Green Bay Minnesota Co v. Unionco
| Decision Date | 05 March 1883 |
| Docket Number | STEAM-BOAT |
| Citation | 2 S.Ct. 221,27 L.Ed. 413,107 U.S. 98 |
| Parties | GREEN BAY & MINNESOTA R. CO. v. UNIONCO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
W. C. Larned, for plaintiff in error.
F. J. Lamb, for defendant in error.
This is an action brought by the Union Steam-boat Company, a corporation established by the laws of the state of New York at Buffalo, in that state, against the Green Bay & Minnesota Railroad Company, a corporation established by the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and having its principal place of business in this state.
The declaration alleges that the defendant was chartered in 1866, and was organized to construct and operate a railroad across the state of Wisconsin, east and west from the city of Green Bay to the Mississippi river, and its road was built and actually opened for business in December, 1873; that 'it became important for said defendant to make arrangements in regard to the business of carrying passengers and freight carried eastwardly over its road, and destined for points east of said city of Green Bay and out of the state, for their transportation east, as well as to secure business of carrying passengers and freight arriving at or being moved west by way of the defendant's route and railway;' and on the ninth of September, 1873, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract under seal, whereby, in consideration that the plaintiff would, during the season of navigation in 1876 and 1877, run between Buffalo and Green Bay, by way of the great lakes, and touching at intermediate ports, two steampropellers, then belonging to the plaintiff, for the purpose of carrying passengers and freight to and from Green Bay in connection with the defendant's railway and business and docks at that place, the defendant duly undertook and guarantied to the plaintiff that the gross earnings of each propeller in such business should be for each of the two years the sum of $45,000 at least, and that if it should be less, the defendant would pay the difference to the plaintiff on or before the first of January next succeeding the close of navigation in each year.
The plaintiff further alleges that it duly put the propellers on the route and kept them running thereon, in connection with the defendant's business and in accordance with the contract, during the seasons of 1876 and 1877, and in all respects duly performed all the conditions of the contract on its part; that the gross earnings of each propeller for each season fell short of the amount guarantied by a certain sum named, which thereupon became due and payable to the plaintiff from the defendant, according to the contract on the first of January following; and that the two corporations were duly authorized and empowered by their respective charters and the laws of Wisconsin to make the contract.
The answer denies that the defendant was so empowered, and avers that it has no information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the plaintiff was so empowered; admits the making of the contract stated in the declaration, and sets forth other provisions of that contract, with which it alleges that the plaintiff had not complied. The plaintiff filed a replication denying the allegations of the answer. Upon a trial in June, 1878, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for $78,876.13, and judgment rendered thereon, and the defendant sued out this writ of error.
No bill of exceptions having been seasonably tendered, the only question presented by the record is whether, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clement Nat. Bank
...incidental to the objects for which the corporation is created is not to be taken as prohibited. Green Bay, etc., R. R. Co. v. Union Steamboat Co., 107 U. S. 98, 2 Sup. Ct. 221, 27 L. Ed. 413. A corporation can make no other contracts than those authorized by its charter. Bank of Augusta v.......
-
Wiggins Ferry Company, And Respondent v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, And Respondent
...73 Mo. 406, 407; Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Company, 119 U.S. 615-624; Wiggins Ferry Company v. Railroad, 142 U.S. 396; Railroad v. Steamboat Co., 107 U.S. 98; v. Railroad, 110 U.S. 667; Spelling on Trusts and Monopolies, sec. 3, p. 185; Morawetz on Corp. [2 Ed.], sec. 118. (3) Said contract......
-
State v. Clement National Bank
... ... had for its collection. Winona etc. Co. v ... Minnesota , 159 U.S. 526, 40 L.Ed. 247, 16 S.Ct. 83 ... We think the provisions of our statute satisfy the ... created is not to be taken as prohibited. Green Bay etc ... R. R. Co. v. Union Steamboat Co. , 107 U.S. 98, ... 27 L.Ed. 413, 2 S.Ct. 221. A ... ...
-
State v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...vested rights of a company, granted by its charter, to fix its rights of toll, or such authorities as Green Bay Railroad Co. v. Union Co. 107 U. S. 98, 2 Sup. Ct. 221, 27 L. Ed. 413, and Morris & Essex Railroad Co. v. Sussex Railroad Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 542, which hold that railroads, under t......