Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1872-12-25

That it is among the powers, the exercise
of which is expressly reserved to tn @ Leg
islature itself, and one which. cannot bc
delegated. And, consequently, that the
act in question, was unconstitutional and
void.
The Chancellor then proceeds 60 consider
the act of lsA9, aud says:
BY the act of 1919, ch II, the Legisla-
ture of this State passed general law for
the incorporation of towns, cities and vii
lagos, pointing out the mode i'm which it
should be done by petition to the County
Court and expressly defining and settling
the powers and privileges granted to such
interpretations. The validity of this act
was brought i'm question in Mayor and
Aldermen of Morristown VS.. Shelton,
Head "a, the case of the State VS.. Arm
strong being principally relied on i'm sup.
port of the objections. But the court held
that this was mjsconception of the pre-
vious case. THAT case, they say, was
correctly decided beyond all question.
which the full a0d broad power to create
corporations was given to the Circuit
Courts, and was therefore, held to be in
violation of the constitution. Not so in
this act. 1t gives the County Court no
power on the subject but to record the pc
tition for the benefit of perfect and COM
plete charter and designates the bounda-
ries to which it is to apply, that is, TO pre-
scribe the corporate limits of their town.
1t cannot add tossor diminish the powers,
privileges and immunities granted, nor
make the least change of any kind in the
charter. The Legislative will is fully de-
clared in the act and nothing Is left to the
court but to locate and apply ito any COM
munity who may petition for it, and bring
themselves within its provisions. This is
very different from the act of 1856, by
which the extent and character of the pow
ers given, and the particular objects OF the
corporations were to be fixed by the Court,
or rather, in effect the wishes and desires
of the applicants in this respect ratified 10y
the Court That was as palpablyin conflict
with the Constitution rs this Is in con-
! formity with it.o
! These two decisions cover the entire sub
| ject. An act of the Legislature, which
undertakes to delegate to the courts the
| power of creating corporations is uncon-
stitutional and void. While an act which
defines the rights, powers and immunities
| of corporations, and leaves to the courts as
to certain State officersh the duty of or
| gdnizing, is valid.
Then, in applying these principles to the
petitions under consideration, the Court
says:
1t follows from what / have said, that
the prayer Of the petitioners in these sew
eral applications cannot be granted as
| made. / have no power to incorporate
the petitioners, in either case, with the
specific provisions asked for. can confer
upon them no privileges other than those
prescribed by the general law. Nor can l
Gull out at the instance of the petitioners,
some of the privileges conceded by the
general law to the exclusion of others. |
can not, TO use the words of the court in
Mayor and Aldermen of Morristown VS..
| Shelton | Head, ''add to, or diminish the
| ,ixri1 nd =
ed, nor make the least change of any
kind in the charter as prescribed by the
| Legislature. To do so, would be to depart
from the special authority under which /
act, and would make the whole charter
void. The petitioners must take the in
corporation for the purpoie of manufactur-
ing in the exact words of the law, with
all its restrictions as well as its privileges,
"for better, for worse" and "may they
live long and prosper"
If the Chancellor is correct in his opin-
ion that in all cases where the Chancery
Courts have granted DEGREES of incorpora-
ton giving specific powers, the charter is
void, it may be of. importance to persons
now operating under such charters to eX-
anime into their condition. 1t may be
worth considering, however, whether the
charter is absolutely void simply because
the Court exceeded its powers. The char
ter would certainly be void as to the pro-
visions which the Court had no right to
grant, but we have heard learned counsel
suggest that it was questionable whether
it would be entirely void But the busi-
ness interests of the State owe Chancellor
Cooper thanks for his able opinion Those
, interested in such questions viii of course
promptly see how the opinion effects
them.