Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.) 1917-1978, 1920-01-30

to the Commonwealth of Kentucky
and counties of Fayette and Madison
all taxes assessed against the pro-
perty. including each year tax up
on its franchise.
In legal effect the injunction grant
ed by the Circuit Court as complete
ly deprives the defendant of it's pro-
perty, as if a forfeiture of its chart
er had been adjudged; for of what
value to- the defendant would be the
bridge or its approaches without the
right to charge and collect tolls for
their use by the public? And how
could purchaser be found for the
property, when its purchase would
not invest him with the right to col
lect tolls for it's use? Moreover the
market value of the material in the
bridge and of the ground at either
end constituting the approaches.
would be insignificant when compared
with the loss resulting to defendent
from the deprivation of it's right to
the tolls it has been accustomed to
receive for the use of the bridge.
1t is. not meant that the conditions
resulting from the granting Of the
injunction referred to will necessarily
compel it's dissolution, but as these
conditions indicate the gravity of the
situation in which the granting of
the injunction has placed the defend
ant and give emphasis to the import
ance of the rights involved, they must
be considered in passing on its motion
20 dissolve the injunction. Laying
aside other questions raised by the de-
PENDANT, consideration will first be
given the really vital question in the
case. Whether the defendant had the
right to charge and collect the tolls,
The collection of which is enjoined
herein?
The written opinion of the learned
Judge who granted the injunction de
clares it did not have such right; the
reason given for the conclusion being
that the act of 1898, provided for free
turnpikes, replaced so much of the
charter Of the Richmond and LeXing-
ton Turnpike Company as authorized
it to transfer it's property and fran
chises to assigns; because of which
only the county could purchase the
and franchises of a turnpike
company. The soundness or unsound-
ness of this conclusion must be tested
by the provisions of section of the
charter Of the Richmond and Lexing-
ton Turnpike Company and those of
Section 562, Kentucky Statutes. After
declaring the turnpike company a
body polite and corporated and giving
it corporate name, section of. the
charter provides:
"And by the said name, the said
subscribers shall have perpetual sue
cession, and all the privileges and
franchises incident to a corporation,
and shall be capable of taking and
holding the said capital stock and the
increase and profits thereof, and OF
purchasing, taking and holding to
them and their successors and as
signs, and of selling, transferring ard
lands, conveying in fee sohrdluuuuuu
conveying in fee simple, all such lands
tenements, hereditaments and estate
real or personal, as shalt be necessary
to them in the prosecution of theD
works; and suing and being sued
impleading and being ir1plcaded
answering and being answered, de
Tending and being defended, in courts
of record, or any other place whatso-
ever; and also to make, have and u.s.
a common seal, and the same tt
break, alter and renew at pleasure. To
make such rules, bylaws and regula-
tions, not inconsistent with the laws
of the Constitution of the United
States and of this state, as shall b"
necessary for the well-ordering the af-
fairs of said company, and to do al
and every other matter or thing
which, corporation or body polite
may lawfully do"
Conceding the necessity of statutory
authority for sale by the turnpike
company of it's bridge and corporate
franchise in question, as ccntcnded b!
plaintiffs, it will be observed that thu
language of the section, supra. is suf
ficiently comprehensive to confer up
on the turnpike company the power
"of purchasing, taking and holding tt
them and their successors and as
signs, and of selling, transferring ant
conveying in fee simple, all such lands
tenements and hereditaments and es
tate, real or personal, as shall be nee
sary to them in the prosecution O
their works" Obviously, it cannot b.
claimed that the powers thus giver
the turnpike company. were not broat
enough to authorize the sale and con
veyance by it to defendant of thu
Clays Ferry Bridge and appurtenance'
including the right to charge tolls fol
its use. The right to charge and col
lect the bridge tolls sold and conveyed
defendant by the turnpike company
was conferred on the latter by section
2 of the Act of 1886, amendatory Of
its charter, and is not here disputed
If other authority for the defendant:
purchase of the bridge and right tx
bridge tolls than that contained il
section of the tulnpike COMPANY
Charter be desired, it may be found il
section 562, Ky. States, which pro
vides:
eff the franchise and property OF
any corporation is sold, the persons
who may become the purchaser, al
private sale or under the judgement
of the court, may organize a corpora
ton for the construction, operation
and management of the same; and
such corporation, when organized shall
have the same rights, privileges and
franchises as have been granted to OF
4,