Driscoll v. Norwich & Worcester Railroad

32 A. 354, 65 Conn. 230, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 79
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedDecember 1, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 32 A. 354 (Driscoll v. Norwich & Worcester Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Driscoll v. Norwich & Worcester Railroad, 32 A. 354, 65 Conn. 230, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 79 (Colo. 1894).

Opinions

Andrews, C. J.

The defendant is a corporation chartered by the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, for the purpose of constructing and operating a railroad from Worcester, in Massachusetts, to Norwich, in Connecticut, and thence [237]*237to tide-water on Long Island Sound. The complaint alleges that the defendant, through its agents and servants, on the 28th day of January, 1898, then having in their possession and control a certain engine and cars, the property of the defendant, and then running and moving the same upon the said railroad in the city of Norwich, in the exercise of their franchise and in operating their railroad, so negligently and carelessly managed the same that the plaintiff was thereby greatly cut, bruised, wrenched and wounded and was permanently disabled, to his great injury. The defendant suffered a default, and there was a hearing in damages. The court assessed damages to the plaintiff in the sum of $4,500, and the defendant appealed.

The finding of facts so far as it bears on the questions raised on appeal, is as follows:—

“ 1. On February 9th, 1869, the defendant leased its-railroad to the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad Company, by indenture, a copy of which marked Exhibit “ A ” is hereto annexed and made a part of this finding. (This indenture is given in full in the foot-notes.)

EXHIBIT “A.”

This Indenture, made this ninth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, between the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company, a company existing by virtue of the laws of the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts, of the first part, and the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad Company, a corporation existing by virtue of the laws of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and Massachusetts, of the second part, Witnesseth:

Whereas, it is believed to be for the advantage of the public, and of both parties hereto, that the railway and steamboat property of the party of the first part should be managed and operated for the term of this lease by the party of the second part: Now, therefore, these presents witness, that the parties hereto, in consideration of the premises, and of the several provisions hereinafter contained, for the benefit of each respectively, do hereby mutually covenant, promise, contract, and agree, to and with each other as follows, to wit: —

First: Said party of the first part hath demised, leased, and rented, and doth by these presents demise, lease, and rent, for the term of one hundred years, from and after the first day of February, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixty-nine (1869), unto the said party of the second part, and its successors, all and singular, the railway of the said party of the first part, extending [238]*238from a point in the city of Worcester in Massachusetts, to Allyn’s Point, so called, some miles southerly of the city of Norwich in Connecticut, with its railway in said city of Norwich, together with all the lands on which said railway is or shall he located within said terminal points, and which are connected with the uses of said railway, and all the rights, easements, franchises, and privileges in connection therewith, or which are appurtenant thereto, and all the turnouts, branch tracks, depot grounds, stations, depots, superstructures, erections, and fixtures used therewith and belonging thereto, and the lands and premises on which the same are situate and standing, now used and belonging, and to be used or belonging, or in any wise appertaining to said railroad, together with all and singular the real estate, tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances of the party of the first part; together with and also the right to ask, demand, and receive, for their own use and benefit, of all the tolls, profits, income, and rent, and charges which may or can be legally demanded or received for the transportation of persons or property upon or over the said railroad, or any part thereof, or resulting in any wise from the operation and working of said railroad, or the use and occupation of said demised property, or any part thereof, together with the use of all the personal property of said party of the first part, used, or to be used, upon or in connection with said leased railroad, however the same may, can, or should be described, and wherever situate and being; with the dividends and profits of the steamboat stock owned by said party of the first part, and excepting the books of record, and accounts and papers pertaining to the business of said party of the first part, and the shares in the capital stock of said company. Said party of the second part, or any person by its board of directors from time to time designated, shall have the right to vote on said shares of steamboat stock as the agent and attorney of said party of the first part; and said party of the first part will, on request, execute and deliver to such attorney so designated proper proxy to enable such attorney to vote in any meeting of said steamboat company in manner as aforesaid; and said party of the second part shall so cause said votes on said shares to be cast as will best insure the prosperity of said steamboat interest, and so that the equipment of the line shall be kept up to meet any present or future demand of the business done, or that may be done in connection with the leased railroad and property; yielding and paying rent therefor to the treasurer or said party of the first part, annually, ten (10) per cent on the capital stock of said company, party of the first part, the same being free from all taxes, assessments, and charges of every name and nature, — said annual rent being the sum of two hundred thirty-five thousand four hundred and thirty ($235,430) dollars, to be paid in lawful money of the United States, semi-annually, on the first days of July and January in each and every year, in equal half-yearly payments of one hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred and fifteen ($117,715) dollars, from and after January, 1S09, — said payment to be made at the office of the treasurer of said party of the first part,.and also ail taxes, [239]*239rates, charges, and assessments, ordinary and extraordinary, which may be imposed or assessed in any way on said property herein and hereby leased, and on said rental or dividend; —

[238]*238“ 2. The New York and New England Railroad Company afterwards succeeded to all the property rights, and fran[239]*239eliises of the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railroad Company, and on April 26th, 1886, assumed the said lease in all its [240]*240terms, except that by agreement of the parties in interest the annual rental to be paid was reduced from ten per cent to eight per cent.

[239]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Engelke v. Wheatley
171 A.2d 402 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1961)
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. Umbaugh
123 P.2d 224 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1942)
Reed v. New Orleans Great Northern R.
151 So. 553 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1934)
Sorenson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
183 Iowa 1123 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Quigley v. Toledo Railways & Light Co.
89 Ohio St. (N.S.) 68 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1913)
Clinger's Admx. v. C. & O. Ry. Co.
109 S.W. 315 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1908)
Moorshead v. United Railways Co.
100 S.W. 611 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Moorshead v. United Railways Co.
96 S.W. 261 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
McCabe's Admx. v. Maysville & B. S. R.
66 S.W. 1054 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1902)
Paget v. Brogan
55 S.W. 938 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1900)
City of New Haven v. the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
44 A. 31 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1899)
Murray v. Lehigh Valley Railroad
22 L.R.A. 539 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A. 354, 65 Conn. 230, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/driscoll-v-norwich-worcester-railroad-conn-1894.