Слике страница
PDF
ePub

8

10

should be allowed to operate to influence their location. As the public has an interest in the proper administration of the powers conferred by the charter, and as the comfort and safety of the railway may be sericusly impaired if the money supposed to be necessary for its maintenance and set apart therefor by the act of incorporation, be expended in other undertakings not contemplated when the act was obtained, such a diversion of the corporate funds is illegal.1 For the same reason, an agreement between two common carriers that one of them, in consideration of a sum of money to be paid by the other, shall cease to exercise its franchises, has been declared illegal, and an injunction restraining its performance may be obtained by a shareholder of the company which agreed to pay the money." Stipulations against liability for the negligence of their employees are likewise void in most States, as contrary to public policy.12

[ocr errors]

1 Thomas v. The Railroad, 101 U. S. 71; Peoria etc. R'y Co. v. Coal Valley Manuf. Co. 68 Ill. 489; Chambers v. Manchester etc. R'y Co. 5 Best & Sm. 528; London etc. R'y Co. v. London etc. R'y Co. 5 Jur. N. S. 801; McGregor v. Dover etc. R'y Co. 17 Jur. 21; East Anglian R'y Co. v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. 11 Com. B. 775.

2 Thomas v. The Railroad, 101 U. S. 71; American Union Telegraph Co. v. Union Pacific R'y Co. 1 McCrary, 188; Troy etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 86 N. Y. 107; Abbott v. Johnstown etc. R. R. Co. 80 N. Y. 27; 33 Am. Rep. 572; Middlesex R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 115 Mass. 347; Stewart's Appeal, 56 Pa. St. 413; Wood v. Bedford etc. R. R. Co. 8 Phila. 91; Tippecanoe County v. Lafayette etc. R. R. Co. 50 Ind. 85; Winch v. Birkenhead etc. R'y Co. 5 De Gex & S. 562.

3 Pullan v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co. 4 Biss. 35; Richardson v. Sibley, 11 Allen, 65: 87 Am. Dec. 700; Commonweaith v. Smith, 10 Allen, 448; State v. Sherman, 22 Ohio St. 411.

4 Pearce v. Madison etc. R. R. Co. 21 How. 441; Taylor on Corpora tions (2nd ed. 1889), § 305.

5 Southern Express Co. v. Memphis etc. R. R. Co. 2 McCrary, 570; Express Companies v. Railway Companies, 3 McCrary, 147; Stanford v. Railroad Co. 21 Pa. St. 378; Dinsmore v. Louisville etc. R. R. Co. 2 Flippin, 672; New England Express Co. v. Maine Central R. R. Co. 57 Me. 188; 2 Am. Rep. 31.

6 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Burlington etc. R'y Co. 3 McCrary, 130; Atlantic etc. Telegraph Co. v. Union Pacific R'y Co. 1 McCrary, 511. Contra, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Atlantic etc. Telegraph Co. 7 Biss. 367; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 86 Ill. 246; 29 Am. Rep. 28.

7 Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. 38 N. J. 505; Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. R, Co. 37 N. J. 531; S. C. 33 N. J. 407; 13 Am. Rep. 457. But se Ragan y Aiken, 9 Lea, 609; 42 Am. Rep C81; Ex parte Benson, 18 S. C. 38; 41 Am. Rep. 561; Johnson v. Pensacola etc. R. R. Co. 15 Fla. 63, 637; 26 Aia Rep 731; Houston etc. R'y Co. v. Rust, 58 Tex. 98; Munhall v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. 12 Pa. St. 150.

8 Fuller v. Dame, 18 Pick. 472; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Seely, 45 Mo. 212; 109 Ara. Dec. 369; Destor v. Wathen, 60 Ill. 138; St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Mathers. 71 I. 52, 22 Am. Rep. 122; Marsh v. Fairbury etc. R. R. Co. 64 Ill. 414: 16 Am. Rep. 561; Linder v. Carpenter, (2 l. 309; St. Jos ph etc. R. R. Co v. Ryan, 11 Kan. 632; 15 Am Rep. 357; Holladay v. Patterson, 5 Or. 177. See Williamson v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. (Iowa Super. Ct.) 22 Abb L. J. 29. Compare Workman v. Campbell, 46 Mo. 305. Contra, Cedar Rapids etc. R'y Co. v. Spafford, 41 Iowa, 292; First National Dank v. Hendric, 49 Tows, 40; 31 Am. Rep. 153. See Berryman v. Cincinnati etc. R. R. Co. 11 Bush, 755.

9 East Anglian P'y Co. v. Eastern Counties R'y Co. 11 Com. B. 775. 10 East Anglian R'y Co. v. Eastern Counties Ry Co. 11 Com. B. 775. 11 Leslie v. Lorillard, 40 Eun, 392.

12 This subject will be treated infra under INJURIES TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY. See also Taylor on Corporations, §§ 352-354, and cases there cited.

§ 527. The same subject, continued-Of “lobbying."—An agreement to pay money to secure the passage of a bill by the legislature can not be enforced against a corporation, for ex turpe causa non oritur actio. A railway company may not apply its funds to promote a bill in Parliament for extended powers; for an agreement to pay the expenses of an application to Parliament for enlarged powers is not merely ultra vires, but alo illegal as being against public policy; but it would seem that a company may devote its funds to oppose a bill, the passing of which would endanger it's prosperity."

1 Marshall v. Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 16 How. 314.

2 Mannsell v. Midland etc. R'y Co. 32 Law J. Ch. 513; Stevens v. South Devon 'y Co. 20 Law J. Ch. 491; East Anglian R'y Co. v. Eastern Counties R' Co. 11 Com. B. 775; Munt v. Shrewsbury etc. R'y Co. 20 Law J Ch. 169; 13 Leav. 1; Caledonian R'y Co. v. Solway etc. R'y Co. 32 Weck R. 164; 49 Law T. 526; Wood's Railway Law, 483.

ed-Of

3 MacGregor v. Dover etc. R'y Co. 18 Q. B. 618, 632. Contra, Browne & Theobald's Railway Law, C6, saying, that apart from any question of the application of its funds a company may promote or oppose a bill in Par1 ament, citing, I re L. C. & D. R'y Cɔ. 5 Ch. 671: Steele v. North Metropolitan R'y Co. 2 Ch. 237; Telford v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 13 Eq. 514; Heathcote v. North Staffordshire R'y Co. 2 Macn. & G. 169; 20 Law J. Ch. 8; Attorney-General v. Manchester etc. R'y Co. 1 Rob. C. 426; Lancaster etc. R'y Co. v. North Western K'y Co. 2 Kay & J. 203.

4 Attorney-General v. Brecon, 10 Ch. Div. 204; Attorney-General v. Eastlake, 11 H. L Cas. 205; Attorney-General v. Norwich, 2 Mylne & C. 406; Bright v. North, 2 Phill. Ch. 216; Attorney-General v. Andrews, 2 Macn. & G. 225. See Regina v. Whi.e, 14 Q. B. Div. 358; Browne & Theobald's Railway Law, 95.

§ 528 The same subject, continued-Of "pools." In England, companies having the same termini may, for the purpose of avoiding competition, validly form a pool and distribute traffic and earnings among themselves proportionally,' where it does not appear that the interests of the public or of the shareholders are prejudiced thereby." And an eminent writer has declared that in this country, also, unless there be some statutory prohibition thereof, contracts for "pooling" earnings by rival lines, when made in good faith for selfprotection against ruinous competition, and not resulting in the creation of a monopoly injurious to the public, are valid and not contrary to public policy. But the agreement by which the pool is formed has been said to be illegal if it extended to future traffic upon a line of railway which a company may thereafter be empowered to construct.* So, also, a scheme amounting to an amalgamation of two existing companies, the profit and loss being brought into one common fund and divided into certain proportions, is illegal. This subject will be further treated in the discussion of the governmental control of railway corporations.

[merged small][ocr errors]

1 Hare v. London etc. R'y Co. 2 Johns. & H. 480. See the judgment in that case, where Shrewsbury etc. R'y Co. v. London etc. R'y Co. 17 Q. B. 652, 2 Macn. & G. 324, 3 Macn. & G. 70, 17 Q. B. 652, 16 Brev. 411, 4 De Gex M. & G. 116, 6 H. L. Cas. 113, are discussed. See, also, Lancaster etc. Ry Co. v. Northwestern R'y Co. 2 Kay & J. 233; Browne & Theobald's Railway Law, 288.

2 Hare v. London etc. R'y Co. 2 Johns. & H. 480; S. C. 30 Law J. Ch. 817. 3 Wood's Railway Law, 590-600. Morrill v. Boston etc. R'y Co. 55 N. H. 531, apparently contra, was decided under a statute prohibiting pools. 4 Midland R'y Co. v. London etc. R'y Co. 2 Eq. 524; Browne & Theobald's Railway Law, 288.

5 Charlton v. Newcastle etc. R'y Co. 7 Week. R. 731; Browne & Theobald's Railway Law, 288.

§ 529. The same subject. continued-Of trusts. Corporations have no implied authority to enter into partnership with each other,' nor with private persons. Accordingly, a contract whereby the management of the business of two or more companies is placed in the hands of a committee is ultra vires and void, as far as unexecuted, whether made by the directors or by all the shareholders. In the case last cited, by the contract of partnership the committee was to have possession of the properties of all the contracting companies for the space of three years, and an action of unlawful detainer was brought by one of the companies to recover its property at the end of two years. was decided that the contract was as to the remainder of the term unexecuted, and could be repudiated as ultra vires; and that the contract being void, it could not operate to convert the managers of the combination into tenants from year to year, and entitle them to the statutory notice to quit.

4

1 Mallory v. Hananer Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598.

It

2 Central R. R. etc. Co. of Georgia v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572; 52 Am. Rep. 353.

3 Mallory v. Hananer Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598. Vide infra, § 591. 4 Mallory v. Hananer Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598.

5 Mallory v. Hananer Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598.

[blocks in formation]

e contra

rt the

om rear

Lotice

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

2

§ 530. Of transportation beyond termini.—A railway company may properly make contracts for the transportation of freight and passengers beyond the termini of its own line;1 and may arrange with other railway and steamboat companies for the division of the proceeds of that transportation between them in certain proportions. Authority to transport and deliver passengers and freight beyond its termini carries with it the authority to buy and to run a steamboat from the terminus of its road to the line of another, although ordinarily a railroad company cannot operate a steamboat line. In the case of traffic arrangements, where mutual facilities are given, or where one company gives consideration to the other, a working agreement must be presumed to be irrevocable in the absence of evidence to the contrary.5

1 Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123; Norfolk etc. R. R. Co. v. Shippers' Compress Co. W. Va. (1887); 30 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 57; Kyle v. Laurens R. R. Co, 10 Rich. 382; 70 Am. Dec. 231; St. Louis etc. R. R. Co. v. Larned, 103 Ill. 293; Wheeler v. San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. 31 Cal. 46; 89 Am. Dec. 147. But see_Hood v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 22 Conn. 502; South Wales R'y Co. v. Redmond, 10 Com. B. N. S. 675; S. C. 9 Week R. 806.

2 Green Bay etc. R. R. Co. v. Union Steamboat Co. 107 U. S. 98; Columbus etc. R. R. Co. v. Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. 5 McLean, 450; Buffet v. Troy etc. R. R. Co. 40 N. Y. 168; Olcott v. Tiogo etc. R. R. Co. 27 N. Y. 546; 81 Am. Dec. 238: Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 73 Mo. 389; 39 Am. Rep. 519; Elkins v. Camden etc. R. R. Co. 36 N. J. Eq. 241; Wheeler v. San Francisco etc. R. R. Co. 31 Cal. 46; 83 Am. Dec. 147; South Wales R'y Co. v. Redmond, 10 Com. B. N. S. 675; Hare v. London etc. R'y Co. 2 Johns. & H. 80.

3 Shawmut Bank v. Plattsburgh etc. R. R. Co, 31 Vt. 491.

4 Pearce v. Madison etc. R. R. Co. 21 How. 441; Central R. R. etc. Co. of Georgia v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572; 52 Am. Rep. 553; Hoagland v. St. Joseph R. R. Co. 33 Mo. 400.

5 Great Northern R'y Co. v. Manchester etc. R'y Co. 5 De Gex & S. 138; Llanelly R'y Co. v. London etc. R'y Co. Law R. 7 H. L. 550; Browne & Theobald's Railway Law, 287.

§ 531. Ofrunning privileges.-A company may enter into an agreement, that another company

« ПретходнаНастави »