Bestor v. Wathen
Citations
- 60 Ill. 138
Syllabus
<p>1. ContRact — in respect to the location of a railroad. Two persona owning a tract of laud on tlie line of a railroad, contracted witli the president of another road then being constructed, and a firm of individuals who had contracted to build that road, to lay the land off into town lots, and, after selling lots to the amount of $4800, to convey to the president of the road and to the construction company an undivided half of llib remaining lots. The president and the individuals composing the construction company were to pay no money, but agreed to “aid, assist and contribute to the building' up of a town on said land:” Held, that if this contract was made to secure the- location of the road at a place where it would not be of the greatest benefit to the stockholders, of the road,.then .it was in the nature of a bribe, and can not be enforced; or, if the place where the parties agreed the road should be located, which was afterwards done, was the route best calculated to promote the interest of the stockholders and the public, and the officers of the company were professing to hesitate between it and another line to procure the agreement, that was a fraud, and the contract can not be enforced in equity.</p> <p>3. When the legislature grants a company a charter for the purpose o£> constructing a railway, the grant is made because it is supposed the road will bring certain benefits to the public; and when subscriptions are made to build such a road, it is with the understanding that the officers entrusted with its construction will so locate the line and establish its depots as to bring the highest pecuniary profit to the stockholders, compatible with a proper regard to the public convenience. These alone are the considerations t.'hich should control tlie action of the president and directors of the road, and só far as they permit their official action to be swayed by their private interest, they are guilty of a breach of trust towards the stockholders, and a bre
Judges: Lawrence
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Jones v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1883-09-29· cited 77×
- Reed v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court· 1901-12-24· cited 51×
- Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co. v. Railroad CommissionSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1902-12-15· cited 47×
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. SumnerIndiana Supreme Court· 1886-03-02· cited 38×
- First Trust & Savings Bank v. PowersIllinois Supreme Court· 1946-01-23· cited 32×
- Heirs of Burney v. LudelingSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1895-07-01· cited 29×
- St. Louis, Jacksonville & Chicago Railroad v. MathersIllinois Supreme Court· 1874-01-15· cited 28×
- Doane v. Chicago City Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1895-10-11· cited 26×
- Farrington v. StuckyEighth Circuit· 1908-11-18· cited 13×
- South Chicago City Railway Co. v. Calumet Electric Street Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1898-02-14· cited 11×
- Dodson v. McCurninSupreme Court of Iowa· 1917-01-15· cited 10×
- Lyman v. Suburban RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-04-18· cited 9×
- Minnesota, D. & P. Railway Co. v. WaySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1914-10-06· cited 7×
- Telford v. Chicago, Paducah & Memphis RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1898-04-21· cited 5×
- Pixley v. GouldAppellate Court of Illinois· 1883-10-10· cited 5×
- Cook v. ShermanU.S. Circuit Court· 1882-05-15· cited 5×
- Booth v. EdwardsIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-10-28· cited 4×
- Laughlin v. LeighAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-02-13· cited 4×
- First Trust & Savings Bank v. PowersAppellate Court of Illinois· 1945-02-08· cited 4×
- In Re Collector of Cook CountyAppellate Court of Illinois· 2002-06-28· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.