The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-27


the plaintiffs right Of action accrued
before the repeal, he cannot recover in
consequence. The statute has not been
repealed. but only re-enacted in the new
code of laws enacted by the legislature
with an added provision which IN TO
way affects the plaintiffs cause OF ac-
ton. The new enactment is SubStan-
tally the same as the old and was tb-
viously intended as mere continual
ton of the old law with the slight addi-
ton thereto which in no manner affects
this case.
THE provisions of the code on this
subject being substantially the same
as the former statute, it must under
this provision of the code be held to be
a continuation thereof Moreover, sec
ton 1854 of the code provides that: No
action of proceeding commenced before
this code takes effect, and no right ac-
crued, is affected by it's provisions
The right of action in this case accrued
before the code took effect and is
therefore not affected by it's provisions.
We do not consider whether it is a right
of action for penalty, and if so, the
nature or character of that penalty. 1t
is enough to say that it was a right
which accrued before the code took eff
feet, and is therefore saved by the sec
ton of the code last quoted. Undoubt-
eddy if this action had been commenced
before the code took effect, it would
have been saved by this section, and an
action commenced and right accru-
ed are by the terms of the section put
on the same footing-both are saved 1t
is very clear that it was the manifest
purpose of the provisions of the code
to preserve all rights and to permit all
actions to be maintained that could
have been maintained had not the code
been adopted. We agree with the learn
ed counsel for the plaintiff in error that
it is unreasonable to suppose that the
legislature intended to take away the
right from those creditors in whose ia
vor it had already accrued, and give 1t
to those who should occupy similar
position in the future.
Another contention Of the defend
ants in error is that the statute on
which the action is founded was an
nulled by the constitution of the state.
Section II of article Is of the con-
stitution of Montana provided as fol-
lows: And no company or corporation
formed under the laws of any other
country. state or territory shall have,
or be allowed to exercise or enjoy with
in this state any greater rights or priv
| ileges than those possessed or enjoyed
by corporations of the same or similar
| character created under the laws of the
| state The contention is that under
| this provision of the constitution a
| statute imposing any duty or obliga-
ton of domestic corporation, which is
| not also imposed on Foreign corpora
lions doing business in the state, is
| unconstitutional. The position is I'M
tenable. One sufficient answer to it is
that the liability in this case is i'm
posed upon the officers of the corpora
| tin individually and not upon the cor
poration. But if a foreign corporation
We're given greater rights and privileges
in the state than were enjoyed by do
| mestic corporations, 1t is not perceived
| how the fact would annul all laws in
the state applicable to domestic COR
porations In the very nature of things
it is impossible to provide exactly the
same system of laws for foreign as for
domestic corporations. 1t is never done.
The constitutional provision quoted con-
templated no such thing. 1t is an in
hibition against the grant of powers
and privileges to foreign corporations
that are not granted to or cannot be
enjoyed by domestic corporations I'M
der like conditions. 1t does not nullify
i all laws for the government of domestic
corporations when those laws are not
or cannot be applied to foreign corpora
tions. i.'n
THE case of Huntington VS.. Attril
LAG U. S., $751; answers the contention
| that the suit cannot be maintained out
side of the state of Montana.
1.-THE judgment of the circuit court is
reversed, and the cause is remanded
with instructions TO oVerrule the demur-
Ter to the complaint and permit the
! defendant to answer"