Earle v. Seattle, L. S. & E. Ry. Co.

56 F. 909, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2732
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington
DecidedJune 26, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 56 F. 909 (Earle v. Seattle, L. S. & E. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Earle v. Seattle, L. S. & E. Ry. Co., 56 F. 909, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2732 (circtdwa 1893).

Opinion

HANFORD, District Judge.

I have studied the showing made by the complainants, and the response of the defendants thereto, contained in the pleadings and affidavits, and the arguments of counsel, upon the application for the appointment of a receiver of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company’s railway lines and business during the pendency of this suit. The case is substantially as follows; Said company was incorporated in the year 1885, under Hie laws of Washington Territory, with 50,000 shares of [910]*910stock, of $100 each, 41,150 of 'which have been issued. Seattle is, by the articles of incorporation, made the principal place of business of the company. It has issued interest-bearing bonds to the amount of $5,675,000, secured by a mortgage upon all of its property. With money raised by sale of said bonds, lines of standard gauge railway have been constructed and put in operation, extending from Seattle to the foothills of the Cascade range of mountains, in King county, with a branch extending to Sumas, on the boundary between this state and British Columbia, and extending from Spokane, westward, to Davenport, aggregating about 227 miles; and it appears to have an undefined interest in a belt line around Lake Washington, which has never been operated. Valuable terminal grounds at Seattle have also been acquired, and station buildings have been erected at all places on said lines where needed. In June, 1890, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company purchased 31,621 shares of said stock, paying therefor $45 per share, and, pursuant to an agreement made with the vendors thereof, has guarantied payment of the principal and interest of all of said Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company’s bonds. Manifestly, the purpose of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, in acquiring a controlling majority of said stock, was to absorb the property, business, and franchise of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company. The general manager of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company is now the general manager of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company, and a change in the by-laws of the latter' company has been made, conferring upon its general manager'absolute control of the operation of said railway lines. The five trustees of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company are all without individual interest in the company, — mere nominal stockholders and representatives of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, four of them being officers and agents of said company. The president and other officers are nonresidents of the state of Washington. The stock book of the company, which is, by law, .required to be kept at the office of the company, is in New York; and the accounts of the company are being kept by employes of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, in St. Paul. A traffic contract has been entered into between the two corporations, which, in effect, deprives the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company of all independence, and reduces it to the position of a dependent and feeder of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, and obligates it to construct new lines of railway and extensions at the dictation of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Said traffic contract is, by its terms, to continue 40 years, and thereafter still to continue in force, until abrogated by six months’ notice, which practically makes its duration for the legal lifetime of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company. The action of this corporation, in the particulars referred to, has been by its board of trustees; and the minority stockholders have not consented thereto, nor have they been called upon to. vote at any stockholders’ meeting, otherwise than in the annual elections of trustees.

The only authority found in the charter of the Northern Pacific [911]*911Railroad Company for wh.it has been deue in absorbing the properly and franchise of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company, and assuming liability for its bonded indebtedness, is section 17, supplemented by a provision of the laws of this state authorizing railroad coi pora lions to purchase or lease and operate connecting lines of railway in this state, enacted March 28, 1890, (Laws Wash. 1889-90, p. 527.) The section of the charier referred to reads as follows:

•‘See. 17. And bo it i'urUmr enacted, Ihat the said company is autiiorizod u> accept to its own use any grcsii, donation, loan, power, franchise, aid, or ¡jssiüímice which ratty be granted to, or conferred upon, said company Tty tito '.•engross of ilie United States, tty flio legislature of any stale, or by any corporation, person or persons; mid said ooiporation is authorized to hold and enjoy such grant, donation, loan, power, franchise, aid, or assistance to its own use for the purpose aforesaid.”

The statute referred to does not prescribe the manner whereby purchases or leases of railways may be consummated, otherwise than by the general provisions of the several sin rutes relating to corporations; and to conveyances of property. A railroad corporation cannot lawfully transfer its franchise without authority emanating from the power which granted it. And au unauthorized transfer, made in disguise, as by a traffic contract, will not, in a judicial proceeding, be treated with greater favor Ilian if the contract expressed plainly the real intention of ilie parties. On the subject of traffic contracts, the text of Green's Brice's Ultra Tires (page 427) concisely and clearly slates the law, as follows:

“Corporations may nuiko sill necessary aiTaiigxmiejils for cheaply and os-fW.diiiouUy developing or carrying on their particular business; but it is uuoiher tiring, going beyond ibis, to er.ler into contracts, for instance, by which the exclusive coni nil or Hie exclusivo right of working tiro line is handed over to other pardos. AU such ¡mangeiuems. whatever their form, however disguised, are liUrn vires and void. Tins applies with peculiar torco in the case of those bodies which have been created for what may be ronvenlonily stjled ‘public pulposos.”’

Mow, assuming' that the section of the charter above quoted doAs authorize the ^Northern 'Pacific Railroad Company Co cake ilie benefit of rights and privileges, and exercise new powers, granted and conferred by (lie stale of Washington, liie question whether the contracts and proceedings by which it lias gained control of the Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern Company's franchise and business are ultra, vires or not depends upon whether the requirements of the slate laws in this regard have been met. There has been no sale anil conveyance, nor lease, of the railroad property, in accordance with i.he laws of this slave relating to the manner of transferring titles to such property. An the parties have not done what the statute authorizes to be done, I do not think that the deal between I hem has any governmental sanction whatever. Mo consolidation has been attempted, and yet the transaction is of such resemblance to a consolidation that Ilie legal principles by which the validity of proceedings to effect a consolidation of corporations may be applied. This idea leads to consideration of Ike contract rights of individual stockholders; and the rule is that a corporation cannot be consoli[912]*912dated with, anotlier if the right to do so was not l>y the law, or the constating instruments, given at the time of its creation, without the unanimous consent of its stockholders. The law on this subject is thus stated in 2 Mor. Priv. Corp. § 951:

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

Related

Jacobson v. General Motors Corporation
22 F. Supp. 255 (S.D. New York, 1938)
Ames v. Goldfield Merger Mines Co.
227 F. 292 (W.D. Washington, 1915)
North v. Union Savings & Loan Ass'n
117 P. 822 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Venner v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
153 F. 408 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1907)
Leary v. Columbia River & P. S. Nav. Co.
82 F. 775 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 F. 909, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earle-v-seattle-l-s-e-ry-co-circtdwa-1893.