St Louis Ry Co v. James, 242

Decision Date02 March 1896
Docket NumberNo. 242,242
Citation161 U.S. 545,16 S.Ct. 621,40 L.Ed. 802
PartiesST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. JAMES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On December 24, 1892, Etta James, defendant in error, brought this action in the circuit court for the Western dis- trict of Arkansas, against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, plaintiff in error, for negligence in maintaining a switch target at Monett, in Barry county, in the state of Missouri, so near its tracks that her husband was struck and killed by it on July 3, 1889, while employed as a fireman on one of the company's engines. Her husband resided at Monett and died intestate. The defendant in error was the widow and sole heir at law of her husband, and no administrator of his estate was appointed in Arkansas. She recovered a judgment of $5,000.

Etta James, the defendant in error, resided at Monett, and was a citizen of the state of Missouri. Monett is a station in Missouri, on the railroad of the plaintiff in error, about 50 miles from the southern border of that state.

The St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company was organized and incorporated under the laws of the state of Missouri in 1876, and soon thereafter became the owner of, and has ever since owned and operated, a railroad in that state, extending from Monett southerly to the southern border of the state of Missouri.

Section 11 of article 12 of the constitution of the state of Arkansas, which was adopted in 1874, provides that:

'Foreign corporations may be authorized to do business in this state under such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed by law: provided, that no such corporation shall do any business in this state, except while it maintains therein one or more known places of business and an authorized agent or agents in the same upon whom process may be served; and, as to contracts made or business done in this state, they shall be subject to the same regulations, limitations, and liabilities as like corporations of this state, and shall exercise no other or greater powers, privileges, or franchises than may be exercised by like corporations of this state, nor shall they have power to condemn or appropriate private property.'

Section 1 of article 17 of that constitution provides that:

'All railroads, canals, and turnpikes shall be public highways, and all railroads and canal companies shall be common carriers. Any association or corporation organized for the purpose shall have the right to construct and operate a railroad between any points within this state, and to connect at the state line with railroads of other states. Every railroad company shall have the right with its road to intersect, connect with, or cross any other road, and shall receive and transport each other's passengers, tonnage, and cars loaded or empty, without delay or discrimination.'

Section 3 of an act passed by the general assembly of the state of Arkansas, entitled 'An act in relation to certain railroads,' approved March 16, 1881 (Laws Ark. 1881, p. 83), provides:

'That every railroad corporation incorporated under the laws of this state, whose road is wholly, or in part, constructed and operated, is hereby authorized to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the whole or any part of its roadways and rights of way, with the franchises thereto belonging, and its other property, to any connecting railroad company, or to any railroad corporation now or hereafter organized under the laws of this or any other state, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the board of directors of said corporations, and ratified by a two-thirds vote of the issued capital stock thereof, and to receive the bonds or stock of the purchasing corporation in whole or in part payment of such purchase, and corporations may be formed for the purpose of purchasing or leasing the whole or any part of any railroad, and such purpose or object shall be stated in articles of association, which shall be executed and filed in the office of the secretary of state, the same to be as near as may be in accordance with section 4918 of Gantt's Digest. All shares of stock issued in payment of such purchase shall be deemed to be full-paid shares, and the number and amount of shares so to be issued shall be stated in the aforesaid articles of association, and said articles shall be otherwise altered, if necessary, so as to conform to the facts.'

Section 5 of the same act provides that:

'Any railroad company incorporated by or under the laws of any other state, and having a line of railroad built, or partly built, to or near any boundary of this state, and desiring to continue its line of railroad into or through this state, or any branch thereof, may, for the purpose of acquiring the right to build its line of railroad, lease or purchase the property, rights, privileges, lands, tenements, immunities, and franchises of any railroad company organized under the laws of this state, which said lease or purchase shall carry with it the right of eminent domain held and acquired by said company at the time of lease or sale, and thereafter hold, use, maintain, build, construct, own, and operate the said railroad so leased or purchased as fully and to the same extent as the company organized under the laws of this state might or could have done; and the rights and powers of such company, and its corporate name, may be held and used by such foreign railroad company as will best subserve its purpose, and the building of said line of railroad; but before any such lease or sale shall be made, by any company organized under the laws of this state, two-thirds in amount of the capital stock issued shall, at a meeting of the stockholders thereof—of which sixty days' notice shall be given in some newspaper published at the city of Little Rock, and in such other papers published elsewhere as the president and directors of said company may direct—consent thereto; and any railroad company organized under the laws of any state, and having a line of railroad built, or partly built, to any boundary of this state, and desiring to continue its line of road, or any branch thereof, into or through this state, is hereby authorized and empowered so to do, when it shall have acquired by lease or purchase the corporate rights, privileges, and franchises of any railroad corporation in the manner herein provided, formed under the laws of this state, and such railroad company, upon filing a certified copy of its articles of incorporation, or the special act incorporating the same, shall have, possess, and enjoy all the rights, powers, privileges, franchises, and immunities belonging to railroad corporations formed under the general laws of this state, which are not in conflict with the constitution or laws of this state; but nothing herein contained shall interfere with, or abridge the right of, any railroad corporation acquired under section 4942 of Gantt's Digest. * * * In all other matters said foreign railroad company shall be subject to all the provisions of all acts in relation to railroads, the liabilities and forfeitures thereby imposed, and may sue and be sued in the same manner as other railroad corporations, and subject to the same service of process, and shall keep an office or offices in said state as required by section 11 of article 12 of the constitution of this state, and an agent or agents upon whom process may be served, with the like force and effect as is provided for the service of process in section 2 of this act.'

At the time of the accident complained of, the plaintiff in error owned and operated the railroad from the southern border of the state of Missouri to Ft. Smith, in the state of Arkansas, in connection with its original line from Monett to the Missouri border, and these roads formed and were operated as a continuous line of railroad from Monett to Ft. Smith. That portion of this continuous line of railroad which was situated in Arkansas had been built by corporations organized and incorporated under the laws of that state. In the year 1882, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company purchased from these Arkansas corporations, under the act of March 16, 1881, the railroad extending from the southern border of Missouri to Ft. Smith, Ark., and all the railways, constructed and unconstructed, and all the roads, franchises, and property which these Arkansas corporations had. These Arkansas corporations have since maintained their separate organizations as corporations of that state, but have operated no railroads. From the time of this purchase to the present time, the plaintiff in error has operated this continuous line of railroad from Monett, Mo., to Ft. Smith, Ark., and has owned all the rolling stock and other appurtenances used upon this railroad.

An act passed by the general assembly of the state of Arkansas, entitled 'An act relating to the consolidation of railroad companies and the purchasing, leasing, and operation of railroads, and to repeal sections one, two, three, four, and five of an act entitled 'An act to prohibit foreign corporations from operating railroads in this state,' approved March 22, 1887,' approved March 13, 1889 (Laws Ark. 1889, p. 43), provided as follows:

'Section 1. That sections one, two, three, four, and five of an act entitled 'An act to prohibit foreign corporations from operating railroads in this state,' approved March 22, 1887, be and the same are hereby repealed.

'Sec. 2. Any railroad company in this state, existing under general or special laws, may sell or lease its road, property, and franchises to any other railroad company duly organized and existing under the laws of any other state or territory, whose line of railroad shall so connect with the leased or purchased road by bridge, ferry, or otherwise as to practically form a continuous line of railroad, and any railroad company is this state existing under general or special laws may buy or lease, or otherwise acquire, any railroad or railroads, with all the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
135 cases
  • Smith v. Sperling
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • December 16, 1953
    ...Pub. Corp. v. Murphree, 1946, 326 U.S. 438, 441, note 2, 66 S.Ct. 242, 90 L.Ed. 185; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co. v. James, 1896, 161 U.S. 545, 562-563, 16 S.Ct. 621, 40 L.Ed. 802; Doctor v. Harrington, 1905, 196 U.S. 579, 586-587, 25 S.Ct. 355, 49 L.Ed. 606; Louisville, Cincinnati & C......
  • United States Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1978
    ...of interstate agreements effected through reciprocal legislation without congressional consent. E g., St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. James, 161 U.S. 545, 16 S.Ct. 621, 40 L.Ed. 802 (1896); Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915); Bode v. Barrett, 344 U.S. 583, 73 ......
  • Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • November 13, 1950
    ...is important see Patch v. Wabash R. Co., 1907, 207 U.S. 277, 283, 28 S.Ct. 80, 52 L.Ed. 204; St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. James, 1896, 161 U.S. 545, 560, 16 S.Ct. 621, 40 L.Ed. 802; Winn v. Wabash R. Co., C.C.W.D.Mo.1902, 118 F. 55, 65; Missouri Pac. Ry. v. Meeh, 8 Cir., 1895, 69 F. 753......
  • Navarro Savings Association v. Lee
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1980
    ......James A. Ellis, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for respondents. .            Mr. Justice POWELL ... Id ., at 328; see St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. James , 161 U.S. 545, 562, 16 S.Ct. 621, 627, 40 L.Ed. 802 (1896). This view ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in historical context: a preliminary view.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 156 No. 6, June 2008
    • June 1, 2008
    ...frequently frustrated by the Supreme Court."); supra note 102 (Warren quotation). (119) See St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. James, 161 U.S. 545, 562-63 (1896) (holding that state law cannot change corporate citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction); PURCELL, supra note 107, at 18 ......

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