The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1896-10-16


are absolutely dependent upon its
operation for railroad transportation.
The respondent in his return takes
the position that he cannot be COM
PEELED to operate the road inasmuch
as he was only a purchaser Of the
property and was under no obligation
to carry on business of a common
carrier. He says, further, that the
railroad is in bad condition and will
not pay running expenses and that he
is unable financially to operate it.
Railroads arc public highways.
They are authorized to be constructed
more for the public good than for pri-
retc gain. The companies construct
ing them are vested with power to
condemn lands for rights Of way; but
private property cannot be taken
except for public use. Taxation
for their construction has been held
by NIL the courts, yet taxes can be
levied only for public purposes.
Railroads are therefore matters Of
public concern; the public has in
them an easement as it has in canals,
turnpikes, etc. The railroad itself is
owned BY the company, but this
ownership is subscrvient to trust in
favor of the public. The relative
rights may be stated thus:
The public has the right to ser
vices of the railroad upon payment
Of lawful and reasonable charges; the
ownor is bound to render this service
| and can deny it to none, but he BIS
| the right to exact for such Services
charges that aIe reasopat..e and law
full. No act ofthc cwner can deprive
tks,publie &c s-----.u u,.---.,-src can the
iHa5er be deprived of his right except
hoy the law of the land. The right o.
user is trust which is impressed
UPON the railroad property itself.
! See also 10 A. 4 E. Ency, law 7So
| Slcott vs. Fon Du Lac Co. l6 Wall
TS. X. r. Com'r. vs. p. 4 r. Co.
| Mc) Am. r.. 20S. Sharpless VS..
Mayor (Pa.) SO A. Dec. ia. l..
!. K G. II. Co. VS.. Chappell; Rice
81. Averill, Receiver VS.. So Ry.
10. ct al Mss.
1t is urged that, however, the doc
, 'ine of these cases may apply to rail-
Dad property in the hand ofthe orig.
> 'al company, it has no application
hen the road has been sold to a
y ird party under foreclosure proceed
! gs. This proposition is unsound.
10 railroad itself is highway. The
:. .cmcnt belonging to the public is
e the road, and trust is impressed
!. On the property. These public
&c nts attach to the property and in no
% asure depend upon merely per
'e sal contract of the original corpor
NJ at. While such company is bound
t9ercise the duties Of a common
a caer this obligation arises by reason
p- ,os relation to the road. The
nj ytr being impressed upon the prop
It 2epasses with it, and binds it in
We thands of all purchasers. 1t is a
he faar doctrine Of the law tina
re- wlver property affected by trust
o, is | the purchaser will be bound
80 byt trust. BY his own act he
lie hihimsclf to public duty, and so
nd lon his relation of ownership con-
in tin so long will he be bound t.
u thercise Of this duty. The rail.
hat roompany can mortgage or sell
all. nolcr right than it possesses.
md proposition that purchaser
&c, of DAD property may at his pleas
III Inconvenience decline to operate
the it, g pregnant with much mis-
G a chi the public. Railroads are
ran. estaed thoroughfares upon whose
,ttir coI.d operation the prosperity
,der ansinc.s Of whole communities
rate DEF They are the great arteries
I O, thr which flows the commerce of