Willamette Manufacturing Co. v. Bank of British Columbia

119 U.S. 191, 7 S. Ct. 187, 30 L. Ed. 384, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1977
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 29, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 119 U.S. 191 (Willamette Manufacturing Co. v. Bank of British Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Willamette Manufacturing Co. v. Bank of British Columbia, 119 U.S. 191, 7 S. Ct. 187, 30 L. Ed. 384, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1977 (1886).

Opinion

- Mr. Justice Milles,

delivered the opinion of the court.'

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of .Oregon.

The Willamette "Woolen Manufacturing Company, the appellant, was incorporated by an act of the territorial legislature of Oregon on the 17th day of .December, 1856, which act is in the following language:

“ .Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Oregon, That George II. Williams, Alfred Stanton, Joseph Watt, Joseph Holman, Daniel Waldo, William II. Rector, E. M. Barnum, J. G. Wilson, and J. D. Boon, and their associates, stockholders in the joint stock company known as the ‘Willamette Woolen Manufacturing Company,’ and their successors, are hereby dfwared a body corporate and-. *193 politic by the name and style of the i "Willamette Woolen Manufacturing Company,’ for the purpose of creating and improving water powers and privileges and - manf acturing; and the present organization of saidsjoint stock'company shall continue until changed by said corporation.
“Sec. 2. Said corporation shall have power to purchase, receive, and possess, lands, goods, chattels, and effects of every kind, the same to use .and dispose of at pleasure; to contract and be contracted with; to sue and be sued; to have a common .seal, and the same to use ¿nd change at pleasure; and to ordain and establish such by-laws and regulations as it may deem expedient for its own government and the efficient, management of its affairs, consistent with the Constitution and .laws of the United States and the laws of this Territory.
“ Seo. 3. The capital stock of said corporation shall not ex- • ceed two hundred thousand dollars, and shall be divided into shares of not less than one hundred dollars • each, transferable as its by-laws may provide.
“ Sec. 4. Said corporation shall receive, possess, and enjoy all the property, interests, and rights of said joint stock' company, and shall hold and have, and may enforce by legal remedies, all claims and obligations due .or to become due, given or. that may be given to said company; and all stock due or to become due to said company shall be payable to and collected, by said corporation; and the individual members of said cor-' poration shall each and singular be liable for the corporate debts of said company, contracted .while a member of the same, to the amount of his share of the corporate property.
“Seo-.,5. Said corporation shall have power to bring water from the Samtiam Niver to any place or places in or near Salem, to be brought as far as practicable through the channel, or the valley of Mill creek; and for such purpose may enter upon lands and also said , creek, and do all things proper and suitable for a safe, direct, and economical conveyance of water as aforesaid; but said corporation shall do no unnecessary injury to private property, and shall be answerable in damages to aiiy person whose property is injured by its acts.
“ Seo. 6. Said corporation shall have the exclusive right to *194 the hydraulic powers and privileges created by this water which it takes from the Santiam Bi-ver, and may use, rent, or sell the same, dr any portion • thereof, as it may deem expedient.'
“ Seo. 7. This act shall be in force from and after its passage.” The present suit was brought by-the Bank of British Columbia against that corporation to foreclose a mortgage executed by it on the 24th day of August, 1875, to‘-secure the payment of promissory notes made by the company, amounting 'originally to over eighty thousand dollars, of which, at the time of bringing the suit, only about fifteen thousand remained unpaid. To the bill of foreclosure the defendant, in the Circuit Court, filed an answer and a plea. The plea, which raises the only question in issue here, is as follows: .
“And fora further defence and plea to said bill of complaint, said defendant, the 'Willamette Woolen Manufacturing Company, alleges that it is now, and continuously for more than twenty years next last past has been, 'incorporated under and by virtue of an act of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of .Oregon, passed December 17th, 1856, and entitled £ An Act to incorporate the Willamette Woolen Manufacturing Company.’ That the fifth, section of- said act provides as follows,, viz.:
Seo. 5. Said corporation shall have power, to bring water from the Santiam Biver to any place or places in or near Salem, to be brought as far as practicable through the channel or the valley of Mill creek ; and for such purpose may enter upon lands and also said creek, and do all things proper and suitable for a safe, direct, and economical conveyance of, water as aforesaid; but said corporation shall do no unnecessary injury to private property, and shall be answerable in damages to any person whose property is injured by its acts.’
“ That the rights and powers enumerated in said section five of said act, and thereby conferred upon defendant, constitute the personal and exclusive franchise of defendant as such corporation, and that said mortgage mentioned in plaintiffs, bill of complaint .included said franchise, and of right ought by this honorable court to be declared null and void and of no *195 effect so far as .the sa,me includes said franchise. That it is necessary to the use, enjoyment,. and maintenance of defendant’s said franchise that defendant shall have and retain the exclusive use and enjoyment of all the property mentioned and described in plaintiff’s mortgage set out in said bill of complaint which relates to the power to bring water from said Santiam Eiver to said Salem.”
That court overruled the plea, and decree was rendered for the plaintiff ordering a sale of all the mortgaged property upon failure to pay the sum found due within a reasonable ' time. Sale was accordingly made by the commissioner appointed for the purpose, and' the manufacturing company brought this case here on appeal. •

The assignments of error made in this court are as follows :

“ The court below erred —
“ 1st. In holding that, the mortgage was valid as to th¿ franchise created by said section five of the act.
“ 2d. In entering a decree for the sale of said franchise.
“ 3d. In determining said question in the affirmative.
“4th. In holding that said corporation had power to‘divest itself of its corporate franchise by mortgage, sale, or otherwise, without, the consent of the Legislature of. Oregon.”

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

Related

Costello v. Acco Transport Co.
232 S.W.2d 297 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1949)
Ahern v. Richardson County
256 N.W. 515 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1934)
First Nat. Bank of Weatherford v. Holliday
47 F.2d 67 (Fifth Circuit, 1931)
Coleman v. Hagey
158 S.W. 829 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
London & San Francisco Bank v. Block
117 F. 900 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1902)
O'Brien v. Flint
51 A. 547 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1902)
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Spratley
172 U.S. 602 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Commercial Electric Light & Power Co. v. City of Tacoma
50 P. 592 (Washington Supreme Court, 1897)
Combes v. Keyes
27 L.R.A. 369 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1895)
Klosterman v. Mason County Central Railroad
36 P. 136 (Washington Supreme Court, 1894)
People ex rel. Adams v. City of Oakland
28 P. 807 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Underwood Lumber Co. v. Pelican Boom Co.
45 N.W. 18 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1890)
Ohio Central R. Co. v. Central Trust Co. of NY
133 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1890)
State ex rel. Bradford v. Western Irrigating Canal Co.
40 Kan. 96 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1888)
Parker v. New Orleans, B. R. & V. R.
33 F. 693 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana, 1888)
St. Louis, V. & T. H. R. v. Terre Haute & I. R.
33 F. 440 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 U.S. 191, 7 S. Ct. 187, 30 L. Ed. 384, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willamette-manufacturing-co-v-bank-of-british-columbia-scotus-1886.