374 Meyer—Early Railroad Legislation in Wisconsin. 
Year. 
Number of 
Companies. 
Total mileage 
in Wisconsin. 
Remarks. 
1864. 
10 
1,030.28 
Act repealing consolidation laws, Feb. 20,1864; 
yet the C. & N. W. road carried a special con¬ 
1865. 
9 
1,030.28 
solidation act through the legislature in 
1866 (P. & L. L., Ch 370 k and another era of 
1866. 
8 
1,030.28 
special legislation had begun Other roads 
secured similar privileges during succeeding 
1867. 
7 
1,030.28 
years, although som- of them were expressly 
restrained from consolidating with the C. & 
1868. 
6 
1,140.99 
N. W.R. ft. 
1869. 
5 
1,140.99 
1870. 
5 
1,286.43 
1871. 
6 
1,798.33 
1872. 
7 
1,975.41 
1873. 
12 
2,378.18 
1874. 
13 
2,465.93 
Attention has already been called to the provision in the law 
of 1857, which made consolidation proceedings binding when 
approved by a majority of the stockholders,voting either in per¬ 
son or by proxy. Let us bring court decisions to bear upon this: 
“The majority of stockholders may bind the minority so long 
as they hold themselves within the limit of the powers granted 
by the charter; but when their acts are inconsistent with the 
objects and purposes for which the body corporate was organ¬ 
ized, they have no validity whatever. ” 1 
“The majority of stockholders can not, against the objections 
of the minority, divert the company’s property from purposes 
of its formation. ” 2 
“Corporate franchises, powers, and property, must not be 
appropriated to uses or purposes not contemplated or authorized 
by the charter; the smallest minority of the subscribers may pre¬ 
vent this; unless by doing so it prevents or arrests a public im- 
1 Supported by numerous citations in Elliott Anthony’s argument before 
the United States Circuit Court for northern Illinois, in the case of Wads¬ 
worth et al. vs. C. & N. W. R. R. Co., Wm. B. Ogden et al; pub¬ 
lished, Chicago, 1865, p. 103. This is really a treatise on consolidation, 
the question being the legality of the consolidation of the 0. & N. W. and 
the Chicago & Galena railroads. It is unfortunate that no opinion of the 
case was ever written. 
2 Hirschl, Combinations, Consolidations, and Succession of Corpora¬ 
tions, p. 26. 
