St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-10-09
OF INTEREST TO RAILWAYS
AND EVERY MAN OWNING OR
LEASING A BUILDING ON
ONE.
A Road Can Protect Itself in the
Matter of Dana-
ges.

I.
which is of interest to very railroad
in American and every individual
and corporation owning or holding
leased property along the right of
way of any railroad. 1t has been a
matter of dispute whether or not a
railway company could by stipula-
ton in a lease of elevators, ware
houses or other buildings, or a lease
Of a piece of land along it's right of
way, protect itself from responsible
ity or damages in case of fire or any
other injury that might accrue to
the buildings under lease. The court
of appeals decided that such a clause
in a lease is valid, and that the com
pany which so protects itself cannot
be held accountable for loss from
fire or otherwise. The decision will
probably not be appealed to the su-
preme court, in which case it will
stand as the law for years to come.
The case in which the decision is
given rs that of the Hartford In
surance company, the Niagara Fire.
insurance company, Springfield Fire
and Marine company, Fire Insurance
Company of Philadelphia, North
British and Mercantile companv.
Hanover Fire Insurance company.
Citizens Fire Insurance COMPANY of
New York and Dubuque Fire and
Marine versus the Chicago, MiIwau-
kee q st. Paul railway. In 1890 the
Milwaukee Railway company leased
to Simpson, McIntire & Co. the depet
grounds at Monticello, To-, upon the
express condition that the comnanv.
It's successors, ETC., shall be exempt
and released and said party of tba
second part expressly releases them
from all responsibility by fire occa-
sioned by sparks of burning coal
damage by trains or cars running.
OH the track or carelessness of the
railway company Simpson. Me-
lnt1re & Co. constructed a cold stor-
age building and filled it with b,1f.
Ter and eggs. The building took fire
ana was burned and the insurance
companies paid the insurance. 500.
450. The fire, was caused by the rail
way company, and the insurance
companies brought a suit to recover
Hne amount of the insurance thew
mad paid. The railway companv set
Up as an answer to the complaint,
the clause in the lease by which they
were exempt from responsibility for
any loss. The plaintiffs denurred
to the defense on the ground that
the stipulation was against nub1ic
pollcy ana was void. The demurrer
was oVerruled, and it came before
the court of appeals, where the do
lnurrer mas again been knocked out.
'uuse oanporn wrote the decision in
me case, ana goes into the question
eiaoorateiy. The supreme court of
iowa had once ruled in one case that
such d stipulation could not stand. and
III ailotner case reversed itself. So that
the ruling Of the court of appeals es-
'aoilsnes precedent which, as stated
ABOVE, Will probably stand as author
ity Tor long time TO come. The fact
Wnlch the court laid stress upon was
tnaI contract of this kind was a
uelloerate acton on the part of those
entering into the agreement. In the
matter or passengers dealings with
d railway company any stipulation by
the company may be arbitrary. And
the same may be true as between a
shlpper of freight and a company. R,,t
IN a contract of this kind the les.ee
does not have to enter into the CON
tract hurriedly-in fact not at ali IN
less ne chooses to do so. and for +ha
reason any contract that has been en-
tered into is valid. Touching this
point the court says:
Inc law imposes upon a ra1IWa v
company the absolute duty to accent
passengers and freight when offered,
ana to carry the former with the ut
inost' and the latter with ordinary
care. The passenger is oft times
opllgeo 10 travel and the shipper to
SEND his goods by railroad. In making
thelr contracts they do not stand on
al equal Iooting with 1t. They cannot
stop to settle and negotiate the terms
OF contract every time they desire
10 use railroad. They would often
prefer the abandonment of the con-
tracts TO such negotiations On the
othef hand, the railroad conpanies.
with It's trained employees and its mo-
nopoly OF the transportation facilities
sought, has the ability and the power
TO exact the contract it desires. This
inequality in the situation of the par
ties, which would, if permitted, enable
the railroad company to obtain unfair
contracts from passengers and shin
perS, and the fact that contracts with
them which exempt the COMPANY from
liability for negligence relieve it from
an absolute duty imposed by the law.
and thus violate it, and at the same
time increase the danger to the lives
and property of the people from the
operation of a railroad, constitute the
reasons for the decisions that have
establish and maintain the rule that
such contracts are against public pol
icy.'
In conclusion Judge Sanborn says:
"A railroad does not assume by such
a contract as the one in question to
relieve itself of any of it's essential du-
| ties as a common carrier or. as g. quasi
pubilc corporation. The contract leaves
1t under the same duties and liabilities
TO which it was subject before it was
made. 1t is bound to the same dill
gence, fidelity and care after a lea SC
| containing such contract Is executsd
that 1T would have been required tc
exercise if no Guch agreement had beer
made. The only effect of the ccntra&,
is to prevent the assumption by tie
railroad company of new duty wnieN
it was entirely free to assu.ae or tt
refuse to assume. 1t does ref ssssFtfa Il
endanger the lives OF the,e.spl ssE
the passengers If the corr ety
parties to it rtand upon
ing when the lease is