State v. Lindell Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1899
• Citation: 151 Mo. 162,52 S.W. 248
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CROW, Atty. Gen., v. LINDELL RY. CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 S.W. 248

151 Mo. 162

STATE ex rel. CROW, Atty. Gen., v. LINDELL RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 30, 1899.

STREET RAILROADS — AUTHORITY TO AMEND CHARTER — EXTENSION OF LINES — PARALLEL LAW — REPEAL — QUO WARRANTO.

1. Rev. St. 1889, § 2779, authorizing a corporation to "extend its business to any other purposes authorized by this article," is not merely a permission to a corporation, organized for one of the 11 purposes allowed by section 2771, to extend its business so as to embrace another of the 11 purposes, but authorizes a street-car company, whose termini were fixed by the original incorporation, to amend its charter so as to extend the original termini, and thereby carry the public a greater distance for the same fare, or so as to include the right to buy or lease a road already constructed.

2. Where a street-railway company has, from time to time, by municipal authority, extended its lines beyond the termini stated in its original charter, and such grants are greater in extent and longer in mileage than the one challenged in the case at bar, but no one has ever questioned their legality, and relator expressly disclaims any desire to have the company ousted therefrom, the writ of quo warranto will be refused.

3. Act Jan. 16, 1860 ("Third Parallel Law"), provides that no street railroad shall hereafter be constructed in the city of St. Louis nearer to a parallel line than the third parallel street from any road now constructed, or which may thereafter be constructed, except the roads hereinbefore mentioned. At that time the legislature alone had power to legislate as to the city of St. Louis. Acts 1865-66, pp. 279-287, amended the St. Louis charter, and gave the city sole power to grant the right "to construct street railroads in any street of said city, and to regulate and control the same and the use thereof." Const. 1875 expressly prohibited the legislature from granting the right to construct or operate or transfer a street railway in any city of the state, without its consent, and gave the city of St. Louis the power to adopt a charter which should supersede all prior charters. The charter so adopted by the city gave it the sole right to grant the right to construct street railways and to regulate street-car companies. Held, that Act 1860 was repealed by implication by Act 1866 and Const. 1875.

In banc. Original quo warranto proceeding by the state, on the relation of Edward C. Crow, attorney general, against the Lindell Railway Company. Writ denied.

This is an original proceeding of quo warranto instituted by the attorney general, ex officio, to oust the respondent from exercising the following rights, privileges, and franchises: "First. Of extending, constructing, maintaining, and operating a street railroad, with a double track, in the city of St. Louis, on and along a route described as follows, to wit: Beginning at the intersection of the tracks of the Forest Park, Laclede & Fourth Street Railway Company at Laclede avenue, where the same intersects Channing avenue; thence northwardly, along Channing avenue, to and into Cook avenue; thence westwardly, along Cook avenue, to and into Prairie avenue; thence northwardly, along Prairie avenue, to and into Evans avenue; thence westwardly, along Evans avenue, to and into Taylor avenue, to a connection with the tracks of the Taylor Avenue Railway Company. Second. Of having acquired by purchase, lease, or otherwise, from certain corporations known as the Compton Heights, Union Depot & Merchants' Terminal Railway Company, the Taylor Avenue Railroad Company, and the Vandeventer Avenue Railroad Company, and of maintaining and operating, in conjunction with the lines of the Lindell Railway Company, hereinbefore described, as one entire system, all and singular the several lines of railroad and property now owned or formerly owned and operated by said Compton Heights, Union Depot & Merchants' Terminal Railway Company, the Taylor Avenue Railroad Company, and the Vandeventer Avenue Railroad Company, together with all rights, privileges, and franchises which have heretofore been granted to said corporations, or either of them, by the city of St. Louis, and which are now in force. Third. Of acquiring, by lease, purchase, or otherwise, from certain corporations known as the Missouri Railroad Company, the Forest Park, Laclede & Fourth Street Railway Company, and the Delmar Avenue & Clayton Railway Company, and of maintaining and operating, in conjunction with the lines of the Lindell Railway Company, and of the Compton Heights, Union Depot & Merchants' Terminal Railway Company, the Taylor Avenue Railroad Company, and the Vandeventer Avenue Railroad Company, as one entire system, all and singular the several lines of railroad and properties now owned and operated by said Missouri Railroad Company, Forest Park, Laclede & Fourth Street Railroad Company, and the Delmar Avenue & Clayton Railway Company, together with all rights, privileges, and franchises which have heretofore been granted to said corporations, or either of them, by the city of St. Louis, and which are now in force." The return of the respondent is very voluminous, covering 36 printed pages. In brief, it asserts a right to have and enjoy the franchises challenged by virtue of the following provisions of the laws of this state: (1) Its special charter, granted to it by the state on the 26th of January, 1864 (Acts 1863-64, p. 486), under which it was authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a street railway in the city and county of St. Louis, along stated streets and between fixed termini; the routes here called in question not being embraced therein. (2) By its acceptance of the general laws of this state, and its extension, according to those laws, of its original powers, so as to authorize it to acquire, construct, and operate any line or lines of street railway which the municipal authorities of St. Louis have theretofore or might thereafter authorize it to acquire, construct, own, or operate. (3) By the amendment of its charter on the 28th of February, 1899, so as to authorize it to extend its business to the ownership, construction, or operation of any line of street railway in the city or county of St. Louis that it might then or thereafter be authorized to acquire, construct, or operate by virtue of any ordinances of the city of St. Louis or order of the county court of St. Louis county. (4) By the implied power of a corporation to do whatever it is not prohibited from doing that will conduce to the successful accomplishment of its corporate enterprise. (5) By the authority of the charter and ordinances of the city of St. Louis. (6) By the provisions of the general railroad law of the state. The several laws, statutes, charter provisions, and ordinances upon which these claims of authority are based are referred to and specially pleaded, and will be discussed in the course of this opinion. The return also claims that the act of January 16, 1860, entitled "An act concerning street railroads in the city of St. Louis," and referred herein as the "Third Parallel Law" (Acts 1859-60, p. 516), is no longer in force, and has been repealed. The relator moves for judgment on the return. Two questions present themselves in this case for determination: (1) Has the respondent the power to accept the grants and to exercise the franchises challenged? and (2) has the city the power to make the grants?

Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., T. K. Skinker, and Sim T. Price, for relator. W. M. Williams and H. S. Priest, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

1. Has the respondent the power to accept the grants and to exercise the franchises challenged? Prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1865, the general assembly of the state alone had power to grant charters to corporations. Under its power, the general assembly, on January 26, 1864, granted the original charter to the respondent (Acts 1863-64, p. 486), by which it acquired the power to construct a double-track railway, in the city and county of St. Louis, along designated routes and between fixed termini, which did not cover the routes challenged in this proceeding, and the respondent accordingly constructed the authorized railway. At the same session, to wit, on the 15th of February, 1864, the general assembly passed an act entitled "An act for the benefit of the city of St. Louis," the first section of which provided "that the city council of the city of St. Louis shall have full power, with the approval of the mayor, to determine all questions arising with reference to street railroads in the corporate limits of said city, whether such questions may involve the incorporation of companies to construct such street railroads, granting the right of way or regulating and controlling any such railroads after their completion." Acts 1863-64, p. 446. Thereafter the constitution of 1865 was adopted, and in order to stop the granting of ill-advised, incongruous, and dissimilar charters by the general assembly, and to insure uniformity between charters of companies doing similar business, section 4, art. 8, was adopted, by which it was provided: "Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special acts, except for municipal purposes. All general laws, and special acts passed pursuant to this section may be altered, amended or repealed." Accordingly, the general assembly, by an act entitled "An act concerning private corporations," approved March 19, 1866 (Acts 1865-66, p. 20), enacted general laws defining the general powers and liabilities of all private corporations, and provided for the organization of seven different kinds of corporations, to wit: (1) Railroad companies; (2) macadamized, graded, and plank-road companies; (3) telegraph companies; (4) insurance companies; (5) savings banks and fund companies; (6) manufacturing and business companies; (7) benevolent, religious, and...