The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1892-01-22

TWO OF them has since been
changed. The others remain where
they were erected.
In 1869 the State released its inter-
est in the road from "the big hill
west of Mount Pleasant TO Clifton
to the counties of Maury, Lawrence
and Wayne, and authorized said
counties tn work said road as other
county roads Afterwards, in
the year 1881, the other owners
released and abandoned this part of
the road. In the meanwhile the
Legislature authorized the sale of its
interest in turnpikes by an act
authorizing purchasers to give bond
with good and sufficient security, to
be approved by the Secretary of
State, to proceed forthwith to put the
road or roads so purchased in as good
condition as required by the original
charter of the same, and to keep the
same In good repair. Under this act
of 1873 the road was sold in 1874 to
Polk q Wade, who operated the road
until 1881 and then sold out to P. g.
and w. ID. Bethel ct al, and IN 1886
these parties sold to Horace Rainey
and associates, who took possession
and have operated the road to date.
The bill was filed to perfect charter
March 2S, 1888, and amended bill
April II, 1890. In the answer
defendants admit that the road
has at several places been
contracted to less than thirty
feet in width "by farmers placing
their fences upon the road" But
they insist the road is not anywhere
narrower than the requirements of
the original and amended charter.
Elsewhere they say that the neces-
sites of travel no longer need g road
80 feet in width, that persons have
put fences in the bitches and upon
the road bed, and have indicted de-
fendants eighteen times for allowing
contractions. They say that this has
driven them to the alternative of
amending their charter and reducing
the width below thirty feet or a num-
Der of vexaJiOus and expensive law
suits with land owners. There being
no necessity for so wide a road to ac-
commodate the diminished travel,
and to avoid veXations and litigation,
the company thought best to amend
the charter and procured amend
ments mentioned. The amendments
referred to were attempted to be made
under the act of 1875-the first was to
reduce the width to "a feet, and the
second to fourteen feet. Both
were procured in the year 1887. The
court held that both amendments
| were void, as the act of 1875 can not
| be construed to authorize such
amendments so as to release corpora
tions from the substantial duties and
obligations assumed in their original
charter or to lessen width or change
grades of road already constructed
under existing charter. The answer
of defendant in substance admits that
the road was not as originally char
| tered, was not needed to be and no
longer required to be. The answer
made no case against the application
| in original bill. In evidence defend
ant undertook to show the road in
substantially in the condition re-
| quired in the original charter. The
court dis greed with the Chancellor
| in the conclusion that it was held
that the great preponderance OF the
testimony was that it was not up to
| the requirement of the original in
any material respect.
1t was less than the required width
| in many places. Not up to charter
requirements in form or slope for
drainage or in general condition con-
| templated. Two bridges necessary
and originally built were gone, many
of those up were without ratings or
guards and that it was not in fact, or
believed by the owners to be required
| to be, in original charter condition.
Il =
improperly removed, but declined to
treat it as ground for forfeiture, or
to cause its removal. Gate No. he
held improperly removed aud located
and eniOined collection of toll until
replaced where originally located.
The first had been removed under a
statute authorizing any turnpike
company to remove their gates near
/ est town two miles from the corpor-
ate limits thereof, and located 600
yards from the two mile point. Held
that neither removal was authrized
and both are grounds of forfeiture,
among others the State asking it.
The Chancellor held the building of
the two bridges necessary but he gave
time to build them. Defendant de-
cIined to accept and appealed. They
were necessary and omission to build
them was ground of forfeiture, nor
could the Chancellor save it by al
lowing time, even had defendants Rc-
, cepted his DEGREES and built. The
court held that the fact that the State
was a stockholder in the road when
? these bridges washed away, and long
, afterward, did not stop it to bring this
action in its sovereign capacity to
3 compel forfeiture of the charter. 1t
tmight have done so while it was 8
, stockhelder. The sale of the State
. interest was upon the express condi'
s ton that the road be put in its origl
!. nal condition. 1t waived nothing
r The act of 1872 giving further time te
$ repair did condons the offense o.
= omitting such repair at least to ex
a tenslon of time given in that act, bu
a no further, and after that period tn
9 neglect to build and repair wer'
g lgrounds of forfeiture, nothing else ap
II pears to estop the State. Certainly
d indictments for allowing the road +
he out OF repair do not. Nor do re
y ports of turnpike commissioners con
clude the State. They do not do 8
as to indictments, and much less Il
application for forfeiture.
Ig Held that the case for forfeiting tn
~ charter is already made out for fail
u ure to build bridges required, to pu
q and keep road in condition require
a. by charter. For unauthorized rE
es moyaI and location of gates decree {
or Chancellor reversed and decree Ell
n, tered for declaring the charter of dt
PENDANTS forfeited and for costs.
LeneaYe VS.. Stockell, Caldwell
e" Judge, petition to rehear dismisse'
Thomas Leneave vs. Mcdowell I
l. al. I.urton, Judge. Application
modify decree refused.
" NOTES.
s. I'VE are informed that most OF q
H. causes of forfeiture, as decreed by II
v. Supreme Court, occurred while Il
- State owned one half of the COIumh
e. Central Turnpike, and before its Ia
fe owners had anything to do with
he We are also informed that since u
on Supreme Court declared the cha
nv ter forfeited, two new charters ma
hs heen procured for a turnpike oV
.aI the bed of the old pike. One OF the
Ier new charters was procured by, son
he of the paroles who filed the bill al
las % prosecuted the suit to have the cha
he ter forfeited. The other new chart
Ii was procured by Horace Rainey al
"a his associates, who owned the Q
I'd nike. A new suit is now probab
m between Horace Rainey and his
1rs sociates, and James Cranberry al
or. his associates, to decide which nt
on charter is to have preference. In
,at meantime DO toll is being-0r can De
= I, fc rood Ed ]