Smith v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company,
Annotate this Case
39 U.S. 45 (1840)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Smith v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 45 45 (1840)
Smith v. Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company
39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 45
The Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland authorized the surrender of the charter granted by those states to the Potomac Company to be made to the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, the stockholders of the Potomac Company assenting to the same. A provision was made in the acts authorizing the surrender for the payment of a certain amount of the debts of the Potomac Company by the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, a list of those debts to be made out, and certified by the Potomac Company. By the Court. This assignment does not impair the obligation of the contract of the Potomac Company with any one of its creditors, nor place him in a worse situation in regard to his demand. The means of payment possessed by the old company are carefully preserved, and indeed guaranteed by the new corporation, and if the fact can be established that some bona fide creditors of the Potomac Company were unprovided for in the new charter, and have consequently no redress against the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, it does not follow that they are without remedy.
In the Circuit Court for Alexandria County, the appellant filed a bill to compel the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company to pay to him a proportion of the amount of a judgment obtained for a prize drawn in a lottery authorized to be drawn by "The Potomac Company," the judgment having been assigned to the claimant to the amount for which the bill was filed. The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Company, under the authority of their act of incorporation and of acts passed by the Legislatures of the States of Virginia and Maryland, had become entitled to, and held all the property, rights, and privileges owned and possessed by the Potomac Company under their charters, and were subjected to the payment of certain debts due by the Potomac Company, according to the provisions of their charter, and the acts of assembly referred to.
The whole case is fully stated in the opinion of the Court.