Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1895-06-29
INJUNCTION GRANTED.
The Trustees Of Berkeley Sprn gs
Perpetually Enjoined From
Leasing the Stats
Property.
JUDGE pA,LEYs DECISION IN FJtl.

JUDGE DA'LEYs DECISION IN FILL.
At a special term of the Cinuit
Court at Berkeley Springs, on Tues
day last, Judge Daley, of Roinpey,
decided the injunction case, restain
ing the trustees OF Berkeley Springs
from leasing the property. Al the
last session of the Legislature, e bill
was introduced to repeal the ad of
1882, and it was defeated, butthe
trustees short time ago, leased the
property to Daniel Cornelius for a
term of 80 years; and it WAS his in
tention 20 place upon the property
a 100000 hotel, but before lie could
put his plans INTO effect an injlnc
ton was asked for by j. Rufus Smith
and others representing the public
and it was granted. Judge Dallfy's
decision perpetuates the injunction.
The case has attracted considerable
attention, because the springs arc
the property of the State, and the
trustees are appointed by the Gov
ernor under the act of 1882. which
does not give the trustees the power
to lease the property for private
purposes. The following is the de-
cision in full a:
GENTLEMEN
In the outset | desire to express
my Indebtedness to the attorneys in
the case for the thorough manner in
which they argued it and presented
the law bearing upon 1t. In the view
| take OF the case, | do not think it
is necessary to review from the be-
ginning the whole body of the statute
law relating to the Berkeley Springs
in order to arrive at a conclusion as
to the powers and rights of the
State ia this property, and the pow
ers of management and control over
it vested in the board Of trustees,
do not think from this legisla-
ton on the subject there can be any
question but that the State has an
absolute title to the property; Ger
tainly by long continued use of 1t,
and constant control over it. And
such seems to have been the view
that the Legislature has, of recent
years, taken as to the rights of the
State. The Legislature has enacted
and passed laws from time to time
upon this theory.
1t becomes necessary then, gentle
men, for me to consider what power
the State, or rather the Legislature
of the State, has vested in these
trustees but | will first dispose OF
the preliminary question as to the
standing of the plain ifs in court.
The question raised is, that the
plaintiffs have no right to maintain
this suit; that the State, being the
owner, the suit should be instituted
and prosecuted in the name Of the
State or the Acknowledgement ofthe
State.
Taking the act Of the Legislature
of 1882, | think these trustees are
to say the least, directors to some
extent of this property; and it also
may be, that by the word "trustee
they are given a more thorough and
complete trust than even directors
of a corporation have. The trustees
are created a corporation by the act,
and each individual trustee is direc-
tor Of the corporation. For these
reasons, therefore, | think they have
a right to maintain this proceedings
and to bring the suit and test the Va
lidity Of the contract with Cornell
ius. The papers in the case show
that the plaintiffs in this suit tried
to get the board of trustees to re
consider their action in making this
contract, but this the board declined
to do, and then, | think, the plain
tiffs, or those who did not agree
with the majority as to the manner
in which they were executing their
trust, that thought the majority was
perverting or overreaching their
trust, had right TO come into court
and ask the court to consider the
matter.
1t is also urged that a court oil
equity had not authority to enter
tain this suit and to determine these
questions, because the party had q
complete remedy at law. 1t is urged
that an action of unlawful detainer
or of ejectment or criminal process
would be sufficient, and there was
no necessity to resort to injunction.
l do not think these objections are
we'll taken, but that the suit should
be brought and all questions settled.
But | have not fully investigated
these matters or examined the au-
thorities relating to them, as my
time has been taken up with other
things. | think, however, it is the
right of a court of equity to deter
NINE these questions.
This, then, brings US TO the real
question in the case: Had this
board of trustees any authority IN.
der the act OF 1882 TO make the con-
tract that is now before me? In
the view that | take of the case,
do not think that it is absolutely
necessary to determine what we are
to understand by the word "aliena-
ton as used in this act. 1t seems
to me, though, that the Legislature
did not intend the strict technical
meaning which usually attaches to
it. | do not, as said, though, deem
it necessary for me to pass upon this
question.
The act Of 1882 provides that the
public grounds in the town OF Bath
in the county of Morgan, known as
the public square, together with the
medicinal springs and improvements
thereon shall be and continue under
the management ara control of a
board of trustees, i rust, as here
tofore, for the publ use and bene-
fit. (The. Court here read all OF
Sec. 2, of Chap. 202, Acts of 1882
Other sections Of this chapter
give the Governor the power to fill
all vacancies occurring in said board
of trustees, provide for the election
of presi 'rnt, secretary and treas
urer of the ooard. who shall hold Of
fee for the term of one year it also