The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-11

several of the authorities cited on the
 previous day and endeavored to show
 that they were not applicable to the
 State of Alabama. He then repeated
 the contention of MT. Selheimer to the
 effect that the statute contemplated an
 absolute extinction of the franchises of the several constituent corporations forming consolidation under the l Alabama laws, and that this being true, 1 the complaint of the railroad was in- l consistent and defective on It's face. and that, therefore, the demurrer of the State should be sustained.
 MT. H. c. Selheimer, of Birmingham, who opened the argument for the | State Friday contended that the sta tute of Alabama, under which the At | lantic Coast Line Railroad Company was consolidated with an Alabama cor poration, contemplated the absolute ex- tinction of all the constituent corpor- ations forming the consolidation, and that a new corporation was formed, de- irving, exclusively, its corporate pow CTS from the State of Alabama and be- ing exclusively domestic corporation of Alabama.
 MT. Selbeimer then stated that the. State of Alabama did not contemplate any distinction between an interstate and an intra- a-state consolidation. and. having made this statement, cited sew
  preme Court. showing that in the case of intra- state consolidation an abso- lute dissolution of all the franchises of the respective corporations forming a consolidation took place. He then carefully examined the statutes of Ala bama authorizing consolidation of domestic and foreign corporations Sections 1166, 1167 and 1168 Code of 1S96-and contended that there was a new grant of powers given by those statutes to the new corporation. and that all of the old rights. property, privileges and franchises were dis solved.
 Having interpreted the statutes in this way, he then contended that the | allegations of the railroads complaint | failed to make a case. in that it stated | in the beginning that a consolidation | had taken place under the Alabama | statutes. and then stated that the At lantic Coast Line Railroad Company. | the successor of the various consolida- ting corporations, was exercising in | the State of Alabama the original fran chises which were inherent in the Ala bama corporations, and that, there fore, the complaint of the plaintiff railroad company was inconsistent on its face and defective.
 He also contended that no authority was shown in the complaint, under the laws of the State of Virginia. under and by virtue of whichg the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company was al- lowed to enter Into any such consolida- tion as was contemplated by the Ala bama Statute.
 Counsel Hall Speaks.
 M Carter Hall, of Petersburg. Vir- ginia. for the Atlantic Coast Line Rail- road Company. followed Mir. Selhefmer 1
 The contention of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, as set out by Mir Hall. was that the Alabama Mid land Railway Company. a domestic corporation of Alabama. had been sue cessively consolidated in accordance with the laws of Alabama. and that, as a result of these several consultations in each case a new corporation had been formed. as provided for by the Statutes of Alabama, but that the new corporal tion. which was a unit in or- ganization fin the several states through which the road operated. was operating in each State the secondary