Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1863-12-28
LOCAL NEWS.

THE ALEXANDRIA RAILROAD CAsR-The
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
have before it the case of the Washington, AL.
exandria and Georgetown Railroad Company
ct al VS.. the Mayor, Board of Aldermen and
Common Council OF Washington, ct al, Messrs.
Reyerdy johnson and ]. B. Stewart appear
ing for the company, and Messrs. J. H. Brad
ley and W. D. Davidge for the Corporation.
The cause of action and grounds for relief
as set forth in the complainant's bill, are that
an alleged contract was entered into on the
18th Of April, 1855, between the Corporation of
Washington and the late Alexandria and
Washington Railroad company-the former
municinal and the latter a private corpora
.uob-in which both parties assumed and exer-
c,sed powers not delegated to them or author
lied by their charters, in violation OF the Ia Tvs
governing the same.
That had there been sufficient authority dele.
gated ia the respective charters of said corpo-
rations, they in no instances consuma,ed auy
valid contracts which could legally bind either
That the Corporation of Washington has
been guilty of such general and continued
locseS as to deprive il Of any of the rights spe.
Gifted in the deed OF trust OF the 18th Of April,
. 1855; and has, furthermore, openly declared
null and void its own obligation SO assumed
as a violation of its charter, and that it does
not owe the debt thereby caused
The plaintiff contends that there was no
right or authority OF the part of tin Railroad
Company to borrow money nj the time
the deed of trust was executed; thai ~the
certificates issued were not in proper form,
nor were they issued in the State of Virginia,
where alone the Company had a legitimate
existence; that the deed OF trust executed 10Th
of April, 1855. to Joseph III. and A, Thomas
bradley, trustees, was not authorized or ap-
proved by the Board of Directors of the Com
pany; that the Corporation had no power to
endorse the certificates, and thereby create a
charge upon its revenues and a tax unon the
people; that the act OF the Corporation being
void, the deed Of trust is void; that the cond-.
ment was that the committee supervising the
issuing OF the certificates should be satisfied
that the certificates guaranteed would insure
the completion and equipment OF the road;
that the certificates were never In fact en-
dersed and delivered to the Railroad Com
pany, but psrtion (about $l3.00 was ap-
piled to payment Of pre- existing debts, and the
n mainder (about $47.000l were taken charge
of by the corporation and hypothecated with
Riggs L Co.; that the corporation in its whole
4nr,ceeding has committed such ldches and ne
rleet of duty, provided it held any legal rights
under the deed OF trust, as to deprive it of any
prece dence or priority Of right, and that the
corporation has repudiated and declared null
and void its act Of endorsement OF these bonds.
both in theory and practice.
The defendants in filing their answer move
the court to dissolve the Injunction, claiming
lst. That the compliments have no standi
ed. 1T the complainants have a right to rep.
resent the Alexandria and Washington Rail.
road, they are purchasers with full notice of
the claims OF the city Of Washington. Actual
notice of the existence Of the deed OF trust 10
the Bradieys is equivalent TO the record OF the
deed as to a subsequent purchaser.
Id. Whatever may be the law as to the valid
fty OF contracts OF corporations made ultra
nisss. there is no case in which corporation
has been allowed 70 retain money and TO have