Слике страница
PDF
ePub

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 interferences with waters and highways, entitling persons to compensation, either by a special remedy or by an action at law, have been treated in two preceding chapters.2

A company entering on private property for the construction of its road, without taking the steps and complying with the conditions prescribed by the Constitution and statutes, is a trespasser, and liable to an action at law. This point has been already considered.3

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.1

Penal Actions. — Penal actions against railroad corporations for the enforcement of police regulations, or for compelling the performance of certain duties, either at the suit of parties interested or of common informers, are sometimes authorized by statutes.5 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.8 Police regulations are also enforced by information.9

Liable to Indictment. Nuisances. Breach of Duty. - A corporation may be prosecuted by indictment for a nuisance, consisting in a misfeasance as well as for one consisting in a non-feasance.10

1 Ante, Ch. VII., EMINENT DOMAIN, p. 203.

2 Chap. VII, EMINENT DOMAIN, pp. 203-206; Chap. VIII., RAILROADS UPON HIGHWAYS.

6 Commonwealth v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 1 Grant, 329.

7 Keith v. Cheshire R. Co., 1 Gray, 614.

8 State v. Balt. & O. R. Co., 3 How.

3 Ante, Chap. VII., EMINENT DOMAIN, 534, 12 Gill & J. 399. p. 170.

Jones v. Festiniog R. Co., L. R. 3 Q. 583. B. 733.

5 Galena & U. R. Co. v. Appleby, 28 Ill. 283; Commonwealth v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 1 Grant, 329; Barrett v. Malden & M. R. Co., 3 Allen, 101.

9 State v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 28 Vt.

10 Commonwealth v. New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray, 339; State v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. 103; Donaldson v. Miss. & M. R. Co., 18 Iowa, 280; Regina v. Great North of England R. Co., 9 Q. B. 315.

Generally it is not indictable for misfeasances, unless they are of the nature of nuisances.1 It is liable under statutes to indictment for breach of public duty, where it would not be liable at common law, as for fatal injuries caused by its negligence.2 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.5

A summons may be issued to the corporation upon the indictment, 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, however, 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
Man. Co., 20 Me. 41; State v. Ohio & M.
R. Co., 23 Ind. 362.

1 Delaware Div. Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 60 Pa. St. 367; Commonwealth v. New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray, 339.

2 Carey v. Berkshire R. Co., 1 Cush. 475; Boston, C., & M. R. Co. v. State, 32 N. H. 215.

8 State v. Balt. & O. R. Co., 15 W. Va. 362.

4 Boston, C., & M. R. Co. v. State, 32 N. H. 215; State v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 27 Vt. 103.

5 Delaware Div. Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 60 Pa. St. 367; Salem v. Eastern R. Co., 98 Mass. 431.

son v. Long Island R. Co., 4 Edw. Ch. 411; Baxter v. Spuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. Co., 61 Barb. 428; Danville, H., & W. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 73 Pa. St. 29; Thompson v. Androscoggin R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 555, 58 N. H. 108; People v. Detroit & H. Plank Road Co., 37 Mich. 195; Randle v. Pacific R. Co., 65 Mo. 325.

8 Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 Dutch. 148; Hooksett v. Amoskeag Man. Co., 44 N. H. 105, 110; Eaton v. Boston, C., & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 510; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Reaney, 42 Md. 117, 133.

9 Crittenden v. Wilson, 5 Cowen, 165; Robinson v. New York & E. R. 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.

7 Rex v. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30; Matson v. Baird, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1082, 1088; Bordentown & S. A. T. R. v. Camden & A. R. & T. Co., 2 Harrison, 314; Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75; Attorney-General v. New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 C. E. Green, 49, 55; Hodgkin

Del. & R. Canal, 3 Harrison, 200; Tinsman v. Belvidere Del. R. Co., 2 Dutcher, 148, 174, 1 Dutcher, 255; Eastman v. Amoskeag Man. Co., 44 N. H. 143, 160; Eaton v. Boston, C., & M. R. Co., 51 N. H. 504, 510; Thompson v. Androscoggin R. I. Co., 54 N. H. 545, 58 N. H. 108; ante, Chap. VII. p. 167.

injuries not deemed a taking of property within the meaning of the Constitution, which but for such authority would be actionable. 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.2

4

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 rémedy is available to cities and towns in the case of unlawful interferences with the highway.5 To obtain the equitable remedy, these conditions should concur: 1. A right clearly established. 2. No other adequate remedy available. 3. An application for the remedy, even when on behalf of the State, made without unreasonable delay. If the nuisance is indictable,

1 Hatch v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 25 Vt. 49, 61; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Heisel, 38 Mich. 62, 70; Caledonian R. Co. v. Ogilvy, 2 Macq. 229; Pittsburg, C., & St.. L. R. Co. v. Brown, 67 Ind. 45.

2 Commonwealth v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 14 Gray, 93.

3 People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263; Davis v. New York, 14 N. Y. 506, 526; Wetmore v. Story, 22 Barb. 414; District Attorney v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 16 Gray, 242; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208, 216; Delaware & R. C. Co. v. Raritan & D. B. R. Co., 1 C. E. Green, 321, 381; ante, Chap. VIII. p. 251, Chap. VII. p. 168.

4 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., 5 Allen, 221; Cadigan v. Brown, 120 Mass. 493; Hudson & D. C. Co. v. New York & E. R. Co., 9 Paige, 323; Davis v. 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.

(U. S. C. C., E. D. N. Y.), 10 Reporter, 197; Sparhawk v. Union Pass. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 401.

5 Johnston v. Providence & S. R. Co., 10 R. I. 365.

6 Mohawk Bridge v. Utica & S. R. Co., 6 Paige, 554; Sheboygan v. Sheboygan & F. R. Co., 21 Wis. 667, 671; District Attorney v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 16 Gray, 242; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208, 216; Bell v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 25 Pa. St. 161; Sparhawk v. Union Pass. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 401; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Barnesville & M. R. Co., 4 Fed. Rep. 172.

7 Attorney-General v. New Jersey R. & T. Co., 2 Green Ch. 136; Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co., 2 C. E. Green, 75; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Prudden, 5 C. E. Green, 530; Stevens v. Erie R. 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. R. 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

an injunction will be granted only in a case of peculiar emergency.1

An injunction has been granted to restrain one railroad company from obstructing the access to the station of another company by means of a fence erected partly on a public way and partly on the latter company's land.2

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 equitable 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.

3

Continuance of the Nuisance. Notice. The company is not liable 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, and will at the same time be injurious to the defendant. Joliet & C. R. Co. v. Healey, 94 Ill. 416.

1 See cases cited ante, note 7, p. 269. 2 London & N. W. R. Co. v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co., L. R. 4 Eq. Cas. 174.

3 Brainard v. Conn. River R. Co., 7 Cush. 506; Proprietors of Locks & Canals v. Nashua & L. R. Co., 10 Cush. 385, 388; Blood r, Nashua & L. R. Co., 2 Gray, 137, 140; Harvard College v. Stearns, 15 Gray, 1; Willard v. Cambridge, 3 Allen, 574; Wesson v. Washburn Iron Co., 13 Allen, 95; Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony & F. R. R. Co., 5 Allen, 221, 224; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208; Lamphier v. Worcester & N. R. Co., 33 N. H. 495; Eaton v. Boston & M. R., 51 N. H. 504, 523, 524; Hatch

v. Vt. Cent. R. Co., 28 Vt. 142, 147, 25 Vt. 49; Buck v. Conn. & P. R. R. Co., 42 Vt. 370; Hughes v. Providence & W. R. Co., 2 R. I. 493; Little Miami R. Co. v. Naylor, 2 Ohio St. 235; Parrot v. Cincinnati, H., & D. R. Co., 3 Ohio St. 330; Penn. & O. C. Co. v. Graham, 63 Pa. St. 290; South Carolina R. Co. v. Moore, 28 Ga. 398; Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Moffitt, 75 Ill. 524; Wabash & E. Canal v. Spears, 16 Ind. 441; Houck v. Wachter, 34 Md. 265; Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N. Y. 611; Kellinger v. Forty-Second St. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 206; Sparhawk v. Union Pass. R. Co., 54 Pa. St. 401; Manley v. St. Helen's C. & R. Co., 2 Hurl. & N. 840; ante, Chap. VII. p. 201, Chap. VIII. p. 250.

4 Amoskeag Man. Co. v. Goodale, 46 N. H. 53.

by purchase, without proof of notice, or at least knowledge, of the nuisance.1 Some authorities hold a request to abate as also essential 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; 2 but the authorities are not uniform to this effect. The company complained of may be so identified by consolidation or otherwise 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.5

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 location.7

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.8

Navigable Waters and Highways. The liability of the company to indictment or an action for the obstruction of navigable waters and highways, 10 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

[ocr errors]

1 Conhocton Stone Road v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 578, 5 Thomp. & C. 651, 52 Barb. 390, 3 Hun, 523. See Brown v. Cayuga & S. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 486.

2 West v. Louisville, C., & L. R. Co., 8 Bush, 404; McDonough v. Gilman, 3 Allen, 264; Nichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 39, 43.

* Morris Canal & B. Co. v. Ryerson, 3 Dutcher, 457; Conhocton Stone Road v. Buffalo, N. Y., & E. R. Co., 51 N. Y. 573; Dickson v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. (Mo. S. C.), 10 Reporter, 247.

6 Delaware Div. Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 60 Pa. St. 367.

7 Gwathney v. Little Miami R. Co., 12 Ohio St. 92.

8 Cotton v. Pocasset Man. Co., 13 Met. 429; Haskell v. New Bedford, 108 Mass. 208; Attorney-General v. Leeds, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 583; West v. Louisville, C., & L. R. Co., 8 Bush, 404; Young v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 28 Wis. 171; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Prudden, 5 C. E. Green, 580; Carlisle v. Cooper, 6 C. E. Green, 576, 591; Pettis v. Johnson, 56 Ind. 139; ante, Chap. VIII. p. 244. See Attorney-Gen

4 Chicago, R. I., & P. R. Co. v. Moffitt, eral v. New York & L. B. R. Co., 9 C. E. 75 Ill. 524.

5 Missouri River Packet Co. v. Hanni

bal & St. J. R. Co. (U. S. C. C., W. D. Mo., May, 1880), 2 Fed. Rep. 285.

Green, 49.

9 Ante, Chap. VII., EMINENT DoMAIN, p. 201.

10 Ante, Chap. VIII., RAILROADS ON HIGHWAYS, pp. 243, 250, 251.

« ПретходнаНастави »