The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-07-09

l
a. he Legislature IL IL useless therefore, argue ths
~ this case not In the Rsvird Statutes Ia the
and the company also With the STOCKHOLDERS that
the Isilrsd shalt be- made om schenectady "a Utica,
The answer OF the state s~ves IL Ace Csk vsss Che
! only contract made with you. that woald
give that charter, with the poser In me to alter
or rpeal It, my discretion might ctatc
Neither In the charter in the general taW has the
Legislature set any bounds TO It's p'wer Of alteration
NY then should The judiciary stempt to ret bounds
that power, The judiciary not Established to prevent
abuses OF the legislative power ind-cr-et OF
It, but simply pronounce the true meluiu OF any
ccnstutionsiy passed and this Is peculiarly the case
when the Legilat has reserved power TO be
used In It's and to be employed eveu In Gases
which The couits would have pronounced this sct vi0
a,ioD OF contract the power not been reserved Il
u said never could have becn the intention Of this
caue 70 enable the Legislature to compel
SUBJ cnpton To fosegn corporation The an to this
~ that the knew that 1t could forc.ce ali
tner fure reserved IL Intentionally without any limit
and must be allowed And they have dnnc 80
wisely This State has more power Of legislation
Pcnnryyania New jersey, Vermont Massachusetts and
Conn' cticu than II has Canada Yet IL
important TO the public interest that the Erie railroad
should through part Of Penusyivana or New Jer
sey that road should be sde in either or both Of
these States has the State the poser Of
authorizing compelling the Erie Railroad Company to
aid IN the completion Of such rad through those states
would thec be WISDOM State surrendering that
poser In the same way II may he expedcut to autho
rEe or require other roads to connect themselves with
and TO aid IN the mpleon of connecting roads In
neiahhoing States Of Vermont, Massachusetts, and Con-
b
II To the Western trade For this pu,poso the
quickest route may possibly be through Caasis 10
q our sister States l. II the part Of wisdom to allow
our railroad corporations TO b. independent Of the Legs
latuie, and at their election say whether they will
unite great enterprise which the rcprcsenta
tives Of the pubic d essential 20 the public good Ii
this coursc cisariy wise that when the language vf ho
reserved 70 tho people broad enough rcud,
right TO lesat. IN this the arc to
say that still IL does what its literal i'm
port: Iii 10 not clearly tho courts right
interfere bridge Niagara might be essential To
L. rr IN
he conducted with railroad speed; and Railroad through
parts OF Canada nav be m ~ nccospary to comp tc the
chain OF shortest routes 10 create that competition
which Is so essential to safe RAPID aud cheap travelling
of oil this the Legislature il TO judge and the courts
parties arc to submit to its authority and TO appeal Il
alone Tor repeal modification of its laws Decisions
have been made in England that corporation employing
tie funds IN mode not authorized by ts charter viii be
enjoincd FINN doing by tho Court OF Chancery aud
even that IL could not employ its funds to obtain alto
iaon Of charter but the courts have held that
the company cannot be enioned from applying Paria
mcnt Tor alteration q it's chatter and that when tho
alteration made the company may accept ii and that
the acceptance binds the Company This Ia account of
the unlimited power of Parliament and Legislature
Is equally unlimited when it has reserved to itself the
power aor without limit These decisions have boon
recognized in Vermont and In sister States We have
held and so Il has been held in Massachusetts, that
company not having charter with this reservation on IT,
tpt modification Of Its charter not beneficial to the
htockhider the stakeholder could rot be sued his
tract to pay fer stock. That clearly correct the
tract sued On between him and the company par
ucular purpose and the company voluntarily defeated
ths, purpose IL could not therefore hold the subscriber
which IL had essentially broken. But
the contract adudged be broken as between the
company and the stockhoder 1t must have been the
ground that the company have tho power accept the al
ration OF the charter and bound by the acceptance
and that tho alts ration valid as the company
was concerned for II 1t not valid far the altcra
ton would be multi " and subscriber would not be al
ected by il and would discharged Some Of those
also consider the subscriber discharged
ter with tho company but still affected BY the act as
corpofaOr in other words that he could not be sued
hs contract to pay and TO become stakeholder but that
his property slrrady in the company bound by the
acts OF the mpaDy Some Of them also take notice that
In The cases before them the Legislature had reserved
TO se power to alter the charter On tho grounds sbo
stated the injunction granted In this should bo ais
solved, the the event II becomes unnc-
cessa'y TO decide whether injunction should be allow
right TO mako tho subscription which it has made The
poprety OF granting Injunction il TO bc determined by
all the circumstances Of the cascn that IL is
times called discretionary In like the granting
OF GndGts or common law esroTdr is said TO be dis
crecnary, and the courts have refused to grant them
where there was IN actual nlegaty the motion Of
single individual when large number would bc effected
by the proceeding in of for
improvements; decmng il best leave the psrty who
complained 10 his remedy for Damages for his particular
injury. II might b. hat the public policy should
DC applied here and that few individuals ought not to
he allowed TO interfere with the wishes Of than
thirds Of thciy associates. in matter which the Iega
turc has deemed OF 80 much importance to the public
THE PROTECTION INSURANCE. COMPANY.
SheTdrS &c, against Protection fistyrncc Compcng The
defendants corporation doing business in the State of
Connecticut insured Holbrook Co.. residents of Massa
chretts, against loss BY dre. The property insured
destroyed BY fire. and after that II. & Co assigned their
claim to the present plaintiffs who reside in this state.
The qIe~ton s raised, whether the defendants have
right this TO the Circuit Court for the
southern District Of this statc II Is said that ipas-
much rs these plaintiffs claim assiynes Of chose In
nction and their being residents Of Moschu
setts and not Of this Sao could have sued in the
t. s. Circuit Court in this state these plaintiffs cannot
sue in that and that Court would have ursdc
ton Of the cause IL 1t removed there The eleventh
section Of the Judiciary act Of l,sa gives to
the Circuit Courts United states in actions of this
kind, when the suit Is between citEaa OF the State
and if it had stopped here that Court would clearly have
Jurisdiction OF this case but 1t proceeds in subsequent
part Of tho samo section as follows Nor shall any
District or Circuit Court have cognzance Of suit to
recover the contents Of any rromssory note other
chose In action, In favor of assignee, unless suit
might have bet prosecuted In such the
SAID contents assignment had bsrn made except in
Of fort ign bins Of exchange This section pre-
vents any D tric or Circuit Court from ring any cog
nzance Of like this unless the suit might hare
been presented IN such court assignment had been
made II assignment had been made. the action must
have been brought In the Of the guors who
residents Ct Massachusetts, and therefore must have
b, en- brought in that state. The language Of the act
Nor shall any District Circuit Court have cognizancc
Of any suit unl,ss suit might have bccn prosecuted in
such court exclude each from urisdc-
ton unse the action might have becu under
the act o. Congress 10 that particular court and TO
10 allow jurisdiction ii the action might have been
hrou9htin Dtrict Circuit Court Of the United
States Tho word such' is Uscd, 1t frequently Is as
equivalent to the sadn II said however. that the
twelfth section is broader and gives authority to de-
PENDANT TO cause, II suit ia commenced In
State by citizen the State in which the action
il brought citizen Of another Stlto and the
matter in dispute exceeds $500 exclusive o costs, and
that this within that section This literally
rue but the purposes Il the two sections must BE- cou
sidcred IN order to und, their malug The only
purpose Of this last section was t. show when and how
could be removed from the State Court the w.
Court was part otts purpose to dodne the
in which the &. Court should have urlsdicton iEst
the peculiar purpose tn. eleventh and tue
eleventh section from the first defines the in which
suits may be brought in these (and those courts
have jurisdiction except what given to them BY Con
cognzaDco Of ut by assignee chose 10 action un
hes the init might bavc been prosecuted by the assp2s
this NUT uDtss II might have been prosecuted by
tho ssgnor upd,T the pv~crs before given That would
be the RIO Ok interpi " he applied 10 every we'll
dawn instrument or law unless q contrary intent
clearly shown in other part Of the instrument
low. II s proper, also. TO look TO tho section which
eonfers iurid eiiOn ard controls its extent TO
certain what jurisdiction intended 20 be given,
and then 20 regard other treating the proceed
ii gs OF the court, az based the assumption that the
court spoken Of IN them is the whose Jurisdiction l.