Usual baggage check is mere voucher or token and not a contract of carriage.
Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
The Tennessee law providing for a railroad commission to prevent unjust dis-
criminations and extortionate freight charges held invalid as too vague, dis-
criminating unfairly against railroad companies, and as an attempt to regulate
inter-State commerce. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., xvi. 1.
See BILL OF LADING; CARRIERS.
Tennessee law providing for railroad commission to prevent unjust discrimi
nations and overcharges in freight held invalid as applied to connecting lines run-
ning out of the State, as an attempt to regulate inter-State commerce. Louisville
& N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., xvi. 1.
State act fixing maximum rates for transportation of freight and passengers
is unconstitutional as regulation of inter-State commerce so far as it relates to
shipments on inter State lines. Kaeiser v. Illinois Central R. Co., xvi. 40.
Where by terms of contract of affreightment liability of company is limited
to its own line wholly within State, statute prohibiting freight charges beyond
a sum certain is constitutionally applicable. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R.
& N. R. Co., xvi. 46.
Constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination in charges or transporta-
tion facilities not construed to require a company which has made business con-
nection with another line at a certain point to extend same facilities to another
rival line connecting with it at another point. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v.
Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Constitutional provision that every railroad shall have right to connect with
another, only confers right to connect physically and not to connect business
with business. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Company is not bound to carry beyond its own line. If it chooses to do so, it
may make choice of its agents for that purpose. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v.
Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Company is not bound to construct or maintain stations at points where other
line intersects. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Constitutional prohibition against discrimination in rates is not violated
by refusing to give to one connecting road the same arrangements as to
through rates given to another, unless the conditions of service are substantially
alike. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Court will take judicial notice of system of checking baggage over connecting
lines. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 188.
When baggage master checked trunks over wrong system of connecting lines
and loss occurred beyond the company's line, it was held liable. Whether
plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to detect error from
check in his possession was for jury. Isaacson v. N. Y. Central & H. R. R.
Co., xvi. 188.
A railroad company is not a common carrier beyond its own line. It may
therefore in South Carolina limit its liability as to such transportation as it
pleases by provisions in the bill of lading. Piedmont M'f'g Co. v. Columbia &
G. R. Co., xvi. 194.
Carrier giving through check without limiting its liability is responsible for
safe carriage of baggage beyond its own line to destination. Compromise with
other lines does not alter its liability. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Weaver, xvi.
218.
Company may contract against extra terminal liability. Contract in this case
16 A. & E. R. Cas.-44
CONNECTING LINES-Continued.
held to be clearly to that effect.
xvi. 229.
Agreement between connecting carriers as to through freights, each being
by terms of bill of lading responsible only for his own acts or omissions, does
not constitute them partners and liable for each other's acts or omissions.
Deming v. Norfolk & W. R. R. Co., xvi. 232.
Berg et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.,
When by terms of bill of lading company was exempt from liability for loss
by fire or beyond its own line, and delivered goods at steamboat wharf, and
while in storage awaiting transportation same were burned. Held, company
was not liable. Deming . Norfolk & W. R. Co., xvi. 232.
Party in street car who is familiar with practice, receiving by mistake of
conductor wrong transfer check, is not entitled to ride thereon in the connecting
street car. Bradshaw v. South Boston R. Co., xvi. 386.
Where companies of different States consolidate so as to form continuous
line, one State cannot pass law regulating rates of freight and prohibiting dis
crimination. Louisville & N. R. Čo. v. Railroad Comm., xvi. 1.
Holder of bonds convertible into stock cannot by consolidation be deprived of
right to convert them unless after notice and fair opportunity he has elected not
to exercise his option. Rosenkrans v. Lafayette, B. & M. R. R. Co., xvi. 483.
Companies chartered under laws of different States and consolidated under
laws of both are separate in that each State retains control over charter granted
by it but identical in that the corporations may represent each other in suits by
or against either of them. Nashua & L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., xvi. 488.
Suit by State against one of its corporations for relinquishing powers to an-
other corporation with which it has been consolidated under law of U. S. is suit
arising under U. S. laws and may be moved to U. S. court. Ames v. Kansas
ex rel., xvi. 522.
When corporations have been consolidated by law, court cannot terminate
existence of consolidated company on ground of fraud or defect in consolidation
proceedings. Terhune v. Midland R. R. of N. J., xvi. 665.
The Tennessee law providing for a railroad commission to prevent unjust dis-
crimination and overcharges in freight held invalid as too vague, as discriminat-
ing unfairly against railroads, and as a regulation of inter-State commerce.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., xvi. 1.
State act fixing maximum charges for transportation of freight and passen-
gers is unconstitutional as regulation of inter-State commerce so far as it relates
to shipments over inter-State lines. Kaeiser v. Illinois Central R. Co., xvi. 40.
Where by terms of contract of affreightment liability of company is limited
to its own line within State, statute prohibiting freight charges above a certain
sum is constitutionally applicable. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R.
Co., xvi. 46.
Constitutional provision prohibiting discrimination in charges or transpor
tation facilities not construed to require a company which has made business
connection with another line at a certain point, to extend same facilities to an-
other rival line connecting with it at another point. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.
v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Constitutional provision that every railroad shall have right to intersect, con-
nect with or cross another, gives right to mechanical union only and not the
right to connect business with business. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Den-
ver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
Constitutional prohibition against discrimination in rates is not violated by
refusing to give one connecting road the same arrangements as to through rates
which are given to another, unless the conditions of service are substantially
alike. Atchison, T. &. S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co., xvi. 57.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Continued.
Act approving change of corporate name not obnoxious as private charter or
grant of special privileges. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi.
71.
The court declines to decide that Congress may not confer on inferior courts
jurisdiction in cases where by constitution Supreme Court of U. S. has original
jurisdiction. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Corporation will not be ousted of franchises because original act of incorpo-
ration does not appear to have been passed by constitutional majority, when
there has been great lapse of time and confirmatory legislation. Attorney-Gen'l
v. Joy, xvi. 643.
An act enabling company incorporated under special act to change name and
extend road is not obnoxious as an act renewing or extending special act of in-
corporation. Attorney-General v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Act will not be declared invalid after lapse of thirty years because title em-
braces two objects. Attorney-General v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Act enabling creditors to enforce their demands by sale and transfer of fran-
chises is not obnoxious because it creates new corporations with old chartered
powers. Attorney-General v. Joy, xvi. 643.
When at time municipal subscription is made, tax to pay same is collected by
same officer who collects State and county tax, which officer gives one bond,
subsequent act authorizing appointment of special officer to collect taxes to pay
municipal subscriptions with separate bond is invalid as impairing the obliga
tion of a contract. Edwards v. Williamson, xvi. 668.
See CONTRACT; CONTRACTOR.
Bonds issued on account of construction contract held valid to extent of bene-
fit received by construction, though contract is tainted by fraud because officers
are interested parties. Thomas v. Brownville, etc., R. Co., xvi. 557.
Stockholders alone have equity to restrain suit on illegal construction contract
in which officers are interested. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Čredit Mobilier, xvi. 570.
Granting of construction contract to company in which officers were inter-
ested held, not to be a fraud where stockholders of railroad company had op-
portunity to become members of construction company. Union Pac. R. Co. v.
Credit Mobilier, xvi. 570.
Parties contracting to build road cannot recover for rise in price of rails dur-
ing delay occasioned by railroad company in procuring right of way. Phelps
& Co. v. George's Creek & C. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Representations of president as to capacity of chief engineer of company made
to other contractors but not communicated to those agreeing to build road are
inadmissible when offered by the latter. Phelps & Co. v. George's Creek & C.
R. Co., xvi. 600.
President and chief engineer may testify that their representations and esti-
mates in entering into construction contract were made in good faith. Phelps &
Co. v. George's Creek & C. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Letter was admissible in evidence under circumstances to show position of
parties. Receipt of same might be inferred from subsequent conduct and rela-
tion of parties. Phelps & Co. v. George's Creek & C. R. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Contractor agreed that material furnished by him should become property of
company as soon as estimated by engineer. He sublet job of fencing. Con-
tractor was paid 85 per cent on monthly estimates. Sub-contractor furnished
timber but did not do work in time specified and company took possession of
timber. Contractor had before this surrendered contract. Held, that sub-con-
tractor might recover from company in assumpsit. Sherwood et al. v. Saginaw,
T. & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 605.
Party undertook to build road in time specified in certain manner and at fixed
price and undertook to begin work when notified by railroad company. Com-
pany without giving notice afterwards awarded contract to other party. Held,
that it had virtually contracted with first party for construction and had been
guilty of breach of contract. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co.,
xvi. 609.
In body of construction contract specifications were referred to as annexed.
Held, that annexation of specifications was not condition on which validity of
contract depended, and that original specifications annexed were constructively
part of contract. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Insolvency of party contracting to construct railroad does not exempt railroad
company from liability on contract. Same passes to assignees for benefit of
creditors. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
When party fails to complete construction contract because railroad company
abandons construction and notifies him to stop, company cannot recover dam-
ages for failure to perform the contract within time stipulated, there being no
complaint made on this ground. Hutchinson et al. v. New Sharon, C. V. & E.
R. Co., xvi. 617.
Contract construed to mean that wherever a cut or fill exceeded four feet in
length, whole of that part should be estimated at sixteen or seventeen cents per
yard from natural surface up or down, and that the part of same cut less than
four feet should be estimated at twelve cents per yard. Hutchinson et al. v. New
Sharon, C. V. & E. R. Co., xvi. 617.
Contract will not be reformed when preponderance of evidence is with party
contesting reformation. Hutchinson et al. v. New Sharon, C. V. & E. R. Co.,
xvi. 617.
See BILL OF LADING; ConstruCTION; CONTRActor; Illegal CONTRACT; POOL-
ING CONTRACT; RESCISSION; ULTRA VIRES.
A agreed to construct stock-yards and railroad company agreed to send all
stock transported by it to those yards, unless otherwise ordered, and to give A
loading of all live-stock in city. The company having taken cattle to and from
other yards not specially ordered there, held, that it had broken its contract,
and that number of car-loads taken from other yards was admissible to measure
damages. Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Struble, xvi. 597.
Parties contracting to build road cannot recover for rise in price of rails dur-
ing delay occasioned by railroad company in procuring right of way. Phelps
& Co. v. George's Creek & C. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Contract recited that parties had caused their corporate seals to be fixed and
their corporate names "thereto subscribed respectively by proper officers."
Seals were annexed and contract signed by president of one company and direc-
tor of another. Evidence tended to show that seal was affixed by proper au-
thority. Held, that there was sufficient to make contract prima facie binding.
New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Party undertook to build road in specified manner and at fixed price as soon
as officer of railroad company should notify it that capital stock was subscribed
and thirty per cent paid in. Afterwards without giving notice, contract was
awarded to another party. Held, that contract had virtually been awarded to
first party and that railroad company had broken contract. New England Iron
Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
In body of construction contract specifications were referred to as annexed.
Held, that annexation of specifications was not a condition on which validity of
contract depended and that original specifications not annexed were construc-
tively part of contract. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi.
609.
Insolvency of party contracting to construct railroad does not exempt railroad
company from liability on contract. Same passes to assignees for benefit of
creditors. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Contract can only be rescinded by acts or assent of both parties. It is not
rescinded by insolvency of one of them. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Ele-
vated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Filing by corporation of certificate that it is nominal organization only for
liquidation and is wholly insolvent, is not conclusive upon it as to question
whether it can perform its contracts. New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Ele-
vated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Will not be reformed, when prepondence of evidence is with party contesting
reformation. Hutchinson v. New Sharon, C. V. & E. R. Co., xvi. 617.
See CONSTRUCTION; CONTRACT.
Parties contracting to build road cannot recover for rise in price of rails dur-
ing delay occasioned by railroad company in procuring right of way. Phelps
& Co. v. George's Creek & C. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Cannot offer in evidence representations of president as to capacity of com-
pany's chief engineer not made nor communicated to them. Phelps & Co. v.
George's Creek & C. R. Co., xvi. 600.
Contractor agreed that material furnished by him should become property of
company as soon as estimated by engineer. He then sublet job of fencing.
Contractor was paid 85 per cent on monthly estimates. Sub-contractor fur-
nished timber but did not do work in time specified and company took posses-
sion of timber. Contractor bad before this surrendered contract. Held, that
sub-contractor could recover from company in assumpsit. Sherwood et al. v.
Saginaw, T. & H. R. R. Co., xvi. 605.
Has no lien in absence of contract on subscription to stock which company
has agreed with subscriber to apply to construction of particular part of road
where contractor is at work. Myer & Hay v. Dupont et al., xvi. 621.
There is not any trust for such contractor except as to amount of such sub-
scription remaining in hands of company after construction of the part of the
road to which subscription was to be applied. Myer & Hay v. Dupont et al.,
xvi. 621.
See NEGLIGENCE (CONTRIBUTORY).
Delivery of wheat by carrier to consignee contrary to directions, without first
receiving the whole purchase money, amounts to conversion. It may be shown
in mitigation of damages that consignee afterwards paid for wheat in full.
Jelletts. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co., xvi. 246.
Admixture of grain in elevator with other grain of like quality does not
amount to a conversion. Arthur v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 283.
Preferred stockholder filing bill to have portion of rental on lease of road
applied as dividend on preferred stock, held, bound to show first that a certain
conveyance was void which he was held estopped to do because of adjudication
on point in former suit to which he was a party. Emerson v. New York & N.
E. R. R. Co., xvi. 404.
See CHARTER; FOREIGN CORPORATION.
Public nature of railroad corporations dwelt upon and legislative power over
them considered. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm., xvi. 1.
Final action of stockholders in changing corporate name must be taken to have
been in pursuance of order of board of directors. Such order is at any rate im-
material. Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., xvi. 71.
Act approving change of corporate name not obnoxious as private charter
|