Freeman v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company
| Decision Date | 02 December 1881 |
| Citation | 10 N.W. 594,28 Minn. 443 |
| Parties | William Freeman v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Freeborn county, to recover damages for injuries to himself occasioned by the negligence of defendant in failing to keep a highway crossing, in the township of Shell Rock, in that county, in a safe condition. The defendant, among other defences, pleaded that it was not the owner of the railroad alleged ownership in the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Iowa, and, upon the trial, put in evidence, to prove such allegation, a lease from itself to that company for 999 years. Plaintiff introduced evidence proving defendant's ownership, except so far as affected by such lease.
The action was tried before Farmer, J., and a jury, and the court, while refusing to charge at defendant's request that "in this case your verdict should be for the defendant, upon the ground that it is not shown that this defendant had the charge, control or ownership of the track or railroad in question when the alleged injury occurred," did charge the jury that "if the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company were simply the lessees of it, then the defendant would be responsible for the keeping of the crossings and the condition of the road in a safe and proper manner." Plaintiff had a verdict for $ 4,500, and defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
J. & S. K. Tracy and J. Whytock, for appellant.
Lovely & Morgan, for respondent.
It is the accepted doctrine in this country that a railroad company cannot escape the performance of any duty or obligation imposed by its charter or the general laws of the state, by a voluntary surrender of its road into the hands of lessees. There are a few cases which seem to question, or at least to limit, this doctrine, but a great preponderance of decisions recognize it to its full extent. It is, certainly, in accordance with sound public policy; for it would not be for the public interest that, when the state has granted to a corporation important franchises and privileges, in consideration of certain duties and liabilities to the state and to the public, to be performed and borne by the corporation, it should, without the consent of the state, while retaining the advantage derived from its franchises and privileges, shift its duties and responsibilities to other, perhaps irresponsible, parties.
It may undoubtedly, do so with the consent of the state. What shall be a sufficient expression of such consent, to include any particular duty or obligation, it is unnecessary in this case to consider; for no consent of the state to a leasing, by the defendant, of its road to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company appears. The only provisions of law claimed to have that effect are the last clause of Sp. Laws 1871, c. 71, § 1, being an act to amend the charter of defendant, and Gen. St. 1878, c. 34, §§ 69, 106. The clause in the act of 1871, referred to, reads: "Whenever any number of persons shall become associated...
To continue reading
Request your trial