BEASLEY v. TEXAS & P R CO - 191 U.S. 492 :: PreCYdent Search Engine

191 U.S. 492 BEASLEY v. TEXAS & P R CO

Citation: 191 U.S. 492

Neutral citation: 1903 US 226

0 votes

Legal status: Precedential

31 visits

Jurisdiction: U.S. Supreme Court

Decision date: Monday, 14 December 1903

Tags related to the opinion: no Tags

Citation: list of in going and out going citations to the present case

Citator: list of judicial treatments of the present case

Pages 1-100 101-200 201-248

Page 1, 191 U.S. 492, 492

U.S. Supreme Court

BEASLEY v. TEXAS & P R CO, 191 U.S. 492 (1903)

191 U.S. 492

MATILDA R. BEASLEY and Joseph C. Beasley, Appts.,v.

TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 79.

Submitted December 3, 1903.

Decided December 14, 1903.

Messrs. E. B. Kruttschnitt and W. P. Hall for appellants.

Page 2, 191 U.S. 492, 493

Messrs. John F. Dillon, William Wirt Howe and Walker B. Spencer for appellee.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of appeals ordering a bill against a railway company incorporated under the laws of the United States to be dismissed. The bill seeks to enjoin the railway company from building a depot within 3 miles of one already built at Uni, in Louisiana, and alleges the following facts: Mrs. Beasley, the first- named plaintiff, conveyed to a Louisiana corporation-the Texarkana, Shreveport, & Natchez Railway Company-a strip of land 100 feet wide, for a railroad track through her plantation, habendum to the company and its assigns so long as the

Page 3, 191 U.S. 492, 494

railroad was maintained and operated over the strip. By the act of sale, which was executed by both parties, it was declared to be a part of the consideration for the transfer 'that the grantee or its assigns shall not build . . . or establish any other depot along the line of said railroad within three miles north or south of the one stipulated for.' The defendant purchased the road from the grantee 'subject to the obligations and stipulations contained in' the act of sale. It now is constructing a depot on the road within a mile and a fraction of the one at Uni. The bill further alleges that there is no public necessity for a depot within the stipulated limits. There was a demurrer for the reason that there is an adequate remedy at law, and the demurrer was sustained by the circuit court, and the bill dismissed. This decree was reversed by the circuit court of appeals, and the bill was ordered to be dismissed for want of equity, without prejudice to an action at law. There is a motion to dismiss the appeal to this court on the ground that the decree was not final in form; but the decisions are the other way, and the case being one in which the decree of the circuit court of appeals can be reiewed in this court under the act of March 3, 1891 [26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 547] we have jurisdiction, and the motion must be overruled. Merrill v. National Bank, 173 U.S. 131 , 43 L. ed. 640, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 360. See Great Western Teleg. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U.S. 339, 342 , 40 S. L. ed. 991, 992, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 850.

The act of sale gives its own definition of the word 'depot,' but no question is made that the depot intended to be built is within the prohibition of the instrument in that and other respects. We assume that if the plaintiff's grantee had built the structure it would have broken its agreement. We also assume, for the purposes of the case, without deciding, that the contract, as a contract, is not void, although similar contracts have been pronounced void in some of the cases cited below. On these assumptions the question is how far the burden of that agreement passed to the defendant, and whether, at least as against the defendant, equity will require it to be specifically performed.

Page 4, 191 U.S. 492, 495

Such a liability, wherever asserted, would have to be worked out, if at all, in terms of easement, covenant running with the land, implied contract, or equitable restriction.

Although the Louisiana Code recognizes such servitudes 'as the prohibition of building on an estate, or of building above a particular height' (Rev. Civil Code, art. 728

Page 5, 191 U.S. 492, 496