Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1873-06-05
Highly Important Decisions.

= We take pleasure in presenting to our
, readers the complete text of tho decis.
ions Of tho Supreme Court in tho follow
ing cases. We have never entertained
a doubt Of the full authority Of tho
Legislature to regulate the action Of
corporations, not even in cases where the
latter have acquired what are called
vested rights" and we have hereto
F fore so thoroughly elaborated our views
that it affords US satisfaction to reprint
them IN the language of those having
Authority.
SUPREME COURT or MINNESOTA, oCTo.
! Der TERN, 1872.
State Of Minnesota, appellant, vs.. tho Vino
No St. Peter Railroad Company, Respon-
dents.
The demurrer intcrposcd to first and
second counts Of the complaint in this
action admits that tho defendants de-
manded and received Of J. II. Blake T.
20. tolls in excess Of the rates prescrib-
ed by Oh. "a Of the laws Of 1871, and
which has been decided in the case of
j. d. Blake VI. W. T. St. p. r. 4. Go.
to be constitutional, valid and binding
to the defendants.
Sec. 8 Of said act provides that If
any railroad corporation shall demand
or receive such higher rates it shall be
deemed to have misused its powers aud
violated the terms on which its charter
and franchises were granted, and pro-
ceedings are to DO instituted against it
for the forfeiture of its franchises, or
the collection Of a fine not exceeding
81, 900, for such vioIation,at the discre-
ton of the Court.
The defendant objects that this law
impairs the obligation of contract, be-
cause it declares that cause of forfeit
ure which was not so before the act
was passed.
The Legislature possessed, So far rs
the defendants right to take toll was
concerned. full power and authority to
pass all manner Of wholesome and rea-
sonablc laws, either wtth penalties or
ptthout, not repugnant to the constitu-
ton, rs it should judge to be for the
good and welfare OF the common wealth
and if the subjects Of the same, Com.
vs.. Allyn Z Cush So, the express grant
Of authority to the legislature quoted
In that case from the constitution Of
Massachusetts, is not found in our COLI
stitution. It declares, however, that
government is instituted for the securi-
ty, benefit and projection of the people
and it is indisputable that in creating a
Legislative department and comforting
upon it the legislative powers, the peo-
pie Of Minnesota must be understood to
have conferred the full and complete
power a. it vests in and may be exer-
cised by the sovereign power Of any
country, subject only to such restrict
ions as they may have seen fit to impose,
and the United States constitutional
Within these limits the legislature is
entrusted with the general authority to
make laws at discretion. Cooley's Con.
H., p. 81. The citizens of this State
may, therefore, be controlled and regu-
lated by their Leg stature in the use of
their property, to the fnll extent at least,
that those Of Massachusetts may be by
theirs.
AS to the money penalty, there can
be no question Us to the validity Of the
section. As to the forfeiture, the de-
PENDANTS authorities do not defend its
position.
Cooley is cited to the point that a
law is void which declares forfeiture
Of the charter of corporation for acts |
or omissions which constituted no cause
Of forfeiture at the time they occurred.
Con. L 292.
But this act was in force at the time
the defendant exacted the rates COM
planned Of: Therefore they were cause !
Of forfeiture when they occurred.
The case Of Pho & Jackson &c. Plank |
Road Co., 9th Mich, 285, cited by Coo.
Icy in support Of that proposition and
by the defendant, is cited by the latter
for the statement by two Judges Ct the
Supreme Court Of Michigan. that an
act subsequent to one under which a
company has been already organized,
which declares total forfeiture, which
by the first act was cause Of partial for.
fixture, is void as to such company for
violation Of the obligation Of the con.
tract.
The defendant urges that before the
passage Of the act of 1871, it was no
cause Of forfeiture at all that this de-
PENDANT should charge rates in excess
Of those prescribed by the act.
Of course not, for none such had been
prescribed. Bat the defendant under
It's charter was bound to conform TO
such laws a. the Legislature should
thereafter establish fixing the rates OF
toll. The question may be asked there
fore, if it is not misuse Of its fran
chise to exact toll in defiance of such
laws?
And if it is. the further question
arises whether the defendant was not
liable 70 forfeit its franchise by lust
such conduct as this. But it will be
seen that Cooley does not cite the afore-
said opinion to support any such propo.
sition as that Of the defendant, and a
reference to the case will show that it
was not 50 intended. l.
The Plank Road Company had the
right to take toll, on completion of five
miles thereof, and under its charter that
right could not be affected by failure to
complete the rest of the road contempla-
ted. Its franchise as to such uninish-
ed part could only be touched. A sut-
sequent general plank road law pre-
scribing total forfeiture for failure to
complete roads, was held void by said
Justices, 50 far as is applied to this
plank road, as impairing the obligation
Of contract which is all PLAIN enough
if the original charter Of the company
was az above stated, and shows WHY the
case is cited by Cooley.
Therefore the subsequent act UNDER
took to make that an offensc involving
forfeiture Of the whole, by the failure to
complete which was not such an offence
at the time such failure occurred. Nor
was it previously case Of forfeiture,
but to make the dictum aforesaid ap-
plicable to the case at bar one of two
things must be assumed; either that the