People Ex Rel. Kimball v. . B. and A.R.R. Co.

70 N.Y. 569, 1877 N.Y. LEXIS 655
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 25, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 70 N.Y. 569 (People Ex Rel. Kimball v. . B. and A.R.R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People Ex Rel. Kimball v. . B. and A.R.R. Co., 70 N.Y. 569, 1877 N.Y. LEXIS 655 (N.Y. 1877).

Opinion

The defendant's railroad crossed the Rensselaer and Columbia turnpike in the town of East Greenbush, in Rensselaer county, and in 1874, the Legislature, by chapter 647 of the laws of that year, enacted that the defendant should, within one year, construct a bridge at the point of intersection of the railroad and turnpike, so as to carry the turnpike over the railroad, in the manner particularly specified in the act. The railroad omitted to construct the bridge, and this order was made directing a peremptory mandamus to issue commanding it to do so.

Railroad corporations hold their property and exercise their functions for the public benefit, and they are therefore subject to legislative control. The Legislature which has created them, may regulate the mode in which they shall transact their business, the price which they shall charge for the transportation of freight and passengers, the speed at which they may run their trains, and the way in which they may cross or run upon highways and turnpikes used for public travel. It may make all such regulations as are appropriate to protect the lives of persons carried upon railroads, *Page 571 or passing upon highways crossed by railroads. All this is within the domain of legislative power, although the power to alter and amend the charters of such corporations has not been reserved.

This whole subject of the legislative power over railroads, and even private persons holding and using their property for public purposes, has been so fully discussed recently in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Granger cases and theChicago Elevator case, as to make further discussion unnecessary here. Such legislation violates no contract, takes away no property, and interferes with no vested right. But the defendant was incorporated under chapter 917 of the laws of 1869 by the consolidation of other railroad companies, and hence it took its charter under the Constitution, and the laws subject to the right of the Legislature to alter or amend it. (1 R.S., 600; § 8, Const., art. 8, § 1; Laws of 1850, chap. 140, § 48.)

Under this reserved power, the Legislature may impose upon railroad corporations such additional restrictions and burdens as the public good requires. It may not confiscate property, but it cannot be doubted that it can do all that is required by the act of 1874. (Albany Northern Railroad Company v. Brownell,24 N Y, 345, 351.)

The order must be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Range Sand-Lime Brick Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.
163 N.W. 656 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)
City of Newport v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
192 S.W. 838 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Corporation Commission v. . R. R.
66 S.E. 427 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
City of Grafton v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
113 N.W. 598 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1907)
Boswell v. Security Mutual Life Insurance
119 A.D. 723 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Topham v. Interurban Street Railway Co.
42 Misc. 503 (New York Supreme Court, 1904)
Eckert v. Perth Amboy & Woodbridge Railroad
66 N.J. Eq. 437 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1903)
Town of Clarendon v. Rutland Railroad
52 A. 1057 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1902)
State ex rel. Cunningham v. Jack
113 F. 823 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1902)
People ex rel. Frost v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
61 A.D. 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
People Ex Rel. Cayadutta Plank Road Co. v. Cummings
59 N.E. 703 (New York Court of Appeals, 1901)
People Ex Rel. Tyroler v. Warden of City Prison
51 N.E. 1006 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Frost v. Michenor
54 N.Y.S. 1100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. City of Milwaukee
72 N.W. 1118 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)
Beardsley v. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad
15 A.D. 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)
Geneva & W. Ry. Co. v. New York Cent. & H. R. R.
35 N.Y.S. 339 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)
Illinois Central Railroad v. City of Chicago
141 Ill. 586 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 N.Y. 569, 1877 N.Y. LEXIS 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-kimball-v-b-and-arr-co-ny-1877.