due the bank either in his own name as receiver, or in the name of the bank; and he may sue for an ordinary debt without being instructed so to do by the comptroller.9 And the debtors, when sued, cannot inquire into the legality of the appointinent of the plaintiff as receiver.10 But when it is sought to enforce the personal liability of the stockholders, suit for that purpose can be instituted by the receiver only, by direction of the comptroller." The corporate existence of the bank is not dissolved by the appointment of a receiver; 12 and after his appointment, and while he is administering the affairs of the bank, a suit may be instituted against it in its corporate name.13 So an action may be prosecuted against a national banking association, although it has suspended active operations, and has voluntarily resolved to go into a state of liquidation. 14

1 In re Manuf. Nat. Bank, 5 Biss. 499; Union Gold Min. Co. v. Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank, 1 Colo. 531.

2 Irons v. Manuf. Nat. Bank, 6 Biss. 301; Thomp. Nat. Bank Cas. 203.

3 Wright v. Merch. Nat. Bank; Thomp. Nat. Bank Cas. 321; 3 Cent. L. J. 351.

4 Platt v. Beach, 2 Ben. 303.

5 Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199.

6 Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199.

7 Casey v. La Societé etc. 2 Woods, 77; Thomp. Nat. Bank Cas. 285.

8 Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673; Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19.

9 Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19.

10 Cadle v. Baker, 20 Wall. 650; Platt v. Beebe, 57 N. Y. 339; Platt v. Crawford, 8 Abb. Pr. N. S. 297.

11 Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498.

12 Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, 14 Wall. 383; Green v. Walkill Nat. Bank, 7 Hun, 63.

13 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Bailey, 12 Blatchf 480; Security Bank v. National Bank, 4 Sup. Ct. (T. & C.) 518.

14 Ordway v. Cent. Nat. Bank, 47 Md. 217; Thomp. Nat. Bank Cas. 559. See U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5220. Forfeiture of the privileges and pow. ers of a national bank must be determined by a suit brought by the comptroller of the currency, and until determined it may do business: Stephens y. Monongahela Nat. Bank, 88 Pa. St. 157; 32 Am. R. 438.

CHAPTER XIX.

RAILROADS.

§ 238. Nature of the franchise.

§ 239. Organization.

$ 240. Subscription to stock.

§ 241. Legislative control over.

§ 242. Rights as to property.
§ 243. Contracts by and with.
5244. Dissolution.

§ 245. Acquisition of lands.
$246. Acquisition by grant or license.
$247. Eminent domain.

§ 248. Compensation to land-owners.
§ 249. Compensation, how estimated.
$ 250. Title or interest acquired in lands.
$251. Location of road.

$252. Construction contracts.

5 253. Fencing line of road.

Highway crossings.

§ 254.

§ 255.

Liability for injuries in constructing road.

Liability for acts of officers and agents.

§ 256.

$257. Are common carriers.

5258. Carriage of freight.

$259. Carriage of passengers.

§ 260. Freights, fares, and other charges.

§ 261. Negligence in management of trains.
$262. Contributory negligence.

§ 263. Associated companies.

$264. Railroads in streets.

$265. Extent of right to use on street.

§ 266. Care toward passengers of street cars.
$267.. Duty of company toward employees.
$268. Leases of railroads.

$269. Remedies.

§ 238. Nature of the franchise.—A railroad franchise may be conferred upon and be enjoyed by natural persons; but it is usually conferred upon a corporation.2

1

BOONE CORP.-30.

So far as the stockholders are concerned, a railroad company is a private corporation; but as it respects the powers of the legislature to authorize the taking of private property for public use, it may be regarded as a quasi public corporation. In the grant of the franchise, there is an implied condition that it is held as a quasi public trust. A railroad is a public work to which the aid of the State may be properly given; and in this respect, there is no distinction made between a road built by private capital, and owned by individuals, and one owned by the public itself. Public utility is the consideration for the grant of prerogative franchises to railroad companies; and such a company must not exercise its franchises to promote another's monopoly. And if the grant to a railway is not exclusive in its terms, the legislature is not precluded from grauting other charters to similar corporations, which may essentially interfere with the operations of the former; 10 or, under the power of eminent domain, the legislature may even take one or more of the franchises of the former upon making due compensation. It is held that the rule of strict construction should be applied to railroad charters, 12 and especially to a grant of the exclusive privilege. 13 But a statute which provides that railroads shall afford equal terms and facilities for transportation to all does not preclude a railroad company from carrying on the express business itself, to the exclusion of all other parties. 14 If a railroad company, in constructing its road, transcend the authority constitutionally conferred by the legisla ture, the road is a nuisance, for which the company may be held liable in damages. 15 But a railroad authorized by the legislature, and lawfully constructed and operated in an authorized place, cannot be adjudged a nuisance.16 The franchise in a railroad is a mere easement, and cannot be sold or assigned without legislative authority; 17 nor is it, in ordinary cases, subject to levy and sale under execution.18 The duration of a franchise must be deemed

fixed by the constitution in operation at the time of the grant, or by the terins of the grant itself.19

1 New York etc. R. R. Co. v. Forty-second St. R. R. Co. 32 How. Pr. 481; Bank of Middlebury v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 182.

2 Denver etc. R ilw. Co. v. Denver City Railw. Co. 2 Colo. 673; O'Connor v. Pittsburg, 18 Pa. St. 187; Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood, 14 Ga. 80.

3 Stevens v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 29 Vt. 545; and see Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Ridge, 5 Blackf. 78; Alabama etc. R. R. Co. v Kidd, 29 Ala. 221; Trustees etc. r. Auburn etc. Railw. 3 Hill, 567, 570; Petition of Mt. Wash. Road Co. 35 N. 11. 14.

4 Stevens v. Rutland etc. R. R. Co. 29 Vt. 545; Stockton etc. R. R. Co. r. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147; Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. 424; Bradley v. New York etc. R. R. Co. 21 Conn. 294.

5 Messenger v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 37 N. J. L. 531; S. C. 17 Am. R. 754. See Aikin v. Western R. R. Co. 20 N. Y. 370; State v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 433.

6 Davidson v. County Comin'rs, 18 Minn. 482; Leavenworth County r. Miller, 7 Kan. 479; Stockton etc. R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 62 Ill. 268.

7 Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283; and see Donuaher v. State, 8 Smedes & M. 649.

8 Messenger v. Penn'a R. R. Co. 36 N. J. L. 407; and see Erie Railw. Co. v. Union etc. Ex. Co. 35 id. 249; Pruitt v. Railroad Co. 62 Mo. 527; Chicago etc. R. R. Co. v. People, 56 Ill. 365; Beekman v. Saratoga etc. R. R. Co. 3 Paige, 43.

9 Camblos r. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 4 Brewst. 563; Sandford v. Railroad Co. 24 Pa. St. 378; New Eng. Ex. Co. v. Maine Cent. R. R. Co. 57 Me. 188; McDuffee v. Railroad Co. 52 N. H. 430; Andenreid v. Phila. etc. R. R. Co. 68 Pa. St. 370.

10 Raritan etc. R. R. Co. v. Del. etc. Canal Co. 18 N. J. Eq. 546; Turnpike Co. v. State, 3 Wall. 210; State v. Noyes, 47 Me. 189; Matter of Buffalo, 68 N. Y. 167; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. 45 Md. 536.

11 Matter of Kerr, 42 Barb. 119; New York etc. R. R. Co. v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 36 Conn. 196; and compare Little Miami etc. R. R. Co.. Dayton. 23 Ohio St. 510; Matter of N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 20 Hun, 201.

12 Newhall v. Galena etc. R. R. Co. 14 Ill. 273; and see Parker v. Great West. Railw. Co. 7 Man. & G. 253; 7 Scott N. R. 835; Wilmington etc. R. R. Co. v. Reid, 64 No. Car. 226; Bowling Green etc. R. R. Co. v. Warren Co. Court, 10 Bush, 711.

13

Richmond R. R. Co. v. Louisa R. R. Co. 13 How. 71.

14 Sargent v. Boston etc. R. R. Co. 115 Mass. 416.

15 Mahon v. New York Cent. R. R. Co. 24 N. Y. 658; Commonw. v. Old Colony R. R. Co. 14 Gray, 93; McCandless' Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 210. 16 Easton v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 24 N. J. Eq. 49; Parrot v. Cin. etc. R. R. Co. 10 Ohio St. 624.

17 Arthur . Commercial etc. Bank, 9 Smedes & M. 394; and see Bardstown etc. R. R. Co. v. Metcalfe, 4 Met. (Ky.) 1.99; Coe v. Columbus etc. R. R. Co. 10 Ohio St. 372; East Boston Freight R. R. Co. v. Eastern R. R. Co. 13 Allen, 422; Pullan v. Cin. etc. R. R. Co. 4 Biss. 33. But see Kennebec etc. R. R. Co. v. Portland etc. R. R. Co. 59 Me. 23; Meyer v. Johnston, 53 Ala. 324.

18 Stewart r. Jones, 40 Mo. 140; Randolph v. Larned, 27 N. J. Eq. 557. 19 Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637.

§ 239. Organization.—The organization of railroad companies is sometimes effected under the provisions of special charters; but in many of the states such companies are now organized under general statutes enacted for the purpose. In the latter case, the proceedings instituted to effect an organization do not constitute a legal body until all the requirements of the statute have been substantially complied with, and the articles filed in the office of the secretary of the state. But the legislative recognition of such company, after it has filed its certificate under the general law, heals any errors or informalities existing in the mode of its formation; 5 and the company becomes, by such recognition, ipso facto, a legal corporation. Any irregularity in the proceedings to become organized should be deemed to be waived by such recognition.7 So if such company has become organized, and has acted as a corporation, it is estopped from denying its corporate existence, when sued upon a contract entered into as such corporation.8 Bad faith in obtaining the charter of a railroad company constitutes no ground for attacking it collaterally.9

1 See Newhall v. Galena etc. R. R. Co. 14 Ill. 273; Burhop v. Milwaukee, 21 Wis. 257; Low v. Conn. etc. R. R. Co. 46 N. H. 2×4; Boston etc. R. R. Co. v. Salem etc. R. R. Co. 2 Gray, 1; Cleveland etc. R. R. Co. r. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 325; Weld v. London etc. Railw. Co. 9 Jur. N. S. 310.

2 See Ill. etc. R. R. Co. v. Cook, 29 Ill. 237; Painesville etc. R. R. Co. v. King, 17 Ohio St. 534; Cin. etc. R. R. Co. v. Cole, 29 d. 126; Heaston v. Cin, etc. R. R. Co. 15 Ind. 275. As to the formation of English railway companies: see Stats. 26 and 27 Vict. ch. 92; 27 and 28 id. ch. 120, 121; Scottish etc. Railw. Co. r. Stewart, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 382; Norris v. Cooper, 3 II. L. Cas. 161; York etc. Railw. Co. v. Reg. 1 El. & B. 858. 3 People v. Stockton etc. R, R. Co. 45 Cal. 306; and see People v. Chambers, 42 id. 201.

State v. Bailey, 19 Ind. 452; Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. v. Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157; Burt v. Farrar, 24 Barb. 513; Rubey v. Shain, 54 Mo. 207.

5 State v. Hudson Tunnel R. R. Co. 38 N. J. L. 548.

6 Black River etc. R. R. Co. v. Barnard, 31 Barb. 258.

7 White r. Ross, 4 Abb. Ct. App. 589; 15 Abb. Pr. 66; and see In re N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co. 70 N. Y. 327, 338; Mead v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 45 Conn. 19; Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 228; Balt. etc. R. R. Co. r. Supervisors, 3 W. Va. 319; Maltby v. North-westeru etc. R. R. Co. 16 Md. 422.

8 Callender v. Hudson etc. R. R. Co. 11 Ohio St. 516. Garrett v. Dillsburg etc. R. R. Co. 78 Pa. St. 465.