Marshall v. White's Creek Tpk. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1869
• Citation: 47 Tenn. 252
• Parties: Gilbert Marshall et al. v. The White's Creek Turnpike Company.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

47 Tenn. 252

Gilbert Marshall et al.

v.The White's Creek Turnpike Company.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1869.

FROM DAVIDSON.

This cause was heard at the September Term, 1867, when the complainants' bill was dismissed; from which complainants appealed. Chancellor H. H. HARRISON, presiding.

W. B. BATE & WILLIAMS, for Complainants.

ABRAM L. DEMOSS, for Respondent.

ANDREW McCLAIN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

The bill in this case, was filed by twelve of the citizens of Davidson County, residing near each other, and near the road of defendant.

Complainants in this bill, allege that, in the year 1848, the defendant agreed with them and other citizens, living in the same community, that if they could procure a certain county road, running near and parallel with defendant's road, and crossing it, to be closed and discontinued, so as to impose the necessity on people traveling the county road to pass through defendant's second toll-gate, that complainants and their neighbors should pass this second gate without paying toll.

Complainants insist that they procured the proper orders from the County Court, and closed, changed and altered the road required by the company, so as to turn the travel on this county road through this second gate.

Complainants charge that, notwithstanding they have complied with their part of the agreement, that defendant having secured all the benefit of the contract by this change of the road, is now, and has been, exacting toll from them, contrary to the agreement, and has brought suits before a justice of the peace, to enforce collection.

The bill is filed to enjoin these proceedings, and to enforce the execution of the contract on the part of defendant, by restraining it from further exaction of toll, contrary to the agreement.

We think the contract is void for uncertainty.

The understanding of the defendant as to what the agreement was, seems to be indicated in a resolution passed by the Board of Directors, which is as follows:

“Resolved, That the secretary pay one hundred and fifty dollars towards making a road from Unity meeting house to Marshall's mill, so soon as the same shall be opened by order of court; and the old Person's road, down to the creek from Marshall's mill, be discontinued, and the property-holders shut it up; and they agree that all living above said point, that have heretofore traveled said road, be allowed to pass the second gate without toll, and those below having gone that road to mill or church, be allowed to pass on the same terms.”

This resolution, vague and uncertain as it is, indicates more clearly who the contracting parties were, than can be found elsewhere in this record.

It...