Case ID: mich_35/html/0328-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marston, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*James G. Wright v. Samuel V. Irwin.
    
      Promissory notes: Voluntary aid to railroad: Defense: Statute construed. In an action upon a promissory note given as a voluntary contribution in aid of a proposed railroad, it is no valid defense that the municipal and individual aid and stock subscriptions to the road do(not amount to six thousand dollars per mile; the proviso of the statute (Comp. L. 1871, % 2298) in this regard is to he considered merely as a qualification of the right to levy and collect assessments upon the stock subscribed.
    
    
      Promissory notes: Voluntary aid to railroad: Consideration. A promissory note given as a voluntary contribution in aid of a railroad will not beheld invalid for want of consideration where the proposed road has been constructed and put in operation.
    
      Charge to the juo'y: Bequests to charge. It is not error to decline requests to charge, where the court in the general charge to the jury has gone over the entire ground embraced in such requests.
    
    
      Heard October 25.
    
    
      Decided January 9.
    
    Error to Calhoun Circuit.
    This was an antion brought by Irwin against Wright, upon an instrument of the following tenor, executed by Wright, viz.: “For value received I promise to pay to the Northern Central Michigan Railroad Company or hearer, the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, to be paid twenty per cent, a month, from the first day of July, 1871, towards the right of way and .grading of said railroad from Jonesville to the city of Lansing.” The points raised and the facts on which they are based' are sufficiently set forth in the opinion.
    
      A. M. Culver and ,T. C. Patterson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Pienzi Poud, for defendant in error.
    
      
       Declarations on subscriptions in aid of railroads must aver their acceptance: North. Cent. Mich. P. P. v. Eslow, 40 Mich., 222. Whether subscriptions to the stock of one railroad company are assignable to another company into which it has been merged by consolidation: Query. Dodgers v. Wells, -14 Mich., 411. A subscription to a railroad to be built to a certain point is not binding if the road is connected with that point by means of other roads already built: Stowell v. Stowell, 45 Micb., 364.
    
    
      
       Specific requests need not be given when they are covered by a general charge: Kedbles v. Christie, 47 Mich., 594. See note Herbstreit v. Beckwith, supra, p. 93; People v. Sligh, 48 Mich., 54; Van Den Brooks v. Correon, 48 Mich., 284; McKercher v. Curtis, «ostt 478; Kimball v. Austin, etc., ante, 310.
    
   Marston, J.:

Several of the questions raised were disposed of when this ■case was here before, — 33 Mich., 32. Such as were not will now be considered.

It is insisted that under the proviso in § 2298 Comp. L., the plaintiff could not recover unless it appeared that the “^municipal and individual aid and stock subscribed amounted to six thousand dollars per mile. This might be so had the note in question been given for stock. It appeared upon the trial that defendant Wright became a stock subscriber to the amount Of one thousand dollars, in the N. C. M. R. R. Co., in 1869; that the note in question was given in July, 1871, and was by defendant claimed to have been given in payment of his stock subscription, and also as an additional stock subscription; while on the part of the plaintiff it was claimed the note was given in aid of the road, and that Wright, at the time he gave it, knew he would not be entitled to any stock. Upon this branch of the case the court so charged the jury that they must have found against the claim of the defendant in order to have found a verdict, as they did, for the plaintff; this being so, was it necessary for the plaintiff to bring himself within the terms of the proviso in order to recover?

The first section of the statute provides for the organization of the company, and the filing of its articles of association; the second makes a certified copy of such articles presumptive evidence, and adds: “And as soon as the articles of association, as well as any articles amendatory thereto, are filed as above provided, the company filing the same may at once proceed to construct, operate and maintain its railroad or any section thereof, and to exercise the proper powers and privileges, and to accept such municipal or individual aid as may he pledged for such purpose, and also to levy and collect such assessments upon the stock subscribed for such purpose as said company shall determine: Provided, That the amount of such municipal and individual aid, together with the stock actually subscribed, shall be at least six thousand dollars for each mile of the road to be constructed.”— Comp. L., § 2298. It is very-clear that this proviso does not limit or qualify all the preceding portion of the section which we have quoted. To so hold would be to prevent the company from proceeding to construct, operate and maintain its railroad until the stock subscriptions and aid amounted *to six thousand dollars per mile. But worse than this, it could not accept municipal or individual aid pledged to it to construct its road unless the amount of such aid, with the stock subscriptions, should be six thousand dollars per mile. This certainly cannot be the correct construction. Under any view we may take of this proviso, we think the company would have the right to accept of such individual aid as might be offered to it, whether the amount so offered, with stock subscriptions and aid from other sources previously received, amounted to the statutory sum of six thousand dollars or not. This proviso must be considered merely as a qualification of that which immediately precedes it, viz.: the right to levy and collect assessments upon the stock subscribed. While subscriptions to the capital stock of a railroad company, to be binding, could only be made in the manner pointed out by the statute, for very obvious reasons, as set forth in Carlisle v. Saginaw Valley, etc., R. R. Co., 27 Mich., 318, no such considerations arise in the case of individual aid. We are not aware of any statute or rule of law which prevents individuals from aiding railroads in any manner they may consider proper. The aid offered may be with or without conditions. If no conditions at the time the note was given were attached to it, and no false inducements or fraudulent representations were made by those who obtained it, then it ought to be treated like any similar agreement made between individuals, and enforced according to its terms. If injustice is tbe result, it must be attributed, not to tbe law, but to the lack of wisdom in tbe party at tbe time be gave bis obligation.

There is no force in tbe objection that there was no legal consideration to support tbe note: Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich., 458; nor is there any thing in tbe transfer of tbe note to plaintiff of which tbe defendant has a right to complain.

There was no error in refusing defendant’s fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth requests. The court in charging the jury had very fully and fairly gone over the entire ground * embraced in these requests, and having done so, a refusal to repeat the same thing in the language of counsel, we have repeadedly held, would not be error.

. As we discover no error in the record, the judgment must he affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.