3. Until the statute 32 Geo. III. c. 58, the defendant could not plead double in an information of quo warrant° to forfeit an office or franchise. 1 P. Will. Ch. 220-222 ; 4 Burr. 2146, note ; 1 Chitty, Plead. 479 ; Tidd, Pract. 610 ; 8 Term, 467 ; 5 Bacon, Abr. 449 ; Willes, 533 ; 4 Cow. N. Y. 113, note ; 2 Dutch. N. J. 215 ; Angell & A. Corp. 637. • In informations of quo warrant° there are two forms of judgment. When it is against an officer or against individuals, the judgment is ou,ster ; but when it, is against a corpora tion by its corporate name, the judgment is ouster and seizure. In the first case, there being no franchise forfeited, there is none to seize; in the last case, there is; consequently the franchise is seized. 2 Kent, Comm. 312, and note ; 2 Tenn, 521, 522, 550, 551. By such judgment of ouster and seizure the franchises are not destroyed, but exist in the hands of the state ; but the corporation is destroyed, and ceases to be the owner or pos sessor of lands or goods, or rights or credits. The lands revert to tbe grantor and his heirs, and the goods escheat to the state. The judgment must be confined to seizure of the franchises; if it be extended to seizure of the property, so far it is erroneous. 1 Blackf. Ind. 267. See SC1RE Filmes ; 30 Barb. N. Y. 588.
4. The principle of forfeiture is that the franchise is a trust; and all the terms of the charter are conditions of the trust ; and if any one of the conditions of the trust be violated it will work a forfeiture of the charter. And the corporate powers must be construed strictly, and must be exercised in the manner and in the forms and by the agents prescribed in the charter. 2 Kent, Comrn. 298, 299 ; 1 Sharswood, Blackst. Comm. 485 ; 13 Viner, Abr. 511 ; 13 Pet. 587 ; 5 Wend. N. Y. 211 ; 2 Term, 546 ; 3 id. 220-223 ; 8 Mod. 129 ; 12 id. 271 ; 4 Gill & J. Md. 121 ; 3 Hargrave, State Tr. 546, 630.
Cases of forfeiture may be divided into two great classes. Cases of perversion: as, where a corporation does an act inconsistent with the nature and destructive of the ends and purposes of the pant. In such cases, unless the perversion is such as to amount to an injury to the public who are interested in the franchise, 34 Penn. St. 283, it will not work a forfeiture. Cases of usurpation: as, where a corporation exercises a power which it has no right to exercise. In such cases the
cause of forfeiture is not determined by any question of injury to the public, but the abuse which will work a forfeiture need not be of any particular measure or extent. 3 Term, 216, 246 ; 23 Wend. N. Y. 242, 243 ; 34 Miss. 688 ; 21 111. 65. See 30 Ala. N. s. 66. In case of usurpation of an office or franchise by an individual, it must be of a public nature to be reached by this writ. 21 Ill. 65 ; 28 Vt. 594, 714 ; 9 Cush. 1VIass. 596.
5. In England, corporation s are the creatures of the crown, and on dissolution their fran chises revert to the crown ; and they may be re-granted by the crown either to the old, or to new, or to the old and new, corporators ; and such grant restores the old rights, even to sue on a bond given to the old corporation, and the corporation is in of its ancient liberties; and if it were a corporation by prescription it would still be so. 2 Term, 524, 543 ; 3 id. 241-249. In the United States, corporations are the creatures of the legislature, and on dissolution their franchises revert to the state ; and the legislature can exercise the same powers by legislation over the franchises, and with the same effects, as the crown can in England. Angell & A. Corp. 652-654.
By the statute of Anne, c. 20, an informs, tion in the nature of quo warranto may by leave of court he applied to disputes between party and party about the right to a corporate office or franchisit. 4 Zabr. N. J. 529 ; 1 Dutch. N. J. 354 ; 32 Penn. St. 478 ; 33 Mies. 508 ; 7 Cal. 393, 432. And the person at whose instance the proceeding is instituted is called the relator. 3 Sharswood, Blackst. Comm. 264. The suit must be at the instance of the government, see 12 N. Y. 433 ; 1 Wisc. 317; 4 id. 420, 567 ; and the consent of the parties cannot give jurisdiction in such a case. 5 Wheat. 291 ; 5 R. I. 1 ; 1 Iowa, 70 ; 2 id. 96. See 25 Mo. 555. The court will not give leave to private informers to use the king's name aud suit to call in question the validity of a franchise, wben such perskals apply under very unfavorable circumstances. 4 Burr. 2123, 2124. As to where the burden falls of showing the lawful or unlawful chara,cter of a franchise or right, see 28 Penn. St. 383 ; 5 Mich. 146. The information, it is said, may be filed after the expiration of the term of office. 2 Jones, No. C.124. See 19 Ga.559.