Pixley v. Roanoke Nav. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1881
• Parties: PIXLEY AND ALS. v. ROANOKE NAVIGATION COMPANY AND ALS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

75 Va. 320

PIXLEY AND ALS. v. ROANOKE NAVIGATION COMPANY AND ALS.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 17, 1881

Absent, Anderson, J.^[1]

1. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to restrain a navigation company from collecting tolls on the streams to which their charter refers, on the ground that the company had failed to improve the streams as their charter prescribed, or to keep them in order.

2. The only mode of proceeding against a corporation in such case is by quo warranto at the suit of the Commonwealth.

3. A cause of forfeiture of its charter by a corporation cannot be taken advantage of, collaterally or incidentally, but can be enforced only in a court of law by a direct proceeding against the corporation.

4. A charter of incorporation is not a contract between the corporate body on the one hand and individuals whose rights and interests may be affected by the exercise of its powers on the other; but it is a compact between the corporation and the government from which they derive their powers. Individuals, therefore, cannot take it upon themselves, in the assertion of private rights, to insist on breaches of the contract by the corporation as a ground for resisting or denying the exercise to a corporate power.

This was a bill in the circuit court of Halifax county by Luther Pixley and others to enjoin the Roanoke Navigation Company from charging tolls for the navigation of the Roanoke river and its tributaries, on the ground of its failure to keep these rivers in a proper condition. The injunction was granted. There was a demurrer to the bill, and also an answer by the company.

The cause came on to be heard on the 8th of October, 1878, when the court dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill with costs; and the plaintiffs obtained an appeal to this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of Christian, J.

J A. Meredith and E. Barksdale, Jr., for the appellants.

W W. Henry, for the appellees.

OPINION

CHRISTIAN J.

This case is before us on appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Halifax county. The bill is filed by the appellant Pixley and fifteen other plaintiffs, in which they allege that they reside and are engaged in business in the town of Clarksville, Mecklenburg county, Virginia, situated near the Roanoke river, and are compelled to use the Roanoke river and its tributaries for the transportation of their tobacco and merchandize; that the general assembly of North Carolina, in the years 1812, 15, 16 and 17, incorporated the Roanoke Navigation Company, to improve the navigation of that State so far as respects the Roanoke river and its tributaries; and that by an act of the general assembly of Virginia, passed on the 11th day of November, 1816, the exclusive right to improve the navigation of the said river and its branches, within the State of Virginia, was vested in the said Roanoke Navigation Company, incorporated by the said State of North Carolina; and the said Roanoke Navigation Company were authorized to improve the said Roanoke river and its tributaries in the said State of Virginia; and they were authorized by said act to receive tolls when they should have completed the navigation of said river and its tributaries in the said State of Virginia.

The bill further alleges that this privilege was granted to said company in consideration of the expense that they might incur in cutting canals, erecting locks, building dams, and other works, in improving said river and its tributaries, and keeping the same in repair; and that the said Roanoke Navigation Company were required by said act of the general assembly of Virginia to keep the said river and all its branches navigable in the State of Virginia, in good repair, and free for the navigation of batteaux and other vessels, by erecting proper locks and dams, and cleaning out all obstructions in the said river and its branches, and keeping the same free from obstructions; and they therefore allege that the said Roanoke river and its branches have been and are now ancient common-ways for all the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with their boats, lighters and other vessels, to navigate, sail, pass, and repass and labor at their will and pleasure, without any impediment or obstruction whatever.

The bill further alleges that the said Roanoke Navigation Company, its president and directors, have failed to make said Roanoke river, Dan river, Banister river, and Staunton river (tributaries to said Roanoke river), capable of being navigable by batteaux and other vessels, and that for the space of ten years have suffered the Dan, Staunton and Banister rivers to be and to remain obstructed, so as to render navigation impossible in some parts of the same, and extremely difficult and dangerous in other parts.

They further complain that the said Roanoke Navigation Company have demanded and received certain sums of money in the way of tolls for navigating said rivers and transporting their produce and merchandise on the same.

They further charge that the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company has been constituted an agent of the said Roanoke Navigation Company, to demand and collect tolls for transporting their produce and merchandise on said rivers and that the said...