Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/160

 § 170.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. But for their im- proper use the corpo- ration lia- ble to in- jured indi- viduals. ordinarily subsist as valid, and afford protection until they are declared forfeited in a proceeding instituted for that purpose. 1 § 169. On the other hand, the fact that a corporation is vio- lating a duty owed by it primarily to the public, for a violation of which the state might forfeit its fran- chises ; or the fact that a corporation is exceeding its corporate powers, and is thereby rendering itself lia- ble to a forfeiture of its franchises, does not prevent an individual who has suffered special damage through its wrongful acts or omissions from maintaining an action against it on his own behalf. 2 Indeed, a corporation will be liable in damages to any person who suffers injury peculiar to himself from the negligent or improper use of its franchises. 3 For instance, the right of a railroad company to lay its tracks in a street or highway imposes on it the obligation to lay them properly and keep them in repair, and if an injury by reason of its neglect in either of these respects is occasioned to any one, the company will be liable. 4 § 170. Furthermore, a corporation that has received special franchises ordinarily continues liable for injuries occurring through the negligent exercise of powers originally conferred on it, although it may have delegated or assigned a portion or the whole of its powers to another corporation or to an individual. Thus, a railroad corporation which has granted the use of its road to another company will be liable for accidents to passengers carried by it- self, caused by the negligent management of the trains Continua- tion of lia- bility after a delega- tion of franchises. 1 Logan v. Vernon, etc., R. R. Co., 90 Ind. 552; see Atlantic and P. R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228; New- York Cable Co. v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 104 N. Y. 1, 43, 2 Riddle v. Proprietors of Locks and Canals, 7 Mass. 109. See Mayor of Lynn v. Turner, Cow per, 86; Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 11 H. L. C. 686; S. C, L. R. 1 H. L. 93; Winch v. Con- servators of the Thames, L. R. 7 C. P. 458; Conrad v. Trustees of Ithaca, 16 N. Y. 158. 3 A railroad company is liable in damages for establishing its engine 140 houses so near an incorporated church as to constitute a nuisance by reason of the noise and smoke. Bal- timore and P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317. Compare Bohan v. Port Jervis Gas Light Co., 125 N. Y. 18; Snell v. Buresh, 123 111. 151; Ridge v. Penna. R. R. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 172. 4 Worcester r. Forty-second Street R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 203. See, also, Baltimore, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Cas- sell, 66 Md. 419. No notice to the company of a patent defect is neces- sary. The presumption of negli-