§ 493.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VIII. § 493. The discussion of the powers which a state has over Distinction corporations by virtue of its police power (in the between broadest sense), would be incomplete without raen- " rights" ....... . . l . and "reme- tioning the distinction taken in many cases between " rights " and " remedies." It has been, for instance, decided that the abolishment of imprisonment for debt, or dis- tress for rent, even as to debts already contracted or leases already in force, is not unconstitutional as impairing the obli- gation of a contract, because such a law is held to operate only as a modification of the remedy. 1 These cases have been ques- tioned, 2 and indeed the distinction between a right and a rem- edy is probably of comparatively recent growth. Going back to early periods of legal history we find that what are now regarded as the substantial rights of persons were simple and easy of determination, while the more difficult, but equally important, questions were as to the proper means of enforcing these rights. This is illustrated by the extraordinary promi- nence of the law of distress in the Brehon (old Irish) and Salic systems. 3 At Rome, moreover, the right to bring a certain actio was not distinguished, as at present, from the rights which by means of that actio were sought to be enforced. 4 Still, the law of procedure is in most respects to-day readily distin- guishable from the law regulating material rights, and with reference to our present legal notions the distinction on prin- ciple may be sufficiently justifiable, if not so historically. 5 Be- ley, 105 U. S. 305. A bank cannot enjoin a tax collector from selling the shares of individual sharehold- ers. Waseca County Bank v. Mc- Kenna, 32 Minn. 468. But see § 484, note. 1 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 ; Mason v. Haile, 12 Wheat. 370; Penniman's Case, 103 U. S. 714; Van Rensselaer v. Snyder, 13 N. Y. 299 ; Conkey v. Hart, 14 N. Y. 22. 2 "Any law which in its operation amounts to a denial or obstruction to the rights accruing by contract, though professing to act only on the remedy, is directly obnoxious to 502 the provision of the constitution.' 1 Pritchard ». Norton, 106 U. S. 124, 132; see McCracken p. Hayward, 2 How. 608, 612 ; Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 615 ; Edwards v. Kerzey, 96 U. S. 595, 607. The last two cases held that increased exemptions un- der a new homestead act affecting the remedy under contracts already entered into, were unconstitutional. See, also, Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 206. 8 See Maine's Early History of Institutions. 4 See, generally, Windscheid, Die Romische Actio. 6 See United States v. Union Pa-
