Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/490

§ -4:75. ] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. III. accordance with its essential nature and purposes, its exer- cise must depend on circumstances. Whether any given enact- ment or regulation comes properly within its limits is a question resting for decision in the first instance with the legislature, but reviewable by the courts. Its scope is greater with respect to property in the management of which the public has a plain interest, as a railroad, 1 or a ferry, or even a grain eleva- 167 U. S. 479; Same v. Same, ib. 633; Same v. Same, 168 U. S. 144; Louis- ville & N. K. R. Co. v. Belli mer, 175 U. S. 648. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R'y Co. v. Inter. Com.Commissiouers, 181 U. S. 1. State statutes (similar iu intent to the Federal Interstate Commerce Act) recognizing and en- forcing as to traffic within the state the duty of railroad companies to put all their patrons on absolute equality, are quite proper; it is no business of railroad companies to foster particular enterprises by re- bates and discriminations. Union Pac. Ry. v. Goodridge, 149 U. S. 680. 1 The legislature can compel a rail- road company to fence its road. Thorpe v. Rutland & BmTg'n R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 140; Gorman v. Pacific R. R., 26 Mo. 441; Kansas Pac. R. R. Co. v. Mower, 16 Kan. 573; New Al- bany & Salem R. R. Co. v. Tilton, 12 Ind. 3; Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Mc- Clelland, 25 111. 140; see Hayes v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., Ill U. S. 228; and make it liable in double dam- ages for stock killed till it is fenced; Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. v. Emmons, 149 U. S. 364; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512; Humes v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 82 Mo. 221; or make it liable for all damages by fire along its route; St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co.fl. Mathews, 165 IT. S. 1; 13. & O. R'y Co. v. Kreager, 61 Oh. St. 312; to ring bells or whistle before cross- ing a road; Galena, etc., R. R. Co. v. Loomis, 13 111. 548; to erect a bridge necessary for travellers along a turn- 470 pike; People v. Boston & Alb. R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 569; to stop trains at a certain station (right to alter and repeal being reserved); Railroad Co. v. Hammersley, 104 U. S. 1 ; Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. People, 105 111. 657; State v. New Haven & North- ampton Co., 43 Conn. 351; Penna. Co. b. Wentz, 37 Ohio St. 333; Com- monweal tli v. Eastern R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 254: to light their tracks in cities; Cincinnati H. & D. R. R. Co. v. Sullivan, 32 O. St. 152. So the legislature may regulate the speed of locomotives in passing through cities and towns; Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. State, 51 Miss. 137; Myers v. C. R. I. & P. R. II. Co., 57 Iowa, 555; State v. East Orange, 41 N. J. L. 127 ; or at highways and crossings; see Roc kf ord, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hi 11- mer, 72 111. 235; Horn v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 38 Wis. 403; Toledo P. & W. Ry. Co. v. Deacon, C3 111. 91; and may regulate the grade of railways, and prescribe how railway tracks shall cross each other; Fitch- burg R. R. Co. v. Grand Junc't R. R. Co., 1 Allen, 552; Pittsburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. South West Penn. R. R. Co., 77 Pa. St. 173; Chicago, M. & St. P. R'y Co. v. Milwaukee, 97 Wis. 418; compare State v. Noyes, 47 Me. 189; may impose upon railroads the entire expense of a change of grade at highway crossings; R. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556; and a city may forbid a railroad company to run its trains by steam within certain parts of the city; R. R. Co. v. Richmond,