Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/151

 PART I.J CONSTRUCTION OF CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 163. moreover, extends only to property reasonably necessary to en- able it to fulfill the purposes of its incorporation. 1 When the legislature has not declared that the property sought to be condemned is necessary for the company, such necessity, if contested is a question for the court ; for the determination of the company in this matter is not conclusive ; 2 and the scope of the right is always to be construed strictly against the cor- poration, so as carefully to protect the property of individuals from its exercise except for a public use. 3 Nevertheless, stat- utes conferring the rights of eminent domain are not to be con- strued so literally as to frustrate the evident intent of the leg- islature. 4 See Allen v. Jones, 47Ind. 438; Rens- selaer, etc., R. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137. And the right always re- mains conditioned on the legality of the corporate organization. See § 155. 1 Tracy v. Elizabethtown, etc., R. R. Co., 80 Ky. 259; Chicago and Western Indiana R. R. Co. v. Dun- bar, 100 111. 110. Railroad compan- ies cannot thus acquire lands for speculative purposes. Rensselaer, etc., R. R. Co. b. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137. See N. Y. and Canada R. R. Co. v. Gunnison, 1 Hun, 496. But they may take more than is necessary for their present needs, provided it be no more than reasonably anticipated future business will require. Lodge v. Phila., Wilm. and Bait. R. R. Co., 8 Phila. 345. Compare Proprietors of Locks and Canals v. Nashua and Lowell R. R. Co., 104 Mass. 1. 2 Matter of New York Central R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 407; S. C, 77 N. Y. 248; Rensselaer and S. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137; Tracy v. Eliza- bethtown, etc., R. R. Co., 80 Ky. 259. St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk, 191 Pa. St. 458; See In re Rhode Isl. Sub. Ry. Co., 22 R. I. 457. 3 Erie R. R. Co. v. Steward, 170 N. Y. 172. Alexandria and F. Ry. Co. v. Alexandria and W. R. R. Co., 75 Va. 780; Doughty v. Somerville, etc., R. R. Co., 21 N. J. L. 442; Moorhead v. Little Miami R. R. Co., 19 Ohio, 340; Merritt v. Portchester, 71 N. Y. 309; Pueblo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Rudd, 5 Cal. 270; Spofford v. Bucksport, etc., R. R. Co. 66 Me. 26; East and West R. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, etc., R. R. Co., 75 Ala. 275; Alabama Gt. Southern R. R. v. Gilbert, 71 Ga. 591. See § 122. 4 In re New York and Harlem R. R. Co. v. Kip, 46 N. Y. 546. When for some reason a railroad company has no authority to condemn a cer- tain right of way, it may cause an- other company to be formed of its own shareholders, and to be so or- ganized as to have the requisite power; and after the subsidiary com- pany has condemned the right of way, it may lease the same to the other company. Lower v. C. B. and Q. R. Co., 59 Iowa, 563. But one railroad company cannot condemn land for another. Swinney v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. R. Co., 59 Ind. 205. It is no bar to the exercise of the power of eminent domain that a railroad company has the same stock- holders as a private business cor- poration, and is alleged to be subsid- 131