Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

ADJUDGED CASES

[*] IN THE THE COURT UNITED OE STATES, SUPREME AT TERM, 1893. OCTOBER ST. CHICAGO, PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS OMAHA RAILWAY AND COMPANY. THE CIRCUIT COÜRT OE THE UNITED STATES FOR

APPEAL FROM OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT WISOONSIN. Argued 3, 1894. November Decided January

No. 73. Wisconsin, to granted lands to the State of aid-in the The United States portion granted of railroads.' The State a these lands construction opinion Company, a in the of the court The called company, purpose constructing granted a defined It also for the railroad. another'company, opinion portion of them to another called purpose Company, constructing Portage Of the court the another competing grant railroad. The to some extent latter and different/and upon completion grantee road within conditionéd was road, upon Portage specified.period. begun but in Work a was embarrassed, then In 1878 the broke down. became the time for the construction of of Wisconsin extended Company’s years. In was made road 1881a contract with three vigor completion, nmed and was under work was re with A. for its which prospect every prosecuted, would be com road diligently expiration pleted In before the extended time. within passed revoking extension, an act legislature of State Company. bestowing it the Omaha diligently perfoTming under A. was this the work which As result of arrested; prevented through the direct and active he his contract was performance it; completing his efforts of the Omaha VOL. cli—1 I. TERM, 1893.

Syllabus. profits him; he have which would received from it were lost to Portage Company. land wrested from the A. then com- against Portage Company, an action at judg- menced law being ment recovered his administratrix. Execution thereon bona, equity returned nulla a bill in filed in the Circuit Court of the by against Company, the administratrix the United States Omaha to grant charged reach the land in its hands. The bill that the Omaha Com- conspired pany had bribed with and certain Portage officials of the who, Company, through bill, circumstances named in the had become company, grant sole stockholders in that to wrest the land from the Company, prevent Portage completing and to A. from his contract. sundry steps conspiracy, alleged charged set forth in the that the conspirators legislature by pass of Wisconsin had been induced the to the upon forfeiting grant bestowing Company. act the land it the Omaha The defendant demurred and the demurrer the was sustained Circuit- Court. Held: (1) wrongs That the demurrer A.- admitted that had suffered the com- plained consequence of in of the interference of the Omaha Com- pany; (cid:127) assumed, (2) demurrer, That it must be as conceded the that the Portage Company had been the officials bribed Omaha trust, Company betray legislature and that the their allegations grant induced false to revoke tlib to the ' Company Company; and to it bestow the Omaha breaking Company (3) That as the down the and the ruin this, its contractor was the natural and direct of all result the equity could against contractor resort to grant enforce the land Company in the hands of judgment Omaha the ho had the. which against Portage Company; at the obtained law presumed it must' be (4) legislature, That that the in transferring the Company, to the Omaha did not thereby to affect intend rights against Company the Omaha courts; in the nothing (5) That as there words OmSha was. up expressly land, granted passed tied company subject to seizure and sale in satisfaction of obligations; Company, by matter, (6) That reason of its conduct in this became, as to the crcdiuors of the Portage Company, a trustee respect property. ex of this maleficio maliciously in a If one interferes parties, contract between two and induces injury other, one of to break that contract party of .them injured against can maintain an wrongdoer. action does an act act, a man which in wrongful When law and fact is a injury probable to another results from it as a consequence, natural and case an action on the lie. will corporation in a A stockholder cannot sole secure the transfer to himself of ST. &c. RAILWAY. CHICAGO, PAUL Case. Statement corporation deprive a property of the so creditorof cor- all Jhe poration the-payment of his debt. court, legislature inquiry challenged in a an act When power, question and does not extend to court limited expediency, legislators, . to the motives of or to the reasons matter of and, spread act; passage before them to oh induce which were hand, as the courts will interfere with the action of the the other no.t may presumed legislature, never intends to so courts, judicial the action of the or to assume interfere with functions itself. from a decree of the Court This was an Circuit appeal of Wisconsin dis- United States Western District bill. missing plaintiff’s was filed the 23d of

The bill May, against Chicago, Chicago, Portage Superior Railway and the Paul, St. Omaha'Railway Minneapolis Paul, and Trust St. Farmers’ Loan Company. Chicago, was the and Omaha only Minneapolis Railway Company on 28th and, defendant served process. appeared, which, a of filed demurrer to the bill after argument, July, of sustained, decree dis- and 2, 1889, was on September 912. 143 39 Fed. missal was entered. 39 Fed. ; Rep. Rep. two acts, The facts as in the bill were as follows: By stated date Stat. 3, 5, 1864, of June and 1856, May respectively, to lands c. and 13 c. 20, 43, 66, 80, granted Stat. Congress of railroads,1 State of Wisconsin to aid in the construction certain on St. river or others one from á Croix .the point among to the and between lake, twenty-five thirty-one, townships on the line of Lake and from west end of some point Superior, These to be said State, said selected railroad, Bayfield.” act of the land were an legislature, ap grants accepted and 1856, 8,1856, Wisconsin, 137,) October (Laws proved of date March the State, of resolution joint and Wisconsin, map Laws 689,) (Gen. filed Secretary definite location was and accepted by duly of the Interior. 1874, 186, Wisconsin, 4, 18-74, act of March

By (Laws fin c. North Wisconsin Railway the State 126,) granted Chicago, whose name changed subsequently TERM,

Statement of the Case. and Omaha Paul, St. Minneapolis and Railway Company, which herein,' is defendant be hereafter (to called the of the land Company,) portion grant applicable the construction from a the road on St. Croix River point and to the and Northern Pacific Bayfield, Chicago Air-Line whose name was and Railway Company, before subsequently, to that of T878, and changed Chicago, Portage Superior called the Railway Company, (hereafter Portage Company,) so much said as to the construction of applicable the road the west from end Lake to a Superior junction with the line St. Croix River to running Bayfield. section of act, which is the section eighth granting to the latter as follows: company,

“There is and hereby Northern granted Chicago ajl- Pacific Air-line Railway title, right, interest State of Wisconsin now has, here- may in or to that after the lands acquire, said portion granted State two said acts of as is or can be Congress made appli- cable the construction of said part railway between the company lying intersection of the point branches of -said fixed grants, surveys" maps file the Land Office at west end of Washington, This Superior. condition express Lake that said shall construct, complete, put opera- tion that its said above railway mentioned as soon part as a shall be constructed railway from the put operation of Hudson to said city within point intersection, five from its of said lands as years herein acceptance provided, shall also construct and put operation of said railway from Genoa at the rate of northerly, miles twenty per year.” of

The value the lands thus at time of granted was, hereinafter' wrongs described, $4,000,000. section 12

By within required sixty days to file with the of State an of the secretary acceptance and terms conditions named therein, such also for the construction security of the road as should required Both of governor. these conditions were with. complied CHICAGO, &c. ST. PAUL RAILWAY. of Case.

Statement tlie in the town section was on the southern Genoa, 8, named n boundary Wisconsin, of at which of the State line Pacific entered Northern Air-line .the .Eailvvay Chicago River, St. Croix and Hudson was State, place the initial acts point Congress described road to be aided. ot March an act was 16,

On passed c. Wisconsin, Wisconsin, (Laws 229,) extending three time for the construction of the Company’s Portage read years. had broken In the 1873-74 panic

. and remained down, embarrassments, under load of debts and 1880. At time it secured services inactive until embarrass- it from its Willis assist Gaylord extricating to. Wil- of its road. and in the construction ments, continuing H. an Schofield, railway projector experienced liam office of financier, was induced president, accept York, New and assistance of the New Eng- cooperation called the land and (hereafter Western .Investment Company Investment was secured. Company) and a new issue

A new for $25,000 mortgage mile, dollars hundred thousand for. Seven stock, provided were to be' new stock new bonds one million of the bonds, stock, in full issued satisfaction of all outstanding it issued other In these demands. arrangements, pursuance the .name of dollars, in certificates of stock for one million A. A. Company, solicitor Jackson, general with the Miichj blank, endorsed him in were deposited number Trust its orders and it also executed bearer Barnes or C. John ninety, delivery calling of stock ten dollars million amount said a.designated following cent These orders were instalments. per form:

To the Farmers’ Loan Trust Company: C. Mr. John received, that, “This is for value to certify shares Barnes or have and receive-r bearer is entitled to Rail- and Superior stock of capital Chicago, TERM, Statement of the Case. which stock has been for and .Company, fully way paid placed as a trust for this keeping special your delivery order, upon and directed are or hereby authorized you accept certify this order usual manner said stock, delivery deliver to the bearer hereof-shares of the said stock and as often as hundred whenever two thousand any fifty the first dollars of bonds said mortgage com- railway sold or are said pany disposed railway company its or whenever fiscal often as as ten agent, miles of any of said the railroad shall be railway built,- will be certified said president and in railway company, are event directed to hereby deliver to‘the you any bearer, the first day January, said-shares a.d. stock then undelivered remaining surrender capital therefor. of this order Postage Superior

“ChiCAgo, aud “ Railway Company. By --(cid:127), President. “.[seal.] “This order for the margin the bonds- delivery [On :] and stock held in o.f trust special hereby and accepted. approved ” Compaxy. Farmers’ LoaN and Trust The [seal.] ox-, orders

These were all to John delivered C. Barnes in for and of all the theretofore -change redemption outstanding stock of stock at once Portage Company, with the cancelled, two exception $23,000, certificates for on the which, Charles J. oversight design Barnes, part remained cus- his vice-president- Portage Company, uncancelled. tody these,

The situation after were made such arrangements entire stock was in outstanding possession C. J. Barnes, control of J. C. and A. Barnes, Jackson, A. yet them in held trust further stock company. for was to be issued from time to to assist time provided the sale of bonds until been dis- latter had enough road. These construct having posed arrangements PAUL &c. ST. RAILWAY. CHICAGO, of the Case.

Statement Company, through president, been perfected, of the Grand Trunk alliance Railway support sought had an Canada, which exten- recently completed of its road Chicago. sion entered into, wTere dates June 1G,1881, contracts

Three which the 30,1881, and bonds of 10, 188.1, September July to be' of and ad were disposed money enough construction the road. The bill sets for the out vanced of these nature and contracts, scope copies of fully It is here to attached exhibits. unnecessary them are say in connection with taken them, more than that, by prior the latter of the obtained Company, Portage arrangements of abundant and was funds, assurances placed satisfactory its the State agreement fully position perform —1882 at least all 5, the railroad May this, construct of no outside inter the condition wrongful course, upon ference. of its the sufficiency arrangements money,

Relying into a contract with entered Iloratio 1881, on it, 18, August of about miles of its for the construction sixty-five G. Angle covered the.land hereto- being portion railway, of that contract was to the terms to. referred By Angle fore full- in cash and mile mile $5000 per receive per $8500 on condition that he of the completed stock company, paid contracted for also steel road on or before May be delivered as the work construc- rails and fastenings tion proceeded. that, had made such progress cotamenced work, and

Angle men he had 1600 employed the 20th January, inter- fact unless that, assured and it was an line, along fered with, railway, according he would complete 18S2. before terms of the on or contract, May further, this time the Omaha that about The bill charges from the to wrest with other parties Company conspired end to prevent land grant, construction of the contract by Angle completion of the road.

In conspirators out of this conspiracy, carrying n TERM, 1893. Case.

Statement of tlie A. officers Jackson, Barnes and A.- of the bribed Charles J. or as either who,, personally attorneys Portage' Company, the control of all the outstand- had for John 0. Barnes, fact it} it in trust though holding stock ing their trust and trans- to betray for the benefit company, benefit of the Omaha one L. J. Cage, fer the stock to Company. caused stock, the control they secured thus

Having of the Grand Trunk officers to be notice thereof given that the control These finding Bailway Company. gentlemen, hands into the of hostile passing had which already the collateral surrendered interests, transferred, further declined them, proceed into. been entered contracts the Omaha the execution of conspiracy, Continuing the Com- Portage notified the- manager Company general and advised stock, the the outstanding pany purchase to the engineer-in-chief him to officially and induced telegraph had the who construction, engaged work of charge in these call forthwith seven work engineering corps, also them off. They and work, -their engineers, suspend pay contractor, the Angle, caused the to notify general manager, and that the control of the had been changed, company forced and also out, capitalists telegraph English at merchants Duluth and were-furnishing (whó Superior City had been the 1600 men at that the company supplies^) work) because themselves, them to out, sold. advising protect ; them. .could not or .pay company protect In of these the several notices, engineering consequence all the work, broken left were up, engineers corps to the and-other tools, material, belonging personal, property these suit of at the contractor and-the attached were and went' and' 1600 laborers merchant creditors, dispersed for elsewhere work. it endeavored

In -further execution of this conspiracy Company bribe the and directors of president the Investment to turn-over organization it caused in this, at once to Failing Portage Company .them. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL &c. ANGLE v. KAILWAY.

Statement Case. for Coolc to be filed Circuit Court County, a bill of directors and board Illinois, falsely charging president im- and otherwise thus imprudent obligations incurring thousand of the million and value twenty-five pairing as heretofore set stock, forth, praying purchased on 11, 1882, which, February injunction temporary and restrained without notice, presi- granted hearing doing dent and other officers Portage Company behalf the name or act or whatsoever thing the continuance of the injunction. during the Omaha In further execution of still conspiracy, the fact of the abandonment of the work caused thereon to of the laborers dispersion engaged Wisconsin, and widely throughout promptly published then the members of legislature, especially among — the means time Madison at same session at concealing which this had been accomplished. own Further, especially through through agents, Jackson and officers of Barnes, corrupted - that no to the falsely represented had been in the matter of constructing special progress this, number of men had ever that no considerable road; abandoned at and that the work, finally Portage Company or credit to and wras means it, without prosecute'it. wholly On the of these legislature, strength representations 1882, (Laws without February inquiry hearing, an act c. Wisconsin, 1882, forfeiting hurriedly passed 9,) p. bestow revoking and re- forfeiture which the Omaha upon ing March an act were passed confirmed granting c. 29. 18S3, 19, Law7S thus broken

The contract with Angle having at an action law he commenced against Portage Company died, was While this action Angle pending company. had in the name plaintiff, but a revivor was present in the a recovered and on she 31, 188Y, judgment January District for. the Western of the United States Circuit Court of Wisconsin for $205,803.19. (cid:127) TEEM,. 1893.

.10

Opinion-of the Court. execution was issued and returned judgment Upon bill was filed to reach the this land hona, n tilla thereupon hands of the Omaha Company. grant and Mr. Thomas for R. Doolittle Ewing Mr. J. appellant. Mr. on his brief. was with I. Southard Ewing Milton Mr. for and Mr. Thomas Wilson, F. Dillon Mr. John ap- pellee. delivered .case, after stating

MR. Justioe Brewer, of the court. opinion on even attracts notice a casuaí reading

That which must be truth of all the which taken, —the bill allegations (cid:127) —(cid:127) is the admitted the demurrer to be record, while was actively -executing that, engaged fact Angle con- he had with the Company- which Portage contract —-a so that its successful had far execution proceeded whose tract time to secure to the necessary within completion neither he nor assured, land when Company -was had moving any disposition Company the Portage — direct work contract or through break that stop of the Omaha performance active efforts which would have profits Angle contract prevented, the contract were lost him, from completion received the land was wrested from it. . would that the recital of these facts it would seem

Surely there assurance that was some remedy with.it'an carry law would give Angle would' and that such sustained, remedy the losses they acts these the Omaha whose reach party, Companjr, caused. losses were And, there were both and loss doubt.

That wrong beyond Merrell, 3 Bulst. Croke, J., said by Baily but where fraud no cause action; without damage gives do concur’-and meet an action lieth.” two there together, tliese u CHICAGO, ST: PAÚL &c. RAILWAY. 11

Opinion of the Court. The held a land Portage Company worth four millions It had dollars. contracted for the construction of its road, such construction to be in time to completed its title perfect land. The contract had been so far executed that its full within the time completion was prescribed assured. The had contractor sixteen hundred men The rails employed. had had lifted itself purchased. company out of the- embarrassments' which before had surrounded years it. It had all old taken its stock but $25,000, which up was ignorantly withheld one of its officers. It wrongfully had issued one million of stock, new authorized a new issue of bonds,- and had of all arranged cancelling with obligations hundred thousand seven of these bonds and one million of stock. It had consummated arrangements a ’wealthy for the advancement of sufficient moneys for its and had so far work, as to gone place hands of that one hundred thousand of its bonds, which in cash was to $50,000 be advanced. Except some through interference, it wrongful certain reasonably that every- -wouldbe carried out as thus thing planned arranged. At 'this time the Omaha Company, was a rival in some respects, which had located a line parallel con- to the line of the tiguous interferes, and in a interferes It bribes the wrongful way. trusted officers to transfer the entire Portage Company outstanding into its stock or at hands, least it under its place control. thus the stockholder, induces the Being only general manager withdraw several whose engineering corps, presence for the successful on of the necessary work carrying such notice road; as to result in give constructing of all seizure the tools and of the contractor and supplies and the all laborers company, dispersion To employed. action the faithful officers of prevent any the Portage obtains an Company, wrongfully injunction tying their hands. In the face of this condition of affairs the changed which had with the company, negotiated and was to advance it surrendered the ready money, one hundred thousand of the and abandoned the bonds, arrange- TERM, 1893.

Opinion of the Court. tbe as to tlie to false ment. By representations the to revoke that it body case, facts of the persuaded itself. the lands and bestow upon to the Company Portage on the interference part That this was wrongful loss it resulted directly and that Omaha Company, is It apparent. and to the Portage contractor that the was no certainty there that to not an answer say contract, and so earned his would have completed contractor a defence If such were the Company. lands for these Portage of in case any answer wrong- be an it would tolerated, always there for contract, of a with the ful interference performance that there enough lack certainty. is always consider- assurance, a reasonable here, as there be, should ing would be the contract performed all surroundings, n inthe and so the time performed manner and within stipulated, land to the company. to secure as mouth of a lie in the does not wrongdoer, It certainly to case, attend this per- as say such face of probabilities even if no would not have completed tire contract haps there no that, therefore, and being had been had, interference there is no of the loss, liability. certainty ahad that the'Omaha right can be said Company Neither made, effort-, that it an these- lands; simply contend land to obtain the benefit of this make, one might extent, their of this whatever kind, may No rights grant. were the Omaha Com- such perpetrated wrongs justify trusted to induce the was resorted to Here, bribery pany. their and trust, betray Portage Company officers in the hands of the stock least the at ownership apparent place the rival company. false notice, without Without hearing, allegations, officers the hands of the honest an stay it secured injunction use of Such powers Portage Company. wrongful of the court cannot be as among recognized processes contest, It burdens means competition. legitimate with the curse the Omaha conduct of whole Company with the affairs and makes its interference wrongdoing, interference. Company wrongful Portage PAUL &c. RAILWAY. ST. CHICAGO,

Opinion Court. as to what the false Further, Portage representations do, has done intends induced legisla- Company' to revoke ture of the State itself. the natural result, result, bestow it of the Omaha these actions on Company wrongful part down disabling breaking Portage Company, on this the dis- work,

it from means of. securing carrying and the contractor laborers, prevention, persion his It will not do contract. say completing have was not bound to but work, contractor might quit earned the lands contract, his and;thus gone completed that'the act of the nor wrongful Portage Company; their betraying. trusted’officers of trust could have been corrected in one or in that law suit the the courts; shape

appropriate to would redress another have offered Portage Company all the that and done for were attempted by wrongs remains all of fact this, yet Company. Granting acts these that result of natural, intended, wrongful was the unwill- down Portage Company, breaking to furnish it with money, ingness foreign company contract. contractor prevention completing-his that, remedies have ex- It is not other might say enough that and been isted resorted by Portage Company, were tied officers hands of its notwithstanding It is that injunction. wrongful enough it in break that broke down down; consequence did of..these were of the Omaha they acts wrongful resorted the latter with the intention breaking down. if one interferes that, has been maliciously held repeatedly one o'f

in and induces them a contract two between parties; in other, break party contract injury can an action wrongdoer: maintain Green jured against the defendant, & which Button, v. Cr. Mees. R. 707, had a a that he to one contract falsely party pretending from deliver lien such certain party property, prevented it to the to the contract, the other and was ing plaintiff, party TERM, 1893.

OCTOBEB Opinion the Court. v. Lumley occasioned the loss thereby; held responsible had entered into a con a in which singer El. & Bl. 216, 2Gye, t and the defend-' the theatre plaintiff, at trac o only sing and was contract, her to break induced ant maliciously con sustained by plaintiff liable to damages held Q. 6 B. D. m 333, 337, Hall, v. Bowen 'thereof.' sequence third who ma lies person action against that an held contract of to break his exclusive another induces liciously Avouldnat Avhich an thereby employer, Avith service personal an- to such cause, in fact injury did employer. cause, urally L. J., it Avas'said “that Avherever a Brett, In the opinion and in fact is a act, in law Avrongful Avhich an act man does natural as a probable consequence act may, an and such Avhich another, particular of it, injury produce case will an action on the such an injury, case does produce from the case of be deduced lie. This proposition the action satisfied, are conditions If these v. White. Ashby conse the natural probable lie because . the less- does an act done a third of is per act complained quence-of the third is a done act so person such .or because son; an act on his him, illegal or contract by breach of duty actionable an liability otherwise imposing an act part, manu Mass. Avhich a Cronin, Walker him.” an action to maintain entitled against held facturer unlawful him Avith Avho, purpose preventing third party induced of his business, Avilfally on his many from carrying the manufacturer his whereby to leave employment, employés Avhich he and the services, profits advantages their lost 2 Benton v. Wend. Pratt, therefrom. derived have Avould in Avhicha 66 N. Y. had con Manley, party v. 385. Rice a of cheese, deliver plaintiffs quantity to sell tracted to believe the fraud of the been through but having did not Avantthe sold and cheese, plaintiffs defendant it Avasheld that an action could be. him, to delivered for the defendant Avhich the damages against maintained Jones v. cheese. sustained failing get plaintiffs C. 356, Avhichthe court said: Avas N. “It Stanly, N. C. in Haskins v. that if a Royster, person decided ST. PAUL &c. CHICAGO, RAILWAY. 15 Opinion of the Court. entices laborers or to break their con- croppers

maliciously with their and desert his service, the em- tracts employer such recover The same against person. may damages ployer one cover where reasons every case person maliciously per- contract with a third another to break any .It suades person. for is not confined to contracts service.” if the Omaha. authorities, Under these had Company by its conduct induced the wrongful simply its contract it would him break have liable to Angle, for the sustained A when it damages thereby. fortiori, induces a breach of the contract only Portage Company, but also disables it from performance.

But there is still another in which these transactions aspect The Omaha became its may regarded. Company acts the in the sole stockholder wrongful Company] It matters not that have been might dispossessed action courts. It was, position by appropriate time at the sole As least, stockholder, such.sole stockholder.? it took its its the Port- advantage power position strip its transfer to its secure age Company property itself.. what if have Now, a rights, any, corporation may against sole stockholder causes the all who transfer of wrongfully to himself, to be made need not be property corporation into. It is clear that this stockholder cannot secure inquired this transfer from the to itself of corporation property the latter so as to a creditor deprive corporation of his debt. payment

To init another put way: Portage Company, corpo- owed ration, with which $200,000. Angle property that debt could be The Omaha became the paid. sole stockholder As such sole stock- Portage Company. it used of the Port- holder, to transfer property powers all the conduct and its age itself, way through marked by wrongdoing. Whatever the do, Angle may Company might for that hold the sole stockholder rightfully responsible pay- ment, have made but would corporation acts of such stockholder. wrongful TERM,

16 Opinion Court. of the contention not that' the the defendant’s is the stress But which, for a case speak- fails to state wrong generally bill but that the action would remedy, the'law give ing, in the land revoking State legislature it to the Omaha is Company donating courts, and, and prevents any recovery; conclusive upon on actionable wrong that part although secondly, bill, disclosed only remedy defendant may is action at therefor an law damages, has the plaintiff a court of shown for interposition no are grounds equity. first of insisted that matters, to the these it is

"Withrespect was in default at time that Company very the Portage of the Omaha were wrongs, part these and the to have been committed act forfeiture charged of the act of (the section By granting section) was passed. .“This is 4, 1874, provided: March that said shall com- construct, condition the express in that of its said above railway put operation part plete, as a shall be as soon constructed mentioned, railway put of Hudson said of intérsec- from city in point operation five’ from its said within lands tion, years acceptance"of shall also construct herein opera- as provided,, put said from Genoa at northerly, tion railwaj^ miles act of March per year.” the rate twenty “ the time reads tha’t limited for construction is three said ... extended hereby years.” railway ” “ act effect struck out the word five 'that merely and' substituted therefor the word clause eight,” the' quoted, conditions It is not the other of the grant' unchanged. leaving that had con- in the bill ever claimed that a of its road northward, from structed’ Genoa part had not been constructed and railway put operation therefore, of Hudson and, the city point intersection, it is not shown that the it is urged absolute in default or "the not 18S2. did, forfeit, February act It. right ex- on the other contended, hand, plaintiff CHICAGO, ST. PAUL &c.- RAILWAY.

Opinion of the Court. three from an absolute extension of May was years tension 5, in the other conditions' of two original 1879, irrespective an interest to' the gave Portage Company grant, which the had no to take away land legislature power grant It is further insisted the defendant before by May 5, 1882. if this claim of the the act of sustained, even that, plaintiff the revocation March resumption confirming 1883, 5, to the and the the land grant Portage Company, regranting after the the same was expiration full limit time claimed of extended as thus plain- had and that then the tiff, unquestionably and had lost all to the land. failed earn right it is said that there was, whatever matter Hence, aspect the State be looked a valid of the at, resumption by may it had made conditionally which to the Omaha that lands the act

a Company; regrant that full cannot questioned; knowledge must be the situation that no of' all presumed, inquiry- as to the motives which the- actuated legisla- permissible which' it did it did ture, presumed being everything rightly. the case of Peck, Cranch,

In this Fletcher respect, In that a is relied case purchase large body upon. and others in the of lands was James Gunn made year contract from for which State of was Georgia, in the form bill of a The legislature. passed to some of lands thus title these passed by acquired convey them Fletcher. An action Peck, who ances conveyed in that deed. The third covenants certain brought the State of title all the Georgia covenant Peck, the' had ever been conveyed legally premises . as a breach count second grantor. assigned, from the State of this covenant, that the original grantees members legisla and assured divers Georgia promised if the members said then ture, assembly, sitting general and if act, would assent and vote to, passing a share have should bill should the said such members pass, th'e said and .be in all the lands of, interested purchased VOL. OLI —2 TERM, 1893:

1$' Opinion tlio Court. law. that divers of the said of suoli And virtue

State unduly were were made, the said to whom members, promises did vote'for influence, under such and, influenced thereby’, tlie said law was whereof the said reason bill; passing did'not title of the State and so etc!, Georgia a nullity, matter the court, In to this the said'Peck. respect pass other observed, things, Justice'’Marshall, among by'Chief n n follows':'" ^ ^ ‘‘ to annul' the State Georgia This'is’not bill'brought by count to tlie court by nor'does contract,; appear with the salé tliat'has is dissatisfied State of Georgia as ánade out simply, The case, pleadings, made. in'the State of lands Georgia, who'holds' One individual this:. in tlie that'the title'of Georgia a deed under; covenanting deed, and 'this action of covenant án upon brings, grantor, the members'of that of’the legisla a some breach’,; as assigns, which'constituted’ law, the in favor of to vote induced ture were and that interest it, an contract, the by being.promised act a mere nullity. therefore the is . .’ thus collaterally cannot be brought “This solemn question indecent would be court. It incidentally before.'the individuals, two contract between a extreme, private the upon' the the corruption into an inquiry respecting, . bnter title be If the plainly-deduced a State. power of. sovereign constitu- tlie act, might legislature from legislative forms all the act be clothed requisite tionally pass,,if cannot sustain a' of law, a court as a court,, of a law, sitting founded on the another one individual suit brought against of the in' that act is nullity consequence th.e allegation of the members influenced certain legis- motives which impure the law.” lature which passed followed rests lias been this decision rule upon >vhich our rule of become a settled jurispru- cases and'lias

in many an act that is wdienever stated, The rule, dence. briefly is limited court is inquiry challenged the. legislature matter of to the not extend and does power, question reasons which .or the of the the motives legislators, expediency, of the act. to induce before them passage were spread PAUL &c.-RAILWAY. ST. CHICAGO, Opinion Court. the legislature rests the independence-of

This principle coordinate government. as one departments the three either departments seemly would another acted wisely, an as to whether be instituting inquiry insisted that rule or corruptly. Upon intelligently, cannot impéached; Wisconsin these two acts State of been, done have in fact that whatever wrongs may of Wisconsin, legislature Omaha Portage Company, has taken away of its undoubted exercise power, the Omaha Com- from the lands given them.to court can interfere -undoubted, no as its and, power pany, under, what influence of motives or or why inquire nor can court those acts were or information passed; those lands which either directly .indirectly, Recree, to the other, taken from one were away given of. the still remain either equitably, legally property of its debts. first subject payment company, it must be remembered that Omaha wrongs But either were done before passed it is to redress those 1882 or that of act of wrongs it be that the Can suit was legislature, brought. relieved those condoned acts, wrongs, by passing ? Did to the the Omaha any liability and the the land regrant resumption its acts in the officers make lawful bribing it relieve'the Omaha Com Did Portage Company? usé the the of- from for wrongful process any liability pany it act ? Could of the courts the judicially injunction the one that done effect decree the by wrongs ? A other created no of action of action to the cause right and has a for an is legis to recover injury property, damages An executive lature such the property? power destroy from and thus relieve a -wrongdoer the.punish may pardon but neither executive ment the exacts wrong, public or the relieve nor can wrong legislature pardon private he has individual to the wronged. from civil liability wrongdoer act of the State not one done the was wrong in such but the land taking proceed grant, legislature away TERM, 1893. Opinion of the Court. on the of the Omaha as Company part put Portage ings in a called for the áction position apparently Company ' no more of the There is the'legislature.' challenge validity the Omaha for of'this' , suing Company legislation by this than there is it'did legislation wrongs u'p leading of á criminal an action proceeding 'challenging validity malicious It prosecution. maybe, prosecutor against to act claim, counsel that-the with legislature presumed as that situation; it knew of the "the wrongs -knowledge .full Omaha the'Portage- done Company;-knew'that, ’by from hád'disabled'the those Portage Company pro Wrongs, that knew a cause of with action Work;' thereby ceeding contractor, arisen had Angle, against also the Omaha and with Company; against Company, the statutes deliberately all that knowledge passed possession .in it does not' follow that its to, yet legislation referred intended, to relieve the Omaha or was from potent There in this no suggestion impugning liability.’ It acts the wisdom, motives, or'the;power, legislature. all to which interests, private public guardian well- not that, have thought must and'itinay yield, interests had beén doné the- that wrong withstanding was obvious the fact and could oh with disabled, the'work; become go to such interest in' subserviency public former from the be taken away 'grant necessary in order thus to latter expedite to'the company, given not interfere -with action Ás will the courts 'construction.- that' the so may presumed rightfully legislature, to interfere the action never intends functions itself. to assume may courts, judicial to have the redress private left to the'courts. presumed words,'it In other' done the Omaha Company. wrongs interest like : Public- acted considerations these have upon' may Com of this;road; speedy building requires if aided can build cannot the Omaha it, pany interests'demand'a therefore, taking public grant; it to the the'one giving away PAUL &c. CHICAGO, ST. RAILWAY. Opinion of the Court. of the condition If the disabled

other. about Corn- wrongs has been brought and the maxim in those accepted the courts are open, pan}?', is a there is there that-where wrong remedy. tribunals is,' interests of and leaves the thus subserves public which has not to that of the wrong department only redress the' but also appropriate machinery jurisdiction, requisite and the amount for injury, enforcing ascertaining due compensation. at this from the When this mat-

Look opposite standpoint: the attention of the its ter legislature, brought, was it confronted with these alternatives? invoked, only action it, as a condition of could, even if Must it, subserving done the one condone interests, private wrong public i,t let the must interests be other, to the public as the has until such time private question wrong neglected must without the it, been determined, possession — determine arbitrarily investigation, suitable machinery this transfer subservience to inter- public as condition the one done to the measure of ests —the injury and character of amount compensation other, be stress laid would be rendered? unnecessary Largo if the interest was the legislature- question public thus and com- hampered suggestions injury always individuals. While there between if be no private pensation freedom action abundant such to. stress, open legisla- functions of the distinction between ture, separate government preserved, departments coordinate interest and at the same time private may justice public with sole in all regard secured. legislature may proceed the assurance that all interests, to the actions public will individuals be settled between wrong questions loss that its sub- own action in in tiie judicial department, no redress of a interest will bar private to the public serviency n wrong accom- necessary unless such bar be absolutely interest. public plishment maintained, to be this suit is said that

But permit of the Omaha.Com- lands these possession subject TERM, Opinion of the Court. to the satisfaction the the pany judgment against Portage tanto, to the action of is,pro nullify the Company, legislature; in that the lands from the one taking away compunja giv- it them the other, to intended that the transfer should be ing limitation, without absolute, to no subject contingencies But it or burdens. affirmatively no such intention; expressed it made the the transfer, simply leaving property subject the all burdens and which arise in the contingencies might course law. at the time of this transfer ordinary Suppose from the one to the State, and from the State to the was other there an in favor of company, existing judgment the the Omaha would it for against Portage Company, that moment contended there was in the transfer anything the which from prevented Portage Company satisfying a seizure and sale of the lands thus transferred judgment the Omaha Unless there were in the words of Company? the the Omaha Company something expressly it land, tied seizure up passed com-pany,subject and sale in satisfaction of its or future past obligations. Even if it be that, conceded under a true construction of the taken in connection with the act the time grant, extending three for was in default on Feb- years, Portage Company and the 1G,1S82,' had then ruary the absolute legislature right such to forfeit concession would grant, be no answer out the cause of action set in the bill. For can who say would have exercised that legislature of forfeiture? right The mere fact that could not enforce Portage Company at the time to the lands as the State does legal right against the Omaha not absolve for those w Company liability 'ongs in which resulted lition putting a con Portage Company naturally action f the calling legislative furtherance c interest. If of the kind had nothing public done'by Omaha it Portage wa&, Company slated, in .the proceeding diligently work, reasonable assurance would be within four three or completed it is fair to months, that the presume would legislature have disturbed the but would have grant, the Port- permitted earn that which it had Company age fully already partially NAIL ST. PAUL &c. WAY. CHICAGO,

Opinion of Court. first, The selection earned. was, course, legislature good faith, instance with the intent that time extended and the have the and if should do the work and grant, the work saw doing legislature faith would have respect good promptly completed, that but for the conclusion .the compels' Com- untoward circumstances precipitated upon act acts of wrongful pany by would' have been 16, 18S2, never February passed. Assuredly (cid:127) lie in the it does not whose power party wrongdoer, which induced the created condition legislative Avrongs to on the that the excuse its forfeiture, wrongs ground legis-- it forfeit, to and have done lature had the power anight any- of 2 Wend. and Pratt, 385,390, cases Benton Rice The way. 66 N. Y. are 82, 85, upon v. Manley, suggestive question. n cases it that certain the former of these had parties In appeared to of him with the contracted purchase twenty hogs, plaintiff future been at a done to nothing delivered day, having the statute of under frauds. While- make the contract binding and fulfil his was his hogs preparing.to plaintiff driving defendants, contract, facts,'fraudulently-rep-, knowing.the thus, not to deliver them, that -he did intend resented their third the' induced those when buy hogs, parties his refused to take them arrived with they plaintiff simply n full had was because they already supply. point because there could not recover was no that the bind- plaintiff third but him paities, contract’between point ing overruled, “It was court material'whether was saying: .& Wilson contract of -plaintiff Sengraves evidence established not, them all beyond binding upon have fulfilled but for the.false and would- they question in' defendants.” And fraudulent representations an one had made latter -with agreement case the plaintiffs to be cheese, him a from quantity Stebbins purchase was not contract, -and that too, at a future da\^, delivered The defendant- of frauds. statute reason binding means a fictitious tele- of this, fraudulently,- by knowing TEIIAI, 1893. Opinion the Court. did not want the Stebbins plaintiffs persuaded gram, himself secured a and thus it, pur- not take and would cheese in defence to an action it was Here, too, it. objected, chase of a failure on caused part him for the damages against there Stebbins, from the cheese to obtain the plaintiffs Stebbins be enforced which could against was no contract the court overruled but cheese, the sale and delivery actual certainly “Plaintiffs’ damage objection, saying: been if Stebbins obliged have as would great sale, for the reason that his contract greater, perform loss a suit for their themselves cannot indemnify they con- for a breach to recover damages Stebbins against A a legacy, a testator give tract. designed Suppose of*B; the fraud such it solely by doing prevented enforce which he can has no A case, legacy while right will both law testator, equity the estate yet against B, relief furnish him depending against appropriate cited; and cases Frauds; 'facts of the case. (Kerr contract with A made Fraud, parol Bacon Ab. Suppose B.) to con- and B is of land, ready willing B for the purchase fraudulent rep- from so but is doing vey, prevented is deceived and which B as to A, of C resentations A could not in such C; case, although induced convey it would be a him the B to conveyance, have compelled give to A be liable to hold that 0 would not to the law reproach line of the fraud.” The same for caused the by' damage cannot be it to the case before us. While thought applies not have would that the affirmed with certainty legislature it is reasonable forfeiture, presume the act of yet passed the situation would'not, it and that its act Avasinduced that about Avhicbsituation was brought Portage Company, of the Omaha the acts Company. .wrongful summed Our conclusions in to this matter bemay respect the thus: The would have completed Portage Company- up In but for the acts of the Omaha work Company. wrongful also moved thus caused, disability consequence the false the Omaha legis- the Company, representations made, to the Omaha resumed its lature regrant &c. RAILWAY. ST. PAUL '25 ANGLE CHICAGO, Opinion of the Court. It is is conceded. that act validity to .be

Company. to the acted with the regard legislature proper presumed motives or induce- and without interests, any improper public that ments. to be all this, presumed Conceding equally it to the it left the judicial depart- redress of private wrongs to the Omaha ment. It attached no conditions those would appropriation Company prevent that lands to the satisfaction of claims any company. against trustee for the And hold the hence to Omaha Company to these creditors of the lands, respect Portage Company, of the action of neither legislature impeaches validity or motives. nor casts its any knowledge imputation upon of this also be noticed that grant, may purpose from the State to the the first com- Congress place was to aid in the construction of second panies place, the railroad. That already accomplished, purpose having there no thwarting public policy, purposes now be if lands shall appropriated, through grant, granted to the satisfaction of claims courts, any processes the Omaha against Company. two it to the other of the now objections, may

Passing would lie at law that an action conceded damages sustained by through wrongful Company, that is a fact which Indeed, acts Omaha Company. while an action at law Yet, case. would underlies this whole was either full it does follow that such lie, remedy as to solvency question adequate. Waiving it Omaha and assuming judgment against Company, satisfied there could be by legal process, fully damages that it is contrary remains equity proposition unmolested that defendant should be enjoy par- permitted of which to secure, ticular sought property, possession acts. the Port- and did secure, Ought by wrongful fact with the sol- compelled experiment age into before a court of of the Omaha vency coming attached to'the title to no trust these 'While express equity? — either in the .or lands, resumed be conceded when while may TERM, Opinion of the' Court. trust or it took the title any discharged express in the creditors favor of Portage Company,

liability title to third an absolute any transferred have might or Company, the reach pursuit Portage beyond party that the lands were is still true given or its creditors,- -yet— been given by Congress as they Company, aiding purpose for instance the State first of the work neces- .a part road that ; construction is,- and there there- done, such construction had for sary to which work to the extent an fore, equity -securing, lands -payment these had been done, application And its when the Omaha thereof. Company, by wrong- full those will lands, secured title to equity doings, legal who for has been hold party deprived payment of their his work from the reason Portage Company, b}' been taken shall away it, able to those having pursue into the lands hands of and hold them wrongdoer, of that but claim which, of. payment wrongdoings have-been would paid by Com- least, at out of their pany, partially proceeds. While no trust is affirmed as to the express lands, it is yet familiar doctrine that a who title to party acquires property wrong- a trustee ex fully may adjudged to that respect maleficio property. In Jur. Pomeroy author Eq. says, § citing many “If one cases: obtains the party title to legal property, fraud or violation of only by confidence or of fiduciary but in relations, other that he manner, unconscicntious so cannot retain the equitably property really belongs out another, carries equity of a double theory ownership, equitable legal, by trust impressing constructive in favor of property the one who is in conscience good entitled to.it, who is .considered in beneficial as the equity owner.” And iri section again, 1053 “In whenever : general, title to real legal or obtained property, has been personal, actual fraud, through or concealments, misrepresentations, undue duress, through influence, of one’s taking advantage weakness necessities, other means or similar through any CHICAGO, ANGLE v. ST. PAUL &c. RAILWAY.

Harlan, J., Dissenting. under other similar circumstances which render it uncon- any scientious for the holder of the to retain and legal'title enjoy the beneficial a interest, constructive trust on equity impress.es thus in favor of the property who is acquired one truly entitled to the he never equitably same, although may per- have had estate therein and a haps court of ; legal equity has to reach the in either the hands of jurisdiction property or in the hands original wrongdoer, any subsequent until holder, a in faith and without of it purchaser good notice a and takes the relieved acquires higher property right, from the trust. The trusts, forms and varieties these are termed ex without or ex are delicto, practically maleficio limit. The for it is wherever principle necessary applied the law also the obtaining may complete justice, although the remedy wrongdoer.” give damages against suit. The to sustain These are . authorities ample of aid- for purpose inwas Portage property done work was road; of this in the construction ing that that a right recognizes in direction. Equity plaintiff for that work. in the payment should applied property has the.defendant, Company, The wrongdoing from; the Portage Company to this wrested the title property a trustee become, therefore, It has to itself. transferred these follows from ex property. respect maleficio demurrer sustaining court erred considerations must be of dismissal decree and the this bill, instructions' to over- remanded case Reversed, in con- proceedings demurrer, rule the further law. formity judg from opinion dissented Harlan Mr. Justice v. Circuit, him, Angle at stated for the reasons

ment 39 Fed. Railway, & Omaha Paul, Minneapolis St. Chicago, St. Chicago, Co. & Trust Loan 912, and Farmers' Rep. 39 Fed. Rep. Railway, & Omaha Paul, Minneapolis case, Trust Company's Loan & Farmers' His opinion follows: aswas 39 Fed. Rep. TERM, 1893.

Harlan, Dissenting’. J., a New York cor- Trust The Farmers Loan Company, in a trustee this suit its capacity mortgage brings poration, 1, of trust executed January Chicago, deed of Illi- Railway corporation & Superior to construct and Wisconsin, having nois and power equip to a on the north line point railroad city Chicago at or near the Wiscon- Genoa, State, of the former village at the end of west Superior, thence sin, way was to secure Lake object mortgage Superior. and interest bonds negotiable principal payment to amount issue, the railway proposed' to.-the the end it as and to that conveyed-to plaintiff, of §10,200,000, lands, with all land road, its entire together grants, trustee, title, estate, interest, franchises, powers, rights, privileges, a certain thereto, or including appertaining belonging property the States to State of Wis- the lands by of United. to latter the the and by mortgagor company. consin, default in the the trustee, authorized upon payment mortgage also, certain -to enter interest, premises, of upon to sell mortgaged property. provided, contingencies, of action under it shall other right things, among and its in trust, successors plaintiff exclusively vested should individual circumstances bondholders under no or on or under the suit, action, proceeding, institute other of therein for the enforcing purpose any remedy mortgage, provided. that bonds to the amount of were shows The bill §5,000,000 them sold; that, issued of executed, part .and (which will he the latter, to mortgagor company respect inwas default as interest. Company1) called ‘Portage defendant, St. Paul, the-Chicago, It is alleged Minne be called the Railway Company, (which & Omaha apolis ..will claims of to be owner wrongfully Company,’) ‘Omaha the State to the such by the lands granted enactments of founded claim being null, avers, are unconstitutional, which, plaintiff Wisconsin if that oven said It is also alleged and void. enactments vested latter, for reasons title the Omaha Company, the legal &c. CHICAGO, ST. PAUL RAILWAY. Harlan, J., Dissenting. a court stated, by

to be hereafter ought permitted the lands or their to hold proceeds plain against equity A decree is tiff and creditors Portage Company. first of trust be a this deed asked declaring mortgage be cer as had been or lands, lion on such might including lands States tified the State United indemnity under above grant. I suit, “In connection with outline present general these lauds as disclosed state history-of necessary and of this State. Congress legislation an June there was act approved “IBy Congress, the con- Wisconsin, aiding granted purpose Columbus, of a from Madison or way struction railroad town- river or between lake, to the St.-Croix City, -the end of Lake from thence-to west ships du Lac, .and also from Fond and to Bayfield; Superior, alternate line, to the state every Lake northerly 'Winnebago, for six sections in numbers, odd section of land, designated on each side said road within fifteen miles width, respec- State, -the lands be held ; subject disposal tively than the construction no other-purpose legislature, and dis- selected, road' were for which they granted as the work only progressed. posed be of that the lands “The'fourth section disposed provided — to that in manner the State say: only following, and one hundred sections, not twenty exceeding quantity of miles of the included within a continuous twenty length when the ; and cer roads, be-sold governor respectively, might Interior con to any twenty tified the Secretary then were another like of road tinuous miles either completed, from sold; so, of'the land might granted quantity were and if until the roads time, completed-; they time ‘ no further shall be sales ten years, are within completed revert the United States.’ land shall and the unsold made, ' - II 48. Stat. :c. 20, “ October an act of the Wisconsin legislature, approved By granted 8,1856, the-lands, privileges powers, rights, terms, conditions, were reser- upon Congress accepted- TEEM, OCTOBEB Harlan, J., Dissenting. 3, vations contained in the act of June 1856,'and the State thereby assumed the execution of the trust created. Laws Wisconsin, 137, c. 118. 1856, “ On the second the State filed in the March, 1858, Gen- Land of the United States a eral Office map fixing definite under the act of 3,1856. location of June railway Congress “ 13 Stat. 5, 1864, an act Con 66, 80, May By approved c. lands aid of the construction of enlarged gress from the or- St. Croix river a road lake. northerly running section,of that act for the Wisconsin granted pur first a railroad from a construction of of aiding point pose 25 and that river between lake, on townships Lake and from some end of the line (cid:127)west Superior, point selected State, to be railroad, Bayfield, every odd land, numbers, alternate section public designated by within miles on each width,' ten sections twenty side lands road, said deducting granted purpose by same1 the same .terms 3, 1856, act of June Congress contained the State to have the act; conditions as are tier lands, other nearest of sections of selecting right in lieu of such of as should above those granted specified, or route of the road was line when definitely appear, sold or or to have fixed, otherwise appropriated, to. or. homestead attached; preemption which right ‘ (cid:127) be held the use lands shall said State for which of' aforesaid.’ purpose limited for the The time of the .roads completion specified

“ of June was extended to a in the act five period after the of the act of 1864. Sec. 5. passage years ‘ section inis these-words: That The seventh whenever the made, to which the same companies have, transferred, shall consecutive may completed twenty said with all railroads, miles neces- portion supplied turn- culverts,-viaducts, drains, sidings, bridges, sary crossings, and all furniture, outs, watering-places, depots, equipments, of a first-class shall railroad, issue patents other appurtenances and title to said lands to the said the right conveying on each side of the so far as the same is thereto, road, entitled ST. PAUL &c. CHICAGO, RAILWAY. 31

Harl.an, J., Dissenting. riot section, and coterminous with said completed completed, and shall the amount like aforesaid, exceeding patents as each of said is com- manner issue miles railroad twenty no Provided, That shall issue for however, patents pleted: lands unless there shrill be to the of said Secre- presented a or statement, of the Interior verified' oath affirma- tary and certified said the’ tion president company, by by of the State of that such miles Wisconsin, twenty governor' this act, the manner have been completed required where such forth certainty points twenty setting which oath and where the same shall be end’; miles begin of a court record of United States.’ taken before a judge should, section that the lands eighth provided granted seven, as in section when provided’ subject patented, entitled for the: thereto, companies respectively d'sposal aforesaid, be, and that the railroads no other, purposes for the use remain, highways government public free for the States, United charge transportation its troops. property 20, resolution March “By joint approved legislature, the State the act 1865, 5,May accepted to the conditions 1864, (Gen. subject prescribed Congress, and bn the sixth Wisconsin, 1865, Laws day May, 689,) Land Office United States 1865, in the General filed filed location oh map previously certificate adopting act.’ That last location under map the definite location Interior.' the Secretary were accepted approved 4; March “A approved act legislature, subsequent, 1874, (Laws’Wisconsin, 1874, March published Wisconsin Railway c. North 186, 126,)granted then railroad, it to complete purpose enabling interest title, and all the it, constructed right, partially bjr in and to the hinds then had, State thereafter acquire, might the construction of- aid in acts of granted Congress between lake, river or townships a railroad from the Croix St. of Lake Bayfield, 25 and west end Superior those herein and Northern Chicago ‘except granted Air-line Pacific Railway Company.’ 1893. TERM,

Harlan, J., Dissenting. that act of and fifteenth sections ninth, twelfth, The eighth, are as follows:

“ ‘ and hereby There is Chicago SeotioN 8. granted all the right, Air-line Eailway Pacific Northern now has, of Wisconsin the State interest which and title, of lands in or to that portion hereafter acquire, may or can as is two acts of said said State Congress granted of that the construction part applicable made of intersec- between point of said lying railway company and fixed of surveys the branches said tion of grants, and the west in the Land Office at file Washington, maps express This upon of Lake end Superior. and construct, shall complete, put. that said company condition mentioned as above of its said railway in part operation shall be constructed and operation put as a railway soon and intersection, Hudson to said of of from the point city herein of lands as from its said acceptance five within years and shall also put operation construct provided, of at the rate from Genoa northerly, of said company railway miles year. per twenty di- 9. The authorized governor hereby “(cid:127)‘Section him of satisfactory proofs

rected, presentation upon of miles of that of continuous railway part twenty first above mentioned have been completed said of this to issue act, with said acts Congress accordance to said com- cause to be issued and delivered deliver, or hundred in due form from said for two State patents pany thereafter land, and of said upon completion sections miles of said shall issue he railway, twenty continuous for' to said issued company, patchts cause to'be delivered of said and on the lands, sections completion hundred two between said said railway lying part he of Lake and the west end Superior, intersection point delivered . to be issued and and deliver or cause issue shall hereby of said lands residue patents said company, to said company.’ granted ‘“ Air- Pacific said and Northern Chicago Section within and after shall, days sixty Eailway line CHICAGO, ST. PAUL &c. RAILWAY. Harlan, J., Dissenting. act, this file with the of State, Secretary passage board duly directors,

resolution adopted accepting the terms and conditions herein this contained, also, within said to the State of days, shall sixty give such of that security Wisconsin completion portion between said intersection and the railway lying point of Lake end accordance Superior, west provisions act, as shall acts of said Congress required by said Provided, That shall be however, security governor: effect until or shall have an act no force Congress passed of the time for the said construc grants renewing extending (cid:127) or until said it shall been decided road, of have tion by of that Court the United States title of present Supreme is absolute and and the failure indefeasible; State upon and to file said the said of said resolution give this act shall the time hei’einbefore limited, within security as it said interest in so far of no effect grants said lands.’ right “ ‘ effect and be in force from 15. This act shall take SectxoN and and after passage publication.’ “ of the above the twelfth section act The bond by required 9, and filed 1874. May by governor approved Pacific and Northern 16,1878, to March Chicago “Prior to that of the its name Air-line Company changed Railway and Railway Company. Superior Chicago, Portage “ on the Wisconsin approved an act of the legislature, By time 1878, March 28, and last named, day published and for the construction 1874, 4, limited the act of March by & of Chicago, Supe of the railway completion three Laws years. was extended rior Railway Company, 229. 442, c. Wisconsin, 1878, “ act of the of approved the first section an legislature, By c. Wisconsin, 11, 1882, 10,) February 16, (Laws tó the Chicago, of lands declared that the March 4, the act of h c by Railway Superior are said lands hereby is annulled, revoked hereby Wisconsin.’ resumed of State £ “ is There in these words: The hereby' second section VOL. CLI 3— TEEM, OCTOBEE

Harlan, X, Dissenting. Paul, to the St. & Omaha Chicago, Rail Minneapolis granted title, all the which the interest State right, ,way Company ,or has, hereafter of now .in and may Wisconsin acquire said State acts (cid:127)lands granted Congress, approved 5, 1864, to aid in 3, 1856, June the construction May from the St. river or Croix lake to- the .railroad west end of which are Bayfield, under said Superior applicable .Lake construction acts of said Congress portion from the St. Croix river or railroad, lake end to-the.west which lies Lake between intersection Superior, point railroad, said last-named branch, as fixed Bayfield of said railroad, and the -branch on surveys maps file Land the General Office and the west end Washington, of Lake This .Superior. condition express the said St. & Paul, Chicago, Rail Minneapolis shall with the construc way continuously proceed now of the railroad tion constructed between part said of intersection and the west end of Lake point Superior, so shall the same admit. complete running .the trains thereover on or before the 1st a.d. day December, 1832.’ . ‘ seventh section Sections and 10 of D, provides 126 of the Laws of 1874, said and all acts and chapter parts in of manner acts with the any contravening conflicting of'this are act, (cid:127)provisions hereby repealed.’ of an act the Wisconsin “By 5, March legislature, approved and March 7, 1883, Laws of c. it published 1883, 19, 29, was declared: “ ‘ Sec. 1. The revocation, and annulment, resumption 1 of section 10 of the of chapter Wisconsin Laws of land the 1882, mentioned in said year grant section, are in all hereby confirmed. fully things “ ‘Seo. 2. The of land made said chapter St, of 1882, Laws Paul, & Chicago, Minneapolis in Railway all Company confirmed. hereby fully respects “£ Seo. 3. All acts and in of acts parts interfering manner with the of act are conflicting provisions hereby repealed. ST. PAUL &c. CHICAGO, RAILWAY. 35

Harlan, J., Dissenting. “‘ inbe shall take effect and force from 4. This act Sue. arid ' ' (cid:127) and its publication.’ after passage above statement will be seen

“It iu of the act the Wisconsin of section of eighth much the lands embraced so of 4, 1874, granted by March 1856,- 5, and 3, 1864, of of June were May. acts Congress of road of the to the construction part applicable ‘ between the intersection of lying point as fixed of said and surveys the branches grants, maps and the in the Land Office at west end of file on Washington, — distance of about That Lake is' sixty-five.miles. Superior,’ to which this suit relates. the road liberal the most construction the act of

“According 1878, that of March 1874, 16, time limited 4, March road at in least, 1882, of that completion expired, May, filed its after the as re bond, railway eight years the ninth section the act is conceded quired never its divi that the Portage Company completed land-grant . did construct Nor it ever the road from sion any part the act of 1874. Genoa northerly, required as. The bill that broke down alleges 1873-4, under load of debts large monetary panic until late in dormant embarrassments, lay year when its one to find 1880, stockholders Gaylord employed able and to revive disposed put way parties had so that work'of its rehabilitation far success; progressed the fall of bor- early them in rowed sums large money expended pushing in which it division was inter- the land-grant' construction more on thé 19th of than one-half ; that, ested January, had been sitbstmcture of that division completed'; than hundred the time last named more sixteen men were at at lay and its it, construction, work timé ample 5,1882, division was assured.- rails before May complete “It further would alleged but for have road following completed land-grant 1. The the state of the act of causes: passage contained 16, 1882, February annulling revoking TERM, 36 Harlan, J., Dissenting, in the act of March 4, 1874, destroyed the credit of the while it was under actively engaged, disadvan- many in the construction of its road. 2. tages, That the emissaries,, Company, interfered agents .and with- and defeated .the efforts the Portage complete its road within the time. required the act of 3, June

“Although 1856, that if provided roads therein named were not within ten completed no years further sales should be and the made, lands unsold should revert to the United States; although extension only for such the period ever made completion Congress, for five from and after the years the-act of passage 5,May no is made in 1864, question suit as to the present title of these lands the State at the date of being passage act of March for all 4, 1874, the purposes indicated in the acts This, Congress. perhaps, because of the decision Schu v. Harriman, Wall. lenberg in64, which the court had occasion to the acts of June interpret 5,May 1864; holding requirement lands remaining unsold after a time shall revert specified to the United States, if the road be not then completed, more than nothing ‘a that the shall be void if a condition subse provision be not that-when a condition quent performed;’ grant upon from, the no individual proceeds can subsequent government, the title assail has failed to. ground grantee such the United condition; States perform having no action to enforce taken the. forfeiture of the estate granted, ‘ title remained in the itas existed on State completely the title when location the route of the railroad day became attached alter acquired precision, adjoining sections.’ See also McMicken nate v. United States, 97 U. S. v. 204, 217; Grinnell Railroad S. 739, U. Knevals, 106 U. S. 744; Van St. Wyck 360, 368; Louis, Iron Mountain v. McGee, 115 &c. U. Railway 469, 473. S. These authorities also indicate the in which the right .mode take aof condition subse advantage non-performance annexed to a be exercised, quent, public grant, may namely, ‘ law, the judicial authorized proceedings equivalent n 8† ST. PAUL &c. CHICAGO, RAILWAY. J.,

Harlan, Dissenting. the fact of forfeit- common law, of officeat finding an inquest the estate on that of the restoration ground,’ or ure, adjudging ‘ the for of assertion of or ownership property by legislative an act the condition, such as directing possession of the breach offered for or that of the property, appropriation, or settlement.’ sale “ the court has be'en to the attention of which questions of act Feb- to the less, directed more relate, principally the the Port- 18S2,revoking annulling grant ruary that of that The main contention age Company. bond the and the thereof, of 1874, given the grant acceptance of as to the construction the of the condition performance it to contract, constituted a- division, the entitling land-grant of the the miles railway, earn lands sixty-five by completing without 5, 1882, Lake the west end of by May Superior, State; of the on the consequently, or hindrance part opposition im- the act of 1882 the declared by it is forfeiture argued, and was unconstitu- contract, the that paired obligation tional and void. that the is contended On the Omaha Company part of the one the conditions grant road from its

rvas that it would construct and operation put miles each that ; Genoa at rate northerly twenty year the act of no that road had been constructed when part reason of such default, 18S2 was that, by passed; latter State-had the withdraw right had or hád not been done without to what company,, regard division. To this towards construction of land:grant that plaintiff replies obligation road from to its assumed with reference 'Genoa Company made, nor condition made, was not intended northerly of its to that to earn lands part right applicable branch road between the intersection Bayfield point end of Lake with branch to the west Superior; extending State with the acts that, Congress, consistently, could not make to earn these lands depend right that which construction of of its line, Congress except any part (cid:127) intended aid grant. TERM, 1893. Harlan, J., Dissenting.

“It also contended that to the beyond power in which S,tate to make that the mode the State ; disposed -was lands latter inconsistent pre- — in the act of is, scribed the State had no Congress, in advance of the road, authority, completion dispose sale, the land, conveyance, otherwise, one beyond to hundred and or make sections, additional con- twenty any to tract in their To this the respect disposition. plaintiff that the act of replies necessary by implication, per- to mitted the State lands, the to the condi- dispose subject as to tions of the the time when the title absolute should grant, the to the them, and as pass corporation earning State to time within which the should the road Such, completed. all was claimed, it is that the act of done 1871. by “ As be seen from hereafter the touch- will views expressed not other to decide whether the ing questions, necessary of the act of section the construction the eighth of its road from Genoa northerly condi- Portage to it of these lands, tion of the whether such a con- dition could have the imposed by State. The legally if inclined to that the court is the opinion the condition as to the prescribed com- duly performed its its to division, the lands land-grant right pletion appli- that cable to division, set aid to in its expressly apart failure, would not have construction, been affected its the Genoa branch. construct Put the decision will not be that of the in placed interpretation legislation question. “ will it be Nor determine the necessary other questions stated, nor above as revoca- question validity contained the act of tion if February 16, For it be that such revocation was a assumed as nullity, impairing contract between Com- obligation alleged State, and the because made before the especially pany expira- for tion limited of its period road, completion if it; while engaged constructing which the .State mode lands to the disposed be conceded to have- been consistent with acts PAUL &c. RAILWAY. ST. CHICAGO,

Harlan, J., Dissenting. mort- if the authority of .Congress; construction to raise lands in order money gage in the .of there remain, ; still-, way grant- road be admitted facts : stubborn, these indisputable the relief ing sought, and, therefore, could That no “First. acquire, corporation lands, subject an interest except could pass, the state in the act of condition prescribed bo division should com- within which the the time land-grant State, therefore, right and, subject pleted, to. l’esume mode, ownership posses- some appropriate failure sion of the substantial perform lands any condition; “ not constructed or road was completed Second. That March 4, 1S74, the acts of within the time prescribed March 16,1878; revo- That, period, Third. after expiration the act of declared 'annulment, cation, resumption in the same act to 18S2, February act of wore in all confirmed things latter statute anti besides, which, March 5, 1883, repealed manner with or in all conflicting acts interfering previous with such act of confirmation. valid exorcise of was a

“If 16, 1882, the act February end of this branch is an that, the plainly, power by legislature, and void, of the case. But if it was upon any unconstitutional sense, in a not, did legal deprive whatever, ground its.passage with the work to proceed right within the the road re- of construction, and, completing by or to to receive compel become entitled time, patents, quired were to whom wrongfully or patents any corporation persons effect, of the The validity title. issued surrender the not docs 5, 18S3, depend upon act of March confirmatory act if the latter 16, 1882; of the act of February validity legislature, it within was-void, power clearly — con- nor twenty the road, any the act of neither 1883, by by at its date completed tinuous thereof, miles having or annul grant withdraw Portage Company, —to lands a new and to-make grant company, 40 1893.' TERM,

Harlan, 3, Dissenting. another The revocation act corporation. of March 5, 1883, to the grant Portage Company, accompanied by confirmation, the same act, the same lands grant a( to the Omaha to a revocation, made, equivalent for the first on that and to time, an affirmative day', grant, for the first to that then, time, company. passage by of an act 1882, was void did not legislature, it prevent a valid act, 1883, same passing touching subject. £ In 12 Strother v. Pet. it Lucas, 410, 454, was said: That a be made a as as law, well a by grant may patent pursuant is undoubted law, Cranch, and a (6 confirmation 128); law is as all intents' and it fully, if purposes, grant, contained terms a de novo.’’ See also Field v. grant Sea How. 334; 19 323, v. bury, Hanes, Wall. Langdeau v. 530; Slidell U. S. 412, 439; Grandjean, Whitney 112 U. S. Morrow, “ It from what results has been said that, unless restrained or some contract from legal obligation revoking after the of the time Portage Company, limited expiration of the road to the west end of Lake completion Supe- of the State to rior, the act of March 5, power pass Wei’e cannot the hands of the State tied questioned. (cid:127) such or contract % It has been said obligation already that the mere revocation of if 16, 1882, did February invalid, under State to forbear the put any legal obligation exercise of after, reason any power of, failure of that road within the complete land-grant time stipulated. of the road, within the time Assuming completion limited, was rendered the act impossible by annulling is contended that Portage Company, the case ‘ familiar, comes within rule that where a condition subse made, when and becomes possible act quent impossible or the God law, king’s enemy, grantor, once is not estate, vested, having divested the thereby by but becomes failure, absolute,’ Co. Litt. 206 206 4 citing a, b; 130; Kent Com. Davis v. 16 Wall. Gray, 230, 231. This rule be the case. cannot It is present not to be applied disputed .ANGLECHICAGO, ST. PAUL &o. EAILWAY.

Harlan, J., Dissenting. that the revocation had grant Portage Company an effect its credit. in a such But, injurious upon sense, legal — revocation an void by unconstitutional, act legislation which the affirms 16, the act plaintiff to be February 1882, — cannot said to have made the impossible performance the condition which the title to the lands company’s The revocation in depended. attempted by legislature, the loss credit financial circles, company do hold not, law, relation of cause effect. view is not. sustained Davis v.

contrary Wall. Gray, court, 230. While the there the rule recognized excusing of a condition where performance subsequent performance (cid:127) was rendered act of law, tbe or of impossible by it was bill, admitted the de grantor, alleged murrer, State, her into civil war, plunging people had herself tile railroad from prevented earning of lauds in aid the construction its road.' A condition itwar, com conceded, wholly precluded of the road. in that pletion But, case, even performance claim, within a time reasonable held be essential to any the benefit have there has Here, not been grant. performance by Portage Company respect any part of its division. If act of 1882 was land-grant void, iff e its th despite passage, completed road within the it time, would required disputed by as between that, and the plaintiff State or other grantee State, title lands would equitable — have Its th misfortune company. assuming e toas financial representations condition to be true general — it was, that had no credit of such as it consequence except from the State’s can got lands; circumstance not control the determination of the whether the question act of in a sense, rendered legal impossible complete the road in time. If be not would follow that the so, act of 1882 would excuse or not excuse the failure the Port within as the age time, road complete evidénce was the other its financial one way .touching to have done credit so, ability apart given TERM,

Harlan, J., Dissenting'. the rule in But. invoked by lands dispute. grant foundation. such a does rest shifting surely plaintiff sub- a condition rule, that Within the-impossibility, perforin some obstacle by is either one interposed arising sequent or by performance actually preventing precluding grantor, from some- law, that as matter of or one ensues, the grantee, to be done. There no did or caused that the thing grantor of the the officers actual agents claim of interruption by act and, of- the road ; assuming construction State of in it be true, cannot unconstitutional, to have been of 1882 as to condition, sense, that non-performance any legal time, within resulted of the road prescribed completion of that act. mere from the passage “ have of the case that to consider other It remains aspects counsel for the with marked by been- ability presented plaintiff. of the land substance, forfeiture contended, made to the false caused representations legis by grant desired the transfer the Omaha Company, lature by own road, aid its to itself- to construction the grant fictitious suits, corruptly and that officers of Company, wrongfully Portage conspiring latter from perform prevented.the fraudulently road to tbe time within which the condition respect ing and their lands consequently, pro was to completed; the debts a court of should subjected equity ceeds of. its land secured mortgage. the Portage Company, bill as to what the Omaha Company allegation principal ‘ others Furthermore, and at its it, instance, employed did is: J. A. A. and C. Barnes, said Jackson it, and especially known as officers well Portage Company, who were behalf, to be authorized to falsely and understood speak members of said legislature represented no towards the con substantial progress con and never had division, land-grant anj1- said struction at of men work thereon, wholly number siderable it had said work; or credit means prosecute without abandoned áll to con and finally voluntarily attempt last at ST. CHICAGO. PAUL &c. RAILWAY. 43 Harlan, J., Dissenting. and that same, it was

struct to have the willing forfeited Omaha given Company; whereupon, Wisconsin, on these false relying representa and without tions, the act inquiry hearing, hurriedly passed 1882, above named, forfeit the said land Februar}r confer Company.’ the Omaha was both Undoubtedly Company willing anxious that land this should be wrested the Port- and transferred to and to effect age Company itself; that (cid:127)end it its before appeared by committees agents legislative for the of that the did purpose Portage. showing Company have means to credit construct, never necessary would the road in within construct, the time fixed. question And it be for assumed, may case, this purposes of the Omaha as to the agents representations condition of the other that not in all were respects truth consistent or with fair Still, dealing. ques- a tion how arises, tribunal to judicial ascertain extent which action in legislative.department revoking was controlled or influenced by representations made to its members the Omaha about the other by ? in Can that courts, assume case, any legis- statute, was not lature when it a fully informed, relat- passed fact essential to an ing objects, public every intelligent determination of the matters to that which statute relates? Must it not be that of lands conclusively presumed indisposing held in trust for it was controlled public purposes by entirely considerations of the and not, public good, degree, by any false ends to individuals sub- representations private having serve, and no concern either for the. special having general or for welfare of other individuals ? rights “ These are all answered in numerous questions adjudged one of which is cases, Peck, Cranch, Fletcher leading That an action for of certain 131. breach cove in á nants deed made in a Peck lands embraced by purchase Gunn others from the under an State of act Georgia, One passed that covenants State. TEEM, OCÍOBEE

Harlan, J., Dissenting. all the title that the State broken was have alleged been, to Feck, conveyed legally had in premises ever substance, as a breach It was assigned, the grantor. a act there was nullity, question covenant Peck, did not because State pas- pass title of so the undue influence used by corruption was procured sage members of from the State upon the original grantees Marshall, court, speaking Justice Chief legislature. said: ‘“ find its into the should That way corruption governments and contaminate the source very of our infant republics, motives should contribute to impure legislation,. are or the formation a law, contract, legislative passage far be How a court most deplored. circumstances deeply proceedings would way competent, justice formed, thus the State to vacate contract itself, instituted by under that contract third annul rights acquired which it no means notice having improper persons court is a would obtained, approach question far much well doubted how may with circumspection. a the of its framers, of law motives depends upon validity inducements on members how far the particular operating State, of the formation a power supreme sovereign are examinable in a court of contract jus- of a by power, an act of the If be conceded that tice. supreme principle court, in conse- be declared null by sovereign might power be of means still there it, which would procured quence extent those means must bo what difficulty saying ? it be effect. direct Must corruption produce applied interest or undue influence kind be sufficient? or would of any on a or on what Must cause vitiating, operate majority? ? null, of the members Would the act whatever' number be wish ? or be the of nation would its obligation might If of sentiment? depend upon public majority nullity be be whether well doubted corrupted, may conduct; it be to control their province judiciary if than a less act from and, motives, majority impure interference is would be by judicial regulated principle v. CHICAGO, ST. . PAUL &c. RAILWAY. 45

Harlan, J., Dissenting. not discerned. ... clearly If the title be deduced plainly act, from a which the legislative- constitu- legislature might if the act be with clothed all the tionally pass, forms requisite of a law, court, as a court of sitting law, cannot sustain-a suit one individual founded brought another,, against the act is a allegation nullity, consequence motives which influenced certain of impure members the legis- lature which the law.’ passed “ It true that there is no case that' suggestion present the act of revocation of February procured by of bribery practised members corruption Wiscon upon sin But is that that legislature. was induced charge body false representations, the Omaha agents to do what would not otherwise have done. they This difference in the facts does make the principles announced Fletcher v. Peck inapplicable present to. if an case; act for, cannot legislation impeached by who proof those corruption upon it, passed part can much less it made a matter of that legislators proof were deceived or misled false as to facts representations involved in of a character. The proposed legislation public which Fletcher v. Peck ex rests excludes all principle trinsic evidence as to the witnesses motives legislators, or as to the In action. Ex Mc grounds legislative parte Wall. Ardle, ‘We 506, 514, court said: are not at into the motives of the We liberty inquire legislature. can examine In into under the Constitution.’ only power v. Continental S. 541: If Doyle Co., Insurance U. the act done is not in violation of the State is legal, Constitution or laws it is out States, quite United the intention of court to what was power any- inquire . those who enacted the v law.’ in Soon So, Hing Crowley, ‘ 113 U. reference to S. 703, 710: The rule general can the courts the enactments bodies, of all legislative not them, into the motives of passing inquire legislators or acts, be as face disclosed except they may to from with reference inferable their considered operation, the condition existing country legislation. OCTQBEE TEEM, 1893.

46

Harlan, J:,‘ Dissenting. as the considered purposes they motives legislators, to be accomplish will always presumed in view, of their effect natural reasonable as the which follows moral induce- considered as motives, Their enactments. members the different will votes, for their vary ments motives, of such character The diverse body. legislative of men into the hearts penetrating the impossibility such all inquiries truth, preclude ascertaining and futile.’ impracticable of Michigan, Court well said Supreme “It ivas : The 103 Woodhull, v. 25

Plank Road Company Michigan, its own mode of collecting choose will only due discretion, but its information legislative guide we coordinate to a government, department- courtesy suitable and that those methods were the proper must assume the records and if results; and that led correct ones, they we must still proper show no presume investigation, must not obtáined, for we legis information suppose or from any acted unadvisedly, .to have lature improperly, when motives, circumstances, under other than any public within limits its authority.’ acting “ are Aldridge To the same other cases: general-effect many 190, 125 U. S. Hill, 3 How. v. 24; v. Williams, Maynard 3 & v. Met. 209; 576; Sunbury Johnson Higgins, (Ky.) v. 33 v. Mc 278, 283; Railroad Penn. St. Stark Erie Cooper, 1 Nott & v. McCord, 400; Gowan, People Flagg, Jones ; 302; Y. 405 v. Indiana, 298, N. Wright Defrees, 12 Penn. St. Jones, or truth For the reasons evidence as to stated, falsity its the Omaha or representations committees, legislature, 'legislative agents, of this land either Portage Company, respect as evidence as efforts the Omaha as well the revocation the other about made to to bring .the is immaterial Such controversy. company, present cannot made the basis of determination evidence judicial without of a coordinate entrenching upon independence government, right department impairing CHICAGO, ST. PAUL E AIL WAY. &c. 47 J.,

Harlan, Dissenting. in the exercise of its proceed, such functions, informa- upon tion as it deems An as to necessary. adjudication rights individuals, under acquired by based public enactments, upon an as to whether those individuals made false inquiry repre- sentations to the or as to whether the legislature, influenced such indirect probably is by an representations, interference with the of the within power legislature, acting the limits of its to enact such laws as it deems best authority, The courts general good. must, necessity, presume — — whatever be averred to the that no may contrary general statute is ever either for want of information passed of the part because was misled the false legislature, representations interested must lobbyists parties. They restrict their of such inquiries Such validity legislation. is the established doctrine as to enactments relat- legislative to a different rule ing public objects, although recognized some courts in statutes to have respect private alleged fraud procured those practised upon legislature by benefits under them. claiming “ What has been said of the that the dis- disposes suggestion of the force persion employed by Portage Company in the construction of early part year its road, the of the work of suspension and its construction, inability raise the funds for the necessary the road completion within the time was the result stipulated, machinations of the Omaha its agents Company, acting by authority, those corrupt officers of conspiring agents those officers do whereby neglected towards the of the road timely what, completion fidelity their employers, have done. they might

“Whether this of the Omaha arraignment Company justi- fied or whether the evidence, could, in its financial weak condition in have the road completed within if had not been time, interfered required plans with, the manner it is not stated, determine. necessary For, if all that indicated, is said already respect conduct of the Omaha were clearly established, settled of law forbid the principles court assuming ‘ TERM, J.,

Harlan, Dissenting. act when State passed department legislative not in act of as the confirmatory as well of such fact legisla- affecting justice every possession order cannot be disregarded tion. These principles If each member cases. particular remedy hardships when that act was of the was aware passed legislature it was done the Omaha Com- is by which alleged everything and and its rival to this land in grant company, regard pany and deemed a duty, what public discharge yet of a to secure completion public highway, order speedy the interests of their by imperatively required supposed act of confirmatory constituents, passed legislature selected the beneficiary 1883, and thereby construction of that in aid of the highway, by Congress would not constitute of the Omaha Company surely conduct to thwart should a court attempt equity why any ground That is precisely the' wishes legislative department. if the court took from that be done what would made to it legislature deliberately benefit of its road. enactments, construction Legislative in aid of far as confer so they rights upon objects, public relating without constitutional, if sta’nd, must they any individuals, the courts or ascertain conjecture part upon attempt would would not have the members what of facts extrinsic state established under done any given evidence. that the Omaha behalf is further said, plaintiff, It and became, February, 1882, as as early January stock of share every capital the owner in- a of its bonded and floating large part from Mud former built a road ; debtedness from the and a few City, yards Lake Superior parallel line, that the'road so of the latter company; half-graded the acts such an one as was described Congress built was rest the facts the 1856 and 1864. these plaintiffs of- Upon a road was constructed by corporation that as that contention, creditor of stockholder was the sole principal n law -where as avoids forfeitures Portage Company, ST. CHICAGO, RAILWAY. PAUL :&c. Harlan, J.¡ Dissenting. be re- tbe condition State imposed by may

practicable; within the rule that duly having performed, garded ‘ who interested in a condition one it, may perform when 2 Crabbe’s Real forever;’ performed, gone citing 2 Washb. Real 815; and other au- Prop. (2d ed.) Prop. thorities. “ The court is unable to assent to this if view, reason, no there were that what was other, done the Omaha Com- towards the construction of its road to pany Superior City stockholder, not done it as creditor of the Port- It did not elect in that Company. intend, age capacity, the condition the State perform imposed by latter The record establishes the fact company. that in conclusively the road to the west end of constructing Lake Superior under its own proceeded charter, repre- sented its own and not the stockholders, stockholders of the (cid:127) other It built its branch company. ánd road, did .own the road commenced complete Portage Company. was so understood it for in plaintiff; the bill that alleges n ‘inthe 1882 the Omaha year constructed its Company branch to Superior City, constructed alongside partially line of and has ever Portage Company, operated since same.’ And this consistent with the second section of .is the act of 16, which made the to February Omaha Com- condition that it would pany upon express continuously ‘ with- the construction of the road proceed then in . con- part structed it between said intersection point and the west end-of Lake it on or Superior,’ complete before Decem- ber It 1,1882. to that the is'impossible Omaha suppose Com- ever intended to pany condition perform imposed upon in reference latter’s road. the condition performed the act imposed these granting lands in aid of the construction of its road. The plaintiff’s whole case proceeds upon Omaha theory Com- to result that would pany sought prevent any beneficial to the other It-would, therefore, be a company. perversion the rule, which the upon plaintiff relies, inconsistent entire that the evidence, Omaha say Company-was

VOL. on —4 ’' ’'. TERM, 1893. Case.

Statement or intended to or that the interested performing, perform, it as the condition for State regarded question performing, That would make the behalf Portage' Company. for another do corporation something not in law bound do. did not elect and was do, other have been discussed counsel Many questions forbears about which the court parties, respective un- determination rendered Their opinion. expression reached the conclusions necessary principal points.” v. UNITED STATES.

FAMOUS SMITH THE THE UNITED STATES POE COURT OP TO THE CIRCUIT EEROE OP DISTRICT WESTERN ARKANSAS. January Decided 1894. November 1003. Submitted

No. States Court being indicted in the Circuit United A Indian Cherbkee man, murder a white of Arkansas District for Western Indian, and up also an that the murdered'man was in defence set was jurisdiction. therefore without evidence the court was .The recognized generally man as an murdered was defence showed Indian, reputed lie -recognized, and that father .so that his was .himself money payment enrolled, participated bread and had government that he had not been To offset this showed Ghcrokees. election, appeared he had permitted but it also vote at a Cherokee Held, long enough to vote. not been in the district hp prosecution prove was a on. that' That the burden was (1) man; white legitimate testimony government no offered (2) That the ' (cid:127)' prove Indian. tendency man an murdered that.the writ of error to review the'conviction'of Tiiis was the murder of one Gentry, iii error'for James alleged plaintiff Indian,” man and not an August “a white to have'been The case Indian Nation, Territory.' Cherokee States Court of the United tried before the Circuit

Case Details

Case Name: Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jan 3, 1894

Citation: 151 U.S. 1

Docket Number: 73

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS