Lawrence Lewis.

American and English corporation cases : a collection of all corporation cases, both private and municipal (excepting railway cases), decided in the courts of last resort in the United States, England, and Canada [1883-1894] online

. (page 1 of 73)
Online LibraryLawrence LewisAmerican and English corporation cases : a collection of all corporation cases, both private and municipal (excepting railway cases), decided in the courts of last resort in the United States, England, and Canada [1883-1894] → online text (page 1 of 73)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at http : //books . google . com/|



Digitized by



Google



jfifrratjrmf




United States Government



r



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



A



American and English

Corporation Cases



A Collection of Corporation Cases, both Private and

Municipal (excepting Railway Cases), decided

IN the Courts of last resort in the

United States, England,

AND Canada



ly^



Edited by ADELBERT HAMILTON



VOL. IX



NORTHPORT, LONG ISLAND, N. Y.

EDWARD THOMPSON, Publisher



Digitized by



Google



Copyright, 1886
By EDWARD THOMPSON



•••-..: v::::U



M. H. GRBxif
» to 330 Pearl St.

MKW YOUC



Digitized by



Google



TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.



PAGE

Aldrich V, Pickard 253

Allen,Supervisors of Seneca County

V 262

Appeal of Bredin. 42

Appeal of Greer 42

Ashtabula County. Christy v, 105

Atchison et aL v. State (x rel. Tufts 646
Atchison Nat Bank v. State ex rel.

Tufts 646

Attorney-General v. Board of Coun-

dlnaen of the City of Detroit 18

Attorney-General v. Board of
Comm'rs of Washington County. 98

Attorney-General v. Crocker 57

Attorney-General v. Horton et al. . 65
Attorney-General v. Loughton. . . 79
Ausierbcrry v. Corporation of Old-
ham :. 323

Babcock, State ex rel, v 152

Bakersfield, Barnes v 246

Barker et al. v. Barrows 208

Barnes v. Town of Bakersfield. . . . 246

Barrows, Barker et al, v,.., 208

Barthet v. City of New Orleans. . . 509

Barton, Bently v 440

Bath. Goodwin v 565

Bentley v. Barton 446

Berry v. Bickford 470

Bickford, Berry v 470

Bickford. Eames v 627

Blooniington v. Shrock 659

Board, etc., of Carroll County v,

Gresham 224

Board of Comm'rs of Wayne

County, Noble v 241

Board, etc., of Detroit, Atty. -Gen-
eral » 18

Board of Education v. Board of Edu-
cation 211

B<MU'd of Fire Commissioners, Peo-
ple ex rel. v 76

Board of Public Works, Sute ex rel,

V 213

Board, etc., of Washington County,
State ex rel, V 98



PAGE

Boger, Chowning v,,\ 91

Boston, Cavanagh v 311

Boswel et al.. Pells v 358

Bredin 's Appeal 42

Briggs t/. Hititon etal 159

Bristol County v. Gray 228

Bristol, Sprague v 665

Bronson v, Oberlin 529

Brooklyn, Genet v 395

Brooklyn, Mangam, Adm'z v 292

Burlington v. Schwarzman 652

Butte County, Scallay v 580

Butzman v. Whitbeck 535

Cambridge, Hayes v 664

Cameron v. Cappeller, Auditor, et

al 438

Campbell, Snell z/ 472

Canfield et al., Zimmerman v 382

Cappeller, Auditor, et al, Cameron

^^' 438

Carlton v. Newman 454

Carroll County v. Gresham 224

Cavanagh v. City of Boston 311

Chowning v. Boger 91

Christy v. Commas of Ashtabula

County 105

Circleville v. Neuding 656'

City and County of San Francisco,

Leibman v 598

City of Atchinson et al. v. State ex

rel. Tufts 646

City of Bloomington v, Shrock. . . . 659

City of Brooklyn, Genet v 395

City of Brooklyn, Mangam, Adm%

V 292

City of Boston, Cavanagh v 311

City of Cambridge, Hayes r 664

City of Cleveland, Cohen v 405

City of Cleveland, Heisley v 444

City of Galveston, Galveston Wharf

Co. 2/ 422

City of Logansport, Justice v 451

City of New Orleans, Barthet v, . . 509
City of Somerville, Whitcher v..,, 658
City of Tiffin v, Shawhan 556



^ S.'*)



^ ^ *>,PR,o.s» 213538 „,„^GoogIe



IV



TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.



rAGB

City of Worcester, Morse v 642

Cleveland, Cohen v 405

Cleveland, Heisley v.. 444

Cohen v. City of Cleveland 405

Comm'rs of Ashtabula County,

Christy v 105

Commonwealth, Harrison, etc., v.. 247

Conant, Town of Leominster v,\, , 390

Constantine, State z/ 33

Cornell v. Mayor and Aldermen of

New Bedford 371

Corporation of Oldham, Austerberry

V 323

County of Bristol v. Gray 228

County of Butte, Scallay v 580

County of Jackson, Simons et al. v. 199

County of Stanislaus, Fulkerth v. . . 222

Crocker, Attorney-General v 57

Cutter et al,^ Wood v 203

Detroit, Attorney-General v 18

Dibble v. Merriman ei al, 96

Dilgert et al. v. State ex rel. Tufts.. 646

District of Columbia, Strong 2/. . . . 568

Dutten V. Village of Hanover 30

Eames v^ Bickford 627

E^mes V, Savage 627

East Granby, Suffield v i

Edgar, Auditor, Scheerer v 153

Engle V. Sohn & Co 413

Fanger v. Board of Public Works.. 213

Fulkerth v. County of Stanislaus. . 222

Galveston, Galveston Wharf Co. v. 422
Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Gal-

veston 422

Genet v. City of Brooklyn 395

Goodwin v. Bath 585

Graham v. Babcock 152

Gray, County of Bristol v 228

Greenbush, Milford v 71

Greer's Appeal 42

Gresham, Board of Comm'rs, etc., v. 224

JIanover, Dutten v 30

Harrison, etc., v. Commonwealth. 247

Hayes v. City of Cambridge 664

Heisley, City of Cleveland v 444

Hill et al.. Town of Ontario v 636

Hinton et al., Briggs v 159

Hord, Ait'y-GenM, v. Board, etc.,

of Washington County 98

Horton, State ex rel. v 65

Houghton Common Council v,

Huron Copper Mining Co 315

Hurley v. Mississippi and Rum

River Boom Co 353

Huron Copper Mining Co., Hough-
ton Common Council v 315

Inglis V. Shepherd 54

Inhabitants of Machiasport v. Small. 179
Inhabitants of Wareham, Inhabi-
tants of West Bridgewater z/. . . . 483



PAGE

Inhabitants of West Bridgewater v.

Inhabitants of Wareham 483

In re Schneider 550

Inwood V. State 520

Jackson County, Simons v 199
ohnson et al. v. Whiteside County. 281

John, State ex rel. Simmons v 238

Jones «/. Morgan 287

Justice V. City of Logansport 451

Keifer v. Troy School Township,

etc 205

Kelly, Adm'x, Mayor, etc., of New

York V 303

Kent V. Board of Fire Commis'er^. 76

Klokke vr Stanley 465

Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. People.. 418
Lay, Washington Ice Co. of Chica-
go «/ 375

Leibman v. City and County of San

Francisco 598

Leominster v. Conant 390

Leverson v. Thompson 47

Libby v. Megin 68

Logansport, Justice v 451

Loughton, State ex rel. v 79

Machiasport v. Small 179

Maker v. Slater Mill and Power

Co 515

Mangam, Adm'x, v. City of Bk'lyn. 292

Mainx v. Turpen, Auditor 119

Marx, People v 491

Mayor and Aldermen of New Bed-
ford, Cornell v.. 371

Mayor, etc., of New York v. Kelly,

Adm'x .... 303

Megin, State ex rel. v 68

Merriman et al. , Dibble v 96

Milford V. Greenbush 71

Miller et al., Adm'r, v. White River

School Township 144

Mississippi and Rum River Boom

Co., Hurley t' 353

Moore et al. v. People 524

Morgan, Jones v 287

Morse v. City of Worcester 642

Neuding, Circleville v 656

Nevin, State v 171

New Bedford, Cornell v 371

Newman, Carlton v 454

New Orleans, Barthet v 509

New York, Mayor, etc., of, v. Kel-

ley 303

Noble V. Board of Commissioners

of Wayne Co 241

Oberlin, Bronson v 529

Ontario v. Hill et al 636

Pells V. Boswell et al. 358

People ex rel. Kent v. Board of

Fire Commissioners 76

People, Knickerbocker Ice Co. v.. 418



Digitized by



Google



TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.



PAGE

People ex rel, Leverson v, Thomp-
son 47

People V. Marx 491

People, Moore et al,v 524

People ex rel. Swift v. Police Com-
missioners 73

Picard, Aldrich v 243

Police Commissioners, People ex

rel.v 73

Polk et al., Sute v 154

Porter et a/,, Theilan v 486

Prickctt et a/,, Zimmerman v 382

Reynolds v. Snow 14

San Francisco, Leibman v 598

Savage, Eames v 627

Scallay v. County of Butte. . .' 580

Schecrer v. Edgar, Auditor 153

Schneider, /n re 550

School District No. 3, Chautauqua

Co., State V 587

Scbwarzman,Town of Burlington v, 652

Seneca County v, Allen 262

Shawhan, City of Tiffin v 556

Shepherd, Inglis v 54

Shrock, City of Bloomington v,,., 659

Simmons, State ex rel. v. John 238

Simmons et al. v. County of Jackson . 199
Slater Mill and Power Co., Maker z/. 515
Small, Inhabitants of Machias-

port z^ 179

Smith V. Strother, Auditor 234

Snell V. Campbell 472

Snow, Reynolds v 14

Snow V. Weeks 462

SohnandCo., Engle z^. 413

Somerville, Whitcher v 658

Sprague v. Bristol 665

Sunislaus County, Fulkerth v 222

Sunley, Klokke v 465

Sute ex rel. Att'yGen'l v. Horton

etcU 65

Sute^x rel. Att'y-Gen'l v. Loughton 79
State ex rel. Fanger v. Board of Pub-
lic Works 213

State ex rel. Graham v. Babcock. . . 152
State ex rel. Hord, Att'yGenl v.
Board, etc., of Washington Co. . 98

State ex rel. Libbey v. Megin 68

State ex rel. Manix v. Turpen,

Auditor 119

State ex rel. Simmons v. John 238

State ex rel. Tufts, Atchison Nat.

Bank t^ 646

Sute ex rel. Tufts, City of Atchison
etal, V 646



PACE

State ex rel. Tufts, Dilger et al. v.. 646

Slate V. Consuntine 33

Sute, Inwood v 520

Stale V. Nevin 171

State V. Polk et al 154

Sute V. School District No. 3, Chau-

uuqua Co 587

Slate V. Stevens 184

Slate, Washington v 7

Stevens, Slate v 184

Strong V. District of Columbia. . . . 568

Strother, Auditor, Smith v 234

Suffield V. Town of East Granby. . i
Supervisors of Seneca County v.

Allen 262

Swift V. Police Commissioners. ... 73

Theilan v. Porter et al 486

Thompson, People ex rel. v 47

Tiffin V. Shawhan 556

Town of Bakersfield, Barnes v... . 246
Town of Burlingfton v. Schwarzman 652
Town of East Granby, Town of Suf-
field V I

Town of Leominster v, Conant.. . . 390

Town of Ontario v. \{\\\et al 636

Town of Suffield v. Town of East

Granby i

Troy SchoolTownship, etc. , Keifer v. 203

Tufts, Atchison Nat. Bank v 646

Tufts, City of Atchison et al. v 646

Tufts, Dilgert et al. v 646

Turpen, Slate ex rel. v 119

Vandercookv. Williams, Treas., etc. 254

Waller v. Wood 231

Wareham, Inhabitants of West

Bridgewater v 483

Washington County, State, ex rel. v. 98
Washington Ice Co. of Chicago v.

Lay 375

Washington v. State 7

Wayne County, Noble v 241

Weeks, Snow v 462

West Bridgewater v. Inhabiunts of

Wareham 483

Whitbeck, Butzman v 535

Whitcher v. City of Somerville 658

White River School Township, Mil-
ler, Adm'r, v 144

Whiteside County, Johnson et al. v. 281
Williams, Treas., etc., Vandercookt/. 254

Wood V. Cutter <r/ al 203

Wood, Waller v 231

Worcester, Morse v 642

Zimmerman v. Canfield et (d. 382

Zimmerman v. Prickett et al. 382



Digitized by



Google



Digitized by



Google



Town of Suffield
Town of East Granby.

(52 Connecticut, 175.)

The Statute (General Statutes, p. 88, sec. 3) provides for the appointment
of a committee by the Superior Court in the case of disputed town lines,
"to fix said disputed line and establish it by suitable monuments and re-
port their doings to the court ;" and that, after the ref)ort is accepted by
the court, and recorded on the records of both the towns, " said line so
fixed and established shall forever thereafter be the true divisional line
between the towns." Held, that the action of the committee, thus
accepted and recorded, is final, and cannot be reviewed except for
fraud or other improper or irregular conduct on the part of the com-
mittee.

Application to the Superior Court in Hartford County
for the appointment of a committee of three to establish a
disputed divisional line between the plaintiff and defendant
towns, brought under Gen. Statutes, p. 88, sec. 3, which is
given in full in the opinion. The committee was appointed,
gave the notice required by the statute, heard the parties in-
terested, fixed the divisional line and marked it by monu-
ments, and made its report. The defendant town remonstrated
against the acceptance of the report, the principal allegations
of the remonstrance being as follows:

The defendant remonstrates against the acceptance of the
report of the committee in the above-entitled cause, so far as
it relates to the divisional line described in said report as a
line ** beginning at a granite monument at Sheldon's Corner,
and thence running south, 25° 20' east, in a straight line to a
granite monument at the northwest corner of ancient Windsor ;
because — First. There was no evidence introduced before the
compaittee proving or tending to prove that the divisional
line, reported by them running from Sheldon's Corner to the
northwest corner of ancient Windsor, was ever before the

9 Cor. Cas. — i



Digitized by



Google



2 TOWN OF SUFFIELD V. TOWN OF EAST GRANBY.

place of a line established to be a divisional line between the
plaintiff and the defendant, or its predecessors in title, and the
committee, in attempting to establish said line, have exceeded
their power and jurisdiction. Second. That the following
facts were proved before said comnjittee, and found by them,
no evidence to the contrary having been offered, namely :
[The remonstrance here set forth the facts claimed with re-
gard to the line claimed to be the true one.] And the re-
monstrants aver that it results as a conclusion of law from
the facts above recited and found by the commjttee in the
cause, that the true and only divisional line between the par-
ties to this suit, from Sheldon's Comer southerly, is not the
line reported by said committee, but the straight line
hereinbefore described, drawn from said Sheldon's corner
southerly to a heap of stones in the line between
ancient Windsor and said SuflBeld, about forty-seven rods
easterly from the southerly terminus of the line reported
by said committee in this cause; and that said committee
manifestly mistook the law in the premises, by reporting
the line described in their report, and by not reporting
the line above described in this remonstrance as the true
divisional line between the parties to this suit. Also that said
line reported by said committee is against the evidence in the
trial before said committee. Third. That the committee have
neglected to fix and establish the divisional line between the
plaintiff and the defendant, and report their doings therein in
respect to a considerable part of the line in dispute, namely,
in respect to that part running from the southwest corner of
Suffield to the northwest comer of the town of Windsor
Locks, the same being a disputed divisional line between the
plaintiff and the defendant. Wherefore the defendant prays
the court to reject the report of said committee so far as the
said report is herein and hereby remonstrated against, and to
accept the same so far as it is not excepted to in this remon-
strance, or otherwise dispose of the same as to law and justice
may appertain.

The plaintiff town demurred to the remonstrance, and the
court (Stoddard, J.) held the remonstrance insufficient, and
accepted the report and ordered the same recorded. The de-
fendant town appealed.

W. C. Case and C, H. Clarke for the appellant.



Digitized by



Google



TOWN OF SUFFIELD V, TOWN OF EAST GRANBY. 3

The committee cannot change or alter existing lines. Gor-
rill V. Whittier, 3 N. Hamp. 267 ; Lisbon v. Bowdoin, 53
Maine, 327 ; Bethel v. Albany, 65 id. 201 ; Freeman v. Kennej,
15 Pick. 46. What is the true line is matter of law. Doe v.
Paine, 4 Hawks, 64 ; Hurley v. Morgan, i Dev. A Bat. 425

The construction of the statute is aided by the construction
of that concerning the establishment of private boundaries.
Gen. Statutes, p. 355, sec. i. Perry v. Pratt, 31 Conn. 442 ;
West Hartford Eccl. Soc. v. First Baptist Church, 35 id. 118.
In Massachusetts, under similar authority, by a statute which
required no report to the court by the committee, the court
has reviewed the report and set it aside. Wrentham v. Nor-
folk, 114 Mass. 561. The statute in Maine does not require
any acceptance of the report of the committee or other
action of the court. Bethel v. Albany, 65 Maine, 202.

y. R. Buck and A. F. Eggleston for the appellees.

Granger, J. — This is a proceeding under the following
statute (Gen. Statutes, p. 88, sec. 3) : "When the facw.

selectmen of adjoining towns . . . shall not agree as to the
place of the divisional line between their respective com-
munities, the Superior Court, upon the application of either,
shall appoint a committee of three to fix said disputed line,
and establish it by suitable monuments, and report their
doings to said court ; and when said report shall have been
accepted by said court, and, together with the record of ac-
ceptance, shall have been lodged for record in the records of
both the communities interested therein, said line so fixed and
established shall forever thereafter be the true divisional line
between them; and said court may allow costs at its dis-
cretion.*' The act then proceeds to provide that the com-
mittee shall be sworn, that twenty days' notice of the time
and place of their meeting shall be given in a mode pre-
scribed, and that all parties interested shall have the right to
be heard.

The determination of the present case depends on the con-
struction to be given to this statute. It has stood upon our
statute-book many years, but has never before been before
the court for construction.

The committee in the present case, upon proper notice to,
and hearing: all parties interested, fixed a certain line as the



Digitized by



Google



4 TOWN OF SUFFIELD V. TOWN OP EAST GRANBY.

divisional line between the plaintiff and defendant towns, and
made its report to the court. The defendant town remon-
strated against the acceptance of the report upon the ground
that the committee, upon the documentary and other evidence
in the case, had erred in their conclusion as to the location of
a part of the line, and that their decision was against the evi-
dence in the case. No fraud or other misconduct on the part
of the committee is charged ; the error is solely one of judg-
ment

The statute makes it the duty of the committee to " fix the
disputed line and establish it by suitable monuments," and
further provides that, after their report is accepted by the
court and recorded upon the records of the two towns, " the
line so fixed and established shall forever thereafter be the
true divisional line between them.**

We think it clear that the legislature intended that this ac-
BouKDA BY COM- tiou of thc committce, thus accepted and recorded,
lOTTBKs AcnoK gj^^^jj |^g f^j^^j Q£ QQurse, If therc has been fraud

or other misconduct on the part of the committee, or ir-
regularity in their proceedings, their report may be set aside
oh that ground. But nothing of the kind is claimed here. The
case is entirely unlike that of a committee in chancery. There
the committee is a mere arm of the court, and the judgment
that is finally rendered is wholly, the judgment of the court.
The committee here is a special statutory tribunal/ and the
judgment is that of the committee rather than of the court.
There is a reason why their action should be final in the fact
that no title to land, or other private right of any kind, is af-
fected by it. The matter of town boundaries is one wholly
for the discretion and within the power of the legislature,
and it has full power to create a tribunal like the one in this
case, for the establishment of disputed town lines, and to make
their action final. We are satisfied that it intended to do so
here, and that it has made its intention plain in the language
of the statute.

We advise that the remonstrance be overruled and the re-
port of the committee accepted.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Who May Fix Municipal Boundaries.— The subject of municipal
boundaries has been touched upon in three former cases in this series of
reports : Willett v. Corporation of Belleville. 1 1 Tenn. i ; 2 Am. & Eng.



Digitized by



Google



TOWN OF SUFFIELD V. TOWN OF EAST GRANBV. $

Corp. Cas. 248 ; deciding that courts of chancery in Tennessee are not
authorized by statute to change the territorial limits of a municipal cor-
poration. City of Topeka v, Gellett, Kansas, 1884; 5 Am. & Eng. Corp.
Cas. 290* deciding that boundaries of municipality cannot be enlarged by
municipal authorities so as to include for purposes of taxation property
never laid out by its owners into blocks and streets, to which case was
appended a note concerning the classification and powers of municipali-
ties, and special legislation in reference thereto. And finally, City of Albia
V, O'Hara, Iowa, 1884; 5 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 326; a case' defining cor-
porate limits as including, for the purposes of a prosecution for violating
a liquor ordinance, all the territory over which the city exercises jurisdic-
tion for city purposes under claim of right.

To establish or change the boundaries of a municipality are acts in their
nature legislative. Therefore power to perform them cannot constitution-
ally be delegated to the courts. City of Galesbuig v. Hawkinson, 75 111.
1 52 ; S. P. People v, Nevada, 6 Cal. 143 ; contra, Keyser v. Trustees, etc.,
16 Mo. %%, Nor can one settlement without the consent of another de-
termine to enlarge its boundaries so as to include the latter. Thus in
People ex rel, v. Bennett. 18 Am. Rep. 107; 29 Mich. 451; an attempt
was made to incorporate as one, two village settlements separated by inter-
vening farms ; it was held that the statute was unconstitutional because it
allowed the petitioners for incorporation to decide upon the extent of ter-
ritory to be incorporated, and because the legislature had attempted to
del^^te legislative powers in this respect to private citizens instead of local
bodies, boards, or officers, no notice, no hearing, and no right to a hearing
being provided. In this case the court also declared that the question of
the boundaries of an incorporated village belongs to policy rather than law,
and is political and not judicial. The statute required that after the peti-
tion for incorporation was filed ih the Circuit Court, a judge should ap-
point a time and place in the territory where an incorporation election



Online LibraryLawrence LewisAmerican and English corporation cases : a collection of all corporation cases, both private and municipal (excepting railway cases), decided in the courts of last resort in the United States, England, and Canada [1883-1894] → online text (page 1 of 73)