RAILROAD. A road graded and having rails of iron or other material for the wheels of railroad cars to run upon.
In their modern form, railroads are usu ally owned by corporations ; Denver & S. R. Co. v. R. Co., 2 Colo. 673. But a private in dividual may construct and work a railroad if he can obtain a right of way by purchase; Appeal of McCandless, 70 Pa. 210 ; L. R. 4 H. L. 171; Bank of Middlebury v. Edgerton, 30 Vt. 182.
Railroads were once regarded as public highways upon which private individuals might place their cars, to be drawn by the company; Com. v. R. Co., 12 Gray (Mass.) 180; Trunick v. Smith, 63 Pa. 18. A land grant conditioned that the road should be a public highway for the government, free of toll, applied only to the tracks ; Lake Su perior & M. R. Co. v. U. S., 93 U. S. 442, 23 L. Ed. 965.
Railroad and railway are ordinarily inter changeable terms; Gyger v. R. Co., 136 Pa. 96, 20 Atl. 399 ; Old Colony Trust Co. v. Rapid T. Co., 192 Pa. 596, 44 Atl. 319 ; State v. Brin, 30 Minn. 522, 16 N. W. 406; Massa chusetts L. & T. Co. v. Hamilton, 88 Fed. 588, 32 C. C. A. 46 ; where a summons was against a railroad company and a judgment was entered against a railway, it was held immaterial; Chicago & I. A. L. R. Co. v. Johnston, 89 Ind. 88 ; so in Georgia P. R. Co. v. Propst, 83 Ala. 518, 3 South. 764. But in Munkers v. R. Co., 60 Mo. 334, railway was held to mean the rails when laid, and rail road the highway in which the railway is laid.
A railroad and a street railway are also held to be 'distinct and different things; Louisville & P. R. Co. v. R. Co., 2 Duv. (Ky.) 175. Whether "railroad" in a statute in cludes street railways depends upon the gener al intent of the act and the circumstances. There is probably no rule of law on the sub ject. See article in 33 Amer. L. Rev. 465. Thus an act forbidding the obstruction of a railroad track applies to both ; Carr v. R. R., 74 Ga. 78 ; so does an act giving powers to railroad companies to enter into operating contracts; Chicago v. Evans, 24 Ill, 52; and
an act authorizing the lease of one .railroad to another ; Hestonville, M. & F. P. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 89 Pa. 210; and an act giv ing a right of action against any railroad for death by negligence ; Johnson's Adm'r v. Ry. Co., 10 Bush (Ky.) 231; and an act relating to crossing the tracks of a railroad ; Louis ville & N. R. Co. v. Anchors, 114 Ala. 492, 22 So. 279, 62 Am. St. Rep. 116 ; but a con stitutional clause forbidding the merger of competing railroads was held not to apply to street railways ; Gyger v. R. Co., 136 Pa. 96, 20 Atl. 399; and so of an act giving a me chanic's lien upon a "railroad or other struc ture ;" Front St. C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Wash. St. 115, 25 Pac. 1084, 11 L. R. A. 693 (contra, 3 Mo. App. 559) ; and an early act (1857) giving a penal action against railroad companies for demanding fares in excess of the amount allowed by law ; Moneypenny v.
R. Co., 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 357; and an act giving a laborer's lien upon a railroad or other structure and the land upon which it is erected; Front St. C. R. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Wash. St. 112, 25 Pac. 1084, 11 L. R. A. 693. A passenger railway in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, where there are no streets but only country roads, is not a street pas senger railway within the constitution of tin state which requires local consent for build ing ; Philadelphia v. McManes, 175 Pa. 33, 34 Atl. 331.
A railroad company is defined as an as sociation of men who engage in the business of hauling passengers and freight; In re Ferguson Contracting Co., 183 Fed. 882. Nei ther a logging road ; Ellington v. Lumber Co., 93 Ga. 53, 19 S. E. 21; McKivergan v. Lumber Co., 124 Wis. 60, 102 N. W. 332 ; nor a road of rails used only in the construction of a railroad ; Beeson v. Busenhark, 44 Kan. 669, 25 Pac. 48, 10 L. R. A. 839 ; nor a con struction train ; Griggs v. Houston, 104 U.
S. 553, 26 L. Ed. 840 ; come within the legal conception.