{"newspaper_name": "The North-Carolina standard.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6507, "word_count": 1151, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9523000121116638], "ccnet_perplexity": [950.7999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
|
seems to follow that such estate is liable to exc.
cution. In reference to corporations generally it
certainly is true that in law their estates real
or personal are subject to sale ON feri tdcias in
the same manner as those of natural persons By
the act of 1920 the plaintiff, in jud dgmeht against
corporation, is entitled TO either diStr;ngnS or
a teri tGcsGs and they may be levied on the mo-
ney, goods, chattels lands and tenements of the
corporation< Rev. st. c. 26, s. 5. Therefore, it
is clear that this land is liable to execution, un-
less it be exempted therefrom either by the cx-
press provision of statute, or the necessary in
ference of Legislative intention TO that effect


There IS no such express enactment Ifthcre
was, il would be conclusive for, doubtless, the Ie-
gsIature can prescribe what shall or shall not be
the subjects of execution. But, it was contpndcd
for the State, that such exemption arose from the
nature of the property vested in the com pany and


IFS purposes and from the interest of the public in
the road. ltwas nrg'd in reference to the inter-
ests of the corporation, that the preservation of
their franchise of receiving toll, which depended
on their remaining in possession of and keeping
up the road, and their liability TO penalties ard
pains for not keeping up the road, presented con-
siderations of so much more weight than any
which the mere satisfaction of debtto an indl-
vidual does that the law ought to take from it
the land to which that franchise is annexed. We
agree that the franchise itself cannot besold 1t
is intangible and vested in an artificial being of a
particular organization, suited, in the view of the
legislature to the most proper and beneficial use
OF the franchise; and, therefore, It cannot be as
signed to person. natural or artificial, to which
the Legislature has not committed its exercise aud
tpmolument. We admit also, that the right of
passing or of transporting persons or-things over
the land of another for toll, is but an easement
united with franchise, and is not dstinguishabIe
in this respect from other franchises Yet, it will
fOIInIV at If of n
whether natural person or a body polite, hes a
vestei property in Il tangible. personal or real
thing, that such thing may not be taken in cxecu-
ton, although it be useful OF Indispensable to the
most beneficial or even any enjoyment of the fran
chise unless, indeed, it be declared by the Iegis-
lature not to be liable to distress SALE 1t may
| be very unfortunate and cause much loss in ii pc
cuniary sense TO arrest the exercise of franchise
by depriving its proprietor OF an estate or thing
needful to- its exercise when, of the two, the fran
| chise Or the tangible thing, the former is much
the more valuable. We regret, sincerely that it
has hitherto escaped the attention of these CON-
panicS, and Of the legislature, that some act was
necessary in order that such sales when unavoida-
BILE, might be made with the least loss to the debt
ors and the greatest advantage to the creditors and
purchasers, by providing for the keeping of the
franchise with the estate. Or, if so please the
legislature an act might provide for putting the





the income to the creditors instead OF the estate in
the land stripped of the franchise. But nothing
of either kind has been done, and those are con-
Serations for the legislature, to their future
tion ; and-eannot- influence the decision OF the
Court as rights of the creditors of these corpo-
rations under different state of the law. The
QUESTION for US is, between the necessity, on the
one hand, oEsubjecting the tangible property of
this corporation to sale for Its debts although at
Il e of
or on the other hand, of saying that the creditor
has no remedy whateye:, and that the corporation
may keep its property and enjoy its profits in de-
6ance of moral right and the process ofthe law.
Between these alternatives, court of Justice can
not hesitate. 1fthe corporation has means to pay


ITS debts andwi not, if it has contracted debts
which itis not able TO pay without sale Of its
property, we only say, that it is the duty Of
the Court 10 enforce payment by sale of the
porate property, be the consequences TO the pecu-
MARY interests of the corporation what they may.
The law is not responsible for those consequent
ces; but they have been brought on the corpora
tion blythe want of integrity orprudence in its
management, 1t is a sacred principle ofjustice
and law, applicable alike to all persons, natural
and corporate, that the obligations of contracts
should be enforced and The debtors prevented from
retaining their property to the disappointment OF
creditors. And it is likewise principle of equt.
tV and policy tnat all oeOtorS Snouid De placed on
the same footing and consequently, that what one
is compelled to yield up to his creditor, another
shall not be allowed to keep to his own use
Against the operation of those sound and sdlutar
maxims Of morals and law, it requi-es much more,
to be opposed than an argument OF Inconvenience,
that the debtor loses much more than the CREDITOR
gets St it is to be replied, that the creditor is
entitled to hisdebt at all events and that he
to have it even at that expense rather than not at
all. Therefore, ansexecution against the proper
|ty of a corporation, which the law expressly
gives against all corporations, must be satisfied
out of its property, provided only that such prop
erty be within the description of goods, chaueis,
lands or tenements When the law awards an
execution of that kind, how can the Court say,
wilheut a direction from the legislature, that it
shall not be served on chatteIs or certain lands of
the corporation, because it would be detfiment
to the corporation to be deprived of them. There
is no mischief in the cnse comparable to that Of
leaving just debts unpaid debts necessarily con.
tracted for the labor OF property of the creditor
employed in constructing the road That would
be the view properly taken of the law, if there
were 10 special provision 10 the charter of this
company, denoting an intention that its property
should be liable to execution. Butthere is an ex#
press provision of that kind BY the charter the
company has the faculties Of suing, and being
sued, and is to ENJOY all the rights, privileges, and
immunities ofa body polite and by the fourth
SECTION for the damages assessed for entering on
land and taking stone, earth and timber for max
ing the Road, the execution IS expressly given a