Court Opinion

ID: 9417506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:20:27.071026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:44.457529
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Field
dissenting.
I am not able to. agree with the majority of the court in the decision of this case. It seems to me clear that a railway corporation of Oregon has the right under her laws to léase its. road to another corporation of like character. A foreign corporation, as is the plaintiff below, is by the act of October 21st, 181.8, placed on the same footing with a domestic corporation, upon complying with the laws passéd for the regulation of such corporations transacting business in the State. That act declares that, upon such compliance, the foreign corporation-shall have “the same rights,.powers and privileges”- as a domestic corporation.
Besides, the act of' October 22, -1880, entitled “ An act to grant the- Oregonian Bailway Company, Limited, the right of way 'and station grounds over the state lands,: and-terminal facilities -upon the public grounds at the city* of Portland,” recognizes the plaintiff as an existing corporation, lawfully .engaged 'in•-the construction and operation of á. railway in *39Oregon,, “from Portland to the head of the Willamette Talley,” and grants to it “and to its assigns” valuable “rights, privileges, easements and property,” accompanied with a proviso that it shall have ho power to sell,' convey, or- assign the premises or rights granted, or any part or parcel' thereof, to any person or corporation, ‘ “ save only with, and as a' part and parcel of and as appurtenant to, the railway now • built and owned by said company, and now in process of construction by it.” As' the- court below observed, and it seems to me very justly, this implies that the plaintiff had the power to "assign its road, and also the .premises and rights thus granted to it in connection therewith, but not otherwise.
I Cannot perceive what public policy of the State is sustained by denying to a foreign corporation, which has by her permission constructed a railway therein, the right to lease its road to a domestic corporation. It would rather seem, if any. considerations of public policy are to control, that such policy would favor a transfer of the road from foreigners to her own' citizens. When the transfer is made the State can exercise ov"er the road, its management, "and the charges for. its use, the same authority which she could have previously, exercised. And there is nothing in the articles of association which forbids the directors of the plaintiff from making such a transfer if the laws of Oregon permit it.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller was not a member of the court when this cajse was argued, and took no part in this decision.