Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/292

 § 309.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. seem that a contract whereby one railroad company gives up all practical control over its own road, and in effect leases it to the other company, would be void. 1 Besides, the other com- pany might on its side have no power thus to extend its busi- ness. 2 § 309. Different considerations arise regarding the validity of pooling arrangements or other contracts, the object of which is to prevent competition between parallel and, in the natural order of things, competing roads. In the absence of special authority, such contracts are ultra vires, and on grounds of public policy are illegal and void. 3 Thus, it is ultra vires and illegal for one railroad company to purchase the stock of another with a view to obtain a controlling interest in the latter, and thus prevent competition between itself and the other company. 4 So a con- tract whereby a railroad company' agrees to give an express company exclusive privileges on its road is void ; and the rail- road company may be enjoined from carrying it out ; "' and Pooling ar- range- ments. Grants of exclusive privileges. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. 212; State v. Hart- ford and N. H. R. R. Co., 29 Conn. 538. 1 It was so held in Ohio and Missis- sippi R. R. Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. (Superior Ct. of Cin.), 5 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 733. See Simp- son ». Denison, 10 Hare, 51. Com- pare Midland R'y Co. v. Great West- ern R'y Co., L. R. 8 Ch. 841 ; Attorney- General o. Great Eastern R'y Co., L. R. 11 Ch. D. 449. 2 See cases in last note, also Nau- gatuck R. R. Co. v. Waterbury Button Co., 24 Conn. 468, 482. a Hartford and N. H. R. R. Co. v. New York and N. H. R. R. Co., 3 Rob. (X. Y.) 411; Stewart v. Erie and Western Trans'n Co., 17 Minn. 372; Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. State, 72 Tex. 404; Charlton v. "Newcastle and Carlisle R'y Co., 5 Jur. N. S. 1096. 4 Central R. R. Co. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582; Hazlehurst v. Savannah, etc., R. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13; Elkins o. Camden and Atlantic R. R. Co., 36 272 N. J. Eq. 5; Pearson v. Concord R. R. Co., 62 N. H. 537; Buckeye Marble, etc., Co. v. Harvey, 20 S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 427. See, De La Vergne Co. v. German Sav. Inst., 175 U. S. 40. 5 Sandford v. Railroad Co., 24 Pa. St. 378; New England Express Co. v. Maine Central R. R. Co., 57 Me. 188. See Cumberland Valley R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 218. A common carrier is as much bound to carry for other carriers as for other persons. Dinsmore v. Louisville C. and L. R'y Co., 2 Flippen, 672. See Atchison, T. and S. F. R. R. Co. r. Denver and N. O. R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667. And cannot discriminate against an express company. South- ern Express Co. v. Memphis, etc., R. R. Cos., 2 McCrary, 570; see Express Cos. v. Railway Cos., 3 McCrary, 147. But a contract whereby a railroad company agreed with a telegraph company to allow no other telegraph line to be constructed along the line