Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/457

 chap, vni.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 455 ' or to erect suitable stations, 1 or to build a drawbridge provided for in its charter. 2 § 455. In a New York case, 3 where the complaint alleged the failure of certain railroads to receive and trans- port freight (on account of a general freight hand- lers' strike), Presiding Justice Davis said, giving the opinion of the court : " The question presented by this motion is one of Railroads. 1 Railroad Commissioners v. Port- land and Oxford C. R. R. Co., 63 Me. 269, where, at p. 278, Dickerson, J., said, giving the opinion of the court: "Railroad charters are con- tracts made by the legislature on behalf of every person interested in anything to be done under them. In consideration of the franchise they receive from the state, railroad companies agree to perform certain duties towards the public. The power of determining those duties and enforcing their performance is vested in the appropriate tribunals of the state. Being creatures of the law, intrusted with the exercise of sovereign powers to subserve public necessities and uses, railroad com- panies are bound to conduct their affairs in furtherance of the public objects of their creation." 1 But in People v. New York, L. E. and W. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 58, the court refused a mandamus to compel a railroad company to erect a station. Mandamus does not lie to compel a railroad company to do an act, as to build a station at a particular place, unless there is a specific legal duty on its part to do that act, and clear proof of a breach of that duty. Northern Pacific R. R. v. Dustin, 142 U. S. 492, Brewer, Field, Harlan, JJ., dissenting. And a mandamus will issue at the suit of a private person to enforce a public duty not due to the govern- ment as such. Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343, 355 ; People v. Manhattan Gas Light Co., 45 Barb. 136; State v. Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 296; State v Dayton and South- eastern R. R. Co., 36 Ohio St. 434; State v. Paterson, Newark and N. Y. R. R. Co., 43 N. J. Law, 505. Man- damus lies to compel a railroad com- pany to deliver grain at a particular elevator. Chicago and Northwestern R. R. Co. ». People, 56 111. 365. A telephone company may be compel- led by mandamus to furnish facili- ties to plaintiff. Webster Telephone Case, 17 Neb. 126. A mandamus was granted at the suit of an individual to compel a street car company to issue a transfer as required by its charter. Richmond Ry., etc., Co. v. Brown, 97 Va. 26. See, also, § 475. 2 New Orleans, M. and T. Ry. Co. v. Mississippi, 112 U. S. 12. 8 People v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co., 28 Hun, 543, 547. Semble, substantially over- ruling People v. New York, Lake Erie and Western R. R. Co., 22 Hun, 533. In general mandamus lies where there is a clear legal right in the relator, a corresponding duty in the defendant, and a want of any other appropriate and specific remedy. Borough of Easton v. Lehigh Water Co., 97 Pa. St. 554, 560. A corpo- ration cannot be compelled by man- damus to do what it has no right to do. See American Rapid Tele- graph Co. v. Connecticut Telephone Co., 49 Conn. 352. 437