mo., K, & T. R. Co., 23 Kan. v. Jacobs, 63 111. 178 ; Chicago, B., & Q. 
 571. It was held in this case that there R. Co, c: Lee, 68 111, 576, 582, 60 111. 501; 
 was no presumption that it is unlawful to Rockford, R. I., & St, L. R. Co. v. Byam, 
 run a railroad in the Indian Territory, 80 111. 528 ; Pittsburg, Ft, W & C R Co. 
 
 6 Great Western R. Co. v. Miller, 19 „, Karns, 13 Ind, 87; Culhane v. New 
 '^"'''' ^f'S. York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 133, 
 
 ' Austin V. New York & E. R. Co,, 1 67 Barb. 562 ; Chapman v. New York 
 
 Dutcher, 381 ; People v. Central R., 48 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 14 Hun, 484 ; Suth- 
 
 Barb. 478. erland v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 
 8 Wilton V. Middlesex R, Co., 125 41 N. Y. Superior, 17. See Dublin W. 
 
 Mass. 1.30, 107 Mass. 108. & W. R. Co. v. Slattery, L. R. 3 App 
 
 8 Moore v. Fitchburg R. Co., 4 Gray, Cas. 1155, 1164. 
 
LIABILITr FOR TOKTS. 293 
 
 rule loses much of .its force where the latter had an opportunity 
 to know if they were given, and gave attention.^ To compare 
 and weigh testimony and pass upon the credibility of wit- 
 nesses is, however, a peculiar function of the jury, who may, for 
 good reason, credit the negative and reject the positive testi- 
 mony .^ If they disregard the rule under circumstances where 
 plainly it ought to be heeded, the court will set aside the ver- 
 dict.8 
 
 A Default at one Time or Place not proved by a Default at another 
 Time or Place. — One act of negligence or breach of duty is not 
 competent evidence of another.* Thus, to prove that the railroad 
 was defective at a particular place, or that signals were not given 
 on a particular occasion, it is not competent to show that the 
 road was defective at another place ; ^ or that the signals were 
 omitted on another occasion ; ® or that an injury occurred at an- 
 other time at the same place under similar circumstances.'^ On the 
 other hand, proof of care on the part of the defendant at other times 
 will not be admitted to prove care on the occasion of the injury.^ 
 But where a horse was frightened by the alleged careless use of a 
 whistle, evidence was admitted that other horses had been fright- 
 ened by it at the same place.^ Previous hard use of the track, 
 even at other places, is under some circumstances admissible, as 
 tending to show the condition of the track and machinery at the 
 time and place of the injury.^'' 
 
 1 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Cauff- 7 Gray, 92; Gahagan v. Boston & L. R. 
 man, 38 111. 424; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. Co., 1 Allen, 187; Parker v. Portland 
 R. Co. V. Hillmer, 72 111. 235; Ren wick t>. Publishing Co., 69 Me. 173; Chicago & 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 132 ; A. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 111. 338. 
 
 Voak V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 5 Louisville & N. R, Co. v. Fox, 11 
 
 820; Urbanek v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Bush, 495; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. t. 
 
 Co. 47 Wis. 59. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537. Contra, Murphy 
 
 2 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Triplett, v. New York Cent. R. Co., 66 Barb. 125. 
 38 III. 482 ; Chicago & R. I. ^. Co. v. " Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Lee, 60 
 McKean, 40 III. 218 ; Peoria, P., & J. R. 111. 501, 68 111. 576. Contra, State v. Man- 
 Co. V. Siltman, 88 111. 529 ; Dyer u. Erie Chester & L. R. Co., 52 N. H. 528, 549 ; 
 R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228, 237 ; Cosgrove o. Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93, 54 N. H. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 13 Hun, 495. 
 
 329 ; Byrne v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. ' Davis v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 8 Oreg. 
 
 Co., 14 Hun, 322 ; Salter v. Utica & B. R. 172. 
 
 R. Co., 59 N. Y. 631 ; Eilert !•. Green Bay, « Gahagan v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1 
 
 &c. R. Co., 10 Cent. L. J. 316. Allen, 187. 
 
 ' Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 ^ Hill v. Portland & R. R. Co., 55 Me. 
 
 111. 74; St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. 438. See Eggleston v. Columbia Turnp. 
 
 Manly' 58 111. 300 ; Seibert v. Erie R. Road, 18 Hun, 146. 
 
 Co., 49 Barb. 583. '" Holyoke v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 
 
 * Robinson v. Fitchburg & W. R. Co., N. H. 511. 
 
294 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 Additional Precautions. — Additional precautions and safeguards 
 taken by the company after an injury are not admissible to show 
 its negligence.^ Its offer to pay the funeral expenses of a per- 
 son killed by its engines is not evidence in an action against it.^ 
 
 Statements of the Company's Servants. — The declarations and 
 admissions of the company's servants are admissible only when 
 a part of the res gestae. Although made on the day, or at a 
 short distance from the scene, of the injury, the nearness in time 
 and place do not qualify them if they are not a part of the 
 same transaction. This rule is often applied to exclude state- 
 ments of the circumstances of the injury given by the servant by 
 whose alleged negligence it was caused.^ 
 
 Photographs and Telegrams. — A photograph of the scene of the 
 injury and of the condition of things after it took place has been 
 admitted as evidence with oral proof that it was a correct repre- 
 sentation.* 
 
 Telegraphic correspondence between the servants of the com- 
 pany just before the injury has been admitted as a part of the 
 
 1 Dougan v. Lalce Champlain Trans. 
 Co., 56 N. T. 1 ; Dale v. Del., L., & 
 W. E. Co., 73 N. Y. 468; Salters v. Dela- 
 ware & H. C. Co., 3 Hun, 338 ; Payne v. 
 Troy & B. R. Co., 9 Hun, 526. But see 
 West Chester & P. R. Co. v. McElwee, 
 67 Pa. St. 311 ; Westfall v. Erie R. Co., 
 5 Hun, 75 ; Harvey v. New York Cent. & H. 
 E. R. Co., 19 Hun, 556 ; Brehm o. Great 
 Western R. Co., 34 Barb. 256, 276 ; Kansas 
 Pacific K. Co. V. Miller, 2 Col. 442, 468 ; St. 
 Joseph &D. C. E. Co. v. Chase, 11 Kan. 47. 
 
 2 Campbell v. Chicago, E. I., & P. E. 
 Co., 45 Iowa, 76. 
 
 3 Eobinson v. Eitchburg & W. R. Co., 
 7 Gray, 92; Luby u. Hudson River B. 
 Co., 17 N. Y. 131; Anderson .;. Rome, 
 W., & 0. E. Co., 54 N. Y. 834; Eurst v. 
 Second Av. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 542 ; Brehm 
 V. Great Western R. Co., 34 Barb. 256 ; 
 Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Pa. St. 396 ; 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 389 ; 
 MuUan v. Phil. & S. M. S. Co., 78 Pa. St. 
 25 ; Bigley v. Williams, 80 Pa. St. 107 ; 
 Huntingdon & B. T. M. R. & Coal Co. v. 
 Decker, 82 Pa. St. 119, 84 Pa. St. 419 ; 
 Parker v. Allegheny Valley E. Co., 10 Re- 
 porter, 672; Ashmore v. Penn. Steam Tow- 
 
 ing & T. Co., 9 Vroom, 13; Chicago &N. 
 W. R. Co. V. Eillmore, 57 111. 265 ; Chicago, 
 B., & Q. E. Co. €. Riddle, 60 111. 534; Chi- 
 cago, B., & Q. R. Co. w. Lee, 60 111. 501 ; Ohio 
 & M. E. Co. V. Porter, 92 Ml. 437 ; Belle- 
 fontaine R. Co. v. Hunter, 83 Ind. 335 ; Kan- 
 sas Pacific R. Co. V. Pointer, 9 Kan. 620; 
 Sisson V. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 14 Mich. 
 489 ; Sims v. Macon & W. R. Co., 28 Ga. 
 93 ; Gerke v. Cal. Steam Nav. Co., 9 Cal. 
 251 ; Virginia & T. E. Co. v. Sayers, 26 
 Gratt. 328 ; Coyle v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 
 11 W. Va. 94 ; Hawker v. Bait. & 0. E. 
 Co., 15 W. Va. 628 ; Tanner v. Louisville 
 & N. R. Co., 60 Ala. 621 ;< Thompson v. 
 Andros*ggin R. I. Co., 58 N. H. 108, 
 54 N. H. 545. See Malacek v. Tower 
 Grove & L. R. Co., 57 Mo. 17. The same 
 rule applies to the declarations of the 
 plaintiff's servants. Toledo & W. R. Co. 
 V. Goddard, 25 Ind. 185. The declarations 
 of the husband are not admissible against 
 the wife, when made in her absence, in a 
 suit brought by her. Shaw v. Boston & 
 W. R. Co., 8 Gray, 45. 
 
 * Locke V. Sioux City & P. R. Co., 46 
 Iowa, 109. See HoUenbeck v. Rowley, 
 8 Allen, 473. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOUTS. ' 295 
 
 res gestce in a suit against the company by another servant whose 
 injury was caused by its alleged negligence.^ 
 
 Description of the Place of Injury. Previous Warning. — ETidence 
 descriptive of the place where the injury occurred is competent ; 
 and evidence of what occurred immediately after may be admitted 
 when a part of the res gestce.^ Evidence that the injured person 
 had been previously warned not to go upon the tracks is admis- 
 sible against him on the question whether he was using due care 
 at the time of the injury.^ 
 
 Drunkenness vrhen Proof of Negligence. — The intoxication of a 
 servant of the company, by whose alleged negligence the injury 
 occurred, is admissible as evidence when he was in that condition 
 at the time of the injury ; but it is only important when it was 
 the cause of the injury, and it is for the jury to say whether it 
 was the cause.* But his intoxication at other times is not ad- 
 missible.* A habit of intoxication in the servant has been held 
 to raise a presumption of his negligence.® 
 
 The intoxication of the injured person may contribute to the 
 injury, by leading him to place himself in an exposed position or 
 preventing the full use of his faculties, and may be put in evi- 
 dence to prove negligence on his part ; but unless it contributes 
 to the injury, it will not affect his right of action.^ 
 
 General Character of a Servant. — The carelessness of a person 
 cannot be proved by common repute.^ Whether the general habits 
 
 1 Deverson v. Eastern R. Co., 58 N. H. Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Hutchinson, 47 111. 
 129. 408 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cragin, 71 
 
 2 Casey v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 111. 177 ; Chicago City R. Co. v. Lewis, 
 Co., 78 N. Y. 518, 6 Abbott N. C. 104, 8 5 Brad. (lU.) 242; Meyer v. Pacific R. 
 Daly, 220. Co., 40 IVIo. 151 ; Whalen v. St. Louis, 
 
 8 Fitzpatrick v. Fitchburg R. Co., 128 K. C, & N. R. Co., 60 Mo. 323; Button 
 
 Mass. 13. V- Hudson River E. Co., 18 N. Y. 248; 
 
 < Ditchett V. Spuyten Duyvil & P. Healey w. New York, 3 Hun, 708 ; Bradley 
 
 M. R. Co., 5 Hun, 165, 67 N. Y. 425 ; Phil. v. Second Av. R. Co., 8 Daly, 289 ; Davis 
 
 City Pass. R. Co. v. Henrice, 37 Leg. Int. v. Oregon & C. R. Co., 8 Oreg. 172; Rob- 
 
 135 9 Reporter, 689. inson v. Pioche, 5 Cal. 460; O'Keefe u. 
 
 5 Warner v. New York Cent. R. Co., Chicago, R. L, & P. R. Co., 32 Iowa, 
 44 N. Y. 465; Cleghorn v. New York 467; Cramer u. Burlington, 42 Iowa, 315 ; 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 44. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Boteler, 38 Md. 
 
 6 Penn. R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. St. 668; Marquette, H., & 0. R. Co. v. Hand- 
 339; Huntingdon &B. T. M. R. Coal Co. v. ford, 39 Mich. 537 ; Southwestern E. Co. 
 Decker, 84 Pa. St. 419, 424, 82 Pa. St. 119. v. Hankerson, 61 Ga. 114. 
 
 ' Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 115 * Baldwin v. Western E. Co., 4 Gray, 
 Mass. 239 ; Alger v. LoweU, 3 Allen, 402 ; 833. 
 
296 ' THE LAW OP BAILROADS. 
 
 and character of the servant by whose alleged negligence the 
 injury occurred may be proved is doubtful.^ They have been 
 admitted in evidence as bearing upon a claim for exemplary 
 damages.^ A servant's want of skill is material only when it 
 contributes to the injury.^ It is not competent to show in an 
 action against the company that its employees are overworked in 
 order to prove that a particular employee was by excessive labor 
 incapacitated from performing his duty.* 
 
 Opinions of Experts. — The opinions of experts are competent 
 evidence on questions of science and professional skill, but not 
 on matters of common experience, which are equally within the 
 knowledge of the jury or unskilled persons,^ or on the ultimate 
 fact to be found by the jury.^ They have been rejected on the 
 questions whether a train stopped long enough to give passengers 
 time to alight ; '^ whether a company employed a sufficient num- 
 ber of brakemen ; ^ whether the blowing of a whistle was safe 
 and prudent with reference to travel on a highway ; ^ and what 
 is the custom of other companies.^** They have, however, been 
 admitted as to the capacity of an engine ; ^^ the place at which a 
 running train would come to a stop ; ^^ what rate of speed was 
 under the circumstances safe ; '^ what is the proper station for 
 
 1 See Robinson v. Fitchburg & "W. R. U. S. 469, 472 ; Koons v. St. Louis & L 
 Co., 7 Gray, 92 ; Gahagan v. Boston & L. M. R. Co., 65 Mo. 592 ; Macon & W. R. 
 R. Co., 1 Allen, 187; Penn. R. Co. o. Co. w. Johnson, 38 Gii. 409,435; Toledo, 
 Books, 57 Pa. St. 339 ; Mansfield Coal & P., & W. R. Co. v, Conroy, 68 111. 560, 
 C. Co. V. McEnery, 37 Leg. Int. 28. 61 111. 162. 
 
 2 Cleghorn v. New York Cent. & H. « Muldowney .,. 111. Cent. R. Co., 39 
 R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 44. Iowa, 615, 36 Iowa, 462. 
 
 3 Culhane v. New York Cent. & H. R. ^ Keller v. New York Cent. R. Co., 2 
 R. Co., 60 N. Y., 133. See O'Mara v. Abbott Ct. App. 480. 
 
 Hudson River R. Co., 88 N. Y. 445; 8 Harvey k. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 Haskin v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 556, 559. 
 
 Co., 65 Barb. 129. 9 Hill v. Portland & R. R. Co., 55 Me. 
 
 * Phil. City Pass. R. Co. v. Henrice, 438. 
 
 87 Leg. Int. 135, 9 Reporter, 689. w ifoons «. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 
 
 6 Hamilton v. Des Moines Valley R. 65 Mo. 592 ; Hill v. Portland & R. R. Co., 
 
 Co., 36 Iowa, 31 ; Muldowney v. 111. Cent. 55 Me. 438 ; Bailey v. New Haven & N. 
 
 R. Co., 30 Iowa, 462, 39 Iowa, 615; Way R. Co., 107 Mass. 496. But see Quimby 
 
 V. 111. Cent. R. Co., 40 Iowa, 341 ; Belair v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 23 Vt. 387 ; Illinois 
 
 V. Chicago &N. W. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 662; Cent. R. Co. v. Reedy, 17 111. 580. 
 
 Kline v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. R. n Si.sson v. Cleveland & T. B. Co., 14 
 
 Co., 50 Iowa, 656; White v. Ballon, 8 Mich. 489. 
 
 Allen, 408 ; Higgins v. Dewey, 107 Mass. 12 Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van Stein- 
 
 494 ; Simmons v. New Bedford, V., & N. burg, 17 Mich. 99. 
 
 S. Co , 97 Mass. 361, 100 Mass. 34 ; Mil- " Cooper v. Central R. Co., 44 Iowa, 
 
 waukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 184. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOKTS. 297 
 
 brakemen on a train ; ^ whether in view of the distance at which 
 cattle or persons were seen on the track the engine could have 
 been stopped in time to prevent a collision ; ^ what threw a car 
 from the track ; ^ and the advantages and dangers of machinery 
 constructed in a particular way.* 
 
 Witnesses who are not experts, but who are qualified by their 
 means and habits of observation to judge, may testify as to the 
 speed of a passing train.^ 
 
 It is not competent to interrogate an expert as to an hypothesis 
 where there are no facts in the case tending to support it.^ 
 
 Opinions of Physicians. — Opinions of physicians based on per- 
 sonal examination or on facts proved by witnesses are admitted 
 to show the' nature of the disease or disability resulting from the 
 injury, and its probable duration and curability ; ^ but to make 
 them competent, they must be the result of a careful and complete 
 examination.^ The maimed limb may be exhibited in the pres- 
 ence of the jury to the surgeon who is called to describe the 
 injury.^ 
 
 Opinions as to Amount of Damages. — Opinions of witnesses are 
 not admissible as to the amount of damages for a personal injury.^" 
 
 Life-tables. — In actions for injuries not resulting in death, life- 
 tables are not competent evidence of the probable injury.^^ 
 
 Statements of the Injured Person. — The declarations of the 
 injured person are, under certain limitations, competent evidence 
 
 1 Cincinnati & Z. R. Co. u. Smith, 22 35 N. Y. 487 ; Lincoln v. Saratoga & S. R. 
 Ohio St. 227. Co., 23 Wend. 425 ; Grand Rapids & I. R. 
 
 2 Bellefontaine & I. R. Co. v. Bailey, Co. v. Martin, 41 Mich. 667; Kansas P. 
 11 Ohio St. 31« ; Richmond & D. R. Co. R. Co. u. Pointer, 9 Kan. 620. 
 
 V. Anderson, 31 Gratt. 812. 8 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Huntley, 
 
 8 Seaver v. Boston & M. R., 14 Gray, 38 Mich. 537. 
 
 466. ' Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co., 
 
 4 Baldwin v. Chicago, R. L, & P; R. 30 N. Y. 370. 
 
 Co., 60 Iowa, 680. i" Lincoln v. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 
 
 6 Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van Stein- 23 Wend. 425 ; Central R. & B. Co. v. 
 
 burg, 17 Mich. 99; Grand Rapids & I. R. Kelly, 58 Ga. 107; Hastings v. Steamer 
 
 Co. V. Huntley, 38 Midi. 537. Uncle Sam, 10 Cal. 341. 
 
 6 Hurst V. Chicago, K. I., & P. R. Co., " Nelson u.Chicago, R. I, & P. R. Co., 
 
 49 Iowa, 76 ; Muldowney c. 111. Cent. R. 38 Iowa, 564. See Simonson v. Chicago, 
 
 Co., 39 Iowa, 610, 36 Iowa, 462. R. L, & P. R. Co., 49 Iowa, 87. 
 
 ' Matteson u. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
298 THE LAW OP KAILKOADS. 
 
 of the nature and effect of the injury. Thus, his complaints and 
 exclamations made at the time it occurred, expressive of pain and 
 indicating its seat and character, but not being in the nature of 
 a narration or statement, are admitted. They are, when made at 
 any time during the disability, received when expressive of pres- 
 ent pain or malady. ^ Such declarations, sometimes called " verbal 
 facts," are not required to be strictly contemporaneous with the 
 event, but, though subsequent in time, may, by connecting cir- 
 cumstances, be made a part of the res gestce? The injured per- 
 son's subsequent statements of his ailments and symptoms, made 
 even after the commencement of the suit, to his physician for the 
 purpose of treatment, are received, even though narrative in 
 form.2 They are admitted only when made in the course of 
 treatment, and are excluded when made at an examination con- 
 ducted for the purpose of obtaining testimony.* Statements of 
 the injured person as to the manner of the injury, made with the 
 consciousness of impending death, are not admitted in civil 
 cases.^ 
 
 Examination of Plaintiff's Wound. — The plaintiff who claims 
 damages for a personal injury may be required by the court, on 
 the defendant's application, to submit his person to be examined 
 by experts.^ 
 
 Burden of Proof of Defendant's Negligence. — The burden of proof 
 is on the plaintiff to show that the defendant was negligent, and 
 that his negligence caused the injury.' 
 
 Burden of Proof of Plaintiffs Care. — The burden of proof is on 
 the plaintiff to show that he was himself in the exercise of rea- 
 
 1 Bacon r. Charlton, 7 Cush. 581 ; 48 111. 475 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. ». 
 
 Waldele v. New York Cent. & H. E. E. Howard, 6 Bra4. (111.) 569. 
 
 Co., 19 Hun, 69. 6 Schroeder v. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 
 
 . 2 Travellers' Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. Co., 47 Iowa, 375, 41 Iowa, 344. 
 
 397; Werely v. Persons, 28 N. Y. 344; T Button y. Hudson Elver R. Co., 18 N. 
 
 Matteson o. New York Cent. E. Co., 35 T. 248, 251 ; Deyo v. New York Cent. R. 
 
 N. Y. 487. Co., 34 N. Y. 9 ;' Baltimore & 0. E. Co. «. 
 
 3 Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, 322 ; Bahrs, 28 Md. 647 ; Freck v. Phil., W., & 
 Fay V. Harlan, 128 Mass. 244 ; Matteson B. R. Co., 39 Md. 574 ; State v. PhU., W., 
 V. New York Cent. E. Co., 36 N. Y. 487 ; & B. E. Co., 47 Md. 76; Penn. E. Co. u. 
 Murphy v. New York Cent. E. Co., 66 Goodman, 62 Pa. St. 329 ; Eoblnson u. 
 Barb. 125. But see Illinois Cent. E. Co. Fitchburg & W. E. Co., 7 Gray, 92; 
 V. Sutton, 42 111. 438. Shaw v. Boston & W. E. Co.. 8 Gray, 45, 
 
 4 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Hunt- 79; Chicago, B., & Q. E. Co. w. Harwood, 
 ley, 38 Mich. 537. 90 111. 425. 
 
 6 Marshall v. Chicago & G. E. R. Co., 
 
LIABILITr FOR TOETS. 
 
 299 
 
 sonable care, or that his negligence did not contribute to the in- 
 jury. This is an essential element in his case, and is to be 
 shown affirmatively.^ The rule applies where the action is prose- 
 cuted by the personal representatives, or by relatives, under 
 statutes.^ 
 
 The plaintiff's exercise of ordinary or reasonable care may be 
 shown by circumstantial as well as by direct proof; and usually 
 he is not required in proving his case to call witnesses to negative 
 acts of negligence on his' part. If he is without fault, the fact 
 wUl naturally appear from the proof which he introduces to show 
 that the defendant's negligence caused the injury. His exercise 
 of due care must, however, where the testimony is conflicting, 
 appear by a preponderance of evidence ; and the evidence must 
 be such as to authorize the jury to find affirmatively that his neg- 
 ligence did not contribute to it.^ His exercise of due care may 
 be inferred, under some circumstances, from the ordinary habits 
 and dispositions of prudent men, and the instinct of self-pres- 
 ervation.* If the plaintiff's evidence, which is given to show 
 
 1 Lane v. Crombie, 12 Pick. 177; 
 Lucas V. New Bedford & T. R. Co., 6 Gray, 
 64 ; Robinson v. Fitchburg & W. R. Co., 
 7 Gray, 92 ; Gahagan v. Boston & L. E. 
 Co., 1 Allen, 187 ; Warren v. Fitchburg 
 R. Co., 8 Allen, 227,230; Butterfield w. 
 Western R. Co., 10 Allen, 532; Hickey i-. 
 Boston & L. R. Co., 14 Allen, 429 ; Murphy 
 V. Deane, 101 Mass. 455 ; Allyn v. Boston 
 & A. R. Co., 105 Mass. 77 ; Hinckley v. 
 Cape Cod R. Co., 120 Mass. 257 ; Deyo v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 9 ; Rey- 
 nolds V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 58 N. Y. 248 ; Chamberlain u. Mil. & M. 
 E. Co., 7 Wis. 425, 431 ; Greenleaf v. 111. 
 Cent. R. Co., 29 Iowa, 14 ; Carlin v. Chi- 
 cago, R. L, & P. R- Co., 37 Iowa, 316; 
 Nelson v. Chicago, R. I, & P- E. Co., 38 
 Iowa, 564 ; Benton a. Central R. Co., 42 
 Iowa, 192 ; Lang i>. 'Holiday Creek, R., 
 & C. M. Co., 49 Iowa, 469 ; Lake Shore & 
 M. S. R. Co. !'. Miller, 25 Mich. 274 ; Le 
 Baron „. Joslin, 41 Mich. 813; Chicago 
 City R. Co. V. Lewis, 5 Brad. (111.) 242; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R- Co. V. Damerell, 81 
 111. 450 ; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. y. 
 Evans, 88 111. 63. See 5 Am. Law Rev. 
 (Jan. 1871), p. 205. 
 
 'i Patterson v. Burlington & M. R. Co. 
 38 Iowa, 279 ; Murphy v. Chicago, E. L, 
 
 & P. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 661, 38 Iowa, 539 ; 
 Schappert v. Ringler,45 N. Y. Superior,345. 
 
 3 Button V. Hudson River R. Co., 18 
 N. Y. 248 ; Johnson v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 20 N. Y. 65, 5 Duer, 21 ; Warner v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465, 
 471 ; Reynolds v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248, 2 Thomp. & 
 C. 644 ; Massoth v. Del. & H. C. Co., 
 64 N. Y. 524 ; McGovern v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417 ; Ma- 
 har V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 19 Hun, 32 ; 
 Detroit & M. E. Co. v. Steinburg, 17 
 Mich. 99, 119 ; Lake Shore & M. S. E. 
 Co. V. Miller, 25 Mich. 274, 282, 283; 
 Commonwealth v. Boston & L. E. Co., 
 126 Mass. 61; Cleveland & P. E. Co. v. 
 Rowan, 66 Pa. St. 393 ; Nelson v. Chi- 
 cago, R. I; & P. R- Co., 38 Iowa, 564 ; 
 Murphy v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 45 
 Iowa, 661 ; Starry v. Dubuque & S. W. 
 R. Co., 51 Iowa, 419. 
 
 * Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 
 N. Y. 65, 5 Duer, 21 ; Northern Cent. E. 
 Co. u. State, 29 Md. 420, 438; Northern 
 Cent. E. Co. v. State, 31 Md. 357; 
 Cleveland & P. E. Co. v. Eowan, 66 Pa. 
 St. 393 ; Weiss ... Penn. R. Co., 79 Pa. 
 St. 387. But see Reynolds v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248, 252. 
 
300 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 the defendant's negligence, discloses fully the facts and raises no 
 inference of the plaintiff's negligence, the jury are justified in 
 finding that the plaintiff exercised due care.^ 
 
 The rule that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove his 
 exercise of due care is denied in several jurisdictions, where it is 
 held to be defensive matter which the defendant is to prove, 
 when not appearing by the plaintiff's own evidence.^ The rule 
 is, as already seen, so easily satisfied that ordinarily no more is 
 required of the plaintiff within the jurisdictions which accept it 
 than in those which reject it. 
 
 Proof of an injury where the plaintiff and defendant are not in 
 any relation arising from contract, or where the relation is that of 
 master and servant, is not prima facie evidence of the defendant's 
 negligence. Thus, proof of an injury arising from a collision be- 
 tween the train of a company and a traveller at a highway cross- 
 ing does not raise a presumption of the former's negligence.^ 
 Proof of injury to a passenger is not in itself ^Hma/a«e evidence 
 of the carrier's negligence, but it may be such with attending 
 circumstances.* 
 
 Damages for Personal Injuries one Cause of Action. — A personal 
 injury is one cause of action, and all damages for the injury, past 
 
 ' Milwaukie & C. R. Co. v. Hunter, = Shaw v. Boston & W. R. Co., 8 Gray, 
 
 11 Wis. IBO ; Hinckley v. Cape Cod R. 45, 79 ; Commonwealth v. Boston & W. 
 
 Co., 120 Mass. 257. R. Co., 101 Mass. 201 ; Curran v. Warren 
 
 2 Washington & G. R. Co. v. Gladmon, C. & M. Co., 36 N. Y. 153 ; Penn. E. Co. v. 
 
 15 Wall. 401 ; Freck v. Phil., W., & B. R. McTighe, 46 Pa. St. 316 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 
 Co., 39 Md. 574; Paducah & M. R. Co., Goodman, 62 Pa. St. 829; Illinois Cent, 
 
 f. Hoehl, 12 Bush, 41 ; Hocura u. Weith- R. Co. v. Cragin, 71 111. 177, 182; Chi- 
 
 erick, 22 Minn. 152 ; Whittiery. Chicago, cago City R. Co. v. Lewis, 5 Brad.' (111.) 
 
 M., & St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. -394; Robin- 242; Sclmltz v. Pacific R. Co., 36 Mo. 
 
 son V. Western Pacific R. Co., 48 Cal. 13 ; Elliott v. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 67 
 
 409; New Jersey Express V.o. v. Nichols, Mo. 272; Williams v. Great Western R. 
 
 4 Vroom, 434 ; Johnson v. Hudson River Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 157. Contra, Home v. 
 
 R. Co., 5 Duer, 21, 20 N. Y. 65; Hackford Memphis & O. R. Co., 1 Cold. (Tenn.) 
 
 i: New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co.,43 How. 72 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Connor, 9 
 
 Pr. 222, 53 N. Y. 654 ; Robinson v. New Heisk. 19 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 
 
 York Cent. & H. R. K. Co., 65 Barb. 146 ; 55 111. 194, 49 111. 234. 
 
 Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Twombly, 3 Col. ■» Holbrook v. Utica & S. R. Co., 12 
 
 125; Central Branch Union P. R. Co. v. N. Y. 236; Curtis v. Rochester & S. R. 
 
 Hotham, 22 Kan. 41; Penn. Canal Co. v. Co., 18 N. Y. 534; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 
 Bentley, 66 Pa. St. 30; Penn. R. Co. v. «. Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431 ; Pittsburg, C, 
 
 Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157 ; Weiss v. Penn. & St. L. R. Co. v. Thompson, 56 111. 138 ; 
 
 R. Co., 79 Pa. St. 387 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Schultz v. Pacific R. Co., 36 Mo. 13 25, 
 
 Werner, 89 Pa. St. 59; Richey«. Mo. 30. But see Daniel i;. Metropolitan R. 
 
 Pacific R. Co., 7 Mo. App. 150 ; Baltimore Co., L. R. 5 H. L. 45, L. R. 3 C P 216 
 
 & 0. R. Co. V. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627, 222, 591. ' 
 24 Ohio St. 642, 
 
LIABILITT FOB, TOETS. 
 
 301 
 
 and prospective, are recoverable in one action, which will be a 
 bar to any other. ^ 
 
 What is to be included in the Damages. — The damages for 
 personal injuries include, and are limited to, the natural and 
 immediate consequences of the wrongful act.^ They include, 
 irrespective of the defendant's motive or conduct at the time of 
 the injury: 1. Expenses of surgical and medical attendance 
 and nursing. 2. Bodily pain, according to its degree and probable 
 duration. 3. Bodily injury, taking into account loss of time, the 
 extent and probable duration of the injury, its effect on the 
 health, the mental and physical powers, the capacity for labor, 
 the pursuit of an occupation, and the earning of money. To these 
 may be added, where the tortious act is accompanied by malice, 
 insult, or inhumanity, compensation for wounded feelings.^ 
 
 ' Hopkins v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 
 36 N. H. 9 ; Holyoke v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 48 N. H. 541 ; Curtis v. Rochester & 
 S. R. Co., 20 Barb. 282, 18 N. Y. 534 ; 
 Spicer v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 29 Wis. 
 680 ; Elkhart v. Ritter, 66 Ind. 1.36 ; South 
 & N. A. R. Co. V. McLendon, 10 Reporter, 
 688. 
 
 2 Ballou 0. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73, 75 ; 
 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Blocher, 27 Md. 
 277 ; Ryan v. New York Cent. R. Co., 36 
 N. Y. 210 ; Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. 
 V. Birney,71 111. 391. 
 
 ' Ransom v. New York & E. R. Co., 
 16 N. Y. 415; Curtis v. Rochester & 
 S. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 534, 20 Barb. 282; 
 Drew V. Sixth Av. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 49 ; 
 Murray v. Hudson River R. Co., 47 
 Barb. 196; Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa. St. 
 479; Penn. R. Co. v. Books, 67 Pa. 
 St. 339; Penn. & O. C. Co. v. Graham, 
 63 Pa. St. 290; Pittsburg, A., & M. 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Donahue, 70 Pa. St. 119; 
 Ohio & M. R. Co. w. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 
 317; Bannon v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 24 
 Md. 108 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. An- 
 drews, 39 Md. 329 ; McMahon v. North- 
 ern Cent. R. Co., 39 Md. 438 ; Klein v. 
 Jewett, 11 C. E. Green, 474, 12 C. E. 
 Green, -550; Hagan ?>. Providence & W. 
 R. Co., 3 R. I. 88 ; Hopkins u. Atlantic & 
 St. L. R. Co., 86 N. H. 9 ; Holyoke v. 
 Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 541 ; Ballou 
 V. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73 ; Peoria Bridge 
 Assoc. V. Loorais. 20 111. 235 ; Cliicago, 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Hazzard, 26 111. 373, 
 
 388 ; Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. McKean, 40 
 111. 218 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Flagg, 43 
 111. 364 ; Pierce v. Millay, 44 111. 189 ; Russ 
 V. Steamboat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363 ; 
 Muldowney v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 
 462 ; Morris v. Chicago, B., & Q. E. Co., 
 45 Iowa, 29 ; Smith v. Pittsburg, Ft. W., 
 & C. R. Co., 23 Ohio St. 10; South & N. 
 A. R. Co. V. McLendon, 10 Reporter, 688 ; 
 Hill V. New Orleans, 0., & G. W. R. Co., 11 
 La. An. 292; Choppin v. New Orleans &. C. 
 R. Co., 17 La. An. 19 ; Quigley v. Central 
 Pacific R. Co., 11 Nev. 350 ; Cohen v. Eu- 
 reka & P. R. Co., 14 Nev. 376 ; Malone v. 
 Hawley, 46 Cal. 409 ; Bradshaw v. Lanca- 
 shire & Y. R. Co.,L. R.IO C. P. 189 ; Phillips 
 V. South Western R. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 
 Div. 406, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 78, L. R. 5 C. 
 P. Div. 280. In Phillips v. South West- 
 ern R. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. Div. 406, 407, 
 Cockburn, C. J., said : " It is extremely 
 difficult to lay down any precise rule as to 
 the measure of damages in cases of per- 
 sonal injury like the present. No doubt, 
 as a general rule, where injury is caused 
 to one person by the wrongful or negli- 
 gent act of another, the compensation 
 should be commensurate to the injury 
 sustained. But there are personal in- 
 juries for which no amount of pecuniary 
 damages would afford adequate compen- 
 sation, while, on the other hand, the at- 
 tempt to award full compensation in 
 damages might be attended with ruinous 
 consequences to defendants who cannot 
 always, even by the utmost care, protect 
 
302 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 Mental is not readily distinguished from physical suffering.^ 
 Pain of mind, when connected with bodily injur}"-, is the subject 
 of damages ; ^ but it must be so connected in order to be in- 
 cluded in the estimate, unless the injury is accompanied by cir- 
 cumstances of malice, insult, or inhumanity.^ Thus, a sense 
 of mortification on account of a deformity, resulting from the 
 injury, should be considered, while -wounded "pride and man- 
 hood " should be excluded.* 
 
 The plaintiff's occupation, — the kind of labor or business in 
 which he has been engaged, — and the mental and physical inca- 
 pacity to carry it on resulting from the injury, are competent evi- 
 dence to determine the compensation to which he is entitled." 
 
 themselves against carelessness of per- 
 sons in their employ. Generally speak- 
 ing, we agree with the rule as laid down 
 by Brett, J., in Rowley v. London & 
 North Western Ry. Co. (Law Rep. 8 
 Ex. 231), an action brought on the 9 & 
 10 Vict. c. 93, that a jury in these cases 
 must not attempt to give damages to the 
 full amount of a perfect compensation for 
 the pecuniary injury, but ' must take a 
 reasonable view of the case, and give 
 what they consider, under all the circum- 
 stances, a fair compensation.' . . . But 
 we think that a jury cannot be said to 
 take a reasonable view of the case unless 
 they consider and take into account all 
 the heads of damage in respect of which 
 a plaintiff complaining of a personal 
 injury is entitled to compensation. These 
 are the bodily injury sustained ; the pain 
 undergone ; the effect on the health of the 
 sufferer, according to its degree and its 
 probable duration, as likely to be tempo- 
 rary or permanent; the expenses inciden- 
 tal to attempts to effect a cure, or to 
 lessen the amount of injury ; the pecuni- 
 ary loss sustained through inability to at- 
 tend to a profession or business, as to 
 which, again, the injury may be of a 
 temporary character, or may be such as 
 to incapacitate the party for the remain- 
 der of his life." Affirmed in the Court 
 of Appeal, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 78. After 
 a new trial, L. R. 6 C. P. Div. 280, 287, 
 Bramwell, L. J., said: "I have tried as 
 judge more than a hundred actions of 
 this kind, and the direction which I, in 
 common with other judges, have been 
 accustomed to give the jury has been to 
 
 the following effect : ' You must give the 
 ■ plaintiff a compensation for his pecuniary 
 loss, you must give him compensation for 
 his pain and bodily suffering ; of course it 
 is almost impossible for you to give to an 
 injured man what can be strictly called 
 compensation, but you must take a rea- 
 sonable view of the case, and must con- 
 sider, under all the circumstances, what is 
 a fair amount to be awarded to him.' I 
 have never known a direction in that 
 form to be questioned." 
 
 1 Ballou V. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73, 77. 
 
 2 Smith V. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 
 Co., 23 Ohio St. 10. 
 
 3 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sutton, 53 
 ni. 397 ; Indianap. & St. L. R. Co. v. Stables, 
 62 111. 313, 320; Johnson v. Wells, 6 Nev. 
 224 ; Quigley v. Central Pacific R. Co., 
 11 Nev. 350, 369. 
 
 * Atlantic & R. A. L. R. Co. v. Wood, 
 48 Qa. 565. 
 
 5 Tilley v. Hudson River R. Co., 24 
 N. Y. 471, 29 N. Y. 252 ; Beisiegel v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 9 ; Lincoln 
 V. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 23 Wend. 425; 
 Ballou V. Farnham, 11 Allen, 73 ; Hano- 
 ver R. Co. V. Coyle, 55 Pa. St. 396 ; Ban- 
 non V. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 24 Md. 108; 
 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Shipley, 31 Md. 
 368 ; Hunt v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 
 Iowa, 363; Wade v. Leroy, 20 How. 34; 
 Nebraska City v. Campbell, 2 Black, 590; 
 Grand Rapids & I. R, Co. v. Martin, 41 
 Mich. 667; Kinney y. Crocker, 18 Wis. 
 74 ; Elkhart u. Ritter, 66 Ind. 136. But 
 see Holyoke v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 
 N. H. 541. As to the necessity of an alle- 
 gation of injury to one's profession, see 
 
LIABILITY FOR TOKTS. 
 
 303 
 
 The past earnings of a person employed on fixed wages,^ and the 
 earnings of a professional man,^ have been admitted in evidence 
 to determine the amount of the personal injury. The general 
 profits of a commercial business have been generally excluded 
 as too uncertain.^ The evidence of the kind and amount of busi- 
 ness and of the profits should be received, if at all, not as furnish- 
 ing the measure of damages, but for the purpose of guiding the 
 discretion of the jury.^ 
 
 Among circumstances too remote or uncertain, or otherwise 
 inadmissible in computing the damages for personal injuries, are 
 the following : The plaintiff's habits of industry and economy, 
 wealth or poverty, peculiar skill in his occupation, or the number 
 of his dependents ; ^ an injury, though fatal, to the plaintiff's hus- 
 band at the same time ; ^ the loss of a position to which, but for 
 the injury, he would have been appointed ; ^ and, except in cases 
 admitting vindictive damages, the defendant's wealth^ or the 
 plaintiff's counsel fees.^ 
 
 Laing v. Colder, 8 Pa St. 479 ; Hopkins 
 V. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 30 N. H. 9; 
 Baldwin w. Western R. Co., 4 Gray, 333; 
 Tomlinson v. Derby, 43 Conn. 562. 
 
 1 Mclntyre v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 37 N. Y. 287 ; Masterton v. Mt. Vernon, 
 88 N. Y. 391, 395 ; Grant v. Brooklyn, 41 
 Barb. 381 ; Simonson v. Chicago, R. I., & 
 P. R. Co., 49 Iowa, 87 ; Kline «. Kansas 
 City, St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 50 Iowa, 
 656. 
 
 2 Penn. R. Co. v. Dale, 76 Pa. St. 47 ; 
 Walker v. Erie R. Co., 63 Barb. 260; 
 New Jersey Ex. Co. v. Nichols, 4 Vroom, 
 434, 3 Vroom, 166; Metcalf v. Baker, 
 57 N. Y. 662; Nash v. Sharpe, 19 
 Hun, 365. But see Masterton v. Mt. Ver- 
 non, 58 N. Y. 391, 396. The rule admit- 
 ting the consideration of the plaintiff's 
 professional income in assessing his dam^ 
 ages, which is open to serious question on 
 grounds of policy and justice, has led, in 
 England, to an extraordinary " respect of 
 persons." A verdict of £7,000 in favor 
 of a physician whose income was £5,000 
 a year was set aside as inadequate, and a 
 second verdict for £16,000 was sustained. 
 Phillips II. South Western R. Co., L. R. 
 4 Q. B. Div. 406, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 78, 
 L. R. 5 C. P. Div. 280. 
 
 3 Masterton u. Mt. Vernon, 58 N. Y. 
 
 391 ; Ballou v. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73. But 
 see Albert v. Bleecker St., &g. R. Co., 2 
 Daly, 389; Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 
 Pa. St. 396. 
 
 * New Jersey Ex. Co. v. Nichols, 4 
 Vroom, 4.04, 3 Vroom, 166. ^ It was ad- 
 mitted in Ballou v. Farnura, 11 Allen, 73, 
 only to show the extent of the personal 
 injury by reason of the loss of mental 
 vigor and endurance thereby occasioned. 
 
 5 Ballou V. Earnum, 11 Allen, 73; 
 Shaw V. Boston & W. R. Co., 8 Gray, 45, 
 80 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Shipley, 31 
 Md. 368; Penn. R. Co. v. Books, 57 Pa. 
 St. 339 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. c. Pointer, 
 9 Kan. 620; Chicago v. O'Brennan, 65 111. 
 160; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. 
 Powers, 74 111. 341 ; Shea v. Protrero & 
 B. V. R. Co., 44 Cal. 414; Malone u. 
 Hawley, 46 Cal. 409. But see Hunt v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 363. 
 
 6 Shaw V. Boston & W. R. Co., 8 Gray, 
 45, 80. 
 
 7 Brown v. Cummings, 7 Allen, 507. 
 
 8 Hunt V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 
 Iowa, 363 ; Belknap v. Boston & M. R., 
 49 N. H. 358 ; Birchard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 
 67 ; Whitfield y. Westbrook, 40 Miss. 311; 
 Chicago City R. Co. u. Henry, 62 111 142. 
 See Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo 152. 
 
 » Dibble v. Morris, 26 Conn. 416 ; St. 
 
304 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 Evidence of the plaintiff's intemperate habits, disqualifying 
 him for business when in a state of intoxication, has been re- 
 jected ; ^ but evidence that his business, for injury to which he 
 claimed damages, is unlawful has been admitted.^ 
 
 The plaintiff's damages for diminished capacity to continue his 
 profession are not to be reduced by proof of his enjoyment of an 
 independent income.^ 
 
 The Husband's Actions for Injuries to the Wife. — In an action 
 by the husband for an injury to his wife, he may recover for 
 loss of service and comfort, and for expenses of medical treat- 
 ment and nursing ; and for injury to his child he may recover for 
 loss of service during minority, and expenses of medical treat- 
 ment and nursing ; but he cannot recover for the bodily and mental 
 pain of the wife or child, or for an injury to his wounded feelings.* 
 A wife, when suing alone for a tort, cannot recover for loss of 
 time, as that belongs to her husband, unless she was carrying on 
 a separate business of her own.^ 
 
 Amount received on an Insurance Policy. — The amount received 
 by the injured person on an accident insurance policy is not to 
 be deducted from his damages.^ 
 
 Injury increased by the Act of the Surgeon. — The fact that 
 the plaintiff's injury has been aggravated by the mistake of a 
 
 Peter's Church v. Beach, 26 Conn. 355 ; v. Fielding, ,48 Pa. St. 320; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 
 Stirapson ■;. Bailroads, 1 Wallace, Jr., Butler, 57 Pa. St. 335 ; Penn. K. Co. 
 
 164; Roberts y. Mason, 10 Ohio St. 277 ; v. Goodman, 62 Pa. St. 329; State v. 
 
 Clereland, C, & C. R. Co. v. Bartram, 11 Bait. & 0. R. Co., 24 Md. 84 ; Covington 
 
 Ohio St. 457, 465 ; Smith v. Pittsburg, Ft. St. R. Co. o. Packer, 9 Bush, 455 ; Cregin 
 
 W., & C. R. Co., 23 Ohio St. 10, 18 ; v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., 75 N. Y. 
 
 Welch V. North Eastern R. Co., 12 Rich. 192, 19 Hun, 341 ; Trarer .;. Eighth At. 
 
 290; Houston & T. R. Co. u. Oram, 49 R. Co., 6 Abbott Pr. n. s. 46, 3 Keycs, 
 
 Tex. 341. 497. jt jjas been held that prospective 
 
 1 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. u. Boteler, 38 loss of service cannot be recovered with- 
 ^^- ^^^- out an appropriate averment. Gilligan 
 
 2 Jacques v. Bridgeport Horse R. Co., v. New York & E. R. Co., 1 E. D. Smith, 
 41 Conn. 61. 453 
 
 8 Pliillips V. London & S. W. R. Co., 5 Tuttle v. Chicago, R. I, & P. R. Co., 
 
 L. R. 5 C. P. Div. 280, L. R. 4 Q. B. Div. 42 Iowa, 518. 
 406, L. R. 5 Q. B. Div. 78. 6 Bradburn v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 « I-Iouston & G. N. R. Co. o. Miller, L. R. 10 Exch. 1 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. 
 
 49 Tex. 322; Hopkins ,.. Atlantic & St. Co. u. Thompson, 56 111. 138 ; Harding ». 
 
 L. R. Co., 36 N. H. 9; Penn. R. Co. .-. Townshend, 43 Vt. 536 ; Althorf v Wolfe, 
 
 Kelly, 81 Pa. St. 372 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 22 N. Y. 355 ; Baltimore & O R Co. v. 
 
 Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318; Oakland R. Co. Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431. 
 
LIABILITY FOE TOETS. 
 
 305 
 
 competent surgeon, whom he employed in good faith, -will not 
 have the effect to reduce his damages.^ 
 
 Vindictive Damages. — Although compensation for the injury is 
 the usual measure of damages, other damages in addition have 
 been allowed where the author of the injury committed it mali- 
 ciously, wilfully, or even recklessly, or, according to some authori- 
 ties, with gross carelessness. Such supplementary damages are 
 called exemplary, punitive, retributory, vindictive, or smart- 
 money, — terms \yhich, as used in the law, are synonymous. 
 They are given by way of punishment and example for the gen- 
 eral good, and are justified as calculated to prevent moral wrong, 
 violence, outrage, and oppression, and to preserve the public 
 tranquillity. They have been approved by a great number of 
 authorities, the very number of which suggests that they are 
 opposed to a strong pressure of professional opinion.^ 
 
 Such damages, exceeding compensation for the injury, are not 
 allowed for mere negligence, and they are confined to injuries 
 which were intentional, or prompted by malice or an evil pur- 
 pose, or caused by such wilfulness or recklessness of conduct 
 
 1 Sauter v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 66 N. Y. 50, 6 Hun, 446 ; Lyons v. 
 Erie E. Co., 57 N. Y. 489 ; Stover v. Blue- 
 hill, 51 Me. 439. 
 
 2 Hopkins V. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 
 36 N. H. 9; Holyoke v. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co., 48 N. H. 541 ; Belknap v. Boston 
 & M. R., 49 N. H. 358; Devine v. Rand, 
 38 Vt. 621 ; Goddard -. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co, 57 Me. 202; Hanson v. European & 
 N. A. E. Co., 62 Me. 84 ; Ames v. Hilton, 
 70 Me. 36; Phil., W., & B. K. Co. o. 
 Quigley. 21 How. 202, 213; Milwaukie & 
 St. P. R. Co. V. Arms, 91 U. S. 489; 
 Bannon v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 24 Md. 
 108 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Blocher, 
 27 Md. 277 ; Baltimore & W. Tump. Co. 
 V. Boone, 45 Md. 344; Phil., W., & B. R. 
 Co. u. Larkin, 47 Md. 155; Roberts v. 
 Mason, 10 Ohio St. 277 ; Atlantic & G. 
 W. R. Co. V. Dunn, 19 Ohio St. 162; 
 Hodgson V. Millward, 3 Grant, 406; 
 Penn. R. Co v. Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318, 330; 
 Nagle u. MuUison, 34 Pa. St. 48; Hunt 
 V. Bennett, 19 N. Y. 173 ; Walker ti. Wil- 
 son, 8 Bosw. 586; Bull v. Griswold, 19 
 111. 631 ; Peoria Bridge Assoc, v. Loomis, 
 20 111. 235 ; Foote o. Nichols, 28 111. 486 ; 
 
 Hawk V. Ridgway, 33 111. 473 ; Chicago 
 & R. I. R. Co. V. McKean, 40 111. 218 ; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Bryan, 90 
 111. 126; Williamson v. Western Stage 
 Co., 24 Iowa, 171; Hawkins u. Riley, 17 
 B. Monr. 101; Chiles v. Drake, 2 Met. 
 (Ky.) 146; Bowler w. Lane, 3 Met. (Ky.) 
 311; Maysville & L. R. Co. v. Herriek, 
 13 Bush, 122; Claxton v. Lexington & B. 
 S. R. Co., 13 Bush, 636; Birchard v. 
 Booth, 4 Wis. 67; Hooker v. Newton, 
 24 Wis. 292; New Orleans, J., & G. N. 
 R. Co. V. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660; Whit- 
 field 0. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 352; Jami- 
 son V. Moon, 43 Miss. 598 ; South & N. 
 A. R. Co. V. McLendon, 10 Reporter, 688 ; 
 Kennedy v. North Mo. R. Co., 36 Mo. 351 ; 
 Buckley n. Knapp, 48 Mo. 152 ; Perkins t;. 
 Mo., K.,& T. R. Co., 55 Mo. 201 ; Maleeek 
 V. Tower Grove & L. R. Co., 57 Mo. 
 17 ; Edelmann v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 3 
 Mo. App. 503 ; Lyon v. Hancock, 35 Cal. 
 372 ; Wade v. Thayer, 40 Cal. 578; Berry 
 V. Fletcher, 1 Dill. 67 ; Holmes v. Sheri- 
 dan, 1 Dill. 351 ; Beale v. Railway Co., 
 1 Dill. 568; Quigley v. Central Pacific 
 R. Co., 11 Nev. 850. 
 
 20 
 
306 THE LAW OP EAILROADS. 
 
 as raises a presumption of conscious indifference to the rights of 
 others.^ 
 
 A distinction has been taken in some States where such sup- 
 plementary damages are allowed, by^ which they are confined to 
 a person's own act, excluding them where the injury is committed 
 by his servant, without any wrongful act or conduct of his own. 
 Accordingly, a corporation has been held not liable for the tor- 
 tious acts of its servant beyond compensatory damages, unless it 
 authorized or ratified such acts, or was culpable in emplojdng 
 him, or in continuing him in its service with knowledge of his 
 want of care and skill or bad habits, or in its general instructions 
 and regulations.^ It has also been held that while the corpora- 
 tion would, without any direct culpability of its own, be liable for 
 punitive damages where the servant's act was wilful or wanton, 
 it would not be so liable if the act were only one of gross negli- 
 gence.^ Other authorities hold the master liable for such dam- 
 ages, wherever they would, be recoverable against him if the act 
 had been his own instead of the servant's.* 
 
 Vindictive damages are limited in some States to injuries not 
 cognizable by the criminal law, as otherwise there would be a 
 double punishment for the same offence.^ In some States they 
 
 1 Peoria Bridge Assoc, a. Loomis, 20 Milwaukie & M. R. Co. v. Finney, 10 
 III. 235; Pierce ». Millay, 44 111. 189; Wis. 388; Detroit Daily Post i,. Mc- 
 Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Arms, 91 U. Arthur, 16 Mich. 447; Great Western R. 
 S. 489 ; Phil., W., & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 Co. v. Miller, 19 Mich. 305 ; Wardrobe v. 
 How. 202, 214 ; Kennedy v. North Mo. R. California Stage Co., 7 Cal. 118 ; Turner 
 Co., 36 Mo. 351 ; Edelmann v. St. Louis v. North Beach & M. R. Co., 84 Cal. 594 ; 
 Transfer Co., 3 Mo. App. 503 ; Pleasants v. Wade v. Thayer, 40 Cal. 578': Mendelsohn 
 North Beach & M. R. Co., 34 Cal. 686 ; „. Anaheim Lighter Co., 40 Cal. 654 ; Hill 
 Turner v. North Beach & M. R. Co., 34 Cal. „. New Orleans, 0., & G. W. R, Co., 11 
 594; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. Dills, 4 La. An. 292; Edelmann «. St. Louis Trans- 
 Bush, 593; Pittsburg, Ft. W.,&C.RCo.«. fer Co.. 3 Mo. App. 503. 
 
 Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157 ; Belknap v. Bos- 8 nunois Cent. R. Co. x,. Hammer, 72 
 
 ton & M. R., 49 N. H. 358 ; Ackerson c.. m 347 
 
 Erie R. Co. 3 Vroom 254; Hamilton o. \ Hopkins v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 
 
 Third Av. R Co., 53 N. Y. 25; Union 36 N. H. 9 ; Goddard «. Grand Trunk R. 
 
 Pacific R. Co. i^ Hause, 1 Wyoming, 27; Co., 57 Me. 202; Beale v. Railway Co., 
 
 Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Lundin, 3 Col. 94. 1 Dill. 568 ; New Orleans, J., & G. N. R. 
 
 2 Hagan v. Providence & W. R. Co., 3 Co. v. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395; Pittsburg, 
 R. I. 88 ; Caldwell v. New Jersey Steam- yt. W., & C. R. Co. v. Slusser, 19 Ohio 
 boat Co., 47 N. Y. 282; Hamilton ,;. St. 157 ; Atlantic & G. W. R. Co. «. Dunn, 
 Third Av. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 25 ; Cleghorn 19 Ohio St. 162 ; Quigley v. Cent. Pacific 
 v^ New \ork Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. r. Co., 11 Nev. 350; Oasway ,.. Atlanta 
 Y. 44; Townsend v. New York Cent. & & w. P. R, Co., 58 Ga. 216; Haley v. 
 H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 295; Parker v. Mobile & 0. R. Co., 7 Baxter (Tenn.), 
 Long Island R. Co., 13 Hun, 319; Hays 230. 
 
 11. Houston & G. N. R. Co., 46 Tex. 272 ; ^ Austin v. Wilson, 4 Cush. 273 ; Whit 
 
 Ackerson v. Erie R. Co., 3 Vroom, 254; ney v. Hitchcock, 4 Denio, 461 ; Fay v. 
 
LIABILITY FOK TOKTS. 807 
 
 are only recoverable when circumstances justifying them are 
 averred in the declaration.^ They are not recoverable in an 
 action of contract.^ 
 
 Vindictive damages, while generally approved by the authori- 
 ties, have been at times disapproved as contrary to legal principle 
 and public policy.^ 1. The allowance of such damages confounds 
 two jurisdictions which ought to be distinct, — the civil, which, 
 at the suit of the individual, restores to him his property or rights, 
 or compensates him for their loss where it cannot restore ; and the 
 criminal, which, at the instance of society, punishes by fine and 
 imprisonment with a view to deter and reform offenders. 2. It 
 effects a double punishment whenever the act complained of is 
 a criminal offence. 3. It gives to the injured party, who is pre- 
 sumed to have had full satisfaction under the general rule of com- 
 pensatory damages, a further sum which, if to be exacted at all, 
 should, like fines in criminal prosecutions, be paid into the public 
 treasury. 4. It intrusts to the jury a discretion in fixing the 
 amount of what is allowed as a punishment, — a power which 
 is found in criminal causes to be more wisely administered by 
 the court. 6. It tends to disturb the judgments of juries who 
 are unused to the duty of determining what is the measure of 
 a social wrong. It thus encourages extravagant estimates of 
 damages, and creates the necessity of a frequent interference by 
 the court, in the revision of verdicts, with the peculiar functions 
 of the jury. 
 
 Damages for wounded feelings are, as already stated, allowed 
 under circumstances of aggravation, and many cases, it may be 
 remarked, which approve the punitive principle, may be sus- 
 tained as consistent with the rule of compensation, which is the 
 foundation of the law of damages. 
 
 Verdicts set aside for Excessive or Inadequate Damages. — The 
 
 court will set aside a verdict for excessive damages. It will 
 
 Parker, 53 N. H. 842. Conifra, Chiles i.-. Freidenheit v. Edmundson, 36 Mo. 226 ; 
 
 Drake 2 Met. (Ky.) 146; Roberts v. McKeon v. Citizens' R. Co., 42 Mo. 79; 
 
 Mason! 10 Ohio St. 277. Macon & W. R. Co. v. Winn, 26 Ga. 250. 
 
 1 Johnson v. Chicago, R. I., & P- R- 265; Malone v. Murphy, 2 Kan. 250; 
 
 Co 51 Iowa 25. Dongherty v. Shown, 1 Heisk. 302 ; Union 
 
 3 Walsh v. Chicago, M., & St. P. E. Pacific R. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wyoming, 27 ; 
 
 Co. 42 Wis. 23. 3 Am. Jur. 287, 292, article by T. Met- 
 
 8 Fav V. Parker, 53 N. H. 342; Ward- calf; 2 Greenleaf on Evidence, § 253. 
 robe V. California Stage Co., 7 Cal. 118 ; 
 
308 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 interfere in this way where the damages so far exceed reason- 
 able compensation as to show that the jury acted under the 
 influence of prejudice or passion, or where they appear " at first 
 blush" to be excessive. While such phrases are used in re- 
 vising verdicts, it will be found^ that the judicial power intervenes 
 where the damages appear to largely exceed just compensation 
 for the injury.' 
 
 Where the damages are excessive, the court, instead of setting 
 the verdict aside, may fix a reasonable sum, allowing it to stand 
 upon the plaintiii"'s remitting the excess.^ 
 
 The tendency of juries to give excessive damages against 
 corporations, particularly in actions for personal injuries, and the 
 necessity of controlling their discretion, has been the subject of 
 judicial comment.^ 
 
 1 Verdicts were set aside as excessive 
 in L. & N. R. Co. v. Fox, 11 Bush, 495; 
 Belknap v. Boston & M. R., 49 N. H. 
 358; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Parks, 
 18 111. 460; Peoria Bridge Assoc, v. 
 Loomis, 20 111. 235 ; Terre Haute, A., & 
 St. L. R. Co V. Vanatta, 21 111. 188 ; Chi- 
 cago, B., & Q. R. Co. V. Hazzard, 26 111. 
 873 ; Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. McKean, 
 40 111. 218 ; Pierce v. Millay, 44 111. 189 ; 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Peacock, 48 
 111. 253 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Welch, 52 
 111. 183 ; Chicago, B., & Q R. Co. v. Dunn, 
 52 111. 451 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Fillmore, 57 111. 265 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 V. Wilson, 63 111. 167 ; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Ebert, 74 111. 399 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Kelly, 31 Pa. St. 372 ; New Orleans, J., 
 & G. N. R. Co. V. Statham, 42 Miss. 607 ; 
 Pleasants v. North Beach & M. R. Co., 
 34 Cal. 586; Turner v. North Beach & M. 
 R. Co., 34 Cal. 594; Clapp v. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 19 Barb. 461; Murray v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 47 Barb. 196. The 
 court refused to set the verdict aside 
 in Goddard v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 57 Me. 
 202 ; Hanson v. European & N. A. R. Co., 
 62 Me. 84 ; Shaw v. Boston & W. R. Co., 8 
 Gray, 46; Collins v. Albany & S. R. Co., 
 12 Barb. 492; Hegeman w. Western R. 
 Co , 16 Barb. 353 ; Curtiss v. Rochester & 
 S. R. Co., 20 Barb. 282 ; Maloy v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 58 Barb. 182 , Mentz v. 
 Second Av. R. Co., 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 356; 
 Mooneyr. Hudson RiverR. Co,, 1 Sweeny, 
 325; Cox v. New York Cent & H. R. Co., 
 
 4 Hun, 176; Peek v. New- York Cent. & 
 H. R. Co., 4 Hun, 286 ; O'Donnell v. New 
 York & H. E. Co., 8 Daly, 409 ; Wheaton 
 V. North Beach & M. R. Co., 86 Cal. 590; 
 Robinson v. Western Pacific R. Co., 48 
 Cal. 409 ; Schmidt v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 
 23 Wis. 186; Duffy v. Chicago & N. W. 
 R. Co., 34 Wis. 188 ; Berg v. Chicago, M., 
 & St. P. R. Co., 7 Northwest. Rep. 347 ; 
 Kennedy v. North Mo. R. Co., 86 Mo. 351 ; 
 Whalen v. St. Louis, K. C, &N. R. Co., 60 
 Mo. 323 ; Sherley v. Billings, 8 Bush, 147 ; 
 Maysville & L. R. Co. v. Herrick, 13 Bush, 
 122 ; Houston & G. N. R. Co. v. Randall, 
 50 Tex. 254 ; New Orleans, J., & G. N. 
 R. Co. V. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660; Russ v. 
 Steamboat War Eagle, 14 Iowa, 863; 
 Macon & W. R. Co. v. Winn, 26 Ga. 250 ; 
 Union Pacific E. Co. v. Young, 19 Kan. 
 488; Lambkin v. South Eastern E. Co., 
 L. R. 5 App. Cas. 352 ; Phillips v Lopdon 
 & S. W. R. Co., L. E. 4 Q. B. Div. 406, L. E. 
 
 5 Q. B. Div. 78, L. R. 5 C. P. Div. 280. 
 
 " Belknap v. Boston & M. R., 49 N. 
 H. 858; Ackerson u. Erie R. Co., 3 
 Vroom, 254; Collins u. Albany & S. E. 
 Co., 72 Barb. 492. 
 
 3 Williamson v. Western Stage Co., 24 
 Iowa, 171 ; Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. R. 
 Co. .V. Donahue, 70 Pa. St. 119, 124 ; Penn. 
 E. Co. V. Kelly, 31 Pa. St. 372 ; Penn. E. 
 Co. V. Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318, Penn. E. Co. 
 V. Ogier, 35 Pa St. 60 ; Penn. E. Co. v. 
 Vandever, 36 Pa. St. 298; State v. 
 Bait. & O. R. Co., 24 Md. 84, 107; 
 Bannon v. Bait. & 0. E. Co., 24 Md. 
 
LIABILITY POK TOUTS. 809 
 
 The court will grant a new trial in an action for personal 
 injuries on the ground of inadequacy of damages, where it appears 
 upon the facts proved that the jury must have omitted to take 
 into consideration some of the elements of damage which ought 
 to have been taken into account.^ 
 
 Damages for Torta to Personal Property. — The damages for per- 
 sonal property taken or destroyed is its market value at the 
 time, with interest.^ If only injured, the damages will be the 
 diminution in market value, with reasonable expenses, the whole 
 not to exceed the market value. ^ 
 
 108, 123 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Welch, « Toledo & W. R. Co. ■». Smith, 25 
 
 52 111. 183; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Ind. 288; Jamison v. Moon, 43 Miss. 
 
 Dunn, 52 111. 451 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. 598. 
 
 V. Adler, 66 111. 344. 3 Gillett v. Western R. Co., 8 Allen, 
 
 1 Phillips V. South Western R. Co., L. 560 ; Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Hudson, 
 
 R. 4 Q. B. Dir. 406, L. R. 6 Q. B. Div. 78, 62 Ga. 679. 
 L R. 5 C. P. D. 280. 
 
310 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 A CEITICAL treatment of the various formulas concerning neg- 
 ligence will not be attempted in this chapter, and treatises upon 
 the special topic are refen-ed to for a discussion of the subtleties 
 with which it abounds. It will be suflBcient in this connection 
 to state the rules which have the support of the authorities, 
 without attempting what is as yet impossible to reduce them to 
 a consistent body of doctrine. 
 
 Negligence defined. — Actionable negligence involves the breach 
 of a legal duty. It consists, in the case of persons who are not 
 in a relation of privity, in the exercise of rights in a manner 
 which is not according to the conduct of reasonable and prudent 
 men in a like situation, and which results in injury to others.^ 
 Negligence is actionable only when it causes injury .^ 
 
 Liability for Negligence limited to the Natural and Probable Con- 
 sequences of the Wrongful Act. — Liability for negligence in- 
 cludes injuries which are the natural and probable consequences 
 of the negligent act or omission.^ It does not extend to conse- 
 quences which no reasonable man would expect to occur.* The 
 act or omission, in order to be actionable, must be the eflficient 
 cause of the injury.^ The law, according to the familiar maxim, 
 
 1 Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 ' Lane r. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 
 tr. S. 439, 441. Swayne, J. :" Negligence 136, 107 Mass. 104; Eyan r. New Yorlc 
 is the failure to do what a reasonable and Cent. E. Co., 35 N. Y. 210 ; Bellefontaine 
 prudent person would ordinarily have & I. E. Co. v. Snyder, 18 Ohio St. 399, 
 done under the circumstances of the sit- 410 ; Penn. E. Co. v. Kerr, 62 Pa. St. 
 nation, or doing what such a, person 353 ; Oil Creek & A. R. R. Co. v. Keigh- 
 under the existing circumslances would ron, 74 Pa. St. 316 ; Cuff v. Newark & 
 not have done. The essence of the fault N. Y. E. Co., 6 Vroom, 17, 30 ; Milwaukie 
 may lie in omission or commission. The & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469 ; 
 duty is dictated and measured by the Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Col. 
 exigencies of the occasion." 344. 
 
 2 Chicago W. D. E. Co. v. Eend, < Greenland v. Chaplin, 5 Exch. 243, 
 6 Brad. (111.) 243; Cosgrove v. New York 248. 
 
 Cent. & H. E. R. Co., 13 Hun, 329 ; Bar- » Marble v. Worcester, 4 Gray, 395 ; 
 ringer v. New York Cent, & H. R. R. Co., Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Becker 76 III. 
 18 Hun, 398. 25, 30. • ' 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 311 
 
 — in jure causa prozima, non remota, spectatur, — regards the 
 proximate and not the remote cause ; and the proximate cause 
 has been defined to be " the cause which naturally led to, and 
 which might have been expected to be directly instrumental in 
 producing, the result." ^ The injury will not be deemed too 
 remote if, according to the common experience of mankind, it 
 pught to have been apprehended as a consequence of the act.^ 
 
 The wrongful act may be the cause of an injury, although 
 many circumstances intervene between the act and the injury .^ 
 It may be the efficient and responsible cause, notwithstanding 
 the intervention of the negligence or act of a third person ; * or 
 of the viciousness of an animal which was unknown to the per- 
 son driving it ; ^ or of natural causes.^ The question, what was 
 the proximate cause of an injury, is ordinarily one for the jury.^ 
 
 Relation of the Court and Jury to the Question of Negligence. — The 
 respective functions of the court and of the jury in determining 
 questions of negligence cannot be defined by any one formula. 
 The court declares the legal duty, and the jury finds the facts, 
 both those out of which the duty arises and those which involve 
 a breach or performance. The jury applies the law as declared 
 by the court to the facts, and determines by its verdict, as a final 
 conclusion, what the duty in question was, and whether or not 
 it was performed. Its control over issues of fact and its appli- 
 cation of the law to the facts are by no means final. The 
 court, however, while not interfering with the right of the jury 
 to pass on all questions of fact where the common judgments of 
 men may reasonably differ as to the conclusion, will interfere by 
 
 ' State V. Manchester & L. R. Co., 136. 107 Mass. 104 ; Eaton v. Boston & 
 
 62N. H. 528,552. See criticisms of the L. Jl. Co., 11 Allen, 500; Simmons v. 
 
 maxim, as applied to this class of cases, New Bedford, V., & N. S. Co., 97 
 
 in Ranch v. Lloyd, 81 Pa. St. 358, 8b6; Mass. 861, 868, 100 Mass. 84; Harvey 
 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Kelly, 81 Pa. St. 372, v. New York Cent. & H. R. K. Co., 
 
 877 ; Lewis v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 38 Md. 19 Hun, 566 ; Clark v. Chambers, L. R. 
 
 588, 599. See post, Chap. XVI. p. 441, 8 Q. B. Div. 827. See Brandon v. Gulf 
 
 for a further treatment of the question of City Cotton Press & M. Co., 51 Tex. 
 
 the proximate and remote cause. 121, 128. 
 
 2 Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. ^ Harris v. Mobbs, L. R. 8 Exch. Div. 
 
 136; Derry v. Flitner, 118 Mass. 181. 268. 
 
 " Norton v. Eastern R. Co., 118 Mass. « Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Hoag, 90 
 
 866 ; Lee v. Union R. Co., 12 R. 1. 383 ; Mil- 111. 389 ; Brehm v. Great Western R. Co., 
 
 waukie & St. P. R. Co. v. KeUogg, 94 34 Barb. 256. 
 y. S. 469. ' Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 
 
 * Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 94 U. S. 469. 
 
312 THE LA-W OF EAILKOAD'S. 
 
 a nonsuit, or setting aside of the verdict, where no evidence has 
 been given from which the inference of a legal duty and its 
 breach can be legitimately made. 
 
 The standard of negligence is so variable, and even intangible, 
 and sentiment and caprice are so apt to disturb the judgment of 
 jurors in cases of personal injury, that the corrective function of 
 the court in supervising verdicts in such cases is essential to 
 the administration of justice.' A nonsuit does not violate the 
 constitutional right to a trial by jury in civU causes.^ 
 
 Negligence a Mixed Question of Law and Fact. — An exact defi- 
 nition of the relation of the court to the jury, where the issue 
 is negligence, is not attainable, but it will be convenient to 
 give the results reached by the authorities, although variations 
 in the modes of statement will be recognized. 
 
 Negligence is usually stated to be a mixed question of law and 
 fact,^ or a question of fact, which is to be found, however, under 
 the instructions of the court.* The two forms of expression do 
 not seem to indicate any different theories of the relations of the 
 court and jury to the legal inquiry whether a cause of action 
 has arisen. Negligence cannot be exclusively a question of fact.^ 
 
 A high authority has said, " The judge has to say whether 
 any facts have been established by evidence from which negli- 
 gence may be reasonably inferred ; the jurors have to say whether, 
 
 1 The disposition of juries in such 33 Iowa, 52 ; Fernandes v. Sacramento 
 cases against corporations to find issues City R. Co., 52 Cal. 45 ; North Penn. R. 
 against evidence has been the subject Co. v. Robinson, 44 Pa. St. 175, 3,79 ; Kay 
 of judicial comment. Haring v. New v. 'Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269, 274; 
 York & E. R. Co., 13 Barb. 9, 15 ; Suy- Ernst v. Hudson River R. Co., 35 N. Y. 
 dam u. Grand Street & N. R. Co., 41 9, 38 ; Karle v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. 
 Barb. 375, 380 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. B. R. Co., 55 Mo. 476. 
 
 Adler, 56 111. 344 ; St. Louis, A., & T. R. 4 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Whitfield, 
 
 Co. V. Manly, 58 111. 300, 309. 44 Miss. 466, 487 ; Macon & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Naugatuck R. Co. v. Waterbury Davis, 18 Ga. 679, 687 ; Thurber v. Har- 
 Button Co., 24 Conn. 468. lem, B. M., & F. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326, 
 
 8 Trow I). Vt. Cent. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487, 331 ; Burton v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 
 
 497; Wright v. Maiden & M. R. Co., 4 4 Harring. (Del.) 252; Detroit & M. R. 
 
 Allen, 283, 289 ; Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, 118 ; 
 
 Co. V. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570, 584; Cleve- Northern Cent, R. Co. v. State, 29 Md. 
 
 Und,C. C.,&I.R.Co.w.Emott,28 0hloSt. 420,440; Union Pacific R. Co. B.Rollins, 
 
 340 ; Bannon v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 24 Md. 5 Kan. 167, 181 ; Smith v. Hannibal & St. 
 
 108, 124 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brei- J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 287, 292 ; Brennan v. 
 
 nig, 25 Md. 378, 385 ; Johnson v. Winona Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 45 Conn. 284, 
 
 & St. P. R. Co., 11 Minn, 296; Greenleaf 297. 
 
 V. 111. Cent. R. Co., 29 Iowa, 14, 37; » Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. w. MiUer, 
 
 Greenleaf u. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 25 Mich. 274, 294. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 313 
 
 from those facts, when submitted to them, negligence ought to he 
 inferred." i 
 
 The relevancy of evidence, and whether any exists which tends 
 to prove or is capable of proving neghgence, is for the court.^ 
 
 The Jury to decide upon Conflicting Evidence. — Questions of 
 conflicting evidence are for the jury. The court, therefore, on a 
 motion for a nonsuit will not pass upon the weight of evidence, 
 but will assume the truth of the plaintiffs evidence to be con- 
 ceded ; 3 and this rule applies even where the conclusion is one of 
 science and experience.* 
 
 The Jury decide as to the Care or Negligence of each Party under the 
 Direction of the Court. — Where the gist of the action is negli- 
 gence, it is for the jury to find, under the direction of the court 
 as to the law, whether the defendant has failed to exercise due 
 care, and by the want of it caused the injury, and also whether 
 the plaintiff has faUed to exercise due care, and by the want of it 
 contributed to the injury.^ 
 
 1 Metropolitan R. Co. ^. Jackson, L. 
 E. 3 App. Cas. 193, 197 (1877), Lord 
 Cairns, Chancellor ; s. c. L. E. 10 C. P. 
 49, L. E. 2 C. P. Div. 125 (see comments 
 in this case on Bridges v. North London 
 E. Co., L. E. 7 H. L. 213). 
 
 2 Lake Shore & M. S. E. Co. v. Miller, 
 25 Mich. 274, 294. 
 
 ' Bernhard v. Rensselaer cSi S. E. Co., 
 1 Abbott Ct. App. 131, 32 Barb. 165, 23 
 How. Pr. 166 ; Cook v. New York Cent. 
 E. Co., 1 Abbott Ct. App. 432 ; Dickens u. 
 New YorkXIent. R. Co., 1 Abbott Ct. App. 
 504; Keller v. New York Cent. R. Co., 2 
 Abbott Ct. App. 480 ; Sheridan v. Brook- 
 lyn City & N. E. Co , 36 N. Y. 39 ; Wolf- 
 kiel V. Sixth Av. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 49 ; 
 Hackford v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 53 N. Y. 654, 48 How. Pr. 222 ; Belton 
 V. Baxter, 58 N. Y. 411, 54 N. Y. 245 ; 
 Weber v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 58 N. Y. 451 ; McPadden v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 47 Barb. 247 ; Barrett v. Third Av. 
 R. Co., 1 Sweeny, 568, 574 ; O'Donnell v. 
 New York & H. R. Co., 8 Daly, 409; 
 Reed i>. Deerfield, 8 Allen, 522; Gaynor 
 V. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 100 Mass. 208, 
 212 ; Brooks v. Somerville, 106 Mass. 
 271 ; Commonwealth v. Vt. & M. R. Co., 
 
 108 Mass. 7, 12; Boland v. Mo. R. Co., 36 
 Mo. 484, 491 ; Owens v. Hannibal & St. J. 
 R. Co., 58 Mo. 386, 393 ; Cleveland, C, & 
 C. R. Co. V. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631 ; 
 Butler V. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 28 Wis. 
 487 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. St. 
 60 f Penn. E. Co. v. Earnett, 59 Pa. St. 
 259; Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 24 
 Iowa, 515; Greenleafw. 111. Cent. R. Co., 
 29 Iowa, 14; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Shannon, 43 111. 338; Cumberland & P. 
 E. Co. V. State, 37 Md. 156; Dublin, 
 W., & W. E. Co. V. Slattery, L. E. 3 
 App. Cas. 1155, Ir. E. 8 C. L. 531, Ir. E. 
 10 C. L. 256. 
 
 < Gagg V. Vetter, 41 Ind. 228 ; Free- 
 mantle V. London & N. W. E. Co., 10 C. 
 B. N. 8. 89. 
 
 5 Ernst V. Hudson Elver E. Co., 35 N. 
 Y. 9 ; Jetter v. New York & H. E. Co., 2 
 Abbott Ct. App. 458 ; Mowrey v. Central 
 City E. Co., 51 N. Y. 666, 66 Barb. 43 ; 
 Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338, 17 Hun, 
 395 ; Casey v. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 E. Co., 78 N. Y. 518, 6 Abbott N. C. 
 104 ; Maloy v. New York Cent. R. Co., 58 
 Barb. 182 ; Pendril v. Second Av. R. Co., 
 34 N. Y. Superior, 481 ; Hawley v. North- 
 em Cent. R. Co., 17 Hun, 115, 22 A. L. J. 
 
S14 
 
 THE LAW OP RAII/EOADS. 
 
 ■When the Court may declare Certain Acts or Conduct to be Negli- 
 gence. — Some authorities state or imply that it is for the court to 
 determine what facts constitute negligence, and for the jury only 
 to find whether they exist ; or, if the facts are conceded or estab- 
 lished by uncontradicted evidence, that it is for the court to 
 declare as matter of law whether they constitute negligence.^ 
 This is true as to conduct which is demonstrated by common 
 experience to be negligence, and which is assumed to be such by 
 the court, unless excused by special circumstances ; ^ but it is not 
 true where inferences are to be made from admitted or proven 
 facts.^ Generally, the court defines the rule or standard of care, 
 illustrating it by an application to circumstances such as those 
 which are in evidence; and the jury find whether the facts 
 proved establish such care, or the want of it.* Whether a given 
 state of facts constitutes negligence, it is said, is a question of law ; 
 but whether a particular negligence contributed to the injury 
 
 433; Mahar v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 19 
 Hun, 32 ; O'Donnell v. New York & H. 
 R. Co., 8 Daly, 409: Bradley v. Boston 
 & M. E., 2 Cush. 539, 543 ; Eagan v. Mtch- 
 burg R. Co., 101 Mass. 315; Simmons v. 
 New Bedford, V., & N. S. Co., 97 Mass. 
 361, 100 Mass. 84 ; Chaffee v. Boston & L. 
 K. Co., 104 Mass. 108 ; Commonwealth v. 
 Vt. & M. E. Co., 108 Mass. 7 ; Tyrrell o. 
 Eastern E. Co., Ill Mass. 546.; French v. 
 Taunton Branch R. Co., 116 Mass. 537; 
 Craig V. New York, N. H,, & H. R. 
 Co., 118 Mass. 431 ; Robinson v. Cone, 
 22 Vt. 213, 225; Webb i.. Portland & 
 K. R. Co., 57 Me. 117, 134; Baltimore & 
 O. R. Co. V. State, 29 Md. 252 ; Northern 
 Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 Md. 420, 440 ; 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Titzpatrick, 35 
 Md. 32 ; Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. State, 
 37 Md. 156; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. 
 Boteler, 38 Md. 568, 686 ; Huyett i;. Phil. 
 & E. E. Co., 23 Pa. St. 373 ; Lehigh Val- 
 ley R. Co. V. Hall, 61 Pa. St. 361 ; Kay v. 
 Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269; Indianapo- 
 lis & St. L. R. Co. V. Evans, 88 111. 63 ; 
 Duffy V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 32 Wis. 
 269 ; McNamara v. North Pacific R. Co., 
 50 Cal. 581 ; Detroit & M. R. Co. </. Van 
 Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Kennayde v. 
 Pacific R. Co., 45 Mo. 255 ; Memphis & 
 C. R. Co. V. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 487 ; 
 Macon & W. R. Co. v. Winn, 26 Ga. 250, 
 251; Cohen v. Eureka & P. R. Co., 14 
 Nev. 876; Central Branch Union P. R. 
 
 Co. V. Hotham, 22 Kan. 41 ; Kansas Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Fitzsimmons, 22 Kan. 686, 18 
 Kan. 84 ; Houston & G. N. R. Co. v. Mil- 
 ler, 51 Tex. 270 ; Aldridgee. Great West- 
 ern R. Co., 3 M. & 6. 615 ; Clayards v. 
 Dethick, 12 Q. B. 439. 
 
 1 Moore v. Central R. Co., 4 Zab. 268, 
 277, 824; Gonzales v. New York & H. 
 R. Co., 38 N. Y. 440, 6 Rob. (N. Y.) 
 93; Ginnon v. New York & H. R. Co., 3 
 Rob. (N. Y.) 25; Solomon «. Central Park, 
 N., & E. R. R. Co., 1 Sweeny, 298 ; Ho- 
 dencampw. Second Av. R. Co., 1 Sweeny, 
 490 ; Herring v. Wilmington & E. R. Co., 
 10 Ired. 402; Tarwater v. Hannibal & St. 
 J. R. Co., 42 Mo. 193 ; Maher v. Atlantic 
 & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 267 ; SpofEord w. Har- 
 low, 3 Allen, 176 ; Brown v. European & 
 N. A. R. Co., 58 Me. 384 ; Grows v. Maine 
 Cent. R. Co., 67 Me. 100 ; Gerke u. Cal. 
 Steam Nav. Co , 9 Cal. 251 ; Flemmingti. 
 Western Pacific E. Co., 49 Cal. 253 ; Kan- 
 sas Pacific R. Co. V. Butts, 7 Kan. 308 ; 
 Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Goddard, 25 Ind. 
 185, 192; Louisville & P. C. Co. v. Mur- 
 phy, 9 Bush, 522 ; Nagle w. Allegheny 
 Valley R. Co., 88 Pa. St. 35. 
 
 2 Post, p. 316. 
 8 Post, p. 817. 
 
 * Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. State, 29 
 Md. 262, 263 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 State, 36 Md. 366, 378 ; Cumberland & P. 
 R. Co. V. State, 37 Md. 166. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 315 
 
 involves an inference from the facts which is to be made by the 
 jury.i 
 
 Where the facts are undisputed, the question whether they 
 amount to negligence or not may be one of law or of fact. If, in 
 the light of common experience, the inference of the plaintiffs 
 negligence from the proof is clear, not admitting of controversy 
 among reasonable men, the court will rule it as a question of 
 law. Thus, " if a sane man voluntarily throws himself in contact 
 with a passing engine, there being nothing to counteract the effect 
 of this action, it may be ruled as a matter of law that the injury 
 to him resulted from his own fault, and no action can be sus- 
 tained by him or his representatives." ^ To the same effect in 
 other language the rule .has been stated thus : " When the facts 
 are clearly settled, and the course which common prudence dic- 
 tated can be readily discerned, the court should decide the case 
 as a matter of law."^ 
 
 The court takes judicial notice of the power, speed, and man- 
 agement of railway trains, and of common experience ; * and, 
 where the plaintiffs negligence contributing to the injury 
 appears by his own case in some glaring and decisive act or 
 omission, the court will order a verdict for the defendant or a 
 nonsuit.^ 
 
 If, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the court 
 sees upon the undisputed facts of the case that the plaintiff was 
 not in the exercise of ordinary care, and that the injury was in 
 part attributable to his want of such care, it will, as he has shown 
 
 1 Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 62 31 Md. 368 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Pa. St. 282 ; Johnson v. West Chester & Fitzpatrick, 35 Md. 32 ; Baltimore & O. 
 P. R. Co., 70 Pa. St. 357. But see Metro- R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 366 ; Lewis v. Bait, 
 politan r'. Co. v. Jackson, L. R. 3 App. & O. R. Co., 38 Md. 588 ; McMahon v. 
 Cas. 193. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 39 Md. 438 ; Northern 
 
 2 Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 Md. 420 ; Penn. 
 Wall. 657, 663 ; Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. St. 60 ; Pliil. City 
 V. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631 ; Marietta & Pass. R. Co. u. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367 ; 
 C. R. Co. V. Picksley, 24 Ohio St. 654; Penn. R. Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157 ; 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Rathgeb, 32 Ohio St. 66; Pleraming v. Western Pacific R. Co., 49 
 Lewis V. Bait. &0. R. Co., 38 Md. 588; Cal. 253; Donaldson v. Mil. & St. P. R. 
 Goldstein v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co., Co., 21 Minn. 293 ; CarUn v. Chicago, R. 
 46 Wis. 404. I., & P. R. Co., 87 Iowa, 316 ; Gonzales v. 
 
 » Femandes v. Sacramento City R. New York & H. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 440 ; 
 
 Co., 52 Cal. 45, 50 ; Shearman & Redfield Ginnon v. New York & H. R. Co., 3 Rob. 
 
 on Negligence, § 11. (N. Y. ) 25 ; Sioux City & P. R. Co. «. Stout, 
 
 4 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Miller, 17 Wall. 657 ; Dublin, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 25 Mich. 274 ; Wheelock v. Boston & A. Slattery, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1155, Ir. R. 8 
 
 E. Co., 105 Mass. 203. C. L. 581, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 266. 
 
 * Baltimore & 0. R- Co. v. Shipley, 
 
316 
 
 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 no legal cause of action, order a nonsuit, or direct a verdict 
 against him.^ If the facts are such that all reasonable men would 
 be likely to draw from them the same inferences, the question of, 
 negligence is one of law for the court ; but, if they might differ 
 as to the conclusion, the question is one of fact for the jury.^ 
 
 The following are illustrations of acts and omissions which, 
 unless excused or qualified by special circumstances, are deemed 
 negligence in a plaintiff, requiring, when shown by his evidence, a 
 nonsuit or withdrawal of the case from the jury ; viz., failure to 
 use his senseg by looking up and down the track in crossing the 
 railroad at a highway crossing ; ^ sitting, walking, or being on the 
 track without right ; * inattention to his dangerous position when 
 on the track, whether there lawfully or not ; ^ passing under or 
 between, or over the platform of, cars in motion, or likely to move 
 at once, although they are improperly blocking the highway, or 
 the company may have omitted to give the usual signals;^ stop- 
 ping behind cars which are stationary on the track ; ' or opening 
 gates across the highway which • are under the company's ex- 
 clusive control, although no gate-keeper is in attendance.^ And 
 
 1 Chaffee v. Boston & L. R. Co., 104 
 Mass. 108 ; AUyn v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 105 Mass. 77 ; Wheelock v. Boston & A. 
 R. Co., 105 Mass. 203 ; Clark v. Boston & 
 
 A. R. Co., 128 Mass. 1 ; Mills v. Lyon & 
 
 B. R. Co., 129 Mass. ; Wright v. Mai- 
 den & M. R. Co., 4 Allen, 283 ; Snow v. 
 Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen, 441, 448; 
 Penn. E. Co. d. Eathgeb, 82 Ohio St. 66. 
 
 2 Ernst V. Hudson River R. Co., 39 
 N. Y. 61, 68, 35 N. Y. 9, 32 Barb. 59 ; 
 Thurber v. Harlem, B., M., & F. R. Co., 
 60 N. Y. 826, 331; Lake Shore & M. 
 S. R. Co. V. Miller, 25 Mich. 274, 294 ; 
 Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. McClurg, 56 
 Pa. St. 294, 297 ; Cleveland, C, & C. R. 
 R. Co. V. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631 ; 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Rathgeb, 32 Ohio St. 
 66. 
 
 " See cases cited post, Chap. XII. p. 
 343. 
 
 * Cogswell V. Oregon & C. E. Co., 6 
 Oreg. 417 ; Ostertag v. Pacific R. Co., 64 
 Mo. 421 ; O'Donnell p. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 
 7 Mo. App. 190 ; Lang o. Holiday Creek 
 R. Co., 42 Iowa, 677; Van Schaick v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 43 N. Y. 527 ; Rich- 
 mond & D. R. Co. V. Anderson, 31 Gratt. 
 812. It is not negligence for a servant to 
 be on the road when engaged in the line 
 
 of his duty. Steele v. Cent. R. Co., 43 
 Iowa, 109. 
 
 5 Burns v. Boston & L. R. Co., 101 
 Mass. 50 ; Deville v. Southern Pacific R. 
 Co., 50 Cal. 383. 
 
 6 Lewis V. Bait. & O. R. Co., 38 Md. 
 588 ; McMahon v. Northern Cent R. Co., 
 39 Md. 438 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Dewey, 26 111. 255 ; Gahagan v. Boston & 
 L. R. Co., 1 Allen, 187 ; O'Mara v. Del. & 
 H. C. Co., 18 Hun, 192; Memphis & C. 
 R. Co. V. Copeland, 61 Ala. 376 ; Stillson 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 67 Mo. 671 ; 
 Central R. & B. Co. u. Dixon, 42 Ga. 327. 
 But see as to a servant engaged in the 
 performance of his duty. Snow v. Housa- 
 tonic R.'Co., 8 Allen, 441 ; Berry v. Cen- 
 tral R. Co., 40 Iowa, 564 ; Steele v. Central 
 R. Co., 43 Iowa, 109 ; and the case of a 
 child of tender years. Ranch v. Lloyd, 31 
 Pa. St. 358, 870. Whether the act of 
 passing through an open space between 
 stationary cars is negligence, may, under 
 some circumstances, be a question for the 
 jury. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Fitz- 
 patrick. 85 Md. 32. 
 
 ' Van Schaick v. Hudson River B. 
 Co., 43 N. Y. 527. 
 
 8 Wyatt V. Great Western R. Co., 6 
 Best & S. 709. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 317 
 
 the following are illu-^trations of similar acts in the case of a pas- 
 senger, which are deemed negligence: resting the elbow by a 
 window, so that it projects beyond the external surface of the 
 car ; ^ entering or leaving the train while in motion ; ^ standing 
 on the platform of a moving car ; ^ leaving the train at an im- 
 proper place, instead of by the platform ; * going on the track 
 without reason, after leaving the train ; ^ entering or leaving a 
 street car by the front platform, contrary to the regulations;^ 
 leaving it without proper notice of his purpose to the conductor ; ^ 
 riding on the engine, pilot, or cow-catcher ; ^ or riding in the 
 baggage-car in violation of the company's known rules.^ 
 
 The facts being conceded, it may still be a question for the 
 jury whether they make a case of negligence. Negligence, it 
 should be observed, is itself not a fact, but an inference from 
 facts.'" If it is not shown by some definite and positive fact, the 
 effect of which is not open to reasonable question, but depends 
 upon inferences from facts, in making which sensible and impar- 
 tial men may well disagree, the question is for the jury.'' It is 
 
 1 Todd V. Old Colony & F. R. R- Co., 
 3 Allen, 18, 7 Allen, 207 ; Pittsburg & C. 
 R. Co, V. Andrews, 39 Md. 329; Pitts- 
 burg & C. R. Co. V. McClurg, 56 Pa. St. 
 294 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. i>. Siokings, 
 
 5 Busb, 1. But see Spencer v. Mil. & P. 
 R. Co., 17 Wis. 487 ; Miller u. St. Louis 
 R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 471. 
 
 2 Lucas V. New Bedford & T. R. Co., 
 
 6 Gray, 64 ; Gavett v. Manchester & L. R. 
 Co., 16 Gray, 501 ; Ginnon v. New York 
 & H. R. Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 25; Ohio & 
 M. R. Co. V. Schiebe, 44 111. 460; Lake 
 Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Roy, 5 Brad. 
 (111.) 82 ; Galveston, H., & S. A. R. Co. v. 
 Gierse, 51 Tex. 189 ; Nelson v. Atlantic & 
 P. R. Co., 68 Mo. 693; Harvey v. East- 
 ern R. Co., 116 Mass 269 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Aspell, 23 Pa. St. 147 ; Richmond & D. 
 R. Co. V. Morris, 31 Gratt. 200; Knight v. 
 Pontchartrain R. Co., 23 La. An. 402. 
 But sec as to leaving or entering street or 
 steam cars in motion under special cir- 
 cumstances, Wyatt 0. Citizens R. Co., 
 55 Mo. 485 ; Johnson v. West Chester & P. 
 R. Co., 70 Pa. St. 357 ; Lambeth v. North 
 Carolina R. Co., 66 N. C. 494. 
 
 5 Hickey v. Boston & L. R. Co., 14 
 Allen, 429 ; Solomon v. Central Park, N., 
 & E. R. R. Cb., 1 Sweeny, 298; Quinn v. 
 111. Cent. R. Co., 61 111. 495. But see 
 
 Willis V. Long Island R. Co., 34 N. Y. 
 670 ; and as to riding on the platform of 
 a street car, Meesel v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 
 8 Allen, 234; Wills v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 
 129 Mass. ; Brennan v. Fair Haven & 
 W. R. Co., 45 Conn. 284 ; Thirteenth & F. 
 Sts. R. Co. V. Boudron, 10 Reporter, 156. 
 
 « Forsyth v. Boston & A. R. Co., 103 
 Mass. 610 ; Frost v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 10 Allen, 387. But see Hulbert v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 145. 
 
 5 Bancroft v. Boston & W. R. Co., 97 
 Mass. 275. 
 
 6 Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. v. Wil- 
 kinson, 30 Md. 224. See Mulhado v. 
 Brooklyn City R. Co., 30 N. Y. 370. 
 
 ' Nichols V. Middlesex R. Co., 106 Mass, 
 463 ; Chicago W. D. R. Co. v. Mills, 91 
 111. 39. 
 
 8 Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 
 U. S. 439 ; Robertson v. New York & E. 
 R. Co., 22 Barb. 91. 
 
 9 Penn. R. Co. v. Langdon, 37 Leg. 
 Int. 172. 
 
 10 Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 Conn. 
 566, 569. 
 
 11 Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 
 Wall. 657, 663; Beers o. Housatonic R. 
 Co., 19 Conn. 666 ; Park v. O'Brien, 23 
 Conn. 347 ; Commonwealth v. Fitchburg 
 R. Co., 10 Allen, 189 ; Wheelock v. Boston 
 
318 
 
 THE LAW OI' KAILEOAPS. 
 
 but another mode of expressing the same rule to say that if the 
 facts are capable of different interpretations, or are so compli- 
 cated that the general knowledge and experience of men do nob 
 at once condemn a person's conduct as negligent, the jury, and 
 not the court, must determine the conclusion to be drawn from 
 them.i If the inference of the defendant's negligence cannot 
 be legitimately made from the plaintiffs evidence, the court will 
 order a nonsuit.^ 
 
 The common knowledge and experience of jurors, their ac- 
 quaintance with the affairs of life, and with the general conduct 
 and motives of men acting under different conditions, are spe- 
 cially called into request in determining questions of negligence.^ 
 Therefore, where the facts are conceded, the question what men 
 of ordinary care would, according to common experience, do 
 under the circumstances, or whether the plaintiff and the defend- 
 ant exercised ordinary care,'' or whether conduct which generally 
 
 & A. R. Co., 105 Mass. 203; Ireland v. 
 Oswego, H., & S. Plank R. Co., 13 N. Y. 
 626, 533 ; Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. 
 Co., 30 N. Y. 370 ; 'Ernst v. Hudson River 
 E. Co., 35 N. Y. 9, 38, 39, 39 N. Y. 61 ; 
 Wolf kiel V. Sixth Av. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 49 ; 
 Hackford v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 53 N. Y. 654, 43 How. Pr. 222 ; Bel- 
 ton V. Baxter, 58 N. Y. 411, 54 N Y. 245; 
 Weber v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 58 N. Y. 451 ; Thurber v. Harlem, B., M., 
 & V. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326 ; Massoth t). 
 Del. & H. C. Co., 64 N. Y. 524; Bern- 
 hard V. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 1 Ab- 
 Ibott Ct. App. 131, 32 Barb. 165, 19 
 How. Pr. 199 ; Keller v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 2 Abbott Ct. App. 480, 24 How. 
 Pr. 172, 177, 17 How. Pr. 102 ; McGrath 
 ■u. Hudson River R. Co., 32 Barb. 144, 1 
 Thomp. & C. 243 ; Mahar v. Grand Trunk 
 R. Co., 19 Hun, 32 ; Ginnon v. New York 
 & H. R. R. Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 25 ; Bar- 
 rett V. Third Av. R. Co., 1 Sweeny, 568 ; 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 Md. 
 420, 440 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Ship- 
 ley, 31 Md. 368 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 State, 36 Md. 366 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Bar- 
 nett, 59 Pa. St. 259 ; Johnson v. Bruner, 
 61 Pa. St. 58 ; McKee u. Bidwell, 74 Pa. 
 St. 218; Crissey v. Hestonville, M., & F. 
 Pass R. Co., 75 Pa. St. 83 ; Phil. & R. R. 
 Co. V. Killips, 88 Pa. St. 405 ; Marietta & 
 C. R. Co, V. Picksley, 24 Ohio St. 654 ; 
 
 Cleveland, C, & C. E. Co. o. Crawford, 
 28 Ohio St. 631 ; Baltimore & 0. E. Co. 
 !). Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627, 24 Ohio 
 St. 642 ; Huelsenkamp v. Citizens' E. 
 Co., 34 Mo. 46 ; Carrington v. Ficklin, 32 
 Gratt. 670 ; Hawker v. Bait. & 0. E. Co., 
 15 W. Va. 628; Union Pacific E. Co. o. 
 Eollins, 6 Kan. 167, 181 ; Schierhold v. 
 North Beach & M. R. Co., 40 Cal. 447; 
 Solen U.Virginia & T. R. Co., 13 Nev. 106, 
 145 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Twombly, 
 3 Col. 125. 
 
 1 Gaynor v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 
 100 Mass. 208, 212; Leonard v. New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 42 N. Y 
 Superior, 225. 
 
 2 Metropolitan E. Co. v. Jackson, L. R. 
 3 App. Cas. 193, L. R. 2 C. P. Div. 125;. 
 Wilds «. Hudson River R. Co., 24 N. Y. 
 430, 433, 29 N. Y. 315, 33 Barb. 503; Sut- 
 ton V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 66 
 N. Y. 243. See Bridges v. North London 
 R. Co., L. E. 7 H. L. 213. 
 
 = Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 
 Wall. 667, 664 ; Solen v. Vif ginia & T. R. 
 Co., 13 Nev. 106, 153. 
 
 * Eernandes v. Sacramento City E. 
 Co., 52 Cal. 45 ; Cumberland & P. R. Co. 
 V. State, 37 Md. 156; Gaynor «. Old, 
 Colony & L. R. Co., 100 Mass. 21; 
 Chaffee v. Boston & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 
 108 ; Wheelock v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 105 Mass. 203 ; French v. Taunton Branch 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 319 
 
 is deemed negligence showed under certain qualifying circum- 
 stances ordinary care,^ is for the jury. 
 
 The measure of ordinary care being variable, so that acts and 
 omissions which under some circumstances are negligence are not 
 under others, the question of negligence — that is, what was the 
 duty, and whether there has been a performance or breach — 
 becomes peculiarly a function for the jury, and the court can 
 but rarelj' declare a particular act to be conclusive evidence of 
 negligence.^ 
 
 The court will order a nonsuit, or withdraw a case from the 
 jury, not on a mere preponderance of evidence, but only where a 
 verdict upon it would be so unsupported by evidence as to require 
 it to be set aside.^ If there is no proof of the defendant's neg- 
 ligence, it is error to submit the question to the jury.* To sus- 
 
 R. Co., 116 Mass. 537 ; Bayley v. Eastern 
 R. Co., 125 Mass. 62; Linnehan v. Samp- 
 son, 126 Mass. 506; Bernhard v. Rens- 
 selaer & S. R. Co., 1 Abbott Ct. App. 
 131, 32 Barb. 165, 19 How. Pr. 199; Sher- 
 idan V. Brooklyn City & N. R. Co., 36 N. 
 Y. 39 ; Weber v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451 ; Tliurber v. Harlem, 
 B., M., & F. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326 ; Pliil. & 
 R. R. Co. V. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 300; 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Barnett, 59 Pa. St. 259 ; 
 Kay V. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269, 274 ; 
 West Chester & P. R. Co. v. McElwee, 67 
 Pa. St. 311; Beers v. Housatonio R Co., 
 19 Conn. 566 ; Walters v. Chicago, R. I., 
 & P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 36 Iowa, 458; 
 Kennayde v. Pacific R. Co., 45 Mo. 
 255. 
 
 1 Bonnell v. Delaware, L., & W. R. 
 Co., 10 Vroom, 189, 192; Solen v. Vir- 
 ginia & T. R. Co., 18 Nev. 106, 145 ; Gay- 
 nor V. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 100 Mass. 
 208, 212 i Mayo v. Boston & M. R., 104 
 Mass. 137. 
 
 ^ State V. Manchester & L. R. Co., 52 
 N. H. 528, 563 ; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. 
 State, 29 Md. 420, 438 ; Baltimore & O. 
 R. Co. u. Fitzpatrick, 35 Md. S2, 45; Mc- 
 Mahon v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 39 Md. 
 438, 451 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Spearen, 
 47 Pa. St. 300; North Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Heileman, 49 Pa. St. 63 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Barnett, 69 Pa. St. 259; Penn. Canal Co. 
 V. Bentley, 66 Pa. St. 30 ; West Chester 
 & P. R Co. V. McElwee, 67 Pa. St. 311 ; 
 McKee v. Bidwell, 74 Pa. St. 218; Crissey 
 0. Hestonville, M., & F. Pass. R. Co., 75 
 
 Pa. St. 83 ; Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van 
 Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99 ; Galena & C. U. 
 R. Co. V. Dill, 22 111. 264 ; Indianapolis & 
 St. L. R. Co. V. Stables, 62 111. 313. 
 
 8 Gaynor v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 
 100 Mass. 208, 212 ; Mayo ;;. Boston &M. 
 R., 104 Mass. 137, 142 ; Bayley v. Eastern 
 R. Co., 125 Mass. 62 ; Commonwealth v. 
 Fitehburg R. Co., 10 Allen, 189 ; Brown 
 V. European & N. A. R. Co., 58 Me. 384 ; 
 Weber v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 58 N. Y. 451 ; Baxter v. Second Av. 
 R. Co , 3 Rob. {N. Y.) 610; Watkins <,. 
 Atlantic Av. R. Co., 20 Hun, 237 ; Schier- 
 hold !i. North Beach & M. R Co., 40 Cal. 
 447, 453 ; LanghoflE v. Mil. & P. R. Co., 19 
 Wis. 489, 23 Wis. 43 ; Redding v. South 
 Carolina R. Co., 3 S. C. n. s. 1 ; Bridges 
 V. North London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 
 213, L. R. 6 Q. B. 377. See Thrings v. 
 Central Park R. Co., 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 616. 
 
 4 New York & E. R. Co. i;. Skinner, 
 19 Pa. St. 298 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Barnett, 
 59 Pa St. 259 ; Commonwealth v. Boston 
 & W. R. Co., 101 Mass. 201 ; Flint v. 
 Norwich & W. R. Co., 110 Mass. 222 ; 
 Deyo V. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 
 9 ; Bulger v. Albany R. Co., 42 N. Y. 
 459; Harty ». Central R. Co., 42 N. Y. 
 468 ; Keeley v. Erie R. Co., 47 How. Pr. 
 256 ; Schultz v. Pacific R. Co , 36 Mo. 
 13; Maher v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 64 
 Mo. 267; Louisville & P. C. Co. u. Mur- 
 phy, 9 Bush, 522 ; Daniel v. Metropolitan 
 R. Co., L. R. 6 H. L. 45, L. R. 3 C. P. 
 216, 591 ; Welfare v. London &B. R. Co., 
 L. R. 4 Q. B. 693 ; Lewis v. London, C, 
 
820 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 tain the verdict, a scintilla of evidence is not enough, but proof 
 of well-defined negligence is required.^ A nonsuit will be ordered 
 ■where there is no evidence of the plaintiff's due care, the burden 
 of proof to show such care being on him.^ 
 
 Nonsuits in actions, the gist of which is negligence, are granted 
 generally at the close of the plaintiffs case, on the ground that 
 his negligence by his own showing contributed to the injury ; 
 but such contributory negligence must clearly appear to justify 
 the nonsuit.^ When it so appears, the defendant's negligence be- 
 comes immaterial.* A nonsuit may be ordered where the plain- 
 tiff's negligence appears by the allegations of his complaint.® It 
 
 & D. R. Co., L. R. 9 Q. B. 66 ; Stubley v. 
 London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 1 Exeh. 
 13 ; Dublin, W., & W. R.Co.w. Slattery, 
 L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1155, Ir. R. 8 C. L. 531, 
 Ir. R. 10 C. L. 256. 
 
 1 Cotton V. Wood, 8 C. B. n. s. 568 ; 
 Toomey v. London, B., & S. C. R. Co., 3 
 C. B. N. s. 146; Kearney v. London & B. 
 & S. C. R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759; Butter- 
 field V. Western R. Co., 10 Allen, 532 ; 
 Commonwealth v. Fitcliburg R. Co., 10 
 Allen, 189, 192; Brooks v. Somerville, 
 106 Mass. 271 ; State v. Phil., W., & B. R. 
 Co., 47 Md. 76 ; Boland v. Mo. R. Co., 36 
 Mo. 484 ; Howard Express Co. </. Wile, 64 
 Pa. St. 201 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Yerger, 
 73 Pa. St. 121. 
 
 2 Cordell i: New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 75 N. Y. 330, 70 N. Y. 119, 64 N. 
 Y. 635 ; Hinckley v. Cape Cod R. Co., 120 
 Mass. 256. 
 
 ' Steves V. Oswego & S. R. Co., 18 
 N. Y. 422, 425 ; Johnson v. Hudson River 
 R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65, 5 Duer, 21 ; Deyo v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 9; 
 Maginnis v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 52 N. Y. 215; Hackford v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 654 ; Belton 
 V. Baxter, 58 N. Y. 411, 54 N. Y. 246; 
 Weber v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 68 N. Y. 451 ; Reynolds v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248 ; Mas- 
 soth V. Del. & H. C. Co., 64 N. Y. 
 524 ; Cordell v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 75 N. Y. 830, 70 N. Y. 119, 64 
 N. Y. 5-36 ; Haring v. New York & E. R. 
 Co., 13 Barb. 9; Sheffield v. Rochester & 
 S. R. Co., 21 Barb. 339; Robinson v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. 
 146 ; Borat u. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 
 
 4 Hun, 346; Bemhard v. Rensselaer & 
 S. B. Co., 1 Abbott Ct. App. 131, 32 
 Barb. 165, 19 How. Pr. 199, 23 How. Pr. 
 166/ Waldele v. New York Cent. & H R. 
 R. Co., 19 Hun, 69 ; Central R. Co. t. 
 Moore, 4 Zab. 824, 268 ; New Jersey Ex- 
 press Co. V. Nichols, 3 Vroom, 166, 4 
 Vroom, 434 ; New Jersey R. & T. Co. a. 
 West, 4 Vroom, 430; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Matthews, 7 Vroom, 531 ; Delaware, L., 
 & W. R. Co. V. Toffey, 9 Vroom, 525, 
 529 ; Bonnell i\ Del., L., & W. R. Co., 10 
 Vroom, 189 ; Warren v. Eitchburg R. Co., 
 
 8 Allen, 227, 230 ; Allyn v. Boston & A. E. 
 Co., 105 Mass. 77 ; Brooks v. Somerville, 
 106 Mass. 271 ; Milwaukie & C. R. Co. v. 
 Hunter, 11 Wis. 160 ; Langhoff u. Mil. & 
 P. R. Co., 19 Wis. 489, 23 Wis. 43; Roth 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 21 Wis. 256; 
 Donaldson v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 21 
 Wis. 293 ; Delaney v. Mil. & St. P. R. 
 Co., 33 Wis. 67, 72 ; Haas v. Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co., 41 Wis. 44, 60 ; Murphy v. 
 Chicago, R. L, & P. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 661, 
 
 38 Iowa, 539 ; Detroit & M. R. Co. v. Van 
 Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, 120; Lake Shore 
 & M. S. R. Co. V. Miller, 25 Mich. 274, 
 296 ; McMahon w. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
 
 39 Md. 438, 450 ; McKee v. Bidwell. 74 
 Pa. St. 218 ; Cogswell v. Oregon & C. R. 
 Co., 6 Oreg. 417 ; Bunting v. Central 
 Pacific R. Co., 14 Nev. 351 ; Cohen v. 
 Eureka & P. R. Co., 14 Nev. 376 ; Schier- 
 hold V. North Beach & M. R. Co., 40 Cal. 
 447 ; Ellis v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 
 
 9 C. P. 551. 
 
 * Harper v. Erie R. Co., 3 Vroom, 88. 
 
 6 Goldstein v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 
 Co., 46 Wis. 404 ; Jeffersonville, M., & L 
 R. Co. u. Goldsmith, 47 Ind. 43. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 321 
 
 may be ordered when the evidence of both parties is in as well 
 as at the close of the plaintiff's case.^ The court will direct a 
 verdict for the defendant for the same reasons as would justify a 
 nonsuit ; ^ but the direction will be erroneous if there was evi- 
 dence to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff.^ 
 
 Setting aside of Verdict. — The court will set aside a verdict 
 where there was no evidence of the defendant's negligence ; * or 
 where the plaintiff's negligence clearly appears to have contrib- 
 uted to the injury ;^ or where the verdict cannot be reconciled 
 with undisputed facts ; ^ or where, there being no substantial con- 
 flict as to the testimony, the verdict is against the evidence.'' 
 The court will set aside a verdict which is clearly against the 
 weight of evidence,^ but not one which is only against the mere 
 preponderance of evidence.® It will only interfere where the ver- 
 dict is so contrary to the evidence as to show the adoption of a 
 wrong principle, misapprehension of evidence, or the action of 
 prejudice, or some improper influence.^" It is peculiarly a func- 
 tion of the jury to pass upon the credibility of witnesses ; but 
 
 1 Field V. New York Cent. R. Co. 32 
 N. Y. 339, 350. 
 
 2 Gahagan v. Boston & L. R. Co., 1 
 Allen, 187 ; Clark v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 128 Mass. 1 ; Starry v. Dubuque & S. W. 
 R. Co., 51 Iowa, 419. 
 
 3 Craig V. New York, N. H., & H. R. 
 Co., 118 Mass. 431. 
 
 < Commonwealth v. Boston & W. R. 
 Co., 101 Mass. 201 ; Elkins u. Boston & 
 A. R. Co., 115 Mass. 190. 
 
 5 Langhoff v. Mil. & P. R. Co., 23 Wis. 
 43 ; Sheffield v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 21 
 Barb. 3.39 ; Suydam v. Grand St. & N. R. 
 Co., 41 Barb. 375; Moore v. Central R. 
 Co., 4 Zab. 268, 824 ; Telfer v. Northern 
 R. Co., 1 Vroom, 188 ; Morris & E. R. Co. 
 V. Haslan, 4 Vroom, 147 ; Baltimore & 0. 
 R. Co. V. Whittington, 30 Gratt. 805; 
 "Whitney v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 
 208. 
 
 6 Payne v. Cliicago, R. I., & P- R. Co., 
 39 Iowa, 523. 
 
 ' Robinson v. Western Pacific R. Co., 
 48 Cal. 409, 423. 
 
 8 Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 1 Vroom, 
 188; Bonnell v. Del., L., & W. R. Co., 
 10 Vroom, 189, 192; Cheney v. New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 16 Hun, 415 ; 
 
 Sutherland v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 41 N. Y. Superior, 17; Chicago, 
 B., & Q. R. Co. 0. Hazzard, 26 111. 373, 
 388 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. i>. Har- 
 mon, 47 111. 298 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 
 V. Ryan, 70 111 211 ; Chicago, B., & Q. 
 R. Co. 0. Rosenfeld, 70 111. 272 ; Chicago, 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Lee, 87 111. 454; 
 Toledo & W. R. Co. u. Goddard, 25 Ind. 
 186, 195; Cleveland, C, C, & L R. Co. 
 V. Elliott, 28 Ohio St. 340 ; Baltimore & 
 0. R. Co. V. Whittington, 30 Gratt. 805 ; 
 Whitney v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 
 208. 
 
 3 Chicago & R. L R. Co. v. McKean, 
 40 111. 218; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Shan- 
 non, 43 111. 338; Chicago, B., & Q. R. 
 Co. V. Gregory, 58 111. 272 ; Chicago, R. 
 I., & P. R. Co. V. Austin, 69 111. 426; 
 Madison & I. R. Co. v. Taffe, 37 Ind. 
 361 ; Indianapolis & V. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Claren, 62 Ind. 566; Evansville & C. R. 
 Co. V. Smith, 65 Ind. 92; Macon & W. 
 R. Co. V. Davis, 27 Ga. 113; Kansas 
 Pacific R. Co. V. Twombley, 3 Col. 125. 
 
 10 Daley v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 26 
 Conn. 591 ; Meyer v. Pacific R. Co., 40 
 Mo. 151 ; Chicago City R. Co. v. Young, 
 62 111. 238. 
 
 21 
 
322 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 even here it has not an absolute discretion. The court will inter- 
 fere if it disregards the testimony of unimpeached witnesses, or 
 the rules of law in weighing evidence.^ The granting of motions 
 to set aside verdicts as against evidence, or for newly discovered 
 evidence, depends much on circumstances and sound judicial 
 discretion.^ The court is reluctant to set aside successive con- 
 current verdicts, but will exercise the power where they are 
 manifestly against the evidence.^ 
 
 Instructions to be definite, pertinent, and consistent. — Although 
 the question of negligence is one of fact for the jury, the court 
 should keep in view a distinct definition of negligence as appli- 
 cable to the case on trial.* Abstract propositions should not be 
 stated in the charge without such explanations as will enable the 
 jury to apply them ; ^ but a party can take advantage of this ob- 
 jection only when he requests more specific instructions.^ State- 
 ments of law should not be made to the jury when there is no 
 evidence to which they apply.^ The instructions, where the evi- 
 dence is conflicting, should be accurate, complete, and consistent.* 
 They must not assume controverted facts as proved.^ A verdict 
 will be set aside where the instructions in, one part state the law 
 correctly, and in another incorrectly.^" 
 
 Allegation of Negligence. — The declaration need not allege the 
 plaintiff's exercise of care ; " but some authorities require this alle- 
 
 1 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Gretzner, 46 « Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 
 III. 74 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Md. 420, 441. 
 
 Stumps, 55 111. 367 ; St. Louis, A., & T. ^ Kennedy v. North Mo. R. Co., 36 
 
 H. R. Co. V. Manly, 58 III. 300 ; Seibert Mo. 351 ; McKeon v. Citizens' R. Co., 42 
 
 V. Erie R. Co., 49 Barb. 583. Mo. 79 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. 
 
 2 Barrett v. Third At. R. Co., 45 v. Slusser, 19 Ohio St. 157 ; Chicago, R. 
 N. Y. 628. I., & p. R. Co.y. Austin, 69 III. 426 ; Illi- 
 
 3 Carlin v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., nois Cent. R. Co. </. Cragin, 71 111. 177. 
 37 Iowa, 316 ; Russ v. Steamboat War 8 Chicago City R. Co. ti. Freeman, 6 
 Eagle, 14 Iowa, 363 ; Lunt i'. London & N. Brad. (111.) 608 ; Stratton v. Central City 
 W. R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 277. R. Co., 12 Chicago Leg. News, 357. 
 
 * Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. « Walters v. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 
 
 R. 7 H. L. 213, 221, L. R. 6 Q. B. Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 36 Iowa, 458. 
 
 877. 10 Chicago, B , & Q. R. Co. v. Payne, 
 
 6 Marietta & C. R. Co. v. Picksley, 24 49 HI. 499 ; Pendleton St. R. Co. v. Stall- 
 Ohio St. 654; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. man, 22 Ohio St. 1. 
 Whittaker, 24 Ohio St. 642 ; Muldowney " Hocum v. Weitherick, 22 Minn. 152; 
 w. 111. Cent. R. Co., 32 Iowa, 176; Chicago, Louisville & P. C. Co. v. Murphy, 9 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Van Patten, 64 111. Bush, 522 ; Robinson v. Western Pacific 
 510, 74 111. 91. R. Co., 48 Cal. 409 ; State v. Manchester & 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 323 
 
 gation, or a statement of facts from which his exercise of such 
 care will appear.^ Where negligence generally is charged, proof 
 of any degree of negligence may be shown.^ The particulars in 
 which the negligence consisted need not be set forth.^ 
 
 Negligence of the Injured Person. Contributory Negligence. — 
 
 The obligation to use ordinary care, so as to avoid receiving in- 
 jury as well as to avoid inflicting it, governs the relation of all 
 who are exercising independent rights. One who by the breach of 
 this duty has shared in bringing an injury upon himself cannot com- 
 plain of another, who, by a breach of the corresponding duty, has 
 also shared in producing it. In an action for negligence, two condi- 
 tions must concur, — a performance of duty by the plaintiff, and 
 a breach of duty by the defendant. The more approved state- 
 ment of the doctrine of contributory negligence is, that a person 
 cannot recover for an injury to which he contributed by his own 
 want of ordinary care.* 
 
 L. R. Co., 52 N. H. 528, 558 ; Hackford 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 43 
 How. Pr. 222, 53 N. Y. 654; Snyder v. 
 Portsmouth, C, & St. L. R. Co., 11 W. 
 Va. 14 ; Government St. R. Co. v. Han- 
 Ion, 53 Ala. 70 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. 
 Wliittington, 30 Gratt. 805. 
 
 1 Lalor 0. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 
 52 111. 401 ; Indianapolis & St L. R. Co. 
 V. Evans, 88 111. 63 ; Indianapolis, P., & C. 
 R. Co. V. Keely, 23 Ind. 133 ; JefFerson- 
 ville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Hendricks, 41 Ind. 
 48 ; Jackson v. Indianapolis & St. L. R. 
 Co., 47 Ind. 464. 
 
 2 Penn. R. Co. v. Krick, 47 Ind. 368. 
 
 ' Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Selby, 47 Ind. 471. 
 
 * Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455 ; 
 Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Jones, 95 U. 
 S. 439; Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 
 Conn. 566 ; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 
 487 ; Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 20 N. Y. 65, 73, 6 Dner, 633 ; Wilds v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 24 N. Y. 430, 29 
 N. Y. 315 ; Grippen v. New York Cent. R 
 Co., 40 N. Y. 34 ; Carroll v. New York & 
 N. H. R. Co., 1 Duer, 571; Moore v. 
 Central R. Co., 4 Zab. 268, 824 ; Runyon 
 V. Central R. Co., 1 Dutcher, 556 ; Cleve- 
 land, C, & C. R. Co. V. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 
 570; Pendleton St. R. Co. v. Stallman, 22 
 Ohio St. 1 ; Cleveland, C, & C. &I. R. Co. 
 V. Elliott, 28 Ohio St. 340, 352, 357; 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitacre, 35 
 Ohio St. 627, 24 Ohio St. 642 ; State 
 V. Bait. & O. R. Co., 24 Md. 84, 104 ; 
 Freeh v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 39 Md. 
 674 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Wliitting- 
 ton, 30 Gratt. 805, 815 ; Baltimore & O. 
 R. Co. !/. Sherman, 30 Gratt. 602 ; Rich- 
 mond & D. R. Co. V. Anderson, 31 Gratt. 
 812 ; Reeves v. Del., L., & W. R. Co., 30 
 Pa. St. 454, 464 ; Harlan v. St. Louis, 
 K. C, & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 22, 64 Mo. 480 ; 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Miller, 25 
 Mich. 274; Le Baron v. Joslin, 41 Mich. 
 313; Wright K. 111. &M. T. Co., 20 Iowa, 
 195 ; Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 24 
 Iowa, 515 ; O'Keefe v. Chicago, R. I., & P. 
 R. Co., 32 Iowa, 467 ; Conlin v. Chicago, R. 
 I., & P. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 316; Murphy v. 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., .38 Iowa, 539 ; 
 Lang u. Holiday Creek R. Co., 42 Iowa, 
 67? ; Government St. R. Co. v. Hanlon, 
 53 Ala. 70; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Copeland, 61 Ala. 376 ; Memphis & C. 
 R. Co. V. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 485; 
 Macon & W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 
 409, 431 ; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Carroll, 
 6 Heisk. 347; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. 
 Goddard, 25 Ind. 185; Bellefontaine R. 
 Co. V. Hunter, 33 Ind. 335, 356; Need- 
 ham V. San Francisco & S. J. R. Co., 37 
 Cal. 409, 419 ; Robinson v. Western Pa- 
 cific R. Co., 48 Cal. 409; Flemming v. 
 
324 
 
 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 The terms "proximately,"^ " directly," ^ and " essentially " ^ 
 are sometimes used to qualify the term " contributed " in defining 
 the negligence which defeats an injured person's right of action. 
 They are used in such a connection either for emphasis, or to dis- 
 tinguish negligence at the time or place of the injury from con- 
 duct too remote to be regarded as a cause of the injury. The 
 terms " concurred in"* and "co-operated with"® have been 
 used as sj^nonymous for " contributed to." 
 
 The injury, in order to be actionable, must be occasioned solely 
 by the defendant's negligence, and not in any degree by the 
 plaintiffs ;* and also, it has been said, "it must be a case of 
 unmixed negligence to justify a recover}'." ^ These forms of ex- 
 pression are not incorrect, if by " negligence " is understood not 
 the omission of all possible precautions, but the want of the ordi- 
 nary care which is the duty of all. 
 
 The omission of precautions which did not contribute to the 
 injury, or which are dictated onl}-^ by extraordinary prudence, 
 does not affect the plaintiff's right.^ The injured person is in 
 
 Western Pacific R. Co., 49 Cal. 253 ; De- 
 ville V. Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 
 383 ; Hearne o. Southern Pacific R. Co., 
 50 Cal. 482 ; Aurora Branch R. Co. o. 
 Crimea, 13 111. 585 ; Knight v. Pontchar- 
 train R. Co., 23 La. An. 462; Davies v. 
 Mann, 10 M. & W. 546; Bridge v. Grand 
 Junction R. Co., 3 M. & W. 244 ; TufE v. 
 "Warman, 5 C. B. n. a. 573, 585, 2 C. B. 
 N. s. 740 ; Radley v. London & N. W. R. 
 Co., L. R. 1 App. Cas. 754. 
 
 1 Lake Shore & M. S. H. Co. v. Miller, 
 25 Mich. 274, 277. See post, p. 326. 
 
 2 Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. v. Terry, 
 8 Ohio St. 570, 581 ; Harlan v. St. Louis, 
 K. C, & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 22, 25, 64 Mo. 
 480 ; State v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 24 Md. 
 84, 104 ; Button v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 18 N. Y. 248, 250, 254 ; Johnson v. Hudson 
 River R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65, 74 ; Sherman 
 V. Western Stage Co., 24 Iowa, 515, 554 ; 
 Gates V. B., C. R., & M. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 
 45 ; Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455, 
 466 ; Tuff v. Warman, 5 C. B. n. s. 573, 2 
 C. B. N. s. 740. See Toledo & W. R. Co. 
 f. Goddard, 25 Ind. 185, 197. 
 
 8 Government St. R. Co. v. Hanlon, 53 
 Ala. 70, 77. See Sterling Bridge Co. v. 
 Pearl, 80 III. 251. 
 
 « Button V. Hudson River R. Co., 18 
 N. Y. 248, 251. 
 
 * Kerwhacker v. Cleveland, C., & C. R. 
 Co., 3 Ohio St. 172, 195; Murphy v. 
 Deane, 101 Mass. 455, 464. 
 
 s Johnson v. Hudson River E. Co., 20 
 N. Y. 65, 73 ; Wilds v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 24 N. Y. 430, 433 ; Spencer v. Utica 
 & S. R. Co., 5 Barb. 337 ; Brown u. Max- 
 well, 6 Hill, 592, 593 ; Needham v. San 
 Francisco & S. J. R. Co., 37 Cal. 409, 
 419 ; Robinson v. Western Pacific R. Co., 
 48 Cal. 409, 421, 423 ; Murphy v. Deane, 
 101 Mass. 455, 464. The negligence of a 
 third person contributing to the injury 
 will not deprive the plaintiflf of his right 
 to recover as already seen, ante, p. 311. 
 
 1 Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Goddard, 25 
 Ind. 1S5. 
 
 8 State V. Manchester & L. R. Co., 52 
 N. H. 528, 552 ; Beisiegel v. ISevi York 
 Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 622, 628, 632; 
 Davis V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 47 N. Y. 400; Ditherner v. Chicago, M., 
 & St. P. R. Co., 47 Wis. 138 ; Cleveland, 
 C, & C. R. Co. V. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570, 
 581 ; Cleveland, C, & C. R, Co. v. Craw- 
 ford, 24 Ohio St. 631,638; Baltimore & 
 0. R. Co. V. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627, 
 24 Ohio St. 642 ; Creed o. Penn. R. Co., 
 86 Pa. St. 139, 145 ; Thirteenth & F. Sts. 
 Pass. R. Co. 0. Boudron, 10 Reporter, 
 156. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 325 
 
 default only when his negligence both amounts to a want of the 
 ordinary care which men of common prudence practise under like 
 conditions, and also contributes to the injury.^ Thus, a person 
 in crossing a track is required to use only the care which men 
 of ordinary prudence use under like circumstances.^ 
 
 Some authorities declare the rule of contributory negligence as 
 follows : that the plaintiffs own negligence, which contributed to 
 the injury, does not defeat his right of action, if the defendant 
 might or could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided it.^ 
 This mode of statement negatives in effect the fundamental doc- 
 trine that the injured party cannot recover, if, by his failure to use 
 ordinary care, he contributed to the injury. It is, perhaps, how- 
 ever, less objectionable in substance than in form, if applied only, 
 as it usually is, to two classes of cases, — one where the plain-- 
 tiffs negligence is so disconnected in time or place from the in- 
 jury that it cannot be deemed to be the immediate cause of it, or 
 in law to have contributed to it ; * and the other, where the com- 
 pany's servants, after discovering the plaintiff in a dangerous 
 position, in which he has negligently or unlawfully placed him- 
 self, fail to use the means at their command to save him from 
 harm." In the former class of cases the plaintiff's negligence is 
 
 1 Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 Conn, the plaintiff in an action for negligence 
 566, 571, 672 ; Central R. Co. v. Moore, 4 cannot succeed, if it is found by the jury 
 Zab. 268, 824 ; Cook o. New York Cent, that he has himself been guilty of any 
 R. Co., 3 Keyes, 476, 479 ; Ernst v. Hud- negligence or want of ordinary care, 
 son River R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9 ; Manly v. which contributed to cause the accident. 
 Wil. & W. R. Co., 74 N. C. 655, 600 ; But there is another proposition, equally 
 Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Carroll, 6 Heisk. well established, and it is a qualification 
 347. upon the first ; namely, that, though the 
 
 2 Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. Co., plaintiff may have been guilty of negll- 
 84 N. Y. 622, 628 ; Ernst v. Hudson River gence, and although that negUgenee may, 
 R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9 ; Mackay v. New York in fact, have contributed to the accident. 
 Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 75, 80 ; Tucker v. yet, if the defendant could in the result, 
 Henniker 41 N. H. 317. by the exercise of ordinary care and dili- 
 
 " Macon & W. R. Co. v. Davis, 18 Ga. gence, have avoided the mischief which 
 
 679 ; Central R. & B. Co. o. Davis, 19 Ga. happened, the plaintiff's negligence will 
 
 437 ; Trow v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 24 Vt. 495 ; not excuse him." Lord Penzance in Rad- 
 
 Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 50 Mo. ley v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 1 App. 
 
 461 ; Karle o. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. R. Cas. 754, 758, 759. 
 
 Co., 55 Mo. 476 ; Meyers v. Chicago, R. I., ' Murphy o. Deane, 101 Mass. 455, 
 
 & P. R. Co., 59 Mo. 223 ; Baltimore & O. 463, 465, 466 ; Whalen v. St. Louis, K. C, 
 
 R Co V. Mulligan, 45 Md. 486; Tuff v. & N. R. Co., 60 Mo. 323; Harlan v. St. 
 
 Warman, 5 C. B. N. s. 573. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 22, 25, 
 
 < "The law in these cases of negli- 64 Mo. 480; Frick w. St.Louis, K. C, &N. 
 
 gence is, as was said in the Court of Ex- R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 4-35 ; State v. Manches- 
 
 chequer Chamber, perfectly well settled, ter & L. R. Co., 52 N. H. 528,. 558, 557; 
 
 and beyond dispute. The first proposi- Tanner w. Louisville & N. R. Co., 60 Ala. 
 
 tion is a general one, to this effect : that 621, 638 ; Zimmerman v. Hannibal & St. J. 
 
326 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 called remote, and is not admitted as a defence to the defendant's 
 proximate negligence ; and, in the latter class, the injury is of that 
 wilful or wanton nature that it becomes a cause of action, irre- 
 spective of the plaintiffs conduct. 
 
 The rule of contributory negligence has been thus stated : 
 that " mere negligence, or want of ordinary care or caution, will 
 not disentitle the plaintiff to recover, unless it be such that, but 
 for that negligence or want of ordinary care and caution, the 
 misfortune coyld not have happened ; " ^ or, eliminating nega- 
 tives, that a plaintiff may recover, unless the misfortune could 
 not have happened but for his own negligence. This formula is 
 open to the objection that it admits the plaintiff's right of action 
 where his fault might equal or even exceed the defendant's, and 
 does not take into account that the plaintiff must establish his 
 own care, as well as the defendant's negligence .^ 
 
 Frozimate and Remote Negligence. — The distinction has been 
 taken between proximate and remote negligence. Where there 
 has been mutual negligence, and the negligence of each was the 
 proximate cause of the injury, or where the negligence of the 
 plaintiff was proximate and that of the defendant remote, no 
 action can be maintained ; but the negligence of the defendant 
 being proximate and that of the plaintiff remote, the defend- 
 ant is liable.* 
 
 R. Co., 11 Cent. L. J. 96; Lewis v. Bait. & v. Elliott, 4 Ohio St. 474 ; Pendleton St. 
 
 O. R. Co., 38 Md. 588 ; Murphy v. Chicago, E. Co. v. Stallman, 22 Ohio St. 1, 20 ; But- 
 
 R. I., & P. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 539, 45 Iowa, ton v. Hudson River R. Co., 18 N. Y. 248 ; 
 
 661 ; Morris t). Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 45 Isbell v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 27 
 
 Iowa, 29 ; Lang v. Holiday Creek R. & C. Conn. 393 ; Needham v. San Francisco & 
 
 M. Co., 49 Iowa, 469; Jacobs v. Louisville S. J. R. Co., 37 Cal. 409; Robinson w. 
 
 & N. R. Co., 10 Bush, 263. Western Pacific R. Co., 48 Cal. 409 ; 
 
 1 Tuff V. Warman, 5 C. B. n. s. 573, Hearne v Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 
 585 ; Scott v. Dublin & W. R. Co., 11 Irish 482 ; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 
 C. L. 377, 394; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Md. 420; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 
 State, 29 Md. 420 ; Lewis v. Bait. & O. 31 Md. 357 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 R. Co., 38 Md. 588, 589 ; Freeh v. Phil., State, 33 Md. 542 ; McMahon a. North- 
 W., & B. E. Co., 39 Md. 574; State v. ern Cent. R. Co., 39 Md. 438; State v. 
 Manchester & L. E. Co., 52 N. H. 528, Manoliester & L. R. Co., 52 N. H. 528; 
 554. Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Anderson, 31 
 
 2 In Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455, Gratt. 812 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. 
 the case of Tuff v. Warman, supra, is v. Karns, 13 Ind 87 ; Spencer v. 111. Cent, 
 critically treated. See Manly v. Wilming- R. Co., 29 Iowa, 55 ; Gates v. B., C, & M. 
 ton & W. R. Co., 74 N. C. 655, 658. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 45 ; Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 3 Trow V. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 24 Vt. 494 ; Houts, 12 Kan. 328 ; Vicksburg & J. E. 
 Kerwhacker v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co., Co. u. Patton, 31 Miss. 156, 193; Galpin v. 
 3 Ohio St. 172 ; Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. Chicago & N. AV. E. Co., 19 Wis. 604; 
 
KEGLIGENCE. 
 
 327 
 
 The plaintiff's negligence is treated as remote where it pre- 
 ceded the injury in time, and was not directly related to it.^ 
 Such antecedent negligence may consist in placing himself or his 
 property in an exposed or unlawful position ; and, in such case, if 
 he is not chargeable with any default contemporaneous with the 
 injury, and contributory to it, the defendant's failure to use rea- 
 sonable means in his power to prevent the injury is deemed the 
 proximate cause of it.^ There may, however, be contributory 
 negligence, beginning earlier than the time of the injury, which 
 will defeat a right of action.^ 
 
 Conditions and Causes distinguished. — The terms — causes and 
 conditions — have been used respectively to distinguish the neg- 
 ligent acts or omissions of a plaintiff which disentitle him to re- 
 cover from those which do not have this effect. The exposed or 
 illegal position in which a person voluntarily placed himself is, 
 under some circumstances, regarded as the condition, and not the 
 legal cause, of the injury.* But the plaintiff cannot recover, if 
 the trespass which he was at the time committing was an efficient 
 cause of the injury.^ 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Becker, 76 III. 
 25; Manly u. Wil. & W. R. Co., 74 N. 
 C. 655; Meyer o. People's R. Co., 43 
 Mo. 523 ; Kennayde u. Pacific R. Co., 45 
 Mo. 255 ; Karle v. Kansas City, St. J., & 
 C. B. R. Co., 55 Mo. 476 ; Frick u. St. 
 Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 435 ; 
 Meyer v. Lindell R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 27; 
 Thirteenth & F. Sts. Pass. R. Co. v. Bou- 
 dron, 10 Reporter, 156. Of the use of the 
 terms " proximate " and " remote," in 
 instructions to the jury, it has been said : 
 " I own it appears to me that, to adopt a 
 form of direction which would involve 
 jurors in such a discussion as an ingenious 
 advocate could raise upon the theory of 
 causation, and the distinction between re- 
 mote and proximate causes, — a subject 
 which has perplexed metaphysicians from 
 the days of the disquisitions of the school- 
 men down to those of the essays of Hume 
 and of Brown, — would not tend to con- 
 vey clear and satisfactory instruction to 
 men of plain understandings and of ordi- 
 nary information. It is impossible to read 
 the report of the discussion which took 
 place on the argument of TuflF v. War- 
 man (especially as reported in 5 Jurist, 
 
 N. B. p. 223), without perceiving the great 
 inconvenience of a disquisition of that 
 kind in a court of law." Scott v. Dublin 
 & W. R. Co., 11 Ir. C. L. 377, 392, Pigot, 
 C. B. 
 
 1 Isbell V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 
 27 Conn. 393, 406; Murphy v. Deane, 101 
 Mass. 455. 
 
 2 Isbell V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 27 
 Conn. 393, 406 ; Needham v. San Francisco 
 & S. J. R. Co., 37 Cal. 409 ; Baltimore & 0. 
 R. Co. V. State, 33 Md. 542 ; Baltimore 
 & 0. R. Co. V. State, 36 Md. 366 ; Tan- 
 ner V. Louisville & N. R. Co., 60 Ala. 
 621-638 ; Burham v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 
 Co., 56 Mo. 338 ; Whalen v. St. Louis, K. 
 C, & N. R. Co., 60 Mo. 323 ; Maher v. At- 
 lantic & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 267 ; Frick ... 
 St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 
 435 ; Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546. 
 
 1 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Clark, 2 
 Brad. (111.) 116. 
 
 * Wharton on Negligence, § 323 ; Bige- 
 low on Torts, p. 307 ; Thirteentli & F. Sts. 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Boudron, 10 Reporter, 
 156 ; White v. Lang, 128 Mass. 598. 
 
 6 O'Donnell v. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 7 
 Mo. App. 190. 
 
328 
 
 THE I^A-W OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 Comparative Negligence. — In Illinois, a rule of comparative 
 negligence, not likely to find favor elsewhere, has been afBrmed 
 in a number of decisions. It does not, according to the more 
 recent statement, determine the liability in case of the negligence 
 of both parties contributing to the injury by the mere fact that the 
 negligence of one exceeds the other's ; but it allows the plaintiff to 
 recover where his negligence, though contributing to the injury, 
 is slight, and that of the defendant is, in comparison with the 
 plaintiff's, gross.^ 
 
 The Plaintiffs taking of Risks not necessarily Negligence. — The 
 fact that the injured person did some act by which he in- 
 curred or increased danger does not necessarily involve negli- 
 gence which will prevent recovery, where the danger was created 
 by some wrongful act of the company. The question is for the 
 jury whether he acted from wrongheadedness or as a prudent 
 man would have done under the circumstances.^ But he has no 
 right to expose himself to danger upon a crossing although the 
 
 - 1 Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Still, 19 111. 
 499 ; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Jacobs, 20 
 III. 478 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R.Co. v. Dewey, 
 26 III. 255; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Ho- 
 garth, 38 111. 370 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. 
 V. Payne, 49 111. 499 ; Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co. i). Sweeny, 52 111. 325 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Baches, 55 111. 379; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Maffit, 67 111. 431 ; Chi- 
 cago, B., & Q. R. Co. V. Lee, 68 111. 576; 
 Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. v. Knutson, 
 69 111. 103 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Clark, 70 111. 276 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Mock, 72 111. 141 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Hall, 72 111. 222 ; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. 
 R. Co. V. HiUmer, 72 111. 235 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Hammer, 72 111. .347 ; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Goddard, 72 111. 567 ; Chi- 
 cago & N. W. R. Co. V. Coss, 73 111. 394 ; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. K.Van Patten, 74 
 111. 91, 64 111. 610 ; Indianapolis, B., & W. 
 R. Co. V. Flanigan, 77 111. 365; Toledo, 
 "W., & "W. R. Co. V. O'Connor, 77 111. 891 ; 
 St. Louis, v., & T. H. R. Co. i. Dunn, 78 
 III. 197; Sterling Bridge Co. v. Pearl, 80 
 111. 251 ; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. 
 0. Delaney, 82 111. 198 ; Schmidt v. Chi- 
 cago & N. W. R. Co., 83 111. 405 ; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. c. Hetherington, 83 111. 510 ; 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. u. Hammer, 85 111. 
 
 526; Joliet v. Seward, 86 III. 402; Indian- 
 apoUs & St.L. E. Co. v. Evans, 88 111.63; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Harwood, 90 
 III. 425 ; Wabash R. Co. v. Henks, 91 111. 
 406; East St. Louis, P., & P. Co. v. 
 Hlghtower, 92 111. 139 ; Ohio & M. R. Co. 
 V. Porter, 92 111. 437 ; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Patterson, 93 111. 290 ; Lake Shore 
 & M. S. R. Co. V. Sunderland, 2 Brad. 
 (111.) 307 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 
 V. Berlink, 2 Brad. (111.) 427 ; Chicago & 
 A. R. Co. V. Langley, 2 Brad. (111.) 505; 
 Chicago City R. Co. v. Lewis, 5 Brad. 
 (111.) 242; Winchester v. Case, 5 Brad. 
 (III.) 486; Wabash E. Co. u. Jones, 5 
 Brad. (III.) 607. See Holstine v. Oregon 
 & C. R. Co., 8 Oreg. 163. For comments 
 on this rule, see O'Keefe v. Chicago, R. I., 
 & P. R Co., 32 Iowa, 467 ; Lake Shore & 
 M. S. R. Co. V. Miller, 25 Mich. 274, 278. 
 
 '^ Clayards v. Dethick, 12 Q. B. 439 ; 
 Thompson i: North Eastern R. Co., 2 
 Best & S. 106 ; Fernandes v. Sacramento 
 City R. Co., 52 Cal. 45; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Werner, 89 Pa. St. 59; Bernhard v. 
 Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 1 Abbott Ct. App. 
 131 ; Twomley v. Central Park, N., & E. 
 R. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 158. But see O'Mara 
 V. Del. & H. C. Co., 18 Hun, 192. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 329 
 
 company has failed to build it in a manner required by its agree- 
 ment with him.i 
 
 It is not necessarily contributory negligence in a traveller, who 
 is put in imminent peril by the company's default, to leap from 
 his carriage, although by remaining in it he would liave escaped 
 without injury. If he does what a person of ordinary prudence, 
 acting under the natural human instincts of self-preservation, 
 would have done under the circumstances, his error of judgment 
 is not culpable.^ Nor is it contributory negligence for a person 
 to undertake to save the life of another, who is in peril from the 
 negligence of the company, where there is any reasonable pros- 
 pect of saving it. " The law has so high a regard for human life 
 that it will not impute negligence to an effort to preserve it, unless 
 made under such circumstances as to constitute rashness in the 
 judgment of prudent persons." ^ 
 
 The Plaintiffs Conduct as affected by the Direction or Invitation of 
 the CompanyiB Servants. — The direction or invitation or assurance 
 of safety given by a servant of the company may so qualify a 
 plaintiffs act as to relieve it of the quality of negligence which it 
 would otherwise have. This has been held more generally in the 
 case of passengers who are in the charge of the company, and have 
 a right to assume that its servants know what is safe ; but it is 
 held also in the case of persons who, having no relation of privity 
 to the company, act upon the direction of its servants, as in pass- 
 ing over the track at highway crossings.* But, notwithstanding 
 such direction, invitation, or assurance, the plaintiff will not be ex- 
 cused in following it, if the act involves a reckless exposure of 
 himself, or is one which a man of common prudence would not do.® 
 
 1 Artman v. Kansas Cent. R. Co., 22 < Warren v. Fitehburg K. Co., 8 Allen, 
 Kan. 296. 227 ; Sweeny v. Old Colony & N. K. Co., 
 
 2 Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228 ; 10 Allen, 368 ; Wheelock v. Boston & A. 
 Voak V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 75 N. Y. R. Co., 105 Mass. 203, 207 ; Bayley v. 
 320; Coulter v. American Merchants' Eastern R. Co., 125 Mass. 62 ; Mclntyre 
 Union Ex. Co., 56 N. Y. 585 ; Cuyler v. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287, 
 Decker, 20 Hun, 173 ; Indianapolis & St. 43 Barb. 532, 47 Barb. 515 ; Lambeth v. 
 L. R. Co. V. Stout, 53 Ind. 143, 155 ; Got- North Carolina R. Co., 66 N. C. 494 ; 
 ernment St. R. Co. v. Hanlon, 53 Ala. Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 6 
 70; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Becker, 76 Q. B. 377, L. R. 7 H. L. 213; Nicholson 
 111. 25 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Werner, 89 Pa.' v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co., 3 Huri. & C. 
 St. 59. 634 ; ante, Chap. X. p. 275. 
 
 s Eckert v. Long Island R. Co., 43 » Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 
 N. Y. 602, 506; Government St. R. Co. w. Krouse, 30 Ohio St. 222; Chicago, B., 
 
 Hanlon, 63 Ala. 70, 77, 78 ; Linuehan v. & Q R. Co. v. Sykes, 1 Brad. (III.) 520, 
 
 Sampson, 126 Mass. 506. 11 Cent. L. J. 337 ; Chicago, B., & Q. E. 
 
330 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 A mere permission from the company's servants to do a danger- 
 ous act does not relieve the injured person from responsibility for 
 its consequences.^ 
 
 Injuries to Wrong-doers. — The company has no right to inflict 
 wanton injury on persons who are unlawfully on its location ; 
 and where human life and limb are concerned, that injury may 
 well be treated as wanton, subjecting the company to damages, 
 when, although able to do so, they neglect to arrest the engine 
 which they have good reason to believe will, without an effort 
 to stop it, result in injury to the wrong-doer. A wrong-doer is 
 not necessarily an outlaw as to his property ; still less as to his 
 person.^ 
 
 The company, except at crossings established at law, has the 
 exclusive right to its track at all times. It is not required to an- 
 ticipate the intrusion of wrong-doers. A person entering without 
 right on the company's track, does so at his peril, and cannot re- 
 cover for injuries suffered by him in a collision with its engines, 
 except when it inflicts them intentionally or wantonly.^ Its duty 
 to trespassers is only the negative one, — not to act maliciously 
 or with an obvious disregard of consequences.* It is not required 
 for their safety to use the most approved machinery and contriv- 
 ances.* It is not liable, where no evil intent or wanton conduct 
 appears, for injuries to intruders who undertake to use its track 
 for some business purpose of their own,^ or to persons who are 
 
 Co. V. Hazzard, 26 111. 373 ; Ginnon v. New W. E. Co., 81 Pa. St. 366 ; Pittsburg, 
 
 York & H. R. Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 2.5. Ft. W., & C. R, Co. v. Collins, 87 Pa. St. 
 
 1 Hickey u. Boston & L. R. Co., 14 405 ; Terre Haute & I, R. Co. v. Graham, 
 Allen 429. 46 Ind. 239 ; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. 
 
 2 Gillis V. Penn. R. Co., 59 Pa. St. 129 ; Co. v. Goldsmith, 47 Ind. 43 ; Illinois 
 Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Lowdermilk, 15 Cent. R. Co. ... Hall, 72 111. 222; Illinois 
 Ind. 120; Evansville & C. H. Co. u. Hiatt, Cent. R. Co. v. Hetherington, 83 111. 510; 
 17 Ind. 102; Lafayette & I. R. Co. U.Adams, Robertson u. New York & E. R. Co., 22 
 26 Ind. 76; Penn. R. Co. o. Sinclair, 62 Barb. 91; McKenna v. New York Cent. 
 Ind. 301; Spofford ^. Harlow, 3 Allen, & H. R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 304; McCarty v. 
 176; Lovett v. Salem & S. D. R. Co., 9 Del. & H. C. Co., 17 Hun, 74; Kansas 
 Allen, 557; Rounds v. Delaware, L., & Pacific R. Co. v. Ward, 4 Col. 30; Rothe 
 W. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 129, 3 Hun, 329, 5 v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 21 Wis. 256. 
 Thomp. & C. 475; McCarty !>. Delaware * Johnson „. Boston & M.. R., 125 
 & H. C. Co., 17 Hun, 74. Mass. 75; Morrissey v. Eastern R. Co., 
 
 3 Little Schuylkill Nar., R., & C. Co. 126 Mass. 377. 
 
 V. Norton, 24 Pa. St. 465; Phil. & R. R. 6 McKenna i;. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 Co. u. Hummell, 44 Pa. St. 375 ; Pitts- R. R. Co., 8 Daly, 304, 10 N. Y. Week, 
 
 burg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. o. Evans, 53 Dig, 223. 
 
 Pa. St. 250; Mulherrin .;. Del., L., & 6 Little Schuylkill Nav., R., & C. Co. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 331 
 
 unlawfully walking or remaining upon or crossing its tracks.^ 
 Some authorities, however, treat such intrusion as only remote 
 negligence, and hold the company liable for injury to the in- 
 truder where it could have avoided it by the exercise of ordinary 
 care at the time of the injury.^ 
 
 The company's servants may ordinarily presume that a person, 
 apparently of full age and capacity, who is walking on the track 
 at some distance before the engine, will leave it in time to save 
 himself from harm ; ^ or, if approaching the track, that he will stop, 
 if it becomes dangerous for him to cross it.^ This presumption will 
 not be justified under some circumstances, as when the person 
 who is on the track appears to be intoxicated, asleep, or other- 
 wise ofp his guard," or has the charge of a loaded team which he is 
 unable to move.® Whatever favor some authorities give to tres- 
 passers, none of them require the company to use any means to 
 prevent injury to them which would imperil the safety of persons 
 on the trainsJ 
 
 A person who enters by a license on the company's location is 
 not a trespasser.^ But a mere naked license or permission to use 
 
 i>. Norton, 24 Pa. St. 465; Heil v. Glan- 
 ding, 42 Pa. St. 493; Phil. & R. K. Co. v. 
 Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 300, 305. See Pat- 
 terson V. Phil., W., & B. K. Co., 4 Houst. 
 103. 
 
 1 See cases cited ante, p. 330, notes 3, 
 4, 5, and p. 316, note 4. 
 
 2 Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 
 Ind. 102 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 
 71 111. 600; Patterson v. Piiil., W., & B. 
 E. Co., 4 Houst. 103 ; Isbell v. New York 
 & N. H. R. Co , 27 Conn. 393, 404, 405; 
 Murphy v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 
 38 Iowa, 539, 45 Iowa, 661 ; Baltimore & 
 0. R. Co. V. State, 36 Md. 366 ; Richmond 
 & D. R. Co. „. Anderson, 31 Gratt. 812 ; 
 Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 50 
 Mo. 461 ; Isabel v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 
 Co., 60 Mo. 475; Hicks v. Pacific R. Co., 
 64 Mo. 430; Needham v. San Francisco 
 & S. J. R. Co., 37 Cal. 409 ; Kansas Pa- 
 cific R. Co. V. Cranmer, 4 Col. 524. 
 
 8 Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 1 Vroom, 
 188, 204 ; Freeh v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 
 89 Md. 574 ; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. 
 Graham, 46 Ind. 239 ; Indianapolis & V. 
 R. Co. V. McCIaren, 62 Ind. 566; Chicago, 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Lee, 68 111. 576 ; Chi- 
 cago, R. I., & P. R. Co. V. Austin, 69 111. 
 
 426 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Jones, 
 76 111. 311; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Damerell, 81 111. 450; Mobile & M. R. 
 Co. i: Blakely, 69 Ala. 471; Tanner v. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co., 60 Ala. 621; 
 Cogswell D. Oregon & C. R. Co., 6 Oreg. 
 417 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Miller, 
 25 Mich. 274, 279, 280. See Bemis v. 
 Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 375, 382. 
 
 * Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Aus- 
 tin, 69 III. 426. 
 
 6 Herring v. Wil. & R. R. Co., 10 Ired. 
 402; Tanner v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 60 
 Ala. 621, 646; Lake Shore & M. S. R. 
 Co. 0. Miller, 26 Mich. 274, 279, 280. 
 
 « Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Hogarth, 38 
 111. 370; St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 Manly, 58 111. 300; Card v. New York & 
 H. R. Co., 50 Barb. 39. 
 
 ' Needham v. San Francisco & S. J. 
 R. Co., 37 Cal. 409. 
 
 8 Patterson o. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 
 4 Houst. 103; Illinois Cent. R. Co. ii. 
 Hammer, 72 111. 347 ; Harty v. Central R. 
 Co., 42 N. Y. 468. As to notices against 
 trespasses the observance of which is not 
 enforced, see Dublin v. Wicklow, W., & 
 W. R. Co. II. Slattery, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 
 1155. 
 
332 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 the track does not impose new obligations on the company in the 
 management of its trains, and persons who act upon it do so at 
 their peril.^ When so using the track they should exercise supe- 
 rior vigilance.^ A servant is rightfully on the track when en- 
 gaged there in the line of his duty.^ Children of tender years 
 are not treated strictly as trespassers when, indulging natural 
 childish instincts, they stray upon the track.* A person who 
 comes upon the track in an emergency, as to recover his hat 
 which has been carried there by the wind,^ or who, being unable 
 from the darkness to distinguish the track, wanders upon it from 
 the highway at night,® or who steps upon and crosses over the 
 platform of a street-railway car which is stopping on the street 
 and obstructing the passage,'^ is not a trespasser. 
 
 Negligence of Children and Disabled Persons. — It has been a 
 question, leading to much contention, whether the same conduct 
 which in a person of full age and capacity would be negligence, 
 - excluding him from redress for the consequences of the negligence 
 of others, is in a child of tender years, still under the domin- 
 ion of childish instincts, or in a blind or deaf, crippled or insane 
 person, to have the same effect ; or whether a less degree of care, 
 proportioned to their capacity, is all that is required of such dis- 
 abled persons. The doctrine now quite generally accepted is, 
 that the care required of a child is only such as is to be expected 
 from one of his maturity and discretion. If he exercises such care, 
 he may recover for an injury caused by the negligence of another, 
 although a person of full age and capacity, acting in like manner, 
 might be chargeable with contributory negligence, which would 
 be fatal to his right of action.^ 
 
 1 Nicholson v. Erie B. Co., 41 N. Y. 528 ; s Steele v. Central R. Co., 43 Iowa, 
 Sutton 1). New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 109. 
 
 66 N. Y. 243 ; Matze v. New York Cent. & * Kay v. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269; 
 
 H. R. R. Co., 1 Hun, 417; Illinois Cent. Penn. R. Co. v. Lewis, 79 Pa. 33; Isabel 
 
 B. Co. ■;. Godfrey, 71 111. 500; Illinois w. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.; 60 Mo. 475; 
 
 Cent. R. Co. u. Hetherington, 83 III. 510 ; Hicks v. Pacific B. Co., 64 Mo. 430 ; Lygo 
 
 Je£Eersonville, M., & I. B. Co. v. Gold- v. Newbold, 9 Exch. 302. 
 
 smith, 47 Ind. 43 ; Terre Haute & I. B. 6 Bernhard v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 
 
 Co. 0. Graham, 46 Ind. 239; Hickey v. 1 Abbott Ct. App. 131. 
 
 Boston & L. R. Co., 14 Allen, 429, 433. e Baltimore & 0. R. Co. u. Boteler, 38 
 
 But see Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hammer, Md. 568. 
 
 72 111. 347 ; Barrett v. Midland R. Co., 1 ' Shea v. Sixth Av. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 
 
 Foster & F. 361. 180. 
 
 2 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 * Robinson v. Cone, 22 Vt. 213; Birge 
 111. 500 ; Aurora Branch R. Co. v. Grimes, v. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507 ; Neal v. Gillett, 
 13 111. 685. 23 Conn. 487 ; Daley v. Norwich & W. B. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 333 
 
 The doctrine of imputable negligence was at one time adhered 
 to in New York,i and was adopted in some other States.^ This 
 doctrine regarded the negligence of the parents or protector of a 
 child in allowing him to be placed in an exposed position as the 
 child's own negligence, giving it the same effect, even when the 
 suit was brought by the child, as if he had been a person of full 
 age and capacity and voluntarily exposed himself. The courts of 
 
 Co., 26 Conn. 591 ; Bronson v. Soutlibury, 
 87 Conn. 199 ; Washington & G. R. Co. v. 
 Gladman, 15 Wall. 401 ; Sioux City & P. 
 E. Co. V. Stout, 17 Wall. 667, 2 UiU. 
 294; Rauch v. Lloyd, 31 Pa. St. 358; 
 Penn. R. Co. v. Kelly, 31 Pa. St. 372; 
 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. 
 300; Smith v. O'Connor, 48 Pa. St. 218; 
 Oakland R. Co. v. Fielding, 48 Pa. St. 
 320; Glassey v. Hestonville, M., & F. 
 Pass. R. Co., 57 Pa. St. 172 ; North Penn. 
 R. Co. V. Mahoney, 57 Pa. St. 187 ; Kay 
 V. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269; Flower 
 V. Penn. R. Co., 69 Pa. St. 210 ; Pitts- 
 burg, A., & M. R. Co. ^. Caldwell, 74 Pa. 
 St. 421; Crissey v. Hestonville, M., & F. 
 Pass. R. Co., 75 Pa. St. 83; Phil. & R. 
 R. Co. V. Long, 75 Pa. 257 ; Phil. City 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367 ; 
 State V. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 24 Md. 84, 
 103 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. o. State, 30 
 Md. 47 ; McMahon v. Northern Cent. R. 
 Co., 39 Md. 438 ; Baltimore City Pass. R. 
 Co. V. McDonnell, 43 Md. 534 ; Chicago, 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Dewey, 26 111. 255; 
 Kerr v. Forgue, 54 III 482 ; Chicago & A. 
 R. Co. V. Murray, 71 111. 601 ; Weick v. 
 Lander, 75 111. 93 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Becker, 76 111. 25, 84 111. 483 ; Rockford, 
 R. I , & St. L. R. Co. V. Delaney. 82 111. 
 198; Boland v. Mo. R. Co., 36 Mo. 481; 
 O'Flaherty v. Union R. Co., 45 Mo. 70 ; 
 Donoho V. Vulcan Iron Works, 7 Mo. 
 App. 447 ; Schmidt v. Mil. & St. P. R. 
 Co., 23 Wis. 186 ; Walters v. Chicago, R. 
 L, & P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 36 Iowa, 458 ; 
 McMillan v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 46 
 Iowa, 231 ; Brown v. European & N. A. 
 E. Co., 58 Me. 384; Government St. R. 
 Co. V. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 70 ; Norfolk & P. 
 R. Co. V. Ormsby, 27 Gratt. 455; Daniels 
 V. Clegg, 28 Mich. .32, 41 ; Lynch r. Smith, 
 104 Mass. 52 ; Elkins v Boston & A. R. Co., 
 115 Mass. 190; Costello v. Syracuse, B., 
 & N. y. R. Co., 65 Barb. 92; Mowrey 
 ». Cent. City R. Co., 66 Barb. 43, 51 N. Y. 
 
 666 ; O'Mara v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 
 N. Y. 445 ; Reynolds o. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248, 2 Thomp. 
 & C. 644 ; Haycroft v. Lake Shore & M. 
 S. E. Co., 2 Hun, 489, 64 N. Y. 636; 
 Thurber v. Harlem B., M., & F. R. Co., 
 60 N. Y. 326; McGovern v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417; 
 Casey v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 6 Abbott N. C. 104, 78 N. Y. 518. 
 
 1 Hartfield c. Roper, 21 Wend. 615 ; 
 Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 ; Munger v. 
 Tonawanda R. Co., 4 N. Y. 349, 359; Wil- 
 letts V. Buffalo & R. R. Co., 14 Barb. 585 ; 
 Lehman v. Brooklyn, 29 Barb. 234 ; Burke 
 V. Broadway & S. Av. R. Co , 49 Barb. 
 529 ; Flynn v. Hatton, 43 How. Pr. 333, 
 4 Daly, 552 ; Honegsberger v. Second At. 
 R. Co., 1 Keyes, 570 ; Jetter v. New York 
 & H. R. Co., 2 Abbott Ct. App. 458 ; Bul- 
 ger V. Albany E. Co., 42 N.Y. 459 ; Thur- 
 ber V. Harlem B., M., & F. R. Co., 60 N. 
 Y. 326; Harris v. Uebelhoer, 75 N. Y. 
 161. See Costello !). Syracuse, B.,& N.Y. 
 R. Co., 65 Barb. 92. 
 
 2 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. E. Co. v. 
 Vining, 27 Ind. 513; Lafayette & I. R. 
 Co. V. Huffman, 28 Ind. 287; Jefferson- 
 ville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Bowen, 40 Ind. 
 545 ; Hathaway v. Toledo, W., & W. R. 
 Co., 46 Ind. 25; Louisville & P. C. Co. «. 
 Murphy, 9 Bush, 522 ; Brown v. European 
 & N. A. R. Co., 58 Me. 384 ; Leslie v. Lewis- 
 ton, 62 Me. 468 ; Bannon i-. Bait. & 0. R. 
 Co., 24 Md. 108, 125. In Massachusetts, 
 the cases at first followed Hartfield !■. 
 Roper, supra ; Holly v. Boston Gas Light 
 Co., 8 Gray, 123, 132 ; Wright v. Maiden & 
 M. R. Co., 4 Allen, 283 ; Callahan i: Bean, 
 9 Allen, 401 ; but later decisions in that 
 State require of the child only the care 
 which is to be expected from one of 
 his age and capacity. Lynch v. Smith, 
 104 Mass. 52 ; Elkins v. Boston & A. R., 
 115 Mass. 190. 
 
334 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 New York, wliile not formally overruling the earlier decisions, 
 now conform substantially to the general view which requires of 
 the child only the care which his maturity and capacity admit, or 
 at least limit the earlier statement of the law to quite young 
 children unattended, and usually not older than five years, 
 who are of an age when they ought not to be trusted with the 
 care of themselves, and whose parents are chargeable with negli- 
 gence in allowing them to be abroad. ^ On the other hand, the 
 English decisions, which at first corresponded with the generkl 
 American doctrine,^ seem now to support the rule which was at 
 first held in New York.^ 
 
 The distinction has been taken that, while the negligence of 
 parents and guardians in allowing infants, who are of such tender 
 years as to need supervision and attendance when abroad, to go 
 into the street unattended, is to have the same effect in defeating 
 an action for injury to them as if they were adults, children who 
 have passed that period are to be held responsible for only a de- 
 gree of care proportionate to their age and maturity.* But many 
 authorities reject the doctrine of imputable negligence altogether.^ 
 
 The conduct of the company in the case of children and dis- 
 abled persons exposed to danger must be adapted to the circum- 
 stances. What would be ordinary care in regard to a persoA 
 whom it supposed competent to take care of himself, would not 
 fulfil the requirement in regard to a child of tender years, or of 
 a person physically or- mentally incapable of seeing and escaping 
 danger, and known to be thus disabled. It may be presumed 
 that an adult, apparently of sound mind and body, who is on the 
 track or approaching it, will remove from it or stop in time to 
 
 1 Mangam v. Brooklyn R. Co., 38 N. Waite v. North Eastern R. Co., El., Bl. 
 Y. 455, 36 Barb. 230; Ihl v. Forty-Second & El. 719; Singleton v. Eastern Counties 
 St. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 317 ; Mowrey v. Cen- R. Co., 7 C. B. n. s. 287; Hughes v. Mae- 
 tral City R. Co., 86 Barb. 43, 51 N. Y. fie, 2 Hurl. & C. 744; Mangan v. Atter- 
 666 ; Reynolds y. New York Cent. & H. R. ton, L. R. 1 Exch. 239. 
 
 R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248, 2 Thomp. & C. 644; ♦ Holly o. Boston Gas Light Co., 8 
 
 Casey v. New York Cent. & H. R. R Co., Gray, V2H- Wriglit v. Maiden & M. R. 
 
 6 Abbott N. C. 104, 8 Daly, 220, 78 N. Y. Co., 4 Allen, 283 ; Callahan v. Bean, 9 
 
 518 ; Haycroft v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Allen, 401 ; Brown o. European & N. A. 
 
 Co., 2 Hun, 489, 64 N. Y. 636; Bryant v. R. Co., 58 Me. 384; Thurber v. Harlem 
 
 Altenbrand, 9 N. Y. Week. Dig. 475; B., M, & F. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326. 
 
 Davis V. New York, N. H., & H. R. Co., 5 Norfolk & P. R. Co. v. Ormsby, 27 
 
 9 N. Y. Week. Dig. 522. See Harris .;. Gratt. 455 ; Government St. R Co', v. 
 
 Uebelhoer, 75 N. Y. 169. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 70 ; Walters v. Chicago, B. 
 
 2 Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29. I, & P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 71. 
 * Lygo V. Newbold, 9 Exch. 302; 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 335 
 
 escape inj'iry from an advancing train,^ but such a presumption 
 ■would not be justified in the case of a young child, or of a 
 person known to be insane, or intoxicated, or disabled in body. 
 The omission to arrest the train in the former case would not be 
 negligence, whereas in the lat|jer it would be a wanton disregard 
 of human life not to do so.^ If, however, a person is conscious 
 of some physical infirmity, he should supplement it by greater 
 caution,^ and it is for the jury to say whether he used a, degree 
 of care commensurate with the circumstances, including his lack 
 of vision.* 
 
 The rule that the traveller approaching a track must use his 
 senses vigilantly and look both ways, is not applied to infants of 
 tender years.^ But this precaution should be required of children 
 who have maturity and capacity which justify their being allowed 
 to go abroad unattended, or to take charge of infants who have 
 not attained such maturity and capacity.^ 
 
 The company is not liable for injuries to a child straying upon 
 its track where it is not chargeable with negligence, as when the 
 child could not be seen in time to stop the engine, or came 
 suddenly upon the track unobserved ; '^ or brought the injury upon 
 
 1 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Miller, Central R. Co. v. Feller, 84 Pa. St. 226; 
 25 Mich. 274 ; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., Cogswell v. Oregon & C, R. Co., 6 Oreg. 
 1 Vroom, 188, 204 ; Freeh «. Phil., W., & 417 ; Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 
 
 B. R. Co., 39 Md. 574; Schierhold v. Ind. 102. 
 
 North Beach & M. R. Co., 40 Cal. 447; « Harris v. Uebelhoer, 75 N. Y. 169. 
 
 Herring v. Wil. & R. R. Co., 10 Ired. 402; 5 Chicago & A. R. Co. ... Becker, 84 
 
 Poole V. North Carolina R, Co., 8 Jones 111. 483, 76 111. 25 ; McGovern v. New 
 
 (N. C), 340; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hutch- York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417. 
 
 inson, 47 111. 408 ; St. Louis, A., & T. H. n Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Snyder, 24 
 
 R. Co. V. Manly, 58 111. 300; Clayard v. Ohio St. 670, 18 Ohio St. 399; Nagle v. 
 
 Dethick, 12 Q. B. 439, 445. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 88 Pa. St. 35. 
 
 2 Willetts V. Bufealo & R. R. Co., 14 ^ Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Hummell, 44 
 Barb. 585; Sheridan v. Brooklyn, C, &N. Pa. St. 375; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Spearen, 
 R. Co., 36 N. Y. 39 ; O'Mara v. Hudson 47 Pa. St. 300 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Long, 
 River R. Co., 38 N. Y. 445 ; Kenyon v. 75 Pa. St. 257 ; Morrissey v. Eastern R. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, Co., 126 Mass. 377 ; Bulger v. Albany R. 
 479; Colt V. Sixth Av. R. Co., 33 N. Y. Co., 42 N. Y.459; McKenna v. New York 
 Superior, 189 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. Cent. & H. R. R. Co,, 10 N. Y. Week. 
 V. Dewey, 26 111. 255; Cleveland, C, & C. Dig. 223, 8 Daly, 304 ; Frick v. St. Louis, 
 R. Co. V. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570 ; Lafayette K. C, & N. R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 435 ; 
 & L R. Co. i;. Huffman, 28 Ind. 287 ; Manly ii. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 74 
 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Spearen, 47 Pa. St. N. C. 655 ; Schwier v. New York Cent. & 
 800, 304 ; Robinson i'. Cone, 22 Vt. 213, H. R. R. Co., 15 Hun, 572 ; Meyer v. Mid- 
 225 ; Daniels v. Clegg, 28 Mich. 32, 41. land Pacific R. Co., 2 Neb. 319 ; Citizens' 
 
 8 Gonzales v. New York & H. R. Co., St. R. W. Co. v. Carey, 56 Ind. 396 ; Wal- 
 
 83 N. Y. Superior, 67, 38 N. Y. 440, 1 ters v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 41 
 
 Sweeny, 506, 6 Rob. (N.Y.) 93; Cleveland, lowa, 71. See Baltimore City Pass. R. 
 
 C, & C. R. Co. V. Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570; Co. v. McDonnell, 43 Md. 534. " 
 
336 THE LAW or RAILROADS. 
 
 himself by a sudden and unanticipated act ; ^ or threw himself 
 rashly on its draws or other works ; ^ or being on the track and 
 appearing to be leaving it in time to escape injury was prevented 
 by some accident, as by falling into a crevice.^ 
 
 The company is not required to keep a guard on its cars to 
 prevent young children from getting upon or under them,^ or 
 from loosing brakes so that the car moves down a grade and runs 
 over them.* A street-ear company is not required to supply 
 special contrivances, as fenders, to prevent young children com- 
 ing on the car while it is passing.® 
 
 If the child, though young, is capable of the care and discre- 
 tion required of an adult, the rul,e applicable to adults is to be 
 applied to him.^ If he has sufficient intelligence to know the 
 danger he has incurred, his negligence will defeat a recovery.^ If 
 he is capable of taking care of himself, his parents are not negli- 
 gent in allowing him to be abroad.^ 
 
 It is the duty of the company to stop a train in order to avoid 
 injury to a child of tender years who has strayed upon it, where 
 the child shows no purpose to move from it in time to avoid dan. 
 ger.i" It is chargeable with negligence where its servants did 
 not see him, but with proper attention might have seen him.^^ 
 Whether it was the duty of the driver of a street car to stop the 
 car when a child is approaching the street is for the jury.^^ 
 
 Injuries to Children from Dangerous Machinery. — The company 
 may incur liability for injuries to children, by leaving dangerous 
 
 1 Hestonville Pass. R. Co. v. Connell, F. K. Co., 47 N. Y. S17 ; Reynolds v. New 
 88 Pa. St. 520. York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248, 
 
 2 Brown v. European & N. A. R. Co., 2 T. & C. 644 ; Ostertag v. Pacific R. Co., 
 58 Me. 384. 64 Mo. 421 ; Nagle v. Allegheny VaUey 
 
 3 Penn. R. Co. v. Morgan, 82 Pa. St. R. Co., 88 Pa. St. 35. 
 
 134 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. ... Becker, 76 8 Haas v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 41 
 
 111. 25. Wis. 44. 
 
 * Chicago & A. R. Co. o. McLaughlin, 9 BarksduU v. New Orleans & C. R. 
 
 47 111. 265 ; Chicago, B , & Q. R. Co. v. Co., 23 La. An. 180 ; Karr «. Parks, 40 
 
 Stumps, 69 111. 409. But see Pittsburg, A., Cal. 188 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. 
 
 & M. Pass. R. Co. 0. Caldwell, 74 Pa. St. v. Bumstead, 48 III. 221. 
 
 421 ; Phil. City Pass. R. Co. v. Hassard, lO Isabel o. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 
 
 75 Pa. St. 367. 60 Mo. 475 ; Walters o. Chicago, R. I., & 
 
 '^ Central Branch U. P. R. Co. v. P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 76. 
 
 Henigh, 23 Kan. 347. n Thurber v. Harlem B., M., & F. R. 
 
 « Hestonville Pass. R. Co. o. Connell, Co., 60 N. Y. 326 ; Bahrenburgh v. Brook- 
 
 88 Pa. St. 520. lyn City, H. P., & P. P. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 
 
 ' Ewen V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 38 652. 
 
 Wis. 613; McMahon v. New York, 88 N. " Phil. City Pass. R. Co. v. Henrice, 
 
 Y. 642 ;• Ihl v. Forty-Second St. & G. St. 37 Leg. Int. 135, 9 Reporter, 689. 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 337 
 
 machinery where it is accessible to them, although it would 
 not, under the same circumstances, be liable to an adult. Thus, 
 where it leaves upon its unenclosed premises a turn-table, un- 
 fastened and unguarded, it has been held that the temptation 
 which it thus offers to the natural instincts of children is equiva- 
 lent to an invitation and allurement, and it is liable for injuries 
 resulting from its want of ordinary care in preventing their access 
 to such machinery ; ^ and the same rule has been applied where 
 it left an excavation in the highway unguarded.^ It is not, how- 
 ever, liable for injuries to boys caused by their meddling with a 
 turn-table which is isolated from places of public resort,^ or by 
 their meddling with the brakes of a car which is stationary on 
 a descending grade.* It has been held liable for an injury to a 
 young child who was brought by its parent to a place near the 
 track where the company allowed the public to cross, and after- 
 wards strayed on the track, where he was struck by an engine 
 which came on a down grade without a brakeman.^ 
 
 Special Obligations to Children. — A failure to fence the track, 
 although the fence was primarily designed to prevent cattle stray- 
 ing upon it, has been held to be competent proof of negligence 
 in an action for injury to a child straying upon the track.® 
 
 The courts, pressed by humane considerations, have been at 
 times disposed to treat the company as the guardian and pro- 
 tector of children coming upon its carriages or premises, and to 
 hold it bound as well to exercise physical control over them as 
 to give them advice and warning.'^ 
 
 1 Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 ^ Kay v. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269. 
 
 Wall. 657 ; Keffe v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., " Suhmidt v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 23 
 
 21 Minn. 207 ; Kansas Cent. R. Co. v. Fitz- Wis. 186; Isabel v. Hannibal & St. J. R. 
 
 Simmons, 22 Kan. 686, 18 Kan. 34 ; Koons Co., 60 Mo. 475 ; Williams v. Great West- 
 
 V. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 65 Mo. 592 ; era R. Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 157. But see 
 
 Wlurley v. Whiteman, 1 Head, 610 ; Mul- Ditchett v. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. 
 
 laney v. Spence, 15 Abbott Pr. n. s. 319 ; Co., 67 N. Y. 425, 5 Hun, 165, where the 
 
 Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. St. fence act was held to be designed only 
 
 332;Birget!. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507; Lane for the protection of cattle and passen- 
 
 V. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 136, 107 Mass- gers on trains, but not for that of travel- 
 
 104. But see Hughes v. Macfie, 2 Hurl. & lers on the highway. 
 
 C.744; Mangany. Atterton, L. R. 1 Exch. ' Pittsburg, A., & M. Pass. R. Co. u. 
 
 239; Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1. Caldwell, 74 Pa. St. 421 ; Phil. City Pass. 
 
 ^ Hagan's Case, 5 Dill. 96. R. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. St. 367; East 
 
 ' St. Louis, v., & T. H. R. Co. v. Bell, Saginaw City R. Co. v. Bohn, 27 Mich. 
 
 81 III. 76. 503 ; Hicks v. Pacific R. Co., 64 Mo. 
 
 < Central Branch U. P. R. Co. v. 430; Brennan u. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 
 
 Henigh, 23 Kan. 347. 45 Conn. 284. 
 
 ■ 22 
 
338 THE LAW OF RAILEOADS. 
 
 Effect of Parents' Negligence. — The negligence of parents in al- 
 lowing children of tender years to wander unattended upon a 
 track is contributory negligence which will defeat an action by 
 the parent for loss of service, or under statutes providing a rem- 
 edy for the relatives of persons killed by negligence, except where 
 the defendant's act is wilful.^ The parent is not necessarily neg- 
 ligent where a young child goes abroad suddenly and unobserved, 
 and puts himself in a dangerous place ; and it is a question for the 
 jury whether the parent exercised due care.^ The fact that parents 
 have not the pecuniary means to provide a constant attendant for 
 children has been considered in some cases as bearing upon the 
 question of their contributory negligence.^ If the parent or pro- 
 tector is personally present, controlling the movements of the 
 child, his negligence will defeat an action for an injury to the 
 child in like manner as if he suffered the injury himself.* 
 
 Effect of Directions to Infants and Youths. — Words in the form 
 of command or direction, spoken by the company's servants to 
 an infant or youth, may have the legal effect of force, when they 
 would not have that effect if addressed to an adult.^ 
 
 Negligence of the Child or of its Parents a Question for the Jury. — 
 
 Whether the injured child exercised the care and discretion which 
 
 » Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. gam v. Brooklyn R. Co., 38 N. Y. 455; 
 
 Vining, 27 Ind. 512 ; JefEersonville, M., Prendegast v. New York Cent. & H. R. H. 
 
 & I. R. Co. V. Bowen, 40 Ind. 545, 49 Ind. Co., 58 N. Y. 652 ; Fallon v. Central Park, 
 
 154 ; Evansville & C. R. Co. v. Wolf, 59 N., & E. R. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 13; Isabel v. 
 
 Ind. 89 ; Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Snyder, Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 475, 483. 
 24 Ohio St. 670, 18 Ohio St. 399 ; Ewen s Walters v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 38 Wis. 613 ; Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 78 ; O'Flaherty v. Union 
 
 Chicago V. Starr, 42 111. 174 ; Hund v. R. Co., 45 Mo. 70 ; Kay v. Penn. R; Co., 
 
 Geier, 72 111. 893; Toledo, W., & W. R. 65 Pa. St. 269; Pittsburg, A., & M. E. 
 
 Co. V. Grable, 88 111. 441 ; Glassey v. Hes- Co. v. Pearson, 72 Pa. St. 169 ; Phil. & R. 
 
 tonville, M., & F. Pass. R. Co., 57 Pa. St. R. Co. v. Long, 75 Pa. St. 257 ; Chicago 
 
 172 ; Pittsburg, A., & M. R. Co. v. Pear- v. Major, 18 111. 349 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., 
 
 son, 72 Pa. St. 169 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Lewis, & C. R. Co. v. Bumstead, 48 111. 221 ; Chi- 
 
 79 Pa. St. 33 ; Smith u. Hestonville, M., cago & A. R. Co. v. Gregory, 68 111. 226. 
 & F. Pass. R. Co., 37 Leg. Int. 95, 10 Cent. 4 Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Stratton, 78 111. 
 
 L. J. 272 ; Wright v. Maiden & M. R. Co., 88 ; Stillson v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 
 
 4 AUen,283. But see Government St. R. 67 Mo. 671 ; Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 
 
 Co. V. Hanlon, 53 Ala. 70, 82. N. Y. 302 ; Kay v. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. 
 
 2 Pittsburg, A., & M. R. Co. o. Pear- St. 269, 276, 277 ; Waite v. North Eastern 
 
 son, 72 Pa. St. 169 ; Kay v. Penn. R. Co., R. Co., El., Bl. & E. 719. 
 65 Pa. St. 269 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. «. Long, ^ Lovett v. Salem & S. D. R. Co., 9 
 
 76 Pa. St. 257 ; Wright v. Maiden & M. R. Allen, 657 ; KTme v. Central Pacific R Co. 
 
 Co., 4 Allen, 283, 288 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., 87 Cal. 400. ' ' 
 
 & C. R. Co. V. Bumstead, 48 111. 221 ; Man- 
 
NEGLIGENCE. 
 
 339 
 
 might reasonably be expected of him ; whether his parents were 
 negligent in allowing him to go into the street unattended, or in 
 not preventing his escape into it ; or whether the attendant was 
 a person of sufficient discretion to have the charge of him, — are 
 questions for the jury.^ 
 
 . 1 Lovett V. Salem & S. D. R. Co., 9 
 Allen, 557 ; Mulligan v. Curtis, 100 Mass. 
 512; Lynch v. Smith, 104 Mass. 52; Com- 
 monwealth V. Metropolitan R. Co., 107 
 Mass. 236; Huntw. Salem, 121 Mass. 294; 
 Oldfield V. New York & H. R. Co., 14 N. 
 Y. 310, 3 E. D. Smith, 103 ; Drew ;;. Sixth 
 Av. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 49; Mangam v. 
 Brooklyn Cent. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 455; 
 Downs V. New York Cent. K. Co., 47 N. 
 Y. 83; Ihl V. Forty-Second St. R. Co., 47 
 N. Y. 317 ; Cosgrove v. Ogden, 49 N. Y. 
 255 ; Prendegast v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 652 ; Fallon v. Central 
 Park, N., & E. R. R. Co.. 64 N. Y. 13 ; Hay- 
 
 croft V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 64 
 N. Y. 686, 2 Hun, 489; Jetter v. New 
 York & H. E. Co., 2 Abbott Ct. App. 
 458; Bryant v. Altenbrand, 9 N. Y. 
 Week. Dig. 475 ; Davis v. New York, N. 
 H., & H. R. Co., 9 N. Y. Week. Dig. 522 ; 
 Karr v. Parks, 40 Cal. 188; Schierhold v. 
 North Beach & M. R. Co., 40 Cal. 447 ; 
 Chicago V. Major, 18 HI. 349 ; Pittsburg, 
 Ft. W., & C. R. Co. V. Bumstead, 48 III. 
 221 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Gregory, 58 
 lU. 226 ; Pittsburg, A., & M. R. Co. v. 
 Pearson, 72 Pa. St. 169 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 Lewis, 79 Pa. St. 33. 
 
340 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 DTJUEIES TO TEAVELLEES ON THE HIGHTWAY. 
 
 Injuries ■where the Company and the Injured Person are each exer- 
 cising a Legal Right without any Relation between them arising from 
 Contract. — In the case of collisions between the company's engines 
 and persons crossing the track in carriages or on foot at the inter- 
 section of highways, each is exercising an equal legal right, inde- 
 pendent of any contract or favor extended by the one to the 
 other. The individual has a right to cross the track, and the com- 
 pany has a right to cross the highway. This is not, on the one 
 hand, the case of a passenger to whom the company's liability 
 is governed by an implied contract to use the highest degree of 
 skill and diligence ; or, on the other, of a wrong-doer unlawfully 
 on the track, and having no claim but for wanton injury. Nor is 
 it the case of a servant who is presumed to take the risks inci- 
 dent to his employment. It is the case of two parties holding 
 equal, independent rights, the exercise of which by one may 
 result in injury to the other, with or without legal liability, 
 according to the conduct of each. The duty of each under such 
 conditions, in conformity with the principles of natural justice 
 and municipal law, is to use ordinary care in the exercise of his 
 own right to avoid injury to the other. If, notwithstanding such 
 care by both parties, an injury happens, it is a misfortune which 
 must be borne by the sufferer alone.^ 
 
 The peculiar motive power and implements of a railroad com- 
 pany require a kind of skill, a degree of vigilance, and a class of 
 precautions adapted to them ; but the measure of its duty and lia- 
 bility, in relation to persons lawfully crossing or entering on its 
 track, is the same as that which defines the duty and liabiUty of 
 the owners of carriages which are driven on the highway, or of 
 other parties exercising independent rights. It is bound to use 
 
 1 Indiana Cent. R. Co. v. Hudelson, 13 Ind. 325, 328. 
 
INJURIES TO TRAVELLERS ON THE HIGHWAY. 341 
 
 ordinary care to avoid injury to travellers on the highway crossing 
 its track ; and, acting through servants, as engineers, conductors, 
 and brakemen, it is responsible for injuries to such travellers aris- 
 ing from a v?ant of ordinary care and skill on the part of its 
 servants, — that is, such care and skill as the mass of prudent 
 persons in their business are accustomed to exercise.^ 
 
 Thus, in a leading case, which has been frequently cited with 
 approval, it was considered that the highest diligence is not to be 
 exacted of any person, except when a compensation is paid for 
 the service ; or when the person injured is in the power and 
 under the control of ihe defendant, as in the case of passengers in 
 the charge of a common carrier ; or when the defendant officiously 
 obtrudes his services upon the plaintiff, or is the only one of the 
 two who is to derive a benefit from the act ; or is in the wrong 
 place at the time he commits the injury, or engaged in an 
 unlawful calling : but where both parties stand on an equality as 
 to the means of avoiding the accident, and are each engaged in 
 a lawful employment, only ordinary diligence can be required of 
 either.^ 
 
 It is sometimes said that railroad companies which use steam 
 as motive power are required to exercise " the utmost care " to 
 prevent injuries.^ This inexact mode of expression is used 
 to enforce the duty of applying a vigilance and skill adapted 
 to the peculiar dangers which are incident to the use of steam 
 as a motive power, without intending to vary the measure of 
 liability.* 
 
 But while the same rule of care and skill measures the liability 
 
 1 Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 Conn. Co., 8 Gray, 45; Aurora Branch R. Co. v. 
 
 566, 576; Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. v. Grimes, 13 III. 585; Central Military 
 
 Terry, 8 Ohio St. 570; Pendleton St. R. Tract R. Co. v. Rockafellow, 17 111. 541; 
 
 Co. V. Shires, 18 Ohio St. 255 ; Bellefon- Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phillips, 55 111. 
 
 taine R. Co. v. Snyder, 24 Oliio St. 670, 194, 49 111. 234; Moore v. Cent. R. Co., 4 
 
 676, 18 Ohio St. 399; Pendleton St. R. Zab. 268, 824; Macon & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Co. V. Stallniann, 22 Ohio St. 1, 19 ; State Davis, 18 Ga. 679 ; Zeigler v. Northeastern 
 
 V. Bait. & 0. R. Co , 24 Md. 84, 103 ; R. Co., 5 S. C. n. s. 221, 7 S. C. n. s. 402. 
 Bannon v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 24 Md. 108, 2 Brand v. Schenectady & T. R. Co., 8 
 
 121 ; 'Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Breinig, 25 Barb. 368. 
 
 Md. 378 ; Baltimore &0. R. Co. r. Bahrs, s Johnson v. Hudson River R. Co., 20 
 
 28 Md. 647; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. N. Y. 65, 75; Cooky. New York Cent. R. 
 
 State, 29 Md. 252 ; New Orleans, J., & G. Co., 3 Keyes, 476, 479 ; Fero v. Buffalo & 
 
 N. R. Co. u. Bailey, 40 Miss. 395, 458, S. L. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 209, 213. See Bal- 
 
 459; Wilds «. Hudson River R. Co., 24 tiniore & O. R. Co. t,. Miller, 29 Md. 252, 
 
 N. Y. 430, 441, 29 N. Y. 315; Weher 261. 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. * Weber i>. New York Cent. & H. E. H. 
 
 Y. 451, 462; Shaw v. Boston & W. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451, 460-463. 
 
342 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 of a railroad company as that of individuals, the consideration 
 should be ever present to its agents and servants, that they are 
 dealing with dangerous elements and forces, eminently destruc- 
 tive to human life and limb. Although bound to exercise only 
 reasonable care and skill, except in the carriage of passengers, 
 what will answer that requirement where there is little peril, 
 will not where the peril is great. The care and skill, therefore, 
 to be reasonable, must be proportioned to the danger and multi- 
 plied chances of injury; and similar precautions are required of 
 persons who have occasion to be in the vicinity of its engines.^ 
 
 Mutual Obligations of the Company and the Traveller. — The obli- 
 gations of the company and of the traveller are mutual and 
 reciprocal, and the same degree of care to avoid a collision is 
 incumbent on each. It is its duty to give the warnings required 
 by statute, or in the exercise of reasonable care ; and it is his duty 
 to have his attention alive to them, and to heed them. The com- 
 pany, having a fixed place of movement and a peculiar momentum, 
 has the right of precedence in crossing highways ; and he must 
 wait till the train, the coming of which he knows or ought to 
 know, has passed.^ The traveller has the right to assume that 
 the company will exercise the care and take the precautions 
 which the law imposes upon it.^ 
 
 The company has a right of action over against a traveller 
 on a highway for an injury to passengers arising from a collision 
 caused by his negligence.* 
 
 ' Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 Conn. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 430, 440, 29 N. Y. 315 ; 
 
 566;Huyett!;. Phil.&R. R. Co.,23Pa. St. Grippen v. New York Cent. R. Co., 40 
 
 373 ; Runyon v. Central R. Co., 1 Dutcher, N. Y. 34 ; Warner v. New York Cent. 
 
 556,558; Moshier ;;. Utica & S. R. Co., R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465; Adolph v. Central 
 
 8 Barb. 427 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. o. Park, N., & E. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 680, 65 
 
 Breinig, 25 Md. 378, 386; Kennedy v. N. Y. 554; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 1 
 
 North Mo. R. Co., 36 Mo. 351 ; Belle- Vroom, 188, 202, 203 ; Morris & E. R. Co. 
 
 fontaine R. Co. v. Snyder, 24 Ohio St. v. Haslan, 4 Vroom, 147 ; Penn. R. Co. v. 
 
 670, 676, 677, ISOhio St. 399; Rockford, Matthews, 7 Vroom, 531; Wliitney w. 
 
 R. I., & St. L. R. Co. V. Byam, 80 111. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 208 ; North 
 
 f^^S. Penn. R. Co. v. Heileman, 49 Pa. St. 
 
 2 Continental Improvement Co. v. 60 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Goodman, 62 Pa. St. 
 
 Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. 329 ; Hall v. Brown, 54 N. H. 495, 499, 
 
 Co. V. Lee, 87 111. 454 ; Harlan v. St. Louis, 58 N. H. 93. 
 
 K. C, & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 22 ; Stillson 3 Robinson v. Western Pacific R Co., 
 
 V. Hannibal &St. J. R. Co., 67 Mo. 671, 48 Cal. 409, 421. 
 
 676 ; Black v. Burlington, C. R., & M. R. * Chicago W. D. R. Co. .,. Rend, 6 
 
 Co., 38 Iowa, 515 ; Wilds «. Hudson River Brad. (Ill) 243. 
 
INJURIES TO TEAVELLEES ON THE HIGHWAY. 
 
 343 
 
 Duty of the Traveller to use his Senses in order to avoid Danger. — 
 A traveller upon a highway, when approaching a railroad cross- 
 ing, ought to make a vigilant use of his senses of sight and hear- 
 ing, in order to avoid a collision. This precaution is dictated by 
 common prudence. He should listen for signals, and look in the 
 different directions from which a train may come. If by neglect 
 of this duty he suffers injury from a passing train, he cannot 
 recover of the company, although it may itself be chargeable 
 with negligence, or have failed to give the signals required by 
 statute, or be running at the time at a speed exceeding the legal 
 rate.^ This rule applies more strongly to a person who, with- 
 
 1 Steves V. Oswego & S. R. Co., 18 
 N. Y. 422; Wilds u. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 29 N. Y. 315, 24 N. Y. 430, 440; 
 Gonzales v. New Yorlc & H. R. Co., 38 
 N. Y. 440 ; Ernst v. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 39 N. Y. 61, 35 N. Y. 9, 32 Barb. 
 159; Wilcox V. Rome, W., & 0. R. Co., 
 39 N. Y. 368; Beisiegel v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 9; Grippen v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 34; 
 Baxter u. Troy & B. R. Co., 41 N. Y. 
 502; Harty v. Central R. Co., 42 N. Y. 
 468 ; Warner v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 44 N. Y. 465, 469 ; Gorton v. Erie R. Co., 
 
 45 N. Y. 660 ; Davis v. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 400 ; Reynolds v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 
 N. Y. 248, 2 Thomp. & C. 644 ; Weber v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 
 451, 67 N. Y. 587 ; McGrath v. New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 59 N. Y.468, 
 1 Hun, 437, 3 Thomp. & C. 776 ; Mitcli- 
 ell V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 64 N. Y. 655 ; Salter v. Utica & B. R. R. 
 Co., 75 N. Y. 273, 13 Hun, 187 ; Cordell v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 
 330, 70 N. Y. 119, 64 N. Y. 535 ; Adolph v. 
 Central Park, N., & E. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 
 530, 65 N. Y. 554 ; Sheffield i;. Rochester & 
 S. R. Co., 21 Barb. 339 ; Brooks v. Buffalo 
 & N. F. R. Co., 25 Barb. 600 ; Dascomb 
 V. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 27 Barb. 221 ; 
 Havens v. Erie R. Co., 53 Barb. 328; 
 Haight V. New York Cent. R. Co., 7 Lans. 
 11 ; Elwood V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 4 Hun, 808; Bunn v. Del., L., & 
 W. R. Co., 6 Hun, 303; Sutherland v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 41 N. Y. 
 Superior, 17 ; Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. u. 
 Houston, 95 U. S. 697 ; Grows v. Maine 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 67 Me. 100 ; Butterfield v. 
 Western R. Co., 10 Allen, 532 ; AUyn v. 
 Boston & A. R. Co., 105 Mass. 77; 
 Brooks V. Somerville, 106 Mass. 271; 
 Blaker v. New Jersey Midland R. Co., 3 
 Stewart (N. J.), 240 ; Lyman v. Phil., W., 
 & B. R. Co., 4 Houst. 583 ; Morris & B. 
 R. Co. 0. Haslan, 4 Vroom, 147 ; Reevej 
 V. Del., L., & W. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 454, 
 464; North Penn. R. Co. v. Heileman, 49 
 Pa. St. 60 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Goodman, 62 
 Pa. St. 329 ; Nagle v. Allegheny Valley 
 R. Co., '88 Pa. St. 35 ; Baltimore & 0. R. 
 Co. V. Sherman, 30 Gratt. 602, 629 ; Belle- 
 fontaine & I. R. Co. ii. Snyder, 24 Ohio St. 
 670, 18 Ohio St. 399 ; Cleveland, C. C, & 
 I. R. Co. V. Elliott, 28 Ohio St. 340; Penn. 
 R. Co. V. Rathgeb, 32 Ohio St. 66 ; Bal- 
 timore & 0. R. Co. V. Whitacre, 35 Ohio 
 St. 627, 24 Ohio St. 642 ; Chicago & R. I. 
 R. Co. V. Still, 19 111. 499 ; Chicago & A. R. 
 Co. V. Gretzner, 46 111. 74, 82 ; Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co. V. Sweeney, 52 lU. 325; 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Jacobs, 63 111. 
 178 ; Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Bell, 
 70 111. 102 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. God- 
 dard, 72 111. 567 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. 
 V. Van Patten, 74 111. 91, 64 111. 512; Chi- 
 cago & N. W. R. Co. V. Hatch, 79 111. 137 ; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Harwood, 80 
 111. 87 ; Rocktord, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. 
 V. Byam, 80 111. 528 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R, 
 Co. w. Damerell, 81 111. 450 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Hetherington, 83 111. 510 ; Chi- 
 cago & A. R. Co. V. Becker, 84 III. 483 ; 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Sunderland, 
 2 B;-ad. (III.) 307; Lake Shore & M. S. 
 R. Co. V. Clfemens, 5 Brad. (III.) 77; 
 Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Hunter, 33 Ind. 
 335 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Shuck- 
 
344 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 out right, is passing along and upoli the track.^ It requires the 
 traveller to look not only for regular trains and those stated in 
 time-tables, but as well for extra trains, or any trains behind time.^ 
 The rule which requires the traveller to look both ways, up 
 and down the track, and listen before crossing, while generally 
 incumbent, and, if not complied with, defeating a recovery for an 
 injury, is not applied inflexibly. He may be relieved of the duty 
 by circumstances growing out of some personal disability; the 
 condition of things at the crossing, as an obstructed view or un- 
 usual noise ; or want of knowledge that he was near the crossing, 
 under circumstances which excused his ignorance ; or the blam- 
 able conduct of the company's servants.^ It is immaterial that 
 
 man, 50 Ind. 42 ; St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. 
 V. Mathias, 50 Ind. 65 ; Sinclair v. Penn. 
 R. Co., 62 Ind. 301 ; Artz v. Cliicago, R. 
 I., & P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 153, 38 Iowa, 
 293, 44 Iowa, 284; Carlin v. Chicago, 
 R. L, & P. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 316, 31 
 Iowa, 370 ; Benton k. Central R. Co., 
 42 Iowa, 192; Lang u. Holiday Creelc, 
 R., & C. M. Co., 49 Iowa, 469 ; Starry v. 
 Dubuque & S. W. R. Co., 51 Iowa, 419 ; 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. <-■. Miller, 25 
 Mich. 274, 290, 291 ; Haas v. Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co. 41 Wis. 44; Brown v. Mil. 
 & St. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 165,; Solen </. 
 Virginia & T. R. Co., 13 Nev. 106 ; Bun- 
 ting V. Central Pacific R. Co., 14 Nev. 
 351 ; Fletcher v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 64 
 Mo. 484 ; Leduke v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 
 Co., 4 Mo. App. 485; New Orleans, J., & 
 G. N. R. Co. V. Mitchell, 52 Miss. 808 ; 
 Zeigler v. North Eastern R. Co., 5 S. C. 
 221, 7 S. C. 402; South & N. A. R. Co. 
 V. Thompson, 62 Ala. 494 ; Flemming 
 V. Western Pacific R. Co., 49 Cal. 253 ; 
 Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 10 Re- 
 porter, 662; Dublin, W., & W. R. Co. 
 V. Slattery, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1155, 
 Ir. R. 8 C. L. 531, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 2.56; 
 Nieliolls V. Great Western R. Co., 27 Up- 
 per Canada Q. B. 382. 
 
 1 lUinois Cent. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 
 111. 500 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hether- 
 ington, 83 111. 510 ; Lake Shore & M. S. 
 R. Co. V. Hart, 87 111. 529 ; Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Campau, 35 Mich. 468. 
 
 2 Wilcox V. Rome, W., & O. R. Co., 
 39 N. Y. 358, 362; Salter v. Utica & B R. 
 E. Co., 75 N. Y. 273, 13 Hun, 187 ; Toledo, 
 W., & W. R. Co. 0. Jones, 76 111. 311. 
 
 ^ Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 32 N. Y. 597 ; Beisiegel v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 622; Ernst v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9 ; Mackay 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 75, 
 27 Barb. 538 ; Davis v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 400 ; Weber v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 
 451 ; McGovern v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417 ; Terry ». Jewett, 
 78 N. Y. 338, 17 Hun, 395 ; Casey v. New 
 York Cent. & H. E. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 518, 
 6 Abbott N. C. 104; Kellogg v. New 
 York Cent. & H. E. R. Co., 79 N. Y. 
 72 ; Leonard v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 42 N. Y. Superior, 225 ; War- 
 ren V. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Allen, 227; 
 Chaffee v. Boston & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 
 108; Wheelock v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 105 Mass. 203 ; Elkins v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co., 115 Mass. 190; French i- Taunton 
 Branch R. Co., 116 Mass. 537 ; Hinckley 
 V. Cape Cod R. Co., 120 Mass. 257 ; Bon- 
 nell V. Del., L., & W. R. Co., 10 Vroom, 
 189 ; Jewett v. Klein, 12 C. E. Green, 
 550, 11 C. E. Green, 474 ; Cleveland, C, 
 & C. R. Co. V. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631 ; 
 Marietta & C. R. Co. v. Picksley, 24 Ohio 
 St. 654 ; Bellefontaine R. Co. v. Snyder, 
 24 Ohio St. 670, 18 Ohio St. 399; Duffy 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 32 Wis. 269; 
 Eilert v. Green Bay, &c. R. Co., 10 Cent. 
 L, J. 317 ; Artz v. Chicago, R. I., & P. E. 
 Co., 34 Iowa, 153; Chicago, B., & Q. R. 
 Co. V. Triplett, 38 111. 482 ; Chicago, B., 
 & Q. R. Co. V. Lee, 87 111. 454; Bunting 
 V. Central Pacific R. Co., 14 Nev. 351; 
 Cohen v. Eureka P. li. Co., 14 Nev. 376 ; 
 Chicago & N. W. E. Co. v. Whitton, 13 
 
INJTTBIES TO TRAVELLERS ON THE HIGHWAY. 
 
 345 
 
 the traveller did not look or listen, if by so doing he could not 
 have seen or heard the coming train.' He is not, at least as a mat- 
 ter of law, required to lower the top of his carriage,^ or leave it 
 and go upon the track in order to obtain a better view.^ Nor is 
 he required to take the view at a point close to the track, or to 
 stop his carriage for the purpose of taking it, where common 
 prudence does not require such precautions.* The duty to look 
 and listen has been held not incumbent on infants of tender 
 years,^ or, according to some authorities, on laborers at work 
 upon the track.® It is not uniformly required of passengers 
 leaving or taking trains at stations." But absent-mindedness is 
 not a legal excuse for not taking the precaution.^ A traveller 
 who attempts to cross or remain upon the track in the view 
 of an approaching train does so at his peril ; and, if he takes the 
 risk, he must bear the consequences of his temerity.^ 
 
 Wall. 270 ; Stapley v. London, B., & S. C. 
 R. Co., L. R. 1 Exch. 21 ; Wanless v. North 
 Eastern R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 481, L. R. 
 7 H. L, 12. 
 
 1 Baxter v. Troy & B. R. Co., 41 N. Y. 
 502; Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228; 
 Brooks V. Buffalo & N. F. R. Co., 25 
 Barb. 600. 
 
 ^ Stackus V. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 79 N. Y. 464, 7 Hun, 559 (dis- 
 tinguishing McCall V. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 54N. Y. 642). 
 
 3 Davis V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 47 N. Y. 400 ; Mackay v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 75 ; Dolan v. Del. & 
 H. C. Co., 71 N. Y. 285 ; Duffy v. Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co., 32 Wis. 269. 
 
 * Renwick v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 36 N. Y. 132 ; Mackay v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 35 N. Y. 75 ; Weber v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451, 457 ; 
 Kellogg V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 79 N. Y. 72 ; Spencer v. 111. Cent. R. 
 Co., 29 Iowa, 55 ; Richey v. Mo. Pacific 
 R. Co., 7 Mo. App. 150. 
 
 6 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Becker, 
 84 111. 483, 76 111. 25; McGovern v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 
 N. Y. 417; Powell v. New York Cent. 
 & H. R. Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 
 603. 
 
 * Grainger v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 4 Hun, 159 ; Bradley v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 99. But see Bal- 
 timore & O. R. Co. V. Whittington, 30 
 
 Gratt. 805; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Sweeney, 52 111. 325. 
 
 ' Penn. R. Co. i;. White, 88 Pa. St. 
 327 ; Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338, 17 
 Hun, 395. 
 
 8 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Miller, 
 25 Mich. 274, 291 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 V. Whitacre, 35 Ohio St. 627, 638. 
 
 « Wilds V. Hudson River R. Co., 29 
 N. Y. 315, 24 N. Y. 430; Warner v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co. 44 N. Y. 465, 470; 
 Salter v. Utica & B. R. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 
 273, 13 Hun, 187 ; Spencer v. Utica & S. 
 R. Co., 5 Barb. 337 ; Sheffield v. Roches- 
 ter & S. R. Co., 21 Barb. 339; Chicago, R. 
 I., & P. R. Co. V. Houston, 95 U. S. 697, 
 702 ; Blaker u. New Jersey Midland R. 
 Co., 3 Stewart (N. J.), 240 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Buckner, 28 111. 299 ; Chicago, 
 R. I., & P. R. Co. V. Bell, 70 Bl. 102 ; 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Jones, 76 111. 
 311 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. „. Sun- 
 derland, 2 Brad. (111.) 307; Grows u. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co., 67 Me. 100; Mar- 
 quette, H., & 0. R. Co. V. Handford, 39 
 Mich. 537 ; Gerety v. Phil., W., & B. R. 
 Co., 81 Pa. St. 274 ; Moore v. Central R., 
 4 Zab. 268 ; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 
 1 Vroom, 188, 203 ; Morris & E. R. Co. v. 
 Haslan, 4 Vroom, 147 ; Langhofl' v. Mil. 
 & P. R. Co., 23 Wis. 43, 19 Wis. 489; 
 Haas V. Chicago & N. W. B. Co., 41 Wis. 
 44 ; Kearney v. Chicago, M., & St. P. K. 
 Co., 47 Wis. 144. 
 
346 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 The plaintiff is not required in all cases to prove affirmatively 
 that he looked and listened. It may be inferred, in view of the 
 circumstances, that he did what a prudent man ordinarily would 
 do to save his life, and was governed by the instinct of self-preser- 
 vation.i But if, taking into account the place and other condi- 
 tions, he must have seen the train if he had looked, it is to be 
 inferred that he did not look.^ This inference will not be justified 
 where the circumstances were such that, with the use of his 
 senses, he might not have seen or heard the train.^ Where the 
 proper signals for a train approaching the highway were not 
 given, the traveller's negligence is not to be presumed from the 
 fact that he was on the track when the train crossed the 
 highway.* 
 
 Ordinarily, a traveller driving in the daytime, who failed to 
 observe a railroad laid across the highway, would be deemed 
 chargeable with negligence ; ^ but such ignorance does not raise 
 a legal presumption of negligence ; and- the fact that he was a 
 stranger to the locality is to be considered in determining , 
 whether he made a proper use of his faculties to avoid injury.^ 
 
 Duty of the Company. — The company is bound to use every 
 reasonable precaution to prevent injury to travellers on the high- 
 way, but not every possible one." Thus, the placing of a man as 
 a guard on each car of a freight train to give and repeat signals 
 is not ordinarily required.^ If the company, by its management 
 of its train, causes unusual peril to travellers, it should meet 
 such peril by corresponding precautions.^ 
 
 1 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Hall, 61 Salter «. Utica & B. R.R. Co., 75 N.Y. 273, 
 Pa. St. 361 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Weber, 76 1.3 Hun, 187 ; Mitchell v. New York Cent. 
 Pa. St. 157 ; Weiss v. Penn. R. Co., 79 Pa. & H. R. R. Co., 2 Hun, 535. 
 
 St. 387 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Weiss, 87 Pa. » Ingersoll v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 St. 447; Penn. R. Co. v. Werner, 89 Pa. R. Co., 6 Thomp. & 0. 416; Massoth o. 
 
 St. 59 ; Northern Cent. R. Co. w. State, Del. & H. C. Co., 64 N. Y. 524. 
 
 29 Md. 420, 4.38 ; Johnson u, Hudson < Richey v. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 7 Mo. 
 
 River R. Co., 20 N. Y. 65 ; Waldele v. App. 150. 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 6 Allyn v. Boston & A. R. Co., 105 
 
 69 ; Solen v. Virginia & T. R. Co., 13 Mass. 77. 
 
 Nev. 106, 152; Donaldson v. Miss. & M. 6 Cohen v. Eureka &'P. R. Co., 14 
 
 R. Co., 18 Iowa, 280 ; Richey v. Mo. Pa- Nev. 876. 
 
 cific R. Co., 7 Mo. App. 150. But see 7 Weber w. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 
 Reynolds v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451, 462. 
 
 Co., 58 N. Y. 248, 252. 8 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Stumps, 
 
 2 Brown v. Mil. & St. P. R, Co., 55 111. 367. 
 
 22 Minn. 165 ; Wilcox v. Rome, W., & 0. « Klein v. Jewett, 11 C. E. Green, 474, 
 
 R. Co., 39 N. Y. 358 ; Reynolds v. New 479, 480, 12 C. E. Green, 550. 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 248; 
 
INJURIES TO TRAVELLERS ON THE HIGHWAY. 347 
 
 The duty of the company to use reasonable precautions to pre- 
 vent injury extends to travellers on foot as well as to those riding 
 in carriages.^ But it must be conceded, it has been said, as 
 within the personal experience of every one, that, as a general 
 rule, the exercise of ordinary care will enable a person to cross 
 a railroad track on foot in open daylight with safety, and it re- 
 quires a strong case to sustain an action under such circum- 
 stances.2 
 
 Crossing in Front of Street Cars. — It is negligence in a person 
 on foot to attempt to cross the street in front of cars or carriages 
 drawn by horse power on a nice calculation of the chances of a 
 collision ; but the question of his negligence becomes one for the 
 jury, where the facts tend to show that in taking the risk he was 
 in the exercise of ordinary care.'' He is not required to antici- 
 pate the possibility of an accidental fall while he is crossing.* 
 
 Obstruction of the Traveller's View. — The company may within 
 its location erect buildings and pile rubbish or materials derived 
 from excavations which obstruct the traveller's view of approach- 
 ing trains ; but it is bound to take the precautions and give the 
 warnings which the peculiar dangers resulting from such obstruc- 
 tion of view reasonably requires.^ Such use of the location, how- 
 ever, is not negligence per se, or in itself a cause of action.^ If 
 the crossing is, from its locality or mode of construction, pecu- 
 liarly dangerous, corresponding care and precautions are re- 
 quired of the company to prevent injury to persons travelling on 
 the highway.'' 
 
 1 Cheney v. New York Cent. & H. R. Y: 535 ; Central R. Co. ^. Feller, 84 Pa. 
 E. Co., 16 Hun, 415. St. 226. Some courts have held that it is 
 
 2 Cordell v. New York Cent. & H. R. negUgence in the company to letweeds and 
 R. Co., 70 N. Y. 119, 125. brush grow, or to pile them within the 
 
 ' Belton V. Baxter, 58 N. Y. 411, 54 N. location, so as to obstruct the traveller's 
 
 Y. 245 ; Thurber v. Harlem B., M., & F. view. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 R. Co., 60 N. Y. 326; O'Donnell v. New v. Hillmer, 72 111. 235; Indianapolis & St. 
 
 York & H. R. Co., 8 Daly, 409. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 78 111. 112 ; Dimick v. 
 
 * Mentz V. Second Av. R. Co., 3 Ab- Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 80 111. 338 ; 
 
 bott Ct. App. 274. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Lee, 87 111. 
 
 5 Cordell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 454. 
 Co., 75 N. Y. 330, 70 N. Y. 119, 64 N. Y. ^ Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Sta- 
 
 535 ; Mackay i<. New York Cent. R. Co., bles, 62 111. 313 ; Penn. R. Co. o. Matthews, 
 
 85 N. Y. 75 ; Richardson «. New York 7 Vroom, 531 ; Duffy v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 846. R. Co., 32 Wis. 269; Artz v. Chicago, R. 
 
 « Cordell v. New York Cent. & H. R. I., & P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 153, 38 Iowa, 
 
 R. Co., 75 N. Y. 330, 70 N. Y. 119, 64 N. 293, 44 Iowa, 284. 
 
348 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 Injuries by Noises made by the Company, and causing Horses to 
 take Fright. — The authority to operate a railroad includes the 
 right to make the noises incident to the movement and working 
 of its engines, as in the escape of steam and the rattling of cars ; 
 and also the right to give the usual and proper admonitions of 
 danger, as in the sounding of whistles and the ringing of bells. 
 It is therefore not liable, while exercising its right in a lawful 
 and reasonable manner, for injuries occasioned by horses, when 
 being driven upon the highway, taking fright at such noises.^ But 
 if the injury resulting from the fright would not have happened 
 but for a breach of duty by the company, it will be liable for the 
 injury.^ Thus, if it neglected to give the signals prescribed 
 by statute, and thereby the traveller was brought into close prox- 
 imity to the train and his horse became frightened, it is liable for 
 the consequences.^ An action will lie where the horse, though 
 frightened without the company's fault by the smoke and noise of 
 the engine, ran against a defective railing which it was its duty 
 to maintain, and was thereby injured.* It is liable, if the noise 
 was accompanied by an unlawful rate of speed.^ 
 
 The company, in the absence of statute regulations, is limited 
 to the reasonable use of signals, and what is such reasonable use 
 is a question for the jury, subject to the instructions of the 
 court.® It is liable for injuries caused by the whistle, when 
 sounded carelessly or recklessly, or at an improper place, or when 
 not required in the prudent working of its engines and trains.' 
 This has been held where it was sounded under a bridge,^ or very 
 
 1 Burton v. Phil , W., & B. R. Co., 4 R. Co. v. Stinger, 78 Pa. St. 218 ; Hud- 
 Harring. (Del.) 2o2 ; Moshier ;). Utica & son v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 Bush, 303; Hart 
 S. R. Co., 8 Barb. 427 ; Coy v. Utica & S. v. Chicago, R I., & P. R. Co., 7 North- 
 R. Co., 23 Barb. 643; Flint u. Norwich west. Rep. 9. 
 
 & W. R. Co., 110 iVlass. 222; Norton v. 4 Titcomb v. Fitchburg R. Co., 12 Al- 
 
 Eastern R. Co., 113 IVlass. 366 ; Favor v. len, 254. 
 
 Boston & L. R. Co., 114 Mass. 350 ; Phil., 6 Burton v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 4 
 
 W., & B. R. Co. v: Stinger, 78 Pa. St. Barring. (Del.) 252. 
 
 219 ; Hudson v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 Bush, 6 phil., w., & B. R. Co. v. Stinger, 78 
 
 303 ; Whitney v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Pa. St. 219 ; Hill v. Portland & R. R. Co., 
 
 Me. 208. 55 Me. 438. 
 
 2 Moshier v. Utica & S. R. Co., 8 Barb. ' Phil., W., & B. R. Co. v. Stinger, 78 
 427 ; Weiss v. Penn. R. Co., 79 Pa. St. 387. Pa. St. 219 ; Toledo, W., & W. R, Co. w. 
 
 3 Norton v. Eastern R. Co., 113 Mass. Harmon, 47 111. 298 ; Chicago, B., & Q. 
 366; Prescott v. Eastern R. Co., 113 R. Co. w. Dickson, 88 111. 431; Phil. & R. 
 Mass. 370, note ; Shaw v. Boston & W. R. Co. v. Killips, 88 Pa. St. 405 ; Georgia 
 R. Co., 8 Gray, 45 ; Pollock u. Eastern R. Co. v. Newsome, 60 Ga. 492. 
 
 R. Co., 124 Mass. 158; Penn. R. Co. v. » Penn. R. Co. v. Barnett, 59 Pa. St. 
 Barnett, 59 Pa. St. 259 ; Phil., W., & B. 259. 
 
INJURIES TO TBAVELLEES ON THE HIGHWAY. 349 
 
 near a highway crossing ; i and the bell has been thought to be a 
 better signal than the whistle for the starting of a train, particu- 
 larly where horses are passing on a highway near by.^ The com- 
 pany will be liable for injuries resulting from letting off steam 
 in a negligent or unlawful manner.** 
 
 The plaintiff's contributory negligence in undertaking to drive, 
 in the neighborhood of the railroad, an untrained or vicious horse 
 or one easily frightened by a locomotive, or in driving his horse 
 unnecessarily into a place of danger, will prevent his recovery, 
 although the horse took fright at noises which the company 
 negligently made.* But the plaintiff's negligence will not be a 
 defence to an action for an injury caused by the wanton blowing 
 of the whistle.5 Whether the plaintiff, in leaving the horse 
 unfastened, is chargeable with negligence which will defeat the 
 action, is for the jury.^ 
 
 Duty of the Company to give Signals v^Iien not imposed by Statute. 
 — The company, in the absence of a statute provision, should 
 give such signals of warning in approaching highway crossings 
 as are required in the prudent and skilful management of its 
 engines and trains to put individuals using the highways on their 
 guard.^ It is a question for the jury, under the instructions of 
 the court, what the signals, when not prescribed by statute, 
 should have been.^ 
 
 Statute provisions requiring signals to be given are cumulative 
 
 1 Manchester, S., J. & A. R. Co. v. & W. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 454. The com- 
 
 Fullarton, 14 C. B. n. s. 53. pany has been held not bound to blow a 
 
 '' Hilly. Portland &R.R.Co., 55 Me. 438. whistle on approaching a highway, unless 
 
 ' Borst V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., required by statute ; Brown v. Mil. & St. 
 
 4 Hun, 346; Manchester, S. J., & A. R. P. R. Co., 22 Minn. 165. Contra, Phil., 
 
 Co. V. Fullarton, 14 C. B. n. s. 54. W., & B. R. Co. «. Stinger, 78 Pa. St. 
 
 * Phil., W., & B. R. Co. V. Stinger, 78 219; or to give signals on approaching a 
 Pa. St. 219 ; Murdock v. Warwick, 4 highway which crosses on a bridge above 
 Gray, 178; Bliss o. Wilbrahara, 8 Allen, the railroad. Favor v. Boston & L. R. 
 664; Goldstein v. Chicago, M., & St. P. Co., 114 Mass. 3.50. 
 
 R. Co., 40 Wis. 404 ; Chicago & N. W. R. » Cadell v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 Co. V. Clark, 2 Brad. (III.) 116 ; Whitney E. Co., 64 N. Y. 535, 6 Hun, 401 ; Padu- 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 69 Me. 208. cah & M. R Co. v. Hoehl, 12 Bush, 41 ; 
 
 * Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Dickson, Black v. Burlington, C. R., & M. R. Co., 
 88 III. 431. 38 Iowa, 515; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. 
 
 « Southworth v. Old Colony & N. R. Dill, 22 111. 264, 271 ; Bauer v. Kansas 
 
 Co., 105 Mass. 342 ; Wasmer v. D., L., & Pacific R. Co., 69 Mo. 219 ; Ellis v. Great 
 
 W. R. Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 100. See Western R. Co., L. R. 9 C. P. 551. But 
 
 Deville v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 see Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228. 
 
 Cal. 383. The company was held indictable for not 
 
 ' Continental Improvement Co. v. giving signals in Louisville & N. R. Co. 
 
 Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; Reeves v. Del., L., v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush, 388. 
 
350 
 
 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 only, and the company is still bound to use such other precautions 
 as are required in the prudent and skilful management of its 
 road.i 
 
 The omission of a signal customarily given by the company, 
 though not imposed by statute, is calculated to assure the public 
 that no train is approaching, and is evidence of its negligence ; ' 
 but the omission does not relieve the traveller of the duty to use 
 his senses to avoid injury to himself.^ 
 
 Duty to give Signals when imposed by Statute. — The duty to give 
 certain signals, as to ring a bell or sound a whistle on approach- 
 ing highway crossings, or to erect sign-boards at such crossings, 
 is generally imposed by statute. It is also imposed by municipal 
 ordinances under legislative authority, which have the force of 
 statutes.* The legislative power to make such regulations will 
 be considered hereafter.^ The statute is for the benefit of trav- 
 ellers crossing and approaching the highway, and not for that of 
 persons who are walking upon the track.^ It is intended to pre- 
 
 1 Bradley v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 
 539; Linfield u. Old Colony R. Co., 10 
 Cush. 562; Commonwealth v. Boston & 
 W. B. Co., 101 Mass! 201 ; Norton v. East- 
 ern R. Co., 113 Mass. 366 ; Favor v. Bos- 
 ton & L. R. Co., 114 Mass. 350; Elkins v. 
 Boston & A. R. Co., 115 Mass. 190; 
 Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. 
 Y. 404 ; Richardson v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 45 N. Y. 846 ; Eaton v. Erie R. Co., 51 
 N. Y. 544 ; Weber v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 587, 58 N.Y. 451 ; Cor- 
 dell w. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 70 
 N. Y. 119, 64 N. Y. 535, 79 N. Y. 636, 6 
 Hun, 461 ; Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 
 228; Gates v. B., C. R., & M. R. Co., 39 
 Iowa, 45 ; Hart v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 Co., 7 Northwest. Rep. 9 ; Macon & W. 
 R. Co. u. Davis, 18 Ga. 679; South & 
 N. A. R. Co. V. Thompson, 62 Ala. 494 ; 
 Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Stables, 62 
 111. 313. But see Beisiegel v. New York 
 •Cent. B. Co., 40 N. Y. 9 ; Grippen v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 34. 
 
 2 Ernst V. Hudson River R. Co , 35 N. 
 Y. 9, 28 ; Kissenger v. New York & H. R. 
 Co., 66 N. Y. 538 ; McGrath v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522, 59 N. 
 Y. 468, 1 Hun, 437, 3 Thomp. & C. 776 ; 
 Waldele v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 19 Hun, 69; Paduoah & M. R. Co. v. 
 
 Hoehl, 12 Bush, 41 ; Chaflfee u. Boston & 
 L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 108; GoodfeUow v. 
 Boston, H., & E. R. Co., 106 Mass. 461; 
 Craig V. New York, N. H., & H. R. Co., 
 118 Mass. 431. 
 
 s Casey v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 6 Abbott N. C. 104, 78 N. Y. 518; 
 McGrath v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 58 N. Y. 468, 63 N. Y. 52, 2 Hun, 
 437, 1 Thomp. & C. 243, 3 Thomp. & C. 
 776; Cogswell u. Oregon & C. R. Co., 6 
 Oreg. 417. See Phil. & T. R. Co. v. 
 Hagan, 47 Pa. St. 244; Dublin, W., & W. 
 R. Co. V. Slattery, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 
 1155, Ir. R. 8 C. L. 531, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 
 256. This rule applies in case of injury 
 to servants, where the statute imposes 
 the same liability for injuries to them as 
 exists in the case of injuries to third par- 
 ties. Ditberner v. Chicago, M., & St. P. 
 R. Co., 47 Wis. 138. 
 
 4 McGrath v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522 ; Massoth v. Del. 
 & H. C. Co., 64 N. Y. 524; Baltimore & 
 O. R. Co. u. State, 29 Md. 252 ; St. Louis 
 & S. E. R. Co. V. Mathias, 50 Ind. 65. 
 
 6 Post, Chap. XVII. p. 462. 
 
 ■■ Harty u. Central R. Co., 42 N. Y. 
 468 ; Voak v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 75 
 N. Y. 320 ; O'Donnell b. Providence & W. 
 R. Co., 6 R. L 211. 
 
INJUKIES TO TRAVELLERS ON THE HIGHWAY. 
 
 351 
 
 vent injuries from fright as well as from collision. i The signals 
 are, it has been held, for a warning to travellers on the highway, 
 and not to passengers leaving or taking trains.^ 
 
 The company is liable for injuries caused by its omission of 
 these duties, when imposed by statute.^ The omission is cal- 
 culated to mislead the traveller, and to assure him that the 
 coming of a train is not imminent ; * and it is evidence of negli- 
 gence.^ 
 
 But, though omitting the required signals, the company is not 
 liable for injuries which, while occurring at the time of such 
 omission, are not occasioned thereby.^ Thus, if the traveller 
 knew by other means of the coming of a train, the omission 
 could not be deemed the cause of the colhsion.' Proof of the 
 violation of the statute is not suflBcient to determine the com- 
 pany's liability ; ^ and, in order to maintain the action, some proof 
 
 1 Norton v. Eastern R. Co., 113 Mass. 
 366 ; Pollock v. Eastern R. Co., 124 Mass. 
 158; Voak v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 75 
 N. Y. 320 ; Hart v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 Co., 7 Northwest. Rep. 9. 
 
 2 Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338. 
 
 3 Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 34 N. Y. 622, 14 Abbott Pr. n. s. 29; 
 Ernst V. Hudson River R. Co., 35 N. Y. 
 9, 32 Barb. 159 ; Kenwick v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 132; O'Mara v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 38 N. Y. 445; 
 Gorton .;, Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 660; 
 Cordell v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 84 N. Y. 535, 70 N. Y. 119, 6 Hun, 
 461 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Triplett, 
 38 111. 482 ; Chicago, B,, & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Van Patten, 64 111. 510, 74 111. 91 ; Dimick 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 80 111. 338; 
 Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. v. Siltman, 88 111. 
 629 ; St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. v. Mathias, 
 50 Ind. 65 ; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Cope- 
 land, 61 Ala. 376 ; Hill v. Louisville & N. 
 R. Co., 9 Heisk. 823 ; Pollock •>. Eastern 
 R. Co., 124 Mass. 158. But see Brown 
 V. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 
 191. 
 
 * Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 34 N. Y. 622, 14 Abbott Pr. n. s. 29; 
 Ernst V. Hudson R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9, 
 32 Barb. 159; Commonwealth v. Fitch- 
 burg R. Co., 10 Allen, 189 ; Kennayde v. 
 Pacific R. Co., 45 Mo. 255. 
 
 6 O'Mara v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 
 
 N. Y. 445 ; Karle v. Kansas City, St. J., 
 & C. B. R. Co., 55 Mo. 476. 
 
 6 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Lee, 68 
 111.576; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Benton, 
 09 111. 174; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 Jones, 76 111. 311; Toledo, W., & W. R. 
 Co. V. Durkin, 76 111. 395 ; Chicago, B., & 
 Q. R. Co. V. Harwood, 90 111. 425; Brigga 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 72 N. 
 Y. 26 ; Karle v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. 
 
 B. R. Co., 55 Mo. 476; Cleveland, C. C, 
 & 1. R. Co. V. EUiott, 28 Ohio St. 340 ; 
 Cosgrove u. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 13 Hun, 329; Barringer v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 18 Hun, 398; 
 Dublin, W., & W. R. Co. v. Slattery, L. 
 R. 3 App. Cas. 1155, 1166, Ir. R. 8 C. L. 
 531, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 256. The same rule 
 applies to the killing of stock. Quincy, 
 A., & St. L. R. Co. V. Wellhoener, 72 III. 60. 
 
 ' Chicago, R. L, & P. R. Co. o. Bell, 
 70 111 102 ; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Eaves, 
 42 111. 288 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. u. 
 Clemens, 5 Brad. (111.) 77 ; Houston & T. 
 
 C. R. Co. u. Nixon, 52 Tex. 19 ; Pakalin- 
 sky V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 11 N. Y. Week. Dig. 73. 
 
 8 McGrath v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522, 59 N. Y. 468, 1 
 Thomp. & C. 243, 3 Thomp. & C. 776; 
 Stevenson v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 58 Mo. 
 503 ; Holman v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 Co., 62 Mo. 562; North Eastern R. Co. v. 
 Wanless, L. R. 7 H. L. 12, L. R. 6 Q. B. 481. 
 
352 
 
 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 must be given tending to show that the injury resulted from the 
 omission.^ "Whether it was the cause of the injury is a question 
 for the jury.^ 
 
 The imposition by statute of these specific duties does not 
 relieve the traveller of his obligation to use ordinary care to avoid 
 the injury, and, although the company is in default for not per- 
 forming them, he cannot recover against it if, by want of such 
 care, he contributed to the injury.^ He is still required to use his 
 senses vigilantly, and to listen and look both ways, on approach- 
 ing the track, in order to discover if a train is about to pass.* 
 
 Duty to place Flagmen at Crossings. — The company is not, unless 
 required by statute, bound to place flagmen at highway crossings, 
 except under special circumstances which render the precaution 
 necessary for public safety.^ The duty does not arise merely 
 
 1 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Loomis, 13 
 III. 548 ; Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. 
 McKean, 40 111. 218 ; Steves v. Oswego & 
 S. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 422; Briggs v. New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 72 N. Y. 26. 
 Non-eorapliance with the statute, when 
 shown to be reasonable and prudent under 
 the circumstances, has been excused. 
 Wakefield v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 37 Vt. 
 330. See Cleveland, C. C, & I. R. Co. 
 V. Elliott, 28 Ohio St. 340, 350. 
 
 2 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v, Benton, 69 
 111. 174; Dublin, W., & W. R. Co. v. Slat- 
 tery, L. R. 4 App. Cas. 1155, Ir. R. 8 C. 
 L. 531, Ir. R. 10 C. L. 256. 
 
 3 Steves V. Oswego & S. R. Co., 18 N. 
 Y. 422 ; Wilcox v. Rome, W., & 0. R. 
 Co., 39 N. Y. 358 ; Havens i>. Erie R. Co., 
 41 N. Y. 296; Eaton v. Erie R. Co., 51 N. 
 Y. 544 ; Haring v. New York & E. R. 
 Co., 13 Barb. 9; Sheffield v. Rochester & 
 S. R. Co., 21 Barb. 339 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 R. Co. o. Jones, 76 111. 311 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Hetherington, 83 111. 510 ; Cleve- 
 land, C. C, &, I. R. Co. V. Elliott, 28 Ohio St. 
 340 ; Artz v. Chicago, fe. I., & P. R. Co., 
 34 Iowa, 153, 38 Iowa, 293, 44 Iowa, 284 ; 
 Dodge V. Burlington, C. R., & M. R. Co., 
 34 Iowa, 276; Payne v. Chicago, R. I., & 
 P. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 623, 44 Iowa, 236 ; 
 Lang V. Holiday Creek R. & C. M. Co., 49 
 Iowa, 469 ; Harlan v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. 
 R. Co., 64 Mo. 480 ; Zimmerman v. Han- 
 nibal & St. J. R. Co., 11 C. L. J. 96 ; Par- 
 ker V. Adams, 12 Met. 415; Common- 
 wealth V. Fitohburg R. Co., 10 Allen, 189. 
 
 * Gorton v. Erie R. Co., 45 N. Y. 660; 
 Lang V. Holiday Creek li. & C. M. Co., 
 49 Iowa, 469 ; Fletcher v. Atlantic & P. 
 R. Co., 64 Mo. 484; Leduke v. St. Louis 
 & I M. R. Co., 4 Mo. App. 485 ; Langau 
 0. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. Co., 5 Mo. 
 App. 311; Chicago, R. L, & P. R. Co. v. 
 Houston, 95 U. S. 697 ; Chicago, B., & Q. 
 R. Co. V. Lee, 68 111. 577 ; Chicago, B., & 
 Q. R. Co. V. Harwood, 80 111. 88 ; Lake 
 Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Sunderland, 2 
 Brad. (111.) 307. 
 
 5 State u. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 47 
 Md. 76 ; Ernst v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 35 N. Y. 9, 39 N. Y. 61, 24 How. Pr. 97; 
 Grippen v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 40 N. Y. 34 ; Weber v. New York 
 Cent. & H.. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451, 
 459; Culhane v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 60 N. Y. 133, 67 Barb. 562; 
 McGrath o. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 63 N. Y. 522, 59 N. Y. 468; Paka- 
 linsky v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 11 N. Y. Week. Dig. 73 ; Suther- 
 land V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 41 N. Y. Superior, 17 ; Commonwealth v. 
 Boston & W. R. Co., 101 Mass. 201; 
 Shaw V. Boston & W. R. Co., 8 Gray, 45; 
 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Killips, 88 Pa. St. 
 405 ; Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Toffey, 
 9 Vroom, 525; Stapley v. London, B., & 
 S. C. R. Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 21, 4 Hurl. & C. 
 93 ; Stubley v. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 L. R. 1 Exch. 13; Cliff B. Midland R. Co., 
 L. R. 5 Q. B. 258 ; Bilbee v. London, B., & 
 S. C. R. Co., 18 C. B. N. s. 584. The custom 
 
IKJUKIES TO TRAVELLERS ON THE HIGHWAY. 353 
 
 from the number of persons who use the crossing, but it may be 
 created by au exceptionally dangerous mode of crossing adopted 
 by the company for its own convenience.^ When the duty is 
 imposed, the company is liable for injuries resulting from its non- 
 performance.^ 
 
 Whether the duty to place a flagman at a crossing exists 
 except under a statute, may well be doubted ; certainly it is not 
 one which should be left to be determined by the caprice of juries.^ 
 This remark applies also to the maintenance of gates and other 
 signals, the requirement of which is peculiarly a matter of legis- 
 lative discretion, and likely to be constantly varied with new dis- 
 coveries and experiments. The track itself is always a warning 
 of danger ;* and it is a common experience that some precautions, 
 on which too great reliance is likely to be placed, induce inatten- 
 tion in travellers, and increase the chances of injury which they 
 were intended to diminish.^ 
 
 Some authorities, while withdrawing the question from the 
 jury, whether a flagman should be placed at a crossing, allow 
 the omission to place one to be considered as a part of the 
 res gestce., and bearing on the question of the company's care or 
 negligence in the managenient of its trains,^ — a distinction 
 not very intelligible to the profession, and certainly not capable 
 of practical application by plain men. A distinction has also 
 been made between signals from the engine or train, and sig- 
 nals upon or near the track, — the former being for the jury to 
 pass upon, but the latter not.^ 
 
 of railroad companies is not admissible H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451 ; Dyer v. Erie 
 
 in determining the question. Bailey v. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228; State v. Phil., W., 
 
 New Haven & N. R. Co., 107 Mass. 496. & B. R. Co., 47 Md. 76 ; Cliff v. Mid- 
 
 1 Penn. R. Co. v. Matthews, 7 Vroora, land R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 258. It was 
 631 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Killips, 88 Pa. held to be a question for the jury in 
 St. 405 ; Cliff v. Midland R. Co., L. R. 5 Eaton v. Fitchburg R. Co., 129 Mass. 
 
 Q. B. 258, 263, 265. * McGrath v. New York Cent. & H. B. 
 
 2 Pollock V. Eastern R. Co., 124 Mass. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 468, 473; Lake Shore & 
 158. The English Railway Clauses Con- M. S. R. Co. u. Miller, 25 Mich. 274, 290; 
 solidation Act, 1845, § 47, requires the Stubley v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 
 company to maintain gates across high- 1 Exch. 13, 16, 4 Hurl. & C. 93. 
 
 ways, and to employ proper persons to ' Stubley v. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 open and shut them when cattle or car- L. R. 1 Exch. 13, 18, Bramwell, B. 
 
 riages are passing. Stapley v. London, « Ernst v. Hudson Rirer R. Co., 39 N. 
 
 B. & S. C. R. Co., L. R. 1 Exch. 21 ; Lunt Y. 61 ; McGrath v. New York Cent. & H. 
 
 V. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. R. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 522, 59 N. Y. 468; 
 
 277 ; Wanless v. North Eastern R. Co., Casey v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 
 L. R. 6 Q. B. 481, L. R. 7 H. L. 12. 78 N. Y. 518, 6 Abbott N. C. 104. 
 
 ' Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. Co., ' Dyer v. Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228, 
 
 40 N. Y. 9 ; Weber v. New York Cent. & 233. 
 
 23 
 
354 THE JjAW op baileoads. 
 
 The absence of a flagman voluntarily placed by the company 
 at a crossing, or his neglect of his usual functions, may charge 
 the company with negligence ; ^ but his absence will not relieve 
 the traveller of the duty to use his senses.^ The company, is 
 liable where b}'- his directions he leads the traveller into danger.^ 
 Whether the flagman did his duty or not will depend upon the 
 circumstances of each case.* 
 
 Rate of Speed. — The company, in approaching and crossing 
 highways, is not, in the absence of statute prohibitions, limited 
 to any particular rate of speed which is consistent with the safety 
 of the passengers. The rule, as sometimes stated, is that no con- 
 ceivable rate is per se negligence.^ Unusual speed, though not 
 per se negligence, may be considered with other facts as bearing 
 on the degree of care used.^ Some authorities allow the jury to 
 determine whether the company was exceeding a reasonable and 
 proper rate of speed ; '' but this is doubtful where the statute has 
 not imposed a limit. 
 
 The company is liable for injuries caused by its running its 
 train at a rate prohibited by statute,^ but it is not, while so run- 
 
 ' Ernst V. Hudson Eirer E. Co., 39 N. & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 267 ; Grand Rapids & 
 
 r. 61, 35 N. Y. 9 ; Warner v. New York I. E. Co. v. Huntley, 38 Mich. 537, 646 ; 
 
 Cent. E. Co., 44 N. Y. 465, 45 Barb. 299 ; McKonkey v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 40 
 
 Kissenger v. New York & H. E. Co., 56 N. Iowa, 205 ; Commonwealth v. Fitchburg 
 
 Y. 538; McGovern v. New York Cent. & R. Co., 126 Mass. 472, 120 Mass. 372; 
 
 H. E. E. Co., 67 N. Y. 417, 423 ; Dolan v. Grows v. Maine Cent. E. Co , 67 Me. 100, 
 
 Del. & H. C. Co., 71 N. Y. 285; Casey v. 105 ; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 1 Vroom, 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 78 N. Y. 188, 192 ; Zeigler v. North Eastern E. Co., 
 
 518, 8 Daly, 220, 6 Abbott N. C. 104; 5 S. C. 221, 7 S. C. 402; Bemis v. Conn. 
 
 Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 & P. R. Co., 42 Vt. 375 ; Cohen v. Eureka 
 
 N. Y. 622, 632 ; St. Louis, V., & T. H. E. & P. E. Co., 14 Nev. 376. But see Reeves 
 
 Co. V. Dunn, 78 111. 197 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Del., L., & W. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 454. 
 V. Killips, 88 Pa. St. 405. e Burton v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 4 
 
 2 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Sun- Harring. 252 ; Artz v. Chicago R. I., & 
 
 derland, 2 Brad. (111.) 307. p. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 284, 34 Iowa, 154, 
 
 8 Borst V. Lake Shore & M. S. E. Co., 38 Iowa, 293 ; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. 
 
 4 Hun, 346 ; Warren v. Fitchburg R. Co., v. Stables, 62 III. 313 ; Pryor v. St. Louis, 
 
 8 Allen, 227 ; Wheelock v. Boston & A. R. K. C, & N. R. Co 69 Mo 215 
 
 Co., 105 Mass. 203, 207. 7 wilds v. Hudson River E. Co., 29 
 
 4 Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. o. Toffey, N. Y. 315 ; Massoth ... Del. & H. C. Co., 
 
 9 Vroom. 525. See Lunt v. London & N. 64 N. Y. 524 ; Continental Improvement 
 W. R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 277 ; Wanless v. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161 ; Wabash E. 
 North Eastern R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 481, Co. v. Henks, 91 111. 406 ; Penn. E. Co. v. 
 ^' ?■,!■ ^' ^' ^^' Ze^h, 79 Pa. St. 33 ; Toledo, P., & W. K. 
 
 6 Warner v. New York Cent. E. Co., Co. v. Foster, 43 111. 415; Eockford, E. I., 
 
 44 N. Y. 465 ; Cliicago, B., & Q. B. Co. w. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hillmer, 72 111. 235 • South 
 
 Lee, 68 111. 676 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. & N. A. E. Co. «. Thompson, 62 Ala. 494. 
 v. Harwood, 80 111. 88; Maher v. Atlantic b Jetter v. New York & H. E. Co. 2 
 
mjTJEIES TO TRAVBLLEES ON THE HIGHWAY. 
 
 355 
 
 ning, liable for injuries which the traveller could have avoided 
 by the exercise of ordinary care.^ A traveller, it has been held, 
 may, when about to cross with a train in sight, assume that it is 
 running at a lawful speed .^ 
 
 It has been held that the company must run its trains with 
 more care in villages and cities,* particularly with reference to 
 children, than in the open country, and even run at a less speed ; 
 and that whether the speed was reasonable and lawful is a ques- 
 tion of fact for the jury. ^ Certain signals may well be required in 
 some places which are not in others ; but the requirement of less 
 speed in running through centres of population would interfere 
 greatly with express trains, and should be left to legislative dis- 
 cretion. 
 
 Duty of the Company to avail itself of well-tested Improvements. — 
 
 The duty of the company to avail itself of well-tested inventions 
 and improvements, which materially contribute to safety, has 
 
 Abbott Ct. App. 458, 2 Keyes, 154; 
 Massoth V. Del. & H. C. Co., 64 N. Y. 524, 
 6 Hun, 314; Wasmer v. D., L., & W. E. 
 Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 100; Haas 
 V. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 41 Wis. 44; 
 Correll v. B., C. E., & M. E. Co., 38 Iowa, 
 120; Madison & I. E. Co. v. Taffe, 37 
 Ind. 361; St. Louis & S. E. E. Co. v. 
 Mathias, 50 Ind. 65 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 E. Co. V. O'Connor, 77 111 391 ; St. Louis, 
 v., & T. H. E. Co. V. Dunn,. 78 111. 197; 
 Chicago & A. E. Co. v. Becker, 84 lU. 
 483 ; Baltimore City Pass. R. Co. i;. Mc- 
 Donnell, 43 Md. 534 ; Liddy v. St. Louis 
 R. Co., 40 Mo. 506. The excess of speed 
 beyond legal rate was held not to be 
 evidence of negligence in Brown v. Buf- 
 falo & S. L. E. Co., 22 N. Y. 191. A 
 statute provision against the running of 
 trains beyond a certain rate of speed does 
 not autliorize a running at such a rate 
 under all circumstances. Wabash E. Co. 
 V. Henks, 91 III. 406. See, as to the con- 
 struction of Illinois statute, Pittsburg, C, 
 & St. L. E. Co. V. Knutson, 69 111. 103 ; 
 Lake Shore & M. S. E. Co. v. Berlink, 2 
 Brad. (111.) 427. 
 
 1 Illinois Cent. R. Co. o. Hetherington, 
 83 111. 610. 
 
 2 Langhoff v. Mil., & P. R. Co., 19 
 Wis. 489; Correll v. B., C. E., & M. R. 
 
 Co., 38 Iowa, 120; Schmidt v. Chicago & 
 N. W. E. Co., 83 111. 405. 
 
 3 Fero V. Buffalo & S. L. R, Co., 22 N. 
 Y. 209; Beisiegel v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 34 N. Y. 622, 628 ; Costello i,. Syra- 
 cuse, B., & N. Y. E. Co., 65 Barb. 92; 
 Paducah & M. E. Co. v. Hoehl, 12 Bush, 
 41 ; Norfolk & P. E. Co. c Ormsby, 27 
 Gratt. 455; Isabel i/. Hannibal & St. J. 
 E. Co., 60 Mo. 475 ; Hicks v. Pacific E. 
 Co., 64 Mo. 430; Frick v. St. Louis, K. C, 
 & N. E. Co., 5 Mo. App. 435, 443. 
 
 * Chicago & A. E. Co. v. Gregory, 58 
 111. 226 ; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Gal- 
 breath, 63 111. 436 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. 
 E. Co. V. Knutson, 69 111. 103 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Cragin, 71 111. 177 ; Toledo, W., & 
 W. R. Co. V. Miller, 76 111. 278 ; Chicago 
 & A. E. Co. V. Engle,84 111. 397; Chicago 
 & A. E. Co. u. Becker, 84 111. 483, 76 111. 
 25 ; Lafayette & I. E. Co. v. Adams, 26 
 Ind. 76; Meyer v. Midland Pacific E. Co., 
 2 Neb. 319 ; Brown v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 34 N. Y. 404 ; Cordell v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 70 N.Y. 119 ; Daley 
 V. Norwich & W. U. Co., 26 Conn. 591 ; 
 Reeves v. Del, L., & W. E. Co., 30 Pa. 
 St. 454 ; Phil. & E. E. Co. </. Long, 75 
 Pa. St. 257 ; Penn. E. Co. v. Lewis, 79 Pa. 
 St. 33 ; Pacific E. Co. v. Houts, 12 Kan. 
 328; Kansas Pacific E. Co. v. Ward, 4 
 Col. 30. 
 
356 THE LAW OF BAILBOADS. 
 
 been much considered with reference to its passengers ; ^ but it is 
 a duty which extends also to other persons rightfully using or 
 crossing its track.^ Thus, it should use the brakes which are 
 found to be the most efficient for stopping trains.* 
 
 Whether a headlight or light at other parts of the train should 
 be used is a question of reasonable care, to be determined by the 
 facts of the case.* The company is not under an obligation to 
 trespassers to use the appliances most efficient for safety.* Negli- 
 gence cannot be imputed to the company, from the fact that a 
 train is behind time.^ 
 
 Acts and Omissions of the Company ^vhich are deemed Negligence. 
 — Certain definite acts are deemed negligence in a company in 
 crossing highways, to wit : making of a " running " or " fly- 
 ing " switch, unless special precautions are used for notifying 
 travellers ; ^ starting or moving back a train,* or pushing it 
 back by a locomotive in a reversed position,® without further 
 notice than if the movement were forward ; the running of a 
 train without a sufficient number of brakemen,^" or without an 
 experienced engineer in a much frequented place ; ^' sending a 
 car around a curve or down grade without a brakeman, at a place 
 where the company allowed the public to pass ; ^ and sending a 
 car at night across a frequented street without a brakeman or a 
 light.13 
 
 1 Caldwell v. New Jersey Steamboat Maginnis v. New York Cent. & H. E. R. 
 Co., 47 N. Y. 282. Co., 52 N. Y. 218 ; Weber v. New York 
 
 2 Smith V. New York & H. R. Co., 19 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 451, 457 ; 
 N. Y. 127 ; Gagg v. Vetter, 41 Ind. 228. McGovern v. New York Cent. & H. R. E. 
 
 3 Costello V. Syracuse, B., & N. Y. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417 ; Cordell v. New York 
 Co., 65 Barb. 92. Cent, & H. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 119, 64 N. 
 
 * Cheney v. New York Cent. & H. R. Y. 535; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Pointer, 
 
 E. Co., 16 Hun, 415 ; L. & N. R. Co. v. 14 Kan. 37 ; Robinson v. Western Pacific 
 
 Melton, 2 Lea (Tenn.), 262. R. Co., 48 Cal. 409, 422 ; Mc Williams «. 
 
 5 MoKenna v. New York Cent. & H. Detroit Cent. M. Co., 31 Mich. 274. See 
 
 E. R. Co., 8 Daly, 304. Sutton v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 
 « State u. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 47 Md. Co., 66 N. Y. 243, 4 Hun. 760. 
 
 ''^■, „ " Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Triplett, 
 
 ' Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 38 111. 482. 
 
 N. Y. 597 ; Butler v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., i" Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. McGin- 
 
 28 Wis. 487 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. nis, 71 111. 346 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 Baches, 55 111. 379 ; Chicago & N. W. Pointer, 14 Kan 37, 9 Kan. 620. 
 
 E. Co. V. Taylor, 69 111. 461 ; French v. n O'Mara v. Hudson Eiver R. Co., 38 
 
 Taunton Branch R. Co., 116 Mass. 537. N. Y. 445. 
 
 See Jeffrey v. K. & D. M. E. Co., 51 " Kay v. Penn. R. Co., 65 Pa. St. 269. 
 
 Iowa, 439. IS Chicago & A. R. Co. u. Garvey, 58 
 
 8 Eaton V. Erie E. Co., 51 N. Y. 544; 111. 83. 
 
INJUEIES TO TEAVELLEES ON THE HIGHWAY. 357 
 
 Injiiries from Defective Crossings. — The liability of the company 
 for injuries to travellers on the highway, caused by its negligence 
 in the construction and maintenance of proper crossings, has been 
 considered in an earlier chapter.^ 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. VUI. p. 248. 
 
858 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 IK JURIES TO SEEVAUTS. 
 
 General Doctrine of a Master's Non-liability to a Servant for the Acta 
 of Fellow-servants. — The liability of a common carrier to passen- 
 gers depends on his peculiar contract for safe transportation. 
 The liability of persons lawfully using highways, or exercising 
 other independent rights, is determined by the pervading princi- 
 ple of social duty as well as of the common law, that each must 
 exercise his right with due regard to the equal right of others ; 
 and such liability extends to the acts of servants when performed 
 in the course of their employment. The liability of a master to 
 his servant differs not only from that of the common carrier, but 
 also from that of persons who bear no relation of privity to each 
 other. It is determined by a contract which the law, guided by 
 considerations of public policy, implies from the relation of the 
 parties. The master is under an obligation to each servant to 
 use reasonable care in associating with him servants who are, in 
 fidelity and intelligence, competent for their duties ; but an agree- 
 ment to be responsible to each servant for the particular acts of 
 negligence or breaches of duty of other servants, whom he has 
 used due care in selecting, cannot reasonably be implied from the 
 contract of hiring. The servant, by entering on and continuing 
 in the employment, is presumed to take upon himself its natural 
 and ordinary risks and perils, among which are the negligent 
 acts of fellow-servants, in whose selection the master has used 
 reasonable care, and in legal presumption his compensation is 
 adjusted accordingly. To extend the master's liability further, 
 and hold him liable to his servants in like manner as to third per- 
 sons for the negligent acts of fellow-servants, would, it has been 
 deemed by the best judicial opinion, encourage persons engaged 
 in a common service to be less observant of each other's fidelity, 
 and less disposed to report to the employer instances of their 
 incompetency and untrustworthiness. 
 
INJUKIES TO SBEVANTS. 
 
 359 
 
 The doctrine liere stated was, in England, first declared in 
 1837, by Lord Abinger, in a case since much cited.^ It was held 
 in South Carolina in 1841, in a decision ^ which made no reference 
 to the English authority, and was affirmed in Massachusetts in 
 1842, in an elaborate opinion of Chief Justice Shaw, which has 
 become the leading American case.^ It is now established law in 
 this country,* as well as in England ^ and Scotland.^ 
 
 Where, therefore, persons are employed by a railroad company 
 to perform the same or separate duties, all tending to the accom- 
 plishment of one and the same general purpose or end, — that of 
 the maintenance and management of the railroad, — one person 
 so employed cannot maintain an action against the company for 
 any injury received by him through the careless, negligent, or 
 unskilful act of another engaged in the same service.'^ 
 
 1 Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1. 
 
 2 Murray v. So. Car. E. Co., 1 McMul- 
 len, 385. 
 
 ' Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., i 
 Met. 49. This able opinion has been sev- 
 eral times recognized in Great Britain: 
 Waller v. South Eastern R. Co., 2 Hurl. 
 & C. 102, 111, 112 ; and it is reprinted in 
 3 Macq. 316-322. 
 
 * Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592; 
 Walker v. Boiling, 22 Ala. 294 ; Cook v. 
 Parham, 24 Ala. 21; Camp v. Church 
 Wardens, 7 La. An. 321 ; Fox v. Sand- 
 ford, 4 Sneed, 36 ; McMahon o. David- 
 son, 12 Minn. 357 ; Carle v. Bangor & P. 
 C. & R. Co., 43 Me. 269 ; Price v. Houston 
 Direct Nav. Co., 46 Tex. 535 ; Wood v. 
 New Bedford Coal Co., 121 Mass. 252; 
 Kelley v. Boston Lead Co., 128 Mass. 
 456 ; Halvcrson i>. Nisen, 3 Sawyer, 562 ; 
 2 Southern Law Rev. n. s. 108. 
 
 ^ Wigmore i-. Jay, 6 Exch. 454 ; Love- 
 grove D. London, B., & S. C. R. Co., 16 
 C. B. N. s. 669 ; Lovell v. Howell, L. R. 1 
 C. P. Div. 161 ; Rourke v. White Moss 
 Colliery Co., L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 556. 
 
 6 Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 3 
 Macq. 266 ; Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Mc- 
 Guire, 3 Macq. 300 ; Wilson v. Merry, L. 
 R. 1 H. L. (Scotch) 326. The rule was 
 at first rejected in Scotland. Dixon v. 
 Ranken, 14 Cases Ct. Session, 2d (1852), 
 420. 
 
 ' Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 
 Met. 49; Gilman v. Eastern R. Co., 10' 
 Allen, 233, 13 Allen, 433 ; Honner v. lU. 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 15 111. 550 ; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Cox, 21 III. 20 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 R. Co. V. Durkin, 76 111. 395 ; Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co. V. Scheuring, 4 Brad. (111.) 
 533 ; Harrison v. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 
 293 ; Blake v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 
 60 ; Sherman v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 
 17 N. Y. 153, 15 Barb. 574 ; Warner v. 
 Erie R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468, 470 ; Flike v. 
 Boston & A. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 549 ; Madi- 
 son & L R. Co. V. Bacon, 6 Ind. 205 ; 
 Columbus & L C. R. Co. v. Arnold, 31 
 Ind. 174, 182 ; Ohio & M. R. Co. </. Ham- 
 mersley, 28 Ind. 371 ; Sullivan v. Tole- 
 do, W., & W. R. Co., 58 Ind. 26 ; Sullivan 
 V. Miss. & M. R. Co., 11 Iowa, 421 ; Hunt 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 363 ; 
 Dow V. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 8 Kan. 642 ; 
 Columbus & X. R. Co. v. Webb, 12 Ohio 
 St. 475 ; Colorado Cent. R. Co. v. Ogden, 
 3 Col. 499 ; Hogan v. Cent. Pacific R. Co., 
 49 Cal. 128 ; Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 
 59 Ala. 245 ; Robinson v. Houston & T. 
 C. R. Co., 46 Tex. 540 ; New Orleans, J., 
 & G. N. R. Co. V. Hughes, 49 Miss. 258 ; 
 Flinn v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 1 Houst. 
 (Del.) 469 ; Ponton v. Wil. & W. R. Co., 6 
 Jones (N. C.),245; Hubgh u.New Orleans 
 &C. R. Co., 6 La. An. 495; Mitchell v. 
 Penn. R. Co. (Com. Pleas, Penn), 1 Am. 
 Law Reg. 717 ; Hutchinson v. York, N., & 
 B. R. Co., 5 Exch. 343 ; Skipp v. Eastern 
 Counties R. Co., 9 Exch. 223 ; Lovegrove 
 V. London, B., & S. C. R. Co., 16 C. B. 
 N. s. 669. 
 
360 THE LAW OF KAILROADS. 
 
 The policy and justice of the rule have been sometimes ques- 
 tioned,! and the rule itself has been rejected in two States.^ It 
 has been changed or modified by statute in Iowa ^ and Georgia,* 
 though in the former State only as relating to employees engaged 
 in operating the road. In Wisconsin, it is, by statute, not to be 
 applied to the employees of railroad companies.® Elsewhere in 
 the United States it has been generally adopted, though in some 
 jurisdictions, while nominally accepted, it is so qualified by ex- 
 ceptions and refinements that little remains of it. It is better 
 to reject it altogether than to fritter it away by minute and un- 
 intelligible distinctions.® In Pennsylvania the rule has been 
 extended by statute to other persons not servants of the com- 
 pany, who are employed or engaged on or about its road or 
 works.^ 
 
 Rule applied to Minors. — The rule applies to minors and per- 
 sons of immature judgment who are injured by the negligence of 
 fellow-servants.® But the immaturity and inexperience are to be 
 considered upon a question of the contributory negligence or suflS- 
 ciency of knowledge as to the danger to which they are exposed.^ 
 
 1 Little Miami R. Co. v. Stevens, 20 55. The statute is local, and will not be 
 
 Ohio, 415; Cleveland, C, & C. K. Co. v. applied where the action is brought in 
 
 Keary, 3 Ohio St. 201 ; Burlie v. Norwich another State. Anderson v. Mil. & St. P. 
 
 & W. R. Co., 34 Conn. 474. For Baron R. Co., 37 Wis. 321. 
 Brarawell's defence of the rule, see 11 * Thompson v. Central R. & B. Co., 54 
 
 Cent. L. J. 123. The text of the English Ga. 509 ; Western & A. R. Co. v. Adams, 
 
 " Employers' Liability Bill," defining and 55 Ga. 279; Marsh v. South Carolina B. 
 
 modifying the rule, is given in 22 Albany Co., 56 Ga. 274 ; Georgia, R., & B. Co. a. 
 
 L. J. 276. Rhodes, 56 Ga. 645. 
 
 ^ Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Collins, 2 ^ Berg v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co., 
 
 Duvall, 114 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 7 Northwest. Rep. 847. 
 Robinson, 4 Bush, 507 ; Louisville & N. « Vose v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co., 2 
 
 R. Co. V. Filbern, 6 Bush, 574 ; Louisville, Hurl. & N. 728 ; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 C, & L. R. Co. V. Mahony, 7 Bush, 235 ; Dolan, 32 Mich. 510. 
 Haynes v. East Tenn. & G. R. Co., 3 Cold. 7 Ricard v. North Penn. R. Co., 89 Pa. 
 
 222. It was at first rejected in Wiscon- St. 193. 
 
 sin : Chamberlain v. Mil. & M. R. Co., 11 » King v. Boston & W. R. Co., 9 Cush. 
 
 Wis. 238, 7 Wis. 425 ; but was afterwards 112 ; Brown ». Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592 ; De 
 
 approved in that State : Moseley v. Cham- Graff v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 76 
 
 berlaln, 18 Wis. 700 ; Cooper «. Mil. & P. N. Y. 125, 3 Thomp. & C. 255 ; Ohio & 
 
 R. Co., 23 Wis. 668. M. R. Co. v. Hammersley, 28 Ind. 371; 
 
 « Deppe V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., Sullivan v. Toledo, W., & W. B. Co., 58 
 
 38 Iowa, 592, 36 Iowa, 52 ; Schroeder v. Ind, 26 ; Gartland v. Toledo, W., & W.R. 
 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 344, Co., 67 111. 498 ; Houston & G. N. R. Co. 
 
 47 Iowa, 375 ; MoKnight v. Iowa & M. R. d. Miller, 51 Tex. 270 ; Murphy v. Smith, 
 
 Const. Co., 43 Iowa, 406 ; Potter a. Chi- 19 C. B. n. s. 361. 
 
 cage, R. I., & P. R. Co., 46 Iowa, 399; s Coombs y. New Bedford Cordage Co., 
 
 Pyne !). ChV_go, &c. R. Co., 11 Cent. L. J. 102 Mass. 672; SuUivin i;. India Man. 
 
INJURIES TO SERVANTS. 361 
 
 It has been held not to apply to slaves, who have no freedom 
 of volition.^ It is applied to the construction of statutes giv- 
 ing a right of action to the personal representatives or relatives 
 of a deceased person against parties by whose negligence his 
 death was caused, which are held not to give such right against 
 a master in case of the death of one servant caused by the negli- 
 gence of his fellow-servants.'^ 
 
 Common Service. — The terms " common service or employ- 
 ment " are to be understood in a broad, rather than a limited 
 signification. Employees are associated in such a service when 
 they are engaged in accomplishing the ultimate purpose in view, 
 as the working of the raih'oad,^ and the safe and rapid trans- 
 mission of the trains.* The " common," and not the " common 
 immediate," object is to be regarded.^ The employees are within 
 the relation where one may, in entering the employment, foresee 
 that injuries from the negligence of the other is one of its natural 
 or ordinary risks,^ or where the duties of one necessarily or natu- 
 rally expose him to hazard from the negligence of the other.'' It 
 has been said that all being regarded as fellow-servants who are 
 engaged in the common service of operating the road, " in this 
 sense those employed in facilitating the running of the trains by 
 ballasting the track, removing obstructions, or keeping guard to 
 prevent obstructions, and those employed at stations, attending 
 to switches, and other duties of a like nature upon the road, as 
 well as those upon the trains, operating, may all be well regarded 
 as fellow-servants in the common service." ^ The attempt to 
 
 Co., 113 Mass. 396 ; O'Connor v. Adams, Met. 49, 55 ; Waller v. South Eastern R. 
 
 120 Mass. 427; Hill a. Gust, 55 Ind. 45; Co., 2 Hurl. & C. 102. 
 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. 553 ; ^ Morgan k. Vale of Neath R. Co., L. R. 
 
 Johnson v. Bruner, 61 Pa. St. 58; Grizzle 1 Q. B. 149, 155 ; Lovell v. Howell, L. R. 1 
 
 V. Frost, 3 Post. & P. 622. C. P. Div. 161, 108 ; Charles v. Taylor, 
 
 ' Scudder v. VVoodbridge, 1 Ga. 195 ; L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 492 ; Blake v. Maine 
 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Yandell, 17 B. Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 60. 
 Monr. 586. See Cook v. Parham, 24 Ala. " McAndrews a. Burns, 10 Vroom, 
 
 21. 117, 119, 120; Mullan v. Phil. & S. M. 
 
 2 Hutchinson v. York, N., & B. R. Co., Steamship Co., 78 Pa. St. 25. 
 5 Exeh. 343 ; Wigmore v. Jay, 5 Exch. ' Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Murphy, 53 
 
 354 ; Connor v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 111. 336, 339 ; Valtez v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 
 
 Co., 59 Mo. 285. 85 111. 500, 502; Cumberland & P. R. 
 
 « Hard v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 32 Vt. 473 ; Co. v. State, 44 Md. 283, 292. But see 
 
 Wonder v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 32 Md. 411, Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Moranda, 93 
 
 418 ; Wright v. New York Cent. R. Co., 111. 302 . 
 
 25 N. Y. 562, 665 ; Columbus & I. C. R. ' Manville v. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 11 
 
 Co. V. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174. Ohio St. 417 ; Columbus & I. C. R. Co. 
 
 * Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174, 183. 
 
362 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 split the common service into parts, calling each a particular line 
 of employment, so that service in one is held not to be common 
 with service in another, has been well characterized as " over- 
 refining." ^ 
 
 The servants, in order to be in a common service, need not be 
 performing the same or similar acts, or be engaged in the same 
 operation or particular work, but may be employed in dissimi- 
 lar duties or separate departments of a general business, and 
 brought rarely in proximity to each other. It is sufficient if 
 they are employed by the same master, and are engaged in the 
 same general purpose or undertaking, — the maintenance and 
 working of the railroad.^ The servant who received the injury 
 and the servant who caused it may be fellow-servants, though 
 employed on different trains.^ 
 
 The fact, however, that two persons are in the employ of the 
 same master or company does not necessarily make them co-ser- 
 vants, and their service a common one. If they are exercising aa 
 independent employment, as in the case of legal advisers, financial 
 agents, civil engineers, or contractors, they are not its servants. 
 So, also, although employed wholly under the direction of the 
 company's officers, their service may be of such a purely business 
 or clerical nature, as in the case of book-keepers and ticket 
 agents, that they cannot be regarded as co-servants of employees 
 whose service relates to the working of the trains, or to the con- 
 struction and repair of the road and machinery. The service of 
 such employees is so distinct and remote from that of operating 
 the trains, that they are not presumed to have assumed the risks 
 arising from the negligence of those in charge of them. Their 
 means of ii^forming themselves of the character of such servants 
 
 1 Morgan v. Vale of Neath R. Co., L. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174, 183 ; Valtez v. 
 R. 1 Q. B. 149, 155, 5 B. & S. 670 ; Ohio & M. R. Co., 85 111. 500 ; New Or- 
 Lovell «. Howell, L. R. 1 C. P. Diy. 161, leans, J., &G. N. R. Co. k. Hughes, 49 Miss. 
 168. In Vose v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co., 258 ; Foster v. Minn. Cent. R. Co., 11 
 2Hurl. &N. 728, 734. Pollock, C. B., said, Minn. 360; McAndrews v. Burns, 10 
 "We ought not to allow so important a Vroom, 117: Morgan v. Vale of Neath 
 case (Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1) to R. Co., L. R 1 Q. B. 149, 5 B. & S. 570; 
 be frittered away by minute distinctions, Bartonshill Coal Co. v. Reid, 8 Macq- 
 or the ingenuity of advocates." 266,295; Swainson v. North Eastern R. 
 
 2 Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 Co., L. R. 3 Exch. Div. 341, 344. 
 
 Met. 49, 60 ; Sherman v. Rochester & S. ^ Manville v. Cleveland & T, R. Co., 11 
 
 R. Co., 17 N. Y. 153, 15 Barb. 674 ; Wright Ohio St. 417 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. B. 
 
 V. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 562, Co. v. Devinney, 17 Ohio St. 197 ; Michi- 
 
 28 Barb. 80; Slattery v. Toledo & W. R. gan Cent. R. Co. o. Dolan, 32 Mich. 610; 
 
 Co., 23 Ind. 81 ; Columbus & L C. R. Co. Hayes v. Western R. Co., 3 Cush. 270. 
 
INJUEIBS TO SEEVANTS. 863 
 
 are little better than those of the public, while their control or 
 influence over them is no greater.^ 
 
 Some authorities do not regard employees in a common service 
 unless they are performing similar duties, or employed in the 
 same department of service, or are brought into an immediate 
 connection or relation with each other. With this view laborers 
 on the track have been held not to be in a common service with 
 servants who are managing engines and cars upon it.^ The 
 rule, as qualified and restricted, has been stated to be that the 
 master's liability to one servant for another's negligence exists, 
 unless they were so co-operating at the time of the injury in 
 the business in hand, or their usual duties so brought them into 
 relations of personal association, that they had the power of 
 influencing each other to the exercise of constant caution by 
 counsel, exhortation, and example, or by reporting delinquencies 
 to the master. In applying this rule, the company was held 
 liable to a track-repairer who was injured by a fireman's careless 
 throwing of a lump of coal from a train.* 
 
 The following are illustrations of common service within the 
 rule which exempts the company from liability to one employee 
 for injuries caused by the negligence of another:* engineer and 
 switch-tender ; ^ brakeman and conductor ; ^ brakeman and switch- 
 
 1 Manville v. Cleveland & T. K. Co., 93 111. 302. The opinion reviews at length 
 11 Ohio St. 417, 424; Chicago & A. K. the Illinois cases, and disapproves the 
 Co. «. Keefe, 47 111. 108, 110 ; Chicago & former rule of the court, stated in Chi- 
 A. E. Co. V. Murphy, 53 111. 336, 338. A cago & A. E. Co. v. Murphy, 53 111. 336, 
 porter at a station has been held not to be and approved in Valtez v. Ohio & M. R. 
 in a common service with an engine- Co., 85 111. 500, which was, " When the 
 driver by whose negligence he was in- ordinary duties and occupations of the 
 jured. Warburton v. Great VTestern E. servants of a common master are such 
 Co., L. E. 2 Exoh. 20. See Eourke v. that one is necessarily exposed to hazard 
 White Moss Colliery Co., L. E. 1 C. P. by the carelessness of another, they must 
 Div. 556, 561. be . . . regarded as fellow-servants, with- 
 
 2 Eyan v. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 60 in the meaning of this rule." It may be 
 III. 171 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. noted that the late Chief Justice Breese 
 Co. V. Powers, 74 111. 341 ; Toledo, W., gave the opinion of the court in Valtez v. 
 & W. E. Co. V. O'Connor, 77 111. 391 ; Ohio & M. E. Co., which aflSrmed the 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Moranda, earlier rule, and, after his death, the 
 93 III. 302; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Car- judge who then dissented gave the opin- 
 roll, 6 Heisk. 347 ; Nashville & D. R. Co. ion of the court in Chicago & N. W. R. 
 V. Jones, 9 Heisk. 27. See two early Co. v. Moranda. 
 
 cases in Indiana, Gillenwater v. Madison * In these illustrations the servant first 
 
 & I. R. Co., 5 Ind. 339 ; Fitzpatrick v. New named was injured by the other. 
 
 Albany & S. E. Co., 7 Ind. 436, which ^ Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 
 
 have been overruled in that State. Co- Met. 49 ; Memphis & C. R. Co. u. Thomas, 
 
 lumbus & I. C. R. Co. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 51 Miss. 637. 
 
 174. ° Dow V. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 8 
 
 " Chicago &, N. W. E. Co. v. Moranda, Kan. 642 ; Robinson v. Houston & T. C. 
 
364 
 
 THE LAW OK EAILEOADS. 
 
 tender ; ^ brakeman and engineer ; ^ brakeman and servants who 
 make up and despatch trains ; ^ brakeman and road supervisor ; * 
 brakemen on the same train ° or on different trains ; ^ brakeman 
 and flagman ; ^ conductor and engineer ; ^ fireman and switch- 
 tender ; ^ fireman and engineer ; ^° watchman at a street crossing 
 and switch -tender ; ^^ switch-tender and engineer ;^2 a servant who 
 couples and uncouples cars, and a conductor or engineer ; ^^ a 
 laborer engaged in repairing or constructing the road and his 
 foreman ; i* a laborer in a machine-shop and another employee, 
 although having the charge and direction of the machine and 
 work ; ^^ a laborer on a construction train, and its engineer or con- 
 ductor ; 1^ a laborer engaged in filling trucks with ballast, and 
 pushing them on temporary rails, and a servant who negligently 
 laid an insufficient number of sleepers under the rails ; ^^ labor- 
 ers and mechanics who work upon the road or machinery, and 
 conductors, brakemen, and other servants moving engines upon 
 the track or upon turn-tables ; ^^ laborers on the road or other 
 
 R. Co., 40 Tex. 540 ; Sherman v. Rochester 
 & S. R. Co., 17 N. Y. 153, 15 Barb. 574. 
 
 1 Slattery v. Toledo & W. R. Co., 23 
 Ind. 81. 
 
 " Sherman v. Rochester & S. R. Co., 
 17 N. Y. 153, 15 Barb. 574; Wright v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 562, 28 
 Barb. 80 ; Moran v. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. 96; Illinois Cent. 
 E. Co. V. Keen, 72 III. 512 ; Pittsburg, Ft. 
 W., & C. R. Co. V. Lewis, 33 Ohio St. 
 190; Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 59 
 Ala. 245. 
 
 * Hodgkins u. Eastern R. Co., 119 
 Mass. 419; Rose v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 58 N. Y. 217. 
 
 4 Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 59 Ala. 
 245. 
 
 s Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Rush, 84 111. 
 570. 
 
 ^ Hayes v. Western R. Co., 3 Cush. 
 270. 
 
 ' Cooper V. Mil. & P. R. Co., 23 Wis. 
 668. 
 
 8 Ragsdale y. Memphis & C. R. Co., 3 
 Baxter (Tenn.), 426. 
 
 8 Tinney v. Boston & A. R. Co., 52 
 N. Y. 632, 62 Barb. 218. 
 
 " Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 59 Ala. 
 245. 
 
 » Sammon v. New York & H. R. Co., 
 62 N. Y. 251, 38 N. Y. Superior, 414. 
 
 12 Columbus, C, & I. E. Co. v. Troesch, 
 68 111. 545, 57 lU. 155. 
 
 13 Wilson V. Madison, &c. R. Co., 18 
 Ind. 226. 
 
 1* Weger v. Penn. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 
 460 ; Hofnagle v. New York Cent. & H. 
 R. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 608 ; Zeigler v. Day, 
 123 Mass. 152; Gallagher v. Piper, 16 C. 
 B. N. s. 669. 
 
 1^ Hanrathy v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
 46 Md. 280; Murphy ... Boston & A. E. 
 Co., 59 How. Pr. 197. 
 
 18 Chicago & A. R. Co. o. Keefe, 47 
 111. 108 ; St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. v. Britz, 
 72 III. 256; O'Connell v. Bait. & 0. R. 
 Co., 20 Md. 212. 
 
 1' Lovegrove v. London, B., & S. C. R. 
 Co., 16 C. B. N. s. 669. 
 
 1' Coon V. Syracuse & U. R. Co., 5 N. 
 Y. 492, 6 Barb. 231 ; Boldt v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 18 N. Y. 432; Besel v. New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 
 9 Hun, 457 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Murphy, 53 111. 336 ; Valtez v. Ohio & M. 
 R. Co., 85 111. 500; Whaalan v. Mad 
 River & L. E. R. Co., 8 Ohio St. 249 ; 
 Foster v. Minn. Cent. R. Co., 14 Minn. 
 860 ; Rohback v. Pacific R. Co., 43 Mo. 
 187 ; McGowan v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 
 Co., 61 Mo. 528; Morgan v. Vale of 
 Neath R. Co., L. R. 1 Q. B. 149, 5 B. & S. 
 570. But see Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
INJTJBIES TO SERVANTS. 365 
 
 employees engaged in managing, constructing, or repairing the 
 road while going to or returning from their work on the com- 
 pany's trains, whether passenger or gravel or construction trains, 
 who are injured by the negligence of persons managing the train 
 in which they are carried, or of another which collided with it.^ 
 
 Employees engaged in constructing or -keeping in proper con- 
 dition the road and machines have, in case of injuries arising 
 from their improper construction or condition, been held to be 
 in a common service with the employees who are engaged in 
 operating the road, so that the company is not liable to the lat- 
 ter for such injuries. This has been held where brakemen, fire- 
 men, engineers, or conductors upon a train have been injured by 
 defects in the road or machinery caused by the negligence of ser- 
 vants engaged in constructing or repairing, — as by defective 
 brakes,^ imperfect engines,^ the road-bed out of repair,* or a 
 defective turn-table,^ or leaving obstructions on the road.^ The 
 liability of the company in such cases is, however, usually treated 
 as depending, not upon the relation of the employees to each 
 other, but upon the question whether it has used due care in 
 providing and keeping in good condition the road and its appoint- 
 
 R. Co., 60 111. 171 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & W., & W. R. Co. a. O'Connor, 77 111. 391 ; 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Powers, 74 111. 341 ; Toledo, O'Donnell v. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 59 
 
 W., & W. E. Co. V. O'Connor, 77 111. 391 ; Pa. St. 239; Russell v. Hudson River E. 
 
 Cliicago .& N. W. E. Co. v. Moranda, 93 Co., 5 Duer, 39. The early Indiana cases 
 
 111. 302 ; Chicago & N. W. E. Co. v. Bliss, are qualified by Slattery v. Toledo & W. 
 
 6 Brad. (111.) 411 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. R. Co., 23 Ind. 81 ; Columbus & I. R. Co. 
 
 V. State, 33 Md. 542. v. Arnold, 31 Ind. 174. 
 
 1 Gillshannon v. Stony Brook R. Co., 2 Columbus & X. R. Co. v. Webb, 12 
 
 10 Gush. 228 ; Seaver w. ISoston & M. R., Ohio St. 475 ; Wonder o. Bait. & 0. R. 
 
 14 Gray, 466; Coon u. Syracuse & U. E. Co., 32 Md. 411, 418; McAndrews v. 
 
 Co., 6 N. Y. 492, 6 Barb. 231 ; Ross v. New Burns, 10 Vroom, 117. But see Cliicago 
 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 488 ; & N. W. E. Co. v. Jackson, 55 111. 492. 
 
 Moran v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., « Columbus & I. C. E. Co. v. Arnold, 
 
 67 Barb. 96; Ryan v. Cumberland V. E. 31 Ind. 174; Hard v. Vt.-& C. E. Co., 32 
 
 Co., 23 Pa. St. 384 ; Moss v. Johnson, 22 Vt. 473; Searle v. Lindsay, 11 C. B. n. s. 
 
 III. 6.33 ; Ohio & M. E. Co. v. Tindall, 13 428. But see Toledo, W., & W. R. Go. 
 
 Ind. 366 ; Manville v. Cleveland & T. R. v. Moore, 77 111. 217. 
 
 Co., 11 Ohio St. 417 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., < Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 59 Ala. 
 
 & C. R. Co. u. Devinney, 17 Ohio St. 245 ; New Orleans, J., & G. N.- R. Co. v. 
 
 197 ; Kumler v. Junction E. Co., 33 Ohio Hughes, 49 Miss. 258 ; Waller v. South 
 
 St. 150; Union Pacific R. Co. o. Nichols, Eastern R. Co., 2 Hurl. & C. 102. But 
 
 8 Kan. 505 ; Kansas Pacific E. Co. v. see Chicago, B., & Q. E. Go. u. Gregory, 
 
 Salmon, 11 Kan. 83 ; Hutchinson v. York, 58 111. 272. 
 
 N., & B. E. Co., 5 Exch. 343 ; Tunney 5 Honner u. 111. Cent. E. Co., 15 111. 
 
 V. Midland E. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 291. 550. 
 
 But see Gillenwater v. Madison & I. R. " Holden v. Fitchburg R. Co., 129 
 
 Co., 5 Ind. 339; Fitzpatrick v. New Mass. 
 Albany & S. E. Co., 7 Ind. 436; Toledo, 
 
366 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 ments ; and its duty in this regard is the same whether the work 
 is done by its servants or by contractors.^ 
 
 Equality of Grade not material. — Equality of grade is not essen- 
 tial to a common service ; and where the duties of employees 
 relate to the same end, the master is not liable to servants in a 
 subordinate position for injuriescaused by the negligence of a ser- 
 vant to M'hose directions the)'- are subject.^ 
 
 Subordination in service has been treated by some authorities 
 as having the effect to prevent the service being regarded as a 
 common one, and to make the employer liable for injuries to ser- 
 vants caused by the negligence of a servant to whose control and 
 directions they are subject. Thus, the company was held liable 
 to an engineer or brakeman for an injury resulting from the neg- 
 ligence of the conductor, who directed the movements of the train. 
 By this rule, it is required not only to exercise ordinary care in the 
 employment of such superior servant, but is held to warrant his 
 competency and fidelity, and the continued exercise of those quali- 
 ties at all times. This modification of the general doctrine, which 
 is peculiar to Ohio, has found little favor in other States ; but it 
 does not differ in principle from the limitation which treats supe- 
 rior employees as the immediate representatives of the common 
 master, and gives to their negligence, even between servants, the 
 same effect as if it were his own.^ 
 
 1 Ford V. Fitchburg R. Co., 110 Mass. Delaware & H. C. Co. v. Carroll, 89 Pa. 
 
 240, 260; Shanny v. Androscoggin Mills, St. 374; O'Connell v. Bait. & O. R. Co., 
 
 66 Me. 420 ; Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. 20 Md. 212 ; Cumberland C. & I. Co. 
 
 State, 44 Md. 283. v. Scally, 27 Md. 589 ; Wonder v. Bait. 
 
 ^ Albro V. Agawam Canal Co., 6 Cush. & 0. R. Co., 32 Md. 411 ; Thayer v. 
 
 75 ; Gilman v. Eastern R. Co., 13 Allen, St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co., 22 Ind. 26 ; 
 
 433; O'Connor y. Roberts, 120 Mass, 227 ; Columbus & L C. R. Co. u. Arnold, 31 
 
 Zeigler v. Day, 123 Mass. 152 ; Lawler v. Ind. 174, 182 ; Robinson v. Houston & T. 
 
 Androscoggin R. Co., 62 Me. 463 ; Blake C. R. Co., 46 Tex. 540 ; Mobile & M. R. 
 
 V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 60 ; Hard Co. v. Thomas, 42 Ala. 672 ; Mobile & 0. 
 
 V. Vt. & C. R. Co., 32 Vt. 463 ; Coon v. R. Co. o. Smith, 59 Ala. 245 ; Wilson v. 
 
 Syracuse & U. R. Co., 5 N. Y. 492, 6 Merry, L. R. 1 H. L. (Scotch) 326; 
 
 Barb. 238 ; Sherman v. Rochester & S. Feltham v. England, L. R. 2 Q. B. 33. 
 R. Co., 17 N. Y. 155, 15 Barb. 574; a Little Miami R. Co. v. Stevens, 20 
 
 Wright V. New York Cent. R. Co., 26 Ohio, 415, 7 West. Law Jour. 369, 13 Law 
 
 N. Y. 562, 28 Barb. 80; Warner r. Erie R. Reporter, 74; Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. 
 
 Co., 39 N. Y. 468 ; Laning v. New York v. Keary, 8 Ohio St. 201 ; Whaalan v. 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521, 528; Hofnagle Mad River & L. E. R. Co., 8 Ohio St. 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 55 249 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 N. Y. 608, 1 Thomp. & C. 346 ; Malone Devinney, 17 Ohio St. 197 ; Berea Stone 
 
 V. Hathaway, 04 N. Y. 5 ; Ryan v. Cum- Co. v. Kraft, 31 Ohio St. 287 ; Pittsburg, 
 
 berland Valley R. Co., 23 Pa. St. 384, 386 ; Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. Lewis, 33 Ohio St. 
 
INJURIES TO SEKVANTS. 367 
 
 The Company's ITegligence as distinguished from a Servant's. — 
 The master is liable to his servant for the consequences of his 
 own negligence or misfeasance. His breach of duty is not one 
 of the ordinary risks of service which the employee undertakes. 
 It may consist in employing, without due caution, incompetent or 
 careless servants, in providing unsafe tools and structures, the 
 deficiencies of which he knew or ought to have known, or in 
 failing to notify the servant of peculiar dangers, known to him- 
 self, but not known to the servant.^ 
 
 The master may, by withdrawing himself from the management 
 of his business, and putting it in the hands of another with full 
 powers to act for him, make such substitute's act his own, and 
 become liable for his injuries to servants in like manner as if they 
 were personally committed by himself.^ As a corporation acts 
 only through officers and agents, it becomes in many cases a de- 
 cisive question what officers or agents so stand for the corpora^ 
 tion that their acts, negligence, or knowledge are to be deemed 
 the acts, negligence, or knowledge of the corporation itself.'' Gen- 
 erally, where the personal presence of the directors and officers 
 of the corporation is not practicable, the subordinates appointed 
 by them are to be regarded as the servants of the corporation 
 and fellow-servants of other employees.* The question whether 
 the agent is in law its alter ego, so that his act, negligence, or 
 knowledge is to be deemed its act, negligence, or knowledge, 
 depends much upon the question whether the function or duty 
 involved admits of delegation, or is one for the proper perform- 
 ance of which the corporation must always remain responsible, 
 irrespective of its care in the choice of intermediate agencies.^ 
 
 196, 200 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Col- 30 ; Wilson v. Merry, L. R. 1 H. L. 
 
 Una, 2 Duvall, 114; Louisville, C, & L. (Scotch) 326. 
 
 R. Co. V. Cavens, 9 Bush, 559 ; Mann v. ^ Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517 ; 
 
 Oriental Print Works, 11 R. I. 152. Malone v. Hathaway, 64 N. Y. 6, 6 Thomp. 
 
 1 Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 410; Kee- & C. 1 ; Eagan v. Tucker, 18 Hun, 346 ; 
 
 gan V. Western R. Co., 8 N. Y. 175, 181 ; Heiner v. Heuvelraan, 45 N. Y. Superior, 
 
 Connolly c. Poillon, 41 Barb. 366 ; Albro 88 ; Brothers v. Cartter, 52 Mo. 372 ; 
 
 t>. Agawam Canal Co., 6 Cush. 75, 77 ; Walker v. Boiling, 22 Ala. 294 ; MuUan v. 
 
 Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray, 274 ; Walker v. Phil. & S. M. Steamship Co., 78 Pa. St. 
 
 Boiling, 22 Ala. 294 ; Cook «. Parham, 24 25; McAndrews v. Burns, 10 Vroom, 
 
 Ala. 21 ; Perry u. Marsh, 25 Ala. 659 ; 117 ; Murphy v. Smith, 19 C. B. n. s. 361.' 
 
 Brothers v. Cartter, 52 Mo. 372 ; Buzzell = King v. Boston & W. R. Co., 9 Cush. 
 
 V. Laconia Man. Co., 48 Me. 113 ; Ormond 112. 
 
 V. Holland, El., B. & El. 102; Tarrant v. * Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Dolan, 32 
 
 Webb, 18 C. B. 797 ; Paterson v. Wallace, Mich. 510, 513. 
 
 1 Macq. 748; Brydon v. Stewart, 2 Macq. ' Rose w. Boston & A. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 
 
368 
 
 THE LA"W OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 It is difScult to state the general result of the decisions which 
 undertake to discriminate between an employee who is to be 
 deemed a servant only, and one who is to be deemed in legal 
 effect the master. Some have treated very subordinate employees 
 as the immediate representatives of the company, and " have led 
 very far towards destroying all means of discernment." ^ The 
 more frequent test has been the power to select and discharge 
 servants ; and an agent having the power has been treated, so far 
 as such servants are concerned, as the corporation itself.^ The 
 following are illustrations of officers and agents who have been so 
 regarded: The directors acting as an official body;^ a general 
 officer, agent, manager, or superintendent having the power to em- 
 ploy and discharge employees ; * an assistant superintendent ; ^ an 
 agent having the entire charge of a distinct department ; ^ a 
 superintendent or "boss" having the charge of the construction 
 or repair of works upon the road, with power to employ and 
 discharge employees ; " a yard-master, or head brakeman, or coh- 
 
 217 ; Hofnagle v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 R. Co., 5.5 N. Y. 608 ; Besel v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 9 Hun, 
 457 ; Booth v. Boston & A. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 
 38, 07 N. Y. 593 ; Ford o. Fitcliburg R. Co., 
 110 Mass. 240; Mobile & M. R. Co. v. 
 Smith, 59 Ala. 245 ; Tyson v. South & N. 
 A. R. Co., 61 Ala. 554 ; Bridges ^. St. 
 Louis, I. M., & S. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 
 389 ; Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 
 U. S. 213, 218. 
 
 1 Mich. Cent. R. Co. v. Dolan, 32 
 Mich. 510, 514. 
 
 " See cases in notes immediately fol- 
 lowing. The power to employ and dis- 
 charge servants is, however, not a final 
 test. Crispin v. Babbitt, 10 N. Y. Week. 
 Dig. 512, 
 
 8 Fifield V. Northern R. Co., 42 N. H. 
 225 ; Columbus & I. C. R. Co. v. Arnold, 
 31 Ind. 174; Rose v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 58 N. Y. 217, 220. See Warner v. Erie 
 R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468, 476. 
 
 < Laning v. New Yorlc Cent. R. Co., 
 49 N. Y. 521; Brickner u. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 2 Lans. 506, 49 N. Y. 672; 
 Hofnagle v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 55 N. Y. 008 ; Bauleo v. New York & 
 H. R. Co., 59N. Y. 350, 62 Barb. 623 ; Cor- 
 coran i.'. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517 ; Malone 
 V. Hathaway, 64 N. Y. 5 ; Besel v. New 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 
 
 9 Hun, 457 ; Fort v. Whipple, 11 Hun, 
 586; Frazier u. Penn. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 
 104 ; Ardesco Oil Co. v. Gilson, 63 Pa. 
 St. 146 ; Patterson o. Pittsburg & C R. 
 Co., 76 Pa. St. 389; Huntingdon & B. T. 
 R. & Coal Co. V. Decker, 82 Pa. St. 119, 
 84 Pa. St. 419 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. 
 Salmon, 11 Kan. 83; Washburn v. Nash- 
 ville & C. R. Co., 3 Head, 688 ; Cumber- 
 land & P. R. Co. V. State, 44 Md. 283; 
 Quincy Mining Co. v. Kitts, 9 Reporter, 
 86. But see Howells v. Landore Steel 
 Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 62; Mobile & M. R. 
 Co. u. Smith, 59 Ala. 245. But see How- 
 ells V. Landore Steel Co., L. R. 10 Q. B. 
 62. 
 
 ^ Colorado Cent. R. Co. v. Ogden, 3 
 Col. 499; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. 
 McLallen, 84 111. 109. 
 
 15 MuUan v. Phil. & S. M. Steamship 
 Co., 78 Pa. St. 25. 
 
 ' Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Little, 19 
 Kan. 267 ; Lewis o. St. Louis & I. M. R. 
 Co., 59 Mo. 495; Wlialen v. Centenary 
 Church, 62 Mo. 326; Cook v. Hannibal & 
 St. J. R. Co., 03 Mo. 397; Devany v. 
 Vulcan Iron Works, 4 Mo. App. 236; 
 Deppe V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 38 
 Iowa, 592, 36 Iowa, 52 ; Louisville & N. 
 R. Co. V. Bowler, 9 Heisk. 806 ; Steven- 
 son V. Jewett, 16 Hun, 210. Contm, Bar- 
 ringer V. Del. & H. C. Co., 19 Hun, 216 : 
 
INJURIES TO SERVANTS. 869 
 
 « 
 
 ductor, who directs the making up of the trains and the distribution 
 of cars, and who hires and discharges his assistants; ^ an employee 
 with the mixed duties of engineer, superintendent, and conductor, 
 who employs and discharges men, and has charge of a section 
 of the road ; ^ and a foreman having charge of the machinery or 
 its repairs.^ 
 
 Some authorities, which hold the company liable for injuries to 
 a servant on the ground that the negligent servant who did the 
 injury was its alter ego, come also within the rule that the com- 
 pany cannot by any delegation of authority relieve itself of its 
 duty to use reasonable care in providing proper machinery and 
 a safe road, and in employing a sufficient force of competent and 
 faithful servants ; and that it is liable where an employee to 
 whom it intrusts the duty fails to perform it.* 
 
 The Plaintiff within the Rule only when he was the Defendant's Ser- 
 vant at the Time of the Injury. — The rule which excludes the ser- 
 vant's right of action applies only where the relation of master and 
 servant exists. A person is liable for his servant's torts to one 
 who, though generally employed in his service, was not at the time 
 acting as his servant.^ The company is liable for its servant's 
 torts to the servants of a contractor who is exercising an inde- 
 pendent employment, the hitter's servants not being its servants.^ 
 
 Crispin v. Babbitt, 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. < Fifield ... Northern R. Co., 42 N. H. 
 
 512; Hamilton v. Iron Mt. Co., 4 Mo. 225; Laning u. New York Cent. R Co., 
 
 App. 564; Mobile & M. R. Co. t. Smitli, 49 N. Y. 521, 532 ; Bauleo v. New York 
 
 59 Ala. 245. & H. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 356, 62 Barb. 623 
 
 1 Flike V. Boston & A. R. Co., 53 N. Corcoran v. Holbrook, 59 N. Y. 517 
 Y. 549; Booth V. Boston & A. R. Co , 73 Booth ,,. Boston & A. R. Co., 73 N. Y 
 N. Y. 38; McCosker v. Long Island R. 38; Stevenson v. Jewett, 16 Hun, 210 
 Co., 21 Hun, 500, 59 How. Pr. 258 ; Tyson Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. State, 44 Md 
 V. South &N. A. R. C6.,61 Ala. 554. But 283; Lewis ■/. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co. 
 see Hodgkins v. Eastern R. Co., 119.Mass. 59 Mo. 495. See Oilman v. Eastern R, 
 419; Rose v. Boston & A. R. Co., 58 N. Y. Co., 13 Allen, 4.33, 441 ; Coombs v. New 
 217 ; Besel c. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Bedford Cordage Co., 102 Mass. 572, 579 
 Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 9 Hun, 457. ^ Hutchinson v. York, N., & B. R. Co. 
 
 2 Dibbin v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 81 5 Exch. 343, 352; Tunney v. Midland R 
 N. c. 446. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 291, 296 ; Washburn v. 
 
 8 Brabitts v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Nashville & C. R. Co., 3 Head, 638. 
 
 38 Wis. 289 ; Stevenson v. Jewett, 16 « Burke v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 34 
 
 Hun, 210. But see Barringer i,. Del. Conn. 474 ; Young !'. New York Cent. 
 
 & H. C. Co., 19 Hun, 216 ; Hofnagle v. R. Co., 30 Barb. 229 ; Stone -. Western 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 55 N. Trans. Co., 38 N. Y. 240 ; Ominger v. New 
 
 Y. 608 ; Weger v. Penn. R. Co., 55 Pa. York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 6 Thomp. & 
 
 St. 460; Zeigler v. Day, 123 Mass. 152 ; C. 498 ; Goodfellow v. Boston, H., & E. R. 
 
 Wilson ». Merry, L. E. 1 H. L. (Scotch) Co., 106 Mass. 461 ; Donaldson v. Miss. & 
 
 826. M. R. Co , 18 Iowa, 280 ; Abraham v. Rey- 
 
 24 
 
370 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 If two companies use the same railroad or station, each, however, 
 employing its servants independently of the other, the one com- 
 pany is liable for the torts of its servants to those of the other in 
 the same manner as to strangers.^ 
 
 The company's servants cannot recover against it for injuries 
 resulting solely from the negligence of the servants of other com- 
 panies which are allowed by it, under an agreement or lease, to 
 run their trains on its track, as its servants are presumed to have 
 taken the risks of such negligence as one of the ordinary perils of 
 their service.^ The company has, however, been held liable to 
 its employees for the defective road of another corporation used 
 by it in the same manner as if the road was its own.^ 
 
 A mere business connection between two companies, by which 
 tickets are sold by each over the other's road, does not make the 
 servants of one th^ co-servants of those of the other.* 
 
 The rule which relieves the master from liability for torts com- 
 mitted by one servant on another does not apply where a servant 
 sues the master for the loss of his wife's society and services, 
 caused by the negligence of his fellow-servant.^ 
 
 A person who undertakes to assist a servant without the mas- 
 ter's request cannot recover against the master for an injury 
 caused by the servant's negligence.® 
 
 Negligence as to Machinery and Hoad. — The company, like any 
 master, is under an obligation to its servants to use reasonable 
 care to provide and maintain a safe road-bed, and suitable machin- 
 ery, engines, cars, and other appointments of the railroad, and 
 is liable to them for injuries resulting from defects which it knew, 
 
 nolds, 5 Hurl. & N. 143. But see Michi- 2 ^lark v. Chica-go, B., & Q. R. Co., 
 
 gan Cent. li. CorB. Leahy, 10 Mich. 193; 92 HI. 43, 2 Brad. (111.) 596. 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cox, 21 111. 20; 3 Stetler o. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 
 
 Johnson o. Boston, 118 Mass. 114; Wig- 46 Wis. 497. 
 
 gett I'. Fox, 11 Exch. 8.32. < Carroll o, Minn. Valley R. Co., 13 
 
 1 Smith V. New York & H. R. Co., 19 Minn. 30. 
 N. Y. 127, 6 Duer, 225 ; Snow v. Housa- 5 Gannon v. Housatonic R. Co., 112 
 
 tonic U. Co., 8 Allen, 441 ; Farwell v. Mass. 234. 
 
 Boston & W. E. Co., 4 Met. 49, 61 ; Cata- " Osborne v. Knox & L. R. Co., 68 
 wissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 49 Pa. St. Me. 49 ; New Orleans, J., & G. N. E. Co. 
 186; Vose v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co., 2 v. Harrison, 48 Miss. 112; Degg v. Mid- 
 Hurl. & N. 728; Warburton v. Great land R. Co., 1 Hurl. & N. 773; Swainson 
 Western R. Co., L. R. 2 Exch. 30 ; v. North Eastern R. Co., L. E. 8 Exch. 
 Swainson v. North Eastern R. Co., L. E. Div. 341, 349, 351. 
 3 Exch. Dir. 341. See Cruty v. Erie R. 
 Co., 3 Thomp. & C. 244, 
 
INJDEIES TO SERVANTS. 
 
 371 
 
 or ought to have known, and could have prevented by the exercise 
 of such care ; and it is under the same duty and liability to main- 
 tain these instrumentalities in proper condition. The servant 
 assumes the natural risks of his employment, but not those which 
 the wrongful act of the employer has superadded.^ But if the 
 company exercises reasonable or ordinary care in making and 
 continuing such provision for the safety of employees, it is not 
 liable to them for injuries resulting from defects in the road or 
 machinery. It does not warrant the completeness of either, and 
 is not responsible for latent defects, except so far as they are dis- 
 coverablj) on proper inspection. The employees are presumed to 
 take the natural risks of injuries incident to their employment, 
 and not arising from its negligence.^ The company is not liable, 
 
 1 Keegan v. "Western R. Co., 8 N. Y. 
 175; Wright v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 25 N. Y. 562 ; Laning v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521 ; Leonard v. Collins, 
 70 N. Y. 90 ; Besel v. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 571 ; Kain v. Smith, 
 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 176 ; Cone v. D., L., 
 & W. R. Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 232 ; 
 Plank V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 1 Thomp. & C. 319; King c. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 76U; Cone v. 
 Del., L., & W. R. Co., 15 Hun, 172; Ste- 
 venson V. Jewett, 16 Hun, 210; De Forest 
 V. Jewett, 19 Hun, 509; Noyes v. Smith, 28 
 Vt. 59 ; Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Bar- 
 ber, 5 Ohio St. 541 ; Lake Shore & M. S. 
 R. Co. V. Fitzpatrick, 31 Ohio St. 479; 
 Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. State, 44 Md. 
 283 ; Ford v. Fitchburg R. Co., 110 Mass. 
 240 ; Harkins v. Standard Sugar Refinery, 
 122 Mass. 400 ; Hough v. Texas & P. R. 
 Co., 100 U. S. 213; Slianny v. Androscog- 
 gin Mills, 66 Me. 420; Fifield v. Northern 
 R. Co., 42 N. H. 225; Muldowney v. 111. 
 Cent. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 462, 39 Iowa, 015; 
 Cooper c/. Central R. Co., 44 Iowa, 134; 
 Braun v. Chicago, R. I., & P. li. Co., 10 
 Reporter, 202 ; Bridges i,'. St. Louis, I. U., 
 & S R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 389 ; McMillan 
 V. Union Press-Brick Works, 6 Mo. App. 
 434 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 
 111. 338 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Swett, 
 45 III. 197 ; Schooner Norway u. Jensen, 
 62 III. 373; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Jackson, 55 111. 492 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 w. Patterson, 69 111.650; Toledo, W., & 
 W. R. Co. V. Fredericks, 71 111. 294; To- 
 
 ledo, W., & W. R. Co. V. Moore, 77 111. 
 217; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. In- 
 graham, 77 111. 309 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 R. Co. V. Asbury, 84 111. 429 ; Wedgwood 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 41 Wis. 478, 
 44 Wis. 44 ; Bessex v. Chicago & N. W. 
 R. Co., 45 Wis. 477; Colorado Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Ogden, 3 Col. 499 ; Howd v. Miss. 
 Cent. R. Co., 50 Miss. 178; Brickman v. 
 South Carolina R. Co., 8 S. C. 173 ; Hous- 
 ton & T. R. Co. V. Oram, 49 Tex. 341 ; 
 Roberts v. Smith, 2 Hurl. & N. 213. The 
 duty to fence dangerous machinery is 
 sometimes imposed by statute. Britton 
 V. Great Western Cotton Co., L. R. 7 
 Exch 130. 
 
 2 Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Barber, 
 
 5 Ohio St. 541 ; Columbus & X. R. Co. v. 
 Webb, 12 Ohio St. 475; Indianapolis & 
 C. R. Co. V. Love, 10 Ind. 554 ; Columbus 
 
 6 L C. R. Co. «. "Arnold, 31 Ind. 174; 
 Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. u. Huntley, 38 
 Mich. 237; Harrison u. Central R. Co., 2 
 Vroom, 293 ; Honner v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 
 15 111. 550 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phil- 
 lips, 49 111. 234 ; Columbus, C, & I. C. R. 
 Co. V. Troesch, 68 111. 545, 57 111 155 ; 
 Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Conroy, 68 
 111. 560, 61 111. 162; Toledo, W., & W. R. 
 Co. V. Fredericks, 71 111. 294; Camp Point 
 Man. Co. v. Ballou, 71 111. 417 ; Toledo, 
 W., & W. R. Co. 0. Ingraham, 77 111.309; 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Piatt, 89 111. 141 ; 
 Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. v. Toy, 91 
 111. 474 ; Morris v. Gleason, 1 Brad. (111.) 
 510; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mahony, 4 
 Brad. (111.) 262 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 
372 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 where it uses due care, for a mistake of judgment in the choice 
 of machinery and mode of constructing the road ; ^ or where, 
 having used due care in employing persons to construct its road 
 or machinery, they proved in fact incompetent ; ^ or where, it has 
 been held, having provided a competent inspector, he failed, in a 
 particular instance, to perform his duty.^ 
 
 The duty of the company to use reasonable care in providing 
 proper machinery is the same, whether it purchases the machinery 
 of others or is itself the manufacturer.* 
 
 The duty to use such care in providing proper machinery and 
 a sufficient force of competent servants is not dischg,rged by 
 delegating it to an agent, and the company still remains responsi- 
 ble for its performance. " It is," as has been said, " a dut}' or con- 
 tract to be affirmatively and positively fulfilled and performed." ^ 
 
 Scheuring, 4 Brad. (III.) 53-3; North Chi- 
 cago Rolling Mills Co. o. Monka, 4 Brad. 
 (111.) 664; Price v. Henagan, 5 Brad. (111.) 
 234; Colorado Cent. R. Co. u. Ogden, 3 
 Col. 499; Conway v. 111. Cent. R. Co.,' 50 
 Iowa, 465 ; Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. Thomas, 
 42 Ala. 672; Smith v. St. Louis, K. C, & 
 N. R. Co., 69 Mo. 32; Porter v. Hannibal 
 & St. J. R. Co., 9 Reporter, 549 ; Wonder 
 V. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 32 Md. 411 ; Hanrathy 
 V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 46 Md. 280 ; Bal- 
 timore & 0. R. Co. V. Strieker, 51 Md. 47 ; 
 Steffen v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co:, 46 Wis. 
 259; Leonard v. Collins, 70 N. Y. 90; De 
 GrafE v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 76 N. Y. 125, 3 Thomp. & C. 2-55; Holden 
 V. Fitchburg R. Co., 129 Mass. ; Potts 
 V. Port Carlisle, D., & R. Co., 2 L. T. N. s. 
 283. See Webb u. Rennie, 4 Post. & F. 
 608. There are authorities which go far 
 towards carrying the liability of the com- 
 pany to its servants for defects in its road 
 and other appointments, including the 
 competency and sufficiency in number of 
 its employees, to the full extent of its 
 liability to third parties, or even to pas- 
 sengers. Snow V. Housatonic R. Co., 8 
 Allen, 441; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Swett, 46 III. 197 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 V. Sullivan, 63 III. 293. See Toledo, P., 
 & W. R. Co. V. Conroy, 68 III. 560, 567, 61 
 111. 162. For comments on Snow y. Housa- 
 tonic R. Co., see Tinney v. Boston & A. 
 E. Co., 62 Barb. 218, 52 N. Y. 632; Har- 
 rison V. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 293, 300. 
 1 De Forest v. Jewett, 19 Hun, 509. 
 
 2 Mansfield Coal & C. Co. v. McEnery, 
 37 Leg. Int. 28. 
 
 3 Columbus & X. R. Co. v. Webb, 12 
 Ohio St. 475 ; Columbus & I. R. Co. v. 
 Arnold, 31 Ind. 174. But see Braun ». 
 Chicago, R. L, & P. R. Co., 10 Reporter, 
 202, which holds that the duty of inspec- 
 tion must be continuously and positively 
 performed. 
 
 « Ford V. Fitchburg E. Co., 110 Mass. 
 240 (explained in Holden v. Fitchburg R. 
 Co , 129 Mass. ) ; Shanny v. Androscog- 
 gin Mills Co., 66 Me. 420 ; Hough v. Texas 
 & P. E. Co., 100 U. S. 213 ; Chicago & N. 
 W. R. Co. V. Jackson, 55 111. 492 : Toledo, 
 W., & W. E. Co. V. Insraham, 77 III. 309. 
 
 ' Laning v New York Cent. R. Co., 
 49 N. Y. 521, 532; Brickner v. New York 
 Cent. E. Co., 2 Lans. 506; Tinney v. 
 Boston & A. R. Co., 52 N. Y. 632, 62 
 Barb 218; Flike v. Boston & A. R Co., 
 53 N. Y. 549 ; Besel v. New York Cent. & 
 H. R. E. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 9 Hun, 457; 
 Booth V. Boston & A. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 38, 
 67 N. Y. 693 ; Kirkpatrick v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 79 N. Y. 240 ; Har- 
 vey t'. New York Cent. & H. E. E. Co., 19 
 Hun, 556 ; Oilman i\ Eastern R. Co., 13 Al- 
 len, 433, 442, 443 ; Ford v. Fitchburg R. 
 Co., 110 Mass. 240 ; Harkins r. Standard 
 Sugar Refinery, 122 Mass. 400, 404, 405; 
 Cumberland & P. E. Co. u. State, 44 Md. 
 283 ; Patter.<!on v. Pittsburg & C. E. Co., 76 
 Pa. St. 389 ; Huntingdon & B. T. E. & Coal 
 Co. V. Decker, 82 Pa. St. 119, 84 Pa. St. 
 419 ; Hough v. Texas & P. E. Co., 100 U. S. 
 
ENJTJEIES TO SEKVANTS. 373 
 
 The company is not liable for an injury to a servant caused by 
 the breaking of a switch, without proof that it was negligent in 
 constructing or inspecting it.^ It is liable to him for an injury 
 caused by the explosion of an engine only when negligent in not 
 discovering and removing the defect.^ 
 
 The company is not liable to a servant emploj^ed upon a train 
 for an injury from the falling of a railroad bridge caused by decay 
 in its timbers, where the bridge was originally built in a proper 
 manner, and the company had required it, with sufficient fre- 
 quency, to be inspected by competent persons, who, in applying 
 the customary tests, did not discover the defect.^ But it will be 
 liable if it knew of the defect, or failed for want of a proper inspec- 
 tion to discover it.* 
 
 The company's knowledge of a defect must be proved in order 
 to make it liable for the consequences;^ but such knowledge 
 may be shown by circumstances,' as the length of time it existed 
 before the injury,*' or by a notice given to an employee who had 
 an express or implied authority to receive itJ The fact that the 
 servant complained of a defect in the road or its appointment, is 
 admissible in proof of the company's knowledge.^ 
 
 Duty as to New Inventions. — The company's duty to its em- 
 ployees does not require it to adopt every new invention, even 
 
 213; Houston & T. C. E. Co. v. Dunham, Co., 32 Vt. 473; Keegan v. Western E. 
 
 49 Tex. 181; Lewis «. St.Louis, I. M., &S. Co., 8 N. Y. 175; Hubgh d. New Orleans 
 
 R. Co., 59 Mo. 495 ; Bridges v. St. Louis & C. E. Co., 6 La. An. 495 ; Ford v. 
 
 & I. M. B. Co., 6 Mo App. 389. The case Fitchburg E. Co., 110 Mass. 240. 
 
 of Booth ^. Boston & A. R. Co., 73 N. ' Warner v. Erie R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468, 
 
 Y. 38, seems to draw a distinction be- 49 Barb. 558 ; Faullcner v. Erie E. Co., 
 
 tween the negligence of the company in 49 Barb. 324 ; Harrison v. Central R. Co., 
 
 not supplying a sufficient force of em- 2 Vroom, 293 ; McDermott v. Pacific R. 
 
 ployees in general, and the omission of Co., 30 Mo. "115; Brothers o. Cartter, 52 
 
 a subordinate who is in immediate charge Mo. 372 ; Mansfield Coal & C. Co. u. Mc- 
 
 to use it in a particular instance, to which Enery, 37 Leg. Int. 28. 
 
 a uniform rule could not be applied, the * Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Conroy, 
 
 company being liable in the former case, 68 111. 560, 61 111. 102. ^ 
 
 but not in the latter. * Columbus, C, & L C. E. Co. u. 
 
 1 King V. Boston & W. R. Co., 9 Cush. Troeseh, 68 111. 545, 57 111. 155 ; Chicago 
 112; Ladd v. New Bedford R. Co., 119 & A. E. Co. .;. Piatt, 89 111. 141. 
 
 Mass. 412. " Chicago & I. E. Co. v. Eussell, 91 
 
 2 Columbus, C, & L C. E. Co. v. 111.298; Bridges ,.. St. Louis, I. M., & S. 
 Troeseh, 68 111. 545, 57 111. 155 ; Chicago R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 389; Holden v. Fitch- 
 & A. E. Co. 0. Shannon, 43 111. 338; burg R. Co., 129 Mass. 
 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Moore, 77 ' Brabbits v. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 
 
 111. 217 ; East St. Louis, P., & P. Co v. 38 Wis. 289. 
 
 Hightower, 92 111. 139; Indianapolis, B., 8 Harvey v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 & W. R. Co. 1). Toy, 91 111. 474 ; Noyes v. E. Co., 19 Hun, 556. 
 
 Smith, 28 Vt. 59; Hard v. Vt. & C. E. 
 
374 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 though such inTention may diminish the risk incident to their 
 service. It fulfils its duty to them when, without misleading them 
 or putting them off their guard, it uses machinery and appliances 
 which are in common use, although some other may have superior 
 merits.^ It may continue to use carriages, rails, and machinery 
 which have become worn or defective, where the employee knows 
 their condition.^ It is not chargeable with negligence in using 
 " double buffers," though their use requires employees to practise 
 a greater degree of care to save themselves from harm.^ The 
 company is not presumed to have a knowledge of improvements 
 conducive to safety superior to that of an experienced mechanic 
 employed in its shops.* 
 
 Negligence as to the Employment of Servants. — The Company, 
 like any master, is under an obligation to its servants to use 
 reasonable care to associate with them fellow-servants having the 
 ordinary care and skill required in the service to be performed, 
 and is liable to them for injuries resulting from the negligence 
 and incompetency of fellow-servants, which it might have pre- 
 vented by the exercise of such care. This duty and liability, 
 like that which relates to the road and its appointments, is con- 
 tinuing, and governs the company both in the original choice of 
 its servants and in their discharge when they subsequently be- 
 come incompetent. The master does not warrant to each servant 
 the competency of his fellow-servants ; and in case of injury to 
 one by the other, the question, in determining the master's liabil- 
 ity, is not only whether the wrong-doer was in fact incompetent 
 for the service, but also whether the master failed to exercise 
 ordinary care in employing him ; and both the default of the ser- 
 
 1 Wonder v. Bait. & O. B. Co., 32 Md. Co., 42 Wis. 583 ; Toledo, W., & W. E. 
 
 411 ; Smith v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co. v. Asbury, 84 111. 429. 
 Co., 69 Mo. 33; Cagney v. Hannibal & St. 2 Hayden v. Smithville Man. Co., 29 
 
 J. E. Co., 69 Mo. 416; Baldwin v. Chi- Conn. 548; Kelley w. Silver Spring Co., 
 
 cago, E. I., & P. E. Co., 50 Iowa, 680; 12 E. I. 112; Fort Wayne, J., & S. E. Co. 
 
 Piper V. New York Cent. & H. R R. Co., v. Gildersleeve, 33 Mioh. 133; Michigan 
 
 1 Thomp. & C. 290 ; Salters v. Del. & H. Cent. R. Co. v. Austin, 40 Mich. 247 ; In- 
 
 C. Co., 3 Hun, 338 ; Ladd v. New Bedford ternational & G. N. E. Co. ». Doyle, 49 
 
 E. Co., 119 Mass. 412 ; Osborne «. Knox & Tex. 190. 
 
 L. R. Co., 68 Me. 49 ; Dynen v. Leach, 26 » Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 L. J. N. 8. Exch. 221. But see Smith i;. Flanigan, 77 111. 365; Baldwin v. Chi- 
 
 New York & H. E. Co., 19 N. Y. 127, 6 cago, R. I., & P. E. Co., 50 Iowa, 680. 
 Duer, 227; Dorsey v. Phillips & C. Const. •• Cagney v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 
 
 69 Mo. 416. 
 
INJURIES TO SERVANTS. 
 
 375 
 
 vant and such want of ordinary care in the master must concur 
 to render him liable for the injury.' 
 
 Intemperate and Negligent Servants. — The company is liable for 
 injuries to a servant caused by the intemperance of another ser- 
 vant, whose habits it knows or ought to have known, whether 
 they existed when he was first employed or were subsequently 
 contracted.2 If the injured servant knew that the fellow-servant 
 had the habit, and did not report or object to it, he would be 
 deemed to have assumed the risk therefrom.^ Good character and 
 proper qualifications are, however, presumed to continue ; and if 
 a servant was satisfactory in these respects when he entered the 
 service, some proof should be given in an action against the com- 
 pany for an injury alleged to be caused by his want of sobriety 
 or fitness, that the company knew or ought to have known the 
 change.* Intoxication when not on duty is not material.^ Unfit- 
 ness at the time of appointment is also presumed to continue.^ 
 The company is not required to discharge a servant merely for 
 a single act of negligence.^ * 
 
 1 Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Barber, 
 
 5 Ohio St. 641 ; Wriglit r, New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 562, 28 Barb. 80; 
 Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. 
 Y. 521 (commenting on Wright v. New 
 York Cent. R. Co.) ; Baulec v. New York 
 
 6 H. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 356, 62 Barb. 
 623 ; Chapman v. Erie R. Co., 65 N. Y. 
 579, 1 Thomp. & C, 526; Besel v. New 
 York Cent. & H. E. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 
 9 Han, 457 ; Booth v. Boston & A. R. 
 Co., 73 N. Y. 38, 67 N. Y. 593; Cum- 
 berland & P. R. Co. u. State, 44 Md. 283; 
 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Milliken, 8 Kan. 
 647 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Salmon, 14 
 Kan. 512, 11 Kan. 83 ; Union Pacific R. 
 Co. V. Young, 19 Kan. 488, 8 Kan. 6.58 ; 
 Cooper V. Mil. & P. R. Co., 23 Wis. 668; 
 Ala. & F. R. Co. V. Waller, 48 Ala. 459 ; 
 Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Smith, 59 Ala. 
 245; Tyson v. South & N. A. R. Co., 61 
 Ala. 554; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jewell, 
 46 111. 99; Columbus, C, & C. R. Co. v. 
 Troesch, 68 III. 545, 57 111. 155; Mich. 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Dolan, 32 Mich. 510; 
 Frazier v. Penn. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 104 ; 
 Weger v. Penn. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 460 ; 
 Huntingdon & B. T. R. Co. v. Decker, 82 
 Pa. St. 119, 84 Pa. St. 419 ; Harper v. 
 Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co., 47 Mo. 567, 
 44 Mo. 488; Moss v. Pacific R. Co., 49 
 
 Mo. 167; Bassett v. Norwich & W. R. 
 Co. (Superior Ct. Conn.), 19 Law Rep. 
 551 ; Howd v. Miss. Cent. R. Co., 50 Miss. 
 178; Blake v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 
 Me. 60; Jordan v. Wells, 3 Woods, 527; 
 Quinuy Mining Co. v. Kitts, 9 Reporter, 
 86; Tarrant v. Webb, 18 C. B. 797; 
 Hutchinson v. York, N., & B. R. Co., 5 
 Exeh. 343, 353 ; Feltham v. England, L. 
 R. 2 Q. B. 33; Potts v. Port Carlisle, 
 D., & R. Co., 2 h. T. N. s. 283. 
 
 2 Oilman v. Eastern R. Co., 13 Allen, 
 433, 10 Allen, 232; Laning v. New York 
 Cent. E. Co., 49 N. Y. 521 ; Chicago & A. 
 R. Co. V. Sullivan, 63 111. 293 ; Hunting- 
 don & B. T. R. Co. ■;. Decker, 84 Pa. St. 
 419, 82 Pa. St. 119. 
 
 3 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Rush, 84 111. 
 570. 
 
 . 4 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Milliken, 8 
 Kan 647 ; Laning v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co., 49 N. Y. 521 ; Chapman v. Erie R. 
 Co., 55 N. Y. 579, 1 Thomp. & C. 526 ; 
 Davis V. Detroit & M. R. Co., 20 Mich. 
 105; Blake v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me.60. 
 
 5 Chicago & A. R. Co. </. Rush, 84 111. 
 570. 
 
 6 Crandall v. M'llrath, 24 Minn. 127. 
 
 7 Baulec v. New York & H. R. Co., 62 
 Barb. 623, 59 N. Y. 366, 363 ; Michigan 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Dolan, 32 Mich. 510. 
 
376 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 The promotion of a servant who has experience in one grade 
 to a higher grade is not evidence of negligence.-' The company 
 may detail a servant to act temporarily in another than his usual 
 capacity, if he is fit for the duty to which he is so detailed ; ^ but 
 it is deemed negligent if it assigns a servant engaged in one ser- 
 vice to another for which he is not competent.^ 
 
 Adequate Force of Employees. — The company is bound to use 
 reasonable care to provide a force of employees sufiicient in num- 
 ber for the working of its trains and machinery.* The servant, 
 however, by continuing in bis place with knowledge of the inade- 
 quacy of the force, is presumed to accept the risk.^ 
 
 Various Duties of the Company. — Various duties to servants, 
 some general in their application, and others affected by particular 
 circumstances, have been stated as binding on railroad companies, 
 viz.: To notify servants of peculiar dangers which are not known 
 or obvious to them, but known to the company's officers, the 
 notice to be adapted to the immaturity and inexperience of the 
 servant ; ^ to notify him of particular hazards where it has given 
 assurance that it would do so ; ' to notify him, when employed 
 on the track, of changes in trains, as to time- of starting and 
 rate of speed ; ^ to make and conform to rules for the safety of 
 servants, as to time-tables and otherwise, as far as practicable ; ' 
 
 1 Haskin v. New York Cent. & H. R. patrick, 31 Ohio St. 479 ; Paulmier v. 
 R. Co., 65 Barb. 129. Erie R. Co., 5 Vroom, 151 ; Strahlendorf 
 
 2 Robinson v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., r. Rosenthal, 30 Wis. 674; Chicago & N. 
 46 Tex. 540; Tinney v. Boston & A. R. W. R. Co. y. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; Cos- 
 Co., 52 N. Y. 632, 62 Barb. 218. tello v. Judson, 21 Hun, 396. 
 
 8 Harper v. Indianapolis & St. L. R. 7 Bradley v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 Co., 47 Mo, 667, 44 Mo. 488. 62 N. Y. 99. 
 
 * Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Barber, s Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Whitting- 
 
 5 Ohio St. 541, 562 ; Stoddard u. St. ton, 30 Gratt. 805. 
 
 Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 514 ; » Chicago & N. W R. Co. o. Taylor, 
 Booth V. Boston & A. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 69 111. 461 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. 
 38, 67 N. Y. 593 ; Harvey v. New York Co. v. Powers, 74 111. 341 ; Chicago, B , & 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 556. See Q. R. Co. v. McLallen, 84 111. 109; Kan- 
 Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. V. Carr, 35 sas Pacific R. Co. v. Salmon, 14 Kan. 
 Ind. 510; Hayes v. Western R. Co., 3 512, 11 Kan. 83; Wright u. New York 
 Cush. 270. Cent. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 562, 28 Barb. 80; 
 
 ' See post, p. 380. Rose v. Boston & A. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 
 
 6 Perry v. Marsh, 25 Ala. 659 ; Hay- 217 ; Besel v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 den V. Smithville Man. Co., 29 Conn. 548 ; R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 9 Hun, 457 ; Balti- 
 
 Coombs V. New Bedford Cordage Co., 102 more & O. R. Co. i-. Woodward, 41 Md. 
 
 Mass. 572 ; O'Connor v. Adams, 120 Mass. 268 • Vose m. Lancashire & Y. R. Co. 2 
 
 427 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Fitz- Hurl. & N. 728. ' 
 
INJURIES TO SEEVANTS. 
 
 377 
 
 to keep the track from being blocked by snow and ice,^ and to 
 inspect it after freshets and storms ; ^ to keep it clear of objects 
 and structures lying near or projecting over it which expose 
 employees to unnecessary danger ; ^ and to care humanely for 
 injured employees immediately after an injury.* The liability of 
 the company for such defects and omissions will be affected, as 
 elsewhere seen, by the servant's knowledge of their existence.^ 
 
 Negligence of the Injured Servant. — The servant cannot recover 
 where his own want of ordinary care has contributed to the 
 injury, or where by the exercise of ordinary care he might have 
 avoided it ; ^ but an impracticable degree of care is not required 
 of himJ His negligence may consist in a reckless exposure of 
 himself,^ as in an attempt to get upon a train when running at 
 a speed which makes the attempt dangerous ; ^ or leaving a box- 
 
 1 Fifield V. Northern R. Co., 42 N. H. 
 225. 
 
 2 Har^j' V. North Carolina Cent. E. Co., 
 74 N. C. 734, 76 N. C. 5. 
 
 » Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. "Welch, 52 
 111. 183; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. 
 Gregory, 58 111. 272; Chicago & I. R. Co. 
 V. Russell, 91 III 298 ; Dorsey v. Phillips 
 & C. Const. Co., 42 Wis. 583. But see, as 
 to the effect of the servant's knowledge 
 of the obstruction, Gibson v. Erie R. Co., 
 63 N. Y. 449, 5 Hun, 31 ; Lovejoy v. Bos- 
 ton & L. R. Co., 125 Mass. 79. 
 
 * Northern Cent. R. Co. v. State, 29 
 Md. 420 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. State, 
 41 Md. 268. 
 
 ' Post, p. 380 ; Gibson v. Erie R. Co., 
 63 N. Y. 449, 6 Hun, 31. 
 
 * Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 49 N. Y. 521, 534 ; Sprong v. Boston & 
 A. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 56, 66 Barb. 30; 
 Sammon v. New York & H. R. Co., 62 N. 
 Y. 251 ; Gibson v. Erie E. Co., 63 N. Y. 
 449, 5 Hun, 31 ; Snow v. Housatonic 
 R. Co., 8 Allen, 44; Osborn v. Knox & 
 L. R. Co., 68 Me. 49 ; Mulherrin v. 
 Del., L., & W. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 366; 
 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. State, 41 Md. 
 268, 298; Illinois Cent. R. Co. o. Pat- 
 terson, 69 111. 650; St. Louis & S. E. 
 R. Co. V. Britz, 72 111. 256 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Houck, 72 111. 286; Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co. V. Donahue, 75 111. 106 ; 
 Fosters. Chicago & A. R. Co., 84 111. 164; 
 Toledo, W., & W. E. Co. v. Asbury, 84 
 lU. 429; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Rush, 84 
 
 111. 570; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Modglin, 
 85 111. 481 ; Toledo, W., & W. E. Co. ... 
 Black, 88 111. 112 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. u. 
 Patterson. 93 111. 290 ; Penn. Co. v. Han- 
 key, 93 111. 580 ; Price v. Henagan, 5 
 Brad. (111.) 2.34; Kroy w. Chicago, E. I., 
 
 6 P. E. Co., 32 Iowa, 357 ; Doggett v. 
 111. Cent. E. Co. 34 Iowa, 284; Mul- 
 downey v. 111. Cent. E. Co., 39 Iowa, 615, 
 36 Iowa, 462 ; Baird v. C. E. I. & P. E. Co., 
 
 7 Northwest. Rep. 496 ; Colorado Cent. R. 
 Co. ■/. Ogden, 3 Col. 499 ; Wedgwood v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 44 Wis. 44, 41 Wis. 
 478 ; Bessex v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 45 Wis. 477 ;. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. u. 
 Whittington, 30 Gratt. 805 ; Vicksburg & 
 M. R. Co. 0. Wilkins, 47 Miss. 404 ;• Mem- 
 phis & C. R. Co. 0. Thomas, 61 Miss. 
 637 ; Evans v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 62 
 Mo. 49 ; Crutchfield v. Richmond & D. R. 
 Co., 78 N. C. 300, 76 N. C. 320 ; Louis- 
 ville & N. R. Co. V. Burke, 6 Cold. 45 ; 
 Central R. Co. v. Sears, 61 Ga. 279; At- 
 lantic & W. P. R. Co. V. Webb, 61 Ga. 
 586; Kenney v. Central R. Co., 61 Ga. 
 590; Senior v. Ward, 1 El. & E. -385; 
 Dynen v. Leach, 26 L. J. Exch. 221. 
 
 1 Hamilton v. Des Moines Valley R. 
 Co., 36 Iowa, 31. 
 
 « O'Neill V. Keokuk & D. M. R. Co., 
 45 Iowa, 646 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. •>. 
 Whittington, 30 Gratt. 805; Brown «. 
 Byroads, 47 Ind. 435. 
 
 9 Timmons v. Cent. O. R. Co., 6 Ohio 
 St. 105 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. 
 Roy, 5 Brad. (III.) 82. 
 
378 THE LAW OP KAILBOADS. 
 
 car in which he is carried to his work, and of his own choice 
 riding upon the pilot or cow-catcher.^ If among different modes 
 of performing his duty, some of which are safe, he chooses one 
 which unnecessarily exposes him to danger, he takes the risk of 
 his choice, although other servants do likewise.^ It is his duty 
 to obey the company's instructions and rules,^ and to report 
 defects in machinery under his charge, which he knows or 
 with reasonable diligence would have known,* or the habitual 
 incompetency of fellow-servants associated with him;^ and his 
 breach of duty when contributing to the injury is a defence 
 to his action. Some acts which in an intruder would be negli- 
 gence, are not such when done by the servant in the usual 
 and prudent discharge of his duty, as walking on the track, 
 or stepping on it when a train is coming, or going between or 
 under the cars.^ Obedience to the instructions of an agent or 
 servant of the company, under whose charge he was placed, is 
 not negligence.'^ A servant's violation of the regulations, al- 
 though intentional, does not affect his right of action against the 
 company, unless it contributes to the injury.^ 
 
 Detail of a Servant for a Dangerous Duty outside of his Employ- 
 ment. — The rule which relieves a master from liability for an 
 injury to his servant resulting from the negligence of his fellow- 
 servants has been held in some cases not to apply where the 
 injured servant was, without proper notice of the increased risk, 
 
 1 Baltimore & P. R.Co. v. Jones, 95 U. Johnson v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 81 
 S- 439. N. C. 453 ; Le Clair v. St. Paul & P. 
 
 2 Kroy V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 32 R. Co., 20 Minn. 9 ; MciVlillan v. Saratoga 
 Iowa, 357 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. & W. R. Co., 20 Barb. 449. 
 
 Bliss, 6 Brad. (111.) 411. 5 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Rush, 84 III. 
 
 3 Wolsey V. Lake Shore & M. S. R. 570; Davis v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 20 
 Co., 33 Ohio St. 227 ; Woorl v. New York Mich. 105; Frazier v. Penn. R. Co., 38 
 Cent. &H. R. R.Co., 70 N.Y. 195; Lyon K. Pa. St. 104. 
 
 Detroit, L., & L. M. R. Co., 31 Mich. 429; 6 Berry v. Central R. Co., 40 Iowa, 
 
 Shanny u. Androscoggin Mills, 66 Me. 564 ; Steele v. Central R. Co., 43 Iowa, 
 
 420, 429; Ford v. Fitchburg R. Co., 110 109; Snow v. Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen, 
 
 Mass. 240 ; Hubgh v. New Orleans & C. 441. See Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Dona- 
 
 R. Co., 6 La. An. 495 ; Lake Shore & M. hue, 75 111. 106 1 Mulherrin v. Del, L., & 
 
 S, R. Co. V. Roy, 5 Brad. (111.) 82. W. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 366. 
 
 * Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Jewell, 46 111. 7 Qreenleaf v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 29 
 
 99 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Jackson, Iowa, 14 ; Frandsen v. Chicago, R. L, & 
 
 55111. 492; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. O. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 372; Chicago & N. 
 
 Eddy, 72 111. 138 ; Richardson v. Cooper, W. R. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205. 
 88 111. 270; Crutchfield t. Richmond & » Ford ». Fitchburg R. Co. 110 Mass. 
 
 D. R. Co., 76 N. C. 320, 78 N. C. 300 ; 240. 
 
INJTJEIES TO SBEVANTS. 379 
 
 put by a superior agent to do a service outside of, and more dan- 
 gerous than, the employment for which he was engaged. This 
 exception has been particularly applied to the employment of 
 persons of immature judgment.^ It would not be negligence to 
 put a servant to a service of more than usual danger, when 
 required for a good reason, as for the safety of passengers.^ 
 
 ITegligence of a Fellow-servant combining with the Company's. — If 
 the company has been negligent in providing and maintaining a 
 proper road and machinery, and an injury has resulted to a ser- 
 vant thereby, he has a right of action, although the negligence of 
 a fellow-servant may have contributed to the injury .^ 
 
 Knowledge of the Defects in Road and Machinery, and of the Char- 
 acter of Fellow-servants. — A servant who before the injury had 
 knowledge of the defect in the road or machinery, or of the 
 character of the fellow-servant as a careless or unskilful one, or 
 who, having a reasonable opportunity to inform himself, ought to 
 have known such defects or incompetency, is presumed, by re- 
 maining in the company's service, to have assumed the risks of 
 such voluntary exposure of himself, and cannot recover for an 
 injury resulting therefrom ; and his knowledge has' the same 
 effect whether the company or master was informed or ig- 
 norant of such defect or in«ompetency.* This rule applies 
 
 1 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Fort, 17 Wall. Barb. 80 ; Laning v. New York Cent. R. 
 553, 2 Dillon, 259; Lalor v. Chicago, B., & Co., 49 N. Y. 521 ; Gibson v. Erie R. Co., 
 Q. R. Co., 52 111. 401 ; Chicago & G. E. R. 63 N. Y. 449, 5 Hun, 31 ; Mehan v. Syra- 
 Co. V. Harney, 28 Ind. 28 ; Chicago & N. cuse, B., & N. Y. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 585 ; 
 W. R. Co. V. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205; De Forest v. Jewett, 19 Hun, 509; De 
 Hurst V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 49 Graff w. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 Iowa, 76 ; Mann v. Oriental Print Works, 3 Thomp. & C. 255 ; Sullivan v. India Man. 
 11 R. I. 152. See Davis v. Detroit & Co., 113 Mass. 396 ; Ladd y. New Bedford 
 M. R. Co., 20 Mich. 105; Hawley v. R. Co., 119 Mass. 412; Hayden i'. Smith- 
 Northern Cent. R. Co., 17 Hun, 115; ville Man. Co., 29 Conn. 548; Kelley w. 
 Hanrathy v. North Cent. R. Co., 46 Md. Silver Spring Co., 12 R. I., 112; Frazier 
 280. V. Penn. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 104 ; Mansfield 
 
 2 Campbell v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Coal & C. Co. v. McEnery, 37 Leg. Int. 
 Co., 45 Iowa, 76. 28; Buzzell v. Laeonia Man. Co., 48 Me. 
 
 * Cayzer v. Taylor, 10 Gray, 274; 113; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. u. Love, 10 
 
 Paulmierzj. Erie R. Co., 6 Vroom, 151; Ind. 554; Thayer v. St. Louis, A., & T. 
 
 Stetler v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 46 H. R. Co., 22 Ind. 26; Camp Point Man. 
 
 Wis. 497. See Durgin v. Munson, 9 Al- Co. v. Ballou, 71 111. 417 ; Chicago & N. W. 
 
 len, 396. R. Co. v. Ward, 61 111. 130; St. Lonis & S. 
 
 < Mad River & L. E. R. Co. ;■. Barber, E. R. Co. i: Britz,72 111. 256; Chicago&A. 
 
 5 Ohio St. 541, 562, 563, 565; Wrifiht v. R. Co. o. Rush, 84 111. 570; Chicago & A. 
 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 25 K. Y. 562, 28 R. Co. v. Monroe, 85 lU. 25 ; Penn. Co. v. 
 
380 
 
 THE LA"W OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 with special force when the defect or danger is obvious to the 
 senses.^ 
 
 A servant who knows the defect and peril takes the risk of 
 the use of dangerous implements ; '^ or of an inadequate force of 
 servants of a particular class on the trains ; ^ or of regulations as to 
 the running of trains ; * or of services of peculiar peril which he 
 undertakes, and dangerous practices in which he participates ;° or 
 of injuries resulting from the projecting roof of a station-house,^ 
 or from bridges which are too low to allow him to ride standing 
 upright on the top of the train ; '' and he is ordinarily chargeable 
 from the fact of his entering his employment with knowledge 
 of the height of such bridges, without notice or warning from the 
 company.^ If he knows generally that there are obstructions or 
 projecting objects of a certain kind, he is presumed to be informed 
 of a particular one which caused the injury.® Whether the ser- 
 vant is afPected with knowledge of the obstruction is a question 
 for the jury.i** 
 
 The knowledge from which it will be presumed that the ser- 
 
 Lyneh, 90 111. 333; Morris v. Gleason, 
 1 Brad. (111.) 510; Lake Shore & M. 
 S. R. Co. K. Roy, 5 Brad. (111.) 82; Davis 
 V. Detroit & M. R. Co., 20 Mich. 105, 
 125; Muldowney v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 
 39 Iowa, 615, 36 Iowa, 462; Way v. 111. 
 Cent. R. Co., 40 Iowa, 341; Perigo v. 
 Chicago, R. I., & F. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 276 ; 
 Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 
 Miss. 404; Cummings v. Collins, 61 Mo. 
 520; Smith v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 
 Co., 69 Mo. 32 ; Porter v. Hannibal & St. 
 J. R. Co., 9 Reporter, 549; Johnson v. 
 Western & A. R. Co., 55 Ga. 133 ; Robin- 
 son V. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 46 Tex. 540 ; 
 International & G. N. R. Co. v. Doyle, 49 
 Tex. 190 ; Crutehfield v. Richmond & D. R. 
 Co., 78 N. C. 300, 76 N. C. 320; McGlynn v. 
 Brodie, 31 Cal. 376 ; Dillon v. Union Pa- 
 fic R. Co., 3 Dill. 319 ; Williams «. Clongh, 
 3 Hurl. & N. 258 ; Clarke v. Holmes, 7 
 Hurl. & N. 937, 943 ; Dynen v. Leach, 26 
 L. J. Exeh. 221 ; Skip v. Eastern Counties 
 R. Co., 9 Exeh. 223; Woodley v. Metropoli- 
 tan Dist. R. Co., L. R. 2 Exeh. Div. 884; 
 Rattray v. Cork & M. R. Co., 4 L.R. (Ir.) 
 386; Hoey v. Dublin & B. J. R. Co., 
 Ir. R. 6 C. L. 206. But see Lewis v. St! 
 Louis & I. M. R. Co., 59 Mo. 495 ; Porter 
 V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 160. 
 
 1 Cagney v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 
 69 Mo. 416; Baltimore & O. E. Co. v. 
 Strieker, 51 Md. 47. 
 
 2 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Mahoney, 4 
 Brad. (111.) 262. 
 
 3 Mad River & L. E. R. Co. v. Barber, 
 8 Ohio St. 541 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 Donahue, 75 111. 106; Baltimore & 0. R. 
 Co. V. State, 41 Md. 268 ; Georgia R. & 
 B. Co. o. McDade, 59 Ga. 73; Skip v. 
 Eastern Counties R. Co., 9 Exeh. 223. 
 
 « Wright V. New York Cent. 11. Co., 
 25 N. Y. 562, 28 Barb. 80. 
 
 * Sullivan v. Louisville Bridge Co., 9 
 Bush, 81 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. 
 Knittal, 33 Ohio St. 468 ; Kroy v. Chicago, 
 R. L, & P. R. Co., 32 Iowa, 357. 
 
 ^ Gibson v. Erie Co., 63 N. Y. 449, 5 
 Hun, 31. 
 
 '' Owen V. New York Cent. R. Co., 1 
 Lans. 108; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Strieker, 51 Md. 47 ; Devitt v. Pacific R. 
 Co., 60 Mo. 302 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. 
 Sentmeyer, 37 Leg. Int. 194. 
 
 8 Baylor v. Del., L., & W. R. Co., 11 
 Vroom, 23. 
 
 9 Lovejoy v. Boston & L. E. Co., 125 
 Mass. 79. 
 
 i" Hawley v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 17 
 Hun, 115, 22 Albany L. J. 433. 
 
rSJUEIES TO SEKVANTS. 381 
 
 vant took the risk must be such as will put him on his guard, 
 and mere knowledge of a defect which does not inform him of 
 the hazards is not conclusive that he assumed the risk or was 
 negligent.! The servant has been held not to be affected with 
 such knowledge where he had a right to suppose the defect to be 
 temporary in its character.^ 
 
 It is the duty of the company, by renewing and repairing its 
 machinery at proper intervals, to guard the servant against risks 
 of which he has not been informed, or has not the means of 
 informing himself. The company knows the length of time that 
 its machinery has been in use, and the wear to which it has beeil 
 subjected, and a servant who comes into its employ is not pre- 
 sumed to know these facts about machinery already in use.^ 
 The servant is not bound to search for latent defects in the 
 machinery.* 
 
 The servant's risk continues if he remains in the service after 
 giving notice to the company of the defect.^ It has been sug- 
 gested, and in some jurisdictions held, that if upon such notice the 
 master assures the servant that he will remove the defect, and 
 the servant continues in the employment on such assurance, he 
 is presumed not to have waived the defect, and may maintain an 
 action against the master for an injury caused by it.^ It is diffi- 
 cult to see how the assurance can thus operate, unless it affects 
 
 1 Snow i;. Housatonic R. Co., 8 Allen, Great Western Cotton Co., L R. 7 Exch. 
 
 441 ; Huddleston v. Lowell Machine Shop, 130. 
 
 106 Mass. 282 ; Ford v. Eitchbarg R. Co., 2 Ladd v. New Bedford R. Co., 119 
 
 110 Mass. 240; Shanney u. Androscoggin Mass. 412, 414. 
 
 Mills, 66 Me. 420, 427 ; Kelly ^. Silver » Baker v. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 10 
 
 Springs, 12 R. I. 112, 118; Lake Shore & Reporter, 672; Chicago & N. W. R.Co. v. 
 
 M. S. R. Co. V. Fitzpatrick, 31 Ohio St. Jackson, 55 111. 492 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 
 479; Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co., R. Co. i^. Ingraham, 77 III. 309; Braun v. 
 
 49 N. Y. 521 ; Mehan v. Syracuse, B., & Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 10 Reporter, 
 
 N. Y. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 521 ; Hawley v. 202. 
 
 Northern Cent. R. Co., 17 Hun, 115, 22 * Porter v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 9 
 
 A. L. J. 433 ; Greenleaf u. 111. Cent. R. Reporter, 549. 
 
 Co., 29 Iowa, 14 ; Greenleaf 0. Dubuque ' Colorado Cent. R. Co. v. Ogden, 3 
 
 & S. C. R. Co., 33 Iowa, 52 ; Dale v. St. Col. 499, 505 ; Crutchfield v. Richmond & 
 
 Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 63 Mo. 455; D. R..C0., 78 N. C. 300, 76 N. C. 820. 
 
 Stoddard r. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., Contra, Mansfield Coal & C. Co. v. Mc- 
 
 66 Mo. 514 ; Bridges v. St. Louis, I. M., Enery, 37 Leg. Int. 28. 
 
 & S. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 389; Chicago & » Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 
 
 N. W. R. Co. V. Jackson, 55 III. 492 ; Pat- U. S. 213 ; Kelley v. Silver Spring Co., 
 
 terson v. Pittsburg & C. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 12 R. I. 112 ; Colorado Cent. R. Co. „. 
 
 889; Colorado Cent. R. Co. ;•. Ogden, 3 Ogden, 3 Col. 499; Patterson r. Pittsburg 
 
 Col. 499, 504; Dorsey </. Phillips & C. & C. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 389; Laning i-. 
 
 Const. Co., 42 Wis. 583 ; Le Clair „. St. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521 ; 
 
 Paul & P. R. Co., 20 Minn. 9; Britton v. Belair v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 
 
382 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 the servant's knowledge of the danger, by leading him to believe, 
 when he is next exposed to it, that it has been removed, or by 
 putting him in some way off his guard.^ 
 
 The notice or facts from which knowledge is inferred in the 
 case of a person whose faculties are fully developed, and who is 
 acquainted with the service lie is to perform, or with the danger- 
 ous character of the machinery, may not affect with knowledge 
 a person of immature judgment and wanting in the experience 
 which would direct his attention to the hazards, and put him on 
 his guard.2 
 
 Burden of Proof. — The burden of proof is on the servant to 
 show that the company was negligent,^ and that his own negli- 
 gence did not contribute to the injury ; * and where the injury 
 was caused by defects in the road or its appointments, that the 
 company knew or ought to have known them, or negligently em- 
 ployed incompetent persons to construct or repair them ; ^ and 
 where it is alleged to have been caused by the incompetency of 
 fellow-servants, that the servant was incompetent, and the com- 
 
 662 ; McGowan v. St. Louis & I. M. R. 
 Co., 61 Mo. 528 ; Conroy v. Vulcan Iron 
 Works, 6 Mo. App. 102, 62 Mo. 35 ; Clarke 
 V. Holmes, 7 Hurl. & N. 937, 6 Hurl. & N. 
 349 ; Holmes v. Worthington, 2 Fost. & F. 
 533. Compare Fort Wayne, J., & S. R. 
 Co. V. Gildersleeve, 33 Mioh. 133. 
 
 1 See Marquette, H., & 0. R. Co. v. 
 Spear, 6 Northwest. Rep. 202. 
 
 2 Coombs V. New Bedford Cordage Co., 
 102 Mass. 572 ; Sullivan v. India Maii. 
 Co., 113 Mass. 396 ; O'Connor v. Adams, 
 120 Mass. 427 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 
 V. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205, 212; Hill v. 
 Gust, 55 Ind. 45 ; Johnson v. Bruner, 61 
 Pa. St. 58; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Fort, 
 17 Wall. 5-53 ; Bowling v. Allen, 6 Mo. 
 App. 195 ; Bridges v. St. Louis, I. M., & S. 
 R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 389 ; Grizzle v. Frost, 
 8 Fost. & F. 622. 
 
 s Steffen v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 46 Wis. 259; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. 
 Thomas, 42 Ala. 672 ; Way v. 111. Cent. 
 R. Co., 40 Iowa, 341 ; Price v, Henagan, 5 
 Brad. (111.) 234; Laning u. New York 
 Cent. R. Co.,49N. Y. 521, 529; Beaulieu 
 V. Portland Co., 48 Me. 291 ; Atlanta & R. 
 A. L. R. Co. 0. Campbell, 56 Ga. 586, 53 
 Ga. 488 ; Columbus & X. R. Co. v. Webb, 
 
 12 Ohio St. 475, 496 ; Rose v. Boston & A. 
 R. Co., 58 N. Y. 217 ; Henry v. Staten 
 Island R. Co., 10 N. Y. Week. Dig. 430. 
 
 * Way V. 111. Cent. R. Co., 40 Iowa, 
 341 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Houck, 72 
 111. 285; Mad River & L. E. R. Co. u. 
 Barber, 5 Ohio St. 541, 568; Belair v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co, 48 Iowa, 662; 
 Central R. & B. Co. v. Kelly, 58 Ga. 107 ; 
 Georgia, R., & B. Co. v. Kenney, 58 Ga. 
 485 ; Central, R., & B. Co. v. Sears, 59 
 Ga. 436. Contra, Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 V. Whittington, 30 Gratt. 805; Hough v. 
 Texas & P. R. Co., 100 U. S. 213. 
 
 6 McMillan v. Saratoga & W. R. Co., 
 20 Barb. 449; Wright v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 25 N. Y. 562, 566 ; Oilman w. 
 Eastern R. Co., 10 Allen, 288, 2.39, 13 
 Allen, 433 ; Davis !<. Detroit & M. R. Co., 
 20 Mich. 105 ; East St. Louis P. & P. Co. 
 V. Hightowcr, 92 111. 139 ; Mansfield Coal 
 & C. Co. V. McEnery, 37 Leg. Int. 28. 
 As to what agent or employee is compe- 
 tent to receive notice wliich will bind the 
 company, see Locke v. Sioux City & P. R. 
 Co., 46 Iowa, 109 ; Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. 
 Thomas, 42 Ala. 672 ; Lewis v. St. Louis 
 & 1. M. R. Co., 69 Mo. 495. 
 
INJURIES TO SERVANTS. 383 
 
 pany knew or ought to have known of such incompetency ; ^ and 
 he must show that he did not himself, before the injury, know of 
 such defects or incompetency.^ The company's negligence is not 
 to be inferred from the fact of injury by a collision of trains, or 
 by an explosion of engines, even in jurisdictions where negligence 
 is implied from the collision or explosion in case of injuries to 
 passengers or third persons.^ 
 
 Evidence. — Evidence of a servant's reputation as a careless or 
 unskilful one is admissible to show the company's knowledge of 
 his character.* The evidence of the reputation of a machine as a 
 defective one has been admitted.^ Evidence of specific acts of 
 negligence of the servant, where conduct is in qixestion, is admis- 
 sible, if communicated to the company before the injurjr; but not 
 otherwise.® The declarations of a general agent of the company, 
 having power to discharge the servant by whose alleged negli- 
 gence the injury occurred, are admissible to prove such agent's 
 knowledge of the servant's incompetency.'^ Proof of the servant's 
 subsequent discharge from the company's service is not admis- 
 sible.8 The instructions to servants as to the use of machinery 
 are admissible in the master's favor, although not known to the 
 injured servant.^ 
 
 The company may maintain an action against a servant for in- 
 juries to its property caused by his negligence.^" 
 
 A servant is liable for injuries resulting from his negligence 
 to a fellow-servant.^^ 
 
 1 Wright V. New York Cent. R. Co., 25 ^ Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 
 N. Y. 562, 28 Barb. 80 ; Columbus, C, & 111. 338. 
 
 I. C. R. Co. u. Troesch, 68 111. 545, 57 III. " Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 155; Davis v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 20 Ruby, 38 Ind. 294; Baulec v. New York 
 
 Mich. 105; Murphy v. Iron Mountain R. & H. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 356, 62 Barb. 623; 
 
 Co., 10 Cent. L. J. 377 ; Allen v. New Gas Couch u. Watson Coal Co., 46 Iowa, 17 ; 
 
 Co., L. R. 1 Exch. Div. 251. Davis v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 20 Mich. 
 
 2 Belair v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 105, 1 23 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. w. Shannon, 
 Iowa, 662. 43 111. -338. See Lee v. Detroit Bridge & 
 
 ' Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Thomas, 42 Iron Works, 62 Mo. 565 ; Frazier v. Penn. 
 
 Ala. 672 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Houck, R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 104. 
 
 72 III. 285 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. ;•. ' taning v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 Moore, 77 III. 217 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 521. 
 
 V. Salmon, 11 Kan. 83. * Couch D.Watson Coal Co., 46Iowa,17. 
 
 * Oilman v. Eastern R. Co., 13 Allen, " Durgin v. Munson, 9 Allen, 396. 
 
 433, 10 Allen, 232 ; Davis v. Detroit & M. i" Mobile & M. R. Co. -. Clanton, 59 
 
 R. Co., 20 Mich. 105 ;' Frazier v. Penn. R. Ala. 392. 
 
 Co , 38 Pa. St. 104. But see Haskin v. " Hinds !i. Harbou, 58 Ind. 121 ; Hinds 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 65 Barb. v. Overacker, 66 Ind. 547 ; Griffiths u. 
 
 129. Wolfram, 22 Minn. 185; Osborne v. Mor- 
 gan, 130 Mass. 
 
384 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOAPS. 
 
 Negligence, a Question for the Jury. — The question whether the 
 company's negligence caused the injury, and whether the ser- 
 vant's negligence contributed to it, and whether he was charge- 
 able with knowledge of the defect, is for the jury.^ But if there 
 is no evidence on which a verdict for the plaintiff can be sus- 
 tained, a nonsuit should be ordered ; ^ or the verdict, when 
 clearly against evidence, may be set aside.^ Whether the ser- 
 vant receiving the injury and the servant causing it were fellow- 
 servants is for the jury, under the instructions of the court.* 
 
 ^ Pleading. — Where the gist of the action is the company's neg- 
 ligence in not employing competent servants, its negligence in 
 that regard must be distinctly alleged.* 
 
 1 Laning v. New York Cent. K. Co., 49 
 N. Y. 521; Sammon v. New York & H. 
 R. Co., 62 N. Y. 251 ; Hawley v. North- 
 ern Cent. R. Co., 17 Hun, 115, 22 A. h. J. 
 433, 11 N. Y. W. D. 71 ; Kirkpatrick v. 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 79 N. Y. 
 240 ; Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Fitz- 
 patrick, 31 Ohio St. 479; Brabbits v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 38 Wis. 289; 
 Bessex ?;. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 45 
 Wis. 477; Cumberland & P. R. Co. v. 
 State, 44 Md. 283 ; Frandsen v. Chicago, 
 R. L, & P. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 372 ; Belair 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 662 ; 
 Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Salmon, 14 Kan. 
 512, 11 Kan. 83; Snow v. Housatonic R. 
 Co., 8 Allen, 441 ; Ditberner v. Chicago, 
 M., & St. P. R. Co., 47 Wis. 138 ; Cottrill 
 V. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co. 47 Wis. 
 634 ; Kelley v. C, M., & St. P. R. Co., 7 
 Northwest. Rep. 291 ; McMillan v. Union 
 Press Brick Works, 6 Mo. App. 434; 
 
 Houston & G. N. R. Co. v. Randall, 50 
 Tex. 254 ; Woodley v. Metropolitan Dist. 
 R. Co., L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 384, 388. 
 
 2 Wright V. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 '25 N. Y. 562, 28 Barb. 80; Warner v. 
 Erie R. Co., 39 N. Y. 468, 475 ; Steffen v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 46 Wis. 259 ; 
 Beaulieu v. Portland Co., 48 Me. 291; 
 Baulec v. New York & H. R. Co., 59 N. 
 Y. 356, 62 Barb. 623. 
 
 5 Columbus, C, & I. C. R. Co. v. 
 Troesch, 68 111. 545, 57 111. 155 ; Toledo, 
 W., & W. R. Co. V. Moore, 77 111. 217 ; 
 Laning v. New York Cent. R. Co., 49 N. 
 Y. 521. 
 
 * Mullan V. Phil. & S. M. S. Co., 78 
 Pa. St. 25, 33 ; Hass o. Phil. & S. M. S. 
 Co., 88 Pa. St. 269 ; Holton ^. Daly, 4 
 Brad. (III.) 25. 
 
 5 Blake v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 70 Me. 
 60. 
 
INJURIES KESULTING IN DEATH. 386 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 INJURIES RESULTING IN DEATH. 
 
 At common law, a right of action for a personal injury dies 
 with the person. Actio personalis moritur cum persona. The 
 action, if brought by him, abates with his death, and cannot be 
 revived in the name of his personal representative.^ It is, how- 
 ever, generally provided by statute that the right of action shall 
 survive, that the suit may be commenced or prosecuted by the 
 personal representative, and that the amount recovered shall be 
 a part of the assets of the estate. 
 
 No Right of Action where the Injury is instantly Fatal. — If death 
 is simultaneous with the injury, no right of action accrues which 
 can survive. The effect of the statute is to keep alive a cause 
 of action which belonged to the deceased ; but, if his death 
 followed instantly the tortious act, there was no time during his 
 life when a cause of action, capable of a survival, accrued. The 
 length of time during which he lived after the injury is not mate- 
 rial : it is sufficient if life continued for any period, however 
 brief, after the injury, even without intelligence or conscious- 
 ness. There may, however, be a spasmodic muscular contraction 
 of the body consistent with the extinction of life.^ The same 
 rules of law and evidence apply to an action which survives by 
 statute as if the injured person were alive.^ 
 
 The Death of a Human Being not a Cause of Action at Common 
 Law. — It is an ancient principle of the common law, that " in a 
 civil court the death of a human being cannot be complained of 
 
 1 Broom's Legal Maxims, pp. 904- Co., 9 Cush. 478 ; Bancroft v. Boston & 
 909; Whitford v. Panama K. Co., 23 N. W. R. Co., 11 Allen, 349. 
 
 Y. 465, 468, 476; Cregin v. Brooklyn ^ Haring w. New York & E. R. Co., 13 
 
 Cross-Town R. Co., 75 N. Y. 192. Barb. 9 ; Hinckley v. Cape Cod R. Co., 
 
 2 Kearney v. Boston & W. R. Co., 9 120 Mass. 257. 
 Cush. 108; HoUenbeck v. Berkshire R. 
 
 25 
 
386 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 as an injury," whether it results from the felonious assault or the 
 carelessness of the party causing it. Therefore, in the absence of 
 a special statute provision, an action cannot be maintained for the 
 loss of the comfort, assistance, support, or service of a husband, 
 father, wife, child, or other relative, against a person or corpo- 
 ration by whose negligence or fault the death was caused.^ The 
 same rule prevails under the Code of Louisiana, although it pro- 
 vides that (article 2294) " every act whatever of man that 
 causes damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened 
 to repair it." The Court of Cassation, in France, has, however, 
 interpreted the same provision (article 1382) in the Code Na- 
 poleon so as to allow a recovery of damages in such cases.^ 
 
 Statutes providing a Remedy for Relatives in Case of Death. — It is 
 
 a dictate of justice that persons directly interested in the life 
 of a person wrongfully killed by another should receive from the 
 wrong-doer compensation for the fatal injury. Statutes have 
 therefore been enacted requiring him to compensate those who 
 had an immediate pecuniary interest in the life of the deceased 
 person, such as the widow, husband, parent, children, heirs, or 
 next of kin, for their pecuniary loss, usually with a limitation as 
 to the amount.^ The remedy is, in England and the greater 
 
 1 Baker v. Bolton, 1 Camp. 493 ; Hig- & C. U. Co., 11 La. An. 5 ; Earhart v. New 
 gins V. Butcher, Yelv. 89 ; Carey v- Berk- Orleans & C. R. Co., 17 La. An. 243. 
 shire E. Co., 1 Cush. 475 ; Kearney v. s The following is the provision of the 
 Boston & W. R. Co., 9 Cush. 108 ; Lucas English " Act (known as Lord Camp- 
 i;. New York Cent. R. Co., 21 Barb. 245 ; bell's Act) for compensating the families 
 Wliitfi>rd w. Panama R. Co., 23 N. Y. of persons killed by accidents." (Au- 
 465, 477; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. gust 26, 1846, 9 & 10 Victoria, c. 93.) 
 New York & N. H. R. Co , 25 Conn. 265 ; " That whensoever the.death of a person 
 State V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 58 Me. 176 ; sliall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, 
 Wyattr. Williams, 43 N. H. 102; State or default, and the act, neglect, or'de- 
 V. Manchester & L, R. Co., 52 N. H. 528 ; fault is such as would (if death had not 
 Hyatt V. Adams, 16 Mich. 180; Long v. ensued) have entitled the party injured 
 Morrison, 14 Ind. 595 ; Worley v. Cincin- to maintain an action and recover dam- 
 nati, H., & D. R. Co., 1 Handy (Cincin- ages in respect thereof, then, and in every 
 nati), 481; Campbell w. Rogers, 2 Handy such case, the person who would have 
 (Cincinnati), 110; Eden v. Lexington & been liable if death had not ensued shall 
 F. R. Co., 14 B. Monr. 204. The doc- be liable to an action for damages, not- 
 trine has been questioned in some cases, withstanding the death of the person in- 
 Cutting V. Seabury, 1 Sprague, 522 ; Os- jured, and although the death shall have 
 born V. Gillett, L. R. 8 Exeh. 88, 93. See been caused under such circumstances as 
 Ford V. Monroe, 20 Wend. 210 ; McGovern amount in law to felony. 
 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 " That every such action shall be for 
 
 N- Y. 417. the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, 
 
 2 Hubgh V. New Orleans & C. R. Co., and child of the person whose death shall 
 6 La. An. 495 ; Hermann v. New Orleans have been so caused, and shall be brought 
 
INJURIES EESULTING IN DEATH. 
 
 387 
 
 number of American States, by an action for damages, prosecuted 
 by the executor or administrator, for the benefit of the interested 
 relatives ; but in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts the 
 remedy is by prosecution on behalf of the State, in form criminal, 
 for the recovery of a fine, to be distributed among certain rela- 
 tives of the deceased. The statutes of the same class, though 
 varying in details, have the same general framework, and most of 
 them have been amended from time to time. Those of New 
 York and Massachusetts are typical of each class.^ In Maryland, 
 the proceeding, though on behalf of the State, is in form civil. 
 
 by and in the name of the executor or 
 administrator of the person deceased ; 
 and in every such action the jury may 
 give such damages as they may think 
 proportioned to the injury resulting from 
 Budi death to the parties respectively for 
 wliom and for whose benefit such action 
 shall be brought ; and the amount so re- 
 covered, after deducting the costs not re- 
 covered from tlie defendant, shall be di- 
 vided amongst the before-mentioned par- 
 ties, in such shares as the jury by their 
 verdict shall find and direct." 
 
 1 The statute of New York, enacted 
 December 13, 1847, as amended April 7, 
 1849, and March 16, 1870, provides, be- 
 sides a criminal process against the per- 
 son immediately causing tlie death, — 
 
 " § 1. Whenever the death of a person 
 shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, 
 or default, and the act, neglect, or de- 
 fault is such as would (if death had not 
 ensued) have entitled the party injured 
 to maintain an action and recover dam- 
 ages, in respect thereof, then, and in 
 every such case, the person who, or the 
 corporation wliich would have been liable, 
 if death had not ensued, shall be liable to 
 an action for damages, notwithstanding 
 the death of the person, and although the 
 death shall have been caused under such 
 circumstances as amount in law to felony. 
 
 " § 2. Every such action shall be 
 brought by and in the names of the per- 
 sonal representatives of such deceased per- 
 son. And the amount recovered in every 
 such action shall be for the exclusive 
 benefit of the husband or widow and next 
 of kin of such deceased person, and sliall 
 be distributed to such husband or widow 
 and next of kin in the proportion now pro- 
 vided by law in relation to the distribu- 
 
 tion of personal property of persons dying 
 intestate. And in every such action the 
 jury may give such damages as they 
 shall deem a fair and just compensation, 
 not exceeding five thousand dollars, with 
 reference to the pecuniary injuries result- 
 ing from such death to the husband or 
 widow and next of kin of such deceased 
 person." [Then follows a clause allow- 
 ing interest from the time of the death, 
 and limiting the action to two years from 
 the death. The "husband" was first in- 
 serted by the act of 1870.] 
 
 The statute of Massachusets, first 
 enacted March 23, 1840, and then pro- 
 viding only a remedy for the death of pas- 
 sengers, is, as amended, as follows (1874, 
 ch. 372, § 163): — 
 
 " If by reason of the negligence or 
 carelessness of a railroad corporation, or 
 of the unfitness or gross negligence or 
 carelessness of its servants or agents 
 while engaged in its business, the life of 
 any person being a passenger is lost ; or 
 the life of any person being in the exer- 
 cise of due diligence, and not being a pas- 
 senger or in the employment of such cor- 
 poration, is lost, — in either case the cor- 
 poration shall be punished by a fine not 
 exceeding five thousand nor less than five 
 hundred dollars, to be recovered by in- 
 dictment and paid to the executor or ad- 
 ministrator for the use of the widow and 
 children of the deceased in equal moieties, 
 but if there are no children to the use of 
 the widow, or if no widow to the use of 
 the next of kin : provided, that the cor- 
 poration shall not be so liable for the loss 
 of life by any person while walking or 
 being upon its road contrary to law or 
 the reasonable rules and regulations of 
 the corporation. Indictments against a 
 
388 THE LAW OP EAILROADS. 
 
 The statute of New York of 1847, as amended in 1849, was in 
 favor of the widow and next of kin only, and made no provision 
 for the husband in case of the killing of his wife ; ^ but he was 
 included by the later statute of 1870.^ The English act, as well 
 as that of Pennsylvania, is for the benefit of the immediate 
 family, the husband and wife, parents and children, to the exclu- 
 sion of the next of kin.^ The act of Wisconsin is in favor of the 
 surviving husband or widow ; and, if there be none, the amount 
 goes to the lineal descendants of the deceased, or, in default of 
 such, to his lineal ancestors.* A statute, like that of New York, 
 which gives a right of action for the benefit of " the widow and 
 next of kin," is construed to give the right when there are next 
 of kin but no widow surviving.^ The terms " next of kin " are 
 used in the statute in their technical sense, and include all who 
 come within the legal description. Their right to its remedy 
 depends on their belonging to the class, and not upon their right 
 to the service of the deceased or their dependence on him for 
 support. The action for their benefit may be maintained wher- 
 ever the deceased — as, for instance, an infant — could, if he had sur- 
 vived, maintain an action.^ The statute contemplates but one suit 
 for the benefit of all the parties entitled to the compensation.'' 
 
 The Massachusetts statute applies where the injury was done 
 outside of the company's location, upon a pi'ivate track used by it 
 with the land-owner's consent.^ It did not at one time include 
 
 corporation for loss of life shall be prose- York Cent. R. Co., 2.3 N. Y. 158, 28 Barb, 
 
 cuted within one year from the injury 41 ; Tilley v. Hudson Uiver R. Co., 24 N. 
 
 causing the death." Y. 471 ; Green v. Hudson River R. 
 
 A clause In the statute of Wisconsin, Co., 2 Abbott Ct. App. 277, 28 Barb. 9, 32 
 
 excluding the jurisdiction of the national Barb. 2.5; Clilcago v. iVIajor, 18 111. 349; 
 
 courts In cases arising under it, was held Cliic.igo & R. I. R. Co. i;. Morris, 26 '111. 
 
 unconstitutional in Chicago & N. W. R. 400 ; Johnston v. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 7 
 
 Co. u. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. Ohio St. 336 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. 
 
 1 Lucas V. New York Cent. R. Co., 21 Miller, 2 Col. 442. 
 
 Barb. 24.5; Green u. Hudson River R. « Oldfleld y. New York & H. R. Co, 
 
 Co., 2 Abbott Ct. App. 277, 28 Barb. 9, 32 14 N. Y. 310, 3 E. D. Smith, 103 ; Quin 
 
 Barb. 25 ; Dickens v. New York Cent. R. v. Moore, 15 N. Y. 4.32 ; Chicago & A. R. 
 
 Co., 23 N. Y. 158. See Worley v. Cincin- Co. v. Shannon, 48 111. 338 ; Illinois Cent, 
 
 nati, H., & D. R. Co., 1 Handy (Cincin- E. Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90, 1 Biss. 412, 
 
 nati), 481. 453. See Grotenkemper y. Harris, 25 Ohio 
 
 2 Statutes at Large, 1870, ch. 78, § 2. St. 510 ; Dunhene v. Ohio Life Ins. & T. 
 
 3 Penn. R. Co. v. Keller, 67 Pa. St. Co., 1 Disney, 257. 
 
 800. V Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Moore, 49 
 
 « Woodward v. Chicago & N. W. E. Tex. 31 ; Galveston, H., & S. A. R. Co. v. 
 
 Co., 23 Wis. 400. Le Gierse, 61 Tex. 189. 
 
 s Oldfield V. New York & H. R. Co., 8 Commonwealth v. Boston & L. B. 
 
 14 N. Y. 310, 3 E. D. Smitli, 103 ; Quin v. Co., 126 Mass. 61. 
 
 Moore, 15 N. Y. 432 ; Dickens v. New 
 
INJURIES KESULTING IN DEATH. 389 
 
 within the class of persons for whose death provision is made a 
 person not a passenger who leaves no widow or children.^ 
 
 The Statutes limited to Injuries within the State. — These statutes 
 have no extra-territorial effect, but are limited to injuries com- 
 mitted within the State ; and although the corporation which 
 inflicted the injury was created by the State in which there is a 
 statute of this kind, it is not liable in the courts of such State for 
 an injury committed abroad.^ Nor does the fact tliat the injured 
 person died within the jurisdiction of the State bring within the 
 statute injuries which were inflicted beyond the State. ^ Gener- 
 ally the statute does not apply to injuries committed on the high 
 seas ; * but it has been held to extend to such injuries when com- 
 mitted within waters which, though arms of the sea, are within 
 the jurisdiction of the State ; ^ or when committed, even beyond 
 its jurisdiction, on a vessel belonging to the State, and suffered 
 by one of its citizens.® 
 
 The statute can be enforced only within the State which 
 enacted it ; and an administrator cannot, in case of an injury 
 within the State, maintain an action under the statute in another 
 State, although appointed in the latter State.^ It has been held 
 that, if the statutes of two States are similar, a recovery can be 
 had for an injury in one State within the jurisdiction of the 
 other.^ 
 
 The statute is for the benefit of persons who are not citizens of 
 
 1 Commonwealth v. Boston & A. R. ^ Mahler v. Norwich &, N. Y. T. Co., 
 
 Co., 121 Mass. 36. 35 N. Y. 352, 45 Barb. 226. 
 
 2-Whitfor(l r. Panama R. Co., 23 N.Y 
 465, 3 Bosw. 67 ; Mahler v. Norwich &N. 
 Y. T. Co., 35 N. Y. 352, 45 Barb. 226 
 McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y. 546, 550 
 Vandeventer v New York & N. H. R. 
 Co., 27 Barb. 244 ; Crowley v. Panama R, 
 
 6 McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y. 546, 
 44 N. Y. Superior, 80. 
 
 ' Richardson i>. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 98 Mass. 85 ; Woodard v. Mich. S. & N. I. 
 R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 121 ; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Cragin, 71 111. 177 ; Mackay v. Cen- 
 
 Co., 30 Barb. 99; Beach v. Bay State tral R. Co. (U. S. C. C, S. D. N. Y.), 4 
 
 Steamboat Co., SO Barb. 433, 10 Abbott Fed. Rep. 617. But see Needham i\ Grand 
 
 Pr. 71 (overruling 27 Barb. 248, 16 How. Trunk R. Co., 38 Vt. 294; Nashville & C. 
 
 Pr. 1) ; Hover v.' Penn. Co., 25 Ohio St. R. Co. v. Sprayberry, 9 Heisk. 852, 8 Bax- 
 
 667 ; Campbell v. Rogers, 2 Handy (Cin- ter, 341 ; Hobbs v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 
 
 cinnati), 110; Needham u. Grand Trunk 9 Heisk. 873. 
 R. Co., 38 Vt. 294. ^ Stallknecht v. Penn. R. Co., 13 Hun, 
 
 ' McCarthy v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 451 ; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Eakin, 6 
 
 Co., 18 Kan. 46; Crowley i'. Panama R. Cold. 582; Selma, R., & D. R. Co. v. 
 
 Co., 30 Barb. 99, Lacy, 43 Ga. 461, 49 Ga. 106 ; Western 
 
 * Armstrong v. Beadle (U. S. C. C. D. & A. R. Co. v. Strong, 52 Ga. 461. See 
 
 Cal), 8 Reporter, 36. McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y. 546, 550. 
 
390 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 the State as well as for its own citizens, where the killing was 
 within the State ; and a foreign administrator has been allowed 
 to prosecute a suit under it.^ 
 
 Construction of Statutes and Election of Remedies. — Where the 
 civil action to which at common law the deceased v/as entitled is 
 kept alive by a statute, the question arises, whether another stat- 
 ute providing a remedy by indictment applies only where the 
 deceased had no right of action, that is, when the death was in- 
 stantaneous. It is held in Maine that the proceeding by indict- 
 ment holds only where the death was instantaneous. The view 
 is taken that one remedy ends where the other begins, in order 
 to prevent the application of two independent and conflicting 
 remedies to the same injury.^ But in Massachusetts the remedy 
 by indictment is held to apply to an injury resulting in death, 
 whether the death is immediate or not, although when it is not 
 immediate a civil action might be brought by the personal repre- 
 sentative.3 The statute of New York is held to apply whether 
 the death is instantaneous or consequential.* 
 
 Where death is not immediate, some statutes are construed to 
 allow an election of remedies, — one by an action at common law 
 accruing to the injured person for pain and suffering and surviv- 
 ing under the statute, and the other an action for the benefit of 
 relatives who suffer pecuniarily from his de^th ; but they treat 
 the injury as one not admitting of severance, and a judgment in 
 one action is a bar to the other.^ Other statutes, however, allow 
 two concurrent remedies, — one for the intestate's cause of action, 
 
 1 Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. s Commonwealth v. Metropolitan E. 
 Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48 ; Hartford & N. H. Co., 107 Mass. 236. The effect of a judg- 
 K. Co. V. Andrews, 36 Conn. 213. Let- ment in a ciril action, or a settlement 
 ters of administration in the case of a with the party injured or his represent- 
 person not an inhabitant of the State, who atives, was reserved. 
 
 was killed by a railroad company, and * Brown v. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 22 
 
 who left no assets within it, was refused N. Y. 191 ; Fowlkes v. Nashville & D. R. 
 
 in Jeffersonville R Co. v. Swayne, 26 Ind. Co., 9 Heisk. 829. 
 
 477. The foreign administrator was held ^ Hansford v. Payne, 11 Bush, 380; 
 
 entitled, as a matter of right, to an ancil- Conner v. Paul, 12 Bush, 144. See Mc- 
 
 lary administration for tlie purpose of Govern v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 
 prosecuting the suit, in Hartford & N. H. 67 N. Y. 417 ; Commonwealth v. Metro- 
 
 K. Co. V. Andrews, 36 Conn. 218. See politan R. Co., 107 Mass. 236 ; Walters v. 
 
 Conner v. Paul, 12 Bush, 144. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 458, 
 
 2 State V. Maine Cent. E. Co., 60 Me. 41 Iowa, 71. 
 490; State v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 61 
 
 Me. 114. 
 
INJURIES RESULTING IN DEATH. 
 
 391 
 
 with damages limited to the time of his death ; and the other for 
 the pecuniary injury resulting to the survivors who are entitled 
 to the amount recovered under the statute.^ 
 
 Notwithstanding the remedy by statute, an action at common 
 law for expenses of sickness and funeral, and loss of service and 
 capacity for labor during the period between the injury and the 
 death, has been sustained ; ^ but an action at common law for loss 
 of service or society cannot, as already stated, be maintained 
 where the death immediately follows the injury.^ 
 
 The same rules of law and evidence apply to the trial of an 
 indictment or of a civil action for the benefit of relatives as to the 
 trial of a civil action for damages brought by the injured person.* 
 Thus, the same rules apply to determine the relative rights and 
 duties of the company and of a passenger for whose death com- 
 pensation is sought,^ or the negligence which makes the company 
 liable, or the contributory negligence which defeats the injured 
 person's right of action,^ or the exemption from liability which 
 results from the lawful transfer of the road into the exclusive 
 possession of other parties,''' or the liability to a servant for inju- 
 
 1 Needham v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 38 
 Vt 294. 
 
 2 Barley v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 4 
 Biss. 430; Hyatt!). Adams, 16 Mich. 180; 
 Long D. Morrison, 14 Ind. 595; Eden v. 
 Lexington & F. R. Co., 14 B. Monr. 204 ; 
 Pack V. New York, 3 N. Y. 480 ; Whit- 
 ford V. Panama R. Co., 23 N. Y. 465, 479, 
 480 ; Potter v. Metropolitan Dist. R. Co., 
 30 Law Times, n. s. 765; Bradshaw v. 
 Lancashire & Y. R. Co., L. R. 10 C. P. 
 189. See Walters v. Chicago, R. I., & P. 
 R. Co., 36 Iowa, 458, 41 Iowa, 71. The 
 husband's right of action for loss of ser- 
 vice and expenses paid in consequence of 
 injury to the wife abates with his death, 
 but may be kept alive by statute. Cre- 
 gin u. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. Co., 75 N. 
 Y. 192, 18 Hun, 368, 19 Hun, 341. 
 
 8 Green v. Hudson River R. Co., 2 ~ 
 Abbott Ct. App. 277, 28 Barb. 9. See 
 McGovern v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 Co., 67 N. Y. 417. 
 
 * State V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 60 Me. 
 490; Commonwealth o. Metropolitan R. 
 Co., 107 Mass. 236; Commonwealth v. 
 Boston & W. R. Co., 101 Mass. 201 ; Com- 
 monwealth c. Vt. & M. R. Co., 108 
 Mass. 7. 
 
 5 State V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 58 Me. 
 176. 
 
 6 State V. Manchester & L. R. Co., 52 
 N. H. 528 ; Blaker t>. New Jersey Midland 
 R. Co. 3 Stewart (N. J.), 240; Ohio & M. 
 R. Co. V. Tindall, 13 Ind. 366; Evans- 
 ville & C. R. Co. «. Lowdermilk, 15 Ind. 
 120 ; Lofton v. Vogles, 17 Ind. 105 ; 
 Hendricks i^. Western & A. R. Co., 52 
 Ga. 467 ; Rowland v. Cannon, 35 Ga. 105; 
 Atlanta & R. A. L. R. Co. v. Ayres, 53 
 Ga. 12; State v. Bait. & 0. R, Co., 24 
 Md. 84; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Fryer, 
 30 Md. 47 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. 
 State, 33 Md. 542 ; Cumberland & P. R. 
 Co. V. State, 37 Md. 156; Elliott v. St. 
 Louis & I. M. R. Co., 67 Mo. 272 ; Balti- 
 more & O. R. Co. V. Slierman, 30 Gratt. 
 602 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. o. Wiiitting- 
 ton, 30 Gratt. 805 ; Richmond & D. R. Co. 
 V. Anderson, 31 Gratt. 812; Darling v. 
 Williams, 35 Ohio St. 58; Willetts v. 
 Buffalo & R. R. Co., 14 Barb. 585. See 
 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Connor, 9 Heisk. 
 19, 2 Baxter, 382. 
 
 ' State V. Consolidated European & N. 
 A. R. Co., 67 Me. 479 ; Norton i>. Wis- 
 wall, 26 Barb. 618; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 V. Barron, 5 Wall. 90. 
 
392 THE LAVr OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 lies caused by the negligence of his fellow-servants,^ or by defec- 
 tive machinery .2 
 
 "Some authorities treat the statute as merely keeping alive a 
 right of action,^ while others treat it as giving a new cause of 
 action.* But whether the statute gives a new cause of action or 
 not, it should be interpreted as intended to give one only when 
 the company would be liable at common law in the event of an 
 injury not fatal in its results. 
 
 The statute usually applies not only to corporations which 
 work their railroads, but also to other parties who are lawfully 
 working them by lease or otherwise ; ^ but it does not apply to 
 individual stockholders.^ 
 
 An action cannot be mfyntained under the statute for an injury 
 for which the deceased received satisfaction in his lifetime. It is 
 not to be presumed that the statute contemplated a double pay- 
 ment and satisfaction.'^ 
 
 Averments in Pleading. — The existence of persons entitled to 
 the amount recovered is essential to a recovery, and must be 
 proved and alleged in the declaration or indictment.^ Some 
 
 1 Prootor u. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 64 237 ; Meara v. Holbrook, 20 Ohio St. 137. 
 Mo. 112 (overruling Sclmltz v. Pacific R. See Commonwealth v. Boston & W. E. 
 Co., 36 Mo. 13) ; State v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 11 Cusli. 512. 
 
 Co., 60 Me. 490 ; Madison & I. R. Co. v. « State v. Gilmore, 24 N. H. 461. 
 
 Bacon, 6 Ind. 205; Slierman v. Rochester ' Dibble !>. New York & E. R. Co., 25 
 
 & S. R. Co., 15 Barb. 574; Hutchinson v. Barb. 183; Read v. Great Eastern R. Co., 
 
 York, N., & B. R. Co., 5 Exch. 343; L. R. 3 Q. B. 5.55; Fowlkes v. Nashville 
 
 Wigmore v. Jay, 5 Exch. 354; Paterson & D. R. Co., 5 Baxter (Tenn.), 66-3. See 
 
 V. Wallace, 1 Macq. 748. See Baltimore Commonwealth v. Metropolitan R. Co., 
 
 & 0. R. Co. ... State, 33 Md. 542. 107 Mass. 236, 237, 238. 
 
 2 Elliott V. St. Louis & I. M. R. Co., 67 8 SafEord v. Drew, 3 Duer, 627 ; Lu- 
 Mo. 272; McMillan v. Saratoga & W. R. cas v. New York Cent. R. Co., 21 Barb. 
 Co., 20 Barb. 449; Brydon .;. Stewart, 2 245; Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Morris, 26 
 Macq. 30. ' 111. 400 ; Woodward v. Chicago & N. W. 
 
 8 Proctor V. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., R. Co., 23 Wis. 400; Slate v. Gilmore, 24 
 
 64 Mo. 112, 120, 124; Fowlkes v. Nash- N. H. 461 ; Commonwealth v. Eastern R. 
 
 ville & D. R. Co., 9 Heisk. 829; Earhart Co., 5 Gray, 473; Commonwealth v. Bos- 
 
 t>. New Orleans & C. R. Co., 17 La. An. ton & A. R. Co., 121 Mass. 36 ; State v. 
 
 243 ; Sherman o. Western Stage Co., 24 Consolidated European & N. A. R. Co., 
 
 Iowa, 515, 543 ; Read v. Great Eastern R. 67 Me. 479, 482 ; Johnston v. Cleveland & 
 
 Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 555. T. R. Co., 7 Ohio St. 336, 339. Contra, 
 
 4 Wliitford V. Panama R. Co., 23 N.Y. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Wightman, 29 
 
 465, 470 ; Crowley v. Panama R. Co., 30 Gratt. 431 ; Matthews v. Warner, 29 
 
 Barb. 99 ; Chicago v. Major, 18 111. 349 ; Gratt. 570 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 
 Richardson v. New York Cent. R. Co., Slierman, 30 Gratt. 602. See Lamphear 
 
 98 Mass. 85. v. Buckingham, 33 Coun. 237. 
 
 '' Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 
 
INJURIES EESULTING EST DEATH. 393 
 
 authorities require it to state the names of such persons,' but 
 others dispense with them."'' 
 
 The indictment or declaration must aver the negligence or 
 default of the company; but it need not describe the kind of 
 negligence or particular acts which constitute the default, or 
 the names or positions of the servants by whose fault the injury 
 was inflicted.^ It need not allege the exercise of due care by the 
 injured party, or that his negligence did not contribute to the 
 injury.* It should allege that an administrator has been duly 
 qualified, where one is required as the recipient of the fund.^ 
 
 Damages. — The measure of damages in an action under the 
 statute is the pecuniary injury suffered by the person or persons 
 entitled to the amount recovered. " The theory of the statute 
 is that the next of kin have a pecuniary interest in the life of the 
 person killed, and the value of this interest is the amount for 
 which the jury are to give a verdict." ^ The cause of action is 
 distinct from tlie one which the injured person, if surviving, would 
 have had, and is based on a different principle ; to wit, the rea- 
 sonable probability of a pecuniary benefit, from the continuance 
 of the life of the deceased to the persons described in the act.'^ 
 The express reference to " the pecuniary injury " contained in the 
 statute of New York, and in those of other States which have 
 followed its terms, assumes such injury to the survivors to be the 
 basis of the action.^ Compensation for a pecuniary injury being 
 
 1 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Gettle, 3 tice where a demurrer is overruled, see 
 W. Va. 376. Daily v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 32 
 
 2 Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. u. Conn. 356 ; Carey v. Day, 36 Conn. 152. 
 Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48, 76. See Common- ^ Commonwealth v. Santord, 12 Gray, 
 wealth V. Boston & W. R. Co., 11 Cush. 174 ; Commonwealth v. East Boston Ferry 
 512. Co., 13 Allen, 589. Various points of 
 
 ' Commonwealth v. Boston & W. R. pleading are considered in State v. Man- 
 Co., 11 Cush. 512; State v. Manchester Chester & L. R., 52 N. H. 528; Common- 
 &L R. Co., 52 N. H. 528; Indianapolis, wealth v. Fitchburg R. Co., 120 Mass. 
 P., & C. R. Co. V. Keely, 23 Ind. 133 ; 372, 126 Mass. 472. 
 
 Louisville, C, & L. R. Co. v. Case, 9 « Quin v. Moore, 15 N. Y. 432, 435; 
 
 Bush, 728. See Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Telfer (,-. Northern R. Co., 1 Vroom, 
 
 Co. V. Chester, 57 Ind. 297; Cla.xton v. 188. 
 
 Lexington & B S. R. Co., 13 Bush, ' Pym v. Great Northern R. Co., 4 
 
 636. Best & S. 396; Paulmier v. Erie R. Co , 
 
 * State V. Manchester & L. R. Co., 52 5 Vroom, 151 ; Kesler ;•. Smith, 66 N. C. 
 
 N. H. 528 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. 154 ; Burton v. Wil. & W. R. Co., 82 N. 
 
 Wliittington, 30 Gratt. 805 But see C. 504 ; Needham w. Grand Trunk R. Co., 
 
 Indianapolis,' P., & C. R. Co. v. Keely, 23 38 Vt. 294. 
 
 Ind. 133 ; Jeffersonville, M., & L R. Co. ' The English act also in its terms 
 
 u. Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48. As to the prac- contemplates an award of damages "pro- 
 
394 
 
 THE LAW OP EAILROADS. 
 
 the measure of damages, the jury are to exclude from considera- 
 tion (1) tlie personal wrong inflicted on the deceased, and his 
 suffering and pain ; (2) the wounded feelings of the survivors for 
 whose benefit the action is brought, and their grief and loss of 
 society ; (3) exemplary or punitive damages for any matters of 
 aggravation, even in jurisdictions where such damages are allowed 
 in actions at common law for personal injuries. The rule of dam- 
 ages, as here stated, is declared in numerous decisions.-^ Under 
 
 portioned to the inju-nj resulting from such 
 death, to the" parties respectively for 
 whom and for whose benefit such action 
 sliall be brought." The difficulty of fix- 
 ing upon any satisfactory standard in 
 the assessment of the damages is treated 
 in Tlie Jurist, vol. xviii. part 2, p. 1. 
 
 1 Oldfield V. New York & H. E. Co., 
 14 N. Y. 310, 3 E. D. Smith, 103 ; Quin 
 V. Moore, 15 N. Y. 432; Whitford v. 
 Panama R. Co., 23 N. Y. 465 ; Tilley v. 
 Hudson River R. Co., 24 N. Y. 471, 29 
 N. Y. 252; Green „. Hudson River R. 
 Co., 2 Abbott Ct. App. 277, 28 Barb. 9, 32 
 Barb. 25 ; Mclntyre v. New York Cent. 
 R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287, 47 Barb. 515; Need- 
 ham V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 38 Vt. 294 ; 
 Chicago I'. Major, 18 111. 349 ; Chicago & 
 R. I. R. Co. V. Morris, 26 111. 400; Chicago 
 & A. II. Co. u. Shannon, 43 111. 338 ; Con- 
 ant V. Griffin, 48 111. 410; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Weldon, 52 111. 290 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Baches, 55 111, 379 ; Chicago & 
 A. R. Co. V. Becker, 76 111. 25; Chicago, 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Harwood, 80 111.88; 
 Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Sunder- 
 land, 2 Brad. (111.) 307; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Barron, 5 Wall. 90, 1 Biss. 412, 
 453 ; ChicagOMSt N. W. R, Co. v. Whitton, 
 13 Wall. 270 ; Barley v. Chicago & A. R. 
 Co., 4 Biss. 430 ; Penn. R. Co. o. Zebe, 
 33 Pa. St. 318 (qualifying Penn. R. Co. 
 V. McCloskey, 23 Pa. St. 526) ; Penn. 
 R. Co. V. Ogier, 35 Pa. St. 00; Penn. R. 
 Co, !,■. Vundever, 36 Pa. St. 298 ; North 
 Penn. It. Co. v. Robinson, 44 Pa. St. 175; 
 Penn. R. Co. </. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 
 315 ; Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 52 
 Pa. St. 282; Penn. R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Pa. 
 St. 335; Penn. R. Co. v. Goodman, 62 
 Pa. St. 329 ; Penn. R, Co. o. Keller, 67 
 Pa. St. 300; Huntingdon & B. T, R, Co. 
 V. Decker, 84 Pa, St. 419, 82 Pa. St. 119; 
 Mansfield Coal & C. Co, u. McEnery, 37 
 
 Leg, Int. 28 ; Coakley v. North Penn. R. 
 Co., 6 Am. Law Reg. 355; Potter v. Chi- 
 cago & N. W. E. Co., 21 Wis. 372, 22 
 Wis. 615 ; Castello v. Landwehr, 28 Wis. 
 522; State v. Bait. & 0, E. Co., 24 Md. 
 84 ; Telfer v. Northern R. Co., 1 Vroom, 
 188 ; Paulmier u. Erie R. Co., 5 Vroom, 
 151 ; South Western R. Co. v. Paulk, 24 
 Ga. 356 ; Donaldson v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 
 18 Iowa, 280 ; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Tin- 
 dall, 13 Ind. 366 ; Jeffersonville R. Co. a. 
 Swayne, 26 Ind. 477 (reviewing Long v. 
 Morrison, 14 Ind. 695, and Indianapolis, 
 P., & C. R. Co. V. Keeley, 23 Ind. 133); 
 Kesler v. Smith, 66 N. C. 164 ; Hyatt v. 
 Adams, 16 Mich. 180 ; Groff o. Cincinnati 
 & I. R. Co., 1 Cincinnati Superior Ct. 
 264; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Cutter, 19 
 Kan. 83 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Miller, 
 2 Col. 442 ; Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. 
 Barker, 33 Ark. 350 ; Baltimore & 0. R. 
 Co. V. Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431 ; Coving- 
 ton St. R. Co. <;. Packer, 9 Bush, 455; 
 Blake v. Midland R. Co., IS Q. B. 93; 
 Franklin v. South Eastern R. Co., 3 
 Hurl. & N. 211 ; Dalton v. South Eastern 
 R. Co., 4 C. B. N. s. 296 ; Pym v. Great 
 Northern R. Co., 4 Best & S. 396. Ex- 
 emplary damages are allowed in Ken- 
 tucky: Bowler v. Lane, 3 Met. 311; 
 Louisville, C, & L. R. Co. v. Mahony, 7 
 Bush, 235 ; Louisville, C, & L. R. Co. u. 
 Case, 9 Bush, 728; in Alabama: Savan- 
 nah & M. R. Co. V. Shearer, 57 Ala. 672; 
 Soutli & N. A. R. Co. <;. Sullivan, 59 
 Ala. 272; in Virginia: Matthews v. War- 
 ner, 29 Gratt. 570; Baltimore & 0, R. 
 Co. V. Noell, 32 Gratt. 394 ; and in Colo- 
 rado : Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Miller, 2 
 Col. 442 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Lun- 
 din, 3 Col. 94 ; and by statute in Califoiv 
 nia: Taylor «. Western Pacific R. Co., 
 45 Cal. 323 ; and by the Constitution in 
 Texas: Galveston, H,, & S. A. R. Co. 
 
INJUEIES EESTJLTING IN DEATH. 395 
 
 the statute of Connecticut, the ground of damages is held to be 
 the injury to the deceased, and not the loss to the relatives.^ 
 This statute does not include terms equivalent to those in which 
 the English and New York statutes refer to the pecuniary injury 
 of the survivors. So, also, the statute of Massachusetts, which 
 provides a prosecution by indictment, is held to allow a greater or 
 less penalty within the prescribed maximum and minimum, ac- 
 cording to the degree of blame which attaches to the defendant, 
 but not according to the loss sustained by the widow and heirs of 
 the deceased.^ Its purpose is considered to be not only to pro- 
 vide compensation to the relatives, but to inflict punishment for 
 the offence.^ 
 
 Nominal damages may be given without proof of actual pecu- 
 niary loss.* Proof of such loss has been required to sustain a 
 verdict for more than nominal damages ; ^ but the jury may infer 
 such loss from the age, character, and capacity of the deceased 
 and his relation to the survivors to whose benefit the amount re- 
 covered is to inure, and give substantial damages without further 
 direct proof of special loss.^ 
 
 The difficulty of stating a fixed and definite rule for measuring 
 the compensation allowed under the statute has been frequently 
 confessed. The jury is to exercise a sound judgment, while the 
 court retains its corrective function in revising verdicts which 
 award excessive damages.'' The court should caution the jury 
 
 V. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 189; Southern Cot- ^ Oldfield o. New York & H. R. Co., 
 
 ton Press Co. v. Bradley, 52 Tex. 587. 14 N. Y. 310, 317 ; Quin v. Moore, 15 N. 
 
 See Sherman v. Western Stage Co., 24 Y. 432; Keller v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 Iowa, 515;.Penn. R. Co. v. Zebe, 83 Pa. 2 Abbott Ct. App. 480, 17 How. Pr. 102. 
 St. 318, 330 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. » Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Shannon, 43 
 
 Cutter, 19 Kan. 83. In Tennessee, the 111. 338 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Weldon, 
 
 damages may include the suffering, loss 52 111. 290 ; Mclntyre v. New York Cent. 
 
 of time, and expenses of the deceased R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287; Mitchell u. New 
 
 resulting from the injury. Nashville & York Cent. & H. R. R Co., 2 Hun, 535. 
 C. R. Co. I'. Prince, 2 Heisk. 580, 585; ^ O'Mara v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 
 
 Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Smitli, 6 N. Y. 445; Ihl i,. Forty-Second St. R. 
 
 Heisk. 174 ; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Co., 47 N. Y. 317 ; Dickens v. New York 
 
 Stevens, 9 Heisk. 12; Collins i.'. East Cent. R. Co., 1 Ahbott Ct. App. 505; 
 
 Tenn., V., & G. R. Co., 9 Heisk. 841 ; Cornwall v. Mills, 44 N. Y. Superior Ct. 
 
 Fowlkes !). Nashville & D. R. Co., 5 Bax- 45; Chicago v. Scholten, 75 111. 468; 
 
 ter, 663. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. E. Co. v. Dela- 
 
 1 Goodsell V. Hartford & N. H. R. Co., ney, 82 111. 198 ; Grotenkemper v. Harris, 
 33 Conn. 51 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. </. 25 Ohio St. 510. 
 
 Burke, 6 Col. 45. ' Penn. R. Co. a. Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318 ; 
 
 2 Carey v. Berkshire B. Co., 1 Cush. Penn. R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. St. 60; 
 475. Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 52 Pa. 
 
 8 Commonwealth v. Metropolitan R. St. 282; Penn. R. Co. v. Keller, 67 Pa. St. 
 Co., 107 Mass. 236. 300; Paulraier b. Erie R. Co., 5 Vroom, 
 
396 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 not to assume an unlimited discretion, and instruct it to limit the 
 verdict to a just compensation for the pecuniary injury .1 The 
 court will set aside a verdict which gives excessive damages, or 
 damages Avhich are beyond just compensation for the pecuniary 
 injury and are awarded by way of example or punishment.^ 
 
 The amount received by the relatives, for whose benefit the 
 action is brought, upon policies of insurance on the life of the 
 deceased is not to be admitted in reduction of damages.^ 
 
 The circumstances of the deceased; his occupation, age, health, 
 habits of industry, sobriety, and economy ; his skill and capacity 
 for business; the amount of his property, and even his annual earn- 
 ings and the probable duration of his- life, — have been admitted 
 to shnw the pecuniary injury which the survivors have suffered ; 
 and ordinarilj;- such proof is required to entitle them to substan- 
 tial damages.* Proof has been admitted of a father's occupation 
 
 151 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Barron, 5 
 Wall. 90, 1 Biss. 412, 453 ; Barley v. Chi- 
 cago & A. R. Co., 4 Biss. 430; South 
 Western R. Co. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356; 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. u. Shannon, 43 111. 
 338 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Cutter, 19 
 Kan. 83 ; Hermann v. New Orleans & C. 
 R Co., 11 La. An. 5; Frank v. New Or- 
 leans & C. R. Co., 20 La. An. 25 ; Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co. <.. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205 ; 
 Tilley v. Hudson River R. Co., 29 N. Y. 
 252, 286; Mclntyre v. New York Cent. R. 
 Co , 37 N. Y. 287, 47 Barb. 515 ; Ewen v. 
 Chicago & N. R. Co., 38 Wis. 613; Bur- 
 ton V. Wil. & W. R. Co., 82 N. C. 504; 
 Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Miller. 2 Col. 
 412. 
 
 1 Green v. Hudson River R. Co., 32 
 Barb. 25, 2 Abbott Ct. App. 277 ; State v. 
 Bait. & 0. R. Co., 24 Md. 84 ; Penn. R. 
 Co. ,;. Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318; Penn. R. Co. 
 u. Ogier, 35 Pa. St. CO ; Catawissa R. Co. 
 V. Armstrong, 52 Pa. St. 282 ; Penn. R. 
 Co. a. Butler, 57 Pa. St. 335; Penn. R. 
 Co. u. Keller, 67 Pa. St. 300; Louisville 
 & N. R. Co. V. Burke, 6 Cold. 45; Chi- 
 cago V. Scholten, 75 111. 468; Burton v. 
 Wil. & W. R. Co., 82 N. C. 504. 
 
 2 Sherman u. Western Stage Co., 24 
 Iowa, 515; Rose v. Des Moines Valley R. 
 Co., 39 Iowa, 240 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. 
 i>. Weldon, 52 111. 290 ; Chicago & A. R. 
 Co. V. Garvey, 58 111. 83 ; Chicago, R. I. 
 & P. R. Co. V. Austin, 69 111. 420 ; Lake 
 Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Sunderland, 2 
 
 Brad. (111.) 307; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 
 «. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 205 ; Potter v. Chi- 
 cago & N. W. R. Co., 22 Wis. 615 ; Mcln- 
 tyre V. New York Cent. R. Co., 47 Barb. 
 515, 37 N. Y. 287 ; Telfer !,•. Northern R. 
 Co., 1 Vroom, 188 ; Paulmier v. Erie R. 
 Co., 5 Vroom, 151 ; Groff v. Cincinnati & 
 I. R. Co., 1 Cincinnati (Superior Ct.), 
 204; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Prince, 2 
 Heisk. 580 ; Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Ste- 
 vens, 9 Heisk. 12 ; Nashville & D. R. Co. 
 V. Jones, 9 Heisk. 27. 
 
 3 Althorf V. Wolfe, 22 N. Y. 355 ; Kel- 
 logg ;/. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 
 79 N. Y. 72; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 V. Wightman, 29 Gratt. 431 ; Harding v. 
 Townsend, 43 Vt. 536 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. 
 L. R. Co. V. Thompson, 56 111. 138; Brad- 
 burn 0. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 10 
 Exch. 1. An insurance company, which 
 has paid the amount of a policy on the 
 life of a person killed by the wrongful act 
 of another, cannot recover it of tlie wrong- 
 doer. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. New 
 York & N. H. R. Co., 25 Conn. 265. 
 
 « Telfer v. Northern R. Co , 1 Vroom, 
 188; Baltimore & O. R. Co. !,•. State, 24 
 Md. 271 ; Tilley v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 24 N. Y. 471, 29 N. Y. 252; Mclntyre v. 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287 ; 
 Catawissa R. Co. v. Armstrong, 52 Pa. 
 St. 282 ; Penn. R. Co. ,.. Butler, 57 Pa St. 
 835; Illinois Cent. R. Co. o. Weldon, 52 
 III. 290; Donaldson v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 
 18 Iowa, 280; South Western R. Co. v. 
 
INJURIES EESULTING IN DEATH. 397 
 
 with reference to its probable effect in determining the business 
 and earnings of a child for whose death the action was brought.^ 
 The chances of the deceased in acquiring property, wealth, or for- 
 tune by a change of circumstances are too uncertain to be consid- 
 ered by the jury.^ 
 
 The defendant's pecuniary condition cannot be considered in 
 the assessment of damages; ^ nor can the number of the plaintiff's 
 children.* The right of a widow to compensation for the killing 
 of her husband does not, under the statute, depend upon lier 
 having been dependent on him for support during his lifetime.® 
 The poverty or wealth of the next of kin,^ or the fact that the 
 next of kin became heirs to the property of the deceased/ is not 
 to be considered in determining the amount of damages. 
 
 The damages include the prospective as well as past pecuniary 
 injury,^ and expenses of medical attendance and funeral." 
 
 Damages for a Husband's and Father's Death. — Where the action 
 is for the benefit of the widow and children, the jury, rejecting 
 solatium for distress of mind, are to consider only their pecuniary 
 loss, — that is, "what the deceased would have probably earned 
 by his intellectual or bodily labor in his business or profession 
 during the residue of his lifetime, and which would have gone for 
 tlieir benefit, taking into consideration his age, ability, and dis- 
 
 Paulk, 24 Ga. 356 ; Yonge v. Kinney, 28 » Conant u. Griffin, 48 111. 411 ; Chi- 
 Ga. HI; Macon & W. R. Co. v Johnson, cago & N. W. R. Co. v. Bayfield, 37 Mich. 
 38 Ga. 409; David v. South Western R. 205. But contra, Louisville, C, & L. R. 
 Co., 41 Ga. 22.'3 ; Atlanta & R. A. L. R. Co. Co. v. Maliony, 7 Bush, 235. 
 V. Ayers, 53 Ga. 12; Kesler v. Smith, < Kesler v. Smith, 66 N. C. 154. 
 66 N. C. 154 ; Burton v. Wil. & W. R. 6 Denver, S. P., & P. R. Co. v. Wood- 
 Co., 82 N. C. 504; Taylor v. Western ward, 4 Col. 1,162. 
 Pacific R. Co., 45 Cal. 323 ; Kansas " Chicago & n; W. R. Co. v. Moranda, 
 Pacific R. Co. V Cutter, 19 Kan. 83; 93111.302; Illinois Cent. R. Co. (•. Baches, 
 Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Luudin, 3 Col. 55111. 379; Chicago &N.W. R. Co. !). How- 
 94 ; Denver, S. P., & P. R. Co. c. Wood- ard, 6 Brad. (111.) 569; Central R. Co. v. 
 ward, 4 Col. 1, 102; Baltimore & 0. R. Moore, 61 Ga. 151. See Potter i-. Chicago 
 Co. I). Wightman, 29 Gratt. "431 ; Balti- & N. W. R. Co., 21 Wis. 372, 22 Wis. 615; 
 more & O. R. Co. v. Noell, 32 Gratt. 394 .: Barley v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 4 Biss. 
 Nashville & C. R. Co. v. Prince, 2 Heisk. 430. . 
 
 580 ; Chicago v. Scholten, 75 111. 468 ; ' Terry v. Jewett, 78 N. Y. 338. 
 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. i.. Moranda, 93 8 Oldfield v. New York & H. R. Co., 
 
 lU. 302. 14 N. Y. 310, 318; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 
 1 Walters v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. v. State, 33 Md. 542 ; Baltimore & 0. R. 
 
 Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 36 Iowa, 458. Co. v. State, 41 Md. 268. 
 
 •■^ Mansfield Coal & C. Co. v. McEnery, » Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. Rowan, 66 
 
 87 Leg. Int. 28. Pa. St. 393 ; Covington St. R. Co. v. 
 
 Packer, 9 Bush, 455. 
 
398 THE LAW OP BAILROADS. 
 
 position to labor, and his habits of living and expenditure." i 
 The loss of a father's superintendence, attention to and care 
 of his family, and the education of his children are to be consid- 
 ered as an element of damages in an action for the benefit of 
 children.^ 
 
 Damages for a Mother's Death. — In an action for a mother's 
 death, brought for the benefit of minor children, the loss of mater- 
 nal nurture and instruction, moral and physical, to the extent they 
 naturally affect the pecuniary interests of the children, may be 
 considered in the assessment of the damages, without limiting 
 them to the period of minority ; but her future earnings, which 
 belong by law to her husband, and the probable increase of the 
 father's estate by reason thereof, have been excluded.^ Her capa- 
 city for such nurture and instruction, in order to be an element 
 in the amount of damages, should be shown by proof.* 
 
 Damages for a Child's Death. — A parent may recover, under the 
 statute, the value of the services of his minor child, and also ex- 
 penses of medical attendance, nursing, and burial.^ The damages 
 are to be limited to the value of the child's services during minor- 
 ity, unless there is proof of facts showing a reasonable expec- 
 tation of pecuniary benefit after the period of minority.® It is 
 competent to prove such facts in the condition of the parent as 
 will show his probable need of the child's services.'^ The death 
 of children of tender years, who are able to render only trifling 
 household services, has sometimes been held to involve no pecu- 
 niary injury to parents.^ 
 
 1 Penn. R. Co. v. Butler, 57 Pa. St. Chicago&N. W.R.Co.,38 Wis.SlS; Ohio 
 835, 3-38; Mansfield Coal & C. Co. „. Mo- & M. R. Co. i-. Tindall, 13 Ind. 366; 
 Enery, 37 Leg. Int. 28 ; Illinois Cent. R. Covington St. R. Co. v. Packer, 9 Bush, 
 Co. V. Baches, 55 111. 379. 455; Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. ^. Bar- 
 
 2 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. u. Wightman, ker, 33 Ark. 350. 
 
 29 Gratt. 431, 443. 6 Penn. R. Co. o. Zebe, 33 Pa. St. 318 ; 
 
 3 Tilley V. Hudson River R. Co., 24 Telfer d. Northern R. Co., 1 Vroom, 188; 
 N. Y. 471, 29 N. Y. 252; Mclntyre v. Potter v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 21 
 New York Cent. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287, Wis. 372, 22 Wis. 615; Rockford, R. I., & 
 47 Barb. 615; Illinois Cent. R. Co. o. St. L. R. Co. «. Delaney, 82 111. 198. See 
 Weldon, 62 111. 290. Walters v. C, R. L, & P. R. Co., 41 
 
 * Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Weldon, 52 Iowa, 71; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Noell, 
 
 111. 200; Chicago, R. L, & P. R. Co. v. 32 Gratt 394; Houston & T. C. R. Co. u. 
 
 Austin, 69 111. 426. Nixon, 52 Tex. 19. 
 
 6 O'Mara v. Hudson River R. Co., 38 ' Ewen v. Chicago & N. R. Co., 38 
 
 N. Y. 445; McMalion o. New York, 33 Wis. 613. 
 
 N. Y. 642; McGovern t\ New York Cent. » Holleran v. Bagnell, 6 L R Ir. 
 
 & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 417 ; Ewen u. 333. 
 
INJUKIES RESULTING IN DEATH. 399 
 
 In estimating the value of a minor daughter's services, the 
 chances of marriage between eighteen and twenty-one are not 
 to be taken into account by way of diminishing their value. ^ 
 
 Where a recovery is sought for the death of an adult child, 
 there must be evidence of a relation giving rise to a reasonable 
 expectation of pecuniary benefit. Thus, where an action is 
 brought by parents on account of the death of an adult son, it 
 must be proved, in order to recover substantial damages, that the 
 family relation continued in fact ; and this may be shown by his 
 continuing to live with them, or by his aiding in their support, 
 or even, in the absence of actual aid, by his assurances of such 
 aid.2 Some authorities limit the compensation for a child's death 
 strictly to the period of minority.^ The widowed mother is en- 
 titled to the benefit of the statute in case of the killing of her 
 son, although not at common law bound for his support or en- 
 titled to his services.* 
 
 Damages to Relatives not of the Immediate Family. — The reason- 
 able probability that the surviving relatives would have received 
 support or pecuniary benefit from the deceased, if he had lived, 
 is the controlling element in determining the amount of the dam- 
 ages.^ Where the next of kin are collaterals, whom the deceased 
 was not by law bound to support, it is proper to show, in measur- 
 ing their loss, that they had been in fact supported by him.^ 
 
 Evidence. — The relation of husband and wife is to be proved 
 under the statute as in civil causes.^ 
 
 In assessing the damages, the reasonable probability of the 
 length of life of the deceased may be considered ; ^ and, in deter- 
 mining such probable duration, life-tables are competent evi- 
 dence.^ 
 
 1 Seaman v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 510 ; Dunhene v. Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co., 
 15 Wis. 678. 1 Disney, 257. 
 
 2 Penn. R. Co. v. Adams, 55 Pa. St. " Cliicago & N. W. R. Co. ■/. Moranda, 
 499 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Keller, 67 Pa. St. 93 111. 302. 
 
 800 ; Groff v. Cincinnati & I. R. Co., 1 Cin- ' Conant v. Griffin, 48 111. 410 ; Toledo, 
 
 einnati (Superior Ct.), 264; Franklin v. W., & W. R. Co. v. Brooks, 81 111. 245; 
 
 South Eastern R. Co., 3 Hurl. & N. 211 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Miller, 2 Col. 
 
 Dalton V. South Eastern R. Co., 4 C. B. 442. See this last case also as to proof of 
 
 N. 8. 296. death. 
 
 ' State V. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 24 * Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. State, 33 
 
 Md. 84. Md 542. 
 
 * Penn.R. Co.w. Bantom,54Pa.St.495. ' Sauter v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 
 SeeOhio&M.R.Co.i>.Tindall,13Ind.366. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 50, 6 Hun, 446; Johnson 
 
 s Grotenkemper v. Harris, 25 Ohio St. u. Hudson River R. Co., 6 Duer, 633 ; 
 
400 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 The declarations of the deceased as to the circumstances of the 
 injury, made immediately after it occurred, are admissible as a 
 part of the res gestae in favor of the defendant in an action for 
 damages on account of his death ; ^ but, unless a part of the res 
 gestce, they are not, although dying declarations, admissible.^ 
 
 Time when Right of Action vests. Statute of Limitations. — The 
 right of action vests at the death which is the cause of action, 
 and, on the death of the person entitled to it, descends to his or 
 her representatives.^ 
 
 The Statute of Limitations begins to run from the time of the 
 death, although an administrator has not been appointed;* but 
 some authorities hold that it does not begin to run prior to such 
 appointment.^ 
 
 Louisville, C, & L. R. Co. v. Mahony, 7 
 Basil, 235; Donaldson v. Miss & M. R. 
 Co., 18 Iowa, 280; Walters v. Chicago, 
 R. I., & P. E. Co., 41 Iowa, 71, 86 Iowa, 
 458 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. u. Noell, 82 
 Gratt. 894; South Western R. Co. v. 
 Paulk, 24 Ga. 356 ; Macon & W. R. Co. 
 V. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409 ; David v. South 
 Western R. Co., 41 Ga. 223; Kansas 
 Pacific R. Co. i,-. Lundin, 3 Col. 94 ; Den- 
 ver, S. P., & P. R. Co. V. Woodward, 4 
 Col. 1. The opinion of a witness as to 
 tlie length of time during which the de- 
 ceased would have been probably useful 
 to his family has been admitted. Penn. 
 R. Co. 0. Henderson, 51 Pa. St. 315. 
 
 1 Stein V. Railway Co., 10 Phil. 440. 
 
 2 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Howard, 
 6 Brad. (111.) 569; Marshall v. Chicago & 
 
 G. E. R. Co., 48 111. 475; Brownell v. 
 Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 239; Hyatt v. 
 Adams, 16 Mich. 180; Daily v. New 
 York & N. H. R. Co., 32 Conn. 356. 
 
 3 Waldo V. Goodsell, 33 Conn. 432. 
 
 ' Fowlkes V. Nashville & D. R. Co., 9 
 Heisk. 829, 5 Baxter, 663 ; Jeffersonville, 
 M., & I. R. Co. V. Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48; 
 Needham i>. Grand Trunk R. Co., 38 Vt. 
 294, 306. 
 
 5 Andrews >: Hartford & N. H. R. Co., 
 34 Conn. 57 ; Sherman i'. Western Stage 
 Co., 24 Iowa, 515. For other cases con- 
 cerning the limitation of actions and pro- 
 ceedings under the statute, see Common- 
 wealth V. Boston & W. R. Co., 11 Cush. 
 512 ; Commonwealth v. East Boston Ferry 
 Co., 13 Allen, 589 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. 
 L. R. Co. V. Hine, 25 Ohio St. 629. 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 401 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 INJURIES TO CATTLE. 
 
 A RAILROAD company, as already seen, is entitled, except at 
 crossings established by law or agreement, to the exclusive use 
 of its track.i Its rights respecting cattle coming upon it are 
 like those of any proprietor of the fee.^ 
 
 Rule at Common Law requiring the Owner of Cattle to keep them 
 on his own Land. — By an ancient rule of the common law an 
 owner of cattle must keep them within his own close, and 
 he becomes a trespasser if, without license, they go upon the 
 land of another. The want of a fence between the adjoining 
 closes is not a defence to an action for an entry of cattle from 
 one upon the other, except where the owner of the close so en- 
 tered upon is, by prescription, agreement, or 'otherwise, legally 
 bound to support the fence, through the want of which the es- 
 cape was made ; but, if he is so bound, he cannot maintain an 
 action for the entry of cattle lawfully on the other land, as it 
 occurred through his own default,^ 
 
 Applying this rule to a railroad company in its relation to land- 
 owners, it is not, unless required by statute, bound to maintain 
 fences along its location ; and, while in the lawful exercise of its 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. VII. p. 159. asses. Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Brubaker, 47 
 
 2 Kurd V. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. III. 462 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 116 ; Jackson v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Cole, 50 111. 184. The term "cattle," in 
 Vt. 150 ; Hunger v. Tonawanda R. Co., the English statute, includes pigs. Child 
 4 N. Y. 349,5 Denio, 255; Kerwhackcr v. v. Hearn, L. R. 9 Exch. 176. 
 Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. » Rust v. Low, 6 Mass. 90 ; Thayer v. 
 172 ; New York & E. R. Co. r. Skinner, Arnold, 4 Met. 589 ; Bronson v. Coffin, 
 19 Pa. St. 298 ; Williams v. Mich. Cent. 108 Mass. 175, 185 ; Little u. Lathrop, 5 
 R. Co., 2 Mich. 259. The term "cattle," Greenl. 356; Tewksbury i. Bucklin, 7 
 as employed in this chapter, includes not N. H. 518; Avery v. Maxwell, 4 N. H. 
 only beasts of the bovine genus, but also 36; Lawrence )•. Combs, 37 N. H. 331 ; 
 horses, mules, sheep, and swine. Louis- Wells y. Howell, 19 Johns. .385 ; Richard- 
 ville&F. R Co. u. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ivy.) son v. Milburn, 11 Md. 340; Gregg v. 
 177, 183. The term " cattle and horses," Gregg, 65 Pa. St. 227 ; Gardner i>. Smith, 
 in the Illinois statute, includes mules and 7 Mich. 410. 
 
 26 
 
402 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 powers, it is not liable to the owner of cattle coming within the 
 location for injuries caused merely by the want of a fence. The 
 company is not chargeable with any breach of duty in not main- 
 taining a fence, and the owner who has suffered his cattle to 
 intrude upon its premises is a trespasser.^ The owner is also 
 liable to the company for injuries to its trains or other property 
 resulting^rom the trespass.^ 
 
 The company, as already stated, is entitled to the exclusive 
 occupation of its location, except at lawful crossings by public or 
 private ways. It conducts within it the business of a common 
 carrier, according to the usages peculiar to its kind of motive 
 power. Speed and punctuality in the movement of its trains are 
 most important for the public convenience and safety ; and these 
 ought not to be interfered with by any intrusion. The duty to 
 use ordinary care defines the relations of parties who are each ex- 
 ercising a right, but it does not apply in favor of a trespasser, 
 who can claim protection only against wanton injury. When, 
 therefore, cattle which have come upon the track without any de- 
 fault of the company as to fencing, are injured by its engines, it 
 is not liable merely because by the exercise of ordinaiy care it 
 might have avoided the injury, but only when the injury has been 
 caused by its reckless and wilful misconduct.^ Some authorities 
 
 ' Perkins v. Eastern K. Co., 29 Me. Hams v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 2 ^iah. 259; 
 
 307 ; Woolson o. Northern R. Co., 19 N. Henry v. Dubuque & P. U. Co., 2 Iowa, 
 
 H. 267 ; Cornwall v. Sullivan R. Co., 28 288, 303; Stucke v. Mil. & M. R. Co., 9 
 
 N. H 161, 170; Chapln v. Sullivan R. Wis. 202, 21-3; Locke «. St. Paul & P. R. 
 
 Co, 39 N. H. 53; Kurd v. Rutland & B. Co., 15 Minn. 350; Vandegrift v. Dela- 
 
 R. Co., 25 Vt. 116, 123 ; Jackson o. Rut- ware R. Co., 2 Houat. 287 ; North Kast- 
 
 land & B. R; Co., 25 Vt. 150; Morse v. ern R. Co. v. Sineath, 8 Rich. 185, 194; 
 
 Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 49; Tower Cranston v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co.,1 
 
 V. Providence & W. R. Co., 2 R. I. 404; Handy (Cincinnati), 193. 
 Stearnsw. Old Colony &F.R.R. Co.,1 Al- a Sinram o. Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. 
 
 len, 493 ; Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 R. Co., 28 Ind. 244 ; Eames v. Salem & 
 
 Mass. 560 ; Terry v. New York Cent. R. L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560, 563 ; New York 
 
 Co., 22 Barb. 574 ; Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co. v. Skinner, 19 Pa. St. 298 ; 
 
 & E, R. Co., 13 N. Y. 42, 46 ; Vandegrift North Eastern R. Co. ... Sineath, 8 Rich. 
 
 I'. Rediker, 2 Zab. 185 ; New York & E. 185, 194. 
 
 R. Co. i;. Skinner, 19 Pa. St. 298 ; Drake = Munger v. Tonawanda R. Co., 4 N. 
 
 V. Phil. & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 240; Penn. Y. 349, 6 Denio, 255; Hance v. Cayuga 
 
 R. Co. y. Riblet, 66 Pa. St. 164 ; Williams & S. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 428; Spinner ». 
 
 V. New Albany & S. R. Co., 5 Ind. Ill ; New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 
 
 Lafayette & I, R. Co. v. Shriner, 6 Ind. 153, 6 Hun, 600 ; Clark v. Syracuse & 
 
 141 , Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Kinney, U. R. Co., 11 Barb. 112 ; Talmadge v. 
 
 8 Ind. 402 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 13 Barb. 493; 
 
 McClure, 26 Ind. 370 ; Indianapolis, C, & Marsh v. New York & E. R. Co., 14 Barb. 
 
 L. R. Co. V. Barter, 38 Ind. 557 ; Alton 364 ; Terry i.. New York Cent R. Co., 
 
 & S. R. Co. V. Baugh, 14111. 211; Wil- 22 Barb. 674; Bowman v. Troy & B. 
 
INJTTEIES TO CATTLE. 
 
 403 
 
 make it liable for injury to cattle trespassing when it is chargeable 
 with " gross negligence," but these terms are usually intended to 
 convey the same meaning as wilful or wanton misconduct.^ 
 
 It is held, however, in some jurisdictions that the company, 
 although not in default as to any duty to maintain a fence, is, 
 when cattle come without right upon its track, liable for an injury 
 to them which it might have avoided by the exercise of ordinary 
 care. The owner's remote negligence or technical trespass in 
 not keeping them within his own close, and in allowing them to 
 stray upon the track, is held not to relieve the company of the 
 obligation to use ordinary or reasonable care at the time to avoid 
 injury to them. According to this rule, the company is liable to 
 the owner for injuries to cattle wrongfully upon its track where 
 it has failed to use ordinary care, although not at the time guilty 
 of reckless and wilful misconduct.^ 
 
 R. Co., 87 Barb. 516 ; Mentges v. New 
 York & H. K. Co., 1 Hilton, 425 ; New 
 York & E. B. Co. v. Skinner, 19 Pa. St. 
 298 ; North Peiin. R. Co. v. Rehman, 49 
 Pa. St. 101 ; Drake ... Phil. & E. R. Co., 
 61 Pa. St. 240; Vandegrift v. Rediker, 
 2 Zab. 185 ; Price v. New Jersey, R., & 
 T. Co., 3 Vroora, 19; Tower v. Provi- 
 dence & W. R. Co., 2 R. I. 404 ; Eames 
 V. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560; 
 Maynard v. Boston & M. R., 115 Mass. 
 458; McDonnell u. Pittsfield & N. A. 
 R. Co., 115 Mass. 564 ; Darling v. Bos- 
 ton & A. R. Co., 121 Mass. 118; Wil- 
 liams V. New Albany & S. R. Co., 5 Ind. 
 Ill ; Lafayette & I. R. Co. v. Shriner, 6 
 Ind. 141 ; New Albany & S. R. Co. v. 
 McNamara, 11 Ind. 543; Indianapolis & 
 C. R. Co. V. McClure 26 Ind. 370 ; Mich- 
 igan Southern & N. I. R. Co. v. Fisher, 27 
 Ind, 96; Indianapolis, C, & L. R. Co. v. 
 Harter, 38 Ind. 557 ; Jeffersonville, M., & 
 I. R. Co. V. Huher, 42 Ind. 173 ; Jefferson- 
 ville, M., & I. R. Co. V. Adams, 43 Ind. 
 402 ; Jeffersonville, M , & I. R. Co. v. 
 Underbill, 48 Ind. 389; Louisville & 
 F. R. Co. V. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 177; 
 O'Bannon v. Louisville, C, & L. R. Co., 
 8 Bush, 348; Pritchard v. La Crosse & M. 
 R. Co., 7 Wis. 2.32; Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co. i: Goss, 17 Wis. 428 (explaining Stucke 
 V. Mil, & M. R, Co,, 9 Wis. 202) ; Bennett 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 19 Wis. 145 ; 
 Fisher i>. Farmers' Loan & T. Co., 21 
 Wis. 73 ; Central Branch R. Co. v. Lea, 
 
 20 Kan. 353 (modifying Hopkins v. Kan- 
 sas Pacific E. Co., 18 Kan. 462) ; Atch- 
 ison, T., & S. F. R. Co. i». Hegwir, 21 
 Kan. 622 ; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. 
 Olsen, 4 Col. 239; Williams v. Mich. 
 Cent. R. Co., 2 Mich. 259. The duty of 
 the owner to keep his cattle on his own 
 land is held to exist even tliough the com- 
 pany has failed to fence according to 
 agreement. Drake v. Phil. & E. R. Co., 
 51 Pa. St. 240. 
 
 1 See cases cited in note 3, p. 402. 
 
 2 Isbell V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 27 
 Conn. 393 ; Needham v. San Francisco & 
 S. J. R. Co., 37 Cal, 409 ; Baltimore & 0. 
 R. Co. V. Mulligan, 45 Md. 486 (modifying 
 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Lamborn, 12 
 Md. 257); Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 McGinnis, 71 111, 346 ; Illinois Cent, R. 
 Co. V. Middlesworth, 46 III. 494 (over- 
 ruling the earlier cases : Chicago & M. 
 R. Co. K. Patcliin, 16 III. 198; Great 
 Western R. Co. u. Thompson, 17 111. 131 ; 
 Central Mil. Tract R. Co, v. Rockafellow, 
 17 111. 541 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Reedy, 
 17 111. 580; Chicago, B., & Q, R, Co. v. 
 Cauffman, 28 111. 513 ; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Phelps, 29 111, 447; Illinois Cent. R. 
 Co. V. Goodwin, 30 111. 117) ; Locke v. St. 
 Paul & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350 ; Wither- 
 ell V. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 410; 
 Louisville & F. R. Co. v. Milton; 14 B. 
 Monr. 75; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 Wainscott, 3 Bush, 149; Kentucky Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Lebus, 14 Bush, 518 ; Nashville 
 
404 
 
 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 Rule at Common Law not adopted in some States. — The rule of 
 the common law, that the owner of domestic anhnals must keep 
 them on his own land, and is liable in trespass when they pass 
 upon the land of another, is rejected in some States as unsuited 
 to their circumstances a;nd contrary to custom ; ^ and it is held 
 that, as he is not in fault for allowing them to stray upon the 
 highway or unenclosed land, the company, although it may not 
 be required to fence its track, is bound when they come upon it 
 to use ordinary care to prevent injury to them, and is liable for 
 an injury to them which it could by the exercise of such care 
 have avoided. At the most, the owner's act in allowing his 
 cattle to stray is, in such States, deemed only remote negligence, 
 which does not relieve the company of the obligation to use ordi- 
 nary care.^ 
 
 But although the owner of cattle is not held liable in trespass 
 when he allows them to stray on unenclosed lands where no sub- 
 
 & C. R. Co. u. Anthony, 1 Lea (Tenn.), 
 516 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Cald- 
 well, 9 Ind. 397 ; Trow i-. Vt; Cent. R. 
 Co., 24 Vt. 487 ; Jackson w. Rutland & B. 
 R. Co., 25 Vt. 150; Kerwhacker v. 
 Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 
 172; Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co. v. 
 AVaterson, 4 Ohio St. 424 ; Cincinnati & 
 Z. R. Co. I'. Smith, 22 Ohio St. 227. 
 
 1 Studwell V. Ritch, 14 Conn. 292; 
 Seeley v. Peters, 5 Oilman, 130 ; Headen 
 V. Rust, 39 111. 186 ; Stoner v. Shugart, 45 
 HI. 76 ; Russell ». Hanley, 20 Iowa, 219 ; 
 Jones V. Witherspoon, 7 Jones (N. C), 
 555 ; Burgwyn v. Whitfield, 81 N. C. 261. 
 
 ^ Kerwhacker o. Cleveland, C, & C. 
 R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 172 ; Cincinnati, H., & 
 D. R. Co. V. Waterson, 4 Ohio St. 424 ; 
 Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. v. EUiot, 4 
 Ohio St. 474; Central Ohio R. Co. v. 
 Lawrence, 13 Ohio St. 66 ; Cincinnati & 
 Z R. Co. .;. Smith, 22 Ohio St. 227; 
 Marietta & C. R. Co. v. Stephenson, 24 
 Oliio St. 48 ; Cranston v. Cincinnati, H., 
 & U. R. Co., 1 Handy (Cincinnati), 193 ; 
 Illinois Central R. Co. v. Middles worth, 
 40 111. 494 (overruling earlier cases) ; 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Arnold, 47 111. 
 173 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Baker, 47 111. 
 295; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Ingra- 
 ham, 58 111. 120 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. 
 i;. Deacon, 63 111. 91; Rockford, R. L, & St. 
 L. R. Co. h. Kafferty, 7S 111. 58 ; Chicago 
 
 & A. R. Co. V. Engle, 84 HI. 397; Alger 
 t/. Miss. & M. R. Co., 10 Iowa, 268 ; Bal- 
 com V. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 21 Iowa, 
 102 ; Whitbeck w. Dubuque & P. R. Co., 
 21 Iowa, 103 ; Evans v. Burlington & M. R. 
 R. Co., 21 Iowa, 374 ; Smith v. Chicago, 
 R. L, & P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 506; Kuhn v. 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 
 420 ; Vicksburg & J. R. Co. v. Patton, 31 
 Miss. 156; Miss. Cent. R. Co. «. Miller, 
 40 Miss. 45 ; Raiford o. Miss. Cent. R. 
 Co., 43 Miss. 233 ; New Orleans, J., & G. 
 N. R. Co. o. Field, 46 Miss. 573 ; Mobiler 
 
 6 O. R. Co. u. Williams, 53 Ala. 595; 
 Waters v. Moss, 12 Cal. 535 ; Richmond 
 V. Sacramento Valley R. Co., 18 Cal. 
 351 ; Blaine v Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 
 9 W. Va. 252 ; Baylor o. Bait. & 0. R. 
 Co., 9 W. Va. 270 ; Coyle u. Bait. & 0. 
 R Co., 11 W. Va. 94 ; North Eastern R. 
 Co. V. Sineath, 8 Rich. 185 ; Murray v. 
 So. Car. R. Co., 10 Rich. 227 ; Brothers 
 V. So. Car. R. Co., 5 S. C. n. s. 55; 
 Rowe V. Greenville & C. R. Co., 7 S. C. 
 N. s. 167; Gorman v. Pacific R. Co., 26 
 Mo. 441; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. 
 Kenney, 41 Mo. 271 ; Tarwaterv. Hanni- 
 bal & St. J R. Co., 42 Mo. 193 ; Mc- 
 Pheeters v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 45 Mo. 
 22 ; Kaes v. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 6 Mo. 
 App. 397 ; Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Neely, 
 56 Ga. 540; Laws v. North Car. R. Co., 
 
 7 Jones (N. C), 468. 
 
INJUEIES TO CATTLE. 405 
 
 stantial damage is likely to be done, he is not, when so doing, in 
 the condition of a person exercising a right ; and he exposes them 
 to injury when he allows them to stray in the vicinity of a rail- 
 road, or of a place where they are peculiarly liable to injury. 
 Accordingly, it has been held in Pennsylvania, where the com- 
 mon-law rule is not adopted, that the company is not liable for 
 an injury to cattle coming upon its track, unless inflicted wan- 
 tonly, or with gross negligence amounting to wantonness.-' 
 
 Injuries to Cattle upon the Highway. — When cattle are lawfully 
 passing upon a highway, at its intersection with the railroad, the 
 company is bound to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to 
 them. The company and the owner are in such case each exer- 
 cising a right, and bound to use orditfary care,^ and their re- 
 spective duties and liabilities are determined by the principles 
 stated in a preceding chapter.^ The company is bound to use 
 ordinary care to prevent injuries to cattle which are rightfully 
 upon private crossings established by law or agreement, but the 
 plaintiffs contributory negligence will defeat the action.* 
 
 It is lawful for proper purposes to drive cattle upon a high- 
 way,^ and whether the owner drove them with due care is a ques- 
 tion for the jury.^ Allowing cattle unattended to run at large 
 upon the highway is, except in jurisdictions which reject the rule 
 of the common law as to the owner's duty to keep them within 
 his own close, deemed an illegal use of the highway so as to make 
 him a wrong-doer.^ 
 
 Where cattle are by the owner's fault straying upon the high- 
 way and come thence upon the track at a place where the com- 
 pany is not required to maintain a fence, it is not liable for injury to 
 them except for wanton injury ,8 or, according to some authorities, 
 
 > New York & E. E. Co. v. Skinner, N. H. 169 ; Housatonic R. Co. v. Water- 
 
 19 Pa. St. 298 ; North Penn. R. Co. w. bury, 23 Conn. 101. 
 Rehman, 49 Pa. St. 101; Drake v. Phil. ' Midland R. Co. w.Daykin, 17 C.B. 126. 
 & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 240. See Knight « Towne v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 124 
 
 V. Abert, 6 Pa. St. 472. Decisions in Mass. 101. 
 
 Illinois to the same effect were overruled ' Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co., 13 
 
 by Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Middlesworth, N. Y. 42, 49 ; Fitch v. Buffalo, N. Y., & 
 
 46 111. 494. P. R. Co. 13 Hun, 668 ; Bowman v. Troy 
 
 2 Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 Conn. & B. R. Co., 37 Barb. 616 ; Halloran ». 
 
 666. New York & H. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 
 
 ' Chap. XII. 257 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Cauff- 
 
 < White V. Concord R. Co., 30 N. H. man, 28 111. 613, 38 111. 424. 
 188; Horn v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 85 « McDonneU v. Pittsfield & N. A. R. 
 
406 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 it is liable for negligence as well as for wanton injury.^ The 
 owner has been deemed in fault where the cattle escaped from 
 his well-fenced field to the highway and thence went upon the 
 track,^ or when they escaped from him while being driven on the 
 highway ; ^ but not if, after escaping, they came upon the track 
 at a place where the company was required by statute to fence.* 
 
 Rate of Speed. Stopping of Train where Cattle are on the Track. 
 — The company is not bound to regulate its speed with reference 
 to cattle which may be running at large in the vicinity of the 
 railroad, or to lessen the rate with a view of diminishing the 
 chances of injury to them by its engines, or, according to well- 
 considered authorities, to stop or slacken the train in order to 
 avoid or give way to an animal which is unlawfully on the rail- 
 road.* Speed and punctuality in the movement of its trains and 
 the safety of passengers are paramount considerations, to which 
 private interests in property found on the track without right is 
 subordinate.^ If it exceeds the rate prescribed by statute, it is 
 liable for injuries caused thereby ; '' but, in the absence of a stat- 
 ute limitation, no rate of speed is deemed negligence.* The con- 
 Co., 115 Mass. 564 ; Darling v. Boston & 333 ; Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 
 A. R. Co., 121 Mass. 118; Hunger v.Tonar Mass. 560, 563; Darling v. Boston & A. 
 wanda B. Co., 4 N. Y. 349, 5 Denio, 255 ; R. Co , 121 Mass. 118 ; Price v. New Jer- 
 Hance v. Cayuga & S. R. Co.^ 26 N. Y. sey, R., & T. Co., 2 Vroom, 229, 238; 
 428. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Mulligan, 45 
 
 1 Indianapolis & C. B. Co. v. McKin- Md. 486, 493 ; Locke v. St. Paul & P. R. 
 ney, 24 Ind. 283 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Co., 15 Minn. 350, 355 ; Durham v. Wil. 
 McMorrow, 67 111. 218 ; Springfield & I. & W. R. Co., 82 N. C. 352. But see 
 S. E. E. Co. u. Andrew, 68 111. 57 ; Chapin Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Engle, 84 111. 397 ; 
 ». Sullivan R. Co., 39 N. H. 564. Brown v. New York Cent. R. Co., 34 N. 
 
 2 North Penn. R. Co. v. Eehman, 49 Y. 404 ; Memphis & C. R. R. Co. v. Lyon, 
 Pa. St. 101 ; Mentges v. New York & H. 62 Ala. 71 ; Aycock v. Wil. & W. R. Co., 
 R. Co., 1 Hilton, 425 ; Darling v. Boston 6 Jones (N. C), 231. 
 
 & A. R. Co., 121 Mass. 118 ; Price v. New 6 Chicago &'m. R. Co. v. Patchin, 16 
 
 Jersey R. & T. Co., 2 Vroom, 229. Bl. 198, 204 ; Louisville & F. R. Co. v. 
 
 3 McDonnell v. Pittsfleld & N. A. R. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 177, 184; Needham 
 Co., 115 Mass. 564. „. San Francisco & S. J. R. Co., 37 Cal. 
 
 4 Spinner v. New York Cent. & H. R. 409, 424 ; Maynard v. Boston & M. R., 
 E. Co., 67 N. Y. 153, 6 Hun, 600 ; Bow- 115 Mass. 458, 460. 
 
 man v. Troy & B. R. Co., 37 Barb. 516. 7 Houston & T. C. R. W. Co. v. Terry, 
 
 Contra, Darling v. Boston & A. R. Co., 42 Tex. 451 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 121 Mass. 118. Deacon, 63 111. 91 ; Indianapolis & St. L. 
 
 6 Central Ohio R. Co. v. Lawrence, 13 R. Co. v. Peyton, 76 111. 340 ; Monahan v. 
 
 Ohio St. 66 ; Bemis v. Conn. & P. R. R. Keokuk & D. M. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 523. 
 
 Co., 42 Vt. 375, 379; Raiford «. Miss. 8 McKonkey «. Chicago, B., & Q. R. 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 43 Miss. 233 ; New Orleans, Co., 40 Iowa, 205 ; Maher o. Atlantic & 
 
 J., & G. N. R. Co. V. Field, 46 Miss. 673; P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 267. A high rate of 
 
 White V. Utiea & B. R. R. Co., 15 Hun, speed haa- been admitted as evidence of 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 407 
 
 siderations in favor of human life which apply where persons 
 are unlawfully on the track do not apply in favor of property.^ 
 Other authorities, however, hold the company liable where its 
 servants, with proper vigilance, might have seen at a sufficient 
 distance the trespassing cattle, and with due regard to the safety 
 of passengers have stopped the train before it struck them, but 
 failed to do so. This rule is adopted by the authorities which 
 impose the duty of ordinary care, even in favor of wrong- 
 doers.^ 
 
 The company is under a superior obligation for the safety of 
 persons and- property on its trains, and is not bound to imperil 
 their safety by an effort to stop the train in order to avoid injury 
 to cattle which, without its fault, have come upon the track.^ 
 
 The company is not required to stop its train where an animal 
 is only near the track, and apparently not likely to come upon 
 it.* It is not liable for an injury to them where they come sud- 
 denly upon the track, and there is not time to stop the train 
 before it strikes them.^ 
 
 The company has been held not liable, even when it has failed 
 to fence, for injuries to cattle which come upon its location, and 
 fall into an unenclosed well within it.^ It is not bound, in order 
 
 negligence. Edson v. Central R. Co., 40 180, 181 ; Price v. New Jersey, K., & T. 
 
 Iowa, 47 ; McPheeters v. Hannibal & St. Co., 3 Vroom, 19 ; Witherell v. Mil. & 
 
 J. R. Co., 45 Mo. 22; Pryor v. St. Louis, St. P. R. Co., 24 Minn. 410. Parker v. 
 
 K. C, & N. R. Co., 69 Mo. 215. See Dubuque S. W. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 399; 
 
 Morse ». Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 49. Sandham v. Cliicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 38 
 
 1 Bemis v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 88 ; Bemis v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 
 Vt. 375, 382; ante, Chap. X. pp. 354, 42 Vt. -375, 380, 385 ; Parker w. Dubuque 
 355. S. W. R. Co., 34 Iowa) 399 ; Baltimore & 
 
 2 Louisville & N. R, Co. o. Wainscott, O. R. Co. v. Mulligan, 45 Md. 486, 493; 
 3 Bush, 149 ; Cincinnati & Z. R. Co. v. Pryor v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 
 Smith, 22 Ohio St. 227 ; Illinois Cent. R. 69 Mo. 215. 
 
 Co. V. Wren, 43 111. 77 ; Chicago & N. W. * Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. v. Champ, 75 
 
 R. Co. V. Barrie, 55 111. 228 ; Toledo, P., HI. 577 ; Edson «. Central R. Co., 40 
 
 & W. R. Co. V. Bray, 67 III. 514 ; Toledo, Iowa, 47. But see Aycoek v. Wil. & W. 
 
 P., & W. R. Co. V. Ingraham, 58 111. 120; R. Co., 6 Jones (N. C), 231. Compare 
 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. ». Kellam, 92 111. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. KeUam, 92 HI. 
 
 245; Pryor v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 245. 
 
 Co., 69 Mo. 215 ; Card r. New York & H. ^ Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Wren, 43 111. 
 
 R. Co., 50 Barb. 89 ; ante, p. 403. 77 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Bradfield, 
 
 » Kerwhacker v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. 63 111. 220 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 Co., 3 Ohio St. 172, 199 ; Cleveland, C, & Wainscott, 3 Bush, 149. But see South 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Elliott, 4 Ohio St. 474 ; Cran- & N. A. R. Co. v. Jones, 56 Ala. 507. 
 ston V. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co., 1 « Hughes v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 66 
 
 Handy (Cincinnati), 198 ; Chicago & M. Mo. 325 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Carraher, 
 
 R. Co. ». Patchin, 16 111. 198 ; Louisville 47 111. 833 ; Aurora Branch R. Co. v. 
 
 & F. B. Co. V. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 177, Grimes, 13 HI. 585. 
 
408 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 to prevent injuries to cattle straying npon the track, to keep the 
 excavations along its sides free from water and ice,^ or to cover 
 with plank or other material a culvert or drain crossed by the 
 track.^ 
 
 Signals. — The omission to give signals of warning which will 
 alarm cattle is not in itself negligence, when they are not re- 
 quired by statute.^ But when they are so required the company 
 is liable for injuries to cattle resulting from the omission.* The 
 omission, however, even when the signals are required, is not 
 material, if it did not contribute to the injury ; and evidence is 
 required to connect the injury with the omission.* The plaintiff 
 whose negligence has contributed to the injury, cannot recover, 
 although the required signals were not given.® 
 
 Duty to maintain Fences imposed by Statute. — The duty to 
 maintain a fence on each side of the track, except at places where 
 the fence would result in public convenience, is now quite gener- 
 ally imposed on railroad compatries ; but, as already stated, it is a 
 duty created only by statute.'' The power of the legislature to 
 
 ' Peoria & R. I. E. Co. v. McClenahan, 
 74 111. 435. 
 
 2 Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Lyon, 62 
 Ala. 71. 
 
 3 Flattes V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 
 35 Iowa, 191 ; Plaster v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 
 35 Iowa, 449 ; Jackson o. Chicago & N. 
 W. B. Co., 36 Iowa, 451 ; Michigan S. & 
 N. I. R. Co. u. Fisher, 27 Ind. 96. 
 
 4 Chicago & R. I. R. Co. u. Reid, 24 
 111. 144; Great Western R. Co. v. Geddis, 
 33 111. 304 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 Furgusson, 42 111. 449 ; Springfield & I. S. 
 R. Co. V. Andrews, 68 111. 56 ; Howenstein 
 V. Pacific R. Co., 55 Mo. 33 ; Owens v. 
 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 58 Mo. 386 ; 
 E. T. Va. & Ga. R. Co. v. Scales, 2 Lea 
 (Tenn.), 688. 
 
 s Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Phelps, 29 HI. 
 447 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 30 
 111. 117; Quincy, A., & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 Wellhoener, 72 111. 60 ; Memphis & C. R. 
 Co. V. Bibb, 37 Ala. 699; Stoneman v. At- 
 lantic & P. R. Co., 58 Mo. 503 ; Holman 
 r. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 62 Mo. 562 ; 
 Hawker v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 
 628 ; ante. Chap. XII. p. 351. 
 
 6 Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Eaves, 42 111. 
 288 ; Howenstein v. Pacific R. Co., 55 
 
 Mo. 33 ; Owens v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 58 
 Mo. 386. 
 
 ' Some cases of an exceptional charac- 
 ter have seemed to regard the duty as 
 existing in the absence of a statute pro- 
 vision. It was held in Vermont to be 
 implied from reason and justice. Quimby 
 V. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 23 Vt. 387 ; Trow v. 
 Vt. Cent. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487, 492. But 
 see Hurd v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 116, 123. In New York, the law in rela- 
 tion to partition fences was at one time 
 applied to railroad companies. Rensselaer 
 & S. R. Co., In re, 4 Paige, 553. But see 
 Long Island R. Co., In re, 3 Edw. Ch. 
 487. Henry v. Dubuque & P. R. Co., 2 
 Iowa, 288, 305. Under a statute, the com- 
 pany and the land-owner has each been 
 required to maintain one-half of the 
 fence. Sandusky & C. R. Co. v. Sloan, 
 27 Ohio St. 341 ; Dayton & M. R. Co. v. 
 Miami County Infirmary, 32 Ohio St. 
 566. Some cases have treated the com- 
 pany as chargeable with remote negli- 
 gence in not fencing. Kerwhacker v. 
 Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 
 172 ; Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co. v. Elliott, 
 4 Ohio St. 474 ; Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 
 Co. V. Waterson, 4 Ohio St. 424; Gor- 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 409 
 
 require existing corporations to maintain fences along its track, 
 and the power to impose a liability for double damages in case 
 of injuries to cattle resulting from its neglect of the duty, will 
 be considered in a later chapter. ^ 
 
 A statute imposing the duty to fence is not presumed to he 
 retrospective.^ It is sometimes by express terms applied only to 
 roads thereafter to be constructed.^ The statute requiring a com- 
 pany to fence the track has been construed according to its terms 
 to apply as soon as the company commences running its road,* or 
 as soon as it begins the construction.^ 
 
 The primar}' purpose of the statutes requiring the company to 
 maintain fences is for the exclusion of cattle.^ They have been 
 held not to be for the protection of employees,^ or persons travel- 
 ling on the highway ; ^ but they have been held to be for the 
 protection of children.' 
 
 The duty to maintain fences when imposed by statute may be 
 enforced by mandamus. i° The land-owner may maintain an action 
 to compel the company to build them.^^ 
 
 Liability for Breach of the Statute Duty. — The company, when 
 required by statute to maintain fences along its track, is liable 
 for injuries to cattle which, being lawfully on the adjoining land, 
 
 man v. Pacific R. Co., 26 Mo. 441. In < Clark ,,. Vt. & C. R. Co., 28 Vt. 
 
 New Hampshire the duty of the company 103; Holden v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 30 
 
 to fence, although not imposed in direct Vt. 297 ; Comings v. Han. & C. M. R. 
 
 terms, has been implied from a statute Co., 48 Mo. 512 ; Baltimore, P., & C. R. 
 
 which imposed a penalty after notice for Co. v. McClellan, 59 Ind. 440. See Cin- 
 
 its neglect to fence. The injured owner cinnati, W., & M. R. Co. v. Harris, 61 Ind. 
 
 was not, however, confined to the statute 290. 
 
 remedy. Dean v. Sullivan R. Co., 22 N. * Gardner v. Smith, 7 Mich. 410. 
 
 H. 316; Cornwall «. Sullivan R. Co., 28 ^ Buxton v. North Eastern R. Co., L. 
 
 N. H. 161 ; Horn v. Atlantic & St. L. R. R- 3 Q- B- 549. 
 
 Co. 35 N. H. 169 ; Home v. Atlantic & St. ' Langlois v. Buffalo & R. R. Co., 19 
 
 L. R. Co., 36 N. H. 440; Chapin v. Sulli- Barb. 364; Vfabash R. Co. v. Brown, 5 
 
 van R. Co., 39 N. H. 564. See as to right Brad. (111.) 590, 2 Brad. (111.^ 516. 
 
 of action at common law, where a penalty ^ Ditchett v. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. 
 
 is provided, Norris i>. Androscoggin R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 425, 5 Hun, 165. 
 
 Co., 39 Me. 273; Iba v. Han. & St. J. R. ' Schmidt i;. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 23 
 
 Co., 45 Mo. 469. Wis. 186. 
 
 ' Chap. XVII. p. 463. '" People v. Rochester & S. L. R. Co., 
 
 2 Stearns v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 14 Hun, 371. 
 
 1 Allen 493. ^' Wademan v. Albany & S. R. Co., 51 
 
 8 Stearns v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., N. Y. 568 ; People v. Rochester & S. L. 
 
 1 Allen, 493 ; Baxter v. Boston & W. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 294, 14 Hun, 371 ; Jones 
 
 R. Co., 102 Mass. 383 ; Sawyer u. Vt. & v. Selignam, 16 Hun, 230, 10 N. Y. Week. 
 
 M. R. Co., 105 Mass. 196; Bronson u. Dig. 226. 
 Coffin, 108 Mass. 175. 
 
410 
 
 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 pass thence on to the track through its failure to perform the 
 duty so imposed, although it is not chargeable with any negli- 
 gence in the management of its trains at the time of the injury.^ 
 The failure to fence, as required by statute, does not, however, 
 make the company liable where the failure did not contribute to 
 the injury.^ But where the company, having performed its duty 
 to maintain fences, or not being required to maintain them at 
 certain places, has complied with the statute, it is not liable for 
 injuries to cattle coming upon the track at places where it is not 
 in default under the statute, unless it inflicts wilful injury upon 
 them, or, according to some authorities, unless it might have 
 avoided the injury by the exercise of ordinary care in the man- 
 agement of its engines at the time.^ 
 
 If the original escape of the cattle was due to the company's 
 failure to maintain a fence as required bylaw, it is liable, although 
 they passed afterwards on to the land of others, and thence on to 
 the track at a place where the company was also bound to fence.* 
 
 ' Norris v. Androscoggin R. Co., 39 
 Me. 273 ; Rogers v. Newburyport R. Co., 
 1 Allen, 16 ; Smith v. Eastern R. Co., 35 
 N. H. 356, 862; Suydam v. Moore, 8 
 Barb. 358 ; Fanning v. Long Island R. 
 Co., 2 Thomp. & C. 585; Williams v. 
 New Albany & S. R. Co., 5 Ind. Ill;' 
 Thayer i>. St. Louis, A., '& T. H. R. Co., 
 22 Ind. 26 ; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. 
 V. Ross, 37 Ind. 545 ; St. Louis, A,, & T. 
 H. R. Co. V. Linder, 39 111. 433 ; Rock- 
 ford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. V. Lynch, 67 
 111. 149; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. 
 Pence, 68 111. 524; Toledo, P., & W. R. 
 Co. V. Logan, 71 III. 191 ; Toledo, P., & 
 W. R. Co. V. Lavery, 71 111. 522; Toledo, 
 P., & W. R. Co. V. Delehanty, 71 111. 615; 
 Ohio & M. R. Co. u. Clutter, 82 111. 123 ; 
 Burton v. North Mo. R. Co., 30 Mo. 372 ; 
 Miles V. Han: & St. J. R. Co., 31 Mo. 407 ; 
 Powell V. St. Joseph, 31 Mo. 347 ; Clark 
 V. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 36 Mo. 202 ; Nail v. 
 St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 69 Mo. 112 ; 
 Gary v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co , 60 
 Mo. 209 ; Small v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. 
 Co., 50 Iowa, 338, 341; McCall v. Cham- 
 berlain, 13 Wis. 637 ; Bennett v. Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co., 19 Wis. 145, 149 ; Blair 
 v: Mil. & P. R. Co., 20 Wis. 254 ; Brown 
 V. Mil. & P. R. Co., 21 Wis. 39 ; Sika v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 21 Wis. 370; 
 aliter, if the company is by agreement 
 
 only, and not by statute, bound to fence, 
 Drake v. Phil. & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 
 240. 
 
 2 Waldron v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 8 
 Barb. 390, 394 ; Talmadge v. Rensselaer 
 & S. R. Co., 13 Barb. 493, 406 ; Joliet & 
 N. I. R. Co. V. Jones, 20 111. ?21 ; Atchi- 
 son, T., & S. F. R. Co. V. Yates, 21 Kan. 
 613. Where the company fails to fence, 
 as required by statute, neither the com- 
 pany nor its tenant has a right of action 
 against the adjoining owner whose cattle 
 enter on its land through the defective 
 fence. Wiseman v. Booker, L. R. 3 C. P. 
 Div. 184. 
 
 ' St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 Linder, 39 III. 433 ; Chicago & N. W. 
 R. Co. V. Barrie, 55 111. 226; Toledo, 
 W., & W. R. Co. V. Barlow, 71 111. 640 ; 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bull, 72 111. 537 ; 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. ». Farrelly, 
 3 Brad. (111.) 60; Indianapolis & C. R. 
 Co. V. Caldwell, 9 Ind. 397; Indiana 
 Cent. R. Co. v. Gapen, 10 Ind. 292 ; In- 
 dianapolis & C. R. Co. V. McClure, 26 
 Ind. 370 ; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Go. v. 
 Huber, 42 Ind. 173 ; Gill v. Atlantic & G. 
 W. R. Co., 27 Ohio St. 240 ; Nashville & 
 D. R. Co. V. Conians, 45 Ala. 437 ; Swear- 
 ingen v. M. K. & T. R, Co., 64 Mo. 
 73. 
 
 * Keliher v. Conn. River E. Co., 107 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 411 
 
 If the original escape is attributable to the company's fault, it is 
 not relieved of liability by the subsequent wanderings of the 
 animal, the maxim, causa proxima non remota spectatur, not 
 applying.! 
 
 The company is liable for damages to crops caused by cattle 
 coming upon land through the want of proper fences, which it is 
 bound to maintain.^ 
 
 The Statute Duty to fence not to be transferred. — The company 
 does not discharge its duty to erect a proper fence by employing 
 another, even the land-owner, to build one ; and if the person so 
 employed erects an insufficient one, it is liable for the injuries 
 resulting from the insufficiency.^ 
 
 The duty of the company owning the road to fence, as required by 
 statute, and its liability for injuries caused by the want of fences, 
 continues, although the trains are run by contractors engaged in 
 its construction ; * or the road is worked by other companies or 
 persons under an agreement with or license from the company- 
 owning the road ; ^ or by lessees ; ^ but if the lease is authorized 
 by law, and the lessor company does not retain any possession or 
 control, its liability for the lessee's torts may well be doubted.^ 
 Some authorities make the lessor and lessee, where both are using 
 the track, each liable only for its own injuries to cattle.^ 
 
 Liability of Parties operating the Road, though not owning it, as 
 Lessees and Mortgagees. — The statutes are held generally to im- 
 
 Mass. 411 ; McDonnell v. Pittsfield & N. lis & M. R. Co. t. Soloman, 23 Ind. 534 ; 
 
 A. E. Co., 115 Mass. 564, 566. Fort Wayne, M., & C. R. Co. v. Hine- 
 
 1 Gilman v. European & N. A. E. Co., baugh, 43 Ind. 354 ; Huey v. Indianapolis 
 60 Me. 235. & V. R. Co., 45 Ind. 320 ; Bay City & E. 
 
 2 Donald v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. E. S. E. Co. v. Austin, 21 Mich. 390 ; Wyman 
 Co., 44 Iowa, 157. v- Penobscot & K. E. Co., 46 Me. 162. 
 
 3 Norris v. Androscoggin R. Co., 39 « Nelson v. Vt. & C. R. Co., 26 Vt. 
 Me. 273 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Swear- 717 ; Clement v. Canfield, 28 Vt. 302 ; 
 ingen, 33 111. 289, 47 111. 206; Gill v. At- Whitney v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 44 
 lantic & G. W. E. Co., 27 Ohio St. 240. Me. 862; Toledo, P., & W. E. Co. ». Eum- 
 
 * Chicago & St. P. & F. R. Co. ». bold, 40 111. 143 ; Clary v. Iowa Midland 
 
 McCarthy, 20 III. 385 ; Gardner v. Smith, R. Co., 37 Iowa, 344 ; Kansas City, Ft. 
 
 7 Mich. 410; Houston & G. N. R. Co. ^. S., & G. R. Co. v. Ewing, 23 Kan. 273. 
 
 Meador, 50 Tex. 77. See ante. Chap. X. pp. 283-285. 
 
 ' Illinois Cent. R. Co. i>. Finnigan, 21 ' Ditchett v. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. 
 
 m. 646 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Kanouse, E. Co., 67 N. Y. 425, 5 Hun, 165. 
 39 III. 272 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. " Stephens v. Davenport & St. P. E. 
 
 Rumbold, 40 111. 143 ; East St. Louis & C. Co., 36 Iowa, 327 ; Clary v. Iowa Mid- 
 
 R. Co. V. Gerber, 82 111. 632; Indianapo- land R. Co., 37 Iowa, 344. 
 
412 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 pose the duty to fence, and the liability for injuries caused by the 
 want of the required fence upon any companies or persons oper- 
 ating the road, although not owning it, as lessees ; ^ parties using 
 it under an agreement ; ^ contractors engaged in construction ; ^ 
 mortgagees in possession ; * a foreign corporation owning and 
 using a road within the State.* 
 
 Liability under Statutes for Cattle vrrongfully on the Adjoining 
 Land. — The duty to fence, when imposed on the company by 
 statute, may be imposed for the sole benefit of the adjoining 
 owner and of others turning cattle rightfully upon his land, or it 
 may be imposed as a general duty for the benefit of the public. 
 Statutes of similar purport have received a different construction 
 in this regard. At common law a proprietor of land, who was 
 bound by agreement, prescription, or otherwise to fence his close 
 against his neighbor, was bound to fence only against cattle right- 
 fully on the adjoining close ; that is, against those of its owner, 
 or of others using it by lease, license, or under a right of way or 
 of common. Accordingly, where A and B own adjoining closes 
 between which A is bound to maintain the fence, if C's cattle first 
 enter upon B's land wrongfully, and thence stray upon A's land 
 through the want of the fence which A in neglect of duty has 
 not supported, C is liable to A for the trespass.® The same rule 
 is applied to cattle straying upon the highway, the right of soil 
 under which being in another, and the cattle being. wrongfully 
 there, except when they are being lawfully driven upon it.'^ It 
 
 1 Clement v. Canfield, 28 Vt. 302 ; 2 Burchfleld v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 
 
 Tracy v. Troy & B. B. Co., 38 N. Y. 433, 57 Barb. 589; East St. Louis & C. R. Co. 
 
 55 Barb. 529 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. v. Gerber, 82 III. 632. But see Parker v. 
 
 Kanouse, .39 ni. 272; Stewart w. Chicago Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 16 Barb. 315; 
 
 &. N. W. R. Co., 27 Iowa, 282 (distin- McGrath ... New York Cent. & H. R. B. 
 
 guishing Liddle v. Keokuk, Mt P., & M. Co., 1 Thomp. & C. 243. 
 R. Co., 23 Iowa, 378) ; Clary v. Iowa 8 Gardner v. Smith, 7 Mich. 410. 
 Midland R. Co., 37 Iowa, 344 ; Downing * Jones v. Selignam, 16 Hun, 230, 10 
 
 0. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 43 Iowa, N. Y. Week. Dig. 226. 
 96 ; McCall v. Chamberlain, 13 Wis. 637 ; s Purdy v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 
 
 Cook V. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 36 Wis. 45.. 61 N. Y. 353. 
 
 See, as to an Indiana statute, Pittsburg,' 6 Rust v. Low, 6 Mass. 90; Little n. 
 
 C, & St. L. R. Co. V. Bolner, 57 Ind. 572 ; Lathrop, 5 Greenl. 356 ; Lord v. Worm- 
 
 Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. v. Hannon, wood, 29 Me. 282. 
 
 60 Ind. 417 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. ' Dovaston v. Payne, 2 H. Bl. 527 ; 
 Co. V. Currant, 61 Ind. 38 ; Cincinnati, Stackpole v. Healy, 16 Mass. 33 ; Lord v. 
 H., & D. B. Co. V. Bunnell, 61 Ind. 183; Wormwood, 29 Me. 282; Avery v. Max- 
 JefEersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Downey, well, 4 N. H. 36. 
 
 61 Ind. 287 ; ante, Chap. X. pp. 283-285. 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 413 
 
 has also been applied to the construction of statutes requiring 
 division fences between owners of adjoining closes.^ 
 
 The application of this rule of the common law to the inter- 
 pretation of a statute imposing on the company the duty to make 
 and maintain fences on the sides of its track depends on the ques- 
 tion whether its purpose and intent, as gathered from its terms, 
 appear to be the same as those of the statute which defines the 
 obligations of adjoining owners in that respect. If it is designed 
 merely for an adjustment of the duties and rights of the company 
 and of adjoining owners, in respect to the division fences between 
 them, simply imposing on grounds of private justice between the 
 parties the entire burden on one, which under other laws of a like 
 purpose is shared equally by both, then the company, under the 
 rule of the common law already stated, is not liable, at least in 
 the absence of negligence, for injuries to cattle unlawfully on the 
 adjoining close, notwithstanding it has not complied with the 
 statute requirement, — the duty being one which the adjoining 
 owner could waive, and the default being one of which he only 
 could complain. This is the construction placed in England on 
 the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, § 68, 
 which provides that the company shall make and maintain, for 
 the accommodation of the owners and occupiers of lands adjoin- 
 ing the railway, sufficient fences for separating the land taken for 
 the use of the railway from the adjoining lands not taken, and 
 protecting such lands from trespass, or the cattle of the owners 
 and occupiers thereof from straying thereout by reason of the rail- 
 way. It was held that the obligation imposed by this section was 
 the same as if the company had been bound by prescription at 
 common law to repair the fences, and was for the protection 
 only of the owners and occupiers of the adjoining close.^ The 
 statutes of several States in this country have been construed 
 in the same manner.^ 
 
 1 Lawrence ". Combs, 37 N. H. 331. N. H. 161 ; Chapin v. Sullivan R. Co., 39 
 
 2 Ricketts v. East & W. I. Docks & B. N. H. 53, 564; Mayberry v. Concord R. 
 J. R. Co., 12 C. B. 160; Manchester, S., Co., 47 N. H. 391; Giles v. Boston & M. 
 & L. R. Co. V. Wallis, 14 C. B. 21-3. One R., 55 N. H. 552; Jackson u. Rutland & 
 who hires of an occupier is within the B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 150; Morse v. Rutland 
 protection of the act. Dawson u. Mid- & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 49 ; Bemis v. Conn. & 
 land R. Co., L. R. 8 Exch. 8. P. R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 375; Eames v. Salem 
 
 8 Perkins v. Eastern R. Co., 29 Me. & L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 560 (explaining 
 
 307; Woolsoij v. Northern R. Co, 19 N. Browne o. Providence, H., & F. R. Co., 
 
 H. 267 ; Towns v. Cheshire R. Co.„ 21 N. 12 Gray, 55) ; Maynard v. Boston & M. 
 
 H. 863 ; Cornwall u. Sullivan R. Co., 28 R., 116 Mass. 458 ; McDonnell «. Pitts- 
 
414 THE LAW OP EAILKOADS. 
 
 The cattle of other persons are rightfully on the adjoining land 
 when they are there by the license of its owner.^ But if there 
 is no such license, they are held wrongfully there, although their 
 entry may be under circumstances which would not make the 
 owner liable in trespass.'^ 
 
 Under this construction of the statute the company is not liable 
 for injuries to cattle, at least in the absence of negligence, which 
 have strayed upon the highway, and come upon the track through 
 the want of the fence or cattle-guards which the company is by 
 law bound to maintain. The cattle are unlawfully on the high- 
 way, unless they are being driven along, or, escaping while being 
 driven along, the persons having charge of them make fresh 
 pursuit.^ But the company is liable where cattle, when lawfully 
 driven on the highway, come thence upon the track through a 
 defect in a fence which it is required to maintain.* 
 
 Although the company, when bound to fence, may not be 
 bound to fence against cattle unlawfully on the adjoining land, 
 it is liable for wanton injury to them, and in some States for in- 
 jury to them which it might have avoided in the exercise of ordi- 
 nary care at the time of the injury.^ 
 
 The statute may, however, be construed to be a general police 
 regulation designed not merely for the benefit of adjoining own- 
 ers, but for the protection of property in domestic animals gen- 
 field & N. A. R. Co., 115 Mass. 564; Tonawanda R. Co. u. Hunger, 5 Denio, 
 Brooks t). New York & E. R. Co., 13 255,4 N. Y. 349; Waldron v. Rensselaer 
 Barb. 594; Walsh v. Va. & T. R. Co., 8 & S. R. Co., 8 Barb. 390; Clark v. Syra- 
 Nev. 110. As to the company's liability cuse & U. R. Co., 11 Barb. 112 ; Marsh v. 
 for cattle not belonging to the adjoining New York & E. R. Co., 14 Barb. 364; 
 owner, but straying upon his land through Halloran o. New York & H. R. Co., 2 
 his default in fencing, see XJnderhill v. E. D. Smith, 257 ; Williams v. Mich. 
 New York & H. R. Co., 21 Barb. 489; Cent. R. Co., 2 Mich. 259; Vandegrift v. 
 Rust V. Low, 6 Mass. 90. Rediker, 2 Zab. 185 ; Manchester, S., & 
 
 1 Sawyer v. Vt. & M. R. Co., 105 L. R. Co. v. Wallis, 14 C. B. 213. 
 Mass. 196. As to the right of one in * Midland R. Co. v. Daykin, 17 C. B. 
 possession by disseizin, see Mayberry v. 126; Brady w. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 1 
 Concord R. Co., 47 N. H. 391. Hun, 378. 
 
 ■i McDonnell v. Pittsfield & N. A. E. » Jackson o. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 
 
 Co., 115 Mass. 564. Vt. 150, 162; Morse v. Rutland & B. R. 
 
 » Woolson V. Northern R. Co., 19 N. Co., 27 Vt. 49; Bemis v. Conn. & P. R. 
 a 267 ; Towns v. Cheshire R. Co., 21 N. R. Co., 42 Vt. 375 ; Trout v. Va. & T. B. 
 H. 363 ; Chapin v. Sullivan R. Co., 39 Co , 23 Gratt. 619 ; Williams ■-•. New 
 N. H. 53, 564; Giles v. Boston & M. R., Albany & S. R. Co., 5 Ind. Ill; Lafay- 
 55 N. H. 552; McDonnell i'. Pittsfield ette & I. R. Co. v. Shriner, 6 Ind. 141; 
 & N. A. R. Co., 115 Mass. 564 ; Trow v. Maynard v. Boston & M. R., 115 Mass. 
 Vt. Cent. R. Co., 24 Vt. 487, 494; Jack- 458; McDonnell v. Pittsfield & N. A. E. 
 son V. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 150 ; Co., 115 Mass. 664. 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 415 
 
 erally, and for the safety of passengers who would be exposed to 
 peril by collisions with cattl© coming upon the track. When the 
 statute is deemed to be of this character, the company is held 
 to be under a general obligation to the public, and not under a 
 limited obligation to adjoining land-owners ; and when in default 
 for not complying with the statute, it is liable for injuries to 
 cattle unlawfully on the adjoining land, and coming therefrom 
 upon its track. It is held chargeable with a breach of public 
 duty, and liable to all persons suffering injury from its default. 
 Thus, in an English case, where the company failed to keep 
 gates constantly closed, as required by statute, it was held im- 
 material that horses had strayed from the owner's field into the 
 highway, and thence upon the track.^ The statute of New 
 York 2 is held to impose a general duty of erecting and main- 
 taining fences on the sides of the road for the public benefit and 
 security, and for the benefit of the owners of cattle generally, 
 without any limitation to cattle lawfully on the adjoining prem- 
 ises ; ^ and the same construction has been put upon similar stat- 
 utes, in several other States.* Under this construction of the 
 statute the company is not relieved of liability for injuries to 
 
 1 Fawcett v. York & N. M. R. Co., 16 N. Y., & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641; Purdy 
 Q. B. 610. V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 61 N. Y. 
 
 2 The statute is as follows: "Every 353; Spinner v. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 corporation formed under this act sliall R. Co., 67 N. Y. 153, 6 Hun, 600 ; Duffy 
 erect and maintain fences on the.sides of v. New York & H. R. Co., 2 Hilton, 496; 
 their road, of the height and strength of Sheaf u. TJtica & B. R. R. Co., 2 Thomp. 
 a division fence required by law, with & C. 388 ; White v. Utica & B. R. R. Co., 
 openings or gates or bars therein, and 15 Hun, 333; Crawford r. New York Cent, 
 farm-crossings of the road for tlie use of & H. R. R. Co., 18 Hun, 108. 
 
 the proprietors of lands adjoining such * Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Town- 
 railroads ; and also construct and main- send, 10 Ind. 38 ; Jeffersonville R. Co. v. 
 tain cattle-guards at all road-crossings, Applegate, 10 Ind. 49 ; New Albany & S. 
 suitable and sufficient to prevent cattle R- Co. v. Maiden, 12 Ind. 10 ; Indianapo- 
 and animals from getting on to the rail- lis & C. R. Co. v. Guard, 24 Ind. 222 ; 
 road. Until such fences and cattle-guards Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. McKinney, 
 shall be duly made, the corporation and 24 Ind. 283 ; Marietta & C. R. Co. v. Ste- 
 its agents shall be liable for all damages phenson, 24 Ohio St. 48 ; McCall v. Chani- 
 which shall be done by their agents or berlain, 13 Wis. 637 ; Curry v. Chicago & 
 engines, to cattle, horses, or otlier ani- N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 665; Gillam v. 
 mals thereon ; and, after such fences and Sioux City & St. P. R. Co., 9 Reporter, 
 guards shall be duly made and main- 375; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. ivFurgus- 
 tained, the corporation shall not be liable son, 42 111. 449 ; Browne v. Providence, 
 for any such damages unless negligently H,, & F. R. Co., 12 Gray, 55 (explained 
 or wilfully done." Laws of 1850, oh. by Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 Mass. 
 140, § 44. 560) ; Nashville & C. R. Co v. Peacock, 
 ' Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co., 13 25 Ala. 229 ; Kaes o. Mo. Pacific R. Co., 6 
 N. Y. 42 ; Bradley v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. Mo. App. 397. See Oilman v. Europeaa 
 R. Co., 34 N. Y. 427; Shepard v. Buffalo, & N. A. R. Co., 60 Me. 235. 
 
416 THE LAW OF RAILEOADS. 
 
 cattle coming upon the unfenced track without right by the ad- 
 joining owner's covenant to maintain the fence, such covenant 
 being held to affect its liability to the covenantor only, but not 
 to strangers.^ 
 
 The plaintiff cannot, even under this construction of the stat- 
 ute, recover for an injury arising from the company's default, 
 where by some wilful or positive act he exposed his cattle to 
 danger.^ 
 
 Kind of Fence required by Statute. — The kind of fence, Unless 
 prescribed by statute, may be any kind which is reasonabl}' fitted 
 for the purpose. Whether it is a suitable one is not a question 
 on which the opinion of experts is competent testimony .^ The 
 kind may be determined by the agreement of the parties.* When 
 not prescribed by statute, it is not necessarily the kind required 
 by statute to be maintained between adjoining proprietors ; ^ but 
 some statutes which require railroad companies to maintain fences 
 adopt by reference, or are construed as adopting, such division 
 fences as the standard.^ In New York, the crooked or Virginia 
 fence, which alternately projects beyond and recedes within the 
 location, being a customary division fence, is held to be a suffi- 
 cient railroad fence.'^ 
 
 The fence must be on both sides of the railroad.^ It must, 
 under some statutes, be sufficient to prevent the entry of sheep 
 and pigs.^ It will satisfy the statute if it confines cattle of ordi- 
 nary disposition, although it may not prove a barrier, under ex- 
 ceptional circumstances, in the case of cattle which are peculiarly 
 restive.^" A bluff, hedge, or ditch may be a barrier equivalent to 
 
 1 Corwin v. New York & E. E. Co., 13 6 Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co., 13 
 N. Y. 42.' N. Y. 42; Enright v. San Francisco & S. 
 
 2 Corwin v. New York & E. R. Co., 13 J. R. Co., 38 Cal. 230; Toledo & W. K. 
 N. Y. 42, 48; Brady v. Rensselaer & S. Co. v. Thomas, 18 Ind. 215. 
 
 R. Co., 1 Hun, 878 ; Indianapolis & C. R. ' Ferris v. Van Busldrk, 18 Barb. 397. 
 
 Co. w. Townsend, 10 Ind. 38. 8 Tracy v. Troy & B. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 
 
 8 Swartout v. New York Cent. & H. 4.33, 437; Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 
 
 R. R. Co., 7 Hun, 571 ; Enright v. San Mass. 560; Tredway v. Sioux City & St. 
 
 Francisco & S. J. R. Co., 33 Cal. 230. P. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 527, .39 Iowa, 6(J3. 
 
 But see Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. v. ^ Bessant v. Great Western R. Co., 8 
 
 Spain, 61 Ind. 460. 0. B. n. s. 368; Child v. Beam, L. R. 9 
 
 < Ellis o. London & S. W. R. Co., 2 Excli. 176 ; Fernow v. Dubuque fr, S. W. 
 
 Hurl. & N. 424; Enright v. San Francisco R. Co., 22 Iowa, 528. But see Atchison, 
 
 & S. J. R. Co., 33 Cal. 230. ' T., & S. F. Co. v. Yates, 21 Kan. 613. 
 
 5 Eames v. Salem & L. R. Co., 98 i" Child v. Hgarn, L. R. 9 Exch. 176, 
 
 Mass. 560; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 182; Chicago & A. R. Co v Utley 38 
 
 175, 189. 111. 410. 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 417 
 
 a fence.^ Willow-trees, being injurious to the adjoining owner's 
 land, have been deemed an improper fence, in the absence of a 
 controlling necessity, and the company has been enjoined at his 
 instance from planting them for the purpose.^ A company, which 
 enclosed its track with a fence made of two wires with projecting 
 barbs, it has been held, must use due diligence to prevent cattle 
 being driven by fright upon it when attempting to escape from 
 the track.3 It must not leave openings in fences, other than law- 
 ful gates, bars, or crossings.* 
 
 Cattle-guards. Private Crossings. — Cattle-guards are held to be 
 a, part of a secure and proper fence.^ They should be so placed 
 and constructed as to be effective in excluding cattle.® By some 
 statutes they are not required at private crossings.^ 
 
 The New York statute, as construed, requires cattle-guards at 
 the streets of villages as well as at highways in the country, 
 but they must be of a mode of construction which will not 
 impede public travel.^ It requires them at crossings near sta- 
 tions, although causing inconvenience to the company,^ but not 
 at farm crossings.^" The land-owner cannot, except under stat- 
 ute authority, make them across or under the railroad, as such 
 erections interfere with the company's riglit to the exclusive use 
 of its location for its own purposes. ^^ 
 
 The company is required to keep in repair cattle-guards which 
 
 ' Hilliard v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., N. T. 269 (qualifying Vanderkar v. 
 
 87 Iowa, 442. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 13 Barb. 390; 
 
 2 Brock V. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 36 Parker v. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 16 
 
 Vt. 373. Barb. 315) ; Crawford v. New York Cent, 
 
 8 Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Hudson, & H. R. R. Co., 18 Hun, 108. See Halloran 
 
 62 Ga. 679. v. New York & H. R. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 
 
 4 Cleveland, C. C, & I. R. Co. v. 257 ; Bowman v. Troy & B. R. Co., 37 
 Swift, 42 Ind. 119. Barb. 516 ; Towns v. Cheshire R. Co., 21 
 
 5 New Albany & 8. R. Co. w. Pace, 13 N. H. 363; Peoria, P., & J. R. Co. v. Bar- 
 Ind. 411 ; Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. ton, 80 III. 72. 
 
 Irish, 26 Ind. 268; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. » Bradley v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. 
 
 R. Co. V. Eby, 55 Ind. 567. See Smith v. Co., 34 N. Y. 427 ; Tracy v. Troy & B. B. 
 
 Chicago, C, & D. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 518. Co., 38 N. Y. 433, 55 Barb. 629. 
 
 « Jefferson ville, M., & I. R. Co. v. M Brooks w. New York & E. R. Co., 13 
 
 Morgan, 38 Ind. 190; Indianapolis, C, & Barb. 694; Bartlett v. Dubuque & S. C. 
 
 L. R. Co. V. Bonnell, 42 Ind. 539 ; Pitts- R. Co., 20 Iowa, 188; Cook v. Mil. & St. 
 
 burg, C, & St. L. R. Co. <^. Eby, 65 Ind. P. R. Co., 36 Wis. 46. 
 
 567. '1 Alton & S. R. Co. v. Baugh, 14 111. 
 
 ' B.artlett v. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 211 ; St. Louis, V., & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 
 20 Iowa, 188. MoUet, 59 111. 235. 
 
 8 Brace v. New York Cent. R. Co., 27 
 
 27 
 
418 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 it is required to build,^ and is in default if it allows them to be 
 obstructed by snow.^ 
 
 What is an adequate private crossing depends largely on its 
 position and the circumstances of the case.^ At such a crossing, 
 bars or gates are to be left in the fence;* and they are, when 
 required as a part of the fence, to be maintained by the company.' 
 The company, under the statute of New York, has the right to 
 select the place of crossing, but it must exercise it reasonably, 
 having reference to the convenience of both parties.^ A " farm 
 crossing " means a passage over as well as under the railroadJ 
 The duty to make such a crossing is held to be incumbent on 
 the company, whether it acquires its land by purchase or under 
 legal proceedings.^ 
 
 Liability as to Defects in Fences caused by Casualties or Trespassers. 
 
 — The statute provision requiring the company to maintain 
 fences does not impose an absolute liability for defects casually 
 occurring. Its liability for injuries from defects in the fence, 
 occurring after its construction, depends on the question whether 
 it has used ordinary care, or been negligent in performing the 
 duty to repair and maintain it.^ If the fence, without the com- 
 pany's negligence or wrongful act, is destroyed by tire, or thrown 
 down by a storm or breachy cattle, the company will be liable 
 for an injury resulting therefrom, which occurs after notice of 
 the defect (or its existence for a length of time suificient to 
 justify the presumption of notice), and a reasonable opportunity 
 to repair it.i" It is entitled to a reasonable time to discover and 
 
 1 Chicago & R. I. R. Co. v. Reid, 24 « Clarke v. Rochester, L., & N. F. K. 
 HI- 144. Co., 18 Barb. 350. 
 
 2 Dunnigan v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 9 Murray v. New York Cent. R. Co., 3 
 18 Wis. 28 ; Hance v. Cayuga & S. R. Co., Abbott Ct. App. 339 ; Lemmon u. Chi- 
 26 N. Y. 428. cago & N. W. R. Co., 32 Iowa, 151 ; 
 
 3 Gray v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 87 Curry v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 
 Iowa, 119; Home v. Atlantic & St. h. R. Wis. 665; Robinson v. Grand Trunk R. 
 Co., 36 N. H. 440, 445. Co., 32 Mich. 322. 
 
 1 Hurd V. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. w Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Daniels, 21 
 
 116; Peoria, P., & .J. R. Co. u. Barton, 80 Ind. 256 ; Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 Ill- 72. Truitt, 24 Ind. 162 ; Toledo.W., & W. R. 
 
 6 Mackie ti. Central R. Co., 6 North- Co. v. Cohen, 44 Ind. 444 ; Cleveland, C. 
 
 west. Rep. 723. C., & I. R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Ind. 90; 
 
 6 Wademan v. Albany & S. R. Co., 51 Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. v. Eby, 55 
 
 N, Y. 568 (overruling Wheeler v. Roches- Ind. 567 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dicker- 
 
 ter & S. R. Co., 12 Barb. 227). son, 27 111. 55 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 
 ' Wheeler v. Rochester & S. R. Co , 12 Swearingen, 33 III. 289, 47 III. 206 ; Chi- 
 
 Barb. 227 ; St. Paul & S. C. R. Co. u. cago & A. E. Co. v. Umphenour, 69 111. 
 
 Murphy, 19 Minn. 500. 198 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Nelson, 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 419 
 
 repair the defect where the fence, without its authority or knowl- 
 edge, is thrown down by third persons.^ An owner who has 
 knowledge of the defect should notify the company.^ 
 
 The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the company's 
 knowledge of the defect.^ Actual notice is not necessary, and 
 knowledge may be inferred from lapse of time after the fence 
 was thrown down or gates left open.* The company is, how- 
 ever, not required to keep a constant patrol for the purpose of 
 discovering casual defects in "fences, or the leaving open of 
 gates.^ The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that 
 bars made for his accommodation were left down without his 
 negligence.® 
 
 Gates ana Bars. — The company is required to keep in repair 
 gates and bars which are a part of the fence.^ It is required to 
 use reasonable diligence to keep them closed ; but it is liable for 
 injuries resulting from their being left open by third persons only 
 when it fails to use such diligence to discover that they are open, 
 and to close them.^ It is liable if they are left open by its ser- 
 vants or by customers who pass through them with its implied 
 
 77 HI. 160 ; Aylesworth v. Chicago, R. I., Southwestern R. Co., 36 Iowa, 102 ; Ham- 
 
 & P. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 459 ; Hilliard v. mond v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 
 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 442 ; 168 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Cohen, 
 
 Davis V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 40 44 Ind. 444. 
 
 Iowa, 292 ; McCormick v. Chicago, R. I., * Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 
 & P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 193 ; Wheeler v. 27 111. 55 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Swear- 
 Erie R. Co., 2 Thomp. & C. 634 ; Law- ingen, 33 111. 189, 47 111. 206 ; Illinois 
 rence v. Mil., L. S., & W. R. Co., 42 Wis. Cent. R. Co. o. McKee, 43 111. 119 ; Chi- 
 822, 326. cago & N. W. R. Co. v. Harris, 54 111. 528 ; 
 
 1 Munch V. New York Cent. R. Co., 29 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. u. Barrie, 55 111. 
 
 Barb. 647 ; McDowell v. New York Cent. 226. 
 
 R. Co., 37 Barb. 195 ; Spinner !>. New « Waldron v. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 
 
 York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 153, 85 Me. 422 ; Eames v. Boston & W. R. Co., 
 
 156, 6 Hun, 600; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. 14 Allen, 151. 
 
 Fowler, 22 Ind. 316 ; Great Westerh R. ^ Estes i;. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 63 
 
 Co.!) Helm, 27 111. 198; Chicago &N.W. Me. 308; Illinois Cent. R. Co. u. Arnold, 
 
 R. Co. V. Barrie, 55 111. 226 ; Chicago & 47 III. 173 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 A. R. Co. V. Saunders, 85111. 288 ; Indian- Harris, 54 111. 528 ; Mackie v. Central R. 
 
 apoUs & St. L. R. Co. v. Hall, 88 111. Co., 6 Northwest. Rep. 723. 
 368. ' Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McKee, 43 
 
 " Polert). New York Cent. R. Co., 16 Til. 119; Illinois Cent. R. Co. f. Arnold, 
 
 N. Y. 476 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. 47 Rl. 173 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. 
 
 Seirer, 60 111. 295. Harris, 54 111. 528; Chicago, B., & Q. R. 
 
 ' Perry v. Dubuque Southwestern R. Co. v. Magee, 60 III. 529 ; Bartlett v. 
 
 Co., 36 Iowa, 102. Dubuque & S. C. R. Co., 20 Iowa, 188 ; 
 
 * Aylesworth v. Chicago, R. I., & P. Russell v. Hanley, 20 Iowa, 219. 
 E. Co., 30- Iowa, 459 ; Perry v. Dubuque 
 
420 THE LAW OF RAILEOADS. 
 
 license ; ^ but it is not liable if the owner or occupier of the land, 
 or the servant of either, leaves them open.^ 
 
 Where, the company not being required by law to supply gates 
 or bars, the land-owner makes them, or has them made for. his 
 own convenience, he and his tenants must see that they are kept 
 closed, and the company is not under an obligation to maintain 
 or keep them closed ; ^ and if the cattle of other persons are 
 wrongfully on his land, and come on the track through gates so 
 made, the company, when not negligent in running its trains, is 
 not liable.* 
 
 Places to remain unfenced. Crossings of Public and Private 'Ways. 
 — A statute which in general terms imposes on the company 
 the duty to fence, is construed as allowing exceptions required 
 by the public necessit}"^ or convenience. Thus, it is not required 
 to fence the track where it crosses highways,^ or runs upon 
 them ; ^ but the duty to fence is incumbent where it runs on the 
 side of the highway,'^ or is the terminus of streets.* 
 
 The crossings of private ways have also been admitted as an 
 exception,^ particularly when the land-owner has requested them 
 to be kept open ; i" but the company is liable for injuries caused by 
 
 1 Chapman v. New York Cent. R. Co., * Indianapolis & C. R. Co. t^. Adkins, 
 33 N. Y. 369, 31 Barb. 399 ; Spinner v. 23 Ind. 340. 
 
 New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. « Lafayette & I. R. Co. v. Shriner, 6 
 
 153, 6 Hun, 600, 2 Hun, 421, 4 Thomp. & Ind. 141 ; Indianapolis & C. E. Co. a. 
 
 C. 595. Parker, 29 Ind. 471 ; Oiiio & U. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McKee, 43 Rowland, 50 Ind. 349 ; Soward v. Chicago 
 111. 119 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Arnold, & N. W. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 551, 33 Iowa, 
 47 111. 173 ; Koutz v. Toledo, W., & W. R. 386 ; Kurd v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 Co., 54 Ind. 515; Russell v. Hanley, 20 116, 124; Meyer a. North Mo. R. Co., 35 
 Iowa, 219 ; Hammond v. Chicago & N. W. Mo. 352 ; McPheeters v. Han. & St. J. R. 
 R. Co., 43 Iowa, 168; Henderson v. Chi- Co., 45 Mo. 22; Iba u. Han. & St. J. R. 
 cago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 220, 43 Co., 45 Mo. 469 ; Flint & P. M. E. Co. ./. 
 Iowa, 620, 48 Iowa, 216 ; Eames v. Bos- Lull, 28 Mich. 510. 
 
 ton & W. R. Co., 14 Allen, 151 ; Waldron « Indianapolis, C, & L. R. Co. v. War- 
 
 i;. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 35 Me. 422 ; ner, 35 Ind. 515. 
 
 Hook V. Worcester & N. R. Co., 9 Re- 1 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Guard, 
 
 porter, 348. But aliter in some jurisdic- 24 Ind. 222 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 tions if the cattle belong to a person who McKinney, 24 Ind. 283. 
 
 is not tlie owner or occupier of the ad- » Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Cary, 37 
 
 joining land. Laude v. Chicago & N. W. Ind. 172. 
 
 R. Co., 33 Wis. 640. 9 Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 8 Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. Shimer, 17 Ind. 295 ; Bellefontaine R. Co. 
 
 Shimer, 17 Ind. 295 ; Indianapolis & C. R. v. Suman, 29 Ind. 40. 
 
 Co. V. Adkins, 23 Ind. 340; Koutz v. To- '" Tyson v. K. & D. M. E Co. 43 
 
 ledo, W., & W. R. Co., 54 Ind. 515. Iowa, 207. 
 
INJUEIES TO CATTLE. 
 
 421 
 
 not fencing across private ways, which it had the right to fence, 
 unless the owner has waived the duty.^ 
 
 Fences at Station Grounds. — The company is not required, under 
 the general duty to maintain fences imposed by statute, to enclose 
 the grounds about its stations for freight and passengers, which 
 are required to be kept open for the public convenience ; ^ or the 
 space used for switches and side-tracks ; ^ or even a mill commu- 
 nicating with the railroad.* 
 
 Fences in Cities and Villages. Enclosed Lands. — The company, 
 under the general requirement, is bound to fence its track in cities 
 and villages as well as in the open country ; ^ but in some States 
 they are excepted by statute.® In Missouri, the duty to fence is 
 confined to enclosed or cultivated fields and unenclosed prairie 
 lands,' excluding towns and cities ^ and timber lands.^ In Maine, 
 
 ' Indiana Cent. E. Co. v. Leamon, 18 
 Ind. 173; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. 
 Lowe, 29 Ind. 545 ; McKinley v. Cliicago, 
 R. I., & P. R. Co., 47 Iowa, 76; Hurd v. 
 Rutland & B. R. Co., 26 Vt. 116, 124. 
 
 2 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Oestel, 20 
 Ind. 231 ; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. 
 V. Beatty, 86 Ind. 15 ; Indianapolis & St. 
 L. R. Co. V. Christy, 43 Ind. 143 ; Pitts- 
 burg, C, & St. L. R. Co. V. Bowyer, 45 
 Ind. 496 ; Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co. v. 
 Crandall, 58 Ind. 365 ; Davis v. Burling- 
 ton & M. R. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 549 ; Du- 
 rand v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 
 559; Packard v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 30 
 Iowa, 474; Comstock v. Des Moines 
 Valley R. Co., 32 Iowa, 376 ; Smith v. 
 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 506 ; 
 Clary v. Iowa Midland R. Co., 37 Iowa, 
 844 ; Latty v. B., C. R., & M. R. Co., 38 
 Iowa, 2.50 ; Cole u. Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co., 38 Iowa, 311 ; Galena & C. U. R. Co. 
 V. Griffin, 31 III. 303 ; Great Western R. Co. 
 V. Morthland, 30 111. 451 ; Lloyd v. Pacific 
 R. Co., 49 Mo. 199 ; Morris n. St. Louis, K. 
 C, & N. R. Co., 58 Mo. 78 ; Robertson v. 
 Atlantic & P. R. Co., 64 Mo. 412 ; Swear- 
 ingen v. Mo., K., & T. R. Co., 64 Mo. 73 ; 
 Flint & P. M. E. Co. v. Lull, 28 Mich. 
 510; Blair v. Mil. & P. R. Co., 20 Wis. 
 254. But see Bellefontaine R. Co. v. 
 Reed, 83 Ind. 476; Bradley v. Buffiilo, N. 
 Y., & E. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 427 ; Crawford 
 V. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 18 
 Hun, 108. Compare Roberts ti. Great 
 Western R. Co., 4 C. B. n. s. 506. 
 
 8 Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Rowland, 50 
 Ind. 349. But see Comstock v. Des 
 Moines Valley R. Co., 32 Iowa, 376; 
 Morris v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 58 
 Mo. 78. 
 
 * Indianapolis & C. R. Co. i:. Kinney, 
 8 Ind. 402; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. 
 Co. V. Bowyer, 45 Ind. 496 ; Ohio & M. R. 
 Co. V. Rowland, 50 Ind. 349. 
 
 6 Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. McConnell, 
 26 Ohio St. 57 ; Indianapolis & C. R. Co. 
 V. Parker, 29 Ind. 471 ; Jeffersonville, M., 
 & I. R. Co. V. Parkhurst, 34 Ind. 501 ; 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Howell, 38 
 Ind. 447 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. 
 Owen, 43 Ind. 405; Ells v. Pacific R. 
 Co., 48 Mo. 231 ; Crawford v. New York 
 Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 18 Hun, 108. 
 
 6 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Williams, 27 
 HI. 48 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Mc- 
 Ginnis, 71 HI. 346 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. 
 Co. V. Spangler, 71 111. 568; IlUnois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Bull, 72 111. 537; Flint & P. M. 
 R. Co. V. Lull, 28 Mich. 510. 
 
 ^ Cecil v. Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 246 ; 
 Lloyd V. Pacific R. Co., 49 Mo. 199 ; Big- 
 gerstafe v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 
 60 Mo. 567. 
 
 8 Wier V. St. Louis & I. M. E. Co., 48 
 Mo. 558 ; Lloyd v. Pacific R. Co., 49 Mo. 
 199; Gerren v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 
 60 Mo. 405; Edwards o. Han. & St. J. 
 R. Co., 66 Mo. 567; Cousins v. Han. 
 & St. J. R. Co., 66 Mo. 572. See ElU 
 V. Pacific R. Co., 48 Mo. 231. 
 
 9 Tiarks «. St. Louis & I. M. K. Co., 
 
422 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 the duty is limited to enclosed or improved lands, or wood-lots 
 belonging to a farm.^ 
 
 Fences at Embankments, &o. — The company is required to 
 fence the railroad when laid on an embankment erected in the 
 bed of a canal,^ or on the tow-path of one which is abandoned ; ^ 
 or where the embankment is not sufficient to prevent cattle com- 
 ing on the track ; * or where one railroad is laid by the side of 
 another.^ But the duty has been held not to be incumbent in 
 the case of a railroad laid upon public lands,^ or in the waters of 
 the Hudson River J 
 
 Liability for Injuries to Cattle coming on the Track at Places where 
 the Company is not required to maintain Fences. — The company is 
 not, at least in the absence of negligence, liable for injuries to 
 cattle coming upon the track at places where, by the construction 
 of the statute, it is not permitted or required to maintain a 
 fence.^ 
 
 Injury by Fright arising from Neglect to Fence. — The injury may 
 be inflicted, without a collision, by the animals taking fright at 
 the noise of the train. In either case the company is liable if the 
 injury is caused by its failure to fence its track as required by 
 law.^ 
 
 The Owner's Waiver of the Company's Duty to Fence. — The duty 
 to maintain fences and gates, imposed by statute on the company 
 
 58 Mo. 45; Walton v. St. Louis, I. M., & ' Schermerhorn v. Hudson Eiver B. 
 
 S. R. Co., 67 Mo. 66 ; Schable v. Han. Co., 38 N. Y. 103. 
 
 & St. J. R. Co., 69 Mo. 91. 8 Indianapolis, C, & L. R. Co. v. War- 
 
 1 Perkins v. Eastern E. Co., 29 Me. ner, 35 Ind. 515 ; Jeflersonville, M., & I. 
 807 ; Oilman v. European & N. A. E. Co., R. Co. v. Huber, 42 Ind. 173 ; Davis ». 
 60 Me. 235. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 26 Iowa, 549 ; 
 
 2 White Water Valley E. Co. v. Quick, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bull, 72 111. 537. 
 31 Ind. 127. 9 Young v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. 
 
 8 White Water Valley E. Co.w. Quick, Co., 44 Iowa, 172; ante, p. 417. Contra, 
 
 30 Ind. 127. under statutes of Indiana and Missouri. 
 
 4 Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Sweeney, Peru & I. R. Co. v. Hasket, 10 Ind. 409 ; 
 
 41 111. 226. Indianapolis, B., & W. R. Co. v. McBrown, 
 
 6 Shepard !>. Buffalo, N.Y., & E. R. Co., 46 Ind. 229 ; Louisville, N. A., & C. E. Co. 
 
 85 N. Y. 641. • V. Smith, 58 Ind. 575 ; Baltimore, P., & 
 
 « Walsh V. Va. & T. E. Co., 8 Nev. 0. E. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Ind. 107 ; Laf- 
 
 110. ferty v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 44 Mo. 291. 
 
 See ante, Chap. XII. p. 348. 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 423 
 
 for the benefit of the adjoining land-owner, may be waived by 
 him, and the effect of such waiver is to relieve it of liability for 
 injuries to cattle resulting from its omission to comply with the 
 statute. It will, however, notwithstanding the waiver, remain 
 liable for an intentional injury, or even, in some jurisdictions, for 
 negligence only.^ The owner's agreement to maintain the fences 
 or gates is such a waiver ,2 and it binds his tenant as well as him- 
 self.3 
 
 Whether the waiver by the owner of the company's duty to 
 maintain a fence will affect persons not in privity with him 
 whose cattle stray upon his land, and thence enter on the track, 
 depends upon the different constructions, already considered, 
 which are put on the policy and intent of the legislation requir- 
 ing the company to maintain fences.* If the company is com- 
 pelled to pay such parties for cattle, caused by the want of a 
 fence, it is held entitled to indemnity from the land-owner who 
 agreed to maintain the fence.^ The waiver is not affected hj the 
 company's breach of its agreement to furnish some other protec- 
 tion equivalent to that provided by statute, the owner's remedy 
 for such breach being an action for damages upon the con- 
 tract.^ 
 
 The intent to waive the benefit of the statute must clearly ap- 
 pear from the terms of the agreement.^ The waiver will not be 
 
 ' Hurd V. Eutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. Shimer, 17 Ind. 295; Indianapolis, P., & 
 
 116; Jackson u. Rutland & B.R. Co.,25Vt. C. R. Co. v. Petty, 25 Ind. 413; Dufify v. 
 
 150, 156, 157 ; Enriglit v. San Francisco & New York & H. R. Co., 2 Hilton, 496. 
 
 S. J. R. Co., 33 Cal. 230; Cornwall u. * Jefeersonville, M., & I. R. Co., v. 
 
 Sullivan R. Co., 28 N. H. 161 ; Tyson v. Nichols, 30 Ind. 321 ; Cincinnati, H., & I. 
 
 K. & D. M. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 207. R. Co. v. Ridge, 54 Ind. 39 ; Gill v. At- 
 
 2 Tombs V. Rochester & S. R. Co., 18 lantic & G. W. R. Co., 27 Ohio St. 240 ; 
 
 Barb. 583 ; Talmadge v. Rensselaer & S. Warren v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 
 
 R. Co., 13 Barb. 493 ; Terre Haute & R. 484 ; Gilman v. European & N. A. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. V. Smith, 16 Ind. 102 ; Indianapolis, 60 Me. 235 ; Corwin v. New York & E. R. 
 
 P., & C. R. Co. V. Petty, 25 Ind. 413 ; Fort Co., 13 N. Y. 42 ; Shepard v. Buffalo, N. 
 
 Wayne, M., & C. R. Co. 0. Mussetter, 48 Y., & E. R. Co., S5 N. Y. 641 ; ante, pp. 
 
 Ind. 286 ; Cincinnati, H., & I. R. Co. v. 412-416. 
 
 Ridge, 54 Ind. 39 ; Baltimore P. & C. R. ^ Warren v. K. & D. SI. R. Co., 41 
 
 Co. V. Johnson, 59 Ind. 188 ; Cincinnati, Iowa, 484. 
 
 H., & 1). R. Co. V. Waterson, 4 Ohio St. ^ Hurd v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. 
 
 424, 434; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. 116; Drake «. Phil. & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. 
 
 K. Smith, 26 Ohio St. 124; Earnest). Wor- St. 240. See Lawton o. Fitchburg li. 
 
 cester & N. R. Co., 105 Mass. 193. See Co., 8 Cush. 230. 
 
 New Albany & S. R. Co. v. Maiden, 12 ^ White v. Concord R. Co., 30 N. H. 
 
 Ind. 10; Poler !•. New York Cent. R. Co., 188; CleTeland, C. C, & I. R. Co. i-. 
 
 16 N. Y. 476 ; Shepard v. Buffalo, N. Y., Crossley, 36 Ind. 370 ; Shepard v. Buffalo, 
 
 & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641. N. Y., & E. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 641. 
 
 » IndianapoUs, P., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
424 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 inferred from a conveyance in fee-simple of a right of way to the 
 company, without reservation or exception ; ^ or from the laud- 
 owner's voluntary erection and maintenance of the fence ; ^ or 
 from his building it for the company under a contract.^ The com- 
 pany's written contract to build a fence with crossings does not 
 relieve it of its statute duty to provide at such crossings gates 
 or bars which were not mentioned in the contract.^ The com- 
 pany is not relieved of its duty to fence as imposed by statute, by 
 the fact that the jury or appraising body allowed the land-owner 
 compensation for fencing.^ 
 
 Duty to fence assumed by the Company. — The company having 
 assumed by an agreement with the land-owner the obligation, 
 although not imposed by statute, to maintain fences, gates, or 
 cattle passes, cannot relieve itself therefrom by subsequent pro- 
 ceedings for taking land.^ It does not, by building a fence of its 
 own accord, thereby agree to maintain it.^ 
 
 Agreements to maintain Fences when running with the Land. — 
 Parol promises to maintain fences do not run with the land, and 
 affect only the parties to them.^ But a written agreement, where 
 the intent to charge the land appears, runs with it, and may be 
 enforced by and against subsequent grantees.® An agreement 
 recited in a record of proceedings for condemnation, that the com- 
 pany is to maintain the fence, runs with the land.^" 
 
 1 Smith V. New York & 0. M. R. Co., ' Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 
 63 N. Y. 58. 536 ; Waldron v. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 
 
 2 JeffersonTille, M., & I. R. Co. v. Sul- 35 Me. 422. 
 
 livan, 38 Ind. 262 ; Fort Wayne, M., & C. 8 Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. 
 
 R. Co. V. Mussetter, 48 Ind. 286. See Jef- 536 ; Wilder v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 65 
 
 fersonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Nichols, 30 Me. 332 ; St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. 
 
 Ind. 821. „. Todd, 36 111. 409; Vandegrift v. Dela- 
 
 3 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Swearingen, ware R. Co., 2 Houst. 287. See Pitkin 
 33 111. 289, 47 111. 206. v. Long Island R. Co., 2 Barb. Ch. 221; 
 
 « Poler V. New York Cent. R. Co., 16 Day v. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 Barb. 
 
 N. Y. 476. 548, 53 Barb. 250. 
 
 6 Baltimore, P., & C. R. Co. v. John- » Easter «. Little Miami R. Co., 14 Ohio 
 
 son, 59 Ind. 188. See Terre Haute & R. St. 48 ; Gill v. Atlantic & G. W. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. V. Smith, 16 Ind. 102 ; Rockford, 27 Ohio St. 240, 250 ; Cook o. Mil. & St. 
 
 R. I., & St. L. R. Co. V. Lynch, 67 111. P. R. Co., 36 Wis. 45 ; Duffy v. New 
 
 149; Morss v. Boston & M. R., 2 Cush. York & H. R. Co., 2 Hilton, 496; Bron- 
 
 536. son u. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175. See ante, 
 
 B Gray v. Burlington & M. R. Co., 37 Chap. VI. p. 135. 
 
 Iowa, 119. 10 Huston v. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co., 
 
 21 Ohio St. 235. 
 
INJUKIES TO CATTLE. 425 
 
 Remedy for Breach of the Agreement. Damages. — The remedy 
 for an injury resulting from a breach of the agreement to maintain 
 a fence is an action of contract upon the agreement, and not an 
 action of tort.^ 
 
 Different rules for the measure of damages for a breach of the 
 agreement have been stated, — as the cost of erecting the fence,^ 
 the value of the crop destroyed in consequence of the failure to 
 maintain them,^ or the injury to the use and enjoyment of the 
 land.* The damages suffered before the commencement of the 
 action, and not prospective damages, may be recovered.^ The 
 erection of fences by the company, after the action is brought, 
 does not affect the plaintiff's right to recover.^ 
 
 Plaintiff's Negligence. — Where the company, not being in de- 
 fault under statutes in relation to the. maintenance of fences, has, 
 by the negligent management of its engines, injured cattle com- 
 ing upon its track, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff 
 will defeat the action.' 
 
 Such contributory negligence of the owner may consist in his 
 allowing his cattle to stray in the vicinity of the railroad.^ Their 
 escape from a well-fenced field, when involuntary on his part, 
 and followed by reasonable efforts to reclaim them, is not negli- 
 gence.^ Even if the company is in default, it is his duty to 
 
 1 Kurd V. Rutland & B. R. Co., 25 Vt. M. R. Co. v. Lull, 28 Mich. 510 ; Indian- 
 
 116; Drake v. Phil. & E. R. Co., 51 Pa. apolis & C. R. Co. v. Caldwell, 9 Ind. 
 
 St. 240; Vandergrift u. Delaware R. Co., 397; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Thomas, 18 
 
 2 Houst. 287. See Fernow v. Dubuque Ind. 215 ; Jeffersonville, M., & I. R. Co. 
 
 & S. W. R. Co., 22 Iowa, 528. u. Foster, 63 Ind. 342. 
 
 ^ Lawton v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Cush. '* Indianapolis, C, & L. R. Co. v. Har- 
 
 230. ter, 38 Ind. 557 ; Je£fersonTille, M., & I. 
 
 3 Chicago & R. I. R. Co. u. Ward, 16 R. Co. v. Adams, 43 Ind. 402 ; Jefferson- 
 Ill. 522 (qualified by Chicago v. Huen- ville, M.,- & I. R. Co. v. Underbill, 48 Ind. 
 erbein, 85 111. 594) ; Smith v. Chicago, C, 389, 40 Ind. 229 ; Cincinnati, H., & D. R. 
 & D, R. Co., 38 Iowa, 518. Co. c;. Street, 50 Ind. 225 ; Detroit, E. R., 
 
 < Huston V. Cincinnati & Z. R. Co., 21 & I. R. Co. v. Barton, 61 Ind. 293 ; Marsh 
 
 Ohio St. 235. v. New York & E. R. Co., 14 Barb. 364 ; 
 
 6 Phelps V. New Haven & N. R. Co., Halloran o. New York & H. R. Co., 2 E. 
 
 43 Conn. 453 ; Huston v. Cincinnati & D. Smith, 257 ; Bowman v. Troy & B. R. 
 
 Z. R. Co., 21 Ohio St. 235. • Co., 37 Barb. 516; Smith v. Chicago, R. 
 
 I* Lawton v. Fitchburg R. Co., 8 Cush. I., & P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 506 ; Kubn v. 
 
 230. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 420 ; 
 
 ' Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 30 Pitzner v. Shinnick, 39 Wis. 129 ; Bennett 
 
 HI. 117; Ohio & M. R. Co. u. Eaves, 42 v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 19 Wis. 145; 
 
 111. 288 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Goss, Galpin v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 19 
 
 17 Wis. 428 ; Fisher v. Farmers' Loan & Wis. 604. 
 
 T. Co., 21 Wis. 73; Curry v. Chicago & ' Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Harris, 
 
 N. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 665; FUnt & P. 54 111.628; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. 
 
426 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 use ordinary care to save his property from being injured 
 thereby.' 
 
 Where the company is in default as to the maintenance of 
 fences, and through such default cattle enter on its track at 
 places where it has failed to maintain the fence, and are killed 
 by its engines, the authorities are in conflict as to the effect of 
 the owner's conduct upon his right of action. On the one hand, 
 it has been -held that he cannot recover if by his negligence he 
 substantially contributed to the injury, as by turning his cattle 
 into the unfenced field adjoining the railroad with knowledge of 
 its condition ; ^ but, on the other, it has been considered that when 
 the company has failed to perform its statute duty, and thereby 
 injury has occurred, the owner's conduct will defeat his action 
 only in the case of a positive act exposing his property, or negli- 
 gence of a kind which shows a willingness to sacrifice it. Accord- 
 ing to this view he is not in such default as to disentitle him to 
 maintain an action when the company having failed to perform 
 its duty, he merely allows his cattle to stray in the vicinity of 
 the railroad,^ or puts them into his field, between which and the 
 track the company has failed to maintain a fence as required by 
 statute.* 
 
 Where the owner and the company are under equal obligations 
 
 Johnston, 74 III. 83 ; Peoria, P., & J. R. R Co., 29 Barb. 647 ; Brady v. Rensselaer 
 
 Co. V. Champ, 75 111. 577 ; Chicago & N. & S. R. Co., 1 Hun, 378, 3 Thomp. & C. 
 
 W. E. Co. V. Goss, 17 Wis. 428; Bennett 537; Flint & P. M. R. Co. v. Lull, 28 
 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 19 Wis. 145, Mich. 510 ; Knight v. Toledo & W. E. 
 
 148 ; Bulkley v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 24 Ind. 402 ; Jeffersonville, M., & L 
 
 Co., 27 Conn. 479; Pearson «. Mil. & St. R. Co. v. Dunlap, 29 Ind. 426; Bellefon- 
 
 P. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 497. taine R. Co. v. Seed, 33 Ind. 476 ; Jeffer- 
 
 1 Downing v. Chicago, E. L, & P. R. sonville, M., & I. R. Co. v. Ross, 37 Ind. 
 Co., 43 Iowa, 96; Finch v. Central R., 545; Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 42 Iowa, 304 ; Smith v. Chicago, C, & D. Cahill, 63 Ind. 340 ; Louisville, N. A., & 
 R. Co., 38 Iowa, 518; Illinois Cent. R. C. R. Co. v. Whitesell, 68 Ind. 297; St. 
 Co. V. Finnigan, 21 111. 646. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. Todd, 36 111. 
 
 2 Curry v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 409; Toledo, W., & W. E, Co. v. Furgus- 
 
 43 Wis 665 (reviewing Jones o. Sheboy- son, 42 111. 449 ; Ohio & M. E. Co. v. 
 gan & P. E. Co., 42 Wis. 306 ; Lawrence Fowler, 85 111. 21. 
 
 V. Mil., L. S., & W. E. Co., 42 Wis. ' Poler v. New York Cent. E. Co., 16 
 
 322) ; Baltimore & 0. E. Co. v. Lamborn, N. Y. 476; Shepard v. Buffalo N. Y. & 
 
 12 Md. 257 ; Keechu. Bait. & W. E. Co., E. E. Co., 35 N. Y. 641 ; Eogers «. New- 
 
 17 Md. 32; Barnes v. Salem & L. E. Co., buryport E. Co., 1 Allen, 16; Wilder v. 
 
 98 Mass. 560 ; Joliet & N. I. E. Co. </. Maine Cent. E. Co., 65 Me. 332 ; McCoy 
 
 Jones, 20 111. 221 ; Gribble v. Sioux City, v. Cal. Pacific E. Co., 40 Cal. 532 ; To- 
 
 38 Iowa, 390; ledo, W., & W. E. Co. v. Carey, 37 Ind. 
 
 8 Corwin v. New York & E. E. Co., 13 172. 
 N. Y. 42, 49 ; Munch v. New York Cent. 
 
INJTJEIES TO CATTLE. 427 
 
 to maintain a division fence, the owner's default in maintaining 
 it will be a defence to an action against the company for au injury 
 to his cattle coming upon the track for want of a fence, where the 
 company, though neglecting to maintain one, is not chargeable 
 with negligence in running its train. ^ 
 
 Letting cattle run at large in violation of a statute will defeat 
 the action where the company's only default is its failure to fence 
 its track as required by statute.^ But some authorities allow the 
 owner's illegal act to be a defence only when injury to the cattle 
 would, under the circumstances, be the natural and probable con- 
 sequence of letting them go at large,^ or the owner's act was a 
 wilful exposure of his property.* 
 
 Where a land-owner, without notifying the company of a de- 
 fect in the fence which it is bound to maintain, undertakes as a 
 volunteer to repair it, and leaves it imperfect, he is chargeable 
 with negligence, which will prevent his recovery for an injury 
 resulting from its defective condition.^ If he makes a change in 
 the fence for his own convenience, he assumes the responsibility 
 for injuries caused thereby.^ 
 
 Negligence, a Question for the Jury. — Where negligence is the 
 gist of the action against the company for an injury to cattle, the 
 question whether the company used ordinary care or is chargeable 
 with negligence is for the jury." Whether the plaintiff is charge- 
 able with contributory negligence is for the jury.^ 
 
 1 Sandusky & C. R. Co. v. Sloan, 27 Co. v. Woosley, 85 111. 370 ; Cincinnati, 
 Ohio St. 341 ; Dayton & M. R. Co. v. L., & C. R. Co. u. Ducliarme, 4 Brad. 
 Miami County Infirmary, 32 Ohio St. (111.) 178; Lafayette & I. R. Co. v. Shri- 
 566. ner, 6 Ind. 141. 
 
 2 Pittsburg, Ft. W., & C. R. Co. v. < Spence v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 Methven, 21 Ohio St. 586; Perkins </. 25 Iowa, 139; Stewart v. Chicago & N. 
 Eastern R. Co., 29 Me. 307 ; Pitzner v. W. R. Co., 27 Iowa, 282 ; Stewart v. Bur- 
 Shinnick, 39 Wis. 129; Central Branch lington & M. R. Co., 32 Iowa, 561; Pritz 
 R. Co. ... Lea, 20 Kan. 353 (modifying v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 337. 
 Hopkins v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 18 5 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. u. Seirer, 60 
 Kan. 462) ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. 111. 295. 
 
 V. Hegwir, 21 Kan. 622; Peoria, P., & J. " Koutz v. Toledo, W., & W. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co. V. Champ, 75 III. 577 ; Denver & 54 Ind. 515. 
 
 R. G. R. Co. V. Olsen, 4 Col. 239. If the ' Morse v. Rutland & B. K. Co., 27 
 
 cattle stray without the owner's fault, Vt. 49 ; Beers a. Housatonic R. Co., 19 
 
 the statute has been held not to apply. Conn. 566; Morrison r. New York & N. 
 
 Pearson v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 45 Iowa, H. R. Co., 32 Barb. 568 ; Central Ohio R. 
 
 497. Co. V. Lawrence, 13 Ohio St. 66; Hanni- 
 
 8 Ewing V. Chicago & A. R. Co., 72 bal & St. J. R. Co. v. Kenney, 41 Mo. 
 
 HI. 25; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. 271. 
 
 V. Irish, 72 111. 404 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. ^ Estes v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co , 63 
 
 V. Murray, 82 IlL 76 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Me. 308 ; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. E. Co. v. 
 
428 
 
 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 Burden of Proof. Evidence. — The burden of proof is an the 
 plaintiff to show the company's negligence whenever its liability 
 for an injury to his cattle depends on its negligence, as when the 
 cattle entered on the track at a place where the company is not 
 required to maintain a fence ; and the injury itself, though in- 
 flicted by the company, is not prima facie eYidence of its negli- 
 gence. ^ 
 
 If the company is in default in the performance of a legal obli- 
 gation, as by neglect to maintain the fence at the place where 
 the cattle came on the track, proof of such default and of the 
 cattle coming upon the track at such a place will maintain the 
 action ; but such proof is essential.^ If the animal is killed at a 
 
 Irish, 72 111. 404; Cairo & St. L. E. Co. v. 
 Woosley, 85 111. 370; Cincinnati, L., & C. 
 R. Co. v. Ducharrae, 4 Brad. (111.) 178; 
 Pitzner v. Shinnick, 39 Wis. 129; Curry 
 V. Chicago & N. W. R.,Co., 43 Wis. 665; 
 Hammond u. S. C. & P. R. Co., 49 Iowa, 
 450. 
 
 1 Lyndsay v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 27 
 Vt. 643 ; Waldron o. Portland, S., & P. 
 R. Co', 35 Me. 422 ; Terry v. New York 
 Cent. R. Co., 22 Barb. 574 ; Illinois Cent. 
 R. Co. V. Reedy, 17 111. 580; Galena & C. 
 U. R. Co. V. Crawford, 25 111. 529 ; Great 
 Western R. Co. u. Morthland, 30 111. 451 ; 
 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Utley, 38 111. 410; 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whalen, 42 111. 
 396 ; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 Connell, 67 111. 216 ; Peoria, P., & J. R. 
 Co. V. Barton, 80 111. 72 ; Chicago, B., & 
 Q. R. Co. «. Farrelly, 3 Brad. (111.) 60; 
 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. o. Means, 14 
 Ind. 30 ; Cincinnati, H., & I. R. Co. u. 
 Bartlett, 58 Ind. 572 ; Indianapolis, P., & 
 C. R. Co. V. Caudle, 60 Ind. 112; Plaster 
 V. 111. Cent. R. Co , 35 Iowa, 449 ; Schneir 
 V. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 40 Iowa, 
 3-37; Lawrence ■;. Mil., L. S., & W. R. 
 Co., 42 Wis. 322; Betlije v. Houston & C. 
 T. R. Co., 26 Tex. 604; Walsh v. Va. & 
 T. R. Co., 8 Nev. 110 ; Scott v. Wil. & R. 
 R. Co., 4 Jones (N. C), 432; Doggett v. 
 Richmond & D. R. Co., 81 N. C. 459; 
 Locke u. St. Paul & P. R. Co., 15 Minn. 
 350; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Jud- 
 son, 84 Mich. 506 ; New Orleans, J., & G. 
 N. R. Co. V. Enochs, 42 Miss. 603. Con- 
 tra, Banner v. So. Car. R. Co., 4 Rich. 
 329 ; Wilson v. Wil. & M. R. Co., 10 Rich. 
 52; Murray v. So. Car. R. Co., 10 Rich. 
 
 227 ; Roof v. Charlotte, C, & A. E. Co., 
 4 So. Car. n. s. 61 ; White v. Concord R. 
 Co., 30 N. H. 188 ; Smith v. Eastern R. 
 Co., 35 N. H. 356 ; Woolfolk o. Macon & 
 A. R. Co., 56 Ga. 457. In some States, 
 by statute, the injury is made prima facie 
 evidence of the company's negligence. 
 Louisville & N. E. Co. v. Brown, 13 
 Bush, 475; Kentucky Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Lebus, 14 Bush, 518 ; Atlantic & G. R. 
 Co. V. Griffin, 61 Ga. 11 ; Keech v. Bait & 
 W. R. Co., 17 Md. 32; Mobile & 0. R. 
 Co. V. Williams, 53 Ala. 595 ; Memphis & 
 C. R. Co. V. Smith, 9 Heisk. 860; L. R. 
 & E. S. R. Co. u. Payne, 33 Ark. 816. 
 Statutes imposing liability in general 
 terms on the company for cattle killed 
 have been held to impose only a prima 
 facie liability, from which it can relieve 
 itself by proof of proper care. L. R. & 
 F. S. R. Co. 0. Payne, 33 Ark. 816. See 
 Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Williams, 53 Ala. 
 595. 
 
 2 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Crawford, 
 25 111. 529 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Utley, 
 38 111. 410 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. 
 Wickery, 44 111. 76 ; Chicago & N. W. E. 
 Co. V. Barrie, 55 111. 226 ; Eockford, R. I., 
 & St. L. R. Co. V. Lynch, 67 111. 149; 
 McCoy V. Cal. Pacific R. Co., 40 Cal. 582 ; 
 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Means, 14 
 Ind. 30 ; Bellefoutaine R. Co. o. Suman, 
 29 Ind. 40 ; Bennett v. Chicago & N. W. 
 R. Co., 19 Wis. 145; Lawrence v. Mil., 
 L. S., & W. R. Co., 42 Wis. 322; Cecil 
 V. Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 246; Lantz v. 
 St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Co., 54 Mo. 228 ; 
 Small u. Chicago, R. I., & p. R. Co., 50 
 Iowa, 338, 341. 
 
INJURIES TO CATTLE. 429 
 
 place where the company has failed to fence, the jury may infer 
 that the cattle entered there.^ 
 
 Where the cause of action depends upon the company's failure 
 to fence as required by statute, the plaintiff must show that the 
 cattle went upon the track at a place where it was required to 
 fence.2 Its failure to fence at other places than the one where 
 they entered, or its negligence at other times, is immaterial.^ 
 Evidence of the condition of the fence two or three days after 
 the injury has been admitted.* Where the fence was generally 
 insecure, proof of the particular place where the cattle entered 
 was dispensed with.^ 
 
 Proof that cattle were killed when the train was running at a 
 prohibited speed is prima facie evidence of negligence ; ^ but the 
 fact of injury to cattle does not show that the speed was un- 
 lawful.'^ 
 
 Proof of an omission of signals required by statute and of the 
 fact of injury does not show a cause of action, but there must be 
 proof that the injury resulted from the omission.^ Where the 
 statute makes the fact of killing cattle prima fade evidence of 
 negligence, the company is not responsible, if it appears by the 
 evidence of the facts as fully disclosed that it used all proper pre- 
 cautions to prevent injury.® 
 
 The burden of showing the plaintiff's contributory negligence 
 is on the company, where it has failed to maintain the fence as 
 required by law ; ^^ but if the company is not in default, under the 
 statute, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that he did not by 
 his want of ordinary care contribute to the injury.^^ Where bars 
 
 ' St. Louis & S. E. R. Co. c. Casuer, ^ Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 72 111. 384 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Spain, 61 Ind. 460. 
 
 Pence, 68 111. 524 ; Fickle v. St. Louis, K. ^ Chicago & A. R. Co. u. Engle, 58 111. 
 
 C, & N. R. Co., 54 Mo. 219 ; Walther v. 381 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Deacon, 
 
 Pacific R. Co., 55 Mo. 271. 63 111. 91. 
 
 2 Cecil u. Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 246; ' Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Engle, 58 
 
 Morrison v. New York & N. H. R. Co., HI. 381. 
 
 32 Barb. 568 ; Lawrence v. Mil., L. S., & 8 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Loomis, 18 
 
 W. R. Co., 42 Wis. 322. 111. 548; Stoneman v. Atlantic & P. R. 
 
 » Brooks V. New York & E. R. Co., 13 Co., 58 Mo. 503; Holraan v. Chicago, R. 
 
 Barb. 594 ; Great Western R. Co. v. I., & P. R. Co., 62 Mo. 562 ; ante, p. 408. 
 
 Morthland, 30 111. 451 ; Chicago, B., & Q. » Durham v. Wil. & W. R. Co., 82 
 
 R. Co. V. Farrelly, 3 Brad. (111.) 60; Miss. N. C. 352. 
 
 Cent. R. Co. I'. Miller, 40 Miss. 45 ; CecU i" Rogers c. Newburyport R. Co., 1 
 
 V. Pacific R. Co., 47 Mo. 246. Allen, 16 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Woos- 
 
 * Mackie v. Central R. Co., 6 North- ley, 85 111. 370. 
 
 west. Bep. 723. " Waldron v. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 
 
 35 Me. 422 ; JefEersonville, M., & L R. Co. 
 
430 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 are left for the convenience of the owner, and cattle escape be- 
 cause of their being down, the burden of proof is on him to show 
 that they were down without his fault.^ The company's failure 
 to fence is not to be presumed.^ Possession of stock is prima 
 fade evidence of ownership.^ 
 
 Whether a company is bound to fence at a particular place is 
 a question of law.* An action for an injury to cattle, depend- 
 ing on the company's common-law liability, is transitory .^ The 
 measure of damages for the killing of cattle caused by the com- 
 pany's default is their value.® 
 
 V. Huber, 42 Ind. 173 ; IndianapoUs, P., » Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Stevens, 
 
 & C. B. Co. u. Caudle, 60 Ind. 112. 63 Ind. 337. 
 
 1 Waldron v. Portland, S. & P. K. Co., * Llinois Cent. R. Co. v. Whalen, 42 
 85 Me. 422 ; Eames v. Boston & W. B. 111. 396. 
 
 Co., 14 Allen, 1.51. 5 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. MilUgan, 
 
 2 Indianapolis & C. R. Co. v. Wharton, 52 Ind. 505. 
 
 13 Ind. 509. « Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. u. Arnold, 
 
 43 m. 418. 
 
rNJUEIES BY FIKB. 431 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 rffJtTBIES TO PROPERTY BY FIRE. 
 
 Liability at Common Law. — ^ An individual may for a lawful 
 purpose kindle a fire upon his land, and, if he exercises his right 
 reasonably and with due precautions, he is not liable for injury 
 caused by the fire being communicated to the property of others ; 
 but he becomes liable if the injury results from the negligent, 
 unskilful, and improper exercise of his right. ^ He is liable for 
 such injuries by his negligence, whether the fire is communicated 
 through the air or along the ground. ^ 
 
 A railroad company being authorized by law to work its en- 
 gines in the usual and proper way, and when necessary, in the 
 exercise of this right, to send forth particles of fire from them, 
 is not liable for injuries caused thereby to private property, pro- 
 vided it exercises its right in a lawful manner and with reason- 
 able care and skill.^ It may use ordinary materials for fuel, as 
 
 1 Clark V. Foot, 8 Johns. 421 ; Stuart v. Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366 ; Frankford & B. 
 
 V. Hawley, 22 Barb. 61') ; Teall v. Barton, Turn. Co. u. Phil. & T. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 
 
 40 Barb. 1-37 ; Calkins u. Barger, 44 345 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Yerger, 73 Pa. 
 Barb. 424; Webb v. Rome, W., & 0. R. St. 121 ; Erie R. Co. v. Decker, 78 Pa. St. 
 Co., 49N. Y. 420, 3 Lans. 453; Losee u. 293; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Hendrickson, 
 Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476, 487; Hays u. 80 Pa. St. 182; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. 
 Miller, 6 Hun, 320 ; Bachelder v. Heagan, Schultz, 37 Leg. Int. 386 ; Sheldon v. Hud- 
 18 Me. 32 ; Hewey v. Nourse, 54 Me. 256 ; son River R. Co., 14 N. Y. 218, 29 Barb. 
 Perley v. Eastern R. Co., 98 Mass. 414, 226 ; Collins u. New York Cent. & H. R. 
 418 ; Hig^ins v. Dewey, 107 Mass. 404 ; R. Co., 5 Hun, 503 ; Rood o. New York & 
 McCully "v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399 ; Han- E. R. Co., 18 Barb. 80 ; Morris & E. R. Co. 
 Ion u. Ingram, 3 Iowa, 81 ; Cleland v. v. State, 7 Vroom, 553 ; Jefferis i\ Pliil., 
 Thornton, 43 Cal. 437 ; Gagg v. Vetter, W., & B. R. Co., 3 Houst. 447 ; Illinois 
 
 41 Ind. 228 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. Cent. R. Co. v. Mills, 42 111. 407 ; Chicago 
 V. Culver, 60 Ind. 469 ; Read v. Morse, 34 & A. R. Co. v. Quaintance, 58 111. 389 ; 
 Vfh. 315 ; Vauglian v. Menlove, 3 Ring. Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. t: Larmon, 67 
 N. R. 468 ; Filliter v. Phippard, 11 Q. B. III. 68 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Pennell, 
 347. 94 III. 448 ; Louisville, N. A., & C. R. Co. 
 
 ' Higgins V. Dewey, 107 Mass. 494. v. Richardson, 60 Ind. 43; Gandy v. Chi- 
 ' Burroughs v. Housatonic R. Co., 15 cago &N. W. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 420; Kan- 
 Conn. 124; Chapman v. Atlantic & St. sas Pacific R. Co. v. Butts, 7 Kan. 308; 
 L. E. Co., 37 Me. 92; Phil. & R. R. Co. Missouri, K., & T. R. Co. o. Davidson, 14 
 
432 THE LAW or BAILEOADS. 
 
 wood and coal of different kinds, availing itself of the appro- 
 priate mechanical contrivances best adapted to diminish the 
 chances of communicating fire.^ But the company is bound to 
 use ordinary care and to take reasonable precautions in the con- 
 struction, equipment, and use of its machines, to prevent injury 
 to private property from such issuing of particles of fire ; and 
 this care must be proportionate to the danger arising from its 
 peculiar machinery and methods.^ Its mode of driving its en- 
 gines need not, however, vary with the dryness of the weather 
 or the nearness of combustible materials belonging to private 
 owners.^ It is liable for the negligent burning of buildings which 
 it has allowed private persons to build within its location ; * and, 
 like other proprietors, for injuries by fire negligently communi- 
 cated from the chimneys of its buildings,^ or from weeds and 
 grass within its location to which it has set fire.^ When work- 
 ing its engines without lawful authority it is liable for injuries 
 by fire, even when not negligent in their management^ 
 
 Con^pensation for Land taken not to include Injuries by Fire caused 
 by Negligence. — The special remedy under which compensation 
 for land taken is assessed does not exclude actions for injuries by 
 fire caused by the company's negligence, as the compensation is 
 fixed on the basis of the company's using due care in the exercise 
 of its powers.^ Nor is parol evidence admissible to show that 
 
 Kan. 349; Leavenworth, L., & G. R. Co. City & T. E. Co., 9 Nev. 271; Snyder 
 
 V. Cook, 18 Kan. 261 ; Vaughan ;■. TafE h. Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co., 11 W. 
 
 Vale E. Co., 5 Hurl. & N. 679, 3 Hurl. & Va. 14, 36 ; Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Mills, 
 
 N. 743; Smith v. London & S. W. R. Co., 42 111. 407. 
 
 L. E. 6 C. P. 14, L. R. 5 C. P. 98 ; Ham- » Michigan Cent. E. Co. a. Anderson, 
 
 mersmith & C. R. Co. o. Brand, L. R. 4 20 Mich. 244. But see Fero v. Buffalo & 
 
 H. L. 171, L. R. 1 Q. B. 130, L. R. 2 Q. B. S. L. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 209 ; Webb v. 
 
 223, 7 Best & S. 1 ; Fremantle v. London Rome, W., & O. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 420, 3 
 
 & N. W. R. Co., 2 Post. & F. 337, 10 C. B. Lans. 453; Frankford & B. T. Co. v. Phil. 
 
 N. s. 89 ; Rex v. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30. & T. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345 ; Longabaugh 
 
 1 Collins V. New York Cent. & H. R. v. Virginia City & T. R. Co., 9 Nev. 
 R. Co., 5 Hun, 499 ; Lackawanna & B. R. 271 ; Grand Trunk E. Co. v. Richardson, 
 Co. V. Doak, 62 Pa. St. 379 ; Baltimore & 91 U. S. 454, 469, 470. 
 
 S. R. Co. V. Woodrutr, 4 Md. 242. 4 Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 
 
 2 Smith V. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 91 U. S. 454 ; IngersoU „. Stockbridge & 
 10 R. I 22; Frankford & B. T. Co. u. P. R. Co., 8 AUen, 438. 
 
 Phil. & T. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345; Fero v. s Briggs v. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 
 Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 209 ; R. Co., 72 N. Y. 26. 
 
 Jackson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 31 6 Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Porter, 92 111. 
 
 Iowa, 176 ; Ward v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 437. 
 
 29 Wis. 144 ; Spaulding v. Chicago & N. ^ Jones v. Festiniog E. Co., L. R. 8 Q. 
 
 W. E. Co., 30 Wis. 110 ; Read o. Morse, B. 733; 
 
 34 Wis. 315 ; Longabaugh „. Virginia ' Huyett v. Phil. & R. E. Co., 23 Pa. 
 
INJURIES BY FIEE. 
 
 433 
 
 the jury took into consideration the risk of fires negligently 
 caused by the company.' Exposure to injuries by fire not caused 
 by the company's negligence is presumed to have been taken 
 into account as part of the land-owner's damages.^ To what 
 extent the increased risk by fire can be regarded in fixing such 
 compensation has been elsewhere considered.* 
 
 Duty as to Mechanical Contrivances. Spark Arresters. — The 
 duty of the company to use reasonable care in order to avoid in- 
 jury resulting to others from the exercise of its powers requires it 
 to avail itself of the best mechanical contrivances and inventions 
 in known practical use which are effective in preventing the 
 burning of private property by the escape of sparks and coals 
 from its engines ; and it is liable for injuries caused by its omis- 
 sion to use them. Its duty in this respect is limited to such 
 contrivances as have been already tested and put in use, and it is 
 not required to use every possible contrivance, although already 
 patented and recommended in scientific discussions.* 
 
 St. 373 ; Sunbury & E. R. Co. v. Hum- 
 mell, 27 Pa. St. 99 ; Lehigh Valley R. Co. 
 V. Lazarus, 28 Pa. St. 203; Delaware, L., 
 & W. R. Co. V. Salmon, 10 Vroom, 299, 9 
 Vroom, 5 J ante, Chap. VII. p. 179, Chap. 
 X. p. 262. 
 
 > CasweU v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 42 Wis. 193 ; Pierce v. Worcester & N. R. 
 Co., 105 Mass. 199. 
 
 2 Small V. Chicago, R. I, & P. R. Co., 
 60 Iowa, 338 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. u. Yeiser, 
 8 Pa. St. 366, 376. 
 
 8 Ante, Chap. VII. p. 215. 
 
 * Cook V. Champlain Trans. Co., 1 
 Denio, 91, 102 ; Steinweg v. Erie R. Co., 43 
 N. T. 123 ; Bedell v. Long Island R. Co., 44 
 N. T. 367; Caldwell v. New Jersey Steam- 
 boat Co., 47 N. y. 282 ; Webb v. Rome, 
 W., & 0. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 420, 3 Lans. 
 453 ; Crist v. Erie R. Co., 58 N. Y. 638, 1 
 Thomp. & C. 435; Bevier v. Del. & 
 H. C. Co., 13 Hun, 254 ; Lackawanna & 
 B. R. Co. 0. Doak, 52 Pa. St. 379 ; Frank- 
 ford & B. T. Co. V. Pliil. & T. R. Co., 54 
 Pa. St. 345 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. Yerger, 
 73 Pa. St. 121 ; Bass v. Chicago, B., & Q. 
 R. Co., 28 111. 9; St. Louis, A., & T. H. 
 R. Co. V. Gilham, .39 111. 455: Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. ». McClelland, 42 111.355; 
 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mills, 42 111. 407 : 
 Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Shanefelt, 47 111. 497 ; 
 Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. u. Pindar, 53 111. 
 447 ; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. ^. McCahill, 
 56 111. 28 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Quaint- 
 ance, 58 111. 389; Toledo, W., & W. R. 
 Co. V. Corn, 71 111. 493 ; Chicago & A. R. 
 Co. V. Pennell, 94 111. 448 ; Indianapolis & 
 C. R. Co. I). Paramore, 31 Ind. 143 ; Gagg 
 V. Vetter, 41 Ind. 228 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 R. Co. V. Wand, 48 Ind. 476 ; Pittsburg, 
 C, & St. L. R. Co. V. Nelson, 51 Ind. 150 ; 
 Jackson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 31 
 Iowa, 176 ; Read v. Morse, 34 Wis. 315 ; 
 Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Salmon, 10 
 Vroom, 299, 9 Vroom, 5 ; Baltimore & S. 
 R. Co. tf. Woodruff, 4 Md. 242 ; Fitch v. 
 Pacific R. Co., 45 Mo. 322 ; Hoyt „. Jet- 
 fers, 30 Mich. 181, 193 ; Longabaugh v. 
 Virginia City & T. R. Co., 9 Ner. 271, 
 293 ; Anderson v. Cape Fear Steamboat 
 Co., 64 N. C. 399 ; Fremantle v. London 
 & N. W. R. Co., 2 Foster & F. 337, 
 10 C. B. N. s. 89. For cases relating to 
 the duty to use such inventions in the 
 carrying of passengers, see Hegeman u. 
 Western R. Co., 13 N. Y. 9 ; Ford v. Lon- 
 don & S. W. R. Co., 2 Fost. & F. 730. 
 
 28 
 
434 THE LAW OF KAILBOADS. 
 
 Whether the Company is bound to watch for Fires and assist in 
 extinguishing them. — The company is not required to keep a 
 patrol along its track to discover and extinguish fires caused 
 without negligence by its engines.^ It is not under a duty to 
 stop its trains and require the servants employed on them to 
 assist in extinguishing such fires.^ It has, however, been main- 
 tained that it should detail its force of servants, who are available 
 for the purpose, to extinguish them ; ^ but whether this legal obli- 
 gation exists is open to further inquiry.* 
 
 Duty as to Combustible Materials within the Location. — The leav- 
 ing of dry grass, weeds, or other combustible materials near the 
 track exposed to the sparks issuing from the engines is not per se 
 negligence in the company, but it is admissible as evidence to 
 show negligence ; and it is for the jury to determine whether, 
 under the circumstances, to leave them so exposed, either in the 
 natural state or in heaps, is negligence.^ The duty to keep 
 the track clear of such 'materials has sometimes been imposed by 
 statute, and in such case a failure to perform it is negligence.® 
 
 The Land-owner's Duty as to Cqmbustible Materials on his Land, — 
 
 The land-owner's leaving of dry weeds and grass on his land, pUing 
 of shavings and stacking of hay near the railroad track, though not 
 per se negligence, may be evidence of contributory negligence in 
 him, in like manner as such omission by the company to remove 
 similar combustible materials from its track is evidence of its 
 
 1 Baltimore & O. E. Co. v. Shipley, 39 48 Ind. 476 ; Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. 
 Md. 251; Indianapolis & C R. Co. v. v. Nelson, 51 Ind. 150; Kesee W.Chicago 
 Paramore, 31 Ind. 143. & N. W. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 78 ; Spauldingw. 
 
 2 See Rolke v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 30 Wis. 110, 83 
 26 Wis. 537, 539. Wis. 582 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Butts, 
 
 8 Bass V. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 28 7 Kan. 308 ; St. Joseph & D. C. B. Co. v. 
 
 Dl. 9, 18. Chase, 11 Kan. 47 ; Flynn v. San Fran- 
 
 4 Kenney v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 70 cisco & S. J. R. Co., 40 Cal. 14 ; Henry 
 Mo. 252, 63 Mo. 99. v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 176; 
 
 5 Webb V. Rome, W., & 0. R. Co., 49 Perry v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 
 N. T. 420, 3 Lans. 453 ; Illinois Cent. R. 578 ; Snyder v. Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. 
 Co. ... Mills, 42 111. 407 ; Ohio & M. R. Co., 11 W. Va. 14; BurUngton & M. R. 
 Co. V. Shanefelt, 47 111. 497 ; Illinois Cent. Co. v. Westover, 4 Neb. 268 ; Troxler v. 
 E. Co. «. Nunn, 51 111. 78; Rockford, R. Richmond & D. R. Co., 74 N. C. 377; 
 I., & St. L. R. Co. V. Rogers, 62 111. 346 ; Smith v. London & S. W. R. Co., L. E. 6 
 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frazier, 64 111. 28 ; C. P. 145, L. R. 6 C. P. 98. 
 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v Corn, 71 111. « Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co. v. 
 493; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Porter, 92 111. Campbell, 86 111. 443. 
 437; Toledo, W., & W, R. Co. v. Wand, 
 
INJURIES BY FIRE. 435 
 
 negligence.^ Some authorities, however, hold that, while the 
 obligation to remove them from its location is on the company, 
 no similar obligation is on the owner to remove them from his 
 premises.^ The plaintiffs remote negligence in not removing 
 such materials has been held not to be a defence to the com- 
 pany's proximate negligence in the careless issuing of sparks from 
 its engines.* 
 
 Plaintiff's Negligence. — The plaintiff cannot recover for prop- 
 erty negligently burned by the company, if his own negligence 
 contributed to the injury.* Thus, he cannot recover where, hav- 
 ing knowledge of the fire, he failed to use reasonable efforts to 
 save his property from it.* The plaintiff's remote negligence will 
 not defeat his action if the defendant's negligence is proximate ; ® 
 but he cannot recover where both his negligence and the defend- 
 ant's were of the same kind ; that is, remote or proximate with 
 each party. 
 
 The Land-owner's Exposure of his Property to Risks. — A land- 
 owner's erection and use of a building for ordinary purposes near 
 the track, although it is more exposed to fire than if it were at a 
 greater distance, is not negligence. The company is bound to 
 use ordinary care to prevent injury by fire to buildings, whether 
 
 1 Ohio & M. E. Co. 0. Shanefelt, 47 111. Lester v. Kansas City, St. J., & C. B. K. 
 497 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Frazler, 47 Co., 60 Mo. 265 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. 
 111. 506; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Schultz, 37 Leg. Int. 386. 
 
 Simonson, 54 III. 504 ; Coates v. Mo., K., & < Ross v. Boston & W. R. Co., 6 Allen, 
 
 T. R. Co., 61 Mo. 38 ; Murphy i;. Chicago 87 ; Ward v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 29 Wis. 
 
 & N. W. R. Co., 45 Wis. 222 (reviewing 144 ; Murphy v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 Kelloggi). Chicago &N.W.R. Co., 26 Wis. 45 Wis. 222; Small w. Chicago, R. I., 
 
 233, and Erd v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., & P. R. Co., 50 Iowa, 338. 
 41 Wis. 65) ; St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. * Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McClelland, 
 
 Chase, 11 Kan. 47 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. 42 III. 355 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. 
 
 V. Brady, 17 Kan. 380 ; Kesee v. Chicago Pindar, 53 111. 447 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 
 & N. W. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 78 ; Garrett v. v. Pennell, 94 111. 448, 454 : Doggett v. 
 
 Chicago & N. W. R Co., 36 Iowa, 121. Richmond & D. R. Co., 78 N. C. 305; 
 
 The owner's duty to remove such ma- ante, Chap. X. pp. 272, 273. 
 terials may not apply to woodland. Chi- ^ Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 
 
 cago & N. W. R. Co. v. Simonson, 54 91 U. S. 454 ; Flynn v. San Francisco & 
 
 HI. 504. S. J. R. Co., 40 Cal. 14 ; Fitch v. Pacific 
 
 2 Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Salmon, R. Co., 45 Mo. 322, 327 ; Lester v. Kansas 
 10 Vroom, 299, 9 Vroom, 5 ; Snyder v. City, St. J., & C. B. R. Co., 60 Mo. 265 ; 
 Pittsburg, C, & St. L. R. Co., 11 W. Va. Doggett v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 78 N. 
 14; Flynn v. San Francisco & S. J. R. C. 305 ; Longabaugh w. Virginia City & T. 
 Co., 40 Cal. 14. R. Co., 9 Nev. 271. 
 
 8 Fitch V. Pacific R. Co., 45 Mo. 322; 
 
436 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 erected before or after the construction of the railroad. The 
 owner, in the lawful use of his property, may expose it to acci- 
 dental injury from the lawful acts of others, and be without rem- 
 edy, but he is still entitled to protection against injuries caused 
 by their culpable negligence.^ Even leaving the roof of a build- 
 ing in an imperfect condition so as to be more exposed to sparks 
 of fire, or the erection of a barn near the track, is not negligence 
 in the owner.^ 
 
 The owner, however, who erects buildings or places combus- 
 tible materials near the track takes the additional risk of acciden- 
 tal fires,^ and the company may make a lawful use of its location 
 although such use increases the risk.* It is not negligence for 
 the owner to leave the windows of his building open where such 
 act would not expose his property to injury if the company 
 used proper precautions against the issue of sparks.® He assumes 
 the risk of fires from engines of the company placed by his re- 
 quest on his private tracks, the condition of which is known to 
 him.^ 
 
 Burden of Proof as to Cause of Fire. — The plaintiff must show 
 that the fire originated from the company's engines.^ This will 
 appear from proof that there was no other probable cause.* It is 
 not sufficient to show a possibility that the injury was caused by 
 the company ; ^ but the plaintiffs preliminary evidence need not 
 
 1 Cook V. Champlain Trans. Co., 1 Mich. 244; Kansas Pacific E. Co. v. 
 Denio,91 ; Fero v. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., Brady, 17 Kan. 380. ' 
 
 22 N. Y. 209 ; Grand Trunk E. Co. v. < Macon & W. R. Co. v. McConneU, 27 
 
 Richardson, 91 U. S. 454,473; Burke i>. Ga. 481. 
 
 Louisville & N. E. Co., 7 Heisk. 461, 464 ; 6 Louisville, N., A., & C. E. Co. ». 
 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Maxfield, 72 Eichardson, 66 Ind. 48. 
 
 111. 95 ; Burlington & M. R. Co. v. West- « Marquette, T., H., & O. E. Go. v. 
 
 over, 4 Neb. 268, 276 ; Indianapolis & C. Spear, 6 Northwest. Rep. 202. 
 
 E. Co. V. Paramore, 31 Ind. 143 ; Cas- ' Sheldon v. Hudson Eiver E. Co., 14 
 
 well V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 42 Wis. N. Y. 218, 29 Barb. 226 ; Fitch u. Pacific 
 
 193. R. Co., 45 Mo. 322, 326 ; Indianapolis & 
 
 2 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Hendrickson, 80 C. R. Co. v. Paramore, 31 Ind. 143 ; Jef- 
 Pa. St. 182 ; Jefeeris v. Phil., W., & B. R. feris v. Phil., W., & B. E. Co., 3 Houst. 
 Co., 3 Houst. 447. But see Ward v. Mil. 447 ; Burke i>. Louisville & N. R. Co., 7 
 & St. P. R. Co., 29 Wis. 145. Heisk. 451, 462. 
 
 3 Phil. & R. R. Co. V. Hendrickson, 80 » Field v. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 
 Pa. St. 182; Great Western R. Co. v. N. Y. 339; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 Ilaworth, 39 111. 346; Toledo, W., & W. Shipley, 89 Md. 251. 
 
 R. Co. V. Larmon, 67 111. 68; Chicago & 9 Sheldon v. Hudson River R. Co., 29 
 
 A. R. Co. .;. Pennell, 94 111. 448 ; Murphy Barb. 226, 14 ,N. Y. 218 ; Smith i>. Han. 
 V. Chicago & N. W. E. Co., 45 Wis. 222; & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 287, 295; Longa- 
 Michigan Cent. E. Co. v. Anderson, 20 baugh v. Virginia City & T. R. Co., 9 
 
 Nev. 271, 296. 
 
INJTJEIES BY FlRE. 437 
 
 exclude the possibility of any other origin of the fire.^ It is not 
 necessary for him to identify the particular engine which caused 
 the injury.^ A person engaged in working upon the company's 
 engine may be presumed to be its servant.^ The proof that the 
 company caused the fire may be circumstantial as well as direct.* 
 
 Burden of Proof as to Negligence. — As negligence is the gist 
 of the action against the company for injuries received from it 
 while exercising its lawful right to conduct its trains, the burden 
 of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the negligence. The fact of 
 injury suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of the exercise of a 
 right by the defendant does not raise the presumption of negli- 
 gence, except in some peculiar cases, as in actions against inn- 
 keepers and common carriers, which are made exceptions to the 
 general rule on grounds of public policy. Hence the setting on 
 fire of grass, fences, or buildings of land-owners on the railroad 
 by particles of fire, which are proved to have issued from the 
 company's engines, does not of itself justify the inference of neg- 
 ligence.* 
 
 There are, however, authorities which hold that the fact that 
 
 1 Crist V. Erie R. Co., 58 N. Y. 638, 1 40 Pa. St. 399 ; Jennings v. Penn. R. Co., 
 Thomp. & C. 435. 37 Leg. Int. 157 ; Reading & C. R. Co. v. 
 
 2 Penn. R. Co. v. Stranahan, 79 Pa. Latshaw, 9 Reporter, 798 ; Slieldon v. 
 St. 405; Bevier v. Del. & H. C. Co., 13 Hudson River R. Co., 14 N. Y. 218, 29 
 Hun, 254 ; Atcliison, T., & S. F. R. Co. v. Barb. 226 ; Field o. New York Cent. 
 Stanford, 12 Kan. 354; Fitch v. Pacific R. Co., 32 N. Y. 339; Rood v. New 
 R. Co., 45 Mo. 322, 326, 327; Grand York & E. R. Co., 18 Barb. 80; Stu- 
 Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U. S. art v. Hawley, 22 Barb. 619; Collins 
 454 ; Annapolis & E. R. Co. o. Gantt, 39 v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 5 Hun, 
 Md. 115, 138. 503 ; McCaig v. Erie R. Co., 8 Hun, 599 ; 
 
 3 McCoun V. New York Cent. & H. R. Smith v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 
 R. Co., 66 Barb. 338. 287 ; Bryan v. Fowler, 70 N. C. 596 ; Gandy 
 
 * Annapolis & E. R. Co. v. Gantt, 89 v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 420 ; 
 Md. 115; Hoyt v. Jefters, 30 Mich. 181, McCummons v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 189 ; Woodson v. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 21 33 Iowa, 187 ; Garrett v. Chicago & N. W. 
 Minn. 60; Longabaugli v. Virginia City R. Co., 36 Iowa, 121; Small v. Chicago, 
 & T. R. Co., 9 Nev. 271, 295; Grand R. I., & P. E. Co., 50 Iowa, 338; Indian- 
 Trunk R. Co. V. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454 ; apolis & C. R. Co. v. Paramorc, 31 Ind. 
 Cliicago & A. R. Co. u. Quaintance, 58 143; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Butts, 7 
 111. 389; Kenney v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., Kan. 308; Baehelder v. Heagan, 18 Me. 
 70 Mo. 243 ; Fremantle v. London & 32 ; Sturgis v. Robbins, 62 Me. 289 ; Bal- 
 N. W. R. Co., 10 C. B. N. 8. 89 ; Smith timore & O. R. Co. o. Woodruff, 4 Md. 
 V. London & S. W. R. Co., L. R. 6 C. P. 242 ; Nitro-Glycerine Cases, 15 Wall. 
 14, L. R. 6 C. P. 98. 524; 5 Am. Law. Rev. (Jan. 1871) pp. 
 
 6 Ruffner v. Cincinnati, H., & I). R. 205, 208 ; 4 Western Jur. (Oct. and Dec. 
 
 Co., 34 Ohio St. 96 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. 1870) pp. 333, 429. 
 Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366; McCuUy v. Clarke, 
 
438 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 the company caused the injury by fire raises the presumption of 
 its negligence, and that, upon this fact appearing, the burden of 
 proof is on the company to disprove negligence by showing that 
 it used the best mechanical contrivances in known practical use 
 to prevent the escape of fire from its engines, and that it man- 
 aged such engines with due care and skill.^ This rule has in 
 some States been enacted by statute.^ 
 
 The company's negligence in causing the fire may be shown by 
 circumstantial evidence, and direct proof of a particular act of 
 negligence is not required.^ 
 
 Evidence of Negligence. — The company's negligence may be in- 
 ferred from its failure to provide proper mechanical contrivances 
 for arresting the sparks ; * the fact that engines so provided and 
 well constructed do not ordinarily emit sparks or drop coals to a 
 dangerous extent, while the defendant's engines did so emit and 
 drop them ; ^ the unusual character, in size and quantity and dis- 
 tance thrown, of the sparks issued at the time ; ^ the breaking out 
 
 1 Bass V. Chicago, B., & Q. K. Co., 28 
 111. 9; St. Louis, A., & T. H. R. Co. v. 
 Montgomery, 39 111. 335; Illinois Cent. 
 E. Co. V. Mills, 42 111. 407 ; Spaulding v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 30 Wis. 110, 33 
 Wis. 682; Fitch v. Pacific R. Co., 45 
 Mo. 322; Bedford v. Han. & St. J. R. 
 Co., 46 Mo. 456; Clemens v. Han. & 
 St. J. R. Co., 53 Mo. 366 ; Coale v. Han. 
 & St. J. R. Co., 60 Mo. 227; Coates 
 V. Mo., K., & T. R. Co., 61 Mo. 38; Ken- 
 ney v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 70 Mo. 243, 
 262; Burlington & M. r'. Co. v. West- 
 over, 4 Neb. 268; Burke v. Louisville 
 & N. R. Co., 7 Heisk. 451; Woodson 
 V. Mil. & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 60; 
 Case V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 59 Barb. 
 644; Aldridge w. Great Western R. Co., 8 
 Man. & G. 516 ; Piggot v. Eastern Coun- 
 ties R. Co., 3 C. B. 229; Gibson v. South 
 Eastern R. Co., 1 'Post. & F. 23. 
 
 2 Baltimore & S. R. Co. v. Woodruff, 
 4 Md. 242; Baltimore & ©. R. Co. v. 
 Dorsey, 37 Md. 19; Annapolis & E. R 
 Co. V. Gantt, 39 Md. 115; Baltimore & 0, 
 R. Co. V. Shipley, 39 Md. 251 ; Cleave- 
 land V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 42 Vt. 449; 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. McCahill, 56 
 111. 28 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Qiiain- 
 tance, 58 111. 889 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. 
 V. Clampit, 63 111. 95 ; Toledo, W., & W. 
 
 R. Co. V. Larmon, 67 111. 68; Pittsburg, 
 C, & St. L. R. Co. 0. Campbell, 86 111." 
 443 ; Small v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 
 50 Iowa, 338. 
 
 8 Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. v. Stan- 
 ford, 12 Kan. 354 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. 
 R. Co. r. Bales, 16 Kan. 252 ; Caswell v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 42 Wis. 193; 
 Annapolis & E. R. Co. v. Gantt, 39 Md. 
 115; Gandy v. Chicago & N. W. B. Co., 
 30 Iowa, 420. 
 
 * MeCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399 ; 
 Lackawanna & B. R. Co. v. Doak, 52 Pa. 
 St. 379 ; Cook w. Champlain Trans. Co., 1 
 Denio, 91 ; Gerke v. Cal. Nav. Co., 9 Cal. 
 261 ; Anderson v. Cape Fear Steamboat 
 Co., 64 N. C. 399 ; Ellis v. Portsmouth & 
 R. R. Co., 2 Ired. 138 ; Gandy v. Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co., 30 Iowa, 420 ; Piggot v. 
 Eastern Counties R. Co., 3 C. B. 229. 
 
 5 Field V. New York Cent. R. Co., 32 
 N. Y. 339 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. 
 u. Stanford, 12 Kan. 854 ; Hull v. Sacra- 
 mento Valley R. Co., 14 Cal. 387. 
 
 8 Huyett V. Phil. & R. R. Co., 23 Pa. 
 St. 373 ; Gandy v. Chicago & N. W. E. 
 Co., 30 Iowa, 420 ; Jackson v. Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co., 31 Iowa, 176 ; Caswell v. 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 42 Wis. 193; 
 Henry v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 60 Cal. 
 176 ; Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 
 
INJURIES BY FIEE. 
 
 439 
 
 of a series of fires after the engine passed ; ^ the driving of the train 
 at an unlawful rate of speed ; ^ the defective condition and unskil- 
 ful management of the engine ; ^ the burning of wood in engines 
 adapted onlj' to the burning of coal ; * the indifference and reck- 
 lessness of the company's servants, as shown in the absence of 
 efforts to arrest the fire ; ^ the stopping and keeping the engine 
 for some time near the combustible material while a strong wind 
 was blowing the particles of fire in large quantities towards it.^ 
 
 Evidence that the company's engines at other times, before or 
 after the fire in question, threw sparks as far from the track as 
 the place where the fire began, and that they set other fires, is 
 admitted to show both the possibility that it set the fire in question, 
 and as proof of negligence ; '^ and it is admitted, although the 
 emission so proved took place at some point remote from the 
 scene of the injury for which the action was brought.^ Proof of 
 a subsequent emission has been rejected when the possibility that 
 the company's engines could communicate the fire was not in 
 question.^ 
 
 Proof of defects in other engines is not admissible to show 
 
 39 m. 347 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. 
 Pindar, 53 111. 446 ; Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co. V. MeCahill, 56 111. 28; Toledo, W., 
 & W. R. Co. V. Maxfield, 72 III. 95 ; Fitch 
 V. Pacific R. Co., 45 Mo. 322, 827. 
 
 1 Woodson V. Mil. & St. P. R, Co., 21 
 Minn. 60. 
 
 ^ Martin v. Western Union R. Co., 23 
 Wis. 437 ; Gandy v. Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co., 30 Iowa, 420. But contra, unless such 
 rate is shown to have increased the dan- 
 ger of fire. Brusberg w. M., L. S., & W. 
 E. Co., 6 Northwest. Rep. 821. 
 
 ' Garrett v. Chicago &N. W. R. Co., 
 36 Iowa, 121 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. a. 
 Quaintance, 58 111. 389. 
 
 * St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. Chase, 
 11 Kan. 47; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Quaintance, 58 111. 389. 
 
 6 Rolke V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 26 Wis. 537 ; Kenney v. Han. & St. J. R. 
 Co., 63 Mo. 99 ; Bass v. Chicago, B., & Q. 
 R. Co., 28 111. 9. 
 
 8 Fero u. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 22 
 N. Y. 209. 
 
 ' Sheldon v. Hudson River R. Co., 14 
 N. Y. 218, 29 Barb. 226 ; Hinds v. Barton, 
 25 N. Y. 544; Field v. New York Cent.R. 
 Co., 32 N. Y. 839, 29 Barb. 176 ; Webb v. 
 
 Rome, W., & O. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 420, 3 
 Lans. 453 ; Crist v. Erie R. Co., 58 N. Y. 
 688, 1 Thomp. cSb C. 435 ; Westfall v. Erie 
 E. Co., 5 Hun, 75 ; St. Joseph & D. C. R. 
 Co. 0. Chase, 11 Kan. 47 ; Atchison, T., 
 & S. F. R. Co. «. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354 ; 
 Annapolis & E. R. Co. v. Gantt, 39 Md. 
 115 ; Cleaveland v. Grand Trunk E. Co., 
 42 Vt. 449 ; Hoyt v. Jeffers, 30 Mich. 181, 
 190 ; Henry u. Southern Pacific R. Co., 
 50 Cal. 176 ; Huyett v. Phil. & R. E. Co., 
 23 Pa. St. 373 ; Longabaugh v. Virginia 
 City & T. E. Co., 9 Nev. 271 ; Ross v. 
 Boston & W. R. Co., 6 Allen, 87 ; Gagg ». 
 Vetter, 41 Ind. 228 ; Grand Trunk R. Co. 
 V. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454 ; Burke v. 
 Louisville & N. R. Co., 7 Heisk. 451 ; Pig- 
 got V. Eastern Counties R. Co., 3 C. B. 
 229. But see Baltimore & S. E. Co. •/. 
 Woodruff, 4 Md. 242; Lester v. Kansas 
 City, St. J., & C. B. E. Co., 60 Mo. 265; 
 Phil. & E. E. Co. V. Yeiser, 8 Pa. St. 366 ; 
 Edwards u. Ottowa Elver Nav. Co., 39 
 Upper Can. Q. B. 264; ante, Chap. X. 
 p. 293. 
 
 8 Penn. R. Co. v. Stranahan, 79 Pa. 
 St. 405. 
 
 s Smith V. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 10 
 E. I. 22. 
 
440 THE IiA"W OF RAILROADS. 
 
 defects in the engine which caused the injury.^ Evidence that 
 the company burned wood in engines generally, is admitted to 
 show that it burned wood in a particular engine.'* Evidence is 
 admissible, in proof of the company's negligence, that well-con- 
 ducted companies are accustomed to use precautions which the 
 defendant neglected ; ^ but proof of the usage of other companies 
 to omit certain precautions when offered by the company has 
 been rejected.* The company cannot give proof of its usage in 
 regard to the construction and condition of its engines, but it may 
 show that they had been duly inspected.® Where the plaintiff's 
 evidence fails to identify the particular engine which caused the 
 damage, evidence is admissible for the company that all its engines 
 were at the time provided with the most approved contrivances to 
 prevent the escape of fire.^ 
 
 The failure to use proper precautions may be proved by evi- 
 dence that engines provided with suitable mechanical contriv- 
 ances do not throw sparks to the distance and in the same 
 destructive manner as they were thrown by the company's 
 engines.'' 
 
 The testimony of experts is competent to show that the engine 
 from which the sparks causing the fire issued was in good condi- 
 tion,^ or what mechanical contrivances will prevent or diminish 
 the issue of sparks or the dropping of coals ; ^ but it is not 
 admitted to state conclusions based on common observation, such 
 as the action of fire, or what is to be considered exposure to it, 
 or what was the proximate cause of the injury-^" 
 
 Questions for the Jury. — It is for the jury to determine, as ques- 
 tions of fact, whether the company caused the fire," whether it 
 
 1 Erie R. Co. v. Decker, 78 Pa. St. 293 ; 7 nunois Cent. R. Co. v. McClelland, 
 Jennings v. Penn. R. Co., 87 Leg. Int. 42 111. 355. 
 
 ^^'^- 8 Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 
 
 " St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. Chase, 39 111. 346. 
 
 11 Kan. 47. 9 steinweg v. Erie R. Co., 43 N. Y. 
 
 3 Cook i>. ChamplaiQ Trans. Co.. 1 123 ; Bedell v. Long Island R. Co., 44 N. 
 
 ^«J"°- 91- Y. 367 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mcael- 
 
 « Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, land, 42 111. 355. 
 
 91 U.S. 464. See Frankford&B. Tump. lo Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Kel- 
 
 Co. V. Phil. & T. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345. logg, 94 U. S. 469; Higgins .,. Dewey, 
 
 Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Shipley, 39 107 Mass. 494 ; Teall v. Barton, 40 Barb. 
 
 Md. 251 ; Chicago & A. R. Co. o. Quaint- 137. 
 
 ance, 58 111. 389; Cleaveland v. Grand u Briggs ». New York Cent. & H. R. R. 
 
 Trunk R. Co., 42 Vt. 449. Co., 72 N. Y. 26 ; Phil. & R. R. Co. v. 
 
 « Haley v. St. Louis, K. C, & N. R. Hendriokson, 80 Pa. St. 182; Chicago & 
 
 Co., 69 Mo. 614. A. R. Co. v. Quaintance, 68 lU. 389; 
 
INJUEIES BY FIEE. 
 
 441 
 
 caused the injury by the negligent construction or management 
 of its engines,! whether it availed itself of the best mechanical 
 contrivances in known practical use to prevent the injurious 
 escape of fire,^ and whether the plaintiff was himself chargeable 
 with contributory negligence.^ 
 
 The court will order a nonsuit or verdict for the defendant 
 where there is no evidence from which the jury can reasonably 
 find that the defendant caused the injury, and was chargeable 
 with negligence, but not where there is evidence sufficient to sus- 
 tain a verdict for the plaintiff.* The verdict will be set aside 
 when clearly against the weight of evidence, but not merely 
 because it is against the preponderance.^ It will be set aside 
 where the jury found against the uncontradicted evidence in the 
 case.® 
 
 Causa Proxima. — The ignition for which the company is liable 
 need not take place from the very particles of fire thrown out by 
 
 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Shipley, 39 Md. 
 251 ; Kellogg v. Mil. & St. P. E. Co., 5 
 Dill. 537, 94 U. S. 469. 
 
 1 Smith V. Old Colony & N. E. Co., 10 
 E. I. 22 ; Huyett v. Phil. & E. E. Co., 23 
 Pa. St. 373; McCuUy w. Clarke, 40 Pa. 
 St. 399 ; Penn. E. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. St. 
 873 ; Webb i'. Rome, W., & O. R. Co., 49 
 N. Y. 420, 3 Lans. 453; Briggs v. New 
 York Cent. & H. E, R. Co., 72 N. Y. 26; 
 Hays V. Miller, 6 Hun, 320 ; Gagg v. Vet- 
 ter, 41 Ind. 228; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. 
 Pennell, 94 III. 448 ; Jackson v. Chicago 
 & N. W. E. Co., 31 Iowa, 176 ; Atchison, 
 T., & S. F. E. Co. V. Bales, 16 Kan. 252 ; 
 Gerke v. Cal. Nav. Co., 9 Cal. 251; Hull 
 V. Sacramento Valley E. Co., 14 Cal. 387; 
 McCready v. So. Car. E. Co., 2 Strob. 
 856 ; Kellogg v. Mil. & St. P. E. Co., 5 
 Dill. 537, 94 U. S. 469 ; Aldridge v. Great 
 Western E. Co., 3 M. & G. 515. 
 
 2 Steinweg o. Erie E. Co., 43 N. Y. 
 123 ; Lackawanna & B. E. Co. v. Doak, 
 
 52 Pa. St, 379; Frankford & B. T. Co. v. 
 Phil & T. E. Co., 54 Pa. St. 345; St. 
 Lonis, A., & T. H. E. Co. v. Gilham, 39 111. 
 455; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Pindar, 
 
 53 111. 447 ; Spaulding v. Chicago & N. 
 W. R. Co., 83 Wis. 582, 30 Wis. 110; 
 Read v. Morse, 34 Wis. 815 ; Burlington 
 & M. E. Co. V. Westover, 4 Neb. 268; 
 Fremantle v. London & N. W. E. Co., 10 
 
 C. B. N. 8. 89, 2 Post. & F. 337 ; Long- 
 man V. Grand Junct. Can. Co., 3 Fost. & 
 F. 736. 
 
 8 Fero w. Buffalo & S. L. E. Co., 22 
 N. Y. 209 ; CoUins u. New York Cent. & 
 H. E. B. Co., 5 Hun, 499 ; Bevier v. Del. 
 & H. C. Co., 13 Hun, 254; St. Joseph 
 & D. C. R. Co. V. Chase, 11 Kan. 47 ; 
 Great Western R. Co. v. Haworth, 39 III. 
 346 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Nunn, 51 111. 
 78 ; Murphy v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 45 Wis. 222; McCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. 
 St. 399 ; Ross v. Boston & W. R. Co., 6 
 Allen, 87 ; LouisviUe, N. A., & C. E. Co. 
 V. Eichardson, 66 Ind. 43. 
 
 i Phil. & E. E. Co. V. Yerger, 73 Pa. 
 St. 121 ; Sheldon v. Hudson River R. Co., 
 
 29 Barb. 226, 14 N. Y. 218 ; Smith v. Han. 
 & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 287 ; Aldridge 
 
 ' V. Great Western R. Co., 3 M. & G. 515. 
 
 6 Gandy v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 30 
 Iowa, 420 ; St. Joseph & D. C. R. Co. v. 
 Chase, 11 Kan. 47; Atchison, T., & S. F. 
 R. Co. V. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354; Atchison, 
 T., & S. F. R. Co. V. Campbell, 16 Kan. 
 200; Kansas Pacific E. Co. o. Brady, 
 17 Kan. 380; Gagg v. Vetter, 41 Ind. 
 228. 
 
 6 Read v. Morse, 34 Wis. 315; Spauld- 
 ing V. Chicago & N. R. Co., 33 Wis. 582, 
 
 30 Wis. 110 ; Fremantle v. London & N. 
 W- R. Co., 10 C. B. N. s. 89. 
 
442 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 its engines, but it is liable for the injuries by fire caused by its 
 spreading from the matter first ignited ; and it is not material 
 that between the property burned and that on which the particles 
 of fire from the engines fell there intervened a considerable 
 space, diversity of ownership, or various physical objects, or that 
 the fire after igniting one object spread on the ground, or was 
 carried by oil or running water, or was driven through the air, or 
 carried by fluctuations in the wind.^ This rule has been applied 
 in the construction of statutes imposing liability, even without 
 negligence, on the company for injuries by fire which it has 
 caused.2 The company has been held liable for injuries by fire 
 which has spread to property situated half a mile, and even 
 four or eight miles, from the object ignited by sparks from its 
 engines.^ 
 
 The rule of liability has been stated as follows : "Where a fire 
 originates in the negligence of a defendant, and is carried directly 
 by a material force, whether it be the wind, the law of gravita- 
 tion, combustible matter existing in a state of nature, or other 
 means, to the plaintiff's property, anddestroys it, and it appears 
 that no object intervened between the point where the fire started 
 and the injury, which would have prevented the injury if due 
 care had been taken, the defendant is legally answerable for the 
 loss. In applying this rule, it was held that the company was 
 liable where by its negligence a train laden with oil collided with 
 a locomotive attached to a freight train, and the tanks being 
 
 1 Penn. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. St. 373 ; III. 95 ; Coates v. Mo., K., & T. R. Co., 61 
 
 Penn. & N. Y. C. & R. Co. v. Lacey, 89 Pa. Mo. 38 ; Poeppers v. Mo., K., & T. R. Co., 
 
 St. 458; Kellogg v. Chicago & N. W. R. 67 Mo. 715; Burlington & M. R. Co. ■/. 
 
 Co., 20 Wis. 223 ; Delaware, L., & W. R. Westover, 4 Neb. 268 ; Longabaugh v. 
 
 Co. i>. Salmon, 10 Vroom, 299, 9 Vroom, 5 ; Virginia City & T. R. Co., 9 Nev. 271, 
 
 Kuhn V. Jewett, 5 Stewart (N. J.), 647; 294; Henry i>. Southern Pacific R. Co., 
 
 Perley v. Eastern R, Co., 98 Mass. 414; 50 Cal. 176; Annapolis & E. R. Co. v. 
 
 Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, Gantt, 39 Md. 115; Phil., W., & B. R. 
 
 94 U. S. 469, 5 Dill. 587 ; St. Joseph & D. Co. v. Constable, 89 Md. 149 ; Baltimore 
 
 C. R. Co. V. Chase, 11 Kan. 47 ; Atchi- & O. R. Co. v. Shipley, 39 Md. 251 ; 
 
 son, T., & S. F. R. Co. v. Stanford, 12 Troxler v. Riclimond & D. R. Co., 74 N. 
 
 Kan. 354 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. v. C. 377 ; Smith v. London & S. W. R. Co., 
 
 Bales, 16 Kan. 252; Hoyt v. Jeffers, 30 L. R. 6 C. P. 14, L. R. 5 C. P. 98. See 
 
 Mich. 181, 199 ; Webb v. Rome, W., &0. White v. Colorado Cent. R. Co., 5 DiU. 
 
 R. Co., 49 K. Y. 420, 3 Lans. 453 ; Mc- 428. 
 
 Coun D. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 2 See post, p. 445. 
 
 66 Barb. 338; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. s Perley v. Eastern R. Co., 98 Mass. 
 
 Pindar, 53 111. 447 ; Pent v. Toledo, P., & 414 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. v Stan- 
 
 W. R. Co., 69 111. 349 ; Toledo, W., & ford, 12 Kan. 354 ; Poeppers v. Mo. K. & 
 
 W. R. Co. V. Muthersbaugh, 71 III. 572 ; T. R. Co., 67 Mo. 715 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Maxfield, 72 
 
INJURIES BY FIRE. 443 
 
 thrown from the train and bursting, and the oil having been 
 ignited from the locomotive ran into a brook flowing under the 
 railroad, and from the brook into a river, and set fire to and 
 destroyed the plaintiff's building which was situated on the river- 
 bank. It was considered that there was no independent agency 
 intervening between the company's culpable act and the injury, 
 so as to break the connection between the two, as cause and 
 effect.i 
 
 This severe rule, imposing unlimited liability for the conse- 
 quences of a negligent act, has seemed to some jurists to conflict 
 with justice as well as with the maxim causa proxima non remota 
 spectatur;^ and in two cases, — one decided in New York and 
 the other in Pennsylvania, — which have been the subject of 
 much comment, the liability was restricted to the property 
 directly set on fire by the sparks which had been negligently 
 thrown out. The company, it was held, was liable for the burn- 
 ing of a building which it had negligently set on fire, but not 
 for that of other buildings to which the fire had then spread. 
 The injury to such other buildings was deemed too remote, 
 and not the natural and probable consequence of the negligent 
 act. It was not a consequence which could, have been foreseen 
 by the wrong-doer, and was separated from his act by an inter- 
 vening cause. ^ 
 
 The rule which, in general, limits the liability to the building 
 directly set on fire by the company is held, however, in Penn- 
 sylvania, not to be a conclusion of law so as to exclude liability for 
 injuries by the spreading of the fire, where special circumstances 
 are shown which made such spreading a natural and probable 
 consequence of the company's negligence.* 
 
 The question of remote or proximate cause, where the facts are 
 not in dispute, is one which is peculiarly within the province of 
 the court, and certainly a jury could not apply the subtle formulas 
 
 1 Kuhn V. Jewett, 5 Stewart (N. J.), 420, 3 Lans. 453 ; Oil Creek & A. E. Co. 
 647. Contra. Hoag «. Lake Shore & M. v. Keighron, 74 Pa. St. 316 ; Penn. R. Co. 
 S. R. Co., 85 Pa. St. 293. v. Hope, 80 Pa. St. 373 ; Milwaukie & St. 
 
 2 Wliarton on Neg. §§ 135, 150 ; South- P. R. Co. b. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469, 474. 
 ern Law Review (Jan. 1876), vol. i., N. s. * Webb v. Rome, W., & 0. R. Co., 49 
 p. 729. N. Y. 420, 3 Lans. 453 ; Oil Creek & A. 
 
 » Ryan v. New York Cent. R. Co., 35 R. Co. v. Keighron, 74 Pa. St. 316 ; Penn. 
 
 N. Y. 210 ; Penn. R. Co. ■/. Kerr, 62 Pa. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. St. 373 ; Penn. & 
 
 St. 353. See comments on these cases in N. Y. C. & li. Co. v. Laoey, 89 Pa. St. 
 
 Webb V. Rome, W., & 0. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 468. 
 
444 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 to which the question has given rise.^ It has, however, been 
 treated in well-considered cases as one of fact, and the jury is 
 to determine whether the burning of the property to which the 
 fire spread was the natural and probable consequence of the 
 wrongful act, and ought to have been foreseen as such, and 
 whether there was a continuous succession of events connecting 
 the injury and such act, or whether it was broken by some inter- 
 vening cause which was not under the wrong-doer's control, and 
 therefore could not have been foreseen.^ 
 
 The cessation and apparent extinction of the fire, or the negli- 
 gence of persons engaged in extinguishing it, has been held so to 
 interrupt the succession of events that the original wrong-doer is 
 not responsible for the injuries resulting from its starting afresh, 
 and spreading bj' the force of the wind.^ So also the spreading of 
 the fire to a great distance in consequence of a high wind has 
 been held not to be the natural and probable consequence of the 
 original culpable act which started the fire.* 
 
 Liability without Negligence under Statutes. — Statutes have 
 been enacted making the company liable, even in the absence of 
 negligence, for injuries to private property caused by fire commu- 
 nicated by its engines, which in effect make it an insurer in the 
 case of such injuries.^ These statutes are constitutional, even 
 
 > See Hoag v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. • Doggett«. Richmond & D. R. Co., 78 
 
 Co., 85 Pa. St. 293, where the court held N. C. SOff; 
 
 that upon the facts of the case an inde- * Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Muthers- 
 
 pendent agency had intervened, so that baugh, 71 111. 572; Fent ti. Toledo, P., & 
 
 the defendants' negligence was not the W. R. Co., 59 III. 349. But it is also held 
 
 pro.ximate cause of the injury, and that it that the contingency of a high wind is 
 
 was not error to direct a verdict for the one to be anticipated by the company, 
 
 defendants. Kellogg v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 26 
 
 2 Penn. R. Co. v. Hope, 80 Pa. St. 373 ; Wis. 223, 237. 
 
 Penn. & N. Y. Canal & R. Co. v. Lacey, 89 « Mass. Acts, 1874, ch. 372, § 106. 
 
 Pa. St. 458 ; Atchison, T., & S. F. R. Co. " Every railroad corporation shall be re- 
 
 V. Bales, 16 Kan. 252 ; Milwaukie & St. sponsible in damages to any person or 
 
 P. R. Co. V. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469 ; Dela- corporation whose buildings or other 
 
 ware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Salmon, 10 property may be injured by fire commu- 
 
 Vroom, 299, 9 Vroom, 5; Annapolis & nicated by its locomotive engines, and 
 
 E. R. Co. 0. Gantt, 39 Md. 115 ; Perry shall have an insurable interest in the 
 
 V. Southern Pacific R. Co., 50 Cal. 578; property upon its route for which it may 
 
 Clemens v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 53 Mo. be so held responsible, and may procure 
 
 866 ; Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. v. Pindar, insurance thereon in its own behalf." 
 
 53 111. 447 ; Fent v. Toledo, P., & W. R. This statute, with only verbal variations, 
 
 Co., 59 III. 849 ; Toledo, W., & W. R. was enacted in 1840, and a similar one 
 
 Co. V. Murthersbaugh, 71 111. 572. was enacted in Maine in 1842. See con- 
 
rNJFBIES BY FIRE. 445 
 
 when applied to pre-existing corporations,^ and, being remedial, 
 are construed as applying to such pre-existing corporations.^ 
 They are also held, in the absence of an agreement to waive the 
 rights created by them, to be for the benefit of persons from 
 whom the company had purchased or taken land, although the 
 risk of fire may have been an element in the price paid or com- 
 pensation awarded.^ 
 
 The statutes imposing on railroad corporations liability for 
 injuries by fire, even without negligence, have usually given 
 them, by express provision, an insurable interest in the property 
 for which they are made responsible ; * and the clause imposing 
 such additional liability and the clause giving the right to insure 
 are held to be coextensive and to interpret each other.^ The 
 phrase " property along the route " in the Vermont statute 
 includes property of individuals lawfully placed within the loca- 
 tion.^ 
 
 The liability under the statute extends not only to buildings, 
 but to growing treesJ In one State, it has been held not to 
 extend to movable property ; ^ but this limitation has been re- 
 jected in another.^ 
 
 The liability under the statute is not limited to property on 
 which the particles of fire issuing from the engines fell, but it 
 extends to all property to which the fire so originating has been 
 communicated.^" 
 
 Btruction of the Kansas statute, G. S. oh. R. Co., 8 Allen, 438 ; Pratt v. Atlantic & 
 
 118, § 2, by which the compaity's negli- St. L. R. Co., 42 Me. 679 ; Ross v. Boston 
 
 fjenceis held essential to a right of action. & W. R. Co., 6 Allen, 87. 
 
 Missouri, K., & T. R. Co. v. Davidson, 14 ' Lyman v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 
 
 Kan. 349. The Iowa sUtute, which pro- Cush. 288 ; Pierce o. Worcester & N. R. 
 
 vides that the corporation " shall be liable Co., 105 Mass. 199. 
 
 for all damages by fire that is set out or < Hart v. Western R. Co., 13 Met. 99 ; 
 
 caused by operation of any such rail- Eastern R. Co. u. Relief Ins. Co., 105 
 
 way," is held, while making the fact of Mass. 570. 
 
 the injury prima facie proof of negligence, ^ Chapman v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 
 
 not to impose an absolute liability, but to 37 Me. 92 ; Ross v. Boston & W. R. Co., 6 
 
 admit the defence that the injury was not Allen, 87. 
 
 caused by the company's negligence. ^ Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 
 
 Small u. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 50 91 U. S. 454. 
 
 Iowa, 338 ; Slosson v. B. C. R. & N. R. ' Pratt v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 42 
 
 Co., 51 Iowa, 294 ; Libby v. Chicago, R. Me. 579 ; Ross v. Boston & W. R. Co., 6 
 
 I., & P. R. Co., 52 Iowa, 92. Allen, 87. 
 
 1 Lyman v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 ^- Chapman v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 
 Cush. 288 ; Rodemacher v. Milwaukie & 37 Me. 92. 
 
 St. P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 297. ° Ross ». Boston & W. R. Co., 6 Allen, 
 
 2 Lyman v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 87. 
 
 Cush. 288 ; IngersoU v. Stockbridge & P. "> Hart v. Western R. Co., 13 Met. 99 ; 
 
446 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 The company owning the railroad is liable under the statute 
 for injuries caused by other parties whom it permits to work it 
 under an agreement or lease ; ^ and the parties working it as les- 
 sees or trustees, if bondholders, are also held liable for the injuries 
 caused by them.^ A company which, as lessee of a railroad, per- 
 mits parties to use it is liable for their negligence in communicat- 
 ing fire to the property of others.^ 
 
 The statute has been construed to exclude the defence of the 
 plaintiff's contributory negligence, where no fraud or intentional 
 exposure of his property is shown.* 
 
 Damages. — The measure of damages for property wholly de- 
 stroyed by fire is the market value thereof ; ^ or, if only injured 
 or partially destroyed, the difference between the market value 
 before and after the injury.^ The market value is the test even, 
 it has been held, in the case of fruit-trees or other property 
 attached to the realty the value of which can be measured inde- 
 pendently J Evidence of the cost of new buildings has been 
 admitted as one mode of estimating the value of old buildings 
 which were destroyed.^ 
 
 Insurance as affecting the Right to the Damages. — The amount 
 recovered by the plaintiff on a policy of insurance on the prop- 
 erty injured or destroyed is nc)t to be deducted from his damages.* 
 
 IngersoU v. Stockbridge & P. K. Co., 8 » Pittsburg, C, & St. L. E. Co. v. 
 Allen, 438 ; Perley v. Eastern R. Co., 98 Campbelf, 86 111. 443. 
 Mass. 414 ; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Rich- * Rowell v. Railroad Co., 57 N. H. 132. 
 ardson, 91 U.S. 454; Hooksett v. Con- But see Ross v. Boston & W. R. Co., 6 
 cord R. Co., 38 N. H. 242; Pratt v. Allen, 87 ; Grand Trunk R. Co. ». Rich- 
 Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 42 Me. 579. ardson, 91 U. S. 454. 
 
 1 Ingersoll v. Stockbridge & P. R. Co., ^ Burke v. Loulsyille & N. R. Co., 7 
 8 Allen, 438; Daniels .;. Hart, 118 Mass. Heisk. 451, 465; Donald v. St. Louis, K. 
 543; Davis v. Providence & W. R. Co., C, & N. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 457 ; Atchison, 
 121 Mass. 134; Stearns v. Atlantic & St. T., & S. F. R. Co. u. Stanford, 12 Kan. 
 L. R. Co., 46 Me. 95; Bean k. Atlantic & 354. 
 
 St. L. R. Co., 63 Me. 293. The same 6 Bevier v. Del. & H. C. Co., 13 Hun, 
 
 rule is held where the action is at com- 254, 260 ; Atchinson v. Atlantic & P. R. 
 
 mon law for negligence. Pittsburg, C, & Co., 63 Mo. 367. 
 
 St. L. R. Co. V. Campbell, 86 111. 443; 7 Whitbeck v. New York Cent. R. Co., 
 
 Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. Salmon, 10 36 Barb. 644. 
 
 Vroom, 299, 315, 9 Vroom, 5 ; ante, Chap. 8 Cleland w. Thornton, 43 Cal. 437. 
 
 X. pp. 284, 285. e Collins v. New York Cent. & H. E. 
 
 2 Pierce v. Concord E. Co., 51 N. H. R. Co., 5 Hun, 503 ; Brlggs v. New York 
 590; Daniels v. Hart, 118 Mass. 543; Cent. & H. R. E. Co., 72 N. Y. 26 ; Weber 
 Davis V. Providence & W. R. Co., 121 «. Morris &E. R. Co., 6 Vroom, 409; ante 
 Mass. 134. Chap. X. p. 304. 
 
INJURIES BY FIBE. 447 
 
 The insurer, upon paying the amount of the policy, is subrogated 
 to the right of the assured against the railroad company, and may 
 prosecute an action against it in the name of the assured, who 
 cannot release the right of action.^ The assured, upon receiving 
 his damages from the railroad company, will become a trustee for 
 the insurer to the amount he has received on his policy ; ^ or, if 
 he has not already been paid by the insurer, the amount received 
 as damages from the railroad company will be applied fro tanto 
 in discharge of the policy.^ If the railroad company pays the 
 assured with knowledge that he has already been paid by the 
 insurer, it is liable also to the insurer to the amount which he 
 has so paid.* 
 
 Plaintiff's Title. — A vendee in possession under a contract of sale 
 may maintain an action for injuries by fire communicated by the 
 company's negligence.^ Under a statute of Iowa a controversy 
 as to the ownership of land was held immaterial, where the 
 plaintiff had erected the buildings in good faith under color of 
 right.^ 
 
 J Hart V. Western R. Co., 13 Met. 99 ; * Monmouth Co. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hutch- 
 
 Monmouth Co. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hutcliin- inson, 6 C. E. Green, 107 ; Conn. Fire Ins. 
 
 son, 6 C. E. Green, 107 ; Swarthout v. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 73 N. Y. 399, 10 Hun, 
 
 Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 6 Northwest. 69. 
 
 Rep. 314. See Newcomb v. Cincinnati ^ Hays v. Miller, 6 Hun, 320 ; Miller v. 
 
 Ins. Co , 22 Ohio St. 382. Long Island R. Co., 9 Hun, 194 ; Rood v. 
 
 2 Weber u. Morris & E. R. Co., 6 New York & E. R. Co., 18 Barb. 80. 
 
 Vroom, 409; Monmouth Co. Fire Ins. « Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. u. Kellogg, 
 
 Co. I). Hutchinson, 6 C. E. Green, 107. 94 U. S. 469, 6 DiU. 537. 
 
 s Conn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 73 
 N. Y. 399, 10 Hun, 59. 
 
448 THE LAW OF RAILEOADS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 LEGISLATrVB POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 
 
 The Charter, a Contract within the Constitution of the TTnited 
 States. — It is provided in the tenth section of the first article 
 of the Constitution that "No State shall . . . pass any . . . 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts." Charters granted 
 to private corporations by a State are, by a construction now 
 settled, contracts within the meaning of this clause. They con- 
 fer rights and privileges on the grantees, on the faith of which 
 the charter is accepted, and involve corresponding duties and 
 obligations on their part. They imply a contract on the part of 
 the State for the quiet enjoyment and unimpaired security of 
 the privileges so granted. The franchises and immunities are 
 incorporeal hereditaments, and, like any other kind of property, 
 may be the subject of grant and contract.^ A railroad company 
 is a private corporation, the charter of which is a contract be- 
 tween the company and the State, and the rights and privileges 
 granted by the charter are within the protection of the Constitu- 
 tion.^ 
 
 ' Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 rate powers is a contract within the mean- 
 Wheat. 618; Wilmington R. Co. v. Reid, ing of the Constitution — has not escaped 
 13 Wall. 264; Miller v. State, 15 Wall, criticism; and it has been maintained 
 478, 488; Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 that such a construction of the word 
 Wall. 500, 511 ; Delaware Tax Cases, 18 "contract" was not in the minds of its 
 Wall. 206 ; Chicago, B., & Q, R. Co. v. framers. Toledo Bank v. Bond, 1 Ohio 
 Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 161 ; Farrington v. St. 622, 629 ; Debolt v. Ohio Life Ins. & 
 Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679; Stone u. Missis- T. Co., 1 Ohio St. 563, 555; Attorney- 
 sippi, 101 U. S. 814 ; St. Louis R. Co. v. General v. Railroad Cos., 35 Wis. 42.5, 
 Northwestern St. L. R. Co., 69 Mo. 65; 563-569; 8 American Law Review (Jan. 
 Washington Bridge Co. o. State, 18 Conn. 1874), 189. See Shirley on "The Dart- 
 53; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 mouth College Causes." The decision 
 Vt. 140; Chesapeake & 0. Canal Co. v. was regarded at the time as an inval- 
 Balt. & 0. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1 ; Erie & uable security of property and vested 
 N. E. R. Co. V. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287 ; Phil., rights ; but it has been deprived of its 
 W., & B. R. Co. u. Bowers, 4 Houst. 506; force by a reserved power of amendment, 
 State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189; Common- the broad construction of the police power, 
 wealth V. Eastern R. Co., 103 Mass. 254. and the strict construction of grants afEect- 
 The doctrine of the Dartmouth College ing public interests. 
 Case — that a legislative grant of corpo- 2 ^„tg^ Chap. I. p. 1. 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWEE OVER THE COMPANY. 449 
 
 The charter of a public corporation, as a city, town, or county, 
 is not a contract within the meaning of the Constitution. These 
 corporations are instruments of government, and, unless protected 
 by provisions of the State Constitution, may be changed by the 
 legislature at its discretion. ^ A railroad company, if its stock is 
 owned wholly by the State, is a public corporation, but is not 
 such if its stock is only in part owned by the State.^ The fact 
 that the company serves the government as a common carrier 
 does not convert it into a political agency, or take from it the 
 character of a private corporation.^ A national grant to the com- 
 pany does not make it a public corporation.* The charter of a 
 private corporation may contain provisions of a public character, 
 or public regulations which are subject to alteration.* 
 
 Assent of the Corporation to Amendments. — Amendments of the 
 charter which impair the obligation of the contract become bind- 
 ing by the assent of the corporation,^ and such assent may be 
 implied as well as formally expressed.' 
 
 Form of the Grant or Contract. — A grant, in order to be binding, 
 need not be in the form of a contract ; but it is sufficient if the 
 terms used are in effect a contract, and pledge the faith of the 
 State. This principle has been applied to grants of exclusive 
 rights,^ and of exemptions from taxation.® But in a matter of 
 public interest the intention of the State to bind itself, as by a 
 contract, must clearly appear in some form.'" The assent of the 
 
 » Rader v. Southea,stern Road Dist., 7 ° Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Steiner, 61 
 
 Vroom, 273 ; Pumphrey v. Baltimore, 47 Ala. 559. The assent of bondholders to 
 
 Md. 145; Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, amendments of the charter is not re- 
 
 100 U. S. 514, 533 ; Newton u. Commis- quired. Vermont & C. R. Co. v. Vt. 
 
 sioners, 100 U. S 548; State v. Bait. & Cent. E. Co., 34 Vt. 1, 51. See Lau- 
 
 0. R. Co., 12 Gill & J. 399, 440; Cooley man v. Lebanon Valley R. Co., 30 Pa. 
 
 Const. Lim. 192, 193. St. 42. 
 
 2 Dartmouth College y. Woodward, 4 ' Snead w. Indianapolis, P., &C.R. Co., 
 Wheat. 518, 668, 669; United States Bank 11 Ind. 104 ; Bangor, 0., & M. R. Co. c. 
 V. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 907 ; Smith, 47 Me. 34. 
 
 Bardstown & L. R. Co. v. Metcalfe, 4 8 Post, p. 454; New Jersey «. Yard, 95 
 
 Met. (Ky.) 199, 205; ante, Chap. I. p. 1. U. S. 104, 113, 114. 
 
 3 Union Pacific R. Co. d. Peniston, 18 » Post, Chap. XVIII. pp. 482, 483. 
 Wall. 5 ; United States o. Union Pacific i" Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 
 R. Co., 98 U. S. 569, 617-619. 548. An act for lending the State credit, 
 
 * Peik V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 6 when accepted and acted upon, has been 
 Biss. 177, 94 U. S. 164. held to be a contract. Tennessee & C. R. 
 
 ' Regents of University v. Williams, 9 Co. v. Moore, 36 Ala. 371. 
 Gill & J. 365. 
 
 29 
 
450 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 parties being essential to a contract, a charter does not become 
 one until it is accepted, and before acceptance it may be re- 
 voked. > 
 
 Effect of the Constitutional Provision. — A corporation, when 
 protected by this provision, cannot, as a general rule, be subjected 
 by subsequent legislation to obligations and burdens not imposed 
 in the charter. Thus, a turnpike company cannot be required to 
 remove gates which it was authorized by its charter to erect and 
 fix,2 or to allow the inhabitants of a certain place to pass free of 
 toll;^ or a bridge company to widen the draws of a bridge over 
 navigable waters, or to change its location ;* or a canal company 
 to maintain bridges connecting highways intersected by the 
 canal which it was not required by its charter to maintain,^ or to 
 change its dams for the preservation of fisli;^ or a plank-road 
 company to keep its road in a better condition than was pre- 
 scribed by its charter, with a higher penalty of forfeiture;^ or a 
 railroad company to pay consequential damages to land-owners 
 for which it was not liable when incorporated,^ or to wait for 
 trains at . a connection with the railroad of another company 
 where only the public convenience is concerned,^ or to make 
 crossings for new highways by grading the approaches,!" or to pay 
 the expenses of a coroner's inquest, or the expenses of persons 
 injured while on its trains where it was not in fault." Some of 
 these impositions have been justified under the police power 
 hereafter to be referred to. 
 
 The State cannot convert an absolute into a conditional con- 
 tract ; '2 or impair the obligation of the contract between the cor- 
 poration and its stockholders ; i3 or impose an additional liability 
 
 1 State V. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 12 Gill & 7 People v. Jackson & M. Plank Road 
 J. 399 ; Mississippi Society v. Musgrove, Co., 9 Mich. 285. 
 
 44 Miss. 820. 8 Bailey v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 4 
 
 2 Attorney-General v. Germantown & Barring. (Del.) 389; Monongahela NaT. 
 P. Tump. Road, 55 Pa. St. 466. Co. v. Coon, 6 Pa. St. 379 ; Towle v. East- 
 
 8 Pnigry v. Washburn, 1 Aiken, 264. ern R, Co., 18 N. H. 547, 17 N. H. 519. 
 
 * Commonwealth u. New Bedford » State v. Noyes, 47 Me 189 
 Bridge, 2 Gray, 339. lo minois Cent. R. Co. v. Bloomington, 
 
 * City of Erie u. Erie Canal Co., 59 76 111. 447. 
 
 ^*: ^'- 1'^^- " Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Lackey, 78 Dl. 
 
 « Commonwealth u.Penn. Canal Co., 66 55. 
 
 Pa. St. 41. See Commonwealth v. Essex « Nichols < . Somerset & K. R Co 43 
 
 Co., 13 Gray, 239 ; Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, Me. 356. ' 
 
 16 Wall. 500, 104 Mass. 446. is New Orleans, J., & G N R Co i> 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVEB THE COMPANY. 451 
 
 on stockholders without their assent ; ' or modify their right to 
 vote on each share for the whole number of directors by allow- 
 ing any stockholder to vote according to the " cumulative " 
 method.2 Municipal corporations may be disabled, both by the 
 constitutional prohibition and the general limitation of their 
 powers, from imposing burdens on railroad companies.* 
 
 Obligation and Remedy distinguished. — The ohligation of a con- 
 tract is distinguished from the remedy for enforcing it. There is 
 much learning in relation to this distinction which it does not 
 seem necessary to review in this connection. The distinction 
 itself has been sometimes thought to be one of form rather than 
 of substance.* Legal obligations can only exist where there are 
 means of enforcing them ; and while the State may, unless other- 
 wise stipulated, change modes of procedure,^ rules of pleading, 
 venue, jurisdiction of courts, and service of process, and even 
 modify in a certain degree essential remedies,^ it cannot take 
 away the remedies existing when the contract was made in a 
 way to impair substantial rights. To this extent the laws for 
 enforcing contracts enter into the contract itself.^ 
 
 The State may, without violating this provision of the National 
 Constitution, change the mode of taking lands, transfer the duty 
 of assessing the damages from one tribunal to another, give a 
 right of appeal, and extend the time within which claims for 
 
 Harris, 27 Miss. 517; University u. North 168; Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69; 
 
 Carolina R. Co., 76 N. C. 103 ; Zabriskie Gowen v. Penobscot R. Co., 44 Me. 140 ; 
 
 V. Hackensack & N. Y. R, Co., 3 C. E. Stearns v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 46 
 
 Green, 178; Oldtown & L. R. Co. v. Me. 95. 
 
 Veazie, 39 Me. 571, 581 ; Sage v. Dillard, « North East & S. W. A. R. Co., In re, 
 
 15 B. Monr. 340; Miller v. State, 15 Wall. 37 Ala. 679 ; Watson i>. New York Cent. 
 
 478, 498. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 157 ; Rader v. Southeast- 
 
 ' Ireland p. Palestine, B., N. P., & N. erly Road Dist., 7 Vroom, 273; Stearns 
 
 W. Turnp. Co., 19 Oliio St. 369. v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 46 Me. 95; 
 
 2 Hays V. Commonwealth, 82 Pa. St. Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Heclit, 95 U. S. 168 ; 
 
 518. Taylor v. Stockwell, 12 Chicago I.eg. 
 
 ' New York v. Second A v. R. Co., 32 News, 3; Little Miami R. Co. v. Com'rs, 
 
 N. Y. 261 ; New York v. Third Av. R. Co., 31 Ohio St. 338. 
 
 33 N. Y. 42; State v. Jersey City, 5 ' Broneon w. Kinzie, 1 How. 311 ; Mc- 
 
 Dutcher, 170; Chicago o. Sheldon, 9 Cracken .. Hay ward, 2 How. 608; Von 
 
 Wall. 60; Illinois Cent. R. Co. c. Bloom- Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 535; Butz 
 
 ington, 76 III. 447 ; Dcs Moines v. Chicago, v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 675 ; White v. Hart, 
 
 R.I., & P. R. Co., 41 Iowa, 569. 13 Wall. 646; Edwards v. Kearsey, 96 
 
 • Cooley's Const. Lim. ch. ix.; Pome- U. S. 596; Brine «. Insurance Co., 96 U. 
 roy's Const. Law, §§ 638-627 ; Story on S. 627; Penrose v. Erie Canal Co., 56 Pa. 
 the Const, ch. xxxiv. St. 46; Scaine v. Belleville, 10 Vroom, 
 
 * Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 626. 
 
452 THE LAW OF KAILEOADS. 
 
 land damages may be made;^ impose penalties for breaches of 
 existing corporate duties;^ provide a new mode for determining 
 the respective rights of companies owning connecting railroads,^ 
 and additional remedies for enforcing the debts of the corpora- 
 tion, as by a sale of its property and franchises and a distribution 
 of the proceeds among its creditors.* 
 
 The legislature may give a remedy for injuries not previously 
 actionable. Thus, in the case of injuries immediately fatal, for 
 which the common law allows no right of action, it may make 
 the company liable in an action for damages, or to a penalty 
 recoverable by indictment; the amount so recovered in either 
 case to be distributed among the personal representatives of the 
 deceased. The act superadds a legal to an existing moral obliga- 
 tion, and enforces an admitted duty by a civil or criminal pro- 
 ceeding." The legislature may impose a liability to servants for 
 the injuries caused by the negligence of fellow-servants.® It may 
 inflict additional penalties on the company for exceeding the 
 rates of charges already fixed by the charter.'^ But, although it 
 may enlarge and perfect the remedy, it cannot create a liability 
 for antecedent acts, for which, when committed, there was no 
 liability.* It may authorize the corporation to mortgage its road 
 and property, or to issue preferred stock." 
 
 While the State cannot impair the obhgation of a contract, so 
 also it cannot make one between the parties. If a subscriber for 
 capital stock is not bound because of non-payment of the first 
 instalment, the contract cannot be made valid by a subsequent 
 statute.^" 
 
 Exclusive Rights not implied. — The grant of a franchise in 
 matters affecting the public interests is to be construed strictly, 
 
 ' Gowen v. Penobscot R. Co., 44 Me. » Boston, C, & M. R. Co. v. State, 32 
 
 140; Portland & 0. C. R. Co. u. Grand N. H. 215; South Western R. Co. w. Paulk, 
 
 Trunk R. Co., 46 Me. 69 ; Long's Appeal, 24 Ga. 356; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. 
 
 87 Pa. St. 114; McCrea v. Port Royal R. Burke, 6 Cold. 45. 
 
 Co., 3 S. C. 381 ; Baltimore & S. R. Co. </. 6 Ditberner v. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. 
 
 Nesbit, 10 How. 395. Co., 47 Wis. 138. But see Deppe w. Clii- 
 
 2 Mobile & M. R. Co. v. Steiner, 61 cago, R. I., & P. R. Co., 36 Iowa, 52. 
 
 Ala. 559. 7 Camden & A. R. & T. Co. v. Briggs, 2 
 
 8 Portland & 0. C. R. Co. v. Grand Zab. 62-3. 
 
 Trunk R. Co., 46 Me. 69. 8 Lawrence R. Co. v. Com'rs, 35 Ohio 
 
 4 Louisville & 0. Tump. Road Co. v. St. 1 ; Girtman v. Central R. & B. Co., 1 
 
 Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 165; McElratli v. Ga. 173. 
 
 Pittsburg & S. R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 189. 9 Covington v. Covington & C. B. Co., 
 
 See Bradley y. Chester Valley R. Co., 36 10 Bush, 69. 
 
 Pa. St. 141; Mendenhall w. West Chester " New York & O. M. R Co v Van 
 
 & P. R. Co., 36 Pa. St. 145, note. Horn, 57 N. Y. 473. 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 453 
 
 and nothing passes to the grantee beyond what is required by 
 its terms. The State is not presumed, by granting a charter, to 
 pledge itself to one company not to authorize subsequent enter- 
 prises which by competition may seriously impair or even destroy 
 the value of the earlier grant. This principle was expounded 
 in a celebrated cause, ^ and is deeply laid in constitutional law. 
 Thus, unless the grant is in terms exclusive, a turnpike fran- 
 chise is not protected against another turnpike ; ^ or a bridge 
 franchise against another bridge,^ or against a ferry ; * or a ferry 
 franchise against another ferry ,^ or against a bridge.® 
 
 On this principle a railroad may be authorized which by the di- 
 version of travel will materially lessen, or even destroy, the profits 
 of a turnpike,'^ canal,^ toll-bridge,^ plank-road,!" or of an existing 
 railroad company ,^1 where the earlier investments are not pro- 
 tected by grants of an exclusive privilege ; and the proprietors of 
 the earlier enterprises are not entitled to compensation under the 
 constitutional restriction imposed on the right of eminent domain. ^^ 
 The grant of a right to use a certain part of a street for a rail- 
 way does not divest the State of its power to grant similar rights 
 to other corppanies to use other portions of the same street for 
 the same purpose.^* 
 
 Express Grants of Exclusive Rights. — The legislature may grant 
 an exclusive right to maintain a railroad within certain limits. 
 The granting of franchises, particularly those which relate to 
 means of internal communication, is an ordinary function of legis- 
 
 ' Charles River Bridge v. Warren roughs, 9 Ga. 213 ; Harrison v. Young, 9 
 
 Bridge, 11 Peters, 419, 6 Piclj. 376, 7 Ga. 859; Shorter v. Smith, 9 Ga. 617. 
 
 Pick. 344. ' Washington & B. Tump. Road v. 
 
 2 Indian Canon Road Co. 1-. Robinson, Bait. & O. R. Co., 10 Gill & J. 392; 
 
 13 Cal. 519 ; Bartram o. Central Turnp. Turnpilte Co. v. State, 3 Wall. 210 ; 
 
 Co., 25 Cal. 283; Collins v. Sherman, 31 White River Turnp. Co. o. Vt. Cent. R. 
 
 Miss. 679. Co., 21 Vt 590. 
 
 ' Charles River Bridge v. Warren 8 Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe R. 
 
 Bridge, 11 Peters, 419; Oswego Falls Co., 11 Leigh, 42; Illinois & M. Canal 
 
 Bridge v. Fish, 1 Barb. Ch. 547 ; Hamil- Co. v. Chicago & R. I. R. Co., 14 III. 314. 
 
 ton Avenue, In re, 14 Barb. 405; Fall y. ° Thompson v. New York & H. R. 
 
 Sutter County, 21 Cal. 237. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 625. 
 
 * Hartford Bridge Co. u. Union Ferry '" Lafayette Plank Road Co. c. New 
 Co., 29 Conn. 210. Albany & S. R. Co., 13 Ind. 90. 
 
 * Collins u. Sherman, 31 Miss. 679; " Baltimore & 0. R. Co. w. State, 45 
 Fitch V. New Haven, N. L., & S. R. Co., Md. 596; Newcastle & R. R. Co. v. Penn. 
 30 Conn. 38; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. & I. K. Co., 3 Ind. 464. 
 
 791. 12 _^nte. Chap. VII. p. 154. 
 
 » Richmond & L. Turnp. Road Co. v. i^ _4„(e, Chap. VIIL p. 253. 
 Rogers, 1 Duvall, 135; McLeod u. Bur- 
 
454 THE LAW OF BAILKOADS. 
 
 lative power ; and whether they shall be of greater or less extent, 
 exclusive or not, is a matter of legislative discretion. The grant 
 of the exclusive right is a contract the obligation of which a State 
 cannot impair, under the National Constitution, by authorizing 
 another improvement or enterprise in violation of the terms of the 
 grant. ^ The State may, however, take the exclusive right, like 
 other private property, for public use, and upon just compensation 
 "being made to the person or corporation enjoying the right, 
 authorize within the limits to which it applies the improvement or 
 enterprise which was expressly provided against in the grant.^ 
 Such exclusive grants in favor of bridge,^ wharf,* telegraph,^ 
 and railroad® companies have been sustained. 
 
 The grant of an exclusive right may be made by reference to 
 the provisions of another act which imports a contract.^ It may 
 be made not only in the terms of contract, but as well by the 
 prohibition of a similar enterprise,* either in the charter itself, or 
 even in a general law.® 
 
 An exclusive grant for -a railroad between two places secures 
 the corporation not only against a single railroad running directly 
 between them, but also against a combination of railroads owned 
 by one or more corporations, and pursuing the same or a more 
 circuitous line, which is intended or directly calculated to estab- 
 lish the- route prohibited by the grant.^" Thus, a provision in the 
 charter of the Boston and Lowell Railroad Corporation, " that no 
 other railroad than the one hereby granted shall, within thirty 
 years from and after the passing of this act, be authorized to be 
 made leading from Boston, Charlestown, or Cambridge to any 
 
 1 See cases cited infra notes, 3, 4, 5, 6. 47 Me. 189, 208 ; Camblos v. Phil. & R. R. 
 
 2 Ante, Chap. VII. pp. 153, 154. Co., 4 Brewster, 563, 595. 
 
 3 Micou V. Tallassee Bridge Co., 47 ' Binghamton Bridge Co., In re, 3 
 Ala. 652 ; Binghamton Bridge Co., In re, J Wall. 61, 27 N. Y. 87. 
 
 Wall. 51, 27 N. Y. 87 ; Chenango Bridge " Binghamton Bridge Co., In re, 3 
 
 Co. u. Lewis, 63 Barb. Ill ; Bridge Co. v. Wall. 51, 27 N. Y. 87; Delaware & R. 
 
 Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116, 2 Beas. 81, Canal Co. v. Camden & A. K. Co., 1 C. E. 
 
 503. Green, 321, 3 C. E. Green, 546 ; Bridge 
 
 « Martin v. O'Brien, 34 Miss. 21. Co. v. Hoboken Co., 2 Beas. 81,^ 503, 1 
 
 5 State Tel. Co. v. Alta Tel. Co., 22 Wall. 116. 
 
 Cal. 398. 9 Micou ». Tallassee Bridge, 47 Ala. 
 
 * Richmond, F., & P. R. Co. v. Louisa 652. 
 
 R. Co., 13 How. 71; Pontchartrain R. i" Pontchartrain R. Co. v. New Or- 
 
 Co. o. Orleans NaT. Co., 15 La. 404; leans & C. R. Co., 11 La. An. 258. But 
 
 Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Camden & see Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mich. S. 
 
 A. R. Co., 1 C. E. Green, 321, 3 C. E. R. Co., 4 Mich. 361. Compare Penn. R. 
 
 Green, 546 ; Boston & L. R. Co. v. Salem Co. u. National R. Co., 8 C. E. Green, 
 
 & L. R. Co., 2 Gray, 1; State v. Noyes, 441. 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 455 
 
 place within five miles of the northern termination of the rail- 
 road hereby authorized to be made," was held to be a contract 
 between the State and the company, that no other railroad from 
 Boston, Charlestown, or Cambridge to Lowell should be lawfully 
 made for thirty years ; and it was not competent for the legisla- 
 ture to authorize other corporations by combining their railroads 
 to establish a continuous line of railroad for the transportation of 
 persons and property between Boston and Lowell.^ 
 
 Construction of Exclusive Grants. — As grants affecting the pub- 
 lic interest only carry what is clearly expressed, the grant of an 
 exclusive franchise for one mode of passage or conveyance does 
 not exclude the right to grant a franchise for another mode. 
 Thus, an exclusive ferry franchise does not protect against the 
 erection of a bridge which withdraws custom from the ferry .^ 
 The exclusive right to maintain a toll-bridge or a ferry within 
 certain limits is not infringed by a grant to a railroad company of 
 the right to maintain a bridge or ferry as a part of its line for the 
 purpose of carrying the passengers by the railroad.'* The grant 
 of an exclusive right to maintain a railroad for carrying freight 
 and passengers by steam does not exclude a street railway for car- 
 rying only passengers by horse power.* The grant of an exclusive 
 right to a railroad for carrying passengers is not violated by a sub- 
 sequent grant of a right to maintain a railroad for carrying freight.^ 
 Where the purpose of the exclusive grant, as inferred from its 
 terms, is to protect through traffic between certain places from 
 competition, it will not exclude grants for enterprises whi(jh' will 
 compete between intermediate points.^ The exclusive right to 
 
 1 Boston & L. R. Co. v. Salem & L. R. 17 Conn. 40, 454. See Fitch v. New 
 Co., 2 Gray, 1. Haven, N. L., & S. R. Co., 30 Conn. 38 ; 
 
 2 Parrott v. City of Lawrence, 2 Dill. Gifford v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 2 
 332 ; Piatt v. Covington & C. Bridge Co., Stock. 171. 
 
 8 Bush, 31 ; Piscataqua Bridge v. N. H. * Louisville & P. R. Co. v. Louisville 
 
 Bridge, 7 N. H. 35, 59. City R. Co., 2 Duvall (Ky), 175. 
 
 » IVIohawk Bridge v. Utica & S. R. * Richmond, P., & P. R. Co. u. Louisa 
 
 Co., 6 Paige, 554 ; Bridge Co. v. Hobo- R. Co., 13 How. 77. 
 ken Co., 1 Wall 116, 2 Beas. 81, 503; « Pontchartrain R. Co. a. New Orleans 
 
 New York v. New England Transfer & C. R. Co., 11 La. An. 253. See Raritan 
 
 Co., 14 Blatch. 159; McLeod v. Savan- & D. B. R. Co. v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 1 
 
 nah, A., & G. R. Co., 25 Ga. 445, 719; C. E. Green, 321, 3 C. E. Green, 546, 1 
 
 McRee v. Wil. & R. R. Co., 2 Jones McCarter, 445, 2 McCarter, 13; South 
 
 (N. C), 186; Lake v. Virginia & T. Carolina R. Co. v. Columbia & A. R. Co., 
 
 R. Co., 7 Nev. 294. Contra, Enfield Toll 13 Rich. Eq. 339 ; Richmond, F., & P. R. 
 
 Bridge Co. v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co., Co. ... Louisa R. Co., 13 How. 71. 
 
456 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 carry goods and persons to a place does not give the right to 
 cany them through it.^ 
 
 The provision in the charter of the Boston and Lowell Railroad 
 Corporation, before cited, was held not to be infringed by an act 
 authorizing the construction of a railroad from Boston to a point 
 not within five miles of Lowell, although within the space in- 
 cluded by two straight lines drawn from the first terminus to 
 points five miles on each side of the other.^ The grant of an ex- 
 clusive right to build a railroad between a city and another point 
 is to be construed with reference to the limits of the city at the 
 time the grant was made, so as not to exclude a railroad running 
 to a part of the city not then included within its limits.^ 
 
 . The right to build and use a railroad for the public use being a 
 franchise, the right to which can be derived from the State only, 
 such franchise, it has been held, is exclusive except against the 
 government, and entitled to protection against competing roads 
 made without legislative authority.* So the right of a company 
 to protection against a competing line, in the absence of a grant 
 of an exclusive privilege, has been maintained against companies 
 undertaking without legislative authority to form such a line by 
 connections.^ 
 
 The power of the legislature to repeal the charter, and the con- 
 ditions under which the exercise of the power is subject to judi- 
 cial revision, have been referred to in an earlier chapter.^ 
 
 Reserved Power to amend and repeal the Charter. — The State may 
 reserve the power to amend or repeal the charter by a provision 
 to that effect inserted therein, or in a general law, statutory or 
 constitutional ; and the reserved power is thus made a part of 
 the contract. The general law containing the reservation oper- 
 ates, without being specially referred to, on all charters accepted 
 after it took effect." 
 
 1 Macon v. Macon & W. R. Co., 7 Ga. National R. Co., 8 C. E. Green, 441 ; Cen- 
 221- tral R. Co. u. Penn. R. Co., 4 Stewart 
 
 2 Boston & L. R. Co. v. Boston & M. (N. J.), 475, 493, 6 Stewart (N. J.), 755; 
 R., 5 Cush. 375. Blake v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 19 
 
 3 Pontcliartrain R. Co. v. Lafayette & Minn. 418. 
 
 P. R. Co., 10 La. An. 741. 5 Raritan & D. B. R. Co. v. Del. & R. 
 
 * Raritan & Del. B. R. Co. v. Del. & Canal Co., 3 C. E. Green, 546; Penn. R. 
 
 R. Canal Co., 3 C. E. Green, 546, 1 C. E. Co. v. National R. Co., 8 C. E. Green, 441. 
 
 Green, 321, 1 McCarter, 445, 2 McCarter, « Ante, Chap. I. p. 9. 
 
 13; Erie R. Co. v. Del., L., & W. R. Co., ' Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181 35 
 
 6 C. E. Green, 283, 286; Penn. R. Co. u. Wis. 425; Peik v. Chicago & N. W.' R. 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 457 
 
 The State may, by virtue of such reserved power, at leabt make 
 any reasonable amendments of the charter, and impose any rea- 
 sonable additional duties and obligations on the corporation.^ 
 " The reservation affects the entire relation between the State 
 and the corporation, and places under legislative control all 
 rights, privileges, and immunities derived by its charter directly 
 from the State." 2 
 
 The State may, by virtue of the reservation, impose without 
 compensation further duties and expenses on the company at the 
 crossings of highways by its railroad, such as the duty to raise 
 or lower the grade of the highway so as to prevent crossings at 
 grade, to maintain, widen, and repair bridges over them, make 
 excavations, and adapt the track and grade to new highways ; ^ 
 or require the company to connect with other railroads, and make 
 the changes by way of new grades and tracks necessary for the 
 connection, and determine how the work shall be done, and the 
 expense borne ; * regulate grade crossings of other railroads ; ^ 
 authorize one corporation to use the location of another, and 
 prescribe the conditions of such use, and the mode of determin- 
 ing the compensation;'' require corporations to establish stations 
 with suitable buildings, and stop trains at them,' and unite to- 
 gether in building and occupying union stations with necessary 
 connecting tracks, and to share in the expense in a proportion to 
 be determined under the statute.^ It may require the company 
 
 Co., 94 U. S. 164, 6 Biss. 177; Miller v. Conn. 240; Bangor & M. 0. R. Co. v. 
 
 State, 15 Wall. 478, 497; Delaware R. Smith, 47 Me. 34; Albany Northern R. Co. 
 
 Co. ». Tharp, 5Harring. {Del.)454; Story v. Brownell, 24 N. Y. 345 (overruling 
 
 V. Jersey City & B. P. Road Co., 1 C. Miller v. New York & E. R. Co., 21 Barb. 
 
 E. Green, 13; State u. Commissioners, 8 513); People i/. Boston & A. R. Co., 70 
 
 Vroom, 228, 9 Vroom, 472 ; State r. North- N. Y. 669. 
 
 ern Cent. R. Co. 44 Md. 131. See a pe- * Fitchburg R. Co. v. Grand Junction 
 
 culiar construction of a reserving statute R. Co., 4 Allen, 198. 
 
 in Yeaton v. Bank of Old Dominion, 21 5 Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Southwest 
 
 Gratt. 593. Penn R. Co., 77 Pa. St. 173. 
 
 1. Shields v. Oliio, 95 U. S. 319, 324; » Worcester & N. R. Co. !•. Railroad 
 
 Parkpr v. Metropolitan R. Co., 109 Mass. Com'rs, 118 Mass. 561 ; Metropolitan R. 
 
 606, 608; Commissioners on Inland Fish- Co. u. Highland St. R. Co , 118 Mass. 290; 
 
 eries «. Holyoke Water Power Co., 104 Metropolitan R. Co. o. Quincy R. Co., 12 
 
 Mass. 446, 451, 15 Wall. 5110 ; Muss. Gen- Allen, 262 ; Vermont & M. R. Co. v. Fitch- 
 
 eral Hospital v. State JIutual Life Ass. burg R. Co., 9 Cush. 369. 
 Co., 4 Gray, 227. | ' Commonwealth v. Eastern R. Co., 
 
 2 Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454, 103 Mass. 254; State v. New Haven & N. 
 459; Miller i». State, 15 Wall. 478, 408. Co., 43 Conn. 351, 44 Conn. 376. 
 
 3 Roxbury v. Boston & P. R. Co , ' Worcester v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 
 Cash. 424 ; White c. Quincy, 97 Mass. 109 JIass. 103 ; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 
 430; English v. New Haven & N. Co., 32 319, 326. 
 
458 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 to discontinue the use of steam power in cities,^ to construct cat- 
 tle-guards at highway crossings,^ and to maintain fences along 
 its line with a liability for cattle injitred by its trains in conse- 
 quence of its omission to maintain them.^ 
 
 It may impose a personal liability on stockholders for the debts 
 of the corporation, or otherwise increase their liability ; * require 
 the corporation to pay consequential damages to land-owners;^ 
 impose on it liability for damages by fire communicated by its 
 engines, irrespective of its negligence ; ^ diminish or increase the 
 power of different classes of stockholders in voting ;'' require the 
 company to establish a sinking fund, and deposit the same in 
 the public treasury ; ^ and consolidate corporations without the 
 consent of the stockholders.^ 
 
 It may take away or modify the power of municipal bodies to 
 aid the corporation by a subscription to its-capital stock ; i" repeal 
 exemptions from taxation, or impose rates higher than or differ- 
 ent from those contained in the charter ; ^^ limit and regulate 
 charges for transportation ; ^^ make or authorize changes in the 
 
 1 BufCalo & N. r. R. Co. «. Buffalo, 5 
 Hill, 209. 
 
 2 Bulkley v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 
 27 Conn. 479. 
 
 ^ Jeffersonville R Co. v. Gabbert, 25 
 Ind. 431. 
 
 * Oliver Lee's Bank, In re, 21 N. Y. 
 9; Bailey v. HoUister, 26 N. Y. 112; 
 Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black, 587 ; South 
 Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray, 30 Me. 547. 
 But see Ireland v, Palestine 3. N. P. & 
 N. W. Turnp. Co., 19 Ohio St. 369. 
 Such a statute as to debts subsequently 
 contracted has been held constitutional 
 even when there was no reserved power. 
 Coffin !,•. Rich, 45 Me. 507. A repeal of the 
 personal liability of stockholders is not 
 valid as to the debts of the company con- 
 tracted before the repeal. Hawthorne v. 
 Calef, 2 Wall. 10. 
 
 6 Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon, 6 Pa. 
 St. 379. 
 
 6 Lyman v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 
 Cush. 288. The opinion, however, does 
 not refer to the reserving act of March 
 11, 1831, which preceded the charter. 
 See White v. Quincy, 97 Mass. 430, 433. 
 
 ^ Miller v. State, 15 Wall. 478 ; People 
 V. Hills, 46 Barb. 341 ; New Haven & 1). 
 R. Co. V. Chapman, 38 Conn. 56. But see 
 V. Dillard, 15 B. Mon. 340, as to 
 
 increasing the number of trustees of an 
 eleemosynary body. 
 
 ^ Union Pacific R. Co. t'. United States, 
 99 U. S. 700. 
 
 i> Bishop V. Brainerd, 28 Conn. 289. 
 
 10 Cumberland & O. R. Co. v. Barren 
 County, 10 Bush, 604. 
 
 1' Union Pass. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 
 101 U. S. 628 ; State v. Person, 3 Vroom, 
 134; Iron City Bank v. Pittsburg, 37 
 Pa. St. 340; Commonwealth v. Fayette 
 County R. Co., 55 Pa. St. 452; Union 
 Improvement Co. v. Commonwealth, 69 
 Pa. St. 140; West Wisconsin R. Co. v. 
 Board of Supervisors, 35 Wis. 257. See 
 Scotland County v. Mo., I., & N. R. Co., 
 65 Mo. 123. 
 
 " Parker v. Metropolitan R. Co., 109 
 Mass. 506 ; Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co., 94 U. S. 164, 6 Biss. 177; Stone v. 
 Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181; Shields v. Ohio, 
 95 U. S. 319; American Coal Co. v. Con- 
 solidation Coal Co., 46 Md. 15 ; Mobile & 
 M. R. Co. V. Steiner, 61 Ala. 559. Where 
 it has reserved the power to authorize 
 other corporations to use the location of a 
 company on payment of tolls, it may pro- 
 vide a mode for fixing the tolls. Ver- 
 mont & M. R. Co. V. Fitchburg R. Co., 9 
 Cush. 369. 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 459 
 
 enterprise which will bind dissenting stockholders and subscribers, 
 as by new locations, extensions, branches, sales, purchases, and 
 leases of railroads, and consolidations with other companies.^ 
 
 Limitations of the Power. — The reserved power to amend, alter, 
 or repeal the charter has been generally treated as a power subject 
 to limitations founded in reason and justice. While it authorizes 
 alterations of the charter which keep the original purpose in view, 
 and the imposition of duties required by the public convenience 
 and welfare, it ought not to sanction a reckless invasion of the 
 rights of property, or a revolution in the character and objects of 
 the corporation. The property of the corporation is still pro- 
 tected from being taken for public uses without just compen- 
 sation being made therefor. The government may exercise its 
 reserved power ; but it cannot take what it did not give, to wit, 
 the private property of the corporation, except in the exercise of 
 the right of eminent domain.^ The power should be confined to 
 reasonable amendments regulating the mode of using and enjoy- 
 ing the franchise granted, which do not defeat or essentially 
 impair the object of the grant, or take away any property or 
 rights which have become vested under a legicimate exercise of 
 the powers granted, or abrogate contracts which have been law- 
 fully made under the charter.^ 
 
 The power cannot be used to convert a conditional contract 
 
 1 Durfee v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., under ^he guise of amendment or altera- 
 5 Allen, 230 ; Story v. Jersey City Plank tion. Beyond the spliere of the reserved 
 Road Co., 1 C. E. Green, 13 ; Paciflc R. powers, the vested rights of property of 
 Co. V. Renshaw, 18 Mo. 210; Schenec- corporations in such cases are surrounded 
 tady & S. Plank Road Co. v. Thatcher, 11 by the same sanctions, and are as iiivio- 
 N. Y. 102; Buffalo & N. Y. City R. Co. lable as in other cases." Shields v. Ohio, 
 V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 3-36 ; New Haven & 95 U. S. 319, 324, Sw.ayne, J. 
 
 D. R. Co. V. Chapman, 38 Conn. 56 ; s Parker r. Metropolitan R. Co., 109 
 
 Mowrey v. Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 4 Mass. 506,508; Commissioners on Inland 
 
 Biss. 78; ante, Chap. III. pp. 71, 72; con- Fisheries v. Holyoke Water Power Co., 
 
 tra, Zabriskie v. Hackensack & N. Y. R. 104 Mass. 446, 451, 15 Wall. 500, 519, 
 
 Co.. 3 C. E. Green, 178. 522; Commonwealth u. Essex Co., 13 
 
 2 White V. Syracuse & U. R. Co., 14 Gray, 239, 253; Durfee v. Old Colony & 
 Barb. 659, 560; People v. Boston & A. R. F R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 230; Tomlinson v. 
 Co, 70 N. Y. 569; Pacific R. Co. v. Ren- Jessup, 15 Wall. 454,459; Miller ji. State, 
 shaw, 18 Mo. 210, 216. " The power of 15 Wall. 478, 498 ; Stone ". Wisconsin, 94 
 alteration and amendment is not without U. S. 181, 186; Union Pass. R. Co. v. 
 limit. The alterations must be reason- Philadelphia, 101 U. S. 528 ; Belfast & M. 
 able; they must be made in good faith, L. R. Co. v. Moore, 60 Me. 561, 567 ; New 
 and be consistent with the scope and ob- Haven & D. R. Co. v. Chapman, 38 Conn, 
 ject of the act of incorporation. Sheer 56, 70. 
 
 oppression and wrong cannot be inflicted 
 
460 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 between the corporation and the subscribers into an absolute 
 contract ; ^ or to impose burdens merely for the benefit of indi- 
 viduals where no public interests are concerned ; ^ or, it has been 
 held, to require the corporation, after it has made compensation 
 for an interference with private rights, to furnish additional 
 means for preventing injuries to them.^ The power, however, 
 has at least the effect to give a control over corporations as 
 wide as that which may be exercised over individuals.* 
 
 Certain legislative interferences with corporations, which are 
 by some authorities referred to the reserved power to amend the 
 charter, are by others referred to the police power; and interfer- 
 ences of the same character are sometimes referred to both powers. 
 
 Corporations subject to Police Laws. — A railroad company, 
 although no power is reserved to. amend or repeal its charter, is 
 nevertheless subject, like individuals, to such police laws as the 
 legislature may from time to time enact for the safety and health 
 of citizens and the general convenience and good order. Its 
 property and essential franchises are, indeed, protected by the 
 Constitution ; but the company itself is not thereby placed above 
 the laws. It was not the design of that instrument to disarm the 
 States of the power to pass laws to protect the lives, limbs, 
 health, and morals of citizens, and to regulate their conduct 
 towards each other, and the mode of using property so that 
 different owners may not injure each other. Such laws may inci- 
 dentally impair the value of franchises, or of rights held under 
 contracts, but they are enacted diverso intuitu, and are not within 
 the constitutional inhibition.^ 
 
 1 Olcitown & L. R. Co. v. Veazie, 39 tliough the State court suggests distinc- 
 
 Me. 571; Miller v. State, 15 WM. 478, tions. See Commonwealth «.Penn. Canal 
 
 498. See Zabnskie ^. Hackensack & N. Co., 66 Pa. St. 41. 
 y. R. Co , 3 C. E. Green, 178. 4 Pejk „. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 
 
 ^ Commonwealth v. Eastern R. Co., U. S. 164, 176. 
 103 Mass. 254, 258; MiUiman v. Oswego 6 Vanderhilt v. Adams, 7 Cowen, 349; 
 
 & S. R. Co., 10 Barb. 87. Coates «. New York, 7 Cowen, 585 ; Ba- 
 
 Commonwealth v. Essex Co., 13 Gray, ker v. Boston, 12 Pick. 184, 194 ; Comraon- 
 
 2.». In this case it was held, notwith- wealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 ■ Sohier v. 
 
 standmg the reservation, that a company Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1 ; Watertown 
 
 which had paid damages for fish-rights v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315; Woodlawn Cem- 
 
 could not afterwards be required to make etery v. Everett, 118 Mass. 354 ; Gibbons 
 
 different fish-ways. It is difficult to recon- v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 203 ■ Chicago & N 
 
 cile this case with the later one of Com- W. R. Co v. Fuller, 17 Wall 560 568 ■ Beer 
 
 missioners on Inland Fisheries v Holyoke Co. i>. Massachusetts, 97 U S 25 115 
 
 W. Co., 104 Mass 440, 15 Wall. 500, al- Mass. 153; Fertilizing Co. a. Hyde Park 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 
 
 461 
 
 The term poUoe is perhaps a term of too limited application to 
 designate the general power which exists in the State to control 
 and regulate a corporation in the same manner as a natural per- 
 son, and to define its relations to the public.^ Generally the 
 
 97 TJ. S. 659 ; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. 
 S. 814; Kiclimond, F., & P. R. Co. v. 
 Richmond, 20 Gratt. 83. 
 
 1 Nelson y.Vt. & C. R. Co., 26 Vt. 717 ; 
 Branin v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 31 Vt. 
 214, 222; Middlesex R. Co. v. Wakefield, 
 103 Mass. 261 ; Commonwealth v. Essex 
 Co., 13 Gray, 239, 247 ; Commonwealth v. 
 Tewksbury, 11 Met. 55; State v. New 
 Haven & N. Co., 43 Conn. 351, 878, 379 ; 
 Boston, C. & M. R. Co. v. State, 32 N. H. 
 215, 225 ; State v. Southern Pacific R. Co , 
 24 Tex. 80 ; People v. Boston & A. R. Co., 
 70 N. Y. 569 ; Frankf ord & P. Pass. R. 
 Co. 0. Philadelphia, 58 Pa. St. 119 ; Rich- 
 mond, F., & P. R. Co. w. Richmond, 96 
 U. S. 521, 26 Gratt. 83, 95; Kansas Pa- 
 cific R. Co. V. Mower, 16 Kan. 573;»Lake 
 View V. Rose Hill Cemetery Co., 70 111. 
 191 ; Ruggles v. People, 91 111. 256 ; Lake 
 Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Cincinnati, S., & 
 C. R. Co.. 30 Ohio St. 604 ; State v. Co- 
 ' lumbus Gas Light & C. Co., 34 Ohio St. 
 572; 8 Am. Law Rev. (Jan. 1874) p. 2.36. 
 In Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co , 27 Vt. 
 140, a leading case, Redfield, C. J., said : 
 " The police power of the State extends to 
 the protection of the lives, limbs, health, 
 comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the 
 protection of all property within the State. 
 According to the maxim, Sic utere tuo ut 
 alienum non Icedas, which being of univer- 
 sal application, it must of course be within 
 the range of legislative action to define 
 the mode and manner in which every one 
 may so use his own as not to injure 
 others. So far as railroads are concerned, 
 this police power, wliich resides primarily 
 and ultimately in the legislature, is two- 
 fold : 1. The police of the roads, which, in 
 the absence of legislative control, the 
 corporations themselves exercise over 
 their operatives, and to some extent over 
 all who do business with them, or come 
 upon their grounds, througli their general 
 statutes and by their oflBcers. We appre- 
 hend there can be no manner of doubt that 
 the legislature may, if they deem the pub- 
 lic good requires it, — of which they are 
 to judge, and in all doubtful cases their 
 
 judgment is final, — require the several 
 railroads in the State to establish and 
 maintain the same kind of police which is 
 now observed upon some of the more im- 
 portant roads in the country for their 
 own security, or even such a police as is 
 found upon the English railways and 
 those upon the continent of Europe. No 
 one ever questioned the right of tlie Con- 
 necticut legislature to require trains upon 
 all their railroads to come to a stand be- 
 fore passing draws on bridges ; or of the 
 Massachusetts legislature to require the 
 same thing before passing another rail- 
 road. And by parity of reason may all 
 railways be required so to conduct them- 
 selves, as to other persons, natural or cor- 
 porate, as not unreasonably to injure them 
 or their property. And if the business 
 of railways is specially dangerous, they 
 may be required to bear the expense of 
 erecting such safeguards as will render it 
 ordinarily safe to others, as is often re- 
 quired of natural persons under such cir- 
 cumstances. There would be no end of 
 illustrations upon this subject, which in 
 the detail are more familiar to others than 
 to us. It may be extended to the super- 
 vision of the tracks, tending switches, run- 
 ning upon the time of other trains, running 
 a road with a single track, using improper 
 rails, not using proper precaution by way 
 of safety-beams in case of the breaking of 
 axle-trees, the number of brakemen upon 
 a train with reference to the number of 
 cars, emploj'ing intemperate or Incompe- 
 tent engineers and servants, running be- 
 yond a given rate of speed, and a thousand 
 similar things, most of which have been 
 made the subject of legislation or judicial 
 determination, and all of which may be. 
 Hegeman v. Western R. R. Co., 16 Bar- 
 bour, 353. 
 
 "2. There is also the general police 
 power of the State, by which persons and 
 property are subjected to all kinds of re- 
 straints and burdens, in order to secure 
 the general comfort, health, and prosper- 
 ity of the State ; of the perfect right in 
 the legislature to do which no question 
 
462 
 
 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 power of the State legislature is restricted only by the limita- 
 tions contained in the State and National Constitutions.^ 
 
 Such acts imposing police regulations are usually construed as 
 applying to existing corporations as well as to those afterwards 
 created."'* They may be applied to some common carriers and not 
 to others, and to some railroad companies and not to others,^ 
 and they may take away an exemption from a general police law 
 which was allowed by the charter.* 
 
 The State may in the exercise of its police power require re- 
 ports,® the numbering of cars,^ the fixing and posting of rates," a 
 slow rate of movement,^ the disuse of steam in cities,^ the ringing 
 of a bell and blowing of a whistle on approaching highways, i" the 
 stationing of a flagman at a highway crossing,'^ the lighting of 
 the railroad in cities and villages, ^^ the stopping of trains for a cer- 
 tain time at stations,'^ and affix penalties or a liability for injuries 
 in case of non-compliance. 
 
 ever was, or upon acknowledged general 
 principles ever can be, made so far as 
 natural persons are concerned. And it is 
 certainly calculated to excite surprise and 
 alarm, that the right to do the same with 
 regard to railways should be made a 
 serious question." 
 
 1 Fry V. State, 63 Ind. 552, 559 ; State 
 V. Columbus Gas Light & C. Co., 34 Ohio 
 St. bli ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S 113, 
 1-24 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Warrington, 
 92 111. 157. 
 
 2 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Loomis, 13 
 III. 548 ; Western tfnion R. Co. v. Fulton, 
 
 64 III. 271 ; Wilder v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 
 
 65 Me. 332; Portland, S., & P. R. Co. v. 
 Boston & M. R., 65 Me. 122; Pratt v. 
 Atlantic & St. L. R, Co., 42 Me. 579 ; 
 Norris v. Androscoggin R. Co., 39 Me. 
 273 ; Bulkley v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 
 27 Conn. 479; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. 
 Southwest Pa. R. Co., 77 Pa. St. 173. 
 See Veazie i'. M.iyo, 49 Me 156 ; Indian- 
 apolis & St. L. R. Co. V. Blackman, 63 III. 
 117. The act is in terms sometimes ap- 
 plied only to railroads thereafter to be 
 constructed. Stearns v. Old Cohmy & F. 
 R. R. Co., 1 Allen, 493; Baxter v. Bos- 
 ton & W. R. Co., 102 Mass. 383 ; Attorney- 
 General V. Ware River R. Co., 115 Mass. 
 400. 
 
 a Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Dill, 22 111. 
 264; Boston, C, & M. R. Co. v. State, 32 
 N. H. 215. 
 
 4 Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Appleby, 28 
 III. 283. 
 
 5 State V. Southern Pacific R. Co., 24 
 Tex. 80. 
 
 6 Frankford & P. Pass. R. Co. v. Phila- 
 delphia, 58 Pa. St. 119. 
 
 ' Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Fuller, 
 17 Wall. 560. 
 
 8 Toledo, P., & W. R. Co. o. Deacon, 
 63 111. 91 ; Chicago, R. I , & P. R. Co. v. 
 Reidy, 66 111. 43 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. 
 Co. 0. Haggerty, 67 111. 113; Whitson o. 
 Franklin, 34 Ind. 392 ; Donnaher v. State, 
 8 Smedes & M. 649 ; Mobile & 0. R. Co. 
 V. State, 51 Miss. 137 ; State v. Jersey 
 City, 5 Dutcher, 170; Horn v. Chicago & 
 N. W. R. Co., 38 Wis. 463 ; Haas v. Chi- 
 cago & N. W. R. Co., 41 Wis. 44. 
 
 !i Richmond, F., & P. R. Co. c. Rich- 
 mond, 96 U. S. 521, 26 Gratt. 83 ; Donna- 
 her V. State, 8 Smedes & M. 649 ; Atlan- 
 tic & P. R. Co. u. St. Louis, 3 Mo. App. 
 315, 66 Mo. 228. 
 
 1" Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Loomis, 13 
 III. 548 ; Galena & C. U. R. Co. «. Apple- 
 by, 28 111. 283; Western Union R. Co. v. 
 Fulton, 64 111. 271 ; Pittsburg, C, & St.L. 
 R. Co V. Brown, 67 Ind. 45. 
 
 11 State V. East Orange, 12 Vroom, 127 ; 
 Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. .Jacksonville, 
 67 III. 37. 
 
 I'i Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co. v. Sulli- 
 van, 32 Ohio St. 152. 
 
 1' Davidson v. State, 4 Tex. Ct. App. 
 
LEGISLATIVE PO"WEE OVER THE COMPANY. 463 
 
 It may regulate the use of highways by a raik-oad company, 
 requiring it to cross them in a certain manner ,i and prohibiting it 
 from laying its tracks on the highway within a certain distance 
 from the station of another company .^ It may regulate the use 
 of highways by a street-railroad company ; ^ and it retains its 
 right to make alterations in public ways and bridges, which may 
 even be an inconvenience to the company.* It may regulate the 
 crossings of other railroads at grade.^ 
 
 It may require the company to maintain fences along the sides 
 of its track, and impose a liabilit)' for injuries to cattle caused by 
 its omission to maintain them ; and the requirement has been 
 considered to have reference as well to the safety of travellers by 
 the railroad as to the protection of the cattle of land-owners.® A 
 provision in the charter requiring certain fences does not conclude 
 the State from subsequently requiring other and different safe- 
 guards.^ The company may be made liable in double the amount 
 of damages sustained by owners of cattle in consequence of its 
 neglect to comply with the statute.^ But a statute imposing an 
 absolute liability on the company for injuries to cattle without 
 any negligence or breach of duty has been held unconstitutional, 
 as depriving ii of its property " without due process of law." ^ 
 
 645 ; Galveston, H., & S. A. R. Co. u. Le C. R. Co. v. Kercheval, 16 Inrl. 84 ; Jeffer- 
 
 Gierse, 51 Tex. 189. sonville R. Co. v. Gabbert, 25 Ind. 431 ; 
 
 1 Veazie v. Mayo, 45 Me. 560 ; Pitts- Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 
 burg & C. R. Co. V. Southwest Penn. R. 573 ; Gorman v. Pacific R. Co., 26 Mo. 
 Co , 77 Pa. St. 173. 441 ; Trice v. Han. & St. .J. R. Co., 49 
 
 2 Portland, S., & P. R. Co. o. Boston* Mo. 4-38; Blair v. Mil. & P. R. Co., 20 
 M. R., 65 Me. 122. Wis. 2.54 ; Jones v. Galena & C. U. R. Co., 
 
 8 Union R. Co. v. Cambridge, 11 Allen, 16 Iowa, 6 ; Penn. R. Co. v. Riblet, 66 
 
 287. Pa. St. 164. 
 
 * Middlesex R. Co. c. Wakefield, 103 ' Gillam v Sioux City & St. P. R. Co., 
 
 Mass. 261 ; Commonwealth v. Essex Co., 9 Reporter, 375. 
 13 Gray, 239, 247. ' Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Peoples, 92 
 
 5 Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Southwest 111. 97 ; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. c. Warring- 
 
 Petin. R. Co., 77 Pa. St. 173; Lake Shore ton, 92 111. 157 ; Jones v. Galena & C. 
 
 & M. S. R. Co. V. Cincinnati, S., & C. R. U. R. Co , 16 Iowa, 6; Tredway v. Sioux 
 
 Co., 30 Ohio St. 604. City & St. P. R. Co., 43 Iowa, 527, 39 
 
 ^ Nelson v. Vt & C. R. Co., 26 Vt. Iowa, 663 ; Mackie i.. Central R. Co., 6 
 
 717 ; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 27 Northwest. Rep. 723 ; Kaes v. Mo. Pacific 
 
 Vt. 140; Norris v. Androscoggin R. Co., R. Co., 6 Mo. App. o!)7 ; L. R. & F. S. R. 
 
 .39 Me. 273 ; Wilder v. Maine Cent. R Co., Co. o. Payne, 33 Ark. 816. But see Atch- 
 
 65 Me. 332; Suydam o. Moore, 8 Barb, ison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37. 
 358 ; Waldron c. Rensselaer & S. R. Co., « Zeigler v. South & N. A. R Co., 58 
 
 8 Barb. 390; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McClel- Ala. 594; Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Lyon, 
 
 land, 25 111. 140; Madison & I R. Co. v. 62 Ala. 71. But see Kansas Pacific R. 
 
 Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 217 ; New Albany & S. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573 ; Hopkins v. 
 
 R. Co. u. Tilton, 12 Ind. 3 ; Indianapolis & Kansas Pacific U. Co , 18 Kan 462 ; Atch- 
 
464 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 Other regulations, which concern the general welfare, though 
 not police in a strict sense, have been sustained ; such as pro- 
 hibiting the company from limiting its liability as a common car- 
 rier by special contract ;i making it liable for "the wages of 
 laborers on the railroad who are employed by a contractor and 
 not by the company ; ^ requiring it to build stations at places 
 designated by the legislature or by some board,^ or to construct 
 bridges at highway crossings ; * imposing on it a liability for 
 injuries by fire communicated from its engines with or without 
 negligence on its part,^ and for injuries to servants committed by 
 fellow-servants, although not imposing such liability on other 
 employers ; ^ and limiting the right to sell passenger tickets to 
 agents who have a written authority from the company.^ 
 
 The police power is by some authorities restricted to regulations 
 which immediately concern the public safety, order, health, 
 morals, and comfort. In this view, the State cannot, under color 
 of this power, impair the franchise or rights essential to it,^ or 
 impose on the corporation new and additional duties or burdens 
 not imposed on natural persons,^ or contemplated by the charter.^" 
 Thus the power has been held, by a narrow construction, not 
 to extend to the imposition of duties and burdens for the pub- 
 lic convenience only, where not required for safety ; such as the 
 stopping of trains for a certain time at the crossings of the rail- 
 
 ison & N. R. Co. v. Harper, 19 Kan. ' Fry v. State, 63 Ind. 552 ; Common- 
 
 529. wealth v. Wilson, 37 Leg. Int. 484. 
 
 1 Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. Franks, 41 « Phil., W., & B. R. Co. e. Bowers, 4 
 Miss. 494. Houst. 506 ; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 
 
 2 Branin v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 31 U. S. 25. " The limit to the exercise of 
 Vt. 214 ; Peters v. St. Louis & I. M. R. the police power in these cases must be 
 Co., 23 Mo. 107 ; Kent v. New York Cent, this : the regulations must have refer- 
 R. Co., 12 N. Y. 628; Hart v. Boston, R. ence to the comfort, safety, or welfare 
 B., & L. R. Co., 121 Mass. 510. Such a of society ; they must not be in conflict 
 statute is held not to apply to contracts with any of the provisions of the char- 
 with a contractor made prior to its pas- ter; and they must not, under pretence 
 sage. Parker u. Massachusetts K. Co., of regulation, take from the corporation 
 115 Mass. 580. any of the essential rights and privi- 
 
 3 Railroad Com'rs v. Portland & O. C. leges which tlie charter confers. In short, 
 R. Co., 63 Me. 269. they must be police regulations in fact, 
 
 * People V. Boston & A. R. Co., 70 N. and not amendments of the charter in 
 
 Y. 569. curtailment of the corporate franchise." 
 
 6 Pratt V. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 42 Cooley's Const. Lim, [* 577]. 
 Me. 579 ; Stearns v. Atlantic & St. L. R. 9 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bloomington, 
 
 Co., 46 Me. 95 ; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. 76 111. 447 ; Commonwealth o. Penn. 
 
 Mower, 16 Kan. 573, 580 ; Lyman v. Canal Co., 66 Pa. St. 41. 
 Boston & W. R. Co., 4 Cush. 288. lo Commonwealth v. New Bedford 
 
 " Ditberner v. Chicago, M., & St. P. Bridge, 2 Gray, 839. 
 R. Co., 47 Wis. 138. 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 
 
 465 
 
 roads of other corporations, in order to receive passengers arriving 
 by such railroads,^ or the building of crossings for highways laid 
 out after the construction of the railroad ; ^ and still more, to the 
 imposition of burdens of mere private interest and concern, not 
 required by the general security and convenience, such as the 
 construction of farm crossings, the cost of which has in legal pre- 
 sumption been paid to the laud-owner as a part of the damages 
 awarded to him.^ 
 
 Other authorities, however, as has been seen,* — and they ex- 
 press the present tendency of the law, — while disclaiming that 
 the police power extends to the control of rights purely and 
 exclusively private, give it a very wide scope, comprehending 
 within it the general powers of sovereignty to govern men and 
 things ; that is to say, the power to regulate, at discretion, for 
 the public good, the conduct of citizens (including corporations) 
 towards each other, and their use of their property, in order to 
 give effect to the fundamental rule of social conduct, sic utere tuo 
 ut alienum non Icedas.^ 
 
 1 State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ; Uailroad 
 Com'rs V. Portland & O. C. E. Co., 63 
 Me. 269, 285, 286. 
 
 2 Illinois Cent. E. Co. v. Bloomington, 
 76 111. 447 ; City of Erie v. Erie Canal Co., 
 59 Pa. St. 174. See Veazie v. Mayo, 49 
 Me. 156. 
 
 3 Milliman v. Oswego & S. E. Co.,' 10 
 Barb. 87 ; Marsh v. New York & E. R. Co., 
 14 Barb. 364, 370; Tombs v. Rochester & 
 S. E. Co., 18 Barb. 583 ; Underbill v. 
 New York & H. E. Co., 21 Barb. 489 ; 
 Nelson u. Vt. & C. E. Co., 26 Vt. 717. 
 But cmilra, Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 
 27 Vt. 140, 153. 
 
 * Ante, pp. 461-463. 
 
 5 Thorpe v. Eutland & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 
 140, ante, p. 461, note; Munn v. Illinois, 94 
 U. S. 113, 124, 125. Waite, C. J. : " When 
 one becomes a member of society, he nec- 
 essarily parts with some rights or priri- 
 leges which, as an individual not affected 
 by his relations to others, he might retain. 
 'A body politic,' as aptly defined in the 
 preamble of the Constitution of Massa- 
 chusetts, 'is a social compact by which 
 the whole people covenants with each 
 citizen, and each citizen with the whole 
 people, that all shall be governed by cer- 
 tain laws for the common good.' This 
 
 does not confer power npon the whole 
 people to control rights which are purely 
 and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & 
 B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143 ; but it does 
 authorize the establishment of laws re- 
 quiring each citizen to so conduct him- 
 self, and so use his own property, as not 
 unnecessarily to injure another. This is 
 the very essence of government, and has 
 found expression in the maxim, sic utere 
 tuo ut alienum non Icedas. From this source 
 come the police powers, which, as was said 
 by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License 
 Cases, 5 How. 583, 'are nothing more or 
 less than the powers of government in- 
 herent in every sovereignty, . . . that is 
 to say, . . . the power to govern men and 
 things.' Under these powers the govern- 
 ment regulates the conduct of its citizens 
 one towards another, and the manner in 
 which each shall use his own property 
 when such regulation becomes necessary 
 for the public good. In their exercise it 
 has been customary in England from time 
 immemorial, and in this country from its 
 first colonization, to regulate ferries, com- 
 mon carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, 
 wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so 
 doing to fix a maximum of charge to be 
 made for services rendered, accommoda- 
 
 30 
 
466 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS, 
 
 Power to limit Rates and Charges of Transportation. — The police 
 power, so far as regulating rates for transportation is concerned, 
 has been sometimes limited to the prohibition of unreasonable 
 charges and discriminations, leaving to the courts to decide, 
 as a judicial question, what charges and discriminations are 
 of that character.^ Thus, while discriminations in favor of com- 
 peting and against non-competing points may be prohibited, the 
 State cannot, by an arbitrary rule applied to all cases, prohibit 
 different charges for the same distances, such variations being 
 proper under some circumstances.; but the decision, whether the 
 discrimination is reasonable or not, remains with the judiciary.^ 
 
 The contention, as to the right of the State to regulate and 
 limit the charges of railroad corporations and warehousemen as 
 common carriers has led to a broad definition of the police power. 
 The national tribunal of last resort has held, though with strenu- 
 ous dissent, that the legislature may^ unless restrained by some 
 contract between the State and the corporation, regulate and 
 limit such charges without judicial action determining whether 
 the limit is reasonable or not ; and that such legislation is not 
 prohibited by the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, 
 which ordains that no State "shall deprive any person of life, 
 liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any 
 person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."^ 
 
 tions furnished, and articles sold. To this final decision upon their character and 
 
 day statutes are to be found in many of validity is with tlie courts, 
 the States upon some or all these sub- a Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chi- 
 
 jects ; and we think it has never yet been cago, B., & Q. R Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155 ; 
 
 successfully contended that such legisla.- Peik v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 94 U. 
 
 tion came within any of the constitutional S. 164, 6 Biss. 177 ; Chicago, M., & St. P. 
 
 prohibitions against interference with pri- R. Co. v. Ackley, 94 U. S. 179 ; Winona & 
 
 vate property." See to the same eflFect, St. P. R. Co. v. Blake, 94 U. S. 180, 19 
 
 Hannibal & St. J. E. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. Minn. 434 ; Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 
 
 465, 470, 471. 181; Union Pacific E. Co. w. United States, 
 
 1 Phil., W., & B. E. Co. V. Bowers, 4 99 U. S. 700, 719. For decisions to the 
 Houst. 506 ; Sloan u. Pacific E. Co., 61 same effect in State courts see Attorney- 
 Mo. 24 ; Ladd V. Southern Cotton Press General o. Eailroad Cos., 35 Wis. 425; 
 & M. Co., 12 Chicago Leg. News, 418, 10 Hinckley v. Chicago. M., & St. P. E. Co., 
 Reporter, 186. But contra decisions in 38 Wis. 194 ; State v. Winona & St. P. R. 
 U. S. Supreme Court. Munn „. Illinois, Co., 19 Minn. 434; Cincinnati, H., & D. 
 94 U. S. 11,3, 133; Peik v. Chicago & N. R. Co. v. Cole, 29 Ohio St. 126; Iron R. 
 W. E. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 178. Co. «. Lawrence Furnace Co., 29 Ohio St 
 
 2 Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 III. 208 ; State v. Columbus Gas Light & C. 
 11. In Toledo, W., & W. R. Co. v. Jack- Co., 34 Ohio St. 572 ; Mobile & M. E. Co. 
 sonville, 67 III. 37, it was held that the v. Steiner, 61 Ala. 559 ; Ruggles «. People, 
 State may impose other reasonable regu- 91 111. 256 ; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 
 lations, as at highway crossings ; but the 95 111. 318. The statute was held also 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 
 
 467 
 
 The court, after declaring the governments of the States to pos- 
 sess all the powers of the British Parliament, except as limited by 
 the State or National Constitution, held that the power to con- 
 trol the use of property included, and was limited to, property 
 " clothed " or " affected with a public interest; " and that property 
 is so clothed and affected when it is " used in a manner to make 
 it of public consequence, and affect the community at large," — 
 giving, as illustrations of persons so using property, common 
 carriers, wharfingers, ferrymen, inn-keepers, millers, and bakers. 
 The power of legislative control over property, if existing to the 
 extent stated by the court, must be universal ; and the limitation 
 suggested seems too indefinite as a rule of constitutional con- 
 struction. ^ 
 
 not to be prohibited by § 8, art. 1, which 
 gives power to Congress to regulate com- 
 merce between the States and witli foreign 
 nations, or by § 9, art. 1, which prohibits 
 preferences to the ports of one State over 
 those of another, a provision which re- 
 stricts only the national government 
 Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113. For con- 
 struction of an act as to rates, see Hersh 
 I). Northern Cent. R. Co., 74 Pa. St. 181. 
 The act of Wisconsin of 1873, known as 
 " The Potter Law," was repealed in 1876. 
 Rood V. Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co., 43 
 Wis. 146 ; Smith v. Chicago & N. W. R. 
 Co., 43 Wis. 686. 
 
 1 Munn V. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 125. 
 Waite, C. J. : " This brings us to inquire as 
 to the principles upon which this power 
 of regulation rests, in order that we may 
 determine what is within and what with- 
 out its operative effect. Looking, then, to 
 the common law, from whence came the 
 right which the Constitution protects, we 
 find that when private property is ' affected 
 with a public interest, it ceases to he Juris 
 prioatinn\y.' This was said by Lord Chief 
 Justice Hale more than two hundred years 
 ago in his treatise De Portibm Maris, 1 
 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been ac- 
 cepted without objection as an essential 
 element in the law of property ever since. 
 Property does become clothed with a pub- 
 lic interest when used in a manner to 
 make it of public consequence and affect 
 the community at large. When, there- 
 fore, one devotes his property to a use 
 in which the public has an interest, he, in 
 effect, grants to the public an interest in 
 
 that use, and must submit to be controlled 
 by the public for the common good, to 
 the extent of the interest he has thus 
 created. He may withdraw his grant by 
 discontinuing the use ; but, so long as he 
 maintains the use, he must submit to the 
 control." . . "In countries where the 
 common law prevails, it has been cus- 
 tomary from time immemorial for the 
 legislature to declare what shall be a 
 reasonable compensation under such cir- 
 cumstances, or, perhaps more properly 
 speaking, to fix a maximum beyond 
 which any charge made would be unrea- 
 sonable. Undoubtedly, in mere private 
 contracts relating to matters in which the 
 public has no interest, what is reasonable 
 must be ascertained judicially. But this 
 is because the legislature has no control 
 over such a contract. So, too, in matters 
 which do affect the public interest, and as 
 to which legislative control may be exer- 
 cised, if there are no statutory regulations 
 upon the subject, the courts must deter- 
 mine what is reasonable. The controlling 
 fact is the power to regulate at all. . . . 
 But a mere common-law regulation of 
 trade or business may be changed by 
 statute. A person has no property, no 
 vested interest, in any rule of the com- 
 mon law. . . . To limit the rate of charge 
 for services rendered in a public employ- 
 ment, or for the use of property in which 
 the public has an interest, is only chang- 
 ing a regulation which existed before. It 
 establishes no new principle in the law, 
 but only gives a new effect to an old one." 
 pp. 133, 134. Field, J., dissenting, stoutly 
 
468 THE LAW OP RAILEOADS, 
 
 The power of the State to regulate and limit fares is not re- 
 stricted by the fact that the income of the corporation has been 
 pledged to the payment of obligations incurred on the faith of 
 the charter.^ 
 
 A grant of power in the charter, authorizing the company to 
 fix the rates of tolls, is not a contract which excludes the legis- 
 lature from regulating and limiting them.^ 
 
 State Legislation as related to the Po-wer of Congress to regulate 
 Commerce. — The provision of the National Constitution iu rela- 
 tion to the commercial power of Congress has given rise to ques- 
 tions in connection with transportation by railroad companies and 
 other carriers which are embarrassed with difficulty. Section eight 
 of article one confers upon Congress the power " to regulate com- 
 merce with foreign nations and among the several States." Where 
 the business is solely within the State, no question arises under 
 this provision, as in such case it is purely a matter of State con- 
 cern. Where it combines commerce, some exclusively within and 
 some without the State, the provision is held not to interdict State 
 regulation acting within the State on both kinds alike, until Con- 
 gress exercises its constitutional power, which, until exerted, re- 
 mains in abeyance. The primary object and scope of the regulation 
 is in such case local and domestic, while the extra-territorial effect, 
 being only indirect, is not prohibited so long as the congressional 
 power remains quiescent.^ Whether a State regulation affects 
 inter-state commerce directly so as to be prohibited, or only indi- 
 rectly so as to be permitted, is often a perplexing inquiry, and 
 it is confessed that the line cannot be clearly drawn by any 
 formula.* 
 
 rejected the distinction based on the pub- i Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 
 
 lie relations of property, and said : " There U. S. 155. 
 
 is no business or enterprise involving ex- - Rugglea v. People, 91 111. 256 ; Illinois 
 
 penditures to any extent which is not of Cent. R. Co. v. People, 95 111. 313. 
 public consequence, and which does not » Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 135; 
 
 affect the community at large. There is Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 
 
 no industry or employment, no trade or 155, IBS ; Peik ii. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 
 
 manufacture, and no avocation which does 94 U. S. 164, 178. See Hensacola Tel. Co. 
 
 not in a greater or less extent affect the v. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1. It 
 
 community at large, and in which the pub- was held in Shipper v. Penn. R. Co., 47 
 
 lie has not an interest in the sense used by Pa. St. 338, that the State may discrimi- 
 
 the court." Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. nate between local and extra-territorial 
 
 181, 185 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 118, freight. 
 
 1*1- * Hannibal & St. J. R, Co. v. Husen, 96 
 
 U. S. 465, 472. " Many acts of a State 
 
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 469 
 
 The State may, in exerting its police power, affect indirectly 
 inter-state commerce, but it cannot, under color of it, assume 
 powers conferred only on Congress, or legislate on subjects 
 committed exclusively to Congress.^ It may regulate the sale of 
 passenger tickets within the State, although the carrier's line ex- 
 tends into other States.^ It may levy taxes on all property, busi- 
 ness, and persons within its jurisdiction, although it may thereby 
 increase the cost of transportation and affect indirectly commerce 
 between States.^ Thus, it may tax the net earnings and gross 
 receipts of a company whose road lies in the State, derived in 
 part from merchandise and passengers transported through the 
 State, or from the State into other States, or into the State from 
 other States.* It may exact from a corporation a portion of its 
 earnings as a bonus for its franchise, or require it to pay annually 
 for a license, although it is a means of communication between 
 States.^ But it cannot interfere directly with the national juris- 
 diction over inter-state commerce by levjang a capitation tax on 
 passengers carried out of the State, to be collected of the carrier ;8 
 or by taxing merchandise itself by the ton, or taxing the carrier 
 on account of the merchandise which is transported through the 
 State, or carried out of it or brought into it.'^ 
 
 The State cannot, even in the absence of national legislation, 
 impose a direct tax or burden on inter-state commerce, or inter- 
 may, indeed, affect commerce, without at certain places. Chicago & N. W. R. 
 amounting to a regulation of it, in the Co. v. Fuller, 17 Will. 560. 
 constitutional sense of the term. And it ^ Fry v. State, 63 Ind. 552; Com- 
 is sometimes difficult to define the distinc- monwealth v. Wilson, 37 Leg. Int. 484. 
 tion between that which merely affects or ^ State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 
 influences, and that which regulates or 15 Wall. 300, 319. 
 
 furnishes a rule for conduct." Strong, J. • State Tax on Railway Gross Receipts, 
 Hall V. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485, 488. " The 15 Wall. 284 ; State v. American Ex. Co., 
 line which separates the powers of the 7 Biss. 227; Western Union Tel. Co. o. 
 States from this exclusive power of Con- Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521 ; State u. Cum- 
 gress is not always distinctly marked, and berland & P. R. Co., 40 Md. 22. 
 oftentimes it is not easy to determine on ' Baltimore & 0. R. Co. o. Maryland, 
 which side a particular case belongs." 21 Wall. 456, 34 Md. 344, 45 Md. 596 ; 
 Waite, C. J. Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206 ; 
 
 1 Baltimore & 0. R. Co. u. Maryland, Osborne v. Mobile, 16 Wall. 479. 
 21 Wall. 456, 473; Henderson o. New ^ Orandall i;. State, 6 Wall. 35 ; Clarke 
 York, 92 U. S. 259, 271, 272; Chy Lung v. Phil., W., & B. R. Co., 4 Houst. 158. 
 I). Freeman, 92 U. S. 275 ; Hannibal & St. ' State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232 
 J. R. Co. u. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471, (overruling 62 Pa. St. 286). See Penn. 
 472; Hall v. De Cuir, 96 U. S. 485, 488. R. Co. u. Commonwealth, 3 Grant, 128; 
 It may require companies doing business Erie R. Co. u. State, 2 Vroom, 531, 1 
 within it and between it and other States Vroom, 473 ; State v. Carrigan, 10 Vroom, 
 to fix annually their rates, and post them 35. 
 
470 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 fere directly with its freedom without encroaching on the exclu- 
 sive domain of Congress ; and it cannot enforce regulations wholly 
 inter-state in their character, even in the absence of congressional 
 action.' Thus, while it may, under its police power, exclude 
 diseased animals from being brought into its territory, it cannot 
 prohibit the conveyance into the State of cattle, — " Texas, Mex- 
 ican, or Indian," — irrespective of their condition, from other 
 States and foreign nations, or impose onerous liabilities on com- 
 mon carriers transporting them through it.^ It cannot prohibit 
 carriers on the Mississippi River, engaged in transporting pas- 
 sengers among States, from assigning them to separate cabins 
 with reference to color, even as to passengers whose contract 
 of transportation is to be wholly executed within the State.^ 
 A State cannot require transfers of freight and passengers pass- 
 ing through its limits to be made at a point within the State 
 where such a requirement is in conflict with acts of Congress.* 
 It cannot, in the exercise of the taxing power, impose a more 
 onerous burden on the products of other States brought within 
 its limits than upon like products of its own territory, or discrim- 
 inate in favor of its own citizens against those of other States.® 
 
 It has been held that, notwithstanding the exclusive power 
 given to Congress to regulate commerce among the States, a 
 State may regulate the charges of public warehouses and rail- 
 roads within its limits, although they are used for the purpose 
 of inter-state and international commerce. Their primary char- 
 acter as domestic agencies is not lost when they serve in wider 
 relations. This rule operates not only on property kept or 
 transported exclusively within the State, but also, at least until 
 Congress intervenes, on property while within the State which 
 was brought into or is to be carried out of it.® 
 
 1 Baltimore & 0. E. Co. ^. Maryland, Howe Machine Co. v. Gage, 100 U. S. 
 21 Wall. 45e, 472. 676. " S«. ^ 
 
 2 Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 6 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 135; 
 95 U. S. 465. See Yeazel v. Alexander, Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 
 
 »V?,*' ^ ^ 155, 163; Peiky. Chicago &N.W.R. Co., 
 8 Hall V. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485 (over- 94 U. S. 164, 177 ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. 
 rulmg27La. An. 1). See distinction be- Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 471. A statute, 
 tween commerce on land and commerce requiring in effect a railroad company to 
 on water m Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. transfer within the State freight and pas- 
 Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 470. sengers destined for places beyond it, was 
 Council Bluffs V. Kansas City, St. held to conflict with the legislation of 
 J., & C. B. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338. Congress (R. S. V. S. §§ 5257, 5258), and 
 ' Guy V. Baltimore, 100 U. S. 434; therefore void. Council Bluffs ». Kansas 
 
 City, St. J., & C. B, R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338. 
 
LEGISLATPVE POWER OVER THE COMPANY. 471 
 
 Statutes regulating and limiting rates may classify corporations 
 and vary the rates for different classes, but imposing the same for 
 all in a like situation ; and they are not in conflict with State 
 constitutional provisions which require uniformity and equality 
 in general laws.^ 
 
 A State cannot give an exclusive right to one corporation to 
 establish a telegraph line which interferes with the legislation of 
 Congress.^ 
 
 Congress has refrained from exercising its power to regulate 
 commerce among the States by railroads, except to a very limited 
 extent,' or incidentally, as by declaring railroad bridges across 
 navigable waters to be lawful structures;* and the power has 
 been judicially treated chiefly in decisions upon State legislation 
 alleged to be in conflict with it. Its power to fix rates of trans- 
 portation between the States, to build or authorize railroads for 
 inter-state commerce, and to prohibit monopolies and discrimina- 
 tions unfriendly to such commerce, has been maintained in State 
 papers and debates in Congress.* 
 
 ' Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. t>. Iowa, 94 Reg. 149 ; State v. Wheeling & B. Bridge 
 
 U. S. 155; McAunich v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 18 How. 421. 
 Co., 20 Iowa, 338. * Debate in U. S. Senate, Feb. 14, 
 
 2 Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union 1865, Cong. Globe, 2d Sess. 38th Cong. 
 
 Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1. Part I. pp. 790-795 ; May 29, 1866, Cong. 
 
 8 Act of June 15, 1866, V. S. Rev. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. Part III. pp. 
 
 Stat. § 5258, authorizing every railroad 2870-2876 ; Works of Charles Sumner, 
 
 company in the United States to carry vol. ix. p. 237 ; Report from Committee 
 
 passengers, troops, government supplies, on Railways and Canals, House Doc. No. 
 
 mails, freight, and property on their way 28, 43d Cong. Ist Sess. ; Redfleld on Rail- 
 
 from any State to another State, and to ways, vol. i. pp. 719-727 ; Baltimore & 
 
 connect with roads of other States, so as to O. R. Co. v. Maryland, 21 Wall. 456, 474 ; 
 
 form continuous lines of transportation. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western Union 
 
 * Gray v. Clinton Bridge, 16 Am. Law Tel. Co., 96 U. S. 1. 
 
472 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 TAXATION. 
 
 Property Subject to Taxation. — The power of a State to tax sub- 
 jects within its jurisdiction — including persons, business, and 
 property — is unlimited, except as restrained by constitutional 
 provisions; but the power does not extend to subjects without its 
 jurisdiction.^ It extends to foreign as well as domestic cprpora- 
 tions, to the extent of the capital stock, property, and business 
 within the State ; ^ and it extends to the property of railroad cor- 
 porations which is in the possession of mortgagees or receivers.^ 
 The rate and mode of assessment and rules of valuation are mat- 
 ters of legislative discretion,* except when regulated, as they 
 sometimes are, by the State constitution.^ 
 
 The debts owed by a corporation are the property of its cred- 
 itors, and are taxable to them in the State of their domicile, and 
 there only. A State cannot therefore tax the bonds of a corpo- 
 ration held by non-residents, and require it to withhold the amount 
 of the tax from the interest due to such bondholders ; and the 
 rule is the same where the bonds are secured by a mortgage on a 
 railroad within the State. Such legislation is extra-territorial, 
 and also impairs the obligation of the contract between the cor- 
 
 1 Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, provement Co. v. Slack, 100 U. S. 
 
 77 ; Thomson v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 9 648. 
 
 Wall. 579, 591 ; State Tax on Foreign- " New York & E. R. Co. v. Sabin, 26 
 
 held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300, 319 ; Union Pa. St. 242 ; Commonwealth v. Cleveland, 
 
 Pacific R. Co. V. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5,29; P., & A. R. Co., 29 Pa. St. 370; Dela- 
 
 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, ware & H. Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 
 
 603 ; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. 491 ; 43 Pa. St. 227 ; Quincy Bridge Co. v. 
 
 Porter v. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co., Adams Co., 88 111. 615; Burlington & S. 
 
 76 111. 561, 573 ; Stockton & V. R. Co. v. W. R. Co. ... Counties, 5 Dill. 289. 
 Stockton, 41 Cal. 147 ; Pittsburg, Ft. W., » State v. Railroad Com'rs, 12 Vroom, 
 
 &C. R Co. ». Commonwealth, 3 Brewster, 235. 
 
 855. A company may be a railroad com- * Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206, 
 
 pany within the meaning of a statute im- 231; Dubuque v. Chicago, D., & M. R. 
 
 posing taxes, although authorized to do Co., 47 Iowa, 196. 
 
 other kinds of business as well as that of 5 Davenport v. Chicago, R. I. & P. 
 
 railroad transportation. Kentucky Im- R. Co., 38 Iowa, 633 ; Dubuque' v. 111. 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 56. 
 
TAXATION. 473 
 
 poration and its creditors.^ For the same reason, it cannot tax 
 the dividends of non-residents, by requiring the corporation to re- 
 serve a portion' as a tax.^ But it may tax the capital stock 
 though held in part by non-residents, either as a whole, or as 
 divided into shares.^ Its right to tax its citizens for the debts 
 due to them by a foreign corporation is not affected by the fact 
 that they are secured by a mortgage on real estate situated in 
 such foreign State.* 
 
 ' A State may tax its citizens for shares in the capital of a for- 
 eign corporation, or for bonds of the corporation which are held 
 by them, regardless of the foreign law as to the taxation of the 
 capital stock." 
 
 Where the railroad runs through different States, a tax upon 
 the income or franchise is properly apportioned by taking the 
 whole income or value of the franchise, and the length of the 
 road within each State, as the basis of taxation.^ A foreign cor- 
 poration which succeeds to the management of a railroad situated 
 in another State, under a lease or purchase confirmed by such 
 State, becomes taxable as a domestic corporation under its laws.^ 
 Personal property permanently remaining in a State has a situg 
 therein for the purposes of taxation, although belonging to a for- 
 eign corporation.® 
 
 1 Northern Cent. R. Co. o. Jackson, 7 5 Dwight v. Boston, 12 Allen, 316; 
 Wall. 262; State Tax on Foreign-held McKcen i'. Northampton County, 49 Pa. 
 Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; United States v. St. 519; Whltesell r. Northampton County, 
 Bait. & 0. R. Co., 17 Wall. 322 ; Murray 49 Pa. St. 626 ; Worthington v. Sebastian, 
 V. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432; Kirtland v. 25 Ohio St. 1 ; Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 
 Hotchkiss.lOO U. S. 491 ; Commonwealth Wall. 206, 230 ; Appeal Tax Court v. Pat- 
 V. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 27 Gratt. terson, 50 Md. 354 ; Appeal Tax Court v. 
 344 ; Davenport v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 12 Gill, 50 Md. 377. But it has been held 
 Iowa, 539. Cmtra, Maltby v. Reading & that, to prevent double taxation, a stat- 
 C. R. Co., 52 Pa. St. 140 ; Pittsburg, Ft. ute is to be construed as exempting the 
 W., & C. R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 66 Pa. shares so held when the capital stock is 
 St. 73 ; Delaware, L., & W. R. Co. v. fully taxed in the State where the corpo- 
 Commonwealth, 66 Pa. St. 64 ; Buffalo & ration is established. Smith v. Exeter, 
 E R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 3 Brewster, 37 N. H. 556 ; Savings Bank u. Nashua, 
 374 46 N. H. 389, 398. 
 
 2 Oliver v. Washington Mills, 11 Al- « Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 
 
 len, 268. 
 
 206 ; Erie R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 
 
 » National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 492; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 
 
 Wall. 353; Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 U. S. 575, 611; Buffalo & E. R. Co. «. 
 
 Wall. 206, 230; Faxton v. McCosh, 12 Commonwealth, 3 Brewster, 374; ante, 
 
 Iowa, 627 ;' Jenkins v. Charleston, 5 S. C. Chap. I. p. 20. 
 
 393 See Commonwealth v. Hamilton ' Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. «. 
 
 Man Co. 12 Allen, 298. Vance, 90 U. S. 450; Commonwealth v. 
 
 « Kirtland t,. Hotchkiss, 100 U. S. Cleveland, P., & A. R. Co., 29 Pa. St. 370. 
 
 ^gj 8 Irvin V. New Orleans, St. L., & C. R. 
 
474 THE LAW or RAILROADS. 
 
 A municipality, having the power to require a license tax, may 
 exact it of a company whose business is partly without as well as 
 partly within its limits.^ 
 
 Corporate Property and Interests, how Tased. — Taxes may be 
 levied on a corporation or interests therein as follows : Upon (1) 
 capital stock, (2) corporate property, (3) franchises, (4) indi- 
 vidual shares. The first three are usually united in a tax levied on 
 the corporation, while the last is levied on the stockholders.^ The 
 capital stock, corporate property, and franchises are taxed as an 
 entirety, either directly or by taxation of the individual shares or 
 revenues of the company ; and the tax, unless appropriated wholl}'' 
 for State purposes, is distributed among counties, or cities and 
 towns, according to some equitable mode of division.^ The prop- 
 erty, however, of the company which is not used for railroad pur- 
 poses, or is held for purposes not connected with the franchise, 
 is usually taxable like other property by municipal corporations.* 
 
 In some jurisdictions, the property of the company, real and 
 personal, including rolling-stock, is taxed in the places where it 
 is situated ; but the attempt to sever what is an essential unit 
 only leads to confusion and inequalities.* Another mode is to 
 tax the franchise as an entirety, valuing it by the excess of the 
 market value of the aggregate shares of the capital stock over the 
 market value of the visible or tangible property which remains 
 subject to local taxation.® 
 
 Co., 94 111. 105. See St. Louis v. Ferry of the profits of the corporation is said to 
 
 Co., 11 Wall. 423 ; Dubuque v. III. Cent, be the only just rule In Paine v. Wright, 
 
 R. Co., 39 Iowa, 56. 6 McLean, 395. 
 
 1 San Jos^ V. San Jos6 & S. C. R. Co., < Toledo & W. R. Co. v. Lafayette, 22 
 53 Cal. 475. Ind. 262. 
 
 2 Porter v. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. ' Louisville & N. R. Co. v. State, 8 
 Co., 76 111. 661 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. Heisk. 663 ; Orange & A. R. Co. v. Alex- 
 ia. State, 8 Heisk. 663 ; Delaware Rail- andria, 17 Gratt. 176 ; Dubuque & P. R. 
 road Tax, 18 Wall. 206. The shares Co. v. Webster County, 21 Iowa, 235; 
 were held not taxable under the statute Dnbuque v. Ill Cent. R. Co., 39 Iowa, 56 ; 
 in Richmond v. Daniel, 14 Gratt. 385; Porter k. Rockford, R. I,, & St. L. R. Co., 
 Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679, 76 III. 661, 584. 
 
 686, 687. 6 Commonwealth v. Lowell Gas Light 
 
 ' Missouri River, F. S, & G. R. Co. w. Co., 12 Allen, 75; Commonwealth v. 
 
 Morris, 7 Kan. 210 ; Applegate v. Ernst, Hamilton Man. Co., 12 Allen, 298, 6 
 
 3 Bush, 648 ; State v. Hamilton, 5 Ind. Wall. 632 ; Porter v. Rockford, R. I., & 
 
 310 ; Michigan Cent. R. Co. «. Porter, 17 St. L. R. Co., 76 111. 661 ; Chicago, B., & 
 
 Ind. 380 ; State v. Severance, 55 Mo. Q. R. Co. v. Cole, 75 111. 591 ; CShicago, 
 
 378 ; Davenport i^. Miss. & M. R, Co., B., & Q. R. Co. v. Paddock, 75 III. 616 ; 
 
 16 Iowa, 348 ; Iowa Homestead Co. o. State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575. 
 
 Webster County, 21 Iowa, 221. Taxation As to the taxation of property held under 
 
TAXATION. 
 
 475 
 
 Tlie personal property of a railroad company is, when taxed 
 like other property, taxable where the company has its principal 
 office or place of business.^ This rule has been followed in the tax- 
 ation of rolling-stock.2 But personal property, including rolling- 
 stock, is often tieated as a part of the road.^ Persons operating a 
 railroad, under lease or otherwise, are taxable for the rolling-stock 
 used on it, irrespective of the ownership of the road or of the 
 rolling-stock.* 
 
 The corporate franchise may be taxed by a rate imposed on the 
 earnings. Such a tax has been held not to exempt the railroad 
 and property from municipal taxation.^ It has been also held not 
 to violate a provision of a State constitution requiring uniformity 
 of taxation.® The tax may be graduated by the amount of the 
 income, or by the value of the franchise or property.^ The gross 
 receipts as well as net earnings of a corporation may be taxed by 
 a State without invading the power of Congress to regulate inter- 
 state commerce, even though in part derived from the transpor- 
 tation of merchandise between States.^ 
 
 Where profits are taxed, they are taxable in the shape of divi- 
 
 a lease, see Appeal Tax Court v. Western 
 Md. E. Co., 50 Md. 274 ; Phil., W., & B. R. 
 Co. V. Appeal Tax Court, 50 Md. 397. 
 
 1 Sangamon & M. R. Co. o. Morgan 
 County, 14 111. 163; State v. Haight, 1 
 Vroom, 447; State v. Person, 3 Vroom, 
 134 ; Portland, S., & P. R. Co. u. Saco, 60 
 Me. 196; Western Trans. Co. v. Soheu, 
 19 N. Y. 408 ; State v. Hamilton, 5 Ind. 
 310 ; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 
 675, 607. 
 
 2 Sangamon & M. R. Co. v. Morgan 
 County, 14 111. 163 ; Orange & A. R. Co. v. 
 Alexandria, 17 Gratt. 176 ; Pacific R. Co- 
 r.Cass County, 53 Mo. 17 ; State v. Sever- 
 ance, 55 Mo. 378 ; Appeal Tax Court v. 
 Western Md. R. Co., 50 Md. 274; Phil., 
 W., & B. R. Co. V. Appeal Tax Court, 50 
 Md. 397 ; Appeal Tax Court v. Northern 
 Cent. R. Co., 50 Md. 417. See Daven- 
 port V. Miss. & M. R. Co., 16 Iowa, 348; 
 Dubuque & S. C. R. Co. v. Dubuque, 17 
 Iowa, 120 ; Dubuque v. 111. Cent. B. Co., 
 89 Iowa, 56. 
 
 « Louisville & N. A. R. Co. v. State, 
 25 Ind. 177 ; Fitchburg R. Co. v. Prescott, 
 47 N. H. 62. 
 
 * Kennedy v. St. Louis, V., & T. H. 
 
 R. Co., 62 111. 395 ; Huck v. Chicago & A. 
 R. Co., 86 111. 352. See Cook County v. 
 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co., 35 111. 460. 
 
 * Dunlieth & D. Bridge Co. v. Du- 
 buque, 32 Iowa, 427 ; Davenport v. Chi- 
 cago, R. L, & P. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 633. 
 As to a tax on earnings in case of division 
 of lines, see Chicago, M., & St. P. R. Co. 
 V. Pfaender, 23 Minn. 217. 
 
 * Kneeland v. Milwaukie, 15 Wis. 454 
 (overruling Attorney-General v. Winne- 
 bago, L.,& F. R. Plank R. Co., 11 Wis. 35) ; 
 Dean v. Gleason, 16 Wis. 1. See as to State 
 constitutional provisions requiring uni- 
 formity of taxation, Gilman v. Sheboygan, 
 2 Black, 510 ; State Railroad Tax Cases, 
 92 U. S. 575 ; Muscatine v. Miss. & M. R. 
 Co., 1 Dill. 536 ; Bureau County v. Chi- 
 cago, B., & Q. R. Co., 44 111. 229 ; Chicago 
 & N. W. R. Co. w. Boone County, 44 111. 
 240 ; Missouri River, F. S., & G. R. Co. v. 
 Morris, 7 Kan. 210. 
 
 ' Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 
 206. 
 
 8 State Taxes on Railway Gross Re- 
 ceipts, 15 Wall. 284 ; Buffalo & E. R. Co. 
 V. Commonwealth, 3 Brewster, 386. 
 
476 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 dends of stock as well as of money ; ^ but an issue of new stock, 
 when not based on profits, is not taxable as such.^ 
 
 A railroad is not subject to be severed and sold in sections for 
 non-payment of taxes.^ Where the track was by statute declared 
 to be personal property, the rails, it was held, could be levied on, 
 removed, and sold for non-payment of taxes.* Rolling-stock is 
 liable to seizure and sale for non-payment of taxes.® 
 
 State Methods. — In New York, the property of railroad com- 
 panies is subject to municipal taxation in the same manner as the 
 property of individuals, without any distinctive rules of valua- 
 tion.^ The land and fixtures necessary for the road are taxable 
 in the towns or wards where they are situated, at the value at 
 the time of assessment ; and the company is, as to land and fix- 
 tures within a town, treated as a resident, although its principal 
 place of business is elsewhere.'^ So much of the capital stock as 
 remains after deducting all the real estate valued at cost, including 
 the railroad, is taxable as personal estate in the town or ward where 
 the company has its principal office or place of business.^ The 
 real estate, including the track, is valued, not as an isolated piece 
 of property, or as land in the vicinity used for ordinary purposes, 
 but as a part of a whole, in connection with its use and relations 
 and the profits derivable from it.^ The company is taxed upon 
 its track with fixtures as for " land," although it is not the owner 
 
 1 Commonwealth v. Cleveland, P., & v. Fredericks, 48 Barb. 173. An earlier 
 A. R. Co., 29 Pa. St. 370. rule disregarded the relations of a par- 
 
 2 Commonwealth v. Erie & P. R. Co., ticular piece of the railroad to the rest 
 10 Phil. 465. of the enterprise. Albany & S. R. Co. 
 
 ' Georgia v. Atlantic & G. R. Co., 3 v. Osborn, 12 Barb. 223 ; Albany & W. 
 
 Woods, 434. ' S. R. Co. v. Canaan, 16 Barb. 244. For 
 
 4 Maus V. Logansport, P., & B. R. Co., discussions as to mode of valuing the real 
 
 27 III. 77. It was held in Mohawk & H. estate, including track, see Sangamon & 
 
 R. R. Co. V. Clute, 4 Paige, 384, that such M. R. Co. v. Morgan County, 14 111. 163; 
 
 a declaration does not change the char- State v. Illinois Central R. Co., 27 111. 64; 
 
 acter of the property which is held by State v. Central Pacific R. Co., 7 Nev. 93; 
 
 tlie company in its corporate capacity. State v. Central Pacific R. Co., 10 Nev. 
 
 6 Randall v. Elwell, 52 N. Y. 521. 47 ; Huntington v. Central Pacific R. Co., 
 
 6 1 Rev. Stat. (6th ed.) pp. 935, 979. 2 Sawyer, 503. As to mode of valuing 
 
 ' People V. Cassity, 46 N. Y. 46 ; People the capital stock, see Porter v. Rockford, 
 
 V. Barker, 48 N. Y. 70 ; Buffalo & S. L. R. R. I., & St. L. E. Co., 76 III. 561 ; Chicago, 
 
 Co. V. Board of Supervisors, 48 N. Y. 93. B., & Q. R. Co. v. Cole, 75 111. 591 ; State 
 
 8 Mohawk & H. l;l. R. Co. v. Clute, Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575; 
 
 4 Paige, 384 ; People v. Supervisors of Commonwealth v. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. 
 
 Niagara, 4 Hill, 20. R. Co., 74 Pa. St. 83. 
 
 » People 17. Barker, 48 N.Y. 70; People 
 
TAXATIOX. 477 
 
 of the fee.i Foundations for piers on a public street for an ele- 
 vated railroad are taxable as real estate.^ 
 
 In New Jersey, by the act of 1873, a State tax of one half of 
 one per centum is laid upon " the cost, equipment, and append- 
 ages " of the railroad, and a county and municipal tax of one per 
 centum upon real property occupied, used, or owned for the pur- 
 poses of the road, excepting the main stem or road-bed and track 
 not exceeding one hundred feet in width, exempting, however, 
 from such municipal taxation ten acres in one parcel with im- 
 provements at the termini.^ 
 
 In Massachusetts, by the act of 1865, railroad and other cor- 
 porations .are taxed, at the average rate of municipal taxation in 
 the State, on the franchise valued by a State tax commissioner, 
 who is required to take the sum total of all the shares at the 
 market rate, and to deduct therefrom the value of real estate and 
 machinery subject to local taxation, and, where the road extends 
 into other States, such portion of the whole valuation as is pro- 
 portional to the length of the part of the road outside of the 
 State. The track of five rods in width is, as will be seen else- 
 where, constructively exempt from municipal taxation, but it is 
 taxed in effect by the taxation of the franchise. The entire tax, 
 when collected by the State, is distributed among or credited to 
 the towns and cities of the State in the proportion of the tax 
 represented by stockholders resident therein ; and the State 
 retains the balance, being the proportion represented by shares 
 owned by non-residents. It will be seen that the municipalities 
 in which the stockholders live, and not those in which the road 
 lies, derive a revenue from the tax. This system of taxing the 
 franchise has been sustained by the State and national tribunals.* 
 
 In Illinois, by the act of 1872, there are, as to railroads, three 
 separate valuations, which in general are as follows : 1. The real 
 estate, which is not a part of the right of way ; and the personal 
 property, which remains permanently at a place. 2. The right of 
 way with superstructure and buildings upon it, and rolling-stock 
 
 1 People V. Beardsley, 52 Barb. 105; eriU, 12 Vroom, 147. See later act of 
 People V. Cassity, 46 N. T. 46. 1876, State v. Railroad Com'rs, 12 Vroom, 
 
 2 People I-. Com'rs of Taxes, 80 N. Y. 235. 
 
 573 19 Hun 460 * Hamilton Man. Co. v. Massachusetts, 
 
 8 Statei;.'com'r of Railroad Taxation, 6 Wall. 632, 12 Allen, 298; Dwight v. 
 
 8 Vroom 228 9 Vroom, 472; State v. Boston, 12 Allen, 316 ; Attorney-General 
 
 Mutuhler, 12 Vroom, 96; State v. Weth- "■ Bay State Mining Co., 99 Mass. 148. 
 
478 THE LAW OF EAIXROADS. 
 
 and personal property which is not local. 3. The excess of the 
 capital stock, including the franchise, over the first two classes 
 which are designated as tangible property. The first class is 
 taxable locally like other property, while the other two are each 
 valued by a State board as a whole, and each county, city, and 
 town taxes the corporation on this valuation in proportion to the 
 length of the road within its own limits. The State board, 
 under its power to adopt rules and principles of valuation, deter- 
 mined the cash value of the capital stock, including franchise, 
 by adding together the market value of all the shares and of the 
 funded debt, and deducting from the aggregate result the market 
 or cash value of the tangible property as required. The statute 
 and the method pursued under it have been approved as just and 
 conforming to the Constitution of the State as well as not 'in con- 
 flict with that of the United States.-' 
 
 Exemptions from Taxation. — The property of corporations, like 
 that of persons, is subject to taxation, and exemptions cannot be 
 established by doubtful implications.^ 
 
 Construction of Statutes exempting from Taxation. — Statutes, 
 which for the time being exempt railroad corporations from tax- 
 ation, or apply to them special rates to the exclusion of ordinary 
 municipal taxation, are, when subject to repeal, to be construed 
 according to the rules stated in a later connection, where the 
 construction of grants or contracts of exemption, which, under 
 the National Constitution, are irrevocable, are considered.^ 
 
 Where the charter exempts the company's lands from taxation 
 until sold and conveyed, a contract of sale without a conveyance, 
 
 1 Porter v. Rockford, R I., & St. L. R. smith v. Rome R. Co., 62 6a. 473; Gold- 
 
 Co., 76 111. 561 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. smith «. Georgia R. Co, 62 Ga. 485; 
 
 i>. Cole, 75 111. 591 ; Chicago, B., & Q. R. Goldsmith v. Southwestern R. Co., 62 Ga. 
 
 Co. u. Paddock, 75 111. 616 ; Huck y. Chi- 495 ; Goldsmith v. Central R. Co., 62 Ga. 
 
 cago & A. R. Co., 86 111. 352; Chicago, f09. For decisions in Nebraska, see Bur- 
 
 B., & Q. R. Co. V. Siders, 88 111. 320; lington&M.R.R. Co. W.Lancaster County, 
 
 Danville L. & M. Co. v. Parks, 88 III. 463 ; 7 Neb. 33 ; Burlington & M. R R Co. v. 
 
 Chicago, R. I, & P. R. Co. V. People, 4 York County, 7 Neb. 487 ; and in Iowa, see 
 
 Brad. (111.) 468; State Railroad Tax Dubuque u. Chicago, D. & M. R Co 47 
 
 Cases, 92 U. S. 575 ; Indianapolis & St. Iowa, 196. 
 
 L. R. Co. V. Vance, 96 U. S. 4e0. For 2 People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 76 N. Y. 
 
 decisions m Georgia as to the taxation of 64 ; People v. Com'rs of Taxes, 11 N. Y. 
 
 railroad companies, see Macon & A. R. W. D. 110, 19 Hun 460. 
 
 Co. V. Goldsmith, 62 Ga. 463; Goldsmith » Post, pp. 483-485 
 u. Augusta & S. R. Co , 62 Ga. 468 ; Gold- 
 
TAXATION. 479 
 
 whicTi is forfeited according to its terms for non-payment of the 
 purchase-money, does not subject them to taxation.^ 
 
 Exemptions implied or constructive. — An exemption from local 
 taxation may be implied where the company would otherwise be 
 subject to double taxation, and such taxation appears to be con- 
 trary to the legislative intent. Thus, the imposition, by a special 
 act, of a State tax on all the property of the company has been 
 construed to exempt machine-shops, foundries, and station-houses 
 from local taxation under general laws.^ The taxation of indi- 
 vidual shareholders for their shares creates no presumption against 
 the right of municipalities to tax real property, including the 
 track, which is within their respective limits.^ 
 
 The character of railroad companies as public works similar to 
 public buildings, highways, and aqueducts has been held in some 
 States to effect a constructive exemption of their property which 
 is within the location and necessary for their purposes. Thus, in 
 Massachusetts, where the corporation may lay out its road not 
 exceeding five rods in width, and for certain purposes acquire land 
 outside of such location, the company is not liable to be taxed 
 for land within the five rods, or for buildings and structurss 
 thereon which are necessarily incident to its business ; but if any 
 part of the land within such limits is Used for and appropriated 
 to purposes not incident to the proper construction, maintenance* 
 and management of the railroad, or if the company acquires by 
 purchase or even grant from the State other land outside of those 
 limits, such real estate, in either case, with the erections thereon, 
 will be subject to taxation.* A similar rule of constructive ex- 
 emption with a like limitation is adopted in Pennsylvania, where 
 the property of the corporation which is necessary for its pur- 
 poses is exempt, while property which is merely convenient and 
 useful for the increase of business and for making profits is tax- 
 able.^ In other jurisdictions the doctrine of a constructive ex- 
 
 ' Illinois Cent R. Co. v. Goodwin, 94 ' Providence & W. R. Co. v. Wright, 
 
 111. 262. 2 R. I. 459. 
 
 ■- New York & E. R. Co. v. Sabin, 26 < Worcester v. Western R. Co., 4 Met. 
 
 Pa. St. 242; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. 564; Boston & M. R. c. Cambridge, 8 
 
 V. Shacklett, .30 Mo. 550; State v. Han. Cush. 237; Wayland v. Countj' Com'rs, 
 
 & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 265. But contra, 4 Gray, 500 ; Charlestown v. County 
 
 Orange & A. R. Co. v. Alexandria, 17 Com'rs, 1 Allen, 199; Commonwealth v. 
 
 Gratt. 176; Dunlieth & D. Bridge Co. v. Lowell Gas Light Co., 12 Allen, 75. 
 
 Dubuque, 32 Iowa, 427. ' Railroad Co. v. Berks County, 6 Pa. 
 
480 THE LAW OF KAILROADS. ' 
 
 emption is rejected, and property, including the track, has been 
 held liable to municipal taxation, unless specially exempted.^ 
 
 Local Assessments. — The authorities are in conflict on the ques- 
 tion whether a railroad company is liable to special assessments, 
 on the ground of a supposed benefit to it, for local improvements, 
 as the widening, paving, or laying out of streets.^ They have 
 been held not to be within the prohibition of statutes which ex- 
 empt the company from taxes.^ 
 
 A street-railroad company has been held liable for such local 
 assessments, unless excepted.* It may be required to contribute 
 to the expense of paving and widening the street.* It has been 
 held, where the stockholders are taxed, to be exempt from tax- 
 ation on its personal property, the value of such property being 
 held to be included in the valuation of the shares.^ 
 
 Grant or Contract of Exemption from Taxation. — The power of 
 the legislature of a State, when not prohibited by the Constitu- 
 tion, to bind the State by a grant of exemption from taxation has 
 been at times contested or questioned as an unauthorized surren- 
 
 St. 70 ; Schuylkill NaT. Co. v. Berks & H. R. Co. v. Morrisaniii, 7 Hun, 652 
 County, 11 Pa. St. 202; Wayne County Bridgeport v. New York & N. H. R. Co. 
 V. Del. & H. Canal Co., 15 Pa. St. 351; 36 Conn. '255; New York & N. H. R. Co, 
 Sliamokin Valley R. Co. v. Livermore, v. New Haven, 42 Conn. 279. See Lon- 
 47 Pa. St. 465, 469 ; Erie County v. Erie don, B., & S. C. R. Co. v. St. Giles, Cara- 
 fe W. Trans. Co., 87 Pa. St. 434. berwell, L. R. 4 Exch. Div. 239. 
 
 1 Providence & W. R. Co. v. Wright, ' Slieelian v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 
 2 R. I. 459; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mc- 50 Mo. 155; State v. Newark, 6 Vroom, 
 Lean County, 17 111. 291, 296; Orange & 157; State v. Jersey City, 7 Vroom, 56; 
 A. R. Co. V. Alexandria, 17 Gratt. 176; State v. Elizabeth, 8 Vroom, 330; State 
 Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Spearman, 12 v. Newark, 3 Dutcher, 185. They have 
 Iowa, 112; Phil, W., & B. R. Co. K. Bay- been held to be included in the term 
 less, 2 Gill, 355 ; Louisville & P. C. Co. v. " assessments." St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth,? B. Monr. 160; Cumber- St. Paul, 21 Minn. 526; Brightman v. 
 land Marine R. Co. u. Portland, 37 Me. 444 Kirner, 22 Wis. 54 ; Ohio Cemetery Co. 
 (overruling Bangor & P. R. Co. v, Harris, v. Philadelphia, 10 Rep. 183. Contra, 
 21 Me. 533). State v. Newark, 6 Vroom, 157. 
 
 2 They were held legal in Northern * New Haven v. Eair Haven & W. R. 
 Ind. R. Co. V. Connelly, 10 Ohio St. 159; Co., 38 Conn. 422. In Chicago v. Shcl- 
 Burlington & M. R. R. Co. v. Spearman, don, 9 Wall. 50, it was held that the city 
 12 Iowa, 112; Davenport ^. Miss. & M. had made a contract with the company 
 R. Co., 16 Iowa, 348 ; Peru & I. R. Co. u. not to make such assessments. 
 
 Hanna, 68 Ind. 562 ; Troy & L. R. Co. v. ^ Chicago v. Baer, 41 111. 306 ; Par- 
 Kane, 9 Hun, 5fl6. They have been held melee v. Chicago, 60 111. 267 ; North 
 illegal in Philadelphia v. Phil., W., & B. Beach & M. R. Co.'s Appeal, 32 Cal. 499. 
 R. Co., 33 Pa. St. 41 ; Junction R. Co. v. f> Middlesex R. Co. v. Charlestown, 8 
 Philadelphia, 88 Pa. St. 424 ; New York Allen, 330. 
 
TAXATION. 
 
 481 
 
 der of an essential attribute of sovereignty .^ It has, howeyer, 
 been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that a 
 grant of exemption from taxation, or an agreement in the charter 
 that no other than a certain tax shall be imposed, is within the 
 provision of the National Constitution which forbids State laws 
 impairing the obligation of a contract.^ 
 
 Surrender of Taxing Power not presumed. Temporary Exemptions. 
 — The surrender of the taxing power is not to be presumed, unless 
 the purpose of the State to part with it clearly appears. The 
 power is essential to the existence of government, and it is of vital 
 
 1 Brewster o. Hough, 10 N. H. 138 ; 
 Debolt V. Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co., 1 Ohio 
 St. 563 ; Mechanics' & T. Bank v. Debolt, 
 1 Ohio St. 591 ; Toledo Bank v. Toledo, 1 
 Ohio St. 622; Plank Road Co. u. Husted, 
 3 Ohio S?. 578 ; Sandusky City Bank v. 
 Wilbor, 7 Oliio St. 481 ; Thorpe v. Rut- 
 land & B. R. Co., 27 Vt. 140, 146 ; Mott 
 I). Penn. E. Co., 30 Pa. St. 9 ; Raleigh & 
 G. R. Co. V. Reid, 64 N. C. 155; People v. 
 Bafger, 62 111.452; West Wisconsin R. 
 Co. V. Supervisors, 35 Wis. 257 ; Com- 
 monwealth V. Chesapeake & 0. R. Co., 
 27 Gratt. 344. 
 
 2 New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch, 164 ; 
 State Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369; Ohio 
 Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416 ; 
 Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 ; McGee 
 V. Mathis, 4 Wall. 143 ; Van Hoffman v. 
 Quincy, 4 Wall. 535, 554 ; Home of the 
 Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 430; Wash- 
 ington Unirersity v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 439, 
 42 Mo. 308 ; Wilmington R. Co. v. Reid, 
 13 Wall. 264; Tomlinson t. Jessup, 15 
 Wall. 454, 458 ; Tomlinson v. Branch, 15 
 Wall. 460; Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 
 244; Pacific R. Co. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 
 36; New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104; 
 Farrington i-. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679; 
 Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Maine, 96 U. S. 
 499, 66 Me. 488 ; North Western Univer- 
 sity V. People, 99 U. S. 309 ; Union Pas- 
 senger R. Co. V. Philadelphia, 101 U. S. 
 528 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Gaines 
 (U. S. C. C, M. D. Tenn ), 12 Chicago 
 Leg. News, 407, 3 Fed. Rep. 266. For 
 decisions in the State courts sustaining 
 the power, see Armington v. Barnet, 16 
 Vt. 745, 751 ; Herrick v. Randolph, 13 
 Vt. 525; Atwater v. Woodbridge, 6 Conn. 
 
 223 ; Osborne v. Humphrey, 7 Conn. 335 ; 
 Parker v. Eedfield, 10 Conn. 490, 495; 
 Landon v. Litchfield, 11 Conn. 251; State 
 V. Maine Cent. R. Co., 66 Me. 488 ; Port 
 land V. Portland Water Co., 67 Me. 135 ; 
 State V. Dexter & N. R. Co., 69 Me. 44; 
 State w. Berry, 2 Harrison, 80; Camden & 
 A. B. Co. V. Hillegas, 3 Harrison, 11 ; Cam- 
 den & A. R. Co. V. Com'rs, 3 Harrison, 
 71; Gardner v. State, 1 Zab. 557; State 
 V. Com'rs, 8 Vroom, 240; Baltimore v. 
 Bait. & O. R. Co., 6 Gill, 288; State a. 
 Bait. & 0. K. Co., 48 Md. 49; Illinois 
 Cent. R. Co. v. McLean County, 17 111. 
 291 ; Neustadt v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 31 111. 
 484; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Irvin, 72 
 111. 462 ; IlUnois Cent. R. Co. v. Goodwin, 
 94 111. 262 ; People v. Soldiers' Home, 95 
 III. 561 ; O'Donnell v. Bailey, 24 Miss. 
 386; Mobile & 0. R. Co. v. Moseley, 52 
 Miss. 127; Grand Gulf & P. G. R. Co «. 
 Buck, 53 Miss. 246 ; Scotland County v. 
 Mo , L, & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 123; Iron 
 City Bank v. Pittsburg, 37 Pa. St. 340; 
 Richmond u. Richmond & D. R. Co., 21 
 Gratt. 604 ; Commonwealth v. Chesa- 
 peake & 0. R. Co., 27 Gratt. 344 ; State 
 V. Bank of Smyrna, 2 Houst. 99 ; Matheny 
 V. Golden, 5 Ohio St. 361 ; State v. Auditor 
 of Athens County, 5 Ohio St. 444 ; Ross 
 County Bank v. Lewis, 5 Ohio St. 447 ; 
 Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 
 637 ; Oliver v. Memphis & L R. R. Co., 
 30 Ark. 128 ; St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. 
 Co. V. Loftin, 30 Ark. 698. The grant 
 cannot be repealed by a provision of the 
 State Constitution any more than by a 
 legislative act. Scotland County v. Mo., 
 I., & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 123. 
 
 31 
 
482 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 importance that it should remain unimpaired.^ The charter may 
 prescribe a temporary rate of taxation, which, like a rate fixed for 
 the time being in a general law, may be raised or changed with- 
 out impairing the obligation of a contract ; and whether the pro- 
 vision was intended as a contract that no other or higher should 
 be imposed is a question of construction. The mere imposition, 
 in the charter or a special act of a bonus or tax, does not imply a 
 contract not to impose another or higher one.^ Nor does a bounty 
 law offering exemption to companies carrying on a certain busi- 
 ness disable the State from taxing them.^ But other provisions 
 which expressly exempt from further taxation, or require con- 
 ditions which the company has performed on the faith of the 
 exemption, imply a contract.* 
 
 Form of Grant or Contract. — A grant of exemption from taxa- 
 tion, or from any taxation except that specially provided for in 
 
 1 Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Peters, 
 514, 561 ; Pliil. & W. R. Co. v. Maryland, 
 10 How. 416, 376; Ohio Life Ins. & T. 
 Co. u. Debolt, 16 How. 435; Delaware 
 Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206 ; Pacific R. Co. 
 V. Maguire, 20 Wall. 36 ; North Missouri 
 R. Co. V. Maguire, 20 Wall. 46, 49 Mo. 490 ; 
 Erie R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492 ; 
 Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 
 659 ; Hoge v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 99 
 U. S. 348 ; Union Pass. R. Co. o. Phila- 
 delphia, 101 U. S. 528 ; People v. Com'rs 
 of Taxes, 19 Hun, 460, 11 N. Y. W. D. 
 110; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527; 
 Bank of Penn. v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. 
 St. 144; Erie R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 
 66 Pa. St. 84 ; State v. Newark, 2 Dutcher, 
 519; State v. Parker, 3 Vroom, 426; Pa- 
 cific R. Co. V. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17 ; 
 State o. Maine Cent. R. Co., 66 Me. 488; 
 Commonwealth v. Chesapeake & 0. R. 
 Co., 27 Gratt. 344 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 
 V. Supervisors, 3 W. Va. 319; Louisville, 
 C, & L. R. Co. V. Commonwealth, 10 Bush, 
 43; State n. Bank of Smyrna, 2 Houst. 
 99; People v. Roper, 35 N. Y. 629; St. 
 Louis, L M., & S. R. Co. v. Loftin, 80 Ark. 
 693 ; County Com'rs v. Annapolis & E. R. 
 R. Co., 47 Md. 592; County Com'rs v. 
 Sisters of Charity, 48 Md. 34; Appeal 
 Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md.302; Appeal 
 Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy, 50 Md. 
 321. 
 
 ^ Easton Bank v. Commonwealth, 10 
 Pa. St. 442; New York & E. R. Co. u. 
 Sabin, 26 Pa. St. 242 ; Erie R. Co. v. Com- 
 monwealth, 3 Brewster, 368 ; State Bank 
 of Ohio V. Knoop, 16 How. 369, 406 ; Ohio 
 Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416 ; 
 Christ Church v. Phil. County, 24 How. 
 300; Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 
 206, 2 Abbott U. S. 323 ; North Missouri 
 R. Co. V. Maguire, 20 Wall. 46 ; Erie R. 
 Co. V. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall. 492; Tucker 
 V. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527 ; Central R. & 
 B. Co. V. Georgia, 92 U. S. 665, 675 ; Union 
 Pass. R. Co. V. Philadelphia, 101 U. S. 
 528 ; St. Joseph v. Han. & St. J. R. Co., 
 39 Mo. 476 ; Louisville, C, & L. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth, 10 Bush, 43 ; Illinois 
 Cent, R. Co. v. McLean County, 17 111. 
 291, 296; Baltimore v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 
 6 Gill, 288 ; People u. Com'rs of Taxes, 
 19 Hun, 460, 11 N. Y. W. D. 110. A 
 distinction between a. tax and a license 
 is taken in Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 
 Pa. St. 445. 
 
 ' East Saginaw Man. Co. v. East Sagi- 
 naw, 13 Wall. 373, 19 Mich. 259. 
 
 < Iron City Bank v. Pittsburg, 37 Pa. 
 St. 340 ; Neustadt v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 
 31 111. 484 ; Parmelee v. Chicago, 60 111. 
 267; Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 60; 
 New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104; Far- 
 rington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679. 
 
TAXATION. 483 
 
 the charter, is not less a contract protected by the Constitution, 
 because the terms of contract or agreement are not used. Ordi- 
 narily the contract is implied from a provision that the corpora- 
 tion or its property shall be exempt from taxation, or from any 
 other than that prescribed. ^ Nor is any actual consideration 
 necessary to support the grant.'^ A gratuitous exemption made 
 by the State has been said not to be binding.^ 
 
 Construction of Grants of Exemption from Taxation. — The ex- 
 emption of the company generally from taxation includes local 
 as well as State taxes,* and the corporate property as well as the 
 franchise.^ The exemption of the capital stock,* or of the shares 
 thereof,^ exempts the property (or so much thereof as is necessary 
 for corporate purposes) and the franchise, including the gross re- 
 ceipts or income. But "the mere exemption of the capital stock 
 will not exempt the railroad and tangible property where the 
 grant by its terms discriminates between the capital stock and 
 such property.* The exemption of all property includes the 
 franchise ^ and the gross receipts ; ^^ the exemption of capital 
 stock will cover any increase of it, even though made in the form 
 of preferred stock ; ^^ the exemption of the road and its appurte- 
 
 1 Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 484. See Phil., W., & B. E. Co. v. Bay- 
 Wall. 430; New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. less, 2 Gill, 355. 
 
 104; Farrington i'. Tennessee, 95 U. S. ^ State y. Berry, 2 Harrison, 80; Cam- 
 
 679 ; State v. Dexter & N. R. Co., 69 Me. den & A. R. Co. i-. Hillegas, 3 Harrison, 
 
 44. 11; Camden & A. R. Co. v. Com'rs, 3 
 
 ^ Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Harrison, 71; State v. Hancock, 6 Vroora, 
 
 Wall. 430, 437. Municipal charters are 537, 544. 
 
 not contracts which prevent legislative ^ New Haven c. City Bank, 31 Conn, 
 exemptions from taxation of property 106 ; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Shack- 
 within them. Richmond v. Richmond lett, 30Mo. 550; Scotland County ». Mo., 
 & D. R. Co., 21 Gratt. 604. See a deci- I., & N. R. Co., 65 Mo. 123 ; Ricliraond v. 
 sion which cannot be sustained on prin- Richmond & D. R. Co., 21 Gratt. 604 ; 
 ciple in Dubuque v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 39 State v. Hood, 15 Rich. 177 ; Rome R. Co. 
 Iowa, 56. V. Rome, 14 Ga. 275. 
 
 Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527, ' Baltimore v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 6 Gill, 
 
 674; Christ Church v. Pliil. County, 24 288; County Com'rs r. Annapolis & E. R. 
 
 How. 300; Union Pass. R. Co. v. Pliila- R. Co., 47 Md. 592; State v. Bait. & 0. R. 
 
 delphia, 101 U. S. 528, 532; St. Louis, I. Co., 48 Md. 49. 
 
 M., & S. R. Co. V. Loftin, 30 Ark. 693, » Railroad Companies v. Gaines, 97 U. 
 
 TOO. See Baltimore v. Bait. & O. R. Co., S. 697 ; Atlantic & G. R. Co. u. Allen, 16 
 
 6 Gill, 288. Fla. 637, 660. 
 
 < Baltimore v. Bait. & O. E. Co., 6 Gill, 9 Wilmington R. Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 
 
 288; Camden & A. R. Co. v. Hillegas, 3 264. 
 
 Harrison, 11; State ». Hancock, 6 Vroom, i" Pacific E. Co. v. Maguire, 20 WaU. 
 
 637 ; Southern R. Co. v. Jackson, 38 Miss. 36. 
 
 334; Neustadt v. 111. Cent. R. Co., 31 111. " State v. Norwich & W. R. Co., 30 
 
 Conn. 290. 
 
484 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS, 
 
 nances will include a branch road ; ^ but the exemption of the 
 track does not exempt stations and other erections and buildings' 
 upon it.2 Whether the grant of exemption was intended to ex- 
 empt the stockholders from the taxation of their shares, as well 
 as the corporation itself, is a question of construction. ^ 
 
 Exemptions limited to Property required for the Purposes of the 
 KaUroad. — Exemptions of the property of the company from all 
 taxation, or from local taxation, or from other than a special tax, 
 have been by construction limited to. property reasonably neces- 
 sary for its purposes, and sometimes to such as was actually 
 used therefor. Such a limitation is in some cases expressed, and 
 then it must be judicially determined what is reasonably neces- 
 sary for the purposes of the railroad.* Property has in some cases 
 been held to be of this character and entitled to the exemption 
 only where the corporation was authorized to take it by proceed- 
 ings in invitum under the power of eminent domain.^ Under the 
 rule limiting the grant to property reasonably necessary for rail- 
 road purposes, the roadway, warehouses, engine-houses, repair- 
 shops, tanks, wood-sheds, fuel-yards, offices, and a branch road to 
 a gravel-pit are exempt ; while dwelling-houses for employees 
 (except, perhaps, switch and bridge tenders, and station-masters), 
 woodland bought for fuel, real estate left vacant and not intended 
 for railroad uses, or rented for dwellings, stores, and coal-yards, 
 are subject to ordinary municipal taxation.** A steamboat to carry 
 
 1 Atlantic & G. K. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 6 "Vermont Cent. E. Co. v. Burlington, 
 637. 28 Vt. 193 ; Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484, 
 
 2 Portland, S., & P. R. Co. v. Saco, 60 491 ; Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Mil- 
 Me. 196. waukie, 34 Wis. 271, 278. This test is 
 
 s Farrington o. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679 ; disapproved in State v. Hancock, 6 Vroom, 
 
 Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133 ; 537, on tlie ground that the power to take 
 
 Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206; property does not extend under some char- 
 
 Belo V. County Com'rs, 82 N. C. 415 ; Mem- ters to all that is necessary for railroad 
 
 phis V. Ensley, 6 Baxter, 553 ; Memphis purposes. See ante, Chap. VII. pp. 149, 
 
 V. Farrington, 8 Baxter, 539. The grant 150. 
 
 does not exempt the bondholders. State 6 State v. Mansfield, 3 Zab. 510; Gard- 
 
 V. Branin, 3 Zab. 484. ner v. State, 1 Zab. 557 ; Cook v. State, 4 
 
 * State V. Hancock, 6 Vroom, 587, 545, Vroom, 474, 3 Vroom, 338 ; State v. Han- 
 criticises the rigid definition and applica- cock, 6 Vroom, 537, 4 Vroom, 315 ; State 
 tion of the term necessary, which excludes v. Fuller, 11 Vroom, 328 ; State v. Leggett, 
 what is only conyenient and useful for the 12 Vroom, 319 ; St. Louis, I M., & S. K. 
 increase of business, as given in State v. Co. «. Loftin, 30 Ark. 693 ; Day v. Joiner, 
 Mansfield, 3 Zab. 510. See State v. Leg- 6 Baxter, 441. See a similar construction 
 gett, 12 Vroom, 319; De Soto Bank v. of charters which limited the exemption 
 Mempliis, 6 Baxter, 415; Milwaukie & St. to property used for railroad purposes. 
 P. R. Co. «. Milwaukie, 34 Wis. 271, 277. State v. Woodruff, 7 Vroom, 94- Bibb 
 
TAXATION. 485 
 
 passengers on a river from the terminus of the railroad to that 
 of another has been held taxable.^ Under a statute exempting 
 from local taxation property "necessarily used in operating a 
 railroad," elevators used for storing grain after consignees have 
 had a reasonable time to take it away, and hotels admitting guests 
 indiscriminately, whether passengers by the railroad or not, have 
 been held taxable.^ 
 
 The test of actual use for railroad purposes cannot be applied 
 during the period of construction.^ The incidental use of the 
 property, which' is required by the company in its business, for 
 other purposes does not deprive it of the exemption ; but if prin- 
 cipally used for other purposes it is taxable.* 
 
 Grant of Exemption from Taxation as affected by a Reserved 
 Power to amend. — The State reserves its right to repeal an ex- 
 emption from taxation or other privilege contained in the charter, 
 where the charter itself reserves the right of amendment, or a 
 general statute existing at the time makes all charters subject to 
 amendment.^ The intent to take away the particular exemption 
 must distinctly appear, and it will not be inferred from a general 
 statute which declares all property subject to taxation.^ 
 
 If the power to amend a charter is reserved by the State Con- 
 stitution, the legislature cannot make a grant of powers and 
 privileges which will not be subject to amendment. Thus, where 
 the State Constitution contains such a provision, the legislature 
 can repeal a grant of exemption from taxation which it has 
 
 Connty v. Central R & B. Co., 40 Ga. 646 ; Erie County v. Erie & W. Trans. Co., 87 
 
 Richmond & D. R. Co. ?>. County Com'rs, Pa. St. iU ; Toledo & W. R. Co. v. La- 
 
 76 N. C. 212 ; Belo v. County Com'rs, 82 fayette, 22 Ind. 262. 
 N. C. 415. This rule, subjecting property ' State v. Haight, 6 Vroom, 40 ; State 
 
 not used by the corporation to ordinary v. Collector of Middle Township, 9 
 
 municipal taxation, has been rejected in Vfoom, 270 ; State u. Wetherill, 12 
 
 the construction of a statute which pro- Vroom, 147. 
 
 vided a special tax on the capital stock, * Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. u. Craw- 
 
 on the ground that it would result in ford County, 29 Wis. 116 ; Milwaukie & 
 
 double taxation. Osborne v. New York & St. P. R. Co. v Milwaukie, 34 Wis. 271. 
 N. H. R. Co., 40 Conn. 491. The objec- ^ Tomlinson v Jessup, 15 Wall. 454; 
 
 tion of double taxation was not thought Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Maine, 96 U. S. 499, 
 
 valid in State y. Newark, 1 Butcher, 315. 66 Me. 488; Atlantic & G. R. Co. o. 
 
 1 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Irvin, 72 111. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359 ; Hoge v. Richmond 
 452. & D. R. Co., 99 U. S. 348 ; State v. Miller, 
 
 2 Milwaukie & St. P. R. Co. v. Craw- 1 Vroom, 368, 2 Vroom, 521 ; State v. 
 ford County, 29 Wis. 116; Milwaukie & Com'r of Railroad Taxation, 8 Vroom, 
 St. P. R. Co. „. Milwaukie, 34 Wis. 271 ; 228, 9 Vroom, 472. 
 
 State V. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 48 Md. 49 ; « State v. Minton, 3 Zab. 529. 
 
486 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 before made.^ But where the reserved power is contained only 
 in a statute, it is competent for the legislature to make an irre- 
 pealable grant, and to bind itself, where such an intent clearly 
 appears, not to levy any taxes upon the company, or only those 
 of a special kind.^ The statute will also, where such appears to 
 be its intent, be held to apply only to the original charter, and 
 not to the amendments.^ 
 
 Transfer of the Exemption. — The exemption from taxation is a 
 personal privilege of the corporation to which it was granted, 
 and does not pass to the purchasers of the railroad, or to mort- 
 gagees who become the owners by a foreclosure.* The legisla- 
 ture may, unless restricted by the State Constitution, allow the 
 transfer of the exemption to a new corporation which succeeds 
 to the property of the exempted one, and its intent to continue 
 the exemption after the transfer has been inferred from the gen- 
 eral grant to the new corporation, of the rights, powers, and 
 privileges of the exempted one ; ^ but the new corporation will 
 not succeed to the exemption under a general grant of rights, 
 powers, and privileges, where, from the comparison of its duties 
 with those of its predecessor, a legislative purpose to continue 
 the exemption does not appear.^ 
 
 Where two corporations, one being bj' its charter exempt from 
 taxation and the other not, are consolidated under a statute 
 which, in general terms, invests the new corporation with the 
 rights, powers, privileges, and property of the two, the new cor- 
 poration will be entitled to the exemption only to the extent of 
 the property and franchises acquired from the exempted corpora- 
 
 1 Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391. 6 Humphrey «. Pegues, 16 Wall. 244; 
 
 2 New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104; Louisville & N. R. Co. w. Gaines (U. 
 Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Maine, 96 U. S. S. C. C, M. D. Tenn.), 3 Fed. Rep. 266, 
 499, 510; Hoge v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 12 Chicago Leg. News, 407; Atlantic & 
 99 U. S. 348; Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 G. R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637; State v. 
 Wall. 454; Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 21 Minn. 315; 
 391 ; Scotland County v. Mo., I., & N. R. State v. South. Minn. R. Co., 21 Minn. 
 Co., 65 Mo. 123, 136 ; State v. Dexter & 344. But see St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. 
 N. R. Co., 69 Me. 44 ; Western No. Car. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297. 
 
 R. Co. V. Rollins, 82 N. C. 523, 528. « Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Maine, 96 U. 
 
 » New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 104. S. 499, 66 Me. 488 ; Central R. & B. Co. 
 
 4 Trask v. Maguire, 18 Wall. 391 ; v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 665, 54 Ga. 401 ; At- 
 
 Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217, 28 La. lantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359, 
 
 An. 482 ; Railroad Co. v. Gaines, 97 U. S. 60 Ga. 268 ; Mobile & M. K. Co. v. Steiner, 
 
 697, 711 ; East Tenn., V., & G. R. Co. v. 61 Ala. 559. 
 Hamhlen County, 102 U. S. 273. 
 
TAXATION. 487 
 
 tion.i But the exemption, even to this extent, will not pass to 
 the new body where an intent to discontinue it appears from the 
 statute .2 
 
 If the effect of a consolidation is to terminate the existence of 
 a corporation, which holds an irrepealable grant of exemption, 
 the new corporation which succeeds to its property and powers 
 will become subject to taxation. Whether the legislature in- 
 tended to continue the exemption will depend upon the terms of 
 the act which invested the new corporation with the privileges 
 of the old one, and of existing legislation relative to taxation.^ 
 If, at the time when the corporation which held the grant of 
 exemption ceased to exist, there was a constitutional provision 
 which made all subsequent charters subject to amendment or 
 repeal, it will apply to the new corporation, and the legislature 
 cannot invest it with the irrepealable exemption which belonged 
 to the extinct corporation.* But if the effect of the consolidation 
 is not to destroy the old corporations and create a new one, the 
 grant of exemption to the corporation will continue, and will not 
 be affected by a statute reserving the power to amendj which 
 took effect between the time when the grant was made and the 
 time when the consolidation was effected.'^ 
 
 Ezemptiou of the Instruments or Agencies of the United States. — 
 A State cannot tax the means or instruments employed by the 
 government of the United States in the execution of its powers.^ 
 This principle is not founded on any express prohibition in the 
 Constitution, but on the necessity that the means for executing 
 those powers should not be interfered with ; and it does not 
 exclude State legislation which does not interfere with the 
 agencies of the national government, or impair their efl&ciency. 
 Thus, while a State cannot tax the capital of national banks 
 
 1 Phil. & W. R. Co., Maryland, 10 * State v. Northern Cent. R. Co., 44 
 How. 37fi; Toralinson v. Branch, 15 Md. 131 ; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319. 
 Wall. 460; Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 5 Central R. & B. Co. v. Georgia, 92 
 Wall. 206 ; Central R. & B. Co. v. Georgia, U. S. 665, 54 Ga. 401. But in other cases 
 92 U. S. 665, 675 ; Branch v. Charleston, a consolidation is held to work an extinc- 
 92 U. S. 677 ; Chesapeake & 0. R. Co. v. tion of the corporations composing the 
 Virginia, 94 U. S. 718 ; State v. Com'r of new one. Shields u. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319 ; 
 Railroad Taxation, 8 Vroom, 240, 243. Atlantic & G. R. Co. u. Georgia, 98 U. S. 
 
 2 Maine Cent. R. Co. «. Maine, 96 TJ. 359, 60 Ga. 268. 
 
 S. 499, 66 Me. 488. « McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 
 
 ' Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Maine, 96 U. 816. 
 S. 499, 66 Me. 488. 
 
488 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 created by the United States, it can tax the individual shares of 
 stockholders, and collect the tax of the corporation itself; and 
 this although the capital is partly or wholly invested in national 
 securities.' It cannot tax a railroad bridge owned by the United 
 States, although used by a private corporation under a contract 
 or license.^ 
 
 A State may, in the absence of prohibition by Congress, tax 
 the property of a railroad corporation created by State legislation, 
 although it serves as a carrier to the national government as well 
 as the public, and has received grants from it of lands and money, 
 and made a mortgage to it ; and although as a condition of such 
 aid it is required to perform certain services and duties.^ And 
 the property of a corporation so used and endowed is liable to 
 State taxation, even though incorporated by the national govern- 
 ment.* 
 
 Remedies for Illegal Assessments. — The ordinary remedies in 
 the case of taxes illegally assessed and levied are an action at 
 law after a compulsory payment, either of trespass against the 
 collecting officer, or of assumpsit against such officer or the 
 public corporation to which the amount has been paid.^ These 
 remedies are ordinarily ample, and do not involve the pub- 
 lic embarrassments incident to the intervention of equity in 
 such cases. Equity will not, therefore, enjoin the collection of a 
 tax alleged to be illegal, where there is an adequate remedy at 
 law.s It will not interfere by its preventive process on account 
 
 1 Van Allen v. Assessors, 3 Wall. 573 ; Wall. 5 (three judges dissenting) ; Union 
 People V. Com'rs, 4 Wail. 244 ; National Pacific R. Co. v. Lincoln County, 1 Dill. 
 Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; 314; Huntington v. Central Pacific .R. 
 Austin V. Boston, 14 Allen, 359. Co., 2 Sawyer, 603. 
 
 2 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Daven- « As to what is a compulsory payment, 
 port, 51 Iowa, 451. As to the time when see Union Pacific R. Co. v. Com'rs, 98 U. 
 public lands granted to railroad com- S. 541; Dickinson County v. National 
 panies become taxable, see Kansas Pacific Land Co., 23 Kan. 196 ; Vermont Cent. 
 R. Co. c. Prescott, 16 Wall. 003; Union R. Co. v. Burlington, 28 Vt. 193. 
 Pacific R. Co. V. Com.'rs, 98 U. S. 541 6 Brewer v. Springfield, 97 Mass. 152; 
 (modifying Union Pacific R. Co. ... Loud u. Charlestown, 99 Mass. 208; 
 McShane, 22 Wall. 444). Greene t-. Mumford, 5 R. I. 472 ; Cook 
 
 s Thomson v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 9 County v. Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. 35 111. 
 
 ■ Wall. 679 ; Huntington v. Central Pacific 460 ; Chicago & N. W. R Co v Fort 
 
 R. Co., 2 Sawyer, 503; People v. Central Howard, 21 Wis. 44; Union Pacific R. 
 
 Pacific R. Co., 43 Cal. 398; Western Co. d. Lincoln County, 2 Dill. 279 • State 
 
 Union Telegraph Co. v. Richmond, 26 Railroad Tax Cases', 92 U. S. 575, 613; 
 
 ^™"- ^- Parmley v. St. Louis, I. M., & S. R. Co., 
 
 * Union Pacific R. Co. «. Peniston, 18 3 Dill. 13. 
 
TAXATION. 489 
 
 of mere irregularities, hardship and injustice in the assessment, 
 or errors or excess in valuation ; and, indeed, these are, in most 
 cases, not available in an action at law to a party resisting the 
 tax. Nor will equity enjoin merely because the tax is void for 
 non-compliance with material provisions of law.' Among the 
 rei^sons for its abstinence in such cases is its inability to appor- 
 tion the tax, or make or order a new assessment.^ 
 
 The remedy by injunction should be granted only where the 
 case can be brought under some recognized head of equity juris- 
 prudence, as where there would otherwise be a cloud on the 
 title, or a multiplicity of suits, or any irreparable injury.^ Other 
 grounds for equitable intervention, which have been admitted 
 under special circumstances, are that the tax was unauthorized 
 by law, or assessed upon property not subject to taxation, or 
 fraudulently assessed at too high a rate ; and there has been a 
 disposition to allow the remedy where grave constitutional ques- 
 • tions were in issue.* 
 
 The equitable remedy has been sought to such an extent 
 when there was no substantial question as to the validity of a 
 part, even the greater part of the tax, thus delaying the collec- 
 tion of lawful taxes to the public detriment, that a rule has been 
 adopted by the national tribunals that no injunction, preliminary 
 or final, will be granted to stay the collection, unless it is made 
 to appear that the portion of the tax, if any, which is conceded 
 to be due, or which can be seen to be due on the face of the bill, 
 
 1 Chicago, B., & Q. R. Co. i>. Frary, Wheaton, 7 Kan. 232 ; Matheny v. Gold- 
 22 111. 34; Ottawa v. Chicago & R. I. R- en, 5 Ohio St. 361 ; Oliver v. Memphis & 
 Co., 25111. 43; Cook County «. Chicago, B., L. R. R. Co., 30 Ark. 128; Morris Canal 
 & Q. R. Co., 35 111. 460; Huck v. Chicago & B. Co. v. Jersey City, 1 Beasley, 227. 
 & A. R. Co., 86 111. 362 ; Missouri River, A bill to set aside a sale for Illegal taxes 
 Ft. S., & G. R. Co. a. Blake, 9 Kan. 489; and remove a cloud on the title was sus- 
 Smith V. Leavenworth, 9 Kan. 296 ; Hunt- tained in Mobile & G. R. Co. u. Peebles, 
 ington V. Central Pacific R. Co., 2 Saw- 47 Ala. 317. 
 
 yer, 503. * Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. McLean 
 
 2 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. County, 17 111. 291 ; Cook County v. Chi- 
 575, 614. cago, B,, & Q. R. Co., 35 111. 460 ; Chicago, 
 
 8 Hey wood v. Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 534 ; B., & Q. R. Co. i'. Cole, 75 111. 591 ; Porter 
 Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors, 25 N. v. Rockford, R. I., & St. L. R. Co., 76 111. 
 Y, 312; Western R. Co. v. Nolan, 48 N. 561; North Carolina R. Co. u. Com'rs, 82 
 Y. 513 ; Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108 ; N. C. 259 ; Burlington & Mo. R. R. Co. v. 
 Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. County Com'rs, 7 Neb. 487 ; Louisville & 
 547; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. N. R. Co. v. Gaines, 3 Fed. Rep. 266, 
 575, 614; Huntington v. Central Pacific 12 Chicago Leg. News, 407. See To- 
 il. Co., 2 Sawyer, 503 ; Missouri River, ledo & W. R. Co. «. Lafayette, 22 Ind. 
 Ft. S., & G. R. Co. V. Morris, 7 Kan. 210; 262. 
 Missouri River, Ft. S., & G. R. Co. v. 
 
490 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 or can be shown on affidavits to be due, whether conceded or 
 not, has been paid or tendered.^ 
 
 A stockholder may, in a case proper for equitable relief against 
 illegal assessment, bring a suit in behalf of himself and other 
 stockholders where the corporation refuses to take action, making 
 the corporation a party .^ 
 
 1 State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. National Bank, 101 U. S. 143; Cumminga 
 
 575 ; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Lincoln v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153. 
 County, 2 Dill. 279; Mobile & 0. R. Co. 2 Davenport v. Dows, 18 Wall. 626. 
 
 V. Moseley, 52 Miss. 127. See Pelton v. See Paine v. Wright, 6 McLean, 395. 
 
CORPORATE POWERS. 491 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE POWERS OE THE CORPORATION. 
 
 Limited Powers of a Corporation. — A corporation is a creature 
 of the law. Deriving its existence and faculties from the express 
 grant of the legislature, it has only the powers so conferred, and 
 all others are presumed to have been withheld. i That legislative 
 grants to a corporation, whether of powers or exemptions, are to 
 be strictly construed, so that nothing passes except what is given 
 in clear and explicit terms, is a familiar doctrine which is applied 
 with more stringency when the powers in question interfere 
 with private rights or abridge important functions of govern- 
 ment. A technical reason for this rule of construction is that 
 the grant, being made by the State at the request of the citizen, 
 is supposed to have been made in his language in a bill submitted 
 by him, and therefore, in case of doubt or ambiguity, the con- 
 struction ■ should be against him ; but a more substantial reason 
 for the rule is that it tends to prevent improvident grants. 
 
 A distinction is taken between grants to a public body in- 
 tended only for the public benefit, which are to be liberally con- 
 strued, and grants to individuals and associations which, though 
 they may result in incidental benefits to the community, are 
 primarily designed for the profit of the grantees, and therefore 
 invite a severer scrutiny.^ 
 
 The Rule of Strict Construction of Corporate Powers, how to be ap- 
 plied. — The rule, which applies a strict construction to corporate 
 grants, must, however, be understood in a reasonable sense as not 
 requiring the power to be invariably conferred in express words, 
 but admitting its existence when necessarily implied from any 
 
 1 " Being the mere creature of law, it Dartmouth College v. Woodward, i 
 
 [the corporation] possesses onlj' those Wheat. 518, 636. 
 
 properties which the charter of its erea- ^ Bradley v. New York & N. H. R. 
 
 tion confers upon it, either expressly or Co., 21 Conn. 294 ; Galloway v. London, 
 
 as incidental to its very existence." L. R. 1 H. L. 34. 
 
492 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 express grant. Corporations have, therefore, such powers as are 
 specifically granted, and such as are reasonably necessary for the 
 purpose of carrying into effect the powers expressly granted, and 
 no other. The former, or powers specifically granted, are desig- 
 nated the express powers, and the latter, or those necessary to 
 carry the specific powers into effect, as the implied or incidental 
 powers.^ 
 
 The term " necessary " is not here used in a strict sense, so as 
 to import an absolute physical necessity, or to designate only an 
 implied power without which the specific power would be entirely 
 inoperative ; but it means only that the necessary power must be 
 convenient, useful, and appropriate to the specific povver.^ 
 
 The rule of strict construction has been held not to apply to 
 a statute which only autliorizes a transfer of existing franchises 
 without any grant of new powers.^ A charter granted by two 
 States has been held entitled to a liberal construction.* The 
 construction which is given to a charter by the courts of the 
 State which granted it is followed in other States.^ 
 
 The rule of strict construction is enforced in England, where a 
 railway act is regarded as a bargain between a company of adven- 
 turers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the 
 statute ; and any ambiguity in the terms of the contract must 
 
 1 2 Kent Com. 298; Commonwealths. E. Co. v. Franks, 41 Miss. 494, 511; Pa- 
 Erie & N. E. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339; Pitts- cific R. Co. v. Seely, 45 Mo. 212, 220; 
 burg & C. R. Co. V. AUeglieny County, Central R. Co. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582 ; 
 63 Pa, St. 126, 135 ; State v. Bait. & O. Attorney-General v. Great Eastern R. Co., 
 R. Co., 6 Gill, 363; Baltimore v. Bait. & L. R. 5 App. Cas. 473, L. R, 11 Ch. Div. 
 0. R. Co., 21 Mrl. 60; Perrine v. Chesa- 449. In North Branch Passenger R. Co. 
 peake & D. Canal Co., 9 How. 172; «. City Passenger R. Co., 88 Pa. St. 361, 
 Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500, 512 ; a legislative promise, under which no right 
 Delaware Tax Cases, 18 Wall. 206 ; St. ii acquired, is distinguished from a grant. 
 Clair County Turnp. Co. I). Illinois, 96 U.S. 2 M^CuIloch v. Maryland, 4 "Wheat. 
 63 ; Delaware & R. (^anal Co. 0. Camden 316, 413, Marshall, C. J. ; Curtis i'. Leav- 
 & A. R. Co., 1 C. E. Green, 321, 372; itt, 15 N. Y. 9, 64; State v. Hancock, 6 
 Morris Canal & B. Co. v. Central R. Co., Vroom, 537, 045, 546 ; Burrill's Law Diet., 
 1 C. E. Green, 419 ; Morris & E. R. Co. " Necessary." See Hood v. New York & 
 V. Sussex R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 542, N. H. R. Co., 22 Conn. 1, 16 ; Buffett v. 
 562 ; Black v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. Troy & B. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 168 176 36 
 E. Green, 130, 401, 9 C. E. Green, 485; Barb. 420. 
 
 Auburn & C. Plank Road Co. v. Doug- » Black v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. 
 
 lass, 9 N. Y. 444 ; Cleaveland v. Norton, E. Green, 130, 402, 9 C. E. Green, 455. 
 6 Cush. 380 ; Commissioners on Inland * Brocket t;. Ohio & P. R. Co.', 14 Pa. 
 
 Fisheries v. Holyoke Water Power Co., St. 241, 244 ; Cleveland & P. R. Co. v. 
 
 104 Mass. 446 ; Franklin Co. u. Lewiston Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325. 
 Savings Bank, 68 Me. 43 ; New Orleans, 6 Bjack v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. 
 
 F., & H. Steamship Co. v. Ocean Dry Green, 130, 402, 9 C. E. Green 455 
 Dock Co., 28 La. An. 173 ; Mobile & 0. ' ' 
 
COEPOEATE P0"WEE3. 493 
 
 operate against the adventurers and in favor of the public ; and 
 the company can claim no power which is not clearly given by 
 the act.^ 
 
 The rule of strict construction applies only in cases of doubt or 
 ambiguity, or where a power is claimed by impHcation. There is 
 no room for its operation where the power in question is expressly 
 given, or where the legislative intention clearly appears from a 
 clause or section or from the whole statute, or where the ambiguity 
 can be removed by the settled rules of construction.^ It is some- 
 times limited to powers which are against common right.^ The 
 paramount rule to be followed in the exposition of statutes to 
 which all others must yield is to ascertain, by a fair use of the 
 understanding, the intent of the legislature from the whole stat- 
 ute, and then to give effect to that intent as far as the language 
 admits, without reference to the policy of the law, of which the 
 legislature alone is the judge.* The words of a statute, when in 
 common use, are to be taken in their natural, plain, obvious, and 
 ordinary signification ; and they are to be construed in the sense 
 in which the legislature is accustomed to use them.^ 
 
 The restrictions on the powers expressed in the charter are to 
 be enforced against the company, although the effect is to render 
 them worthless ; and if they cannot be executed without disre- 
 garding the restrictions, they cannot be executed at all.^ 
 
 Powers affecting the Public Interests. — A grant, the effect of 
 which is to abridge important functions of government, is to be 
 construed strictly. Thus, the power of taxation is essential to 
 the support and existence of government ; and a grant to the 
 company of exemption therefrom is not to be presumed, and, 
 
 1 Stourbriflge Canal Co.i'. Wheeley,2 * Cleaveland v. Norton, 6 Cush. 380; 
 B. & Ad. 792 ; Priestley i-. Foulds, 2 Man. Rice v. Minn. & N. W. R. Co., 1 Black, 
 & G. 175 ; Galloway v. London, L. R. 1 H. 358 ; Binghamton Bridge, In re, 8 Wall. 
 L. 34. 51, 74, 75 ; Home of the Friendless v. 
 
 2 Camden & A. R. & T. Co. v. Briggs, 2 Rouse, 8 Wall. 430, 437 ; Black v. Del. 
 Zab. 02:'>, 644 ; Cleveland, P., & A. R. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 401, 
 Co. V. Erie, 27 Pa. St. 380, 386 ; Black v. 9 C. E. Green, 455 ; Baltimore w. Bait. 
 Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, &0. R. Co., 21 Md. 50, 91 ; Downing k. 
 401, 9 C. E. Green, 455; Rice v. Minn. & Mt. Washington Road Co., 40 N. H. 230, 
 N. W. R. Co, 1 Black, 358 ; Newhall u. 232 ; Hartford Bridge Co. r. Union Ferry 
 Galena & C. U. R. Co., 14 111. 273 ; New Co.. 29 Conn. 210, 221. 
 
 York & H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546. ^ Phil. & E. R. Co. ,i. Catawissa R. 
 
 8 Baltimore v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 21 Co., 53 Pa. St. 20, 59, 60. 
 Md. 50, 91 ; Downing v. Mt. Washington ^ Commonwealth v. Erie & N. E. R. 
 
 Eoad Co., 40 N. H. 230, 232. Co., 27 Pa. St. 339. 
 
494 THE LAW OF BAILROADS. 
 
 when given to a certain extent, is not to be extended by con- 
 struction. ' The same principle applies where the company- 
 asserts the grant of exclusive privileges conflicting with public 
 interests, as of the sole power to operate a railroad within certain 
 limits.^ It governs also in the construction of a grant of public 
 lands, where the meaning of its terms is in doubt.^ The grant of 
 a franchise to a corporation whose duration is limited creates 
 only an estate for its life.* 
 
 Power of Eminent Domain. — The power to take private prop- 
 erty for public uses exists only when expressly conferred ; and 
 statutes which delegate it are not to be extended by inference or 
 implication.^ It is not implied from a mere grant of corporate 
 powers.^ Being in derogation of common right, it must be clearly 
 conferred, and its terms and conditions must be strictly complied 
 with.'' The grant, however, should be construed reasonably, so as 
 not to defeat the evident purpose of the legislature ; ^ and where 
 the mode of exercising the power and the selection of the prop- 
 erty to be taken are left to the discretion of the company, the 
 court will not revise its discretion and enjoin it, for the mere rea- 
 son that it might obtain the same object in some other way.^ The 
 presumption is against a construction of the grant which would 
 relieve the company from liability to persons whose rights of 
 property are impaired by its works. ^^ The power to take land 
 expires with the limitation fixed by statute. ^^ 
 
 The charter of a corporation is not presumed to authorize it to 
 create a nuisance,!^ or to exempt it from subordination to general 
 laws.-"^ 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. XVIII. p. 481. Mylne & C. 116, 120; Lee v. Milner, 2 
 
 2 Ante, Chap. XVII. p. 452, Chap. Young & C. 611, 618. 
 
 "VII- p. 154. 8 jjg,^ York & H. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. 
 
 3 Rice V. Minn. & N. W. R. Co., 1 Y. 546 ; ante, Chap. VII. p. 145. 
 Black, 358; Dubuque & P. R. Co. v. » Lamb ti. North London R. Co.. L. R. 
 Litclifield, 23 How. 66 ; Learenworth, L., 4 Ch. App. 522 ; New York & H. R. Co. 
 &G.TI. Co. «. United States, 92 U. S. 73.3. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546; ante, Chap, VII. 
 
 < St. Clair County Turnp. Co. v. Uli- pp. 148, 140. 
 
 nois, 96 U. S. 63. lO Salem v. Eastern R. Co., 98 Mass. 
 
 5 Ante, Chap. VII. p. 145. 431 ; Bradley v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 
 
 « Keyport & M. P. Steamboat Co. v. 21 Conn. 294 ; Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. 
 
 Farmers' Trans. Co., 3 C. E. Green, 13. R. Co., 2 Dutcher, 148. 
 
 ' Ante, Chap. VIL p. 170; Bonaparte " Ante, Chap. VIL p. 145, Chap. IX. 
 
 V. Camden & A. R. Co., Baldwin, 229, p. 255. 
 
 230 ; Browning v. Camden & W. R. Co., 3 "'^ Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 
 
 Green Ch. 47, 55; Glover v. Boston, 14 659; Babcock v. New Jersey Stock Yard 
 
 Gray, 282; Scales v. Pickering, 4 Bing. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 296. 
 
 448 ; Webb v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 4 13 Xyng v. Commercial Warehouse Co., 
 
COEPOEATE POWEES. 495 
 
 The grant of the power to take land for a railroad is not pre- 
 sumed to authorize a substantial interference with earlier appro- 
 priations to a public use, as with highways or other railroads ; 
 but, if possible, a construction will be adopted by which both 
 uses can stand together.^ The power to interfere with the 
 public right of navigation exists only when expressly given, or 
 clearly implied as essential to the powers expressly granted, 
 and when conferred is to be exercised with due regard to the 
 public right. The power to cross navigable waters by bridge 
 or ferry may be given expressly or by implication.^ The power 
 to divert streams of water which are not navigable is accom- 
 panied by the duty to restore them as far as practicable to 
 their natural course, so as to avoid all unnecessary damage to 
 land-owners or the public. ^ 
 
 The company may, under the authority of statute, and subject 
 to its liability to make just compensation, do what is necessary 
 and proper in the construction of its road.* Thus, it is authorized 
 to make the excavations and embankments which are required 
 for such construction.^ The powers and obligations of the com- 
 pany in the exercise of the delegated right of eminent domain 
 have been treated at length in earlier chapters.^ 
 
 Power to construct Branches and Extensions. — The power to 
 construct branches or extensions of the railroad is not incidental 
 to the power to construct a railroad, but it may be conferred 
 by statute ; and whether it has been conferred, and if conferred, 
 whether it expires with the power to construct the main road, is 
 a question of statutory construction .^ The company, after de- 
 
 68 N. Y. 308 ; De Lancey v. Insurance Co., R. Co., 2 Iowa, 288 ; Jones v. Western Vt. 
 
 52 N. H. 581 ; Johnson v. Griffin Banking R. Co., 27 Yt. 399. 
 
 & T. Co., 65 Ga. 691. ^ Chaps. VII., VIII. 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. VII. pp. 154-157, Chap. ' Works «. Junction R. Co., 5 McLean, 
 VIII. pp.' 242, 243. 425 ; Baltimore & H. Tump. Co. v. Union 
 
 2 k«te, Chap. VII. pp. 201, 202. R. Co., 35 Md. 224; Pittsburg n. Penn. R. 
 8 Ante, Chap. VII. pp. 203-205. Co., 48 Pa. St. 355 ; Morris & E. R. Co. 
 * See authorities as to the scope of the ^. Central R. Co., 2 Vroom, 205 ; Attor- 
 
 special remedy which is appropriate only ney-General v. West Wisconsin R. Co., 36 
 
 to authorized acts, ante, Chap. VII. pp. Wis. 466 ; PlatteviUe v. Galena & S. W. 
 
 174-177. As to powers derived by grant R. Co., 43 Wis. 493; State v. St. Louis, 
 
 from the land-owner, see ante, Chap. VI. K. C, & N. R. Co., 3 Mo. App. 180; At 
 
 lantic & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 3 Mo. 
 5 Babcock v. Western R. Co., 9 Met. App. 315, 66 Mo. 228 ; ante, Chap. VIL 
 653 ; Curtis v. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, pp. 150, 161 ; Chap. IX. pp. 255, 256. 
 
 p. 133. 
 5 B 
 653; C 
 55, 98 Mass. 428 ; Henry v. Dubuque & P. 
 
496 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 termining the location, cannot change it, except under authority 
 of statute.-' 
 
 Powers within the Location. — The company may use its loca- 
 tion for all the purposes of a railroad,^ and may exercise its 
 discretion while keeping within such purposes.^ The power to 
 maintain the railroad includes the power to make improvements 
 consistent with the purpose of the undertaking.* The company 
 cannot use the location for other than railroad purposes.^ It can- 
 not justify "acts within the location injurious to land not taken 
 which are not reasonably necessary to the proper construction and 
 maintenance of the railroad.^ 
 
 Power as to Land limited generally to the Location. — The com- 
 pany's power to enter on and use real estate is limited to its loca- 
 tion.'^ It cannot lawfully interfere with private rights outside of 
 it ; ^ as by appropriating a temporary right of way,^ or materials 
 for construction from land not taken, i° or by digging ditches out- 
 side of the location for drainage or the protection of the railroad.'^ 
 A grant of power to maintain a railroad gives to the company no 
 interest or easement in the land of the adjoining proprietor, or 
 right to restrict his lawful use of his property. '^ 
 
 Power to alienate its Franchise and Railroad. — The company can- 
 not, according to the current of the decisions, without special 
 authority of statute, alienate its franchise, or property acquired 
 under the right of eminent domain, or essential to the performance* 
 of its duty to the public, whether by sale, mortgage, or lease j^^ 
 
 1 Ante, Chap. IX. pp. 254, 2.55. fordshire R. Co., 4 El. & Bl. 798 ; Norton 
 
 2 Anle, Chap. VII. pp. 159, 161. v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. 
 8 Wright V. Scott, 34 Eng. L. & Eq. Div. 623, 13 Ch. Div. 268 ; Fenwick v. 
 
 1, 18 Cas. Ct. Session, 2d Series (H. L.), East London R. Co., L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 
 
 45- 544 ; ante, Chap. VII. p. 160. 
 
 * Serenoaks, M., & T. R. Co. v. Lon- ^ Ante, Chap. X. p. 266, Chap. VIL 
 
 don, C, & D. R. Co., L. R. 11 Ch. Div. p. 160. 
 ^2^- ' Hazen v. Boston & M. R., 2 Gray, 
 
 s Bostock V. North Staffordshire E. 574 ; St. Peter v. Denison, 58 N. Y. 416. 
 Co., 3 §male & G. 283, 4 El. & Bl, 798, in 9 Currier v. Marietta & C. R. Co., 11 
 
 wliich the company was held not author- Ohio St. 228. 
 ized to use for aquatic amusements a res- i" Parsons v. Howe, 41 Me. 218. 
 ervoir formed for supplying its canals n State v. Armell, 8 Kan. 288 ; Hills v. 
 
 with water. See MuUiner v. Midland R. Boston & M. R., 18 N. H. 179. 
 Co., L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 611. 12 Auburn & C. Plank Road Co. v. 
 
 1 Curtis t>. Eastern R. Co., 14 Allen, Douglass, 9 N. Y. 444. 
 55, 98 Mass. 428 ; Bostock v. North Staf- " Thomas «. West Jersey R. Co., 101 
 
COEPOKATE POWERS. 497 
 
 and it cannot even grant an easement within its location to in- 
 dividuals or the public.i But it can, it has been held, in con- 
 nection with the owner of the fee, dedicate for a public highway 
 land which it has taken under the right of eminent domain.^ 
 
 Power to hold Property and maintain a Railroad in a Foreign State. 
 — A corporation may, when authorized by the law which created 
 it, hold property in a foreign State when admitted to do so by its 
 law or policy ,3 and may be invested by such State with the power 
 to construct and maintain a railroad, and take private property 
 therefor.* 
 
 Power to establish By-laws. — The company has an implied 
 power to establish by-laws, but whether the power is conferred 
 expressly or by implication, it is limited to such as are lawful and 
 reasonable.^ It cannot by a by-law control the jurisdiction of 
 courts,^ or without special statute authority declare a forfeiture 
 of shares of capital stock for non-payment of callsJ It may regu- 
 late the mode of transferring shares, but it cannot unreasonably 
 restrict the power of transfer.^ The power to alter and repeal 
 by-laws is limited to the making of such new by-laws as are 
 reasonable, and cannot be used to divest rights acquired under the 
 by-law which is amended or repealed.^ If the by-law is separable 
 
 U. S. 11 ; York & M. L. R. Co. v. Wi- land & W. E. Co., 36 Vt. 452 ; Bardstown 
 nans, 17 How. 30; Pearce v. Madison & & L. E. Co. v. Metcalfe, 4 Met. (Ky.) 199; 
 I. R. Co., 21 How. 441; PuUan v. Cin- State w. North Carolina R. Co., 72 N.C. 634! 
 cinnati & C. A. L. R. Co., 4 Biss. 35; A general authority conferred by the char- 
 Commonwealth V. Smith, 10 Allen, 448; ter to purchase lands was held to author- 
 Richardson V. Sibley, 11 Allen, 65; Mid- ize the purchase of a Vailroad. Branch 
 dlesex R. Co. v. Boston & C. R. Co., 115 v. Atlantic & G. R. Co., 3 Woods, 481. 
 Mass. 347 ; Vermont & C. R. Co. o. Vt. '■ Sapp u. Northern Cent. R. Co., 51 
 Cent. R. Co., 34 Vt. 1, 47; Black v. Del. Md. 116; ante, Chap. IX. p. 200. 
 & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 399, ^ Qreen v. Canaan, 29 Conn. 157. 
 9 C. E. Green, 455 ; Stewart's Appeal, 56 ' Ante, Chap. I. p. 14. 
 Pa. St. 413 ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. * Ante, Chap. VII. pp. 144, 145. 
 Allegheny County, 63 Pa. St. 126 ; Wood « Chandler v. Northern Cross R. Co., 
 V. Bedford & B. R. Co., 8 Phil. 94 ; State 18 111. 190 ; Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Ken- 
 ». Consolidation Coal Co., 46 Md.l; Hays dall, 31 Me. 470; Kent v. Quicksilver 
 V. Ottawa, O., & F. R. V. R. Co., 61 111. Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 159, 178, 182; Wil- 
 422 ; Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. •>. Union liams v. Great Western R. Co., 13 Exch. 
 Pacific R. Co. (U. S. C. C, D. Neb.), 1 10; Angell & A. on Corp. ch. x. 
 Fed. Rep. 745 ; MuUiner v. Midland R. ^ Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins. 
 Co.,L. R. llCh. Div. 611. But see Shep- Co., 6 Gray, 596. 
 ley V. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 55 Me. ' Ante, Chap. III. pp. 85, 86. 
 395; Kennebec & P. R. Co. v. Portland & 8 4„<e^ ohap. V. pp. 112, 129. 
 K. R. Co., 59 Me. 9 ; Hall v. Sullivan R. » Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78. 
 Co., 21 Law Reporter, 138 ; Miller v. Rut^ N. Y. 159, 182. 
 
498 THE LAW OF RAILEOADS. 
 
 in its character, it may be void in part, and otherwise valid.^ The 
 power to make by-laws is, in the absence of a contrary usage or 
 statute provision, with the body of members, and not with the 
 directors.^ 
 
 Power to issue Shares of Stock. — The power to issue shares of 
 capital stock is limited to the number fixed by law.^ The power 
 to issue preferred stock, according to the weight of authority, 
 exists only under statutes ; but stockholders may by acquiescence 
 waive the right to object to an unauthorized issue.* The power 
 to pay interest on the stock exists only when conferred by stat- 
 ute.^ The power to enforce the payment of subscriptions has 
 been already treated.^ 
 
 Power to take Tolls. — The power to take tolls must be ex- 
 pressly given, and when so given is, in case of doubt or ambi- 
 guity, to be construed favorably to the public.'' Tolls are to be 
 distinguished from rates of transportation, being a tribute for a 
 privilege, as a right of passage, and not, like freight or fares, a . 
 payment for a service.^ 
 
 Power to discriminate in Charges for Transportation. — A railroad 
 company, being under a public obligation as a common carrier, 
 and being in a certain sense a public agent in consequence of 
 holding by delegation the power of eminent domain, is required to 
 treat the public with equality and fairness. It cannot discrimi- 
 nate in the transportation of persons and merchandise by giv- 
 ing special privileges to one which it denies to another,^ or by 
 
 1 Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. Fire & St. P. R. Co., 19 Minn. 418 ; Munn v. Illi- 
 Ins. Co., 6 Gray, 596. nois, 94 U. S. 113, 126. 
 
 2 Morton Gravel Road Co. v. Wysong, s Boyle v. Phil. & R. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 
 CI IiKl., 4. 310 ; Cumberland Valley R. Co.'s Ap- 
 
 a Ante, Chap. V. pp. 127, 128. peal, 62 Pa. St. 218 ; Camblos v. Phil. & 
 
 * Ante, Chap. V. p. 124. R. R. Co., 4 Brewster, 563. See Johnson 
 
 5 Ante, Cliiip. V. p. 126. „. Hudson-River R. Co., 2 Sweeney, 298, 
 
 " Ante, Chap. III. pp. 81-86. where the power to demand fare of a pas- 
 
 ' Stourbridge Canal Co. v. Wheeley, senger is said not to he one which can be 
 
 2 B. & Ad. 792 ; Barrett v. Stockton & D. implied ; but quaere. 
 R. Co., 2 Man. & G. 134, 3 Man. & G. 9 Sandford v. Catawissa. W., & E. R. 
 
 956; Portsmouth Bridge Co. v. Nance, 6 Co., 24 Pa. St. 378; Audenried v. Phil. & 
 
 Man. & G. 229 ; Pcrrhie v. Chesapeake R. R. Co., 68 Pa. St. 370 ; New England 
 
 & n. Canal Co., 9 How. 172 ; Camden & Express Co. v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 57 Me. 
 
 A. R. Co. V. Briggs, 2 Zab. 623 ; Bridge 188 ; McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co., 
 
 Co. V. I-Ioboken Co., 2 Beasley, 81, 503, 52 N. H. 430-; Chicago & N. W. K. Co. v. 
 
 1 Wall. 116; Penn. R. Co. v. National R. People, 56 111. 365. 
 Co., 8 C. E. Green, 441 ; Blake v. Winona 
 
COEPOEATE POWEES. 499 
 
 charging for the same service higher rates to some than to 
 others.^ 
 
 This rule is not to be inexorably applied so as, provided the 
 rate is reasonable for all, to exclude contracts for transportation 
 at a less rate in special cases, where under the circumstances the 
 discrimination appears reasonable.^ It does not exclude arrange- 
 ments for through traffic which provide for transportation at a less 
 rate than is charged upon local freight.* 
 
 The company's right to make and, using reasonable force, to 
 execute regulations in the transportation of passengers and the 
 use of its stations belongs to a specific treatment of its duties 
 and liabilities as a common ^carrier, rather than to the consider- 
 ation of its general powers. 
 
 Power to make Contracts. — Corporations have an implied power 
 to make such contracts as are usual and necessary for carrying 
 into effect the purposes for which they were created.'' A railroad 
 corporation is usually authorized to make contracts by an express 
 provision of statute ; but in the absence of such a provision the 
 power is implied as( necessary and incidental to the express povver 
 to locate, construct, maintain, and work a railroad. The power, 
 whether express or implied, must, in view of the purposes and 
 methods df such an enterprise, be allowed a liberal scope.^ The 
 company, by custom and necessity, conducts operations which are 
 extensive and miscellaneous. It holds wide relations with local 
 and general business. It is often designed not merely to con- 
 vey passengers and goods upon its own road, but to be a part of 
 an extended line of transportation. Its capacity to make con- 
 tracts cannot, therefore, be measured by the narrow and rigid 
 rules which were applied at an early day to business or commer- 
 cial corporations, still less by those which govern municipal and 
 
 1 Messenger ». Penn. K. Co., 7 Vroora, Mass. 416, 422; McDufEee v. Portland & 
 407 ; Cumberland Valley R. Co.'s Ap- R. R. Co., 52 N. H. 430, 451, 452 ; Eclipse 
 peal, 62 Pa. St. 218, 230 ; Camblos r. Towboat Co. v. Pontchartrain R. Co., 24 
 Phil. & R. R. Co., 4 Brewster, 563, 622; La. An. 1. 
 
 Vincent v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 49 111. ' Shipper v. Penn. R. Co., 47 Pa. St. 
 
 33. For the construction of the English 338 ; Stewart r. Erie & W. Trans. Co„ 17 
 
 statutes which prohibit unequal charges, Minn. 372. 
 
 see Great Western R. Co. v. Sutton, L. R. < Angell & A. on Corp. § 271. 
 
 4 H. L 226 where the earlier cases are ' South Wales R. Co. v. Redmond, 10 
 
 reviewed. C. B. n. s. 675, 685 ; Baltimore v. Bait. & 
 
 2 Fitchburg R. Co. v. Gage, 12 Gray, O. R. Co., 21 Md. 50, 91. 
 893; Sargent «. Boston & L. R. Co., 115 
 
500 
 
 THE LA"W or EAILEOADS. 
 
 eleemosynary corporations.^ The courts, while in theory adhering 
 to the ancient formula which defines the power of a corporation 
 to make contracts, or bind itself by them, in fact deprive it of its 
 legal force by a liberal application of the doctrine of estoppel.^ 
 
 The Extent and Limit of the Power to make Contracts, how deter- 
 mined. — The power of a corporation, in respect to contracts and 
 business dealings, extends not merely to those which are abso- 
 lutely essential or indispensable to the performance of the speci- 
 fied acts authorized by its charter, but as well to those which, not 
 being prohibited by statute or public policy, are designed and 
 may be useful to promote the main enterprise.^ The choice of 
 means which are reasonably promotive of the main purpose is 
 
 1 A corporation authorized to boom 
 lumber, it was held, could not recover 
 for driving lumber. Bangor Boom Co. v. 
 Whitney, 29 Me. 123. A corporation au- 
 thorized to maintain a turnpilce and keep 
 a hotel was held not authorized to be a 
 carrier on the turnpike, and, therefore, 
 not liable for the price of wagons pur- 
 chased for the purpose of carrying passen- 
 gers on it. Downing v. Mt. Washington 
 Road Co., 40 N. H. 230 ; Wiswall v. Green- 
 ville & R. Plank Road Co., 3 Jones Eq. 
 (N. C.) 183. In McCallough v. Moss, 5 
 Denio, 567, a corporation for smelting 
 ore was held not bound by a promissory 
 note, unless it was made affirmatively to 
 appear that it was given in the course of 
 its business. In Penn., D., & M. Steam 
 Nav. Co. ... Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. 248, 
 319, a company incorporated to transport 
 passengers and merchandise between Bal- 
 timore and Philadelphia was held not 
 bound by a contract to break the ice and 
 tow from the port of Baltimore a vessel 
 destined for Virginia; and the doctrine 
 was stated, that a corporation can make 
 no contract which is not necessary, either 
 directly or incidentally, to enable it to an- 
 swer the purpose of its charter, and that 
 it is not estopped from denying its capac- 
 ity. See Boyce v. Trustees, &c., M. E. 
 Church, 46 Md. 359, 373. Of a similar 
 tenor with the above cases are : Strauss 
 V. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 Ohio St. 59; Abbott 
 V. Bait. & R. Steam Packet Co., 1 Md. Ch. 
 542 ; Madison, W., & M. Plank Road Co. 
 V. Watertown & P. Plank Road Co., 7 
 
 Wis. 59, 5 Wis. 173 ; Dietrich v. Madison 
 Relief Assoc, 45 Wis. 79; Orleans, P., & 
 H. Steamship Co. v. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 
 28 La. An. 173 ; Toll Bridge Co. v. Osborn, 
 35 Conn. 7 ; Hood v. New York & N. H. 
 R. Co., 22 Conn. 502 (considered in Con- 
 verse V. Norwich & N. Y. Trans. Co., 33 
 Conn. 166, 179) ; Pearce v. Madison & I. 
 R. Co., 21 How. 441; Franklin Co. •.: 
 Lewiston Savings Bank, 68 Me. 43. See 
 Angell & A. on Corp. § 256. In Nor- 
 wich V. Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & Bl. 397, 
 433, Coleridge, J., said : " When one 
 considers the immense extension and in- 
 crease of corporate bodies in modern 
 times, the vast variety of purposes for 
 which they are created, the complication 
 of circumstances under which they are to 
 act, the liability to error in the formation 
 of prospective plans as to detail, and the. 
 ever-arising improvements in the means 
 and appliances of mechanics and science, 
 it would seem that public convenience 
 and policy, as well as good sense and jus- 
 tice, require that, within the limits of a 
 substantial adherence to purpose, the 
 empowering clauses of incorporating in-' 
 struments should be construed largely 
 and liberally, so as not to defeat the pur- 
 pose by a too narrow restriction of the 
 means." 
 
 2 Post, pp. 516-519. 
 
 2 Brown w. WinnisimmetCo., 11 Allen, 
 326, 334; Buffet v. Troy & B. R. Co., 40 
 N. Y. 168, 36 Barb. 420, 423, 424 ; Smith 
 V. Nashua & L. R. Co., 27 N. H. 86, 94. 
 
CORPORATE POWERS. 501 
 
 with the corporation ; and, where different methods stand this 
 test, judicial tribunals will not revise its discretion by holding 
 that the one chosen was not indispensable and that another 
 might have been more wisely taken.^ 
 
 Some rules for determining the power of railroad corporations 
 to make contracts, which have been stated in judicial opinions, 
 deserve notice in this connection. 
 
 The contracts of a corporation are presumed to be within its 
 power, and the burden of showing its incapacity by the terms of 
 the charter is on the party who denies their validity. The want of 
 power may be expressly declared by statute, or implied from the 
 nature and objects of the corporate body. The inquiry in some 
 English cases is said to be, not whether the contract was author- 
 ized, but whether it was forbidden.^ 
 
 Contracts, it is said, should be clearly outside of the objects of 
 the charter, in order to be held invalid between the corporation 
 and innocent third parties as in excess of corporate powers.^ 
 
 Another test is as follows : If the contract is judicially per- 
 ceived from its terms to be necessarily unconnected with the 
 purpose of the incorporation, namely, the making, maintaining, 
 and working the railway, both parties must have known it to be 
 
 ' Baltimore v. Bait. & 0. R. Co., 21 art, 3 Macq. 382, 415, Lord Wensleydale 
 
 Md.50,92; Curtis y. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, ( Parke, B.) said : " Tliere can be no doubt 
 
 65 ; Madison, W., & P. Plank Road Co. that a corporation is fully capable of bind- 
 
 V. Watertown & P. Plank Road Co., 5 ing itself by any contract, . . . except 
 
 Wis. 173 ; Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., 4 when the statutes by which it is created 
 
 El. & Bl. 397, 432, 433, Coleridge, J. or regulated, expressly or by necessary 
 
 2 Miss. & M. R. Co. V. Howard, 7 Wall, implication, prohibit such contract be- 
 892, 412 ; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McCarthy, tween the parties. Prima facie, all its 
 96 U. S. 258, 267 ; Morris & E. R. Co. v. contracts are valid, and it lies on those 
 Sussex R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 542, 4 C. E. who impeach any contract to make out 
 Green, 13, 574 ; Chautauque County Bank that it is avoided. This is the doctrine 
 V. Risley, 19 N. Y. 369 ; Downing v. Mt. of ultra vires, and is, no doubt, sound law, 
 Washington Road Co., 40 N. H. 230, 231 ; though the application of it to the points 
 Strauss v. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 Ohio St. 59, of each particular case has not always 
 62; Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. i>. Central been satisfactory to my mind." In Taylor 
 A. & M. Assoc., 54 Ala. 73 ; South Wales v. Chichester & M. R. Co., L. R. 2 Exch. 
 R. Co. V. Redmond, 10 C. B. n. s. 675, 682, 356, 384, Blackburn, J., said : " I think, 
 Erie, J. ; Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. North therefore, we are entitled to consider the 
 Western R. Co., 6 H. L. Cas. 113, 124, 135, question to be, not whether the present 
 137, 2 MacN. & G. 324, 17 Q. B. 652 ; South defendants had, by virtue of their acts of 
 Yorkshire R. & River Dun Co. (^. Great incorporation, authority to make the con- 
 Northern R. Co., 9 Exch. 55, 88, Parke, B. ; tract, but whether they are by those stat- 
 Eastern Counties R. Co. u.Hawkes, 5 H.L. utes forbidden. to make it." His language 
 Cas. 331, 381 ; Bateman v. Ashton-under- on p. 362 is to the same effect. 
 Lyne, 3 Hurl. & N. 323. See Kitchen v. ' Eastern Counties R. Co. v. Hawkes, 
 Cape Girardeau & S. L. R. Co., 59 Mo. 514. 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 381, 382 ; Cary v. Cleve- 
 In Scottish North Eastern R. Co. o. Stew- land & T. R. Co., 29 Barb. 35, 52. 
 
502 
 
 THE LAW OP RAILBOADS. 
 
 SO, and it is deemed to be prohibited ; but if it cannot be judi- 
 cially perceived to be so unconnected, illegality is not to be 
 presumed.^ 
 
 According to a statement of the rule which finds favor in later 
 English authorities, a corporation created for particular purposes 
 and with special powers cannot lawfully make, and is not bound 
 by contracts if it appears by the express provisions of the statute 
 creating it, or by necessary or reasonable inference, that the legis- 
 lature meant that they should not be made ; but unless it so ap- 
 pears, the corporation is bound.^ The prima facie right to make 
 a contract does not exist where, from the nature and objects of 
 the incorporation appearing on the face of the act, the corporation 
 is expressly or impliedly forbidden to make it.^ 
 
 1 Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & 
 Bl. 397, 414, 415, 419, 420. A test vary- 
 ing little from this maj' be found in Bis- 
 sell 0. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 
 258, 290, Selden, J. ; Miners' Ditch Co. v. 
 Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543, 586, 587 ; Ohio & 
 M. R. Co. V. McCarthy, 96 TJ. S. 258. 
 
 2 South Yorkshire R. & River Dun Co. 
 V. Great Northern R. Co., 9 Exch. 55, 84, 
 Parke, B. (1853); Bateman k. Ashton- 
 under-Lyne, 8 Hurl. & N. 323 (1858) ; 
 Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. North Western 
 R. Co., 6 H. L. Cas. 113, 136 ; Chambers 
 V. Manchester & M. R. Co., 5 Best & S. 588 
 (1864) ; Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co , 
 L. R. 2 Exch. 356, 370, 374, 383, 884; 
 Brown y.Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen, 326, 
 331. In South Wales R. Co. ». Redmond, 
 10 C. B. N. 8. 675, 682 ( 1861 ), Erie, J., said : 
 " Corporations have at law capacity to 
 make all contracts not expressly or im- 
 pliedly prohibited ; and, therefore, con- 
 tracts frustrating or necessarily inconsist- 
 ent with the object for which a company 
 is incorporated by an act are impliedly 
 prohibited by it." 
 
 " In Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. North 
 Western R. Co., 6 II. L. Cas. 113, Lord 
 Cranworth said : " Prima facie, a corpo- 
 ration may contract under seal. You 
 must show that the particular contract is 
 one which the corporation has no power 
 to enter Into. It must be shown on the 
 face of it to be a breach of duty, some- 
 thing foreign to the object for which 
 the company was established." p. 124. 
 Again: " Prima facie corporate bodies are 
 
 bound by all contracts under their com- 
 mon seal. When the legislature consti- 
 tutes a corporation it gives to that body, 
 prima facie, an absolute right of contract- 
 ing. But this prima facie right does not 
 exist in any case where the contract is 
 one which, from the nature and object of 
 incorporation, the corporate body is ex- 
 pressly or impliedly prohibited from mak- 
 ing ; such a contract is said to be ultra 
 vires. And the question here, as in simi- 
 lar cases, is, whether there is anything on 
 the face of the act of incorporation which 
 expressly or impliedly f orbids'the making 
 of the contract sought to be enforced." 
 p. 135. See Riche v. Ashbury R. Carriage 
 & Iron Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 224, 264, 292; 
 Hare v, London & N. W. R. Co., 2 Johns. & 
 H. 80, 105, 106. In Chambers u. Manchester 
 & M. R. Co., 5 Best & S. 688, Crompton, J., 
 held that a corporation is bound by the seal 
 being affixed to the deed, where the direc- 
 tors have power given them so to affix it ; 
 butthat it is not bound where the legislature 
 has said that the tiling shall not he done. 
 In Attorney-General v. Great Eastern R. 
 Co., L. R. 5 App. Cas. 473, 478, Selborne, 
 Lord Chancellor, said, that the doctrine of 
 ultra vires " ought to be reasonably, and not 
 unreasonably, understood and applied; and 
 that whatever may be fairly regarded as 
 incidental to or consequential upon those 
 tilings which the legislature has author- 
 ized, ought not (unless expressly prohib- 
 ited) to be held by judicial construction 
 to be ultra vires." 
 
COEPOBATE POWERS. 
 
 503 
 
 Power to sell or mortgage Property. — A corporation has the 
 power, except as restricted by legislation or some limitation aris- 
 ing from its purposes or nature, to sell, convey, or mortgage its 
 property, real and personal.^ It may, unless so restricted, dispose 
 of such property by a single sale, as well as in parcels.^ A rail- 
 road corporation has this power to the same extent as other cor- 
 porations, except that in most jurisdictions it is not permitted, 
 without legislative authority, to sell its franchises, including its 
 right of way and other property essential to such franchises.^ 
 
 Power to contract Debts, give Promissory Kotes, and issue Bonds. — 
 A railroad corporation, unless specially restrained by statute, may 
 contract debts by obtaining credit in the course of its business or 
 borrowing money, and may give as evidence of its debts the same 
 forms of obligations as an individual. Thus, it may bind itself 
 by promissory notes, bills of exchange, and negotiable bonds.* 
 
 1 Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484, 503 ; 
 Boston, C, & M. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 37 N. 
 H. 410, 420 ; Richards v. Merrimack & C. R. 
 R. Co., 44 N. H. 127, 135 ; Coe v. Colum- 
 bus, P., & I. R. Co., 10 Ohio St. 372, 377 ; 
 Commoiiwealtli v. Smith, 10 Allen, 448, 
 455 ; Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381 ; 
 Dupee V. Boston Water Power Co., 114 
 Mass. 37 ; Miller v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 
 36 Vt. 452, 473; White Water Valley 
 Canal Co. „. Vallette, 21 How. 414, 424 ; 
 Jones w. Guaranty & I. Co., 101 U. S. 622; 
 Joy V. Jackson & M. Plank Road Co , 11 
 Mich. 15-5, 165 ; Black v. Del. &. R. Canal 
 Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 410, 9 C. E, Green, 
 455; Lauman r. Lebanon Valley R. Co., 30 
 Pa. St. 42 ; Wood v. Bedford & B. R. Co., 
 8 Phil. 94 ; West v. Madison County Ag. 
 Board, 82 111. 205 ; Kelly v. Ala. & C. R. 
 Co., 58 Ala. 489 ; Yates v. Van De Bogert, 
 56 N. Y. 526. It may, when its charter 
 gives it the general power to make all 
 contracts which its convenience or inter- 
 est may require, sell and pledge a note 
 and mortgage held by it : Uncas National 
 Bank V. Rith, 23 Wis. 339 ; or any choses 
 in action : Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451 ; 
 Downie v. Hoover, 12 Wis. 174. 
 
 2 Treadwell v. Salisbury Man. Co., 7 
 Gray, 393; Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zeller- 
 bach, 37 Cal. 543; Buford v. Keokuk N. 
 L. Packet Co., 3 Mo. App. 159 ; Ardesco 
 Oil Co. u. North Am. Oil & M. Co., 06 Pa. 
 St. 375; WUson v. Miers, 10 C. B. K. s. 
 
 349; Featherstonhaugh v. Lee Moor 
 Porcelain Clay Co., L. R. 1 Eq. Cas. 318. 
 
 ' See cases cited ante, p. 496, note 13. 
 
 * Richards v. Merrimack & C. R. R. 
 Co., 44 N. H. 127, 135; Commonwealth v. 
 Smith, 10 Allen, 448, 455 ; McMasters u. 
 Reed, 1 Grant, 36 ; White Water Valley 
 Canal Co. v. Vallette, 21 How. 414, 424; 
 Olcott V. Tioga R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546, 40 
 Barb, 179; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; 
 Kent u. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 
 159, 177; Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb. 
 146, 170; Wood v. Whelan, 93 III. 153; 
 Marion & M. R. Co. v. Hodge,9 Ind. 163; 
 Hamilton v. Newcastle & D. R. Co., 9 Ind. 
 359 ; Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co. c.. Cen- 
 tral A. & M. Assoc, 54 Ala. 73; Kelly 
 V. Alabama & C. R. Co., 58 Ala. 489; 
 Branch v. Atlantic & G. R. Co., 3 Woods, 
 481. See Smead v. Indianapolis, P., & C. 
 R. Co., 11 Ind. 104. Contra, in England, 
 Bateman v. Mid- Wales R. Co., L. R. 1 C. 
 P. 499. The power to borrow money is 
 not restricted by a clause in the charter 
 limiting the assessment of shares to a cer- 
 tain amount, and providing that other 
 funds required shall be raised by the 
 issue of new shares. Richards v. Merri- 
 mack & C. R. R. Co., 44 N. H. 127. The 
 company may take and negotiate promis- 
 sory notes. Frye v. Tucker, 24 111. 180 ; 
 Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490; Hardy 
 V. Merriweather, 14 lud. 203. 
 
604 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 If the statute prescribes the conditions on which the power to 
 issue • bonds shall be exercised, it must be complied with.^ The 
 company may sell the bonds which it is authorized to issue, 
 directly or indirectly, without the intervention of a third party, 
 either within or without the State.^ A corporation is liable upou 
 an accommodation note to a hona fide holder who, paying value, 
 took it before maturity.'' 
 
 Power to lend Surplus Funds, to compromise Disputes. — A rail- 
 road corporation may lend its surplus funds.* It may compromise 
 disputes, even with a subscriber to its stock, where the settle- 
 ment is made in good faith, and does not work a fraud on cred- 
 itors or other subscribers.^ It may pay for injuries and losses for 
 which it is not legally liable.^ 
 
 Power to guarantee the Bonds of other Corporations. — A railroad 
 corporation has the power, in the course of its business and with 
 a view to promote its lawful purposes, to guarantee the bonds of 
 other corporations ; and even when made for the accommodation 
 of another company, they are valid in the hands of a hona fide 
 holder.'^ When taking the lease of the railroad of another cor- 
 poration, it can, as a part of the transaction, guarantee the latter's 
 bonds.^ It may guarantee municipal bonds issued in payment of 
 
 1 Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 Allen, Eastern R. Co., L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 449, 
 
 448 ; Chambers v. Manchester & M. R. 480. 
 
 Co., 5 Best & S. 588. See Rockwell v. Elk- ' Madison & I. R. Co. v. Norwich 
 
 horn Bank, 13 Wis. 653. The bona fide Savings Bank, 24 Ind. 457 ; Cozart v. 
 
 holder of the stolen bond may recover Georgia R. & B. Co., 54 Ga. 379 ; Arnot 
 
 against the company the whole amount v. Erie R. Co., 67 N. Y. 315, 5 Hun, 608. 
 
 thereof, and is not limited to the amount See Smead v. Indianapolis, P., & C. R. Co., 
 
 paid by him. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. 11 Ind. 104 ; Madison, W., &M. Plank Road 
 
 V. Sanders, 17 Hun, 552. As to facts affect- Co. v. Watertown & P. Road Co., 7 Wis. 
 
 ing with notice the hona fide holder of a 59, 5 Wis. 173 ; West of England Bank, 
 
 bond stolen before its issue, see Parsons In re, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 317. A railway 
 
 V. Jackson, 99 U. S. 434. company cannot, in England, guarantee 
 
 ^ Bank of Ashland v. Jones, 16 Ohio the parliamentary expenses or the profits 
 
 St. 145. See Commissioners v. Atlantic and stock of another company. Maunsell 
 
 & N. C. R. Co., 77 N. C. 289. v. Midland G. W. R. Co., 1 Hem. & M. 
 
 8 Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe 130 ; Colman v. Eastern Counties R Co., 
 
 Works, 101 Mass. 57; Mechanics' Bank- 10 Beav. 1. For the construction of a 
 
 ing Assoc. V. New York & S. White Lead statute authorizing one corporation to aid 
 
 Co., 35 N. Y. 505. another, see Baltimore v. Bait. & 0. R. . 
 
 * North Carolina R. Co. n. Moore, 70 Co., 21 Md. 50. 
 N. C. 6. 8 Low V. Central Pacific E. Co., 52 
 
 6 Ante, Chap. Ill, pp. 76, 77. Cal. 53 ; Opdyke v. Pacific R. Co., 3 DiU. 
 
 ° Taunton v. Royal Ins. Co., 2 Hem. 55. 
 & M. 135; Attorney-General v. Great 
 
CORPORATE POWERS. 505 
 
 subscriptions to its capital stock.^ It may, when authorized by 
 statute to aid in the construction of a connecting railroad, by a 
 subscription to the capital stock of the corporation owning it or 
 " otherwise," guarantee the bonds of the lattei', and where, as a 
 condition of such right to aid, the vote of its stockholders in favor 
 thereof is required, a subsequent vote ratifying a guaranty made 
 by the directors on its behalf was held equivalent to a previous 
 vote authorizing the guaranty.^ 
 
 Power of the Company to purchase and hold its OTwn Stock. — A 
 corporation, not being prohibited by statute and acting bona fide, 
 may purchase its own stock and reissue it.^ Generally the cor- 
 poration becomes the owner of its stock by receiving it in pay- 
 ment of debts or as the consideration of property sold. Such a 
 transaction in the ordinary course of business is not open to 
 objection, but the power of the corporation to hold its own stock 
 should be treated as subject to limitation and restraint ; and some 
 authorities confine it to stock received in payment of debts.* The 
 right to vote on shares held by the company, or by others in trust 
 for it, is, as has already been seen, suspended while they are so 
 held.6 
 
 Power to purchase and hold the Stock of other Corporations. — 
 
 The purchase by the company of the capital stock of other cor- 
 porations, when not prohibited by statute, may be allowed to a 
 limited extent and for an incidental purpose ; but when involving 
 a misappropriation of the corporate funds, or being a mere specu- 
 lation or induced by a vicious purpose, will be enjoined at the 
 
 ' Miss. & M. R. Co. V. Howard, 7 Dupee v. Boston Water Power Co., 114 
 
 Wall. 392. Mass. 37. 
 
 2 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. * Barton v. Port Jackson & U. F. 
 
 Co., 23 How. 381 ; Conn. Mut, Life Ins. Plank Road Co., 17 Barb. 397 ; German 
 
 Co. V. Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co., 41 Savings Bank v. Wulfekuhler, 19 Kan. 
 
 Barb. 9. See East Boston Freight R. 60 ; Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. 
 
 Co. V. Eastern R. Co., 13 Allen, 422. H. 262 ; Peterson v. III. L. & L. Co., 6 
 
 8 Chicago, P., &■ S. W. R. Co. u. Mar- Brad. (111.) 257 ; State v. Building Assoc, 
 seilles, 84 111. 145, 643: Clietlain v. Re- 35 Ohio St. 258. In England, the power 
 public Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220; State w. exists only when expressly conferred. 
 Smith, 48 Vt. 266 ; City Bank v. Bruce, London, H., & C. E. Bank, In re, L. R. 5 
 17 N. Y. 507; State Bank v. Fox, 3 Ch. App. 444; Marseilles Extension R. Co., 
 Blatch. 431 ; Williams v. Savage Man. In re, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 161 ; Hope v. Inter- 
 Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418, 452; Hartridge v. national Fin. Society, L. R. 4 Ch. Div. 
 Rockwell, R. M. Charlton, 260; Taylor 327; Bennington Sugar Refining Co. v. 
 V. Miami Exporting Co., 6 Ohio, 176; Thompson, 6 Cas.Ct. Sessions, 4th Ser. 80. 
 Iowa Lumber Co. o. Foster, 49 Iowa, 25; ^ Ante, Chap. II. p. 25. 
 
506 THE LAW OF EAILKOADS. 
 
 instance of stockholders.^ By some authorities such investments 
 have been held altogether unauthorized.^ 
 
 Power to hold Real Estate. — The power to hold real estate is 
 limited to the proper and necessaiy uses of the company, such as 
 for the location, materials for construction, station grounds, and 
 other like purposes, and does not extend to the purchase of 
 land as an investment or speculation.^ The company's power to 
 hold real estate acquired by purchase may be more extensive than 
 its power to condemn private property under the right of eminent 
 domain, and may include the right to hold land to be used for the 
 construction of dwelling-houses for its officers and employees, for 
 shops in which its cars and engines may be made, and for slips for 
 the accommodation of vessels from which it receives, or to which it 
 delivers freight.* The company may, with the view of increasing 
 its business, buy land for the purpose of selling the gravel there- 
 from to persons who are to pay for its transportation over the 
 railroad, and afterwards sell the land and enforce in equity the 
 contract of sale.^ Even when created for a limited period, it 
 may purchase, hold, and convey a title in fee-simple.® 
 
 Where a corporation is authorized to purchase land for certain 
 purposes, and uses the power, the presumption is, that the power 
 
 ' Hodges V. New England Screw Co., Ind. 459 ; Waldo v. Chicago, St. P., & F. 
 
 1 R. I. 312, 3 E. I. 9 ; Ryan v. Leaven- R. Co., 14 Wis. 575 ; Blunt v. Walker, 11 
 
 worth, A., & N. W. R. Co., 21 Kan. 365, Wis. 334 ; Pacific R. Co. v. Seely, 45 Mo. 
 
 400; Barned's Banking Co., In re, L. R. 212; Norwich w. Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & B. 
 
 3 Ch. App. 105; Royal Bank of India's 397; Eastern Counties R. Co. v. Hawkes, 
 
 Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 252, L R. 7 Eq. 5 H. L. Cas. 331. 
 
 Cas. 91. See Joint Stock Discount Co. * Eldridge «. Smith, 34 Vt. 484 ; Rens- 
 
 V. Brown, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 381. selaer & S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137; 
 
 2 Sumner v. Marcy, .3 Wood. & M. Black v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. 
 105; New Orleans, F., & H. Steamship Green, 130, 410, 9 C. E. Green, 455; Ply- 
 Co. V. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 La. An. mouth R. Co. v. Colwell, '39 Pa; St. 337. 
 173; Central R. Co. u. Collins, 40 Ga. See Spear ^. Crawford, 14 Wend. 20. It 
 582; Hazlehursti;. Savannah, G., &N. A. has been suggested that the company 
 R. Co., 43 Ga. 13 ; Mutual Savings' Bank may supply a chapel and theatre for the 
 & B. Assoc, u. Meriden Agency Co., 24 benefit of its workmen. East Anglian 
 Conn. 159; Frariklin Co v. Lewiston Sav- R. Co. v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 11 C. 
 ings Bank, 68 Me. 43. Corporations have B. 775, 793 ; Norwich v. Norfolk E. Co., 
 been authorized by statutes to make such 4 El. & Bl. 397, 415. 
 investments. Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C, 6 Qld Colony R. Co. v. Evans, 6 Gray, 
 & C. R. Co., 23 How. 381 ; Baltimore v. 25. 
 
 Bait. & 0. R. Co., 21 Md. 50; White u. 6 Nicoll v. New York & E R Co 12 
 
 Syracuse & U. R. Co., 14 Barb. 559. N. Y. 121, 12 Barb. 460 ; Boston & A. R. 
 
 Overmyer v. Williams, 15 Oliio 26; Co. v. Greenbush, 5 Lans. 461, 62 N. Y. 
 
 State V. Newark, 1 Dutcher, 315; Ta- 510; Yates v. Van De Bogert, 56 N. Y. 
 
 ber V. Cincinnati, L., & C. R. Co., 15 526 ; ante, Chap. VI. p. 130. 
 
COEPOEATB POWERS. 507 
 
 was rightfully used, and that the land is required for the purpose. i 
 Where it has power to acquire property for some purposes, the 
 vendor or person dealing with it is not presumed to know that it 
 intended to use the property for objects not authorized by its 
 charter, or that in the particular case the property was not 
 required for a corporate purpose ; but he may be affected with 
 notice of the company's incapacity where it is declared by stat- 
 ute, or the transaction was so foreign to the purposes of the cor- 
 poration as to be under no circumstances authorized by its 
 charter.^ 
 
 The question whether real estate which has been conveyed to a 
 corporation is necessary for its purposes, and within the amount 
 which it is authorized to hold, cannot be litigated between private 
 parties, and can be raised only by the State ; and the company, 
 although not authorized to acquire, can convey a good title to 
 property which has been conveyed to it.^ It can sell land not 
 necessary to its franchise, which it has purchased, and recover the 
 consideration.* Even if prohibited by statute from holding, pur- 
 chasing, and dealing in real estate, it may acquire title by taking 
 and foreclosing a mortgage, arid transmit the title.^ Equitjs 
 however, it has been held, will not enforce at the instance of the 
 company the specific performance of a contract to convey to it 
 land purchased for the purpose of speculation.^ 
 
 The conveyances of a corporation in fraud of creditors can be 
 questioned only on the same grounds as those of private persons.' 
 
 Power to use Real Estate. — The company may use incidentally 
 for other than railroad purposes land acquired for the use of the 
 railroad.^ It may allow a building to be used as a custom-house 
 
 1 Yates V. Van De Bogert, 56 N. Y. 208 ; Natoma Water & M. Co. v. Clarkin, 
 
 528. 14 Cal. 544 ; Cowell v. Colorado Springs 
 
 ^ Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & Co., 100 U. S. 55; Commonwealth v. Wil- 
 
 Bl. 397, 44", 444; Eastern Counties R. der, 127 Mass. 1,6; Spear v. Crawford, 
 
 Co. V. Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 371, 14 Wend. 20. See Waldo v. Chicago, 
 
 372 ; post, p. 518. St. P., & F. R. Co., 14 Wis. 575. 
 
 3 Walsh V. Barton, 24 Ohio St. 28 ; * Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen, 381 ; 
 
 Ehrman v. Union' Cent. Life Ins. Co., 85 Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Proctor, 29 Vt. 
 
 Ohio St. 324 ; Jones v. Habersham, 3 93 ; Page v. Heineherg, 40 Vt. 81. 
 
 Woods, 443, 476 ; Chambers v. St. Louis, 5 Blunt v. Walker, 11 Wis. 334. 
 
 29 Mo. 543 ; Land v. Coffin, 50 Mo. 243 ; « Pacific R. Co. v. Seeley, 45 Mo. 212. 
 
 Shewalter v. Pirner, 55 Mo. 218 ; Leazure ' Graham v. La Crosse & M. R. Co., 13 
 
 t). Hillegas, 7 Serg. & R. 313 ; Goundie Chicago Leg. News, 135. 
 
 V. Northampton Water Co., 7 Pa. St. 233 ; 8 Armstrong v. Penn. R. Co., 9 Vroom, 
 
 Grant v. Henry Clay Coal Co., 80 Pa. St. 1 ; Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen, 
 
508 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 for the examination of the luggage of passengers.^ It may own a 
 coal-mine which is required to supply fuel for its engines, and 
 sell the superfluous coal.^ But the conversion of land taken 
 under the right of eminent domain exclusively to the general 
 purposes of trade and mechanical or manufacturing business 
 remote from any connection with railroad uses, is a misappropri- 
 ation, entitling the owner to a writ of entry to establish his right, 
 and to recover damages for the wrongful use.^ As already seen, 
 the company has not the same right in the use of its location as 
 an ordinary proprietor, but the use as against adjoining proprie- 
 tors is limited to what is required for the purposes of the rail- 
 road.* 
 
 Power to use Personal Property. — A corporation may allow its 
 personal property to be used for temporary and incidental pur- 
 poses other than those for which it was created. For convenience 
 it will, if doing business as a common carrier, ordinarily find it 
 expedient to own a larger supply of the means of transportation 
 than are generally required for actual use in its ordinary busi- 
 ness as a provision for accident or withdrawals for repairs ; and 
 it should be allowed to utilize cars and engines by putting them 
 into the service of others when they are not needed for its own 
 immediate use. Therefore a ferry company may own steamboats 
 which, being purchased for the ferry, are useful for an emergency, 
 but not required for its constant use, and when not so required 
 let them to others, such use being temporary and incidental to the 
 main purpose for which they are owned ; and upon the same prin- 
 ciple a railroad corporation may let to other companies its rolling- 
 stock which may in its own business be temporarily superfluous.^ 
 
 Power of the Company to make Contracts for Transportation be- 
 yond its Line. — The power of a railroad corporation to make con- 
 tracts for transportation is not confined to such as relate strictly 
 to its own line, but may be used to draw business to it from 
 
 826; City Hotel v. Dickinson, 6 Gray, 4 Ante, Chap. VII. p. 160; ante, p. 
 
 586 ; Simpson v. Westminster Palace Ho- 496. 
 
 tel Co., 2 De Gex, F. & J. 141. 6 Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 
 
 1 "Warden, &c. of Dover Harbor v. Allen, 326; Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. 
 Soutli Eastern R, Co., 9 Hare, 489. Mass. Glass Co., Ill Mass. 315; Forrest 
 
 2 Lyde v. Eastern Bengal R. Co., 36 v. Manchester, S., & L. R. Co., 30 Bear. 
 Beav. 10, 17. 40. See Attorney-General v. Great East- 
 
 8 Proprietors of Locks & Canals u. em R. Co., L. R. 11 Cli. Div. 449, L. K.5 
 Nashua & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 1. App. Cas. 47a 
 
COBPOEATB POWERS. 509 
 
 places beyond, and to promote connections with other carriers by 
 land or water. For this purpose it sometimes contracts with 
 connecting companies, and sometimes owns the means of trans- 
 portation. Thus, it may own and run a stage-coach between one 
 of its stations and an adjacent village for the conveyance of pas- 
 sengers who arrive or take passage at the station, and incur 
 liability as a common carrier for their safety while they are con- 
 veyed in the coach.^ It may, having purchased boats to be run 
 on a canal connecting with its line, mortgage them and become 
 liable for the purchase-money which was advanced by a third 
 person at its request.^ It may own and run a steamboat across 
 navigable waters which make a part of its line, or which, lying 
 at the end of its route, connect the road with its intended and 
 substantial terminus.^ It may, having purchased the real and 
 personal property of a steam transportation company whose line 
 connected with its own, sell the property and recover the price 
 of the purchaser.* It may purchase a steamboat for the pur- 
 pose of making a connection with another railroad, and bind 
 itself by a note for the purchase-money.^ Two corporations, 
 making a continuous line, may jointly own rolling-stock, to be 
 used on both roads.® An English railway company, with its 
 western terminus on St. George's Channel, was held authorized 
 to contract for the purchase of a steamer for transporting freight 
 and passengers between such terminus and Dublin and Cork, the 
 railway being regarded as a scheme for transportation not only 
 between its termini, but as well between England and Ireland.' 
 
 1 Buffett V. Troy & B. K. Co., 40 N. Y. termini ; but as the contract in this case 
 
 168 36 Barb. 420. contemplated that the corporation was 
 
 ^ Parish v. Wheeler, 22 N. T. 494. itself to become a carrier on the line by 
 
 Comstock, C. J., considered the corpora- water, it seemed to be outside of the stat- 
 
 tion bound by contracts unauthorized by ute. 
 
 its charter, at least after it had received ^ Olcott v. Tioga R. Co., 27 N. T. 546, 
 
 the benefit thereof, pp. 504, 506, 508. 40 Barb. 179. The court considered the 
 
 s Wheeler v. San Francisco & A. R. power to exist irrespective of a statute 
 
 Co., .31 Cal. 46. See Illinois Cent. R. Co. allowing connections between railroads. 
 
 V. Irvin, 72 111. 452. ' South Wales R. Co. v. Redmond, 10 
 
 * Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Proctor, 29 C. B. n. s. 674. Williams, J., said : " The 
 
 Vt. 93. The decision is put on the ground whole object of the act of incorporation 
 
 that while the contract might not be of this company was, to connect England 
 
 authorized, the defence of want of au- and Wales with the Irish coast." p. 682. 
 
 thority was not open between the par- Erie, C. J., distinguished the case from 
 
 ties. Colman v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 10 
 
 ' Shawmnt Bank v. Plattsburg & M. Beav. 1, where a railway company was 
 
 R. Co., 31 Vt. 491. A statute authorized enjoined from guaranteeing the dividends 
 
 contracts for transportation beyond its of a steam-packet company running in 
 
510 
 
 THE LAW OF EAILROADS. 
 
 A railroad corporation has the legal capacity to contract for 
 the transportation of goods and passengers beyond its line, and 
 to become liable for injuries to them occurring through the de- 
 fault of other carriers.^ It has also the capacity to enter into 
 contracts or traffic arrangements with other carriers whose lines 
 connect with its own, for facilitating transportation.^ 
 
 A corporation working a railroad under a lease, when sued for 
 its default as a common carrier, cannot set up that the lease 
 was made without authority of law.^ Having exercised a power 
 
 connection with it. p. 685. See Gregory 
 V. Patchett, .3.3 Beav. 595, 606, where it is 
 said that equity will interfere to prevent 
 a director embarking the funds of a rail- 
 way company in a steamboat company; 
 also, to the same effect, Hare v. London 
 & N. W. R. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 80, 106, 
 111; Lyde n. Eastern Bengal R. Co., 36 
 Beav. 10. The following case is of doubt- 
 ful authority: Two corporations, having 
 connecting railroads, united their busi- 
 ness, and became practically consolidated 
 under one name and direction. They 
 bouglit a steamboat, which they designed 
 to run in connection with their united line 
 upon a river which made tlieir southern 
 terminus, giving a note for the price in 
 the name adopted by them. A suit upon 
 the note, brouglit by an indorsee having 
 knowledge of tlie transaction, was held not 
 maintainable, on two grounds : 1. The 
 union was unauthorized, and tlie joint con- 
 tract void. 2. A railroad corporation can- 
 not, witliout special authority, purchase 
 a steamboat to run beyond its terminus. 
 Tlie liability of tlie vendor and his assigns 
 to a suit for the price was reserved. Pearce 
 V. Madison & I. R. Co., 21 How. 411. The 
 unauthorized union of the two corpora- 
 tions might have been arrested by an in- 
 junction at tlie instance of stockliolders, 
 but tlie vahdify of the contract of pur- 
 cliase, as between the parties, is a differ- 
 ent question. The case is called "an ex- 
 treme authority " in Bissell v. Midi. S. & 
 N. I. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258, 278. But it is 
 followed in Hoagland v Han. & St, J. R. 
 Co., 39 Mo. 451, and St. Joseph v. Saville, 
 39 :\Io, 460. 
 
 1 Ogdensburgh & L. C. R. Co. u. Pratt, 
 22 Wall. 12-3; Ohio & M. R. Co. o. Mc- 
 Carthy, 90 U. S. 258; Hill Man. Co. v. 
 Boston & L. R. Co., 104 Mass. 122; Feital 
 
 V. Middlesex R. Co., 109 Mass. 398; Bis- 
 sell y. Mich. S. & N. L R. Co., 22 N. Y. 
 258 ; Burtis v. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 24 
 N. Y. 269 ; Buffett v. Troy & B. R. Co., 
 . 40 N. Y. 168, 36 Barb. 420 ; Maghee v. 
 Camden & A. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514 ; Root 
 V. Great Western R.'Co., 45 N. Y. 524; 
 Milnor I'. New York & N. H. R. Co., 53 
 N. Y. 363 ; Noyes v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 
 27 Vt. 110; Morse v. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 
 550 ; Nashua Lock Co. v. Worcester & N. 
 R. Co., 48 N. H. 339 ; Perkins v. Portland, 
 S., & P. R. Co., 47 Me. 573 ; Baltimore & P. 
 Steamboat Co. v. Brown, 54 Pa. St. 77; 
 Wheeler v. San Francisco & A. R. Co., 
 31 Cal. 46; Stewart v. Erie & W. Trans. 
 Co., 17 Minn. 372; Candee v. Penn. R. 
 Co , 21 Wis. 582; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. 
 Copeland, 24 111. 332 ; Cincinnati, H., & 
 D. R. Co. V. Pontius, 19 Ohio St. 221; 
 Grover & B. S. M. Co. v. Mo. Pacific R. 
 Co., 70 Mo. 672 ; Wilby v. West Cornwall 
 R. Co., 2 Hurl. & N. 703. The doctrine 
 that a railroad corporation has no power 
 to contract for transportation outside of 
 its line was at first approved in Connecti- 
 cut; but the courts of tliat State seem, 
 from later expressions, likely to yield to 
 the pressure of the prevailing view. Hood 
 V. New York & N. H. R. Co., 22 Conn. 
 1, 502; Elmore v. Nangatuck R. Co., 23 
 Conn. 457 ; Naugatuck R. Co. v. Water- 
 bury Button Co., 24 Conn. 468; Converse 
 V. Norwich & N. Y. Trans. Co., 33 Conn. 
 166. 
 
 2 Stewart v. Erie & W. Trans. Co., 17 
 Minn. 372 ; Sussex R. Co. v. Morris & E. 
 R. Co., 4 C. E. Green, 13, 5 O. E. Green, 
 542. 
 
 8 McCluer v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 
 13 Gray, 124; Feital ... Middlesex R. 
 Co., 109 Mass. 398 ; Cole Silver M. Co. v. 
 Va. & G. H. W. Co., 1 Sawyer, 470; 
 
COEPOKATE POWEES. 511 
 
 without question in a foreign jurisdiction, it cannot, in the State 
 which granted the charter, set up a want of power.i It is liable 
 for negligence in an act not authorized by its charter.^ 
 
 A company incorporated as a common carrier, and not being 
 authorized to engage in the business of buying and selling the 
 commodities which it transports, is not, it has been held, liable 
 iu damages to an action for breach of a contract to purchase 
 them. 2 
 
 A railroad company may keep a warehouse and make contracts 
 of warehousing as incidental to its business as a common carrier.* 
 
 Power to adopt the Acts and Contracts of Promoters. — A cor- 
 poration is not bound except under statutes by the agreements 
 made by its promoters before its organization, and is not under a 
 legal obligation to pay for services performed before it acquired 
 the capacity to make contracts, although proving beneficial to it.^ 
 But its adoption of the contracts of the promoters will be equiv- 
 alent to original action, and it will thereby succeed to thcobliga- 
 tions as well as to the rights under the contract.^ 
 
 Void 6ontraots. — The contracts of a corporation are void (1) 
 when expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute ; (2) when 
 against public policy, (3) and, it has been maintained, when 
 not within the powers expressly or impliedly conferred by the 
 charter. 
 
 1. Contracts expressly or impliedly prohibited ly Statute. — A con- 
 tract is void when the statute declares it to be void in express 
 words, or, what is equivalent, prohibits the corporation from 
 making it. Such a declaration of the legislative will is decisive 
 against its validity, whether the question arises in litigation be- 
 
 Doolan w. Midland R. Co., L. R. 2 App. 71, 82 ; Smitli v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 27 N. 
 
 Ca.s. 792. H 86, 95. 
 
 1 Milnor ». New York & N. H. R. Co., ' New York & N. H. R. Co v. Ketchum, 
 53 N. Y. 363. 27 Conn. 170 ; Rockford, R. I., & St. L. 
 
 2 Hutchinson v. Western & A. R. Co., R. Co. v. Sage, 65 111. 328 ; Coyote, G., & 
 6 Heisk. 634; National Bank v. Graham, S. M. Co. u. Ruble, 8 Oreg. 284. But see 
 100 U. S. 699; Doolan v. Midland R. Co., Low v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 46 N. H. 
 L. R. 2 App. Cas. 792 ; ante. Chap. X. p. 284 ; Hall v. Vt. & M. R. Co., 28 Vt. 401 ; 
 280. Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Christy, 79 Pa. St. 
 
 ' Northwestern Union Packet Co. v. 54. 
 Shaw, 37 Wis. 655. ^ Wood v. Whelan, 93 111. 153, 164, 165; 
 
 * Moses V. Boston & M. R., 24 N. H. Titus v. Catawissa R. Co., 5 Phil. 172. 
 
612 THE LAW OP EAILEOAUtS. 
 
 tween the parties, or in a suit brought by stockholders to enjoin 
 the corporation from performing it.^ 
 
 The contract is likewise void when the statute prohibits it by 
 implication. Thus, although a corporation may without special 
 statute authority issue bonds to pay its debts or to raise money 
 for a corporate purpose, a statute which prescribes certain con- 
 ditions on which they may be issued prohibits by implication 
 the issue of bonds which do not comply with the conditions, and 
 those issued without such compliance are void.^ A statute im- 
 pliedly prohibits a transaction on which it imposes a penalty.^ 
 The incapacity of a corporation to form a partnership may be 
 implied from statutes which prescribe corporate methods and 
 duties inconsistent with such a relation.^ A provision in the 
 charter, excluding the exercise of powers not necessary to the 
 exercise of the enumerated powers, prohibits contracts for traffic 
 upon extensions of the railroad not authorized by the charter.^ 
 
 The charters of railroad corporations and statutes concerning 
 them g,re public acts affecting all parties with notice of their pro- 
 hibitions, express or implied.® 
 
 2. Contracts against Public Policy, for Lohhy Services, against 
 Competition, or for a Particular Location. — The contracts of a cor- 
 poration which are against sound morals or public policy are, Uke 
 similar contracts of individuals, not binding on the parties.'^ Such 
 
 1 Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Proctor, 29 » York & Y. E. Co., In re, L. E. 4 Ch. 
 
 Vt. 93, 96; Vermont & C. R. Co. v. Vt. App. 748; National Permanent Benefit 
 
 Cent. R. Co., 34 Vt. 1, 47; Richardson v. Building Soc, In re, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 
 
 Sibley, 11 Allen, 65; Leavitt v. Palmer, 309. 
 
 3 N. Y. 19 ; BIssell l: Mich. S. & N. I. R. 4 Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray, 
 Co., 22 N. Y. 258. 265, 289; Crocker v. 582. See Pearce v. Madison & I. R. Co.; 
 Whitney, 71 N. Y. 161 ; Barton v. Port 21 How. 441 ; Bissell v. Mich. S. & N I. 
 Jackson & U. P. Plank Road Co., 17 R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258 ; Charlton v. New- 
 Barb. 397; Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. castle & C. R. Co., 5 Jurist, N. s. 1096: 
 
 ^°LV •„ r^"^- ^^^' ^^^' ^^^ • ^''=''« "• Hare v. London & N. W. E. Co., 2 Johns. 
 
 Ashbury R. Carriage & Iron Co., L. R. & H 80 
 
 9 Exch. 224, 262, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 673 ; s Morris & E. E. Co. v. Sussex R. Co., 
 
 Broughton «. Manchester & S. Water 5 C. E, Green, 542,4 C. E. Green, 13, 574. 
 Works, 3 B. & Aid. 1. e Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray, 
 
 " Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 Allen, 682, 598; Richardson v. Sibley, 11 Allen, 
 
 448; Head «^ Providence Ins. Co., 2 65, 72; Pearce v. Madison & L R. Co., 21 
 
 Cranch 127 ; Chambers v. Manchester & How. 441, 443 ; Franklin Co. v. Lewiston 
 
 M R. Co 5 Best &S 588 ; Rockwell .. Savings Bank, 68 Me. 43 ; East Anglian 
 
 Elkhorn Bank, 13 Wis. 653; James v. R. Co. v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 11 C. 
 
 Cincinnati H., & D. R^ Co., 2 Disney, 261, B. 775, 811 ; MacGregor v. Dover & D. R. 
 
 .^72 ; Kent Coast R. Co. v. London, C, & Co., 18 Q. B. 618, 630. 
 D. R. Co., L. E. 3 Ch. App. 656. 7 Bissell .,. Mich.'s. & N. I E Co 
 
COEPOEATE POWEES. 
 
 513 
 
 are contracts for " lobby services," or the use of personal influ- 
 ence with legislators in order to secure their votes for bills ; ^ or 
 contracts which have a direct tendency to prevent a healthy com- 
 petition,2 or unreasonably discriminate between different owners 
 of merchandise in charges for transportation ; ^ and other con- 
 tracts, supposed to conflict with public interests, as for a par- 
 ticular location for a station,* especially if excluding any other 
 location ; ^ or for the withdrawal of opposition, based on public 
 grounds, to proposed legislation concerning the railroad ; ^ or the 
 payment of interest on the capital stock.' 
 
 22 N. Y. 258, 269, 285. See a criticism 
 upon the terms " public policy," as elastic 
 and unintelligible, in Midland K. Co. o. 
 Great Western E. Co., L. E. 8 Ch. App. 
 841, 851, 854. 
 
 1 Marshall v. Bait. & O. E. Co., 16 
 How. 314; Trist v. Child, 21 WaU. 441. 
 
 2 Sanford v. Catawissa, W., & E. E. 
 Co., 24 Pa. St. 378 ; Hartford & N. H. E. 
 Co. V. New York & N. H. E. Co., 3 Bob. 
 (N. Y.) 411; State S. Hartford & N. H. 
 E. Co., 29 Conn. 538 ; New England Ex- 
 press Co. V. Maine Cent. E. Co., 57 Me. 
 188 ; Messenger v. Penn. E. Co., 8 Vroom, 
 531, 7 Vroom, 407; Stewart v. Lehigh 
 Valley E. Co., 9 Vroom, 505 ; Sussex E. 
 Co. «. Morris & E. E. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 
 542, 4 C. E. Green, 13 ; Chicago & N. W. 
 E. Co. V. People, 56 HI. 365 ; Stewart v. 
 Erie & W. T. Co., 17 Minn. 372. See Sar- 
 gent ». Boston & L. E. Co., 115 Mass. 416. 
 But in Hare v. London & N. W. R. Co., 
 2 Johns. & H. 80, 103, Vice-Chancellor 
 Wood said : " It is a mistaken notion that 
 the public is benefited by pitting two rail- 
 way companies against each other till one 
 is ruined, the result being at last to raise 
 the fares to the highest possible stand- 
 ard." 
 
 ' Ante, p. 498. 
 
 * Fuller!). Dame, 18 Pick. 472; Pacific 
 E. Co. V. Seely, 45 Mo, 212 ; Workman v. 
 Campbell, 46 Mo. 305 ; Bestor v. Wathen, 
 60 111. 138 ; Linder v. Carpenter, 62 111. 309 ; 
 Marsh v. Fairburg, P., & N. W. R. Co., 
 64 111. 414; St. Louis, J., & C. E. Co. v. 
 Mathers, 71 111. 592 ; St. Joseph & D. C. E. 
 Co. V. Eyan, 11 Kan. 602 ; HoUaday v. Pat 
 terson, 5 Oreg. 177. Contra, Cedar Eapids 
 & St. P. E Co. V. Spafford, 41 Iowa, 292 ; 
 First National Bank v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 
 402; Berry man v. Cincinnati Southern 
 
 E. Co., 14 Bush, 755. See Wilson v. 
 Northampton & B. J. E. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. 
 App. 279; Watterson v. Allegheny Val- 
 ley R. Co., 74 Pa. St. 208 ; Taylor ;;. Cedar 
 Eapids & St. P. E. Co., 25 Iowa, 371 ; Gal- 
 lagher V. Fayette County R. Co., 38 Pa. 
 St. 102; Pusey v. Wright, 31 Pa. St. 387; 
 McClure v. Mo. River, Ft. S., & G. E. Co., 
 9 Kan. 373. A contract -to pay money to 
 a corporation on the completion of its 
 road to a particular place is valid. Ante, 
 Chap. III. p. 60. 
 
 6 Williamson v. Chicago, E. I., & P.E. 
 Co., 22 A. L. J. 29, 37 Chicago Leg. News, 
 373. 
 
 6 Pingry v. Washburn,. 1 Aiken, 264. 
 Such a contract has been held valid when 
 the opposition rests on private grounds, 
 and when the contract is made with no 
 design to conceal the fact of compensa- 
 tion. Low V. Conn. & P. E. E. Co., 46 
 N. H. 284. Agreements to withdraw oppo- 
 sition to parliamentary bills have been 
 sustained in England. Simpson v. Lord 
 Howden, 9 Clark & F. 61, 10 A. & E. 793; 
 Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. London & N. 
 W. E. Co., 2 Mac. & G. 324, 17 Q. B. u. s. 
 652, 668 ; Edwards v. Grand Junction E. 
 Co., 1 My. & Cr. 650; Stanley v. Chester 
 & B. R. Co., 3 My. & Cr. 773; Webb v. 
 Direct London & P. R. Co., 1 De G., M. 
 & G. 521 ; Preston v. Liverpool, M., & N. 
 J. E. Co., 5 H. L. Cas. 605, 17 Beav. 114 ; 
 Eastern Counties E. Co. v. Hawkes, 5 H. 
 L. Cas. 331, 374, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 737 ; 
 Taylor v. Chichester & M. E. Co., L. E. 
 2 Exeh. 356, 373, 376 ; Norwich v. Norfolk 
 R. Co., 4 El. & Bl. 397, 421. See Earl of 
 Shrewsbury v. North Staffordshire E. Co., 
 L. E. 1 Eq. Cas. 593. 
 
 ' Ante, Chap. V. p. 125. 
 
 33 
 
514 THE LAW OP KAILEOADS. 
 
 For Applicatio'ns to the Legislature. — Whether a corporation 
 may enter into an agreement for making an application to 
 Parliament for amendments of its charter and for new powers 
 has been the subject of much contention in England. The ques- 
 tion has arisen chiefly on bills in equity by shareholders to en- 
 join the company from making the application and paying the 
 expenses from corporate funds; and the transaction has been 
 treated as ultra vires or not, accordingly as it was construed 
 to be carrying out the original scheme, or as embarking the 
 company in a new and different one. The discussion implies a 
 theory of the relation of the judicial to the legislative power, 
 which is not accepted in the United States ; and the admission of 
 this extraordinary power in the courts to control petitions to the 
 supreme legislature has not escaped criticism even in England.^ 
 
 In this country the judicial power does not undertake to define 
 in advance what the legislature may properly do by way of amend- 
 ment or change in the charter, or enjoin a corporation or person 
 from making a petition to the legislature for any purpose what- 
 ever ; 2 and the liability of a corporation to pay the legitimate 
 expenses of an application made on its behalf, such as counsel 
 and witness fees, cannot well be denied.^ The corporatio'n may 
 also make contracts with reference to extensions and changes in 
 its location depending on future legislation.* 
 
 For the Transfer of Franchises and Railroad. — Corporations hftiV- 
 ing by reason of their objects, or the extraordinary powers 
 conferred upon them, certain public obligations, are not per- 
 mitted to enter into contracts which disable them from per- 
 forming their public functions. Thus, a railroad corporation 
 cannot, as already seen, without legislative authority transfer by 
 
 I The English cases, on application to cannot use their limited power of taxa- 
 Parliament, are reviewed in Green's tion for such a purpose. Minot v. West 
 Brice's Ultra Vires, Part II. oh. viii. Roxhury, 112 Mass. 1; Coolidge «. Brook- 
 Stockton & H. R. Co. u. Leeds & T. R. line, 114 Mass. 592. 
 Co., 2 Phill. 666 ; Heathcote v. North 4 Morris & E. R. Co. v. Sussex E. Co., 
 Staffordshire R. Co., 2 Mac. & G. 100; 5 C. E. Green, 542, 4 C. E. Green, 13 ; New 
 Maunsell v. Midland R. Co., 1 Hem. & M. Haven & N. Co. v. Hayden, 107 Mass. 
 130; Bateman ... Ashton-under-Lyne, 3 525 ; Supervisors w. Wis. Cent. R. Co., 121 
 Hurl. & N. 323; East Anglian R. Co. v. Mass. 460; Norwich ». Norfolk R Co., 4 
 Eastern Counties R. Co., 11 C. B. 775. El. & B. 397; Scottish North Eastern R. 
 
 a People V. Canal Board, 55 N. Y. 390; Co. v. Stewart, 3 Macq. 382; Taylor v. 
 
 Story V. Jersey City & B. P. Plank Road Chichester & M. R. Co., L. K 4 H. L. 
 
 Co., 1 C. E. Green, 13. 628, L. E. 2 Exch. 356. 
 
 s Municipal corporations, however, 
 
CORPORATE POWERS. 515 
 
 deed, mortgage, lease, or other agreement, its railroad and fran- 
 chises, or assume the ownership or management of some other 
 like enterprise.! Such a transfer may have the effect to substitute 
 a scheme differing from that for which authority was obtained, to 
 put the management into the hands of persons other than those 
 intended, and to combine enterprises which the legislature pre- 
 sumably thought it prudent to keep separate. Such agreements 
 are generally held void as against public policy, and involving a 
 breach of public duty. They are also treated as ultra vires ; but 
 they should not be confounded under that term with ordinary 
 business transactions, which may not be necessary or incidental 
 to the express powers of a corporation. 
 
 3. Contracts not within the Powers expressly or impliedly con- 
 ferred by the Charter. Ultra Vires. — Such powers only are implied 
 as are necessary and incidental to the express powers, and are 
 within the scope and purpose of the charter. In some cases 
 the departure is so gross, affecting all persons with knowledge 
 of its unlawful character, and reasons of public policy being 
 also operative against it, that there is little difficulty in refus- 
 ing validity to the contract. Thus, contracts by which a rail- 
 road corporation engages in the business of banking are clearly 
 unauthorized by the corporate scheme, as well as violate a dis- 
 tinct rule of public policy.^ 
 
 The most vexed question in the law of corporations is to deter- 
 mine the legal effect of contracts made by them, which, though 
 not prohibited by any special provisions of statutes, or any rule 
 of public policy which binds individuals as well as corporations, 
 involve an abuse of the power to contract merely because they 
 
 1 See cases cited ante, p. 496, note 13. decision "represents the decided prepon- 
 
 In Tliomas v. West Jersey R. Co., 101 derance of authority, both in this country 
 
 U. S. 71, the corporation undertook to and in England." 
 
 lease its railroad without legislative au- - Clark v. Farrington, 11 Wis. 306, 324 ; 
 
 thority, and the transaction was held, in Waldo v. Chicago, St. P., & F. R. Co., 14 
 
 accordance with the current of authori- Wis. 575 ; Vandall v. South S. F. Dock 
 
 ties, to be a violation of its contract with Co., 40 Cal. 83, 88 ; People v. River Raisin 
 
 the State, and void as against public & L. E. R. Co., 12 Mich. 389. A reference 
 
 policy. The opinion of Miller, J., goes in an act to a contract which was in excess 
 
 further, and appears to sustain fully the of power does not necessarily recognize it 
 
 principles of the two English cases : The as valid. Kent Coast K. Co. v. London, 
 
 East Anglian R. Co. v. Eastern Counties C, & D. R. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 656 ; 
 
 R. Co., 11 C. B. 775, and The Ashbury Galloway v. London, L. R. 1 H. L. 34 ; 
 
 R. Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche, L. R. Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co., 101 U. S. 
 
 7 H. L. 653 ; and claims that the latter 71 ; ante, p. 607. 
 
516 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 are found on judicial inquiry not to be necessary or incidental to 
 the express powers conferred on the corporation. Not coming 
 within its scope and purpose, and designated as contracts ultra 
 vires, they have been the subject of extended discussion by 
 authors and judges.^ 
 
 Meaning of the Term Ultra Vires. — The term ultra vires is used 
 in different senses, as to designate (1.) Acts which were beyond 
 the powers of the directors, though not beyond the powers of the 
 corporation ; (2.) Acts which are forbidden by law or public 
 policy, and are more properly called " illegal ; " (3.) Acts which 
 are not within the express or implied powers of the corporation, 
 but not otherwise illegal. The use of the term in any other than 
 this last sense only leads to confusion.^ 
 
 Defence of Ultea Vires when not allowed. Estoppel. — The de- 
 fence of ultra vires, although admitted as a theory, yields readily 
 to considerations of equity and fair dealing ; and a party who 
 wrongfully seeks to take advantage of it is held to be estopped 
 from setting it up as a defence. This statement finds support in 
 certain results which have been reached by the authorities, and 
 may properly be given in this connection. 
 
 The Defence not admitted where the Contract has been executed 
 by one Party. — The defence of ultra vires is not admitted in the 
 case of executed contracts not involving moral turpitude. If 
 the contract is simply not authorized by statute, or is even pro- 
 
 1 In view of the confusion of authori- Pemberton Bank v. Porter, 125 Mass. 333, 
 
 ties on tliis subject, it was wisely said by 3.35. " There Is nothing of mystery or 
 
 Lord Westbury, in Taylor v. Chichester & of sanctity in the use of the words of a 
 
 M. R. Co., L. R. 4 H. L. 628, 646 : " A great dead language, uUra vires ; and although 
 
 deal of difficulty arises in these cases from it is a concise and convenient form by 
 
 wandering away from the case we have to which to indicate the unauthorized action 
 
 determine into a thousand and one other of artificial persons with limited powers, 
 
 cases which have been decided." still it is as applicable to individual as to 
 
 .2 Bisseil V. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 22 corporate action. An illegal act of an 
 
 N. Y. 258; Whitney Arms Co. ». Barlow, individual is as really vltra vires as the 
 
 63 N. Y. 62, 68, 69 ; Miner's Ditch Co. v. unauthorized act of a corporation." For 
 
 Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543, 579 ; McPherson articles in magazines on the doctrine .of 
 
 V. Foster, 43 Iowa, 48, 64, 65 ; Earl of ultra vires, see 5 Am. Law Rev. 272, 11 
 
 Shrewsbury w. North Staffordshire R. Co., Cent. L. J. 81, 101. An elaborate note in 
 
 L. R. lEq. Cas. 593,618,35L.J. Ch. 166; 2 Kent Com. »300 (12th ed.), by Mr. 
 
 Ashbury R. Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche, Holmes, seems to adopt the doctrine as 
 
 L- R. 7 H. L. 658, 672; Green's Brioe's held in East Anglian R. Co. v. Eastern 
 
 Ultra Vires, Part II. ch. i. § 2 ; National Counties E. Co., 11 C. B. 775. 
 
CORPOEATB POWERS. 
 
 517 
 
 hibited by statute, even though no action could be maintained 
 for a breach while the contract remains executory, an action 
 can be maintained to recover money paid, or the price or con- 
 sideration of property received under it. The doctrine of estop- 
 pel is applied to the defence of want of legal capacity when set 
 up by a party who has received the benefit of the contract, both 
 where the plaintiff alleges such incapacity in himself or in the 
 defendant.^ A corporation cannot recover property which it 
 has parted with under a contract ultra vires, without returning 
 the consideration which it received.^ 
 
 Where a corporation has exercised powers germane and inci- 
 dental to those conferred, and in furtherance of its general 
 objects, although the subject may not be within any definite power 
 given, it will be estopped from denying that it had authority to 
 make such contract. Good, faith to third parties who deal with 
 it, and who may have no accurate knowledge of the extent of its 
 powers under its charter, demands the adoption of this salutary 
 rule.^ 
 
 1 Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N. T. 162; 
 Bissell V. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 
 258, 273 ; Parish v. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494 ; 
 Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 IST. Y. 62 ; 
 DeGroff v. American Linen Thread Co., 
 21 N. Y. 124; Kent v. Quicksilver Mining 
 Co., 78 N. Y. 159, 189; Steam Navi- 
 gation Co. V. Weed, 17 Barb. 378 ; Cald- 
 well V. National Mohawk Valley Bank, 
 64 Barb. 333, 352; Franklin Co. v. Lewis- 
 ton Savings Bank, 68 Me. 43, 49; Rutland 
 & B. R. Co. V. Proctor, 29 Vt. 93 ; Dill v. 
 Warehara, 7 Met. 438 ; IVTorville v. Amer- 
 ican Tract Soc, 123 Mass. 129 ; National 
 Pemberton Bank v. Porter, 125 Mass. 
 333; Attleborough National Bank v. 
 Rogers, 125 Mass. 339; Ossipee Hosiery 
 & W. Man. Co. o. Canney, 54 N. H. 295, 
 325; Dimpfel v. Ohio & M. R. Co. (U. S. 
 C. C, S. D. 111.), 8 Reporter, 641 ; Oil 
 Creek & A. R. R. Co. d. Penn. Trans. Co., 
 83 Pa. St. 160; Hays v. Galion Gas Light 
 & C. Co., 29 Ohio St. 330, 340 ; State Board 
 of Agriculture v. Citizens St. R. Co., 47 
 Ind. 407; Bradley v. Ballard, 55 111. 413; 
 Chicago Building Soc. v. Crowell, 65 111. 
 453 ; Darst v. Gale, 83 III. 136 ; German 
 Naf Bank v. Meadowcroft, 95 111. 124; 
 Hazlehurst v. Savannah, G., & N. A. R. 
 Co., 43 Ga. 13, 64, 55 ; Argenti v. San 
 Francisco, 16 Cal. 255; Herzo v. San 
 
 Francisco, 33 Cal. 134; Miners' Ditch Co. 
 V. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543 ; North Western 
 Union Packet Co. v. Shaw, 37 Wis. 655 ; 
 Paul V. Kenosha, 22 Wis. 266 ; Wapello 
 V. B. & M. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 585 ; Tliomp- 
 son V. Lambert, 44 Iowa, 239; Thomas v. 
 Richmond, 12 Wall. 349 ; Hitchcock u. 
 Galveston, 96 U. S. 341, 351 ; Gold-Mining 
 Co. V. National Bank, 96 U. S. 640 ; Na- 
 tional Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621 ; 
 Central Branch Union Pacific R. Co. v. 
 Western Union Tel. Co. (U. S. C. C, D. 
 Kan.), 10 Reporter, 417; Daniels v. Tear- 
 ney, 11 Reporter, 113. See Montgomery 
 V. Montgomery & W. Plank Road Co., 31 
 Ala. 76. A statute of California which 
 provides that "no contract shall be bind- 
 ing on the company unless made in writ- 
 ing," is held to apply only to contracts 
 wholly executory. Foulke v. San Diego 
 & G. S. P. R. Co., 51 Cal. 365. 
 
 2 Atlantic & P. Tel. Co. v. Union Pa- 
 cific R. Co. (U. S. C. C, D. Neb.), 1 Fed. 
 Rep. 745. See Central Branch Union 
 Pacific R. Co. V. Western Union Tel. Co. 
 (U. S. C. C, D. Kan.), 10 Reporter, 417. 
 
 " The proposition stated in the text is 
 the same as given in West v. Madison 
 County Agricultural Board, 82 III. 20.5, 
 207; Chicago Building Soc. v. Crowell, 
 65 lU. 453, 460. 
 
518 THE LAW OF KAILKOADS. 
 
 Not admitted when a General Power is used for an Unauthorized 
 Purpose. — The defence of ultra vires is not available to a cor- 
 poration where, in dealing with a person who is not informed of 
 the abuse, it uses for an unauthorized purpose a general power 
 which has been conferred upon it. Thus, an innocent vendor 
 who sells the corporation property capable of use for the purposes 
 of the railroad will not be affected by the secret purpose of the 
 directors to use it in speculation. Having the power tO bind 
 itself by commercial paper as evidence of its indebtedness, it 
 cannot set up as a defence to such paper in the hands of a bona 
 fide holder that it was given as accommodation paper.^ If the 
 power to make the contract exists, an excess in some particulars 
 is not a defence. ^ 
 
 Further, it may be remarked that, where there is no statute 
 prohibition, the citizen should not be required, in dealing with 
 a corporation, to concern himself with nice questions as to what 
 transactions are necessary, incidental, or auxiliary to its express 
 powers, or to act at his peril where his only light is the extended 
 opinions of jurists, often conflicting in the same case, varying in 
 different tribunals, and incapable of being reduced to a consistent 
 body of doctrine. 
 
 Not admitted where the Stockholders have assented, unless the 
 Transaction involves -a. Public Wrong. — An act of the corporation 
 which is ultra vires, but not malum in se or expressly prohibited 
 by statute, may become valid by the assent of stockholders. 
 This principle is applied only where the act does not involve a 
 public wrong, and is ultra vires merely as between the stockhold- 
 ers, and affects only their interests. Their acquiescence, as well 
 as express assent, works an equitable estoppel upon them. Thus, 
 if they actively participate in the proceedings, or fail to resort in 
 
 1 Monument National Bank v. Globe nati, H., & D. R. Co., 2 Disney, 261, 272; 
 
 Works, 101 Mass. 57 ; Ossipee Hosiery Norwich v. Norfolli R. Co., 4 EI. & Bl. 
 
 & W. Man. Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295, 897, 443 ; Eastern Counties R. Co. v. 
 
 325 ; Bissell v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 22 Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 350 371, 5 Am. 
 
 N. Y. 258, 273, 289, 290 ; Mechanics' Bank- Law Rev. 272, 282. See Strauss v. Eagle 
 
 ing Assoc. V. New York & S. W. L. Co., 35 Ins. Co., 5 Ohio St. 59, 66 ; Central R. Co. 
 
 N. Y 505 ; Noyes v. Rutland & B. R. Co., v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582 ; ante, p. 507. 
 27 Vt. 110, 112; Madison & I. R. Co. v. « Germantown Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co. 
 
 Norwich Savings Soc, 24 Ind. 457; u. Dhein, 43 Wis. 420 ; Pittsburg & C. R. 
 
 Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. Co. v. Allegheny County, 63 Pa. St. 126, 
 
 543, 578, 579, 583-588 ; McPherson v. 137. See Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland 
 
 Foster, 43 Iowa, 48, 65; Jones v. Cincin- & W. R. Co., 30 Vt. 159, 170. 
 
COKPOEATB POWERS. 619 
 
 due season to equitable remedies, they are estopped from setting 
 up that a transaction involved the use of corporate funds for a 
 purpose not authorized by the charter,^ or that the corporation 
 could not lawfully issue preferred stock.^ 
 
 Not admitted where it effects a Legal Wrong. — "The plea of 
 ultra vires" it has been said by high authority, " should not 
 as a general rule prevail, whether interposed for or against a 
 corporation, when it would not advance justice, but, on the con- 
 trary, would accomplish a legal wrong." ^ A doctrine, it may be 
 remarked, which is to be set aside whenever in a pending cause 
 it does not appear to the court to stand this test, cannot be 
 treated as a rule of civil conduct. 
 
 It will be found, on an examination of the American authori- 
 ties, that while the capacity of a commercial and business corpo- 
 ration to make contracts is, as a definition, limited to legitimate 
 corporate purposes, the defence of ultra vires, in the absence of a 
 statute prohibition or a rule of public policy applying to individ- 
 uals as well as corporations, is not allowed to avail between the 
 parties; and the corporation is to be kept within its sphere by the 
 intervention of the State, or by a bill in equity filed by stockhold- 
 ers.* The doctrine of estoppel has in most cases, as has been 
 seen, been found sufficient to meet the defence.^ 
 
 Wliile stockholders have the remedy by injunction for the pro- 
 tection of their interests,^ and the State can, by proceedings for 
 the forfeiture of the charter and by penal legislation, keep the 
 corporation within its lawful sphere, it is not expedient to en- 
 courage indifference to obligations by allowing the defence of 
 ultra vires. The individual is not permitted to escape by this 
 plea from his contracts, except when they are prohibited by stat- 
 ute or public policy, and the tendency of jurisprudence is to treat 
 the corporation as a complete personalitj'. 
 
 1 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. 3 Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. 
 Co., 23 How. 381 ; Cozart ;;. Georgia R. & Y. 62, 69 ; Darst v. Gale, 83 111. 136, 140 ; 
 B. Co., 51 Ga. 379, 384; Riche v. Ash- Oliio & M. R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 
 bury R. Carriage & Iron Co., L. R. 9 258, 267. 
 
 Kxch. 224, 231, 232 (but see s. c. L. R. * Ante, pp. 516-518. 
 
 7 H. L. 653, 672). See Phosphate of 6 ^„(e, pp. 516-5I8 ; pos<, p. 520 ; Per- 
 
 Lime Co. u. Green, L. R. 7 C. P. 43. kins v. Portland, S., & P. R. Co., 47 Me. 
 
 2 Kent V. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 573, 591. 
 
 N. Y. 169, 12 Hun, 53 ; Hazlohurst v. « In Taylor v. Chichester &. M. R. Co., 
 Savannah, G., & N. A. E. Co., 43 Ga. L. R. 2 Exch. 356, 380, Blackburn, J. ; 
 1.3, 56. post, p. 522, note. 
 
520 THE LAW OP EAILEOADS. 
 
 A corporation cannot set up irregularities in its organization as 
 a defence to its contract. These cannot be taken advantage of 
 collaterally.^ 
 
 The defence of ultra vires is not admitted in the case of torts 
 committed by a corporation in transactions beyond its powers.^ 
 
 Remedy of Stockholders. — Equity will enjoin a corporation and 
 its officers, at the suit of a stockholder, from entering into con- 
 tracts or engaging in transactions which are in violation of the 
 charter, and involve a breach of trust on the part of the corpora- 
 tion and its officers.^ The right to the remedy may be lost by 
 assent, acquiescence, and unreasonable delay.* A single stock- 
 holder may file the bill ; ^ but, according to the approved form 
 of pleading, it should be filed in behalf also of other stock- 
 holders who may choose to become parties.® The motive of the 
 stockholder in bringing the suit is immaterial ; "^ but equity will 
 not interfere on behalf of others who are not shareholders, or 
 of a "puppet" or "man of straw," who is acting as the mere 
 instrument of a rival company .^ 
 
 A court of equity will not, at the suit of the Attorney-General, 
 restrain a railroad corporation from making contracts and doing 
 
 1 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. & C. R. Co., 4 Biss. 78 ; Chetlain v. Re- 
 Co., 23 How. 381 ; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. public Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220. 
 
 Co. V. Cleveland, C, & C. R. Co., 41 5 Charlton v. Newcastle & C. R. Co., 
 
 Barb. 9 ; Callander v. Painesville & H. R. 5 Jurist, >f. s. 1096. 
 
 Co., 11 Ohio St. 616 ; Sturges «. Knapp, 6 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C, & C. R. 
 
 31 Vt. 1, 62, 63 ; Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 Co., 23 How. 381, 395 ; March v. Eastern 
 
 H. L. Cas. 297 ; ante, Cliap. L p. 7. E. Co., 40 N. H. 548, 568 ; Black v. Del. & 
 
 2 National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. R. Canal Co., 7 C. E. Green, 130, 9 C. E. 
 699- Green, 455; Beman v. Rufford, 1 Simons, 
 
 8 See cases cited ante. Chap. II. p. 43 ; n. s. 550 ; Winch v. Birkenhead, L., & C. 
 Hodges V. New England Screw Co., 1 J. R. Co., 6 De Gex & S. 562. 
 R. I. 312, 3 R. I. 9; Pratt v. Pratt, 33 ^ Ramsey v. Gould, 57 Barb. 398; 
 Conn. 446 ; Bissell v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Ramsey v. Erie R. Co., 8 Abbott Prac. 
 Co., 22 N. Y. 258, 275 ; Central R. Co. v. n. s. 174 ; Central R. Co. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 
 Collins, 40 Ga. 582 ; Chetlain v. Republic 582 ; Attorney-General c. Great North- 
 Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220 ; Platteville v. ern R. Co., 1 Drewry & S. 154, 159. See 
 Galena & S. W. R. Co., 43 Wis. 493; Cecum Co. u.SpragueMan. Co., 34 Conn. 
 Wiswall V. Greenville & R. Plank Road 529. 
 Co., 3 Jones Eq. 183. 8 piMer v. London, B., & S. C. R. Co., 
 
 * Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen, 52 ; Gif- 1 Hem. & M. 489 ; Forrest v. Manches- 
 
 ford V. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 2 Stock, ter, S., & L. R. Co., 4 De Gex, F. & J. 
 
 171 ; Black v. Del. & R. Canal Co., 7 C. 126 ; Ffooks v. South Western R. Co., 
 
 E. Green, 130, 428, 9 C. E. Green, 455 ; 1 Sm. & G. 142 ; Hare v. London & N. W. 
 
 Chapman v. Mad River & L. E. R. Co.,,6 E. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 80, 119 ; Waterbury 
 
 Ohio St. 119; Cozart v. Georgia R. & B. u. Merchants' Union Express Co., 50 Barb. 
 
 Co., 54 Ga. 879 ; Mowrey v. Indianapolis 157, 3 Abbott U. S. 163. 
 
COepoeate powers. 521 
 
 business in excess of its powers where no case of public injury 
 appears.^ 
 
 Acta of Directors and Agents when capable of Ratification. — The 
 corporation may ratify the unauthorized acts of its directors and 
 agents which it has the power to authorize ; but it cannot by 
 ratification give validity to acts which it could not lawfully do.^ 
 The ratification may be express or implied from the acceptance 
 of the benefit of the transaction.^ A lease which the corporation 
 has no power to make does not become valid by the acceptance 
 of the rent payable by its terms.* But the consent of all parties 
 interested has been held to give validity to the unauthorized sale 
 of a railroad.^ The directors may by a ratification give validity 
 to the unauthorized acts of an agent which they had the power 
 to authorize.® 
 
 The Doctrine of tTltra Vires in England. — For the years 1846- 
 1880 no question vexed English jurists so much as the power of 
 corporations, particularly railway corporations, to make contracts. 
 This period, which may be said to have added a new term to the 
 nomenclature of the law, — ultra vires,'' — is marked by a discord- 
 ance of opinion between different tribunals and between the judges 
 of the same tribunal. Thus, in a late case the contract was held 
 valid by all the barons in the Court of Exchequer;^ their judg- 
 ment was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber, four judges voting 
 for and two against the reversal, and four opinions being delivered, 
 two judges on one side taking views of the authorities and of the 
 principles governing the capacity of. corporations to make con- 
 
 1 Attorney-General v. Tudor Ice Co., ers where the unauthorized act is not 
 104 Mass. 239; United States v. Union malum in se or expressly prohibited by 
 Pacific R. Co., 98 U. S. 569. See At- statute. 
 
 torney-General w. Great Nortbern R. Co., ^ Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 47; 
 
 1 Drewry & S. 154 ; Attorney-General v. Miller v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 36 Vt. 
 
 Great Eastern R. Co., L. R. 5 App. Cas. 452, 475. 
 
 473, L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 449; Attorney- * Ogdenshurg & L. C. R. Co. v. Vt. & 
 
 General v. Railroad Cos., 35 "Wis. 425 ; C. R. Co., 6 Thomp. & C. 488. 
 
 ante, Chap. II. p. 44. ^ Miss. & M. R. Co. v. Howard, 7 
 
 2 McLaughlin v. Detroit & M. R. Co., "Wall. 392, 415. 
 
 8 Mich. 100 ; Peterson v. New York, 17 e Darst v. Gale, 83 111. 136 ; "Wood v. 
 
 N. Y. 449, 454 ; Downing ». Mt. "Washing- "Whelan, 93 111. 153 ; Olcott v. Tioga R. 
 
 ton Road Co., 40 N. H. 230, 236 ; Asbbury Co., 27 N. Y. 546 ; Brown v. "Winnisimmet 
 
 R. Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 Co., 11 Allen, 326, 335. 
 
 H. L. 653, 673 ; Choteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. ^ See preface of first edition of Brice's 
 
 290; Deaderick v. Wilson, 8 Baxter, 108. Ultra Vires. 
 
 But see ante, p. 518, as to effect given to » Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., 4 
 
 the assent and acqtilescence of stockhold- Hurl. & C. 409 (1866). 
 
622 
 
 THE LAW OP BAILEOADS. 
 
 tracts the opposite of those declared by the other two.^ Still later,' 
 the House of Lords reversed the judgment of the Exchequer Cham- 
 ber, and sustained that of the Court of Exchequer.^ 
 
 1 L. K. 2 Exch. 356 (1867) ; post, p. 536. 
 
 2 L. R. 4 H. L. 628 (1870). The his- 
 tory of the still later case of Riche v. Ash- 
 bury R. Carriage & Iron Co. is quite sim- 
 ilar to that of the Taylor case, L. R. 9 
 Exch. 224 (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 653 (1875) ; 
 post, p. 537. Blackburn, J., who has clear 
 perceptions on the subject, said, in Taylor 
 V. Cliichester & M. R. Co., L, R, 2 Exch. 
 3o6, 378 : " As the shareholders are in 
 substance parties in a trading concern, 
 the management of which is committed 
 to the body corporate, a trust is by im- 
 plication created in favor of the share- 
 holders that the corporation will manage 
 the corporate affairs, and apply the cor- 
 porate funds for the purpose of carrying 
 out the original speculation. The rights 
 tlius conferred on the shareholders, as 
 between them and the corporation, are 
 very analogous to those between partner 
 iiiti-r sese, and like those depend upon the 
 terms on which the parties entered on the 
 joint speculation. Any shareholder has a 
 riglit to object to any act being done which 
 is in contravention of the rights thus given 
 to liim. Though the majority of the share- 
 holders," or even all but himself, approve, 
 yet he has a right to object to the making 
 or the enforcing of any contract to do any 
 unauthorized act which would affect his 
 individual interest. But the shareholder 
 may waive any right which is given to 
 him for his own protection only ; and if 
 he has either expressly or tacitly done so, 
 he can no longer object; and neither a 
 stranger nor the body corporate itself can 
 raise such an objection to a contract 
 made by the corporation, if no sliare- 
 holders choose to raise it for themselves. 
 But the legislature, with a view to public 
 policy, does, sometimes expressly, some- 
 times by implication, prohibit the doing 
 of certain acts by companies thus incor- 
 porated ; and when an act is thus made 
 malum prohibitum, any contract to do it is 
 illegal ; and if there is an attempt made to 
 enforce such a contract, the defendant, 
 whether a company or individual, may, 
 if his conscience permit him, set up the 
 illegality to which he was a party ; for in 
 
 pari delicto potior est conditio dejendentis. 
 Though every shareholder in the com- 
 pany bad assented to the making of a 
 particular contract, yet if the legislature 
 have, not merely for the protection of the 
 shareholders, but for the good of the pub- 
 lic, forbidden the making of it, it is illegal, 
 and the corporation whose shareholders 
 have all assented is in no worse position 
 for raising the defence than the chair- 
 man of the company who has personally 
 entered into the contract, and yet may, 
 as was decided in Macgregor v. Dover & 
 Deal Railway Company (18 Q. B. 618), 
 set up the provisions of the railway acts 
 as making his personal contract illegal. 
 The question, whether a particular thing 
 is thus prohibited by the statutes, must 
 in every case depend upon the true con- 
 struction of them. I think it very un- 
 fortunate that the same phrase of ' ultra 
 vires ' has been used to express both an 
 excess of authority as against the share- 
 holders, and the doing of an act illegal as 
 being malum prohibitum; for the two 
 things are substantially different ; and I 
 think the use of the same phrase for both 
 has produced confusion. ... I think that 
 any objection made only on the ground 
 that it affects the interest of a shareholder 
 can only be made by and on behalf of 
 the shareholders, and therefore cannot 
 be made in a court of law at all, but 
 must, if raised at all, be raised in a court 
 of equity." But, on the other hand, Mon- 
 tagu Smith, J., said for himself, Keating 
 and Lush, JJ., p. 370 : " We think that if 
 a contract, made by a company incorpo- 
 rated by act of Parliament for defined and 
 limited objects, discloses on the face of it 
 a covenant which, if enforced, would 
 cause the funds of the company to be 
 appropriated to purposes other than those 
 to which the act says they shall ' only ' 
 be applied, such an agreement cannot be 
 made the foundation of an action. In the 
 case of railway companies it is necessary, 
 not only for the interest of shareholders, 
 but of the public, that this should be so. 
 The public are undoubtedly interested in 
 the maintenance of a railway authorized 
 
COEPOEATE POWEES. 
 
 523 
 
 The doctrine of ultra vires, as applied to the contracts of cor- 
 porations, is well illustrated by two cases which were the starting- 
 points of the discussion, one in equity, and the other at law. In 
 Colman v. Eastern Counties Railway,i the first case in which it was 
 applied, an injunction was granted on a bill brought by a share- 
 holder to restrain a railway company from guaranteeing the divi- 
 dends of a connecting steam-packet company, on the ground that 
 " the powers which are given by an act of Parliament, like that 
 now in question, extend no farther than is expressly stated in the 
 act, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect 
 the undertaking and works which the act has expressly sanc- 
 tioned ; " and that the corporation cannot, with a view to ex- 
 
 by Parliament. Land-owners and other 
 persons have probably sustained much 
 individual loss and inconvenience for that 
 which is assumed to be a public good ; 
 and all tlie Queen's subjects have an in- 
 terest that the funds of the company 
 should not be improperly diverted from 
 the purposes to which Parliament has de- 
 clared they shall be applied. This view 
 of tlie law was presented in explicit terms 
 by Jervis, C. J., in East Anglian Railway 
 Company v. Eastern Counties Railway 
 Company (11 C. B. p. 811), already re- 
 ferred to. It would be of little use for 
 the legislature to define the limits of 
 action of companies and the application 
 of their funds, if a different rule were to 
 prevail ; and it seems reasonable to hold 
 that, when Parliament does define the 
 objects of a company and the appropria- 
 tion of its funds, it, by implication, pro- 
 hibits other objects and a different appro- 
 priation." 
 
 The policy and morality of the doc- 
 trine of ultra vires as a defence upon con- 
 tracts have been often questioned by 
 Englishfjudges and writers. It has been 
 called an ". indecent " defence. Hawkes v. 
 Eastern Counties R. Co., 1 De Gex, M. & 
 G. 737, 760, Lord St. Leonards. His 
 Lordship said in the House of Lords in 
 the same case : " The safety of men in 
 their daily contracts requires that this 
 doctrine of ultra vires should be confined 
 within narrow bounds," and expressed the 
 hope that there would be no other cases 
 " where the defence of a company rests 
 upon a want of power to make a contract 
 which the directors deliberately entered 
 
 into, and under which they took a benefit, 
 or upon the irregularities of their own 
 proceeding." 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 371, 382. 
 In Bateman v. Ashton-under-Lyne, 3 Hurl. 
 & N. 323, 337, Martin, B., concurred with 
 tliese views of Lord St. Leonards ; and 
 like concurrence was expressed by Sir 
 John Romilly, Master of the Rolls, in 
 Shrewsbury & B. R. Co v. London & N. 
 W. R. Co., 16 Beav. 441, 451. In South 
 Yorkshire R. & River Dun Co. v. Great 
 Northern R. Co., 9 Exch. 55, 89, Parke, 
 B., assumed the defence to be a dishonest 
 one,and (as Lord Wensleydale) in Scottish 
 North-Eastern R. Co. v. Stewart, 3 Macq. 
 382, 415, while regarding the doctrine as 
 sound law, said that " the application of 
 it to the points of each particular case 
 had not always been satisfactory to his 
 mind." In Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., 
 4 El. & Bl. 397, 416, Erie, J., thought 
 the doctrine one which " brings with it 
 serious evil, both in affecting with uncer- 
 tainty contracts with railway companies, 
 and also in reversing the usual application 
 of the law of contract, in as far as it justi- 
 fies instead of redressing breaches of con- 
 tract." Mr. Brice, in the preface to his 
 treatise on Ultra Vires, treats the doctrine 
 in no friendly spirit, referring to it as " a 
 misleading principle," and saying that " as 
 a necessary result the decisions and dicta 
 upon this subject are very conflicting, and 
 some absolutely irreconcilable, while the 
 principle itself is become, if not an excres- 
 cence upon, at least a very disturbing 
 element in, the legal system." 
 1 10 Beav. 1 (1846). 
 
524 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 pected profits, enter on other and different trades and transactions 
 not pointed out by its act, as the one proposed was held to be, 
 even with the assent of all the shareholders. The Master of the 
 Rolls, Lord Langdale, laid stress on the importance, for the sake 
 of the shareholders, of restraining the company from hazardous 
 speculations, and, for the sake of the public, of making such in- 
 vestments secure, referring to " the frenzy " which had for the 
 previous fifteen years prevailed in relation to such enterprises. 
 This reference to a period of extraordinary speculation in railway 
 schemes shows the inspiration under which many of the early 
 opinions on the doctrine of ultra vires were given.^ In the case of 
 the East Anglian Railways Company v. Eastern Counties Railway 
 Company ,2 which introduced the discussion into the courts of law, 
 an agreement by one company to take a lease of the railway of 
 another, to provide capital for other railway works, and to pay 
 the expenses of bills pending in Parliament which would give 
 authority for such additional works, was, in an action to recover 
 the expenses, held to be illegal and void. The principle of the 
 decision was that the corporation had only a limited authority 
 for the purpose of making and maintaining the railway sanc- 
 tioned by the act, and the contract relating to the parliamentary 
 bills was not within its scope and was therefore void.'* 
 
 ' Lord Langdale admitted in the case was not contemplated by the act, they 
 
 that railway corporations had been " so cannot embark in other undertakings not 
 
 recently introduced into the country that sanctioned by their act, merely because 
 
 neither the legislature nor courts of j us- they hope the speculation may ultimately 
 
 tice have been yet able to understand all increase the profit of the shareholders. . . . 
 
 the different lights in which their transac- Every proprietor, when he takes shares, 
 
 tions ought properly to be viewed." has a right to expect that the conditions, 
 
 ^ H C. B. 775 (1851). upon which the act was obtained, will be 
 
 = Jervis, C. J., pp. 811-814 : " It is clear performed ; and it is no sufficient answer 
 
 that the defendants have a limited author- to a shareholder, expecting his dividend, 
 
 ity only, and are a corporation only for the that the money has been expended upon 
 
 purpose of making and maintaining the an undertaking which at some remote 
 
 railway sanctioned by the act ; and that period may be highly beneficial to the 
 
 their funds can only be applied for the line. The public also has an interest in 
 
 purposes directed and provided for by the the proper administration of the powers 
 
 statute. Indeed, it is not contended that conferred by the act. The comfort and 
 
 a company so constituted can engage in safety of the line may be seriously im- 
 
 new trades not contemplated by their paired if the money supposed to be neces- 
 
 act; but it is said that they may embark sary, and destined by Parliament for the 
 
 in other undertakings, however various, maintenance of the railway, be expended 
 
 provided the object of the directors be to in other undertakings not contemplated 
 
 increase the profits of their own railway, when the act was obtained, and not ex- 
 
 This, in truth, is the same proposition in pressly sanctioned by the legislature, 
 
 another form ; for, if the company cannot The ca'ses in equity which have been 
 
 carry on a new trade merely because it cited proceeded upon this view of the 
 
COKPOEATB POWERS. 625 
 
 The case in equity being a suit of a stockholder, not an action 
 between the corporation and a third party, is in conformity to the 
 sound doctrine which entitles a shareholder to arrest in equity 
 a diversion of the corporate funds, while the case at law may be 
 sustained on the ground that the contract in question, which pro- 
 posed a practical union of different corporations and enterprises 
 not yet authorized by the legislature, was against public policy. 
 
 Generally, it may be said that, although the English cases on 
 this subject contain suggestive discussions, they are, for certain 
 reasons, peculiar to the English system of railway law and ad- 
 ministration, of less authority in this country than English cases 
 in other branches of the law.^ The methods of treating corpora- 
 tions in the two countries differ so much in essential particulars 
 as to require careful discrimination in applying the decisions 
 made in one to questions arising in the other. A critical treat- 
 ment of the English cases, with a view to define the powers of 
 corporations in the United States, requires attention to the fol- 
 lowing points : — 
 
 1. The English system of railway law differs from our own in 
 the minute details of statutes containing much that is left to the 
 common law in this country, and declaring a public policy which 
 even governs decisions in matters not within the statutes.^ 
 
 2. In the United States, the doctrine that the contracts of cor- 
 porations must be attested by the common seal has yielded to 
 modern convenience, and the contracts of such bodies require no 
 further solemnities than those of individuals.^ This is only par- 
 subject, and were decided, not because I. R. Co., 22 N. T. 258 ; Cary v. Cleve- 
 tlie particular act restrained by injunc- land & T'. R. Co., 29 Barb. 35; Morris & 
 tion was a breach of trust, but because it E. E. Co. v. Sussex R. Co., 5 C. E. Green, 
 was not within the scope of the directors' 642 ; Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Al- 
 authority, was not justified by the stat- len, 326, 331 ; Monument National Bank 
 ute, and was therefore illegal. . . . We v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57 ; 5 Ameri- 
 know that each of the four litigant com- can Law Review, p. 272. 
 
 panics has a separate act of Parliament; 2 Boston & P. R. Co. v. Midland R. 
 
 we know that the statute incorporating Co., 1 Gray, 340, 359. Shaw, C. J., said : 
 
 the defendants' company gives no author- " This, like every other question respect- 
 
 ity respecting the bills promoted by the ing the powers of railroad companies, 
 
 plaintiffs : and we are therefore bound to must depend on the statutes of the Com- 
 
 say that any contract relating to such monwealth; and very little aid can be 
 
 bills is not justified by the act of Parlia- derived from English judicial decisions 
 
 ment, is not within the scope of the au- on this subject, because the provisions of 
 
 thority of the company as a corporation, their acts of incorporation and their whole 
 
 and is therefore void." course of proceeding differ so much from 
 
 ' For comments upon the English our own." 
 cases, see Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zeller- ' Angell & A. on Corp. § 237. 
 bach, 37 Cal. 543 ; Bissell v. IDch. S. & N. 
 
526 THE LAW OF KAILKOADS. 
 
 tially true in England, where railway and certain other corpora- 
 tions are disabled from contracting, in many instances, except 
 with the common seal.^ The significance which this ancient for- 
 mality retains in England illustrates the different views of cor- 
 porate action taken in the two countries. 
 
 3. In the United States, corporations generally have the implied 
 power to bind themselves by commercial paper given for legiti- 
 mate purposes;^ but in England the power exists only when it is 
 implied from statute provisions which assume its existence, or 
 is a necessary incident to the kind of business carried on by the 
 corporation ; and it is held not to belong to various business cor- 
 porations, including railway companies, without a specific power 
 in the charter or memorandum of association.^ 
 
 4. In England, certain companies may be organized, under 
 general laws prescribing a " deed of settlement " or " memoran- 
 dum of association," which takes the place of a charter, and 
 determines their objects, the powers of officers, and other matters 
 concerning their management.* The question whether such a 
 corporation has exceeded its powers, and the question whether 
 the officers have exceeded the authority conferred upon them by 
 the deed or memorandum, are sometimes confused ; and the 
 eases which relate to companies thus organized are apt to mis- 
 lead in inquiries concerning the powers of corporations in this 
 country.^ 
 
 5. The English cases which have given rise to the contention con- 
 cerning the application of the doctrine of ultra vires to corporate 
 
 1 Diggle V. London & B. E. Co., 5 401 ; Royal British Bank v. Turquand, 5 
 Exch. 442 ; London Dock Co. v. Sinnott, El. & Bl. 248 ; British & Foreign Cork 
 8 El. & Bl. 347 ; Green's Brice's Ultra Co., In re, L. R. 1 Eq. Cas. 231 ; Foun- 
 Vires, Part III. ch. iii.. § 2. English stat- taine v. Carmarthen R. Co., L. R. 5 Eq. 
 ntes, particulariy 8 & 9 Vict. ch. 16, § 97, Cas. 316 ; Riche v. Ashbury R. Carriage 
 have modified the common-law doctrine. & Iron Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 224 L R. 7 
 
 2 Ante, p. 503. H. L. 653. 
 
 8 Bateman v. Mid Wales R. Co., L. R. 6 Bissell v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. Co., 22 
 
 1 C. P. 499 (1866) ; Peruvian R. Co. v. N. Y. 258, 291, 5 American Law Review 
 
 Thames & M. M. Ins. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. (Jan. 1871), 272, 285; 2 Kent Com. 300, 
 
 App, 617 ; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, Part note ; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, Part II. 
 
 ^^ i\'i V'- ^^o*' ^' ''''• '• ^^^^- "•• " "V'arious meanings that have 
 
 Jomt-Stock Companies Act," 7 & 8 been given to the term ultra vires." The 
 
 Vict, ch 110, containing eighty sections, ambiguity of the phrase, as sometimes 
 
 with schedules annexed ; " The Com- denoting a mere excess of autliority and 
 
 pan.es Act, 1862," 25 & 26 Vict. ch. 89; sometimes an act illegal as malum p-o- 
 
 The Companies Act, 1867," 30 & 31 hibitum, has been noted. Tavlor v. Chi- 
 
 Vict. ch. 131 ; Balfour v. Ernest, 5 C. B. cheater & M. R. Co., L. R. 2" Exch. 356, . 
 
 N. s. 601 ; Ernest v. Nicholls, 6 H. L. Cas. 870. 
 
CORPORATE POWERS. 527 
 
 contracts have sometimes related to contracts which involved an 
 assumption, without authority of Parliament, by one company of 
 a new enterprise, or a transfer of its own, by means of a contem- 
 plated lease, consolidation or joint business, or purchase of shares, 
 or to contracts for applications to Parliament for authority to 
 enter into such arrangements.^ These are clearly distinguishable 
 from ordinary business contracts, which may or may not be auxil- 
 iary to a corporate purpose. Their effect is to change the area of 
 the operations of the company which had been fixed by legisla- 
 tion.2 
 
 6. A large proportion of the English opinions on the doctrine 
 of ultra vires were given on bills in equity brought by share- 
 holders to restrain the corporatioii and its officers from breaches 
 of trust and a perversion of the corporate funds to unauthorized 
 uses.^ The just intervention of equity in such cases cannot be 
 used as authority to sustain the defence of ultra vires in suits 
 between the parties to the contract. This distinction has been 
 noted in some English opinions.* 
 
 7. Notwithstanding the voluminous discussion in the English 
 courts of the doctrine of ultra vires, it has rarely prevailed as a 
 defence in a suit between the parties to a contract.^ The agree- 
 
 1 The following are such cases : Bast Co., 13 Bear. 1 (1850) ; Beman v. Ru£ford, 
 Anglian R. Co. k. Eastern Counties R. 1 Simons, n. s. 550 (1851); Simpson o. 
 Co., 11 C. B. 775; Macgregor a. Dover & Denison, 10 Hare, 51 (1852) ; Winch u. 
 D. R. Co., 18 Q. B. 618; Beman ».- Ruf- Birkenhead, L., & C. J. R. Co., 5 De Gex 
 ford, 1 Simons, n. s. 550; Simpson u. & S. 562 (1852); Charlton v. Newcastle 
 Denison, 10 Hare, 51; Great Northern & C. R. Co., 5 Jur. n. s. 1096 (1859) ; Hare 
 R. Co. «. Eastern Counties R. Co., 9 v. London & N. W. R. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 
 Hare, 306 ; London, B., & S. C. R. Co. v. 80 (1861) ; Forrest v. Manchester, S., & 
 London & S. W. R. Co., i De Gex & J. L. R. Co., 30 Beav. 40 (1861) ; 4 De Gex, 
 362; Winch v. Birkenhead, L., & C. J. R. F..& J. 126 (1861) ; Maunsell v. Midland 
 Co., 5 De Gex & S. 562 ; Charlton v. New- Great Western R. Co., 1 Hem. & M. 130 
 castle & C. R. Co., 5 Jur. n. s. 1096; (1863). See London, B., & S. C. R. Co. 
 Gardner v. London, C, & D. R. Co., L. v. London & S. W. R. Co., 4 De Gex & J. 
 R. 2 Ch. App. 201; Bourgoin v. La Com- 362 (1859). 
 
 pagnie, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 381. See ^ Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & 
 
 Sevenoaks, M., & T. R. Co. v. London, C, Bl. 397, 417, 418 ; Bateman v. Ashton- 
 
 & D. R. Co., L. R. 11 Ch. DiT. 625. nnder-Lyne, 3 Hurl. & N. 323, 337 ; South 
 
 2 The territorial character of certain Wales R. Co. v. Redmond, 10 C. B. n. s. 
 powers of a railway company is noted by 675, 685 ; Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. 
 Lord Campbell in Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., L. R. 2 Exch. 356, 378-380. In East 
 Co., 4 El. & Bl. 397, 441, 442. Anglian R. Co. v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 
 
 ' Colman v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 11 C. B. 775, equity cases only were relied 
 
 10 Beav. 1 (1846) ; Cohen v. Wilkinson, 12 on. In this case, Maule, J., noted the dis- 
 
 Beav. 125 (1849) ; Salomons u. Laing, 12 tinction above referred to. pp. 789, 790, 
 
 Beav. 339 (1849); Bagshaw v. Eastern 792. 
 
 Union R. Co., 7 Hare, 114 (1849), 2 Mac. & 'It has prevailed as a defence in the 
 
 G. 389 (1850) ; Muntu. Shrewsbury & C. K. House of Lords in a single case, Ashbury 
 
528 
 
 THE LAW OF BAILEOADS. 
 
 merit has been usually sustained as one which the corporation 
 could lawfully make,^ or the final decision has rested on other 
 grounds ; as that the contract was uncertain in its terms or of 
 doubtful construction,^ that the proper remedy had not been 
 sought,^ that the rights of the parties had not matured,* that the 
 covenant had not been broken,^ or some other points, aside from 
 the doctrine of ultra vires, affecting its validity or the rights of 
 parties.^ The opinions on the subject are therefore very largely 
 obiter . dicta ; and the disposition to rest the final judgment on 
 other grounds shows a hesitation in admitting the defence. 
 
 R. Carriage & Iron Co. v. Kiche, L. 
 R. 7 H. L. 653, L. R. 9 Exch. 224. The 
 defence has also been sustained in the 
 following cases in other courts : East 
 Anglian R. Co. v. Eastern Counties R. 
 Co., n C. B. 775; Macgregor v. Dover & 
 n. R. Co., 18 Q. B. 618 ; Great Northern 
 R. Co. V. Eastern Counties R. Co., 9 
 Hare, 306 ; Earl of Shrewsbury v. North 
 Staffordshire R. Co., L. R. 1 Eq. Cas. 
 593. 
 
 1 London & S. W. R. Co. v. South, 
 Eastern R. Co., 8 Exch. 584; South 
 Yorkshire R. & River Dun Co. v. Great 
 Nortliern R. Co., 9 Exch. 55, 8 De Gex, 
 M. & G. 576; South Wales R. Co. o. 
 Redmond, 10 C. B. n. s. 675; Eastern 
 Counties R. Co. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 
 331, 8 De Gex & S. 743, 1 De Gex, M. & 
 G. 737 ; Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., 
 L. R. 4 H. L. 628, 4 Hurl. & C. 409, L. R. 
 2 Exch. 356 ; Bateman o. Ashton-under- 
 Lyne, 3 Hurl. & N. 323 ; Wilson v. Fur- 
 ness R. Co., L. R. 9 Eq. Cas. 28; Midland 
 
 R. Co. u. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 8 
 Ch. App. 841 ; Attorney-General v. Great 
 Eastern B. Co., L. R. 5 App. Cas. 473, 
 L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 449. 
 
 2 Webb V. Direct London & P. R. Co., 
 9 Hare, 129, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 621,- 
 Stuart V. Loudon & N. W. R. Co., 15 
 Beav. 513, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 721. 
 
 8 Johnson v. Shrewsbury & B. R. Co., 
 3 De Gex, M. & G. 914; South York- 
 shire R. & River Dun Co, v. Great North- 
 ern R. Co., 9 Exch. 55, 8 De Gex, M. & 
 G. 576. 
 
 * Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. North 
 Western R. Co., 6 H. L. Cas. 113, 2 Mac. & 
 G. 324; 3 Mac. & G. 70, 17 Q. B. 652, 16 
 Beav. 441, 4 De Gex, M. & G. 115; Scot- 
 tish North-Eastern R. Co. v. Stewart, 3 
 Hacq. 382. 
 
 s Gage V. Nevrmarket R. Co., 18 Q. B. 
 457. 
 
 8 Norwich v. Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & 
 Bl. 397, where only one judge thought the 
 contract uUra vires ; post, p. 634. 
 
CORPORATE POWEKS. 629 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 Foe the convenience of the profession, an abstract of the leading 
 English cases in which the doctrine of ultra vires is applied te the 
 contracts of corporations is here given, classified as follows : I. Suits 
 in equity by shareholders to restrain the corporation. II. Suits in 
 equity or at law between the parties to the contract. III. Suits by the 
 Attorney-General to restrain the corporation. 
 
 I. Suits in equity hy shareholders to restrain the corporation. 
 
 1. Colman v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 10 Beav. 1 (1846). The 
 points of this case have been sufficiently stated in the text, ante, p. 523. 
 For a reference to this case see South Wales E. Co. v. Redmond, 
 10 C. B. N. s. 675, 685. 
 
 2. Cohen v. WUkinson, 12 Beav. 125 (1849), 1 Mac. & G. 481 
 (1849). A railway company was enjoined from carrying out a reso- 
 lution of the shareholders to construct only a small portion of its 
 entire line and to abandon the rest ; the obligation to complete the work 
 being held coextensive with the authority to undertake it.. See com- 
 ments on this case in Bagshaw v. Eastern Union E. Co., 2 Mac. & 
 G. 389, 392. 
 
 3. Salomons V. Laing, 12 Beav. 339 (1849). A railway company was 
 enjoined from taking shares in another railwa}' companj- without author- 
 ity from Parliament ; it being bound to apply all its moneys and prop- 
 erty to the purposes directed by its Act, and not authorized to divert 
 them to the support of another company having distinct objects. 
 
 4. Bagshaw v. Eastern Union R. Co., 7 Hare, 114 (1849), 2 Mac. & 
 G. 389 (1850), 2 Hall & T. 201. Where a company was authorized 
 to raise new capital for a specific purpose, to wit, a branch railway, and 
 the intention of the Act which gave the authority was to keep the new 
 capital separate from the original capital, an injunction was granted at 
 the suit of the holders of the new scrip, to prevent a diversion of such 
 additional capital to the completion of the original line. See Eastern 
 Counties R. Co. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 346 ; Taylor v. Chichester 
 & M. R. Co., L. R. 4 H. L. 628, 648. 
 
 5. Munt V. Shrewsbury & C. R. Co., 13 Beav. 1 (1850). A railway 
 and wharf company, having a station and whai'ves on a river, and tak- 
 
 84 
 
530 THE LAW OP RAILROADS. 
 
 ing tolls under proper authority, was enjoined from using its funds in 
 the support of a bill in Parliament for improving the navigation of the 
 river ; it being considered absolutely and unalterably " decided in the 
 Court of Chancery that companies who are possessed of funds for 
 objects which are distinctly defined by Act of ParUament cannot be 
 allowed to apply them to any other purpose whatever, however advan- 
 tageous and profitable that purpose may appear to be to the company 
 or to the individual members of the company." 
 
 6. Beman v. Ruffbrd, 1 Simons, n. s. 550 (1851). A company was 
 enjoined from carrying into effect an agreement which was practically 
 a lease of its railway and a transfer of its whole business to other com- 
 panics ; the Vice-ChanceUor holding the agreement to be illegal, and to 
 provide for a railway different from that contemplated by the Act, and 
 saying that " this court will not tolerate that parties, having the enor- 
 mous powers which railway companies obtain, should apply one far- 
 thing of their funds in a way which differs, in the shghtest degree, 
 from that in which the legislature has provided that they shall be 
 applied." See reference to this case in Gregory v. Patchett, 33 Beav. 
 595, 606. 
 
 7. Simpson v. Denison, 10 Hare, 51 (1852). A company was en- 
 joined from carr3'ing out an agreement to work the traffic of another 
 railway company, and pay the expenses of an application to Parliament 
 for a ratifying Act. The Vice-Chancellor, following the analogy of a 
 partnership, stated the principle that a company, formed for the pur- 
 ]3ose of making a railway between certain places, cannot lawfully make 
 one between other places, or use its moneys for obtaining an Act for a 
 railway between such other places. See comments on this case in 
 South Yorkshire E. & Eiver Dun Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 
 Exch. 55, 81, 88, where the analogy between a corporation and a part- 
 nership is questioned. 
 
 8. Winch v. Birkenhead, L., & C. J. R. Co., 5 De Gex & S. 562 
 (1852). The court enjoined a company from carrying out an agree- 
 ment which was practically a lease of its railway to another company 
 for ninetj''-nine j'ears. The Vice-ChanceUor thought the agreement 
 " savored of illegality," and that it was not a simple incapacit}' in the 
 other company to undertake the working of the railwaj"^, but that such 
 an arrangement was against the policj' of Acts of Parliament. 
 
 9. London, B., & S. C. R. Co. v. London & S. W. R. Co., 4 De Gex 
 & J. 362 (1859). An agreement transferring the exclusive use of the. 
 railway, in consideration of an annual sum to be paid, was held illegal. 
 For reference to this case see Midland R. Co. v. Great Western R. Co., 
 L, R. 8 Ch. App. 841, 857. 
 
 10. Charlton v. Newcastle & C. R. Co., 5 Jur. n. s. 1096 (1859). 
 
COJBPOBATE POWEKS. 631 
 
 Companies were enjoined from carrying out an agreement, made without 
 authority of ParUament, for a partnership and amalgamation. 
 
 11. Hare v. London & N. "W. R. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 80 (1861). In 
 this case, the same Vice-Chancellor who decided the preceding case 
 held that an agreement for the division of the profits of the whole traffic 
 in certain fixed proportions was not ultra vires., chieflj' on the author- 
 ity of Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. North Western R. Co., 6 H. L. 
 Cas. 113. 
 
 12. Forrest v. Manchester, S., & L. R. Co., 30 Beav. 40 (1861), 4 De 
 G-ex, F. & J. 126 (1861). An injunction was refused on a bill to restrain a 
 railway companj', which was authorized to maintain a ferry, from letting 
 boats for excursions when not required for its purposes. The principle 
 declared was, that while a railwaj^ companj', incorporated as a com- 
 mon carrier between two places, is not authorized" to carry on a trade 
 perfectly distinct and separate from that for which it was constituted, 
 it may lawfully own boats which are required on some though not on all 
 days (the traflSc being greater on market or other special daj^s), and 
 that, having such boats, it may use them when not required in its busi- 
 ness for excursions, or let them for that purpose to others. The Lord 
 Chancellor, on appeal, dismissed the bill, confining himself to the 
 ground that the plaintiff was not a honafde party. 
 
 13. Maunsell v. Midland Great Western R. Co., 1 Hem. & M. 130 
 (1863). An injunction was granted to restrain a company from mak- 
 ing a parliamentary deposit for bills promoted by another company, 
 the transaction being held vltra vires. 
 
 14. Gregorys. Patchett, 33 Beav. 595 (1864). This was a suit to 
 annul the proceedings of a shipping company on the ground that they 
 were in excess of its powers; and two grounds of complaint were 
 stated : 1. The company, with a view to facilitate a change in the 
 directory, purchased a large amount of the shares of the capital stock. 
 It was held that this transaction, even on the assumption that it was 
 idtra vires of the company, could not be impeached by a minority of the 
 stockholders, who for six years had acquiesced in it. The Master of 
 the Rolls, Romilly, said, " Shareholders cannot lie by, sanctioning, or 
 by their silence at least acquiescing in, an arrangement which is ultra 
 vires of the company to which they belong, watching the result : if it be 
 favorable and profitable to themselves, to abide by it and insist on its 
 validity ; but if it prove unfavorable and disastrous, then to institute 
 proceedings to set it aside." 2. The company sold three ships, its 
 only available property, to two directors, receiving in payment their 
 stock at the price they had paid the company for it, which was above 
 its market value. The Master of the Rolls held the sale to be void, 
 required the directors to make good the value of the ships, and decreed 
 
532 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 the dissolution and winding up of the company. The transaction of 
 the sale of the sliips was treated as ultra vires of the company, being 
 foreign to its objects, and accomplished by a narrow majority, com- 
 posed in a great measure of the persons who were themselves interested 
 in the decision. It may be remarked that the sale was voidable on the 
 ground of breach of trust, rather than as uhra vires of the company. 
 
 15. Lyde v. Eastern Bengal R. Co., 36 Beav. 10 (1866). An 
 injunction was sought to prevent a railway company in India from 
 employing its funds in obtaining from Parliament powers foreign to its 
 purposes as originally established, and from employing steamboats for 
 convej-ing goods and passengers beyond the limits of its railway. The 
 Master of the Bolls, though thinking some of its acts idtra vires, refused 
 the preliminary injunction, giving as reasons for the refusal the distance 
 of the place where the acts complained of were being done, and the 
 probability of parliamentary authority being obtained. 
 
 16. Eussell V. Wakefield Waterworks Co., L. E. 20 Eq. Cas. 474 
 (1875). This shareholders' bill sought a recovery of money illegally 
 paid to the promoters of another company, but it was defective in form. 
 A demurrer was sustained, with leave to amend. 
 
 II. Suits in equity or at law between the parties to the contract. 
 
 17. East Anglian R. Co. v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 11 C. B. 775 
 (1851). The points of this case have been sufficiently stated in the 
 text, ante, p. 524. See references to this case in South Yorkshire R. & 
 River Dun Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 Exch. 55, 72, 73 ; Bateman 
 V. Ashton-under-Lyne, 3 Hurl. & N. 323, 337, 339 ; Macgregor w. Dover 
 & D. R. Co., 18 Q. B. 618, 631 ; Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., 
 L. R. 2 Exch. 356, 369, 371, 372, 375, 381, 384, 385, 389 ; Eastern 
 Counties R. Co. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 347 ; Norwich v. Nor- 
 folk R. Co., 4 El. & Bl. 397, 412-415, 445 ; Ashbury R. Carriage 
 & Iron Co. V. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 694 ; Attorney-General u. Great 
 Eastern R. Co., L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 449, 501, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 473. 
 
 18. Webb u. Direct London & P. R. Co., 9 Hare, 129 (1851), 1 De 
 Gex, M. & G. 521 (1852). This was a land-owner's bill in equity for 
 the specific performance of a contract, made with him originally by the 
 promoters of the railway, but afterwards adopted by the company, to 
 pay him a certain sum for his land and consequential damages in con- 
 sideration of his withdrawing opposition to a bill in Parliament for incor- 
 porating the company. The railway was abandoned, and no part of 
 the land was taken. Specific performance was decreed, but, on appeal, it 
 was held that, the railway not having been made and the land not being 
 taken, the decree was inequitable, and the land-owner was left to his 
 remedy at law. The agreement itself was also thought to be obscure. 
 This case is similar to Stuart v. London & N. W. R. Co., 15 Beav. 
 
COKPOBATB POWERS, 633 
 
 513 (1852), 1 De Gex, M. & G. 721 (1852). For references to these 
 two cases see Hawkes v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 1 De Gex, M. & G. 
 737, 757-759, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 351-353, 355, 369, 377, 379 ; Gage«. 
 Newmarket R. Co., 18 Q. B. 457, 470. 
 
 19. Great Northern R. Co. v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 9 Hare, 306 
 (1851). The court refused to aid by an injunction an agreement which 
 was practically a lease made by one company of its railway to another 
 company, regarding it as an attempt to delegate powers which could be 
 delegated only by authority of Parliament. 
 
 20. Shrewsbury & B. R. Co. v. London & N. "W. R. Co., and the 
 Shropshire Union R. & Canal Co., 2 Mac. & G. 324, 2 Hall & T. 257 
 (1850), 3 Mac. & G. 70 (1850), 17 Q. B. 652 (1851), 16 Beav. 441 
 (1852), 4 De Gex, M. & G. 115 (1853), 6 H. L. Cas. 113 (1857). The 
 plaintiff company sought the specific perfoi-mance of an agreement by 
 the two defendant companies, by which the said two companies, in con- 
 sideration of the plaintiff's withdrawing opposition to a bill in Parlia- 
 ment, authorizing one of the two defendant companies to take a lease of 
 the railway of the other, agreed with the plaintiff company to conduct their 
 business in a certain manner so as not to injure the plaintiff's business. 
 There was a contention in relation to the construction of the agreement 
 on which the final result turned ; but there was much discussion of the 
 question whether the agreement was void as ultra vires, or as promoting 
 a monopoly. The cause had a various fortune, and finally (some points 
 having been reserved for an action at law, 17 Q. B. 652) ended in the 
 House of Lords with a decree of dismissal. For references to this case 
 see Charlton v. Newcastle & C. R. Co., 5 Jur. n. s. 1096 ; Hare v. 
 London & N. "W. R. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 80, 112. 
 
 21. Macgregor v. Dover & D. R. Co., 18 Q. B. 618 (1852). A person 
 agreed that a railway company, in which he had influence, should, 
 in a certain event, pay the parliamentary expenses of an application by 
 another company to Parliament for a scheme which, if authorized, was 
 to be handed over to the company that was by the agreement to pay the 
 expenses. The court, following East Anghan R. Co. v. Eastern Coun- 
 ties R. Co., 11 C. B. 775, held that Iftiis was an agreement to do an ille- 
 gal act, — one not only beyond the power of the companj^ which was to 
 pay the expenses, but also contrary to public policy and the provisions 
 of an Act of Parliament. For references to this case see Norwich v. 
 Norfolk R. Co., 4 El. & Bl. 397, 419 ; Eastern Counties R. Co. v. 
 Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 348 ; Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., 
 L. R. 2 Exch. 356, 382, 383. 
 
 22. Gage v. Newmarket R. Co., 18 Q. B. 457 (1852). The chief 
 contention was as to the construction of an agreement of a company 
 promoting a bill for the extension of its line to pay in a certain event 
 
534 THE LAW OP BAILBOADS. 
 
 damages to a partj' whose land would be severed by such extended 
 line ; but there was a dictum of Lord Campbell, C. J., to the effect that 
 the agreement, if absolute, would have been ultra vires. For refer- 
 ences to this case see Hawkes v. Eastern Counties E. Co., 1 De Gex, 
 M. & G. 737, 758, 5 H. L. Cas. 331, 351 ; Taylor v. Chichester & M. 
 E. Co., L. E. 2 Exch. 356, 366 ; Scottish North Eastern E. Co. v. 
 Stewart, 3 Macq. 382, 394. Compare Bland v. Crowley, 6 Exch. 522. 
 In Preston v. Liverpool, M., & N. E. Co., 5 H. L. Cas. 605 (1856), 1 
 Simons, n. s. 586, 17 Beav. 114, there was a similar construction of a 
 contract. 
 
 23. Norwich v. Norfolk E. Co., 4 El. & Bl. 397 (1855). The 
 defendant company, in constructing its railway across a navigable 
 river, found it impracticable to buUd a bridge and other necessary 
 works on the site fixed by the parliamentary location ; and, without 
 changing the general route, began to construct them at a more conven- 
 ient point, with the consent of the owners of the adjoining land, and of 
 the Admiralty, but without further authority of Parliament. Being 
 indicted for a public nuisance at the instance of the plaintiffs, a munici- 
 pal corporation, an agreement was made by which the plaintiffs were, 
 as far as they were interested, to permit the works to remain, and the 
 railway company was to erect them in a certain way, and, with the co- 
 operation of the municipal corporation, to use its best endeavors to 
 obtain an Act of Parliament sanctioning and confirming the agreement. 
 The company made a further covenant to pay the plaintiffs a certain 
 sum as liquidated damages if the works were not completed within 
 twelve months, whether the ratifying act was obtained or not; and 
 upon this covenant the action was brought. An Act of Parliament was 
 obtained, which authorized the works, but did not in terms legalize the 
 agreement or contain a retrospective clause. The judges di\'ided 
 equally on the question whether by proper construction the agreement 
 stipulated for an illegal act, to wit, a public nuisance ; but, on the sec- 
 ond question, whether it was ultra vires as unconnected with the pur- 
 pose of the incorporation. Lord Campbell alone expressed the opinion 
 that it was void for that reason. 
 
 24. Hawkes v. Eastern Counties E. Co., 3 DeGex & S. 743 (1850), 
 1 De Gex, M. & G. 737 (1852), 5 H. L. Cas. 331 (1855). This was 
 a land-owner's bill in equity against a company, praying for the specific 
 performance of its agreement to buy his land (only a part of which was 
 needed for the proposed scheme) , and pay certain damages in the event 
 of its obtaining an -Act to authorize a branch railway, which would pass 
 through his efetate, he agreeing, at the same time, to withdraw opposi- 
 tion to the proposed Act. The Act having been obtained, the company 
 maintained the agreement to be ultra vires, chiefly on the ground that 
 
COKPORATB POWEKS. 535 
 
 the land was not required for the railway ahead^- authorized, and that 
 the company could not contract to buy land for a hne to be hereafter 
 authorized. Specific performance was decreed, it being held that the 
 new line was not foreign to the original enterprise, and the funds of the 
 company would, under the authority of the new Act, be used for it 
 in the same manner as if originally authorized ; that, where directors 
 are acting in the obvious line of their duty, their contracts of purchase 
 with a party dealing in good faith are binding on the company although 
 the property bought may be more than is required for the railway ; and 
 that the conditional contract, which was to become absolute upon the 
 Act being obtained, was a lawful one. For references to this ease see 
 Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., L. E. 2 Exch. 356, 367-369, 372, 
 382, 386, 388, 392. 
 
 25. South Yorkshire R. & River Dun Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 
 3 De Gex, M. & G. 576 (1853), 9 Exch. 55 (1853). This controversy, 
 carried on in equity and at law, is not instructive except in the obser- 
 vations of Parke, B., in the Court of Exchequer, on the capacity of a 
 corporation to bind itself by contracts. See ante, p. 502. For references 
 to this case see Charlton v. Newcastle & C. E. Co., 5 Jur. n. s. 1096 ; 
 Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., L. R. 2 Exch. 356, 362. 
 
 26. Johnson v. Shrewsbury & B. R. Co., 3 De Gex, M. & G. 914 
 (1853). This suit related to an agreement by one company to work 
 the line of another ; and although there was a suggestion that it was 
 illegal and against public poUcy, the decision involved only a question 
 of remedy. 
 
 27. Bateman v. Ashton-under-Lyne, 3 Hurl. & N. 323 (1858). The 
 contract of a water-works company to pay for plans of a proposed 
 extension to be made in view of an application to Parliament for the 
 proper authority was held not ultra vires. 
 
 28. Scottish North-Eastern R. Co. v. Stewart, 3 Macq. 382 (1859). 
 This was, in efltect, a land owner's suit for the specific performance of the 
 company's agreement to purchase his land ; but the agreement was held 
 to be conditional on the company's executing its line, and that event 
 had not taken place. Lord Wensleydale's remarks on the capacity of 
 a company to bind itself by contract, elsewhere quoted {ante, p. 501, 
 note), are instructive. 
 
 29. South Wales R. Co. v. Redmond, 10 C. B. N. s. 675 (1861). The 
 points of this case have already been suflSciently stated, ante, p. 509. 
 For reference to this case see Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., L. R, 
 2 Exch. 356, 386, 
 
 30. Earl of Shrewsbury v. North Stafl'ordshire R. Co., L. R. 1 Eq. 
 Cas. 593 (1865). This suit involved, besides a question concerning 
 the power of the promoters to bind a company by contracts made 
 
536 THE LAW OF EAILEOADS. 
 
 before its existence, the further question, whether it was bound by an 
 agreement of such promoters, which had been adopted by the directors 
 after its Act had been obtained, to paj- £20,000 to a peer for his "coun- 
 tenance and support " in obtaining the Act. The agreement was held 
 to be ukra vires of the company ; but other grounds of defence might 
 well have been taken, as that such an agreement with a legislator is void 
 as tending to corruption, and that, if not, "countenance and support" 
 is too indefinite a benefit to be the consideration of a contract. For 
 reference to this case see Taylor v, Chichiester & M. E. Co., L. R. 2 
 Exch. 356, 374, 377, 378. 
 
 31. Wilson V. Furness E. Co., L. E. 9 Eq. Cas. 28 (1869). The 
 agreement of a railway company to build for certain considerations a 
 carriage-road and wharf was held not vMra vires, and was specifically 
 enforced in equity. 
 
 32. Taylor v. Chichester & M. R. Co., 4 Hurl. & C. (Court of Ex- 
 chequer) 409 (1866), L. R. 2 Exch. (Exchequer Chamber) 356 (1867), 
 L. R. 4 H. L. 628 (1870). It was held in this case that the contract 
 of a railway company, reciting its intended application to Parliament 
 rfor authority to make a new line, by which it agreed with a land-owner, 
 in the event of the bill passing during the session, to build the proposed 
 railway through his land at certain points, to buy his land for a sum 
 stated, and within a specified time after the passing of the bill to pay 
 him a certain other sum as personal compensation for annoyance, 
 inconvenience, and damage in respect of game, he agreeing, upon 
 these terms, to withdraw opposition to the application and sell his land, 
 was binding on the company. The action was upon the covenant t» 
 pay the sum fixed as personal compensation which was held absolute 
 on the Act being obtained, although the company had not built the 
 road and the land-owner had not sufiered damage. An agreement 
 which, by its terms, was to become operative on the passing of the bill 
 was regarded by virtue of that stipulation as if it had been made after 
 the passing of the bill. The conflict of opinion in this case between 
 diflfereut courts and the judges of the same court as to the application 
 of the doctrine of tihra vires has already been noted, ante, p. 521 . The 
 chief ground upon which it was treated as uUra vires by some of the 
 judges was that the covenant, being for the payment whether the- line 
 was built or not, or the damage done or not, involved a misappropria- 
 tion of the corporate funds. Compare Bland v. Crowley, 6 Exch. 522, 
 
 33. Midland R. Co. v. Great Western R. Co., L. R. 8 Ch. App. 841 
 (1873). The Hereford, Hay, & Brecon Railway Company entered into 
 an agreement with the plaintiflT company, by which the latter was to 
 work the former's line, keeping it in repair, appointing and paying 
 officers, and fixing through rates and fares, of which a proportion was 
 
COEPOKATE POWERS. 637 
 
 to be paid to the former company. The Master of the Rolls, Lord 
 Romilly, held the agreement ultra vires as giving up the sole and entire 
 management of the line and delegating its use and working. This 
 decision was reversed by the Coui-t of Appeal in Chancery, where it 
 was held that the agreement was not in effect a lease, transfer or delega- 
 tion of powers, but a -working agreement which was not illegal or 
 beyond the powers of either company, or against public policy. The 
 
 consideration that the agreement was not in terms exclusive the 
 
 Hereford Company retaining the local traffic, and other companies not 
 being expressly excluded from similar agreements — seems to have had 
 weight in the judgment. The case was distinguished from London, B., 
 & S. C. R. Co. V. London & S. W. R. Co., 4 De Gex & J. 362 (1859), 
 where there was an agreement for ah exclusive use. 
 
 34. Riche v. Ashbury Railway Carnage & Iron Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 
 224 (1874), L, R. 7 H. L. 653 (1875). The defendant company was 
 incorporated by a "memorandum of association" under the Joint Stock 
 Companies Act, 1862, the memorandum declaring one of its objects to 
 be "to cany on the business of mechanical engineers and general 
 contractors," and under this power the directors assumed to buy a con- 
 cession of the government of Belgium for the construction of a railway 
 in that country, and to contract with parties to build it. It was con- 
 tended that, even If the directors had exceeded their authority, their 
 acts had been ratified by the shareholders. It was held in the House 
 of Lords that the contract, being of a nature not included in the mem- 
 orandum, which is the company's charter, was ultra vires not only of 
 the directors but of the company, and, as it was in its inception void, 
 could not be made valid by the subsequent assent of aU the sharehold- 
 ers. Some of the Lords, particularly Lord Selborne, showed a strong 
 leaning to the rigid doctrine of ultra vires as held in the East Anglian 
 Railway case. The case of Riche v. Ashbury Railway Carriage and 
 Iron Co. illustrates the conflicts of opinion and embarrassments to 
 which the doctrine as applied to contracts leads, justifying Lord 
 Cairns's remark, that the history and progress of the action, in which 
 no fact was in dispute, with an active and continuing litigation of seven 
 years, is " not creditable to our [English] legal proceedings." In the 
 Court of Exchequer two of the three judges were for the plaintiff; and 
 the six judges in the Exchequer Chamber were equally divided, three 
 for the plaintiff on the ground of ratification, and three for the defend- 
 ant on the ground that the contract was both incapable of ratification 
 and had not been ratified. The result shows that the wearisome dis- 
 cussions on ultra vires in the English courts, lasting for a generation, 
 have failed to estabUsh a conclusion which commands the general assent 
 of the judges. 
 
538 THE LAW OF RAILROADS. 
 
 in. Suits by the Attorney- General to restrain the corporation. 
 
 35. Attorney-General v. Great Northern E. Co., 1 Drewry & S. 154 
 (1860). An injunction was granted upon an information filed by the 
 Attorney-General on the relation of a stranger to restrain a railway com- 
 pany from carrying on the general business of buying and selling coal, 
 it being held that the company was, by imphcation, prohibited from 
 carrj'ing on any business other than that for which' it was constituted. 
 The public interests were considered to be endangered by the extraor- 
 dinary means at the command of a railway company for prev.enting 
 competition and obtaining a monopoly. See as to proceedings by the 
 government in such cases, Attorney-General v. Great Eastern E. Co., 
 L. E. 11 Ch. Div. 449, L. E. 5 App. Cas. 473 ; Attorney-General v. 
 Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 239 ; A'ttorney-General v. Boston, 123 Mass. 
 460 ; United States v. Union Pacific E. Co., 98 U. S. 569. 
 
 36. Attorney-General v. Great Eastern E. Co., L. E. 11 Ch. App. 
 449 (1879), L. E. 5 App. Cas. 473 (1880). This was an action of 
 the Attornej'-General on the relation of a private person to restrain the 
 defendant company from performing a contract to let its roUing-stock to 
 another company, and from manufacturing rolling-stock for the purpose 
 of so letting it ; and the contract was held to be authorized by a local 
 and personal Act of Parliament. Different views were expressed as 
 to the right of the Attorney-General to intervene when the company 
 merely exceeded its powers, but this question was reserved. The 
 right of the company to utilize propertj"^ not needed for immediate use 
 was also discussed, but the decision was finally made on the terms of 
 the Act of Parliament. In the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor 
 (Selborne) said : "I assume that your Lordships will not recede from 
 anything that was determined in The Ashbury Eailway Company v. 
 Eiche. It appears to me to be important that the doctrine of ultra 
 vires, as it was explained in that case, should be maintained. But I 
 agree with Lord Justice James that this doctrine ought to be reason- 
 ably and not unreasonably understood and applied, and that whatever 
 maj' fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those 
 things which the legislature has authorized ought not (unless expressly 
 prohibited) to be held, by judicial construction, to be ultra vires." 
 Lord Blackburn said: "That case (The Ashbury Eailway Carriage & 
 Iron Company v. Eiche) appears to me to decide at all events this, that 
 where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a par- 
 ticular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what 
 it does not expressly or impliedly authorize is to be taken to be pro- 
 hibited ; and, consequently, that the Great Eastern Companj', created 
 by Act of Parliament for the purpose of working a line of railway, is 
 prohibited from doing anjlihing that would not be within that purpose." 
 
CORPOKATB POWERS. 639 
 
 In the Court of Appeal, L. R. 11 Ch. Div. 449, 500, Bramwell, 
 L. J., said: "The first question in this case is whether (setting aside 
 the Statute 26 & 27 Vict. c. 69) the defendants have done, or are 
 doing or threatening to do, something unlawful in the matters com- 
 plained of. It is said that what they have done, are doing, and threat- 
 ening to do, is iinlawful, — contrary to law. The reason given is. that 
 it is uUra vires, that they have no power to do it, and that, as thej- have 
 no power to do it, it is unlawful. To show that the}' have no power 
 to do it, the Acts under which they are created and constituted are 
 referred to, and, certainly, among the things expressed that they may 
 do is not to be found the letting of locomotives on hire. There is no 
 prohibition of doing it, but there fs no permission. It is said that 
 because they are not empowered or permitted, they are prohibited ; and 
 that they are, therefore, disobeying an Act of Parhament, and so 
 breaking the law. This is, undoubtedly, contrary to one's general idea 
 that, unlike some countries where it seems as though nothing is lawful 
 save what is permitted, here, in England, everything is lawful save 
 what is prohibited. It is opposed to those free-trade and laissezfaire 
 notions which are commonly supposed to have something in them, and 
 under the influence of which some people think that England has 
 thriven considerably. It is said by Mr. Brice that this doctrine or 
 notion was first put in operation in the cases of Attorney-General v. 
 Great Northern Railway Company (1 Dr. & Sm. 154), and East 
 Anghan Railways Company v. Eastern Counties Railway Company (11 
 C. B. 775). I was counsel for the plaintiff in the latter case. I know 
 none at common law before it in which a trace of this doctrine is to be 
 found, and certainly I was never more surprised than at that decision, 
 — a decision that proceeded on grounds which, with all respect be it 
 said, were erroneous, and led, as I believe they have in other cases, 
 to an erroneous result. The mistake was in not distinguishing that 
 many of the provisions of Acts of Parliament constituting companies 
 are not provisions as between the companies and the public, but agree- 
 ments among the shareholders inter se which constitute their agreement 
 of partnership, their insti'ument of settlement." 
 
INDEX. 
 
 A. 
 
 ACCEPTANCE, 
 
 of the charter, 4-6. 
 of ameudments, 5. 
 
 by the directors, 33. 
 ACTION, 
 
 liability of foreign corporations to, 14, 292. 
 form of, for torts, 272. 
 
 for torts of agents and servants, 291, 292. 
 when transitory, 292, 430. 
 joinder of corporation and servant, 292. 
 under statutes providing a remedy for relatives in case of fatal injuries, 
 
 limited to the State, 389. 
 against the company when interfering with private property without com- 
 plying with the Constitution and with statutes, 167, 266. 
 at common law, when excluded by a special remedy providing compensa- 
 tion, 177-180. 
 
 (See Remedies.) 
 AGENTS, 
 
 subscriptions to capital stock taken by, 47. 
 over-issues of capital stock by, 127. 
 torts committed by, 277. 
 
 (See Servants.) 
 AGREEMENTS WITH LAND-OWNERS, 
 power to purchase real estate, 130, 506. 
 title or interest acquired, 130, 506. 
 when within the Statute of Frauds, 130. 
 rights acquired by license, 131. 
 easements created only by writing, 132. 
 State grants, 132. 
 
 construction of grants and deeds to the company, 132-134. 
 covenants and conditions, 135. 
 conditions precedent or subsequent, 136. 
 bonds to convey, 137. 
 
 specific performance, 137-140. 
 resulting trusts, 140. 
 
 remedy against the company for breach of its contract of purchase, 140. 
 damages for breach of contract to convey, 141. 
 to maintain fences, 424, 425. 
 
542 INDEX. 
 
 AMENDMENTS OE THE CHAETER, <» 
 
 accepted by the directors, 5, 33. 
 
 effect of, on liability of the subscribers for the capital stock, 66-74. 
 reservation of legislative power to make, 71, 72, 456-460. 
 assent of the corporation to, 449. 
 ASSESSMENTS, 
 
 on subscriptions, 74, 75. 
 
 (See Capital Stock.) 
 local, 480. 
 ASSIGNMENT OE SHARES. 
 
 (See TRANsrER op Shares.) 
 AWARD, 
 
 of compensation to land-owners, 188. 
 
 (See Eminent Domain.) 
 
 B. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY, 
 
 of a corporation established in different States, 31. 
 
 BENEEITS, 
 
 when deducted from the compensation for land taken, 221-224. 
 
 BONDS, 
 
 power of the company to issue, 503. 
 
 power to guarantee the bonds of other companies, 504. 
 
 of municipal corporations in aid of railroads, 87-109. 
 
 BRAKEMBN, 
 
 duty of the company to have a sufficient number of, 356, 376, 
 
 injuries to, 363, 364. 
 
 (See Servants.) 
 BRANCHES, 
 
 of the railroad, power to build, 495. 
 BRIDGES, 
 
 across navigable waters, 201. 
 
 over highways, 250. 
 
 legislative power to require, 457, 464. 
 BURDEN OE PROOF, 
 
 of title in proceedings for damages for taking land, 187. 
 
 of acts claimed to be done witbin the location, 259. 
 
 of defendant's negligence, 298. 
 
 of plaintiff's care, 298-300, 320. 
 
 in injuries to cattle, 428-430. 
 
 as to cause of fire by which property was burned, 436. 
 
 as to negligence of the company in setting fire to property, 437. 
 
 in actions by a servant against the company for injuries caused by defective 
 machinery or incompetent feUow-servants, 382, 383. 
 BY-LAWS, 
 
 regulating election of directors, 25, 29. 
 
 notice of meetings of directors, 29. 
 
INDEX. 643 
 
 BY-LAWS — continued. 
 
 regulating action of directors, 30. 
 
 the transfer of stock, 112, 114. 
 lien of the corporation on shares of stock created by, 112, 129. 
 power to make, 497. 
 
 C. 
 
 CALLS, 
 
 on subscriptions for capital stock, 74, 75, 77, 80, 
 
 (See Capital Stock, Subsceiptions to.) 
 CAPITAL STOCK, 
 
 increase of, 74, 75, 127. 
 
 certificates of, 79. 
 
 a trust fund, 13, 44, 80. 
 
 incidents of shares, 110. 
 
 liable to attachment, 110. 
 
 not negotiable in the sense of the commercial law. 111. 
 
 sale and pledge of, 111. 
 
 delivery and payment. 111. 
 
 fraud in sales, 112. 
 
 transfer of, regulated by by-laws, 112. 
 
 mode and effect of transfer as between the parties or against the corpora- 
 tion, 80, 113-114. 
 
 adverse claims of creditors and purchasers, 114, 115. 
 
 liability of the corporation for wrongful transfers, 115-117. 
 
 transfers by executors, administrators, trustees, and assignees in bank- 
 ruptcy, 117. 
 
 sales by agents and trustees in breach of trust, 117. 
 
 remedies at law against a corporation for wrongful refusal to issue or trans- 
 fer stock, 118. 
 
 remedy by mandamus to compel the issue or transfer of shares, 119. 
 
 remedy in equity, 119. 
 
 measure of damages in suits between vendor and vendee, or against the 
 corporation for wror^fid refusal to transfer stock, 119, 120. 
 
 dividends, 120-122. 
 
 bill of interpleader against opposing claimants of dividends, 119. 
 
 dividends of stock, 123. 
 
 right of a stockholder in the increase of, 123, 124. 
 
 preferred stock, 124. 
 
 dividends on, 125. 
 
 interest upon, 126, 127. 
 
 right to vote an increase of, belongs to the stockholders, 127. 
 
 overissues of, 127-129. 
 
 lien of corporation on, 129. 
 
 power of the corporation to hold its own, 505. 
 
 to hold the stock of other corporations, 505. 
 
544 INDEX. 
 
 CAPITAL STOCK, SUBSCRIPTIONS TO, 
 
 a contract joint, assignable, requiring mutuality and a consideration, 45. 
 contract not to be impaired by the State, 67, 450, 452. 
 form of agreement to take shares, 45, 46. 
 defective, 46, 47. 
 by agents, 47. 
 delivery of; escrow, 48. 
 
 made prior to corporate existence or organization, 48, 49. 
 made to commissioners under statutes, 50. 
 defences of subscribers, 50-74. 
 non-payment of first instalment, 50-52. 
 
 full number of shares to be taken in order to hold the subscriber, 52, 53. 
 when not necessary to hold him, 53, 54. 
 what shares may be counted, 55, 56. 
 
 conditions of subscriptions to be performed in order to hold the sub- 
 scriber, 56. 
 may be on the same or separate paper, 56. 
 waiver of conditions, 57. 
 
 as to the location and time of construction, 59-61. 
 parol agreements and representations generally not a defence, 57-59. 
 fraud of the company or the officers when a defence to a subscription, 61, 
 
 62. 
 construction of written conditions, 62-64. 
 irregular or illegal action of the corporation, or collateral matters not a 
 
 defence, 64-66. 
 amendments of the charter, or change of scheme when a defence, 66-74. 
 calls and assessments, 74, 75. 
 
 limited to amount fixed by charter, 74. 
 compromises and settlements of the directors with subscribers, when legal, 
 
 33, 76, 77, 504. 
 Limitations, Statute of, when a bar to a suit against subscribers, 77. 
 demand and notice for calls, 78. 
 interest on calls, 79. 
 
 certificates, efifect of holding certificates ; tender, 79. 
 transfer of shares, effect on Uability for calls, 80, 
 a trust fund, 13, 80. 
 
 remedy of creditors against subscribers, 80. 
 remedies of the corporation against subscribers, 81-86. 
 forfeiture of share for non-payment, 81. 
 
 whether subscriber is personally liable without an express promise, 82-84. 
 terms in which the promise may be expressed, 83. 
 effect of a forfeiture of share, 85. 
 
 statute authorizing a forfeiture to be strictly followed, 85, 86. 
 CATTLE, INJURIES TO, 
 
 owner required at common law to keep them on his own land, 401. 
 the company Lable for wanton injury to trespassing cattle, 402. 
 
 by some authorities for injuries to trespassing cattle 
 caused by its negligence, 403. 
 
INDEX. 545 
 
 CATTLE, INJURIES TO — cmtimed. 
 
 rule at common law as to owner's duty to keep his cattle on his own land 
 
 not adopted in some States, 404. 
 injuries to cattle upon the highway, 405. 
 
 rate of company's speed with reference to cattle on the track, 406. 
 stopping of engines where cattle are on the track, 406, 407. 
 signals to warn cattle on the track, 408. 
 duty to maintain fences as imposed by statute, 408, 409. 
 liability for breach of the statute duty, 409-411. 
 the statute duty to fence not to be transferred, 411. 
 liability of parties operating but not owning the road, 411, 412. 
 liability under statute for injuries to cattle wrongfully on the adjoining 
 
 land, 412-416. 
 kind of fence required, 416, 417. 
 cattle-guards, private and farm crossings, 417, 418. 
 defects in fences caused by casualties and trespassers, 418, 419.* 
 gates and bars, 419, 420. 
 places to remain unfenced, 420. 
 
 crossings of public and private ways, 420. 
 
 station grounds, 421. 
 
 cities and villages, 421. 
 
 enclosed lands, 421. 
 
 embankments, &c., 422. 
 
 liability for injuries to cattle coming on track where a fence is not required, 
 
 422. 
 
 injuries by fright arising from neglect to fence, 422. 
 
 waiver of duty to fence, 432-424. 
 
 duty to maintain fences assumed by the company, 424. 
 
 agreement to maintain fences when running with the land, 424. 
 
 remedy for breach of agreement to fence; damages, 425. 
 
 plaintiff's negligence, 425-427. 
 
 negligence in causing injuries to cattle, a question for the jury, 427. 
 
 burden of proof ; evidence, 428-430. 
 
 whether the company is bound to fence, a question of law, 430. 
 
 action for injury to cattle transitory, 430. 
 
 measure of damages for injury to, 430. 
 
 legislative power to require the company to maintain fences, 458, 463. 
 
 liability for double damages imposed by statute, 463. 
 
 CAUSA PROXIMA, 
 
 rule limiting liability for injuries, 310, 311. 
 
 in injuries by fire, 441-444. 
 
 CERTIFICATES OP CAPITAL STOCK, 
 
 effect of holding, and tender, 79. 
 
 transfer of, 80. 
 
 (See Capital Stock..) 
 
 fraudulent issue of, 127-129. 
 CERTIORARI, 
 
 remedy by, in case of illegal proceedings by inferior tribunals in exercising 
 the right of eminent domain, 190. 
 35 
 
646 INDEX. 
 
 CHARTER, 
 
 a public act, 512. 
 
 of public corporation not a contract, 1, 149. 
 
 of a private corporation a contract, 1, 448. 
 
 acceptance of, 4, 5. 
 
 proof of corporate existence by, 8, 9. 
 
 repeal of, 9, 10. 
 
 granted in different States to the same corporation, 16-23. 
 
 amendments of, accepted by the directors, 5, 33. 
 
 effect of, on the liability of a subscriber for the capital 
 stock, 66-74. 
 reservation of legislative power to amend, 71, 72, 456-460. 
 legislative power over, 448-471. 
 grants of exclusive privileges by, 153, 154, 494. 
 exemption from taxation by, 480-487. 
 
 * (See Legislative Powek.) 
 
 CHILDREN, 
 
 negligence of, in cases of personal injury, 332-339. 
 
 injuries to, from dangerous machinery, 336, 337. 
 
 rule as to non-liability of the master to one servant for the negligence of 
 
 another, applied to, 360. 
 effect of youth or immature experience on knowledge of defective or dan- 
 gerous machinery, 382. 
 damages on account of the death of, or accruing to, in actions under statutes 
 for fatal injuries, 397-399. 
 CITIES, 
 
 subscriptions by, to the stock of railroad companies, 87-109. 
 (See Municipal Subscriptions.) 
 COMMERCE, 
 
 State legislation as related to the power of Congress to regulate, 468-471, 
 475. 
 
 COMMON CARRIER, 
 
 discriminations made by the company as, 498. 
 
 right to contract for transportation by other carriers, 508. 
 
 COMPENSATION, 
 
 for property taken for public use, 161-231. 
 
 (See Eminent Domain.) 
 
 of directors, 31, 32. 
 COMPROMISES, 
 
 of subscriptions, power to make, 33, 76, 77, 504. 
 CONDEMNATION, 
 
 of private property for public use. (See Eminent Domain.) 
 
 CONDITIONS, 
 
 in subscriptions to the capital stock, 56-64. 
 in deeds from land-owners, 135. 
 precedent or subsequent, 136. 
 
INDEX. 547 
 
 CONSEQUENTIAL INJURIES, 
 compensation for, 197. 
 not actionable, ^63. 
 
 CONSOLIDATION, 
 
 of corporations, establislied in different States, 19, 22. 
 
 liability for antecedent torts in case of, 286. 
 
 effect of, on dividends which were in arrears, 125, note. 
 
 on exemptions from taxation, 486, 487.- 
 power of legislature to effect, without consent of stockholders, 66-74, 458. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
 
 (See Eminent Domain ; Legislative Poweh ; Taxation.) 
 
 CONSTRUCTION, 
 
 of corporate powers, 145, 154, 491. 
 
 (See Eminent Domain ; Powers, Coepoeate ; Taxation.) 
 
 CONTRACTOR, 
 
 the company generally not liable for his torts or those of his servants, 286- 
 
 288. 
 the company liable when it authorizes or participates in his tortious act, 288. 
 effect of reservations in the contract, 289. 
 liability of the company when he is exercising the power of eminent 
 
 domain, 290. 
 duties under statutes not to be delegated to, 290, 411. 
 liability of, under statutes requiring fences, 411, 412. 
 nuisances created by, 291. 
 
 CONTRACTS, 
 
 power of the corporation to make, 499, 500. 
 (See Powers, Coepoeate.) 
 CONVEYANCE. 
 
 (See Ageeements witu Land-ownees ; Deed.) 
 
 CORPORATE POWERS. 
 
 (See Powers, Corporate.) 
 
 CORPORATE PROPERTY, 
 
 a trust fund, how disposed of, on the dissolution of a corporation, 13, 44, 80. 
 power of the corporation to dispose of, 503. 
 
 the directors to dispose of, 33. 
 
 the directors to buy for themselves, 36-38. 
 
 CORPORATION, 
 
 defined, 1. 
 
 railroad, defined, 1. 
 
 a private, distinguished from a public, 1, 449. 
 COSTS, 
 
 when recoverable in proceedings to take property for public use, 191. 
 
 COUPONS, 
 
 upon municipal bonds, 107. 
 
548 INDEX. 
 
 COURT, 
 
 rektion of, to questions of negligence, 311-323. 
 
 ■wtether the company is bound to fence its track, a question of lav, 430. 
 COVENANTS, 
 
 in deeds from land-owners, 134, 135. 
 
 running with the land, 135. 
 
 as to fences running with the land, 424. 
 CROSSINGS, 
 
 of railroads by highways, compensation for, 193. 
 
 of railroads by railroads, compensation for, 194. 
 
 damages for highway and railroad crossings, 218. 
 
 of highways by railroads, 244. 
 
 liability of the company and of cities and towns for injuries caused by de- 
 fective crossings of highways by railroads, 248-250. 
 
 the legislature may regulate, 457, 463-465. 
 
 to be left in fences, 417-418. 
 
 duty of the company and of travellers at highway crossings, 343-347. 
 
 D. 
 
 DAMAGES, 
 
 for wrongful Refusal to transfer or issue capital stock, 119, 120. 
 
 for breach of contract to convey land to the company, 141. 
 
 in the taking of property under the right of eminent domain, 209-231. 
 
 for permanent injury to or occupation of real estate, 229-231, 272. 
 
 for injuries to land-owners on a highway, 242. 
 
 for injury to the person, one cause of action, 300. 
 
 elements of, in action for personal injury, 301-304. 
 
 in action of the husband for an injury to the wife, 304. 
 
 amount received on an insurance policy not to be deducted, 304, 396, 446. 
 
 injury increased by the act of the surgeon, 304. 
 
 vindictive, 305-307. 
 
 excessive or inadequate verdict, 307-309. 
 
 for injuries resulting in death, 393-399. 
 
 for injuries to personal property, 309. 
 property by fire, 446. 
 
 double damages for injuries to cattle imposed by statute, 463. 
 DEATH, 
 
 injuries resulting in, 385., 
 
 no right of action where the injury is instantly fatal, 385. 
 
 the death of a human being not a cause of action at common law, 385, 386. 
 
 the legislature may give a remedy for injuries resulting in, 452. 
 
 statutes providing a remedy for relatives in case of, 386-389. 
 
 the statutes limited to injuries within the State, 389. 
 
 construction of statutes and election of remedies, 390-392. 
 
 averments in pleading, 392, 393. 
 
 damages, measure of, 393-397. 
 
INDEX. 549 
 
 DEATfi — continued. 
 
 damages for a husband's and father's death, 397. 
 
 for a mother's death, 398. 
 
 for a child's death, 398, 399. 
 
 for a relative's death, 399. 
 evidence in case of injuries resulting in, 899. 
 ■when right of action vests : Statute of Limitations, 400. 
 DEED, 
 
 title of the corporation acquired by, 130, 506, 507. 
 
 of a corporation, valid in the State creating it, valid elsewhere, 15. 
 
 executed by its officers, presumably its deed, 33. 
 
 of land or easements to the company, construction of, 132-134. 
 
 covenants and conditions ia, 135-137. 
 
 specific performance of agreements to convey, 137-140. 
 
 in fraud of creditors, 507. 
 
 DEMAND, 
 
 for payment of calls on subscriptions for stock, 78. 
 
 DIKECTOES, 
 
 ia a practical sense the corporation, 24, 277. 
 
 qualifications of, 24. 
 
 election of, 25-26. 
 
 de facto, 26. 
 
 mode of action and assent, 80. 
 
 record of votes of, 31. 
 
 when meetiags may be held without the State, 28. 
 
 compensation of, 31, 32. 
 
 powers of, generally those of the corporation, 32-84. 
 
 may accept amendments to charter, 5, 33. 
 
 may exercise the right of eminent domain, 33, 145. 
 
 discretion of, when acting within their, powers, not to be controlled, 33. 
 
 may contract debts for the corporation and dispose of its property, 33. 
 
 ratification of their acts by the corporation, 34, 521. 
 
 power to delegate their functions, 34. 
 
 authority of the president or other director, 34, 35. 
 
 knowledge of, when affecting the corporation, 35. 
 
 as trustees of the corporation, 36-41. 
 
 cannot buy of, or sell to the corporation, 36-38. 
 
 not to be interested in the contracts of the corporation, 37-38. 
 
 cannot buy claims against the corporation, 38. 
 
 may lend money to the corporation, 39. 
 
 contracts in breach of trust voidable only, 39. 
 
 ratification by the corporation of the acts of a director in breach of trust, 39. 
 
 diligence in the trust, 40, 41. 
 
 liability to the public for fraudulent statements and publications as to value 
 
 of the capital stock, 41, 42. 
 liabihty for overissues or fraudulent issues of stock, 43, 44. 
 suits against, by the corporation or by the stockholders in equity, 43, 44. 
 
550 INDEX. 
 
 DIRECTORS — continued. 
 
 suits against, on behalf of the government, 44. 
 numbei- of shares when to be determined by, 53. 
 power to make assessments or calls, 34, 74. 
 
 to declare dividends, 123. 
 
 to issue stock, 28, 33, 127. 
 
 to make by-laws, 498. 
 
 DISSOLUTION, 
 
 of a corporation, 9-13. 
 
 disposition of corporate property upon a, 13, 80. 
 
 DIVIDENDS, 
 
 Low derived, 120, 121. 
 
 how recovered, 120. 
 
 jurisdiction in equity over, 121, 123. 
 
 to be general and equal, 121. 
 
 in what payable, 122. 
 
 in stock, 123. 
 
 taxable, 475, 476. 
 on preferred stock, 125. 
 
 DOMICILE, 
 • of a corporation, 14, 18. 
 
 of a corporation established in different States, 16-23. 
 
 DRUNKENNESS, 
 
 when proof of negligence, 295. 
 
 how affecting the damages, 304. 
 
 of a servant, as affectmg the liability of the company to a fellow-servant, 373. 
 
 E. 
 
 EASEMENTS, 
 
 grant of, to the company, to be in writing, 131. 
 
 in the location, not to be granted by the company, 260, 496. 
 
 in the adjoining land, not owned by the company, 496. 
 
 ELECTIONS, 
 
 of directors, 24-26. 
 
 qualifications of voters, 24, 25. 
 
 proof of right to vote, 24. 
 
 right to vote belongs to legal owner of stock, 25. 
 
 stock held by the corporation not to be voted on, 25. 
 
 regulated by by-laws, 25. 
 
 notice of meetings for, 26. 
 
 remedy for illegal, 27. 
 
 rule of the majority, 29. 
 
 quorum, 29. 
 
 ELEVATED RAILROADS, 248. 
 
INDEX. 551 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN, POWER OP, 
 source of the power, 142. 
 a public use required for its exercise, 143. 
 construction of the grant of power, 145, 494. 
 delegated to a corporation, 144, 145. 
 
 exercised by the directors on behalf of the corporation, 33, 145. 
 what is a public use, a judicial question, 146. 
 legislative discretion as to the exercise of the power, 146-148. 
 occasions for use of the power ; the necessity or exigency requiring its exer- 
 cise, 148-151. 
 all property subject to the right of eminent domain, 151. 
 
 property of corporations, 152. 
 
 franchises, 134, 153. 
 
 exclusive lights obtained by grant, 153. 
 presumption agamst -interference with earUer grants, 154-157, 495. 
 estate or interest taken, 157-159. 
 
 riglit of possession within the location exclusive, 159, 161. 
 uses of the location, 161, 496. 
 
 right to location subject to public exigencies, 159, 161, 264. 
 compensation for property taken for pubHc use, 161-231. 
 adequate and certain provision for compensation, 162. 
 adequate remedy providing compensation, 163. 
 time wlien compensation must be made, 168-166. 
 remedies of land-owners to whom compensation has not been made, at law 
 
 and in equity, 167. 
 remedy by injunction, 168. 
 release of right to compensation, 168. 
 
 waiver of prepayment of compensation, acquiescence, laches, 169. 
 strict compliance with the statute required, 170, 267, 494. 
 vesting of title, 171. 
 
 abandonment of proceedings to take land, 171, 172. 
 mode of determining and obtaining compensation, 172-174. 
 trial by jury, 173. 
 
 extent and application of special remedy, 174-177. 
 special remedy exclusive, 177-179. 
 
 acts of trespass or negligence not within the special remedy, 179, 266. 
 description of property and injui'y, l&O. 
 averment and proof of inabiUty to agree, 181, 182. 
 notice to laud-owners, 182, 183. 
 joinder of parties, 183, 184. 
 persons entitled to compensation, 185, 186. 
 proof of title, 187. 
 right to open and close, 187. 
 award or verdict, 188. 
 
 when set aside, 188, 189. 
 not to be impeached collaterally, 189. 
 compliance with the statute to appear, 190. 
 certiorari to inquiry into proceedings of inferior tribunals, 190. 
 
552 INDEX. 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN, POWEE GS — continued. 
 waiver of irregularities, 191. 
 costs, 191. 
 
 limitation to special remedy, 192. 
 property and rights requiring compensation, 192-219. 
 land occupied permanently, 192. 
 compensation for injuries to francliises, 192. 
 
 property acquired under right of eminent domain, 192, 193. 
 highway crossings, 193. 
 railroad crossings, 194. 
 preliminary surveys, 194. 
 
 rights of land-owners in highways, 195, 232, 241. 
 interference vidth the owner's use, 195. 
 flooding of land, 195. 
 diversion of streams, 196. 
 actionable injuries, compensation for, 196. 
 depreciation of the value of land not taken, 196. 
 consequential injuries, 197. 
 
 distinction between consequential injuries, when caused by a municipal cor- 
 poration and such injuries when caused by a private corporation, 198. 
 rights as affected by statutes, 198, 199. 
 rights in navigable and other waters, 199, 204. 
 what are navigable waters, 200. 
 colonial ordinances as to rights in flats, 201. 
 remedies against unlawful obstruction of navigable waters, 201. 
 authority to obstruct navigation, how acquired, 201. 
 bridges across navigable waters, 201-203. 
 ferries across navigable waters, 202. 
 
 interference with flow of streams not navigable, 196, 203, 204. 
 duty to restore the stream to its original course, 203. 
 subterranean water, 204. 
 surface water, 205. 
 
 ponds, rights of riparian proprietors in, 205. 
 remedies for injuries to riparian rights, 206. 
 statutes providing compensation, how construed, 206-210. 
 of Massachusetts, 206. 
 English, 207-209. 
 damages, of what time assessed, 209. 
 
 measure of, general rule, difference of market value before and after 
 
 the taking, 210, 211. 
 limited to the particular tract or lot, 212. 
 owner's fancy and company's necessity not to be regarded, 213. 
 use for a railroad to be considered, 213. 
 particular injuries, how treated, 213. 
 expense of fencing, 214. 
 
 changes and new erections, 214. 
 exposure to fire, 215. 
 loss of rents, 216. 
 
INDEX. 553 
 
 EMINENT DOMAIN, POWER Q-S — contwued. 
 
 loss of facilities of communication, 216. 
 
 remote and fanciful injuries, 216. 
 
 present use and capacity for other uses to be considered, 217. 
 
 for highway and railroad crossings, 218. 
 
 proper construction of railroad to be assumed, 218. 
 
 by agreement, 218. 
 
 improvements during proceedings or an illegal possession, 219. 
 
 interest, 220. 
 
 reservation of privileges to land-ovmer, when to be considered by 
 
 way of reduction, 220. 
 benefits when " just compensation," 221. 
 
 limited to peculiar benefits, 222, 223^ 
 
 the particular tract or lot taken, 224. 
 evidence relative to amount of damages, 224-229. 
 sales of other lands, 224. 
 offers and admissions, 225. 
 opinions as to value, 225-227. 
 
 as to amount of damages, 227. 
 on various matters affecting the damages, 228. 
 grounds for, 229. 
 proof of mode of construction, 229. 
 damages for an unlawful entry, 229-231. 
 
 for injuries of a permanent nature, 229-231. 
 UabiUty of the company for torts of its contractors who are exercising its 
 delegated power of, 290. 
 
 (See Highways ; Location.) 
 EQUITY, 
 
 will enjoin the exercise of corporate powers without proper authority, 7. 
 jurisdiction of, in case of foreign corporations, 15. 
 
 corporations estabhshed in different States, 21. 
 will not decide the question of an illegal eleetion except incidentally, 27. 
 win restrain directors when abusing trust, 30, 520. 
 will restrain the corporation when undertaking enterprises ultra vires, 73, 
 
 520. 
 suits against directors by stockholders, 43, 44. 
 when refusuig to reform contract of subscription, 59. 
 when setting aside a contract of subscription on account of fraud, 61. 
 injunction against the issue of municipal bonds when attempted without due 
 
 legal authority, 106. 
 remedy to compel transfer of capital stock, 119. 
 power of, to compel payment of dividends, 121, 122. 
 remedy in case of overissues of stock, 129. 
 
 will not enforce a forfeiture for breach of a condition subsequent, 137. 
 specific performance of agreements to convey land, 137-140. 
 will enforce resulting trusts, 140. 
 vendor's remedy, 140. 
 injunction against abuse of the power of eminent domain, 149. 
 
554 INDEX. 
 
 EQUITY — continued. 
 
 injunction when compensation has not been made, 167, 168, 330. 
 regulating use of a location common to different companies, 258. 
 reform of defective location by, 261. 
 remedy iu, against nuisances, 269, 270. 
 
 infraction of patent-rights, 273. 
 in cases of illegal taxes, 488-490. 
 
 ESTOPPEL, 
 
 of a municipality from setting up certain defences against its bonds, 103. 
 of a corporation in settmg up the defence of ultra vires, 516-520. 
 
 EVIDENCE, 
 
 of corporate existence, 8. 
 
 of votes of directors, 31. 
 
 of subscriptions for capital stock, 77, 78. 
 
 of a stockholder's liability, 79. 
 
 in assessment of damages for land taken, 224-229. 
 
 of title to land in application for damages for knd taken, 187. 
 
 in actions of tort, 272. 
 positive and negative, 292. 
 
 default at one time and place not proof of default at another, 293, 383. 
 statements of the company's servants, 294, 383. 
 
 injured person, 297. 
 of additional precautions after injury, 294. 
 photographs and telegrams, 294. 
 description of place of injury, 295. 
 previous vrarning, 295. 
 drunkenness when proof of negligence, 295. 
 general character of a servant, 295, 383. 
 
 opinions of experts in the assessment of damages for land taken, 225- 
 329. 
 in actions for personal injuries, 296, 297. 
 injuries by lire, 440. 
 life tables, 297, 399. 
 examination of plaintiff's wound, 298. 
 burden of proof of defendant's negligence, 298. 
 
 plaintiff's care, 298-300. 
 plaintiff's care shown by circumstantial as well as direct proof, 299. 
 admissible in an action for personal injury to show the amount of damages, 
 
 301-304. 
 conflicting evidence, questions of, to be determined by the jury, 313. 
 inferences from, in cases of negligence, for the jury, 317-319. 
 of plaintiff using his senses in crossing the railroad, 346. 
 in actions by a servant against the company for injuries caused by defective 
 
 machinery or incompetent fellow-servants, 383. 
 in actions or proceedings under statutes providing a remedy for fatal injuries, 
 
 396, 399. 
 declarations of deceased in actions for fatal injuries, 400. 
 in actions for injuries to cattle, 428-430. 
 
INDEX. 555 
 
 EVIDENCE — continued. 
 
 burden of proof as to cause of fire in an action against the company, 436. 
 
 burden of proof of company's negligence in setting fire to tlie plaintiff's prop- 
 erty, 437. 
 
 of company's negligence in communicating fire, 438-440. 
 (See BuKDEN op Pkoop.) 
 EXCLUSIVE GRANTS, 
 
 subject to right of eminent domaui, 153. 
 
 ;iot implied and strictly construed, 154, 452, 455. 
 EXISTENCE, CORPORATE, 
 
 essential conditions of, 6. 
 
 proof of, 8. 
 
 how terminated, 9-12. 
 
 forfeiture of, 11. 
 
 disposition of corporate property on the termination of corporate existence, 
 13, 14. 
 
 domicile of a corporation, 14. 
 
 limited to the State creating the corporation, 14. 
 
 in the case of a corporation established in different States, 16-23. 
 EXPERTS, 
 
 opinions of, in the assessment of damages for land taken, 225-229. 
 in actions for personal injuries, 296, 297. 
 injuries by fire, 440. 
 EXTENSIONS, 
 
 of the railroad, power to build, 495. 
 
 FALSE IMPRISONMENT, 
 
 a corporation liable for, 273. 
 FARES, 
 
 the legislature may regulate, 458, 466-468, 470, 471. 
 
 power to take, 498. 
 
 to discriminate in charges, 498, 499. 
 FENCES, 
 
 compensation for owner's expenses in building new fences, 214. 
 
 duty of lessors and lessees of the railroad to mauitain, 284, 285. 
 
 at common law each owner required to keep his cattle on his own land, 
 where there was no legal duty on his neighbor to fence, 401. 
 
 duty to maintain fences imposed by statute, 408, 409. 
 
 liability for injuries to cattle caused by the breach of the statute duty, 409. 
 
 duty to maintain fences not to be transferred, 411. 
 
 the company hable for the contractor's default, 290, 291. 
 
 duty incumbent on lessees, mortgagees, and contractors, 411, 412. 
 
 whether the duty is imposed only for the safety of cattle rightfully on the 
 adjoining land, 412-416. 
 
 kind required, 416, 417. 
 
556 INDEX. 
 
 FENCES — continued. 
 
 cattle-guards, private and farm crossings, 417, 418. 
 defects in, caused by casualties and trespassers, 418, 419. 
 gates and bars, 419, 420. 
 places to remain unfenced, 420. 
 
 crossings of public and private ways, 420. 
 
 station grounds, 421. 
 
 cities and villages, 421. 
 
 enclosed lands, 421. 
 
 embankments, &c., 422. 
 liability for injuries to cattle coming on the track where a fence is not 
 
 required, 422. 
 injuries by fright arising from neglect to fence, 422. 
 waiver of duty to fence, 422-424. 
 duty assumed by the company, 424. 
 
 agreement to maintain fences when running with the land, 424. 
 remedy for breach of agreement to fence; damages, 425. 
 negligence of owner of cattle injured by the company, 425-427. 
 legislative power to require the company to maintain, 458, 463. 
 liability for double damages imposed on the company, 463. 
 FERRIES, 
 
 across navigable waters, 202, 453. 
 FIRE, INJURIES BY, 
 
 exposure to fire, damages for, in taking of land, 215. 
 
 damages for injuries by negligence not included in the special remedy, 432. 
 
 the company liable for, when working engines unlawfully, 267. 
 
 liability at common law for injuries by fire caused by negligence, 431, 432. 
 
 duty as to mechanical contrivances for arresting sparks, 433. 
 
 duty to watch for and assist in extinguishing fires, 434. 
 
 duty as to combustible materials within the location, 434. 
 
 owner's duty as to combustible materials on his land, 434. 
 
 owner's negligence, 435. 
 
 owner's exposure of his property to risks, 435. 
 
 burden of proof as to cause of fire, 436. 
 
 as to negligence of the company, 437. 
 evidence of the company's negligence in communicating fire, 438-440. 
 negligence of either party a question for the jury, 440, 441. 
 whether the company's liability is subject to any limit where a fire caused 
 
 by it spreads, causa proxima, 441-445. 
 liability without negligence, under statutes, 444-446. 
 damages, 446. 
 
 effect of insurance on, 446. 
 legislative power to injpose liability vrithout negligence, 464. 
 liability of lessees and other parties working the road for injuries by, 446. 
 plaintiff's negligence in actions under the statute, 446. 
 plaintiff's title, 447. 
 FLAGMEN, 
 
 duty of the company to place, at highway crossings, 352-354. 
 
INDEX. 557 
 
 FOREIGN COEPORATION, 
 
 powers of, as to suits, holding real estate, maintaining railroad, &c., 14, 497. 
 
 actions against, 14, 15. 
 
 jurisdiction over, in equity, 15. 
 
 corporations established in different States, 16-23. 
 
 liability for torts, 292. 
 
 duty to maintain fences, 412. 
 
 liability to faxation, 473. 
 POREEITURE, 
 
 of charter, 11. 
 
 waiver of cause of, 12. 
 
 of shares by a subscriber or stockholder, 81-86. 
 ERANCHISES, 
 
 of corporations, 2. 
 
 subject to right of eminent doinain, 153. 
 
 compensation for, 192. 
 
 taxation of, 473-478. 
 
 power to alienate, 496, 603, 514, 515. 
 FRAUD, 
 
 liability of the directors to the puhKc for, 41-43. 
 
 suits by stockholders agaiust directors for, 43, 44. 
 
 settlements with subscribers for stock in fraud of creditors and stockholders, 
 33, 76. 
 
 in sales of the capital stock, 112. 
 
 in sales of capital stock by agents and trustees in breach of trust, 117. 
 
 as a defence to suits against subscribers for capital stock, 61, 62. 
 FRAUDS, STATUTE OP, 
 
 purchases of shares of capital stock not within, 110. 
 of real estate within, 130. 
 
 G. 
 
 GENERAL LAWS, 
 
 for formation of railroad corporations in the United States, 8, 4. 
 
 in England, 526. 
 GUARANTY, 
 
 power of the corporation to guarantee the bonds of other corporations, 504. 
 
 H. 
 
 HIGHWAYS, 
 
 compensation to railroad companies for laying of highways across railroads, 
 
 193, 218. 
 rights of land-owners in, 195, 232, 241. 
 damages for crossing of railroads by, 193, 218. 
 changes of use, when a new taking, 233. 
 
558 INDEX. 
 
 HIGHWAYS — continued. 
 
 a railroad in a liigliway not necessarily a different use, 234. 
 
 held to be a different use in several States, 235, 236. 
 
 points in controversy upon the question whether the railroad is a different 
 use, 237-2iO. 
 
 access of land-owners to the highway a right requiring compensation, 195, 
 232, 241. 
 
 damages to land-owners for injuries caused by the highway, 242. 
 
 obstruction of, lawful only under statutes, 242, 243. 
 
 authority to substantially interfere with, not presumed, 154-157, 242, 243, 
 495. 
 
 liability for nuisances upon, 243, 244. 
 
 mode of crossing, 244. 
 
 diversion of, 244, 245. 
 
 duty to restore to their original condition after construction of crossings, 245. 
 
 legislative power over, 246. 
 
 limitations of power of municipal corporations over, 246-248. 
 
 underground and elevated railroads, 248. 
 
 liability of the company to travellers on the highway for defective crossings 
 or laying of tracks, 248, 357. 
 
 liability of the city or town for injuries caused by defective construction of 
 railroads upon or across highways, 249. 
 
 liability of the-company to indemnify the city or town, 249. 
 
 bridges over, 250. 
 
 remedies for unlawful use of, 250, 251. 
 
 street-railway companies, rights and liabilities of, 252, 253. 
 
 injurie^ to travellers upon, 340-357. 
 
 duties of the company and the traveller at crossings, or when each is exer- 
 cising a right, 340-342. 
 
 duty of the traveller to use his senses at crossings, 343-346. 
 
 duty of the company at crossings, 346, 347. 
 
 crossing by persons on foot in front of street car upon, 347. 
 
 liability as to obstructions of view, 347. 
 
 liability as to noises made by engines causing fright of horses, 348. 
 
 duty and right to give signals, 348-352. 
 
 duty as to placing flagmen at crossings, 352-354. 
 
 rate of speed of company at crossings, 354, 355. 
 
 injuries to cattle upon, 405, 406. 
 
 legislative power to regulate crossings and use of, 457, 463-465. 
 HUSBAND AND WIFE, 
 
 action of tlie husband for injury to the wife, 304. 
 
 right of, to damages under statutes providing a remedy in case of fatal inju- 
 ries, 386-400. 
 
 I. 
 
 INCREASE OF CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 (See Capital Stock.) 
 
INDEX. 559 
 
 INDICTMENT, 
 
 a railroad company liable to, for obstruction of navigable waters, 201. 
 
 of higliways, 251. 
 for nuisances and breach of duty, 267. 
 summons upon, 268. 
 
 acts authorized by law not subject to, 268. 
 
 for fatal injuries under which compensation is recovered by relatives, 387, 
 390.. 
 .INDUCEMENT, 
 
 effect of, on liability for injuries, 274-277. 
 
 in case of injuries to children, 336, 337. 
 INJUNCTIONS. 
 
 (See Equity.) 
 INJURIES. 
 
 (See Toms.) 
 INSURANCE, 
 
 amount received on an insurance policy not admissible to reduce the dam- 
 ages for a personal injury at common law or under statutes, where the 
 injury is fatal, 304, 396. 
 as affecting the right to damages in actions for injuries by fire, 446, 447. 
 
 INTEREST, 
 
 on subscriptions to the capital stock, 79. 
 on amount of damages for land taken, 220. 
 INVENTIONS, 
 
 duty of the company to use well-tested improvements for the safety of trav- 
 ellers on the highway, 355, 356. 
 duty of the company to use well-tested improvements for the safety of em- 
 ployees, 373, 374. 
 duty of the company to use well-tested improvements to prevent injuries by 
 fire, 433. 
 INVITATION, 
 
 effect of, on liability for injuries, 274-277. 
 
 implied where dangerous machinery is left not guarded against children, 
 336, 337. 
 
 J. 
 
 JURY, 
 
 relation of, to questions of negligence, 311-322, 338. 
 negligence a question for, in injuries to servants, 384. 
 
 to cattle, 427. 
 
 by fire, 440, 441. 
 in assessing damages for land taken, number of, 173. 
 
 verdict of, when set aside, 188, 189. 
 in actions for negligence, verdict of, when set aside, 307-309, 319, 331, 
 384, 441. 
 
560 INDEX. 
 
 L, 
 
 LAND, 
 
 purchase and use of. (See Agkbements with Land-ovnees ; Location ; 
 
 Powers, Coepobate.) 
 power to take. (See Eminent Domain.) 
 
 LEGISLATIVE POWER, 
 
 the charter of a railroad corporation a contract under the Constitution, 448. 
 
 the charter of a public corporation not a contract, 449. 
 
 assent of the corporation to amendments, 449. 
 
 form of the grant or contract, 449, 454, 482. 
 
 effect of the constitutional provision concerning the obligation of a contract, 
 
 450. 
 obligation and remedy distinguished, 451. 
 exclusive grants not implied, 154, 253, 452, 453. 
 grants affecting public interests construed strictly, 154, 452, 453. 
 express grants of exclusive rights, 453, 454. 
 construction of exclusive grants, 455, 456. 
 reserved power to amend and repeal the charter, 9, 71, 456-458. 
 reserved power as affecting grants of exemption from taxation, 71, 72, 485, 
 
 486. 
 limitations of the reserved power, 72, 459, 460. 
 corporations subject to police laws, 460-465. 
 to limit rates and charges of transportation, 466-468. 
 State legislation as related to the power of Congress to regulate commerce, 
 
 468-471. 
 grants of exemption from taxation, 480-487. 
 to authorize municipal subscriptions, 87-94. 
 
 LEGISLATURE, 
 
 applications to, whether the courts may restrain, 514. 
 
 LESSEE, 
 
 right of, to compensation for taking of property, 186. 
 
 liability of the company owning a railroad for injuries committed by a lessee, 
 and liability of the lessee, 283-285. 
 
 when bound to maintain fences, 411. 
 
 when liable for injuries by fire, 446. 
 
 liable uijder statutes providing a remedy for fatal injuries, 392. 
 
 of a railroad cannot set up incapacity to make lease when sued as a common 
 carrier, 510. 
 LIBEL, 
 
 a corporation liable for, 273. 
 LICENSE, 
 
 as to acts upon real estate, 131. 
 
 to construct and maintain a railroad, construction of, 132-134. 
 
 justification of acts under, otherwise actionable, 265. 
 
 to enter on premises, effect of, as an invitation or inducement in case of in- 
 juries, 274-277. 
 
 effect of, in oases of injuries to children, 336, 337. 
 
 entry under, not a trespass, 331, 332. 
 
INDEX. 561 
 
 LIEN, 
 
 of corporation on shares of capital stock, 112, 129. 
 
 of vendor or land-owner, 159. 
 LIPE TABLES, 
 
 wlien admitted as evidence, 297, 399. 
 LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OP, 
 
 when a bar to subscriptions for capital stock, 77. 
 
 when beginning to run on dividends, 122. 
 
 in the case of injuries resulting in death, 400. 
 
 in case of special remedy giving compensation for property taken under the 
 right of eminent domain, 192. 
 
 effect of, on a nuisance, 244, 271. 
 LOCATION, 
 
 choice of, 254. 
 
 power of choice, when exhausted, 254. 
 
 change of, 255. 
 
 power of making, expiring by limitation, 255. 
 
 identity of property taken, certainty in the description, 180, 256. 
 
 conflicting grants, priority of location, 257. 
 
 construction of statutes granting, 258. 
 
 meaning of various terms used in defining routes and termini, 258. 
 
 use of, by the company, 159-161, 401, 402, 496. 
 
 burden of proof in justifying acts within the location, 259. 
 
 power of company as to land limited to the location, 266, 496. 
 
 title to, as affected by non-user, mis-user, and adverse use, 260. 
 
 the company cannot grant an easement within, 260. 
 
 title to, how questioned, 261. 
 
 illegal, coniirmation of, 261, 269. 
 
 bill in equity to reform a defective, 261. 
 
 trespassers upon, liable to an action, 261. 
 
 injuries from the choice of or changes in, 265. 
 
 piling materials withiu, so as to obstruct the view of a traveller on the high- 
 way, 347. ' 
 
 liabiUty as to combustible materials within, 434. 
 
 M. 
 
 MAJORITY, 
 
 rule of, in the voting of stockholders and directors, 29. 
 restrained from abuse of power, 30, 66, 73, 520. 
 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, 
 a corporation liable for, 273. 
 MANDAMUS, 
 
 to enforce municipal subscriptions, 15, 105, 106. 
 to compel surrender of books to lawful officers, 27. 
 
 the officers to call a meeting for an election, 27. 
 the issue or transfer of capital stock, 119. 
 36 
 
562 INDEX. 
 
 MANDAMUS — contmaed. 
 
 to compel the payment of a dividend, 121, note. 
 
 the company to construct its road across highways, as required 
 
 by statute, 251. 
 the company to maintain fences, 409. 
 MEETINGS, 
 
 of corporations, notice of, 26. 
 
 place of, to be •within the State, 27-29. 
 
 of directors, when may he held without the State, 28. 
 MORTGAGE, 
 
 power of the corporation to mortgage property and franchise, 496, 514, 515. 
 MORTGAGEE, 
 
 right of, to compensation for property taken, 186. 
 
 liability of mortgagee of a raUroad for torts, 285. 
 
 when bound to maintain fences, 411. 
 
 when Kable for injuries by fire, 446. 
 MUNICIPAL SUBSCRIPTIONS, 
 
 power to subscribe for the stock of a private corporation, not an ordinary 
 municipal power, 87. 
 
 legislative power to authorize municipal subscriptions, 87-94. 
 
 legislative power to take away the authority, 458. 
 
 construction of State constitutions and statutes by the national tribunals, 94. 
 
 vote of citizens constitutional, 95. 
 
 what constitutes a majority, 95. 
 
 each tax-payer allowed a share, 95. 
 
 State constitutional restrictions, 95. 
 
 modes and extent of aid, and conditions to be observed, 96-99. 
 
 vaKdity of municipal bonds, what defects iu the power or its execution are 
 a defence, 100. 
 
 various defences, 101, 102. 
 
 defects cured by legislation, 102, 103. 
 
 estoppel as to the defence that the bonds are invalid, 103, 104. 
 
 conclusive acts and certificates, 104. 
 
 mandamus against the municipal corporation, 105. 
 issued by the national courts, 105. 
 
 injunction against the issue of bonds and collection of tax, 106. 
 
 remedies against municipality, 106, 107. 
 
 bonds and coupons, 107. 
 
 miscellaneous points, 108. 
 
 NAVIGABLE WATERS. 
 
 N. 
 (See Waters.) 
 
 NEGLIGENCE, 
 
 of the company in whose trains a passenger is riding, or of a third person 
 
 not aifecting the passenger, 282. 
 drunkenness of a servant, when proof of, 295, 375. 
 
INDEX. 663 
 
 NEGLIGENCE — eontimed. 
 
 burden of proof of defendant's negligence, 298. 
 plaintiff's care, 298-300. 
 
 defined, 310. 
 
 liability for, limited to the natural and probable consequences of tlie wrong- 
 ful act, 310, 311. 
 
 relation of the court and jury to the question of negligence, 311. 
 
 a mixed question of law and fact, 312. 
 
 the jury to decide upon conflicting evidence, 813. 
 
 the jury to decide as to the care or negligence of each party under the in- 
 structions of the court, 313. 
 
 when the court may declare certain acts or conduct to be negligence, 314- 
 321. 
 
 question for the jury where inferences are to be drawn, 317. 
 
 where the inquiry is as to what is ordinary care, 318, 319. 
 
 verdict set aside when no evidence of defendant's negligence, 321. 
 
 instructions to the jury to be definite, pertinent, and consistent, 322. 
 
 allegation of, 292, 322, 323. 
 
 of the injured person, 323. 
 
 different statements of the rule of contributory negligence, 323-326. 
 
 proximate and remote, 326, 327. 
 
 conditions and causes distinguished, 327. 
 
 comparative negligence,, 328. 
 
 plaintiff's taking of risks not necessarily negligence, 328. 
 
 plaintiff's conduct as affected by the direction or invitation of the company's 
 servants, 329. 
 
 injuries to wrong-doers, 275, 330. 
 
 an entry under a license not a trespass, 331. 
 
 of children and disabled persons, 332-336. 
 
 injuries to children from dangerous machinery, 336. 
 
 special obligations to children, 337. 
 
 effect of parents' negligence, 338. 
 
 effect of directions to infants and youths, 338. 
 
 of the child or of its parents a question for the jury, 338, 339. 
 
 liability of the company for, in case of injuries to travellers on the highway, 
 340-357. 
 
 mutual obligations of the company and traveller, 342. 
 
 traveller to use his senses, to look both ways and listen, 343-346. 
 
 the company to use reasonable precautions at crossings, 346, 347. 
 
 plaintiff's crossing in front of street cars, 347. 
 
 obstruction of traveller's view, 347. 
 
 injuries by noises made by the company, causing horses to take fright, 348. 
 
 plaintiffs driving a vicious horse, 349. 
 
 duty of company to give signals, 349-352. 
 
 to station flagmen, 352-354. 
 
 rate of speed, 354, 355. 
 
 duty to use the most approved mechanical contrivances, 355, 356. 
 
 acts deemed negligence in the company, 356. 
 
564 INDEX. 
 
 NEGLIGENCE — contimed. 
 
 injuries from defective crossings, 248, 357. 
 of owner of cattle, 425-427. 
 
 a question for the jury, 427. 
 of owner of property, burned by fire communicated by the company's en- 
 gines, 435, 446. 
 of the company as distinguished from a servant's, 367-369. 
 
 in relation to its servants as to road and machinery, 370-374. 
 as to employment of competent and 
 
 careful servants, 374-376. 
 as to other duties, 376, 377. 
 of the injured servant, 377, 378. 
 
 liability for, under statutes, where the injury is fatal, 391. 
 allegation of, in pleading, 292, 384, 393. 
 NONSUITS, 
 
 in cases of actions for negligence, 319, 320, 384, 441. 
 NOTICE, 
 
 of meetings of a corporation, 26. 
 the directors, 29. 
 to directors, when notice to the corporation, 35. 
 of calls on subscriptions for stock, 78. 
 
 to land-owners in the taking of property for public use, 182, 183. 
 liabiUty for a nuisance after, 270. 
 to a servant of peculiar dangers, 376. 
 
 servant's knowledge of defects in the road and machinery, or of character of 
 his fellow-servants, as affecting the company's liability to him, 379-382. 
 NUISANCE, 
 
 in obstructing navigable waters without legal authority, 201. 
 
 on the highway, 243, 251. 
 
 liability to indictment for, 201, 251, 269. 
 
 acts authorized by law not indictable, 268. 
 
 equitable remedies against, 209, 270. 
 
 action for, 270. 
 
 abatement of, 271. 
 
 lapse- of time as affecting, 244, 271. 
 
 created by a contractor, liability of the company for, 291. 
 
 the charter not presumed to authorize, 494. 
 
 O. 
 
 OEEICERS, 
 
 election and qualifications of, 24-26. 
 de facto, 26, 27. 
 treasurer, compensation of, 31. 
 president, compensation of, 31. 
 authority of, 34, 35. 
 remedy in equity against, 43, 44. 
 suits on behalf of the government against, 44. 
 
INDEX. 565 
 
 OPINIONS. 
 
 as to the value of land taken, 225. 
 
 the amount of damages in the taking of land, 227. 
 
 on various matters affecting the damages, 228. 
 
 grounds for, 229. 
 
 of experts in cases of personal injuries on questions of science and skiU, 296., 
 iu actions for injuries by fire, 440. 
 
 of physicians, 297. 
 
 as to amount of damages for personal injury, 297. 
 ORGANIZATION, 
 
 of a corporation, 7, 8. 
 
 P. 
 
 PAEENT AND CHILD, 
 
 parents' right of action for injury to the child, 292. 
 
 negligence of the child, or of his parents in case of personal injury to the 
 child, 332-339. 
 
 remedy under statutes in case of fatal injuries, 385-400. 
 PASSENGERS, 
 
 duty to, as to condition of station grounds, 276. 
 
 not affected by the negligence of the company in whose train he is riding 
 when injured by the negligence of another company, 282. 
 PATENT-RIGHTS, 
 
 a corporation liable for infraction of, 273. 
 PAYMENT, 
 
 of subscriptions, modes of, 75, 76. 
 
 of dividends, 120-122. 
 PENAL ACTIONS, 
 
 for breach of duties or police regulations, 267. 
 PERSONAL PROPERTY, 
 
 power of the corporation to hold, use, sell, or let, 503, 508. 
 PHOTOGRAPHS, 
 
 " whether admissible in evidence, 294. 
 PLEADING, 
 
 averments of defendant's negligence, 292. 
 plaintiff's care, 322, 323. 
 
 in actions against the company for injuries arising from its negligence in 
 employing incompetent servants, 384. 
 
 in actions or proceedings under statutes for fatal injuries, 392, 393. 
 POLICE LAWS, 
 
 corporations subject to, 460-465. 
 POWERS, CORPORATE, 
 
 limited powers of a corporation, 491. 
 
 rule of strict construction, 491. 
 
 express and incidental powers, 492. 
 
566 INDEX. 
 
 POWERS, CO'KPO'R.A.H^ — conHiiued. 
 
 when affecting public interests to be construed strictly, 154, 451, 481, 493. 
 power to take private property, 145, 494, 495. 
 
 to make embankments and do what is necessary in constructing the 
 
 railroad, 495. 
 to construct branches and extensions, 495. 
 within the location, 159, 161, 496. 
 limited, as to land, to the location, 160, 266, 496. 
 to alienate the franchise and railroad, 496. 
 limited to the State creating the corporation, 14. 
 to hold property and maintain a railroad in a foreign State, 14, 15, 
 
 497. 
 to establish by-laws, 497. 
 to tate tolls, 498. 
 
 to make assessments on the capital stock, 74. 
 to issue capital stock, 74, 75, 123, 127, 498. 
 to regulate the transfer of stock, 112. 
 to issue preferred stock, 124. 
 to discriminate in charges for transportation, 498. 
 to make and enforce regulations as a common carrier, 499, 513. 
 to make contracts, 499. 
 
 extent and limit, how determined, 500. 
 to sell or mortgage property, 503. 
 
 to contract debts, give promissory notes, and issue bonds, 503. 
 to lend surplus funds, 504. 
 to compromise disputes, 504. 
 to guarantee the bonds of other corporations, 504. 
 to purchase and hold its own stock, 505. 
 to purchase and hold the stock of other corporations, 505. 
 to purchase, hold, and convey real estate, 130, 506, 507. 
 to purchase and convey the fee, 130, 506. 
 to use real estate, 507. 
 to use personal property, 508. 
 
 to make contracts for transportation beyond its line, 508, 509. 
 to adopt the acts and contracts of promoters, 511. 
 void contracts, 511. 
 
 contracts expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute, 511, 512. 
 contracts against public pohcy, 512, 513. 
 lobby services, 513. 
 to prevent competition, 513. 
 for a particular location or station, 513. 
 for discontinuing opposition to legislation, 513. 
 for promoting legislation, 514. 
 
 for transferring the ownership or management of the road, 496, 
 503, 514, 515. 
 contracts not within the powers expressly or impliedly conferred by the 
 
 charter, 515. 
 contracts ultra vires, 515. 
 
INDEX. 567 
 
 POWERS, COUVORATE — continmd. 
 
 different senses of the terms ultra vires, 516. 
 estoppel, 516. 
 
 defence of ultra vires flot admitted in case of executed contracts, 516, 517. 
 
 when a general power is used for an un- 
 authorized purpose, 507, 515, 518. 
 where the stockholders have assented 
 unless the transaction involves a public 
 wrong, 518. 
 where it effects a legal wrong, 519. 
 in the case of torts, 520. 
 defence of irregularities in the organization not admitted, 520. 
 remedy of stockholders in case of contracts ultra vires, 530. 
 acts of directors and agents when capable of ratification, 521. 
 ^octrine of ultra viref in Englan(J,_521-539. ^ <^ P" 
 PREFERRED sfo^, '^"^^^—^"''^^^ / 
 
 power of corporation to issue, 124. 
 dividends on, 125. 
 PROMOTERS, 
 
 contracts of, adopted by the corporation, 511. 
 PROXIMATE AND REMOTE NEGLIGENCE, 
 
 distinguished, 324, 326, 327. 
 PROXY, 
 
 right to vote by, not a general right, 25. 
 PUBLIC POLICY, 
 
 contracts against, 512-515. 
 PURCHASE OE LAND, 
 
 power to make, 130, 506. 
 
 (See Agreements with Land-owitebs.) 
 
 Q. 
 
 QUORUM, 
 
 in meetings of the corporation, 29. 
 
 QUO WARRANTO, 
 
 for dissolving a corporation, 12, 13. 
 in case of illegal elections, 27. 
 
 E. 
 
 RAILROAD. CORPORATIONS, 
 defined, 1. 
 how created, 2. 
 
 general laws for formation of, 3. 
 
 conditions essential to corporate existence under provisions of general laws, 4. 
 acceptance of charter, 4-6. 
 conditions essential to existence, 6. 
 organization of, 7, 8. 
 
568 INDEX. 
 
 EAILEOAD COEPORATIONS — continued. 
 proof of existence of, 8, 9. 
 termination of existence of, 9. 
 repeal of charter, 9. 
 
 power to act beyond the State creating them, 14, 
 citizens of the State creating them, 16. 
 established in different States, 16-23, 473. 
 
 EATES OP TRANSPOETATION, 
 
 power of a State to regulate, 458, 466-468, 470, 471. 
 of Congress to regulate, 471. 
 of the company to discriminate as to, 498, 499. 
 
 EEAL ESTATE, 
 
 power to purchase and use. (See Ageeements vith Land-ownees ; 
 
 Location; Powers, Corpoeate.) 
 power to take. (See Eminent Domain.) 
 
 EECEIVEES, 
 
 of a railroad liable for torts, 285. 
 
 EEMEDIES, 
 
 against subscribers for capital stock, 81-86. 
 
 of creditors against subscribers, 81. 
 
 against the corporation for wrongful refusal to transfer shares of capital 
 
 stock, 118. 
 certiorari to inquire into the proceedings of inferior tribunals, 190. 
 special remedy for injuries resulting from the exercise of the right of eminent 
 
 domain, 172. 
 extent and application of special remedy, 174. 
 special remedy exclusive, 177, 262. 
 acts of trespass or negligence not within, 179. 
 statute of Massachusetts providing the remedy, 206. 
 English statutes providing the remedy, 207-209. 
 of land-owners, when compensation is not made, 167. 
 for unlawful use of highways, 250-252. 
 for unlawful obstruction of navigable waters, 201. 
 for injuries to riparian rights, 206. 
 for unlawful use of a highway, 250, 251. 
 in case of injuries resulling in death, 385-400. 
 against illegal taxes, 488-490. 
 remedy and obligation distinguished, 451. 
 (See Action.) 
 
 EEPEAL OF CHAETEE, 9, 10. 
 
 (See Legislatite Powee.) 
 EESEEVATION, 
 
 of power to amend and repeal charters, 9, 71, 72, 456-460, 485, 486. 
 EIGHT OF WAY. 
 
 (See Agreements with Land-owners; Eminent Domain.) 
 
RIPARIAN RIGHTS. 
 
 IKBBX. ' 669 
 
 (See Watbes.) 
 
 S. 
 SCIRE FACIAS, 
 
 for dissolving a corporation, 12, 13. 
 SERVANTS, 
 
 the company liable for the torts of its servants within the conrse of their em- 
 ployment, 277, 278. 
 not liable for their torts outside of their employment, 279. 
 what makes a wrong-doer a servant of the company, 280-283. 
 when a person is a servant of the company, 281. 
 when the company is liable for the acts of the servant of another company, 
 
 281. 
 when two companies are both liable for a servant, 281, 282. 
 the company liable for the negligence of its servants managing the train 
 
 although the railroad or cars and engines belong to another company, 282. 
 of a contractor, company generally not liable for their tortious acts, 286- 
 
 291, 383. 
 statements by, when admitted as evidence, 294. 
 general character of, when admissible, 295. 
 drunkenness of, 295, 375. 
 
 general rule of a master's non-liabiUty to a servant for the acts of fellow- 
 servants, 358-360. 
 applied to minors, 360. 
 
 apphed only where the service is common, 361-366. 
 apphed although the grade of the servants is not equal, 366. 
 the company liable for its own negligence as distinguished from a servant's, 
 
 367. 
 what employees are to be treated as the corporation itself rather than its 
 
 servants, 367-369. 
 the plaintiff within the rule only when he was the defendant's servant at the 
 
 time of the injury, 369, 370. 
 duty of the company to its servants as to machinery and road, 370-373. 
 duty as to new inventions, 373, 374. 
 
 duty as to the employment of careful and competent fellow-servants, 374, 375. 
 intemperate and negligent servants, 375, 376. 
 adequate force of employees, 376. 
 various duties of the company to, 376, 377. 
 negligence of the injured servant, 377, 378. 
 
 detail of a ser/ant for a dangerous duty outside of his employment, 378, 379. 
 negligence of a fellow-servant combining with the company's, 379. 
 effect of a servant's knowledge of the defects in the road or machinery and 
 
 of the character of fellow-servants, 379-382. 
 burden of proof as to the company's negligence and knowledge of defects, 
 
 382, 383. 
 evidence in proof of the company's negligence, 383. 
 
570 LNDEX. 
 
 SERVANTS — continued. 
 
 liability of the servant to the company, 383. 
 liability of a servant to a fellow-servant, 383. 
 
 negligence of the company or of the servant a question for the jury, 384. 
 pleading, 384. 
 
 the company liable to, under statutes providing a remedy in case of fatal 
 injury in the same manner as at common law, 391. 
 SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK. 
 
 (See Capital Stock.) 
 SIGNALS, 
 
 duty and right of the company to give, when approacliing or crossing high- 
 ways, 348-354. 
 to warn cattle on the track, 408, 429. 
 power of the legislature to require, 462. 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
 
 (See Equity.) 
 SPEED, 
 
 of trains in crossing highways, 354, 355. 
 of trains with reference to cattle on the track, 406. 
 power of the legislature to regulate, 462. 
 STOCKHOLDERS, 
 
 right of, to vote, how proved, 24. 
 
 remedy of, in equity, against misuse of corporate property, 30. 
 
 against the directors when abusing their trust, 43, 44, 
 520. 
 not trustees of the corporation, 39. 
 STREETS, RAILROADS UPON. 
 
 (See Highways.) 
 STREET-RAILWAY COMPANIES, 
 
 rights and liabilities of, in the use of highway, 252, 253, 347. 
 SURVEYS, 
 
 not a taking of property, 194. 
 
 T. 
 
 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, 
 
 what is, 164, 195. 
 
 time or decisive act of taking, 171, 209, 210. 
 (See Eminent Domain.) 
 TAXATION, 
 
 property subject to taxation, 472. 
 
 corporate property and interests, how taxed, 474. 
 
 State methods in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois. 476- 
 478. 
 
 exemptions from taxation, 478. 
 
 construction of statutes exempting from taxation, 478. 
 
INDEX. 671 
 
 TAJATlO-^ — contimed. 
 
 exemptions implied or constructive, 479. 
 
 local assessments, 480. 
 
 grant or contract of exemption from taxation, 480, 481. 
 
 . surrender of taxing power not presumed, 481. 
 
 temporary exemptions, 482. 
 
 form of grant or contract, 482, 483. 
 
 construction of grants of exemption from taxation, 483-484. 
 
 exemption limited to property required for the purposes of the railroad, 484, 
 483. 
 
 grant of exemption from taxation as affected by a reserved power to amend 
 the charter, 485, 486. ' 
 
 transfer of the exemption with a transfer of the railroad or by a consolida- 
 tion, 486, 487. 
 
 exemption of the instruments or agencies of the United States, 487, 488. 
 
 remedies for illegal assessments, 488-490. 
 
 of corporations established in different States, 20, 21, 473. 
 
 power of the State to levy taxes as affected by the power of Congress to reg- 
 ulate commerce, 469-471. 
 TELEGRAMS, 
 
 when admitted as evidence, 294. 
 TENDER, 
 
 of certificates of stock, when necessary iu a suit against a subscriber, 79. 
 TOLLS, 
 
 power of the corporation to take, 498. 
 TORTS, 
 
 injuries to real estate, 262. 
 
 statute remedies exclusive, 177, 262. 
 
 consequential injuries, 197, 263. 
 
 injuries caused by lawful use of the location,-159-161, 264. 
 
 wrongful use of location, 161, 264, 265. 
 
 grants and hcenses, 132-134, 265. 
 
 injuries from choice of or changes in location, 265. 
 
 trespasses and abuse of powers, 266. 
 
 negligent and unskilful construction of the road, 179, 266. 
 
 where statutes requiring certain steps and conditions in the exercise of the 
 right of eminent domain are not complied with, 267. 
 
 injuries by fires where engines are worked unlawfully, 267. 
 
 penal actions, 267. 
 
 indictment for nuisances and breach of duty, 201, 251, 267. 
 
 acts authorized by law not indictable, 268. 
 
 equitable remedies against nuisances, 269. 
 
 action for a nuisance, when allowed, 270. 
 
 continuance of a nuisance, notice, 270. 
 
 lapse of time as affecting a nuisance, 244, 271. 
 
 arising from unlawful interference with highways, 242, 243, 250, 251, 271. 
 
 waters, 203-206. 
 
572 INDEX. 
 
 TORTS— w 
 
 person entitled to right of action, 185, 271. 
 
 reversioners, parties in possession, 272. 
 
 proof of title, 272, 447. 
 
 damages for injuries to real estate, 229-231, 272, 
 
 duty of owner to endeavor to save his property, 272. 
 
 actions for false imprisonment, 273. 
 
 malicious prosecution, 273. 
 
 libel, 273. 
 
 infraction of patent-rights, 273. 
 
 overissues of stock, 127-129, 273. 
 
 false representations as to capital stock, 41, 43, 273. 
 
 injuries from explosive substances, 273. 
 
 breach of public duty, 274. 
 
 injuries to persons coming upon the company premises by invitation or in- 
 ducement, 274-277. 
 
 right of the company to use reasonable force to remove from stations per- 
 sons disobeying the company's rules, 276. 
 
 liability for torts of servants in the course of their employment, 277, 278. 
 
 not liable for their torts outside of their employment, 279. 
 
 authority of servant, how derived, 279. 
 
 liability as common carrier for servant's acts, 280. 
 
 liability of the servant for his own torts, 280. 
 
 what makes the wrong-doer a servant of the company, 280-283. 
 
 when a person is the servant of the company, 281. 
 
 when the company is liable for the acts of the servant of another company, 
 281. 
 
 when two companies are both liable for a servant, 281, 282. 
 '' when a company is liable although the railroad or cars and engines belong to 
 
 another, 282. 
 
 negligence of a third person or of the company's in whose cars an injured 
 passenger is riding, not affecting him, 282. 
 
 liability of the company for injuries committed by lessees and others using its 
 track, and liability of lessees, 283-285, 392, 411, 446. 
 
 liability of mortgagees and trustees, 285, 411, 446. 
 of receivers, 285. 
 
 the company not liable for torts of receivers, 285. 
 
 liability incurred by a consolidation, 286. 
 
 liability for, in acts ultra vires, 280, 520. 
 
 the company generally not liable for the torts of a contractor and his ser- 
 vants, 286-288. 
 
 liable when it authorizes or participates in the tortious act, 288; 289. 
 
 effect of reservations in the contract with the contractor, 289. 
 
 liability of the company for the exercise, by the contractor, of the delegated 
 power of eminent domain, 290. 
 
 duties under statutes not to be delegated, 290. 
 
 nuisances created by a contractor, 291. 
 
 form of action against the company for the torts of its agents and servants, 
 291. 
 
INDEX. 673 
 
 TORTS — continued. 
 
 actions for, transitory, 292. 
 
 liability of foreign corporation for, 293. 
 
 parent's action for torts committed on his child, 292. 
 
 negligence of defendant to be charged in the declaration, 293. 
 
 evidence, positive and negative testimony, 292. 
 
 default at one time or place, not proof of default at another, 293. 
 
 additional precautions after injury, 294. 
 
 statements of the company's servants, 294, 383. 
 
 photographs and telegrams, 294. 
 
 description of the place of injury, 295. 
 
 previous warning, 295. 
 
 drunkenness when proof of negligence, 295, 375. 
 
 general character of a servant, 295, 383. 
 
 opinions of experts, 296. 
 
 of physicians, 297. 
 as to amount of damages, 297- 
 life tables, 297. 
 
 statements of the injured person, 297. 
 examination of the plaintiif 's -wound, 298. 
 burden of proof of defendant's negligence, 298. 
 
 of plaintiff's care, 298-300. 
 damages for personal injury are cause of action, 300. 
 elements of damages, 301-304. 
 husband's actions for injuries to the wife, 304. 
 amount received on an accident insurance policy, 304. 
 a Kfe insurance policy, 396. 
 a fire insurance policy, 446, 447. 
 injury aggravated by the act of the surgeon, 304. 
 vindictive damages, 305-307. 
 excessive or inadequate damages, 307-309. 
 to personal property, damages for, 309. 
 arising from negligence, 310-339. 
 
 (See Negligence.) 
 to travellers on the highway, 340-357. 
 
 (See HiGHWATS.) 
 to servants, 358-384. 
 
 (See Sebvants.) 
 resulting in death, 385-400. 
 
 (See Death.) 
 to cattle, 401-430. 
 
 (See Cattle, Injtjries to.) 
 by communication of fire, 431-447. 
 
 (See FiBE, Injusies by.) 
 
 rUANSFEE OE SHARES, 
 
 of shares of capital stock, mode and effect of, as between the parties and 
 against creditors and the corporation, 80, 112-115. 
 
574 INDEX. 
 
 TRANSFER OF SRABMS — coniimed. 
 how regulated and restricted, 113. 
 liability of the corporation for wrongful, 115-117. 
 transfers by executors, administrators, trustees, and assignees in bankruptcy, 
 
 117. 
 by agents and trustees in breach of trust, 117, 118. 
 
 TRAVELLERS, • 
 
 on the highway, liability of the company for injuries to, 248, 340-357. 
 TRESPASSER, 
 
 duty to, as to condition of the company's premises, 375. 
 
 injuries to, rule determining the company's liability for, 330-332. 
 
 U. 
 
 ULTRA VIRES. 
 
 (See Powers, Coepoeate.) 
 
 V. 
 
 VERDICT, 
 
 for land damages, when set aside, 188, 189. 
 
 for personal injuries, when set aside, 307-309. 
 
 in cases of actions for negligence, when directed or set aside as against 
 evidence, 319, 331, 384, 441. 
 VESTING OF ESTATE, 
 
 in proceedings to take land for public use, 171. 
 
 VINDICTIVE DAMAGES, 305-307, 394, 395. 
 
 VOTING. 
 
 (See Elections.) 
 
 W. 
 
 WAIVER, 
 
 of conditions or defects in subscriptions, 54-57, 74. 
 of right to object to the issue of preferred stock, 125. 
 of condition in a deed, 137. 
 by a land-owner of remedies, 168, 169. 
 
 of irregularities in the taking of his land, 191. 
 
 of the company's duty to maintain fences, 422-424. 
 WATERS, 
 
 rights in navigable and other waters, 199, 204. 
 
 what are navigable, 200. 
 
 colonial ordinances as to rights in flats, 201. 
 
 remedies against unlawful obstructions of navigable waters, 201. 
 
 authority to obstruct navigation, how acquired, 201, 495. 
 
 bridges across navigable waters, 301, 202. 
 
 ferries across navigable waters, 203. 
 
 diversion of streams not navigable, compensation for, 196. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 575 
 
 WATERS — continued. 
 
 interference with natural flow of streams, to what extent authorized; duty 
 
 to restore the stream, 203, 495. 
 subterranean water, diversion of, 204. 
 surface water, diversion of, 205. 
 ponds, rights of proprietors on, 205. 
 remedies for injuries to riparian rights, 206. 
 
 liability of the company for obstruction of navigable waters caused by con- 
 tractors, 291. 
 
 WEONG-DOERS. 
 
 (See Trespasseks.) 
 
 University Press : John WUson & Son, Cambridge. 
 
i 
 
 \ 
 ;