
138 U.S. 1 (1891)
JOY
v.
ST. LOUIS.
No. 106.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued December 9, 10, 1890.
Decided January 19, 1891.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
*19 Mr. Wells H. Blodgett for appellants.
Mr. John C. Orrick for appellees. Mr. Leverett Bell and Mr. George R. Peck were with him on the brief.
*29 MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
It is contended by the appellants that the Circuit Court erred (1) in holding that the covenant on the part of the County company, to permit other railroads to use its right of way between the park and the terminus of its line in the city, was binding on the Kansas City company, and gave to the Colorado company the right to use the right of way and the tracks afterwards acquired and constructed by the Kansas City company between the park and the city; (2) in decreeing that the covenant of the County company, to permit other railroads to use its right of way between the park and the terminus of its road in the city, created an equitable easement in the road between the park and the city, which affected such property in the hands of Joy and others, as purchasers; (3) in decreeing that such covenant on the part of the County company was an agreement sufficiently definite in terms to be specifically enforced by a court of equity; (4) in decreeing the specific performance by the Wabash company of a continuous duty, requiring the exercise of skill and personal judgment, as well as the expenditure of money, and requiring the court to retain perpetual control over the cause, in order to superintend the execution of the decree and make from time to time such changes in the rules and regulations adopted by the Wabash company as the circumstances of the parties and the shifting contingencies of business and trade should render necessary; (5) in making a decree-broader than the contract, in that the County company only agreed, at most, to permit other companies to use its right of way, while the decree gives the right to use the right of way, and tracks, side-tracks, switches, turn-outs, turn-tables and other terminal facilities of the Wabash company; (6) in holding that there was mutuality of equitable remedy between the parties to the suit; and (7) in holding that the contract of the County company was binding on Joy and others, as purchasers in good faith and without notice, under the mortgage made by the Wabash company in 1880.
But we are of opinion that, under the two agreements of *30 August 11, 1875, and the deed of that date from the County company to the Kansas City company, the Wabash company, as successor of the latter company, is bound to permit the Colorado company to use the right of way from the north line of Forest Park, through the park, to the terminus of the Wabash company's road on Eighteenth Street, for a fair and equitable compensation.
Forest Park, containing 1379 acres of land, had been established as a park for the benefit of the people, and was intended principally as a driving park. The Board of Forest Park Commissioners had, under the act of March 25, 1874, the power to lay off, improve, adorn, govern, manage and control the use of the park and the avenues surrounding it. Before the execution of the tripartite agreement, neither the County company nor the Kansas City company had any railroad to the Union Depot. The County company had located its line east and west of the park, and had purchased the right of way at different points along its line from the Union Depot to the park; but it had built no railroad, and the location of its right of way through the park was undetermined at the time. The Kansas City company had its depot for freight and passengers in the northern part of the city, some distance from the Union Depot. As the Union Depot was at that time the only general passenger depot in the city, and was reached by most of the railroads which entered the city, the Kansas City company determined to build a branch of its road from Ferguson, about nine or ten miles from the city, to the Union Depot, and thus avail itself of better facilities for doing a passenger business, and to cross the bridge over the Mississippi River with its trains. It is stated in the agreement of August 11, 1875, between the County company and the Kansas City company, that the latter required the right of way in order to reach the Union Depot. Its branch line from Ferguson was located through the park. In its efforts to obtain the right of way through the park it encountered the County company. The Board of Park Commissioners was conferred with by the two companies, in regard to securing a definite right of way for both of them through the park. This is shown by the testimony *31 of Mr. McKinley, before referred to. The Park Commissioners were willing, at that time, to grant the use of one right of way through the park, on a certain line, with conditions as to the use of such right of way by other railroads, so as to protect the park, as far as possible, from invasion by other railroads, on separate and independent rights of way. In order to accomplish this result, the board expended $40,000 in aid of the construction of the railroad through the park. In view of the deep cut on the line of the Wabash road just east of the park, it would be difficult for any other railroad to enter the park, from the east, on an independent right of way, and at the same time use the right of way of the Kansas City company through the park. Hence, arose the provision that this right to use the right of way by other railroads should apply not only to the "right of way through the park," but also to the right of way "up to the terminus of its road in the city of St. Louis," that is, the right of way from the park to the Union Depot.
It was under these circumstances that the tripartite agreement came into existence; and the terms of paragraph 9 of it must be construed. That paragraph is here repeated: "Ninth. Said party of the second part shall permit, under such reasonable regulations and terms as may be agreed upon, other railroads to use its right of way through the park and up to the terminus of its road in the city of St. Louis, upon such terms and for such fair and equitable compensation to be paid to it therefor as may be agreed upon by such companies." It is to be construed in connection with paragraph 12 of the same agreement.
In regard to these two paragraphs, the opinion of the Circuit Court says: "It will be observed that by the ninth paragraph the County road agreed to permit the use of its right of way by other railroads. Whether a like obligation was assumed by the Kansas road depends upon the last sentence in the twelfth paragraph, which purports to grant to the Kansas road the right to occupy and enjoy the right of way through the park jointly with the County road `on the terms of the said contract between them, and under the same terms and *32 conditions as are hereby and hereinbefore imposed upon said party of the second part, and which are hereby assumed by said party of the third part as to improvements, except as to building a depot and switch in said park, which the party of the second part is to do itself.' It must be conceded that the meaning of this language is not perfectly clear. It is claimed by the defendants that the words `as to improvements, except as to building, etc.,' qualify not only the immediately preceding clause, commencing `and which are hereby assumed,' but also the one prior, commencing `and under the same terms and conditions,' and therefore that the terms and conditions as to improvements are those alone cast upon the Kansas road. This would make the two clauses but a single compound one, qualified by the following relative clause `as to improvements,' etc. As against this it must be observed that, grammatically, a relative clause generally qualifies its immediate antecedent, and therefore, in this case, would refer simply to that clause which provides for the assumption by the Kansas road. This natural grammatical construction is strengthened by the punctuation  a comma after the words `party of the second part' and none after the words `party of the third part,' which seems to separate the entire first clause from the second and its qualifying terms. I know that the matter of punctuation is never relied upon to defeat the obvious intent; but, when the meaning is doubtful, the punctuation is certainly a matter tending to throw light upon it. Further, there are not simply two, but really three, antecedent clauses, the first one being `the terms of the said contract between them,' that is, the two railroad companies. Very clearly this qualifying clause does not refer to that, and therefore it should not be held to qualify the second, unless the obvious intent compels such construction. It is objected that the clause commencing `and which are hereby assumed' is, under this construction, superfluous. I think not. These improvements called for the expenditure of money, and the idea seemed to be that the Kansas road should not only hold its rights upon certain conditions but, that, as to those involving expenditure of money, it should expressly assume the performance. There is a manifest difference *33 between a conveyance subject to a mortgage and a conveyance in which the grantee assumes the payment of the mortgage. This distinction evidently dictated the form of expression used."
It appears, from paragraph 12, that the Kansas City company had in view the failure of the County company to comply with the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 8 inclusive of the tripartite agreement relating to the construction of the road, among which was the provision which required the completion of the road within one year, under the penalty of the forfeiture of all rights under the agreement. The Kansas City company guarded against such contingency by the provision, in paragraph 12, that, in case the County company, its successors or assigns, should forfeit its rights, privileges and franchises in, upon and through the park, or from any cause should cease to have, maintain or enjoy the same, then the Kansas City company should not also be excluded from the park, but, with its successors and assigns, should continue to have, maintain and enjoy all of said rights, privileges, immunities, franchises, improvements and property, on the terms thereinbefore set forth, continuously and forever. Thereby, in case of the forfeiture of its rights by the County company, the Kansas City company became possessed of the entire right of way, subject to the terms of the agreement of August 11, 1875, between the two companies, and to those of the tripartite agreement of the same date; and that which, prior to the forfeiture, was held and enjoyed jointly by the two companies, became the sole property of the Kansas City company, its successors and assigns, on the terms of the said contract between the two companies, and under the same terms and conditions which were imposed upon the Kansas City company. Among the conditions so imposed were those of paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement. Further, those terms as to improvements, except as to building a depot and switch in the park, were assumed by the Kansas City company. The depot and switch were to be built by the County company. The word "improvements" related to the building of the road and the erection of what was to be erected, except the depot and switch. The *34 reason why the Kansas City company did not assume the building of the depot and switch appears from a clause in the agreement of August 11, 1875, between the two companies, to the effect that the County company should have and maintain the passenger depot in the park, so far as the two companies were concerned, and that the Kansas City company should not have the power of stopping any of its trains in the park. As, however, the latter company would use the right of way through the park, and what were called the "improvements," except the depot and switch, the Park Commissioners required it to assume the obligations of the County company in that regard.
This was the view of the contract taken by the Circuit Court, and we think it was correct. It is evidently in accordance with the intention of the parties to the tripartite agreement. The object of the Park Commissioners was to protect the park from the invasion of more than one railroad track; and, to accomplish that result, it was necessary to give to other railroad companies the right to use the one right of way, and to impose on the Kansas City company, as well as the County company, the obligation to permit other companies to use such right of way. Hayes v. Michigan Central Railroad, 111 U.S. 228.
We are also of opinion that the covenants in paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement, as to the use of the right of way by other railroad companies, are binding upon subsequent purchasers, with notice, from the Kansas City company. Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Phillips, 774; Luker v. Dennis, 7 Ch. D. 227; Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175; Whitney v. Union Railway Co., 11 Gray, 359, 364; Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341, 344; Vandoren v. Robinson, 16 N.J. Eq. 256; Kirkpatrick v. Peshine, 24 N.J. Eq. 206; Western v. Macdermott, L.R. 2 Ch. 72; Watertown v. White, 4 Paige, 510; Randall v. Latham, 36 Connecticut, 48, 53; City of Cincinnati v. Lessees of White, 6 Pet. 431; Brew v. Van Deman, 6 Heiskell, 433; Winfield v. Henning, 21 N.J. Eq. 188; Verplanck v. Wright, 23 Wend. 506; Stockett v. Howard, 34 Maryland, 121; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 N.Y. 35.
*35 In the present case, the tripartite agreement is a link in the chain of title of the mortgagees and of the purchasing committee. The right of way through the park, granted by Griswold to the County company, November 3, 1871, was lost by non-user. The right of way granted by the Park Commissioners to the County company under the first park act, of March 25, 1872, failed because that act was declared unconstitutional, in Chouteau v. Leffingwell, 54 Missouri, 458. The third line, that established by the tripartite agreement, was not identical with either of the two prior lines. The Park Commissioners, therefore, granted to the two companies, under the tripartite agreement, all the right of way which they acquired in the park. The right of the mortgagees and of the purchasing committee to use such right of way is based solely upon that agreement; and, holding under it, they must hold subject to its terms and conditions, irrespectively of the question of notice. Whitney v. Union Railway, 11 Gray, 359; Vandoren v. Robinson, 16 N.J. Eq. 256; Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Phillips, 774; Luker v. Dennis, 7 Ch. D. 227; Western v. Macdermott, L.R. 2 Ch. 72. Therefore, the Wabash company, the mortgagees, and the purchasing committee must be held to have had notice of the covenants and conditions of the tripartite agreement prior to the execution of the mortgage, and are bound by them, whether the covenants be or be not strictly such as run with the land.
Nor is the failure to acknowledge the tripartite agreement as a deed of any importance. There was sufficient to put the purchasers on inquiry, and to charge them with notice of all the facts which such an inquiry would have made known. The Wabash company came into existence in August, 1879, through the consolidation of the Kansas City company with the Wabash Railway company. This consolidation took place under statutes by virtue of which the consolidated company took all the property, rights and franchises and assumed all the liabilities of the Kansas City company. The Wabash company, therefore, was not strictly a purchaser from the Kansas City company. The consolidation was merely a change of name. If the Kansas City company was bound by *36 the tripartite agreement to grant the use of the right of way to other railroads, on certain terms, the Wabash company, as consolidated, was equally bound to do so. The mortgage was executed in 1880, and the committee purchased in 1886. The tripartite agreement was recorded in the recorder's office of the city of St. Louis, September 5, 1879, prior to the execution of the mortgage and prior to the purchase under it made by the committee. Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Missouri, 472; Stevens v. Hampton, 46 Missouri, 404; Digman v. McCollum, 47 Missouri, 425.
The tripartite agreement, and that between the County company and the Kansas City company, and the deed from the County company to the Kansas City company, all of them bear date August 11, 1875. The deed was duly acknowledged, and was recorded August 13, 1875. It is a link in the chain of title of the mortgagees and the purchasing committee. It recites that it is made in pursuance of the terms of a certain contract made and executed between the County company and the Kansas City company, and dated August 11, 1875, and is in full satisfaction of so much of such contract as relates to the conveyance of certain pieces of land and right of way to the Kansas City company. It also contains the following provision: "And also the said party of the first part hath conveyed, assigned and transferred, and by these presents doth convey, assign and transfer, unto the said party of the second part, and to its successors and assigns, an undivided one-half of all the right, title or interest of the party of the first part of, in or to the right of way, and of, in or to any and all other rights, privileges and franchises, powers and immunities owned by, or vested in or enjoyed by, or that may hereafter be acquired and owned by, vested in or enjoyed by, the party of the first part, in, through or upon Forest Park, by any means or from any source whatever; all of which conveyances of the said rights of way in this deed mentioned are made subject to the terms and conditions upon which the same were granted to the party of the first part, together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining." *37 Thus this deed refers to the contract of August 11, 1875, between the County company and the Kansas City company, and to the terms thereof; and the Kansas City company took its title subject to the terms and conditions imposed upon the County company by the tripartite agreement. This reference to the terms and conditions on which the right of way mentioned in the deed was granted to the Kansas City company put all the parties to the deed, and their assigns, on inquiry as to the terms of the contract by which such rights of way were granted, and led up to the provision in the agreement of August 11, 1875, between the two companies, which referred to the tripartite agreement in the following language: "And whereas, under this agreement and a certain agreement between the parties hereto and the Commissioners of Forest Park of even date herewith, the party of the second part is about to, and hereby, in consideration of the covenants and agreements of the party of the first part, hereinafter particularly set forth, and of the covenants and agreements of said Commissioners of Forest Park in said agreement with them contained, does covenant and agree to construct and maintain a railroad bed and road in, upon and through said Forest Park and the tunnel and cut hereinbefore specified, according to certain plans and specifications agreed upon, and according to the terms and conditions of said agreement with said commissioners, for the joint use of both the parties (of the first part and of the second part) hereto, their several successors and assigns:" Being thus chargeable with notice of the contents of the contract of August 11, 1875, between the County company and the Kansas City company, the mortgagees and the purchasing committee were chargeable also with notice of the tripartite agreement, to which it referred; and they purchased subject to the terms on which the right of way was granted. Kirkpatrick v. Peshine, 24 N.J. Eq. 206; Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54 N.Y. 35; Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Missouri, 472; Stevens v. Hampton, 46 Missouri, 404; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Missouri, 304; McCamant v. Patterson, 39 Missouri, 100, 110; Mense v. McLean, 13 Missouri, 298; Meier v. Blume, 80 Missouri, 179, 184.
*38 The covenant in paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement created an easement in the property of the County company and the Kansas City company for the benefit of the public, which might be availed of, with the consent of the public authorities, properly expressed, by other railroad companies which might wish to use not only the right of way through the park but also that between the park and the Union Depot. Whitney v. Union Railway, 11 Gray, 359, 364; Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341, 344; Wilkinson v. Clements, L.R. 8 Ch. 96; Perkins v. Hadsell, 50 Illinois, 216; Stansbury v. Fringer, 11 Gill & J. 149; Cooper v. Pena, 21 California, 403; Union Pacific Railway v. McAlpine, 129 U.S. 305, 314; McMurray v. Moran, 134 U.S. 150.
The two agreements of August 11, 1875, and the deed of that date from the County company to the Kansas City company constituted a single transaction, relating to the same subject matter, and should be construed together in such a way as to carry into effect the intention of the parties, in view of their situation at the time and of the subject matter of the instruments. Contracts of such a character are to be construed liberally in favor of the public when the subject matter concerns the interests of the public. Parker v. Great Western Railway, 7 Scott N.R. 835, 870; Colman v. Eastern Counties Railway, 10 Beav. 1, 14; Canal Co. v. Wheeley, 2 B. & Ad. 792; Blakemore v. Canal Co., 1 Myl. & K. 154, 165; Lee v. Milner, 2 Younge & Coll. Ex. 611, 618; Ware v. Canal Co., 28 L.J. Ch. N.S. pt. 1, 153, 157; Gray v. Railway Co., 4 Railway Cases, 240.
The Kansas City company, under the agreements, completed its road through the park to the Union Depot in 1876. The agreement between the County company and the Kansas City company provided that the County company should pay to the Kansas City company one-half of the cost of the construction and maintenance of the road-bed through the park and the tunnel and the cut, within two years from August 11, 1875, and that, if the County company should fail or refuse to make payment for sixty days after demand, after it should become due, all the rights, privileges, franchises, powers, immunities, improvements and property of the County company, *39 in, through or upon Forest Park, and in, into, through, over or upon the tunnel and cut, should become, by virtue of such failure and refusal, without further process or proceedings, forfeited to the Kansas City company, its successors and assigns; that, in case of such forfeiture, no further payments should be made by the County company, but the Kansas City company might enter upon the sole and absolute possession and enjoyment of all such rights, privileges, franchises, powers, immunities, improvements and property, to the exclusion of the County company; and that the latter company should, in such case, convey by deed to the Kansas City company, its successors and assigns, all of such rights, privileges, franchises, powers, immunities, improvements and property. The two years expired in 1877. The County company, having paid nothing, forfeited to the Kansas City company all its interest in the right of way through the park and through the tunnel and the cut east of the park.
By the two agreements and the deed, the Kansas City company obtained from the County company an undivided one-half of the right of way through the park, and the other rights of way, then owned by the County company, between the park and the Union Depot, and, by virtue of the two agreements and the forfeiture, without further action by either the County company or the Park Commissioners, the Kansas City company became vested with the title to the whole right of way through the park, the tunnel and the cut, and became substituted for the County company under the agreements. All the obligations and conditions imposed upon the County company became those of the Kansas City company, except as to building the depot and the switch in the park; and the latter company became subject to the conditions which were imposed on the County company by the tripartite agreement. That agreement created the easement before referred to, which covered the tracks through the park and the tracks east of the park to the Union Depot. Whitney v. Union Railway Co., 11 Gray, 359, 364; Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341, 344.
The permission to other railroad companies to use such tracks was a concession to the Park Commissioners, and was *40 one of the conditions of the grant of the right of way through the park to the County company; and the Kansas City company obtained the title to, and the exclusive possession of, such right of way, under the agreement providing for such permission. It would be inequitable to permit the Kansas City company, or its successor, to continue to use the right of way through the park and at the same time to deprive the Park Commissioners, or their successor, the city of St. Louis, as trustees of the public, of the benefit of the use by other railroad companies of the right of way between the park and the Union Depot. The park was dedicated to the use of the people of the city and county of St. Louis, and it was the duty of their trustees to preserve that use to them, for park purposes. In the view of those trustees, it was necessary, for the protection of the park, that other railroad companies should be permitted to use not only the right of way through the park but also that between the park and the Union Depot. In order to obtain the right of way through the park, the Kansas City company subjected itself to the condition imposed by paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement, and it is right that that company and its successor should be held to a strict compliance with its covenant. The appellants, although enjoying the benefit of the $40,000 expended by the Park Commissioners and of the right of way through the park, deny their liability under the agreement, without offering to return to the grantors the property obtained by virtue of the agreement. Under such circumstances, these parties cannot be heard to allege that the agreement was against the policy of the law. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & Alton Railroad, 73 Missouri, 413.
In respect to the point that paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement covers the use by other railroad companies, not only of the right of way through the park, but also of the right of way to the terminus of the County company's road in the city of St. Louis, the Circuit Court very rightly said, in its opinion: "It is argued with great force, however, by counsel for the respondents, that even if the purchasers were charged with notice of these terms and conditions as attaching to the lands described in the deed, inasmuch as the Kansas *41 road obtained a large portion of its right of way between Forest Park and the Union Depot from other sources, it took these latter portions free from any burden cast upon the lands specifically conveyed by the County road. `Can it be,' he says, `that a condition in a deed of a few feet of the right of way, in a long line of three hundred miles, casts a burden on the entire line, to be assumed by every succeeding purchaser?' I might answer this extreme case by a reverse question: Can it be possible that a condition attached to substantially the entire right of way of this long line of road can be defeated by the fact that some few feet have been acquired by a deed free from such condition? But these extreme cases do not constitute the practical matter before us. Here the County road had an incomplete right of way through the park and to the Union Depot. A share of this incomplete right of way it conveyed to the Kansas road subject to certain conditions. Can it be that the completion by the Kansas road of this right of way, by the purchase of intervening and isolated tracts, destroys the entire value of the conditions? Looking at this matter in a practical way, and from a reasonable standpoint, I think the answer to this question must be in the negative."
In Bronson v. Coffin, 108 Mass. 175, 180, it was said, the court speaking by Gray, J.: "An interest in the nature of an easement in the land which the covenant purports to bind, whether already existing, or created by the very deed which contains the covenant, constitutes a sufficient privity of estate to make the burden of a covenant to do certain acts upon that land, for the support and protection of that interest and the beneficial use and enjoyment of the land granted, run with the land charged. And an obligation, duly expressed, that the structures upon one parcel of land shall forever be of a certain character for the benefit of an adjoining parcel is equally a charge upon the first parcel, whether the obligation is affirmative or merely restrictive, and whether the affirmative acts necessary to carry the obligation into effect are to be done by the owner of the one or the owner of the other." And it was held by the court, where there was a covenant to make and *42 maintain a fence on a railroad, contained in a deed granting to the road a strip for the right of way, that this covenant was an incumbrance on all the remaining land of the grantor, and ran with that land, because the covenant gave the grantee an interest in the nature of an easement in the adjoining land of the grantor. See also Western v. Macdermott, L.R. 2 Ch. 72; Whitney v. Union Railway, 11 Gray, 359, 364; Parker v. Nightingale, 6 Allen, 341; Union Pacific Railway v. McAlpine, 129 U.S. 305, 314; McMurray v. Moran, 134 U.S. 150.
There can be no doubt of the power of the County company and the Kansas City company, under the statutes of Missouri, to make the agreement in question. Gen. Stats. of Missouri of 1866, c. 63, sec. 32, p. 341.
The only right of way through the park and to the Union depot claimed by the appellants is that established by the tripartite agreement. Every other right of way through the park was surrendered, by that agreement, to the Park Commissioners, because that agreement says that the line and grade established by it was thereby fixed "as the sole and finally established right of way to which" the County company was "entitled by statute or otherwise through said park, or any part thereof." Such line and grade were laid down and described on the plat and profile which were attached to the tripartite agreement and formed part thereof. The Park Commissioners expended about $40,000 in complying with their engagements under that agreement. At its date, as testified to by Mr. McKinley, it was feared that the invasion of the park by railroads would not only affect unfavorably the landscape beauty of the park, but would also produce great danger to persons visiting it; and it was a long time before the apprehension was relieved that horses would be frightened. The consideration for the expenditure of the $40,000 was the provision of the tripartite agreement which protected the park and prevented its being defaced and injured by the construction of other railroads through it. The confining of such railroads to the use of the single right of way established was a reasonable precaution. Hayes v. Michigan Cent. Railroad, 111 U.S. 228; Mayor of New York v. Williams, 15 N.Y. *43 502. Such provision was in the interest of the public safety, and the Park Commissioners had the right to exact it.
In case the County company should forfeit its rights in the park, the Kansas City company was to continue to enjoy the right of way on the terms imposed on the County company by paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement. Such construction of the contract is the only one consistent with fair dealing and the manifest intention of the parties. The tripartite agreement is the only muniment of title under which the appellants now enjoy the right of way. The grant of the right to other railroads to use such right of way through the park and to the Union Depot was a grant to the Park Commissioners, as trustees for the public, and is to be construed liberally. Paragraph 9 is imperative. It provides that the County company "shall permit" other railroads to use its right of way. This is to be done "under such reasonable regulations and terms as may be agreed upon," and "upon such terms and for such fair and equitable compensation to be paid" to the County company "therefor as may be agreed upon by such companies." Not only are the regulations and terms to be reasonable, but the compensation is to be fair and equitable. Although the statement is that the compensation is to be such "as may be agreed upon by such companies," yet the statement that it is to be "fair and equitable" plainly brings in the element of its determination by a court of equity. If the parties agree upon it, very well; but if they do not, still the right of way is to be enjoyed upon making compensation, and the only way to ascertain what is a "fair and equitable" compensation therefor is to determine it by a court of equity. Such is, in substance, the agreement of the parties. The provision cannot be construed as meaning that, if the parties do not agree, there is to be no compensation, and that, because there can in that event be no compensation, there is to be no enjoyment of the right of way. In this view, it cannot be said that the court is making an agreement for the parties which they did not make themselves. Emery v. Wase, 8 Ves. 505; Milnes v. Gery, 14 Ves. 399; Gregory v. Mighall, 18 Ves. 328; City of Providence v. St. John's Lodge, 2 R.I. 46; Dike v. Greene, 4 R.I. 285.
*44 On the question whether paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement covers not merely the right of way through the park and up to the terminus of the road in the city of St. Louis, but also the tracks for that extent, the opinion of the Circuit Court very properly says: "The language of the ninth paragraph, under which, as before noticed, intervenors must claim, is that the party of the second part shall permit other railroads to use its `right of way.' Now, the term `right of way' has a twofold signification. It sometimes is used to describe a right belonging to a party, a right of passage over any tract; and it is also used to describe that strip of land which railroad companies take upon which to construct their road-bed. Obviously, in this paragraph, it is used in the latter sense. Through both of these contracts the terms `right of way,' `track,' and `road-bed' frequently appear, and in all cases the term `right of way' is used as descriptive of the strip above referred to. Notably, in the fifth paragraph, is the distinction between the `right of way' and the `track' disclosed, in which it is provided that the depot shall be wholly outside of the right of way, but immediately adjoining the track. Now, the right of way through the park, as given by the Griswold deed, was 40 feet; as fixed by the contract with the Forest Park Commissioners was 70 feet; and by this present contract, 42 feet. So the County road conveyed to the Kansas road, outside of the park, a strip either 30 or 28 feet in width for its right of way. My thought, at first, was that the intervenors could only claim a right to use so much of this right of way as was not, in fact, occupied by the track of the Wabash, and that all that was intended by this ninth paragraph was to permit other railroad companies to occupy and use so much of the Kansas road's right of way as it did not itself occupy and use; but, after reflection on the arguments of counsel, I have been led to the conviction that this was too narrow a construction, and was not the real intent of the parties. The master, in his report, shows that the entire right of way is occupied by tracks and sidings, so that there is no room for another and independent track; and as there is nothing to show that this occupation has not been made in good faith, and to supply *45 the needs of the Wabash company, if my first interpretation had been correct, the intervenors would plainly be without any rights. I think, however, the true construction is this: that the Kansas company was to have the first right  a right not limited to its necessities, but as broad as its convenience. Subject, and only subject, to such prior right, other companies were to have the use of the right of way, and if the respondent's business compelled the occupation by its tracks or sidings of the entire right of way, but the convenience of its business would permit the use of those tracks and sidings by another road, then such other road would be entitled to the use of both the right of way and the tracks and sidings. This construction is, I think, in accordance with the obvious intent of the parties, who were contracting for general rights, and not fixing the specific details."
The evidence shows that the entire right of way is occupied with tracks and sidings, so that there is no room for another and independent track, and that the entrance into the Union Depot over the tracks of the Wabash company is the only practical route for the road of the Colorado company to that depot. As the Kansas City company had the right to cover its right of way with main and side-tracks, so that there should be no room on such right of way for the tracks of another railroad, it would be in its power to defeat the intent of the agreement, if the right of way should be held not to include the tracks. Moreover, as the County company and the Kansas City company were tenants in common of the right of way through the park and to the east end of the cut, each company had the right to use the whole of the right of way, subject to the right of the other company to use the whole of it. Hence, the grant to other roads of the privilege of using the right of way applied to the whole of such right of way through the park, and not to a particular part of it. The track cannot be separated from the right of way, the right of way being the principal thing and the track merely an incident. A right of way is of no practical use to a railroad without a superstructure and rails. The track is a necessary incident to the enjoyment of the right of way. The record shows that the railroad *46 of the Colorado company is of the same gauge as that of the Wabash company, and that it is entirely practicable for the Colorado company to use the tracks of the Wabash company from the north line of the park to the Union Depot, subject to the reasonable rules and regulations of the Wabash company.
The appellants having denied all right of the Colorado company under the tripartite agreement, it became necessary for the intervenors to come into a court of equity; and the court, having taken cognizance rightfully of the subject matter in controversy, has the power to settle not only the right but also the amount of compensation. The action of the Circuit Court was, in effect, to enforce the specific performance of the agreement. The offer by the Colorado company, in its bill, to pay a fair and equitable compensation, with its prayer to have such compensation determined by the court, brought the matter within the cognizance of the court, the other party having substantially agreed, by paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement, that the compensation should be determined by a court of equity. The prayer for an injunction to restrain the Wabash company and its receiver from refusing to permit the Colorado company to use the right of way of the Wabash company from the north line of the park to Eighteenth Street, is a prayer for all that is necessary to secure practically the specific performance of the agreement. Dinham v. Bradford, L.R. 5 Ch. 519; Tillett v. Charing Cross Bridge Co., 26 Beav. 419; Raphael v. Thames Valley Railway; L.R. 2 Eq. 37; Tscheider v. Biddle, 4 Dillon, 55; Biddle v. Ramsey, 52 Missouri, 153; Arnot v. Alexander, 44 Missouri, 27; Hug v. Van Burklee, 58 Missouri, 202; Gregory v. Mighell, 18 Ves. 328.
The right to use the right of way is a continuing right. If the remedy were to be at law, repeated actions for damages would be necessary. The remedy at law would be wholly inadequate. It would not secure directly the enforcement of the provision of paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement, or the use of the right of way by the Colorado company. It would be neither plain or complete, nor would it be a reasonable substitute for the remedy in equity, by the injunction asked for.
*47 The appellants rely largely upon cases of the character of that of Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, where this court refused to enforce the specific performance of a personal contract to deliver from a quarry marble of certain kinds and in blocks of a specified kind, holding that, as the duties required of the owners of the marble quarry were continuous, and the agreement was one for a perpetual supply of marble, the court could make no decree which would end the controversy, and the case would have to remain in the court forever, with the liability on the part of the court to be called upon, to the end of time, to determine, not only whether the prescribed quantity of marble had been delivered, but whether every block was from the right place, and was sound, and of suitable size or shape or proportion; and it was held that it was impracticable for the court to superintend the execution of such a decree.
In the present case, it is urged that the court will be called upon to determine from time to time what are reasonable regulations to be made by the Wabash company for the running of trains upon its tracks by the Colorado company. But this is no more than a court of equity is called upon to do whenever it takes charge of the running of a railroad by means of a receiver. Irrespectively of this, the decree is complete in itself and disposes of the controversy; and it is not unusual for a court of equity to take supplemental proceedings to carry out its decree and make it effective under altered circumstances.
Considerations of the interests of the public are held to be controlling upon a court of equity, when a public means of transportation, such as a railroad, comes into the possession and under the dominion of the court. These considerations have been recognized and applied by this court in several cases. Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126; Miltenberger v. Logansport Railway, 106 U.S. 286, 311, 312; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland Railway, 117 U.S. 434, 458.
The Circuit Court having adopted the rate of compensation insisted upon by the appellants, and the Colorado company not having taken an appeal, the question of the rate of compensation *48 is concluded between the parties. So also is the question that the rules and regulations for the running of the trains of the Colorado company are to be those prescribed by the Wabash company and its successors.
In view of the testimony as to the use, by agreement, of the tracks of one railroad company by the engines and cars of another, the practical difficulties insisted upon of carrying out the regulations laid down in the decree of the Circuit Court amount to very little, if anything. That these regulations are practical is shown by the agreement of August 11, 1875, between the County company and the Kansas City company, in that provision thereof, which is as follows, and which was adopted to a certain extent by the Circuit Court in its decree: "It is agreed and covenanted that to accommodate the running arrangements of the party of the second part said party of the second part shall have the absolute and sole control of the running, starting and regulating of the time-tables of and for its own trains; and it is further agreed and covenanted that no train, locomotive, car or other conveyance of the party of the first part, its successors or assigns, shall be allowed or attempted to be started or run within eight (8) minutes of the time fixed or stated for the starting, coming in or running of the train or trains of the party of the second part, its successors or assigns; and there shall be twenty minutes' time between the starting and coming in of the trains of the party of the second part, and this matter as to said specified times shall be under the sole control and regulation of the party of the second part." It is to be noted, however, that the agreement referred to gave to the Kansas City company the control only of its own trains, while the decree gives to the Wabash company the control of all the trains to be run over its tracks, with the proviso that the trains of the Colorado company shall not be started or run within eight minutes of the time fixed for the starting, coming in or running of the trains of the Wabash company. The latter company is required only to make reasonable rules and regulations for the running of the trains of the Colorado company. The Wabash company is to fix the time-tables, and the trains of the Colorado company *49 are to be operated on the tracks of the Wabash company, subject to the rules and regulations of the latter company so long as a train of the former company occupies the tracks of the latter company.
It is objected that the details of the manner of the use of the right of way are not set forth in paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement, and that, therefore, a court of equity will not decree a specific performance. But, viewing the two agreements of August 11, 1875, as a single contract, the details as to the manner of use of the right of way are sufficiently furnished by agreement of the parties, for it is provided by the agreement of August 11, 1875, between the County company and the Kansas City company, not only that the latter company shall have the absolute and sole control of the starting, running and regulating of the time-tables of and for its own trains, but also, that the matter of the relative times of the starting, coming in and running of the trains of the County company and of those of the Kansas City company shall be under the sole control and regulation of the latter company, its successors and assigns.
The case of Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Marshall, 136 U.S. 393, is much relied upon by the appellants; but the principle of that case does not apply to the present one. There, the court held that, if the railroad company was under a contract with the city of Marshall to keep there its principal office of business and its main machine shops and car works, it was much more consonant to justice that the injury suffered by the city should be compensated by a single judgment in an action at law; that there was no substantial difficulty in ascertaining such compensation; and that, therefore the city had a complete remedy at law. But in the present case, the remedy in damages by an action at law would be entirely inadequate, and nothing short of the interposition of a court of equity would provide for the exigencies of the situation. See, also, Wilson v. Northampton &c. Railway Co., L.R. 9 Ch. 279.
The decree of the Circuit Court is so framed as to execute itself. It finds that the rules and regulations now in force for the running of trains over the right of way and tracks of the *50 Wabash company, and which are set forth in the record, are reasonable rules and regulations. So long as they are undisturbed, there is no occasion for the action or interposition of the court.
The fact that the railroads which are to be allowed, under paragraph 9 of the tripartite agreement, to use the right of way through the park and up to the terminus in the city of St. Louis, are not named in that paragraph, is of no importance. Wolverhampton Railway Co. v. London and Northwestern Railway, L.R. 16 Eq. 433; Express Cases, 117 U.S. 1; Railway Co. v. Alling, 99 U.S. 463.
Railroads are common carriers and owe duties to the public. The rights of the public in respect to these great highways of communication should be fostered by the courts; and it is one of the most useful functions of a court of equity that its methods of procedure are capable of being made such as to accommodate themselves to the development of the interests of the public, in the progress of trade and traffic, by new methods of intercourse and transportation. The present case is a striking illustration. Here is a great public park, one of the lungs of an important city, which, in order to maintain its usefulness as a park, must be as free as possible from being serrated by railroads; and yet the interests of the public demand that it shall be crossed by a railroad. But the evil consequences of such crossing are to be reduced to a minimum by having a single right of way, and a single set of tracks, to be used by all the railroads which desire to cross the park. These two antagonisms must be reconciled, and that can be done only by the interposition of a court of equity, which thus will be exercising one of its most beneficent functions.
As to the objection that there is no mutuality in the contract, and therefore it cannot be enforced, the Circuit Court says in its opinion: "As to the objection on the ground of the want of mutuality in the contract, I think it of little force. The respondent has been paid for the privilege that is now claimed. The consideration, as I have heretofore shown, was ample; and, when a party has received payment for a privilege, I do not think it can resist the enforcement of that privilege *51 on the mere ground that it cannot compel the other party to continue in its enjoyment." We concur in this view. Under the tripartite agreement, the right of way through the park was obtained by the Kansas City company, and, in consideration of the covenants contained in paragraph 9 and other paragraphs of that agreement, $40,000 were expended by the Park Commissioners in aid of the construction of the railroad through the park, upon the right of way granted. Things were to be done by each party for valuable considerations to be paid by one to the other. The Park Commissioners complied in all respects with the agreement. Although the one easement was granted in consideration of the other, the appellants refused to permit the enjoyment of the easement which they granted. The want of mutuality is urged when the appellants are called upon to comply with the covenant which is valuable to the city of St. Louis and the public whom that city represents. Such want of mutuality is alleged to consist in the inability of the appellants to prevent other railroads which may use the right of way from discontinuing such use, and in the fact that the contract did not specify the period during which the other railroads should be required to use the right of way. But we think that there is no such want of mutuality as should interfere with the enforcement of the contract.
It is insisted that the County company had no power to bind itself to grant the use of its right of way east of the park. But the appellants do not occupy a position to insist upon that objection, so long as they themselves use the right of way which was granted, and enjoy the benefit of the money which the Park Commissioners expended.
The city of St. Louis is, in the present case, not merely a nominal party, but is charged with the duty of protecting the park, and of preserving and fostering the commerce of the city. Both of those objects are clearly set forth in the tripartite agreement executed by the Park Commissioners, of whom the city of St. Louis is the successor; and the considerations thus arising are legitimate ones in a court of equity, the case being founded upon the tripartite agreement.
Decree affirmed
