Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-03

There are several cases in which
contracts similar to the one in ques-
ton have been sustained in different
states, where the statutes therein
have either implledly or otherwise
sanctioned such aid being given to
the railroad corporation. Among
these are the Northern Pac. Ry. Co
v. Tygard, "a Mo, 1853, 27O, Cumber.
land V, Ry. v. Baab, Waats pa J.,
458, and Kansas Pac. Ry. v. Hopkins,
IS Kan, 494. The case of Cedar
Rapids &c st. p. v. Spafford, Al Ia,
292, is based upon similar grounds.
The decisions upon this subject are
based upon the ground that 1t ough.
u be left to the discretion of the di.
rectors or officers of a railroad cor.
pOration to locate or relocate sta
tiCns and stop trains where the in
terest Of the public, and public nee
essity may be best subseryed A
railroad company being a public SER
vice corporation, owes its first and
highest duty to the public, and any
agreement having a tendency to In
terfere, or which may interfeI e, with
that duty, is against public policy
and should not be enforced in a suit
in equity
1t is claimed upon the part Of
plaintiff that the case at bar differs
from that of Holiday v Patterson,
supra, in that a compliance with the
provision of the covenant in question
would prohibit the stopping of trains
ct any other point This is a matter.
we think, in which the difference is
In degree only. AS was said in the
last named case, the question does
not depend upon whether 1t can be
shown that the public has in fact
suffered any detriment, but whether
the contract is, in its nature, such as
might have been injurious to the
public, Should a station be estab-
lished or trains stopped upon the
private property of the plaintiff, with
no public roads or other means of
access to such point, 1t certainly
would interfere to a certain extent
with the stopping of trains at other
places and the service to the public.
Authorities upon this question are
not uniform, In the case of Louis
Vile N A. & c. r. r. V, Sumner, 1O6 |
Ind, 90, 62, such cases are classed as
'ollows; %, Those containing stipu-
ations, providing for the erection of
stations or depots at particular
places, and prohibiting them at 9TH
'rs; (2), Those in which some officer
't the company, for consideration
moving to him, undertakes to secure
he location of stations and lines of
'ailway etc; (3), Those in which the
agreement has been made between an
Individual and railway corporation
or the location of a station or depot
It particular place in consideration
If donation of money or property
o the corporation, without any re-
or prohibition against any
'ther location. 1t Is claimed that the
ase at bar comes within the latter
lass, and the provision in the deed is
lot obIectionable that the consider
tion moving to the company differs
rom consideration moving to some
ihcer of the company. In principle,
Iowever, we are unable to see any
Inference in so far as the public is
oncerned The company is repre-
ented by its officers, and It matters
title whether the consideration is
aid to one officer or to all of the
Ulcers, or to the company. The in
lry to the public would be Just the
anne If its interests are interfered
18th The rule announced in the
Iolladay case is a salutary one. and {
nder present day conditions the {
rinciple there enunciated should be !
dhered TO- (
The principal reason for plaintiffs
ishing station at the place re- {
'rred to, according to his testimony, {
that he desires to subdivide and
oil his land in Ave acre tracts. When