People v. New York, L.E.&W.R. Co.

• Citation: 9 N.E. 856,104 N.Y. 58
• Parties: PEOPLE v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO.
• Decision Date: 18 January 1887
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

104 N.Y. 58

9 N.E. 856

PEOPLE

v.NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. CO.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

January 18, 1887.

Appeal from an order of the general term of the supreme court for the Fifth department, affirming order of the special term directing the issuance of a peremptory mandamus, compelling the defendant to erect and provide a suitable station-house or houses, for freight and passengers, at the village of Hamburgh, Erie county, New York.

Laws N. Y. 1850, c. 140, does not impose upon the defendant the obligation to erect a station-house or warehouse at an intermediate station between its termini, such as that at Hamburgh. Mandamus can only issue on behalf of the people to compel the performance of a specific duty clearly imposed by law. Where the writ is directed to a corporation to compel it to perform its duty as a common carrier, the duty sought to be enforced must be essentially a part of its corporate functions, so that a refusal to perform it would, if persisted in, justify a forfeiture of its charter, and the writ will not lie to compel the performance of an act which lies within the discretion of the directors. There does not exist such a complete legal right on the part of the people, and such a clear legal duty on the part of the defendant, to construct a station building at Hamburgh, as to justify the issuing of the writ. 1 Redf. Rys. 633; 2 Redf. Rys. 249; People v. Supervisors Greene Co., 64 N. Y. 600;People v. Railway Co., 63 How. Pr. 291; High, Extr. Rem. §§ 315-322.

A railroad company is a private corporation, in the sense that the ownership of its property is private. But it is a public corporation, in the sense that the user of its property is public. It holds its property and franchises in trust for the public use. The functions performed by such corporations are those of the state. Though the ownership is private, the use is public. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 694, 695;Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 18 Wend. 9;Worcester v. Western Railroad Corp., 4 Metc. 566; Talcott v. Pine Grove, 1 Flip. 120; Gen. R. R. Act. 1840, c. 140, § 1.

It is because of this trust for public use, upon which railroad franchises are held, that the right of these private corporations to exercise sovereign powers has been sustained. Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 18 Wend. 9;Worcester v. Western Railroad Corp., 4 Metc. 566; Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 694, 695;Talcott v. Pine Grove, 1 Flip. 120;S. C. 19 Wall. 666;Messenger v. Railroad Co., 36 N. J. Law, 407, 413.

Accommodations for passengers, freight, and general business are necessary to accomplish the object for which the corporation was formed. The duty of maintaining the road for the benefit of the public is mandatory, and this court has the power to compel the company to maintain and operate its road in such manner as to carry out the object for which it was incorporated. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Henning, 17 Amer. Law Reg. (Ed. 1878) 266, (N. S.;) Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 18 Wend. 21;People v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 548, 550. It has been held that a railroad company can be compelled by mandamus to operate its entire road for the use of the public. People v. Albany & V. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 261. As common carriers, it is the duty of railroad companies to have a suitable place for the receipt of goods. Before they can be relieved of the liability of common carriers, notice must be given to the consignee of property, and a reasonable time allowed for removal of the same. Sherman v. Hudson R. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 254;Fenner v. Buffalo & S. L. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 505;Hedges v. Hudson R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 223. The liability as common carrier has been held to apply to personal baggage. Rogers v. Long I. R. Co., 1 Thomp. & C. 396; affirmed, 56 N. Y. 620.

The railroad company is a creature of the legislature, and is subject to the direction of the court, and mandamus has been recognized as the appropriate remedy to compel railroad companies to perform duties owing to the public. Mandamus has been awarded to compel a company to complete its road, (Trust Co. v. Railroad Co., 17 Amer. Law Reg. [N. S.] 266;) to compel a company to so grade its tracks as to make crossings on a highway convenient and useful, (People v. Dutchess & C. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 152;) to compel a railroad company to build a bridge, (People v. Railroad Co., 70 N. Y. 569;State v. Gorham, 37 Me. 451;Cambridge v. Railroad Co., 7 Metc. 70;) to compel a company to construct and maintain fences and guard, ( People v. Railroad Co., 14 Hun, 371; S. C. 76 N. Y. 294;) to compel it to construct its road across streams so as not to interfere with navigation, (State v. Railroad Co., 9 Rich. [S. C.] 247;) to compel the company to deliver to a particular elevator grain consigned thereto in bulk, ( Railroad Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 365;) to compel the company to run daily trains, ( In re New Brunswick & C. Ry. Co., 1 Pugsl. & B. 667;) to compel the running of trains to the terminus of the road, (State v. Railroad Co., 29 Conn. 538;) to compel a company to operate its road as one continuous line, ( Railroad Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343;Hall v. Union Pac. R. Co., 3 Dill. 515;U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Dill. 479;) to compel it to re-establish an abandoned station, (State v. Railroad Co., 37 Conn. 154;) to compel the replacement of a track taken up in violation of its charter, ( King v. Railroad Co., 2 Barn. & Ald. 646; People v. Rome, W. & O. R. Co., 8 N. E. Rep. 369;) to compel a company to repair and construct a bridge in conformity with its charter, (State v. Wilmington Bridge Co., 3 Har. [Del.] 312;) to compel a water company to build bridges over its canals, although not required by its charter, ( In re Trenton W. P. Co., 20 N. J. Law, 659;) to compel a dock company to maintain a channel, ( Reg. v. Bristol Dock Co., 2 Q. B. 64;) to compel a gas company to furnish gas, (People v. Manhattan, etc., Co., 45 Barb. 136;City v. St. Louis Gas-light Co., 70 Mo. 69, 117.)

The writ may issue to compel a corporation to keep a register, and insert therein the names of the stockholders, ( Norris v. Irish Land Co., 8 El. & Bl. 525;) to compel a railroad or a canal company to build or repair its road or canal, (People v. Troy & B. R. Co., 37 How. Pr. 427;) to compel a railroad company to receive and transport freight, ( People v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 543; S. C. 30 Hun, 78;) to compel a railroad company to perform any duty towards the public, (People v. Railroad Co., 24 N. Y. 261, 267, 269;Railroad Com'rs v. Railroad Co., 63 Me. 269;McCoy v. Railroad Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 3, 7, 8;Talcott v. Pine Grove, 1 Flip. 145.) The remedy by mandamus, to compel railroad companies to perform their duties towards the public as well as towards individuals injured by their misfeasance, has been repeatedly declared. People v. Railroad Co., 24 N. Y. 261, 267, 269;Railroad Com'rs v. Railroad Co., 63 Me. 269;Talcott v. Pine Grove, 1 Flip. 145.

Sprague, Morey & Sprague, for appellant, New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.

D. O'Brien., Atty. Gen., for the People.

DANFORTH, J.

Upon motion, on notice by the attorney general, for a mandamus requiring the defendant to construct and maintain, on the line of its road at the village of Hamburgh, a building of sufficient capacity to accommodate its passengers arriving at that place, or departing therefrom, or in waiting to depart, and such freight as is usually received at or shipped from that point, it appeared that the village of Hamburgh contains 1,200 inhabitants, and furnishes to the defendant, at a station established by it, a large freight and passenger business; that its depot building is entirely inadequate for these purposes, and the absence of a depot building and warehouse, sufficient for the accommodation of passengers and freight, has been, and continues to be, a matter of serious damage to large numbers of persons doing business at that station. These facts were conceded by the defendant. It also appeared that upon complaint made to the railroad commissioners, upon notice to the defendant, that body adjudged and recommended that the railroad company should construct a suitable building at that station, within a time named; but although informed of this determination, the defendant failed to comply, or do anything towards complying, with it, not for want of means or ability to do so, but because ‘its directors decided that the interests of the defendant required it to postpone, for the present, the erection or enlargement of the station-house or depot at the village of Hamburgh.’

The supreme court, at special term, granted the motion, and, adopting the language of the railroad commissioners, ordered that the defendant ‘forthwith construct and maintain a suitable depot building of sufficient size and capacity to accommodate passengers arriving and departing on said road at the village of Hamburgh, as well as such passengers as may be in waiting on ordinary occasions to depart from the said village, on the line and by the way of said defendant's road, and of sufficient capacity to accommodate such quantities of freight as are usually received at said village, or that may be shipped therefrom, by the way of said New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad.’

Upon appeal to the general term, the order, after very careful consideration, was affirmed. The railroad company appeals.

We agree with the court below that, at common law, the defendant, as a carrier, is under no obligation to provide warehouses for freight offered it, or depots for passengers waiting transportation. But that court has found such duty to be imposed by statute. To this we are unable to assent. The question arises upon the construction of the general railroad act, (Laws 1850, c. 140,) and its amendments. Under that act many companies have been formed to construct, maintain, and operate railroads in a manner so affecting persons and private property as to be utterly indefensible, except...