The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-10-19


enjoy all the charter rights and priv
ileges incident and appurtenant
thereto. and he subject to all the
duties imposed upon tho said Rich
mond Dock Company. it's Successors
and assigns. BY law" The act also
provides that the rate of dockage al
Richmond shall not exceed the rates
previously provided for. and that the
water supply shall not be diminish
ed, and declares II to he the duty
of the William Il. Trigg Company. its
successors and assigns, so to receive
the water supply and 10 maintain
the water supply Of the docks 30 as
In no manner tn lessen the same,
and that the Trigg Company should
become a party 10 the conveyance fer
the purpose OF expressing its aecep-
lance on behalf of itself, its success
sors and assigns. Of the duties and
obligations set forth by 1t and then to
be assumed ard performed ed. Pur-
suant 10 that act the property vas
conveyed to thu William r.. Tfigs
Company, and that company became
party to the deed and accepted
for itself, its successors and assigns,
all the duties and obligations in the
said act and IN the deed, and es-
pecialiy those imposed on the Rich
rnond Dock Company. its successors
and assigns. by law.
Trigg Company Becomes Owner.
The William r. Trigg Company thus
became the owners of the property,
and under the express authority of
the net of 1901 executed a deed of
trust upon the dock property, and,
becoming involved financially, the
property was sold July 12, 1905. for
the benefit of its creditors under de-
cree Of the Chancery Court Of the
city of Richmond in the chaneeTy
suit of S. III. Halves x Co. and others
against the William r. Trigg Com
pany and others, and the sale con-
frmed to the defendants. The agreed
statement of facts shows that the
property has been paid for in full,
and that the defendants are entitled
10 a conveyance of the same, but that
no conveyance has ever been made TO
them Since that time and until the
sth day of July, 1911, the defend
ants have had possession OF the prop
erty as purchasers and have operated
the same and collected tolls for the
use thereof.
i The advertisement of the sale plain
Nv shows that the property was of
fered for sale ard bought by the de-
tice that 1t was charged with the
public uses, with which 1t had been
charged ever since IT was constructed
! tbv the Richmond Dock Company,
and with the public uses indicated In
the statutes and conveyances above
referred to.
| Property Is Public Highway.
reference to the statute OF 1916
shows that the legislature designates
the property as canal. and provides
that the canals, basins and water
works to be erected by the Richmond
Dock Company. when completed, shafl
forever thereafter be esteemed ana
taken as public highways.
4 So that, IL plainly appears in every
lact of the General Assembly deal
ling with the property and In every
tronyeNance made of the property,
that II has been charged with a pun
lie use. and upon every transfer OF
1.-The same the grantor has imposed
such public duties upon his imme-
ldiate grantee and made the perform
lance of such duties conditioh Oh
the transfer The defendants claim,
however, that they are neither puo-
lie service corporation, canal COM
lpany or transportation COMPANY
and that. therefore this commission
Epettfions This may be technics lly
ltrue. and Vet within the meaning OF
the Virginia statutes they may lie
Icharged with all the duties and re-
responsibilities of such companies.
Let US indutre whether they are SO
charged.
section 1873 If the Constitution, be
ing the first section OF Article -
dealing with corporations, provides
THAT as used in that article the term
.coruora,ion" or COMPANY shall IN
clude all trusts associations and JOINT
stock companies having an! powers
or privileges not possessed BY indi-
yiduals or unlimited partnerships,
that the term Transportation com
pany,' shall include any company
trustee, or other person owning, leas-
ing OF operating for hire railroad
street railway, canal. steam noas or
steamship line thai the
term public service corporation
shall include all persons authorized
10 exercise the right OF eminent 90
main, or to use or occupy any street
alley or public highway. whether
along, over, or under the same in any
manner not permitted to the general
public: and that the term person
shah include individuals, partnerships
and corporations in the singular az
we'll as III the plural number Ihese
definitions are repeated in the act
concerning corporations Pollard s
Code. Section l294a, and also In the
act relating TO the organization and
jurisdiction Of this commission. Sec
ton 13l3a OF the Code. Clause OF
! Section 1asia includes In the defni-
| ton of public service corporations
other internal Improvement com
| panies.
, Contention OF Defense.
: On behalf OF the defendants ii Is
: earnestly contended that neither the
constitutional provisions nor the sta
tutes enacted in pursuance thereto
can he made to amply to them as the
owners Of tnis property, because, as
I they ailege ii Is dock and not a
4 canal Witnesses have been intro
duced by them to show that this
. property is a dock ana not canal
J and the definition Of dock Is relied
, Eupo to establish this proposition. The
sufficient answer to this contention is
not only that the property Is an arti-
|, fetal channel, constructed for pur-
, poses of navigation, into which va
ter has been conducted from James
river. but that at one time 1t was q
part of the James River and Kama
} wha Canal system. the history OF
! which is n part of the history of the
Commonwealth. 1t Is now that por-
,, ltior OF the James River and Kama
wha Canal which by the express pro
Il visions OF the act authorizing the
!. transfer OF the canal property TO the
| Richmond and AilegnSny Railroad