Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-09-14

1
iuries to adjoining Land. caused by the
acts of the old company. Hammond
VS.. TT. Royal r. r. Co. Is S. &. 10.
| Nor for personal injuries sustained
by negligence of The Old company.
Ky. 61S.
| The purchaser at a foreolosu sale
is not bound by the porOla agreement
made by the president of railroaa
| company to make farm crossing.
Hunter w. Burlington e. r. r. Co. Is
Iowa, $50.
Nor is it bound by the contract Of 4
corporation 10 maintain q depot AT a
certain place. Gulf r. II. Co. VS.. New
ell. % Texas, 33i.
| Nor to accept tickets which had been
issued and sold by the prior company.
| Neither is the contract between two
| railroad companies in rcla lion To III"
carrying Of freight, binding upon the
purchaser Of the franchise and proper
| ~ OF one Of them. DeS M"ines < Fort
d. r. r. Co IS. Wabash Il. X. 90. ia
| L. S. $40.
There is another class of cases. how
ever. which We think controls in Il mat
ter OF this kind.
1t has been held that statutory liens
upon the property existing at the time
of the sale continued TO operate as liens
| upon il after the transfer. Hurley VS.
III. Midland z. X. 20. IS Fed. r. lG9
| So where the statute declares judg-
ments for personal injuries 10 be Il
prior lien upon the property of rail-
| road companies. the purchasers Of the
| = IL,
closure of the mortgage takes it subject
10 all unpaid judgments OF this class.
And ii has been held that the purchas-
crs were bound 10 perform a contract
entered into by the old company for TIE
payment OF money il liquidation of i
| ,lItn for personal injuries. because o.
this statutory lien. Fraser vs.. En-.
Tenn. II. r. Co. SO Tenn. 13S.
| The new company IS also liable in
| equity upon the contracts of it's pre-
| deceSS0r in so far as it adopts them
md claims The benefit Tor itself Lake
Erie r. +. Co. W. Griffin 3. Ind. 49,.
| Thus the purchasers i'll {. foreclosure
sale of the property IF Il railroad COM
pany are liable for unpaid damages for
| lands appropriated rs the light of way
by the railroad company. ANA occupied
| and Used rs such by the purchasers
Western Penn. K. l.. Co. vs. Johnston.
| 80 Penn
Now applying this principle to the
matter under consideration. the PenOb-
scot Central It'y co. owned Il franchise
| through the town u KcnduSkcag, and
across the bridge then tNisiing over the
| kenduskeag river III the point iii con-
! trovcrSy. That franchise i; took sub
| ieCt. however. to the general ltHS IF
| the State. Constitution Of Maine Ar:
I, Sect. IA.
one OF the general laws Of the State
IN relatiO to this frlnchi;" was the act
of 1888, chap. y, under which the Rail
road Commissioners made their decree
III 1875. This then 5-cam" . limitation
upon tho franchise. The franchise Ger
| tainly could not thereafter b- exercised
but by complying with lie conditions
| imposed by The Commissioners decree
under this act OF 1895. The mortaga-
had no superior right. Ii took ti,.
franchise ana property uI.,ltr its mort
gage. Suhjrc: To thu general law of th..
state, and with all IN" limitations ana
obligations uron ii. The present com
pany now claims to own that franchise
|
tral Railway. If it Hoes So own it il
must certainly BE- NTH this limitation
| upon it.
If a purchasing company is liable for
| unpaid damages for lands appropri-
| .tted as Il right of WY. IS was held n
Western Penn. X. K. 80. Us. Johnston
- Perm. $50. 1t certainly must be h.-.d
under our statutes that The purchasing
| company IS liable for all the obligations
Of tn" old company il relation to tn.
| bridges which make IN 9 part of the
franchise OF the P..nohscot Central
Railway.
1t Is difficult to see now the present
company can take ana operate a fran
chsr Invested of al the obligation:
which are Il limitation rpnn that fran
chise.
| We do not now decide thu: the deere,
made by the Railroad commissioners in
1898 VIII bar the Board from making
another decree, if the facts should war
rant H.
II is admitted. however. by the petit
| ioning company that if the PenObscot
Central Railway Company was today
in possession of the railway property il
ought in equity TO construct a neN
bridge.
W fully agree with the petitioners
counsel IN this admission: and we find
as a matter of law that the present
Company took the franchise Of the Pc
':ObscOt Central Railway with This g.
liSation and limitation upon it. and We
therefore feel that we ought not to
make any further 'lpc"ec IN relation to
the matter 1T the praSen; time.
IL the present company shall replace
the temporary bridge by che as COOL
as that built by the Pcnnhscot Central
Hallway before il was weakened We
feel that it will have narfoimed the OBJ
legation ana limitation upon tho fran
chisc We do not feel like making any
decree which shall entail any larger OK
pcnse than this.
we therefore allow the old deere" to
stand. subject to inspection by N
Railroad Commissioners when the n"w
bridge is completed.
Dated at Augusta this 18th day Of
September. A. D. 1908.