Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/174

 § 180. J THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. p<*t cinity belonging to other owners. 1 The general rise of land in the neighborhood caused by building the railroad is not to be regarded, nor the benefits accruing to the owner of the tract through having the use of the railroad, when no greater privi- lege is given him than the railroad as a common carrier would be bound to furnish. 2 180. An act within the scope of the corporate powers done by the body corporate acting as such in the manner U) ( dvcorp<> prescribed by the constitution of the corporation is rate; when binding on all persons in any way interested in the corporate enterprise ; for the bod} 7 corporate, express- ing its will through a vote of a majority (in interest) of its mem- bers, or of a two-thirds or three-fourths majority if that major- ity is necessary in respect of any class of acts, possesses the ultimate power and discretion which the corporators as indi- viduals, through incorporation, vested in themselves as a body corporate. This broad statement, however, which seems and is logical enough, is practically of less general application than 1 Childs v. New Haven, etc., Co., 132 Mass. 253; Meacham v. Fitch- burg R. R. Co., 4 Cusb. (Mass.) 291; Upton v. South Branch Reading R. R. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 600; Shipley v. Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co., 34 Md. 336; Lake Roland R. Co. v. Flick, 86 Md. 259; Fremont, E. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Whalen, 11 Neb. 585; Woodfolk v. Nashville & C. R. R. Co., 2 Swan (Tenn.), 422; East Ten- nessee & V. R. R. Co. v. Love, 3 Head (Tenn.), 63; Winona & St. P. R. R. Co. v. Waldron, 11 Minn. 515; Hornstein ». Atlantic & Gt. W. R. R. Co., 51 Pa. St. 87; Freedle v. North Carolina R. R. Co., 4 Jones, L. (N. C.) 89; Raleigh & A. Air Line R. R. Co. v. Wicker, 74 N. C. 220; Hosher v. Kansas City, St. Jo., etc., R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 303; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Crystal, 25 Mo. 544; St. Louis & St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Richardson, 45 Mo. 466; Alden v. White Mountains R. R., 55 N. II. 413; Nicholson r. New. York & N. H. R. R. Co., 22 154 Conn. 74, 88; St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. ». Morris, 35 Ark. 622; Missis- sippi Ry. Co. o. McDonald, 12 Heisk. (Tenn. ) 54; St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., v. Kirby, 104 111. 345; Upham v. Worcester, 113 Mass. 97; Peoria P. & J. R. R. Co. v. Black, 58 111. 33; Todd v. Kankakee, etc., R. R. Co., 78 111. 530. Contra Henderson, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 17 B. Mon. (Ky. ) 173; see California Pacific R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 46 Cal. 85. 2 Drury v. Midland R. R. Co., 127 Mass. 571. Compare Pittsburgh & L. E. R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 95 Pa. St. 420. If the state constitution provides that when eminent domain is exer- cised by a railroad company com- pensation must first be made the owner, the entry of a railroad com- pany without the owner's permis- sion is a trespass; except when the entry is made for a preliminary sur- vey. New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Jones, 68 Ala. 48.