Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/147

 PART I.] CONSTRUCTION OF CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 162. § 162. In regard to railroad companies, the only capacities requiring mention here * are their powers to locate and construct their roads, and the power ordinarily railroad granted to them to take property by compulsory tions ™" process, there being delegated to them for this pur- -Eminent pose a limited special right of eminent domain. When, within certain limits, the course and manner of con- structing a railroad are entrusted to the railroad company, or to railroad commissioners, their discretion will not be controlled or revised by a court so long as they act in good faith and within their powers. 2 A court of equity will not interfere to control the location of a railroad where the corporation has exercised within the prescribed termini of its route its ac- corded discretion ; 3 the court will not interfere, for instance, on the ground that another site would better subserve public interests. 4 But a railroad company is not justified in sacrificing the public interest to its own advantage, and must regard the interests of the public in locating its route and stations. 5 Fail- ing in this, it cannot be regarded as acting in good faith. Accordingly, on grounds of public policy, contracts to locate a station at a certain spot, coupled with an agreement to estab- lish no other stations in the same vicinity, are void. Ordi- 1 As to the power of railroad com- panies to enter into traffic arrange- ments, or give special facilities to certain customers, see §§ 308, 309. For their liability as carriers, see §§ 347, et seq. In the ordinary course of its busi- ness a railroad company may take and negotiate a promissory note. Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490. 2 Fall River Iron Works Co. v. Old Colony, etc., R. R. Co., 5 Allen (Mass.), 221; Mayor, etc., of Wor- cester v. Railroad Commissioners, 113 Mass. 161, 171; New York H. & N. R. R. Co. v. Boston H. & E. R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 196, 201. 8 Southern Minnesota R. R. Co. v. Stoddard, 6 Minn. 150; Walker u. Mad River & L. E. R. R. Co., 8 Ohio, 38. 4 Parker's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 137 ; Anspach c. Mahanoy, etc., R. R. Co., 5 Phila. (Penn.) 491. 5 A contract which causes the rail- road compauy to disregard its duty to the public, as by unduly lengthen- ing its line for the private advantage of its officers and of various persons, is illegal. Woodstock Iron Co. v. Extension Co., 129 U. S. 643. 6 Texas & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Ro- bards, 60 Tex. 545; St. Louis J. & C. R. R. Co. v. Mathers, 104 111. 257; S. C, 71 111. 592; St. Joseph & D. R. R. Co. v. Ryan, 11 Kan. 602; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Seely, 45 Mo. 212; Ful- ler v. Dame, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 472; Bestor v. Wathen, 60 111. 138; Linder v. Carpenter, 62 111. 309; Marsh v. Fairbury, etc., R. R. Co., 64 111. 414; People v. Chicago & A. R. R. Co., 130 127