Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/164

 156 FËDEBAIi BEPOBXEB. �proper subject for regulation by municipal law, until congress ahall assume control of it in the interest of commerce. �2, Section l,c. 299, Private and Local Laws of 1870, pro- vides that "the Beef Slough Manufacturing, Booming, Log Driving and Transportation Company are hereby authorized to maintain the piers, side, shore, sheer or glancing booms already constructed and heretofore used by them on and along the Chippe-wa river for the purpose of turning loose logs floating therein into Beef Slough, and to construct and maintain in Beef Slough, and upon land owned or leased by them, such piers, dams and booms as may be necessarj'- to confine the water of said slough within its proper channel, and to secure the logs running into the same," with the provisos before men- tioned, and the provision for paving the mouth of Beef Slough, which proviso and requirements the complaint alleges have not been complied with by the defendant. �It must be admitted that the authority conferred by the law of the state upon the company to enable it to take possession of Beef Slough for the purpose of maintainiug, piers, booms and dams is very broad. Still it is alleged that the Com- pany, in placing such obstructions in the river and in engag- ing in the business of cutting and putting logs into the river, has exceeded its eorporate powers, and therefore that such obstructions constitute a nuisance, and the defendant ought, in equity, to be compelled to remove ail its improvemeiits, whether authorized bylaw or not, and be enjoined from run- ning any more logs in the river. But it appears to the court, on principle and authority, that such is not the proper remedy, and that the subject canuot be regulated by injunc- tion, or other decree in chancery. AUowitig that the company has exceeded its eorporate powers in putting in the improve- ments, and in engaging in the runniug of logs, and has not complied with ail the conditions of the acts of the legislature, it does not folio w that a court of equity can decree a forfeit- ure, for it amounts to nothing less if the prayor of the bill is granted, in a collateral proceeding like this brought by an individual. That is rathor a matter between the corporation and the power which created it. So long as the state is sat- ��� �