Williamson v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GRANGER
• Citation: Williamson v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 84 Iowa 583, 51 N.W. 60 (Iowa 1892)
• Decision Date: 05 February 1892
• Parties: WILLIAMSON ET AL. v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

84 Iowa 583

51 N.W. 60

WILLIAMSON ET AL.

v.CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 5, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; JOSIAH GIVEN, Judge.

In 1875 the plaintiffs, four in number, in their own behalf, and for the benefit of divers other persons, brought this action, stating in their petition, among other things, as follows: “Your petitioners further represent that heretofore, to-wit, on or about the ______ day of June, 1867, they entered into a contract with the defendant to the tenor and effect following, to-wit: The defendant proposed to stipulate and contract with the plaintiffs that if they (the plaintiffs) would furnish the money, and purchase, procure, and deed, and cause to be deeded, to the defendant, twenty-one lots which were then designated by the defendant, on the east side of the Des Moines river, in the city of Des Moines, known as ‘East Des Moines,’ in said county, making a sufficient plat of ground for the defendant's depots, side-tracks, switches, and transfer grounds, the defendant, in consideration thereof, would build all its depots, both passenger and freight, which it might or would build in the said city of Des Moines, on the east side of the Des Moines river, in the said East Des Moines, and on the lots so transferred and conveyed to it, the said defendant. As an inducement to the plaintiffs and others to enter into said contract, the defendant represented and held out to them that the said depots would be very large, fine structures; would be such a vast improvement to that part of the city of Des Moines as to greatly enhance the value of the city property therein, and enrich the owners and holders of property in the vicinity thereof. In view of the representations and inducements thus held out to them, the plaintiffs agreed to and accepted the said proposition upon the terms offered by the defendant, and they and the other persons for whose benefit this suit is instituted, being residents and property holders on the east side of the Des Moines river, in the said East Des Moines, and believing that they would be greatly benefited hereby, and believing that the said depots would be a great improvement, especially to that part of the city of Des Moines, were induced to and did spend a great deal of valuable time, and incurred a large amount of expense, in circulating subscriptions and obtaining money with which to purchase lots, and in getting the same conveyed to the defendant. By a long and laborious effort they raised and furnished the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, and expended the same in purchasing and conveying, and procuring to be conveyed, to the defendant, the following described lots, to-wit; * * * which said lots, and the conveyance thereof, were taken and accepted by the defendant under and by virtue of the said express contract with the plaintiffs herein that the said depots of the defendant, both freight and passenger, and the only depots that the defendant would build or have in the city of Des Moines, should be located and built on the said lots, east of the Des Moines river, in the said East Des Moines; and the defendant has ever since held, occupied, and used the said lots for its freight depot, side tracks, switches, etc., in and about the operations of its said road.” Then follow other allegations as to the value of the lots conveyed; that the defendant company in the transaction contrived to cheat and defraud the plaintiffs; that it has commenced to construct its principal depot on the west side of the river; that it constructed but a temporary depot on the east side; and other facts showing a breach of the contract. Such issues were formed thereon that the cause was tried, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiffs, which judgment, on appeal, was reversed, on the ground that the contract set out and established was against public policy. See Williamson v. Railroad Co., 53 Iowa, 126, 4 N. W. Rep. 870.

Thereafter the plaintiffs, in the circuit court, filed their substituted petition in five counts, in which all the plaintiffs in interest are named, but omitting therefrom all averments as to an agreement by the defendant company to construct all its depots, etc., on the east side of the river; but averring that it agreed, in consideration of the conveyance of said lots, that it would build and erect thereon, at the earliest day possible, its railroad tracks and side tracks, and a large freight depot, a large, elegant, and expensive passenger depot, and keep open, support, and furnish said depots as permanent improvements in said east city upon said lots, for the purpose of receiving and discharging freights and passengers for the said city. It also represented that it would erect and maintain a roundhouse upon said lots, together with extensive machine-shops, amply sufficient to supply all needed work and repairs on its said railroad; and that it would keep in constant employment in said buildings on said premises a large number of men in and about such depots, freight-house, machine-shops, and roundhouse; and that all of said buildings and improvements would be erected upon said lots as soon as title should be obtained by defendant thereto, and the same could be built; and that the cost of such buildings, depots, roundhouse, and machine-shop, etc.,...