Case Name: The State vs. Columbia and Hampshire T. P. Co.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1854-12
Citations: 2 Sneed 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State vs. Columbia and Hampshire T. P. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
The State vs. Columbia and Hampshire T. P. Co.
1. Scire Facias. Corporation. An information and scire facias thereon against a corporation seeking a forfeiture of its franchises for a noncompliance with its charter, must aver the alleged non-feasance, misfeasance or malfeasance to have been wilful on the part of the corporation.
2. Amendment. In penal proceedings. In a proceeding by scire faeias upon an information against a turnpike company for an alleged misfeasance which, if established, would work a forfeiture of its charter, an amendment of the proceedings was ordered in the court below, but omitted to be made: Such a proceeding being highly penal in its nature, upon appeal in error to the supreme court, is not within the purview of the statute of amendments of 18S2, ch. 152, and said court has no power to order said amendment, or to consider it as having been made in the court below.
FROM MAURY.
An information was preferred in the circuit court of Maury county Judge Martin presiding, by the acting Attorney General of the 8th circuit, in the name of the State against the Columbia and Hampshire Turnpike Company, a corporation, charging such a non-compliance with the terms and requirements of its charter, as to entitle the State to have a forfeiture of the same declared, and asking a forfeiture accordingly. Upon this in formation a writ of scire facias was issued and returned executed upon the officers of said company. The information, and the scire facias reciting the same, no where averred that the non-compliance alleged, was wilful on the part of the company. Upon the return of scire facias, the Attorney General moved to amend both, by “inserting in the proper places, the words, wilfully, negligently and knowingly,” which amendment was ordered by the court, but never made. At the August term, 1854, of said cornt, the defendant moved to quash the proceedings, which was done, whereupon the Attorney General, on behalf of the State, appealed in error to this court.
M. S. EeibesoN and Gaot, for the State.
Myees, Sykes, Ewiítg and Cooeeb, for the defendant.

Opinion:
By the Couet:
The information and sei. fa. thereon are bad; because they do not allege a wilful non-feasance and misfeasance in respect to' the specifications and charges relied on, as a forfeiture of the defendant's franchise.
Leave was properly granted to the plaintiff to amend; but no amendment was made, and the pleadings remain as they were when instituted. The amendment cannot be made in this court, under the statute of jeofails, it not being a case under that statute.
Judgment affirmed.