Chicago Alton Railroad Company v. William Whirt

Decision Date26 March 1917
Docket NumberNo. 714,714
Citation61 L.Ed. 826,243 U.S. 422,37 S.Ct. 392
PartiesCHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Plffs. in Err., v. WILLIAM J. McWHIRT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Elliott H. Jones, William C. Scarritt, and Charles M. Miller for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. Patrick Henry Cullen, Thomas T. Fauntleroy, and Charles M. Hay for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action to recover for personal injuries caused, as was alleged, by negligently backing an engine and cars across a public street in Vandalia, missouri, without taking any precautions for the safety of persons using the street at the time. The action was against two railroad companies, one incorporated in Missouri and the other in Illinois. The former had constructed and still owned the railroad, and the latter was operating it under a lease. A trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, and this was affirmed. ——Mo. ——, 187 S. W. 830.

The Missouri company was created by a special act in 1859, Laws 1859, p. 400, which was amended, with the company's consent, by special acts in 1868 and 1870, Laws 1868, p. 97; Laws 1870, p. 93. A general and older statute provided that all subsequent corporate charters should be 'subject to alteration, suspension, and repeal, in the discretion of the legislature,' Rev. Stat. 1855, p. 371, § 7; but these special acts declared that this provision should have no application to them or to the Missouri company. After the Act of 1859, and before it was amended, the state adopted a new Constitution containing a provision that corporations, other than for municipal purposes, could be formed only under general laws and that these might be altered, amended, or repealed; but, under the local decisions, it is doubtful at least that this provision was applicable to subsequent amendments of charters previously granted (State ex rel. Circuit Atty. v. Cape Girardeau & S. L. R. Co. 48 Mo. 468; St. Joseph & I. R. Co. v. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557, 569, 17 S. W. 581; Callaway County v. Foster, 93 U. S. 567, 570, 23 L. ed. 911, 912), and so it may be put out of view. The amendment of 1870, which took effect on March 20th of that year, authorized the Missouri company to lease its road for a period of years to any other railroad company 'upon such terms as may be mutually agreed upon.' March 24 of the same year a general statute was enacted which, as locally interpreted, renders any railroad company of that state leasing its road to a company of another state liable jointly with the lessee for any actionable tort of the latter, committed in the operation of the road. Laws 1870, p. 91, § 2; Brown v. Louisiana & M. River R. Co. 256 Mo. 522, 534, 165 S. W. 1060. Following this enactment the Missouri company leased its road to the Illinois company, and it was under this lease that the latter was operating the road when the plaintiff was injured. In the lease the lessee agreed to pay off and satisfy all lawful claims for damages arising out of its negligence or dereliction of duty while operating the road.

The general statute of March 24, 1870, now embodied in Rev. Stat. 1909, § 3078, was applied in this case over the Missouri company's objection that it could not be so applied without bringing it in conflict with the contract clause of the Constitution of the United States and with the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th Amendment. The overruling of this objection and the denial of a petition for removal to the Federal court are the matters to be reviewed here.

In invoking the contract clause the Missouri company goes upon the theory that the special acts constituting its corporate charter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • George Weston, Ltd. v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1935
    ...L. Ed. 441, 4 Ann. Cas. 1147; Wilson v. Oswego Township, 151 U. S. 56, 14 S. Ct. 259, 38 L. Ed. 70, 71; Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. McWhirt, 243 U. S. 422, 37 S. Ct. 392, 61 L. Ed. 826; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Cockrell, 232 U. S. 146, 34 S. Ct. 278, 280, 58 L. Ed. 544; Little York Gold Wash......
  • Pullman Co v. Jenkins 13 8212 14, 1938, 210
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1939
    ...decided 1915, 239 U.S. 421, 424, 36 S.Ct. 152, 153, 60 L.Ed. 360; Chicago & Alton R.R. Co. v. McWhirt, decided 1917, 243 U.S. 422, 37 S.Ct. 392, 61 L.Ed. 826. 7 In Norwalk v. Air-Way Electric Appliance Corp., 87 F.2d 317, 319, 110 A.L.R. 183, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circ......
  • Linstroth v. Peper
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 1920
    ... 218 S.W. 431 203 Mo.App. 278 WILLIAM H. LINSTROTH, SR., et al., Respondent, v ... Cyc, 284; Riggs v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 304, 327-35; ... State v. Bass, 251 ... he was in the [203 Mo.App. 284] company and under the ... immediate charge and control ... ...
  • City and County of Denver, Acting By and Through Bd. of Water Com'rs v. Bergland
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • December 9, 1982
  • 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