Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-07
A WORKING COURT.
COURT OF APPEALS ADJOuRNs TO-
DAY WITH CLEAN DOCKET.
FIVE DECISIONS ON YESTERDAY.
Ca.c Involving the Power Of the
Courts Over a Foreign Corpora
,ion-Railway Case Reversed
question of ImsurabIe Interest.

ions I'm five cases yesterday.
The court will adjourn to-day. It's repu-
tation as a working court is sustained by
the fact that during this term every case
on the docket has been called, and every
one ready for hearing has been heard.
The case Of Taylor vs.. Mutual Reserve
Fund Life Association, of New York.
decided by the court yesterday. affirming
the decree of the Law and Equity Court
Of this city. involved a question Of
interest and Importance not only
to the legal profession, but TO the
public generally. The company is
a mutual or assessment company. char
tered by the State of New York. The
plaintiff, Major James VI. Taylor. q citi-
zen OF Virginia, became a member of the
association in 1852. The complaint In the
bill was that the company had illegally
and arbitrarily increased what was al
legged to have been the stipulated rates OF
assessment on the class of MEMBERS to
which tho plaintiff belonged, and had
threatened TO declare the plaintiffs policy,
or certificate Of membership, forfeited,
unless the increased assessment was paid
on or before a certain day. The bill ac-
cordingly prayed that the company be
e%njoined from declaring the policy for
feited, and that the court determine what
was a proper assessment. 1t also prayed
that the company be required to produce
in court its books. papers. and vouchers
I'm order that that matter might be rightly
determined. The bill was filed on behalf
Of the plaintiff and all others similarly
situated.
The defendant company demurred TO the
bill on several grounds, the principal
ground OF demurrer being that the court
was asked to do what IL had 10 power
to do-namely, to interfere with the In
ternal management OF a foreign corpora
ton. The demurrer was sustained, and
the plaintiff appealed.
Judge Buchanan, speaking for the Court
of Appeals, held, in a learned opinion,
that the courts of one State have no
power to exercise visitorial supervision
over the corporations chartered by an
other State; that such powers can be ex-
ercised over a corporation only by the
courts OF the State by which it is created,
and, consequently. that such a decree as
that prayed for i'm the bill would be fruit
less and unavailing. 1T may not be easy
In all cases" It was said. ito draw a
clear line Of distinction between the acts
OF a corporation relating TO its internal
management and those which do not.
But we apprehend the distinction TO be
this: That where the acts complained OF
affects the complainant solely in his ca
pacity as a member OF the corporation,
whether It be as a stakeholder, director,
president, or other officer, and IS the
act Of the corporation. that then such
action Is the management OF the internal
affairs Of the corporation, and I'm case OF
a foreign corporation our courts Will not
take jurisdiction. When, however. the act
of the foreign corporation complained
of affects the compliments individual
rights only, then our courts will take
jurisdiction whenever the cause Of ac-
ton arises here" The decree of the
lower court sustaining the demurrer and
dismissing the bill was accordingly af-
irmed.
The case was deliberately argued by
Mr.. william l.. Royal. for the plaintiff, |
and by Major Charles $. Stringfellow and |
Judge J.. J.. Lewis, for the company. |
A Railway Case Reversed.
The court reverses the Corporation
Court Of the city OF Danyille In the case
Of the Southern Railway Company VS..
Bruce's Administrator l.. r. Bruce was
a young man who had come TO North
Danville to get work. He boarded at a
house in full view of the railroad. On the
morning of July q. 1897, about G:3o o'clock,
Bruce left his clearinghouse and went
on to the track Of the Southern railway,
at or near a high trestle just north of
the Riverside Cotton-Mills. Crossing the
deep ravine there, either over or under
the track, he continued southwark, and
was just below the main entrance 10 the
cotton-mills when he was struck by The
south-bound Washington and Southern
Limited Express OF the defendant COM
pany and killed. Suit for damages was
instituted by Bruce's Administrator, and
the jury returned a verdict for $3.50, to
which judgment the railway company
was awarded a writ OF error to the Su-
preme Court.
Judge Cardwell, who wrote the opinion
of the Supreme Court, discusses the facts
and the law involved very fully. At the
trial in the lower court the jury was in
structed that a railroad company ope-
rating its trains through a city, where its
track and right of way are constantly
used as a footway by numbers OF men,
women, and children, must at all times
use greater care TO prevent accidents
than when running its trains in l~ess-fre-
quented and populous localities, and that
in certain localities in the town, as. for
instance, where sharp curves obstruct the
view, il Is required Of the railway COM
pan to exercise especial care 10 aYold
accidents; that any neglect OF such spe-
cial precautions constitutes such negll-
gence as will make the company liable
for damage resulting from an accident,
unless the plaintiff could have escaped in
Jury by the exercise OF ordinary care, and
that the burden of proof Is on the COM
pany to prove absence or such ordinary
care.
The Jury was further instructed that
IL IL believed that the sharp curves and
.enbankments at and near the point where
the intestate was killed prevented the
engineer from seeing objects upon the
track in front OF his train at as great a
distance as he otherwise could have done;
that large numbers Of people passed over
the defendants tracks at and near where
the plaintiff was killed between 8 and I Z
o'clock I'm the mornings; That the COM
pany had notice of such use of its track,
acquiesced therein. then II was its
duty TO exercise such care at this point
as 10 protect such foOt-passengers from
injury. The jury was instructed that II
he company failed TO exercise such care, l
in consequence OF which the interstate
was killed, then II must find for his ad-
unless they find his interstate I
guilty of such contributory negligence as
TO Justify its being regarded as the proxi- I
cause of his death. The burden OF z
proof of such negligence Is on the COM {
pany. I
Exceptions were taken 10 the foregoing
Instructions. Judge CardWell discusses I