Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-03
OREGON SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS
CONTINUED from Page 2.)

owner and those residing upon GER
tain farms, to which there is no other
valid objection, should not, upon the
same principle, be for the benefit Of
the devisees or assigns of the COW
enantee.
1t is further eontended, however,
that the provision Of the deed In
question is void as against public
policy. It was said in the case of
Burney's Heirs v. Ludeling, 20 La.
Ann, 70, SO, "The railroad corpora
tlon was a quasi public agent, and 1t
was its duty, independent of any
agreement to secure advantage to 1t,
to establish its stations at points
most convenient for the public inter-
ests. An agreement, therefore, by
the corporations for a part OF the
land to establish its depots or sta
tions at particular points is Illegal"
In Holiday v. Patterson, Or, 1T,
in which Holiday being a director
and president of the o. & c. r. r.
Co, and the owner of the controll-
ing interest in the stock thereof,
agreed with Patterson that in con-
slderation Of the payment to him of
a certain sum of money, he would
cause the line of road to be located
on a certain route, and a depot to be
built at certain place, It is stated /:
Railroad companies are defined to
be quasi public corporations, and the
directors act in double capacity, to-
wit as the agents for the company,
and also as trustees for the public,
clothed with an important public
trust. |, Redfelds on Railways, 577,
Sec. 14O, says The general duty Of
railway directors Is an important
and a public trust, and whether un-
dertaken for a compensation or graf
ultously, imposes duty of faithful
ness, diligence and truthfulness In
discharge Of its functions in proper
tion to its difficulty and re-
sDonsbility. 1t Is, among other
things, urged that this contract is not
against public policy because con-
trary to public interest, as the de-
flectlon of the line of the road from
the more direct route of the original
survey would best subserye the pub
lie interest, and promote the welfare
of the community through which the
road passes. The question of the
validity Of the contract does not,
however, depend upon the circum-
stances whether 1t can be shown
that the public has, in fact, sur-
fered any detriment, but whether the
contract is, in its nature, such as
might have been injurious to the
lublic"
The court held that this contract was
void on the ground of public policy
and In the case of Oregon & c. r. r.
Co. v. Potter, Or, 22S, a similar
case the court followed the former
decision, holding the contract to be
invalid In Florida Cent. V. State, 90 |
l.. r. A., 419, 423, where the defend |
ant towns of Tayares filed petition
for mandamus to eug0rce contract
made by one Abrams, who gave the
rail way a right Of way in the town
md also block of land, known as
Shore Park" in consideration that
the railway company would cause to
be constructed ON the block pas
senger depot "and that all passenger
trains of said railway company
should stop at such passenger de-
pot case in which the contract
was made direct with the railway
company, the court ruled: "The case !
made, however by the alternative |
writ before us does not seek merely |
to compel the erection of depot
building on the line of the respon.
dents road at some point at or near
the town of Tayares that will be rca-
sonably subservlent to the wants and
convenience of the inhabitants and
business of that community, leaving
the exact spot of its location there to
the discretion necessarily vested in
the company in such matters; but
the sole demand of the writ is, that
the respondent company shall be
compelled to erect depot building
ON the particular spot in said town
as Shore Park = Ii seems
10 be universally well settled that
contracts, undertaking to obligate
railroad company to establish its de
pot exclusively at particular point,
are void as against public policy"