The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1874-09-26

| flooded during a severe storm which
swept portions of Illinois and Iowa
Isl, ,929,S19 paid British claim
ants on Monday from the U. S.
Treasury. Beecher to preach in
Plymouth church next Sunday.
$4,000 people utterly destitute in
Angora, Turkey -. Hot Spring
stage robbers forced into the woods
and surrounded. Snowman Bar
nun married. Guizot the French
writer and statesman died near Par
is on the 18th inst. -. Brigham
Young is sick, Ann Eliza may get a
sure enough divorce -. Charlie
Ross found again.
R4ILRO4D DS MUST OBEY THE Ia W.
Res@ Of the Sua Of tie State to Enyoie Wis
consu Railroad Corporations from Violat-
ing tie Potter Statute.
CHIEF JUSTICE RYAN's OPINION SUMMARIZED BY
HIMSELF.
The following is an abstract pre-
pared by Chief Justice Ryan, of the
opinion of the supreme court of
Wisconsin in the case brought by
the Attorney General and the
the railroad commissioners for
an injunction to compel COM
pliance by the Chicago e North
western railroad and Chicago, Mil
waukee and st. Paul railway COM
panies with the provisions of the
Potter law.
This court has no original
JURISDICTION
of proceedings by injunction at the
suit of private persons or to enforce
private remedies, but has the juris-
diction in matters publici .j,tris upon
information of the attorney general
in the nature of an injunction bill
to restrain excess where mandamus
would 90 to remedy the detect
The writ given to the court IN q
group Of prerogative writs is given
as quasi-prerogative writ for pre-
rog ative purposes. Attorney-Gen-
eral V. Blossog, | Wis, 317. Con
sidered and approved.
independently Of sections l3 and
IA, chapter 14S, revised statutes,
courts Of equity in this state have
jurisdiction upon information of the
attorney general, erof1cio to restrain
corporations from excess or abuse
of corporate franchises or other VIC
lation of public law under the color
of franchise to the public injury.
| These sections confer no iurisdic-
ton on this court Whether they
operate to limit the jurisdiction of
circuit courts is not here consider
ed. 1t is for the court to determine
in such an information whether the
acts charged work public injury.
The jurisdiction was an established
equitable jurisdiction at the time of
the adoption Of the state constitu-
ton, and section 5, article |, of the
constitution in relation of trial BY
jury has no application to it. Were
this otherwise the questions raised
by these intormations are questions
of law, and the Jurisdictions Of them
in equity deprive the defendants of
no right of trial by jury. Chapter
273 Of 1874 Is not repealed by chap
ters 292 or 34l of the same session.
All the chapters can well stand to-
gether.
THE QUESTION OF NAME.
The court finds no difficulty in
holding that the Chicago, Milwau-
kee e St. Paul railway company is
the corporation designated as the
Milwaukee Il st. Paul railroad COM
pany in chapter 273. The corpora
ton is sufficiently indicated by the
name used in the statute, although
it had month before added the
prefix of Chicago to it's name.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OF 1871
prohibiting special acts Of the legis-
lature for granting corporate power
or privileges except to cities is pros
pective only, and has no relation to
existing corporate charters by spe-
cial acts before the amendment
These may be amended or repealed
by special act as before.
THE RULES ESTABLISHED IN THE DARTMOUTH COL
LEGE CASE
V. Woodward, I Wheaton SIS, con
sidered and disapproved as far as
extended to quasi private corpora
tions intrusted by charter with pub
lie interests so as to constitute them
quasi public corporations. The rule
is followed nevertheless by the court
because it is the rule of the u. S. Su-
preme court In the construction OF
claim in the federal constitution.
But the reserved power in the state
constitution to alter or repeal cor
porate charters was designed to
take, and does take all corporations
created under it out of the rule in
the Dartmouth college case, and the
legislature has the same power over
such corporations as if the rule in
that case had never existed. The
reserved power to alter cr repeal
has no other limit in law than is i'm