Commonwealth ex rel. Norfolk-Hampton Roads Co. v. Bush Bluff Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Virginia
Commonwealth ex rel. Norfolk-Hampton Roads Co. v. Bush Bluff Railway Co., 116 Va. 48 (Va. 1914)
81 S.E. 66; 1914 Va. LEXIS 7

Commonwealth ex rel. Norfolk-Hampton Roads Co. v. Bush Bluff Railway Co.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, at the relation of Norf olk-Hampton Boads Company, filed its information in which it charges that the Bush Bluff Bailway Com*61pany had obtained its charter of incorporation from the State Corporation Commission for a fraudulent pur-: pose, and stating the grounds upon which it based that charge. The Bush Bluff Bailway Company demurred to the information, and filed its grounds of demurrer; and the cause coming on to be heard before the Court of Law and Chancery of the city.of Norfolk, the demurrer was sustained and the information dismissed; and thereupon a writ of error was awarded upon the petition of the Norfolk-Hampton Boads Company.

The court is of opinion that the demurrer should have been overruled. The information presents many interesting questions of novelty and importance. The court is of opinion that these questions may be more satisfactorily dealt with when proof is adduced in support of the allegations of the information, on the one hand, and such plea as the defendant, Bush Bluff Bailway Company, may enter upon the other. Therefore, it is considered by the court that the judgment complained of be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings to be had therein in order to a final judgment upon the merits.

Reversed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Commonwealth Ex. Rel. Norfolk-Hampton Roads Co. v. Bush Bluff Railway Company
Status
Published
Syllabus
1.. Quo Warranto—Demurrer—Trial on Merits—Case at Bar—Corporations.—The information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto filed in the case at bar, alleging that defendant’s charter was obtained for a fraudulent purpose and seeking to have the same annulled, presents many interesting questions of novelty and importance which can be more satisfactorily dealt with when an issue is made and proof offered than by a ruling upon a demurrer, hence it was error to have sustained the demurrer.