Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

624

1

598

98

438

Hares v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. Lieberman v. Chicago & South k. Co., (No.)....

425 Side Rapid Transit R. Co., (I11.) 581 Hercules Iron Works v. Elgin, J. Livermon a'. Roanoke & Tar * E. R. Co., (Ill.).. .607, 624 River R. Co., (N. Car.).

562 Hine z'. Manhattan R. Co., (sl. Y.) 603 Longworth v. Meriden & W. R. Hlodzes V. Seaboard & R. R. Co. : Co., (Conn.).. la.).....

636 Los Angeles P. Ew G. R. Co. v. Hoffman v. Bloomsburg â S. R. Į Rumpe, (Cal.)...

618 Co., (Pa.)...

580 Louisville ili 0. & T. R. Co. Hoke v. Georgia R. Ew Banking Co., v. Blythe, (Miss.). .

.568, 570 (Ga.). . 543 McIlhenny v. Bins, (Tox.).

97 Holloway v. Louisville, St. L. & T. McMinn v. Pittsburgh, 11. Ew Y. R. Co., (K’y.)

3871
R. Co., (Pa.).

395 Houill v. Killie, (Colo.).

286 Ili Reynolits 2'. kunsas City C. Eu Horle v. New York Cow N. E. R. S. R. Co., (.110.)... Co., (Conn.)..

368 Mayer v. Fort Wayne, Cincinnati Humphreys, Quincy, Missouri & & Louisville R. Co., (Ind.).... 68 Pacific R. Co. v., (U. S.)..... 33 Jeau v. Norfolk Ev II. R. Co., 24. Richmond & Mecklenburg (la.). .

425 R. Co., (Va.)....

397 Mercantile Trust Co. 2. Missouri Huntingburg, Tell City & Cannel. etc. R. Co., (C. C.)...

72 ton R. Co., American Cannel | Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Coal Co, v., (Ind.). ..... 653 Co. v. l'estor, (C. C....

680 Hutchinson v. McLaughlin, (Colo.) 575 Minneapolis, Sault Sie. Marie & Illinois Central R. Co. v. City of Atlantic R. Co., Guilford 2'., Chicago, (I11.)..

528

(Minn.).. in re Flint P. M. R. Co., Alinnesota Belt Line R. Transfer (Mich.)..

Co. 7'. Gluek, (Vinn.). .. ..600, 603 St. Lawrence & A. R. Co., Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co., (1. 1.)..

669

United States 7'., (U. S.).... 305 Split Rock Cable Road Co., Moore, Ex parte, (L'. S.)...

55 (N. Y.)....

514 Morgan i'. N200 York Sv 11. R. Co., Interstate Commerce Commission (.1. 1'.)...

658 2. Texas & Pacific R. Co., (U.S.) 33 Morris z'. Tottenham & Forest Investment Co. of Philadelphia ?'. Gate R. Co., (Eng.).

Ohio SV. I'. R. Co., (C. C.)..96, 98 - v. Ilisconsin Midland R. Co., Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West (Ilis.)...

668 R. Co. v. Adams, (Fla.). ....544, 561 Mullen v. Oregon Short Line & Jones, Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Northern R. Co., (Ore.)..

441 R. Co. v., (Tex.).

415 New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., - v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (Pa.) 551 Woodruff v., (N. Y.)... Kansas & Arkansas Valley R. Co. New York & New England R. Co., v. Payne et al., (U. S.)......

518
White 7., (Mass.)...

392 Kansas City & Southeastern R. New York, New Haven En Hart

Co., Roanoke Investment Co. ford R. Co. ?'. Cockcroft, (C. C.).. 679 z'., (Mo.)....

426 Vorth Carolina R. Co. 2. Goodwin, Kansas City, W. E N. W. R. Co. (.V. Car.)...

682 v. Fisher, (Kan.)...

624 Northern Pacific R. Co. '. Barden, v. Kennedy, (Kan.). .

681 (U. S.). Kerfoot, Guli, Colorado & Santa

v. Charless, (U. S.).

198 Fe R. Co. v., (Tex.).

682
V. Jackman, (Dak.).

576 Knoxville C. G. Sou L. R. Co. v.

Oregon Short Line & Utah Beeler, (Tenn.)....

395 Northern R. Co. v., (U. S.)..... 145 Kremer v. Chicago, Milwaukee &

'. Sanders, (C. C.).... . 304, 359 St. Paul R. Co., (Minn.).. 382 2. Il'right, (C. C.)..

359 Lake Erie En W. R. Co. v. Priest, Northern Parc. Ew P. S. S. R. Co. (Ind.)..

v. Coleman, (Ilash.).

- 599, 643 Leeds v. Camden & A. R. Co., (21. Odum v. Rutledge Ew J. R. Co., 1.)...

658 Ala.)... Lent v. Xesu York Ev M. R. Co., O'Hare v. Chicago, II. S 1. R. (.1. Y.).

653 Co., (III.).

512, 605, 679

360

89

1

236

396

679

vi

1.

632

396

643

518

.V.

Ohio River R. Co., Gillingham v., Ward, (Minn.)..

325 (W. Va.). .

222 San Bernardino Eu E. R. Co. v. Ohio Valley R. & Terminal Co. v. Haven, (Cal.)...

..600, 616 K'eoth, (Ind.).

boi Seattle - Nontana R. Co. 2. GilOlcott v. Headrick, (U. S.).

71 christ, (Wash.).. .603, 606, 607 Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern

v. Murphine, (Wash.) 598, 616, 617 R. Co. v. Mitchell, (Utah). 592 v. Scheike, (Wash.). . Mullen v., (Ore.).

444 Shoemaker v. Cedar Rapids, 1. F. & v. Northern Pacific R. Co., N. W.R. Co., (Minn.)... (U. S.). .....

145 Shortle et al. v. Terre Haute & Skottowe v., (Ore.).

444 Indianapolis R. Co., (Ind.)..... 576 Packard v. Bergen Neck R. Co., (N. Sioux City & Iowa Falls Town 7.)...

.513, 598, 679 Lot & Land Co.v. Griffey, (U. S.) 347 Parker v. Ft. Worth & Denver Skottowe v. Oregon Short Line & City R, Co., (Tex.). .....

Utah Northern R. Co., (Ore.)... 444 Payne,, Kansas & Arkansas Val- Small v. Georgia Southern & F. R. ley R. Co. v., (U. S.)..

Co., (Ga.). .

570 V. Morgans L. & T. R. & S. South Carolina R. Co., LackaCo., (La.)...

388

wanna Iron & Coal Co. InterPennsylvania, Finance Co. of, v. venors,) Bound v., (U. S.). ...

58 Charleston, Cincinnati & Chi.

Coghlan v., (U. S.)..

79 cago R. Co., (U. S.).....

55 South & North Alabama R. Co., Pennsylvania, S. V. R. Co. v. Elyton Land Co. v., (Ala.). . 371

Reading Paper Mills, (Pa.) 669 Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Stanley, Philadelphia, Harrisburg & Pitts- (C. C.)....

286 burg R. Co., Gorgas v., (Pa.)... 593

United States v., (U. S.).. 331 Pickett v. Toleilo, St. L. & K'. C. Split Rock Cable Road Co., In re., R. Co., (Ind.).. 387 (N. Y.)....

514 Pittsburgh Junction R. Co. Spokane & Palouse R. Co., HamilAllegheny Valley R. Co., (Pa.)... 512 ton v., (Idaho).

352 Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., -- v. Lieuallen, (Idaho).

592 Graham v., (Pa.)...

619 State, Galveston, Harrisburgh & Pittsburgh E IV. R. Co. z. Per- San Antonio R. Co. v., (Tex.).. 287 kins, (Ohio).

v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., (Iowa).. 71 Pratt v. Roseland R. Co. et al.,

v. National Docks & N. J.]. (N. J.)....

Canal Co. (N. J.)..

658 Protheroe v. Tottenham & Forest Stockton. Attorney General, Gate R. Co., (Eng.).

649

Central R. Co. of New Jersey,
Providence. So Il. A. Co. v. City of (N. J.)...
WVorcester, (Mass.)

628 Strand, Bellingham Bay & British Quincy, Missouri & Pacific R. Co. Columbia R. Co.1'., (Wash.)... 608 v. Humphreys, (U. S.)..

38 Streyer v. Georgia S. & F. R. Co., Raja'. Walker, (Eng.).

(Ga.).

638 Richmond & Mecklenburgh R. Sugar Run R. Co., Weidenfeld v., Co., Humphreys v., (Va.). 397

(U. S.)...

505 Rio Grande Southern R. Co. v. Tarpey, Deseret Salt Co. v., (U. K'night, (Colo.).....

598
S.)..

276 Roanoke Investment Co. v. Kan. Taylor v. Chicago M. & St. P. R.

sas City & Southeastern R. Co., Co., (l'is.).
(Mo.)...

426 Terre Haute & Indianapolis R.
Roanoke & Tar River R. Co., Co., Shorile v., (Ind.).

576
Livermon v., (N. Car.)... 562 Texas & Pacific R. Co., Interstate
Rochester R. Co. v. Robinson, (N. Commerce Commission v., (U.
Y.)....

33 Roseland R. Co. et al., Pratt v., --- V. Snyder, (Tex.)...

630 (N. J.).

632 Texas Western R. Co. v. Wilson, St. Joseph & 1. R. Co. v. Shambaugh, (Tex.). ..

364 (Mo.)..

..618, 677 Thompson v. Chicago, S. F. & C. St. Laurence EA, R. Co., In re, R. Co., (No.).

-566, 652, 658 (N. Y.)....

669 Tottenham & Forest Gate R. Co., St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co. v. Morris v., (Eng.). ....

360

.;; 592

632

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

426

659

649

$.).

458

[ocr errors]

Trans-Missouri Freight Associa- Association, (C. C.)....

tion, United States v., (C. C.).. 458 Ward, St. Paul & Sioux City R. Trester v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., Co. v., (Minn.)...

325 (Neb.).

655 Weeks v. Bridgman, (Minn.). 331 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Chicago, Weidenfeld v. Sugar Run R. Co., Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co., (U. S.)...

505 (U. S.). .

162 White New York & New v Chicago, Rock Island & England R. Co., (Mass.)....... 392 Pacific R. Co., (U. S.)..... 162

V. Wood, (N.Y.)...

73 Union L. E T. Co. v. Southern Wichita & Western R. Co. v. Cal. Motor R. Co., (C. C.).... 72 Fechheimer, (Kan.). .

660 United States v. Alabama Great Wilson, Texas Western R. Co. v., Southern R. Co., (U. S.) 347 (Tex.)....

364 - v. Lynde, (C. C.)...

325 Winnebago Furniture Mfg. Co. v. —v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Wisconsin Midland R. Co., (Wis.) 655 R. Co., (U. S.)....

305 Wood v. Michigan Air Line Co., -v. Sioux City Eau St. P. R. Co., (Mich.). (C. C.)..

304
White v., (N. Y.).

73 v. Southern Pacific R. Co., Woodruff v. New York, L. E. & (U. S.)......... 331 W. R. Co., (N. Y.).

89 Trans-Missouri Freight Young v. Midland R. Co., (Ont.). . 576

387

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

1

THE

AMERICAN AND ENGLISH

RAILROAD CASES.

VOLUME LI.

STOCKTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL

1.

CENTRAL R. Co. OF NEW JERSEY et al.

[ocr errors]

(New Jersey Court of Chancery, August 25, 1892.) Lease— Power of Railroad Company-Legislative Authority.-A railroad company cannot lease or dispose of any franchise needful in the performance of its obligations to the state, without legislative consent.

Sufficiency of Title of Act--Constitutional Law.—The formation and regulation of railroads are subjects naturally and properly related to and connected with each other, and are both germane to the object which is expressed by their being coupled in defining the title of an Act entitled “ An Act to amend an Act entitled 'an Act to authorize the formation of railroad corporations and to regulate the same” (New Jersey Act, March 11, 1880.) This act is sufficiently broad in its terms to confer power upon railroad corporations chartered by special law.

Statute Regulating Railroad Leases --Requirement of Legislative Consent -Special Legislation.- New Jersey Act of May 2, 1885 entitled “ An Act respecting the leasing of railroads" forbidding the leasing of any railroad

, unless the consent of the legislature is first obtained, and providing that such consent may be obtained by submitting a draft of the proposed lease to the legislature for its approval by an act, is constitutional, and is not open to the objection that it contravenes the constitutional prohibition of special legislation.

Lease of Railroad to Foreign Corporation-Device to Evade Statute.-Where a domestic railroad company is forbidden to lease its road and franchises to a foreign corporation it will not be allowed to execute a lease to a domestic corporation which was promoted and is controlled and practically owned by a foreign corporation. In this case the lease by the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey of its road and franchises to the Port Reading R. Co. is but a device to disguise the real nature of the transaction which consisted of a lease to the Philadelphia & Reading R. Co.

Corporate Excess of Power-Public Policy-Action by Attorney General. - Where a corporate excess of power tends to the public injury, or to defeat public policy, it may be restrained in equity at the suit of the attorney general.

a

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »