Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/162

 § 170.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. other hand, when one railroad company competently takes a lease of the road of another, its liabilities springing from the operation of the leased road are determined, not by its own charter, but by the charter of the lessor company. 1 As a corporation cannot escape responsibility for the per- formance of its duties by leasing its property or franchises, 2 so it cannot, by delegating matters to a contractor, escape from the fulfillment of its undertakings or from responsibility for the observance of due care in the exercise of its franchises. 3 Accordingly, where a corporation contracted to lay water- pipes in a city, agreeing to " protect all persons against dam- ages by reason of excavations made by them in laying pipes, and to be responsible for all damages which might occur by reason of the neglect of their employes on the premises," it was held, although the corporation had let the work out to a contractor, that it was liable for injuries incurred by a person passing over the street caused by the negligence of the con- tractor's servants. 4 So a railroad company may be responsible to adjacent land-owners for the trespasses of its contractors in constructing its road, 5 and will ordinarily be liable for the acts of its contractors, as if they were its servants, where the con- tractors in their work are under the direction of the company, 6 Co., 193 Pa. St. 229, hold, that after an authorized lease of its road the les- sor is not liable for the torts of the lessee. See § 305 and note. Since leases of railroads are so usual, it may be that the weight of authority does not uphold the proposition in the text. Thus Harper v. New Port News, etc., Co., 90 Ky. 359, holds, that not the corporation which owns, but the one which has exclusive con- trol and management of the railroad is liable for injuries caused to a per- son on the track by a locomotive. See, Banks v. Ga. R. R., etc., Co., 112 Ga. 655. 1 McMillan v. Michigan Southern, etc., R. R. Co., 1(3 Mich. 79. See Stone v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 116 U. S. 347. A railroad company cannot dispute its liability for goods 142 carried by it over a leased road on the ground that the lease is void. McCluer v. Manchester, etc., R. R., 13 Gray ( Mass. ), 124. See § 416. 2 See Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Crane, 113 U. S. 424.
 * i Lakiu v. Railroad Co., 13 Oreg.

436. See McDonald v. Railroad, 93 Tenu. 281. 5 Rockford, etc., R. R. Co. v. Wells, 66 111. 321; Chicago & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Whipple, 22 111. 105. But see Hitte v. Republican Valley R. R. Co., 19 Neb. 620, and Atlanta, etc., R. R. Co. v. Kimberly, 87 Ga. 161, which hold that a railroad company is not liable for the acts of an inde- pendent contractor in building its road. 6 Railroad Co. v. Hanning, 15
 * Water Co. v. Ware, 16 Wall. 566.