Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/57

41 RECENT CASES, 4I Constitutional Law— Liberty — Police Power. — Held, an act providing that the wages of miners and certain others shall be paid in lawful money of the United States, and an act declaring unlawful every contract by which the right to receive wages in lawful money is waived, are constitutional. Hancock v. Yaden, 23 N. E. Rep. 253 (Ind.). The law in Pennsylvania and West Virginia is directly the reverse. State v. Good- will, 10 S. E. Rep. 285 (W. Va.), digested in 3 Harv. L. Rev. 334. Constitutional Law — Police Power — Deprivation of Property — Fix- ing Water-rates. — Const. Cal., art. 14, § i, provides that the rates for the use of water in any city shall be fixed annually by the board of supervisors of such city. Defendants passed an ordinance fixing rates so low as to make it impossible for the plaintiff to furnish water without a loss. Held, that the State possessed, and could delegate to the defendants, only the power to regulate the rates. This power to regulate property did not include the power to destroy. By putting the rates so low as to prevent any gain, the defendants had practically destroyed the value of the plaintiff's works. Therefore, this ordinance went beyond the power given by the State Constitution. Spring Valley Water-Works v. San Francisco, 22 Pac. Rep. 910 (Cal ). Since Munn v. Illinois settled the right of a State Legislature to regulate a business of a quasi public nature, the extent of this power has frequently been questioned. It is undoubtedly for the Legislature to say whether the regulation is reasonable or not. This legislative discretion is subject, however, to the limitation that the owner of the property cannot be entirely deprived of profit. It has been claimed that a fair rate of gain, say three per cent, at least, must be left him ; but Brewer, J., seems to have stated the law when he said : " The right of judicial interference exists only when the schedule of rates established will fail to secure to the owners of the property some income from their investment. As to the amount of such compensation, if some compensation is in fact secured, the Legislature is the sole judge." Railway Co. v. Dey, 35 Fed. Rep. 866, 877 ; Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. '74> ^79' Contrary to this view is a recent decision in N. V., where, for part of the business of a grain elevator, the " actual cost " was fixed as a maximum charge, and the regulation was sustained. People v. Budd, 22 N. E. Rep. 670, digested 3 Harv. L. Rev. 282. Contracts — Illegality — Trusts. — B. contracted with the plaintiff corpora- tion for carbons for electric lights. The plaintiff assigned this contract and all the rest of his business to the defendant, in pursuance of an agreement to form a "trust." The carbons were manufactured at the plaintiff's factory and delivered to B., but were billed in the name of the " trust." The money was paid into court, and the question is whether the plaintiff corporation or the "trust" ought to have it. Held, the agreement for a " trust " was illegal, and the plaintiff could have refused to assign ; but as it did assign, it became a party to the illegal transaction; and as the goods were supplied in the name and under the responsibility of the "trust," the receiver of the " trust " is entitled to the money. Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. McMillin, 23 N. E. Rep. 530 (N. Y.). Corporations — Notice to Stockholders. — A shareholder gave notice of his intention to withdraw, and demanded certain payments to which he was entitled under the original by-laws. These by-laws had been changed, subsequently to the shareholder's admission to the corporation, without his knowledge. Held, that a shareholder is not bound to take notice of modifications of by-laws from the records of the corporation, but is entitled to treat the by-laws in force when he became a member as still existing, unless actual notice has been given him. McKenney v. State Loan Ass'u, 18 Atl. Rep. 905 (Del.). Corporations — Rights when Stockholders in Rival Corporations. — A railroad corporation may, as a means of collecting a debt, acquire stock in another company, and it may thus gain control of a majority of the votes. If, however, the roads are rival lines and the interests of the two are opposed, the minority of the stockholders in the last-named company may get an injunction restraining the cor- poration owning a majority of the stock, and all persons acting in its behalf, from voting on this stock in the election of officers, or from exercising any control over the affairs of the company. Memphis &* C. R. Co. v. Wood, 7 So. Rep. 108 (Ala.). Dower — Equity of Redemption. — A widow who has joined with her husband in a mortgage of his land, demands that the executor sell the land under a power of