Southern R. Co. v., (Ark.)...... 208 Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., Brown v., (Mo.).... 871 I. ... Co., (N. Car.)...... State ex rel. Love v., (Mo.).. 263 Harrell v. Wilmington & Weldon Harris, Savannah, Florida & West ern R. Co. v., (Fla.). Hazard. Illinois Central R. Co., (Miss.) 579 584 457 v. Gilbert, (Tenn.) v. Gilmer, (Ala,).. 455 v. Kelsey, (Ala.) Hennessey, Missouri Pacific R. Co. v., (Tex.).. 225 Hixon v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., (Iowa). 349 Howe v. Harding (Tex.).. I Hoyt v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., (N. Y.). .115, 181 Hunt, Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. People ex rel., (Ill.). . 671 Hunter v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (Tex.). 501 Illinois Central R. Co., Beard v., (Iowa). Hazard v., (Miss.). 445 587 v. Merriwether's Adm'r, (Ky.). 216 Louisville, New Albany & Chicago R. Co. v. Goodykoontz, (Ind.).. 40 Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. v. Smith, (Miss.). Lounsbury V. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., (Iowa). 349 Love, State ex rel., v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.)...... 263 Ludden, Columbus & Western R. Co. v., (Ala.). . McBride v. Northern Pacific R. Co., (Or.). 404 146 455 International & G. N. R. Co v. v. Garcia, (Tex.). --. McDonald, (Tex.)..,. Investment Co. of Philadelphia v. Ohio & N. W. R. Co., (C. C.)........ Jager v. Dey, (Iowa).. Jaughn v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., (Iowa).. Jennings v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. B. Co., (Mo.).. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., (Mo.).. Jewett v. Olson, (Or.).. Johnson, Texas & Pacific R. Co. v., (Tex.). Jones v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain 7 Memphis & L. R. Co. v. Shoecraft, & Southern R. Co., (Ark.)...... 596, Milwaukee, Lake Shore & West Keeney v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., (Or.).. Kelsey, Louisville & Nashville R. Missouri Pac. R. Co., Kohler, State ex rel., v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific R. ..... Co., (Ohio).. 330 & Baltimore R. Co., (Ohio).... 330 Lancashire & Yorkshire R. Co., Mayor, etc., of Bury v., (Eng.). 56 Langlois, Montana Union R. Co. v., (Mont.).. Lay v. Richmond & Danville R. 646! 34 McNeal v. Pittsburg & W. R. Co., 528 Marshall, City of, Texas & Pacific R. Co. v., (U. S.). 637 Mayor, etc., of Bury v. Lancashire 80 587 ern R. Co., Schindler v., (Mich.) 192 Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. State of Minnesota ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission, (U. S.)...... 316 603 498 688 | Mount Pleasant Manuf'g Co. v. New York & New England R. Co., Nieman v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., Northeastern R. Co. v. Chandler, (Ga.).. 611 Robinson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Rock Creek Township ex rel. Ty- & Quincy R. Co., (Iowa)... 414 St. Joseph & Grand Island R. Co., Rock Creek Township ex rel. Tyler v., (Kan.). 255 590 .... 50 579 St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute R. Co., Beard v., (Iowa).. 509 ..92, 93 Northern Pacific R. Co., McBride v., (Or.)... St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas R. Co., Central Trust Co. v., (C. C.)...... 26 146 v., (Or.).. Smalley, (Wash.). Olsen, Jewett v., (Or.). Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., Keeney Sullivan v., (Or.). 435 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern R. Co., Baird v., (C. C.)... 281 v. Hall, (Ark.)... 208 Pence v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., (Iowa). Pennsylvania Co. v. Ellett, (Ill).. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. American Oil Works, Limited, (Pa.).... v. Weiller, (Pa.).......... v. Wilson, (Pa.).......... .92, 153, People v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee R. Co., (Mich)... 257 ex rel. Hunt, Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. (Ill.). . Smith v., (Ga.).. 105 Moses v., (Or.)... Southern Pacific R. Co., Hunter Stanley. Wabash, St. Louis & 637 501 " 528 555 7 Pacific R. Co., (Mo.)... 328 State v. Alabama & V. R. Co. (Miss.). 681 80 7. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., (Neb.).. 248 623 v. Walsh, (Minn.).. ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse Commission, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v., (U. S.) 285 ex rel. Kohler v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific R. Co., (Ohio). ex rel. Kohler v. Cincinnati Washington & Baltimore R. Co., (Ohio).. 330 City of Marshall v., (U. S.) 637 v. Griffin, (Tex.).. v. Johnson, (Tex.). 20 (Sullivan, Intervenor) Missouri Pacific R. Co. v., (C. C.).. 34 Township of Etobicoke, Mead v., (Ont.).... of Rock Creek ex rel. Tyler v. St. Joseph & Grand Island R. Co., (Kan.).. : 255 Tupelo Furniture Manuf'g Co., Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v., (Miss.) 497 Tyler, Rock Creek Township ex rel. v. St. Joseph & Grand Island 330 ex rel. Love v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., (Mo.).. 263 (Central R. Co. of New Jersey, v. Mayor, etc., of 247 ex rel. Railroad & Warehouse 316 ex rel. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba R. Co. v. District Court, (Minn.). Co., Stanley v.. (Mo.).. Walsh, State v., (Minn.), . Webb v. East Tennessee, Virginia 328 623 241 ex rel. Board of Transportation v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (Neb.)... Use of Steever v. Union R. Co. of Baltimore, (Md.)........ 167| Union R. Co. of Baltimore v., (Md.). State Board of Assessors, Williams v., (N. J.). 172 Steever, State to Use of, v. Union Michigan R. Co., (Mich.).. v. State Board of Assessors, (N. J.)... 661 271 271 172 Wilmington & Weldon R. Co., Bullock v., (N. Car.). 93 579 v. Co., (Iowa). v., (C. C.). Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Sullivan, Missouri Pacific R. Co. 595 34 (Or.)... Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 625 Wright v. Detroit, Grand Haven 135 THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOLUME XLII. HOWE ย. HARDING. (Texas Supreme Court, February 4, 1890.) Receiver-Grant of Right of Way-Lien upon Railroad and Earnings.Where a railroad company has agreed, in consideration of a grant of right of way, to erect and maintain a water tank upon the lands of the proprietor, to be supplied with water from an elevated spring thereon, which should be used by the company and for which the owner should be paid the compensation usually payable for such a privilege, a lien exists upon the right of way granted for the payment of such sum, and an action will lie against the receiver of the company, under the provisions of Tex. Gen. Laws, 1887, p. 121, § 15, that "all judgments, claims or causes of action when determined, existing against any corporation at the time of the appointment of a receiver, shall be paid out of the earnings of such corporation while in the hands of the receiver lien upon such earnings." * and the same shall be a APPEAL from District Court, Polk County. James E. Hill, for appellee. 1880, Facts. STAYTON, C. J.-Appellee alleges that he made a contract with the Houston, East & West Texas Railway Company in whereby that company, in consideration of the grant of right of way across a tract of land owned by him, and other lands of which he had possession, control, and management, agreed to erect and maintain a water tank on his land, to be supplied with water from an elevated spring thereon, which was to be used by the company, for which he was to be paid as much per month as the privilege or service. He alleges that the tank was erected, company should pay to any other person on its line for like by himself laid from the spring to the tank, a distance of about 1,000 feet, and that he thus furnished the company with 1 |