The Wiggins Ferry Co. v. the Ohio
Decision Date | 30 November 1879 |
Citation | 94 Ill. 83,1879 WL 8667 |
Parties | THE WIGGINS FERRY COMPANYv.THE OHIO AND MISSISSIPPI RAILWAY COMPANY. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. WILLIAM H. SNYDER, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Wiggins Ferry Company, against the Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company, to the April term, 1876, of the St. Clair circuit court.
The Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company was chartered by the State of Illinois, February 12, 1851, (Private Laws of Illinois, p. 89,) and various amendments to the charter were passed up to the 27th February, 1854,--by one of which it was authorized to extend its road to the Mississippi river.
The Wiggins Ferry Company is also a corporation organized, many years since, under a charter of the State of Illinois, and lawfully empowered by it to purchase, own, sell and convey real estate and interests therein; and, on the 1st day of April, 1858, the last named company, by deed of that date, “for and in consideration,” as expressed therein, “of the future observing, fulfilling and keeping by the party of the second part of the covenants and stipulations thereinafter contained, to be kept, observed and fulfilled by the party of the second part, and also in consideration of $1 paid by the party of the second part,” etc., did “give, grant and convey,” unto the Ohio and Mississippi Rail road Company, as party of the second part, “the right to construct, maintain and use, in, through, upon and over the piece or parcel of ground hereinafter described, all such railroad tracks, depots, warehouses, and other buildings and erections as the said party of the second part shall find to be necessary or convenient to be constructed, maintained or used for the purpose of transacting the business of the said party of the second part, and to keep thereon, without disturbance, all property of every description belonging to, or which may be in the possession, charge or custody of, the said party of the second part, and to take upon and over the said piece or parcel of ground all persons and property, and to use the said piece or parcel of ground in the transaction of the business of the said party of the second part, as the said party of the second part may find necessary or convenient”--and then follows the descriptions of two pieces of land, after which is the following “““ tenendum:” “To have and to hold the said several rights and easements in the said two several parcels of ground above described, unto the said party of the second part, so long as the same shall be used and employed for the uses and purposes of the Ohio and Mississippi railroad, as herein specified, and for no other purposes, even forever; and the party of the second part, as the consideration upon which the said easements and rights are hereby granted, covenant with the party of the first part, as follows:”
Then follow the covenants, the only important one of which, in the present controversy, is the third, which is as follows:
The deed is inter partes, being sealed by the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company as well as by the Wiggins Ferry Company.
On the 5th of February, 1861, the Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company was incorporated by an act of the Illinois legislature for the purpose of purchasing and taking a conveyance of all the railroad property, real and personal, rights and franchises, of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, either by private contract or at any judicial sale thereof which might thereafter take place.
At the March term, 1862, of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois, a decree of foreclosure was entered against said Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company, and a sale of its road, franchises, etc., was ordered, to satisfy certain claims and demands secured by mortgage.
On the 2d day of June, 1862, the said Ohio and Mississippi railroad, and the property, real and personal, rights and franchises of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company were sold under that decree and purchased by the Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company.
This suit is to recover for a breach of the third covenant of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad Company above set out. It is averred in the declaration that, “On the 14th of June, 1862, the defendant, having full power and lawful authority so to do, acquired, by purchase, all the property, powers, privileges, rights and franchises of said railroad company, including the said contract and the lands therein described, and then and there took possession of the same, to which purchase and possession the plaintiff then and there assented, by means whereof the defendant has been from thence hitherto, and still is, under and by virtue of said contract, purchase and possession aforesaid, assented to as aforesaid, in the quiet and peaceable possession, use and enjoyment of said lands therein described, and the defendant thereby then and there became the legal representative and assignee, and succeeded to all the rights and privileges of the said railroad company in and to the said contract, and thereby assumed and became subject to all the covenants, stipulations and obligations thereof,” etc.
The breach averred is, that the defendant therein,
The defendant demurred to the declaration, and the court below sustained the demurrer and gave...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamilton v. City of Jackson
... ... 371; ... State v. Brown, 27 N.J.L. 13; Henderson v ... Hunter, 59 Pa. 335; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M ... R. Co., 94 Ill. 83, 93; 2 Bl. Com. 109, 154, 155; 1 ... Cruise Dig., ... ...
-
Cumberland Valley Railroad Co. v. Gettysburg & Harrisburg Railway Co.
... ... & ... P.R.R. v. Marshall, 136 U.S. 393; Pt. Clinton R.R ... v. C. & T.R.R., 13 Ohio 544; Pullman Palace Car Co ... v. T. & P.C. Rd. Co., 11 F. 625; Blanchard v ... Detroit, ... v. Easton R.R., 41 Minn. 461; ... Norcross v. James, 140 Mass. 193; Wiggins Ferry ... Co. v. O. & M. Ry. Co., 94 Ill. 83; Flight v ... Glossopp, 2 Bing. N.C. 125; ... ...
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Thompson
...in the grantor and the railroad company is vested with an easement and can use the land for railroad purposes only. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. O. & M. Ry. Co., 94 Ill. 83; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. O'Connor, 154 Ill. 550, 39 N.E. 563; Walker v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 215 Ill. 610, 74 N.E. 812; Branch v. C......
-
Chouteau v. City of St. Louis
... ... property as the courthouse site. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ry ... Co., 94 Ill. 83; Mendenhall v. Church Society, ... 177 Ind. 336; Jordan ... ...