Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/287

 PART III.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 305. § 305. The grounds on which acts of this nature are held illegal and void are clearly stated by Justice Miller in Thomas v. The Railroad Company : l " AVhen a cor- ^n^kises* poration, like a railroad company, has granted to it by charter a franchise intended in large measure to be exercised for the public good, the due performance of those functions being the consideration of the public grant, any contract which dis- ables the corporation from performing those functions, which undertakes, without the consent of the state to transfer to others the rights and powers conferred by the charter, and to relieve the grantees of the burdens which it imposes, is a viola- tion of the contract with the State, and is void as against public policy.'' 2 Accordingly, in the absence of express authority, a corporation like a railroad or canal company, with public duties to perform, cannot lease or transfer its franchises to another corporation or an individual; 3 nor mortgage its franchises; 4 nor consolidate with another corporation. 5 1 101 u. S. 71. 2 See, also, Driscoll v. Norwich, etc., R. R. Co., 65 Conn. 230; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 163 U. S. 564; Peoria and Rock I. Ry. Co. v. Coal Valley Mg. Co., 68 111. 489; New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. Delaniure, 34 La. Ann. 1225; Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484; Singleton v. South- western R. R., 70 Ga. 464; McGregor v. Dover and Deal Ry., 17 Jur. 21; Chambers v. Manchester, etc., Ry. Co., 5 Best & Sm. 588; In re Nat. Permanent Bldg. Soc, ex parte Wil- liamson, L. R. 5 Ch. 309; London, Brighton, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lond. and S. V. Ry. Co., 5 Jur. N. S. 801; also, East Anglian Railway Co. v. Eastern Counties Railway Co., § 291. 8 Thomas v. R. R. Co., 101 U. S. 71; Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 1; Van Steuben v. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 178 Pa. St. 367; Mem- phis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Grayson, 88 Ala. 572; State v. Atchison and N. R. R. Co., 24 Neb. 143; Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. United Gas, etc., Co., 85 Me. 532; Black v. Delaware and Raritan Canal Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 456; Middlesex R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 115 Mass. 347; Abbott e, Johnstown, etc., Horse R. R. Co., 80 N. Y. 21; Troy and Boston R. R. Co. y. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel, etc., R. R. Co., 86 N. Y. 107; Stewart's Appeal, 56 Pa. St. 413; Wood v. Bed- ford, etc., R. R. Co., 8 Phi la. 94; Board, etc., Tippecanoe County v. Lafayette M. and B. R. R. Co., 50 Ind. 85; Eel River R. R. Co. v. State, 155 Ind. 433; Amer. Union Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 1 McCrary, 188; Pittsburgh and C. R. R. Co. v. Bedford, etc., R. R. Co., 81* Pa. St. 104; Archer v. Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co., 102 111. 493, 502; State v. Con- solidation Coal Co., 46 Md. 1; Winch v. Birkenhead, etc., Ry. Co., 5 De G. & Sm. 562: Dow v. Northern R. R. Co., 67 N. H. 1. 5 For note 5 see p. 268. 267
 * For note 4 see p. 268.