Right of Way-Continued.

Grant of right of way with right to take additional land necessary, 396.

Misuser; use of right of way for erection of freight depot, is not,

371. Parol agreement to convey land for railroad; part performance. Location of station, etc., 425. Release of right of way under agreement to have damages assessed when road is located. Cost of fencing, 579.

what covered by, 395. Reservation in deed by railroad company of a right of way; what covered thereby, 396. Rights of rival companies over located line of right of way, 443. Rights of railroad company in purchased right of way, 380. Sale of superfluous land by railCovenant to

road company.
resell portion, 426.

Second railroad as additional ser-
vitude on land, 371.
Trespass on land by railroad.
Statute of limitations, 387.
Verbal agreement concerning
conveyance of right of way.
Action to reform deed, 425.

Stations.

Defective station and approaches; liability of railroad company for injuries caused by, 458. Statutes.

Sufficiency of title of legislative acts concerning railroads, 30. Streets and Highways.

Damages to adjacent property by construction of boulevard across railroad tracks, 528.

51 A. & E. R. Cas.-44

ABANDONMENT.

See RIGHT OF WAY. ADVERSE POSSESSION. See RIGHT of WAY. AGENT.

Authority of right of way agent to locate depot on land purchased by company, held to be shown by circumstances. Gulf, C., etc., R. Co. v. Jones (Tex.), 415. APPEAL AND ERROR.

Sufficiency of objection to evi

dence. Ground of objection must be pointed out before presenting question for review. Northern P. R. Co. v. Charless (U. S.), 198.

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

Excess of power tending to public injury may be restrained at suit of attorney general. Stockton v. Central R. Co. (N. J.), 1. BRIDGE.

Contract for joint use of bridge and terminals. See CONTRACT. Railroad permitting foot passengers and vehicles to travel over its right of way to reach bridge not enjoined at suit of owner of ferry franchise. Kansas & A. V. R. Co. v. Payne (U. S.), 518. Use of right of way. Bridge used for vehicles and for passengers, but not cutting off access to ferry landing; owner of ferry franchise not entitled to compensation. Kansas & A.V. R. Co. v. Payne (U. S.), 518.

BONDS.

See RECEIVER.

Interest. Rate of interest in Eng. land is judicially noticed by courts, but where 5 per cent. has been paid for several years this is presumed to be legal rate. Coghlan v. South Car. R. Co. (U. S.), 79.

Where bonds are payable in England it is presumed that interest after maturity is payable at English rates. Coghlan v. S. Car. R. Co. (U. S.), 79. Recital in bond as to security of trust deed held not sufficient to destroy its negotiability, or to put bona fide holder on inquiry as to existence of conditions. Guilford v. Minneapolis, etc. R. Co. (Minn.), 98.

held to charge holders with notice of terms of deed, and to bind them by conditions. Guil. ford v. Minneapolis, etc. R. Co. (Minn.), 98.

Re-organization of railroad by trustees acting for bondholders. Issue of stock to bondholders; residue of stock to complete road held properly retained by trus tee. White v. Wood (N. Y.),73. Terms of trust deed. Condition in bond requiring requisition on trustee to enforce collection held a pre-requisite to any action by bondholder. Guilford Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. (Minn.), 98.

V.

BONDS-Continued.

Terms of trust deed. Rights of
bondholders in respect to pro-
cedure for collection of deed
are limited by. Guilford v.
Minneapolis, etc., R. Co.
(Minn.), 98.

Trustee; payment for services.
See TRUSTEE.

CARRIERS.

Combinations and agreements in
restraint of trade. Application
of Congressional Anti-Trust
Law to railroads. See TRAFFIC

ASSOCIATIONS.

Connecting lines. See INTERSTATE
COMMERCE Аст.

to

Company obliged by its char-
ter to permit other companies
form running connec-
tions," not obliged to carry
freight in cars in which it is
tendered. Oregon S. L. V.
Northern Pac. R. Co., (U. S.),
145.

Course of business between
two companies held to show no
controlling custom to receive
and transfer freight in cars in
which it was tendered. Oregon
Short Line v. Northern Pac. R.
Co. (U. S.), 145.

Duty of carrier receiving
freight from connecting line to
advance or assume payment of
charges due. Oregon Short
Line v. Northern Pac. R. Co.
(U. S.), 145.

Discrimination in rates. See
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.

CHARTER.

Forfeiture of charter; right to
claim, in proceedings by state to
recover lands granted, because
company has failed to construct
road in time. Galveston, etc.,
R. Co. v. State (Tex.), 287.
COMBINATIONS,

See LEASE; TRAFFIC ASSOCIATIONS.
CONDITIONS.

See RIGHT OF WAY.
CONNECTING LINES.

See CARRIERS; INTERSTATE COм-
MERCE ACT; TICKETS AND
FARES.

Contract for joint use of bridge

and terminals. See CONTRACT.
CONSOLIDATION.

Land grants; effect of consolida-
tion upon. See LAND GRAnts.

for 999 years not void because
charter expires in 40 years.
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago,
R. I. & P. R. Co. (U. S.), 162.
Estoppel to deny validity of con-
tract for joint use of bridge and
terminals after acting under it
for seven months and receiving
rentals. Union Pac. R. Co. v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(U. S.), 162.

Execution of contract by execu-
tive committee, or board of di-
rectors, and its approval by
stockholders, held to make it
binding, although never rati-
fied by formal resolution of di-
rectors. Union Pac. R. Co. v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(U. S.), 162.

Joint use of bridge and terminals

at Omaha; contract for, by
Union Pacific R. Co. held not to
be ultra vires. Union Pac. R.
Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(U. S.), 162.

Discretion of trial court in
action for specific performance
to refuse to permit defendant to
show that the contract was not
mutually enforceable. Union
Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. &
P. R. Co. (U. S.), 162.

General policy evinced by
acts of congress to promote con-
tinuous lines, held to authorize
contract. Union Pac. R. Co. v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(U. S.), 162.

Provision in contract for
movement of trains held not to
disable Union Pacific Co. from
performing its public duties.
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Chicago,
R. I. & P. R. Co. (U.S.), 162.
Specific performance of contract
between two railroads for joint
use of bridge and terminals;

CONTRACT-Continued.
when not refused.

Union Pac.
R. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R.
Co. (U. S.), 162.
Special performance of contract
for joint use of bridge and
terminals. Effect of agreement
to submit controversy to ar-
bitration. Union Pac. R. Co.
v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.
(U. S.), 162.

not refused on ground of al-
leged inadequacy of considera-
tion, or because it is inequit-
able. Union Pac. R. Co. v.
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (U.
S.), 162.
CONTRIBUTORY

NEGLIGENCE.

ELEVATED RAILROAD-Continued.
held authorized by virtue of
statute to condemn land. Lieb-
erman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.
(III.), 581.
Incorporation. Companies to
construct elevated roads may
be authorized under general act
notwithstanding special stat-
ute. Lieberman v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co. (Ill.). 581.
EMINENT DOMAIN.
Action by several plaintiffs. Con-
veyance of right of way by
some does not bar action by
others. Shortle v. Terre Haute,
etc., R. Co. (Ind.), 576.
Action to try title to land con-
demned; admission in evidence
of judgment in condemnation
proceedings reciting that notice
was given held erroneous. Par-
ker v. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co.
(Tex.), 643.

Amending petition filed against
railroad for taking land. No
error in permitting the filing of
two amended petitions. Wich-
ita, etc., R. Co. v. Fechheimer
(Kan.), 660.

Appeal. Review on appeal of
separate proceedings heard to-
gether; exception on the ground
that the assessment was inade-
quate as to one tract. Gulf, etc.,
R. Co. v. Kerfoot (Tex.), 682.

Separate proceedings heard
together. Amendment of excep-
tion as to one tract.
Gulf, etc.,

R. Co. v. Kerfoot (Kan.), 682.
Application for assessment of
damages by railroad company,
in action to recover land un-
lawfully occupied by it. Motion
addressed to discretion of court.
Kremer v Chicago, M., etc., R.
Co. (Minn.), 382.

Award agreed upon by two or
three appraisers is valid.

American Cannel C. Co. v. Hun-
tingburg, etc., R. Co. (Ind.), 653.

of sum in gross covering
damages to several tracts is
sufficient. American Cannel C.
Co. v. Huntingburg, etc., R.
Co. (Ind.), 653.

Conveyance of right of way upon
agreement of company to fence
is without consideration, and
grantor may have his damages
assessed. Shortle 2. Terre