Stewart v. Erie & Western Transp. Co.
Decision Date | 01 January 1872 |
Citation | 17 Minn. 348 |
Parties | JACOB H. STEWART v. ERIE & WESTERN TRANSP. CO. and others. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Brisbin & Palmer, for appellants.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Masterton & Simons, for respondent.
The Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company is a corporation created under the laws of this state, and owning and operating a railway from St. Paul to Duluth. The appellant (the Erie & Western Transportation Company) is a corporation created by the laws of Pennsylvania and engaged in the business of transporting, by steam-boats and other craft, passengers and freight upon Lakes Erie, Huron, and Superior, and connecting waters, and running boats to and from the harbor of Duluth. The appellant entered into a contract with certain persons assuming to act for and on behalf of and in the name of the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, by the terms of which an arrangement is made (to continue in force for the period of 20 years) in reference to through transportation of passengers and freight on the boats of the former and the railway of the latter.
Respondent is a stockholder in the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company, and the object of this action by him brought is to have the contract mentioned adjudged void and canceled, and to have the defendants (being both of said companies) perpetually enjoined from transacting any business under the same. The appellant alone answered. Respondent moved for judgment upon the pleadings, and from the order granting such motion the present appeal is taken.
The familiar rule, and one of much importonce in this case, is that a motion of this character admits whatever is well pleaded in the answer. The application of this rule will dispose of several objections which are made by respondent to the agencies by which and the manner in which the contract was executed; for while the complaint alleges that such agencies were unauthorized, and such manner insufficient, the answer not only denies these allegations, and affirmatively avers that such agencies were authorized, and such manner sufficient, but it goes further, alleging, in terms, that the contract was lawfully made on behalf of said railroad company, by its executive committee thereto lawfully authorized, and that the same long prior to the commencement of this action, with the knowledge and consent of all the officers and stockholders thereof, was fully and lawfully adopted ratified, and confirmed by said Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad Company.
These allegations of the answer are certainly sufficiently comprehensive to meet the allegations of the complaint; and if they are somewhat general and indefinite, that does not render them insufficient as against a motion for judgment on the pleadings any more than it would against a demurrer.
The statute provides another way in which a pleading is to be attacked for indefiniteness and uncertainty. Aside from these objections to the contract, (objections which were very little argued, and do not appear to be strenuously insisted upon,) the respondent contends that the contract was void: (1) because it was ultra vires of the railroad company, and therefore illegal and void; and (2) because it creates and tends to create a monopoly, and is therefore illegal and void as being against public policy.
The particular clauses of the contract to which exception is taken by the plaintiff form but a small portion of its entire text; but as the general scope of the contract appears to us to be involved in the present inquiry, we deem it desirable, if not indispensable, (notwithstanding the space required,) to quote from it at sufficient length to present all such portions as tend to show what its real character and purpose are. The contract, then, so far as we deem it material in this view, reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Duluth Board of Trade
...specifically forbidden by the statute are contrary to the public policy of the state because they are thus forbidden ( Stewart v. Erie & W. Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 348 [372]), and the effect upon competition furnishes reasonably accurate test for cases which arise under the general language o......
-
James Quirk Milling Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co.
... ... P ... Ry. Co., 70 F. 201, 17 C.C.A. 62, 30 L.R.A. 193; ... Stewart v. Erie & Western Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 348 ... The ... ...
-
State v. Creamery Package Mnfg. Co.
...and for a lawful purpose in taking over by actual purchase the business of each competitor whom he encounters. Stewart v. Erie & Western Transportation Co., 17 Minn. 348 (372); Lydiard v. Chute, 45 Minn. 277, 47 N. W. 967; Kronschnabel-Smith Co. v. Kronschnabel, 87 Minn. 230, 91 N. W. 892; ......
-
James Quirk Milling Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co.
...L. R. A. 73; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 70 Fed. 201, 17 C. C. A. 62, 30 L. R. A. 193; Stewart v. Erie & Western Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 348 (372). The appellant assumes that there is a general rule of law which forbids a party to protect himself by contract agains......