Androscoggin & Kennebec Railroad v. Androscoggin Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Bill in Equity. The hearing was on bill, answer and proof. The main allegations in the bill were that the defendants by the seventh section of their charter were authorized, if they should elect so to do, to connect their railroad with the plaintiffs’ railroad in Leeds, and the plaintiffs were required, in that event, to receive and transport all passengers and freight brought to them by the defendants, at certain rates of toll; and that the plaintiffs were authorized, if…
Read the full summary
Bill in Equity. The hearing was on bill, answer and proof. The main allegations in the bill were that the defendants by the seventh section of their charter were authorized, if they should elect so to do, to connect their railroad with the plaintiffs’ railroad in Leeds, and the plaintiffs were required, in that event, to receive and transport all passengers and freight brought to them by the defendants, at certain rates of toll; and that the plaintiffs were authorized, if they should so elect, to connect their railroad with that of the defendants, and in that ¡.event they were required to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn by
Appleton, C. J.
Railroads may make a connection by virtue of a contract mutually entered into between them, or under the provisions of a statute authorizing such connection.
(1.) If the connection be under and by force of contract, its continuance in certain cases will be enforced in equity. Columbus, Piqua, &c. Railroad Co. v. Indianapolis Railroad Co., 5 McLean, 450; The Great Northern Railroad Co. v. Manchester, &c. Railroad Co., 10 English Law and Eq., 11.
There have been two contracts between these parties, both terminated by the complainants for reasons…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Columbus, P. & I. R. v. Indianapolis & B. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1853