transcript filed and case docketed in Supreme Court at next succeed. Ing term; Edmonson v. Bloomshire, 7 Wall. 310, 19 L. 92, reviewing cases, dismissing appeal for omission to file record in Supreme Court at term next succeeding its allowance; Monger v. Shirley, 131 U. S. App. cxx, 20 L. 635, dismissing appeal, where record failed to show its allowance, and there was no citation; West v. Irwin, 54 Fed. 420, 9 U. S. App. 547, holding where appeal void for want of citation, subsequent citation ineffectual; Cotter v. Alabama, etc., R. R., 61 Fed. 748 22 U. S. App. 372, under act of 1891, writs of error are sued out from Circuit Court of Appeals under same practice as if from Supreme Court.

Modified in United States v. Vigil, 10 Wall. 425, 19 L. 955, where delay in filing transcript, where appeal prayed for in open court when judgment rendered, due to clerk's neglect to enter proceedings in the minutes. Distinguished in Brown v. McConnell, 124 U. S. 492, 31 L. 497, 8 S. Ct. 561, holding signing of citation by proper Judge or justice sufficient allowance of appeal, notwithstanding failure to require security at the time.

Appeal and error.- Mere presence of counsel in court when appeal allowed, without notice of motion or prayer for allowance, will probably not dispense with necessity for citation, p. 50.

Cited and principle applied in Alviso v. United States, 5 Wall. 824, 18 L. 492, dismissing appeal from Federal District Court in California for want of citation; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. 143, 29 L. 582, 6 S. Ct. 319, dismissing appeal for want of citation where taken after term at which decree rendered; Monger v. Shirley, 131 U. S. App. cxx, 20 L. 635, dismissing appeal where there was no citation; In the Matter, etc., of Gold Street v. Newton, 2 Dak. 40, 3 N. W. 312, holding service of notice of appeal could not be waived; Knight v. Weiskopf, 21 Fla. 163, dismissing writ of error for want of legal service of scire focias ad audiendum errores.

Public lands.- Appeals allowed under act to settle private land claims in California are subject to the general regulations of the Judiciary acts of 1789 and 1803, respecting appeals and writs of error, p. 51.

Cited and followed in Alviso v. United States, 5 Wall. 824, 18 L. 492, dismissing appeal from Federal District Court of California. Miscellaneous.-Cited, arguendo, in Turner v. Tapscott, 29 Ark. 819, and Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 625, 22 L. 441, on matters of appeal

3 Wall. 51-83, 18 L. 137, THE BINGHAMTON BRIDGE.

Courts.- Supreme Court has jurisdiction of appeal from highest State court's judgment dismissing bill to enjoin acts, authorized by State law, alleged to impair obligation of a contract, p. 72.

ANN

Constitutional law. Act of incorporation is a contract between the State and the stockholders, protected from invasion by subsequent State legislation, p. 73.

Cited and principle applied in Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall. 214, 20 L. 553, holding legislature cannot resume or diminish benefits granted corporation by its charter, except to extent reserved in act of incorporation; Humphrey v. Pegues, 16 Wall. 249, 21 L. 327, denying State's power to revoke provision in corporation's charter for immunity from taxation; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 689, 24 L. 561, reviewing cases, denying State's power to imposes larger tax on corporation than that limited in its charter; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 663, 29 L. 521, 6 S. Ct. 259, reviewing cases, holding grant of exclusive privileges to gas company a restriction of State's power to grant same privileges to others; Sala v. New Orleans, 2 Woods, 194, F. C. 12,246, holding corporation charter, providing for sale of water-works to city, after limited time, constituted contract, which subsequent legis. lation could not impair; Louisiana State Lottery v. Fitzpatrick, 3 Woods, 242, F. C. 8,541, holding lottery company's charter a contract which State could not impair; Hewitt v. New York, etc., Rd., 12 Blatchf. 465, F. C. 6,443, reviewing cases, denying legislature the right to revoke exemption from taxation previously granted to railroad; Camblos v. Phila., etc., R. R., 4 Fed. Cas. 1106, collecting cases, holding all State laws incorporating private associations for public purposes are contracts; Santa Ana Water Co. v. San Buenaventura, 56 Fed. 350, holding municipality and State bound by former's contract made with legislature's permission, giving company uncontrolled power to fix rates; Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., 73 Fed. 936, collecting cases (reversed in S. C., 161 U. S. 665, 40 L. 844, 16 S. Ct. 710), sustaining legislative grant to corporation of privilege of consolidating with competitors; Los Angeles City Water Co. v. Los Angeles, 88 Fed. 730, holding State and city bound to observe minimum of rates fixed in latter's contract with water company; Broadbent v. Tuskalosa Scientific, etc., Assn., 45 Ala. 172, Tuskaloosa Scientific, etc., Assn. v. Green, 48 Ala. 350, 351, and Kellum v. The State, 66 Ind. 597, collecting cases, denying legislature the power to repeal or impair corporation's previously granted right to conduct a lottery; Birmingham, etc., Street Ry. v. Birmingham Street Ry., 79 Ala. 470, 58 Am. Rep. 616, holding grant of exclusive franchise by municipal corporation having power to grant it is a binding contract; Western, etc., R. R. v. Georgia, 54 Ga. 431, and Georgia v. Western, etc., Rd., 66 Ga. 567, sustaining exemption from taxation beyond certain limit of lessees of railroad from State; Conery v. Water-Works Company, 41 La. Ann. 919, 7 So. 10, sustaining contract between city and corporation; Grand Lodge of Masons v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 665, 11 So. 151, collecting

VOL. VI -- 30

cases, sustaining legislative exemption from taxation of that portion of plaintiff's property not used for profit; Rockland Water Co. V. Camden, etc., Water Co., 80 Me. 561, 15 Atl. 787, 1 L. R. A. 393, collecting cases, sustaining State's power to contract with corporation; Pingree v. Michigan, etc., Rd., - Mich., 76 N. W. 636, reviewing cases, holding State law requiring railroad to sell tickets of certain kind at a fixed rate, unconstitutional; Langdon v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 93 N. Y. 157, holding damages recoverable for erecting wharf and filling in river under legislative authority, in front of plaintiff's wharf; Houston, etc., Rd. v. Knechler, 36 Tex. 431, 434, collecting cases, holding State bound by certain grants to railroads for construction of new lines. Cited also in Brownsville v. Basse, 36 Tex. 501, collecting cases, holding State could not repeal grant of former Mexican town's lands in Texas to newly incorporated Texas town. See also note to 26 Am. Rep. 293, 294, note collecting cases in 9 Am. St. Rep. 141.

Modified in Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., 161 U. S. 665, 40 L. 844, 16 S. Ct. 710, reviewing cases, holding legislature entitled to restrict or revoke power previously granted to corporation, but unexecuted, where conflicting with public interests; distinguished in Hamilton Gas-Light, etc., Co. v. Hamilton, 37 Fed. 838, sustaining city's right to erect its own gas works where franchise to the company was not exclusive. Distinguished in Pontiac v. Carter, 32 Mich. 170, collecting cases, sustaining city's right to change grade of street, in absence of contract with abutting owners; Washington University v. Rowse, 42 Mo. 321, sustaining State's authority to revoke exemption from taxation, in absence of consideration to State for the exemption; Lake v. Virginia, etc., Rd., 7 Nev. 298, holding building railroad bridge no infringement of exclusive franchise to build and collect tolls from bridge. Criticised and rule denied in Laurel, etc., Rd. v. West Virginia Transportation Co., 25 W. Va. 356, reviewing cases, sustaining legislature's right to interfere with and regulate railroad company's rates, though fixed by charter. Severely criticised in Attorney-General v. Chicago, etc., Ry., 35 Wis. 569, reviewing cases, sustaining legislature's right, reserved by general statute, to regulate rates of railroad, notwithstanding contrary charter provision. Distinguished as to facts in Rockland Water Co. v. Camden, etc., Water Co., 80 Me. 568, 15 Atl. 790, 1 L. R. A. 396, collecting cases, where privileges granted were not exclusive.

Corporations.- Rights asserted against a State, as embodied in a corporate charter, must be clearly defined and not raised by inference or presumption; where reasonable doubts arise as to proper interpretation of instrument granting them, they are to be resolved in State's favor, p. 75.

Cited and followed in Hannibal, etc., Rd. v. Packet Co., 125 U. S.

ANN

271, 31 L. 736, 8 S. Ct. 980, collecting cases, construing act of Congress granting privilege to corporation most strongly in government's favor; Stein v. Bienville Water Supply Co., 141 U. S. 81, 35 L. 628, 11 S. Ct. 896, construing legislative grant of exclusive privilege to supply water from particular source, not violated by permission to others to furnish water from another source; Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 144 U. S. 562, 36 L. 542, 12 S. Ct. 691, construing statute as granting exclusive privilege for limited time only; Covington, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 588, 41 L. 563, 17 S. Ct. 202, construing laws relating to turnpike company in favor of retention by legislature of control of toll-rates; Parrott v. Lawrence, 2 Dill. 337, F. C. 10,772, construing statute granting monopoly strictly in favor of the State; Stein v. Bienville Water-Supply Co., 34 Fed. 148, 152, construing legislative grant of exclusive privilege against corporation; Superior v. Norton, 63 Fed. 359, 24 U. S. App. 59, collecting cases, strictly construing power to contract, granted city by its charter; Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 73 Fed. 726, reviewing cases, construing power granted corporation to use city's streets, against their continuance, by implication, beyond the time limited; Bartholomew v. Austin, 85 Fed. 364, 365, 52 U. S. App. 524, 526, reviewing cases, applying rule in construing city ordinance granting water company privilege of supplying city and its inhabitants; People v. Theological Seminary, 174 Ill. 181, 51 N. E. 199, strictly construing legislative exemptions of property from taxation; Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. State, 45 Md. 611. construing provision giving State certain proportion of receipts, in State's favor; McMillan v. Michigan, etc., R. R., 16 Mich. 102, 93 Am. Dec. 210, collecting cases, refusing to infer legislative intent to relieve road in lessee's hands from obligations resting on lessor; St. Louis v. Gas-Light Co., 5 Mo. App. 504, construing legislative provisions in act of incorporation in favor of the public; Dow v. Northern R. R., 67 N. H. 48, 36 Atl. 534, holding legislative exemption must be express; Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 185, 22 N. E. 386, 5 L. R. A. 553, holding franchise to supply city with water not exclusive; Memphis, etc., Gas Co. v. Williamson, 9 Heisk. 326, holding gas company did not have exclusive right to supply city with gas; Turnpike Co. v. Davidson County, 91 Tenn. 295, 18 S. W. 627, holding turnpike company's charter rights not violated by creation of new public roads and bridges; Racine v. Chicago, etc., Rd., 92 Wis. 123, 65 N. W. 858, construing railroad's charter with reference to its obligation, not to usefulness of street.

Cited also in Camblos v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R., 4 Fed. Cas. 1102. holding, arguendo, legislature cannot sanction establishment of railroad to compete with one previously granted a monopoly, without making just compensation; Water-Works Co. v. Columbus, 48 Kan. 115, 28 Pac. 1103, 15 L. R. A. 360, reviewing cases, sustaining partly-performed contract between city and water company: Wa

tuppa Reservoir Co. v. Fall River, 147 Mass. 570, 18 N. E. 479, 1 L. R. A. 473, and n., dissenting opinion, majority sustaining statute authorizing city to take water, without compensation, from supply on which certain manufacturing companies depended; incidentally in Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N. Y. 183, 186, 38 Am. Rep. 408, 410, sustaining corporation's right to erect bridge if it was not used to compete with bridge of company owning exclusive franchise; North Carolina v. Richmond, etc., R. R., 72 N. C. 652, dissenting opinion, majority sustaining corporation's power to lease its road, with power to lessee to change the gauge.

Distinguished in In re Union Ferry Co., 98 N. Y. 152, holding delegation to corporation of right to acquire land for public purposes not grant of exclusive privilege.

Corporations.- Where corporation's charter contains no ambiguity, powers conferred being plainly marked and their limits readily ascertained, courts should sustain them, looking to the true meaning and intention of the parties, pp. 75-80.

73

Cited and principle applied in Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., Fed. 940, collecting cases (reversed in S. C., 161 U. S. 665, 40 L. 844, 16 S. Ct. 710), sustaining legislative grant to corporation of privilege of consolidating with competitors; Johnson v. The State, 88 Ala. 180, 7 So. 254, construing act of incorporation as granting exemption of its officers from performance of certain public duties; Grant v. Leach, 20 La. Ann. 331, 96 Am. Dec. 406, sustaining corporation's authority to continue to exercise privileges conferred by legislature after expiration of its monopoly in their exercise; State v. Baltimore, etc., R. R., 34 Md. 371, sustaining contract by corporation with State to pay latter a proportion of its receipts.

Corporations.- Prohibition against competition in the charter of the D. bridge, held to have been incorporated into the charter of the S. bridge by charter provision investing it with all the "privileges, Immunities and advantages" enjoyed by the S. bridge, pp. 78, 79.

Cited and followed in East Tennessee, etc., R. R. v. Pickerd, 24 Fed. 614, 616, sustaining legislative exemption from taxation granted by reference to prior acts; Quinlan v. Houston, etc., Ry., 89 Tex. 371, 34 S. W. 741, sustaining legislative grant of privileges to a corporation by reference to prior acts.

Bridges - Ferries.— Legislature has power to license ferries and bridges and so regulate them that no rival ferries or bridges can be established within fixed distances, p. 81.

Cited and principle applied in Camblos v. Phila., etc., R. R., 4 Fed. Cas. 1101, sustaining legislative power to create monopoly in transportation business; St. Louis Gas-Light Co. v. St. Louis Gas, etc., Co., 16 Mo. App. 69, 70, sustaining State's power to grant exclusive franchises which are not monopolies. See also note to