Court Opinion

ID: 6576704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 19:34:58.601643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:57:07.563851
License: Public Domain

Redeield, Oh. J.
This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of certain lands which the defendants purchased of one Burton for depot purposes, about one of their stations, and which the referee in this case has found were not necessary for the present or prospective use of the company, for that purpose, the excess, according to the opinion of the referee, being some acres. The plaintiff, being a creditor of the company, levied upon this excess, together with a considerable number of acres more which the referee finds are necessary for the use of the company, for the purposes for which they were procured. The appraisal and levy was upon the entire portion of land, both that which was and that which was not necessary for the uses of the company.
The company, before they surveyed their road, contracted with Burton for the conveyance of “such lands” owned by him “as shall be required” for the company’s road, “on reasonable request.” The land was subsequently designated by metes and bounds, and the money paid for the piece, but the land has never been conveyed to the company.
The first question arising in the case is as to the extent of estate which Burton is bound to convey to the company. The plaintiff claims that this is an estate in fee simple, as the contract binds him to convey such lands “owned by him” as shall be required by the company. This is, no doubt, the fair and natural construction of such a contract between ordinary parties. If the land is to be conveyed and is defined as land “owned” by the obligor, nothing less could be fairly intended, in ordinary cases, than an estate in fee simple. But here the land is purchased and to be conveyed to the company for their use, “ such as shall be required by them.” We do not understand by this, all the lands they might ask for, but such as their powers and functions and business required. We do not think the scope of the bond could fairly be made to extend beyond this. It would be very unreasonable, as it seems to us, to construe this bond as extending beyond this and including, at the election of the defendants, all the land owned by Burton, and lying near the line of the railway.
So too it seems to us, that as Burton, by the fair construction of the bond, was only bound to convey such lands as were rea*74sonably required for the legitimate uses of the company, so he was only bound to convey such estate therein as they required for those uses. If the extent of territory could fairly he defined and limited by the general objects and purposes of the contract, which is a familiar rule of construing all contracts, and as applied to a case of this character, a most significant and unquestionable one, as we think, the same rule also applies with equal force to the estate to be conveyed. A contract to convey land for a particular use, or to a party having capacity to acquire a certain estate in land for a particular use, must of necessity carry the implication of such limitation upon the estate to be conveyed.
We think, therefore, that the bond, as originally given, would not have bound the party to convey more land than the company fairly required for their legitimate uses under their charter, or any greater estate in the land than such uses justly required. That is just what the company were empowered to take compulsorily. And their charter, as we think, was not intended to give them power to acquire any more land or any greater estate in such land, for the purposes of a road bed or stations, than was really requisite for such uses under their charter. We do not intend to say that if they purchased and took the conveyance of the fee of land for these purposes, they could not hold it or convey it, although some courts have so held. Nor do we intend to intimate any decided opinion that they may do this. The general provisions of the charter of this company are much like other charters in this and the other States, and similar to the general railway act, and seem to have reference to acquiring the right to such an estate in the necessary lands as is requisite for-the road bed and other incidental use and accommodation of the company, in their prescribed and necessary business.
The company may purchase lands for wood and timber, for their ordinary uses, and may, no doubt, purchase, take and hold, and also convey the fee simple of such lands. We are not inclined here to question the right of this company to take'the fee of lands by way of gift, or in payment of debts due them, either by voluntary conveyance or by levy, in invitum. It is not important to discuss these propositions here. They may all be conceded.
*75But they do not affect the question, what extent of land and what estate the company were expected to take by purchase or gift, or by condemnation, for their road bed and depots. We think it very obvious, from this charter and many others we have examined, where the quantity of estate is not defined, that it should be construed as we have already intimated in regard to the bond of Burton, according to'the object and purport of the grant, and the necessities or wants of the corporation thereby created. It seems to us to be leaving all just limits of construction to go beyond this. It is certain, as already intimated, that this is the ordinary rule of construing contracts. And statutes are generally construed much after the same rules as contracts, and, especially statutes of this character, which are much in the nature of contracts between the sovereignty and the shareholders, or, strictly speaking, between the sovereignty and the corporation. In other words, the charter is a grant of certain franchises and immunities, upon certain terms and conditions, and with certain specified or implied limitations. These conditions and limitations are the consideration and the counterpart, so to speak, of the grant. By accepting the grant the corporation bind themselves to perform the obligations and duties reasonably and fairly implied by the conditions of the grant. So that the charter should receive the same construction as any other contract of a similar character.
One of the important franchises of railway corporations, aná the one which distinguishes corporations-of this public character from ordinary business corporations, on account of its sovereign or prerogative character, is that right which in the sovereign is called eminent domain, which is the power to invade private property and appropriate it to its own purposes. The right to exercise this function is made dependent upon rendering an equivalent in money, and the implied compact not to acquire more land than they need. And the charters, or general laws, in most of the American States, allow the details of the appropriation of lands to the use of railways, to be arranged, either by the judgment of certain public functionaries designated for that purpose, or by the consent of the land owner. But in the latter mode even, the proceeding is, in some sense, compulsory. The land owner does not stand precisely in the position of an ordinary proprietor in *76the market. He has no election whether he will patt with his land or not, but only whether he will fix the terms by negotiation or by the appraisal of the commissioners, or the court. In either mode of appropriating land for the purposes of the company, where they have by their charter the power to take it compulsorily, there is this implied limitation upon the power, that the company will take only so much land or estate therein as is nee-* essary for their public purposes. It does not seem to us to make much difference in regard to either the quantity or the estate, whether the price is fixed by the commissioners or by the parties. For under this charter it is the act of the directors which designates the extent of land to be taken, and thus far the taking is compulsory and strictly under the powers granted by the charter.
In regard to the mode of appropriating land to the purposes of the road bed and depots of a railway company, it is obvious that it should be done in some way which shall be judicial and final, for the time at least. This is necessary both for the company and the land owner, and when done in the mode pointed out in the charter, it must be final, or should be so, unless some power is reserved, either expressly or impliedly, to change the location of the road, as in the defendants’ charter seems to be given, or to enlarge its facilities with the advancement of business, which this charter does not give in terms. This is not ordinarily reserved to railways. When once located the location is commonly regarded as final. They must take such lands as will be likely to accommodate their business, both present and prospective. It doing this it would not be wonderful if they should take more, sometimes, than every one regarded as necessary. The same may be true of their road bed. A jury or referee might well consider, in many cases, no doubt, that at many points four or five rods, or even three rods in width, was just as beneficial, for all the purposes of the road, as six rods, which some of the early chartered roads in this State are allowed to take and do take. The same may be often true of the land taken for depo$ accommodations.
But if the road bed or land for stations is taken in the mode prescribed in the charter and general law of the State, whether by the judgment of the commissioners, as to its extent as Well as *77the land damages, or by the act of the directors through their surveyors and engineers, as to its extent, and the appraisal of the commissioners as to its value, or by the directors as to its extent, or the agreement of parties as to the price, as in this case, when once taken in the mode prescribed in the charter, as this land was taken, it is regarded as well settled that the land so taken is not subject to the levy of an execution. This is put upon the ground, and justly we think, that the estate, being a mere easement for a particular use, is not of the quality and character which by the statute is made subject to a levy. This is not an estate in fee, or for life, or years, or indefinitely, or an equity of redemption, which are the estates defined in the statute. But it is an easement, a right to use the land in a particular mode for a particular purpose, and which cannot be transferred to an ordinary person having no right to use it in that mode or for that purpose, since the estate would cease and the land revert, the moment it was put to any other use than the one designated in the charter or statute, by or under which the appropriation was made.
So that whether the company take more or less, if taken for these purposes and no other, and only an easement is acquired by the company, it is not an estate which can be transferred by a levy to the creditors of the company, or by any conveyance, in parcels, probably. But of this we need not speak. It is certain the statute has not provided for levying upon any such estate. And this we think is the only estate for which the company contracted with Burton, or which he is bound to convey to them.
And as to the quantity of land taken, if the directors of the company have power to lay out their own road in any place they choose, and to the extent of five rods in width, and to take such lands for depot purposes as they deem expedient,, and they have acted in good faith, we do not see very well how their proceedings can be brought in question by any one. It may have been the folly of the legislature to grant any -such power to the directors of the company, but if they have done so, and this power is altogether unlimited, unless they act rashly or in bad faith, it is not very obvious how they are to be controlled in the matter. No doubt if they act recklessly or extravagantly, so as to indicate either utter incompetence, or corruption, or undue influence. *78or bad faith, a court of equity, at the suit of the land owner or the stockholders, would set the matter right. But this would thus be done in such a mode as to settle it definitely and not to leave it subject to the confusion consequent upon subjecting it to the action of independent tribunals, in regard to portions of the land taken for the same purpose whose decisions would almost inevitably produce more or less confusion and uncertainty. But so long as the land is appropriated to the road bed and depot purposes in the very mode prescribed in the statute, we do not very well comprehend how it can be appropriated in parcels to the payment of the debts of the company, by means of levies, even if the fee had been conveyed to the company.
In cases where the company purchase lands, not intending or supposing they are to be used or are requisite for depot purposes, as is sometimes the case, because they can obtain them in that mode upon more reasonable terms, and where, as in such cases is more usual, the conveyances profess to convey the fee simple, and no separation has been made between such of the lands as are required for depot purposes and such as were never supposed to be requisite for any such purpose, it is not necessary to give any intimation what might be the rights of creditors or what course should be pursued to secure such rights, such as they are, if any.
As the company had no such estate in these lands, or any such extent of territory as could be subjected to the levy of executions, at the suit of their creditors, treating their rights the same as if Burton had already executed all the conveyance which a court of equity would compel him to execute, it is not necessary to consider the other questions in the case.
Judgment affirmed,