CONTROL OF CORPORATIONS. BY GENERAL LAW ONLY-CONSTITUTION. GENERAL RULES OF LAW AS TO. BY CITIES. BY COUNTY. BY COURTS. Constitutional provisions. Art. 11, § 1. No corporation shall be created by special laws, or its charter extended, changed or amended, except those for charitable, educational, penal or reformatory purposes, which are to be and remain under the patronage and control of the State, but the General Assembly shall provide, by general laws, for the organization of all corporations hereafter to be created. Art. 4, § 22. The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say, for: Granting to any corporation, association or individual the right to lay down railroad tracks, or amending existing charters for such purpose. Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. § 23. The General Assembly shall have no power to release or extinguish, in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liability or obligation of any corporation or individual to this State or to any municipal corporation therein. Control of reserved.) Chap. 32, § 9. The General Assembly shall, at all times, have power to prescribe such regulations and provisions as it may deem advisable, which regulations and provisions shall be binding on any and all corporations formed under the provisions of this act: And, provided, furfurther, That this act shall not be held to revive or extend any private charter or law heretofore granted or passed concerning any corporation. Law-In general. The Legislature has no power to authorize the Secretary of State to forfeit a charter for failure to make an annual report. Act of 1901 upheld. People v. Rose, 207 Ill. 352. The Legislature has full power to regulate and impose subsequent conditions on corporations. Sec. 9, Corporation Act. City of Danville v. Danville Water Co., 178 Ill. 299 (306). A private water company is subject to rate regulation by Legislature. Rogers Park W. Co. v. Fergus, 178 Ill. 571. Legislature has full power to regulate corporations after their organization, so as to provide for the public safety, health and welfare. Requiring trains to stop at county seatspolice regulation. C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. People, 175 Ill. 359. Special laws as to corporations are enforcible only in the States where enacted. Creditor of an insolvent Kansas bank cannot sue in Illinois and claim under a Kansas statute. Tuttle v. Nat'l Bank of Republic, 161 Ill. 497. The right to labor and to employ labor is a property right guaranteed by Sec. 2, Art. 2, of the constitution. Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98. Freedom of contract cannot be restrained by the Legislature arbitrarily but must have reasonable basis. Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98. Statutes prohibiting women from working more than eight hours, invalid, as partial, arbitrary, and imposing unreasonable burden on citizens. Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98. Legislature has power to fix maximum freight and passenger rates of railroad companies. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill. 361. Legislature has no power to exempt corporate property from taxation, except as to property named in Art. 9, Sec. 3, of the constitution. People's L. & H. Ass'n v. Keith, 153 Ill. 609 (623). Legislative control of railroads was not changed by the act of 1855 as to operative contracts or the act of 1867. I. C. R. R. Co. v. People, 143 Ill. 434 (457). Sections 1 and 2 of Truck Store Act prohibiting truck stores held unconstitutional as special legislation. Sec. 2, Art 11 of constitution. Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171. The Legislature has no power to declare a corporate franchise forfeited-quo warranto is the remedy. Fietsam v. Hay, 122 Ill. 293. Legislature may lawfully pass laws regulating railroad charges for carrying passengers and freight. I. C. R. R. Co. v. People, 121 Ill. 304. Legislature is not authorized to regulate discriminations in freight rates on through freight, except as to lines in this State. W. St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. People, 105 Ill. 236. Corporations are bound by subsequent statutes limiting their rights or powers, when a reservation to so control them is contained in the incorporation statute. St. Peters R. C. Cong. v. Germain, 104 Ill. 440. Acceptance by corporation of amendment to its charter reserving power to regulate corporations by general subsequent law, subjects the company to such reservation. (Act of 1857.) Gulliver v. Roelle, 100 Ill. 141. Sec. 9, Incorporation Act, as to power of Legislature to classify and regulate all corporations, construed. People v. Kelly Mfg. Co., 1 Ill. C. C. R. 171. By Cities.-Municipalities as such have no control over corporations as such. Cities have a control over corporations only when they seek and obtain favors or grants from the city. By the Constitution of 1870 and General Acts since, railroad, telephone, gas and other corporations are not authorized by their charter to enter cities without the consent of the municipal authority, and in granting franchises to such companies, cities, by conditions in the ordinance, secure a control over the corporate activities; in addition to the general police power they may exercise over all corporations and citizens. Consent of abutting owners to an extension of a street railway franchise (under act of 1903) is not necessary where the company already has tracks in such street. Venner v. C. C. Ry. Co., 236 Ill. 349 (362). An unlimited grant to a street railway company by a city continues only so long as the municipality continues to exist. It does not create perpetual rights. Venner v. C. C. Ry. Co., 236 Ill. 349. Ordinance of February 11, 1907, giving franchise to C. C. Ry. Co. held valid and binding and not a partnership. Venner v. C. C. Ry. Co., 236 Ill. 349 (456). Acceptance of an ordinance by the directors of the Chicago City Ry. Co. is a sufficient acceptance under the act of 1859 incorporating said company. Venner v. C. C. Ry. Co., 236 Ill. 349 (361). An ordinance granting a franchise to a street railway company becomes a contract when accepted and acted upon by the company in a substantial manner. Madison v. Alton, G. & St. L. T. Co., 235 Ill. 346. City may determine kind of pavement to be put along track of street railway, as part of an improvement. Madison v. Alton, G. & St. L. T. Co., 235 Ill. 346. Cities are not authorized to deprive themselves of control over the use, improvement and repair of a street or any part of it-street railway franchise. Madison v. Alton, G. & St. L. T. Co., 235 Ill. 346. Privileges, which would be subject to a veto, cannot be granted by resolution of a City Council. Village of London Mills v. White, 208 Ill. 289 (298). Cities have no power to grant exclusive privileges and uses in streets. Chicago Tel. Co. v. N. W. Tel. Co., 199 Ill. 324. Discussion as to how far city may grant the use of streets to, private persons; and dissenting opinion-hack stands. Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Chicago, 181 Ill. 289 (296). Ordinance granting electric light company privilege of placing wires under sidewalk, limits it to the space actually required for cables, etc. Commonwealth Elec. Co. v. Melville, 210 Ill. 70. City owning the fee of a street may authorize erection of electric light poles and wires, if placed so as not to obstruct general traffic. McWethy v. Aurora Elec. Light Co., 202 III. 218. Petition by abutting owners consenting to track in street may be signed by agents-ordinance will not be void on that ground. Tibbetts v. W. & S. T. Ry. Co., 153 Ill. 147 (152). A city cannot take possession of street railway property, on repeal of an ordinance granting it right to lay tracks. Belleville v. Citizens H. R. Co., 152 Ill. 171 (188). When street railway charter requires consent of city, permission to lay tracks is a license, not a franchise. Belleville v. Citizens H. R. Co., 152 Ill. 171 (185). Where conditions are named in an ordinance, the city may revoke a grant to lay tracks, on a breach of the condition, by repealing the ordinance, where power is reserved. Belleville v. Citizens H. R. Co., 152 Ill. 171 (187). Power given in a statute or charter to cities and counties to subscribe for railroad stock does not justify a donation in aid. Choisser v. People, 140 Ill. 21. Sec. 8 of the Fencing and Operating Act construed as not |