Summary

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field Trask v. Maguire — Opinion of the Court

It seems to us that the plain meaning of the ordinance, when it says that the General Assembly shall provide by law in what manner the railroad and its franchises shall be sold, is that they shall be sold in conformity with such law as the legislature may constitutionally pass, not in conformity with any law which the legislature could devise if it had unlimited discretion in the matter.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field Trask v. Maguire — Opinion of the Court

But if we are mistaken in this particular, we are clear that it never was intended by the ordinance to sanction, by the sale of the franchises of a defaulting corporation, the renewal of an exemption which had once ceased to exist, and which the constitution had declared should never thereafter be created. The inhibition of the constitution applies in all its force against the renewal of an exemption equally as against its original creation; and this inhibition the legislature could not disregard in providing for the sale of the property which it had purchased.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field Trask v. Maguire — Opinion of the Court

It is true that at this time a statute was in existence, passed in 1845, which declared that the charter of every corporation subsequently granted should be subject to alteration, suspension, and repeal at the discretion of the legislature. But from the operation of this provision the company was expressly exempted by an act amendatory of its charter, passed in 1853. [2] From that time at least the exemption of its stock from State and county taxation was placed beyond legislative interference.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature