Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-01-02

| from the law court, were received,
Thursday:
ANDROSCOGGINC CASE.
Lewiston and Auburn Railroad Co.
VS.. the Grand Trunk Railway Co. of
Canada. Rescript by Powers, ].
| The plaintiff agreed with the defend
ant to construct and build the plain
tiff's road as described in it's charter in
| a substantial and permanent manner,
with suitable station grounds and
buildings, and with the necessary sid
ings at it's terminus in Lewiston. By 2
subsequent indenture the defendant
agreed to construct and complete the
railroad as already located and par
| TALLY constructed in a substantial man
| ner. and in all respects in accordance
with the previous agreements of the
plaintiff The next day the plaintiff
| leased the road to the defendant for SO
years with full power to finish and conf
| plete it as previously agreed between
| the parties, and to make and construct
! any new buildings and tracks neces
sary and beneficial to be used for the
working of the railroad. A rental of
nine thousand dollars was to be paid
every six months, and the lease prOvid-
ed that all taxes which might lawfully
be assessed upon the corporate proper
ty or franchise of the lessor during the
period of the lease might be paid by the,
lessee and deducted from the rent.
Within a few months after the expira-
ton of the lease the defendant pur-
chased for Hinety-two thousand, two
hundred and fifteen dollars and ten
cents 1892 .215.10 certain parcels of land
| in Lewiston adjoining, but without the
| location of the plaintiff S road. On this
land railroad sidings have been con-
structeG and buildings erected, either
| leased to the patrons of the road or
built upon portions of the premises
| leased to said patrons. The defendant
took the title to this real estate in its
own name, enjoys the income from it,
and for twenty-three years paid the
taxes upon it without making any
claim to deduct such taxes from the
rent.
| Held. that constituting the two inden-
lures and lease together the defendant
was not bound to acquire this land for
the plaintiff: that it is not the corporate
property of the plaintiff within the true
intent and meaning of the lease, and
| THAT lllc ldAeS So paul Cd1lIlOI Dc uc-
Quoted from the rent therein reserved.
In determining the intention of the
parties to a contract, the Interpretation
which they themselves by their own
act put upon it is justly entitled to
great weight.
! For eighteen years the defendant paid
taxes lawfully assessed upon the cor
porate property of the plaintiff, but did
not deduct them from the rent.
| Held. that they cannot be deducted
now; that the true intent and meaning
of the lease is that as fast as the taxes
are paid they should be deducted from
the installment of rent falling due next
after such payment and if not deduct
ed then they cannot be taken out at all.
| The court will not adopt a construc-
ton of a contract which does not COM
port with the interest of either party
at the time it is made, unless express
ed in clear terms.
| The defendant has paid an annual
franchise tax to the State assessed
upon the basis of the gross earnings of
all the leased lines, operated by it with
in the State divided by the total num-
| Der of miles so operated.
| Held. that this is not a tax upon the
franchises of such leased roads alone;
tthat it is either tax upon the fran
chise of the defendant alone, or upon
it's franchise and the franchise of its
leased roads. If the latter it is in
capable of apportionment in this case,
and no part of the tax so paid can be
deducted from the rent reserved.
| Defendant defaulted. Damages to
/ l. ct 81 ,r;,1 in, a =, q
with the opinion.