United States v. Stanford

161 U.S. 412, 16 S. Ct. 576, 40 L. Ed. 751, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2174
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 2, 1896
Docket783
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 161 U.S. 412 (United States v. Stanford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Stanford, 161 U.S. 412, 16 S. Ct. 576, 40 L. Ed. 751, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2174 (1896).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

The United States seeks by this suit to establish a claim against the estate of Leland Stanford for fifteen millions two hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars.

The deceased held and owned a large number of the shares of the capital stock of 'the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, and the Western Pacific Railroad Company — corporations that were organized under the laws of California, and which subsequently were consolidated and became the Central Pacific Railroad Company.

Those companies received bonds of the United States that were issued under the acts of Congress known as the Pacific Railroad Acts in aid of the construction of a railroad and telegraph, line extending from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean. The. present demand of the government arises out of the obligation which, it is alleged; rested upon the companies receiving such bonds to pay the principal at maturity and to reimburse the United States for all interest paid thereon.

*414 The bill proceeds upon the ground that by the constitution and laws of California, at the .time the above corporations were organized, as well as when they received the bonds of the U nited States, each stockholder of a railroad corporation was liable, in proportion to the stock owned and held by him, for all of its debts and liabilities, and, consequently, that the estate of Stanford is liable to the United States in proportion to the stock owned and held by him in the corporations named.

The principal contention of. the, defendant is, that the question of the liability of stockholders for the debts and obligations of companies receiving bonds of the United States under the Pacific Railroad Acts, does not depend upon the laws of California, but is governed by the acts of Congress under which such bonds were issued; that by its legislation in aid of the construction of the Union and Central Pacific railroads Congress intended to define, control, and regulate the entire relations of the government to all of the companies receiving subsidy bonds without reference to the laws of any State; that those companies were respectively created or adopted as agencies for a great national purpose, in the accomplishment of which they were to be subject to the exclusive control of the general government; that the functions, obligations and liabilities of all the companies participating in the bounty of the United States were to be equal and identical; and that as to each company the government looked to it alone for the performance of all that the acts imposed upon it, and did not contemplate, nor intend that there should be any individual liability of stockholders in respect of the subsidy bonds issued by the United States.

If these acts of Congress have the scope and effect attributed to them by the defendant, the decree may be affirmed without any expression of opinion by this court upon other questions discussed at the bar, and which, if considered, would require a construction of the laws of California relating to the personal liability of stockholders for the debts of railroad corporations.

Was it part of the contract between the United States and the corporations receiving its subsidy bonds that the stock *415 holders of - such corporations, respectively, should be personally liable for the principal and interest of those bonds ? Or, did the United States make provision in the acts of Congress for all the security intended to be taken for their payment ? These questions cannot be answered by referring to any one section of either act, but only by examining the provisions of all of those acts in the light of the circumstances under which the United States made grants of public lands and provided for the issuing of bonds in aid of the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri Eiver to the Pacific Ocean.

By the act of July 1, 1862, c. 120,12 Stat. 489, entitled “An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri Eiver to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military and other purposes,” the Union Pacific Eailroad Company was incorporated with power to lay out, locate, maintain, and enjoy a continuous railroad and telegraph from a named point in what was then the Territory of Nebraska to the western boundary of what at that time was the Territory of Nevada.

That company was given the right of way through the public lands for the construction of its railroad and'telegraph line as well as the power and authority to take from those lands adjacent to the line of the road, earth, stone and timber, and other materials required in the work of construction, and so far as it was necessary to do so, to occupy the public lands, for stations,-buildings, workshops and depots, machine shops, switches,: side tracks, turntables and water stations; the United States to extinguish the Indian titles to all lands falling under the operation of the act and required for the right •of way and grants made. “ Por the purpose of aiding in the •construction of said railroad and telegraph line, and ' to secure the safe and speedy transportation of the mails, troops, munitions of war and public stores,” a large grant of lands was made, for which patents were directed to be issued as each forty consecutive miles of railroad and telegraph were completed and equipped in all respects as required. §§ 2, 8, 4.

The fifth section provided that for the purposes mentioned *416 the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the completion and equipment of forty consecutive miles of railroad and telegraph, should issue to the company bonds of the United States, of one thousand dollars each, payable in thirty years after date, bearing six per centum per annum interest, to the amount of sixteen of said bonds per mile for such section of forty miles and “ to secure the repayment to the United States, as hereinafter provided, of the amount of said bonds so issued and delivered to said company, together with all interest,thereon which shall have been paid by. the United States, the issue of said bonds and delivery to the company shall ipso facto constitute a mortgage on the whole line of the railroad and telegraph, together with the rolling stock, fixtures and property of every kind and description, and in consideration of which said bonds may be issued •, and on the refusal or failure of said company to redeem said bonds, or any part of them, when required so to do by the Secretary of the Treasury, in accordance with the provisions of this act, the said road, with all the rights, functions, immunities and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and also all lands granted to the said company, by the United States, which, at the time of said default shall remain in the ownership of said company, may be taken possession of by the Secretary of the Treasury for the use and benefit of the United States.”

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

Related

Roe v. Conn
417 F. Supp. 769 (M.D. Alabama, 1976)
Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. McCormick
102 F.2d 305 (Seventh Circuit, 1939)
Rainey v. Michel
57 P.2d 932 (California Supreme Court, 1936)
Robie v. Holdahl
219 N.W. 945 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)
Klein v. City of Louisville
6 S.W.2d 1104 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1928)
United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
264 F. 898 (Ninth Circuit, 1920)
Oregon & California Railroad v. United States
238 U.S. 393 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Downer v. Union Land Co.
129 N.W. 777 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)
Kinzel v. Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co.
137 F. 489 (Sixth Circuit, 1905)
Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States
183 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1902)
Central Pacific Railroad v. California
162 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 U.S. 412, 16 S. Ct. 576, 40 L. Ed. 751, 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stanford-scotus-1896.