Case ID: mass_76/html/0103-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jane C. Langley vs. Boston and Maine Railroad
    1 railroad corporation incorporated by law in this state is not exempted from liability for the loss of goods delivered to it to be carried over part of its road to the state line, by having previously leased that part of its road to a corporation established by law m an adjoining state, whose road connects with it at the state line.
    Action of contract against the defendants as common carriers, to recover the value of goods delivered to them to be forwarded to Bethel, Vermont, and destroyed by fire in their station at Lawrence in this county.
    At the trial in the court of common pleas it appeared that the defendants were the owners of the Methuen Branch Railroad, connecting with their main road and extending thence northwardly to the line between the states, of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, where it connected with the road of the Manchester and Lawrence Railroad Corporation, established under the laws of New Hampshire; that the defendants had never carried on said Methuen Branch, but had leased it to the Manchester and Lawrence Railroad Corporation, who had advertised it as part of their road; and that the freight business at Lawrence was in charge of a freight master and assistants appointed and paid by the defendants, but the chief of whom kept in separate books an account of all freight received to go north, and made his returns thereof monthly directly to the Manchester and Lawrence Railroad Corporation.
    The defendants contended that, under the provisions of the lease, they were merely acting, in receiving these goods, as the agents of the Manchester and Lawrence Railroad Corporation, and were not liable in this action as common carriers. But Mellen, C. J. ruled that they were so liable; to which ruling, after verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants alleged exceptions.
    
      G. P. Judd, for the defendants.
    
      R. Cross 8f O. P. Lord, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

The defendants could not, by any contract with a corporation established solely by the laws of another state, exempt themselves from their liability for goods delivered to them to be carried over a road constructed and owned by them under a charter from the legislature of this commonwealth. To allow this to be done would be to authorize them by their own act to divest themselves of the duties and liabilities imposed upon them by law, and the performance of which was the consideration upon which their charter was granted, and which thus entered into their contract with the Commonwealth".

This case does not come within the St. of 1838, c. 99, § 1, because one of the two corporations, by whom the contract relied on by the defendants was made, was not established by concurrent acts of the legislatures of New Hampshire and of this state. But even if it had fallen under that statute, the defendants would not have been exempt from liability; for § 3 of that statute expressly provides that notwithstanding any such contract “ the corporation owning the railroad shall be liable for all damage done, or injury sustained, on their road, or in the use of the same, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as they would be liable if they performed the transportation themselves.” This reservation clearly includes injuries to persons and property.

Exceptions overruled.