*1 R.R. v. Hall Oo. 343 1875.) Pacific et al. Company Union Pacific Railroad v. Hall 1. The initial branch of the' Union Pacific Railroad fixed Congress (12 of 489), of Stat. the Iowa bank of 1, July the Missouri River. bearing of 2. The order of the President the United date States, the seventh day designated established and in to law March, 1864, strict conformity said eastern terminus of branch at a Iowa east of and to the east line of section opposite 15, township range north of east of the 6th meridian, principal Territory Nebraska.” constructed the Union Railroad Pacific over the Company Missouri between Omaha in and River, Nebraska Council- Bluffs of the railroad. The was authorized to build it for only the uses of the and is bound and run road, in- whole operate road, .cluding bridge, as one connected and continuous line. government without 4. Private intervention persons may, law-officer, for a mandamus to move enforce a government due to the public duty as such. Court of tbe United for tbe Error tbe Circuit District Iowa.
Submitted Mr. A. J. on brief tbe Poppleton plaintiff error, and John N. Mr. Rogers, contr.a. Strong delivered tbe Mr. tbe court. opinion Justice Tbis is a instituted tbe act of proceeding under 509, sect. March Stat. confers (17 4), tbe Circuit of tbe Court United States to bear proper jurisdiction and determine all cases mandamus tbe Union compel road as operate required by amended, writ, as Tbe alternative commanded tbe law. rail- tbe whole of their road from road Council operate westward .thereof between Bluffs Coun- (including portion Omaha, and and constructed over and cil across their Bluffs as one the Missouri line for continuous bridge' River) spanning travel, and communication, all purposes transportation; them to commanded start from Council Bluffs their especially bound, trains westward regular through freight passsenger their eastern-bound of both trains run descriptions and over said Bluffs through Council under one uni- form tbe remainder and to time-schedule Co. al. and refrain from said last-mentioned desist operating wholly line, said as an independent separate portion bound westward eastward causing freight passengers Omaha, or show cause did not transferred why they *2 the writ. obey the railroad the put
To mandamus company alternative relators; return, met an answer filed the and which was by on the Circuit Court the facts stated in the case was heard by return, the answer and averments .the writ, (the and a mandamus controverted), peremptory answer being It is of this final that judgment plaintiffs was ordered. error now complain. Pacific Railroad- Union
The obligation Company line, continuous its entire road as a throughout operate creature of not denied. The congres- length, It was the act of Congress sional incorporated by legislation. and and its duties were Stat. 489); powers (12 July act, others thereof. that and amendatory By prescribed “ the whole line the railroad it was enacted section twelfth that and used for all and shall branches telegraph operated and communication, travel, so far transportation, and purposes concerned, connected, as one are government public as. A was made in fif- line.” similar continuous requisition 2,1864. 13 act of Stat. section of the July teenth amendatory not relate to existence contest in case does whether the it is over question, this principally duty: River, between the Missouri Omaha over railroad bridge Iowa, is a of the Union" and Council Bluffs in part Nebraska is, Railroad; for, can be no doubt if it there Pacific with, it in connection law to'use required by all of, their parts together entire as a operating line. continuous in the must be found legislation
-'The answer question under it. the first has been done and what .By of Congress, 1862, the Railroad Union Pacific Company of the act construct, maintain, a continuous enjoy authorized was on from a with the appurtenances, railroad and telegraph, west from meridian of longitude one hundredth Greenwich "of of Nevada. There the Territory to the'western Co. v. Pacific was intended meet connect the line of the Central of California thus Company (sect. 8), forming a continuous line to the Pacific Ocean. .This the main line. But the same act made also for several provision eastern con- nections. The ninth section authorized the Leavenworth, Pawnee and Western Railroad of Kansas (now Kansas to construct a Pacific) railroad from the Missouri River, at the mouth of the Kansas River the south side' (on thereof, so as to connect with the Pacific Railroad of Missouri), of western Pacific on point, departure hundredth meridian. one Thus was made an east- provision connection ern an unbroken line of road to St. on Louis This was not all. the fourteenth Mississippi. section of By act the Union authorized required construct line of railroad and from a single telegraph of the State of to be fixed Presi- *3 States, dent of the United so form ... as to a connection with the of said the at lines some on the one point aforesaid, hundredth meridian of from the of longitude point .commencement on the western the of State of Iowa.” boundary Thus were made for the Iowa branch of provisions the eastern main It line. was doubtless intended to render a con- possible nection with railroad that thereafter be constructed might from western of the Iowa eastward. None was then boundary but a railroad was in of construction completed; progress through State, the from its eastern border to the Missouri River.
The fourteenth also made for another eastern provision enacted, connection. whenever there should be a line Iowa railroad Minnesota or to Sioux completed through City, then the said Pacific (Union Railroad Pacific) Company be authorized and to construct a railroad required telegraph ir'vnch, from said Sioux so as to with-the' Iowa connect City, line, at l&e with main west than one farther point the. (cid:127) hundredth meridian óf longitude. then, The scheme of the act of Congress, very apparent. line, at It was to secure the least connection the main Railroads, branches, three the with Missouri and Iowa Iowa, with .a .railroad from Sioux running eastwardly City either An obsérv- that State or Minnesota. through through Co. Pacific Union scheme, think, will aid the considering
anee at what act of the orders of the Congress, inquiry thereof, east- made in established the the President pursuance of the From it be ern terminus Iowa branch. may reasonably for con- inferred that the provide purpose main of the Pacific nections of the branches of the line on the east of railroads with through running those and to for those connections within Territory, provide States, at. at or boundaries. Thus near points to be constructed from Sioux the northern branch was required toward the main is in the State westward Iowa) City (which line; to build their southern branch was authorized and the mouth, River, at sid,e'of from south Kansas ^o If, now, Railroad of. with Missouri. to connect central,or branch the act Iowa respecting provisions (cid:127) examined, evident. Those provisions same purpose section, and follows: the fourteenth are as found “ enacted, That the said be it further And authorized and. to construct required single is hereby boundary from on western of railroad telegraph line fixed of the the President State route, to be most arid States, subject direct practicable lines of the said so as to form a his connection approval, one hundredth meridian of longitude some aforesaid, on western the-point commencement the State of Iowa.” act,
This clause only respecting contains provisions branch, and it twice defines terminus eastern State a-point that-terminus the middle *4 of the State is The legal Iowa.” boundary 52. But it is of Missouri River.' 9 Stat. very the channel that the road should start did not intend that.Congress evident would the river. be in the mid-channel "a That point out and, it would not were it carry possible, impossible;- seen, act, which, was to as we have pro- of the design general then in exist- eastern railroads with the -for connections vide counsel of the conceded is. ence It contemplated. have intended not to be held to that Congress ought to,fix/the.initial mid-channel of the river,.exactly in the point R.R. Co. v. Hall the line is on of the State. Such legal a boundary law, construction of the it is would be acknowledged, unrea- s'onable, because it would involve the of an requirement impos- But, if not mean to sibility. Congress'did construction require of the railroad from the line which is the imaginary legal —"Iowa, river, from the boundary mid-channél namely, — must have the initial to be either intended they point on. Iowa shore or on the Nebraska shore. If the Nebraska shore intended, was itwas not mentioned ? was not the why Why west bank of the Missouri River ? was not designated why the eastern of Nebraska fixed as the boundary point depart- more, ure ? Still Iowa mentioned all ? or why why the initial described as a on the western point point boundary ? of'Iowa It give answer to impossible these satisfactory if the eastern or Iowa shore of questions, the river was not to be the terminus of intended railroad. Unless it was .-the so (cid:127)intended, no reason is found in the acts of for men- Congress Iowa at all. The western shore of the river is no tioning nearer the western of Iowa than the eastern is; shore legal boundary is, in common while the latter the-western understanding, of the well State. be boundary supposed used with the accordance common language in understanding.
It common usage speak state or boundary aas be the though legal county boundary may middle river; and when to be con- particularly thing.is any on structed such -a which from its nature must boundary, land, constructed on would no one understand the dry construction as other than the of thé shore river. accordance
perfectly legitimate every-day usage that a house built in Illinois on the eastern shore of say tbe stands State, .ofthe Mississippi boundary though the State is the mid-channel of legal boundary river. therefore, In common on understanding, point of Iowa would be Iowa boundary on the'eastern-shore Missouri, as a eastern precisely Nebraska, Nebraska would be understood to be in on .the west ” shore ern bf the river. The words on words'; technical and therefore are. be taken as been used in their having by Congress signification. ordinary .
848 Pacific R.R. Coi v. Hall al.. construed, statutes been have are not rare which Instances use of the common but in accordance with the not licerally, to construct the law-makers. Authority language employed by B., at to A. railroad or from A. a beginning turnpike B., commence the road is held to confer running A., within B. to end it at some some within “ “ at” are taken ac to” and “/rom,” The words inclusively, 179; Farm 1 Mas. IStra. cording subject-matter. in the case of 389. So v. Johns. Coventry, ers’ Turnpike v. Utica and Schenectady Mohawk The Bridge Co., 554, a similar made. city R.R. Paige, ruling^was River, of Mohawk was on the south bank of Schenectady the middle 'the channel of north bounds being .city river; authorized was held a railroad yet near the of Sche build a at or. commencing city of the Mohawk thence on the north side' running nectady, a over River,”- to build those words empowered at or within Mohawk, and commence their railroad construction bear some These decisions analogy city. “on the western Court phrase Circuit given by one Iowa;” construction is and.that only .of in the act manifested with the consistent purpose paramount the railroads of with for connections Congress, provide east of Nebraska purpose the States Territory, branch of the Iowa have referred. Unless already shore of the on the Iowa was intended to commence railroads would River, its connection Missouri not be extended to roads could Those impossible. without shore; of Iowa was power for the State the Nebraska river, or over the erection of even to authorize the to enter do not We propose establishment ferry.- had power consideration of the whether Congress- question, within State-: railroads the construction authorize would case. Even appellants for the present not necessary of their existence the lawful bridge. shrink from denying Congress, now is the intention isWhat sought of connection to Did intend the power.' manifest, river? That did is shore of the they the eastern connection; no other was possible, intended if of Iowa. with without co-roperation either Union Pacific Co. In accordance with this ISfi’SJ'Was understanding of the President. The fourteenth section of the act action *6 .to construct required the Iowa branch from company on the Iowa, of point boundary by" fixed President In United States. thus discharging.'the duty of Nov.'17, President, order, an executive imposed, dated 1863, much, of fixed so of the western of the State boundary Iowa as lies the north and-south’boundaries of between within which the Omaha township city as and tele- situated from which the line of railroad point should, was, in one This constructed. par- graph designation ¡adhered ticular, indefinite. western .boundary While Iowa, it left undetermined at what on that boundary be, be somewhere the initial should that it except point those .north and south boundaries township, between the President, therefore, on iniles The boundaries six being apart. order, March, 1864, executive a second the seventh day he order designated made a more definite location. By'that from which the railroad established point “ on the western construct the road as a authorized to point line of section east east of and opposite boundary 15,- 13, east 6th principal north of range township frac- Section 10 meridian, of Nebraska.” in the Territory River. the Missouri section, being tional its eastern boundary as fixing point understood designation That the President Iowa, the State and within shore of on the eastern afterwards, he which, two from the days manifest message is' orders, in his official copy sent accompanying the orders fixed he declared that “ in Iowa township the limits of within such Omaha, appears And in Nebraska.” the town opposite orders. of the executive be the meaning plain line of to the east of and not have been east opposite .could ” if it was spoken of), in township (the Section been in then have It would the river. shore of the western thus strict the President designation Nebraska. for, that act whenever the act Congress; conformity with reference branch of the Iowa terminus -spoke Nebraska, not as even it, not as location, it described being Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. River, tbe Missouri hut being as on the western Iowa.
Thus far we have confined our attention and to the President’s action under it. From that act alone we have deduced the conclusion that was author the-company ized and build their railroad to the Iowa shore. required That included itself to build a poAver within over the Missouri. No the river express grant Avas needed. Whatever were on their line bridges were necessary itself; authorized as the line and the fully Avere much build one across Missouri as Avere empowered across the Platte or other river the route of intersecting their road. The Saratoga Co., Rensselaer People & v. 130; Wend. Co., Connecticut River R.R. Springfield 4 Cush. Mohawk Bridge Co. Utica & Schenectady *7 Co., R.R. ut supra.
But the act 1864 is not to be overlooked. It amendatory of. is to in connection the of 1862, Avith regarded inter- as a of it. its ninth the preted part were By company to construct Missouri, authorized over the' expressly bridges and other rivers course, which their in its might pass road; the convenience of their and the act declared this au- to enable the to make thority given convenient company connections with other roads. This necessary enactment have, not have been con- necessary. poAvermay the ferred Union Pacific Railroad upon the act of Company by ' not, But, and we think it Avas. whether or it necessary that shows had in vieAVthe construction Congress clearly the railroad to the Iowa shore river. No could be bridge constructed Avithout use of the Iowa shore. making
It Avellto observe here that the was to given as a railroad and not as a company, company bridge company. for the was convenience of their to bridge enable other, to them connect with roads. could build it for They no other uses. were not authorized to use it for other They . than those their road. Averenot allowed to purposes They rates toll did which other charge they charge upon por- line. If tions such a was acquired, right, the act of which shall subsequent legislation, , Co. al. Union Pacific hereafter; 1862 and if, under acts of but refer build a railroad across were bridge authorized road,' a of their and not if such part railroad, that their road irresistible the conclusion another terminus on Iowa shore of its eastern intended the river. could not have is no answer this to that Congress urge build a to invade
intended a State chartering The stubborn fact re- limits. railroad in within the State railroad mains, that did authorize building Congress and, State, limits of on land within the territorial that, a railroad necessary incidental to necessarily also, build- So, authorized to the approaches bridge. Iowa, across the Missouri from Sioux ing City, railroad intention does show River westward. The statute plain under its should enter State that company’s what be done and the section enacted twelfth authority; route road should cross whenever the President of the State or authorizes Territory, met there and States, disagreed respect- in case companies location, it. determine ing clauses the acts of called other attention has been
Our of as from the Mis- the road 1862 and spoken coast, or souri waters navigable River Sacramento, Omaha, the eastern indicating Omaha, the western shore of terminus was intended to be have other the Missouri River. But these clauses objects the road. the terminus of view than They designating *8 its of the but not of beginning ending. descriptive turned the eastern the was Whenever attention of Congress location, alone, to determine its the ivas terminus purpose It is no the always there is variance in language employed. . different of Iowa.” The on the- western boundary in other sections and for other forms of expression employed the have no upon question. can bearing purposes construction is that the it claimed contemporaneous Again: the its officers and the by to the charter of company, by given tends show that the terminus the officers of government, side of the river. It the Nebraska fixed statute by Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. al. conceded, that, must be where the of an a.case interpretation doubtful, is instrument it practical given construction ;not is But we do discover that parties weight. officers, its ever acted government, that the eastern terminus of the was on the theory road western shore of the river. The officers of the asserted it for company time, true, it is not in their but intercourse with the practical Indeed, national it never became' a government. practical erected; until the and from that time question bridge has asserted that the true government present terminus of the road was fixed on the Iowa shore. There nothing, think, we construction any contemporaneous given acts of to have in' Congress, ought determin- weight any now before us. ing question that, therefore, is,, conclusion,
Our the initial Iowa branch' Union Pacific Railroad was fixed the act on thé Iowa bank of the Missouri River. conclusion, correct in If it seems to be clear that over the built the railroad bridge company, railroad, of their law required to be' so part oper- ated. It was commenced in 1869 under the acts of 1862 These acts were the only authority the time its had at' commencement for it. It is a' building river.; a continuation of the line west of the bridge, it connects the road with its eastern required terminus. The acts manifest no chartering intention to distin- pver between Missouri guish River and bridge other on the line of their road. If it is not a bridges of their part road, neither between the Missouri and the any bridge western Nevada; for the to build all power bridges was boundary in the same words. given however,
It has argued, not a railroad, because it is not located company’s opposite which, east of opposite is,
the President fixed the terminus. however, the only n has their road coihpany extending qf Iowa; and have no clearly they build True, other. is not opposite the com- section. but has taken that section, and how it up coinés pany *9 Pacific 353 al. Oo. Oct. constructed. where the bridge actually river Having above road, far as it extended that their so abandoned point; n is; it their where .bridge having commenced applied having it, and for for to mortgage special power power Congress levy it; use of and obtained and for the those having tolls charges at now assert that are not liberty powers, they— There is their bridge wrong place. located nothing, 1864, or that or of Feb. in the act either them to build more than one over which bridge empowers branch; latter for the and'the act contains the Missouri Iowa of their under formed acts to an recognition right implied location. There is no on its intima- bridge present build distinct franchise. no bridge grants power tion Its main was to a give bridge. purpose manifestly build for means additional privileges completion them authorized, not enable to construct a structure already road. hold that the is not To new independent had defeat road would plain object of the part a continuous line connection with in 1862 view the connection to It would be allowing Iowa roads. Nebraska, the western instead of on made that declared therein nothing 1871 expressly when . the eastern terminus of as to construed change be so from the where was then fixed Indeed, that quite laws. proviso unnecessary existing by of the was not con- thought part if the bridge with the western Iowa'. other necting then, do, that the as rail- legal terminus Holding fixed, shore of the and that law on the railroad, can be no there doubt that is a part run the whole under is- obligation operate one connected and continuous line. the bridge, including the acts 1862 and 1864, imposed expressly This duty this means it is What and recognized n made for It is a requisition to understand. conven- difficult . such An arrangement, the-company the-public. ience destined for made, freight passengers has two three miles terminus stopped eastern beyond train,, another and' transferred again transferred it and from . VOL. X. Unión Pacific K.R. Co. v. Hall *10 terminus,
at the or which and west by freight passengers going eastern end of the Omaha, line must be transferred at lines, breaks the road into two and is inconsistent with plainly continuous not, of it as a whole. If operation injunction the statute has no The mandamus awarded in this meaning. .case,therefore, no what the law imposes duty beyond requires. is our Such the merits of this case. A ob opinion single i made and the form of remains jection urged against proceeding considered. The contend that the court erred appellants Morse, ‘in that Hail and on whose the alternative holding petition was'issued, writ could become relators in this suit on lawfully without' the assent behalf' or direction of public States, or of the district at Attorney-General for the district Iowa. were merchants in torney They occasion to receive having frequent over the ship goods road; but had no interest other company’s than such as they to others theirs, like belonged engaged and the employments seek to enforce the writ duty they duty public raised question therefore, is, generally. objection, whether a Avritof mandamus to of a compel performance be issued at the instance of a public duty relator. private on Mandamus, Clearly England may. Tapping p. be, asserts the rule in that that, country all those general, who are an action legally capable are also bringing equally to the Court of Bench for capable applying the writ .King’s cases, This is true in mandamus.” all believed, where the defendant owes a in the of Avhichthe duty, performance interest; has a true, it is peculiar prosecutor equally think, in case of applications compel performance duties In public by corporations. v. The King Co., Severn & 2 Barn. & Ad. Wye Railway in private dividual, without himself, any allegation, special injury obtained rule to shoAVcause upon a man why damus not issue them to doAAm commanding lay again maintain had railway taken they up. Parliament, an act of Under was a railway public highway; and all were at persons thereon, liberty pass repass and other wagons carriages, of the rates. upon What payment the prosecutor of was the' loss complained public, R.R. Co. Oct. 1875.] which he certain collieries tbe owners of (of
particularly of the benefit to have using does not one), appear the. awarded. It was not even The writ was taken up. railway the intervention Attorney-Gen claimed eral are numerous. Clarke to the same effect Other cases needed. Co., Canal v. The Leicestershire Northamptonshire & & n. s. 1 Chit. 700. 6 Ad. El. of decision there has been In this diversity country to en- sue the writ can whether out private persons (cid:127)question unless non-perform- force public duty, performance and in several of the of it works to them a ance special injury; cannot. An been decided that application it has writ, has been mandamus, not here a sup- prerogative for the restraint bill in some to a equity analogy posed *11 Yet, even in analogous nuisance. supposed public obstruction bill be sustained enjoin may case* is common when .of complained injury public highway, to the com- in degree large, only greater public Case, 13 How. Bridge It was in the Wheeling plainants. an obstruc- of was a wrong, public
where wrong complained of the Ohio River. tion to all navigation no more in that case was
The complainants injury to Hall and Morse than is the injury peculiar Pennsylvania to them. in this special peculiar think, is, American a decided preponderance
There doctrine, that favor of the private persons may authority due to the enforce a a mandamus to duty, for public move such, the intervention as without govern government 56; Collins, v. 19 Wend. County law-officer. ment People 233; 202; id. State, Ottawa v. The 48 11 Ill. v. The People, Pike 452; The N. Y. State, 3 Ind. Hall v. 57 v. The People, Hamilton 344; id. State v. The 307; Judge v. County Halsey, People Law, 110; 186; Marshall, v. 33 N. J. State Railway, Parish, also Dillon on 11 La. Ann. See v. Carroll Watts Rem., Ex. sects. sect. and High Mun. Corp., ; Janvier, v. 33 N. J. 3 Houst. State Rahway, Cannon 27 the doctrine reasons Law, 110. The urged against principal — nature, which in its a reason are, that the writ prerogative no of no in this longer England, force country, n Ck Amort Amort et al. ' suits. An a defendant to be harassed with that it many exposes is, that is dis- to the latter writ answer objection granting court, that it and it well be assumed cretionary not' be will '. unnecessarily granted. also, a reasonable
There is implication Congress, perhaps, when authorized writs mandamus to compel their road operate according law, did not the intervention of Attorney- cqntemplate in all cases. The act 1873 does not who General prescribe writ, shall move for the while Attorney-General expressly secure directed to institute the proceedings per- necessary reasons, duties of the For these formance of other company. did not err in that Hall and we think Court holding the.Circuit writ in' this were case. Morse competent apply the Circuit 'Court is decree of affirmed.. Bbadley dissenting. Mr. Justice n I to dissent from the of the court in am judgment obliged is, common The Missouri River case. acceptation, this Iowa; and- fair construction of the western' boundary of the Union Railroad charter Company, adopts terminus, is, as its eastern that the road was to that boundary from the Missouri' River extend westwardly. subsequent to construct a across the given express confirms this view of the and as a subject; judgment, my severe a clear clear requiring mandamus remedy, right it, I think' it not' to be support ought granted duty to use the case, requires especially *12 trains,: line'with all their of their continuous a part may thein, much inconvenience" without impose corresponding public;..... n benefit Amory Amory not, merits, ground argu- will on the 'that has no he advanced for 1. A cause .ment; simply nor will it be dismissed on motion the court because brought delay only. opinion that it'has here for (cid:127)of power adjudge damages will hesitate to exercise where it 2. The court merely gain jurisdiction'has been invoked time. that its finds