Thornton v. Marginal Freight Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1877 |
| Citation | 123 Mass. 32 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | John W. Thornton v. Marginal Freight Railway Company & another |
Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed February 2, 1877, against the Marginal Freight Railway Company and the Union Freight Railroad Company, alleging that the plaintiff, at July term 1875 of the Superior Court for the county of Suffolk recovered judgment against the Marginal Freight Railway Company, for money due from it to him before May 6, 1872 upon which judgment execution was duly issued, and remained unsatisfied; that the charter of the Marginal Freight Railway Company was repealed or attempted to be repealed, by the St of 1872, c. 342, passed May 6, 1872, at which time it owned certain railroad tracks in the streets of Boston; that the Union Freight Railroad Company was incorporated by the same statute, and by virtue thereof took these tracks; that the Marginal Freight Railway Company, being dissatisfied with the estimate duly made of its damages by reason of such taking, filed a petition to the Superior Court for a jury to estimate such damages, which application was still pending; that the interest of the Marginal Freight Railway Company in its claim for damages could not be come at to be attached or taken on execution in an action at law against it; and that the Marginal Freight Railway Company neglected to press its application for a jury.
The prayer of the bill was that the Marginal Freight Railway Company might be ordered to prosecute, or to permit the plaintiff to prosecute, that petition to final judgment; that the Union Freight Railroad Company might be ordered to pay to the plaintiff so much of such judgment as might be recovered against it as might be necessary to satisfy the plaintiff's debt; that the defendants might be restrained from discontinuing or settling the action without first paying to the plaintiff the amount of his debt; and for further relief.
The Union Freight Railroad Company demurred, on the ground that the plaintiff's judgment against the Marginal Freight Railway Company was void, and that the bill could not be maintained against either defendant, because the charter of that corporation was repealed more than three years before the recovery of the judgment or the bringing of the bill; and for want of equity.
The Marginal Freight Railway Company filed an answer, containing a demurrer for want of equity.
Hearing before Endicott, J., who reserved the case, on the bill and demurrers, for the consideration of the full court.
Bill dismissed.
A. B. Wentworth, for the Marginal Freight Railway Company.
W. G. Russell, for the Union Freight Railroad Company.
P. E. Tucker, for the plaintiff.
The bill is framed upon the theory that the plaintiff has recovered a valid judgment against the Marginal Freight Railway Company; that that company has a claim for damages for the taking of its tracks by the Union Freight Railroad Company; and that the interest of the former company in this claim cannot be come at to be attached or taken on execution in a suit at law against it, and should therefore be applied in equity to the payment of the plaintiff's judgment debt. The difficulties in the way of maintaining this bill appear to us to be insuperable.
The St. of 1867, c. 170, by which the Marginal Freight Railway Company was incorporated, was subject to repeal at the pleasure of the Legislature, by virtue of the power expressly reserved by the Gen. Sts. c. 68 § 41, which was a part of the contract made between the Commonwealth and the corporation by its charter. That charter was expressly and legally repealed by the St. of 1872, c. 342, which incorporated the Union Freight Railroad Company, and authorized the latter corporation to take the tracks of the former, making compensation therefor in the manner provided by the laws relating to the taking of lands by railroad companies. Crease v. Babcock, 23 Pick. 334. Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall. 190. State v. Miller, 1 Vroom 368, and 2 Vroom 521. Metropolitan Railroad v. Highland Railway, 118 Mass. 290.
Upon the absolute repeal of a charter by the Legislature, acting within the limits of its constitutional authority, the corporation ceases to exist, and no judgment can afterwards be rendered against it in an action at law. But such repeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Housatonic R.R.
...damage sustained by it in consequence of a grade crossing, does not amount to a ratification of this illegal contract. Thornton v. Marginal Frt. Ry. Co., 123 Mass. 32;Worcester v. Norwich & W.R.R., 109 Mass. 103. It therefore conveyed no exemption from legislative control, under the provisi......
-
Com. v. Housatonic R. R.
...... Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299;. Case of State Freight Tax, 15 Wall. 232; State Tax on Ry. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284; ... ratification of this illegal contract. Thornton v. Marginal Frt. Ry. Co., 123 Mass. 32; Worcester v. Norwich & W.R.R., ......
-
Murphy v. Wilson
...Co.) 89 Wis. 297, 27 L.R.A. 369, 46 Am. St. Rep. 839, 62 N.W. 89; May v. State Bank, 2 Rob. (Va.) 56, 40 Am. Dec. 726; Thornton v. Marginal Freight R. Co. 123 Mass. 32; Gulledge Bros. Lumber Co. v. Wenatchee Land Co. Minn. 491, 132 N.W. 992; Sinnott v. Hanan, 156 A.D. 323, 141 N.Y.S. 505. T......
-
In re Opinion of the Justices
...power of the state to become the owner. 2 Kent Comm. 307, note b; Folger v. Insurance Co., 99 Mass. 267, 277; Thornton v. Railway Co., 123 Mass. 32, 34; Burrall v. Railroad Co., 75 N. Y. 211, 216; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46, 52; Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How.......