Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/523

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 495. sides, the power to regulate procedure may perhaps be regarded as a portion of the police power of the state, of which a sur- render could never be presumed. 1 § 494. A late statement of the general law on this subject may be found in Penniman's Case, 2 where Justice Woods said, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States : " The general doctrine of this court on this subject may be thus stated : in modes of proceediug and forms to enforce the contract the legislature has the control, and may enlarge, limit, or alter them, provided it does not deny a remedy or so embarrass it with conditions or restrictions as seriously to impair the value of the right." 3 It would seem, however, that when a new remedy is authorized after a contract has been made, such remedy may be wholly taken away by the legislature before any vested rights have been acquired under it ; for such remedy could have formed no part of the contract as made. But if the creditor proceeds, and acquires any vested rights under the new remedy, it may then be incompetent for the legislature by repealing the new remedy to affect his rights. 4 § 495. In creating a corporation the legislature may impose upon it, and upon parties dealing with it, such restrictions as the legislature may deem proper in regard to subjecting its assets to the discharge of its obligations ; and, further, may provide that any one of the usual remedies of creditors shall in certain cases be withheld. 5 And after a corporation has been incorporated, a statute which prescribes a mode of judicial service on the corporation different from that provided for in cific R. R. Co., 98 U. S. 569, G08. A reduction in the time prescribed by the statute of limitations in force when the right of action accrued is not unconstitutional, provided a reasonable time be left for the com- mencement of a suit before the bar takes effect. Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 628; compare Blount v. Wind- ley, 95 U. S. 173. 1 See Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 168. 2 103 U. S. 714, 720. 3 See, also, Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69; Crawford v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 7 How. 279; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769; Railroad v. New Orleans, 157 U. S. 219. Com- pare, generally, Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 270. U. S. 293; South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U. S. 433. 5 National Shoe and Leather Bank v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 89 N. Y. 467. 503
 * Memphis v. United States, 97