The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1860-05-02

John A. Sims W. Yazoo and Biz Rlao
Plank Road Company.

John A. Sims W.. Yazoo and BIG PlanL-
Plank Road Company.
Plaintiff in error was sued on this &C
ton by the defendants to recover a GER
tain amount of tolls. claimed to be due
them from plaintiff for passing his stage
coach, as mail contractor, through de-
PENDANTS toll gates. Defendants being an
Incorporated company, for the purpose of
constructing plank road on the public
highway, between Yazoo City and Ben
ton.
The phintiff in error plead the general
issue, and under this plea relied on estab-
fishing a failure Of consideration. For
this purpose a witpess was introduced,
who proved that the plaintiff in error, at
the time mentioned in the complaint,
was running coaches and carrying the L.
5. mail between Benton and NazOo City
that the toll gates of defendants in error
were located on the public road, at each
end of the plank road-and that defend
ants in error so located their toll gates,
that plaintiff in error could not pass with
his said coaches or carry the mail, except
by passing through said gates-that du-
ring the time for which the account sued
on is charged, said plank road was wholly
impassable-that said plank road could
not be travelled or passed over by said
coaches at all. and instead OF being con-
venience or benefit to plaintiff in error,
that the same was great hindrsnce and
iniury-and the question arises, upon this
state Of facts, whether the defendant in
error is entitled to recover upon the ac-
count sued on.
The Court instructed the jury that if
/ they believed from the evidence that the
| defendant below was an Incorporated
\ company authorized to construct the road,
| erect toll gates and charge tOll-and that
the coaches Of plaintiff in error passed
! through said gates, as stated in the ac-
| count filed, that defendants in error had a
right to recover the toll authorized by
their charter, notwithstanding the condi-
ton of said road.
This instruction is assigned for error
here.
Conceding the correctness Of the princi'
Piles established in the cases cited by
counsel for the defendants in error, we
yet think that they are inapplicable tc
the case before us.
This suit is founded upon the implied
promise of plaintiff in error to pay to the
defendants the rates of toll allowed by
their charter, for passing.plaintiff' 5 coach
es over their plank road.
To make this promise binding on the
plaintiff in error, there must exist a lega
consideration ON which it is founded
Contracts with corporations, whether ex
press or implied, are not exempted from
this universal rule of justice and morality
that "er nude factO, non rTitaT aetio.
II is not the design of this charter t,
confer upon the corporation the right +
demand of every citizen travelling tn
public highway specific sum for the ben
eft Of the Gorp0EatQrsv VitbqpR1ft t9IRTy fFT6y
/ property or money is thus claimed. Blu
all duties imposed upon corporations az
gregate, by law, and all benefits conferre,
at their request, raise implied. promise.
which the law will enforce. See Angel OF
Corporations, . edit. p. l76.
1t is no answer to this view to say tina
the charter Of the corporation is not fol
| feited until a judicial declaration in a d
rect proceeding for that purpose has bee
made, No such defence is here relied or
} 1t is admitted by the pleadings that the
defendant Is corporation with capacit
to contract according to its charter lik
natural persons, it may enforce the pei
Torrance of such contracts, against al
persons dealing with it. But like natura
persons the law will hold it to the pei
, Torrance on its part of those duties an
: obligations and mutual promises out {
which the implied contract sued on arises
and upon which as a consideration it
founded &.
The corporation on its part agrees an
, promises that it has a plank road With
, the points prescribed by its charter, j
{ such condition that the traveller applyin
, for the purchase of the privilege of pas
, ing over it can enjoy the right so propose
2 to be purchased. The traveller, on Ia
/ part, in consideration of this undertaken
i and promise on the part of the corpor'
D ton, agrees to pay the rates of toll autho
, ized to be charged, or agreed on. TO al
e thorlze the corporation to sue for and r.
II cover such toll, when it has no road owe
4 which the traveller can pass at all, in VII
a lation of its implied contract and withoI
i the discharge of those duties, on its par
/ which constitute the only considerable
! OF the promise on which it seeks a reco
/. sTy, would be to establish q doctrine
0 relation to corporations, not recognized
Z to natural persons, and not contemplate
e by any provision in this or any other cha
\ ter that has come under our observ
! ton.
I The idea suggested in argument tn
Y there is no contract, express or implie
q between the parties to this record, b,