Housatonic R. Co. v. Lee & H. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 September 1875 |
| Parties | Housatonic Railroad Company v. Lee and Hudson Railroad Company |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Berkshire. Bill in equity by the lessees of the Stockbridge and Pittsfield Railroad Company, alleging encroachments upon the location of its road by the defendant corporation at various points in the towns of Lee, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge and praying for a injunction. The case was reserved by Colt J., for the consideration of the full court upon the pleadings and the report of a master, and appears in the opinion.
Decree for the plaintiff.
J Dewey, Jr., for the plaintiff.
A. J Waterman, (H. J. Dunham with him,) for the defendant.
The case finds as a fact that the defendant corporation, professing to act under its charter, has made substantial encroachments upon the actual and recorded location of the Stockbridge and Pittsfield Railroad Company, which endanger the safety of that road.
The defendant, by its charter, had authority to build and maintain a railroad from Lee to West Stockbridge, with all the powers and privileges and subject to the duties and liabilities set forth in the general laws of the Commonwealth relating to such corporations. St. 1871, c. 162. Under this charter the defendant must establish its location according to the provisions of the Gen. Sts. c. 63, §§ 17, 18. No express authority is given in the charter to locate its road within the location of the Stockbridge and Pittsfield Railroad Company, except so far as the third section permits it to enter upon, unite with, and use the road of the Stockbridge and Pittsfield Railroad Company at West Stockbridge. Nor has any authority been given by the plaintiff, as lessee of the Stockbridge and Pittsfield Railroad Company, to enter upon such location, except as appears by several agreements made between the plaintiff and the defendant, permitting the defendant to do so at certain points on the line of the Stockbridge and Pittsfield Railroad Company. The encroachments complained of are at other points than those authorized by the charter and the agreements.
A charter to build and maintain a railroad between certain points, without describing its course and direction, but leaving that to be determined and established by the corporation, as provided by the general laws, does not prima facie give any power to lay out the road over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marsh Mining Co. v. Inland Empire Mining & Milling Co.
...Skamania Boom Co. v. Superior Court, 47 Wash. 166, 91 P. 637; Boston & M. R. R. v. Lowell & L. R. Co., 124 Mass. 368; Housatonic R. Co. v. Lee & H. R. Co., 118 Mass. 391; Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago R. Co. v. North, 103 486, 3 N.E. 144; Pittsburgh Junction R. Co.'s Appeal, 122 Pa. 511, 9 Am.......
-
The B. & O. Railroad Co. v. The P. W. & Ky.Railroad Co.
...St. 278; Const. Art. III, § 9; 68 N. Y. 167; 124 Mass. 368; 43 Conn. 234; 4 Cush. 72; Code, ch. 29, § 67; 66 N. Y. 413; 53 N. Y. 574; 118 Mass. 391; 32 Wis. 569; Mills Em. Dom. § 49 et seq.; Id. § 115. Daniel Lamb, for plaintiff in error cited the following authorities: 18 Pick. 501; 47 111......
-
Baltimore & O. Railroad Co. v. Pittsburg, W. & KY. Railroad Co.
...St. 278; Const. Art. III, sec. 9; 68 N.Y. 167; 124 Mass. 368; 43 Conn. 234; 4 Cush. 72; Code, ch. 29, sec. 67; 66 N.Y. 413; 53 N.Y. 574; 118 Mass. 391; 32 Wis. 569; Mills Em. Dom. sec. 49 et seq.; Id. sec. 115. Daniel Lamb, for plaintiff in error, cited the following authorities: 18 Pick. 5......
-
Northwestern Telephone Exchange Company v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
...Co., 37 Minn. 164; Fidelity T. & S.V. Co. v. Mobile St. Ry. Co., 53 F. 687; St. Paul U.D. Co. v. City of St. Paul, 30 Minn. 359; Housatonic v. Lee, 118 Mass. 391. policy requires that a railroad company should have absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over every portion of its right of way. ......