Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1889-03-19
q. s. Circuit Court at Alexandra March 10

1889.
The United States In equity on
VS. master'5re
Aexa. Canal Co. and others. report.
The complainant. being owner OF more
than majority OF the stock OF the defend
ant company, filed 8 bill on the An OF May
1887, for @ dissolution OF the company, va
cation of its charter, a sale OF its assets ana
the payment Of It's debts. Although the
pleader omitted from the prayer OF toe bi!i
a clause for the calling in Of creditors ana
payment of their claims, and alleged that
the canal company had no outstanding
debts bnt was free and discharged OF al
dsbts excepting the claim and title held ard
owned be- The complainant end other stock
holders in and to ali the property" CT the
comnany. vet such omission and suCG allie
cation did not make this any the leas cred
iIors' bill as an essential aud necessary part
Of bill of this character. Ii "as, despite
of the. allegation of freedom from debt,
bill for the sequcstration and sale OF the de-
PENDANT company's property tor the Oeneht
first Of its creditors, and secondly OF lis
stockholders. The subsequent DEGREES Of
the Court made the proceeding creditors
bill. So does section 1103 OF the Code OF
Virginia make il, by making the corpora
ions property subject to its debts from the
time its corporate rights and privileges cease.
The bill alleged among other things that
by sale Of the aqueduct, which was the
part Of its property that carried the canal
across the Potomac river, the company had
rendered itself incompetent to further carry
on the business for which it had been moor
porated-thst OF transporting persons ard
property by canal from Georgetown on the
north side to Alexandria on the south side
4 haH l1nr, he
abandoned its franchise ard rendered Itself
amenable to decree of dissolution.
! The city of Alexandra, claiming large
deb; against the canal company, stated TO
be So, 600, awaited the progress Of the suit
until January G.h, 1858, when it flied short
petition asserting this claim anG praying
| reference to master for the purpose OF as
certainipg and reporting the amount due.
/ The step was taken in advance Of the sale
! of the canal company's property rs prayed
[ for by the bill in order that parties in inter
/ est might be Informed Of their rights before
the sale should be made. a declaratory
decree was made on the 18th February, 1883.
| which adjudicated dissolution OF the cor
poretion and directed that the property Of
| the compsny should be sold at time ard
in the manner to be provided by decree to
be thereafter entered in the cause, the pro
ceeds of the sale to be used, among other
things, "fcr the payment, satisfaction, and
discharge of ell subsistng debte and obliga-
tons Of the canal company" and the re-
mainGer, if any, to be divided equally among
The stockholders in proportion to the stock
held by them.
The decree also provided that the master
should report. among other things, the
amount OF stock of the canal company snd
the oHners thereof, and what debts the A.
exandria Canal Company owes, 10 whom,
and tie amount and nature thereof. Under
another decree the prep sriy Of the company
was sold end the proceeds brought into
| Cour.. Tie ma TER in due time made bis
rapor, of the Indebtedness of the company.
iindng bat the city Of Alexandria held
claim son Que, unpaid, and not barred by
statutory limitation. Of So 600 TO THIS re
u ir compliment ii es exceptions. The city
| 1f Alexandria aI7o files exceptions. Il will
be unnecessary for me to consider any OF
these exceptions beyond the more import
AMI Of those aiken by complainant
Is chief exception is hut q repetition Of
tbs one principally relied on at the hearing
! of he complaiaaul'a demurrer to the petl-
ton OF the city OF Alexandria claiming debt
evidenced by sund7y bonds OF the Aiexan
dria Canal Company, aegregaiiUg about
$50 0 O The oil ctoG relied up0n 49, stale
ness Of he debt. Il w0s held by the court,
that inasnuch as the bill in his case was
fled on the b May, 1857, ard the period
during which tie Virginia statute of lnita
tons must have iun in order 10 effect
statutory bar 10 recovery on such bonds was
twenty seven years eight months and four
tt ca days; therefore any bonds that fell due
anterior % the 2lSt August, 1889 we're barred,
and that those which tel: due subsequently
were not barred the period from Dist Au-
gust, 1859, to 4yh May, 1887, having been
twenty seven wears eight months and four
leen days The court accordingly held
further, that iuasmuch rs there were bonds
held hy Alexandra to the aggregate amount
of $57 900 which had al fallen due On or
after January 1st 1860 TIE commissioner
should limit his inquiry to that class and
iauure ard report which OF such bonds had
been paid by the canal company, and which
had not been paid.
Pursuant to this instruction Of the court,
the master reports that bouds of this cIass
to the aggregate amount OF $24 400 have
been paid and that others to the amount Of
$50 600 have not been discharged and are
still an existing debt held by the city of AL
exandria against the Alexandria Canal Co.
All the bonds so reported rs still due and
unpaid matured for payment on the lsi OF
January, 1860, except one for -. 100 which
fell due August ii h, 1867. Thus all but
the last had fallen due twenty seven years
four months and four days before the fling
of the bill in this cause; and under the rul.
ing of the court as thus explained, stand as
debt OF the company to the city.
Counsel for complainant now repeats the
objection of sta!eness aud aches, and insists
that court OF equity IS not bound, as
court of law would be, to give judgments for
debts not within the arbitrary bar OF statu
tory limitation, but on grounds of equity
peculiar 10 the chancery jurisdiction. should
reject these bonds aggrecating $50 600 of
principal, because of the laches OF Aezan-
dria 10 enforcing their payment.
The cases of Badger VS.. Badger Wallace
G. Snaiiell rs Henrici LOO l. : 81. God