Turnpike Co. v. State
Turnpike Co. v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The difficulty of the argument in behalf of the turnpike company, and which lies at the foundation of the defence is, that there is no contract in the charter of the turnpike company that prohibited the legislature from authorizing the construction of the rival railroad. No exclusive privileges had been conferred upon it, either in express terms, or by necessary implication; and hence whatever may have been the general injurious effects and consequences to the company, from the construction and operation of the rival road, they are simply misfortunes which may excite our sympathies, but are not the subject of legal redress.
It might have been very proper for the State, when chartering the railroad, to have provided for compensation for the prospective loss to the turnpike company, as has frequently been done in other States, under similar circumstances; but this was a question resting entirely with the legislature of the State, and their action is conclusive on the subject.
There is another answer to the defence in this case, even assuming that the charter of the turnpike company contained exclusive privileges that forbade the legislature of the State incorporating the railroad company.
The remedy was not in neglecting to repair the road, and at the same time collect the tolls. It was in restraining, by •the proper proceedings, the railroad company from constructing their road. The breach of the contract on the part of the State furnished no excuse for the turnpike company in disregarding their part of it which was a burden, to wit, the repairs, while, at the same time, insisting upon the observance of the part beneficial, to wit, the collection of the tolls.
J UDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Turnpike Company v. State
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. If a State grant no exclusive privileges to one company which it has incorporated, it impairs no contract by incorporating a second one which itself largely manages and profits by to the injury of,the first. 2. In such a case it is no defence to a scire facias against the first for nonuser or abuser of its franchises, that the State had incorporated the second, was in part managing it, and largely profiting by it; and in consequence of all this, that the revenues of the first company were so far lessened that it could observe its charter no better than it did. 3. If a State injure one incorporated company by the unlawful grant of a charter to another and rival one, the remedy of the first company is by proper proceedings to restrain the second from getting into operation, and not by neglecting its own duties.