Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-15

THE PROPERTY OF THE OLD
CITY PASSING TO THE NEW ONE
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION. THE
NEW CORPORATION Is LIABLE
FOR THE DEBTS OF THE OLD
ONE.
THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT,
WITHDRAW OR LIMIT THE TAX
ING POWER OF A CITY SO AS
TO IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF
ITS CONTRACTS, OR DESTROY
THE REMEDIES OF ITS CREDI-
TORS. UNLESS OTHER AIDE
QUATE REMEDIES ARE PRO
VIDED.
THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT OF THE
CREDITOR TO SUE BY REASON
OF THE REPEAL OF THE CHAR
TER OF a CITY SUSPENDS THE
OPERATION OF THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS UNTIL IT'S sue.
CEsSOR. ORGANIZED UNDER \
NEW CHARTER, TAKES BENE-
FITS FROM THE PROPERTY OF
THE OLD CORPORATION.
BY act of the Legislature of 1881
the charter of the town of Fayetteville
was surrendered and repealed. In 1883
the Legislature made n taxing and po-
lice district of the territory which
comprised the old town. In 1898 the
Legislature Incorporated the inhabI-
tants of the same territory under the
name of the City OF Fayettevillc."
The plaintiff sued the old town upon
certain OF It's coupons held by him,
but before he got judgment the char
ter was repealed. The judgments were
afterwards had. and this suit was
ha f.tt, Of
vile upon the said judgments and cou-
pons The defendant alleges the judg-
ments to be void and that the city of
Fayetteville Is not the successor of the
ola town nor liable for its debts. Ii
also pleaded the statute OF limitations.
There was a Judgment for the plaintiff
In the lower court and defendant an
pealed.
The Court says:
1t Is of the first Importance then, to
consider whether the city OF Fayettc-
vile, the new corporation, chartered by
The act of March, 1898, is so far the
successor of the town of Fayetteville.
the old corporation. as TO be liable for
aus debts If this question is answered in
the Affirmative, the statutes OF limita-
ton set up in the answer rs a defense
TO the action will then have to be dis
cussed and decided. This court at one
time adopted the old common-law rule
that. upon the civil death of n corpor-
alton, the ErantorS of It's real cstnte
took 1t by reVersion. and the debts due
to and from 1t were distinguished This
rule was changed by the court in the
case or Wilson V. Leary, 100 n. c.. ~.
The debt, then, due to the plaintiff by
the town OF Fayetteville was not ex-
tinguished by the repeal OF it's charter.
ana sun exists, Notwithstanding that
repeal Apparently, each corporation
created by a separate charter is n dis
tinct entity. and from this It may be
argued with plausibility that no two
successive corporations can be connect
ed. unless they are connected by the
terms OF the act which crea ted them
But that view must be often only an
parehtly true. If. in the case of mu-
nicipal corporation. the old charter
should be repealed and n now one
granted. and the new one should in
ciude the same territory substantially
the same people. and the great mass
OF the taxable property of the old cor
poraton and the property OF the old
corporation used for public purposes be
passed over to the possession and con-
trol oil the new corporatin. without con-
sideration from the new corpora ton II
would be difficult to appreciate how
the property and the benefits of the
old corporation could be received bv the
new one. without the shouldering of it's
responsibilities by the new one 1T mus.
be that the creditors of n defunct mu-
nicipal corpora ton. whose money and
property have helped to build up and
Improve the wealth and influence of
the old corporation (although they
must submit when a charter is absn-
lutely abolished, and while the old Ter
ritory and people remain unincorpora-
ted have the right in equity to have
new corporation, embracing the same
territory. and the same inhabitotnts
and the same taxable property, consid-
ereo as the successor of the old. a;
least so far as It's liabilities for the
ueDts or the old corporation are CON
cerned. When the old charter is re-
pealec and new one is granted. upon
which latter are bestowed by lax ali
the benefits and property of the old
the burden of the old must be horne
by the new. Where the benefits arc
taken, the burden arc assumed
In the case before us Il wears clnnsod
between the repeal of the charter of the
town Of Fayetteville and the inrorpor1-
tion or the city of yetteville bu,
We cannot see how that can alter tn
principle involved IN the cnse Tn
foundation on which the liability of In.
new CORPORATION rests is that the new.
corporation embraces the Same terri
tory. The same cOrNcra.ors the same
taxable property nj has received thr
property of the old Incorporation with
out consideration: and for these bene.
MS II must, in return. bear the bur
GERS NJ the old corporation The lia-
DllitH IN such case commences; from
the receiving Of tho b-n fits. and wheth-
or those benefits were received one OF
Yen years. or more. from the repeal OF
the old charter makes no difference
But the (lnfapdap. frr,ba..