Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Chicago Company v. Nebraska — Opinion of the Court

While, therefore, it is the equal duty of the city and of the railroad company to guard the safety of the public by the erection and maintenance of a proper crossing or viaduct, it does not follow that, in the absence of an express agreement to that effect, such a duty is, by implication of law, devolved upon one party to the relief of the other. Indeed, the contract in question shows that, in consideration of their mutual duty to the public, the parties participated in the expense of the construction of the viaduct
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Chicago Company v. Nebraska — Opinion of the Court

However this may be, we think that, in view of the paramount duty of the legislature to secure the safety of the community at an important crossing within a populous city, it was and is within its power to supervise, control, and change such agreements as may be, from time to time, entered into between the city and the railroad company in respect to such crossing, saving any rights previously vested.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature