Page images
PDF
EPUB

succession, perpetual or limited; a permanent body or thing; a body which never dies.5

§ 52. To What Extent Definition of Corporation Includes a Company, Association and Joint-Stock Association or Company-Partnership. The constitution of New York pro

'See the following cases for definitions of a corporation. (Explanatory note. Cases preceded by a * give, in whole or in part, Chief Justice Marshall's definition, quoted in the preceding section; cases preceded by a * and also a † give same definition and also another or other definitions. Unmarked cases give still other and different definitions.)

United States: * Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 44, 44 L. ed. 657, 20 Sup. Ct. 518, per McKenna, J.; Kansas Pac. Rd. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rd. Co., 112 U. S. 414, 416, 5 Sup. Ct. 208, 28 L. ed. 794; Baltimore & Potomac Rd. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 330, 27 L. ed. 739, per Field, J.; Ohio & Mississippi Rd. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black (66 U. S.), 286, 295, 17 L. ed. 130 ("a corporation exists only in contemplation of law and by force of law"); * Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co., 16 How. (57 U. S.) 314, 327, 14 L. ed. 953, per Grier, J.; Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Rd. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. (43 U. S.) 497, 558, 11 L. ed. 553; * Runyan v. Lessee of Coster, 14 Pet. (39 U.S.) 122, 129, 10 L. ed. 382, per Thompson, J.; * Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. (38 U. S.) 519, 587, 10 L. ed. 274, per Taney, C. J.; Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch (9 U. S.), 61 88, per Marshall, C. J.; * Seattle Gas & Electric Co. v. Citizens' Light & Power Co., 123 Fed. 588, 592, per Hanford, Dist. J.; Andrews Bros. v. Youngstown Coke

Co., 86 Fed. 585, 588, 589, 30 C. C. A. 293, 58 U. S. App. 444, per Lurton, Cir. J. [quoting Kyd; Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 70, 1 Dill. Munic. Corp. (3d. ed.) § 18; Angel & Ames on Corp. §§ 1-30]; Ames v. Union Pac. Rd. Co., 62 Fed. 7, 14 ("a corporation is organized capital; it is capital consisting of money and property," per Caldwell, Cir. J.); * Ross v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8 Fed. 544, per McCrary, J. (similar to first part of Chief Justice Marshall's definition); Santa Clara, County of, v. Southern Pac. Rd. Co., 18 Fed. 385, 402.

Alabama: Dillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 468, 474, per Stone, J.; Askew v. Hale County, 54 Ala. 639, 642, 25 Am. Rep. 730, per Brickell, C. J.

Arkansas: *† Conway, Ex parte, 4 Ark. (4 Pike) 302, 351, per Lacy, J.

California: *San Luis Water Co. v. Estrada, 117 Cal. 168, 177, 48 Pac. 1075, per Chipman, C.; Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 406, 410, per Crockett, J. (code definition).

Colorado: * Utley v. Clark-Guardian Lode Min. Co., 4 Colo. 369, 372, per Deady, J.

Connecticut: Barber v. International Co. of Mexico, 73 Conn. 587, 606, 48 Atl. 758, per Baldwin, J.;

Coite v. Society for Savings, 32 Conn. 173, 185, per McCurdy, J.; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hartford, 3 Conn. 15, 25, per Hosmer, Ch. J.

Delaware: * Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst. (Del.) 227, 240, 40 Am. St. Rep. 141, 32 Atl. 133, per

vides that: "The term corporations as used in this article shall be construed to include all associations and joint-stock companies having any of the powers or privileges of corpora

Saulsbury, Ch.; *† Coyle v. McIntire, 7 Houst. (Del.) 44, 88, 40 Am. St. Rep. 109, 30 Atl. 728, per Saulsbury, Ch.; * Deringer v. Deringer, 5 Houst. (Del.) 416, 429, 1 Am. St. Rep. 150, per Wales, J.

Georgia: * Goldsmith v. Rome Rd. Co., 62 Ga. 473, 481, per Bleckley, J.; Central Rd. & Banking Co. v. State, 54 Ga. 401, 406, per Warner, C. J. (giving Code and Comyns, Dig. definitions); Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486, 492, 52 Am. Dec. 412 ("corporations aggregate are but associations of individuals") per Lumpkin, J.; South Carolina Rd. Co. v. McDonald, 5 Ga. 531, 535, per Nisbet, J.

Illinois: Sellers v. Greer, 172 Ill. 549, 50 N. E. 246, 40 L. R. A. 589; Fietsam v. Hay, 122 Ill. 293, 295, 3 Am. St. Rep. 492, 13 N. E. 501, per Mulkey, J.; Mather v. City of Ottawa, 114 Ill. 659, 664, 3 N. E. 216, per Craig, J.; Porter v. Rockford, Rock Island & St. Louis Rd. Co., 76 Ill. 561, 573, 574, per Scholfield, J.; People ex rel. Cairo & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Dupuyt, 71 Ill. 651, 655, per Craig, J.

Indiana: Tippecanoe County, Board of Commissioners of, v. Lafayette, Muncie & Bloomington Rd. Co., 50 Ind. 85, 108, per Biddle, J.; * Cutshaw v. Fargo, 8 Ind. App. 691, 693, 36 N. E. 650, 34 N. E. 376, per Gavin, C. J.

Kansas: *Land Grant Ry. & Trust Co. v. Coffey County, Board of Commissioners of, 6 Kan. 245, 253, per Valentine, J.

Louisiana: State ex rel. Saunders v. Kohnke, 109 La. 838, 843, 33 So.

793 (Code definition), per Provosty, J.; State v. New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co., 51 La. Ann. 1827, 1834, 26 So. 586, per Breaux, J.

Maine: Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 57 Me. 202, 241, per Tapley, J.; * Miller v. Ewer, 27 Me. 509, 518, 46 Am. Dec. 619, per Shepley, J.

Massachusetts: Central Bridge Corp. v. Bailey, 8 Cush. (62 Mass.) 319, 322, per Fletcher, J.; Pratt v. Bacon, 10 Pick. (27 Mass.) 123, 125, 126; Phillips Academy v. King, 12 Mass. 546, 554, per Thatcher, J.

Michigan: Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214, 223, 224, per Christiancy, Ch. J.; * Swan v. Williams, 2 Mich. (1 Gibbs) 427, 433, per Martin, J.

Mississippi: * Bank of the United States v. State, 12 Smedes & Marsh (20 Miss.), 456, 459, per Clayton, J.

Missouri: State v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403, 410, 44 S. W. 267, 268, per Burgess, J.; Jones v. Williams, 139 Mo. 1, 25, 61 Am. St. Rep. 436, 37 L. R. A. 682, per Macfarlane, J.; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468, 478, 31 S. W. 797, 33 L. R. A. 576, per Macfarlane, J.

Nebraska:* Horbach v. Tyrell, 48 Neb. 514, 526, 37 L. R. A. 434, 67 N. W. 485, per Ryan, J., in dissenting opinion.

Nevada: *+ Edwards v. Carson Water Co., 21 Nev. 469, 479, 34 Pac. 381, per Murphy, C. J.

New Jersey: North Hudson Co. Ry. Co. v. May, 48 N. J. L. 401, 5 Atl. 276.

New York: Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 169 N. Y. 506, 511, 88 Am. St. Rep.

tions not possessed by individuals or partnerships. And all corporations shall have the right to sue and shall be subject to be sued in all courts in like cases as natural persons."

608,, per Gray, J.; * Codd v. Rathbone, 19 N. Y. 37, 40, per Grover, J.; * Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 257, per Selden, J., in dissenting opinion; *Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 103, 123, 124; Thomas v. Dakin; 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 9, 70, 71, 104; Niagara County v. People, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 504, 507; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. New York, 7 Hill (N. Y.), 261, 283, per Scott, Senator; Purdy v. People, 4 Hill (N. Y.), 384, 406, per Scott, Senator; People v. Assessors of Watertown, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 616, 620, per Bronson, J.; Gifford v. Livingston, 2 Denio (N. Y.), 380, 395, per Hand, Senator; Sandford v. New York, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 172, 175, per Davies, J.; Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Pub. Co., 23 N. Y. Supp. 675, 678, 53 N. Y. St. Rep. 214, 4 Misc. 172, per Bookstaver, J.; People v. North River Sugar Refining Co., 3 N. Y. Supp. 401, 407, per Bar

rett, J.

Ohio: State v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Ohio St. 137, 178, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541, 15 L. R. A. 145, 30 N. E. 279, per Marshall, J.

Pennsylvania: Gibbs's Estate, Halstead's Appeal, 157 Pa. 59, 69, 33 Wkly. N. C. 120, 22 L. R. A. 276, 27 Atl. 383, per Williams, J.; Commonwealth v. Fall Brook Coal Co., 156 Pa. 488, 494, 26 Atl. 1071, per Williams, J.

South Carolina: * McCandless v. Richmond R. Co., 38 S. C. 103, 110, 18 L. R. A. 440, 16 S. E. 429, per Pope, J.; State ex rel. Copes v. Charleston, 10 Rich. Law (S. C.), 491, 503.

[ocr errors]

Texas: *Waterbury & Co. v. City of Laredo, 60 Tex. 519, 521.

Utah: Weyeth Hardware & Mfg. Co. v. James-Spencer-Bateman Co., 15 Utah, 110, 121, 47 Pac. 604, per Bartch, J.

Virginia: Roanoke Gas Co. v. Roanoke, 88 Va. 810, 824, 14 S. E. 665, per Richardson, J.

West Virginia: * Roanoke Gas Co. v. Clarksburg, 30 W. Va. 491, 494, 4 S. E. 774, per Woods, J.; * Hope v. Valley City Salt Co., 25 W. Va. 789, 797, per Woods, J.

Wisconsin: State ex rel. Attorney Gen'l v. Milwaukee Lake Shore & Western Ry. Co., 45 Wis. 579, 592, 593, per Orton, J.

Const. N. Y., art. 8, § 3. See also the following state constitutions:

Alabama: Const., art. 12, par. 241. California: Const., art. 12, § 4. Idaho: Const., art. 11, § 16. Kansas: Const., art. 12, 86 (Dassler's Gen'l Stat. § 215).

Kentucky: Const., § 208.
Louisiana: Const., art. 268.
Michigan: Const., art. 15, § 11.
Minnesota: Const., art. 10, § 1.
Mississippi: Const., § 199, art. 7.
Missouri: Const., art. 12, § 11.
Montana: Const., art. 15, § 18.
North Carolina: Const., art. 8, § 3.
North Dakota: Const., art. 7,

[blocks in formation]

Under the Public Service Commissions Law of that State the term "corporation," when used in that act, includes a corporation, company, association and joint-stock association." But under the Joint-Stock Association Law of the same State the term "joint-stock association" does not include a corporation. In People ex rel. Winchester v. Coleman it is held that notwithstanding the various legislative enactments extending the powers of joint-stock companies, and clothing them with many of the essential attributes possessed by and characteristic of corporations, the distinction between the two classes of organizations still exists, and a joint-stock company is not taxable upon its capital under statutes subjecting "all money or stock corporations deriving an income or profit from their capital or otherwise," to such a tax. In People ex rel. Platt v. Wemple 10 it is held that the words "incorporated or organized under any law of this State," as used in a statute providing for the taxation of certain corporations, joint-stock companies and associations,11 are not to be taken in a technical or restricted sense and confined to associations brought into being according to the formality of a statute, but as including any combination of individuals upon terms which embody or adopt as rules or regulations of business the enabling provisions of the statutes, and, so far as possible for it, assume an independent personality, and claim Virginia: Const., art. 12, § 153 written articles of association and (Pollard's Code, 1904). capital stock divided into shares, but does not include a corporation; and the term stockholder includes every member of such an association." Joint Stock Assn. Law, N. Y. Laws 1894, ch. 235, § 2.

Washington: Const., art. 12, § 5. Power to sue under New York constitution includes power to maintain only actions relating to corporate rights. Board of Education v. Board of Education, 78 N. Y. Supp. 522, 76 App. Div. 355.

'Public Service Commissions of N. Y., Laws 1907, p. 891, ch. 429, art. 1, § 2.

"As used in this chapter the term joint-stock association includes every

133 N. Y. 279, 31 N. E. 96, 16 L. R. A. 183, 45 N. Y. St. R. 217, 46 Alb. L. J. 50, 30 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 1.

10 117 N. Y. 136, 6 L. R. A. 303, 22 N. E. 1046.

11 Ch. 542, Laws N. Y. 1880, as unincorporated joint-stock associ- am'd by § 3, ch. 361, Laws 1881; ation, company or enterprise having ch. 501, Laws 1885.

privileges not possessed by individuals or copartnerships, and that an association described in the articles as a "joint-stock company" has the characteristics, in certain respects, of a corporation and not a mere partnership, in view of the capacities and attributes with which it was endowed, and in view also of the statutes which legalized its assumed capacities and made valid and effective its asserted right of succession, its distinctive name and the inalienability of its shares, even though the articles contained no reference to any statute of the State as one under or by which the company was organized.12 In Fargo v. McVicker 13 it is held that in case of joint-stock associations the question of citizenship, in respect to the removal of causes to the Federal courts, should be governed by the same principles of law which determine the question of citizenship in the case of corporations authorized by the laws of a State. In Waterbury v. Merchants' Union Express Co.14 the nature and legal character of joint-stock associations organized under the New York laws is considered, and it is declared that they have all the attributes of a corporation except the technical one of a common seal; and that in respect to the absence of a common seal they are like partnerships. In Supervisors of Niagara v. People 15 it is held that associations formed under the general banking law are corporations within the purview of the statute 16 and liable to taxation on their capital. In a case in the Supreme Court of the United States it appeared that a joint-stock association was, by a deed of settlement in England and certain acts of Parliament, endowed with certain faculties and powers, which were: a distinct artificial name by which it could make contracts; a statutory authority to sue and be sued in the name of its officers as representing the association; a statutory recognition of the association as an entity distinct from its

12 Shareholders of joint-stock company considered as partners, liable for debts, etc., of company in Hibbs v. Brown, 98 N. Y. Supp. 353, 112 App. Div. 214.

13 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 437.
14 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 157.
15 7 Hill (N. Y.), 504.
16 1 Rev. Stat. 414, § 1.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »