Angle v. Chicago, St Ry Co
Decision Date | 03 January 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 73,73 |
Citation | 151 U.S. 1,14 S.Ct. 240,38 L.Ed. 55 |
Parties | ANGLE v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 1-3 intentionally omitted]
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Wisconsin dismissing plaintiff's bill.
The bill was filed on the 23d of May, 1888, against the Chicago, Portage & Superior Railway Company, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, and the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company. The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company was the only defendant served with process. It appeared, and on the 28th of July filed a demurrer to the bill, which, after argument, was sustained, and on September 2, 1889, the decree of dismissal was entered. 39 Fed. 143, 912.
The facts as stated in the bill are as follows: By two acts, of date June 3, 1856, and May 5, 1864, respectively, (11 Stat. 20, and 13 Stat. 66,) congress granted lands to the state of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of certain railroads, among others one 'from a point on the St. Croix river or lake, between townships 25 and 31, to the west end of Lake Superior, and from some point on the line of said railroad, to be selected by said state, to Bayfield.' These land grants were accepted by an act of the legislature approved October 8, 1856, (Laws Wis. 1856, p. 137,) and by a joint resolution of the legislature of the state of date March 20, 1865, (Gen. Laws Wis. 1865, p. 689,) and a map of definite location was duly filed, and accepted by the secretary of the interior.
By an act of March 4, 1874, (Laws Wis. 1874, p. 186,) the state granted to the North Wisconsin Railway Company, whose name was subsequently changed to Chicago St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, and who is the defendant herein, (to be hereafter called the Omaha Company,) that portion of the land grant applicable to the construction of the road from a point on St. Croix river to Bayfield, and to the Chicago & Northern Pacific Air-Line Railway Company, whose name was subsequently, and before 1878, changed to that of the Chicago, Portage & Superior Railway Company, (hereafter called the Portage Company,) so much of said grant as was applicable to the construction of the road from the west end of Lake Superior to a junction with the line running from St. Croix rever to Bayfield.
The eighth section of this act, which is the granting section to the latter company, is as follows:
The value of the lands thus granted was, at the time of the wrongs hereinafter described, $4,000,000.
By section 12 the company was required within 60 days to file with the secretary of state an acceptance of the grant upon the terms and conditions named therein, and also such security for the construction of the road as should be required by the governor. Both of these conditions were complied with.
Genoa, named in section 8, was the town on the southern boundary of the state of Wisconsin at which the line of the Chicago & Northern Pacific Air-Line Railway entered the state; and Hudson was the place on the St. Croix river, described in the acts of congress as the initial point of the road to be aided.
On March 16, 1878, an act was passed by the legislature of Wisconsin (Laws Wis. 1878, p. 442) extending the time for the construction of the Portage Company's road three years.
In the panic of 1873-74 the Portage Company had broken down under a load of debts and embarrassments, and remained inactive until 1880. At that time it secured the services of Willis Gaylord to assist in extricating it from its embarrassments, and in continuing the construction of its road. William H. Schofield, an experienced railway projector and financier, was induced to accept the office of president, and the co-operation and assistance of the New York, New England & Western Investment Company (hereafter called the Investment Company) was secured.
A new mortgage for $25,000 a mile, and a new issue of stock, was provided for. Seven hundred thousand dollars of the new bonds and one million of the new stock were to be issued in full satisfaction of all outstanding stock, bonds, and other demands. In pursuance of these arrangements, it issued certificates of stock for $1,000,000, in the name of A. A. Jackson, general solicitor of the Portage Company, which, indorsed by him in blank, were deposited with the Trust Company, and it also executed its orders to the number of 90, calling for the delivery to John C. Barnes or bearer or a designated amount of said $1,000,000 of stock in 10 per cent. installments. These orders were in the following form:
On the margin:
These orders were all delivered to John C. Barnes in exchange for and redemption of all the theretofore outstanding stock of the Portage Company, which stock was at once canceled, with the exception of two certificates for $25,000, which, by oversight or design on the part of Charles J. Barnes, vice president of the Portage Company, remained in his custody uncanceled.
The situation after these arrangements were made was such that the entire outstanding stock was in the possession and control of C. J. Barnes, J. C. Barnes, and A. A. Jackson, yet held by them in trust for the company. The further stock provided for was to be issued from time to time to assist in the sale of the bonds, until enough of the latter had been disposed of to construct the road. These arrangements having been perfected, the Portage Company, through its president, sought the alliance and support of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, which had recently completed an extension of its road to Chicago.
Three contracts were entered into of dates June 16, 1881, July 10, 1881, and September 30, 1881, by which the bonds of the company were to be disposed of, and money enough advanced for the construction of the road. The bill sets out fully the nature and scope of these contracts, and copies of them are attached as exhibits. It is unnecessary here to say more than that by them, taken in connection with the prior arrangements of the Portage Company, the latter obtained satisfactory assurances of abundant funds, and was placed in a position to fully perform its agreement with the state, and construct the railroad by at least May 5, 1882; all this, of course, upon the condition of no outside and wrongful interference.
Relying upon the sufficiency of its arrangements for money, it, on August 18, 1881, entered into a contract with Horatio G. Angle for the construction of about 65 miles of its railway, being that portion covered by the land grant heretofore referred to. By the terms of that contract Angle was to receive $8,500 per mile in cash and $5,000 per mile in the full-paid stock of the company, on condition that he completed the road on or before May 5, 1882. It also contracted for steel rails and fastenings to be delivered as the work of construction proceeded.
Angle commenced work, and had made such progress that on the 20th of January, 1882, he had 1,600 men employed along the line, and it was an assured fact that, unless interfered with, he would complete the railway, according to the terms of the contract, on or before May 5, 1882.
The bill further charges that about this time the Omaha Company conspired with other parties to wrest from the Portage Company its land grant, and to that end to prevent the completion of the contract by Angle and the construction of the road.
In the carrying out of this conspiracy the conspirators bribed Charles J. Barnes and A. A. Jackson,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirby v. Union P. Ry. Co.
......Mosher v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 127 U.S. 390, 8 S.Ct. 1324, 32 L.Ed. 249; Eastman v. Railroad Co., 70 N.H. 240, 46 A. 54; Way v. Chicago, etc.,. Ry. Co., 64 Iowa 48, 19 N.W. 828, 52 Am.Rep. 431; Demilley v. T. & N. O. Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 215, 42 S.W. 540; Dangerfield v. Railway Co., 62 ...516] travel is made under color. of one of these tickets in the hands of any one other than. the original purchaser. Angle v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 151 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 240, 38 L.Ed. 55; Flaccus v. Smith,. supra; Raymond v. Yarrington, 96. [119 P. 1046] . ......
-
Noerr Motor Freight v. Eastern Railroad Pres. Conf.
...defenses under consideration is well answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co., 1894, 151 U.S. 1, 18, 19, 20, 14 S.Ct. 240, 247, 38 L.Ed. 52. In that case there was legislative grant to the Portage Company to construct a railroa......
-
Stoll v. Pacific Coast S.S. Co.
......Brown, . 37 Wash. 97, 79 P. 635, 68 L.R.A. 889, 107 Am.St.Rep. 798;. Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 24 L.Ed. 616;. Chicago, etc., R.R. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17. Sup.Ct. 581, 41 L.Ed. 979; Fayerweather v. Ritch, . 195 U.S. 276, 25 Sup.Ct. 58, 49 L.Ed. 193; Oregon ...416; [ 1 ] Thompson. v. N.P. Ry. Co., 8 Mont. 279, 21 P. 25; Atchison,. etc., Ry. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 29 Am.Rep. 356;. Angle v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O.R. Co., 151 U.S. 1,. 14 Sup.Ct. 240, 38 L.Ed. 55; 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d. Ed.) 54; Braydon v. Stewart (Eng.) 2 ......
-
Sunbeam Corp. v. Payless Drug Stores
...stemming from Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216, and including, to cite but a few of the modern cases, Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha R. Co., 151 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 240, 38 L.Ed. 55; Bitterman v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 207 U.S. 205, 28 S.Ct. 91, 52 L.Ed. 171; Truax v. Raic......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court:Part 2, Beyond Contract Law
...71 U.S. 657 (1866). 95. N. Transp. Co. v. City of Chicago, 99 U.S. 635 (1878). 96. Angle v. Chi., St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 151 U.S. 1 (1894). 97. See, e.g. , Richards v. Wash. Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546 (1914); Dainese v. Cooke, 91 U.S. 580 (1875). 98. E. River S.S. Corp. v. T......