applicable to ratification by a principal which is a corporation, and hence reference should be made, in connection herewith, to standard works on the law of agency.79 Ratification and estoppel are often very closely associated, and many times the terms are used interchangeably, although there is a clear line of demarcation between the two in that prejudice is a necessary element of estoppel, while ratification requires no change of condition or prejudice.80 § 2178. Statement of general rule. If the officers of a corporation or other persons assume to act for the corporation without any authority at all, or if they exceed their authority or act irregularly, and the act is one which could have been authorized in the first instance by the stockholders, board of directors or subordinate officers, as the case may be, it may be expressly or impliedly ratified by them, and thus be rendered just as binding, except as to intervening rights of third persons, as if it had been authorized when done, or done 81 United States. Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 163 U. S. 564, 41 L. Ed. 265; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Keokuk & H. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371, 33 L. Ed. 157; Indianapolis Rolling Mill v. St. Louis, Ft. S. & W. R. Co., 120 U. S. 256, 30 L. Ed. 639; People's Bank v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 181, 25 L. Ed. 907; Hartford & N. Y. Transp. Co. v. Plymer, 120 Fed. 624, aff'g 103 Fed. 674; Taylor Gas Producer Co. v. Wood, 119 Fed. 966, aff'd 125 Fed. 337; Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Godchaux, 66 Fed. 234; Leroy & C. Val. Air Line R. Co. v. Sidell, 66 Fed. 27; Nebraska & K. Farm Loan Co. v. Bell, 58 Fed. 326; Augusta, T. & G. R. Co. v. Kittel, 52 Fed. 63; Anglo-Californian Bank v. Mahoney Min. Co., 5 Sawy. 255, Fed. Cas. No. 392, aff'd 104 U. S. 192, 26 L. Ed. 707. Alabama. Hall & Farley v. Alabama Terminal & Improvement Co., 173 Ala. 398, 56 So. 235; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Owen, 121 Ala. 505, 25 So. 612; Kahn v. Hall, 101 Ala. 102, 14 So. 105; Bibb v. Hall, 101 Ala. 79, 14 So. 98; Mobile & M. Ry. Co. v. Gilmer, 85 Ala. 422, 5 So. 138; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. South & North Alabama R. Co., 84 Ala. 570, 5 Am. St. Rep. 401, 3 So. 286. See also Continental Baking Powder Co. v. Stoner, 168 Ala. 304, 53 So. 303. Arizona. George Fishbaugh, Inc. v. Beeler, 15 Ariz. 119, 136 Pac. 1057. California. Newmark Grain Co. v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 166 Cal. 203, 135 Pac. 958; Black v. Harrison Home Co., 155 Cal. 121, 99 Pac. 494; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Pacific Ry. Co., 117 Cal. 332, 49 Pac. 197; Seeley v. San Jose Independent Mill & Lumber Co., 59 Cal. 22; Pixley v. Western Pac. R. Co., 33 Cal. 183, 91 Am. Dec. 623; Blen v. Bear River & A. Water & Mining Co., 20 Cal. 602, 81 Am. Dec. 132; Shaver v. Bear River & A. Water & Mining regularly. In this respect, a corporation is subject to substantially Co., 10 Cal. 396; Stevens v. Selma Fruit Co., 18 Cal. App. 242, 123 Pac. 212; Jones v. Evans, 6 Cal. App. 88, 91 Pac. 532; Riley v. Loma Vista Ranch Co., 1 Cal. App. 488, 82 Pac. 686. Colorado. Bingel v. Brown, 43 Colo. 281, 96 Pac. 449; Conqueror Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Ashton, 39 Colo. 133, 90 Pac. 1124; Union Gold Min. Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. 565, 1 Colo. 531, 96 U. S. 640, 24 L. Ed. 648; Consolidated Gregory Co. v. Raber, 1 Colo. 511; Freeman Improvement Co. v. Osborn, 14 Colo. App. 488, 60 Pac. 730; Henry v. Colorado Land & Water Co., 10 Colo. App. 14, 15 Pac. 90. Connecticut. Converse v. First Nat. Bank of Suffield, 79 Conn. 603, 65 Atl. 1065; Smith v. New Hartford Water Co., 73 Conn. 626, 48 Atl. 754; Tryon v. White & Corbin Co., 62 Conn. 161, 25 Atl. 712; Perry v. Simpson Waterproof Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 520; Howe v. Keeler, 27 Conn. 538. District of Columbia. Washington Times Co. v. Wilder, 12 App. Cas. 62. Georgia. Singleton v. Bank of Monticello, 113 Ga. 527, 38 S. E. 947; Merchants' Bank of Macon v. Central Bank, 1 Ga. 418, 44 Am. Dec. 665; Eminent Household of Columbian Woodinen v. George E. Benz & Co., 11 Ga. App. 733, 76 S. E. 99. Idalio. Valley Lumber Co. v. McGilvery, 16 Idaho 338, 101 Pac. 94. Illinois. Union Surety & Guaranty Co. v. Tenney, 200 Ill. 349, 65 N. E. 688, aff'g 102 Ill. App. 95; Wheeler v. Home Savings & State Bank, 188 Ill. 34, 80 Am. St. Rep. 161, 58 N. E. 598, rev'g 85 Ill. App. 28; -Beach v. Miller, 130 Ill. 162, 17 Am. St. Rep. 291, 22 N. E. 464, rev 'g 23 Ill. App. 151; Hull v. Glover, 126 Ill. 122, 18 N. E. 198; IV Priv. Corp.-2 Reichwald v. Commercial Hotel Co., 106 Ill. 439; Parmly v. Buckley, 103 Ill. 115; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Mahoney, 82 Ill. 73, 25 Am. Rep. 299; Aurora Agricultural & Horticultural Society v. Paddock, 80 Ill. 263; Chicago Consol. Traction Co. v. Mathews, 117 Ill. App. 174; Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Carmichael, 82 Ill. App. 344, aff'd 184 Ill. 348, 56 N. E. 372; Independent Brewing Ass'n v. Powers, 80 Ill. App. 471; Ragland v. McFall, 36 Ill. App. 135, aff'd 137 Ill. 81, 27 N. E. 75. Indiana. Hawkins v. Fourth Nat. Bank of New York, 150 Ind. 117, 49 N. E. 957; Smith v. Wells Mfg. Co., 148 Ind. 333, 46 N. E. 1000; White Water Valley Canal Co. v. Hawkins, 4 Ind. 474; Tevis v. Hammersmith (Ind. App.), 81 N. E. 614; Marion Trust Co. v. Crescent Loan & Investment Co., 27 Ind. App. 451, 87 Am. St. Rep. 257, 61 N. E. 688. Iowa. White v. Elgin Creamery Co., 108 Iowa 522, 79 N. W. 283; Beach v. Wakefield, 107 Iowa 567, 78 N. W. 197, 76 N. W. 688; Shaver v. Hardin, 82 Iowa 378, 48 N. W. 68; Merchants' Union Barb Wire Co. v. Rice, 70 Iowa 14, 29 N. W. 784; Tracy v. Guthrie County Agr. Society, 47 Iowa 27; Merrick v. Burlington & W. Plank Road Co., 11 Iowa 74. Kansas. Morisette v. Howard, 62 Kan. 463, 63 Pac. 756; Marbourg v. Lloyd, 21 Kan. 545; Pacific R. Co. v. Thomas, 19 Kan. 256; Topeka Capital Co. v. March, 10 Kan. App. 40, 61 Pac. 876. Kentucky. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Woolley, 12 Bush 451; Herring v. Dix River & L. Turnpike Road Co., 23 Ky. L. Rep. 642, 63 S. W. 576; German Nat. Bank v. Grinstead, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 674, 52 S. W. 951; Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. Kentucky Glass the same rules as a natural person.81 A corporation "is governed, Works, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1089, 48 S. W. 440; Maxville W. & L. Turnpike-Road Co. v. Barnes, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 431 (abstract). Louisiana. J. B. Levert Co. v. John T. Moore Planting Co., 139 La. 792, 72 So. 249; Perchmann v. Mt. Eagle Const. Co., 128 La. 894, 55 So. 567; Poche v. New Orleans Home Inv. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1287, 27 So. 797; Robinson Mineral Spring Co. v. De Bautte, 50 La. Ann. 1281, 23 So. 865; Bezou v. Pike, 23 La. Ann. 788. Maine. Patten v. Moses, 49 Me. 255; Perkins v. Portland, S. & P. R. Co., 47 Me. 573, 74 Am. Dec. 507. Maryland. Carrington v. Turner, 101 Md. 437, 61 Atl. 324; Miller v. Matthews, 87 Md. 464, 40 Atl. 176; Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md. 256, 23 Atl. 846; Grape Sugar & Vinegar Mfg. Co. v. Small, 40 Md. 395. Massachusetts. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wing, 191 Mass. 192, 77 N. E. 376; Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413, 67 N. E. 345; Jacobs V. German Workingmen's Ass'n, 183 Mass. 3, 66 N. E. 605; Simmons v. Shaw, 172 Mass. 516, 52 N. E. 1087; Nims v. Mt. Hermon Boys' School, 160 Mass. 177, 22 L. R. A. 364, 39 Am. St. Rep. 467, 35 N. E. 776; Parish of St. James v. Newburyport & A. Horse R. Co., 141 Mass. 500, 6 N. E. 749; Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. Massachusetts Glass Co., 111 Mass. 315; Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59; Brown v. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen 326; Dedham Inst. for Savings v. Slack, 6 Cush. 408; Burrill v. Nahant Bank, 2 Metc. 163, 35 Am. Dec. 395. Michigan. McLaughlin v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co., 8 Mich. 100. Minnesota. Willis v. St. Paul Sanitation Co., 53 Minn. 370, 55 N. W. 550; Western Land Ass'n v. Ready, 24 Minn. 350. Mississippi. Watts Mercantile Co. v. Buchanan, 92 Miss. 540, 46 So. 66. Missouri. Washington Sav. Bank v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank, 107 Mo. 133, 28 Am. St. Rep. 405, 17 S. W. 644; Campbell v. Pope, 96 Mo. 468, 10 S. W. 187; First Nat. Bank of Springfield v. Fricke, 75 Mo. 178, 42 Am. Rep. 397; Kansas City Star Pub. Co. v. Standard Warehouse Co., 123 Mo. App. 13, 99 S. W. 765; Birch v. Glasgow Sav. Bank, 114 Mo. App. 711, 90 S. W. 746; Smith v. Richardson, 77 Mo. App. 422. See also Gregmoore Orchard Co. v. Gilmour, 159 Mo. App. 204, 140 S. W. 763. Montana. Agle v. Standard Drug Co., 29 Mont. 111, 74 Pac. 135; Starr v. Gregory Consol. Min. Co., 6 Mont. 485, 13 Pac. 195. Nebraska. Bishop v. Fuller, 78 Neb. 259, 110 N. W. 715; Omaha Consol. Vinegar Co. v. Burns, 49 Neb. 229, 68 N. W. 492; Nebraska Nat. Bank of York v. Ferguson, 49 Neb. 109, 59 Am. St. Rep. 522, 68 N. W. 370; Rich v. State Nat. Bank, 7 Neb. 201, 29 Am. Rep. 382. New Hampshire. Goodwin v. Union Screw Co., 34 N. H. 378; Despatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205, 37 Am. Dec. 203. New Jersey. Parsons Mfg. Co. v. Hamilton Ice Mfg. Co., 78 N. J. L. 309, 73 Atl. 254; Durar v. Hudson County Mut. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 171; J. H. Mohlman Co. v. American Grocery Co., 68 N. J. Eq. 602, 60 Atl. 950; Flaherty v. Atlantic Lumber Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 467, 44 Atl. 186; Pomeroy v. New York Smelting & Refining Co. (N. J. Eq.), 48 Atl. 395; Blake v. Domestic Mfg. Co. (N. J. Eq.), 38 Atl. 241; Hoyt v. Bridgewater CopperMining Co., 6 N. J. Eq. 253; Leggett v. New Jersey Manufacturing & Banking Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 541, 23 Am. Dec. 728. New York. Shaw v. New York El. like an individual, by the same principles as to the ratification of the R. Co., 187 N. Y. 186, 79 N. E. 984; North Carolina. Benbow v. Cook, Oklahoma. C. M. Keys Commission Oregon. Guillaume v. K. S. D. Pennsylvania. National Bank of Potts, 185 Pa. St. 115, 39 Atl. 824; South Carolina. Graham v. Burgiss, South Dakota. Davis v. Brown Tennessee. First Nat. Bank of Texas. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Davis, Utah. Ober v. Schenck, 23 Utah Vermont. John A. Roebling's Sons Virginia. Richmond Union Pas- Washington. Vulcan Ironworks v. acts of its agents and as to estoppel in pais." 82 Not only may acts in excess of the authority of a corporate officer or agent be ratified, but also informal or irregular action of corporate officers or agents.83 If an act or contract of a corporate officer or agent is beyond the scope of his authority, or is invalid because of informalities making the act or contract voidable but not void, the corporation has two courses open to it. If it desires not to be bound thereby, it may escape liability by promptly repudiating the act or contract, after v. Long, 2 Wash. 435, 26 Am. St. Rep. 867, 27 Pac. 271. Wisconsin. Petersen v. Elholm, 130 Wis. 1, 109 N. W. 76; Heinze v. South Green Bay Land & Dock Co., 109 Wis. 99, 85 N. W. 145; Bullen v. Milwaukee Trading Co., 109 Wis. 41, 85 N. W. 115; Johnson v. Weed & Gumaer Mfg. Co., 103 Wis. 291, 79 N. W. 236; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Lee, 102 Wis. 426, 78 N. W. 584; Hubbard v. Haley, 96 Wis. 578, 71 N. W. 1036; Pratt v. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 Wis. 406, 62 N. W. 84; McLaren v. First Nat. Bank of Milwaukee, 76 Wis. 259, 45 N. W. 223; Kickland v. Menasha Wooden-Ware Co., 68 Wis. 34, 60 Am. Rep. 831, 31 N. W. 471; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. James, 24 Wis. 388; Walworth County Bank v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 16 Wis. 629; Racine County Bank v. Lathrop, 12 Wis. 466. Wyoming. Frank v. Hicks, 4 Wyo. 502, 35 Pac. 475, 1025. England. Smith v. Hull Glass Co., 11 C. B. 897. "A principal is bound only by the authorized acts of his agent, and prior authority or subsequent ratification must be shown in order to render the principal answerable ex contractu for the conduct of his agent. The agent's authority may be either express or implied; but the act done or the promise made by the agent must be within the powers expressly or impliedly delegated to him; though the act was not authorized at the time it was done, it may be ratified subsequently by a competent principal." Spelman v. Gold Coin Mining & Milling Co., 26 Mont. 76, 55 L. R. A. 644, 91 Am. St. Rep. 402, 66 Pac. 597. A corporation may waive objection to payment by the president of a personal debt with a corporate check and become bound thereby. Security Warehousing Co. v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 118 N. Y. App. Div. 350, 103 N. Y. Supp. 399. It is unnecessary, in a suit against a corporation for violation of a contract, to allege that said contract was ratified by the necessary majority, where it is alleged that the corporation made the contract, and it was within the corporate powers. Escondido Oil & Development Co. v. Glaser, 144 Cal. 494, 77 Pac. 1040. It is harmless error to admit evidence of ratification of a wrongful act by an agent of the corporation where the corporation would have been liable irrespective of such ratification. Dwyer v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 152, 83 S. W. 303. Recordation in the minutes does not make the act of directors valid but merely preserves evidence of it. Watts v. Gordon, 127 Tenn. 96, 153 S. W. 483. 82 Metzger v, Southern Bank, 98 Miss. 108, 54 So. 241. Like a natural person, a corporation may ratify any act which it can perform. Rowley v. Stack-Gibbs Lumber Co., 19 Idaho 107, 112 Pac. 1041. 83 Morisette v. Howard, 62 Kan. 463, 63 Pac. 756; Silsby v. Strong, 38 Ore. 36, 62 Pac. 633. |