Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-18

thu merit of such claim. Then, it seems. this
| court in pas ing on the question raised wcul
have to consider two things: First, h re
an adverse par'v in the case as King to be heard
| on a claim for affirmative relief Second. was
| that claim nrejudiced by the suit9
The p'eadngs clearly show ha. tn. stlte was
| seeking affirmative relief in the BY cross
| demand on the plaintiff; ami tn. action OF the
| court in per hitting tn. ron nit shows that the
| safe was denied the right 10 have the claim
| trie on the facts. Certnin that action preju-
| diced the right to have that claim determined
because it forces the state to the disadvantage
! of having TO resort to ether rem dies court
for the relief it sought BY its plea therein. The
purpose and efficacy of such a statute has never
been more sire nglv demons rated perhaps tn an
in III case. For the one time in the history Of
the country reign bondho .erS have sought
to recover jud yma ut in state court upon
q public highway for enormous amount of
monev. The demand thus set up by them was
me- by the stale upon the charge that it was in
express violation of her constitution and laws.
and created without benefit or consideration to
the corrora propt r,y or 10 the public, hur for
sp cu!ative purpose, which, il established.
would impose unjust burdens through corporate
franchises upon the publ C.
Ii The claim were a J ,>t an | honest and not q
fictitious one, then he law aH 'rded ample pro-
lection to the plaintiff, which TIE as courts will
ALWAYS see given. At the time when that issue
could be settled without further delay q nonsut
was tale i. II that is Permitted to stand a pre-
judce to the states ri ,ht to have its adverse
claim settled Is apI aren't, for il Is reasonable to
suppose II at he plaintiff would seek to recover
a Judgment III some Other court. BY this the
tion, or ihapS be put 10 the inconv Of
defending in multiplicity OF 81 IS br)ugh by
the various bondholders in their own individu al
separat right.
1t NAV be coutende with mich force an I on
good auth rity that the withdrawal OF u e
peadings filed by plaintiff waiver of all
objections to the pleadir g. of the state i'll the
case. and an admission tina, 1t had pleaded a
good cause OF ACTON. The issue was sharply
drawn. and 1t is but natural that plaintiff
uId have aiken judgment by default had it
not been for the states defense. The mere
fact of n nonsuit at that juucture, the face
of tile alice atons made by the state. is tonta-
mount to the confession th at there was danger
in meeting il. If the defense was well fonn led,
It such right l,Ggei in the state as could
oe prcjudced by any ct on OF the court9 II it
was. then the nonsuit WAS error. Logically.
this leads To discussion of the underlying
question in the case. to-wit
Has he state the right TO enter her courts for
the pur pose Of having bonds that have been il
legally issued by railway comD.ny cane led,
or the right to prevent the comp ny from e<er-
ciSn its corpora powers in the oavment OF
fictitious debts at the expense Of the public?
Ii seems 10 be 4 well settled doctrine that the
rules OF construction as to the powers of NUM-
cipa' and railway corporal ons are the same.
AMI that The I'll e thai corporation has only
power to do such acts as its charter. considered
IN relation TO the general law. author yes it to
do applies - every class OF corporations. r.
R. Co. Morris ct al 81 Texas, So.
In the case of May VS.. the CT of Detroit, I2
the opinion held '.Ihat the attorney general
has the ris hit to euioin in equity tn. abuse of
corporate franchise, as, for instance, the pay
ment OF money oy municipal corporation on a
contract ma lie in disregard OF its char err" And
in further dscu ssing the question se said: at
is the right OF the state at all times to keep the
grant of its franchises wi hin the limits rre-
sc7ibed in the gr Mt, and pubic policy in gem
ersl quires tina. serious dep lrture should n
he overlooked. even though the parties injured
having an oprortu ity to act do uol com nlain;
for e abuse becnm 8 prrceden for another,
and the attorney genera does well to Interfere
when municipality assumes to do injurious
acts which the state in comforting the power to
act at all has expressly prohioite ~
In the case Of the AIT ,rnev-General VS.. the
Great Northern Railroad company, cited in this
brief. 1t W legged by tha' officer, among other
things, that the company was chartered for the
merchants and herS; and then it alleg ID
which was III round Of dispute, that the COM
pany also deal. largely in Goals, buviag and
Sc ling III competition with other coal mer-
chant; tina: they endeavored to conceal that
fact by certain contrivanctr. but that in fact
they a, ted as q company as coal merchants to
an enormous extent, an he. in behalf of the
pubic, prayed that the company might be re-
strained from employ NJ lis funds Tor such ousi-
ness. The fact OF the ira iilg was cearly
proven. The issue sharply drawn before
the court to the right OF the attorney
general 10 interfere to keep COM
such an action at ali. In passing on
the Questio the learned judge in the ca e says:
ION this point en- ertain no doubt whatever
that wherever the interests of the publ c
damnified by company, established for any
particular purpose b. an act OF parliament, act
ing Illegally and in contrave ition OF the pow rs
coa.erred upon it conneiys it Is function