§ 454.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. Considera- tion mov- ing to the state. Its rights. Mandamus § 454. The consideration moving from the corporators to the state, is either the supposed public benefit which the state or people acquires from the acts which are to be performed by the corporation ; or the acting upon the terms of the charter by the cor- poration. Thus, the state acquires the right to enforce the application of the corporate property to the attain- ment of the objects of incorporation, at least in so far as the public is interested in their attainment. " There is an implied undertaking on the part of every corporation that it will render to the public, so far as it reasonably can, that service for which it was incorporated, and that it will not voluntarily disable itself to serve the purpose for which it was created." ' And there is the further implied agreement on the part of the grantees to exercise their franchises within a reasonable time. 2 Accordingly, a mandamus will issue at the suit of the people of the state to compel a railroad company to operate its road, 3 679; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 626; Laket). Virginia, etc., R. R. Co., 7 Nev. 294; Brooklyn, in re, 143 N. Y. 596. Where a state charters a turnpike company without expressly granting it any exclusive privileges, the state may constitutionally charter a rail- road company to run its road by the side of the turnpike, to the damage of the latter. Turnpike Co. v. The State, 3 Wall. 210; Lafayette Plank Road Co. v. New Albany, etc., R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 90; Bush v. Peru Bridge Co., 3 Ind. 21; Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe R. R. Co., 11 Leigh (Va.), 42; see Water Co. v. Water Co., 80 Me. 544; compare Micou v. Tallassee Bridge Co., ante ; similarly, to run alongside of a canal; Illinois and M. Canal ». Chicago and R. I. R. R. Co., 14 111. 314, or one railroad to run parallel with a prior railroad between the same termini. Connect- 436 ing Ry. Co. v. Union Ry. Co., 108 111. 459. The strict construction in favor of the state is especially exemplified in cases of granted immunity from tax- ation. See §§ 487-491; see Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 305. 1 Kenton County Court v. Bank Lick Turnpike Co., 10 Bush(Ky.), 529, 532. Compare American Rapid Telegraph Co. v. Connecticut Tele- phone Co., 49 Conn. 352; Common- wealth v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 12 Gray (Mass.), 180; Gates v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 53 Conn. 333; Peo- ple's Gaslight Co. v. Chicago Gas- light Co., 20 111. App. 473. 2 Chincleclamouche Lumber Co. v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. St. 438. 3 State v. Hartford and N. H. R. R. Co., 29 Conn. 538; see People v. Albany and Vermont R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 261; Sherwood v. A. & D. R. Co., 94 Va. 291.
