act, and also for the forfeiture of its charter or certificate of incorporation. If a foreign corporation, to proceed against such corporation for the recovery of the money forfeit provided for in this act, and to forfeit its right to do business in this state: Provided, That within thirty days after the passage of this act all foreign corporations desiring to do business in this state shall file a new bond, as the statute directs; and such sureties and bondsmen shall be liable for the penalties and forfeitures, including costs, provided for in this act.

§ 5. It shall be the duty of the attorney-general and the prosecuting attorney of each county, respectively, to enforce the provisions of this act. The attorney-general, the prosecuting attorneys, shall institute and conduct all suits begun in the circuit courts, and upon appeal the attorney-general shall prosecute said suits in the supreme court and courts of appeal. As compensation for his services in this behalf, the attorney-general shall be entitled to his actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of such suits, to be paid by the defendant or defendants when judgment is rendered for the state, to be taxed as costs by the court hearing the cause. The attorney-general and the prosecuting attorneys shall receive for their compensation one-fourth of the penalty collected, one-fourth of which shall go to the attorney-general, and three-fourths to the prosecuting attorney.

§ 6. In all suits instituted under this act to forfeit the charter of corporations, or to forfeit the right of a corporation to do business in this state, where a judgment of forfeiture is obtained, and the cause is not appealed to the supreme court, the circuit court rendering such judgment shall allow the prosecuting attorney a fee of not less than twenty-five dollars or more than two hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid out of the assets of said corporation; and when the attorneygeneral takes part in said prosecution,.he shall be entitled to his actual expenses to be paid in like manner. All actions authorized and brought under this act shall have precedence, on motion of the prosecuting attorney or attorney-general, of all other business, civil and criminal, except criminal cases where the defendants are in jail.

§ 7. That all laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, and this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

Approved March 6, 1899.

CALIFORNIA.

COMMON-LAW DECISION.

The San Diego Water Co. v. The San Diego Flume Co.

108 Cal., 549. Statement.

August 26, 1895.

Plaintiff and defendant made a contract whereby defendant was to supply no water in San Diego except through the pipes of the plaintiff, and agreed that it would supply water through plaintiff's pipes; plaintiff agreed to take the water and divide the profits with defendant. The plaintiff's and defendant's presidents were appointed trustees to manage the business of both companies.

By the laws of California the city government fixes the water rates.

Defendant now refuses to live up to the contract. Plaintiff brings suit to enforce it, and is met by the defense that the contract is illegal.

Opinion.

The contract was not void on the ground that it formed a partnership between the two corporations and was hence ultra vires. The agreement did not make the corporations partners, but merely made plaintiff the agent of the defendant. The agreement was not against public policy, because the city fixes the water rate.

The contract is enforcible.

75

COLORADO.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

ARTICLE 15.

§ 5. No railroad corporation, or the lessees or managers thereof, shall consolidate its stock, property or franchises with any other railroad corporation owning or having under its control a parallel or competing line.

[Adopted, March 14, 1876.]

76

CONNECTICUT.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

ARTICLE FIRST.

1. We declare, That all men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.

[Adopted, September 15, 1818.]

CASES CONSTRUING CONSTITUTION.

The Norwich Gas Light Co. v. The Norwich City Gas Co.

25 Conn., 18. Statement.

March, 1856.

Plaintiff is granted by the legislature the exclusive right to lay gas pipes in the streets of the city of Norwich, as against all except such persons as the legislature shall hereafter grant such power to. Defendant obtains no permission from the legislature to lay gas pipes in the streets, but gets it from the city council. Plaintiff prays that defendant be enjoined from laying its pipes.

Opinion.

The policy of the law is to encourage trade by free competition.

* * *

"The business of manufacturing and selling gas is an ordinary business in respect to which the government As the restriction

* * *

has no exclusive prerogative. of other persons than the plaintiffs from using the streets for the purpose of distributing gas by means of pipes, can fairly be viewed as intended to operate as a restriction upon its free manufacture and sale, it comes directly within the definition and description of a monopoly. * * The whole theory of a free government is opposed to such grants, and it does not require even the aid which may be derived"

*

from the section of the constitution herein before mentioned "to render them void."

The injunction is not granted.

The State v. Brennan's Liquors.

25 Conn., 277.

September, 1856.

Statement.

A law was passed prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors by any person except a public agent. It was contended that this law is unconstitutional as it creates a monopoly.

Opinion.

"The object of the legislature in authorizing a sale by a public agent for certain purposes, was not to raise a revenue for the town, but to accommodate certain persons with spirits for particular uses, and at the same time to guard against the evils resulting from an indiscriminate sale by all persons and for all purposes."

The law is held constitutional.