Interesting questions respecting the invio lability of a sovereign with respect to suits have arisen in the British colonies in the case of state-owned railroads. In Victoria the railroads were vested in a board of land and works, an incorporated governmental depart ment, and, in an action for negligence, it was contended that the board was a mere trus tee for the crown and no more liable to suit than the crown itself, but it was held that as incorporated trustees to whom was intrusted certain property, with which they were transacting the business of carriers, it was no part of the government service. They were held subject to all the ordinary liabili ties of companies engaged in similar busi ness; 4 Vict. L. Rep. 440; 7 Vict. L. Rep. 461 (L). Where, however, the railroad is vested in the crown itself, the nature of the undertaking is immaterial ; 8 Can. 1; 7 Can. 216. In an American case, where the' suit was against an incorporated railway in Can ada, owned and operated by the British crown, for damages for personal injuries re ceived within his dominions, it was held that the court had no jurisdiction ; Mason v. Ry. Co., 197 Mass. 349, 83 N. E. 876, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 276, and note, 125 Am. St. Rep. 371, 14 Ann. Cas. 574.
Where suit was brought against the post master-general in connection with the man agement of the telegraph business, it was contended that his management of it was a branch of the public service and an essen tial part of government, as had been held in 2 Cowp. 765 ; but in a later case it was con sidered that the undertaking of the tele graph companies transferred to him was con nected with no new purpose or object of a substantive kind, but merely new instruments for the accomplishment of the purpose which belonged to the business in the past; [1906] 1 K. B. 178. Where the public works com missioners had been incorporated, it was held by Phillimore, J., that that body was liable to be sued on its contracts ; [1901] 2 K. B.
781; but the commissioners were held by the Exchequer Chamber to be exempt from the payment of rates ; L. R. 3 Q. B. 677 ; and, by the Court of Appeals, as not entitled to the crown's immunity from the payment of costs ; 31 Ch. Div. 621. So a board of guardians, who were managers of insane asylums un der the local government board, were held not responsible for the negligence of officers in the treatment of patient§; [1878] 2 L. R. Ir. 42; and a similar decision as to the non liability of local authorities, charged with the duty of appointing officers to administer functions of a general public nature, was made in [1905] 2 K. B. 338. This decision was put by Wills, J., on a broad ground in the line of the American doctrine of non liability of a municipal' corporation for il legal action of its police, as laid down in But trick v. Lowell, 1 Allen (Mass.) 172, 79 Am. Dec. 721, and, generally, for whatever may result 'from the exercise by such corporation of merely governmental functions, in Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344, 23 Am. Rep. 332. In the High Court of Australia it was held that an action would not lie' against the Tasma nian government, qua employer, for the il legal action of a constable in the execution of his duty as a peace officer, notwithstand ing that the state was suable in tort and the policeman was a servant and exclusively con trolled by the central government ; [1906], 3 Commonwealth L. R. 969. See an article on "Liability for Acts of Public Servants," by W. H. Moore, in 23 L. Q. R. 12. As to the doctrine followed in this country as to the non-liability for the action of public servants in the performance of public or governmental duties, see MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. And See, generally, SOVEREIGNTY; STATE; UNIT ED STATES OF AMERICA.
In • English Law. A gold coin of Great Britain, of the value of a pound sterling.