Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/291

 PART III.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 308. contracts to carry beyond their lines. or (3) by giving exclusive or unfair advantages to certain in- dividuals over the general public. § 308. It is in accordance with this rule, and is generally ac- cepted law, that railroad companies may make con- Carriers. tracts with passengers and shippers for carriage be- yond their own lines ; l and in order to fulfill such contracts may make suitable arrangements with connecting railroad and steamboat lines, 2 including contracts whereby passenger fares and freights are divided between the connecting companies in certain proportions. 3 When a rail- road company does more than make an ordinary contract with a connecting line for the transportation of passengers and mer- chandise and a division of receipts, and contracts to give the other company control or extensive running powers over its road, such contract may be of questionable validity in view of the rule forbidding railroad companies to transfer their fran- chises or put it out of their power to serve the public as it was intended they should serve it ; namely, through their own cor- porate management, and not by handing their property and franchises over to another corporation. 4 Accordingly, it would 1 For authorities, see § 362. 2 Stewart v. Erie and Western Trans'n Co., 17 Minn. 372; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago and Alton R. R. Co., 73 Mo. 389; Munhall v. Penn- sylvania R. R. Co., 92 Pa. St. 150. See Green Bay and Minn. R. R. Co. v. Union Steamboat Co., 107 U. S. 98; Railway Companies v. Keokuk Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371; Aruot v. Erie R'y Co., 5 Hun, 608; Buffet v. Troy and B. R. R. Co., 40 X. Y. 168; Parish v. Wheeler, 22 X. Y. 494; Wheeler v. San Francisco and A. R. Co., 31 Cal. 46; Rutland and B. R. R. Co. v. Proctor, 29 Vt. 93; Shawmut Bank v. Plattsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 31 Vt. 491; Olcott v. Tioga R. R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546; South Wales R. Co. v. Redmond, 10 C. B. N. S. 675; Bartlette v. Nor- wich and Worcester R. R. Co., 33 Conn. 560. Compare Fitch v. New Haven, etc., R. R. Co., 30 Conn. 38. Or may purchase a steamboat. Shaw- mut Bank v. Plattsburgh, etc., R. R. Co., 31 Vt. 491. But see Hoagland v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 39 Mo. 451; Central R. R., etc., Co. v. Smith, 76 Ala. 572. 3 Elkins v. Camden and Atlantic R. R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 241; Sussex R. R. Co. v. Morris and Essex R. R. Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 13; S. C, 20 N. J. Eq. 542; Hare y. London and Northwest- ern R'y Co., 2 Johns. & Hem. 80. See Hartford and N. H. R. R. Co. v. New York and N. H. R. R. Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 411; Columbus. P. and I. R. R. Co. v. Indianapolis and B. R. R. Co., 5 McLean, 450; Androscog- gin, etc., R. R. Co. v. Androscog- gin R. R. Co., 52 Me. 417; Chicngo, P. & St. L. Ry. Co. o. Ayres, 14 111. 644. 4 See Johnson v. Shrewsbury, etc., R'y Co., 3 De G. M. & G. 914; Gard- ner v. London, Chatham, etc., R'y 271