The Saint Paul globe., 1900-06-02
SUPREME COURT DECIDES THAT
RAILROADS ARE LIABLE FOR
THEIR MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT WITH CITY VOID
Not Within the Powers Conferred
on municipalities to Relieve
Railroads of Their Burden
of Protecting Travel.

ing the transfer company to repair the
bridge and construct approaches. The
| transfer company claims that 1t has q
contract with the city whereby the lat
ter is bound to keep the bridge in re-
pair at all time. The supreme court
holds that such a contract would be
void and without effect.
The repairs contemplated on the bridge
will cost in the neighborhood of $4,000.
The decision is of Importance otherwise
because Of the precedence it establishes
in the matter of the powers Of munich
pality to enter into contract with
corporation.
The syllabus is as follows:
| State of Minnesota, ex rel. The City of
st. Paul, relator, respondent, VS.. Min
nesota Transfer Railway Company.
Syllabus|. A railroad company is
quasi public corporation, and all It's
not merely for the benefit Of the corpora
tion itself, but also in trust for the bene-
fit of the public; and whenever 1t neglects
or fails to perform any of It's corporate
duties it may generally be compelled to
perform the same by mandamuS.
2. Mandamus will lie to compel rail-
way company to construct and maintain
proper crossings, such as viaducts or
bridges, and suitable approaches thereto,
at all points where their lines of railway
intersect previously established thorough
AANONoSeAJ
public use.
g. At common law the duty rests upon
a railway corporation when it occupies
public thoroughfare with it's tracks to
restore the same by some reasonably safe
and convenient means to its former con-
dition of usefulness. And the duty is
continuing one, and the way must be kept
in repair by the corporation whose act
has made the duty necessary.
T. Assuming in this case that the rela-
tor city entered into a contract with de-
nnT1 NeFNxY of hn n tTIN
set out In the answer herein, it is held
such contract was ultra wires and of no
validity. 1t was not binding upon either
party.
8. Where the duty rests upon a rail-
way corporation to restore a public way
to its former condition Of usefulness a
municipality cannot enter into a valid
contract with such corporation whereby
II surrenders its power TO compel the
performance of such duty. It. cannot
contract with such corporation that it
Will maintain" a certain bridge to be
erected by either or both parties for all
future time" Such an agreement on the
part of municipality is beyond the pow
er of municipal officers. is contrary to
public policy and of no effect.
g. 1t is general and fundamental
principle of law that all persons CON
tractlng with a municipal corporation
must. at their peril, inquire into the
power of the corporation or its officers
to make a contract
l., A municipality Is not estopped In
the contract by the fact that q bridge
has been built by both parties as the
result Of a compromise between the
municipal authorities and the railv,aV
officials, and has thereafter been kept in
repair by the municipality for number
Of years.
8. Held, that it was not intended by
the legislature when enacttng a charter
provision of the relatOr city, S. L. 1885,
chap: T. sec. 3, to relieve railway cor
porattons from the common law duty be-
IlaflsA,
Collins. ].
Other decisions filed yesterday were:
Charles F. Young, appellant, VS.. Great
Northern Railway Company, respond
Syllabus-Held, that if the court below
was Of the opinion on the evidence taken
plamtltr was not entitled to recover in
TINS IN action, and it might well have been
OIL Such opinion, 1t committed no error
Wnen 1t denied his motion for a new
trlal on the ground that the dana ges
awarded by the verdict were inadequate
and insufficient. Order affirmed
Collins, ].
Straw Ellsworth Manufacturing Com
pgmy; a corporation plaintiff VS.. L. D.
hhpourne Boot and Shoe Company, de-
Iendant l.. ID. KilbOurne ct al APPEL
lants' VS.. Horace r. Robinson, receiver,
RESPONDENT.
OF 1859, chapter 2I2, an act entitled IAN acr
| 10 provide for the better enforcement OF
| NE the haplIltY OF stockholders of corpora
s, Ilohs, the district court is authorized to
| proceed (section . upon notice given as
such court may direct. to ascertain (sec-
| tlon - the probable Indebtedness of a cor
potauon winch has made an assignment
! under the laws of this state for the han
! ef1t of its creditors. or for which a re-
| ce1yer In insolvency has been appointed
| ana the expenses of such assignment or re-
| celVefSnlD. And also the probable am01ln+
| OF assets available for the pavmert there-
| or Ana also as to what parties are or
! may be liable as stockholders and the ma
6ufe ana extent of such liability And if
| on Sucn aScertalnment it appears to the
court that the assets are insufficient 10
meet the indebtedness and expenses Of
the trust, 1t is authorized and directed tc
| levy ratable assessment upon all nartfes
| liable as stockholders or on account ~
STOCK shares for such an amount pronor-
!loh or percentage Of the liability as in
iIs ~ oISedetion Such court may deem prop
| er. Under section 5 the order and assess
nlent SO levied is made conclusiva unop
! ana against all parties Sc liable as to All
hlatlerS relating to the amount of. the
/ an assessment III 0ucH
Held that in a proceeding in accord
ance with sections 2 ard 3, supra. the
court having obtained iurIsd:ction oIer tto t1,o
! corDoratton. the shareholders of the cor
poratlon are within the jurisdiction of the
court IN which the proceeding is frstit1it-
tia "a so tar as IS necessary for a determine
! tlon or all the questions specified in cen
| tlon j. And that the decision of the co11rt
| is binding upon Stockholders who are nor
| pefore the court otherwise than by virtue
| OF thelr membership in the corporation
! AS members they are conciusfYelv boun6
| as provided In section 5. by determina- :
tlon as to the amount of the corporation
! assets and the amount of the liahiIitiee
and as to the amount of the assessment
/ which is levied per share of stock against
the stockholders not against them NV
name but generally.
| 2. Section gives no further than +bis
| II Goes not purport to deprive a person
| sued for the amount assessed on eacb
snare. under section 4. from showing, if
ne can, that he is not a stockholder or
| that he Is not the holder of as large an
| amount OF stock as is alleged. or that he
mas claim against the corporation whicn
| in law or equity he may be entitled to eat
| off as against the claim or jud~ment in
| an assessment. Or he NAV make ofhsr
defense which is personal to himself In
DER section the order of assessment Is
| conclusive upon all the stockholders Sc,
| far as 1t decides the amount of the as
| sets or the liabilities of the !nsolvent cor
poratlon and it is also conclusive as to
! the necessity Of making an assessment to
| the extent and in the amount ordered
| .. And collection of such amount can
be enforced wherever the stockholders are
| found.
4: The sections of said chapter PIP here
tofore referred to are not in violation Of
any of the provisions of the constitution
| Of the United States or of the state of
| Minnesota in that a judicial proceeding
| is thereby authorized without due process
| Of Jaw.
Nor are said sections unconstitutional
| because as to stockholders who become
| such prior to the passage of the law
| they impair. the obligation of a contract.
| .. There/is no such thing as a vested
rlsht to particular remedy. The legis-
lature may always alter the form of ad-
| ministering right aud Justice An obiec-
tion to a law like the one under consid-
Grafton. to be tenable. must go further
| than to a mere change of remedy. II
must show that it increased tho actual