The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-05-30
THAT FORFEITED CHARTER.
A Full and Complete Text of
Judge Key's Decision.

ouu GIL ON6E the SntlE6 sldtc
IN the East Line decision, fullel
and more complete text of the opinion OF
the court is given this morning than hs;
heretofore been published. 1t will be oh
served that it is not the opinion that j:
lengthy, but rather the recital of facts
The opinion is here given in full, some
errors having crept in former publica
ton. full text has not been published
heretofore in any newspaper:
These facts raise number of interest
ing questions of law, aud 1 regret that
other official duties have not allowed mt
tc bestow uPon them that deliberate con-
sideration which their importance de,
mands. These questions will be treated
under two general heads:
First-Ate the acts and omissions com
planned of in the states bill, that are
found to be true, unlawful?
Second-For such of said acts and omis-
sions as are illegal is the state entitled to a
Judgment FORGETTING respondents charter
And upon the threshold of the investi'
CATION of these questions it may be re-
marked that the sale and consolidation I'm
der consideration is the controlling ques-
ton ia the case.
spondent is not responsible for the run
down and defective condition of the road,
nor in my judgment would it be subject to
the penalty of forfeiture for failure to
keep public office in the state and like
omissions that are charged in the states
bill; because if the sale was valid it had
no further right to control the road, and
the transaction being complete merger
Of its road into, and absorption by, the
purchasing company, there was no reason
why respondent should continue to keep
an office aud hold annual meetings of its
stockholders and directors.
First-Beginning, therefore, with the
sale of respondents road, franchises and
ether property to the Missou-
ri, Kansas and Texas Railway
company, was said sale illegalH If the
respondent had the power to sell and the
purchasing corporation the power to pur-
chase, the sale was valid, otherwise not.
Railway corporations can exer-
else only such powers as are
conferred upon them by the government
and in the absense of express authority,
they cannot sell or lease their franchises tC
another. (Railway Company vs.. Morris
81 Texas, 1921
The charter of the East Line and Red
River Railway company authorizes it to
sell or consolidate with any other railroad
not parallel or competing line, and run
ming in the same general direction.
The act of the legislature authorizing
the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway
company to build two lines in this state
authorizes it to purchase or consolidate
with any other road connecting with its
road.
Section 5, article 10, of our State Con
stitution reads as follows: "No railroad
or other corporation, or the le5sees, puT
chasers or managers of any railroad cor
poratlon, shall consolidate the stock
property or franchises of such corpora
tion, or lease or purchase the works o.
franchises of, or 10 any way own or con
troll any railroad corporation owning Of
having under its control parallel o.
com eting line; nor shall any officer o
such railroad corporation act as an office
of any other railroad corporation owning
or having the control of parallel or com
peting line"
! Section of the same article is as fol
lows: 'No railroad company ORGANIZED
under the laws of this state shall consoli
date, by private or judicial sale or other
wise, with any railroad company organ
lied under the laws of any other state o
of the United States"
| If, therefore, the Missouri, Kansas an
Texas Railway company was parallel
competing road, the sale in question wa
in violation of both the Constitution an
the charter of respondent, and if it doe
not run in the same general direction wit
the East Line and Red River railroad
such sale was violation of said charter
and in either event the transfer would b
void for want of power in respondent t
make it. And further, if said roads wer
not parallel or competing roads, and IA
in the same general direction, but wer
not, in fact, connecting roads, then sal
sale wes illegal, because the purchssin
company in that event had no authorit
to purchase.
The roads are not parallel, and it is cor
tended by respondents counsel that the
are not competing roads, because, indt
pendent of their connections, they cannc
carry passengers or freight from give
place or section to any other commo
point or market.
The law of this state requires connec
ing roads to transport the passenger
cars and freight shipped over each other
roads whether they desire to do so or no
(Sec. l, Art. TO- CONSTITUTIONAL
Whether or not similar laws prevail i
the states into or through which the road
connecting with the Missouri, Kansas an
Texas and East Line and Red River raj
roads run is not made to appear.
But be that as it may, it is not believe
that the term competing" as used in tn
Constitution and in respondents charte
should BIO given this restricted definition
To prevent injury to the public welfare
should be given liberal construction.
Hence, it is believed that these roaC
were, at the time of said sale, competiu
lines of railway.
Are they connecting roads within Il
meaning of the special law of 1870, a
thorizing the Missouri, Kansas and Tex
Railroad company to build in Texas ar
to purchase or consolidate with connec
ing linee?
That act-and it is the on
authority shown-only permi
that company to construct two lines
road In the state, one from its crossing {
Red river, between Doaksville and Pre-
ton, in the general direction of Waco al
Austin to the Rio Grande, and the 9th
from point at or near where it Cross
| Rad river westarlv IN onnnect with NJ