Central R. & Banking Co. v. Cheatham

• Decision Date: 17 July 1888
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING CO. ET AL. v. CHEATHAM.

4 So. 828

85 Ala. 292

CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING CO. ET AL. v. CHEATHAM.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 17, 1888

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; T. M. ARRINGTON, Judge.

Action by William D. Cheatham against the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia and the Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Company of Alabama, to recover a reward offered for the arrest and conviction of persons maliciously obstructing defendants' tracks. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendants appeal.

Arrington & Graham, for appellants.

Rice & Wiley, for appellee.

CLOPTON J.

In June, 1886, the appellee arrested three individuals for the offense of having maliciously obstructed the railroad of the Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Company. One of them was discharged by the magistrate on the preliminary investigation. The other two were committed, subsequently indicted, and convicted. Thereupon appellee brought the suit to recover a reward claimed to have been offered by the appellants. The offer was by means of a printed circular, of which the following is a substantial copy: " Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia, South-Western Railroad Division. Montgomery & Eufaula Railway Company of Alabama.

$300 reward for the arrest, with proof to convict, any person or persons, for the malicious obstructing of the tracks of these companies. THEO. D. KLINE, Supt." The offer, though general, being for the arrest of any persons committing the specified offense, may be regarded a promise conditional on doing the proposed acts, and by performance becomes a binding contract, not having been previously revoked. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, it was incumbent on him to prove, not merely the arrest, but also that he furnished proof to convict. The nature and sufficiency of the proof so furnished need not be circumstantially shown; it is sufficient if shown that he furnished the proof on which the conviction was had.

The material and important questions, on which the liability of the defendants depends, are raised by the objection to the admission in evidence of the circular. The objection involves the power of railroad corporations, and the authority of the superintendent, in the absence of express authority by the managing body, to offer such general rewards, the nature and extent of the offer, and the collateral rulings of the court on the admissibility of the evidence to show that the offer was made by the superintendent, and that it was adopted and ratified by the corporations. Without controverting the power of such corporations to offer rewards in special cases, it is contended that they have no implied power to offer a general standing reward. The argument is that, the state having enacted laws to protect their property, and being presumed capable of enforcing them, such implied power is unnecessary. The general principle will be conceded that a corporation can do no acts and make no contracts except such as are authorized by its charter or by the general law. All the powers, however, need not be conferred in express terms. There are implied powers incident to every private corporation; power to do such acts as are necessary or proper, directly or indirectly, to carry the express powers into effect, and to enable it to answer the purposes of its creation. Among the powers incidental to all private corporations is the authority to institute the established and appropriate legal proceedings for the enforcement of their rights and the protection of their property. It is of the highest importance and necessity that the tracks of railroad companies, employing the powerful agency of steam in the transportation of freight and passengers by day and by night, shall be kept free from obstructions, and that every reasonable precaution to secure safety should be used by the officers or agents to whom this duty is intrusted. For the purpose of affording protection, the statute declares that any person who wantonly or maliciously places any obstruction or impediment on a railroad shall be guilty of a felony. The enforcement of the criminal law is essential to the peace good order, and security of the community. The institution of prosecutions against those who commit the offense of obstructing the railroad is a legitimate and proper means of protecting the property of such corporations. The power to institute such prosecutions is a necessary implication from the nature of their business and the necessities of their condition. The prosecution of persons accused of crime by citizens, whose rights have been specially offended, is encouraged in aid of the state authorities to bring them to justice, and the offer of rewards for the apprehension of perpetrators of felonies when unknown, and of fugitives from justice when known, is the policy of the state. Code 1886, § 4746. There can be no question of the authority of the corporations to offer rewards and employ agents to detect and arrest violators of the criminal law enacted for their protection. On the ground of such authority is founded their responsibility for the willful and malicious acts of such agents when done in executing the agency. Railroad companies ordinarily operate long lines, which render it impracticable to guard every section. Usually, obstructions are placed on the road-beds under cover of secrecy, and the perpetrators are unknown. Prompt action is necessary to their detection. Delay...