Until the statute 32 Geo. III. c. 58, the defendant could not plead double in an in formation of quo warranto to forfeit an of fice or franchise ; 1 P. Wms. 220; People v. Richardson, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 113 ; State v. Roe, 26 N. J. L. 215.
In information of quo warranto there are two forms of judgment. When it is against an officer or against individuals, the judg ment is ouster; but when it is against a cor poration by its corporate name, the judgment was 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 312, and note; 2 Term 521, 550. The judg ment is ouster and dissolution; People v. R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113, 30 AM. Dec. 34; but there may be a judgment of ouster of a particular franchise, and not of the whole charter ; People v. R. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 113, 30 Am. Dec. 33. See as to the judgment, State v. Bradford, 32 Vt. 50; People v. Richard son, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 120. By such judgment of ouster and seizure the franchises are not destroyed, but exist in the hands of the state ; but the corporation was destroyed, and ceas ed to be the owner or possessor of lands or goods, or rights or credits. The lands re verted to the grantor and his heirs, and the goods escheated to the state. But, later, it has been held that the judgment must be confined to seizure of the franchises ; if it be extended to seizure of the property, so far it is erroneous; State Bk. v. •State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 267, 12 Am. Dec. 234.
After judgment of ouster In quo warranto, a de jure officer may recover the emoluments of the office, less the reasonable expenses in curred in earning the same, where the de facto officer entered the office in good faith and under color of title; Albright v. San doval, 216 U. S. 331, 30 Sup. Ct. 318, 54 L. Ed. 502.
Quo warranto lies against a corporation to determine its right to exercise its fran chises, but not to divest it of the ownership of property, unless acquired by a usurpa tion of the of the state; State v. R. Co., 50 Ohio St. 239, 33 N. E. 1051. See SCIRE FACIAS.
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 298, 299; 1 Bla. Com, 485 ; People v. Trustees of College, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 211; Chesapeake & 0. Canal Co. v. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.)
121.
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 grant. In such cases, unless the perversion is such as to amount to an injury to the public who are interested in the franchise ; Cleaver v. Qom., 34 Pa. 283; it will not work a forfeiture. Cases of usurpation: as, where a corporation exer cises a power which it has no right to exer cise. In such cases the cause of forfeiture is not determined by any question of injury to ' the publio, but the abuse which will work a forfeiture need not be of any particular measure or extent; 3 Term 216, 246; People v. Turnpike Road, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 242 ; State v. Brown, 34 Miss. 688; People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65. See State v. Cahaba, 30 Ala. 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; People v. Ridgley, 21 Ill. 65 ; State v. Huu ton, 28 Vt. 594; State v. Fisher, 28 Vt. 714; Hastings v. R. Co., 9 Cush. (Mass.) 596.
A corporation may in quo warranto be subjected to a substantial fine as well as a judgment of ouster ; Standard Oil Co. v. Mis souri, 224 U. S. 270, 32 Sup. Ct. 406, 56 L. Ed. 760, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 936.
By the statute of Anne, an information in the nature of quo warranto may by leave of court be applied to disputes between party and party about the right to a corporate of fice or franchise; State v. Gummersall, 24 N. J. L. 529; Field v. Com., 32 Pa. 478; Lindsey v. Atty. Gen., 33 Miss. 508 ; People v. Scannell, 7 Cal. 432. And the person at whose instance the proceeding is instituted is called the relator; 3 Bla. Corn. 264. The court will not give leave to private inform ers to use the king's name and suit to call in question the validity of a franchise, when such persons apply under very unfavorable circumstances; 4 Burr. 2123. As to where the burden falls of showing the lawful or un lawful character of a franchise or right, see Com. v. Bk., 28 Pa. 383; People v. Mayworm, 5 Mich. 146; People v. Toll-Road Co., 100 Cal. 87, 34 Pac. 522.
The information, it is said, may be filed after the expiration of the term of office; Burton v. Patton, 47 N. C. 124, 62 Am. Dec. 194; but see High, Extr. Leg. Rem. § 633.
As to the right to maintain such proceed ings for the vindication of a private right, see State R. Commission v. People, 44 Colo. 345, 98 Pac. 7, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 810. As to the right to trial by jury, see State v. Cobb, 24 Okl. 662, 104 Pac. 361, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 639.