Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-01
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY co. Y
FRANKLIN g. p. r. co.

FRANKLIN & P. r. CO.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
February 2. 1899.
WHEN A RAILROAD COMPANY
LEASES THE ROAD AND ROLL
ING STOCK OF ANOTHER RAIL
ROAD COMPANY, THERE IS A
NECESSARY IMPLICATION FROM
THE CONTRACT THAT TnE Es
SEE WILL MAllITAIiI MD OP-
ERATE THE LEASED ROAD DUR
ING THE TERM.
EQUITY WILL ENFORCE THE SPE-
CHIC PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
IL CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH IT IN
Wolves A CONTINUOUS SERIES
OF ACTS INVOLVING THE EXER-
CISE OF SKILL AND JUDGMENT.
AS THERE IS NO ADEQUATE
REMEDY AT LAW.
The Southern Railwayt Company had
acquired by purchase the lease of the
road and rolling stock of the Franklin
and Pittsylvania Railroad Company,
which the latter road had made to the
vendor of the Southern Hallway Co. in
1878; and in 1897 manifested an inten-
ton to abandon and cease to operate
the leased road. The lessor company,
therefore, brought this suit in chancery
to enjoin it from this action. The an
swer of the defendant admitted the
charge of the bill. The lower court
decrced for the plaintiff and defendant
appealed.
The court says:
1t is conceded that an express cove
nant to operate the road during the
term of the lease is not to be found
among the provisions thereof, but the
complainant in the court below con-
tends that the obligation to operate the
road throughout the entire term of the
lease is so plainly contemplated by its
PROFESSIONS that tho law will enforce It
as an implied covenant. as fully as il
tho obligation were expressed in ap-
propriate words. Necessary implica-
tons Is. beyond doubt, as much n part
OF an instrument as II that which is
SO implied was plainly expressed.
1t is apparent upon n fair conStruc-
ton OF the whole instrument, consid-
cred in the light OF the circumstances
under which it was made, that it was
within the contemplation of the parties
and their intention that the road should
be maintained and operated during the
entire term OF the lease. And when we
come to examine its provisions criti-
cally the obligation to do so. though
not expressed in words, Is plainly i'm
piled.
1t was earnestly contended by counsel
for the appellant that. conceding such
obligation to exist, the remedy of the
appellee was n suit n law for damages
for the breach thereof, and that equity
was without jurisdiction in the case.
AS n general rule, the remedy for the
breach of II contract. especially IL it
does not relate to real estate. is n suit
at law for compensation in damages,
but IL the remedy be not adequate full
and complete, equity will interpose and
compel the specific performance of the
contract. 1t cannot be reasonably con-
tended that a suit at law would afford
redress for the threatened injury. Only
half of the term of the lease has expir-
ed; 1t has seventeen years still to run.
1t would be impossible to ascertain the
amount of damage that the complain
ant would sustain from an abandon
ment of the road during the remainder
or the lease. The right to have
the road operated until the expiration
Of the lease is a. continuing right, and
II the injury were reparable in dam
ages. 1t would require n multiplicity of
actions for the daily breach Of the
agreement The remedy at law would
be neither complete nor adequate, moth
Ing shQrt of the interpostion of a court
or equity would meet the exigencies of
the situation. and secure the complain
ant the protection OF his rights. 1t
was objected that equity will not COM
pei specific performance of n contract
having some years to run that re-
quires continuous acts involving tbs
exercise OF skill and judgmen'. 1t NAV
be admitted that the authorities ar,