Black River Improvement Co. v. Holway
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for La Crosse County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that conceding that the plaintiff is a corporation de facto, yet it 'cannot maintain this action. No corporation de facto can exercise a franchise which rests purely in law. The right to levy toll for floating logs in a navigable stream is clearly a privilege which can be given only by law.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for La Crosse County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that conceding that the plaintiff is a corporation de facto, yet it 'cannot maintain this action. No corporation de facto can exercise a franchise which rests purely in law. The right to levy toll for floating logs in a navigable stream is clearly a privilege which can be given only by law. It is a privilege which in the nature of things can only exist de jure. Oh. 263, Laws of 1882, purporting to extend the duration of the corporation, is a special act, and is…
1Opinion of the CourtOetoN, J.
This action is brought by the plaintiff company against the defendants, as administrators of the estate of Nymphus Holway, deceased, to recover tolls for the use of the works of said company in driving logs on the Black river in the years of 1890 an cl 1891. The defendants answered and set up a counterclaim to the action. The company plaintiff moved to strike out the answer on the grounds of its frivolousness and irrelevancy, and demurred to the counterclaim on the grounds that the matters therein are not pleadable as a counterclaim and that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hoyt v. . Thompson'sNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- The Buffalo and Allegany Railroad Company v. . CaryNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Hudson v. Green Hill Seminary Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1885
- Collins v. MerrellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
- Williams v. Stevens Point Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. OwenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Detroit Trust Co. v. AllingerMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
- Wisconsin Town Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Calumet County Mutual Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Bell v. Commercial Inv. Trust Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1926
- Maxcy v. PeaveyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922