Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/491

 CHAP. Vlir.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ ^5. tor. The following extract is from the opinion of the majority of the court by Chief Justice Waite, in Munn v. Illinois: 1 " Looking then to the common law from whence came the right which the constitution protects, we find that when private property is ' affected with a public interest it ceases to be juris privati only.' This was said by Lord Chief Jus- tice Hale more than two hundred years ago in his Treatise De Portibus Maris, 1 Harg. Law Tracts, 78, and has been accepted without objection as an essential element of the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the pub- lic has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an inter- est in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discon- tinuing the use ; but so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control." 2 96 U. S. 521. The legislature may impose penalties for delays in for- warding freight. McGowan v. Wil- mington, etc., R. R. Co., 95 N. C. 417; a state may forbid the running of freight trains within the state on Sundays. Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299. Such regulations as the above, in order to be a valid exer- cise of the police power, must be reasonable. Toledo, W. & N. Ry. Co. o. Jacksonville, 67 111. 37. A statute providing that railroad com- panies shall be liable for the attor- ney fees up to $10 of parties success- fully litigating claims against them, is unconstitutional as depriving them of the equal protection of the laws and of their property without due process of law. Gulf, etc., Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150; but see Atchison, T., etc., Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96. An act compelling certain corporations (and not all) to pay their employes' wages every week, is unconstitutional, as depriving them of property (of the right to contract freely) without due process of law; Braceville Coal Co. o. People, 147 111. 66. A statute requiring the redemption in cash of store orders, etc., issued in payment of wages, is valid. Knoxville Iron Co. v. Har- bison, 183 U. S. 13. A statute regu- lating the liability of railroads for injuries to its employes is valid. Tullis v. Lake Erie & W. R. R. Co., 175 U. S. 348. 1 94 U. S. 113, 126 (Elevator Cases). 2 The property of a telephone company is property in the use of which the public is interested — it is property devoted to a public use — and its rates may be fixed by statute. Hockett v. State, 105 Ind. 250; Cen- tral Union Telephone Co. v. Brad- bury, 106 Ind. 1; so, the business of supplying water. City of Danville v. Danville Water Co., 178 111. 299. 471