Only in case of wilful violation of contract will rule be applied that passenger
while being put off for non-payment of fare cannot acquire right of passage by
tendering same. Louisville, N. &. Gt. S. R. Co. v. Harris, xvi. 374.
When passenger is expelled for non-payment of fare before he has time to
borrow amount from fellow-passenger, he cannot recover exemplary damages in
the absence of malice on conductor's part in ejecting him. Curl v. Chicago,
R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 379.
Where drunken passenger is put off for non-payment of fare, the company
bound to eject him in such place as will not, on account of his condition,
endanger his life and health. Louisville, C. &. St. L. R. Co. v. Sullivan,
xvi. 390.
May recover for insolence and abuse of servants. If there is any justification,
the burden is on the company to prove it. Bryan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.,
xvi. 335.
Company is liable for unwarrantable assaults by servants on passengers.
International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v. Kentle, xvi. 337.
Where passenger is injured while travelling for pleasure in street car on
Sunday he may recover. Knowlton v. Milwaukee City R. Co., xvi. 330.
When jury report in special findings damage to passenger from sudden start-
ing of train to be $300, a general verdict of $700 will be set aside, if plaintiff is
not entitled to exemplary damages. Atchison, T. &. S. F. R. Co. v. Harvey,
xvi. 352.
Sleeping-car companies must use reasonable diligence to guard clothes and
valuables of sleeping passengers. In action for loss of watch and money, where
porter on watch had left guard for short time, question of negligence was for jury.
Evidence was admissible that another passenger had watch stolen same night in
same car. Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Gardner, xvi. 324.
Passenger by accident dropped valuable parcel out of open window. Con-
ductor, though asked, refused to stop train until next station was reached. The
parcel was never found. Held that the company was not liable. Henderson v.
Louisville, etc., R. Co., xvi. 397.
Execution issued by passenger on judgment for personal injuries will not be
enjoined on application of creditors of partnership of which company defendant
is a member. Lamoille V. R. R. Co. et al. v. Bixby & M. & St. J. R. R. Co.,
xvi. 474.
May be imposed to prevent excessive freight charges and discriminations as
to railroads wholly within the State, but not as to those without. Louisville &
N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., xvi. 1.
Law imposing penalties on railroad companies for unjust discrimination and
excessive charges is void as an unfair discrimination against railroad com-
panies. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Com., 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.
Crown cannot be made liable in proceeding in nature of petition of right for
injury to passengers on railways owned and operated by Dominion of Canada.
Queen v. McLeod, xvi. 301.
As to particularity necessary in statements of complaint. Ayres et al. v.
Chicago & N. W. R. Co., xvi. 171; Richardson v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co.,
Answer may contain different inconsistent pleas, but each plea must be
consistent with itself. International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v. Kentle, xvi.
337.
It is error to strike special defences out of pleadings, though evidence as to
them is admitted under general denial. International & Gt. Northern R. Co. v.
Kentle, xvi. 337.
Objection that company sued is not corporation should be taken by answer
and not by demurrer. Stanly v. Richmond & D. R. Co., xvi. 545.
See AMENDMENT; APPEALS; COSTS; DAMAGES; EQUITY; EVIDENCE; GARNISH-
MENT; INTEREST; JURISDICTION: PLEADING; REMOVAL OF CAUSES; SER-
VICE OF PROCESS; UNITED STATES COURts; Venue.
Trial will not be continued because party fails to obey subpoena duces tecum,
when same was not served until day before trial. Matters of this sort are
largely within discretion of trial court. Texas Express Co. v. Scott, xvi. 111.
Instruction submitting question of law to court sitting as jury is properly re-
fused. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. v. Cleary, xvi. 122.
Instruction which is under pleadings and evidence a mere abstraction is
properly refused. St. Louis, K. C. & Ñ. R. Co. v. Cleary, xvi. 122.
Charge to jury should be in reference to tendencies of testimony and should
be construed in light thereof. South & North Ala. R. Co. v. Wood, xvi. 267.
Court cannot require the jury to determine the issue from the pleadings.
Bryan v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., xvi. 335.
It is fatal error to submit to the jury a question not raised by pleadings. Ely
v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., xvi. 342.
In this case the answers to special questions were held so evasive and unsatis-
factory as to warrant belief that the railroad company had not had fair trial
and therefore to warrant reversal. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Harvey,
xvi. 352.
Plaintiff announced that he had no challenges to make. Defendant then
challenged two jurors. Plaintiff could not afterwards demand a right of chal-
lenge. Ward v. Charleston City R. Co., xvi. 356.
Allegations by trustee presenting for trial same issues raised and tried between
principal parties will be dismissed on motion. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co.,
xvi. 408.
Court had power in this case to authorize action to determine rights of parties,
instead of determining them upon a motion. Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al.,
xvi. 501.
Jury must determine all disputed questions of fact. Sacalaris v. Eureka & P.
R. Co., xvi. 580.
Preferred stockholder seeking to have conveyance of road set aside, held,
estopped by adjudication on point in former suit to which he was a party.
Emerson v. New York & N. E. R. R. Co., xvi. 404.
Preferred stockholder is not a creditor and is not entitled to guaranteed
PREFERRED STOCK-Continued.
dividend until debts are paid and then only out of net earnings applicable to
dividend. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Holder of certificates of scrip issued by company as dividend on preferred
stock and convertible into bonds may maintain suit thereon where nearly all the
other certificates issued have been recognized and converted into bonds, and
this though company was in debt when scrip dividends were issued, and net
earnings were insufficient to pay them. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi.
408.
Fact that plaintiff was stockholder did not make him so far party to issue of
scrip as to prevent his recovery thereon. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi.
408.
The certificates ran to holder, went on market and were purchased by
plaintiff. He was always treated as original holder, and certificates as running
to bearer. Held, he could sustain action thereon in his own name. Chaffee v.
Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
The acts of directors recognizing validity of corporate action in issuing scrip
and authorizing issue of bonds to take it up. Held, a ratification of its validity.
Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Last issue of the scrip certificates did not recite convertibility; but officers at
time of issue assured plaintiff they were convertible into bonds. Held, that they
should be treated same as other certificates. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi.
Pooling agent is trustee and is accountable as such in court of equity. Nashua
& L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., xvi. 488.
When pooling contract is once executed, corporation entering into it is es-
topped to deny validity of contract in defence of an action for its infraction
brought by the other party. Still less can agents of party set up such defence.
Nashua & L. R. Co. v. Boston & L. R. Co., xvi. 488.
Information in nature of quo warranto is in effect a civil proceeding.
v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Where statute abolishes information in nature of quo warranto and substi-
tutes action to same effect, cause may be removed to U. S. courts when other
circumstances warrant removal. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Suit by State against one of its corporations for relinquishing powers to
another corporation with which it has been consolidated under laws of U. S.,
and proceedings against directors of consolidated company for usurping powers
of State corporation, are suits arising under laws of U. S. and may be removed
to U. S. courts. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Before entering judgment of ouster, regard will be had to honor of State.
Attorney-Gen'l v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Judgment of ouster will not be entered on ground that original act authoriz
ing change of name and purchase of property and franchises of another company
was void because not passed by constitutional majority, when long time has
elapsed, acts have been done on faith of validity of original statute and divers
other statutes have been passed recognizing validity of statute above named.
Attorney-Gen'l v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Failure of company to run trains to terminus fixed in original charter is not
ground for forfeiture of franchises when discontinuance is caused by act of
Tessee in adopting another through route and public at large are not injured.
Att'y-Gen'l v. Erie & Kalamazoo R. Co., xvi. 652.
See COMMISSIONS; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Where parties have not appealed from orders appointing receiver and defining
powers, they cannot dispute or question powers. Woodruff . Erie R. Co. et
al., xvi. 501.
Court may direct how property shall be managed while in hands of receiver.
Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al, xvi. 501.
Liabilities created by receivership must be fully paid before any other claims
can be made against the property Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al., xvi. 501
By taking possession of leased road affirms the lease and incurs liability to pay
rent according to its terms. Woodruff v. Erie R. Co. et al., xvi. 501
Stock book containing party's name as stockholder may go in evidence in sult
for call to show that he was a subscriber. Pittsburgh, W. & K R R. Co o.
Applegate & Son, xvi. 440.
Contract will not be reformed when preponderance of evidence is with party
contesting reformation. Hutchinson et al. v. New Sharon, E. V & E. R Co.,
xvi. 617.
From lessor to lessee held by its terms to cover any claim of lessee against
lessor for money paid to take up coupons on lessor's bonds in pursuance of
terms of lease. Stewart et al. v. Hoyt's Exr's, xvL 513
See JURISDICTION; UNITED STATES COURTS.
Where there are two plaintiffs and two defendants and one of plaintiffs and
one of defendants are citizens of same State, case cannot be removed to United
States courts. Walser et al v. Memphis, C. & N. W. R. Co., xvi 449
When cause is once removed to United States court, no change of pleadings
or in relationship of parties by amendment can confer jurisdiction not disclosed
by original proceedings in State court Walser et al. v. Memphis, C. & N W
R. Co., xvi. 449.
Bill was filed by stockholders to set aside lease as void. Defendants moved
to remove to U. S. court on ground that lease was authorized by State statute
which complainants averred to be in violation of original charter contract. Held,
that as contention was not raised by pleadings, mere possibility that it might
arise did not warrant removal Mills et al. v. Central R. R. of Ñ. J., xvi 491.
When main controversy is between citizens of same State and there is no
controversy wholly between citizens of different States which can be fully
determined between them, cause cannot be removed to United States court.
Mills et al. v. Central R. R. of N. J., xvi. 491.
When statute abolishes quo warranto proceedings and substitutes action to
same effect, such action may be removed to U S. circuit court when other
circumstances warrant removal. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522
Suft by State against one of its corporations for relinquishing powers to an-
other corporation with which it has become consolidated under laws of U. S.,
and proceedings against directors of consolidated company for usurping powers
of State corporation are suits arising under U S. laws, and may be removed to
to U. S. Court. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
The court declines to decide that Congress may not confer on inferior courts
jurisdiction in cases where by constitution Supreme Court of the United States
has original jurisdiction. Ames v. Kansas ex rel., xvi. 522.
Suits cognizable in U. S. courts on account of nature of controversy, and not
required to be brought originally in U. S Supreme Court may be removed to
US Circuit Courts irrespective of character of parties. Ames Kansas ex
Act enabling creditors to buy in at foreclosure sale and reorganize is not ob-
noxious because it creates new corporation with old chartered powers. Attor-
ney-General v. Joy, xvi. 643.
Stockholder cannot have ultra vires transactions of directors set aside unless
he held his interest at time of transactions complained of nor unless he has ex-
hausted his legal remedies. Dimpfel v Ohio & M. R. Co., xvi. 461.
When trustee by misrepresenting material facts obtains conveyance of sub-
jects of trust for inadequate consideration, rule requiring rescission of contract
immediately upon discovery of fraud does not apply. Cook et al. v. Sherman
et al, xvi 561.
Contract can only be rescinded by acts or assent of both parties. It is not
rescinded by insolvency of one of parties New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert
Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609.
Directors may employ solicitor and fix his salary. Shareholders cannot undo
arrangement in respect of past services. Falkiner v. Grand Junction R Co,
XVL 591.
Statutory duty of agent of carrier proceeding to sell unclaimed prckages The
sale in this case held tainted by fraud Nathan Bros. v. Shivers, xvi 276.
Property purchased from private railroad corporation in good faith is not
affected with trust in hands of purchaser for unpaid debts of corporation, though
purchaser had notice of their existence Branson Oregonian Ry Co xvi
Owner of personalty is not estopped to set up his right thereto as against pur-
chaser from ostensible owner when purchaser knew who really had title. Saca
laris Eureka & P. R. Co., xvi. 580
Company issuing scrip convertible into bonds as dividend on preferred stock,
and recognizing greater part of said scrip as valid by issuing bonds to take up
same, is estopped to deny validity of rest of scrip though it was in debt when
scrip was issued and net earnings were insufficient to pay same Chaffee v.
Rutland R R. Co, xvi. 408.
Fact that plaintiff was stockholder did not make him party to issue of scrip
so as to defeat recovery thereon. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Ran to holder and went into market where it was bought up by plaintiff
Company always recognized him as original holder and considered certificates
as running to bearer. Held, that he could sue thereon in his own name.
Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
When certificates of scrip did not contain recitals of convertibility into bonds,
company was held bound by representations of officers at time of issue that such
was the case. Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., xvi. 408.
Contract reciting that seal is properly annexed accompanied with evidence
tending to show that same is affixed by competent authority, is valid and bind-
ing New England Iron Co. v. Gilbert Elevated R. Co., xvi. 609
|