Boston & M. Railroad v. Portland, S. & P. R. Co.

Decision Date28 February 1876
Citation119 Mass. 498
PartiesBoston and Maine Railroad v. Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Argued November 15, 1875

Suffolk. Contract. The material facts, as they appeared from the pleadings and a report of the case by Devens, J., were as follows:

The plaintiff and the Eastern Railroad Company made a joint contract with the defendant, in 1847, by which they had possession of the defendant's railroad and other property, under an agreement to run and operate the same paying the defendant a fixed dividend on its capital stock therefor, and taking to their own use all the income and profits of working the road. They further agreed to make all betterments, improvements, and additions to the equipment which they should find necessary or expedient, and the defendant promised to pay them for such betterments improvements and additions, at the termination of the contract. The contract was terminated, according to its provisions, in January, 1871; and the plaintiff contended that there was due to the plaintiff and the Eastern Railroad Company at that time, from the defendant, about one million of dollars for such betterments and additions; and in this action sought to recover one half thereof.

In May 1871, the Eastern Railroad Company made a new agreement with the defendant for the exclusive possession and running of the defendant's road, which agreement contained the following clause:

"In furtherance of the objects and purposes of the parties hereto, the said Eastern Railroad Company agrees with the said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company that the said Eastern Railroad Company will forthwith assume and will pay, release or discharge all the debts, liabilities and obligations of every description of the said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company, by reason of any matter or thing heretofore done, suffered or transacted by said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company, or which it may hereafter become liable and bound to pay or do, by reason of any acts or omissions of the said Eastern Railroad Company as the agent of the said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company, under this contract, and will at all times save and keep the said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company harmless and indemnified from and against all claims, penalties and forfeitures, suits and demands, for or by reason of any of the said debts, obligations or liabilities, and all debts, obligations, liabilities, penalties and forfeitures arising from any of the acts or omissions of the said Eastern Railroad Company, as agents as aforesaid or otherwise, so that the said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company shall not suffer any loss or injury thereby, and will obey all orders, judgments and decrees of any and all courts having jurisdiction in the premises, and save and keep the said Portland, Saco and Portsmouth Railroad Company, its property and franchise, from loss or injury thereby and protected fully therefrom."

Before bringing the action, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State ex rel. Massman Const. Co. v. Buzard
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1940
    ... ... 131, Restatement of the Law of ... Contracts; Henry v. Mounty Pleasant, 70 Mo. 500; ... Boston, etc., Ry. v. Portland, etc., Ry. Co., 119 ... Mass. 498; Strottman v. Ry. Co., 228 Mo. 154. (5) ... ...
  • State ex rel. Massman Const. Co. v. Buzard, 36997.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1940
    ...Sec. 131, Restatement of the Law of Contracts; Henry v. Mounty Pleasant, 70 Mo. 500; Boston, etc., Ry. v. Portland, etc., Ry. Co., 119 Mass. 498; Strottman v. Ry. Co., 228 Mo. 154. (5) Relator has no remedy by appeal or writ of error for should it plead to the amended petition as required b......
  • Bush v. Haeussler
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1887
    ... ... 94, p. 270; ... Baker v. Jewell, 6 Mass. 461; Richmond v ... Parker, 12 Met. 48; Railroad v. Railroad, ... 119 Mass. 498; McConnell v. Braynor, 63 Mo. 461; ... Pettingill v. Jones, 21 ... ...
  • The Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Hart
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1889
    ... ... That, on the 17th day of November, 1883, said defendant was a ... railroad corporation, duly organized, and was controlling and ... operating a railroad in Lake county, ... Breed, 14 Allen, 376; ... Kilgore v. Wood, 56 Me. 150 (96 Am. Dec ... 440); Forbes v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., ... 133 Mass. 154; Keeler v. Goodwin, 111 Mass ... 490; Bryant v. Clifford, 13 ... 32 (36 Am. Dec ... 587); Baker v. Jewell, 6 Mass. 460; ... Boston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Portland, etc., R. R ... Co., 119 Mass. 498; Richmond v ... Parker, 12 Metc. 48; Austin v ... Walsh, 2 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT