Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/140

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

122 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

but on such outsiders as exercised the trade which the guild gov- erned and regulated.^ The power of making by-laws would be useless without means of enforcing them, and the imposition of penalties for failure to comply with its by-laws was within the power of a corporation, from an indefinite time.' The farther back the examination is carried the broader seems to have been the power of punishing the refractory, extending by special char- ter in many cases to imprisonment as well as fine.' By Coke's time, however, it was setded that the power of imprisonment could not be given by letters- patent from the king, but required an act of Parliament ; ^ and it was further held that similar authority was needed for a by-law aflixing as a penalty the forfeiture of goods ; * but that such bylaws were formally valid may be inferred from the fact that this mode of enforcement was sometimes supported as being in accordance with an immemorial custom.^ Further limitations on the power of making by-laws, which were more strictly construed as time went on, were that they must not be contrary, nor even cumulative, to the statutes of Parliament,^ nor in restraint of trade,® nor unreasonable.^ Business corporations, when they arose, were dealt with according to the same principles. As it was well recognized that such by-laws only could be made as were in harmony with the objects for which the corporation was created,^^ and as the purposes for which business corporations were chartered were as a rule definitely marked out, the scope of the right to make by-laws was correspondingly narrowed. A few of the earlier joint-stock companies were intrusted with the regu- lation of the trade in which they were engaged, and the by-laws of these were binding on all engaged in the trade, precisely as was the case with guilds.^ But by the change in the conception of a

1 Butchers' Co. v. Morey, i H. Bl. 370; Kirk v, Nowill. i T. R. 118.

  • The Law of Corp. 209.
  • Grant on Corp. 86, especially notes d and f.
  • Towle's Case, Cro. Car. 582; Chancey's Case, 12 Rep. 83.
  • 8 Rep. 125a; Home v. Ivy, i Ventr. 47 ; Clarke v. Tuckett, 2 Ventr. 183; Nightin-

gale V, Bridges, i Show. 135.

  • Clearywalk v. Constable, Cro. Eliz. no; Sams v. Foster, Cro. Eliz. 352; s. c. Dyer,

297 b.

7 Grant on Corp. 78. • Ibid. 83.

» Ibid. 80.

10 Child ». Hudson's Bay Co., 2 P. Wms. 207 ; 2 Kyd on Corp. 102. 1^ E,g,^ the East India Company in its early days regulated the right of private trading with the Indies, and soon forbade it altogether. It endeavored to enforce this rule against