Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1875-10-13

Liabilities 81 Datlroad Conspantcs
fOr Etres Sel ny l.ec0Weaises.

Al the Davenport term of the SUI
premc Court, was rendered an opin-
ion which is of importance to railroad
corporations as well as individuals.
In 1873, Andrew Rodemacher, farm
er IN Floyd county, owned a farm sit
uated near the line of the Milwaukee
Il st. Paul Railway. From the sparks
Of a passenger train going west, the
grass was set ON fire along the track.
which spread across the prairie for
nearly one mile, and burned the fence
of said Rodemachcr. He brought an
for damages. a Judgment was rem
dered in the court below for one hum
dred and twenty-five dollars against
the company. The railroad company
appealed to the Supreme Court, and
set up the mconstitutionality of the
law under which the action was
brought, section 1889. of the code of
1873. i'm that il impairs the contract
existing between the State and the
corporation under which its charter
is conferred.
The section is as follows: THAT
any corporation operating a railroad
shall be liable for all damages by fire
that is set out, or caused by operating
of such railway, and such damage
may be recovered by the party dam
aged in the same manner as set forth
in the section in regard to stock. ex-
cept as to double damages.
The court holds that there is no i'm
piled contract between State and
corporation that there shall be no
/ change in the laws existing at the
time of the Incorporation, which shall
render the use of the franchise more
burdensome or less lucrative. any
| more than there is between the State
and an individual, that the laws ex-
listing at the time of the acquisition
of property shall remain perpetually
in force. Ii is true the generally re-
ceived doctrine is that for a lawful
aud reasonably careful use of proper
ty, the owner shall not be answered.
BILE in damages. But this is simply q
principle of the common law. 1t is
not so wrought into the idea of prop
erty. nor is ii so hedged about by the
constitution that the Legislature may
not change it. The right to enact the
Statute above considered. ia derived
under the police power of the State.
Ii the Statute in question can be bro't
under the police power of the State.
lis eonsliiutionality cannot be qnes-
toned. This police power extends to
the protection OF the lives, limbs,
health, comfort. and Qniet of all per-
sons, and the protection of all prop
erty within the State.
The constitution provides that pri-
vAte property shall not be taken for
private use without Just compensation.
Yet the very law under which defend
ant Is incorporated, authorizes the in
corporation of railways and tho en-
ployment Of q species Of locomotion,
which experience has proved, is very
destructive to private property. The
constitutional right to do 80 has mover,
As We arc aware Of. been questioned,
and it would startle the legal mind il
it should DO questioned at the present
day. II, then, tho Legislature may su-
thorize to be put In force power,
which In some instances, and under
some circumstances will cause damage
to private property, why may not
tho Legislature also say that the
person who employs that force shall
be responsible for the damages
which 1t occasions. Tho statute
simply recognizes the doctrine that the
the use OF the locomotive engine
is the employment Of . dangerous force
that sometimes, Notwithstanding the
exercise Of the highest care and am
gence It will emit sparks and cause
destructive CONGREGATIONS; that whom
this occurs, loss must fall upon one Of
two innocent parties; that, heretofore
that loss has been borne by the owners
of the property. Injured, hereafter II
shall be borne by the owners of the
property causing the injury.