Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Dodd
Citation | 115 Ky. 176,72 S.W. 822 |
Parties | PITTSBURG, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. et al. v. DODD et al. |
Decision Date | 19 March 1903 |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Division.
"To be officially reported."
Action by John L. Dodd and others against the Pittsburg, Cincinnati Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs for a part of their demand defendants appeal, and plaintiffs bring a cross-appeal. Affirmed on cross-appeal, and reversed on defendants' appeal.
Lawrence Maxwell, for P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. Helm, Bruce & Helm for appellant L. & N. R. Co. J. C. Dodd, Harris & Marshall, Kohn, Baird & Spindle, and Hazelrigg & Chenault, for appellees.
O'REAR J.
The Louisville Bridge Company was incorporated by an act of the Legislature in 1856, with authority to build a railroad toll bridge cross the Ohio river at Louisville. The bridge was not built and completed till about 1870. The charter of the bridge company authorized it "to contract, at an agreed sum or rate, with any railroad company chartered by the state of Kentucky, or any other state of the United States, for the annual use of said bridge by the cars or for the purposes of said railroad company."
This bridge was built from stock subscriptions and the proceeds of an issue of mortgage bonds. The capital stock paid in was $1,500,000. The bond issue was $800,000. When this bridge was built there was no other railroad bridge across the Ohio river below Cincinnati. Then the only railroad connecting with it from the south was appellant Louisville & Nashville Railroad. The only railroads connecting from the north were the Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis Railroad and the Ohio & Mississippi Railway (the latter by way of using the approach owned by the former). The bridge was constructed exclusively for railroad traffic. The bridge company owned no rolling stock, and has never owned or operated any.
On June 5, 1872, the Louisville Bridge Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Bridge Company"), the Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis Railroad Company, the Ohio & Mississippi Railway Company, and the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company entered into a contract--perpetual, except as it might be terminated by the parties according to its terms--by which the railroad companies agreed to pass over the bridge their traffic destined to cross the Ohio river at or near Louisville, and to pay for this privilege such rates per engine, per car, per ton, and per passenger as the bridge company might from time to time fix, not exceeding in the aggregate a sum sufficient to pay a certain fixed income to its stockholders, and taxes, cost of operating expenses, and the maintenance of the bridge company's organization. It was not agreed, and could not have been, by the bridge company, that the contracting railroads were to have the exclusive right of passage over the bridge. On the contrary, it was expressly stipulated that the bridge company might admit any other railroad or railroads to the same privileges as by the contract were accorded to the then contracting roads, but upon terms no more favorable. As this contract is at the foundation of this litigation, and its construction and application are involved, it is set out at length:
parties agree respectively to use said bridge as is hereinafter covenanted, the first party hereby covenants and agrees jointly and severally with the second, third and fourth parties, their successors and assigns respectively, that the tolls and charges over and for the use of said bridge and its tracks, owned by the first party, in the transportation of freights, passengers, mails and other goods received from or delivered to the roads of said second, third and fourth parties, per ton, and per passenger or per car, engine or other means of transfer over said bridge, shall be fixed on signing this agreement, and shall not be in excess of a toll or charge sufficient to produce in the aggregate a sum equal to the cost and expense of keeping in repair and taking care of said bridge and the said approach owned by the first party--paying a dividend semiannually of six per cent. on said capital stock of fifteen hundred thousand dollars, the interest upon the said bonds as the same matures and becomes payable--a sinking fund sufficient to pay off said bonds of eight hundred thousand dollars at maturity, the amount necessary to keep up the corporate organization of the party of the first part, with its proper officers and servants, and such taxes as may be chargeable against such bridge company on said bridge or other property pertaining thereto or otherwise; and it is understood and mutually agreed that said charges and tolls shall from year to year be reduced in proportion to the reduction of interest on said bonds by the operation of said sinking fund; and that said tolls and charges shall always be the same to each of the second, third and fourth parties, and that the tolls and charges to other railroad companies for like use of said bridge and the approach owned by the first party shall not be less than those charged to or incurred by the parties hereto. And all such tolls and charges paid by other railroads or railroad companies shall be applied to and form a part of the fund hereinbefore provided for the payment of expenses, sinking fund, interest, dividends and taxes the same as if paid by the second, third and fourth parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Just v. Idaho Canal & Improvement Co., Ltd.
...Actual fraud, or, in other words, dishonest motives need not be shown. (Thompson on Corp., sec. 4493; Carpenter v. Roberts, supra; Pittsburg v. Dodd, supra.) there is a community of interest between the "control" of two corporations, or where one corporation is controlling another in its ow......
-
Zahn v. Transamerica Corporation
...that interest be one they have in the good of the company in common with all the stockholders."9 In Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Dodd, 115 Ky. 176, 194, 72 S.W. 822, 827, the Court said, "We go no further than to say that upon an allegation of fraud on the part of his directors, or......
-
People's State Bank v. Jacksonian Hotel Co.
... ... maintain such an action for and on behalf of the corporation ... P., C., C. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Dodd, etc., 115 Ky ... 176, 72 S.W. 822, 74 S.W. 1096, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2057, 25 Ky ... Law Rep. 255; O'Hara v. Williamstown, etc., 133 Ky. 828, ... ...
-
People's State Bank v. Jacksonian Hotel Co.
...consideration, a stockholder may institute and maintain such an action for and on behalf of the corporation. P., C., C. & St. L.R.R. Co. v. Dodd, etc., 115 Ky. 176, 72 S.W. 822, 74 S.W. 1096, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2057, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 255; O'Hara v. Williamstown, etc., 133 Ky. 828, 119 S.W. It w......