Pennsylvania Co v. St Louis Co St Louis Co v. Indianapolis St Co
| Citation | 7 S.Ct. 24,30 L.Ed. 284,118 U.S. 630 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. and others v. ST. LOUIS, A. & T. H. R. CO. ST. LOUIS, A. & T. H. R. CO. v. INDIANAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO. and others |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1886 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 630-632 intentionally omitted] Jos. E. McDonald, John M. Butler, and J. D. Bedle, for petition.
No opposition.
The opinion of the court in this case, accompanying its judgment, was delivered very near the close of the last term, and for that reason, among others, a special leave was granted the appellees to file a petition for rehearing at the beginning of the present term. We have very carefully examined this petition; and while on one of the main points in the case—namely, the statutory authority of the Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company, under the laws of Indiana, to make the lease which was the foundation of the suit—there are some other statutes and some other decisions of the state and the state court cited, we do not think they invalidate the ground on which the decision of this court at the last term rested.
It was said in that opinion that there was no decisive or conclusive expression of opinion on that subject by the supreme court of Indiana, and that this court was therefore compelled to exercise its own judgment, and to follow it in deciding the case. We are not able to see, in the cases cited for the first time in this petition, anything which modifies this proposition. The same may be said of the statutes specially relied on in the petition. There is, in our opinion, no authority found in them for the lease by the defendant company of the entire road, property, franchise, powers, and control of the plaintiff's road for 99 years.
The judgment of the plaintiff against the Indianapolis & St. Louis Company remains unaffected by the decision of this court, because there was no appeal by the latter company, and we see no reason to change our views on the other questions involved in the case. The petition is therefore overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Evansville
... ... R.R. Co ... et al. v. St. Louis, Alton, etc.R.R. Co. et al., 118 ... U.S. 290, 307, 6 Sup.Ct. 1094, 30 ... corporations in Pearce v. Madison & Indianapolis R.R ... Co., 21 How. 441, 16 L.Ed. 184, and Penn. R.R. Co. et ... al ... filing its certificate under the general laws of ... Pennsylvania, which authorized the organization of companies ... for the purpose of ... ...
-
EEL River R. Co. v. State ex rel. Kistler
...Co., 153 Ind. 483, 53 N. E. 1089;Pennsylvania R. Co. v. St Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290, 6 Sup. Ct. 1094, 30 L. Ed. 83;Id., 118 U. S. 630, 7 Sup. Ct. 24, 30 L. Ed. 284;Board of Com'rs of Tippecanoe Co. v. Lafayette, M. & B. R. Co., 50 Ind. 85;Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 11,......
-
The Eel River Railroad Co. v. State ex rel. Kistler
... ... State, 53 Ind. 311; Ward ... v. State, 48 Ind. 289; Indianapolis, etc., R ... Co. v. Ott, 11 Ind.App. 564, 38 N.E. 842 ... that company at St. Louis, Missouri. At and after May 1, ... 1893, and down to the time of the ... Portland, etc., ... Co., 153 Ind. 483, 53 N.E. 1089; Pennsylvania R ... Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 118 U.S. 290, 630, ... 6 S.Ct ... ...
-
Kennan v. Rundle
...Morris & E. R. Co. v. Sussex R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 564, and Trust Co. v. Miller, 33 N. J. Eq. 160. In Pennsylvania R. Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. R. Co., 118 U. S. 630, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24, it is held that a lease by one company to the other, not authorized by the charter, was void as to bot......