Rockwell v. New York & New England Railroad
Rockwell v. New York & New England Railroad
Opinion of the Court
In 1833 the Manchester Railroad Company was chartered to build a railroad from Hartford to Bolton.
In 1847 the Hartford, Providence and Fishkill Railroad company was chartered, with authority to take the rights granted to the Manchester Railroad Company, to build a railroad to Willimantic and to make joint stock with any other railroad company in this or any adjoining state; and in 1848 it was authorized to build a railroad to Rhode Island. In 1849 the New York and Hartford Railroad Company,' and the Hartford, Providence and Fishkill Railroad Company, were consolidated, under the name of The Hartford, Providence and Fishkill Railroad Company, with power to take the rights given to the two, and to build a road from Providence to Fishkill. It built a road as far eastward as Willimantic in 1849, and to Providence in 1854. In 1858, its road being completed westward from Hartford to Waterbury, it passed into the hands of trustees for bondholders under mortgages. In 1863 the legislature chartered the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad Company, with power to buy the Hartford, Providence and Fishkill Railroad franchise and extend the road eastward to Boston and westward to Fishkill. In 1868 this company purchased the locus in quo, which was in the line of location of some one of the prior corporations, but did not complete a road over-it; and prior to 1873 its franchise passed into the possession of trustees for bondholders under the Berdell mortgage. In the last named year the legislature chartered these bondholders under the name of the New York and New England, Railroad Company, with power to enter upon and take land over which either of these named preceding corporations had located or over which itself should locate a line of railroad for the construction of a road. In 1875 it built and has since operated its road over the locus in quo. In August, 1882, without negligence upon the part of the plaintiff, his ox strayed upon the unfeneed track of the defendant and.
The statute (Acts of 1881, p. 35, § 1,) provides that “ every railroad company shall erect and maintain fences on the sides of the railroads operated b3r it, at such place or places as the railroad commissioners shall direct, and every railroad company operating any railroad constructed under any act of incorporation passed since the first Wednesday of May, 1850, or hereafter constructed, shall cause sufficien fences to be erected and maintained on the sides of such railroads, except at such place or places as the railroad commissioners shall adjudge them unnecessaiy; such fences to be erected by all companies hereafter organized' within twelve months after they enter upon and take possession of the lands through which their railroads pass.”
It is the claim of the defendant that this statute does not require it to fence its railroad at the place in question; that it is to be regarded as operating a railroad constructed under an act of incorporation passed prior to 1850, by reason of the rights, powers and privileges conferred by the General Assembly upon certain other railroad companies, to which rights it had by law succeeded, and b3r the force of the provisions of the acts of incorporation of said companies, and of itself.
But the defendant is a corporation quite distinct from and independent of any other — so created in 1873. To it was given the power to acquire a section of completed railroad constituting a portion of a contemplated line extending from Boston to the Hudson River, and construct the unfinished part. Of course its charter is not in the form of words in which it would have been had it been the first grantee of the right to build. The legislature conferred upon it power to do what other corporations had been authorized to do and had failed to accomplish. Its charter avoids repetition in detail of the franchises given to and surrendered by these, and in the interest of brevity and certainty refers to former charters, not as the source, but as the measure of the power granted to it. No previous corporate life is
There is no error in the judgment complained of.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Rufus T. Rockwell v. The New York & New England Railroad Company
- Status
- Published