Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Vt. 722

State v. Mead

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 15, 1855

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1855-04-15

Indictment for obstructing railroad engines. Indictment charging that the respondent “ on the 17th day of « August, A. D. 1853, with force and arms, at Middlesex aforesaid, “willfully did obstruct, hinder, impede and stop the machines, “ engines, and cars, of the Vermont Central Railroad Company, “ running over the track of the said company through the town of «Middlesex aforesaid, by placing logs upon and over, and across “ said track, contrary to the form, force and effect…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ The expression ‘ railroad company’ does not ex vi termini import that of necessity they must be a corporation under the laws of this state or any other state; and we cannot, unless it is so alleged, take judicial notice that such is the fact. This averment in the indictment would be sustained by proof that the railroad company was a voluntary association.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Suppe

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Corporation”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 1972

14 state decisions — followed in 10 states

501855186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

¶2This indictment is intended to be grounded upon the 65th section of the general railroad law. See Comp. Statutes, p. 204. That section makes it a misdemeanor in any person who shall willfully do, or cause to be done any acts by which any building, fence, construction or work of any railroad corporation, or any engine, machine or structure, or any matter or thing appertaining to the same, shall be stopped, obstructed, impaired, weakened, injured or destroyed.

¶3To bring a case within this section, the persons obstructed in the enjoyment of their rights must be a railroad corporation, and this is essential to constitute the offence. In the indictment the injury is alleged to be done to machines, engines and cars of the Vermont Central Railroad Company. The expression “railroad company” does not ex vi termini import that of necessity they must be a corporation under the laws of this state or any other state; and we cannot, unless it is so alleged, take judicial notice that such is the fact. This averment in the indictment would be sustained by proof that the railroad company was a voluntary association.

¶4If it had been avered that the injury had been done to the railroad corporation, it is quite another question what proof would have been necessary to have sustained it, and whether proof of the existence of a corporation de facto would have satisfied it.

¶5It cannot help the plaintiff out of the difficulty because the chars *724ter of the Vermont Central Kailroad Company declares it to be a public act. This may excuse the want of pleading the act, but not the want of a sufficient averment of facts to show that an offence had been committed. In this case the averment “ railroad company ” is equivocal. It may mean a corporation or a voluntary association, and the intendment is against the pleader.

¶6The least that can be required, is an averment that the railroad company was a corporation, and whether it would be necessary to go further in the averments, it is not necessary to inquire. The questions raised on the trial become immaterial and need not be considered.

¶7The judgment of this court is that the judgment of the county court, overruling the motion in arrest, be reversed, and judgment that the indictment is insufficient.

/27/vt/722 · .json · Public domain