Morgan v. Railroad Company

Decision Date01 October 1877
Citation96 U.S. 716,24 L.Ed. 743
PartiesMORGAN v. RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

This suit was commenced by a bill filed by Morgan against the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. It involves the ownership of two strips of land adjoining that over which that company has the right of way, and forming part of its depot grounds in the town of Dwight, in the State of Illinois, which it claims to own as grantee of all the rights and property of the Chicago and Mississippi Railroad Company.

The company filed a cross-bill, wherein it set up the dedication of the property to the public use, and that Morgan was estopped in pais from denying it. The court, upon hearing, dismissed the original bill, and decreed in favor of the company on the cross-bill. Morgan thereupon appealed here. The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Hamilton Spencer, for the appellant, cited Mc Williams v. Morgan, 61 Ill. 89; Todd v. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne, & Chicago Railroad Co., 19 Ohio St. 514; Gentleman v. Soule, 32 Ill. 271; Kelly v. City of Chicago, 48 id. 388; Rees v. City of Chicago, 38 id. 322; Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Railway Co. 67 id. 540; Illinois Insurance Co. v. Littlefield et al., id. 368; Warren v. The President, &c. of the Town of Jacksonville, 15 id. 236.

Mr. John P. Wilson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

During the years 1853 and 1854, the Chicago and Mississippi Railroad Company was engaged in locating and building a railroad from Joliet to Alton, in the State of Illinois. The appellant and Spencer and Lathrop were in the service of the company as engineers. Kersey H. Fell was employed to obtain the right of way for the road.

The line of the road was located by Oliver H. Lee, the chief engineer. The parties first named were permitted to locate the stations between the principal points. This was to be done in conformity to the interests of the company.

Spencer says, in his testimony, 'My understanding with Mr. Lee was that the railroad company should have ample grounds for the transaction of their business where we located the stations.'

With the view of locating one of the stations and laying out a town, four contiguous parcels of land of forty acres each were bought from the United States: one by Morgan, Spencer, and Lathrop, each severally; and the other by Kersey H. Fell, and his brother, Jesse W. Fell.

At the time of the entry of the lands, it was the intention of the parties to locate the depot at the centre of the four tracts. The line of the road was fixed some distance east of that point. This caused the depot to be located upon the tract belonging to Morgan.

Prior to the construction of the road, the other parties conveyed their three tracts to Morgan, under an agreement that all the parties should have joint, instead of separate, interests in the proposed town plat, and that Morgan, as trustee, should lay out the town, and sell and convey the lots. The proceeds were to be divided among the parties according to their original ownership respectively of the lands. On the 6th of August, 1853, Morgan conveyed to the railroad company fifty feet in width on each side of the centre of its roadway through the several tracts before mentioned. The deed required the company, among other things, to 'keep station-houses and other necessary depot buildings on said first-mentioned tract.' The tract first mentioned was the one originally entered by Morgan. On the 30th of January following, he laid out the contemplated town plat. The town was called Dwight. The plat shows a strip of land marked 'depot,' one thousand and four feet long and two hundred feet wide, with the line of the railroad through the centre. There is nothing indicating the previous conveyance of a hundred feet in width through the centre to the railroad company. The premises in controversy are fifty feet in width on each side of this hundred feet.

Morgan sold a part of the town lots, and accounted for the proceeds. In 1855, partition was made of the unsold lots, without reference to the original ownership of the several tracts as entered, and Morgan conveyed accordingly to the other several parties in interest. No notice was taken of the premises in dispute. The business of the trust was thus finally closed.

In 1853 or 1854, Morris, a draftsman in the office of the company, made a map, he says, 'for the purpose of showing the company's land, as required for right of way and operating purposes, through different subdivisions of United States surveys, to be a permanent record for the use of the company, showing its property along the line of the road.' Morgan and Spencer furnished the materials for the work. It is affixed to his deposition, and marked Exhibit 1. Being asked whether Morgan and Spencer saw it, he answered, 'I have no doubt they saw it frequently, as those gentlemen were in the habit of coming into the office where I made this map.' The map represents the premises in question as they are represented on the town plat. The diagram has the line of the railroad in the centre, and is marked 'depot ground.' The data for the map were furnished before the iron was laid upon that part of the roadway. Spencer testified that he supposed the making of the town plat vested a sufficient title in the company. He added, 'Had I not thought so, it would have been my duty as engineer of that division to have seen that the company had a proper deed.' He said, further, that Morgan occupied the same relation to the company as himself, and was clothed with the same duty. When the partition was made, he regarded the premises as belonging to the railroad company.

At the time the unsold lots were divided, Jesse W. Fell had the same understanding as to the premises. He says, 'Looking at the interests of the parties as affected by the location of the depot, I have always supposed that good faith on our part demanded that these strips should belong to the railroad.'

When the partition deeds were made, he supposed that all the property not dedicated had been divided. Morgan himself was examined as a witness. Speaking of the premises, he said, 'I set them apart with a view to the ultimate needs of the railroad company at this station,' and that it was his intention to convey to the company for a nominal consideration, if they faithfully performed their covenants in his deed for the hundred feet; but that he never had any thought of dedicating the property. He insisted that his interests had been largely sacrificed by the delinquencies of the company touching the covenants.

In 1856 or 1857, he said, 'He had given the road the right of way, one hundred feet through the entire land, and fifty feet more on each side for a thousand feet long; and they on their part were to build depot buildings and crossings, and keep them up for all time to come.'

At one time the company had a house on the premises used for boarding the laborers working on the road. Morgan claimed that this 'was not in compliance with the terms of the grant made to the railroad company.' He said that, if the company was allowed to cover the premises with Irish shanties, it would prevent the sale of a corresponding number of lots, and that he should require the house to be removed, which was accordingly done. This occurred in 1860 or 1861. In 1858 or 1859, he sold a corn crib upon the premises, but asserted no title to the ground on which it stood.

In 1867, he said to the village attorney of Dwi ht, 'It was my intention that they' (the company) 'should have those lands; and they would have had them had they behaved themselves properly, and had done as they agreed to on their part.'

From 1854 to 1863, passengers and teams constantly crossed the strips, for the purpose of reaching the depot. In 1863, the Chicago and Alton Railroad Company, which had become the successor to all the rights of the Chicago and Mississippi Company, had a track or tracks on the western strip. Both strips had been and were used for various purposes connected with railroad traffic, and several structures had sprung up on them. One of them was a grain elevator, erected under a license from the railroad company. A street thirty feet in width, extending across both strips, was laid out in 1873. Before that, the depot could not have been reached from any direction without crossing private property, if the strips were such, or taking the hazards of passing along the roadway of the company for a distance of five hundred feet. The strips were therefore indispensable to the use of the depot when it was located and built.

From the time of recording the town plat up to the year 1867, no taxes were paid on the premises by either party. Morgan claimed no rents until 1865; he received none until 1867; and he made no effort to sell any part of the property until January,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
167 cases
  • Public Utilities Commission of State of Idaho v. Natatorium Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 6 November 1922
    ......CRUSA AROSTEGUI and JUAN YRIBAR, Intervenors and Respondents, v. NATATORIUM COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho November 6, 1922 . . Rehearing. ...666, 140 P. 591;. Thayer v. California Dev. Co., 164 Cal. 117, 128 P. 21; Allen v. Railroad Com., 179 Cal. 68, 175 P. 466,. 8 L. R. A. 249; De Pauw University v. Public Ser. Com., 253. F. ... . . Use by. the public constitutes an acceptance of the dedication. (. Morgan v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 96 U.S. 716, 24 L.Ed. 743.). . . A. portion of the water ......
  • Richards v. Wilson
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 May 1916
    ...from his conduct as well as by express words.” Speaking of the doctrine of estoppel in pais in the case of Morgan v. Railroad Company, 96 U. S. 716, 720, 24 L. Ed. 743, the United States Supreme Court uses this language: “The principle is an important one in the administration of the law. I......
  • Hough v. Porter
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 5 January 1909
    ...agree with the reasoning of that court or to follow the rule there enunciated; but the United States Supreme Court, in Morgan v. Railway Co., 96 U.S. 716, 24 L.Ed. 743, clearly adopts the reasoning applied by the Kentucky and observes that the consideration there given those questions is a ......
  • Brown v. Weare, 37273.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 April 1941
    ...S.W. 702; McCoy v. Bradbury, 290 Mo. 650, 235 S.W. 1047; Grenzebach v. Franke, 315 Mo. 392, 286 S.W. 79; Morgan v. C. & A. Railroad Co., 96 U.S. 716, 24 L. Ed. 743. The exception is fortified by other language of the deed. Exception of "right of way" distinguished from exception of "station......
  • 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