Railroad Company v. Hecht

Decision Date01 October 1877
Citation24 L.Ed. 423,95 U.S. 168
PartiesRAILROAD COMPANY v. HECHT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas.

The Cairo and Fulton Railroad Company having been sued in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Arkansas, service was had on the tenth day of September, 1873, by leaving a copy of the summons with a clerk of the company.

Judgment was rendered by default. A motion was subse quently made to set the default aside, on the ground that there had been neither legal service upon nor appearance by the company. This motion having been overruled, the company appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, where the judgment below was affirmed. The company then brought the case here.

The company was incorporated by an act of the legislature of Arkansas, approved Jan. 12, 1853.

The thirteenth section of that act provides as follows:

'This act shall be deemed a public act, and shall be favorably construed for all the purposes therein expressed and declared in all courts and places whatever, and shall be in force from and after its passage: Provided, that all the rights, privileges, immunities, and franchises contained in the charter granted at this session of the legislature of this State to the Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, not restricting or inconsistent with this act, are hereby extended to and shall form a part of this incorporation as fully as if the same were inserted herein.'

The charter of the Mississippi Valley Railroad Company was granted by an act approved Jan. 12, 1853, the twenty-fourth section of which provides that 'process on said company shall be served on the president by leaving a copy to his address, at the principal office of the corporation, in the hands of any of its officers.'

An act passed in 1868 provides that 'where the defendant is a corporation, created by the laws of this State, the service of the summons may be upon the president, mayor, chairman of the board of trustees, or other chief officer; or, if its chief officer is not found in the county, upon its cashier, treasurer, secretary, clerk, or managing agent.'

It will be seen that service in this case was made pursuant to the latter act, and not to the provisions of the charter.

The company here assigns for error that its charter constitutes a contract between it and the State, and that the subsequent act under which the process was served impairs the obligation of the contract, and is therefore in violation of sect. 10, art. 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. U. M. Rose for the plaintiff in error cited Oliver v. Memphis Railroad Co., 30 Ark. 129; St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Loftin, id. 693; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; Commonwealth v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Clinton Nurseries, Inc. v. Harrington (In re Clinton Nurseries, Inc.)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 28, 2019
    ...word ‘shall,’ when used in statutes, is to be construed as ‘may,’ unless a contrary intention is manifest." Cairo & Fulton R.R. Co. v. Hecht , 95 U.S. 168, 170, 24 L.Ed. 423 (1877). Thus, "[w]hen drafters use shall and may correctly, the traditional rule holds—beautifully." Scalia & Garner,......
  • Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. City of Oshkosh
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 26, 1901
    ...process on its president, a subsequent statute authorizing service on other officers held not to impair the contract. Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 168, 24 L. Ed. 423. Statutes of limitation, provided reasonable time is allowed for commencement of suit. Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628, 24......
  • Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1934
    ...457, 8 L.Ed. 190; Crawford b. Branch Bank, 7 How. 279, 12 L.Ed. 700; Curtis v. Whitney, 13 Wall. 68, 20 L.Ed. 513; Cairo & F.R. Co. v. Hecht, 95 U.S. 168, 24 L.Ed. 423; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628, 24 L.Ed. 365; Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U.S. 69, 24 L.Ed. 610; South Carolina v. Gaillard, 10......
  • Penna. R. Co. v. Duncan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 11, 1889
    ...by legislation: Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 87 U. S. 32. A state may at any time provide new remedies to effectuate justice: Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 170. 3. Suppose the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were to overrule its prior decisions, and adopt the doctrine laid down in the dissent......
  • 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