Gale v. Kalamazoo Garvin v. Williams Gilson v. Bingham King v. Young Men's Buil- ding Association Landolt v. City of Nor- wich 95 Miller, Hays v. 370 Mitchell v. Coms. of Leav- 279 enworth Co. People v. Flagg 286 P., W. & B. R. R., Jackson DAGN 769 32 525 . 755 Samuel Wiley. Co. Sherman v. Mott. PAGE 101 Thompson, Haines v. 374 159 Trebilcock v. Wilson 32 Turner, Garsed v. 576 37 State ex rel. Vail v. Draper 552 State v. Pike . 233 Stout v. Sioux City & Pacific R. R.. Stuart v. Hoskins Surget, Ford v. Swett v. Cutts Symonds v. Barnes 769 226 Union Pacific R. R., 702 418 716 750 Nichols Sioux City & Pacific R. R., Walker v. City of Cincin 226 nati • Stout v. 497 Watson v. Jones. Stark, United States v.. 421 Frost v. Union Pacific R. R. v. 214 Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wells, United States v. Ins. Co. v. 226 Williams, Garvin v. . 86 Wilson, Trebilcock v. • 301 Wisconsin v. City of Du 11 luth PAGE 680 748 547 151 259 485 101 32 172 320 37 424 552 407 346 279 430 424 755 Young Men's Building Asscciation, King v. 485 642 151 709 760 THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER. JANUARY, 1872. LEGISLATIVE POWER TO AMEND CHARTERS. SINCE the Dartmouth College Case, it has been admitted on all hands, that the charters of incorporated companies are contracts, which the legislature cannot alter or amend without express power so to do, reserved. In consequence of the decision in that case, a general law was spread upon the statute book of nearly all, if not quite all, the states of the Union, reserving to the legislature power to alter or modify all such charters as should be thereafter granted, according to its will and pleasure. The limits of this power, if it has any limits, and the effect which any amendment engrafted by the legislature is to have upon the operations of an incorporated company, form one of the most interesting and important of the unsettled questions of the day. Its presence is perhaps more frequently felt in discussions growing out of the attempt to consolidate separate and distinct lines of railway into one, than in any other cases; and the vital importance of the subject could not find an apter occasion for its illustration. Every day we are brought acquainted with instances where the prospect of greatly increased profits, or the plea of public necessity, serves a majority of corporators for an excuse in procuring the legislature to crowd an unwilling minority into enterprises which they never agreed to go into and are unwilling to enter upon. He who founds his faith upon the eternal principles of right, rather than upon the temporary and shifting prospect of present advantage, may VOL. XX.-1 |