§ 162)!.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VL1. narily, however, a railroad company may use its discretion in locating its stations, as it may in selecting its route, and, for instance, is not bound to stop at the junction of a connecting road and there interchange business, although it may have established joint depot accommodations with another company elsewhere. 1 § 162<z. After a railroad company has once located and built its track, it has no power to change the location materially, 2 unless a statute give it special authority. 3 It can never be pre- sumed that a legislature will pass a law to the detriment of the public ; but it does not follow that from oversight or ignorance of all the circumstances a law may not have been passed which might be improved by amendment. Consequently a contract by a railroad company, conditioned on its receiving power from the legislature to change the location of its road, is not in- valid as against public policy. 4 When a railroad company has located its road and obtained title to the land, either the fee or the requisite easement, the mode of occupation and degree of exclusiveness necessary and proper for the convenient use of its functions are within its dis- u r 111. 175; Mobile & O. R. R. Co. v. Peo- ple, 132 111. 559; Florida Central, etc., R. R. Co. o. State, 31 Fla. 482; Hol- laday v. Patterson, 5 Oreg. 177; com- pare Harris v. Roberts, 12 Neb. 631 ; Wooters v. International & G. N. R. R. Co., 54 Tex. 294; Cleveland C. C. & I. Ry. Co. v. Coburn, 91 Ind. 557; Workman v. Campbell, 46 Mo. 305; Berrymau v. Cincinnati Southern R. R. Co., 14 Bush (Ky.), 755. But see Cedar Rapids, etc., Ry. Co. v. Spof- ford, 41 Iowa, 292; First Nat. Bank v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402. i Atchison T. & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 6ti7. See, also, Martindale v. Kan- sas City, St. Jo. & C. B. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 508; Kinealy v. St. Louis K. ('. & X. Ry. Co., 69 Mo. 658. 2 Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Naylor, 2 0. St. 235; WIrth v. Philadelphia City Pass'r Ry. Co., 2 Weekly Notes 128 of Cases (Penn. ), 650 ; Brigham v. Agricultural Branch R. R. Co., 1 Allen (Mass), 316; State v. New- Haven & N. Co., 45 Conn. 331 ; Hart- ford Ry. Co. v. Wagner, 73 Conn. 506 ; No. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Doherty, 100 Wis. 39. But compare Mahaska County R. R. Co. v. Des Moines Val- ley R. R. Co., 28 Iowa, 437 ; Gear v. Dubuque & S. C. R. R. Co., 20 Iowa, 523 ; Hestonville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 89 Pa. St. 210. 3 Eric R. R. Co. v. Steward, 170 N. Y. 172; see Toledo & U. Ry. Co. v. Daniels, 16 O. St. 390 ; Atkinson v. Marietta & C. R. R. Co., 15 O. St. 21; Matter of New York, L. & W. Ry. Co., 88 N. Y. 279. 4 Supervisors v. Wisconsin Central R. R. Co., 121 Mass. 460 ; New Haven and Northampton Co. v. Heyden, 107 Mass. 525 ; see § 305, last note.
