Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/526

 § 497.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. of the legislature, unless prevented by constitutional limita- tions. Indeed, the great office of statutes is to remedy defects in the common law as they are developed, and to adapt it to the changes of time and circumstances." 1 1 A railroad company was incor- porated, its charter being subject to alteration and repeal. Subsequently the state legislature amended the charter by exempting the property of the corporation from taxation. After the passage of this amend- ment, the people of the state adopted a new constitution, one of the pro- visions of which required corpora- tions to be taxed; and, carrying out this provision, the legislature levied a tax on the property of said corpo- ration. The tax was held constitu- tional, the Supreme Court saying per Field, J. : " The original corporators, or subsequent stockholders, took their interest with knowledge of the existence of this power, and of the possibility of its exercise at any time in the discretion of the legislature. .... The reservation affects the entire relation between the state and the corporation, and places under legislative control all rights, privi- leges, and immunities derived by its charter directly from the state. Rights acquired by third parties, and which have become vested under the charter, in the legitimate exercise of its powers, stand upon a different footing; but of such rights it is un- necessary to speak here. The state only asserts in the present case the power under the reservation to modify its own contract [?] with the corporators; it does not contend for a power to revoke the contracts of the corporation with other parties, or to impair any vested rights thereby acquired." Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454, 458. Ace. Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 1 ; fol- 506 lowed in Louisville Water Co. v. K'y, 170 U. S. 127; Hamilton Gas Light Co. v. Hamilton City, 140 U. S. 258; Union Improvement Co. v. Com- monwealth, 09 Pa. St. 140; Coving- ton o. Kentucky, 173 U. S. 231; Citi- zens' Savings Bank p. Oweusboro, 173 U. S. 0:30; Kentucky Bank Tax Cases, 174 U. S. 408. A bridge company accepted from Congress the right to build a bridge across navigable waters, on condition that such right or franchise might be revoked, or alterations required in the bridge at any time, if the bridge should be found detrimental to navi- gation. Held, that this condition was an essential element of the grant, and that the company, in ac- cepting the privileges, assumed all risk of loss from the exercise of the power Congress had reserved; and that Congress might require altera- tions in the bridge without incurring for the United States liability to pay for them. Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 470. The constitution of California of 1849 provided that corporations might be formed under general laws, but should not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes; and that all general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this provision might be altered from time to time or repealed. The legislature after- wards enacted a general law for the formation of corporations for sup- plying cities and counties with water, which provided that the rates to be charged for water should be fixed by a board of commissioners to be appointed partly by the corpora-