The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1897-07-06

against q corporation, this court can
not-no court can-interfere.
But in bringing such q suit as is
threatened to destroy this lease these
two defendants would represent not
the sovereign State of North Carolina,
but only a shareholder in q private
corporation and in this respect they
come within the jurisdiction OF this
court. They are high public officers.
They are entitled TO and they have the
profound respect of the court. But no
one in this country, however exalted in
position or illustrious in character, is
above the law. No State official can,
in assuming the name of the State,
shelter himself behind her sovereign
immunity if he attempt any act which
the State herself, being a shareholder,
cannot do. Pennoyer vs. McCon-
naughty, lao q. S. 1. Reagan vs..
Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 154 q.
g., S62.
It being clear that this case is within
the jurisdiction of this court. it's merits
can be inquired into. The parties to
the suit are the complainant, and the
defendants, the North Carolina Rail
road Company, the Board Of Directors
who made the lease in question, and
the board appointed by the Governor
upon the removal of the old board.
This removal was effected after this
suit was brought, but the new board
have come in and have fully repre-
sented their side Of the case. Besides,
these, the Hon. D. L. Russell, who is
the Governor of North Carolina, and
the Hon. Zsbulon V. Walser, who is
the attorney of North Carolina, are
parties. Besides questioning the juris,
diction of the court, the answers of
Messrs. Russell and Walser, who pro.
test that they answer only in their in
dividual capacity. and of the new
board Of directors make up clear and
distinct issues upon the merits. If
the Jurisdiction of the court over the
controversy is established it can come
to a clear and definite conclusion on
these issues and settle the controversy
once for all. These issues are three il
number.
First. Was the North Carolina Rail
road Company authorized by its char
ter to make the lease of it's roadbed
and franchises claimed by the com
plainantG
Second. Was this lease executed in
conformity with the requirements of
the charterH
Third. Was 1T executed. boua fde
without fraud, Misrepresentation or
malpractice in any respectl
Tbs Tn. 1 aPSt e. st S4sss issues is a question
Of law. tt involves the right of the
North Carolina Railroad Company to
out it's franchise and property.
It has no relation whatever to the
or motives which led up to il.
These belong probably to the third
issue.
AS has been seen a lease was exc
,uted of it's property and franchises by
the North Carolina Railroad Company
10 the Richmond & Danville Railroad
in 1871 and for thirty years.
The right of the lessor company to
make such a lease has been before the
Supreme Court of the State, in State of
Carolina va. Richmond & Dan
vile Railroad Company, 70 N. O., 634.
The same against the same, % N. O.,
529, and the validity of the lease was
In Logan VS.. N. @. r. r.
Co., 116 NC, $40, the court says: The
question of the authority of the lessor
company to farm it's franchise and
property is no longer An open one."
These decisions of the court Of last re.
sort of North Carolina as to the consti-
Of a State statute bind the Fed
eral courts, apart from the very high
authority of that court itself.
Second. Was this lease executed in
conformity with the requirements of
the charters
On this point it has not been denied
that the lease was executed after an
unanimous vote of all the directors,
confirmed and approved by the unani
nous vote in a regular stockhoIders'
meeting.
Third. Was the lease executed bona
1de, without fraud, GOWN, misrepre-
or malpractice of any sort.
This is q question wholly of fact. The
is made by the defendants,
Messrs. Russell and Walser, and of the
new board of directors, and in the an
swer of the lessor filed by them.
Let this third issue be referred to