The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1920-06-25
UNDER CHARTER PROVISIONS
THEY CANNOT BE FORCED TO
: 34 PAY AT THE GATES.
EXHAUSTIVE OPINION RENDERED
Corporations Held Strictly to the
Terms Of Their Grants of Power
BY the State In Able Discussion of
Tha Law.
(From Mondays Daily Herald.

riom MOHudy Ddlly HeTdlu)
Turnpike companies chartered un
der the laws of Tennessee have no le
gal right to demand or collect toll fol
automobiles passing over them, &C,
cording to a decision handed down to-
day by Judge w. b. Turner, of the
circuit court of Giles county. Judge
Turner delivered the opinion today in
the case of the~A Pulaski & Brick
Church Turnpike Company against
Ben Allen Eslick.
Mr.. Eslick refused to pay toll on
his automobile. and the company sued
to collect the penalty provided by stat
ute. The case has been pending be-
fore Judge Turner for some time and
he has given 1t the most careful atten.
ton and his opinion shows the most
exhaustive research. II is an unusu.
ally strong and convincing statement.
Turnpike companies were charter
ed, before the automobile came into
/
use and Judge Turner holds that they
are strictly bound by the terms of
their charters and cannot collect any
fees not therein set out.
After setting forth the provisions
OF the turnpike charter Judge Turner
says:
J..
"Can this company so beyond the
specific provision of the charter and
charge for automobiles?
TN Miller vs, Insurance Company,
% Tenn. IT'S, 1t is said: "The ground
upon which corporate privileges are
conferred is, that the public interests
may be thereby subseryed. If this is
not. 80, then all such concessions are
mere acts of legislative favoritism,
and contravene the foundation upon
which free government is supposed to
rest--that all are to be protected in
the enjoyment of equal rights and |
privilege. Charters must be suppos-
ed, therefore, to be granted upon the
supposition that some public interest |
is thereby advanced The legislature
is, therefore, presumed to have grant .
ed just SO much power and so many
peculiar privileges as these interests
are supposed a require.
st must be-, therefore, that any act
In excess Of these granted powers is
an act contrary to public policy, and, i
upon that ground, illegal and void,
Any other view, by which such acts
are to he supported because executed,
would operate as an enormous prac-
teal extension of the power of corr
porations, The view this court has
taken has therefore been that all
acts outside the object of its creation,
rs defined in the law of it'll organiza-
ton, and therefore, beyond the powers
conferred upon It, are acts not void
able only but wholly void. 1t is
ieemed to be public policy to keep /,
hem strictly within bounds so defin-
sd There is an implied prohibition
o go beyond such limits, ard al rer.
sons dealing with corporation are
'harged with notice OF the limitat ons
ipon its authority.
1T is provided in plaintiffs charter !
hat No toll shall be demanded from
lers0ns going or returning from i.
,rist mill on horseback with grain
or family use In constru ng char
err containing the same provision in
Heath vs. Manner, ia Tenn, the SUI
RENE Court said that this exomp,
lon does not include person going
Q IN |! in 4 two-horse wagon /
This and other cases show that F
hese charters of incorporation are i
trictly construed.
IT is apparent from the reading of I
ne charter, that the plaintiff under q
1ok TO construct a road suitable for !
teel tired vehicles 1t provides that +
.--.e..-........---....--