Holloway v. Louisville, St. L. & T. R. Co., (Ky.) McIlhenny v. Binz, (Tex.).. McMinn v. Pittsburgh, M. & Y. 97 3871 R. Co., (Pa.).. 395 Howell v. Killie, (Colo.). 286 Hoyle v. New York & N. E. R. R. Co., (Va.).. . . 368 38 397 | 653 528 McReynolds v. Kansas City C. & S. R. Co., (Mo.)... Mayer v. Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville R. Co., (Ind.)..... 68 Mead v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., (Va.).. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri etc. R. Co., (C. C.).. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. v. Nestor, (C. C.)... Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic R. Co., Guilford v., (Minn.)... 598 425 72 680 98 Minnesota Belt Line R. Transfer .600, 603 55 Morgan v. New York & M. R. Co., (V. Y.).. 658 33 Morris . Tottenham & Forest Gate R. Co., (Eng.)... 360 98 v. Wisconsin Midland R. Co., (Wis.)... 668 444 89 518 New York & New England R. Co., White 7., (Mass.).. 392 2., (Mo.).... 426 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co. v. Cockcroft, (C. C.).. 679 North Carolina R. Co. v. Goodwin, Kansas City, W. & N. W. R. Co. Olcott v. Headrick, (U. S.). 71 christ, (Wash.).. ..603, 606, 607 Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern R. Co. v. Mitchell, (Utah).. 592 Mullen v., (Ore.). 444 145 444 396 v. Murphine, (Wash.) 598, 616, 617 v. Scheike, (Wash.). Shoemaker v. Cedar Rapids, I. F. & N. W. R. Co., (Minn.).......... Shortle et al. v. Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. Co., (Ind.)..... 576 Sioux City & Iowa Falls Town Lot & Land Co. v. Griffey, (U.S.) 347 Skottowe v. Oregon Short Line & Utah Northern R. Co., (Ore.)... 444 Small v. Georgia Southern & F. R. Co., (Ga.)... 570 632 South Carolina R. Co., Lackawanna Iron & Coal Co. Intervenors,) Bound v., (U. S.).... 58 Coghlan v., (U. S.).. v. Morgans L. & T. R. & S. Co., (La.)... Pennsylvania, Finance Co. of, v. Charleston, Cincinnati & Chicago R. Co., (U. S.).... Pennsylvania, S. V. R. Co. v. Reading Paper Mills, (Pa.) 669 Philadelphia, Harrisburg & Pittsburg R. Co., Gorgas v., (Pa.)... 593 Pickett v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. 79 55 South & North Alabama R. Co., Elyton Land Co. v., (Ala.).. ... 371 Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Stanley, (C. C.)... 387 R. Co., (Ind.). Pittsburgh Junction R. Co. .v. Allegheny Valley R. Co., (Pa.)... 512 Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co., Graham v., (Pa.). . 286 United States v., (U. S.)..... 331 Split Rock Cable Road Co., In re., (N. Y.)... Spokane & Palouse R. Co., Hamilton v.. (Idaho). 514 352 Worcester, (Mass.) 628 Quincy, Missouri & Pacific R. Co. v. Humphreys, (U. S.).... 38 Ray v. Walker, (Eng.).......... 426 Strand, Bellingham Bay & British 638 598 Roanoke Investment Co. v. Kansas City & Southeastern R. Co., (Mo.)... Taylor v. Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co., (Wis.). 659 426 Roanoke & Tar River R. Co., 649 ....618, 677 St. Lawrence & A. R. Co., In re, (N. Y.).. 669 St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co. v. Tottenham & Forest Gate R. Co., Morris v., (Eng.)... 360 THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RAILROAD CASES. VOLUME LI. .1 STOCKTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL 7. CENTRAL R. Co. OF NEW JERSEY et al. (New Jersey Court of Chancery, August 25, 1892.) Lease Power of Railroad Company-Legislative Authority.-A railroad company cannot lease or dispose of any franchise needful in the performance of its obligations to the state, without legislative consent. Sufficiency of Title of Act-Constitutional Law.-The formation and regulation of railroads are subjects naturally and properly related to and connected with each other, and are both germane to the object which is expressed by their being coupled in defining the title of an Act entitled " An Act to amend an Act entitled 'an Act to authorize the formation of railroad corporations and to regulate the same (New Jersey Act, March 11, 1880.) This act is sufficiently broad in its terms to confer power upon railroad corporations chartered by special law. Statute Regulating Railroad Leases-Requirement of Legislative Consent -Special Legislation.-New Jersey Act of May 2, 1885 entitled "An Act respecting the leasing of railroads," forbidding the leasing of any railroad unless the consent of the legislature is first obtained, and providing that such consent may be obtained by submitting a draft of the proposed lease to the legislature for its approval by an act, is constitutional, and is not open to the objection that it contravenes the constitutional prohibition of special legislation. Lease of Railroad to Foreign Corporation-Device to Evade Statute.Where a domestic railroad company is forbidden to lease its road and franchises to a foreign corporation it will not be allowed to execute a lease to a domestic corporation which was promoted and is controlled and practically owned by a foreign corporation. In this case the lease by the Central Railroad Co. of New Jersey of its road and franchises to the Port Reading R. Co. is but a device to disguise the real nature of the transaction which consisted of a lease to the Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. Corporate Excess of Power-Public Policy-Action by Attorney General. -Where a corporate excess of power tends to the public injury, or to defeat public policy, it may be restrained in equity at the suit of the attorney general. |