Moorshead v. United Rys. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 February 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 611,203 Mo. 121
• Parties: MOORSHEAD v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

100 S.W. 611

203 Mo. 121

MOORSHEAD v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 22, 1907.

1. STREET RAILROADS—LEASES—ORDINANCES.

A municipal ordinance authorizing enumerated street railway companies and their successors and assigns to severally sell, convey, or lease their property rights, privileges, and franchises to any of the companies enumerated, or to a company designated its successors and assigns, and authorizing the company acquiring the property rights and franchises of the enumerated companies to hold the same during the term of the ordinance, authorizes a purchaser of the property and franchises of the enumerated companies to lease the same to the designated company without the special consent of the municipality, notwithstanding Const. art. 12, § 20 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 309], forbidding a street railway transferring its franchise without first obtaining the consent of the municipality.

2. SAME—CONTRACTS BETWEEN COMPANIES— CONSTRUCTION—CREATION OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

A street railroad company entered into a contract with another street railroad company, which recited that the former, in consideration of the covenants of the latter, leased its railways, etc. The contract devested the former company of the possession and use of its properties for 40 years in consideration of a specific rent to be paid by the latter company and the performance of other duties in the nature of rent, and provided for the restoration of the property to the former at the end of that term and for re-entry if the latter defaulted in the performance of its covenants during the term. The contract did not provide that the latter should conduct the business in the name or for the benefit of the former, except as in so far as the former was benefited by the consideration to be paid by the latter. Held not to establish an agency, whereby the former company was principal and the latter agent.

3. SAME—CREATION OF PARTNERSHIP.

The contract did not make the two companies partners.

4. SAME—LEASE.

The contract was a lease.

5. SAME.

A contract entered into by one street railway company with another street railway company provided that in consideration of the covenants made by the latter company the former leased its railway to the latter. The latter company agreed to pay an annual rental, to operate the railway of the former at its own expense and make the necessary repairs, to pay all the floating debts of the former, together with assessments of all kinds, and to apply all money not needed for current liabilities or interest turned over to it by the former, or on hand at the date of the lease, or received by the former thereafter from the rent of useless property to the improvement of the demised property. Held, that the former company was not bound to turn over to the latter company any money received by the former from any source, so that whatever rent the latter paid would not be repaid to it.

6. SAME—OPERATION—COMPANIES AND PERSONS LIABLE FOR INJURIES.

Since Rev. St. 1899, § 1187 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1001], expressly authorizes a street railway company to lease its property, and since section 4160 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 2252], provides that when technical words having a peculiar meaning are used in a statute they shall be understood according to their technical import, a street railroad company leasing its property and franchises to another street railroad company is not liable for an injury to a passenger resulting from the negligence of the employés of the latter company; the word "lease" importing a contract by which one person devests himself and another person takes possession of property for a term.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; O'Neill Ryan, Judge.

Action by Katie A. Moorshead against the United Railways Company of St. Louis and others. From an order sustaining a motion filed by defendant United Railways Company for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff she appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. The order was affirmed (96 S. W. 261), and the case certified to the Supreme Court on the ground that the majority opinion was opposed to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Markey v. Louisiana & M. R. R. Co., 185 Mo. 348, 84 S. W. 61. Affirmed.

R. P. & C. B. Williams, Geo. Safford, Geo. H. Shields, Thos. T. Fauntleroy, and Shepard Barclay, for appellant. Boyle & Priest and Edward T. Miller, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

The contention involved in this case is one of much interest. Just what may be involved, more than the case under consideration, we have no means of knowing; but there are, no doubt, a number of cases dependent upon the views of this court in this case. As we gather it, the question of the liability of the defendant United Railways Company has been up before four federal judges, and all of the several divisions of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. In each case the exact question as to the character of the written...