Williamson v. Chi., Rock Island & Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1880
• Citation: 4 N.W. 870,53 Iowa 126
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAMSON AND OTHERS v. THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. CO.

53 Iowa 126

4 N.W. 870

WILLIAMSON AND OTHERS

v.THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 18, 1880.

Appeal from Dallas district court.

The petition of the plaintiffs was filed on the fifth day of June, 1875, and in substance alleges that the plaintiffs James A. Williamson, Samuel P. Ives and George W. Jones, in their own behalf, and for the benefit of divers other persons who are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, claim of the defendant the sum of $40,000, and for cause of such claim allege that in June, 1867, the defendant proposed to contract with the plaintiffs that if plaintiffs would furnish the money, purchase and deed to the defendant 21 lots, which were designated by the defendant, in the city of Des Moines, known as East Des Moines, 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 defendant. As an inducement to the plaintiffs and others to enter into said contract, the defendant represented to them that the said depots would be very large, fine structures, would require the outlay of a great deal of capital in East Des Moines, and that it would be such a vast improvement to that part of the city 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 accepted said proposition upon the terms offered by defendant, and they and the other persons for whose benefit this suit is instituted, being residents and property holders in East Des Moines, and believing that said depots would be a great improvement to that part of the city of Des Moines, and that they would be greatly benefited thereby, were induced to spend a great deal of valuable time and incur a large amount of expense in circulating subscriptionsand obtaining money with which to purchase lots, and in getting the same conveyed to defendant. That they raised and furnished the sum of about $15,000, and expended it in purchasing, conveying and procuring to be conveyed to the defendant 21 lots in East Des Moines, which were accepted by the defendant under and in virtue of the express contract with the plaintiffs that the 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 in East Des Moines, and which the defendant has ever since held, occupied and used for its freight depots, side tracks, switches, etc., in and about the operation of its road.

That the said city lots were worth the sum of $25,000, but in view of the fact that the owners thereof were the owners of other city property near thereto, which they knew would be greatly enhanced in value by the location of the depots on said lots, they consented to sell and have the same conveyed to the defendant for much less than their real value. That the defendant, contriving to cheat and defraud the plaintiffs and the other persons for whom this suit is instituted, and obtain from them a large amount of property, did make the said false and fraudulent representations, and hold out the said false and fraudulent inducements to the people and property holders of East Des Moines. That plaintiffs had no knowledge that the said inducements, promises and contracts of the defendant were false and fraudulent until within the last year, when the defendant began to make preparations to build its depots on the west side of the Des Moines river, in what is known as West Des Moines. That some time after the contract was made the defendant constructed a small building on part of said property in East Des Moines, which has been used as a temporary depot, at which only a part of the trains on said road have made any stop, and these only for a few minutes at a time, and for special and temporary purposes.

That defendant, for a long time after the occupation of said lots and the building of said temporary depot, gave out in speeches, and held out inducements and encouraged the plaintiffs and others to believe that they were still going to build their permanent depot on the said lots in East Des Moines, and that they would not build one anywhere else in the city of Des Moines; but that the defendant, intending to cheat and defraud the plaintiffs and other persons for whose benefit this suit is brought, still fails and refuses to comply with the contract by building its permanent depot on the east side of the Des Moines river, and instead thereof, without surrendering the money or property obtained from the plaintiffs and others, in violation of its contract and the plaintiffs' rights, the defendant proposes, and has already commenced, to build its permanent and chief passenger depot in West Des Moines, and has elected to violate its contract and abandon the building of said depot on the east side of the Des Moines river. Petitioners represent that they are damaged in the money contributed, and the conveyance of said lots, and the time and labor spent, and the depreciation of the value of their property, in the aggregate sum of $40,000, for which they ask judgment.

Afterwards the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition, alleging that the contract was in parol, and made with the defendant by plaintiffs in their own behalf, and in the behalf and for the benefit of the divers other persons referred to in the petition. That, in addition to said contract as set up for the consideration in said petition stated, defendant agreed to make East Des Moines a division line on its railway, and to erect and operate on said lots large, costly and permanent machine shops, which said promise and agreements defendant has wholly neglected to keep and perform.

The defendant filed an answer as follows:

“1. Denies each and every allegation of the petition.

2. Alleges that the cause of action set out in plaintiffs' petition accrued to them, if at all, more than five years prior to the commencement of this action.

3. That at the date of the alleged contract with plaintiffs defendant was engaged in constructing a line of railroad westward, and by the way of the city of Des Moines, to the Missouri river, and at said date its said line of railroad was, or was about to be, completed as far as the east side of the Des Moines river, in the corporate limits of the city of Des Moines. That until the completion of a bridge across said Des Moines river, a task requiring time, defendant could not proceed with its trains beyond the east side of the said river. That being desirous of securing grounds upon which to erect a depot and freight house, and upon which to lay and maintain the requisite tracks and side tracks, and certain citizens of East Des Moines being desirous that a depot should be located on the east side of the river, it was agreed that said citizens, among whom were the plaintiffs, should procure, to be conveyed to the defendant, the lots named in plaintiffs' petition, and that upon these defendant would locate and erect a passenger depot, freight house, and such side tracks and other buildings as should be found necessary to accommodate the demands of business.

That at said date the city of Des Moines embraced territory four miles long, east and west, and two miles wide, north and south, which said territory was then and still continues to be divided into three unequal parts by the passage through the same of the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers, which said streams were then and still are, during large portions of each year, only passable by means of bridges or ferries. That at said date said several portions of said city were more or less populously inhabited, that portion lying north of the Raccoon river and west of the Des Moines river being then and ever since much the most populous, and containing then and ever since the court-house of the county of Polk, all the county offices of said county, the city post-office, and within said territory was and ever since has been the largest portion of the trading and other business done in said city. That on the completion of defendant's bridge across the Des Moines river defendant began running its trains westward through the western portion of said city. That immediately thereafter the demands of public travel and convenience called for depot accommodations on the west side of the Des Moines river, in said city of Des Moines, and efforts were made by persons living on the west side of said river and in said city for such accommodations, and in response thereto, and about the year 1868, the defendant established and ever since has maintained a station and depot of its road west of said river and in said city, discharging passengers thereat and receiving them therefrom, all of which plaintiffs well knew more than five years prior to the commencement of this action.

That defendant has continued to and now does maintain east of said river, in said city, and upon said lots described in said petition, a passenger depot sufficient to accommodate all ordinary travel coming thereto, and has maintained and now maintains on said lots a freight house, with the usual and necessary side tracks, at which house defendant does all its freight business done in said city. That defendant, in establishing said depot east of said river, did so to accommodate public travel and convenience, and then expected and still expects to maintain the same so long as public travel and conveniencedemand, and from time to time to adapt it thereto, as occasion may require. That defendant agreed to nothing more...