Murfreesboro R. Co. v. Hertford County Com'rs

• Decision Date: 03 March 1891
• Citation: 12 S.E. 952,108 N.C. 56
• Parties: MURFREESBORO R. Co. et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF HERTFORD COUNTY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

12 S.E. 952

108 N.C. 56

MURFREESBORO R. Co. et al. v. COMMISSIONERS OF HERTFORD COUNTY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 3, 1891

Appeal from superior court, Hertford county; G. H. BROWN, Jr. Judge.

This was a motion to continue an injunction till the hearing of the cause, heard at Chambers on the 20th day of January 1891, before BROWN, Jr., J. Under the provisions of the original charter of the plaintiff company, (section 34, c 365, Laws 1887,) it was required to begin the work of constructing its road within three years from the 7th of March, 1887, (when the act was ratified.) At the election held in July, 1887, a majority of the qualified voters of Murireesboro township voted in favor of the subscription of $25,000, in bonds of the township, to the capital stock of the company, and the bonds issued in payment of said subscription were declared valid by this court in Brown v. Commissioners, 100 N.C. 92.5 S.E. Rep. 178. After causing two routes to be surveyed from the Meherrin river to the Roanoke & Tar River Railroad, the directors of the company located the line so as to intersect with the other road at a place called "Pendleton Station." The directors had been empowered by the unanimous vote of the stockholders, at a regular meeting held October 8, 1890, in which the stock of the township was lawfully represented, to make said location. After expending large sums of money for the right of way along the line selected, the company contracted, on the 5th of December 1890, with its co-plaintiff, John H. Winder, to construct said road from said river to said station, and the said Winder agreed to take the said bonds in part payment of the work of construction, and notified the corporation of his readiness to begin the grading on the 1st day of January, 1891. On the 9th of March, 1889, the general assembly passed an act, amending said chapter, (chapter 557, Laws 1889.) the material portions of which were as follows: "Section 1. That section two of said chapter three hundred and sixty-five be amended by adding thereto the following clause: 'That said company may extend the main line of its road from the town of Murfreesboro to some point on the line of the Norfolk & Carolina Railroad, in said county of Hertford, and the said company shall not be required to build that part of the main line of the road between the said town and the Roanoke & Tar River Railroad, in order to entitle said company to the rights and privileges granted in said chapter.' Sec. 2. That the commissioners of Hertford county are authorized, and it shall be their duty, whenever fifty tax-payers in said township shall petition the same, to cause an election to be held in said township, as prescribed in said chapter, and submit to the qualified voters of said township the question as to whether or not the bonds heretofore issued in payment of the subscription of said township to the capital stock of said Murfreesboro Railroad Company shall be used in building and constructing, or aiding in building and constructing, said railroad from said town to some point on the line of the Norfolk & Carolina Railroad. At such election those in favor of the latter route shall deposit a ballot on which is written or printed the words, 'For transfer;' and those opposed to same shall deposit a ballot on which is written or printed the words, 'Against transfer.' And if at such election a majority of the qualified voters of said township shall vote 'For transfer,' then the bonds heretofore issued for the subscription of said township to the capital stock of said Murfreesboro Railroad Company shall be used and applied for the purpose of building and constructing, or aiding in building and constructing, that part of said railroad provided for in section 1 of this act, from said town of Murfreesboro to said Norfolk & Carolina Railroad, in Hertford county."

The seven concluding sections of the complaint, upon the hearing of which the orders complained of were granted, together with the said orders, were as follows: "(12) That on the 1st Monday in November, 1890, A. M. Darden, E. Carl, J. E. Jones and other tax-payers in Murfreesboro township, numbering fifty or more, presented their petition to the board of commissioners of said county of Hertford in meeting assembled, asking for an election to be ordered by the board under section 2 of said act of 1889, and said board refused to grant said petition and order said election. (13) That on the 1st Monday in December, 1890, said petitioners together with others, numbering fifty or more, and tax-payers as aforesaid, again presented their said petition to said board, the consideration of which was by said board continued to the first Monday in January, 1891. (14) That the chairman of said board is one of said petitioners in said matter, he having signed the petition before his qualification as commissioner, but after his election, as plaintiffs are informed and believe. (15) That plaintiffs are informed and believe that a majority of the members of said board intend at their meeting on the 1st Monday in January,...