N.Y., L.E. W.R.R. Co., 162 N.Y. 230; Bedford Quarries Co. v. Bough, 168 Ind. 671; Braceville Coal Co. v. Illinois, 147 Ill. 66; C., C., C. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 514; Colon v. Lisk, 153 N.Y. 188; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540; Cooley's Const. Limitations, 7th ed., pp. 837 and 838; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards, 183 U.S. 79; Forster v. Scott, 136 N.Y. 577; Foster v. New Orleans, 94 U.S. 246; Galveston c. R.R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U.S. 196; Godcharles v. Wegeman, 11 3 Pa. 431; Gulf, Col. c. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 158; Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Illinois, 163 U.S. 142; House Bill No. 1230, 163 Mass. 589; Matter of Jacobs, 98 N.Y. 98; Johnson v. Goodyear Mining Co., 127 Cal. 4; Kane v. Erie R.R. Co., 133 F. 681; Lake Shore Ry. Co. v. Smith, 173 U.S. 684; Lawrence v. Rutland R.R. Co., 80 Vt. 370; Leep v. St. L. I.M.R.R. Co., 58 Ark. 407; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U.S. 100; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45; Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212; Moran v. New Orleans, 112 U.S. 69; Rodgers v. Coler, 166 N.Y. 1; People v. Gillson, 109 N.Y. 389; People v. Hawkins, 157 N.Y. 1; People v. Orange County Construction Co., 175 N.Y. 84; People v. Williams, 189 N.Y. 131; Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 112 U.S. 326; Robbins v. Shelby Co., 120 U.S. 489; Republic Iron Co. v. Indiana, 160 Ind. 379; San Antonio c. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 19 S.W. 910; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U.S. 319; Simpson v. Shepherd, 230 U.S. 352, 398; State v. Brown Mfg. Co., 18 R.I. 16; Toledo, St. L. W.R. Co. v. Long, 169 Ind. 316; Wright v. Hart, 182 N.Y. 330, 344. Mr. Joseph A. Kellogg, with whom Mr. Thomas Carmody, Attorney General of the State of New York, and Mr. Wilber W. Chambers were on the brief, for defendant in error:

In any event, plaintiffs have no right to receive dividends apportioned in a particular way, as the source of any such right is found only in the charter, Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the United States, 194 N.Y. 212, 230, 87 N.E. 443 (1909); Greeff v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the United States, 160 N.Y. 19, 31, 54 N.E. 712 (1899), which is subject to amendment, see infra notes 25-31 and accompanying text.

Courts of equity have power to protect the voting rights of shareholders as an incident of property ownership. ( Lord v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 194 N.Y. 212 [ 87 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A. (NS) 420]; Harvey v. Harvey, 290 Fed. 653; 14 Cor. Jur. pp. 898, 903, and cases cited.) Section 316 of the Civil Code, by implication recognizes this equitable remedy by providing that "Shares, the voting of which at said meeting has been enjoined . . . shall not be counted to make up a quorum for said meeting."

Article VIII, section 1, of the Constitution of 1894 (our present Constitution), is identical with the same article and section of the Constitution of 1846. See Lord v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 194 N.Y. 212-221, as to the history of the above quoted provisions of the Revised Statutes and of our State Constitution. The plaintiff was incorporated in 1869, under laws passed pursuant to the above provisions of the Constitution of 1846.

New York Const., Art. X, § 1. That condition becomes a part of every corporate charter subsequently granted by New York. Lord v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443; People v. Gass, 190 N.Y. 323, 83 N.E. 64; Pratt Institute v. New York, 183 N.Y. 151, 75 N.E. 1119. What has been done here, as I see it, is to exercise this reserved power which permits the State to alter corporate controls in response to the lessons of experience. Of course, the power is not unlimited and could be so exercised as to deprive one of property without due process of law.

This court will not disturb the construction given by a state court to a state statute, even if the statute constitute a contract under the constitutional provision, unless it is manifestly clear that the state court was in error. In support of these contentions, see Bacon v. Texas, 163 U.S. 207; New York v. Bryan, 196 N.Y. 158; Cross Lake Club v. Louisiana, 224 U.S. 632; Interurban Railway v. Olathe, 222 U.S. 187; Lord v. Equitable Life Ins. Assoc., 194 N.Y. 212; Maine v. Grand Trunk R.R., 142 U.S. 217; New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U.S. 309; New Orleans Water Works v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U.S. 18; Cornell Steamboat Co. v. Sohmer, 206 N.Y. 651; Interborough Transit Co. v. Williams, 200 N.Y. 93; Interborough Transit Co. v. Sohmer, 207 N.Y. 270; S.C., 151 A.D. (N.Y.) 911; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U.S. 594; People v. Home Ins. Co., 92 N.Y. 328; U.S.A.P.P. Co. v. Knight, 174 N.Y. 475; Penn. R.R. v. Wemple, 138 N.Y. 1; People v. O'Brien, 111 N.Y. 1; U.S. Exp. Co. v. Minnesota, 223 U.S. 335; Vicksburg c. Ry. v. Dennis, 116 U.S. 665; Michigan Ry. v. Powers, 191 U.S. 379. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

1 Rev. Stat. N.Y. 1827, 600, § 8; Const. N.Y. of 1846 and 1894, art. VIII, § 1. As to this power of the State to amend corporate charters, see Adirondack Railway Co. v. New York, 176 U.S. 335; New York New Eng. R.R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U.S. 556, p. 567; People v. O'Brien, 111 N.Y. 1; Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U.S. 13; Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Co., 194 N.Y. 212; N.Y.C. H.R.R. Co. v. Williams, 199 N.Y. 108. The only limitation to this general rule is that the power may not be exercised to destroy property or rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and by similar provisions of state constitutions.

The franchise of a public corporation to operate its plant or works is separate and distinct from its franchise to be a corporation, and is transferable as such independently of the life of the original corporation. Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Street Ry. Co., 184 U.S. 368, 394, 395; Minneapolis v. Street Ry. Co., 215 U.S. 417, 430; People v. O'Brien, 111 N.Y. 2, 36-38, 40, 47; Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. Mayor, 128 N.Y. 510, 520; Miner v. New York Central H.R.R.R. Co., 123 N.Y. 242, 250; Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. City of Detroit, 12 C. C.A. 365, 370; S.C., 64 F. 628, 633; Lord v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 194 N.Y. 212, 225, 228. A corporate franchise cannot be separated from the lands or works essential to its enjoyment by the sale of the latter; because to separate its tangible property from its intangible property, would impair its creditors' rights.

"The right to vote for directors, therefore, is the right to protect property from loss and make it effective in earning dividends." Lord v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 194 N.Y. 212, 228, 87 N.E. 443, 448 (1909). In the absence of a compelling reason, a court should not preclude shareholders from the full exercise of this right.

"General and Special. The charter of a corporation is its `general' franchise, while a `special' franchise consists of any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but with private profit. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 420. * * * * *