County Court of Berkeley County v. Martinsburg & Potomac Turnpike Co.

115 S.E. 448, 92 W. Va. 246, 1922 W. Va. LEXIS 35
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 11, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 115 S.E. 448 (County Court of Berkeley County v. Martinsburg & Potomac Turnpike Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
County Court of Berkeley County v. Martinsburg & Potomac Turnpike Co., 115 S.E. 448, 92 W. Va. 246, 1922 W. Va. LEXIS 35 (W. Va. 1922).

Opinion

MeRedith, Judge:

On December 5, 1921, the County Court of Berkeley county obtained a temporary injunction restraining the Security Cement & Lime Company from constructing a railway along and over the. Martinsburg & Potomac Turnpike and from placing any obstruction thereon until the further order of the court. The defendants, Lime Company and Turnpike-Company, filed their answers and certain affidavits, and on. motion, the injunction was dissolved. The County Court appealed to this court.

The Martinsburg & Potomac Turnpike Company was in-, corporated by special act of the Legislature of Virginia, March 17, 1849, chapter 176. By amendment, February. 25, 1850, Acts of Virginia Legislature, 1849-50, chapter 128, the width of the carriage way was fixed at not less than sixteen feet. The road extends from Martinsburg to a point on the Potomac river opposite or near the Town of Williamsport, Maryland. It was improved and has been in use for many years. Three-fifths of the stock of the company is owned by the plaintiff County Court. Its Board of Directors consists of five members.

[248]*248The Security Cement & Lime Company owns a large area of limestone land located along the turnpike and on both sides of a branch of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. The railroad is elevated there by means of a fill, and crosses the turnpike on a concrete bridge. By reason of the fill the.Lime Company can not construct a tram-way so as to cross the railroad at grade. To carry its material from its property on the north side of the railroad to its works on the south side it must haul it in trucks or by other means over and along the turnpike and cross the railroad through the underground crossing. An agreement was made between the Turnpike Company and the Lime Company, dated August 31, 1921, executed September 17th and recorded September 20th, whereby the Turnpike Company granted to the Lime Company for the period of fifty years the privilege to construct, maintain and operate a tram-way on and over its turnpike for a distance of about 240 feet, but not more than 275 feet, under the said railroad bridge, commencing at a point about 92 feet from thé north wall of the bridge and extending for a distance of about 109 feet south of the south wall of the bridge, as shown on the plat attached to the agreement. The Lime Company on its part agreed: (1) to construct the tram-way as located on the plat, to be two feet in width, the eastern rail of which should not be more than three feet from the eastern wall of the bridge, the rails to be laid flush with the concrete turnpike road, and to enter upon the Turnpike Company’s property at a point about 92 feet from the northern wall of the bridge, and leave its property at a point 'about 109 feet from the southern wall of the bridge; (2) to build and maintain a concrete road for the Turnpike Company in place of its present turnpike road for a distance of 275 feet extending under the bridge and for a distance of 99 feet north of the north wall of the bridge, and 139 feet south of the south wall of the bridge; the entire width between the east wall and the west wall of the bridge to be concreted, and the sections extending north and south from the bridge to be concreted a width of not less than twenty feet; the road to be properly ditched, drained and constructed [249]*249so that the drain through the viaduct shall he on the east side thereof and on that part of the road over ifrhich the privilege therein is granted; the Lime Company is to keep in repair, during the life of the contract, the part of the road to be built by it; (3) the Lime Company is to be liable for any damage that may be done to any person or property of any person by reason of the construction, operation or maintenance of the tram-way; (4) no engine propelled by steam is to be operated over the tram-way, and noi trains are to be operated over it at a greater speed than ten miles per hour, and every train is to be equipped with proper signals, both front and rear. All the work is to be done under the supervision of and subject to the approval of the superintendent of the Turnpike Company.

The Lime Company at a cost of upward of $4000 constructed the concrete road provided by the contract a distance of 275 lineal feet, twenty feet wide, except under the bridge it was laid twenty-three feet wide, leaving a space of seven feet to be laid along and on the turnpike under the bridge on the side upon which the tram-way was to be placed; the tracks there were to be laid on concrete and flush with it. It had its material ready to concrete this space and lay its tracks when the plaintiff obtained its injunction.

The grounds alleged for the injunction are: (1) fraud in the procurement of the contract; (2) want of authority in the Board of Directors of the Turnpike Company to make the contract; (3) want of authority in the Turnpike Company to make it; and (4) the creation of a dangerous obstruction in the Turnpike road.

1. The first ground, or charge of fraud in the procurement of the contract, may be dismissed without comment, further than to say that there is not the slightest fact shown to substantiate it. The contract was entered into in good faith on the part of both parties; it is fair in its terms, and is certainly one beneficial to the Turnpike Company.

2. As to the lack of authority in the Board of Directors to make the contract; the act incorporating the company made it subject to the statute prescribing general regula[250]*250tions for the incorporation of turnpike companies; that general statute, passed February 7, 1817, Virginia Code, 1819, Vol. 2, page 213; chapter 234, section 5, provided:

“The president and directors,' thus chosen, shall have the power to receive the subscriptions for the residue of shares required to make up the capital stock of the company; to make contracts with any person or persons, on behalf of the company, for clearing, opening, and improving the road, and performing such other work, respecting the same, as they shall judge necessary and proper; to require from subscribers, from time to time, such advances of money on their respective shares as the wants of the company may demand, until the whole of their subscriptions shall be advanced; to 'call, on any emergency, a general meeting of the subscribers, giving one months notice thereof in one of the newspapers printed at or near the place appointed by the stockholders for their general meeting; to appoint a treasurer, clerk and such others officers as may be necessary; to sign and settle all accounts and to transact all the business of the company during the intervals between the general meetings of the same.”

Thus we see that by the very charter of. incorporation the President and Directors were given very broad powers; but aside from this, the Board of Directors, are, as to all purposes of dealing with others, the corporation itself. When convened as a Board, as they were in this ease, all the directors being present and voting for the execution of the contract, they are the possessors of all the powers of the corporation. What they do as agents or representatives of the corporation is deemed to be done by the corporation. Hulings v. Hulings, 38 W. Va. 351, 18 S. E. 620. There are some things that the Directors can not do without the consent of the stockholders holding a certain percentage of the capital stock; our statute, section 83, chapter 54, Code, provides that on the affirmative vote, in person or by proxy, of the holders of at least 60 per cent of the outstanding capital stock, a corporation may sell in good faith all

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schipper v. Block & Kuhl Co.
283 Ill. App. 486 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1936)
Baker v. Spokane Sav. Bank
71 F.2d 487 (Ninth Circuit, 1934)
Finch v. Warrior Cement Corp.
141 A. 54 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 S.E. 448, 92 W. Va. 246, 1922 W. Va. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-court-of-berkeley-county-v-martinsburg-potomac-turnpike-co-wva-1922.