N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield
| Decision Date | 16 December 1904 |
| Citation | 59 A. 510,77 Conn. 417 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO. v. OFFIELD. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court. New Haven County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company against Charles K. Offield to condemn shares of stock of the New Haven & Derby Railroad Company owned by defendant. Reserved on a demurrer to the complaint for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors Judgment overruling demurrer advised.
George D. Watrous and Henry H. Townshend, for plaintiff.
Charles K. Bush and Edward H. Rogers, for defendant.
BALDWIN, J. For many years any railroad company of this state has had a statutory right to take a lease of the property or franchises of, or to lease its own property or franchises to, any other such company with whose tracks its own may connect, and no limitation has been prescribed as to the term of the lease, provided it should be approved by a two-thirds vote of the stockholders in each. Gen. St. §§ 3702, 3703. In 1889 and 1899 the plaintiff was empowered to increase its capital stock until the year 1910, for the purpose of exchanging shares in it (on terms to be approved by a committee consisting of two officers of the state and a lawyer to be appointed by the Governor) for shares in the capital stock of any railroad company whose road it might be holding under a lease running for not less than 50 years, or of buying such shares. Until the entire capital stock of any such leased line should be so obtained, such shares as might be obtained were to remain in the plaintiff's control "as its property, the said stock to be used for all purposes of income, corporate organization, management and franchise; but for all other purposes, including purposes of taxation, it shall be deemed to be transferred to and merged into the stock of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, subject nevertheless, to the right of any proper court to control the undue exercise of such power of voting on said stock for the protection of other stockholders." Should it "retire all of the capital stock of any such leased line, by purchase or exchange, the executive officers of said respective companies shall certify the same by certificate to be filed in the office of the State Secretary, and the said stock of said leased line and all its franchises shall thereupon be and be deemed to be forever transferred to and merged in the stock and franchise of the said New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company." 10 Sp. Acts, 1298; 13 Sp. Acts, 41. Pursuant to the powers thus granted, the plaintiff has taken a lease of the New Haven & Derby Railroad for 99 years from July 1, 1892, at a net rental of 4 per cent. a year on its capital stock, and has acquired 4,468 shares of its capital stock, which is divided into 4,470 shares of the par value of $100 each. The leased railroad has a mileage of less than 17 miles, and a funded indebtedness of $1,280,000. It connects at New Haven, on the east, with four, and at its western terminals with two, important railroad lines owned by the plaintiff, and forms a link in an all-rail route between Boston and the West, which is the only one controlled by the plaintiff, and the only one of any kind controlled by it over which goods can be transported with assured dispatch in all weathers and at all seasons. To develop this route so as to best serve the public interest requires the laying of additional tracks on the New Haven & Derby Railroad, and other extensive and very costly improvements. The lessor company has neither means nor credit whereby this can be effected on advantageous terms. The plaintiff could and will effect it, and at much less cost, if it can acquire the two outstanding shares of the stock of the lessee. They are owned by the defendant, who refuses to agree on terms of purchase.
It has become the settled policy of this state, evidenced by a long course of legislation, to allow the consolidation of connecting railroad properties under one management. It is for the public interest that railroads should be built in such a manner as to make them most useful to the public. When, to attain that end, large expenditures must be made, it is for the public interest that the requisite funds should be secured by those making the outlay and operating the railroad on such terms and conditions as to impose upon them no unnecessary burden; for, whatever that burden is, its weight, by increasing the fixed charges which they must meet, is apt ultimately to fall upon those traveling or forwarding goods over the railroad. The plaintiff's railroad is a great highway for public use. Every improvement upon it furthers the public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelo v. City of New London
...extreme wrong, controlled, by the dispassionate judgment of the courts." (Emphasis added.) Id., 551; accord New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 421, 59 A. 510 (1904) (in taking for railroad improvements, court held "[t]hat the uses to be furthered are public, is a question ......
-
Lyman v. Adorno
...not establish an invalid classification. Norwich Gas & Electric Co. v. Norwich, 76 Conn. 565, 572, 57 A. 746; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 422, 59 A. 510. Nor does the fact that the act applies only to those in the armed forces who at the time they entered the servi......
-
Narragansett Electric Lighting Co. v. Sabre
...conclusive upon the judicial department in a proceeding like the present, is entitled to a very great weight. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 59 A. 510; Id., 78 Conn. 1, 60 A. 740; Offield v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 203 U. S. 372, 27 S. Ct. 72, 51 L. Ed. 231; Opinion of......
-
Garrett v. State
...because of the limited number of persons who will be affected by it. Walp v. Moor, 76 Conn. 515, 521, 57 A. 277; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 59 A. 510; Norwich Gas & Electric Co. v. Norwich, 76 Conn. 565, 572, 57 A. The statute in the present case makes no pretense......