CORNEL! Xj ^orttfU Slam i'rlioal ffitbratg KF1414.MlT" """""■"•>"■""''>' 3 1924 019 223 738 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019223738 A TREATISE ON THE MODERN LAW OF CORPORATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO FORMATION AND OPERATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS ARTHUR W-%ACHEN, Jr. OF THE BALTIMORE BAK IN TWO VOLUMES Volume I. BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1908 •T '8 "a 'KOMoa "00 v i'iras«Ta 't 'a P91U399J SfllBtU ]jy '8061 'jhSuMoq Onus si tantum opinione prima concipere potuissem quanta me premi forens sentio, maturius consuluissem vires meas. Sed initio, pudor omit- tendi quae promiseram tenuit : max, quamquam per singulas prope partes labor cresceret, ne perderem quae jam effecta erant, per omnes difficultates animo me sustentavi. Quare nunc quoque, licet major quam umquam moles premat, tamen prospicienti Jiriem mihi constitutum est vel dejicere potius quam desperare. — Quintil* De Inst. Orat., Lib. XII, prooem. PREFACE In these volumes I have aimed to approach the law of our ordinary business corporations from a point of view more pecu- liarly appropriate to companies incorporated under general laws than has heretofore been customary. It seemed to me desirable to reject as obsolete much of the old law of corpora- tions formed under royal charters in England, together with its terminology, and to treat the modem law upon a plan which should recognize incorporation under general laws, rather than incorporation under royal charters or under special acts of the legislature, as the normal method of incor- poration. In the second place, I have aimed to treat fully and, so far as possible, exhaustively, those topics which the rapid development of the law of incorporated companies both in Great Britain and in the United States has but recently brought into practical importance, and also any other topics which for any other reason seemed to me to need fuller or further treat- ment than is accorded in the serviceable text-books with which American lawyers are famiUar. Among the topics which an attempt has been made to analyze with especial thoroughness may be mentioned the law of the preparation, construction, and filing of incorporation papers, the law of promoters, of underwriting agreements, the law of preferred shares, of increase and reduction of capital, of trans- fers of shares, of directors' and shareholders' meetings, of by- laws, and of dividends, and many subdivisions of the law of botids and mortgages. I have regarded the corporation as a living organism, and have not attempted to treat, except incidentally, those parts of the law which relate to its death, or winding-up and disso- lution, or those parts of the law which existing American text-books have treated so fully and satisfactorily as to render any other treatment both presumptuous and unnecessary. PREFACE The branches or sub-divisions of corporation law which have been altogether excluded embrace (1) the entire topic of the relation of corporations to the state or to the public, including all questions as to the constitutional powers of the legislature under our American state and federal constitutions in dealing with corporations and their affairs, and also including the right of the state, or of the attorney-general as its representative, to interfere in corporate management by qiio warranto, scire facias, injunction or otherwise, and also the criminal liabilities of cor- porations and their officers, and also the topic of taxation of corporations and corporate securities, (2) the topic of foreign corporations, which may fairly be considered a branch of the^ subject of conflict of laws, and (3) the topic of winding-up and dissolution and the related topics, including especially the various statutory liabilities of shareholders and directors to creditors, which remain dormant so long as the company is prosperous and awake into practical importance only when winding-up or liquidation is imminent, and also' including con- solidation and reorganization, both of which involve, at least in a qualified sense, a dissolution of the old corporation. The only important exceptions to these rules of exclusion will be found in the chapters on bonds and mortgages, in con- nection with which it became necessary to deal with certain branches of the law of winding-up and of reorganization. In dealing with topics which, although within the general scope of the work as outlined above, have yet for many years attracted attention from American courts, lawyers, and text- writers, I have tried to avoid useless threshing over of old straw, and therefore have not descended into detail except where I hoped to present some new or different aspect of the subject or some particular novel points. To take a concrete instance, a very large proportion of all the corpioration cases which have been decided in this country have related to liability upon un- paid subscriptions to capital. These numerous cases have been carefully digested and explained in text-books with which every lawyer is acquainted. Consequently, I have tried to avoid mere repetition of matter which is already easily accessi- ble to every reader; and instead, I have summarized the general currents of authority, pointing out or emphasizing certain new ways of looking at the subject, and elaborating fully some par- PKEFACE ticular points which have been heretofore overlooked or slighted — such, for example, as the peculiarities of subscriptions to shares entered into by signing the incorporation paper or cer- tificate, or articles, of incorporation. After the citation of a case, the words "headnote inadequate" ■"will not infrequently be found in parenthesis. These words do not indicate an opinion that the case is badly reported. On the contrary, no headnote can, consistently with that brevity which is indispensable, call attention to all the points or fea- tures of a case; and by using the words "headnote inade- quate," I design simply to guard the reader against rejecting a case as not in point merely because the headnote does not in- dicate that the decision involves the particular proposition for which the case is cited. References are given to the National Reporter System, the Lawyers' Reports Annotated, the American Reports, American State Reports and American Decisions, as well as to the official state reports. Wherever references are given to two or more reports of the same case, the report which follows immediately after the name of the case — usually, with the exception of very recent cases, the official report — is that which I have examined and used in the preparation of this book and to which alone, therefore, comments with respect to the head- note are applied. A. W. M., Jr. Bai/timore, June 17th, 1908. TABLE OF CONTENTS VOL. I Page Table of Cases xiii Addenda ccxxv CHAPTER I Sections 1-30. Historical and Intboductort 1 CHAPTER II 31-162. The Incorporation Paper 27 CHAPTER III I 163-260. Organization and Issue op Shares .... 144 CHAPTER IV 261-294. Irregular Incorporation — Proof of Incor- poration 217 CHAPTER V 295-306. Incorporation for Illegal Purposes . . . 256 CHAPTER VI 307-415. Promoters 268 CHAPTER VII 416-446. Underwriting 344 CHAPTER VIII 447-468. Corporate Names 367 iz TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER IX Sectioits Page 469-492. CoEPOKATE Seals 389 CHAPTER X 493-573. Capital and Shakes — Classes of Shares . 410 CHAPTER XI 574-677. Increase, Reduction, and Other Modifica- tions OF Capital 476 CHAPTER XII 678-738. Bt-laws and Internal Regulations. . . . 550 CHAPTER XIII 739-807. Payment for Shares 597 CHAPTER XIV 808-831. Forfeiture of Shares 656 CHAPTER XV 532-1011. Transfer and Transmission of Sharss . . . 671 VOL. II CHAPTER XVI 1012-1072. Ultra Vires Contracts and Torts .... 817 CHAPTER XVII 1073-1089. One-Man Companies 871 CHAPTER XVin 1090-1117. Pdblicitt in Corporate Affairs — Inspection of Books and Records 888 X TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER XIX Sections PikOE 1118-1133. Proof of Corporate Matters — Books and Records as Evidence 911 CHAPTER XX 1134-1189. Judicial Intervention in Management of Corporations — Shareholders' Bills . . 926 CHAPTER XXI 1190-1295. Shareholders' Meetings 988 CHAPTER XXII 1296-1315!. Powers op Majority — Relation op Share- holders TO the Company 1075 CHAPTER XXIII 1313-1398. Dividends 1087 CHAPTER XXIV 1399-1488. Directors — Their Appointment, Qualifica- tions, Resignation and Removal, their Powers and the Manner op Exercise thereof 1158 CHAPTER XXV 1489-1509. Rights and Emoluments of Directors . . 1236 CHAFrER XXVI 1510-1651. Liabilities and Disabilities of Directors . 1253 CHAPTER XXVII 1652-1673. Officers and Agents 1361 CHAPTER XXVIII 1674-1825. Bonds and Mortgages — In General . . 1384 xi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER XXIX Sbctionb Pao£ 1826-1958. Bonds and Mortgages {continued) — The Secubitt 1478 CHAPTER XXX 1959-2069. Bonds and Mortgages {continued) — Enfobce- MENT OF THE SeOUEITT 1676 CHAPTER XXXI 2070-2110. Bonds and Mortgages {continued) — Reor- ganization — Powers of Majority — In- come Bonds 1657 Index 1685 xn TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] A 1 Biscuit Co., W. N. (1899) 115 1241 Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss (1896), A. C. 273 179, 184 Aaronson v. David Meyer Brewing Co., 26 N. Y. Misc. 655; 56 N. Y. Supp. 387 85, 1373, 1375 Abbot V. Jewett, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 603 1634 Abbott V. American Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 578 1188, 1306 V. Hapgood, 150 Mass. 248; 22 N. E. 907; 15 Am. St. Rep. 193; 5 L. R. A. 586 311, 311, 311 V. Omaha Smelting Co., 4 Nebr. 416 123, 238, 246, 251 Abby V. Billups, 35 Miss. 618; 72 Am. Dec. 143 68 Abeles v. Cochran, 22 Kans. 405 ; 31 Am. Rep. 194 517, 1354 Abercrombie v. Riddle, 3 Md. Ch. 320 iri5, 1156 Aberdeen Ry. Co. v. Blailde, 1 Macq. H. L. 461 1179,1296, 1296, 1297, 1300, 1304, 1314 Abemethy v. Church of the Puritans, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1 914 Aberthaw Const. Co. v. Ran- some, 192 Mass. 434; 78 N. E. 485 879 Abraham v. New Orleans Brewing Ass'n, 110 La. 1012; 35 So. 268 1460, 1460 Abraham, S., & Sons (1902), 1 Ch. 695 1498 Abstainers, etc. Insurance Co. Re (1891), 2 Ch. 124 536 Acadia Loan Corp. v. Went- worth, 40 Nova Scotia 525 156, 170 Accidental, etc. Ins. Corp. v. Davis, 15 L. T. 182 215 Accles, Re, 51 W. R. 57 1491 Accountant's Ass'n, 5 Pa. Dist. Rep. 699 116 Acker, Merrall & Condit Co. V. McGaw (Md.), 68 Atl. 17 1272, 1341 Ackerman v. Halsey, 37 N. J. Eq. 356 960, 1285 Adamant Plaster Co., 137 Fed. 251 1505, 1520 Adamantine Brick Co. v. Woodruff, MacA. & Mack. (D. C.)318. 1183 Adams v. Adams, 139 Mass. 449; 1 N. E. 746 1443 V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Fed. Cas. 90 23 V. Burke, 201 111. 395; 66 N. E. 235 982, 1321 V. Clark (Colo.), 85 Pac. 642 623 V. Cross Wood Printing Co., 27 111. App. 313 1371 V. Empire Laundry Ma- chinery Co., 4 N.Y.Supp.738 280 Adams, etc. Co. v. Deyette, 5 S. Dak. 418; 59N.W.214; 49 Am. St. Rep. 887 518 Adams' Case, 13 Eq. 474 159, 196, 417, 525 Adams Express Co. v. Harris, 120 Ind. 73; 21 N. E. 340; 16 Am. St. Rep. 315; 7 L. R. A. 214 383 Adamson's Case, 18 Eq. 670 642, 1300, 1325 Addams v. Ferick, 26 Beav. 384 789 Addinell's Case, 1 Eq. 225 165, 509, 510 Addison v. Lewis, 75 Va. 701 1559, 1561, 1562, 1566, 1566, 1568, 1571 Addison v. Pacific Coast Mill- ing Co., 79 Fed. 459 612 Addison's Case, 5 Ch. 294 191, 191, 523 Addlestone Linoleum Co., 37 Ch. D. 191 178, 632 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] 215 979 863 Adlets V. Progressive Shoe Co., 84 Mo. App. 288 1237, 1247 Adley v. Reeves, 2 M. & S. 53 582 Adriance v. Roome, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 399 592, 1369 Aerators, Ltd. v. ToUitt (1902)i 2 Ch. 319 369, 371, 375, 376 Aetna Ins. Co. (1871), Ir. Rep. 6 Eq. 298 V. Albany, etc. R. Co., 156 Fed. 132 Aetna Nat. Bank v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 50 Conn. 167 Africa v. Duluth News-Tri- bune Co., 82 Minn. 283 ; 84 N. W. 1019; 83 Am. St. Rep. 424 1328, 1381, 1382 African M. E. Church, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 193 1068 V. Conover, 27 N. J. Eq. 167 302, 303, 304 Agar V. Atheneum Life Soc, 3 C. B. N. s. 725 1220 Agency Land & Finance Co., 20 Times L. R. 41 658, 1545 Agnew V. Bank of Gettysburg, 2 H. & G. (Md.) 478 Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 24 Me. 256 V. Wilson, 24 Me. 273 Agricultural Branch R. R. Co. V. Winchester, 13 Allen (Mass.) 29 Agricultural Cattle Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 16 Q. B. 432 Agudath Hakehiloth, 18 N. Y. Misc. 717; 42 N. Y. Supp. 985 113, 1010 Ainsworth v. Evans (Ariz.), 80 Pac. 344 936, 985, 985 A. J. Cranor Co. v. Miller (Ala.), 41 So. 678 Alabama v. Montague, 117 U. S. 602; 6Sup. a. 911 228 154 701 529 229 339 1512, 1512 Alabama Coal, etc. Co. v. Shackelford, 137 Ala. 224; 34 So. 833; 97 Am. St. Rep. 23 957 Alabama Foundry, etc. Works, V. Dallas, 127 Ala. 513; 29 So. 459 181, 185 Alabama Marble, etc. Co. v. Chattanooga Marble Co. (Tenn.), 37 S. W. 1004 1118, 1122, 1413 1515 518 Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mary Lee, etc. Co., 108 Ala. 288; 19 So. 404 Alabama, etc. Imp. Co. v. Hall (Ala.), 44 So. 592 Alabama, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Robinson, 56 Fed. 690; 6 C. C. A. 79 1462, 1469 V. Robinson, 72 Fed. 708; 19 C. C. A. 152 1625 Alabama, etc. R. R. Co. v. Rowley, 9 Fla. 508 603, 604, 893, 895 Alabama, etc. Ry. Co. v. Annis- ton, etc. Trust Co., 57 Fed. 25; 6 C-C. A. 242 1648, 1651 Albany Fertilizer Co. v. Arnold, 103 Ga. 145; 29 S. E. 695 1121, 1121 Albert v. Merchants' Ex- change, 39 Mo. App. 583 558, 560, 560, 582 Albert v. Savings Bank, 2 Md. 159 792, 798, 799, 850, 1329 Albes V. Keith, Simmons & Co. (Ala.), 44 So. 693 Albion Steel Co. v. Martin, 1 Ch. D. 580 Albright V. Lafayette, etc. Ass'n, 102 Pa. St. 411 Albro, etc. Co. v. Chinn(Colo.) 77 Pac. 1097 Alden Speare's Sons Co. v.- Casein Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 980 Aldham v. Brown, 7 E. &. B. 164; 2E. &. E. 398 Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Phillips, 118 Mich. 162; 76 N. W. 371; 74 Am. St. Rep. 380; 42 L. R. A. 531 Aldrioh V. Bingham, 131 Fed. 363 V. Chemical Nat. Bank, 176 U. S. 618; 20 Sup. Ct. 498 Aldridge v. Pardee, 24 Tex. av. App. 254; 60 S. W. 789 Alexander v. Atlanta, etc. R. R. Co., 113 Ga. 193; 38 S. E. 772; 54 L. R. A. 305 V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. - Co., 67 N. Car. 198 V. Automatic Telephone Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 302 V. Automatic Telephone Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 56 599, 625, 935, 939 1553 326 112 880 778 343 776 708 841 1510 983 1472 205 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Alexander v. Cauldwell, 83 N. Y. 480 822 v. Central R. R. Co., 3 Dill. 487 1584, 1586 V. Relfe, 74 Mo. 495 529, 534 870 V. Searcy, 81 Ga. 536; 8 S. E. 630; 12Am. St. Rep. 337 966, 971 V. Simpson, 43 Ch. D. 139 1001, 1001, 1002, 1002 V. ToUeston Club, 110 111. 65 303, 848 i;. Williams, 14 Mo. App. 13 1306 V. Winters, 23 Nevada 475; 49 Pac. 116 283 Alexander's . Timber Co., 70 L. J. Ch. 767 1309, 1321, 1369, 1370 Alexandra Palace Co., Re, 21 Ch. D. 149; 46 L. T. 730 462, 1091, 1108, 1125, 1289 Alexandria, etc. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 254 809, 1439 Alexandria, etc. Ry. Co.'s Trustee v. Graham,31Gratt. (Va.) 769 1509 Alfred Shaw & Co., 21 Vict. L. R. 599 765, 765 Alianza Co. v. Bell (1906), A. C. 18 1099 Allan r. Manitoba, etc. Ry . Co. , 10 Manitoba 106 1584, 1598, 1603, 1606 Allemong v. Simmons, 124 Ind. 199; 23 N. E. 768 1708, 1196 Allen V. Alston (Ala.), 41 So. 159 1374 r- "• Am. Bldg. & Loan N.'Ass'n, 49 Minn. 544; 52 W. 144; 32 Am. St. Rep. 574 666 V. Brown, 6 Kans. App. 704; 50 Pac. 505 394, 408 V. Central R. R. Co., 42 Iowa 683 1610, 1616 V. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456 928, 1350 V. Dallas, etc. R. R. Co., 3 Woods 316 1603, 1604 V. Dillingham, 60 Fedi 176; 8 C. C. A. 544 1619 V. Dubois, 117Mich. 115; 75 N. W. 443; 72 Am. St. Rep. 557 418 V. Freedman's Sav. & Trust Co., 14 Fla. 418 855 Allen V. Gold Reefs of West Africa (1900), 1 Ch. 656 568, 578, 579, 584, 586, 586, 605, 999, 999 V. Hill, 16 Cal. 1 13 1017, 1024 V. Jackson, 122 111. 567; 13 N. E. 840 1358 V. Londonderry, etc. Ry. Co., 25 W. R. 524 462 V. Luke, 141 Fed. 694 1285, 1287 V. Montgomery R. R. Co., 11 Ala. 437 65, 667, 1406, 1497 V. New Jersey Southern R. R. Co., 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 14 975 v.- North Des Moines M. E. Church, 127 Iowa 96; 102N.W.808; 109 Am. St. Rep. 366; 69 L. R. A. 255 141, 386 V. South Boston R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 200; 22 N. E. 917; 15Am. St. Rep. 185; 5 L. R. A. 716 730, 731, 734, 735 V. Stewart, 7 Del. Ch. 287; 44 Atl. 786 693, 715 V. Windham, etc. Mfg. Co., 87 Fed. 786 1503 V. Woonsocket Co., 11 R. I. 288 80 Alliance Marine Ass.' Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 300 136 AUibone v. Hager, 46 Pa. St. 48 , 176 Ailing V. Wenzel, 133 111. 264; 24 N. E. 551 521, 524 Allison V. Coal Co., 87 Tenn. 60; 9 S. W. 226 1359 Allman v. Havana, etc. R. R. Co., 88 111. 521 152, 553, 607 Allnutt V. Subsidiary High Court, 62 Mich. 110; 28 N. W. 802 Allsop & Sons, 51 W. R. 644 657 537, 544 Ahnada and Tirito Co., 38 Ch. D. 415 628 Almy V. Ome, 165 Mass. 126; 42 N. E. 561 1347, 1348 Alpha Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 203 1587, 1590 Alston's Case, 22 Vict. L. R. 243 n 616 Alta Silver Mining Co. v. Alta Placer Mining Co., 78 Cal. 629; 21 Pac. 373 1371. 1376, 1377 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 585 901 972 397 99 602 Altenberg v. Grant, 85 Fed. 345; 29 C. C. A. 185 339, 355, 645 Alters V. Joumeymen, etc. Ass'n, 19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272 Althause v. Giroux, 107 N. Y. Supp. 191: 56 N. Y. Misc. 608 899, 904 V. Giroux, 107 N. Y. Supp. 193; 56 N. Y. Misc. 511 Alton V. Curtis, 26 Conn. 456 Altschul V. Casey, 45 Oreg. 182; 76 Pac. 1083 Amalgamated Syndicate (1897), 2 Ch. 600 Ambergate Ry. Co. v. Nor- cli£fe, 20 L. J. Ex. 234 Ambergate, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Exch. 540 547, 611, 1187, 1189 V. Mitchell, 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 235 611 Ambrose Lake Tin Co., 14 Ch. D. 390 330, 1290 American Alkali Co. v. Kurtz, 134 Fed. 663 621 V. Salom, 131 Fed. 46; 65 C. C. A. 284 177, 182, 182, 419 American Alkili Co. v. Camp- bell, 113 Fed. 398 American BIdg., etc. Ass'n v. Merrick, 39 Nebr. 413; 58 N. W. 107 American Bridge Co. v. Hei- delbach, 94 U. S. 798 1515, 1516 American Car & Foundry Co. V. Alexandria Water Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 861 American Central Ry. Co. v. Miles, 52 111. 174 American Circular Loom Co. V. Wilson (Mass.), 84 N. E. 133 1341, 1341 American Clay Mfg. Co. v. American Clay Mfg. Co., 198Pa. St. 189; 47 Atl. 936 373, 378, 379 American Exchange Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 82 Fed. 961; 27 C. C. A. 274 1198, 1210 American Exch. Nat. Bank V. Oregon Pottery Co., 55 Fed. 265 1370, 1373, 1378 American Exch. Nat. Bank V. Woodlawn Cemetery, . 105 N. Y. Supp. 305 731 601 918 1370 1237 American File Co. v. Garrett, 110 U. S. 288; 4 S. Ct. 90 624, 1438 American Fruit Co. v. Ward, 99 N. Y. Supp. 717; 113 N. Y. App. Div. 319 1072 American Ins. Co. v. Oakley, 9 Paige (N. Y.) 496; 38 Am. Dec. 561 1373 American Loan, etc. Co. v. Central Vt. R. R. Co., 84 Fed. 917 1617 V. Minnesota, etc. R. R. Co., 157 111. 641; 42 N. E. 153 243 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. 819 1436 V. Union Depot Co., 80 Fed. 36 1466, 1623 American Matinee Ass'n v. Secretary of State, 104 N. W. 141; 140 Mich. 579 23 American Mortgage Co. v. Tennille, 87 Ga. 28; 13 S. E. 158; 12 L. R. A. 529 847 American Nat. Bank v. Amer- ican Wood Paper Co., 19 R. L 149; 32 Atl. 305; 61 Am. St. Rep. 746; 29' L. R. A. 103 1420, 1423, 1466 V. Nashville Warehouse, etc. Co. (Tenn.), 36 S. W. 960 1124, 1124 V. Oriental Mills, 17 R. I. 551; 23 Atl. 795 689, 693, 698, 777, 999, 1006, 1021 American Novelty & Mfg. Co. V. Manufacturing Electrical Novelty Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. 450; 73 N. Y. Supp. 755 373 American Or^er Scottish Clans V. Merrill, 151 Mass. 558; 24N. E. 918; 8 L. R. A. 320 225, 374 American Paper Bag Co. v. Van Nortwick, 52 Fed. 752 ; 3 C. C. A. 274 309 American Pastoral Co. v. Gumey, 61 Fed. 41 603, 613 American Press Ass'n v. Brantingham, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 435; 78 N. Y. Sujjp. 305 684 American Refrigerating, etc. Co. V. Linn, 93 Ala. 610; 7 So. 191 1026, 1026 American Ry. Frog. Co. v. Haven, 101 Mass. 398 1027, 1249 TABLE OF CASES tThe references are to pages] American Salt Co. v. Heiden- heimer, 80 Tex. 344; 15 S. W. 1038; 26 Am. St. Rep. 743 120, 125, 125, 222, 240 American Silk Works v. Salo- mon, 4 Hun 135 302 V. Salomon, 6 T. & C. (N. Y.) 352 264, 304 American Soda Foimtain Co. V. Stolzenbash (N. J.), 68 Atl. 1078 1366 American Spirits Mfg. Co. v. Easton, 120 Fed. 440 1259, 1304 American Steel, etc. Co. v. Bearse (Mass.), 80 N. E. 623 1359 V. Eddy, 130 Mich. 266; 89 N. W. 952 449, 514, 529 V. Eddy, 138 Mich. 403; 101 N. W. 578 1094, 1127, 1129 V. Wire Drawers', etc. Unions, 90 Fed. 608 262 American Tube Works v. Boston Machine Co., 139 Mass. 5; 29 N. E. 63 438, 444, 493, 1003, 1032 American Waterworks Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 73 Fed. 956; 20 C. C. A. 133 1628, 1628 American Wire Nail Co. v. Gedge, 96 Ky. 513; 29 S. W. 353 1134 American, etc. Trust Co. v. East & West R. Co., 46 Fed. 101 1566 V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. 416 1603, 1604 Ames V. Birkenhead Docks, 20 Beav. 332 1515, 1605, 1677 V. New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 206 1669, 1669, 1670 V. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Interst. Comm. Rep. 625 1620 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 674 1620 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 966 1612, 1612 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 7 1620 v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 73 Fed. 49 1642 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 74 Fed. 335 1570, 1641, Ames's Case, W. N. 79 6 1642, 1642 (1896) 639, 641 Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 696 561, 677, 677, 594 A. Mitchell's Case, 4 A. C. 548 746, 800, 800 Anacosta Tribe v. Murbach, 13 Md. 91 ; 71 Am. Dec. 625 577 Ancient City Sportsman's Club V. Miller, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 412 45 Ancient Order v. Brown, 112 Ga. 646; 37 S. E. 890 590 Anderson v. Butler's Wharf Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 824 1504 V. Condict, 93 Fed. 349; 35 C. C. A. 335; 94 Fed. 716; 36 C. C. A. 437 1633, 1633, 1643, 1666 V. First Nat. Bank, 5 N. Dak. 451 ; 67 N. W. 821 53 V. Midland Ry. Co., (1902), 1 Ch. 369 928, 961 V. Nicholas, 28 N. Y. 600 720, 726, 767 V. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 44; 17 S. W. 803 127, 138, 608, 609 V. Shawnee Compress Co. (Okl.), 87 Pac. 315 71 V. South Chicago Brew- ery Co., 173 111. 213; 60 N. E. 655 1373 V. Waco State Bank, 92 Tex. 506; 49 S. W. 1030; 71 Am. St. Rep. 867 711 V. War Eagle, etc. Co., 8 Idaho 759; 72 Pac. 671 876 V. W. J. Dyer & Bro., 94 Minn. 30; 101 N.W. 1061 Anderson's Case, 7 Ch. D. 76 1112 639, 639 184 763 , 17 Ch. D. 373 , 8 Eq. 509 Andes v. Ely, 168 U. S. 312; 16 Sup. Ct. 964 Andres v. Fry, 113 Cal. 124; 46 Pac. 634 V. Morgan, 62 Oh. St. 236; 56N. E. 876; 78 Am. St. Rep. 712 Andress's Case, 8 Ch. D. 126 Andrews v. Gas Meter Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 361 431, 440, 441, 584 V. Nat. Foundry, etc. Works, 76 Fed. 166; 22 0. C. A. 110; 36 L. R. A. 139; 77 Fed. 774; 23 CCA. 454 620, 645, 1402, 1520, 1521 248 1213 297 643 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Andrews v. Ohio, etc. R. E. Co., 14 Ind. 169 V. Smith, 5 Fed. 833 V. Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 37 Me. 256 563, 565 • V. Worcester, etc. R. R. Co., 159 Mass. 64; 33 N. B. 1109 Andrews Co. v. Nat. Bank of Columbus (Ga.), 58 S. E. 633 Angelo, Re, 5 De G. & Sm. 278 Anglesea Colliery Co., 1 Ch. 555 Anglo-American Land, etc. Co. V. Dyer, 181 Mass. 593; 64 N. E. 416; 92 Am. St. Rep. 437 Land, etc. Co. v. Lom- bard, 132 Fed. 721 58, 619, 832, 834 Anglo-American Leather Cloth Co., 43 L. T. 43 Anglo-American Provision Co. V. Davis Provision Co., 112 Fed. 574 Anglo-American Tel. Co. v. Spurling, 5 Q. B. D. 188 Anglo-Austrian Printing Union (1895), 2 Ch. 891 1514, 1599 Anglo-Califomian Bank v. Field, 146 Cal. 644; 80 Pac. 1080 233, 384 V. Grangers' Bank, 63 Cal. 359 572 Anglo-Colonial Syndicate, 65 L. T. 847 641, 641 Anglo-Continental Corpora- tion (1898), 1 Ch. 327 435, 437 Anglo-Danubian, etc. Co., 20 Eq. 339 , 1400 Anglo-French Exploration Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 845 533, 539 Anglo-Greek Steam Co., 2 Eq. 1 Anglo-Oriental Carpet Mfg. Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 914 Anglo-Universal Bank v. Bar- agnon, 45 L. T. 362 932, 996, 1195 Anonymous, 1 Ventr. 257 Anonymous, 12 Mod. 423 Ansley Land Co. v. H. Wes- ton Lumber Co., 152 Fed. 841 Anthony v. Campbell, 112 Fed 212; 50 C. C. A. 195 1636, 1669 603 1619 716 963 414 434 607 1511 1315 758 1514, 295 1396 401 401 1372 84 120 Anthony v. Household Sew- ing Machine Co., 16 R. I. 571; 18 Atl. 176; 5 L. R. A. 675 444, 483, 484, 494 Antietam Paper Co. v. Chron- icle Pub. Co., 115 N. Car. 143 1542 Apperly v. Page, 1 Phill. Ch. 779 342 Appleton V. American Malt- ing Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 375; 54 Atl. 454 944, 945, 946, 966, 1127, 1128, 1185, 1359 Appleton V. Citizens' Central Nat. Bank, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 404; 101 N. Y. Supp. 1027 Appleton V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 190 N. Y. 418; 83 N.E. 470 841,856 Application for Charter, Re, 27 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 399 Apthorpe v. Peter Schoen- hofen Brewing Co., 80 L. T. 395 878, 879 Aransas Pass., etc. Co. v. Manning, 94 Tex. 558; 63 S. W. 627 992, 1069 Arapahoe Investment Co. v. Piatt, 5 Colo. App. 515; 39 Pac. 584 288 Arapahoe, etc. Co. v. Stevens, 13 Colo. 534; 22 Pac. 823 591, 635 Arauco Co., 79 L. T. 336 1548 Arbuckle v. Woolson Spice Co., 21 Oh. Circ. a. 347 890 V. Woolson Spice Co., 21 Oh. Circ. Ct. 356 890 Archer v. American Water Works Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 33; 24 Atl. 508 751, 958, 1062 Archer's Case (1892), 1 Ch. 322 328, 1263, 1337, 1338 Archibald D. Dawney, Ltd., iJe, 83 L.T. 47 205,642 Ardesco Co. v. North Am., etc. Co., 66 Pa. St. 375 1188 Arents v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 750 1437, 1461 Argus Co., Re, 138 N. Y. 557; 34 N. E. 388 922, 1020, 1023, 1065, 1200, 1201 Argus Printing Co., Re, 1 N. Dak. 434; 48 N. W. 347; 26 Am. St. Rep. 639 998, 1017, 1017, 1021, 1021, 1022, 1056, 1060, 1176, 1176, 1117 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 853 1122 Arkadelphia Lumber Co. v. Posey (Ark.), 85 S. W. 1127 Arkansas Stables v. Samstag _ (Ark.), 94 S. W. 699 1167, 1359 Arkansas Valley, etc. Co. v. Lincoln, 56 Kans. 145; 42 Pac. 706 853 Arkansas, etc. Society v. Eichholtz, 45 Kans. 164; 25 Pac. 613 1269, 1318 Armant v. New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co., 41 La. Ann. 1020; 7 So. 35 Armington v. Palmer, 21 R. I. 109; 42 Atl. 308; 79 Am. St. Rep. 786; 43L.R.A.95 373, 387 Armitage v. Gamett (1893), 3 Ch. 337 1154 Arms V. Conant, 36 Vt. 744 1208 Armstrong v. Burnet, 20 Beav. 424 789, 789 V. Karshner, 47 Oh. St. 276; 24 N. E. 897 609,609 V. Merchants' Mantle Co. , 32 Ont. R. 387 659, 660 Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165 420, 422, 678 V. Searing (N. J. Ch.), 67 Atl. 831 331, 339, 627, 961, 964 972 V. Suffolk Bank, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 424 197, 197, 769, 769, 771, 776 Amot V. Erie Ry. Co., 67 N. Y. 315 V. Union Salt Co., 186 N. Y. 501; 79 N. E. 719 V. United African Lands (1901), 1 Ch. 518 Amot's Case, 36 Ch. D. 702 155, 171, 199, 632, 639 Arthur v. Griswold, 55 N. Y. 400 V. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310; 25 L. R. A. 414; 11 C. C. A. 209 V. Weston, 22 Mo. 379 Artisans' Land & Mortgage Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 796 541, 1123 Ashbuiy v. Watson, 30 Ch. D. 376 111, 441, 445, 445 Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653 10, 11, 12, 32, 41, 94, 97, 665, 824, 829, 830, 830 Ashby V. Blackwell, 2 Eden 299; Ambler 503 743, 754, 755, 758, 759 1437 1468 1058 1356 1621 254 Asher v. Sutton, 31 Kans. 286; 1 Pac. 535 1372 Ashley v. Kinnan, 2 N. Y. Supp. 574 1299 Ashley Wire Co. v. Illinois Steel Co., 164 111. 149; 45 N. E. 410; 56Am. St. Rep. 187 1200, 1200, 1207, 1218, 1222 Ashley's Case, 9 Eq. 263 177 Ashpitel V. Sercombe, 19 L. J. Ex. 82 341, 342 Ashtabula, etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 15 Oh. St. 328 147, 175, 188 Ashton V. Atlantic Bank, 3 Allen (Mass.) 217 799 V. Burbank, 2 Dillon 435 . 610, 667 V. Heggerty, 130 Cal. 616; 62 Pac. 934 754, 765, 791 V. Heydenfeldt, 124 Cal. 14; 66 Pac. 624 424 V. Zeila Mining Co., 134 Cal. 408; 66 Pac. 494 ,791, 1130 Ashuelot Mfgl Co. v. Marsh, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 607 1371 Ashuelot R. R. Co. v. Elliot, 57 N. H. 397 1582, 1582 Ashurst V. Field, 26 N. J. Eq. 1 1149 V. Mason, 20 Eq. 225 1279, 1280, 1349 Ashurst's Appeal, 60 Pa. St. 290 1309, 1311, 1312 Aspen Water, etc. Co. v. As- pen, 5 Colo. App. 12; 37 Pac. 728 148, 149, 278, 302 Aspinwall v. Butler, 133 U. S. 696; 10 Sup. Ct. 417 490 V. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 20 Ind. 492; 83 Am. Dec. 329 1008, 1009 V. Sacchi, 67 N. Y. 33 1 250 Assignment Mut., etc. Ins. Co., 107 Iowa 143; 77 N. W. 868; 70 Am. St. Rep. 149 851, 865 Associate Presbyterian Con- gregation V. Hanna, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 12; 98 N. Y. Supp. 1082 381 Astley V. New Tivoli (1899), 1 Ch. 161 1168, 1179, 1365 Aston, Re, 27 Beav. 474; affirmed in 4 De G. & J. 320 7 Atchison, etc. R. R. Co. v. Fletcher, 35 Kans. 236; 10 Pac. 596 1433, 1437 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cunningham, 59 Kans. 722; 54 Pac. 1055 1635 V. Osborn, 148 Fed. 606; 78 G. C. A. 378 1561, 1568, 1633 V. Young, 3 Ind. Ty. 60; 53S. W. 481; 1634 Atheneum Life Ass. Co. v. Pooley, 3 De G. & J. 294 1421 Atheneum Society, Re, 4 K. & J. 558 1073 Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. Co., 67 Ind. 334 147, 147 Athol Music Hall Co. v. Carey, 116 Mass. 471 209 Athol, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pres- cott, 110 Mass. 213 661 Atkin & Co. v. Wardle, 61 L. T. 23 369 Atkins V. Albree, 12 Allen (Mass.) 359 502 V. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86; 10 Am. Rep. 282 418, 419 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 29 Fed. 161 1602 Atkins, etc. Co. v. Petersburg R. R. Co., 3 Hughes 307 1561, 1570 Atkinson v. Atkinson, 8 Allen (Mass.) 15 686 V. Foster, 134 111. 472; 26 N. E. 528 718, 804 V. Foster, 27 111. App. 63 1065 V. St. Croix Mfg. Co., 24 Me. 171 1379 Atlantic & Pae. Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 1 Fed. 745 833, 837 Atlantic Coast Line Dividend Cases, 102 Md. 73; 61 Atl. 295 1151 Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Abbott, 9 Cush. (Mass.) 423 600 Atlantic DeLaine Co. v. Mason, 5 R. I. 463 652, 1003 Atlantic Fire Ins. Co. v. San- ders, 36 N. H. 252 1198 Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 168 416 Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Harris, 118 Mass. 147 1346 Atlantic Trust Co. v. Chap- man, 208 U. S. 360 1640 V. Crystal Water Co., 72 N. Y. App. Div. 539; 76 N. Y. Supp. 647 1468 Atlantic Trust Co. v. Dana, 128 Fed. 209; 62 C. C. A. 657 1516, 1517, 1568, 1641 V. New York City, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 354; 78 N. Y. Supp. 120 1637 V. Woodbridge Canal, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 842 1402 V. Woodbridge Canal, etc. Co., 86 Fed. 975 1565, 1571 Atlantic, etc. R. R. Case, 4 Hughes 125 1623, 1624 Atlas Assurance Co. v. Atlas Insurance Co. (Iowa), 112 N. W. 232 376, 379 Atlas Loan Co., 9 Ont. L. R. 468 651 Atlas Nat. Bank v. Gardner Co., 8 Biss. 537 1176, 1225, 1227 Attalla Iron Ore Co. v. Vir- ginia Coal, etc. Co., Ill Tenn. (3 Gates) 527; 77 S. W. 774 1296 Attaway v. Third Nat. Bank, 93 Mo. 485; 5 S. W. 16 1347 Attorney-General, Opinion of, 18 Pa. Go. Gt. 492 120 Attorney-General v. Albion Academy, 52 Wise. 469; 9 N. W. 391 1063, 1249 V. American Tobacco Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352; 36 Atl. 971 ; affirmed in 56 N. J. Eq. 847; 42 Atl. 1117 261, 262 264 V. Appleton (1907), 1 Ir. 252 263, 267, 370 V. Boston & Maine R. R. 109 Mass. 99 500 w. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 35 Wise. 425 232, 380 V. Jameson (1904), 2 Ir. 644 575, 575, 677 V. Looker, 111 Mich. 498; 69 N. W. 929; 56 L. R. A. 947 1249 V. Manchester Corpora- tion (1906), 1 Ch. 643 41 V. Mayor of Brecon, 10 Ch. D. 204 88 V. Mayor, etc, of Liver- pool (1902), 1 K. B. 411 1416 — V. Mersey Ry. Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 81 35, 37, 91 — V. Mersey Ry. Co. (1907), A. C. 415, 417 4, 62 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Attorney-General v. Middle- ton, 2 Ves. Sr. 327 588 V. Montefiore, 21 Q. B. D. 461 423 V. Myddletons (1907), 1 Ir. 471 263, 267 V. Regent's Canal & Dock Co. (1904), 1 K. B. 263 1668 V. Stevens, Saxt. Ch. (1 N. J. Eq.) 369 245 V. Whorwood, 1 Ves. Sr. 534 54 Attorney-General ex rd. Hurley v. Bridgman, 134 Mich. 379; 96 N. W. 438 1016 Attorney-General Miner v. Lorman, 59 Mich. 157; 26 N. W. 311; 60 Am. Rep. 287 39, 43 Attorney-General ex rel. Wol- verine Fish Co. V. A. Booth & Co., 143 Mich. 89; 106 N. W. 868 263 Attree v. Hawe, 9 Ch. D. 337 1439 Atwater v. American Ex- change Bank, 152 111. 605; 38 N. E. 1017 1079, 1082,1382 Atwood V. Shenandoah Val- ley R. R. Co., 85 Va. 966; 9 S. E. 748 1411, 1414, 1416 Atwool V. Merryweather, 5 Eq. 464 n 935, 935, 1312 Auburn Bolt Works v. Shultz, 143 Pa. St. 256; 22 Atl. 904 202 Audain, Ex parte, 42 Ch. D. 1 346, 347, 353, 362 Audenried v. East Coast Milling Co., 59 Atl. (N. J.), 577 115, 189, 511, 1211, 1218 Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co. , 28 Minn. 291 ; 41 Am. Rep. 285; 9 N. W. 799 110, 862, 1409 Augir V. Ryan, 63 Minn. 373; 65 N. W. 640 261 Augusta Bank v. Augusta, 49 Me. 507 1425, 1451 Augusta Trust Co. v. Federal Trust Co., 140 Fed. 930; 153 Fed. 157 1416 Aultman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. 505 617, 618 Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82 1449, 1460 Aurora, etc. R. R. Co. v. City of Lawrenceburgh, 56 Ind. 80, 87 245 Aurora, etc. Society v. Pad- dock, 80 111. 263 1074 Austin V. M. Ferst's Sons & Co. (Ga.), 58 S. E. 318 384 Austin V. Murdock, 127 N. Car. 454; 37 S. E. 478 183 V. Tecumseh Bank, 49 Nebr. 412; 68 N. W. 628; 59 Am. St. Rep. 543; 35 L. R. A. 444 297 Austin Mining Co. v. Gemmel, 10 Ont. Rep. 696 1004, 1011, ^ 1251 Austin's Case, 24 L. T. 932 658, 1218 Australian Producers & Trad- ers, 31 Vict. L. R. 511 191, 193 Australian Widows' Fund Life Ass. Soc, 24 Vict. L. R. 613 135 Automatic Self-Cleansing Fil- ter Syndicate Co. v. Cun- ninghame (1906), 2 Ch. 34 992, 993, 1161, 1193, 1194 Avegno v. Citizens' Bank, 40 La. Ann. 799; 5 So. 537 490 Averill v. Barber, 6 N. Y. Supp. 255 1340 Avery v. Ryan, 74 Wise. 591 ; 43 N. W. 317 786 Avon Springs Sanitarium Co. V. Weed, 104 N. Y. Supp. 58 209, 212 215 A. W. HaU & Co., 37 Ch. D. 712 647, 648 Ayer v. Seymour, 15 Daly (N. Y.)249; 5N. Y. Supp. 650 1064 Ayers v. South Australian Banking Co., L. R. 3 P. C. 548 830 Ayre v. Skelsey's Adamant Cement Co., 20 Times L. R. 587; affirmed in s. c. 21 Times L. R. 464 495, 1318 B Babcock v. Schuylkill, etc. R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 420; 31 N. E. 30 428 Bachman, Re, 2 Fed. Cas. 310 571, 701, 767, 771 , 2 Cent. L. J. 119 571 Backer v. United States Gas Fixture Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 149 408 Bacon v. Mississippi Ins. Co. (1856), 31 Miss. 116 63, 1371 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 591 1246 Badesch v. Congregation Bros., 23 N. Y. Misc. 160; 50 N. Y. Supp. 958 Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 Wis. 145; 70N.W.302; 37 L. R. A. 162 147, 169, 209, 278 Bagaleyu. Pittsburgh, etc. Co., 146 Pa. St. 478 ; 23 Atl. 837 1320 Bagby & Rivers Co. v. Rivers, 87 Md. 400; 40 Atl. 171; 67 Am. St. Rep. 357; 40 L. R. A. 632 296, 377 Baggot V. Turner, 21 Wash. 339; 58 Pac. 212 1226 Baglan Hall Colliery Co., 5 Ch. 346 97, 205, 634, 634 Bagley v. Carthage, etc. R. R. Co., 165 N. Y. 179; 58 N. E. 895 -■ V. Reno Oil Co., 201 Pa. 78; 50 Atl. 760; 56 L. R. A. 184 583, 1003 Bagnall v. Carlton, 6 Ch. D. 371 272, 293, 320, 320, 320, 321 Bagnalstown & Wexford Ry. Co., Ir. Rep. 4 Eq. 505 63, 831, 1400, 1409 Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Clipper Pneumatic Tyre Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 146 289, 465, 1099 Bagshaw v. Eastern Union Ry. Co., 7 Hare 114 963 V. Eastern Union Ry. Co., 2 Mac. & G. 389 73, 963 Bagshaw, Ex parte, 4 Eq. 341 _ 59, 59 Bahamas, etc. Plantation v. Griffin, 14 Times L. R. 139 1415 Bahia & San Francisco Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 584 728, 730, 731 Baile v. Calvert College, etc. Soc, 47 Md. 117 95, 603, 606, 646, 1204 Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co., 12 Beav. 433 607, 931, 977, 977 V. Chaipplain, etc. Co., 77 Wise. 453; 46 N. W. 539 487, 492 V. Farmers' Nat. Bank, 97 111. App. 66 84 V. Macaulay, 13 Q. B. 815 306, 308, 309 V. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 96 457, 457, 458, 460 V. Railroad Co., 22 Wall. 604 496, 496, 1114 Bailey v. Tillinghast, 99 Fed. 801; 40 C. C. A. 93 165, 489, 489, 490 Bailey & Co., Joel T., v. Snyder Bros., 61 111. App. 472 407, 1371, 1376, 1377 Baillie v. Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Co., 3 CI. & Fin. 639 611, 611 Baillie's Case (1898), 1 Ch. 110 Baily v. British Equitable As- surance Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 374 V. Burgess, 48 N. J. Eq. 411; 22 Atl. 73 Baily's Case, 3 Ch. 592 Bain v. Whitehaven, etc. Ry. Co., 3 H. L. Cas. 1 922, 925 Bainbridge v. City of Louis- ville, 83 Ky. 285; 4 Am. St. Rep. 153 1461, 1463, 1472 ' V. Smith, 41 Ch. D. 462 1177, 1177, 1251 Baines v. Coos Bay Nav. Co., 41 Oreg. 135; 68 Pac. 397 V. Coos Bay, etc. Co., 45 Oreg. 307; 77 Pac. 400 187 587 309 213 1248 Baird v. Bank of Washington, 11 S. & R. (Pa.) 411 V. Ross, 2 Macq. H. L. 61 880, 1276 1224 341, 342 Baird's Case, 5 Ch. 725 622, 789 Baker v. Administrator of Backus, 32 111. 79 V. Beach, 85 Fed. 836 V. Consolidated Gas, etc. Co., 42 N. Y. Misc. 95; 85 N. Y. Supp. 1030 1467, 1468 V. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518; 23 Am. Rep. 80 V. Guarantee Trust, etc. Co., 31 Atl. Rep. 174 (N. J.) V. Marshall, 15 Minn. 177 v.. Meloy, 95 Md. 1 ; 51 Atl. 893 1455, 1455, 1461 V. Neff, 73 Ind. 68 248 V. Reeves, 85 Fed. 837 619 Baker Furniture Co. v. Hall (Nebr.), 107 N. W. 117, re- versed on rehearing, 111 N. W. 129 298, 298 Baker's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 510; 1 Atl. 78; 56 Am. Rep. 231 745 219 791 809 1408 429 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Baker's Case, 1 Dr. & Sm. 55 1245, 1310, 1318, 1318 Balaghat Gold Mining Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 665 904 Baloh V. Hallet, 10 Gray (Mass.) 402 1110, 1155 Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. 43; IN. W. 261 875, 963, 974, 1069, 1071, 1071, 1072, 1211 V. Miller & Lux (Cal.), 92 Pac. 1030 513, 1091 Bale V. Michigan Tontine In- vestment Co., 132 Mich. 479; 93 N. W. 1071 850 Balfour v. Baker, etc. Co., 27 Oreg. 300; 41 Pac. 164 212 Balfour-Guthrie Co. v. Wood- worth, 124 Cal. 169; 56 Pac. 891 1201, 1224 Balkis Consolidated Co. v. Tomkinson (1893), A. C. 396 730, 736) 738, 738 Ball V. Rutland R. R. Co., 93 Fed. 513 955, 969 Balliet v. Brown, 103 Pa. St. 546 1188 Ballou V. Famum, 9 Allen (Mass.) 47 1582 Baltimore Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Alderson, 90 Fed. 142; 32 C. C. A. 542 1650 Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. V. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341 ; 26 Atl. 279 157, 502, 506 V. Sewell, 35 Md. 239; 6 Am. Rep. 402 430, 753, 753 Baltimore Humane Impartial Soc. V. Pierce, 100 Md. 520; 60 Atl. 277; 108 Am. St. Rep. 450; 70 L. R. A. 485 1504 Baltimore Marine Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 25 Md. 269 808 Baltimore Retort, etc. Co. v. Mali, 65 Md. 93; 3 Atl. 286; 57 Am. St. Rep. 304 694, 713, 751 Baltimore Trust, etc. Co. v. Atlanta Traction Co., 69 Fed. 358 1619 V. Hofstetter, 85 Fed. 75; 29 C. C. A. 35 1543, 1633 Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Relief Ass'n, 77 Md. 566; 26 Atl. 1045 585 V. Burris, 111 Fed. 882; 50 C. C. A. 48 1610 V. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 U. S. 568; 11 Sup. Ct. 185 241, 381 188 463 101 614 422 76 Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pum- phrey,74 Md.86; 21 Atl.'559 V. State, 36 Md. 519 Baltimore, etc. Tel. Co. v. Morgan's, etc. Co., 37 La. Ann. 883 Baltimore, etc. Turnpike Co.i;. Barnes, 6 H.&J. (Md.) 57 Baltzen v. Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 467 Bancroft & Sons Co., Joseph, V. Bloede, 106 Fed. 396; 52 L. R. A. 754; 45 C. C. A. 354 Banet v. Alton, etc. R. R. Co., 13 111. 504 603, 1214, 1215 Bange v. Supreme Council (Mo.), 105 S. W. 1092 604 Bangor El. Light, etc. Co. v. Robinson, 52 Fed. 520 726, 727 Bangor Slate Co., 20 Eq. 59 442, 469 Bangs V. Nat. Macaroni Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 522; 44 N. Y. Supp. 546 67, 1377 Banigan v. Bard, 134 U. S. 291; 10 Sup. Ct. 565 Bank v. Bellington Coal, etc. Co., 51W. Va. 60; 41 S. E. 390 V. Flour Co., 41 Oh. St. 552 V. HoUingsworth, 135 N. Car. 556 ; 47 S. E. 618 298, 298 V. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369 526, 572, 732 V. Lumber Co., 32 W. Va. 357; 9 S. E. 243; 3 L. R. A. 583 302 V. Railroad Co., 5 S. Car. 156; 22 Am. Rep. 12 403 Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 Bush. (Ky.) 54 774, 775 Bank of Ashland v. Jones, 16 Oh. St. 145 1400, 1437 Bank of Atchison Co. v. Dur- fee, 118 Mo. 431; 24 S. W. 133; 40 Am. St. Rep. 396 571, 573 Bank of Attica v. Manufactur- ers, etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 501 110, 575, 755 Bank of Barnwell v. Sixth Nat. Bank, 28 Pa. Super. Ct. 413 Bank of China v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458; 85Am. St. Rep. 676; 61 N. E. 774; 56 L. R. A. 139 444 635 1210 84 607 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Bank of Columbia v. Patter- son, 7 Cranch 299 Bank of Commerce v. Bank of Newport, 63 Fed. 898; 11 C. C. A. 484 694, 699, 732, 733, 773, 773 V. Central Coal, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 878; 53 C. C. A. 334 V. Hart, 37 Nebr. 197; 55 N. W. 631; 40 Am. St. Rep. 479; 20 L. R. A. 780 398 1656 75, 424 Bank of Commerce's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 59 694, 1130 Bank of CuUoden v. Bank of Forsyth, 120 Ga. 575; 48 S. E. 226; 102 Am. St. Rep. 115 572, 574 Bank of England v. Cutler (1907), 1 K. B. 889 743, 758, 759 Bank of Forrest v. Orgill Bros., etc. Co., 82 Miss. 81; 34 So. 325 280 Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden, 129 U. S. 372; 9 Sup. Ct. 332 " 634, 634 Bank of Hindustan v. Alison, L. R. 6 C. P. 222 193, 493 Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin- son, 58 Miss. 421; 38 Am. Rep. 330 571, 574, 588, 588, 589, 593, 773 Bank of Ireland v. Trustees of Evans' Charities, 5 H. L. Cas. 389 407, 728, 729 Bank of Kentucky v. Bonnie Bros., 102 Ky. 343; 43 S. W. 407 775 V. Schuylkill Bank, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 180 702, 730, 730, 731, 760, 760, 760, 760, 761, 911, 912, 914, 924 ■». Winn, 110 Ky. 140; 61 S. W. 32 797 Bank of LeRoy v. Purdy, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 64; 91 ' N. Y. Supp. 310 1295 Bank of Little Rock v. Mc- Carthy, 55 Ark. 473; 18 S. W. 759; 29 Am. St. Rep. 60 1199, 1200 Bank of Louisville v. Gray 84 Ky. 565; 2 S. W. 168 Bank of Manchester v. Allen, 11 Vt. 302 Bank of Md. v. Ruff, 7 G. & J. (Md.) 448 1122, 1122 230 1204 392 862 1373 142 Bank of the Metropolis v. Guttsohlick, 14 Pet. 19 Bank of Michigan v. Niles, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 401; 41 Am. Dec. 575 Bank of Middlebury v. Rut- land, etc. R. R. Co., 30 Vt. 159 397, 1210 Bank of Minneapolis v. Grif- fin, 168 111. 314; 48 N. E. 154 Bank of Monroe v. Gifford, 72 Iowa 750; 32 N. W. 669 Bank of Montreal v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Iowa 518 1651, 1652, 1653 V. Maritime Sulphite Fibre Co., 2 New Brunsw. Eq. 328 1598, 1608 V. Sweeny, 12 A. C. 617 798 V. Thayer, 7 Fed. 622 1616, 1652, 1652 Bank of Mutual Redemption V. Hill, 56 Me. 385; 96 Am. Dec. 470 Bank of National City v. Johnston, 133 Cal. 185; 65 Pac. 383 Bank of New South Wales v. Goulbum Valley Butter Co. (1902), A. C. 543 Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Wickersham, 99 Cal. 655; 34 Pac. 444 516, 520, 523 Bank of South Australia v. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. 265 65, 1513 Bank of Turkey v. Ottoman Co., 2 Eq. 366 Bank of U. S. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64 V. Dunn, 6 Pet. 51 Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) 770; 14 Am. Dec. 526 ' 381, 767 Bank of Washington v. Bar- rington, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 27 Bank of Wilmington v. Wol- laston, 3 Harr. (Del.) 90 Bank Commissioners v. Bank of Brest, Harr. Ch. (Mich.) 106 Bankers' Mut. Casualty Co. v. First Nat. Bank (Iowa), 108 N. W. 1046 Banks v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.) 136; 15 Am. Dec. 706 392, 847 xxiv 1165 1198 1328 294 392 1372 1368 594 1188 47 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1108 1223 580 Bannatyne v. Direct Spanish Telegraph Co., 34 Ch. D. 287 532, 537, 545, 545 Banque Franco - Egyptienne V. Brown, 34 Fed. 162 1419, 1556 Banwen Iron Co., 8 C. B. 406 221 Barber, Re, 15 Jur. 51 158, 164 Barber's Case, 5 Ch. D. 963 1171 Barclay v. Wainwright, 14 Ves. 66 1141 Barcus V. Gates, 89 Fed. 783; 32 C. C. A. 337 182, 182, 970 Bardstown, etc. R. R. Co. v. Metcalfe, 4 Mete. (Ky.) 199; 81 Am. Dec. 541 1521, 1521, 1584, 1623, 1635 Bardwell v. Sheffield Water- . works Co., 14 Eq. 517 Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 H. L. Cas. 297 Barker v. Great Hive, etc. of Maccabees, 135 Mich. 499; 98 N. W. 24 V. Montana Gold, etc. Co. (Mont.), 89 Pac. 66 752, 801 ' V. Stead, 3 C. B. 946 308, 308 ,Be, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 509 1020, 1022, 1046 Barna v. Kirczow (N. J.), 63 Atl. 611 1249, 1250 Barnard v. Fitzgerald, 23 N. Y. Misc. 181; 50 N. Y. Supp, 309 V. Norwich, etc. R. R. Co., 4 CUff. 351 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 512 464, 464, 465, 1114 , Re, 61 Fed. 531 1617, 1618 Bamed's Banking Co., 3 Ch. 105 56, 57, 400, 400, 407, 709 Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. 527 632, 1183, 1343 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 122 U. S. 1; 7 Sup. a. 1043 V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Hun (N. Y.) 126 V. Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 152 66, 394 V. Suddard, 117 m. 237; 7 N. E. 477 Barnes Bros. v. Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354; 47 S. W. 498 Bamett v. Lambert, 15 M. & W. 489 Barnett's Case, 18 Eq. 507 Baron de • Beville's Case, 7 Eq.ll 207,207 1661 1503 457 1637 1413 848 591 308 196 Barr v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 263; 26 N. E. 145 1310, 1316 V. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 67 Fed. 86; 6 C. C. A. 260 1312, 1340 Barrell v. Lake View Land Co., 122 Cal. 129; 54 Pac. 594 917, 918, 1201, 1222, 1224 Barrett v. King, 181 Mass. 476; 63 N. E. 934 571, 777 V. Twin City Power Co., 118 Fed. 861 1486 Barrie v. United Rys. Co. (Mo.), 102 S. W. 1078 1306 Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 66; 29 Atl. 939 «, 154 Barrow v. Nashville, etc. Turnpike Co., 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 304 843, 848 Barrow's Case, 14 Ch. D. 432 643, 647, 648, 648 , 3 Ch. 784 614 Barrow Haematite Steel Co., Re, 39 Ch. D. 582 537, 545, 545, 545, 545 Barrow Haematite Steel Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 846; af- firmed (1901), 2 Ch. 746 536, 537, 539 Barrow-in-Furness Land Co., 14 Ch. D. 400 642, 642 Barrows v. Natchang Silk Co., 72 Conn. 658; 45 Atl. 951 492 V. Nat. Rubber Co., 12 R. L 173 777 Barry v. Coffeen, etc. Co., 52 111. App. 183 1237 V. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280 482, 496, 1113, 1432, 1447,1452 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 22 Fed. 631 1683 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 1 1676, 1678, 1679, 1681 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. 829 1669, 1679 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 36 Fed. 228 1679 V. Moeller, 59 Atl. (N. J.) 97 960, 974, 978, 982, 1285 Barse Live Stock Co. v. Range Valley Cattle Co., 16 Utah 59; SO Pac. 630 715,803 Barstow v. Pine Bluffs, etc. Ry. Co., 57 Ark. 334; 21 S. W. 652 1440, 1566 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 71 713 1014 995, Barstow v. Savage Min. Co., 64 Cal. 388; ■ 1 Pac. 349; 49 Am. Rep. 705 682, 726 Barter v. Wheeler, 49 N. H. 9; 6 Am. Rep. 434 1582 Bartholomay Brewing Co. v. Wyatt (1893), 2 Q. B. 499 424, 878, 883 Bartholomew v. Bentley, 1 Oh. St. 37 1176, 1177, 1180, 1182 V. Derby Rubber Co., 69 Conn. 521; 38 Atl. 45; 61 Am. St. Rep. 57 V. Menzies (1902), 1 Ch. 680 Bartlett v. Fourton, 115 La. Ann. 26; 38 So. 882 V. Gates, 118 Fed. 66 1063, 1194 V. Hipkins, 76 Md. 5; 23 Atl. 1089; 24 Atl. 532 15 V. Keim, 50 N. J. Law 260; 13 Atl. 7 1615, 1618 V. Mystic River Corp., 151 Mass. 433; 24 N. E 780 V. Northumberland Ave, Co., 53 L. T. 611 V. Wilbur, 53 Md. 485 126, 22 1 Bartling-i). Edwards, 84 111. App. 471 662 Barto V. Nix, 15 Wash. 563; 46 Pac. 1033 517, 526 Barton v. Barbour, 104 U. S. 126 V. International Frater- nal Alliance, 85 Md. 14; 36 Atl. 658 V. London & N. W. Ry. Co., 38 Ch. D. 144 V. London, etc. Ry. Co., 24 Q. B. D. 77 679, 727, 728, 747, 789, 790, 791, 796, 813 V. North Staffordshire Ry. Co. , 38 Ch. D. 458 727, 755 V. Port Jackson, etc. Plank Road Co., 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 397 517 Barton's Case, 4 De G. & J. 46 200, ' 200, 657 Barton's Trust, Re, 5 Eq. 238 496, 1139 Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank, L. R. 2 Ex. . 259 1362 Bash V. Culver Gold Mining Co., 7 Wash. 122; 34 Pac. 462 280 1246 1598 1617 1260 755 Bason v. King's Mountain Mining Co., 90 N. Car. 417 400, 401, 408 Bassett v. Atwater, 65 Conn. 355; 32 Atl. 937; 32 L. R. A. 575 996 V. Fairchild, 132 Cal. 637; 64 Pac. 1082; 52 L. R. A. 611 1203, 1246, 1247, 1248 Basshor v. Dressel, 34 Md. 503 232 Basshor Co. v. Carrington, 104 Md. 606 1556 Bastian v. Modem Woodmen, 166 111. 595 ; 46 N. E. 109Q 1008, 1009 Batard v. Hawes, 2 E. & B. 287 274, 337, 337 Batchelder v. Council Grove Co., 131N. Y.42; 29 N. E. 801 1467, 1467 Bateman v. Straus, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 540; 83 N. Y. Supp. 785 786 Bates V. Androscoggin, etc. R. R. Co., 49 Me. 491 155, 457, 458, 463, 463, 466, 1114, 1131, 1132, 1136 V. Coronada Beach Co., 109 Cal. 160; 41 Pac. 855 80,80 V. Great Western Tel. Co., 134 111. 536; 25 N. E. 521 163 V. Keith Iron Co., 7 Mete. (Mass.) 224 1381, 1382 V. Mackinley, 31 Beav. 280 1137 V. N. Y. Ins. Co., 3 Johns Cas. (N. Y.) 238 773, 1124 V. Wilson, 14 Colo. 140; 24 Pac. 99 105, 122 Bath's Case, 8 Ch. D 334 92, 525, 525 Bath Gas Light Co. v. Claffy, 151N. Y.24; 45N.E. 390; 36 L. R. A. 664 852, 855, 863 Bath Savings Institution v. Sagadahoc Nat. • Bank, 89 Me. 500; 36 Atl. 996 692 Bathe t). Decatur County Agri- cultural Soc, 73 Iowa 11; 5 Am. St. Rep. 651; 34 N. W. 484 870 Battelle v. Northwestern Ce- ment, etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89; 33 N. W. 327 280, 280, 284, 287, 1309, 1310 Batten v. Wedgewood Coal Co., 28 Ch. D. 317 1655 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Battle's Case, 39 L. J. Ch. 391 764, 766 Baty V. Keswick, 85 L. T. N. s. 18 360 Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102 Ind. 262; 1 N. E. 571 576, 593, 948 Bauernschmidt v. Bauem- schmidt, 101 Md. 148; 60 Atl. 437 884 V. Md. Trust Co., 89 Md. 507; 43 Atl. 790 1412 Bauernschmidt's Estate, Re, , 97 Md. 35; 54 Atl. 637 873, 884 Baueitsmith v. Extreme Gold, etc. Co., 146 Fed. 95 354 Baugher v. Merryman, 32 Md. 185 812 Baumhoff v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. (Mo.), 104 S. W. 5 199, 786 Bausman v. Kimiear, 79 Fed. 172; 24 C. C. A. 473 612 Bauter v. Superior Court (Cal.), 91 Pac. 749 906, 1367 Bay City Bridge Co. v. Van Etten, 36 Mich. 210 1259, 1285, 1285 Bay City Irrigation Co., 135 Fed. 850 44 Bayard v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232 748, 792, 797, 799 Bayles v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 13 Colo. 181; 22 Pac. 341; 5 L. R. A. 480 1610, 1643 V. Vanderveer, UN. Y. Misc. 207; 32 N. Y. Supp. 1117 1270 Bayless v. Bybee, 1 Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 161 928, 1183, 1184 Bayliss v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co., 9 Biss. 90 1567 Bayou Cook, etc. Co. v. DouUut, 111 La. 517; 35 So. 729 46, 113 Beach v. Fulton Bank, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 573 86 V. McKinnon, 148 Fed. 734 1296, 1327 V. Miller, 130 111. 162; 22 N. E. 464; 17 Am. St. Rep. 291 1315 V. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116 645 V. Stouffer, 84 Mo. App. 395 912, 917, 1238, 1322 V. Wakefield, 107 Iowa '567; 76 N. W. 688; 78 N. W. 19':' 109, 852, 867, 1503 Beacon Trust Co. v. Souther, 183 Mass. 413; 67 N. E. 345 86 Beaconsfield Heights Estate Co., 22 Vict. L. R. 97 524, 524, 1074, 1190 Beadleson v. Knapp, 13 Abb. Pr. N. s. 335 1493 Beal V. Dillon, 5 Kans. App. 27; 47 Pac. 317 66 Beale v. Mouls, 10 Q. B. 976 309 Beals V. Illinois, etc. R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 290; 10 Sup. Ct. 314 _ 1485 V. Illinois, etc. R. R. Co., 27 Fed. 721 1485 Bean v. Am. L. & T. Co., 122 N. Y. 622; 26 N. E. 11 733, 802 Bear River, etc. Co. v. Han- ley, 15 Utah 506; 50 Pac. 611 854 Bear Valley Land, etc. Co. v. Savings & Trust Co., 117 Fed. 941 833 Beardslee v. Shickler (Pa.), 68 Atl. 44 511 Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 U. S. 262; 11 Sup. Ct. 318 787, 1081, 1084 V. Johnson, 121 N. Y. 224; 24 N. E. 380 998, 1035, 1167 Beasleyv. Aberdeen, etc. R. R. Co. (N. Car.), 59S. E. 60 822 Beaver Knitting Mills, 154 Fed. 320 86, 1187 Becher v. Wells Flouring Mill Co., 1 Fed. 276 1062 Bechuanaland Exploration Co. V. London Trading Bank (1898), 2 Q. B. 658 1423, 1424, 1425, 1429 Beck's Case, 9 Ch. 392 171 Becker v. Berlin, etc. Soc, 144 Pa. St. 232; 22 Atl. 699; 27 Am. St. Rep. 624 684 V. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 48 Mich. 610; 12N.W. 874 _ 584 Becket v. Uniontown Bldg. • Ass'n, 88 Pa. St. 211 112 Beckett v. Houston, 32 Ind. 393 1014, 1017 Beckhanson & Gibbs v. Ham- blet (1901), 2 K. B. 73 779 Beckwith v. Galice Mines Co. (Oreg.), 93 Pac. 453 _ 723 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Beckwith v. Trustees of Hart- ford, etc. R. R., 29 Conn. 268; 76 Am. Dec. S99 1441 V. Windsor Mfg. Co., 14 Conn. 594 399 — — , Ex parte (1898), 1 Ch. 324 1241 Bedford v. American Alumi- num Co., 61 N. Y. App. Div. 537 ; 64 N. y . Supp. 856 429, 430 Bedford R. R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29 189, 191, 516, 524 Bedford Springs Co. v. Mc- Meen, 161 Pa. St. 639; 29 Atl. 99 1250 Bedford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stan- ley, 2 Johns. & H. 746 281 Beebe v. George H. Beebe & Co., 64 N. J. Law, 497; 46 Atl. 168 1370, 1373, 1382 V. Richmond Power Co., 13N.y.Misc.737;35N.Y. Supp. 1 1503, 1586 Beeoher v. Marquette, etc. Co. 45 Mich. 103 ; 7 N. W. 695 1007, 1073 Beekman v. Hudson River, etc. Ry. Co., 35 Fed. 3 1587, 1588, 1593 Beers v. Bridgeport Spring Co. 42 Conn. 17 1112, 1116, 1120, 1121 V. New York Life Ins. Co., 66 Hun 75; 20 N. Y. Supp. 788 593, 1189, 1238, 1299, 1299 V. Phoenix Glass Co., 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 358 1377 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 34 Fed. 244 1621 Behlow V. Fischer, 102 Cal. 208; 36 Pac. 509 777 Belch V. Big Store Co. (Wash.), 89 Pac. 174 80 Belden v. Burke, 147 N. Y. 542; 42 N. E. 261 1556 Belfast, etc. Plank Road Co. V. Chamberlain, 32 N. Y. 651 101, 148 Belfast, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bel- fast, 77 Me. 445 ; 1 Atl. 362 453, 453, 457, 459, 466, 1104, 1110 Belknap v. Adams, 49 La. Ann. 1350; 22 So. 382 Belknap Savings Bank Lamar Land, etc. Co., Colo. 326; 64 Pac. 212 521 V. 28 1646, 1650 Bell V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 34 La. Ann. 785 1503 1). City of Louisville (Ky.), 106 S. W. 862 877 V. Standard Quicksilver Co., 146 Cal. 699; 81 Pac. 17 1197, 1200 Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. Ky. Glass-Works Co., 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684; 50 S. W. 2 65, 109, 110, 115, 142, 859, 1408, 1409 Bell Bros., 65 L. T. 245 764, 765, 765, 765, 765, 795 Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88; 8 Atl. 177; 2 Am. St. Rep. 532 617 Bell's Case, 4 A. C. 547 800 Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Christy, 79Pa. St. 54; 21 Am. Rep. 39 293, 294 Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. S. S. Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 14 521, 524, 524, 524 Bellina, etc. Tramway Co. (1888), 21 L. R. Ir. 497 1171 Bellona Company's Case, 3 Bland (Md.) 442 Bellows V. Todd, 39 Iowa 209 873 1008, 1208 Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 637 485, 485, 485, 957, 965, 974 Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. Car. 324; 20 S. E. 453; 44 Am. St. Rep. 454 147, 406, 911, 1005, 1005, 1006, 1006 Bend v. Susquehanna Bridge Co.,6H. &J. (Md.)128; 14 Am. Dec. 261 617, 622, 812 Benedict v. Denton, Walker Ch. (Mich.) 336 408 V. St. Joseph, etc. R. R. Co., 19 Fed. 173 1496, 1604 Benevolent Society, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 19 113, 267 Benjamin v. Ehnira, etc. R. R. Co., 49 Barb. (N.Y.) 441 Bennett v. Milville Imp. Co., 67 N. J. Law 320; 61 AtL 706 Bennett's Case, 5 De G. M. & G. 284 766, 1327 Bensiek v. Thomas, 66 Fed. 104; 13 C. C. A. 457 1317 Benson v. Heathom, 1 Y. & C. Ch. 326 1331, 1332 V. San Diego, 100 Fed. 158 1554, 1587 1420 1113 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Bent V. Priest, 86 Mo. 475 1333, 1346 V. TJnderdown, 156 Ind. 516; 60 N. E. 307 111, 115, 142, 628 Bentham Mills Co., 11 Ch. D. 900 679, 793 Bentinck v. Fenn, 12 App. Cas. 652 315, 323, 323, 327, 328, 1263, 1345 , Ex parte, 1 Megone 23 764 , Ex parte, 1 Megone 12 642, 642, 1230 Bentley, Ex parte, 12 Ch. D. 850 642, 1325 Benzinger v. Kantzler, 112 111. App. 293 1163 Bercich v. Marye, 9 Nevada 312 683, 694 Berg V. San Antonio Street Ry. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 291;42S.W. 647;43S.W. 929 486 BergdoU v. BergdoU Brewing Co., 10 Pa. Dist. Rep. 173 1321, 1322 Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing Co., 41 N. i. Eq. 238; 3 Atl. 404 279 V. Porpoise Fishing Co., 42N.J.Eq.397; 8 Atl. 523 1406 V. Valentine, 63 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 221 1446 Berger v. U. S. Steel Corp., 63 N. J. Eq. 809; 53 Atl. 68 519, 534, 534, 542, 542 Bergeron v. Hobbs, 96 Wise. 641; 71 N. W. 1056; 65 Am. St. Rep. 85 123, 124, 246, 251 Bergman v. St. Paul, etc. Bldg. Ass'n, 29 Minn. 275; 13 N. W. 120 562, 565 Berkhout v. Royal Arcanum, 62 N. J. Law 103 ; 43 Atl. 1 580 Berks & Dauphin Turnpike Road V. Myers, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 12; 9 Am. Dec. 402 380, 407, 525 Berkson, Hughes & Co. v. Anderson, 115 Iowa 674; 87 N. W. 402 . 128 Berlin v. New Britain, 9 Conn. 175 (1832) 827 Bernard v. Union Trust Co., 159 Fed. 620 1641, 1646, 1651 Bemheimer v. Converse, 27 Super. Ct. 755 43 Bernstein v. Kaplan (Ala.), 43 So. 581 103, 134, 139 Berry v. Rood, 168 Mo. 316; 67 N. W. 644 628, 629, 635, 647, 649 V. Yates, 24 Barb.(N. Y.) 199 76 Berryville Land, etc. Co. v. Lewis, 19 S. E. Rep. 781 (Va.) 183 Berwind v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 98 Fed. 158 941 — : — V. Van Home, 104 Fed. 581 1354 Besch V. Western Carriage Mfg. Co., 36 Mo. App. 333 1211 Besley, Ex parte, 3 Mac. & G. 287 309 Best V. British & Am. Mort- gage Co., 131 N. Car. 70; 42 S. E. 456 1365 Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 111. 37; 57 N. E. 20; 76 Am.St. Rep. 26; 50 L. R. A. 765 42, 84, 851 Bestor v. Wathen, 60 111. 138 1348 Bethune v. Wells, 94 Ga. 486; 21 S. E. 230 972 Bevan v. Waterhouse, 3 Ch. D. 752 815 Beveridge v. New York Elevated R. R. Co., 112 N. Y. 1; 19 N. E. 489; 2 L. R. A. 648 1107, 1110, 1187 Bevier, etc. Coal Co. v. Wat- son, 107 Mo. App. 451 ; 80 S. W. 287 1321 Bianki v. Greater-American Exhibition Co., 3 Nebr. (Unof.) 656; 92 N. W. 615 1355 Bibb V. Hall, 101 Ala. 79; 14 So. 98 1234 V. Montgomery Iron Works, 101 Ala. 301; 13 So. 224 1401, 1527 Bibber-White Co. v. White River, etc. R. Co., 110 Fed. 473 1607, 1623 V. White River, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 786; 53 C. C. A. 282 1646, 1651 Bickford v. Grand Junction Ry. Co., 1 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 696 65 Biddle v. Bayard, 13 Pa. St. 150 726 Biddle's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 278 502 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Bidwell V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co., 114 Pa. St. 535; 6 Atl. 729 651 Bidwell Bros., Be (1893), 1 Ch. 603 1036, 1044 Bigbee, etc. Packet Co. v. Moore, 121 Ala. 379; 25 So. 602 846, 1133 Big Creek, etc. Iron Co. v. American L. & T. Co., 127 Fed. 625; 62 C. C. A. 351 986, 1399 Bigelow V. Calumet, etc. Min- ing Co., 155 Fed. 869 57, 78, 947, 949, 1026, 1063 V. Gregory, 73 lU. 197 123, 128 251 Bigg's Case, 1 Eq. 309 ' 660 Biggerstaff v. Rowatt's Wharf (1896), 2 Ch. 93 1370, 1545 Biglin V. Friendship Ass'n, 46 Hun (N. Y.) 223 430 Bignold, Ex parte, 22 Beav. 143 1291 Bill V. Darenth Valley Ry. Co., 1 H. & N. 305 1223, 1228 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 16 Fed. 14 931, 943, 1080, 1306, 1313 Billingham v. Gleason Mfg. Co., 43 N.Y. Misc. 681; 88 N. Y. Supp. 398 908, 908 V. Gleason Mfg. Co., 101 N. Y. App. Div. 476; 91 N. Y. Supp. 1046 1114, 1116 Bills V. Silver King Mining Co., 106 Cal. 9; 39 Pac. 43 1122 Bimber v. Calivada Coloniza- tion Co., 110 Fed. 58 969 Binney's Case, 2 Bland Ch. (Md.) 99 70, 382 Birch V. Cropper, 14 A. C. 525 433, 436, 471 Bird V. Dagett, 97 Mass. 494 95, 862 V. People's, etc. Co., 158 Fed. 963 1587 Bird Coal & Iron Co. v. Humes, 157 Pa. St. 278; 27 Atl. 750; 37 Am. St. Rep. 727 972, 1079, 1335 Bird's Case, 1 Sim. N.s. 47 221,223 Birdsall v. Russell, 29 N. Y. 220 1435, 1530 Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v. Brownrigg, 4 Ex. 426 922 Birmingham Banking Co., 36 L. J. Ch. 150 897 Birmingham Drug Co. v. Free- man, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 451 ; 39 S. W. 626 Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. v. Comm., 92 Pa. St. 72 Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Roden, 97 Ala. 404; 11 So. 883 Birmingham Ry., etc. Co. V. Birmingham Traction Co., 128 Ala. 110; 29 So. 187 Birmingham Trust, etc. Co. v. East Lake Land Co., 101 Ala. 304; 13 So. 72 V. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 99 Ala. 379; 13 So. 112; 20 L. R. A. 600 769, 774, 775 Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 1 Q. B. 256 V. White, 1 Q. B. 282 Bimey v. Toronto Milk Co., 5 Ont. L. Rep. 1 Biron's Case, 26 W. R. 606 Bisgood V. Nile Valley Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 747 72, 78, 654 Bishop V. American Preser- vers Co., 157 111. 284; 41 N. E. 765; 48 Am. St. Rep. 317 V. Globe Co., 135 Mass. 132 761, 771, 772 V. Kent & Stanley Co., 20 R. I. 680; 41 Atl. 255 V. McKillican, 124 Cal. 321; 57 Pac. 76; 71 Am. St. Rep. 68 V. Smyrna, etc. Ry. (1895), 2 Ch. 265 471, 1101 V. Smyrna, etc. Ry. Co., No. 2 (1895), 2 Ch. 596 472, 472 Bissell V. Bradford Tramway Co., W. N. (1891) 51 V. Michigan Southern R. R. Co., 22 N. Y. 258 Bjorgaard v. Goodhue County Bank, 49 Minn. 483; 52 N. W. 48 Black V. First Nat. Bank, 96 Md. 399; 54 Atl. 88 844,853 V. Hobart Trust Co., 64 N.J. En. 415; 53 Atl. 826; affirmed in 65 N. J. Eq. 769; 56 Atl. 1131 451, 452 V. Homersham, 4 Ex. D. 24 1134 V. Wiedersheim, 143 Fed. 359 1489 1188 751 195 912 776 925 895 391 1171 79 1221 1495 1603 869 1080 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Black i>. Zacharie, 3 How. 483 697, 716 Black & Co.'s Case, 8 Ch. 254 191, 612, 634 Black & White Smiths' Soc. v. Vandyke, 2 Whart. (Pa.) 309; 30 Am. Dec. 263 577 Black River, etc. R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 237, 238 Blackburn Bldg. Soc. v. Cun- liffe. Brooks & Co., 22 Ch. D. 61 831 V. Cunliffe, Brooks & Co., 29 Ch. D. 902 831 Blackwell v State, 36 Ark. 178 1164 Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co. V. Am. Tobacco Co. (N. Car.), 59 S.' E. 123 371, 372, 379 Blair v. City of Chicago, 201 U. S. 400; 26 Sup. Ct. 427 107, 836, 837 V. Metropolitan Savings Bank, 27 Wash. 192; 67 Pac. 609 70, 588 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 20 Fed. 348 1603, 1621 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 20 Fed. 351 1567, 1621 V. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 22 Fed. 471 1559, 1561, 1564, 1572 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 521 1567, 1572 D.'St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 524 1416, 1670 V. St. Louis R. Co., 25 Fed. 232 1564, 1629 V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 25 Fed. 684 910 V. Telegram Newspaper Co., 172 Mass. 201; 51 N. E. 1080 955, 979 Blair Town Lot, etc. Co. v. Walker, 50 Iowa 376 1348 Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56 754, 755, 757 Blake v. Bayley, 16 Gray (Mass.) 531 918, 1166 V. Buffalo Creek R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 485 1340 V. Domestic Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 38 Atl. 241 1379, 1380 V. Ray (Ky.), 62 S. W. 531 _ 1318 V. Supervisors of Living- ston Co., 61 Barb. 149 1424 Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639 176 Blakely Ordnance Co., 3 Ch. 154 1420, 1421 Blaker v. Herts, etc. Water- works Co., 41 Ch. D. 399 1605, 1606 Blalock V. Kemsville Mfg. Co., 110 N. Car. 99; 14 S. E. 501 517, 519 Blanchard v. Cooke, 144 Mass. 207; 11 N. E. 83 1504 V. KauU, 44 Cal. 440 252 Bland's Case (1893), 2 Ch. 612 319, 320, 329 Blanks v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 122 Fed. 849; 59 C. C. A. 59 1636, 1637 Blanton v. Kentucky Distil- leries, etc. Co., 120 Fed. 318 917 Blatchford v. Ross, 54 Barb. (N. Y.) 42 1189 V. Ross, 37 How. Pr. (N.Y.)llO 976 Blen V. Bear River, etc. Co., 20 Cal. 602; 81 Am. Dec. 132 1374 Bligh V. Brent, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 268 420 Blinn v. Gillett, 208 111. 473; 70 N. E. 704; 100 Am. St. Rep. 234 1144, 1154, 1156 V. Riggs, 1 10 111. App. 37 1080, 1250 Bliss V. Harris (Colo.), 87 Pac. 1076 407, 408, 408, 1376 V. Kaweah, etc. Co., 65 Cal. 502 ; 4 Pac. 507 407, 408, 1372 Bloede Co., Victor G., v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co., - 98 Fed. 175 890 V. Bloede, 84 Md. 129 ; 34 Atl. 1127; 57 Am. St. Rep. 373; 33L. R. A. 107 571,679 Blood V. La Serena, etc. Co., 113 Cal. 221; 41 Pac. 1017; 45 Pac. 252 299, 408, 408 V. Marcause, 38 Cal. 590; 99 Am. Dec. 435 1377 Bloom V. Nat. Saving, etc. Co. 152N.Y. 114;46N.E. 166 1278, 1350, 1351 Bloomenthal v. Ford (1897), , A. C. 156 649 Bloomer v. Union Coal, etc. Co., 16 Eq. 383 1504 Blooming-Grove Cotton Oil Co. V. First Nat. Bank, 56 S. W. 552 (Tex.) 695, 1130 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Blount V. Hipkins, 7 Sim. 51 789 Bloxam v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. 337 968, 1104 Bloxam's Case, 33 Beav. 529 166 Bluck V. Mallalue, 27 Beav. 398 199 Bluehill Academy v. Witham, 13 Maine 403 280 Blue Mt. Forrest Ass'n v. Borrowe, 71 N. H. 69; 51 Atl. 670 562, 571, 573, 575, 576 Blum V. Whitney, 185 N. Y. 232 330 Blumenf eldt v. Korschuck, 43 111. App. 434 948 Blumentnal v. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 402; 91 Am. Dee. 349 1616 Blumer v. Ubner (Miss.), 44 So. 161 949, 1355 Blundell v. Winsor, 8 Sim. 601 7 Blyth's Case, 4 Ch. D. 140 154, 640, 640 Board of Comm'rs v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247 244 Board of Comm'rs of Hamil- ton Co. V. State ex rel. Cottingham, 115 Ind. 64; 4 N. E. 589; 17 N. E. 855 1514 Board of Comm'rs of Ouray County V. Geer, 108 Fed. 478; 47 C. C. A. 450 1449 Board of Supervisors v. Min- eral Point R. R. Co., 24 Wise. 93 1421, 1485, 1533 Board of Trustees v. Piedmont Realty Co., 134 N. Car. 41; 46 S. E. 723 853 Board of Trustees of Seventh St., etc. Church v. Campbell, 48 La. Ann. 1543; 21 So. . 184 117 Boardman v. Boardman, 78 Conn. 451; 62 Atl. 339 1144 V. Cutter, 128 Mass. 388 422 V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157 " 447, 457, 458, 459, 459, 460, 465, 466, 467, 467, 1131, 1132, 1136 Boatmen's Bank v. Gillespie (Mo.), 108 S. W, 74 1208 Boatmen's Ins. & Trust Co. v. Able, 48 Mo. 136 702, 781 Boca, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sierra Valley Ry. Co., 84 Pac. 298 (Cal.) 138, 141, 250 BodegaCo. (1904), 1 Ch. 276 1168, 1179, 1179, 1240, 1240, 1319 Bodman, Re (1891), 3 Ch. 135 414, 454, 1397 Bodwic V. Fennell, 1 Wils. 233 595 Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 178 849 Bogart V. New York, etc. R. Co., 102 N. Y. Supp. 1093 1246, 1373 Boggs V. Boggs & Buhl (Pa.), 66 Atl. 105 573, 786 V. Lakeport, etc. Ass'n, 111 Cal. 354; 43 Pac. 1106 917 Bohm V. Loewer's, etc. Brew- ery Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 514; 16 Daly's Rep. (N. Y.) 80 592 Bohmer v. City Bank, 77 Va. 445 770, 773, 773 Bohn V. Boone Bide. & Loan Ass'n (Iowa), 112 N. W. 199 63 Bohrer v. Adair, 61 Nebr. 824; 86 N. W. 495 625 Boice V. Jones, 106 N. Y. App. Div. 547; 94 N. Y. Supp. 896 336, 336 Bolckow V. Heme Bay Pier Co., 1 E. & B. 74 1528, 1528 Boldenwick v. BuUis (Colo.), 90 Pac. 634 967, 971 Boley V. Sonora Development Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 975 192 Bolt & Iron Co., 14 Ont. 211 1238, 1247 Bolton V. Natal Land Co. (1892), 2 Ch. 124 1092, 1096, 1098 V. Nebraska Chicory Co., 69 Nebr. 681 ; 96 N. W. 148 43 V. Prather, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 295; 80 S. W. 666 143 Bolton & Co., R. (1894), 3 Ch. 356 1172, 1173 Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. V. Dorabji Cursetji Shroff (1905), A. C. 213 1041, 1043 Bomer v. Am. Spiral, etc. Co., 81 N. Y. 468 286, 288 Bon Aqua Imp. Co. v. Stand- ard Fire Ins. Co., 34 W. Va. 764; 12 S. E. 771 233 Bond V. Barrow Haematite Steel Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 353 464, 465, 1091, 1099, 1102, 1102 V. Bean, 57 N. H. 340 712 1). Gray Imp. Co., 102 Md. 426; 62 Atl. 827 938, 984 V. Mount Hope Iron Co., 99 Mass. 505; 97 Am. Dec. 49 748 V. Pike (Minn.), Ill N. W. 916 287, 287, 294 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Bond V. Terrell, etc. Mfg. Co., 82 Tex. 309; 18 S. W. 691 852, 867 847 452 1433 1030 1206 904 1621 157 914 Bondholders of York & Cum- berland R. R. Co., Be, 50 Me. 552 1493, 1495 Bone V. Delaware, etc. Canal Co. (Pa.), 5 Atl. 751 Boney v. Williams, 55 N. J. Eq. 691; 38 Atl. 189 Bonner v. City of New Orleans, 2 Woods 135 Bonnet v. First Nat. Bank, 24 Tex. Civ. vApp. 613; 60 S. W. 325 501, 507 Bonsall v. Piatt, 153 Fed. 126 309 Bonta V. Gridley, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 33; 78 N. Y. Supp. 961 Booker V. Crocker, 132 Fed. 7; 65 C. C. A. 627 1524, 1529 V. Young, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 303 Boord V. African Consolidated, etc. Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 596 Booths. Brown, 62 Fed. 794 V. Campbell, 37 Md. 522 V. Dexter Steam Fire Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369; 24 So. 405 V. Land Filling, etc. Co., 59 Atl. (N. J.) 767 966, 1083, 1312 V. New Afrikander Gold Mining Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 295 352, 354, 355 V. Robinson, 55 Md. 419 63, 65, 75, 76, 974, 976, 1161, 1271, 1274, 1274, 1306 V. Wonderly, 36 N. J. Law 250 245, 246, 252 Booth Bros. v. Baird, 83 N. Y. App. "Div. 495; 82 N. Y. Supp. 432 Booz's Appeal, 109 Pa. St. 592; 1 Atl. 36 Borax Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 326 Borden v. Crook, 131 111. 68; 22 N. E. 793; 19 Am. St. Rep. 23 Borland's Trustee v. Steel Bros. & Co. (1901), ICh. 279 421, 564, 575, 575, 576, 677, 994, 1010 Bornstein v. District Grand Lodge (Cal.), 84 Pac. 271 586, 587 Borough of Portsmouth, etc. 853 565 1548 1502 54, Tramways Co. (1892), 2 Ch. 362 1529 Bosanquet v. St. John D'el Rey Mining Co., 77 L. T. 206 1104, 1545 Boschoek Proprietary Co. v. Fuke (1906), 1 Ch. 148 588, 996, 1004, 1177, 1320 Bosher v. Land Co., 89 Va. 455; 16S. E. 360; 37 Am. St. Rep. 879 182, 342 Bostock V. Blakeney, 2 Bro. Ch. 653 1156 V. Edgar, 24 Vict. L. R. 677 662, 961, 962 Boston V. Simmons, 150 Mass. 461; 23 N. E. 210; 15 Am. St. Rep. 230; 6L.R.A.629 1270 Boston Acid Mfg. Co. v. Mor- ing, 15 Gray (Mass.) 211 558 Boston Deep Sea, etc. Co. v. Ansell, 39 Ch. D. 339 1183, 1241, 1305, 1333 Boston Music Hall v. Cory, 129 Mass. 435 715 Boston Rubber Shoe Co. ■;;. Boston Rubber Co., 149 Mass. 436; 21 N. E. 875 372, 373 Boston Tailoring House v. Fisher, 59 111. App. 400 1373, 1382 Boston, etc. R. R. Co. v. Coffin, 50 Conn. 150 1511 V. Graves, 80 Fed. 588 1285 V. Richardson, 135 Mass. 473 738, 758, 759 V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79 608 Boston, etc. R. R. Corp. v. Haven, 8 Allen (Mass.) 359 1490, 1490, 1491 Boston, etc. Trust Co. v. Chamberlain, 66 Fed. 847; 14 C. C. A. 363 1621, 1621 Boswell V. Buhl, 213 Pa. 450; 63 Atl. 56 573 Bosworth V. Allen, 168 N. Y. 157; 61 N. E. 163; 85 Am. St. Rep. 667; 55 L. R. A. 751 1161, 1161, 1181, 1259, 1262, 1337 Botsford V. New Haven, etc. R. R. Co., 41 Conn. 454 1539 Bottomley's Case, 16 Ch. D. 681 1205 Bouch V. Sproule, 12 A. C. 385 498, 498, 1139, 1139, 1139, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 629 337 1560 1560 907 260 528 230 618 1329 1527 Bouchard ■». Prince's Hall Restaurant, 20 Times L. R. 574 Boulter v. Peplow, 9 C. B. 493 Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills, 78 Iowa 460; 43N.W.290; 5 L. R. A. 649 612, 635 Bound V. South Carolina Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 30 V. South Carolina Ry. Co. 50 Fed. 312 V. South Carolina Ry. Co., 58 Fed. 473; 7C. C. A. 322 1563, 1624, 1625, 1631 Bourdette v. Sieward, 107 La. 258; 31 So. 630 Bousfield V. Wilson, 16 M. & W. 185 Bouton V. Dement, 123 111. 142; 14 N. E. 62 Bow V. AUenstown, 34 N. H. 351; 69 Am. Dec. 489 Bowden v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251; 2Sup. Ct. 246 Bowditch V. New England Life Ins. Co., 141 Mass. 292 ; 4 N. E.798; 55 Am. Rep. 474 Bowen v. Brecon Ry. Co., 3 Eq. 541 V. Kuehn, 79 Wise. 53 ; 47 N. W. 374 433, 602 V. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 Fed. 925; 36 C. C. A. 553 84, 838 Bowers v. Hechtman, 45 Minn. 238 ; 47 N. W. 792 405, 409 V. Male, 186 N. Y. 28 1266 Bowlby V. Bell, 3 C. B. 284 422 Bowler v. American Box Strap Co., 22 N. Y. Misc. 335; 49 N. Y. Supp. 153 Bowling Green Trust Co. v. Virginia Pass. etc. Co., 132 Fed. 921 1585, 1587 V. Virginia Pass. etc. Co., 133 Fed. 186 Bowman v. Foster, etc. Hard- ware Co., 94 Fed. 592 834, 835 Bowman Dairy Co. v. Mooney, 41 Mo. App. 665 95, 854, 854 Bowne v. Smith, 44 N. Y. Misc. 575; 90 N. Y. Supp. 204 Bowring V. Shepherd, L. R. 6 Q. B. 309 Box, Re, 1 Hem. & Mill. 552 789, 816 Boyce v. Augusta Camp, 14 OM. 642; 78 Pac. 322 384 1238 1602 942 782 1432 1288 Boyce v. Continental Wire Co., 125 Fed.740; 60 C. C. A. 508 1518, 1638 V. Trustees Towsontown Sta. of M. E. Church, 46 Md. 359 221, 236, 238, 241 Boyd V. American Carbon Black Co., 182 Pa. St. 206; 37 Atl. 937 79, 852 V. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 17 Md. 195; 79 Am. Dec. 646 1551 V. Conshohocken Worsted Mills, 149 Pa. St. 363; 24 Atl. 287 810, 811, 1131 V. Keimedy, 38 N. J. Law 146 V. Mutual Fire Ass'n, 116 Wise. 155; 90 N. W. 1086; 94 N. W. 171 V. Peach Bottom Ry. Co. 90 Pa.,jSt. 169 189, 191 V. ReSd, 120 N. Car. 335; 27S.E.35; 58 Am. St. Rep. 792 768, 775 V. Schneider, 131 Fed. 223; 65 C. C. A. 209 1285, 1357 Boyer, Ltd., Paul,'». Edwardes, 17 Times L. R. 16 355, 356 Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nevada 345 V. Kelly, 36 N. J. Eq. 331 Boyle V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 88 Fed. 930; 32 C. C. A. 142 Boyle's Case, 54 L. J. Ch. 550 Boynton v. Roe, 114 Mich. 401; 72 N. W. 257 1187, 1201 Bracken v. Nicol (Ky.), 99 S. W. 920 616, 696 Brackett v. Persons Un- known, 53 Me. 228 Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 45 N. J. Law 363 418 1397 1631 168 924 602, 604 Braddock Borough v. Penn Water Co., 189 Pa. St. 379; 42 Atl. 15 123, 147 Bradford v. Frankfort, etc. R. R". Co., 142 Ind. 383; 40 N. E. 741; 41 N. E. 819 1224 V. Harris, 77 Md. 153 ; 26 Atl. 186 343 Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs, 12 A. C. 29 769, 774, 796 Bradlee v. Warren Five Cent Sav. Bank, 127 Mass. 107; 34 Am. Rep. 351 1380 TABLE OF CASES [The references ate to pages] Bradley v. Ballard, 55 111. 413 ; 8 Am. Rep. 656 861 V. Chester Valley R. R. Co., 36 Pa. St. 141 1581, 1601 V. Carritt (1903), A. C. 253 1029 V. Holdsworth, 3 M. & W. 422 420 Bradley Fertilizer Co., 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 271 129, 375, 379 Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Pub.Co.,17N.Y.Supp.587 298 V. South Pub. Co., 4 N. Y. Misc. 172; 23 N. Y. Supp. 675 236, 246, 247, 279 Bradshaw, Ex parte, 15 Ch. D. 465 1499, 1513, 1639 Brady v. Johnson, 75 Md. 445; 26 Atl. 49; 20 L. R. A. 737 1508, 1551 V. State, 26 Md. 290 1515, 1551 Brainerd v. New York, etc. R. R. Co.,25N. Y. 496 1423, 1432 V. Peck, 34 Vt. 496 1512, 1513, 1551 Braintree Water Co. v. In- habitants of Braintree, 146 Mass. 482; 16 N. E. 420 219 Bramblet v. Commonwealth Land, etc. Co., 26 Ky. Law Rep. 1176; 83 S. W. 599; 27 Ky. Law Rep. 156; 84 S. W. 545 1165, 1166, 1304, 1342 Brampton & Longtown Ry. Co., Re, 10 Ch. 177 295 Branch v. Augusta Glass Works, 95 Ga. 573; 23 S. E. 128 1211 V. Jesup, 106 U. S. 468; 1 Sup. Ct. 495 444, 450, 450, 1507 Branch, Sons & Co. v. Atlan- tic, etc. R. R. Co., 3 Woods 481 1495 Branch of the Bank v. Collins, 7 Ala. 95 1316, 1321, 1322 Brand v. Godwin, 15 Daly (N. Y.H56; 8N. Y. Supp. 339; 9 N. Y. Supp. 743 1365 Brandenstein v. Hoke, 101 Cal. 131; 35 Pac. 562 244 Brander v. Brander, 4 Ves. 800 1141, 1143 Brandreth, Re, 58 N. Y. App. Div. 575; 69 N. Y. Supp. 142 679, 679 Brannin v. Loving, 82 Ky. 370 1357 Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1 634, 647 Brass v. Worth, 40 Barb., (N. Y.) 648 808 Brassey v. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 19 Fed. 663 1604 Brassfield v. Quincy, etc. R. R. Co., 109 Mo. App. 710; 83 S. W. 1032 380 Bratten v. Catawissa R. R. Co., 211 Pa. 21; 60 Atl. 319 494, 1474, 1475 Breck v. Barney, 183 Mass. 133; 66 N. E. 643 645 Breeze v. Lone Pine Sur- prise, etc. Co., 39 Wash. 602; 81 Pac. 1050 966 Breinig v. Sparrow (Ind.), 80 N. E. 37 80, 853 Bremen Savings Bank v. Branch-Crookes Saw Co., 104 Mo. 425; 16 S. W. 209 297 Brendon v. Worley, 8 N. Y. Misc. 253; 28 N. Y. Supp. 557 590 Brennan v. Emery-Bird- Thayer Dry Goods Co., 99 Fed. 971 300 Brent v. Bank of Washington, 10 Pet. 596 768, 769, 774, 1124 V. Bank of Washington, 2 Cranch C. C. 517 768, 1124 Brewer v. Boston Theatre, 104 Mass. 378 935, 944, 945, 945, 976, 978 V. Chelsea Mutual Fire Ins.Co.,14Gray(Mass.)203 589 V. State, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 682 127 Brewer Brewing Co. v. Bod- die, 181 111. 622; 55 N. E. 49 861 Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15; 99 Am. Dec. 237 191, 1022, 1027, 1031 V. Hatch, 122 N. Y. 349; 25 N. E. 505; 19 Am. St. Rep. 498 311, 340 V. Lathrop, 15 Cal. 21 1136 V. Sime, 42 Cal. 139 799 Brick V. Brick, 98 U. S. 614 812 Brick & Stone Co., W. N. (1878) 140 994, 1186 Bridge Co. V. Mayer, 31 Oh. St. 317 1009 Bridgeport Bank v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231 685, 685, 714, 718, 730, 749 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Bridgeport Sav. Bank v. Eld- redge, 28 Conn. 556; 73 Am. Dec. 688 Bridgeport, etc. Ice Co Header, 72 Fed. 115; C. C. A. 451 Bridget's Case, 5 Ch. 305 Bridgers and Neill's Case, 4 Ch. 266 Bridges V. Nat. Bank of Troy, 185 N. Y. 146 572, 773, 1124 Bridgewater Iron Co. v. Liss- berger, 116 U. S. 8; 6 Sup. Ct. 241 Bridgewater Navigation Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 317 Bridgman v. City of Keokuk, 72 Iowa 42; 33 N. W. 355 1371 V. 18 286, 1007 633 668 716 471 421, 424 Briggs V. McCuUough, 36 Cal. 542 231, 384 V. Spaulding, 141 U. S. 132; 11 Sup. Ct. 924 1181, 1182, 1182, 1262, 1274, 1276, 1276, 1278, 1279, 1281 V. Traders Co., 145 Fed. 254 970 , Ex parte, 1 Eq. 483 181 Bright V. Hutton, 3 H. L. C. 341 275, 275, 276, 307 V. Lord, 51 Ind. 272; 19 Am. Rep. 732 1135, 1135 V. Metairie Cemetery Co., 33 La. Ann. 58 1372 Brighton Brewery Co., 37 L. J. Ch. 278 1336 Brill Co., J. G., V. Norton, etc. St. Ry. Co., 189 Mass. 431; 75 N. E. 1090 863 Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick, 99 N. Y. 185; 1 N. E. 663 981,1288 V. Roosevelt, 143 Fed. 478; 74 C. C. A. 498 967 Brinkerhoff v. Holland Trust Co., 159 Fed. 191 1354 Brinkerhoff-Farris Trust, etc. Co. V. Home Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 447; 24 S. W. 129 571, 571, 574, 589, 712, 752, 773 Brinkerhoff Zinc Co. v. Boyd, 192Mo. 597; 91S. W. 523 1211, 1268, 1360 Brinkley v. Hambleton, 67 Md. 169; 8 Atl. 904 617, 782, 783 Brinkley Car, etc. Co. v. Curf- man (Iowa), 114 N. W. 12 102 Brinley v. Grou, 50 Conn. 66; 47 Am. Rep. 618 503, 1138 Brinley v. Mann, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 337; 48 Am. Dec. 669 398 Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co. , 94 N. Y. 204 732, 753, 755, 756, 1130 Bristol County Sav. Bank v. Keavy, 128 Mass. 298 1379 Bristol Creamery Co. v. Til- ton, 47 Atl. Rep. 591; 70 N. H. 239 _ 169, 195 Bristol United Breweries v. Abbot (1908), 1 Ch. 279 1396 Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jonesboro, etc. Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545; 48 S. W. 228 123, 226, 298, 1169, 1169, 1365 British & American, etc. Corp. V. Couper (1894), A. C. 399 532, 534, 534, .534 British Asbestos Co. v. Boyd (1903), 2 Ch. 439 1230, 1230, 1230, 1231 British Equitable Ins. Co. v. Baily (1906), A. C. 35 584, 587 British Flax, etc. Co., 60 L. T. 215 1038 British Guardian Co., 14 Ch. D. 335 1261, 1264, 1267, 1285 British India, etc. Co. v. In- land Revenue Comm'rs, 7 Q. B. 165 1392 British Linen Co. v. South American, etc. Co. (1894), 1 Ch. 108 • 1598 British Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, 8 Ch. D. 679 77 British Oil & Coke Mills v. Inland Revenue Comm'rs (1903), 1 K. B. 689 1495 British Power Traction, etc. Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 497 1643, 1647, 1648 British Power Traction Co. (No. 2) (1907), 1 Ch. 528 1643, 1647, 1647 British Seamless Paper Box Co., 17 Ch. D. 467 24 British Sugar Co., 3 K. & J. 408 604, 1007, 1007 British Vacuum Cleaner Co. V. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 312 369, 371, 375, 375, 376 Briton Medical, etc. Ass'n v. Jones, 61 L. T. 384 1230 Brittan v. Oakland Bank of Savings, 124 Cal. 282; 57 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Pac. 84; 71 Am. St. Rep. 58 723, 808, 809, 1329 Broadway Bank v. McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 24 715 Broadway Nat. Bank v. Baker, 176 Mass. 294; 57 N. E. 603 70 Broadwell v. Merritt, 87 Mo. 95 302 Brockert v. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 82 Iowa 369; 47 N. W. 1026 1609 Brocklebank v. East London Ry. Co., 48 L. J. Ch. 729 1616 ifoockway v. Gadsden, etc. Land Co., 102 Ala. 620; 15 So. 431 602, 611, 614, 1208 Brockway Mfg. Co., Re, 89 Me. 121; 35 Atl. 1012; 56 Am. St. Rep. 401 1290, 1357 Bronson v. LaCrosse, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Wall. 283 932, 984, 985 Bronson Electric Co. v. Rheu- ♦ bottom, 122 Mich. 608; 81 N. W. 563 572 Brooke v. Day (Ga.), 59 S. E. 769 147, 148, 237 Brooklyn Heights Realty Co. V. Kurtz, 115 N. Y. App. Div. 74 1262 Brooklyn, Queens County, etc. R. R. Co., 185 N. Y. 171 141 Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. City of New York, 115 N. Y. App. Div. 69 890 Brooklyn, etc. R. R. Co. v. Strong, 75 N. Y. 591 1270, 1332 Brooks V. Railway Co., 101 U. S. 443 1542 V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 14 Blatchf. 463 1493, 1585, 1588 V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 22 Fed. 211 1622 Brooks, Jenkins & Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Torquay (1902), 1 K. B. 601 403, 404 Broome v. Galena, etc. Packet Co., 9 Minn. 239 25 Brophy v. American Brewing Co., 211 Pa. 596; 61 Atl. 123 1245 Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Newton, 79 111. App. 500 577, 577, 578, 590 Broughton v. BroUghton, 5 De G. M. & G. 160 1325 V. Manchester Water- Works Co. (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 1 828 Brown v. Adams, 5 Biss. 181 696 V. Andrew, 13 Jur. 938 308 V. Black, 8 Ch. 939 708, 783 V. Bokee, 53 Md. 155 424, 678 V. Bradford, 103 Iowa 378; 72 N. W. 648 1188 V. Brown (N. J.), 65 Atl. 739 503, 1149 Brown v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 73 Md. 567 1682 V. Citizens' Ice, etc. Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 181 64 — — V. (ility of Atchison, 39 Kans. 37; 17 Pac. 465; 7 Am. St. Rep. 515 855, 859 V. Commonwealth, 3 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 209 1040 V. Commercial Fire Ins. Co., 21 App. D. C. 325 402, 402, 403 V. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508; 42 N. W. 481 47 V. Creston Ice Co., 113 Iowa 615; 85 N. W. 750 1246 V. Crown Gold MiUing Co. (Cal.), 89 Pac. 86 1234, 1235 V. De Young, 167 111. 549; 47 N. E. 863 982, 982 V. Dibble, 65 Mich. 520; 32 N. W. 656 1005 V. Duluth, etc. Ry. Co., 53 Fed. 889 645, 962, 1402 V. Florida Southern Ry. Co., 19 Fla. 472 509 V. Galveston Wharf Co., 92 Tex. 520; 50 S. W. 126 1240, 1383 V. Gellatly, 2 Ch. 751 1136 V. Grand Fountain, 28 App. D. C. 200 134, 141, 142 V. Howard Fire Ins. Co., 42 Md. 384; 20 Am. Rep. 90 728, 735, 736, 738, 759 V. Lehigh Coal Co., 49 Pa. St. 270 1133 V. Maryland Tel., etc. Co., 101 Md. 574; 61 Atl. 338 141 V. Morton, 71 N. J. Law 26; 58 Atl. 95 616 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 19 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 84 1571, 1572 V. Pacific Mail, etc. Co., 5 Blatchf. 525 1048, 1050, 1053, 1061, 1064, 1064, 1064, 1064 V. Republican Silver Mines, 17 Colo. 421; 30 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Pac. 66; 16 L. R. A. 426 1237, 1245, 1247, 1248, 1322 V. Republican Silver Mines, 55 Fed. 7 554, 1001, 1199 V. Schleier, 118 Fed. 981; 194 U. S. 18; 24 Sup. Ct. 558 107, 836 V. Scottish-American Mortgage Co., 110 111. 235 232 V. Smith, 122 Mass. 589 781 V. Tillinghast, 84 Fed. 71; 93 Fed. 326; 35 C. C. A. 323 489 V. Toledo, etc. R. Co., 35 Fed. 444 1611 V. Utopia Land Co., 103 N. Y. Supp. 50 978, 979 V. Ward, 3 Duer (N. Y.) 660 808, 1439 V. Warner, 78 Tex. 543; 14 S. W. 1032; 22 Am. St. Rep. 67; 11 L. R. A. 394 1611 V. Weymouth, 36 Me. 414 1378, 1379, 1379 V. Winnisimmet Co., 11 Allen (Mass.) 326 68, 91 V. Wyandotte, etc. Ry. Co., 68 Ark. 134; 56 S. W. 862 140, 219, 531 Brown & Gregory, Ltd. (1904), 1 Ch. 627; (1904) 2 Ch. 448 1430 Brown & Lamed, Re, 14 R. I. 371 ; 51 Am. Rep. 397 1144, 1152 Brown's Case, 9 Ch. 102 1171 Brown, Ex parte, 18 S. Car. 87 1654 , Ex parte, 19 Beav. 97 1223, 1276 Browne v. La Trinidad, 37 Ch. D. 1 34, 285, 996, 1184, 1232 V. Monmouthshire Ry. Co., 13 Beav. 32 951, 1109 V. St. Paul Plow Works, 62 Minn. 90; 64 N. W. 66 Brownell v. Mass. 442 : Anthony, 189 75 N. E. 746 Browning v. Hinkle, 48 Minn. 544; 51 N. W. 605; 31 Am. St. Rep. 691 V. Kelly, 124 Ala. 645; 27 So. 391 Broyles v. McCoy, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 602 Bruce v. Piatt, 80 N. Y. 379 V. Smith, 44 Ind. 1 192, 527 1153, 1155 649 1661 309 1182, 1182 781 286 851 1500 1421 1370 363 1547 809 Brundage v. Brundage, 60 N. Y. 544 496, 1156 Brundred v. Rice, 49 Oh. St. 640; 32N. E. 169; 34 Am. St. Rep. 589 245, 261 Brunner v. Brown, 139 Ind. 600; 38 N. E. 318 Brunswick Gas Light Co. v. United Gas, etc. Co., 85 Me. 532 Brunswick, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hughes, 52 Ga. 557 Brunton's Case, 19 Eq. 302 Brush Electric Light, etc. Co. V. City Council of Mont- gomery, 114 Ala. 433; 21 So. 960 Brussels Palace of Varieties v. Prockter, 10 Times L. R. 72 Bruton v. Electrical Engineer- ing Corp. (1892), 1 Ch. 434 Bryan v. Baldwin, 52 N. Y. 232 V. Sturgis Nat. Bank (Tex.), 90 S. W. 704 793, IIU, 1134 Bryant v. D. C. Dental Soc, 26 App. D. C. 461 577, 580 Bryant's, etc. Mill Co. v. Felt, 87 Me. 234; 32 Atl. 888; 47 Am. St. Rep. 323; 33 L. R. A. 593 209, 209 Bryon v. Carter, 22 La. Ann. 98 770 Bryson v. Rayner, 25 Md. 424; 90 Am. Dec. 69 803, 811 Buchan's Case, 4 A. C. 549 622, 788, 789, 790 Bucher v. Dillsburg, etc. R. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 306 Buck V. Buck, 1 Campb. 547 V. Jones, 18 Colo. App. 250; 70 Pac. 951 V. Seymour, 46 Conn. 156 1502, 1510 V. Troy Aqueduct Co., 76 Vt. 75; 56 Atl. 285 588, 1205, 1210, 1318 Buckhannon, etc. R. Co. v. Davis, 135 Fed. 707; 68 C. C. A. 345 . 1616, 1617 Buckmaster v. Consumers' Ice Co., 5 Daly (N. Y.) 313 751 Bucksport, etc. R. R. Co. v. Brewer, 67 Me. 295 193 V. Buck, 68 Me. 81 191, 386, 1007, 1007 Budd V. Multnomah St. Ry. Co., 15 Greg. 413; 15 Pac. 659; 3 Am. Rep. 169 579, 606, 607, 657, 666, 1187 203 259 635 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Budd V. Munroe, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 316 799, 1177 V. "Walla Walla, etc. Pub. Co., 2 Wash. Ty. 347; 7 Pac.'896 1197, 1201, 1298, 1299 Buel V. Baltimore, etc. Ry. Co., 24 N.Y. Misc. 646; 53 N. Y. Supp. 749 1677, 1678, 1679, 1679, 1683 Buell V. Buckingham, etc. Co., 16 Iowa 284; 85 Am. Dec. 516 1187, 1205, 1296, 1315 Buffalo German Ins. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 19 N. Y. Misc. 564; 43 N. Y. Supp. 550 574, 751 V. Third Nat. Bank, 162 N. Y. 163; 56 N. E. 521; 48 L. R. A. 107 571 Buffalo Loan, etc. Co. v. Medina Gas Co., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 199; 42 N. Y. Supp. 781 1407, 1450 Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Gary, 26 N. Y. 75 119, 247, 248, 249 V. Clark, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 359 209, 609, 609 V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294 174, ■ V. Hatch, 20 N. Y. 157 609 101, 240 Buffett V. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 40 N. Y. 168 870 BuflS^ngton v. Bardon, 80 Wise. 635 ; 50 N. W. 776 280, 307 Buford V. Keokuk Northern Lme Packet Co., 69 Mo. 611 952 Bugg, Ex parte, 2 Drewry & Sm. 452 175, 620 Buker v. Leighton Lea Ass'n, 164 N. Y. 557; 58 N. E. 1085; s. c. 18 N. Y. App. Div. 548; 46 N. Y. Supp. 35 663 Bulawayo Market & OfiSces Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 458 1161, 1167 Bulkeley v. Stephens, 10 L. T. N. s. 225 1136, 1156 V. Stephens , (1896), 2 Ch. 241 1156, 1157 V. Worthington Ecc. Soc, 78 Conn. 526; 63 Atl. 351 1154, 1155 BuUard v. Bank, 18 Wall. 589 112, 572 Bullen V. Milwaukee Trading Co., 109 Wise. 41 ; 85 N. W. 115. 408 198 229 1072 1423 Bullock V. Falmouth, etc. Co., 85 Ky. 184; 3 S. W. 129 Bultfontein Sun Diamond Mine, 12 Times L. R. 461 ; 13 Times L. R. 156 351, 363 Buncombe Turnpike Co. v. McCarson, 1 Dev. & B. (N. Car.) 306 Bundy v. Iron Co., 38 Oh. St. 300 1069, 1071 Bunting's Admrs. v. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Pa. St. 254 Burbank v. Dennis, 101 Cal. 90; 35 Pac. 444 322, 322, 329 Burbidge v. Morris, 3 H. & C. 664 276, 308 Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y. 287; 54 N. E. 17 966, 1110, 1211, 1305, 1312, 1313, 1313 V. Burden Iron Co., 39 N. Y. Misc. 559; 80 N. Y. Supp. 390 1341 Burdett v. Standard Explora- tion Co., 16 Times L. R. 112 428, 429, 430, 430 Burdick v. Dillon, 144 Fed. 737; 75 C. C. A. 603 44 Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 2O7 2 Sup. Ct. 10 191, 622, 622, 623 V. St. Louis County R. R. Co., 99 Mo. 496; 12 S. W. 1050 966, 967 Bureess's Case, 15 Ch. D. 507 179 Burham v. San Francisco Fuse Mfg. Co., 76 Cal. 26; 17 Pac. 939 Burke v. Concord Railroad, 61 N. H. 160 V. Dillingham, 60 Fed. 729; 9 C. C. A. 255 V. Lechmere, L. R. 6 Q. B. 297 166, 210, 213 V. Lincoln- Valentine Co., 28 N. Y. Misc. 202; 58 N. Y. Supp. 1077, 1124 V. Short, 79 Fed. 6; 24 C. C. A. 422 V. Sidra Bay Co., 116 Wise. 137; 92 N. W. 568 V. Smith, 16 Wall. 390 359, 705 Burkhead v. Independent School District, 107 Iowa 29; 77N. W. 491 1189 BurMnshaw v. Nicolls, 3 A. C. 1004 647, 647, 648 666 79 1619 297 1452 1006 191, TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Burland v. Earle (1902), A. C. 83 75, 324, 930, 936, 936, 1110, 1332 Burlington City Loan, etc. Co. V. Princeton Lighting Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 1019 1669, 1669 Buriington Voluntary Re- lief Dept. V. White, 41 Nebr. 547; 69 N. W. 747; 43 Am. St. Rep. 701 577, 577, 577, 589 Burmeister v. Koster, 107 N. Y. Supp. 636 1553 Bum V. London & South Wales Coal Co., 7 Times L. R. 118 897, 904, 1252 Bumes v. Bumes, 137 Fed. 781; 70C. C. A. 357 517 V. Pennell, 2 Ho. Lds. Cas. 497 763 Bumham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776; 4 Sup. Ct. 675 1562, 1570, 1571 , Re, 140 Fed. 926 1553 Bums V. Beck, 83 Ga. 471 ; 10 S. E. 121 160, 1240 V. Commencement Bay, etc. Co., 4 Wash. 558; 30 Pao. 668, 709 1237 V. St. Paul St. Ry. Co. (Minn.), 112 N. W. 412 961 Bumside v. Dayrell, 3 Ex. 224 276, 342 Burr V. M'Donald, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 215 63, 1079, 1185, 1224 V. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. (N. Y.) 85 678, 791, 792 V. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551 154, 156 Burrill V. Nahant Bank, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 163; 35 Am. Dec. 395 1186, 1213 Burroughs v. North Carolina R. R. Co., 67 N. Car. 376; 12 Am. Rep. 611 1132, 1135 Burrows v. Interborough Met. Co., 156 Fed. 389 57, 968, 969 V. Matabele, etc. Co. (1901), 2 Ch. 23 354, 626 V. Niblack, 84 Fed. Ill; 28 C. C. A. 130 517, 520 V. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550 198 Burt V. Batavia Paper Mfg. Co., 86 111. 66 300 V. British Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, 4 De G. & J. 158 966, 973 V. Bull (1895), 1 Q. B. 276 1614, 1615 618 1057 723 784 1242 Burt V. Rattle, 31 Oh. St. 116 451,456 V. Real Estate Exchange, 175 Pa. St. 619; 34 Atl. 923; 52 Am. St. Rep. 85» Burton V. St. George's Soc, 28 Mich. 261 Burton's Appeal, 93 Pa. St. 214 Burton, etc. Co., 31 L. J. Q. B. 62 893, 894 Burwash v. Balkju, 82 N. E. 355 (111.) Busell Trimmer Co. v. Cobum, 188 Mass. 254; 74 N. E. 334; 69 L. R. A. 821 Busenback v. Attica, etc. Gravel Road Co., 43 Ind. 265 105, 117 Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15; 6 Am. Rep. 350 156, 156 Bush's Case, 6 Ch. 246 1223, 1325 , 9Ch. 554 154 Bushee v. Freeborn, 11 R. I. 149 501, 503, 1152 Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice Machine Co., 138 111. 67; 27 N. E. 596 124, 124, 126, 149, 250 Butchers' Beneficial Ass'n, 35 Pa. St. 151 Butchers', etc. Bank, 130 Mass. 264 Butler V. American Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136 V. Cornwall Iron Co., 22 Conn. 335 V. Eaton, 141 U. S. 240; 11 Sup. Ct. 985 V. Montgomery Grain Co., 85 Mo. App. 50 V. Murphy, 80 S. W. 337 (Mo.) V. Rahm, 46 Md. 541 1503, 1523, 1551, 1553, 1588', 1588 Butler Paper Co. v. Cleveland, 220 111. 128; 77 N. E. 99; 110 Am. St. Rep. 230 Butler University v. Scoon- over, 114Ind.381; 16N.E. 642; 5 Am. St. Rep. 627 Butt V. MacNichol Construc- tion Co., 140 Fed. 840; 72 C. C. A. 252 V. Monteaux, 1 K. & J. 98 256, 343 Butterfield v. Cowing, 112 N. Y. 86; 20 N. E. 3694 1433 113 248 79 1210 490 694 786 1498, 161 156 44 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Butterfly-Terrible Gold Min- ing Co. V. Brind (Colo.), 91 Pac. 1101 751, 900 Butterworth v. Kritzer Mill- ing Co., 115 Mich. 1; 72 N. W. 990 867 Button V. Hoffman, 61 Wise. 20; 20N. W. 667; 50 Am. Rep. 131 874 Button r.Wightman, Cro. Eliz. 338 - 102 Buttrick V. Nashua, etc. R. R. Co., 62 N. H. 413; 13 Am. St. Rep. 578 716, 1235 Butts r.Wood, 37 N.Y. 317 1203, 1319 Buvinger v. Evening Union Printing Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 482 1239, 1248, 1511, 1512, 1553 Bwlch-y-plwm Mining Co. v, Baymes, L. R. 2 Ex. 324 182 Byam v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31; 2N. E. 687 254 Byers v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 22; 21 Pac. 894 485, 974, 1065 Byers Bros. v. Maxwell (Tex.), 73 S. W. 437 184 Byram v. Sovereign Camp, 108 Iowa 430; 79 N. W. 144; 75 Am. St. Rep. 265 948 Byrne v. Schuyler, etc. Mfg. Co., 65 Conn. 336; 31 Atl. 833; 28L. R. A. 304 71, 75 V. Supreme Circle (N. J. Sup. Ct.), 65 Atl. 839 580 Byronville Creamery Ass'n v. Ivers, 100 N. W. 387; 93 Minn. 8 124 C Cable Co. v. Rathgeber (S. Dak.), 113 N. W. 88 386 Cackett v. Keswick (1902), 2 Ch. 456 340 Cady V. Potter, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 463 714, 714, 754, 754 Cahill V. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; 43 Am. Dec. 457 581, 1185, 1205 V. Maryland Life Ins. Co., 90 Md. 333; 45 Atl. 180; 47 L. R. A. 614 394 V. Original Big Gun, etc. Ass'n. 94 Md. 353; 89 Am. St. Rep. 434; 50 Atl. 1044 613 Caho V. Norfolk, etc. Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 60 S. E. 640 1192 Caimey v. Back (1906), 2 K. B. 746 1375, 1546 Cake V. Woodbury, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 60 1621, 1621, 1643, 1644 Calculagraph Co. v. Wilson, 132 Fed. 20 1356 Calder Nav. Co. v. Pilling, 14 M. & W. 76 566 Caldwell v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 65 N. Y. Supp. 826 1215, 1215 Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Helens- burgh, 2 Maeq. H. L. 391 V. Solway Ry. Co., 49 L. T. 526 Calgary & Edmonton Land Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 141 Calho\in v. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Flippin 442 281, 281 87 542 1502, 1511 xU V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 14 Fed. 9 1562, 1570 California Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362; 17 Sup. Ct. 831 76, 77, 833, 833, 834, 846 California Consolidated Min- ing Co. V. Manley, 10 Idaho 786; 81 Pac. SO 300 California, etc. Hotel Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 120; 29 Pac. 859; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99 154, 428, 600, 625 Callahan v. Chilcott Ditch Co. (Colo.), 86 Pac. 123 998, 1007 Callanan v. Edwards, 32 N. Y. 483 544 Callender v. Painesville & Hudson, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Oh. St. 516 95, 236 Caloric Engine Co., 52 L. T. 846 1036, 1044 Calumet Paper Co. v. Haskell Show, etc. Co., 144 Mo. 331 ; 45S. W..1115; 66 Am. St. Rep. 425 1211, 1217 V. Stotts Investment Co., 96 Iowa 147; 64 N. W. 782; 59 Am. St. Rep. 362 74, 74, 279, 297, 298 Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co., 25 Oreg. 412; 36 Pac. 24 70, 80 Cambria Iron Co. v. Union Trust Co., 154 Ind. 291; 48 L. R. A. 41; 55N. E. 745; 56 N. E. 665 1564 Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S. 104; 12 Sup. Ct. 585 634, 634 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Camden Land Co. v. Lewis, 101 Me. 78; 63Atl. 523 314, 1310, 1311, 1322, 1340 Camden Safe Deposit, etc. Co. V. Burlington Carpet Co., 33 AtL Rep. 479 (N. J. Ch.) 1175, 1178, 1496 Camden Safe, etc. Co. v. Citizens' Ice, etc. Co. (N. J. Ch.), 61 Atl. 529 1342, 1408 Camden, etc. R. R. Co. v. Mays Landing, etc. R. R, Co., 48 N. J. Law 530 Came v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35 853 229, 593 Cameron v. Tome, 64 Md 507; 2 Atl. 837 1456, 1456 Cameron, etc. Ry. Co., 18 Beav. 339 1303 Cameron Town, etc. Ins. Co., 96 Fed. 756 44 Cammack v. Levy (La.), 45 So. 925 548 Cammell, Ex parU (1894), 2 Ch. 392 925, 1172, 1173 Cammeyer v. United German Lutheran Churches, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 186 993, 1211 Camp V. Barney, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 373 1615, 1617 V. Byrne, 41 Mo. 525 161, 235 Campbell v. American Alkili Co., 125 Fed. 207; 61 C. C. A. 317 601, 616, 618 i;. Am. Zylonite Co., 122 N. Y. 455; 25 N. E. 853; 11 L. R. A. 596 440, 440 V. Argenta, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 1 1006, 1007 V. Compagnie de Belle- garde, 2 Ch. D. 181 1598 V. Harrison, 3 N. So. Wales State Rep. 432 1395 V. London & Brighton Ry. Co., 5 Hare 519 1475, 1476 V. Maund, 5 A. & E. 865 1038, 1039, 1039 V. McPhee, 36 Wash. 593; 79Pac. 206 630 V. Merchants', etc. Ins. Co., 37 N. H. 35; 72 Am. Deo. 324 592 V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co., 137 Pa. St. 574; 20 Atl. 949 1632 V. Poultney, 6 G. & J. (Md.) 94; 26 Am. Dec. 559 954, 974, 1014 Campbell v. Railroad Co., 1 Woods 368 1485, 1584, 1585 V. Santa Maria, etc. Co. (Colo.), 95 Pac. 39 1232 V. Texas, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 263 1625, 1625 V. Upton, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 434; 73 N. Y. Supp. 1084 1328 V. Watson, 62 N. J. Eq. 396; 50 Atl. 120 . 588, 1267, 1274, 1274, 1278 V. Woodstock Iron Co., 83 Ala. 351; 3 So. 369 803, 804 Campbell & Zell Co. v. Amer- ican Surety Co., 129 Fed. 491 233, 382 Campbell's Case, 4 Ch. D. 470 1317, 1319, 1400 Campbell's Case, 9 Ch. 1 193, 487, 492, 493 Canada-Atlantic, etc. Co. v. Flanders, 145 Fed. 875; 76 C. C. A. 1 1215, 1215 Canada Life Ass. Co. v. Peel Gen. Mfg. Co., 26 Grant (Ont.) 477 76 Canada Southern Ry. Co. v. Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527; 3 Sup. a. 363 1671, 1672 Canadian Imp. Co. i;. Lea (N. J.), 69 Atl. 455 1023 Canadian Tin Plate Co., 12 Ont. L. R. 594 166, 166, 169 Canal Company's Case, 83 Md. 549; 35 Atl. 161, 354, 581 1676, 1682, 1682 Canal, etc. Co. v. Paas, 95 Mich. 372; 54 N. W. 907 230 Canal, etc. R. R. Co. v. St. Charles, etc. R. R. Co., 44 La. Ann. 1069; 11 So. 702 853 Canal Co. v. Sansom, 1 Binney (Pa.) 70 660. Canandarqua Academy v. McKechnie, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 62 404 Candelaria Mining Co. v. Juarez Co., 157 Fed. 315 1260 Canfield v. Gregory, 66 Conn. 9; 33 Atl. 536 142, 235 V. Knights of Maccabees, 87 Mich. 626; 49 N. W. 875; 24 Am. St. Rep. 186; 13 L. R. A. 625; 577 Cann v. International Trust Co. , 40 Nova Scotia, 65 936, 1409 V. Rector, etc. of Church xlii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] of Holy Redeemer (Mo.), 98 S. W. 781 1205 Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 96 Md. 446; 54 Atl. 121; 94 Am. St. Rep. 598 253, 1081 V. Farmers' Mut. Fire Ass'n, 58 N. J. Eq. 102; 43 Atl. 281 594 V. Trask, 20 Eq. 669 948, 954, 996, 1014, 1020, 1062 Ex parte, 30 Ch. D. 629 1241 Cantwell v. Columbia Lead Co. (Mo.), 97 S. W. 167 959 Cantwell v. Stockmen's Bldg., etc. Union, 88 111. App. 247 925 Cape Breton Co., Be, 29 Ch. D. 795 323 Cape May, etc. Nav. Co., 51 N. J. Law 78; 16 Atl. 191 1024, 1024, 1066 Cape Sable Company's Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.) 606 64, 394, 420 Capital City Brick Co. v. Jackson, 59 S. E. 92 (Ga.) 1328 Capper's Case, 1 Sim. N. S. 178 Capper's Case, 3 Ch. 458 Capps V. Hastings Prospect- ing Co., 40 Nebr. 470; 58 N. W. 956; 24 L. R. A. 259; 42 Am. St. Rep. 677 Car Advertising Co. v. New York City Advertising Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 547 Caraher v. Royal Ins. Co., 63 Hun (N. Y.) 82; 17 N. Y. Supp. 85S Caratal (New) Mines (1902), 2*Ch. 498 Card V. Moore, 68 N. Y. App. Div. 327; 74 N. Y. Supp. 18; 173 N. Y. 598; 66 N. E. 1105 126, 246, 253 Cardan v. General Cemetery Co., 5 Bins. N. C. 253 Cardiff Workmen's Cottage Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 627 Carey v. Des Moines, etc. Min- ing Co., 81 Iowa 674; 47 N. W. 882 V. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. 438 1629, 1670 V. Mayer, 79 Fed. 926; 25 C. C. A. 239 624 V. Williams, 79 Fed. 906; 25 C. C. A. 227 921 343 708 216 371 1344 1058 295 1396 280 Cargill V. Bower, 10 Ch. D. 502 1350 Caridad Copper Mining Co. (1902), 2 K. B. 44 1238 Carting's Case, 1 Ch. D. 115 1338, 1338, 1338, 1340 Carling, Ex parte, 56 L. J. Ch. 321 179, 184 Carlisle v. Cahawba, etc R. R. Co., 4 Ala. 70 603 V. South Eastern Ry. Co., 1 Mac. & G. 689 977 Carlsbad Water Co. v. New, 33 Colo. 389; 81 Pac. 34 43 Carmel, etc. Co. v. Small, 150 Ind. 427; 47 N. E. 11; 50 N. E. 476 1250, 125-1 Carmichael's Case (1896), 2 Ch. 643 362 Carmichael and Hewett's Case, 30 W. R. 742 168, 1175 Carmody v. Powers, 60 Mich. 26; 26 N. W. 801 306 Carney v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 162N. Y.453; 57N. E.78; 76 Am. St. Rep. 347; 49 L. R. A. 471 592, 1189 Carolina Coal, etc. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 57 S. E. 444 Carpenter V.Am. Bldg.& Loan Ass'n, 54 Minn. 403; 56 N. W.95; 40 Am. St. Rep. 345 666, 667 V. Black Hawk Gold Mining Co., 65 N. Y. 43 1408, 1495 1523 V. Catlin, 44 Barb. 75 ' 1664 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. 152 1476, 1476 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Abb. Pr. 277 973, 1105 V. Rommel, 5 Phila. 34 1423 Carr v. Carr, 1 C. B. n. s. 197 660, 663 V. Griffith, 12 Ch. D. 655 24, 1157 V. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St. 413 1423 V. National Bank, etc. Co.,167N.Y. 375;60N.E. 649; 82 Am. St. Rep. 725 850 Carriage Co-operative Sup- ply Co., 27 (Jh. D. 322 1337, 1340, 1346 Carrick v. Wigan Tramways Co., W. N. (1893) 98 1591 Carrington v. Turner, 101 Md. 437; 61 Atl. 324 1374 1522 xliii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Carroll v. Mullanphy Sav. Bank, 8 Mo. App. 249 558, 560, 693, 744 Carson v. Arctic Mining Co., 5 Mich. 288 667, 667 V. Iowa City Gaslight Co., 80 Iowa 638; 45 N. W. 1068 962, 963, 965, 968 Carson City Sav. Bank v. Carson City Elevator Co., 90 Mich. 550; 51 N. W. 641; 30 Am. St. Rep. 454 113, 852 Carswell v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 74 Fed. 88; 20C. C. A. 282 1611, 1612, 1612 Carter v. Gray (Ark.), 96 S. W. 377 300 V. Sanderson, 5 Bing. 79 582, 582 V. Union Printing Co., 54 Ark. 576; 16 S. W. 579 518, 520 Carter's Case, 31 Ch. D. 496 1363 Carter, etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432; 68 N. W. 74 154, 168, 198, 200, 209, 213 Cartmell's Case, 9 Ch. 691 1214 Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 Tenn. 476; 12 S. W. 1030; 17 Am. St. Rep. 910; 7 L. R. A. 706 195, 516, 610, 702 Carver Co., E., v. Manufac- turers' Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 214 Case V. Bank, 100 U. S. 446 - V. Hawkins, 53 Miss. 702 1379 749, 750 1374 V. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21; 10 Sup. a. 216 836 V. New York Mut. Sav. etc. Ass'n, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 538; 85 N. Y. Supp. 104 980 Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 138 U.S. 431; 11 Sup. Ct. 360 307, 310 Case Plow Works, J. I. v. Finks, 81 Fed. 529; 26 C. C. A. 46 1617 Case of the Deane and Chap- ter of Femes, Davis 43 400, 401 Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673 225, 235, 237 ■ V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 48 Pac. 53; 15 Wash. 450 1611 xliv Cass V. Manchester, etc. Co.,. 9 Fed. 640 1188, 1192 V. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co., 80 Pa. St. 31 194, 606 Cassatt V. Mitchell Coal, etc. Co., 150 Fed. 32 890 Cassell V. Lexington, etc. Co., 10 Ky. Law Rep. 486; 9 S. W. Rep. 701 998, 1185 Cassidy v. Uhlmann, 163 N. Y. 380; 57 N. E. 620; 79 Am. St. Rep. 596 1355 Castellan v. Hobson, 10 Eq. 47 783 Castle V. Belfast Foundry Co., 72 Me. 167 1381, 1382, 1382 Castle Braid Co., 145 Fed. 224 518, 519 Castner v. Twitchell-Champ- lin Co., 91 Me. 524; 40 Atl. 558 1011, 1011, 1012 Gates V. Baxter, 97 Tenn. 443; 37 S. W. 219 716 Catholic Church v. Tobbein, 82 Mo. 418 244, 304 Catlin V. Green, 120 N. Y. 441; 24 N. E. 941 192 Catskill Bank v. Gray, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 471 80 Cattron v. First Universalist Soc, 46 Iowa 106 1372, 1376, 1377 Caulkins v. Gas Light Co., 85 Tenn. 683; 4 S. W. 287; 4 Am. St. Rep. 786 798, 798, 814 Cavanaugh v. Patterson (Colo.), 91 Pac. 1117 1360 Cawley & Co., 42 Ch. D. 209 600, 603, 745, 766, 767 Cayley v. Coburg, etc. Ry. Co., 14 Grant Ch. (Can.) 571 r476 Caylus V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 10 Hun (N. Y.) 295 1494 Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. v. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 95, 110, 204 Cazelais v. Picotte, 18 Que- bec Sup. Ct. 538 148 Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 Fed. 654; 71 C. C. A. 104 1356 C. D. & M. Co. V. Keisel, 43 Iowa 39 387 Cecil, Re, 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 477 1043 Cedar Grove Cemetery Co., Be, 61 N. J. Law 422; 39 Atl. 1024 922, 1017, 1067 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Ceeder v. Loud & Sons Lum- ber Co., 86 Mich. 541; 49 N. W. 575; 24 Am. St. Rep. 134 1380 Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. Co., 32 Fed. 94 373 Center Creek Water, etc. Co. V. Lindsay, 21 Utah 192; 60 Pac. 559 1344 Central Agricultural, etc. Ass'n V. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120 118, 126, 232, 619 Central Bank v. Knowlton, 12 Wise. 624; 78 Am. Dec. 769 226 Central City Savings Bank v. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424 252 Central De Kaap Gold Mines, 69 L. J. Ch. 18 1241, 1242 Central Electric Co. v. Sprague Electric Co., 120 Fed. 925; 67 C. C. A. 197 917 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. V. Paul, 93 Fed. 878; 35 C. C. A. 639 1659 V. Union Springs, etc. Ry. Co., 144 Ala. 639; 39 So. 473 250 Central Land Co. v. Oben- chain, 92Va. 130; 22 S. E. 876 320 Central Lumber Co. v. Kel- ter, 201 111. 503; 66 N. E. 543 85 Central Nebraska Nat. Bank V. Wilder, 32 Nebr. 454; 49 N. W. 369 806, 1131 Central Ohio Natural Gas & Fuel Co. V. Capital City Dairy Co., 60 Oh. St. 96; 53 N. E. 711; 64 L. R. A. 395 68 Central Park Fire Ins. Co. v. Callaghan, 41 Barb. 448 291 Central R. R. Co. v. Collins, 40 Ga. 582 ' 76, 965 V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 475 120, 121, 121 Central R. R. & Banking Co. V. Ward, 37 Ga. 515 741, 743 Central R. R., etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 158 1611, 1634 V. Fanners' L. & T. Co., 116 Fed. 700 836, 1433, 1436, 1436,. 1472 Central R. R., etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 114 Fed. 263 ; 52 C. C. A. 149 85, 836 1). Smith, 76 Ala. 572; 52 Am. Rep. 353 80, 869, 870 Central Ry. Co. v. Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. 99 177, 184, 184, 186 Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's, etc. Co., 139 U. S. 24; 11 Sup. Ct. 478 37, 839, 839, 840 Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 57 Fed. 753; 6 C. C. A. 539 1082, 1535 V. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 889 1543 V. Central Trust Co. of Illinois, 149 Fed. 789 375, 375, 379 V. Charlotte, etc. R. R. Co., 65 Fed. 264 1568 V. Chattanooga, etc. R. R. Co., 69 Fed. 295 1661, 1564 V. Chattanoogar, etc. R. R. Co., 94 Fed. 275; 36 C. C. A. 241 1503, 1517 V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co., 58 Fed. 500 1621, 1628, 1667, 1667 1). Clark, 81 Fed. 269; 26 .C. C. A. 397 1571 V. Columbus, etc. Ry. Co., 87 Fed. 815 85 V. Condon, 67 Fed. 84; 14 C. C. A. 314 1007, 1221, 1371, 1562 V. Continental Iron Works, 51 N. J. Eq. 605; 28 Atl. 595; 40 Am. St. Rep. 539 1497 V. Continental Trust Co., 86 Fed. 517; 30 C. C. A. 235 1611 V. Denver, etc. R. Co., 97 Fed. 239; 38 C. C. A. 143 1635, 1654 V. East Tennessee Land Co., 116 Fed. 743 322 V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. 896 1568 V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 363, 357 1619 V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 658 1561 V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. Co., 70 Fed. 764 1543 V. East Tennessee, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 19 1611, 1611 xlv TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Central Trust Co. v. East Ten- nessee, etc. R. R. Co., 80 Fed. 624; 26 C. C. A. 30 1568, ■ V. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 87 Fed. 288; 30 C. C. A. 648 V. Hennen, 90 Fed. 593; 33 C. C. A. 189 V. Indiana, etc. R. Co., 98 Fed. 666 V. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414; 11 Sup. a. 357 1538, V. Lappa (Pa.), 65 Atl. 1111 V. Louisville Trust Co., 87 Fed. 23 V. Louisville, etc. Ry. Co., 70 Fed. 282 V. Louisville, etc.Ry.Co., 81 Fed. 772 V. Marietta, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Fed. 14 V. Marietta, etc. Ry. Co., 73 Fed. 589 V. Marietta, etc. Ry. Co., 75 Fed. 209; 21 C. C. A. 307; 75 Fed. 193; 21 C. C. A. 291 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 250; 18 N. E.92; 1L.R.A.260 1617, V. New York, etc. Water Co., 74 N. Y. Supp. 135; 176 N. Y. 546; 68 N. E. 1115 V. Ohio Central R. Co., 23 Fed. 306 V. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. (Chamberlin's Case), 104 Fed. 418; 43 C. C. A. 613 V. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. (Baldwin's Case), 104 Fed. 420; 43 C. C. A. 616 V. Seasongood, 130 U. S. 482; 9Sup. Ct. 575 V. Sloan, 65 Iowa 655; 22 N. W. 916 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 551 1561, V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. 426 V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 846 V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 178 V. Thurman, 94 Ga. 735; 20 Sup. Ct. 141 1558, 1562, 1572 1633 1552 1437 1508, 1539 332 1490 1497 1543 985 1669 1650 1618 1438 1611 1636 1636 1646 1655 1617 1617 1593 1559 1560 xlvi Central Trust Co. v. Unadilla Valley Ry. Co., 72 N. Y. Supp. 189; 35 N. Y. Misc. 604 1585, 1585 V. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 56 Fed. 5 1628 V. Utah Central Ry. Co., 16 Utah 12; 50 Pac. 813 1566, 1572 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 863 1612 V. Wabash, etc. R. Co., 24 Fed. 98 1567 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 25 Fed. 693 1599 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 26 Fed. 11 1617 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. 332 1569 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 187 ' 1621 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 566 1568 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 36 Fed. 622 1490 V. Warren, 121 Fed. 323; -58 C. C. A. 289 45 V. Washington Co. R. R. Co., 124 Fed. 813 984, 1503, 1585, 1629 V. Western N. C. R. Co., 89 Fed. 24 833 V. Worcester Cycle Mfg. Co.,93Fed. 712; 35 CCA. 547 1501, 1501, 1594, 1595 V. Worcester Cycle Mfg. Co., 114 Fed. 659 1608, 1608 Central Turnpike Corp. v. Val- entine, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 142 189 Chable v. Nicaragua Canal, etc. Co., 59 Fed. 846 898, 898 Chadwick v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 171 Mass. 239; 50 N. E. 629 1521 Chaffe II. Ludeling, 27 La. Ann. 607 252 Chaffee v. Middlesex R. R. Co., 146 Mass. 224; 16 N. E. 34 1463, 1464, 1475, 1476, 1476 V. Quidneck Co., 14 R. I. 75 963 V. Rutland R. R. Co., 55 Vt. 110 450, 450, 452, 1118, 1122, 1416, 1421 V. Rutland R. R. Co., 53 Vt. 345 1582, 1582, 1582, 1582 Chamberlain v. Bromberg, 83 Ala. 576; 3 So. 434 1187 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Chamberlain v. Connecticut Central R. R. Co., 54 Conn. 472;9Atl. 244 1469 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 71 Fed. 636 1609, 1609 V. Painesville, etc. R. R. Co., 15 Oh. St. 225 189, 191, 191, 193, 994 Chamberlin v. Mammoth Min- ing Co., 20 Mo. 96 Chambers v. Chambers & McKee, 185 Pa. St. 105; 39 Atl. 822 V. Falkner, 65 Ala. 448 V. Manchester, etc. Ry. Co., 5 B. & S. 588 Chambersburg Ins. Co. v. Smith, 11 Pa. St. 120 Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. 538 274, 1338, 1338 V. Hoag, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 613; s. c. 63 N. Y. 624 V. Monmouth Bank, 13 N. J. Law 255 Chandler Mtge. Co. v. Loring, 113 111. App. 423 Chapin v. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 575 Chapleo v. Brunswick Bldg. Soc, 6 Q. B. D. 696 Chaplin v. Clarke, 4 Ex. 402 Chapman v. Atlantic Trust Co., 119 Fed. 257; 145 Fed. 820 V. Bates, 61 N. J. Eq. 658; 47 Atl. 638; 88 Am. St. Rep. 459 1029, 1048, 1052, 1053 V. Iron Clad Rheostat Co., 62 N. J. Law 497; 41 Atl. 690 518, 520, 852 V. Lynch, 156 N. Y. 551.; 51 N. E. 275 Chapman's Case (1895), 1 Ch. 771 634, 637, 639, 639 Chappelle v. Chappelle (Ky.), 99 S. W. 959 420, 1115 Chappell's Case, 6 Ch. 902 766 Chantable Corp. v. Sutton, 2 Atk. 400 1161, 1259, 1264, 1273, 1281, 1281, 1285, 1349 Charles River Bridge v. War- ren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420 Charles S. Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. 462; 39 N. E. 490; 43 Am. St. Rep. 769; 27 L. R. A. 42 376, 387 1373 1187 86 64 699, 763 1182 1246 958 1432 831 342 1640 856 35 Charlestown Boot, etc. Co. v. Dunsmore, 60 N. H. 85 Charlotte, etc. R. R. Co. v. Blakely, 3 Strob. (S. Car.) 245 157, 197 V. Chester, etc. R. R. Co., 118 N. Car. 1078; 24 S. E. Rep. 769 Charlottesville v. Southern Ry. Co., 97 Va. 428; 34 S. E. 98 Charlton v. Newcastle, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Jur. N. S. 1096 Charter Acknowledgments, Be, 28 Pa. Co. a. Rep. 187 1192 1612 25 79 119, 121 Charter Gas Engine Co. v. Charter, 47 111. App. 36 998, 1228, 1268, 1317 Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1 150, 151 151, 416 V. Mich. Tel. Co., 121 Mich. 631; 80 N. W. 717 512, 879 V. Sycamore, etc. R. R. Co., 38 111. 215 157, 920, 921 V. Tuttle, 55 Conn. 455; 12 Atl. 874; 3 Am. St. Rep. 64 1178, 1199, 1201, 1212 1212 V. Vanderbilt, 62 N. Y. ' 307 465, 474, 977, 1354 Chaytor v. Horn (1905), 1 Ch. 233 1136 Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G. & J. 27 785, 787, 787 Cheever v. Meyer, 52 Vt. 66 716 Chemical Nat. Bank v. Col- well, 132 N. Y. 250; 30 N. E. 644 695, 1168, 1176, 1262 V. Wagner, 93 Ky. 525; 20 S. W. 535; 40 Am. St. Rep. 206 1328, 1378 Chenango Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 635 1038, 1059, 1059, 1065, 1065 Chenowith v. Pac. Express Co., 93 Mo. App. 185 853, 867 Chequasset Lumber Co., 112 Fed. 56 393 Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co. v. White, 14 S. Car. 51 162, 230 Cherry v. Frost, 7 Lea (Tenn.) 1 694, 723 Chesapeake Oyster, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 960 44 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. V. Blair, 45 Md. 102 1413, 1414 xlvii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Chesapeake, etc. Ry. Co. v. Deepwater Ry. Co., 57 W. Va. 641; 50 S. E. 890 305, 913, 914, 915 V. Miller, 114 U. S. 176; 5 Sup. a. 813 1521, 1522, 1522 Cheshire Banking Co., 32 Ch. D. 301 170 Chester v. Buffalo Car Mfg. Co., 70 N. Y. App. Div. 443; 75 N. Y. Supp. 428 1151 Chester Glass Co. v. Deevey, 16 Mass. 94; 8 Am. Dec. 128 853 Chesterfield, etc. Colliery Co. V. Black, 37 L. T. 740 1311 Chestnut Hill, etc. Co. v. Rutter, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 6; 8 Am. Dec. 675 869 Chetlain v. RepubUc Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220 196 Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 14 Md. 299 709, 754, 755 V. Keck, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 163 404, 405 Chewacla Lime Works v. Dis- mukes, 87 Ala. 344; 6 So. 122; 5 L. R. A. 100 851, 856 Chicago V. Cameron, 120 111. 447; 11 N. E 899 952, 972 V. Mills, 204 U. S. 321 970 Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Talbotton Creamery, etc. Co., 106 Ga. 84; 31 S. E. 809 280, 280, 310 Chicago Deposit Vault Co. v. McNulta, 153- U. S. 554; 14 Sup. Ct. 915 _ 1644 Chicago Dock Co. v. Garrity, 116 111. 155; 3N. E. 448 ' 25 Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, 164 111. 323; 45 N. E. 534 728, 729, 729, 754, 754, 755 Chicago Hansom Cab Co. v. Yerkes, 141 111. 320; 30 N. E. 667; 33Am. St. Rep. 315 1080, 1083, 1312 Chicago-Joplin Lead & Zinc Co., 104 Fed. 67 22 Chicago Macaroni, etc. Co. v. Boggiano, 202 111. 312; 67 N. E. 17 982, 1016, 1056 Chicago Mut. Life, etc. Ass'n V. Hunt, 127 111. 257; 20 N. E. 55; 2 L. R. A. 549 1025 Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. V. Munsell, 107 111. App. 344 1372 xhiii Chicago Tire Co. v. Chicago Nat. Bank, 176 111. 224; 52 N. E. 52 1382 Chicago Title, etc. Co. v. State Bank of Ambia, 86 Fed. 863; 30 C. C. A. 443 663 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Biddison, 46 111. App. 423 1237 Chicago, etc. Granaries Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 263 1419, 1463 Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Coleman, 18 111. 297; 68 Am. Dec. 544 1374 V. Fosdick, 106 U. S. 47; 1 Sup. Ct. 10 1461, 1462, 1462, 1465, 1466, 1466, 1467, 1467, 1468, 1484, 1595, 1623, 1624, 1625, 1638, 1675 Chicago, etc. R.R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155 33 V. Keegan, 185 111. 70; 56 N. E. 1088 848 V. Lewis, 53 Iowa 101 ; 4 N. W. 842 406, 848 V. Marseilles, 84 111. 145 517 V. McCammon, 61 Fed. 772; IOC. C. A. 50 1635 V. Pyne, 30 Fed. 86 1420, 1472 V. Stafford Co., 36 Kans. 121; 12 Pac. 593 147, 149 V. Towle, 10 Ind. App. 540; 37 N. E. 358 Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ayres, 140 111. 644; 30 , N. E. 687 V. James, 22 Wise. 194 V. Lowenthal, 93 111. 433 1534, 1540 V. McGuire (Ind.), 65 N. E. 932 V. Southern Indiana Ry. Co. (Ind.), 70 N. E. 843 V. State (Ark.), 106 S. W. 199 V. Tice (111.), 83 N. E. 818 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 15 992, 1003, 1003 Chickering, Re, 56 Vt. 82 1592 Chicora Co. v. Crews, 6 S. Car. 243 258, 259 Chiera v. Brevoort, 97 Mich. 638; 57 N. W. 193 Chilberg v. Siebenbaum, 41 Wash. 663 ; 84 Pac. 598 Chilcott V. Washington, etc. Colonization Co. (Wash.), 88 Pac. 113 288 1632 80 1374 1510 868 220 1510 1061 614 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Child V. Hudson's Bay Co., 2 P. Wms. 207 567, 571, 660, 774 V. Hugg, 41 Cal. 519 808 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 129 Mass. 170 1453, 1457, 1461, 1665 Childers v. Shepherd, 142 Ala. 385; 39 So. 235 1402 Childs v.Smd, 32 W. Va. 66; 9 S. E. 362 123, 126, 254 Chillington Iron Co., 29 Ch. D. 159 1038 Chiniquy v. Bishop of Chi- cago, 41 111. 148 Chorley, Ex parte, 11 Eq. 157 249 1420, 1421 Chott V. Tivoli Amusement Co., 114 111. App. 178 924 Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 290 1425, 1436 Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286 606 Chouteau Spring Co. v. Har- ris, 20 Mo. 382 695, 701, 745 Choutteau Ins. Co. v. Holmes's Adm'r, 68 Mo. 601; 30 Am. Rep. 807 1201 Chrisman-Sawyer Banking Co. V. Independence Wool Mfg. Co., 168 Mo. 634; 68 S. W. 1026 521, 524 Christensen v. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97; 12 N. E. 648; 60 Am. Rep. 429 601, 630 Christian v. Atlantic & North Carolina R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233; 10 Sup. Ct. 260 804 Christian, etc. Grocery Co. v. Fniitdale Lumber Co., 121 Ala. 340; 25 So. 566 239, 245 Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 352 837, 837 Christie v. Taunton, etc. Co. (1893), 2 Ch. 175 1440, 1440 Christopher v. Nor veil, 201 U. S. 216; 26 Sup. Ct. 502 708 Christopher v. Noxon, 4 Ont. 672 1005, 1007, 1058, 1226, 1232 1309 Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665 ' 248, 483, 492 Church V. Church Cementico Co., 75 Minn. 85; 77N.W. 548 287, 297, 1238 V. Citizens' St. R. Co., 78 Fed. 526 941, 969, 980 Church, M. E. v. Picketts, 19 N. Y. 482 229 Church of the Holy Com- munion, 14 Phila. 121 127 Church of St. Stanislaus v. Algemeine Verein, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 133; 52 N. Y. Supp. 922; 164 N. Y. 606; 58 N. E. 1086 303, 304 Cincinnati Mut., etc. Ass. Co. V. Rosenthal, 55 111. 85; 8 Am. Rep. 626 865 Cincinnati Volksblatt Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 Oh. St. 189; 56 N. E. 1033; 78 Am. St. Rep. 707; 48 L. R. A. 732 902, 902, 903, 904, 905, 907 Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co. v. Danville, etc. Ry. Co., 75 111. 113 250 V. Duckworth, 1 Oh. Circ. Dec. 618 957,958,958 Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 56 Oh. St. 351; 47 N.E. 249: 43 L. R. A. 777 734, 738, 741 V. Third Nat. Bank, 1 Oh. Circ. Ct. 199 734, 741 Citizens' Bank v. Kalamazoo Co. Bank, 111 Mich. 313; 69 N. W. 663 772, 776, 776 Citizens' Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Coriell, 34 N. J. Eq. 383 1264, 1274, 1274 Citizens' Life Ass. Co. v. Brown (1904), A. C. 423 1362 Citizens' Loan Ass'n v. Lyon, 29 N. J. Eq. 110 1259 Citizens' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. V. Sortwell, 8 Allen (Mass.) 217 994, 996, 1012 Citizens' Nat. Bank v. El- liott, 55 Iowa 104; 7N. W. 470; 39 Am. Rep. 167 1237, 1247 Citizens' State Bank v. Haw- kins, 71 Fed. 369; 18 C. C. A. 78 834 Citizens' Trust, etc. Co. v. Tompkins, 97 Md. 182; 54 AtL 617 1345, 1602 Citizens', etc. Trust Co. v. Union Mining, etc. Co., 106 Fed. 97 985 City V. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477 1447, 1448, 1448, 1449 City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507 517, 523, 526, 1187 xlix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] City Council v. Jane Moore- head, 2 Rich. Law (S. Car.) 430 406 City Electric St. Ry. v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Ark. 33; 34 S. W. 89; 31 L. R. A. 535; 54 Am. St. Rep. 282 1370, 1376, 1377 City Nat. Bank v. Merchants', etc. Nat. Bank (Tex.), 105 S. W. 338 1306, 1306, 1307 City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106 6 City of Chicago v. Cameron, 22 111. App. 91 964, 968, 971 City of Defiance v. Schmidt, 123 Fed. 1 ; 59 C. C. A. 169 397 City of Elizabeth v. Force, 29 N. J. Eq. 587 1435 City of Franklin v. Caldwell (Ky.), 96 S. W. 605 1126 City of Goodland v. Bank of Darlington, 74 Mo. App. 365 37, 75, 846, 852 City of Indianapolis v. Con- sumers' Gas Trust Co., 144 Fed. 640; 75 C. C. A. 442 71 City of Kalamazoo v. Kala- mazoo, etc. Power Co., 124 Mich. 74; 82 N. W. 811 39 Qty of Kansas v. Hannibal, etc. R. R. Co., 77 Mo. 180 399, 406 Gty of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. Ry. Co., 67 Nebr. 469; 93 N. W. 766 1497 City of London Brewery v. Inland Revenue Comm'rs (1899), 1 Q. B. 121 1495 City of London El. Lighting Co. V. London Corporation (1901), 1 Ch. 602 1305, 1309 City of Louisville v. Louisville Water Co., 26 Ky. Law Rep. 425; 81 S. W. 698 876 Qty of Madison v. Madison Gas, etc. Co. (Wise), 108 N. W. 65 961 City of Quincy v. Burlington, etc. R. R. Co., 94 111. 537 1503, 1521 City of South St. Paul v. Lamprecht Bros. Co., 88 Fed. 449; 31 C. C. A. 585 1464 City of Spokane v. Amster- damsch Trustees Kantoor, 22 Wash. 172; 60 Pac. 141 844, 963 I Claflin V. South Carolina R. R. Co., 8 Fed. 118 1456, 1473, 1531 1531 Clancy v. Onondaga Fine Salt Mfg. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 395 261 Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. Rep. 538 274 Clap V. Interstate Ry. Co., 61 Fed. 537 1602 Clapp V. Astor (N. Y.), 2 Edw. Ch. 379 1114, 1137 V. Peterson, 104 111. 26 518 Clark V. Am. Coal Co., 86 Iowa 436; 53 N. W. 291; 17 L. R. A. 557 680, 969, 1298, 1320 V. Balm, Hill & Co. (1908), 1 K. B. 667 1395 V. Bever, 139 U. S. 96; 11 Sup. Ct. 468 631 V. Brown (Tex.), 108 S. W. 421 1189 ij.Campbell, 23 Utah 569 ; 65 Pac. 496; 90 Am. St. Rep. 716; 54 L. R. A. 508 1135 V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 66 Fed. 803; 14 CCA. 112 1561, 1562 V. Clark (Mich.), 115 N. W. 416 517 V. Continental Imp. Co., 57 Ind. 135 163 V. Farmers Mfg. Co., 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 256 402, 1423 V. German Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 7 Mo. App. 77 384 V. German Security Bank, 61 Miss. 611 715 V. Iowa aty, 20 WaU. 583 1449, 1459 V. Jones, 87 Ala. 474; 6 So. 362 384 1;. Lexington Stoveworks, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2247; 73 S. W. 788 645 V. National Linseed Oil Co., 105 Fed. 787; 45 C C A. 53 957 V. Rhode Island Locomo- tive Works, 24 R. I. 307; 53 Atl. 47 890 V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 58 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 21 1472, 1601 V. Turner, 73 Ga. 1 483 Clark Co., James v. Colton, 91 Md. 195; 46 Atl. 386; 49 L. R. A. 698 1276, 1305 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Clark's Case, 7 Eg. 550 612, 1242 Clarke v. Central R. R., etc. Co., 50 Fed. 338; 15 L. R. A. 683 1026 V. Central R. R., etc. Co., 54 Fed. 556 1641 V. Central R. R., etc. Co., 66 Fed. 16 1602, 1660 V. City of Janesville, 1 Biss. 98 1449, 1451 V. Eastern Bldg. etc. Ass'n, 89 Fed. 779 890, 890, 904 969 V. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633 '658, 661, 665 V. Lexington Stove- works, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1755; 72 S. W. 286 645 V. Lincoln Lumber Co., 59 Wise. 655; 18N.W.492 632 V. O. & S. W. R. R., 5 Nebr. 314 294 V. Richmond, etc. Co., 62 Fed. 328; 10 C. C. A. 387 1026, 1026 V. Thomas, 34 Oh. St. 46 490, 492 Clarke's Case, 27 L. T. 843 662 , 8 Ch. D. 635 154, 159 Clarke & Helden's Case, 37 L. T. 222 568, 1334 Clarkson v. Clarkson, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 646 1150, 1154 Clarkson Homei). Chesapeake, etc. Ry. Co., 92 N. Y. App. Div. 491; 87 IST. Y. Supp. 348; 182 N. Y. 507; 74 N. E. 1118 1431, 143'1, 1432 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 182N. Y. 47; 74N. E. 571 758, 758, 1431, 1431, 1432 Clawson v. Clayton (Utah), 93 Pac. 729 899, 902, 904, 905 Clay V. East Tennessee, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 421 1503, 1515, 1519, 1551 V. Selah Valley, etc. Co., 14 Wash. 543; 45 Pac. 141 1493, 1586, 1586, 1587, 1594 Clayton v. Gresham, 10 Ves. 288 1141 Clayton Engineering & Elec- trical Const. Co., 90 L. T. 283 1639, 1640 Cleaveland v. MuUin, 96 Md. 598; 54 Atl. 665 147, 209, 211 Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 61 Iowa 121; 15 N. W. 865 128 Clem V. Newcastle, etc. R. R. Co., 9 Ind. 488; 68 Am. Dec. 653 185 Clemens v. Hecksher, 185 Pa. St. 476; 40 Atl. 80 799 Clement v. City of Lathrop, 18 Fed. 885 379 «. U.S., 149 Fed. 305; 79 C. C. A. 243 107, 225 V. Young-McShea Amuse- ment Co. (N.,J.), 60 Atl. 419 1071 V. Young-McShea Amuse- ment Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 82 1078, 1196 Clements v. Bowes, 17 Simons 167; 1 Drewry 684 342 V. Sherwood-Dunn, 95 N. Y. Supp. 766; 108 N. Y. App. Div. 327 786,786 Clergue v. Humphrey, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 66 307 Cleveland Iron Co., 16 W. R. 95 178 Cleveland Paper Co. v. Courier Co., 67 Mich. 152; 34 N. W. 556 79 Cleveland Rolling-Mill Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 250 600 Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Taylor Bros. Co., 54 Fed. 82 1006 Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 64 Fed. 623 1574 V. Robbins, 35 Oh. St. 483 732,732,753,753,755,1130 Clevenger v. Moore, 71 N. J. Law 148; 58 Atl. 88 172 Clews V. Friedman, 182 Mass. 555; 66 N. E. 201 717 Clews & Co. V. First Mortgage Bondholders, 51 Ga. 131 1452 Clifton Heights Land Co. v. Randell, 82 Iowa 89; 47 N. W. 905 254 Clinch V. Financial Corpora- tion, 4 Ch. 117 967, 972, 977 Clinton Novelty Iron Works V. Neiting (Iowa), 111 N. W. 974 128 Clive V. Clive, Kay 600 815, 1137, 1157 Clokey v. Bvansville, etc. R. R. Co., 16 N. Y. App. Div. 304; 44 N. Y. Supp. 631 Close V. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466; 2 Sup. Ct. 267 1450, 1452 237 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Clowe V. Imperial Pine Prod- uct Co., 114 N. Car. 304; 19 S. E. 153 394 Clowes V. Brettell, 11 M. & W. 461 295 V. Miller, 60 N. J. Eq. 179; 47 Atl. 345 1051, 1052 Clyde V. Richmond, etc. R. R. Co., 55 Fed. 445 1585, 1587 V. Richmond, etc. R. R. Co., 63 Fed. 21 1612 Clyde Tin Plate Co., 47 L. T. 439 1513 Coal Co. V. Land Co., 106 Tenn. 41; 60S. W. 502 1525 Coal Belt Electric Ry. Co. v. Peabody Coal Co. (111.), 82 N. E. 627 • 876 Coalport China Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 404 765 Coats, Re, 73 N. Y. App. Div. 178; 76 N. Y. Supp. 730 895 , Re, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 469; 78 N. Y. Supp. 425 430 , Re, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 567; 78 N. Y. Supp. 429 893, 894 Coats, J. & P. V. Crossland, 20 Times L. R. 800 1355 Cobb V. Bryan, 83 S. "W. 887 (Tex.) 239, 239, 239, 380 V. Fant, 36 S. Car. 1; 14 S. E. 959 1154 V. Lagarde, 129 Ala. 488 ; 30 So. 326 894, 902, 906 Cobbett V. Woodward, 5 Sawy. 403 1161 Coble V. Beall, 130 N. Car. 533; 41 S. E. 793 960 Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. St. 399 222, 240, 245, 261 V. MoGee, 53 S. W. 519 1122 V. Pittsburg, etc. R. Co., 150 Fed. 682 1587, 1594, 1595 Cockburn v. Peel, 3 De G. F. & J. 170 1445 V. Union Bank, 13 La. Am. 289 894, 903, 905 Cockrill V. Abeles, 86 Fed. 505; 30 C. C. A. 223 91, 489, 497, 1265 V. Cooper, 86 Fed. 7; 29 C. C. A. 529 1259, 1266 Cocksedge v. Metropolitan, etc. Ass'n, 64 L. T. 826 178 Coddington v. Canaday, 157 Ind. 243; 61 N. E. 567 634, 1274, 1284, 1286 V. Gilbert, 17 N. Y. 489 1413 lii Codman v. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co,. 16 Blatchf. 165 1433 Coe V. Columbus, etc. R. R. Co., 10 Oh. St. 372; 75 Am. Dec. 518 1400, 1490, 1503, 1635 V. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co., 34 N. J. Eq. 266 1535 V. East & West R. R. Co., 52 Fed. 531 1069, 1306, 1309, 1402 V. Johnson, 18 Ind. 218 1495, 1551 V. Knox County Bank, 10 Oh. St. 412 1551 V. McBrown, 22 Ind. 252 1551 V. New Jersey Midland Ry. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 105 405, 1245, 1466, 1564, 1639 Coffey V. Coffey, 179 111. 283; 53 N. E. 590 683, 721 Coffin V. Collins, 17 Me. 440 915, 917 Cogan V. Conover Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 408 1570 V. Conover Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 484 1372 Cogswell V. Second Nat. Bank, 78 Conn. 75; 60 Atl. 1059 541, 543 Cohen v. Wilkinson, 1 Mac. & G. 481 73 Coit V. Gold Amalgamating Co., 119 U. S. 343; 7 Sup. Ct. 231 635, 636 Colbum V. Riley, 11 Colo. App. 184; 52 Pac. 684 811 Colby V. Equitable Trust Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 801; 55 N. Y. Misc. 355 1307 Cole V. Millerton Iron Co., 59 Hun (N. Y.) 217; 13 N. Y. Supp. 851 1315, 1328 Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 344 253 V. Columbia Oil Co., 51 Pa. St. 74 517, 521, 1134 V. Howe, 154 111. 458; 39 N. E. 725; 45 Am. St. Rep. 133 636, 636 V. Llanelly Ry., etc. Co., 17 L. T. Rep. 86 1528 V. San Rafael, etc. Co., 49 Cal. 517 845, 862 V. Second Ave. R. R. Co., 38 N. Y. 201 1297 V. Spencer, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 197 157, 716 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Coler V. Grainger County, 74 Fed. 16; 20 C. C. A. 267 66 V. Tacoma Ry., etc. Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 347; 54 Atl. 413; 103 Am. St. Rep. 786 71, 646, 1026 Coleridge Creamery Co. v. Jenkins, 66 Nebr. 129; 92 N. W. 123 861 Coles V. Bank of England, 10 Ad. & E. 437 ■ 728 V. Iowa State, etc. Ins. Co., 18 Iowa 425 593 V. Kennedy, 81 Iowa 360; 46 N. W. 1088; 25 Am. St. Rep. 503 185 Colgate V. U. S. Leather Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 657 140, 141, 447, 447, 968, 971, 1081, 1307 College Park Electric Belt Line v. Ide & Son, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 273; 40 S. W. 64 1276, 1318, 1324 Collie's Claim, 12 Eq. 246 1209 Collier v. Consolidated Ry., etc. Co., 57 Atl. 417; 70 N. J. Law Rep. 313 1186, 1226 V. Doe ex dem. Alexan- der, 142 Ala. 422 ; 38 So. 244 408 CoUingham v. Sloper (1893), 2 Ch. 96 1555, 1556 V. Sloper (1901), 1 Ch. 769 1672 Collingwood v. Berkeley, 15 C. B. N. 8. 145 308, 308 Collins V. Collins, 12 Eq. 455 424 CoUum, Ex parte, 9 Eq. 236 200 Colman v. Oil Co., 25 W. Va. 148 1373, 1375 Colmer, James, Ltd., Re (1897), 1 Ch. 524 544 Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 A. C. 267 682, 687, 687, 694, 722, 722, 725, 788, 790 V. Hepworth, 36 Ch. D. 36 722 v. Whinney, 11 App. Cas. 426 422, 423, 685, 732, 747, 748 V. Willan, 5 P. C. 417 1073 Colonial Dames of America V. Colonial Dames of New York, 29 N. Y. Misc. 10; 60 N. Y. Supp. 302 ; 63 N. Y. App. Div. 615; 71 N. Y. Supp. 1134 371 Colonial Investment & Agency Co., 19 Vict. 381 520, 620 Colonial Trust Co. v. McMil- lan, 188 Mo. 547; 87 S. W. 933; 107 Am. St. Rep. 335 622, 628 Colonist Printing & Pub. Co. V. Dunsmuir, 32 Can. Super. Ct. 679 474 Colorado Land, etc. Co. v. Adams, 5 Colo. App. 190; 37 Pac. 39 284, 286 Colorado Springs Co. v. Amer- ican Pub. Co., 97 Fed. 843; 38 C. C. A. 433 87, 861, 992, 1193 Colorado Trading, etc. Co. v. Acres Commission Co., 18 Colo. App. 253 ; 70 Pac. 954 298 Colpe V. Jubilee Mining Co. (Cal.), 84 Pac. 324 594 Colquitt V. Howard, 11 Ga. 556 304 Colt V. Ives, 31 Conn. 25; 81 Am. Dec 161 715 Coltman v. Coltman, 19 Ch. D. 64 1260 Coltness Iron Co. v. Black, 6 A. C. 315 1099 Colton V. Williams, 65 111. App. 466 698, 702, 712 Colton Improvement Co. v. Richter, 26 N. Y. Misc. 26; 55 N. Y. Supp. 486 328, 1300 Coltrane v. Templeton, 106 Fed. 370; 45 C. C. A. 328 973 Columbia Bank v. Gospel Tabernacle, 127 N. Y. 361 ; 28 N. E. 29 1210, 1379, 1379 Columbia Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Junquist, 111 Fed. 645 593 Columbia Bottom Levee Co. V. Meier, 39 Mo. 53 1032 Columbia Iron Works v. Na- tional Lead Co., 127 Fed. 99; 62 C. C. A. 99 43 Columbia Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 85 Fed. 934; 29 C. C. A. 491 489, 492, 1045 Columbia Nat. Bank's Ap- peal, 16 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 357 1006 Columbia Nat. Sand Dredg- ing Co., 136 Fed. 710 958 Columbia, etc. Trust Co. v. Kentucky Union Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 794; 9 C. C. A. 264 1457, 1507, 1624, 1627 Columbian Bank's Estate, 147 Pa. St. 422; 23 Atl. 625, 626, 628 518 liii TABLK OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1107 523 422 894 214 1319 1613 715 Coliunbus Trust Co. v. Mo- sher, 100 N.Y.Supp. 1066; 61 N. Y. Misc. 270 . Columbus, etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeals, 109 Fed. 177; 48 C. C. A. 275 1450, 1508, 1534, 1539, 1634, 1634, 1669, 1669 Colville's Case, 48 L. J. Ch. 633 Colvin V. Williams, 3 H. & J. (Md.) 38; 5 Am. Dec. 417 Colwell V. Col well Lead Co., 76 N. y. App. Div. 615; 78 N. Y. Supp. 607 Comanche Cotton Oil Co. v. Browne (Tex.), 92 S. W. 450 Combina,tion Trust Co. v. Weed, 2 Fed. 24 Combs V. Smith, 78 Mo. 32 Comeau v. Guild Farm Oil Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 218 Commercial Bank v. Chatfield, 121 Mich. 641; 80 N. W. 712 1283, 1368 V. Chatfield, 127 Mich. 407; 86 N. W. 1015 1283, 1368 V. French, 21 Pick. (Mass.)486;32Am.Dec.280 380 V. Kortright, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 348; 34 Am. Dec. 317 685, 694, 749, 753, 807, 808 V. Nolan, 7 How. (Miss.) 508 865, 868 V. Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 242; 15N. E. 311 V. Warthen, 119 Ga. 990; 47 S. E. 536 Commercial Bank of Canada V. Great Western Ry. Co., 13 L. T. 105 Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. Board of Revenue of Mont- gomery County, 99 Ala. 1; 14 So. 490; 42 Am. St Rep. 17 Commercial Life Ass., 27 L. J. Ch. 803 Commercial Nat. Bank v. Brill, 37 Nebr. 626; 56 N. W. 382 1377 V. Burch, 141 111. 519; 31 N. E. 420; 33 Am. St. Rep. 331 518 V. Gibson, 37 Nebr. 750; 56 N. W. 616 617 ■ V. Vine, 82 Fed. 799; 27 C. C. A. 171 84 248 601 1221 75,77 1240 Commercial Nat. Bank v. Wemhard, 192 U. S. 243; 24 Sup. Ct. 253 1191 Commercial Wood, etc. Co. v. Northampton Portland Ce- ment Co. (N. Y.), 82 N. E. 730 1216 Commissioners of Craven v. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 77 N. Car. 289 66, 1401 Commissioners of Douglas County V. BoUes, 94 U. S. 104 241 Commissioners of Johnson ' Co. V. Thayer, 94 U. S. 631 Commissioners of Knox Co. v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539 1434, 1486 1220, 1448 368 1249 1435 1040 1031 1522 Hv Common v. McArthur, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 239 241, 663 Commonwealth v. American Snuff Co. (Ky.), 101 S. W. 364 V. Arrison, 15 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 127; 16 Am. Dec. 531 V. Bank, 98 Mass. 12 V. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., 142 Mass. 146; 7 N. E. 716 496, 497, 523 V. Bringhurst, 103 Pa. St. 134; 49 Am. Rep. 119 V. Cain, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 510 V. Central Pass. Ry. Co., 52 Pa. St. 506 V. Christian, 9 Phila. 556 1363, 1364 V. Conover, 10 Phila. 55 1013, 1013, 1014 V. Compton, 137 Pa. St. 138; 20 Atl. 417 695, 712 V. CuUen, 13 Pa. St. 133; 53 Am. Dec. 450 1068, 1186 V. Dalzell, 152 Pa. St. 217; 25 Atl. 535; 34 Am. St. Rep. 640 1020, 1021, 1023 V. Det wilier, 131 Pa. St. 614; 18 Atl. 990; 7 L. R. A. 357 1013, 1015,1025, 1040, 1167, 1168, 1184 V. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 344 1239 V. Empire Pass. Ry. Co., 134 Pa. St. 237; 19 Atl. 629 901, 904 V. Graham, 64 Pa. St. 339 1249 V. Keystone Electric Light, etc. Co., 193 Pa. St. 245; 44 Atl. 326 43 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Commonwealth v. Lehigh Ave. Ry. Co., 129 Pa. St. 405; 18 Atl. 414, 498 ; 5 L. R. A. 367 108 V. Licking Valley Bldg. Ass'n, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 730; 82 S. W. 435 107, 133, 141 V. Monongahela Bridge Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 909 877 V. New York, etc. R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 591; 19 Atl. 291; 7L. R. A. 634 419, 846, 877 V. Patterson, 158 Pa. St. 476; 27 Atl. 998 1017, 1023, 1056 V. Phoenix Iron Co., 105 Pa. St. Ill; 31 Am. Rep. 184 894, 894, 895, 905 Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co., 74 Pa. St. 83 V. Reinoehl, 163 Pa. St. 287; 29 Atl. 896; 25 L. R. A. 247 V. Smith, 45 Pa. St. 59 V. Smith, 10 Allen (Mass.) 448; 87 Am. Deo. 672 63, 66, 1408, 1532 V. Stevens, 168 Pa. St. 582; 32 Atl. Ill 1064, 1249 V. Stevenson, 200 Pa. 509; 50 Atl. 91 1169 V. Susquehanna, etc. R. R. Co., 122 Pa. St. 306; 15 Atl. 448; 1 L. R. A. 225 1527, 1530 '■ V. Watmough, 6 Whart. 117 715 V. Wickersham, 66 Pa. St. 134 1032, 1206 V. Woelper, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 29; 8 Am. Dec. 628 913, 1012, 1037, 1059, 1059 V. Woodward, 4 Phila. 124 1023, 1024 V. Wyman, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 247 1365 Commonwealth of Virginia v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 35 Md. 1 1670 V. State of Md., 32 Md. 501 1450, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1457, 1677, 1680 Commonwealth for Mercer County Court v. Spring- field, etc. Turnpike Co., 10 Bush (Ky.) 254 1122 Commonwealth ex rel. Atty.- Gen. V. Mononghela Bridge Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 909 873 495 25 1249 Commonwealth ex rel. Jack- son V. Smith, 45 Pa. St. 59 996, 1231 Commonwealth ex rel. Lacko- vic V. Jankovic (Pa.), 65 Atl. 1099 930 Commonwealth ex rel. Nick- erson v. Conover, 30 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 200 116 Commonwealth Roofing Co. V. North American Trust Co., 135 Fed. 984; 68 C. C. A. 418 1614 Components Tube Co. v. Nay- lor (1900), 2 Ir. 1 184 Compton V. Jesup, 167 U. S. 1; 17 Sup. Ct. 795 1625, 1629 V. Railway Co., 45 Oh. St. 592; 16 N. E. 110 1500 V. Van Volkenburgh, 34 N. J. Law Rep. 134 569 Conant v. Millaudon, 5 La. Ann. 542 1014, 1014, 1020, 1058, 1065, 1066, 1167 Conant, Ellis & Co. v. Seneca County Bank, 1 Oh. St. 298 774 Concord First Nat. Bank v. Hawkins, 174 U. S. 364; 19 Sup. a. 739 75, 834 Cone V. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq. 208; 21 Atl. 847 1029, 1029 Congregational Society of Bethany v. Sperry, 10 Conn. 200 994 Conklin v. U. S. Shipbuilding Co., 140 Fed. 219 1598, 1599 ■— — V. U. S. Shipbuilding Co., 143 Fed. 631 1242 Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406; 23 Sup. Ct. 728 878 Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co., 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 9 1449, 1450, 1452 Connecticut River Sav. Bank V. Fiske, 60 N. H. 363 110, 868, 1409 Connell v. Stalker, 21 N. Y. Misc. 609; 48 N. Y. Supp. 77 585, 588 Conner v. Bramble, 6 Oh. N. P. 195 1639 Connor v. Tennessee Central Ry. Co., 109 Fed. 931; 48 C. C. A. 730 ; 54 L. R. A. 687 1629 Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 27 387, 1193, 1211 Iv TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Consett Iron Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 236 42, 135 Consolidated Copper Co. v. Peddie, 5 Rettie 393 98, 189, 193, 1175 Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wisner, 103 N. Y. App. Div. 453; 93 N. Y. Supp. 128 1329 Consolidated Gas Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 407 107 Consolidated Land Co., 20 W. R. 855 1415 Consolidated Plaster Co. v. Wild (Colo.), 94 Pac. 285 1344 Consolidated Rendering Co. (Vt.), 66 Atl. 790 891, 891 Consolidated Rendering Co. V. Vermont, 28 Sup. Ct. 178 891, 891 Consolidated Tel., etc. Co., 43 Atl. Rep. 433 (N. J.) 922, 1017 Consolidated Vinegar Works V. Brew, 112 Wise. 610; 88 N. W. 603 1259 Consolidated Water Co. v. City of San Diego, 89 Fed. 272; 92 Fed. 759 1485, 1554, 1585 Consolidated Water Power Co. V. Nash, 109 Wise. 490; 85 N. W. 485 1188 Consols Ins. Ass'n v. Newall, 3 Fost. & F. 130 203 Constant v. St. Alban's Church, 4 Daly (N. Y.) 305 1210 Consterdine v. Consterdine, 31 Beav. 330 794, 813 Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Quinby, 137 Fed. 882; 70 C. C. A. 220 46, 469, 982 Continental Fire Ass'n v. Masonic Temple Co. (Tex.), 62 S. W. 930 853 Continental Ins. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 187 N. Y. 225 ; 79 N. E. 1026 1306, 1311, 1312 Continental Ins. Co. v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. App. Div. 282; 93 N. Y. Supp. 27 1307, 1312 Continental Nat. Bank v. Eliot Nat. Bank, 7 Fed. 369 684, 715 Continental Nat. Bldg., etc. Ass'n V. Miller, 44 Fla. 757; 33 So. 404 957 1622 538, 1633 55 1402 1570 134, 1455 Continental Oxygen Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 511 Continental Securities Co. v. Northern Securities Co., 66 N.J. Eq. 274; 57 Atl. 876 542, 637 Continental Trust Co. v. American Surety Co., 80 Fed. 180; 25 C. C. A. 364 V. Peterson (Nebr.), 107 N. W. 786 V. Toledo, etc. R. Co., 59 Fed. 514 1602, 1620, 1620 Continental Trust Co. v. Tole- do, etc. R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 642 V. Toledo, et8. R. R. Co., 93 Fed. 532 Continental Varnish, etc. Co. V. Secretary of State, 128 Mich. 621; 87 N. W. 901 149, 442, 486 Contracting, etc. Bldg. Co. V. Continental Trust Co., 108 Fed. 1; 47 C. C. A. 143 Converse v. Hood, 149 Mass. 471; 21 N. E. 878; 4 L. R. A. 521 1030, 1063 V. United Shoe Machin- ery Co., 185 Mass. 422; 70 N. E. 444 928, 947 Conway v. John, 14 Colo. 30; 23 Pac. 170 716 Conyngham's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 474 808, 809, 1329 Cooch V. Goodman, 2 Q. B. 580 396 Cook V. Am. Tubing, etc. Co. (R. I.), 65 Atl. 641 84, 393 V. Berlin Woolen Mill Co., 43 Wise. 433 944, 1312, 1335, 1367 V. Carpenter, 212 Pa. 177; 61 Atl. 804 616, 618, 697, 746 V. Carpenter, 212 Pa. 165 ; 61 Atl. 799; 108 Am. St. Rep. 854 614 V. Chittenden, 25 Fed. 544 193, 196 V. Climber Co., 75 Miss. 121; 21 So. 795 V. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co., 43 Mich. 349; 5 N. W. 390 319 — V. Equitable Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 104 Ga. 814; 30 S. E. 911 1632 465 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Cook I). Monroe, 45 Nebr. 349; 63 N. W. 800 1130, 1134, 1134 V. Sherman, 20 Fed. 167 1348 V. Sterling Electric Co., 150 Fed. 766; 80 C. C. A. 502 281 Cook County Brick Co. v. Kaehler, 83 111. App. 448 1120 Cook Mfg. Co., Louis v. Ran- dall, 62 Iowa 244; 17 N. W. 507 297, 297 Cooley V. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 394 1582 V. Curran, 104 N. Y. Supp. 424 V. Curran, Supp. 751 . Coolgardie, etc. Times L. R. 277 , 76 L. T. N. s. 269 761 104 N. Y. 426, 761, 1356 Mines, 14 640 96, 98, 99 Coombs V. Barker, 31 Mont. 526; 79 Pac. 1 1323, 1344 V. Harford, 99 Me. 426; 59 Atl. 529 1012 Cooney v. Booth Packing Co., 169 111. 370; 48 N. E. 406 848 Cooper t>. Dismal Swamp Canal Co., 6 N. Car. 195 420, 750, 751 V. Frederick, 9 Ala. 738 517, 524 V. Griffen (1892), 1 Q. B. 740 1177, 1177 V. Hill, 94 Fed. 582; 36 C. C. A. 402 92, 1259, 1265, 1284, 1288 — '■ — V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 38N. Y. App. Div. 22; 57 N. Y. Supp. 925 791, 1429, 1430, 1431, 1431 Coopers & Clark v. Wolf, 15 Oh. St. 523 1503, 1551, 1553 Copeland v. Copeland, 7 Bush (Ky.) 349 420 V. Johnson Mfg. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 235 1316 V. North Eastern Ry. Co., 6 E. & B. 277 679 Coppage V. Hutton, 124 Ind. 401; 24 N. E. 112; 7 L. R. A. 591 ■ 202, 209, 211, 212 Copper Miners' Co. v. Fox, 16 Q.B.229(1851);15 Jur.703 825 Coppes V. Union Nat., etc. Loan Ass'n (Ind.), 69 N. E. 702 920 V. Union Nat., etc. Ass'n (Ind.), 67 N. E. 1022 918 Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co., 38 Oh. St. 275 ; 43 Am. Rep. 425 517, 858 Coquard v. Nat. Linseed Oil Co., 171 111. 480; 49 N. E. 563 907 V. St. Louis Cotton, etc." Co., 7 S. W. Rep. 176 (Ma.) 519, 542 Corbett v. Woodward, 5 Sawy. 403 1199, 1200, 1207, 1276 Corbin v. E. Taussig & Co., 132 Fed. 662 372 Corbus V. Alaska, etc. Mining Co., 187 U. S. 455; 23 Sup. Ct. 157 938, 946, 947, 949, 950 Corcoran v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 1 Mac A. (D. C.) 358; 94 U. S. 741 1449, 1460, 1485, 1485, 1678 V. Snow Cattle Co., 151 Mass. 74; 23 N. E. 727 1380 V. Sonora Mining, etc. Co., 71 Pac. 127; 8 Idaho 651 658, 913, 919 Cordova Union Gold Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 580 633 Corey v. Morrill, 61 Vt. 598; 17 Atl. 840 120 Corgan v. George F. Lee Coal Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 655 1111, 1134 Corinne Mill, etc. Co. v. To- ponce, 152 U. S. 405; 14 Sup. Ct. 632 Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Caze- nove, 10 Q. B. 935 173, 173 V. Goode, 13 C. B. 826 601, 615 Cork & Youghal Ry. Co., 4 Ch. 748 63 Com V. Skillem, 87 S. W. 142 (Ark.) 519, 1127 Cornbrook Brewing Co. v. Law Debenture Corp. (1904), 1 Ch. 103 Cornell v. Massey, L. R. 8 C. P. 328 Cornell University!). Fiske, 136 U. S. 152; 10 Sup. Ct. 775 Comick V. Richards, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 1 684, 715 Cornwall Minerals Ry. Co., 48 L. T. N. s. 41 , (1897) 2 Ch. 74 Cornwall, etc. Mining Co. V. Bennett, 5 H. & N. 423 1246 1396 1365 848 1644 1447 Corporation of Barnstable v. Lathey, 3 T. R. 303 Ivii 912, 914 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Corry v. Londonderry, etc. Ry. Co., 29 Beav. 263 459, 459, 1103, 1104 Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser, 45 Fed. 730 314, 316 Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 502 154, 608 Costa Rica Ry. Co. v. For- wood (1900), 1 Ch. 756; (1901) 1 Ch. 746 1305, 1308, 1333, 1334 Costello V. Outterson, 112 N. Y. App. Div. 680; 98 N. Y. Supp. 880 1359 V. Portsmouth Brewing Co., 69 N. H. 405; 43 Atl. 640 572 Coster V. Parkersburg Branch R. R. Co., 131 Fed. 115 1617 Cotheal v. Brouwer, 5 N. Y. 562 899, 904, 908 Cottam V. Eastern Counties Ry. Co., IJ. & H. 243 1430 Cotter V. Butte, etc. Smelt- ing Co., 31 Mont. 129; 77 Pac. 509 154 Cotterell, Ex parte, 32 L. J. Ch. 66 1175 Cotting V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 54 Conn. 156; 5 Atl. 851 455, 1098 Cotton V. Imperial, etc. Cor- poration (1892), 3 Ch. 454 51, 51 Cotton Jammers, etc. Ass'n V. Taylor, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 367; 56 S. W. 553 580, 596 Couch V. City Fire Ins. Co., 38 Conn. 181 ; 9 Am. Rep. 375 868 CoughUn V. Knights of Co- lumbus (Conn.), 64 Atl. 224 588 County Court v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 35 Fed. 161 1206, 1210, 1217 County of Beaver v. Arm- strong, 44 Pa. St. 63 1449, 1451, 1460 County of Gloucester Bank v. Rudry Methyr Colliery Co. (1895), 1 Ch. 629 1222 County of Leavenworth v. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70 248 County of Macon v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272 219 County Life Ass. Co., 5 Ch. 288 1225 Court of Honor v. Hutchens (Ind.), 82 N. E. 89 584 Iviii Covenant Mut. Life Ass'n v. Kentner, 188 111. 431; 58 N. E. 966 584 Coventry and Dixon's Case, 14 Ch. D. 660 1170, 1227, 1261 Covert V. Rogers, 38 Mich. 363 ; 31 Am. Rep. 319 1199, 1201 Covington, etc. Plank-Road Co. V. Moore, 3 Ind. 510 150, 152, 1227 Covington, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bowlers' Heirs, 9 Bush (Ky.) 468 1342, 1343 Cowan V. Caledonian Club, 46 N.Y. App. Div. 288; 61 N. Y. Supp. 714 1032 Cowdrey v. Gralveston, etc. R. R. Co., 93 U. S. 352 1642, 1436 V. Railroad Co., 1 Wood.s 331 1621, 1621, 1643 Cowell V. City Water Supply Co., 130 Iowa 671; 105 N. W. 1016 1662 V. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55 113, 837 Cox V. Dublin City Distil- lery Co. (1906), 1 Ir. 446 1547 V. First Nat. Bank, 119 N. Car.302;26S. E.22 792,814 V. National Coal, etc. Co. (W. Va.), 56 S. E. 494 177, 271 V. Paul, 175 N. Y. 328; 67 N. E. 586 908 V. Robinson, 82 Fed. 277; 27 C. C. A. 120 1375 V. Stokes, 156 N. Y. 491 ; 51 N. E. 316 1661, 1663 V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Co., 133 Fed. 371; 66 C. C. A. 433 838, 1612 Cox's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 145 618 Coxe V. Hunteville Gas Co., 106 Ala. 373; 17 So. 626 1288 V. State, 144 N. Y. 396, 409; 39 N. E. 400 244, 250 Coy V. Title Guarantee, etc. Co., 157 Fed. 794 1607 Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, 8 Oreg. 284 123, 150, 150, 209, 280 Cozart V. Hemdon, 114 N. Car. 252; 19 S. E. 158 166 Craft V. Indiana, etc. Ry. Co., 166 111. 580; 46 N. E. 1132 1496, 1600 V. South Boston R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 207 ; 22 N E 920; 5 L. R. A. 641 1378, 1380 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Craig V. Benedictine Sisters Hospital Ass'n, 88 Minn. 535; 93 N. W. 669 22, 39 V. First Presbyterian Church, 88 Pa. St. 42; 32 Am. Rep. 417 1011, 1202 V. Hesperia, etc. Co., 113 Cal. 7; 45 Pac. 10; 54 Am. St. Rep. 316; 35 L. R. A. 306 749, 771 V. Vicksburg, 31 Miss. 216 1423 Medicine Co.«. Merchants Bank, 59 Him (N. Y.) 561; 14 N. Y. Supp. 16 1206 Cram v. Bangor House Pro- prietary, 12 Me. 354 912, 1210 Cramer v. Bird, 6 Eq. 143 977, 1260 Crampton v. Varna Ry. Co., 7 Ch. 562 395, 395 Crandall v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73; 52 Am. Rep. 560 516, 519, 519, 520, 620, 520, 520, 525 Cranor Co., A. J., v. Miller (Ala.), 41 So. 678 339 Cratty v. Peoria Law Library Ass'n, 219 ni. 516; 76 N. E. 707 451, 464, 465, 466 Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co., 120 Ind. 6; 21 N. E. 981; 16 Am. St. Rep. 298 188, 193 Crawford v. Albany Ice Co., 36 Oreg. 535; 60 Pac. 14 1371, 1376, 1377 V. Northeastern Ry. Co., 3 Jur. N. S. 1093 458 V. Prairie Creek Ditching Ass'n, 44 Ind. 361 94 V. Provincial Ins. Co., 8 Up. Can. C. P. 263 692, 751 V. Roney (Ga.), 55 S. E. 499 522, 600 V. Roney (Ga.), 61 S. E. 117 1129 V. State, 52 Oh. St. 62 1249 Crawley's Case, 4 Ch. 322 167, 171 Credit Assurance, etc. Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 601 536, 537 Credit Co., 11 Ch. D. 256 904 V. Arkansas, etc. R. R. Co., 15 Fed. 46 1485, 1649 V. Howe Machine Co., 54 Conn. 357; 8 Atl. 472; 1 Am. St. Rep. 123 862 Credit Foncier of England, Re, L. R.-11 Eq. 3S6 534 Creek v. State, 77 Ind. 180 1249 342 811 lix Crenshaw v. Columbian Min- ing Co., 110 Mo. App. 355; 86 S. W. 260 752 Crescent City Brewing Co. v. Flanner, 44 La. Ann. 22 ; 10 So. 384 1299 Cressona Sav. Fund, etc. Ass'n, 1 Leg. Rec. (Pa.) 245 139 Cresswell v. Oberly, 17 111. App. 281 123, 246, 253 Creyke's Case, 5 Ch. 63 668 Crichton v. Webb Press Co., 113 La. 167; 36 So. 926; 104 Am. St. Rep. 500; 67 L. R. A. 76 1082, 1111, 1112 Crichton's Oil Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 86 471, 1101 Crickmer's Case, 10 Ch. 614 640, 641 Cridland v. De Mauley, 1 De G. & S. 459 Crimp V. McCormick Co., 71 Fed. 356; 18 C. C. A. 70 Crissey v. Cook, 67 Kans. 20 ; 72 Pac. 541 658, 661, 661, 665 Crittenden v. Southern Home Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 111 Ga. 266; 36 S. E. 643 586, 593 Crittenden, etc. Co. v. Cowles, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 95; 72 N. Y. Supp. 701 Crocker-Wheeler Co. v. Bul- lock, 134 Fed. 241 Cromie's Heirs v. Louisville Orphans Home, 3 Bush (Ky.) 365 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 96 U. S. 51 1433, 1434, 1436, 1441, 1442, 1450, 1460 D.Willis, 96Md. 260; 53 Atl. 1116 Cronin v. Patrick County, 89 Fed. 79 Crook V. Scott, 65 N. Y. App. Div. 139 ; 72 N. Y. Supp. 516 ; 174N.Y.520;66N.E. 1106 V. Seaford, 6 Ch. 551- Crosby v. Morristown, etc. R. R. Co. (Tenn.), 42 S. W. 507 1647, 1648, 1656 V. New London, etc. R. R. Co., 26 Conn. 121 1448 V. Stratton, 17 Colo. 212 ; 68 Pac. 130 507, 509, 509 Crosky v. Bank of Wales, 4 Giff. 314 295, 625, 633 Cross V. Eureka Lake, etc. Co. 73 Cal. 302; 14 Pac. 885; 2 Am. St. Rep. 808 811 1341 890 848 1366 1432 1106 395 TABLE OF CASKS [The references are to pages] Cross V. Evans, 86 Fed. 1; 29 C. C. A. 523 1643 V. Phoenix Bank, 1 R. I. 39 769, 770, 774 V. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 111. 54 126, 239, 239 V. West Va., etc. Ry. Co., 37 W. Va. 342; 16 S. E. 587; 18 L. R. A. 582, 1167, 1169 Ciossman v. Hilltown Turn- pike Co., 3 Grant's Cas. (Pa.) 225 404, 405, 406 Crossman's Estate, 14 Fa. Dist. Rep. 40 1148 Crouch V. Credit Foncier of England, L. R. 8 Q. B. 374 1423 Crow V. Florence Ice, etc. Co., 143 Ala. 541; 39 So. 401 946, 1250 V. Green, 111 Pa. St. 637; 5 Atl. 23 337 Crowley v. Genesee Mining Co., 55 Cal. 273 392 V. Sandhurst, etc. Co., 23 Vict. L. R. 661 56, 70 Crown Bank, Be, 44 Ch. D. 634 94, 99, 383 Crown Lease Proprietary Co., 14 Times L. R. 47 356 Crown Slate Co. v. Allen, 199 Pa. 239; 48 Atl. Rep. 968 618 Crumlish v. Central Imp. Co., 38 W. Va. 390; 18 S. E. 456; 45 Am. St. Rep. 872; 23 L. R. A. 120 1247 Crump V. U. S. Mining Co., 7 Gratt. (Va.) 352; 56 Am. Dec. 116 1374 Cud V. Rutter, 1 P. Wms. 570 785 Culberson v. Ala. Const. Co. (Ga.), 56 S. E. 765 298, 298 Cullen V. Coal Creek, etc. Co., 42 S. W. Rep. 693 (Tenn.) 967, 968, 1288 CuUerne v. London, etc. Bldg. Soc, 25 Q. B. D. 485 1264, 1267, 1281 Cullman Fruit & Produce Ass'n, 155 Fed. 372 408, 1372 Culp V. Mulvane, 66 Kans. 143; 71 Pac. 273 717 Culver V. Third Nat. Bank, 64 111. 528 916 Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sher- man, 30 Barb. 553 (N. Y.) 300, 1045, 1298, 1300, 1303, 1304 1311, 1312 1299 1061 833 249 1626 594 831 Cumberland Coal, etc. Co. v. Parish, 42 Md. 598 V. Sherman, 20 Md. 117 Cuinberland Land Co. v. Daniel, 52 S. W. 446 (Tenn.) 301, 302 Cumberland Tel., etc. Co. v. Evansville, 127 Fed. 187 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 117 La. 199; 41 So. 492 Cumming v. Metcalfe's Lon- don Hydro, 2 Hanson 418 Cummings v. Webster, 43 Me. 192 Cunliffe, Brooks & Co. v. Blackburn Bldg. Soc, 9 A. C. 857 Cunningham v. Ala. Life Ins., etc. Co., 4 Ala. 652 671, 767, 776 V. German Ins. Bank, 101 Fed. 977; 41 C. C. A. 609 109, 492, 497, 511, 631, 992 V. Holly, Mason, Marks &Co., 121 Fed. 720; 58 C. C. A. 140 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Gray (Mass.) 411 V. Wechselberg, 105 Wise. 359; 81 N. W. 414 Cunningham's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 546 500, 507 Cunninghame v. City of Glas- cow Bank, 4 A. C. 607 706, 812 Cunyus v. Guenther, 96 Ala. 564; 11 So. 649 Cupit V. Park City Bank, 20 Utah 292; 58 Pac. 839 628 1114 960 384 1179, 1225 877 786 1035 502, Ix Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. 304 Currie v. Jones, 138 N. Car. 189; 50 S. E. 560 V. Mutual Ass. Soc, 4 Hen. & Munf. (Va.) 315; 4 Am. Dec 517 V. White, 45 N. Y. 822 502, 1135 Currie's Case, 11 W. R. 46 206, 1340 Chirrier v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 53 N. H. 538 588, 589 V. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H. 262 517, 518, 534, 534 ^ V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 35 Hun (N. Y.) 355 944, 961, 1527, 1554 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270 157, 509 V. Woodward, 53 Ala, 371 614 Curtice v. Crawford County Bank, 110 Fed. 830 770, 775 V. Crawford County Bank, 118 Fed. 390 769 Curtin v. Salmon River, etc. Co., 130 Cal. 345; 62 Pac. 552; 80 Am. St. Rep. 132 993, 1203 Curtis V. McCullough, 3 Ne- vada 202 1249, 1326 V. Meeker, 62 111. App. 49 126, 248 V. Natalie Anthracite Coal Co., 89 N. Y. App. Div. 61; 85 N. Y. Supp. 413; affirmed in 181 N. Y. 543; 73 N. E. 1122 V. Osborn (Conn.), 65 Atl. 968 503, 1154, 1446, 1446 V. Piedmont Lumber, etc. Co., 109 N. Car. 401; 13 S. E. 944 V. Tracy, 169 HI. 233; 48 N. E. 399; 61 Am. St. Rep. 168 Curtiss V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 1 66, 856, 861, 865, 867 Cushing Sulphite Fibre Co. v. Cushing, 2 New Brunsw. Eq. 539 1259, 1273, 1332 Cushman v. Bonfield, 36 111. App. 436 V. Cloverland Coal, etc. Co. (Ind.), 83 N. E. 390 V. Thayer Mfg. Jewelry Co., 76 N. Y. 365; 32 Am. Rep. 315 700, 732, 751, 751, 752 Cussons, Re, 73 L. J. Ch. 296 304 Cutter V. Iowa Co., 128 Fed. 505 1626, 1660 Cutting V. B. & O. R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. Misc. 616; 72 N. Y. Supp. 27 1636 V. Damarel, 88 N. Y. 410 616, 696, 699 V. Florida, etc. Co., 43 Fed. 747 1618 V. Taveres, etc. R. R. Co., 61 Fed. 150; 9C. C. A. 401 1561, 1563 Cutting, Ex parte, 94 U. S. 14 984, 986 Cuykendall v. Douglas, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 577 118, 1005, 1032 854 394 254 63, 1659 1382 Cuyler v. City Power Co., 74 Minn. 22; 76 N. W. 948 31, 43 Cyclists' Touring Club (1907), 1 Ch. 269 135, 135 D Dabney v. Stevens, 2 Sweeney (N. Y.) 415; 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 341 592 Dacovich v. Canizas (Ala.), 44 So. 473 . 522 Dadson's Case, 12 Times L. R. 482 351, 360, 522 Dady v. Georgia, etc. Ry. Co., 112 Fed. 838 982 Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co. V. Cohen, 5 New So. Wales State Rep. 520 730, 731, 731 Dain Mfg. Co. v. Trumbull Seed Co., 95 Mo. App. 144; 68 S. W. 951 616, 692 Dale V. Hayes, 40 L. J. Ch. 244 1141 Dale & Plant, Re, 43 Ch. D. 255 1241 , Ee, 61 L. T. 206 283, 285, 286 Dallas, etc. Cold Storage Co. V. Crawford, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 176; 44 S. W. 875 1382 Dalrymple v. Lauman, 23 Md. 376 1419, 1526 Dalton Time Lock Co. v. Dal- ton, 66 L. T. 704 149, 205 Daly V. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 595; 38 Atl. 202 1539 Dame v. Crochiti, etc. Imp. Co. (N. Mex.), 79 Pac. 296 1465 Dana v. American Tobacco Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 730 ; 69 Atl. 223 788, 789, 999 V. Bank of U. S., 5 Watts & Serg. (Pa.) 223 1187 V. Brown, 1 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 304 684 Danbury, etc. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435 605, 1378 Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 487 45, 46, 47, 105, 114, 123, 150, 1175 Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160 512, 513, 576, 762 Danforth v. Nat. State Bank, 48 Fed. 271 869 Daniell v. Royal British Bank, 1 H. & N. 681 925 Daniels v. Hart, 1 18 Mass. 543 1582 Ixi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Daniher v. Grand Lodge, 10 Utah 110; 37 Pac. 245 576 Dannebroge Gold, etc. Co. v. Ailment, 26 Cal. 286 118 Dannmeyer v. Coleman, 11 . Fed. 97 956, 970, 982 Danville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 90 Va. 340; 18 S. E. 278 1165, 1166 D'Arcy v. Tamar, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Ex. 158 1209, 1209 1209 Damall v. Dickens, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 7 407 Darrah v. Wheeling Ice, etc. Co., 50 W. Va. 417; 40 S. E. 373 593, 594 Darrin v. Hoff, 99 Md. 491; 58 Atl. 196 561, 1012 Dartmouth College v. Wood- ward, 4 Wheat. 518 3, 33, 1251 Dashwood v. Cornish, 13 Times L. R. 337 1238 D. A. Tompkins Co. v. Ca- tawba Mills, 82 Fed. 780 958, 1485, 1586 V. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. 37 1492 Davenport v. Crowell, 65 Atl. 557 (Vt.) 966 V. Dows, 18 Wall. 626 974 V. Lines, 77 Conn. 473 ; 59 Atl. 603 1095, 1268, 1268 V. Piano Implement Co., 70 111. App. 161 429, 429 V. Receivers, 2 Woods 519 164 Davey & Co. i7. Williamson & Son (1898), 2 Q. B. 194 1546 David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Traction Co. (111.), 82 N. E. 210 60, 113, 133 David Ireland & Co. (1905), 1 Ir. 133 1264 David Lloyd & Co., 6 Ch. D. 339 1598 David Payne & Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 608 861, 1235, 1235, 1407 David Reus, etc. Co. v. Con- rad, 101 Md. 224; 60 Atl. 737 1274 Davidson v. Grange, 4 Grant (Can.) 377 954, 1250 V. Hobson, 59 Mo. App. 130 245 V. Old People's, etc. Soc, 39 Minn. 303; 39 N. W. 803; 1 L. R. A. 482 589, 592 1175 848 196 1222 1605 807 172 1211 948 950 Ixii Davidson v. State, 20 Fla. 784 1249 V. Westchester Gas- Light Co., 99 N. Y. 558; 2 N. E. 892 Davidson College v. Cham- bers' Extrs., 3 Jones Eq. (N. Car.) 253 Davidson's Case, 4 K. & J. 688 Davies v. Harvey Steel Co., 6 N. Y. App. Div. 166; 39 N. Y. Supp. 791 1373, 1381 V. Monroe Water Works Co., 107 La. 145; 31 So. 694 965, 1245 V. R. Bolton, etc. Co. (1894), 3 Ch. 678 V. Vale of Evesham Pre- serves, 73 L. T. 150 Davies' Case, 33 L. T. 834 , 41 L. J. Ch. 659 Davis V. Brown County Coal Co. (S. Dak.), 110 N. W. 113 V. Commercial Pub. Co., 1 State Rep. (N. So. Wales) Eq. 37 V. Congregation Tephilas Israel, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 424; 57 N. Y. Supp. 1015 V. Dexter Butter, etc. Co., 52 Kans. 693; 35 Pac. 776 286, 288 V. Duncan, 19 Fed. 477 1669, 1615, 1620 V. Edwards, 41 Wash. 480; 84 Pac. 22 1372 V. Flagstaff Silver Mining Co., 2 Utah 74 1117, 1189 V. Gemmell, 70 Md. 356; 17 Atl. 259 944 V. Gemmell, 73 Md. 530; 21 Atl. 712 983, 986 V. Georgetown Bridge Co., 1 Cranch, C. C. 147 1379 V. Hardwicke (Tex.), 94 S. W. 359 807 V. Haycock, L. R. 4 Ex. 373 782 V. Hofer, 38 Oreg. 150; 63 Pac. 56 1350 V. Jackson, 152 Mass. 58 ; 25 N. E. 21; 23 Am. St. Rep. 801 502, 1140, 1147, 1147 V. Maysville Creamery Ass'n, 63 Mo. App. 477 280 V. Mempliis City Ry. Co., 22 Fed. 883 1240 V. Miller Signal Co., 105 111. App. 657 684 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 526 280 1317 592 244, Davis V. Mills, 194 U. S. 451; 24 Sup. Ct. 692 1359 V. Nat. Eagle Bank (R. I.), 50 Atl. 530 792 V. Old Colony R. R. Co., 131 Mass. 258; 41 Am. Rep. 221 81, 851, 853 V. Proprietors of Meet- ing-House, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 321 V. Ravenna Creamery Co., 48 Nebr. 471; 67 N. W. 436 V. Rock Creek, etc. Co., 65 Cal. 359; 36 Am. Rep. 40 V. Rockingham Invest- ^ ment Co., 89 Va. 290; 15 S. E. 547 V. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235 251, 252 V. Thomas & Davis Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 572; 52 Atl. ri7 1322, 1322 V. U. S. Electric, etc. Co., 77 Md. 35; 25 Atl. 982 76, 959, 1026, 1306 V. Valley Electric Light Co., 61 N. Y. Supp. 580 288 V. West Saratoga Bldg. Union, 32 Md. 285 66 Davis Bros. v. Montgomery Furnace, etc. Co., 101 Ala. 127; 8 So. 496 636, 1415 Davis Mill Co. v. Bennett, 39 Mo. App. 460 918, 919, 1034, 1322 Davis, etc. Co. v. Hillsboro Creamery Co., 10 Ind. App. 42; 37 N. E. 549 286, 289 Davis, etc. Wheel Co. v. Davis, etc. Wagon Co., 20 Fed. 699 300 Davison v. Gillies, 16 Ch. D. 347 n. 1099, 1100 Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 252 1307 Dawes' Case, 6 Eg. 232 669 Dawney, Archibald D., Ltd., Be, 83 L. T. 47 205, 642 Dawson v. African, etc. Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 6 1168, 1168, 1230, 1230 V. Braime's Tadcaster Breweries (1907), 2 Ch. 359 Day V. Day, 1 Dr. & Sm. 261 - V. Holmes, 103 Mass. 306 1558 789, 789 807, 807 138 Day V. Mill Owners' Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 75 Iowa 694; 38 N. W. 113 V. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 107 N. Y. 129; 13 N. E. 765 1676, 1680 V. Postal Tel. Co., 66 Md. 354; 7 Atl. 608 121, 882 V. Spiral Springs Buggy Co., 57 Mich. 146; 58 Am. Rep. 352; 23 N. W. 628 854, 855, 856 V. Sykes & Co., 55 L. T. 763 V. Worcester, etc. R. R. Co., 151 Mass. 302; 23 N. E. 824 Day, Ex parte, 1 Ch. D. 699 Dayton Hydraulic Co. v. Fil- senthall, 116 Fed. 961; 54 C. C. A. 537 Dayton Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 24 Oh. St. 345; 15 Am. Rep. 612 394, 868 Dayton Nat. Bank v. Mer- chants' Nat. Bank, 37 Oh. St. 208 Dayton, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hatch, 1 Disney (Oh.) 84 634, 636, 1191 Deaderick v. Wilson, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) 108 Dean v. Baldwin, 99 111. App. 582 V. Biggs, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 122 Deane v. Hodge, 35 Minn. 146; 27 N. W. 917; 59 Am. Rep. 321 Dearborn v. Washington Sav. Bank, 18 Wash. 8; 50 Pac. 575 658, 661, 768, 769 Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1 684 Deaton Grocery Co. v. Inter- national Harvester Co. (Tex.), 105 S. W. 556 86, 851 De Bardeleben v. Land, etc. Co., 621; 37 So. 511 Debenture Corp. v. 8 Times L. R. 496 De Betz's Petition, 9 Abb. N. c. (N. Y.) 246 1585, 1671 De Beville's Case, Baron, 7 Eq. 11 207, 207 De Host V. Palmer Co., 1 How. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 501 592 De Camp v. Alward, 52 Ind. 468 1188 1607 1476 260 1613 810 189, 1351 635 1514 1244 Bessemer 140, Ala. Marietta, 1340 1592 Ixiii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] De Camp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. Eq. 36 ; s. c. 31 N. J. Eq. 671 54, 847 De Caumont v. Bogert, 36 Hun (N. Y.) 382 687, 712 Decker v. Gardner, 124 N. Y. 334; 26 N. E. 814; 11 L. R. A. 480 1597, 1599, 1610, 1613 Dedham Institution for Sav- ings V. Slack, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 408 _ 1379 Deepwater Council v. Renick (W- Va.), 53 S. E. 552 408 Deering v. Hibernian Banking Co., 16 W. R. 578 769 Deffell V. White, L. R. 2 C. P. 144 405 Degnan v. Thoroughman, 88 Mo. App. 62 408 De Graff v. Thompson, 24 Minn. 452 1516 De Graffenried v. Brunsv\-ick, etc. R. R. Co., 57 Ga. 22 1616 De Koven v. Alsop, 205 111. 309; 68 N. E. 930; 63 L. R. A. 587 503, 1143, 1144 De la Cuesta v. Ins. Co., 136 Pa. St. 62; 20 Atl. 505; 9 L. R. A. 631 508 Delacy v. Neuse Nav. Co., 1 Hawks (N. Car.) 274; 9 Am. Dec. 636 427, 658, 666 Deland v. Williams, 101 Mass. 571 1146 Delaney v. Delaney, 175 111. 187; 51 N. E. 961 589 Delano v. Case, 121 111. 247; 12 N. E. 676; 2 Am. St. Rep. 81 ; s. c. 17 111. App. 531 1357 V. Smith Charities, 138 Mass. 63 1034, 1166 De la Vergne, etc. Co. v. Ger- man Savings Inst., 175 U. S. 40; 20 Sup. Ct. 20 76 838, 840, 1069 Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Pa, Coal Co., 21 Pa. St. 131 Delaware, etc. R. R. Co. v. Irick, 23 N. J. Law Rep. 321 V. Oxford Iron Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 340 Deloach v. Jones, 18 La. 447 Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y 205; 28 N. E. 645; 13 L. R. A. 854 1225, 1226 386 572 87 120 Lxiv Demarest v. Spiral Riveted Tube Co., 71 N. J. Law 14; 58 Atl. 161 880, 1069, 1211 Deming v. Beatty Oil Co., 72 Kans. 614; 84 Pac. 385 975, 975 Dempster v. Rosehill Ceme- tery Co., 206 111. 261; 68 N. E. 1070 430 Dempster Mfg. Co. v. Downs, 126 Iowa 80; 101 N. W. 735; 106 Am. St. Rep. 340 115 Den ex dem. American Primi- tive Soc. V. Pilling, 24 N. J. Law 653 1008 Den ex dem. Tours v. Vreelandt, 2 Halst (N. J.) 352 404, 404 Denham & Co., 25 Ch. D. 752 1276 1278, 1280 Denney v. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Oh. St. 108 190, 1475, 1475 Dennis v. Joslin Mfg. Co., 19 R. I. 666; 36 Atl. 129; 61 Am. St. Rep. 805 912, 917, 919, 1069, 1071 Deunison v. Austin, 15 Wise. 334 1211 V. Keasbey (Mo.), 98 S. W. 546 786 Denniston v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Biss. 414 1559 Denny v. Lyon, 38 Pa. St. 98; 80 Am. Dec. 463 723, 724 Denny Hotel Co. v. Schram, 6 Wash. 134; 32 Pac. 1002; 36 Am. St. Rep. 130 121, 607 Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, 64 Pa. St. 43 123, 150, 312, 322, 323, 325, 329 Dent V. London Tramways Co., 16 Ch. D. 344 465, 1100 Denton v. Macniel, 2 Eq. 352 . 337, 342 Denver Fire Ins. Co. v Mc- Clelland, 9 Colo. 11; 9 Pac. 771; 59 Am. Rep. 134 142, 852, 855 Denver Hotel Co., Be (1893), 1 Ch. 495 534, 534, 538 Denver, etc. R. Co. v. U. S. Trust Co., 41 Fed. 720 1412, 1412 Depew V. Colton (N. J.), 46 Atl. 728 1371 De Peyster v. American Fire Ins. Co., 6 Paige (N. Y.) 486 1093 Derby Canal v. Wilmot, 9 East 360 401, 401 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Deringer's Admr. v Deringer's Admr., 5 Houst. (Del.) 416; 1 Am. St. Rep. 150 56 Dermatine Co. v. Ashworth, 21 Times L. R. 510 369 De Rosaz's Case, 21 L. T. 10 166 Derry v. Great Hive, etc. of Maccabees, 135 Mich. 494; 98 N. W. 23 580 — V. Peek, 14 A. C. 337 340 De Ruvigne's Case, 5 Ch. D. 306 629, 1169, 1336, 1339, 1340 Desinge v. Beare, 37 Ch. D. 481 423 Des Moines Gas Co. v. West, 44 Iowa 23 1605 Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Warren County Bank, 97 Iowa 204; 66 N. W. 154 574 Des Moines, etc. R. R. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 135 U.S. 576; lOSup. Ct. 753 1500 Des Moines, etc. Trust Co. v. Des Moines Bank, 97 Iowa 668; 66 N. W. 914 772 Despatch Line of Packets v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 12 N. H. 205; 37 Am. Dec. 203 1168, 1210, 1217, 1225 D'Esterre v. City of Brooklyn, 90 Fed. 586 1432, 1432 Detroit v. Dean, 106 U. S. 537; 1 Sup. Ct. 560 970, 970 V. Detroit Citizens' Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368; 22 Sup. Ct. 410 107 Detroit Driving Club v. Fitz- gerald, 109 Mich. 670; 67 N. W. 899 39, 261, 608 Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. Detroit Agitations Verein, 44 Mich. 313; 6N. W. 675; 38 Am. Rep. 270 258, 267 .Devaux, Re, 54 Ga. 673 96 Development Co. of Central & West Africa (1902), 1 Ch. 547 533 Deverges v. Sandeman, Clark & Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 579 809, 811 Devine v. Frankford Steel, etc. Co., 205 Pa. St. 114, 54Atl. 57,8 957, 966 Dewey r. St. Albans Trust Co., 57 Vt. 332 652 • — — V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 91 Mich. 351; 51 N. W. 1063 852 Dewing v. Perdioaries, 96 U. S. 193 741 De Witt V. Hastings, 69 N. Y. 518 216, 247 v. San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289 69, 70 Dexine Patent Packing & Rubber Co., 88 L. T. 791 113, 131, 480, 555 Dexter v. Phillips, 121 Mass. 178; 23 Am. Rep. 261 1443 Dexter Horton & Co. v. Mc- Cafferty (Wash.), 84 Pac. 733 804 Dexter Savings Bank v. Friend, 90 Fed. 703 1374 Dexterville, etc. Boom Co., Re, 4 Fed. 873 1568 Diamond Drill, etc. Co. v. Kelley Bros., 130 Fed. 893 310 Dicido Pier Co., Re (1891), 2 Ch. 354 545 Dick V. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Rep. 56 1063 V. State (Md.), 68 Atl. 826 230 Dickenson v. Central Nat. Bank, 129 Mass. 279; 37 Am. Rep. 351 717, 717 V. Chamber of Commerce, 29 Wise. 45 ; 9 Am. R-p. 544 566 Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U.S. 181; 20 Sup. Ct. 311 261,262,322,628,1404, 1424, 1470, 1624, 1625, 1626 Dickinson v. Consolidated Traction Co., 114 Fed. 232; 119 Fed. 871; 56 C. C. A. 401 949, 949, 951, 969 Dickson v. McMurray, 28 Grant Ch. (Up. Can.) 533 1059, 1059 V. Swansea- Vale Co., L. R. 4. Q. B. 44 1420 Dieterle v. . Ann Arbor Paint, etc. Co., 143 Mich. 416; 107 N. W. 79 ISO, 205 Dietrich v. Rothenberger, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 338 ; 75 S. W. 271 1357 Dillaway v. Boston Gaslight Co., 174 Mass. 80; 54 N. E. 359 963, 1493 Diller v. Brubaker, 52 Pa. St. 498; 91 Am. Dec. 177 808 Dillingham v. Hawk, 60 Fed. 494; 9 C. C. A. 101; 23 L. R. A. 517 1617, 1618 V. Scales, 24 S. W. 975 (Tex.) 1619 Dillon V. Barnard 21 Wall. 430 1557 Ixv TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Dimmick v. Stokes (Ala.), 43 So. 854 1251 Dimock v. Central Rawdon Mining Co., 36 Nova Scotia 337 984 Dimpfel v. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 110 U. S. 209; 3 Sup. Ct. 573 970 Dingeldein v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 79 298 Dinkier v. Baer, 92 Ga. 432; 17 S. E. 953 ^ 779, 781 Dinsmore v. Racine, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Wise. 649 1503, 1520 Discoverers' Finance Corp. (1908), 1 Ch. 141 618, 618 Dissette v. Lawrence Pub. Co., 9 Oh. Circ. Ct. Rep. N. s. 118 962, 971 Distilling, etc. Co. v. People ex rel. Malony, 156 111. 448; 41 N. E. 188; 47 Am. St. Rep. 200 263 District of Columbia v. Cam- den Iron Works, 181 U. S. 453; 21 Sup. Ct. 680 397, 398 District Grand Lodge v. Cohn, 20 111. App^ 335 557, 588 Dittman v. Distilling Co., 54 Atl. Rep. 570 (N. J. Ch.) 57, 57, 79 Dixie Cotton Oil Co. v. Morris (Ark.), 94 S. W. 933 1372 Dixon V. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L. 606 665 V. Kennaway & Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 833 720, 737, 737, 737, 738, 1279 Doak V. Bank of the State, 6 Ired. Law (N. Car.) 309 803 Doan V. Vestry of Parish of Ascension (Md.), 64 Atl. 314 380 Dobbins v. Walton, 37 Ga. 614; 95 Am. Dec. 371 771 Dock V. Schlichter Jute Cord- age Co., 167 Pa. St. 370; 31 Atl. 656 496, 498, 517 Dockstader v. Y. M. C. A. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 906 1196 Doctor V. Harrington, 196 U. S. 579; 25 Sup. Ct. 355 975 Dodd V. Pittsburg, etc. R. R. Co. (Ky.), 106 S. W. 787 936, 1085 Dodds V. Hills, 2 Hem. & Mill. 424 710, 711, 711, 814 Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 How. 331 950 Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, 145 Cal. 380; 78 Pac. 879 372, 376, 377 Doe V. Northwestern Coal, etc. Co., 78 Fed. 62 82, 1272, 1319, 1328 Doe ex dem. Bank of England V. Chambers, 4 Ad. & El. 410 405 Doe Kings College v. Kennedy, 5Up. Can. Q.B. 577 404 Doembecher v. Columbia City Lumber Co., 21 Oreg. 573; 28 Pac. 899; 28 Am. St. Rep. 766 1210, 1210 Doherty v. Mercantile Trust Co., 184 Mass. 590; 69N.E. 335 956 Dole V. Wooldredge, 135 Mass. 140 274, 336 Domestic Telegraph Co. v. Newark, 49 N. J. Law 344; 8 Atl. 128 59 Dominion of Canada Co., 55 L. T. 347 1674 Donald v. American Smelt- ing, etc. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 729; 48 Atl. 771 488, 630, 635 V. Manufacturers' Export Co., 142 Ala. 578; 38 So. 841 957 Donaldson, Cobum & Knox, 6 New So. Wales St. Rep. 725 534 V. Orchard Crude Oil Co. (Cal.), 92 Pac. 1046 1377 Donelly v. Pancoast, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 323; 44 N. Y. Supp. 104 1227 Donnell v. Herring-Hall- Marvin Co., 208 U. S. 267 377, 388, 1085 Donovan v. Purtell, 216 111. 629; 75 N. E. 334 874, 886' D'Ooge V. Leeds, 176 Mass. 658; 57 N. E. 1025 1142, 1144, 1145 Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 494 119, 127, 228, 228, 240, 369, 370 V. Gladiator, etc. Co. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 864 749, 753 V. Wolcott, 4 Allen (Mass.) 406 233 Doolittle, Re, 23 Fed. 544 1620 Domes v. Supreme Lodge, 75 Miss. 466; 23 So. 191 552, 556, 583. 585 bcvi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Dorr V. Life Ins. Clearing Co., 71 Minn. 38; 73N.W. 635; 70 Am. St. Rep. 309 Dorris V. French, 4 Hun 292 V. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463 770 331 214, 216 925 230 1411, 1467 72 1381 51 Dorsey Harvester Revolving- Rake Co. V. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. 939 147, 382 Dorsey Machine Co. v. Mc- Caffrey, 139 Ind. 545; 38 N. E. 208; 47 Am. St. Rep. 290 182, 183 Dossett V. Harding, 1 C. B. N. s. 524 Dotson V. Milliken, 27 App. D. C. 500 Doty V. Oriental Print Works Co. (R. I.), 67 Atl. 586 1495, 1520 V. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60; 56 N. E. 668 241, 243, 249 Dougan v. Evansville, etc. R. R. Co., 15 N. Y. App. Div. 483; 44 N. Y. Supp. 503 Dougan's Case, 8 Ch. 540 Dougherty v. Hunter, 54 Pa. St. 380 Doughty V. Lomagunda Reefs (1902), 2 Ch. 837 Douglass V. Cline, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 608 1517, 1559, 1565, 1602 V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 484; 23 N. E. 806; 7 L. R. A. 822 594,1276 Dousman v. Wisconsin, etc. Co., 40 Wise. 418 507, 948 Douthitt V. Stinson, 63 Mo. 268 254, 303 Dover Coalfield Extension (1907), 2 Ch. 76; (1908), 1 Ch. 65 1242 Doveyr. Cory (1901), A.C.477 769, 1101, 1102, 1104, 1262, 1268, 1278 Dow V. Gould, etc. Mining Co., 31 Cal. 629 V. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 70 Hun 186; 24 N. Y. Supp. 292 V. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 20 Fed. 260 1562, 1584, 1600, 1603 V. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 32 Fed. 185 1491 V. Memphis R. R. Co., 124 U. S. 652; 8 Sup. Ct. 673 1516, 1600, 1603 709 1664 Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Higin- botham, 15S. Dak.547; 91 N. W. 330 228 Dowling V. Wheeler, 117 Mo. App. 169; 93 S. W. 924 778 Downer's Adm'r v. Zanesville Bank, Wright (Oh.) 477 771, 774 Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366; 80 Am. Dec. 290 68 V. Mount Washington Road Co., 40 N. H. 230 42, 851, 854, 859 V. Potts, 23 N. J. Law 66 157, 1016, 1017, 1019, 1019 V. Thompson, 103 Va. 58; 48 S. E. 506 732 Downs V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 215; 24 C. C. A. 500 1517, 1631 Doyle V. Douglas Machinery Co., 73 111. 273 230 V. Mizner, 42 Mich. 332; 3N. W. 968 118,238,242 Drake v. Herndon (Ky.), 91 S. W. 674 147 V. Hudson River R. R. Co., 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 508 556 Draper v. Blackwell, 138 Ala. 182; 35 So. 110 523, 526 V. Manchester, etc. Ry. Co., 3 De G. F. & J. 23 890 Dreeben v. First Nat. Bank (Tex.), 99 S. W. 850 1374, 1379 Drennen v. Mercantile Trust, etc. Co., 115 Ala. 592; 23 So. 164; 67 Am. St. Rep. 72; 39 L. R. A. 623 1559, 1560, 1562, 1570 Dressel v. North State Lumber Co., 107 Fed. 255 103 Driffield Gas Light Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 461 434, 435 DriscoU V. West Bradley, etc. Co., 59 N. Y. 96 571, 593 Driver v. Broad (1893), 1 Q. B. 744 1393, 1439 Droege v. Emery (Ky.), 105 S. W. 374 234 Drogheda Steam Packet Co. (1903), 1 Ir. 512 1123 Droitwich Patent Salt Co. v. Curzon, L. R. 3 Ex. 35 512 Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co., 17 Ch. D. 76 516, 657, 830 Drummond's Case, 4 Ch. 772 205, 206, 634 Drury v. Cross, 7 Wall. 299 1637 V. Midland R. R. Co., 127 Mass. 571 1632 Lxvii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 933 613 928, Dublin Drapery Co., 13 L. R. Ir. 174 1396, 1504, 1504 Dublin, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ack- erman, 59 S. E. 10 (Ga.) 1382 Dubuque Female College v. Township District, 13 Iowa 555 283,286 Duck V. Tower Galvaniz- ing Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 314 1224, 1406 Duckett V. Grover, 6 Ch. D. 82 Duckworth, Re, 2 Ch. 578 Dudley v. Armenia Ins. Co., 115 N. Y. App. Div. 380 962, 1350, 1353 V. Kentucky High School, 9 Bush (Ky.) 576 1076 Dueber, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Dougherty, 62 Oh. St. 589; 57 N. E. 455 711, 712 Duffield V. Barnum Wire, etc. Works, 64 Mich. 293; 31 N. W. 310 177 Duggan V. Colorado Mort- gage, etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113; 17 Pac. 105 117, U8, 229, 245 Duke V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 10 Ala. 82; 44 Am. Dec: 472 148, 221, 229, 915 V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 16 Ala. 372 v. Markham, 105 N. Car. 131; 10 S. E. 1017; 18 Am. St. Rep. 889 V. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64; 19 So. 172 ; 53 Am. St. Rep. 232; 31 L. R. A. 484 251, 1009 Duke's Case, 1 Ch. D. 620 111, 207 Dunbar v. American Tel., etc. Co., 224 111. 9; 79 N. E. 423 57, 58, 954, 1026 Dunbar Box, etc. Co. v. Mar- tin, 103 N. Y. Supp. 91; 53 N. Y. Misc. 312 1372 Duncan v. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 88 Fed. 840 1623, 1624 V. Maryland Sav. Inst., 10 G. & J. (Md.) 299 V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 542 V. Trustees, 3 Cent. L. J. 579 Duncomb v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 190; s. c. 98 N. Y. 1 67, 1317, 1342, 1405 Ix 222 1068 162, 423 1565 1559 Duncuft V. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189 422, 785, 785, 787 Dunham v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co., 1 Wall. 254 1452, 1465, 1503, 1534, 1537, 1550 V. City Trust Co., 101 N. Y. Supp. 87 761 V. Earle, 8 Fed. Cas. 41, No. 4, 149 1520, 1551 V. Isett, 15 Iowa 284 1515, 1551 Dunlop V. Dunlop, 21 Ch. D. 583 768, 768, 770, 772 ■ V. Mercer, 156 Fed. 545 864, 866 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. V. Dunlap Motor Co. (1907), A. C. 430 376, 377, 377 Dunn V. Howe, 107 Fed. 849; 47 C. C. A. 13 621 V. New Orleans Bldg. Co., 8 La. 483 1005 Dunn's Adm'r v. Kyle, 14 Bush (Ky.) 134 1276, 1278 Dunning v. Bates, 186 Mass. 123; 71 N. E. 309 302, 1661 Dunphy v. Traveller News- paper Ass'n, 146 Mass. 495; 16 N. E. 426 938, 941, 942, 943, 967, 980 Dunsrauir v. Colonist Printing & Pub. Co., 9 British Co- lumbia 290 560, 932, 992, 1193, 1194 Dunsterv. Bernards Land, etc. Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 123 1003, 1003 Dunster's Case (18 4), 3 Ch. 473 206, 1178 Dunston v. Imperial Gas Light Co., 3 B. & Adol. 125 553, 1237 Dupee V. Boston Water Power Co., 114 Mass. 37 517 V. Chicago Horse Shoe Co., 117 Fed. 40; 54 C. C. A. 426 202 Dupignac v. Bemstrom, 83 N. Y. Supp. 350 1120 Du Pont V. Bushong, 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 378 1527 V. Tilden, 42 Fed. 87 629, 647 Dupuy V. Eastern Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 93 Va. 460; 25 S. E. 537; 35 L. R. A. 215 563 V. Terminal Co., 82 Md. 408; 33 Atl. 889; 34 Atl. 910 72, 958 Duquesne College Charter, Re, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 491 376 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 912 1064 307 751 Du Quoin Star, etc. Co. v. Thorwell, 3 111. App. 395 Durant v. Iowa County, 1 Woolw. 69 1435, 1448 Durfee v. Harper, 22 Mont. 373; 56Pac. 589 Durgin v. Smith, 133 Mich. 331; 94N. W. 1044 Durham v. Monumental Silver Mining Co., 9 Oreg. 41 Durham Bldg. Soc, 12 Eq. 516 830, 831, 832, 862 Durkee v. People, 155 111. 354; 40 N. E. 626; 46 Am. St. Rep. 340 474, 1031 Durlatcher i>.Frazer,8 Wyom. 59;55Pac. 306; 80 Am. St. Rep. 918 Duryea v. Zimmerman, 106 N. Y. Supp. 237 Dutchess, etc. R. R. Co. v. Mabbett, 58 N. Y. 397 104, 104, 131, 203, 203 Dutenhofer v. Adirondack Ry. Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 558 1663, 1672, 1674 Du Vivier v. Gallice, 149 Fed. 118; 80 C. C. A. 556 Dwight V. Smith, 9 Fed. 795 297 340 ■ V. Smith, 13 Fed. 50 298 1438, 1489 1447, 1489 Dwinnell v. Minneapolis Fire etc. Ins. Co., 97 Minn. 340; 106 N. W. 312 483 Dyerti.Drucker,108N.Y.App. Div. 238 ; 95 N. Y. Supp. 749 383 V. Rich, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 180 302 Dykers v. Allen, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 497; 42 Am. Dec. 87 ■ . 418,419 Dykman v. Keeney, 154 N. Y. 483; 48 N. E. 894 1259, 1285 E Eagle Iron Co. v. Colyar, 156 Fed. 954 932, 985, 1011 Eagle, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Browne, 58 Ga. 240 1238 Eakins v. Am. White Bronze Co., 75 Mich. 668; 42 N. W. 982 1248 Eakwright v. Logansport, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 404 105, 604 Bales V. Cumberland Black- lead Mine Co., 6 H. & N. 481 1296, 1299, 1300, 1321 Earl of Lindsey v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 10 Hare 664 281, 395 Earl of Shrewsbury v. North Staffordshire Ry. Co., 1 Eq. 593 281, 281 Earle v. Carson, 188 U. S. 42; 23 Sup. Ct. 254 616, 619, 619, 695 V. Coyle, 97 Fed. 410; 38 C. C. A. 226 695, 696, 763 V. Seattle, etc. Ry. Co., 56 Fed 909 942, 958, 969, 971 Earp'sAppeal,28Pa.St.368 1137, 1147, 1149 Earp's Will, 1 Pars. Eq. (Pa.) 453 1137, 1149, 1443 East Anglian Rys. Co. v. East- ern Counties Ry. Co., 11 C. B. 775 828, 829 East Birmingham Land Co. V. Dennis, 85 Ala. 565; 5 So. 317; 7Am. St. Rep. 73; 2 L. R. A. 836 682, 683, 727 East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. V. Bartholomew, L. R. 3 Ex. 15 155, 157, 159 East New York, etc. R. R. Co. V. Lighthall, 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 481 637, 1381 East Norway Church v. Froislie, 37 Minn. 447; 35 N. W. 260 249 East Pant Du, etc. Co. v. Merryweather, 2 Hem. & Mill. 254 932, 933, 933, 1080, 1312 East St. Louis Connecting Ry. Co. V. Jarvis, 92 Fed. 735 838, 874 East Tennessee, etc. R. R. Co. V. Evans, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 607 386 V. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 567 586 East Wheal Mining Co., 33 Beav. 119 748 Easterly v. Barber, 65 N. Y. 252 1225, 1227 Eastern Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Williamson, 189 U. S. 122; 23 Sup. Ct. 527 832, 838 Eastern Cable Co. v. Great Western Mfg. Co., 164 Mass. 274; 41 N. E. 295 1413 Eastern Counties Ry. Co. v. Broom, 6 Exch. 314 869 V. Hawkes, 5 H. L. C. 331 283, 861 Ixix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1672 1607 1365 Eastern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 155 604 V. Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546 112, 208 Eastern R. R. Co., Re, 120 Mass. 412 1493 Eastern Townships Bank v. St. Johnsbury, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Fed. 423 1437, 1450, 1452 Eastern Tube Co. v. Harrison, 140 Fed. 519 352, 357, 359, 366 Eastern & Midlands Ry. Co., 45 Ch. D. 367, 386 1574, 1606, 1644 , 67 L. T. N. 8. 711 (No. 2), 66L. T. 153 Eastham v. York State Tele- phone Co., 86 N. Y. App. Div. 562; 83 N. Y. Supp. 1019 Eastman v. Parkinson (Wise), 113 N. W. 649 63, 65, 1221 Easton v. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 12 1568 V. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 38 Fed. 784 1611 V. Houston, etc. Ry. Co., 40 Fed. 189 1490, 1491, 1621, 1621 Easton Nat. Bank v. Am. Brick & Tile Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 917; 8. c. 60 Atl. 54 (N. J.) 627, 628, 647, 1234 V. Am. Brick & Tile Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 1095 635 Eastwick's Case, 34 L. T. 84 1289, 1340 Easun v. Buckeye Brewing Co., 51 Fed. 156 71, 72, 76 Eaton V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119 241, 250 V. New England Tel. Co., 68 Me. 63 729, 729 V. Robinson, 19 R. I. 146; 31 Atl. 1058; 32 Atl. 339; 29 L. R. A. 100 982, 1240 V. Walker, 76 Mich. 579; 43 N. W. 638 ; 6 L. R. A. 102 244 Eaton, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hunt, 20 Ind. 457 1584, 1588 Ebbett's Case, 5 Ch. 302 173 Ebbw Vale Steel, etc. Co., 4 Ch. D. 827 532, 540 Ebelhar v. German Am. Sec. Co. (Ky.), 91 S. W. 262 1128, 1268 Ixx Ebenezer Timmins & Sons (1902), 1 Ch. 238 149, 155, 205, 642 E. Carver Co. v. Manufac- turers' Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 214 1379 Eckman v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 169 111. 312; 48 N. E. 496; 38 L. R. A. 750 852 Eckstein v. Downing, 64 N. H. 248; 9 Atl. 626; 10 Am. St. Rep. 404 787 Eclipse Mining Co., 17 Eq. 490 433, 434 Ecuadorian Ass'n v. Ecuador Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 1051 188, 198, 630 V. Ecuador Co., 61 Atl. 481 632 Eddleman v. Union County Traction, etc. Co., 217 111. 409; 75 N. E. 510 249 Eddy V. Co-operative Dress Ass'n, 3 N. Y. Gv. Proc. Rep. 442 1242 Eddystone Marine Ins. Co. (1893), 3 Ch. 9 637, 639 Edelhoff V. Homer-Miller Mfg. Co., 86 Md. 595; 39 Atl. 314 1553 V. State, 5 Wyom. 19; 36 Pac. 627 228 Edelstein v. Schuler & Co. (1902), 2 K. B. 144 1423, 1425, 1425 Eden v. Ridsdale, etc. Co., 23 Q. B. D. 368 1333, 1334, 1338, 1339 Edgerly v. Emerson, 3 Foster (23 N. H.) 555; 55 Am. Dec. 207 912, 912, 917, 1205, 1210, 1211 Edgerton v. Electric Imp. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 354; 24 Atl. 540 199, 632 Edgewood Borough v. Scott, 29 Pa. Sup. Ct. 156 35, 61 Edinburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Hebblewhite, 6 M. & W. 707 661, 668 Edison v. Edison United Phonograph Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 620; 29 Atl. 195 958 Edison Storage Battery Co. V. Edison Automobile Co., 67N.J. Eq. 44; 56 Atl. 861 374, 376, 377 Edmonds v. Blaina Furnace Co , 36 Ch. D. 215 1392 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Edmonds v. Company of Watermen & Li^termen, 24 L. J. Magistrate Cases, 124 564 Edward Nelson & Co. v. Faber & Co. (1903), 2 K. B. 367 1545, 1548 Edwards v. Bates County, 99 Fed. 905; 40 C. C. A. 161 1440 V. Bates County, 163 U.S. 269; 16Sup. Ct. 967 1448 V. Bates County, 117 Fed. 526 916, 1434, 1436 V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 942 957, 976 V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 946 1679 V. Bay State Gas Co., 130 Fed. 242 983 V. Fairbanks, 27 La. Ann. 449 844 V. Grand Junction Ry. Co., 1 Myl. & C. 650 281 V. Mercantile Trust Co., 124 Fed. 381 956, 956, 967, 969,979 V. Michigan Tontine In- vestment Co., 132 Mich. 1 ; 92 N. W. 491 850, 856 V. National Window Glass, etc. Ass'n (N. J.), 58 Atl. 527 V. Standard Rolling Stock Syndicate (1893), 1 Ch. 574 , Ex parte, 64 L. T. 561 Eells V. Johann, 27 Fed. 327 Efland v. Southern Ry. Co. (N. Car.), 59 S. E. 355 Egilbert v. Superior Court (Cal.), 91 Pae. 748 906, 1367, 1376 Ehle V. Chittenango Bank, 24 N. Y. 548 1118, 1119 Ehrmann Bros. (1906), 2 Ch. 697 Eichbaum v. City of Chicago Grain Elevators (1891), 3 Ch. 459 V. Sample, 213 Pa. 216; 62 Atl. 837 Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444; 11 Am. Rep. 90 487, 499, 1189 Einstein v. Rochester Gas, etc. Co., 146 N. Y. 46; 40 N. E. 631 482 Eisfeld V. Kenworth, 50 Iowa 389 128 979 1604 181 1551 25 1396 524 786 Ixxi Elder v. New Zealand Co., 30 L. T. 285 160, 189, 608 Eldred v. American Palace Car Co., 105 Fed. 457; 44 C. C. A. 554 969, 975 V. American Palace Car Co., 99 Fed. 168; s. c. 96 Fed. 59; 103 Fed. 209; 105 Fed. 455; 45 C. C. A. 1; 105 Fed. 457; 44 C. C. A. 554 969, 975 - — V. Ripley, 97 111. App. 503 928, 1350 Eldridge v. Smith, 34 Vt. 484 1520, 1522 Electric Co. v. Edison Elec- tric, etc. Co., 200 Pa. 516; 50 Atl. 164 499, 507 Electric Fireproofing Co. v. Smith, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 615 339, 1347 Electric Welding Co. v. Prince (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306 175, 178, 348, 350, 351, 356, 356, 356, 358, 363, 363, 364 Elevator, etc. Co. v. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 85 Tenn. 703; 5S. W. 52; 4 Am. St. Rep. 798 Eley V. Positive Life Ass. Co., 1 Ex. D. 20 V. Positive, etc. Ass. Co., 1 Ex. D. 88 Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Loveland, 132 Fed. 41 123, 371, 373 373 Elias, Re, 40 N. Y. Supp. 910; 17 N. Y. Misc. 718 1025, 1176 Elizabethtown Gas Light Co. V. Green, 46 N. J. Eq. 118; 49 N. J. Eq. 329 ; 24 Atl. 560 Elk Brewing Co. v. Neubert, 213 Pa. 171; 62 Atl. 782 Elkhom Land, etc. Co. v. Childers (Ky.), 100 S. W. 222 Elkington's Case, 2 Ch. 511 Elkins V. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 5 V. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. J. Ea. 233 459, 467, 467 V. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 467 954, 1194, 1194, 1326 V. Chicago, 119 Fed. 957 969 EUerman v. Chicago Grand Junction Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217; 23 Atl. 287 39, 52, 62, 76, 86, 94, 95 452 285 34 245 1307 420 633 57 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1133 1650 Elliot V. Richardson, L. R 5 C. P. 744 1029 Elliott V. Baker (Mass.), 80 N. E. 450 510, 1271 V. Farmers' Bank (W. Va.), 57 S. E. 242 1317, 1318 V. Sibley, 101 Ala. 344; 13 So. 500 1250 Ellis V. Barfield, W. N. (1891) 84 . 1140 V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 107 Mass. 1 1517, 1517, 1550 V. French Canadian, etc. Ass'n, 189 Mass. 566; 76 N. E. 207 1126,1359 V. Howe Machin ■ Co., 9 Daly (N. Y. 78 852, 880 V. N. C. Institution, 68 N. Car. 423 593, 594, 1224 V. Proprietors of Essex Merrimack Bridge, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 243 V. Vernon, etc. Water Co., 86 Tex. 109; 23 S. W. 858 V. Ward, 137 111. 509; 25 N. E. 530 1265, 1288, 1360 Ellison V. Branstrator, 153 Ind. 146; 54 S. E. 433 406, 407 V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 36 Miss. 572 151, 185 Ellsworth V. Dorwart, 95 Iowa 108; 63 N. W. 588; 58 Am. St. Rep. 427 894, 894 899, 901, 904, 907 V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 553 1403 Ellsworth, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Faunce, 79Me. 440; lOAtl. 250 1011, 1225, 1225 Elmira, etc. Mill Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 284 1617 Eisner and McArthur's Case (1895), 2 Ch. 759 640, 640, 641 Elve V. Boynton (1891), 1 Ch. 501 20, 20 Elwell V. Fosdick, 134 U. S. 500; lOSup. Ct. 598 V. Grand Street, etc. R. R. Co., 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 83 Ely V. Hanford, 65 111. 267 V. Sprague, 1 Clarke Ch. (N. Y.) 351 Elyea v. Lehigh Salt Mining Co., 169 N. Y. 29; 61 N. E. 992 Elyton Land Co. v. Dowdell, 113 Ala. 177: 20 So. 981; 59 Am. St. Rep. 106 72, 78 1485 1509 324 1114 1023 Emerson B. European, etc. Ry. Co:, 67 Me. 387; 24 Am. Rep. 39 1503, 1512, 1515, 1519 V. Gaither, 103 Md. 564 1125, 1259, 1263, 1285, 1288, 1289 Emerson Co. v. Nimocks, 88 Fed. 280 226 Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass. 95. 274, 336, 1270, 1346 Emlen v. Lehigh Coal, etc. Co., 47 Pa. St. 76; 86 Am. Dec. 518 1472 Emma Silver Mining Co., 10 Ch. 194 890, 891 V. Grant, 11 Ch. D. 918 293, 320, 321 V. Grant, 17 Ch. D. 122 327, 1284, 1346, 1346 V. Lewis, 4 C. P. D. 396 271, 273, 274, 318, 320 Emmerling v. First Nat. Bank, 97 Fed. 739; 38 C. C. A. 399 841 Emmitt v. Springfield, etc. R. R. Co., 31 Oh. St. 23 609, 625 Empire Mfg. Co. v. Stuart, 46 Mich. 482; 9 N. W. 527 248 Empire Mills v. Alston Gro- cery Co., 4 Willson Civ. Cas. (Tex.) § 221 252 Empire Steam, etc. Co. v. DeLavel Dairy, etc. Co. (N. J.), 67Atl. 711 1362 Empress Engineering Co., Re, 16 Ch. D. 125 283 Engel V. South Metropolitan Brewing Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 442 1513, 1599 Engelhardt v. Fifth Ward Loan Ass'n, 148 N. Y. 281; 42 N. E. 710; 35 L. R. A. 289 586 England v. Dearborn, 141 Mass. 590; 6 N. E. 837 880, 1381 Englefield Colliery Co., 8 Ch. ' D. 388 295 English & Colonial Produce Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 435 289, 293, 294, 296 Englisli, etc. Investment Co. V. Brunton (1892), 2 Q. B. 700 1534, 1547 Ennis Cotton Oil Co. v. Burke, 39 S. W. 966 (Tex. Gv. App.) 287, 307, 309 Ennis & West Clare Ry. Co., 3 L. R. Ir. 94 224 Ixxii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Enterprise Ditch Co. v. Mof- fitt,58Nebr.642; 79N.W. 560; 45 L. R. A. 647; 76 Am. St. Rep. 122 650, 652 Enterprise Mut. Beneficial Ass'n, 10 Phila. 380 103, 120 Eppright V. Nickerson, 78 Mo. 482 66, 1188 Equitable Endowment Ass'n V. Fisher, 71 Md. 430; 18 Atl. 808 592, 594 Equitable Gas Light Co. v. Baltimore Coal Tar, etc. Co., 65 Md. 73; 3 Atl. 108 1375 Equitable Reversionary Int. Soc. V. Fuller, 1 J. & H. 379 Equitable Securities Co.' v. Johnson (Cal.), 85 Pac. 840 Erd V. Bavarian, etc. Ass'n, 67 Mich. 233; 34N. W. 555 1446 695 580 Erie City Iron Works v. Bar- ber, 106 Pa. St. 125; 51 Am. Rep. 508 869 Erie Lumber Co., 150 Fed. 817 1650 Erie Printing Co. v. Erie Lithographmg & Printing Co., 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 1 371, 375 Erie, etc. R. R. Co. v. Patrick, 2 Keyes (N. Y.) 256 176 Erlanger v. New Sombrero Phosphate Co., 3 App. Gas. 1218 271, 316, 316, 316, 329 Ernest V. Croysdill, 29 L. J. Gh. 580 1260 V. Loma Gold Mines (1897), 1 Ch. 1 1036, 1036, 1044, 1044 V. NichoUs, 6 H. L. Gas. 401 1305 Ernst V. Elmira Mun. Imp. Co.,24N.Y. Misc. 583; 54 N. Y. Supp. 116 441 Emy V. G. W. Schmidt Co., 197 Pa. St. 475; 47 Atl. 877 969, 980 Erskine v. Loewenstein, 82 Mo. 301 648, 736 V. Mcllrath, 60 Minn. 485 ; 62 N. W. 1130 1615 Erskine, Oxenard & Co. v. Sachs (1901), 2 K. B. 504 809 Ervin V. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.) 566 889 V. Oregon Ry., etc. Co., 28 Hun (N Y.) 269 968 Ervin v. Oregon, etc. Naviga- tion Co. , 27 Fed. 625 1082, 1082 Esgen V. Smith, 113 Iowa 25; 84 N. W. 954 626 Esparto Trading Co., 12 Ch. D. 191 525, 664, 665, 1173, 1175 Esper V. Miller, 131 Mich. 334; 91N. W. 613 287 Espuela Land, etc. Co., W. N. (1900) 139 1000, 1002 Essex Turnpike Corp. v. Col- lins, 8 Mass. 292 169 Estabrook, Ex parte, 8 Fed. Gas. 794; 2 Lowell 547 862, 1380 Estell V. University of the South, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 476 70 Estes V. German Nat. Bank, 62 Ark. 7; 34 S. W. 85 1211 Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnels, 55 Mich. 130; 20 N. W. 823 234 237 E. Swindell & Co. v. Bain- bridge State Bank (Ga.), 60 S. E. 13 866 Etna Coal, etc. Co. v. Marting Iron, etc. Co., 127 Fed. 32 1583 Etna Ins. Co., Re (1871), Ir. Rep. 6 Eq^298 178 Ettlinger v. Persian Rug, etc. Co., 142 N. Y. 189; 36 N. E. 1055; 40 Am. St. Rep. 587 1587 Etty V. Bridges, 2 Y. & Colly Ch. 486 801 Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. Eu- reka Rubber Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 561 373 European Central Ry. Co., 4 Ch. D. 33 1442 European, etc. Ry. Co. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277 1303, 1334, 1335 Eustace v. Dublin Trunk Ry. Co., 6 Eq. 182 200, 201 Euston V. Edgar (Mo.), 105 S. W. 773 262, 628 Evans v. Boston Heating Co., 157 Mass. 37; 31 N. E. 698 1004 V. Chapman, 86 L. T. 381 132, 589 V. Davies (1893), 2 Ch. 216 423 V. Johnson, 149 Fed. 978; 79 C. C. A. 488 84, 838 V. Lee, 11 Nevada. 194 407, 1376 bcxiii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R. 3 H. L. 249 665 V. Southern Turnpike Co., 18 Ind. 101 • 231 V. Union Pao. Ry. Co., 58 Fed. 497 970, 971 Evans' Case, 2 Ch. 427 203 Evansville Nat. Bank v. Met- ropolitan Nat. Bank, 2 Biss. 527 571, 769 Evansville Public Hall Co. V. Bank of Commerce, 144 Ind. 34; 42 N. E. 1097 1306 Evansville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Evansville, 15 Ind. 395 244, 1109 Evarts V. Killingsworth Mfg. Co., 20 Conn. 447 873, 875, 875, 924, 924, 1367, 1375 Evenson v. EUingson, 67 Wise. 634; 31 N. W. 342 244 Everet v. Williams, 9 Law Quarterly Review 197 258 Everitt V. Automatic Weigh- ing Machine Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 506 769 Evertson v. Nat. Bank of Newport, 66 N. Y. 14; 23 Am. Rep. 9 1451, 1451, 1461, 1463, 1464 Excelsior Ins. Co., 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 297 1163, 1191 Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Lacey, 63 N. Y. 422 1358 Excelsior Water Co. v. Pierce, 90 Cal. 131; 27 Pac. 44 416, 416, 1098, 1099, 1099, 1100, 1103, 1104, 1104, 1104, 1109, 1117 Exchange Bank v. Macon Construction Co., 97 Ga. 1; 25 S. E. 326; 33 L. R. A. 800 873, 878, 1569, 1570 Exchange Drapery Co., 38 Ch. D. 171 435 Exeter, etc. Ry. Co. v. BuUer, 5 Eng. Ry. & Can. Cas. 211 ; 16 L. J. Ch. 449 930, 933 Ex-Mission Land Co. v. Flash, 97 Cal. 610; 32 Pac. 600 272, 321, 327 Exter V. Sawyer, 146 Mo. 302 ; 47 S. W. 951 322, 326 Eyre's Case, 31 Beav. 177 766, 1327 Eyster v. Centennial Board of Finance, 94 U. S. 500 425, 1091 , 1099 Ixxiv Factors, etc. Ins. Co. v. Har- bor Protection Co., 37 La. Ann. 233 121 V. Marine Dry Docks, etc. Co., 31 La. Ann. 149 732 Fadness v. Baunberg, 73 Wise. 257; 41 N. W. 84 302 Fahrney v. Kelly, 102 Fed. 403 716 Fairbank «.. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 132 111. 120; 22 N. E. 524 806, 806, 810, 812, 1135, 1136 Fairfield County Turnpike Co. V. Thorp, 13 Conn. 173 1078, 1231 Fairtitle ex dem. Mytton v. Gilbert (1787), 2 T. R. 169 828, 829 Falcone v. Societa Sarti, 61 N. Y. Supp. 873 562 Fallon V. United States Direct- tory Co., 86 N. Y. App. Div. 29 ; 83 N. Y. Supp. 359 957 Falls City Tinware Co.'s Trustee v. Levine (Ky.), 104 S. W. 716 520 Famous Shoe, etc. Co. v. Eagle Iron Works, 51 Mo. App. 66 1377 Faneuil Hall Bank v. Bank of Brighton, 16 Gray (Mass.) 534 863 Fanning v. Insurance Co., 37 Oh. St. 339; 41 Am, Rep. 517 174 Farley v. St. Paul, etc. Ry. Co., 4 McCrary 138 1636 Farmers' Bank v. Diebold Safe, etc. Co., ,66 Oh. St. 367; 64N. E. 518; 90 Am. St. Rep. 586; 58 L. R. A. 620 726, 739 V. McKee, 2 Pa. St. 318 1372 Farmers' Bank of Md. v. Igle- hart, 6 Gill (Md.) 50 770 Farmers' Bank of Maryland's Case, 2 Bland (Md.) 394 768, 769, 776 Farmers' Bank of Vine Grove V. Smith, 49 S. W. 810; 105 Ky. 816; 88 Am. St. Rep. 341 293 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Amer- ican Waterworks Co., 107 Fed. 23 1516, 1638 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bank- ers, etc. Tel. Co., 148 N. Y. 315; 42N. E. 707; 51 Am. St. Rep. 690 ; 31 L. R. A. 403 1570 V. Cape Fear, etc. R. R. Co., 62 Fed. 675 1602, 1602 V. Cape Fear, etc. Ry. Co., 71 Fed. 38 1585 V. Cary, 13 Wise. 110 1515 V. Central R. R. Co., 17 Fed. 758 1634 V. Central R., etc. Co., 120 Fed. 1006 120 V. Central R. R. of Iowa, 7 Fed. 537 1615, 1620, 1633 V. Central R. R. of Iowa, 8 Fed. 60 1621 V. Centralia, etc. R. Co., 96 Fed. 636 1646, 1646, 1647 . V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 118 Fed. 204 1617 V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 68 Fed. 412 1494 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 146 1593, 1602, 1623, 1626, 1672, 1675 ■». Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 42 Fed. 6 1612, 1612 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 44 Fed. 653 1634, 1634 ■ V. Clowes, 3 N. Y. 470 87 ' V. Commercial Bank, 11 Wise. 207 1503 > V. Commercial Bank, 15 Wise. 424; 82 Am. Dec. 689 1532 '■ V. Denver, etc. Ry. Co., 126 Fed. 46 1538, 1538 V. Detroit, etc. R. R. Co., 71 Fed. 29 1496, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1548, 1568, 1568, 1573 V. Farmers' L. & T. Co. of Kansas, 1 N. Y. Supp. 44 375 — ' — V. Grape Creek Coal Co., 65 Fed. 717; 13 C. C. A. 87 1465, 1465 V. Green Bay, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Fed. 100; 10 Biss. 203 1628, 1628, 1628, 1630 V. Green Bay, etc. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. 664 1568 V. Hendrickson, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 484 1396 ■». Housatonic R. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 251; 46 N. E. 504 1248 • -v. Iowa Water Co., 78 Fed. 881 1456, 1466, 1627 Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co., 53 Fed. 182 1563, 1572 V. Lake St. Elevated R. Co., 122 Fed. 914 1581 V. Louisville, etc. Ry. Co., 103 Fed. 110 1659 V. Madison Mfg. Co., 153 Fed. 310 1343, 1434 V. Mann, 4 Robt. (N. Y.) 356 1373 V. Meridian Waterworks Co., 139 Fed. 661 1498, 1521, 1552, 1604 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 21 Fed. 264 1659 V. New England Water- works Co., 137 Fedi 729; 70 C. C. A. 163 1456 V. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 94 N. Y. Supp. 928 1595 V. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 150 N. Y. 410; 44 N. E. 1043; 55 Am. St. Rep. 689; 34 L. R. A. 76 1082, 1595, 1593 V. Northern Pae. R. R. Co., 58 Fed. 257 1612 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 60 Fed. 803 1621 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 61 Fed. 546 1602, 1602 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 66 Fed. 169 1585, 1587, 1595 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 68 Fed. 36 1565, 1567 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 70 Fed. 423 1585, 1587 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 71 Fed. 245 V. Northern Pae. Co., 74 Fed. 431 1567 R. R. 1561, 1565, 1568 V. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 79 Fed. 227 — V. Nova Scotia, etc. Ry. Co., 24 Nova Scotia 542 — V. Oregon Pac. R. R. Co., SlOreg. 237; 48 Pae. 706; 65 Am. St. Rep. 822; 38 L. R. A. 424 V. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Pae. 1089; 28 Oreg. 44 — V. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 67 Fed. 404 — V. Penn Plate Glass Co., 186 U.S. 434; 22 Sup. Ct. 842 1568 1584 1640 1627, 1629 1453 1483 Ixxv TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Perry, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.)'339 75, 87 V. Rockaway Valley R. R. Co., 69 Fed. 9 1400 V. San Diego St. Car Co., 45 Fed. 518 1080, 1310, 1402, 1406 V. San Diego, etc. Co., 49 Fed. 188 1510, 1608 V. Stuttgart, etc. R. R. Co., 92 Fed. 246 1566 V. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 54 Fed. 759 67, 1405, 1405, 1435 V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 49 109, 492, 986, 1525, 1526, 1624 V. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co., 33 Fed. 778 1565, 1570 V. Winona, etc. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. 957 1593, 1603 Farmers' Mfg. Co. v. Spruks Mfg. Co., 119 Fed. 594 1356 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Sutton Mfg. Co., 52 Fed. 191; 3 C. C. A. 1; 17L. R. A. 595 862, 867 716 V. Wilson, 58 Cal. 600 Farmers' & Mech. Bank v. Nelson, 12 Md. 35 Farmers', etc. Bank v. Bald- win, 23 Minn. 198; 23 Am. Rep. 683 V. Champlain, 18 Vt. 131 V. Downey, 53 Cal. 466; 31 Am. Rep. 62 V. Haney, 87 Iowa 101; 54 N. W. 61 572, 770 V. Iglehart, 6 Gill (Md.) 50 773, 791 V. Mosher, 100 N. W. 133; 94 N. W. 1003; 68 Nebr. 713 V. Waco Electric Ry. Co. (Tex.), 36 S. W. 131 175 845 517 1334 715 1435, 1562 V. Wasson, 48 Iowa 336; 30 Am. Rep. 398 571, 1335, 1335 V. Wayman, 5 Gill (Md.) 336 814, 814 Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Chase, 56 N. H. 341 1214, 1215 Farmers', etc. Trust Co. v. St. Joseph, etc. Ry. Co., 3 Dill. 412 1396 Farmers', etc. Turnpike Co., 25 Pa. St. 303 404 Farmington Sav. Bank v. Fall, 71 Me. 49 868 Famesworth v. Robbins, 36 Minn. 369; 31 N. W. 349 518, 524 Ixxvi Famham v. Benedict, 107 N. Y. 159; 13 N. E. 784 245 Famsworth v. Drake, 11 Ind. 101 251 Farrar v. Walker, 13 Nat. B. Reg. 82 177 Farrell v. Gold Flint Mining Co., 32 Mont. 416; 80 Pac. 1027 1210 V. Union Trust Co., 77 Mo. 475 1582 Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405; 37 Atl. 652; 38 L. R. A. 339 847 V. South Boston R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 406; 23 N. E. 109; 15Am. St. Rep. 222; 5L. R. A. 849 736,741 Farwell v. Babcock, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 162; 65 S. W. 509 969, 1076 V. Colonial Trust Co., 147 Fed. 480; 78 C. C. A. 22 777 V. Great Western TeL Co., 161 111. 522; 44 N. E. 891 1617 V. Houghton Copper Works, 8 Fed. 66 913, 914, 1042, 1199, 1210, 1223 V. Tweddle, 10 Abb. n. c. (N. Y.) 94 1446 Farwell, John V. Co. v. Wolf, 96 Wise. 10; 70N. W. 289; 71 N. W. 109; 65 Am. St. Rep. 22; 37 L. R. A. 138 844 Fatman v. Lobach, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 354 723 Faulds V. Yates, 57 111. 416; 11 Am. Rep. 24 1029 Faure Electnc, etc. Co., 40 Ch. D. 141 354, 1274 V. Phillipart, 58 L. T. 525 600, 614, 1205, 1205, 1232 Fawcett v. Charles, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 473 1183 V. New Haven Organ Co., 47 Conn. 224 1376 Fay V. Gray, 124 Mass. 500 . 418, 807, 812 V. Noble, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 188 252, 252 V. Noble, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 1 591, 1370 Fayette Land Co. v. Louis- ville, etc. R. R. Co., 93 Va. 274; 24 S. E. 1016 393, 847 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Fayetteville, etc. Ry. v. Aber- deen, etc. R. R. Co. (N. Car.), 55 S. E. 345 147, 160 Fear v. Bartlett, 81 Md. 435; 32 Atl. 322; 33 L. R. A. 721 180, 181 Fearing v. Glenn, 73 Fed. 116; 19 C. C. A. 388 1181, 1182, 1182 Featherstone v. Cooke, 16 Eq. 298 943, 958 Featherstonebaugh v. Lee Moor, etc. Co., 1 Eq. 318 97 Feckheitner v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 79 Va. 80 571, 751 Fee V. Nat. Masonic Accident Ass'n, 110 Iowa 271; 81 N. W. 483 553, 562, 1214, 1216 Feige v. Burt, 118 Mich. 243; 77 N. W. 928; 74 Am. St. Rep. 390 807, 808 Feitel v. Dreyfous, 117 La. 756; 42 So. 259 Felgate's Case, 11 L. T. 613 Felker v. Sullivan (Colo.), 83 Pac. 213 Felton V. West Iron, etc. Co., 16 Mont. 81; 40 Pac. 70 Ferguson v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 85 N. Y. App. Div. 352; S3 N. Y. Supp. 283; 183 N. Y. 557 Femschild v. Yuengling Brewing Co., 154 N. Y. 667; 49 N. E. 151 Ferrao's Case, 9 Ch. 355 Ffooks V. South Western Ry. Co., 1 Smale & G. 142 965, 969, 972 Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. National Bank of Com- merce (Tex.), 106 S. W. 782 833, 1354 Fidelity Insurance Co. v. German Savings Bank, 127 Iowa 591; 103 N.W. 958 74, 91, 846 V. Shenandoah Valley R. Co., 32W. Va. 244; 9 S. E. 180 Fidelity Ins., etc. Co. v. Nor- folk, etc. R. R. Co., 72 Fed. 704 V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co., 88 Fed. 815 V. Norfolk, etc. R. Co., 90 Fed. 175 V. Roanoke Iron Co., 68 Fed. 623 208 202 627 1247 1632 1659 642 407 1536 1632 1542 1650 Fidelity Ins., etc. Co. v. She- nandoah Valley R. R. Co., 33 W. Va. 761; 11 S. E. 58 1416, 1473, 1669 V. Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co., 86 Va. 1; 9 8. E. 759; 19 Am. St. Rep. 858 1457, 1664, 1567, 1569, 1570, 1571 Fidelity Mutual Aid Ass'n, 12 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 269 134 Fidelity Trust Co. i). Hobo- ken, etc. R. Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 273 1554, 1555, 1601 V. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 829 458, 460, 462 V. Louisville Gas Co., 26 Ky. Law Rep. 401; 81 S. W. 927 63, 66, 70 V. Staten Island Clay Co. (N. J. Ch.), 67 Atl. 1078 1507,' 1509 Fidelity Trust, etc. Co. v. Mobile Street-Railway Co., 53 Fed. 850 1489 Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Roanoke Iron Co., 81 Fed. 439 1426, 1439, 1542 V. United, etc. Canal Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 405 1472, 1601 V. West Pa., etc. R. R. Co., 138 Pa. St. 494; 21 Atl. 21; 21 Am. St. Rep. 911 1408, 1450 Fidelity, etc. Vault Co. v. Mobile Street Ry. Co., 54 Fed. 26 1660 Field V. Eastern, etc. Loan Ass'n, 117 Iowa 185; 90 N. W. 717 584 V. Field, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 394 1011, 1056 V. Girard College, 54 Pa. St. 233 1363 V. Lamson, etc. Mfg. Co., 162 Mass. 388; 38 N. E. 1126; 27 L. R. A. 136 450, 450, 464, 466 V. Union Box Co., 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 426 1247 Fielden v. Lancashire, etc. Ry. Co., 2 De G. & Sm. 531 443 Fields V. Cook, 16 La. Ann. 153 123 V. United Brotherhood, 60 III. App. 258 659 V. U. S., 27 App. D. C. 433 230 Ixxvii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty-sec- ond St., etc. R. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 231; 33 N. E. 378; 33 Am. St. Rep. 712; 19 L. R. A. 331 730, 736, 739, 740 743, 784 Fifth Nat. Bank v. Navassa Phosphate Co., 119 N. Y. 256; 23 N. E. 737 1370 V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Fed. 190 960 Fifth Ward Sav. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 48 N. J. Law 5 13 ; 7 Atl. 3 18 63, 66, 1378 Fifty-four First Mortgage Bonds, Re, 15 S. Car. 304 1473, 1531, 1607 Figge V. Bergenthal (Wise), 109 N.W. 581; 110 N. W. 798 1076, 1243, 1288 Fillebrown v. Hayward, 190 Mass. 472; 77 N. E. 45 1186, 1321, 1328 Fillmore v. Great Camp, 66 N. W. 675; 109 Mich. 13 948 Finance Co. v. Charleston, etc. R. R. Co., 45 Fed. 436 1602 V. Charleston, etc. R. R. Co., 46 Fed. 508 1610, 1613 V. Charleston, etc. R. R. Co., 52 Fed. 524 1563 V. Charleston, etc R. R. Co. (Moon, intervenor), 52 Fed. 526 1561, 1567 V. Charleston, etc. R. R. Co., 62 Fed. 205; 10 C. C. A. 323 1561, 1563, 1567, 1571 Finance & Issue v. Canadian Produce Corp. (1905), 1 Ch. 37 160, 194, 525 Financial Corporation, 28 W. R. 760 77 ,2Ch.714 100,547,547,547, 548, 549, 659, 664 Finck V. Schneider Granite Co., 187 Mo. 244; 86 S. W. 213; 106 Am. St. Rep. 452 261, 263 Fine v. Homsby, 2 Mo. App. 61, 64 422 Fine Cotton Spinners, etc.. Ass'n V. Harwood Cash & Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 184 376, 377 Finletter v. Acetylene Light Co., 215 Pa. 86; 64 Atl. 429 617, 636, 645 Finley Rubber, etc. Co. v. Finley, 32 Atl. Rep. 740 (N. J. Ch.) 1240 Finley Shoe & Leather Co. v. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89 488, 494, 1069, 1190 Finn v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56; 12 Sup. Ct. 136 705, 706, 706, 921, 1127, 1128, 1173, 1276 Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 52 Minn. 239; 53 N. W. 1150; 38 Am. St. Rep. 552 44, 45, 104, 243, 246, 247 Finney's Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 398 715 Finucane's Case, 17 W. R. 813 167 Firemen's Ins. Co., Ex parte, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 243 751 Firestone v. First Slavish, etc. Church, 215 Pa. 8; 63 Atl. 1038 557 Firestone Tire, etc. Co. v. Vehicle Equipment Co., 155 Fed. 676 103 First Ave. Land Co. v. Hilde- brand, 103 Wise. 530; 79 N. W. 753 317 V. Parker, 111 Wise. 1; 86 N. W. 604; 87 Am. St. Rep. 841 730, 731 First Baptist Church v. Harper, 191 Mass. 196; 77 N. E. 778 915, 915 FirstBaptist Soc. v. Rapalee, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 605 118 First Church of Christ, Scien- tist, Re, 205 Pa. St. 543; 65 Atl. 536; 97 Am. St. Rep. 753; 63 L. R. A. 411 261, 267 First Division of St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co. V. Parcher, 14 Minn. 297 1521, 1522, 1522 First Nat. Bank, 152 Fed. 64 V. Abilene Hotel Co. (Tex.), 103 S. W. 1120 V. Alexander (Ala.), 44 So. 866 V. American Nat. Bank, 173 Mo. 153; 72S.W. 1059 193 V. Anderson, 75 Va. 250 V. Armstrong, 42 Fed. 44 1377 853 84, 833 1551 301 - V. Asheville, etc. Lumber Co., 116 N. Car. 827; 21 S. E. 948 1202, 1210, 1381 — V. Bacon, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 612; 98 N. Y. Supp. 717 804 bcxviii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] First Nat. Bank v. Benning- ton, 16 Blatchf. 53 1449 V. Brigg's Estate, 70 Vt. 599; 41 Atl. 586 1285 V. Christopher, 40 N. J. Law 435; 29 Am. Rep. 262 1235 V. Church Federation, 129 Iowa 268; 105 N. W. 578 291, 306 V. Converse, 200 U. S. 425; 26 Sup. Ct. 306 22, 74, 80, 834 V. Council Bluffs, etc. Co., 56 Hun (N. Y.) 412; ' 9 N. Y. Supp. 859 1378, 1378 V. County Comm'rs of Scott Co., 14 Minn. 77; 100 Am. Dec. 194 1436, 1461 V. Davies, 43 Iowa 424 126 V. D. Kieffer Milling Co., 95 Ky. 97; 23 S. W. 675 109, 110, 142, 859, 1409 V. De Morse (Tex.), 26 S. W. 417 1124 V. Dovetail, etc. Gear Co., 143 Ind. 534; 42 N. E. 924 227 V. Drake, 29 Kans. 311; 44 Am. Rep. 646 1238, 1247, 1277, 1311, 1321, 1331 V. Drake, 35 Kans. 564; 11 Pac. 445 1210 V. East Omaha Box Co., 2 Nebr. (Unofficial Rep.) 820; 90 N. W. 223 1206, 1222 V. Ewing, 103 Fed. 168; 43 C. C. A. 150 1542, 1542, 1566, 1633, 1654, 1655 V. Garretson, 107 Iowa 196; 77N. W. 856 1379 V. Gifford, 47 Iowa 575 689, 701, 711 V. Greenville Oil Co., 24 Tex. Qv. App. 645; 60 S. W. 828 833 V. Grosshans, 61 Nebr. 575; 85 N. W. 542 867 V. Hartford, etc. Ins. Co., 45 Conn. 22 769, 770, 776 V. Hastings, 7 Colo. App. 129; 42 Pac. 691 697, 716 V. Hogan, 47 Mo. 472 1377 V. Holland, 99 Va. 495; 39 S. E. 126; 86 Am. St. Rep. 898; 55 L. R. A. 155 423, 712, 712 V. Lamon, 130 N. Y. 366; 29 N. E. 321 1185 V. Lucas, 21 Nebr. 280; 31 N. W. 805 1372 Ixxix First Nat. Bank v. National Broadway Bank, 156 N. Y. 459; 51 N. E. 398; 42 L. R. A. 139 748, 798 V. Nat. Exchange Bank, 92 U. S. 122 74, 75, 77 V. New, 146 Ind. 411 ; 45 N. E. 597 1381 V. Orinoco Shipping, etc. Co., 21 Times L. R. 39 1471, , 1474 V. Peavey, 69 Fed. 455 628 V. Peoria Watch Co., 191 111. 128; 60 N. E. 859 521, 521 V. Pierson, 24 Minn. 140 ; 31 Am. Rep. 341 844, 845 V. Radford Trust Co., 80 Fed. 569; 26C. C. A. 1 1586, 1669, 1669 V. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 15; 93 S. W. 761 118, 129, 221, 240 V. Root, 107 Ind. 224; 8 N. E. 105 810 V. Salem Capital, etc.Co., 39 Fed. 89 517, 519 V. Shedd, 121 U. S. 74; 7 Sup. Ct. 807 1625,1671 V. Sioux City Terminal, etc. Co., 69 Fed. 441 1496 V. Stribling, 16 Okl. 41 ; 86 Pac. 512 690, 732 V. Taliaferro, 72 Md. 164 ; 19 Atl. 364 701, 723, 1436 V. Tisdale, 84 N. Y. 655 920, 1372 V. Tisdale, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 151 1276 V. Trebein Co., 59 Oh. St. 316; 62 N. E. 834 296, 298, 886 V. William R. Trigg Co. (Va.), 56 S. E. 158 43, 1624 V. Winchester, 119 Ala. 168; 24 So. 351; 72 Am. St. Rep. 904 835, 874, 1071, 1072 V. Wyman, 16 Colo. App. 468; 66 Pac. 456 1560, 1570, 1671 V. Wyoming Valley Ice Co., 136 Fed. 466 43, 491, 492, 1323 First Nat. Bank of Charlotte V. Nat. Exchange Bank, 39 Md. 600 74 First Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Salisbury, 130 Mass. 303 1584, 1586, 1594 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] First Parish v. Stearns, 21 Pick. 148 1065 Fishel V. Goddard, 30 Colo. 147; 69 Pac. 607 1315, 1343, 1357 Fisher v. Black & White Pub- lishing Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 174 40, 465, 466 V. Bush, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 641 1030, 1030 V. Essex Bank, 5 Gray (Mass.) 373 677, 694, 716 V. Graves, 80 Fed. 590 1280, 1281 V. HuU, etc. Ry. Co., 25 Sol. J. 353 1108 V. Jones, 82 Ala. 117; 3 So. 13 698, 699 V. Parr, 92 Aid. 245; 48 Atl. 621 1259, 1279, 1281, 1285, 1286 , Ex parte, 20 S. Car. 179 1084 Fisk V. Potter, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 138 1535, 1540 Fitch V. Constantine Hydrau- Uc Co., 44 Mich. 74; 6 N. W. 91 1373, 1378 V. Wetherbee, 110 111. 475 451 Fitchburg Savings Bank v. Torrey, 134 Mass. 239 695 Fitchett V. Murphy, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 181; 61 N. Y. Supp. 182 941, 962 V. North Pa. R. R. Co., 5 Phila. 132 1463 Fitzgeorge', Re (1905), 1 K. B. 462 1470 Fitzgerald v. Equitable, etc. Life Ass'n, 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 914; 3 N. Y. Supp. 214 592 — — V. Fitzgerald, etc. Mal- lory Co., 44 Nebr. 463; 62 N. W. 899 1196, 1306, 1307 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 45 Fed. 812 874, 876 V. Persse (1908), 1 Ir. 279 1474 Fitzgerald, etc. Co. v. Fitz- gerald, 137 U. S. 98; 11 Sup. Ct. 36 1246, 1381 Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union Sav. Bank, 65 Nebr. 97; 90 N. W. 994 607, 614 Fitzhugh V. Bank of Shep- herdsville, 3 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 126; 16 Am. Dec. 90 427 Fitzpatrick v. Dispatch Pub. Co., 83 Ala. 604; 2 So. 727 497 Ixxx Fitzpatrick v. Rutter, 160 111. 282; 43 N. E. 392 248 Fitzroy Bessemer Steel Co., Re, 50 L. T. n. s. 144 327, 1339 Fitzsimmons v. Lindsay, 205 Pa. 79; 54 Atl. 488 573 Fitzwater v. Nat. Bank of Seneca, 62 Kans. 163; 61 Pac. 684 984 FitzwilUam v. Travis, 65 111. App. 183 341, 342 Flagg V. Stowe, 85 111. 164 254 Flagler Engraving MachineCo. V. Flagler, 19 Fed. 468 331 Flagstaff Co. v. Patrick, 2 Utah 304 1214 Flaherty v. Benevolent Soc, 99Me. 253; 59 Atl. 58 585,588 Flanagan v. G. W. Ry. Co., 7 Eq. 116 1300 V. Lyon, 54 N. Y. Misc. 372; 105 N. Y. Supp. 1049 301 Flanagan Bank v. Graham, 42 Oreg. 403 ; 71 Pac. 137, 790 1503 Fleener v. State, 58 Ark. 98; 23 S. W. 1 230 Fleishman v. Woods, 135 Cal. 256; 67 Pac. 276 786 Fleming v. Wallace, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 120 915, 916, 924 Fletcher v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 116 Fed. 479; 53 C. C. A. 647 1485, 1636 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 67 Mmn. 339; 69 N. W. 1085 1206 V. Eagle (Ark.), 86 S. W. 810 1279 V. McGill, 110 Ind. 395; 10 N. E. 651 ; 11 N. E. 779 428 Fletcher & Sons Co., George N.. V. Alpena Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 511; 99 N. W. 748 869, 951 Fletcher's Case, 17 I;. T. 136 168 Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. 785 628 Flint V. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68; 96 Am. Dec. 691 595, 595, 651 Flippin V. Kimball, 87 Fed. 258; 31 C. C. A. 282 1617 Flitcroft's Case, 21 Ch. D. 519 1094, 1161, 1261, 1265, 1287, 1289 Floating Dock, etc. Co., In Re (1895), 1 Ch. 691 530, 536, 536 Florence Land, etc. Co., 10 Ch. D. 530 1499, 1504 , 29 Ch. D. 421 149, 155, 155, 159, 196, 199, 199, 200 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Florida Sav. Bank v. Rivers, 36 Fla. 575; 18 So. 850 1169, 1366 Florsheim & Co. v. Fry, 109 Mo. App. 487; 84 S. W. 1023 233 Flour City Nat. Bank v. Shire, 88N. Y. App. Div. 401; 84 N.Y. Supp.810; 179 N.Y. 587; 72 N. E. 1141 156, 635 Flynn v. Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 158 N. Y. 493 936 V. Columbus Club, 21 R. I. 534; 45 Atl. 551 1246 V. Third Nat. Bank, l22 Mich. 642; 81 N. W. 572 960 Fogg V. Blair, 139 U. S. 118; 11 Sup. a. 476 631 FoUit V. Eddystone Granite Quarries (1892), 3 Ch. 75 1674 Folsom V. Detrick Fertilizer, etc. Co., 85 Md. 52; 36 Atl. 446 885 Fontana v. Pacific Can Co., 129 Cal. 51 ; 61 Pac. 580 451 Foote V. Anderson, 123 Fed. 659 921 V. Illinois Trust, etc. Bank, 194111.600; 62N.E. 834 784 , Appellant, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 299 1114, 1137, 1155 Forbes v. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 323 Forbes' Case, 19 Eq. 353 973 1174, 1175 206 Forbes & Judd's Case, 5Ch. 270 Force v. Age-Herald Co., 136 Ala. 271; 33 So. 866 Ford V. Central Trust Co., 70 Fed. 144; 17 C. C. A. 31 V. Easthampton Rubber Co., 158 Mass. 84; 32 N. E. 1036; 35 Am. St. Rep. 462; 20 L. R. A. 65 V. Hill, 92 Wise. 188; 66 N. W. 115 ; 53 Am. St. Rep. 902 394, 1382 V. Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co., 52 Mo. App. 439 Ford River Lumber Co. v. Perron (Mich.), Ill N. W. 1074 Forde, Ex parte, 30 Ch. D. 1 53 Fordyce v. Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co., 145 Fed. 566 ■ V. Omaha, etc. R. R. Co., 145 Fed. 544 1561, 1563, 1563 1564 1357 1571 1121 958 910 640 1543 Foreign & Colonial Govern- ment Trust Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 395 136, 136 Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 508 628, 647 V. Central Trust Co., 71 Fed. 776; 18 C. C. A. 321 1617, 1641 Fore-Street Warehouse Co., 59 L. T. N. s. 214 533 Forest Land Co. v. Bjorkquist, 110 Wise. 547; 86 N. W. 183 273 Forrest v. Manchester, etc. Ry. Co., 30 Beav. 40; 4 DeG. F. & J. 125 91, 965 Forrest of Dean Coal Co., 10 Ch. D. 450 1283 Forrest Glen Brick Co. v. Gade, 55 111. App. 181 918, 1005 1342 Forrest's Executors v. Lud- dington, 68 Ala. 1 1623 Forrester v. Boston, etc. Min- ing Co., 21 Mont. 544; 55 Pac. 229, 353 72, 965, 968, 971 V. Boston, etc. Mining Co., 29 Mont. 397; 74 Pac. 1088; 76 Pac. 211 983,983 Forsyth v. Brown, 33 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 72 995, 1016, 1045, 1061, 1163, 1163 Fort Madison Lumber Co. v. Batavian Bank, 71 Iowa 270; 32N.W.336; 60 Am. Rep. 789 716 Fort Miller, etc. Co. v. Payne 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 567 191 Fort Payne Rolling Mill v. Hill, 174 Mass. 224; 54 N. E. 532 1299, 1321 Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. St. 308 ; 28 Atl. 215 134 139, 140, 371, 371, 385 Fort Smith Wagon Co. v. Baker (Ark.), 105 S. W. 591 1372 Fort Wayne Gas Co. v. Nie- man, 33 Ind. App. 178; 71 N. E. 59 383 Fort Wayne, etc. R. R. Co. v. Mellett, 92 Ind. 535 1617 Fortier v. New Orleans Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 439 ; 5 Sup. Ct.234 382 Fortin v. TJ. S. Wind, etc. Pump Co., 48 m. 451; 95 Am. Dec. 560 228 / Ixxxi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Fosdick V. Car Co., 99 U. S. 256 1536, 1569' V. Schall, 99 U. S. 235 1393, 1535, 1536, 1539, 1540, 1558, 1562, 1566, 1569 Foss V. Harbottle, 2 Hare 461 928, 929, 934, 943, 944, 994, 997, 1231 Foster v. Bank of Abingdon, 88 Fed. 604 1357 V. Bank of England, 8 Q. B. 689 893 V. Bear Valley, etc. Co., 65 Fed. 836 1310 V. Borax Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 326 51, 73 V. Greenwich Ferry Co., 5 Times L. R. 16 1183, 1251 V. Mansfield, etc. Co., 146 U. S. 88; 13 Sup. Ct. 28 1311 V. Mansfield, etc. E. R. Co., 36 Fed. 627 1636, 1637 V. Moulton, 35 Minn. 458; 29 N. W. 155 254 V. Mullahphy, etc. Co., 92 Mo. 79; 4 S. W. 260 1315 V. New Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 208 1093 V. Ohio-Colorado, etc. Mining Co., 17 Fed. 130 1380 V. Oxford Ry. Co., 13 C. B. 200 1179, 1296, 1296 V. Seymour, 23 Fed. 65 331, 1290, 1291 V. Shaw, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 156 404 V. Tyne Pontoon, etc. Co., 63 L. J. Q. B. 50 737, 737, 742, 742, 757 V. White, 86 Ala. 467; 6 So. 88 901, 902, 902, 904 V. "White Cloud City Co., 32 Mo. 505 229 Fothergill'sCase,8Ch.270 205,641 Foulke V. San Diego, etc. R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 365 394 Foulkes V. Quartz Hill, etc. Mining Co., Cababe & Ellis 156 181 Fountain Spring Park Co. v. Roberts, 92 Wise. 345; 66 N. W. 399; 53 Am. St. Rep. 917 273, 327, 1333 Fountaine v. Carmathen Ry. Co., 5 Eq. 316 1221, 1528 Fowler v. Broad's Patent Night Light Co. (1893), 1 Ch. 724 1514, 1599 622 559 Ixxxii Fowler v. Go wing, 152 Fed. 801 V. Great Southern Tel., etc. Co., 104 La. 751; 29 So. 271 V. Jarvis-Conklin Mge. Co., 63 Fed. 888 1602, 1602, 1660 Fox V. Mackay, 125 Cal. 57; 57 Pac. 670 1079 V. Martin, 64 L. J. Ch. 473 686, 696, 722 V. Robbins (Tex.), 62 S. W. 815 1324 V. Robbins (Tex.), 70 S. W. 697 , 884, 1324 V. Seal, 22 Wall. 424 1542 Fox's Case, 5 Eq. 118 179, 525 Frames v. Bultfontein Min- ing Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 140 471 Frances. Clark, 26 Ch.D. 257 690, 691, 691, 722, 722, 807, 807 Francis v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 108N. Y. 93; 15 N. E. 192 Francklyn v. Sprague, 121 U. S. 215; 7 Sup. Ct. 951 Franco-Texan Land Co. v. Laigle, 59 Tex. 339 1008, 1009, 1045, 1225, 1225 Franey v. Warner, 96 Wise. 222; 71 N. W. 81 V. Wauwatosa Park Co., 99 Wise. 40; 74 N. W. 548 Frank v. Denver, etc. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 123 1538, 1539, 1644 V. Drenkhahn, 76 Mo. 508 304 V. Morrison, 55 Md. 399 613, 613, 633 V. Morrison, 58 Md. 423 557 Franke v. Mann, 106 Wise. 118; 81N. W. 1014; 48 L. R. A. 856 Frankfort Bank v. Johnson, 24 Me. 490 Frankfort, etc. Turnpike Co., V. Churchill, 6 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 427; 17 Am. Dec. 159 Frankland's Case, Leigh & Cave Cr. Cas. 276 230, 230 Franklin Ave., etc. Sav. Inst. V. Board of Education, 75 Mo. 408 Franklin Bank v. Commer- cial Bank, 36 Oh. St. 350; 38 Am. Rep. 594 709, 845 V. Johnson, 24 Me. 490 1204 182 299 336 181 118 1187 288 844 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Franklin Co. v. Lewiston In- stitution, 68 Me. 43; 28 Am. Rep. 9 74, 854, 856, 862 Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Hart, 31 Md. 59 280 V. Jenkins, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 130 1285, 1286, 1287 Franklin Nat. Bank v. New- combe, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 294; 37 N. Y. Supp. 271 808 Franklin Trust Co. v. Ruth- erford, etc. El. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 42; 41 Atl. 488; 58 N. J. Eq. 584 ; 43 Atl. 1098 917, 919, 1012, 1045, 1400 Franz v. Teutonia Bldg. Ass'n, 24 Md. 259 233 Fraser v. Cooper, 21 Ch. D. 718 1592 V. Whalley, 2 Hem. & Mill. 10 943, 965 Fraser River Mining, etc. Co. V. Gallagher, 5 Britt. Co- lumb. 82 647, 928 Eraser's Adm'r v. Richmond, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Va. 388 1516, 1517 Frayter v. Old Nat. Bank, 101 Fed. 391; 42 C. C. A. 133 810 Frazier v. Ry. Co., 88 Tenn. 138; 12 S. W. 537 6, 1543 ■». Simmons, 139 Mass. 531 2 N. E. 112 781 Freckmann v. Supreme Coun- cil, 96 Wise. 133; 70N. W. 1113 660 Fred Macey Co. v. Macey, 143 Mich. 138; 106 N. W. 722 315, 316, 331 Frederick EI. Light, etc. Co. V. Mayor, etc. of Frederick City, 84 Md. 599; 36 Atl. 362; 36 L. R. A. 130 43 Frederick Milling Co. v. Fred- erick, etc. Co. (S. Dak.), 106 N. W. 298 985, 1374 Freeman v. Appleyard, 32 L. J. Ex. 175 423 V. Machias Water, etc. Co., 38 Me. 343 161 V. Sea View Hotel Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 68; 40 Atl. 218 71, 1302 Frellsen v. Strader Cypress Co., 110 La. 877; 34 So. 857 1276 Freman v. Whitbread, 1 Eq. 266 1156, 1156 Fremont Carriage Co. v. Thomsen, 65 Nebr. 370; 91 N. W. 376 192, 517, 527 French v. Donohue, 29 Minn. Ill; 12 N. W. 354 233, 844 V. Fuller, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 108 1120, 1354 V.' Jones, 191 Mass. 522; 78 N. E. 118; 7 L. R. A. N. s. 525 V. White (Vt.), 62 Atl. 35 1522 690, 793 751 228 104 Ixxxiii Frenkel v. Hudson, 82 Ala. 158; 2 So. 758; 60 Am. St. Rep. 736 154, 158 Freon v. Carriage Co., 42 Oh. St. 30; 51 Am. Rep. 794 Fresno Canal, etc. Co. v. Warner, 72 Cal. 379; 14 Pac. 37 Frick Co. V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co., 86 Fed. 725; 32 C. C. A. 31 Fricker v. Americus Mfg., etc. Co., 124 Ga. 165; 52 S. E. 65 1339, 1343 Fripp V. Chard Ry. Co., 11 Hare 241 1603, 1606 Frishmuth v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 107 Fed. 169; 46 C. C. A. 222 ; s. c. 95 Fed. 5 1487, 1488, 1488, 1488, 1489, 1489, 1489 Fritze v. Equitable Bldg., etc. Soc, 186 111. 183; 57 N. E. 873 583, 1322 Front St., etc. Ry. Co. v. Drake, 84 Fed. 257 1568 Frost & Co., S. (1899), 2 Ch. 207 640, 640 Frostburg Mining Co. v. Cum- berland, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Md. 28; 31 Atl. 698 Frye v. Tucker, 24 111. 180 Fuches V. Hamilton, etc. Pub. Co., 10 Ont. 497 529,1190 Fudickar v. East Riverside, etc. Dist., 109 Cal. 29; 41 Pac. 1024 Fugure v. Mutual Society, 46 Vt. 362 Fulgam V. Macon, etc. R. R. Co., 44 Ga. 597 154, 198, 428 Fuller V. Alexander Hol- lander & Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 648; 47 Atl. 646; 88 Am. St. Rep. 456 890, 891, 898, 905, 907 V. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23 252 107 1378 129.8 586 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Fuller V. Venable, 118 Fed. 543 ; 55 C. C. A. 309 1664, 1665 V. White Feather Re- ward (1906), 1 Ch. 823 72 Fullerton v. Fordyce, 121 Mo. 1; 25 S. W. 587; 42 Am. St. Rep. 516 1617 Funsten v. Funsten Co., 67 Mo. App. 559 1300, 1320 Furber v. National Metal Co., 103 N. Y. Supp. 490 808 Furbush, etc. Co., M. A., v. Liberty Woolen Mills, 81 Fed. 425 1473 Furdonjee's Case, 3 Ch. D. 264 623 Furness v. Catherham Ry. Co., 27 Beav. 358 1546 Furness's Estate, 12 Phila. (Pa.) 130 1446 G Gabert v. Olcott (Tex.), 22 S. W. Rep. 286 1608 Gade v. Forest Glen Brick Co., 165 111. 367; 46 N. E. 286 131, 534 Gaehle's Piano Mfg. Co. v. Berg, 45 Md. 113 192 Gaff V. Flesher, 33 Oh. St. 107 244 Gaffney v. Colvill, 6 Hill (N. Y.)567 1128,1268,1268,1286, 1286, 1287, 1287, 1359, 1360 Gage V. Fisher, 5 N. Dak. 297; 65 N. W. 809; 31 L. R. A. 557 1029, 1030 V. Pontiac, etc. R. R. Co., 105 Mich. 335; 63 N. W. 318 1633 V. Riverside Trust Co., 156 Fed. 1002 970, 975 Gager v. Paul, 111 Wise. 638; 87 N. W. 875 112.7 Gaines v. Bank of Mississippi, 12 Ark. 769 233 V. Supreme Council, 140 Fed. 978 586 Gaither v. Bauemschmidt •(Md.), 69 Atl. 425 1286, 1349 Galbraith v. People's Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 43 N. J. Law 389 751 V. Shasta Iron Co., 143 Cal. 94; 76 Pac. 901 231, 1221 Galena, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bar- rett, 95 111. 467 1415 . V. Menzies, 26 111. 121 1515, 1551 Ixxxiv Gallery v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 41 Mich. 169; 32 Am. Rep. 149 1296 Galveston City Co. v. Sibley, 56 Tex. 269 430 Galveston Hotel Co. v. Bol- ton, 46 Tex. 633 607 Galveston R. R. Co. v. Cow- drey, 11 Wall. 459 1208, 1515, 1534, 1550, 1589, 1590, 1592, 1625 Galvanized Iron Co. v. Wes- toby, 8 Ex. 17 608 Gamble v. Queens County Water Co., 123 N. Y. 91; 25 N. E. 201 ; 9 L. R. A. 527 1079, 1080, 1299, 1312, 1400, 1404 Gamewell, etc. Co. v. Fire & Police, etc. Co., 116 Ky. 759; 76S. W. 862 876 Gansey v. Orr, 173 Mo. 532; 73 S. W. 477 425 Garcin v. Trenton Rubber Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 1098 895, 904 Garden City Sand Co. v. American, etc. Crematory Co., 205 m. 42; 68 N. E. 724 648 Garden Gully Mining Co. v. MoLister, 1 A. C. 39 658, 665, 1069, 1163, 1226, 1226, 1231 Gardner v. Butler, 30 N. J. Eq. 702 1247, 1295, 1316 V. Canadian Mfg. Co., 31 Ont. 488 1310 V. Hope Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 194; 11 Am. Rep. 238 651 V. London, etc. Ry. Co., 2 Ch. 201 1605, 1676, 1677 Gardner Sav. Bank v. Taber- Prang Art Co., 189 Mass. 363; 75N. E. 705 459 Garey v. St. Joe Mining Co. (Utah), 91 Pac. 369 33, 34, 101 Garling v. Baechtel, 41 Md. 305 609 Garmany v. Lawton, 124 Ga. 876; 53 S. E. 669; 110 Am. St. Rep. 207 917, 992, 1073, 1192 Garmire v. Am. Mining Co., 93 111. App. 331 1170, 1250 Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144 123, 126, 251, 274 Garretson v. Equitable Mut. etc. Ass'n, 93 Iowa 402; 61 N. W. 952 331, 1214 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Garretson ■?;. Pacific Crude Oil Co., 146 Cal. 184; 79 Pac. 838 330 Garrett v. Belmont Land Co., 94 Tenn. 459; 29 S. W. 726 392 V. Burlington Plow Co., 70 Iowa 697; 29 N. W. 395; 59 Am. Rep. 461 109 V. Dillsburg, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 465 202 V. Kansas City Coal Min. Co., 113 Mo. 330; 20 S. W. 965; 35 Am. St. Rep. 713 199, 339,632 V. May, 19 Md. 177 1677 Garrison Canning Co. v. Stan- ley (Iowa), 110 N. W. 171 87, 857, 1329 Gartside v. Silkstone, etc. Co., 21 Ch. D. 762 401, 401, 1410, 1530, 1532 Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 Fed. 197 245 Garwood v. Ede, 1 Ex. 264 341 Gary v. York Mining Co., 9 Utah 464; 35 Pac. 494 652 Gashwilerr. Willis, 33 Cal. 11; 91 Am. Dec. 607 706, 993, 1193, 1211 Gaskell v. Chambers (No. 3), 26 Beav. 360 1320 Gasquet v. Crescent City Brewing Co., 49 Fed. 496 649 Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Cq. v. W. L. Wells Co., 128 Fed. 369; 63C. C. A. Ill 249 Gates V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 53 Conn. 333; 5 Atl. 695 1468, 1671 Gatling Gun Co., Re, 43 Ch. D. 628 534, 534 Gaty V. HoUiday, 8 Mo. App. 118 806, 806 Gause v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 288 78, 346, 854 Gauthier, etc. Co. v. Ham, 3 Colo. App. 559; 34 Pac. 484 230 Gavin v. Pacific Coast, etc. Union (Cal.), 84 Pac. 270 905 Gay V. Kohlsaat, 223 111. 260; 79 N. E. 77 1359 G. E. B., Re (1903), 2 K. B. 340 612, 613 Geisse v. Taylor (1905), 2 K. B. 658 1546 Gellerman v. Atlas Foundry, etc. Co. (Wash.), 87 Pac. 1059 433, 584, 918 Gelpcke v. Blake, 19 Iowa 263 525 Gemmell v. Bavis, 75 Md. 546 ; 23 Atl. 1032; 32 Am. St. Rep. 412 768, 773, 806, 805 811, 1124, 1124, 1134 General Auction, etc. Co. v. Smith (1891), 3 Ch. 432 1317 General Electric Co. v. La Grande, etc. Co., 79 Fed. 25 1586 V. La Grande, etc. Co., 87 Fed. 590; 31 C. C. A. 118 1586 V. West Ashville Imp. Co., 73 Fed. 386 961, 984 General Exchange Bank, 6 Ch. 818 V. Homer, 9 Eq. 480 773 1320, 1333 1364 922 Ixxxv General Provident Ass. Co., Re, 14 Eq. 507 General South American Co., ' 2 Ch. D. 337 1393, 1396 Geneva Mineral Springs Co. V. Steele, 111 N. Y. App. Div. 706; 97 N. Y. Supp. 996 Genoa v. Woodruff, 92 U. S. 502 1449, 1460 Gent V. Manufacturers, etc. Ins. Co., 107 111. 652 278, 280 Gentel v. Raps (1902), 1 K. B. 160 564 George v. Central R. R., etc. Co., 101 Ala. 607; 14 So. 752 942, 960, 1026, 1063, 1082 V. Nevada Central R. R. Co., 22 Nevada 228; 38 Pac. 441 George E. Lloyd & Co. v. Matthews, 223 111. 477; 79 N. E. 172; 7 L. R. A. n. s. 376 George N. Fletcher & Sons Co. V. Alpena Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 511; 99 N. W. 748 869, 951, 1401 George Newman & Co. (1895), 1 Ch. 674 83, 1069, 1283, 1321 George Routledge & Sons (1904), 2 Ch. 474 1418, 1473 George Whitechurch, Ltd., v. Cavanagh (1902), A C. 117 649, 703, 743, 744^ George's Creek Co. v. Detmold 1 Md. Ch. 371 393, 394 822 1373 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Georgetown College, Pres., etc. of, V. Browne, 34 Md. 450 55 Geoi^etown Water Co. v. Central, etc. Co., 17 Ky. Law Rep. 1270; 34 S. W. 435; 35 S. W. 636 1221 V. Fidelity Trust, etc. Co., 117 Ky. 325; 78 S. W. 113 1405, 1424, 1517 Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 43 Ga. 187 298, 298 Georgia Co-op., etc. Ass'n v. Borchardt, 123 Ga. 181; 51 S. E. 429 383 Georgia Ice Co. v. Meakin, 70 Ga. 637 279 Georgia Southern, etc. R. R. Co. V. Mercantile Trust, etc. Co., 94 Ga. 306; 21 S. E. 701; 47 Am. St. Rep. 153 ; 32 L. R. A. 208 244, 246, 249, 1401, 1503 Georgia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bar- ton, 101 Ga. 466; 28 S. E. 842 1503, 1515 German Aged People's Home V. Hammerbacker, 64Md. 595; 3 Atl. 678; 54 Am. Rep. 782 853 German Bank v. Stumpf, 6 Mo. App. 17 235 German Date Coffee Co., 20 Ch. D. 169 98 German Ins. Co. v. Strahl, 13 Phila. (Pa.) 512 ' 222 German Land Ass'n v. Schol- ler, 10 Minn. 331 254, 255 German Nat. Bank v. Ky. Trust Co., 19 Ky. Law Rep. 361; 40 8. W. 458 772 German Savings Bank v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 122 Iowa 737; 98 N. W. 606 1328 V. Renshaw, 78 Md. 475 ; 28 Atl. 281 701, 723, 808, 808 V. Wulfekuhler, 19 Kans. 60 517, 526 German Security Bank v. Jefferson, 10 Bush (Ky.) 326 769 German Union, etc. Ass'n v. Sendmeyer, 50 Pa. St. 67 752 Germania Iron, etc. Co. v. King, 94 Wise. 439; 69 N.W. 181; 36L. R. A. 51 Germania Sangerbund, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 89 603, 605 104 868 1007 1029 1316 183 274, Ixxxvi Germantown Passenger Ry. Co. V. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124; 100 Am. Dec. 546 658, 658, 662 Germantown, etc. Ins. Co. v. Dhein, 43 Wise. 420; 28 Am. Rep. 549 Germer v. Triple State Oil Co. (W. Va.), 54 S. E. 509 Germicide Co., 65 Hun (N. Y.) 606; 20 N. Y. Supp. 495 Gemsheim v. Central Trust Co., 61 Hun (N. Y.) 625; 16 N. Y. Supp. 127; 40 N. Y. St. 967 1662, 1662, 1662, 1663 Gerry v. Bismark Bank, 19 Mont. 191; 47 Pac. 810 Getchell v. Dusenbury (Mich.), 108 N. W. 723 Getty V. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403 310, 336 Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. Brown, 95 Md. 367; 52 Atl. 975 490, 490, 548, 609 Geyer v. Western Ins. Co., 3 Pittsburg (Pa.) 41 571, 770, 773 Geyser-Marion Co. v. Stark, 106 Fed. 558; 45 C. C. A. 467 797, 797, 798 Gibbes v. G. & C. R. R. Co., 13 S. Car. 228 1457, 1669 Gibbons v. Anderson, 80 Fed. 345 - 1279 V. Mahon, 136 U. S. 549; 10 Sup. Ct. 1057 1144, 1151 Gibbs V. Long Island Bank, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 92; 31 N. Y. Supp. 406 111, 572, 574 775 Gibbs & West's Case, 10 Eq. 312 66, 1245 Gibert v. Washington City, etc. R. R. Co., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 586 1449, 1460, 1508, 1586, 1607, 1629, 1670 Gibson v. Barton, L. R. 10 Q. B. 329 1213, 1214, 1227, 1233 V. Goldthwaite, 7 Ala. 281 ; 42 Am. Dec. 592 408, 1371 V. Lenhardt, 101 Pa. St. 522 1423 Giesen v. London, etc. Mge. Co., 102 Fed. 584; 42 C. C. A. 515 576, 616, 697, 697 Gifford V. Thompson, 115 Mass. 478 1153 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] 1265 848 381 84 744 1423, 1397 393 663 1517 1671 Gilbert v. Erie BIdg. Ass'n, 184 Pa. St. 554; 39 Atl. 291 723, 808 V. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455; 66 N. E. 133; 93 Am. St. Rep. 623; 61 L. R. A. 807 V. Hole, 2 S. Dak. 164; 49 N. W. 1 V. Nantucket Bank, 5 Mass. 97 V. Seatco Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 208 Gilbert's Case, 5 Ch. 559 Gilbough V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Hughes 410 1436, 1461 Gilchrist V. CoUopy, 26 Ky. Law Rep. 1003; 82 S. W. 1018 1010, 1011, 1163, 1250 V. Helena, etc. R. R. Co., 47 Fed. 593 Gildersleeve v. Wolf Islan Ry., etc. Co., 3 Ch. Chamber Rep. (Ont.) 358 Giles V. Hutt, 3 Ex. 18 V. Stanton, 86 Tex. 620; 26 S. W. 615 GilfiUan v. Union Canal Co., 109 U. S. 401; 3 Sup. Ct. 304 Gilkey v. Paine, 80 Me. 319; 14 Atl. 205 1143, 1145 V. Town of How, 105 Wise. 41 ; 81 N. W. 120 241 Gilkinson v. Third Ave. R. R. Co.,47N.Y.App.Div.472; 63 N. Y. Supp. 792 712, 751 Gill V. Balis, 72 Mo. 424 525 V. New York Cab Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.) 524; 1 N. Y. Supp. 202 Gill's Adm'x v. Ky., etc. Min- ing Co., 7 Bush (Ky.) 635 Gillespie v. City of Glascow Bank, 4 A. C. 632 795, 813 Gillett V. Dodge (Oreg.), 89 Pac. 741 333 V. Missouri Valley R. R. Co., 55 Mo. 315; 17 Am. Rep. 653 870, 870 V. Whiting, 120 N. Y. 402; 24 N. E. 790; s. c. 141N. Y. 71; 35N. E. 939; 38 Am. St. Rep. 762 Gillette v. Aurora Ry. Co., 228111.261; 81 N. E. 1005 244, 250 Gillig, Mott & Co. V. Inde- pendent Gold, etc. Co., 1 Nevada 247 24, 25 Gillis V. Bailey, 21 N. H. 149 1248 147 808 243, 1213, 1214 Gilman v. Des Moines, etc. R. R. Co., 41 Iowa 22 V. Gross, 97 Wise. 224; 72 N. W. 885 V. Illinois, etc. Tel. Co., 91 U. S. 603 V. Sheboygan, etc. R. R. Co., 37 Wise. 317 Gilman, etc. R. R. Co. v. Kelly, 77 111. 426 1331, 1335 Gilman's Case, 31 Ch. D. 420 206 Gilmer v. Morris, 43 Fed. 456 V. Morris, 80 Ala. 78; 60 Am. Rep. 85 Gilpin V. Howell, 5 Pa. St. 41 ; 45 Am. Dec. 720 Ginz V. Stumph, 73 Ind. 209 Gipson V. Morris, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 593; 83 S. W. 226; 73 Tex. 85 1034, 1057 Girard Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 162 U.S. 529; 16Sup. Ct. 879 Girard Life Ins. Co. v. An- nuity, etc. Iron Co., 20 Pa. Sup. Ct. 304 Girard Life Ins., etc. Co. v. Loving (Kans.), 81 Pac. 200 Girard Trust Co. v. Cooper, 51 Fed. 332; 2 C. C. A. 245 V. McKinley-Lanning, etc. Trust Co., 143 Fed. 355 V. Mellor, 156 Pa. St. 579; 27 Atl. 662 V. Summit Branch Coal Co., 22 Pa. Sup. Ct. 495 Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy Cross Hospital Ass'n (Utah), 88 Pac. 691 22, 39 Giveen v. Gans, 91 N. Y. App. Div. 37; 86 N. Y. Supp. 450; 181 N. Y. 538; 73 N. E. 1124 1310, 1313 Given v. Times-Republican Printing Co., 114 Fed. 92; 52 C. C. A. 40 875 Glasdir Copper Mines (1906), 1 Ch. 365 1614, 1615, 1655, 1656 Glass V. Basin, etc. Mining Co., 77 Pac, 302; 31 Mont. 21 V. Pioneer Rubber Works, 31 Vict. L. R. 754 1033, 1330 V. Tipton, etc. Co., 32 Ind. 376 381 Gleadow v. Hull Glass Co., 19 L. J. Ch. 44 1244 1492 166 1516 1632 811 811 418 812 1644 1490 921 1612 1492 804 1416 1163 34, Ixxxvii TABLK OF CASES [The references are to pages] Gleason v. Canterbury, etc. Ins. Co., 73 N. H. 583; 64 Atl. 187 1224 GledhiU's Case, 3 DeG. F. & J. 713 169 Glen V. Breard, 35 La. Ann. 875 47 Glen Iron Works, 17 Fed. 324; 20 Fed. 674 600 Glen Salt Co., 17 N. Y. App. Div. 234; 45 N. Y. Supp. 568 1019, 1050, 1053 Glengary Consolidated Min- ing Co. V. Boehmer, 28 Colo. 1; 62 Pac. 839 1082, 1083 771 238 208 624 Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. 10 V. Bergman, 20 5to. App. 343 V. Busey, 5 Mack.( D. C.) 233 V. Clabaugh, 65 Md. 65; 3 Atl. 902 V. Hatohett, 91 Ala. 316; 8 So. 656 517, 524 V. Howard, 81 Ga. 383; 8 S. E. 636; 12 Am. St. Rep. 318 614 V. Howard, 65 Md. 40; 3 Atl. 895 623, 623, 624, 793, 1514 V. Liggett, 47 Fed. 472 915, 916, 920, 921 V. Liggett, 135 U. S. 533; 10 Sup. Ct. 867 V. Macon, 32 Fed. 7 V. Marbury, 145 U. S. 499; 12 Sup. Ct. 914 V. Porter, 73 Fed. 275; 19 C. C. A. 503 V. Springs, 26 Fed. 494 V. Williams, 60 Md. 93' Glenwood Coal Co., 6 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 575 Glenwood Mfg. Co. v. Syme, 109 Wise. 355; 85 N. W. 432 1342, 1342 Globe Blocks Gold Mining Co., 12 Times L. R. 92 362, 364 Globe Mutual Benefit Ass'n, iJe, 135N. Y.280; 32 N. E. 122; 17L.R.A. 547 Globe Publishing Co. v. State Bank, 41 Nebr. 175; 59 N. W. 683; 27 L. R. A. 854 Gloninger v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 13; 21 Atl. 211 614 614 614 617 921 614 95 120 252 64 Ixxxviii Glossop V. Glossop (1907), 2 Ch. 370 1182, 1182, 1182, 1367, 1367 Glover v. Giles, 18 Ch. D. 173 222 V. Manila, etc. Milling Co. (S. Dak.), 104 N. W. 261 944, 959 Gluckstein v. Barnes (1900), A. C. 240 315, 324, 328, 329 Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. American Glucose Sugar Refining Co. (N. J.), 56 Atl. 861 369, 371, 372 Glymont, etc. Co. v. Toler, 80 Md. 278; 30 Atl. 651 141, 147, 278 Godbold V. Branch Bank, 11 Ala. 191; 46 Am. Dec. 211 1264, 1286 Goddard v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 202 111. 362; 66 N. E. 1066 25, 25 V. Merchants' Exchange, 9 Mo. App. 290; 78 Mo. 609 565 Godfrey v. McConnell, 151 Fed. 783 1271 V. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 116 Ind. 30; 18 N. E. 61 1609 Goetz V. Knie, 103 Wise. 366; 79 N. W. 401 1187 Gogebic Investment Co. v. Iron Chief Min. Co., 78 Wise. 427; 47 N. W. 726; 23 Am. St. Rep. 417 628 Gold V. Paynter, 101 Va. 714; 44 S. E. Rep. 920 601 Gold Bluff Mining, etc. Corp. V. Whitlock, 75 Conn. 669; 55 Atl. 175 1006, 1062, 1062, 1164, 1181, 1183 Gold Co., 11 Ch. D. 701 627 Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 640 866, 868 Gold Reefs of Western Aus- tralia V. Dawson (1897), 1 Ch. 115 933 Golden Age, etc. Co. v. Lang- ridge (Colo.), 88 Pac. 1070 1379 Goldshear v. Barron, 42 N. Y. Misc. 198; 85 N. Y. Supp. 395 1330 Goldsmith v. Swift, 25 Hun (N. Y.) 201 1150, 1151 Good V. Ash, 3 Keb. 307 401 Good Land Co. v. Cole (Wise.), 110 N. W. 895 117, 120 Goodale Lumber Co. v. Shaw, 41 Greg. 544; 69 Pac. 546 123 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Gooday v. Colchester, etc. Ry. Co., 17 Beav. 132 281, 283 Goodell V. Verdugo Canon Water Co., 138 Cal. 308; 71 Pac. 354 1296, 1330 Gooderham v. Toronto, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Ont. App. Rep. 685 1574 Goodin v. Cincinnati, etc. Co., 18 Oh. St. 169 1305, 1311, 1332 1333 Goodman v. Am. Writing Paper Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 607 627, 1096, 1096 . V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Disn. (Oh.) 176 1623 Goodwin v. Hardy, 57 Me. 143; 99 Am. Dec. 758 1107, 1131 V. McGehee, 15 Ala. 232 612 V. Ottawa, etc. Ry. Co., 13 Up. Can. C. P. 254 747, 751 V. Robarts, 1 A. C. 476; L. R. 10 Ex. 337 1423 V. U. S. Annuity, etc. Co., 24 Conn. 591 912, 918, 923 V. Wilbur, 104 111. App. 45 340 Goodwin Gas Stove, etc. Co.'s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514; 12 Atl. 736; 2 Am. St. Rep. 696 786 Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. V. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598; 9 Sup. a. 166 371 Gorder v. Plattsmouth, etc. Co.,36Nebr.548; 54N.W. 830 407, 1317, 1318 Gordon v. Newman, 62 Fed. 686; 10 C. C. A. 587 1653 V. Parker, 10 La. 56 782 V. Preston, 1 Watts (Pa.) 385; 26 Am. Dec. 75 409, 1080, 1210, 1217, 1218 V. Sea Fire Life Ass. Soc, - 1 H. & N. 599 109, 831, 862, 1409 V. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202 923 Gordon's Exrs. v. Richmond, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Va. 501 443, 451, 451, 455, 462, 463 Gorest). Day, 99Wisc.276; 74 N. W. 787 961, 1357 V. Elliott, 108 Wise. 465; 84 N. W. 865 1357 V. Field, 109 Wise. 408; 84 N. W. 867; 85 N. W. 411 1288 Gorman- Wright Co. v. Wright, 134 Fed. 363; 67 CCA 345 422, 963 Gorrissen's Case, 8 Ch. 507 171, 347, 347 Gosden v. Dotterill, 1 Myl. & K. 56 421 Gosling V. Gaskell (1897), A. C 575 1580 Gottschalk v: Stover, 85 Mo. App. 566 619 Goulburn Valley Butter, etc. Co. V. Bank of New South Wales, 26 Vict. L. R. 351 873, 874 Gould V. Fuller, 79 Minn. 414; 82 N. W. 673 22 V. Head, 41 Fed. 240 751, 752 V. Olympic Min. Co., 49 N. Y. Misc. 612; 96 N. Y. Supp. 455 908, 908 V. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298 428, — V. W. J. Gould & Co., 134 Mich. 515; 97 N. W. 576 613 1372, 1377 995 187 48, Goulding v. Clark, 34 N. H. 148 , Gourlie v. Chandler, 41 Nova Scotia 341 Governments Stock Invest- ment Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 649 136, 383 Governments Stock Invest- ment Co. (No. 2), (1892), 1 Ch. 597 136, 137 Governments Stock Invest- ment Co. V. Manila Ry. Co. (1897), A. C 81 1546, 1548 Gow V. Collin, etc. Lumber Co., 109 Mich. 45; 66N.W. 676 Gowdy Gas, etc. Co. v. Patti- son, 29 Ind. App. 261; 64 N. E. 485 Gowen's Appeal, 10 Wkly. N. Cases (Pa.) 85 Gower's Case, 6 Eq. 77 Goy & Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 149 1426, 1429 Goyer, etc. Co. v. Wildberger, 71 Miss. 438; 15 So. 235 716 Graebner v. Post, 119 Wise. 392; 96 N. W. 783; 100 Am. St. Rep. 890 557, 605 GrafBin v. Robb, 84 Md. 451; 35 Atl. 971 798, 799 Grafflin Co. v. Woodside; 87 Md. 146; 39 Atl. 413 572, 573 237 492 1011 665 1426, Ixxxix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 381 578 Grafner v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co., 207 Pa. St. 217; 56 Atl. 426 1238, 1319 Grafton Grocery Co. v. Home Brewing Co. (W. Va.), 54 S. E. 349 Graftstrom v. Frost Council, 19 N. Y. Misc. 180; 43 N. Y. Supp. 266 Graham v. Birkenhead, etc. ,Ry. Co.,2Mac. &G. 146 73,966 V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 161; 6 Sup. Ct. 1009 1625, 1637 V. Dubuque Specialty etc. Works (Iowa), 114 N. W. 619 983, 983 V. First Nat. Bank, 84 N. Y. 393 ; 38 Am. Rep. 528 792 V. House-building, etc. Ass'n, 52 S. W. 1011 (Tenn.) 580, 582 V. Partee, 139 Ala. 310; 35 So. 1016; 101 Am. St. Rep. 32 407, 408 V. Piatt, 28 Colo. 421 ; 65 Pac. 30 624 V. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 148 ■ 1315 V. Van Diemen's Land Co., 1 H. & N. 541 660, 793, 1002, 1004 Gramophone & Typewriter v. Stanley (1906), 2 K. B. 856 Granby Mining Co. v. Rich- ards, 95 Mo. 106; 8 S. W. 246 Grand Central Lodge v. Gro- gan, 44 111. App. Ill Grand Lodge v. Graham, 96 Iowa 592; 65 N. W. 837; 31 L. R. A. 133 371, 372, 374 V. Reneau, 75 Mo. App. 402 589 V. Waddill, 36 Ala. 313 86, 857 Grand Rapids, etc. R. R. Co. V. Sanders, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 214 1461 Grand Rapids Furniture Co. V. Grand Hotel, etc. Co., 11 Wyom. 128; 70 Pac. 838; 72 Pac. 687 296, 300, 1186 Grand Rapids Safety Deposit Co. V. Cincinnati Safe, etc. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 671 272, 319 319, 1338, 1339 Grand River Bridge Co. v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 4; 21 Pac. 897 279, 293 878 219 949 Grand River Colleger. Robert- son, 67 Mo. App. 329 141 Grand Tower Mfg. Co. v. UUman, 89 111. 244 1582 Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 88 Fed. 636 1642 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 78 Fed. 690 1562 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 81 Fed. 60 1643 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 81 Fed. 541 1611 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 88 Fed. 620 1573 V. Ctentral Vermont R. Co., 88 Fed. 622 1584, 1585 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 90 Fed. 163 1568 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 91 Fed. 569 ' 1654 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 103 Fed. 740 1635 V. Central Vermont R. Co., 105 Fed. 411 1449, 1453, 1460 Grand Valley, etc. Co. v. Fruita Imp. Co. (Colo.), 86 Pac. 324 688, 604, 666, 879 Granger v. Bassett, 89 Mass. 462 1157 V. Grubb, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 350 559, 560, 566, 569, 569, 992, 1005, 1011 Grangers' Ins. Co. v. Turner, 61 Ga. 561 182 Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. V. ICamper, 73 Ala. 325 111, 112, 480, 483 Granite Roofing Co. v. Michael, 54 Md. 65 629 Grant v. East & West R. R. Co., 54 Fed. 569; 4C. C. A. 511 645 V. Langstaff, 52 111. App. 128 948 V. Mechanics Bank, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 140 774, 775 V. Norway, 10 C. B. 665 739 V. Ross, 100 Ky. 44; 37 S. W. 263 1128 V. Southern Contract Co., 104 Ky. 781; 47S.W. 1091 — V. United Kingdom, etc. Co., 40 Ch. D. 135 V. Winona, etc. Ry. Co., 85Minn.422;89N.W. 60 1127 1310, 1332 1494, 1639, 1639 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Grape Creek Coal Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 63 Fed. 891; 12 CCA. 350 1465 1466, 1507, 1625, 1625 Grape Sugar, etc. Co. v. Small, 40 Md. 395 278, 281 Graton & Knight Mfg. Co. v. Redelsheimer, 28 Wash. 370; 68 Pao. 879 844 Gratz V. Redd, 4 B. Monr. (Ky.) 178 1094, 1104, 1105, 1259 Graves ». Colby, 9 Ad. &E. 356 595 V. Mono Lake, etc. Co., 81Cal.303; 22Pac. 665 1298, 1813, 1317, 1319 Gray v. Christian Soc, 137 Mass. 329; 50 Am. Rep. 310 580, 1003 V. Fuller, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 29; 44 N. Y. Supp. 883 1285, 1286 1). Monongahela Nav. Co., 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 156; 37 Am. Dec. 500 381, 386 V. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156 481, 499, 500, 500, 507, 508 : V. South & North R. R. Co., 43 So. 859 956, 985, 986 V. Stevenson, 25 Vict. L. R. 476 V. Stone, 69 L. T. 282 659 771, 771 Graydon's Exrs. v. Graydon, 23 N. J. Eq. 229 424 Graye v. Turnpike Co., 4 Rand. (Va.) 578 229 Great Central Freehold Mines V. Brandon, 30 Vict. L. R. 97 992, 1192 Great Falls, etc., Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 45 N. H. 292 563 Great Falls, etc. R. R. v. Copp, 38 N. H. 124 650 Great Luxembourg Ry. Co. V. Magnay, 25 Beav. 586 1316, 1332 Great North of England Ry. Co. V. Biddulph, 7 M. & W. 243 603 Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Coal Co-operative Soc. (1896), 1 Ch. 187 26, 1395 V. Kennedy, 4 Exch. 417 667, 769 Great Northern Salt, etc. Works, 44 Ch. D. 472 911, 1213 Great North-West Central Ry. Co. V. Charlebois (1899), A. C 114 829 Great Western, etc. Mfg. Co. V. Harris, 128 Fed. 321; 63 C C A. 51 1128 Great Western Ry. Co. v. Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co., 2 Phill. 597 283, 951 V. Rushout, 5 DeG. & Sm. 290 87, 946, 950, 962 Great Western Tel. Co. v. Bumham, 79 Wise. 47; 47 N. W. 373; 24 Am. St. Rep. 698 433, 602 V. Gray, 122 111. 630; 14 N. E. 214 614 V. Haight, 49 111. App. 633 191 V. Purdy, 83 Iowa 430; 50N. W. 45; 162 U. S. 329 16 Sup. Ct. 810 614 Great Wheal Polgroth, 49 L. T. 20 272, 1363 Greater Pittsburg Real Es- tate Co. V. Riley, 210 Pa. St. 283; 59 Atl. 1068 208 Greathouse v. Martin (Tex.), 94 S. W. 322 1248, 1316, 1322 Greeley v. Provident Savings Bank, 98 Mo. 458; 11 S. W. 980 1617 Green v. Abietine Medical Co., 96 Cal. 322; 31 Pac. 100 428, 627, 653 V. Barrett, 1 Simons 45 ■ 342 V. Bissell (Conn.), 65 Atl. 1056 1137, 1146 V. Board of Trade, 174 111. 585; 51 N. E. 599; 49 L. R. A. 365 580, 580 V. Coast Line R. R. Co., 97 Ga. 15; 24S. E. 814; 54 Am. St. Rep. 379; 33 L. R. A. 806 1568 V. Compton, 41 N. Y. Misc. 21; 83 N. Y. Supp. 588 974 V. Felton (Ind.), 84 N. E. 166 1080, 1312 V. Grigg, 98 N. Y. App. Div. 445; 90 N. Y. Supp. 565 238 V. Hedenberg, 159 111. 489; 42N. E. 851; 50 Am. St. Rep. 178 944, 963 V. London General Om- nibus Co., 7 C B. N. s. 290 869 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Green w. Seymour, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 285 1032 Green Mount, etc. Co. v. Bulla, 45 Ind. 1 700, 750 Green's Case, 18 Ecj. 428 1166 Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- tion V. Ocheltree, 44 W. Va. 626; 30 S. E. 78 490 V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 17 S. E. 305 118, 130, 202, 202, 214 Greene v. Buckley, 120 Fed. 955 1356 V. Dennis, 6 Conn. 292 54, 54, 230 V. Dispeau, 14 R. I. 575 803, 811, 811 V. Hereford (Ariz.), 95 Pac. 105 918 V. Middlesborough Town & Lands Co. (Ky.), 89 S. W. 228; 28 Ky. Law Rep. 303 84, 97, 851 V. Sigua Iron Co., 88 Fed. 203; 31 C. C. A. 458 706, 706 V. Smith, 17 R. I. 28; 19 Atl. 1081 503, 1152 Greenfield Savings Bank v. Simons, 133 Mass. 415 1272 Greenleaf v. Ludington, 15 Wise. 558; 82 Am. Dec. 698 732, 732, 756 Greenough v. Alabama, etc. R. R. Co., 64 Fed. 22 1170, 1170 Greenpoint Co. v. Whitin, 69 N. Y. 328 1011 Greensboro, etc. Turnpike Co. V. Stratton, 120 Ind. 294; 22 N. E. 247 1244, 1246 Greenville Compress, etc. Co. V. Planters Compress, etc. Co., 70 Miss. 669; 13 So. 879; 35 Am. St. Rep. 681 852, 854 Greenville Gas Co. v. Reis, 54 Oh. St. 549; 44N. E. 271 1276, 1277 Greenwell v. Porter (1902), 1 Ch. 530 1029, 1029, 1348 Greenwood v. Algeciras Ry. Co. (1894), 2 Ch. 205 1645, 1649 V. Freight Co., 105 IT. S. 13 939, 945 Greenwood Ice Co. v. Georgia Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 46; 17 So. 83 1306 Greer v. Chartiers Ry. Co., 96 Pa. St. 391; 42 Am. Rep. 548 164, 166, 170 Gregg V. Granby Mining, etc. . Co. (Mo.), 65 S. W. 312 6 V. Mercantile Trust Co., 109 Fed. 220; 48 C. C. A. 318; 124 Fed. 721; 59C. C. A. 637; 197 U. S. 183; 25 Sup. Ct. 415 1559, 1562, 1567 1567, 1567, 1568 V. Metropolitan Trust Co., 197 U.S. 183; 25 Sup. Ct. 415; 109 Fed. 220; 48 CCA. 318; 124 Fed. 721; 59 C C. A. 637 1564 Gregg's Case, 15 W. R. 82 168 Gregory v. Patchett, 33 Beav. 595 966, 975 Gresham v. Island City Sav- ings Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 52; 21 S. W. 556 650, 749, 751 Greymouth Point, etc. Coal Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 32 1203 Gridley v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co., 71 111. 200 1237 Grier v. Hazard, Hazard & Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. 583 293 Grifiin v. Clinton Line, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27 118, 233, 233, 238, 242 V. Inman, Swann & Co., 57 Ga. 370 1306 V. Knoblock (Colo.), 77 Pac. 370 713 V. Macon County, 36 Fed. 885; 2 L. R. A. 353 1459 Griffing v. Griffing Iron Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 269; 48 Atl. 910 1113 V. Griffing Iron Co., 96 Fed. 577 957 Griffing Bros. Co. v. Winfield (Fla.), 43 So. 687 392, 404, 406 Griffing Iron Co., Re, 63 N. J. Law Rep. 168; 41 Atl. 931 ; 63 N. J. Law Rep. 357; 46 Atl. 1097 560, 992, 1002, 1006, 1164, 1183, 1183, 1192 Griffith V. Blackwater Boom, etc. Co., 48 S. E. 442; 55 W. Va. 604; 69 L. R. A. 124; 46 W. Va. 56; 33 S. E. 125 1300, 1310, 1316 V. Paget, 6 Ch. D. 511 469 Griffiths Cycle Corp., 85 L. T. 675; 85 L. T. 776 1642 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Grimbly v. Harrold, 125 Cal. 24; 57 Pac. 558; 73 Am. St. Rep. 19 Grimwade v. Mutual Society, 52.L. T. 409 Grissell's Case, 1 Ch. 528 612, 613 Groel V. United Electric Co., 132 Fed. 252 V. United Electric Co. (N. J.), 61 Atl. 1061 Groeltz v. Armstrong Real Estate Co., 115 Iowa 602; 89 N. W. 21 Groh's Sons, M., v. Groh, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 85; 80 N. Y. Supp. 438 Groton Bridge, etc. Co. v. Am. Bridge Co., 151 Fed. 871 Grover v. Cavanaugh (Ind.), 82 N. E. 104 163, 184, 448 Grubb V. Mahoning Naviga- tion Co., 14 Pa. St. 302 Gnibbs-Wiley Grocery Co., 96 Fed. 183 Gruber v. Washington, etc. R. R. Co., 92 N. Car. 1 Grundy v. Pine Hill Coal Co., 10 Ky. Law Rep. 833; 9 S. W. Rep. 414 Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. Y. 17; 10 Am. Rep. 313 Guarantee Co. v. East Rome Town Co., 96 Ga. 511; 23 S. E. 503; 51 Am. St. Rep. 150 797, 806, 806, 811, 1131 Guarantee Trust, etc. Co. v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 52 N. Y. Supp. 116; 31 N. Y. App. Div. 511 1561, 1571 Guaranty Trust Co. v. Atlan- tic Coast El. R. R. Co., 138 Fed. 517; 71 C. C. A. 41 876, 1509, 1509, 1510 V. Chicago, etc. Co., 158 Fed. 1015 1649 ' V. Galveston City R. R. Co., 107 Fed. 311; 46 CCA. 305 451, 451, 1540, 1571, 1572 V. Green Cove, etc. R. R. Co., 139 U. S. 137; 11 Sup. Ct. 512 1433, 1593, 1593, 1593 1596 V. North Chicago, etc. Co., 130 Fed. 801; 65 C C A. 65 V. Troy Steel Co., 33 N. Y. Misc. 484; 68 N. Y. Supp. 915 949 1282 612, 975 939 34 1069 866 229 1239 870 1238 712 960 1528 1029 844 Guardian Trust, etc. Co. v. Fisher, 200 U. S. 57; 26 Sup. Ct. 186 1543, 1552 Guardian Trust Co. v. White CUffs, etc. Co., 109 Fed. 523 1584, 1593, 1593, 1596, 1600 Guckert v. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 303; 28 Atl. 249 123, 231, 248, 251, 384 Guernsey v. Cook, 120 Mass. 501 Guffey Petroleum Co. v. Chai- son TownsiteCo. (Tex.), 107 S. W. 609 Guilford v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 560; 51 N.W. 658; 31Am. St. Rep. 694 1420, 1423, 1425, 1528 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 43 Minn. 434; 46 N. W. 70 431, 431 V. Western Union Tel. Co. 59 Minn. 332; 61 N. W. 324; 50 Am. St. Rep. 407 431, 431, 732, 733 Guillaume v. K. S. D. Fruit Co. (Greg.), 86 Pac. 883 1196 Guinness ?;. Land Corporation, 22 Ch. D. 349 40, 97, 111, 431, 452, 564 Guinzberg v. H. W. Downs Co., 165 Mass. 467; 43 N. E. 195; 52 Am. St. Rep. 525 Gulliver v. Roelle, 100 111. 141 Gumaer v. Cripple Creek, etc. Co. (Colo.), 90 Pac. 81 969, 1203 1205, 1247, 1371 Gump V. Sibley, 79 Md. 165 849 Gund V. Ballard (Nebr.), 103 N. W. 309 1323, 1329 Gunderson v. Illinois Trust, etc. Bank, 199 111. 422; 6'5 N. E. 326 Gundlach v. Germania, etc. Inst., 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 190 Gunn V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 74 Ga. 409 79, 870 — ■ — V. London, etc. Fire Ins. Co.,12C B. N. s. 694 280,284 Gunn's Case, 3 Ch. 40 166 Gunnison Gas & Water Co. v. Whitaker, 91 Fed. 191 Gunther & Bro. v. Baskett Coal Co., 107 Ky. 44; 52 S. W. 931 Guriey v. Reed, 190 Mass. 509 ; 77 N. E. 642 683, 711 809 416 984 590 843 1354 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pageB] 512 643 1220, Gumey v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co., 58 N. Y. 358 1567 Custard's Case, 8 Eq. 438 165, 548, 782 Guthrie V. Harkness, 199 U. S. 148; 26 Sup. Ct. 4 894, 896 Gutta Percha Corp., 15 Times L. R. 183 350, 364, 750 Gutterson v. Lebanon Iron, etc. Co., 151 Fed. 72 1616 G. V. B. Mining Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 95 Fed. 23; 36 C. C. A. 633 397, 860 H Haacke v. Knights of Liberty, etc. Club, 76 Md. 429; 25 Atl. 422 222, 261 Haas V. Bank of Commerce, 41 Nebr. 754; 60 N. W. 85 229, 231 249 Haas Co., 131 Fed. 232; 65 C. C. A. 218 Habershon's Case, 5 Eq. 286 Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kay, 36 N. J. Eq. 548 1225, 1408 Hackett v. Multnomah Ry. Co., 12 Oreg. 124; 6 Pac. 659; 53 Am. Rep. 327 70, 80 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 140 Fed. 717 457 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. 583; 73 N. Y. Supp. 1087 192, 443, 527, 1190 Hackettstown Nat. Bank v. Yuenling Brewing Co., 74 Fed. 110; 20 C. C. A. 327 1527, 1672 Hadden v. Linville, 86 Md. 210; 38 Atl. 37, 900 1373, 1381 Haden v. Farmers', etc. Fire Ass'n, 80 Va. 683 Hadleigh Castle Gold Mines (1900), 2 Ch. 419 Hadley &'Co. v. Hadley, 77 L. T. 131 Haebler v. N. Y. Produce Exchange, 149 N. Y. 414; 44 N. E. 87 Hagar v. Union Bank, 63 Me. 509 773, 1122, 1124 Hager v. Cleveland, 36 Md. 476 608, 913, 915 Hagerman v. Ohio Bldg. etc., Ass'n, 25 Oh. St.- 186 119, 248, 557, 581, 590, 595, 624 592 1058 1310 581 Hagerstown Mfg. Co. v. Keedy, 91Md. 430; 46 Atl. 965 Hagerstown Turnpike Road Co. V. Creeger, 5 H. & J. (Md.) 122; 9 Am. Dec. 495 844, 1306 230, 380 Haggert Bros. Mfg. Co., 19 Ont. App. 582 199, 203, 204, 614 Hahn's Appeal, 7 Atl. Rep. 482 (Pa.) 490 Haines v. Kinderhook, etc. Ry. Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 154; 53 N. Y. Supp. 368 1050, 1053, 1054, 1054, 1176 Haines Mercantile Co. v. Highland Gold Mines Co. (Oreg.), 88 Pac. 865 884 Hair v. Burnell, 106 Fed. 280 429, 716, 750 Halbert v. San Saba, etc. Ass'n (Tex.), 34 S. W. 636 120 Hale V. Burlington, etc. Ry. Co., 13 Fed. 203 1542 V. Cheshire R. R. Co., 161 Mass. 443; 37 N. E. 307 V. Frost, 99 U. S. 389 470 1566, 1572 V. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43; 26 Sup. a. 370 891, 891 V. Mason, 160 N. Y. 561 ; 55 N. E. 202 1270 1). Nashua, etc. R.R. Co., 60 N. H. 333 1493, 1493, 1586, 1640 Haley v. Halifax Street Ry. Co., 25 Nova Scotia L. R. 140 1603, 1607 Halifax Sugar Refining Co. v. Francklyn,59 L. J. Ch. 591 1198, 1199, 1222 Hall V. Alabama, etc. Imp. Co., 143 Ala. 464; 39 So. 385 V. Carey, 5 Ga. 239 V. Henderson, 126 Ala. 449; 28 So. 531; 85 Am. St. Rep. 53; 61 L. R. A. 621 520, 520, 1276, 1276 V. Herter Bros., 83 Hun 19; 31N.Y. Supp. 692; 90 Hun 280; 35 N. Y. Supp. 769; 157 N. Y. 694; 51 N. E. 1091 290, 297 V. MuUanphy Planing Mill Co., 16 Mo. App. 454 1542 V. Nieukirk (Idaho), 85 Pac. 485 959 518 915 518, TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Hall V. Old Talaigooh Lead Mining Co., 3 Ch. D. 749 183 V. Publishing Co., 180 Pa. St. 561; 37 Atl. 106 1224 V. Rose Hill, etc. Road Co., 70 111. 673 739 V. Sullivan R. R. Co., 1 Brunner Coll. Cas. 613; 11 Fed. Cas. 257 1521, 1584, 1584, 1635 V. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.) 484 604, 612, 767, 771 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Vt. 401 278, 293, 1237, 1246 V. Wagner, 111 N. Y. App. Div. 70; 97 N. Y. Supp. 570 727,727 Hall & Co., A. W., 37 Ch. D. 712 647, 648 Hall Mfg. Co. V. Am. Ry. Supply Co., 48 Mich. 331 852 HaU's Case, S Ch. 707 524, 663, 664 Hall's Safe Co. v. Herring- Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 146 Fed. 37; 76 C. C. A. 495 377 Hallam v. Indianola Hotel Co., 56 Iowa 178; 9 N. W. Ill 1324, 1344 Hallenborg v. Corre Grande Copper Co. (Ariz.), 74 Pac. 1052 958 Hallett, Ex parte, 1 Manson 380 793 Hallmark's Case, 9 Ch. D. 329 1276 Hallowell, etc. Bank v. Hamlin, 14 Mass. 178 925 Halpin v. Mutual Brewing Co., 20 N. Y. App. Div. 583; 47 N. Y. Supp. 412 1166, 1180 Halsey v. Ackerman, 38 N. J. Eq. 501 1259 Halstead v. Dodge, 1 How. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 170 1227, 1359 Hambleton v. Central Ohio R. R. Co., 44 Md. 551 736, 738, 742 759 V. Glenn, 72 Md. 351 ; 20 Atl. 121 602 V. Glenn, 72 Md. 331 ; 20 Atl. 115 602, 606, 613, 613 V. Rhind, 84 Md. 456; 36 Atl. 597 ; 40 L. R. A. 2 16 277 Hambro v. Hull, etc. Fire Ins. Co.,3H. &N. 789 379 Hamburger v. Miller, 48 Md. 317 403 Hamill v. Royal Arcanum, 152 Pa. 537; 25 Atl. 645 919 Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R. Co., 144 Pa. St. 34; 23 Atl. 53; 13 L. R. A. 779 250 V. Desjardins Canal Co., 1 Grant (Can.) 1 932, 943 V. Grant, 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 566 V. Smith, 5 Jur. n. s. 32 Co. 696 275, 276 173 V. Vaughan, etc. (1894), 3 Ch. 589 Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 157 208, 607, 914 Hamilton Nat. Bank v. American Loan, etc. Co., 66 Nebr. 67; 92 N. W. 189 37, 383 Hamilton Road Co. v. Town- send, 13 Ont. Rep. 534 117, 120, 120, 221 Hamilton Trust Co. v. Clemes, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 152; 45 N.Y. Supp. 141; 163 N.Y. 423; 57 N. E. 614 152, 1175, 1225, 1499 1176 1510 1509 1210 1564 Hamilton's Case, 8 Ch. 548 Hamlin v. European, etc. Ry. Co., 72 Me. 83 V. Jerrard, 72 Me. 62 V. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Fed. 664; 24 C. C. A. 271 ; 36 L. R. A. 826 415, 450, 450, 451, 451, 452, 469, 474, 977, 984, 1028 V. Union Brass Co., 68 N. H. 292; 44 Atl. 385 Hammerly v. Mercantile Trust, etc. Co. 123 Ala. 596; 26 So. 646 Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co., 105 U. S. 77 1496, 1627, 1630 Hammond v. Edison Illumi- nating Co., 131 Mich. 79; 90 N. "W. 1040; 100 Am. St. Rep. 582 499, 500, 507 V. Hastings, 134 U. S. 401; 10 Sup. Ct. 727 680, 770, 773 V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. Co., 15 S. Car. 10 1632 V. Straus, 53 Md. 1 160, 219, 220 921 , Be, 139 Fed. 898 998, 1035 Hamor v. Taylor-Rice En- gineering Co., 84 Fed. 392 518, 518, 520 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1221 82 249 620 1568 847 1134 1312 1659 1614 Hampshire Land Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 743 Hampson v. Price's Patent Candle Co., 45 L. J. Ch. 437 Hampton v. Clinton Co., 65 N.J. Law 158; 46 Atl. 650 V. Foster, 127 Fed. 468 V. Norfolk, etc. Ry. Co., 127 Fed. 662 Hamsher v. Hamsher, 132 111. 273; 23 N. E. 1123 Hanchett v. Blair, 100 Fed. 817; 41 C. C. A. 76 875, 1081, 1083 Hancock v. Clark, 68 Vt. 302; 36 Atl. 317 V. Holbrook, 40 La. Ann. 53; 3 So. 351 V. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. 738 Hand v. Blow, 82 L. T. 750 V. Evans Marble Co., 88 Md. 226; 40 Atl. 899 298, 298 V. Savannah, etc. R. R. Co., 21 S. Car. 162 1591 V. Savannah, etc. R. R. Co., 12 S. Car. 314 1535, 1670 V. Savannah, etc. R. R. Co., 17 S. Car. 219 1456, 1640, 1643, 1670 Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417; 11 Sup. Ct. 530 492, 627, 628, 630, 630, 911, 1006, 1009 Handy v. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co., 31 Fed. 689 1602, 1618 Hankins v. Newell (N. J.), 66 Atl. 929 1041, 1249 Hanly, Ex parte, 41 Ch. D. 215 278, 295 Hanna v. Lyon, 179 N. Y. 107; 71 N.'E. 778 944, 962, 974 V. People's Nat. Bank, 71) N. Y. App. Div. 224; 78 N. Y. Supp. 516; 76 N. Y. Supp. 224 1282, 1350 V. State Trust Co., 70 Fed. 2; 16 CCA. 586; 30 L. R. A. 201 1650, 1650, 1650, 1651 Hannan's King Mining Co., 14 Times L. R. 314 764, 764 Hanson v. Little Sisters of the Poor, 79 Md. 434; 32 Atl. 1052; 32 L. R. A. 293' V. Minnesota Scandina- vian, etc. Ass'n, 59 Minn, 123; 60 N. W. 1091 Hapgoods V. Lusch, 107 N. Y, Supp. 331 847 590 175 890 1201 495 1210 621 1259 Harbaugh v. Middlesex Secu- rities Co., 110 N. Y. App. Div. 633; 97 N. Y. Supp. 350 Harben v, Phillips, 23 Ch. D. 14 1040, 1042, 1058, 1194, 1207, 1230, 1251 Hardin v. Iowa Ry., etc. Co., 78 Iowa 726; 43N.W.543; 6 L. R. A. 52 Hardin County v. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 92 Ky. 412; 17 S. W. 860 Harding v. American Glucose Co., 182 111. 551; 55 N. E. 577; 74 Am. St. Rep. 189; 64 L. R. A. 738 940, 951 V. Vanderwater, 40 Cal. 77 Hardoon v. Belilios (1901), A. C 118 Hardy v. Metropolitan Land Co., 7 Ch. 427 Hare v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., Johns. 722 729, 962, 968 Harpending v. Dutch Church, 16 Pet. 455 848 V. Munson, 91 N. Y. 650 1324, 1344, 1636, 1636 Harper v. Smith, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 608; 87 N. Y. Supp. 516 Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Oh. St. 397; 21N. E. 637; 15 Am. St. Rep. 618 Harriman v. Northern Secu- rities Co., 197 U. S. 244; 25 Sup. a. 493 V. Southam, 16 Ind. 190 V. Wobum Electric Light Co., 163 Mass. 85; 39 N. E. 1004 1496, 1503 Harrington v. Victoria, etc. Dock Co., 3 Q. B. D. 549 Harris v. Bank of Mobile, 5 La. Ann. 538 V. Franklin Bank, 77 Md. 423; 26 Atl. 523 — — V. Gateway Land Co., 128 Ala. 652; 29 So. 611 599, 614 V. Independence Gas Co. (Kans.), 92 Pac. 1123 1063 699 542 244 320 717 810 250, V. Leming Harris, etc. Works, 43 S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 869 V. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124 858, 867 1247 103, 103, 104, 246 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Harris v. Muskingum Mfg. Co., 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 267; 29 Am. Dec. 372 383, 1078 V. Quincy, etc. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 101 S. W. 601 1609, 1609 V. Runnels, 12 How. 79 864 V. San Francisco Sugar Ref. Co., 41 Cal. 393 497, 1111, 1119 V. Stevens, 7 N. H. 454 1135 V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 13 Fed. 522 1342 V. Youngstown Bridge Co., 90 Fed. 322; 33 C. C. A. 69; 93 Fed. 355; 35 CCA. 341 1535, 1536, 1537, 1537, 1628 Harris's Appeal, 12 Atl. Rep. 743 (Pa.) 804 Harris's Case, 7 Ch. 587 167, 1216 Harrison v. Annapolis, etc. R. R. Co., 50 Md. 490 1496 ■ V. Heathorn, 6 Man. & Gr. 81 7 V. Mexican Ry. Co., 19 Eq. 358 439, 441, 441, 442 V. Morton, 83 Md. 456; 35 Atl. 99 915, 916, 916 V. Piyse, Barnard. Ch. 324 757 V. Remington Paper Co., 140 Fed. 385; 72 CCA. 405 921 V. St. Etienne Brewery Co. (1893), W. N. 108 1514, 1599 V. Thomas, 112 Fed. 22; 50 C C A. 98 941, 1259, 1316, 1316 V. Union Trust Co., 144 N. Y. 326; 39 N. E. 353 1493 V. Vermont Manganese Co., 1 N. Y. Misc. 402; 20 N. Y. Supp. 894 278 , Ex parte, 69 L. T. 204 350, 364 , Ex parte, 28 Ch. D. 363 767, 767, 793 Harrison's Case, 3 Ch. 633 166 , 6 Ch. 286 766 Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wise. 162 123, 127, 220 Harrogate's Estates (1903), 1 Ch. 498 1396, 1497 Harrold v. Plenty (1901), 2 Ch. 314 805, 809 Hart V. American Cotton Co., 41 N. Y. Misc. 436; 84 N. Y. Supp. 1065 890 V. Evanson (N. Dak.), 105 N. W. 942 1357, 1357 g xc Hart V. Frontino Gold Mining Co., L. R. 5 Ex. Ill 736, 742, 742 V. Globe Ins. Co., 113 Fed. 307 620 V. Ogdensburg. etc. - R. R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.) 316; 35 N. Y. Supp. 566 968, 1312 V. Seymour, 147 Jll. 598; 35 N. E. 246 254 V. St. Charles St. R. R. Co., 30 La. Ann. 758 504, 507 Hart's Case, 6 Eq. 512 173 Harter v. Eltzroth, 111 Ind. 159; 12N.E. 129 784 Hartford v. Co-operative Homestead Co., 128 Mass. 494 590 Hartford, etc. R. R. Co. v.- Croswell, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 383 610 Hartley v. Pioneer Iron Works, 181 N. Y. 73; 73 N. E. 576 523, 523 Hartley's Case, 10 Ch. 167 642 Hartman v. Pennsylvania Range Boiler Co., 24 Pa. Co. a. Rep. 324 222 Hartridge v. Rockwell, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 260 509, 517, 522 Harts V. Brown, 77 111. 226 1317, 1317, 1344, 1344 Hartt V. Harvey, 32 Barb. 55 (N. Y.) 1057, 1058, 1065, 1250 Harvard College v. Amory, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 446 413, 1091, 1143 Harvey v. Board of Trustees, 142 Cal. 391; 75 Pac. 1086 398 V. Grand Lodge, 50 Mo. App. 472 593, 663 V. Linville Improvement Co., 118 N. Car. 693; 24 S. E. 489; 54 Am. St. Rep. 749 1052 V. Schuylkill Real Es- tate, etc. Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 593 592 V. West Side Elevated (Patented) Ry. Co., 13 Hun (N. Y.) 392 1379 Harvey-Watts Co. v. Wor- cester Umbrella Co. (Mass.), 78 N. E. 886 645 Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 78 1637, 1637 Hasbrouck v. Rich, 113 Mo. App. 389; 88 S. W. 131 1552 V. Vandevoort, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 74 803, 811 TABLE OF CASES [Tj^ references are to pages] Eascard v. Somany, Freem. 504 1011, 1202, 1203 Hasenritter v. Kirchhoffer, 79 Mo. 239 235 Haskell v. Read, 68 Nebr. 107 ; 93 N. W. 997; 96 N. W. » 1007 1022, 1056, 1250 V. Worthington, 94 Mo. 560; 7 S. W. 481 98, 185, 214, 214, 607 Haskins v. Albany, etc. Ry. Co., 74N. Y. App. Div. 31; 76 N. Y. Supp. 667 1448 Haslett V. Wotherspoon, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 395 297, 309 Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493; 9 Sup. Ct. 590 Hasselman v. TJ. S. Mtge. Co., 97 Ind. 365 Hastings v. Blue Hill, etc. Corp., 9 Pick. (Mass.) 80 V. Brooklyn Life Ins. Co., 138N.Y.473; 34N.E.289 1542, 1552 237 1225, 1226 1377, 1381 1127 V. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9 Hastings Lumber Co. v. Ed- wards, 188 Mass. 587; 75 N. E. 57 606, 1190 Hastings, Re, 105 N. Y. Supp. 834 901 , 106 N. Y. Supp. 938 901 Hatch V. City Bank, 1 Rob. (La.) 470 894, 897, 905 V. Coddington, 95 U. S. 48 67 V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 600 V. Lucky Bill Mining Co., 25 Utah 405; 71 Pac. 865 1185, 1210 Hatcher v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 62 111. 477 1522 Hattersley v. Earl of Shel- bume, 31 L. J. Ch. 873 87, 931, 951, 965 Haun V. Mulberry, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 103 607 Hause v. Mannheimer, 67 Minn. 194; 69 N. W. 810 248 Havana Electric Ry. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 680 1557 Havemeyer v. Havemeyer, 43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 506 1029 V. Havemeyer, 45 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 464 1030 V. Havemeyer, 86 N. Y. 618 1030 Haven v. Adams, 4 Allen (Mass.) 80 1549 V. Emery, 33 N. H. 66 1486 V. Grand Junction, etc. Co., 109 Mass. 88 1449, 1451, 1456 Haven Gold Mining Co., 20 Ch. D. 151 98 Havens v. Bank of Tarboro, 132 N. Car. 214; 43 S. E. 639; 95 Am. St. Rep. 627 731, 739, 741 V. Hoyt, 6 Jones Eq. (N. Car.) 115 1312 Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Petro- leum Co., 101 Mass. 385 147, 149 150 417 V. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450 '945, 970 Hawkeye Co. v. Bank, 157 Fed. 253 294 Hawkins v. Citizens Real Es- tate, etc. Co. (Oreg.), 64 Pac. 320 189, 613 V. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319; 9 Sup. Ct. 739 614, 620 V. Maltby, 4 Ch. 200 782 Hawley v. Gray Bros., etc. Co., 106 Cal. 337; 37 Pac. 609 1382 V. Upton, 102 U. S. 314 154, 154, 166, 167, 198, 615, 628 Hax V. Davis Mill Co., 39 Mo. App. 453 1202, 1205, 1223, 1248 Hay V. Swedish, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Times L. R. 460 1674 V. Swedish, etc. Ry Co., 8 Times L. R. 775 1612 V. Washington, etc. R. • R. Co., 4 Hughes 327 1638 . Hay's Case, 10 Ch. 593 1333, 1337, 1340, 1340 Haycraft Gold Reduction, etc. Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 230 996, 1209 Hayden v. Atlanta Cotton Co., 61 Ga. 233 V. Brown, 94 Fed. 15 V. Charter Oak Driving Park, 63 Conn. 142; 27 Atl. 232 V. Official Hotel Red Book Co., 42 Fed. 875 1310, 1313 V. Thompson, 36 U. S. App. 361; 71 Fed. 60; 17 C. C. A. 592 1128, 1129, 1129, 1259 922 1259 735 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Hayden v. Williams, 96 Fed. 279; 37 C. C. A. 479 912, 920, 1128 Hayes v. Columbus, etc. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 630 1616 V. Fidelity Ins., etc. Co., 105 Fed. 160 621 V. Jasper Land Co. (Ala.), 41 So. 909 959 V. Morgan's La., etc. Co., 117 La. 593; 42 So. 150 6 V. Pierson, 65 N. J. Eq. 353;45Atl.l091;58Atl.728 1315 V. Shoemaker, 39 Fed. 319 616, 695 V. Stirling, 14 Ir. C. L. Rep. 277 341, 342 Haynes v. Brown (Okl.), 89 Pac. 1124 689, 781 Hays V. Franklin Co. Lumber Co.,35Nebr.511; 53N.W. 381 661 V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 38 Pa. St. 81 173, 603 Hayt, iJe, 39 N. Y. Misc. 356; '79 N. Y. Supp. 845 430 Hayward v. Leeson, 176 Mass. 310; 57 N. E. 656; 49 L. R. A. 725' 320, 320, 326, 328, 329, 330, 1338, 1338, 1339 V. Pilgrim Society, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 270 913 Haywood v. Lincoln Lumber Co., 64 Wise. 639; 26N.W. 184 958, 1299, 1315 Hazard v. Durant, 11 R. L 195 937, 939, 944, 955 Hazeltine v. Belfast, etc. R. R. Co., 79 Me. 411; 10 Atl. 328; 1 Am. St. Rep. 330 464, 466, 1104 Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazel- ton Tripod Boiler, Co. 137 lU. 231; 28 N. E. 248 371 V. Hazelton Tripod Boiler Co., 142 111. 494; 30 N. E. 339 377 Hazlehurst v. Savannah, etc. R. R. Co., 43 Ga. 13 76, 440, 558, 1169 Head v. Providence Ins. Co., 2 Cranch 127 394, 827 , Ex parte, 15 L. T. 262 782, 787 Heald v. Owen, 79 Iowa 23; 44 N. W. 210 253 Heard v. Eldridge, 109 Mass. 258; 12 Am. Rep. 687 1091, 1155 Hearst v. Putnam Mining Co., 28 Utah 184; 77 Pac. 753; 107 Am. St. Rep. 698; 66 L. R. A. 784 972, 981 Heart v. State Bank, 2 Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) Ill 744, 768 Heartt v. Sherman, 82 N. E. 417(111.) 1171 Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275; 79 Am. Dec. 430 202, 604 Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf. 347 949, 962, 1354 V. Silverthom,etc.Co.,39 Wise. 146 161, 1009, 1022, 1023 Hebb's Case, 4 Eq. 9 167 Hebberd v. Southwestern Land Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 18; 36 Atl. 122 1404 Hebgen v. KoefBer, 97 Wise. 313; 72 N. W. 745 313, 316 Hecht, Liebmann & Co. v. Phoenix Woolen Co., 121 Fed. 188 172 Heck V. Bulkeley (Tenn.), 1 S. W. 612 1123 V. McEwen, 12 Lea (Tenn.) 97 113, 253 Heckman's Estate, 172 Pa. St. 185; 33 Atl. 552 291, 310 Hecla, etc. Mining Co. v. O'Neill, 19 N. Y. Supp. 592 282, 289, 303 Hedges v. Paquett, 3 Oreg. 77 1320, 1325 Heggie v. People's Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 107 N. Car. 581; 12 S. E. 275 518 Heights of Maribymong Es- tate Co., 22 Vict. L. R. 432 700, 782 Heineman v. Marshall, 117 Mo. App. 546; 92 S. W. 1131 1337 Heinig v. Adams, etc. Mfg. Co., 81 Ky. 300 128 Heinze v. South Green Bay, etc. Co., 109 Wise. 99; 85 N. W. 145 1224, 1382 Heinzelman v. Druids Relief Ass'n, 38 Minn. 138; 36 N. W. 100 558, 560, 914, 1032 Heironimous v. Sweeney, 83 Md. 146; 34 Atl. 823; 55 Am. St. Rep. 333; 33 L. R. A. 99 63, 853 Helton V. Waverly Hydro- pathic Co., 4 Rettie Sc. 830 1068, 1221 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Heller v. Nat. Marine Bank, 89 Md. 602; 43 Atl. 800; 73 Am. St. Rep. 212; 45 L. R. A. 438 425, 455, 1398 Hellman v. Forty-second St., etc. R. R. Co., 74 Hun 529; 26 N. Y. Supp. 553; 148 N. Y. 727; 42 N. E. 723 740 V. Pennsylvania Electric Vehicle Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 834 Helm V. Swiggett, 12 Ind. 194 469 752, 775 Helmore v. Smith (No. 2), 35 Ch. D. 449 1620 Helping Hand Marriage Ass'n, 15 Phila. 644 117, 267 Hemenway v. Hemenway, 134 ' Mass. 446 1444, 1445, 1446 V. Hemenway, 181 Mass. 408; 63 N. E. 919 1092, 1144, 1154 Heminway v. Heminway, 58 Conn. 443; 19 Atl. 766 897 Hempfling v. Burr, 59 Mich. 294; 26 N. W. 496 808 Hendee v. Pinkerton, 14 Allen (Mass.) 381 1187, 1189 Henderson v. Bank of Aus- tralasia, 40 Ch. D. 170 82, 82 V. Bank of Australasia, 45 Ch. D. 330 954, 1004, 1004, 1034, 1034, 1056 V. Lacon, 5 Eq. 249 162 V. Royal British Bank, 7 E. & B. 356 V. Virden Coal Co., 78 111. App. 437 . V. Walker, 55 Ga. 481 , Ex parte, 19 Beav. 107 Henderson Woolen Mills v. Edwards, 84 Mo. App. 448 Hendon v. North Carolina R. R. Co., 127 N. Car. 110; 37 S. E. 155 V. North Carolina R. R. ' Co., 125 N. Car. 124; 34 S. E. 227 Hendricks v. Montagu, 17 Ch. D. 638 Hendrickson v. Bradley, 85 Fed. 508 ; 29 C. C. A. 303 938, 980 Hendrie, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Parry (Colo.), 86 Pac. 113 Hennell v. Strong, 25 L. J. Ch. 407 Hennesey v. Muhleman, 40 N. Y. App. Div. 175; 57 N. Y. Supp. 854 1188 925 847 1619 1223 309 430 430 373 1640 815 298 338 458 588 1246 1246 306 1581 226 Hennessy v. Griggs, 1 N. Dak. 52; 44 N. W. 1010 Henriech v. Lidberg, 105 111. App. 495 Henry v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 1 DeG. & J. 606 V. Jackson, 37 Vt. 431 V. Michigan Sanitarium, etc. Ass'n (Mich.), 110 N. W. 523 V. Rutland, etc. R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 435 V. Simanton, 64 N. J. Eq. 572; 54 Atl. 153 Henry Pound, Son & Hutch- ins, 42 Ch. D. 402 Herald Shoe Co. v. Okla- homa Pub. Co. (Okl.), 79 Pac. Ill H. E. Randall, Ltd. v. British & American Shoe Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 354 387, 387 Herbert v. Kenton, etc. Ass'n, 74 Ky. 296 563 Herbert Kraft Co. v. Bank of Orland, 133 Cal. 64; 65 Pac. 143 665, 666, 754, 807 Hercules Oil Ref. Co. v. Hocknell (Cal.), 91 Pac. 341 Hercules Mut. Life Ass. Soc, 12 Fed. Cas. 12 Hercynia Copper Co. (1894), 2 Ch. 403 Herdegen v. Cotzhausen, 70 Wise. 589; 36N.W.385 744,771 Hereford Waggon Co., Re, 2 Ch. D. 621 293, 335 Heritage, Ex -parte, 9 Eq. 5 705, 705 Herman v. Rhode, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 161 V. Supreme Lodge, 66 N. J. Law 77; 48 Atl. 1000 Hermann v. Hodges, 16 Eq. 18 V. Maxwell, 47 N. Y. Sup. a. 347 Heme Bay Waterworks Co., 10 Ch. D. 42 Herrick v. Humphrey Hard- ware Co. (Nebr.), 103 N. W. 685 744, 753, 768 Herring v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 340; 12 N. E. 763 V. Ruskin, etc. Ass'n (Tenn.), 52 S. W. Rep. 327 1280 23 1172 1250 923 1415 806 1683 1598 571, 572, 573 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Herring-Hall-Marvin Co. v. Hall's Safe Co., 208 U. S. 554 377, 388 Herrington v. Lisbon, 47 Iowa H 1210 Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo. App. 110; 44 Pac. §54 306, 307 V. Veazie, 24 Me. 9; 41 Am. Dec. 364 928, 944, 974 Hershey v. Welch, 96 Mian. 145; 104 N.W. 821 810 Heslin v. Eastern Bldg., etc. Ass'i, 28 N. Y. Misc. 376; 59 N. Y. Supp. 572 577 Hess V. Sloane, 66 N. Y. App. Div. 522; 73 N. Y. Supp. 313; 173 N. Y. 616; 66 N. E. 1110 85 V. Tnimbo, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 320; 84 S. W. 1153 648 Hess Manufacturing Co., 23 Can. Sup. Ct. 644; 21 Ont. App. 66 272, 322, 634 Heuer v. Carmichael, 82 Iowa 288; 47 N. W. 1034 108, 253 Hewel V. Hogin (Cal.), 84 Pac. 1002 1450 Hewitt's Case, 25 Ch. D. 283 1170, 1171, 1172 Hey V. Dolphin, 92 Hun (N. Y.) 230; 36 N. Y. Supp. 627 1030, 1048, 1053 Hiatt V. Griswold, 5 Fed. 573 807 Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 6 M. & W. 200 685, 685 Hibbs V. Brown, 190 N. Y. 167; 82 N. E. 1108 1448 Hibernia Bldg. Ass'n v. McGrath, 154 Pa. St. 296; 26 Atl. 377; 35 Am. St. Rep. 828 1367 Hibernia Fire, etc. Co. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Har- rison, 93 Pa. St. 264 569, 569 Hichens v. Congreve, 4 Sim. 420; 4Russ. 562 319,320 Hicks V. Steel, 126 Mich. 408; 85 N. W. 1121 1299 V. Steel, 142 Mich. 292; 105 N. W. 767 _ 1272 Higgins V. California Petro- leum, etc. Co., 122 Cal. 373; 55 Pac. 155 296 V. California Petroleum, etc. Co., 147 Cal. 363; 81 Pac. 1070 296 V. Fidelity Ins., etc. Co., 108 Fed. 475; 46 C. C. A. 509 621, 807 Higgins V. Hopkins, 3 Ex. 163 306, 310 V. Illinois Trust, etc. Bank, 193 111. 394; 61 N. E. 1024 648, 784 V. Lansingh, 154 111. 301 ; 40 N. E. 362 439, 1295, 1342, 1405 Higgins Co., Chas. S., v. Hig- gins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. . 462; 39N. E. 490; 43 Am. St. Rep. 769; 27 L. R. A. 42 376, 387 Higgins, Ex parte, 60 L. T. 383 628 , Ee, 27 Fed. 443 1620 Higgs V. Northern Assam Tea Co., L. R. 4 Ex. 387 1421 High Court v. Zak, 136 111. 185; 26 N. E. 593; 29 Am. St. Rep. 318 917 Highett V. Highett, 22 Vict. L. R. 352 806 Highland Turnpike Co. v. McKean, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 154; 6 Am. Dec. 324 915, 9-23, 923 Hightower v. Ansley (Ga.), 54 S. E. 939 422 Highway Advertising Co. v. Ellis, 7 Ont. L. R. 504 322 Hilder v. Dexter (1902), A. C. 474 354, 626 Hildyard v. South Sea Co., 2 P. Wms. 76 728, 738, 754, 757, 758, 759 Hiles V. Case, 9 Biss. 549; 14 Fed. 141 1559, 1568 Hill V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co. (N. Car.), 55 S. E. 854 107, 966, 1005, 1006, 1008, 1060 V. Atoka Coal, etc. Co. (Mo.), 21 S. W. 508 713, 753, 1111, 1116, 1130 — V. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31 254 V. Frazier, 22 Pa. St. 320 1342 V. Gould, 129 Mo. 106; 30 S. W. 181 1305, 1313 — — ■ V. Great "Western Ry. Co., 10 C. B. N. s. 148 SSQ' V. Jewett Publishing Co., 154 Mass. 172; 28 N. E. 142; 26 Am. St. Rep. 230; 13 L. R. A. 193 740 V. Manchester, etc. Water Works Co., 5 B. & Ad. 866 400, 914 V. Newichawanick Co., 8 Hun 459; 71 N. Y. 593 806, 1131, 1135 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Hill V. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341 76, 604, 659, 966, 1312 V. Pine River Bank, 45 N. H. 300 V. Rich Hill, etc. Co., 119 Mo. 9; 24 S. W. 223 V. Weidinger, 110 N. Y. App. Div. 683; 97 N. Y. Supp. 473 Hill Co., T. E., 148 Fed. 832; 78 C. C. A. 522 Hill's Case, 20 Eq. 597 Hilles V. Parrish, 14 N. J. Eq. 380 1.008, 1063, 1208, 1208 Hilliard v. Lyman, 138 Fed. 469 Hilton Bridge, etc. Co. v. Foster, 26 N. Y. Misc. 338; 57 N. Y. Supp. 140 Hinchman v. Point Defiance Ry. Co., 14 Wash. 349; 44 Pac. 867 1509 Hinckley v. Pfister, 83 Wise. 64; 53 N. W. 21 1130, 1402, 1403 1;. Schwartzsohild, etc. Co., 45 N. Y. Misc. 176; 91 N. Y. Supp. 893 i;. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 129 Mass. 52; 37 Am. Rep. 297 1461, 1463, 1463 Hindley's Case (1896), 2 Ch. 121 171, 171, 350, 352 Hindman v. Great Western Coal, etc. Co. (Wash.), 92 Pac. 139 Hinds V. Buenos Ayres Tram- ways Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 654 1108, 1680 Montgomery 771 1197 1359 44 813 1359 1649 1538 441 1585 1104, Hingston v. (Mo.), 97 S. W. 202 Hinkley v. Sac Oil, etc. (Iowa), 107 N. W. 629 595, 942, 962, 1320 Co. 177, 180, 294 Co. 612 Hiram Maxim Lamp (1903), 1 Ch. 70 Hirsch v. Bums, 77 L. T. 377 172, 189, 197, 197 V. Jones, 115 N. Y. App. Div. 156 1242 , Be, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 367 1021, 1242 Hirsche v. Sims (1894), A. C. 654 1266, 1269, 1326, 1339 Hirth, Be (1899), 1 Q. B. 612 886 Hiscock V. Lacy, 9 N. Y. Misc. 578; 30 N. Y. Supp. 860 1112 Hitchcock V. Galveston, 96 U. S. 342 V. Midland R. R. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 86 V. Midland R. R. Co., 37 N. J. Eq. 549 Hitchings v. St. touis, etc. Transportation Co., 68 Hun (N. Y.) 33; 22 N. Y. Supp. 719 Hite«. Hite, 93 Ky. 257; 20 S. W. 778; 40 Am. St. Rep. 189; 19 L. R. A. 173 502, 1092, 1151, 1151, 1152, 1446 Hix V. Edison Electric Co., 10 N. Y. App. Div. 75; 41 N. Y. Supp. 680 Hoadley v. County Comm'rs, 105 Mass. 519 Hoag V. Lamont, 16 Abb. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 91 Hoagland v. Beall, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 57 Hoare & Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 208 536, 1101/ 1105, 1106 Hoare's Case, 30 Beav. 225 832 Hobbs V. Dane Mfg. Co., 5 Allen (Mass.) 581 Hobgood V. Ehlen (N. Car.), 53 S. E. 857' Hoboken Beef Co. v. Hand, 104 N. Y. App. Div. 390; 93 N. Y. Supp. 834 Hodge V. U. S. Steel Corp., 64 N.J. Eq. 807; 54Atl. 1;60 L. R. A. 742 328, 578, 962, 965, 969, 1296, 1309, 1311, 1312, 1313 Hodge's Excrs. v. First Nat. Bank, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 51 1371 Hodgens v. United Copper Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 756 898, 903, 905 — , Ex parte (1847), 11 Ir. Eq. 99 1141 Hodges V. New England Screw Co., 1 R. I. 312; 53 Am. Dec. 624 ; 3 R. I. 9 75, 944, 951, 1259, 1268 V. Planters' Bank, 7 G. & J. (Md.) 306 771 V. Rutland, etc. R. R. Co., 29 Vt. 220 1247, 1248, 1371 V. Schuler, 22 N. Y. 114 1530 Hodgson V. Duluth, etc. R. R. Co., 46 Minn. 454; 49 N. W. 197 941, 942, 1008, 1010 Hodgson V. Powis, 12 Beav. 392 73 838 1665 1665 1381 1033 16 287 921 435, 985 635 1262 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 398 492 Hodson V. Tea Co., 14 Ch. D. 859 1426, 1470, 1547 Hoe V. Lee, 3 New So. Wales St. Rep. 30 Hoeft V. Kock, 123 Mich. 171 ; 81 N. W. 1070; 81 Am. St. Rep. 159 Hoenev. PoUak, 118 Ala. 617; 24 So. 349; 72 Am. St. Rep. 189 1041, 1044 Hoffman v. Reichert, 147 111. 274; 35N. E. 527; 37 Am. St. Rep. 219 1323, 1343 Hoffman, etc. Co. v. Cximber- land, etc. Co., 16 Md. 456; 77 Am. Dec. 311 300, 886, 1295, 1304, 1311, 1311, 1333 Holbrooki). Holbrook (N. H.), 66 Atl. 124 503, 1150 V. New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616 683, 684, 733 Holcomb V. Cable Co., 119 Ga. 466; 46 S. E. 671 Holden v. Phelps, 135 Mass. 61 i;. Trust Co., 100 U. S. 72 V. Upton, 134 Mass. 177 Holden's Case, 8 Eq. 444 612, 1400 Holder v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co., 71 111. 106; 22 Am. Rep. 89 1247, 1321 Holdsworth V. Davenport, 3 Ch. D. 185 Holladay v. Elliott, 8 Oreg. 84 Holland v. Ball (Mass.), 78 N. E. 772 V. Cruft, 3 Gray 162 V. Dickson, 37 Ch. D. 669 900, 901, 907 V. Lee, 71 Md. 338; 18 Atl. 661 306, 1522, 1600 V. Lewiston Falls Bank, 52 Me. 564 Hollingshead v. Woodward, 35 Hun (N. Y.) 410 HoUis V. Allan, 14 W. R. 980 HoUister v. DeForest Wire- less Tel. Co., 47 N. Y. Misc. 674; 94 N. Y. Supp. 504 692, 900 V. Stewart, 111 N. Y. 644; 19 N. E. 782 1453, 1456, 1486, 1488, 1560 Holloway & McRaney v. Brame, 83 Miss. 335; 36 So. 1 Hollywood V. First Parish in Brockton, 19? Mass. 269 383 1379 1441 1380 1439 176 790 304 1237 494 1141 300 71 Holm V. Atlas Nat. Bank, 84 Fed. 119; 28 C. C. A. 297 1329 Holman v. State ex rel. Gib- son, 105 Ind. 569; 5 N. E. 702 240 Holmes v. Gilliland, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 568 127, 248 V. Higgins, 1 B. & C. 74 274 V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Abattoir Co., 45 L. J. Ch. N. s. 383 , 512, 513 V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Freehold Abattoir Co., 1 Ch. D. 682 1127 V. Royal Loan Ass'n (Mo.), 107 S. W. 1005 1007 V. Salamanca Gold, etc. ■ Co. (Cal.), 91 Pac. 160 402 V. Seashore Electric Ry. Co., 57 N. J. Law 16 ; 29 Atl. 419 1528 V. Willard, 125 N. Y. 75; 25N. E. 1083; 11 L. R. A. 170 86, 86, 1161, 1290, 1368 Holmes, Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & Atwood Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 278; 9 Am. Rep. 324 372, 373 Holmes, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Holmes, etc. Metal Co., 127 N. Y. 252; 27 N. E. 831; 24 Am. St. Rep. 448 75, 75, 846 Holmes, Ex parte, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 426 526, 526, 977, 1020, 1027 Holomany v. Nat. Slavonic , Soc, 39 N. Y. App. Div. 673; 57 N. Y. Supp. 720 948 Holophane v. Hesseftine, 13 Times L. R. 7 364, 364 Holt V. Dewell, 4 Hare 446 684 V. Winfield Bank, 25 Fed. 812 838, 839, 1354 Holyford Mining Co., Ir. R. 3 Eq. 208 437 Holyoke, etc. Ass'n v. Lewis, 1 Colo. App. 127; 27 Pac. 872 684 Holyoke Envelope Co. v. U. S. Envelope Co., 182 Mass. 171 ; 65 N. E. 54 285, 286 Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Barber, 67 Nebr. 644; 93 N. W. 1024; 60L. R. A. 927; 108 Am. St. Rep. 716 971, 971 Home Mixtiire Guano Co. v. Tillman, 125 Ga. 172; 53 S. E. 1019 1245, 1247 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] 1321 1352 Home Savings, etc. Bank v. Peoria Agricultural, etc. Soc.,206111.9; 69N.E. 17; 99 Am. St. Rep. 132 1235 Home Stock Ins. Co. v. Sher- wood, 72 Mo. 461 697 Homer Gold Mines, 39 Ch. D. 546 1201 Honeyman v. Haughey (N. J.), 66 Atl. 582 628, 635 Hood V. Eden, 36 Can. Sup. Ct. 476 635 Hook V. Bosworth, 64 Fed. 443; 12 C. C. A. 208 1517, 1608 Hooke V. Financier Co., 99 N. Y. App. Div. 186; 90 N. Y. Supp. 1012 Hooker v. Midland Steel Co., 215 111. 444; 74 N. E. 445; 106 Am. St. Rep. 170 Hoole V. Great Western Ry. Co., 3 Ch. 262 497, 497, 972, 977, 977, 1117 V. Speak (1904), 2 Ch. 732 1282 Hooley, Be (1899), 2 Q. B. 579 190, 198, 199, 347, 624 Hooper v. Central Trust Co., 81 Md. 559; 32 Atl. 505; 29 L. R. A. 262 1533, 1650 V. Herts (1906), 1 Ch. 549 760, 760 V. Kerr, Stuart & Co., 83 L. T. 729 997, 1001 V. Rossiter, McCl. 527 1141 Hoopes V. Basic Co. (N. J.), 61 Atl. 979 963, 1177 Hoover v. Mbntclair, etc. Ry. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 4 1653 Hopcroft V. Parker, 16 L. T. N. s. 123 306 Hope V. Croydon Tramways, 34 Ch. D. 730 1638 V. International Finan- cial Soc, 4 Ch. D. 327 516, 568, 576, 657 V. Valley City Salt Co., 25 W. Va. 789 1309, 1315 Hopkins v. Gallatin Turn- pike Co., 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 403 399, 407 V. Roseclare Lead Co., 72 111. 373 1078 V. Worcester, etc. Canal Proprietors, 6 Eq. 437 1464, 1464, 1603 Hopkins County v. St. Ber- nard Coal Co., 24 Ky. Law Rep. 942; 70S. W. 289 844 1141 409 1344 1366 1036, Hopkins' Trust, Be, 18 Eq. 696 Hopper V. Lovejoy, 21 Atl. 298; 47 N. J. Eq. 573; 12 L. R. A. 588 V. Sage, 112 N. Y. 530; 20 N. E. 350; 8 Am. St. Rep. 771 1132, 1135 Hoppin V. Buffum, 9 R. I. 513; 11 Am. Rep. 291 1020, 1021, 1021, 1022, 1022 Hopson V. Aetna Axle, etc. Co.," 50 Conn. 597 64, 1317 Horbach v. Marsh, 37 Nebr. 22; 55 N. W. 286 V. Tyrrell, 48 Nebr. 514; 67 N. W. 485 Horbury Bridge Co., 11 Ch. D. 109 1013, 1013, 1034, 1036, 1038, 1058 Horn Silver Mining Co. v. Ryan, 42 Minn. 196; 44 N. W. 56 1286, 1286 Homblower v. Crandall, 7 Mo. App. 220; 78 Mo. 581 274, 310 Home V. Hellard, 29 Ch. D. 736 1548 Home & Sons, W. C. (1906), 1 Ch. 271 1591, 1621, 1621 Hornsby v. Eddy, 56 Fed. 461; 5 C. C. A. 560 1619 Horowitz V. Broads Mfg. Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. 988 287, 300 Horsey's Claim, 5 Eq. 561 91 Horst V. Lewis, 103 N. W. 460 (Nebr.); 98 N. W. 1046 85 Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 170; 75 Am. Deo. 311 418, 807 V. Wilder, 48 Kans. 222; 29 Pac. 566 1066 Hoskins v. Seaside Ice, etc. Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 645 519, 1423 Hotchkiss V. Brainerd Quarry Co., 58 Conn. 120; 19 Atl. 521 V. National Banks, 21 Wall. 354 V. Norwood Park Bldg., etc. Ass'n (111.), 82 N. E. 257 Hotchkiss, etc. Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 76; 15 C. C. A. 264 697, 774, 775 Hotel Co. V. Wade, 97 U. S. 13 1309, 1484, 1484, 1586, 1587 Ho Tung V. Manon Insurance Co. (1902), A. C. 232 554, 557 Hough V. Cook County Land Co., 73 111. 23 843, 847 1144 1435 919 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Houghton V. Hubbell, 91 Fed. 453; 33 C. C. A. 574 621 Houldsworth V. City of Glas- cow Bank, 5 A. C. 317 183 V. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 263 622, 665, 789, 789 House of Mercy v. Davidson, 90 Tex. 529; 39 S. W. 924 848 Household, etc. Ins. v. Co. Grant, 4 Ex. D. 216 167 Houser v. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134 684, 684, 801, 1134 Houston V. Thornton, 122 N. Car. 365; 29 S. E. 827; 65 Am. St. Rep. 699 1355 Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bell (Tex.), 42 S. W. 772 1634 V. Crawford, 88 Tex. 277; 31S.W.176;53Ain.St.Rep. 752; 28 L. R. A. 761 1633, 1634 V. Keller, 90 Tex. 214; 37 S. W. 1062 1666 V. Kelley, 35 S. W. Rep. 878 (Tex.) 1633 V. McFadden, 91 Tex. 194; 40 S. W. 216; 42 S. W. 593 1633 V. Strycharski (Tex.), 35 S. W. 851 1610, 1633 V. Van Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439 734, 735, 738 Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. 238; 11 S. E. 610; 21 Am. St. . Rep. 156 177, 180, 180, 386 V. Hatch, 29 Barb. (N Y.) 297 1379 V. Iron & Land Co., 62 Minn. 298; 64 N. W. 896 1499 V. Patent Ivory Co., 38 Ch. D. 156 286 V. Sadler (1893), 1 Q. B. 1 1177, 1177 V. Turner, 155 Pa. St. 349; 26 Atl. 753; 35 Am. St. Rep. 883 180, 180 Howard's Case, 1 Ch. 561 1214 Howbeach Coal Co. v. Teague, 5 H. & N. 151 608, 1203, 1213, 1213, 1226, 1232 Howe V. Boston Carpet Co., 16 Gray (Mass.) 493 74 V. Freeman, 14 Gray (Mass.) 566 1551 V. Harding, 76 Tex. 17; 13 S. W. 41; 18 Am. St. Rep, 17 1611, 1612 V. Keeler, 27 Conn. 538 400 V. Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 44 Fed. 231 1316 Howe Grain & Mercantile Co. V. Jones, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 198; 61 S. W. 24 517, 572 Howe, Re, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 214 54 Howe Scale Co. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, 198 U. S. 118; 25 Sup. Ct. 609 377 Howell V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 378 463, 463, 473, 495, 497 V. Western R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 463 1409, 1465, 1466, 1623, 1624 Howell Lithographic Co. v. Brethour, 30 Ont. R. 204 369, 369 Hower v. Weiss, etc. Co., 55 Fed. 356; 5 C. C. A. 129 786, 811 Howie V. Scarbrough, 138 Ala. 148; 35 So. 113 1167 Hoyle V. Plattsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 314 1300, 1323, 1343 Howling's Trustees v. Smith, 7 Frazer (Sc.) 390 1011 Hoyt V. Am. Exchange Bank, 1 Duer (N. Y.) 652 890 V. Shenango Valley Steel Co., 207 Pa. 208; 56 Atl. 422 505 V. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 1372 V. Thompson's Ex'r, 19 N. Y. 207 1203, 1214 Hub Construction Co. v. New England Breeders' Club (N. H.), 67 Atl. 574 891, 899, 901, 905 Hub Publishing Co. v. Rich- ardson, 13 N. Y. Supp. 665 306 Hubbard v. Bank of U. S., 12 Fed. Cas. 777 694, 715, 751 V. International Meiv eantile Agency (N. J.), 59 Atl. 24 185 V. Manhattan Trust Co., 87 Fed. 51 ; 30 C. C. A. 520 201, 764, 801, 1418 ■». New York, etc. R. R. Co., 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 286 1432 V. New York Investment Co., 14 Fed. 675 1262, 1299 V. Weare, 79 Iowa 678; 44 N. W. 915 1092, 1095 Hubbard & Co., 68 L. J. Ch. 54 1524, 1546, 1548 Hubbell V. Drexel, 11 Fed. 115 418, 418, 807 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1601 617 424 915 244 Hubbuck V. Helms, 56 L. J. Ch. 536 1545, 1548 Hubinger v. Central Trust Co., 94 Fed. 788; 36 C. C. A. 494 Huddersfield Canal Co. v. Buckley, 7 T. R. 36 Huddleston v. Gouldsbury, 10 Beav. 547 Hudson V. Carman, 41 Me. 84 ■ V. Green Hill Cemetery, 113 111. 618 V. Parker Machine Co., 173 Mass. 242; 53 N. E. 867 912, 1227 V. West, 189 Pa. St. 491 ; 42 Atl. 190 341, 342 Hudson Real Estate v. Tower, 161 Mass. 10; 36N. E. 680; 42 Am. St. Rep. 379; 156 Mass. 82; 30N. E. 465; 32 Am. St. Rep. 434 169, 209, 209, 210 Hudson River, etc. Co. v. Hanfield, 36 N. Y. App. Div. 605; 55 N. Y. Supp. 877 1373, 1402 Hudson River, etc. R. R. Co. V. Hay, 14 Abb. Pr. n. s. (N. Y.) 191 932, 1229, 1251 Hudson Valley Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 6; 88 N. Y. Supp. 742 358, 1458 Huffaker v. Krieger's As- signee, 107 Ky. 200; 53 S. W. 288; 46L. R. A. 384 83 Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34Md.316 95,100,106,131, 202, 600, 603, 603, 604, 607 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. 531 V. Drovers', etc. Bank, 86 Md. 418; 38 Atl. 936 V. Parker, 19 N. H. 181 V. Parker, 20 N. H. 58 998, 1035, 1250 V. Vermont Copper Min- ing Co., 72 N. Y. 207 1130, 1131 V. Wisconsin, etc. Ins. Co., 98 Wise. 292; 73N. W. 1015 Hughes County v. Livingston, 104 Fed. 306; 43 CCA. 541 Hughesdale Mfg. Co. v. Van- ner, 12 R. I. 491 Huguenot Mills v. Jempson & Co., 68 S. Car. 363; 47 S. E. 687 844 1493 815 1035 559 1460 219 Huguenot Nat. Bank v. Stud- well, 6 Daly (N. Y.) 13 1185, 1186 Hukle V. Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. (Kans.), 80 Pac. 603 Hulett's Case, 2 Johns. & Hem. 306 Hulitt V. Bell, 85 Fed. 98 V. Ohio Valley Nat. Bank, 137 Fed. 461; 69 C. C. A. 609 Hullman v. Honcomp, 5 Oh. St. 237 Humaston v. Telegraph Co., 20 Wall. 20 Humbert v. Trinity Church, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 587 Humble v. Langston, 7 M. & W. 517 Humboldt Driving Park Ass'n V. Stevens, 34 Nebr. 528; 52N.W.568; 33 Am. St. Rep. 654 487, 499, 1250 Humboldt Mining Co. v. Am. Mfg., etc. Co., 62 Fed. 356; 10 C. C. A. 415 84, 838 Humboldt Township v. Long, 92 U. S. 642 Hume V. Eagon, 83 Mo. App. 576 Humphrey v. Patrons' Mer- cantile Ass'n, 50 Iowa 607 1634 1421 1191 621 1250 163 84S 782 1220 912 110, 139 V. Tatman, 198 U. S. 91; 25 Sup. Ct. 567 1506 Humphreys v. Allen, 100 111. 511 1529 V. McKissock, 140 U. S. 304; 11 Sup. Ct. 779 1073, 1510 V. Minnesota Clay Co., 94 Minn. 469; 103 S. W. 338 749 V. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282 101, 113, 119, 120, 124, 126, 252, 1009 V. Morton, 100 111. 592 1449, 1452, 1453, 1460 V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 435; 24 N. E. 695 1541 Hun V. Cary, 82 N. Y. 65; 37 Am. Rep. 546 1259, 1273, 1275, 1284, 1286, 1289 Hunt V. American Grocery Co., 81 Fed. 532 71 V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 Mass. 279 1537 V. Bullock, 23 111. 320 1396, 1503 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Hunt V. Hauser Malting Co., 90 Minn. 282; 96 N. W. 85 846 ■!;. Hauser Malting Co., 95 Minn. 206; 103 N. W. 1032 846 V. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kans. 412 147, 148, 150, 608 V. Laconia, etc. Ry. Co., 68 N. H. 561; 39 Atl. 437 810 V. O'Shea, 69 N. H. 600; 45 Atl. 480 1121 V. Seeger, 91 Minn. 264 ; 98 N. W. 91 616, 695 Hunt & Bro. v. Memphis, etc. Co.,95Tenn. 136; 31 S. W. 1006 1405, 1564 Hunter v. Burlington, etc. Ry. Co., 76 Iowa 490; 41 N. W. 305 1632 V. Robbins, 117 Fed. 920 928 V. Roberts; Throp & Co., 83Mich. 63; 47N.W. 131 1111, 1112 V. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 26 La. Ann. 13 593, 593, 594, 1276, 1364 Huntington v. Palmer, 104 U. S. 482 950 Huntington Fuel Co. v. Mc- Dwaine (Ind.), 82 N. E. 1001 1078, 1079, 1196, 1383 Huntington Mfg. Co. v. Scho- field, 28 Ind. App. 95; 62 N. E. 106 127 Hurd V. Hotchkiss, 72 Conn. 472; 45 Atl. 11 917 Hurlburt v. Arthur, 140 Cal. 103; 73 Pac. 734; 98 Am. St. Rep. 17 616, 623 Hurlbut V. Tayler, 62 Wise. 607; 22 N. W. 855 1128 Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310 123, 127, 242, 252, 306 Hussey v. Gallagher, 61 Ga. 86 . 580, 998, 1250 V. Manufacturers', etc. Bank, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 415 156, 752 V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co., 98N. Car. 34; 3 S. E. 923; 2 Am. St. Rep. 312 869 Hutchins v. Byrnes, 9 Gray (Mass.) 367 399, 400 V. State Bank, 12 Met. (Mass.) 421 _ 792 Hutchinson v. American Palace Car Co., 104 Fed. 182 957 Hutchinsonc.Colorado United Mining Co., 3 Times L. R. 265 722 V. Curtiss, 45 N. Y. Misc. 484; 92 N. Y. Supp. 70 1110, 1125, 1283 V. Green, 91 Mo. 367; 1 S. W; 853 1187 V. Simpson, 92 N. Y. App. Biv. 382; 87 N. Y. Supp. 369 325, 326, 330 V. Sutton Mfg. Co., 57 Fed. 998 1265 V. Western, etc. R. R. Co.; 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 634 869, 877 Hutchinson's Case (1895), 1 Ch. 226 1170, 1171, 1172, 1172, 1172, 1172 Huter V. Union Trust Co. (Ind.), 51 N. E. 1071 852 Hutter V. DeQ. Bottle Stop- per Co., 128 Fed. 283 1356 Hutton V. Bancroft & Sons Co., 83 Fed. 17 950, 951 V. Scarborough Hotel Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 521 431, 440, 441, 442, 583 V. Scarborough Hotel Co., 4DeG.J.&S.672; 2Dr.& Sm. 514 440 V. Thompson, 3 H. L. C. 161 274 V. Upfill, 2 H. L. C. 674 275 V. West Cork Ry. Co., 23 Ch. D. 654 82, 82, 1237 Hutzler v. Lord, 64 Md. 534; 3 Atl. 891 782, 782 Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 392 ; 2 Atl. 274 ; 42 N. J. Eq. 139; 7 Atl. 521 894, 898, 900 Hyatt V. Allen, 56 N. Y. 553; 15 Am. Rep. 449 1135 V. Van Riper, 105 Mo. App. 664; 78S. W. 1043 Hyde v. Doe, 4 Sawy. 133 252 126 V. Holmes (Mass.), 84 N. E. 318 1146 V. Larkin, 35 Mo. App. 365 1381, 1382 Hyderbad Co., 75 L. T. 23 530, 536, 537, 545, 546 Hygeia . Water Ice Co. v. New York Hygeia Ice Co., 140 N. Y. 94; 35 N. E. 417 373 Hynes v. Illinois Trust, etc. Bank, 226 111. 95; 80N. E. 753 1426 TABLE OF CASES [The references are fo pages] Hyslop V. Morrel Bros., W. N. (1891) 19 175 I. C. Johnson & Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 101 1497, 1498, 1525 Ide V. Bascomb, 72 Pac. 62 931 Ijams V. Andrews, 151 Fed. 725 305 Ikelheimer v. Consolidated Tobacco Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 363 1674, 1674 Ilfracombe Permanent Mut. Benefit Bldg. Soc. (1901), 1 Ch. 102 257 Ilion Bank v. Carver, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 230 1288 lUingworth v. Houldsworth (1904), A. C. 355 1393, 1396, 1547 Illinois, etc. Bank v. Pacific Ry. Co., 117 Cal. 332; 49 Pac. 197 840, 861, 1402, 1409, 1414, 1531 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Barrett, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1755; 66S.W. 9 Illinois Linen Co. v. Hough, 91 111. 63 Illinois State Hospital v. Higgins, 15 111. 185 Illinois Steel Co. v. O'Donnell, 156 111. 624; 41 N. E. 185; 47 Am. St. Rep. 245; 31 L. R. A. 265 Illinois Trust, etc. Bank v. Doud, 105 Fed. 123; 44 C. C. A. 389; 52 L. R. A. 481 73, 1455, 1566 V. Minton, 120 Fed. 187 1484, 1554 V. Seattle El. Ry., etc. Co., 82 Fed. 936; 27 C. C. A. 268 1495 Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Pearson, 140 111. 423; 31 N. E. 400; 16 L. R. A. 429 125, 222, 372, 385 Imperial Gas Co. v. Clarke, 7 Bing. 95 890 Imperial Hydropathic Hotel Co. V. Hampson, 23 Ch. D. 1 1162, 1183, 1183 Imperial Land Corporation, 16 W. R. 1191 189 Imperial Land Co. of Mar- seilles, 10 Eq. 298 1364 , 11 Eq. 478 1420, 1422, , 1422, 1426, 1441 920 1238 381 1317 Imperial Mercantile Ass'n v. Coleman, L. R. 6 H. L. 189 1179, 1179, 1296, 1300, 1309, 1331, 1333 Imperial Mercantile Credit Ass'n V. London, etc. Ry. Co., 15W. R. 1187 65 Imperial Mercantile Credit Co., 5 Eq. 264 1266 Imperial Mfg. Co. v. Schwartz, 105 111. App. 525 371, 373/384 Imperial Starch Co., 10 Ont. L. R. 22 571, 744 Importing & Exporting Co. v. Locke, 50 Ala. 332 259, 261 Ince Hall, etc. Co., 23 Ch. D. 545 n 628 Ind's Case, 7 Ch. 485 417 Independent Order v. Hag- gerty, 86 111. App. 31 589 Inderwick v. Snell, 2 Mac. & G. 216 1184 Indian Mechanical Gold Ex- tracting Co. (1891), 3 Ch. 538 137 Indian Zoedone Co., 26 Ch. D. 70 1042, 1042, 1043, 1057, 1058 Indiana Bermudez, etc. Co. v. Robinson, 29 Ind. App. 59; 63 N. E. 797 1212 Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593; 54 N. E. 407; 72 Am. St. Rep. 326 45, 111, 238, 244 Indiana, etc. R. R. Co. v. Swannell, 157 111. 616; 41 N. E. 989; 30 L. R. A. 290 1661, 1661, 1664 Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Her- kimer, 46 Ind. 142 127, 232, 233, 242 Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co. V. Morganstem, 103 111. 149 407 Indianapolis Rolling Mill v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 120 U. S. 256; 7 Sup. a. 542 1373, 1382 Industrial Land Develop- ment Co. V. Post, 55 N. J. Eq. 559; 37 Atl. 892 1468 Industrial Mutual Deposit Co. V. Central Mutual Deposit Co., 112 Ky. 937; 66 S. W. 1032 371 Industrial, etc. Trust v. Tod, 180N. Y.215; 73 N. E. 7 1660, 1662, 1663 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Inglehart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., 109 N. Y. 454; 17 N. E. 358 1315 Inglis V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 112 667, 667 V. Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbour, 3 Pet. 99 302 Ingraham v. National Salt Co., 130 Fed. 676; 65 C. C. A. 54 440, 440, 452 Inhabitants of Anson, 85 Me. 79; 26 Atl. 996 1493, 1493, 1493, 1494, 1586 Inman v. Ackroyd & Best (1901), 1 K. B. 613 1241 Innes & Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 254 24, 330, 627, 629, 635, 1290, 1340 Inns of Court Hotel Co., 6 Ch. 82 1399 Instone v. Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 Bibb (Ky.) 576; 5 Am. Dec. 638 667 Insurance Bank v. Bank of U. S., 4 Clark (Pa.) 125 992, 1193 Insurance Co. v. Connor, 17 Pa. St. 136 584 Insurance Press v. Montauk, etc. Wire Co., 103 N. Y. App. Div. 472; 93 N. Y. Supp. 134 324 Interior Woodwork Co. v. Prassar, 108 Wise. 557; 84 N. W. 833 85 International Bank v. Faber, 86 Fed. 443; 30 C. C. A 178 1182, 1367 International Boom Co. v. Rainy Lake River Boom Co., 97 Minn. 513; 107 N. W. 735 21, 39, 60 International Cable Co., 66 L. T. 253 1170, 1170, 1170 International Coal Mining Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 152 Fed. 557 _ 891 V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 152 Fed. 551 _ 1514 International Committee Y. W. C. A. V. Y. W. C. A., 194 111. 194; 62 N. E. 551; 66 L. R. A. 888 371 International Fair, etc. Ass'n V. Walker, 83 Mich. 386; 47 N. W. 338 212, 601, 608 International Life Ass. Soc, 39 L. J. Ch. 271 1244 International Savings, etc. Co. V. Stenger, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 294 140, 386 International Silver Co. v. Simeon, etc. Rogers Co., 110 Fed. 955 377 V. William G. Rogers Co., 113 Fed. 526 377 International Trust Co. v. Davis, etc. Mfg. Co., 70 N. H. 118; 46 Atl. 1054 110, 859, 1497, 1498 V. Decker Bros., 152 Fed. 78 1606, 1625, 1560 V. International L. & T. Co., 153 Mass. 271; 26 N. E. 693 ; 10 L. R. A. 758 375, 377 V. Townsend Brick, etc. Co., 95 Fed. 850; 37 C. C. A. 396 1564, 1566 International Wrecking, etc. Co. V. McMorran, 73 Mich. 467; 41 N. W. 510 1080 International, etc. Ry. Co. v. Herndon, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 465; 33 S. W. Rep. 377 1643 V. Wentworth, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 5; 27 S. W. 680 1643 Interoceanic Ry. of Mexico, 3 Hanson 162 1672 Interstate Hotel Co. v. Wood- ward, etc. Amusement Co., 103 Mo. App. 198; 77S.W. 114 856 Investment Co. v. Eldridge, 2 Pa. Dist. Rep. 394 895, 897 V. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 36 Fed. 48 1649, 1649, 1650 V. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 46 Fed. 696 1490, 1591 Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa 25; 31 Am. Rep. 140 517 Iowa Nat. Bank v. Cooper (Iowa), 107 N. W. 625 810 V. Sherman, 17 S. Dak. 396; 97 N. W. 12; 106 Am. St. Rep. 778 1372 Iowa, etc. R. R. Co. ■;;. Per- kins, 28 Iowa 281 609 Ipswich Taylor's Case, 11 Coke 53 569 Ireland v. Globe Milling Co., 19 R. L 180; 32 Atl. 921; 61 Am. St. Rep. 756; 29 L. R. A. 429 567 V. Globe Milling, etc. Co., 20 R. I. 190; 38 Atl. 116 301 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Ireland v. Globe Milling Co., 21 R. I. 9; 41 Atl. 258; 79 Am. St. Rep. 769 567, 571, 573 V. Hart (1902), 1 Ch. 522 696, 710, 711, 718, 747 V. Palestine, etc. Turn- pike Co., 19 Oh. St. 369 652 Ireland & Co., David (1905), 1 Ir. 133 1264 Iron Clay Brick Mfg. Co., 19 Ont. 113 1343 Iron Ship Coating Co. •;;. Blunt, L. R; 3 C. P. 484 1178, 1179 Irvine Co. v. Bond, 74 Fed. 849 266, 882, 884 Irving V. Houstoun, 4 Paton Sc. App. 521 1141, 1142 Irving Park Ass'n v. Watson, 410reg. 95; 67Pac. 945 803 Irwin V. McKechnie, 58 Minn. 145; 59N.W.987; 49 Am. St. Rep. 495; 26 L. R. A. 218 1617, 1618 Isaac's Case (1892), 2 Ch. 158 1172, 1175 Isbell V. Graybill, 19 Colo. App. 508; 76 Pac. 550 716, 747 Isbester v. Murphy Mfg. Co., 95 lU. App. 105 ' 579, 666 Isham V. Bennington Iron Co., 19 Vt. 230 409 V. Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 216 696 Isle of Wight Ry. Co. v. Tahourdin, 25 Ch. D. 320 993, 997, 997, 1062, 1062, 1164, 1193 Ismon V. Loder, 135 Mich. 345; 97 N. W. 769 392, 398, 409, 912 J. & P. Coats V. Crossland, 20 Times L. R. 800 1355 Jackson v. Bassford (1906), 2 Ch. 467 1396 V. Campbell, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 572 407 V. Cannon, 10 Brit. Columb. 73 1223 V. Crown Point Mining Co., 21 Utah 1 ; 81 Am. St. Rep. 651 ; 59 Pae. 238 138, 140, 1181, 1226, 1232 — - V. Dickinson (1903), 1 Ch. 947 813 V. Ludeling, 21 Wall. 616 1344, 1590, 1636 Jackson v. Munster Bank, 13 L. R. Ir. 118 82, 89, 954, 1004, 1062, 1062 V. Munster Bank, 15 L. R. Ir. 356 1282, 1282 V. Myers, 43 Md. 452 398, 403, 406 V. Newark Plank Road Co., 31 N. J. Law 277 1120 V. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 653; 58 N. Y. 623 1246 V. Rainford Coal Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 340 66 . V. South Omaha Live Stock Exchange, 49 Nebr. 687; 68 N. W. 1051 580 V. Traer, 64 Iowa 469; 20N.W. 764; 52 Am. Rep. 449 630, 631 V. Turquand, L. R. 4 H. L. 305 165, 170, 184, 501, 509, 510, 510 V. Vieksburg, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 141 . 1410, 1425 V. Y. & C. R. R. Co., 48 ■ Me. 147 1423, 1451 Jackson & Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 348 640, 640, 642 Jackson, etc. Co. v. Burling- ton, etc. R. Co., 29 Fed. 474 1441, 1592, 1624 Jackson, etc. Ins. Co. v, Walle, 105 La. 89 ; 29 So. 503 613 Jackson Brewing Co. v. Can- ton (La.), 43 So. 454 1372 Jackson ex dem. Ballou v. Campbell, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 572 1379, 1380 Jackson ex dem. Donally v. Walsh, 3 Johns. (N. Y.) 226 399 Jackson ex dem. Lynch v. Hartwell, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 422 55 Jackson ex dem. Martin v. Pratt, 10 Johns (N. Y.) 381 404 Jackson ex dem. Walton v. Leggett, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 377 228 Jacksonville Cigar Co. v. Dozier (Fla.), 43 So. 523 1341 Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514; 16 Sup. Ct. 379 68, 397, 404, 406, 1233 Jacobs V. Mexican Sugar Re- fining Co., 104 N. Y. App. Div, 242; 93 N. Y. Supp. 776 975 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Jacobs V. Mexican Sugar, etc. Co., 112 N. Y. App. Div. 655; 98 N. Y. Supp. 541 890 V. Mexican Sugar Ref. Co., 112 N. Y. App. Div. 657 393 Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Southern Banking, etc. Co. , 97 Ga. 573; 25 S. E. 171 862 Jacobson v. Brooklyn Lumber Co., 181 N. Y. 152; 76 N. E. 1075 ' 942, 1322 Jacques v. Chambers, 4 Eng. Ry. & Canal Cas. 205 788 V. Chambers, 4 Eng. Ry. & Canal Cas. 499 789 Jamaica Ry. Co. v. Atty.-Gen. of Jamaica (1893), A. C. 127 1679, 1679, 1679, 1681 James v. Boythorpe Colliery Co., 2 Megone 55 1530 V. Buena Ventura Ni- trate Syndicate (1896), 1 Ch. 456 501, 505, 788 V. Cowing, 82 N. Y. 449 1487, 1667, 1668 i). Eve, L. R. 6 H. L. 335 1106, 1163 V. Railroad Co., 6 Wall. 752 1636 — , Re, 146 N. Y. 78; 40 N. E. 876; 48 Am. St. Rep. 774 1136, 1144, 1154, 1155 James Clark Co. v. Colton, 91 Md. 195; 46 Atl. 386; 49 L. R. A. 698 1276, 1305 James Colmer, Ltd., Re (1897), 1 Ch. 524 544 Jameson v. Caldwell, 25 Oreg. 199; 35 Pac. 245 1347 Jamieson & McFarland v. Heim (Wash.), 86 Pac. 165 68 Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 362; 6 N. Y. Supp. 703; 148 N. Y. 652; 43N. E. 68; 31' L. R. A. 776; 51 Am. St. Rep. 727 734, 740, 743, 784, 784 V. Rogers, 13 Mass. 105 723 V. State Bank, 22 Colo. 309; 45 Pac. 505 1542 Jan^is's Case (1899), 1 Ch. 193 149, 205, 642 Jasper Land Co. v. Wallis, 123 Ala. 652; 26 So. 659 958 Jay Bridge Co. v. Woodman, 31 Me. 573 600 Jaycox, Re, 12 Blatchf. 209 864 Jefferson County Sav. Bank, 115 Ala. 317; 23 So. 48 972 Jegon, Ex parte, 12 Ch. D. '503 1106 Jellenik v. Huron Copper, etc. Co., 177 U. S. 1; 20 Sup. Ct. 559 423 Jemison v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 122 N. Y. 135; 25 N. E. 264; 9 L. R. A. 708; 19 Am. St. Rep. 482 854 Jenkins v. Baxter, 160 Pa. St. 199; 28 Atl. 682 1250 V. John Good Cordage, etc. Co., 56 N. Y. App. Div. 573; 68 N. Y. Supp. 239 1416 Jenner Institute of Preven- tive Medicine, 15 Times L. R. 394 999, 1000, 1001 Jenner's Case, 7 Ch. D. 132 1171 Jennings v. Bank of Califor- nia, 79 Cal. 323; 21 Pac. 852; 12 Am. St. Rep. 145; 5 L. R. A. 233 573, 573, 574, 771, 775 V. Hammond, 9 Q. B. D. 225 260 , Re (1851), 1 Ir. Ch. 236 605, 608, 609, 610, 623, 769, 915 Jermain v. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co., 91 N. Y. 483 1132, 1136 Jerome v. Cogswell, 204 U. S. 1 540, 541, 543 V. McCarter, 94 U. S. 734 1439 Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 .148, 149, 222, 245 Jersey City Paper Co., 69 N. J. Law 594 ; 55 Atl. 280 1066 Jessup V. Bridge, 11 Iowa 672; 79 Am. Dec. 513 1503, 1553, 1677 Jesup V. City Bank, 14 Wise. 331 1405, 1409, 1466, 1638 V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 43 Fed. 483 1306, 1306, 1310 Jewett v.- Valley Ry. Co., 34 Oh. St. 601 607, 607 V. West Somerville, etc. Bank, 173 Mass. 54; 54 N. E. 1085; 73 Am. St. Rep. 259 1380 J. G. Brill Co. V. Norton, etc. Street Ry. Co., 189 Mass. 431 ; 75 N. E. 1090 84, 863 J. F. White Co. V. Carroll (N. Car.), 59 S. E. 678 1503 Jhons V. People, 25 Mich. 499 126 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] J. I. Case Plow Works v. Finks, 81 Fed. 529; 26 C. C. A. 46 1617 Joel T. Bailey & Co. v. Snyder Bros., 61 111. App. 472 407, 1371, 1376, 1377 Johannesburg Hotel Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 119 643 John A. Roebling's Sons Co. V. Barre, etc. Power Co., 76 Vt. 131; 56Atl. 530 1213, 1215 John Bridge & Co. v. Magrath, 4 New So. Wales State Rep. 441 85 John Hancock, etc. Ins. Co. v. Worcester, etc. R. R. Co., 149 Mass. 214; 21 N. E. 364 1476 John Moriey Bldg. Co. v. Bar- ras (1891), 2 Ch. 386 1201, 1212, 1213, 1231 John V. Farwell Co. v. Wolf, 96 Wise. 10; 70N. W. 289; 71 N. W. 109; 37 L. R. A. 138; 65 Am. St. Rep. 22 844 Johns V. Johns, 1 Oh. St. 350 420 V. McLester, 137 Ala. 283; 34 So. 174; 97 Am. St. Rep. 27 931, 943 Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 416; 13 Am. Rep. 607 428, 428, 615 V. Amberson, 140 Ala. 342; 37 So. 273 798 V. Bridgewater Iron Mfg. Co., 14 Gray (Mass.) 274 1132, 1137 V. Bush, 3 Barb. Ch. 207 405 V. Corser, 34 Minn. 355; 25 N. W. 799 252, 252, 254 ■». Crawfordsville, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 280 229 V. Hume, 138 Ala. 564; 36 So. 421 422, 678 V. Kessler, 76 Iowa 411; 41 N. W. 57 149, 160 V. Langdon, 135 Cal. 624; 67 Pac. 1050; 87 Am. St. Rep. 156 901, 906 V. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 5 Ch. D. 687 613, 657, 659, 663 V. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303; 73N. W. 147 117, 124, 229, 246, 247, 248, 917 V. Sage, 4 Idaho 758; 44 Pac. 641 1371, 1376, 1377 V. Somerville Dyeing etc. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 216 616 Johnson v. Stoughton Wagon Co. , 1 18 Wise. 438 ; 95 N. W. 394 1278, 1279 V. Stratton, 109 111. App. 481 786 V. Underhill, 52 N. Y. 203 697, 782 V. Wabash, etc. Co., 16 Ind. 389 211 Johnson & Co., I. C. (1902), 2 Ch. 101 1497, 1498, 1525 Johnston v. Allis, 71 Conn. 207; 41 Atl. 816 176 V. Crawley, 25 Ga. 316; 71 Am. Dec. 173 398, 399 V. Elizabeth, etc. Ass'n, 104 Pa. St. 394 1378 V. Ewing Female Uni- versity, 35 III. 518 119 V. Grumble, 19 So. Rep. 100 (Miss.) 297 V. Jones, 23 N. J. Eq. 216 996, 1000, 1210, 1212, 1225, 1250 V. Laffin, 103 U. S. 800 519, 694, 701 V. Renton, 9 Eq. 181 728, 747, 754, 755, 755, 757 Johnston Foreign Patents Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 234 80 Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30 Minn. 308 233, 233 Joint Stock Discount Co., 36 L. J. Ch. 150 898 V. Brown, 3 Eq. 139; 8 Eq. 381 75, 77, 97, 1265, 1280, 1282, 1282, 1283, 1368 Joliet Electric Light, etc. Co. V. Ingalls, 23 111. App. 45 1371 Joliet Iron Co. v. Scioto Fire Brick Co., 82 111. 548 1439 Jones V. Arkansas Mech., etc. Co., 38 Ark. 17 1276 V. Aspen Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263; 40 Pac. 457; 52 Am. St. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143 147, 238, 238, 246, 247, 302 V. Atchison, etc. R. R. Co., 150 Mass. 304; 23 N. E. 43; 5 L. R. A. 538 791 V. Bank of Leadville, 10 Colo. 464; 17 Pac. 272 1188 V. Bonanza Mining, etc. Co. (Utah), 91 Pac. 273 652, 1166, 1226, 1227 V. Brinley, 1 East 1 421 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Jones V. Central Trust Co., 73 Fed. 568; 19 C. C. A. 569 1490, 1567 V. Cincinnati Type Foun- dry Co., 14 Ind. 89 232, 384 V. Concord & Montreal R. R. Co., 67 N. H. 119; 38 Atl. 120 469, 473, 488, 499, 563, 1039 V. Concord & Montreal R. R. Co., 67 N. H. 234; 30 Atl. 614; 68 Am. St. Rep. 650 469, 473, 488, 500, 1004 V. Dana, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 395 222 V. Guaranty, etc. Co. 101 U. S. 622 65, 835 — ^ V. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174; 2 Sup. Ct. 336 V. Hale, 32 Oreg. 465; 52 Pac. 311 V. Hanna, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 550; 60 S. W. 279 V. Harrison, 2 Ex. 52 V. Hilldale Cemetery Soc. (Ky.), 65 S. W. 838 998, 1069 V. Imperial Bank, 23 Grant (Can.) 262 965, 968 V. Jolmson, 86 Ky. 530; 6 S. W. 582 V. Milton, etc. Turnpike Co., 7 Ind. 547 V. Missouri-Edison Elec- tric Co., 144 Fed. 765; 75 C. C. A. 631 240, 245. 263, 962, 979,' 1083 V. Morrison, 31 Minn. 140; 16N.W.854 81,496,499 504, 509, 517, 1001, 1199, 1299, 1319, 1322 V. Nassau Suburban Home Co., 103 N. Y. Supp. 1089; 53 N. Y. Misc. 63 V. Pearl Mining Co., 20 Colo. 417; 38 Pac. 700 V. Schlapback, 81 Fed. 274 1616, 1617 V. Seligman, 81 N. Y. 190 1582 V. Sisson, 6 Gray (Mass.) 288 604 V. Smith (Tex.), 87 S. W. 210 289, 293 V. Terre Haute, etc. R.R. Co., 57 N. Y. 196 497, 501, 746, 1116, 1132, 1133, 1477 V. Vance Shoe Co., 92 111. App. 158 593, 594, 1242, 1247 837 1317 1328 341 1274 1045 1064 940 Jones V. Williams, 139 Mo. 1 : 39S.W.486; 40S.W.353; 61 Am. St. Rep. 436; 37 L. R. A. 682 880, 1078, 1213, 1251, 1348, 1374 , Ex parte (1900), 1 Ch. 220 167 , Ex parte, 27 L. J. Ch. 666 417, 524, 525, 664, 702, 702 Jones, Lloyd & Co., 41 Ch. D. 159 642 Jones's Case, 6 Ch. 48 205 Jordan v. Richmond Home for Ladies (Va.), 56 S. E. 730 380, 380 Jordan, etc. Co. v. Collins, etc. Co., 107 Ala. 572; 18 So. 137 1069, 1211 Joseph V. Holroyd, 22 W. R. 614 783 V. Raff, 82 N. Y. App. Div. 47; 81 N. Y. Supp. 546; 176 N. Y. 611; 68 N. E. 1118 519, 521 Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Bloede, 106 Fed. 396; 45 C. C. A. 354 ; 52 L. R. A. 734 76 Josephs V. Prebber, 3 B. & C. 639 7, 259 Joshua Stubbs, Ltd. (1891), 1 Ch. 475 1581, 1598 Joslyn V. St. Paul Distilling Co., 44 Minn. 183 ; 46 N. W. 337 693, 733, 733, 733 Journal Pub. Club, 30 N. Y. Misc. 326; 63 N. Y. Supp. 465 1249 Journalists Fund of Phila- delphia, Be, 8 Phila. 272 94 Joy V. Jackson, etc. Plank Road Co., 11 Itoch. 155 1521 Judah V. American, etc. Ins. Co., 4 Ind. 333 147, 175, 219, 606 Juker V. Com. ex rel. Fisher, 20 Pa. St. 484 1008, 1011, 1249 Julian V. Central Trust Co., 193 tJ. S. 93; 24 Sup. Ct. 399 1632 JuUard v. Walker, 54 111. App. 517 1379 Junction R. R. Co. v. Bank of Ashland, 12 Wall. 226 V. Cleneay, 13 Ind. 161 V. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236 Jung Brewing Co. v. Comm. (Ky.), 96 S. W. 476 1400, 1401 1423 211 • 368 cxiu TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Just V. State Bank, 132 Mich. 600; 94 N. W. 200 572, 771 J. W. Butler Paper Co. v. Cleveland, 220 111. 128; 77 N. E. 99; 110 Am. St. Rep. 230 161 K Kadish v. Garden City, etc. Bldg. Ass'n, 151 111. 531; 38 N. E. 236; 42 Am. St. Rep. 256 Kaemmerer v. Kaemmerer (111.), 83 N. E. 133 Kaeppler v. Redfleld Creamery Co., 12 S. Dak. 483; 81 N. W. 907 287, 288 Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph, 70 Mo. 262 Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458 Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings Bank, 56 Iowa 104; 8 N. W. 772; 41 Am. Rep. 85 31, 117, 118, 242, 246, 251 Kalamazoo Novelty Mfg. Co., 36 Mich. 327 Kalamazoo Spring etc. Co. v. Winans, 106 Mich. 193; 64 N. W. 23 Kalbach v. Clark (Iowa), 110 N. W. 599 Kampman v. Tarver, 87 Tex. 491; 29 S. W. 768 Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 90 1120, 1122 , Re, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 566; 72 N. Y. Supp. 333 852 590 767 1615 1379 1069 1151 484 1137, 1157 Kansas City v. Vineyard, 128 Mo. 75; 30 S. W. 326 Kansas City Hay Press Co. v. Devol, 72 Fed. 717 592, 1210 Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Harris, 51 Mo. 464 V. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126 Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. V. King (Ark.), 85 S.W. 1131 Kansas Loan, etc. Co. v. Electric Ry. etc. Co., 108 Fed. 702 Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Bayles, 19 Colo. 348; 35 Pac. 744 1614, 1616, 1644 V. "Wood, 24 Kans. 619 1609 Kansas Valley Nat. Bank v. Rowell, 2 Dillon 371 835, 859 Kansas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dorough, 72 Tex. 108; 10 S. W. 711 1609 25 483 492 1634 1563 1607, Kantzler v. Bensinger, 214 111. 589; 73 N. E. 874 1030 Karberg's Case (1892), 3 Ch. 1 182, 184, 187, 279 Karn v. Rorer Mining Co'., 86 Va. 754; 11 S. E. 431 1650 Karnes v. Rochester, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. Pr. n. s. (N. Y.) 107 1110, 1351 Karsch v. Pottier, etc. Co., 82 N. Y App. Div. 230; 81 N. Y Supp. 782 1377 Karuth'a Case, 20 Eq. 506 1170, 1171, 1175 Kassler v. Kyle, 28 Colo. 248; 65 Pac. 34 540 Katama Land Co. v. Jemegan, 126 Mass. 155 600 Katz V. H. & H. Mfg. Co., 109 N. Y. App. Div. 49; 95 N.Y. Supp. 663; 183 N.Y. 578 585 Kaufman v. Charlottesville Woolen Mills, 93 Va. 673; 25 S. E. 1003 1135, 1144 Kavanaugh v. Commonwealth Trust Co., 181 N. Y. 121; 73 N. E. 562; 103 N. Y. App. Div. 95; 92 N. Y. Supp. 543 937, 943, 956, 978, 979 Kaye v. Croydon Tramways Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 358 82, 1004 Kean v. Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401 52, 949 V. Union Water Co., 52 N. J. Eq.813; 31AtL282; 46 Am. St. Rep. 538 1250, 1250 Keane v. Moffly (Pa.), 66 Atl. 319 1664 Keans v. New York, etc. Ferry Co., 17 N. Y. Misc. 272; 40 N. Y. Supp. 366 1296 Keatinge v. Paringa Con- solidated Mines (1902), W. N. 15 354 Keeler v. Atchison, etc. Ry. Co., 92 Fed. 545; 34 C. C. A. 523 1632 Keen v. Whittington, 40 Md. 489 235 Keene v. Van Reuth, 48 Md. 184 234, 241 Keene Five Cent Savings Bank v. Lyon County, 90 Fed. 523 1432 Keeney v. Converse, 99 Mich. 316; 58 N. W. 325 967, 1263 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Keller v. Eureka, etc. Mfg. Co., 43 Mo. App. 84; 11 L. R. A. 472 427, 430 , Re, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 58 1001, 1006 Kellerman v. Maier, 116 Cal. 416; 48 Pac. 377 631, 1313 Kelley v. Biddle, 180 Mass. 147; 61N. E. 821 V. Collier, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 353; 32 S. W. 428 Kelley, Maus & Co. v. O'Brien Varnish Co., 90 111. App. 287 Kellock V. Enthoven, L. R. 9 Q. B. 241 783, 783 Kellogg V. Stookwell, 75 111. 68 697, 782 Kelly V. Browning, 113 Ala. 420; 21 So. 928 V. Calhoun, 95 U. S. 710 V. Ning Yung Benev. Ass'n (Cal.), 84 Pac. 321 V. Receiver, 10 Biss. 151 80 1353 84 1661 409 V. Trustees of Ala., etc. R. R. Co., 58 Ala., 489 853 1573, 1573 1603, 1603 278, Kelner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174 280, 280, 306, 307, 309 Kelsey v. Nat. Bank, 69 Pa. St. 426 1235 V. New England Street Ry. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 742; 48 Atl. 1001 1303, 1334 V. Sargent, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 150 1298, 1321 Kemble v. Milville, 69 N. J. Law 637; 56 Atl. 311 108 V. Wilmington, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Phila. 469 1401 Kemmerer v. Haggerty, 139 Fed. 693 _ 956, 970 Kempson v. Saunders, 4 Bing. 6 784 Kennebec, etc. R. R. Co. v. Kendall, 31 Me. 470 600 V. Portland, etc. R. R. Co., 54 Me. 173 1627 Kennedy v. Acadia Pulp, etc. Co., 38 Nova Scotia 291 185 V. California Sav. Bank, 101 Cal. 495; 35 Pac. 1039; 40 Am. St. Rep. 69 846 V. I. C. & L. R. Co., 3 Fed. 97 1616 V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co. 2 Dill. 448 1604 V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., . 5 Dill. 519 1649, 1649 Kennedy v. Thompson, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 296; 89 N. Y. Supp. 963 786 , Be, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 188; 77 N. Y. Supp. 714 895 Kennett v. Woodworth-Mason Co., 68 N. H. 432; 39 Atl. 585 103 Kent V. Freehold Land Co., 3 Ch. 493 178 V. Lake, etc. Co., 144 U. S. 75; 12 Sup. Ct. 650 1485, 1646 V. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 159 439, 439, 439, 440, 441, 444, 445, 454, 584, 966 Kent County Agriculture Soc. V. Houseman, 81 Mich. 609; 46 N. W. 15 1185 Kent Tramways Co., Re, 12 Ch. D. 312 295 Kent's Case, 39 Ch. D. 259 643 Kenton Furnace, etc. Co. v. McAlpin, 5 Fed. 737 999, 1005, 1006, 1006, 1007, 1024, 1025, 1123 Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 84Ky. 430; 1 S. W. 717 768, 772, 772 Kentucky Mutual, etc. Co. ■;;. Schaefer, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 657; 85 S. W. 1098 180 Kentucky Tobacco Ass'n v. Ashby, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 109 1373 Kenyon v. Fowler, 155 Fed. 107 618, 706 Keokuk, etc. R. R. Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301; 14 Sup. Ct. 592 1552 Ker's Case, 4 A. C. 549 705, 800 Kem V. Arbeiter, etc. Verein, 139 Mich. 233; 102 N. W. 746 935 V. Chicago, etc. Ass'n, 40 111. App. 356; affirmed s. c. 140 111. 371 228 V. Day, 45 La. Ann. 71 ; 12 So. 6 1174, 1177 Kern's Estate, 176 Pa. St. 373; 35 Atl. 231 701,719,723, 808 Kemoohan, Re, 104 N. Y. 618 ; 11 N. E. 149 ■ 502, 1137, 1137, 1143, 1150, 1156 Kerr v. Urie, 86 Md. 72; 37 Atl. 789; 63 Am. St. Rep. 493; 38 L. R. A. 119 620, 708 KerridgeD.Hesse,9C.&P.200 307 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Kessler v. Ensley Co., 123 Fed. 546 936, 938, 952, 967 Kessler & Co. ■». Ensley Co., 129 Fed. 397 938, 939, 967 V. Ensley Co., 141 Fed. 130; 148 Fed. 1019 1302 Ketchum v. Duncan, 96 U. S. 659 1343, 1451, 1452, 1452, 1455, 1455, 1456, 1622, 1628 V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 532 1493 V. St. Louis, 101 U. S. 306 1500, 1677 Kettle River Mines «. Bleasdel, 7 Brit. Columb. 507 650 Key & Son, W. (1902), 1 Ch. 467 428, 771, 793 Keystone Nat. Bank v. Palos Coal, etc. Co. (Ala.), 43 So. 570 1554 Kharaskhoma Syndicate (1897), 2 Ch. 451 640, 640 Kidd V. New Hampshire Traction Co., 72 N. H. 273; 56 Atl. 465 974 ■!;. New Hampshire Trac- tion Co. (N. H.), 66 Atl. 127 1083, 1164, 1189, 1325 Kidwelly Co. v. Raby, 2 Price 93 210 Kiely v. Kiely, 3 Ont. App. 438 1164, 1165 Killen v. Barnes, 106 Wise. 546; 82 N. W. 536 1274, 1285, 1355, 1357 Killingsworth v. Portland Trust Co., 18 Oreg. 351 ; 23 Pac.66; 7L.R.A.638; 17 Am. St. Rep. 737 53 Kik)atrick v. Penrose, etc. Co., 49 Pa. St. 118; 88 Am. Dec. 497 1237 Kimball v. City of Cedar Rapids, 99 Fed. 130 970 V. Goodbum, 32 Mich. 10 1378 V. New England, etc. Grate Co., 168 Mass. 32; 46 N. E. 432 1239 V. Union Water Co., 44 Cal. 173; 13 Am. Rep. 157 751 Kimbell v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 119 Fed. 102; 55 C. C. A. 162 967 Kimber v. Gunnell Gold, etc. Co., 126 Fed. 137; 61 C. C. A. 203 1527 Kincaid's Case, 11 Eq. 192 1173, 1175 King V. FoUet, 3 Vt. 385 1134, 1156 V. Housatonic R. R. Co., 45 Conn. 226 1515 V. Marshall, 33 Beav. 565 66, 1513, 1519 V. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 7 Biss. 529 1620 Paterson, etc. R. R. Co., 29 N. J. Law 82; 29 N. J. Law 504 1120, 1121, 1123 V. Tuscumbia R. R. Co., 7 Pa. L. J. 166; 14 Fed. Cas. 554 1499, 1589 King's Case, 6 Ch. 196 618, 621 Kingsbury Collieries and Moore's Contract (1907), 2 Ch. 259 35, 37, 60, 61, 70, 97 Kingston Cotton Mills (1896), 1 Ch. 6 1363 (No. 2), (1897) 2 Ch.279 1363 Kingstown Yacht Club (1888), 21 L. R. Ir. 199 425, 613, 768 Kinnan v. Forty-second St., etc. Ry. Co., 140 N. Y. 183; 35 N. E. 498 429, 430, 430, 748 V. Sullivan County Club, 26 N. Y. App. Div. 213; 50 N. Y. Supp. 95 571, 1031 Kinney v. Crocker, 18 Wise. 74 1617 Kinsman v. Fisk, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 494; 31 N. Y. Supp. 1045 1317 Kinston, etc. R. R. Co. v. Stroud, 132 N. Car. 413; 43 S. E. 913 221 Kipling V. Todd, 3 C. P. D. 350 196, 1174 Kirby's Case, 46 L. T. 682 641 Kirk V. Bell, 16 Q. B. 290 1205 V. Nowill, 1 T. R. 118 580, 581, 657 Kirkcaldy St am Laundry Co., 6 Fraser (Sc.) 778 137 Kirkman v. Carlstadt Chemi- cal Co., 36 N. Y. Misc. 822; 74 N. Y. Supp. 865 908 Kirkpatrick v. American Alkali Co., 140 Fed. 186 449 V. Eastern Milling, etc. Co. (1), 135 Fed. 144 408 V. Eastern Milling & Export Co., 137 Fed. 387; 69 C. C. A. 579 366 Kirkpatrick's Will, Re, 22 N. J. Eq. 463 55 Kirkstall Brewery Co., 5 Ch. D. 535 532 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 992 1437 Klrwin v. Washington Match Co., 37 Wash; 285; 79 Pao. 928 Kissel V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 44 N. Y. Misc. 156; 89 N. Y. Supp. 796 Kisterbock's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 601; 18 Atl. 381; 14 Am. St. Rep. 868 683, 735 Kitchens v. J. H. Teasdale Commission Co., 105 Mo. App. 463; 79 S. W. 1177 1260, 1302, 1328 Kittel V. Augusta, etc. R. R. Co., 84 Fed. 386; 28 C. C. A. 437 1323 Klaus, In re, 67 Wise. 401 ; 29 N. W. 582 562, 571, 745 Klein v. Funk, 82 Minn. 3; 84 N. W. 460 V. Independent Brewing Ass'n (111.), 83 N. E. 434 V. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474 1616, 1618 Klopp V. Lebanon Bank, 46 - Pa. St. 88 Knabe v. Ternot, 16 La. Ann. 13 Knapp V. Publishers, etc. Co., 127 Mo. 53; 29 S. W. 885 V. S. Jarvis Adams Co., 135 Fed. 1008; 70 C. C. A. 536 1110, 1111 Kneeland v. American Loan, etc. Co., 136 U. S. 89; 10 Sup. Ct. 950 1560, 1565, 1612, 1612 V. Brass Foundry, etc. Works, 140 U. S. 592; 11 Sup. Ct. 837 1640 Knickerbocker Importation Co. V. State Board of As- sessors (N. J.), 65 Atl. 913 518, 522 Knickerbocker Investment Co. V. Voorhees, 100 N. Y. App. Div. 414; 91 N. Y. Supp. 816 1054 Knickerboker Trust Co. v. Davis, 143 Fed. 587 348, 352, 356 V. Myers, 133 Fed. 764; 139 Fed. Ill 618 V. Oneonta, etc. Ry. Co., 101 N. Y. Supp. 241 1595, 1626 V. Penacock Mfg. Co., 100 Fed. 814 1495 Knight V. Barber, 16 M. & W. 66 423 cxvii 1314 1312 769 1312 497 Knight V. Knight, 2 Giff. 616 424 V. Old Nat. Bank, 3 Cliff. 429 571, 572 Knight's Case, 2 Ch. 321 658, 667, 911 Knights, etc. of America v. Weber, 101 111. App. 488 557, 557 Knights of Maccabees v. Searle (Nebr.), 106 N. W. 448 374, 379 Knights Templars', etc. Co. V. Jarman, 104 Fed. 638; 44 C. C. A. 93 587, 590 Knoop V. Bohmrich, 49 N. J. Eq. 82; 23 Atl. 118 944, 966 Knowles v. Sandercock, 107 Cal. 629; 40 Pac. 1047 74, 75, 75,77 Knowles Loom Works v. Ryle, 97 Fed. 730; 38 C. C. A. 494 1537 Knowlton v. Conrees, etc. Spring Co., 57 N. Y. 518 632 Knox V. Childersburg Land Co., 86 Ala. 180; 5 So. 578 211, 213 632 V. Eden Musee, 148 N. Y. 441; 42N. E. 988; 51 Am. St. Rep. 700; 31 L. R. A. 779 741 Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539 1220, 1448 Koch V. Nat. Union Bldg. Ass'n, 35 III. App. 465; B.C., 137 111. 497; 27 N. E. 530 1372 V. North Ave. Ry. Co., 75 Md. 222; 23 Atl. 463; 15 L. R. A. 377 232 Kodak, Ltd. v. Clark (1903), 1 K. B. 505 879 Koebel v. Landlords' Pro- tective Bureau, 210 111. 176; 71 N. E. 362 372 Koehler v. Black River, etc. Co., 2 Black 715 407, 408, 1317 Kolff V. St. Paul Fuel Ex- change, 48 Minn. 215; 50 N. W. 1036 562, 566 Koppel V. Mass. Brick Co., 192 Mass. 223; 78 N. E. 128 283, 290 Koster v. Pain, 41 N. Y. App. . Div. 443; 58 N. Y. Supp. 865 319, 1347 Kozminsky, Re, 16 Vict. L. R. 137 603 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Kraft V. Grififon Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 29; 81 N. Y. Supp. 438 628, 630, 1404 V. West Side Brewery- Co., 219 ni. 205; 76 N. E. 372 86 Kraniger v. People's Bldg. Soc, 60 Minn. 94; 61 N. W. 904 109, 142, 859, 1377 Kreissl v. Distilling Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 5; 47Atl. 471 1050, 1052, 1053, 1053 Krisch v. Interstate Fisheries Co., 39 Wash. 381; 81 Pao. 855 524 Kroegher v. Calivada Coloni- zation Co., 119 Fed. 641; 56 C. C. A. 257 1245, 1318, 1324, 1340, 1341, 1344 Kropholler v. St. Paul, etc. Ry. Co., 2 Fed. 302 1628, 1660 Krotz V. Louisiana Const. Co. (La.), 45 So. 276 1596 Kuser v. Wright, 52 N. J. Eq. ' 825; 31 Atl. 397 1222, 1225 Kyle V. Wagner, 45 W. Va. 349; 32 S. E. 213 974, 1188 Kyshe v. Alturas Gold, 4 Times L. R. 331 1251 Lacaff V. Dutch Miller, etc. Co., 31 Wash. 566; 72 Pac. 112 428 Lacaze & Reive v. Creditors, 46 La. Ann. 237 ; 14 So. 601 1375 Lackawanna, etc. Co. *. Fanners' L. & T. Co., 176 U. S. 298; 20 Sup. Ct. 363 1567, 1571 Lackey v. Richmond, etc. R. Co., 17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 43 613, 614 La Compagnie de Mayville v. Whitley (1896), 1 Ch. 788 932, 932, 934, 1002, 1164, 1200, 1201 Ladies' Dress Ass'n v. Pul- brook (1900), 2 Q. B. 377 223, 531, 667, 668 Lady Bryan Mining Co., 14 Fed. Cas. 926; 1 Sawy. 349; 2 Abb. (U. S.) 537 416 Lady Forrest (Murchison) Gold Mine (1901), 1 Ch. 582 322, 323, 329 Ladywell Mining Co. v. Brooks, 35 Ch. D. 400 323 LaFayette Club, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 243 94 Lafayette Co. v. Neely, 21 Fed. 738 960, 960 Lafferty's Estate, 154 Pa. St. 430; 26 Atl. 388 1054 Laflin, etc. Powder Co. v. Sinsheimer, 46 Md. 315; 24 Am. Rep. 522 221, 222 Lagarde v. Anniston Lime, etc. Co., 126 Ala. 496; 28 So. 199 1340 Lagrone v. Timmerman, 46 S. Car. 372; 24 S. E. 290 79 Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. La- gunas Syndicate (1899), 2 h. 392 272, 274, 277, 316, 316, 329, 330, 330, 334, 1259, 1275, 1326 V. Schroeder & Co., 85 L. T. 22 1121 Lail V. Mt. Sterling Coal Road Co., 13 Bush (Ky.) 32 609 Laing v. Burley, 101 111. 591 696 V. Queen City Ry. Co. (Tex.), 49 S. W. 136 1639 Laird v. Birkenhead 'Ry. Co., Johns 500 395 Lake Erie, etc. Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 92 Ind. 487 1632 Lake Ontario Shore R. R. Co. V. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219 208, 209 Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. Co. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 116, 119, 202, 604, 604 Lake St. El. R. Co. v. Ziegler, 99 Fed. 114; 39 C. C. A. 431 645, 1672 Lake Superior Bldg. Co. v. Thompson, 32 Mich. 293 230 Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87 636 Lake Superior Navigation Co. V. Morrison, 22 Up. Can. C. P. 217 158 Lakewood Gas Co. v. Smith, 62 N. J. Eq. 677; 51 Atl. 152 754 Lallande v. Ingram, 19 La. Ann. 364 804 Lamar Land, etc. Co. v. Bel- knap Sav. Bank, 28 Colo. 344; 64 Pac. 210 1503, 1650 Lamb & Sons v. Dobson, 117 Iowa 124; 90 N. W. 607 138 Lamb Knit Goods v. Lamb Glove & Mitten Co., 120 Mich. 159; 78 N. W. 1072 387 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Lambert v. Neuchatel As- phalts Co., 51 L. J. Ch. 882 1099 V. Northern Ry., 18 W. R. 180 1238, 1240, 1243 Lambertville Nat. Bank v. MoCready, etc. Co. (N. J.), 15 Atl. 388 1586 Lamkin v. Baldwin, etc. Co., 72 Conn. 57; 43 Atl. 593, 1042; 44 L. R. A. 786 297, 299 Lamm v. Port Deposit Co., 49 Md. 233; 33 Am. Rep. 246 1362 Lamonby v. Carter (1903), 1 Ch. 352 24 Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 237 1582 Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321 619 Lamson Store Service Co., Re, 1 Ch. 875 542 Lanaux, Succession of, 46 La. Ann. 1036; 15 So. 708; 25 L. R. A. 577 804 Lancashire Cottonspinning Co. V. Greatorex, 14 L. T. N. 8. 290 898 Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576; 35 N. E. 964; 24 L. R. A. 322 244, 848, 861 Lancaster Starch Co. v. Moore, 62 N. H. 671 652 Land Credit Co. v. Fermory, 5 Ch. 763 1279, 1280 Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. Mclntyre, 100 Wise. 245; 75 N. W. 964 961, 984 Land Mortgage Bank of Florida, 3 Manson 164 1672 Land Title, etc. Co. v. As- phalt Co., 127 Fed. 1; 62 C. C. A. 23 984 Landers v. Frank Street M. E. Church, 114 N. Y. 626; 21 N. E. 420 1035 Landis v. Saxton, 105 Mo. 486; 16S. W. 912; 24 Am. St. Rep. 403 1288 V. Sea Isle, etc. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 654; 33 Atl. 964 982, 982 V. Western Pa. R. R. Co., 133 Pa. St. 579; 19 Atl. 556 1664 Landman v. Entwistle, 7 Ex. 632 306, 310 Landowners', etc. Drainage Co. V. Ashford, 16 Ch. D. 411 64, 1221 Lands Allotment Co. (1894), 1 Ch. 616 74, 1265, 1280, 1282, 1283, 1288 Lane v. Brainard, 30 Conn. 565 189, 192, 1201 V. fiaughman, 17 Oh. St. 642; 93 Am. Dec. 653 1561 V. Macon, etc. Ry. Co., 96 Ga. 630; 24 S. E. 157 1612 Lang V. Lang, 57 N. J. Eq. 325; 41 Atl. 705 1137, 1149, 1149, 1149, 1149 V. Louisiana Tanning Co., 56 Fed. 675 960 V. Mayor, etc. of Bay- onne (N. J.), 68 Atl. 90 244 Langan v. Francklyn, 29 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 102; 20 N. Y. Supp. 404 976, 1000, 1042, 1058, 1227 Langdon v. Fogg, 14 Abb. N.-C. (N. Y.) 435 n 969, 1290 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 54 Vt. 593 1622, 1640, 1640 Lange v. Reservation Mining, etc. Co. (Wash.), 93 Pac. 208 1188 V. Royal Highlanders (Nebr.), 106 N. W. 224 586 Langham v. East Rose Wheal, etc. Co., 37 L. J. Ch. 253 186 Langhome v. Richmond City Ry. Co., 91 Va. 364; 22 S. E. 357 380 Langley v. Langley, 31 Ont. Rep. 254 1239 Langolf V. Seiberlitch, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 64 949, 957, 974, 1068 Langston v. Greenville, etc. Imp. Co., 120 N. Car. 132; 26 S. E. 644 1079 V. S. Car. R. R. Co., 2 S. Car. 248 1423, 1441, 1449, 1460, 1472 Lanier Lumber Co. v. Rees, 103 Ala. 622; 16 So. 637; 49 Am. St. Rep. 57 775 Lanigan v. North, 69 Ark. 62; 63 S. W. 62 788 Lankershin Ranch Land, etc. Co. V. Herberger, 82 Cal. 600; 23 Pac. 134 768 Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 536; 21 Sup. a. 878 521 Lapham v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Pennewill's Rep. (Del.) 421; 56 Atl. 366 381 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Lapsley v. Merchants' Bank, 105 Mo. App. 98; 78 S. W. 1095 1109 Laredo Imp. Co. v. Stevenson, 66 Fed. 633; 13 C. C. A. 661 484 Larimer v. Beardsley, 130 Iowa 706; 107 N. W. 935 712 Larking, Ex parte, 4 Ch. H. 566 1263, 1276, 1343 Larkworthy's Case (1903), 1 Ch. 711 669 Laroque v. Beauchemin (1897), A. C. 358 642, 645 Larsen v. U. S. Mortgage, etc. Co. 104 N. Y. App. Div. 76; 93 N. Y. Supp. 610 1616 Larwill v. Burke, 19 Ohio Circ. a. 513 1122 Lasell V. Thistle Gold Co., 11 Brit. Columbia 466 1347 Lassell v. Hannah, 37 Can. Sup. a. 324 1347 Lathom v. Greenwich Ferry Co., 72 L. T. 790 1647, 1648, 1655 Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 432 483, 493 Latimer v. Bard, 76 Fed. 536 489, 492 V. Citizens' State Bank, 102 Iowa 162; 71N.W.225 74 V. Herzog Teleseme Co., 75N. Y.App. Div. 522; 78 N. Y. Supp. 314 894, 904 La Tosca Club v. La Tosca Club, 23 App. B. C. 96 371 Laughlaud v. Miller, Laugh- land & Co., 6 Fraser (Sc.) 413 . 1348 Laughlin v. U. S. Rolling Stock Co., 64 Fed. 25 1646 Laugier v. Victorian, etc. Power Co., 16 Vict. L. R. 64 160 Lauman's Appeal, 68 Pa. St. 88 811 Laurel Springs Land Co. v. Fougeray, 50 N. J. Eq. 756; 26 Atl. 886 1112 Law V. Alley, 67 N. H. 93 ; 29 Atl. 636 502 V. Fuller (Pa.), 66 Atl. 754 942, 1318, 1344 Law Guarantee Soc. v. I3ank of England, 24 Q. B. D. 406 69, 796, 813, 814 Law Guarantee, etc. Soc. v. Russian Bank (1905), 1 K. B. 815 1552 Law Guarantee & Trust Soc. V. Mitcham, etc. Brewery Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 98 1557, 1557 Lawford v. Billericay Rural Dist. Council (1903), 1 K. B. 772 391, 395, 826 Lawrence v. Curtis, 191 Mass. 240 947, 1353 V. Fox, 20 N. Y. 268 1508 V. Maxwell, 53 N. Y. 19 807 w. Steams, 79 Fed. 878; 83 Fed. 738 1288 Lawrence's Case, 2 Ch. 412 177, 214 Lawrie v. Silsby, 76 Vt. 240; 56 Atl. 1106; 104 Am. St. Rep. 927 117, 148 Lawshe v. Royal Baking Pow- der Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. 361 901 Lawson v. Black Diamond, etc. Co. (Wash.), 86 Pac. 1120 1078 Lawton v. Hickman, 9 Q. B. 563 423 Lawyers Advertising, etc. Co. V. Consolidated Ry., etc. Co., 187N.Y.395; 80N.E. 199 89, 89, 90, 1000 Laxon & Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 555 120, 223, 241 Lazear v. Nat. Union Bank, 52 Md. 78 ; 36 Am. Rep. 355 844 Lea V. Iron Belt Mercantile Co. (Ala.), 42 So. 415 628, 880 Leach v. Forbes, 11 Gray (Mass.) 506; 71 Am. Dec. 732 786 Leader Printing Co. v. Lowiy, 9 Oy. 89; 59 Pac. 242 246 Leahy v. Lobdell, 80 Fed. 665 ; 26 C. C. A. 75 810 Leary v. Blanchard, 48 Me. 269 1377 V. Columbia River, etc. Co., 82 Fed. 775 1111 V. Interstate Nat. Bank (Tex.), 63 S. W. Rep. 149 1203 Leas Hotel Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 332 1520, 1606 Leathers v. Janney, 41 La. Ann. 1120; 6 So. 884; 6 L. R. A. 661 72 Leavengood v. McGee (Oreg.), 91 Pac. 453 _ 241 Le^ivenworth v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 134 U. S. 688; 10 Sup. a. 708 225, 225, 1324, 1324 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Leavitt v. Fisher, 4 Duer (N. Y.) 1 719, 721 V. Oxford, etc. Ry. Co., 3 Utah 265; 1 Pac. 356 651, 1201, 1205, 1213, 1303 Leazure v. Hillegas, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 313 404, 404, 846 Lelsanon, etc. Co. v. Adair, 85 Ind. 244 1225, 1228 Le Blanc, Be, 14 Hun (N. Y.) 8; 75N. Y. 598 1121 Le Bosquet v. Myers (Ind. Ty.), 103 S. W. 770 1249 Ledoux V. La Bee, 83 Fed. 761 1617 Ledwich v. McKim, 53 N. Y. 307 1410, 1425 Lee V. Neuchatel Asphalte Co., 41 Ch. D. 1 1096, 1099, 1100 V. Pennsylvania Trac- tion Co., 105 Fed. 405 1559, 1563 Lee Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. State, 60 Miss. 395 25 Leeds Banking Co, 1 Ch. 231 501, 622, 624, 790 Leeds Estate, etc. Co. v. Shepherd, 36 Ch. D. 787 1094, 1241, 1241, 1264, 1265, 1267, 1268, 1268, 1279, 1284 Leeds and Hanley Theatres (1902), 2 Ch. 809 322, 332, 334 Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. v. Feam- ley, 4 Ex. 26 623 Lees Brook Spinning Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 394 542 Leffingwell v. Elliott, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 455; 19 Am. Dee. 343 304 Lefroy v. Gore, 1 Jo. & Lat. 571 309, 337, 337, 337 Legal Aid Society v. Co- operative Legal Aid Soci- ety, 41 N. Y. Misc. 127; 83 N. Y. Supp. 926 372 Legendre & Co. v. Brewing Ass'n, 45 La. Ann. 669; 12 So. 837; 40 Am. St. Rep. 243 908, 908 Legg V. Mathieson, 2 Giff. 71 1546 Legg & Co. V. Dewing, 25 R. 1.568; 57Atl. 373 1360 Leggett V. Bank of Sing Sing, 24 N. Y. 283 774, 775 V. New Jersey, etc. Bank- ing Co., 1 N. J. -Eq. 541; 23 Am. Dec. 728 407 Legrand v. Manhattan Mer- cantile Ass'n, 80 N. Y. 638 227, 278 Lehigh Coal, etc. Co. v. Cen- tral R. R. Co., 34 N. J. Eq. 88 1466, 1678 V. Central R. R. Co., 35 N. J. Eq. 349 V. Central R. R. Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 591; 8 Atl. 648 Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Hamblen, 23 Fed. 225 Lehman v. Clark, 174 111. 279; 51 N. E. 222; 43 L. R. A. 648 Le Hote v. Boyet, 85 Miss. 636; 38So. 1 Leicester v. YoUand, Husson & Birkett (1908), 1 Ch. 152 1396, 1524 Leigh V. National Hollow, etc. Co., 224 111. 76; 79 N. E. 318 Leighty v. Pres., etc. of Turn- pike Co., 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 434 Leinster Contract Corp. (1902), 1 Ir. 349 627, 629, 635, 639 Leitch V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 13 Ont. Pract. Rep. 369 V. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585 Leland v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 542 499, 502, 1143, 1145, 1147 Le Marchant v. Moore, 150 N. Y. 209; 44 N. E. 770 810 Lemars Shoe Co. v. Lemars Shoe Mfg. Co., 89 111. App. 245 297, 1069, 1210 Lembeck v. Jarvis, etc. Stor- age Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 126 1402, 1433 Lenoir v. Linville Imp. Co., 126 N. Car. 922; 36 S. E. 185; 5 L. R. A. 146 1239, 1242 Leominster Canal Nav. Co. v. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co., 3 K. & J. 654 281 Leonard v. Draper, 187 Mass. 536; 73 N. E. 644 517 V. Lent, 43 Wise. 83 1210 Leonards ville Bank v. Willard, 25 N. Y. 574 126 Leonhardt v. Citizens Bank, 56 Nebr. 38; 76 N. W. 452 995 1618 379 660 1560 1027 645 1364 693 Le Roy v. Globe Ins. Co. (N. Y.), 2 Edw. Ch. 657 1297 1121 CXSl TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Leroy, etc. Co. v. Sidell, 66 Fed. 27; 13 C. C. A. 308 1374 Leslie, Re, 58 N. J. Law 609; 33Atl. 954 1176,1177,1178 Lesseps v. Architects' Co., 4 La. Ann. 316 562, 657 Lester v. Bemis Lumber Co., 71 Ark. 379; 74 S. W. 518 76, 601, 636, 637 V. Howard Bank, 33 Md. 558; 3 Am. Rep. 211 1329 Letheby & Christopher (1904), 1 Ch. 815 748 Level Land Co. No. 3 v. Hay- ward, 95 Wise. 109; 69 N. "W. 567 198 Levering v. Mayor, etc. of Memphis, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 553 402, 407 Levisee v. Shreveport City R. R. Co., 27 La. Ann. 641 1248 Levita's Case, 3 Ch. 36 167 , 5 Ch. 489 166, 167, 175 Levitt V. Hamblet (1901), 2 K. B. 53 779 Levy V. Abercorris Slate Co., 37 Ch. D. 260 1391, 1392 Le Wame v. Meyer, 38 Fed. 191 262 Lewey's Island R. R. Co. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451; 77 Am. Dec. 236 658, 659, Lewis V. Brainerd, 53 Vt. 519 90 • V. Eastern Bank, 32 Me. 661 894, 908 1187 825 1297 1382 1093, V. Mayor, etc. of Roch- ester, 9 C. B. N. 8. 401 V. Meier, 14 Fed. 311 V. Puhtzer Pub. Co., 77 Mo. App. 434 Lexington, etc. Co. v. Page, 17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 412; 66 Am. Dec. 165 1079, 1105, 1127, 1128, 1128, 1129 1193 Lexington, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bridges, 7 B. Monr. (Ky.) 556; 46 Am. Dec. 528 1127, 1266, 1288 Liberator Bldg. Soc, 10 Times L. R. 537 Licausi v. Ashworth, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 486; 79 N. Y. Supp. 631 Licking Valley Bldg. Ass'n i;.Comm. (Ky.),89S.W.682 Liebhardt v. Wilson (Colo.), 88 Pac. 173 1364 382 140 879 Liebke v. Knapp, 79 Mo. 22; 49 Am. Rep. 212 634 Lite Ass'n v. Levy, 33 La. Ann. 1203 87 Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Me- chanics Fire Ins. Co., 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 31 87, 827, 1370 Lighthall Mfg. Co., 47 Hun (N. Y.) 258 1041, 1060 Lillard v. Oil Paint & Drug Co. (N. J.), 56 Atl. 254 967, 1113, 1320 V. Oil, Paint, etc. Co (N. J.), 58 Atl. 188 982 Lime City Bldg., etc. Ass'n V. Black, 136 Ind. 544; 35 _N. E. 829 662 Limer v. Traders Co., 44 W. Va. 175; 28 S. E. 730 1196 Limited Invpstment Ass'n v. Glendale Investment Ass'n, 99WUc. 54; 74N.W. 633 313, 321 Lincoln v. New Orleans Ex- press Co., 45 La. Ana. 729; 12 So. 937 493, 784 V. State, 36 Ind. 151 1018, 1018 Lincoln Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Graham, 7 Nebr. 173 114, 258 Lincoln Park Chapter v. Swa- tek, 204 111. 228; 68 N. E. 429 237, 253 Lincoln Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Sheldon, 44 Nebr. 279; 62 N. W. 480 163 Lincoln Tp. v. Kansas City, etc. R. Co. (Nebr.), 108 N. W. 140 1632 Lindauer v. Delaware Mut. Safety Ins. Co., 13 Ark. 461 394 Lindemann v. Rusk, 125 Wise. 210; 104 N. W. 119 1285 Linder v. Carpenter, 62 111. 309 1349 ». Hartwell R. R. Co., 73 Fed. 320 1515, 1554,1595 Lindsay v. Arlington Co-op. Ass'n, 186 Mass. 371; 71 N. E. 797 192 Lindsay, etc., Co. v. Mullen, 176 U. S. 126; 20 Sup. Ct. 325 20, 47 Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, L. R. 5 P. C. 221 317 Lindsay's Estate, 210 Pa. St. 224; 59 Atl. 1074 573 Lingke v. Wilkinson, 57 N. Y. 445 1307 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417; 33 N. E. 472; 33 Am. St. Rep. 743; 20 L. R. A. 48 822, 852, 1354 Lintott, Ex parte, 4 Eq. 184 614 Lionberger v. Broadway Sav- ings Bank, 10 Mo. App. 499 66 Lippencott v. Shaw Carriage Cfo., 25 Fed. 577 1316 Lippitt V. American Wood Paper Co., 15 R. I. 141 : 23 Atl. Ill; 2 Am. St. Rep. 886 694 Lipscomb v. Condon, 66 W. Va. 416; 49 S. E. 392; 107 Am. St. Rep. 938; 67 L. R. A. 670 422, 687, 715, 891 Liquidators of British Na- tion Life Ass. Ass'n, Ex parte, 8 Ch. D. 679 8, 76, 79, 80 830 Lishman's Claim, 23 L. T. 40 'l429 Liskeard & Caradon Ry. Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 681 1545 Lister v. Henry Lister & Sons, 62 L. J. Ch. 568 1473, 1531, 1531 Litchfield Bank v. Church, 29 Conn. 137 222 Litchfield Sav. Soc. v. Dibble (Conn.), 67 Atl. 476 349 Little V. Dusenbury, 46 N. J. Law 614; 50 Am. Rep. 445 1616 Little Rock, etc. R. R. Co. v. Perry, 37 Ark. 164 280, 281, 284, 287 Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co. v. Page, 35 Ark. 304 1296, 1503, 1507 Littledale, Ex parte, 9 Ch. 257 763, 766, 1325 Littlewort v. Davis, 50 Miss. 403 868 Liverpool Household Stores, 62 L. T. 873 1215, 1261, 1261, 1263, 1264, 1267, 1274, 1280 Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Nebr. 50 161, 607 Lloyd V. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. Co., 65 Fed. 351 1575, 1602 V. Preston, 146 U. S. 630; 13 Sup. Ct. 131 620, 635 V. Supreme Lodge, 98 Fed. 66; 38 C. C. A. 654 578, 590, 918 Lloyd & Co., George E. v. Matthews, 119 111. App. 546 ; 223 111. 477; 79N.E. 172; 7 L. R. A. N. s. 376 70, 1373 Lloyd & Co., David, 6 Ch. D. 339 1598 Lloyd, Ex parte, 1 Sim. n. s. . 248 276, 308 Loan Ass'n v. Stonemetz, 29 Pa. St. 534 1237, 1319, 1322 Lock V. Queensland Land Co. (1896), A. C. 461 433, 626, 1108 Locke V. Leonard Silk Co., 37 Mich. 479 231 Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76; 18 Am. Rep. 156 444 450, 451 Lockwood V. Mechanics Nat. Bank, 9 R. I. 308; 11 Am. Rep. 253 557,571,1166,1202, 1205 V. Town of Weston, 61 Conn. 211 ; 23 Atl. 9 413, 415, 420 Loeffler v. Modem Wood- men, 100 Wise. 79; 75 N. W. 1012 948 Loewenstein v. Diamond Soda Water, etc. Co., 94 N. Y. App. Div. 383; 88 N. Y. Supp. 313 946, 982, 1358 Loewenthal v. Rubber Re- claiming Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 440; 28 Atl. 454 34, 134, 585, 992 'Logan County Nat. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67; 11 Sup. Ct. 496 841 Logan, Ex parte, 9 Eq. 149 1242 Londesborough v. Somerville, 19 Beav. 295 1156 London v. Bynum, 136 N. Car. 411; 48 S. E. 764 299 London & Birmingham Ry. Co. V. Winter, Cr. & Ph. 57 395 London & Colonial Finance Corp., 77 L. T. 146 162, 187 London & County Ass. Co., 30 L. J. Ch. 373 1404 London & General Bank (1895), 2 Ch. 166 1363 , 72 L. T. N. s. 227 1095, 1110, 1117 London & Globe Finance Corp. (1903), 1 Ch. 728 19 London & N. Y. Investment Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 860 442, 536, 536 London & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Price, 11 Q. B. D. 485 91 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] London & Provincial Coal Co., 5 Ch. D. 525 204 London & Provincial Starch Co., 20 L. T. 390 1346 London & Provincial Tel. Co., 9 Eq. 653 793 London & Staffordshire Fire Ins. Co., 24 Ch. D. 149 177, 184 London & Westminster Sup- ply Aiss'n V. Griffiths, 1 Cababe & Ellis 15 763 London, Birmingham, etc. Banking Co., 34 Beav. 332 774 London County Coxmcil v. Atty.-Gen. (1902), A. C. 165 824 London Financial Ass'n v. Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107 38, 39, 40, 78, 97, 1161, 1290 London Founders' Ass'n v. Clarke, 20 Q. B. D. 676 779, 781, 781 London Grand Junction Ry. Co., 2 Man. & Gr. 606 925 London India Rubber Co., 5 Eq. 519 469 London Joint Stock Bank v. Simmons (1892), A. C. 201 1433 London, Paris & American Bank v. Aronstein, 117 Fed. 601; 54 C. C. A. 663 771, 790 London, Paris Financial, etc. Corp., 13 Times L. R. 569 346, 352, 355, 355, 362 London Pressed Hinge Co. (1905), 1 Ch. 576 1393, 1505, 1574, 1604 London Speaker Printing Co., Pearce's Case, 16 Ont. App. 508 209 London Tobacco Pipe-Mak- ers' Co. V. Woodrufife, 7 B. & C. 838 1012, 1166 London Trust Co. v. Mac- kenzie, 62 L. J. Ch. 870 1129, 1261, 1268, 1280, 1282, 1290 London, etc. Co. v. New Ma- shonaland, etc. Co., W. N. (1891) 165 1178 London, etc. Ass. Co. v. Red- grave, 4 C. B. N. s. 524 608 London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fairclough, 2 M. & Gr. 674 602, 605 V. M'Michael, 5 Exch. 855 602 London, etc. Society, 31 Ch. D. 223 1200, 1213, 1213 Long V. Citizens' Bank, 8 Utah 104; 29 Pac. 878 280, 307 V. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 91 Ala. 519; 8 So. 706; 24 Am. St. Rep. 931 843, 848 V. Guelph Lumber Co., 31 Up. Can. C. P. 129 192, 444, 450 Long Dock Co. v. Mallery, 12 N. J. Eq. 431 1604 Long Island Ferry Co. v. Ter- bell, 48 N. Y. 427 1239 Long Island R. R. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 37; 32 Am. Dec. 429 657, 1001, 1017, 1049, 1066 Long Island, etc. Trust Co. v. Columbus, etc. Ry. Co., 65 Fed. 455 1411, 1436 Longdendale, etc. Co., 8 Ch. D. 150 1598, 1599 Longman v. Bath Electric Tramways (1905), 1 Ch. 646 733, 733 Longmont Supply Co. v. Coff- man, 11 Colo. 551; 19 Pac. 508 1210 Loomis V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 102 Fed. 233; 42 C. C. A. 290 1476 V. Davenport, etc. R. R. Co., 3 McCrary 489 1535, 1540, 1632 Lord V. Brooks, 52 N. H. 72 V. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 96 JSr. Y. Supp. 10; 109 N. Y. App. Div. 252 V. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 108 N. Y. Supp. 67 1150, 1154 133 1050, 1165 V. Essex Bldg. Ass'n, 37 Md. 320 100, 229 V. Governor & Co. of Copper Miners, 2 Phillips Ch. 740 973, 977, 994 Lord Inchiquin, Ex parte (1891), 3 Ch. 28 1170, 1172, 1173, 1174 Lord Lurgan's Case (1902), 1 Ch. 707 203, 204 Lorillard v. Clyde, 86 N. Y. 384 339, 1107, 1163 Loring v. Davis, 32 Ch. D. 625 780, — V. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. 138 Lothrop Pub. Co. v. Lathrop, etc. Co., 191 Mass. 353 782 797 388 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Lothrop Pub. Co. v. Williams, 191 Mass. 361 1513 Loucheim v. Clawson Print- ing, etc. Co., 12 Pa. Super, a. 55 1242 Loubat V. Le Roy, 40 Hun (N. Y.) 546 1207 Loudenslager v. Benton, 4 Phila. 382 1551 V. Woodbury Heights Land Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 556 ; 43 Atl. 671 322, 327, 1346 Louis Cook Mfg. Co. v. Ran- dall, 62 Iowa 244; 17 N. W. 507 297, 297 Louisiana Nat. Bank v. Hen- derson, 116 La. 413; 40 So. 779 238 Louisiana Navigation, etc. Co. V. Doullut, 114 La. 906; 38 So. 613 45 Louisiana Paper Co. v. Waples, 3 Woods 34 1195 Louisville Banking Co. v. Eisemnan, 94 Ky. 83; 21 S. W. 531, 1049; 42 Am. St. Rep. 335; 19 L. R. A. 684 872, 873, 874, 881 Louisville Bridge Co. v. Dodd, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 454; 85S. W. 683 982,983 Louisville School Board v. Kin^ (Ky.), 107 S. W. 247 847 Louisville Tobacco Ware- house Co. V. Stewart (Ky.), 70 S. W. 285; 24 Ky. Law Rep. 934 844 LouisviUe Trust Co. v. Cin- cinnati Inclined-Plane Ry. Co., 91 Fed. 699 1507, 1520 V. Louisville, etc. Ry. Co., 174 U. S. 674; 19 Sup. Ct. 827 1636, 1636, 1659 Louisville Water Co. v. Ful- lenlove, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 556 1379 Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Carson, 151 111. 444; 38 N. E. 140 1298, 1310 V. Central Trust .Co., 87 Fed. 500; 31 C. C. A. 89 1568 V. Hart County, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 395; 75 S. W. 288 495, 921 V. Hemdon's Admr. (Ky.), 104 S. W. 732 _ 56 V. Memphis Gaslight Co., 125 Fed. 97; 60 C. C. A. 141 1560 Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Neal, 128 Ala. 149; 29 So. 865 941, 942 V. Ohio Valley Imp. Co., 69 Fed. 431 1221, 1426 — - V. Schmidt (Ky.), 107 S. W. 745 1484, 1490 V. Schmidt, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 556; 52 S. W. 835 1452, 1533, 1584, 1586 Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Flanagan, 113 Ind. 488; 14 N. E. 370; 3 Am. St. Rep. 674 38, 852 V. Louisville Trust Co., 174 U. S. 552; 19 Sup. Ct., 817 84, 876, 891, 1221, 1407, 1437 Love V. Holmes (Miss.), 44 So. 835 6 Lovelace v. Anson (1907), 2 Ch. 424 503, 538, 542 Lovell V. Westwood, 2 Dow. & CI. 21 559, 560 Loveman v. Henderson, 1 Tenn. Ch. App. 749 686, 715, 805 Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 111. 417; 44 N. E.'99 126, 127, 251, 252 Lovett V. Steam Saw Mill Ass'n, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 54 393, 405, 409 Low V. Blackford, 87 Fed. 392; 31 C. C. A. 15 1420, 1452, 1629, 1630 V. Connecticut, etc. R. R. Co., 45 N. H. 370 152, 278, 281, 293, 295 V. Connecticut, etc. R. R. Co., 46 N. H. 284 283 Lowe V. Pioneer Threshing Co., 70 Fed. 646 519 V. Ring, 115 Wise. 575; 92 N. W. 238 1246 V. Ring, 123 Wise. 370; 101 N. W. 698 1247 Lowene v. American Fire Ins. Co., 6 Paige (N. Y.) 482 1121 Lowenfeld, Ex parte, 70 L. T. 3 436, 437 Lowndes v. Gamett Gold Mining Co., 33 L. J. Ch. 418 1245, 1245, 1297, 1298 Lowry v. Commercial, etc. Bank, Taney 310 756, 791, 792, 797, 798, 799 V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 172 N. Y. 137; 64 N. E. 796 ; 56 N. Y. App. Div. 108 1151 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Lowville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Elliot, 101 N. Y. Supp. 328 211, 214 Lozier v. Saratoga Gas, etc. Co., 59 N. Y. App. Div. 390; 69 N. Y. Supp. 247 907, 908 Lozier Motor Co. v. Ball, 104 N. Y. Supp. 771; 53 N. Y. Misc. 375 1331 Lubbock V. British Bank of South America (1892), 2 Ch. 198 1092 Lubroline Oil Co. v. Athens Sav. Bank, 104 Ga. 376; 30 S. E. 409 1515 Lucas V. Bank of Georgia, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 147 230, 233 ■». Beach, 1 Man. &Gr. 417 274 V. Coe, 86 Fed. 972 622 V. Fitzgerald, 20 Times L. R. 16 1128, 1268, 1280, 1280, 1283 V. Friant, 111 Mich. 426; 69 N. W. 735 1344 V. Milliken, 139 Fed. 816 787, 1024, 1063, 1064 V. White Line Transfer Co., 70 Iowa 541; 30N.W. 771; 59 Am. Rep. 449 851, 861, 869 Lucile Dreyfus Mining Co. v. Willard (Wash.), 89 Pac. 935 735, 741 Luclqr Queen Mining Co. v. Abraham, 26 Oreg. 282; 38 Pac. 65 1231, 1382 Ludington v. Thompson, 4 N. Y. App. Div. 117; 38 N. Y. Supp. 768 1378 Ludlow V. Clinton Line R. R. Co., 1 Flip. 25 1397, 1629 V. Kurd, 1 Disn. (Oh.) 552 1551, 1553 Luetzke v. Roberts (Wise), 109 N. W. 949 183 Luling V. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co.. 45 Barb. (N. Y.) 510; 30 How. Pr. 69 1116 Lum V. McBwen, 56 Minn. 278; 57 N. W. 662 1347 Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H. 31; 28 Am. Dec. 381 918 Lumsden's Case, 4 Ch. 31 708, 708 Lund V. Blanshard, 4 Hare 9 939, 976 V. Wheaton Roller Mill Co., 50 Minn. 36; 52 N. W. 268; 36 Am. St. Rep. 623 715 1240 Lundy Granite Co., 20 W. R. 519; 26 L. T. 673 Lungren v. Pennell, 10 W. N. C. (Pa.) 297 336 Lurgan's Case, Lord (1902), 1 Ch. 707 203, 204 Luse V. Isthmus Transit Co., 6 Oreg. 125; 25 Am. Rep. 506 1381 Lusk V. Riggs, 70 Nebr. 713 ; 97 N. W. 1033 124, 127, 239, 246 Luther v. C. J. Luther Co., 118 Wise. 112; 94 N. W. 69; 99 Am. St. Rep. 977 510, 1063, 1319 Lydney, etc. Co. v. Bird, 33 Ch. D. 85 272, 272, 293, 313, 319, 320, 320, 321, 353 Lyman v. Central Vermont R. R. Co., 59 Vt. 167; 10 Atl. 346 .V. HiUiard, 154 Fed. 339 V. Kansas City, etc. R. Co., 101 Fed. 636 V. Pratt, 183 Mass. 58; 66 N. E. 423 497, 1147 V. State Bank of Ran- dolph, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 367; 80 N. Y. Supp. 901; 179 N. Y. 577; 72 N. E. 1145 Lynde v. Anglo-Italian, etc. Spinning Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 178 Lyndon Mill Co. v. Lyndon Institution, 63 Vt. 581, 585; 25 Am. St. Rep. 783; 22 Atl. 575 Lyndon Sav. Bank v. Inter- national Co., 75 Vt. 224; 54 Atl. 191 Lynn v. Freemansburg, etc. Ass'n, 117 Pa. St. 1; 11 Atl. 537; 2 Am. St. Rep. 639 581, 582 Lyon V. Am. Screw Co., 16 R. I. 472; 17 Atl. 61 893, 894, 900 j7.Bower,30N.J.Eq.340 1259 V. Citizens' Loan Ass'n,' 30 N. J. Eq. 732 1259 V. First Nat Bank, 85 Fed. 120; 29 C. C. A. 45 86, 838 V. James, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 385; 90 N. Y Supp. 28; 181 N. Y. 512; 73 N. E. 1126 1350, 1355 1617 1359 1671 114 187 1370 591 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Lyon Potter & Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 85 Fed. 120; 29 C. C. A. 45 838 Lyon's Case, 35 Beav. 646 1203 Lysaght v. St. Louis Opera- tive, etc. Ass'n, 55 Mo. App. 538 580 Lysaght, Re (1898), 1 Ch. 115 24 Lyster's Case, 4 Eq. 233 667, 1202 M McAfee v. Zettler, 103 Ga. 579; 30 S. E. 268 972 McAleer v. McMurray, 58 Pa. St. 126 928 McAIester Mfg. Co. v. Flor- ence Cotton, etc. Co., 128 Ala. 240; 30 So. 632 78 McAUen v. Woodcock, 60 Mo. 174 1343 McAllister v. Plant, 54 Miss. 106 1584 McAIpin V. Universal Tobacco Co. (N. S.), 57 Atl. 418 974 McArthur v. Times Printing Co., 48 Minn. 319; 51 N. W. 216; 31 Am. St. Rep. 653 283, 287, 290, 290 McAvity V. LincoIBTeJB^CB?^'^^'" 82 Me. 504; 20 Atl. 82 1247 McBryan v. Universal Ele- vator Co., 130 Mich. Ill; 89 N. W. 683; 97 Am. St. Rep. 453 619 McCabe v. Father Matthew, etc. Soc, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 149 1010 McCall V. Byram Mfg. Co., 6 Conn. 428 1167, 1185, 1208, 1208 1229 McCalla v. Clark, 55 Ga. 53 ' 812 McCallimi v. Pursell Mfg. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 428 279, 300 McCampbell v. Fountain Head R. R. Co., Ill Tenn. 55; 77 S. W. 1070; 102 Am. St. Rep. 731 966, 969, 969 McCandless v. Inland Acid Co., 112 Ga. 291; 37 S. E. 419 303, 304 V. Inland Acid Co., 115 Ga. 968; 42 S. E. 449 303 McCann v. First Nat. Bank, 112 Ind. 354; 14 N. E. 251 540, ■ 541, 543 V. First Nat. Bank, 131 Ind. 95; 30 N. E. 893 540, 541, 543 McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 437; 18 Am. Dec. 516 68 McCarter v. Ketcham, 72 N. J. Law 247; 62 Atl. 693 203 V. Ketcham (N. J.), 67 Atl. 610 204 McChesny v. Batman (Ky.), 89 S. W. 198 104, 125 McCIanahan v. Ivanhoe Land, etc. Co., 96 Va. 124; 30 S. E. 450 182, 183 McClelland v. McKane, 154 Fed. 164 975 V. Norfolk Southern R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 469; 18 N. E. 237; 6 Am. St. Rep. 397; 1 L. R. A. 299 1425, 1448, 1451, 1675 M'Clelland v. Whiteley, 15 Fed. 322 175 McClintock v. Central Bank, 120 Mo. 127; 24 S. W. 1052 717 McCloskey v. Snowden, 212 Pa. 249; 61 Atl. 796; 108 Am. St. Rep. 867 938 McClure v. Central Trust Co., 165 N. Y. 108; 58 N. E. 777; 53 L. R. A. 153 784 V. Central Trust Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 433; 53 N. Y. Supp. 188 782 V. Law, 161 N. Y. 78; 55 N. E. 388; 76 Am. St. Rep. 262 1337 V. Trask„161 N. Y. 82; 55 N. E. 407 1338 McConey v. Belton Gas, etc. Co., 97 Minn. 190; 106 N. W. 900 619 McConnell v. Camors-MoCon- nell Co., 152 Fed. 321 262 V. Combination Mining, etc. Co., 30 Mont. 239; 76 Pac. 194; 104 Am. St. Rep. 703; 31 Mont. 563; 79 Pac. 248 924, 983, 1208, 1247, 1322 McConnell's Claim (1901), 1 Ch. 728 1180, 1180, 1238, 1241, 1243 McCord V. Ohio, etc. R. R. . Co., 13 Ind. 220 493 McCord-CoUins Co. v. Pritch- ard (Tex.), 84 S. W. 388 380 McCormick v. Market Bank, 165 U. S. 538< 17 Sup. Ct. 433 838 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] McCornaok v. Salem Ry. Co., 34 0reg. 543; 56 Pac. 518, 1022 1567 McCourt V. Singers-Bigger, 145 Fed. 103; 76 C. C. A. 73 300, 983, 983, 1341 McCoy V. Washington County, 3 Wall. Jr. C. C. 381 1451 V. World's Columbian Exposition, 186 111. 356; 57 N. E. 1043; 78 Am. St. Rep. 288 601, 607, 613 McCraoken v. Halsey Fire- Engine Co., 57 Mich. 361; 24 N. W. 104 1240 V. Robison, 57 Fed. 375; 6 C. C. A. 400 1314 McCrea v. McClenahan, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 70 972, 978, 979, 982 McCreary v. Chandler, 58 Me. 537 8 McCuUough V. Annapolis, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Gill (Md.) 58 1207 V. Moss, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 567 992, 1193 V. Sutherland, 153 Fed. 418 1086 V. Talledega Ins. Co., 46 Ala. 376 236 McCutchen v. Dittman, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 285; 48 N. Y. Supp. 360 808 McCutcheon v. Merz Capsule Co., 71 Fed. 787; 19 C. C. A. 108; 31 L. R. A. 415 834, 843 McDaniels v. Flower Brook Co., 22 Vt. 274 999, 1005,1008 McDermott Mining Co. v. Mc- Dennott, 27 Mont. 143; 69 Pac. 715 1341 McDonald v. Chisholm, 131 111. 273; 23 N. E. 596 408 V. Dewey, 134 Fed. 528; 67 C. C. A. 408 618 V. Dewey, 202 U. S. 510; 26 Sup. Ct. 731 619, 619 V. Houghton, 70 N. Car. 393 1342 V. Ross-Lewin, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 87 660 V. Williams, 174 U. S. 397; 19 Sup. Ct. 743 McDonnell v. Ontario, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Up. Can. Q. B. 267 1128, 1128 553 McDonough v. Bank of Hous- ton, 34 Tex. 309 V. Hennepin, etc. Ass'n, 62 Minn. 122; 64 N. W. 106 McDowall V. Sheehan, 129 N. Y. 200; 29 N. E. 299 286 590 1175, 1318 McDowell V. Bank of Wil- mington, 1 Harr. (Del.) 27 511, 572 V. Chicago Steel Works, 124 111. 491; 16N. E. 854; 7 Am. St. Rep. 381 809 V. Lindsay, 213 Pa. 591 ; 63 Atl. 130 631, 646 McElhenny's Appeal, 61 Pa. St. 188 317 McElrath v. Pittsburg, etc. R. R. Co., 68 Pa. St. 37 1484, 1485 McElroy v. Minn. Percheron Horse Co., 96 Wise. 317; 71 N. W. 652 852, 880 McElwee Mfg. Co. v. Trow- bridge, 62 Hun 471; 17-N. Y. Supp, 3 300 McEuen v. London Wharves Co., 6 Ch. 655 201, 688 McEwan v. Campbell, 2 Macq. H. L. 499 276, 307 McEwen v. Harriman Land Co., 138 Fed. 797; 71 C. C. A. 163 1667 McFadden v. Mays Landing, etc. R. R. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 176; 22 Atl. 932 1465, 1584, 1589, 1623 McFall V. Buckeye, etc. Ass'n, 122 Cal. 468; 55 Pac. 253; 68 Am. St. Rep. 47 700, 717 'V. McKeesport, etc. Co., 123 Pa. St. 259; 16 Atl. 478 280, 307 McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co., 4 Denio (N. Y.) 392 915 McFarlin v. First Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 868; 16 C. C. A. 46 492, 493 McFell Electric & Tel. Co. v. McFell Electric Co., 110 111. App. 182 377 McGannon v. Central Bldg. Ass'n, 19 W. Va. 726 582 M'George v. Big Stone Gap Imp. Co., 57 Fed. 262 1595 McGourkey v. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 146 U. S. 536; 13 Sup. Ct. 170 1358, 1536, 1538, 1538, 1538 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] McGraw v. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 434 1366, 1515 , i?e. Ill N. Y. 66; 19 N. E. 233; 2 L. R. A. 387 848, 849 McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 181 469, 469 McGrew v. City Produce Ex- change, 85 Tenn. 572; 4 S. W. 38; 4 Am. St. Rep. 771 261 McGue V. Rommell (Cal.), 83 Pac. 1000 781 McHenry v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 22 Fed. 130 963, 964, 965, 970 Mcllhenny v. Binz, 80 Tex. 1 ; 13 S. W. 655; 26 Am. St. Rep. 705 918 Mcllquham v. Taylor (1895), 1 Ch. 53 779, 779 Mcllrath v. Snure, 22 Minn. 391 1608 McIIwraith v. Dublin Trunk Ry. Co., 7 Ch. 134 200, 200 Mclntyre v. Ajax Mining Co. (Utah), 77 Pac. 613 1342 V. E. Bement's Sons (Mich.), 109 N. W. 45 192, 527 McKain and Canadian Bir- beck, etc. Co., 7 Ont. L. R. 241 555, 572, 574, 574 McKay's Case, 2 Ch. D. 1 329 (1896), 2 Ch. 757 649 McKee v. Cunningham (Cal.), 84 Pac. 260 408 V. Grand Rapids, etc. Ry. Co., 41 Mich. 274; 1 N. W. 873; 50N. W. 469 1542 V. Home Savings & Trust Co., 122 Iowa 731; 98 N. W. 609 1040, 1040, 1045 McKeen v. County of North- ampton, 49 Pa. St. 519; 88 Am. Dec. 515 420 McKeen's Appeal, 42 Pa. St. 479 1149 McKees Rocks', etc. Relief Ass'n, 6 Pa. Dist. Rep. 477 96 McKenney v. Diamond State Loan Ass'n, 8 Houst. (Del.) 557; 18 Atl. 905 589, 593 McKim V. Glenn, 66 Md. 479; 8 Atl. 130 620 V. King, 58 Md. 502; 42 Am. Rep. 340 1461 V. Odom, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.) 407 3 McKinley v. Mineral Hill, etc. Co. (Wash.), 89 Pac. 495 1374 McLane v. Placerville, etc. R. R. Co., 66 Cal. 606; 6 Pac. 748 1436, 1495, 1600, 1603, 1606, 1623, 1640 McLaran v. Crescent Planing Mill Co., 117 Mo. App. 40; 93 S. W. 819 1116, 1121 V. Fisken, 28 Graiit (Can.) 352 1198, 1204 McLaughlin v. Bank of Victo- ria, 20 Vict. L. R. 433 774, 796 V. Daily Telegraph News- paper, 1 Comm. L. R. (Australia) 243 709, 754, 758 774, 796 M'Laughlin v. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Mich. 100 450, 456, 463, 466, 1113 McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 McLean 587 772, 865, 868 V. Medicine Co., 96 Mich. 479; 56 N. W. 68 695, 753 V. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 159 Pa.. 112; 28 Atl. 211 464 McLean-Bowman Co., 138 Fed. 181 191 McLean's Case, 55 L. J. Ch. 36 1336, 1338 McLeary v. Dawson, 87 Tex. 524; 29 S. W. 1044 304 V. Erie Telegraph, etc. Co., 38 N. Y. Misc. 3; 76 N. Y. Supp. 712 1076 McLellan v. Detroit File Works, 56 Mich. 579; 23 N. W. 321 297, 298, 822, 1381 McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kans. App. 260; 41 Pac. 1061 246, 251 McLeod V. Lincoln Medical College, 69 Nebr. 550; 98 N. W. 672 23, 1083, 1306 McLouth V. Hunt, 154 N. Y. 179; 48 N. E. 548; 39 L. A. 230 1150, 1445 McMahon v. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155 622, 812 V. North Kent Ironworks Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 148 1604 V. Supreme Tent, 151 Mo. 522 ; 52 S. W. 384 576, 589 , Re (1900), 1 Ch. 173 623, 624, 624 McMichael v. Brennan, 31 N. J. Eq. 496 911, 912, 918 McMillan v. Le Roi Mining Co. (1906), 1 Ch. 331 1038, 1038 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] McMurray v. Moran, 134 U. S. 150; 10 Sup. Ct. 427 1526, 1526 V. St. Louis Oil Mfg. Co., 33 Mo. 377 1371 McMurrich v. Bond Head Har- bor Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 333 4, 692, 753, 753 McMurtiy v. Montgomery Masonic Temple Co., 86 Ky. 206; 5 S. W. 570 1324, 1344 McNab V. McNab & Harlin Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 18; 16N. Y. Supp. 448; 133 N. Y. 687; 31 N. E. 627 966, 1299 1300 McNeely v. Woodruff, 13 N. ' J. Law 352 1027, 1065 McNeil V. Boston Chamber of Commerce, 154 Mass. 277 ; 28 N. E. 245; 13 L. R. A. 559 1215 V. Fultz, 38 Can. Super. Ct. 198 337 V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; 7 Am. Rep. 341 694, 723, 808 McNulta V. Com Belt Bank, 164 111. 427; 45 N. E. 954; 56 Am. St. Rep. 203 494, 571, 852, 854, 858, 1190, 1239 V. Lochiidge, 141 IT. S. 327; 12 Sup. Ct. 11 1615, 1615, 1617 McRae v. Corbett, 6 Mani- toba 426 396 McRee v. Mexican Gulf Oil, etc. Co. (Ga. ) , 56 S. E. 451 1287 McShane v. Howard Bank, 73 Md. 135; 20 Atl. 776 1368, 1368 M'Tighe v. Keystone Coal Co., 99 Fed. 134; 39 C. C. A. 447 1453, 1453 McVicker v. Cone, 21 Oreg. 353; 28 Pac. 76 148, 148, 278 McVity V. Albro Co., 90 N. Y. App. Div. 109; 86 N. Y. Supp. 144; 180N. Y. 554; 73 N. E. 1126 450, 451, 451 Maas V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 83 N. Y. 223 1411 Macalester's Admr. v. Mary- land, 114U. S. 598; 5 Sup. Ct. 1065 1515, 1677 Macauly v. Robinson, 18 La. Ann. 619 667 Macbeth v. Vanfield, 78 Pac. 693; 45 Oreg. 553; 106 Am. St. Rep. 670 636, 636 MacDonald, Sons (1894), 1 Ch. 89 & Co. 155, 155, 632, 639, 702 MacDougall v. Gardiner, 10 Ch. 606 994, 995 V. Gardiner, 1 Ch. D. 13 943, 1060 V. Jersey, etc. Hotel Co., 2 Hem. & Mill. 528 160, 1108 Macey Co., Fred, v. Macey, 143 Mich. 138; 106 N. W. 722 315, 316, 331 MacGinness v. Boston, etc. Mining Co., 29 Mont. 428; 75 Pac. 89 965 Macgregor v. OflBcial Manager of the Deal, etc. Ry. Co. (1852), 22 L. J. Q. B. 69 828 Machinists' Nat. Bank v. Field, 126 Mass. 345 730, 737 Mack V. DeBardeleben, etc. Co., 90 Ala. 396; 8 So. 150; 9 L. R. A. 650 941, 942, 1014 V. Latta, 178 N. Y. 525; 71 N. E. 97; 67 L. R. A. 126 182, 183 Mack's Claim, W. N. (1900) 114 Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, L. R. 5 P. C. 394 V. St. Mary's Church, 15 R. L 121; 23 Atl. 108; 2 Am. St. Rep. 881 Mackenzie, Ex parte, 7 Eq. 240 Mackey v. Bums, 16 Colo. App. 6; 64 Pac. 485 968, 1069, 1310, 1340 Mackie v. Clough, 17 Vict. L. R. 493 1126, 1358, 1368 Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R. Co., 32 Fed. 350 443 V. Flint, etc. R. R. Co., 34 Fed. 582 76, 464, 466, 468, 1083, 1092, 1099, 1101, 1103, 1105 Mackley's Case, 1 Ch. D. 247 204 Maclagan's Case, 51 L. J. Ch. 841 1215 Maclaren v. Stainton, 3 DeG. F. &J. 202 1141,1156 Macon, etc. R. R. Co. v. Georgia R. R. Co., 63 Ga. 103 849, 1493, 1583, 1583 V. Shailer, 141 Fed. 585; 72 C. C. A. 631 979 V. Vason, 57 Ga. 314 603, 634, 661, 1226, 1227 1180 1362 403 1426 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Macoun v. Erskine, Oxenard, etc. Co. (1901), 2 K. B. 493 809 MacVeagh v. Denver City Waterworks Co., 107 Fed. 17; 46 C. C. A. 118 962 MacVeigh v. Wild, 96 Fed. 84 1359 Madden v. Dimond, 12 Brit. Columb. 80 1270 Maddick v. Marshall, 17 C. B. N. s. 829; 16 C. B. n. s. 387 276, 308 Madison Ave. Baptist Church V. Baptist Church, 5 Rob. (N. Y.) 649 1011 Madison Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 3 Ind. 277 1381 Madison, etc. Co. v. Wateiv town, etc. Co., 5 Wise. 173 87 V. Watertown, etc. Co., 7 Wise. 59 84, 849 Madison, etc. R. R. Co. v. Norwich Sav. Soc, 24 Ind. 457 1433 Madrid Bank v. Pelly, 7 Eq. 442 1334 Maeder v. Buffalo Bill's Wild West Co., 132 Fed. 280 890, 907, 969, 1112 M. A. Furbush, etc. Co. v. Liberty Woolen Mills, 81 Fed. 425 1473 Magdalena Steam Nav. Co., Johnson 690 832 Magowan v. Groneweg, 16 S. Dak. 29; 91 N. W. 335 1211 Magruder v. Colston, 44 Md. 349; 22 Am. Rep. 47 619 Mahaney v. Walsh, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 601; 44 N. Y. Supp. 969 687, 694, 714, 791 Maher, Re, 18 Vict. L. R. 519 380 Mahoney v. Butte Hardware Co., 27 Mont. 463; 71 Pac. 674 91 Mahonyw. East Holjrford Min- , ing Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 869 554, 1224, 1230 Main v. Mills, 6 Biss. 98 1128, 1129 Maine v. Midland Invest- ment Co. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 801 181, 181, 185 Maine Mut., etc. Ins. Co. v. Neal, 50 Me. 301 1189 Maine Products Co. ■». Alex- ander, lis N. Y. App. Div. 475 962, 1064, 1065 Majors v. Taussig, 20 Colo. 44; 36 Pac. 816 984, 985 Malam v. Kitchens (1894), 3 Ch. 578 498, 502, 1140, 1147 Malleson v. National Ins. Corp. (1894), 1 Ch. 200 586 Mallett V. Simpson, 94 N. Car. 37; 56 Am. Rep. 594 68, 848 Mallory v. Hanaur Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598; 8 S. W. 396 79, 854, 864 V. Mallory Wheeler Co., 61 Conn. 131; 23 Atl. 708 1311, 1321, 1322 V. Maryland Glass Co., 131 Fed. Ill 1511 V. West Shore, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. Super. Ct. 174 1467 Mallory's Case, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 562 166 Maltby v. Northwestern Va. R. R. Co., 16 Md. 422; 10 Cyc. 496 603 Man V. Boykin (S. Car.), 60 S. E. 17 492, 695, 782 Manahan v. Vamum, 11 Gray 405 ■ 304 Manchester Brewery Co. v. North Cheshire & Man- chester Brewery Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 639 373 Manchester Locomotive Works V. Truesdale, 44 Minn. 116; 46 N. W. 301; 9 L. R. A. 140 1667 Manchester St. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 71 N. H. 312; 62 Atl. 461 156 Manchester, etc. R. R. Co. v. Concord R. R., 66 N. H. 100; 20 Atl. 383; 49 Am. St. Rep. 682; 9 L. R. A. 689 856 Mandel v. Fidelity Trust Co., 107 S. W. 776 (Ky.) 1375 V. Swan Land, etc. Co., 154111. 177; 40N. E. 462; 45Am. St. Rep. 124; 27 L. R. A. 313 608, 667 Mandelbaum v. North Amer- ican Mining Co., 4 Mich. 465 734 Manderson v. Commercial Bank, 28 Pa. St. 379 951 Mandeville v. Courtright, 142 Fed. 97; 73 C. C. A. 321 252 Manhattan Beach Co. v. Hamed, 27 Fed. 484 737 Manhattan Brass Co. v. Web- ster, 37 Mo. App. 146 1192 cxxxi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Manhattan Hardware Co. v. Phalen, 128 Pa. St. 110; 18 Atl. 428 1221 V. Roland, 128 Pa. St. 119; 18 Atl. 429 919, 1221 Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Forty-second St., etc. R. R. Co., 139 N. Y. 146; 34 N. E. 776 740 Manhattan Sav. Inst. v. Nat. Exchange Bank, 42 N. Y. App. Div. 147 1432 Manhattan Trust Co. v. Seattle Coal Co., 16 Wash. 499; 48 Pac. 333, 737 1396, 1496, 1533, 1560 V. Seattle Coal & Iron Co., 19 Wash. 493; 53 Pac. 951 1560 V. Sioux City Cable Ry. Co., 76 Fed. 658 1539, 1565, 1570 V. Sioux City, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Fed. 50 1633 V. Sioux City, etc. Ry. Co., 102 Fed. 710 1569 Manhattan Web Co. v. Aquid- neck Nat. Bank, 133 Fed. 76 1328 Manice v. Hudson River R. R. . Co., 3 Duer (N. Y.) 426 456 Manisty's Case, 17 Sol. J. 745 664 Manley v. Mayer, 68 Kans. 377; 75 Pac. 550 1323 Mann v. Anderson, 106 Ga. 818; 32 S. E. 870 1114, 1137 V. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178 191 V. Edinburgh Northern Tramways Co. (1893), A. C. 69 295, 332, 1280 V. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 257 404, 406, 520 Mann's Case, 3 Ch. 459 n 708 Manners v. St. Davids Gold, etc. Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 593 72, 654 Manning v. Berdan, 135 Fed. 159 182, 890 V. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 29 Fed. 838 1449, 1528 V. Quicksilver Mining Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.) 360 Manns v. Brookville Nat. Bank, 73 Ind. 243 Manton v. Ray, 18 R. I. 672; 29 Atl. 998; 49 Am. St. Rep. 811 1132, 1136 803 786 Manufacturers', etc. Bank v. Big Muddy Iron Co., 97 Mo. 38; 10 S. W. 865 969, 1272 Manufacturers' Exhibition Bldg. Co. V. Landay, 219 111. 168; 76 N. E. 146 559, 560, 585, 993, 1200 Manufacturers' Land, etc. Co. V. Cleary, 89 S. W. 248 1076 Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. Allen Higgins Co., 154 Fed. 906 444, 444, 492 Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley, 105 U. S. 175 1299, 1301, 1317 Manville v. Belden Mining Co., 17 Fed. 425 841 Mapes V. Scott, 94 ni. 379 833, 833 Mapleton Bank v. Standrod, 8 Idaho 740; 71 Pac. 119; 67 L. R. A. 656 715 Marble Co. v. Harvey, 92 Tenn. 115; 20 S. W. 427; 18 L. R. A. 252; 36 Am. St. Rep. 71 76, 844, 851 Marbuiy v. Ehlen, 72 Md. 206; 19 Atl. 648; 20 Am. St. Rep. 467 792, 797, 798, 798, 799 V. Kentucky Union Land Co., 62 Fed. 335; 10 C. C. A. 393 92, 876, 876, 1433 March v. Eastern R. R. Co., 43 N. H. 515 1134, 1134, 1275 V. Fairmount Creamery Co., 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 517 582, 657 i). Romare, 114 Fed. 200 1673, 1675 Marchand v. Loan & Pledge Ass'n, 26 La. Ann. 389 293 Mare v. Anglo-Indian S. S. Co., ,3 Times L. R. 142 191 Marine Bank v. Biays, 4 H. & J. (Md.) 338 812 V. Clements, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 600 1372 V. Ogden, 29 Dl. 248 79, 80 Marine Construction, etc. Cb., 130 Fed. 446; 64 C. C. A. 648 43 , 144 Fed. 649; 75 C. C. A. 451 1505, 1553 Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 1 Cranch 332 402 Marine Mansions Co., 4 Eq. 601 1188, 1513, 1514, 1599 Marine Products Co. v. Alex- ander, 115 N. Y. App. Div. 475 1064 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1186 921 Marino's Case, 2 Ch. 596 557, 707, 707 Marion Savings Bank v. Dunkin, 54 Ala. 471 237 Marion Trust Co. v. Bennett (Ind.), 82 N. E. 782 484, 484 V. Blish (Ind.), 79 N. E. 415 180 V. Crescent Loan, etc. Co., 27 Ind. App. 451; 61 N. E. 688 862 Market Street Ry. v. Hellman, 109 Cal. 571; 42 Pac. 225 57, 1011, 1017, 1020, 1020, 1024, 1026, 1032, 1040, 1044 Markham v. Jandon, 41 N. Y. 235 808, 809, 811 Markham & Darter's Case (1899), 2 Ch. 480 640, 640 Mariborough Ass'n v. Peters, 179 Mass. 61; 60 N. e. 396 Marlborough Branch R. R. Co. V. Arnold, 9 Gray (Mass.) 159; 69 Am. Dec. 279 Marlborough Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 2 Conn. 579 699, 700, 1189 Maroney v. Cole, 103 N. Y. Supp. 560; 52 N. Y. Misc. 451 1379 Marquand v. Federal Steel Co., 95 Fed. 725 114, 449, 1115 Marr v. Marr (N. J.), 66 Atl. 182 1323, 1344 Marriage, Neave, etc. Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 663 1542 Marseilles Extension Ry. Co., 7 Ch. 161 1234 Marsh v. Mathias, 19 Utah 350; 56 Pac. 1074 557, 1032 Marshall v. Columbia Street Ry. Co., 73 S. Car. 241; 53 S. E. 417 _ 1374 V. Corporation of Queensborough, 1 Sim. & Stu.520 395 V. Industrial Federation, 14 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 100; ' 84 N. Y. Supp. 866 1215, 1319 i>. Keach (111.), 81 N. E. 29 784 V. Rogers, etc. Co., 14 Times L. R. 217 1519 V. Savings Bank, 85 Va. 676; 8 S. E. 586; 17 Am. St. Rep. 84; 2 L. R. A. 534 1267, 1278 Marshall v. South Staffordshire Tramways Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 36 1590, 1606 Marshall Nat. Bank v. O'Neal, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 640; 34 S. W. 344 867 Marson v. Deither, 49 Minn. 423; 52 N. W. 38 154, 198 Marsters v. Umpqua Valley Oil Co. (Oreg.), 90 Pac. 151 1315 Marten v. Burns Wine Co., 99 Cal. 355; 33 Pac. 1107 181, 181, 182 Martin v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55; 36 Pac. 368; 41 Am. St. Rep. 151 127, 148, 247 V. Eagle Development Co., 41 Oreg. 448; 69 Pac. 216 V. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401 1012 251, 306 393 890 857 V. Martin & Brown Co., 27 App. D. C. 59 V. Nashville Bldg. Ass'n, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 418 553, 563 ■ V. Ne^ Trinidad Lake Asphalt Co., 87 N. Y. App. Div. 472 ; 84 N. Y. Supp. 71 1 V. Niagara Falls Paper Co., 122 N. Y. 165; 25 N. E. 303 V. Remington-Martin Co., 95 N. Y. App. Div. 18; 88 N. Y. Supp. 573 282, 495 V. Santa Cruz, etc. Co., 4 Ariz. 171 ; 36 Pac. 36 1310, 1310, 1322 V. Zellerbach, 38 Cal. 300; 99 Am. Dec. 365 Martin & Merryweather v. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.) 116 Martin, Re, 62 Hun (N. Y.) 557 ; 17 N. Y. Supp. 133 904, 907 Martindale v. Wilson-Cass Co., 134 Pa. St. 348; 19 Atl. 680; 19 Am. St. Rep. 706 416 1527 Martino v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co., 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 520 Marvin v. Anderson, 111 Wise. 387; 87 N. W. 226 1237, 1238 588 517, 1221 Marx V. Raley & Co. (Cal.), 92 Pac. 519 232 Maryland Agricultural Col- lege V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 43 Md. 434 670, 670 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 808 Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 25 Md. 242; 89 Am. Dec. 779 Maryland Hospital v. Fore- man, 29 Md. 524 849, 856 Maryland Steel Co. v. Gettys- burg Electric Ry. Co., 99 Fed. 150 1566 Maryland Trust Co. v. Nat. Mechanics Bank, 102 Md. 608; 63 Atl. 70 192, 516, 866, 1214 Maryland Tube Works v. West End Imp. Co., 87 Md. 207; 39 Atl. 620; 39 L. R. A. 810 147, 227, 232, 241, 247 Maryland, etc. Iron Co. v. Wingert, 8 Gill. (Md.) 170 Marysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson, 93 Cal. 538; 29 Pac. 126; 27 Am. St. Rep. 215 Marzett's Case, 28 W. R. 541 Marzetti's Case, 42 L. T. 206 Maskelyne British Tjrpewriter (1898), 1 Gh. 133 . Mason v. Davol Mills, 132 Mass. 76 V. Equitable League, 77 Md. 483; 27 Atl. 171; 39 Am. St. Rep. 433 V. Harris, 11 Ch. D. 97 940, 996 V. Henry, 152 N. Y. 529; 46 N. E. 837 1259, 1285, 1288 V. Moore, 73 Oh. St. 275; 76 N. E. 932 1276, 1278, 1355 V. Motor Traction Co. (1905), 1 Ch. 419 78, 1062 V. York & Cumberland R. R. Co., 52 Me. 82 1413, 1583, 1586, 1625 Masonic Temple Ass'n v. Channell, 43 Minn. 353, 354; 45 N. W. 716 161, 608 Masonic, etc. Ass'n v. Sever- son, 71 Conn. 719; 43 Atl. 192 557, 912 Massachusetts Const. Co. v. Kidd, 142 Fed. 285 933, 1164 Massachusetts Iron Co. v.. Hooper, 7 Gush. (Mass.) 183 154, 157, 768 Massey & Giffin's Case (1907), 1 Gh. 582 618, 621, 709 Massey Mfg. Co., 13 Ont. App. 446 486 Mast Buggy Co. v. Litchfield Imp. Co., 55 111. App. 98 1210 393 208 1265 1280 1581 508 958 935, Master & Company of Frame- workers V. Green, 1 Ld. Raym'd 113 569, 582 Master, etc. of Feltmakers, 1 B. & P. 98 583, 596 Master, etc. of Gunmakers v. Fell, Willes 384 570 Masury v. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 93 Fed. 603; 35 C. C. A. 476 715 Mather Humane, etc. Co. v. Anderson, 76 Fed. 164; 22 C. C. A. 109 1568, 1569 Mathias v. White Sulphur Springs Ass'n, 19 Mont. 359; 48 Pac. 624 1371 Mathiason Mfg. Co., P. B. (Mo.), 99 S. W. 502 1006, 1013, 1015, 1016, 1037, 1039, 1040, 1046, 1060 Mathls V. Morgan, 72 Ga. 517; 53 Am. Rep. 847 873 V. Pridham, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 58; 20 S. W. 1015 631 Matteson v. Dent, 176 U. S. 521; 20 Sup. Ct. 419 788, 791 Matthews v. Associated Press, 136 N. Y. 333; 32 N. E. 981; 32 Am. St. Rep. 741 570, 580 V. Columbia Nat. Bank, 79 Fed. 558 995, 1006 V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 28 L. J. Ch. 375 459, 467 V. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455; 21 Atl. 1054 695, 712 V. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 16 Fed. Cas. 1113 784 Mattingly v. Roach, 84 Cal. 207 420, 423 Mattox V. State, 115 Ga. 212; 41 S. E. 709 383 Maude, Ex parte, 6 Ch. 51 435, 436 Maugham v. Sharpe, 17 C. B. N. s. 443 254 Maund v. Monmouthshire Canal Co., 4 Man. & Gr. 452 869 Maunsell v. Midland, etc. Ry. Co., 1 Hem. & Miller 130 88 Maury v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. Co., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 698 1492, 1493 Mausert v. Christian Feigen- span (N. J.), 63 Atl. 610 1371 Mauthey v. Wyoming, etc. Ins. Co., 76 N. Y. App. Div. 579; 78 N. Y. aupp. 596 890 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Maux Perry, etc. Co. v. Brane- gan, 40 Ind. 361 1237, 1319 Mawhinney v. Converse, 102 N. Y. Supp. 279 1661, 1661 Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. 178 47, 235, 838 V. Dulwich College, 7 Sim. 222 m V. Nat. Bank of Green- ville, 70 S. Car. 532; 50 S. E. 195 V. Port Tennant Co., 24 Beav. 495 V. Wilmington Dental Mfg. Co., 77 Fed. 938 1520, 1520 Maxwell Cattle Co. v. Hender- son, 12 Colo. App. 425; 66 Pac. 67 Maxwell's Case, 20 Eq. 585 May V. Cleland, 117 Mich. 45; 75 N. W. 129; 44 L. R. A. 163 V. Genessee County Sav- ings Bank, 120 Mich 330; 79 N. W. 630 623, 691, 812 Mayer v. Denver, etc. R. Co., 38 Fed. 197 Maynard v. Consolidated Kent Collieries Corp. (1903), 2 K. B. 121 V. Eaton, 9 Ch. 414 Maynard's Case, 9 Ch. 60 206, 206 Maynards, Be (1898), 1 Ch. 515 640, 640, 641, 642 Mayo V. Knowlton, 134 N. Y. 250; 31 N. E. 985 Mayor of Lynn v. Denton, 1 T. R. 89 Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 21 Md. 50 V. Ketchum, 57 Md. 23 V. Norman, 4 Md. 352 V. United Rys., etc. Co. (Md.), 69 Atl. 436 Mayor, etc. of Boonton v. Boonton Water Co. (N. J.), 61 Atl. 390 Mayor, etc. of Jersey City v. North Jersey, etc. Ry. Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 906 Mayor, etc. of Merchants of Staple V. Bank of England, 21 Q. B. D. 160 401, 401, 407, 728, 1010 Mayor, etc. of Newcastle- upon-Tyne V. Atty.-Gen., 12 CI. & Fin. 402 121 395 811 313 1507, 1669 651 716 962 744 783 205, 418 889 91 756 756 1485 1632 107 Mayor, etc. of Norwich v. Norfolk Ry. Co., 4 E. & B. 397 403, 403, 861 Mayor, etc. of Salford v. Lever (1891), 1 Q. B. 168 320 Mayor, etc. of Southampton V. Graves, 8 T. R. 590 889 Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 20 _ 63, 66, 104 Means v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Disney (Oh.) 465 1413 Meara's Admr. v. Holbrook, 20 Oh. St. 137; 5 Am. Rep. 633 1615, 1617 Mears v. Moulton, 30 Md. 142 304 V. Western Canada Pulp. Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 353 160, 644 Mechanics Bank v, Earp, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 384 767, 768, 776 V. Merchants Bank, 45 Mo. 513; 100 Am. Dec. 388 770 V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599 424, 731, 740 V. Seton, 1 Pet. 299 751, 751, 774, 787, 1235 , Re, 2 Barb. (N. Y. ) 446 1493 Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. Mariposa Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 395 700, 705 V. New York, etc. Lead Co., 35 N. Y. 505 862 Mechanics Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Conover, 14 N. J. Eq. 219 803 V. King, 83 Cal. 440; 23 Pac. 376 776 Mechanics, etc. Ass'n v. Doisey, 15 S. Car. 462 563 Mechanics, etc. Bank v. Smith, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 115 594 -B. Stetheimer, 101 N. Y. Supp. 513; 116N. Y. App. Div. 198 1355 M. E. Church v. Picketts, 19 N. Y. 482 229 Meckles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 118; 42 Am. Dec. 103 1079 Medical College of Phila- delphia, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 445 113 Medill V. Collier, 15 Oh. St. 599 252 Medway Cotton Manufactory V. Adams, 10 Mass. 360 380 Meeker v. Winthrop Iron Co., 17 Fed. 48 983, 1083, 1312 Meen v. Pioneer Pasteurizing Co., 90 Minn. 501; 97N.W. 140 43 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] MeUy Co. v. London, etc. Fire Ins. Co., 148 Fed. 683; 79 C. C. A. 454 Melbourne Banking Corp. v. Brougham, 4 A. C. 156 Melbourne Brewery & Dis- tillery (1901), 1 Ch. 453 Melbourne Locomotive, etc. Works, 21 Vict. L. R. 442 875 395 1468, 1470 524, 1190 Melendy v. Barbour, 78 Va. 544 1615, 1616 Melhado v. Hamilton, 28 L. T. N. s. 578; 29 L. T. N. s. 364 442 V. Porto AUegre Ry. Co., 9 C. P. 503 293, 294 Meloy V. Central Nat. Bank, 7 Mack. (D. C.) 69 1372 Melvin d. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446; 22 Am. Rep. 199 191 Memphis, etc. Plank Road Co. V. Rives, 21 Ark. 302 230 Memphis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Dow, 120 U.S. 287; 7 Sup. Ct. 482 1400, 1401, 1402, 1490, 1491 V. Glover, 78 Miss. 467; 29 So. 89 1618 V. Grayson, 88 Ala. 572 ; 7 So. 122; 16 Am. St. Rep. 69 851, 952, 966, 980 V. Hoechner, 67 Fed. 456; 14 C. C. A. 469 1609 V. Railroad Commis- sioners, 112 U. S. 609; 5 Sup. a. 299 1521, 1522, 1522, 1522 D.Woods, 88 Ala. 630; 7 So. 108; 16 Am. St. Rep. 81; 7 L. R. A. 605 941,955, 1026, 1026, 1063 V. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322; 51 Am. Rep. 598 1609 Menasha v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. Co., 52 Wise. 414; 9 N. W. 396 1632 Mendel v. Boyd, 3 Nebr. (Un- official) 473; 91N.W.860 1328 Mendenhall v. West Chester, etc. R. R. Co., 36 Pa. St. 145 n, 150 n. 1584 Menier v. Hooper's Tel. Works, 9 Ch. 350 935 Mercantile Investment, etc. Co. V. International Co. (1893), 1 Ch. 484 1672, 1673, 1673, 1674, 1674, 1674 Mercantile Investment, etc. Co. V. River Plate Trust Co. (1894), 1 Ch. 578 1674 Mercantile Library Hall Co. V. Pittsburg Library Ass'n, 173Pa. St. 30; 33Atl. 744 1188, 1200, 1201, 1305 Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 54 Minn. 56; 55 N. W. 825 ; 40 Am. St. Rep. 299 300 Mercantile Statement Co. v. Kneal, 51 Minn. 263; 53 N. W. 632 133, 134 Mercantile Trust Co. v. Balti- more, etc. R. R. Co., 79 Fed. 389 1566, 1608 ■ V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 360 . 449, 450, 450 V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 89 Fed. 606 1466 V. Baltinfore, etc. R. R. Co., 94 Fed. 722 1529, 1585 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. 372 1593 V. Kanawha, etc. Ry. Co., 58 Fed. 6; 7 C. C. A. 3 1634, 1635, 1646, 1653, 1653 — ' — V. Kings County, etc. Ry. Co., 40 N. Y. App. Div. 141 ; 57 N. Y. Supp. 892 1561 V. Lamoille Valley R. R. Co., 16 Blatchf. 324 1587 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 36 Fed. 221 1593,1593,1603 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 8 1567, 1607, 1647 V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 29 Fed. 732 1535, 1543 V. Portland, etc. R. R. Co., 10 Fed. 604 1586 ' V. Southern Iron Car Line, 113 Ala. 543; 21 So. 373 1643, 1644 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 71 Fed. 601 1611 V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. 529 1554 V. United States Ship- building Co., 130 Fed. 725 1585 Mercantile Trust, etc. Co. v. Low, 87 Fed. 241; 30- C. C. A. 621 1666 Mercer v. Buchanan, 132 Fed. 501 1138, 1151, 1151, 1154 Mercer County v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 83 1403, 1423, 1424 Mercer County Court v. Springfield, etc. Turnpike Co., 10 Bush. (Ky.) 254 429 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Merchant Banking Co. of London v. Merchants Joint- Stock Bank, 9 Ch. D. 560 373 Merchants' Ad.-Sign Co. v. Sterling, 124 Cal. 429; 57 Pac. 468; 71 Am. St. Rep. 94; 46 L. R. A. 142 421 Merchants' Bank v. Living- ston, 74 N. Y. 223 723 V. Moore, 106 Ala. 646; 17 So. 705 1560 V. Shouse, 102 Pa. St. 488 768, 773 V. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604 870 Merchants Bldg., etc. Co. v. Chicago Exchange Bldg. Co., 106 111. App. 17; 210 111. 26; 71 N. E. 22; 102 Am. St. Rep. 145 81 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Citizens Gas Light Co., 159 Mass. 505; 34 N. E. 1083; 38 Am. St. Rep. 453 1380 V. Glendon Co., 120 Mass. 97 221, 227 V. Goddin, 76 Va. 503 1374, 1525 V. Hanson, 33 Minn. 40; 53 Am. Rep. 5 833, 844 V. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., Receivership of, 90 Minn. 144 ; 95 N. W. 767 35, 39,43 ■ V. Nichols & Shepard Co., 223 111.41; 79N. E. 38; 7 L. R. A. N. s. 752 1362 V. Wehrmann, 202 U. S. 295; 26 Sup. Ct. 613 74, 80, 834, 835, 839 Merchants', etc. Co. v. Chicago Rys. Co., 158 Fed. 923 1649 Merchants', etc. Line v. Waganer, 71 Ala. 581 250 Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 55 N. J. Eg. 211 ; 37 Atl. 539; 56 N. J. Eq. 454; 41 Atl. 1116 499, 500, 501, 507 V. New Jersey Zinc, etc. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257; 44 Atl. 55 134, 138 Meredith Village Savings Bank v. Marshall, 68 N. H. 417; 44 Atf. 526 806 Merrick v. Consumers Heat, etc. Co., Ill 111. App. 153, 210 V. Peru Coal Co., 61 111. 472 1247 Merrick v. Reynolds Engine, etc. Co., 101 Mass. 381 123, 219, 247 V. Trustees, etc. of Bank of the Metropolis, 8 Gill (Md.) 59 Merrill v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.) 297 V. Hurley, 6 S. Dak. 592; 62 N. W. 958; 55 Am. St. Rep. 859 V. Montgomery, 25 Mich. 73 V. Suffa (Colo.), 93 Pac. 1099 Merrimac Mining Co. v. Bagley, 14 Mich. 501 667, 668 Merryweather v. Nixan, 8 T. R. 186 Mersey Ry. Co., 64 L. J. Ch. 623 (1895), 2 Ch. 287 Messchaert v. Kennedy, 4 McCrary 133; 13 Fed. 242 381 1487 1381 409 906 1349 1645 1531 1588, 1589, 1636 Messer v. Grand Lodge United Workmen, 180 Mass. 321; 62 N. E. 252 583 Metcalf V. American School Furniture Co., 108 Fed. 909 979 V. American School Furniture Co., 122 Fed. 115 72, 951, 1303, 1312 Methodist Episcopal Soc. v. Lake, 51 Vt. 353 230 Meton & Sons, Thomas F., v. Isham Wagon Co., 4 N. Y. Supp. 215 1364 Metropole Bath Co. v. Garden CityFanCo.,50Ill.App.681 591 Metropolitan Aoc. Ass'n v. Froiland, 161 111. 30; 43 N. E. 766; 52Am. St. Rep. 359 589 V. Windover, 137 111. 417; 27 N. E. 538 662 Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron, 5 Ch. D. 319 . 1346 Metropolitan Coal, etc. Ass'n V. Scrimgeour (1895), 2 Q. B. 604 354 Metropolitan Lead & Zinc Co. V. Webster, 193 Mo. 351 ; 92 S. W. 79 204 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 79 Md. 375; 29 Atl. 606 403, 406 V. Dempsey, 72 Md. 288; 19 Atl. 642 . 232 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Metropolitan Rubber Co. v. Place, 147 Fed. 90; 77 C. C. A. 262 1238 Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 63 Md. 6 736 Metropolitan Stock Exch. v. Lyndonville Nat. Bank, 76 Vt. 303; 57 Atl. 101 851, 870 Metropolitan Tel. Co. v. Domestic Tel. Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 568; 14 Atl. 907 1215,1305 Metropolitan Trust Co. v. Columbus, etc. R. R. Co., 93 Fed. 702 1401 V. Dolgeville Electric Co., 35 N. Y. Misc. 467; 71 N. Y. Supp. 1055 1502, 1505 V. Tonawanda, etc. R. R. Co., 103N. Y.245; 8N. E. 488 1559, 1640, 1643, 1649 Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. Hawkins, 4 H. &. N. 146 889 Metropolitan, etc. R. R. Co. v. Manhattan, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Daly (N. Y.) 373 1186, 1188, 1298, 1305, 1305 Metropolitan, etc. Ry. Co. v. Kneeland, 120 N. Y. 134; 24 N. E. 381; 17 Am. St. Rep. 619; 8 L. R. A. 253 1263, 1280 Metz V. Buffalo, etc. Co., 58 N. Y. 61; 17 Am. Rep. 201 1522, 1632 Mexican, etc. Co., 4 De G. & J. 544 7 Meyer v. Blair, 109 N. Y. 600; 17 -N. E. 228; 4 Am. St. Rep. 500 778 V. Bristol Hotel Co., 163 Mo. 59; 63 S. W. 96 984, 985 V. Hornby, 101 U. S. 728 1543 V. Johnston, 53 Ala. 237; 64 Ala. 603 1204, 1204, 1509, 1522, 1522, 1536, 1566, 1606, 1629, 1646, 1647, 1649, 1649, 1649, 1655 V. Page, 112 N. Y. App. Div. 625 960 V. Richards, 163 U. S. 385; 16 Sup. Ct. 1148 1440 V. Ruby Trust, etc. Co., 192 Mo. 162; 90 S. "W. 821 V. Utah, etc. Ry. Co., 3 Utah 280; 3 Pao. 393 Meyers v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 43 Me. 232 628, 635 1637 1451 902 1069 1251 213 Meysenberg v. People, 88 111. App. 328 M. Groh's Sons v. Groh, 80 N. Y. App. Div. 85; 80 N. Y. Supp. 438 Michel V. Betz, 108 N. Y. App. Div. 241; 95 N. Y. Supp. 844 1323, 1324 Michigan Trust Co. v. Lansing Lumber Co., 103 Mich. 392; 61 N. W. 668 1581 V. State Bank, 111 Mich. 306; 69 N. W. 645 767, 774, 775 Mickey v. Stratton, 5 Sawy. 475 • 396, 407 Mickles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 Paige (N, Y.) 118; 42 Am. Dec. 103 Middlecoft Hotel Co. v. Yeo- mans, 89 111. App. 170 Middleton v. Arastraville Min- ing Co., 146 Cal. 219; 79 Pac. 889 147, 152, 918, 1080 Middletown v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 53 Conn. 351; 5 Atl. 706 ■ 475, 1107 Midland Counties Dist. Bank V. Attwood (1905) 1 Ch. 357 1242 Midland Electric, etc. Co., 37 W. R. 471 627, 628 Midland Railway Co. v. At- torney-General (1902), A. C. 171 Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank, 34 Ind. App. 107; 72N. E. 290 Midland, etc. Ry. Co. v. Gordon, 16 M. &. W. 804 201, 214, 610 Migotti's Case, 4 Eq. 238 206, 207 Milbank v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 20 76, 846, 846, 1026 Milbome v. Royal Benefit Soc, 14 N. Y. App. Div. 406; 43 N. Y. Supp. 1026 852 Milburn v. Wilson, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 481 310, 311 Miles V. Bough, 3 G. & D. 119 603, 604, 915 V. Roberts, 76 Fed. 919 1411, 1411 V. Vivian, 79 Fed. 848 ; 25 C. C. A. 208 ' 1487 Miles' Case, 4 De G. J. & S. 471 169, 169 Mill Dam Foundry v. Howey, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 417 397, 406 481 379 200, TABLE OF CASKS [The references are to pages] 591 1371 183 975 1222 1659 557 Milledgeville Water Co. ■;;. Edwards, 121 Ga. 555; 49 S. E. 621 Milleni). Guerrard, 67 Ga. 284; 44 Am. Rep. 720 1143, 1145 'Miller v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Oreg. 291 V. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558 V. Barlow, 78 N. Y. App. Div. 331; 79 N. Y. Supp. 964 V. Bradish, 69 Iowa 278; 28 N. W. 594 425, 1098, 1109, 1117 V. Chance, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 399 ». Dodge, 28 N. Y. Misc. 640; 59 N. Y. Supp. 1070 V. Eschbach, 43 Md. 1 V. Ewer, 27 Me. 509; 46 Am. Dec. 619 161, 1008, 1009 V. Farmers' Milling, etc. Co. (Nebr.), 110 N. W. . 995 571, 571, 679 V. Flemingsburg, etc. Turnpike Co., 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1039; 59 S. W. 512 V. Grand Lodge, 72 Mo. App. 499 V. Higginbotham (Ky.), 93 S. W. 655 •». Houston City, etc. Ry. Co., 55 Fed. 366; 5 C. C. A. 134 753, 807 V. Houston City Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 63; 16 C. C. A. 128 735 V. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 312 500, 501, 509 V. Insurance Co., 92 Tenn. 167; 21S. W. 39; 20 L. R. A. 765 142, 851, 855 V. Kitchen (Nebr.), 103 N. W. 297 957 V. Matthews, 87 Md. 464; 40Atl. 176 1073,1233 V. Oregon City, etc. Mfg. Co., 3 Oreg. 24 1323, 1373 V. Murray, 17 Colo. 408; 30 Pac. 46 943, 971 V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Pa. St. 237; 80 Am. Dec. 570 456 v: Ratterman, 47 Oh. St. 141; 24 N. E. 496 449, 450, 450, 451, 451, 451, 1028 V. Rutland, etc. R. R. Co., 36 Vt. 452 1486, 1639 847 664 635 Miller v. Rutland, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Vt. 399; 94 Am. Dec. 413 1452, 1456, 1472, 1666 V. State, 15 Wall. 478 33 V. Tod, 95 Texas 404; 67 S. W. 483 45, 113 V. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co., 52 Ind. 51 104 V. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co., 57 Ind. 241 205 Miller's Dale Co., 31 Ch. D. 211 492 Millhiser, etc. Co. v. Gallego Mills Co., 101 Va. 579; 44 S. E. 760 Milliken v. Steiner, 56 Ga. 251 1413 1185, 1226 1201 Mills V. Boyle Mining Co., 132 Cal. 95; 64 Pac. 122 V. Britton, 64 Conn. 4; 29 Atl. 231; 24 L. R. A. 536 1143, 1144, 1145 V. City of Chicago, 143 Fed. 430 970 V. Hendershot (N. J.), 62 Atl. 542 1128, 1129, 1129, 1240, 1241, 1284, 1288 V. Northern Ry. of Bue- nos Ayres Co., 5 Ch. 621 961, 962, 1103, 1103, 1103, 1104, 1117 V. Potter, 189 Mass. 238; 75 N. E. 627 V. State, 23 Tex. 295 V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384 Mills County Nat. Bank v. Perry, 72 Iowa 15 ; 33 N. W. 341; 2 Am. St. Rep. 228 Millsaps V. Chapman, 76 Miss. 942; 26 So. 369; 71 Am. St. Rep. 547 1262, 1316 MillviUe Traction Co. v. Good- win, 53 N. J. Eq. 448; 32 Atl. 263 Millward-Cliffe Cracker Co.'s Estate, 161 Pa. St. 157; 28 Atl. 1072 592, 1378, 1379 Milroy v. Lord, 4 De G. F. & J. 264 713 Miltenberger v. Logansport Ry. Co., 106 U. S. 286; 1 Sup. a. 140 1559, 1567, 1646 Milward v. Avill, 4 Manson 403 1648 Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. V. Dexter, 99 Wise. 2-14; 74 N. W. 976; 40 L. R. A. 837 322, 323, 325, 327, 353, 354 Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co. (Wise), 112 N. W. 663 95, 305 1662 25 667 866 1371 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Milwaukee, etc. R. R. Co. v. Field, 12 Wise. 340 456 V. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510 1602, 1626 Milwaukee, etc. Ry. Co. v. Brooks Locomotive Works, 121 U. S. 430; 7 Sup. Ct. 1094 1515 V. Milwaukee & Western R. R. Co., 20 Wise. 174; 88 Am. Dec. 740 1631 Miner v. Belle Isle Ice Co., 93 Mich. 97; 53 N. W. 218; 17 L. R. A. 412 935, 940, 1082, 1269 Mineral Water Bottle, etc. Soc. V. Booth, 36 Ch. D. 465 568, 570 Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zeller- bach, 37 Cal. 543; 99 Am. Dec. 300 407, 861 Mining Co. v. Anglo-Califor- nian Bank, 104 U. S. 192 1220, 1224, 1225, 1233 Minneapolis Threshing Co. v. Davis, 40 Minn. 110; 41 N.W. 1026; 3L.R.A. 796; 12 Am. St. Rep. 701 209 Miimeapolis Trust Co. v. Clark, 47 Minn. 108; 49 N. W. 386 297 Minneapolis, etc. Suburban Ry. Co. (Minn.), 112 N. W. 13 60,383 Minnehaha Driving Park Ass'n V. Legg, 50 Minn. 333 ; 52 N. W. 898 657, 661 Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. V. Beebe, 40 Minn. 7; 41 N. W. 232; 2 L. R. A. 418 56 Minor v. Mechanics Bank of [Alexandria, 1 Pet. 46 148, 1368, 1368 Minot V. Mastin, 95 Fed. 734; 37 C. C. A. 234 1617 V. Paine, 99 Mass. 101 ; 96 Am. Dec. 705 1144 Mirage Irrigation Co. (Nebr.), 108 N. W. 977 651 Miser Gold, etc. Co. v. Moody (Colo.), 86 Pac. 335 282 Mississippi Valley Co. v. Chicago, etc. Co., 58 Miss. 896; 38 Am. Rep. 348 1502, 1512 Mississippi Valley, etc. Ry. Co. V. U. S. Express Co., 81 111. 534 1515, 1515, 1551 Mississippi, etc. R. R. Co. v. Caster, 20 Ark. 455 601, 604 1009 1374 1619 Missouri Lead, etc. Co. v. Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218; 21 S. W. 488; 35Am. St. Rep. 746 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Sidell 67 Fed. 464; 14 C. C. A. 477 V. Texas Pac. Ry. Co., 30 Fed. 2 V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. 701 82, 1575, 1608, 1642 V. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 319 1575, 1642 Missouri River R. R. Co. v. Richards, 8 Kans. 101 1238, 1246, 1247 Missouri, etc. Ry. Co. v. Faulkner, 88 Tex. 649; 32 S. W. 883 V. Lacy, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 391; 35 S. W. Rep. 505 V. Union Trust Co., 156 N.'Y. 592; 51 N. E. 309 1472, 1474 V. Wood (Tex.)" 52 S. W. 93 1609, 1610 V. Wylie (Tex.), 33 S. W. Rep. 771 1610, 1620 Mitcalfe's Case, 13 Ch. D. 169 1339, 1339 Mitchell, N., v. City of Glas- cow Bank, 4 A. C. 624 Mitchell V. Colorado Fuel, etc. Co., 117 Fed. 723 V. Lycoming Mut. Ins. Co., 51 Pa. St. 402 V. Rome R. R. Co., 17 Ga. 574 175, 667, 668 V. Rubber Reclaiming Co. (N. J.), 24 Atl. 407 898, 904 • V. St. Andrew's Bay Land Co., 4 Fla. 200 V. United Box Board, etc. Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 938 1374 1633 1471, 746 1018 593 398 cxl 1305, 1313 V. Vermont Copper Min- ing Co., 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 406; 67 N. Y. 280 558, 660, 662, 662, 1373 Mitchell's Case, 9 Eq. 363 620, 620 A., 4 A. C. 548 746, 800, 800 Mitchell, Ex parte, 12 S. Car. 83 1646 — Re, 6 Ch. D. 655 1439 Mix V. Nat. Bank of Bloom- ington, 91 111. 20; 33 Am. Rep. 44 221, 227 TABLE OF CASKS [The references are to pages] Mobile Land, etc. Co. v. Gass, 142 Ala. 520; 39 So. 229 1296, 1310 Mobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cul- lom, 49 Ala. 558 767, 776 Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v. Davis, 62 Miss. 271 1610, 1619 V. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 92; 12 So. 723 1031, 1048, 1052, 1053, 1054 V. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 486; 14 Sup. Ct. 968 1091, 1104, 1104 V. Yandal, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 294 428 Mobile, etc. Ry. Co. v. Steiner, 61 Ala. 559 1523, 1633 Mock V. Supreme Council, 106 N. Y. Supp. 155 586 Modem Woodmen v. Deters, 65 111. App. 368 580 V. Jameson, 48 Kans. 718; 30 Pac. 460 663 V. Wieland, 109 111. App. 340 578, 590 Modstock Mining Co. v. Har- ris, 40 Nova Scotia 336 1225, 1227, 1228 Moench & Sons Co., 130 Fed. 685 1187 Moffat V. Farquahar, 7 Ch. D. 591 765, 1014 V. Smith, 101 Fed. 771; 41 C. C. A. 671 875 Mogridge, Re, 57 L. J. Ch. 932 193 Mohawk & Hudson Ry. Co., 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 135 998, 1020, 1021, 1059 Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Sche- nectady Bank, 78 Hun (N. Y.)90; 28N. Y. Supp. 1100 111, 574 Moises V. Thornton, 8 T. R. 303 404, 406 Mokelvmine Hill Mining Co. V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424; 73 Am. Dec. 658 126, 220 Molineaux v. London, etc. Ins. Co. (1902), 2 K. B. 589 1168, 1170, 1171, 1172 MoUer v. Fibre Co., 187 Pa. St. 553; 41 Atl. 478 1217, 1218 Moller V. Maclean, 1 Megone 274 152, 1162 Monarch Co., M. V., v. Farm- ers', etc. Bank, 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1351; 49 S. W. 317 84 Monmouth Investment Co. v. Means, 151 Fed. 159; 80 C. C. A. 527 1322 Monmouth, etc. Ins. Co. v. Lowell, 59 Me. 504 1214 Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Pittsburgh, etc. Traction Co., 46 Atl. 99; 196 Pa. 25; 79 Am. St. Rep. 685 873, 877 Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Ar- nold, 108 Ga. 449; 34 S. E. 176 1196, 1211 Monroe Republican Club, 6 Pa. Dist. Rep. 515 94, 116 Montclair v. N. Y. & Green- wood Lake Ry. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 436; 18 AtL 242 6 Montclair Military Academy V. State Board of Assessors, 65 N. J. Law 516; 47 Atl. 558 59 Monterey, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hildreth, 53 Cal. 123 212 Montgomerie's Brewery Co. V. Blyth, 27 Vict. L. R. 175 1279, 1288 Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 Mass. 249; 19 S. E. 342 103, 240, 240, 245, 266; 881 V. Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co., 70 Fed. 746; 17 C. C. A. 360 1621, 1621 V. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 73 S. Car. 503; 53 S. E. 987 223 V. Whitehead (Colo.), 90 Pac. 509 1127 Montgomery Iron Works v. Roman (Ala.), 41 So. 811 1404 Montgomery Light Co. v. Lahey, 121 Ala. 131; 25 So. 1006 943, 968, 968 Montgomery Traction Co. v. Harmon, 140 Ala. 505; 37 So. 371 942, 977, 1083 Montreal, etc. Power Co. v. Robert (1906), A. C. 196 591, 591, 1222 Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57; 3 Am. Rep. 322 862 Moore v. Bank of Commerce, 52 Mo. 377 771, 772 V. Ensley, 112 Ala. 228; 20 So. 744 1046 V. Marshalltown Opera- House Co., 81 Iowa 45; 46 N. W. 750 699 V. Moore, 18 Eq. 474 713 cxli TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Moore v. New Jersey Lighter- age Co., 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1;5N. Y. Supp. 192 650 V. New Jersey Lighterage Co., 25 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1 666 V. North Western Bank (1891), 2 Ch. 599 695, 695, 710, 711 V. Order of Railway Con- ductors, 90 Iowa 721; 57 N. W. 623 663 V. Peruvian Corp. (1908), 1 Ch. 604 1529, 1547 . V. Rawlins, 6 C. B. n. s. 289 98, 660 V. Silver Valley Mining Co., 104 N. Car. 534; 10 S. E. 679 967, 971 V. Wheal Byjerkemo Tin Mining Co., 17 Vict. L. R. 680 604, 661, 668 Moore, etc. Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co., 87 Ala. 206; 6 So. 41; 13 Am. St. Rep. 23 296, 297 Moores v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 1 1 1 U. S. 156 ; 4 Sup. a. 345 735 Moosbrugger v. Walsh, 89 Hun 564; 35 N. Y. Supp. 550 487 Moran v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co., 32 Fed. 878 • 1508 V. Strau8s,:6 Ben 249; 17 Fed. Cas. 123 1187 Morelock v. Westminster Water Co. (Md.), 4 Atl. 404 1078 Morey v. Fish Bros. Wagon Co., 108 Wise. 520; 84 N. W. 862 1112 Morgan v. Donovan, 58 Ala. 241 1510 V. Hedstrom, 164 N. Y. 224; 58 N. E. 26 1390 V. Howland, 89 Me. 484; 36 Atl. 990 647 V. Independent Order, etc. of Jacob (Miss.), 44 So. 791 565 V. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 15 Fed. 55 1586, 1586 V. King, 27 Colo. 539; 63 Pac. 416 967, 1288, 1295, 1312 V. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. (Pac), 64 Atl. 633 924 V. Lewis, 46 Oh. St. 1 ; 17 N. E. 558 525, 525 V. Louisiana, 93 La. 217 1521 cxlii Morgan v. Morgan, 16 Abb. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.)'291 889 V. Struthers, 131 U. S. 246; 9 Sup. a. 726 778 V. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 11 Fed. 692 1679 V. United States, 113 U. S. 476; 5 Sup. Ct. 588 1435, 1436, 1436 Morgan's Case, 28 Ch. D. 620 898 Morgan County v. Thomas, 76 III. 120 1510, 1514, 1522, 1523 Morgans', etc. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 210; 24 C. C. A. 495 1567 V. Moran, 91 Fed. 22; 33 C. C. A. 313 1633 V. Texas Central Ry. Co., 137 U.S. 171; 11 Sup. Ct. 61 1467, 1562, 1570, 1593 Morisette v. Howard, 62 Kans. 463; 63 Pac. 756 1217, 1222 Morley Bldg. Co., John, v. Barras (1891), 2 Ch. 386 1201, 1212, 1213, 1231 Morrice v. Aylmer, L. R. 7 H. L. 717 414, 414 Morrill v. Little Falls Mfg. Co., 53 Minn. 371; 55 N. W. 547; 21 L. R. A. 174 1010, 1011, 1017 V. Noyes, 56 Me. 458; 96 Am. Dec. 486 1502 Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451 66, 66, 1514 V. Elyton Land Co., 125 Ala. 263; 28 So. 513 952, 959 V. Griffith & Wedge Co., 69 Fed. 131 1375 V. Keil, 20 Minn. 531 400 V. Metalline Land Co., 164 Pa. St. 326; 30 Atl. 240; 44 Am. St. Rep. 614; 27 L. R. A. 305 604, 604, 658, 658, 660 V. Stevens, 178 Pa. St. 563; 36 Atl. 151 499, 508, 509 V. Third Nat. Bank, 142 Fed. 25; 73 C. C. A. 211 53 V. Union Bank, 31 Can. Sup. Ct. 594 645 Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. Fisher, 9 N. J. Eq. 677; 64 Am. Dec. 423 1423 V. Lewis, 12 N. J. Eq. 323 1423, 1439 Morris, etc. R. R. Co. v. Ayres, 29 N. J. Law 393 569 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Morrison v. Dorsey, 48 Md. 461 557, 562, 633 V. Eaton, etc. R. R. Co., 14 Ind. 110 1401 V. Forman, 177 111. 427; 53 N. E. 73 250, 1607 V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 5 Ont. L. R. 38 V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 76 N. E. 961 V. Savage, 56 Md. 142 V. Snow, 26 Utah 247; 72 Pac. 924 V. Trustees, etc. Corp., 79 L. T. 605 V. Wilder Gas Co., 91 Me. 492; 40 Atl. 542; 64 Am. St. Rep. 257 V. Wisconsin Odd Fel- lows, etc. Ins. Co., 59 Wise. 162; 18 N. W. 13 584, 589 , Re, 10 N. B. R. 105 769 Morrison- Wentworth Bank v. Kirdolff, 75 Mo. App. 297 Morrow v. Nashville Iron & Steel Co., 87 Tenn. 262; 10 S.W. 495; 10 Am. St. Rep. 658; 3 L. R. A. 37 193, 627, 1404 V. Peterborough Water Co., 4 Ont. L. R. 324 433,471 Morse v. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 938 V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 944 V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. App. Div. 406; 82 N. Y. Supp. 698 V. Pacific Ry. Co., 93 111. App. 33 620, 623 Morshead v. Southern Pac. Co., 123 Fed. 350 Mortgage Ins. Corp. v. Cana- dian Agricultural, etc. Co. (1901), 2 Ch. 377 Mortimer v. Potter, 213 111. 178; 72N. E. 817 Morton v. Cowan, 25 Ont. 529 1364 250 614 1352 668 1196 574 1679 979 1557 974 1591 679 423, 715 V. Hamilton College, 100 Ky. 281; 38 S. W. 1; 35 L. R. A. 275 293 V. New Orleans, etc. Ry. Co., 79 Ala. 590 1436, 1436, 1591 Morton Boarding Stables, 108 Fed. 791 44 Morton Gravel Road Co. v. Wysong, 51 Ind. 4 558, 561 Morton Trust Co. v. Home Tel. Co., 66 N. J. Eq. 106; 57 Atl. 1020 1452, 1455, 1456, 1456 Morville v. Am. Tract Soc, 123 Mass. 129; 25 Am. Rep. 40 855 Moseley v. Cressey's Co., 1 Eq. 405 342, 343 V. Koffyfontein Mines (1904), 2 Ch. 108 1404 Moses V. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 398 494,614, 1240, 1265, 1273, 1342, 1345 V. Scott, 84 Ala. 608; 4 So. 742 1029, 1030 V. Tompkins, 84 Ala.613 ; 4 So. 763 948, 1035, 1164, 1226, 1250 Moshannon Land, etc. Co. v. Sloan, 109 Pa. St. 532 1376 Mosher v. Sinnott, 79 Pac. 742 (Colo.) 630, 979, 979, 1187, 1300, 1318 Moss V. Averill, 10 N. Y. 449 V. Geddes, 28 N. Y. Misc. 291; 59 N. Y. Supp. 867 V. Syers, 32 L. J. Ch. 711 Moss Tie Co., T. J., v. Com- monwealth (Ky.), 105 S. W. 163 Moss's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 264; 24 Am. Rep. 164 Mostyn v. Calcott Hall Min- ing Co., 1 Fos. & Fin. 334 Mott's Case, 23 W. R. 405 Mottu V. Primrose, 23 Md. 482 996, 1163, 1194, 1326 Mount Carmel Tel. Co. v. Mt. Carmel & Flemingsburg TelCo. (Ky.),84S.W.515 912 1637 442 368 502 233 1011 955, cxliii 274, 302 Mount Holly, etc. Co. v. Ferree, 17 N. J. Eq. 117 723, 752, 754 Mount Holly Paper Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 513 731, 731, 775 Mount Morgan Gold Mine, 3 Times L. R. 556 181, 182 Mount Sterling, etc. R. R. Co. V. Looney, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 550 1370 Mount Sterling Carload Co. V. Little, 14 Bush (Ky.) 429 198 Mount Washington Hotel Co. V. Marsh, 63 N. H. 230 1310 Mount Vernon Bank ti.Porter, 148 Mo. 176; 49 S. W. 982 1345 TABLE OF CASES [The refereaces are to pages] Mousseaux v. Urquhart, 19 La. Ann. 482 1017, 1021, 1027 1043, 1047, 1047 Mowatt V. Castle Steel, etc. Co., 34 Ch. D. 58 402, 1410, 1524 V. LondesboTOUgh, 4 E. & B. 1 342 Mowbray v. Antrim, 123 Ind. 24; 23 N. E. 858 1367 Mowry v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 76 Fed. 38; 22 C. C. A. 52 1402, 1669 Moxham v. Grant (1900), 1 Q. B. 88 1127,1265 Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Bamnbach, 32 Fed. 205 120 Moyer v. East Shore Terminal Co., 41 S. Car. 300; 19 S. E. 651; 44 Aim. St. Rep. 709; 25 L. R. A. 48 591, 593, 594 Moyle V. Landers (Cal.), 21 Pac, 1133 964, 978 Mozley v. Alston, 1 Phillips Ch. 790 931, 972 Mudeett v. Horrell, 33 Cal. 25 921 Mueller V. Madison Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 11 S. Dak. 43; 75 N. W. 277 657, 661 Muhlenberg v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 47 Pa. St. 16 1476 Muir V. City of Glascow Bank, 4 A. C. 337 ^95 Muirhead v. Forth, etc. Mutual Ins. Ass'n (1894), A. C. 72 557, 561, 662 Mulheran v. Gebhardt, 93 N. Y. App. Div. 98; 86 N. Y. Supp. 941 978 MulhoUand v. Washington Match Co., 35 Wash. 315; 77 Pac. 497 177, 181 MuUanphy Sav. Bank v. Schott, 135 HI. 655; 26 N. E. 640; 25 Am. St. Rep. 401 407, 917, 1315 Mulvihill V. Vicksburg Ry., etc. Co. (Miss.), 40 So. 647 963 Mumf ord v. Ecuador Develop- ment Co., Ill Fed. 639 V. Hawkins, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 355 Muncy Traction Engine Co. v. Green, 143 Pa. St. 269; 13 Atl. 747 Municipal Freehold Land Co. V. Pollington, 63 L. T. 238 976, 1082 1382 202 1182, 1189, 1265, 1288 cxliv Munson v. Syracuse, etc. R. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 58; 8 N. E. 355 280, 282, 290, 1297, 1298, 1298 Munster v. Cammell Co., 21 Ch. D. 183 1164, 1164, 1164, 1182, 1193, 1251 Munt V. Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co., 13 Beav. 1 88 Murdoch v. Strange, 99 Md. 89; 57 Atl. 628 1032, 1206 Murdock v. Woodson, 2 Dill. 188 1484 Murphy v. Arkansas, etc. Imp. Co., 97 Fed. 723 84 V. Pacific Bank, 130 Cal. 542; 62 Pac. 1059 687 V. Patapsco Ins. Co., 6 Md. 99 661 V. Penniman (Md.), 66 Atl. 282 1259, 1280, 1284, 1287 V. Wheatley, 102 Md. 501 ; 63 Atl. 62 219 , Ex parte, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 153 1065 , Be, 51 Wise. 619; 8 N. W. 419 716 Murray v. Beal, 23 Utah 548; 65 Pac. 726 912 D. Bush, L. R. 6 H. L. 37 707, 1095, 1178, 1230, 1230, 1230, 1325 V. Dayo, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 3 1516 V. Farmville, etc. R. R. > Co., 101 Va. 262; 43 S. E. 563 1510, 1523 V. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110 1434 V. Nelson Lumber Co., 143 Mass. 250; 9 N. E. 634 1277 V. Stevens, 110 Mass. 95 761 Murray's Executors' Case, 6 De G. M. & G. 746 1310 Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md. 161 609, 613, 626 Muskingum Valley Turnpike Co. V. Ward, 13 Oh. 120; 42 Am. Dec. 191 605, 619, 709 Mustard v. Union Nat. Bank, 86 Me. 177; 29 Atl. 977 541, 1122 Muth V. Dolfield, 43 Md. 466 398, 403, 406 Mutoscope and Biograph Syndicates (1899), 1 Ch. 896 437 Mutter V. Eastern, etc. Ry. Co., 38 Ch. D. 92 902, 903 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Mutual Accident, etc. Ass'n v. Kayser (Pa.), 14 Wkly. Notes Gas. 86 578 Mutual Aid, etc. Soc. v. Monti, 59 N. J. Law 341; 36 Atl. 666 585 Mutual Bldg. Fund v. Bos- seiux, 3 Fed. 817 1259, 1291 Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Far- quhar, 86 Md. 668; 39 Atl. 527 557, 991, 1194 Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Forty- second St., etc. R. R. Co., 74 Hun 505; 26 N. Y. Supp. 545 740, 743 V. McCurdy, 103 N. Y. Supp. 829 1227, 1287 V. McCurdy, 103 N. Y. Supp. 840 1287 V. McSherry, 68 Md. 41; II Atl. 577 593 V. Wilcox, 8 Hiss. 203 838, 844, 868 Mutual Mercantile Agency, III Fed. 152 44 Mutual Savings, etc. Ass'n v. Meriden Agency Co., 24 Conn. 159 77 M. V. Monarch Co. v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 20 Ky. • Law Rep. 1351; 49 S. W. 317 84 Myar ■». Foe (Ark.), 95 S. W. 1005 557, 1375 Myer v. Car Co., 102 U. S. 1 1536, 1539, 1540, 1612 N Nabring v. Bank of Mobile, 58 Ala. 204 808, 811 Naglee v. Pac. Wharf Co., 20 Cal. 529 716, 716 Nankivell v. Benjamin, 18 Vict. L. R. 543 939, 976 Nanney v. Morgan, 37 Ch. D, 346 421, 677, 695, 800 Nantasket Beach, etc. Co. v. Shea, 182 Mass. 147; 65 N. E. 57 847 Nant-y-Glo, etc. Iron Works Co. V. Grave, 12 Ch. D. 738 273, 1261, 1289, 1338, 1338, 1339 Narragansett Bank v. Atlantic Silk Co., 3 Mete. (Mass.) 282 Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Co., 189 U.S. 221; 23 Sup. Ct. 517 J 230, 1380 601, 607 cxlv Nashua Savings Bank v. Bur- lington El. Light Co., 99 Fed. 14 1588 Nashville Bank v. Petway, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 522 1185, 1185 Nassau Bank v. Jones, 95 N. Y. 115; 47 Am. Rep. 14 74, 76, 858, 859 Nassau Phosphate Co., 2 Ch. D. 610 120, 223 Nassau Steam Press v. Tyler, 70 L. T. 376 369 Natal Investment Co., 3 Ch. 355 1421 Natal Land, etc. Co. v. Pauline Colliery, etc. Syndicate (1904), A. C. 120 282, 283, 284 Nathan v. Thompkins, 82 Ala. 437; 2 So. 747 935, 939, 940, 1167, 1183, 1250 V. Uhlmann, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 388; 92 N. Y. Supp. 13; 184 N. Y. 606 1355 Nation's Case, 3 Eq. 77 746, 766 National Bank v. Case, 99 TJ. S. 628 74, 74, 618, 623, 812, 834 V. Graham, 100 U. S. 699 870 V. Johnson, 104 U. S. 271 869 V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co., 21 Oh. St. 221 747 V. Matthews, 98 U. S. 62 1 835 V. Watsontown Bank, 105 U. S. 217 698, 699, 701, 771, 772 V. Whitney, 103 U. S. 99 835, 867 National Bank of Augusta v. Carolina, etc. R. R. Co, 63 Fed. 25 1568 National Bank of Brunswick V. Sixth Nat. Bank, 212 Pa. St. 238; 61 Atl. 889 84 National Bank of Commerce V. Allen, 90 Fed. 545; 33 C. C. A. 169 86, 1023, 1085 V. Shumway, 49 Kans. 224; 30 Pac. 411 1199, 1199 V. Wade, 84 Fed. 10 1259, 1266, 1267 National Bank of Jefferson v. Texas Investment Co., 74 Tex. 421; 12 S. W. 101 47, 148, 1356 National Bank of New Lon- don V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co., 21 Oh. St. 221 426 National Bank of Newport v. H. P. Snyder Mfg. Co., 102 N. Y. Supp. 478 84 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] National Bank of North America v. Kirby, 108 Mass. 497 1436 National Bank of the Republic V. Rochester Tumbler Co., 172 Pa. St. 614; 33 Atl. 748 767, 773 V. Young, 4l N. J. Eq. 531 862 National Bank of Wales (1899), 2 Ch. 629 769, 1101, 1262 National Bank of Xenia v. Stewart, 107 U. S. 676; 2 Sup. Ct. 778 522, 835 National Bldg. Soc, 5 Ch. 309 830, 831, 832 National Boiler Ins. Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 306 136, 137 National Bolivan Nav. Co. v. Wilson, 5 A. C. 176 1555 National Commercial Bank v. McDonnell, 92 Ala. 387; 9 So. 149 176 National Conduit Go. v. Con- necticut Pipe Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 491 300 National Debenture, etc. Corp. (1891), 2 Ch. 505 223, 236, 241 National Docks Ry. Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755 245, 245, 250 National Dwellings Soc. v. Sykes (1894), 3 Ch. 159 1055, 1056, 1056 National Endowment Co., 142 Pa. St. 450; 21 Atl. 879 222 National Exchange Bank v. Hartford, etc. R. R. Co., 8 R. I. 375; 91 Am. Dec. 237; 5 Am. Rep. 582 1448, 1449, 1449, 1449, 1451 National Express, etc. Co. v. Morris, 15 App. D. C. 262 921 National Financial Co., 3 Ch. 791 1244 National Fire Ins. Co. v. Yeomans, 8 R. I. 25; 86 Am. Dec. 610 230 National Funds Ass. Co., 10 Ch. D. 118 1108, 1265, 1268, 1268, 1284, 1290 National Gross Loge v. Jung, 65 111. App. 313 588 National Hollow, etc. Co. v. Chicago Ry., etc. Co., 226 111. 28; 80 N. E. 556 1073 National Home Bldg. Ass'n v. Home Sav. Bank, 181 111. cxlvi 35; 54 N. E. 619; 64 L. R. A. 399; 72 Am. St. Rep. 245 851, 861 National Ins. Co. v. Egleson, 29 Grant (Can.) 406 159, 417, 604, 605, 606, 1231 National Ins., etc. Ass'n, 4 De G. F. & J. 78 187 National Lead Co. v. Dickin- son, 70 N. J. Law 596; 57 Atl. 138; affirmed 62 Atl. 1135 107, 137 National Literary Ass'n, 30 Pa. St. 150 96 National Loan, etc. Co. v. Rockland Co., 94 Fed. 335; 36 C. C. A. 370 83, 1238, 1248, 1321 National Mechanical Direc- tory Co., 121 Fed. 742; 58 C. C. A. 24 39 National Mutual Life Ass'n, 26 Vict. L. R. 490 136 National Park Bank v. Ger- man-American, etc. Co., 116 N. Y. 281; 22 N. E. 567; 5 L. R. A. 673 863 National Pemberton Bank v. Porter, 125 Mass. 333; 28 Am. Rep. 235 844 National Salt Co. v. Ingram ham, 143 Fed. 805; 74C.C. A. 479 57, 1485 National State Bank v. Sand- ford Fork, etc. Co., 157 Ind. 10; 60 N. E. 699 1211, 1381 V. Vigo County Nat. Bank, 141 Ind. 352; 50 Am. St. Rep. 330; 40 N. E. 799 1370 National Trustees, etc. Co., 21 Vict. L. R. 75 813 National Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City, 78 Fed. 428 1486, 1488 National, etc. Trust Co. v. Gray, 12 D. C. App. Cas. 276 683, 723 Native Iron Co., 2 Ch. D. 345 1396 Natoma Water, etc. Co. v. Clarkin, 14 Cal. 544 847 Navajo, etc. Co. v. Cuny, 147 Cal. 581; 82 Pac. 247; 109 Am. St. Rep. 176 1006 Neafle's Appeal (Pa. Sup^ a.), 12 Atl. 271 1648, 1650 Neale v. Turton, 4 Bing. 149 1377 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Neall V. Hill, 16 Cal. 145; 76 'Am. Dec. 508 935, 958, 1179 Neath Bldg. Soc. v. Luce, 43 Ch. D. 158 831, 832, 832, 832 Nebraska Chicory Co. v. Led- nicky (Nebr.), 113 N. W. 245 174, 210, 212 Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Fer- guson, 49 Nebr., 109; 68 N.W.370; 59 Am. St. Rep. 522 253 Nebraska Shirt Co. v. Horton, 3 Nebr. (Unofficial) 888; 93 N. W. 225 77, 858 Neff V. Wolf River Boom Co., 50 Wise. 585; 7 N.W. 553 1632 Negley v. Hagerstown Mfg. Co., 86 Md. 692; 39 Atl. 506 182 Neiler v. Kelley, 69 Pa. St. 403 809 Neilson v. James, 9 Q. B. D. 546 780 Nelson v. Anglo-American Land Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 130 903 V. Bank of Fergus County, 157 Fed. 161 1359 V. Gibson, 92 III. App. 595 584 V. Hubbard, 96 Ala. 238; 11 So. 428; 17L. R. A. 375 488, 1005, 1007, 1399, 1402, 1403, 1486, 1581, 1581, 1600, 1671 V. Keith-O'Brien Co., (Utah), 91 Pao. 30 111, 131 V. Owen, 113 Ala. 372; 21 So. 75 723, 811 V. Spence (Ga.), 58 S. E. 697 407, 408 V. U. S., 201 U. S. 92; 26 Sup. Ct. 358 890 Nelson Coke Co. v. Pellatt, 4 Ont. L. R. 481 169, 439 Nelson, Edward & Co. v. Faber & Co. (1903), 2 K. B. 367 1545, 1548 Nemaha Coal Co. v. Settle, 54 Kans. 424; 38 Pac. 483 213 Nesbit V. North Georgia Elec- tric Co., 156 Fed. 979 1371 Nesmith v. Washington Bank, ' 6 Pick. (Mass.) 324 769, 774 Nesne v. Sundet, 93 Minn. 299; 101 N. W. 490 373 Nether Providence Ass'n, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 666 368 Nettles V. McConnell (Ala.), 43 So. 838 899 cxlvii Nettles V. Marco, 33 S. Car. 47; 11 S. E. 595 4^4 Neubert v. Armstrong Water Co., 211 Pa. St. 582; 61 Atl. 123 894, 905 New Albany v. Burke, 11 Wall. 96 525, 625 New Albany, etc. Co. v. Smith, 23 Ind. 353 ' 1423 New Albany, etc. R. R. Co. v. Fields, 10 Ind. 187 194 V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; 71 Am. Dec. 337 166, 188 New Albany Waterworks v. Louisville Banking Co., 122 Fed. 776 957, 970, 972 New Balkis Eerstelling v. Randt Gold Mining Co. (1904), A. C. 165 668, 668 New Boston Fire Ins. Co. v. Upton, 67 N. H. 469; 36 Atl. 366 1196 New Brighton, etc. R. R. Co. V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 105 Pa. St. 13 305 New Brunswick, etc. Co. v. Muggeridge, 1 Dr. & Sm. 363 184 New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co. V. Muggeridge, 4 H. & N. 580 174, 615 New Castle, etc. Ry. Co. v. Simpson, 21 Fed. 533 840, 842, 1402, 1402 New Chile Gold Mining Co., 38 Ch. D. 475 537 , 45 Ch. D. 598 666, 666 , 68 L. T. 15 647 New Clydach Sheet & Bar Iron Co., 6 Eq. 514 1507, 1619 New Eberhardt Co. i>. Men- zies, 43 Ch. D. 118 632, 640 New England Fire Ins. Co. v. Haynes, 71 Vt. 306; 45 Atl. 221; 76 Am. St. Rep. 771 614 New England Fire, etc. Ins. Co. V. Robinson, 25 Ind. 536 394 New England Marine Ins. Co. V. DeWolf, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 56 1378 New England, etc. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 141 Mass. 535; 6 N. E. 534 1250 New England Iron Co. v. New York Loan, etc. Co., 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 315 890 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] New England R. Co. v. Car- negie Steel Co., 75 Fed. 54; 21 C. C. A. 219 1517, 1560, 1564, 1570 New England Trust Co. v. Abbott, 162 Mass. 148; 38 N. E. 432; 27 L. R. A. 271 517, 573 V. Eaton, 140 Mass. 532; 4 N. E. 69; 54 Am. Rep. 493 1446, 1446, 1446 New Hampshire Central R. R. V. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; 64 Am. Dec. 300 601,607, 609 New Hampshire Sav. Bank V. Richey, 121 Fed. 956; 58 C. C. A. 294 1128 New Haven Trust Co. v. Doherty, 74 Conn. 353; 50 Atl. 887 1368 V. Gaffney, 73 Conn. 480; 47 Atl. 760 627 V. Nelson, 73 Conn. 477; 47. Atl. 753 528 New Jersey Midland Ry. Co. V. Strait, 35 N. J. Law 322 1415 New Lambton Land, etc. Co. V. London Bank, 1 Comm. L. R. (Australia) 524 765, 765, 765, 766 New London Bank v. Brockle- bank, 21 Ch. D. 302 774, 796 New Mashonaland Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 577 1261, 1263, 1274 New Memphis Gas Light Co. Cases, 105 Tenn. 268; 60 S. W. 206; 80 Am. St. Rep. 880 1304, 1317, 1324, 1344 New Orleans Bldg. Co. v. Lawson, 11 La. 34 1210, 1371 New Orleans Debenture, etc. Co. V. Louisiana, 180 U. S. 320; 21 Sup. Ct. 378 46, 59, 241, 258, 258 New Orleans , Nat. Banking Ass'n V. Wiltz, 10 Fed. 330 114, 571 New Orleans Pac. Ry. Co. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 42; 12 Sup. a. 364 1510, 1529, 1589, 1590, 1592 New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Brown, 36 La. Ann. 138; 51 Am. Rep. 5 1246 New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co. v. Frank, 39 La. Ann. 707; 2 So. 310 101 cxlviii New Orleans, etc. S. S. Co. v. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 28 La. Ann. 173; 26 Am. Rep. 90 42, 76, 77 New Transvaal Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 750 437 New York Automobile Co. v. Franklin, 49 N. Y. Misc. 8; 97 N. Y. Supp. 781 1263, 1341 New York Cable Co. v. New York, 104 N. Y. 1; 10 N. E. 332 249 New York Cable Ry. Co., 109 N. Y. 32; 15 N. E. 882 131 New York Car Oil Co. v. Richmond, 6 Bosw. 213 229 New York Car Wheel Works, 141 Fed. 430 876 New York Central Ins. Co. v. Nat. Protection Ins. Co., 14 N. Y. 85 1296 New York Commercial Co. v. Francis, 83 Fed. 769; 28 C. C. A. 199 715, 717 New York Economical Print- ing Co., 110 Fed. 514; 49 C. C. A. 133 1221, 1397 New York Electrical Workers' Union v. Sullivan, 107 N. Y. Supp. 886 998, 1011 New York Firemen Ins. Co. V. Eley (1825), 5 Conn. 560; 13 Am. Dec. 100 827 V. Eley (1824), 2 Cow. 678 826 New York Grape Sugar Co. v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Co., 24 Fed. 604 1263 New York Guaranty, etc. Co. V. Tacoma Ry. Co., 83 Fed. 365; 27 C. C. A. 550 1563, 1572 New York, Lackawanna, etc. Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 12; 1 N. E. 27 122, 229 New York, Lake Erie, etc. Ry. Co. V. Haling, 47 N. J. Law 137; 54 Am. Rep. 123 870 New York Life, etc. Co. v. Kane, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 542; 45 N. Y. Supp. 543 1446, 1446 New York Security, etc. Co. V. Louisville, etc. R. Co., 102 Fed. 382 1509, 1641, 1669 V. Saratoga Gas Co., 88 Hun 569; 34 N. Y. Supp. 890; 157 N. Y. 689; 51 N. E. 1092 1505, 1553 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] New York Security, etc. Co. V. Saratoga Gas, etc. Co., 159 N.Y. 137; 45 L. R. A. 132; 53N.E. 758 1518, 1519 New York, etc. Bank v. Crow- ell, 177 Pa. St. 313; 35 Atl. 613 252 New York, etc. Canal Co. v. Fulton Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 412 79, 80 New York, etc. Ice Lines, Be, 147 Fed. 214; 77 C, V. A. 440 44 New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. Davies, 38 Hun (N. Y.) 477 807 V. Dixon, 114 N. Y. 80; 21 N. E. 110 1310, 1378 V. Ketchum, 27 Conn. 170 294 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 58 Fed. 268 1568, 1611, 1611, 1612 V. Nickals, 119 U. S. 296; 7 Sup. Ct. 209 464, 465, 1100, 1101 V. O'Brien, 106 N. Y. Supp. 909 95 V. Offield, 78 Conn. 1 ; 60 Atl. 740 917 V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30 681, 711, 714, 731, 739, 1324 V. State, 50 N. J. Law 303; 13 Atl. 1 1633 New York, etc. Trust Co. v. Capital Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 529 V. Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64 1537 845, 865 V. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 79 Fed. 386 1567, 1568 New York, etc. Water Co., 98 Fed. 711 22, 44 New Zealand Gold, etc. Co. V. Peacock (1894), 1 Q. B. 622 58, 605 New Zealand Midland Ry. , Co. (1901), 2 Ch. 357 1591 New Zealand Trust & Loan Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 403 414 Newberry v. Detrcit, etc. Iron Co., 17 Mich. 141 715, 752, 781 Newbiggin-by-the-Sea Gas Co. V. Armstrong, 13 Ch. D. 310 933 Newbold v. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co., 5 111. App. 367 1455, 1651 Newby v. Oregon Central R. R. Co., 1 Sawy. 63 373, 961, 1554 Newby v. Oregon Central Ry. Co., Deady 609 373, 961 Newcastle, etc. Co. v. Bell, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 584 160, 1250 Newcomb v. Reed, 12 Allen (Mass.) 362 219, 1227 V. Re, 42 N. Y. St. Rep. 442; 18 N. Y. Supp. 16 1225 Newell V. Smith, 49 Vt. 255 1616, 1618 V. Williston, 138 Mass. 240 690, 691, 698, 699 Newgass v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co., 56 Fed. 676 1540, 1542 V. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. 712 1574 Newhaven Local Board v. Newhaven School Board, 30 Ch. D. 350 1164 Newland Hotel Co. v. Lowe Furniture Co., 73 Mo. App. 135 76 Newlands v. National Em- ployers, etc. Ass'n, 54 L. J. Q. B. 428 186, 1377 Newman & Co., George (1895), 1 Ch. 674 83, 1069, 1283, 1321 Newport News Shipbuilding, etc. Co. V. Jones (Va.), 54 S. E. 314 ' 62 Newport, etc. Bridge Co. v. Douglas, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 673 1455, 1469 Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coombe, 3 Ex. 565 173, 173, 601 Newton v. Anglo-Australian, etc., Co. (1895), A. C. 244 66 V. Belcher, 12 Q. B. 921 309 V. Birmingham Small Arms Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 378 909, 909 V. Fay, 10 Allen (Mass.) 505 811, 812 V. Liddiard, 12 Q. B. 925 309 V. Wooley, 105 Fed. 541 786 Newton Mfg. Co. v. White, 42 Ga. 148 873, 874 Newton Nat. Bank v. New- begin, 74 Fed. 135; 20 C. C. A. 339; 33 L. R. A. 727 177, ISO, 180 Neyens v. Worthington (Mich.), 114 N. W. 404 865 Niagara Shoe Co. v. Tobey, 71 111. App. 250 534 cxlix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Nichols V. Burlington, etc. Co., 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 42 160, 608 V. Mass, 94 N. Y. 160 1496, 1503 Nicholson v. Nicholson, 30 L. J. Ch. 617 1141 V. Rhodesia Trading Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 434 1115 Nicholson- Watson, etc. Co. v. Urquhart, 32 Tex. Gv. App. 527; 75 S. W. 45 666 Nicholstone City Co. v. Smal- ley, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 210; 51 S. W. 527 1068 Nickalls V. Merry, L. R. 7 H. L. 530 779, 782 Nickals v. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 15 Fed. 575 466 Nickerson v. Atchison, etc. R. Co., 17 Fed. 408 1549 V. English, 142 Mass. 267; 8N. E. 45 632 Nickum v. Burckhardt, 30 Oreg. 464; 47 Pao. 788; 48 Pac. 474; 60 Am. St. Rep. 822 156, 161, 215, 234 Niool's Case, 3 De G. & J. 387 521, 706, 764 NicoU V. aark, 13 N. Y. Misc. 128; 34 N. Y. Supp. 159 230 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 121 107 Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38 Minn. 85; 35 N. W. 577; 8 Am. St. Rep. 643 572, 716, 752 V. Frisk-Turner Co., 71 Minn. 413; 74 N. W. 160; 70 Am. St. Rep. 334 22, 43 NicoUs V. Reid, 109 Cal. 630; 42 Pac. 298 712, 781 Niemeyer v. Little Rock Junc- tion Ry. Co., 43 Ark. Ill 121, 240, 245 Nightingal v. Devisme, 5 Burr. 2589 421 Niles V. Edwards, 90 Cal. 10; 27 Pao. 159 810 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 176 N. Y. 119; 68 N. _E. 142 928, 947, 1350 Niles Tool Works v. Louis- ville, etc. Ry. Co., 112 Fed. 561; 50C. C. A. 390 1567 Nimmo v. Jackson, 21 111. App. 607 1211 Ninneman v. Pox (Wash.), 86 Pac. 213 928, 929 cl Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256 Nisbit V. Macon Bank, etc. Co., 12 Fed. 686 804, 805 Niven v. Spickerman, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 401 Nixon V. Brownlow, 3 H. & N. 686 V. Clear Creek LvimberCo. (Ala.), 43 So. 805 V. Goodwin (Cal.), 85 Pac. 169 • 917, 925, 1262 Nixon's Navigation Co., Be (1897), 1 Ch. 872 N. Mitchell v. City of Glascow Bank, 4 A. C. 624 Noah V. German-American Bldg. Ass'n, 31 Ind. App. 504; 68 N. E. 615 Noakes v. Noakes & Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 64 1557, 1558 Noble V. Euler, 20 N. Y. App. Div. 548; 47 N. Y. Supp. 302 V. Garden, 146 Cal. 225; 79 Pac. 883 V. Learned (Cal.), 87 Pac. 402 V. Turner, 69 Md. 519; 16 Atl. 124 694, 716 Nockells V. Crosby, 3 B. & C. 814 Noel V. Drake, 28 Kans. 265; 42 Am. Rep. 162 NoUer v. Wnght, 138 Mich. 416; 101 N. W. 553 Norbury's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 423 Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pendleton, 86 Va. 1004; 11 S. E. 1062 Norman v. Loomis-Manning Filter Co., 108 N. Y. Supp. 261 V. Mitchell, 5 De G. M. & G. 648 Normandy v. Ind, Coope & Co. (1908), 1 Ch. 84 937, 946, 953. 954, 1003, 1004, 1161, 1243r, 1319, 1321, 1364 Norris V. Cottle, 2 H. L. C. 647 North V. Forest, 15 Conn. 400 North & South Rolling Stock Co. V. People, 147 111. 234; 35 N. E. 608; 24 L. R. A. 462 North American, etc. Trust Co. V. Colonial, etc. Mort- 625 8 214 393 542 746 853 1182 713 713 341 1347 1018 337 1633 1373 1175 276 422 1167 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 297 1235 1517 87 1246 1002 gage Co., 83 Fed. 796; 28 C. C. A. 88 North British Ins. Co. v. Hallet, 7 Jur. n. s. 1263 North Carolina R. R. Co. v. Drew, 3 Woods 691 V. Moore, 7 N. Car. 6 North Charterland Explora- tion Co. V. Riordan, 13 Times L. R. 80, 281 350, 351 North Eastern Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 19 W. R. 198 North of England S. S. Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 15 , North Hudson Bldg., etc. Ass'n V. Childs, 82 Wise. 460; 52N.W.600; 33 Am. St. Rep. 57 1228, 1259, 1286, 1369 North Milwaukee Town Site Co. V. Bishop, 103 Wise. 492; 79 N. W. 785; 45 L. R. A. 174 556, 558, 558, 560 603, 605 North Missouri R. R. Co. v. Miller, 31 Mo. 19 193 North Pa. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 54 Pa. St. 94; 93 Am. Dec. 677 1459, 1460 North River Ins. Co. v. Lawrence (1830), 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 482 North River Meadow v. Shrewsbury Church, 22 N. J. Law 424; 53 Am. Dec. 258 613, 914 North Shore, etc. Ferry Co., 63 Barb. 556 1020, 1024 North Stafford Steel, etc. Co. V. Ward, L. R. 3 Ex. 172 608, 609 North Sydney Investment, etc. Co. V. Higgins (1899), A. C. 263 285, 642 North West Argentine Ry. Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 882 469 North-West Electric Co. v. Walsh, 29 Can. Sup. a. 33 579, 627, 629 North Western Ry. Co. v. M'Michael, 5 Ex. 114 173, 173, 174 Northage, Be (1891), 60 L. J. Ch. 488 1140 Northampton Bank v. Pepoon , 11 Mass. 288 1186, 1213 Northern Ala. Ry. Co. v. Hopkins, 87 Fed. 505; 31 C. C. A. 94 1642 827 Northern Assam Tea Co., 10 Eqr. 458 Nortnem Central Mich. R. R. Co. V. Eslow, 40 Mich. 222 Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Keighler, 29 Md. 572 1421 169 1492, 1600 1364 1544 V. Rider, 45 Md. 24 V. State, 17 Md. 8 V. Walworth, 193 Pa. St, 207; 44 Atl. 253; 74 Am. St. Rep. 683 786 Northern Electric Wire, etc. Co., 2 Megone 288 172 Northern Nav. Co. v. Long, 11 Ont. L. R. 230 1126, 1126 Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Am. Trading Co., 195 U. S. 439; 25 Sup. a. 84 1618, 1644 V. Heflin, 83 Fed. 93; 27 C. C. A. 460 1613 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Lamont, 69 Fed. 23; 16 C. C. A. 364 1566, 1570, 1572 Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197; 24 Sup. Ct. 436 57, 264 Nortnem Trust Co. v. Snyder, 113 Wise. 516; 89 N. W. 460; 90 Am. St. Rep. 867 949, 951 Northrop V. Bushnell, 38 Conn. 498 177, 525, 528 V. Curtis, 5 Conn. 246 699, 700 V. Newtown, etc. Turn- pike Co. , 3 Conn. 544 699 Northside Ry. Co. v. Worth- ington, 88 Tex. 562; 30 S. W. 1055; 53 Am. St. Rep. 778 1403 Northumberland Ave. Hotel Co., Re, 33 Ch. D. 16 285, 286, 1314 Northumberland & Durham Dist. Banking Co., 2 De G. & J. 357 224 Northwestern, etc. Ass'n v. Schauss, 148 111. 304; 35 N. E. 747 660 V. Wanner, 24 111. App. 358 584 Northwestern Land Ass'n v. Grady, 137 Ala. 219; 33 So. 874 1259 Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Erlenkoetter, 90 111. App. 99 582, 592 eli TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. Cotton Exoh., etc. Co., 46 Fed. 22 628, 635 V. Cotton Exch., etc. Co., 70 Fed. 155 628 Northwestern Packing Co. v. Whitney (Cal.), 89 Pac. 981 592 Northwestern Transportation Co. V. Beatty, 12 A. C. 589 1080, 1297, 1311, 1312 Northwestern Union Packet Co. V. Shaw, 37 Wise. 655; 19 Am. Rep. 781 849, 855, 858 Northwood Union Shoe Co. v. Pray, 67 N.H. 435; 32Atl. 770 625 Norton V. Alabama Nat. Bank, 102 Ala. 420; 14 So. 872 1372 V. Derby Nat. Bank, 61N. H. 589; 60 Am. Rep. 334 851, 855 V. State, 74 Ind. 337 230, 383 V. Yates (1906), 1 K. B. 112 1546 Norwich, etc. Navigation v. Theobald, 1 Moody & M. 151 608 Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Abaly (Wise), 113 N. W. 963 393 Norwich Yam Co., 22 Beav. 143 394, 395 Nourse v. Prime, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 490; 8 Am. Dec. 606; 7 Johns. Ch. 69; 11 Am. Dec. 403 Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286 B.Rich, 52 Me. 115 1;. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 420 Noyes Bros., 136 Fed. 977 418 786 1029 1515 781 698, 810 Nugent V. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241 162, 173 Nute V. Hamilton Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 174 577, 594 Nutter V. Lexington, 'etc. R. R. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 85 490 Nye V. Storer, 168 Mass. 53; 46 N. E. 402 1309, 1312 O Oak Grove, etc. Cattle Co. v. Foster, 7 New Mex. 650; 41 Pac. 522 1379 Oakbank Oil Co. v. Crum, 8 A. C. 65 433 Oakes v. Cattaraugus Water Co., 143 N. Y. 430; 38 N. E. 461 ; 26 L. R. A. 544 290, 1381 V. Oakes, 9 Hare 666 414 V. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L. 325 178, 184, 186, 223 Oakford v. Fischer, 75 111. App. 544 912 Oakland Bank v. Wilcox, 60 Cal. 126 1264 Oakland, etc. Bank v. State Bank, 113 Mich. 284; 71 N. W.453; 67 Am. St. Rep. 463 772 Oakley v. Working Men's Union Benev. Soc, 2 Hilton (N. Y.) 487 _ 1382 Oban & Aultmore-Glenlivet Distilleries, 5 Eraser (Sc.) 1140 111, 547 O'Beime v. Allegheny, etc. R. R. Co., 151 N. Y. 372; 45 N. E. 873 1587 O'Brien v. Blaut, 17 N. Y. App. Div. 288; 45 N. Y. Supp. 217 1285 V. Champlain Construc- tion Co., 107 Fed. 338 1354 V. Cummings, 13 Mo. App. 197 111, 114, 571 V. Fulkerson, 75 Mich. 554; 42 N. W. 979 204 Occidental Bldg. etc., Ass'n v. Sullivan, 62 Cal. 394 590 O'Connor v. International Silver Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 321; 62 Atl. 408 878,936,962, 1027 V. Virginia Pass., etc. Co., 184 N. Y. 46; 76 N. E. 1082 942, 942, 944, 978 V. Virginia Pass, etc. Co., 46 N. Y. Misc. 530; 92 N. Y. Supp. 525 971 O'Connor, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Coosa Furnace Co., 95 Ala. 614; 10 So. 290; 36 Am. St. Rep. 251 1306, 1315 Odessa Tramways v. Mendel, 8 Ch. D. 235 199, 602, 606, 632 Odessa Waterworks Co. (1901), 2 Ch. 190 n 471 Odessa Waterworks Co., W. N. (1897) 166 469 O'Donnell v. Johns, 76 Tex. 362 387 clii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] O'Duffy V. Jaffe (1904), 2 Ir. 27 267 O'Dwyeri). Verdon, 115 N. Y. App. Div. 37 757, 757 Oelbermann v. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 77 Hun (N. Y.) 332; 29 N. Y. Supp.,545 76, 1026, 1063 Off V. Jack, 204 lU. 79; 68 N. E. 427 1323, 1323 Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. Co. V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541 121, 601 Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380 177, 180, 181 Ogle V. Knipe, 8 Eq. 434 424, 424 Oglesby v. Attrill, 105 U. S. 605 981 O'Herron v. Gray, 168 Mass. 573; 47N. E. 429; 60 Am. St. Rep. 411; 40 L. R. A. 498 683, 726 Ohio V. Frank, 103 U. S. 697 1441 Ohio Central R. R. Co. v. Central Trust Co., 133 U. S. 83; 10 Sup. Ct. 235 1453, 1465, 1522, 1623 Ohio Coal Co. v. Whitcomb, 123 Fed. 359 1620, 1629 Ohio College v. Rosenthal, 45 Oh. St. 183; 12 N. E. 665 450, 451 Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunemacher, 15Ind. 294; 10 Ind. 234 499, 500 Ohio Valley Nat. Bank v. Hulitt, 204 U. S. 162 617, 621 V. Walton Architectural Iron Co., 30 Wkly. Law Bull. (Oh.) 382 1034, 1203, 1217 Ohio, etc. R. R. Co. v. McPherson, 35 Mo. 13; 86 Am. Dec. 128 1009, 1208, 1224, 1227 Ohio, etc. Ry. Co. v. Russell, 115 111. 52; 3N. E. 561 1609 Oil City Land, etc. Co. v. Porter, 99 Ky. 254; 35 S. W. 643 186 Oil Creek, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pa. Transportation Co., 83 Pa. St. 160 852, 854 Olathe Silver Mining Co., 27 Ch. D. 278 1529 Old Bushmills Distillery (1897), 1 Ir. R. 489 1547 Old Colony Trust Co. v. City of Wichita, 123 Fed. 762 248, 833, 1484 969 331 Old Colony Trust Co. v. Du- buque, etc. Traction Co., 89 Fed. 794 V. Standard Beet Sugar Co., 150 Fed. 677 1504, 1520, 1550 Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn, 136 Fed. 915; affirmed 148 Fed. 1020 Old Dominion Copper Min- ing, etc. Co. V. Bigelow, 188 Mass. 315; 74 N. E. 653; 108 Am. St. Rep. 479 312, 314, 315,327,331,334,335 Oldham Corporation v. Bank of England (1904), 2 Ch. 716 Oldknow V. Wainwright, 1 Wm. Bl. 289; 2 Burr. 1017 Oldtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 571 609, 610 Oler V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 41 Md. 583 154, 195, 198, 221 Oliphant v. Bank of Commerce 60 Ark. 198; 29 S. W. 460 Oliver v. Oliver, 118 Ga. 362; 45 S. E. 232 V. Rah way Ice Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 596; 54Atl. 460 794 1206 770 1352 1316, 1316 Oliver's Estate, 136 Pa. St. 43; 20 Atl. 527; 20 Am. St. Rep. 894; 9 L. R. A. 421 1092, 1148 Olmstead v. Vance, etc. Co., 196111.236; 63 N. E. 634 191, 192, 518, 526 Olney v. Chadsey, 7 R. I. 224 914, 920, 1246, 1248, 1372 Olsen V. Homestead Land Co., 87 Tex. 368; 28 S. W. 944 542, 1091, 1119 Olson V. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267; 69N. W.904 492 Olympia, Ltd. (1898) 2 Ch. 153 324, 324, 328 Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns (Idaho), 91 Pac. 92 214 Olyphant v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 23 Fed. 465 1629 V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 28 Fed. 729 1611 Omaha Law Library Ass'n v. Connell, 55 Nebr. 396; 75 N. W. 837 650, 651 Omaha Water Co. v. City of Omaha, 147 Fed. 1; 77 C. C. A. 267 1521 cliii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] O'Mara v. Newoomb (Colo.), 88 Pac. 167 723, 808 Omnium Investment Co., Re, (1895), 2 Ch. 127 537 O'Neal V. F. A. Neider Co., 25 Ky. Law Rep. 2279; 80 S. W. 451 1183, 1183 Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank, 21 N. Y. 490 866 O'Neile v. Temes, 32 Wash. 528; 73 Pac. 692 1351 O'Neill V. Webb, 78 Mo. App. 1 786 , Be, 47 N. Y. Misc. 495; 95 N. Y. Supp. 964 894 Onslow's Case, 3 Times L. R. 551 1171 Ontario Ladies College v. Kendiy, 10 Ont. L. R. 324 166 Ontario Salt Co. v. Merchants Salt Co., 18 Grant Ch. (Up. Can.) 540 80 Ooregum Gold Mining Co. v. Roper (1892), A. C. 125 627, 627, 639 Opdyke v. Marble, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 64 890 Opera, Ltd. (1891), 3 Ch. 260 1546 Ophir Consol. Mines Co. v. Brynteson, 143 Fed. 829; 74 C. C. A. 625 526 Opinion of Atty.-Gen., 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 492 120 Oppenheimer v. Boatman (1907), 1 Ch. 399 1157 Order of Chosen Friends v. Austerlitz, 75 111. App. 75 662 Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian Ry.Co., 130U.S. 1; 9 Sup. a. 409 36, 52, 836 Oregon Trust & Savings Bank, 156 Fed. 319 20 Oregon, etc. Nav. Co. v. Balfour, 90 Fed. 295; 33 C. C. A. 57 300 Oreffon & Transcontinental Co. V. Hilmers, 20 Fed. 717 808 O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley • Draining Co., 32 Ind. 169 94 Oriental, etc. Steam Co. v. Briggs, 4 De G. F. & J. 191 165 Ormerod's Case, 25 W. R. 765 1337 (1894), 2 Ch. 474 363 , 5 Eq. 110 200 Ormsby v. Vermont Copper Mining Co., 56 N. Y. 623 665, 1008, 1208 Ornamental Pyrographic Co. V. Brown, 2 H. & C. 63 608 232 Oroville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Palmas County, 37 Cal. 354 Orr V. South Amboy Terra Cotta Co., 113 N. Y. App. Div. 103 1302, 1328 Orrick School Dist. v. Dorton, 125 Mo. 439; 28 S. W. 765 249 Ortigosa v. Brown, 38 L. T. 145 686, 707, 707, 718, 762 Osbom V. Gilliams, 33 N. Y. Misc. 312; 68 N. Y. Supp. 470 Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. Law 633 Osborne Park Land & Invest- ment Co., 18 Vict. L. R. 515 Oscar Bonner Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania Oil Co. (Cal.), 89 Pac. 613 Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57 Md. 98 Osgood V. King, 42 Iowa 478 Ossipee, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295 109, 117, 652, 868, 1408, 1409 Otis V. Cullum, 92 U. S. 447 1440 V. Gardner, 105 111. 436 723 Ottawa Dairy Co. v. Sorley, 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 508 Ottawa Union Bldg. Soc. v. Scott, 24 Up. Can. Q. B. 341 1262 398 215 1377 577 528 211 Ottawa, etc. R. R. Co. v. Black, 79 lU. 262 Otter V. Brevoort Petroleum Co., 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 247 583, 590 163 163, 649 cliv Otter View Land Co.'s Re- ceiver V. Bowling's Extx., 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1157; 70 S. W. 834 614 Otto Electrical Mfg. Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 390 293 Ottoman Cahvey Co. v. Dane, 95 111. 203 379 Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines (1893), 1 Ch. 618 730, 731, 747, 749, 752 Ottumwa Screen Co. v. Stodg- hill, 103 Iowa 437; 72 N. W. 669 716 Oudin, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Conlan, 34 Wash. 216; 75 Pac. 798 1167 Overend & Gumey Co. v. Gibb, L. R. 5 H. L. 480 1273, 1274 Overton v. Memphis, etc. R.R. Co., 10 Fed. 866 957 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Ovid Elevator Co. v. Secretary of State, 90 Mich. 466; 51 N. W. 536 134 Owen V. Shepard, 59 Fed. 746; 8 C. C. A. 244 231, 231, 251 Owen & Ashworth's Claim (1901), 1 Ch. 115 1205, 1222, 1259 1343 Owen & Co. v. Cronk (1895), ' 1 Q. B. 265 1580 Owens V. Atlanta Trust, etc. Co.,122Ga.521;50S.E.379 770 Oxford Bldg. Society, 35 Ch. D. 502 1109, 1110, 1241, 1284, 1333 Oxford Turnpike Co. v. Bun- nell, 6 Conn. 552 716 Pabst V. Goodrich (Wise), 113 N. W. 398 522, 1145 Pacific Bank v. Stone, 121 Cal. 202; 53 Pac. 634 1372 Pacific Fruit Co. v. Coon, 107 Cal. 447; 40 Pac. 542 524 Pacific Mill Co. v. Inman, Poulsen & Co. (Oreg.), 90 Pac. 1099 491, 493 Pacific Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 227; 11 Sup. Ct. 984 154, 490 Pacific Northwest Packing Co. V. Allen, 116 Fed. 312; 54 C. C. A. 648 1627, 1630 Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ketchum, 101 U. S. 289 1636 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., Ill U. S. 505; 4 Sup. Ct. 583 968, 987, 1636 V. Seeby, 45 Mo. 212; 100 Am. Dec. 369 862, 864 V. Wade, 91 Cal. 449; 27 Pac. 768; 13 L. R. A. 754; 25 Am. St. Rep. 201 1616 Pacific Trust Co. v. Dorsey, 72 Cal. 55; 12 Pac. 49 645 £acific Vinegar, etc; Works v. Smith, 93 Pac. (Cal.) 85 1276, 1277 V. Smith, 145 Cal. 352; 78 Pac. 550; 104 Am. St. Rep. 42 1296, 1310, 1311 Packard v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 168 Mass. 92; 46N. E. 433 161, 230 Padstow Total Loss & Colli- sion Ass. Ass'n, 20 Ch. D. 137 258 Paducah Land, etc. Co. v. Hayes, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 517; 24 S. W. 237 1334, 1338, 1339 Paducah, etc. R. R. Co. v. Parks, 86 Tenn. 554; 8 S. 842 193, 633 Page V. Austin, 10 Can. Sup. Ct. 132 483, 483 V. International, etc. Trust, 62 L. J. Ch. 610 1514 Page Belting Co. v. Prince (N. H.), 67 Atl. 401 806, 810, 1130 Pagin and Gill's Case, 6 Ch. D. 681 643 Paige V. Smith, 99 Mass. 395 1617 Pain V. Soci6t6 St. Jean Baptiste, 172 Mass. 319; 52 N. E. 502; 70 Am. St. Rep. 287 586 Paine v. Hutchison, 3 Ch. 388 782, 785, 787, 787 V. Lake Erie, etc. R. R. Co., 31 Ind. 283 1335 Painesville, etc. R. R. Co. v. King, 17 Oh. St. 534 451, 1108 Pakenham Pork Packing Co., 6 Ont. L. R. 582 178 , 12 Ont. L. R. 100 1214 Palliser v. Home Telephone Co. (Ala.), 44 So. 575 488, 488 Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266; 75N.W.380 480 483, 486 V. Forbes, 23 111. 301 1496, 1502, 1606 V. Hawes, 73 Wise. 46; 40 N. W. 676 • 1350, 1353 25 V. Pinkham, 33 Me. 32 V. Ring, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 643 Palmer's Decoration, etc Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 743 Palys V. Jewett, 32N.J.Eq.302 Panama, etc. Mail Co., 5 Ch. 318 1393, 1395, 1519 Pancoastv. Travelers' Ins. Co., 79 Ind. 172 Panhandle Nat. Bank v. Emery, 78 Tex. 498; 15 S. W. 23 Panmure, Ex parte, 24 Ch. D. 367 Pannebaker v. Tuscarora Valley R. Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 923 Panton and the Cramp Steel Co., 9 Ont. L. R. 3 1071 1429 1616 852 86 175 853 746 civ TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Panzl V. Battle Island, etc. Co., 132 Fed. 607; 138 Fed. 48 1356 Parbury's Case (1896), 1 Ch. 100 650, 650 Pardee v. Aldridge, 189 U. S. 429; 23 Sup. Ct. 514 1510 Paris V. Paris, 10 Ves. 185 1141, 1145, 1148 Parish V. Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494 844, 1510 Park V. Grant Locomotive Works, 40 N. J. Eq. 114; 3 Atl. 162 1110, 1186, 1188 V. Modem Woodmen of America, 181 111. 214; 54 N. E. 932 282 V. New York, etc. R. Co., 57 Fed. 799 1612, 1612 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 64 Fed. 190 V. Zwart, 92 Iowa 37; 60 N. W. 220 Park Hotel Co. v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 86 Fed. 742; 30 C. C. A. 409 Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 96Tenn.252; 34S.W.209; 31 L. R. A. 706 694, 1072 V. Dupree, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 341; 67 S. W. 185 V. Mason, 8 R. I. 427 V. McKenna, 10 Ch. 96 V. New Orleans R. R. Co., 33 Fed. 693 1502, 1511, 1520 V. Nickerson, 112 Mass. 195 1306, 1331, 1332, 1332 V. Northern Central Mich. R. R. Co., 33 Mich. 23 169 V. River Dam Nav. Co., 1 De G. & Sm. 192 976 V. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213; 81 Am. Dec. 385 185, 193 V. U. S. Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 19 W. Va. 744 595 , Ex parte, 2 Ch. 685 744 Parkhurst v. Mexican, etc. R. R. Co., 102 111. App. 507 172 V. Northern Central R. R. Co., 19 Md. 472; 81 Am. Dec. 648 1515, 1551 Parkin v. Fry, 2 C. & P. 3 11 309 Parkinson v. West End Street Ry. Co., 173 Mass. 446; 53 N. E. 891 1475, 1476 Parks V. Gates, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 534; 82 N. Y. Supp. 1070 337 1574 108 84 1619 543 1335 Parmelee «. Associated Plr^si- cians, etc., 9 N. Y. Misc. 458; 30 N. Y. Supp. 250 1379 Parmelee Library, 120 Fed. 235; 56 C. C. A. 583 44 Parrott v. Byers, 40 Cal. 614 962, 964 Parsons v. Hayes, 14 Abb. N. C. 419 (N. Y.) 331, 969, 1290 V. Jackson, 99 U. S. 434 1410, 1424, 1434, 1436 V. Little, 28 App. D. C. 218 1585 V. Tacoma Smelting, etc. Co., 25 Wash. 492; 65 Pac. 765 57, 71, 1026, 1203, 1305, 1312 Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 146 63, 917 Patent File Co., 6 Ch. 83 65 Patent Invert Sugar Co., 31 Ch. D. 166 487 Patent Ventilating Co., Be, 12 Ch. D. 254 534 Paton V. Northern R. R. Co., 85 Fed. 838 1659 Paton's Case, 5 Ont. L. R. 392 83, 705 Patrick V. Reynolds, 1 C. B. N. s. 727 308 Pattberg v. Pattberg Bros., 55 N. J. Eq. 604; 38 Atl. 205 1639 Patterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410 222, 240, 245, 245, 252, 261 V. Robinson, 116 N. Y. 193; 22N. E. 372 1373 V. Smelting Works, 35 Oreg. 96; 56 Pac. 407 1214, 1215, 1296, 1317, 1344 V. Turner, 3 Ont. L. Rep. 373 215 Pattison v. Albany Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 63 Ga. 373 222 Paul Boyer, Ltd.,?).Edwardes, 17 Times L. R. 16 355, 356 Paulino v. Portuguese Bene- ficial Ass'n, 18 R. I. 165; 26 Atl. 36; 20 L. R. A. 272 374 Pauly V. Coronada Beach Co., 56 Fed. 428 76, 77 V. Pauly, 107 Cal. 8; 40 Pac. 29; 48 Am. St. Rep. 98 855, 1210, 1303, 1307, 1316, 1377 V. State Loan, etc. Co., 165 U. S. 606; 17 Sup. Ct. 465 622, 623, 810 clvi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Pawle's Case, 4 Ch. 497 179 Paxton V. Bacon Mill, etc. Co., 2 Nev. 257 280, 282 V. Heron (Colo.), 92 Pac. 15 918, 1203, 1322 Paxton Cattle Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 21 Nebr. 621; 33 N. W. 271; 59 Am. St. Rep. 852 288, 290 Payn v. Mutual Relief Soc, 17 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 53 659 Payne I). BuUard, 23 Miss. 88; 55 Am. Dec. 74 518, 524 V. New South Coal Co., 10 Ex. 283 280 Payne & Co., David (1904), 2 Ch. 608 861, 1235, 1235, 1407 Payne's Case, 9 Eq. 223 763, 766 Payson v. Stoever, 2 Dillon 427 486, 1074, 1189 V. Withers, 5 Biss. 269 492, 1189 P. B. Mathiason Mfg. Co. (Mo.), 99 S. W. 502 1006, 1013, 1015, 1016, 1037, 1039, 1040, 1046, 1060 Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen 52 (Mass.) 935, 967 Pearce v. Madison, etc. R. R. Co., 21 How. 441 838 Pearly v. Smith, 3 Atk. 260 1442 Pearson v. Concord R. R. Corp., 62 N. H. 537; 13 Am. St. Rep. 590 57, 58, 75, 76, 944, 959, 1082, 1306, 1312, 1326 V. London & Croydon Ry. Co., 14 Sim. 541 504 V. Tower, 55 N. H. 215 1378 Pearson's Case, 3 De G. M. & G. 241 309 ■ , 5 Ch. D. 336 1337, 1338, 1339 Peat V. Clayton (1906), 1 Ch. 659 713, 714, 714 Peatman v. Centreville Light, etc. Co., 100 Iowa 245; 69 N. W. 541 1408 Pecku. Elliott, 79 Fed. 10; 24 C. C. A. 425; 38 L. R. A. 616 481, 492, 529, 631 V. New London Mut. Ins. Co., 22 Conn. 575 1378 V. New York, etc. Ry. Co. , 85 N. Y. 246 1637 «. Peck, 33 Colo. 421; 80 Pac. 1063 974, 982 Peck Bros. & Co. v. Peck Bros. Co., 113 Fed. 291; 51 C. C. A. 251 377, 377, 378, 388 clvii Peckham v. Dutchess Co. R. R. Co., 145 N. Y. 385; 40 N. E. 15 1613 V. Mason, 8 R. I. 427 1144 V. Newton, 15 R. I. 321; 4 Atl. 758 380 V. Van Wagenen, 83 N. Y. 40; 38 Am. Rep. 392 1116 Pedlar v. Road Block Gold Mines (1905), 2 Ch. 427 98, 99, 99 Peel V. London & N. W. Ry. Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 5 89, 89 Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674 130, 177, 214, 223 Pegge V. Neath, etc. Tram- ways (1898), 1 Ch. 183 1416 Peirce v. Burroughs, 58 N. H. 302 502 V. Com., 104 Pa. St. 150 1016 V. Morse-Oliver Bldg. Co., 47 Atl. 914 1196, 1210 V. New Orleans Bldg. Co., 9 La. 397; 29 Am. Dec. 448 1010, 1068 V. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 693 1618, 1619 Pell's Case, 5 Ch. 11 205, 206, 634, 634 Pellatt's Case, 2 Ch. 527 191, 634 Pelly, Ex parte, 21 Ch. D. 490 294 Pelton V. Spider Lake Saw- mill, etc. Co. (Wise), 112 N. W. 29 1379, 1379 Pender v. Lushington, 6 Ch. D. 70 933, 943, 947, 1014, 1020, 1080, 1192 Pendergast v. Bank of Stock- ton, 2 Sawy. 108 572 Pendery v. Carleton, 87 Fed. 41 ; 30 C. C. A. 510 199 Pendleton v. Harris-Emery Co., 124 Iowa 361.; 100 N. W. 117 447 Penfold V. Charlevoix Sav. Bank, 140 Mich. 126; 103 N. W. 572 749 Peninsular Iron Co. v. Eells, 68 Fed. 24 ; 15 C. C. A. 189 1497 Peninsular Ry. Co. v. Dimcan, 28 Mich. 130 208, 211, 212, 213 Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251; 7Sup. a. 906 1570 Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood, 141 Mass. 145; 7 N. E. 22 284, 285, 301 Pennell v. Lathrop, 191 Mass. 357 282, 283, 284 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1356 713 1502 1598 70 1126 1625 Penney v. Biyant, 70 Nebr. 127; 96 N. W. 1033 Pennington v. Gittings, 2 Gill & J. (Md.) 208 Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117 1527, 1556 Pennsylvania Co. v. Jackson- ville, etc. Ry. Co., 55 Fed. 131; 5C. C. A. 53 V. Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co., 93 Fed. 60; 35 C. C. A. 202 1641, 1642 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 36 Wily. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 534 1461, 1596 Pennsylvania Co. for Ins. v. Bauerle; 33 N. E. 166 Pennsylvania Iron Works v. Mackenzie, 76 N. E. 228 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Allegheny Valley R. R. Co., 42 Fed. 82 V. Allegheny, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Fed. 139 1457, 1623 V. Jones, 155 U. S. 333; 15 Sup. a. 136 1583 V. Pennsylvania Co. for Ins., etc., 205 Pa. St. 219; 54 Atl. 783 1021, 1022 V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 118 U. S. 290; 6 Sup. a. 1094 838, 839, 841 Pennsylvania R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 80 720, 727, 757 Pennsylvania Transporta- tion Company's Appeal, 101 Pa. St. 576 1632, 1659 Pennsylvania, etc. Navigation Co. V. Dandridge, 8 G. & J. (Md.) 248; 29 Am. Dec. 543 822, 826 Penny, Ex parte, 8 Ch. 446 764, 764, 764, 764, 764, 765 Penobscot R. R. Co. v. Dummer, 40 Me. 172; 63 Am. Dec. 654 608, 610, 921 r. White, 41 Me. 512; 66 Am. Dec. 257 606, 608, 921, 1213 Penobscot, etc. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587 600, 611, 1038, 1201, 1224 Penrose v. Martyr, E. B. & E. 499 Pentelow's Case, 4 Ch. 178 People V. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645 V. Albany Hospital, 61 Barb. (N. Y.) 397 369 165 230 996 People V. Albany Medical Col- lege, 26 Hun 348; 89N. Y. 635 1200 V. Albany, etc. R. R. Co., 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 344 998, 998, 998, 1055, 1055, 1059 V. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 117 N. Y. 241; 22 N. E. 1057 878 V. Am. Ice Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. 858 890 V. American Inst., 44 How. Pr. 468 1034 V. Ballard, 134 N. Y. 269; 32 N. E. 54; 17 L. R. A. 737 51, 71 V. Batchelor, 22 N. Y. 128 998 V. Bumham, 104 N. Y. Supp. 725; 106 N.Y. Supp. 57 920 V. Carter, 122 Mich. 668; 81 N. W. 924 250 V. Cataract Bank, 5 N. Y. Misc. 14; 25 N. Y. Supp. 129 897 V. Chicago Board of Trade, 45 111. 112 566 V. Commissioners of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 192 416 V. Conklin, 7 Hun (N. Y.) 188 V. Crossley, 69 111. 195 1206 1040, 1057 V. Cummings, 72 N. Y. 433 — V. Devin, 17 111. 84 — V. Dole, 122 Cal. 486; 55 Pac. 581; 68 Am. St. Rep. 50 — V. Duffy-Mclnnery Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 878 V. Ehnore, 35 Cal. 653 V. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 109 N. Y. Supp. 453 1285, 1287 — V. Globe Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 174 — V. Kip, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 382 re. — V. La Rue, 67 Cal. 526 996 1024 230 163 716 1280, 1242 clviii 1031 249, 250 — V. Lyon, 104 N. Y. Supp. 319 1184, 1184 — V. Milk Exchange, 77 Hun (N. Y.) 436; 29 N. Y. Supp. 259 263 V. Montecito Water Co., 97 Cal. 276; 32 Pac. 236; 33Am.St.Rep.l72 118,119,219 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] People V. North River Sugar Refinery, 121 N. Y. 582; 24 N. E. 834; 16 Am. St. Rep. 843; 9 L. R. A. 33 V. Oakland County Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 282 79 914, 916 V. Peck, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 604; 27 Am. Deo. 104 999, 1000 — — V. Phillips, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 389 1066 V. Rose, 188 111. 268; 59 N. E. 432 23, 113 V. Rose, 219 111. 46; 76 N. E. 42 114, 374, 387 V. Runkle, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 147 1035, 1185, 1231 V. Selfridge, 52 Cal. 331 104 V. Sterling Mfg. Co., 82 111. 457 559, 992, 993, 1232 V. Stockton, etc. R. R. Co., 45 Cal. 306; 13 Am. Rep. 178 219, 645 V. Throop, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 183 579, 906, 1251 V. Tibbets, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 358 1022, 1024, 1031, 1249, 1249 V. Tuthill, 31 N. Y. 550 1065 V. Twaddell, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 427 994, 998, 1010, 1012, 1040, 1185 i;. White, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 168 1037 People ex rel. Althause v. Giroux Consol. Mines Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 188 899, 901, 904 People ex rel. Barney v. Whalen, 104 N. Y. Supp. 555 53, 114, 114 V. Whalen, 106 N. Y. Supp. 434 53, 114 People ex- rel. Belknap v. Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.) 259 46, 46, 47, 95, 103 People ex rel. Bernard v. Cheeseman, 7 Colo. 376; 3 Pac. 716 106, ll9, 219 People ex rel. Bishop v. Walker, 9 Mich. 328 894, 907 People ex rel. Blossom v. Nelson, 46 N. Y. 477 114, 125 People ex rel. Board of Chari- ties V. N. Y. Soc. for Pre- vention, etc., 161 N. Y. 233 ; 55 N. E. 1063 22 People ex rel. Bosqui v. Crock- ett, 9 Cal. 112 578, 744 clix People ex rel. Brooklyn Gas Co. V. Morgan, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 266 1103 People ex rel. Callanan v. Keeseville, etc. R. R. Co., 106 N. Y. App. Div. 349; 94 N. Y. Supp. 555 895, 901 People ex rel. Cantrell v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 176 111. 512; 52 N. E. 292; 35 L. R. A. 656 449 People ex rel. Clason v. Nassau Perry Co., 86 Hun (N. Y.) 128; 33 N. Y. Supp. 244 903 People ex rel. Coliunbia Chemical Co. v. O'Brien, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 296; 91 N. Y. Supp. 649 373, 374, 375 People ex rel. Copland v. Minong Min. Co., 33 Mich. 2 1184 People ex rel. Davenport v. Rice, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 24; 22 N. Y. Supp. 631 125, 128, 221 People ex rel. Deverell v. Musical, etc. Union, 118 N. Y. 101; 23 N. E. 129 580 People ex rel. Dodson v. Board ofTrade,79N. E. 611; 224 111. 370 580 People ex rel. Doyle v. N. Y. Benevolent Soc, 3 Hun 361 (N. Y.) 427, 580 People ex rel. Elliott v. N. Y. Cotton Exchange, 8 Hun 216 (N. Y,) 576 People ex rel. Erie R. R. Co. v. Board of R. R. Comm'rs, 105 N. Y. App.- Div. 273; 93 N. Y. Supp. 584 119 People ex rel. Famimi v. San Francisco Sav. Co., 72 Cal. 199; 13 Pac. 498 1105, 1109 People ex rel. Felter v. Rose, 225 111. 496; 80 N. E. 293 125, 374 People ex rel. Gales v. Mo- Donough, 28 N. Y. Misc. 652; 60 N. Y. Supp. 45 105 People ex rel. Hamman v. Paton,20Abb.N.C.(N.Y.) 172 901, 902 People ex rel. Harriman v. Paton, 20 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 195 901,906 People ex rel. Hart v. Phillips, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 389 1031 TABLE Of" CASES [The references are to pages] People ex rel. Hatch v. Lake Shore, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Hun (N. Y.) 1 893, 894, 903, 906 People ex rel. Home Life Ins. Co. V. Home Life Ass. Co., Ill Mich. 405; 69 N. W. 653 379 People ex rel. Hunter v. Nat. Park Bank, 107 N. Y. Supp. 369 901 People ex rel. Jenkins v. Parker, etc. Coal Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 543 483 People ex rel. Leach v. Central Fish Co., 101 N. Y. Supp. 1108 897, 897 People ex rel. Long Island R. R. Co. V. Board of R. R. Comm'rs, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 106; 77 N. Y. Supp. 380 118 People ex rel. Lorge v. Con- solidated Nat. Bank, 105 N. Y. App. Div. 409; 94 N. Y. Supp. 173 899, 901, 903, 904 People ex rel. Loy v. Mount Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256; 40 Pac. 391 49, 50, 99 People ex rel. McDonald v. United States Mercantile Rep. Co. 20 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 192 901, 904, 906 People ex rel. Mcllhany v. Chicago Live Stock Exch., 170111.556; 48N. E. 1062; 62 Am. St. Rep. 404; 39 L. R. A. 373 570 People ex rel. Mclnnes v. Columbia Bag Co., 103 N. Y. App. Div. 208; 92 N. Y. Supp. 1084 896, 904, 905 People ex rel. Meads v. Alpha Lodge, 13 N. Y. Misc. 677; 35 N. Y. Supp. 214 580, 1003 People ex rel. Moloney v. Pull- man Car Co., 175 111. 125; 51 N. E. 664; 64 L. R. A. 366 76, 91 People ex rel. Muir v. Throop, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 183 896, 906 People ex rel. New York, etc. R. R. Co. V. Public Service Commission, 106 N. Y. Supp. 968 645 People ex rel. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co. V. R. R. Comm'rs, 81 clx N. Y. App. Div. 242; 81 N. Y. Supp. 20; 175 N. Y. 516; 67 N. E. 1088 137, 645 People ex rel. Onderdonk v. Mott, 1 How. Pr. 247 897 People ex rel. Peabody v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 ni. 268; 22 N. E. 798; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 8 L. R. A. 497 47, 49, 57, 57, 75, 76, 76, 114, 258, 263 People ex rel. Piatt v. Oak- land Co. Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 282 905 People ex rel. Plumas County V. Chambers, 42 Cal. 201 645 People ex rel. Probert v. Robinson, 64 Cal. 373; 1 Pac. 156 1010, 1017, 1023 People ex rel. Richmond v. Pac. Mail S. S. Co., 50 Barb. 280 900 People ex rel. Schmitt v. St. Franciscus Benev. Soc, 24 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 216 566, 580 People ex rel. Schurtz v. Cook, 110 N. Y. 443; 18 N. E. 113 1523 People ex rel. S. Cohn & Co. v. Miller, 180 N. Y. 16; 72 N. E. 525 448 People ex rel. Stephens v. Greenwood Lake Ass'n, 18 N. Y. Supp. 491 1200 People ex rel. Stewart v. Young Men's, etc. Soc, 41 Mich. 67 579 People ex rel. Stobo v. Eadie, 63 Hun 320; 18 N. Y. Supp. 53; 133 N. Y. 573; 30 N. E. 1147 893, 903 People ex rel. Thacher v. N. Y. Commercial Ass'n, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 271 566, 580 People ex rel. Traders' Fire Ins. Co. V. Van Qeave, 183 ni. 330; 55 N. E. 698; 47 L. R. A. 795 379 People ex rel. Union Trust Co. V. Coleman, 126 N. Y. 433; 27 N. E. 818; 12 L. R. A. 762 416 People ex rel. U. S. Grand Lodge V. Payn, 161 N. Y. 229; 55 N. E. 849 125, 370 People ex rel. Van Norman v. Central Car, etc. Co., 41 Mich. 166; 49 N. W. 925 1120 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] People ex rel. Venner v. N. Y. LUe Ins. Co., Ill N. Y. App. Div. 183; 97 N. Y. Supp. 465 893 People ex rel. Wallace v. Sterling Mfg. Co., 82 111. 457 562 People ex rel. Ward v. Green, 116 Mich. 505; 74 N. W. 714 134, 138 People ex rel. Weatherly v. Golden Gate Lodge, 128 Cal. 257; 60 Pac. 865 117 People's Bank v. Gridley, 91 ni. 457 716 V. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344; 44 Am. Rep. 112 784 V. National Bank, 101 U. S. 181 70 V. St. Anthony's Church, 109 N.Y. 512; 17 N. E. 408 1210, 1371, 1376, 1377, 1379 V. Superior Court, 104 Cal. 649; 38 Pac. 452; 43 Am. St. Rep. 147; 29 L. R. A. 844 1041 People's Bank of Talbotton v. Exchange Bank, 116 Ga. 820; 43 S. E. 269; 94 Am. St. Rep. 144 775, 775 People's Bldg., etc. Ass'n V. Purdy (Colo.), 78 Pac. 465 593 People's Home Sav. Bank v. Rauer (Cal.), 84 Pac. 329 622 People's Home Savings Bank V. Rickard, 139 Cal. 285; 73 Pac. 858 619, 763, 763 People's Home Sav. Bank v. Sadler (Cal.), 81 Pac. 1029 567, 601, 625 V. Stadtmuller (Cal.), 88 Pac. 280 616, 782, 791 People's Inv. Co. v. Crawford (Tex.), 45 S. W. 738 957, 958 People's Mutual Ins. Co. v. Westcott, 14 Gray (Mass.) 440 1003, 1226 People's Trust Co. v. Brook- lyn, etc. R. R. Co., 106 N.Y. Supp. 782; 121 N. Y. App. Div. 604 1503, 1510 People's Trust Co. v. Papst, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 375; 98 N. Y. Supp. 1045 1329 V. Schenok, 106 N. Y. Supp. 782; 121N. Y. App. Div. 604 1503, 1510 Peoria Star Co. v. Cutright, 115 111. App. 492 853 Peoria, etc. R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 103 111. 187 1403, 1437, 1496, 1627 Peoria, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coster, 97 Fed. 519 1666 Pepe V. City, etc. Bldg. Soc. (1893), 2 Ch. 311 578, 586 Pepper v. Addioks, 153 Fed. 383 1331 V. Chambers, 7 Ex. 226 889 Percival v. Wright (1902), 2 Ch, 421 1351, 1351, 1352 Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568 ■ 516, 519, 1286 V. Millaudon, 8 Martin N. 8. (La.) 68 1274 Pere Marquette R. R. Co. v. . Graham, 136 Mich. 444; 99 N. W. 408 1503 Perkins v. Bradley, 24 Vt. 66 1379 v. Hatch, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 137 250 1). Lyons, 111 Iowa 192; 82 N. W. 486 695, 698, 699, 699, 716 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 155 Fed. 445 937, 969 V. Rouss, 78 Miss. 343; 29 So. 92 306 V. Trinity Realty Co. (N. J. Ch.), 61 Atl. 167 857 Perkins Co. v. Shewmake, 119 Ga. 617; 46 S. E. 832 383 Perkins, Be, 24 Q. B. D. 613 775, 795, 796, 797 Perrett, Ex varte, 15 Eq. 250 171, 385 Perris Irrigation District v. Thompson, 116 Fed. 832 1343 Perry v. Barnet, 15 Q. B. D. 388 780 V. Council Bluffs, etc. Co., 67 Hun (N. Y.) 456; 22 N. Y. Supp. 151 591 V. House of Refuge, 63 Md. 20; 52 Am. Rep. 495 869 V. Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co., 44 Ark. 383 293 V. Oriental Hotels, 12 Eq. 127 1599 V. Oriental Hotels, 5 Ch. 420 1598 V. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co., 93 Ala. 364; 9 So. 217 1040, 1206, 1250, 1331 Perry's Case, 34 L. T. 716 1279, 1280, 1336 clxi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Person & Riegel Co. v. Lipps (Pa.), 67 Atl. 1081 416, 486, 489 Perth Electric -Tramways (1906), 2 Ch. 216 1410, 1418, 1432, 1473, 1473 Peru Plow, etc. Co. v. Harker, 144 Fed. 673; 75 C. C. A. 475 833 Peruvian Guano Co. (1894), 3 Ch. 690 1241 Peruvian Ry. Co., 19 L. T. 803 76, 1215, 1370 Peruvian Rys. Co. v. Thames, 2 Ch. 617 97, 1187 Peshtigo Co. v. Great West- em Tel. Co., 50 111. App. 624 77 Peter v. Union Mfg. Co., 56 Oh. St. 181; 46 N. E. 894 627 Peterborough R. R. Co. v. Nashua, etc. R. R. Co., 59 N. H. 385 629 Peters v. Union Biscuit Co., 120 Fed. 679 1356 Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. Dellatorre, 70 Fed. 643; 17 C. C. A. 310 1655 V. Lumsden, 75 Va. 327 769, 770, 771 Peterson v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 205 U. S. 364 878 Petty V. Hayden, 115 Iowa 212; 88 N. W. 339 228 Peveril Gold Mines (1898), 1 Ch. 122 563 Pew V. First Nat. Bank, 130 Mass. 391 1248 Pfeiffer v. Landsberg Brake Co., 44 Mo. App. 59 1247, 1248 Pfister V. Gerwig, 122 Ind. 567; 23 N. E. 1041 560, 561, 571, 593 V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry. Co., 83 Wise. 86; 53 N. W. 27 Phelan v. Hazard, 5 Dillon 45 Phelps V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 26 Conn. 269 1133, 1156 V. Lyle, 10 A. & E. 113 1180 V. Town of Lewiston, 15 Blatchf. 131 Philadelphia Construction Co. V. Cramp, 138 Fed. 999; 71 C. C. A. 253 Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249 Philadelphia Lying-in Charity V. Maternity Hospital, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 420 129 1402 634 1460 352 865 Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. Smith, 195 Pa. St. 38; 45 Atl. 655 730 Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co. V. Philadelphia Trust Co., 123 Fed. 534 369, 372, 379, 387 Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co.'s Appeal (Pa.), 16 Atl. 734 1147 Philadelphia, etc. Ferry Co. V. Intercity Link Ri R. Co. (N. J.), 62 Atl. 184 140 Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. V. Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329; 70 Am. Bee. 128 1122, 1351 V. Fidelity Ins. Co., 105 Pa. St. 216 1447 V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318 188, 525, 634, 921 V. Johnson, 54 Pa. St. 127 1459. 1528 V. Knight, 124 Pa. St. 58; 16 Atl. 492 1449,1450,1460 V. Lewis, 33 Pa. St. 33; 75 Am. Dec. 574 1409 V. Smith, 105 Pa. St. 195 1449, 1450, 1451, 1460 V. Woelpper, 64 Pa. St. 366 ; 3 Am. Rep. 596 1503, 1527, 1551 Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 4 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases 118 (Pa.) 68, 1398 Philadelphia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202 869 Phillips V. Coffee, 17 111. 154; 63 Am. Dec. 357 406 V. Eastern R. R. Co., 138 Mass. 122 451, 1107 V. Melbourne, etc. Candle Co., 16 Vict. L. R. Ill 1095, 1098, 1101 V. Providence Steam En- gine Co., 21 R. I. 302; 43 Atl. 598 ; 45 L. R. A. 560 72, 1076 V. Southern Division, etc. R. R. Co., 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1630; 60 S. W. 941 1594 V. Wickham, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 590 ■ 1040, 1066 V. Winslow, 18 B. Monr. (Ky.) 431; 68 Am. Dec. 729 1503, 1520, 1551 Phillips Academy v. King, 12 Mass. 546 54 Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R. Co., 62 Fed. 678 1187 V. Augusta, etc. R. R. Co., 62 Fed. 771 1575, 1641, 1642 cbdi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R. Co., 63 Fed. 922 1543 II. Augusta, etc. R. Co., 98 Fed. 776 1490, 1492 Phoenix Bessemer Co., 44 L. J. Ch. 683 66 Phoenix Electric Light Co., 31 W. R. 398 1039 Phoenix Iron Co. v. Com., 113 Pa. St. 563; 6 Atl. 75 894, 895, 904 Phoenix Iron Works v. New York Security, etc. Co., 83 Fed. 757: 28 C. C. A. 76 1637 Phoenix Life Ass. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 441 830, 862 Phoenix Warehousing Co Badger, 67 N. Y. 294 V. 600, 609, 633 V. 526 V. 315,315 Phosphate of Lime Co. Green, L. R. 7 C. P. 43 Phospliate Sewage Co. Hartmont, 5Ch.D.394 Picard v. East Tennessee, etc R. R. Co., 130 U. S. 637; 9 . Sup. Ct. 640 1521 Picard v. Hughey, 59 Oh. St. 577; 51 N. E. 133 133, 141, 141 Pickens Tp. v. Post, 99 Fed. 659 1434, 1435 Pickering v. Stephenson, 14 Eq. 322 1267 Pickering v. Townsend, 118 Ala. 351; 23 So. 703 1566 Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484 1520, 1537, 1549, 1550, 1550 Pierce v. Old Dominion, etc. Smelting Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 399; 58 Atl. 319 1305 Pierson v. Morgan, 17 N. Y. Civ. Proc. Rep. 124; 4 N. Y. Supp. 898 1284, 1285 V. Morgan, 20 Abb. n. c. (N. Y.) 428 1288 Pietsch V. Krause, 116 Wise. 344; 93 N. W. 9 154, 979 V. Milbrath, 101 N. W. 388; 102 N. W. 342; 123 Wise. 647 ; 107 Am. St. Rep. 1017 274, 322, 327, 330, 331, 981 Pike V. Bangor, etc. R. R. Co., 68 Me. 445 602, 602, 1214 Pike Co. V. Rowland, 94 Pa. St. 238 1210 Pilbrow V. Pilbrows Atmos- pheric, etc. Co., 5 C. B. 440 235, 240 1493 918 700 591 378 clxiii Pillsbury v. Consolidated, etc. Ry. Co., 69 Me. 394 Pinchback v. Bessemer Min- ing, etc. Co., 137 N. Car. 171; 49S. E. 106 Pine V. Western Nat. Bank, 63 Kans. 462; 65 Pac. 690 Pine Beach, etc. Corp. v. Co- lumbia Amusement Co. (Va.), 56 S. E. 822 Pinet et Cie v. Maison Louis Pinet (1898), 1 Ch. 179 Pinkerton v. Manchester, etc. R. R. Co., 42 N. H. 424 423, 699, 717 V. Pa. Traction Co., 193 Pa. St. 229; 44 Atl. 284 123 123 Pinkett v. Wright, 2 Hare 120 ' 765 Pinkney & Sons S. S. Co., Re (1892), 3 Ch. 125 Pinkus V. Minneapolis Linen Mills, 65 Minn. 40; 67 N. W. 643 Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 144; 22 Sup. Ct. 52 Pioneer Paper Co., 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) Ill 1025, 1027 V. 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 105 1055, 1055, 1056 Piper V. Chappell, 14 M. & W. 624 — — V. Rhodes, 30 Ind. 309 Pitcher v. Lone Pine-Surprise, etc. Co., 39 Wash. 608; 81 Pac. 1047 Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2 Pitot V. Johnson, 33 La. Ann. 1286 684, 715, 770 Pitts V. Steele Mercantile Co., 75 Mo. App. 221 271, 287, 289 Pittsburgh Const. Co. v. West Side Belt R. R. Co., 154 Fed. 929 Pittsburg Mining Co. i;. Spooner, 74 Wise. 307; 42 N.W.259; 17Am. St. Rep. 149 326, 326 Pittsburg Sheet Mfg. Co. v. Beale, 204 Pa. St. 85; 53 Atl. 540 Pittsburgh, etc; Mining Co. V. Quintrell, 91 Tenn. 693; 20 S. W. 248 280, 284, 287, 287 Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. Applegate, 21 W. Va. 172 921 V. Biggar, 34 Pa. St. 455 191 544 966 103 582 107 968 608 865 253 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] - Pittsburgh v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146 600, 620, 767, 774, 912, 912, 917 V. County of Allegheny, 63 Pa. St. 126 456, 456, 457, 1108 Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dodd, 72 S. W. 822; 74 S. W. 1096; 115 Ky. 176; 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2057; 25 Ky. Law Rep. 255 938, 1082, 1306 Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fierst, 96 Pa. St. 144 1523, 1634 Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Keokuk, etc. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371; 9Sup. Ct. 770 1233 Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser (Ind.), 78 N. E. 1033 226 V. Long Island, etc. Trust Co., 172U. S. 493; 19 Sup. Ct. 238 1497 V. Lynde, 55 Oh. St. 23; 44 N. E. 596 1410, 1424, 1436, 1437, 1530 V. Plummer, 37 Pa. St. 413 614 Pittston Engine, etc. Co., 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 182 124 Pixley V. Western Pac. R. R. Co., 33 Cal. 183; 91 Am. Dec. 623 867 Place V. People, 87 111. App. 527 1208 Plank Road Co. v. Young, 12 Md. 476 228 Plankinton v. Hildebrand, 89 Wise. 209 ; 61 N. W. 839 683, 809 Plant Seed Co. v. Michel Plant & Seed Co., 37 Mo. App. 313 371 Planters', etc. Bank v. Pad- gett, 69 Ga. 159 237, 252 Planters', etc. Ins. Co. v. Selma Sav. Bank, 63 Ala. 585 775 Plaquemines, etc. Co. v. Buck, 52 N. J. Eq. 219; 27 Atl. 1094 319, 322 Plaskynaston Tube Co., 23 Ch. D. 542 628 Piatt V. Birmingham Axle Co., 41 Conn. 255 651, 775 V. New York, etc. Ry. Co.,63N.Y.App.Div.401; 71 N. Y. Supp. 913 1515, 1599 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 65 Fed. 660 1621 Piatt V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 65 Fed. 872 1660 V. Philadelphia, «tc. R. R. Co., 84 Fed. 535; 28 C. C. A. 488 1612, 1612 Platte Valley Bank v. Hard- ing, 1 Nebr. 461 237 PlimsoU's Case, 24 L. T. 653 155 Plumb V. Bank of Enterprise, 48 Kans. 484; 29 Pac. 699 616, 618, 693, 698, 699 Plumbe V. Neild, 29 L. J. Ch. 618 1141, 1141 Plymouth Bank v. Bank of Norfolk, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 454 696, 700 Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry, 113 U. S. 322; 5 Sup. Ct. 525 1267, 1301, 1346 Pochelu V. Kemper, 14 La. Ann. 308 ; 74 Am. Dec. 433 234 Pocono Spring, etc. Co. v. Am. Ice Co., 214 Pa. 640; 64 Atl. 398 • 43 Pokrefky v. Firemen's Fund Ass'n, 121 Mich. 456; 80 N. W. 240 584 Poland V. Lamoiville Valley R. R. Co., 52 Vt. 144 1517, 1542, 1559, 1669 Polhemus v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 502; 26 N. E. 31 1509 V. Holland Trust Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 654, 47 Atl. 417 1412, 1412 V. Polhemus, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 781; 100 N. Y. Supp. 263 936, 941, 1271, 1287 Polish Nat. Catholic Church, 31 Pa. Super, a. 87 129, 129 PoUitz V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 53 Fed. 210 1486 Pollock V. National Bank, 7 N.Y.274; 57 Am. Dec. 520 754, 755 755 V. Pollock, 18 Eq. 329 1157 Pond V. Nat. Mtge & Deben- ture Co., 6 Kans. App. 718; 50 Pac. 973 1375 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 11, 264 (p. 975) 998, 1250 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 19 Fed. Cas. 968 1326 Pontet V. Basingstoke Canal Co., 3 Bing. N. c. 433 1528 Poock V. Lafayette Bldg. Ass'n, 71 Ind. 357 852 ebmv TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Pool's Case, 35 Ch. D. 579 641 Poole V. Middleton, 29 Beav. 646 767, 785, 787, 787 V. National Bank of China (1907), A. C. 229 530, 530, 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 539 V. West Point, etc. Ass'n, 30 Fed. 513 108, 109, 492, 838 Pooley Hall Colliery Co., 18 W. R. 201 1244 Poor V. Iowa Central Ry. Co., 155 Fed. 226 938, 969 Pope V. Merchants' Trust Co. (Tenn.), 103 S. W. 792 140, 490, 492 Pope's Case, 30 Fed. 169 1618, 1619 Porch V. Agnew Co. (N. J. Ch.), 61 Atl. 721 293, 1497 Porstewart Tramway Co. (1896), 1 I. R. 265 1601 Port V. Russell, 36 Ind. 60; 10 Am. Rep. 5 1295 Port Edwards, etc. Ry. Co. v. Arpin, 80 Wise. 214; 49 N. W. 828 138 Port Huron, etc. Ry. Co. v. . Judge, 31 Mich. 456 958 Port Townsend Nat. Bank v. Port Townsend Gas, etc. Co., 6 Wash. 597; 34 Pac. 155 715 Portage, etc. Ins. Co. v. Wet- more, 17 Oh. Rep. 330 1378 Portal V. Emmons, 1 C. P. D. 664 1173, 1175 Porter v. Androscoggin, etc. R. R. Co., 37 Me. 349 397, 402 V. Lassen, etc. Co., 127 Cal. 261; 59 Pac. 563 1203, 1205, 1205, 1217, 1298 V. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Co., 120 U. S. 649; 7 Sup. Ct. 741 1084, 1566 V. Plymouth Gold Min- ing Co., 29 Mont. 347; 74 Pac. 938; 101 Am. St. Rep. 569 191, 517 V. Robinson, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 209 1199 V. Sabin, 36 Fed. 475 960 V. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473; 13 Sup. Ct. 1008 960, 960 Portland, etc. Turnpike Co. v. Bobb,88Ky.226; lOS.W. 794 126 Portsmouth Tramways Co. (1892), 2 Ch. 362 1598 Portuguese Consolidated Mines, 42 Ch. D. 160 1175,1198, 1206, 1230 Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines, 45 Ch. D. 16 1218 Posner v. Southern Exhaust, etc. Co., 109 La. 658; 33 So. 641 425, 1110 Possell V. Smith (Colo.), 88 Pac. 1064 288, 1235 Post V. Beacon, etc. Co., 84 • Fed. 371; 28 C. C. A. 431 72, 966 Postage Stamp, etc. Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 566 1336, 1339 Potomac Mfg. Co. v. Evans, 84 Va. 717; 6 S. E. 2 Pott V. Schmucker, 84 Md. 535; 36 Atl. 592; 57 Am. St. Rep. 415; 35 L. R. A. 392 882, 884 Potter V. N. Y. Infant Asylum, 44 Hun (N. Y.) 367 Potts V. Rose Valley Mills, 167 Pa. St. 310; 31 Atl. 655 1461 1373 1185, 1239 V. Wallace, 146 U. S. 689; 13 Sup. Ct. 196 - — • V. Wallace, 32 Fed. 272 Pottsville Bank v. Minersville Water Co., 211 Pa. 566; 61 Atl. 119 Poughkeepsie, etc. Co. v. Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150 209, 2l2 Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 49 586, 586, 948 Pound, Son & Hutchins, Henry, 42 Ch. D. 402 Powell V. Blair, 133 Pa. St. 550; 19 Atl. 559 V. Georgia, etc. Ry. Co., 121 Ga. 803; 49 S. E.759 V. London & Provincial Bank (1893), 2 Ch. 555 761, 762 V. Murray, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 273; 38 N. Y. Supp. 233 V. Murray, 157 N. Y. 717; 53 N. E. 1130 Powers V. Blue Grass Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 86 Fed. 705 958, 959, 1183, 1188 V. Schlicht Heat, etc. Co., 23N. Y. App. Div. 380; 48 N.Y. Supp. 237; 165 N.Y. 662; 59 N. E. 1129 591 Powis V. Harding, 1 C. B. N. s. 533 925 526 430 732 1581 629 277 685, 43 43 clxv TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Powles V. Page, 3 C. B. 16 1235 Prairie Lodge v. Smith, 58 Miss. 301 113, 852 Prall V. Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 479 723, 725, 798 Pratt V. American Bell Tel. Co., 141 Mass. 225; 5N. E. 307; 55 Am. St. Rep. 465 V. Douglas, 38 N. J. Eq. 516 — V. Eaton, 79 N. Y. 449 V. Merriden Cutlery Co., 35 Conn. 36 V. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 Wise. 406; 62N.W.84 501, 1477 1149 87 905 285, 290 V. Pratt, Read & Co., 33 Conn. 446 1110, 1111 V. Taunton Copper Co., 123 Mass. 110; 25 Am. Rep. 37 754, 757 V. Short, 79 N. Y. 437; 35 Am. Rep. 531 87, 865 Pray v. Mitchell, 60 Me. 430 422 V. Todd, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 391; 75 N. Y. Supp. 947 692, 695 Prefontaine v. Grenier (1907), A. C. 101 1273, 1278 Prendergast v. Turton, 1 Y. & C. Ch. 98 665 Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Godchaux, 66Fed. 234; 13 C. C. A. 420 917, 918 Presbyterian Congregation v. Carlisle Bank, 5 Pa. St. 345 813 Prescott Nat. Bank v. Butler, 157 Mass. 548; 32 N. E. 909 845, 851 Preservation Syndicate (1895), 2 Ch. 768 644 President,, etc. of Georgetown College V. Browne, 34 Md. 450 55 President, etc. of Hanover Savings Fund v. Suter, 1 Md. 502 381 Preston v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327 176, 620 V. Liverpool, etc. Ry. Co., 5 H. L. C. 605 281, 281 V. Loughran, 58 Hun (N.Y.)210; 12N.Y. Supp. 313 1318, 1324, 1344 V. Melville, 16 Sim. 163 1141 V. Northwestern Cereal Co., 67Nebr. 45; 93 N. W. 136 84 Preston Nat. Bank v. Smith, etc. Purifier Co., 84 Mich. 364; 47 N. W. 502 1381 Price V. Anderson, 15 Sim. 473 1141 V. Gover, 40 Md. 102 418, 807 V. Grand Rapids, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 58 1202, 1217 V. Holcomb, 89 Iowa 123; 56 N. W. 407 1018 V. Morning Star Mining Co., 83 Mo. App. 470 514, 1130, 1131, 1134, 1507 V. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.) 107 Price's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 421 420 653, 653 Priest V. Citizens Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 602 589 V. Glenn, 51 Fed. 400; 2 C. C.A. 305 386 Prince Investment Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Land Co., 68 Minn. 121; 70 N. W. 1079 697, 774, 775 Prince of Wales Co. v. Hard- ing, E. B. & E. 183 395, 1221 Printing Telegraph News Co. V . Brantingham, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 280; 79 N. Y. Supp. 190 714, 733 Pritchard's Case, 8 Ch. 956 640, 641, 641 Pritchett v. Nashville Trust Co.,96Tenn.472; 36S. W. 1064; 33L. R.A. 856 1150 Proctor Coal Co. v Finley, 98 Ky. 405 ; 33 S. W. 188 998, 998, 1013, 1015, 1015, 1039 Produce Exchange Trust Co. V. Bieberbach, 176 Mass. 577; 58N. E. 162 592 Pronick v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 67 N. Y. App. Div. 616; 74 N. Y. Supp. 577 1487 V. Spirits Distributing Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 97; 42 Atl. 586 134, 138, 446 Proprietors of Cabot, etc. Bridge V. Chapin, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 50 607 Proprietors of City Hotel v. Dickinson, 6 Gray (Mass.) 586 610 Proprietors of Stourbridge Canal v. Wheeley, 2 B. & Ad. 792 35 clxvi TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Prospect Worsted Mills, 126 Fed. 1011 84 Protection Life Ins. Co. v. Osgood, 93 111. 69 753 Prouty V. Michigan, etc. R.R. Co., 1 Hun (N. Y.) 655 443, 460, 467, 475 Provident BIdg. & Loan Ass'n, Be, 62 N. J. Law 590; 41 Atl. 952 1025 Provident Institution v. Bum- ham, 128 Mass. 458 230, 233 Provident, etc. Trust Co. v. Saxon, 116 La. 408; 40 So. 778 238 Provincial Grocers, Ltd., 10 Ont. L. R. 705 169 Provision Merchants Co., 26 L. T. 862 435 Provost V. Morgan's, etc. R. R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 809; 8 So. 584 254 Pudsey Coal Gas Co. v. Corpo- ration of Bradford, 15Eq. 167 961 Pueblo Sav. Bank v. Richard- son (Colo.), 89 Pac. 799 693, 697, 752 Pugh and Sharman's Case, 13 Eq. 566 176, 621 Pulbrook V. Richmond Con- solidated Min. Co., 9 Ch. D. 610 1167, 1177, 1251 Pulford V. Fire Dept., 31 Mich. 458 565, 578, 657, 658 PuUan V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Biss. 35 1495, 1512, 1523, 1555, 1603 Pullis V. Pullis, 157 Mo. 565; 57 S. W. 1095 392 Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328 483, 492, 620, 622 Pullman's, etc. Co. v. Ameri- can, etc. Co., 84 Fed. 18 ; 28 . C. C. A. 263 1568 V. Central Transporta- tion Co., 171 U. S. 138; 18 Sup. Ct. 808 837, 840, 841 Pulsford V. Richards, 17 Beav. 87 184, 184 Punt V. Symons & Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 506 584, 584, 585, 587, 1019, 1062 Purcell's Case, 29 W. R. 170 1171 Purdy V. Bankers' Life Ass'n, lOlMo. App. 91; 74S. W. 486 580, 657 Pusey V. New Jersey, etc. R. R. Co., 14 Abb. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 434 1474 Putnam v. Jacksonville, etc. R,y. Co., 61 Fed. 440 1573 V. Sweet, 1 Chand. (Wise.) 286; 2 Finn. (Wise.) 302 972, 974, 1250 Pyle Works Co., 44Ch;iD. 534 1514 Pyle Works (No. 2) (1891), 1 Ch. 173 1371, 1397 Q Quackenboss v. Globe, etc. Ins. Co., 177 N. Y. 71; 69 N. E. 223 408 Quebrada Ry. Co., 40 Ch. D. 363 536 Quee Drug Co. v. Plaut, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 87; 67 N. Y. Supp. 10 297 Queen Anne's Ferry, etc. Co. V. Queen Anne's R. R. Co., 148 Fed. 41 1568, 1573, 1582 Queen City Furniture, etc. Co. V. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356; 30 S. W. 163 274, 283, 306 Queen's Hotel Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 792 Queensland Land & Coal Co. (1894), 3 Ch. 181 Quentell v. N. Y. Cotton Ex- change, 106 N. Y. Supp. 228 Quimby Freight Forwarding Co., 121 Fed. 139 22, 44 Quin V. Havenor, 118 Wise. 53; 94N. W. 642 Quin's Case, 2 Megone 360 Quinby v. Consumers' Gas Trust Co., 140 Fed. 362 Quincy v. Steel, 120 U. S. 241 ; 7 Sup. Ct. 520 Quincy Granite Quarries Co., 147 Fed. 279 Quincy, etc. R. R. Co. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82; 12 Sup. Ct. 787 1564 1611, 1612, 1612 Quinn v. Madigan, 65 N. H. 8; 17 Atl. 976 1150 V. Safe Deposit, etc. Co., 93 Md. 285; 48 Atl. 835; 53 L. R. A. 169 1150, 1152 Quintance v. Farmers' Mut. Aid Ass'n, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1379; 77 S. W. 1121 1319 1591 1417 948 950 1419 838 969 44 1611, clxvii R Rabe v. Dunlap, 51 N. J. Eq. 40; 25 Atl. 959 967 TABLK OF CASES CThe references are to pages] Racine County Nat. Bank v. Ayers, 12 Wise. 512 66, 189, 1109 Eacine, etc. R. R. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 49 111. 331; 95 Am. Dec. 595 1487, 1624, 1626 Radebaugh v. Tacoma, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Wash. 570; 36 Pac. 460 1396 Rafferty v. Donelly, 197 Pa. St. 423 ; 47 Atl. 202 982, 1351 Raht V. Attrill, 106 N. Y. 423 ; 13N. E. 282; 60 Am. Rep. 456 1646, 1649 V. Sevier Mining, etc. Co., 18 Utah 290; 54 Pac. 889 Railroad v. Knoxville, 98 Tenn. 1; 37 S. W. 883 V. Sneed, 99 Tenn. 1 ; 41 S. W. 364; 47S. W. 89 658, 665 440 483, 493 Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445 1610 V. EUerman, 105 U. S. 166 961 V. Howard, 7 Wall. 392 1659 V. Orr, 18 Wall. 471 1590 V. Smith, 48 Oh. St. 219; 31 N.E. 743 449 V. Soutter, 13 Wall. 517 1637 Railroad Cos. v. Schutte, 103 U. S. 118 1434 Railroad Gazette v. Wherry, 58 Mo. App. 423 308 Railway Co. v. AUerton, 18 Wall. 233 487, 1189, 1189 V. Ailing, 99 U. S. 463 932 V. Iron Co., 46 Oh. St. 44; 18 N. E. 486; 1 L. R. A. 412; 843,857 V. Sprague, 103 U. S. 756 1343, 1420, 1436, 1436, 1436, 1467 V. State, 49 Oh. St. 668; 32 N. E. 933 1052, 1163 Railway Equipment, etc. Co. V. Lincoln Nat. Bank, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 8; 31 N. Y. Supp. 44 592 Railway Time Tables Co., 62 L. J. Ch. 935 1404 Railway Timetables Co., 42 Ch. D. 98 171, 628 Railways Company General V. Nevvtown El. St. Ry., 32 Pa. Co. Ct. 38 1528, 152S 733 1343 1239 1604 526, 1602 1396 485 clxvili Rainford v. James Keith & Blackman Co. (1905), 1 Ch. 296 V. James Keith & Black- man Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 147 81, 87 Raleigh v. Fitzpatrick, 43 N. J. Eq. 501; 11 Atl. 1 Raley v. Victor Co., 86 Minn. 438; 90 N. W. 973 Ralph V. Wisner, 100 Mich. 164; 58 N. W. 837 Ralston v. Bank of California, 112 Cal. 208; 44 Pac. 476 753, 1122 V. Washington, etc. Ry. Co., 65 Fed. 557 Ramsdell v. Citizens EL, etc. Co., 103 Mich. 89; 61N.W. 275 Ramsey v. Erie Ry. Co., 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 193 V. Gould, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 398 422,968 V. Peoria, etc. Ins. Co., 55 111. 311 232, 233, 248' V. Thompson Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313; 22 S. W. 719 180, 180,182 V. Tod, 95 Tex. 614; 69 S.W. 133; 93 Am. St. Rep. 875 45, 47 Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. . V. Montefiore, L. R. 1 Ex. 109 168 Ramskill v. Edwards, 31 Ch. D. 100 1282, 1283, 1285, 1289, 1349, 1349, 1350, 1350 Ramwell's Case, 50 L. J. Ch. 827 630, 642, 642, 668 Ranee's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. 104 1093, 1265 Rand v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 94 Fed. 349; 36 C. C. A. 292 165 V. Hubbell, 115 Mass. 461; 15 Am. Rep. 121 497, 1146 Randall v. Van Vechten, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 60; 10 Am. Dee. 193 Randall Co. v. Glendenning (Okl.), 92 Pac. 158 Randall, H. E., Ltd., ^^. Brit- ish & American Shoe Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 354 387, 387 Randolph v. Middleton, 26 N. J. Eq. 543 1623 V. New Jersey, etc. R. :i. Co., 23 N. J. Eq. 49 1639 398 406 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Randolph v. Wilmington, etc. R. R. Co., U Phila. 502 (U. S. C. C.) 1509 Randt Gold Mining Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 468 669 V. New Balkis Eerstell- ing, 85 L. T. 780; (1903) 1 K. B. 461; (1904) A. C. 165 668 V. Wainwright (1901), 1 Ch. 184 669, 1018 Ranger v. Champion Cotton- Press Co., 51 Fed. 61 890, 894, 896, 907 Rankin v. Bush, 108 N. Y. App. Div. 295; 95 N. Y. Supp. 718 1368 V. Cooper, 149 Fed. 1010 1262, 1262, 1276, 1278, 1281, 1288 V. Fidelity Trust Co., 189 U. S. 242; 23 Sup. a. 553 V. Hop, etc. Exchange Co., 20 L. T. 207 V. McCuUough, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 103 V. Southwestern Brew- ery, etc. Co. (N. Mex.), 73 Pac. 612 V. Southwestern Brew- ery, etc. Co. (N. Mex.), 73 Pac. 614 Rannels v. Rowe, 145 Fed. 296; 74C. C. A. 376 Ransom v. Stonington Sav. Bank, 2 Beasl. (N. J.) 212 Raphael v. Rio Grande West- em Ry. Co., 132 Fed. 12; 65 C. C. A. 632 Rapid Transit Ferry Co., 43 N. Y. Supp. 538; 19 N. Y. Misc. 409 , Re, 15 N. Y. App. Div. 530; 44 N. Y. Supp. 539 699, 807 193 808 952 971 237 393 1637 1011 1011, 1032 Rascover v. American Lin- seed Co., 136 Fed. 341; 68 C. C. A. 11 88, 89 Rassbeck v. Desterreicher, 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 516 126 Rathbone v. Ayer, 105 N. Y. Supp. 1041 203, 205, 636 V. Tioga Nav. Co., 2 Watts & Serg. (Pa.) 74 278, 302 Rathbun v. Snow, 123 N. Y. 343; 25 N. E. 379; 10 L. R. A. 355 591 Rau V. Seidenberg, 53 N. Y. Misc. 386; 104 N. Y. Supp. 798 786 Rau V. Union Paper Mill Co., 95 Ga. 208; 22 S. E. 146 304 Raub V. Blairstown Creamery Ass'n, 56 N. J. Law 262; 28 Atl. 384 408, 1371 Ravenswood, etc. Ry. Co. v. Woodyard, 46 W. Va. 558; 33 S. E. 285 1259, 1298 Raymond v. Clark, 46 Conn. 129 1510, 1512 V. Farmers', etc. Ins. Co., 114 Mich. 386; 72 N. W. 254 577 Rayner v. Rayner (1904), 1 Ch. 176 424 Raynolds v. Diamond Mills Paper Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 941 979, 1112, 1113, 1321, 1322 R. Bolton & Co. (1894), 3 Ch. 356 1172, 1173 Read v. Buffum, 79 Cal. 77; 21 Pac. 555; 12 Am. St. Rep. 131 1376 V. Head, 6 Allen (Mass.) 174 1091, 1155 V. Joannon, 25 Q. B. D. 300 1395 V. Memphis Gayoso Gas Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545 490, 491, 1197 Reading Trust Co. v. Reading Iron Works, 137 Pa. St. 282; 21 Atl. 169, 170 507, 508 Ready v. Smith, 170 Mo. 163; 70 S. W. 484 1315 Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623; 61 N. E. 575 452 Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird, 90 Md. 229; 44 Atl. 1048 499, 501, 504, 505, 505, 507, 695, 751 V. Perry County R. R. Co., 213 Pa. 57; 62 Atl. 25 1628 V. Union Trust Co., 102 Md. 41; 61 Atl. 228 1452 Receivership of (Merchants Nat. Bank v.) Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 90 Mum. 144; 95 N. W. 767 Rectorw. Hartford Deposit Co. 190 111.380; 60N. E. 528 Redfield v. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 124 Fed. 929 Redhead v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 123 Iowa 336; 98 N. W. 806 35, 39,43 845 975 1116 clxix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Redhead v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 127 Iowa 572; 103 N. W. 796 1110,1116,1116,1122,1123, 1135 Redkey Citizens, etc. Co. v. Orr, 27 Ind. App. 1; 60 N. E. 716 , 650, 651 Red Men's Mutual Relief Ass'n, 10 Phila. 546 Red River Line, 115 La. 867; 40 So. 250 Reed v. Bank of Newburgh, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 337 V. Boston Machine Co., 141 Mass. 454; 5 N. E. 852 V. Copeland, 50 Conn. 472; 47 Am. Rep. 663 V. Fleming, 102 111. App. 668 V. Helois Carbide, etc. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 231; 53 Atl. 1057 V. Jones, 6 Wise. 680 V. Richmond Street R. R. Co., 50 Ind. 342 ' 104, 105 V. Schmidt, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1889; 72 S. W. 367 V. State, 15 Oh. Rep. 217 Reed & McCormick v. Gold, 102 Va. 37; 45 S. E. 868 Reed Bros. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 46Nebr. 168; 64 N. W. 701 Reed's Appeal, 122 Pa. St. 565; 16 Atl. 100 1408, 1497 Reeder v. Lewis & Mason, etc! Co., 7 Ky. Law Rep. 363 1370 Reese v. Bank of Commerce, 14 Md. 271; 74 Am. Dec. 536 770, 773, 775, 776 V. Bank of Montgomery County, 31 Pa. St. 78; 72 Am. Dec. 726 503, 507, 510 Reese River Mining Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64 178, 184 Reeve v. Harris (Teim.), 50 S. W. Rep. 658 1238, 1247 Regent's Canal Ironworks Co., 3 Ch. D. 43 1400, 1405, 1524, 1526 3 Ch. D. 411 1599, 1646 Regents of Univ. of Md. v. Calvary M. E. Church, 104 Md. 635 849 V. Williams, 9 G. & J. fMd.') 365; 31 Am. Dec. 72 1179, 1182 Regester v. Medoalf, 71 Md. 528; 18 Atl. 966 31 1371 1047 444 712 408 452 1063 1665 230 154 297 307 clxx Regina v. Aldham, 15 Jur. 1035 996 V. Amaud, 9 Q. B. 806 419 V. Government Stock In- vestment Co., 3 Q. B-. D. 442 1039, 1045, 1249 V. Grand Canal Co., 1 Ir. L. R. 337 902 V. Langton, 2 Q. B. D. 296 230 V. Liverpool, etc. Ry. Co., 21 L. J. Q. B. 284 751 V. London, etc. Docks Co., 44 L. J. Q. B. 4 901, 906 V. Maiiquita, etc. Min- ing Co., 1 E. & E. 289 895, 899 V. Saddlers' Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 404 1167 V. Staples, 19 Vict. L. R. 47 915 V. Tankard (1894), 1 Q. B. 548 260 — — V. Wilts, etc. Navigation, 29 L. T. 922 902 Regina ex rel. Blackbom v. Midland Counties, etc. Ry., 15 Ir. Com. L. 514 708, 708, 708 Regina ex rel. Crea v. Midland Counties, etc. Ry., 15 Ir. Com. L. 525 745 Regina ex rel. May v. Darling- ton Free Grammar School, 14 L. J. Q. B. 67 565 Rehbein v. Rahr, 109 Wise. 136; 85 N. W. 315 39, 120, 121, 203 Rehbei;g v. Tontine Surety Co., 131 Mich. 135; 91 N. W. 132 853 Reichwald v. Commercial Hotel Co., 106 m. 439 286, 286, 1187, 1208 Reid V. Bank of Mobile, 70 Ala. 199 1423, 1433 V. DeJarnette, 123 Ga. 787; 51S. E. 770 617 V. Detroit Ideal Paint Co., 132 Mich. 528; 94 N. W. 3 494 V. Eatonton Mfg. Co., 40 Ga. 98; 2 Am. Rep. 563 650, 1129 V. Explosives Co., 19 Q. B. D. 264 1242, 1609, 1613, 1614 V. Silke, 31 Vict. L. R. 641 1142 Reilly v. Oglebay, 25 W. Va. 36 1000, 1006, 1083 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Reilly v. Union Protestant In- firmary, 87 Md. 664; 40 Atl. 894 380 Reinach v. Meyer, 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 283 1672, 1673 Reinhard v. Virginia Lead Mining Co., 107 Mo. 616; 18 S. W. 17 254 Reinhardt v. Interstate Tel. Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 1097 1529, 1593, 1594, 1596 Reinehart v. Augusta, etc. Co., 94 Fed. 901; 36 C. C. A. 541 1573 Relender v. Riggs (Colo.), 79 Pac. 328 1323, 1344 Remington Automobile & Motor Co., 139 Fed. 766; 153 Fed. 345 631, 636, 647, 649 Remington Paper Co. v. Lon- don Ass. Co., 12 N. Y. App. Div. 218; 43 N. Y. Supp. 431 1196, 1381 Rendall v. Crystal Palace Co., 4 K. & J. 326 825 Renn v. United States Ce- ment Co. (Ind.), 73 N. E. 269 105, 111 Rennie v. Clarke, 5 Ex. 292 308 Reno Oil Co. v. Culver, 60 N. Y. App. Div. 129; 69N.Y. Supp. 969 735, 1263 Reno Water Co. v. Leete, 17 Nevada, 203; 30 Pac. 702 1373, 1382 Rennsalaer, etc. Co. v. Barton, 16 N. Y. 457 601 Renssellaer, etc. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 47 Vt. 146 1490 Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Swigert, 135 111. 150; 25 N. E. 680; 12 L. R. A. 328 517 Reuss V. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176 120, 262, 688 Reversionary Interest Soc. (1892), 1 Ch. 615 136 Rex V. Amery, 1 T. R. 575 1011 V. Ashwell, 12 East 22 569, 569, 583 V. Babb, 3 T. R. 579 889 V. Bank of England, 2 B. & Aid. 620 894,1113 V. Bank of England, 2 Doug. 525 749 V. Bumstead, 2 B. & Ad. 699 565 V. Capper, 5 Price 217 423 V. Clear, 4 B. & C. 899 901 Rex V. College of Physicians, 5 Burr. 2740 562 V. Company of Fisher- men, 8 T. R. 352 561, 561, 570, 580, 580 V. Cutbush, 4 Burr. 2204 103 1 V. Dodd, 9 East 616 7 V. Merchant Tailors' Co., 2 B. & Ad. 115 892, 894 V. Registrar Joint Stock Cos. (1904), 2 Ir. 634 59, 114, 267, 370, 370 V. Theodorick, 8 East 543 1212 V. Wardens of Coopers' Co., 7 T. R. 543 570 V. Webb, 14 East 406 7 V. Windham, Cowp. 377 1376 V. Wilts, etc. Navigation, 3 Ad. & El. 477 907, 907, 908 Reyburn v. Consumers' Gas Co., 29 Fed. 561 1560, 1566 Reynal v. Thebaud, 3 N. Y. Misc. 187; 23 N. Y. Supp. 615 1446 Reynell v. Lewis, 15 M. & W. 517 274, 275, 276, 308, 308 Reynolds v. Bank of Mt. Ver- non, 6 N. Y. App. Div. 62; 39N. Y. Supp. 623; 158 N. Y. 740 ; 53 N. E. 1 131 574, 745, 1111, 1331 V. Bridenthal, 57 Nebr. 280; 77N.W.658 1017,1022, 1250 V. Georgia State Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 102 Ga. 126; 29 S. E. 187 562 V. Supreme Council, 192 Mass. 150; 78N. E. 129; 7 L. R. A. N. s. 1154 586 V. Touzalin Imp. Co., 62 Nebr. 236; 87 N. W. 24 754 Reynolds, etc. Co. v. Eacock, 27 Ind. App. 459; 61 N. E. 732 1560 Rhawn v. Edge Hill Furnace Co., 201 Pa. 637; 51 Atl. 360 875, 1453 Rhey v. Ebensburg, etc. Co., 27 Pa. St. 261 198 Rhinelander v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 172 N. Y. 519; 65 N. E. 499 1488, 1489 Rhoads v. Hoernerstown Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 82 Pa. St. 180 117 Rhode Island Locomotive Works V. Continental Trust clxxi TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Co., 108 Fed. 5; 47 C. C. A. 147 1564, 1567 Rhodes v. Piper, 40 Ind. 369 107 Ribon V. Railroad Cos., 16 WaU. 446 977, 1660 Rice V. Gilbert, 173 111. 348; 50 N. E. 1087 803 V. National Bank, 126 Mass. 300 222 V. Rockefeller, 134 N. Y. 174; 31N. E. 907; 30 Am. St. Rep. 658; 17 L. R. A. 237 745, 745, 751, 801 V. Shealey, 71 S. Car. 161; 50 S. E. 868 1449 V. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., 24 Minn. 464 1584, 1602 Rice's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 168 315, 1416 Rich V. Boyce, 39 Md. 314 807 Richard Smith & Co. (1901), 1 Ir. 73 1430 Richards v. Attleborough Nat. Bank, 148 Mass. 187; 19 N. E. 353; 1 L. R. A. 781 1176, 1298 V. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Hughes 28 1587 V. Dover, 61 N. J. Law 400; 39 Atl. 705 59 V. Home Assurance As?'n, L. R. 6 C. P. 591 167, 168 V. Merrimack, etc. R. R. Co., 44 N. H. 127 1496 V. Minnesota Sav. Bank, 75 Minn. 196; 77 N. W. 822 132, 387 V. Overseers of Kidder- minster (1896), 2 Ch. 212 1395 Richardson v: Buhl, 77 Mich. 632; 43 N. W. 1102; 6 L. R. A. 457 263 V. Delaware Loan Co., 9 Houst. (Del.) 354; 32 Atl. 980 427, 742 V. Devine (Mass.), 79 N. E. 771 571, 593 V. Emmett, 61 N. Y. App. Div. 205; 70 N. Y. Supp. 546 690, 713 V. Green, 133 U. S. 30; 10 Sup. a. 280 1317, 1405, 1413 V. Longmont Supply Ditch Co., 19 Colo. App. 483; 76 Pac. 546 687, 750, 803 V. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128 254 V. Richardson, 75 Me. 570; 46 Am. Rep. 428 1143 Richards v. St. Joseph Iron Co., 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 146; 33 Am. Dec. 460 912 V. Treasure Hill, etc. Co., 23 Utah 366; 65 Pac. 74 635 V. Union Congregational Soc, 58 N. H. 187 585 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 44 Vt. 613 433, 457, 465, 466, 1003, 1008 Riche V. Ashbury Ry., etc. Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 224 824 Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Inter- national, etc. Encamp- ment Co., 140 111. 248; 29 N. E. 1044; 33 Am. St. Rep. 234 81, 166, 167, 209 Richie v. Cralle, 108 Ky. 483; 56 S. W. 963 1424 Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27; 7 Sup. Ct. 788 696, 746 V. Richmond, 108 N. Y. Supp. 298 503, 1150 Richmond Factory Ass'n v. Clarke, 61 Me. 351 128, 215 Richmond Guano Co. v. Farmers' Cotton, etc. Co., 126 Fed. 712 ; 16 C. C. A. 630 840 Richmond Street R. R. Co. v. Reed, 83 Ind. 9 215 Richmond, etc. R. R. Co. v. Snead, 19 Gratt. (Va.) 354 1373 Richmond's Case, 4 K. & J. 305 492, 663 Richmondville Mfg. Co. v. Prall, 9 Conn. 487 588, 700 Richter v. Jerome, 123 U. S. 233; 8 Sup. Ot. 106 1485 Ricker v. American L. & T. Co., 140 Mass. 346; 5N. E. 284 1541 1). Hall, 69N. H. 592; 45 Atl. 556 1279 V. Larkin, 27 111. App. 625 123 Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Farrell, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 554; 23 C. C. A. 302 627, 628, 630 Rickert v. White, 105 N. Y. Supp. 653 1333 Rickett V. Sharps, 45 Ch. D. 286 24 Riddle v. County of Bedford, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 386 1228 Rider v. Alton, etc. R. R. Co., 13 111. 516 V. Morrison, 54 Md. 429 1116 528, 619 oljpcii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Rider v. Union Rubber Co., 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 85 1244 Ridgefield, etc. R. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 46 Conn. 375 189 Ridgely v. Richard, 130 Fed. 387 890 Ridgway v. Farmers' Bank, 12Serg. &R. (Pa.) 256; 14 Am. Dec. 681 913, 917 Ridley v. Plymouth Baking Co., 2 Ex. 711 395, 860, 1213, 1222 Rielle v. Reid, 26 Ont. App. 54 882, 887 Rieger, Kapner & Altmark, 157 Fed. 609 1085, 1086 Riemami v. Tyroler, etc. Verein, 104 111. App. 413 380, 381 Riesterer v. Horton Land, etc. Co., 160 Mo. 141; 61 S. W. 238 1006, 1069 Rigg V. Reading, etc. Ry. Co., 191 Pa. St. 298; 43 Atl. 212 786 Riggs V. Cragg, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 89 1150, 1151 V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 16 Fed. 804 1400, 1499 Riker v. Leo, 133 N. Y. 519; 30 N. E. 598 35 Riley v. Hampshire, etc. Bank, 164 Mass. 482; 41 N. E. 679 810 V. Loma Vista Ranch Co. (CaL), 82 Pac. 686 1310 V. Packington, 2 C. P. 536 308 Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns, 82 Tex. 50; 17S.W. 1043 753, 753 Ripley v. Paper Bottle Co., 57 L. J. Ch. 327 662 Risley v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co., 62 N. Y. 240 1342, 1307 Ritchie v. McMullen, 79 Fed. 522; 25 C. C. A. 50 1350, 1353 V. Vermillion Mining Co., 4 Ont. L. R. 588 71, 1080 Ritso's Case, 4 Ch. D. 774 169 Rivanna Nav. Co. v. Daw- sons, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 19 524 Riverhead, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. App. Div. 514; 55 N. Y. Supp. 938 134 Rives V. Montgomery South Plank-Road Co., 30 Ala. 92 994, 1195 1634 783 394 Roanoke Street Ry. Co. v. Hicks, 96 Va. 510; 32 S. E. 295 393, 1557 Robbins v. Bangor Ry., etc. Co., 100 Me. 496; 62 Atl. 136; 1 L. R. A. n. s. 963 284 Robert Watson & Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 509 640, 640 Roberts v. Central Trust Co., 128 Fed. 882; 63 C. C. A. 220 V. Crowe, L. R. 7 C. P. 629 V. Deming Woodworking Co., Ill N. Car. 432; 16 S. E. 415 V. Denver, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Colo. App. 504; 46 Pac. 880 1515, 1528, 1528, 1551, 1551 V. Roberts-Wicks Co., 102 N. Y. App. Div. 118; 92 N. Y. Supp. 387 541, 546 V. Roberts- Wicks Co., 184N.Y.257; 77N. E. 13; 112 Am. St. Rep. 607 439, 469, 537, 543, 546, 1092 V. Stanton Co., 94 Pac. 647 V. Sykes, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 173 V. Washington Nat. Bank, 11 Wash. 550; 40 Pac. 225 Ex parte, 1 Drewry 204 Roberts Mfg. Co. v. Schlick, 62 Minn. 332; 64 N. W. 826 307-, 309 — — V. Wright, 62 Minn. 337; 64 N. W. 827 307, 309 Robertson v. Bucklen & Co., 107 111. App. 369 1083, 1310 ■!). Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243 1184 V. De Brulatour, 188 N. Y. 301; SON. E. 938 503, 1132, 1151, 1445, 1446 V. Parks, 76 Md. 118; 24 Atl. 411 234 Robinson v. Alabama, etc. Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. 12 1585, 1587, 1593, 1593 V. Blood (CaL), 91 Pac. 258 V. Bumell's Vienna Bak- ery Co. (1904), 2 K. B. 624 V. Chartered Bank, 1 Eq, 32 764, 765, 765 V. Dolores, etc. Canal Co., 2 Colo. App. 17; 29 Pac. 750 1407 1239 811 1311 165 1201 1546 clxxiii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Robinson v. First Nat. Bank (Tex.), 79 S. W. 103 386, 387 V. FirstNat. Bank (Tex.), 82 S. W. 505 379, 380 V. Holbrook, 148 Fed. 107 78, 79 V. Iron Ry. Co., 135 U. S. 522; 10 Sup. Ct. 907 1485 V. Jenkins, 24 Q. B. D. 275 423 ■». Kirkwood, 91 111. App. 54 1617, 1618 V. Montgomeryshire Brewing Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 841 1405, 1524, 1524 V. Muir (Cal.), 90 Pac. 521 511 V. National Bank of New Berne, 95 N. Y. 637 695, 753, 1122, 1130, 1131 V. Philadelpliia, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Fed. 340 1660, 1660 V. Smith, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 222; 24 Am. Dec. 212 974 V. Southern Nat. Bank, 180 U. S. 295; 21 Sup. Ct. 383 74 V. West Virginia Loan Co., 90 Fed. 770 970 Robinson Mineral Spring Co. V. DeBautte, 50 La. Ann. 1281; 23 So. 865 1074 Robinson Printing Co. v. Chic (1905), 2 Ch. 123 1580 Robinson Reduction Co. v. Johnson, 10 Colo. App. 135; 50 Pac. 215 912, 912, 1196 Robinson's Case, 4 Ch. 322 166,167 Robinson's Trust, Be (Pa.), 67 Atl. 775 1137 Robotham v. Prudential Ins. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 673; 53 Atl. 842 57, 58, 75, 77, 1306, 1326 Robson V. Smith (1895), 2 Ch. 118 1546, 1547, 1547 Rochester Distilling Co. v. Rasey, 142 N. Y. 570; 37 N. E. 632; 40 Am. St. Rep. 635 1503 Rochester District Tel. Co., 40 Hun (N. Y.) 172 1015, 1039, 1064 Rochester Trust, etc. Co. v. Oneonta, etc. R. R. Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 237 1646, 1649, 1653 Rochester, etc., Land Co. v. Raymond, 158 N. Y. 576; clxxiv 53 N. E. 507; 47 L. R. A. 246 617, 619 Rochester, etc. R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 119; 17 N. E. 678 76 Rock River Bankv. Sherwood, 10 Wise. 230; 78 Am. Dec. 669 865, 868 Rockford, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sage, 65 111. 328; 16 Am. Rep. 587 293, 1237, 1246 Rockhold V. Canton Masonic Benev. Soc, 129 111. 440; 21 N. E. 794; 2 L. R. A. 420 35, 42, 851 Rockwell V. Elkhom Bank, 13 Wise. 653 63, 66 Rockwith ex rel. Kerns v. State Road Bridge Co., 108 N. W. 785 (Mich.) 107 Rodger Ballast Co. v. Omaha, etc. R. Co., 154 Fed. 629 1561, 1563, 1563, 1564, 1567 Rodney v. Southern R. R. Ass'n, 3 N. Y. St. Rep. 564; 14 Daly 70 1239 Roebling's Sons Co., John A. V. Barre, etc. Power Co., 76 Vt. 131 ; 56 Atl. 530 1213, 1215 Roedde v. News-Advertiser Pub. Co., 4 Brit. Columbia 7 80 Roehler v. Mechanics' Aid So- ciety, 22 Mich. 86 580 Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432; 31 S. E. 438; 70 Am. St. Rep. 50 174 V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 93 Md. 613; 49 Atl. 843 455 V. Gladiator, etc. Co. (S. Dak.), 113 N. W. 86 197, 645 V. Hastings, etc. Ry. Co., 22 Minn. 25 1247 V. Huntingdon Bank, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 77 776, 776 V. Jewell Belting Co., 184 111. 574 84 V. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cases 442 (Tenn.) 1609 V. Nashville, etc. Ry. Co., 91 Fed. 299; 33 C. C. A. 517 836, 935, 942, 951, 1026 1077, 1522 V. N. Y., etc. Land Co., 134N. Y. 197; 32N. E. 27 288 V. Oxford, etc. Ry. Co., 2 De G. & J. 662 965, 966 V. Pell, 154 N. Y. 518; 49 N. E. 75 1187, 1315, 1374 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Sogers V. Penobscot, 154 Fed. 606 338, 338 V. Southern Fiber Co. (La.), 44 So. 442 737, 739 V. Stevens, 8 N. J. Eq. 167 716 V. Wheeler, 43 N. Y. 598 1582, 1582, 1582 Rogers & Co. v. British & Colonial Ass'n, 68 L. J. Q. B. 14 1529, 1594 Rogers Co., R. W. v. Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 1017; 17 C. C. A. 576 376 Rogers' Case, 3 Ch. 633 166, 189 Rogers, Re, 161 N. Y. 108; 55 N. E. 393 471, 1154 Rogers' Trusts, Re, 1 Dr. & Sm. 338 Rogers, etc. Works v. South- em R. R. Ass'n, 34 Fed, 278 Rogersville, etc. R. R. Co. v, Kyle, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 691 1443 1433 1522, 1597 Roland v. Lancaster, etc. BaAk, 135 Pa. St. 598; 19 Atl. 951 Rolling Stock Co. v. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 34 Oh. St. 450; 32 Am. Rep. 380 Rollins V. Clay, 33 Me. 132 V. Co-operative Bldg. Bank, 98 N. Y. App. Div. 606; 90 N. Y. Supp. 631 V. Shaver Wagon, etc. Co., 80 Iowa 380; 45N. W. 1037; 20 Am. St. Rep. 427 1206, 1323 Romare v. Broken Arrow, etc. Mining Co., 114 Fed. 194 811 1306 1188 584 517, 1486, 1603 Rome, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sibert, 97 Ala. 393; 12 So. 69 Romford Canal Co., 24 Ch. D. 85 1068, 1407 Rommel v. Summit Branch Coal Co., 18 Pa. Super. Ct. 482 Rondot V. Rogers Tp., 99 Fed. 202; 39 C. C. A. 462 1567 1416 1433, 1440 Roney, Ex parte, 33 L. J. Ch. 731 173 Rood V. Railway Pass., etc. Ass'n, 31 Fed. 62 577, 660 V. Wharton, 67 Fed. 434 647 Roofing Contractors' Ass'n, 200 Pa. St. 1 1 1 ; 49 Atl. 894 46 1359 1248 919 clxxv Roosevelt v. Nashville, etc. Ry. Co., 128 Fed. 465 70, 85 Roots V. Williamson, 38 Ch. D. 485 696, 707, 710, 710 Roper V. Castell & Brown (1898), 1 Ch. 315 1534, 1547 Rorke v. Thomas, 56 N. Y. 559 Rose V. Carbonating Co., 60 Mo. App. 28 V. Independent Chevra Kadisho (Pa.), 64 Atl. 401 V. Merchants' Trust Co., 96 N. Y. Supp. 946 361, 361 Rose Hill, etc. Co. v. People exrel. Lawless, 115 111. 133; 3 N. E. 725 147, 219, 230, 231, 231, 553 Rose Hill Cemetery Co. v. Dempster, 223 111. 567; 79 N. E. 276 1073, 1310, 1323 Roseborough v. Shasta River Canal Co., 22 Cal. 556 Rosemond v. Northwestern, etc. Register Co., 62 Minn. 374; 64 N. W. 925 Rosenback v. Salt Springs Nat. Bank, 53 Barb. (N. Y.) 495 Rosenfeld v. Einstein, 46 N. J. Law 479 894, 897, 907 Rosenkranz v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co., 18 Fed. 513 Ross V. Crockett, 14 La. Ann. 811' V. Estate Investment Co., 3 Eq. 122 V. Sayler, 104 111. App. 19 V. Southwestern R. R. Co., 53 Ga. 514 Ross Oil, etc. Co. v. Eastham (Kans.), 85 Pac. 531 Ross, Ex parte, 59 L. T. 291 Rotch's Wharf Co. v. Judd, 108 Mass. 224 Roth Tool Co. V. Champ Spring Co., 93 Mo. App. 530; 67 S. W. 967 Rothchild v. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 113 Fed. 476; 51 C. C. A. 310 Rotherham Alum Co., Re, 25 Ch. D. 103 282, 293 Rouede ti. Jersey City, 18 Fed. 719 1436 Rough V. Breitung, 117 Mich. 48; 75 N. W. 147 1071, 1072 Roundwood Colliery Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 373 1547, 1548 1383 1382 571 1475 1167 186 354 711 1377 1205 302 304 1081 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] "^ Rouse V. Harry, 55 Kans. 589; 40 Pac. 1007 V. Redinger, 1 Kans. App. 355; 41 Pao. 433 1618 Routledge, George & Sons (1904), 2 Ch. 474 1418, 1473 Rowe V. White, 112 N. Y. App. Div. 688; 98 N. Y. Supp. 729 -^, Re (1904), 2 K. B. 489 Rowe's Trustee's Claim (1906), 1 Ch. 1 Rowland v. Header Furniture Co., 38 Oh. St. 269 250, 250, 251 V. P. P. Carroll Loan, etc. Co.(Wash.), 87 Pac. 482 Rowley v. Unwin, 2 K. & J. 138 Roxburg Press (1899), 1 Ch. 210 Roxbury Lodge v. Hocking, 60 N. J. Law 439; 38 Atl. 693 590, 949 Roy & Co. V. Scott, Hartley, etc. Co., 11 Wash. 399; 39 Pac. 679 Royal Bank v. Grand Junction R. R. Co., 100 Mass. 444; 97 Am. Dec. 115 V. Grand Junction R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 490 Royal Bank of India'a Case, 4 Ch. 252 74, 74, 77, 91, 117, 591, 705, 706, 707 Royal British Bank, 26 L. J. Ch. 545 763 V. Turquand, 6 E. & B. 327 739, 1219, 1220, 1220 Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc. Ry. Co., 113 Fed. 531 1617, 1629, 1629 V. Washburn, etc. Ry. Co., 120 Fed. 11; 57 C. C. A. 31 1646 Rozecrans Gold Mining Co. v. Morey, HI Cal. 114; 43 Pac. 585 1169, 1225, 1343 Ruben v. Great Fingall Con- solidated (1906), A. C. 439 739, 740 Rubino v. Pressed Steel Car Co. (N. J.), 53 Atl. 1050 78, 78, 78 Ruby Chief, etc. Co. v. Gurley, 17 Colo. 199; 29 Pac. 668 V. Prentice, 25 Colo. 4; 52 Pac. 210 Ruck V. Caledonia Silver Mining Co. (Cal.), 92 Pac. 194 1619 1135 768 624 1374 815 642 1314 403 1311 298 1246 603 338 998 304 1569 665 1371 Rudd V. Robinson, 126 N. Y. 113; 26N.E. 1046; 22 Am. St. Rep. 816; 12 L. R. A. 473 914, 920, 1276 Rudigeri). Coleman, 112 N. Y. App. Div. 279 Rudolph V. So. Beneficial League, 23 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.)199; 7N. Y. Supp. 135 , Ex parte, 11 W. R. 806 600, 766, 767 Ruettell V. Greenwich Ins. Co. (N. Dak.), 113 N. W. 1029 Ruhlender v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co., 91 Fed. 5; 33 C. C. A 299 Rule V. Jewell, 18 Ch. D. 660 Rumball v. Metropolitan Bank, 2 Q. B. D. 194 201, 688 Rumbough v. Southern Imp. Co., 112 N. Car. 751; 17 S. E. 536; 34 Am. St. Rep. 528 Rumsey v. People's Ry. Co., 91 Mo. App. 202 1515, 1608 Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619; 7 So. 384 625 Rush V. Halcyon Steamboat Co., 84 N. Car. 702 234 Russell V. Bristol, 49 Conn. 251 176, 1093 V. Cassidy, 108 Mo. App. 577; 84 S. W. 171 844 V. East Anglian Ry. Co., 3 Mac. & G. 124 1393, 1500 V. Easterbrook, 71 Conn. 50; 40 Atl. 905 616, 748 V. McLellan, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 63 V. North American Benefit Ass'n, 116 Mich. 699; 75N. W. 137 V. Rock Run Fuel Gas Co., 184 Pa. St. 102; 39 Atl. i21 174, 1079, 1083 V. Temple, 3 Dane's Abridgment (Mass.) 108 V. Wakefield Water- works Co., 20 Eq. 474 V. Washington Sav. Bank, 23 App. D. C. 308 873 577 420 976 clxxvi Russian Petroleum, etc. Co. v. London Investment Trust (1907), 2 Ch. 540 Russian Spratt's Patent (1898), 2 Ch. 149 591, 1372 1473 1514 TABLE OF CASES [Tbe references are to pages] Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Oreg. 218; 29 Pac. 546; 29 Am. St. Rep. 596; 17 L. R. A. 549 Rutherford's Case, 4 A. C. 548 Rutland Electric Light Co. v. Bates, 68 Vt. 579; 35 Atl. 480; 54Am. St. Rep. 904 252 800 1345, 1345 Rutland, etc. Co. v. Proctor, 29 Vt. 93 847 Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536 438, 602, 603, 610, 611, 626, 658, 661, 667, 1108 Rutledge, Ex parte, 1 Harp. Eq. (S, Car.) 65; 14 Am. Dec. 696 1114, 1137, 1147 Rutten V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Fed: 480 1677 R. W. Rogers Co. v. Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 1017; 17 C. C. A. 576 376 Ryan v. Farmers' Bank, 5 Kans. 658 V. Hays, 62 Tex. 42 226 1610, 1620 V. Leavenworth, etc. Ry, Co., 21 Kans. 365 963, 1134 1304, 1333 1346, V. Martin, 91 N. Car. 464 233 V. McLane, 91 Md. 175; 46 Atl. 340; 80 Am. St. Rep. 438; 50 L. R. A. 501 786 V. Williams, 100 Fed. 172 947 1298, 1299 Ryland v. HoUinger, 117 Fed. 216 151, 220, 274 Rylander v. Sheffield, 108 Ga. Ill; 34 S. E. 348 1324, 1344 S. Abrahams & Sons (1902), 1 Ch. 695 1498 Sabin v. Bank of Woodstock, 21 Vt. 353 775 Sabine Tram Co. v. Bancroft & Sons, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170; 40S.W.837 79 Sabre v. United Traction, etc. Co., 156 Fed. 79 876, 963, 967, 976 Sacramento Bank v. Copsey, 133 Cal. 663; 66 Pac. 8, 205 , 1296 Sacramento, etc. R. R. Co. v. Superior Court, 55 Cal. 453 1600 Sadgrove v. Bryden (1902), 1 Ch. 318 1041 Sadler v. Worley (1894), 2 Ch. 170 1622 Sage V. Central R. R. Co., 99 U. S. 334 1558, 1622, 1623, 1625, 1628, 1675 V. Culver, 147 N. Y. 241; 41 N. E. 513 935 V. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 125 U. S. 361; 8 Sup. Ct. 887 1517 1517, 1528 V. Shore Line Ry. Co., 2 New Brunsw. Eq. 321 1649 — — , Be, 70 N. Y. 220 903, 906 Sagory V. Dubois, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 466 162, 1128 Sajilgaard v. Kennedy, 2 Fed. 295 1636 -^ — ti. Kennedy, 13 Fed. 242 1588, 1589 Sahlgreen & Carrall's Case, 3 Ch. 323 166, 196 St. Charles Mfg. Co. v. Britton, 2 Mo. App. 290 St. Clair v. Rutledge, 115 Wise. 583; 92 N. W. 234 St. Helen Mill Co., 3 Sawy. 88 992, 1210 St. James Parish v. Newbury- port, etc. R. R. Co., 141 Mass. 500; 6 N. E. 749 St. Joe, etc. Mining- Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 10 Colo. App. 339; 50 Pac. 1055 1317, 1328 St. John V. Erie Ry. Co., 22 Wall. 136 449, 450 St. John's Electric Light Co. (1897-1903), Newfound- land 440 St. Johns Nat. Bank v. Steel, 135 Mich. 165; 97 N. W. 704 St. Joseph, etc. R. R. Co. v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 105; 12 Sup. Ct. 795 1611, 1611, 1612 St. Joseph, etc. Ry. Co. v. Shajtabaugh, 106 Mo. 567; 17 S. W. S81 V. Smith, 170 Mo. 327; 70 S. W. 700 St. Joseph Union Depot Co. V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 291; 31 S. W. 908 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 89 Fed. 648; 32 C. C. A. 284 1632 609 392 917, 400 1317, 135 1302 250 1503 1632 I clxxvii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] St. Joseph's, etc. Soc. v. St. Hedwig's Church, 3 Pen. (Del.) 229; 50 Atl. 535 392 St. Joseph's, etc. Soc. v. St. Hedwig's Church, 4 Pen. (Del.) 141; 53 Atl. 353 860 St. Ladislaus Beneficial Ass'n, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 25 104, 108, 120 St. Lawrence Steamboat Co., 44 N. J. Law 529 955, 1014, 1041, 1041, 1041, 1043, 1059, 1066, 1066, 1169, 1176, 1178 St. Louis Breweries v. Apthorpe, 79 L. T. 651 878, 879 St. Louis Car Co. v. Stillwater St. Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 129; 54 N. W. 1064 1598, 1598, 1599 St. Louis Colonization Ass'n V. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555 47, 244, 258, 1202 St. Louis Mfg. Co. V. Hilbert, 24 Mo. App. 338 517, 520 St. Louis Rawhide- Co. v. HiH, 72 Mo. App. 142 517, 526, 919 St. Louis 'Trust Co. v. Des Moines, etc. Ry. Co., 101 Fed. 632 1659 «. Riley, 70 Fed. 32 • 1568 St. Louis, etc. Ins. Co. v. Goodfellow, 9 Mo. 149 774 St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Chenault, 36 Kans. 51; 12 Pac. 303 1342 V. Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co., 125 U.S. 658; 8 Sup. Ct. 1011 1559, 1562, 1564 V. O'Hara, 177 111. 525; 52N. E. 734; 53N. E. 118 1247, 1564, 1569 V. Southwestern Tel. etc. Co., 121 Fed. 276; 58 C. C. A. 198 121 V. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Co., 145 U. S. 393; 12 Sup. a. 953 836, 841, 843 V. Tieman, 37 Kans. 606; 15 Pac. 544 82, 312, 330, 918, 1320 St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Continental Trust Co., Ill Fed. 669; 49 C. C. A. 529 1566, 1568 V. Holbrook, 73 Fed. 112; 19 CCA. 385 1617,1618, 1634, 1643 V. Jackson, 95 Fed. 560; 37 C C A. 165 1633 clxxviii St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stark, 55 Fed. 758 ; 5 C C A. 264 1634 V. Whitaker, 68 Tex. 630; 5 S. W. 448 1551 St. Luke's Church v. Mat- thews, 4 Desaus. (S. Car.) 578; 6 Am. Dec. 619 1031, 1227 St. Mary's Benevolent Ass. v. Lynch, 64 N. H. 213; 9 Atl. 98 1003 St. Nicholas Greek Catholic Society, 29 Pa. Co. Ct. 193 996 St. Paul Nat. Bank v. Life Ins. Clearing Co., 71 Minn. 123; 73 N. W. 713 772 St. Paul "ntle, etc. Co. v. Diagonal Coal Co., 95 Iowa 551; 64 N. W. 606 1542,1655 St. Paul Trust Co. v. Wam- pach Mfg. Co., 50 Minn. 93; 52 N. W. 274 75 St. Pavd, etc. R. R. Co. v. Robbins, 23 Minn. 439 198, 198 St. PeteiB R. C Congregation V. Germain, 104 lU. 440 848 St. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton Press, 20 La. Ann. 381 1122 Salem Mill Dam Corp. v. Ropes, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 23 607, 608 Salina Nat. Bank v. Prescott, 60 Kans. 490; 57 Pac. 121 1306, 1323, 1324 Salisbury v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 22 L. T. 839 1265 Salisbury Gold Mining Co. v. Hathom (1897), A. C 268 1056, 1057 Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 115 711, 738, 756, 799, 1130 Salomon v. Salomon & Co. (1897), A. C. 22 148, 226, 262, 266, 317, 330, 872, 881, 882, 882, 883, 1085 Salomons v. Laing, 12 Beav. 339 92, 951 Salt Lake City v. HoUister, 118U.S. 256; eSup.Ct. 1055 870 Salt River Canal Co. v. Hickey, 36 Pac. 171; 4 Ariz. 240 426, 427 Saltmarsh v. Spaulding, 147 Mass. 224; 17 N. E. 316 1208, 1315, 1344 Salton V. New Beeston & Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 775 1170, 1172, 1228, 1241 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Sampson v. Bowdoinham, etc. Corp., 36 Me. 78 912, 1004, 1211, 1224 V. Fox, 109 Ala. 662; 19 So. 896; 55 Am. St. Rep. 950 1370 Samuel v. Holladay, 1 Woolw. 400 559, 588, 938, 946, 950, 975, 1000, 1200, 1222 V. Jarrah Timber, etc. Corp. (1904), A. C. 323 1405 San Antonio, etc. Ry. Co. vi Adams, 87 Tex. 125; 26 S. W. 1040 1203 V. Barnett (Tex.), 44 S. W. 20 1644 San Buenventura, etc. Co. v. Vaasault, 50 Cal. 534 998 San Diego v. San Diego, etc, R. R. Co., 44 Cal. 106 San Diego Gas Co. v. Frame, 137 Cal. 441; 70Pac.295 1305, 1306 124, 125 San Diego, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pacific Beach Co., 112 Cal. 53; 44 Pac. 333; 33 L. R. A. 788 1306, 1306, 1310, 1310 San Francisco Water Co. v. Pattee, 86 Cal. 623 ; 25 Pac. 135 1343, 1344 San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70; 35 Pac. 349 154, 209, 212, 1227 V. West, 94 Cal. 399; 29 Pac. 785 213, 303 San Jose Savings Bank v. Sierra Lumber Co., 63 Cal. 179 1225 San Pedro Lumber Co. v. Rey- nolds, 121 Cal. 74; 53 Pac. 410 1288 Sanborn v. Clough, 64 N. H. 315; 10 Atl. 678 1451 Sanders v. Bromley, 55 L. T. N. s. 145 502 Sanderson v. Aetna Iron, etc. Co., 34 Oh. St. 442 520 Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 239 604 Sandusky Coal Co. v. Walker, 27 Ont. 677 307, 337 Sandy River R. R. Co. v. Stubbs, 77 Me. 594; 2 Atl. 9 1341 Sanford Fork & Tool Co. v. Howe, Brown & Co., 157 U.S. 312; 15 Sup. Ct. 621 1309 1310, 1315 Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56 154 Sangster v. Netter, 9 Times L. R. 441 354 Sanitary Can Co. v. MuUins, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 450; 83 N. Y. Supp. 918 694 Sankey, Brook Coal Co. (No. 1), 9 Eq. 721 66, 1513 (No. 2), 10 Eq. 381 65, 1513, 1513 Santa Clara Mining Ass'n v. Meredith, 49 Md. 389; 33 Am. Rep. 264 1237 Santa Cruz R. R. Co. v. Spreckles, 65 Cal. 193; 3 Pac. 661, 802 651, 653 Santa Fe Pac. R. R. Co. v. Davidson, 149 Fed. 603 890 Santa Rosa R. R. v. Central Street Ry. Co., 38 Pac. 986 (Cal.) 304 Sanxey v. Iowa City Glass Co., 63 Iowa 707; 17 N. W. 429 1622, 1628 Saragossa, etc. Ry. Co. v. Col- lingham (1904), A. C. 159 1672 Sargent v. Essex Marine Ry. Corp., 9 Pick. (Mass.) 202 1131 V. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. (Mass.) 90; 19 Am. Dec. 306 571, 695, 716, 744, ' 753, 813, 1124 V. Kansas, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Kans. 672; 29 Pac. 1063 1347 V. Sargent Granite Co., 3 N. Y. Misc. 325; 23 N. Y. Supp. 886 1246 V. Webster, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 497; 46 Am. Dec. 743 1178, 1201, 1202, 1204, 1205 , Ex parte, 17 Eq. 273 686, 686, 747, 807 Sarmiento v. Boat & Oar Co., 105 Mich. 300; 63 N. W. 205; 55 Am. St. Rep. 446 397, 398, 1382, 1382 Sasser v. State, 13 Oh. Rep. 453 230 Saunders v. Farmer, 62 N. H. 572 113 V. Sun Life Ass. Co. of Canada (1894), 1 Ch. 537 Saup V. Morgan & Co., 108 111. 326 Savages. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561 ; 28 Atl. 414 375, 378 420 180 clxxix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Savage v. Madelia, etc. Ware- house Co. (Minn.), 108 N. W. 296 1244 V. People's Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 45 W. Va. 275; 31 S. E. 991 584 Savannah Mills v. Cvmning- ham, 100 Ga. 468; 28 S. E. 435 1182 Savannah, etc. Bldg. Co. v. Silverberg, 108 Ga. 281; 33 S. E. 9b8 456 Savannah, etc. R. R. Co. v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co., 79 Fed. 35; 24 C. C. A. 437 • 1612 V. Lancaster, 62 Ala. 555 392, 1429, 1462, 1466 Savin v. Hoylake Ry. Co., L. R. 1 Ex. 9 294, 295 Savings Bank v. Bums, 104 Cal. 473; 38 Pac. 102 1329 V. Bavis, 8 Conn. 191 397, 398, 912, 1200 Savings Bank of Cincinnati v. Benton, 2 Met. (Ky.) 240 1373, 1382 Savings Bank of Louisville's Assignee v. Caperton, 87 Ky. 306; 8 S. W. 885; 12 Am. St. Rep. 488 1275, 1278, 1278 Savings & Trust Co. v. Bear Valley Irr. Co. , 93 Fed. 339 1585 V. Bear Valley Irr. Co., 112 Fed. 693 833 Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 628, 612, 612 V. Pawners' Bank, 6 Allen (Mass.) 207 1237 Saxlehner v. Eisner, 147 Fed. 189; 77 C. C. A. 417 1356 Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342; 5 Atl. 497 692 V. Blane, 14 Q. B. 205 782 V. Brown, 40 Fed. Rep. 8 492, 1010 V. White, 18 N. Y. App. DiV. 590; 46 N. Y. Supp. 194 1285 Saylor v. Commonwealth In- vestment, etc. Co., 38 Oree. 204; 62 Pac. 652 1299, 1328 Sayre v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 631 ; 6 So. 45 623, 624 Sayward v. Gardner, 5 Wash. 247; 31 Pac. 761; 33 Pac. 389 302 clxxx Scadden Flat, etc. Co. v. Scadden, 121 Cal. 33; 53 Pac. 440 280, 290 Scanlan v. Snow, 2 App. D. C. 137 583, 585, 962, 963, 966, 973, 998, 1040, 1041 Scarlett v. Academy of Music, 43 Md. 203 603 V. Academy of Music, 46 Md. 132 166, 605 Schaefer v. Scott, 40 N. Y. Apik Div. 438; 57 N. Y. Supp. 1035 1372 Schaeffer Piano Mfg. Co. v. Nat. Fire Extinguisher Co., 148 Fed. 159; 78 C. C. A. 293 85 Schaffhauser v. Amholt, etc. Brewing Co. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 417 1322 Schallard v. Eel River Nav. Co., 70 Cal. 144; 11 Pac. 590 1490, 1490 Schantz v. Oakman, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 151; 41 N. Y. Supp. 746 274, 336 Schell V. Alston Mfg. Co., 149 Fed. 439 429, 1111 Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102 605, 607, 617, 1007, 1227, 1232, 1232 Scherck v. Montgomery, 81 Miss. 426; 33 So. 507 697, 751, 787 Schickel v. Berryville Land Co., 99 Va. 88; 37 S. E. 813 1238, 1320 Schierenbei;g v. Stephens, 32 Mo. App. 314 493 Schmidt v. Hennepin County Barrel Co., 35 Minn. 611; 29 N. W. 200 776 V. Louisville, etc. Ry. Co., 84 S. W. 314; 27 Ky. Law Rep. 21 1449, 1678, 1679, 1679, 1679 V. Mitchell, 101 Ky. 570; 41 S. W. 929; 72 Am. St. Rep. 427 1024, 1025, 1044, 1046, 1046, 1047, 1047, 1176, 1250 V. Nelke Art Lithograph Co., 16 N. Y. Misc. 300; 37 N. Y. Supp. 1138 293 V. Pritchard (Iowa), 112 N. W. 801 506, 607, 609,1039 1260 Schneider v. Sellers, 98 Tex. 380; 84 S. W. 417 860, 1235 , TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Schnittger v. Old Home, etc. Co., 144 Cal. 603; 78 Pac. 9 1298, 1299, 1311, 1317 Schoenfeld v. American Can Co. (N. J.), 55 Atl. 1044 950 Schoening v. Schwenk, 112 Iowa 733; 84 N. W. 916 944, 1320, 1365 Schofield V. Goodrich Bros. Banldng Co., 98 Fed. 271; 39 C. C. A. 76 75, 76, 834 V. Nat. State Bank, 97 •ii-Fed. 282; 38 C. C. A. 179 1305 Scholefield v. Redfern, 32 L. ' J. Ch. 627; 2 Dr. & Sm. 173 1156, 1444 Scholey v. Central Ry. Co., 9 Eq. 266 181 Sohraedem. HeinzelmanBros., 51 111. App. 31 1342 Schreyer v. Turner Flouring Mills Co., 29 Oreg. 1; 43 Pac. 719 283, 284, 288 Schuetz V. German-American Real Estate Co., 21 N. Y. App. Div. 163; 47 N. Y. Supp. 500 666 Schufeldt V. Smith, 131 Mo. 280; 31 S.W. 1039; 52 Am. St. Rep. 628; 29 L. R. A. 830 . 1318 V. Smith, 139 Mo. 367; 40 S. W. 887 297, 298, 299 Schultze V. Van Doren, 64 N. J.Eq.465; 53 Atl. 815; 65 N. J. Eg. 764; 55 Atl. 1133 1586 Schurr v. Omaha, etc. Ry. Co., 98 Iowa 418; 67N.W.280 1609 Schuyler County v. Coquard, 9 Mo. App. 592 230 Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Gads- den, 191 U. S. 451; 24 Sup. Ct. 129 835, 835 Schwab V. Frisco Mining, etc. Co., 21 Utah 258; 60 Pac. 940 1226 Schwartz V. State, 61 Oh. St. 497; 56 N. E. 201 1015 Schwind v. Boyce, 94 Md. 510; 51 Atl. 45 . 804 Scinde, etc. Bank Corpora- tion, 6 Ch. 53 n 434 ScoUans v. Rollins, 173 Mass. 275 1430 Scots Charitable Soc. v. Shaw, 8 Mass. 532 304 Scott V. B. & O. R. R. Co., 93 Md. 475; 49 Atl. 327 457, 460, 461 clxxxi Scott, V. Bankers' Union (Kans.), 85 Pac. 604 851, 1407 V. Central R. R. etc. Co., 52 Barb. 45 1119, 1123 V. Clinton, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Biss. 529 1503 ■!). Colburn, 26 Beav. 276 ' 65 V. Depeyster, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 513 1268, 1275, 1728 V. Deweese, 181 U. S. 202; 21 Sup. Ct. 585 489, 492 V. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 7 Paige (N. Y.) 198 1112, 1112 V. Farmers' L. &. T. Co., 69 Fed. 17; 16 C. C. A. 358 1608 V. Farmers', etc. Nat. Bank, 97 Tex. 31; 75 S. W. 7 1317, 1334, 1497 «. Houpt, 73Ark. 78; 83 S. W. 1057 702, 716 V. Latimer, 89 Fed. 843; 33 C. C. A. 1 180, 491 V. Lord Ebury, 2 C. P. 255 283, 310 V. Pequonnock Nat. Bank, 21 Blatchf. 203 715 V. Rainier, etc. Ry. Co., 13 Wash. 108 ; 42 Pac. 531 161 1, 1611 V. Scott, 68 N. H. 7; 38 Atl. 567 1014,1053,1177 V. Superior Sunset Oil Co., 144 Cal. 140; 77 Pac. 817 1222 Scott & Horton v. Godfrey (1901), 2 K. B. 726 779 Scottish N. E. Ry. Co. v. Stew- art, 3 Macq. H. L. 382 283 Scottish Petroleum Co., 23 Ch. D. 413 178, 179, 184, 1205 Scottish Security Co.'s Re- ceiver V. Starks, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1722; 78 S. W. 455 204 Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 483, 486, 492, 612, 614 Screven Hose Co. v. Philpot, 53 Ga. 625 858 Scripture v. Prancestown Soapstone' Co., 50 N. H. 571 715, 717 Scruggs V. Cotterill, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 583; 73 N. Y. Supp. 882 _ 786 Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 125 Ga. 4G3; 54 S. E. 138 1568 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Seacoast R. R. Co. v. Wood, 65 N. J. Eq. 530; 56 Atl. 337 303, 332 Seaoord v. Pendleton, 55 Hun (N.Y.)579; 9N.Y. Supp. 46 252 Searles v. Gebbie, 115 N. Y. App. Biv. 778; 101 N. Y. Supp. 199 979, 1120, 1121, 1354 Sears v. Illinois Wesleyan University, 28 HI. 183 1377 Seaton v. Grant, 2 Ch. 459 965, 965, 968 V. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145; 81 N. W. 225 127, 237 Seattle, etc. Ry. Co., 61 Fed. 541 1614 V. Union Trust Co., 79 Fed. 179; 24 C. C. A. 512 1623, 1638, 1638 Seattle Trust Co. v. Pitner, 18 Wash. 401; 51 Pac. 1048 464, 613, 1114 Sebastian v. Covington Bridge Co., 21 Oh. St. 451 1371 Second Ave. R. R. Co. v. Cole- man, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 300 1378 Second Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N. Dak. 50; 76 N. W. 504 753 Second Universalist Church v. Colegrove, 74 Conn. 79; 49 Atl. 902 1099, 1144, 1154 Secor V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 7 Biss. 513 1620 Securities, etc. Corp. v. Brighton Alhambra, 62 L. J. Ch. 566; 68 L. T. 249 1590, 1650 Security Nat. Bank v. St. Croix Power Co., 117 Wise. 211; 94N. W. 74 833 Security Trust Co. v. Ford (Oh.), 79 N. E. 474 115, 143 V. Goble R. R. Co., 44 Oreg. 370; 74 Pac. 919; 75 Pac. 697 1543, 1560 Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wil- kerson, 83 Mo. 235 209, 209, 212 Sedgwick, Ex parte, 2 Jur. N. 8. 949 1244 See V. Heppenheimer (N. J.), 61 Atl. 843 634, 635 Seebeck v. King, 34 N. Y. Misc. 483; 70 N. Y. Supp. 322 1185 Seeley v. New York Nat. Ex- change Bank, 8 Daly (N. Y.) 400; 78 N. Y. 600 541 715 1517 1641 1173 1231 clxxxii Seeligson v. Brown, 61 Tex. 114 Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 52 Minn. 246; 53 N. W. 1151 Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 332 529, 529 Seller v. Union Mfg. Co., 50 W. Va.208; 40 S. E. 547 Self-Acting Sewing Machine Co., 54 L. T. 676 Seligman v. Prince (1895), 2 Ch. 617 1308, 1399 Sellar v. Charles Bright & Co. (1904), 2 K. B. 446 415, 1397 Sellers v. Greer, 172 111. 549; 50 N. E. 246; 40 L. R. A. 589 1069, 1071, 1072, 1073,1078 V. Phoenix Iron Co., 13 Fed. 20 935, 1313 Selley v. American Lubricator Co., 119 Iowa 591; 93 N. W. 590 918, 1276 Selma, etc. R. R. Co. v. Tip- ton, 5 Ala. 787; 39 Am. Dec. 344 Selover v. Isle Harbor Land Co., 91 Minn. 451; 98 N. W. 344 199, 287 V. Isle Harbor Co. (Minn.), Ill N. W. -155 199 Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245; 6 So. 46; 9 So. 265; 24 Am. St. Rep. 894 614, 615 Seneca County Bank v. Lamb, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 595 Senn v. Levy, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 662, 1331; 63 S. W. 776 V. Union, etc. Mercantile Co., 115 Mo. App. 685; 92 S. W. 507 745, 752, 752, 752 Senour Mfg. Co. v. Church Paint, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 294; 84 N. W. 109 35, 39 Seventeenth Ward Bank v. Smith, 51 N. Y. App. Div. 259; 64 N. Y. Supp. 888 Seventh Nat. Bank v. Shen- andoah Iron Co., 35 Fed. 436 Severn & Wye Ry. Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 559 1122, 1123 Severson v. Bimetallic, etc. Co., 18 Mont. 13 ; 44 Pac. 79 1247 Sewall V. Boston Water Power Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 277; 81 Am. Dec. 701 729, 755, 755, 755, 755 594 141 1368 1560 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Sewall V. Eastern R. R. Co., 9 Gush. (Mass.), 5 505, 507 V. Lancaster Bank, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 285 424, 424, 774, 774 Sewell V. Brainerd, 38 Vt. 364 1453 Sewell's Case, 3 Ch. 131 142, 486, 491 Sexton V. Snyder, 119 Mo. App. 668; 94S. W. 562 129,252 Seyberger v. Calumet Drain- ing Co., 33 Ind. 330 94 Seymour v. Bridge, 14 Q. B. D. 460 780 V. Canandaigua, etc. R. R. Co., 25 Barb. 284 1503,1520 V. Spring Forest, etc. Ass'n, 144 N. Y. 333; 39 N. E. 365; 26 L. R. A. 859 286, 331, 1341, 1342, 1342, 1342 S. Frost & Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 207 640, 640 Shackleford v. New Orieans, etc. R. R. Co., 37 Miss. 202 1246, J 1248 Shackleford, Ford & Co. v. Dangerfield, L. R. 3 C. P. 407 385, 386, 606 Shackleford's Case, 1 Ch. 567 166 Shakopee Mfg. Co., 37 Minn. 91; 33 N. W. 219 219 Shamokin Valley R. R. Co. v. Livermore, 47 Pa. St. 465; 86 Am. Dec. 552 1520 Shannon v. Howard Mut. Bldg., Ass'n, 36 Md. 383 Sharp V. Dawes, 2 Q. B. D. 26 580 1010, 1202 1285, Sharpe, Be (1892), 1 Ch. 154 1287, 1289 Sharpley v. South Ry. Co., 2 Ch. D. 663 Shattuck V. American Cem- ent Co., 205 Pa. St. 197; 54 Atl. 785; 97 Am. St. Rep. 735 V. Oakland, etc. Co., 58 Cal. 551 Shaw V. Benson, 11 Q. B. D. 563 V. Bentley & Co., 68 L. T. 812 -, — V. Bill, 95 U. S. 10 V. Cordis, 143 Mass. 443; • 9 N. E. 794 V. Davis, 78 Md. 308; 28 Atl. 619; 23 L. R. A. 294 1076, 1079, 1080, 1081 177 727 1295 260 363 1472 1446 Shaw V. Gilbert, 111 Wise. 165: 68 N. W. 188 425 V. Holland (1900), 2 Ch. 305 1339 V. Nat. German-Ameri- can Bank, 132 Fed. 658; 65 C. C. A. 620; 199 U. S. 603; 26 Sup. Ct. 750 75, 834 V. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Gray 162 (Mass.) 1486, 1495, 1584, 1586, 1600 V. Port Philip Mining Co., 13 Q. B. D. 103 730, 731, 740, 1362 V. Railroad Co., 100 U. S. 605 1485, 1649, 1671 V. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; 97 Am. Dec. 107; 1 Am. Rep. 115 720, 798 Shaw'g Case, 34 L. T. 715 189, 192 Shea V. Mabry, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 319 918, 1275 Shearman, Be, 66 L. J. Ch. 25 177, 181 Shears v. Jacobs, L. R. 1 C. P. 513 383, 405 Sheffield v. Johnson County Sav. Bank (Ga.), 58 S. E. 386 393 Sheffield Corporation v. Bar- clay (1905), A. C. 392 758, 759 Sheffield Gas, etc. Co. v. Har- rison, 17 Beav. 294 199 Sheffield Nickel Co. v. Unwin, 2 Q. B. D. 214 526 Sheffield, etc. Ry. Co. v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 574 602, 605, 1180 Sheldon Canal Co. v. Miller (Tex.), 90 S. W. 206 912, 1006 Shellenberger v. Altoona, etc. R. R. Co., 212 Pa. St. 413; 61 Atl. 1000; 108 Am. St. Rep. 876 1433 V. Patterson, 168 Pa. St. 30; 31 Atl. 943 509, 509, 1228 Shellington v. Howard, 53 N. Y. 371 697 Shelmerdine v. Welsh, 20 Phila. 199 1053 Shenandoah Valley R. R. Co. V. Griffith, 76 Va. 913 717 Shepard v. Richardson, 145 Mass. 32; 11 N. E. 738 1622 Shepaug Voting Trust Cases, 60 Conn. 553; 24 Atl. 32 801, 966, 1048, 1050, 1053, 1053 Shepheard v. Bray (1906), 2 Ch. 235 1349 clxxxiii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Shepherd v. Gillespie, 3 Ch. 764 706, 782, 1349, 1350 V. Harris (1905), 2 Ch. 310 700, 701 Sheppard v. Scinde, etc. Ry. Co., 56 L. J. Ch. 866; 36 W. R. 1 433 Sheridan Brick Works v. Ma- rion Trust Co., 157 Ind. 292 61 N. E. 666; 87 Am. St. Rep. 207 958 Sheridan, etc. Co. v. Chatham Nat. Bank, 127 N. Y. 517; 28 N. E. 467 1214, 1215 Sherman v. Am. Stove Co., 85 Mich. 169; 48 N. W. 537 182 Sherman, etc. Town Co. v. Morris, 43 Kans. 282; 23 Pac. 569; 19 Am. St. Rep. 134 109, 111, 852 V. Swigart, 43 ICans. 292; 23 Pac. 569; 19 Am. St. Rep. 137 1376, 1377 Sherrard v. Sherrard, 3 Atk. 502 1442 Sherwood v. Alvis, 83 Ala. 115; 3 So. 307 866 V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 94 Va. 291; 26 S. E. 943 1632 V. Illinois Trust, etc. Co., 195 111. 112; .62 N. E. 835; 88 Am. St. Rep. 183 616, 623 V. Meadow Valley Min- ing Co., 50 Cal. 412 682, 726 Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329; 57 Am. St. Rep. 230 113, 195, 213, 214, 216 Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410; 7 S. W. 274 635 Shields v. Clifton Hill Land Co., 94 Tenn. 123; 28 S. W. 668; 45 Am. St. Rep. 700; 26 L. R. A. 509 118, 237, 251, 306, 309 Ship's Case, 2 De G. J. & S. 544 215, 215 Shipley v. Mechanics Bank, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 484 751 Shipman v. Aetna Ins. Co., 29 Conn. 245 717 Shively v. Eureka, etc. Min- ing Co. (Cal.), 89 Pac. 1073 1318 Shoemaker v. Nat. Mechanics Bank, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 416 74, 866 V. Nat. Mechanics' Bank, 21 Fed. Cas. 1331; 1 Hughes 101 866 clxxxiv Shoemaker v. Washbvim Lum- ber Co., 97 Wise. 585; 73 N. W. 333 517, 531, 534 Shoknecht v. Milwaukee Brick, etc. Co., 108 Wise. 457; 84 N. W. 838 1196, 1196 Short V. Stevenson, 63 Pa. St. 95 340 Shoun V. Armstrong (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 790 113 Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co. v. North-Western Ry. Co., 6 H. L. Cas. 113, 137 41, 828 Shropshire Union Rys., etc. Co. V. Queen, L. R. 7 H. L. 496 747 Shufeldt V. Carver, 8 111. App. 545 416 Shulman v. Star Suburban Realty Co., 113 N. Y. App. Div. 759; 99 N. Y. Supp. 419 1251 Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa 569; 87 N. W. 441 298 Sias V. Consolidated Lighting Co., 73 Vt. 55; 50Atl. 554 1196 Sibley v. Quinsigamoud Nat. Bank, 133 Mass. 515 716, 717 Sickles V. Richardson, 23 Hun (N. Y.) 559 1405, 1413 Sidney's Case, 13 Etj. 228 203, 204 Siegman v. Electric Vehicle Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 910 939, 952, 1091, 1290 V. Electric Vehicle Co., 140 Fed. 117 939 V. Maloney, 63 N. J. Eq. 422; 51 Atl. 1003; 54 Atl. 405, 1125; 65 N. J. Eq. 372 947, 1125, 1265 Siemens-Halske Electric Co. V. Duncan, 142 Fed. 157; 73 C. C. A. 375 296 Sierra Land, etc. Co. v. Bricker (Cal.), 85 Pac. 665 228, 228, 233, 384 Sigua Iron Co. v. Brown, 171 N. Y. 488; 64 N. E. 194 601, 617, 913 V. Greene, 88 Fed. 207 705, 921 V. Greene, 104 Fed. 854; 44 C. C. A. 221 705 Silber Light Co. v. Silber, 12 Ch. D. 717 933, 933 Silk Mfg. Co. ■». Campbell, 27 N. J. Law 539 932 Silsby V. Strong, 38 Oreg. 36; 62 Pac. 633 1168, 1202, 1206 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Silver Hook Road v. Greene, 12 R. I. 164 1216 Simis V. Davidson, 54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 235 1381, 1382 Simm V. Anglo-American Tel- egraph Co., 5 Q. B. D. 188 736, 738 Simmons v. Burlington, etc. Ry. Co., 159 U. S. 278; 16 Sup. a. 1 1405, 1433, 1436, 1627 V. Hill, 96 Mo. 679; 10 S. W. 61; 2L. R. A. 476 V. London Joint Stock Bank (1891), 1 Ch. 270; (1892) A. C. 201 V. Taylor, 23 Fed. 849 705, 716 689 1405, 1627 V. Taylor, 38 Fed. 682 1401, 1433, 1436, 1627 Simmons v. Troy Iron Works, 92 Ala. 427; 9 So. 160 40 Simon v. Calfee (Ark.), 95 S. W. 1011 226 Simons v. Vulcan Oil Co., 61 Pa. St. 202; 100 Am. Dec. 628 325, 329 Simonson v. N. Y., etc. Ins. Co., 141 N. Y. 12; 35N. E. 969 1239 Simpson v. Building, etc. Ass'n, 38 Oh. St. 349 851 V. Heaton's, etc. Co., 19 W. R. 614 193 V. Molson's Bank (1895), A. C. 270 4, 796, 798 V. Moore, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 637 1150, 1154 V. Palace Theatre, 69 L. T. N. s. 70 470 V. Westminster, etc. HotelCo.,8H.L.Cas.712 91,97 Simpson's Case, 4 Ch. 184 171, 189 Sims V. Comm., 114 Ky. 827; 71 S. W. 929 127 V. Petaluma Gas, etc. Co., 131 Cal. 656; 63 Pac. 1011 1295, 1304, 1316 Simultaneous Colour Printing Syndicate v. Fowerbaker (1901), 1 K. B. 771 1416, 1546 Sinclair v. Dwight, 9 N. Y. App. Div. 297; 41 N. Y. Supp. 193 1262 Singer v. Salt Lake, etc. Mfg. Co., 17 Utah 143; 53 Pac. 1024; 70 Am. St. Rep. 773 1199, 1201, 1210, 1299 tlxxxv Singer Mfg. Co. v. Peck, 9 S. Dak. 29; 67 N. W. 947 123, 150, 151 V. Wright, 33 Fed. 121 25, 25 1). Wright, 97 Ga. 114; 25 S. E. 249; 35 L. R. A. 497 , 25 Sioux City, etc. Co. v. Trust Co. of North America, 52 Fed. 191 838 V. Trust Co. of North America, 82 Fed. 124; 27 C. C. A. 73 109, 1408 V. Trust Co. of North America, 173 U. S. 99; 19 Sup. a. 341 832 Sioux City, etc. Ry. Co. v. Manhattan Trust Co., 92 Fed. 428; 34 C. C. A. 431 1402, 1625 Sivin V. Mutual Match Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 921 628 Skelly V. Private Coachmen's etc. Soc, 13 Daly (N. Y.) 2 - 561 Skiddy v. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., Re Stewart's Petition, 3 Hughes 320 443, 451, 451, 1562, 1592, 1652 Skiff V. Stoddard, 63 Conn. 198; 26 Atl. 874; 28 Atl. 104; 21 L. R. A. 102 418, 807, 807 Skillman, Re, 24 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 41; 9 N. Y. Supp. 469 1155 Skinner v. City of London Marine Ins. Corp., 14 Q. B. D. 882 750, 781 Skinner Dry Dock Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 96 Md. 32; 53 Atl. 416 102 Skinner Mfg. Co. v. Dowville, 44 So. 1014 (Fla.) 1374 Skowhegan Bank v. Cutler, 49 Me. 315 716, 923 Slater Woollen Co. v. Lamb, 143 Mass. 420; 9N.X823 850, 856 Slattery v. North End Sav. Bank, 175 Mass. 380; 56 N. E. 606 1373, 1379, 1379 V. St. Louis, etc.. Trans- portation Co., 91 Mo. 217; 4 S. W. 79 978 Slayden v. Seip Coal Co., 25 Mo. App. 439 1122 Slaymaker v. Bank of Gettys- burg, 10 Pa. St. 373 422, 678 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1355 1407 1646 V. Broom, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 456; 10 Am. Dec. 273 18, 664 Slipher v. Earhart, 83 Ind. 173 154, 189, 198 Sloan V. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 62 Iowa 728; 16N. W. 331 1655 V. Clarkson (Md.), 66 Atl. 18 936 Slobodinsky, Be (1903), 2 K. B. 517 300 Slocum V. Head, 105 Wise. 431; 81 N. W. 673; 50 L. R. A. 324 124 V. Providence Steam, etc. Co., 10 R. I. 112 235, 242 V. Warren, 10 R. I. 116 235 Small V. Herkimer, 2 N. Y. 330 667, 769 V. Smith, 10 A. C. 119 92 Smalley v. McGraw (Mich.), Ill N. W. 1093 Smead v. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 104 Smiley v. Sioux Beet Syrup Co. (Nebr.), 99 N. W. 263 Smith V. Alabama Fruit Grow- ing, etc. Ass'n, 123 Ala. 538 ; 26 So. 232 451, 452, 1106 V. American Coal Co., 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 317 715, 748, 756 V. Automatic Photo- graphic Co., 118 m. App. 649 V. Bank of New England, 72 N. H. 4; 54 Atl. 385 1234, 1277 V. Bank of Nova Scotia, 8 Can. Sup. Ct. 558 616, 696, 744, 746 V. Becker (Wise), 109 N. W. 131 418, 807 V. Brown (1896), A. C. 614 641, 642 V. Bulkley, 18 Colo. App. 227; 70Pac. 958 951, 955, 955 V. Burns Boiler & Mfg. Co. (Wise), 11 N. W. 1123 157, 213, 214, 215, 215 V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 18 Wise. 17 V. City of Janesville, 52 Wise. 680; 9N. W. 789 V. Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. (Ind.), 81 N. E. 501 V. Cork, etc. Ry. Co. , 3 Ir. Rep. Eq. 356; 5 Ir. Rep. Eq. 65 457, 458, 466, 467, 467, 467, 467, 1057, 1123 750 1234, 1632 25 250 Smith V. County of Clark, 54 Mo. 58 V. Dana, 77 Conn. 543; 60 Atl. 117; 69 L. R. A. 76; 107 Am. St. Rep. 51 1451 1144, 1155 1182 371 493 578 529 154, clxxxvi V. Danzig, 64 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 320 V. David H. Brand & Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 529; 58 Atl. 1029 V. Dom, 96 Cal. 73; 30 Pac. 1024 944, 1197, 1211 V. Eastern R. R. Co., 124 Mass. 154 1515 V. Eastwood Wire Mfg. Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 331; 43 Atl. 567 138 V. Erb, 4 Gill (Md.) 437 1231, 1249 V. Franklin Park, etc. Co., 168 Mass. 345; 47 N. E. 409 V. Galloway (1898), 1 Q. B. 71 V. Goldworthy, 4 Q. B. 430 V. Gower, 63 Ky. 17 154, 156, 198 V. Hooper, 95 Md. 16; 51 Atl. 844; 64 Atl. 95 1156 V. Hurd, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 371; 46 Am. Dec. 690 928 - V. Law, 21 N. Y. 296 66, 1198, 1203 - V. Law Guarantee, etc. Soc. (1904), 2 Ch. 569 1454, 1454 - V. London United Brew- eries (1907), 2 Ch. 511 1643, 1647, 1647, 1655 - V. Los Angeles, etc. Ass'n, 78 Cal. 289; 20 Pac. 677 1206, 1299, 1328 V. Martin Anti-Fire, etc. Co., 47 N. Y. St. Rep. 26; 19 N. Y. Supp. 285 V. Mayfield, 163 111. 447; 45N. E. 157 V. McCuUough, 104 U. S. 25 V. Natchez Steamboat Co., 1 How. (Miss.) 479 916, 924, 1375 V. New Hartford Water Co., 73 Conn. 626; 48 Atl. 754 294, 1296 V. Paringa Mines (1906), 3 Ch. 193 997, 1212 591 230 1511 914, TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Smith V. Parker, 148 Ind. 127; 45 N. E. 770 309, 311 V. People's Mut., etc. Soc, 64 Hun 534; 19 N. Y. Supp. 432 589 V. Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650 604 V. Poor, 40 Me. 415; 63 Am. Dec. 672 1350 V. Prattville Mfg. Co., 29 Ala. 503 1110, 1274 V. Prosser (1907), 2 K. B. 735 727 V. Putnam, 61 N. H. 632 1237 V. Reese River Co., 2 Eq. 264 184 V. RogeiB, 30 Ont. Rep. 256 722, 723 V. San Francisco, etc. Ry. Co., 115 Cal. 584; 47 Pac. 582; 56 Am. St. Rep. 119; 35 L. R. A. 309 1017, 1021, 1029, 1042, 1050 V. Savin, 141 N. Y. 315; 36 N. E. 338 244, 687, 723 V. Sheeley, 12 Wall 358 248 V. Silver Valley Mining Co., 64 Md. 85; 20 Atl. 1032; 54 Am. Rep. 760 161, 1009 V. Smith, 3 Besaus. (S. Car.) 557 1188 V. Smith, 62 111. 493 406, 591, 1373, 1375 V. Smith, 117 Mass. 72 407 V. Supreme Lodge, 83 Mo. App. 512 584 V. Tallahassee, etc. Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650 194, 368, 380, 381 V. Walkerville Malleable Iron Co., 23 Ont. App. 95 733 V. Wells Mfg. Co., 148 Ind. 333; 46 N. E. 1000 1192 Smith & Co., Richard (1901), 1 Ir. 73 1430 Smith's Estate, 140 Pa. St. 344; 21 Atl. 438; 23 Am. St. Rep. 237 1147, 1148 Smith's Extx. V. Washington City, etc. R. R. Co., 33 Gratt. 617 1492 Smith, Be (1896), 2 Ch. 590 20 Smith, S. P., Lumber Co., 132 Fed. 618 518 , 132 Fed. 620 85, 838 Smithson's Case, 68 L. J. Ch. 46 642 Smyth V. Darley, 2 H. L. Cas. 789 997, 999, 1069 Smythe v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. 711, No. 13, 135 1534 Sneath v. Valley Gold Co. (1893), 1 Ch. 477 1673, 1674, 1675 Snediker v. Ayers, 146 Cal. 407; 80 Pac. 511 1323, 1344 Snider's Sons v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224; 8 So. 658; 11 L. R. A. 515; 24 Am. St. Rep. 887 248 Snively v. Loomis Coal Co., 69 Fed. 204 1560 Snow V. Boston Blank Book Mfg. Co., 158 Mass. 325; 33 N. E. 588 967 V. Church, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 108; 42 N. Y. Supp. 1072 1029, 1347 V. Thompson Oil Co., 59 Pa. St. 209 297 Snow, Church & Co. v. Hall, 19 N. Y. Misc. 655; 44 N. Y. Supp. 427 53 Snyder v. DeForest Wireless Tel. Co., 113 N. Y. App. Div. 840; 99 N. Y. Supp. 644 890 V. Philadelphia Co., 54 W. Va. 149; 46 S. E. 366; 102 Am. St. Rep. 941; 63 L. R. A. 896 383 V. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 462; 81 Am. Dec. 415 236, 243, 244 Snyder & Johnson Co., 133 Fed. 806 44 Snyder, Re, 29 N. Y. Misc. 1; 59 N. Y. Supp. 993 1402 Soci6t6 Anonyme v. Panhard- Levassor Motor Co. (1901), 2 Ch. 513 310, 373, 378 Soci6t6 G^n^rale de Paris v. Tramways Union Co., 14 Q. B. D. 424 796, 1356 V. Walker, 11 A. C. 20 685, 685, 697, 697, 713, 747, 747, 748 Society of Accountants & Au- ditors V. Goodway (1907), 1 Ch. 489 372 Society of Practical Knowl- edge V. Abbot, 2 Beav. 559 627, 627, 1290 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Town of Paw- let, 4 Pet. 480 226 clxxxvii TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Society for Savings v. New- London, 29 Conn. 174 1423 Society Perun v. Cleveland, 43 Oh. St. 481; 3 N. E. 357 249, 251 Sodus Bay, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hamlin, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 390 119 Solomon v. Bates, 118 N. Car. 311; 24S. E. 478; 54 Am. St. Rep. 725 1355 V. First Nat. Bank, 72 Miss. 854; 17 So. 383 1124 Somerset, etc. R. R. Co. v. Gushing, 45 Me. 524 481, 547, 609 Somerset Nat. Banking Co. ■». Adams, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2083; 72 S. W. 1125 174, 204, 612 Somerset Ry. v. Pierce, 88 Me. 86; 33Atl. 772 Somerville's Case, 6 Ch. 266 1658 171, 171 1033 870 1239 848 Soper V. Littlejohn, 31 Can. Super. Ct. 572 Sorrentino v. Ciletti, 75 N. Y. App. Div. 507; 78 N. Y. Supp. 322 556, 588 South & North Ala. R. R. Co. ■». Chappell, 61 Ala. 527 ■». Falkner, 49 Ala. 115 V. Highland Ave., etc. R. R. Co., 119 Ala. 105; 24 So. 114 South African Supply, etc. Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 268 58, 468, 1473 South African Tys. v. Wal- Ungton (1898), A. C. 309 1414, 1414, 1415 South Baptist" Soc. i>. Oapp, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 35 South Bay Meadow Dam Co. V. Gray, 30 Me. 547 South Bend Chilled Plow Co. V. George C. Cribb Co., 97 Wise. 230 ; 72 N. W. 749 South Carolina v. Port Royal, etc. Ry. Co., 89 Fed. 565 397 233 961 South Carolina Mutual Ins. Co. V. Price, 67 S. Car. 207; 45 S. E. 173 South Carolina R. R. Co. v. Wilmington, etc. R. R. Co., 7 S. Car. 410 South Covington, etc. Ry. Co. V. Gest, 34 Fed. 628 1644, 1654 386 1632 1456, 1457 clxxxviii South Dakota v. North Caro- lina, 192 U. S. 286; 24 Sup. Ct. 269 154 South Durham Brewery Co., 31 Ch. D. 261 431, 439, 441 South Georgia, etc. R. R. Co. V. Ayres, 56 Ga. 230 609, 610 South Joplin Land Co. v. Case, 104 Mo. 572; 16 S. W. 390 322 South London Fish Market, 39 Ch. D. 324 1181 South Milwaukee Co. v. Mur- phy, 112 Wise. 614; 88 N. W. 583; 58L. R. A. 82 600, 605 South Missouri, etc. Co. v. Crommer (Mo.), 101 S. W. 22 271, 273 South School Dist. v. Blakes- lee, 13 Conn. 227 998 South Staflfordshire Ry. Co. v. Burnside, 5 Ex. 129 624, 624 South St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Plate, 92 Mo. 614; 5 S. W. 199 1636 South Texas Nat. Bank v. Texas, etc. Lumber Co., 30 Tex. Civ. App. 412; 70 S. W. 768 • 705, 705 South Western R. R. Co. v. Thomason, 40 Ga. 408 420, 792 South Western, etc. Ry. Co. V. Hays, 63 Ark. 355; 38 S. W. 665 1627 South Western of Venezuela Ry. Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 701 1240 South Yorkshire Ry., etc. Co. V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 9 Ex. 55 824, 1107 South Yorkshire Wine Co., 8 Times L. R. 413 791 Southampton Dock Co. v. Richards, 1 Man. & Gr. 448 614, 915, 923, 925, 925 Southampton, etc. Steam Boat Co., 4 De G. J. & S. 200 175 Southern Bank v. Williams, 25 Ga. 534 245 Southern Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Casa Grande Stable Co., 128 Ala. 624 ; 29 So. 654 844 Southern Brazilian, etc. Ry. Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 78 40, 63, 67, 1470 Southern Counties Bank v. ■ Rider, 73 L. T. 374 996 TABLE OP CASES [Tlie references are to pages] Southern Counties Bank v. Kirkwood, 11 Times L. R. 563 996 Southern Development Co. v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 79 Fed. 212; 24 CCA. 497 1570 Southern Electric Securities Co. V. State (Miss.), 44 So. 785 57, 263, 265, 1063 Southern Life, etc. Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110; 58 Am. Dec. 448 868 Southern Loan Co. v. Morris, 2 Pa. St. 175; 44 Am. Dec. 188 865 Southern Pac. Co. v. Block, 84 Tex. 21; 19 S. W. 300 381 Southern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Doyle, 11 Fed. 253 1495, 1543 Southern Plank Road Co. v. Hixon, 5 Ind. 165 994, 1062 Southern Ry. Co. v. Adams, 76 Fed. 504 ; 22 C. C. A. 300 1570 V. American Brake Co., 76 Fed. 502; 22 C C A. 298 1570 V. Bouknight, 70 Fed. 442; 17 C C. A. 181 1543 V. Carnegie Steel Co., 76 Fed. 492; 22 C C A. 289; 176 U. S. 257; 20 Sup. a. 347 1517, 1560, 1562, 1564, 1565, 1567, 1570, 1571, 1572 V. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 U. S. 257 ; ^0 Sup. Ct. 347 1562, 1565, 1567, 1570, 1571, 1572 V. Chapman Jack Co., 117 Fed. 424; 54 C C. A. 598 1570, 1572 V. Dunlop Mills, 76 Fed. 505; 22 C. C A. 302 1570 V. Ensign Mfg. Co., 117 Fed. 417; 54 C C A- 591 1570 V. North Carolina Corp. Comm., 104 Fed. 700 891 V. Tillett, 76 Fed. 507; 22 C C A. 303 1562, 1567 Southern Trust, etc. Co. v. Yeatman, 134 Fed. 810; 67 C C A. 456 646 Southport, etc. Banking Co., 55 L. J. Ch. 497 191, 193 Sovereen, etc. Co. v. Whitside, 12 Ont. L. R. 638 994, 997, 1165, 1165, 1204 Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 171 665 V. Lattimore, 3 Giff. 16 629, 962 Spader v. Mural Decoration Mfg. Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 18; 20 Atl. 378 1242 Spangler v. Indiana, etc. Ry. Co., 21 111. 276 607 Spargo's Case, 8 Ch. 407 642, 642 Sparks ■1). Company-, etc. of the Liverpool Waterworks, 13 Ves. 428 581, 662 V. Dispatch Transfer Co., 104 Mo. 531; 15 S. W. 417; 24Am. St. Rep. 351; 12 L. R. A. 714 1381 V. Dunbar, 102 Ga. 129; 29 S. E. 295 874, 875, 878 V. Farmers' Bank, 3 Del. Ch. 274 1185 V. Lower Payette Ditch Co., 2 Idaho 1030; 29 Pac. 134 652 V. Woodstock Iron, etc. Co., 87 Ala. 294 ; 6 So. 195 130, 220 Sparrow v. E. Bement & Sons, 142 Mich. 441; 105 N. W. 881 1660 Spaulding v. North Milwaukee Town Site Co., 106 Wise. 481; 81 N. W. 1064 322, 982, 1331 Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 20; 28 Am. Dec. 513 156 V. Grant, 16 Mass. 9 1127 Speer v. Bordeleau (Colo.), 79 Pac. 332 630, 645 V. Colbert, 200 U. S. 130; 26 Sup. Ct. 201 1186 Speight Mfg. Co., Boultbee's Case, 16 Ont. App. 508, 519 212 Speir, Re, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 149; 74 N. Y. Supp. 555 430 Spellissy v. Cook & Bem- heimer Co., 58 N. Y. App. Div. 283; 68 N. Y. Supp. 995 748, 798 Spence v. Mobile, etc. Ry. Co., 79 Ala. 576 1416, 1433, 1437 Spencers. Brooks, 97 Ga. 681 ; 25 S. E. 480 1611, 1614 V. James, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 327; 31 S. W. 540; 43 S. W. 556 751 Spering's Appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11; 10 Am. Rep. 684 1268, 1274, 1278 Sperry v. Dransfield, 2 New Zeal. (Sup. Ct.) 319 588 clxxxix TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Spier V. Hyde, 92 N. Y. App. Div. 467; 87 N. Y. Supp. 285 335 Spies V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 30 Fed. 397 1529, 1586, 1679 V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 40 Fed. 34; 6L.R.A. 565 1679, 1680 Spiller V. Paris Skating Rink Co., 7 Ch. D. 368 Spinney v. Meloon (N. H.), 68 Atl. 410 1502, 1534, 1534 Spinning v. Home Building, etc. Ass'n, 26 Oh. St. 483 Spiral Globe (1902), 2 Ch. 209 Spitzel V. Chinese Corp., 15 Times L. R. 281 Spokes V. Grosvenor Hotel, etc. Co. (1897), 2 Q. B. 124 286 138 1396 193 974, 975 1144 16 337 733 Spooner v. Phillips, 62 Conn. 62; 24 Atl. 524; 16L.R.A. 461 Spotswood V. Morris (Idaho), 85 Pao. 1094 Spottiswoode's Case, 6 De G. M. & G. 345 Sprague v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 10 Blatchf. 173 V. National Bank of America, 172 111. 149; 50 N. E. 19; 64 Am. St. Rep. 17; 42 L. R. A. 606 620, 647 V. Smith, 29 Vt. 421 ; 70 Am. Dec. 424 1582, 1582 Spreckels v. Gorrill (Cal.), 92 Pac. 1011 181, 184 V. Nevada Bank, 113 Cal. 272; 45 Pac. 329; 33 L. R. A. 459; 54 Am. St. Rep. 348 807, 810 Sprigg V. Commonwealth Title Ins., etc. Co., 206 Pa. St. 548; 56 Atl. 33 1412 Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49 493, 493, 632 Spring Valley Water Works, 17 Cal. 132 103 V. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 434 228, 304 Springer v. Bigford, 55 111. App. 198 V. Chicago Real Estate, etc. Co., 202 ni. 17; 66 N. E. 850 Springfield Wagon Co. v. Bank of Batesville, 68 Ark. 234; 57S. W. 257 Sproat V. Porter, 9 Mass. 300 408 848 770 308 Sproul V. Standard Glass Co., 201 Pa. 103; 50 Atl. 1003 767, 768, 1284 S. P. Smith Lumber Co., 132 Fed. 618 518 , 132 Fed. 620 85, 838 Squair v. Lookout Mountain Co., 42 Fed. 729 941 Squires v. Brown, 22 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 35 202, 205, 1181, 1182, 1262, 1359 Stace and Worth's Case, 4 Ch. 682 193, 1163, 1164 Stackpole v. Seymour, 127 Mass. 104 751 Stacy V. Bank of Illinois, 5 111. 91 1298 V. Cherokee, etc. Works, 70 S. Car. 178; 49 S. E. 223 1321 V. Glen EUyn Hotel, etc. Co., 223 ni. 546; 79 N. E. 133 81 Stafford v. Produce Exchange Banking Co., 61 Oh. St. 160 ; 55 N. B. 162; 76 Am. St. Rep. 371 574, 775 V. Produce Exchange Banking Co., 16 Oh. Cire. Ct. 50 557 V. St. John, 164 Ind. 277; 73 N. E. 596 1359 Stafford Bank v. Palmer, 47 Conn. 443 252 Stafford Springs St. Ry. Co. V. Middle River Mfg. Co. (Conn.), 66 Atl. 775 1199, 1200 Staffordshire Gas & Coke Co., 66 L. T. 413 1227, 1230 Stainback v. Junk Bros., etc. Co.,98Tenn.306; 39S. W. 530 1489 Stainsby v. Frazer's Metallic, etc. Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 98 Standard Bank of Australia, 24 Vict. L. R. 304 Standard Gold Mining Co. v. Byers, 31 Wash. 100; 71 Pac. 766 Standard Mfg. Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 627 Standard Oil Co. v. Comm. (Ky.), 91 S. W. 1128 Standard Telephone & Electric Co., 157 Fed. 106 Standing v. Bowring, 31 Ch. D. 282 Stanford Land Co. v. Steidle, 28 Wash. 72; 68 Pac. 178 283, 287 1191 1250 1395 232 1553 704 230 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Stanley v. Chester, etc. Ry. Co., 3 Myl. & C. 773 281 V. Luse, 36 Oreg. 25; 58 Pao. 75 1296, 1312 V. Moore, 17 Vict. L. R. 285 , 928 r V. Sheffield Land, etc. Co., 83 Ala. 260; 4 So. 34 1372 Stanley's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 535 65, 1513 Stanton v. Alabama, etc. R.R. Co., 31 Fed. 585 1651, 1652 V. Alabama, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 506 1651, 1652, 1653 V. Alabama, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 523 1489, 1494, 1525, 1530 V. Gilpin, 38 Wash. 191; 80 Pac. 290 1262 ■». New York, etc. Ry. Co. 59 Conn. 272; 22 Atl. 300; 21 Am. St. Rep. 110 283 Stanwood v. Sterling Metal Co., 107 m. App. 569 239, 247 Staples V. Eastman's Photo- graphic, etc. Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 303 459 Star Loan Ass'n v. Moore, 4 Penn. (Del.) 308; 55 Atl. 946 557 Stark Bank v. U. S. Pottery Co., 34 Vt. 144 92, 1187, 1296 Stark, Ex parte (1897), 1 Ch. 575 350, 350, 351, 351, 353, 354, 362, 363, 364, 364 Starkey v. Bank of England (1903), A. C. 114 701, 758 Starkweather v. American Bible Soc, 72 HI. 50; 22 Am. Rep. 133 69 Starr v. Shepard (Mich.), 108 N. W. 709 . 946 Starrett v. Rockland, etc. Ins. Co., 65 Me. 374 210 State V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Gill (Md.) 363 498, 1103, 1111, 1116, 1119, 1119, 1119, 1122 V. Bank of Charleston, Dud. (S. Car.) 187; 35 Am. Dec. 135 500 V. Bank of Louisiana, 6 La. 745 . 1111 V. Bank of Louisiana, 5 Mart. N. 8. (La.) 327 1111, 1112 V. Bank of Ogalalla, 65 Nebr. 20; 90 N. W. 961; 91 N. W. 497 518, 520, 520, 529 998 6 429 1633 94 263 480 1583 State V. Bonnell, 35 Oh. St. 10 V. Brown, 64 Md. 199; 1 Atl. 54; 6 Atl. 172 1436, 1583, 1624 V. Brown, 73 Md. 484; 21 Atl. 374 1673, 1682, 1682 V. Brown (Utah), 93 Pac. 52 230, 231 V. Cape Girardeau, etc. Road Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. 761 V. Carpenter, 51 Oh. St. 83; 37 N. E. 261; 46 Am. St. Rep. 556 V. Central Iowa Ry. Co., 71 Iowa 410; 32N.W.409; 60 Am. Rep. 806 V. Central Ohio, etc. Ass'n, 29 Oh. St. 399 V. Chute, 34 Minn. 135; 24 N. W. 353 1032, 1057, 1060 V. Collins (R. I.), 67 Atl. 796 V. Consolidated Gas, etc. Co. (Md.), 65 Atl. 40 V. Consolidated Ry. Co., 67 Me. 479 V. Consolidation Coal Co., 46 Md. 1 42, 867 V. Cowen, 94 Md. 487; 51 Atl. 171 1682 V. Curtis, 9 Nevada 325 557, 561, 1206, 1225, 1225, 1227 V. Debenture Guarantee, etc. Co. (La.), 26 So. 600 46, 258 V. Ferguson, 33 N. H. 424 567 V. Ferris, 42 Conn. 560 1017, 1024,'ll76, 1176, 1178 V. Florida Central R. R. Co., 15 Fla. 690 393, 986, 1500 V. Franklin Bank, 10 Oh. St. 91 499, 516, 525 V. Glenn, 18 Nevada 34; 1 Pac. 186 K.Harris, 3 Ark. 570; 36 Am. Dec. 460 V. Home Co-operative Union, 63 Oh. St. 547; 59 N. E. 220 V. How, 1 Mich. 512 V. Hunton, 28 Vt. 594 V. Kupferle, 44 Mo. 154; 100 Am. Dec. 265 1226, 1231 V. Leete, 16 Nevada 242 1019, 1176, 1177 V. Lehre, 7 Rich. Law (S. Car.) 234 1065 1512 1231 23 252 1025 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] State V. MoDaniel, 22 Oh. St. 354 1031, 1066, 1169, 1249 V. McGrath, 86 Mo. 241- 1006 V. Marchant, 37 Oh. St. 2.51 1059, 1059, 1062 V. Mead, 27 Vt. 722 25 V. Morristown Fire Ass'n, 23 N. J. Law 195 416 • V. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Nebr. 700; 46 N. W. 155 263 V. New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co., 20 La. Ann. 489 1027, 1066, 1067 V. New Orleans Water Supply Co., Ill La. 1049; 36 So. 117 39, 261 V. Northern Central Ry. Co., 18 Md. 193 1510, 1604, 1676 V. Oberlin Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 35 Oh. St. 258 517, 525 V. Overton, 24 N. J. Law 435; 61 Am. Dec. 671 569 V. Pan American Co. (Del.), 61 Atl. 398 895, 906 V. Patterson, 159 Mo. 98; 59 S. W. 1104 384 V. Perkins, 90 Mo. App. 603 1203, 1210 V. Pettineli, 10 Nevada 141 994, 1006, 1023, 1056 V. Pittam, 32 Wash. 137 ; 72 Pac. 1042 231 V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. Co., 45 S. Car. 470; 23 S. E. 383 958, 968, 1646, 1647 V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. Co., 84 Fed. 67 1615, 1617 V. Railroad Commis- sioners, 41 N. J. Law 235 1618 V. Rohlffs, 19 Atl. Rep. 1099 (N. J.) 1042 V. Scott County, etc. Road Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. 752 106 V. Smith, 15 Oreg. 98; 14 Pac. 814; 15 Pac. 137, 386 1018, 1022, 1058, 1066, 1176, 1217 V. Spartansburg, etc. R. R. Co., 8 S. Car. 129 1452, 1453, 1465 V. Stockley, 45 Oh. St. 304; 13 N. E. 279 1016 V. Stone, 118 Mo 388; 24 S. W. 164; 25 L. R. A. 243; 40 Am. St. Rep. 388 25, 25 V. Stormont, 24 Kan. 686 106 State V. Taylor, 55 Oh. St. 61; 44 N. E. 513 47, 125, 133, 134 V. Topeka Water Co., 61 Kans. 547; 60 Pac. 337 1521 V. Tudor, 5 Day (Conn.) 329; 5 Am. Dec. 162 1040, 1040, 1249 V. Wright, 10 Nevada 167 996 State ex inf. Atty.-Gen. v. Hogan, 163 Mo. 43; 63 S. W. 378 240 State ex inf. Hadley v. Delmar Jockey Club (Mo.), 92 S. W. 185 262 V. Meramec Rod, etc. Club (Mo.), 98 S. W. 815 262 State ex rel. Atty.-Gen. v. Conklin, 34 Wise. 21 590, 591 V. Lee, 21 Oh. St. 662 119 V. Wood, 13 Mo. App. 139 219, 645 State ex rel. Bellamore v. Rombotis (La.), 45 So. 43 1007 State ex rel. Benedict v. Southern Mineral, etc. Co., 108 La. 24; 32 So. 174 431 State ex rel. Bergenthal v. Bergenthal, 72 Wise. 314; 39 N. W. 566 900, 906 State ex rel. Biddle v. Superior Court (Wash.), 87 Pac. 40 175, 921 State ex rel. Bomefield v. Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155 751 State ex rel. Bourdette v. Gas- light Co., 49 La. Ann. 1556; 22 So. 815 892, 898, 900, 902 State ex rel. Bradford v. West- ern Irrigating Co., 40 Kans. 96; 19 Pac. 349; 10 Am. St. Rep. 166 18, 388 State ex rel. Brun v. Oftedal, 72Miun. 498 ; 75 N. W. 692 1 162 State ex rel. Bruning v. Hobo- ken Printing, etc. Co., 67 N. J. Law 119; 50 Atl. 906 895, 905 State ex rel. Bugbeeu. Holmes, 60 Nebr. 40 984 State ex rel. Burke v. Citizens' Bank, 51 La. Ann. 426; 25 So. 318 896, 903, 904, 904 State ex rel. Canal Bank v. North American, etc. Co., 112 La. 441; 36 So. 488 807 State ex rel. Carolina Iron Co. V. Abernethy, 94 N. Car. 545 228 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] State ex rel. Carroll v. Coriiing State Savings Bank (Iowa), 113 N. W. 500 864 State ex reL Clapp v. Critoh- ett, 37 Minn. 13; 32 N. W. 787 117, 137, 137 State ex rel. CoUings v. Beck, 81 Ind. 500 , 117 State ex rel. Columbia R. R. Co. V. Superior Court, (Wash.), 88 Pac. 332 175, 921 State ex rel. Corey v. Curtis, 9 Nevada 325 557, 561, 1206, 1225, 1225, 1227 State ex rel. Cuppel v. Mil- waukee Chamber of Com- merce, 47 Wise. 670; 3 N. W. 760 580 State ex rel. Dent v. HoUoway, 1 Oh. arc. Dec. 90 1016 State ex rel. Donnell Mfg. v. McGrath, 86 Mo. 239 488 State ex rd. Doyle v. Laugh- lin, 53 Mo. App. 542 895, 903 State ex rel. Elliot v. Guer- rero, 12 Nevada 105 429 State ex rel. Ely, etc. Co. v. Swanger, 195 Mo. 539; 93 S. W. 932 487 State ex rel. English v. Laz- arus (Mo.), 105 S. W. 780 894, 895, 906 State ex rd. Fears v. New Orleans, etc. Exchange, 112 La. 868; 36 So. 760 906 State ex rd. Frank v. Swanger, 190 Mo. 561; 89 S. W. 872 473, 473, 1028 State ex rel. Gorman v. Nich- . ols (Wash.), 82 Pac. 741 114 State ex rel. Grimm v. Man- hattan Rubber Co., 149 Mo. 181; 50 S. W. 321 1198, 1212, 1328 State ex rel. Higby v. Higby Co. (Iowa), 106 N. W. 382 55, 56, 527 State ex rel. Home Bldg., etc. Ass'n ■e. Rotwitt, 17 Mont. 537; 43 Pac. 922 125, 488 State ex rel. Howe v. Shelby- ville, etc. Turnpike Co., 41 Ind. 151 100 State ex rel. Howerton v. Tate, 70 N. Car. 161 1228 State ex rel, Hutchinson v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355; 5 S. W. 29 . 125, 374, 376 State ex rel. Jackson v. New- man, 51 La. Ann. 833; 25 So. 408; 72 Am. St. Rep. 476 1026 State ex rel. Johnson v. St. Louis Transit Co. (Mo.), 100 S. W. 1126 894, 895, 904 State ex rd. Jurgens v. Con- sumers' Brewing Co., 115 La. 782; 40 So. 45 750 State ex rel. Kennedy v. Union Merchants' Exchange, 2 Mo. App. 96 576, 581 State ex rel. Koons v. First Nat. Bank, 89 Ind. 302 716 State ex rel. Lawrence v. Mc- Gann, 64 Mo. App. 225 1061, 1065 State ex rel. Le Blanc & Railey v. Michel, 113 La. 4; 36 So. 869 53, 54 State ex rel. Lederer v. Inter- National Investment Co., 88 Wise. 512; 60 N. W. 796; 43 Am. St. Rep. 920 47, 113 State ex rel. Mallinckrodt v. McGrath, 75 Mo. 424 368 State ex rel. Martin v. Bien- ville Oil Works Co., 28 La. Ann. 204 894, 896, 904 V. New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co., 30 La. Ann. 308 576, 747 State ex rel. McCay v. New Orleans Stock Exchange, 114La. 324; 38SO.204 430,431 State ex rel. Mitchell v. Horan, 22 Wash, 197; 60 Pac. 135 1015, 1249 State ex rel. Newark, etc. R. R. Co. V. GoU, 32 N. J. Law 285 1376 State ex rel. Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Cook, 178 Mo. 189; 77 S. W. 559 488, 1006 State ex rel. O'Brien v. Beth- lehem, etc. Gravel Road Co., 32 Ind. 357 124 State ex rel. O'Hara v. Na- tional Biscuit Co. (N. J.), 54 Atl. 241 901 State ex rel. Osborne, etc. v. Nichols, 38 Wash. 309; 80 Pac. 462 114, 136, 386 State ex rel. Padgett v. Foulkes, 94 Ind. 493 125 State ex rel. Page v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266 499, 509, 523, 745, 1027, 1210, 1210 cxcui TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] State ex rel. Phillips v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 25 La. Ann. 413 429, 431 State ex rel. Plock & Co. v. Cobb, 64 Ala. 127 1530 State ex rel. Rosenfeld v. Einstein, 46 N. J. Law 479 1252 State ex rel. Ross v. Ander- son, 31 Ind. App. 34; 67 N. E. 207 116 State ex rel. Ryan v. Cronan, 23 Nevada 437; 49Pac.41 1017, 1020, 1056, 1056, 1249, 1249 State ex rel. Sanche v. Webb, 110 Ala. 214; 20 So. 462 232 State ex rel. Schroeder v. Per- kins, 90 Mo. App. 603 1234 State ex rel. Spinney v. Sportsmen's Park Ass'n, 29 Mo. App. 326 902, 905, 905 State ex rel. Thompson v. Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co., 16 S. Car. 524 415, 429, 450, 450, 455 V. Colias (Ala.), 43 So. 190 137 State ex rel. Tozer v. Probate Court (Minn.), 113 N. W. 888 679, 816, 882 State ex rel. Voyles v. French Lick Springs Hotel Co. (Ind.), 82 N. E. 801 263 State ex rel. Walker v. Cork- ins, 123 Mo. 56; 27 S. W. 363 47 State ex rel. Walkins v. Don- nell Mfg. Co. (Mo.), 107 S. W. 1112 903, 905 State ex rel. Watkins v. North Am. Land, etc. Co., 105 La. 379; 29 So. 910 906 State ex rel. Wilson v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 29 Mo. App. 301 902, 902, 903, 905 State use M. E. Church v. Warren, 28 Md. 338 255, 303 State use Murray v. Murray, 24 Md. 310; 87 Am. Dec. 608 799 State Bank v. Cox, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.), 344 723 State Bank of Ohio v. Fox, 3 Blatchf. 431 522, 526 State Board of Agriculture v. atizens' Ry. Co., 47 Ind. 407; 17 Am. Rep. 702 852 State Council, etc. v. Na- tional Council, etc. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 561 378 844 1007 1381 1208 996, 1007 91 1517 State Ins. Co. v. Fanners' Mut. Ins. Co., 65 Nebr. 34; 90 N. W. 997 V. Gennett, 2 Tenn. Ch. 100 699, 715 V. Sax, 2 Tenn. Ch. 507 715 State Nat. Bank v. Duncan, 35 So. 569 V. John Moran Packing Co., 68 111. App. 25 V. Union Bank, 168 111. 519; 48 N. E. 82 State of Wyoming Syndicate (1901), 2 Ch. 431 State Savings Ass'n v. Nixon-Jones Printing Co., 25 Mo. App. 642 558, 574 State Security Bank v. Hos- kins, 130 Iowa 339; 106 N. W. 764 State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. Co., 120 Fed. 398 V. National Land, etc. Co., 72 Fed. 575 1602, 1602 Steacy v. Little Rock, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Dillon 348 647 Steam Dredge No. 1, 87 Fed. 760 1238, 1247 SteamNavigationCo. v. Weed, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 378 853 Steamship Dock Co. v. Her- on's Adm'x, 52 Pa. St. 280 578, 579, 768 Stebbins v. Merritt, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 27 397, 406, 995, 999, 1055 Steel V. Island City, etc. Co. (Oreg.), 83 Pac. 783 Steele v. Gold, etc. Co. (Colo.), 95 Pac. 349 V. Lawyer, 91 Pac. 958 Steele's Case, 1 Megone 246 Steger v. Davis, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 23; 27 S. W. 1068 Stein V. Howard, 65 Cal. 616 4 Pac. 662 V. Indianapolis, etc. Ass'n, 18 Ind. 237; 81 Am, Dec. 353 V. Marks, 44 N. Y. Misc. 140^ 89 N. Y. Supp. 921 Steinmetz v. Versailles, etc. Turnpike Co., 57 Ind. 457 117, 1227 Steinway, Re, 159 N. Y. 250; 53 N. E. 1103; 45 L. R. A. 461 894, 895, 903 1131 1322 1079 1203 556 630 383 552 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Stendell v. Longshoremen's, etc. Ass'n, 116 La. 974; 41 So. 228 90 Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 480 808 Stephens v. FoUett, 43 Fed. 842 165, 172 V. Mysore Reefs (Kan- gundy) Mining Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 745 38, 98, 99 Stephenson v. Yokes, 27 Ont. 691 (Can.) 560, 560, 584, 1043 1183 Stephenson's Case (19"00), 2 Ch. 442 642 Stem V. Kirkby Lumber Co., 134 Fed. 509 184 V. McKee, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 142; 75 N. Y. Supp. 157 98, 213 V. Wisconsin Central R. R. Co., 1 Fed. 555 1587 Sternberg v. Wolff, 56 N. J. Eq. 389; 39 Atl. 397; '67 Am. St. Rep. 494; 39 L. R. A. 762 958 Stetson V. Northern Invest- ment Co., 104 Iowa 393; 73 N. W. 869 1228, 1309, 1311 Stettauer v. N. Y., etc. Con- struction Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 46; 6 Atl. 303 907 Stevedore's Beneficial Ass'n, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 130 111, 111, 116 Stevens v. Atchison, etc. Ry. Co., 87 Mo. App. 26 1609 V. Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co., 31 Barb. 590 1396 V. Carp River Iron Co., 57 Mich. 427; 24 N. W. 160 1379 V. Davison, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 819; 98 Am. Deo. 692 559, 560, 957, 958, 959, 959 V. Eden Meeting House Soc, 12 Vt. 688 . 1000 V. Eldridge, 4 CliSe 348 1586 V. Hurlbut Bank, 31 Conn. 146 808 7 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 104 1617 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Blatchf. 412 l453, 1453 V. South Devon Ry. Co., 9 Hare 313 450 V. South Devon Ry. Co., 20 L. J. Ch. 491 87 Stevens i>. Union Trust Co., 57 Hun 498; 11 N. Y. Supp. 268 1586, 1688, 1590, 1645 V. U. S. Steel Corp. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 905 nil, 1112, 1112, 1113 V. Watson, 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 302 1503, 1520 Stevens Hospital v. Dyas, 15 Ir. Ch. 405 395 Stevens, Re, 187 N. Y. 471; ' 80 N. E. 358 1154, 1446 Stevenson v. Dubuque, etc. Mining Co., 34 Iowa 577 1320 Stevenson's Case, 2 Megone 360 1416, 1419 Stewart v. Austin, 3 Eq. 299 182, 187, 342, 343 V. Chesapeake, etc. Canal.Co., 1 Fed. 361 1586 V. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 5 Fed. 149 1679, 1683, 1683, 1683 V. Erie, etc. Transporta- tion Co., 17 Minn. 372 966 V. Firemen's Ins. Co., 53 Md. 565 792, 797, 798, 814 V. Harris, 69 Kans. 498; 77 Pac. 277; 66 L. R. A. 261 1351, 1352 ti. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 38 N. J. Law 505 1300, 1300, 1315 V. Mahoney Mining Co., 54 Cal. 149 1010, 1021 V. Rutherford, 74 Ga. 435 177, 182, 187, 213 V. St. Louis, etc. Rail Co., 41 Fed. 736 1309, 1320 V. Walla Walla, etc. Pub. Co., 1 Wash. St. 521; 20 Pac. 605 617, 696, 698, 699 V. Washington, etc. S. S. Co., 187 U. S. 466; 23 Sup. Ct. 161 • 949 V. Wisconsin Central R. Co., 95 Fed. 577 1569 Stewart Paper Mfg. Co. v. Rau, 92 Ga. 511; 17 S. E. 748 236 Stewart's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 291 1632 Stewart's Case, 1 Ch. 574 143, 214 Stickel V. Atwood, 25 R. I. 456; 56 Atl. 687 1355 Stickney's Will, Re, 85 Md. 79; 36 Atl. 654; 35L.R.A. 693; 60 Am. St. Rep. 308 847 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Stiewell v. Webb Press Co. (Ark.), 94 S. W. 915 1199 Stiilman v. Dougherty, 44 Md. 380 608 Stobart V. Forbes, 13 Mani- toba 184 54 Stobo V. Davis Provision Co., 54 lU. App. 440 1212 Stock, Ex parte, 33 L. J. Ch. 731 915, 1174 Stoeken's Case, 3 Ch. 412 614, 667 Stooker v. Wedderbum, 3 K. & J. 393 338 Stockholders i>. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Bush (Ky.) 62 1000 Stockton V. Harmon, 32 Fla. 312; 13 So. 833 1207 Stockton, etc. Works v. Houser, 109 Cal. 1 ; 41 Pac. 809 1200, 1201 Stockton Iron Co., 2 Ch. D. 101 774 Stoddard v. Bell & Co., 100 N. Y.App. Div.389; 91 N. Y. Supp. 477 980 V. Shetucket Foundry Co., 34 Conn. 542 1122 Stoehlke v. Hahn, 158 111. 79; 42 N. E. 150 1193 Stoever v. Whitman's Lessee, 6 Binney (Pa.) 416 925 Stohr V. Musical Fund Soc, 82 Cal. 657; 22 Pac. 1125 578, 586 Stokes V. Continental Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 285; 78 N. E. 1090 500, 500, 500, 501, 501, 506, 506, 507, 507 ■». Findlay, 4 McCrary 205 147, 220 V. Lebanon, etc. Turn- pike Co., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241 664 V. N. J. Pottery Co., 46 N. J. Law 237 880, 1373 Stone V. Great Western Oil Co., 41 111. 85 1232 V. Kellogg, 165 111. 192; 46 N. E. 222; 56 Am. St. Rep. 240; 62 111. App. 444 894, 896, 900, 902 V. Meredith, 78 L. T. 492 1157 V. Pontiac, etc. R. R. Co., 139 Mich. 265; 102 N. W. 752 978 V. Rottman, 183 Mo. 552; 82 S. W. 76 1279, 1288 Stoney v. American Life Ins. Co., 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 635 1407 Storey, Ex parte, 6 Times L. R. 357; 62L.T. 791 178 Storrow v. Texas, etc. Mfg. Ass'n, 87 Fed. 612; 31 C. C. A. 139 464, 466 Stouffer V. Smith-Davis Hard- ware Co. (Ala.), 45 So. 621 863 Stout V. Security Trust, etc. Co., 82 N. Y. App. Div. 129 ; 81 N. Y. Supp. 708 1245, 1247, 1248 V. Zulick, 48 N. J. Law 599; 7 Atl. 362 118, 241, 243 Stoutimore v. Clark, 70 Mo. 471 237 Stovell V. Alert Gold Mining Co. (Colo.), 87 Pac. 1071 917 Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397 129, 253 Stoystown, etc. Co. v. Gra- ver, 45 Pa. St. 386 1196, 1196 Straker v. Wilson, 6 Ch. 503 1141 Strand Music Hall Co., 3DeG. J. & S. 147 1416 Strang v. Camden Lodge (N. J.), 64 Atl. 93 586 V. Montgomery, etc. R. R. Co., 3 Woods 613 1631, 1631 — ^, Ex parte, 5 Ch. 492 613 Strange v. Houston, etc. R. R. Co., 53 Texas 162 723, 732, 732 733 Strapp V. Bull (1895), 2 Ch. 1 1655 Stratford v. Mallory, 70 N. J. Law 294; 58 Atl. 347 1066 Stratford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stratton, 2 B. & Ad. 518 611 Stratton v. Allen, 13 N. J. Eq. 229 1323 V. European, etc. Ry., 74 Me. 422 1582, 1582, 1582 V. European, etc. Ry. Co. 76 Me. 269 1582, 1582 Straus V. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 Oh. St. 59 845 V. United Telegram Co., 164 Mass. 130; 41 N. E. 57 1430, 1675 Stray v. Russell, 1 E. & E. 888 779, 781 Streatham & General Estates Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 15 1513 Streator Independent Tel., etc. Co. V. Continental Tel. Const. Co., 217 111. 577; 75 N. E. 546 288 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] Street v. Maryland, etc. Ry. Co., 59 Fed. 25 1560 Street & Co., 17 Vict. L. R. 717 115, 629 Streeten v. Robinson, 102 Cal. 542; 36 Pac. 946 1375, 1382 Streight v. Junk, 59 Fed. 321; 8 C. C. A. 137 960, 967 Strickland v. Nat. Salt Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 982 440, 452, 635 Stringer, Ex parte, 9 Q. B. D. / 436 767, 776 Stringer's Case, 4 Ch. 475 1094, 1117 Strobel v. Brownell, 16 N. Y. Misc. 657; 40 N. Y. Supp. 702 1296 Strong V. Brooklyn Cross- Town R. R. Co., 93 N. Y. 426 532, 540, 540, 541, 542 V. Cariyle Press (1893), 1 Ch. 268 1699 Strop V. Hughes (Mo.), 101 S. W. 146 392 Stroud V. Royal Aquarium, etc. Soc, 89 L. T. 243 82 Strouse v. Sylvester, 134 Cal. xx; 66 Pac. 660 611 Stuart V. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1; 18Sup. Ct. 274 619 V. Valley R. R. Co., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 146 168, 209, 922 Stuart's Trusts, Re, 4 Ch. D. 213 1107 Stubbs, Ltd., Joshua (1891), 1 Ch. 475 1581, 1598 Studdert v. Grosvenor, 33 Ch. D. 528 89 Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Montgomery, 74 Mo. 101 237 Stufflebeam v. De Lashmutt, 83 Fed. 449 620 — — ■ ■». De Lashmutt, 101 Fed. 367 777 Stunt V. Newark Weldless, etc. Co., 22 Oh. Circ. Ct. 120 191, 191 Sturdevant v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 62Nebr. 472; 87 N. W. 156 84, 853, 861 — — - V. Farmers', etc. Bank, 69 Nebr. 220; 95 N. W. 819; 62 Nebr. 472; 87 N. W. 156 84 Sturges V. Knapp, 31 Vt. 1 1487, 1622, 1671 V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246 1404 V. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384 1180, 1185, 1185 Sturtevants v. City of Alton, 3 McLean 393 403 Succession of Lanaux, 46 La. Ann. 1036; 15 So. 708 804 Succession of Thomson, 46 La. Ann. 1074; 15 So. 379 667 Suffell V. Bank of England, 9 Q. B. D. 555 1435 Sugden v. Alsbury, 45 Ch. D. 237 1142 Sullivan v. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co., 135 Mich. 661; 98 N. W. 756; 64 L. R. A. 673; 106 Am. St. Rep. 403 293 — — V. Parkes, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 221; 74 N. Y. Supp. 787 1043, 1050 V. Portland, etc. R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 806 454 Sullivan County Club v. Butler, 26 N. Y. Misc. 306; 56 N. Y. Supp. 1 650, 651, 653 Summet v. City Realty, etc. Co. (Mo.), 106 S. W. 614 848 Sumner v. Marcy, 3 Woodb. & M. 105 77 Sumter Tobacco Warehouse Co. V. Phoenix Ins. Co. (S. Car.), 56 S. E. 654 228, 302 Sun Printing, etc. Ass'n v. Moore, 183 U. S. 642; 22 Sup. Ct. 240 1277, 1380 Sunken Vessels Recovery Co., 3 De G. & J. 85 189, 193 Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 10 Colo. 327; 15 Pac. 691; 3 Am. St. Rep. 586 732, 747 Supreme Commandery v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436 586 Supreme Lodge v. Knight, 117 Ind. 489; 20 N. E. 479; 3 L. R. A. 409 552, 583, 586 V. Kutscher, 179 111. 340; 53 N. E. 620; 70 Am. St. Rep. 115 552, 560, 585 V. Robbins, 70 Ark. 364; 67 S. W. 758 91S V. Simering, 88 Md. 276; 40 Atl. 723; 71 Am. St. Rep. 409; 41 L. R. A. 720 947, 1250, 1251 V. Trebbe, 179 111. 348; 53 N. E. 730; 70 Am. St. Rep. 120 585 Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias v. Improved Order Knights of Pythias, 113 Mich. 133; 71 N. W. 470; 38 L. R. A. 658 371 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Supreme Tent v. Volkert, 25 Ind.App.627; 57N.E.203 Supreme Tiibe v. Hall, 24 Ind. App.316; 56N. E. 780; 79 Am. St. Rep. 262 Surety Guarantee & Trust Co., 121 Fed. 73; 56 C. C. A. 654 Susquehanna Bridge, etc. Co. V. General Ins. Co., 3 Md. 305; 56Am. Dec. 740 589 662 44 65, 406 589 1625 481, Susquehanna Mut. Fire Ins. Co. V. Elkins, 124 Pa. St. 484; 17 Atl. 24 Sutherland v. Lake Superior, etc. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 459, No. 13, 643 V. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93 486, 487, 494, 529 Sutliff V. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co., 24 Oh. St. 147 1477 Sutton V. English & Colonial Produce Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 502 745, 793, 793, 1177, 1177, 1177 Sutton's Hospital Case, 10 Co. 1 102, 824, 825, 825, 1273 Swan V. North British Aus- tralasian Co. , 2 H. & C. 1 75 ; " 7 H. & N. 603 685, 685, 724 , Ex parte, 7 C. B. n. s. 400 Swann v. Oark, 110 U; S. 602; 4 Sup. Ct. 241 Swansea Dock Co. v. Levien, 20 L. J. Ex. 447 Swartley v. Oak Leaf Cream- ery Co. (Iowa), 113 N. W. 496 Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389 191, 193 Swazey v. Choate Mfg. Co., 48 N. H. 200 Sweatt V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 23 Fed. Cas. 530 Swedish, etc. Mission Soc. v. Lawrence, 79 Minn. 124; 81 N. W. 756 Sweeney v. Tenn., etc. R. R. Co. (Tenn.), 100 S. W. 732 193, 194, 609 Sweeny v. Sugar Co., 30 W. Va. 443; 4 S. E. 431; 8 Am. St. Rep. 88 Sweet V. Montpelier Savings, etc. Co., 69 Kans. 641; 77 Pac. 538 1355, 1357 685 1651 1000 1359 196 23 589 1315 Sweet V. Montpelier Savings, etc. Co. (Kans.), 84 Pac. 542 Sweetland v. Quidnick Co., 11 R. I. 328 Sweney Bros. v. Talcott, 85 Iowa 103; 52 N. W. 106 1355 777 127, 160 Swentzel v. Penn. Bank, 147 Pa. St. 140; 23 Atl. 405, 415; 30 Am. St. Rep. 718; 15 L. R. A. 305 1274 Sweny v. Smith, 7 Eq. 324 666, 948, 952 Swift V. Smith, 65 Md. 428; 5 Atl. 534; 57Am. Rep. 336 873, 873, 1072, 1072, 1072 V. State ex rel. Richard-, son, 7 Houst. (Del.) 338; 6 Atl. 856; 32 Atl. 143; 40 Am. St. Rep. 127 894, 903, 906 , Re, 105 Fed. 493 785 Swim V. Wilson, 90 Cal. 126; 27 Pac. 33; 25 Am. St. Rep. 110; 13 L. R. A. 605 683 Swindell & Co., E. v. Bain- bridge State Bank (Ga.), 60 S. E. 13 866 Swing V. Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. (N. J.), 63 Atl. 899 226 Swisshelm v. Swissvale Laun- dry Co., 95 Pa. St. 367 290 Sword V. Wickersham, 29 Kans. 746 120 Sydney Harbour Collieries Co. V. Grey, 14 Times L. R. 373; 13 Times L. R. 564 356 V. Brighton Brewery Co., 13 W. R. 220 73 Sykes V. Beadon, 11 Ch. D. 170 260 V. People, 132 111. 32; 23 N. E. 391 387 Sylvania, etc. R. Co. v. Hoge (Ga.), 59 S. E. 806 692, 795, 797, 996, 1011, 1012, 1049, 1068, 1164, 1185, 1205 Symon's Case, 5 Ch. 298 708 Synnott v. Cumberland Bldg. Loan Ass'n, 117 Fed. 379; 54 C. C. A. 553 1005, 1044, 1046 V. Gumming, 1 16 Fed. 40 1085 Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 188 232 Syracuse, etc. R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 1 1251 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Syracuse, etc. R. R. Co. v. Gere, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 392 301, 645 T Taber v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co., 15 Ind. 459 1465, 1623 Tabor v. Bank of Leadville (Colo.), 83 Pac. 1060 Tafift V. Presidio, etc. R. R. Co., 84 Cal. 131; 24 Pac. 436; 11 L. R. A. 125; 18 Am. St. Rep. 166 Taft V. Brewster, 9 Johns (N. Y.)334; 6 Am. Dec. 280 V. Harrison, 10 Hare 489 V. Hartford, etc. R. R. Co., 8 R. I. 310; 5 Am. Rep. 575 Tagart v. Northern Central Ry. Co., 29 afd. 557 Taggart v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 24 Md. 563; 89 Am. Dec. 760 175, 188, 188, 614 Tahourdin v. Weston-Super- Mare Grand Pier Co., 4 Times L. R. 124 Tailby v. Official Receiver, 13 A. C. 523 Tait V. Pigott, 32 Wash. 344; 73 Pac. 364 518, 520 V. Pigott, 38 Wash. 59; 80 Pac. 172 517, 520, 520 Tait's Case, 3 Eq. 795 177 Talahasse Mfg. Co., Be, 64 Ala. 667 1423 Taliaferro v. First Nat. Bank, 71 Md. 200; 17 Atl. 1036 694, 701, 723, 724 Talladega Ins. Co. v. Peacock, 67 Ala. 253 Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron Co., 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 382 Talmage v. Pell, 7 N. Y. 328 845, 851 Tanner v. Nichols, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 2191; 80 8. W. 225 235 Tanner's Case, 5 De G. & S. 182 275, 308, 309 Tapley v. Martin, 116 Mass. 275 Tar River Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks (N. Car. )~ 520 1078 687 398 766 450 1476 1174 1504 1377 1359 77, 228 222, 601 Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46 126 Tasker & Sons, W. (1905), 2 • Ch. 587 1418, 1473, 1473, 1524 Tate V. Bates, 118 N. Car. 287; 24S. E. 482; 54 Am. St. Rep. 719 1355, 1357 Taunton v. Royal Ins. Co., 2 Hem. & Mill. 135 81, 931 V. Sheriff of Warwick- shire (1895), 2 Ch. 319 1546 Taurine Co., Re, 25 Ch. D. 118 707, 763, 1215, 1215 Taussig V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 186 Mo. 269; 85 S. W. 378 293, 1246 Tavaglini v. Societa Italiane, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 441 222 Tayler v. Great Indian Peninsula Ry. Co., 4 De G. 6 J. 559 685 Taylor v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co., 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 275 1672 V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 26 1485, 1494 V. Burlington Cotton Mills, 8 Hun (N. Y.) 1 22 V. Cummings, 127 Fed. 108; 62C. C. A. 108 635 V. Decatur Mineral, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 449 957, 969 V. Griswold, 2 Green 222 (14 N. J. Law); 27 Am. Dec. 33 1000, 1013, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1040, 1040 V. Heggie, 83 N. Car. 244 398 V. Miami Exporting Co., 6 Ohio 176 517, 526 V. Modem Woodmen, 72 Kans. 443; 83 Pac. 1099 590 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Fed. 377 1659, 1649 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Fed. 381 1062 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Fed. 386 68 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 9 Fed. 1 1541, 1649 V. Pilsen Joel El. Light Co., 27 Ch. D. 268 516 V. Portsmouth, etc. Ry. Co., 91 Me. 193; 39 Atl. 560; 64 Am. St. Rep. 216 226 V. R. D. Scott & Co. (Mich.), 113 N. W. 32 1068, 1199, 1210, 1212 V. South, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Fed. 152 444 V. Southerlin-Meade To- bacco Co. (Va.), 60 S. E. 132 1379 g^ 'uo^saAjBQ JO jCjunog 91^1 'gI6 ' ■ 86 "AV "S 8 !Se9 "^^ax 69 '^^aao ■a, 'og -Xa TU9}S9j^ sTOcax "Ai. 'S eOT '("xax) 8H^H •a -og •iC'a tuaq^jnog sBxax OOe 66£ M S Sg -sot ddy -Aio xax 81 'ia^unjj •ft^ouaSviiBO'j sBxax 99^ e8T -V "0 '0 t'S !S pa^ Z6 'Mojjo^g •ft u.ssy -a^a '•lOsuoQ SBxax 9E^I '98^1 OOZ "II^Ai. L 'a^FlJSA. '«■ s^xax f'/.si i£s 'a .N t-s : ti9 a .n is '(•puj) ti^iuisjauiuiBjj -a 9{'6 '^f'6 " Ei9 •a'A[i9 -'i^iTaiigT -216 'U "a "N 99 •' 182 "ddv T"! X8 't{(>iiasjainmBij '« sta8x 8ISI 96s"rag 2? •£) aa 8 '"OQ •oja 'snoiamBQ ;» uiBqaiaAax 9Zi '89Z 'Sii- 808 ("^d) -^sM-ajg f. '>[u'Ba "0^3 ',saauu'Bj ■« ai^ax 0901 '996 '2S6 '886 '86^ '^6^ T^l "unoo i^ ''00 ^3°T: aiScg -a 026 'Z08 L% -dan "^S 'oiV 08 -662 ■og 6 '66S •■BIV 86 '3t°'Ba •^B^ ui'BqSuinuia •» Auax 6U ' 292 •a 'S Ti^ -'^01 ■«» 911 '-00 •0^8 '■■jj ■■jj 'BiSjoaf) -a ipjjax ^891 ' ei9 'V LZ !Z06-Taa 96 'nosiuBH •a 'og •jC'jj 'o^a 'ajn'Bu ajjax 6951 ^S9"V0'0 2?' ■'S28"paj 201 ''OQ "H '3*8 'a^nBjj ajjax fit'2 82f -ba T "N 88 '•00 -a n pn^IPIM '«■ annqaax ZO^ '668 'i68 8?'8 H "N Sf '•OQ -isq -umq uaxiBji^ ^js^a -(i jCanuax £11 S8 ■jW. 'S 95 '('nuax) jCassBj^ -a •00 Sni^mSiq; -o^a 'aassauuax 958 '158 ' ' 62 ■Ai. "N ^9 !TST •inaxZOI 'anrey; -a -og aoj aassauuax 6ZT ' ST9 '0 T f' '^n^a jttoSsBio JO jC^iq -a inatmax 92 ' I8T 'TO t '(9061) jCajuB-jg -a ^urauax IS8T '862T 26 "AV 'S Z9 !^82 ■xax 56 'no:>:jBj; -a uosniax 9951 Z98 "AV 'N ZL '^6^ 'qoiM til '•00 -JJ -a "oija 'oBjiuoj -a 6621 '9t2I '6901 '816 '216 'ei6 8i8 "V H '1 S '£89 •daa*g-niv9l ;e06A\. .N It ^922 •qaiK ti '00 H •■g -o^a 'oBrjuoj -a JioAa "^X 165 61 -ddy 0^ 02 'oo punod -moo Jaijog "a Jjaojg nax SiSI ' t£9 •Ai .NSS !8tS ^Aioi 8i '00 •iCa 'oia 'oSBOiqo ■" ujidraax £68 ' 8il •III 59 'pJ'BAijCBH -a uo:^aidniax tl2I 222 Ai 'S ££ 'tI5 "Ai •g 2E !89 'xax 68 'aSpoQ a jadmax 8I£I '2I£I 28t "paa 551 'a 'H ■o*^ 'qcdouox a jaipx 95i '5ei 06 (-BJ) 'daa 'RY 81 'q^qjao a oo -o^a 'pjojpx 69 i£9 •oaa-nrves ! 5£2 "ba 'q^ia 8 (■•1^0 'S) »^oh; -a JiBJiax 9t8I 't88I 'Z2E'6I8 Sii'Ai'NIOI '888 f-iioi iz\ 'jaqos^aoT^ ■» 2t8I '186 '956 t98 "Ai "K 86 -LI "^0^°! 521 'aaq •a aqx 'qd^jSapx t85 t88 -fca 01 'a 'T '»ff '■00 uo^oansuoo qd^iSapx 95i '55Z, '55i 'ki '82i '8Si 'LZL 698 'S "Jl Z,6 'i^joduaABg "a -oo qd'BjSapx tt 225 •y '0 '0 8i •288 "paj 8tl '"00 IKH "3 'X 62t 908'Ai'N:tII '(■BMOj) •ooaiCaJiAi'Bjj -aaidaax 2i8I 999 •ddng -x -N 201 "oo *«ani -asnuiv pa^^pqosuoo 'a ajaax tt 021 -paaOIl ''00 Suiqamg ^ Sumipj Bdooax 695 '915 0t8 8Z9T 695 568 t90I 8ZSI tS •qO 6 'as«0 s.aiBps^ax t99 ■y •a '7 I -902 "daa "^S •"!¥ ti ige^Ai'Not ;8ii'BMoi 9i 'uasaojj ub^^ ■» (jnoqacax t8Z ■qO I '(5061) s'jsiux SiJoi^Bx 85 a^ioo XX 'qoiMsdj 'asBO SiJOjiCBx 6801 •ddng x 'i>l lOI '»ff '■loiiC'BX m •paa 221 '•OO •aM uaaq^nog -a -oo ^ jo^jCbx 285 •aw U '-lOliCBX -a aoi^Bi [833cd 0} 8JB S30n3J3;aj am] sasvo ,io aaavx TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Texas, etc. R. R. Co. v. Barber, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 84; 71 S. W. 393 381 Texas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bledsoe, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 88; 20 S. W. 1135 1609 i>. Bloom, 60 Fed. 979; 9 C. C. A. 300 1610 1). Cox, 145 U.S. 593; 12 Sup. Ct. 905 1615, 1617 V. Gaal, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 459; 37 S. W. 462 1610 V. Geiger, 79 Tex. 13; 15 S. W. 214 1610, 1619 V. Huffman, 83 Tex. 286; 18 S. W. 741 1609, 1610 V. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81; 14 Sup. Ct. 250 1609, 1610, 1617, 1619 V. Marlor, 123 U. S. 687; 8Sup.a.311; 19 Fed. 867 1458, 1528, 1675 V. Watts (Tex.), 18 S. W. Rep, 312 1610 Thames Haven, etc. Co. v. ' Rose, 4 Man. & G. 552 1205 Thames Tunnel Co. v. Sheldon, 6 B. & C. 341 162 Thatcher v. Consumers' Gas, etc. Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 934 64 Thayer v. Butler, 141 U. S. 234; 11 Sup. Ct. 987 490 V. Herrick, 23 Fed. Cas. 899 560 V. Wathen, 17 Tex. Glv. App. 382; 44 S. W. 906 424 Theis V. Durr, 125 Wise. 651 ; 104 N. W. 985; 110 Am. St. Rep. 880; 1 L. R. A. N. 8. 571 529, 534, 534, 534, 538, 951 Thellusson v. Valentia (1907), 2 Ch. 1; (1906) 1 Ch. 480 73, 133 Thew V. Porcelain Mfg. Co., 5 S. Car. 415 394, 1371 Thigpen v. Mississippi Central R. R. Co., 32 Miss. 347 194, 625 Third Avenue R. R. Co. v. Ebling, 12 Daly (N. Y.) 99 1215, 1372 Third Nat. Bank v. Buffalo German Ins. Co., 193 U. S. 581; 24 Sup. Ct. 524 114, 572, 573, 714 V. Eastern R. R. Co., 122 Mass. 240 1405 Third Street, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 79 Fed. 196; 24 C. C. A. 482 1641 cci Thistle V. Jones, 45 N. Y. Misc. 215; 92 N. Y. Supp. 113 282, 302, 304 Thomas v. Brownville, etc. R. R. Co., 109U. S. 522; 3 Sup. Ct. 315 1303, 1316, 1433 V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 17 1620 V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 669 1621 V. Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 667 1612 V. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349 840 V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. Co., 60 Fed. 7 1575, 1642 V. Gregg, 78 Md. 545; 28 Atl.565;44Am.St.Rep.310 1150 V. Musical, etc. Union, 121N. Y. 45; 24 N. E. 24; 8 L. R. A. 175 583, 948 V. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 139N. Y. 163; 34N.E. 877 1500, 1679, 1679 V. Penniman (Md.), 66 Atl. 291 1280 V. Railrd^d Co., 101 U. S. 71 52, 836 V. Societa Italiena, 10 N. Y. Misc. 746; 31 N. Y. Supp. 816 591 V. Western Car Co., 149 U. S. 95; 13 Sup. a. 824 1568, 1612, 1643, 1654 Thomas F. Meton & Sons v. Isham Wagon Co., 4 N. Y, Supp. 215 Thomas, Re, 14 Q. B. D. 379 Thomasson v. Grace M. E. Church, 113 Cal. 558; 45 Pac. 838 Thompson v. Alexander (1905), 1 Ch. 229 V. Commercial, etc. Ass. Co. (Colo.), 78 Pac. 1073 V. Erie Ry. Co., 11 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 188 V. Erie Ry. Co., 9 Abb. Pr. N. 8. 212 V. Erie Ry. Co., 45 N. Y. 468 V. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516; 25 Sup. a. 306 V. Huron Lumber Co., 4 Wash. 600; 30 Pac. 741; 31 Pac. 25 V. Lambert, 44 Iowa 239 1364 260, 301 1377 70 237 448 890 475 1506 1553 63, 65, 854, 861, 1407 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Thompson v. Lee County, 3 Wafl. 327 1448 V. Natchez Water Co., 68 Miss. 423 ; 9 So. 821 1187, 1208, 1208 V. N. Y., etc. R. R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 625, 651 251 V. Perrine, 106 U. S. 589; 1 Sup. Ct. 564 1451 V. St. Nicholas Nat. Bank, 146 U. S. 240; 13 Sup. Ct. 66 866 V. Scott, 4 Dill. 508 1616, 1616 V. Swoope, 24 Pa. St. 474 69 V. Toland, 48 Cal. 99 799, 812 V. Trustees, etc. Corpora- tion (1895), 2 Ch. 454 511 V. White Water Valley R. R. Co., 132 U. S. 68; 10 Sup. Ct. 29 1537 V. Williams, 76 Cal. 153; 18 Pac. 153 ; 9 Am. St. Rep. 187 1198 Thompson Co. v. Brook, 37 N. Y. St. Rep. 50ff; 14 N. Y. Supp. 370 - 1238 Thompson's Estate, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 334 55 Thompson-Houston, etc. Co. V. Dallas, etc. Ry. Co., 54 Fed. 1001; 5 C. C. A. 11 628 Thomson, Succession of, 46 La. Ann. 1074; 15 So. 379 667 Thomson's Case, 4 De G. J. & S. 749 159, 633 , 34 L. J. Ch. 525 169 Thomson's Estate, 153 Pa. St. 332; 26 Atl. 652, 653 503 Thorington v. Gould, 59 Ala. 461 ' 1185 Thorn v. City Rice Mills, 40 Ch. D. 357 1462, 1472 V. Nme Reefs, 67 L. T. 93 1416, 1603, 1604 Thornsburgh v. Newcastle, etc. R. R. Co., 14 Ind. 499 194 Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa 198; 52N. W. 190 108, 131, 149 V. Marginal Freight Ry. Co., 123 Mass. 32 232 V. Martin, 116 Ga. 115; 42 S. E. 348 751, 787 V. Wabash Ry. Co., 81 N. Y. 462 1664 Thorpe v. Pennock Mercantile Co. (Minn. ), 108 N. W. 940 155, 298, 299 Thrasher v. Pike R. R. Co., 25 111. 393 198 Thruston v. Big Stone Gap Imp. Co., 86 Fed. 484 1585 Thunder Hill Mining Co., 4 Brit. Columb. 61 492 Thurber v. Crump, 86 Ky. 408 ; 6 S. W. 145 715 Ticonic Water, etc. Co. ■». Lang, 63 Me. 480 171 Tiessen v. Henderson (1899), 1 Ch. 861 953, 1002, 1003 Tift V. Quaker City Nat. Bank, 141 Pa. St. 550; 21 Atl. 660 280, 288 Tilbury Portland Cement Co., 62 L. J. Ch. 814 11, 66 Tilford V. Atlantic Match Co., 134 Fed. 924 1510, 1536 Tilley v. Coykendall, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 92; 74 N. Y. Supp. 631 874 Tillinghast v. Bailey, 86 Fed. 46 489, 492 V. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.) 420; 1 N. Y. Supp. 243 1585, 1596, 1624 Tillyer v. Hero Jar Co., 17 Phila. (Pa.) 153 Tilson V. Warwick Gas Light Co., 4 B. & C. 962 Timberlake v. Shippers' Com- press Co., 72 Miss. 323; 16 So. 530 718, 1134 Timmins & Sons, Ebenezer (1902), 1 Ch. 238 149, 155, 205, 642 Timolat v. Held Co., 17 N. Y. Misc. 556; 40 N. Y. Supp. 692 Tinker v. Ifler, 195 Mo. 183; 94 S. W. 501 Tinsdale v. Harris, 20 Pick. 9 (Mass) Tippecanoe County v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509; 15 Am. Rep. 245 Tippets V. Walker, 4 Mass. 595 Titus V. Cairo, etc. R. R. Co., 37 N. J. Law 98 V. Great Western Turn- pike Road, 61 N. Y. 237 ■». Mabee, 25 111. 257 T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. Common- wealth (Ky.), 105 S. W. 163 Tobey v. Hakes, 54 Conn. 274; 7 Atl. 551; 1 Am. St. Rep. 114 751 881 295 1181 185 422 1352 398 1370 741 1503 368 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Tobin V. Roaring Creek, etc. R. R. Co., 86 Fed. 1020 917, 1371 Tobin Canning Co. v. Fraser, 81 Tex. 407; 17 S. W. 25 1343 Tod V. Kentucky Union Ry. Co., 57 Fed. 47; 6 C. C. A. 685 77, 875, 876, 877, 1106, 1408, 1433 Todd V. Moorehouse, 19 Eq. 69 815 V. Taft, 7 Allen (Mass.) 371 ."■ 786 Toledo Portland Cement Co., 156 Fed. 83 44 Toledo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Con- tinental Trust Co., 95 Fed. 497; 36 C. C. A. 155 244, 444, 468, 469, 645, 1260, 1329, 1404, 1628 V. Hamilton, 134 U. S. 296; 10 Sup. Ct. 546 1508, 1538, 1539, 1542, 1550, 1566 Toler V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 168 1051, 1585, 1589, 1689, 1592, 1592, 1593, 1593 Tombler v. Palestine Ice Co., 17 Tex. dv. App. 596; 43 8. W. 896 715 Tome V. King, 64 Md. 166; 21 Atl. 279 1641 V. Parkersbuig Branch R. R. Co., 39 Md. 36; 17 Am. Rep. 540 593, 740 Tomlin v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 52 Mo. App. 430 1016, 1029, 1030, 1067 Tomlin's Case, 14 Times L. R. 53 189 (1898), 1 Ch. 104 181 Tompkins v. Sperry, 96 Md. 560; 64 Atl. 254 330, 331, 331, 1006 Tompkins Co., D. A. v. Catawba Mills, 82 Fed. 780 958, 1485, 1586 V. Chester Mills, 90 Fed. 37 1492 Tomkinson v. South Eastern Ry. Co., 35 Ch. D. 675 81, 949 Tontine Surety Co., 116 Fed. 401 22, 44 Toppan V. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Flippin 74 1437 Toppin V. Lomas, 16 C. B. 145 1439 Topping V. Bickford, 4 Allen (Mass.) 120 233 1606 1447 1380 944 173 456 1598 286 791 698 Torbett v. Eaton, 49 Hun (N. Y.)209; 1 N. Y. Supp. 614 1365 Torbeck v. Westbuiy (1902), 2 Ch. 871 1004 Toronto Brewing Co. v. Blake, 2 Ont. 175 994, 996, 1015, 1205 Toronto Gen. Trusts Corp. v. Central Ontario Ry. Co., 6 Ont. L. R. 1 V. Central Ont. Ry. Co., 6 Ont. L. R. 534 Torrey v. Dustin Monument Ass'n, 5 Allen (Mass.) 327 V. Toledo Portland Cement Co. (Mich.), 113 N. W. 680 Tothill's Case, 1 Ch. 85 Totten & Co. v. Tison, 64 Ga. 139 Tottenham v. Swansea Zinc Ore Co., 63 L. J. Ch. 776 Touche V. Metropolitan Ware- housing Co., 6 Ch. 671 Tourtelot V. Finke, 87 Fed. 840 V. Stoleben, 101 Fed. 362 Towers v. African Tug Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 558 951, 966, 966, 1101 Town of Eagle v. Kohn, 84 ni. 292 1451 Town of East Rome v. City of Rome (Ga.), 58 S. E. 854 107, 381, 382 Town of Pawlet'v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292 302 Townes v. NichoUs, 73 Me. 515 429 Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. Car. 25 744, 745, 749, 750 V. Oneonta, etc. Ry. Co., 88 N. Y. App. Div. 208; 84 N. Y. Supp. 427 Townsend's Case, 13 Eq. 148 Tracy v. Tahnage, 14 N. Y. 162; 67 Am. Dec. 132 856,861, 865, 867 Traders' Mut. Life Ins.' Co. v. Humphrey, 109 111. App. 246; affii-ming, 69 N. E. 875 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Law- rence Mfg. Co., 96 N. Car. 298 ; 3 S. E. 363 1401, 1542, 1642 Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Car Wheel Co., 96 Tenn. 634; 1649 167 591 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] 32 S. W. 1097; 31 L. R. A. 593; 49 Am. St. Rep. 943 1094 Traer v. Lucas Prospecting Co., 124 Iowa 107; 99 N. W. 290 52, 57, 72 Trainor v. German-American Bldg. Ass'n, 204 lU. 616; 68 N. E. 650 914, 920 Trammell v. Pennington, 45 Ala. 673 150 Transport, Ltd., v. Schon- berg, 21 Times L. R. 305 996, 1182, 1231 Transvaal Exploring Co. v. Albion Gold Mines (1899), 2 Ch. 370 640 Travers v. Leopold, 124 111. 431; 16 N. E. 902 812 V. North Carolina R. R. Co., 133 N. Car. 322; 45 S. E. 651 430 Trawick v. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co., 68 III. App. 156 591 Treadway v. Johnson, 33 Mo. App. 122 782 Treadwell v. Clark (N. Y.), 82 N. E. 505 810 V. Clark, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 493; 100 N. Y. Supp. 1 722, 724 V. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 7 Gray (Mass.) 393; 66 Am. Dec. 490 72 Treasurer v. Commercial Mining Co., 23 Cal. 390 786, 786 Tres Palacios, etc. Co. v. Eid- man (Tex.), 93 S. W. 698 592 Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 App. Cas. 409 51, 516, 516, 516, 523, 524, 564, 657, 830 Triesler v. Wilson, 89 Md. 169; 42 Atl. 926 577, 578, 1060 Trimble v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 61 N. J. Eq. 340; 48 Atl. 912 907, 969, 1113 V. Union Nat. Bank, 71 Mo. App. 467 735, 737, 738 Trinder v. Trinder, 1 Eq. 695 414 Triplett v. Fauver, 103 Va. 123; 48 S. E. 875 1203, 1246 Tripp V. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 400;' 43 N. W. 60 Troup's Case, 29 Beav. 353 Trowbridge v. Scudder, 11 Cxish. (Mass.) 83 Troy Mining Co. v. White, 10 1188 831, 832 252 S. Dak. 475; 74N.W.236; 42 L. R. A. 549 1197, 1199, 1199, 1207, 1212, 1212, 1299 Troy Steam Laundering Co., 132 Fed. 266 43 Troy, etc. R. R. Co. v. Tib- bits, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 297 155, 209 Truman's Case (1894), 3 Ch. 272 169, 169, 169 Trust & Deposit Co. v. Spar- tanburg, etc. Co., 91 Fed. 324 1603, 1605 V. Spartanburg, etc. Co., 97 Fed. 409 1240, 1640, 1671 Trust & Savings Co. v. Home Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 447; 24 S. W. 129 571, 571, 574, 589, 712, 752, 773 Trust Co. of Georgia v. State, 109 Ga. 736; 35 S. E. 323; 48 L. R. A. 520 57 Trustees, etc. v. Gibbs, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 39 1065 Trustees of Free Schools v. Flmt, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 539 650 Trustees of N. C. Endow- ment Fund V. Satchwell, 71 N. Car. Ill 258 Trustees of Smith Charities V. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272; 31 N. E. 1058 1382 Trusts & Guarantee Co. v. Ab- bott Mitchell & Co., 11 Ont. L. R. 403 1549 Tryber v. Girard Creamery, etc. Co., 67 Kans. 489; 73 Pac. 83 289, 296 Tschetinian v. City Trust Co., 97 N. Y. App. Div. 380; 89 N. Y. Supp. 1053; 186 N. Y. 432; 79 N. E. 401 1412, 1488 Tschumi v. Hills, 6 Kans. App. 649; 51 Pac. 619 481,493, 547, 549 Tucker v. Curtin, 148 Fed. 929; 78 C. C. A. 557 708, 712 V. Mulligan, 28 Vict. L. R. 1 747, 782 V. Russell, 82 Fed. 263 1183 V. Wilson, 1 P. Wms. 261 808 Tufts i;. Plymouth Gold Min- ing Co., 14 Allen (Mass.) 407 913 Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. Kaweah Canal, etc. Co., 44 Pac. Rep. 662 (Cal.) 523 V. Shepard, 185 U. S. 1; 22 Sup. Ct. 531 241, 243 TABLE OF CASE8 [The references are to pages] Tulare Sav. Bank v. Talbot, 131 Cal. 45; 63 Pac. 172 627 Tiilley V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 18Ind. App. 240; 47N. E. 860 1371 Tunis V. Hestonville, etc. R. R. Co., 149 Pa. St. 70; 24Atl. 88; 15 L. R. A. 665 1025, 1054, 1055, 1063 Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418 921 V. West Riding, etc. Club, 70 L. T. 92 1179, 1184 Turner v. Conant, 18 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 160 1666 V. Cowan, 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 160 645 V. Cross, 83 Tex. 218; 18 S. W. 578; 16 L. R. A. 262 1619 V. Fidelity Loan Con- cern (Cal.), 83 Pac. 62 1201 V. Grangers', etc. Ins. Co., 65 Ga. 649; 38 Am. Rep. 801 177, 180 V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Diss. 380 1627, 1629 -; V. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 527 1615, 1618 V. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co., 95 111. 134; 35 Am. Rep. 144 1651, 1651 Turpin's Estate, 21 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 542 1147 Turquand v. Marshall, 4 Ch. 376 1094 Tussaud V. Tussaud, 44 Ch. D. 678 373, 374, 376 Tuthill Spring Co. v. Smith, 90 Iowa 331 ; 57 N. W. 853 622 Tuttle V. George H. Tuttle Co. (Me.), 64 Atl. 496 293, 294 V. Michigan, etc. R. R. Co., 35 Mich. 247 999, 1000, 1000, 1003 V. Walton, 1 Ga. 43 572, 770 Twelfth Street Market Co. v. Jackson, 102 Pa. St. 269 592, 1215, 1381 Twigg V. Thunder Hill Min- ing Co., 3 Brit. Columbia 101 115, 492, 587 Twin-Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 587 1301, 1311, 1324, 1344 Twycross v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469 271, 271, 273, 274 Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79; 12 Sup. Ct. 340 182, 183 Tyler, Re, 149 U. S. 164; 13 Sup. Ct. 785 1617 Tyne, etc. Ass'n v. Brown, 74 L. T. 283 1230 Tyrrell v. Bank of London, 10 H.L.Cas.26 318,320,322,1338 V. Cairo, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Mo. App. 294 1451 Tyson v. Wabash Ry. Co., 8 Biss. 247 1602, 1603 U Ulmer i>. Lime Rock R. R. Co., 98 Me. 579; 57 Atl. 1001; 66 L. R. A. 387 877 Ulster Ry. Co. v. Bainbridge, Ir. Rep. 2 Eq. 190 620, 1245 Underhill v. Santa Barbara, etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300; 28 Pac. 1049 407, 407, 593, 1376, 1391 Underwood v. London Music Hall (1901), 2 Ch. 309 111, 446 V. Newport Lyceum, 5 B. Monr. (Ky.) 129; 41 Am. Dec. 260 861 Union Agricultural, etc. Ass'n v. Neill, 31 Iowa 95 130, 214 Union Bank v. Jacobs, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 515 V. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390 772, 773, 776 V. Ridgely, 1 H. & G. (Md.) 324 107, 392, 392, 657 Union Cattle Co. v. Inters national Trust Co., 149 Mass. 492; 21 N. E. 962 Union Compress Co. v. Doug- lass, 60 Ark. 591; 31S. W. 455 Union Fraternal League v. Johnston, 124 Ga. 902; 53 S. E. 241 Union Insurance Co., 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 591 Union Loan, etc. Co. v. South- em Cal., etc. Road Co., 49 Fed. 267 V. Southern Cal., etc. Road Co., 51 Fed. 106 Union Mills v. Harder, 116 N. Y. App. Div. 22 Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co. D. Keyser,32N. H.313; 64 , Am. Dec. 375 Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. V. Union Mills, etc. Co., 37 Fed. 286; 3 L. R. A. 90 66 770, 1405 1239 677 1163 1642 1642 388 692 1462, 1604, 1604 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. White, 106 111. 67 591, 1373 Union Nat. Bank v. Hill, 148 Mo. 380; 49 S. W. 1012; 71 Am. St. Rep. 615 960, 1214, 1276, 1279, 1357 V. Scott, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 65 ; 66 N. Y. Supp. 145 156, 921, 1182, 1227 Union Pac. Lodge v. Bank- ers' Surety Co. (Nebr.), ^ 113 N. W. 263 237 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Chi- cago, etc. Ry. Co., 163 U. S. 564; 16 Sup. Ct. 1173 107, 992, 1192 V. Credit Mobilier, 135 Mass. 367 1306, 1307 Union Plate Glass Co., Be, 42 Ch. D. 513 534, 536 Union Savings Bank v. Leiter, 145 Cal. 696; 79 Pac. 441 564, 614, 614, 633 V. Willard (Cal.), 88 Pac. 1098 620, 621 Union Trust Co. v. Carter, 139 Fed. 717 116, 993, 1188, 1194, 1299, 1299 V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Fed. 513 1651, 1652, 1652 V. Cuppy, 26 Kans. 754 1583, 1609 V. Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 117 U. S. 434; 6 Sup. a. 809 1629, 1640, 1640, 1646, 1647, 1647, 1649, 1649, 1651, 1653, 1655, 1655 V. Mercantile Library' Hall Co., 189 Pa. 263; 42 Atl. 129 109, 1501 V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 26 Fed. 485 1465 V. Monticello, etc. Ry. Co., 63 N. Y. 311; 20 Am. Rep. 541 1456, 1456 V. Morrison, 125 U. S. 591; 8Sup. Ct. 1004 1549, 1551, 1567 V. Nevada, etc. R. R. Co., 10 Sawy. 122 - 1526 V. Souther, 107 U. S. 591 ; 2 Sup. Ct. 295 1562, 1565, 1566 V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Dill. 114 1603 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Dillon 1 1463, 1465, 1468 V. Thomas (Md.), 66 Atl. 450 1470, 1583, 1584 1626 1570 1496 86 1211 957 Union Trust Co. v. Union, etc. Ry. Co., 26 Fed. 485 V. Walker, 107 U. S. 596; 2 Sup. Ct. 299 V. Ward, 100 Md. 98; 59 Atl. 192 Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat, etc. Co., 22 Cal. 620 Union, etc. Bank v. Farring- ton, 13 Lea (Tenn. ) 333 807, 1023 Union, etc. Trust Co. v. Southern Cal., etc. Co., 51 Fed. 840 1343, 1403, 1403, 1409, 1496 United Brethren Church v. Vandusen, 37 Wise. 54 United Electric Securities Co. V. Louisiana Electric Light Co., 68 Fed. 6?3 United Fire Ass'n v. Bense- man, 4 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 1 558, 559 United Fruit Growers Co. v. Eisner, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 1; 47 N.Y. Supp. 906 604,607, 924, 1165, 1197, 1197, 1199 United German Bank v. Katz, 57 Md. 128 844, 853 United Gold Mining Co. v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. 565 917, 923, 923, 1193 United Gold, etc. Co. v. Smith, 44 N. Y. Misc. 567; 90 N. Y. Supp.' 199 1003, 1021, 1046, 1084 United Lines Tel. Co. v. Boston Safe Deposit, etc. Co., 147 U. S. 431; 13 Sup. Ct. 396 1540, 1549 United Ports, etc. Ins. Co., 20 W. R. 88 172 United Society v. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 456 517, 518 United Society of Shakers v. Underwood, 9 Bush. (Ky.) 609; 15Am. Rep. 731 United States v. Columbian Ins. Co., 2 Cranch. C. C. 266 V. Debs, 64 Fed. 724 V. Flint, etc. Ry. Co., 95 Fed. 551; 37 C. C. A. 156 V. Harris, 177 U. S. 305; 20 Sup. Ct. 609 V. Kane, 23 Fed. 748 V. McKelden, MacA. & Mack. (D. C.) 162 998, 998, 1250 1356 1027 1620 1634 1618 1620 TABLE OP CASES [The references are to pages] United States v. Means, 42 Fed. 599 1365 V. New Orleans, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Wall. 362 1535, 1537, 1539, 1540 V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 72 1463 V. Vaughan, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 394; 5 Am. Dec. 375 715 United States Cast Iron Pipe, etc. Co., 65 Atl. 849 (N! J.) 698, 1017 United States Express Co. V. Bedbury, 34 111. 459 383 United States Hotel Co. v. Niles, 134 Fed. 225; 67 C. C. A. 153 44 United States Mercantile, etc. Agency, 115 N. Y. 176; 21 N. E. 1034 386 United States Mineral Co. v. Camden (Va.), 56 S. E. 561 192, 517, 527 United States Mortgage Co. V. Sperry, 138 U. S. 313; 11 Sup. Ct. 321 1449 United States Mortgage, etc. Co. V. Eastern Iron Co., 105 N. Y. Supp. 291 1504 United States Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 79 Fed. 296; 24 C. C. A. 597 1374 V. Forstedt, 64 Nebr. 855; 90N. W. 919 1236 United States Rolling Stock Co., 57 How. Pr. 16 1652 V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 34 Oh. St. 450; 32 Am. Rep. 380 1296, 1299 United States Savings & Loan Co. v. Convent of St. Rose, 133 Fed. 354; 66 C. C. A. 416 834, 835, 838 United States Savings, etc. Co. V. Shain, 8 N. Dak. 136; 77 N. W. 1006 562 United States Steel Corp. v. Hodge, 64 N. J. Eq. 807; 54 Atl. 1 1080, 1081, 1115, 1115 United States Trust Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 88 Fed. 140; 31 C. C. A. 427 1611 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 25 Fed. 800 1564 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., lOlN. Y. 478; 5 N. E. 316 1602, 1621 V. Omaha, etc. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. 737 1620 261, 261 Y. 222, 261 V. 1661 1663 1663 590 1486 United States Trust Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co.', 38 Fed. 891 1532 V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 287; 14 Sup. Ct. 86 1515, 1517, 1611, 1611 1612,1612 V. Western Contract Co., 81 Fed. 455; 26 CCA. 472 1570 United States, etc. Trust Co. v. Young (Tex.), 101 S. W. 1045 1623, 1623 United States Vinegar Co. v. Foehrenbach, 148 N. Y. 58; 42N. E. 403 V. Schlegel, 143 N. 537; 38 N. E. 729 United Waterworks Co. Omaha Water Co., 21 N. Y. Misc. 594; 48 N. Y. Supp. 817 V. Omaha Water Co., 164 N.Y. 41; S8N. E.58 V. Stone, 127 Fed. 587 United Workmen v. Haddock, 72 Kans. 35 Unity Co. v. Equitable Trust Co., 204 111. 595; 68 N. E. 654 Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636 117, 128 University of Louisville v. Hammock (Ky.), 106 S. W. 219 381, 869 Uptegrove v. Schwartzwael- der, 46 N. Y. App. Div. 20; 61N.Y. Supp. 623; 167 N. Y. 587; 60 N. E. 1121 103 Upton V. Bumiiam, 3 Hiss. 431 696, 699 V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45 177, 177, 185, 483, 492 Umer v. SoUenberger, 89 Md. 316; 43 Atl. 810 317,984, 1313, 1314 Uruguay Central, etc. Ry. Co., 11 Ch. D. 372 1527, 1529 Usher v. New York Central, etc. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. App. Div. 422; 78 N. Y. Supp. 508 853, 1189 Utah Optical Co. v. Keith, 18 Utah 464; 56 Pac. 155 302 Utica Fire Alarm Co., 115 N. Y. App. Div. 821 1017, 1017, 1019, 1022 Utica Ins. Co. v. Bloodgood, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 652 1248 V. Scott, 19 Johns. (N.Y.) 1 827 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Utica Ins. Co. v. Tilman, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 555 229 Utley V. Union Tool Co., 11 Gray (Mass.) 139 230, 247 Uvalde Paving Co. v. City of New York, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 327; 91 N. Y. Supp. 131 400 Vail V. Hamilton, 85 N. Y. 453 1021, 1022 520 616 Vale of Neath & South Wales Brewery Co., 3 De G. & Sm. 96 Vale Mills v. Spaulding, 62 N. H. 605 Valk V. Crandall, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 179 121, 122, 137, 301 Valletort v. Sanitary Steam Laundry Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 654 1394, 1547 Valpy, Ex parte, 7 Ch. 289 1364 Van Allen v. Illinois Central R. E. Co., 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 515 188, 190, 200, 200, 1474, 1475, 1477, 1477 Van Amburgh v. Baker, 81 N. Y. 46 1185 Van Atten v. Modem Brother- hood (Iowa), 108 N. W. 313 583, 585 Van Brocklin v. Queen City Printing Co., 19 Wash. 552; 53 Pac. 822 Van Cleve v. Berkey, 143 Mo. 109; 44S. W. 743; 42 L. R. A. 593 Van Cott V. Van Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535 Van Diemen's Land Co. v. Cockerell, 1 C. B. n. s. 732 661, 661, 662 Van Doren v. Olden, 19 N. J. Eq. 176 Van Dyck v. McQuade, 86 N. Y. 38 Van Frank v. Brooks, 93 Mo. App. 412; 67S. W. 688 V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 89 Mo. App. 460 1562, 1567, 1572 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 89 Mo. App. 489 1564, 1565 Van Hook v. Somerville Mfg. Co., 5 N. J. Eq. 137 1203, 1204 Van Home v. State, 6 Ark. 349 24 Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Nebr. 701; 75N. W. 874 112 518 645 1335 659, 1149 1104 1542 Van Pelt v. Home Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 79 Ga. 439; 4 S. E. 501 96, 382 Van Poucke v. Netherland, etc. Society, 63 Mich. 378; 29 N. W. 863 577 Van Schaick v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 49 Barb. 409 291, 303 Van Siclen v. Bartol, 95 Fed. 793 1661 Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U. S. 228; 6 Sup. a. 22 1556 Van Winkle Gin, etc. Co. v. Mathews (Ga.), 58 S. E. 396 384 Vance v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 4 Lea (Tenn.) 385 1275 Vandeburg v. Broadway Ry. Co., 29 Hun (N. Y.) 348 1163, 1186 Vanderbilt v. Central R. R. Co., 43 N. J. Eq. 669; 12 Atl. 188 1615, 1615, 1616, 1643 Vanderpoel v. Gorman, 140 N. Y. 563; 35 N. E. 932; 24 L. R. A. 548; 37 Am. St. Rep. 601 1187 Vanderveer v. Asbuiy Park, etc. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 355 109, 838, 1408 Vanderwerken v. Glenn, 85 Va. 9; 6 S. E. 806 614 Vane v. Cobbold, 1 Ex. 798 341 Vanneman v. Young, 52 N. J. Law 403; 20 Atl. 53 123, 126 Vansands v. Middlesex County Bank, 26 Conn. 144 572,574 Vardeman v. Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 125 Ga. 117; 54 S. E. 66 1364 Varner v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 55 Iowa 677; 8 N. W. 634 , 1632 Varney v. Baker (Mass.), 80 N. E. 524 894, 904, 904 Vatable v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 96 N. Y. 49 1664, 1664, 1664 Vaughn v. Ala. Nat. Bank, 143 Ala. 572; 42 So. 64 631, 645 Vaught V. Ohio, etc. Fair Co., 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1471; 49 S. W. 426 1210, 1218 Vaupell V. Woodward, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 143 809 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Vawter v. Franklin College, 53 Ind. 88 124, 396, 604, 915, 924 V. Griffin, 40 Ind. 593 422 Veatchij. American, etc. Trust Co., 79 Fed. 471; 25 C. C. A. 39; 84 Fed. 274; 28 C. C. A. 384 1517, 1518, 1559, 1568 Veeder v. Horstmann, 85 N. Y.App. Div. 154; 83N. Y. Supp. 99 1328 V. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295 492, 645 Venable v. Ebenezer Baptist Church, 25 Kans. 177 241 Venner v. Atchison, etc. R. Co., 28 Fed. 581 968, 969, 1189, 1191 V. Denver Union Water Co. (Colo.), 90 Pac. 623 1179, 1182, 1375, 1614, 1659,1660 V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 90 Fed. 348; 33 C. C. A. 95 884, 1455, 1503, 1535, 1632 V. Fitzgerald, 91 Fed. 335 1661 V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 153 Fed. 408; 209 U. S. 24 970, 971, 975 Vent V. Duluth Coffee, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 307; 67 N. W. 70 191, 192, 527 Verooutere v. Golden State Land Co., 116 Cal. 410; 48 Pac. 375 558, 561, 564 Vermont & Canada R. R. Co. V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 60 Vt. 500 1668 Vermont, etc. Co. v. Declez, etc. Co., 135 Cal. 579; 67 Pac. 1057; 87 Am. St. Rep. 143; 56L. R. A. 728 704 Vermont Central R. R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30 278 Vemer v. General & Commer- cial, etc. Co. (1894),. 2 Ch. 239 1091, 1098, 1098 Vernon, Re, 1 Pennewill (Del.) 202; 40Atl. 60 1028 Vernon Society v. Hills, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 23; 16 Am. Dec. 429 1226 Vertue v. East Anglian Rys. Co., 19 L. J. Ex. 235 1426, 1426 Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co. v. McCutchen, 52 Miss. 645 1551 Vicksburg, etc. R. R. v. Mc- Kean, 12 La. Ann. 638 175,194 Vicksburg «. Vicksburg Water- works Co., 202 U. S. 453; 26 Sup. Ct. 660 1606 Victor G. Bloede Co. v. Bloede, 84 Md. 129; 34 Atl. 1127; 57 Am. St. Rep. 373; 33 L. R. A. 107 571, 679 V. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co., 98 Fed. 175 890 Victoria Steamboats (1897), 1 Ch. 158 1598, 1604, 1606 Victorian Mtge, etc. Bank V. Australian, etc. Co., 19 Vict. L. R. 680 74, 621 Vidal V. Girard's Ex'rs., 2 How. 127 64,55 Vierling v. Mechanics', etc. Ass'n, 179 111. 524; 63 N. E. 979 582 Vigers v. Pike, 8 CI. & Fin. 562 316 Vigilancia, The, 73 Fed. 452; 19 C. C. A. 528 1224 Vilas V. Milwaukee, etc. Ry. Co., 17 Wise. 497 1523, 1632 V. Page, 106 N. Y. 439; 13 N. E. 743 1643, 1654, 1655 Villamil v. Hirsch, 138 Fed. 690; 143 Fed. 654 954, 955, 1025, 1063, 1064 Vimbos, Ltd. (1900), 1 Ch. 470 1580 Vincenheller v. Reagan, 69 Ark. 460; 64 S. W. 278 1363 Vint & Sons (1905), 1 Ir. 112 1405 Violet Consolidated Gold Mining Co., 80 L. T. n. s. 684 746 Virginia v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co., 35 Md. 1 1670 Virginia-Carolina , Chemical Co. V. Provident Sav., etc. Soo. (Ga.), 64 S. E. 929 485 Virginia Pass., etc. Co. v. Fisher, 104 Va. 121; 51 S. E. 198 942, 942, 1586 Virginia, etc. Coal Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 170 U. S. ■ 356; 18 Sup. Ct. 657 1659, 1562, 1563, 1565, 1669, 1572 Visalia Gas, etc. Co. v. Sims, 104 Cal. 326; 37 Pac. 1042; 43 Am. St. Rep. 105 863 Visalia, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hyde, 110 Cal. 632; 43 Pac. 10; 52 Am. St. Rep. 136 606, 616, 617, 618 Vivian & Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 664 1545, 1548 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Vogeler v. Punch (Mo.), 103 S. W. 1001 633, 634, 955 Yokes V. Eaton, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 358; 85 S. W. 174 47 Voluntary Relief Dept. v. Spencer, 17 Ind. App. 123; 46 N. E. 477 576, 949 Von Arnim v. American Tube "Works, 188 Mass. 515; 74 N. E. 680 941, 982, 1284, 1285, 1286 Von Schmidt v. Huntington, 1 Cal. 55 , 16 Von Thodorovich v. Franz Joseph Beneficial Ass'n, 154 Fed. 911 370 Vonnoh v. Sixty-seventh St. Atelier Bldg., 105 N. Y. Supp. 155 1327 Voorhees v. Nixon (N. J.), 66 Atl. 192 1307, 1332 Vose V. Bronson, 6 Wall. 452 1417, 1484 V. Grant, 15 Mass. 505 1127 Vowell V. Thompson, 3 Cranch C. C. 428 1021, 1022 Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. Ann. 627 244, 252 Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188 174, 176, 183 Vrooman v. Vansa;nt Lumber Co.,215Pa. St. 75; 64 Atl. 394 517, 528, 1006 Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Am. Can Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 339 1263 W 1620 Wabash R. Co., 24 Fed. 217 Wabash R. R. Co. v. Adelbert College, 208 U. S. 38; 28 Sup. Ct. 182 1591, 1619, 1630 Wabash, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cen- tral Trust Co., 22 Fed. 138 V. Central Trust Co., 22 Fed. 269 V. Central Trust Co., 22 Fed. 272 V. Ham, 114 U. S. 587; 5 Sup. a. 1081 1416, 1500 V. Stewart, 41 111. App. 640 Wachtel v. Noah Widows, etc. Society, 84 N. Y. 28; 38 Am. Rep. 478 Wade V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 149 U.S. 327; 13 Sup. Ct. 892 1434, 1508 1629 1611 1598 1633 580 1497 1196 1379 184 Wade V. Donau Brewing Co., 10 Wash. 284; 38 Pac, 1009 V. Kendrick, 37 Can. Sup, Ct. 32 1304, 1333 Wadham v. Litchfield, etc. Turnpike Co., 10 Conn. 416 1210 Wadlinger v. First Nat. Bank, 209 Pa. 197; 58 Atl. 359 751, 807 Wagg-Anderaon Woolen Co. V. Lester & Co., 78 111. App. 678 406, 1373, 1375, 1381 Wagner v. Marple, 10 Tex. CSv. App. 505; 31 S. W. 691 805, 873, 874 ■». St. Peter's Hospital, 32 Mont. 206; 79 Pac. 1054 Wahlig V. Standard Piunp Mfg. Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 739 Wainwright, Ex parte, 59 L. J. Ch. 281 182, 184 Wainwright's Case, 63 L. T. 429 Wait V. Nashua Armory Ass'n 66 N. H. 581; 49 Am. St. Rep. 630; 23 Atl. 77; 14 L. R. A. 356 1370, 1372 V. Smith, 92 HI. 385 594 Waite V. Littlewood, 41 L. J. Ch. N. s. 636 1446 V. Windham, etc. Mining Co., 36 Vt. 18 1005, 1012, 1203, 1210 V. Windham, etc. Co., 37 Vt. 608 1201, 1228, 1321 Wakefield Rolling Stock Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 165 432, 434, 435 Wakefield Water Co. v. New England Trust Co., 175 Mass. 478; 56 N. E. 703 Walden Nat. Bank v. Birch, 130 N. Y. 221; 29 N. E. 127; 14 L. R. A. 211 Waldoborough v. Knox, etc. R. R. Co., 84 Me. 469; 24 Atl. 942 Walker v. Ai^o-American, etc. Co., 72 Hun 334; 25 N. Y. Supp. 432 V. Bartlett, 18 C. B. 845 V. Detroit Transit Ry. Co., 47 Mich. 338; IIN.W. 187 723, 1379 V. Elmore's, etc. Metal Co., 85 L. T. 767 1674, 1674 V. Granite Bank, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 39 890 1416 522 1671 277 782 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Walker v. Hacking, 57 L. T. 763 524 V. Johnson, 17 App. Cas. (D. C.) 144 656, 557, 579, 954, 1039, 1040, 1063, 1066 V. London Tramways Co., 12 Ch. D. 705 585 V. Montclair, etc. Ry. Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 525 1637 V. Pike County Land Co., 139 Fed. 609; 71 C. C. A. 593 322 V. Shelbyville, etc. Turnpike Co. 80 Ind. 452 228 V. Walker, 68 N. H. 407; 39Atl. 432 502,1110,1154,1155 Walker & Smith, Re, 88 L. T. 792 531 Walker, Ex parte, 1 Tenn. Ch. 97 374 Wall V. London & Northern Assets Corp. (1898), 2 Ch. 469 951, 1005, 1060, 1060 V. London, etc. Assets Corp. (1899), 1 Ch. 550 1058 V. Mines, 130 Cal. 27; 62 Pac. 386 118, 228 V. Utah Copper Co. (N. J.), 62 Atl. 533 499, 500, 1474 Wall's Case, 15 Eq. 18 167 Wallace v. Burdell, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 379 809 V. Carpenter, etc. Mfg. Co., 70 Minn. 321; 73 N. W. 189; 68 Am. St. Rep. 530 636, 648 V. Evershed (1899), 1 Ch. 891 1393 1). Hood, 89 Fed. 11 180,182, 183, 521 V. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 89 Tenn. 630; 15S.W.448; 24 Am. St. Rep. 625 938, 982, 1125, 1263, 1273, 1274, 1276, 1278, 1288, 1350 V. Long Island R. R. Co., 12 Hun (N. Y.) 460 1312 V. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146 20, 227, 1646, 1649 V. Oceanic Packing Co., 25 Wash. 143; 64 Pac. 938 1296 V. Universal Automatic, etc. Co. (1894), 2 Ch. 547 1470, 1598, 1604 V. Walsh, 125 N. Y. 26; 25 N. E. 1076; 11 L. R. A. 166 1229 Wallace's Case (1900), 2 Ch. 671 164, 169, 170 Wallamet Falls Co. v. Kitt- redge, 5 Sawy. 44 1193 Wallasey Brick & Land Co., Re, 63 L. J. Ch. 415 538 Wallbridge v. Farwell, 18 Can. Sup. a. 1 1574, 1582 Wallerstein v. Ervin, 112 Fed. 124; 50 C. C. A. 129 835 Wallscourt's Case, 7 Manson 235 523, 703 Wain's Assignees v. Bank of N. America, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 73; 11 Am. Dec. 575 557, 571 752 Walnut V. Wade, 103 U. S. 683 1460 Walsenburg Water Co. v. Moore, 5 Colo. App. 144; 38 Pac. 60 992 Walsh V. Barton, 24 Oh. St. 28 847 V. Goulden, 130 Mich. 631; 90 N. W. 406 1352 V. Sexton, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 251 696, 712 Walsham v. Stainton, 1 De G. J. & S. 678 1352 Walstab v. Spottiswoode, 15 M. & W. 601 274, 276, 341 Walter v. F. E. McAlister Co., 21 N. Y. Misc. 747; 48 N. Y. Supp. 26 960 V. King, 13 Times L. R. 270 809 Walters v. Anglo-American Mtge., etc. Co., 60 Fed. 316 1371 V. Porter (Ga.), 59 S. E. 452 517, 521 Walton V. Oliver, 49 Kans. 107; 30 Pac. 172; 33 Am. St. Rep. 355 148 V. Riley, 85 Ky. 413; 3 S. W. 606 125, 126, 127 Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98 161 Walworth County Bank v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 14 Wise. 326 1371 Wandsworth, etc. Co. v. Wright, 18 W. R. 728 932, 1057 Ward V. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24 253, 274, 274, 276 V. Combe, 7 Sim. 634 114r V. Davidson, 89 Mo. 445 ; 1 S. W. 846 1184, 1295, 1322 V. Johnson, 95 111. 215 63, 667 66, 691, 862 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Ward V. Joslin, 186 U. S. 142; 22 Sup. a. 807 V. Minnesota, etc. R. R. Co., 119 111. 287; 10 N. E. 365 V. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 58 L. T. 174 840 249 1546, 1547 1234 109 118 230 1355 1002, V. Sea Ins. Co., 7 Paige (N. Y.) 294 1194 Ward's Case, 10 Bq. 659 166, 172 Warden v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 651 1295, 1305 Warden, etc. of Mercers v. Hart, IC. &P. 113 230 Wardens of Christ Church v. Pope, 8 Gray (Mass.) 140 1036, 1065, 1065 Wardlaw v. Troy Oil Mill, 74 S. Car. 368; 54 S. E. 658 Warfield v. Marshall County Canning Co., 72 Iowa 666; 34 N. W. 467; 2 Am. St. Rep. 263 Warner v. Callander, 20 Oh. St. 190 V. Daniels, 1 Wood. & Min. 90 V. James, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 567; 85 N. Y. Supp. 153 V. Mower, 11 Vt. 385 1002, 1004, 1005 V. Penoyer, 91 Fed. 587; 33 CCA. 222; 44L.R.A. 761 1278, 1282 V. Rising Fawn Iron Co., 3 Woods 514 1406, 1406, 1461, 1462, 1603, 1603 Warren v. Davenport Fire Ins. Co., 31 Iowa 464; 7 Am. Rep. 160 421 V. King, 108 IT. S. 389; 2 Sup. Ct. 789 449, 449, 449, 450, 450 V. Louisville Leaf, etc. Co. (Ky.), 55 S. W. Rep. 912 566 V. Para Rubber Shoe Co., 166 Mass. 97; 44N. E. 112 956, 1259, 1259, 1284, 1309 1310 1;. Pim, 66 N. J. Eq. 353; 59 Atl. 773 1030, 1052, 1052, 1053 V. Robinson, 19 Utah 289; 57 Pac. 287; 75 Am. St. Rep. 734 1275, 1279 V. Robinson, 21 Utah 429; 61 Pac. 28 1285, 1289 Warren's Estate, 11 N. Y. Supp. 787 1143, 1153 Washburn v. National Wall- Paper Co., 81 Fed. 17; 26 C. C. A. 312 634, 1096, 1098, 1392, 1398 Washer v. Allensville, etc. Turnpike Co., 81 Ind. 78 Washington County Nat. Bank v. Lee, 112 Mass. 521 Washington Diamond Min- ing Co. (1893), 3 Ch. 95 228 381 Washington Irrigation Co. v. California, etc. Co., 115 Fed. 20; 52 C. C. A. 614 Washington Mill Co. v. Sprague Lumber Co., 19 Wash. 165; 52 Pac. 1067 612, 1241 1631 84, 142 Washington Nat., etc. Ass'n V. Buser (W. Va.), 57 S. E. 40 394 Washington Trust Co. v. Morse Iron Works, 106 N. Y. App. Div. 195; 94 N. Y. Supp. 495 1503, 1504, 1536 Washington, etc. R. R. Co. V. Alexandria, etc. R. R. Co., 19 Gratt. (Va.) 592; 100 Am. Dec. 710 1493 V. Cazenove, 83 Va. 744; 3 S. E. 433 1625 Wasser v. Western Land, etc. Co., 97 Minn. 460; 107 N. W. 160 284 Waterford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dalbiac, 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 753; 6 Ex. 443 608 Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 149; 19 L. R. A. 403 1620 V. Jamieson, L. R. 2 H. L. (Scotch) 29 647, 648 Waterloo Organ Co., 134 Fed. 341; 67 C. C A. 255 837, 838, 1402 , 134 Fed. 345; 67 C. C A. 327 1402 , 147 Fed. 814 1492, 1492 Waterman v. Alden, 42 111. App. 294; 144 111. 90; 32 nTe. 972 1143,1145,1146 V. Brown, 31 Pa. St. 161 811 V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 139 111. 658; 29 N. E. 689; 32 Am. St. Rep. 228; 15 L. R. A. 418 1225, 1228 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 433 438, 450, 450, 457, 1108 Waterman's Appeal, 26 Conn. 96 297, 297 Waterous Engine Works Co. V. McLean, 2 Manitoba 279 369 Waters v. American Finance Co., 102 Md. 212; 62 Atl. 357 1246 Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. U. S. etc. Trust Co. (Tex.), 99 S. W. 212 1564 Watkinsij. Glas (Cal.),89Pac. 840 407, 408 V. Robertson (Va.), 54 S. E. 33 786 Watson t). Bendigo Bldg. Soc, 10 Vict. Rep. (Cases at Law) 26 588 V. Black, 16 Q. B. D. 270 420 V. Bonfils, 116 Fed. 157; 53 C. C. A. 535 886, 1071 V. Cave, 17 Ch. D. 19 1592 V. Eales, 23 Beav. 294 659, 763 V. Spratley, 10 Ex. 222 420, 423 V. Woody Printing Co., 56 Mo. App. 145 558, 560 Watson & Co., Robert (1899), 2 Ch. 509 640, 640 Watson, Ex parte, 54 L. T. 233 204, 204, 204 Watt V. Hestonville, etc. Pass. R. R. Co., 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 418 Watts V. Bucknall (1902), 2 Ch. 628 V. Equitable Mut. Life Ins. Co., Ill Iowa 90; 82 N. W. Rep. 441 V. Port Deposit, 46 Md. 500 B. Salter, 10 C. :?• 477 Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370 63, 64, 966, 1268 Waukon, etc. R. R. Co. v. Dwyer, 49 Iowa 121 157, 600 Wausau Boom Co. v. Plumer, 35 Wise- 274 1296 Way V. American Grease Co., 60 N. J. Eq. 263; 47 Atl. 44 409, 948, 1063 Waycross, etc. R. R. Co. v.. Offerman, etc. R. R. Co., 109 Ga. 827; 35 S. E. 275 874, 1086 1555 315 589 386 341 486 940 Waymire v. San Francisco, etc. Ry. Co., 112 Cal. 646; 44 Pac. 1086 Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons, 129 Ind. 368; 27 N. E. 487 W. C. Home & Sons (1906), 1 Ch. 271 1591, 1621, 1621 Weatherford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Granger, 86 Tex. 350; 24 S.W. 795; 40 Am. St. Rep. 837 280, 289, 293, 294 Weatherly v. Medical, etc. Soc, 76 Ala. 567 1010, 1035 Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286 680, 681, 682 Webb V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92; 26 Atl. 113; 39 Am. St. Rep. 396 154, 174, 188, 198, 421, 422 V. Earle, 20 Eq. 556 458 V. Ridgely, 38 Md. 364 1014 V. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 57; 93 S. W. 772 142, 240, 252 V. Shropshire Rys. Co. (1893), 3 Ch. 307 830, 1400 V. Vermont Central R. R. Co., 20 Blatchf. 218; 9 Fed. 793 Webb, Hale & Co. v. Alex- andria Water Co., 93 L. T. 339 Webber v. Williams College, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 302 Weber v. Delia, etc. Co. (Idaho), 94 Pac. 441 V. Fickey, 52 Md. 500 912, 921 V. Spokane Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 208; 12 C. C. A. 93 109, 109, 867, 868, 1408 V. Wallenstein, 111 N. Y. App. Div. 693; 97 N. Y. Supp. 846 Websteri). Howe Machine Co., 54 Conn. 394; 8 Atl. 482 V. Upton, 91 U. S. 65 601, 617, 706, 781 V. Whit worth (Tenn.), 63 S. W. 290 — — V. Ypsilanti Canning Co. (Mich.), 113 N. W. 7 Webster's Case, 2 Eq. 741 1586 689 1380 1030 646, 962 862 1410 1317 143, 214 , 32 L. J. Ch. 135 661, 667 Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90; 12 C. C. A. 56 ; 26 L. R. A. 470 148, 150, 151, 151, 152, 251 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] WecHer v. First Nat. Bank, 42 Md. 581; 20 Am. Rep. 95 870 Weed V. Gainesville R. R. Co., 119 Ga. 576; 46 S. E. 885 1400, 1404, 1626 Weedon's Case, 22 Vict. L. R. 235 521 Weeks v. Esler, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 518; 22 N. Y. Supp. 54 403 V. International Trust Co., 125 Fed. 370; 60' C. C. A. 236 107 V. Silver Islet Consol. Mining Co., 55 N. Y. Super. Ct. 1 651 V. Silver Islet, etc. Min- ing Co., 23 Jones & S. . (N. Y.) 1 191, 660, 661, 662 Weetjen v. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Hun (N. Y.) 529 1550, 1554 V. Vibbard, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 265 1489, 1586 Wehr V. German Ev. Luth., etc. Congregation, 47 Md; 177 1215 Weidenfeld v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 129 Fed, 305; 63 C. C. A. 537 501, 508, 521, 976, 977 V. Sugar Rim R. R. Co., 48 Fed. 615 939, 1214 Weigand v. Fraternities Ac- cident Order, 97 Md. 443; 55 Atl. 530 948 Weihenmayer v. Bitner, 88 Md. 325; 42 Atl. 245; 45 L. R. A. 446 899, 902, 905, 906 Weikersheim's Case, 8 Ch. 831 925 Weinburgh v. Union Street Ry. Ad. Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 640; 37 Atl. 1026 1006, 1015 Weir V. Bay State Gas Co., 91 Fed. 940 890, 969, 978 V. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 583 8, 16 Welch V. Gillelen, 147 Cal. 571; 82 Pac. 248 155, 156, 692, 705 V. Sage, 47 N. Y. 143; 7 Am. Rep. 423 1433, 1435 Welker v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n, 114 N. W. 745 1227 Welland Canal Co. v. Hatha- way, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; 24 Am. Dec. 51 230, 233, 238 610 151 250 563 Welland Ry. Co. v. Berrie, 6 H. & N. 416 Wellersburg, etc. Plank Road Co. V. Hoffman, 9 Md. 559 Wellin^on, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cashie, etc. Lumber Co., 114 N. Car. 690; 19 S. E. 646 Wells V. Black, 117 Cal. 157; 48 Pac. 1090; 59 Am. St. Rep. 162; 37 L. R. A. 619 V. Dane, 101 Me. 67; 63 Atl. 324 928, 929, 947 V. Gates, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 554 252 V. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wise. 442; 64 N.W. 69 429, 429, 650 V. Northern Trust Co., 195 lU. 288; 63 N. E. 136 1624 V. Rahway White Rub- ber Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 402 911, 912, 923, 925, 1205 V. Rodgers, 50 Mich. 294; 15N. W. 462 V. Rodgers, 60 Mich. 525; 27 N. W. 671 V. Tyler, 25 N. H. 340 Wells & Co. V. Thompson Mfg; Co., 54 Mo. App. 41 Wells & McComas Council v. Littleton, 100 Md. 416; 60 Atl. 22 948, 949 Wells Co. V. Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 177; 25 Sup. Ct. 640 Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Enright, 127 Cal. 669; 60 Pac. 439 V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 469 Wellsborough, etc. Plank- Road Co. V. Griffin, 57 Pa. St. 417 Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 87 111, 131, 446, 546 Welsh V. First Div. St. Paul, etc. R.R. Co., 25 Minn. 314 1448, 1449, 1460, 1469, 1528, 1638 Welsh Flannel Co., 20 Eq. 360 614, 614 Welsh Whiskey, etc. Co., 16 Times L. R. 246 432, 436 Welton V. Saffory (1897), A. C. 299 564, 627, 639 Wemple v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 120 111. 196; 11 N. E. 906 156, 163 66 1201 792 702 249 1382 45 1523 .94, TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 465 95 1659 Wemyss Collieries Trust v. Melville, 8 Fraser (Sc.) 143 Wendel v. State, 62 Wise. 300 ; 22 N. W. 435 Wengerv. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 114 Fed. 34; 51 CCA. 660 Wenlock v. River Dee Co., 19 Q. B. D. 155 831, 831, 832 V. River Dee Co., 36 Ch. D. 675 n 824 V. River Dee Co., 38 Ch. D. 534 223 V. River Dee Co., 10 App. Cas. 354 41, 64, 109 Wenstrom Consol., etc. Co. v. Purnell, 75 Md. 113; 23 Atl. 134 Wentworth v. Chevell, 3 Jur. N. s. 805 Wentworth Co. v. French, 176 Mass. 442; 57 N. E. 789 1023, 1067 Werle v. Northwestern Flint, etc. Co., 125 Wise. 534; 104 N. W. 743 1181, 1225 Wert V. Crawfordsville, etc. Turnpike Co., 19 Ind. 242 West V. BuUskin Prairie Ditching Co., 32 Ind. 138 V. Camden, 135 U. S. 507; 10 Sup. Ct. 838 V. Crawford, 80 Cal. 19; 21 Pao. 1123 V. Topeka Sav. Bank, 66 Kans. 524; 72Pac. 252; 97 Am. St. Rep. 385; 63 L. R. A. 137 West Branch Bank v. Arm- strong, 40 Pa. St. 278 V. Chester, 1 1 Pa. St. 282 ; 51 Am. Dec. 547 West Chester, etc. R. R. Co. v. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321 445, 458 464, 466 West Coast, etc. Co. v. Wulff, 133 Cal. 315; 65 Pac. 622; 85 Am. St. Rep. 171 West Cornwall Ry. Co. v. Mowatt, 17 L. J. Ch. n. s. 366 West Devon Great Consols Mine, 27 Ch. D. 106 889, 904 West End, etc. Co. v. Nash, 51W. Va.341; 41 S. E. 182 West of England Bank, 14 Ch. D. 317 West of England Paper Mills V. Gilbert, 61 L. J. Ch. 92 185 789 1017, 204 94 1347 211 614 769 1528 716 1409 213 92 1360, 1360 West London Ry. Co. v. Bernhard, 1 Dav. & Mer. 397 915 West Manayunk, etc. Co. v. New Gas Light Co., 21 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 393 46 West Nashville PJaning-Mill V. Nashville Sav. Bank, 86 Tenn. 252; 6 S. W. 340; 6 Am. St. Rep. 835 648 West Norfolk Lumber Co., 112 Fed. 759 43 West Point Foundry Ass. v. Brown, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 284 274 West Point Tel., etc. Co. v. Rose, 76 Miss. 61; 23 So. 629 294, 1247 West Winsted Sav. Bank v. Ford, 27 Conn. 282; 71 Am. Dec. 66 237 Westchester Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 215 105, 139, 141, 1181 Westcott V. Minnesota Min- ing Co., 23 Mich. 145 658, 1000 Westerfield v. Radde, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 326 1372 Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. 1 H. L. (Sc.) 185 181 Western Boatmen's, etc. Ass'n V. Kribben, 48 Mo. 37 86 Western Counties Steam Bak- eries, etc. Co. (1897), 1 Ch. 617 1363, 1363 Western Improvement Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa 455; 72 N. W. 657 517, 522, 602, 603, 603, 648, 1197 Western Investment Co. v. Davis (Ind. Ty.), 104 S. W. 573 237 Western Md. R. R. Co. v. Blue Ridge Hotel Co., 102 Md. 307; 62 Atl. 351; 111 Am. St. Rep. 362 81, 84, 851 V. Frankhn Bank, 60 Md. 36 740, 741, 1458 Western Mining, etc. Co. v. Peytona Coal Co., 8 W. Va. • 406 1078 Western Nat. Bank v. Arm- strong, 152 U. S. 346; 14 Sup. Ct. 572 483, 492, 1382 Western Pa. Hospital v. Mercantile Library Hall Co., 189 Pa. St. 269; 42 Atl. 183 1527, 1528 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Western Pa. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 59 Pa. St. 290 1535 Western R. R. Co. v. Avery, 64 N. Car. 491 601, 614 Western Screw, etc. Co. v. Consley, 72 111. 531 280 Western Supply, etc. Co. v. V. S., etc. Trust iDo. (Tex.), 92 S. W. 986 1402, 1405, 1626, 1626 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Burlington, etc. R. R. Co., 3 McCrary' 130 1537 Western, etc. R. Co. v. Penn Refining Co., 137 Fed. 343; 70 C. C. A. 23 1620 Western, etc. Trust Co. v. Ogden (Tex.), 93 S. W. 1102 381 Westinghouse v. Grerman Nat. Bank, 188 Pa. St. 630; 41 Atl. 734 . 807, 808 V. German Nat. Bank, 196 Pa. St. 249; 46 Atl. 380 723 Westinghouse Air Brake Co. V. Kansas City, etc. Co., 137 Fed. 26; 71 C. C. A. 1 1542, 1563, 1571, 1572 Westinghouse El., etc. Co. v. New Paltz, etc. Co., 32 N. Y. Misc. 132; 65 N. Y. Supp. 644 1535, 1633 V. Reed (Mass.), 80 N. E. 621 1359 Westminster Nat. Bank v. New England El. Works, 73 N. H. 465; 62 Atl. 971; 111 Am. St. Rep. 637 74, 91, 730, 730, 751 Weston V. Bear River, etc. Co., 5 Cal. 186; 63 Am. Dec. 117 716 V. Bear River, etc. Co., 6 Cal. 425 716, 716 Weston's Case, 4 Ch. 20 744, 745 , 10 Ch. D. 579 1334, 1339 Wetherell v. Thirty-first St., etc. Ass'n, 153 111. 361 ; 39 N. E. 143 571, 768, 775 Wetmore v. St. Paul, etc. R. R. Co., 3 Fed. 177 1636, 1637 Weymouth, etc. Steam Packet Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 66 627 Whaley Bridge, etc. Co. v. Green, 5 Q. B. D. 109 271, 272, 273, 319 Wheal Buller Consols., Re, 38 Ch. D. 42 1172 Wheat V. Bank of Louisville, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 738; 5 S. W. 305 1372 Wheatcroft's Case, 42 L. J. Ch. 853 171, 189 Wheatley v. Silkstone Coal Co., 29 Ch. D. 715 1546 Wheeler v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 159 Fed. 391 ^ 1083 V. Aiken, etc.* Bank, 75 Fed. 781 1266, 1274 V. Everett Land Co., 14 Wash. 630; 45 Pac. 316 85 V. Mineral Farm, etc. Co., 31 Colo. 110; 71 Pac. 1101 524 V. Northwestern Sleigh Co., 39 Fed. 347 1132, 1134, 1135 V. Perry, 18 N. H. 307; 29 Am. Dec. 664 1154, 1155 V. Smith, 81 Fed. 319 1617 Wheeler, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Lawson, 57 Wise. 400; 15 N. W. 398 1304 Wheeler, Re, 2 Abb. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 361 499, 508, 1059 Wheeling Ice, etc. Co. v. Connor (W. Va.), 55 S. E. 982 1328 Wheeling, etc. Ry. Co. v. Reymann Brewing Co., 90 Fed. 189 ; 32 C. C. A. 571 1628 Wheelock v. Kost, 77 111. 296 V. Moulton, 15 Vt. 519 235 1070, 1071 Wheelwright v. St. Louis, etc. Co., 56 Fed. 164 1405, 1586, 1590 Whetstone v. Crane Bros. Mfg. Co., 1 Kans. App. 320; 41 Pac. 211 278 Whetstone v. Ottawa Uni- versity, 13 Kans. 320 81 Whightsel v. Felton, 95 Fed. 923 1613 Whipple V. Parker, 29 Mich. 369 251, 254 Whitaker v. Gnunmond, 68 Mich. 249; 36 N. W. 62 525, 528 V. Hartford, etc. R. R. Co.,8R. L47; 5 Am. Rep. 547 1449, 1460 —^v. Kilby, 106 N. Y. Supp. 511 509, 510 White V. Carmathen Ry. Co., 1 Hem. & Miller 786 87, 972, 972 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] White V. Commercial, etc. Bank, 66 S. Car. 49 1 ; 45 S. E. 94; 97 Am. St. Rep. 803 616 — — V. Elgin Creamery Co., 108 Iowa 522; 79 N. W. 283 1373 V. Franklin Bank, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 181 856, 865, 867 V. Marquardt, 105 Iowa 145; 74 N. W. 930 617 V. Mount Pleasant Mills Corp., 172 Mass. 462; 52 N. E. 632 173 V. New York, etc. Soc, 45 Hun (N. Y.) 580 1041, 1041, 1041 V. Salisbury, 33 Mo. 150 689, 781 786 933 1030, 1662 918 1503 647 634 1670 44 191 44 80 775 643 V. Schuyler, 1 Abb. Pr. N. s. (N. Y.) 300 V. Shaw, 21 Vict. L. R. 559 V. Thomas Tire Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 178; 28 Atl. 75 1030, 1052 V. Vermont & Massachu- setts R. R. Co., 21 How. 575 1423, 1432 V. Westport Cotton Mfg. Co., 1 Pick. (Mass.) 215; 11 Am. Dec. 168 297, 297 V. Wood, 129 N. Y. 527; 29 N. E. 835 White Chimney, etc. Co. v. McMahan, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 41; 50 S. W. Rep. 836 White Co., J. F. v. Carroll (N. Car.), 59 S. E. 678 White, Corbin & Co. v. Jones, 167 N. Y. 158; 60 N. E. 422 V. Jones, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 373; 79 N. Y. Supp. 583 White, Ex parte, 2 S. Car. 469 White Mountain Paper Co. v. Morse, 127 Fed. 643; 62 C. C. A. 369 White Mts. R. R. Co. v. East- man, 34 N. H. 124 V. White Mts. (N. H.) R. R., 50 N. H. 50 1636, 1637 White Oak Grove Benev. Soc. V. Murray, 145 Mo. 622; 47 S. W. 501 235, 254, 304 White River, etc. Bank v. Capital, etc. Trust Co., 77 Vt. 123; 59 Atl. 197; 107 Am. St. Rep. 754 775 ccxvii White Star Laundry Co., 117 Fed. 570 White Star Line v. Star Line of Steamers, 141 Mich. 604; 105 N. W. 135; 113 Am. St. Rep. 551 White Water, etc. Canal Co. v. Vallette, 21 How. 414 1395, 1400, 1401, 1401, 1416, 1499 White's Bank v. Toledo Ins. Co., 12 Oh. St. 601 White's Case, 12 Ch. D. 511 Whitechurch, Ltd., George v. Cavanaugh (1902), A. C. 117 649, 703, 743, 744 Whitehaven Joint Stock Banking Co. v. Reed, 54 L. T. 360 1405, 1411 Whitehead v. American Lamp & Brass Co. (N. J. Ch.), 62 Atl. 554 V. Hamilton Rubber Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 78; 27 Atl. 897 1198, 1200 Whitehead & Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 804 Whitehouse & Co., 9 Ch. D. 595 Whitehouse's Case, 3 Eq. 790 Whiteley v. Central Trust Co., 76 Fed. 74; 22 C. C. A. 67; 34 L. R. A. 303 Whiteley's Case, 1 Megone 154 196, 200 (1900), 1 Ch. 365 178 Whiting V. Commonwealth (Mass.), 82 N. E. 670 V. Hovey, 13 Ont. App. 7 Whiting Safety Catch Co. v. Western, etc.XJo., 148 Fed. 396 879, 1356 Whitley Partners, 32 Ch. D. 337 118, 121, 122 Whitman v. Granite Church, 24 Me. 237 V. National Bank of Oxford, 83 Fed. 288; 28 C. C. A. 404 Whitney v. Hazzard, 18 S. Dak. 490; 101 S. W. 346 V. Robinson, 53 Wise. 309; 10 N. W. 512 235, 237 V. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392 283, 309 Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62; 20 Am. St. Rep. 504 853, 854 Whitt V. Blount, 124 Ga. 671; 53 S. E. 205 383 853 642 612 181 1567 1366 1187 923 385 937 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Whittaker v. Amwell Nat. Bank, 52 N.J. Eq. 400; 29 Atl. 203 1100, 1165, 1199 Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray (Mass.) 582; 71 Am. Dec. 681 79 Whittington v. Farmers' Bank, 5 H. & J. (Md.) 489 912, 1123, 1201, 1204 Whittle V. Vanderbilt Mining Co., 83 Fed. 48 158, 1329 Whittmore v. Beekman, 2 Dem. (N. Y.) 276 1444, 1446 Whitwam v. Watkin, 78 L. T. 188 966, 1288 Whitwell V. Warner, 20 Vt. 425 297 Whitwham v. Piercy (1907), 1 Ch. 289 511, 533, 533, 1143, 1153, 1155 Whitworth v. Erie R. R. Co., 5 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 437 889 Wiarton Beet Sugar Co., 12 Ont. L. R. 149 620 Wiberg v. Minnesota, etc. Re- lief Ass'n, 73 Minn. 297; 76 N. W. 37 589 Wickersham v. Brittan, 93 Cal. 34; 28 Pac. 792; 29 Pac. 51; 15 L. R. A. 106 1251 V. Crittenden, 93 Cal. 17; 28 Pac. 788 972, 1322' V. Crittenden, 110 Cal. 332; 42 Pac. 893 1217, 1238, 1312 Wickham and Bullock Island Coal Co., 5 New So. Wales State Rep. 365 100 Widener v. Railroad Co., 1 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 472 1528 Wiedynska v. Pulaski Polish Benev. Soc, 110 N. Y. App. Biv. 732; 97 N. Y. Supp. 413 584 Wiegand v. Lewis Lumber Co., 158 Fed. 608 1400, 1402, 1403 Wier V. Bush, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 429 1185 Wiggin V. Freewill Baptist Church, 8 Met. (Mass.) 301 1000 Wight V. Shelby R. R. Co., 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) 4; 63 Am. Dec. 522 175, 194 Wilbur V. Linde, 49 Cal. 290; 19 Am. Rep. 645 1296 V. Stoepel, 82 Mich. 344; 46 N. W. 724; 21 Am. St. Rep. 568 1347 Wilcox V. Foley, 64 Conn. 101 ; 29 Atl. 303; 42 Am. St. Rep. 159; 25 L. R. A. 90 320 Wilde V. Jenkins, 4 Paige 481 (N. Y.) 873 Wildy V. Mid-Hants Ry. Co., 18 L. T. 73 1546, 1604 Wiley V. Board of Education, 11 Minn. 371 398 V. Borough of Towanda, 26 Fed. 594 290, 301, 309 Wilhite V. Convent of Good Shepherd, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1375; 78 S. W. 138 381, 386, 386 Wilkins v. Davies, 16 Vict. L. R. 70 274 :?>. Thome, 60 Md. 253 974,975 Wilkinson v. Fleming, 30 111. 353 ' 1582 V. Providence Bank, 3 R. L 22 Wilkinson's Case, 2 Ch. 536 751 177, 214 Wilks V. Georgia Pac. R. Co., 79 Ala. 180 858 Willamette Freighting Co. v. Stannus, 4 Oreg. 261 148, 562, 608 Willamette Mfg. Co. v. Bank of British Columbia, 119 V. S. 191; 7 Sup. Ct. 187 1521, 1521 Willcocks, Ex parte, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 402; 17 Am. Dec. 525 1011, 1022, 1059, 1202, 1203 Willcox V. Trenton Potteries Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 173; 53' Atl. 474 Willett V. Farmers' Sav. Bank, 107 Iowa 69; 77 N. W. 519 Willey V. Crocker Woolworth Nat. Bank. (Cal.), 72 Pac. 832 — — V. Parratt, 3 Ex. 211 William Firth Co. v. South Carolina, etc. Co., 122 Fed. 569; 59 C. C. A. 73 1402, 1402 William Radam Microbe Kil- ler Co., 110 N. Y. App. Div. 329; 97 N. Y. Supp. 76 Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 539 233, 233, 234 V. Boice, 38 N. J. Eq. 364 1127, 1128, 1129 448 851 844 341 1493 TABLE OF CASES tThe references are to pages] ■Williams v. Brewster, 117 Wise. 370; 93 N. W. 479 645 V. Cheney, 3 Gray (Mass.) 215 232, 1370 i;. Chester, etc. Ry. Co., 15 Jur. 828 1376 V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 153 Ind. 496; 55 N. E. 425 216 ^ V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 25 Ind. App. 351; 57 N. E. 581 45, 47, 113 V. Citizens' Ry. Co., 130 Ind. 71; 29 N. E. 408; 30 Am. St. Rep. 201; 15 L. R. A. 64 244,250 V. Colby, 53 Hun (N. Y.) 637; 6N. Y. Supp. 459 297 V. Colonial Bank, 38 Ch. D. 388 423 V. Erie Mountain, etc. Co. (Wash.), 91 Pac. 1091 940 V. Fullerton, 20 Vt. 346 1120, 1354 V. Gaylord, 186 U. S. 157 ; 22 Sup. Ct. 798 1221 V. Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076; 17 So. 496; 49 Am. St. Rep. 394 110, 238, 242, 246, 251 V. Little Falls, etc. Co. (Minn.), 108 N. W. 289 1321 V. Matthews, 103 Va. 180; 48 S. E. 861 600, 615 V. McDonald, 42 N. J. Eq. 392; 7Atl. 866 1264 V. McKay, 40 N. J. Eq. 189; 53 Am. Rep. 775 1259, 1273, 1276, 1281, 1281, 1286, 1288 V. Mechanics' Bank, 5 Blatchf. 59 693, 700, 716 V. Montgomery, 148 N. Y. 519; 43 N. E. 57 — V. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684; 4 Sup. Ct. 638 V. Page, 24 Beav. 654 673, 1030 1592 342, 343 — V. Parker, 136 Mass. 204 443 450, 451, 455 — V. Pigott, 2 Ex. 201 308 — 1). Prince of Wales, etc Co., 23 Beav. 338 889 — V. Riley, 34 N. J. Eq^98 1288 — V. St. George's Har- bor Co., 2 De G. & J. 546 288 V. Salmond, 2 Kay & J. 463 342 Williams v. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418 522, 522, 526, 526 V. Taylor, 99 Md. 306; 57 Atl. 641 614 V. Union Bank, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 339 232 V. Western Union Tel. Co., 93 N. Y. 162 416, 496, 511, 1092, 1096, 1117, 1119 Williams Co. v. U. S. Baking Co., 86 Md. 475; 38 AtL 990 393, 394 Williams' Case, 1 Ch. D. 576 620 , 9 Eq. 225 n 763, 766 Williams, Ex parte, 17 S. Car. 396 1607 Williamsburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391 232, 384 Williamsburgh Sav. Bank v. Town of Solon 136 N. Y. 465 1 32 N. E. 1058 1450 Williamson v. Eastern Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 54 S. Car. 582; 32 S. E. 765; 71 Am. St. Rep. 822 593 V. Kokomo Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 89 Ind. 389 127, 249 V. Krohn, 66 Fed. 655; 13 C. C. A. 668; 62 Fed. 869 340, 1351, 1353 V. New Albany, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Biss. 198 1584, 1603, 1603 V. New Jersey Southern R.R.Co.,25N.J.Eq. 13 1503, 1585 V. New Jersey Southern R. R. Co. , 26 N. J. Eq. 398 423, 1397, 1511 V. New Jersey Southern R.R.Co.,29N.J.Eq.311 1496 1535, 1539 Williamson County Bank v. Roberts-Buford, etc. Co. (Tenn.), 101 S. W. 421 1239, 1242 Williamson's Adm'r v. Wash- ington City, etc. R. R. Co., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 624 1559, 1562, 1572 Willink V. Morris Canal, etc. Co., 4 N. J. Eq. 377 1503, 1585, 1606 Willis V. Jermin, Cro. Eliz. 167; 2 Leon 97 400,401,402 V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Wkly. N. Cas. (Pa.) 461 731 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 466 981 1364 1197 507 1511 1354 844 1020 Williston V. Michigan, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 400 Willpughby v. Chicago Junc- tion Rys., etc. Co., 50 N. J. Eq. 656; 25 Atl. 277 V. Comstock, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 389 Wills V. James Rowland & Co., 102 N. Y. Supp. 386 V. Murray, 4 Ex. 843 Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc. Ry. Co., 2 Woods 409 1600, 1603 V. McNamara, etc. Co. (1895), 2 Ch. 245 1096, 1099, 1099 Wilmott V. London Celluloid Co., 34 Ch. D. 147 1315, 1323, 1545 Wilson V. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Fed. 459 431, 793 V. Bank of Montgomery County, 29 Pa. St. 537 V. Boyce, 92 U. S. 320 V. Bury, 5 Q. B. D. 518 V. Carter Oil Co., 46 W. Va. 469; 33 S. E. 249 V. Central Bridge, 9 R. I. 590 V. Curzon, 15 M. & W. 532 275, 309 V. Duplin Telephone Co., 139 N. Car. 395; 52 S. E. 62 662, 666 V. Hotchkiss, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 261 274, 307, 310, 311 V. Hundley, 96 Va. 96; 30 S. E. 492; 70 Am. St. Rep. 837 180, 183 D. Little, 2 N.Y. 443; 51 Am. Dec. 307 803, 808 V. Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co., 120 N.Y. 145; 24 N. E. 384; 17Am. St. Rep. 625 1343 V. Miers, 10 C. B. n. s. 348 71, 1188 V. Parvin, 119 Fed. 652; 56 C. C. A. 268 439, 440, 472 V. Stevens, 129 Ala. 630; 29 So. 678; 87 Am. St. Rep. 86 V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 108 Mo. 588; 18 S. W. 286; 32 Am. St. Rep. 624 V. West Hartlepool Ry. Co., 2 De G. & Sm. 475 Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Spears, 50 Mich. 534; 15 N. W. 894 1357 716 395 230 Wilson, Ex parte, 8 Ch. 45 1265 Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. 962 169, 169, 171, 171 Wiltbank's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 256; 3 Am. Rep. 585 499, 503, 1147 Winboum's Case, 30 Fed. 167 1618 Winch V. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co., 5 De G. & Sm. 562 978 Winchester v. Howard, 136 Cal. 432; 64 Pae. 692 1280 Winchester, etc. Turnpike Co. V. Wicliffe, 100 Ky. 531 ; 38 S. W. 866; 66 Am. St. Rep. 356 1122, 1122, 1123 Windmuller v. Standard Dis- tilling, etc. Co., 114 Fed. 491 1080, 1080, 1081 V. Standard Distilling Co., 115 Fed. 748 1080 V. Standard Distilling Co., 106 N. Y. App. Div. 246; 94 N.Y. Supp. 52 86 Windram v. French, 151 Mass. 547; 24 N. E. 914; 8 L. R. A. 750 730 Wineburgh v. U. S. Steam, etc. Ad. Co., 173 Mass. 60; 53 N. E. 145; 73 Am. St. Rep. 261 1285 Wing V. Charleroi Plate Glass Co., 112 Fed. 817 1335 Winnipeg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mann, 7 Manitoba 81 1399 Winona, etc. R. R. Co. v. St. Piaul, etc. R. R. Co., 23 Minn. 359 873, 874,877 Winslow V. Minnesota, etc. R. R. Co., 4 Minn. 313; 77 Am. Dec. 519 1484, 1585 Winsor, Ex parte, 3 Story 411 993 1123, 1125, 1195 V. Bailey, 55 N. H. 218 968, 972, 980 Winsted Hosiery Co. v. New Britain Knitting Co., 69 Conn. 565; 38 Atl. 310 1376, 1379 Winston v. Dorsett, etc. Co., 129 111. 64; 21 N. E. 514; 4 L. R. A. 507 620 Winstone's Case, 12 Ch. D. 239 102, 111 Winter v. Baldwin, 89 Ala. 483; 7 So. 734 899, 906, 906, 906 V. Belmont Mfg. Co., 53 Cal. 428 682 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] 1543 23 47 Winter v. Iowa Central Ry. Co., Ill Iowa 342; 82 N. W. 760 V. Iowa, etc. Ry. Co., 2 Dill. 487 V. Montgomery Gas- Light Co., 89 Ala. 544; 7 So. 773 710, 711 Winters v. Armstrong, 37 Fed. 508 490, 493 V. Hub Mining Co., 57 Fed. 287 280 Wisconsin Lumber Co. v. Greene, etc. Co., 127 Iowa 350; 101 N. W. 742; 109 Am. St. Rep. 387; 69 L. R. A. 968 192, 527, 952 Wisconsin Tel. Co. v. City of Oshkosh, 62 Wise. 32; 21 N. W. 828 Wishard v. Hansen, 99 Iowa 307; 68N.W. 691; 61 Am. St. Rep. 238 648, 648 Wist V. Grand Lodge, 22 Oreg. 271; 29 Pac. 610; 29 Am. St. Rep. 603 584, 590 Witham v. Cohen, 100 Ga. 670; 28 S. E. 505 Withers v. Edwards, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 189; 62 S. W. 795 V. Lafayette County Bank, 67 Mo. App. 115 430, 749 Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 359 Witters v. Foster, 26 Fed. 737 Wittmer Lumber Co. v. Rice, 23 Ind. App. 586 Witts V. Steere, 13 Ves. 363 W. Key & Son (1902), 1 Ch. 467 428, 771, 793 W. L. Wells Co.' I). Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 177; 25 Sup. Ct. 640 Wolf V. Davenport, etc. R. R. Co., 93 Iowa 218; 61 N. W. 847 V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 195 Pa. St. 91; 45 Atl. 936 941, 946, 1081 Wolfe V. Simmons, 75 Miss. 539; 23 So. 586 1356 V. Underwood, 96 Ala. 329 889, 1111, 1112 Wolverhampton, etc. Co. v. Hawksford, 7 C. B. n. s. 795; Ex. Ch. 11 C. B. n. a. 456 923, 926, 925 1024 1029 310 1285 852 1141 249 1376 Woman's Foreign Missionaiy Soc. V. Mitchell, 93 Mdf. 199; 48 Atl. 737; 63 L. R. A. 711 380 Wood V. Chamber of Com- merce, 119 Wise. 367; 96 N. W. 835 566, 580 V. Coosa, etc. R. R. Co., 32 Ga. 273 175, 914 V. Corry Water Works Co., 44 Fed. 146; 12 L. R. A. 168 110, 1006, 1408 V. Drummer, 3 Mason 308 1127 V. Dubuque, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Fed. 910 1633 V. Goodwin, 49 Me. 260; 77 Am, Dec. 259 1627 V. Guarantee Trust Co., 128 U. S. 416; 9 Sup. Ct. 131 1453, 1466, 1467, 1457, 1461, 1659, 1562, 1566 V. Hammond, 16 R. I. 98; 17 Atl. 324; 18 Atl. 198 848 V. Holly Mfg. Co., 100 Ala. 326; 13 So. 948; 46 Am. St. Rep. 66 1637, 1640 V. Jefferson County Bank, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 194 230 V. Lost Lake Mfg. Co., 23 Oreg. 20; 23 Pac. 848; 37 Am. St. Rep. 661 1237, 1238, 1320, 1321 V. Mott Iron Works, 114 N. Y. App. Div. 108 890 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 70 Fed. 741 1561, 1563 V. Odessa Woodworks, 42 Ch. D. 636 1117 V. Sheldon, 42 N. J. Law 421; 36 Am. Rep. 623 784, 785 V. Union Gospel Church Bldg. Ass'n, 63 Wise. 9; 22 N. W. 756 124, 493, 1063, 1364 V. What Cheer Lodge, 20 R. I. 795; 38 Atl. 895 948 V. Whelen, 93 111. 153 283, 290, 1186, 1187, 1190, 1409 V. Wiley Construction Co., 56 Conn. 87; 13 Atl. 137 127, 221, 228, 912, 1006 Wood's Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 379; 37 Am. Rep. 694 723, 725 Wood's Case, 15 Eq. 236 189 Wood's Ship, etc. Co., 62 L. T. 760 1238. 1242 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Wood's Sons Co. v. Sohaefer, 173 Mass. 443; 53 N. E. 881 ; 73 Am. St. Rep. 305 1379 Woodberry v. McCluig, 78 Miss. 831; 29 So. 514 57,113,258 Woodbury v. Allegheny, etc. Ry. Co., 72 Fed. 371 1587 Woodbury Heights Land Co. V. Loudenslager, 55 N. J. Eq. 78; 35 Atl. 436 322 Woodhaven Bank v. Brooklyn Hills Imp. Co., 69 N. Y. App. Div. 489; 74 N. Y. Supp. 1023 924 Woodhill v.- Sullivan, 14 C. P. (Up. Can.) 265 396, 408 Woodman v. York, etc. R. R. Co., 50 Me. 549 406 Woodroof V. Howes, 88 Cal. .184; 26Pac. Ill 978,979 Woodruff V. Dubuque, etc. R. Co., 30 Fed. 91 1047 V. Erie Ry. Co., 93 N. Y. 609 852, 863, 1611 V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 129 N. Y. 27; 29 N. E. 251 1490, 1490 V. Wentworth, 133 Mass. 309 1029, 1030 Woodruff's Estate, 1 Tuck. (N. Y.) 58 1150 Woods V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co., 99 Pa. St. 101 1533 Woods Motor Vehicle Co. v. Brady, 181 N. Y. 145; 73 N. E. 674 212, 214, 215 V. Brady, 39 N. Y. Misc. 79; 78 N. Y. Supp. 203 209 Woodside Coal Co., 105 Fed. 56 44 Woodson V. Murdock, 22 Wall. 351 1484 Woolf V. East Nigel Gold Min- ing Co., 21 Times L. R. 660 152, 1228 967 616 592 418, Woolaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 437 660 Wooten 1). Wilmington, etc. R. Co., 128 N. Car. 119; 38 S. E. 298; 56L. R. A. 615 792, 798, 798, 814, 814 Worcester Med. Inst. v. Hard- ing, 11 Cush. 285 237 WorkinCTnen's Accommoda- tion Bank v. Converse, 29 La. Ann. 369 241, 247 World's Fair Excursion Co. V. Gasch, 162 111. 402; 44 N. E. 724 528 Wormser v. Metropolitan St. Ry.Co., 184N. Y. 83; 112 Am. St. Rep. 596 966, 967, 967 V. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 98 N. Y. App. Div. 29; 90 N. Y. Supp. 714 Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb. 210 Worthington v. Schuylkill El. Ry. Co., 195 Pa. St. 211; 45 Atl. 927 V. Tormey, 34 Md. 182 785 809 Wragg, Re (1897), 1 Ch. 796 '634, 635, 639 Wray v. Wray (1905), 2 Ch. 349 254 Wrexham, etc. Ry. Co. (1899), 1 Ch. 440 831, 832, 1455 Wright V. Bundy, 11 Ind. 398 1495, 1584 V, Central, etc. Co., 67 Cal. 532; 8 Pac. 70 1016, 1250 V. Com., 109 Pa. St. 560; 1 Atl. 794 1015, 1015, 1016, 1163 — V. First Nat. Bank, 52 N. J. Eq. 392; 28 Atl. 719 1164, 1205, 1222 — V. Horton, 12 A. C. 371 1396, 1396 — V. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 21 N. E. 907; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412 63, 65, 852, 862 — V. Incorporated Synod, 11 Can. Sup. Ct. 95 586 — V. Knoxville Livery, etc. Co. (Tenn.), 59 S. W. 677 1244 — V. Lee, 2 S. Dak. 596; 51 N. W. 706 1009, 1009, 1187, 1208, 1224 — V. Ohio, etc. '^. R. Co., 1 Disney (Oh.) 465 — V. Pipe Line Co., 101 Pa. St. 204; 47 Am. Rep. 701 1451 — V. St. Louis Sugar Co. (Mich.), 109 N. W. 1062 — V. Springfield, etc. R. R. Co., 117 Mass. 226; 19 Am. Rep. 412 V. Tuckett, IJ. & H. 266 V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Corp., 12 Cush. (Mass.) 68 846, 862 293 1169 1137, 1156 457, 1108 Wright-Caesar Tobacco Co. V. A. Hoen & Co. (Va.), 54 S. E. 309 141, 386 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] "Wright Lumber Co. v. Hixon, 105 Wise. 153; 80 N. W. 1110, 1135 770, 773 Wright's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 425 735 Wright's Case, 7 Ch. 55; 20 W. R. 45 179, 179, 625 Wright's Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 376 503 W. Tasker & Sons (1905), 2 Ch. 587 1418, 1473, 1473, 1524 Wyeth V. Renz-Bowles, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2337; 66 S. W. 825 158 Wylie V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 41 Fed. 623 1435, 1435 Wylly-Gabbett Co. v. Wil- Uams (Fla.), 42 So. 910 1553 Wyman v. American Powder Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 168 430 V. Bowman, 127 Fed.- 257; 62 C. C. A. 189 189, 702, 1296, 1316, 1317, 1318 V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 29 Fed. 734 866 V. Wallace, 201 U. S. 230; 26 Sup. Ct. 495 63 Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & S. 310 783, 785 Wynne's Case, 8 Ch. 1002 165, 171 Wyoming Coal Mining Co. V. State ex rel. Kennedy (Wyo.), 87 Pac. 337 896, 905 Wyoming Valley Ice Co., 153 Fed. 787 1400, 1402, 1403, 1403 Wyss-Thalman v. Beaver Val- ley Brewing Co. (Pa.), 68 Atl. 187 919, 924, 1223 X X. Company (1907), 2 Ch. 92 1364 Xantha Beneficial, etc. Ass'n, 8 Pa. Dist. Rep. 142 40 Yager's Adm'r v. Bank of Kentucky (Ky.), 100 S. W. 848 815 Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 64 Conn. 101; 29 Atl. 303; 42 Am. St. Rep. 159; 25 L. R. A. 90 318, 319, 320 Yanish v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 64 Minn. 175; 66 N. W. 198 407 Yarborough v. Bank of Eng- land, 16 East 6 869 Yates V. Jones Nat. Bank (1907), 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; 206 U. S. 158 1355, 1359 V. Jones Nat. Bank (Nebr.), 105 N. W. 287 1355 V. Utica Bank, 206 U. S. 181 1355, 1359 Yeager v. Bank of Kentucky (Ky.), 106 S. W. 806 814 Yeaton v. Eagle Oil, etc. Co., 4 Wash. 183; 29 Pac. 1051 517 Yeiser v. U. S. Board, etc. Co., 107 Fed. 340; 46 C. C. A. 567; 52L. R. A. 724 322,324, 326 Yelland's Case, 4 Eq. 350 1242 Yellow Jacket, etc. Co. v. Stevenson, 5 Nevada 224 1235, 1372 Yeoland Consols, 58 L. T. 922 173 Yetts V. Norfolk Ry. Co., 3 De G. & Sm. 293 931, 946 Yoakum v. Selph, 83 Tex. 607; 19 S. W. 145 1619 Yonkers Gazette Co. v. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 334; 51 N. Y. Supp. 969 209, 209, 214 York V. Mathis, 68 Atl. 746 1374 York Glass Co., Re, 60 L. T. 744 534 York Tramways Co. v. Wil- lows, 8 Q. B. D. 685 1164, 1165, 1175, 1182, 1212, 1230, 1232 York & North Midland Ry. v. Hudson, 16 Beav. 485 1320 York, etc. R. R. Co. v. Ritchie, 40 Me. 425 658, 1214 Yorkshire Ry. Wagon Co. v. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309 64, 1545 Young V. Commissioners of Mahonning Co., 53 Fed. 895 971 V. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 112 N. Y. App. Div. 760 944, 979, 1285 V. MacNider, 25 Can. Sup. a. Rep. 272 1436 V. Montgomery, etc. R. R. Co., 2 Woods 606 1485, 1588 V. Naval, Military, etc. Soc. (1905), 1 K. B. 687 1245, 1281, 1283, 1300 V. Plattner Lmplement Co. (Colo.), 91 Pac. 1109 237 V. New Standard Con- centrator Co. (Cal.), 83 Pac. 28 797 V. South African Syndi- cate (1896), 2 Ch. 268 1004 TABLE OF CASES [The references are to pages] Young V. South Tredegar Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 189; 2 S. W. 202; 4 Am. St. Rep. 752 381, 386, 386, 715 V. Vough, 23 N. J. Eq. 325 571, 572, 769, 774 Young Reversible Lock-Nut Co. V. Young Lock-Nut Co., 72 Fed. 62 127, 300 Young Women's Christian Ass'n V. St. Louis Women's Christian Ass'n, 115 Mo. App. 228; 91 S. W. 171 129, 369 Yoimgblood v. Comer, 97 Ga. 152; 23S. E. 509; 25 S. E. 838 1619 Younglove v. Steinman,' 80 Cal. 375; 22 Pao. 189 652 Youree v. Home Town Mut. Ins. Co., 180 Mo. 153; 79 S. W. 175 1185 Yuruari Co., 6 Times L. R. 119 764, 765 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co., 23 How. 381 86, 972, 1221, 1221 Zaiesky v. Iowa, etc. Ins. Co., 102 Iowa 512; 70 N. W. 187; 71 N. W. 433 912 Zang V. Adams, 23 Colo. 408; 48 Pac. 509; 58 Am. St. Rep. 249 213 Zartman v. First Nat. Bank, 189N.Y.267; 82N.E. 127 1503, 1505, 1605, 1506, 1553 Zearfoss v. Farmers', etc. Inst., 154 Pa. St. 449; 26 Atl. 211; 35 Am. St. Rep. 848 1224 Zebley v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 139 N. Y. 461; 34 N. E. 1067 1488 Zeigler v. Valley Coal Co. (Mich.), 113 N. W. 775 300 Zelaya, etc. Co. v. Meyer, 8 N. Y. Supp. 487; 28 N. Y. St. Rep. 759 627 Zellerbach v. Allenberg, 99 Cal. 57; 33 Pac. 786 809, 1111 Zeltner v. Zeltner Brewing Co., 174 N. Y. 247; 66 N. E. 810; 95Am. St. Rep. 574 1183 Zihlman v. Cumberland Glass - Co., 74 Md. 303; 22 Atl. 271 400 Zimmerman v. ICansas City, etc. R. Co., 144 Fed. 622; 75 C. C. A. 424 1543, 1635 V. Masonic Aid Ass'n, 75 Fed. 236 917, 918 Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 103 Wise. 125; 79 N. W. 229; 74 Am. St. Rep. 845 327, 870, 1346 Zinn V. Baxter, 65 Oh. St. 341 ; 62 N. E. 327 962, 972, 974, 982 V. Germantown, etc. Mut. Ins. Co. (Wise), 111 N. W. 1107 1131 ADDENDA CASES OF ESPECIAL INTEREST REPORTED WHILE THIS BOOK WAS GOING THROUGH THE PRESS. National Life Ins. Co. of the United States v. National Life Ins. Co., 209 U. S. 317, modifying or supplementing the law as stated in § 456, holds that where a corporation has engaged in business under a certain name at a certain city before the incor- poration of another company under substantially the same name, the courts will not supervise the discretion of the post ofHce authorities, so as to enjoin them from delivering to the former company mail matter addressed to the common name at the city in question, without any distinguishing street or number, merely because a vastly larger proportion of such matter may have been found by experience to be intended for the second company. Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U. S. 365, and Thomas v. Taggart, 209 U. S. 385, are important cases, although laying down no novel propositions of law, upon the subject of purchases of shares on margin and of the mutual rights of pledgors and pledgees of shares. MODERN CORPORATION LAW CHAPTER I HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY Section Formation of corporations at common law 1 Common law rule in America 2 Dissimilarity of American statutory corporations and corporations formed by royal charter . . 3 Development of modem corporation or company law in England 4-13 Incorporation by royal charter 4 Incorporation by special Act of Parliament — "Companies Clauses Consolidation Act" 5 Development of unincorporated joint-stock companies — The Bubble Act 6 General incorporation laws — 7-13 The Statute 39 EUz., c. 5 7 Companies Act of 1844 8 Companies Act of 1856 9 Companies Act of 1862 10-12 The "Memorandum of Association" 10 The "Articles of Association" 11 "Table A" 12 Amendments and Supplements to Companies Act of 1862 — Companies Act of 1900 13 Development of modern corporation law in the United States . . . 14-18 In general 14 Growth of system of general incorporation laws 15 Constitutional prohibition of incorporation by special act ... 16 Unincorporated joint-stock companies 17 Modem general- incorporation laws 18 Effects of modern liberal incorporation laws 19-22 Right to incorporate no longer a franchise or special privilege . 19 Early judicial recognition of this principle 20 Liberal construction of modem incorporation laws 21 Frauds perpetrated under cover of liberal laws 22 Classification of corporations 23-29 Distinction between corporations formed under general laws and corporations created by special act 23 Under what statute corporation is deemed to be formed . 24 Classification with respect to liability of members . ... 25 Classification with respect to objects . 26-29 Ancient classification . 26 VOL. I. — 1 1 § 1 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I Classification of corporations {continued) Section How objects determined for purposes of classification ... 27 Municipal corporations, religious corporations, business corporations, public-service corporations, financial corporations, etc 28 "Public" and "private" corporations 29 Nomenclature — " Corporations" and "Companies" 30 § 1. Formation of Corporations at Common Law. — By the common law of England, corporations could be formed in only one way — by a special charter granted by the crown. To be sure, the legislature by special act might create a corpora- tion ; but an act of the legislature involves a change in the law, so that a corporation formed by special act of the legislature could not properly be said to be organized under the common law. No sufficient sound economic reason applicable to modern conditions can be adduced to support this common law doc- trine. For, in a free commercial country, individuals should have the power by mere private contract or agreement to asso- ciate themselves together as a corporation for any merely private lawful object. They should enjoy the same freedom in the formation of corporations that Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence has always accorded in the formation of partnerships or voluntary associations. To be sure, safeguards should be provided against fraud, and particularly against abuse of that immunity from individual Uability of the members for the debts of the company which in popular estimation constitutes the most valuable, if not the most essential, characteristic of a commercial corpora- tion. But subject to all needful restrictions of this sort, the organization of corporations in any country that prides itself on freedom of contract and on the right of its citizens to co- operate in the most effective manner in any lawful enterprise, should be as free as the formation of unincorporated associa- tions; and most certainly the benefits of doing business under the corporate form should not be dependent on the caprice of a monarch or of a minister, or upon the special favor of the legislature. § 2. Common Law Rule in America. — Nevertheless, the com- mon law prohibition of corporations except by royal charter was carried by our ancestors across the Atlantic, and became part of the jurisprudence of the United States. In colonial times, the king did occasionally erect corporations in America § l-§ 30] THE COMMON LAW § 3 by his charter, as witness the well-known instance of Dartmouth College.^ In some of the colonies, notably in Maryland ^ and Pennsylvania,^ this prerogative of the crown was delegated in part or in whole to the lord proprietary or viceroy, and by him sparingly exercised ; but if in any colony the prerogative extended to the incorporation of business corporations, no instance is known in which it was exercised for that purpose. After the Declaration of Independence, the prerogative perished altogether; and was not renewed or vested by the various state constitutions in the executive. Accordingly, the royal charter, the only common law method of forming cor- porations, having become impracticable, persons desiring to become incorporated were obliged in each case to apply to the legislature for a special act of incorporation. Thus, the separa- tion from the mother country, the abolition of the royal prerog- ative, and the endeavor to preserve and even to increase the individual liberties previously enjoyed by the colonists as British subjects, resulted, curiously enough, in depriving the American people of the only mode of incorporating known to the common law, and thus in still further restricting the already too limited power of organizing corporations. § 3. Dissimilarity of American Statutory Corporations and Corporations formed by Royal Charter. — In the United States, although royal charters of incorporation have been obsolete for ' See Dartmouth College v. Wood- city of Annapolis was incorporated ward, 4 Wheat. 518. by a deputy of Queen Anne during ^ See Charter of Maryland, § 14 the suspension of the proprietary (Kilty's Laws of Md. ; Md. Code Pub. government, and the charter was Gen. Laws of 1904, p. 100), where confirmed with modifications by Act the Lord Proprietary was invested of Assembly, Laws of Md. of 1708, with the power "Villas item in Chap. 7. Burgos et Burgos in Civitates ad ' Charter of Pennsylvania, § 10 Inhabitantium Merita et Locorum (Charters and Provincial Laws of Pa., Opportunitates cum Privilegiis et ed. of 1762, p. 3), where Charles 11 Immunitatibus congruis erigendi et granted to Penn and his heirs power incorporandi." Perhaps the only "to erect and incorporate towns into exercise of this power was the grant boroughs and boroughs into cities." of a charter by Lord Baltimore in In pursuance of this power, the pro- 1667, incorporating the "Mayor, Re- prietary granted a charter of in- corder. Aldermen, and Common corporation in 1701 to the city of Council of the City of St. Mary's Philadelphia, and subsequently City." See McKim v. Odom, 3 erected a number of boroughs. Bland Ch. (Md.), 407, 416, note. Charters and Provincial Laws of where a recital of some of the terms Pa., ed. of 1762, pp. 10 et seq. See of the charter will be found. The also 3 Wilson's Lectures, 409. 3 § 4 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I more than a century, the old terminology has to a great extent survived, and is applied to the wholly different statutory corpora- tions of to-day. Thus, special acts of incorporation are, in America, commonly called "charters," although this use of the term is perhaps inappropriate and is certainly not in vogue in England. There, "charter" still means a royal charter, and is very rarely applied to a special act of parliament creating a cor- poration.' Indeed, the American law of corporations is not merely in terminology but to some extent in substance an out- growth of the old law of corporations formed under royal charter. This is certainly unfortunate ; for what law there is relating to the old corporations chartered by the crown — and the cases on the subject are comparatively few and meagre — is of an antiquated nature, totally inapplicable to modern joint-stock business corporations. The greatest harm that has come from assimilating modern incorporated companies to old-fashioned chartered corporations is the notion that the right to be a cor- poration is a special franchise. To be sure, this was true at common law; but as stated above this feature of the common law was an anomaly in the jurisprudence of a free country, and, as will be more fully explained below,^ it is now completely abrogated both in England and in most of the United States, where the right to incorporate for any lawful object is free to everybody, on observing certain statutory formalities. § 4-§ 13. DEVELOPMENT OF CORPORATION OR COM- PANY LAW IN ENGLAND § 4. Incorporation by Royal Charter. — Even in England the formation of corporations by royal charter, although always pos- sible, was never frequent, and is perhaps at the present day even rarer than ever. The corporations organized in this way have been chiefly for municipal, charitable, educational, or re- ligious purposes, and have but little in common with the ordi- ' In Simpson v. Molson's Bank uses the word in that sense. For an (1895), A. C. 270, the reporter in his instance of similar use of the word statement of the facts of the case in Canada, see McMurrich v. Bond refers to a special act of incorpora- Head Harbour Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. tion as a "charter," and in Attorney- 333, 336. General v. Mersey Ry. Co. (1907), ' See infra, § 19-§ 20. A. G. 415, 417, Lord Macnaghten § l-§ 30] COMPANIES CLAUSES ACTS § 5 nary business corporation of to-day. Some famous historic organizations, formed partly for private gain and partly for public governmental' objects, such as the East India Company, were incorporated in this way. The Bank of England was in- corporated by royal charter but in pursuance of a special act of parliament.' § 5. Incorporation by Special Act ot Parliament — The "Com- panies Clauses Consolidation Act." — In England, partly be- cause the crown was for some reason so very chary in granting charters of incorporation, applications to parliament for special acts of incorporation became more and more frequent as business conditions developed and the desirability of incor- porating becarae constantly greater.^ Special acts of incorpora- tion particularly for canal and railway companies accordingly multiplied apace. A general resemblance pervaded all of these special acts; but each was characterized by its own peculiar features. As the general scheme or constitution of all such corporations was the same or nearly so, the same language to a great extent was employed in all such special acts; and, in order to avoid this repetition, parliament in 1845 adopted a code or system of provisions which should be taken as em- bodied in all subsequent special acts of incorporation,' except in so far as expressly excluded. This code is known as the "Companies Clauses Consolidation Act," sometimes abbre- viated to "Companies Clauses Act." At the same session of parliament, a statute was passed, known as the "Railway Clauses Consolidation Act," containing certain provisions as to the construction of railways which in hke manner were to be taken as embodied in all subsequent special acts for the in- corporation of railway companies.^ These statutes, it will be ' Stat. 5 & 6 W. & M., c. 20. are the "Companies Clauses Act, See 1 Black. Comm. 473. 1863," the "Companies Clauses ' As Blackstone points out, spe- Act, 1869," the "Companies Clauses cial acts of parliament creating cor- Consolidation Act, 1888," and the porations had become common only "Companies Clauses Consolidation in his own time. 1 Black. Comm. Act, 1889." 473. * 8 & 9 Vict:, o. 20. See the '8 & 9 Vict., c. 16. See also "Lands Clauses Consolidation Act," "Companies Clauses Consolidation 8 & 9 Vict., c. 18, containing pro- Act (Scotland)," 8 & 9 Vict., c. 17, visions to apply to companies upon a similar act applicable to Scotland, which the power of condemning Later "Companies Clauses Acts" land should be conferred. § 5 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTOEY [ChAP. I observed, are not general incorporation laws, and do not apply to companies organized under general laws or "Companies Acts," the first of which had been passed in the preceding year. This separation between matters so distinct as a general enabling act and the establishment of regulations for companies thereafter incorporated by special act certainly avoids confu- sion; and the example might perhaps profitably be followed in those American states where special acts of incorporation are still resorted to. Much trouble has been occasioned by en- deavoring to combine in one act or code general provisions for the formation of corporations and for the regulation of the companies formed thereunder, with provisions for the regula- tion of such companies as the legislature had previously incor- porated or might subsequently see fit to incorporate by special act, the only object of which latter provisions is avoidance of the necessity of inserting in each special act a complete system of corporation law.' This trouble and confusion might be ob- viated, it would seem, by the passage of a " Companies Clauses Act " ; although this opinion must be expressed with diffidence, inasmuch as some English lawyers advocate, as tending to greater simplicity, a consolidation of the Companies Clauses Acts with the Companies Acts.^ ' Cf . Qregg v. Granby Mining, etc. granted by the act of incorporation, " Co. (Mo.), 65 S. W. 312 (a constitu- held not to apply to ccporations tional provision making all charters created by special act of the legisla- of incorjSoration subject to amend- ture but only to those formed under ment or repeal by the legislature the general law) ; Love v. Holmes held to apply both to companies in- (Miss.), 44 So. 835 (municipal cor- corporated under general laws and poration created by special act, held companies created by special act) ; not subject to a limitation of munici- Montdair v. N. Y. & Greenwood pal indebtedness prescribed by the Lake By. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 436, 441- general statutes applicable to mu- 442 ; 18 Atl. 242 ; Hayes v. Mor- nicipalities) ; State v. Cape Girar- gan's La., etc. Co., 42 So. 150; 117 deau, etc. Road Co. (Mo.), 105 S. W. La. 593 ; Frader v. Railway Co., 88 761 (where the question was decided Terni. 138 (headnote 8) ; 12 S. W. whether a turnpike company incor- 537; City of Atlanta v. Gate City porated by special act was subject Gas Light Co., 71 Ga. 106 (pro- to a provision in a statute applica- vision in general incorporation law ble to corporations generally, or to that "no charter shall have any force a different provision in a general or effect for a longer period than law for incorporation of turnpike two years unless the incorporators companies). within that time shall in good faith ' Rawlins & Macnaghten on commence to exercise the powers Companion, preface, pp. v-vi. .6 § l-§ 30] UNINCORPORATED COMPANIES § 6 § 6. Development of Unincorporated Joint-stock Companies. — The Bubble Act. — Side by side with the constantly in- creasing frequency of incorporation by special statutes, which occasioned the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, there developed in England out of the ordinary partnership a form of association known as joint-stock companies, which, although unincorporated, much more closely resemble the ordinary stock corporations of to-day than do the common law corpora- tions chartered by the crown. These joint-stock companies originated in an attempt to secure so far as practicable by mere mutual agreement among the members the same advantages that would be obtained by incorporation. Parliament unwisely frowned upon this endeavor, and the Bubble Act ' sought alto- gether to repress it. That statute, however, never proved very effective in accomplishing its purpose,^ and in 1825 was re- pealed.' Notwithstanding this repeal, some judges continued to look askance at these associations ; * but other judges evinced a more liberal disposition,^ and the number of such companies constantly increased. Although these unincorporated joint-stock companies were, in legal contemplatipn, nothing but huge partnerships distin- guished from ordinary firms only by the number of their mem- bers, yet the ingenuity of the cleverest solicitors was taxed in order to give them, practically, all the most important attributes of corporations. Every member or shareholder was required to sign and seal the company's deed of settle- ment, which contained elaborate provisions for the govern- ment of the concern. Particularly, it provided that the partnership should not be dissolved by the death of a member but that his personal representative should on executing the deed of settlement become a member in his room. Transfers of shares inter vivos were also provided for. Moreover, the manage- ment of the company was vested in a board of directors, and the deed always stipulated that a mere private member or partner should have no power to act as agent for the concern. The ' 6 Geo. I, c. 18, § 18. ° Harrison v. Heathom, 6 Man. & ■' Cf. Rex V. Webb, 14 East 406 ; Gr. 81 ; Be Aston, 27 Beav. 474, Rex V. Dodd, 9 East 516 ; Josephs affirmed, 4 De G. & J. 320 ; Mexican, V. Prebber, 3 B. & C. 639. etc. Co., 4 De G. & J. 544. Cf. cases ' 6 Geo. IV, c. 91. cited, infra, § 17. * Blundell v. Winsor, 8 Sim. 601. 7 § 7 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I capital of the company was to consist of a certain amount divided into shares, very much as in the modern stock corporation. Sometimes it was sought to approximate limited liability by pro- viding that all the company's contracts should contain a clause by which the contractor should agree to look only to the capital of the company for his damages in case of breach.' How to avoid the necessity of making all of the shareholders parties to any action or suit by the company was a serious problem. Some- times special acts of parliament were obtained authorizing the association to sue and be sued in the name of some officer, and in 1835 a general statute authorized the crown to grant to unin- corporated companies the right to sue and defend in the name of an officer.^ Sometimes the legal title to the company's prop- erty and choses in action was vested in trustees, who would thus be entitled to sue in their own names for any breach of contract or injury to the company's property.^ Of course, the members of such companies were not greatly concerned in facilitating actions against the companies; and, moreover, failure to join all the members as defendants in actions of tort was no irregularity at all, and even in actions of contract could not be availed of except by plea in abatement.* § 7-§ 13. General Incorporation Laws. § 7. The Statute of 39 Elizabeth Chapter 6. — As loiig ago as the reign of Elizabeth a general statute for the incorporation of hospitals and similar charities had been enacted by parliament.' This act provided that any person seised of land in fee simple might by deed enrolled in the High Court of Chancery create a corporation to hold the land for the purpose of a "hospital, maison de dieu, abiding place or house of correction." ° By its ' E. g. Ex parte Liquidators of held that an unincorporated com- British Nation Life Ass. Ass'n, 8 pany could not sue in the names of Ch. D. 679. its "trustees," who, however, do not ^ 4 & 5 Wm. IV, c. 94. appear to have been invested with ^ Cf. Weir v. Metropolitan Street legal title, but seem to have been Ry. Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 583 (where mere directors, a similar device was held not to * Cf. McCreary v. Chandler, 58 obviate the necessity for making all Me. 537. the shareholders parties). It would ' 39 Eliz., c. 5. seem that the case last cited mis- " See 2 Coke Inst., 720-725, where applies Niven v. Spickerman, 12 the statute is commented upon and Johns. (N. Y.) 401, where it was a form of a deed is given. 8 § l-§ 30] THE COMPANIES ACTS § 8 terms the act was to continue in force for only twenty years ; but a few years after its expiration it was revived and made per- petual.' Notwithstanding the interest attaching to this statute as the first general incorporation act in a common-law jurisdic- tion, its effect upon the history of English law has been neg- ligible. Modern English general incorporation laws were not suggested by this statute of Elizabeth but were evolved from the statutes mentioned in the last paragraph, which removed impediments in the way of the formation and operation of joint- stock companies. § 8. Companies Act of 1844. — In 1844, Parliament, which by the above mentioned Acts of 1825 and 1835 had already aban- doned the policy of discouraging combinations of men and money for legitimate business purposes, definitively embarked upon the enlightened course of facilitating rather than thwart- ing all such enterprises. In that year, the first English general incorporation law, or companies act, was passed -i- the "Joint Stock Companies Registration Act," or Companies Act of 1844.^ This statute, after providing as to companies to be organized under it for a preliminary embryonic period of "provisional registration," ' went on to enact that the subscribers to the capital of the projected company should sign and seal a "deed of settlement" stating among other things the business or pur- pose of the company, the amount of its capital and the number of shares into which it should be divided, the amount authorized to be raised by loan, etc. The deed was also to contain a cove- nant by each shareholder to pay all instalments of his subscrip- tion to the capital and perform all engagements resting upon him as shareholder. Upon the due execution of this deed, it was to be recorded, after which a "certificate of complete regis- tration" might be obtained. Thenceforth, the company was incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the trade or business for which it was formed, but without restriction of liability of the shareholders' under any judgment or decree. With this im- portant exception, the act conferred all advantages of doing business under a corporate form. Finally, by an amendatory statute passed some ten years later,* the privilege of limited liability was conferred upon members of all companies organ- ■ Stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 1. » See infra, § 312. ' 7 & 8 Vict., c. 110. ♦ 18 & 19 Vict., c. 133. § 9 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I ized under the Act of 1844 whose deed of settlement should provide therefor and whc»Be name should contain the word "Limited." § 9. Companies Act of 1856. — In the year following, that is to say, in 1856, the Act of 1844 with its amendments was re- pealed, and a new and more progressive system was adopted known as the Companies Act of 1856.' This statute provided for the formation of corporations with either limited or un- limited liability. It was in its main features similar to the Com- panies Act of 1862 ^ by which six years later it was superseded and which, being still the basis of the company law of England and having given rise to many leading cases, demands some- what detailed examination. § 10. Compames Act of 1862. — The Memorandum of Asso- ciation. — Under the Companies Act of 1862,^ the method of forming corporations and the general nature of their constitu- tion is as foUews : First, at least seven persons sign a document known as the "memorandum of association," which must state where the company is formed on the principle of having the lia- bility of its members limited to the amount, if any, unpaid on their shares, the company's name, the location of its office, its objects, the fact that the liability of its members is limited, and the amount of its capital divided into shares of a certain fixed amount. Each subscriber to the document shall write opposite his name the number of shares he takes, and must take at least one. This memorandum of association is then lodged for record with the registrar of joint-stock companies, who after its registration issues a certificate stating that the company is incorporated; and thenceforth the company is a corporation. The memorandum of association, it will be observed, embodies the fundamental constitution of an English com- pany. It must state the company's objects, and any object not therein contained is idtra vires of the corporation.* It corresponds to the instrument that in some American states is ' 19 & 20 Vict., e. 47. shareholders may make such regu- ' 25 & 26 Vict., c. 89. lations for their own govermnent as » 25 & 26 Vict., c. 89. they thinl? fit." Per Lord Cairns in * "The memorandum of associa^ Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. Biche, tion, is, as it were, the area beyond L. R. 7 H. L. 653. 671 See also which the action of the company infra, p. 11 note 2. cannot go; inside that area the 10 § l-§ 30] THE COMPANIES ACTS §11 called a "certificate of incorporation," and in others "articles of association." ' § 11. The Articles of Association. — Contemporaneously with the filing of the memorandum of association, the incor- porators under the Companies Act of 1862 may file for record what are known as "articles of association," containing regula- tions for the management of the company and the conduct of its business. These partake of the nature of by-laws according to American terminology; but, inasmuch as they are recorded, all who deal with the company are chargeable with notice of their contents. They must be carefully distinguished from the memorandum of association, to which they are distinctly sub- ordinate.^ As a learned judge has said, "the memorandum of association is the constitution of the company," while the articles are "merely the machinery for carrying that into effect." ^ And, of course, the English articles must not be confused with what in some American states are known by the same name, — arti- cles of association, — which as stated in the last paragraph ' See infra, § 31. the rights and the powers of the gov- ' In Ashbury By. Carriage Co. v. eming body as between themselves Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 667-668, and the company at large, and the Lord Calms said : " I will ask your mode and form In which the busi- Lordshlps to observe * * * the marked ness of the company is to be carried and entire difference there is be- on, and the mode and form in which tween the two documents which changes in the internal regulations form the title deeds of companies of the company may from time to of this description — I mean the time be made. With regard, there- Memorandum of Association on the fore, to the memorandum of associa- one hand and the Articles of Associa- tion, if you find anything which tion on the other hand. With re- goes beyond that memorandum, or gard to the memorandum of is not warranted by it, the question association, your Lordships will will arise whether that which is so find, as has often been pointed out, .done is idtra vires, not only of the although it appears to have been directors of the company, but of somewhat overlooked in the present the company itself. With regard to case, that that is, as it were, the the articles of association, if you charter, and defines the limitation find anything which, still keeping of the powers of a company to be within the memorandum of asso- established under the act. With elation, is a violation of the articles regard to the articles of association, of association, or in excess of them, those articles play a part subsidiary the question will arise whether that to the memorandum of association, is anything more than an act extra They accept the memorandum of vires the directors, but intra vires association as the charter of the the company." company, and so accepting it, the ' Tilbury Portland Cement Co., articles proceed to define the duties, 62 L. J.*Ch. 814, 815. 11 § 12 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I correspond to the memorandum of association of an English company. The articles cannot add to or subtract from the memorandum. For instance, a power that is not conferred upon the company by the memorandum is ultra vires even though expressly authorized by the articles.^ But so great latitude is allowed by the statute, and so few particulars as to the company's constitution are required to be stated in the memorandum, that many matters of deep concern to the company are left to be regulated by the articles. For ex- ample, the articles may regulate the number and powers of directors, their term of office, the manner of their appointment or election, the method of conducting general meetings of the company, the number of votes to which each shareholder shall be entitled, the manner of transferring shares, calls for unpaid subscriptions to capital, the forfeiture of shares, and many other matters of equal or greater importance. Parliament has undertaken to prescribe no hard and fast rules on sirch subjects of internal management, but has wisely left each corporation to regulate them for itself according to its own conceptions of its needs. The result is a freedom of regulation which is prob- ably obtainable nowhere in the United States. In the not dis- tant future, however, some state legislature may perceive that these matters, at least in the case of industrial corporations, are of purely private concern and should accordingly be committed entirely to the parties interested. The prediction may be ven- tured that when one state shall have taken the lead in this direc- tion, others will fast follow the example. § 12. " Table A." — As already stated, the promoters of an English company may prepare for their corporation such articles of association as they please, so long as no rule of law or of public policy is contravened. But the act provides, in a schedule annexed thereto known as "Table A," a very complete set of articles, which are to apply to any company "limited by shares " unless other articles be adopted. Accordingly, any such company may be registered without articles, and in that event Table A will constitute its articles. Moreover, even where Table A is not thus adopted in toto, it serves as a convenient model for such articles as may be desired ; and often the articles adopt or embody some of the provisions of Table A, but modify ' Ashbury Ry. Carriage Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653, 671. 12 § l-§ 30] THE COMPANIES ACTS § 13 or exclude the remainder. An English writer questions the de- sirability of providing by statute any such form or model of articles of association.' But all who have experienced the diffi- culties that are occasioned in America by the frequent failure of corporations to adopt any by-laws will readily perceive the advantages to be derived from a complete statutory code of in- ternal regulations which is to govern every company except in so far as other regulations may be adopted by the company itself. § 13. Amendments and Supplements to Companies Act of 1862 — Companies Act of 1900. — The Companies Act of 1862 is still in force in Great Britain, and its main features remain unaltered. A number of amendatory or supplemental acts, however, have been passed.^ Of these, the only one that makes any very substantial inroads on the general scheme for the formation 'and constitution of British corporations is the Com- panies Act of 1900. This statute, which has been criticised by some English lawyers as a bungling piece of legislation, pro- vides, inter alia, that although a conipany becomes incorporated upon the issuance by the registrar of a certificate of due regis- tration, yet no allotment of shares shall be made until a certain amount of capital shall have been subscribed, payable in cash, and that the company shall not commence business until a cer- tain amount of capital has been allotted and other conditions complied with. Any contract made by a company before it is entitled to commence business shall be provisional only, and shall not be binding on the company until that date, when it shall become binding. It will be seen that these provisions, although making serious changes in the law governing the organization of corporations, leave untouched the fundamental scheme for incorporation by registration of a memorandum and articles. ' Palmer's Company Precedents, panies Act, 1880," 43 Vict., c. 10 ; 9th ed., Appendix on "Revised "Companies (Colonial Registers) Table A," p. 5. Act, 1883," 46 & 47 Vict., c. 30; ' See "Companies Seals Act, "Companies Act, 1886," 49 Vict., 1864," 27 Vict., c. 19; "Companies c. 23; "Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1867," 30 & 31 Vict., c. 131; Act, 1890," 53 & 64 Vict., c. 63; "Joint Stock Companies Arrange-" "Companies Act, 1898," 61 & 62 ment Act, 1870," 33 & 34 Vict., c. Vict., c. 26; "Bodies Corporate 104 ; "Companies Act, 1877," 40 & (Joint Tenancy) Act," 62 & 63 Vict., 41 Vict., c. 26; "Companies Act, c. 20; "Companies Act, 1900," 63 1879," 42 «Sc 43 Vict., c. 76; "Com- & 64 Vict., c. 48. 13 § 14 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I Witliin the last year, another statute, the Companies Act of 1907,^ has made important changes in British company law, some of which will be noted from time to time below; but this act like its predecessors is a mere amendment or supplement to the Act of 1862 and not a substitute for it. Some of its provisions, as well as some of those of the Companies Act of 1900, display a tendency to multiply arbitrary statutory re- strictions and thus to break in upon the freedom of internal company management allowed by the Act of 1862. Other provisions, however, are intended to remove, subject to cer- tain conditions, hampering restrictions which had been im- posed by judicial decision. § 14^§ 18. Development of Modern Corporation Law in the United States. § 14. In general. — In America, corporation or company law has developed along somewhat the same lines as in England. In both countries, the same economic forces have been at work, and very similar results have been reached. In- deed, the development has been along converging rather than parallel lines; for the resemblance between American corpora- tion law and English company law is closer at the present time than fifty years ago. The methods of incorporating in colonial times have been indicated briefly above. Before the Declara- tion of Independence, incorporation for business purposes had not even made a beginning. After the Revolution, the develop- ment has in each state pursued a course pecuhar in many re- spects to the local jurisprudence, so that the history of this branch of the law throughout the nation cannot be traced ex- cept by the tedious and for present purposes profitless labor of investigating the course of legislation in each state. And to- day the law has attained very different stages of development in different states. § 15. Growth of System of General Incorporation Laws. — Everywhere, however, during the first half of the nineteenth century, incorporation .by special act became increasingly fre- quent; and everywhere the necessity was felt of relieving the legislatures from the pressure of this business as well as of free- ' 7 Edw. VII, c. 50. 14 § l-§ 30] GROWTH OF AMERICAN LAW § 15 ing them from the temptation to corruption which such business was too apt to bring. As in England, general incorporation laws were the means adopted for attaining this result. TChe earUest general incorporation laws or enabling acts provided for the formation of religious corporations/ the need for which was experienced as soon as the Revolution had brought about dis- establishment. The earliest general law for the formation of ^ business corporations was passed in New York in 1811, pro- viding for the incorporation of manufacturing companies.^ As| this law antedates the Companies Act of 1844 by more thanl thirty years, general incorporation laws may fairly be claimed [ as an American invention. To be sure, the statute of Elizabeth for the incorporation of hospitals preceded the New York statute by more than two centuries ; but there is every reason to suppose that the New York statute was an original invention and was not even suggested by the long-forgotten statute of Elizabeth. By the middle of the century, general enabling acts for the formation of manufacturing and mining corporations had be- com.e common throughout the United States. Gradually, the purposes for which companies could be incorporated under these general laws were extended, until at the present time, in all except a fe w ultras-conservat ive states, corporations may ' See Laws of N. Y. of 1784 (7th poration laws, see Laws of Pa., Sess. session), Chap. 18; Laws of Del. of of 1835-36, Chap. 194; Laws of 1787, Chap, cxliv 6 (Laws of Del., N. Car. 1836 (2 Rev. Stats, of 1837, ed. of 1797, Vol. II, p. 878) ; Laws of p. 214) ; 2 Kent Comm. 272, note (6), Pa. of 1791, Chap, mdxxvi (provid- referring to a law of Massachusetts, ing for incorporation for literary or and to laws of Connecticut and charitable as well as for religious Michigan of 1837, as well as to the purposes) ; Laws of Md. of 1802, New York law above cited. Chap. 111. Cf. Laws of Md. of 1798, A statute of North Carolina, Chap. 24, providing for the incorpo- Laws of 1795, Chap, iii (Revised ration of vestries of the Protestant Laws, ed. of 1821, Vol. I, p. 769), Episcopal Church which had been sometimes referred to as a general disestablished in 1776. Although incorporation law, provided that the last mentioned statute has been whenever a number of subscribers held not to be a "public general should have formed themselves into law," Bardett v. Hipkins, 76 Md. 5, a company for the purpose of cutting 25-26, 34-37 (headnote inadequate) ; a canal they should have the power 23 Atl. 1089; 24 Atl. 532, yet to condemn private property and it did certainly provide for the to sue and be sued in the company formation of an indefinite number name, but does not expressly, nor it of corporations. would seem by implication, make ' Laws of N. Y., Sess. 34, Chap, the companies corporations. 67. For other early general incor- 15 § 16 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I be organized under general laws for the conduct of any lawful business, with usually some few named exceptions. Even where the objects for which incorporation can be had are not expressed in these sweeping terms, they are so numerous and varied as to include all the usual forms of business enterprise. § 16. Constitutional Prohibition of Incorporation by Special Act. — Not merely have the legislatures voluntarily evolved this system of incorporation under general laws, but also the framers of state constitutions have undertaken to accelerate the process. In almost every recent state constitution some pro- hibition, more or less stringent, is directed against incorporation by special act. Consequently, incorporation under general laws has everywhere become the rule, and incorporation under special act the exception. Although much of the law governing cor- porations formed by special act is also applicable to those or- ganized under general laws, yet the two kinds of associations are in many respects very different from one another; and these differences are or should be attended with important legal consequences. § 17. Unincorporated Joint-stock Companies in America. — Unincorporated joint-stock companies have played a much less important part in the development of incorporated com- panies in America than in England. Nevertheless, in some states such unincorporated associations have been at times very common,' and are probably everywhere in the United States legally possible.^ These unincorporated bodies are, however, in America a by-product. The general trend of American law has not been influenced by such unincorporated joint-stock companies as have existed in this country. The only influence of unincorporated joint-stock companies upon American law has been indirect through the connection between English unincorporated companies and the modern English company law. § 18. Modem General Incorporation Laws. — Obviously, even cursory summaries of the general laws now in force in all the various states of the Union would be both tedious and, for ■' For illustrations, see Von Street By. (Mo.), 103 S. W. 583 (as Schmidt V. Huntington, 1 Cal. 55; to Adams Express Company). Hoadley v. County Comm'rs, 105 ' See Spotswood v. Morris (Idaho), Mass. 519 ; Weir v. Metropolitan 85 Pac. 1094. 16 § l-§ 30] EFFECTS OF LIBERAL LAWS § 19 present purposes, useless.' The statutes in some states Consist of a jumble of old acts thrown together almost indiscriminately with more recent amendments. In other states, the legislatures have intended to display the utmost liberality; but unfortu- nately this disposition has often been evinced by removing salutary restrictions and at the same time, in order to make a . show of legislative regulation, by imposing vexatious and un- reasoning restraints. The New Jersey Law has proved one of the most popular of the general incorporation laws, and has served as a model in many other states. It is not, however, altogether free from the faults above referred to. In general, it may be said that the liberal incorporation laws that are in force in most states authorize incorporation for any lawful purpose by the mere execution and registration of a docu- ment setting forth the objects of the company and certain other particulars as to its proposed business and constitution. § 19-§ 22. Effects of Modem Liberal Incorporation Laws. § 19. Right to Incorporate no longer a Franchise or Special Privilege. — • When individuals may incorporate themselves by these simple means, the notion that the right to be a corpora- tion is a franchise is manifestly baseless. The right was formerly a franchise, when it could be secured only by the special favor of the crown or of the legislature. But a franchise is a special privilege, and any right that can be obtained by anybody merely by going through a few statutory forms cannot properly be designated by that term. As well might it be said that the right to make a conveyance of real estate is a franchise because the deed must be signed and sealed by the grantor with certain formalities and recorded in the registry of deeds. The require- ments for the formation of a corporation are scarcely less simple. More than twenty years ago, Mr. Morawetz with his accus- tomed accuracy and insight said, "The right of forming a cor- poration and of acting in a corporate capacity, under the general incorporation laws, can be called a 'franchise' only in the sense in which the right of forming a limited partnership or of execut- ' The various statutes will be poration and Organization of found analyzed in Frost on Incor- Corporations. VOL. I.— 2 17 § 20 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I ing a conveyance of land by deed can be called a franchise." * The progress of events and the development of jurisprudence in recent years make this statement more profoundly true and more imjKjrtant to be borne in mind than when it was uttered. To be sure, many corporations do hold franchises. For instance, the right to condemn private property or the right to operate a railway along the public streets or highways is a franchise, and these rights are frequently enjoyed by corporations. But the mere right to be a corporation for some purely private pur- pose is no longer of this character. We may call it a franchise if we choose, and we sometimes speak of taxes on the business of cor- porations as franchise-taxes; but in all such cases we are using the term with a new meaning. Always should the fact be recog- nized that nowadays when the right to organize a corporation is almost as free as the right to execute a deed of real estate, cor- porations are very different things from what they were when that right was confined to a few favorites of king or parliament. § 20. Early Judicial Recognition of this Principle. — These principles respecting the nature of the right to be a corporation under modern incorporation acts were recognized and stated in an early New York case where the court was deaUng with, perhaps, the very first general incorporation law ever enacted for the formation of business corporations. The court, speak- ing by, Chief Justice Spencer, said: "The object and intention of the legislature in authorizing the association of individuals for manufacturing purposes, was, in effect, to facilitate the formation of partnerships, without the risk ordinarily attending them, and to encourage internal manufactures. There is noth- ing of an exclusive nature in the statute; but the benefits from associating and becoming incorporated, for the purposes held out in the act, are offered to all who will conform to its requisi- tions. There are no franchises or privileges which are not com- mon to the whole community. In this respect, incorporations under the statute differ from corporations to whom some ex- clusive or peculiar privileges are granted." ^ ' 2 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., " Slee v. Broom, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 2d ed., § 923. Approved : State 456, 473-474 ; 10 Am. Dec. 273, re- el rel. Bradford v. Western Irri- ferring to the N. Y. Act of 1811, gating Co., 40 Kans. 96, 99 (head- cited above, § 15. note inadequate) ; 19 Pac. 349 ; 10 Am. St. Rep. 166.' IS § l-§ 30] EFFECTS OF LIBERAL LAWS § 22 § 21. Liberal Construction of Modern Incorporation Laws. — In construing modern general incorporation laws, these principles should always be borne in mind. We should never forget that the object of such laws is to further the prosperity of the country by promoting commercial enterprise, and that this object should not be thwarted by a narrow construction diilerent in spirit from that in which the laws themselves are conceived. Fraud should be effectively punished; but in order to prevent frauds, the courts should not discourage enterprise. It is easy to prevent fraud by stopping commercial intercourse ; but the remedy, if not worse, is more disastrous than the disease. An attempt to prevent the growth of fraudulent schemes and unlawful "trusts" by a strict construction of the general incor- poration laws may perhaps hinder, somewhat, monopolistic schemes, but it will certainly absolutely prohibit many legiti- mate business enterprises. § 22. Frauds perpetrated under cover of Liberal Incorpora- tion Laws. — Moreover, the fact that frauds are committed by abuse of the incorporation laws should not be allowed to obscure the fact that such frauds are snjall in comparison with the amount of good that is accomplished by liberal laws Uberally construed. As was said by a learned English judge in a recent case, "The statutes relating to limited liability have probably done more than any legislation of the last fifty years to further the commercial prosperity of the country. They have, to the advantage as well of the investor as of the public, allowed and encouraged the aggregation of small or comparatively small sums into large capitals which have been employed in under- takings of great public utility, largely increasing the wealth of the country. But at the same time in this branch of the law the apathy of the public in setting the law in motion has, I will not say encouraged, but has at least failed to repress, grievous frauds which have been committed and too often have gone unpunished. Relatively, I think, compared with the advantages which have accrued from the law of limited liability, the mischief of such frauds has been small, but when regarded not relatively, but absolutely, the frauds which have been committed under cover of these acts have no doubt been great." ' ' London & Globe Finance Corp. (1903), 1 Ch. 728, 731-732, per Buckley, J. 19 § 23 HISTORICAL AND INTRODUCTOBT [ChAP. I § 23-§ 29. CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATIONS. § 23. Distinction between Corporations formed under Oen- eral Laws and Corporations created by Special Act. — The most obvious classification of ordinary business corporations merely distinguishes corporations incorporated by special act from corporations organized under general laws. The gulf between these two classes of corporations is s6 great that little difficulty can be experienced in distinguishing between them; but occasionally some peculiar company is encountered which is hard to classify. Moreover, ambiguous expressions may sometimes be used in statutes, wills, contracts, and so forth, which leave a doubt whether they were intended to apply to both or to one only of these two great divisions of corporations. For instance, in England, it is held that a company incorporated under a general law is not within a power given to trustees to invest in the securities of a "company incorporated by Act of Parliament." ^ But in America, a corporation organized under a general enabling act has been held to be a company "chartered by law." ^ The provision in the National Bankruptcy Act ex- empting from its provisions "banks incorporated under state or territorial laws" clearly applies to a company incorporated for banking purptoses under a state statute providing for the formation of corporations for any lawful purpose but contain- ing no particular provisions for the regulation of banks.' Where an act of the legislature consolidating two corporations does not create a new corporation, but merely enables one of the old com- panies to absorb the other, the amalgamated company is not "incorporated by Act of Parliament." * § 24. Under what Statute Corporation is deemed to be formed. — Where corporations are classified with respect to the statutes under which they are respectively incorporated, a company ' Re Smith (1896), 2 Ch. 590. 501, 508. Compare the American But see EVoe v. Boynton (1891), cases on the question whether a 1 Ch. 501. special act amendatory of a com- ' Lindsay, etc. Co. v. Mullen, pany's charter is within a constitu- 176 U. S. 126, 136-137 ; 20 Sup. Ct. tional provision prohibiting incor- 325. poration by special act: WdUqce v. ' Oregon Trust & Savings Bank, Loomis, 97 U. S. 146, and 1 Clark & 156 Fed. 319. Marshall on Priv. Corps., pp. 108, * Elve v. Boynton (1891), 1 Ch. 109. 20 § l-§ 30] CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATIONS § 25 whose incorporation paper states that the organization is under one statute whereas the objects as set forth in the instrument bring the company within another statute, is to be classed as a company incorporated under the last mentioned statute/ § 25. Classification with respect to Liability of Members. — Another classification — more useful in England than in the United States — is based on the extent of the members' lia- bility for the company's debts. The British law permits, in the first place, the incorporation of companies with unlimited lia- bility; but, as may readily be understood, companies of this sort are rarely formed. The same statute authorizes the forma- tion of "companies limited by guarantee" — that is, compa^ nies in which the liability of their members is limited to such amount as the members respectively undertake to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of the same being wound-up. Companies of this class are also comparatively uncommon. In by far the most usual class of companies, even in England, the liability of the members is limited to the amount, if any, unpaid on the shares respectively held by them. Com- panies of this class are called in England "companies limited by shares." The first of these three classes of corporations — that is, companies with unlimited liability — may exist in some few of the United States ; but in this country generally they are not met with, and their number is not likely to increase. The second class, or companies limited by guarantee, are nearly if not quite unknown in America. The great majority of business corporations, in the United States as well as in England, belong to the third class, or companies limited by shares. Corpora- tions of this sort are in this country called joint-stock corpora- tions. This term is, to be sure, somewhat indefinite, since it would include joint-stock companies incorporated without limited liability; but it is convenient and sufiiciently accurate for all practical purposes. In America, some liability in addi- tion to the liability to contribute to the capital the amount, if any, unpaid on the shares, is frequently imposed by statute; but these statutory liabilities are always limited in amount so that they do not destroy the character of the corporations as limited liability companies. ' International Boom Co. v. Rainy Lake River Boom Co., 97 Minn. 513 ; 107 N. W. 735. Cf. infra, § 63. 21 § 26 HISTOHICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I § 26-§ 29. Classification with respect to Objects. § 26. Ancient Classification. — The old classification of corporations with reference to their objects as civil and elee- mosynary, ecclesiastical and lay/ may now be regarded as obsolete, at least in America; but the purposes or objects of corporations still constitute convenient criteria for classifying corporations and for distinguishing between them. § 27. How Objects determined for Purposes of Classifica- tion. — When a classification of corporations with respect to their objects or purposes is employed, reference may be had either to the objects which the company is actually pursuing or to those which it is authorized to pursue. Thus, in order to determine whether a corporation is within the classes of com- panies which are subject to the United States Bankrupt Act of 1898, regard must be had to the business which the company is in fact carrying on and not to that which it is authorized to carry on by its charter or incorporation paper.^ On the other hand, in order to determine whether a, company is a manufactur- ing company within the Minnesota laws which exempt the shareholders in such companies from liability to creditors, the terms of the incorporation paper and not the business which the company in fact conducts must control.' So the question • whether a certain corporation is a charitable corporation within the meaning of the rule which exempts charitable corporations from liability for the torts of their servants must be determined exclusively from the incorporation paper.* § 28. Municipal Corporations, Religious and Charitable Cor- porations, Public-service Corporations, Financial Corporations, etc. — In classifying corporations with respect to their objects, ■ 1 Black. Comm. 470. Frisk-Turner Co., 71 Minn. 413; ' Tontine Surety Co., 116 Fed. 74N. W. 160; 70 Am. St. Rep. 334. 401 ; New York, etc. Water Co., 98 * Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy Fed. 711 ; Chicago-Joplin Lead & Cross Hospital Ass'n (Utah), 88 Pac. Zinc Co., 104 Fed. 67. 691, 694-695; Craig v. Benedictine But see Quimby Freight Forward- Sisters Hospital Ass'n, 88 Minn. 535 ; ing Co., 121 Fed. 139 (where the 93 N. W. 669. court refused to regard an ultra Cf. People ex rel. Board of Chari- vires business as the main business), ties v. N. Y. Society for Prevention, ' First Nat. Bank v. Converse, etc., 161 N. Y. 233, 239-240; 55 200 U. S. 425 ; 26 Sup. Ct. 306 ; N. E. 1063 (as to what corporations Oould V. Fuller, 79 Minn. 414 ; 82 are subject to visitation as charitable N. W. 673 ; Nicollet Nat. Bank v. corporations). 22 § l-§ 30] CLASSIFICATION OF CORPOHATIONS § 29 municipal corporations, or corporations formed to act as governmental agents of the state, may for our present purpose be put on one side. So, too, religious and charitable cor- porations belong in a class to themselves, and are rarely or never formed on the joint-stock principle. The only class of corporations with which we are now directly concerned con- sists in companies incorporated for the acquisition of gain for their members, or, to use a popular term, "business corpora- tions." ' Even of these, those that are organized for carrying on some public calling, such as railway and canal companies, gas, electric light, and telegraph companies — in a word public service corporations — are governed, in some respects, by rea- son of their semi-public character, by principles of law in many respects peculiar to themselves. From these pecuHar features of the law of public-service corporations, the general law of corporations is quite distinct. Furthermore, some corporations that cannot fairly be classified as public-service companies are organized for the transaction of a financial business,^ such as banks and trust companies, and in a less degree insurance and guaranty companies, so that some peculiar regulations to secure their depositors, cestuis que trust, and policy-holders are and should be imposed upon them ; and with these peculiar regula- tions we shall have nothing to do. Our consideration shall be confined to the principles of law applicable to all joint-stock corporations, limited by shares, and organized for the acquisi- tion of gain. § 29. " Public " and " Private " Corporations. — A classifica- _ tion of corporations which is much used in America divides them into public and private corporations. Public corporations include municipal corporations, and others formed as govern- ' The term " business corpora- Sweatt v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 23 tions " includes railway companies, Fed. Cas. 530, 535. Adams v. Boston, etc. R R. Co., 1 As to what is a corporation formed Fed. Cas. 90 ; Winter v. Iowa, etc. for profit, see Staie v. Home Co- iJ)/. Co., 2 Dill. 487 (headnote inade- operative Union, 63 Ohio St. 547; quate) ; and also insurance com- 59 N. E. 220 ; People v. Rose, 188 panies, Hercules Mut. Life Ass. Soc, 111. 268 ; 59 N. E. 432 ; Am,erican 12 Fed. Cas. 12 ; but not educa- Matinee Ass'ti v. Secretary of State, tional corporations even though 104 N. W. 141 ; 140 Mich. 579. they charge for tuition, McLeod v. ^ For cases construing the phrase lAncoln Med. College (Nebr.), 96 "moneyed corporations," see that N. W. 265, 266. A railroad com- title in Words and Phrases Judicially pany is a "commercial corporation." Defined, Vol. V, p. 4569. 23 § 30 HISTOKICAL AND INTRODUCTORY [ChAP. I mental agents of the state. Private companies, on the other hand, are all corporations organized in whole or in part for pri- vate objects or under the control of private individuals. In this sense, all railroad and other public service companies are private corporations. In England, the terms "public" and "private" are not applied to corporations in this sense. For example, any company incorporated under the Companies Acts, its constitution being matter of record and open to public inspection, may in one sense be deemed a public com- pany.' But the term public, as distinguished from private, company has acquired in popular English usage a quite differ- ent signification. A private company, iuvthis popular sense, is a company whose shares are not intended for public subscrip- tion ; any other company is a public company.^ This meaning is not attached to these terms anywhere, in the United States. § 30. Nomenclature — "Corporations" and "Companies." — In America, we speak of any association of individuals, in- cprporated or unincorporated, as a company. In England, the latter term is generally applied to associations organized for the transaction of some ordinary business. It is the usual namie for what in America would be more commonly termed a private corporation. Of course, in America we recognize that our ordinary cor- porations are companies;^ and indeed the word "company" ' Cf. RickettY. Sharpe, 45 Ch. D. the words "public company" in the 286; Be Lysaght (1898), 1 Ch. 115. Apportionment Act of 1870 were ' Palmer's Company Law, 3d ed., held to include an unincorporated 260-261 ; British Seamless Paper Box joint-stock company established in Co., 17 Ch. D. 467, 479. 1843, before the passage of the first Cf. Lamonby v. Carter (1903), 1 Companies Act, under a deed of Ch. 352 (where the phrase "public settlement). See also Companies companies" in a will of an English Act, 1907, § 37, where a legislative testator was held to refer exclu- definition or interpretation of the sively to British companies) ; Innes words " private company " will be ' Cf. Atty.-Oen. v. Mersey Ry. Co. & Ad. 792 ; Edgewood Borough v. (1907), 1 Ch. 81, 101 (a passage Scott, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 156. 35 § 40 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II struing the instrument must endeavor to ascertain. How can the construction of such a document, dependent upon the intention of mere private individuals, be either favorable or unfavorable to the public? It is a private matter with which the public have no concern. As well might one say that articles of partnership should be taken most strongly against the part- ners and in favor of the state. § 40. Oregon Railway Company v. Oregonian Railway Company. — A case of high authority which may be thought to miHtate against the views advocated in the last paragraph is Oregon Railway Company v. Oregonian Railway Company} There Mr. Justice Miller in delivering the judgment of the court, after stating the rule that special acts of incorporation shall be construed most strongly in favor of the state and against the corporation, added, "How much more, then, should this rule be applied, and with how much more reason should a court, called upon to determine the powers granted by these articles o| association, construe them rigidly, with the stronger leaning in doubtful cases in favor of the public and against the private corporation." And the reporter in the headnote states as one of the leading propositions for which the case stands that "this rule of construction applies with still greater force to articles of association organizing a corporation under general laws." Nevertheless, a careful examination of the case will reveal that the decision really stands for nothing of the sort. The case was this: a corporation had been formed in England under the Companies Act of 1862 by the name of the Oregonian Railway Company, having power according to its memorandum of asso- ciation to construct, own, operate, and to lease, sell, or purchase lines of railway in the State of Oregon. Another company, known as the Oregon Railway Company, was formed under the general laws of Oregon, which provided for the organization of corporations for any "lawful enterprise, business, pursuit or occupation," that might be specified in the "articles of incor- poration." The articles of incorporation of this latter company purported to clothe it with power to construct, purchase, or lease railways in the State of Oregon. Accordingly, the English . company, having built a line of railroad in Oregon leased the same for a term of years to the Oregon company; and the > Oregon By. Co. v. Oregonian By. Co., 130 U. S. 1 ; 9 S. Ct. 409. 36 § 31-§ 162] RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION § 40 question was whether this lease was lawful and valid. As the incorporation papers of both the English company and the Oregon company purported expressly to confer the power to make or take leases of railways, no question arose or could have arisen in the case as to the proper rules for the construction of incorporation papers; and the only question was whether the clauses in the incorporation papers which attempted to confer these powers upon the corporations were vaUd and operative under the laws of Oregon. As the court itself said: "The memorandum made under the Companies' Act of 1862 by the plaintiff and the articles of association made under the laws of Oregon by the [defendant both contain declarations of the powers of these companies and of each of them to buy or sell or lease railroads. The only question, therefore, to be considered is whether this declaration of power is authorized by the laws of Oregon." ' Hence, anything that may have fallen from the court to the effect that an incorporation paper should be con- strued most strongly against the company and in favor of the public was altogether and confessedly obiter.^ The proposition for which the case really stands is' that a general incorporation i^ law, like other statutes, is to be taken most strongly in favor of the state.' For reasons already mentioned, it is submitted that this rule, which is quite proper in the interpretation of statutes, is wholly inapplicable in the construction of an incorporation paper.* ' 130 U. S. 24-25. Ry. Co. (1907), 1 Ch. 81, 106, where ' The dictum was, however, re- Vaughan Williams, J., said, "You ferred to with approval in Central ought to give a wider construction Transportation Co. v. Pullman's, etc. to the words of a memorandum of Co., 139 U. S. 24, 49; '11 S. -Ct. association creating and defining the 478. powers of a purely commercial com- See also Hamilton Nat. Bank v. pany having no compulsory powers American Loan, etc. Co., 92 N. W. and no monopoly than you would 189, 192 ; 66 Nebr. 77 ; City of give to the words of a statute creat- Ooodland v. Bank of Darlington, 74 ing a company, like a railway com- Mo. App. 365, 370. pany, having compulsory powers of ' In support of this proposition, land purchase and a practical monop- which is clearly sound, see also. City oly." This language was quoted of Goodland v. Bank of Darlington, with approval in Kingsbury Col~ 74 Mo. App. 365. leries arid Moore's Contract (1907), * Cf. Attorney-General v. Mersey 2 Ch. 269, 266-7. 37 § 41 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II §41. Construction neither Strict nor Liberal. — At any rate, the general principle is settled, on the one hand, that no extension of the terms of the instrument is permissible by con- struction, and on the other hand that its meaning is not to be restricted by a narrow interpretation. Said Vice-Chancellor Bacon in an important case upon this subject: "I wholly re- pudiate the notion that I am at liberty to adopt what has some- times been called a ' liberal' construction. I have no more right to do that on the one hand than I am at liberty on the other to adopt a more rigorous or strict construction than the express stipulations of the instruments require. What the law requires and what I am called upon to do is to put a just construction, and no other, upon these instruments." '- § 42. Liberal Construction to carr^ out ascertained Objects. — Although when a court is endeavoring to ascertain from the incorporation paper the objects for which a corporation is formed, the construction, as we have just seen, should be neither strict nor liberal, but just ; yet when the objects of the company Jiave been determined, the tendency of the courts is, and should ^ be, to allow the greatest possible latitude to the company in the \\ choice of the means by which those objects are to be attained. ' The general rule being that all means that are reasonably con- ducive to the objects of the incorporation and not prohibited are permitted, the courts will not incline to extend any restric- tions that the incorporation paper may contain in respect to the means that may be employed in prosecuting the company's ends. To that extent, the construction of an incorporation paper will be "liberal to carry out the purposes of the company's forina- tion," ^ but this " liberal " construction cannot be resorted to where the object of the interpretation is to discover what these purposes are. § 43. Entire Instrument to be" cons'trued together. - — The entire instrument must be construed together. Hence, the cor- porate name may be considered in the construction of the clause ' London Financial Ass'n v. Swinfen Eady, J., in Stephens v. Kdk, 26 Ch. D. 107, 134. Mysore Reefs (Kangundy) Mining " " It is right to give a liberal con- Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 745, 749. Cf. struction to these subsidiary para- Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. y. Flanagan, graphs to enable the main object of 113 Ind. 488, 495, 14 N. E. 370; 3 the company to be carried out," per Am. St. Rep. 674. 38 § 31-§ 162] PAROL EVIDENCE §44 prescribing the company's objects.' A fortiori, "the general object of the corporation is to be gathered not from any one of the specifications but from the whole of the paragraph " which states the objects or purposes of the company.^ § 44. Parol Evidence — Contemporaneous Internal Regula- tions as Aid in Construction. — To aid in the construction of an incorporation paper, parol evidence it seems is admissible to the same extent and with the same restrictions as in the case of other documents formally drawn up and recorded.* Thus, parol evidence is not admissible to show that the objects of the company were in fact incorrectly or inadequately set out in the incorporation paper.* To be sure, English judges have gone so far as to declare that in construing a memorandum of associa- tion contemporaneous articles of association "may be properly considered for the purpose of explaining the terms and expres- ' See infra § 62, § 117 and § 462. But cf. International Boom Co. v. Rainy Lake River Boom Co., 97 Minn. 513 ; 107 N. W. 735. ' EUerman v. Chicago Junction Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 239; 23 Atl. 287. ' "If any doubt arises as to the true intent and meaning of the words employed, it is essentially requisite that the subject to which the words relate should be distinctly under- stood ; and to this end it may at all times be convenient, and in some cases necessary, to have regard to the circumstances attending and relating to the subject, to the inter- ests comprised in it, to the parties to it, and most especially to its avowed, expressed and of necessity implied, objects. Upon these prin- ciples and rules I am called upon to construe this memorandum." Per Bacon, V. C, in London Financial Ass'n V. Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107, 134. Cf. Receivership of {Merchants' Nat. Bank v.) Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 95 N. W. 767; 90 Minn. 144 ; Senour Mfg. Co. v. Church Paint, etc. Co., 81 Minn. 294; 84 N. W. 109; National Mechanical Directory Co., 121 Fed. 742; 58 C. C. A. 24 ; Rehhein v. Rahr, 109 Wise. 136, 145-146; 85 N. W. 315. * Craig v. Benedictine Sisters Hos- pital Ass'n, 88 Minn. 535 ; 93 N. W. 669; Gitghoffen v. Sisters of Holy Cross Hospital Ass'n (Utah), 88 Pac. 691, 694-695; City of Kalamazoo V. Kalamazoo, etc. Power Co., 124 Mich. 74, 81-82 (attempt to limit by parol evidence general objects expressed in incorporation paper). Doubtless this rule would not apply in a proceeding by the state to oust the company from its franchises on the ground that the real objects were unlawful. See infra, § 300. Cf. Attorney-General ex rd. Miner V. Lorman, 59 Mich. 157 ; 26 N. W. 311; 60 Am. Rep. 287; State v. New Orleans Water Supply Co., 36 So. 117, 122; 111 La. 1049 ("The question whether a corporation has been organized for an illegal purpose must be determined by the provisions of its charter. and jiot by the declara- tions of its officers or agents ") ; Detroit Driving Club v. Fitzgerald, 109 Mich. 670, 675 ; 67 N. W. 899 ("The purposes of the corporation or association are to be determined by the statement in its articles of association. "). 39 § 45 THE INCORPORATION PAPKR [ChAP. II sions of the memorandum whenever it is just and reasonable so to refer." ' But, as it is well settled that the articles of an Eng- lish corporation cannot in any way add to or control the memo- randum, any resort to the articles to aid in its construction is dangerous in the extreme, and has been disapproved by one of the ablest of modern English judges.^ A recent case intimates that reference to the contemporaneous articles is permissible only for the purpose of construing those parts of the memoran- dum of association which relate to matters not required by the statute to be stated in that instrument.^ Tlje question is per- haps of but little practical importance in the United States ; for the by-laws of an American company which perform in some ways the same functions as English articles of association are not, like the latter, matter of public record; and therefore, whatever may be the case with respect to English articles, it will hardly be contended that by-laws, even if drawn up contem- poraneously with the incorjKjration of the company, can be used in any way as a key to the meaning of the incorporation paper.* § 45. Division of Instrument into Paragraphs or Clauses. — An incorporation paper is usually divided into paragraphs or clauses, each of which contains some statutory requirement. Thus, we may distinguish the object clause, the capital clause, the chief-offiee clause, and so forth. ' London Financial Ass'n v. Kelk, introduced for the benefit of the 26 Ch. D. 107, 135, 138; Fisher v. creditors, and the outside pubUc Black & White Publishing Co. {l^Vj, as well as the shareholders. The 1 Ch. 174, 180-182 (per Vaughan articles of association are the inter- Williams, J.). nal regulations of the company. ^ "I shall only say a few words How can it be said that in all cases as to how far, in my opinion, the the fundamental conditions of the articles of association may be looked charter of incorporation, and the in- at and read together with the mem- ternal regulations of the company orandum of association. . . . There are to be construed together." Per is an essential difference between Bowen, L. J., in Guinness v. Land the memorandum and the articles. Corporation, 22 Ch. D. 349, 381. The memorandum contains the fun- ' Southern Brazilian, etc. By, Co. damental conditions upon which (1-905), 2 Ch. 78, 84. alone the company is allowed to be ' See Xantha Beneficial, etc. Ass'n, incorporated. They are conditions 8 Pa. Dist. Rep. 142, 40 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 46 §46-§108. THE OBJECT CLAUSE. § 46. Function o£ Object Clause. — No part of an incorpo- ration paper is more important or deserves greater attention than the object clause, in which the purposes or objects of the company are set forth. In England, it is held that common law corporations — that is, corporations created by royal charter — have power to do, anything that an ordinary individual may do except in so far as they may be restrained or restricted by direct prohibition;^ but on the other hand, it is held that corpora- tions incorporated by special act of the legislature possess such powers only as are authorized expressly or impliedly by the special act in question,^ and that corporations incorporated under general laws possess only such powers as are conferred by the general law or are necessary to the attainment of the objects specified in the incorporation paper.* There has been some difference of opinion in England whether this doctrine as to companies incorporated under general laws is due to the fact that a company of that class is a corporation only for the pur- poses stated in its incorporation paper or to the fact that the exercise of any power which is not incidental to the objects as expressed in the incorporation paper is either expressly or im- pliedly prohibited by the legislature ; * but this question, which is known as the question of general or special capacijj y, is largely if not altogether a matter of words.^ At any rate, the doctrine as to common law or royal-charter corporations (which with the exception of one or two survivals, such as Dartmouth Col- lege, are non-existent in America), is a matter of only antiqua- rian and academic ifaterest in the United States; and as to ' Attorney-Genercd v. Manchester the railway company has no author- Corporation (1906), 1 Ch. 643 (head- ity given to it by its incorporation note inadequate). See also infra, to enter into contracts not connected § 1022-§ 1026. with its corporate duties, or that it ' Werdock v. River Dee Co., 10 is impliedly .prohibited from so do- A. C. 354. ing because by necessary inference ' Ashbury Ry., etc. Co. v. Riche, the legislature must be considered L. R. 7 H. L. 653. to have intended that no such con- * 1 Palmer's Company Precedents, tracts should be entered into." Per 9th ed., 370-371 ; Pollock on Con- Lord Cranworth in Shrewsbury, etc. tracts, 6th ed., 674-683. Ry. Co. v. NoHh-Western Ry. Co., = "Practically, it makes very 6 H. L. Cas. 113, 137. little difference whether we say that 41 § 47 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II corporations created by special act of the legislature or formed under general laws the American cases are in entire accord with the English authorities and hold that the corporations possess such powers only as are conferred upon them, expressly or impliedly, by the statute or the incorporation paper.' § 47. Comparative Advantages of Broad and Narrow Statements of Objects. — In the preparation of the object clause of an incorporation paper the fact should be borne in mind that any objects hot mentioned therein will be ultra vires of the corpora- tion and cannot be pursued against the opposition of a single shareholder and, in theory at least, not even by unanimous consent. Hence, if the object clause is too narrow the company may find its operations seriously hampered. On the other hand, if thd objects are stated too broadly, the power of the majority is almost unHmited and may serve to deter conservative in- vestors from putting their capital in the concern. Yet, at least from the point of view of the promoters, who usually expect to constitute the majority of the corporation, the balance of incon- venience lies decidedly in having the objects too closely circum- scribed.^ Accordingly, in recent years the approved practice has been to use a very broad and elaborate and often rather verbose statement of objects.' On the other hand, as will be more fully explained below, a very general statement of objects may be too indefinite to satisfy the law.* § 48-§ 63. WHAT OBJECTS ARE AUTHORIZED BY INCORPORA- TION LAW TO BE EXPRESSED IN OBJECT CLAUSE AS PURPOSE OF INCORPORATION. § 48. Under Statutes Specifying Objects for which alone Com- panies may be incorporated. — The objects of the company as ' Downing v. Mount Washington Dry Dock Co., 28 La. Ann. 173; Road Co., 40 N. H. 230 ; State v. Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 111. Consolidation Coed Co., 46 Md. 1, 9 37; 57 N. E. 20; 76 Am. St. Rep. (where the rule was expressly laid 26; 50 L. R. A. 765. down by a statute which was pro- ' "The balance of disadvantage nounced declaratory merely) ; Rock- decidedly attaches to too narrowly hold V. Canton Masonic Benev. Soc, defined objects." Dill on New Jersey 129 111. 440; 21 N. E. 794; 2 L. R. Corporations (3d ed.), § 8, p. 19. A. i20; Simmons V.Troy Ironworks, ' Cf. Consett Iron Co. (1901), 1 92 Ala. 427 ; 9 So. 160 (corporation Ch. 236 (headnote inadequate), formed imder general law) ; New See also infra, § 65. Orleans, etc. Steamship Co. v.- Ocean * Infra, § 104-§ 106. 42 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE §48 expressed in the incorporation paper must, of course, be autho- rized by the general law or enabling act under which the company is organizing. The earlier American statutes autho- rizedjthejqrmation of corporations of certain particular kinds or classes only. Under such statutes, j.t„was, — or rather is, for the^ stiU remain_j.n Joj£a,ia .someJes^^ — JIDfc-. per atively necessary that the qbj ects ,.Qf .thg„ pr opposed,, corpora- tion should be broua^Ltjvithiii_some of these^asses. Thus, if a statute-aulBorized the formation of manufacturing corpora- tions, the organization of a company to engage in the business of buying and selling merchandise would be impossible.' A ' Cf. Meen v. Pioneer Pasteuriz- ing Co., 90 Minn. 501 ; 97 N. W. 140 (where a company formed for "buy- ing, manufacturing and dealing in milk, cream, butter, cheese, and other dairy products and pasteuriz- ing and treating said milk," etc., was held not to be an exclusively manu- facturing or mechanical corpora- tion). As to what is a "manufac- turing corporation," see further, Bolton V. Nebraska Chicory Co., 96 N. W. 148 ; 69 Nebr. 681 ; Rec&iver- ship of {Merchants' Nat. Bank v.) Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 95 N. W. 767; 90 Minn. 144; Bern- heimer v. Converse, 27 Sup. Ct. 755 ; Cuyler v. City Power Co., 74 Miim. 22; 76 N. W. 948; Nicollet Nat. Bank v. Frisk-Turner Co., 71 Minn. 413 ; 74 N. W. 160 ; 70 Am. St. Rep. 334 ; Carlsbad Water Co. v. New, 33 Colo. 389 ; 81 Pac. 34 ; West Nor- folk Lumber Co., 112 Fed. 759; Attorney-General ex rd. Miner v. Lorman, 59 Mich. 157; 26 N. W. 311; 60 Am. St. Rep. 287; Com- monwealth V. Keystone Electric, etc. Co., 193 Pa. St. 245; 44 Atl. 326; Powell V. Murray, 3 N. Y. App. Div. 273; 157 N. Y. 717; 53 N. E. 1130 (manufacturing company no power to deal in products manufactured by other companies) ; Frederick Elec- tric Light, etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc. of Frederick City, 84 Md. 599; 36 Atl. 362; 36 L. R. A. 130 (electric light company distinguished from manufacturing company) ; First Nat. Bank v. William B. Trigg Co. (Va.), 56 S. E. 158. As to what is a "trading corpora- tion," see Pocono Spring, etc. Co. v. Am. Ice Co., 64 Atl. 398; 214 Pa. 640. , As to what is a manufacturing, mercantile, or trading (or, after 1901, mining) corporation, consult the cases as to what corporations may be adjudged bankrupts under the Bankrupt Act of 1898 and the amendatory statute of 1901. In the following cases corporations have been held to be within the Act : First Nat. Bank v. Wyoming Valley Ice Co., 136 Fed. 466 (company dealing in ice partly of its own harvesting and partly bought from other per- sons, held to be engaged chiefly in trading and mercantile pursuits) ; Troy Steam Laundering Co., 132 Fed. 266 (laundry company the largest part of whose business consists in laundering coUa^rs and cufFs for man- ufacturers held to be engaged prin- cipally in manufacturing) ; Marine Construction & Dry Dock Co., 130 Fed. 446 ; 64 C- C. A.. 648 (company engaged in constructing boats and also boilers, masts, desks, etc., for vessels held engaged principally in manufacturing) ; Columbia Iron- works v. National Lead Co., 127 Fed. 99 ; 62 C. C. A. 99 (corporation en- gaged in building iron vessels held engaged in manufacturing and mer- § 48 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [Chap. II statute providing for incorporation for purposes "of trade or of carrying on any lawful mechanical, manufacturing, or agri- cultural business," will authorize the formation of a corporation to buy, sell, improve, and lease real estate.' Under a law au- thorizing the formation of corporations for "hunting, fishing, bathing or lawful sporting purposes," a company cannot be cantile pursuits) ; White Mountain Paper Co., 127 Fed. 643 ; 62 C. C. A. 369 (corporation formed for manu- facturing paper held engaged in manufacturing although it had never completed the manufacture of any- paper) ; Muiual Mercantile Agency, 111 Fed. 152 (mercantile agency publishing a book for ratings); Tecopa Mining & Smdting Co., 110 Fed. 120 (Mining and smelting held to be manufacturing. But compare Act of 1901 which expressly added "mining" to the classes of corpora- tions within the act) ; Morton Boarding Stables, 108 Fed. 791 (company keeping a "boarding stable" held engaged in trading or mercantile pursuits) ; Quincy Granite Quarries Co., 147 Fed. 279 (quarry company held engaged in mining and manufacturing) ; Burdick v. DiUon, 144 Fed. 737; 75 C. C. A. 603 (quarrying held to be included within the term mining) ; First Nat. Bank, 152 Fed. 64 (building concrete arches and bridges, and dressing stone held to be manufacturing). In the following cases companies have been held not to be within the Act : V. S. Hotel Co. v. NUes, 134 Fed. 225; 67 C. C. A. 153 (hotel company) ; Bay City Irrigation Co., 135 Fed. 850 (company for irriga- tion of rice fields) ; Butt v. Mac- Nichol Construction Co., 140 Fed. 840 ; 72 C. C. A. 252 (company for construction of bridges, wharves, etc.) ; Snyder & Johnson Co., 133 Fed. 806 (company soliciting adver- tisements for newspapers) ; Surety Guarantee & Trust Co., 121 Fed. 73; 56 C. C. A. 654 (buying and selling stocks, bonds, and other securities, not trading or mercantile pursuit) ; Quimby Freight Forwarding Co., 121 Fed. 139 (forwarding company also engaged in buying alid selling); Parmdee Library, 120 Fed. 235 ; 56 C. C. A. 583 (circulating library company) ; White Star Laundry Co., 117 Fed. 570 (laundry company) ; Tontine Surety Co., 116 Fed. 401 (corporation authorized to deal in diamonds which had contracted to deliver a diamond on payment of a certain sum, but which had never purchased, owned, or delivered a diamond, not engaged in trading or mercantile pursuits) ; New York, etc. Water Co., 98 Fed. 711 (water-supply company) ; Cameron Town, etc. Ins. Co., 96 Fed. 756 (insurance com- pany) ; Chesapeake Oyster, etc. Co., 112 Fed. 960 (saloon and restaurant company) ; Woodside Coal Co., 105 Fed, 66 (Coal mining company. Note that mining corporatioivs are now expressly included by Act of 1901) ; New York, etc. Ice Lines, 147 Fed. 214 ; 77 C. C. A. 440 (ice com- pany selling ice of its own harvest- ing) ; T. E. Hill Co., 148 Fed. 832 (building of concrete piers and abut- ments for bridges held not manu- facturing) ; Toledo Portland Cement Co., 156 Fed. 83 (corporation which was formed to manufacture cement but which had not completed its buildings nor its railroads from them to the marl beds from which it was to obtain its materials, held not "engaged" in manufacturing cement). As to classification of corpora- tions with reference to their objects, see also supra, § 26-§ 29. ' Finnegan v. Noerenherg, 512 Minn. 239, 245; 53 N. W. 1150; 38 Am. St. Rep. 552. 44 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 4S organized to enforce the game laws and, as informer, collect fines for their violation.' A corporation for the purpose of buy- ing and selling bonds cannot be formed under a statute au- thorizing incorporations "for the purpose of buying and selling merchandise and conducting mercantile operations." ^ A cor- poration cannot be formed to deal in rice as an article of com- merce under a statute authorizing the formation of corporations for growing, purchasing, and selling seeds for agricultural purposes.' Laws providing for the incorporation of companies to aid in the industrial or productive interests of the country have been held, by a rather liberal construction, to authorize the formation of street railway or tramway companies.* When the objects for which corporations could be formed were few, it was a comparatively easy matter to determine whether the objects of the proposed company were, or were not, within the statute, even where the act allowed incorporation for certain specified purposes only. But the statutes based on this scheme which remain in force have been repeatedly amended by en- larging the permissible objects, so that although these permis- sible objects now embrace all the more usual forms of business activity, yet when some novel enterprise is being launched great difficulty may be experienced in deciding whether or not it falls within the statute. Where a statute enumerated a number of different objects for which corporations might be formed, it was held in Texas that one corporation could not be formed for two of such ob- jects or purposes ; ^ and a fortiori this result is reached where the enumerated objects are separated in the statute by the dis- junctive "or." ° On the other hand, the objects of a corporation may be more circumscribed than any one of the classes named ' Ancient City Sportsman's Club 474-475 (case of an express com- V. MiUer, 7 Lans. (N. Y.), 412. pany). 2 Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 » Ramsey v. Tod, 95 Tex. 614; Ind. App. 593 ; 54 N. E. 407. 69 S. W. 133 ; 93 Am. St. Rep. 875. ' MiUer v. Todd (Tex.), 67 S. W. Cf. Dam:y v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 487. 483 ; 95 Tex. 404. But see Finnegan v. Noerenberg, * Central Trust Co. v. Warren, 52 Minn. 239, 245; 53N. W. 1150; 121 Fed. 323; 58 C. C. A. 289. As 38 Am. St. Rep. 552; Louisiana to the meaning of the word "Indus- Navigation, etc. Co. v. Doullut, 114 trial" as applied to corporations, La. 906; 38 So. 613. see further, Wdls, Fargo & Co. v. ° Williams v. Citizens' Enterprise Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Fed. 469, Co., 25 Ind. App. 351 ; 57 N. E. 581 ; 45 § 49 THE INCORPOEATION PAPER [ChAP. II in the statute. For instance, if one of the objects for which companies may be incorporated is manufacturing, a corporation may be formed for engaging in one particular kind of manu- facturing.' Moreover, it is permissible to combine two or more objects all of which are within one of the classes designated in the statute, such as the mining of both gold, silver, and lead, where mining in general is one of the objects mentioned in the statute for which corporations may be formed.^ § 49-§ 63. Under Statutes permitting Incorporation for any Lawful Purpose. § 49. In general. — The statutes now in force in most parts of America as well as in Great Britain provide for the forma- tion of corporations for any lawful purpose or objects.' From these sweeping terms, express exception is usually made of bank- ing, insurance, railroad purposes, etc.; but these exceptions are generally few and of a kind that does not call for extended consideration here.* Some statutes, after mentioning a number of specific purposes for which corporations may be formed, add "or other lawful business," or, "other lawful purpose" or the like. It has been held that such general expressions cannot be confined in their operations to objects ejusdem generis with those West Manayunk, etc. Co. v. New contracts for maintaining and ope- Gas Light Co., 21 Pa. Co. Ot. Rep. rating railways," provided that the 393; Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. company should "not operate any Quiriby, 137 Fed. 882 ; 70 C. C. A. railroad, engage in the business of a 220 ; People ex rel. Belknap v. railroad, or do anything in the prem- Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 259, 260 ises prohibited to corporations of (semble). this character," was held not proper Cf. Bayou Cook, etc. Co. v. Dotdlut, to be recorded under a statute pro- 35 So. 729; 111 La. 517. hibiting the formation of corpora- ' Cf. Roofing Contractors' Ass'n, tions for the operation of railroads) ; 200 Pa. St. Ill ; 49 Atl. 894. State v. Debenture Guarantee, etc. Co., ' People ex rel. Belknap v. Beach, 26 So. 600 (formation of corpora- 19 Hun (N. Y.), 259. tion to deal in debentures not per- ' As to incorporation for an un- missible under statute providing for lawful purpose, or purpose contrary incorporation for any lawful purpose to public policy, see infra, § 62 and provided that no corporation should Chap. v. engage in "stock-jobbing"), affirmed * Cf. Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. as to federal questions in A'^ewOrieans C. 487, 505-506 (where an incorpo- Debenture, etc. Co. v. Louisiana, 180 ration paper which, after mention- U. S. 320; 21 Sup. Ct. 378. ing as one of the objects "to perform 46 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 50 specifically mentioned.' Moreover, where the statute authorizes incorporation " for the purpose of engaging in any lawful enter- prize, business, pursuit or occupation," the words cannot be restricted to schemes for making money, but authorize incor- poration for the purpose of aiding a certain educational insti- tution by guaranteeing its bonds.^ § 50. Whether more than one Object may be specified. — Where the statute authorizes the organization of companies for any lawful purpose, business, or the like, in the singular, doubt has been entertained whether a corporation may be formed for two or more distinct objects, or whether there must not be some one main purpose to which everything else is ancillary.^ To guard against all question of this sort, some statutes use a plural as well as the singular noun — " for any lawful purpose or pur- poses." * But the doubt is probably Unfounded.^ Thus, the British law provides that " any seven or more persons associated for any lawful purpose" may, by subscribing, etc., form an in- corporated company." Yet neither the English lawyers nor their courts have ever denied that a corporation might lawfully be organized under this statute for two or more disconnected pur- ' Brown v. Corbin, 40 Minn. 508 ; limited by the ejusdem generis rule 42 N. W. 481 ; Cflen v. Breard, 35 and that a corporation could accord- La. Ann. 875; State ex rd. Walker ingly be formed to insure against V. Corkins, 123 Mo. 56 ; 27 S. W. burglary) ; St. Louis Colonization 363; National Bank v. Texas Irv- Ass'n v. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555, vestment Co., 74 Tex. 421 ; 12 S. W. 559 (headnote inadequate). 101 (distinguishing Texas, etc. Navi- ' Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. 178. gation Co. v. County of Galveston, 45 ' See People ex rd. Peabody v. Tex. 272) ; Yokes v. Eaton, 85 S. W. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268, 174 ; 27 Ky. Law Rep. 358 ; Lindsay, 290 ; 8 L. R. A. 497 ; 22 N. E. 798 ; etc. Co. V. MvUen, 176 U. S. 126, 138- 17 Am. St. Rep. 319 (stated and 139 (headnote inadequate) ; 20 Sup. criticised infra, § 52) ; Ramsey v. Ct. 325. Tod, 95 Tex. 614 ; 69 S. W. 133 ; But see contra: State ex rel. 93 Am. St. Rep. 875; Williams v. Lederer v. International Investment Citizens' Enterprise Co., 25 Ind. Co., 88 Wise. 512; 60 N. W. 796; App. 351,355; 57N. E. 581; Dancy 43 Am. St. Rep. 920 (with which v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. 487, 500- compare Wisconsin Telephone Co. 504 (a strong but, it is submitted, a V. City of Oshkosh, 62 Wise. 32, 38 ; questionable decision) ; State v. 21N.W.828.) Taylor, 55 Ohio St. 61, 67-68; 44 Of. Banker's MiU. Casualty Co. v. N. E. 513. First Nat. Bank (Iowa), 108 N. W. * New Jersey Laws, 1899, chap. 1046 (holding that a statute provid- 176. ing for incorporation of companies ° Cf. People ex rd. Bdknap v. for insurance against damage by fire Beach, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 259. "or other casualty" should not be ° Cbmpanies Act, 1862, § 6. 47 § 51 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II poses. Thus, an English text-writer of authority declares: "There is no rule, for instance, that the principal or leading object must be stated, and that all the other objects must be conducive or auxiliary thereto. On the contrary, it is permissi- ble to have any number of objects alternative, concurrent, or substitutional, provided they are legal and are specified. Thus, the objects clause may commence by declaring that the company is formed to carry on the business of a brewery company ; but there is not the slightest objection in point of law to stating that another object is to carry on the business of a mining company." ' To be sure, the British act directs that the memorandum of asso- ciation or incorporation paper shall state the "objects" of the company ; ^ but this use of a plural noun has never been thought to enlarge the singular term, " purpose," which is found in a pre- ceding section of the same statute.' In some of the United States the general rule of statutory construction has been laid down that the singular number shall include the plural unless a con- trary intention clearly appear; and this rule of construction would remove all difficulty arising from the use of a singular instead of a plural noun. § 51. Insertion of Subsidiary Objects or Powers. — Under statutes allowing incorporation for any lawful purposes, it seems abundantly clear on principle that the incorporation paper may in addition to the company's main object mention as subsidiary objects the exercise of any powers that the promoters may deem conducive thereto although not perhaps such as the law would have implied as incidental to the prime objects. This proposi- tion is so thoroughly supported by the liberal policy of the law that one should be surprised to find it questioned. In England, no doubt ever appears to have been entertained. Thus, although ' Palmer's Company Law, 17. hotel company, 'The object of this Cf. Governments Stock Investment company is to carry on the business Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 649, 655, where of an hotel'; and you may go down Chitty, J., said: "The legislature, from that in a manner which will no doubt, was aware that according surprise the uninitiated, and find to the way in which the Limited Lia- out what the hotel company may, bility Act has been worked, the fram- according to the ingenious framer ers of memoranda of association in- of the memorandum of association, sert sometimes, under letters which do — things which I think would as- exhaust the alphabet, what they are tonish any ordinary hotel keeper." pleased to call the ' objects' of the ' Companies Act, 1862, § 8 (3). company. You may get as to an ' § 6. 48 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 52 the English courts will not readily imply the power to issue nego- tiable paper, express provisions making the issue thereof a sub- sidiary object of the company in question are frequent and undoubtedly efficacious. The English books are full of similar instances in which promoters have inserted in incorporation papers clauses mentioning this, that, or the other, as one of the company's objects, merely in order to remove any possible doubt as to whether the power would be implied as incidental to the main objects; and the American reports contain similar instances.' The validity of such provisions is fundamental in modern corporation law, and ought not to admit of question. § 52. People v. Chicago Gas Trust Company. — An Illinois case, decided in 1890,^ which is somewhat confused and re- actionary, yet deserves detailed examination, lest it should prove misleading upon this truly fundamental subject. A company was incorporated under an Illinois statute which provided for the formation of corporations "for any lawful purpose." Its incorporation paper, or, to use the name in vogue in Illinois, its articles of incorporation, provided that the object of the com- pany should be to engage in the manufacture, sale, and distribu- tion of illuminating gas, and, to "purchase and hold or sell the capital stock, or purchase or lease or operate the property, plant, good-will, rights and franchises, of any gas works, or gas com- pany or companies." In fact, the corporation was organized to acquire the majority of the shares of the four competing gas companies which were then in operation in the city of Chicago ; and did accordingly carry out that purpose. It never established any gas works of its own. Upon a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto t o test the company's right to hold the controlling interest in the subsidiary corporations, the court held that the right did not exist. One ground relied upon by the court and broad enough to support the decision was that, the unlawful design having been entertained of creating a virtual monopoly, the company was not organized for a lawful purpose. If the opinion had rested here, no fault need have been found with the case ; but various other propositions were advanced. In the ' See People ex rd. Loy v. Mount ' People ex rd. Peabody v. Chi- Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256; 40 cago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268; Pac. 391. 22 N. E. 798; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 8 L. R. A. 497. VOL. I. — 4 49 § 53 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II first place, it was said that the power to hold the shares could not be implied as incidental to the power to manufacture and sell illuminating gas; and upon this point the case is certainly in accord with the weight of authority.' As to the clause in the incorporation paper purporting expressly to confer the power, the court reasoned that if the clause were viewed as ancillary to the power to operate gas works, it would not be effective since the promoters could not by express stipulation augment the im- plied or incidental powers. If this obiter dictum were correct, it would indeed be laying the axe at the root of the tree ; but as we have shown in the last paragraph it is believed to be opposed both to authority and to reason.^ The legislature, by enabling the promoters to organize a corporation for any lawful purpose that they might mention in their incorporation paper indicated a liberal policy ; and why should not the intention of the pro- moters that a certain power should be exercisable be carried out if possible? Why should they not have the right under a statute of this liberal sort to say what shall be deemed in their case incidental powers? It is submitted that if the power to hold shares in other companies might be made the principal object, or one of the principal objects, of the company, then only one who delights m unjust technicalities could think that the same power should not be exercisable if given as merely ancil- lary to some other object. The court, however, proceeded to decide that the holding of a controlling interest in the other gas companies could not be made the company's principal or only object because of the unlawful intention of creating a monopoly. With this latter position, as applied to the particular facts of the case, we have, as already stated, no disposition to quarrel. The court adverted to the fact, as specially indicative of monopoly, that the power sought to be conferred was to acquire and hold not certain shares of stock, but "the capital stock " — that is, all the shares.^ § 53. Objects must be eonsistent with Nature of a Corpora- tion. — Under any statute, however liberal, the objects of the company must be legal * and must not be obnoxious to the gen- ' Infra, § 83. ' 130 111. 290-291. ' Cf. People ex rel. Lay v. Mount * See infra, § 62 and Chap. v. Shasta Mfg. Co., 107 Cal. 256; 40 Pac. 391. SO § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 55 eral spirit pervading the act or to accepted principles of cor- poration or company law. Thus, in any jurisdiction where the purchase by a corporation of its own shares is deemed foreign to the nature of a limited company, a clause in the incorporation paper purporting to confer a power to make such purchase is illegal and void.' The same thing would be true of an attempt to authorize the payment of dividends out of capital, the giving of a preference to shareholders over creditors in the distribution of assets in a winding-up, or any other transaction which is regarded as contrary to the spirit of the statute and to the statutory conception of a corporation.^ § 54. Sale of Entire Business as one of the Objects. — The sale of a business or undertaking is a perfectly lawful object ; and hence, according to English authorities, a clause in an in- corporation paper mentioning the sale of the company's whole business or undertaking as one of its objects is entirely valid under a statute allowing incorporation for any lawful purpose.^ So, also, the incorporation paper may properly provide for a transfer of the company's business and undertaking in exchange for shares in another corporation,* or other property. A sale or transfer of all the corporation's assets, in pursuance of such a provision, is to be deemed a transfer in the ordinary course of business, so that upon the consummation of the transaction, the company does not necessarily cease to be a going concern.^ » § 55. American Cases. — The American cases on the sub- jects treated in the last paragraph are neither numerous nor conclusive. In respect to corporations formed by special act, the law was well settled that no power of selling or leasing their whole property and business, or franchises, existed unless par- ' Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 App. out without a winding-up, but where Cas. 409, 436-437 (semble, per Lord [pp. 840-841] the judge doubted Macnaghten). whether on principle, an incorpora- ' Cf. infra, § 122 and § 624. tion paper should be permitted to ' Cotton V. Imperial, etc. Corpora- state any but the "living objects" tion (1892) 3 Ch. 454, 458 (head- which the company is to carry out note inadequate). as a " living concern"). A power of * Cotton v. Imperial, etc. Corporon sale or exchange such as is referred tion (1892), 3 Ch. 454, 458 (head- to in the text is not readily implied, note inadequate) ; Doughty v. Loma- People v. Ballard, 134 N. Y. 269 ; gunda Reefs (1902), 2 Ch. 837 (where 32 N. E. 54 ; 17 L. R. A. 737. See the incorporation paper was held to also infra, § 78-§ 79. authorize a contract of sale, the ° Foster v. Borax Co. (1901), 1 terms of which could not be carried Ch. 326. -. 51 § 55 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II ticularly conferred by statute. Especially, was this true with respect to public-service corporations such as railroads.' But manifestly, these cases have no appKcation to companies which are incorporated under general laws authorizing incorporation for any lawful purpose. Surely, the English cases are right in holding that to build up a business for the purpose of selling it at a profit is a lawful object. In a case stated above at consider- able length, the United States Supreme Court held in substance that the leasing, or taking a lease, of a railway was not a lawful object for incorporation under the Oregon general laws, which provided that companies might be incorporated for " any lawful business, pursuit or occupation." ^ But railroad corporations even when organized under general laws are very different from companies having no public duties to perform. A railway com- pany enjoys the power of condemning private property; and sometimes provision is made for a judicial investigation into the fitness of the corporation to be entrusted with this delicate fran- chise, so that perhaps public policy might be thought to pro- hibit a complete transfer of its line into other hands by sale or lease. Moreover, even where general laws provide for the incor- poration, construction, and operation of railways, the sale or lease of a completed road, involving, as it generally does, a transfer of control from small local capitalists to some great foreign corporation or syndicate, may be deemed contrary to the policy of the law. At all events, the case with respect to a railroad differs materially from that of mere industrial corpo- rations with no public duties to perform. Consequently, while one should expect Oregon Railway Company v. Oregonian Rail- way Company to be followed in America, yet its doctrine ought not to be and probably would not be, extended or applied so as to prohibit the organization of an industrial corporation for the purpose of selUng or otherwise disposing of its whole business and property or, in other words, its " undertaking." ' To, build 'See, for example, Kean v. iJj/s., eic. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 241; Johnson, 9 N. J. Eq. 401; Thomas 23 Atl. 287 (where the court said, V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71. obiter: " The Corporation Act per- ' Oregon Ry. Co. v. Oregonian mits incorporations not only for ob- Ry. Co., 130 U. S. 1 ; 9 Sup. Ct. 409. jects specified therein, but for 'any ' TraefT v. Lucas Prospecting Co., lawful business or purpose whatso- 99 N. W. 290 ; 124 Iowa, 107. ever,' which general clause is not, Cf. EUerman v. Chicago Junction however, to be construed as embrac- 52 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 56 up a private business for the purpose of selling it advantageously is, for individuals, a very usual and perfectly lawful aim. Why should not the formation of a corporation for the same object be equally legitimate under any incorporation law providing for the organization of companies for any lawful purpose or business? Where the statutes restrict the right to incorporate to certain named classes of companies, it is, however, probably true that no corporation can be organized for the purpose of seUing its busi- ness and undertaking : for, however numerous the specified ob- jects for which such statutes permit incorporation, this is not one of them.' § 56. Acting as Agent or Attorney as one of Objects. — To act as agent or attorney in fact for other persons is a lawful business, and therefore a corporation may be organized for that object.^ The objection that a torporation can act only by agents, and therefore cannot be itself an agent, since delegata potestas non potest delegari, is wholly unsubstantial ; for any person who employs a corporation as agent necessarily consents that it shall in the course of its agency act through sub-agents.' And like- wise the objection that a corporation cannot as agent execute deeds of real estate on the principal's behalf, since, being an impersonal entity, it cannot make an acknowledgment, is unten- able ; for the corporation can make the acknowledgment in the same way as if it were a principal, namely, by its officers. Con- sequently, a corporation may even be formed to act as agent or ing powers to do those things which R. A. 638 ; 17 Am. St. Rep. 737 ; would deprive the corporation of its State ex rel. Le Blanc & Bailey v. ability to carry out the objects for Michel, 36 So. 869 ; 113 La. 4. which it was formed, or discharge Cf. Morris v. Third Nat. Bank, any duties which it might, under its 142 Fed. 26 ; 73 C. C. A. 211 (where charter, owe to the public, or which under peculiar circumstances a na- are contrary to the policy of the tional bank was held to have implied law"); People ex rel. Ba/rney v. power to act as representative of Whalen, 104 N. Y. Supp. 555 (pro- other persons) ; Anderson v. First vision for sale of entire property Nat. Bank, 5 N. Dak. 451 ; 67 N. W. held to be in conflict with a statute 821 (also relating to the powers of expressly conferring a more limited national banks as agents), power of the same general kind) ; ' Snow, Church & Co. v. Hall, 19 People ex rel. Barney v. Whalen, 106 N. Y. Misc. 655; 44 N. Y. Supp. N. Y. Supp. 434 (similar decision to 427 (a corporation formed to carry last case). on a collection agency may employ ' See infra, § 78. attorneys at law to collect claims and " Killingsworth v. Portland Trust charge their fees against its client). Co., 18 Oreg. 351; 23 Pac. 66; 7 L. 53 § 57 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II broker in the purchase or sale of its own shares.' A corporation may be formed to carry on the business of acting as agents of other persons even though a statute' provides that no corporation shall act as administrator or guardian, or fill "any other office of personal trust " ; ^ for the words last quoted refer to offices of personal trust ejiisdem generis as those specially mentioned and not to mere private agencies. § 57. Acting as Trustee. — To act as trustee is a lawful object ; and therefore under statutes providing for the formation of corporations for any lawful purpose, there is no reason why acting as trustee should not be mentioned in the object clause of an incorporation paper as an object of the proposed company, unless indeed the acting as trustee be contrary to the very nature of a corporation. Now, under the Statute of Uses the doctrine was established in early times that* a corporation could not be a trustee or feoffee to uses; for how, it was said, can trust be re- posed in a being which has no soul or conscience ? The force of this reasoning has, of course, long since ceased to be felt ; ^ and ever since the growth of modern trusts, the courts have held that a corporation may act as trustee whenever so to do is a reason- able method of attaining the objects for which it was formed.* Indeed, it would seem that to-day in America a corporation may be seised to a use under the Statute of Uses, and may accord- ingly convey land by a deed of bargain and sale.* Even if the corporation which is appointed trustee by deed or will have no corporate power so to act, nevertheless equity will not permit the trust to fail but will compel the corporation or whoever holds 1 Borland's Trustee v. Sted Bros. * Attorney-General v. Whorwood, & Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 279, 293 (head- 1 Ves. Sr. 534, 536 (per Lord Hard- note inadequate). wicke) ; Re Howe, 1 Paige (N. Y.) ' State ex rel. Le Blanc & Railey 214 ; Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. V. Michd, 36 So. 869 ; 113 La. 4. 127, 187 ; Stobart v. Fcyrhes, 13 Mani- ' Cf . Bacon on Uses, p. 57, where toba, 184 ; De Cam/p v. Dobbins, 29 a less scholastic reason is assigned N. J. Eq. 36, 39-40; PhiUips Acad- for the doctrine. "A corporation," emyv. King, 12 Mass. 546; Lewinon says the author, "cannot be seised Trusts, 11th ed., 30; Perry on to an use . . . chiefly because of the Trusts, 5th ed., § 42. letter of the Statute which in any Cf. Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 292, clause when it speaketh of the feoffee 304. resteth only upon the word person, ' Angell & Ames on Corps., 2d but when it speaketh of cestui que ed., 153-154. ■use, it addeth person or body But see Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn, politic." 292, 304 (semble). 64 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 58 the legal title to convey the trust property tO the person whom the chancellor may appoint to execute the trust.' The conclu- sion necessarily follows that under the modern liberal laws, acting as trustee may be mentioned in an incorporation paper as an object for which the company is formed.^ Sometimes general incorporation laws provide that trust companies cannot be incorporated under them; and where such statutes are in force there may be a question whether a company can be incor- porated for the purpose of acting as trustee. In other cases it may be inadvisable to mention the acting as trustee as one of the objects of the corporation lest the company be subjected to burdensome statutory regulations applicable to trust companies. § 58. Acting as ]Bxecutor, Guardian, etc. — Whether a cor- poration may be formed to act as executor or administrator or as guardian of an infant or committee of a lunatic, is a different question. It is settled that a corporation has no implied power to act in any of those capacities. For instance, where a statute provides that in case a will appoints no executor, administration shall be granted to the residuary legatee, a charitable or educa- tional corporation which is named as residuary legatee cannot be appointed administrator.' It would follow that such a cor- poration, although named as executor, would have no right to letters testamentary.* It has even been held in Nebraska that an order of a probate court appointing a corporation administrator is void, and subject to collateral attack.^ The reason for this doctrine is that statutory provisions requiring executors and administrators to make oath to this, that, and the other, in the ■ Vidd V. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. patrick's WiU, 22 N. J. Eq. 463 (hold- 127, 188. ing that in such a case administra- Cf . Jackson ex dem. Lynch v. tion should be granted to one of the Hartwell, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 422 (deed members of the corporation), to corporation in trust held not to * Cf . 1 Williams on Executors, 9th pass legal title when corporation ed., 183, 184 (where early English has no power to execute the trust, authorities, pro and con, are referred with a query whether a court of to) ; 1 Woemer's Am. Law of Ad- equity would prevent the trust from ministration, § 233, p. 509 (where the failing for want of a trustee). author expresses the opinion that ' State ex rd. Higby v. Higby Co. the modern trend of authorities in (Iowa), 106 N. W. 382. the United States ia in favor of the ^ President, etc. of Georgetown capacity of corporations to act as College v. Browne, 34 Md. 450, 455 executors). (sembie) ; Thompson's Estate, 33 ° Continental Trust Co. v. Peter- Barb. (N. Y.) 334. Cf. Re Kirk- son (Nebr.), 107 N. W. 786. 55 § 59 tHE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II course of the administration show that natural persons alone are contemplated.' As res Integra it might be doubted whether this reasoning is altogether conclusive. Nevertheless, wherever such reasoning has been accepted, it would necessarily seem to follow that a corporation cannot be formed, even though the statute authorize incorporation for any lawful object, for the purpose of acting as executor or administrator, and that any provision in an incorporation paper purporting to empower the company tp act in either of those capacities would be ineffective.^ According to this view, affirmative legislative sanction is neces- sary in order that a corporation may act as executor or adminis- trator. This legislative sanction is, nowadays, not infrequently granted.^ § 59. Owning Shares in another Corporation. — The forma- tion of a corporation for the purpose of controlling another corporation by means of ownership of shares in the latter com- pany is often highly desirable. Such a purpose is not in itself unlawful unless it be foreign to the nature of a corporation to become a member of another corporation. It would seem clear that this is not so, and that in the absence of some direct statu- tory prohibition, the ownership by one business company of shares in another business corporation, even though possibly ultra vires, is not illegal or against public policy. "There is no reason at common law, so far as I know," said Lord Cairns, "why one corporate body should not become a member of an- other corporate body."* This is rendered abundantly clear by several groups of cases, in which corporations are allowed to ' A corporation, says Blackstone, poration not qualified under domes- " cannot be executor or administra- tic law); Crowley v. Sandhurst, etc. tor, or perform any personal duties ; Co., 23 Vict. L. R. 661 (holding that for it cannot take an, oath for the a corporation which by act of Par- due execution of the office." 1 Black, liament is authorized to act as trus- Comm. 477. tee may act as co-trustee with ^ Cf. State ex rel. Higby v. Higby individuals, as to which point see Co. (Iowa), 106 N. W. 382. also infra, § 76) ; LouisviUe, etc. R. B. ' E. g. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Herndon's Adm'r (Ky.), 104 Co. V. Beebe (Minn.), 41 N. W. 232; S. W. 732 (holding that a corpora- 40 Minn. 7 ; 2 L. R. A. 418 (corpora- tion which is authorized by statute tions as guardians) ; Deringer's to act as administrator may be ap- Adm'r v. Deringer's Adm'r, 5 Houst. pointed public administrator). (Del.) 416; 1 Am. St. Rep. 150 * Earned' s Banking Co., 3 Ch. (validity of foreign appointment of 105, 113. corporation recognized, although cor- 56 § 31- §162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 60 become members of other corporations without any express authority.' Since, therefore, the ownership by one corporation of shares in another corporation is not necessarily contrary to the policy of the law, it follows that under statutes which au- thorize the incorporation of companies for any lawful purposes, a corporation may legally be organized with the acquisition and ownership of shares in other corporations as one of its objects as expressed in its incorporation paper.^ Indeed, the so-called "holding-companies," which have become not infrequent in these latter days, are based on this principle. § 60. Ownership of Shares with ulterior Illegal Intent. — Of course, in any particular case the ownership of shares of stock by a corporation may be unlawful because of some ulterior illegal intent,' such as the creation of a monopoly, restraint of trade, or the practical consolidation of competing lines of rail- way in fraud of some prohibitory statute ' or in violation of what is deemed the public policy of the state.* Indeed, some cases apparently hold that the acquisition by one company of shares of stock in another corporation for the purpose of controlling the latter's business is prima facie at least contrary to public ' See infra, § 82. ing any such intent, see National ' Barned's Banking Co., 3 Ch. Salt Co. v. Ingraham, 143 Fed. 805; 105 ; Dittman v. DistiUing Co., 54 74 C. C. A. 479. Atl. Rep. 570 (N. J. Ch.); Market * Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., Street Ry. v. HeUman, 109 Cal. 571, 193 U. S. 197; 24 Sup. Ct. 436; 589-590; 42 Pac. 225; Traer v. People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., Lucas Prospecting Co., 99 N. W. 290 ; 130 111. 268 ; 22 N. E. 798 ; 17 Am. 124 Iowa, 107; Robotham v. Prii^ St. Rep. 319; 8 L. R. A. 497 (stated dential Ins. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 673, and criticised, supra, § 52) ; Dunbar 696; 53 Atl. 842. v. American Tel., etc. Co. (111.), 79 But see People v. Chicago Gas N. E. 423 ; 224 111. 9 ; Bigelow v. Trust Co., 130 111. 268 ; 22 N. E. 798 ; Calumet, etc. Mining Co., 155 Fed. 17 Am. St. Rep. 319 ; 8 L. R. A. 497 869 ; Southern Electric Securities Co. (stated and criticised supra, § 52); v. State (Miss.), 44 So. 785; Burrows Woodberry v. McClurg, 29 So. 514; v. Interborough Metropolitan Co., 156 78 Miss. 831 (decided under a Mis- Fed. 389 (where the general statute sissippi statute, known as the anti- expressly authorized formation of trust law, expressly prohibiting cor- corporations to acquire stock in porations from owning stock of other other companies but also prohibited companies) ; Parsons v. Tacoma monopolies). Smelting, etc. Co., 65 Pac. 765; 25 Ci.Dittmanv. DistiUing Co. Qi.i.), Wash. 492. , 54 Atl. Rep. 570 ; Trust Co. of Georgia " Of. Pearson v. Concord R. R. v. Stote,,35 S. E. 323; 109 Ga. 736; Ctyrp., 62 N. H. 537 ; 13 Am. St. 48 L. R. A. 520. Rep. 590. , ° Elkins v. Camden, etc. R. R. As to the impossibility of presum- Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 5. 57 § 61 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II policy.' At all events, a scheme by which one corporation ac- quires a majority of the shares of another which at the same time acquires a majority of the shares of the former company is illegal ; inasmuch as its effect would be to lodge permanent con- trol of both companies in the men who happen at the time to be the directors, and to deprive the persons beneficially interested in the companies, namely, the other shareholders, of all power or control over their own property.^ Where the ownership of shares in another company is not vitiated because of some illegal intent, the question whether the power exists is purely a question of construction of the incorporation paper. §61. Amalgamation with other Corporations. — The stat- utes of Great Britain and of most of the United States contain express provisions authorizing a consolidation or amalgamation of corporations formed under them with other corporations of a similar nature. These provisions, at least in the United States, commonly provide for a consolidation in the technical sense in which that word is used in this country — that is to say, a coalescing or merger of the two with the result that a new cor- poration is formed which is distinct from either of the old ones and yet which in a certain sense is composed of both. In order to bring about a union of this sort, recourse must be had to ex- press statutory authority; for without such authority not even the most express authorization in an incorporation paper would enable such a consolidation to be effected. On the other hand, where such statutory authority exists there is ordinarily no need of inserting in the incorporation paper any special clause sanc- tioning its exercise. But sometimes it is desirable to accomplish substantially the same end in a somewhat different way from that provided by the statute ; and in such cases a clause may be inserted in the incorporation paper authorizing a consolidation or amalgamation, and such a clause is valid.* The term amal- gamation is difficult to define * although it is of very frequent use especially in England. Sometimes, the provision simply au- thorizes a sale of the company's assets, business, and under- ' Pearson v. Concord R. R. Co., ' Robotfiam v. Prudential Ins. Co., 62 N. H. S37; 13 Am. St. Rep. 590; 64 N. J. Eq. 673; 53 Atl. 842. Anglo-American Land, etc. Co. v. ' New Zealand Gold, etc. Co. v. Lombard, 132 Fed. 721, 736-737; Peococfc (1894), 1 Q. B. 622. Dunbar v. American Tel., etc. Co., * Cf. South African Supply, etc. 79 N. E. 423 ; 224 111. 9. Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 268. 58 § 31-§ 162] THE OBJECT CLAUSE § 63 taking in exchange for shares in the purchasing company, which provision is quite valid/ No provision for such a sale or ex- change or for an amalgamation will be construed to authorize an arrangement whereby the shares in the purchasing company which constitute the consideration for the transfer are to be distributed among those who are shareholders in the vendor company, and who upon the consummation of the scheme are to become members of the purchasing company whether they will or not ; ^ although it seems to be conceded that if express authority for such an arrangement be embodied in the incor- poration paper, it will be efficacious.^ § 62. Unlawful Objects — How Illegality determined. — The determination of the question what is a lawful object does not, in general, depend at all on matters of corporation law. To lie, to steal, to kill are unlawful objects but their illegality does not depend on questions pertinent in a treatise on corporation law. The matter of incorporation for illegal purposes is, moreover, the subject of detailed consideration below.* Suffice it here to say that the illegality may appear from other parts of the incor- poration paper than the object clause. For instance, if the pro- posed name of the company involves a false representation, the company is not formed for a lawful purpose, however innocent the objects as specified in the object clause may be.® The ques- tion whether the purpose of incorporation is lawful is ordinarily a question of state rather than of federal law.' § 63. Incorporation for a Purpose provided for by a differ- ent Statute. — Where one statute authorizes incorporation for any lawful purpose and another statute provides for the incor- poration of certain kinds of corporations — such as railway, telegraph, telephone, or gas companies — it would seem that no company can be incorporated under the more general statute for purposes which are covered by the other statute.' The legis- ' Supra, § 54-§ 55. note inadequate) ; 21 Sup. Ct. " Ex parte Bagshaw, 4 Eq. 341. 378. ' Ex parte Bagshaw, 4 Eq. 341, ' Richards v. Dover, 61 N. J. Law 348. 400 (headnote inadequate), 89 Atl. * Infra, Chapter V. 705. Cf. Montdair Military Acad- ' Eex V. Registrar Joint Stock emy v. State Board of Assessors, 65 Companies (1904), 2 Jr. 634, 640. N. J. Law 516; 47 Atl. 558; Do- ' New Orleans Debenture, etc. Co. mestic Telegraph Co. v. Newark, 49 V. Louisiana, 180 D. S. 320 (head- N. J. Law 344, 348 ; 8 Atl. 128. 59 § 64 THE INCOEPOEATION PAPER [ChAP. II lature is taken to have intended that, notwithstanding the gen- eral language of the former statute, no corporation should be formed for the purposes mentioned in the other statute without subjecting itself to the provisions of the last mentioned act. In any such case, the courts will if possible refer the attempted incorporation to the statute under which the company might have been organized rather than to that under which the cor- poration purported to be acting.* § 64-§ 102. WHAT POWERS IMPLIED WITHOUT EXPRESS MENTION IN OBJECT CLAUSE. § 64. In general. — In drawing up the object clause of an incorporation paper, much may safely be left to implication. The old list of implied powers given by Blackstone and other early writers — the power to sue and be sued, to have perpetual succession, to make and use a common seal, etc., — is far too limited. Moreover, such so-called implied powers are usually expressly conferred by the general enabling act upon all cor- porations organized under it. There are many other powers, not enumerated in the text-books on the subject, and indeed so many and various as almost to defy enumeration, which are incidental to almost every modern corporation — certainly to every corporation framed on the joint-stock plan. Such powers need not be expressly mentioned in the incorporation paper in specifying the objects of the company.^ § 65. Caution as to Reliance upon Implications of Law. — - But although much may safely be left to implication, a few pregnant phrases carrying a world of meaning, yet the part of wisdom is to rely comparatively little on important powers being read into the incorporation paper by construction or imphcation. A learned and experienced English lawyer and text-writer has ' Minneapolis, etc. Surburban Ry. under a law for incorporation of Co. (Minn.), 112 N. W. 13; Inter- commercial steam railroads, the national Boom Co. v. Rainy Lake word " street " should be disregarded River Boom Co., 97 Minn. 513 ; 107 in the incorporation paper, which N. W. 735. set forth as the object of the com- But of. David Bradly Mfg. Co. v. pany the construction of a street Chicago, etc. Traction Co. (111.), 82 railway). N. E. 210 (where the court said that ' Kingsbury Collieries and Moore's where a corporation is organized Contract (1907), 2 Ch. 259. 60 § 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 66 said on this subject : " A very concise statement of objects may, by implication, as the lawyer is aware, cover a great deal, but a memorandum of association is a popular document intended not merely for lawyers, but for the guidance of shareholders, directors, and of the general public, and, accordingly, it is not expedient to rely too much on implication. Experience shows that it is better to be explicit, and thus to preclude as far as practicable the doubts and dijBBculties which inevitably arise on the construction of a very concise statement of objects. Hence the somewhat elaborate statements of objects now so commonly found. These clauses may err by excess of detail; but over-elaboration is better than over-conciseness. Nothing is more irritating to those who have to manage a company than to find that the powers of the company are fettered or ques- tioned, and its business impeded or prejudiced simply because the framer of the memorandum of association has framed it without sufficient foresight or judgment, and has, contrary to the fact, assumed that the ordinary business man is familiar with the legal and somewhat conflicting decisions as to the powers which may be implied by a concise statement of objects." ^ § 66. Oaution as to express Mention of Powers that might be implied — Maxim of Expressio Vnius. — One danger lurks in over-elaboration and the statement of unnecessary details: that is, that the express mention of certain powers which would ordinarily be implied should be held an inferential exclusion of all other similar powers that would likewise ordinarily be im- plied. Expressio unius exclusio alterius? Thus, an express power to borrow up to a certain amount would probably operate as an implied prohibition of borrowing to a greater amount,^ although, had nothing been said on the subject, the corpora- tion would have possessed an unlimited power of borrowing. This danger may be averted by an express provision that the mention among the company's objects of certain powers shall not be deemed to exclude by inference the exercise of any powers ' Palmer's Company Law, 3d unius is "not applicable to the con- ed., 16. struction of charters"); Kingsbury ' But see Edgewood Borough v. Collieries and Moore's Contract Scott, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 156 (where (1907), 2 Ch. 259, 267-268. a somewhat misleading headnote ' Infra, § 69. states that the maxim expressio 61 § 67 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II that might have been implied if no such express mention had been made. § 67. Necessity for Draftsman to consider what Objects may be implied — • Scope of Treatment. — In order to determine what objects or powers must be expressly mentioned in preparing an incorporation paper, and what need not,' it is necessary to con- sider somewhat in detail what powers and objects may be im- plied. This consideration will not be permitted, however, to extend to a thoroughly exhaustive examination of the subject of the implied or incidental powers of corporations, but will be confined to such points as may be useful to draftsmen of incor- poration papers. § 68. General Rules as to Implied Powers. — The general rules with reference to implied powers are well established. First, all powers not affirmatively granted, either expressly or impliedly, are denied. A corporation has such powers, and such only, as are conferred upon it by the act of incorporation or its incorporation jpaper ; all powers not either expressly or impliedly given are impliedly prohibited.^ Secondly, a corporation may exercise all powers that are fairly incidental, or reasonably adapted, to the attainment of its expressed objects;^ and even a statute which provides that no corporation shall exercise any powers except such as are "necessary" to the exercise of the powers, or attainment of the objects, set forth in the incorpo- ration paper does not alter this rule.* It is in the application of the rule that doubts and difficulties are encountered ; for the ap- plication of the rule involves "either a question of fact or at least a mixed question of law and fact," so that former adju- dicated cases often furnish an unsatisfactory guide.* The rule itself is settled beyond peradventure both in England and America. But the uncertainties of its application give rise, as already stated, to the desirability of mentioning expressly in the incorporation paper all powers that the company may desire to exercise, even though they might be thought imphed or incidental to the attainment of its other objects. ' For an excellent and concise * EUerman v. Chicago Junction summary, see Palmer's Company Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 241- Law, 3d ed., pp. 46, 47. 243 ; 23 Atl. 287. ' See supra, § 46. » Attorney-General v. Mersey Ry. ' Newport News Shipbuilding, etc. Co. (1907), A. C. 415, 416, per Co. V. Jones (Va,), 54 S. E. 314. Lord Loreburn. 62 § 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 69 § 69-§ 74. Power to Borrow. § 69. In general. — Take for instance the power to borrow money.' It is well settled both in England and America that a corporation, having power, as of course it has as incidental to its very existence, to purchase any property or rights that may reasonably be deemed proper for its business, may purchase the same on credit; and in like manner may order work and labor to be done for it on credit.^ In America, it may accomplish the same result by borrowing money to expend for its purposes;^ but in England this is indisputably true only in the case of trad- ing companies, other corporations having perhaps no such power.* The validity of a loan, wherever borrowing is intra vires, cannot be impeached because of an intention on the company's part, unknown to the creditor, to misapply the moneys and divert them to some vltra vires object.* Conse^ quently, there is in the United States no necessity to express in an incorporation paper the power of borrowing money as one of the company's objects. Moreover, any provision that may be inserted on the subject must either be regarded as surplusage, put in out of abundant caution, or else as restrictive in character. The latter alternative has received judicial approval.' Thus, ' In Southern Brazilian, etc. Ry. Barb. (N. Y.) 20 ; Fifth Ward Sav. Co. (1905), 2 Ch. 78, 84, it was said Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 48 that the power to borrow is not N. J. Law 513; 7 Atl. 318 (a sav- properly an "object," and there- ingsbank); Partridge y. Badger, 25 fore need not be mentioned in the Barb. (N. Y.) 146; Burr v. Mc- incorporation paper. Donald, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 215; Thonvp- ' Bagnalstown & Wexford Ry. Co., son v. Lambert, 44 Iowa 239 ; Wright It. Rep. iEq. 505; Cork and Youghal v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 21 N. E. %. Co., 4 Ch. 748, 757 (semble). 907; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412; Ward v. " WaUs's Appeal, 78 Fa,. St. 370; Johnson, 95 III. 215; Curtiss v. Booth V. Robinson, 55 Md. 419, 436 ; Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 1 ; Eastman v. Park- Fidelity Trust Co. V. Louisville Gas inson (Wise), 113 N. W. 649. Co., 81 S. W. 927 ; 26 Ky.L. Rep., 401; But see Bacon v. Mississppi RockweU V. Elkhorn Bank, 13 Wise. Ins. Co. (1856), 31 Miss. 116 (in- 653; Wyman v. Wallace, 201 U. S. surance company no power to bor- 230; 26 Sup. Ct. 495 (as to powers row to pay liabilities). of national banks) ; Bohn v, Boone * 1 Lindley on Companies, 6th & Loan Ass'n (Iowa), 112 ed., 284, et seq. ' See infra, § 1061. " In addition to cases cited below, see Commonwealth v. Smith, 10 33 L. R. A. 99 ; Mead v. Keeler, 24 Allen (Mass.), 448 ; 87 Am. Dec. 672. 63 N. W. 199 (a building society) Heironimus v. Sweeny, 83 Md. 146 34 Atl. 823 ; 55 Am. St. Rep. 333 § 70 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II where a special act of incorporation provided that the company should have power to borrow on mortgage to an amount not exceeding one third of the company's paid-up capital, any other borrowing was held to be ultra vires} Indeed, express authority to a railway company to borrow on mortgage has been declared to be an impUed prohibition of borrowing without security.^ On the other hand, a clause in an incorporation paper pur- porting to empower the company "to issue bonds secured by mortgage or mortgages upon the property and franchises of said corporation, and to sell the same for the purpose of raising money with which to erect machinery " has been held not to be an implied prohibition of borrowing money on mortgage other- wise than by the issue of bonds and for a purpose other than the erection of machinery.' This last cited case evinces what is submitted to be the proper attitude towards such questions. § 70. Evasion of a Prohibition of Borrowing. — Even where a corporation is expressly prohibited from borrowing, it may often accomplish virtually the same result by an outright sale of its property coupled with an agreement for a lease back to the company for a period of years at a rental equal in the aggre- gate to the purchase price and interest thereon, the title at the end of the term to revert to the company.' Moreover, even where a loan is effected in violation of a prohibition, valuable rights may be acquired by the lender either upon the express contract or quasi ex contractu? § 71. Power to Mortgage. — The power to bort-ow, wher- ever it exists, or to create an indebtedness, carries with it the power to secure the indebtedness by mortgage of some or all of the company's property." The only qualification upon this ' Landowners' , etc. Drainage Co. Cf. Thatcher v. Consumers' Gas & V. Ashford, 16 Ch. D. 411, 43&- Fuel Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 934 (where 437 (headnote inadequate) ; Wen- a statute purporting to empower lock v. River Dee Co., 10 App. Cas. corporations to increase their bonded 354. indebtedness was held not to restrict ' Chambers v. Manchester, etc. Ry. by implication such corporations as Co., 5 B. & S. 588. Cf. Cape Sable already enjoyed a more extended Company's Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.), power of issuing bonds than was al- 606. A power to mortgage includes lowed in the statute). power to borrow on mortgage * Yorkshire Ry. Wagon Co. v. bonds. Oloninger v. Pittsburgh, etc. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309. R. R. Co., 139 Pa. St. 13. » Cf. infra, § 118. ' Brown v. Citizens' Ice, etc. Co. ' Watts's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 370 ; (N. J.), 66 Atl. 181. Hopson v. Mna Axle, etc. Co., 50 64 § 31-§ 162] POWERS IMPLIED § 72 statement is in the case of railways and other public service cor- porations which, having no right to disable themselves from performing their public duties by aliening their road-bed or other necessary property, cannot lawfully create incumbrances upon the same which in case of foreclosure may result in aliena- tion.* Even a railway company, however, has implied power to mortgage its surplus lands.^ A corporation that has power to mortgage its property may execute a mortgage to secure future advances.^ The extent to which express provisions conferring a power to borrow on mortgage can be construed as prohibit- ing any other or further mortgaging has been considered in a former paragraph in connection with the power to borrow. An express power to execute mortgages to secure the repayment of borrowed money does not by implication exclude the power to create mortgages to secure debts contracted otherwise than for money lent.* Where the directors of a company have power to mortgage but are prohibited from issuing bills of exchange, a mortgage securing a bill of exchange representing an antece- dent debt will be enforceable.' § 72. Power to mortgage uncalled Capital. — While the power of a company to mortgage all its property and rights is in general incident to the power to borrow, an exception has been thought to exist in the case of one very peculiar right — the right to call up unpaid capital. In a comparatively early English case, the power of a corporation to create a charge upon future calls was denied ; ° and while subsequent cases clearly hold that such a charge is legal if authorized by the company's memorandum Conn. 597 ; Booth v. Robinson, 55 acquired property, see infra, § 1853- Md. 419, 436; Patent File Co., 6 § 1858. Ch. 83 ; Bickford v. Grand Junction ' See Short on Railway Bonds Ry. Co., 1 Can. Sup. Ct. Rep. 696, and Mortgages, §142. 729-732; Stisquehanna Bridge, etc. ' Imperial Mercantile Credit Ass'n Co. V. General Ins. Co., 3 Md. 305; v. London, etc. Ry. Co., 15 W. R. 56 Am. Dec. 7 iO; BeU & Coggeshall 1187. Co. V. Ky. Glass Works Co. (Ky.), " Jones v. Guaranty, etc. Co., 50 S. W. 2 ; 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 ; 101 U. S. 622. Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Jowa 239; * Allen v. Montgomery R. R. Co., Wright V. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 21 11 Ala. 437, 454. N. E. 907 ; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412 ; « Scott v. Colburn, 26 Beav. 276. Ward V. Johnson, 95 111. 215 ; East- ' Stanley's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 535. man v. Parkinson (Wise), 113 Cf. Sankey Coal Co. (No. 2), 10 N. W. 649. Eq. 381 ; Bank of South Australia As to power to mortgage after- v. Abrahams, L. R. 6 P. C. 265. VOL. I. — 5 65 §73 THE IXCOnrORATION' PAPER [Chap. II of association,' yet no case has decided that the power exists in the absence of any express authority therefor in the com- pany's constitution.^ In the United States, the question has not often arisen.^ This is natural enough; for the practice of carrying on business with a portion of the issued capital unpaid is much rarer than in Great Britain. It has been held that no power exists to mortgage an unpaid subscription to the com- pany's capital where a statute empowers the company to mort- gage its franchises and certain named kinds of property, not, however, mentioning unpaid subscriptions.* At ail events, a call which has been already determined upon but which is still unpaid may be mortgaged to the same extent as any other debt due to the company.^ § 73. Power to issue Notes, Bonds, etc. — Another con- comitant of the power to borrow is the power to give the lender some written evidence of the debt, such, for instance, as a bond ; " and, on principle, this evidence may be put in the most conven- ient and available shape, that is, in the shape of a promissory note or other negotiable instrument.' In England, however. ' Newton v. Anglo-Australian, etc. Co. (1895), A. C. 244. Cf. Phcenix Bessemer Co., 44 L. J. Ch. 683; Tilbury Portland Cement Co., 62 L. J. Ch. 814. = But teee Jackson v. Rainford Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 340, where a trad- ing company whose memorandum of association was silent on the sub- ject of borrowing and whose articles of association recognized a power to borrow on bonds, debentures, "or in such other manner as the company may determine," was held to have power to charge uncalled capital. Cf. Coler V. Grainger County, 74 Fed. 16; 20 C. C. A. 267; Beal v. Dillon, 5 Kans. App. 27; 47 Pac. 317; Lionberger v. Broadway Sav- ings Bank, 10 Mo. App. 499; Epp- right v. Nickerson, 78 Mo. 482; Racine County Bank v. Ayers, 12 Wise. 512. ' See, however, American cases cited in last note. * Morris v. Cheney, 51 111. 451. » Sankey Coal Co., 9 Eq. 721 ; Gibbs So, a provision that the object of the company should be to do any and all acts tending to increase the value of its shares would certainly be too indefinite.^ To be sure, it is very diflScult to say precisely what degree of particularity is requisite.* Thus, a statement that the company is organized "for the purpose of manufacturing" has been held K^ Crown Bank, 44 Ch. D. 634; ment of objects was held too vague ; Re Journalists Fund of PhUaddphia, West v. BvUskin Prairie Ditching 8 Phila. 272 ; Welsbach Incandescent Co., 32 Ind. 138 (description of Gas Light Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 87, 99 drain to be constructed by a drain- (semble). age company held too indefinite) ; Cf. State V. Central Ohio, etc. Ass'n, O'Reiley v. Kankakee Valley Drains 29 Ohio St. 399 (statement that the ing Co., 32 Ind. 169, 192-195 (similar manner of carrying on tl)e business point to that in preceding case) ; shall be such as the company may Crawford v. Prairie Creek Ditching from time to time prescribe by rules Ass'n, 44 Ind. 361 (same point — ^, i and regulations, held not a com- commencement, course and ter-]l pliance with a requirement that the minus of ditch required to be stated) ; incorporation paper must show the Monroe Republican Club, 6 Pa. "manner of carrying on the busi- Dist. R. 515 ("social enjoyment"); ness of said association"). LaFayette Clvh, 21 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. ^ Ashbury Ry., etc. Co. v. Riche, 243 ("mutual improvement intel- L. R. 7.H. L. 653, 690-691. lectually, and social enjoyment"). ' Ellerman v. Chicago Junction In the following cases, in addi- Rys., etc. Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 239 tion to those cited below, the state- (semble) ; 23 Atl. 287 ; Peel's Case, ment of objects was held to be sufiB- 2 Ch. 674 (semble). ciently particular: Seyberger v. * In the following cases in addi- Calumet Draining Co., 33 Ind. 330 tion to those cited below, the state- (description of drain to be con- 94 § 31-§ 162] GENERAL STATEMENTS OF OBJECTS § 104 to be a compliance with law;' and the same is true of a state- ment that the objects of the company shall be the manufacture and sale of daguerreotype matting and preservers, and all other articles made of brass, silver, gold, iron, or other metals or any compounds thereof,^ and of a statement that the objects of the company are "the mining of gold, silver and lead in the terri- tory of Utah." ^ According to a recent Wisconsin case, a state- ment that the "business or purposes" of the corporation will be "to construct and operate street railways in the city of Mil- waukee and elsewhere in the State, and to extend its lines into or through any village or town of the State" is good, without mentioning the termini of the railways.* Where an incorpora- tion paper provided that the company's objects should be to buy and sell shares in a certain other corporation, "to exercise in respect to said shares any and all the rights, powers and privi- leges of owners of shares of said capital stock, to do any and all things tending to increase the value of the shares of the capital stock of said company," the words in quotation marks were held to be sufficiently definite as a specification of the objects of the corporation.^ On the other hand, a statement that the fitructed by drainage company suffi- powers which it may exercise when cientlydefinite) ; Callender v. Paines- duly incorporated. It is sufficient mile & Hudson R. R. Co., 11 Ohio if they designate in general terms St. 516 (description of route of rail- the purposes for which the corpora- way) ; BaUe v. Calvert College Edv^ tion is organized ") ; Cayuga Lake cational Soe., 47 Md. 117, 122 ("to R. R. Co. v. Kyle, G^N.Y. 185 erect and maintain an educational (where a railway company was held society ") ; Bowman Dairy Co. v. a corporation de fac ta notwithstand- Mooney, 41 Mo. App. 665, 672 (where ing a lack of aeniiiteness in stating the court said, obiter, "would it be the termini). a sufficient compliance ... to state ' Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., that the plaintiff intended to em- 34 Md. 316 (headnote inadequate), bark in some business not other- But see Glenwood Coal Co., 6 Pa. wise specially provided for by the Co. Ct. Rep. 575. corporation law of the State? We ^ Bird v. Dagett, 97 Mass. 494. think not ") ; New York, etc. R. R. ' People ex rel. Belknap v. Beach, Co. V. O'Brien, 106 N. Y. Supp. 909 19 Hun (N. Y.) 259. (under statute requiring termini of ' Milwaukee Light, Heat & Trac- proposed railway to be specified, Consequently, to incur any indebtedness in excess of the limit is vltra vires. In Eng- land, the indebtedness in excess of the limit would perhaps be void^whereas in the United States after the ultra vires con- tract is fully executed on one side by the advance of the money, the company would be liable for the amount of the loan either on the express contract or quasi ex contractu} Butter, etc. Co., 30 Fed. 513 ; C^t7^- ningham v. German Ins. Bank, 101 Fed. 977 ; 41 C. C. A. 609 ; Farmers' L. & T. Co. V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co., 67 Fed. 49, 56-58. ' Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank, €4 Fed. 208 (construing U. S. Rev. Stales., § 5202, as to national banks). /^BeU & Coggeshall Co. v. Ky. GMs Works Co. (Ky.), 50 S. W. 2 ; 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 ; First Nat. Bank v. D. Kieffer Co., 95 Ky. 97; 23 S. W. 675 ; WenLock v. River Dee Co., 10 A. C. 354 (construing a special act). But of. Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 208 (stated infra, § 1070) ; Sherman Center Tovm Co. V. Morris, 43 Kan. 282 ; 23 Pac. 569 ; 19 Am. St. Rep. 134 (declaring that ■where statute does not require the incorporation paper to fix a limit to the indebtedness to be incurred by the company a clause naming such a limit has no more force than a by- law and is merely directory); Ossi^ pee, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295 (statute limiting indebtedness declared to be directory). For a method of evading a limitation on the amount of author- ized indebtedness, see supra, § 70. » See infra, § 1031. But as to the rights of a bona fide purchaser of a negotiable in- strument without knowledge that the limit had been exceeded, see Gordon v. Sea Fire Life Ass. Soc., 1 H. & N. 599, and infra, § 1705. * Sioux City Terminal, etc. Co. of North America, 82 Fed. 124; 27 C. C. A. 73; Garrett v. Burlington Plow Co., 70 Iowa 697 ; 29 N. W. 395; 59 Am. Rep. 461 (where the creditor was a director) ; Warfield V. Marshall County Canning Co., 72 Iowa 666; 34 N. W. 467; 2 Am. St. Rep. 263 (creditor a director); Beach v. Wakefield, 107 Iowa 567; 76 N. W. 688 ; 78 N. W. 197 (apply- ing the same rule to debts secured by mortgage contracted by a rail- way company in excess of a statu- tory limit) ; Union Trust Co. v. Mercantile Library Hall Co., 189 Pa. St. 263 ; 42 Atl. 129. Cf. Poole v. West Point Butter, etc. Ass'n, 30 Fed. 513; Vanderveer v. Asbury Park, etc. Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 355 ; Kraniger v. People's Bldg. 109 §119 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [Chap. II § 119. Effect of Failure to state all Particulars required by Law. — All the legal requirements must be complied with. If any of the matters required by the statute to be stated is omitted, the instrument is fatally defective ; ' and even if the attempt to incorporate be not wholly void, the company will be at best a de facto corporation. Thus, where a statute provides that an incorporation paper shall prescribe re gulations for transf ers of shares, the instrument should not attempt to delegate to the directors the power to enact regulations or by-laws on that sub- ]ect.^ The onlyj aofflLfor difference of opinion is upon the ques- tion whether a given provision ofthejncorporatJQO law.in.respect '^'^"^^^^^^^^^^^M^^^^^^^S^^^JSm^^^-^^od&Lo^ or "dtf§clory7 and upon the question jvhether a^failure to, comply " with^ me laanda^fy; reguirementJa..j§^ lo prevMiJ the company from attaining the status oi a, de facto corporatioi Soc, 60 Minn. 94; 61 N. W. 904 (holding that a. loan which extends beyond the Umit is valid up to the limit but is void as to the excess where the money was not applied for the company's benefit) ; Bdl & CoggeshaU Co. v. Ky. Glass Works Co. (Ky.), 50 S. W. 2; 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 (holding that a claim which exceeds the amount of the limit is vaUd up to the limit but void beyond as regards other credi- tors who contracted their claims without notice that the limit had been exceeded) ; First Nat. Bank v. D. Kieffer Milling Co., 95 Ky. 97; 23 S. W. 675 (similar to last case) ; Humphrey v. Patrons' Mer- cantile Ass'n, 50 Iowa 607 (holding that the company is liable for the excess "at least to the extent of the consideration received"); Con^ necticiU River Sav. Bank v. Fiske, 60 N. H. 363 (where the court said it was immaterial whether or not the loan was vitra vires) ; Inter- noMonal Trust Co. v. Davis, etc. Mfg. Co., 46 Atl. 1054; 70 IST. H. 118 (holding that where a mortgage is executed to secure an issue of bonds the aggregate of which exceeds the limit, bonds issued before the limit is reached are well secured) ; Auer- bach V. Le Sueur Mill Co., 28 Minn. 291; 9 N. W. 799; 41 Am. Rep. 285 (note issued for loan in excess of Umit fixed by incorporation paper valid in hands of bona fide pur- chaser) ; Wood v. Carry Water Works Co., 44 Fed. 146 (bona fide pur- chasers entitled to enforce bonds issued in excess of two thirds of capital paid in). See also infra, § 1705, as to nego- tiable instruments issued in excess of the limit. ' WiUiarrts v. Heviitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076. ' Bank of Attica v. Manufac- turers, etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 501. ' See infra, § 289, and the present chapter passim. Cf. Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. v. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185 (company held a corporation dejado notwithstanding indefiniteness in stating location of proposed railway). no § 31-§ 162] UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS § 120 § 120-§ 122. Insertion of Provisions in Addition to those required by Law. § 120. Right to insert Additional Provisions. — The law should not prohibit the insertion in an incorporation paper of ftther provisions over and above the matters required to be stated; for the instrument is not merely a statutory form but is also an agreement like articles of partnership. That such addi- tional provisions may be inserted in the incorporation paper and when inserted therein become part of the company's funda- mental constitution, is settled, in England at least. Hence, any additional provisions so inserted, although not required to be stated, cannot be altered except in the mode, if any, provided for altering the essential parts of the instrument,' unless indeed the incorporation paper itself authorizes alterations of these addi- tional provisions.^ Although there is no reason why the privi- lege of inserting in the company's incorporation paper and embedding in its constitution particulars that are not required by law to be stated in the instrument should not be held to exist in America ' as well as in England, yet the privilege, even when expressly conferred by statute (as is sometimes the case) is not ' Ashbury v. Watson, 30 Ch. D. But see Stevedore's Beneficial 376 (headnote inadequate, — over- Ass'n, 14 Phila. 130 ; Indiana Bond ruling dicta in Ouinness v. Land Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593, 595; Corporation, 22 Ch. D. 349, 364, 54 N. E. 407 ; O'Brien v. Cummings, 377, and Winstone's Case, 12 Ch. D. 13 Mo. App. 197 (holding a clause 239, 251, and distinguishing Duke's in an incorporation paper limiting Case, 1 Ch. D. 620) ; Stevedore's the number of shares which one per- Benefidal Ass'n, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 130 son might hold of no greater effect (semble). than a mere by-law) ; Renn v. But see Oban & Aidtmore-Glen- United States Cement Co. (Ind.), 73 livet Distilleries, 5 Fraser (So.) 1140. N. E. 269 (provision purporting to ' Underwood v. London Music fix number of directors held alter- /TaW (1901), 2 Ch. 309; Wdsbach able by a mere by-law). Incandescent Gas Light Co. (1904), In Sherman, etc. Town Co. v. 1 Ch. 87. Morris, 43 Kan. 282 ; 23 Pac. 569 ; Cf. Nelson v. Keith^'Brien Co. 19 Am. St. Rep. 134, it was said, (Utah), 91 Pac. 30 (stated infra, obiter, that a provision in an incor- § 144 note). poration paper fixing a limit to the ' Cf. Mohawk Nat. Bank v. Sche- amount that the company is au- nectady Bank, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 90; thorized to borrow has, where the 28 N. Y. Supp. 1100; Gibbs v. Long law does not require such limit to Island Bank, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 92; be stated, the force of a by-law only. 31 N. Y. Supp. 406 ; Bent v. Under- In Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. v. down. 156 Ind. 516; 60 N. E. 307. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325, 341, it was 111 § 121 THE INCORPORATION TAPER [ClIAP. II very often availed of on this side of the Atlantic. Indeed, Ameri- can lawyers have scarcely begun to appreciate the scope that is given for legal ingenuity in drawing incorporation papers. By means of this right of adding to the indispensable provisions of these instruments, it may be possible to secure some of the advantages of the elasticity and freedom of regulation that the English system of "articles" or recorded by-laws affords. § 121. TTnauthorized as distinguished from Unnecessary Pro- visions — EfEect of inserting. — Of course, care must be taken that any additional provisions inserted in the incorporation paper over and above the particulars required to be stated shall not be contrary to law. For provisions which are expressly or impliedly prohibited, as distinguished from merely unnecessary provisions, are, if inserted , ineffective. To be sure, even prohibited provisions do not have the effect of invalidating the whole in- strument provided all that is required by law to be stated is found therein.' Utile per inviile non vitiatur. The prohibited provisions are void, but they do not vitiate the rest of the in- strument. Thus, where the statute requires the assent of the shareholders to any increase of capital, a provision in the in- corporation paper purporting to authorize an increase of capital by the directors alone, although of course itself void, does not prevent the company from being legally incorporated.^ So, a provision purporting to limit or diminish the shareholders' legal liability to creditors is simply void.' Similarly, where the law authorizes incorporation for certain purposes, an incorpora- tion paper which besides specifying those purposes adds others not warranted by law, the company is validly incorporated, but said that "there is no authority of lating transfers of shares are un- law for introducing more into it authorized; Bullqrd v. Bank, 18 (the incorporation paper), and if Wall. 589 (headnote inadequate), more be introduced it is mere sur- ' See in addition to cases cited plusage, not adding to or detracting below, Becket v. Uniontovm Bldg. from the force of the declaration." Ass'n, 88 Pa. St. 211 ; Albright v. The National Banking Act pro- Lafayette, etc. Ass'n, 102 Pa. St. 411. vides that the incorporation paper ' Eastern Plank Road Co. v. of a national bank may in addition Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546. to the required particulars contain Cf. Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. other provisions for the regulation v. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325. of its affairs; and it has been held " Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Nebr. that under this statute provisions 701 ; 75 N. W. 874. See also infra, in the articles of incorporation regu- § 122. 112 § 31-§ 162] UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS § 121 cannot exercise the additional powers unwarrantably sought to be conferred upon it.' It has recently been held in England that where a statute authorizes a reduction of capital, if pro- vided for in the articles or by-laws, a clause in the incorpora- tion paper providing for a reduction does not have the same effect as a similar clause in the articles, but is wholly void.^ This decision is technical, and on principle one would have thought that any provision which is permissible and effective if found in the by-laws or articles should be legal and effective if in- serted in the incorporation paper or memorandum of association. If the law requires the paper to be approved by a judge or other public officer, he may withhold his approval if the paper contains any prohibited provisions ; ' and, indeed,, even a mere registrar charged with ministerial functions may refuse to record an instrument which contains any illegal provi- ' Heck V. McEwen, 12 Lea commercial railway) ; Saunders v. (Tenn.) 97; Shick v. Citizens' En- Farmer, 62 N. H. 572 (held a cor- terprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329; 57 poration de facto). Am. St. Rep. 230 _ (distinguished in Quaere, what would be the effect if Wiiliams v. Citizens' Enterprise Co., some of the objects be not merely 25 Ind. App. 351, 354; 57 'N. E. unauthorized but actually illegal or 581) ; Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 immoral. Cf. infra, Chapter V. TJ. S. 55, 60 (headnote inadequate) ; In some cases a clause in an in- Tennessee, etc. Lighting Co. v. Massey, corporation paper has been thought 56 S. W. 35 (Tenn.) ; Shoun v. Arnv- to constitute, so to speak, color of strong, 59 S. W. 790 (Tenn.) ; Humph- authority for the exercise of powers reys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282, 292. therein conferred even though those But see State ex rd. Lederer v. powers be not authorized by the International Investment Co., 88 incorporation law: Prairie Lodge Wise. 512 ; 60 N. W. 796 ; 43 Am. St. v. Smith, 58 Miss. 301 (headnote Rep. 920 (where the unauthorized inadequate) ; Carson City Sav. Bank object was thought to be the pri- v. Carson City Elevator Co., 90 Mich, mary purpose and the authorized ob- 550 ; 51 N. W. 641 ; 30 Am. St. Rep. jects merely subordinate purposes 454. of the incorporation). ' Dexine Patent Packing & Rubber Cf. Bayou Cook,'etc. Co. v. Dovllat, Co., 88 L. T. 791. 35 So. 729; 111 La. 517; David ' Butchers' Beneficial Ass'n, 35 Bradley Mfg. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Pa. St. 151; Agudath Hakehiloth, Traction Co. (111.), 82 N. E. 210 18 N. Y. Misc. 717 ; 42 N. Y. Supp. (held, that where a corpora,tion is 985; Benevolent Society, 10 Phila. incorporated to operate a "street (Pa.) 19; Woodberry v. McClurg, railway" under a law providing for 78 Miss. 831 ; 29 So. 514; Miller v. the incorporation of commercial Tod, 67 S. W. 483 ; 95 Tex. 404 ; interurban railways only, the word People v. Rose, 188 111. 268 ; 59 N. E. "street" should be regarded as px- 432. punged from the incorporation Cf. Medical College of PhUadel- paper and the company deemed a phia, 3 Whart.(Pa.) 445. VOL. I. ~ 8 113 § 122 THE INCOEPOKATION PAPER [ChAP. II sions.' But on the other hand the action of a ministerial officer in recording the instrument does not preclude judicial inquiry into the legality of any of its provisions.^ § 122. What Provisions are unauthorized. — The existing au- thorities do not afford much aid in determining what provisions in an incorporation paper are illegal and void, where a provision is not deemed illegal merely because it is not required. Any provision that is contrary to express or implied statutory regula- tions* of course cannot stand.' Thus, where the purchase by a corporation of its own shares is deemed to be illegal, a clause in an" incorporation paper purporting to authorize the company to purchase its own shares would doubtless be void.* So, a clause purporting to vest in the directors a discretion to declare dividends at any time, whereas a statute requires the dividend days to be fixed, would be void.^ A federal judge sitting in Louisiana has held that a piovision in an incorporation paper purporting to give the company a lien on its shares for debts owing by the holders is void;' but this decision appears to » Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. Whalen, 104 N. Y. Supp. 555 ; Lin- 487; State ex rd. Gorman v. Nichols coin Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Graham, 7 (Wash.), 82 Pac. 741 ; People ex Nebr. 173 (headnote inadequate — reZ. Barney v. Whalen, 104 N. Y. clause purporting to authorize lend- Supp. 555 ; Rex v. Registrar Joint ing at usurious interest). Stock Companies (1904), 2 Ir. 634 * Infra, § 627. Cf. § 624. (where the name of the company ^ Marquand v. Federal Steel Co., contained a false statement) ; Peo- 95 Fed. 725. pie ex rd. Blossom v. Ndson, 46 N. ° New Orleans Nat. Banking Y. 477 (attempt to form a corpora- Ass'n v. WUtz, 10 Fed. 330 (head- tion for business purposes, in addi- note inadequate), tion to the purpose of promoting Cf. O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo. the temporal interests of others, App. 197 ; Lyman v. State Bank of under a statute for formation of Randolph, 81 N. Y. App. Div. 367; benevolent and charitable corpora- 80 N. Y. Supp. 901, affirmed short tions); People ex rd. Barney v. 179N. Y. 577; 72 N. E. 1145. Whalen, 106 N. Y. Supp. 434. The decision in Third Nat. Bank Cf. People V. Bose, 219 111. 46 ; 76 v. Buffalo German Ins. Co., 193 N. E. 42 (where the instrument U. S. 581, that a provision in the adopted the same name as an ex- "articles of association" of a na- isting company) ; State ex rd. Os- tional bank, which perform some borne v. Nichols, 38 Wash. 309 ; of the functions of an incorporation 80 Pac. 462. paper, purporting to give the bank ' People ex rd. Peahody v. Chicago a lien on its several shares for debts Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268, 22 N. E. owing by the respective holders, can 798, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 8L. R. A. be explained by the fact that the 497. Cf. infra, § 267. national bank act expressly forbids ' Cf. People ex rd. Barney v. banks to lend on the security of 114 § 31-§ 162] UNNECESSARY PROVISIONS § 122 have been ill considered, and was reached by assimilating an incorporation paper, or so-called charter, to mere by-laws, without adverting to the cardinal distinction between them in that the one is matter of record so that all who deal with the company have constructive notice, while mere by-laws rest in pais. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Iowa in a well-reasoned judgment, while recognizing that where a mere by-law confers upon the corporation a lien upon its shares for debts due from the shareholders, bona fide purchasers of a share-certificate are not affected thereby, nevertheless held that a similar provision contained in an incorporation paper creates a lien which is effective against all the world, because everybody has construc- tive notice of the contents of the incorporation paper.' In Indiana, a provision declaring that shares may be issued at a discount has been held effective,^ but the opposite result was reached by the Supreme Court of Ohio in a case relating to a West Virginia corporatioti.' A Vice-Chancellor of New Jersey has expressed the opinion that a clause in an incorpora- tion paper authorizing the directors to bind the company without a board meeting is void although the New Jersey law expressly authorizes the insertion in an incorporation paper of "any provision creating, defining, Umiting and regulating " the powers of directors ; * but this expression of opinion, although sup- ported by an elaborate statement of reasons, was not strictly necessary to the decision, and is submitted to be so narrow and unjust that the New Jersey Court of Errors, which is distin- guished for breadth and sanity of judgment in matters of corporation law, is unlikely to reach the same conclusion.* their own shares and by the fact ' Security Trust Co. v. Ford — which seems to have had more (Ohio), 79 N. E. 474. Accord: weight with the court — that Con- Twigg v. Thunder Hill Mining Co., gress, by repealing the express pro- 3 Brit. Columb. 101. vision in the Act of 1863 for such ' Audenried v. East Coast Milling liens, had indicated a legislative in- Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 577. tent that the shares should be alien- ' CSf. Bell & Coggeshall Co. v. able without any such restriction. Ky. Glass Works Co., 50 S, W. 2; ' Dempster Mfg. Co. v. Down, 126 20 Ky. Law Rep. 1684 (enforcing Iowa 80 (headnote inadequate) ; 101 a clause in an incorporation paper N. W. 735; 106 Am. St. Rep. 340. which vested the management of ' Bent v. Underdown, 156 Ind. the company in executive officers 516 ; 60 N. E. 307. Cf. Street & Co. who were to act without a meeting). 17 Vict. L. R. 717. lis § 123 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II One of the inferior courts in Pennsylvania has even gone so far as to hold that a provision in an incorporation paper of a social club providing that a member shall have as many votes at elections of oflBcers as he holds shares is void;' and this decision is the more remarkable because a similar provision in mere by-laws is by the weight of authority quite valid.^ A clause in an incorporation paper vesting the exclusive control of the company in the first directors for a period of years, and provid- ing that until the expiration of that time the shareholders should have no right to vote or hold meetings (except in an advisory capacity), has been held by a federal judge to be valid and not in conflict with statutory provisions for annual and other meetings of shareholders, which provisions were construed to apply only to those companies whose incorporation papers contain no stipulation to the contrary.* This decision is remarkable among American cases in that it errs, if at all, on the side of a liberal and elastic construction of the law. Accordingly, one is not sur- prised to find that an Indiana court upon very similar facts has reached a diametrically opposite conclusion.* § 123. Incorporation of other Documents into Instrument by Reference. — By analogy to accepted principles relating to deeds of real estate and similar instruments, an incorporation paper may refer to, and by reference incorporate, any existing recorded paper ,^ but not an unrecorded document or a document not at the time in existence. Thus, a reference in the incorpora- tion paper to by-laws to be subsequently adopted by the com- pany will not make such by-laws part of the company's recorded ' Commonwealth ex rel. Nicker- copies of each other, but each signed son V. Conover, 30 Leg. Int. (Pa.) by different persons) ; Monroe Re- 200. publican Clvh, 6 Pa. Dist. R. 515 ^ See infra, § 1216. (application for charter typewritten ' Union Trust Co. v. Carter, 139 upon several sheets of paper joined Fed. 717. together with eyelets, instead of * State ex rel. Ross v. Anderson, being written upon one single sheet, 67N. E.207; 31 Ind. App. 34. Baid to be irregular); Stevedore's " Cf. Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. Co. Beneficial Ass'n, 14 Phila. (Pa.) 130 V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 (where arti- (similar point to last case) ; Ac- ticles of incorporation consisted of countants' Ass'n, 5 Pa. Dist. Rep. several separate instruments, exact 699 (similar point to last two cases). 116 § 31-§ 162] EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT §124 constitution nor charge persons who may afterwards deal with the company with notice of their existence and contents.' § 124-§ 131. Execution of Instrument. § 124. In general — Signature — Number of Subscribers, etc. — An incorporation paper must of course be signed; if unsigned, it is a nullity.' Moreover, it must be signed by the number of subscribers required by law. This is an essential point.^ Thus, if the law requires, say, five or more subscribers, a paper signed by three only is invalid.* On the other hand, where the law requires three subscribers, two of the three may be husband and wife ; ^ baron and feme are not nowadays for this purpose regarded as one person. Signature by a mark is suflScient.' A fortiori, a subscriber need not sign his full name : a signature designating a subscriber's Christian name by an initial merely is sufficient.'' If the stfl fiHtr pr—""*" *^"* *^'^ pliirft "f ff«''rlp"'^p q f^the subscribers ska ll ht- stfi.tpf] th° p^^^-'^^hn r Tr°"rlltnriy a failure to give the place ot residence of each of a number sufficient to perfect the organization cannot be deemed disregard of a mere directory provision.* ' Royal Bank of India's Case, 4 Ch. 252. ' Lawrie v. SUshy (Vt.), 56 Atl. 1106 ; 76 Vt. 240 ; 104 Am. St. Rep. 927 ; Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636 (explained in Ossipee, etc. Mfg. Co. V. Canney, 54 N. H. 295, 313). Cf. Kaiser v. Lamrence Savings Bank, 56 Iowa 104 (headnote in- adequate) ; 8 N. W. 772 ; 41 Am. Rep. 85. ' See infra, § 1084. * Helping Hand Marriage Ass'n, 15 Phila. 644 (headnote inade- quate) ; Ehoads v. Hoernerstovm Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 82 Pa. St. 180; Hamilton Road Co. v. Tovriwend, 13 Ont. Rep. 534; People ex rel. Weatherly v. Golden Gate Lodge, (Cal.), 60 Pac. 865; 128 Cal. 257; State ex rel. Clapp v. Critchett, 37 Minn. 13 ; 32 N. W. 787. Cf. Johnson v. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303, 310; 73 N. W. 147 (paper signed by less than required number of persons held colorable compliance with law sufficient to give rise to incorporation de facto) ; Duggan v. Colorado Mtge., etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113, 117 (headnote inade- quate, — holding that forgery of one of the requisite minimum num- ber of signatures is not ground for collateral attack on validity of incorporation). ^ Good Land Co. v. Cole (Wise), 110 N. W. 895. " Board of Trustees of Seventh Street, etc. Church v. Campbell, 48 La. Ann. 1543 ; 21 So. 184. ' State ex rel. Callings v. Beck, 81 Ind. 500. ' Busenback v. Attica, etc. Gravel Road Co., 43 Ind. 265. As to such provisions, see also, Steinmelz v. Versailles, eic. Turnpike Co., 57 Ind. 457. 117 §125 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [Cha^. II § 125. Sealing of Instrument. — The instrument need not be under the seals of the subscribers unless the statute so re- quires; but a provision that the paper shall be under.jseal can- UO Lrbe' deemed directory m erely.^ As more fully explained below, a provision that the paper "shall bind the company and each member to the same extent as if each member had signed his name and affixed his seal thereto," does not require the instrument to be sealed by the subscriber&J) §126. Acknowledgment -of Instrument. — A provision that the instrument shall be acknowledged as well as signed isjua^da- tory ; '" but a magistrate's certificate that the paper was " suK^ scribed and sworn to " before him sufficiently shows that it was acknowledged.* Where the instrument is required to be acknowl- edged before a clerk of court or justice bf the peace it is invalid if acknowledged before a notary publicv'even though the notary ' Grifpn v. Clinton Line, etc. B. R. — headnote inadequate) ; Danne- Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27. broge Gold, etc. Co. v. Ailment, 26 Cf. Warner v. Cullender, 20 Ohio Cal. 286 (acknowledgment by one St. 190. of subscribers by attorney Jield, ' WhiHey Partners, 32 Ch. D. not ground for collateral attack on 337. See infra, § 131. Validity of incorporation where a ' Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- statute forbade such attack if the tion V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 17 company claims in good faith to be a S. E. 305 ; Doyle v. Mizner, 42 corporation) ; Franke v. Mann, 106 Mich. 332; 3 N. W. 968; People Wisc.ll8;81N.W. 1014;48L.R. A. ex rel. Long Island R. R. Co. v. 856 (lack of acknowledgment no bar Board of R. R. Commrs., 75 N. Y. to incorporation de facto) ; StdiU v. App. Div. 106; 77 N. Y. Supp. 380 Zidick. 48 N. J. Law 599 (headnote (holding acknowledgment by each of inadequate) ; 7 Atl. 362 (formal the required number of signatories defect in certificate of acknowledg- to be requisite) ; People v. Monte- ment no bar to incorporation de dto Water Co., 97 Cal. 276; 32 facto); Central Agricultural, etc. Pac. 236; 33 Am. St. Rep. 172; Ass'n, y. Ala. Gold Ufe Ins. Co., 70 Kaiser v. Lawrence Savirigs Bank, Ala. 120 (lack of acknowledgment 56 Iowa 104 (headnote inadequate) ;. not fatal to corporate existence 8 N. W. 772 ; 41 Am. Rep. 85. de facto). Cf. Wall V. Mines, 130 Cal. 27; As to the conclusiveness of a 62 Pac. 386 (provision for verifica- magistrate's certificate of acknowl- tion by affidavit held mandatory) ; edgment, see inft-a, § 283. First Nat. Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 ' * CuykendaU v. Douglas, 19 Hun Mo. 15 (headnote misleading) ; 93 (N. Y. ) 577. S. W. 761 ; Duggan v. Colorado ' Shields y. Clifton Hill Land Mortgage, etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113; Co., 94 Tenn, 123; 28 S. W. 668; 17 Pac. 105 (lack of acknowledg- 45 Am. St. Rep. 700; 26 L. R. A. ment held not to prevent such 509. colorable compliance with law as Cf. First Baptist Soc. v. Rapalee, to give rise to a corporation de facto 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 605 (acknowledg- 118 § 31-§ 162] EXECUTION OF INSTRUMENT § 129 is by another statute authorized in general terms to take acknowl- edgments of all written instruments.' An acknowledgment taken by one of the subscribers of the paper in his capacity as notary is void.^ The officer taking the acknowledgment need not certify that the persons who acknowledged the instrument are personally known to him unless such is the express requirement of the statute, even though as to acknowledgments of deeds of real estate such a certificate is required.' And, of course, a provision that the paper shall be " subscribed by five or more, persons . . . and acknowledged by each" is not satisfied by a papersigned by five persons but acknowledged by four of them onl^£; § 127. Place of Execution. — An incorporation paper may be both subscribed and acknowledged in a foreign state.^ § 128. Execution of Duplicate Instruments. — The New York Court of Appeals in 1857 decided that " articles of associa- tion" might consist of several distinct papers, exact copies or transcripts of each other with the exception of the signatures;* but this case oan hardly be relied upon as approving such a practice under modern incorporation laws, unless each of the duplicates is signed by the requisite minimum number of subscribers. § 129. Execution and Delivery in Escrow. — It has been held that an incorporation paper cannot be executed and delivered in escrow. That is to say, if such a paper is signed and delivered to some person with the understanding that it shall not be used ment before commissioner of deeds ' People ex rel. Bernard v. Cheese- ineffective when statute requires ac- man, 7 Colo. 376 ; 3 Pac. 716 ; John- knowledgment before a judge, — a ston v. Eviing Female University, decision which is criticised in'B«;^aZo, 35 111. 518. etc. R. R. Co. V. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75, * People v. Monteeito Water Co., 78, as overlooking the distinction 97 Cal. 276 ; 32 Pac. 236 ; 33 Am. between incorporation de jure and St. Rep. 172. ■ Supra, § 136. (overruled) ; Eisfeld v. Kenworth, ' Cf. Richmond Factory Ass'n v. 50 Iowa 389 ; Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, Clarke, 61 Me. 351. 43 N. H. 636. ' Peopleexrel.Davenportv.Rice,68 As to what is a newspaper "as Hun (N.Y.)24; 22 N.Y. Supp. 631. convenient as practicable to the * As to the effect of fraud in principal place of business," see procuring the approval, see infra, Clinton Novelty Iron Works v. Neit- § 267. 128 § 31-§ 162] OFFICIAL APPROVAL § 142 § 141. Submission by way of Petition to Officer for Issue of Charter. — Still other statutes provide that the incorporation paper shall be in the nature of a petition addressed to a court, or to the governor of the state or other executive officer; and that thereupon the court or official to whom the petition is addressed shall, if he find that the same complies with law, issue a "charter " or "certificate of incorporation " incorporating the applicants according to the prayer of the petition. Under statutes of this class, the submission of the petition or incorpora- tion paper to the judge or other ofiicer is an integral and essential part of the incorporation, and without such submission and approval there can be no corporation at all — not even a corpora- tion de facto} The application for issue of the "charter" or decree of incorporation is an ex parte proceeding, and no third person has any right to intervene and object to the granting of the apphcation.^ Under some such statutes, the officer to whom the appHcation is addressed is invested with a considerable degree of discretion, and may, for example, refuse an application where the proposed corporate name is likely to cause confusion even though it do not amount to an infringement of any legal rights.' § 142. Issue of Certificate of Approval after Registration. — Still other statutes, for example, the English Companies Act of 1862, provide that after the instrument has been recorded, the registrar or some other official shalLissue a certificate stating that the instrument. has been recorded and that the company is incorporated. If the language of the statute show that the incorporation is to date from the approval by the registrar, or other public official, and the issue of his certificate, there can be no corporation — not even a cOTporation_ de_/acto — until such approval be securedarTd thecStificateissued.'' Bjit in thp ' As to the effect of fraud in pro- charter were heard) ; Bradley Ferti- curing the oflBcial approval, and the User Co., 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 271. question whether the officer may ' Polish Nat. Cath. Church, 31 Va,. revoke his approval, see infra, § 267. Super. Ct. 87 ; Philadelphia Lying- ' Young Women's Christian Ass'n in Charity v. Maternity Hospital, 29 V. St. Louis Women's Christian Pa. Super. Ct. 420. Ass'n, 115 Mo. App. 228; 91 S. W. ■* Cf. Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. 397; 171. First Nat. Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. But cf. Polish Nat. Catholic 15, 41-42 (semble) ; 93 S. W. 761 ; Church, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 87 (where Sexton v. Snyder, 119 Mo. App. 668 the opponents to the granting of the (headnote inadequate) ; 94 S. W. 562. VOL. I. — 9 129 § 143 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II ■fthspTipe of.^,n -ex plicit provision m aking-tlaejss ue of the c pr fP^"^*^ a^j^nHitinn prpf^ fHent t o incorporation — and a fortiori where the law provides that the subscribers of the incorporation paper shall be incorporated from the registration of the instrument — the certificate is of only evidentiary value, and is needed only as convenient proof that the law has been complied with.' ■vin.auch cases^_the_Jai lure to submit the instr um ent to the pro per official. or an omission J o secura-tb&-£eitifi£ai£_pf incorporation, is at_ ^most_abrjE;achj3La condition subsequent, to be availed oI%Jhe state alone.^ § 143. Alteration of Instrument after Execution and before Registration. — If any material alteration be made in the incor- poration paper after its. execution and before its registration, without the assent of all the subscribers, the paper in its altered form is certainly not binding upon the parties.^ The effect of recording the document as altered, under statutes making registration conclusive evidence of compliance with law; will be considered hereafter.* Lord Cairns once expressed the opinion that any alteration of this sort would, like a fraudulent alter- ation in a deed or promissory note, render the whole instru- ment altogether void, so that it would no longer, in its unaltered .. form, be binding upon the subscribers.^ Although an incorpora- tion paper is not a sealed instrument unless, expressly required to be under seal, still Lord Cairns's dictum corresponds with the policy of the law. For whether or not the document is a technical common law specialty, it is certainly a very formal and | ) ' f peculiar instrument, and should, in this respect, for the preven.- ^ ' tion of frauds, be governed by the same rules as a deed. So, it ^ has been, held that where an incorporation paper when signed by one of the subscribers contains material blanks, there is no ' Sparks v. Woodstock Iron, etc. tion v. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 17 Co., 87 Ala. 294, 298; 6 So. 195. S. E. 305. ' As to the effect of fraud in pro- As to immaterial alterations, see curing the certificate, and as to the Union Agricultural, etc. Ass'n v. question whether the officer grant- NeUl, 31 Iowa 95. ing the- certificate may revoke his * See infra, § 268-§ 270. determination, see infra, § 267. » Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674, 681. * Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- 130 § 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 144 authority without the subsequent consent of that subscriber to ' fill up the blanks.' In Maryland, it was held that where a subscriber to an incorporation paper, which had been materially altered after he had signed, subsequently acknowledged the instrument in ignorance of the alteration, he was not estopped from relying on the alteration as a defense .to an action on his agreement to accept and pay for shares in the company ; '^ but this decision goes to the very verge of the law, for where the rights of innocent third parties may accrue on the faith of the acknowledgment, the subscribers should not in general be allowed to plead ignorance of what they were doing. Possibly, in such a case, although the alteration may be a defense to an action upon the subscriber's agreement to take shares, it may not a nnul the incorporation of the c ompany. Indeed, that seems to have been the view of the Maryland court in the case last cited. It would seem that an incorporation paper may always be altered, with the unanimous consent of the sub- scribers, at any time before it is recorded.' § 144-§ 160. ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION. § 144. Alteration after Recording generally impossible with- out enabling Statute. — ■ The general scheme of the incorpora- tion laws contemplates that each metaorahdum of association or incorporation paper shall, from the time of registration be the unalterable constitution of the company.* This policy of the law cannot be circumvented by 'inserting a clause authorizing the company t6 alter the provisions of the instrument at pleasure ; for such a clause would be void as regards any matters required by law to be fixed and determined in the incorporation paper.' ' Dutchess, etc. R. B. Co. v. Mab- Co. (1904), 1 Ch. 87 {semble) ; Dexine bett, 58 N. Y. 397. Patent Packing & Rubber Co., 88 L. T. ' Hughes v. Anlietam Mfg. Co., 791. 34 Md. 316. But see Thornton v. Bdcom, 85 ' Cf. Gade v. Forest Glen Brick Iowa 198 ; 52 N. W. 190 (criticised Co., 165 111. 367 ; 46 N. E. 286. supra, § 118) ; Nelson v. Keith- * Ci. New York Cable Ry. Co., 109 O'Brien Co. (Utah), 91 Pac. 30 N. Y. 32 ; 15 N. E. 882 (where an (where, in a rather cloudy opinion, attempt was made to amend an in- the court appears to hold that under strument which in its original form a statute providing that no altera- was fatally defective). tion in the incorporation paper shall ' Wdsbach Incandescent Gas Light change the liability of holders of 131 § 145 THE INCOKPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II We have seen above that this rule that an incorporation paper cannot be altered apphes even to matters not required to be stated in the instrument/ except that the paper itself may provide otherwise.^ An unauthorized attempt to amend the incorporation paper is void, and of course therefore the corpo- rate existence and power of the company to carry on business under the original instrument is not affected.' § 145. Reformation for Mistake. — Not even, a court of equity has power to rectify a mistake in an incorporation paper after it has been duly recorded. This conclusion was reached in regard to the articles of association of an English company(^nd a fortiori the same principle would apply to a memorandum of association or incorporation paper. The blunder is, therefore, beyond remedy unless the statute provides some means of alter- ing the instrument. § 146. Historical Outline of Statutes authorizing Alterations. — The English Companies Act of 1862 in its original form provided no mode for altering the memorandum of association except in respect to increasing the capital of the company and to changing its name.* By an act of 1867, the power of reducing the capital was conferred subject to certain conditions." By a still later act,' a power is conferred of altering the object clause of the memorandum whenever "it appears that the alteration is required in order to enable the company (1) to carry on its business more economically or efficiently, or (2) to attain its main purpose by new or improved means, or (3) to enlarge or change the local area of its o^rations, or (4) to carry on some business or businesses which under existing circumstances may conveniently or advantageously be combined with the business of the company, or (5) to restrict or abandon any of the objects specified" in the original instrument. In each case paid-up shares without unanimous Bank, 75 Minn. 196, 205 (headnote consent, a clause in an incorporation inadequate) ; 77 N. W. 822. paper authorizing alterations in the * Evans v. Chapman, 86 L. T. 381. instrument by majority vote is suf- ' Companies Act, 1862, § 12 and ficient warrant for an alteration by § 13. mere majority vote changing in some ' Companies Act, 1867 (30 and 31 respects the liability of holders of Vict., c. 131). paid-up shares). ' Companies (Memorandum of > Supra, § 120. Association) Act, 1890 (53 and 54 ' Supra, § 120. Vict., c. 62). • Richards v. Minnesota Sav. 132 § 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 147 the proposed alteration must receive the approval of the court, which is not to be given without aflfording to dissenting share- holders and to creditors an opportunity to be heard in opposition to the alteration. In most of the UnitedS tates, the statutes prov ide a method ^of makin g some alterations _inj_or a.mpnrlTnp nts t" >„incorporation ^__gapsc5;, gti^.not„ infreq uently, a po wer.. la .co nferred, unlim ited in terms, of making any alterations that may be desired. § 147-§ 149. What Alterations are authorized by enabling Statutes. § 147. In general. — Even where statutes confer a power of alteration broadly, without any express limitation whatsoever, nevertheless, it is submitted that no complete and radical change, creating, in substance, a new corporation, could be made against the opposition of any shareholder.' For instance, a joint-stock insurance company cannot ainend its incorporation paper so as to give the policy-holders the right to vote at meetings of the company, and thus virtually convert the company from a joint- stock company into a mutual company.^ A fortiori, where the statute expressly provides that no amendment shall "change substantially the purposes" of the company, a corporation formed for the purpose of manufacturing gas and electricity ' But see Mercantile Statement Co. Bubstantially the purposes of the V. Kneal, 51 Minn. 263; 53 N. W. organization, a gas company was 632; David Bradley Mfg. Co. v. allowed to amend its incorporation Chicago, etc. Traction Co. (111.), 82 paper so as to acquire power to fur- N. E. 210 (amendment changing nish electric light), object of company from construe- As to whether the alteration may tion of a street railway or tramway authorize an abandonment of the to construction of an interurban original chief object of the company, commercial railway held valid). compare Thellusson v. Valentia As to what is a substantial change (1907), 2 Ch. 1 (where the "rules" in the objects of the company, see of an unincorporated club, which State V. Taylor, 55 Ohio 61 ; 44 N. E. originally provided for pigeon-shoot- 613 (stated infra) ; Commonwealth v. ing and which by amendtoent had Licking Valley Bldg. Ass'n, 82 S. W. been enlarged so as to include other 435 ; 26 Ky. L. Rep. 730 (where a sports, were permitted to be further so-called amendment was held to amended so as to provide for dis- have created a new corporation) ; continuing pigeon-shooting at the Picard v. Hughey, 58 Ohio St. 577 ; club). 51 N. E. 133 (where, ^under a " Lord v. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, statute expressly prohibiting any 96 N. Y. Supp. 10 ; 109 N. Y. App. amendment which should change Div. 252. 133 § 147 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II for light, heat, or power cannot amend its incorporation paper so as to add to its objects the operation of a street railway.' Even where the power of amendment is in terms unlimited, the company may not make an alteration reducing the rate of the preferential dividend on the preferred shares as fixed in the original instrument,^ or avoiding valid contracts of the corporation.' j/"^ On the other hand, the statutory power of amendment, un- I less in terms restricted, applies to all the clauses of the original J instrument,* such, for example, as the clause fixing a limit to ^ the period of corporate existence,* or determining the corporate name,' or the clause marking out the objects of the company,^ \ except possibly the clause fixing the amount of the capital.* Stat- utory power to alter the nature of the business carried on by the company authorizes a change in the place, as specified in the incorporation paper, at which the business is to be carried on, even though the character of the business is not altered.' Where a railway company has power to alter its incorporation paper for the purpose of correcting an informality or defect in the original instrument, an amendment which makes a change in the proposed route is not permissible."* ' State V. Taylor, 55 Ohio St. 61 ; As to alterations in the voting 44 N. E. 513. rights of the shareholders, see Loe- ' Pronick v. Spirits DistribvMng wenthal v. Rubber Reclaiming Co., Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 97 ; 42 Atl. 586. 52 N. J. Eq. 440 ; 28 Atl. 454 (where Cf. infra, § 672-§ 674. the statute authorizing amendments ' Cf . Brown v. Grand Fountain, was passed after the execution of the 28 App. D. C. 200. See also infra, original incorporation paper). § 722-§ 724. • Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. Model ' Cf. Bernstein v. Kaplan (Ala.), Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. 308; 43 So. 581 (headnote inadequate — 28 Atl. 215. construing a statute wliich after em- ' Mercantile Statement Co. v. powering the corporation to alter the Kneal, 51 Minn. 263 ; 53 N. W. instrument in certain particulars 632. concluded by authorizing "such ' Continental Varnish, etc. Co. v. other alteration, amendment, or Secretary of State, 87 N. W. 901 ; change of its charter as may be de- 128 Mich. 621. As to increase or sired"); Fidelity Mut. Aid Ass'n, reduction of capital, see further infra, 12 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 269, 271 Chapter XI. ("A general power to alter or amend ' Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc, a charter is a power to alter or amend etc. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257 (headnote any part of the charter"). inadequate) ; 44 Atl. 55. ' People ex rd. Ward v. Green, '» Riverhead, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. 116 Mich. 505; 74 N. W. 714; Ovid Y. App. Div. 514; 55 N. Y. Supp. Elevator Co. v. Secretary of State, 90 938. Mich. 466 ; 51 N. W. 536. 134 § 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 148 § 148. Under British Act of 1890 and similar Statutes. — The British courts have often been called upon to decide whether proposed changes in a company's objects can be brought within the power of alteration conferred by the Act of 1890, which has been already referred to.' In order to come within the clause authorizing an alteration in the objects which may enable the company to carry on its business more economically or efficiently, the proposed alteration must "leave the business of the company substantially what it was before, with only such changes in the mode of conducting it as will enable it to be carried on more efficiently."^ Neither that clause nor the clause authorizing an alteration for the purpose of enabling the company to carry on some business that may be conven- iently or advantageously combined with the old business will warrant a change whereby a club of cyclists is converted into a club to which tourists of any kind, particularly motorists, may be admitted.' In one case, where it was sought to make an alteration which merely amplified the description of the company's objects by re-writing the object-clause and putting it in modern form, Cozens-Hardy, J., expressed disapproval, saying, " I do not think it is within the scope of the statute simply to improve the language of a memorandum of association — if it be an improvement - — by re-writing the memorandum in modern form, and to enable a company to adopt one of Mr. Palmer's modern forms ; " * but it is understood that in a number of unreported cases precisely such changes were con- firmed.* It has been held in Newfoundland under an exactly similar statute that none of the clauses of the act — not even the clause authorizing an amendment "to restrict or abandon any of the objects" specified in the original instrument — will justify a clause to provide for a sale of the company's entire property, undertaking, and goodwill." In Australia, an amend- ment to the memorandum of association of a life insurance company vastly enlarging the classes of securities in which the ' Supra, § 146. Accord: AustTolian Widows' Fund = Cyclists' Touring Club (1907), lAfe Ass. Soc, 24 Vict. L. R. 613. 1 Ch. 269, 274. " 1 Palmer's Company Precedents, ' Cyclists' Touring Club (1907), 9th ed., 1154-1155. 1 Ch. 269. ' St. John's Electric Light Co. * ConsettlrmCo. (1901), ICh. 236. (1897-1903), Newfoundland 440. 135 § 149 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II company's funds might be invested was disapproved.' British judges have confirmed the following amendments among others, — an amendment enabling a marine insurance company to engage in fire, life, and accident insurance in connection with marine risks ; ^ an amendment enabling a boiler insurance com- pany to insure against other risks;' an amendment enabling a company formed for the purpose of investing in government securities to invest in other securities;* and an amendment em- powering the company to issuQ. debentures.* § 149. Amended Provision must be such as might be inserted in an Original Instrument at Time of Amendment.— ^ As a rule no. provision can be injected by amendment into an incorporation paper that could not at the time of the making of the amendment be inserted in the incorporation paper of a new company. Thus, where a statute provides that no company "hereafter organized " under any other statute shall have the word "trust" as part of its name, a company previously organized under another law cannot subsequently amend its incorporation paper by inserting the word "trust" in the corporate name.* § 150. Necessity for accompan3ang Amendment by Change of Name when old Name would be Misleading. — Where the statute reposes in some court or officer a discretion to confirm or dis- allow a proposed amendment, it seems that the judge or officer should exact as a condition of his approval a change in the cor- porate name where use of the old name as apphed to the new business might be misleading.' At least, this seems to be the practice under the British Companies (Memorandum of Associa- tion) Act of 1890.* Where the old name indicates the locality ' National Mut. Life Ass'n, 26 But cf. Governments Stock Invest- Vict. L. R. 490. ment Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 649. 2 AllianceMarine Ass. Co. {1892), ' Reversionary Interest Soc. (,1892), 1 Ch. 300. 1 Ch. 615. ' National Boiler Ins. Co. (1892), ° State ex rel. Osborne v. Nichols, 1 Ch. 306. 38 Wash. 309 ; 80 Pac. 462. * Foreign & Cohnial Government ' As to the illegality of mislead- Trust Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 395 ; Govern- ing corporate names, see supra, § 62, ments Stock Investment Co., No. 2 and infra, § 305, § 450. (1892), 1 Ch. 597. * Foreign & Colonial Government 138 § 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 152 in which the company's business is carried on, the court in con- firming an alteration in the memorandum of association enlarg- ing the area of its operations exacted as a condition that the name should be changed so as no longer to suggest that the operations were to be confined to the place mentioned in the old name; ^ but in a somewhat similar case a Scotch court decided that no change of name was necessary.^ § 151. Fees payable on Amendment. — The fees payable on filing of the amended instrument are usually if not always regulated by statute. Where one section of a statute prescribes one fee for filing any amended incorporation paper and another section provides that on an extension or renewal of corporate existence the same fees shall be payable as are required for an original incorporation, a corporation wishing to prolong its corporate existence so that instead of being fifty years as fixed in the certificate of incorporation the corporate existence shall be perpetual, cannot by filing an amended certificate with an alteration in the clause relating to the period of corporate existence escape with payment of merely such fees as are required for filing of an amendment to the incorporation paper, but must pay the much heavier fees required for filing a certificate of extension of corporate existence.' § 152. Eflect of Amendment on Instrument originally void or on previous invalid Amendment. — While an instrument originally void cannot be made valid by an amendment duly executed and filed,"* yet in such a case what was intended as an amended instrument may, if it contain all the statutory requi- sites, operate as an original incorporation paper.^ An amend- ment attempted to be made at a time when no power of Trusi Co. (1891), 2 Ch. 395; Govern- » People ex rd. New York, etc. merits Stock Investment Co. (No. 2), R. R. Co. v. Railroad Comm'rs, 81 (1892), 1 Ch. 597 ; Alliance Marine N. Y. App. Div. 242 ; 81 N. Y. Supp. Ass. Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 300; National 20, affirmed short, 67 N. E. 1088. Boiler Ins. Co. (1892), 1 Ch. 306. This was recognized in State ex ' Indian Mechanical Gold Ex- ret. Clapp v. Critchett, 37 Minn. 13, trading Co. (1891), 3 Ch. 538. 14 ; 32 N. W. 787. ' Kirkcaldy Steam Laundry Co., 6 Cf. Valk v. Crandall, 1 Sandf. Ch. Fraser (Sc.) 778. (N. Y.), 179; State ex ret. Thompson ' National Lead Co. v. Dickinson, v. Colias (Ala.) 43 So. 190 (where a 57 Atl. 138 ; 70 N. J. Law 596 ; af- statute expressly authorized the cur- firmed short, 62 Atl. 1135. ing of defects in the original paper ' State ex rel. Clapp v. Critchett, by filing a supplement thereto). 37 Minn. 13 ; 32 N. W. 787. 137 § 153 THE INCORPOEATION PAPER [ChAP. II amendment existed may be recognized and validated by a sub- sequent amendment adopted after a passage of a statute author- izing amendments to be made.' § 153. Alteration against Opposition of Minority Share- holders. — A power of altering the incorporation paper or any clause thereof, such as the clause fixing a limit to the period of corporate existence, if conferred by law when the original in- corporation paper is executed, should be read into the contract between the several shareholders without any express reference thereto, so that the power may be exercised against the opposi- tion of individual shareholders.^ Indeed, it would seem that the statutory power of alteration would exist even in spite of an express clause in the original paper attempting to exclude its application. § 154. Statute allowing Alteration unless prohibited in origi- nal Instrument. — Where a statute authorizes an alteration of the incorporation paper, unless otherwise provided in that in- strument itself, there must in order to preclude alteration be an express prohibitory clause in the instrument.' § 155. Formalities required in making Alteration. — Unless otherwise provided by statute, an amendment to an incorpora- tion paper must be acknowledged and recorded in the same way as the original instrument.* Where an amendment is required ' People ex rd. Ward V.Green, 116 52-53; 17 S. W. 803 (holding that Mich. 605 ; 74 N. W. 714. amendment is not effective until re- Cf. Spinning v. Home Building, corded not only in county record of- etc. Ass'n, 26 Ohio St. 483. fice but also with the secretary of ' Smith V. Eastwood Wire Mfg. state). Co., 58 N. J. Eq. 331; 43 Atl. 567; Cf. Lamb & Sons v. Dobson, 90 Port Edwards, etc. By. Co. v. Arpin, N. W. 607; 117 Iowa 124. SO Wise. 214 ; 49 N. W. 828 (holding But see Boca, etc. R. R. Co. v. dissenting shareholders not released Sierra Valleys Ry. Co. (Cal.), 84 Pac. from obligation to pay calls by 298, 301; Jackson v. Crown Point amendment increasing capital in pur- Mining Co., 21 Utah 1 ; 59 Pac. 238 ; Buance of statute in force at time of 81 Am. St. Rep. 651 (where it was incorporation). held that although an amendment But cf. Pronick v. Spirits Dist. which is "fundamental" is not effec- Co., 42 Atl. 586 ; 58 N. J. Eq. 97. tive until recorded as required by ' Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc, statute, yet an amendment which is e«c. Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257 (headnote not "fundamental" ^ such as an inadequate); 44 Atl. 55. amendment increasing the number * Day V. MUl Owners' Mut. Fire of directors — is valid although not Ins. Co., 75 Iowa 694 ; 38 N. W. 113 ; recorded). Anderson v. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 44, 138 § 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 157 to be recorded, it does not take effect until recorded ; and when recorded it does not relate back to the time of passage of the amendatory resolution.' A statute which requires as a con- dition to the making of an alteration of the instrument that the "board of directors shall pass a resolution declaring that such change * * * is desirable and calling a meeting " of the share- holders to take action accordingly, is satisfied by the passage by the directors of a resolution calling a meeting of the share- holders to make the amendment, but without in terms stating that such amendment is approved, especially where the meeting of shareholders is attended by all the directors (a majority of whom vote in favor of the resolution) and by all the share- holders.^ Where a statute provides one method for making a change in a particular clause or paragraph of the incorpo- ration paper, a subsequent statute providing a different method for making alterations in any part of the incorporation paper, repeals the former statute, so that the method therein provided can no longer be pursued.^ § 156. Whether Alteration should be made by Directors or Shareholders. — Where the power of amending the incorpora- tion paper is conferred upon the corporation, and not expressly upon the directors, it can only be exercised by the shareholders; * for as will be shown below, the powers of directors are confined to the ordinary business of the company and cannot be extended to any alteration of the company's constitution.' § 157. Irregular Alteration — Acquiescence in Alteration hy unauthorized Officers. — If an amendment to the incorporation paper is adopted by the officers and duly recorded, the share- holders, after being thus charged with constructive notice thereof and after acquiescing for a number of years, will not subsequently be heard to assert a lack of authority in the officers > Westchester Trust Co., 186 N. Y. ' Bernstein v. Kaplan (Ala.), 43 215. So. 581. But see Humphrey v. Patrons' ' Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. Mercantile Ass'n, SO Iowa 607 (hold- Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 169 Fa. ing that a contract permitted by the St. 308 ; 28 Atl. 215. amended but not by the original in- * Cressona Sav. Fund, etc. Ass'n, corporation paper, and entered into 1 Leg. Ree. (Pa.) 245. after the execution but before the ' Infra, § 1438. ■ recording of the amended instrument, cannot be attacked as ultra vires by the corporation itself). 139 § 158 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II who adopted the amendment, for the purpose of escaping the payment of a tax to which the amendment subjected the company.' Other Irregularities. — Indeed, the existence of irregularities in the proceedings whereby the amendment is made will not always be fatal to the validity of the amendment, according to some American authorities.^ Perhaps, the question depends to some extent on the nature of the irregularities. Minor irregu- larities may perhaps be cured by acquiescence. But a total lack of compliance might render the amendment void, as against any person not concluded by estoppel.^ A failure properly to acknowledge an amendment to the incor- poration paper, or other irregularity in the proceedings for mak- ing the alteration,, does not work a dissolution of the company, but is at worst a cause of forfeiture of corporate privileges to be taken advantage of only by the state.' Indeed, it would seem that such an irregularity should not even be a cause of forfeiture,* but that the right of the company to continue under the original incorporation paper should not be affected by the abortive attempt at amendment. § 158. Amendments not retroactive. — An amendment has no retroactive effect.* It does not validate any previous transactions which were ultra vires under the original in- strument but which would be proper under the amended paper. For example, where a corporation institutes condemnation proceedings to acquire land for a line of railway which under its incorporation paper it has no power to construct, an amend- ment to the incorporation paper adopted pending the proceed- ' Licking Valley Bldg. Ass'n v. Cf. Brown v. Wyandotte, etc. By. Commonwealth (Ky.), 89 S. W. 682. Co., 68 Ark. 134, 144. " Poipe V. Merchants' Trust Co. ^ Cf. Jackson v. Crown Point (Tenn.), 103 S. W. 792; Interna- Mining Co., 21 Vtahl, \2; 59 Pac. tional Savings, etc. Co. v. Stenger, 31 238; 81 Am. St. Rep. 651. Pa. Super. Ct. 294 (as to a change " Cf. Colgate v. U. S. Leather Co. of corporate name). And see infra, (N. J.), 67 Atl. 657, 662 (construing § 592 and § 645. an express statutory provision "that ' See Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. the amended certificate shall take Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. the place of the original certificate St. 308; 28 Atl. 215. of incorporation and shall be deemed * Philadelphia, etc. Ferry Co. v. to have been recorded and fled on the Intercity Link R. R. Co. (N. J.), 62 date of recording and filing the origi- Atl. 184. ^ nal certificate"). 140 § 31-§ 162] ALTERATION AFTER REGISTRATION § 159 ings SO as to authorize the construction of the railway will not enable those proceedings to be maintained.' § 159. Creation of new Oorporation by means of Amend- ment. — What is in form a mere amendment of an incorporation paper may in some cases be construed as creating an entirely new corporation.^ It has been said to be a question of intention whether a new corporation should be deemed to have been created or not.' The mere fact that the amended paper is in form a new instrument is immaterial if in substance the differences between the two are not such as to make in effect a new corporation.' An amendment merely changing the corporate name certainly does not create a new corporation.^ In New York, a statute forfeiting the franchises of any rail- way company which should not within five years commence its line and expend thereon ten per centum of the amount of its cap- ital and within ten years after the filing of the "certificate of incorporation " complete the road and put it in operation, was held to apply to an extension of the original line authorized by an amendment to the certificate of incorporation, or incorpora- tion paper, so that accordingly the periods of five and ten years began to run from the filing of the amendment." This case adopts a somewhat forced construction of the statute, but ' Boca, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sierra ing consolidation with other corpora- Valleys Ry. Co. (Cal.), 84 Pao. 298, tions). 302-303. ' See AUen v. Ncrrth Des Moines Cf. Westchester Trust Co., 186 M. E. Church, 102 N. W. 808; 127 N. Y. 215 (stated supra § 155); Iowa 96; 109 Am. St. Rep. 366; Brovm v. Grand Fountain, 28 App. 69 L. R. A. 255 ; Brown v. Maryland D. C. 200. Telephone Co., 101 Md. 574, 581-582 ; ' Commonwealth v. Licking Valley 61 Atl. 338. Bldg. Ass'n, 82 S. W. 435 ; 26 Ky. Cf. Picard v. Hughey, 58 Ohio St. L. Rep. 730 (amendment taxable 577, 594 ; 51 N. E. 133. as equivalent to creation of new * Grand River College v. Robert- corporation). ' son, 67 Mo. App. 329 ; Glymont Inv- As to the effect of an amendment provement, etc. Co. v. Toler, 80 Md. of the incorporation paper in mak- 278, 290-291 (headnote inadequate) ; ing the company subject to burden- -30 Atl. 651. some laws from which it would other- " Wright Caesar Tobacco Co. v. wise have been exempt, see Senn v. A. Hoen & Co. (Va.), 54 S. E. 309; Levy (Ky.), 63 S. W. 776; 23 Ky. Picard v. Hughey, 58 Ohio St. 577, Law Rep. 662, 1331; Colgate v. 694; 51 N. E. 133 (semble). See U. S. Leather Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 657, also infra, § 446. 662 (where the amendment made the ° Brooklyn, Queens County, etc. company subject to a law authoriz- R. R. Co., 185 N. Y. 171, 183-184. 141 § 160 THE INCORPORATION PAPER [ChAP. II it does not proceed in any degree upon the ground that the amendment really creates a new corporation., § 160. Legislative Alteration. — The alteration considered in the last paragraphs, it will be borne in mind, is an alteration in pursuance of statutes existing when the company was incorpo- rated. Of course, the only restraints upon the power of the legis- lature to amend an incorporation paper, or to authorize the company to amend it, by legislation passed subsequent to the organization of the company, must be found in constitutional limitations. The question of the validity of such subsequent legislation as applied to pre-existing corporations is, therefore, a constitutional one and accordingly outside our present sub- ject. But in every case of such legislation not merely its validity but its construction must be passed upon; and it is submitted that no mere generalities should ever be held to sanction a com- plete and fundamental change in the company's constitution.' § 161-§ 162. — Constructive Notice of Contents of Instrument. § 161. In general. — Undoubtedly, not only shareholders ^ but also all creditors and persons who deal with a corporation * are charged with constructive notice of the company's incorpo- ;, ration paper. Of cours e, in point of tart, pyf" tViP TTig gt pru - Vdent of them rarely has actual notic e. Business would be paralyzed if every time a transaction were had with an in- corporated company examination were made of its incorpora- tion paper. But each person who deals with the company has the opportunity of knowledge. The instrument is a public I document recorded in the office of a public official; and not I only legal principle but public policy as well requires that the I public should be affected with constructive knowledge of its ' Cf. Brovm v. Grand Fountain, Lumber Co., 52 Pac. 1067, 1070; 28 App. D. C. 200 ; Miller v. Insur- 19 Wash. 165 ; Kraniger v. People's ance Co., 92 Tenn. 167. Bldg. Soc., 60 Minn. 94; 61 N. W. ' Sewell's Case, 3 Ch. 131, 140 904; Bdl & CoggeshaU Co. v. Ky. (headnote inadequate). Class Works (Ky.), 50 S. W. 2 ; 20 ' Bent V. Underdovm, 156 Ind. Ky. Law Rep. 1684 ; First Nat. Bank 516 (headnote inadequate) ; 60 N. E. v. D. Kieffer Milling Co., 95 Ky. 307 ; Bank of Monroe v. Gifford, 72 97 ; 23 S. W. 675. Iowa, 750, 754 (headnote inade- Cf. Webb v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. quate) ; 32 N. W. 669 ; Canfield v. 57, 63 ; 93 S. W. 772 ; Denver Fire Gregory, 66 Conn. 9; 33 Atl. 536; Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 9 Colo. 11, Washington MiU Co. v. Sprague 22-23; 9 Pac. 771; 59 Am. Rep. 134. 142 § 31- § 162] CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE § 162 contents. If the law were otherwise, corpprations would be- come little more than pp-rtnerships. After all, the hardship is more apparent than real(^3^or if an unusual transaction or one of great magnitude is contemplated, every prudent man would examine the record; and in all cases of minor importance within the ordinary course of the company's business little risk is run by failing to do so. § 162. Iiimits of Doctrine of Constructive Notice. — The doctrine, however, of constructive notice, sound and salutary though it be, should not be carried too far or be perverted into an aid in the successful perpetration of fraud. Thus, a mis- representation of the contents of the incorporation paper is none the less material and actionable because the person relying thereon has from the registry constructive notice of the docu- ment. For example, where a prospectus states with precision the objects of an intended corporation, and the incorporation paper, which is subsequently drawn up and recorded, confers much wider powers, a person who subscribed to shares on the faith of the prospectus cannot be charged with laches in failing to have his name removed from the list of shareholders until he acquires actual notice of the variance between the prospectus and the incorporation paper: mere constructive knowledge of the incorporation paper cannot constitute a foundation for an inference of acquiescence in the variation.' So, a sale of shares in a company which is represented by the vendor to be incorpo- rated is voidable for misrepresentation if the company is not in truth incorporated, although the purchaser by investigation might have ascertained the facts.^ Moreover, the doctrine of constructive notice cannot be extended to any provisions of the incorporation paper which it was unlawful to insert therein. For instance, a stipulation that subscribers to shares shall not be liable for more than fifty per cent of the par value of their shares is illegal, and therefore persons who may subsequently become creditors will not be affected with constructive notice of such a provision contained in the company's incorporation paper.' * Stewart's Case, 1 Ch. 574, 587; » Security TrustCo. v. Ford (Ohio), Webster's Case, 2 Eq. 741. Cf. infra, 79 N. E. 474 (headnote inadequate). § 216. Cf. supra, § 122. 2 Bolton V. Prather (Tex.), 80 S. W. 666; 35 Tex. Civ. App. 295. 143 CHAPTER III ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES Section When corporate existence begins .... 163 Status of signers of incorporation paper from the moment of incor- poration ... ... 164-167 Under laws which require signers to take one or more shares . 164 Under laws which do not require signers to agree to take shares 165 Mode of action by corporators 166 Clerks and other subordinates as corporators 167 The first directors ... 168 Allotnient and issue of shares 169-176 Issue of shares necessary to complete organization 169 Who are shareholders — what necessary to constitute an issue of shares 170-174 Statement of question ... 170 Issue of share-certificate not necessary 171 Entry on register necessary in England 172 American rules as to entry on register 173 Payment for shares not necessary before subscriber can become a shareholder 174 When issue of shares becomes equivalent to payment of value by company 175 Allotment of shares 176 When shares may be allotted and issued, — when business may be commenced 177 First meeting of corporation 178 Agreements to take shares 179-260 Scope of treatmeilt 179 The name, "subscriptions," — nature of agreement — distin- guished from the act of becoming a shareholder and from agreements for purchase of shares . 180 Classification of agreements to take shares — scheme of treatment 181 Agreements made after incorporation 182-238 Application of general principles of law of contracts and of agency 182 Which party is deemed to be the offerer 183 Cases where offer is made by the subscriber 184-191 Acceptance of offer, or allotment 184-189 In general . 184 Written offer as affected by parol qualification 185 Allotment incomplete until made known to ap- plicant 186 Whether notice of allotment must be direct and formal 187 Time for acceptance or allotment 188 Acceptance without any indication on the com- pany's books 189 144 SYNOPSIS Agreements to take shares (continued) Section Retraction of offer to take shares 190 Offer or promise to take shares under seal of promisor 191 Where offer is made by company ... .... 192-196 Contract complete on acceptance by subscriber. . . . 192 Offers of shares to existing shareholders pro rata . . 193 Counter-offers made by introducing new terms in attempting to accept application of subscriber . 194 Time for acceptance of company's offer 195 Application for shares in ignorance of company's offer not acceptance 196 Implied offers and acceptance^ 197 Infants' contracts to take shares 198 Application of Statute of Frauds 199 Statutes prescribing forms or ceremonies for subscriptions to shares 200 Subscriptions through agents 201 Subscriptions by agent or trustee for corporation itself . . 202 Subscriptions by executors 203 Subscriptions procured by fraud or misrepresentation. 204-219 Defence of fraud in general — laches of subscriber . . 204 English rule requiring repudiation of the shares and institution of proceedings for removal of name from share-register before beginning of winding- up or suspension of business 205 American rule as to effect of winding-up proceedings on defence of fraud 206 Election to keep shares notwithstanding fraud or mis- representation 207 Necessity for returning shares to company 208 Defence of fraud available either at law or in equity. 209 Recovering back money paid in on the shares .... 210 Fraud practised on original subscriber no defence to transferee 211 Action by defrauded subscriber for damages for deceit 212 What sufficient fraud or misrepresentation to justify rescission 213-219 In general 213 Misrepresentation as to corporation affairs . .214 Misrepresentation as to matters of law 215 Misrepresentation as to contents of incorporation paper 216 Misrepresentation unauthorized by the corporation 217 Misrepresentation as to, nature of transaction . . 218 Misrepresentation or mistake as to identity of com- pany 219 How contract of subscription may be performed .... 220 Conditional agreements to take shares 221-227 Conditions precedent 221-223 In general 221 Underwriting agreements 222 Bonds or scrip convertible into shares 223 Conditions subsequent 224-226 VOL. I. — 10 145 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES Agreements to take shares (continued) Section In general 224 Redeemable shares 225 Shares convertible into bonds, etc 226 Whether subscription to be construed as absolute or con- ditional, and whether condition to be construed as precedent or subsequent 227 Subscriptions to shares on special terms 228 Application of parol evidence rule to subscriptions to shares . . 229 Subscriptions in excess of the authorized capital 230 Rescission or modification of agreement to take shares 231 Remedies for breach of executory contracts of subscription 232-235 Actions at law . . . . . .• 232-233 By the subscriber 232 By the corporation 233 Bills for specific performance 234 Statute of limitations as bar to remedy 235 Laches as defence 236 Scrip and scripholders 237 Agreements made by signing incorporation paper 238-248 Peculiarity of such agreements 238 Withdrawal of subscriber before registration of instrument . 239 Effect of altering instrument before registration without sub- scriber's consent . .... 240 Effect of registration without subscriber's authority . 241 Subscriber irrevocably bound when instrument is duly recorded . 242 Whether subscriber can avoid subscription for fraud . 243 Obligation of subscriber in other respects . . 244-249 In general , 244 Special agreements with company as to time and mode of payment . 245 Whether shares allotted and paid for after incorporation satisfy obligation incurred by signing the incor- poration paper . 246 Whether subscription for preferred shares satisfied by tak- ing and paying for common shares . . 247 Subscription of incorporation paper for shares to be issued as fully paid without payment in full . . . . 248 Agreements made prior to incorporation otherwise than by signing incorporation paper ... 249-260 Nature and effect in general — revocability ... .... 249 Doctrine that such agreements are irrevocable ... . 250 Subscriptions before incorporation as powers of attorney to apply for and accept shares after incorporation . 251 Doctrine that subscriptions made before incorporation without subscribing incorporation paper are devoid of all legal effect 252 Attempt of promoters to release subscribers . . . 253 Requisite definiteness in subscription made before incorporation 254 Right of company to deposits paid to promoter 255 Effect of failure of company to allot shares within reasonable time after incorporation . 256 Subscription voidable for fraud of promoter 257 146 § 163-§ 260] WHEN CORPORATE EXISTENCE BEGINS § 163 Agreements made prior to incorporation etc. (continued) Section Effect of departures from original scheme . 268 Signer of proposed incorporation paper not bound if company incorporated under a different instrument .... 259 Whether de facto corporation can enforce subscription .... 260 § 163. When Corporate Existence begins. — The execution and registration of the incorporation paper is the first step in the incorporation of a company under a general law ; and usually upcMi. t he due registEatix)auil-"the~in£Qi;p£ajatipn paper, corporate existence at once,.qo-JWXie!JCe6uL..To be sure, some- times the payment of some tax or fee is made an additional condition precedent to incorporation/ and sometimes other conditions precedent, such as the issuance by some public official ofjauXfiEtifigate of due incorporation,^re pEesciibed.^ But whil e injhe case.of_incorporation by specjal^ act so me acceptance of the act by the corporators is a cond.itiQ,n. prefigdent to the com- mencement of the corporatejife, nothing of .thfi-s ort is requis ite ^I^S.PJSLi^!S9^P2l^^S:J^£^lSl^& gejoeEal law. No acceptance is necessary beyond the execution of the incorporation paper.* Nor is the organization of the corporation by election of officer^ or otherwise a prerequisite to its existence." Of course, the per- fection of the organization is practically essential in order to ' Hunt V. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kans. 412; Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 Wise. 145 ; 70 N. W. 302 ; 37 L. R. A. 162 ; Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. V. Stafford Co., 36 Kans. 121 ; 12 Pac. 593; Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. Co., 67 Ind. 334; Fayetteville, etc. Ry. V. Aberdeen, etc. R. R. Co. (N. Car.), 55 S. E. 345; Stokes v. Findlay, 4 McCrary 205 ; Rose Hill & Road Co. V. People ex rel. Law- less, 115 III. 133; 3 N. E. 725. Cf. Braddock v. Penn Water Co., 189 Pa. St. 379 ; 42 Atl. 15 ; Hawes V. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385. ' Maryland Tube Works v. West End Imp. Co., 87 Md. 207 ; 39 Atl. 620; 39 L. R. A. 810; Cleaveland V. MiUlin, 96 Md. 598 ; 54 Atl. 665 ; Jones V. Aspen Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263 ; 40 Pac. 457 ; 52 Am. St. Rep. 220 ; 29 L. R. A. 143. In such cases, upon payment of the tax, does the corporate existence relate back to time of recording of the instrument? Cf. Gill's. Adm'x V. Ky., etc. Mining Co., 7 Bush (Ky.) 635, 639 (headnote inadequate), and the Maryland cases cited above. ' See supra, § 142. ' Glymont, etc. Co. v. Toler, 80 Md. 278; 30 Atl. 651; Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. Car. 324 ; 20 S. E. 453 ; 44 Am. St. Rep. 454. Cf. Dorsey Harvester Revolving- Rake Co. V. Marsh, 7 Fed. Cas. 939, 941-942; Brooke v. Day (Ga.), 59 S. E. 769. ' Judah V. American, etc. Ins. Co., 4 Ind. 333 ; Ashtabula, etc. R. R. Co. V.Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328; Middleton V. Arastraville Mining Co., 146 Cal. 219,222; 79 Pac. 889 ; Atherton \. Sugar Creek, etc. Co., 67 Ind. 334 ; Drake v. Herndon{Ky.), 91 S. W. 674. 147 § 164 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. HI launch the company on its career; but technicallvJt springs at once into existence without anything of the sort.CSo, while the subscription of the company's capital is sometimes made by express statute a condition precedent to incorporation,^ yet in the absence of any such provision the corggration may come into existence before its capital is subscribe^^^ fortiori, pay- ment of the subscriptions to the capital is not a condition pre- cedent to corporate existence. § 164-§ 167. Status of Signers of Incorporation Paper from Moment of Incorporation. 164. Under Laws which require Signers to take one or more Shares. — We have seen above that some incorporation laws provide that each subscriber of the incorporation paper must But see Aspen Water, etc. Co. v. Aspen, 5 Colo. App. 12; 37 Pac. 728 ; Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90; 12 C. C. A. 56; 26 L. R. A. 470; Lawrie v. Silsby, 56 Atl. 1106; 76 Vt. 240; 104 Am. St. Rep. 927 (depending on a statu- tory provision that the company "when organized" should have power to sue as a corporation) ; Cazelais v. Picotte, 18 Quebec Sup. Ct. 538 ; McVicker v. Cone, 21 Oreg. 353 ; 28 Pac. 76 ; Walton v. Oliver, 49 Kans. 107 ; 33 Am. St. Rep. 355 ; 30 Pac. 172; Brooke v. Day (Ga.), 59 S. E. 769. Said the court in Duke. v. Ca^ hawba Nav. Co., 10 Ala. 82, 90; 44 Am. Dec. 472 : " By the organization of a company, we understand the meeting of individuals claiming to be corporators, and their action in choosing officers and agents." Note, that if any irregularity exist in the incorporation paper or in the recording of the same, an organization of the company must be proved in order to establish a de facto corporate existence : Martin V. Deetz, 102 Cal. 65 ; 36 Pac. 368 ; 41 Am. St. Rep. 151. See infra, § 290. ' "When the memorandum is duly signed and registered, though there be only seven shares taken, the subscribers are a body corporate 'capable forthwith' to use the words of the enactment, 'of exercising all the functions of an incorporated company.' These are strong words. The company attains maturity on its birth. There is no period of minority — no interval of incapac- ity." Salomon v. Salomon & Co. (1897), A. C. 22, 51, per Lord Macnaghten. But now see Com- panies Act of 1900, § 6. ' Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 (where the statute required the subscription of half and the payment of twenty per cent of the capital before the regis- tration of the incorporation paper) ; McVicker v. Cone, 21 Oreg. 353, 357 (headnote inadequate) ; 28 Pac. 76. Cf. Belfast, etc. Plank Road Co. v. Chamberlain, 32 N. Y. 651, 654-655 (stated supra, § 112). ^ Nat. Bank of Jefferson v. Texas Investment Co., 74 Tex. 421, 435- 436; 12 S. W. 101; Minor v. Me- chanics Bank of Alexandria, 1 Pet. 46, 62-65; Hunt v. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kans. 412; Willa- mette Freighting Co. v. Stannus, 4 148 § 163-§ 260] STATUS OF CORPORATORS § 164 by his subscription agree to take at least one share in the company, the precise number which he promises to take being indicated by him at the time.' Under such laws — and the majority of recent incorporation laws are of that class — there may be a nice question whether the signatories of the incorporation paper become at once actual shareholders as distinguished from persons who have agreed to become share- holders. Of course, they are members of the company from the very moment of its incorporation ; and no further act, such as entering their names on a register of members can be neces- sary in order to constitute them members of the corporation.^ But although they are members, are they shareholders? Are they not rather persons who have agreed and become bound to become shareholders and who constitute the corporation, tem- porarily, for the purpose of setting it in regular motion by the allotment and issue of shares ? On principle, such might well be their position. Nevertheless, we should note that the shares which a signer of an incorporation paper agrees by his subscrip- tion to take have been deemed in England to be "issued" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Companies Act of 1867 as soon as the instrument is recorded ; ' and if this proposition be logically carried out it would seem to follow that the signers of the incorporation paper are shareholders from the very com- mencement of corporate existence.' Moreover, in a case in the District of Columbia it was held that the signers of an incor- poration paper are shareholders from the moment of incorpora- tion and as such are qualified, and the only persons qualified, to Oreg. 261 ; Johnson v. Kessler, 76 entry on the register is a condition Iowa 411 ; 41 N. W. 57; Thornton precedent, in the case of subscribers V. Balcom, 85 Iowa 198 ; 52 N. W. of the memorandum, to their becom- 190 ; Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight, ing members. In fact, I cannot see 29 N. J. Eq. 242 ; Chicago, etc. R. R. how it can possibly be so ; because Co. V. Stafford Co., 36 Kans. 121 ; until the company is formed no 12 Pac. 593. register can be made, and until B\itsee Aspen Water Co. v. Aspen, there are some members the com- 5 Colo. App. 12 ; 37 Pac. 728 ; Co?i- pany cannot be formed." tinental, etc. Paint Co. v. Secretary ' Jarvis's Case (1899), 1 Ch. 193 of State, 128 Mich. 621 ; 87 N. W. (semble) ; Ebenezer Timmins & 901. -Sons (1902), 1 Ch. 238; Dalton ' Supra, § 132. Time Lock Co. v. Dalton, 66 L. T. ' Florence Land, etc. Co., 29 704. Ch. D. 421, 445. Said Fry, L. J. : * See also Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon "It does not appear to me that Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385. 149 § 165 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill be directors.^ In an early Indiana case, where the incorporation act provided that the subscribers to stock should subscribe the incorporation paper and that the first directors should be elected by the stockholders, it was held that the subscribers of the incorporation paper might elect the directors even before the recording of the instrument.^ § 165. Under Laws which do not require Signers of Incor- poration Paper to agree to take Shares. — As stated above, some incorporation laws do not require the signers of the in- corporation paper to agree to take shares in the company;^ and under these statutes, of course, the subscribers of that instrument are not shareholders but are mere promoters whose function it is to organize the company and set it in mo- tion.* Their position is similar to that of "commissioners to take stock," who were often appointed in special acts of incor- poration for the purpose of organizing the company by allotting and issuing shares and of turning the company over to the shareholders, its permanent proprietors. The duty of such commissioners was to offer the shares of stock for public sub- scription, and their connection with the enterprise terminated as soon as the corporation could be turned over to its permanent constituents and proprietors, namely, the shareholders. Even, however, where the general incorporation law does not require the signers of the incorporation paper to agree to take shares in the company, nevertheless it would seem that until shares are allotted and issued, the signers of the incorporation paper neces- sarily constitute the company, and are for the time being the supreme authority in corporate affairs.^ Their powers, however, come to an end as soon as a regular ' Dancy v. Clark, 24 App. D. C. Bank, 64 Fed. 90; 12 C'. C. A. 56; 487, 506-509. 26 L. R. A. 470; Hawes v. Anglo- ' Covington, etc. Plank Road Co. Saxon Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385. V. Moore, 3 Ind. 510. But see Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, ' Supra, § 132. 8 Oreg. 284, 292-293 ; Trammdl v. • Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, 8 Oreg. Pennington, 45 Ala. 673 (holding 284 ; Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore, that a county has no authority to 64 Pa. St. 43, 54. subscribe for stock on the appli- " Hunt V. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., tion of the signers of the incor- 11 Kans. 412, 440; Chase v. Lord, poration paper and before the 77 N. Y. 1, 11 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. organization, issue of shares and Peck, 9 S. Dak. 29 ; 67 N. W. 947. election of officers) ; 1 Morawetz on Cf. Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 33. 150 f 163-§ 260] STATUS OF CORPORATORS § 166 organization is effected, by issue of shares and appointment of directors.' As was said by Danforth, J., in a New Yorlc case, "The cor- porators are the associates who are the getters-up of the com- pany, and whose functions cease with its organization * * * * Corporators exist before stockholders, and do not exist with them. When stockholders come in, corporators cease to be." ^ Under this system, as soon as the necessary number of shares are subscribed, and the shareholders brought together and organized, the signers of the incorporation paper simply drop out, and the shareholders thenceforward constitute and control the corpora- tion. Moreover, it has been held that if the corporators carry on business without issuing stock as contemplated in the incor- poration paper, they are liable as partners for all debts so con- tracted.' This decision proceeds upon the theory that until shares of stock are regularly issued the corporation "can only be said to have existence in a very limited and qualified sense," and that until then limited liability is not attained. The decision rested largely on the special terms of a Wisconsin statute; and moreover its authority is considerably weakened by a very vigorous and able dissenting opinion. Accordingly, the South Dakota court refused to apply the principle of the last cited de- cision to a similar case arising under the South Dakota statutes.* Of course if the corporators carry on business before recording the certificate or performing other conditions precedent to in- corporation, they may be subject to a partnership liability (unless the company can be deemed a de facto corporation) as members of an unincorporated association.^ § 166. Mode o£ Action by Corporators. — Action taken by subscribers of the incorporation paper, being corporate action, should be taken at a meeting convened upon reasonable notice ' Ellison V. MoUle, etc. R. R. Co., = Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1, 36 Miss. 572; Wechselberg v. Flour 11. City Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90, 97 ; 12 ' Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. C. C. A. 56; 26 L. R. A. 470 Bank, 64 Fed. 90; 12 C. C. A. 56; (semble) ; Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 26 L. R. A. 470. 1, 11. • Singer Mfg. Co. v. Peck, 9 Cf. Wdlersburg, etc. Plank Road S. Dak. 29 ; 67 N. W. 947. Co. V. Hoffman, 9 Md. 559, 568-569 « Ryland v. Hollinger, 117 Fed. (as to the functions of commissioners 216 (semble, as to Missouri law), to take stock). See also infra, § 293. 151 § 167 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHAEES [ChAP. Ill to all of them.' Indeed, such meetings would seem to be gov- erned in the main by the same rules of law as shareholders' meetings.^ § 167. Clerks and other Subordinates as Corporators. — Often, indeed commonly, the incorporators or signers of the incorpora- tion paper are not the substantial promoters of the enterprise, but mere clerks or dummies. This practice has been judicially disapproved, and is undoubtedly foreign to the intent of the incorporation laws.' § 168. The First Directors. — Directors for the first year of the company's existence are oftentimes named in the incorpora- tion paper or appointed under its provisions ; ' and some incor- poration laws provide that the subscribers of the incorporation paper shall act as directors during the first year of the company's existence. Any such first directors have the same powers as directors chosen by the shareholders ; ^ and to them therefore are usually entrusted the practical details of organization and allotment and issue of shares. Nevertheless, it would seem that the signers of the incorporation paper, constituting as they do ' Cf. Low V. Conn., etc. R. B. Co^, foreign to the manifest intent of 45 N. H. 370, 379-380 (as to action the statute, as the organization is by persons named as corporators in placed entirely within the control a special act of incorporation) ; of the signers, and without their Woolf V. East Nigel Gold Mining Co., action to that end strangers cannot 21 Times L. R. 660 (notice of meet- obtain admission as stockholders." ing of corporators sent out before Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat. incorporation, held not valid). Bank, 64 Fed. 90, 97; 12 C. C. A. ' For a summary of the English 56 ; 26 L. R. A. 470. cases as to action by subscribers of * See supra, § 115. As to the the incorporation paper, see infra, election of the first directors by § 1466. the subscribers of the incorporation ^ "It is insisted that these cor- paper before the instrument is re- porators are merely nominal parties, corded, see Covington, etc. Plank and should not be regarded as con- Road Co. v. Moore, 3 Ind. 510; tractors in any sense ; that it has Moller v. Maclean, 1 Megone, 274. become common practice to take, ' Middleton v. ArastraviUe Min- for the time being, any persons who ing Co., 146 Cal. 219, 222; 79 Pao. may be convenient for the purpose, 889 ; Hamilton Trust Co. v. Clemes, leaving the real projectors to come 163 N. Y. 423 ; 57 N. E. 614. in with the subscription for stock. But see Allman v. Havana, etc. Such view or practice is entirely R. R. Co., 88 111. 521, 524. 152 § 163-§ 260] ISSUE OF SHARES § 171 for the time being the members of the corporation, would necessarily have the power, if they should choose to exercise it, of stepping in and controlling the actions of these directors, to the same extent as shareholders of a fully organized corporation may step in and control the actions of the directors.' Of course, the first directors that are chosen by the shareholders after shares have been issued do not differ in any respect from directors chosen after the company has been actively engaged in business. § 169-§ 176. ALLOTMENT AND ISSUE OF SHARES. § 169. Issue of Shares necessary to complete Orgamzation. — Even where the subscribers of the incorporation paper are shareholders in the company, and a fortiori where they are not, although the technical incorporation may be complete on the registration of the paper, yet the company is not regularly or- ganized until shares are allotted and issued, and the permanent organization effected. This process of organization, therefore, next demands attention. § 170-§ 174. Who are Shareholders — What constitvies an Issue of Shares. § 170. Statement of Question. — In the first place, the ques- tion must be considered what is necessary to constitute a share- holder as distinguished from a person who has merely agreed to become a shareholder.^ When may shares be said to be issued ? § 171. Issue of Share-Certiflcate not necessary, — At the outset, it is clear that the issue of a share-certificate is not neces- sary in order to make a person a shareholder. A certificate is merely convenient evidence of his title, and a person may un- doubtedly be a shareholder in a corporation although no certifi- ' As to these powers see infra, a shareholder at a future time ; and § 1191, § 1440, § 1441. a contract to become a shareholder ' "It is important to distinguish at a future time must again be dis- between the contract of member- tinguished from a contract to pur- ship actually existing among ihe chase shares which have already shareholders or members of a oor- been issued." 1 Morawetz on Priv. poration, and a contract to become Corps., 2d ed., § 46. 153 § 171 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill cate has ever been issued to him ^ or although his certificate may have been lost or stolen, or although the certificate delivered to him leaves a blank for his name.^ Hence, in an action by a cor- poration on a contract of subscription to its shares, while the company must show that it was ready and able to carry out its part of the contract by issuing the shares as agreed,' yet there is no necessity for proving a tender of a share-certificate.* For the same reason, where land is conveyed to a corporation in consideration of an issue of its shares to the grantor, the com- pany may be deeme'd a purchaser for value, so as to cut o£E un- disclosed equities, even before any share-certificate is issued.' Hence, too, the fact that no certificate is to be issued within a year after the subscription does not bring the agreement within the clause of the statute of frauds as to contracts not to be per- formed within a year." So also, in pleading, as for example in an action for unpaid dividends by a holder of preferred shares, the share certificates are not of the substance of the issue ; ' and if the pleader chooses to set them out in the pleadings according to their tenor, they should not be excluded as evidence because ' Blyth's Case, 4 Ch. D. 140; Clark's Case, 8 Ch. D. 635 (semble) ; Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S. 314 (where the court used "subscriber" in the sense of shareholder) ; Smith V. Gower, 63 Ky. 17 ; San Joaquin, etc. Co. V. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70 ; 35 Pac. 349 ; Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 66; 29 Atl. 939; California, etc. Hotel Co. V. CaUender, 94 Cal. 120 ; 29 Pac. 859; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99; Mass. Iron Co. v. Hooper, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 183, 188 (headnote inade- quate) ; Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 24 Me. 256; Burr v. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551; Cotter v. Butte, etc. Smelting Co., 77 Pac. 509 (headnote inadequate); 31 Mont. 139; South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U. S. 286; 24 Sup. Ct. 269; Corwith v. Culver, 69 111. 502; Pacilic Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 227, 230 ; 11 Sup. a. 984. But see Bush's Case, 9 Ch. 554; Pietsch V. Krause, 93 N. W. 9; 116 Wise. 344 (the words "issue any stock'' and "stock issued" held to refer to the issue of certificates). = Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 63-64. ' Carter, etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432; 68 N. W. 74; Oler v. Baltimore, etc. R. B. Co., 41 Md. 583. * Webb V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92 ; 26 Atl. 113 ; 39 Am. St. Rep. 396; Smith v. Gower, 63 Ky. 17 ; Slipher v. Earhart, 83 Ind. 173 ; Fulgam v. Macon, etc. R. R. Co., 44 Ga. 597 {Quwre, whether the reason- ing in this case can be supported) ; Marson v. Deither, 49 Minn. 423; 52 N. W. 38 ; 2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. Corps., § 462 d. Cf. Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S. 314. ' Frenkel v. Hudson, 82 Ala. 158 ; 2 So. 758 1 60' Am. St. Rep. 736. Cf. infra, § 175. ° Reed & McCormick v. Gold (Va.), 45 S. E. 868. ' But see infra, § 1360. 154 § 163-§ 260] ISSUE OF SHARES § 173 of verbal Inaccuracies in the description.' As a certificate is of merely evidential value, it follows that certificates issued before the incorporation may, if recognized by the company, have the same effect as if issued after incorporation.^ § 172. Entry of Shareholder's Name on Register necessary in England. — In England, by virtue of certain provisions in the Companies Act, entry on the company's register of share- 'holders is, with the possible exception of subscribers of the memo- randum of association,^ a condition precedent to becoming a shareholder.* A person may have a right to become a share- holder, but unless and until his name is entered on the company's register of shareholders he cannot be an actual shareholder. The stubs of a certificate book cannot constitute a register of shareholders within the meaning of this rule.^ On the other hand, a person may be a shareholder although the register on which his name is entered does not in all respects comply with the statutory requirements." But while entry of one's name on the register is necessary, it is not, taken by itself, sufficient, to render a person a shareholder. In addition, it must be shown that the entry was with his knowledge and assent or acquiescence.' § 173. American Rules as to Entry on Register. — This rule that only those persons whose names have been entered on the register can be deemed actual shareholders, as distinguished from persons who have agreed to become shareholders, is very convenient in practice. For it is very desirable to have some simple criterion for determining whether a person is a. share- holder or not. Nevertheless, many, perhaps most, American courts would hold that no such rule can be enforced unless affirmatively laid down by statute.* According to this view of ' Bates V. Androscoggin, etc. B. R. 1 Ch. 89 (note the argument for the Co., 49 Me. 491. liquidator). Cf. infra, § 864. ^ Thorpe v. Pennock Mercantile " East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v. Co. (Minn.), 108 N. W. 940. Bartholomew, L. R. 3 Ex. 15. ' See Florence Land Co., 29 0^1). ' Arnot's Case, .36 Ch. D. 702; 421 ; Ebenezer Timmins & Sons Plimsoll's Case, 24 L. T. 653 ; (1902), 1 Ch. 238; and supra, TTeicA v. Gi7ZeZen, 82 Pac. 248; 147 § 164. Cal. 671 (construing a statute sim- ^ Florence Land Co., 29 Ch. D. ilar to the British law). See alpo 421 ; MacDonald, Sons & Co. (1894), § 873. 1 Ch. 89. * Cf. Troy, etc. R. R. Co. v. ^ MacDonald, Sons & Co. {1894), Tibbits, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 297; 155 § 173 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill the common law, all that is necessary to constitute a person a shareholder is a present intention on his part and on the part of the company that the relation of shareholder and corporation subsist between them. When once that intention exists, the relationship is eodem instanti established without the necessity of any formality whatsoever.' The same rule has been applied even where it is expressly provided that the shares shall be transferable only by entry in the company's books; for that provision, it was held, does not refer to an original issue of shares but only to transfers from one shareholder to another.^ Never- theless, it is submitted that a different decision would have been more in accord with the spirit of the provision in question. A subscriber, however, who is in default in payment of a deposit payable on allotment is not entitled to the rights of a share- holder,^ even though he may be subject to the burdens. And sometimes acts of incorporation or other statutes require certain formalities — such as the execution of a formal subscription paper or the payment of a deposit by way of earnest — as con- ditions precedent to becoming for any purpose an actual share- Hussey v. Manufacturers' Bank, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 415, 422 (headnote inadequate) ; Manchester St. Ry. Co. V. Waiiams, 71 N. H. 312, 317 (headnote inadequate) ; 52 Atl. 461 ; Welch V. Gulden, 82 Pac. 248; 147 Cal. 571 (where a statute declared all persons shareholders whose names appeareij on the register) ; Union Nat. Bank v. Scott, 53 N. Y. App. Div. 65 ; 66 N. Y. Supp. 145 (where ratio decidendi was that a statute making the stock-book prima facie evidence should not have the effect of making it conclusive evidence). ' "An offer to become a share- holder, when accepted by or on behalf of the members of the com- pany, constitutes the offerer a shareholder." 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 46, p. 46. Accord : Smith v. Gower, 63 Ky. 17; Wempie v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 120 111. 196; 11 N. E. 906; Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 20, 24-25 ; 28 Am. Dec. 513. Cf . Butter University v. Scoonover, 114 Ind. 381 ; 16 N. E. 643; 5 Am. St. Rep. 627 ; Nickum v. Burkhardt, 30 Oreg. 464 ; 47 Pac. 788 ; 48 Pac. 474; 60 Am. St. Rep. 822; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Shire, 88 N. Y. App. Div. 401 ; 84 N. Y. Supp. 810; affirmed short, 179 N. Y. 587; 72 N. E. 1141; Acadia Loan Corp. v. Wentworth, 40 Nova Scotia 525. In Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15, 31 ; 6 Am. Rep. 350, the court said, "None of the cases decide that the mere fact of subscribing to the stock of an incorporated company con- stitutes the subscriber a stockholder, but that such subscription puts it in his power to become a stockholder, by compelling the corporation to give him the legal evidence of his being a stockholder, upon his com- plying with the terms of the sub- scription." ' Burr V. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551. ' Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15 ; 6 Am. Rep. 350. 156 f 163-§ 260] ISSUK OF SHAKES § 174 holder as distinguished from one who has merely agreed to become a shareholder.' § 174. Payment for Shares not necessary before Subscriber can become a Shareholder. — It goes without saying that, in general, payment for the shares subscribed for is not necessary in order that the subscriber may become a shareholder.^ Indeed, frequently in England and sometimes in the United States, cor- porations carry on business for years although only a fraction of the nominal value of their outstanding shares has been paid in. On the other hand, where an established corporation in- creases its capital, some courts have held that the subscribers for the new shares do not become members of the corporation until actual payment therefor.' Perhaps the best rule is that in each case it is a question of intention (subject to any formal requirements, such, for example, as the requirement of entry on the register of members); and that much slighter evidence of an intention that shares should not be deemed to be issued until paid for would be required in the case of shares of an increase of capital than in the case of the original or formative shares. It is diflBcult to say that as an unbending rule of law, new shares created by way of increase of capital can never be issued until paid for.* At all events, in England there is certainly no such rule, as many cases attest in which no point of the kind was raised or thought of. ' Charlotte, etc. R. R. Co. v. In some American states, statutes Blakely, 3 Strob. (S. Car.) 245. See forbid the issue of shares except for also infra, § 200. money, property, etc., actually re- Cf. East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v. ceived. See infra, § 798. Bartholomew, L. R. 3 Ex. 15. As to whether a shareholder can ' Downing v. Potts, 23 N. J. Law require the company to issue a share 66 ; Mass. Iron Co. v. Hooper, 7 certificate before he has paid in full, Cush. (Mass.) 183, 188 (headnote see infra, § 513. inadequate) ; Curry v. Scott, 64 Pa. ' Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. St. 270 ; Waukon, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341 ; 26 Atl. 279. Dwyer, 49 Iowa 121, 125; Smith v. ♦ Cf. infra, § 591. See also Boo{h Burns Boiler & Mfg. Co. (Wise), v. Campbell, 37 Md. 522 (declaring 111 N. W. 1123, 1127 (semble). that subscriber to shares of in- But see Chase v. Sycamore, etc. creased stock is subject to a iJ. iJ. Co., 38 111. 215, 218; Coleman statutory Uability to creditors be- V. Spencer, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 197. fore payment in full). 157 § 175 OEGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill § 175. When Issue of Shares becomes equivalent to Pa3rment of Value by Company. — The issue of shares is a valuable con- sideration, and may therefore entitle the company to the rights of a purchaser for value as to any property transferred in pay- ment of the shares.' In one case, however, it was held that inasmuch as the company may cancel the shares so long as they remain in the hands of the original allottee in case of failure of title to the property transferred in payment, therefore the com- pany could not occupy the position of a bona fide purchaser for value of that property unless the shares had been transferred by the allottee.^ The issue of the shares, it was said, was no more the payment of value than the giving of the company's note would have been. The analogy, however, is far from complete ; since an issue of shares is more nearly equivalent to an assign- ment of property than to the creation of a mere obligation. § 176. Allotment of Shares. — The term allotment is often used in connection with the issue of shares, not infrequently without any accurate understanding of its meaning. The word properly denotes an acceptance by the corporation of an offer to take a definite number of its shares.* For instance, a person applies to the company for, say, one hundred shares or such smaller number as may be granted to him. The directors reply, saying that they accept his offer for one hundred shares and agree to issue them to him. Their action is an allotment of the shares — an appropriation of a definite number of shares for a particular applicant." An allotment does not necessarily in- ' Whittle V. VanderbUt Mining 51 ; Lake Superior Navigation Co. v. Co., 83 Fed. 48; Frenkel v. Hudson, Morrison, 22 Up. Can. C. P. 217. 82 Ala. 158; 2 So. 758; 60 Am. St. * "There is no difference, as has Rep. 736. been often pointed out, between a ' Wyeth V. Renz-Bowles, 66 S. W. contract to take shares and any 825 ; 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2337. other contract. What is termed ^ The term is also sometimes used ' allotment,' is generally neither in America to denote the appor- more nor less than the acceptance by tionment of the stock of a corpo- the company of the offer to take ration among subscribers whose shares. To take the common case, subscriptions exceed in aggregate the offer is to take a certain number amount the authorized capital, of shares, or such a less number of See, for an example, 1 Morawetz on shares as may be allotted. That Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 58. offer is accepted by the allotment For other instances of uses of the either of the total number mentioned word in a different sense from that in the offer or a less number to be defined above, see Re Barber, 15 Jur. taken by the person who made the 158 § 163-§ 260] TIME FOR ALLOTMENT AND ISSUE § 177 dude any entry on the company's books; and even if an entry is made, the entry on the books is not the allotment. The ac- ceptance of the applicant's offer is the allotment, and like any other acceptance is not complete or effective until communicated in some way to the offerer/ There may be an allotment without specifying the distinguishing numbers of the allotted shares, even where as in Eng and every share has its own denoting number.^ The term is not equivalent to "issue:" shares may be allotted before they are issued.^ Indeed, an allotment is more properly a promise to issue than an actual issue of shares. Of course, however, the shares may be issued immediately after the allotment or perhaps even simultaneously therewith. And in those of the United States in which a mere mutual agreement between the corporation and an applicant for shares that the relationship of shareholder and company shall thenceforth sub- sist between them is sufficient to constitute the applicant an actual shareholder without further ceremony, the mere allot- ment, completing as it does the contract between the parties, may be enough to establish the relationship. Nevertheless, that effect is accidental, and is not an essential part of the allotment. § 177. When Shares may be allotted and issued — When Business may be commenced. — The right of a company to perfect a regular permanent organization by the issue of shares offer. This constitutes a binding the specified number of shares, and contract to take that number ac- under which the person who has cording to the offer and acceptance, made the offer and is now bound by To my mind, there is no magic the acceptance is bound to take that whatever in the term 'allotment' as particular number of shares." Per used ill these circumstances. It is Chitty, J., in Florence Land Co., 29 said that the allotment is an appro- Ch. D. 421, 426. "The term 'allot- priation of a specific number of ment ' is a popular term ; it is not a shares. It is an appropriation, not technical term occurring in the Act of specific shares, but of a certain of Parliament itself." Id., p. 427. number of shares. It does not, ' See infra, § 186. however, make the person who has ' Adams' Case, 13 Eq. 474, 483. thus agreed to take the shares a Cf. National Ins. Co. v. Egteson, member from that moment; all 29 Grant (Can.) 406. that it does is simply this — it con- ^ Clarke's Case, 8 Ch. D. 635 ; stitutes a binding contract under Thomson's Case, iDeG. J. &S. 749. which the company is bound to Cf. East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v. make a complete allotment (sic) of Bartholomew, L. II. 3 Ex. 15. 159 § 177 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHAKES [ChAP. Ill must be distinguished from the right to commence business. In the absence of some regulation to the contrary by statute or other- wise, a corporation may organize by the allotment and issue of shares immediately upon the registration of the incorporation paper or as soon thereafter as persons can be found willing to accept the shares. Statutes sometimes require additional conditions to be com- plied with before the company may begin business. Such con- ditions, although conditions precedent to the right to commence business, are merely conditions subsequent to incorporation. As such, breach is ordinarily no more than a cause of forfeiture to be taken advantage of by the state alone.' One such condition has been thought to be implied from the very nature of a corpora- tion having a fixed capital, namely, that the entire capital of the company be subscribed. To be sure, in England, a company may, except so far as expressly restrained by statute,^ commence business immediately upon its organization notwithstanding the fact that its capital has not been fully subscribed and in spite of the opposition of a minority shareholder.^ In America, a company may, as in England, allot and issue shares before the authorized capital has been completely subscribed,* and may even begin business by unanimous consent or in pursuance of a pro- vision in the incorporation paper;' but it is generally thought that except under such circumstances, a corporation with a fixed limited capital has no right to commence business before all its shares are taken," so that any shareholder might enjoin the trans- ' Hammond v. Straus, 53 Md. 1, 2 Hem. & Mill. 528. But cf. Elder 14-15. See also infra, § 265. But v. New Zealand Co., 30 L. T. 285. cf. Bums V. Beck, etc. Co., 83 Ga. See also infra, § 754, and Laugier 471 ; 10 S. E. 121. v. Victorian, etc. Power Co., 16 Vict. » The Companies Act of 1900, L. R. 64. 63 & 64 Vict., c. 48, § 4, requires ♦ 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d certain rather burdensome conditions ed., § 57. ^ to be met before the first allotment ' Sweney Bros. v. Teicott, 85 can take place, and if an allotment Iowa 103; 52 N. W. 106; Nichols is made in violation of these condi- v. Burlington, etc. Plank Road Co., tions, an allottee may have his 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 42. name stricken from the register and ' 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d his deposit returned. Cf. Mears v. ed., § 408. But see Johnson v. Western Canada Pul-p Co. (1905), Kessier, 76 Iowa 411 ; 41N. W. 57; 2 Ch. 353 ; Finance & Issus v. FayettevUle, etc. Ry. v. Aberdeen, etc. Canadian Produce Corp. (1905), 1 R. R. Co. (N. Car.) 55 S. E. 345; Ch. 37. Newcastle, etc. Turnpike Co. v. Bell, » MacDougaU v. Jersey Hotel Co., 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 584. 160 § 163-§ 260] THE FIRST TilEETING § 178 action of any business. This doctrine is indeed the basis of the all but universal American rule prohibiting any calls upon share- holders before the authorized capital is fully taken.' This Ameri- can rule, requiring that all the shares be subscribed before the company commences business, is not affected by a statutory provision authorizing the company to commence business as soon as the incorporation paper is filed ; for such a provision is construed to mean that the company may begin business if other- wise qualified.^ § 178. First Meeting of Corporation. — The first or organiza- tion meeting of a corporation is of much less importance where the company is formed under a general law than under a special act, which must be accepted before corporate existence com- mences. In the latter case, the corporation comes into being at that meeting, while in the former, the meeting would not seem to differ greatly in kind from any other meeting of the members of an existing company. For instance, a failure to give due notice of the first meeting to all entitled to such notice will not, where the company is being organized under a general law, vitiate the corporate existence, at least as against one who par- ticipated in the proceedings ; ' and failure to give a formal notice prescribed by statute is quite immaterial where all the subscribers waive the statutory notice.* Whilst the organization meeting of a company incorporated under modern general incorporation laws is not the equivalent of the meeting of the incorporators of a company incorporated by special act held for the purpose of accepting the charter, so that the cases which hold that accept- ance of a special act of incorporation must take place within the company's home state ^ are distinguishable ; nevertheless, the ' Infra, § 754. tors can be legally convened, see ' Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 supra, § 166, and infra, § 1466. Nebr. 50 (headnote inadequate). * J. W. Butler Paper Co. v. Cleve- Cf. Masonic Temple Ass'n v. Charts land, 220 111. 128 ; 77 N. E. 99. ndl, 43 Minn. 353, 354 ; 45 N. W. » MUler v. Ewer, 27 Me. 509 716. 46 Am. Dec. 619; Camp v. Byrne, ' Nickum v. Burkhardt, 30 Oreg. 41 Mo. 525 (semble) ; Freeman v, 464; 47 Pac. 788; 48 Pac. 474; 60 Machias Water, etc. Co., 38 Me. 343 Am. St. Rep. 822. Smith v. Silver Valley Mining Co, a. Packard v. Old Colony R. R. 64 Md. 85 ; 20 Atl. 1032 ; 54 Am, Co., 168 Mass. 92; 46 N. E. 433; Rep. 760. Walworth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98. But see Heath v. SUverthorn, etc. As to how a meeting of corpora- Co., 39 Wise. 146. VOL. I. — 11 161 § 179 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill first or organization meeting of any corporation undoubtedly performs a corporate function in the strictest sense of the word and therefore, according to the prevailing rule, cannot be held in a foreign state.' § 179-§ 260. AGREEMENTS TO TAKE SHARES. § 179. Scope of Treatment. — The matter of agreements to take shares has been the subject of a vast deal of litigation, and has received elaborate and, on the whole, full and satisfactory treatment at the hands of text-writers. Consequently, an ex- haustive consideration of this topic is unnecessary here. Suf- fice it to give a general outline of the law, pursuing a somewhat different scheme and approaching the subject from a somewhat different side from the well-known American treatises, making particular reference to those points which have received hitherto but scant attention in this country. § 180. The Name, "Subscriptions" — Nature of Agree- ments — distinguished from Act of becoming a Shareholder and from Agreements for Purchase. — Agreements to take shares, especially in America, are often called subscriptions to shares or subscriptions to stock. The word "subscription" in that con- nection must not be taken literally ; for it denotes any agreement to take shares whether made by signing or subscribing some document or otherwise.^ It has been said that an agreement to "subscribe" for shares means, not that the subscriber will necessarily take the shares himself, but that he will either take them or find some one else to take them.^ The term subscription to shares is sometimes used to denote the so-called contract of membership in a corporation — that is, the act of becoming a > Duke V. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64 ; 19 19 Wall. 241. But see Thames So. 172; 53 Am. St. Rep. 232; 31 Tunnd Co. v. Sheldon, 6 B. & C. L. R. A. 484 (where the supposed 341. corporators were held liable as As to the meaning of the terms partners; sed qucere, was this "subscribe for" and "agree to take" correct?). For explanation of this with reference to shares, see further case, see § 1212 note. Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) Upon the whole subject, cf. infra, 466 ; Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co. v. White, § 1212. 14 S. Car. 51. ' Henderson v. Lacon, 5 Eq. 249 ' London & Colonial Finance (semble); Nugent v. Supervisors, Corp., 77 L. T. 146. 102 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS TO SHARES § 181 member rather than a contract to become a member.' This usage is probably in large measure due to the fact, which has already been mentioned, that in America no formality is, in general, necessary in order to become a member of a corpo- ration. The usage is, however, apt to lead to confusion. For it is important to discriminate sharply between a contract to become a member and the act of becoming a member. It is the same difference as that between an executory contract of sale and a present transfer of title or between a contract to marry and a marriage. Moreover, a contract to take shares must be distinguished from a contract to purchase shares.^ On principle, it seems clear that a corporation cannot agree to sell its own unissued shares,^ although it may sell shares which have once been issued and which by forfeiture, surrender, or otherwise have revested in it. § 181. Classification of Agreements to take Shares — Scheme of Treatment. — Agreements to take shares may be divided into three classes: first, agreements entered into prior to the incor- poration of the company otherwise than by signing its memoran- dum of association or incorporation paper; second, agreements entered into by subscribing the incorporation paper ; and, third, agreements made after incorporation. These three classes will be considered in reverse order, because the last mentioned class is the simplest, and is governed by rules of law more nearly ap- proximating the ordinary principles of the law of contracts than is either of the other classes. In dealing with the other two ■ E. g. 2 Clark & Marshall on Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 878 (holding Priv. Corps. , § 442. that an original issue of shares is not " Wemple v. St. Louis, etc. B. B. subject to a tax as a "sale" of stock). Co., 120 111. 196; 11 N. E. 906; But see Clark \. Continental Imp. Ottawa, etc. B. B. Co. v. Black, 79 111. Co., ,57 Ind. 135. Cf. Bates v. Great 262; Lincoln Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Western Tel. Co., lS4 111. 536; 25 Sheldon, 44 Nebr. 279 ; 62 N. W. 480. N. E. 521. Cf. Otter V. Brevoort Petroleum Co., Certainly, the subscription to or 50 Barb. (N. Y.) 247 ; Humaston v. purchase of shares, even preferred Telegraph Co., 20 Wall. 20, 29 shares, cannot be regarded as in the (declaring that in the case of a con- nature of a loan or advance ; Orover tract by a company to sell its own v. Cavanaugh (Ind'), 82 N. E. 104 shares it may go into the market and (holding that oral representations buy shares to transfer to the pur- as to the financial condition of the chaser). company are actionable notwith- ' Cf. People V. Duffy-Mclnnerny standing Lord Tenterden's Act). 163 § 182 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill classes of agreements, it will be necessary to advert only to their peculiarities — to the points in which they differ from agree- ments made after incorporation. § 182-§ 238. AGREEMENTS MADE AFTER INCORPO- RATION. § 182. Application of general Principles of Law of Contracts and of Agency. — In general, agreements to take shares in a corporation already formed are governed by the same princi- ples as other contracts in respect to offer and acceptance, con- sideration, and similar matters.' Indeed, it so happens that many of the leading English cases upon that branch of the law of contracts have had to do with agreements to take shares in corporations. So too, the law of agency applies to contracts to take shares in a company.^ § 183. Which Party to be deemed the Offerer. — The offer may in theory be made by either party — either by the com- pany or by the intended shareholder. In practice, the con- tract is usually made by the company's acceptance of an offer or application made by the person who is to take the shares. Indeed, the company is rarely the offerer except in cases where on an increase of capital the new shares are offered to the old shareholders in proportion to their former holdings, or in cases where the company in purporting to accept an offer of an ap- plicant for shares introduces, perhaps inadvertently, some new term, so that the supposed acceptance is in legal effect a counter offer. To be sure, corporations often solicit subscrip- tions to their capital ; but such solicitations are not in law offers which may be accepted by anybody who desires so to do,' but are rather advertisements for offers. And even where a cor- poration offers a definite number of shares to a particular person, the transaction will if possible be construed as a mere solicitation for an offer to take so many shares.* ' See supra, p. 158 note 4. • Cf. Re Barber, 15 Jur. 51 ; » See infra, $ 201. Wallace's Case (1900), 2 Ch. 671 " But see Greer v. Chartiers Ry. (stated infra, p. 170 note 3). Co., 96 Pa. St. 391, 42 Am. Rep. 648. 164 § 163-§ 260] OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE § 184 § 184-§ 191. CASES WHERE THE OFFER IS MADE BY THE SUBSCRIBER. § 184-§ 189. Acceptance of Offer, or Allotment. § 184. In general. — As shown above, the company's accept- ance of an application for shares by an intended shareholder is what is known as an allotment of shares.* This acceptance is like any other acceptance ; and must be of precisely what was offered. For example, an application to take a definite number of shares cannot be accepted by the allotment of any less number; ^ and for this reason, applications are frequently made for a cer- tain number of shares or such less number as may be allotted. Likewise, an application for paid-up shares cannot be accepted by an allotment of shares not fulty paid.' So, an application for £20 shares cannot be accepted by the allotment of an equivalent amount in £40 shares ; * and an offer to take shares to be issued by way of increase of capital cannot be accepted by an allotment of shares in the original capital of the company.* Indeed, any new term sought to be introduced in the acceptance vitiates it. Thus, where the letter of allotment stated that unless payment for the shares should be made on the day named for payment in the application the shares would be forfeited, the supposed acceptance added to the term of the offer so that there was no completed contract." A fortiori, an application for shares on the terms that £2 per share shall be paid on allotment is not accepted by letter of allotment which states that payment of the allotment money must be made before a certain date ; ' the argument that the naming of the date merely fiixed a reasonable time and so did not depart from the offer did not prevail with the court. ' Supra, § 176. Of course, the laches in not making a prompt applicant is not bound until allot- objection to the allotment) ; Rand ment. Infra, § 190. v. Columbia Nat. Bank, 94 Fed. 349 ; ' Cf. Ex parte Roberts, 1 Drewry 36 C. C. A. 292 (same point as last 204. , case). ' Wynne's Case, 8 Ch. 1002. Cf. " Addinell's Case, 1 Eq. 225 ; infra, § 233, § 778, § 789. Jackson v. Turquand, L. R. 4 H. L. ■■ Custard's Case, 8 Eq. 438. 305. ^ Stephens v. Follett, 43 Fed. 842. Cf. Oriental, etc. Steam Co. v. Cf. Bailey v. Tillinghast, 99 Fed. Briggs, 4 De G. F. & J. 191. 801, 811 ; 40 C. C. A. 93 (where the ' Pentelow's Case, 4 Ch. 178. Bubscriber was held estopped by his 165 § 185 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill § 185. Written Offer as affected by Parol Qualifications. — On the other hand, a written appHcation may be accepted as it stands, an oral quahfication thereof being disregarded ; ' but where the quahfication is contained in a writing which accom- panies the formal written apphcation, the accompanying quahfi- cation is part of the offer, so that an attempted acceptance rejecting the quahfication is nugatory.^ Moreover, a written apphcation dehvered to a third person as an escrow or subject to a parol condition cannot be accepted until the condition is performed.' § 186. Allotment incomplete until made known to Applicant. — An allotment of shares, being an acceptance of an offer, is, like other acceptances, incomplete until communicated to the offerer.* Hence, although the company may vote to accept the application and may even place the applicant's name on the register of shareholders, yet if notice of the allotment be not com- municated to the applicant, he will not be bound.^ Of course, notice of the allotment given to an agent of the applicant author- ized to receive the same is sufficient." An agent who is authorized to apply for shares is usually competent also to receive notice ' Harrison's Case, 3 Ch. 633. accepting his own offer to subscribe Cf. Scarlett v. Academy of Music, to its shares, see Greer v. Chartiers 46 Md. 132. Ry. Co., 96 Pa. St. 391 ; 42 Am. = Roger's Case, 3 Ch. 633. Rep. 548. " GUman v. Gross, 97 Wise. 224 ; As to whether notice of a call is 72 N. W. 885; Ontario Ladies sulScient notice of an acceptance of College v. Kendry, 10 Ont. L. R. 324. the application, see Canadian Tin * Cozart V. Herndon, 114 N. Car. Plate Co., 12 Ont. L. R. 594. 252 ; 19 S. E. 158 ; MaUory's Case, » Gunn's Case, 3 Ch. 40 ; Ward's 3 Ont. L. Rep. 552. Cose,' 10 Eq. 659; Robinson's Case, An Illinois case holds that notice 4 Ch. 322 ; Canadian Tin Plate Co., of the corporation's acceptance of 12 Ont. L. R. 594, 638. an offer to take shares is not neces- Cf. Sahlgreen & Carroll's Case, sary. Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Inter- 3 Ch. 323 ; Shackleford's Case, 1 Ch. national, etc. Encampment Co., 140 567. 111. 248, 266; 29 N. E. 1044; 33 But see Hawley v. Upton, 102 Am. St. Rep. 234. The case cannot U. S. 314 (note that this case came have been very fully argued, since up on a certificate of division of the court stated that no authority opinion which did not specifically to the contrary had been cited. call upon the Supreme Court to Cf. Bloxam's Case, 33 Beav. 529 ; answer the question whether notice New Albany, etc. R. R. Co. v. of acceptance of the offer was neces- McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; 71 Am. sary). Dec. 337 ; Burke v. Lechm^e, L. R. " Levita's Case, 5 Ch. 489. 6 Q. B. 297. Cf. De Rosaz's Case, 21 L. T. 10. As to an agent of the company 1G6 § 163-§ 260] OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE § 187 of the acceptance of the application ; ' but he is not necessarily so.^ The deUvery of a notice of allotment to a messenger to take to the allottee is not a sufficient communication of the offer.' On the other hand, in accordance with the generally established rule as to acceptances of offers, where the application was made through the mails, the posting of a letter of allotment properly addressed makes the contract complete from that moment, * even though the letter may never be received.^ Even if the letter of allotment is misdirected and consequently goes astray, yet if the error is due to the applicant's own fault, he cannot take advantage of the delay in receipt of notice of allot- ment in order to retract his offer." Where post-office regula- tions prohibit postmen from receiving letters to put into the mails, delivery of a letter of allotment to a postman for that purpose is not a posting thereof within the meaning of the general rule stated above.' If the application contemplates not an allotment, or counter-promise, but the actual issue of shares as an act completing a unilateral contract, the appli- cant may be bound from thei moment of the issue of the shares even before he receives notice thereof.' § 187. Whether Notice of Allotment must be Direct and FoTTndl. — The acceptance of an application for shares must be communicated directly from the company to the applicant. It is not enough that the latter may obtain knowledge thereof indi- rectly. Yet the communication of the acceptance need not be formal or express. Anything emanating from the company which indicates to the applicant that the shares have been allotted to him will be sufficient.' For example, although no formal notice of allotment be given, still if the shares applied for are issued to the applicant and he acts as shareholder, the contract of membership is complete.'" So, if the applicant is ■ Leviia's Case, 5 Ch. 489. ° Perhaps, it is upon this ground ' Robinson's Case, 4 Ch. 322. that such cases as Hawley v. Upton, ' Hebb's Case, 4 Eq. 9. 102 U. S. 314, and Richelieu Hotel * Harris's Case, 7 Ch. 587. Co. v. International, etc. Encamp- ^ Household, etc. Ins. Co. v. men* Co., 140 111. 248, 266; 29 N. E. Grant, 4 Ex. D. 216; Wall's Case, 1044; 33 Am. St. Rep. 234, which 15 Eq. 18 (semble). are cited above, p. 166 note 5, Contra : Finucane's Case, 17 should be explained. W. R. 813 (overruled). ° Richards ' v. Home Assurance ' Townsend's Case, 13 Eq. 148. Ass'n, L. R. 6 C. P. 591, 595. ' Ex parte Jones (,1900), ICh.. 220. '» Levita's Case, 3 Ch. 36; Croio- 107 § 188 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill present at the meeting of the directors when his application is accepted, no further communication of the acceptance is neces- sary.' So, where the ownership of a certain number of shares is made a quaUfication for a certain person's appointment to be a director or other officer, and where the candidate for the office accordingly applies for the requisite number of shares, notifica^ tion of his appointment to the office may in some circumstances be a sufficient communication of the company's acceptance of the offer.^ § 188. Time for Acceptance or Allotment. — An application for shares like any other offer must be accepted, if at all, within a reasonable time after the application,' unless some other time be fixed by the applicant at which the offer shall expire. § 189. Acceptance without any Entry on Company's Books. — An acceptance of an offer to subscribe for shares need not be evidenced by any entry in the company's books but may rest in parol merely.* As pointed out above, entry of the applicant's name on the register of shareholders, however necessary it may be in order to make him an actqal shareholder, is not part of an allotment or acceptance of an offer to take shares, and is there- fore not necessary in order to complete a binding executory con- tract on the one part to issue and on the other part to accept shares.^ § 190. Retraction of Offer to take Shares. — An offer to take shares in a corporation may of course be retracted at any ley's Case, 4 Ch. 322. These cases As to the necessity for prompt might also be supported on the repudiation of the shares in order to ground of estoppel. escape liability because of unreason- ' Fletcher's Case, 17 L. T. 136. able delay in allotment or notifica- '' Richards v. Home Assurance tion of allotment, see Bot/Ze's Case, 54 Ass'n, L. R. 6 C. P. 591. But see L. J. Ch. 550. Carmichael and Hewett's Case, 30 * Stuart v. Valley R. R. Co., 32 W. E,. 742. Cf. infra, § 1414, et seq. Gratt. (Va.) 146. As to the applica^ ' Ramsgate Victoria Hotel Co. v. tion of the Statute of Frauds, see Montefiqre, L. R. 1 Ex. 109 ; Carter, infra, § 199. etc. Co. V. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432; ^ As to statutes requiring con- 68 N. W. 74. tracts of subscription to shares to be Cf. Gregg's Case, 15 W. R. 82 in some particular form, see infra, (where 13 months was held not to be § 200. an unreasonable time). 168 § 163-§ 260] OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE §191 time before the acceptance is communicated, or posted, to the applicant, and a fortiori at any time before allotment ; for until acceptance there is no contract.* This right of withdrawal is not affected by the fact that the applicant was also a director, and that, as such, his duty was to see that the offer, if advanta- geous for the company, should be promptly accepted.^ The with- drawal is not complete until communicated to the company, but notice thereof given to the clerk in charge of the company's oflBce is notice to the corporation.^ The retraction need not be express, or communicated directly to the corporation. For in- stance, the fact that an applicant for shares stops payment of a cheque given in payment of a deposit payable thereon is suflB- cient to charge the company with notice that the offer has been withdrawn.^ The retraction may be oral although the appUca- tion was in writing.^ § 191. OfEer or Proinise to take Shares under Seal of Prom- If a promise to take shares is made under the promisor's isor. seal, and if the paper is deKvered as his deed, it is binding forth- with, and cannot be revoked even before the company has ac- cepted the proposition.' In such a case, the allotment and issue of the shares constitute a condition which must be performed within a reasonable time in order to hold the promisor,' but the applicant is bound beyond his power to escape, from the time of delivery of the document. ' Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. 962 MUes' Case, 4 De G. J. & S. 471 GledhiU's Case, 3 De G. F. & J. 713 Wallace's Case (1900), 2 Ch. 671 Thomson's Case, 34 L. J. Ch. 525 Bristol Creamery Co. v. TUton, 47 Atl. 591; 70 N. H. 239; Canadian Tin Plate Co., 12 Ont. L. R. 594; Essex Turnpike Corp. v. Collins, 8 Mass. 292 ; Parker v. Northern Cent. Mich. R. R. Co., 33 Mich. 23; Northern Cent. Mich. R. R. Co. v. Eslow, 40 Mich. 222. Cf. Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 Wise. 145 ; 70 N. W. 302 ; 37 L. R. A. 162. ' Ritso's Case, 4 Ch. D. 774. » Truman's Case (1894), 3 Ch. 272. * Truman's Case (1894), 3 Ch. 272. « Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. 962; Ritso's Case, 4 Ch. D. 774; Tru- man's Case (1894), 3 Ch. 272. Cf. MUes' Case, 4 De G. J. & S. 471. ° Nelson Coke Co. v. PeUatt, 4 Ont. L. R. 481. Cf. Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower, 156 Mass. 82, 84 ; 30 N. E. 465; 32 Am. St. Rep. 434, stated infra, § 242. ' Provincial Grocers, Ld., 10 Ont. L. R. 705. 169 § 192 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHAKES [ChAP. Ill § 192-§ 196. Cases , where the Offer is made by the Company. § 192. Contract complete on Acceptance by Subscriber. — Of course, where a corporation offers a certain number of shares to a certain person who thereupon accepts the offer, the contract is complete without any further "allotment" or acceptance on the part of the corporation.' But, as aheady stated, in doubtful cases the courts incline to hold sohcitations of subscriptions to shares on the part of the corporation, by prospectuses and other similar means, as advertisements for offers rather than as offers.^ It is not to be lightly assumed that a corporation intends to offer its shares to the first person who may apply for them without re- gard to his financial standing or desirability as a shareholder. § 193. OfEers of Shares to existing Shareholders pro rata. — If a corporation offers new or additional shares to its own exist- ing shareholders or to shareholders in a company which it is about to absorb, the offer is in general like any other offer looking to a bilateral contract; ' but it has some very striking peculiari- ties. For example, if one of the shareholders to whom such an offer is made dies before acceptance, the offer may be accepted by his executor.* A fortiori, if the offer is made, nominally, to a shareholder who is deceased and whom the company knows to be dead, it may be accepted by his executor.^ § 194. Counter-O&ers made by introducing new Terms in attempting to accept Application of Subscriber. — - If a company's ostensible acceptance of an offer of an applicant for shares introduces some new term not contained in the application, the supposed acceptance is, as stated above, a counter-offer which must be accepted by the original apphcant before any completed contract arises. The acceptance of such a counter-offer is less ' Greer v. Chartiers By. Co., 96 was not an offer which a shareholder Pa. St. 391 ; 42 Am. Rep. 548 ; in the old company could accept by Acadia Loan Corp. v. Wentworth, mere notification of his election to 40 Nova Scotia, 525. take shares instead of bonds, but ' See supra, § 183. that the new company must notify ^ But cf. Wallace's Case (1900), him of an allotment of the shares in 2 Ch. 671 (where it was held that an order to complete the contract be- agreement for absorption of another tween them). corporation, containing a stipulation * Cheshire Banking Co., 32 Ch. that the shareholders in the old D. 301. company shall have at their election " Jackson v. Turguand, L. R. 4 shares or bonds of the new company, H. L. 305. 170 § 163-§ 260] OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE § 194 frequently express than implied from acquiescence. Mere in- action on the part of the allottee is not sufficient to create a con- tract. He made an application, which the company refused: the company's counter-proposition is a mere offer of which he is not bound to take notice, and of which acceptance must be affirmatively shown. Mere inaction or delay cannot amount to an acceptance of the company's counter-offer.' Hence, he is not bound to institute legal proceedings for the removal of his- name from the register of shareholders, but is certainly protected if he promptly repjidiate ownership of the shares.^ A request that share-certificates be sent him was held in one case not to be suffi- cient evidence of acceptance of the company's offer, but merely to indicate a disposition to investigate what manner of shares had been offered him.^ The mere receipt and retention of share- certificates sent by the company does not amount to acceptance of the shares ; * for it is mere non-action. On the other hand, a letter acknowledging receipt of the certificates may be construed as an acceptance of the company's offer.^ Acting as shareholder will be deemed an acceptance of the shares ; ° but the execution of a proxy to be used only in a certain contingency which never occurs will, it seems, have no such effect.' Attendance at share- holders' meetings may be explained, if the attendance was not for the purpose of exercising rights as a shareholder but merely in order to watch the proceedings.* Ordinarily, a transfer of the shares or any of them operates as an acceptance of the company's offer of them.* But this would not be so where the transfer is made under the mistaken belief that the shares transferred were certain other shares for which the transferor had subscribed.'" The execution of a blank transfer at the time of the application, by means whereof a transfer of the shares is subsequently ef- fected, has been held not to estop the applicant from denying • Wynne's Case, 8 Ch. 1002. '^ SomermUe's Case, 6 Ch. 266. Cf. Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. 962. ' Hindley's Case (1896), 2 Ch. But see Ex parte Perrett, 15 Eq. 121. 250 ; Wheatcroft's Case, 42 L. J. Ch. ' Ticonic Water, etc. Co. v. Lang, 853. 63 Me. 480. 2 Gorrissen's Case, 8 Ch. 507. * Simpson's Case, 4 Ch. 184. Ct. Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. 962. » Cf. Crawley's Case, 4 Ch. 322; " Beck's Case, 9 Ch. 392. Railway Timetables Co., 42 Ch. D. But see Hindley's Case (1896), 2 98. Ch. 121. '" Arnot's Case, 36 Ch. D. 702. * SomermUe's Case, 6 Ch. 266. 171 § 195 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHAKES [ChAP. Ill that his offer was accepted by the company.' An allotment of shares to a person who has never applied for them at all would operate as an offer on the company's part to the same extent as an ostensible acceptance of an application which introduces some new term would do. § 195. Time for Acceptance of Company's Offer. — The com- pany's offer must be accepted if at all within the time limited in the offer itself, or if no time be limited then within a reasonaWe time. It seems that if the company goes into liquidation before the offer has expired, the option may be accepted after the com- mencement of the liquidation,^ and that upon such acceptance the acceptor becomes entitled to his jn-o rata share in the com- pany's assets. § 196. Application for Shares in Ignorance of Company's Offer not Acceptance. — What is intended as an offer to take shares cannot be construed as an acceptance by the applicant of an offer previously made without his knowledge by the com- pany. For example, where a corporation purports to allot shares to a person who had not applied for them, a subsequent applica- tion for the same number of shares made in ignorance of the previous attempted allotment cannot constitute a binding con- tract unless it be subsequently accepted by the company and unless such acceptance be communicated to the applicant.^ § 197. Implied Offers and Acceptances. — There may be cases where either the offer or acceptance * or both are implied rather than express.* For example, where R as director signs ' Ward's Case, 10 Eq. 659. although it was conceded that the ^ Hirsch v. Burns, 77 L. T. 377. acceptance or retention of a deposit ' Northern Electric Wire, etc. Co., would not be sufficient evidence of 2 Megone 288. But cf. United Ports, acceptance of an apphcation not etc. Ins. Co., 20 W. R. 88. made in pursuance of a previous * Where D agreed that he and arrangement such as that stated : his partner should between them Davies's Case, 41 L. J. Ch. 659. take 250 shares, and where D ac- ^ Clevenger v. Moore (N. J.), 58 cordingly applied for 50 shares and Atl. 88; 71 N. J. Law 148; Park- his partner for 200, the court in- hurst v. Mexican, etc. R. R. Co., 102 ferred an assent on the part of the 111. App. 507; Hecht, lAebmann & company to this division of the 250 Co. v. Phcenix Woolen Co., 121 Fed. shares from the mere retention of 188. the deposits paid on apphcation, Cf . Stephens v. FoUett, 43 Fed. 842. 172 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS BY INFANTS § 198 the minutes of a directors' meeting at which he was present, and at which a list of supposed subscribers for shares (including himself) was read out, there is sufScient evidence of a completed though implied contract.' Somewhat similar instances of im- plied contracts to take shares may be found in cases relating to directors' qualification shares.^ These cases of implied contract are sometimes thought to rest on estoppel ; ^ but the principle of estoppel is properly only an element in the implied contract. § 198. Infants' Contracts 'to take Share. — An infant's agreement to take shares in a corporation, like other contracts of an infant, is of course voidable even after the contract has been executed by entering his name on the register of share- holders.* Where the infant has received no benefit from the contract, has attended no meetings of shareholders, and has received no dividends, he may during infancy repudiate the agreement and by next friend bring an action to recover the deposits paid on application and allotment.* Unless, however, the infant on coming of age promptly repudiates the contract, he will be bound thereby even though he may never have acted as shareholder.* The right of repudiation exists although the in- corporation act may provide that "every person who shall have subscribed the prescribed sum . . . and whose name shall have been entered on the register of shareholders, . . . shall be deemed a shareholder"; the words quoted mean every person who shall have contracted to subscribe, and therefore do not include persons not sui juris.'' Where the infant is sued upon the contract, a plea of infancy is demurrable unless it allege that the defendant repudiated the shares ; ^ and this is true even though ' Ex parteBoney, 33 L. J. Ch. 731. ' Ebbett's Case, 5 Ch. 302. But cf. TothUl's Case, 1 Ch. 85. Cf. Yeoland Consols, 58 \. T. 922 ; ' See infra, § 1414, et 6eq. Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cazenove, 10 ' Hays V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Q. B. 935; Hart's Case, 6 Eq. 512 Co., 38 Pa. St. 81 ; Nitgent v. Super- (where the infant was held entitled •visors, 19 Wall. 241. See 2 Clark & to repudiate three years after at- Marshall on Priv. Corps., § 515, pp. taining majority). 1570-1573. ' Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coombe, * Nevn-y, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coombe, 3 Ex. 565; North Western Ry. Co. 3 Ex. 565. V. McMichael, 5 Ex. 114. " Hamilton v. Vaughan, etc. Co. But see Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. (1894), 3 Ch. 589. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. 935. Cf. White V. Mount Pleasant * North Western Ry. Co. v. Mc- MUls Corp., 172 Mass. 462; "52 JWicfead, 5 Ex. 114. N. E. 632. 173 § 199 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill the ownership of the shares be burdensome rather than bene- ficial, at least unless the infancy be alleged to be still subsisting at the time of pleading.^ § 199. Application of Statute of Frauds. — It would seem clear that subscriptions to shares are not in any proper sense contracts of sale within the seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds, and that accordingly they should not be required to be in writing in any jurisdiction in which the Statute of 29 Charles II c. 3 is in force in unmodified form,^ and this, too, quite in- dependently of the question whether shares of capital stock are "goods, wares and merchandise," within the jneaning of that statute.' In some of the American states, the original Statute of Frauds may have been so amended as to include agreements to take shares in a corporation, and sometimes incorporation acts require that subscription shall be in writing, in which case oral subscriptions will not be binding." Whether contracts for the sale or transfer of shares are within the seventeenth section of the statute is a different question.^ § 200. Statutes prescribing Forms or Ceremonies for Subscrip- tions to Shares. — Where a statute prescribes certain forms to be gone through by subscribers to shares, compliance with the statutory ceremonies may well enough be a condition precedent to the attainment of the status of an actual shareholder," but the courts should struggle against any construction of the statute which would invalidate, on account of a failure to observe the statutory conditions, what would otherwise be a binding execu- tory contract on the one part to issue and on the other part to accept shares.' For example, where a statute requires the pay- ment of a deposit from every subscriber at the time of subscrib- ing, it may well enough be that no one can become an actual shareholder entitled to the rights and subject to the liabilities of a ' North Western By. Co. v. * Vredand v. New Jersey Stone McMichad, 5 Ex. 114. Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188; Fanning v. = Webb V. Baltimore, etc. R. B. Insurance Co.,. 37 Oh. St. 339; 41 Co., 77 Md. 92; 26 Atl. 113; 39 Am. Am. Rep. 517. St. Rep. 396 ; Somerset Nat. Bank- ' See infra, § 505. ing Co. v. Adams, 72 S. W. 1125; ° New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co. v. 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2083 ; Rogers v. Muggeridge, 4 H. & N. 580. Burr, 105 Ga. 432; 31 S. E. 438; ' Of. Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. 70 Am. St. Rep. 50; 2 Clark & Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294; Nebraska Marshall on Priv. Corps., § 445 c. CKicory Co. v. Lednicky (Nebr.), = As to this see infra, § 505. 113 N. W. 245. 174 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS THROUGH AGENTS § 201 shareholder until the statutory deposit be paid; but neverthe- less it is subnaitted that non-payment of the deposit should certainly not vitiate the contract or prevent the one party from recovering damages from the other for a failure to issue the shares or to take and pay for them.^ The decided cases on the subject do not, however, establish any intelligible, systematic rules, but consist in a wilderness of conflicting decisions.' For example, some cases hold that non-payment of a statutory deposit relieves the subscriber of any liability on the contract,^ but other cases hold the contrary.* As such statutes are less common nowadays than formerly, the perplexing uncertainty and contrariety in the decisions need occasion the less regret. § 201. Subscriptions through Agents. — -The general prin- ciples of the law of agency apply to contracts of subscription to a corporation's shares.^ Thus, such contracts are governed by the same law as other contracts in respect to the liability of an agent acting without or in excess of his authority ,° and in re- spect to rights of the parties where the contract is made by an agent for an undisclosed principal.' Where an application for ' Ashtabula, etc. B. B. Co. v. As to ratification of contract Smith, 15 Oh. St. 328. made by unauthorized agent, see 2 Cf. 2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. McClelland v. Whiteley, 15 Fed. 322 ; Corps., § 445 ; 1 Morawetz on Priv. Levita's Case, 5 Ch. 489 ; Electric Corps., § 71-§ 73. See also infra, Welding Co. v. Prince (Mass.), 81 § 796. N. E. 306 (headnote inadequate — ' E. g. Wood v. Coosa, etc. B. B. ratification by payment of calls and Co., 32 Ga. 273 (with which com- failure to repudiate shares otherwise pare, however, Mitchell v. Borne than by resisting an action for call). B. B. Co., 17 Ga. 574) ; Hapgoods ' Southampton, etc. Steam Boat V. Lusch, 107 N. Y. Supp. 331. Co., 4 De G. J. & S. 200 ; State ex rel. * E. g. Vicksburg, etc. B. B. Co. Columbia Valley B. B. Co. v. Supe- V. McKean, 12 La. Ann. 638; Wight rior Ct. (Wash.), 88 Pac. 332 (sub- v. Shelby B. B. Co., 16 B. Monr. scription by a person described as (Ky.) 4; 63 Am. Dec. 522; Jvdah "trustee" without disclosure of \.' American Live Stock Ins. Co., 4 name of principal or cestui que Ind. 333. trust); State ex rel. Biddle\. Superior Cf. Taggart v. Western Md. B. B. Court (Wash.), 87 Pac. 40 (a similar Co., 24 Md. 563 ; 89 Am. Dec. 760. case, holding that either the princi- " Cf. Farm^s' & Mech. Bank v. pal or the "trustee" is Uable). Nelson, 12 Md. 35 (where the eon- But see Hyslop v. Morrel Bros., tract was held not to be binding be- W. N. (1891) 19. cause the company's agent by whom Cf. Ex parte Bu^g, 2 Drewry & it was made had exceeded his au- Sm. 452 (where the relation was thority by failing to exact a deposit held to be that of trustee and cestui from the subscriber). gite trust and not that of agent and ° Ex parte Panmure,24Ch.D.Z67. principal). 175 § 202 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill shares is made in the name of a married woman who is incapable of contracting and who signs the application at the instance of her father without knowing its contents or effect, and where the father intends to become the substantial owner of the shares, the case is assimilated to an application in the name of a ficti- tious person, so that the contract is regarded as made by the father under his daughter's name as an alias.' § 202. Subscriptions by Agent or Trustee for the Corpora- tion itself. — A subscription by a person as trustee or agent for the company itself would seem to be a nuUity.^ There must be at least two parties to a contract. Under some circumstances — for example, where the trustee or agent represents that the subscription is real and not colorable — he inay be bound personally.^ § 203. Subscriptions by Executors. — Ordinarily, a subscrip- tion by an executor binds him personally and not the estate of his decedent.* But where a person who is executor subscribes for two sets of shares, the first individually, and the second as executor, there are, it has been held, two distinct contracts.^ § 204^§ 219. SUBSCRIPTIONS PROCURED BY FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION. § 204. Defence of Fraud in general — Laches of Subscriber. — The only argument against holding that subscriptions to shares like other contracts may be avoided by the allottee on account of fraudulent misrepresentations practised upon him by agents of the company is that the creditors of the corporation ■ — innocent third parties — have a vital interest in such sub- scriptions ; that — to use a figure of speech familiar in America — the subscriptions to the capital of a corporation constitute a ' ' trust-fund " for th& payment of its debts. This argument is not sufficiently strong to justify the courts in altogether depriving the defrauded allottee of the defence." Nevertheless, it does sharply ' Piigh and Sharsman's Case, 13 v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. Eq. 566. See also infra, § 767. 327 ; Allibone v. Hager, 46 Pa. St. Cf. Nat. Commercial Bank v. 48. McDonnell, 92 Ala. 387 ; 9 So. 149. * See also infra, § 768. ^ Holladay v. Elliott, 8 Oreg. 84. » Erie, etc. R. R. Co. v. Patrick, ' Johnston v. Allis, 71 Conn. 207 ; 2 Keyes (N. Y.) 256. 41 Atl. 816 (distinguishing Riissell ° Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone V. Bristol, 49 Conn. 251) ; Preston Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188 ; Blake's Case, 176 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS OBTAINED BY FKATJD § 205 differentiate agreements to take shares, when executed by actual issue of the shares, from other contracts. Accordingly, the law is settled on both sides of the Atlantic that a person who has been induced to take shares in a corporation by fraudulent misrepre- sentation loses the defence unless he repudiates the contract (and perhaps unless he follows up his repudiation by instituting a suit to be relieved of the shares) within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud,' or after the fraud might, by the ex- ercise of due diUgence on his part, have been discovered.^ How- ever, if a material misrepresentation be proved, the contract is prima facie voidable so that the burden of establishing laches rests on the company.^ Failure promptly to rescind may be excused where the delay is due to a request of the company or its promoters.* An attenipt to repudiate liability on the shares for some cause other than the fraudulent misreprestentation in ques- tion will not negative the inference of laches arising from the delay in discovering the fraud and in repudiating the shares on that ground.' The question whether the defrauded shareholder has used due diligence is in general a question of fact for the jury.' § 205. English Rule requiring Repudiation of Shares and Institution of Proceedings for Removal of Name from Share- Register before Winding-up or Suspension of Business. — In 34 Beav. 639 ; MuLhoUand v. Wash- Walker, 13 Nat. B. Reg. 82 ; North- ington Match Co., 35 Wash. 315; rop v. Bushnell, 38 Conn. i98. 77 Pac. 497 ; Stewart v. Rutherford, Cf. Duffield v. Barnum Wire, etc. 74 Ga. 435, and many other cases. Works, 64 Mich. 293 ; 31 N. W. 310 ; But see Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. Hinkley v. Sac Oil, etc. Co. (Iowa), 238; 11 S. E. 610; 21 Am. St. Rep. 107 N. W. 629, 634 (where a good 156; Turner v. Grangers', etc. Ins. statement will be found of the de- Co., 65 Ga. 649 ; 38 Am. Rep. gree of diligence required in suspect- 801. ing and discovering fraud). ' Central Ry. Co. v. Kisch, L. R. But see American Alkali Co. v. 2 H. L. 99 ; Tait's Case, 3 Eq. 795 ; Salom,, 131 Fed. 46, 50-51 ; 65 C. C. Ashley's Case, 9 Eq. 263 ; Sharpley A. 284. V. South Ry. Co., 2 Ch. D. 663; Re ' London & Staffordshire Fire Ins. Shearman, 66 L. J. Ch. 25 ; OgUvie Co., 24 Ch. D. 149. V. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380. See * Cox v. National Coal, etc. Co. 2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. Corps., (W. Va.), 56 S. E. 494. § 473 d. ' Upton v. TribUcock, 91 U. S. ' Wilkinson's Case, 2 Ch. 536 ; 45, 51-55. Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674 ; Lawrence's " Newton Nat. Bank v. Newbegin, Case, 2 Ch. 412; Upton v. Tribil- 74 Fed. 135; 20 C. C. A. 339; 33 cock, 91 U. S. 45, 54-55; Farrar v. L. R. A. 727. VOL. I. — 12 177 § 205 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill addition to this duty of diligence, the law in Great Britain im- poses a somewhat arbitrary restriction on the defrauded share- holder's right of defence. In that country, it will be remembered, each company is required to keep a register of its members, which shall be open to inspection by shareholders and creditors; and when a winding-up commences all those persons whose names, with their consent, have been entered on that register must be placed on the " list of contributories." The commence- ment of the winding-up proceeding, according to the construc- tion put by the British courts on the Companies Act, fixes forever the liabilities of these "contributories." Hence, a person who has been induced to take shares by fraud and whose name has been entered on the register of members, loses his defence unless prior to the winding-up he has instituted legal proceedings to have his name removed from the register ; and this is true even though he did not discover the fraud and had no opportunity of discovering it prior to the commencement of the winding-up.' This is a technical and perhaps an arbitrary rule, founded upon the peculiar nature of winding-up proceedings under the English law. Under this rule, it is not enough that the subscriber may have repudiated the contract before the winding-up; he must institute legal proceedings to have his name removed from the register.^ It was once held not to be enough that he may have set up the defence of fraud against an action for calls; ° but re- cent cases hold that to be sufficient.* It makes no difference, how- ever, that the company's assets derived from other sources are sufficient to pay the debts in full so that the defrauded share- ' Oakes v. Turqimnd, L. R. 2 Cf. Cocksedge'v. Metropolitan, etc. H. L. 325; Kent v. Freehold Land Ass'n, 64 L. T. 826. Co., 3 Ch. 493. ' Etna Ins. Co. (1871), Ir. Rep. Cf. Addlestone Linoleum Co., 37 6 Eq. 298 (where the action for calls Ch. D. 191. had been defeated on account pf the ' Scottish Petroleum Co., 23 Ch. fraud) ; Cleveland Iron Co., 16 W. R. D. 413; Ex parte Storey, 6 Times 95. L. R. 357; 62 L. T. 791. If such * WUtdey's Case (1900), 1 Ch. proceedings are instituted before 365 ; Pakenham Pork Packing Co., the winding-up is begun, it is im- 6 Ont. L. R. 582. But see Electric material that the winding-up may Welding Co. v. Prince (Mass.), 81 have supervened before they are N. E. 306, 310 (as to a subscription determined. Reese River Mining to shares in an English company). Co. V. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64. 178 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS OBTAINED BY FRAUD § 206 holder's liability is being enforced merely for the benefit of other shareholders.' If, however, one shareholder begins proceedings to compel the removal of his name from the register because of misrepresentation, an agreement between the company and other shareholders similarly situated that their claims for relief from the contract of jnembership shall abide the result of those proceedings, will entitle those shareholders to rescission of their contracts although the company may be wound-up prior to the decision of the test case ; ^ but the mere fact that, without any such agreement, other shareholders having like cause to complain began proceedings for the removal of their names from the register is not enough. If, however, the company assents to the repudiation "of the shares and strikes out the allotment, there is no occasion for legal proceedings, and consequently the allottee will be protected even though a winding-up supervenes ; ^ and this is true although the allotment is cancelled upon some ground other than the misrepresentation.^ Supervening insol- vency of the company, coupled with a closing of its doors and suspension of business, will, it seems, have the same effect in preventing a shareholder from subsequently repudiating lia- bility on the ground of fraud as the commencement of formal winding-up proceedings would have.^ These rules have no application where the shares have been declared forfeited by the company, and an action brought against the former share- holder to recover calls overdue at the time of the forfeiture; in such a case the former shareholder has become a mere debtor to the company, and like any other debtor may defend, even after the institution of liquidation proceedings, on the ground that the claim against him was obtained by the company's fraud, unless by laches or otherwise he had lost the right to set up this defence at the time of the forfeiture." § 206. American Rule as to Effect of Winding-up Proceed- ings on Defence of Fraud. — In America, the courts, it is sub- ' Burgess's Case, 15 Ch. D. 507. ° Tennent v. City of Glasgow 2 Pawle's Case, 4 Ch. 497 ; Scot- Bank, 4 A. C. 615. Mere insolvency, tish Petroleum Co., 23 Ch. D. 413 without suspension of business, will (semble). not have that effect. Ex parte Carl- « Wright's Case, 20 W. R. 45; 7 ing, 56 L. J. Ch. 321. Ch. 55; Fox's Case, 6 Eq. 118. See " Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss (1896), also infra, § 637. A. C. 273. Cf. infra, § 828. * Wright's Case, 20 W. R. 45; 7 Ch. 55. 179 § 207 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill mitted, should not follow the English decisions in holding that the supervention of insolvency or of liquidation proceedings abruptly cuts short a shareholder's right of rescission on ac- count of misrepresentation, irrespective of whether he had been guilty of laches in discovering the fraud or repudiating the shares. In this country, it would seem that after insolvency or the commencement of a suit for the winding-up of the company's affairs as well as before, the questions are whether the share- holder has used due diligence in discovering the fraud and in getting rid of the shares.^ However this may be, it would seem clear that in America a defrauded subscriber to shares who has repudiated. the contract before the known insolvency of the com- pany and before the commencement of windingmp proceedings should not be debarred from relief because he may not have instituted a suit for rescission and removal of his name from the register of shareholders.^ § 207. Election to keep Shares notwithstanding Fraud or Misrepresentation. — Even in a case where there has been no prolonged delay in repudiating the contract and in beginning proceedings to have one's name removed from the register of shareholders, or where such proceedings have actually been commenced, yet the shareholder to whom the misrepresenta- tion was made may voluntarily elect to keep the shares and thus preclude himself from raising or persisting in the defence of fraud or misrepresentation.^ Any facts evincing an intention ' Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 tion); WaUaee v. Hood,8Q Fed. 11 How. 380 ; Newton Nat. Bank v. (same point) ; Marion Trust Co. v. Newbegin, 74 Fed. 135 (semble) ; Blish (Ind.), 79 N. E. 415. Ramsey v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 116 ' Fear v. Bartlett, 81 Md. 435; Mo. 313 ; 22 S. W. 719 ; Kentucky 32 Atl. 322 ; 33 L. R. A. 721 ; Mutual, etc. Co. v. Schoefer (Ky.), Newton Nat. Bank v. Newbegin, 74 85 S. W. 1098; 27 Ky. L.Rep. 657; Fed. 135; 20 C. C. A. 339; 33 L. Dieterle v. Ann Arbor Paint, etc. Co., R. A. 727 ; Ramsey v. Thompson 107 N. W. 79; 143 Mich. 416; Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313, 22 S. W. Hinkley v. Sac Oil, etc. Co. (Iowa), 719 ; Savage v. Bartlett, 78 Md. 561 ; 107 N. W. 629. 28 Atl. 414. But see Howard v. Turner, 155 But see Howard v. Glenn, 85 Ga. Pa. St. 349; 26 Atl. 753; 35 Am. 238; 11 S. E. 610; 21 Am. St. Rep. St. Rep. 883; Howard v. Glenn, 85 156; Turner v. Grangers', etc. Ins. Ga. 238, 261; 11 S. E. 610; 21 Am. Co., 65 Ga. 649; 38 Am. Rep. 801; St. Rep. 156 ; Scott v. Latimer, 89 Howard v. Turner, 155 Pa. St. 349 ; Fed. 843; 33 C. C. A. 1 (where 26 Atl. 753 ; 35 Am. St. Rep. 883 (nil- statutory liabiUty to creditors under ing on plaintiff's second "point"), the National Bank Act was in ques- ' Wilson v. Hundley, 96 Va. 96 ; 180 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS OBTAINED BY FRAUD § 208 to retain ownership of the shares after learning of the fraud will have that effect — such as payment of calls,' voting at shareholders' meetings,^ receiving dividends,' attempting to sell the shares,* etc. Doing these things will not, however, de- prive the shareholder of the defence unless he had previously discovered the misrepresentation.^ Moreover, the fact that a defrauded allottee has trafficked in other shares in the same company will not preclude him frpm rescinding the fraudulent contract." Moreover, the fact that the shareholder has repu- diated the contract on some ground other than that of fraud will not preclude him from subsequently setting up the defence of fraud.' § 208. Necessity for returmng Sbaxes to Company. — An allottee of shares cannot rescind the contract because of fraud unless he is in a position to place the company in statu quo by surrendering the shares.' Hence, if a person is induced by fraud to take shares in an unincorporated association, his assent to its becoming incorporated, so that the shares in the unincor- porated association cease to exist and consequently cannot be restored on rescission of the contract, will prevent him from rescinding the subscription on account of the fraud." Simi- larly, if the defrauded allottee transfers the shares to his infant 30 S. E. 492; 70 Arh. St. Rep. 837; » Scholey v. Central By. Co:, 9 Franey v. Wauwatosa Park Co., 99 Eq. 266 n. Wise. 40 ; 74 N. W. 548. * Ex parte Briggs, 1 Eq. 483. ' See Whitehouse's Case, 3 Eq. ^ Mount Morgan Gold Mine, 3 , 790 ; Be Shearman, 66 L. J. Ch. 25 ; Times L. R. 556. Marten V. Burns Wine Co., 99 Cal. " Midholland v. Washington Match 355; 33 Pac. 1107. Co., 35 Wash. 315; 77 Pac. 497. Cf. Fear v. Bartlett, 81 Md. 435; ' Alabama Foundry, etc. Works 32 Atl. 322; 33 L. R. A. 721. v. Dallas, 29 So. 459; 127 Ala. 513. " Fovlkes v. Quartz HiU, etc. Min^ * Cf. Maine v. Midland Invest- ing Co., Cababe & Ellis, 156; Mar- ment Co. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 801. ten V. Burns Wine Co., 99 Cal. 355 ; As to whether the defrauded sub- 33 Pao. 1107. scriber is bound to return the identical Cf. Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 shares issued to him or whether it is How. 380, 391 (headnote inade- enough to return an equal number of quate). the same class of shares, cf. § 501. But see Tomlin's Case (1898), 1 ° Western Bank v. Addie, L. R. Ch. 104. Mere attendance at a meet- 1 H. L. (Sc.) 185. As to the effect ing without voting has been held of assenting to a reorganization not to be a condonation of the mis- scheme, cf. Spreckds v. Gorrill (Cal.), representation. Ex parte Edwards, 92 Pao. 1011. 64 L. T. 561. Cf. Maine v. Midland Investment Co. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 801. 181 § 209 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill children, he puts it out of his power to return them, and is there- fore pj-ecluded from rescinding on the ground of the fraud.' The fact, however, that in ignorance of the fraud a shareholder has sold some of the shares which he was induced to take will not prevent him from repudiating the contract so far as the shares remaining under his control are concerned.^ In order to rescind for fraud or misrepresentation, the allottee must offer to restore any dividends that may have been paid to him.' § 209. Defence of Fraud available either at Law or in Equity. — The defence that a contract to take shares in a corporation was procured by the fraud of the company, when available to the shareholder at all, is good at law as well as in equity; * but the better practice is to file a bill in equity for rescission of the contract of subscription.^ The defrauded shareholder is not precluded from asking equitable intervention because the shares may have been issued at a discount.*' § 210. Recovering back Money paid in on the Shares. — ■ Upon rescission of an allotment of shares on account of mis- representation, the allottee is entitled to recover from the com- pany any sums he may have paid on the shares, by way of deposits on application or allotment, or otherwise,' with interest thereon.' The decree for such repayment may go against the • Francis v. New York, etc. R. R. Bosher v. R. & H. Land Co., 89 Va. Co., 108 N. Y. 93; 15 N. E. 192. 455; 16 S. E. 360; 37 Am. St. Eep. ' Mount Morgan Gold Mine, 3 879 (similar point to that of last Times L. R. 556. Cf. American case). Cf. Barcus v. Gates, 89 Fed. Alkali Co. v. Salom, 131 Fed. 46, 783; 32 C. C. A. 337; Negley v. 49-50; 65 C. C. A. 284. Hagerstown Mfg. Co., 86 Md. 692; ' WaUace v. Hood, 89 Fed. 11, Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79. 15 (headnote inadequate) ; Marten But see Dorsey Machine Co. v. V. Burns Wine Co., 99 Cal. 355; McCaffrey, 139 Ind. 545; 38 N. E. 33 Pac. 1107. 208; 47 Am. St. Rep. 290. * Bwlchr-y-Plwm Mining Co. v. ° Barcus v. Gates, 89 Fed. 783; Baymes, L. R. 2 Ex. 324 ; American 32 C. C. A. 337. Alkali Co. v. Salom, 131 Fed. 46, ' Karberg's Case (1892), 3 Ch. 1 ; 50 ; 65 C. C. A. 284. Grangers' Ins. Co. v. Turner, 61 Ga. '= Mack V. Latta, 178 N. Y. 525 ; 561 ; Ramsey v. Thompson Mfg. 71 N. E. 97; 67 L. R. A. 126 (join- Co., 116 Mo. 313; 22 S. W. 719. ing claim for damages against the Cf. Stewart v. Austin, 3 Eq. 299 ; directors for deceit) ; Manning v. Stewart v. Rutherford, 74 Ga. 435. Berdan, 135 Fed. 159; Sherman v. ^ Ex parte Wainwright, 59 L. J. Am. Stove Co., 85 Mich. 169; 48 Ch. 281; 'McClanahan v. Ivanhoe N. W. 537 (where two shareholders Land, etc. Co., 96 Va. 124 ; 30 S. E. tmited in a single suit for rescission) ; 450. 182 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS OBTAINED BY FRAUD § 213 individual officers or agents who participated in the fraud as well as against the corporation itself.' § 211. Fraud practised on original Subscriber no Defence to Transferee. — The defence that a subscription was induced by fraud is personal to the defrauded subscriber and cannot be set up by a transferee.^ On the other hand, the mere fact that a subscriber may have paid a bonus to a third person in order to secure the allotment of the shares is not conclusive evidence that he should be regarded as a transferee from that person and as such deprived of the defence of fraud.^ § 212. Action for Damages for Deceit by defrauded Sub- scriber. - — A person who is induced by fraud to subscribe for shares in a corporation cannot retain the shares and at the same time maintain an action of tort for deceit against the company. If for any reason his right to rescind is lost, he cannot sue the company in tort for deceit.* His rights in that respect differ from those of a person who has been induced by fraud to pur- chase land, chattels, or ordinary choses in action. It would seem, however, that the defrauded subscriber may maintain an action of tort for deceit against the individual officers or agents who were guilty of fraud, although he be disabled or averse from giving up the shares.^ § 213-§ 219. What sufficient Fraud or Misre'presentation to justify Rescission. § 213. In general. — In respect to the question' what will amount to such fraud or misrepresentation as will afford a de- fence to an agreement to take shares, such a contract does not ' Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S. 79; But see Dorsey Machine Co. v. Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., McCaffrey, 139 Ind. 545 ; 38 N. E. 29 N. J. Eq. 188; Mack v. Latta, 208; 47 Am. St. Rep. 290. 178 N. Y. 525; 71 N. E. 97; 67 ' Cf. Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. L. R! a. 126. 558 ; Austin v. Murdoch, 127 N. Car. 2 BerrymUe Land, etc. Co. v. 454 ; 37 S. E. 478, Getchell v. Dusen^ Z-euJts, 19 S. E. Rep. 781 (Va.). hury (Mich.), 108 N. W. 723; ' McClanahan v. Ivanhoe Land, Luetzke v. Roberts (Wise), 109 etc. Co., 96 Va. 124; 30 S. E. 450. N. W. 949; HaU v. Old Talargoch * Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow Lead Mining Co., 3 Ch. D. 749 Bon/c, 5 A. C. 317; Wilson y. Hund- (when the court refused to stay ley, 96 Va. 96 ; 30 S. E.492 ; 70 Am. proceedings in an action by a sub- St. Rep. 837. Cf. Wallace v. Hood, scriber against the company and 89 Fed. 11, 22-23. the directors jointly). See also, 183 § 214 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHAEES [ChAP. Ill differ from other contracts.' It has been held that if the mis- representation be material and be relied upon by the subscriber, he may rescind the contract even though he would have sub- scribed had no misrepresentation been made.^ Certainly, the defrauded subscriber may rescind without showing that the shares were worth less than he paid for them.^ Some authorities maintain that an agreement to take shares in a corporation is within the class of contracts uberrimae fdei which are voidable for mere non-disclosure without proof of actual misrepresenta- tion ; * but the prevalent and better opinion is that this is not so, and that such agreements are voidable for non-disclosure only when the suppressio veri makes that which is stated false or misleading.^ § 214. Misrepresentation as to Corporation Afiairs. — Cer- tain cases of representations relating to corporation affairs in- volve questions which do not usually arise except with respect to contracts to take shares. A statement in a prospectus that A is a director will justify rescission of a contract of subscrip- tion to shares, although the representation may have been true at the time, if A retires before allotment.' A statement in a prospectus that A was expected to become a director is deemed untrue where A had expressed an intention of becoming a director but had not authorized the publication of his name.' A representation that undrawn profits to a large amount had Grover v. Cavanaugh (Ind.), 82 N. E. But see Pvlsford v. Richards, 17 104 (holding that oral misrepre- Beav. 87. eentations by officers as to the ' Stern v. Kirkby Lumber Co., 134 financial condition of the company Fed. 509 ; Spreckels v. Gorrill (Cal.), will sustain an action by the de- 92 Pac. 1011. frauded subscriber notwithstanding * Anson on Contracts, 8th ed.. Lord Tenterden's Act). 160. Cf. Components Tube Co. v. 1 Central By. Co. v. Kisch, L. R. Naylor (1900), 2 Ir. 1 ; New Bruns- 2 H. L. 99. unck, etc. Co. v. Muggeridge, 1 Dr. & Cf. Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 Sm. 363. H. L. 325 ; Jackson v. Turquand, ° Cf . Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss, L. R. 4 H. L. 305 ; London & Stafford- (1896), A. C. 273 ; Central Ry. Co. v. shire Fire Ins. Co., 24 Ch. D. 149; Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. 99; Pvlsford w. Smith V. Reese River Co., 2 Eq. 264 Richards, 17 Beav. 87. (in substance affirmed in Reese River ° Anderson's Case, 17 Ch. D. 373; Co. V. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 64); Scottish Petroleum Co., 23 00..!). il3. Wainm-ight's Case, 63 L. T. 429; ' Karberg's Case (1892), 3 Ch. 1. Byers Bros. v. Maxwell (Tex.), 73 Cf. Ex parte Wainwright, 59 S. W. 437. L. J. Ch. 281. = Ex parte Carting, 56 L. J. Ch. 32 1 . 184 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS OBTAINED BY FRAUD § 216 been appropriated as a "reserve fund" is not the less true because the profits in question were not invested as a separate fund but were made part of the working capital.' A repre- sentation that no shares had been sold for less than par is very material.^ The same is true of a representation that the com- pany is legally incorporated, whereas in fact some of the pro- ceedings necessary to secure limited liability have been omitted.* On the other hand, a representation that neighbors and friends of the subscriber have also agreed to become shareholders has been thought immaterial.* This decision, however, must be supported, if at all, upon the ground that the representation was too indefinite to be relied upon; for a representation that a named person has subscribed is certainly material and will justify rescission if the individual in question was not a bona fide subscriber.^ A representation that the company is free from debt has been held to mean that the land which constitutes its only property is unincumbered." § 215. Misrepresentation as to Matters of Law. — By the principle of law usually accepted in England and America, con- tracts are not voidable for misrepresentation, even though fraud- ulent, as to matters of law ; and hence agreements to take shares cannot be avoided because they may have been induced by fraudulent misstatements as to the powers of the company under its act of incorporation or as to the purport or effect of the general enabling act, if the company be organized under a general law.' Hence, also, a wilfully false statement that the shares are " non-assessable " will not be ground for repudiation of liability.^ § 216. Misrepresentation as to Contents of Incorporation Paper. — Misrepresentation as to the contents of the incorpora- ' Kennedy v. Acadia Pulp, etc. 503; Alabama Foundry, etc. Works Co., 38 Nova Scotia 291. v. DaUas, 29 So. 459 ; 127 Ala. 513. ^ Hubbard v. International Mer- « Tinker v. Kier, 195 Mo. 183 ; 94 cantUe Agency (N. J.), 59 Atl. 24. S. W. 501. Cf. Wenstrom Consol., etc. Co. v. ' 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., PurneU, 75 Md. 113, 122 ; 23 Atl.134. 2d ed., § 95. ' Maine v. Midland Investment Cf. Clem v. Newcastle, etc. R. R. Co. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 801. Co., 9 Ind. 488; 68 Am. Dec. 653. * Haskell v. Worthington, 94 Mo. « Upton v. TribUcock, 91 U. S. 45 ; 560 ; 7 S. W. 481. Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213 ; 81 ' Cf. Coles v. Kennedy, 81 Iowa Am. Dec. 385 ; Ellison v. Mobile, etc. 360; 46N.W.1088; 25 Am. St. Rep. B. R. Co., 36 Miss. 572. ,185 § 217 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill tion paper may entitle a person who has agreed to take shares on the faith thereof to repudiate the agreement.' In England the opinion has been advanced that such misrepresentation, after the paper has been recorded and therefore after the appli- cants for shares have an opportunity of examining it for them- selves, will not justify rescission,^ and the same principle has been approved in America ; ^ but nevertheless this opinion seems to be without support in principle especially where the misrepre- sentation is fraudulent.^ The doctrine of constructive notice should not be perverted into a cover for fraud.'' Such misrep- resentations usually occur in cases of departure from the original scheme laid down for the company by its promoters in a pros- pectus published before incorporation. The mere fact of such departure affords no defence to a person who has subscribed for shares after the incorporation paper, embodying the altered scheme, has been executed and recorded, unless the original prospectus or other statements setting forth the original scheme be circulated after the change was made, and be brought to the knowledge of and relied upon by the applicant for shares. The case of an application for shares made prior to incorporation, as affected by subsequent departures from the original scheme, is considered below." § 217. Misrepresentation unauthorized by Corporation. — In order that a contract of subscription to shares may be re- scinded for misrepresentation, it is in general necessary that the misrepresentation be proved to have been made by an agent of the corporation duly authorized to make representations for the purpose of inducing persons to subscribe to the shares.' Re- scission may, however, be had on account of misrepresentation, which was made by promoters prior to the company's incor- poration. If the company accepts an application for shares, ' Central By. Co. v. Kisch, L. R. agreement to take shares, although 2 H. L. 99. the prospectus referred apphcants ^ Cf. Ross V. Estate Investment for shares to a recorded document Co., 3 Eq. 122 ; Oakes v Turquand, inspection of which would have dis- L. R. 2 H. L. 325. closed the untruth of the mis- ^ Oil City Land, etc. Co. v. Porter, representations). 99 Ky. 254; 35 S. W. 643. ' See supra, § 162. * Cf. Langham v. East Rose " Infra, §.258. Wheal, etc. Co., 37 L. J. Ch. 253 ' Newlands v. National Errir (where a misleading prospectus players, etc. Ass'n, 54 L. J. Q. B. 428. was held to justify rescission of an 186 § 163-§ 260] HOW SUBSCRIPTION PERFORMED § 220 which was made, and is known by the company to have been made, in reliance upon statements of promoters made before incorporation, the corporation thereby adopts those representa- tions, so that they have the same effect in rendering the agree- ment voidable as if they had been made by agents of the company after its formation.' § 218. Misrepresentation as to Nature of Transaction. — Where misrepresentation goes to the nature of the transaction — for example, where a person signs a subscription to shares under the belief, induced by fraud, that he is merely depositing money in a bank — he never becomes a shareholder and may apparently repudiate the shares in spite of delay or of the super- vention of winding-up proceedings.^ § 219. Misrepresentation as to Identity of Company. — In a case of misrepresentation or mistake as to the identity of the company whose shares are applied for, there is no meeting of minds and therefore no contract at all. For example, it was held in England that where a person received an allotment of shares in a company recently incorporated, the application having been made under the erroneous belief, fostered by the directors, that the company was a different and long-established corporation, there was no meeting of minds and therefore no contract at all — not even a voidable one ; so that the allottee was not liable in respect of the shares although the company went into liquidation before he repudiated ownership.^ § 220. How Contract of Subscription may be performed. — A contract to subscribe for or to take shares in a corporation is satisfied either by. personally accepting the shares or by finding some one else who will do so.* Performance by the corporation means the issue of valid shares. It does not necessarily include the issue of a share-certificate.^ If the contract calls for paid-up ' Karberg's Case (1892), 3 Ch. 1. =■ National Ins., etc. Ass'n, 4^ DeG. Cf. Lynde v. Anglo-Italian, etc. F. & J. 78. Spinning Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 178; ' BoiiZie's Case (1898), 1 Ch. 110. Stewart v. Rutherford, 74 Ga. 435; Cf. Stewart v. Austin, 3 Eq. 299. and infra, § 257 and § 337. But see * London & Colonial Finance Gourlie v. Chandler, 41 Nova Scotia Corp., 77 L. T. 146. 341. ' Infra, § 233 and supra, § 171. 187 § 221 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHAKES [ChAP. Ill shares, the company can perform its part only by issuing shares which are in fact and law fully paid up." § 221-§ 227. CONDITIONAL AGREEMENTS TO TAKE SHARES. § 221-§ 223. Conditions Precedent. § 221. In general. — Conditional subscriptions to shares have occasioned considerable diversity of judicial opinion. We shall first consider subscriptions upon a condition precedent — that is to say, agreements to become a shareholder in a corpora- tion if a certain contingency occurs. The objection to such agreements is that, if they are binding, they tie up the com- pany and prevent it from allotting the shares to other applicants who might be willing to accept the same unconditionally, and yet do not enable the corporation to call in the portion of the capital represented by the shares so subscribed for. In other words, if such agreements are binding, the company incurs at once all the disadvantages of an absolute allotment, but receives none of the benefits until the condition is performed. Accord- ingly, it is usually laid down in America that either party may withdraw from such conditional agreements at any time before the condition is performed.' According to these authorities, such conditional subscriptions, are void as contracts but operate as offers which may be accepted by performing the condition.' Some cases hold that conditional subscriptions are not contrary to law, and that therefore the subscriber cannot withdraw even before the condition is performed.* Of course, unless the con- ' Ecuadorian Ass'n v. Ecuador If the performance of the con- Co. (N. J.), 65 Atl. 1051 (headnote dition lies pecuUarly within the inadequate). See infra, § 233, § 779, company's knowledge, the sub- and § 789. scriber will not -be bound unless the ' See 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., company give him notice of per- 2d ed., § 78-§ 81. formance. Chase v. Sycamore, etc. Cf. TaggaH v. Western Md. R. B. R. R. Co., 38 111. 215. Co., 24 Md. 563 ; 89 Am. Dec. 760 * New Albany, etc. R. R. Co. v. (semble) ; Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. McCormickj 10 Ind. 499 ; 71 Am. Pumphrey, 74 Md. 86; 21 Atl. 559. Dec. 337; Cravens v. Eagle Cotton ' Webh V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. MiZZs Co., 120 Ind. 6 ; 2lN. E. 981; Co., 77 Md. 92 ; 26 Atl. 113 ; 39 Am. 16 Am. St. Rep. 298 ; Philadelphia, St. Rep. 396 ; Ashtabula, etc. R. Co. etc. R. R. Co. v. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. V. Smith, 15 Oh. St. 328, 335; 31S; Van AUen v. Illinois Central R. Taggart v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 24 R. Co., 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 515, 523-524 Md. 563; 89 Am. Dec. 760. (holding that the company is bound). 188 § 163-§ 260] CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS § 222 dition is performed, the subscriber cannot be held even though his name may have been entered by the company on the register of members,^ unless indeed the condition be waived by acting as shareholder or otherwise.^ Such waiver will not be binding if the subscriber believed that the condition had been performed.^ The fact of filing an application for- removal of the applicant's name from the register of shareholders on the ground that his subscription had been obtained by fraud will not amount to waiver of non-performance of a condition precedent.* If sub- scriptions upon conditions precedent are legally no subscrip- tions at all until the condition be performed or waived, they cannot be counted in calculating whether the capital has been completely subscribed.^ § 222. Underwriting Agreements. — Inasmuch as the only objection to subscriptions upon conditions precedent is that they tie up the company and prevent the allotment of the shares to persons who might be willing to subscribe unconditionally. Perhaps, this is the law in Eng- "waiver" as the making of a new land. See Hirsch v. Burns, 77 L. T. contract is forcibly pointed out. 377; Consolidated Copper Co. v. See also Lane v. Brainard, 30 Peddle, 5 Rettie 393 ; Shaw's Case, Conn. 565, 579 (waiver by acting as 34 L. T. 715. director) ; Wheatcroft's Case, 42 Cf. Racine County Bank v. Ayers, L. J. Ch. 853 ; Imperial Land 12 Wise. 512 (where the court said Corporation, 16 W. R. 1191 (acting that the conditional subscription as director held not proof of waiver was valid but where the actual of condition); Slipher v. Earhart, decision was that upon performance 83 Ind. 173 (waiver by executing of the condition, the subscriber not unconditional note for amount of having previously withdrawn became shares); Chamherlain v. PainesvUle, bound). etc. R. R. Co., 15 Oh. St. 225 (waiver ' Rogers' Case, 3 Ch. 633 ; Simp- by executing unconditional note) ; son's , Case, 4 Ch. 184 ; Sunken Dayton, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hatch, 1 Vessels Recovery Co., 3 De G. & J. 85. Disney (Oh.) 84 (payment of calls, Cf. Wood's Case, 15 Eq./236; voting as shareholder, etc.); Elder v. New Zealand Co., 30 L. T. Wyman v. Bowman, 127 Fed. 257, 285 ; Audenried v. East Coast Mill- 265-266 ; 62 C. C. A. 189. ing Co., 59 Atl. 577 (N. J.). But see Ridgefield, etc. R. R. Co. But see Bedford R. R. Co. v. v. Reynolds, 46 Conn. 375 (where Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29; Boyd v. the condition was held not to be Peach Bottom Ry. Co., 90 Pa. St. 169. waived by acting as shareholder). These Pennsylvania cases may per- ' Hawkins v. Citizens Real Estate, haps be supported on the ground etc. Co. (Oreg.), 64 Pac. 320. that the condition was really a * Tomlin's Case, 14 Times L. R. condition subsequent. 53. ' Cf. supra, § 194. 1 Morawetz " Centred Turnpike Corp. v. Valenr on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 91-§ 93, tine, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 142. where the nature of the so-called 189 § 223 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill it follows that if the company is left free to allot the shares to any one else, the conditional subscription is vahd, and binds the conditional subscriber. For this reason, underwriting agree- ments, or contracts to take certain shares if they are not subscribed by the public, are valid and binding upon the underwriter/ § 223. Bonds or Scrip convertible into Shares. — The issue of bonds or scrip convertible into shares at the option of the holder is really a subscription to the shares upon a condition precedent and is hable to the same objections. If the company is bound by the conditional agreement, it cannot allot the shares to any one else until the time for performance of the condition be passed. If this reasoning be sound, the issue of such con- vertible bonds would not be lawful without affirmative statutory authority; or at any rate the corporation would not be Uable for allotting the shares to third persons, or for repudiating the option in any other manner, at any time before the exercise of the option. In at least one case, however, this argument did not prevail, but on the contrary the court held that the cor- poration could not escape from the obligation to exchange the bonds for shares.^ At any rate, the issue of bonds con- vertible into shares at the option of the company would not be open to any such objection; for the company would still be at liberty to allot the shares to other persons and would therefore run no risk of losing unconditional subscribers to its capital. § 224r-§ 226. Conditions Subsequent. § 224. In general. — A subscription to shares coupled with a condition subsequent — that is to say, an agreement to be- come a shareholder subject to the proviso that in a certain con- tingency the subscriber shall cease to be a shareholder — is so far good that if shares are actually issued to the subscriber, the issue is valid; the condition should be rejected as repugnant. ' Cf. Re Hooley (1899), 2 Q. B. Cf. Denney v. Cleveland, etc. R. R. 679. See infra, § 439. Co., 28 Oh. St. 108 (where the ' Van AUen v. Illinois Central question was left open). R. R. Co., 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 515. 190 § 163-§ 260] CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS § 225 ultra vires, and void.' The issue of shares as collateral security for a debt of the company seems to be permitted, and if so must be deemed an exception to the principle just stated.^ Moreover, a condition that in a certain event some other person shall be substituted as shareholder does no more than provide for a transfer, and is valid.^ A condition that, upon failure to pay calls or the like, the subscriber's membership shall cease is sub- stantially equivalent to the reservation of a power of forfeiture (which the law would imply without express words) and would therefore seem to be unobjectionable.* What is intended as a condition subsequent, while ineffective as a condition, may operate as a promise on the part of the company to perform the intended condition so as to give the shareholder a right of action against the company for damages in case of breach.^ § 225. Redeemable Shares. — Redeemable shares are really shares issued upon a condition subsequent. Nevertheless, it is generally held in America that, even without the affirmative statutory authority which sometimes exists, redeemable shares ' Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. Biggar, 34 Pa. St. 455; Southport, etc. Banking Co., 55 L. J. Ch. 497; Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 446 ; 22 Am. Rep. 199 ; Addison's Case, 5 Ch. 294; Bedford R. R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29; Stunt v. Newark Weldless, etc. Co., 22 Oh. Circ. Ct. 120; Chamberlain v. PainesvUle, etc. R. R. Co., 15 Oh. St. 225, 247 (semble) ; Australian Pro- ducers & Traders, 31 Vict. L. R. 511 (a strong case). Cf. Black & Co.'s Case, 8 Ch. 254, 258-260 (headnote inadequate) ; Pellatt's Case, 2 Ch. 527, 532-533; Mare v. Anglo-Indian S. S. Co., 3 Times L. R. 142 ; Fort MiOer, etc. Co. v. Payne, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 567, 679; Boyd v. Peach Bottom Ry. Co., 90 Pa. St. 169 ; Bucksport, etc. R. R. Co. V. Buck, 68 Me. 81, 84^85 (headnote inadequate). But see Vent v. Dvluth Coffee, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 307; 67 N. W. 70; Porter v. Plymouth Gold Mining Co., 29 Mont. 347; 74Pac.938; 101 Am. St. Rep. 569. A fortiori, the rule stated in the text applies where the condition is kept secret. Great Western Tel. Co. V. Haight, 49 111. App. 633; White Mountains R. R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124; Olmstead v. Vance, etc. Co., 196 III. 236; 63 N. E. 634. ^ Cf. Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20 ; 2 Sup. Ct. 10 ; McLean- Bowman Co., 138 Fed. 181. But see Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15 ; 99 Am. Dec. 237 (where it was said that stock cannot be issued as collateral security for the com- pany's own debt) ; Addison's Case, 5 Ch. 294. « Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390. But cf. Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389. * Cf. Weeks v. Silver Islet, etc. Mining Co., 23 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1. But see Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178. ^ Chamberlain v. Painesmlle, etc. R. R. Co., 15 Oh. St. 225, 247 (semble) ; Stunt v. Newark Weldless, etc. Co., 22 Oh. Circ. Ct. 120 (sem- ble). 191 § 226 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill may be issued whether the option of redemption rests with the shareholder '■ or with the company.^ Wherever corporations are held to have an implied power to pm-chase their own shares it is not surprising that this conclusion should be reached. § 226. Shares convertible into Bonds. — The issue of shares convertible into bonds or debentures is likewise really an issue subject to a condition subsequent. The issue of such convertible shares is sometimes expressly authorized by statute. Apart from statute, it is submitted that a provision for conversion into bonds should be held to be illegal; but undoubtedly many American courts — particularly those courts which concede the power of a corporation to purchase its own shares — would uphold such a provision even without the aid of any statute. Where conver- sion of shares into bonds is provided for, and no time is expressly limited for an exercise of the option by the shareholder, he must nevertheless exercise it within a reasonable time and cannot be allowed to call for bonds in exchange for his shares, after the lapse of years and after the company has become insolvent.* § 227. Whether Agreement to be construed as Absolute or Conditional and whether Condition to be construed as Precedent or Subsequent. — Considerable difficulties may be experienced in determining whether a subscription should be construed to be conditional,^ and if so whether the condition should be con- > Brovme v. St. Paid Plow Works, Co. v. Camden (Va), 56 S. E. 561 ; 62 Minn. 90 ; 64 N. W. 66 ; Vent v. Lindsay v. Arlington Co-op. Ass'n, Duluth Coffee, etc. Co., 64 Minn. 307 ; 186 Mass. 371 ; 71 N. E. 797. 67 N. W. 70 ; Wisconsin LMmber Co. But see Olmstead v. Vance, etc. V. Greene, 127 Iowa. 350; 101 N. W. Co., 196 111. 236; 63 N. E. 634; 742 ; 109 Am. St. Rep. 387 ; 69 L. Long v. Gxielph Lumber Co., 31 Up. R. A. 968 ; Oaehle's Piano Mfg. Co. Can. C. P. 129 ; Boley v. Sonora V. Berg, 45 Md. 113 (holding that Development Co. (Mo.), 103 S. W. shareholder on exercising option is 975. entitled to the par value of the shares ' Hackett v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., and not merely to the value at the 36 N. Y. Misc. 583 ; 73 N. Y. Supp. time of redemption as impaired by 1087. losses, but, query, whether this case " Cadin v. Gre&n, 120 N. Y. 441 ; can stand with Maryland Trust Co. 24 N. E. 941. V. Nat. Mechanics' Bank, 102 Md. Of. Mclntyre v. E. Bement's Sons 608 ; 63 Atl. 70) ; Fremont Carriage (Mich.), 109 N. W. 45. Co. v. Thomsen, 91 N. W. 376; 65 * See Lane v. Brainard, 30 Nebr. 370; United States Mineral Conn. 565; Shaw's Case, 34 L. T. 192 § 163-§ 260] CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS § 227 strued to be precedent or subsequent. In doubtful cases, the courts incline to hold the subscription to be conditional, and the condition to be a condition precedent.' Thus, where a letter of allotment contained a provision that after payment of the allotment money no further call would be made until the report of a committee of directors appointed to investigate a mine which the company was formed to purchase, and that "if the board resolve not to purchase the mine, the money will be returned to the shareholders without deduction," the Scotch Court of Session held that the allotment was subject to a condition precedent.^ So, where the subscriber's name was entered on the register of shareholders, but with a memo- randum stating that the allotment was conditional, and where the share-certificates were deposited in escrow to await the performance of the condition, the court held that the condition was a condition precedent.' So, where an application for shares is made as a part of a scheme for the amalgamation of two companies and upon the supposition that the amalgama- tion will be consummated, if for any reason the consolidation is not accomplished or is set aside, the application falls with it.* Where the application for shares is made by the sub- scriber on the faith of a prospectus, a condition inserted in the prospectus may sometimes be read into the offer of the sub- scriber. Thus, where the prospectus states that no allotment 715 (where the condition was that 25 Fed. 544; Bitcksport, etc. R. R. the applicant should be app6inted Co. v. Brewer, 67 Me. 295 ; Parker v. director) ; Re Mogridge, 57 L. J. Ch. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213 ; 81 Am. Dec.358. 932 (condition that applicant should But see Paducah, etc. Railroad Co. be appointed manager) ; Rankin v. v. Parks, 86 Tenn. 554 ; 8 S. W. 842 ; Hop, etc. Exchange Co., 20 L. T. 207 ; Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co., 120 Simpson v. Heaton's, etc. Co., 19 Ind. 6'; 21 N. E. 981; 16 Am. St. W. R. 614; Morrow v. Iron & Rep. 298; Australian Producers & Steel Co., 87 Tenn. 262; 10 S. W. Traders, 31 Vict. L. R. 511; NoHh 495; 10 Am. St. Rep. 658 ; 3 L. R. MissouriR.R.Co.Y.Maier,31Mo.l9. A. 37 ; Chamberlain v. Painesville, '' Consolidated Copper Co. v. etc. R. R. Co., 15 Oh. St. 225; Peddie, 5 Rettie 393. Swartwout v. Michigan Air Line ' Spitzel v. Chinese Corp., 15 R. R. Co., 24 Mich. 389 ; Sweeney v. Times L. R. 281. Tenn., etc. R. R. Co. (Tenn.), 100 But see Sovihport, etc. Banking S. W. 732 (subscription construed Co., 55 L. J. Ch. 497. not to be conditional but merely * Bank of Hindustan v. Alison, subject to special terms). L. R. 6 C. P. 222 ; Stace and Worth's ' Cf. Sunken Vessels Recovery Co., Case, 4 Ch. 682. 3 De G. & J. 85 ; Cook v. Chittenden, But see Campbell's Case, 9 Ch. 1, VOL. I. — 13 193 § 228 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill will be made until a certain number of shares have been sub- scribed, an application for shares based thereon is subject to that condition precedent and cannot be accepted until the stipulated number of shares have been subscribed.' § 228. Subscriptions on Special Terms. — Subscriptions on special terms differ from conditional subscriptions in that, while the rights or liabilities of the shareholder are, by agreement, varied from those which the law annexes to the status in the absence of any special arrangement, still there is no proviso that, in case of lack of compliance with the agreement for special rights or liabilities, the subscriber shall cease to be a shareholder.^ It is perfectly competent for the company to make special terms with a shareholder as to his rights and liabilities, provided only such special terms do not conflict with some statutory provision or with the policy of the incorpora- tion laws, or infringe in some way the rights of dissenting shareholders. Usually subscriptions on special terms confer special rights in respect to dividends, in which case they belong to the topic of preferred shares,' or else they attempt to regulate the time or manner of payment for the shares, in which case they are part of the subject of payment for shares — a topic considered below.^ § 229. Application of Parol Evidence Rule. — In deaKng with questions as to subscriptions alleged to be conditional or subject to special terms, the parol evidence rule must constantly be borne in mind. Written subscriptions to shares Uke other contracts in writing cannot be varied by proof of special parol terms or conditions.^ § 230. Subscriptions in Excess of Autborized Capital. — The subjects of excessive subscriptions for shares and of over- ' Finance and Issue v. Canadian Thornsburgh v. Newcastle, etc. B. R. Produce Corp. (1905), 1 Ch. 37, 45. Co., 14 Ind. 499; Thigpen v. Misji- ' Sweeney v. Tenn., etc. R. R. Co. sippi Central R. R. Co., 32 Miss. (Tenn.), 100 S. W. 732, 736. 347 ; Smith v. Tallahassee, etc. Plank ' Infra, § 525 et seq. • Road Co., 30 Ala. 650; Wight v. ' Infra, § 774 et seq. Shelby R. R. Co., 16 B. Monr. (Ky.) " New Albany, etc. R. R. Co. v. 4 ; 63 Am. Dec. 522. Fields, 10 Ind. 187 ; Vicksburg, etc. Cf . Cass v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co., is. jB. V. McKean, 12 La. Ann. 638 ; 80 Pa. St. 31. See also supra, § 185. 194 § 163-§ 260] EXCESSIVE subscriptions § 230 issued shares are involved in no- little obscurity. Of course, where the capital of a corporation is limited, the company has no right to issue shares in excess of the prescribed limit; but the mere fact that the company has agreed to issue more shares than it can lawfully issue does not release subscribers to whom the company is able and willing to issue valid shares.^ If after issuing shares to the full amount of its authorized capital, it should undertake to issue additional shares, the contract so to do would be ultra vires and unenforceable either by or against the company. Even if the contract should, so far as possible, be executed by the issue of share-certificates and otherwise, the allottees would acquire (unless under very exceptional cir- cumstances) no rights of membership.^ If the overissued shares should be transferred to bona fide purchasers, the com- pany might be estopped from questioning the validity of the shares in their- hands ;^ so that they would have a cause of action against the company for damages ; but not even bona fide purchasers would be actual shareholders, so as to be entitled to vote, for example, or to participate in dividends.* Of course, no vitra vires increase of capital can affect the vested rights and obligations of persons who have already become shareholders.^ In a case of mere executory contracts to issue shares in ex- cess of the authorized capital, it would seem that holders of the first contracts in point of time would be entitled to a pref- erence in the distribution of the authorized shares. Neverthe- less, those who without notice of any outstanding equities first attain the position of actual shareholders, and thus become intrenched behind the legal title, will prevail over persons who subscribed before them but to whom no shares had been actually issued before the authorized capital was exhausted. The subscribers to whom the company can issue no shares by reason of the exhaustion of the entire authorized capital have a good claim for damages against the company.' ' Oler V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., ' Infra, § 909, § 680. 41 Md. 583; Shick v. Citizens' < Ibid. Enterprise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329; ^ Cartwright v. Dickinson, 88 67 Am. St. Rep. 230. Tenn. 476 ; 12 S. W. 1030 ; 17 Am.. But see Bristol Creamery Co. v. St. Rep. 910; 7 L. R. A. 706. Cf. TUton, 70 N. H. 239; 47 Atl. Rep. infra, § 581. 691. ° Birmingham Nat. Bank v.. ' Infra, § 679, § 580. Roden, 97 Ala. 404; 11 So. 883. 196 § 231 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill Still more difficult questions arise where the valid shares cannot be traced and distinguished from the overissued shares. Such confusion cannot so readily occur in England, where each share is distinguished by a denoting number; and indeed the English system of numbering shares is a valuable check upon overissue. In former days in America, particularly in cases of incorporation under special acts, commissioners used to be appointed with power to apportion the shares in case of over- subscription.* § 231. Rescission or Modification of Agreement to take Shares. — So long as an agreement to take shares in a cor- poration remains executory — that is to say, until the subscriber has become an actual shareholder — it may, like any other con- tract, be rescinded or modified by mutual consent.^ So, if the company refuses to issue the shares as agreed, the subscriber, upon giving due notice of his election to rescind the contract, may recover back any sum paid upon his subscription upon the ground of failure of consideration.^ Of course, a gratuitous release of one who has subscribed to the company's capital would generally be ultra vires, and might be void as in fraud of cred- itors; but the company has the same control over executory contracts to take shares in its capital that it has over its other assets or choses in action. In America, where no formality such as entry on a register of members is generally necessary in order to make a person an actual shareholder, difficulty may be experienced in the application of the rule; but the rule itself is submitted to be as sound in the United States as in Great Britain. After the contract of subscription has been executed and the subscriber has become an actual shareholder, rescission by mere agreement is in general, ac- cording to the better view, no longer possible, except as a ' See 2 Clark & Marshall on Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., Priv. Corps., § 514. § 110. 2 Florence Land Co., 29 Ch. D. Cf. Kipling v. Todd, 3 C. P. D. 421; Sahlgreen & Carroll's Case, 3 350. Ch. 323, 328, 329 (headnote in- But see A.2i7. etc. Turnpike Co., 19 Ind. 242; Cf. Somerset Nat. Banking Co. v. Metropolitan Lead & Zinc Co. v. Adams, 72 S. W. 1125; 24 Ky. Law Webster, 193 Mo. 351; 92 S. W. 79. 204 f 163-§ 260] SIGNERS OF INCORPORATION PAPER § 245 § 244-§ 248. Obligations of Subscriber in other Respects. § 244. In general. — The obligation of subscribers of an incorporation paper, in the absence of special arrangement, is to pay the par value of the shares for which they subscribed, in instalments when called in by the directors. In other words, the obligation is the same as that which, in the absence of special agreement, attaches to any other shareholder. On the other hand, the fact that the company may require from other persons who agree to become shareholders a payment on allotment does not oblige the directors to exact a like payment from the signa^ tories of the incorporation paper on the allotment to them of the shares in respect of which they signed that instrument.' § 245. Special Agreements with Company as to Time and Mode of Payment. — Although frima facie the obligation of signatories of the incorporation paper is to pay for the shares they have agreed to take in cash on call by the directors, yet the time and mode of payment may be regulated by agreement entered into between the corporation and the signatory. For example, in the absence of prohibitory statutes, the company may agree with the subscriber that payment shall be made by transfer of property — lands, chattels, good will, etc. — in lieu of cash; and a transfer in accordance with such agreement, unless it be impeachable for fraud, will completely satisfy the signatory's obligation.^ A statute, however, which requires shares to be paid for in cash unless a contract stipulating for some different mode of payment shall have been recorded prior to their issue has been held to necessitate in all cases payment in cash by subscribers of the incorporation paper ; ^ for, it Cf. Squires v. Brown, 22 How. Pr. 1041 (where the valuation of prop- (N. Y.) 35; Miller v. Wild Cat erty taken in payment was held to Gravel Road Co., 57 Ind. 241. be unreasonably excessive and ' Alexander v. Automatic Tele- fraudulent). phone Co. (1899), 2 Ch. 302. ' Jarvis's Case (1899), 1 Ch. 193 ' Drummond's Case, 4 Ch. 772 ; (semble) ; Dalton Time Lock Co. v. Pell's Case, 5 Ch. 11; Baglan Hall Dalton, 66 L. T. 704; Ebenezer Colliery Co., 5 Ch. 346; Jones's Timmins & Sons, Ld. (1902), 1 Ch. Case, 6 Ch. 48; Maynard's Case, 238. 9 Ch. 60. Cf . Fothergill's Case, 8 Ch. 270 ; Cf. Dieterle v. Ann Arbor Paint, Re Archibald D. Ddwney, L't'd, 83 etc. Co., 107 N. W. 79; 143 Mich. L. T. 47. 416; Rathbone v. Ayer, 105 N. Y. 205 § 246 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill was reasoned, the shares subscribed for in that instrument are deemed to be issued at the very moment of incorporation ' so that in the nature of things no contract stipulating for pay- ment otherwise than in cash could be registered antecedent to the issue. § 246. Whether Shares allotted and paid for after Incorpora- tion satisfy ObUgation incurred by signing Incorporation Paper. — Where, after the company is organized, a signatory of the incorporation paper applies for shares in the ordinary way, and the same are allotted to him, if it be proved even by parol that the shares so allotted were intended by all parties to include, or be the same as, the shares which the applicant agreed to take by subscribing the incorporation paper, effect will be given to such intention; and the allotment of the shares so applied for will be held to satisfy the obligation created by signing the incor- poration paper.^ Indeed, it has been said that in such a case the burden of proof is on the company or its liquidator or receiver to show that there were really allotted to the subscriber, and that the latter did accept additional shares besides those in respect of which he signed the incorporation paper.^ Where in sign- ing the incorporation paper, the signatory was really acting on behalf of a partnership of which he was a member, his obligation is satisfied by an allotment of the stipulated number of shares to that firm.* On the other hand, the obligation of the signatory is to take shares from the company, and cannot be satisfied by taking shares by transfer from another shareholder or even by taking, as the nominee of another person, shares which the latter has contracted with the company to take." § 247. Whether Subscription for Preferred Shares satisfied by taking and paying for Common Shares. — Where a signatory of an incorporation paper agrees by his subscription to take pref- erence shares, his obligation, it has been held, may be satisfied by taking with the company's assent an equal number of ordi- ' See supra, §164, where the But see Cume's Case, 11 W.R. 46. correctness of this premiss is ques- ' Maynard's Case, 9 Ch. 60, 68, tioned. per Mellish, L. J. 2 GUman's Case, 31 Ch. D. 420; * Dunster's Case (1894), 3 Ch. Drummond's Case, 4 Ch. 772 ; Pell's 473. Case, 5 Ch. 11 ; Maynard's Case, 9 ° Forbes & Judd's Case, 5 Ch. Ch. 60. 270. Cf. MigoUi's Case, 4 Eq. 238. 206 § 183-§ 260] SIGNERS OF INCORPORATION PAPER § 248 nary shares.' The ratio decidendi of this case — to wit, that the Companies Act does not require any distinction to be made in the memorandum of association or incorporation paper between preferred and ordinary shares, and that the instrument may be altered in respect to matters not required by the statute to be mentioned therein — is not in accord with the later cases ; ' but nevertheless it is submitted that the actual decision is sound and would be followed. § 248. Subscription of Incorporation Paper for Shares to be issued as fully paid without Payment in full. — It is true, that a corporation's executory promise to issue paid-up shares cannot be satisfied by the issue of shares which in law are not fully paid.^ Nevertheless, where an incorporation paper states that the shares which the subscribers agree to take shall be credited as fully paid although no money or money's worth may have been given therefor, it would seem clear that the signatories are bound not- withstanding to pay for the shares which by their subscription of the instrument they agree to take.* However, where a person subscribes an incorporation paper for some shares which shall be issued subject to the usual obligation of payment of their par value in cash, and also for other shares which, it is stated, shall be issued as fully paid, it has been held in England that he can- not be required to pay 'for the latter shares.^ The reason for this distinction, if indeed it be sound, must be that the sub- scriber can perform his function as a corporator if he be bound to take and pay for any shares, and that the agreement to take the additional shares to be issued as paid-up is surplusage. How- ever, the soundness of the distinction may be questioned. For instance, in Pennsylvania where a subscriber to an incorpora- tion paper appeared on the face of the instrument to have subscribed for 100 shares, it was held that in spite of a contem- poraneous oral agreement that all except five shares should be turned back to the company as "treasury stock" without any payment by the subscriber, he was nevertheless bound to pay for the full one hundred shares, and that too although the suit did not appear to be prosecuted for the benefit of creditors, and ' Duke's Case, 1 Ch. D. 620. * Baron de Beoille's Case, 7 Eq. 11 ' Supra, § 120, § 144. (semble). Cf. Migotti's Case, 4 Eq. • Infra, § 778, § 789. See also 238. supra, § 184 and § 233. " Baron deBeville's Case, TEq. 11. 207 § 249 OEGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill although there was no allegation of a deficiency of assets ; ' but, certainly, this decision was based more upon the peculiar phrase- ology of the Pennsylvania statute than upon general principles of law applicable to subscriptions to shares made by signing an incorporation paper. § 249-§ 260. Agreements made prior to Incorporation other- wise than by signing the Incorporation Paper. § 249. Nature and ESect in general — Revocability. — The third and last class of agreements to take shares comprises agreements made with or between promoters prior to the incor- poration of the company otherwise than by subscribing the incorporation paper.^ Agreements of this sort differ from agree- ments made by signing the incorporation paper in that they are not so clearly or necessarily part of the statutory scheme for the organization of the corporation.^ If they are to be gov- erned by the general principles of the law of contracts, the com- pany upon attaining corporate existence has no right to enforce them unless they first be adopted or accepted by it. To be sure, it is sometimes thought that the principle prevailing in some of the United States, which permits the beneficiary of a contract to which he is a stranger to maintain an action thereon, is broad enough to entitle the corporation to enforce a promise made to its promoters to take shares of its capital stock.* But the cor- poration, while undoubtedly deriving "benefit from the contract, is certainly not the sole beneficiary thereof, since the other share- holders and promoters have a great interest in its enforce- ment ; and the better view is that the corporation has no right to enforce such a contract.^ Like other contracts made by pro- moters on behalf of a corporation to be subsequently organized, '■ Oreater Pittsburg Real Estate Co. * Marysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson, V. RUey, 210 Pa. St. 283; 59 Atl. 93 Cal. 588, 548; 29 Pac. 126; 27 1068. Am. St. Rep. 215 ; Glenn v. Busey, » As to the liability of promoters 5 Mack. (D. C.) 233, 238-239; 1 to the subscriber on such contracts, Morawetz on Priv. Corps., § 50. see Feitel v. Dreyfous (La.), 42 So. Cf. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 259; 117 La. 756 (where the pro- Barb. (N. Y.) 157; Eastern Plank moters were exonerated from lia^ Road Co. v. Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546, bility, because they had not accepted 555. But see 2 Clark & Marshall the subscriber's application). on Priv. Corps., § 443, p. 1379. ' Cf. Peninsidar Ry. Co. v. Dun- ^ " Lake Ontario Shore R. R. Co. V. can, 28 Mich. 130. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219. 208 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS BEFORE INCORPORATION § 249 such an agreement may undoubtedly operate as an ofPer which the company when incorporated may accept ; ' but if this be its only operation as regards the corporation, it is revocable by the subscriber so far as the corporation is concerned at any time before the company is incorporated and accepts the offer. In England, there seems to be no doubt that this is the law with respect to corporations formed under the Companies Acts ; ^ and the same rule is supported by the weight of authority in the United States.' The right of revocation exists although the sub- scription is under seal, so that lack of consideration would be no defence.* Withdrawal is allowed not only because the sub- ' Athol Music Had Co. v. Carey, 116 Mass. 471 ; San Joaquin, etc. Co. V. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70; 35 Pao. 349 ; Buffalo, etc. B. B. Co. v. Clark, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 359; Biche- lieu Hotel Co. v. International, etc. Encampment Co., 140 111. 248; 29 N. E. 1044; 33 Am. St. Rep. 234; Yonkers Gazette Co. v. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 334 ; 51 N. Y. Supp. 969 ; Bryant's, etc. Mill (fo. v. Felt, 87 Me. 234; 32 Atl. 888; 47 Am. St. Rep. 323; 33 L. R. A. 593; Badger Paper Co. v. Bose, 95 Wise. 146, 151-152; 70 N. W. 302; 37 L. R. A. 162 ; Avon Springs Sanita- rium Co. V. Weed, 104 N. Y. Supp. 58. But cf. 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 49, where the opinion is expressed that a contract to subscribe for shares in a corpora- tion to be subsequently formed, contemplates that the parties before becoming shareholders shall per- form a further act, namely, execute the statutory contract of member- ship by subscription upon the stock- books, and therefore does not con- stitute an offer which the corpora- tion can accept. Sed quoere. Cf. Coyote, etc. Co. v. Buble, 8 Oreg. 284; Coppage v. Hutton, 124 Ind. 401 ; 24 N. E. 112 ; 7 L. R. A. 591 ; Troy, etc. B. B. Co. v. Tibbits, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 297 ; Sedalia, etc. By. Co. V. Wilkerson, 83 Mo. 235 ; Yon- kers Gazette Co. v. Taylcrr, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 334 ; 51 N. Y. Supp. 969 ; Woods Motor Vehicle Co. v. Brady, 39 N. y. Misc. 79 ; 78 N. Y. Supp. 203; Cleavelavd v. MuUin, 96 Md. 598 ; 54 Atl. 665 In Lake Ontario Shore B. B. Co. V. Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219, an agree- ment between third persons that each should subscribe to stock in a corporation then fonning was held not to contemplate acceptance by the company and not to be enforce- able at its suit. ^ So in Canada. London Speaker Printing Co., Pearce's Case, 16 Ont. App. 508. ' Poughkeepsie, etc. Co. v. Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150; Bryant's, etc. Mill Co. V. Fdt, 87 Me. 234 ; 32 Atl. 888 ; 47 Am. St. Rep. 323; 33 L. R. A. 593; Hudson Real Estate Co. v. Tower, 156 Mass. 82 ; 30 N. E. 465 ; 32 Am. St. Rep. 434; s. c, 161 Mass. 10; 36 N. E. 680; 42 Am. St. Rep. 379 ; Stuart v. VaUey R. B. Co., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 146; Carter, etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432; 68 N. W. 74 ; Sedalia, etc. By. Co. v. Wilkerson, 83 Mo. 235 (where the subscriber died before the company was incorporated). Cf. Minneapolis Threshing Co. v. Davis, 40 Minn. 110; 41 N. W. 1026; 3 L. R. A. 796; 12 Am. St. Rep. 701. * Hudson Beal Estate Co. v. Tower, 156 Mass. 82, 84 (headnote inadequate); SO N. E, 465; 32 Am. St. Rep. 434. VOL. I. — 14 209 § 250 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill scriber's promise is without consideration, but also for the more fundamental reason that there is no promisee in existence. The retraction may give a right of action to the other promoters with whom the agreement was made, if a contract inter sese was in- tended; but this right of an action of the promoters or co- subscribers does not inure to the benefit of the corporation. The withdrawal need not be communicated to all the promoters or co-subscribers, but is complete upon communication to the chief officer of the preliminary organization preparatory to incorporation." According to the principle that the ante-incor- poration agreement operates only as an offer, the company upon its incorporation is not bound to allot the shares in accordance therewith.' § 250. Doctrine that Ante-incorporation Subscriptions are Ir- revocable. — On the other hand, all modern corporations derive their existence, directly or indirectly, from statutes; and if the legislature in those statutes should expressly or impliedly enact that promises to take shares in a corporation to be sub- sequently formed should be incapable of revocation by the promisor, effect must of course be given to 'that legislative in- tent. The question is, therefore, whether the courts can discern such an intention in the incorporation laws. In the case of special acts of incorporation, this is more easily done. For ex- ample, even in England, a special act incorporating certain named individuals and all other subscribers to the capital of the projected company has been held to make all subscribers mem- bers of the company, even though some of them had attempted to withdraw their subscriptions before the passage of the act.* In the case of general laws or enabling acts, the intention that ante-incorporation subscriptions to the capital shall be binding is not so readily discernible. In England, for instance, under the Companies Acts, and in some of the United States under the general incorporation laws, such a subscription would, as stated above, be held to be revocable at the pleasure of the sub- ' Hudson Real Estate Co. v. ' Merrick v. Consumers Heat, etc. Tower, 161 Mass. 10; 36 N. E. 680; Co., Ill 111. App. 153; Starrett v. 42 Am. St. Rep. 379. The part of Rockland, etc. Ins. Co., 65 Me. 374 prudence would be to communicate (headnote inadequate), the acceptance to the oflBcers of ^ Kidwelly Co. v. Rahy, 2 Price the corporation as 'soon as it is 93. Cf. Burke v. Lechmere, L. R. 6 formed. Q. B. 297. 210 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS BEFORE INCORPORATION § 251 scriber. On the other hand, inasmuch as such subscriptions preliminary to incorporation under general laws are doubtless contemplated by the incorporation acts, and inasmuch as the process of incorporation is undoubtedly somewhat facilitated by holding them to be irrevocable,' one need not be disposed to quarrel with a decision that they cannot be revoked without the unanimous consent of the co-subscribers.^ This result is, how- ever, more often reached upon the more questionable ground that the subscriptions constitute contracts of the several pro- moters inter sese which may be availed of by the corporation as the beneficiary notwithstanding an attempt to revoke.^ § 251. Subscriptions before Incorporation as Powers of Attorney to apply for and accept Shares in Corporation. — A subscription to shares in a corporation to be formed may take the shape of, or amount to, a delegation of authority to an agent to apply for and accept the shares when the company shall have been incorporated.* This form is often adopted, especially in England, in the case of underwriting agreements made before the incorporation of the company.^ In some cases, such powers of attorney may be made irrevocable.' Somewhat similar to this is the plan sometimes adopted where several persons bind themselves to pay the amount of their subscriptions to a desig- nated person as trustee, who is to turn the money over to the corporation when incorporated in exchange for its shares. In such cases, the trustee may maintain an action against any sub- scriber who refuses to pay.' ' Cf. LowviUe, etc. R. R. Co. v. ' See supra, § 249. EUiot, 101 N. Y. Supp. 328. Cf. Cleaveland v. MuUin, 96 Md. ' Johnson v. Wabash, etc. Co., 698 ; 54 Atl. 665 ; Knox v. ChUders- 16 Ind. 389 (but with this case com- burg Land Co., 86 Ala. 180, 183 ; pare Coppage v. Button, 124 Ind. 5 So. 578. 401) ; Nebraska Chicory Co. v. * Cf. Ottawa Dairy Co. v. Sorley, Lednicky (Nebr.), 113 N. W. 245. 34 Can. Sup. Ct. 508 (where the agent . Cf. Peninsular Ry. Co. v. Duncan, was held to have exceeded his au- 28 Mich. 130. thority so that no contract was But if a subscription contains formed -between the principal and special terms not provided for in the the company), incorporation law, then very clearly ° See infra, § 443-§ 445. it can have no other effect than a " Infra, § 443. revocable offer until the company ' Cf. West v. Crawford, 80 Cal., is incorporated and accepts it. 1 19; 21 Pac. 1123. As to the right Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., of the corporation to recover money § 83, § 86 ; Junction R. R. Co. v. collected by such a trustee, see infra, Reeve, 15 Ind. 236. § 255. 211 § 252 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill § 252. Doctrine that Subscriptions made before Incorporation without subscribing: Incorporation Paper are devoid of all legal Efiect. — Some cases proceed upon the ground that the incor- poration laws contemplate no subscriptions prior to incorpora- tion made otherwise than by signing the incorporation paper and that therefore such ante-incorporation subscriptions must be wholly devoid of legal effect.' But as already intimated such decisions are contrary to the weight of authority,^ inas- much as such subscriptions prior to incorporation should have at least as much effect as other contracts made by promoters on behalf of a prospective corporation. The question is, how- ever, altogether one of statutory construction so that general rules can do no more than determine the attitude which the com-ts should assume in construing the statute. § 253. Attempts of Promoters to release Subscriber. — All the authorities would agree that in any case after the company has been incorporated and the contract of subscription has become binding between it and the subscriber, the promoters to whom the subscription was made before the incorporation have no longer any authority to release the subscriber.' § 254. Requisite Definiteness in Subscription . before Incor- poration. — In order that an ante-incorporation subscription should have any effect, it must specify the number and par value of the shares subscribed for.* In other words, it must be suffi- ciently definite to constitute a contract.* As the company is still in fieri and its constitution not yet settled, greater particu- larity is required than in the case of ah offer to take shares in an existing company, in which case, it would be unnecessary to state, for instance, the par value of the shares. § 255. Right of Corporation to Deposits paid Promoters. — A person may contract with a promoter of a projected corpora- ' Poughheepsle, etc. Plank Road Water Co. v. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70; Co. V. Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150 ; Coppage 35 Pac. 349 ; International Fair, etc. V. Button, 124 Ind. 401; 24 N. E. Ass'n v. Walker, 83 Mich. 386; 47 112; 7 L. R. A. 591; Speight Mfg. N. W. 338; Nebraska Chicory Co. Co., Boidibee's Case, 16 Ont. App. v. Lednicky, 113 N. W. 246 (Nebr.). 608, 519. See supra, § 249, § 250. Cf. Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wilker- ' Balfour v. Baker, etc. Co., 27 son, 83 Mo. 235 ; Monterey, etc. R. R. Oreg. 300 ; 41 Pac. 164. Co. V. HUdreth, 53 Cal. 123. * Woods Motor Vehicle Co. v. ' Peninsular Ry. Co. v. Duncan, Brady, 181 N. Y. 146; 73 N. E. 674. 28 Mich. 130 ; San Joaquin, etc. ° Cf. Avon Springs Sanitarium Co. 212 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS BEFORE INCORPORATION § 258 tion to subscribe to shares therein; and, independently of the question whether the corporation may take advantage of such contracts and hold the subscriber, any deposits .paid by the sub- scriber to the promoter are clearly impressed with a trust in favor of the company which may accordingly recover them from the promoter as money had and received to its use.' § 256. ESect of Failure of Company to allot Shares within Reasonable Time. — Ante-incorporation subscribers to the capital of a company will be released unless an allotment of the shares subscribed for be made within a reasonable time after incor- poration. This is undoubtedly true where such subscriptions are deemed mere oifers ; ^ and it is submitted that the same rule should hold good where they are held to be irrevocable by the subscriber.' § 257. Subscription voidable for Fraud of Promoter. — Upon whatever theory subscriptions to the capital of a projected com- pany are to be enforced — whether because of adopition or acceptance by the company after its incorporation, or because they are deemed binding in the first instance — they are never- theless subject to rescission for fraud or misrepresentation of the promoters to the same extent as if the company had been already incorporated.* § 258. Effect of Departures from Original Scheme. — More- over, any material departures from the plan of the company as contemplated when the subscription was made will release the subscriber.^ For example, where the prospectus on the V. Weed, 104 N. Y. Supp. 58 (where Stewart v. Rutherford, 74 Ga. 435 ; the subscription was held on de- 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., murrer sufficiently definite) ; Ne- § 102, p. 101. maha Coal, etc. Co. v. Settle, 54 But see Shick v. Citizens' Enter- Kan. 424; 38 Pac. 483; Peninsur- prise Co., 15 Ind. App. 329, 337-338; lar Ry. Co. v. Duncan, 28 Mich. 57 Am. St. Rep. 230. 130, 145. See also supra, § 217. ' San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. West, ^ Stern v. McKee, 70 N. Y. App. 94Cal. 399; 29 Pac. 785. Div. 142; 75 N. Y. Supp. 157; See infra, § 399. West End, etc. Co. v. Nash, 51 W. ^ Ba%'s Case, 3 Ch. 592 ; Carter, Va. 341; 41 S. E. 182; Middlecoff etc. Co. v. Hazzard, 65 Minn. 432, Hotel Co. v. Yeomans, 89 111. App. 438 ; 68 N. W. 74. 170 ; Smith v. Burns Boiler ' But see Burke v. Lechmere, & Mfg. Co. (Wise), 111 N. W. L. R. 6 Q. B. 297. 1123; Knox v. ChUdersburg Land * Zang v. Adams, 23 Colo. 408; Co., 86 Ala. 180; 5 So. 578 48 Pac. 509 ; 58 Am. St. Rep. 249 ; (change in law as to method of 213 §258 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill faith of which the subscription was made states as the ob- ject of the company the working of a particular established mine in Russia, the fact that the incorporation paper when re- corded justifies the working of any mine in Russia releases the subscriber.' A change in the period to be prescribed for the termination of the corporate existence will release a person who has agreed to take shares.^ Prima facie, a domestic corpora- tion is deemed to have been contemplated ; and therefore in the absence of some provision showing that a foreign corporation was intended, a foreign corporation cannot claim the benefit of the subscription.^ But a mere change in the name of the pro- jected company will have no such effect ; ■" and any change which is immaterial, and merely expresses w;hat would otherwise be implied, does not release prior subscribers!^ In respect to the necessity for prompt repudiation, etc., these cases of depar- payment for stock, held sufficient to release subscriber). And see Shick v. Citizens' Enter- prise Co., IS Ind. App. 329, 337-338; 57 Am. St. Rep. 230. And as to cases of incorporation by special act, see Midland, etc. Ry. Co. V. Gordon, 16 M. & W. 804 ; Nixon V. Brownlow, 3 H. & N. 686 (where the amount of the capital and number and amount of the shares were altered). 1 Stewart's Case, 1 Ch. 574; Webster's Case, 2 Eq. 741. Cf. Lawrence's Case, 2 Ch. 412; Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674 ; Wilkinson's Case, 2 Ch. 536; Woods Motor Vehicle Co. v. Brady, 181 N. Y. 145 ; 73 N. E. 674 (offer to take shares in company to deal in motor vehicles; company afterwards incorporated to manfacture and deal in automo- biles) ; Smith v. Burns Boiler & Mfg. Co. (Wise), 111 N. W. 1123 (offer to take shares in company for manufacturing boilers, corporation formed with power to engage in gen- eral "merchandising " and general manufacturing) ; Dorris v. Sweeney, 60 N. y. 463 (offer to take shares in company for worldng a certain patent for preserving fruits, company formed for manufacture of preserved fruits and canning of fruits). But see Haskell v. Worthington, 94 Mo. 560; 7 S. W. 481 (where it was said that a subscriber would not be released because incorporation paper when recorded would author- ize the company to transact business in addition to that contemplated by the subscription). ' Greenbrier Industrial Exposi- tion V. Rodes, 37 W. Va. 738; 17 S. E. 305. ' Cf. Olympia Mining Co. v. Kerns (Idaho), 91 Pac. 92. * Yonkers Gazette Co. v. Taylor, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 334; 51 N. Y. Supp. 969. Cf. Haskell v. Worthington, 94 Mo. 560; 7S. W. 481. ^ Union Agricultural, etc. Ass'n v. NeUl, 31 Iowa 95 ; Comanche Cotton OU Co. V. Browne (Tex.), 92 S. W. 450 (company projected to operate a cot- ton seed oil mill, amendment ex- pressly authorizing the operation of cotton-gins as feeders for the mill immaterial) ; LowvUle, etc. R. R. Co. V. Elliot, 101 N. Y. Supp. 328 (com- pany projected to build a railway; company incorporated to " build, maintain, and operate" a railway). 214 § 163-§ 260] SUBSCRIPTIONS BEFORE INCORPORATION § 260 tures from the original scheme or project are assimilated to cases of fraud or misrepresentation.' But the fact that the subscriber attends a meeting of the corporation under the behef that it is a mere meeting of the promoters called to consider the pro- priety of accepting the incorporation paper as filed will not pre- clude him from withdrawing.^ The departures from the original scheme may be such as to justify the conclusion that the com- pany which was actually formed was not that in which the sub- scriber agreed to take shares; and in that case there would be no contract at all.^ It is not necessary that the corporation should be formed by parties to the subscription agreement.* ■ Unreasonable delay in the incorporation of the company is equivalent to a substantial departure from the original project, and will have the same effect in releasing a subscriber to the shares.* § 259. Signer of a proposed Incorporation Paper not bound if Company incorporated under different Instrument. — If a per- son signs a document which is intended to operate as an incor- poration paper, he cannot be held by a company which is organized under a different paper executed by other persons." In other words, if a person intends to become a corporator, he cannot without Sbme further act or offer on his part be held as a subscriber to the capital if the company is incorporated by other persons. § 260. Whether De Facto Corporation can enforce Subscrip- tion. — Even where the doctrine of de facto corporations is rec- ' yStrm Ins. Co. (1871), Ir. Rep. 181 N. Y. 145; 73 N. E. 674; Smith 6 Eq. 298 ; Osborne Park Land & v. Burns BoUer & Mfg. Co. (Wise), Investment Co., 18 Vict. L. R. 515. Ill N. W. 1123. See also Nickum v. Bwrkhardt, 30 2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. Oreg. 464 ; 47 Pac. 788 ; 48 Pac. 474 ; Corps., § 439 d. 60 Am. St. Rep. 822. Cf. Ship's Case, 2 De G. J. & S. But cf. Ship's Case, 2 De G. J. & 544. S. 544. See also Accidental, etc. Ins. ^ Smith V. Burns BoUer & Mfg. Corp. v. Davis, 15 L. T. 182 (where Co. (Wise), 111 N. W. 1123. the departure was held not to be of ' Richmx>nd Factory Ass'n v. this character). Clarke, 61 Me. 351 (where the sub- ' Avon Springs Sanitarium Co. scription contemplated incorpora- v. Weed, 104 N. Y. Supp. 58. tion under a general law and the = Patterson v. Turner, 3 Ont. L. company which was actually formed Rep. 373. was incorporated by special act) ; " Richmond Street B. R. Co. v. Woods Motor Vehicle Co. v. Brady, Reed, 83 Ind. 9. 215 § 260 ORGANIZATION AND ISSUE OF SHARES [ChAP. Ill ognized, a person who subscribes to shares of stock before incorporation is deemed to contemplate incorporation de jure; and hence according to the weight of authority, he cannot be held to his subscription by an organization which has a mere de facto existence.' '■ Dorris v. Sweeney, 60 N. Y. 463 ; Marshall on Priv. Corps., § 462 e, p. Shick V. Citizens' Enterprise Co., 15 1440. Ind. App. 329 ; 57 Am. St. Rep. 230. Cf. DeWitt v. Hasting, 69 N. Y. Williams v. Citizens Enterprise Co., 518. 153 Ind. 496 ; 55 N. E. 425 ; Capps But as to subscriptions made V. Hastings Prospecting Co., 40 Nebr. by signing the incorporation paper, 470 ; 58 N. W. 956 ; 24 L. R. A. 259 ; see supra, § 242. 42 Am. St. Rep. 677; 2 Clark & 216 CHAPTER IV IRREGULAR INCORPORATION — PROOF OF INCORPORATION Section Confusion in authorities 261 Scope of treatment 262 Diminishing importance of subject 263 Non-compliance with directory provisions — substantial compliance with law 264 Breaches of conditions subsequent 265 Certificates by public officers to the regularity of incorporation . . 266-270 In general 266 Whether certificate conclusive evidence of regularity of proceed- ings — revocation of certificate 267 Statutes making certificate conclusive evidence of regularity 268-270 English cases 268 American cases 269 Whether certificate precludes direct attack by the state upon vaUdity of incorporation • 270 Proof of incorporation 271-283 Statement of question 271 Necessity for raising issue by the pleadings 272 Direct proof of incorporation 273 Indirect or circumstantial evidence of incorporation 274 Secondary evidence of contents of incorporation paper . . . 275 Statute recognizing corporate existence of defectively incorpo- rated company 276 Admissions of incorporation 277 Estoppel to deny incorporation 278-282 Estoppel by record 278 Estoppel by deed 279 Estoppel in pais 280-282 Estoppel of individual to deny the incorporation . . . 280 Estoppel of supposed corporation to deny its own existence 281 Estoppel by dealing with supposed corporation . . . 282 Disproof of incorporation 283 Corporations de facto 284-292 Whether irregular incorporation proceedings can give rise to a corporation de facto 284 Circumstances necessary to create a corporation de facto . 285-290 In general 285 Requirement of a law under which the corporation might be formed . .... 286 Requirement of bona fides in attempting to comply with law 287 Requirement of substantial or colorable compliance with law 288 What amounts to colorable compliance 289 Requirement of user of corporate privileges 290 217 § 261 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV Corporations de facto {continued) Section Nature of de facto corporations 291-292 De facto corporations distinguished from corporations by estoppel . . 291 Powers and rights of corporation de facto 292 Rights and liabilities of members of defectively incorporated com- pany 293-294 Liabilities to third persons 293 Rights and liabiUties inter sese 293a Rights against third persons 294 § 261. Confusion in Authorities. — Few topics in the Ameri- can law of corporations are more confused than the subject of irregular or defective incorporation — of the consequences of defects, or lack of compliance with law, in the terms of the in- corporation papers or in its execution or recording, or a non- observance of statutory requirements in respect to matters preceding or attending the incorporation. What are the conse- quences of such defects ? Do they render the attempted incor- poration wholly nugatory? Or does the association in spite of such irregularities become a corporation de facto whose exist- ence can be questioned only on direct proceedings instituted by the sovereign ? If a negative answer be given to this last ques- tion, may the persons who compose the association or who deal with it be estopped under some circumstances to deny its cor- porate existence ? Upon these and similar questions, the law in the United States consists in a wilderness of, often, irreconcilable decisions.' § 262. Scope of Treatment. — In the present chapter, we shall endeavor at least to clear away some of the undergrowth that obscures the approaches to the forest, without undertaking the herculean task of opening a pathway through the jungle itself. This plan of dealing with the subject is believed to be most conducive to the elucidation of the matter. For wherever the cases are so numerous and in such hopeless conflict as the American decisions on the law of de facto corporations and of corporations by estoppel, the most helpful and satisfactory treat- ment of many particular features of the law must be confined to the cases in some one state. ' For a thorough and scientific see articles by Professor E. H. War- treatment of parts of the subject, ren, in 20 Harv. L. Rev. 456 and with full citations of authorities, 21 Harv. L. Rev. 305. 218 f 261-§ 294] CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT § 265 § 263. Diminishing Importance of Subject. — The whole sub- ject, one should observe, is of less importance than formerly. For the more recent incorporation laws are so simple that the irregularities or defects in the incorporation proceedings can always be avoided by the merest tyro by the exercise of the most ordinary care. § 264. Non-compliance with Directory Provisions — Substantial Compliance with Law. — It should be premised that the non- observance of provisions that can be deemed directory merely is, properly speaking, no irregularity at all, and hence may be entirely disregarded.' In determining whether or not a given provision, should be construed as directory and not mandatory, regard should be had to the purpose of the statute. Sub- stantial compliance and not necessarily literal compliance even with mandatory provisions is all that is requisite; and, if the statute is substantially complied with, the company becomes a corporation de jure as well as de facto? In other words, a mere lack of literal compliance with the act is not deemed a defect or irregularity in the incorporation. § 265. Breaches of Conditions Subsequent. — Moreover, where a statute, in however mandatory terms, requires certain acts to be done after the attainment of corporate existence, failure to comply with that requirement will be merely a cause of forfeiture, which, according to well-known principles, in the absence of an express and emphatic statutory declaration to the contrary, can be taken advantage of only by the state on a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose.^ Thus, where a statute provides that on registration of the incorporation paper, the sub- ' See Rose HUl, etc. Road Co. v. Rep. 172 ; State ex rel. Attorney-Gen- People ex rel. Lawless, 115 111. 133; eral v. Wood, 13 Mo. App. 139. 3 N. E. 725; Judah v. Am. lAve ^ Murphy v. Wheatley, 102 Md. Stock Ins. Co., 4 Ind. 333; Nev)- 501; 63 Atl. 62; Hammond v. co?»b V. iSeed, 12 Allen (Mass.) 362, Straus, 53 Md. 1, 12; Baker v. 364 (headnote inadequate) ; Brairir- Adm'r of Backus, 32 111. 79 ; Shako- tree Water Supply Co. v. Inhabitants pee Mfg. Co., 37 Minn. 91, 93 ; 33 of Braintree, 146 Mass. 482, 488 N. W. 219; County of Macon v. (headnote inadequate) ; 16 N. E. 420. Shores, 97 U. S. 272, 277 ; Brovm v. ^ People ex rel. Bernard v. Cheese- Wyandotte, etc. Ry. Co., 68 Ark. 134 ; man, 7 Colo. 376, 379; 3 Pac. 716; 56 S. W. 862; Merrick v. Reynolds People V. Stockton, etc. R. R. Co., Engine, etc. Co., 101 Mass. 381 ; 45 Cal. 306; 13 Am. Rep. 178; Granby Mining Co. v. Richards, 95 People V. Montedto Water Co., 97 Mo. 106; 8S. W. 246; Hughesdale Cal. 276; 32 Pac. 236; 33 Am. St. Mfg Co. v. Vanner, 12 R. I. 491; 219 § 266 IRREGULAK INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV scribers shall be incorporated, the non-observance of a require- ment that a duplicate of the instrument shall be filed with the secretary of state can be at most a cause of forfeiture, not to be availed of collaterally.' So, a condition precedent to the right to commence business may be a condition subsequent to corporate existence.^ The matter of conditions subsequent to incorporation relates in strictness to the dissolution of corpora- tions, and to the termination of corporate existence ; and hence any consideration of the subject in detail would be beyond the scope of this treatise. § 266-§ 270. CERTIFICATES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS TO REGU- LARITY OF INCORPORATION. § 266. In general. — Often, as shown above,^ the corpora^ tion laws provide that the incorporation paper shall be sub- mitted to some public officer who is to determine whether or not it complies with law. Sometimes, too, this ofiicer is required to certify his determination upon the instrument. In England, the document is submitted to the registrar of joint-stock com- panies, who, if he approve the paper, records the same, and there- upon issues a certificate, called a certificate of incorporation, stating that the company has complied with the law and is duly incorporated.* This name, certificate of incorporation, although in itself appropriate enough, cannot conveniently be applied in America to similar certificates, because in many states the in- corporation papers are called certificates of incorporation. The name, however, is immaterial: the nature of the instrument is the same. The issuance of the certificate by the registrar or other ofiicer charged with the duty, although it furnishes the best and most convenient evidence of incorporation, is nevertheless not ordinarily a condition precedent to incorporation.^ Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wise. 162 ; Ry- 205 (headnote inadequate) ; Ham- land V. HoUinger, 117 Fed. 216. mond v. Straus, 53 Md. 1, 16. See also supra, § 137 and cases See also supra, § 177. cited, and § 139. ' Supra, § 139-§ 142. ' Mokdumne HUl Mining Co. v. * Companjes Act, 1862, § 18. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424 ; 73 Am. Dec. ^ Sparks v. Woodstock Iron, etc. 658. See supra, § 137. Co., 87 Ala. 294; 6 So. 195.. See ' Stokes V. Findlay, 4 McCraiy also supra, § 142. 220 I 261-§ 294] CERTIFICATES OF REGULARITY § 267 § 267. Whether Certificate conclusive Evidence of Regular- ity — Revocation of Certificate. — The first question is whether the determination of the officer to whom the instrument is submitted that the document conforms to law is conclusive, so as to preclude anybody who may be interested from showing that the oflScer was mistaken, some mandatory provision of law having been disregarded. Where there is no express provision to that effect, the officer's determination is not conclusive : that is, the mere fact that the incorporation papers must be passed upon by some public official does not make his approval a con- clusive determination that all legal requirements have been observed.^ So, where a special act of incorporation provided that the company should have the right to collect tolls as soon as a certificate of its organization should be returned by certain commissioners to the governor of the state and the latter should proclaim the company to be entitled to do so, a proclamation of the governor in pursuance of the statute was held not to be con- clusive evidence of incorporation, upon issue joined on a plea of nul tiel corporation.^ Of course, however, a court may well hold that under the American doctrine of de facto corporations the fact of the official approval amounts to colorable compliance with law so as necessarily to make the company a corporation de facto ' Oler V. Baltimore, etc. B. R. Co., these latter cases, compare the other 41 Md. 583, 590 ; Kinston, etc. R. R. English cases cited infra, § 268. Co. v. Stroud, 132 N. Car. 413; 43 See also Laflin, etc. Powder Co. S. E. 913 (where the official was v. Sinsheimer, 46 Md. 315; 24 Am. merely charged , with the duty as Rep. 522 ; Mix v. Nat. Bank of registrar of refusing to record an il- Bloomington, 91 111. 20 ; 33 Am. Rep. legal instrument) ; Boyce v. Triistees 44 (holding certificate to be prima TowsonUmm Sta., 46 Md. 359 ; fade evidence of incorporation) ; People ex rel. Davenport v. Rice, 68 Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Glendon Hun (N. Y.) 24; 22 N. Y. Supp. Co., 120 Mass. 97 (similar point to 631 (holding that registrar may de- last case). cUne to record the paper if not in As to the effect of a 'statutory comphance with law, notwithstand- provision that an official certificate ing the approval of a judge to whom shall be prima facie evidence of in- the statute required the instrument corporation, see Wood v. WHey Con- to be submitted); Hamilton, etc. struction Co., 56 Conn. 87; Bartlett Road Co. v. Tovmsend, 13 Ont. App. v. Wilbur, 53 Md. 485 (holding that 534. the same effect will be given to the But see First Nat. Bank v. Rocke- certificate in a foreign state). feller, 195 Mo. 15 (headnote mis- ' Duke v. Cahawba Nav. Co., 10 leading); 93 S. W. 761; Banwen Ala. 82, 91 (headnote inadequate); Iron Co. v. Barnett, 8 C. B. 406 ; 44 Am. Dec. 472. Bird's Case, 1 Sim. N. S. 47. With 221 § 268 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV in spite of any previous irregularities in the proceedings.' So, too, the fact that the official approval w^as obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations on the part of the promoters is not ground for collateral attack upon the validity of the incorporation.^ This conclusion should be based not merely upon the ground that there is colorable compUance with the incorporation law but also upon the ground that there is formal compliance and that the legislature intended to require no more. The judge or officer to whom the incorporation proceedings are submitted may re- voke his approval, at any rate where his error in granting the approval was so flagrant that the attempted incorporation is absolutely void.^ § 268- § 270. Statutes making Certificate Conclusive Evidence of Regidarity. § 268. English Cases. — The extent to which statutory pro- visions purporting to make the officer's decision conclusive will be carried, of course depends very largely on their terms. The English Companies Act of 1862 provided that the registrar's issuance of a "certificate of incorporation" shpuld be "conclu- sive evidence that all the requisitions of this Act in respect of ' Jones V. Dana, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) Haacke v. Knights of Liberty, etc. 395, 402; Tar River Nav. Co. v. Club, 76 Md. 429; 25 Atl. 422; Neal, 3 Hawks (N. Car.) 520. Laflin, etc. Powder Co. v. Sins- ' U. S. Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel, heimer, 46 Md. 315; 24 Am. Rep. 143 N. Y. 537; 38 N. E. 729; 522. Glover v. Giles, 18 Ch. D. 173 ; Hart- But see Jersey City Gas Co. v. man v. Pennsylvania Range Boiler Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 (where Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 324; Duke merely colorable compUance was had V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 16 Ala. 372, with a statute making the subscrip- 374; Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. tion and payment of a certain pro- St. 399 "(overruling Patterson v. portion of the capital a condition Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410) ; Rice v. precedent to incorporation). Nat. Bank, 126 Mass. 300 (headnote ^ National Endowment Co., 142 inadequate). Pa. St. 450 ; 21 Atl. 879. Cf. American Salt Co. v. Heiden- But see Illinois Watch Case Co. heimer, 80 Tex. 344 ; 15 S. W. 1038 ; v. Pearson, 140 111. 423, 432-433 ; 26 Am. St. Rep. 743 ; Tavaglini v. 31 N. E. 400 ; 16 L. R. A. 429 (hold- Societa Italiane, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 441 ; ing that the approval cannot be re- German 7ns. Co. V. Strahl, 13 Phila. voked because after it was given 512; Pattison v. Albany Bldg., etc. another corporation changed its Ass'n, 63 Ga. 373 ; Litchfield Bank name to one very similar to that of V. Church, 29 Conn. 137, 148-149 ; the new company). 222 § 261-§ 294] CERTIFICATES OP REGULARITY § 268 registration have been complied with." ' The eases in which this enactment has been construed, although not altogether har- monious, constitute our chief source of enlightenment as to the effect of such provisions. Thus, where the object clause of a memorandum of association was altered after execution by the subscribers and before registration, the House of Lords held that the registrar's "certificate of incorporation" precluded the courts from looking at such matters for the purpose of question- ing the validity of the incorporation ; ^ and, after the argument in this case but before the decision of the House, Lord Cairns pronounced a similar judgment,' in which, however, he left the point open whether the conclusive effect given by the statute to the registrar's certificate would deprive persons who might be injured from suing the registrar for knowingly recording an al- tered document.* In several subsequent cases, however, the doctrine has been enunciated (although in none of them was it necessary to the decision) that the registrar's certificate and de- termination that the document offered for registration complies with law does not prevent any one who may be desirous of im- peaching the corporation of the company from showing that in fact less than the required number of signatures were attached ^ — that, for example, one person had signed twice. So, in con- struing a similar provision in the Companies Act of 1856,° it was held that the registrar's certificate was not conclusive upon the ' Companies Act, 1862, § 18. the corporation. Wenlock v. River = Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 Dee Co., 38 Ch. D. 534. As to other H. L. 325, 354, 369 (headnote provisions making certificates of inadequate). public officers "conclusive evidence" ' Peel's Case, 2 Ch. 674. of regularity in corporate affairs, ' 2 Ch. 682. ' see Ladies Dress Ass'n v. Pulbrook " National Debenture, etc. Corp. (1900), 2 Q. B. 376, and infra, § 588 (1891), 2 Ch. 505; Laxon & Co. and § 646. (1892), 3 Ch. 555. « 19 & 20 Vict., c. 47, § 115. But see Nassau Phosphate Co., "The certificate of incorporation 2 Ch. D. 610; Bird's Case, 1 Sim. given to any existing pompany, in N. S. 47. pursuance of this act, shall be con- A statutory provision making a elusive evidence that all the requi- commissioner's certificate conclu- sitions herein contained in respect Bive evidence that a charge upon of registration under this act have the company's lands to secure a been complied with, and the date of loan is valid relates merely to mat- such certificate shall be deemed to ters of procedure aud does not vali- be the date at which the company date a loan which is ultra vires of is incorporated under this act." 223 § 269 IRHEGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV question whether the company was such a company as was authorized to be incorporated under the act.' The Companies Act of 1900 uses broader language than the Act of 1862, providing that " a certificate of incorporation given by the registrar in respect of any association shall be conclusive evidence that all the requisitions of the Companies Acts in respect of registration and. of matters precedent and incident thereto have been complied with, and that the association is a company authorized to be registered and duly registered under the Companies Acts " ; ^ and this provision is believed in Eng- land, no doubt with good reason, to shut off all inquiry into al- leged irregularities in the proceedings, in so far at least as those irregularities might be used as a ground for attacking the validity of the incorporation.^ § 269. American Cases. — In the United States, statutory provisions having the same objects as the sections of the Com- panies Acts discussed in the last paragraph are frequently en- countered. Probably, in such cases, the EngUsh decisions would be followed. But the circumstance should never be lost from sight that in England the intention of the legislature is the sov- ereign criterion, while in the United States that intention must be disregarded if it conflict with any constitutional limitation. Thus, where some American statute directs that the incorpora- tion paper shall be submitted for examination to one of the judges whose approval shall be conclusive evidence of its conformity to law, the questions at once arise whether the duty so imposed on the judge is judicial in nature, and whether it is competent for the legislature to enact that an ex parte decision shall con- clude the rights of persons who have had no opportunity to be heard upon the question. Of course,. it is not intended to intimate that such objections are sound or insuperable. Indeed, as already intimated, the American authorities indi- cate that, here as in England, the courts will effectuate whatever ' Northumberland & Durham Dist. dence that "the company was au- Banking Co., 2 De G. & J. 357, dis- thorized to be registered under tinguished in Ennis & West Clare this act." Ry. Co., 3 L. R. Ir. 94, where the ' Companies Act, 1900 (63 & 64 statute which was construed ex- Vict., c. 48), § 1. pressly provided that the registrar's ' 1 Lindley on Companies, 6th .certificate should be conclusive evi- ed., 151-152. 224 § 261-§ 294] CERTIFICATES OF REGULARITY § 270 is shown to be the clear legislative intent upon these matters.' Thus, where a state statute relating to the consolidation or amal- gamation of railway companies provided that a copy of the arti- cles of consolidation certified by the secretary of state, in whose office they were required to be filed, should be conclusive evi- dence of the consummation of the consolidation, the United States Supreme Court held that the corporate existence of the amalgamated company could not be impeached by a share- holder in one of the constituent corporations upon the ground that some required precedent formality had been omitted.^ So, the section of the National Bank Act providing for the conversion of state into national banks declares that upon the issuance by the comptroller of a certificate that the bank has complied with the provisions of the federal law the association shall thenceforth be deemed a national bank; and the Supreme Court held that this certificate having been given precluded a shareholder from impeaching the validity of the incorporation under the national law by showing that the owners of two-thirds of the stock had not, as required by the Act of Congress, assented to the change.' The whole question is of less importance in the United States than in England because of the prevalence of very liberal doc- trines in this country as to de facto corporations and "corpora- tions by estoppel." § 270. Whether Certificate precludes direct Attack by the State upon Validity of Incorporation. — Even the most express statutory declaration that a public officer's approval of the in- corporation papers shall be conclusive evidence of the due for- mation of the company will not prevent a direct attack upon its corporate existence by the sovereign power by scire facias, quo warranto, or other similar proceeding. That the American courts will so hold, there can be little doubt.* The same result would ' In addition to cases cited be- 305 (as to conclusiveness of certifi- low, see American Order Scottish cate of renewal of period of corpo- Clans V. Merrill, 151 Mass. 658 ; 24 rate existence of national bank). N. E. 918 ; 8 L. R. A. 320. As to conclusive effect of certifi- ' Leavenworth v. Chicago, etc. By. cates of increase or reduction of Co., 134 U. S. 688 (headnote inade- capital, see infra, § 588 and § 646. quate) ; 10 Sup. Ct. 708. ■* Leavenworth v. Chicago, etc. By. ' Casey v. GaUi, 94 U. S. 673 Co., 134 U. S. 688, 700-701 ; 10 (headnote inadequate). Sup. Ct. 708 (semble). Cf. Clement v. U. S., 149 Fed. VOL. I. — 15 225 § 271 IRREGULAR 'INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV be reached in England if only the law provided some method of impeaching the validity of an incorporation under the Com- panies Acts by means of a direct proceeding instituted by the crown.' § 271-§ 283. PBOOF OF INCORPORATION. § 271. Statement of Question. — The most orderly and in- structive method of examining the various problems regarding irregularities in incorporation is by a consideration of the fol- lowing question : when one party to an action or suit is desirous of proving that a certain association of individuals is incorpo- rated under a general law or companies act, while his opponent is correspondingly interested in negativing that fact, what will be sufHcient evidence of due incorporation ? § 272. Necessity for raising Issue by the Pleadings. — But before attempting to answer this question, the obvious legal principle should be adverted to, that the issue of incorporation vel non must in some way be raised upon the pleadings,^ other- wise no evidence upon that question will be necessary or admis- sible. Thus, if at common law, in an action of trespass brought ' See Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Calfee (Ark.), 95 S. W. 1011 ; Mont- (1897), A. C. 22, 30 ; Reuss v. Bos, gom^y v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., L. R. 5 H. L. 176, 193. 73 S. Car. 503; 53 S. E. 987; ' See Society for the Propagation Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. State (Ark.), of the Gospel v. Tovm of Pawlet, 4 106 S. W. 199 (denial that plaintiff Pet. 480 (corporate existence of was a corporation owning a railway plaintiff admitted by general issue held bad as a negative pregnant), plea to writ of entry) ; Bristol, etc. As to what is a sufficient allega- Trust Co. V. Joneshoro, etc. Trust Co., tion of incorporation, see Swir\g v. 101 Tenn. 545 ; 48 S. W. 228 ; Taylor Consolidated FruU Jar Co. (N. J.), V. Portsmouth, etc. Ry. Co., 91 Me. 63 Atl. 899 ; and infra, § 464 ; and 193, 199 ; 39 Atl. 560 ; 64 Am. St. 5 Enc. of PI. & Pr., pp. 75-77, tit. Rep. 216; Herald Shoe Co. v. Okla- "Corporations, IV, 3 (b)." homa Pub. Co., 79 Pac. Ill (Okl.) A body which sues or is sued as (where a general appearance for a corporation need not, according to defendant was held to preclude a the weight of authority, be alleged denial that the defendant was in- to be such. See Leader Printing Co. corporated) ; Emerson Co. v. Nirrir- v. Lowry, 9 Okl. 89 ; 59 Pac. 242 ; ocks, 88 Fed 280 (denial of all Central Bank v. Knowlton, 12 Wise. knowledge of plaintiff corporation 624; 78 Am. Dec. 769; Ryan v. not sufficient in an equity case) ; Farmers' Bank, 5 Kans. 658 ; 5 Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser Enc. of PI. & Pr., pp. 70-74, tit. (Ind.), 78 N. E. 1033, 1037 (gen- "Corporations, IV, 3 (a)," where a eral appearance admission of de- large number of authorities, pro and fendant's incorporation) ; Simon v. con, are cited. 226 § 261-§ 294] PROOF OF INCORPORATION § 273 by an alleged corporation, the defendant should plead in con- fession and avoidance only, he would admit the plaintiff's incorporation, and could not at the trial put the plaintiff upon proof thereof. How it is necessary to plead in order to raise the question whether a certain association is incorporated is a ques- tion that belongs to the law of pleading.' In this place, all that is appropriate on the question is a word of caution lest the im- portance should be overlooked of shaping the pleadings in such a way as, under the lex fori, to raise the issue whether the com- pany is incorporated. Of course, a party who alleges in his pleadings -that a certain company is incorporated cannot be allowed to change front and claim that there is no such corpora- tion.^ An admission in the pleadings that " the defendant is a corporation " will be construed to mean that the defendant was incorporated, not merely at the time of action brought, but also at the time of the transactions on account of which the suit was brought.^ § 273. Direct Proof e£ Incorporation. — From what has been said above,* it is apparent that the production of a certificate from a public ofEcer, if such there be, charged with the dvity of passing finally and conclusively upon the regularity of pro- ceedings looking to incorporation is the simplest evidence that the association in question is. a corporation.^ But if the law ' See cases cited supra, p. 226, not as precluding the defendant n. 2, and 1 Chitty on Pleading, 16th from insisting on an objection, Am. ed., star page 464, note ; 5 Enc. raised in the answer, that the com- of PI. & Pr., pp. 77-90, tit. "Corpo- pany was not incorporated at the rations, IV, 3 (c)." time of the transactions referred to. = First Nat. Bank v. Dovetail, etc. * Supra, § 268 and § 269. Gear Co., 143 Ind. 534 ; 42 N. E. = Cf. Mix v. Nat. Bank of Bloom- 924. Cf. Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. ington, 91 111. 20 ; 33 Am. Rep. 44 146. (holding, comptroller's certificate ' Legrand v. Manhattan Mer- under National Bank Act that the cantUe Ass'n, 80 N. Y. 638 (headnote provisions of the law have been com- inadequate). pUed with, and that the association But see Maryland Tube Works v. is authorized to commence business. West End Improvement Co., 87 Md. to be competent evidence of incor- 207, 213 (headnote inadequate), poration) ; Merchants' Nat. Bank v. where an admission of the incorpo- Glendon Co., 120 Mass. 97 (similar ration of the plaintiff contained in point to last case), an agreed statement of facts was A certificate by a public official construed as merely an admission stating that he had previously is- that the company was incorporated sued a certificate of the due incor- at the time of the agreement, and poration of the company is not 227 §273 IREEGULAK INCORPOEATION [Chap. IV under which the company is formed makes no provision, for such a final and conclusive certificate, or if for any other reason such a certificate is not forthcoming, resort must be had to the less terse and decisive proof. The only other direct proof is the pro- duction of an incorporation paper in legal form,^ or a certified copy thereof,^ together with evidence of registration ^ and of compliance with all provisions of the incorporation law,* and followed up by evidence of the identity of the association whose equivalent to the latter certificate, and indeed is not admissible in evidence. WaR v. Mines, 130 Cal. 27, 38-39; 62 Pac. 386. Cf. Petty V. Hayden, 88 N. W. 339; 115 Iowa 212. ' Fortin v. V. S. Wind, etc. Pump Co., 48 111. 451 ; 95 Am. Dec. 660 ; Edelhoff v. State, 5 Wyo. 19, 23-25; 36 Pac. 627 (holding that original instrument is admissible al- though certified copy is expressly made evidence by statute) ; Sumter Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (S. Car.), 56 S. E. 654 (same point as last case — headnote in- adequate) ; Sierra Land, etc. Co. v. Bricker (Cal.), 85 Pac. 665. Cf. Plank Road Co. v. Young, 12 Md. 476 (where " letters patent " issued by the governor of another state, and purporting to be in con- formity with its laws, were held prima fade evidence of incorpora- tion) ; Agnew v. Bank of Gettysburg, 2 H. & G. (Md.) 478 (same point as last case). ' Cf. Fresno Canal, etc. Co. v. Warner, 72 Cal. 379; 14 Pac. 37 (certified copy of certified record copy admitted) ; Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 22 Cal. 434; Walker v. ShelbyviUe, etc. Turnpike Co., 80 Ind. 452 (orig- inal instrument lost) ; Washer v. AUensviUe, etc. Turnpike Co., 81 Ind. 78 (original instrument lost) ; Tapley V. Martin, 116 Mass. 275, 276; Kern V. Chicago, etc. Ass'n, 40 111. App. 356 (certified copy made evidence by express statute), affirmed, 140 111. 371 ; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Hig- inbotham, 15 S. Dak. 54.7; 91 N. W. 330; Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 494. The original record is, of course, as good evidence as a certified copy. State ex rel. Carolina Iron Co. v. Abernethy, 94 N. Car. 545. , In Jackson ex dem. Walton v. Leggett, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 377, it was said that the non^production of the original instrument must be ac- counted for before the record can be received. ' Sierra Land, etc. Co. v. Bricker (Cal.), 85 Pac. 665 (production of original articles with "filing^ marks" thereon held sufficient). The fact and date of filing with the registrar may be proved by parol. Johnson v. CrawfordsmUe, etc. B. B. Co., 11 Ind. 280. * Cf. Wood V. Wiley Construction Co., 56 Conn. 87, 97-98; 13 Atl. 137 (where a statute providing that a certified copy of the incorporation paper should be "prima fade evi- dence of the due formation, exist- ence, and capacity of such corpora^ tion," was held to dispense with proof that after registration of the instrument a copy had been pub- lished in a newspaper as required by law). As to the impossibility of con- tradicting a magistrate's certifi- cate that the incorporation paper was duly sworn to before him, see Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 494 (headnote inadequate), and infra, § 283. 228 § 261-§ 294] PROOF OF INCORPORATION §' 274 incorporation is to be proved with the association mentioned in the instrument offered in evidence.' User of corporate privi- leges under the name designated in an incorporation paper or special act of incorporation is sufficient prima facie evidence of identity.^ If any gap or flaw appears in this chain of proof, the fact of incorporation is not impregnably established. It seems, however, to be unnecessary in the first instance to prove the genuineness of the signatures subscribed to the incorporation paper, authenticity being presumed.' If the organization of the company by election of officers, and so forth, or by acceptance of a charter, is a condition precedent to incorporation,* the books of the alleged corporation are competent evidence of those facts ; ^ but unless such regular organization be expressly prescribed as a condition precedent to incorporation, it need not be alleged, and if alleged it need not be proved, by the party having the affirmative of the issue of incorporation vel non.^ § 274. Indirect or circumstantial Eyidenpe of Incorporation. — But although direct evidence of the kind set forth in the last paragraph furnishes the most satisfactory proof of incorpora- tion, it is not as a rule the only evidence thereof.' Thus, the ' As to interrogating a witness tures to be a forgery is not admis- whether the alleged corporation sible as a ground of collateral attack acted under certain recorded in- on the incorporation) ; and infra, corporation proceedings, see Haas § 283. V. Bank of Commerce, 41 Nebr. 754, * See supra, § 163. 758-759 (headnote inadequate) ; 60 ° Duke v. Cahawba Nav. Co., 10 N. W. 85. As to proof of the iden- Ala. 82 ; 44 A.m. Dec. 472 ; Foster tity of an association which is suing v. White Cloud' City Co., 32 Mo. 505; as a corporation and a certain com- Grays v. Turnpike Co., 4 Rand. (Va.) pany organized under general in- 578; Buncombe Turnpike Co. v. corporation laws, see M. E. Church McCarson, 1 Dev. & B. (N. Car.) v. Pickett, 19 N. Y. 482, 487. 306. See also infra, § 1120. ' Came v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35 As to parol evidence of organiia^ (headnote inadequate). tion, etc., see Johnson v. Okerstrom, Cf. Utica Ins. Co. v. Tilman, 1 70 Minn. 303 ; 73 N. W. 147 (where Wend. (N. Y.) 555. the evidence was offered for the ^ New York, Lackawanna, etc. purpose of proving the company to Ry. Co., 99 N. Y. 12 ; 1 N. E. 27 ; be a corporation de facto). Lard v. Essex Bldg. Ass'n, 37 Md. " Gruhh v. Mahoning Navigation 320, 325-326 (semble). Co., 14 Pa. St. 302. Cf . Duggan v. Colorado Mortgage, ' In addition to cases cited infra, etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113, 117 (headnote see Agricultural Cattle Ins. Co. v. inadequate, the court declaring that Fitzgerald, 16 Q. B. 432 ; New York evidence to prove one of the signa/- Car Oil Co. v. Richmond, 6 Bosw. 229 §274 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [Chap. IV mere fact that a company has organized and proceeded to trans- act business as a corporation is perhaps upon the principle omnia -presumuntur rite esse acta, some evidence of incorporation, at least as against the company itself.^ Certainly, where the alleged corporation is engaged in business, performance of such conditions precedent to incorporation as the commencement of business within a given time may be presumed.^ So, the grant 213; Stanford Land Co. v. Steidle, 28 Wash. 72; 68 Pac. 178; Fields V. U. S., 27 App. B. C. 433, 444r- 445; Dotson v. MUlihen, 27 App. D. C. 500, 514-515. But see Frankland's Case, Leigh & Cave Cr. Cas. 276, 286-287; Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 480, 486; 24 Am. Dec. 51 ; Warner v. Daniels, 1 Wood. & Min. 90, 105-106 ; UUey v. Union Tool Co., 11 Gray (Mass.) 139; Gauthier, etc. Co. v. Ham, 3 Colo. App. 559, 560 ; 34 Pac. 484 (semble). '■ Narragansett Bank v. Atlantic Silk Co., 3 Mete. (Mass.) 282 ; Doyle V. Douglas Machinery Co., 73 111. 273; Rose Hill, etc. Co. v. People ex rel. Lawless, 115 III. 133 ; 3 N. E. 725; Methodist Episcopal Soc. v. Lake, 51 Vt. 353 (where the records were lost). Cf. Regina v. Langton, 2 Q. B. D. 296; Schuyler County v. Coquard, 9 Mo. App. 592 ; Provident Institution V. Burnham, 128 Mass. 458; War- den, etc. of Mercers v. Hart, 1 C. & P. 113; Bow V. AUenstown, 34 N. H. 351; 69 Am. Dec. 489; Wood v. Jefferson County Bank, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 194 ; Packard v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 168 Mass. 92; 46 N. E. 433 ; Hagerstown Turnpike Road. Co. v. Creeger, 5 H. & J. (Md.) 122 ; 9 Am. Dec. 495 ; Sasser v. State, 13 Ohio Rep. 453, 484^-488 ; Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn. 293 (holding that the alleged corporation had done no acts which an unincorporated asso- ciation might not do). But see Frankland's Case, Leigh & Cave Cr. Cas. 276. Certain Michigan cases, Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Spears, 50 Mich. 534; 15 N. W. 894; and Canal, etc. Co. v. Paas, 95 Mich. 372; 54 N. W. 907; and Lake Su- perior Bldg. Co. V. Thompson, 32 Mich. 293, were decided under a statute expressly enacting that the transaction of business under a cor- porate name should be prima facie evidence of incorporation. In Smith V. Mayfield, 163 111. 447; 45 N. E. 157, the court held that a contract with a corporation might be ad- mitted in evidence in an action be- tween third persons without proof of incorporation other than the user of corporate functions. As to proof of incoi-poration by general reputation, see People v. Dole, 122 Cal. 486, 497; 55 Pac. 581; 68 Am. St. Rep. 50 (with which case compare Norton v. State, 74 Ind. 337, and NicoU v. Clark, 13 N. Y. Misc. 128, 130; 34 N. Y. Supp. 159) ; Reed v. State, 15 Ohio Rep. 217 ; Fleener v. State, 58 Ark. 98; 23 S. W. 1 ; People v. Ah Sam, 41 Cal. 645, 651-654; Dick v. State (Md.), 68 Atl. 826; State v. Brown (Utah), 93 Pac. 52 (holding that no sufficient evidence of reputation had been adduced). ' Bank of Manchester v. Allen, 11 Vt. 302, 307; Memphis, etc. plank Road Co. V. Riifes, 21 Ark. 302 (per- formance of condition that subscrip- tion books be opened presumed from election of officers) ; National Fire Ins. Co. V. Yeomans, 8 R. I. 25 ; 86 Am. Dec. 610; Lucas v. Bank of Georgia, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 147, 148. Cf. Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co. v. White, 14 S. Car. 51 (holding that in pleading 230 § 261-§ 294] PROOF OF INCORPOHATION § 275 of a land patent to a company as a corporation followed by a deed from the company is sufficient proof of the corporate ex- istence of the company in establishing a chain of title.' On the other hand, according to the weight of reason if not of authority, the use of a name such as "The Pacific Life Insurance Company of California "^ is not, standing alone, any evidence of incor- poration;^ for with equal propriety such names might be and often are borne by unincorporated associations. It has been held that the direct testimony of a witness who is acquainted with the facts to the effect that the company in question is in- corporated is evidence.^ § 275. Secondary Evidence of Contents of Incorporation Paper. — If the effort is made to prove incorporation, not indirectly or circumstantially, by evidence of reputation, user of cor- porate powers or the like, but directly by showing that an in- corporation paper in compliance with law was duly executed and recorded, parol evidence of the contents of the incorpora- tion paper will not be admissible unless the non-production of the original or a certified copy be explained.* The record or cer- tified copy is, as we have seen, generally admissible without accounting for the non-production of the original instrument.* If the proper foundation be laid for secondary evidence of the contents of the incorporation paper, the court will not insist upon testimony sufficient to reproduce all the essential provisions of the instrument, but will be satisfied by general testimony that it compUed with the law." performance of conditions precedent ♦ Cf. Rose HUl, etc. Road Co. v. to incorporation need not be averred). People ex rel. Lawless, 115 111. 133; ' Galbraith v. Shasta Iron Co., 3 N. E. 725; Owen v. Shepard, 59 143 Cal. 94, 96 (headnote inad- Fed. 746 ; 8 C. C. A. 244 ; Evans v. equate) ; 76 Pac. 901. Southern Turnpike Co., 18 Ind. 101 ; ^ Briggs v. McCvJloh, 36 Cal. 542. Haas v. Bank of Commerce, 41 Nebr. Cf. Guckert v. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 754, 759-760; 60 N. W. 85 (holding 303 ; 28 Atl. 249 (" Hughes & Gaw- that a witness may be asked whether throp Co. ") ; Owen v. Shepard, 59 the company acted under certain Fed. 746 (headnote' inadequate — articles offered in evidence except " Indian Trading Co." ) ; 8 C. C. A. that by amendment the amount of 244. capital was changed). See infra, § 464. ' Supra, § 273. 2 State V. Pittam, 32 Wash. 137 ; ' Rose Hill, etc. Road Co. v. Peo- 72 Pac. 1042 ; Locke v. Leonard Silk pie ex rel. Lawless, 115 111. 133 ; 3 Co., 37 Mich. 479. N. E. 725. But see State v. Brovm (Utah), 93 Pac. 52. 231 §276 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [Chap. IV § 276. Statute recognizing Corporate Existence of defectively incorporated Company. — Any statute which recognizes the ex- istence of an association as a body corporate, of course, dispenses with proof of incorporation and cures any defects in the in- corporation proceedings,' unless indeed the constitution of the state prohibits special legislation having that effect. Such a statute is in effect a special act of incorporation.^ § 277. Admissions of Incorporation. — Moreover, incorpora- tion may be proved, prima facie, by an admission of the liti- gant who is denying the fact.^ And this admission may be implied as well as express. For instance, the execution of a promissory note expressed to be payable to a corporation is an implied admission by the maker that the company is incorpo- rated ; * and indeed any contract or dealing with a company as a corporation is an implied admission that the company is incor- ' Williams v. Union Bank, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 339; Basshor v. Dressel, 34 Md. 503 ; Koch v. NoHh Ave. By. Co., 75 Md. 222; 23 Atl. 463 ; 15 L. R. A. 377. Cf. Thornton v. Marginal Freight Ry. Co., 123 Mass. 32 (where there was held to be no sufiBcient legisla- tive recognition of corporate exist- ence) ; Attorney-Oeneral v. Railroad Companies, 35 Wise. 425, 602. ^ Oroville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Palmas County, 37 Cal. 354, 362 (headnote inadequate). But see Central Agricultural, etc. Ass'n V. Ala, Gold Life Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120 (holding such a statute not to be a violation of a constitu- tional prohibition of incorporation by special act if the company is al- ready in existence as a corporation de facto); State ex ret. Sanche v. Webb, 110 Ala. 214 (same point); Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 188 (similar point) ; State V. Squires, 26 Iowa 340 (similar decision but on the ground that a general law could not be made ap- phcable in such a case). * Cf . Standard Oil Co. v. Common- wealth (Ky.), 91 S. W. 1128 (receipt given by defendant company de- scribing itself as a corporation suflEl- cient evidence against it in a crim- inal case to prove its own incor- poration) ; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. V. Dempsey, 72 Md. 288 ; 19 Atl. 642 (paper filed as copy of company's incorporation paper although not authenticated as required by law evidence against the company to prove its incorporation) ; Marx v. Raley & Co. (Cal.), 92 Pac. 519 (letter from company admitting its incorporation sufficient evidence to support a judgment against it as a corporation). But see Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Herkimer, 46 Ind. 142, 148 ; Ramsey V. Peoria, etc. Ins. Co., 55 111. 311. As to admissions in the plead- ings, see supra, § 272. As to an admission in an agreed statement of facts, see Maryland Tube Worjcs v. West End Improve- ment Co., 87 Md. 207, 213 (headnote inadequate — stated supra, p. 227, n. 2). * Jones V. Cincinnati Type Foun- dry Co., 14 Ind. 89 (headnote mis- leading) ; Williams v. Cheney, 3 Gray (Mass.) 215; Brown v. Scoth tish-American Mortgage Co., 110 111. 235; Williamsburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. 232 § 261-§ 294] ADMISSIONS OF INCORPORATION §277 porated.' The same has been held with respect to a mere refer- ence to the company as incorporated in a contract with a third person.^ Similarly, where a company is sued as^a corporation, certificates for shares issued under the company's seal and recit- ing that the company had been duly registered under a general incorporation law are as against the defendant sufficient prima facie proof of incorporation ; ' and in America the mere use by the defendant of a name such as is usually borne by a corpora- tion would perhaps have the same effect.* On the other hand, a mere admission that an account made out in the name of a supposed corporation is correct is not an admission that the creditor is incorporated.* But this sort of proof, considered as merely evidentiary — that is, unless some other rule of law in- tervenes — is prima fame merely, and may be overthrown by showing that in point of fact the incorpof ation paper is not in correct form, or has not been recorded, or that there is some other fatal defect in the incorporation proceedings." Unless the evidence that establishes the admission is to be given some effect beyond or other than a mere admission, it is always subject to Frothingham, 122 Mass. 391 (where a bond was in favor of a company and its successors) ; Campbell & Zell Co. v. American Surety Co., 129 Fed. 491 ; Lucas v. Bank of Georgia, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 147, 150 (semble); South Bay Meadow Dam Co. v. Cray, 30 Me. 547, 549-550. Cf. Franz v. Tewtonia Bldg. Ass., 24 Md. 259 ; Johnston Harvester Co. V. Clark, 30 Minn. 308; Provident Institution v. Burnham, 128 Mass. 458 ; Gaines v. Bank of Mississippi, 12 Arlc. 769; Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 7 "Wend. (N. Y.) 539, 541- 542. But see Ramsey v. Peoria, etc. Ins. Co., 55 111. App. 311. ' French v. Donahue, 29 Minn. Ill ; 12 N. W. 354; Johnston Har- vester Co. V. Clark, 30 Minn. 308; Ryan v. Martin, 91 N. Car. 464; Oriffin V. Clinton Line, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27, 31; Sierra Land, etc. Co. V. Bricker (Cal.), 85 Pac. 665. Cf. Topping v. Bickford, 4 Allen (Mass.) 120; Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 539; Dooley v. Wolcott, 4 Allen (Mass.) 406. But see WdLand Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 480; 24 Am. Deo, 51. ' Anglo-Calif ornian Bank v. Field, 146 Cal. 644, 651 ; 80 Pac. 1080. ' Mostyn v. Calcott Hall Mining Co., 1 Fos. & Fin. 334. * Bon Aqua Imp. Co. v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 34 W. Va. 764, 769- 770 (headnote inadequate — where a contract of ;the " Standard Fire Ins. Co." was signed by "W. E., Presi- dent, C. W. C, Secretary") ; 12 S. E. 771. See infra, § 464. " Florsheim & Co. v. Fry, 109 Mo. App. 487, 492 ; 84 S. W. 1023. ° Griffin v. Clinton Line, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27, 31. Cf. Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Her- kimer, 46 Ind. 142 (where evidence of an admission was excluded when it appeared from other evidence that the incorporation paper had not been filed, etc.). See also infra, § 283. 233 § 278 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV contradiction by bringing forward the incorporation proceed- ings themselves. Whether any such further effect is to be given will depend on the position taken in respect to questions which will shortly be adverted to and upon which the courts are by no means agreed. § 278-§ 282. ESTOPPEL to dent incorporation. § 278. Estoppel by Record. — An estoppel partakes of the nature of a conclusive admission. Now, without entering on the vexed question of "corporations by estoppel," one can readily perceive that an admission of corporate existence may in some cases crystaUize into an estoppel to deny corporate existence. Take the clearest case — estoppel by record. If in one action or suit the question whether a certain association is legally incor- porated is raised, argued, and decided in favor of the legality of the incorporation, that decision will be conclusive by estoppel in any subsequent litigation between the same parties, so as to preclude a second attack upon the company's corporate exist- ence.^ On the other hand, the two acti«ns must be between the same parties or their privies, or else the estoppel will not be available. Hence, a judgment in an action by a corporation or its receiver .against one shareholder cannot be pleaded in another action by the receiver against another shareholder.^ § 279. Estoppel by Deed. — As to estoppel. by deed, the case is perhaps not so clear; and yet, on principle, it is difficult ' Keene v. Van Reuth, 48 Md. 184 until the claim against the individual (headnote misleading) ; Williams members had become barred by v. Bank of Michigan, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) limitations). 539, 541-542 (semble) ; Robertson ' Nickum v. Burckhardt, 30 Oreg. v. Parks, 76 Md. 118, 133-134 (head- 464; 47 Pae. 788; 48 Pac. 474; 60 note inadequate); 24 Atl. 411. Am. St. Rep. 822 (where the former Cf. Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnels, 55 judgment was relied upon to estab- Mich. 130 ; 20 N. W. 823 ; Fields v. lish that the company was not in- Cook, 16 La. Ann. 153; Ritsh v. corporated). Halcyon Steamboat Co., 84 N. Car. But see Pochelu v. Kemper, 14 702, 704 (holding that after judg- La. Ann. 308; 74 Am. Dec. 433 ment against a supposed corpora- (where a judgment against supposed tion, its corporate existence cannot corporation on promissory note was be attacked in resisting a motion held to estop holder from suing mem- for a writ of execution) ; Droege v. bers as partners). It is submitted Emsry (Ky.), 105 S. W. 374 (similar that a better ground for this last to last case, with the further fact decision is that the claim is merged that the objection to the company's in the judgment. See infra, J 293. corporate existence was not raised 234 § 261-§ 294] ESTOPPEL § 280 to see why a recital in a deed that a company is incorporated should not in a proper case bind the party by way of estoppel.^ However, the authorities in general have not discriminated be- tween estoppel by deed and estoppel in pais; and in fact the doctrine of estoppel in pais has been carried so far in respect to these matters that in most of the United States there is rarely any need of resorting to any peculiar law of estoppel by deed. § 280-§ 282. Estoppel in Pais. § 280. Estoppel of Individual to deny the Incorporation. — There seems to be no reason to doubt that on the strictest princi- ples of the common law a person may sometimes be estopped in pais to deny that a certain company is a corporation. The ordinary elements of an estoppel in pais are well known — a statement false in fact, relied upon by another person to his prej- udice. Thus, if a person either expressly, or impliedly by openly holding shares in an association which claims to be a corporation, represents Jto those who may choose to deal with the company that the concern is incorporated and that the share- holders are accordingly subject to any individual liability to creditors which by statute may be imposed on the stockholders of a corporation, he will be estopped to escape such liability on the plea that the company was never legally incorporated.^ In such a case, all the elements of an estoppel in pais are present; and therefore, consistently with principle, no other decision could be reached. So, the maker of a promissory note in favor of a supposed corporate body will be estopped from denying the validity of the note in the hands of a bona fide holder for value, a;lthough the supposed incorporation was invalid.^ And upon the same principle, a person who executes a deed conveying ' PUbrow v. PUbrow's Atmos- Co., 10 R. I. 112 ; Slocum v. Warren, pheric, etc. Co., 5 C. B. 440; German 10 R. I. 116; Wheelock v. Kost, 77 .Bank v. Stumpf, 6 Mo. App. 17 ; III. 296 ; Tanner v. Nichols, 80 S. W. Hasenritter v. Kirchhoffer, 79 Mo. 225; 25 Ky. Law Rep. 2191. 239 ; Whitney v. Robinson, 53 Wise. See also Casey v. Galli, 94 TJ. S. 309; 10 N. W. 512; White Oak 673; Maxwell v. Akin, 89 Fed. 178. Grove Benev. Soc. v. Murray, 145 ^ Camp v. Byrne, 41 Mo. 525. Mo. 622 ; 47 S. W. 501. Cf. Canfield v. Gregory, 66 Conn. Cf. Keen v. Whittington, 40 Md. 9 ; 33 Atl. 536 (suit by receiver of 489, 495. supposed insolvent corporation to ' Slocum V. Providence Steam, etc. collect unpaid subscriptions). 23,-> § 2S1 IREEGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV property to a supposed corporation may be taken as representing to any person to whom the supposed corporation may convey the land that the company is duly incorporated, and accordingly may be estopped from asserting the contrary as a flaw in the title of such grantee.' § 281. Estoppel of supposed Corporation to deny its own Existence. — Perhaps without any real extension of this princi- ple the estoppel might be held to cover the shareholders collec- tively, that is, the supposed corporation. That is to say, when persons have held themselves out to the world as members of a corporation, they might be held to be estopped from denying that fact when strangers take them at their word and sue them as a corporation. To this effect are many American cases.^ The objection to this view is that the capacity to be sued as a corpora- tion is in a sense jurisdictional, so that to permit an action against an association as if it were a corporation because of a mere equity against its members is very like estopping the court. Consequently, one cannot well find fault with a decision that an action cannot be sustained against an unincorporated association merely because of an equitable estoppel of its members to deny the incorporation.' Upon the same principle, an English judge held that the question whether a certain association was a cor- poration and so within the statutes conferring jurisdiction for the winding-up of companies had to be decided without refer- ence to any estoppel of the members to deny their corporate existence.* Nevertheless, the prevalent American doctrine ' Snyder v. Stvdebaker, 19 Ind. (headnote inadequate). Said Keke- 462; 81 Am. Dec. 415. See also wich, J., "It is said in short, that the infra, p. 238, n. 1. Of. § 294. company is estopped from setting ^ E. g. Callender v. PainesvUle, up this case as an objection. I do etc. B. R. Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Mc- not think it is necessary to deal with CvUcmgh v. Talledega Ins. Co., 46 the question of estoppel. The point Ala. 376, 377; Stewart Paper Mfg. has been mentioned to the court. Co. V. iJaw, 92 Ga. 511; 17 S. E. 748. The court has to make the order, Of course, no such estoppel can and will not knowingly make an bind a de jure corporation subse- order which is wrong in form and quently formed; Bradley Fertilizer substance in a matter of this kind, Co. V. South Publishing Co., 4 N. Y. however much the parties may be Misc. 172 ; 23 N. Y. Supp. 675. estopped from bringing forward any ' Boyce-v. Towsontoum Sta. M. E. argument against it. I say 'in a Church, 46 Md. 359. matter of this kind,' because the ^ National Debenture and Assets question is one of jurisdiction. . . . Corp. (1891), 2 Ch. 505, 509-510 On a question of jurisdiction, I take 236 § 261-§ 294] ESTOPPEL § 282 supported by the cases cited above cannot be deemed any very flagrant violation of established principles of estoppel in pais. § 282. Estoppel by Dealing with supposed Corporation. — But many American courts — perhaps we should say, most American courts — go further and hold not only that those who participate in representing to the public that a defectively in- corporated company of which they are members is a legally con- stituted corporation are estopped to deny its corporate character, but also that anybody who deals with them as a corporation is likewise estopped.' That is to say, any one who contracts with a company which is purporting to act as a corporation cannot subsequently when sued upon the contract by the supposed cor- poration deny the company's corporate existence, nor can he hold the members of the supposed corporation as partners. This conclusion, it is submitted, cannot be justified by the ordinary principles of estoppel in pais. For the person or persons it, the court must make up its own under a supposed corporation es- mind and is bound to disregard any question of estoppel." ' Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673, 680 (semble) ; Close v. Glenwood Ceme- tery, 107 U. S. 466, 476-477 ; 2 Sup. Ct. 267 ; Stvdebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. ■V. Montgomery, 74 Mo. 101 ; Shields V. Clifton Hill Land Co., 94 Tenn. 123 ; 28 S. W. 668 ; 26 L. R. A. 509 ; 45 Am. St. Rep. 700 ; Estey Mfg. Co. V. Runnels, 55 Mich. 130 ; 20 N. W. 823; Stmttimore v. Clark, 70 Mo. 471 (estoppel raised by signing note payable to "Missouri City Savings Bank"); Worcester Med. Institution .V. Harding, 11 Gush. 285; Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa 145; 81 N. W. 225 (where the party estopped was himself a corporator) ; Planters', etc. Bank v. Padgett, 69 Ga. 159 ; Thomp- son v. Commercial, etc. Ass. Co., 78 Pac. 1073 (Colo.) ; Rannds v. Rowe, 145 Fed. 296; 74 C. C. A. 376; Whitney v. Robinson, 53 Wise. 309 ; 10 N. W. 512 ; Platte Valley Bank v. Harding, 1 Nebr. 461 (estoppel raised by signing note payable to "Platte Valley Bank or order"); Hasselman v. U. S. Mtg. Co., 97 Ind. 365 (person claiming title to land topped to deny its existence for the purpose of avoiding a prior mortgage executed by it upon the property) ; Gow v. Collin, etc. Lumber Co., 109 Mich. 45; 66 N. W. 676; Western Investment Co. v. Davis (Ind. Ty.), 104 S. W. 573; Young v. Plattner Implement Co. (Colo.), 91 Pac. 1109 (estoppel by execution of a note re- citing the payee to be a corpora- tion) ; Lincoln Park Chapter v. Swatek, 204 lU. 228; 68 N. E. 429 (estoppel by receiving dividends) ; Brooke v. Day (Ga.), 59 S. E. 769, 770 (semble) ; Union Pac. Lodge v. Bankers' Surety Co. (Nebr.), 113 N. W. 263. Cf. Black River, etc. R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 ; West Winsted Sav. Bank v. Ford, 27 Conn. 282; 71 Am. Dec. 66. In Marion Savings Bank v. Dun- kin, 54 Ala. 471 (where the doctrine stated in the text, although recog- nized as law, was held to be inap- plicable because the person against whom the estoppel was invoked had had no direct dealings with the supposed corporation). 237 § 282 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV in whose favor the estoppel is invoked — that is, the supposed corporation or its members — were not misled by any misrepre- sentation of the person who is to be estopped. If we assume that whoever deals with a company which claims to be a corpo- ration impliedly represents to it that it is incorpprated, yet the supposed company or its members are not misled ; for they are better acquainted with the facts than he can possibly be.' If the argument be advanced that he impUedly represents that he will not when sued upon the contract deny the company's cor- porate existence, the answer is that a promissory representation cannot give rise to an estoppel.^ Moreover, the contrary view permits persons by arrogating corporate functions to themselves in entire defiance of law, and in complete disregard of salutary legal restrictions, to create, virtually, a corporation which will have such powers as their own whim from time to time may dictate and whose existence will be as real for all practical pur- poses as if it were legally organized. Hence, those cases are to be commended which protest against the perversion of the sound doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence into this very different doctrine of " corporations by estoppel." * This protest is reinforced by a hne of cases holding that "corporations by estoppel" exist only when the facts are such as, according to the principles adverted to in a succeeding paragraph, would constitute the association a "de facto corpo- ration." * In so far as these latter cases assimilate or confuse ' If the supposed corporation as- Ann. 1076 ; 17 So. 496 ; 49 Am. St. signs to a third person property Rep. 394 ; Abbott v. Omaha Smelting which has been granted to it as a Co., 4 Nebr. 416; Griffin v. Clinton corporation, the original grantor Line, etc. R. R. Co., 11 Fed. Cas. 27 ; may well be estopped from denying Provident, etc. Trust Co. v. Saxon, the title of the purchaser from the 116 La. 408; 40 So. 778; Louisiana supposed corporation. See Green Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 116 La. V. Grigg, 98 N. Y. App. Div. 445 ; 413 ; 40 So. 779. 90 N. Y. Supp. 565, and supra, Cf. Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 § 280. Ind. App. 593; 54 N. E. 407; 72 ' Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th ed., Am. St. Rep. 326 ; Doyle v. Mizner, p. 574. 42 Mich. 332 ; 3 N. W. 968 ; Jones ' Boyce v. Towsontown Station v. Aspen Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263 ; M. E. Church, 46 Md. 359; WeUand 40 Pac. 457; 52 Am. St. Rep. 220; Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 8 Wend. 29 L. R. A. 143 ; Glenn v. Bergman, 480, 483-484 ; 24 Am. Dec. 51 (sub- 20 Mo. App. 343. stantially overruled by Black River, * Jones v. Aspen Hardware Co., etc. R. R. Co. V. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 21 Colo. 263, 268; 40 Pac. 457; 52 208); WiUiama v. Hewitt, 47 La. Am. St. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143, 238 § 261-§ 294] DISPROOF OF INCORPORATION § 283 the doctrines of estoppel and of de facto, corporations, it is sub- mitted that they are to be regretted; but in so far as they im- pliedly repudiate the notion of " corporations by estoppel," they may be heartily approved. Where the doctrine of corporations by estoppel is recognized, in an action against the menibers of the supposed corporation as partners, the plaintiff, in order to negative any estoppel, may show that at the time of dealing with the alleged corporation he was informed that the company was a partnership.' § 283. Disproof of Incorporation. — To disprove incorpora- tion, the most satisfactory evidence is the testimony of the lawful custodian of the register of corporations to the effect that no incorporation paper has ever been recorded on behalf of the supposed company.^ In Texas, it has been held that the testi- mony of a private person to the effect that he had examined the register of corporations and failed to find any record of a corpo- ration bearing a certain name is not admissible ; ^ but it is sub- mitted that according to the better view any person who has examined the records may testify as to what is not to be found there.* A certificate from the custodian of the record that the supposed incorporation paper had not been filed is not evidence.^ It has been held, however, that if the original incorporation paper is produced, the fact that it bears no indorsement indicative of having been filed with the proper officer is evidence that it was not so filed." ^ Evidence that residents of the supposed domicile of the alleged corporation had never heard of its existence has been said to be competent.' Stanwood v. Sterling Meted Co., 107 ' Cross v. Pinckneymlle Mill Co., lU. App. 569, 574. Cf. infra, § 291. 17 lU. 54 ; Lusk v. Biggs, 97 N. W. ' Christian, etc. Grocery Co. v. 1033, 1034; 70 Nebr. 713 (sem- Fruitdale Lumber Co., 25, So. 566 ; ble). 121 Ala. 340. ° Lmk v. Biggs, 97 N. W. 1033 ' Cobb V. Bryan (Tex.), 83 S. W. (headnote inadequate) ; 70 Nebr. 887 (semble). 713. ' Cobb V. Bryan (Tex.), 83 S. W. ' Cobb v. Bryan (Tex.), 83 S. W. 887. 887 (semble). * Cross v. Pinckneymlle Mill Co., 17 lU. 54, 55 (semble). 239 § 283 IKREGULAB INCORPORATION [ChAP- IV We have seen above that in attacking collaterally the existence of an alleged corporation, it is not permissible to show that a public officer's certificate of due incorporation that may be re- quired by law was obtained by the fraud of the promoters.' Similarly, it is not competent in a collateral proceeding to show that some of the material statements in the incorporation paper are false in point of f ac t,^ or that some of the subscribers who on the Jace of the paper appear to have duly acknowledged it did not in fact do so.' A fortiori, it is not a good plea to an action by the company that the execution of the incorporation paper, or deed of settlement, was obtained by fraud without alleging upon whom the fraud was practised.' On the other hand, these doctrines will not be allowed to shield promoters who may have been guilty of fraud ; ^ and the courts will rip open the incorpo- ration in so far as may be necessary to restore defrauded parties to the status in quo and in so far as can be done without risk of injustice to innocent persons who have had dealings with the corporation." Moreover, in cases of fraud, it would seem that in America judgment of ouster might be entered against the corporation at the instance of the state.' > Supra, § 267. Glass Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 494 ' Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hatch, (headnote inadequate). 20 N. Y. 157, 159 (headnote inade- As to a case where some of the quate) ; Am. Salt^ Co. v. Heiden- signatures to the instrument are heimer, 80 Tex. 344 ; 15 S. W. 1038 ; forgeries, see supra, p. 229, n. 3. 26 Am. St. Rep. 743. ♦ PUbrow v. PUbrow's Atmos- But see Montgomery v. Forbes, pheric, etc. Co., 5 C. B. 440. 148 Mass. 249 (incorporation with- ' Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 out bona fde intent to carry on Mass. 249 ; 19 N. E. 342 ; Patterson business at place named in incor- v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410 (overruled poration paper). That false state- in Cocftron v. ArnoW, 58 Pa. St. 399) ; ments in an incorporation paper Niemeyer v. lAtUe Rock Junction Ry., will not sustain an action of deceit 43 Ark. 111. And see infra, § 287. against the subscribers, see Webb v. ' Jones v. Missouri-Edison Elec- RockefeUer, 195 Mo. 57, 63-75; 93 trie Co., 144 Fed. 765; 75 C. C. A. S. W. 772. 631. ' First Nat. Bank v. Rockefeller, ' Cf. Holman v. State ex rel. Gib- 195 Mo. 15 (headnote misleading) ; son, 105 Ind. 569 ; 5 N. E. 702 ; State 93 S. W. 761. ex inf. Attorney-General v. Hogan, As to the conclusiveness of the 163 Mo. 43 ; 63 S. W. 378 ; Webb v. magistrate's certificate of acknowl- Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 57; 93 S. W. edgment, see Dooley v. Cheshire 772. 240 § 261-§ 294] CORPORATIONS DE FACTO § 284 § 284- § 292. INCORPORATION DE FACTO. § 284. Whether irregular Incorporation Proceedings can give rise to Corporation De Facto. — Cases not seldom arise in which some condition precedent to the legal organization of a cor- poration has been omitted, and in which no conclusive certifi- cate of due incorporation exists, and in which no estoppel to deny the company's existence can be invoked. In such cases, the American courts generally will, under certain conditions, hold that the association although not legally incorporated is nevertheless a corporation de facto, that is to say, an association whose right to corporate functions and attributes is complete as against all the world except the sovereign.' This doctrine, which is based upon analogy to the law of de facto officers,^ has never received recognition in England,^ and is apparently repudiated in Maryland.* So too, in some other states, the rule has been enunciated that the non-performance of any material require- ' Commissioners of Douglas favor of the corporation itself it is County V. BoUes, 94 U. S. 104 ; JDoty substantially applied in favor of in- v. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60 ; 56 N. E. nocent shareholders. 668 ; Stout v. Zulick, 48 N. J. Law, ' See, for example, National 599 ; 7 Atl. 362 ; Tulare Irrigation Debenture, etc. Corp. (1891), 2' Ch. District v. Shepard, 185 U. S. 1 ; 22 505, and Laxon & Co. (1892), 3 Ch. Sup. Ct. 531 ; Leavengood v. McGee 555, and other cases cited supra, (Oreg.), 91 Pac. 453; Gilkey v. § 268, where neither counsel nor Town of How, 105 Wise. 41 (a de/ court dreamt of attempting to apply facto municipal corporation); Neiufany such doctrine as the American Orleans Debenture, etc. Co. v. Lo.,f doctrine of de /octo corporations. 180 U. S. 320, 327-328 ; 21 Sup. I As to Canadian law, see Common Ct. 378; Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v.h. McArthur, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 239 Fifth Baptist Church, 137-U. S. 568 / (where the principle of de facto in- 11 Sup. Ct. 185; £aton v. AspinuioZi, corporation seems to have been acted 19 N. Y. 119; Venable v. Ebenezer ^upon). Baptist Church, 25 Kans. 177. j ' * Boyce v. Towsontown Station ' Note, however, that the doc-lM. E. Church, 46 Md. 359; Mary- trine of de facto corporations applies yind Tube Works v. West End Imp. in favor of the supposed corporationyCo., 87 Md. 207; 39 Atl. 620; 39 itself, whereas the doctrine of deYL. R. A. 810. facto officers does not apply in favor J Cf. Worhingmen's Accommoda- of the officer himself. A reason for I tion Bank v. Converse, 29 La. Ann. this distinction may be found in the ! 369. But as to the Maryland law, fact that the de facto corporation is Isee Keene v. Van Reuth, 48 Md. 184 composed . of natural persons who /(which as to the actual decisioii can may be regarded as innocent third I be explained on the ground men- persons, so that when the de facto( tioned supra, § 278, and also relied doctrine is applied nominally in upon by the court). VOL. I. — 16 241 § 284 IRREGULAB INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV ment of an incorporation law will always render the attempted incorporation void except where an estoppel to enter upon the question can be raised.' But according to the decided weight . of American authority the possibility of de facto corporations is recognized. As an original question, it is very difficult to sustain this prev- alent American doctrine. We have seen that a company be- comes incorporated de jure when the only irregularity consists in a failure to observe directory provisions of the incorporation laws,' or where the law has been substantially complied with.' Moreover, irregularities in the incorporation proceedings are not to be presumed ; and we have seen above that where no irregu- larities in the incorporation proceedings affirmatively appear, very slight evidence will be sufficient proof of incorporation.* Furthermore, breaches of conditions subsequent to incorpora- tion can never be availed of by persons other than the state, unless the legislature in express words so directs.* In some cases, also, an estoppel may prevent the question from being raised." It is only when all these principles fail, that the Ameri- can doctrine of de facto corporations becomes operative. When this is the case, — when there has been a failure to perform some act, performance of which the legislature has declared to be a condition precedent to incorporation, when this fact affirma- tively appears in evidence, and when no party is estopped to allege the truth, upon what principle are the courts justified in holding that although the legislature has declared there shall not be a corporation yet there shall be a corporation except as against the sovereign? If it were common law that private persons might without statutory or royal authority by mere agree- ment convert themselves into a corporation which should have ' Said the court in Slocum v. 42 Mich. 332; 3 N. W. 968; Gnjjin ProvideTice, etc. Steam Co., 10 R. I. v. Clinton Line, etc. R. B. Co., 11 112, 114: "We know of no rule Fed. Cas. 27; Hurt y. Salisbury, 55 which precludes inquiry into the Mo. 310; Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. question, whether a company which Herkimer, 46 Ind. 142 ; Williams v. assumes to act as a corporation has Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076; 17 So. ever been incorporated, in any case, 496 ; 49 Am. St. Rep. 394. in the absence of any matter of es- ' Supra, § 264. toppel to prevent the inquiry." ' Ibid. Cf. Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings * § 274. Bank, 56 Iowa 104; 8 N. W. 772; ' § 265. 41 Am. Rep. 85; Doyle v. Mizner, « § 278-J 282. 242 § 261-§ 294] CORPORATIONS DE FACTO § 286 all the characteristics of a lawful corporation except where the state is concerned, then the American doctrine of de facto cor- porations might be sustained, on the ground that such incorpo- rations owe their existence to the common law rather than to an incorporation statute which has not been complied with. But as far back as the time of Edward III, the common law was settled adversely to this hypothesis.' The only ground on which the American doctrine of de facto corporations can well be sustained is that the legislature in prescribing certain con- ditions precedent to incorporation must be taken to have in- tended them to be conditions precedent to incorporation de jure merely, and not necessarily (in cases where colorable com- pliance with law is had) to incorporation as regards private persons.^ § 285-§ 290. Circumstances necessary to create a Corpo- ration De Facto. § 285. In general. — Even under the prevalent American doctrine of de facto corporations, certain circumstances must concur in order to warrant its application. If there be a valid statute under which a company might be incorporated, a bona fide colorable attempt to comply with the law, and finally an organization and exercise of corporate functions, all the au- thorities which recognize the doctrine of de facto corporations would, probably, agree that a proper case has been made for holding that the company is a de facto if not a de jure corporation.* § 286. Requirement of a Law under which the Corporation might be formed. — The existence of a law under which the corporation might lawfully be organized is recognized by the weight of authority as a necessary condition to the attainment of a de facto corporate existence.* Some cases hold that the ex- ' Y. B. 49 Edw. Ill, 3. See also, St. Rep. 552; Doty v. Patterson, 155 infra, § 285-§ 290, as to the requisites Ind. 60 ; 56 N. E. 668 ; Tvlare Irri- of a corporation de facto under the gation District v. Shepard, 185 U. S. American doctrine. 1 ; 22 Sup. Ct. 531 ; Stout v. ZvMck, ' This rule of statutory construe- 48 N. J. Law 599 ; 7 Atl. 362. tion — for such it really is — has * Am. Loan & Trust Co. v. Af in- been expressly enacted as law in nesota, etc. R. R. Co., 157 III. 641 ; Cahfomia. 42 N. E. 153 ; OiUette v. Aurora Ry. = Finnegan v. Noerenburg, 52 Co., 81 N. E. 1005; 228 111. 261. Minn. 239; 53 N. W. 1150; 38 Am. Cf. Snyder v. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 243 §287 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV istence of an unconstitutional statute or enabling act satisfies this requirement; ' but a larger number take the opposite view.^ Some authorities insist that if all the objects of the supposed corporation are objects for which the statute does not authorize companies to be incorporated, the case is as if no incorporation act were on the statute books.* Moreover, some authorities maintain that if persons who are not under the statute compe- tent to act as corporators attempt to form a corporation, there is no law under which they might be incorporated so that no de facto corporation can result from the attempt.* § 287. Requirement of Bona Fides in attempting to comply with Law. — The requirement that in order to give rise to a 462 (proceeding on the ground of estoppel and declaring that an es- toppel cannot be raised on a matter of law) ; St. Louis Colonization Ass'n V. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555, 556 (semble — similar point to that of last case). ' Board of Comm'rs v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; Coxev. State, 144 N. Y.. 396, 409; 39 N. E. 400; Htidsoh v. Green Hill Cemetery, 113 111. 618; Catholic Church v. Tohbein, 82 Mo. 418 ; Lang v. Mayor, etc. of Bayonne (N. J.),68 Atl. 90. Cf. Smith V. Sheeley, 12 Wall. 358 (holding that an association organ- ized under an act of a territorial legislature which could not take effect until approved by Congress was nevertheless a corporation de facto). ^ Brandenstein v. Hoke, 101 Cal. 131 ; 35 Pao. 562 ; Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579; 43 N. W. 638; 6 L. R. A. 102. Cf. Georgia Southern, etc. R. R. Co. V. Mercantile Trust Co., 94 Ga. 306; 21 S. E. 701 ; 47 Am. St. Rep. 153; 32 L. R. A. 208 (attempt to incorporate imder an unconsti- tutional special act held to create a corporation de facto because of the existence of a valid general law under which the company might have been organized) ; Snyder v. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 462 ; 81 Am. Dec. 415 (over- ruling EvansvUle, etc. R. R. Co. v. City of EvansvUle, 15 Ind. 395 and also holding, notwithstanding Har- riman v. Soulham, 16 Ind. 190, that it is sufficient if a valid special act of incorporation was at one time in existence although repealed by a new constitution before it was accepted). ■ ' Davis V. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235 ; Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. Ann. 627, 635-636 ; Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593; 54 N. E. 407; 72 Am. St. Rep. 326; OUlette V. Aurora Ry. Co., 81 N. E. 1005; 228 111. 261. But cf. Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576, 584 (head- note inadequate) ; 35 N. E. 964 ; 24 L. R. A. 322 ; Williams v. Citi- zen's' Ry. Co., 130 Ind. 71, 73-75; 29 N. E. 408 ; 30 Am. St. Rep. 201 ; 15 L. R. A. 64; Gaff v. Flesher, 33 Oh. St. 107, 113-115, 453. See also infra, § 296. * Cf. Evenson v. EUingson, 67 Wise. 634; 31 N. W. 342 (unau- thorized union of two churches to form one corporation, whereas the statute allowed incorporation of any single church or religious society). But see Toledo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 95 Fed. 497, 506-511; 36C. C. A. 165. 244, § 261-§ 294] CORPORATIONS DE FACTO § 287 corporation de facto the attempt to comply with the incorpora- tion law must not merely be colorable but must also be bona fide is, at least apparently, insisted upon by some authorities. The diflSculty in applying this rule is that although the original pro- moters and corporators may not have acted in good faith, those who subsequently acquire shares in the company, or have deal- ings of any kind with it, may be quite innocent. In case of a fraudulent but colorable attempt to secure the benefits of incor- poration, the courts should frustrate the effort, and may perhaps hold the fraudulent parties subject to any liability which they would have incurred if the company were unincorporated,' but so far as innocent third persons — such as innocent shareholders or creditors — are concerned, the company should certainly be treated as a de facto corporation.^ Thus, we have seen that it is not permissible to attack incorporation collaterally by show-l ing that some of the statements in the incorporation paper are ! untrue,^ or that a certificate of due incorporation was obtained! by fraud.* It should be added that fraud in this connection does not mean an intent to use the corporation for dishonest purposes but rather means an attempt to secure the benefits of incorpora- tion without complying, except colorably, with its provisions.* Fraud on the law is meant rather than a fraud on individuals, although of course the two kinds of fraud may overlap. ' Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, was declared to have been overruled 22 Fed. 197 (semble) ; Montgomery by National Docks Ry. Co. v. Central V. Forbes, 148 Mass. 249; 19 N. E. iJ.iJ. Co., 32 N.J. Eq. 755); Southern 342 ; Patterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. Bank v. Williams, 25 Ga. 534. 410 (overruled in Cochran v. Arnold, ^ Patterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 58 Pa. St. 399); Christian, etQ. 410, 415-416 (semble); Duggan v. Grocery Co. v. Fruitdale Lumber Co., Colorado Mtg., etc. Co., 11 Colo. 113, 121 Ala. 340, 345-346; 25 So. 566; 117 (headnote inadequate — where Brundred v. Bice, 49 Oh. St. 640; one of the signatures to incorpora- 32 N. E. 169 ; 34 Am. St. Rep. 589. tion paper was a forgery) ; National Cf. Jones v. Missouri Edison Docks By. Co. v. Central B. B. Co., Electric Co., 144 Fed. 765 ; 75 C. C. 32 N. J. Eq. 755 (headnote inade- A. 631 ; Davidson v. Hobson, 59 Mo. quate) ; Attorney-General v. Stevens, App. 130; Niemeyer v. lAttle Bock Saxt. Ch. (1 N. J. Eq.) 369; Aurora, Junction By., 43 Ark. Ill; Earn- etc. B. B. Co. v. City of Lawrence- ham v. Benedict, 107 N. Y. 159 ; 13 burgh, 56 Ind. 80, 87 ; Terhune v. N. E. 784 ; Jersey City Gas Co. v. Midland R. B. Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 423. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242 (which, in See infra, § 299. Cf. Booth v. Elizabethtoum Gas Light Co. v. Green, Wonderly, 36 N. J. Eq. 250. 46 N. J. Eq. 118, 130, affirmed on ' Supra, § 283. opinion below, 49 N. J. Eq. 329, * Supra, § 267. 245 § 288 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV § 288. Requirement of Substantial or Colorable Compliance with Law. — In some cases, it has been said that only where the incorporation law has been substantially complied with can the company be a de facto corporation ; '■ but if this be true the whole efficacy is extracted from the doctrine of de facto corpora- tions. For in any case of substantial compliance with law, the company is incorporated de jure ^ and not merely de facto. Colorable compliance with the incorporation law is essential in order to create a corporation de facto ; ^ but substantial compliance is not necessary.* § 289. What amounts to Colorable Compliance. — In deter- mining what amounts to colorable compliance with the incor- poration law, much is necessarily left to the discretion, one might almost say the disposition, of the judge. The true test of colorable compliance is this : has the incorporation law been so far complied with that although some condition precedent to incorporation prescribed by the legislature has not been ob- served, yet the courts are justified in inferring or assuming that the legislature meant that the irregularity in question should have no more serious effect than a breach of a condition precedent to incorporation de jure but not precedent to incor- poration de facto f The defects in the incorporation paper, and in and about its execution and registration, which are deemed so serious that there cannot be deemed to be even colorable compliance with the law have been already pointed out in a previous chaptei^ ' Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings Am. St. Rep. 85; Card v. Moore, Bank, 56 Iowa 104, 109; 8 N. W. 68 N. Y. App. Div. 327, 337; 74 772 ; 41 Am. Rep. 85 ; Harm v. N. Y. Supp. 18, affirmed short, 173 McGregor, 29 Cal. 124; WiUiams N. Y. 598; 66 N. E. 1105; Booth V. Heimtt, 47 La. Ann. 1076 ; 17 So. v. Wonderly, 36 N. J. Law 250. 496 ; 49 Am. St. Rep. 394 ; Cress- Cf. Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South well V. Oherly, 17 111. App. 281, 283. Publishing Co., 4 N. Y. Misc. 172; Cf. Jones V. Aspen Hardware Co., 23 N. Y. Supp. 675. 21 Colo. 263; 40Pac. 457; 52 Am. * Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 52 St. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143. Minn. 239; 53 N. W. 1150; 38 Am. ' Supra, § 264. St. Rep. 552 ; Johnson v. Okerstrom, ' McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kans. 70 Minn. 303 ; 73 N. W. 147. App. 260 ; 41 Pac. 1061 ; Lusk v. Cf. Georgia Southern, etc. R. B. Co. Riggs, 97 N. W. 1033; 70 Nebr. v. Mercantile Trust Co., 94 Gb,. 306; 713; Abbott v. Omaha Smelting Co., 21 S. E. 701 ; 47 Am. St. Rep. 153; 4 Nebr. 416 ; Bergeron v. Hobbs, 32 L. R. A. 208. 96 Wise. 641 ; 71 N. W. 1056 ; 65 » Chap. II, passim. 246 § 261-§ 294] CORPORATIONS DE FACTO § 290 Of course, if no written incorporation paper is ever executed, there is no colorable compliance with the incorporation law and therefore no corporation de facto} On the other hand, an in- corporation paper which on its face complies with law will amount to colorable compliance with the statute although some of the statements in the instrument are false in point of fact,^ There may be colorable compliance although the affidavit annexed to the incorporation paper omits "the averment required by the statute of a bona fide intent to construct the raihoad mentioned in the instrument.^ Where there is a distinct statutory prohibition against exer- cising any corporate privileges until a certain condition has been performed, it is very difficult to hold that there can be even colorable compliance with law without at least apparent per- formance of that condition.* For example, where a statute prohibits the exfercise of any. corporate privileges before a cer- tain tax is paid, there can be no colorable compliance with the incorporation law and therefore no corporation de facto unless the tax is paid.* § 290. Requirement of User of Corporate Privileges. — As to what is sufficient evidence of user of corporate privileges to constitute an association a corporation de facto ° there is much diversity of opinion. As it is very difficult to point out any sharp visible distinction between a corporation and an unincorporated ' Vdey V. Union Tool Co., 11 which should be compared the de- Gray (Mass.) 139 ; Bradley Fer- cisions in the same state apparently tUizer Co. v. South Publishing Co., repudiating the whole doctrine of 4 N. Y. Misc. 172 ; 23 N. Y. Supp. de facto corporations, supra, § 284). 675. ° In addition to cases cited be- But cf. Merrick v. Reynolds En- low, see Finnegan v. Noerenberg, gine, etc. Co., 101 Mass. 381. 52 Minn. 239; 53 N. W. 1150; 38 ' See supra, § 283. Am. St. Rep. 552 (where evidence ' Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cary, of user was held sufficient) ; John- 26 N. Y. 75. son v. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303 ; 73 ■* In addition to cases cited be- N. W. 147 (as to the permissible low, compare Worhingmen's Ac- methods of proving user) ; Martin commodation Bank v. Converse, 29 v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55 ; 36 Pac. 368 ; La. Ann. 369. 41 Am. St. Rep. 151 (where the * Jones V. Aspen Hardware Co., proof was held insufficient) ; Stan- 21 Colo. 263; 40 Pac. 457; 52 Am. wood v. Sterling Metal Co., 107 111. St. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143; App. 569 (evidence of user held Maryland Tube Works v. West End insufficient) ; DeWitt v. Hastings, Improvement Co., 87 Md. 207 ; 39 69 N. Y. 518 (evidence of user held Atl. 620; 39 L. R. A. 810 (with insufficient). 247 § 291 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV body, this diversity of opinion is natural. Probably, the best rule is that in each case it is a question of fact whether the asso- ciates have acted under a public claim of incorporation. The use of a name appropriate to a corporation even though not necessarily peculiar to a corporation, the use of a corporate seal, the election of directors or officers,^ are circumstances tending to establish this public claim even though not conclusive upon the point. General reputation has been held to be evidence of user of corporate privileges.^ § 291-§ 292. Nature of De Facto Corporations. § 291. De Facto Corporations Distinguished from Corporations by Estoppel. — The doctrine of de facto corporations is often confused with the principle of estoppel. We have seen that some courts assert that no one can be estopped to deny the incorporation of a company unless the elements of a corporation de facto are present.^ Many other cases treat the doctrine of de facto corporations as resting on the ground of estoppel,^ or are so meagre or indistinct that nobody can say whether they are based on the ground of estoppel or on the ground that the com- pany is a corporation de facto, or on both grounds.^ But in reality the two principles are quite distinct. The doctrine of de facto corporations does not rest on estoppel, but on that public policy which is thought to prohibit the annulling of a company's acts because of some technical flaw in the incorpora- tion proceedings, which, perhaps, none but a skilled lawyer ' Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cary, 95 U. S. 665 ; Commercial Bank v. 26 N. Y. 75 ; Johnson v. Okerstrom, Pfeiffer, 108 N. Y. 242 ; 15 N. E. 70 Minn. 303; 73 N. W. 147. 311; Baker v. Neff, 73 Ind. 68; ' Holmes v. GUlUand, 41 Barb. Hagerman v. Ohio Bldg., etc. Ass'n, (N. Y.) 568. 25 Ohio St'. 186 ; Butchers', etc. Bank, ^ Supra, § 282. And see Guckert 130 Mass. 264 ; Curtis v. Meeker, V. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 303 ; 28 Atl. 62 111. App. 49 ; Ramsey v. Peoria, 249 (semble). etc. Ins. Co., 55 111. 311 ; Old Colony * E. g. Smith V. Sheeley, 12 Wall. Trust Co. y. City of Wichita, 123 358; Sniders' Sons v. Troy, 91 Ala. Fed. 762, 776; Empire Mfg. Co. v. 224; 8 So. 658; 11 L. R. A. 515; 24 Stuart, 46 Mich. 482; 9 N. W. 527; Am. St. Rep. 88f . Fitzpatrick v. Rulter, 160 111. 282 ; ' Andes v. Ely, 158 U. S. 312; 43N. E. 392; Hausev. Mannheimer, 15 Sup. Ct. 954 ; County of Leaven- 67 Minn. 194 ; 69 N. W. 810 ; Marsh worth V. Barnes, 94 U. S. 70 (head- v. Mathias, 19 Utah 350; 56 Pac. note misleading); Chuhh v. Upton, 1074. 248 § 261-§ 294] CORPORATIONS DE FACTO / § 292 could detect.' Hence, according to the doctrine of incorpora- tion de facto, the company's existence, although de facto only, is real as against all the world ,^ even against persons who have had no dealings with it and who, therefore, could not on any theory be estopped.' § 292. Powers, Rights, etc., of Corporation De Facto. — Wher- ever the de facto doctrine is applied, the attainment of a de facto corporate existence is tantamount, to all intents ^d purposes, to the creation of a corporation which may at any moment suffer corporate capital punishment and which is in all respects in the same condition as a company whose original incorporation was regular but which has forfeited the right to existence by reason of misconduct or breach of a condition sub- sequent. Thus, a de facto company possesses all the powers of mortgaging after-acquired property, consolidating with other companies, and the like, which a de jure corporation of the same class niight enjoy,* the only possible exception ° — and that although supported by some authorities ° yet denied by a still greater number ' — being in regard to powers in derogation of common right, such as the power to condemn private property. ' Society Perun v. Cleveland, 43 ^ But see Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Oh. St. 481; 3 N. E. 357; Buffalo, Co. v. W. L. Wells Co., 128 Fed. etc. B. R. Co. V. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75. 369; 63 C. C. A. Ill (holding that ' Cf. Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice for purposes of determining the juris- Machine Co., 138 111. 67; 27 N E. diction of a federal court a corpora- 596 (holding that shareholder in tion de facto cannot be treated as a corporation de facto cannot main- citizen of the state under whose laws tain bill for partnership accounting it attempted to organize), reversed against his fellow-members). on another point, W. L. Wells Co. ^ Haas v. Bank of Commerce, v. Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Co., IQSV. 8. 41 Nebr. 754 ; 60 N. W. 85 ; WU- 177 ; 25 Sup. Ct. 640. liamson v. Kokomo Bldg., etc. Ass'n, ' Cumberland Telephone, etc. Co. 89 Ind. 389; Doty v. Patterson, 155 v. St. Louis, .etc. By. Co., 41 So. Ind. 60; 56 N. E. 668 (semble) ; 492; 117 La. 199; New York Cable East Norway Church v. Froislie, Co. v. New York, 104 N. Y. 1 ; 10 37 Minn. 447 ; 35 N. W. 260 ; Chini- N. E. 332 ; Orrick School Dist. v. quy V. Bishop of Ohifiago, 41 111. Dorton, 125 Mo. 439 ; 28 S. W. 765 148. (admission by property owner of * Georgia Southern, etc. R. B. Co. corporate existence not sufficient) ; v. Mercantile Trust, etc. Co., 94 Ga. Hampton v. Clinton Co., 65 N. J. 306 ; 32 L. R. A. 208 ; 21 S. E. 701 ; Law 168. 47 Am. St. Rep. 153 (mortgaging ' Ward v. Minnesota, etc. B. R. after-acquired property) ; People v. Co., 119 111. 287, 291-292 ; 10 N. E. La Rue, 67 Cal. 526 (consolidating 365; Eddleman v. Union County with other companies). Traction, etc. Co., 217 111. 409, 75 249 § 292 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [ChAP. IV So, a court of equity will not refuse the extraordinary remedy of injunction because the plaintiff is a de facto corporation.' Moreover, the shareholders in a de facto corporation are subject to the same UabiUties to creditors and other persons as if the incorporation had been de jure.^ The existence of a de facto corporation is real even against the state ^ except upon direct proceedings to oust it from corporate powers. Under a statute punishing criminally embezzlement from an "incorporated company" a conviction may be sustained if the company is a corporation de facto^ Conversely, a statute applicable to " un- incorporated companies" does not apply to companies which are corporations de facto.^ A corporation de facto cannot be wound-up as a partnership." N. E. 510; National Docks Ry. Co. ' Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. V. Central R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 119; Perkins v. Hatch, 4 Hun 755; Gillette v. Aurora Jty. Co., 81 (N. Y.) 137; Rowland v. Header N. E. 1005; 228 111. 261 (semble FurnUure Co., 38 Oh. St. 269; — drawing a distinction between a Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R. Co., denial of the company's corporate 144 Pa. St. 34 ; 23 Atl. 53 ; 13 L. R. existence and a denial that even A. 779 ; Aspinwall v. Sacchi, 57 de jure corporations of the class to N. Y. 331 (as to right of shareholder which this company belongs are au- who has been subjected to a statu- thorized by law to condemn prop- tory liability to creditors to enforce erty) ; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. contribution from other shareholders Union Springs, etc. Ry. Co., 39 So. in the de facto corporation) ; Harris 473; 144 Ala. 639; Morrison v. v. Gatetvay Land Co., 128 A]a.. 652; Forman, 177 111. 427; 53 N. E. 73; 29 So. 611. Smithv. Cleveland, etc. Ry.Co.(lnd.), Cf. St. Joseph, etc. Ry. Co. v. 81 N. E. 501, 507; WeUington etc. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557, 566. The R. R. Co. V. Cashie, etc. Lumber Co., same result may often be reached 114N. Car. 690; 19S. E. 646; Mar- on the ground of estoppel. See rison v. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co. supra, § 280. (Ind.), 79 N. E. 961 ; 2. Lewis on » People v. La Rue, 67 Cal. 526. Eminent Domain, § 391. Cf. Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396 Cf. Boca, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sierra (where the point, although neces- VaUeys Ry. Co. (Cal.), 84,Pac. 298, sarily involved, does not appear to 303 (where a de jure corporation have been argued or considered), claimed, unsuccessfully, the right * People v. Carter, 122 Mich. 668 ; as a de facto corporation to con- 81 N. W. 924. demn property for a railway which ° Rowland v. Meader Furniture by its incorporation paper it had Co., 38 Oh. St. 269. no power to construct). ° Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice ' Williams v. Citizens Street Ry., Machine Co., 138 lU. 67. Cf. cases 130 Ind. 71 ; 29 N. E. 408 ; 30 Am. cited infra, p. 253, n. 3, and also St. Rep. 201 ; 15 L. R. A. 64 ; Cin- Merchants, etc. Line v. Waganer, 71 cinnati, etc. R. R. Co. v. Danville, etc. Ala. 581. Ry. Co., 75 111. 113. 250 § 291-§ 294] LIABILITY OF MEMBERS § 293 Of course, the attainment of a de jure, and not merely a de facto, existence may be made a condition in a contract so that the contract will not be enforceable unless the company be- comes incorporated de jure. According to some authorities, such a condition is implied in a subscription to shares in a com- pany to be subsequently formed.' The dissolution of a de facto corporation whether by scire facias, or quo warranto, or otherwise, is governed by the same principles as the dissolution of a de jure corporation, and there- fore is beyond the scope of the present work. A judgment of ouster because of non-performance of conditions precedent to incorporation does not relate back so as to defeat the rights of third parties which may have vested during the company's de facto existence.^ § 293-§ 294. Rights and Liabilities of Members of defectively incorporated Company. § 293. Liability to Third Persons. — The members of a defec- tively incorporated company are, in many states and under most circumstances, protected from individual liability for debts and torts of the association by the doctrines of estoppel and of de facto corporations. But in jurisdictions where those doctrines are not recognized or in cases where for any reason they do not apply, the members should be held liable as partners both ex contractu^ ' See supra, § 260. As to whether Wechsdberg v. Flow City Nat. Bank, a vendor of shares warrants the com- 64 Fed. 90 ; 12 C. C. A. 56 ; 26 L. pany to be incorporated de jure, R. A. 470; Abbott v. Omaha Smelt- see mira., § 973. ing Co., 4 Nebr. 416, 424^25; ^ Society Perun v. Cleveland, 43 Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings Bank, Oh. St. 481; 3 N. E. 357; Rowland 56 Iowa 104; 8 N. W. 772; 41 Am. V. M coder Furniture Co., 38 Oh. St. Rep. 85 ; Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 269. 111. 197; Loverin v. McLaughlin, Cf. Thompson v. N. Y., etc. R. R. 161 111. 417; 44 N. E. 99; Bergeron Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 625, 651 ; v. Hobbs, 96 Wise. 641 ; 71 N. W. Farnsworthv. Drake, 11 Ind. 101. 1056; 65 Am. St. Rep. 85; Duke ' McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kans. v. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64 ; 19 So. 172 ; App. 260; 41 Pac. 1061; Shields S3 Am. St. Rep. 232; 31 L. R. A. v. Clifton Hill Land Co., 94 Tenn. 484 ; Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 123, 146 ; 28 S. W. 668 ; 26 L. R. A. 144 ; Guckert v. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. 509'; 45 Am. St. Rep. 700 ; WH- 303 ; 28 Atl. 249 ; Martin v. Fewdl, liarns v. Hewitt, 47 La. Ann. 1076 ; 79 Mo. 401 ; Whipple v. Parker, 29v 17 So. 496; 49 Am. St. Rep. 394; Mich. 369; Owen v. Shepard. 59 \. Davis V. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235; Fed. 746; 8 C. C. A. 244 (holding 251 293 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [Chap. IV and ex delicto} Although this rule is accepted by the weight of authority, yet some cases hold that the members are not liable as partners ^ but that only those members who actually participate in making the contract or in committing the tort are liable. In cases of contract, according to these authori- ties, the liability is that of agents who have contracted on be- half of a non-existent principal.' These authorities proceed on the ground that the several members never intended to assume the position of co-partners and never held themselves out as occupying that relation, so that injustice would be done by that where persons carrying on busi- Collier, 16 Oh. St. 599 ; and infra, ness under a company name are § 1641. Sometimes, by statute, Lq- sued as partners, the burden of dividual liability is expressly imposed proof rests upon them to prove the on members or officers of an asso- company to be incorporated) ; Sex- elation which fails to observe some ton V. Snyder, 119 Mo. App. 668; particular requirement of the in- 94 S. W. 562; Chajfe v. Ludeling, corporation law. See Loverin v. 27 La. Ann. 607 ; Globe Publishing McLaughlin, 161 111. 417. Co. v. State Bank, 41 Nebr. 175, 188, ' Vredenburg v. Behan, 33 La. 189 ; 59 N. W. 683 ; 27 L. R. A. 854 Ann. 627 (liability for keeping fero- (semble) ; Empire Mills v. Alston cious wild animals). Grocery Co., 4 Willson Civ. Cas. Cf. Mandemlle v. Courtright, 142 (Tex.), § 221. Fed. 97 ; 73 C. C. A. 321 (as to Ua- Cf. N. Y., etc. Bank v. CroweU, bility of members of a corporation 177 Pa. St. 313; 35 Atl. 613; Pat- for torts committed in the course terson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410 ; of an ultra vires business). Wells V. Gates, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 554 ; ^ Humphreys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. FuUer v. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23 (holding 282, 288-292 ; Fay v. Noble, 7 Cush. that a person is not liable for debts 188 ; Stafford Bank v. Palmer, 47 contracted before he became a mem- Conn. 443 ; Planters', etc. Bank v. ber of the supposed corporation) ; Padgett, 69 Ga. 159 ; Rutherford v. Hyatt V. Van Riper, 78 S. W. HiU, 22 Oreg. 218; 29 Pac. 546; 1043; 105 Mo. App. 664 (where de- 29 Am. St. Rep. 596; 17 L. R. A. fendants had made false representee 549 ; Johnson v. Corser, 34 Minn, tions about the company, but which 355 ; 25 N. W. 799. is disapproved in part in Webb v. Cf. Central City Savings Bank v. Rockefeller, 195 Mo. 57; 93 S. W. Walker, 66 N. Y. 424; Seaxx>rd v. 772) ; Booth v. Wonderly, 36 N. J. Pendleton, 55 Hun (N. Y.) ' 579 ; Law 250 (where the directors were 9 N. Y. Supp. 46; State v. How, 1 declared to be liable as partners). Mich. 512 (where the object of the So such an association may be held attempted corporation was deemed subject to the Bankurpt Act as a illegal) ; Bldnchard v. KauU, 44 CaL partnership Davis v. Stevens, 104 440. Fed. 235. ^ Johnson v. Corser, 34 Minn. It is a different question whether. 355 ; 25 N. W. 799 ; Fay v. Noble, the members of a corporation are 7 Cush. (Mass.) 188, 194 (headnote liable as partners upon ultra vires inadequate). contracts. See Trowbridge v. Scud- Cf. Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 Mo. der, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 83; MediU v. 310. 252 § 261-§ 294] RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OP MEMBERS § 293 a treating them as such. But this argument, although specious, is believed to be fallacious. Although it is true that the members of the association did not intend to become partners, they did intend to engage in a joint enterprise as an associated body.' Now, the law knows but two forms of associations for business or trade — corporations and partnerships; and as they are not a corporation they must be a partnership. This doctrine, however, of a partnership by legal construction does not apply unless the members actually authorize the transaction of busi- ness, although their mistaken belief that they had become in- corporated is immaterial. Where, however, the members do authorize the transaction of business, they are to be treated in law as a partnership except as to those attributes of a corpora- tion which it is competent for persons to assume by mere agree- ment. Their belief that they were incorporated is simply a mistake of law, which may be quite disregarded. A creditor of a defectively incorporated association who ob- tains a judgment against the company as a corporation is there- after precluded from holding the members individually liable as partners.^ The claim is merged in the judgment against the supposed corporation. § 293 a. Rights and Liabilities Inter Sese. — To be sure, as the members of a defectively incorporated association intend to become a corporation and not a firm, their rights inter sese will be governed by the principles applicable to members of a corporation rather than to co-partners,^ so far, that is, as it is competent for partners by mere agreement to provide that the ' In this respect they differ from 1034 ; Cresawdl v. Oberly, 17 111. promoters of a company. Conse- App. 281. See supra, p. 234, n. 2. quently, a suit framed upon the ' Cannon v. Brush Electric Co., 96 theory that defendants are liable Md. 446; 54 Atl. 121; 94 Am. St. Rep. as members of a defectively incor- 598 ; Hecdd v. Owen, 79 Iowa 23. porated association is not sustain- Cf. Heck v. McEwen, 12 Lea able by proof of facts which would (Tenn.) 97, 101 ; Ward v. Brigham, create a liability as promoters of 127 Mass. 24 ; Lincoln Park Chapter a prospective corporation. See v. Swatek, 68 N. E. 429; 204 111. mfra, § 360. 228 ; Card v. Mocyre, 68 N. Y. App. ' Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Per- Div. 327; 74 N. Y. Supp. 18, af- ffMson, 49 Nebr. 109 ; 68N. W. 370; firmed short, 173 N. Y. 598; 66 69 Am. St. Rep. 522; Pittsburg N. E. 1105 (where the parties did Sheet Mfg. Co. v. Beale, 204 Pa. St. not regard themselves as incor- 85; 53 Atl. 540; Heuer v. Car- porated); Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. ■michad, 82 Iowa 288; 37 N. W. 397; Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. 253 294 IRREGULAR INCORPORATION [Chap. IV principles of corporate management shall apply to them. Hence, it would seem that there is no implied agency of each share- holder for the association/ but that only the directors and other duly constituted agents can bind the company. § 294. Rights against Third Persons. — As the members of an association who erroneously beUeve themselves to be in- corporated are in law members of a partnership and liable as such to third persons, it follows also that they enjoy the rights of partners as regards third persons. Consequently, a deed con- veying land or chattels to them by the supposed corporate name would vest title in them as joint tenants or tenants in common.^ The supposed corporate name is treated as a mere description of the individual members. If, however, the members of the 344 (holding that one member of a of the widow and children of Wm. defectively incorporated company cannot on buying in a claim against the company enforce it against his fellow-members) ; HiU v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31 (a case decided be- fore the modem law of corporations had taken shape and containing much that would not now be ac- cepted as law) ; Johnson v. Corser, 34 Minn. 355; 25 N. W. 799 (as to implied agency of every member); Curtis v. Tracy, 169 111. 233; 48 N. E. 399; 61 Am. St. Rep. 168 (director participating in transac- tion of business before recording of certificate cannot hold associates liable as partners on claim con- tracted in his favor) ; Foster v. MouLton, 35 Minn. 458 ; 29 N. W. 155 (where the court thought that a company might be a corporation de facto as between the members but not as regards strangers). As to rights of members who have been held liable to creditors, or who have incurred expenses, to contribution from their associates, see Richardson v. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128 ; Flagg v. Stowe, 85 111. 164. ' See cases cited in last note. = Wray v. Wray (1905), 2 Ch. 349 (where a deed of land to "Wm. W. of Laurel House" was held to con- vey legal title to a firm composed W., deceased, and carrying on busi- ness under his name); Maugham V. Sharpe, 17 C. B., n. s., 443 (chattel mortgage to a supposed corpora- tion) ; Byam v. Bickford, 140 Mass. 31 ; 2 N. E. 687 (deed to a volun- tary association by its name). Cf. Clifton Heights Land Co. v. Randell, 82 Iowa 89 ; 47 N. W. 905; American SUJc Works v. Salo- me, 6 T. & C. (N. Y.) 352 ; White Oak Grove Benev. Soc. v. Murray, 145 Mo. 622; 47 S. W. 501 (holding that equitable title passes and that a bill in equity will Ue to compel grantor to execute a new deed) ; Reinhard v. Virginia Lead Mining Co., 107 Mo. 616 (proceeding on the ground of estoppel and explain- ing Dovthitt v. Stinson, 63 Mo. 268, and Arthur v. Weston, 22 Mo. 379, on the ground that they related altogether to the legal as distin- guished from the equitable title); Whipple V. Parker, 29 Mich. 369; Hart V. Seymour, 147 111. 598, 610 ; 35 N. E. 246. But see Prevost v. Morgan's, etc. R. R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 809; 8 So. 584; German Land Ass'n v. Schol- ler, 10 Minn. 331 ; ChUds v. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66, 100 (declaring the deed to be "null and void"). 254 § 261-§ 294] RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF MEMBERS § 294 defectively incorporated body are not ascertainable but con- sist in an indefinite, fluctuating number of individuals — for example, the members of a church or congregation — the con- veyance cannot vest title in them as individuals but is void for ' uncertainty,' unless indeed it can be sustained as a charity. It has been held that a promissory note payable to the order of a railroad company which in point of fact is not incorporated is in legal effect payable to a fictitious payee ; ''■ but on principle it would certainly seem that if any such company is in existence, although it be unincorporated, the note should be regarded as payable to the members or shareholders jointly or as partners. Upon the same principle that (except when the doctrines of estoppel or of de facto corporations come into play) the members of a defectively incorporated association are entitled to the rights of partners as against third persons, it follows that the members of an association, organized, though defectively, under a general incorporation law may sue as a partnership for the protection of the joint property.* '■ State use Trustees M. E. Church ' Farnsworthv.Drake, 11 Ind. 101. V. Warren, 28 Md. 338; German ' Jones v. Aspen Hardware Co., Land Association v. Scholler, 10 21 Colo. 263; 40 Pac. 457; 52 Am. Minn. 331. ^t. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143. 255 CHAPTER V INCORPORATION FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES Section Illegal purpose distinguished from merely unauthorized purpose . . 295 Incorporation avowedly for illegal purpose 296-297 ' In general 296 Effect of illegality of company upon contracts 297 Incorporation ostensibly for lawful but really for illegal purposes 298-302 Likelihood that illegal purpose will be veiled 298 Company incorporated de facto 299 Ouster from corporate privileges at suit of sovereign .... 300 No chartered right to execute secret illegal purpose 301 Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197 ... . 302 What purposes are illegal 303-306 Not usually a question of corporation law 303 Violation of provisions of the incorporation law 304 Purposes unlawful but not criminal 305 Purposes contrary to public policy 306 § 295. Illegal Purpose distinguished from merely unauthorized Purpose. — Although the books are full of cases on irregular or defective incorporation, very little authority exists on ques- tions relating to incorporation for illegal purposes. To be sure, some law can be found on the subject of unauthorized incorporation — that is, incorporation or attempted incorpora- tion for some object innocent enough in itself but not among the objects for which the incorporation laws make provision as the objects of an incorporated company.^ But this subject is so closely connected with the topic of irregular or defective incor- poration, even if it is not identical with it, and with the topic of the object clause of the incorporation paper, that separate treatment is undesirable. Moreover, it is important to distinguish cases relating to unincorporated companies which are illegal not because of any inherent illegality in their objects — that is, not because it would be illegal for an individual to pursue the same objects — but because of some statute forbidding the formation of voluntary associations of the character of the company in question. The most striking illustrations of illegal voluntary associations of > See supra, § 121, and § 286. J. 98, 121-122 (per Page Wood, Cf. Butt V. Monteaux, 1 K. & V. C). 256 § 295-§ 306] AVOWED illegal purpose § 296 this kind are furnished by the British Companies Act of 1862, which prohibits the formation of companies with more than a certain number of members unless registered under that act or formed in pursuance of some other act of parliament or of letters patent, etc.^ In such cases, there is no attempt to become incor- porated, and consequently there is certainly no corporation either de jure or de facto. Such cases are, therefore, to be distinguished from cases where would-be corporators go through formalities prescribed by general incorporation laws, for illegal purposes. Nevertheless, the English books, referring to companies formed in violation of the statutory prohibition constantly use the general phrase " illegal companies," ^ and discrimination must therefore be exercised in relying upon these English cases and text-writers as authorities in America. When an English judge or lawyer speaks of an "illegal company," he generally means not a com- pany which has attempted to become incorporated for illegal purposes but a voluntary association which is illegal because of the prohibition in the Companies Acts.^ § 296- § 297. Incorporation avowedly for Illegal Purpose. § 296. In general. — Suppose, however, the objects for which a corporation is sought to be organized are not merely ' " No company, association, or working mines within and subject partnership consisting of more than to the jurisdiction of the Stannaries." ten persons shall be formed, after Companies Act, 1862, § 4. the commencement of this Act, for ^ E. g. 1 Lindley on Companies, the purpose of carrying on the busi- 6th ed., Bk. I, Chap. 5. The general ness of banking, unless it is regis- language used in parts of this chapter tered as a company under this Act, especially § 2, pp. 189-192, may be or is formed in pursuance of some useful as authority for American other Act of Parliament or of letters lawyers ; but the cases cited by patent; and no company, associa- Lord Lindley, when analyzed, will tion, or partnership consisting of often if not generally be found to more than twenty persons shall be be inapplicable to American con- formed after the commencement of ditions. this Act, for the purpose of carrying ' But compare Ilfracombe Perma- on any other business that has for nent Mut. Benefit Bldg. Soc. (1901), its object the acquisition of gain by 1 Ch. 102, 112, where "Wright, J., the company, association or partner- protested against this use of the ship, or by the individual members word illegal and preferred the thereof, unless it is registered as a phrase "a society not authorized by company under this Act, or is law and therefore not existing, from formed in pursuance of some other the point of view of the Companies Act of ParUament, or of letters Acts, as a society at all." patent, or is a company engaged in VOL. I. — 17 257 § 296 INCORPORATION FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES [ChAP. V unauthorized but even actually illegal. Of course, any instance of this sort is a special case under the general class or head above referred to of corporations, or intended corporations, formed with objects for which the incorporation law does not provide. For no incorporation act, however liberal or even loose it may be, permits persons to incorporate for the purpose of violating the laws — of performing acts that are either mala in se or mala prohibita. If therefore any company is avowedly organized for any such purpose and if the illegal purpose appears on the face of the company's memorandum of association or incorporation paper, the company certainly does not become a corporation de jure,^ and (unless there be other and lawful objects) probably not even a corporation de facto.'' Other consequences, pains, and penalties may attach to those who engage in or promote such an organization, but that such persons certainly do not become incorporated de jure and probably not even de facto is clear. For example, all lawyers remember the traditional case of a bill for a partnership accounting by a member of a firm of high- waymen.^ If an enterprising, up-to-date firm of that character should attempt to become incorporated under the laws of New ' Woodberry v. McClurg, 29 So. create no corporation) ; Chicora Co. 614 ; 78 Miss. 831 (purchasing shares v. Crews, 6 S. Car. 243 ; Padstow of other companies in violation of Total Loss & Collision Ass. Ass'n, an anti-trust law) ; State v. Debenture 20 Ch. D. 137 (company formed with Guarantee, etc. Co. (La.), 26 So. 600, more than twenty members in affirmed as to federal questions sub violation of the Companies Act, Ttom. New Orleans Debenture, etc. held to have no existence and Co. V. Louisiana, 180 U. S. 320; 21 therefore to be incapable of being Sup. Ct. 378. wound-up as a company (under Cf. People ex rd. Peabody v. the winding-up acts). Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268 ; But see Lincoln Bldg., etc. Ass'n 22 N. E. 798 ; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319 ; v. Graham, 7 Nebr. 173 (headnote 8 L. R. A. 497. inadequate — lending at usurious • Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. De- interest) ; New Orleans Debenture, etc. troit Agitations Verein, 44 Mich. 313 ; Co., 180 U. S. 320, 327-328 ; 21 Sup. 6 N. W. 675 ; 38 Am. Rep. 270 Ct. 378 (holding that as a de facto (opposing enforcement of liquor corporation the company may prop- law) ; St. Louis Colonization Ass'n erly be made the sole defendant in a v. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555, 557 proceeding by the state to test the (headnote inadequate — semble). validity of the incorporation). Cf. Trustees of N. C. Endowment ' Everet v. Williams, 9 Law Fund v. SatchweU, 71 N. Car. Ill Quarterly Rev. 197; Lindley on (special act incorporating company Partnership, 7th ed., p. 107. The for the purpose of dispensing charity bill was dismissed with costs and to orphans of Confederate soldiers, the plaintiff's solicitors were fined held to be unconstitutional and to for contempt. 258 § 295-§ 306] AVOWED illegal purpose § 297 Jersey, and should frankly state in their incorporation papers that the only object of the proposed company would be to engage in highway robbery, manifestly the company's object would not be a lawful purpose within the meaning of the New Jersey law, and therefore the attempt to become incorporated would be wholly nugatory. The same thing would be true if the com- pany's avowed object instead of being in conflict with some state law should be the violation of an act of Congress. Hence, if the incorporation paper of some company should state as its sole object the monopolization of interstate commerce in viola- tion of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, the attempt to incorporate would be simply and wholly ineffectual. However, the inclination of the courts is — and very properly — to presume that the incorporation papers do not vcontemplate illegal objects. For instance, when during the Civil War, a corporation was formed in Georgia for the purpose of trade with foreign countries, it was held that the expressed object of the company was not illegal, notwithstanding the existence of the blockade then maintained by the federal fleets, since the corpo- ration might conclude to wait until the raising of the blockade.* § 297. Effect of Illegality of Company upon Contracts. — In a case of incorporation for illegal purposes, not merely is the company no corporation, but contracts relating to its formation and operation will be illegal. Upon this point, cases relating to English voluntary companies formed in defiance of the prohibi- tion in the Companies Acts may perhaps be referred to. A subscription to shares in an illegal company is itself an illegal contract; and until the illegal purpose be carried out by the actual formation of the company, amounts paid on the subscrip- tion may be recovered back. Contracts for sale of shares in the illegal company are, it seems, likewise illegal.^ Moreover, it » Importing & Exporting Co. v. (where the company was illegal Locke, 50 Ala. 332, 334. under the Bubble Act). But cf. Chicora Co. v. Crews, Cf. Buck v. Buck, 1 Campb. 547 S. Car. 243 (where a special act of (holding that a purchaser of shares, the legislature of South Carolina in a company which was illegal under passed during the War purporting to the Bubble Act, could not maintain create a corporation for the purpose an action for money had a,nd re- of exporting produce and importing ceived against his broker to recover arms was held to be void). the balance remaining of money ' Josephs V. Prebber, 3 B. & C. 639 deposited with him to make the 259 § 298 INCORPORATION FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES [ChAP. V seems even to have been held thaf a debtor owing money to an illegal association may escape payment to any one.' Moreover, a member of the illegal association cannot maintain an action against his associates or trustees to require an accounting or to hold the trustees liable for breaches of trust.^ On the other hand, the illegal character of the association is no answer to a criminal prosecution for embezzling its funds.^ § 298- § 302. Incorporatimi ostensibly for Lawful bid really Illegal Purposes. § 298. Likelihood that Illegal Purpose will be veiled. — Those who engage in illegal transactions are unlikely frankly to state their real object; they are much more apt to attempt to conceal their actual intentions under the mist of innocent general terms. For example, it will be remembered that the traditional highwayman's partnership bill to which reference was made in a former paragraph alleged that the object of the firm was to "deal with gentlemen for watches, rings, swords, canes, hats, cloaks, horses, bridles, saddles, and other things." Accordingly, when the promoters of a corporation design to use the company for illegal ends, they do not avow their intent to break the law but on the contrary state in the incorporation paper as their ostensible object some perfectly legitimate business, secretly intending so to conduct that business as to compass unlawful ends. purchase) ; BousfHd v. Wilson, 16 of a loan society which, consisting M. & W. 185 (semble, that vendor of of more than twenty members, was shares in a company which was held to be prohibited by the Com- illegal because of the prohibition in panies Act and therefore illegal, a the Companies Acts could maintain loan to a member to be repaid an action against his broker to according to the society's rules was recover the purchase price). illegal, so that no recovery could be ' Ex -parte Day, 1 Ch. D. 699, 702 had upon a promissory note, payable {"prima facie, the (illegal) society to one of the society's oflBcers, given is not entitled to share in the dis- to secure the loan ; but at the same tribution of the debtor's assets"); time, Brett, M. R., said: "It was Jennings v. Hammond, 9 Q. B. D. contended that an 'illegal person' 225 (substantially the same point made the contract illegal: that is as Shaw v. Benson, stated infra) ; an argument with which I cannot Re Thomas, 14 Q. B. D. 379, 383 agree." 11 Q. B. D. 571. (semble). ^ Syhes v. Beadon, 11 Ch. D. 170. In Shaw v. Benson, 11 Q. B. D. ' Regina v. Tankard (1894), 1 563, it was held that in a case Q. B. 548. 260 § 295-§ 306] SECRET ILLEGAL PURPOSE 299 § 299. Company incorporated De Facto. — In any case of this sort, since the memorandum of association or incorpora- tion paper is fair on its face, the courts, in order to protect inno- cent persons who may become shareholders in the company, or who may have dealings with it, are obliged to hold that the com- pany comes into existence as a corporation, at least as regards all the world except the sovereign,' although any public registrar or other officer who is required to approve the paper may with- hold approval on account of the secret illegal purpose.^ For example, when an insolvent corporation comes to be wound-up a shareholder cannot escape liability on the ground that the real object of the company was gambling.^ So, the corporation itself in spite of its secret illegal object may compel shareholders to pay their unpaid subscriptions.^ On the same principle, it is no defence to a suit to enforce a deed of trust securing an issue of bonds that the company was incorporated for the illegal purpose of creating a monopoly ,° although to be sure a court of equity ' v. S. Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel, 143 N. Y. 537 ; 38 N. E. 729 ; U. S. Vinegar Co. v. Foehrenbach, 148 N. Y. 58 ; 42 N. E. 403 ; Clancey v. Onondaga Fine Salt Mfg. Co., 62 Barb. (N. Y.) 395. Cf. Patterson v. Arnold, 45 Pa. St. 410 (overruled in Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. St. 399) ; Importing & Exporting Co. v. Locke, 50 Ala. 332 (company formed in Georgia during the Civil War for trade with foreign countries, the real intention being to run the blockade established by the federal government) ; Attorney-Oen- eral v. Am. Tobacco Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352, 376; 36 Atl. 971, affirmed on opinion below, 56 N. J. Eq. 847 ; 42 Atl. 1117; Firu:k v. Schneider Granite Co., 187 Mo. 244, 267-268 (headnote misleading) ; 86 S. W. 213 ; 106 Am. St. Rep. 452 ; State v. New Orleans Water Supply Co. (La.), 36 So. 117, 122; 111 La. 1049 (where the court said "The question whether a corporation has been organized for an illegal purpose must be determined by the pro- visions of its charter and not by the declarations of its officers or agents"); Haache v. Knights of Liberty, etc.. Club, 76 Md. 429. But the corporate fiction does not protect the members from individual liability for moneys de- posited in pursuance of the illegal scheme. McGrew v. City Produce Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572 ; 4 S. W. 38 ; 4 Am. St. Rep. 771; •Brundred v. Rice, 49 Oh. St. 640; 32 N. E. 169; 34 Am. St. Rep. 589 (promoters of company formed to receive illegal rebates from a railway company liable individually to other shippers for amount of rebates). ' First Church of Christ, Scientist, 205 Pa. St. 543; 55 Atl. 536; 97 Am. St. Rep. 753 ; 63 L. R. A: 411. ' Augir v. Ryan, 63 Minn. 373; 65 N. W. 640. * U. S. Vinegar Co. v. Foehren- bach, 148 N. Y. 58 ; 42 N. E. 403 ; Detroit Driving Club v. Fitzgerald, 109 Mich. 670; 67 N. W. 899. ' Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 181', 195-196; 20 Sup. Ct. 311. 261 § 300 INCORPORATION FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES [ChAP. V will not enjoin a violation of one of the terms of a contract other parts of which provide for the organization of the com- pany for a secret illegal purpose.' Moreover, the company is not prevented from protecting its property by bill for an injunc- tion by the illegality of the purpose for which it may have been incorporated.^ To be sure, in one case a federal court applying the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis, refused to interfere in the internal affairs of a corporation which had been formed ostensibly for a lawful but secretly for an illegal purpose.^ Moreover, as regards parties who were privy to the illegal intent, the case may be treated as if the illegality appeared on the face of the incorporation proceedings,* so that such a party cannot recover for money lent to the company in furtherance of the unlawful purpose.^ But the attempt to incorporate is not a mere nullity. § 300. Ouster from corporate Privileges at Suit of Sovereign. — Nevertheless, the promoters have undoubtedly wrought a fraud on the incorporation «,ct. The statute extended its benefits to those who might desire to incorporate for any lawful purpose, but it has been availed of by persons whose ostensible object was lawful enough but whose real purpose is illegal. Hence, in such a case the law ought to furnish some means of vindicating its own dignity and ousting from the enjoyment of its privileges those who have abused its provisions. In England, however, serious doubt has been entertained whether a'ny proceeding in the nature of quo warranto or scire facias to revoke a charter would He in such a case." In most of the United States, if not in all of them, on the other hand, some proceeding to oust the wrongdoers from the enjoyment of cor- porate privileges could beyond doubt be maintained by the attorney-general.' In the enforcement of this quasi-penal remedy » McContidl v. Camors-McCon^ (1897), A. C. 22, 30 ; Reuss v. Bos, neU Co., 152 Fed. 321. L. R. 5 H. L. 176, 193. ' American Steel, etc. Co. v. Wire ' Dickerman v. Northern Trust Drawers', etc. Unions, 90 Fed. 608, Co., 176 U. S. 181, 196; 20 Sup. Ct. 614 (injunction against strikers). 311 (semble) ; State ex inf. Hadley ' Le Warnev. Meyer, 38 Fed. 191. v. Meramec Rod, etc. Club (Mo.), 98 * See supra, § 296, § 297. S. W. 815 ; State ex inf. Hadley v. ' Euston V. Edgar (Mo.), 105 Ddmar Jockey Club (Mo.), 92 S. W. S. W. 773. 185; Attorney-General v. Am. To- ' See Salomon v. Salomon & Co. bacco Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352, 376; 36 262 § 295-§ 306] SECRET ILLEGAL PURPOSE § 301 the courts would take care that the rights of innocent parties should not be prejudiced. Moreover, proof would probably be required not merely of the illegal intent but also of the execution of that intent by illegal acts. In Ireland, it has been held that where a company is incorporated for the purpose of deceiving the public, the attorney-general is entitled to an injunction to restrain the perpetration of the fraud.' § 301. No chartered Right to execute Illegal Purpose. — At all events, both in England and America, every lawyer would agree that the formation of a corporation ostensibly for an inn6- cent but really for an illegal or criminal purpose confers no chartered right to commit the violation of law,^ and that any remedies whether for the prevention of the wrong if not yet con- summated or for the undoing of it if already perpetrated may be availed of precisely as if the incorporation had never been effected.^ An illustration may be found in the numerous cases in which corporations have been enjoined from using their corporate names where such use would involve an infringement bf the trade name of some prior organization.* The registration of a company under a general incorporation law gives it no license to commit crimes or torts. Atl. 971 (semble), affirmed on opinion 188 ; 47 Am. St. Rep. 200 ; Southern below in 56 N. J. Eq. 847 ; 42 Atl. Electric Securities Co. v. State 1117 (holding that the attomey-gen- (Miss.), 44 So. 785 (stated infra, eral cannot proceed in equity) ; p. 265, n. 1). State V. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Cf. People ex rel. Peabody v. Nebr. 700 (illegal restraint of trade) ; Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268 ; People V. MUk Exchange,. 77 Hun 22N. E. 798; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; (N. Y.), 436; 29 N. Y. Supp. 259 8 L. R. A. 497. (illegal restraint of trade) ; State ' Cf. Richardson v. Buhl, 77 ex rel. Voyles v. French Lick Springs Mich. 632 ; 6 L. R. A. 457 ; 43 N. "W. Hotel Co. (Ind.), 82 N. E. 801 1102 (where a contract relating to (holding that where the corporation the furtherance of the illegal enter- has actually engaged in illegal trans- prise was pronounced void) ; Finck actions it is no defence that it has v. Schneider Granite Co., 187 Mo. also carried out its proper, innocent 244 ; 86 S. W. 213 ; 106 Am. St. Rep. purposes). 452 (same point as preceding case) ; Cf. Attorney-General ex rel. Wol- Jones v. Missouri-Edison Electric vervne Fish Co. v. A. Booth & Co., Co., 144 Fed. 765; 75 C. C. A. 631 143 Mich. 89 ; 106 N. W. 868. See (company formed for fraudulent also infra, p. 265. purpose) ; State v. Collins (R. I.), ' Attorney-General v. Appleton 67 Atl. 796 (officer indictable for (1907), 1 Ir. 252; Attorney-General conducljing criminal business as v. Myddletons (1907), 1 Ir. 471. agent of the corporation). ' Distilling, etc. Co. v. People ex * See infra, § 454. rd. Malony, 156 111. 448 ; 41 N. E. 263 § 302 INCORPORATION FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES [ChAP. V § 302. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197. — Failure to recognize these considerations was the under- lying fallacy in one of the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant in a famous recent case — the Northern Securities Case.^ It will be remembered that the Northern Securities Com- pany had been incorporated under the general laws of New Jersey for the purpose, as t^e "certificate of incorporation," or incorporation paper, somewhat more wordily stated, of buying, holding, and selling corporation stocks and bonds — a quite legitimate business. The real purpose of the incorporation, how- ever, was the stifling of competition between two interstate rail- ways through acquiring and holding a majority, or all, of the shares of each of them. This object, the Supreme Court held, was prohibited by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The soundness of this conclusion, while doubtless debatable, in no way turns on questions of corporation law, and therefore does not concern us here. But assuming this construction of the act to be correct, the counsel for the Northern Securities Company argued that nevertheless that company, being validly incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, had, by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by its incorporation paper, the same right as a natural person to purchase and hold shares in competing railway com- panies. The obvious answer to this contention was that if, as was conceded, the object of the incorporation was the prevention - of competition between two competing interstate railways by uniting the ownership of a controlling interest in each, and if this object was a violation of an act of Congress, then the com- pany was not really formed for a "lawful purpose" within the meaning of the New Jersey incorporation act, and its organiza- tion was in effect a fraud on the laws of New Jersey. The formation of a company for the purpose of violating an act of Congress was as much a fraud on the New Jersey incorporation law as if the company's object had been the infringement of a New Jersey statute. Hence, the rights and dignity of the State of New Jersey, so far from being concerned in upholding a power in the Northern Securities Company to violate with im- ' N orthern Securities Co. V. U.S., Eq. 352; 36 Atl. 971, affirmed on 193 U. S. 197 ; 24 Sup. Ct. 436. opinion below, 56 N. J. Eq. 847 ; With this case, compare A Korjie?/- 42 Atl. 1117. General v. Am. Tobacco Co., 55 N. J. 264 § 295-§ 306] WHAT PURPOSES ARE ILLEGAL § 303, punity an act of Congress, demanded that, if the federal statute forbade what the company had done and was formed for the purpose of doing, then vigorous steps should be taken to pre- vent the continuance of the illegal action on its part and to vin- dicate the outraged corporation law of New Jersey, which provided for the incorporation of companies for lawful purposes, and which had been abused by the organization of a company for the purpose of violating a law of the United States. For this reason, the federal court was justified in enjoining the defendant corporation, the Northern Securities Company, from exercising rights of ownership in respect of the shares which it had acquired in defiance of the Anti-Trust Law.' If this decision rested upon a sound interpretation of the act of Congress in question, it certainly interfered in no way with the rights of New Jersey or with those conferred by that state on its creature, the Northern Securities Company. Indeed, a New Jersey court, accepting as sound the construction placed by the Supreme Court on the Anti-Trust Law, might well have gone a step further by dissolv- ing the corporation and decreeing a forfeiture of its corporate privileges because of its abuse of the New Jersey law by organizing a corporation under legal forms for the secret purpose of violating a federal statute.^ § 303-§ 306. What Purposes are Illegal. § 303. Not usually a Question of Corporation Law. — Of course, the question whether the purpose for which a company is organized is legal or is illegal is a question of general law, not of corporation law. For example, in the Northern Securities Case, the question whether the Anti-Trust Law, fairly construed, really did prohibit a combination among the owners of stock in two competing interstate railways in order to consolidate their holdings under a common management is purely a question in the law of monopolies and restraints on commerce. The only ' Southern Electric Securities Co. competing Mississippi corporations, V. State (Miss.), 44 So. 785 (where from voting in respect of the shares the Mississippi court at the suit of so acquired in defiance of a Missis- the state of Mississippi enjoined a sippi Anti-Trust law). New Jersey corporation, which had " See supra, § 300. been formed to acquire the stock of 265 § 304 INCORPORATION FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES [ChAP. V point in the law of corporations which the case decides has been discussed above. § 304. Violation of Provisions of Incorporation Law. — To be sure, the illegahty alleged to lurk in the object of a company's organization may consist in the intention to violate or evade some provision of the incorporation law itself. For example, in the well-known case of Salomon v. Salomon & Co.,^ where a company was organized to take over a mercantile business pre- viously carried on by a certain Aaron Salomon, the contention was advanced that inasmuch as Salomon owned all the shares in the company except six (which were taken by other members of his family) the company was a mere device to enable an indi- vidual to carry on business with limited liability, and that such a device was a violation of the spirit of the Companies Act and was unlawful, and that therefore the company never became validly incorporated. This argument was, however, overruled by the House of Lords upon the ground that the law did not prohibit the incorporation of a company for the purpose of carry- ing on business with limited liability, provided only the formali- ties prescribed in the incorporation act be observed.^ Any other conclusion would have been truly startling. For both in England and America, a very large proportion of all the companies incor- porated are organized for the mere purpose of avoiding the un- limited liability which attaches to an individual or partnership carrying on business. If all these companies were to be held illegal, and the attempted incorporation invalid, or capable of invalidation, the consequences would have been appalling. Incorporation laws often require that the company's principal office or place of business be stated in the incorporation paper. If the instrument be fair on its face but if the company be or- ganized without a hona fde intention of carrjdng on business at the designated place, the validity of the incorporation may certainly be called in question by the state on quo warranto pro- ceedings, and under exceptional circumstances may be attacked collaterally.^ ' Salomonv.Salomon&Co.(1897), invoke the jurisdiction of the A. C. 22 (headnote inadequate). federal courts on the ground of ' See also Irvine Co. v. Bond, 74 diversity of citizenship). Fed. 849 (where the motives of ' Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 incorporation were to secure limited Mass. 249 ; 19 N. E. 342. liability and to obtain the right to But cf. supra, § 283, § 287. 266 295-§ 306] WHAT PURPOSES ARE ILLEGAL 306 § 305. Purposes Unlawful but not Criminal. — The fact that the purpose of incorporation is not a crime is not conclusive proof that the purpose is lawful. For example, the use of a corporate name which involves a false representation is not lawful although the use of that name may not be a crime. Thus, in a recent Irish case, where a corporation was proposed to be formed under the name of "S. G. Rowell, Dentist, Limited," the court held that the proposed name would falsely suggest that either S. G. Rowell or the corporation was licensed to practise dentistry and that therefore the object of the company was not lawful,' notwithstanding a prior decision in which the use by a corporation of a name including the words " Surgeon Den- tists " had been held not to be a violation of the act for the licens- ing of dentists.^ § 306. Purposes contrary to Public Policy. — Moreover, a corporation cannot be formed for a purpose which, although perhaps not strictly illegal, is deemed to be contrary to public policy.' For example, an organization for the purpose of paying benefits or premiums to members upon their marriage has been thought to be against public policy; and therefore it was held thalt a corporation could not be formed for that purpose.* ' Rex V. Registrar Joint Stock Companies (1904), 2 Ir. 634. Cf. Attorney-Oeneral v. Appleton (1907), 1 Ir. 252; Attorney-General V. MydcUetons (1907), 1 Ir. 471. ' O'Duffy V. Jaffe (1904), 2 Ir. 27. ' Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. De- troit Agitations Verein, 44 Mich. 313 (headnote inadequate) ; 6 N. W. 675 ; 38 Am. Rep. 270. Cf. Benevolent Society, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 19; First Church of Christ, Scientist, 205 Pa. St. 543; 55 Atl. 536; 97 Am. St. Rep. 753; 63 L. R. A. 411 (incorporation for the purpose of healing disease by prayer alone). * Hdping-Hand Marriage Ass'n, ■ 15 Phila. 644. 267 CHAPTER VI • PROMOTERS Section Who are promoters 307-310 In general — not a definite legal status 307 Who are subject to disability as promoters 308 A question for jury 309 Promoters after incorporation 310 Whether promoters are partners 311-315 In general 311 Untier the Companies Act of 1844 312-313 Outline of practice 312 Members of provisional association, provisional committees, etc., not partners 313 Provisional committees, etc., under other statutes 314 Formation of partnership between promoters 315 Promotion by means of a preliminary corporation 316 Responsibility of corporation for acts of promoters , 317-349 Responsibility for acts done after incorporation .... 317-319 What is date of incorporation for this purpose 318 After incorporation de facto but not de jure 319 Responsibility for acts done prior to incorporation .... 320-349 In general 320 • Responsibility ex delicto 321 Responsibility ex contractu 322-346 ' Subscriptions to shares 322 Contracts other than subscriptions to shares . . . 323-325 Rule at law 323 ' Rule in equity 324 Contracts by existing corporation in anticipation of extension of powers distinguished . . . 325 f Ratification" of pre-incorporation contract 326 "Adoption" of contract — new .contract on same terms .... 327-337 In general 327 English rule . . 328 American rule — theory of continuing offer . . . 329 What is sufficient evidence of adoption or making of new contract 330-333 In generai . . 330 Effect of mistake of law or fact . ... 331 Implied adoption or new contract . 332 Retention of benefits as evidence of adoption 333 Miscellaneous illustrations of principle that "adop- tion " is really a new contract 334 Adoption of ultra vires contract . . 335 Corporation adopting lease liable as an original lessee 336 268 ? 307- § 415] SYNOPSIS Kesponsibility of corporation for acts of promoters (continued) Seotioa Effect of fraud of promoters procuring original contract . . . 337 Quasi-contractual liability for benefits received under contract which has not been adopted . . . 338-340 On principle . 338 The English cases 339 The American cases 340 Effect of provision in the incorporation paper directing payment of preliminary expenses . . . . 341 Voluntary payment . . 342 Effect of statute directing payment 343 Rule in cases where promoters when making contract did not intend a future corporation to be bound 344-346 In general . ... . . . 344 Assumption of contract by company . . . 345 Corporation formed to take over business of a firm 346 Appointment of agents for the future corporation . . 347 Whether knowledge of promoters imputable to company 348 Admissions of promoters 349 Right of corporation to the benefit of acts of pronjoters .... 350-356 Suits on contracts made prior to incorporation 350 Conveyances made for company's benefit prior to incorpora- tion 351-354 In general ' 351 Trusts for future corporation 352 Cases distinguished 353 Property acquired by promoters in course of promotion, etc. 354 Assignments from promoters to company — taking over property of a firm . .' 355 Survey for railway made prior to incorporation 356 Liabilities of promoters to persons not connected with the com- pany 357-362 Contractual liability 357-361 After incorporation 357 Before incorporation 358-361 In general 358 What is suflBcient evidence of authority of co-promoter as agent. 359 Liability distinguished from liability as members- of a defectively incorporated company 360 How promoter's liability is discharged — effect of com- pany's adoption of contract 361 Liability for torts 362 Suits by promoters on contracts made on behalf of projected corpora- tion 363 Liabilities of promoters to the company 364-403 No duty of active care for interests of company 364 Fiduciary relation to company — three consequences 365 Comparison with directors 366 Liability for actual fraud and deceit 367 Rescission by corporation of contracts with promoters 368-374 In general . .' 368 269 PKOMOTKRS Liabilities of promoters to the company (continued) Section What disclosure is sufficient, and to whom it must be made to render contract binding 369 Return of consideration as condition of rescission .... 370 Waiver of right to rescind . . . . 371 Laches of company . 372 Effect of dissolution of corporation on right of rescission . 373 Rights of individual shareholders 374 Liability of promoters to account to corporation for their profits 375-399 In general 375 Classification of cases in which unlawful profits are made. 376 Profits made on transactions between promoters and persons having dealings with company 377-382 Outright bribes . 377 Commissions and other veiled bribes 378 Mutual rights of bribe-giver and the company .... 379 Mutual rights of bribe-giver and the promoter .... 380 Company's right to recover bribe independent of right to avoid its contract with bribe-giver ... 381 Promoter's right to set-off or recoup expenses . . incurred on company's behalf 382 Profits made on a transaction between promoter and company 383-390 In general 383 Purchase of property by promoter and resale to com- pany — measure of promoter's profit 384 Continuation — Cape Breton Company's Case . . . 385 Continuation — Gluckstein v. Barnes, 1900 (A. C), 240 386 Dicta that promoter in making resale deals at arm's length 387 Effect of false representation that property is resold at same price paid by promoter 388 Sale to company by promoter holding option of purchase 389 Albion Steel Co. v. Martin, 1 Ch. D. 580 390 Profits made with money obtained from illegal sale of stock 391 Company's claim founded on breach of trust — bankruptcy of promoter — limitations and laches .... . 392 Whether liability is several or joint 393 Burden of proof — fact of profit and non-disclosure . 394 What is sufficient disclosure of profit by promoter . 395-398 Question the same whether company seeks rescission of transaction or recovery of profit 395 Disclosure must be actual, full, and frank 396 To whom the disclosure should be made — to directors, shareholders, the public, etc 397 Where gift of profit to promoter is ultra vires of corpora- tion 398 Liability of promoter to account for property acquired on behalf of company 399 Liability of promoters in damages for breach of fiduciary duty to company 400-402 In general 400 270 § 307-§ 415] WHO ARE PROMOTERS § 307 Liabilities of promoters to the company {continued) Sectiou Examples 401 Liability assimilated to liability for torts — non-joinder of defendants 402 Penal liability of promoters to company 403 Liabilities of promoters to one another 404-411 Classification 404 Accountability for profits 405-408 In general — fiduciary relation of promoters to one another 405 Lungren v. Pennell, 10 W. N. C. (Pa.) 297 406 Deducting from profit expenses incurred for benefit of all promoters . 407 Termination of fiduciary relation — abandonment of enter- prise . 408 Contribution to losses and expenses 409 Liability on actual contracts between promoters 410-411 Liability on contract to form corporation ... 410 Effect of illegal features of projected corporation upon legality of contracts between promoters ...... 411 Liability of promoters to individual shareholders and subscribers to shares ... 412-416 Subscribers to shares as promoters . 412 Whether promoters occupy fiduciary relation towards sub- scribers — liabiUty for non-disclosure 413 Assumption by promoters of fiduciary relation to shareholders 414 Liability for return of deposits upon abandonment of enterprise 415 § 307-§ 310. Who are Promoters. § 307. In general — Not a definite legal Term. — The word "promoter" is not a technical legal term, or "word of art," but belongs rather to the vocabulary of commercial affairs.* Consequently, it is capable of no precise legal definition appli- cable to all cases. In a general way, it designates any person who knowingly participates in organizing and starting in busi- ness an incorporated company.^ The state of being a promoter is not a definite legal status — such as that of a shareholder or a director — to which the law annexes certain rights and burdens. "It is necessary to ascertain in each case what the so-called ' Whaley Bridge Co. v. Green, 5 longer, v. New Sombrero Phosphate Q. B. D. 109, 111, per Bowen, J.; Co., 3 App. Cas. 1218, 1268; Cox v. Twyeross v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469, National Coal, etc. Co. (W. Va.), 56 603 (per Bramwell, L. J.) ; Piits v. S. E. 494. Stede Mercantile Co., 75 Mo. App. Cf. Sovih Missouri, etc. Co. v. 221, 226. Crommer (Mo.), 101 S. W. 22 (where • Emma Silver Mining Co. v. the persons in question were held not Lewis, 4 C. P. D. 396, 407 ; Twyeross to be promoters). V. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469, 541 ; Er- 271 § 308 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI promoter really did before his legal liabilities can be accurately ascertained." ^ § 308. Who are subject to Disability as Promoters. — The nearest approach to any definite legal consequences attaching to promoters qua promoters is found in that rule of law which prohibits any one engaged in the promotion of an incorporated company from deriving any secret advantage from his position. In order that a person may be subject to this disability, he need only participate intentionally in the organization or " flotation " of the company.^ It would seem clear that a mere intention of getting up a company without any overt act will not make a man a promoter or create any fiduciary relationship.^ But in order to be a promoter, it is not necessary that he should act as a prin- cipal; a mere agent or servant of one financially interested in the promotion of the company is deemed himself a promoter within this rule.' So, the oflBcers of a corporation which is en- gaged in promoting another corporation are themselves pro- moters of the latter company.^ Of course, a person who employs an agent to get up a company is a promoter ; ° qui facit per alium facit per se. It has been held that one who acts merely as solici- tor for a company in the matters attending and immediately fol- lowing the incorporation is not a promoter ; ' but it is submitted that no sound reason can be given for drawing any distinction in this respect between solicitors and other agents or attorneys." The objection may be raised that the printer who prints, a pros- pectus or a mere clerk to whom it is dictated knowingly partici- pates in the organization of the company, and would therefore according to the rules just stated be subject to a promoter's disa- bilities. The reply is that such would indeed be the case,' and that any such printer or clerk who makes a secret profit out of ' Lydney, etc. Co. v. Bird, 33 Ch. ' Ex-Mission Land Co. v. Flash, D. 85, 93 (per Lindley, L. J.). 97 Cal. 610, 627; 32 Pac. 600. ' See supra, cases cited p. 271 n. 2. ' Be Great Wheal Polffroth, 49 ' Re Hess Mfg. Co., 21 Ont, App. L. T. 20. 66, 71, affirmed, 23 Can. Sup. Ct. 644. « Cf. BagnaU v. Carlton, 6 Ch. D. * Lydney, etc. Co. v. Bird, 33 Ch. 371. D. 85. ° "A man who carries about an Cf. Grand Rapids Safely Deposit advertising board in one sense pro- Co. V. Cincinnati Safe, etc. Co., 45 motes a company." Per Bowen, J., Fed. Rep. 671(headnote misleading), in Whaley Bridge, etc. Co. v. Green, ° Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas 5 Q. B. D. 109, 111. Syndicate (1899), 2 Ch. 392. 272 § 307-§ 415] WHO ARE PROMOTERS § 310 his relation to the corporation would be accountable therefor to the company. The great difference between such a subordinate and the more dignified persons whom we are apt to think of as promoters is that the opportunities of the former for making secret profits out of their relationship to the intended corpora- tion are much more limited. On the other hand, an independent contractor by dealing with promoters does not ipso facto become himself a promoter; to be a promoter, one must either occupy such a position as would make him an agent of the company if it were already incorporated, or he must in some other way as- sume the burden of looking after the interests of the unborn corporation.^ Similarly, a landowner, who employs a broker to sell his property is not to be deemed a promoter of a corporation which the broker without any authority or even suggestion from the landowner organizes for the purpose of purchasing the prop- erty.^ One who agrees to become a director in a company to be organized becomes from that time a promoter.' And it would seem very clear that any one who knowingly aids promoters financially and otherwise in carrying out their scheme becomes himself liable to all the disabilities of a promoter.* § 309. A Question for Jury. — At all events, the question whether or not a person is a promoter is a question of fact ; and may, it has been held, in actions at law be left to the jury with- out any definition of the term to guide them.' § 310. Promoters after Incorporation. — The peculiarities of the law applicable to promoters apply not merely while the corporation has no existence save in the brains of its projectors, but also, at least to a large extent, after it has a technical legal existence, but while it is still in a state of undeveloped infancy, and not yet Wholly capable of managing its own affairs in the regular manner. Accordingly, one may become a promoter of a ' South Missouri, etc. Co. v. ties as promoters ; but conceded — Crammer (Mo.), 101 S. W. 22. unnecessarily, and, it is submitted, ' Forest Land Co. v. Bjorkquist, without good reason — that they 110 Wise. 547 ; 86 N. W. 183. occupied no fiduciary relation to the ' Nantr-y-Glo, etc. Ironworks Co. company. V. Grave, 12 Ch. D. 738. " Emma Silver Mining Co. , v. * Fountain Spring Park Co. v. Lewis, 4 C. P. D. 396. This practice Roberts, 92 Wise. 345 ; 66- N. W. seems to have been followed in 399; 53 Am. St. Rep. 917. The Twycross v. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469, court held the persons in question and Whaley Bridge Co. v. Green, 5 to the same liabilities and disabili- Q. B. D. 109. VOL. I. — 18 273 §311 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI company after its incorporation,' and those who have formerly been promoters do not cease to be such on the registration of the company.^ A person who is not a director may be a pro- moter of a company which is already incorporated but the capi- tal of which has not been subscribed and which has therefore not yet commenced operations as a full-fledged going concern.^ But where a company has been organized and operated by a board of directors for as much as a year, it has been held that the relation of promotership no longer exists, and that a former pro- moter may then dealf with the company at arm's length/ § 311-§ 315. Whether Promoters are Partners. § 311. In general. — In spite of some decisions to the con- trary,' most of which have been overruled, it is now almost uni- versally held that persons do not become partners merely by co-operating in the formation of a corporation." This is true both of those whose connection with the project consists merely in subscribing for shares in the intended company ' and of those S. W. 163 ; Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144 ; Ryland v. HoUinger, 117 Fed. 216; Mt. Carmd Tel. Co. V. Mt. Carmd & Fleming Tel. Co. (Ky.), 84 S. W. 515. ' Reyndl v. Lewis, 15 M. & W. 517; Walstah v. Spottiswode, 15 M. & W. 501 ; Batard v. Hawes, 2 E. & B. 287 ; Ward v. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24; Hornblower v. CrandaU, 7 Mo. App. 220, 230-231 (semble), af- firmed, 78 Mo. 581; Wilson v. Hotchkiss, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 261 (semble); WUkins v. Davies, 16 Vict. L. R. 70. See also West Point Foundry Ass. V. Brown, 3 Edw. Ch. 284 (N. Y.) ; Schantz v. Oakman, 10 N. Y. App. Div. 151; 41 N. Y. Supp. 746; and infra, § 359. The status of persons who form a supposed corporation and, assum- ing the validity of the incorporation, authorize the transaction of business is elsewhere considered. See supra, § 293. ' Hutton V. Thompson, 3 H. L. C. 161 ; Ward v. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24. V. Grant, 2 C. P. D. 469, 503, 540, 541. ' Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate (1899), 2 Ch. 392, 428; Pietsch V. MUbrath, 101 N. W. 388, 391; 102N.W. 342; 123 Wise. 647; 107 Am. St. Rep. 1017. ' Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Lewis, 4 C. P. D. 396, 407. • Russell v. Rock Run Fud Gas Co., 184 Pa. St. 102, 107-108; 39 Atl. 21. ' Holmes v. Higgins, 1 B. & C. 74; Lv^as v. Beach, 1 Man. & Gr. 417, which cases are explained in Lindley on Partnership, 7th ed., 19. See also Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed. Rep. 538 (where no such point was necessary to the decision, since the liability of promoters for secret profits, like that of directors, is •doubtless joint and several) ; Getty v. Devlin, 54 N. Y. 403, 413 (reported on a subsequent appeal in 70 N. Y. 504); Emery v. Parrott, 107 Mass. 95; Dole v. Wooldredge, 135 Mass. 140; Queen City Furniture, etc. Co. V. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356, 364; 30 274 § 307-§ 415] WHETHER PROMOTERS ARE PARTNERS § 313 who are the active organizers of the corporation.' The rule is the same in equity as at law,^ and appUes whether the promoters anticipate incorporation by royal charter, by special act, or under a general law.^ § 312. Under the British Companies Act of 1844 — Outline of Practice. — The extent to which the doctrine is carried that promoters are not partners is shown by the many and leading cases which arose under the English Companies Act of 1844.* Under this statute, the promoters before issuing a prospectus were required to deposit at the Registry of Joint Stock Com- panies a schedule containing certain particulars as to the pro- posed company, including its name, its business or purpose, etc., and the names and addresses of the promoters. Upon the regis- tration of this schedule, the promoters became entitled to a cer- tificate of provisional registration, upon the issuance of which the company was said to be "provisionally registered." The pro- moters were thereupon permitted to publish a prospectus, re- ceive subscriptions to the company's capital, and do a number of other acts' incidental to its promotion. The subscribers to the capital then executed a "deed of settlement" containing such particulars about the company as are usually inserted in the in- corporation paper; and when this deed of settlement was re- corded the company was said to be "completely registered," and was thenceforth a corporation. Companies which required a special act of parliament for their successful operation, such as railways, turnpikes, etc., were in the same way registered provi- sionally in anticipation of the passage of the desired special act. It seems to have been customary for the affairs of the company during the period of its f»rovisional registration to be managed by a "provisional committee," ^ who, in turn, seem often to have delegated their active duties to a "committee of management." * § 313. Members of Provisional Association, Provisional Committees, etc., not Partners. — From the foregoing sketch one readily perceives how much more formal such a preliminary ' Bright v. Hutton, 3 H. L. C. 341 » See Beynell v. Lewis, 15 M. & (distinguishing Hutton v. UpfM, 2 W. 517 ; WUson v. Curzon, 15 M. & H. L. C. 674). W. 532. 2 Bright v. Hutton, 3 H. L. C. 341. » See Tanner's Case, 5 De G. & S. ' Hamiltonv. Smith,5JuT.,N.s., 32. 182. < 7 & 8 Vict., c. 110, repealed by 19 & 20 Vict., c. 47, § 107. 275 § 314 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI organization was than anything serving a similar purpose with which Americans are in practice famiUar. Nevertheless, it was held in England that neither the members of a company provi- sionally registered/ nor its provisional committeemen/ nor even the members of the innermost circle, the committee of manage- ment,' were partners. This was true although such a provision- ally registered company was so far an "association" as to be within the acts for the winding-up of companies and "associa- tions." * For instance, a provisionally registered company al- though, as just stated, held to be within the winding-up acts, could not be wound up by a court of equity as a partnership.^ § 314. Provisional Committees, etc., under other Statutes. — The custom of promoting a projected corporation by means of provisional committees, etc., which originated in the Companies Act of 1844, seems to have to some degree survived in England the repeal of that statute ; and we accordingly read occasionally of provisional committees and provisional directors of com- panies intended to be organized under the Act of 1862.* A "provisional director" has been defined as one who is to be a director if the scheme succeeds and the company is incorporated.^ A fortiori, however, any such loose, informal association of the promoters or of the "provisional directors" which has no place in the scheme of the statute, and its still more informal Ameri- can counter-part, cannot amount to a partnership. § 315. Formation of Partnership between Promoters. — Of course, no rule of law prevents the formation of a partnership for the purpose of promoting a corporation ; and instances might be given where this in fact has been done.^ But to establish such ' Wcdstab V. Spottiswode, 15 M. & of contributories " in the winding-up W. 501; Ex parte Lloyd, 1 Sim., of such "associations." N. s., 248. " Hamilton'v.Smith,5J\xr.,N. s.,32. ' BeyneU v. Leiuis, 15 M. & W. Cf . Ward v. Brigham, 127 Mass. 24. 517; Norris v. CotUe, 2 H. L. C. " Maddick v. Marshcdl, 17 C. B., 647; McEwan v. Campbell, 2 Macq. n. s., 829. H. L. 499. ' Burbidge v. Morris, 3 H. & C. 3 Burnside v. Dayrell, 3 Ex. 224, 664, 669, per Martin, B. 230. ' E. g. Walker v. Anglo-American, * Bright V. Hutton, 3 H. L. C. 341. etc. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.) 334, 340; Many of the English cases on the 25 N. Y. Supp. 432. Uabilities of promoters to third per- As to a "syndicate" as equiva- sons and inter sese have come up on lent to a partnership in such matters, the question whether or not a pro- see Hambleton v. Rhind, 84 Md. 456 ; moter should be placed on the "hst 36 Atl. 597 ; 40 L. R. A. 216. 276 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 317 a condition unusual circumstances must be shown, since the partnership relation cannot be inferred from the fact of co- operating as promoters. § 316. Promotion by means of a Preliminary Corporation. — As promoters may form a partnership to carry out their enter- prise of organizing a company, so they may form a preliminary corporation for the same purpose ; '■ but such cases are uncom- mon except where a very large company is forming. Of course, many corporations formed for the transaction of a general finan- cial business, such as trust companies, frequently take part in the promotion of other corporations, but in such cases the trust com- panies are governed by the same rules of law as individual promoters. § 317-§ 349. RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION FOR ACTS OF PROMOTERS. § 317-§ 319. Responsibility for Acts done after Incorporaticm. § 317. In general. — While, as we have seen,^ a person may be a promoter of a company even after it has been incorporated, yet in respect to the power of promoters to bind the corporation by their acts and agreements, the law draws a sharp distinction between those acts which are done before, and those which are done after, the incorporation. After the company has acquired a corporate existence, the ordinary principles of the law of agency apply; and all that is necessary in order to make the company responsible for the torts or contracts of its promoters is to show that they were committed or made in the scope of their authority as agents. So, the liability of the company to pay for services rendered by the promoters after incorporation will depend entirely upon whether or not the understanding was that the promoters should receive compensation.^ ' An instance may be found in = Supra, § 310. Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas 8yiv- ' Cf. Powell v. Georgia, etc. Ry. dicate (1899), 2 Ch. 392. Co., 121 Ga. 803; 49 S. E. 759. 277 § 318 PROMOTKRS [Chap. VI § 318. What is Date of Incorporation for this Purpose. — The question may be raised, however, whether the technical date of incorporation — that is, under the common general incorporation laws, the date of the recording of the memorandum of associa- tion or incorporation paper — or the date of the first organiza- tion of the company for the transaction of business, is to be regarded as the crucial time within the meaning of this rule. Under the old system of incorporation by special act, where the corporation did not come into being until the act was accepted by the corporators by organizing under it, this question could not so easily arise. But under the modern general laws where the corporation springs into existence immediately on registration without the necessity of any further acceptance or organization,^ it may become very material. The argument may be urged, on the one hand, that while the company has from its registration a technical existence, yet it is still in a period of helpless infancy, and that not uniil it organizes for business does its career actually commence. On the other hand, it may be said, after the com- pany's existence as a legal person begins, the technical objection that it cannot be bound by what occurred prior to its birth van- ishes, and it would therefore seem that effect should be given even as against the corporation to contracts made with authority derived from the corporators. This seems to be the law.^ The mere execution of the incorporation paper before its registration does not, however, for this purpose, effect an incorporation.^ § 319. After Incorporation De Facto but not De Jure. — Acquisition of a mere de facto corporate existence gives the com- pany thenceforward a capacity to contract, and the same prin- ' Glymont Improvement Co. v. 40 Md. 395 ; Rathbone v. Tioga Nav. Toler, 80 Md. 278, 289 ; 30 Atl. 651, Co., 2 Watts & Serg. (Pa. ) 74 ; Low and supra, § 163. v. Connecticut, etc. R. R. Co., 45 N. H. ' Hall V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 370. 28 Vt. 401, 406-407; Vermont Cm- But see Ex parte Hardy, 41 Ch. tral R. R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30, D. 215, 223-226, 237 (headnote in- 35-36 ; ■Harrison v. Vermont Man- adequate) ; Whetstone v. Crane ganese Co., 1 N. Y. Misc. 402; 20 Bros. Mfg. Co., 1 Kans. App. 320; N. Y. Supp. 894; Legrand v. Man- 41 Pac. 211; Gent v. Manufacturers, hattan Mercantile Ass., 80 N. Y. etc. 7?is. Co., 107 111. 652 ; McVicker 638 (headnote inadequate) ; Badger v. Cone, 21 Oreg. 353 ; 28 Pac. 76 ; Paper Co. v. Rose, 95 Wise. 145; Aspen Water, etc. Co. v. Aspen, 5 70 N. W. 302 ; 37 L. R. A. 162. Colo. App. 12 ; 37 Pac. 728. See also Kelner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. ' See eases cited infra, § 323. 174 ; Grape Sugar, etc. Co. v. Small, 278 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPOEATION § 322 ciples apply as if the incorporation had been de jure} It has been said that where a de facto corporation becomes incorporated de jure, the legally organized corporation is liable for the debts of the irregularly incorporated company.^ On the other hand, an estoppel resting upon the members of an unincorporated body to deny their own incorporation cannot bind a lawful corpora- tion which they subsequently organize.* § 320-§ 349. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS DONE PRIOR TO INCORPORATION. § 320. In general. — The responsibility of corporations for acts done by their promoters prior to incorporation has been the subject of contention in not a few legal battles. Of course, no one denies the power of promoters to bind the future company by moulding its constitution as expressed in the incorporation paper. This very power is the raison d'etre of much that is pecu- liar in the law of promoters. But the question now in hand relates to their power to bind the intended company by transactions dehors the record. § 321. Responsibility Ex Delicto. — Probably no one has ever contended that the corporation should be liable in damages for torts committed by its promoters before it had any existence; and certainly no such contention could be maintained.* § 322-§ 346. RESPONSIBILITY EX CONTRACTU. § 322. Subscriptions to Shares. — With respect to contracts the case is not so simple. Subscriptions to shares of capital, it should be premised, differ in many respects from other con- tracts, and have therefore received separate consideration.^ ' See Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing ' Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 238; 3 Atl. 404; Publishing Co., 4 N. Y. Misc. 172, Grand River Bridge Co. v. Rollins, 23 N. Y. Supp. 675. 13 Colo. 4; 21 Pac. 897. » Karberg's Case (1892), 3 Ch. 2 Georgia Ice Co. v. Meakin, 70 1, 13. Ga. 637. See also McCallum v. Pursell Cf. Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts Inr- Mfg. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 42& vestment Co., 96 Iowa 147 ; 64 N. W. ^ Supra, § 238-§ 260. 782; 59 Am. St. Rep. 362. 279 " §323 PROMOTEKS [Chap. VI § 323- § 325. Contracts other than Subscriptions to Shares. § 323. Rule at Law. — The rule at law is very simple, and has commanded, it is believed, universal acceptance: no con- tract made by promoters on behalf of a corporation projected but not yet formed, can, propria vigore and without any adoption or confirmation by the corporation, bind the company when in- corporated,' unless by virtue of some express statute ; and " this ■ is so although the, promoters become, at the creation of the cor- poration, its only stockholders, directors and ofiicers." ^ This rule is founded upon the basic principle that no one can be an agent for a person — the corporation — not yet in existence. Consequently, the rule clearly applies to all such contracts made at any time before the very moment of incorporation. Hence, it applies to a contract made subsequent to the execution of the memorandum of association or incorporation paper before its registration.^ Other questions as to the point of time which 1 Kelner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174 ; Payne v. New South Coal Co., 10 Ex. 283 ; Qunn- v. London, etc. Fire Ins. Co., 12 C. B., N. s., 694; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Hart, 31 Md. 59; Munson v. Syracuse, etc. B. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 58, 75-76; 8 N. E. 355; Western Screw, etc. Co. v. Consley, 72 111. 531 ; Buffington v. Bardon, 80 Wise. 635 ; 50 N. W. 776 ; Long V. Citizens' Bank, 8 Utah 104; 29 Pac. 878 ; Carey v. Des Moines, etc. Mining Co., 81 Iowa 674; 47 N. W. 882 ; Tift v. Quaker City Nat. Bank, 141 Pa. St. 550 ; Gent v. , Manur- facturers, etc. Ins. Co., 107 111. 652; Battelle v. Northwestern Cement, etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89 (semble) ; 33 N. W. 327; Weatherford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Granger, 86 Tex. 350 ; 24 S. W. 795 ; 40 Am. St. Rep. 837; Little Rock, etc. R. R. Co. V. Perry, 37 Ark. 164, 192, 193 (rulings on plaintiff's first and defendant's second instruction) ; Winters v. Huh Mining Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 287; Adams v. Empire Laun- dry Machinery Co., 4 N. Y. Supp. 738; Pittsburg, etc. Mining Co. v. QuintreU, 91 Tenn. 693, 695, 696; 20 S. W. 248 (semble); Bash v. Culver Gold Mining Co., 7 Wash. 122 ; 34 Pac. 462. Cf. BluehUl Academy v. Witham, 13 Me. 403. As to mechanics' liens, see Davis V. MaysvUle Creamery Ass'n, 63 Mo. App. 477; McFaU v. McKeesporf, etc. Co., 123 Pa. St. 259 ; 16 Atl. 478 ; Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Tal- botton Creamery, etc. Co., 106 Ga. 84; 31 S. E. 809; Davis v. Ravenna Creamery Co., 48 Nebr. 471 (head- note inadequate); 67 N. W. 436; Coyote, etc. Co. v. Ruble, 8 Oreg. 284 ; Bank of Forrest v. OrgUl Bros., etc. Co., 34 So. 325 ; 82 Miss. 81. The liability of a corporation quasi ex contractu for benefits con- ferred upon it prior to its formation is discussed infra, § 338-§ 340. ' Battelle v. Northern Cement, etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89, 90 ; 33 N. W. 327 ; Scadden Flat, etc. Co. v. Scadden, 121 Cal. 33 ; 53 Pac. 440 (semble). But see Paxton v. Bacon Mill, etc. Co., 2 Nev. 257; Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. V. Talbotton Creamery, etc. Co., 106 Ga. 84; 31 S. E. 809. 3 Kelner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174. But see argument for appellee in 280 § 307-§ 415] -RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 324 should be taken as the date of incorporation for the purpose of this rule have been considered above.' § 324. Rule in Equity. — In equity more diversity of opinion has existed. In some comparatively early cases, the promoters of a special act of incorporation agreed with a third party, in consideration of his withdrawal of opposition to the passage of the act, that the company when incorporated should pay a sum of money or exercise its franchise in some particular way. Lord Cottenham held that the corporation, having necessarily re- ceived the benefit of the contract, and indeed owing its very existence thereto, might be enjoined from violating the terms of the agreement.^ But the House of Lords subsequently held that at all events no such agreement could be enforced against the company unless the acts to be done thereunder by the corpora- tion were within powers conferred in the act of incorporation ; ' and the opinion was emphatically expressed that, even if they were, a court of equity would not enforce the contract against the company. Lord Cottenham's view was severely criticised,* and. the fallacy lurking in the notion that the existence of the corporation as an entity distinct from its corporators is a mere technicality was exposed. Upon incorporation new rights and interests arise; and subsequent shareholders have a right to insist that the corporation be not shackled from its very birth by burdens of which they cannot be supposed to have notice. Al- though, in a later case, it was said that such a contract by pro- moters might be specifically enforced by the corporation,^ which Grape Sugar, etc. Co. v. Small, 40 C. C. A. 502, is perhaps based on the Md. 395, 397-398. Cf. supra, § 133. same principle. ' Supra, § 318 and § 319. ' Caledonian By. Co. v. Helens- ' Edwards v. Grand Junction By. burgh, 2 Macq. H. L. 391 ; Preston Co., 1 Myl. & C. 650; Stanley v. v. Liverpool, etc. By. Co., 5 H. L. C. Chester, etc. By. Co., 3 Myl. & C. 605 (semble). Accord : Earl of 773. Accord : Earl of Lindsey v. Shrewsbury v. North Staffordshire Great Northern By. Co., 10 Hare By. Co., lEq. 593; Leominster Canal 664. Nav. Co. v. Shrewsbury, etc. By. Co. See also Gooday v. Colchester, etc. 3 K. & J. 654, 668. By. Co., 17 Beav. 132. Lord Gotten- * Caledonian By. Co. v. Helens- ham's views were referred to with burgh, 2 Macq. H. L. 391 ; Preston approval in Low v. Connecticut, etc. v. Liverpool, etc. By. Co., 5 H. L. C. B. B. Co., 45 N. H. 370, 375-376; 605; Earl of Shrewsbury v. North Little Bock, etc. By. Co. v. Perry, 37 Staffordshire By. Co., 1 Eq. 593. Ark. 164, 187 et seq. ; Cook v. Sterl- ^ Bedford, etc. By. Co. v. Stanley, ing Electric Co., 150 Fed. 766; 80 2 Johns. & H. 746. 281 § 325 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI dictum, in view of the equitable requirement of mutuality as to the right to specific performance, would perhaps imply that the same remedy might have been invoked against the corporation, yet there can be little doubt that the views of the members of the House of Lords embody sound doctrine, and that in equity as at law a corporation is never bound, in the absence of some ac- quiescence or adoption, to abide by contracts made on its bejialf before its creation.' For this reason, where property was set- tled in trust for a corporation to be thereafter organized, it was held that the company after its formation could compel the trus- tee to execute the trust in spite of its refusal to carry out an agree- ment made by the settlor of the trust, who was a promoter of the company, that the corporation should pay the trustee a certain compensation for his services.^ The ground of the decision was that the contract of the promoter bound himself alone, and that the company could not be required to perform a contract by which it was not bound as a condition to the enforcement of a valid trust in its favor. So, an agreement between promoters that one of them shall own a sixth of the company's capital will not justify an injunction restraining the corporation from in- creasing its capital and thereby diminishing the proportionate interest of the last-mentioned promoter.' § 325. Contracts by Existing Corporation in Anticipation of Extension of Powers distinguished. — From the class of con- tracts considered in the last paragraph, one should carefully distinguish contracts made by an existing corporation in antici- pation of an extension of its powers. If the powers are enlarged as expected, such contracts are binding even though they would have been vltra vires if the enlargement had not been had. Thus, where an existing railway company applied for an act of parlia- ment to extend its powers by conferring authority to construct a branch line, an owner of land lying in the proposed new route ^ Re Rotherham Alum Co., 25 Ch. (Colo.), 86 Pac. 335; PenneU v. D. 103, 109 (headnote inadequate) ; Lothrop, 191 Mass. 357. Natal Land, etc. Co. v. Pauline Col- But see Paxton v. Bacon Mill, etc. liery Syndicate (1904), A. C. 120 ; Co., 2 Nev. 257. Munson v. Syracuse, etc. R. R. Co., ' Hecla, etc. Mining Co. v. 103 N. Y. 58, 75-76; 8 N. E. 355; O'Neill, 19 N. Y. Supp. 592. Park V. Modern Woodmen of Amer- ' Martin v. Remington-Martin ico, 181 III. 214, 232-234; 54 N. E. Co., 95 N. Y. App. Div. 18; 88 932 ; Miser Gold, etc. Co. v. Moody N. Y. Supp. 573. 282 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 326 withdrew his opposition to the bill in consideration of the rail- way's agreement to purchase the land from him at a certain figure if the act should pass; and the House of Lords held that this contract would be specifically enforced in equity.' In such cases, the company after the amendatory act remains the same Lgal person as before, and there is therefore no question of enforcing against a corporation contracts made before it came into existence; the distinction is obvious. § 326. " Ratification " of Pre-incorporation Contract. — Con- tracts made on behalf of a company prior to its incorporation are obviously incapable of ratification by the company, if " rati- fication " be used with the ordinary meaning which it bears in the law of agency.^ For, in order that a contract by one acting as agent should be ratified by the party on whose behalf it was made, the latter must have been in existence when the contract was made. Ratification, properly so called, must relate back to the time of the making of the contract. There can be no technical ratification of a contract made before the corporation had existence;' and this is true not only at law but also in equity.'' > Eastern Counties By. Co. v. » Scott v. Lord Ehury, 2 C. P. 255 ; Hawkes, 5 H. L. C. 331 (headnote Re Dale & Plant, 61 L. T. 206; Mcr misleading). Arthur v. Times Printing Co., 48 Cf. Great Western By. Co. v. Minn. 319; 51 N. W. 216; 31 Am. Birmingham, etc. By. Co., 2 Phill. St. Rep. 653; Stainsby v. Frazer's 597 ; Gooday v. Colchester, etc. By. Metallic Life Boat Co., 3 Daly N. Y. Co., 17 Beav. 132 ; Scottish N. E. 98 ; Koppel v. Mass. Brick Co., 192 By. Co. V. Stewart, 3 Macq. H. L. Mass. 223 ; 78 N. E. 128. 382 ; Low v. Connecticut, etc. B. B. Contra : Stanton v. New York, Co., 46 N. H. 284, 295. etc. By. Co., 59 Conn. 272; 22 Atl. ' "Ratification" is often used in 300; 21 Am. St. Rep. 110 (semble); this connection as synonymous with Whitney v. Wymun, 101 U. S. 392. "adoption"; Schreyer v. Turrwr Cf. Dubuque Female College v. Flouring Mills Co., 29 Oreg. 1, 6; Township District, 13 Iowa 555, 43 Pae. 719 ; Queen City, etc. Co. v. 660-561. Crawford/ 127 Mo. 356; 30 S. W. * Be Empress Engineering Co., 163. 16 Ch. D. 125 ; Natal Land, etc. Co. See also Wood v. Whelen, 93 111. v. Pauline Colliery Syndicate (1904), 153, 164-165 ; Alexander v. Winters, A. C. 120 ; Pennell v. Lothrop, 191 23 Nev. 475, 485; 49 Pac. 116. Mass. 357. 233 § 327 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI § 327-§ 337. Adoption of Contract — New Contract on same Terms. § 327. In general. — In many American cases it has been thought that the company may be rendered liable by adoption of the contract.' If " adoption " be used as synonymous with ratifi- cation,^ it is open of course to the same objections ; and if, as is generally the case, it is used in a different sense, it merely ob- scures the real nature of the transaction, which consists in the making of a new contract by the corporation. For, nice reason- ing leads irresistibly to the conclusion that no merely unilateral act on the part of the company with reference to such a contract can establish contractual relations between the company and the third party. In order to effect that result, there must be mutual assent, a meeting of minds, between the corporation and the third party.^ ■ In other words, there must be a new con- tract; and it is in the sense of the making of a new contract that " adoption " is generally used.* § 328. English Rule. — The making of a new contract is, then, the only logical and thoroughly satisfactory method of rendering such ante-incorporation contracts obligatory between the company and the third party; and the EngUsh cases carry this doctrine to the uttermost. Thus, it is held in England that adoption and confirmation by the deed of settlement or its modern equivalent, the memorandum of association, or by the articles of association, will not render the contract binding on the company;^ and this is so because the memorandum or ' E. g. Schreyer v. Turner Flour- Natal Land, etc. Co. v. Pauline Col- ing Mills Co.,' 29 Oreg. 1 ; 43 Pac. liery Syndicate (1904), A. C. 120. 719; Colorado Land, etc. Co. v. * "There can be no difference Adams, 5 Colo. App. 190; 37 Pac. between its making a contract by 39 ; Pittsburg, etc. Mining Co. v. adopting an agreement originally Quintrell, 91 Tenn. 693; 20 S. W. made in advance for it by promoters, 248 ; Thistle v. Jones, 45 N. Y. Misc. and its making an entirely new con- 215; 92 N. Y. Supp. 113; Rabbins tract." Battelle v. Northwestern V. Bangor Ry.,etc. Co., 62 Atl. 136; Cement, etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89, 90; 100 Me. 496; 1 L. R. A., n. s., 963; 33 N. W. 327; per Gilfillan, C. J. and many other cases. See also Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co. ' Cf. Pennell v. Lothrop, 191 v. Perry, 37 Ark. 164, 193 (ruling Mass. 357 (where it was said that on defendant's second insl ruction) ; the contract could not become bind- Wasser v. Western Land, etc. Co., 97 ing on the corporation by adoption). Minn. 460 ; 107 N. W. 160. ' Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood, " Gunn v. London, etc. fire Ins. 141 Mass. 145, 148; 7 N. E. 22; Co., 12 C. B., n. s., 694 (deed of set- 284 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 329 articles cannot constitute a contract between the company and non-members.' It has also been held in England that confir- mation by the directors is insufficient to bind the corporation to the contract.^ But if this conclusion is to be supported, the result should certainly not be biade to depend on a mere question of words — whether the directors use the word "confirm" or some term more appropriate to the making of a contract. A more satisfactory ground is that confirmation by the directors is a unilateral act to which the intended other party to the con- tract is not privy, and that therefore the meeting of minds essential to the formation of a new contract is lacking. § 329. American Rule — Theory of Continuing Ojfer. — ■ On the other hand, when a person makes a contract with one who professes to act on behalf of a corporation to be thereafter formed, it would seem that here should be taken to be a con- tinuing offer on his part to epter into a like contract -with the company when incorporated.' According to this view, any action on the company's part, communicated to the other party, evincing a desire to abide by the contract would amount to an acceptance of the offer, and therefore complete the formation of a new contract. This, it is believed, represents the law in most of the United States ; and this is usually what is meant when it is said that a pre-incorporation contract may be adopted by the company so as to become binding on it. In England, how- ever, as the cases cited in the last paragraph indicate, this theory of a continuing offer seems not to have met with approval ; and accordingly in England a new offer and acceptance (both of which, however, may be implied rather than express) are neces- sary in order to bind the company. Right here lies the differ- ence, and, it is believed, the only difference between the English and American law on this subject. In America, a unilateral act, namely, acceptance by the company of what is deemed to be tlement) ; Be Northumberland Ave. ' Pratt v. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 Hotel Co., 33 Ch. D. 16 (articles of Wise. 406; 62 N. W. 84; Penn association). Match Co. v. Hapgood, 141 Mass. ■ Eley V. Positive Life Ass. Co., 1 145, 148, 149 ; 7 N. E. 22 (semble) ; Ex. D. 20 ; Browne v. La Trinidad, Holyoke Envelope Co. v. U. S. En- 37 Ch. D. 1. velope Co., 182 Mass. 171 ; 65 N. E. = Re Dale & Plant, 61 L. T. 206; 54 (semble). North Sydney Investment, etc. Co. v. Higgins (1899), A. C. 263, 271 (semble). 285 § 330 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI an existing offer is enough: in England, there must be a new offer by the other party to the contract, and of that offer an acceptance by the company. § 330. What is sufficient Evidence to establish Adoption, or Making of New Contract — In general. — At all events, it is everywhere agreed that if the evidence is sufficient to establish a new contract the company is bound ; ' and whether or not the proof is sufRcient for that purpose is a question of fact in each case, which in actions at law must be left to the jury, so that uniformity of decision could not be expected.^ § 331. Ejjeet of Mistake of Law or Fact. — It has been held in England in the matter of the Northumberland Avenue Hotel Company, that a new contract cannot be inferred from acts done by the company in the belief that the anterior agreement was binding upon it ; for example, where under such mistaken belief the company assented to a modification in the terms of the old agreement, there was held to be no new contract.^ But this principle is of doubtful soundness; for while stronger evidence of intention would be required where the company was laboring under such a mistake, yet if a mutual intent on the part of the company and the stranger that the agreement should be carried out is clearly proved, it would seem to be immaterial how that intention came about, whether by mistake of law or otherwise. Accordingly, a tendency to distinguish the Northumberland Avenue Hotel Case is observable.* But a Missouri court has ' Re Dale & Plant, 61 L. T. 206. has been held bound are : Touche v. Regarded as a new contract, the Metropolitan Warehousing Co., 6 Ch. adoption of a promoters' agreement 671 ; SpiUer v. Paris Skating Rink in order to be binding, must be Co., 7 Ch. D. 368; Seymour v. supported by a consideration. Cf. Spring Forest, etc. Ass'n, 144 N. Y. Reichwald v. Commercial Hotel Co., 333, 341 ; 39 N. E. 365; 26 L. R. A. 106 111. 439 ; Holyoke Envelope Co. 859 ; Bomer v. Am. Spiral, etc. Co., V. U. S. Envelope Co., 182 Mass. 81 N. Y. 468; Colorado Land, etc. 171 ; 65 N. E. 54. Co. v. Adams, 5 Colo. App. 190 ; 37 ' See Davis v. Hillsboro Creamery Pac. 39 ; Reichwald v. Commercial Co., 10 Ind. App. 42 ; 37 N. E. 549 Hotel Co., 106 111. 439 ; Bruner v. (a case which goes very far in holding Brown, 139 Ind. 600, 602 ; 38 that "adoption" by the company N. E. 318; Dvimque Female College had not been proved). v. Township District, 13 Iowa 555 ; ' Northumberland Ave. Hotel Co., Davis v. Dexter Butter, etc. Co., 52 33 Ch. D. 16. Kans. 693 ; 35 Pac. 776 ; Bridgeport, * Howard v. Patent Ivory Co., etc. Ice Co. v. Meader, 72 Fed. 115, 38Ch. D. 156. 119-120; 18. C. C. A. 451; Mc- Other cases in which the company Donough v. Bank of Houston, 34 286 § 307-§ 415] EESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 332 held that the "adoption" of an ante-incorporation contract, or the making of a new one on the same terms, will not in general be binding unless made with knowledge of all material facts.^ This decision as well as the Northumberland Avenue Case would seem to rest upon the unwarranted assumption that any circumstance which would vitiate a principal's ratification of unauthorized acts of his agent would vitiate the adoption by a corporation of a pre-incorporation contract or the making of a new contract on the same terms. This assumption overlooks the fact that a new contract is not necessarily voidable on account of mistake of law or fact which would vitiate a mere ratification. § 332. Implied Adoption or Implied New Contract. — Cer- tainly, the " adoption " of a contract of the promoters, or, what is the same thing, the making of a new contract, need not be express but may be implied from circumstances, and no formality is required except such as would be requisite in an entirely new contract of a similar character. Thus, "if it could make an entirely new similar contract, without the use of its seal or without writing, or without formal action of its board of directors, it may also adopt an agreement assumed to be made for it in advance by promoters." ^ If the promoters employ an advertising agent for a year and the corporation when formed retains him in its service, that fact is sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in find- ing a new contract by the corporation for the same period and on the same terms.** , Mere failure to repudiate liability has been Tex. 309; Hoag v. Lamont, IS Ahb. 327; Bond v. Pike (Minn.), Ill Pr., N. s. (N. Y.), 91 ; Church v. N. W. 916. Church Cementico Co., 75 Minn. 85, Quoere, is the adoption of the 92 ; 77 N. W. 548 ; Kaeppler v. contract by the corporation a prom- Redfidd Creamery Co., 12 S. Dak. ise to pay the debt of the pro- 483; 81 N. W. 907; Ennis Cotton moters, and so within the Statute Oii Co. V. Bwrfce, 39 S. W. 966 (Tex.) ; of Frauds? See Stainsby v. Frazer's Pittsburg, etc. Mining Co. v. Quintrell, Metallic Life Boat Co., 3 Daly (N. Y.) 91Tenn. 693; 20 S. W. 248; Esper 98; Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co. v. V. MiUer, 91 N. W. 613 ; 131 Mich. Perry, 37 Ark. 164, 194 (headnote 334; Seloverv. Isle Harbor Land Co., misleading). 91 Minn. 451; 98 N. W. 344 (con- ' McArthur v. Times Printing tract to issue stock in exchange for Co., 48 Minn. 319; 51 N. W. 216; property) ; Bond v. Pike (Minn.), 31 Am. St. Rep. 653. Ill N. W. 916. See also Pittsburg, etc. Mining ' Pitts V. Steele Mercantile Co., Co. v. Quintrell, 91 Tenn. 693; 20 75 Mo. App. 221, 231. S. W. 248. ' Battdle v. Northwestern Cement, But see Horowitz v. Broads Mfg. etc. Co., 37 Minn. 89, 90; 33 N. W. Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. 988. 287 § 333 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI held insufficient evidence of "adoption."' It has been said that "whatever would amount to a ratification of the unauthor- ized acts of an agent would be sufficient evidence of the adoption of the contracts of a promoter ; " ^ but the authorities generally hardly justify this sweeping assertion, which seems to involve the same confusion of ideas criticised in the last paragraph. It is scarcely necessary to say that if the company confesses judgment in an action brought against it on the contract, it thereby adopts the agreement in toto? § 333. Retention of Benefits as Evidence of Adoption. — The circumstance most often seized upon to prove an adoption of promoters' contracts is the retention by the company of the bene- fits of the contracts. And indeed the voluntary reception of the benefits of a promoters' contract is strong evidence to establish a contract by the corporation on the same terms, and ought in all ordinary cases to be conclusive, the company being estopped to deny its liability on a contract of which it has voluntarily received the benefits.' It is well, however, to bear in mind the limits upon this doc- trine. Thus, the Supreme Court of Texas speaking through Associate Justice Gaines said: "Now when it is said that when a corporation accepts the benefits of a contract made by its promoters, it takes it cum onere, it is important to understand distinctly what is meant. There is so far as this matter is con- cerned a radical difference between a promise made on behalf of the future corporation in the contract itself the benefits of which the corporation has accepted, and the promise in a pre- vious contract to pay for services in procuring the latter to be made. This is well illustrated by the facts of the present case : ' Tift V. Qiiaker City Nat. Bank, v. iV. Y., etc. Land Co., 134 N. Y. 141 Pa. St. 550; 21 Atl. 660. 197, 211; 32 N. E. 27; Frankfort, ' Arapahoe Investment Co. v. Piatt, etc. Turnpike Co. v. Churchill, 6 5Colo. App. 515, 518; 39 Pac. 584. T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 427; 17 Am. ' Williams v. St. George's Harbor Dec. 159 ; Dams v. Valley Electric Co., 2 De G. & J. 546. Light Co., 61 N. Y. Supp. 580; * Bomer v. American Spiral, etc. Kaeppler v. Redfield Creamery Co., Co., 81 N. Y. 468; Schreyer v. 12 S. Dak. 483; 81 N. W. 907; Turner Flouring Mills Co., 29 Oreg. Streator Independent Tel., etc. Co. 1; 43 Pac. 719; Paxton Cattle Co. x. v. Continental Tel. Const. Co., 217 First Nat. Bank, 21 Nebr. 621, 644- 111. 577; 75 N E. 546; ChUcott v. 645 ; 33 N. W. 271 ; 59 Am. St. Rep. Washington, etc. Colonization Co. 852; Davis V. Dexter Butter, etc. Co., (Wash.), 88 Pac. 113; PosseU v. 62 Kans. 693 ; 35 Pac. 776 ; Rogers Smith (Colo.), 88 Pac. 1064. 288 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 333 Here a proposition was made on behalf of the company, by its promoters, that if a bonus should be subscribed and paid to it, it would build its road between certain points, and would carry coal at a certain stipulated rate. By accepting the bonus, the company became bound to fulfil the stipulations of the contract. That was the burden which it took with the benefit of the agree- ment. But it also appears that one of the promoters promised the plaintiff that if he would assist in procuring subscribers to the bonus, the company would pay him for his services. This was not part of the contract the benefits of which were taken by the defendant." ^ Moreover, the implication of a contract on the part of the company from the retention of benefits will not arise where the acceptance of the benefits is without knowledge of the terms of the contract ; ^ nor unless the original contract was made with the intent that the company should become bound.' Furth- ermore, the corporation cannot be required to pay for legal expenses incurred for the drafting of its incorporation papers and by-laws merely because it used the papers so prepared ; * for in such cases the benefits of the contract enure to the com- pany without any voluntary action on its part. So, too, where a license to use a patent is granted to P, the consideration being gauged by the profits of a company intended to be formed to work the patent, if P assigns his rights to a trustee for the pro- jected company by which after its incorporation the contract between P and the trustee is adopted, the use of the patent by the company will be referable to the contract between it and P and will therefore furnish no ground to infer a contract between it and the original licensor.' So, where goods are sold to a promoter, the use of the goods by the corporation in pursuance of a transfer from the promoter does not tend to prove the ' Weatherford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Creamery, etc. Co., 73 Pac. 83; 67 Granger, 86 Tex. 350, 356 ; 24 S. W. Kans. 489. See also infra, § 344. 795; 40 Am. St. Rep. 837. ♦ Jones v. Smith (Tex.), 87 S. W. Cf. also Heda, etc. Mining Co. v. 210; English & Colonial Produce O'Neal, 19 N. Y. Supp. 592. Co. (1906), 2 Ch. 435. Cf. infra, ' Pitts V. Stede Mercantile Co., § 338-§ 340. 75 Mo. App. 221, 231. » Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. = Davis, etc. Co. v. HUlsboro Clipper Pneumatic Tyre Co. (1902), Creamery Co., 10 Ind. App. 42; 1 Ch. 146. 37 N E. 549; Tryber v. Girard VOL. I. — 19 289 § 334 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI "adoption " by the company of the contract between the original vendor and the promoter.' § 334. Miscellaneous Illustrations of Principle that " Adoption " is really a New Contract. — As the so-called "adoption" by a corporation of a contract made for it by its promoters is really the making of a new contract, the agreement is not within that provision of the Statute of Frauds respecting contracts not to be performed within one year if it is to be performed within a year from the date of its " adoption " by the company.^ So, in pleading, it is not necessary to set out that the agreement was originally made by the promoters and adopted by the company; but it may be described as made by the corporation.^ Where the "adoption" is by parol, the correct form of action against the company is assumpsit although the original contract be under seal.* The adoption of a contract made by promoters, being in legal effect a new contract, is voidable if any of the directors who took part in the "adoption" were individually interested in the con- tract.* But the contract may, it has been held, be adopted on behalf of the company by the very promoter by whom prior to incorporation it was made." ' Koppd V. Mass. Brick Co., 192 * Swisshelm v. Svnssvcde Laundry Mass. 223 ; 78 N. E. 128. Co., 95 Pa. St. 367. ' McArthur v. Times Printing But see Wood v. Whden, 93 111. Co., 48 Minn.'319; 51 N. "W. 216; 153, 167 (where the facts showed an 31 Am. St. Rep. 653. adoption by the corporation of the ' McArthur v. Times Printing seal previously attached) ; Wiley v. Co., 48 Minn. 319, 322 ; 51 N. W. Borough of Towanda, 26 Fed. 594. 216 1 31 Am. St. Rep. 653 (semble). ' Munson v. Syracuse, etc. R. R. But see Paxton CaMe Co. v. Co., 103 N.Y. 58, 63-64; 8 N. E. 355. First Nat. Bank, 21 Nebr. 621: 33 » Pratt v. Oshkosh Match Co., 89 N. W. 271; 59 Am. St. Rep. 852, Wise. 406; 62 N. W. 84; Oakes v. where the plaintiff declared on a Cattaraugus Water Co., 143 N. Y. promissory note made by the pro- 430 ; 38 N. E. 461 ; 26 L. R. A. 544 moters of the defendant company (but see strong dissenting opinion of in its name before its incorporation, Gray, J.). It has been said that less and was allowed to recover. It is evidence of adoption will suffice submitted that the plaintiff should where the officers adopting the have counted on the promise of the contract were also the promo.ters corporation to pay the amount of by whom it was made than where the note which was to be implied the officers and promoters are from its retaining and using the different persons. Hall v. Herter property in payment for which the Bros., 83 Hun 19, 22; 31 N. Y. Supp. note was given. See Scadden Flat, 692 ; affirmed short, 157 N. Y. 694 ; etc. Co. V. Scadden, 121 Cal. 33 ; 53 51 N. E. 1091. Pac. 440.. 290 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 337 § 335. Adoption of Ultra Vires Contract. — Clearly, no " adop- tion" by a corporation of a contract made by promoters on its behalf prior to its incorporation can render the contract binding upon it, if the contract was one which the company had no power to enter into and which would have been ultra vires and unenforceable if made in the first instance by the company after incorporation.' § 336. Corporation adopting Lease liable as Original Lessee. — The effect of "adoption " by the company of promoters' con- tracts is well illustrated by Van Schaick v. Third Ave. R. R. Co? There, a lease was made to S, who by a contemporaneous collateral agreement declared himself trustee for a certain vol- untary association or for any company that might be organized to take its place. The formation of a corporation was then contemplated for this purpose, and shortly thereafter the de- fendant company was accordingly incorporated. This corpo- ration, having adopted the lease, became liable in equity, so the New York Supreme Court held, to pay the rent reserved thereby as if it had been the original lessee, so that the liability could not be avoided by any assignment. In a very similar case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court went even further, and held that the lessor could not collect the rent from the pro- moter in whose name as lessee the lease had been made, the corporation when organized having adopted the contract of lease; ' but this decision is contrary to what is submitted to be the sounder doctrine — viz., that a promoter who incurs lia- bility on a contract is not discharged by the subsequent adop- tion of the contract by the company.* § 337. Effect of Fraud of Promoters procuring Original Con- tract. — -Where the original contract was obtained by the fraud or other improper conduct of the promoters, the new contract, or contract by adoption, with the company is not necessarily tainted with the same infirmity.' If, however, the company at the time of the "adoption" of the contract knows that the other party has been deceived by the promoters and is still ' First Nat. Bank v. Church ' Heckman's Estate, 172 Pa. St. Federation, 105 N. W. 578; 129 185; 33 Atl. 552. Iowa 268. , * Infra, § 361. ' Van Schaick v. Third Ave. R. B. " See Central Park Fire Ins. Co. Co., 49 Barb. 409. v. Callaghan, 41 Barb. 448. 291 § 338 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI laboring under a mistake, doubtless the defrauded party would be relieved, in equity at least, against the contract with the cor- poration. The question has most frequently arisen in the case of contracts of subscription to shares,' which are pecuhar in some respects, so that one cannot be sure that the same principles would be applied to other contracts. § 338-§ 340. Quasi-contractval Liability for Benefits received under a Contract which has not been Adopted. § 338. On Principle. — It is often said that where the com- pany has received the benefit of a promoter's contract, it should be estopped to repudiate its own liability thereunder. The vol- untary reception of the benefits by the corporation goes a great way towards establishing a new contract, and, as already stated, ought generally to be conclusive.^ But oftentimes the benefit enures to the company without any voluntary acceptance on its part, and in such cases on principle no estoppel seems possible. The liability there must be worked out, if at all, on some theory of quasi-contract. But if the general principles of that branch of the law be rigorously applied, recovery is not possible; for the benefits were voluntarily bestowed upon the company with- out any request on its part. On the other hand, the circum- stances attending the formation of a corporation are in many respects so pecuhar as perhaps to justify an exception to the general rules of quasi-contracts; and it would certainly seem that no harm could result from holding a corporation liable to pay a reasonable sum, equivalent to the benefit actually received by it, for necessary services rendered, or necessary expenses incurred, on its behalf prior to its incorporation. Upon this principle, it should be observed, the measure of recovery would not be the value of the promoter's services or the amount of his expenses but the extent of the benefit to the» company. § 339. The English Cases. — The English cases decline to adopt any such doctrine, and clearly hold that no recovery can be had against a corporation for benefits conferred upon it or expenses incurred on its behalf prior to its formation; and this » See supra, § 251. " See supra, § 333. 292 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPOEATION § 340 is the rule both at law ' and in equity.^ Somewhat difficult to reconcile with this principle are the cases holding that a pro- moter may recoup out of a claim of the company for his secret profits the amount which he has expended in promoting the company.' These latter cases proceed upon the theory that the promoter is liable only for his net profits ; but if such expenses are properly chargeable to the private pocket of the promoter and not to the company, then the former's net profit should be estimated without deducting such expenses. However, this ap- p^ent inconsistency seems not to have troubled the English courts. § 340. The American Cases. — In the United States, the Eng- lish rule exempting a corporation from any quasi-contractual liability for preliminary expenses is adopted by some courts ; * but others recognize a quasi-contractual liability for necessary preliminary expenses to the extent of the benefits received, upon some such theory as that suggested in the preceding paragraph.* • Melhado v. Porto AUegre Ry. Ch.), 61 Atl. 721; Wright v. St. Co., 9 C. P. 503. Louis Sugar Co. (Mich.), 109 N. W. ' Re Rotherham Alum Co., 25 Ch. 1062. D. 103 (overruling dictum in Re As to whether a corporation Hereford Waggon Co., 2 Ch .D. 621) ; which refuses to adopt a contract English & Colonial Produce Co. made with promoters is liable upon (1906), 2 Ch. 435. a quantum meruit for benefits con- Cf. Otto Electrical Mfg. Co. (1906), ferred upon it in pursuance of that 2 Ch. 390. contract, see Sullivan v. Detroit, etc. ' BagnaU v. Carlton, 6 Ch. D. 371 ; Ry. Co. (Mich.) 64 L. R. A. 673 ; 135 Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant, Mich. 661; 98 N. W. 756; 106 Am. 11 Ch. D. 918; Lydney, etc. Co. v. St. Rep. 403. Bird, 33 Ch. D. 85. See infra, § 382. = Low v. Connecticut, etc. R. R. * Rockford, etc. R. R. Co. v. Sage, Co., 45 N. H. 370 ; Grand River 65 m. 328; 16 Am. Rep. 587; Bridge Co. v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 4; HaU V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 28 21 Pac. 897; Morton v. Hamilton Vt. 401, 406; Weatherford, etc. Ry. College, 100 Ky. 281; 38 S. W. 1; Co. v. Granger, 86 Tex. 350, 357; 35 L. R. A. 275; Grier v. Hazard, 24S. W. 795; 40 Am. St. Rep. 837 ; Hazard & Co., 13 N. Y. Supp. Marchand v. Loan & Pledge Ass'n, 583 ; Farmers' Bank of Vine Grove 26 La. Ann. 389 ; Tuttle v. George H. v. Smith, 49 S. W. Rep. 810 ; Ttiifie Co. (Me.), 64 Atl. 496. 105 Ky. 816; 88 Am. St. Rep. See also Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. 341 ; Perry v. Little Rock, etc. Ry. Christy, 79 Pa. St. 54 (headnote Co., 44 Ark. 383(semble); Taussig misleading) ; Schmidt v. Nelke Art v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 186 Mo. Lithographing Co., 16 N. Y. Misc. 269; 85 S. W. 378 (lawyer's fees 300; 37 N. Y. Supp. 1138; Jones v. for preparing certificate of incor- Smith (Tex.), 87 S. W. 210. poration). Cf. Porch v. Agnew Co. (N. J. 293 § 341 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI But even according to these latter authorities, no liability exists unless the services or expenses were reasonably necessary to the organization of the company.' Where the English rule prevails, a promise by the company after its incorporation, and therefore after the services were rendered, to pay for them is nvdum pac- tum and unenforceable.^ The distinctively American rule, it is submitted, would nowhere be applied unless the services were rendered under a general understanding that they should be paid for by the company.^ § 341. Effect of Provision in Incorporation Paper directing Payment of Preliminary Expenses. — If the memorandum or articles of association of an English company authorize or direct the payment of preliminary expenses out of the company's funds, the other party acquires no right of action against the corpora- tion to enforce such payment; but the. directors have power to pay if they choose.* § 342. Voluntary Payment. — If no such provision is con- tained in the memorandum or articles, it seems that in England such payment is without consideration and therefore ultra vires; " but in Connecticut a promissory note given by a company on ac- count of expenses preliminary to its incorporation was held to be enforceable." Where the memorandum or articles authorize the payment of a specified sum to a promoter for his labor in form- ' Weatherford, etc. Ry. Co. v. 314, 323; Bell's Gap R. R. Co. v. Granger, 86 Tex. 350 ; 24 S. W. 795 ; Christy, 79 Pa. St. 54; 21 Am. Rep. 39. 40 Am. St. Rep. 837. * Bank of Turkey v. Ottoman Co., ' New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. 2 Eq. 366 ; Melhado v. Porto AUegre Ketchum, 27 Comi. 170; Tuttle v. Ry. Co., 9 C. P. 503. Cf. Hawkeye GewgeH. TutOeCo. (Me.5,64Atl.496. Co. v. Bank, 157 Fed. 253. ' West Point Tel., etc. Co. v. Rose, As to the right of a solicitor to 76 Miss. 61 ; 23 So. 629. apply sums paid him by the com- Cf. Savin v. Hoylake Ry. Co., pany to payment of his charges for L. R. 1 Ex. 9; Hinkley v. Sac Oil, preparing the incorporation papers, etc. Co. (Iowa), 107 N. W. 629, 631. see English & Colonial Produce Co. By some courts it seems to have (1906), 2 Ch. 435, 440-441 (head- been thought that the corporation note inadequate), is liable if the benefits were conferred ' Ex parte Pelly, 21 Ch. D. 490. at the request of a majority of the ° Smith v. New Hartford Water promoters but not otherwise — a Co., 73 Conn. 626; 48 Atl. 754. rule very difficult of application. Cf. Bond v. Pike (Minn.), Ill Clarke v. 0. & S. W. R. R., 5 Nebr. N. W. 913. 294 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 343 ing the corporation, the directors have authority to pay him that amount without requiring from him any itemized account/ or indeed even if theamount be excessive.^ But where the authority given to the directors is simply in general terms to pay the ex- penses of the company's formation, they may not pay a lump sum for that purpose ; ^ and if the lump sum so paid be clearly in excess of the expenditures, it seems that the payment is ultra vires of the corporation/ § 343. Efiect of Statutes directing Pajrment. — Sometimes statutes expressly direct the payment by corporations of the ex- penses preliminary to their formation; and in that case, a pro- moter may sue the company in an action of debt grounded on the statute for his labor and outlay in and about its incorpora- tion.* This statutory right does not extend, however, to a case where the promoter agrees with his co-promoters to render his services gratuitously; and the corporation may plead such agreement as an equitable defence to the action." But a promise by the promoter with certain of the subscribers to the capital of the company that they shall incur no lia,bility if the scheme prove abortive does not prevent him from proceeding against the cor- poration under this statute; the only remedy of the shareholders is by an action against the promoter on his contract, which was really one of indemnity.' Such statutes give no right of recourse against the company to a person who was employed by one of the promoters as clerk or otherwise, and that whether he be a servant or independent contractor.' The efiect of such statutes is to make the preliminary expenses a debt of the company and as such enforceable in the same way as other debts, for Example, by scire jcusias against the shareholders, where such a proceeding for enforcement of debts of the company is authorized by law.* Where a statute imposes upon the company a liability for certain ' Crosky v. Bank of Wales, 4 Giff. 253 ; Low v. Connecticut, etc. R. R. 314. Co., 45 JJ. H. 370, 380. " Anglo-Greek Steam Co., 2 Eq. 1, ' Savin v. Hoylake By. Co., L. R. 7 (sSmble), per Lord Romilly. 1 Ex. 9. ' Re Englefield Colliery Co., 8 ''Re Brampton & Longtown Ry. Ch. D. 388. Co., 10 Ch. 177. ♦ Mann v. Edinburgh Northern ' Re Kent Tramways Co., 12 Ch. Tramways Co. (1893), A. G. 69. D. 312; Ex parte Hardy, 41 Ch. D. " Tilson V. Warwick Gas Light 215. Co., 4 B. & C. 962; Carden v. » Clowes v. BretteU, 11 M. & W. General Cemetery Co., 5 Bing. N. C. 461. 295 § 344 PEOMOTEKS [Chap. VI preliminary expenses, such as fees for registration of the incor- poration paper, a solicitor who pays such charges is entitled to reimbursement from the company.' § 344^§ 346. Ride in Cases where Promoters when making Contract did not intend a Future Corporation to be bound. § 344. In general. — In all the cases considered above, the promoters contemplated at the date of the contract the format tion of a company, and intended that the latter should be bound. Different considerations apply where those who afterwards or- ganized ihe company did not at the time of the contract intend that a prospective corporation should be bound — did not, so to speak, make the contract on behalf of a prospective corpora- tion.^ In an Alabama case, the members of a partnership con- tracted not to engage in selling plough-stocks or plough-blades. Subsequently, they formed a corporation, in which they them- selves held nearly if not quite all the shares, to carry on that very business. The court held that this company was not bound by this contract of its promoters; and, therefore, could not be enjoined from selling plough-stocks and plough-blades, unless its formation were a mere fraud, to enable its promoters and members to evade their obligations.^ If fraud had existed, the corporation would have been liable, not because it was bound by the contract, but because its members would not be allowed in equity to work a fraud under cover of the corporate fiction.* A corporation is a legal entity; but it must not commit torts or perpetrate frauds. Similarly, a court of equity will enjoin a corporation from infringing a patent the validity of which the chief promoter was estopped to deny, the company having been organized to enable him to perpetrate the fraud.^ 1 English & Colonial Produce Co. 87 Md. 400, 424 ; 40 Atl. 171 ; 67 (1906), 2 Ch. 435, 439. Am. St. Rep. 357 ; 40 L. R. A. 632. ^ Tryber v. Girard Creamery, etc. * See Higgins v. California Petro- Co., 73 Pac. S3 ; 67 Kans. 489. leum, etc. Co., 122 Cal. 373 ; 55 Pac. Cf. Grand Rapids Furniture Co. 155; Higgins v. California Petro- V. Grand Hotel, etc. Co., 70 Pac. 838 ; leum, etc. Co., 81 Pac. 1070 ; 147 Cal. 72 Pac. 687; 11 Wyo. 128. 363; First Nat. Bank v. Trebein, See also supra, § 330. 59 Oh. St. 316; 52 N. E. 834. ' Moore, etc. Hardware Co. v. ° Siemens-Halske Electric Co. v. Towers Hardware Co., 87 Ala. 206; Duncan Electric Mfg. Co., 142 Fed. 6 So. 41 ; 13 Am. St. Rep. 23. 157; 73 C. C. A. 375. Cf. Bagby & Rivers Co. v. Rivers, 296 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION §346 § 345. Assumption of Contract by Company. — A corporation may expressly agree to assume the burden of contracts which were made before its formation, but not on its behalf or with a view to its creation, just as any individual may for a considera- tion assume the indebtedness of another.^ For instance, in the Alabama case stated in the last paragraph, it was held that the company might adopt, or assume the burden of, the contract not to sell plougJi-stocks or plough-blades.^ The facts may be suffi- cient to establish a novation.' § 346. Corporation formed to take over Business of a Firm. — These principles have found their most frequent application in cases where a corporation, formed to take over a business pre- viously carried on by a co-partnership, assumes the burden of the firm's debts and contracts.* It is sometimes thought that ' See Waterman's Appeal, 26 Conn. 96. Cf. White V. Westjport Cotton Mfg. Co., 1 Kck. (Mass.) 215 (headnote inadequate) ; 11 Am. Deo. 168 ; North American, etc. Trust Co. V. Colonial, etc. Mortgage Co., 83 Fed. 796; 28 C. C. A. 88. In the following cases, assumption of the contract by the corporation was held not to have been proved. Church V. Church Cementico Co., 75 Minn. 85 ; 77 N. W. 548 ; Minne- apolis Trust Co. V. Clark, 47 Minn. 108; 49 N. W. 386; Austin v. Tecumseh Bank, 49 Nebr. 412; 68 N. W. 628: 59 Am. St. Rep. 543; 35 L. R. A. 444. " Moore, etc. Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co., 87 Ala. 206, 213; 6 So. 41; 13 Am. St. Rep. 23. ' See Louis Cook Mfg. Co. v. Randall, 62 Iowa 244; 17 N. W. 507; WhitweU v. Warner, 20 Vt. 425, 443 ; Snow v. Thompson Oil Co., 59 Pa. St. 209. * In the following cases, an as- sumption by the corporation of the firm indebtedness was held to have been proved. Waterman's Appeal, 26 Conn. 96; Burke v. Lincoln- Valentine Co., 28 N. Y. Misc. 202; 58 N. Y. Supp. 1077, 1124; Hall v. Herter Bros., 83 Hun 19; 31 N. Y. Supp. 692; 90 Hun 280; 35 N. Y. Supp. 769; 157 N. Y. 694; 51 N. E. 1091; Reed Bros. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 46 Nebr. 168 ; 64 N. W. 701 ; Johnston v. Grumble, 19 So. Rep. 100 (Miss.) ; Bremen Sav- ings Bank v. Branch-Crookes Saw Co., 104 Mo. 425; 16 S. W. 209; Lamkin v. Baldwin, etc. Co., 72 Conn. 57 ; 43 Atl. 593, 1042 ; 44 L. R. A. 786; Williams v. Colhy, 6 N. Y. Supp. 459; 53 Hun 637; Andres V. Morgan, 62 Ohio St. 236; 56 N. E. 875; 78 Am. St. Rep. 712; Schufddt V. Smith, 139 Mo. 367 ; 40 S. W. 887 ; Lemars Shoe Co. v. Le- murs Shoe Mfg. Co., 89 lU. App. 245, 254-255 (voluntary payment by corporation held not ultra vires) ; Quee Drv^ Co. v. Plaut, 55 N. Y. App. Div. 87 ; 67 N. Y. Supp. 10. See also Hadett v. Wotherspoon, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 395; Louis Cook Mfg. Co. V. Randall, 62 Iowa 244; 17 N. W. 507; Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts Investment Co., 96 Iowa 147; 64 N. W. 782 ; 59 Am. St. Rep. 362. In the following cases an as- sumption by the corporation was held not to have been proved. Dur- latcher v. Frazer, 8 Wyo. 59; 55 Pac. 306; 80 Am. St. Rep. 918; White V. Westport Cotton Mfg. Co., 1 Pick. 216; 11 Am. Dec. 168 ;,Mc- 297 346 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI where a firm transfers all its assets to a corporation in which the former partners own all the shares, the corporation becomes liable for the debts of the firm without any express or implied assump- tion thereof ; '■ but this notion rests on the unfounded belief that in no other way can the firm creditors be protected. That such belief is without foundation is evident. For if the transfer of the partnership property to the cor juration hinders or delays the firm creditors, they may treat the transfer as a fraudulent convey- ance, and subject the property to payment of their claims in the hands of the corporation as a fraudulent grantee.' This remedy is ample; and, therefore, to hold the corporation liable as debtor in the firm's stead without any voluntary assumption by it of that position would be a gratuitous violation of legal principle, and has not met with general favor.' Where, however, the cor- LeUan v. Detroit FUe Works, 56 Mich. 579; 23 N. W. 321; Dingel- dein v. Third Ave. B. R. Co., 9 Bosw. (N. Y.) 79 ; Ruby Chief, etc. Co. V. Gurley, 17 Colo. 199, 202 ; 29 Pac. 668; Hand v. Evans Marble Co., 88 Md. 226; 40 Atl. 899 (where recovery was denied on the ground of lack of privity between the plain- tiff and the corporation) ; Cvlberson V. Ala. Const. Co. (Ga.), 56 S. E. 765. Cf. Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Publishing Co., 17 N. Y. Supp. 587. As to the bearing of the statute of frauds on such transactions, see Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 43 Ga. 187; Schufddt v. SmUh, 139 Mo. 367, 377; 40 S. W. 887; Water- man's Appeal, 26 Conn. 96, 109; Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts Invests ment Co., 96 Iowa 147; 64 N. W. 782 ; 59 Am. St. Rep. 362. As to the conversion of a firm into a corporation in pursuance of a provision in the partnership arti- cles, see Hennessy v. Griggs, 1 N. Dak. 52 ; 44 N. W. 1010. ' Cf. Baker Furniture Co. v. HaU (Nebr.), 107 N. W. 117 (reversed on re-hearing in 111 N. W. 129); Du Vivier v. GaUice, 149 Fed. 118; 80 0. C. A. 556 (where the corporation having expressly assumed all debts shown on the books of the partner- ship was held liable for a debt not so shown). ^ Bank v. HoUingsworth, 135 N. Car. 556; 47 S. E. 618 (semble); Colorado Trading, etc. Co. v. Acres Commission Co. (Cdlo.), 70 Pac. 954 ; 18 Colo. App. 253. Cf. Shumaker v. Davidson, 87 N. W. 441; 116 Iowa 569; Bristol, etc. Trust Co. v. Jonesboro, etc. Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545; 48 S. W. 228 (similarity between name of cor- poration and name of firm not suflBcient to establish fraud in law where no fraud in fact intended) ; Thorpe v. Pennock Mercantile Co. (Minn.), 108 N. W. 940; First Nat. Bank v. Trebein, 59 Ohio St. 316; 52 N. E. 834. See also infra, § 1089. " McLeUan v. Detroit FUe Works, 56 Mich. 579 ; 23 N. W. 321 (\yhere the members of the corporation were the members of the firm); Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 43 Ga. 187; Hand v. Evans Marble Co., 88 Md. 226; 40 Atl. 899; Bank v. HoUingsworth, 135 N. Car. 556; 47 S. E. 618; Culberson v. Ala. Const. Co. (Ga.), 56 S. E. 765; Baker Fur- niture Co. V. HaU (Nebr.), Ill N. W. 129. 298 § 307-§ 415] RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION § 347 poration was composed chiefly or entirely of the members of the firm and has taken a transfer of all its assets, an intention on the corporation's part to assume the firm indebtedness may be the more readily implied; less evidence of an actual intention to assume such burden is required than where the corporation is composed of strangers. It has been held that creditors of a cor- poration whose claims arose in the course of its business are entitled to a preference in respect to the corporate assets over partnership creditors whose claims the corporation has assumed ;' but the contrary view has at least equal support, and is, it is sub- mitted, preferable.^ Where the firm is indebted to one of the partners, by way of compensation for sums dr^wn out by the other partners, such indebtedness upon its assumption by the corporation does not become a lien on the property trans- ferred by the firm to the corporation, but the creditor partner becomes merely a general creditor of the corporation.' § 347. Appointment of Agents for Future Corporation. — As promoters cannot bind the future corporation by contract, so neither can they bestow on others any authority to contract on the company's behalf; and if they purport to do so, the attempt is wholly nugatory, and remains so even after the corporation is formed, unless their acts be confirmed by the directors or other competent authority. Hence, a mortgage executed by the com- pany's officers in pursuance of an authority attempted to be con- ferred by the promoters prior to incorporation is not binding on the company.* It would perhaps be otherwise if the authority were conferred by the incorporation paper ; for as already stated, promoters have unquestionable power to bind the future corpora- tion by shaping its constitution. Thus, the directors named in the incorporation papef have the same power as other directors.' • Lamkin v. Baldwin, etc. Co., 72 ' Francklyn v. Sprague, 121 U. S. Conn. 57; 42 Atl. 593, 1042;, 44 215; 7 Sup. Ct. 951. L. R. A. 786. * Blood v. La Serena, etc. Co., 113 Cf. Thorpe V. Pennock Mercantile Cal. 221; 41 Pae. 1017; 45 Pao. Co. (Minn.), 108 N. W. 940. 252. * Sehufeldt V.Smith, 139 Mo. 367; = Supra, § 168. 40 S. W. 887; London v. Bynum, 136 N. Car. 41.1 ; 48 S. E. 764. 299 § 348 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI § 348. Whether Knowledge of Promoters imputable to Cor- poration. — As promoters are not prior to incorporation agents of the company or capable of binding it, their knowledge of an outstanding equity against property to be transferred to the corporation is not imputable to the latter, and will not deprive it of the rights of a bona fde purchaser.' But this doctrine cannot be used as a cover for fraud, for the protection of parties who organize themselves into a corporation to escape from a trust to which they are subject.^ Indeed, cases of this latter sort may be supported on the ground that the company is affected with notice, not of what its promoters knew before its organize^ tion, but of what its members and officers knew after its format tion when it acquired title to the property. § 349. Admissions of Promoters. — Admissions of promoters made prior to incorporation are not evidence against the company.' § 350-§ 356. EIGHT OP CORPORATION TO THE BENEFIT OF ACTS OF PROMOTERS. § 350. Suits on Contracts made prior to Incorporation. — The right of a corporation to sue on a contract made on its behalf prior to incorporation depends in general upon the same prin- ' Davis, etc. Wheel Co. v. Davis, " National Conduit Co. v. Con^ etc. Wagon Co., 20 Fed. 699; Burt necticut Pipe Mfg. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. V. Batavia Paper Mfg. Co., 86 111. 491, 495; Holloway & McRaney v. 66 ; Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Par- Brame, 36 So. 1 ; 83 Miss. 335 ; Re sons, 54 Minn. 56; 55 N. W. 825; Slobodinsky (1903), 2 K. B. 517; 40 Am. St. Rep. 299 ; Grand Rapids Carter v. Gray (Ark.), 96 S. W. 377 ; Furniture Co. v. Grand Hotel, etc. Cumberland Cogl Co. v. Sherman, 30 Co., 70 Pac. 838; 72 Pac. 687; 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 553; Hoffman Coal Wyo. 128. Co. V. Cumberland, etc. Co., 16 Md. Cf. Brennan v. Emery-Bird- 456; 77 Am. Dec. 311. Thayer Dry Goods Co., 99 Fed.' 971 ; Cf. Young Reversible Lock-Nut Mercantile Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 54 Co. v. Young Lock-Nut Co., 72 Fed. Minn. 56, 65 ; 55 N. W. 825 ; 40 Rep. 62, 65-66 ; McElwee Mfg. Co. Am. St. Rep. 299 (where the court v. Trowbridge, 62 Hun 471 ; 17 said that notice to some of the cor- N. Y. Supp. 3 ; Texas Loan Agency porators would not be imputed to v. Hunter, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 402, the company but that notice to all 409 ; 35 S. W. 399 ; California Con- of them would be). solidated Mining Co. v. Manley, 81 But see Oregon, etc. Nav. Co. v. Pac. 50; 10 Idaho, 786; McCourt Balfour, 90 Fed. 295, 300 ; 33 v. Singers-Bigger, 145 Fed. 103. C. C. -A. 57 ; Zeigler v. Valley Coal ^ McCallum v. Pursell Mfg. Co., Co. (Mich.), 113 N. W. 775. 1 N. Y. Supp. 428; Horomtz v. 300 § 307-§ 415] EIGHTS OF CORPORATION § 351 ciples as govern its liability oh such contracts. Unless both are bound, neither is bound, is "the rule in such cases/ But in juris- dictions where a stranger to a contract of which he is a benefi- ciary is allowed to sue thereon, a corporation may sometimes sue as a beneficiary of contracts entered into with its promoters be- fore its incorporation. Moreover, a corporation may clearly become entitled by assignment to sue on such contracts,^ or by novation, the company may become the obligee.^ Moreover, ex- press statutes sometimes enable corporations to enforce contracts made on their behalf prior to incorporation.* § 351-§ 354. Conveyances made for Company's Benefit prior to Incorporation. § 351. In general. — ^The right of a company to avail itself of conveyances of property made for its benefit stands on a wholly different footing. For in the nature of things, there is no reason why a corporation when formed should not be entitled to the benefit of unilateral conveyances — e. g., by deed poll — which require no execution, or contemporaneous assent, by the grantee. As soon as the company is formed the previous con- veyance should enure to its benefit, although possibly the trans- fer might in the meantime be revocable by the grantor. In the case of real property, the feudal principle invalidating convey- ances of freehold interests to take effect in fviuro would have con- stituted an insuperable obstacle at common law; for obviously Broads Mfg. Co., 104 N. Y. Supp. erty to be turned over to it, they 988. .would return some of the shares to Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, the company as treasury stock). 42 Fed. 193. Cf. WUey v. Borough of Towanda, ' Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood, 26 Fed. 594. 141 Mass. 145; 7 N. E. 22. For ' Cf. Syracuse, etc. B. B. Co. v. cases in which corporations sought Gere, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 392. in vain to enforce agreements made ' Cf. Valk v. CrandaU, 1 Sandf. by their promoters, see Ireland v. Ch. (N. Y.) 179, 182; Be Thomas, Globe MiUing, etc. Co., 20 R. . I. 14 Q. B. D. 379 (where the original 190; 38 Atl. 116; Flanagan v. contract was illegal and void but Lyon, 105 N. Y. Supp. 1049; 54 where the new contract with the N. Y. Misc. 372 (holding that the corporation was vaUd). corporation cannot sue for breach * See Cumberland Land Co. v. of an agreement among promoters Daniel (Tenn.), 52 S. W. 446, ap- inter sese whereby they promised plying Tenn. Acts, 1875, Chap. 142 that upon receiving from the cor- § 29. poration stock in exchange for prop- 301 § 352 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI there could be no conveyance in presenti to a non-existent per- son. But since the Statute of Uses, a conveyance of land may be made to take effect in fvturo as a springing use, and such a springing use may be raised in favor of a corporation formed after the execution of the deed ; and a similar limitation in a will may be effective as an executory devise.' So, conveyances to charitable and pious uses may be made to remain in abeyance until the incorporation of the grantee, after which they become operative.^ The notion, therefore, which must be admitted to be to some extent prevalent, that a corporation when organized cannot take advantage of conveyances made in its favor before its organization, would seem not to represent the law.' A lease, or other bilateral conveyance, requiring execution both by grantor and grantee, stands on a different footing.* § 352. Trusts for Future Corporation. — A fortiori, property may be settled in trust for a corporation to be thereafter formed, and this trust may be enforced in chancery upon the ordinary principles of equity by the company, when organized, ^ Inglis V. Trustees of Sailors' Tei. Co. (Ky.), 84 S. W. 515 (holding Snug Harbour, 3 Pet. 99, 115-116. that where a majority of the sub- ' Tovm of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 scribers to stock of a • projected Cranch 292. corporation refuse to accept the Cf. Fadness v. Baunberg, 73 incorporation paper drawn up by a Wise. 257; 41 N. W. 84. committee and organize a corpora- See Gray on Perpetuities, 2d ed., tion under a different incorporation §§ 607 et seq. paper, the latter corporation rather ' Dyer v. Rich, 1 Mete. (Mass.) than that organized by the com- 180, 190; Rotch's Wharf Co. v. mittee is entitled to property ac- Judd, 108 Mass. 224; American quired by the promoters). SUk Works v. Salomon, 4 Hun 135 ; But see Aspen Water, etc. Co. v. Bank v. Lumber Co., 32 W. Va. 357 ; Aspen, 5 Colo. App. 12 ; 37 Pac. 9 S. E. 243 ; 3 L. R. A. 583 ; Sumter 728 ; Jones v. Aspen Hardware Co., Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Phtmix 21 Colo. 263; 40 Pac. 457; 52 Ins. Co. (S. Car.), 56 S. E. 654 Am. St. Rep. 220 ; 29L. R. A. 143; (headnote inadequate). BroadweU v. Merritt, 87 Mo. 95 Cf. Sayward v. Gardner, 5 Wash, (conveyance upheld, but on ground 247, 256 ; 31 Pac. 761 ; 33 Pac. 389 ; of estoppel) ; Dunning v. Bates, 186 Rathbone v. Tioga Nav. Co., 2 Watts Mass. 123 ; 71 N. E. 309 (notice, & Serg. (Pa.) 74, 78-79; African however, the well-reasoned dissent- M. E. Church v. Conover, 27 N. J. Eq. ing opinion). 157 ; Cumberland Land Co. v. Danid See also cases cited supra, § 294. (Tenn.), 52 S. W. 446 (decided under * Utah Optical Co. v. Keith, 18 a statute which was construed to Utah 464 ; 56 Pac. 155. entitle the corporation to the benefit Cf. Thistle v. Jones, 45 N. Y. of the conveyance); Mt. Carmd Misc. 215; 92 N. Y. Supp. 113. Tel. Co. v. Mt. Carmd & Fleming 302 § 307-§ 415] EIGHTS OF CORPORATION § 355 as cestui que trust} So, money paid to a promoter by way of de- posits or earnest upon subscriptions to shares may be recovered by the company when incorporated as money had and received to its use.^ § 353. Cases distinguished. — On the other hand, a convey- ance or a devise which is made to an unincorporated associa- tion as an existing entity and which is incapable of taking effect because the grantee is not incorporated cannot be availed of by a corporation which is subsequently formed as the successor of the unincorporated body.' As explained elsewhere, such a convey- ance will either vest title in the members of the supposed corpora- tion or voluntary association as tenants in common, or else it will be void for indefiniteness.* Moreover, a deed to certain persons as "incorporators" will not without any assignment from them vest title in a corporation which they subsequently organize.* § 354. Property acquired by Promoters in Course of Pro- motion. — As will presently be more fully explained, promoters will not be allowed to hold for their own benefit property ac- quired by them on behalf of the company which they were en- gaged in organizing, and will therefore be required by a court of equity to execute an assignment of such property to the company.' § 355. Assignments from Promoters to Company — Taking over Property of a Firm. — Of course, a company after its incor- poration may take an assignment from its promoters,' or indeed from any other persons, of any property they may own ; and in ' Heda Consolidated, etc. Co. v. ' State use M. E. Church v. War- O'Neill, 19 N. Y. Supp. 592 ; African ren, 28 Md. 338. Cf. Douthitt v. M. E. Church v. Conover, 27 N. J. Eq. Stinson, 63 Mo. 268. In the case of 157; McCandUssw. Inland Add Co., charities, the object of the deed or 42S. E. 449; 115 Ga. 968. will may be effectuated in some Cf. Van Schaick v. Third Ave. states by the doctrine of cy pres. B. R. Co., 49 Barb. 409 ; Church of * Supra, § 294. St. Stanislaus v. Algemeine Verein. ' McCandLess v. Inland Add Co., 31 N. Y. App. Div. 133; 52 N. Y. 112 Ga. 291; 37 S. E. 419. Supp. 922 ; affirmed short, 164 N. . " Seacoast B. R. Co. v. Wood, 56 Y. 606; 58 N. E. 1086. Atl. 337; 65 N. J. Eq. 530. ' San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. West, See infra, § 399. 94 Cal. 399 ; 29 Pac. 785. See also ' Cf. Alexander v. Tolleston Club, supra, § 255, and infra, § 399. 110 111. 65 (holding that a lease to a 303 § 356 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI some cases such an assignment from the promoters to the com- pany will be presumed, or regarded as implied.^ Thus, where a company was formed for the express purpose of operating a street railway franchise recently acquired by the promoters, a formal transfer of the franchise to the company has been thought un- necessary.^ So, where a corporation is formed by special act to manage and dispose of certain real estate formerly held by the corporators in common, the terms of the act may be such as, upon its acceptance, to transfer the legal title to the company.^ But these cases must be deemed exceptional; for ordinarily when a partnership or other voluntary association becomes in- corporated, that mere fact does not invest the corporation with title to the property of the voluntary association; and this is true whether the incorporation is effected by special act,* or under, a general law.^ § 356. Survey for Railway made before Incorporation. — A survey for a railway made by promoters may be availed of by the company after incorporation without making a new survey, so as to constitute compliance with a statute requiring the loca- club which is unincorporated but is Dawson, 87 Tex. 524; 29 S. W. about to become incorporated "for 1044; Meats v. Moidton, 30 Md. and during the existence of said 142 (headnote inadequate); Catho- club" is not terminated by the in- lie Church v. Tobben, 82 Mo. 418. corporation of the club, accompanied • Manahan v. Varnum, 11 Gray, by a transfer of all its property to 405; Rau v. Union Paper Mill Co., the corporation). 95 Ga. 208; 22 S. E. 146; Mc- ' See ThisUe v. Jones, 45 N. Y. Candless v. Inland Add Co., 112 Misc. 215; 92 N. Y. Supp. 113. Ga. 291; 37 S. E. 419; RuetteU v. As to the application of the Greenvnch Ins. Co. (N. Da^.), 113 Statute of Frauds to such an assign- N. W. 1029. ment, see Roth Tool Co. v. Champ- But see Church of St. Stanislaus v. Spring Co., 93 Mo. App. 530; 67 Algemeine Vereln, 31 N. Y. App. S. W. 967 (headnote inadequate). Div. 133 ; 52 N. Y. Supp. 922, ^ Santa Rosa R. R. v. Central affirmed short in 164 N. Y. 606 ; 58 Street Ry. Co., 38 Pac. Rep. 986, N. E. 1086; American Silk Works 989 (Cal.). V. Salomon, 6 T. & C. (N. Y.) 352 ; Cf. Spring VaUey Water Works White Oak Grove Benev. Soc. v. v. Sore Francisco, 22 Cal. 434, 442. Murray, 145 Mo. 622 ; 47 S. W. 501. ' Colquitt V. Howard, 11 Ga. 556. Cf. Re Cussons, 73 L. J. Ch. 296 Cf. African M. E. Church v. (where, by virtue of certain provi- Conover, 27 N. J. Eq. 157 ; Scots sions in tlie Companies Act of 1862, Charitable Sop. v. Shaw, 8 Mass. 532. the incorporation of a firm under ' Holland v. Cruft, 3 Gray 162; the statute was held to invest the Lefjingwell v. Elliott, 8 Pick. 455; corporation with equitable but not 19 Am. Dec. 343 ; Frank v. Drenk- legal title to the firm real estate). hahn, 76 Mo. 508; McLeary v. 304 § 307-§ 415] LIABILITIES TO THIRD PERSONS § 357 tion of the company's route by survey in order to give a right of condemnation ; ^ but on the other hand it has been held that such an adoption of the survey without actually taking possession of the land will not give any prior right as against another com- pany which takes actual possession by retracing the line as its own.^ § 357-§ 362. LIABILITIES OF PROMOTERS TO PERSONS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE COMPANY. § 357-§ 361. CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. § 357. After Incorporation. — The contractual liabilities of promoters to persons other than the corporation are controlled after its formation by the ordinary principles of the law of agency. That is to say, if the promoter contracts avowedly as agent for an abeady incorporated company, he is not personally liable unless authority to act for the corporation is lacking. On the other hand, if he does not disclose his agency or his principal, he is personally liable on the contract. Whether the date of technical incorporation or of organization for business is to be deemed the point from which these ordinary principles of agency come into play depends upon the same considerations weighed above in respect to the similar and indeed identical question as to when the company becomes capable of being bound by con- tracts entered into on its behalf.^ The embryonic condition of the corporation, even though it has attained a technical existence, may be a circumstance tending to show that credit was given to the promoters individually rather than to the corporation.* If the corporation is formed to take over the business of a firm, customers of the firm who have no notice of the change may, upon familiar principles of the law of partnership, continue to look for payment to the members of the firm, who will be es- • Chesapeake, etc. Ry. Co. v. Deep- Pittsburgh, etc. B. R. Co., 105 Pa. pater By. Co., 50 S. E. 890; 57 St. 13. W. Va. 641. » Supra, § 318. Cf. Milwaukee Light, Heat & * Ijams v. Andrews, 151 Fed. Traction Co. (Wise), 112 N. W. 663. 725, 731. ' New Brighton, etc. B. B. Co. v. VOL. I. — 20 305 § 358 PROMOTERS [Chap. VI topped from denying their liability for debts contracted after incorporation.^ § 358-§ 361. Before Incorporation. § 358. In general. — Before incorporation, promoters who contract without disclosing that they are not acting on their own account are of course liable personally just as agents for an undisclosed principal would be liable ; and even if they contract expressly on behalf of the company, they cannot shield them- selves under the rule which protects an authorized agent for a named principal, since the corporation not being in existence, they cannot be authorized to bind it. On the contrary, having contracted for a non-existent principal, they are Uable on their implied warranty of authority unless they disclosed that their supposed principal was not then incorporated. In most cases such disclosure is made, so that no impKed warranty of authority is broken.^ If the disclosure be made, no liability is incurred unless the promoter and the third party mutually intended to contract on the footing of the former's personal hability; and it is a question of fact for the jury whether such was the intention.^ If the contract is in writing, so that its construction is for the court, in the absence of anything in the document itself indicative of a different intention, it will be construed as imposing a personal liabiUty on the promoter, since otherwise, the corporation not being in existence, it would have no binding effect whatever; * and parol evidence in such a case is not admissible to show an ' Perkins v. Rouss, 29 So. 92; been submitted to the juiy and an- 78 Miss. 343; Martin v. Fewdl, 79 swered by them in favor of the plain- Mo. 401, 412 ; Henry v. Simanton, tift) ; Shidds v. Clifton HiR Land 54 Atl. 153; 64 N. J. Eq. 572. Co., 94 Tenn. 123; 28 S. W. 668; 2 See Hersey v. TtMy, 8 Colo. 46 Am. St. Rep. 700; 26 L. R. A. App. 110, 112; 44 Pac. 854. 509. » Higgins v. Hopkins, 3 Ex. 163. « Kdner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174. See also Queen City Furniture See also Hopcroft v. Parker, 16 Co. V. Crawf(yrd, 127 Mo. 356 (head- L. T., n. s., 123, 561 ; Hurt v. Salis- note misleading); 30 S. W. 163; hury, 55 Mo. 310; Holland v. Lee, Hub Piiblishing Co. v. Richardson, 71 Md. 338; 18 Atl. 661. First 13 N. Y. Supp. 665 ; Bailey v. Ma- Nat. Bank v. Church Federation, caulay, 13 Q. B. 815; Carmody v. 105 N. W. 578; 129 Iowa 268. Powers, 60 Mich. 26; 26 N. W. 801 But see Landman v. EntwisUe, (where the question whether de- 7 Ex. 632. -fendants contracted personally had 306 § 307-§ 415] LIABILITIES TO THIRD PERSONS § 359 intention that the promoter should not be personally bound.' On the other hand, where the contract is oral merely, so that its terms must be found by the jury, a peremptory instruction to find the defendant individually liable if he promised that the projected company would pay is erroneous ; ^ for the jury should be required to find in addition that the parties intended to con- tract on the footing of the promoter's individual responsibihty. If the contract is made by one promoter expressly as agent for another promoter, from whom sufficient authority was had, the latter promoter is liable, but the former is not.^ Any liability which a promoter incurs is necessarily an original liability as distinguished from a liability as guarantor for the projected corporation.* As there can be no stockholders in a non-existing corporation, subscribers to the capital of a company about to be formed are not liable to persons with whom the promoters contract under any statute imposing a liability in favor of corporate creditors on the stockholders of a corporation.' § 359. What is sufficient Evidence of Authority of Co-promoter as Agent. — As we have seen, promoters are not partners, nor is co-promotership any evidence of partnership ; * and hence there is no implied authority in any one or more promoters to bind the others.' In each case, the plaintiff must prove as a fact > Kdner v. Baxter, 2 C. P. 174. = Hersey v. Tidly, 8 Colo. App. But see Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman, 110 (headnote misleading) ; 44 Pac. 138 U. S. 431, 436-438 (headnote 854. misleading); 11 Sup. Ct. 360. Cf. McFall v. McKeesport, etc. ' Durgin v. Smith (Mich.), 94 Ice Co., 123 Pa. St. 259; 16 Atl. N. W. 1044; 133 Mich. 331. The 478. inclination of the courts even where * Clergue v. Humphrey, 31 Can. the contract is oral is to hold that Sup. Ct. 66. all who concur in its making intend ' Bufjington v. Bardon; 80 Wise, to be personally bound thereby. 635; 50 N. W. 776. Sandusky Coal Co. v. Walker, 27 » Supra, § 311-§ 314. Ont. 677; Roberts Mfg. Co. v. ' Bright v. Hutton, 3 H. L. C. Schlick, 62 Minn. 332 ; 64 N. W. 341 ; McEwan v. Campbell, 2 Macq. 826 ; Roberts Mfg. Co. v. Wright, H. L. 499. 62 Minn. 337 ; 64 N. W. 827 ; Ker- Cf . Long v. Citizens' Bank, 8 ridge v. Hesse, 9 C. & P. 200; Reges- Utah 104, 107; 29 Pac. 878; Wit- ter v. Medcalf, 71 Md. 528; 18 Atl. son v. Hotchkiss, 2 Ont. L. Rep. 966 (where defendant's liabiUty 261 (where agency was held to have seems to have been assumed). been proved). Cf. Ennis Cottonr^U Co. v. Burke, 39 S. W. 966 (Tex. Civ. App.). 307 § 359 PROMOTERS [Chap. "VT actual authority from the defendant to the co-promoter or other person who purported to bind him ; and if no legally sufficient evidence of such authority be adduced, the plaintiff will be non- suited.' So, an advertising agent who was unable to give the names of the promoters who were present at the meeting at which his claim was contracted has no enforceable claim against any- body.^ That the defendant consented to the pubUcation of a prospectus in which his name appeared as a member of the "pro- visional committee " and as a promoter of the company does not amount to evidence sufficient to go to the jury of a holding out of the other promoters as his authorized agents; ' since the fact of being co-promoters does not create any agency, the publica- tion of that fact cannot constitute any representation of agency. The mere fact that promoters appoint from among their number a "committee of managers" does not make the members of that committee their agents.* But where promoters by resolution direct their secretary to have certain advertising done, there is evidence to go to the jury of authorization of the secretary to pledge their credit for the necessary expense ; ' and, in such a case, one of the promoters cannot shield himself behind a secret agreement with his associates that he should incur no liabiUty." So, where the defendant joins a provisional committee, stating that he "concluded his liability would be Umited to the amount of his shares," the court instructed the jury that he was Uable for the price of stationery ordered by the secretary and used by the committee.'' In some cases, slight evidence of authorization ' ReyneU v. Lewis, 15 M. & W. for the prosecution of the project, 517; Baker v. Stead, 3 C. B. 946; the authority must be exercised by Patrickv. Reynolds, 1G.B.,T Ex parte Stark (1897), 1 Ch. 354 § 416-§ 446] OFFER TO THE PUBLIC § 432 or labor to be received in payment for stock at less than its actual value — the whole contract may be tainted with illegality, so as to prevent the underwriter from maintaining an action for his agreed compensation or commission.' § 431-§ 433. The Ojfer of the Securities underwritten to the Public for Subscription. § 431. Necessity for OfEer of the Securities to the Public. — We have seen above that every underwriting agreement neces- sarily contemplates that the securities underwritten shall be offered to the public for subscription. Indeed, a contract to underwrite securities, simpliciter, implies that the shares must first be offered to the public ; and hence the underwriter's obli- gation to take the shares does not arise unless they are first put on the market for public subscription, even though the circum- stances were such that an offer of the shares to the public would necessarily have been futile.^ It would seem that an offer of securities to some limited class of persons — for example, the shareholders in some existing company — cannot be deemed an offer of the securities to the public' The necessity for an offer to the public is not obviated by the fact that the underwritten shares were offered pro rata to the existing shareholders of the company.* § 432. Time for OfEer to the Public. — It would seem clear that the offer to the public must take place strictly within the time limited for it in the underwriting agreement, or if no time be expressed then within a reasonable time ; or else the under- writer will be discharged. The underwriter may be willing to assume the risk of a panic or " slump " in the market for a short but not for an indefinitely long period ; and therefore time is of the essence of the agreement. Thus, where the underwriter con- tracted on the faith of a prospectus which stated, " Lists of appli- cations will open on the — day of 1890, and will close on or before the — day of 1890," the Massachusetts Supreme Court ' Cf. Altenberg v. Grant, 85 Fed. ' Booth v. New Afrikander Gold 345 ; 29 C. C. A. 185. Mining Co. (1903), 1 Ch. 295. * London Paris Financial, etc. * London Paris Financial, etc. Corp., 13 Times L. R. 569 ; Paul Corp., 13 Times L. R. 669 (headnote Boyer, Ltd. v. Edwardes, 17 Times inadequate). L. R. 16 (headnote inadequate). 355 § 433 UNDERWRITING [ChAP. VII thought that the underwriter would be discharged unless the shares were offered to the public within the year 1890, or at any rate within a reasonable time, and that fifteen months was more than a reasonable time.' The court also thought that the exist- ence of a panicky market which rendered impossible the success- ful flotation of a new company at that time would not excuse a postponement of an offer to the public.^ In the same case, how- ever, the court concluded (although they did not find it necessary to decide the point) that if the underwriter after the expiration of the time for offering the shares to the public treated his contract as still binding by acquiescing in the retention of deposits which he had made, he thereby waived the defence.^ § 433. What is such a Taking by Public as will discharge the Underwriter. — In determining how many of the shares underwritten have been subscribed by the public so as to as- certain the extent of the underwriter's obligation, any shares which the underwriter may himself have subscribed "firm" — i. e., unconditionally and independently of the underwriting agreement — are to be reckoned as subscribed by the public* § 434^§ 435. Conditions in Underwriting Agreements. § 434. Implied Conditions. — The courts will not read into the contract conditions which are not part of the very meaning of the term, underwrite, as used in this connection. Hence, where a corporation is projected for the purpose of acquiring a lease of certain land, a person who underwrites its shares is not discharged from the obhgation to take them because the nego- tiation for the acquisition of that property falls through.^ So, an underwriter who underwrites a certain number of bonds is not discharged because the total number of bonds proposed to be issued is never underwritten." ' Electric Welding Co. v. Prince v. Grey, 14 Times L. R. 373 (affirm- (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306, 309 (semble). ing 13 Times L. R. 564). ' Electric Welding Co. v. Prince Cf. Pavl Boyer, Ltd. v. Edwardes, (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306, 309 (sem- 17 Times L. R. 16. ble). ^ Crown Lease Proprietary Co., ' Electric Welding Co. v. Prince 14 Times L. R. 47. (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306, 309. » Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. * Sydney Harbour Collieries Co. Davis, 143 Fed. 587. 366 § 416-§ 446] DISCHARGE OF UNDERWRITER § 436 § 435. Express condition that a certain Number of the Secu- rities be Underwritten. — Underwriting agreements usually fix a certain number of securities which must be underwritten be- fore the several underwriters can be bound. Where this is the case, a third person who is party to the underwriting agreement and who thereby agrees to deliver stock as a bonus to the under- writers is not debarred from acting as underwriter by reason of the rule that no man can be both obligor and obligee ; but, his agreement for delivery of the stock being regarded as severable, securities underwritten by that person may be counted in deter- mining whether the required minimum has been underwritten so as to make the agreement binding on the other underwriters.' § 436. Discharge of Underwriter by Alteration of Risk. — Inasmuch as an underwriting agreement is a contract of insur- ance, the underwriter will be discharged if without his consent any alteration is made in the risk. For example, if the amount of the securities to be offered to the public be changed, the under- Tvriter's risk is altered, and he should be discharged. This is very clear where the amount of the securities offered to the public is increased. For the underwriter may have been willing to guar- antee that the public would take a small number of shares or bonds, and yet be unwilling to guarantee that a larger number could be "floated." Where the number of the securities offered to the public is diminished, the case is not quite so clear, for it may be argued that the public is more likely to take all of a small than a large number of securities, so that the underwriter's risk is rather diminished _than increased. Nevertheless, the under- writer should be discharged by the change. For he may have thought that if the company is launched as a great enterprise by an offer of a large number of the securities for public subscrip- tion, the public would be more likely to take them all than if a smaller number had been offered — a number so small as, per- haps, to attract no attention from financiers, or a number in- sufficient (in the judgment of some possible investors) to furnish the capital necessary to make the company a success. At all events, the diminution has produced a change in the under- ' Eastern Tube Co. v. Harrison, 140 Fed. 619 (headnote inadequate). 357 § 437 UNDERWRITING ' [ChAP. VII writer's risk without his consent, and as an insurer he should accordingly be discharged without pailsing to inquire whether the change is prejudicial to him. Thus, where the underwriting agreement provides that each underwriter, who underwrites, say, fifty shares out of, say, a thousand to be offered to the public, shall only be called upon to take his proportion fro rata with the other underwriters, a reduction in the number of shares offered to the public will, it has been held, discharge the underwriter.' It was pointed out by the court that before the change the maxi- mum proportion which each underwriter could possibly be called upon to take was five hundredths of the number of shares to be offered to the public, whereas if only five hundred shares should be offered to the public, each underwi"iter might be called ^ipon to take as much as ten hundredths of the number offered for public subscription. In this particular case, the most sub- stantial grievance was manifestly the change in the number of shares underwritten or in the number of underwriters rather than in the number of shares offered to the public. But as al- ready stated, even if the only change had been in the number of shares offered to the public, it is submitted that the result should have been the same. § 437. Right of Underwriter of Bonds to overdue Coupons. — Where bonds are underwritten, it seems that the underwriter is entitled to any coupons which may mature after the execution of the underwriting agreement, but before he is called upon to take or pay for the bonds.^ § 438-§. 441. How jar Underwriting Agreements are subject to the Special Rules applicable to Subscriptions to Securities of the Kind underwritten. § 438. In general. — In so far as an underwriting agreement is a mere contract of subscription to shares or bonds, it is gov- erned by the peculiar principles which are applicable to sub- scriptions to such securities and which are elsewhere considered. In other respects, underwriting agreements are in general sub- ject to the ordinary principles of the law of contracts. This double aspect of underwriting agreements — as ordinary con- ' Electric Welding Co. v. Prince mrr, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 6 ; 88 N. Y. (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306, 309. Supp. 742 (stated. more fully infra, ' Hudson Valley By. Co. v. O'Corir- § 1787). 358 § 416-§ 446] COMPARISON WITH SUBSCRIPTIONS § 440 tracts, and also as contracts of subscription — will not im- probably lead to considerable difficulty when the matter comes before the courts. Take, for example, the question of how far an underwriter is entitled to repudiate his agreement on account of misrepresentations in the prospectus. If he be re- garded simply as a subscriber to shares, he would in respect to this matter come under certain fairly well-established rules of law. If he be regarded as an ordinary contractor with the company, he would be subject to other and different rules. In point of fact, his position ought to be somewhat different from that of either. § 439.' Underwriting Agrreement binding although Conditional — Distinguished from other Conditional Subscriptions to Shares. — Conditional agreements to subscribe to bonds or debentures are obnoxious to no legal objection merely because they are conditional; and consequently, even if an underwriting agree- ment be regarded as, strictly, a contract of conditional subscrip- tion, a contract for the underwriting of bonds is valid. In the case of shares of capital stock, subscriptions upon a condi- tion precedent are not in general binding until the condition is performed; but this rule is based upon the principle that the conditional subscriber ought not to have the right to prevent the company from allotting the shares to some one else while he himself may never be bound to take them. Hence, the rule has no application to underwriting agreements ; ' for although they be conditional subscriptions, yet the condition is of such a pecu- liar character that the company is at liberty to allot the shares to anybody it pleases while at the same time the underwriter is bound fast. § 440. Underwriter of Bonds not Discharged by Insolvency of Company. — A subscriber to bonds is ordinarily entitled to repudiate his subscription if the company becomes hopelessly insolvent before the money is paid and the bonds are issued ; but although an underwriter of bonds or debentures is a condi- tional subscriber, yet his agreement is governed in this respect by different rules from an ordinary subscription to bonds.^ The • Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390, ' Eastern Tube Co. v. Harrison, 396-397 (where the subscription was 140 Fed. 519. in all its essential features an under- writing agreement although not called by that name). 359 § 441 UNDERWRITING [ChAP. VII underwriter is paid for guaranteeing, as it were, the solvency of the company; and of course he cannot escape liability because the company turns out to be unsuccessful. Indeed, if the strict rules applicable to subscriptions to bonds were applied, the underwriter would not be liable for more than nominal damages even if the company is solvent.' § 441. Right of Underwriter to rescind underwriting Agree- ment for Fraud or Misrepresentation. — If the underwriter signs the underwriting agreement in reliance upon a fraudulent prospectus, he is undoubtedly entitled to avoid the contract; although, as pointed out above, it may be doubted whether an underwriter of shares is necessarily subject to all the strict rules, requiring great diligence in discovering the fraud and repudiating the contract, that are applicable to ordinary subscribers to shares. This right of the underwriter to repudiate the agree- ment on the ground of fraud is not tolled because the under- writing agreement provides that it shall continue binding notwithstanding any variation between the proof prospectus as exhibited to the underwriter and the prospectus issued to the general public.^ It must be borne in mind that an underwriter is influenced by different considerations from those which would affect an in- vestor, and that this fact may be material in determining whether the underwriter did rely upon misrepresentations in the pro- spectus. As was said by Farwell, J., in a recent EngUsh case, "The considerations which affect the careful man disposed to invest in an undertaking are very different from those that affect the underwriter, who, when he underwrote, thought that the public were going to take the thing up, and he would get his 20 per cent, without being liable to take any shares at all. . . . The investor wants a sound concern ; the underwriter wants an attractive prospectus. ■ I do not say that the underwriter sup- poses or desires that there should be any misstatement or con- cealment, but it is obvious that his interest is that the public be induced to subscribe." ' A representation by one of the nominal underwriters that he is really risking his money by signing the agreement is very material, and any other person who signs the ' Infra, § 1720. ' Baty v. Keswick, 85 L. T., n. s., ^ Dadson's Case, 12 Times L. R. 18, 20, per Farwell, J. 482. 360 § 416-§ 446] ENFORCEMENT § 442 agreement as an underwriter in reliance on that representation has good cause for complaint if the fact be that the first under- writer is really the substantial owner of all the securities under- written, and has got up the underwriting plan for the purpose of "unloading " some of them.' It has been held that a person who is induced to become an underwriter by the fraudulent misrepresentations, not of the cor- poration but of a fellow-underwriter who being already largely interested in the securities to be underwritten had organized the underwriting scheme for his own benefit, may, on discovering the fraud, carry out his underwriting contract so far as the corpo- ration is concerned, by accepting and paying for the securities underwritten, and may then maintain a suit against the fraudu- lent co-underwriter, without making the corporation a party, for a rescission of the agreement — that is to say, upon handing over to the co-underwriter the securities which he (plaintiff) had taken, he may recover from the co-underwriter the amount he had paid the company for them.^ Nobody would doubt that in such a case the plaintiff might have an action of deceit against the co-underwriter to recover the difference between the price paid for the securities and their actual value ; but the relief which was actually granted can only be sustained upon the theory that the corporation should be regarded as a mere alias for the co- underwriter, and even upon that theory it is difficult to under- stand why the acceptance of the securities after discovery of the fraud should not bar the right to rescission. The court seems to have regarded the corporation for some purposes as a mere alias for the fraudulent co-underwriter, but for other purposes as an independent entity — a not altogether consistent position. § 442-§ 445. ENFORCEMENT OF UNDERWRITER'S AGREEMENT. § 442. Enforcement by Company directly. — If the company be a party to the underwriting agreement, it may doubtless pursue the same remedies against the underwriter, in case he becomes bound to take any of the securities underwritten, as would have been available against an ordinary subscriber. In the case of underwriters of shares, these remedies are ample. ' Rose V. Merchants' Trust Co., ' Rose v. Merchants' Trust Co., 96 N. Y. Supp. 946. 96 N. Y. Supp. 946. 361 § 443 UNDERWRITING [ChAP. VII Thus, a binding underwriting agreement to which the com- pany is a party entitles the company to put the underwriter's name upon its register of members in respect of any shares which by the terms of the agreement he may be bound to take.* The same thing is true where the underwriter's promise is "to under- write or procure to be underwritten to the satisfaction of the directors": the original underwriter remains liable, in such a case, except in so far as approved substitutes may have been procured.^ Where bonds are underwritten, the company's remedies are not so satisfactory; for it seems that equity will not specifically enforce a subscription to bonds or debentures against the subscriber,^ while at law only nominal damages can in general be recovered.* § 443-§ 445. Enforcement by means of Power of Attorney to accept on behalf of Underivriter the Securities underwritten. § 443. Whether Power of Attorney is Revocable. — We have seen above, that in England, for the purpose of enabling the com- pany to enforce an underwriting agreement to which it is not a party, the expedient has been devised of taKng from the under- writer a power of attorney whereby he constitutes and appoints the vendor or promoter his attorney to apply for and accept, on his behalf, the shares or bonds underwritten, in case the contin- gency arises in which by the terms of the agreement he is bound to take them. This power of attorney, being given for a valuable consideration, and the donee being interested in the flotation of the company, is deemed to be "coupled with an interest," and has been accordingly held to be irrevocable by the under- writer from the time of the underwriting agreement.* To be sure, in a very recent Massachusetts case relating to an agree- ment to underwrite shares in an English company, Loring, J., said that the power of attorney "could be revoked by the under- writer, although to revoke it would expose the underwriter to > Ex parte Audain, 42 Ch. D. 1. ' Infra, § 1720. See also supra, § 419. * Infra, § 1720. ' London Paris Financial, etc. ' Carmichael's Case (1896), 2 Ch. Corp., 13 Tinifs L. R. 569, 570 643. Cf. Ex parte Stark (1897), 1 (semble). Ch. 676, 686, 688. Cf. Globe Blocks Gold Mining Co., 12 Times L. R. 92. 362 § 416-§ 446] ENFORCEMENT § 444 action for. damages for breach of contract," ' but this remark was unnecessary to the decision of the case before the court and ought not, it is submitted, even in Massachusetts, to be deemed binding authority in opposition to the English decisions. In- deed, if such a power of attorney is revocable, its efficacy is destroyed. § 444. Conditions of Exercise of Power. — The limits and conditions of the authority of the promoter as such agent or attorney for the underwriter must be strictly fulfilled. For ex- ample, if the underwriter agrees to subscribe for the shares underwritten if and when called upon to do so, and constitutes the promoter with whom the agreement is made his agent to apply in his name for any shares which he may thus be bound to take, he is not liable upon shares which are allotted in pur- suance of an application made by the promoter unless he (the underwriter) was first called upon to subscribe.^ So if the under- writer agrees to subscribe or find subscribers for certain shares before a certain date, and, in the event of his failure to comply with the terms of the agreement authorizes the promoter with whom it is made to apply for the shares as his agent, the pro- moter's authority does not arise unless the underwriter be first given an opportunity to subscribe and fails to avail of it.' Where the underwriting agreement', contemplates that the underwriter will accompany it with a written application for the shares under- written, and confers a power of attorney to apply for the shares in case that application is withdrawn, an English judge held that if no application for shares did in fact accompany the under- writing agreement and if none was in fact executed by the under- writer, such failure was equivalent to a withdrawal within the meaning of the underwriting agreement, and that the attorney was therefore authorized to apply for the shares in the under- ' Electric Welding Co. v. Prince find subscribers for such of a number (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306, 310. of shares as are not taken by the " Ormerod's Case (1894), 2 Ch. public, the attorney may apply for 474 ; Brussels Palace of Varieties v. the shares without first notifying Prockter, 10 Times L. R. 72; Elec- the underwriter of the number of trie Welding Co. v. Prince (Mass.), shares he has become bound to take 81 N. E. 306. or find subscribers for). But cf. Shaw V. BenUey & Co., » Ex parte Stark (1897), 1 Ch. 68 L. T. 812 (holding that where 575, 592, 601 ; BiUtfontein Sun X>io- Tinderwriter agrees to subscribe or mond Mines, 13 Times L. R 156. 3G3 § 444 UNDEEWEITING [ChAP. VII writer's name.' If the underwriter authorizes the agent to " hand my application for shares to the company as my agent," the agent is not authorized to sign an appHcation on the under- writer's behalf.^ Moreover, if the underwriter agrees to sub- scribe or find subscribers for a certain number of shares and authorizes the agent to apply for "the said shares" on his behalf, the agent has no power to apply for any less number, although some of the shares may have been taken by the public' In general, the apparent authority of the agent does not ex- ceed his actual authority, and hence the underwriter cannot be estopped from showing that the conditions upon which the agent's authority to act for him were to arise had not occurred, or from denying that any contract was ever consummated because although his offer to underwrite had apparently been accepted yet the acceptance had not been communicated to him in due time.* If, however, the authority contained in the underwrit- ing letter be subject to secret conditions in a separate paper which is not shown to the company, the underwriter will be estopped from setting up non-performance of the secret condi- ' tions if the company has allotted the shares in reliance upon the agent's ostensible authority as conferred by the underwrit- ing letter.' Moreover, if the attorney exceeds his authority ratification by the underwriter may sometimes be shown. When the under- writer receives notice that shares have been allotted to him upon the application of the attorney in excess of his authority, the underwriter must repudiate the shares promptly if he desire to escape liability : " his position is not that of a person to whom shares have been allotted without any prior application on his part and who, as explained above,' cannot be made a share- holder by mere inaction, but rather that of a principal whose agent has exceeded his authority and who, after learning of the excess of authority or after he might have learned of it by the ' Globe Blocks Gold Mining Co., 575. Cf. Gutta Percha Corp., 15 12 Times L. R. 92. Times L. R. 183. ^ Holophane v. Hesseltine, 13 ° Ex parte Harrison, 69 L. T. 204 Times L. R. 7. (explained in Ex parte Stark (1897), ' Holophane v. Hesseltine, 13 1 Ch. 575). Times L. R. 7 (per Lord Esher, " Electric Welding Co. v. Prince M. R.). (Mass.), 81 N. E. 306. • Ex parte Stark (1897), 1 Ch. ' Supra, § 194. 364 § 416-§ 446] ASSIGNMENTS § 446 exercise of due diligence, must take afiirmative steps to repudiate his agent's action or be held to have tacitly ratified and acqui- esced in it. § 445. Advantages of taking a Power of Attorney from Under- ■writer. — This expedient of taking from the underwriter an irrevocable power of attorney to apply for and accept on his behalf the securities whiqh under his agreement he may become bound to take not merely enables the company to avoid any legal obstacles to the enforcement of the contract where the company itself is not a party, but also has additional advantage of being an automatic arrangement for securing specific per- formance of the underwriter's contract. In the case of under- ■writing of bonds, or debentures, this feature is particularly valuable; for, as explained below, equity will not specifically enforce a subscription to bonds or debentures against the sub- scriber, while at law only nominal damages can in general be obtained.*^ Accordingly, it is recommended that every agree- ment for the underwriting of bonds or debentures should contain or be accompanied by such a power of attorney. § 446. Assignments of Underwriting Agreements. — An un- derwriting agreement is a contract, and it would therefore seem that pecuniary rights arising under it may be assigned in the same way as other choses in action, although, to be sure, where shares are underwritten, an assignment by the corporation may not be effective unless an assignment of uncalled capital would be valid.^ At any rate, where a company undertakes to assign an underwriting agreement to a bank as collateral security for a debt, and agrees to issue to the bank certificates for the requisite number of shares to be delivered to the under- writers, the assignment is so far effectual that if by inadvertence or otherwise the company fails to issue the certificates as agreed, the bank may require it to do so, the right of the bank to compel the underwriters to accept the certificates and make payment according to the underwriting agreement being left ' Infra, § 1720. Cf. supra, § 440 ' See supra, § 72. and § 442. 365 § 446 tnsTDEEWEiTiNQ [Chap. VII an open question.* Although an underwriting agreement is certainly not negotiable, yet where it expressly contemplates assignment as collateral security for loans to be made to the company, an underwriter cannot set off against a claim by the assignee a debt owing to the underwriter by the company:* any such defences the underwriter should be estopped to make. • ' Kirkpatrick v. Eastern Milling ^ Cf. Eastern Tube Co. v. Harri- & Export Co., 137 Fed. 387; 69 sow, 140 Fed. 519. C. C. A. 579. 366 .CHAPTER VIII CORPORATE NAMES Section Necessity for a corporate name 447 Choice of corporate name 448-450 How and by whom chosen 448 Statutory restrictions upon choice 449 Name must not be fraudulent or misleading 450 Conflicting claims of right to use name chosen as corporate name . 451— i59 Nature of right to use of corporate name — when not exclusive 451 When right of corporation is exclusive 452 Remedies against improper use of names by or of corpora- tions 453^56 Injunction against incorporation under a name to which plaintiff has prior right 453 Injunction against use of improper corporate name after incorporation .... . . 454 Power of courts to forestall or overrule decision of public officer charged with duty of passing on propriety of corporate name 455 Receipt of mail intended for other company 456 How to determine whether corporate names are unduly similar to one another 457 Transfer to corporation of a promoter's right to carry on busi- ness under his own name 458 Conflicting rights of domestic and foreign corporations .... 459 Misnomer of corporations 460-461 In general 460 Misnomer in pleadings 461 Inferences from corporate names 462-465 In construing incorporation paper 462 Corporate name as a brief description of company's business . . 463 Corporate name as an allegation that company is incorporated . . 464 Absence of word "limited" from name as notice that liability of shareholders is unlimited 465 Change of corporate name 466 User of a name other than corporate name 467 Assignment of right to use corporate name 468 § 447. Necessity for a Corporate Name. — The question has been mooted whether a special name is essential to corporate existence. Some authorities have said with Blackstone that when a corporation is erected, a name must be given to it, and that such a name is the very being of its constitution and the knot of its 367 § 448 CORPORATE NAMES [ChAP. VIII combination.' Even these authorities admit that if no name is given in the charter, the corporation may assume an appropriate name, or acquire one by usage. Others have asserted, with much force, that stress should not be laid on the mere matter of name, but that the essential element in corporate existence is the fact of the union of several natural persons iiito an ideal or artificial legal personality, and not the designation of that fact by an appropriate name. But whatever be the correct theory, certain it is that in practice every corporatio.i has and must have its individual corporate name. § 448-§ 450. Choice of Corporate Name. § 448. How and by whom chosen. — In case of corpora- tions erected by royal charter, the corporate name was given by the king in the charter. In the case of corporations created by special act, the name is usually given by the legislature in the act of incorporation. On the other hand, when a corporation is formed under a general law, the incorporation paper must state the corporate name,^ which is chosen by the promoters. § 449. Statutory Restrictions upon Choice. — Restrictions as to the choice of corporate names are often contained in general in- corporation laws.* The English Companies Act of 1862 makes the word "Limited" a necessary part of the corporate name of every company the liability of whose shareholders is limited;* and similar provisions are sometimes found in the United States.* * 1 Black. Comm., 475. ing the word "company" or "cor- Cf. Smith V. Tallahassee, etc. poration" an essential part of the Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650, 664- name of every corporation assuming 665. the name of a person or firm held to ^ Supra, § 117. apply where a family name not con- ' As to the discretionary power joined with a Christian name is used under the laws of some states to re- as part of the corporate title). fuse a. "charter" to an association As to the construction of a statute whose name is colorless and not requiring every corporation to print distinctive, see Nether Providence the word "incorporated" under its Ass'n, 12 Pa. Co. Ct. 666. name on all "printed or advertising As to the discretionary power matter," see Jung Brewing Co. v. with respect to amendments, see Commonwealth (Ky.), 96 S. W. 476; supra, § 151. Commonwealth v. American Snuff * Companies Act, 1862, § 14(2). Co. (Ky.), 101 S. W. 364 (holding See also infra, § 467. that the use of the abbreviation ' Cf. State ex rel. Mallinckrodt v. "Inc." is not a compUance with the McGrath, 75 Mo. 424 (statute mak- statute); T. J. Moss Tie Co. v. 368 447-§ 468] CHOICE OF NAME §449 Moreover, it is provided in England and in some of the American states that no company shall be incorporated or registered under a name identical with or so similar to that of a company pre- viously formed as to be likely to deceive; ' but as will presently be shown, all such provisions are merely declaratory of the common law,^ except perhaps in so far as they authorize the registrar to refuse to receive or record an incorporation paper for a company whose name is misleading, instead of requiring him to register the instrument, leaving the parties aggrieved to redress by action at law or bill in equity.^ Provisions of this sort Comnumwealth (Ky.), 105 S. W. 163 (holding that a letter to the county attorney in reference to an assess- ment against the company is not ' ' advertising matter " ) . The use of the abbreviation "Ltd." is not a compliance with a statute requiring the word "Lim- ited" to be written or printed after the name of the company in all contracts; Howell Lithographic Co. V. Brethour, 30 Ont. R. 204. Where the statutes make the directors in- dividually liable upon an instru- ment in which the name of the cor- poration is used without the word "limited" or the like, a drawer of a bill of exchange may hold the directors of the drawee individually liable upon the acceptance notwith- standing the fact that he himself omitted to use the word "limited": Penrose v. Martyr, E. B. & E. 499; Howell Lithographic Co. v. Brethour, 30 Ont. R. 204. But it is sufficient if the word appear in the body of the bill without being annexed to the acceptance: Dermatine Co. v. Ashworth, 21 Times L. R. 510. Cf. Nassau Steam Press v. Tyler, 70 L. T. 376 (where the directors were held liable because although they had used the word "limited," yet they had not given the correct cor- porate name in other respects); Atkin & Co. v. Wardle, 61 L. T. 23 (same point as last case) ; Waterous Engine Works Co. v. McLean, 2 Manitoba, 279 (where it was said that the word "limited" although required by statute to be used was not in strictness part of the corpo- rate name). '■ Companies Act, 1862, § 20. Cf. Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co. v. Philadelphia Trust Co., 123 Fed. 534; Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15 Gray 494, 496 (holding that a violation of such a requirement does not enable the company itself to plead that it is not incorporated); Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. Ameri- can Glucose Sugar Refining Co. (N. J.), 56Atl. 861; Young Women's Christian Ass'nv. St. Louis Women's Christian Ass'n, 115 Mo. App. 228; 91 S. W. 171 (holding that the com- pany whose corporate name is wrongfully appropriated has no right by virtue of the statute to ap- pear and object to the grant of a certificate of incorporation to the new company). ' Cf. British Vacuum Cleaner Co. V. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 312. But see Aerators, Ltd. v. Tollitt (1902), 2 Ch. 319, 322 (where it was said, obiter, that such a statute en- ables a company whose name is merely a common English word to prevent the registration of a com- pany with a name absolutely iden- tical). ' It would seem, however, that the registrar may decline to receive any paper which adopts a misleading name even without any such express VOL. 1. ■24 369 § 450 CORPORATE NAMES [ChAP. VIII do not apply to "re-incorporation" of existing organizations' nor to changes in the name of existing companies, but leave such cases to^be governed by the common law both in respect to rights and remedies. Moreover, such a statutory provision does not vitiate the incorporation of a company which is formed with a name unduly similar to that of an existing corporation.^ § 450. Name must not be Fraudulent or Misleading. — Even apart from any explicit statutory prohibition, the pi'omoters of a corporation have no right to choose a name which involves a false statement or which is hkely to mislead the public. A company incorporated under such a name is in one aspect not organized for a lawful purpose. The most common application of this principle is in cases where the corporate name is unduly similar to the trade name of some other person or corporation.' But occasions for other applications of the same principle sometimes occur. For instance, the formation of a corporation under the name of "S. G. Rowell, Dentist, Limited," is likely to lead the public to conclude that either S. G. Rowell or the corporation is licensed to practise dentistry, and if that representation is false, the formation of the company under that name is illegal.* Upon a similar principle, where an amendment is made to an incorporation paper whereby the old name becomes misleading, the courts sometimes insist on a change in the corporate name.* Similarly, in a recent case, a federal judge decided that an association whose corporate name was the Franz Joseph Bene- ficial Association had adopted the name of the Austrian Emperor for the purpose of inducing Austrian immigrants to believe that the society was officially connected in some way with the Emperor Franz Joseph, and accordingly upon a bill filed by the Austrian consul enjoined the use of the Emperor's name or portrait." statutory authority. See supra, * Rex v. Registrar Joint Stock p. 125, note 3. C(. Rex v. Registrar Companies (1904), 2 Ir. 634; Atr- Joint Stock Companies (1904), 2 Ir. torney-General v. Appleton (1907), 634. 1 Ir. 252. ' People ex rd. U. S. Grand Cf. Attorney-General v. Myddle- Lodge v. Payn, 161 N. Y. 229; 55 tons (1907), 1 Ir. 471. N. E. 849. » Cf. supra, § 150. ^ Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., ° Von Thodorovich v. Franz 15 Gray (Mass.) 494. Joseph Benefidcd Ass'n, 164 Fad. ' Infra § 453-§ 455. 911. 370 § 447-§ 468] CONFLICTING CLAIMS §451 § 451-§ 459. CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF RIGHT TO USE NAME CHOSEN AS CORPORATE NAME. § 451. Nature of Right to Use of Corporate Name — When not Exclusive. — The mere fact of incorporation does not neces- sarily give the company any right, still less any exclusive right in the nature of a patent, to the use of the corporate name.' Thus, no monopoly or exclusive right can be acquired to the use of words of common import by inserting them in the corporate name ^ — for example, by inserting words descriptive of a particular kind of goods,^ or describing a particular kind of business,* or indicating the previous unincorporated associa- tion from which the corporators have seceded.' The right to the use of a corporate name is not a franchise;' and the ' Imperial Mfg. Co. v. Schwartz, 105 lU. App. 525; BlackweU's Dur- ham Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co. (N. Car.), 59 S. E. 123. See ako cases cited infra, § 454. But cf. Fort Pitt B. & L. As^n V. Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. St. 308, 311 ; 28 Atl. 215. ' Aerators, Ltd. v. Tollitt (1902), 2 Ch. 319. As to the use of geographical names, see Elgin Nai. Watch Co. v. Lovdand, 132 Fed. 41; Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n V. Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. St. 308 (where at the suit of a corporation whose name included a geographical name, an- other corporation was enjoined from using the same name under void pro- ceedings for a change of name) ; Erie Printing Co. v. Erie Lithographing & Printing Co., 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 1. ^ British Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. (1907), 2 Ch. 312; Goodyear India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598; 9 Sup. Ct. 166; Plant Seed Co. v. Michel, Plant & Seed Co., 37 Mo. App. 313 (where the word "Plant" in plaintiff's name was derived from the surname of its promoters, while in defendant's jiame it was a common noun). Cf. Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. American Glucose Sugar Refining Co. (N. J.), 56 Atl. 861. * Industrial Mutual Deposit Co. V. Central Mutual Deposit Co., 66 S. W. 1032; 112 Ky. 937; Car Ad- vertising Co. V. New York City Car Advertising Co., 107 N. Y. Supp. 547. Cf. International Committee Y. W. C. A. V. Y. W. C. A., 194 lU. 194; 62 N. E. 551; 56 L. R. A. 888 (where an injunction was granted); Colonial Dames of America v. Co- lonial Dames of New York, 29 N. Y. Misc. 10; 60 N. Y. Supp. 302, af- firmed short in 63 N. Y. App. Div. 615; 71 N. Y. Supp. 1134 (where an injunction was refused). ' Supreme Lodge Knights of Pyth- ias V. Improved Order Knights of Pythias, 113 Mich. 133; 71 N. wi 470; 38 L. R. A. 658; Grand Lodge v. Graham, 96 Iowa, 592; 65 N. W. 837; 31 L. R. A. 133; La Tosca Club v. La Tosca Club, 23 App. D. C. 96. But see Smith v. David H. Brand & Co. (N. J.), 58 Atl. 1029; 67 N. J. Eq. 529 (where the defendant cor- poration had purchased the good will of a former partnership). ' Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Tripod Boiler Co., 137 111. 231; 28 N. E. 248. But see Boston Rubber Shoe Co. 371 § 452 COKPORATE NAMES [ChAP. VIII question is governed by the same principles as if the company- were unincorporated.' § 452. When Right of Corporation is Exclusive. — If, how- ever, a corporation assumes some novel, fancy appellation to which others have no prior right, the fact of adoption of that title confers an exclusive right to its use.^ So, where the name of a corporation includes the individual names of certain of its shareholders who subsequently sell their shares and form a new corporation under a title which Ukewise comprises their indi- vidual names, the right of the former company to the use of the name is superior to that of the latter.' Similarly, a corporation may acquire by a;Ssignment from its promoters the right to the exclusive use of a trade name to which they were entitled, even as against a person who (without legal right) was using the same name at the time of the incorporation.* The right of a corpora- tion to the exclusive use of its corporate name is not forfeited because the company may be engaged in an illegal business.* § 453-§ 456. Remedies against Improper Use of Names by or of Corporations. § 453. Injunction against Incorporation under Name to which Plaintiff has a prior Right. — An unincorporated company may V. Boston Bvbber Co., 149 Mass. 436, plaintiffs was refused so far as de- 439; 21 N. E. 875. fendant's bxisiness was dififerent ' See infra, § 456. from plaintiffs') ; Legal Aid Society As to the right of a corporation v. Co-operative Legal Aid Society, to enjoin an individual from adopt- 41 N. Y. Misc. 127; 83 N. Y. Supp. ing a name or addition tending to in- 926; Blackwell's Durham Tobacco duce the belief that he is a member Co. v. Am. Tobacco Co. (N. Car.), of the corporation, see Society of Ac- 59 S. E. 123 (declaring that the fact countants and Auditors v. Goodway of incorporation under a certain (1907), 1 Ch. 489. name confers no exclusive right ' Illinois Watch Case Co. v. thereto unless followed up by the Pearson, 140 111. 423; 31 N. E. 400; transaction of business under that 16 L. R. A. 429; Philadelphia Trust, name). etc. Co. V. Philadelphia Tnist Co., ' Holmes, Booth & Hay dens v. 123 Fed. 534; Koebd v. Landlords' Holmes, Booth & Atwood Mfg. Co., Protective Bureau, 210 111. 176; 71 37 Conn. 278; 9 Am. Rep. 324. See N. E. 362; Glucose Sugar Refining also infra, § 458. Co. V. American Sugar Refining Co. * Corbin v. E. Taussig & Co., 132 (N. J.), 56 Atl. 861. Fed. 662 (headnote inadequate). But see Dodge Stationery Co. v. ° Grand Lodge v. Graham, 96 Dodge, 145 Cal. 380; 78 Pac. 879 Iowa 592; 65 N. W. 837; 31 L. R. (where an injunction against the use A. 133. of a similar corporate name to 372 § 447-§ 468] REMEDIES AGAINST IMPKOPEE USE § 454 enjoin the formation of a corporation under a name so similar to the complainant's as to be misleading/ and of course the same is true where the complaining company is itself incorporated.^ § 454. Injunction against Use of improper Corporate Name after Incorporation. — If a company has been incorporated and received a certificate entitling it to do business under a deceptive name, the injured party may enjoin it from carrying on business thereunder/ and may require the directors to have the name removed from the registry.* But where the complaining com- pany was organized only one month before the defendant and had done no business, whereas the defendant was in active operation, an injunction was refused.' Where a corporate name is conferred by act of the legislature it would seem that its use ' Hendricks v. Montagu, 17 Ch. 21 R. I. 109; 42 Atl. 308; 79 Am. D. 638 (Universe Life Assurance Co., St. Rep. 786; 43 L. R. A. 95 (where enjoined by Universal Life Assur- complainant was an individual); anee Co.) ; Imperial Mfg. Co. v. People ex rel. Columbia Chemical Co. Schwartz, 105 111. App. 525 (where v. O'Srien, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 296; plaintiff, an individual, had been 91 N. Y. Supp. 649 (semble) ; Nesne trading under the identical name v. Sundet, 101 N. W. Rep. 490; 93 afterwards adopted by the defend- Minn. 299 (where complainants ant corporation). were co-partners) ; American Nov- ' Tussaud V. Tussaud, 44 Ch. D. elty Mfg. Co. v. Manufacturing 678 ("Louis Tussaud, L't'd," en- Electrical Novelty Co., 36 N. Y. joined by Mme. Tussaud & Sons, Misc. 450; 73 N. Y. Supp. 755; L't'd); Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. Eureka Boston Rubber Co., 149 Mass. 436; Rubber Mfg. Co. (N. J.), 60 Atl. 561 21 N. E. 875 (where plaintiff's name (where the injunction was limited was given by a special act of to using the name in dealing in the incorporation). same class of goods as the plaintiff). But cf. Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Cf. American Clay Mfg. Co. v. Loveland, 132 Fed. 41, 52. American Clay Mfg. Co., 198 Pa. St. ' Merchant Banking Co. of Lon- 189; 47 Atl. 936. don V. Merchants Joint-Stock Bank, _ * Societe Anonyme des Andens 9 Ch. D. 560; Manchester Brewery Etablissements Panhard et Levassor Co. V. North Cheshire and Manchester v. Panhard Levassor Motor Co. Brewery Co. (1898), 1 Ch. 539 (where (1901), 2 Ch. 513. the name of the defendant company As to whether the corporation is was held to suggest deceitfully an a necessary party to a suit for an amalgamation between the plaintiff injunction against its officers, see and some other concern) ; Holmes, Elgin Nat. Watch Co. v. Love- Booth & Haydens v. Holmes, Booth & land, 132 Fed. 41, 46 (headnote Atwood Mfg. Co., 37 Conn. 278; 9 inadequate). Am. Rep. 324; Newby v. Oregon " Hygeia Water Ice Co. v. New Central Ry. Co., Deady 609; Cellu- York Hygeia Ice Co., 140 N. Y. 94; laid Mfg. Co. v. Cellonite Mfg. Co., 35 N. E. 417. 32 Fed. 94; Armington v. Palmer, 373 § 455 CORPORATE NAMES [ChaP. VIII cannot be enjoined on the ground that it is misleading and unduly similar to that of some existing company.' § 455. Power of Courts to forestall or overrule Discretion of Public Officer Charged with Duty of passing on Propriety of Corpo- rate Name. — In a Massachusetts case, it was held that a statute which authorizes some public official to refuse a certificate of incorporation if the name of the proposed company is so similar to a name already in use as to be misleading and provides that the certificate if granted shall be conclusive evidence of the existence of the corporation, confides the whole matter of undue similarity of names to the pubhc officer's discretion, so as to prevent any bill in equity or writ of mandamus to overrule or forestall his conclusion,^ but this decision is directly contrary to the English cases ^ as well as to the trend of American authority,^ and ought not, it is submitted, to be followed. The courts will not coerce a registrar by mandamus to record an incorporation paper where the name of the proposed company is so similar to that of an existing company that an injunction would be granted against its use.° § 456. Receipt of Mail intended for another Company. — Ques- tions as to confficting rights to the use of a corporate name are usually determined upon injunction proceedings by one company to restrain the other from the use of its name. In a recent case the question arose with reference to the mutual rights of the two corporations with respect to mail addressed in such a way as to be ambiguous. In such a case, the company which is respon- ' PavUno V. Portuguese Bene- be required by mandamus to grant iieud Ass'n, 18 R. I. 165; 26 Atl. the certificate except in a clear case) ; 36; 20 L. R. A. 272. People ex rd. Columbia Chemical Co. But see Edison Storage Battery v. O'Brien, 101 N. Y. App. Div. 296; Co. V. Edison Automobile Co., 56 91 N. Y. Supp. 649 (holding that Atl. 861, 866; 67 N. J. Eq. 44 where officer registers the incorpora^ (semble). tion, certiorari will not lie to revoke ' American Order S. C. v. Mer- his determination, the only remedy rill, 151 Mass. 558; 24 N. E. 918; being in equity, but semble, if he 8 L. R. A. 320. erroneously refuses registration, cer- ' Tussaud V. Tv^saud, 44 Ch. D. tiorari might lie to compel him to do 678. so) ; Knights of Maccabees v. Searle ♦ Cf. Grand Lodge v. Graham, 96 (Nebr.), 106 N. W. 448 (officer en- Iowa 592; 65N. W. 837; 31L. R. A. joined from issuing a certificate). . 133; Ex parte Walker, 1 Tenn. Ch. ' People v. Rose, 219 111. 46; 76 97, 100, 101; State ex rd. Hutchin- N. E. 42; People ex rd. Fdter v. son v. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355; 5 S. W. Rose, 80 N. E. 293; 225 HI. 496. 29 (holding that the officer wiU not 374 I 447-§ 468] WHAT IS undue similarity § 467 sible for the confusion should bear the inconvenience of having its mail opened by the other corporation. Thus, where one corporation was named the Central Trust Company of Illinois and the other the Central Trust Company, both being engaged in business in Chicago, but the latter having obtained the right to do business in Illinois after the incorporation of the former, the court held that letters addressed to the "Central Trust Com- pany, Chicago," Vidthout mentioning street or number, should be deUvered to the Central Trust Company of lUinois.* § 457. How to determine whether Corporate Names are tmduly similar to one another. — Whether two corporate names are so similar as to be deemed misleading is to be decided according to the general principles of law applicable to trade names and not by any peculiar rule of corporation law.^ It has been held that "the International Loan & Trust Co. of Kansas City" is not um-easonably similar to "The International Trust Co.," stress being laid on the addition of the words "of Kansas City"; ^ but by other courts a very similar distinction has been thought to be insufficient.* "The Columbian Chemical Co." too nearly re- sembles "The Columbia Chemical Co." ^ "Aerators, Limited," cannot enjoin the registration of "Automatic Aerators Patents, Limited,"* nor the "British Vacuum, Cleaner Co." the "New Vacuum Cleaner Co." ^ ; for in such cases the title consists of ^Central Trust Co. v. Cmiral Mass. 271; 26 N. E. 693; lOL. R. A. Trust Co. of Itlinois, 149 Fed. 789. 758. Cf . Erie Printing Co. v. Erie Cf . Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Lithographing & Printing Co., 31 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. of Kan^ Pa. Co. Ct. 1, 5 (where the court sas, 1 N. Y. Supp. 44. held that the two names were not * Saunders v. Sun Life Assurance unreasonably similar, but in view Co. of Canada (1894), 1 Ch. 537; of the fact that confusion arose Central Trust Co. v. Central Trust through the carelessness of corre- Co. of Illinois, 149 Fed. 789, 990 spondents, suggested the appoint- (semble); Bradley Fertilizer Co., 19 ment of a receiver to open the Pa. Co. Ct. 271. mail). ' People ex rd. Columbia Chemi- ' British Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. cal Co. v. O'Brien, 101 N. Y. App. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. (1907), Div. 296; 91 N. Y. Supp. 649. 2 Ch. 312. ' Aerators, Ltd., v. ToUitt (1902), ' International Trust Co. v. /n- 2 Ch. 319. ternational Loan & Trust Co., 153 ' British Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. 375 § 458 CORPOEATE NAMES [ChAP. VIII mere descriptive words.' The character of the business and the location of the two companies must be considered.^ The fact, however, that the defendant company does not intend to carry- on the same business as the complainant has been held to be immaterial if it has corporate power so to do.' The act of the complaining corporation in organizing subsidiary corporations each of which includes in its corporate name the words of which a monopoly is claimed may, it seems, be taken as an admission that those words are merely descriptive of the character of goods sold by the complainant and that the use of those words by other corporations will not necessarily lead to confusion.* But, on the other hand, the fact that a corporation has suffered one company to infringe its right to exclusive use of its corporate name will not prevent it from enjoining another subsequently organized company from so doing.* It seems that there is no objection to the assumption by a new corporation of a name similar to or even identical with the name of a former corpora- tion which has been absorbed by another organization bearing a very different name." § 458. Transfer to Corporation of a Promoter's Right to carry on Business under his own Name. — Although an individual is entitled bona fide to carry on business under his own name even though it resemble that of some established concern, yet this is a personal right which he cannot confer upon any third person, and consequently not even upon a corporation organized by him, , since the latter is a distinct legal entity.' In a very recent EngUsh New Vacuum Cleaner Co. (1907), * British Vacuum Cleaner Co. v. 2 Ch. 312. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. (1907), ' See supra, § 451. 2 Ch. 312, 330. ' State ex rel. Hutchinson v. ' Atlas Assurance Co. v. Adas In- McGrath, 92 Mo. 355, 358; 5 S. W. surance Co. (Iowa), 112 N. W. 232. 29; Dodge Stationery Co. v. Dodge, " Re Duqvssne College Charter, U5 Cal. 380; 78 Pao. 879; Dunlop 12 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 491. Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Dunlop Motor ' Fine Cotton Spinners, etc. Ass'n Co. (1907), A. C. 430, 438 ("The v. Harwood Cash & Co. (1907), 2 Ch. objects of the two companies need 184, 189, 190; Tussaud v. Tussaud, not be absolutely identical in order 44 Ch. D. 678; Charles S. Higgins to entitle the complainers to rehef, Co. v. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y. but there must be great similarity"). 462; 39 N. E. 490; 43 Am. St. Rep. ' Edison Storage Battery Co. v. 769; 27 L. R. A. 42; R. W. Rogers Edison Automobile Co., 56 Atl. 861; Co. v. Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co., 70 Fed. 67 N. J. Eq. 44. Rep. 1017; 17 C. C. A. 576 (upon But cf. Aerators, Ltd. v. Tollitt the ground of actual fraud in as- (1902), 2 Ch. 319. suming the name); Dodge Station^- 376 § 447-§ 468] FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMPANIES § 459 case, the suggestion was thrown out that possibly a distinction might exist if the individual before attempting to assign his personal right to a corporation first builds up a business in his own name and then transfers the good will and name to a corporation.' § 459. Conflicting Rights of Domestic and Foreign Corporations. — Where a dispute arises between a foreign company and a domestic company respecting the right to the use of a trade name, very difficult questions, which perhaps are not in strictness within the scope of this treatise, may be raised. In some of the United States, statutes expressly provide that no foreign corpora- tion shall be allowed to do business within the state under a name so similar to that of a domestic company as to be likely to mislead.^ Under such a statute it may be immaterial whether the foreign or the domestic company was first incorporated, or whether the one or the other had first transacted business within the state. But apart from such provisions, the maxim, qui prior est tempore potior est jure, would seem to apply. Thus, a foreign corporation cannot enjoin a domestic company from using a corporate name similar to that of the complainant but adopted before the latter's organization,^ unless the foreign company erj/Co.v.Doisre, 145 Cal. 380; 78 Pac. v. Wyckoff, Seamans & Benedict, 879; McFeU Electric & Telephone Co. 198 U. S. 118 (headnote inade- V. McFell Electric Co., 110 111. App. quate) ; 25 Sup. Ct. 609; DonneU v. 182 (proceeding in part upon the Herring-Hall-Marvin Co., 208 U. S. ground that the individual in question 267. had conferred upon the complainant ' Fine Cotton Spinners, etc. Ass'n company the right to use his name), v. Harwood Cash & Co. (1907), Cf. Edison Storage Battery Co. v. 2 Ch. 184. Cf. Durdop Pneumatic Edison Automobile Co. (N. J.), 56 Tyre Co. v. Durdop Motor Co. (1907), Atl. 861; 67 N. J. Eq. 44; Internor- A. C. 430. tional Siiver Co. v. Wm. 6. Rogers ' International Trust Co. v. /n- Co., 113 Fed. 526; Hall's Safe Co. ternational Loan & Trust Co., 153 V. Herring-Hall-Marmn Safe Co., Mass. 271; 26 N. E. 693; 10 L. 146 Fed. 37; 76 C. C. A. 495, af- R. A. 758 (holding that the material firmed with modifications, 208 U. S. point is not the corporate name 554 ; Bagby & Rivers Co. v. Rivers, of the foreign company but the 87 Md. 400; 40 Atl. 171; 67 Am. name under which its business is St. Rep. 357; 40 L. R. A. 632; In- transacted). ternational Silver Co. v. Simeon, ' Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazdton etc. Rogers Co., 110 Fed. 955; Peck Tripod BoUer Co., 142 lU. 494; 30 Bros. & Co. V. Peck Bros. Co., 113 N. E. 339 (criticised in Peck Bros. Fed. 291; 51 C. C. A. 251; Dunlop & Co. v. Peck Bros. Co., 113 Fed. Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Dunlop 291; 51 C. C. A. 251). Motor Co. (1907), A. C. 430. But see contra, Howe Scale Co. ' 377 § 459 CORPORATE NAMES [ChAP. VIII succeeds by assignment to the right of a company which had been previously incorporated.' In England, it was held that a British company which had done business for more than eighty years under the name of the Sun Life Assurance Society could not enjoin a foreign company, called the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, from transacting business in Great Britain under its corporate name, although it was conceded to resemble the plaintiff's so closely as to be likely to cause con- fusion ; but it was also held that the Canadian company should be strictly confined to its corporate name, and should be enjoined from abbreviating the same by omission of the words "of Canada" or otherwise.^ This^ decision is extremely liberal to the foreign corporation, and, indeed, in view of the priority of organization of the domestic company would seem to be more liberal than sound principle justifies; and accordingly in America in such a case the prior right of the domestic corpora- tion would probably be recognized.' The mere existence of a foreign company which had never transacted business within the state and whose wares or manufactures were not habitually imported for sale, would seem to furnish no reason against the adoption of a similar name by a domestic corporation. But although the foreign company may never have had an office or agency within the state, yet if its goods are in fact frequently imported it may enjoin a domestic corporation from using a corporate name which is unreasonably similar to the plaintiff's name and which has been adopted for the fraudulent purpose of getting the benefit of the plaintiff's reputation.* A fortiori, a foreign company which has lawfully transacted business within the state may enjoin a domestic company from adopting a name unfairly similar to its own, with the same effect as if the com- ' Peck Bros. Supra, § 483. * Berks & Dauphin Turnpike Road V. Myers, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 12; 9 Am. Dec. 402 ; Darnall v. Dickens, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 7; Barned's Bank- ing Co., 3 Ch. 105, 116; Mickey v. Stratton, 5 Sawy. 475; Indianapolis, etc. B. R. Co. V. Morganstern, 103 111. 149; Leggett v. New Jersey, etc. Banking Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 541 ; 23 Am. Dec. 728; Yanish v. Pioneer Fuel Co., 64 Minn. 175; 66 N. W. 198; Gorder v. Plattsmouth, etc. Co., 36 Nebr. 548; 54 N. W. 830; Levering V. Mayor, etc. of Memphis, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 553; Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543;. 99 Am. Dec. 300 ; UnderhiU v. Santa Barbara, etc. Co., 93 Cal. 300, 314; 28 Pac. 1049; 407 3 § 491 CORPORATE SEALS [ChAP. IX mere fact that the minutes of the directors contain no entry authorizing the affixing of the seal is insufficient to overcome this presumption.' § 491. Statutes regulating Method of Execution of Deeds of Corporations. — Statutory provisions as to the mode of execu- tion of deeds by a corporation will generally be construed as directory merely and will therefore not exclude any method of execution that might have been valid at common law.^ Thus, a statute providing that the president and two other members shall sign a corporation's deed of real estate does not invalidate a deed executed in any manner that was good at common law. Nelson v. Spence (Ga.), 58 S. E. 697 picious circumstances). For other (deed signed by treasurer) ; Graham, cases where the presumption was V. Partee (Ala.), 35 So. 1016; 139 rebutted, see Bliss v: Kaweah, etc. Ala. 310; ibl Am. St. Rep. 32 Co., 65 Cal. 502; 4 Pac. 507; Blood (where the name of the corporation v. La Serena, etc. Co., 113 Cal. 221, was not subscribed to the d^ed); 225-226; 41 Pac. 1017; 45 Pac. Quackenboss v. Globe, etc. Ins. Co., 252; CvUman Fruit & Produce 177 N. Y. 71 ; 69 N. E. 223 (where Ass'n, 155 Fed. 372, 376 (headnote the instrument was signed by the inadequate); Gibson v. Goldthwaite, president and secretary); Kirk- 7 Ala. 281, 294; 42 Am. Dec. Patrick v. Eastern Milling, etc. Co. 592. (1), 135 Fed. 144; Degnan v. Thor- As to what constitutes the reg- oughman, 88 Mo. App. 62 (semble) ; ular corporate seal within the mean- Bullen V. Milwaukee Trading Co., ing of this rule, see Blood v. La 85N. W. 115; 109 Wise. 41; CoUier Serena, etc. Co., 113 CaX. 221, 225; 41 V. Doe ex dem. Alexander, 38 So. Pac. 1017; 45 Pac. 252; Raub v. 244; 142 Ala. 422; Benedict v. Den- Blairstown Creamery Ass'n, 56 N. J. ton. Walker Ch. (Mich.), 336; Deep- Law 262; 28 Atl. 384 (holding that waier Council v. Benick (W. Va.), the presumption does not apply 53S. E. 552; Watkinsv. Glas (Cal.), where a common paper seal is at- 89 Pac. 840; WoodhUl v. SuUivan, tached although the instrument 14 C. P. (Up. Can.) 265, 273; itself, signed by the president, pur- Springerv. Bigford, 55 111. App. 19S; ported to be under the corporate McDonald v. Chisholm, 131 111. 273; seal). 23 N. E. 596; Wigmore on Evi- ' McKee v. Cunningham (Cal.), dence, § 2169. 84 Pac. 260, 262 (headnote inade- But see Backer v. United States quate); Bliss v. Harris (Colo.), 87 Gas Fixture Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 149 Pac. 1076. (where the instrument was signed by ^ Cf. supra, § 476, and infra, the company's treasurer); Reed v. § 1070, § 1475. See also Bliss v. Fleming, 102 111. App. 668. Harris (Colo.), 87 Pac. 1076. Cf. KoeUer v. Black River, etc. ' Bason v. King's Mountain Min- Co., 2 Black 715 (where the pre- ing Co., 90 N. Car. 417. sumption was overthrown by sus- But see Allen v. Brown, 6 Kans. 408 § 469-§ 492] ACKNOWLEDGMENT §492 Where a statute requires certain instruments to be signed or subscribed, it is not necessary that the corporate name be sub- scribed, but the signature of the officer in his official capacity is sufficient.' § 492. Acknowledgment of Deeds of Corporations. — Statutes providing for the acknowledgment of deeds usually contain explicit directions as to the acknowledgment of deeds of corpora- tions. Such express directions ought, as a matter of prudence, always to be followed; but probably they would not vitiate any acknowledgment that would have been good if no such provisions had been contained in the statute. At any rate, if the statute contain no express directions as to the mode of acknowledgment of deeds by corporations, the directors or officers who are authorized to affix the seal are also competent to acknowledge the deed.^ App. 704; 50 Pac. 505; Isham v. Bennington Iron Co., 19 Vt. 230. ' Ismon V. Loder (Mich.), 97 N. W. 769. ' Gordon v. Preston, 1 Watts (Pa.) 385 (headnote inadequate); 26 Am. Dec. 75 ; Hopper v. Lovejoy, 21 Atl. 298; 47 N. J. Eq. 573; 12 L. R. A. 588; Lovett v. Steam Saw Mill Ass'n, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 54; Bowers v. Hechtman, 45 Minn. 238, 241-242; 47 N. W. 792; Kdly v. Calhoun, 95 U. S. 710; Merrill v. Montgomery, 25 Mich. 73 (instru- ment signed by both president and cashier may be aclcnowledged by cashier only). 409 CHAPTER X CAPITAL AND SHARES — CLASSES OF SHARES Section Nominal or share capital distinguished from borrowed capital . . 493 Nomenclature ........ . 494-498 "Capital stock," "stock," and "stockholders," "shares" and "shareholder" . . 494 Further consideration of English distinction between "shares" . and "stock" .... 495 Meaning of "stock" in America ... 496 Whether "capital" or "capital stock" refers to nominal or to actual capital 497 Meaning of "corporators" ... 498 Nature of shares 499-506 Distinction between one share and another share of same kind 499-501 Rule in England — numbering of shares ... . . . 499 Rule in America . . ... . ... 500 Authorities maintaining that shares are legally indis- tinguishable from one another .... 501 A share not an interest, legal or equitable, in company's prop- erty — whether real or personal estate . 502 A share not a sum of money settled in trust but an interest in the company ..... . 503 A share as a chose in action . . . 504 Whether shares are "goods, wares, and merchandise," "per- sonal chattels," "goods and chattels," "securities," etc. 505 Whether trover will lie for conversion of shares .... 506 Nominal or share capital not a liability of company . . . 507 Rights of shareholders . 508-516 Primary or substantive rights — classification . 508 References to full discussions of these primary rights . . 609 Secondary or ancillary rights of shareholders . 510-516 Classification . . 510 Right to registration as shareholder in company's books . . 511 Right to a share-certificate ... . 512-516 Definition of certificate 512 Right to a certificate in general . . . 513 Delay in issuing certificate . 514 Remedies for refusal or improper failure to issue certificate . 515 Loss of certificate 516 Equality of shares 517^24 Origin and nature of rule of equality between shares ... . 517 What the law means by equaUty between shares 518-522 Where shares are of different nominal or par values . . . 518 410 § 493-§ 573] SYNOPSIS Equality of shares (continued) Section Where a larger proportion paid in upon some shares than others . 519^21 While company a going concern — calls and divi- dends, interest on amount paid in advance of Calls 519 In winding-up or liquidation . 520-521 Where assets are more than sufficient to return paid-up capital 520 Where assets are insufficient to return paid-up capital . . . . . 521 Shares issued at a premium .... . 522 Provisions estabhshing different rules of equahty . . 523-524 Nature of such provisions — distinguished from provisions creating preferred shares ... 523 Construction of provisions 524 Creation of preferential rights 525-534 Power of shareholders to create preferential rights by mutual agreement 525 Nomenclature — "preferred shares," "preference shares," "com- mon shares," "ordinary shares" 526 Power to give preference to some shares in respect of divi- dends . . . . . 527-530 In general . . . . 527 Creation of preference at organization of company by incorporation paper or contemporaneous by-laws . . 528 Creation of preference after shares have been issued on an equality . . . . 529 Issue of new shares with preference over previously issued shares . . . 530 Statutes authorizing issue of preferred shares 531 What words sufficient to authorize issue of preferred shares carrying sundry preferences . . . 532 Injunction against unauthorized issue of preferred shares . 533 Effect of unwarranted issue of preferred shares — estoppel — acquiescence 534 Alteration of preferential rights . . 535-539 In general 535 Preference created by incorporation paper . . . . 536 Effect of proceedings for reduction of capital . . . . 537 Effect of consolidation with another corporation 538 Waiver of preference ... . . . . . 539 (Status of preferred shareholders as members and not creditors of the company . 540-548 Preferred shareholders entitled to the same rights and subject to same liabilities as other shareholders except as other- wise provided ... 540 Preferred shareholders not entitled to rights of creditors . 541 What circumstances insufficient to confer on preferred share- holders the rights of creditors 542 Express agreement that preferred shareholders shall have rights of creditors ultra vires 543 Further explanation of the rule that preferred shareholders are not creditors 514 411 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X Status of preferred shareholders, etc. {continued) Sectioa Sullivan v. Portland, etc. R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 806 .... 545 Tests for distinguishing shareholders from creditors . . . . '546 Statutes conferring on preferred shareholders some of the rights of creditors 547 "Interest-bearing stock" ... 548 Extent of preferential rights as between preferred and deferred shareholders 549-571 How extent of preference determined 549 Preference as to dividends . 550-563 What words will confer a preference as to dividends . . . 550 Whether preference is cumulative 551 Effect of cumulative preference 552-553 Whether interest is claimable on arrearages of cumu- lative preferred dividends . . 552 Whether payments to preferred shareholders in excess of cumulative preferential dividend chargeable against deficiency in subsequent year . . . 553 Whether profits in excess of preferential dividend are divi- sible pro rata among both preferred and common shareholders . . ... 554 Whether preferred shares may participate in profits remain- ing after paying on both classes of shares a dividend equal to preferred dividend . . . . . 555 Rights where both classes of shares are to participate equally in profits remaining after paying on both classes of shares a dividend equal to the preferential dividend . . 556 How preferential dividend payable — gold, cash, bonds, etc. ... 557 Provisions for termination of preference 558 Effect of cancellation or surrender of some of the pre- ferred shares ... . , 559 Discretion of company as to withholding preferential divi- dend although earned . . . . . . 560 Remedies of preferred shareholders for arbitrary with- holding of preferential dividends 561 Remedies against payment of dividends to deferred share- holders in fraud of preferential rights . . ... 562 When deferred shareholders may compel declaration of preferential dividend ... . ... . 563 Preference as to repayment of capital in liquidation .... 564-568 Legality of such a preference 564 When preference as to capital exists and when not . . 565 Attempts to confer indirectly a preference as to capital upon shares not entitled thereto ... 566 What funds regarded as capital and what as profits in winding-up 567 Whether preferred shareholders are entitled in liquidation to "interest" from the time of cessation of business in lieu of preferential dividend . . . . . 568 Preference as to distribution of new shares upon an increase of capital . ... 569 412 § 493-§ 573] NOMENCLATURE § 494 Extent of preferential rights, etc. (continued) . Section Preference as to voting-rights 570 Preference as to liability to creditors 571 'Consequences of distinction between preferred and deferred shares upon rules as to parties in legal proceedings 572 Consequences of distinction upon powers of management of majority of corporation 573 § 493. Nominal or Share Capital distinguished from Borrowed Capital. — We have seen above that general laws for the forma- tion of joint-stock business corporations always, or almost always, provide that each company's incorporation paper shall state the amount — that is, the nominal amount — of the authorized capital, and the number of shares into which it shall be divided.' Theoretically, the full amount of this capital at its par value is always to be obtained by the company from subscriptions to its shares in money or money's worth; and with the funds so obtained the company is to carry on its business. In practice, as every one knows, a large part of many a company's nominal share capital represents no substantial assets, but mere "water," the actual working capital of the corporation being derived from the issue of bonds. But this practice, even if not illegal, is nevertheless not such as the law contemplates, and is therefore not reflected in its nomenclature. § 494-§ 498. Nomenclature. § 494. " Capital Stock," " Stock " and " Stockholder," " Shares " and " Shareholder." — The aggregate of the shares of capital is called the company's capital stock; and every share in this capital stock may itself, properly enough, be called stock, and its holder a stockholder. Accordingly, this terminology is prev- alent in America, where no distinction is drawn between shares and stock,^ or between a shareholder and a stockholder. As we have just intimated, this usage is entirely proper on etymological and historical grounds. In England, however, within the last ' Supra, § 109. stock ") ; Lockwood v. Town of ' Harvard College v. Arru/ry, 9 Weston, 61 Conn. 211; 23 Atl. 9 Pick. (Mass.) 446, 461^62 ("There (holding that shares are taxable can be no doubt but that shares in under a statute levying a tax upon manufacturing and insuring incor- all " stocks not issued by the United porations are and were commonly States"), called and known by the name of 413 § 495 CAPITAL AND SHAKES [ChAP. X fifty or sixty years, a popular practice has sprung up which distinguishes between shares and stock, the former term, "shares," being used to denote the indivisible shares which compose the capital of most business corporations while "stock" is used to designate a form of security which is infinitely sub- divisible, or which is, at any rate, not divided into definite, indivisible shares. For instance, a company whose capital is composed of indivisible shares of the nominal amount of, say, one pound and is not transferable in fractions thereof, may "consolidate" its shares into "stock" which may be subdivided indefinitely and transferred in amounts of, say, ten shillings, five shillings, or one shilling, or even less. Necessarily, however, this "consolidation into stock" cannot well take place unless the shares are fully paid up ; and some English judges have, there- fore, said that shares and stock "differ in this respect that shares are not necessarily paid up." ' § 495. Further Consideration of English Distinction between Shares and Stock. — This distinction between shares and stock, although important to bear in mind in reading the English books is, even in. England, a popular rather than a legal differ- entiation of terms. Thus, where a testator bequeathed to his Tvife "all such stocks in the pubhc funds, or shares in any railway," of which he might die possessed, the House of Lords held that shares in a railway company which before the testator's death were consolidated into "stock" would nevertheless pass by the bequest.^ Lord Selborne said:" "The share, while still indivisible (whether subject to calls or paid up) and registered upon one plan of bookkeeping, is in substance and in truth nothing but a 'share in the capital stock of the company' and it is still a ' share in the capital stock of the company ' after it has ' Morricev.Aylmer,L.n.7B..h. De G. & Sm. 278 ("stock" in a 717, 724, per Lord Hatherley. statute held to include shares) ; - ' Morrice v. Aylmer, L. R. 7 H. L. Oakes v. Oakes, 9 Hare 666 (holding 717. that a bequest of all the G. W. Ry. Cf. Re Bodman (1891), 3 Ch. 135; shares of which testator might be New Zealand Trust & Loan Co. possessed at the time of his death (1893), 1 Ch. 403 ("stock" in a is not adeemed by conversion into statute held to include shares not stock of the shares owned by the fully paid up) ; Trinder v. Trinder, testator at the date of the will but 1 Eq. 695 (bequest of "my shares in does not pass other stock in the the G. W. Ry. Co." held to pass same company which he acquired stock in that company, the testatrix afterwards), owning no shares) ; Re Angela, 5 ' L. R. 7 H. L. 729. 414 § 493-§ 573] NOMENCLATURE § 497 become divisible and registered upon a different system of book- keeping. . . . Tlie difference makes no real change for any purpose whatever material to the nature or incidents of the property, except that the shareholders' power of transfer is no longer subject to certain restrictions." § 496. Meaning of Stock in America. — In the United States, the familiar use of the term "stockholders" to designate the owners of shares in the capital of a corporation not unnaturally leads to the notion that the word "stock" ex vi termini indicates that its holders are members and not creditors of the company.' Such, however, is not the case. For instance, every one is acquainted with "city stock," "United States stock," and other public stocks,^ the holders of which are creditors of the govern- ment or municipality that issues the security. So, in England, business corporations frequently issue as evidence of indebted- ness a form of security known as "debenture stock" — that is to say, certificates of indebtedness transferable on the company's books in fractional amounts.^ The fact that the stockholders of an ordinary American corporation are part owners of the company's capital and not creditors of the corporation should not, therefore, induce the belief that the term is especially appropriate for members of the company and inappropriate for its creditors. The holders of common or of preferred stock are not creditors but members of the corporation; but this is be- cause of the real nature of their position, and could not safely be inferred merely from their designation as stockholders. § 497. Whether " Capital " or " Capital Stock " refers to Nomi- nal or to Actual Capital. — Whenever the "capital" or the "capital stock" of a corporation is referred to, a question may arise whether the reference is to the nominal capital or to the actual capital of the company.* The answer to this question ' See State ex rd. Thompson v. stocks and shares in private cor- Cheraw, etc. E. B. Co., 16 S. Car. 524; porations "). Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 78 = See infra, § 1687. Fed. 664, 670; 24 C. C. A. 271; 36 * "The term 'capital stock' has a L. R. A. 826 (where the court said double meaning as applied to corpo- " Stock is capital "). rations. In one sense it is the sum Cf. Sellar v. Charles Bright & Co. mentioned in the articles of incorpo- (1904), 2 K. B. 446. ration as the amount of the capital ' Ci.Lockwoodv. Town of Weston, stock; in other words it is the share 61 Conn. 211, 216, 23 Atl. 9 ("The capital, or nominal capital, and does word 'stock' includes both pubhc not necessarily represent a corre- 415 § 498 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X must depend in each instance on the context. For instance, "capital stock" in a statute forbidding corporations to divide, withdraw, or in any way pay to the stockholders any portion of the "capital stock," has been held to refer to the actual capital or assets of the corporation,' and not to the nominal or share capital, and therefore does not prohibit a stock dividend.^ The amount of "actual capital paid in cash or property," has been construed to refer to the actual value of the company's property for the time being and not to the amount credited as paid up on the nominal capital, or to the amount of the prop- erty or money received in payment of the shares at its value when so received.' § 498. Meaning of " Corporators." — The term "corporators" is properly used to designate the persons who form and compose the corporation whether they be shareholders or not, and hence should not ordinarily be construed to include those who afterwards become members of the corporation.* But the context may show that any shareholders or members of the corporation were intended to be comprised within the term.^ sponding amount of actual capital. N. Y. 433; 27N. E. 818; 12L. R. A. . . . The capital stock referred to in 762 (as to the meaning of a com- the statute, however, is the actual pany's "capital stock" for purposes property of the corporation" : Ex- of taxation). cdsior Water, etc. Co. v. Pierce, 90 ' Williams v. Western Union Td. Cal. 131, 140; 27 Pac. 44. But cf. Co., 93 N. Y. 162. People V. Commrs. of Taxes, 23 N. Y. ' Person & Riegel Co. v. Lipps 192, 219 (where a dissenting judge, (Pa.), 67 Atl. 1081. whose opinion is more to be relied * Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1. upon than that of the majority, as ' GvUiver v. Rodle, 100 111. 141 the decision was reversed on error in (followed in Shufddt v. Carver, 8 111. 2 Black. 620, 685, declared that the App. 545); Atlantic Mut. Life Ins. word "capital" is unambiguous and Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 168 (policy-holders refers only to actual capital, but in semi-mutual life insurance com- that "stock" is ambiguous and may pany held to be "corporators" en- refer either to nominal or actual titled to notice of meeting called to capital). authorize bankruptcy proceedings ' Martinv. Zellerbach,38CBl.3Q0, under U. S. Rev. Stats., § 5122, the 308-309 ; 99 Am. Dec. 365 ; Excelsior Bankrupt Act of 1867) ; Lady Bryan Water, etc. Co. v. Pierce, 90 Cal. 131, Mining Co., 14 Fed. Cas. 926; 1 140; 27 Pac. 44. Sawy. 349; 2 Abb. (U. S.) 527 Ct. State v.Morristown Fire Ass'n, (stockholders held to be "corpora^ 23 N. J. Law 195; People ex rd. tors" within last mentioned statute). Union Trust Co. v. Coleman, 126 416 § 493- § 573] NATURE OF SHARES § 500 § 499- § 506. NATURE OF SHARES. § 499-§ 501. Distinction between one Share and another Share of same Kind. § 499. Rule in England — Numbering of Shares. — The capital stock of almost all American joint-stock corporations ' and of the vast majority of English limited companies is divided into shares. In England, the practice is to give a separate denoting number to each share; and this practice is in many respects advantageous and worthy of imitation in the United States. In the first place, it affords an additional check against fraudu- lent overissues of shares. Moreover, it enables the title to particular shares to be traced through successive owners. Even, however, where the practice of numbering the shares prevails, the numbers are regarded as a mere convenience, and in no way affect the substantive rights of the holder.^ One share is just the same as another share of the same kind, and a misstatement of the denoting numbers will not relieve a transferee of shares from liability thereon.^ Moreover, the renumbering of shares does not affect their identity. Hence, where a person holds shares bearing certain numbers, a surrender of his share-certificate to the company, followed by an issue of shares bearing the same numbers to some one else, does not necessarily amount to a transfer of the former shares, or release the original holder from liability as a shareholder ; * the new shares although bearing the same numbers as the old are in law and in fact different shares. § 500. Rule in America. — Moreover, where, as in America, shares are not distinguished by denoting numbers, so that one share is to all appearances the same as any other share, yet the individuality, so to speak, of the several shares is in law un- affected by this similarity. For instance, a pledgee of shares is ordinarily bound to keep the identical shares pledged to him, ■ Cf. Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon Pe- ' In addition to cases cited below, *roZeum Co., 101 Mass. 385 (declaring see Adams' Case, 13 Eq. 474, 483; that where the incorporation paper National Ins. Co. v. Egleson, 21 fixes the amount of the capital stock Grant (Can.) 406. but does not divide it into shares, ' Ind's Case, 7 Ch. 485. the several subscribers become "ten- * Ex parte Jones, 27 L. J. Ch. 666. ants in common" of the stock). VOL. I.— 27 417 § 501 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X and does not discharge his obligations to the pledgor by holding himself ready to surrender to the pledgor on payment of the debt other shares of the same value in the same company.' To be sure, if the pledged shares were originally mingled indis- criminately with other shares standing in the pledgee's name or if, by the custom of brokers or otherwise, the creditor is author- ized to mingle the hypothecated shares with other shares in the same company, the pledgee is not bound to keep any particular shares to answer the debtor's claim but does his full duty if he always has in readiness a sufficient number of other shares to satisfy a demand for redemption by the hypothecator.^ This, however, is not because the several shares have no legal indi- viduality but because the confusion was expressly or impliedly authorized by contract ; and consequently the result would have been the same if the company had followed the English practice of designating the several shares by distinguishing numbers. § 501. Authorities maintaining that Shares are legally indistinguishable from one another. — A few cases, however, cannot be thus explained, but must stand squarely upon the proposition that the several shares of the same issue are in law indistinguishable from one another. Thus, where a purchaser of shares was entitled to rescind the purchase on account of fraudulent misrepresentations of the vendor, it was held that this right of rescission could be exercised although he had parted with, and was consequently unable to return, the particular shares purchased, inasmuch as he had tendered other shares in the same company of the same value.' Dicta in other cases lend ' Fay v. Gray, 124 Mass. 500; 198, 218; 26 Atl. 874; 28 AtL 104; AUen V. Dvhms, 117 Mich. 115; 75 21 L. R. A. 102; Price v. Gover, 40 N. W. 443; 72 Am. St. Rep. 557; Md. 102, 110-114; Hubbdlv. Drexd, Dykers v. AUen, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 497; 11 Fed. 116; Gilpin v. Howell, 5 Pa. 42Am. Dec. 87. St. 41, 56-58; 45 Am. Dec. 720; But see Hvbbell V. Drexd, 11 Fed. Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nev. 345; 115. Cf. Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Cal. Smith v. Becker (Wise), 109 N. W. 86 ; 10 Am. Rep. 282 (where nomi- 131 (holding that sale of some shares nal damages only were allowed for out of the mingled mass not con- the technical conversion) ; Bell v. clusively presumed to be a sale of Bank of Cal. (Cal.), 94 Pac. 889. pledgee's own shares where sale of ' Nourse v. Prime, 4 Johns. Ch. the pledged shares was clearly in- (N. Y.) 490 ; 8 Am. Dec. 606 ; 7 Johns, tended). Ch. 69; 11 Am. Dec. 403; Horton Cf. Worthington v. Tormey, 34 v. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 170; 75 Am. Md. 182. Dec. 311; Skiff v. Stoddard, &3Cotm. ' Mayo v. Knowlton, 134 N. Y. 418 § 493-§ 573] . NATURE OF SHAKES § 502 color to the same proposition that the several shares of the capital stock of an American company are legally indistinguish- able from one another,' Nevertheless, it is submitted that, as already intimated, the proposition is not supported by the best authorities and is contrary to sound principle. It may be that no special value attaches to a particular share-certificate and that a bailee of shares does not commit a conversion by surrendering the share-certificate and receiving a new certificate or certificates for the same shares. But although the identity of the certificate may be immaterial, the identity of the shares is important. For instance, the owner might be satisfied with the title to his own shares and therefore be unwilling to accept other shares in lieu thereof. That the title to the other shares may be in fact unim- peachablte is no answer to the argument; for a property owner cannot be required to accept instead of his own property other property of the same kind equally valuable and held by a title equally sound. The true doctrine would seem to be that the similarity of one share to another will often justify the in- ference that the parties did not intend to insist on a return of the particular shares but would be satisfied with a return of the same number of other shares of the same issue and value ; '' but that unless such inference is possible, the several shares must be treated as, in law, quite as distinct from one another as, say, one bag of corn is from another bag of corn. § 502. A Share not an Interest legal or equitable in Company's Property — Whether Real or Personal Estate, etc. — A share of capital stock is property of a peculiar kind. It does not con- sist in an interest either legal or equitable, direct or indirect, in the property of the company.' To be sure, many lawyers 250; 31N. E. 985; American Alkali ' Seecasescitedsupra,p.418,n.2. Co. V. Salom, 131 Fed. 46, 49-50; Cf. Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Cal. 86; 65 C. C. A. 284. 10 Am. Rep. 282. Note that these cases may be sup- ' Dykers v. AUen, 7 Hill (N. Y.) ported, perhaps, upon the ground 497; 42 Am. Dec. 87 (semble, per that the defrauded party should be Walworth, C, as to construing a allowed to rescind the contract upon loan of shares as a mvtuum). restoration of substantially, if not • Regina v. Arnaud, 9 Q. B. 806; technically, the original status. Commonwealth v. New York, etc. B. 419 502 CAPITAL AND SHARES [Chap. X and judges are accustomed to say that the shareholders are in equity the owners of the corporate property; but every one recognizes that such expressions are in legal theory inaccurate. For example, a share of capital stock is personalty although the corporation may own real estate.^ Even a statute expressly declaring that shares shall be deemed real estate has been construed to make the shares realty only for the purpose of being inheritable, leaving them for all other purposes personal property as at common law.^ So, a sale of shares cannot be deemed a sale of an interest in the goodwill of the company within the meaning of a statute which forbids any agreement to refrain from exercising a lawful trade or business except by a seller of goodwill; and consequently, under such a statute a shareholder whose personality is closely associated with the goodwill of the company's business cannot, upon selling his interest in the corporation, agree with the purchaser to refrain Co., 132 Pa. St. 591; 19 Atl. 291; 7 L. R. A. 634 (stated infra, § 1080). ' Russdl V. Temple, 3 Bane's Abridgment (Mass.) 108; Bligh v. Brent, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 268; Bradley v. Holdswarth, 3 M. & W. 422; Elkhorn Land, etc. Co. v. ChUders (Ky.) 100 S. W. 222; Chappdl v. Chappell (Ky.), 99 S. W. 959, 960 (headnote inadequate — distinguishing Price v. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.) 107, and Cope- land V. Copeland, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 349, in which cases stock in railway com- panies was held real estate, as gov- erned by peculiar statutes); Johns V. Johns, 1 Ohio St. 350; Mattingly v. Roach, 84 Cal. 207; South-Western R. R. Co. v. Thomason, 40 Ga. 408; Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165 ; Mc- Keen v. County of Northampton, 49 Pa. St. 519; 88 Am. Dec. 515 (for purposes of taxation). The same has been held in Eng- land in respect to shares in an un- incorporated joint-stock company formed upon the "cost-book" prin- ciple, Watson V. SpraUey, 10 Ex. 222 (as to the nature of a cost-book com- pany or partnership, see 1 Lindley on Companies, 6th ed., p. 132) ; and in respect to shares in other purely voluntary associations, Watson v. Black, 16 Q. B. D. 270 (shareholder not qualified to vote as equitable freeholder although land is held by trustees in trust for the association) ; and in Connecticut in respect to shares in an unincorporated joint- stock company such as the Adams Express Company : Lockwood v. Town of Weston, 61 Conn. 211; 23 Atl. 9. See also article by Prof. Williston in 2 Harv. L. Rev. 149, 150-151, where the learned author, reviewing the early cases, shows that prior to the nineteenth century a share of capital stock was regarded as an equitable interest in the property of the corporation and therefore as real or personal estate according to the nature of the property. In Saup V. Morgan & Co., 108 111. 326, 329, a tax levied on the capital stock of a corporation — not the shares of stock — was held to be a personal tax. ' Cooper V. Dismal Swamp Canal Co., 6 N. Car. 195. Cf. Cape Sable Company's Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.) 606. 420 § 493-§ 573] NATURE OF SHAKES § 504 from engaging in the same business in competition with the corporation.' On the other hand, a shareholder has an in- surable interest in the property of the company ; '' for he has in fact, although not perhaps technically or in law, a financial interest in the property which is suflScient to prevent the policy from being a mere wager. § 503. A Share not a Sum of Money settled in Trust but an Interest in the Company. — On the other hand, a share cannot be properly deemed a sum of. money " — the amount paid in or contributed by the subscriber — settled or invested upon a trust. This was decided in a recent English case in which the true nature of a share of capital stock was very clearly stated by the court. Said Farwell, J. : "A share, according to the plain- tiff's argument, is a sum of money which is dealt with in a par- ticular manner by what are called for the purpose of argument executory limitations. To my mind it is nothing of the sort. A share is the interest of a shareholder in the company measured by a sum of money, for the purpose of liability in the first place, and of interest in the second, but also consisting of a series of mutual covenants entered into by all the shareholders inter se in accordance with § 16 of the Companies Act, 1862. The con- tract contained in the articles of association is one of the original incidents of the share. A share is not a sum of money settled in the way suggested, but is an interest measured by a sum of money and made up of various rights contained in the contract, including the right to a sum of money of a more or less amount." * § 504. A Share as a Chose in Action. — Hence, it follows that a share in an incorporated companyls personal property of the kind known as choses in action.' For example, shares in a cor- ' Merchants' Ad. Sign Co. v. that consols or public stocks will not Stetling, 124 Cal. 429; 57 Pac. 468; pass under a bequest of "money"). 71 Am. St. Rep. 94; 46 L. R. A. « Borland's Trustee v. Steel Bros. 142. & Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 279, 288. ' Warren v. Davenport Fire Ins., The definition of a share, given Co., 31 Iowa 464; 7 Am. Rep. 160. in Nanney v. Morgan, 37 Ch. D. 346, ' Cf. Jones V. Brirdey, 1 East 1 352, 356, as the right to vote and to (relating, doubtless, to government receive dividends is submitted to be stock); Nightingal v. Devisme, 5 incorrect. There are other rights Burr. 2689 (relating to East India involved in the ownership of a share ^tock) ; Bridgman v. City of Keokuk, besides those mentioned. Moreover, 72 Iowa 42 ; 33 N. W. 355 (shares a person may be a shareholder with- not moneys or credits) ; Gosden v. out the right to vote. DotteriU, 1 Myl. & K. 66 (holding » Webb \. Baltimore, etc. B.R. Co., 421 § :05 CAPITAL AND SHARES [Chap. X poration are "things in action" within the meaning of the Eng- lish bankrupt act.' So, too, they have been held to be "choses in action" within the meaning of an attachment law, the com- pany being properly made garnishee.^ Moreover, it has been held that shares are choses in action within the meaning of the federal statute which restricts the right of an assignee of a chose in action to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts on the ground of diverse citizenship to cases in which the same diversity of citizenship would have existed if the assignor had been the plaintiff; ^ but this decision must have been but poorly considered, inasmuch as in hundreds of cases shareholders^who derive title by assignment from the original subscribers have maintained shareholders' bills in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship.* § 505. Whether Shares are " Goods, Waxes or Merchandise," " Personal Chattels," " Goods and Chattels," " Securities," etc. — According to the better view, shares are not goods, wares, or mer- chandise, within the Seventeenth Section of the Statute of Frauds.^ 77 Md. 92; 26 Atl. 113; 39 Am. St. Rep. 396; Johnson v. Hume, 138 Ala. 564; 36 So. 421 (as to the com- raon law rights of the husband on reducing shares of his wife to pos- session) ; Arnold v. Buggies, 1 R. I. 165 (as to the marital rights of the husband at common law); Slay- iTiaker v. Bank of Gettysburg, 10 Pa. St. 373. But see Ramsey v. Gould, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 398 (holding that shares are not within a statute prohibiting attorneys from buying any bond or other "thing in action" for the purpose of bringing suit thereon). ' Colonial Bank v. Whinnsy, 11 App. Cas. 426. ' Lipscomb v. Condon, 56 W. Va. 416; 49S. E. 392; 107 Am. St. Rep. 938; 67 L. R. A. 670. As to the soundness of this decision, quare. ' GormuTir-Wright Co. v. WrigM, 134 Fed. 363; 67 C. C. A. 345. * Cf. Rule 94 of the Supreme Court, restricting this right. See infra, § 1170. » Duncuft v. Alhrechi, 12 Sim. 189; Bmdby v. BeK, 3 C. B. 284; Vawter v. Griffin, 40 Ind. 593 (sem- ble, under a statute which omitted the words "wares or merchandise ") ; Webb V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92 ; 26 Atl. 113 ; 39 Am. St. Rep. 396 (distingmshing Colvin v. Wil- liams, 3 H. & J. (Md.) 38) ; Browne on Stat, of Frauds, 5th ed., § 296- § 298. / Contra: Hightower v. Ansley (Ga.), 54 S. E. 939 (oi^rruling Rogers V. Burr, 105 Ga. 432; 31 S. E. 438; 70 Am. St. Rep. 50); Fine v. Hornsby, 2 Mo. App. 61, 64; Pray V. Mitchea, 60 Me. 430, 434-435 (shares in an unincorporated com- pany) ; Tinsdale v. Harris, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 9; Boardman v. Cutter, 128 Mass. 3S8; Nor A v. Forest, 15 Conn. 400; Baltzen v. Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 467 (where the point although neces- sarily involved and decided was not argued or mentioned in the opinion of the court). For an analysis of the phraseology of the statutes of frauds of the several American states, together with a discussion of their application to con- tracts for sale of shares, see 2 Dos 422 § 493-§ 573] NATURE OF SHARES 505 They are, however, personal chattels; ' for that expression in- cludes every kind of personal property except chattels real. So, they are "goods and chattels" within the meaning of the statute of 13-Eliz., c. 5, as to conveyances in fraud of creditors,^ and the price of shares may be recovered under a count for "goods and chattels" sold and delivered.^ On the other hand they are not "goods and chattels" within the Factors Acts.* Of course, shares are included under the designation " personal property," ° unless the context shows that only tangible property is meant. Although the word "securities" properly and primarily desig- nate^ " money secured on property," ' in which sense it would Fassos on Stockbrokers and Stock Exchanges, 2d ed., 883 et seq. The English rule applies to con- tracts for sale of shares in an unin- corporated company formed upon the joint-stock principle which there- fore are not within the Seventeenth Section of the Statute of Frauds: Watson v. SpraUey, 10 Ex. 222. So, scrip in a railway company is not "goods, wares, and merchan- dise" within the English Stamp Acts : Knigktv. Barber, 16M. & W. 66. On the other hand, even in Eng- land, it has been held that a Rule of Court authorizing a sale of "goods, wares, and merchandise" applies to shares: Evans v. Davies (1893), 2 Ch. 216. ' Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 11 App. Cas. 426, 434 (per Lord Black- bum). ' Pinkerton v. Manchester, etc. R. R. Co., 42 N. H. 424, 451. Cf. Robinson v. Jenkins, 24 Q. B. D. 275 (Rule of Court allowing inter- pleader proceedings where a party is under liability for any "debt, money, goods or chattels," held to apply to shares on account of the generality of the word "chattels"). ' Lawton v. Hickman, 9 Q. B. 563. * Freeman v. Appleyard, 32 L. J. Ex. 175 (cited without disapproval in Williams v. Colonial Barafc„ 38 Ch. D. 388, 408). Cf . First Nat. Bank v. Holland, 99 Va. 495; 39 S. E. 126; 86 Am. St. Rep. 898; 55 L. R. A. 155 (holding that shares are not within a statute requiring certain formalities in cases of gifts of "goods and chattels"); Rex V. Capper, 5 Price 217 (holding that stock in the public funds will not pass under a royal grant of bona et catalla felonum); Williamson v. New Jersey Southern R. R. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 398 (holding that shares are not "goods and chattels" within a statute requiring registration, etc. of chattel mortgages); Morton v. Cowan, 25 Ont. 529 (shares not within a statute as to execution upon interests in "goods and chattels"). ' Jellinik v. Huron Copper Min- ing Co., 177 U. S. 1 ; 20 Sup. a. 559; Mattingly v. Roach, 84 Cal. 207 (holding mining shares to be within a statute regulating the place of delivery in sales of personal prop- erty); Attorney-General v. Monte- fiore, 21 Q. B. D. 461 (shares within a statute levying a tax on a "dis- position of property" to take effect after death) ; Desinge v. Beare, 37 Ch. D. 481 (bequest of "my property at R's bank" held to pass shares in French companies represented by certificates at R's bank at which locality the testator had no tangible property). " Cf. Duncan v. Maryland Sav. Inst, 10 G. & J. (Md.) 299, 308 (where in construing a statutory power to invest in "public stocks or other securities," the word "secur- 423 506 CAPITAL AND SHARES [Chap. X' not include shares and stocks in incorporated companies/ yet the word has acquired the wider popular significance of "in- vestments" — a sense which is broad enough to include stocks and shares.^ Shares are not comprised within the term " money " or "moneys." ' Although shares are choses in action, yet they are not "credits." * § 506. Whether Trover will lie for Conversion of Shares. — A share of capital stock being a chose in action, or intangible property, an action of trover, properly so called, will not lie for its conversion.^ But an action on the case in the nature of trover may be maintained.* Moreover, trover will lie for a con- version of the share-certificate ' just as it will He for conversion of a promissory note, bill of lading, or other security. § 507. Nominal or share Capital not a Liability of Company. — The share capital of a corporation is in no proper sense a lia- ities" was said to mean "anything 547 (holding that canal shares will given or deposited to secure the payment of a debt"). ' Thayer v. Wathen (Tex.), 44 S. W. 906; 17 Tex. Qv. App. 382; Bartholomay Brewing Co. v. Wyait, (1893), 2 Q. B. 499, 516 ("Shares in a company are not securities but portions of its capital ") ; Mechanics' Bank V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599, 627 ("Certificates of stock are not securities for money in any sense "); Ogle v. Knipe, 8 Eq. 434 (bank stock and canal shares not covered by a bequest of "all my money and securities for money"); Graydon's Exrs. v. Graydon, 23 N. J. Eq. 229 (direction in will to convert into money all personal estate not already in money or securities held to require conversion of shares owned by testator) ; Bank of Commerce v. Hart, 37 Nebr. 197, 203 (headnote inadequate); 55 N. W. 631; 20 L. R. A. 780; 40 Am. St. Rep. 479 (power in charter of bank to "pur- chase securities of every kind," held not to authorize purchase of shares of stock in other corporations); Huddleston v. Govldsbury, 10 Beav. not pass under a bequest of property vested in "bonds or securities"). ' Rayner v. Rayner (1904), 1 Ch. 176. ' Collins V. Collins, 12 Eq. 455; Ogle V. Knipe, 8 Eq. 434 ; and supra, § 503. But see Knight v. Knight, 2 Giff. 616 (where Malins, V. C, held that a bequest of "all sums and sums of money that might be in the house," would pass shares represented by certificates enclosed in an envelope and endorsed by the testator "to be considered as ready money" ; but quaere whether the learned judge was right in considering such extrinsic evidence of the testator's intent). * Bridgman v. City of Keokuk, 72 Iowa 42; 33 N. W. 355. ' Sewall v. Lancaster Bank, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 285. ° See cases collected infra, § 932, § 934, § 937, § 940, and also § 515. Cf. Ashton V. Heydenfelt, 124 Cal. 14; 56 Pac. 624. ' Sewall V. Lancaster Bank, 17 S. & R. (Pa.) 285, 287 (semble); Brown v. Bokee, 53 Md. 155, 170. 424 § 493-§ 573] EIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERS § 50S bility of the company. To be sure, accountants often include a company's capital stock among its liabilities ; but this practice is a mere convenient bookkeeping device, and in no way repre- sents or accords with a correct legal use of the term.^ Thus, a share in a corporation cannot be treated as a liability owing from the company to the shareholder and capable of being set off against a debt due from the shareholder to the company, so as virtually to give the company a lien on the shares in case the holder becomes bankrupt.^ So, the capital should not be reck- oned as a liability in determining whether the company is solvent or insolvent.' § 508-§ 516. BIGHTS OP SHAREHOLDERS. § 508. Primary or substantive Rights — Classification. — The shareholders in a corporation constituting the company and a share being an interest in the corporation, the rights in- cident to the ownership of shares are rights which flow from the ownership of an interest in, or part of, the corporation. By a broad classification, these rights, so far as they are primary or substantive in character, may be reduced to four, namely, (1) the right to participate in profits earned by the company, or, in other words, the right to dividends, (2) the right to share in any assets which may remiain upon the (dissolution of the corporation after the creditors shall have been paid, (3) the right to participate in actual capital which is left free by a re- duction of nominal capital and (4) the right to participate in the management of the company, or, in other words, to vote at share- holders' meetings. To these may, perhaps, be added the pre- emptive right to subscribe to any increase of capital before the new shares are issued to strangers.* ' But see Posner v. Southern Ex- of their stock is not a debt," — per haust, etc. Co., 109 La. 658, 666; 33 Waite, C. J.); Hdler v. Nat. Marine So. 641 ("A corporation owes and Barafc, 89 Md. 602, 611; 43 Atl. 800; does not own the stock "). 73 Am. St. Rep. 212; 45 L. R. A. Cf. Gans.ey v. Orr, 173 Mo. 532; 438. 73 S. W. 477; MiUer v. Bradish, 69 ' Kingstown Yacht Club, 21 L. R. Iowa 278; 28 N. W. 594; Eyster v. Ir. 199. Centennial Board of Finance, 9i\J. S. ' Shaw v. Gilbert, 111 Wise. 165, 500, 502 ("The liability of a corpora- 178-179; 86 N. W. 188. tion to its stockholders on account * Infra, § 603 et seq. 425 § 509 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X § 509. Referemies to full Discussions of these Primary Rights. — The first of these rights, namely, the right to dividends, is the subject of special consideration below and in other parts of this work.' The second, or the right to participate in the distribution of capital upon dissolution of the company, be- longing as it does to the topic of the winding-up and dissolution of corporations, is outside the scope of this treatise, and is therefore treated only incidentally.^ The third, the right to participate in actual capital left free upon reduction of nominal capital, is fully considered under the heading of reduction of capital.^ The fourth, the right to vote at general meetings of the company, receives detailed consideration in the chapter on shareholders' meetings.*, § 510-§ 516. SECONDARY OR ANCILLARY EIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERS. § 510. Classification of secondary or ancillary Rights. — In addition to these several rights, or more properly as ancillary to them, each shareholder is entitled to demand that the com- pany shall recognize his status as a member. This recognition is accorded in two ways, firstly, by enrolling his name in the company's register of members and, secondly, by issuing to him a share-certificate or solemn admission or representation by the company that the person in question is the owner of a certain specified number of shares. Another right of a share- holder of the same general class is the right to inspect books of the corporation.' § 511. Right to Registration as Shareholder in Company's Books. — The enrolment as a shareholder may be necessary to perfect the shareholder's title: at all events without enrolment his tenure is precarious and uncertain. If the company refuses to register him as shareholder, he may treat such refusal as a conversion of his shares and sue in tort for conversion," or he ". Infra, § 519, § 550-§ 563 and » Salt River Canal Co. v. Hickey, Chapter XXIII. 36 Pac. Rep. 171; 4 Ariz. 240. ' Infra, § 520-§ 521; § 564-§ 568. Cf. Cooley v. Curran, 104 N. Y. " Infra, § 660-§ 668. Supp. 751 (holding that such an * Infra, Chapter XXI. action cannot be maintained against " As to this see infra, § 1094 the company's treasurer); Nat. et seq. Bank of New London v. Lake Shore, 426 § 493-§ 573] CERTIFICATES § 513 may probably sue in assumpsit for damages sustained by the company's breach of its legal duty or quasi-contractual obliga- tion.' Secondly, he may proceed by bill in equity,^ or probably, if his title to the shares be clear, by mandamus ' to compel the company to recognize his title and register him as shareholder. An owner of an undivided interest in a share is entitled to have his right recognized by an entry on the company's books.* § 51 2- § 516. Right to a Share-Certificate. § 512. Definition of Certificate. — A share-certificate is noth- ing more than a solemn affirmation, usually under the corporate seal,' and signature of the appropriate officer or officers, that the person named therein is entitled to a specified number of shares." " A share-certificate," said Judge Thompson, " is a solemn and continuing affirmation by the corporation that the person to whom it was issued is entitled to all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a stockholder in the company in respect of the number of shares named, and that the company will respect his rights and the rights of every one to whom he may transfer such shares [by refusing to admit any new trans- feree to the rights of a shareholder except uf>on surrendering of the certificate]." ' The last clause destroys the accuracy of the definition ; for it is certainly not an essential part of a share- certificate that the company should represent that no transfer will be recognized except upon its surrender: but if the words in brackets be omitted, the definition is correct. § 513. Right to a Certificate, in general. — The issue of a share-certificate is never necessary in order to perfect a share- etc. Ry. Co., 21 Ohio St. 221 (holding ' As to this see FUzhugh v. Bank that the action cannot be maintained of Shepherdsville, 3 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) by a mere equitable owner of shares). 126, 128; 16 Am. Dec. 90. Of. infra, ' See infra, § 934. § 921. ' See infra, ibid. ' See Richardson v. Delaware " See infra, ibid. Loan Co., 9 Houst. (Del.) 354; 32 Of. People ex rel. Doyle v. N. Y. Atl. 980 (where the instrument in Benevolent Soc, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 361 ; question although not called a share- Delacy v. Neuse Nav. Co., 1 Hawks certificate would seem to have been (N. Car.) 274; 9 Am. Dec. 636. such in legal effect). * Salt River Canal Co. v. Hickey, ' Keller v. Eureka, etc. Mfg. Co., 36 Pac. Rep. 171; 4 Ariz. 240. Cf. 43 Mo. App. 84, 87-S8; 11 L. R. A. infra, § 1007. 472. 427 § S13 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X holder's title. He is as much a shareholder before the issue of the certificate as afterwards.' Nevertheless, every share- holder has a right to demand a share-certificate as a muniment of his title ^ — a right to have in his own possession some au- thoritative evidence of his title. Of course, a transferee of shares who has never presented his transfer for registration has no right to demand the issue of a share-certificate.' The share- certificate should correspond with the register of shareholders, so that the company is not entitled to put any qualification in the certificate which it is not entitled to put in the registry.* If the shareholder has not paid for his shares in full, of course he is not entitled to a certificate representing him to be a holder of paid-up shares ; * but he is entitled to a certificate stating that he is the holder of so many shares and mentioning the exact amount which has been paid in on each." Strange to say, this latter proposition seems to have been denied in several cases.^ It is doubtless true that a shareholder who is in default for non- payment of calls is not entitled to any certificate.' If a person is the holder of a number of shares upon which a certain pro- portion has been paid, he has no right to demand that the whole amount paid be applied to certain of the shares so as to make them fully paid shares and entitle him to a certificate stating them to be so paid up.° A federal judge has recently announced that a shareholder who owns twenty-five shares has no right to demand a separate certificate for each share, such a demand being thought to be ' Supra, § 171. etc. R. R. Co., 44 Ga. 597, 598 ' Burdett v. Standard Exploration (semble). Co., 16 Times L. R. 112. Cf. Green v. Abietine Medical Co., = Lacaff V. Dutch MUler, etc. Co., 96 Cal. 322, 329-330; 31 Pac. 100. 31 Wash. 566; 72 Pac. 112. » Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R. * W. Key & Son (1902), 1 Ch. 467. Co., 54 N. Y. 416; 13 Am. Rep. 607 ' Babcock v. Schuylkill, etc. R. R. (where the remedy against the share- Co., 133 N. Y. 420; 31 N. E. 30. holder for refusal to pay the portion ' Fletcher v. McGUl, 110 Ind. 395, of his subscription remaining unpaid 405; 10 N. E. 651; 11 N. E. 779 had been barred by limitations); (semble) ; 1 Morawetz on Priv. Gould v. Town of OneorUa, 71 N. Y. Corps., 2d ed., § 472. 298 (holding that shareholder is not ' California, etc. Hotel Co. v. Cal- entitled to the certificate until inter- lender, 94 Cal. 120 ; 29 Pac. 859 ; 28 est on overdue calls as well as the Am. St. Rep. 99; Mobile, etc. R. R. principal is paid). Co. V. Yandal, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) " Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. R. 29i,296 (semble); Fulgam V.Macon, Co., 54 N. Y. 416; 13 Am. Rep. 607. 428 § 493-§ 573] CERTIFICATES § 515 unreasonable.' But for this expi-ession of judicial opinion, one would have supposed that a shareholder might, if so minded, insist upon a separate certificate for each share or unit of the capital stock. § 514. Delay in issuing Certificate. — What is a reasonable time for the company to delay issuing a share-certificate must ■depend largely upon circumstances. Some allowance must be made, especially in the case of the first issue of shares, for the mere physical labor of preparing and printing or engraving the certificates. But the mere fact that considerable time must elapse before certificates can be issued to some of the subscribers does not justify the company in delaying the issue of certificates to other subscribers.^ Now, by statute, in England a certificate must be issued within two months after allotment.^ § 515. Remedies for Refusal or improper Failure to issue Cer- tificate. — The right to a share-certificate, if denied by the •company, may be enforced by mandamus * or bill in equity.^ If the remedy in equity be resorted to by a shareholder who has paid for his shares in property instead of in cash, the bill need not aver the property so transferred to be equal in value to the shares for which it was to be exchanged." The staiute of limita- tions does not begin to run against the right of a shareholder to compel the company to issue a certificate to him until a certificate has been demanded by the shareholder and refused by the company.' The refusal may also, at least in most cases, be ' Schell V. Alston Mfg. Co., 149 ' Bedford v. American Aluminum Fed. 439. Co., 51 N. Y. App. Div. 537; 64 ' Burdett v. Standard Exploration N. Y. Supp. 856; Davenport v. Co., 16 Times L. R. 112. Piano Implement Co., 70 111.' App. ' Companies Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 161; Kinnan v. Forty-second St., etc. VII, c. 50), § 5 (1). Ry. Co., 140 N. Y. 183; 35 N. E. 498; * Hair v. Burnett, 106 Fed. 280 Wdls v. Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wise, (where the writ was against the 442; 64 N. W. 69 (directors held officers of the corporation) ; State proper but not necessary parties €1 rd. Thompson v. Cheraw, etc. defendant). R. R. Co., 16 S. Oar. 524; State ex " Davenport v. Piano Implement rel. Phillips v. New Orleans Gas Co., 70 111. App. 161. Light Co., 25 La. Ann. 413. ' Wells v. Green Bay, etc. Co., But see Baker v. Marshall, 15 90 Wise. 442; 64 N. W. 69; Minn. 177; State ex rel. Elliot v. Mercer County Court v. Springfield, Guerrero, 12 Nevada 105; Townes etc. Turnpike Co., 10 Bush (Ky.) V. Nicholls, 73 Me. 515; State v. 254. As to what is sufficient de- re, etc. R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 360. 52 N. E. 292; 35 L. R. A. 656. Where the preferred shares are to be VOL. I.— 29 449 §542 CAPITAL AND SHARES [Chap. X § 542. What Circumstances insufficient to confer on Preferred Shareholders Rights of Creditors. — That the preferred share- holders may have been originally creditors, having surrendered bonds of the company in exchange for the preferred shares, does not make them any the less members as distinguished from creditors of the company.' Moreover, the fact that the preferred dividend may be called "interest" — a term more ap- propriate to compensation for the use of money lent — is im- material ; ^ and, also, the case is not altered because the statute under which the company is organized designates the preferred shares as "stock" simply, and not capital stock.' Nor is the fact that the preferred stockholders do not possess the right of voting at shareholders' meetings suflBcient evidence that they should be deemed creditors rather than members of the corpo- ration.* Indeed, even if payment of the preferred dividend is "guaranteed" by the company, the preferred shareholders are entitled to nothing except out of net profits: the guarantee will be construed to apply only to payment out of any funds legally available for dividends.^ And, of course, a guarantee • St. John v. Erie Ry. Co., 22 ' Chaffee v. Rutland R. R. Co., 55 Wall. 136. Cf. Warren v. King, 108 U. S. 389; 2 Sup. Ct. 789; Field v. Lamson, etc. Co., 162 Mass. 388, 390- 391; 38 N. E. 1126; 27 L. R. A. 136. But see McVity v. Albro Co., 90 N. Y. App. Div. 109; 86N. Y. Supp. 144; affirmed short in 180 N. Y. 554; 73 N. E. 1126 (where the cred- itor was allowed to avoid the con- tract by which he accepted the guaranteed shares and recover on his original claim). 2 Warren v. King, 108 U. S. 389, 399; 2 Sup. Ct. 789; Branch v. Jesu-p, 106 U. S. 468, 475 ; 1 Sup. Ct. 495 ; Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Fed. 664, 669; 24 C. C. A. 271; 36 L. R. A. 826; M'Laughlin v. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Mich. 100. Cf. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Balti- more, etc. R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 360; State ex rel. Thompson v. Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co., 16 S. Car. 524; Ohio Col- lege V. Rosenthal, 45 Oh. St. 183 ; 12 N. E. 665; Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 433. Vt. 110, 127 et seq.; State ex rel. Thompson v. Cheraw, etc. R. R. Co., 16 S. Car. 524. * Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Fed. 664, 671; 24 C. C. A. 271; 36 L. R. A. 826; Miller v. Ratter- man, 47 Oh. St. 141; 24 N. E. 496. ' Stevens v. South Devon Ry. Co., 9 Hare 313, 325; Lockhart v. Vari Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76; 18 Am. Rep. 156; Taft v. HaHford, etc. R. R. Co., 8 R. I. 310; 5 Am. Rep. 575; Chaf- fee V. Rutland R. R. Co., 55 Vt. 110; Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Oh. St. 141 ; 24 N. E. 496; Field v. Lamson, etc. Mfg. Co., 162 Mass. 388, 392-394; 38 N. E. 1126; 27 L. R. A. 136; Long V. Guelph Lumber Co., 31 Up. Can. C. P. 129. See also Branch v. Jesup, 106 U. S. 468 (headnote inadequate); 1 Sup. Ct. 495 ; Mercantile Trust Co. V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 82 Fed. 360; Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Gray (Mass.) 433. But see WiUiama v. Parker, 136 450 § 493-§ 573] STATUS of preferred shareholders § 543 by another corporation of the punctual payment of the pre- ferred dividend would not affect in any way the nature of the preferred shareholders' position.' Even an agreement on the company's part to create no mortgage "except expressly subject to the prior lien" of the preferred shareholders will not make the preferred shareholders creditors.^ A so-called mortgage or deed of trust of the company's property to secure the payment of preferential dividends, even when containing provisions for foreclosure or entry by the trustee in case of default, will be construed as a mere agreement between shai:eholders and not as evincing an intention that the "preferred stockholders" should be deemed to be creditors.' § 543. Express agreement that Preferred Shareholders shall have Rights of Creditors Ultra Vires. — In fact, even an express agreement to pay the preferential dividend whether or not profits sufficient for the purpose be earned would be ultra vires as a return of capital to shareholders,^ and a fortiori a pledge or ap- propriation of a part of the company's capital to secure such Mass. 204; McVity v. AUrro Co., 90 St. 534; Ohio College v. Rosenthal, N. Y. App. Div. 109; 86 N. Y. Supp. 144 ; affirmed short in 180 N. Y. 554 ; 73 N. E. 1126. ■ Miller v. Batterman, 47 Oh. St. 141, 161-162 (headnote inadequate) ; 24 N. E. 496. Cf. infra, § 1338. ' Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Fed. 664; 24 C. C. A. 271; 36 L. R. A. 826; Miller v. Ratterman, 47 Oh. St. 141; 24 N. E. 496. ' MUler v. Ratterman, 47 Oh. St. 141, 159etseq.; 24N. E.496; Black V. Hobart Trust Co., 53 Atl. 826; 64 N. J. Eq. 415; affirmed short in 56 Atl. 1131; 65 N. J. Eq. 769; Guar- anty Trust Co. V. Galveston City R. R. Co., 107 Fed. 311; 46 C. C. A. 305. But see Burt v. RatUe, 31 Oh. St. 116; Gordon's Exrs. v. RichTnond, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Va. 501 ; Skiddy v. Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co., Re Stewart's Petition, 3 Hughes, 320, 354; Fitch V. Wetherbee, 110 III. 475. * Lockhart v. Van Alstyne, 31 Mich. 76; 18 Am. Rep. 156; Paines- ville, etc. R. R. Co. v. King, 17 Oh. 45 Oh. St. 183, 194; 12 N. E. 665; Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Fed. 664 (headnote inadequate) ; 24 CCA. 271; 36L. R. A. 826; Cratty V. Peoria Law Library Ass'n, 219 111. 516; 76 N. E. 707. Cf. Phillips v. Eastern R. R. Co., 138 Mass. 122, 135-138 ; McVity v. Albro Co., 90 N. Y. App. Div. 109; 86 N. Y. Supp. 144; affirmed short in 180 N. Y. 554; 73 N. E. 1126; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Galveston City R. R. Co., 107 Fed. 311; 46 C C A. 305 ; Smith v. Alabama Fruit Grow- ing, etc. Ass'n, 123 Ala. 538 ; 26 So. 232 (where a bond conditioned for payment of dividends by obligor company on shares held by obligee was held void). But see Gordon's Exrs. v. Rich- mond, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Va. 501; Skiddy v. AUantic, etc. R. R. Co., Re Stewart's Petition, 3 Hughes 320, 354; Williams v. Parker, 136 Mass. 204 ; Fontana v. Pacific Can Co., 129 Cal. 51; aiPac. 580. 451 § 544 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X a dividend is likewise illegal.' A guarantee of dividends whether profits are earned or not is no less ultra vires because it may have been given in part consideration for services rendered to the company.^ Likewise, a mortgage of property of the com- pany to secure to a shareholder a return of his capital, in pref- erence to creditors, in a winding-up of the company, is illegal and void.' To be sure, in one case where a company had issued scrip, convertible into mortgage bonds at the option of the holder, to represent preferential dividends for the payment of which no profits were available, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that the scrip certificates were enforceable obligations of the company although no sufficient profits for their payment had ever been earned.* The case proceeds upon the ground of estoppel, and lends no color to the view that dividends on preferred shares should stand in respect to the matter before the court on any different footing from dividends on common or ordinary shares. Nevertheless, it is submitted that a con- trary decision would have been preferable. Where a corporation buys property and in payment therefor agrees to issue paid-up shares and to pay a certain sum in annual cash instalments, any dividends declared on the shares in the meantime to be ap- pUed in reduction of the cash instalments, the fact that such annual instalments equal dividends at a certain rate on the shares does not make the agreement void as an evasion of the rule which prohibits a corporation from guaranteeing dividends on its own shares.^ § 544. Further Explanation of Rule that Pl-eferred Share- holders are not Creditors. — Of course, as respects preferential dividends that are earned and declared, the preferred share- holders occupy the position of creditors; and perhaps in some ' Guinness v. Land Corporation, Carbide, etc. Co., 64 N. J. Eq. 231, 22 Ch. D. 349; Hamlin v. Toledo, 244-245; 53 Atl. 1057; Black v. etcB. R. Co., 78 Fed. 664 (headnote Hobart Trust Co., 53 Atl. 826; 64 inadequate); 24 C. C. A. 271; 36 N. J. Eq. 415; affirmed short in 56 L. R. A. 826. Atl. 1131; 65 N. J. Eq. 769; Reagan 2 Elevator Co. v. Memphis, etc. v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623. B.i?. Co., 85 Tenn. 703; 5S. W. 52; * Chajfee v. Rutland R. R. Co., 4 Am. St. Rep. 798. Cf. Smith v. 55 Vt: 110. Alabama Fruit Growing, etc. Ass'n, ' Strickland v. Nat. Salt Co. (N, 123 Ala. 538; 26 So. 232. J.) 64 Atl. 982 (semble); Ingraham ' Boney v. Williams, 55 N. J. Eq. v. Nat. Salt Co., 130 Fed. 676; 66 691; 38 Atl. 189; Reed v. Helois C. C. A. 54. 452 § 493-§ 573] STATUS of preferred shareholders § 545 cases the necessity for a declaration of the preferential dividend when earned may be dispensed with by the terms of the agree- ment stipulating for the preference.' Although preferred share- holders are to be postponed to creditors, of course the principal of all the company's indebtedness need not be paid off before paying the preferred dividend ; ^ all that is meant is that the preferential dividends can only be paid out of funds that might legally be used for ordinary dividends. The case is not altered in this respect by the fact that at the organization of the com- pany its declared poUcy was to contract no debts, the indebted- ness having been subsequently contracted for the common benefit of both classes of shareholders.^ § 545. Sullivan v. Portland, etc. R. R. Co., 94 U. S. 806. — A very peculiar case in the United States Supreme Court would seem to be founded on the principle that preferred shareholders cannot by any contract or agreement with the company entitle themselves to the rank of creditors. A railway company had issued certificates of indebtedness bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, and redeemable at any time at the pleasure of the company. These certificates were a first lien on a part of the company's line. The corporation had also issued preferred shares which were entitled to a preferential dividend at the same rate, — ten per cent fer annum. The com- pany proposed to the certificate-holders to refrain for several years from exercising its privilege of redeeming the certificates in consideration of the agreement by the certificate-holders to accept six per cent yearly in lieu of ten, the money thus saved to the company to be applied in paying dividends to those pre- ferred shareholders who should agree to accept new six per cent preferred stock instead of the original ten per cent stock. This proposition having been accepted by the certificate-holders and by some of the preferred shareholders, the company's entire line of railway was sold under a mortgage which as to the por- tion covered by the lien of the certificates was a junior charge. Those preferred shareholders who had accepted the above- stated proposition filed a bill to compel the purchaser to pay to them as dividends the four per cent annual interest released • See infra, § 561, § 562. ■ Belfast, etc. B. R. Co. v. Belfast, =■ Belfast, etc. R. R. Co. v. Belfast, 77 Me. 445 ; 1 Atl. 362. 77i!fe. 445; 1 Atl. 362. 453 § 546 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X by the certificate-holders. But the court held that the plaintiffs were not creditors of the company, but mere shareholders or members, and that they were not entitled as against creditors to the security of the certificate-holders, which was prior to the mortgage under which the sale was made, and that therefore the bill should be dismissed.' It is submitted that the gist of the case is that the preferred shareholders could not be entitled to the rights of creditors or mortgagees, and therefore could not have priority over the mortgage under which the road was sold. § 546. Tests for distinguishing Shareholders from Creditors. — Although preferred shareholders are thus separated from credit- ors by a line of demarcation, yet it is possible to imagine a form of security the holders of which would lie very close to the line between shareholders and creditors. For instance, the holders of income bonds are creditors of the corporation; but in many respects their rights are very similar to those of preferred share- holders. One distinction is that an income bondholder has generally no vote or voice in the corporate management, while the holder of preferred shares has usually the same voting rights as a holder of the same number of ordinary shares. But sometimes preferred shareholders have no vote ; and the difference between such preferred shareholders and income bondholders is for practical purposes not much more than a difference in name. Nevertheless, even such preferred shareholders, although shorn of their voting rights, are yet members of the company, while the income bondholders occupy the theoretically very differ- ent position of outsiders who hold contractual obligations of the company.^ According to some authorities, the distinction between preferred shareholders and creditors of the corporation lies in the fact that sooner or later there must come a time for repaying creditors while preferred shareholders may be entitled to a perpetual income ; ' but this cannot be the right test, for some securities, such as the English "perpetual debenture stock" or the income bonds of some American companies, carry the right to interest in perpetuity, and yet the holders thereof are creditors as opposed to members of the corporation. At any ' Svllivan v. Portland, etc. B. R. ' Kent v. QuicksiLver Mining Co., Co., 94 U. S. 806. 78 N. Y. 159, 177-178. ' Cf. Re Bodman (1891), 3 Ch. 135 (containing a good discussion). 454 § 493-§ 573] STATUS of preferred shareholders § 547 rate, little good can come from puzzling over anomalous kinds of securities the holders of which lie close to the line between pre- ferred shareholders and creditors. Such legal monsters serve , only to obscure a distinction that in the main is easy to make. We have little difficulty in distinguishing a girl from a fish ; but, if we should encounter a mermaid, we might have trouble in determining in which category the creature should be placed. A subscriber, however, to "preferred stock" has a right to insist that the certificate given to him shall be unambiguous, and shall not leave in doubt the question whether he is to be deemed a member or a creditor of the company.' § 547. Statutes conferring on Preferred Shareholders some of the Rights of Creditors. — Express legislation sometimes confers upon preferred shareholders rights which usually belong only to creditors, and which without such statutory sanction the policy of the law would prevent from being conferred upon shareholders. Such statutes frequently confuse or obliterate the distinction between shareholders and creditors. For example, a Maryland statute authorizes the issue of so-called preferred stock the holders of which have priority over subsequent mortgages.^ So some statutes have been held tq authorize the issue of "preferred stock" upon which dividends should be payable whether or not profits be earned.' The rights thus given to "preferred stock- holders" by statute may even be such as to induce the court to conclude that, in spite of the name,* they are creditors and not members of the company. Thus, where an Ohio statute author- ized the issue of "preferred stock" which was to be redeemed by the company at a fixed time, and the dividends upon which were guaranteed by the company, the payment of the principal and interest or "dividends" being secured by a bond and mortgage, and the holders of the stock having no right to vote ' State ex rel. Thompson v. Che- (where a statute authorizing issue of raw, etc. R. R. Co., 16 S. Car. 524. preferred stock by an embarrassed ' Heller v. Marine Bank, 89 Md. railway company was held to au- 602 ; 43 Atl. 800 ; 73 Am. St. Rep. thorize the payment of the preferen- 212; 45 L. R. A. 438; Rogers v. tial dividends out of future earnings Citizens' Nat. Bank, 93 Md. 613; without first making good a prior 49 Atl. 843. Cf. Gordon's Exrs. v. loss or impairment of capital). Richmond, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Wa,. 501. 'That the word "stock" does ' Williams v. Parker, 136 Mass. not indicate per se that the holders 204. Cf . Cotting v. New York, etc. R. are members and not creditors of R. Co., 54 Conn. 156; 5 Atl. 851 the company, see supra, § 496. 455 § 548 CAPITAL AND SHAHES ' [ChAP. X and being declared by the statute exempt from a liability to creditors, which by the state constitution attached to all mem- bers of corporations, the court concluded that the so-called " pre- ferred stockholders" were really not members but creditors of the company.' § 548. " Interest-bearing Stock." — A word or two of further explanation of so-called interest-bearing stock. Where any undertaking is entered upon involving the construction of ex- tensive works, a greater or less period of time must elapse after the capital is contributed before it can become productive. A railway company, for example, cannot earn profits until several years after its organization. In such cases, in former days — for the practice is much' less common now than formerly — the company would agree, as an incentive to investors, to pay "interest" on the amount of capital paid in on the several shares, until the line should be completed. If such an agreement were interpreted as a contract to pay interest during the period of construction, during which in the nature of things no profits could be earned, it might, on the principles stated above, be illegal and void,^ except so far as clearly sanctioned by statute.* But, wherever possible, the agi-eement should be construed to mean that, after the completion of the road and its establishment on a profit-earning basis, the company would apply the profits in paying to those who had contributed to its capital in the days of its infancy a sum, nominally interest, but in its real nature a preferred dividend, equal to the amount of interest at the stipu- ' Burt V. RaiHe, 31 Ohio St. 116. ' Pittsburgh, etc. R. E. Co. v. Said the court (p. 130): "A mort- County of Allegheny, 63 Pa. St. 126, gage creditor, although denominated 136. a 'preferred stockholder' is a mort- But see Milwaukee, etc. R. R. Co. gage creditor nevertheless; his inter- v. Field, 12 Wise. .340; Miller v. est is not changed into a 'dividend' Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Pa. St. by calling it a dividend. Notliing 237; 80 Am. Dec. 570; M'Laughlin is more common in the construe- v. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Mich. 100. tion of statutes and contracts than See also infra, § 1340. for the court to correct such self- ' Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. evident misnomers by supplying the County of Allegheny, 63 Pa. St. 126, proper words." 137; Manice v. Hudson River R. R. Cf. Totien & Co. v. Tison, 54 Ga. Co., 3 Duer (N. Y.) 426. Cf. Com- 139; Savannah, etc. Bldg. Co. v. Sil- panics Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII., c. verberg, 108 Ga. 281; 33 S. E. 908; 50), § 9. Cook v. Equitable Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 104 Ga. 814, 828-829; 30 S. E. 911. 456 § 493-§ 573] EXTENT OF PREFERENCE § 549 lated rate on the sums respectively paid in by them, before devoting the earnings to dividends to other shareholders or to any other purpose.' § 549-§ 571. EXTENT OF PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS AS BETWEEN PREFERRED AND DEFERRED SHAREHOLDERS. § 549. How Extent of Preference determined. — Preferred shares properly so called carry preferential rights over the other shares, but as to all non-members of the company, such as creditors, rank in all respects as any ordinary shares. The pref- erence concerns the shareholders inter sese, but in no way affects anybody else. A very great variety of such preferences of one class of shareholders over another is possible. The extent and character of the preference is not indicated by the designation of the shares as "preferred" (which merely indicates that a preference of some kind is intended),^ but must be determined by construction of the statute, incorporation paper, by-law,^ or agreement by which the preference is created. The language of the preferred shareholder's share-certificate is not conclusive as to his rights; but the antecedent resolutions and proceedings are admissible evidence upon the question of the nature and extent of his preference.* So, too, where the preference is given in a scheme of reorganization, the court, in order to determine the extent of the preference, will look not merely at the formal agreement, but also at the original plan of reorganization and at the certificates of stock, all the instruments being part of one transaction ; * but, unless for the purpose of connecting to- ' Wright V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 171-173; Corp., 12 Gush. (Mass.) 68; Water- Scott v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 93 Md. man v. Troy, etc. R. R. Co., 8 Gray 475, 498-499; 49 Atl. 327. (Mass.) 433. Cf. Bales v. Androscoggin, etc. R. Of. Barnard V. Vermont, etc. R. R. R. Co., 49 Me. 491; BaiLey v. Rail- Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 512; Richardson road Co., 17 Wall. 96. V. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 44 Vt. 613. But see Smith v. Cork, etc. Ry. But see Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. Co., 6 Ir. Rep. Eq. 65, 68-69 (where V. County of Allegheny, 63 Pa. St. the court held that a preferred share- 126. holder's right was determined by ' Hackett v. Northern Pac. Ry. his certificate and refused to look at Co., 140 Fed. 717. a prior resolution of the company ' Belfast, etc. R. R. Co. v. Belfast, not referred to in the certificate). 77 Me. 445; 1 Atl. 362. » Bailey v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. * Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. 96 (headnote inadequate). 457 § 550 CAPITAL AND SHAKES [CeAP. X gether the various written instruments, parol evidence of the understanding or intention of the parties is not admissible.' As already mentioned,^ the general principle, in the light of which every provision for a preference must be construed, is that, except so far as otherwise clearly provided, the preferred shareholders stand on an equality with the common or deferred shareholders. The burden of proof, so to speak, is on the shareholder who asserts a preference over his fellows. § 550-§ 563. Preference as to Dividends. § 550. What Words will confer Preference as to Dividends. — A fixed dividend that is guaranteed is a preferred dividend although not expressed so to be.^ Moreover, where shares are denominated "preferred stock" and are entitled "to the pay- ment of six dollars per share semi-annually" the holders are entitled to a preference over the other stockholders although it is not expressly provided that their six per cent dividend shall be paid before any dividend is paid on the other shares.* § 551. Whether Preference is Cumulative. — The first ques- tion usually raised as to the preferential dividend is whether the preference is cumulative or not. That is to say, when preferred shares carry a preferential dividend of a certain rate per cent per annum, are they entitled to claim that if the profits of one year are not sufiicient to pay that dividend in full the deficiency must be made good out of the profits of the next or some succeeding year before anything can be paid to the holders of the common shares? If so, the preferred shares are said to be cumulative preferred shares; if not, they are said to be non-cumulative. Prima facie, the preference is cumulative. Thus, where pre- ferred shares are entitled to a preferential yearly dividend of so much per cent, without more being said, the preference is cumu- lative ; ^ and this is true whether the preferential dividend is ' BaUeyv. Baaroad Co., 17 Waa. Co., 1 De G. & J. 606; Webb v. 96, 105-106. Earle, 20 Eq. 556; West Chester, etc. ' Supra, § 540. B. B. Co. v. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321 ' Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. (headnote misleading); Smith v. By. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 173-174 (head- Cork, etc. By. Co., 3 Ir. Rep. Eq. 356, note inadequate). affirmed, 5 Ir. Rep. Eq. 65; Fidelity ' Bates V. Androscoggin, etc. B. B. Trust Co. v. Lehigh Valley B. B. Co. Co., 49 Me. 491. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 829. ^ Henry v. Great Northern By. Cf. Crawford v. Northeastern By. 458 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCK AS TO DIVIDENDS § 552 described as merely "preferred" or as "guaranteed." ' Indeed, where a dividend of so much per cent per annum is "guar- anteed," it is a cumulative preferential dividend although no preference be expressly provided for.^ On the other hand, where DO annual preferential dividend is provided for, but where the provision is merely that the preferred shareholders shall be entitled to a dividend not to exceed so much per annum, the pref- erence is non-cumulative.' The mere fact that the fixed annual preferential dividend is expressed to be payable on certain days — as on the first days of June and December — will not render the preference non-cumulative, especially where the dividend is guaranteed ; * but where the provision is that the preferred shareholders shall be entitled to a preference dividend of so much per cent "out of the profits of each year," an intention is evinced to let each year stand on its own bottom, and accordingly the preference is non-cumulative.^ A provision that the annual preferential dividends shall accumulate during the period of three years to the extent they are not paid, entitles the preferred shareholders to an amount equal to three annual preferential dividends before any dividends are paid on the deferred shares even though no dividends at all were paid until long after the expiration of the three years." § 552. ESect of cumulative Preference — Whether Interest is claimable on Arrearages of cumulative fref erred Dividends. — Even where the preferential dividend is cumulative, there is ordinarily no right to interest on the arrearages, or passed divi- dends ; ' but where profits properly available for the payment of the preferential dividends were wrongfully diverted by the company to the payment of dividends on the common shares, the preferred shareholders may recover interest on their unpaid Co., 3 Jur. N. S. 1093; Matthews v. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 176 (the preferen- Great Nprthern Ry. Co., 28 L. J. Ch. tial dividend was "guaranteed"). 375. ' Staples v. Eastman's Photo- ' Carry v. Londonderry, etc. Ry. graphic, etc. Co. (1896), 2 Ch. 303. Co., 29 Beav. 263. See also Belfast, etc. R. R. Co. v. ' Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. Belfast, 77 Ue. 445; 1 Atl. 362. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 173-174 (head- » Gardner Savings Bank v. Taber- note inadequate). Prang Art Co., 189 Mass. 363; 75 ' Elkins V. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., N. E. 705. 36 N. J. Eq. 233 (headnote mislead- ' Corry v. Londonderry, etc. Ry. ing). Co., 29 Beav. 263. * Boardman v. Lake Share, etc. Ry. 459 § 553 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X dividends as damages for the company's wrongful use of the funds. ^ § 553. Whether Payments to Preferred Shareholders in Excess of Cumulative Preferred Dividends in one year chargeable against Deficiency in svisequent Year. — Where the preference is cumu- lative and the preferred shareholders are entitled to share pro rata in any excess of dividends after the deferred shareholders have received a dividend at the same rate as the preferential dividends, dividends paid to the preferred shareholders in excess of the preferential dividend in one year canhot be charged against a deficiency in a subsequent year, but the amount of such deficiency must accumulate and be paid out of the earnings of future years before any further, dividends are paid on the deferred shares, just as if the preferred shareholders had never been paid in any year prior to the beginning of the deficit more than their preferential dividend.^ * § 554. Whether Profits in Excess of Preferential Dividend are divisible pro rata among both Preferred and Common Shareholders. — The contention has been advanced that where a fixed pref- erential dividend is payable on preferred shares, the holders are likewise entitled, if the profits are more than suflBcient to pay that dividend, to participate rateably with the common shares in any other dividend that may be declared. This contention, however, is oh its face unreasonable, and has been overruled by the courts ; * for the principle that should furnish a guide in all such questions as to the extent of preferential rights is that, equality between the shares being the legal conception of equity, provisions altering the rule of equality must be construed strictly, so as not unduly to enlarge the difference in the rights attaching to the several classes of shares. § 555. Whether Preferred Shares may participate in Profits re- maining after paying on both Classes of Shares a Dividend equal to the Preferred Dividend. — When the preferred shares ^re en- titled to a preferential dividend of so much per cent per annum, without any greater explicitness being used, a serious question ' Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. " Scott v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 93 Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 186-190; Md. 475; 49 Atl. 327. Prouty V. Michigan, etc. R. R. Co., 1 Cf. Bailey v. Railroad Co., 17 Hun (N. Y.) 665, 667. WaU.* 96. ' Fidelity Trust Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 829. 460 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCE AS TO DIVIDENDS § 555 may be raised whether they are forever limited to that dividend or whether they may not participate proportionately with the common shares in any surplus profits remaining for distribution after paying the common shares a dividend equivalent to the preferential dividend. In a Maryland case/ upon the reorganiza- tion of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company preferred shares were issued which were entitled to receive out of the net profits of each year such yearly dividend (non-cumulative) as the .directors might declare up to but not exceeding four per cent before any dividends should be set apart or paid on the common stock. For several years, the four per cent dividend was regu- larly paid to the holders of preferred shares, but no dividend was paid upon the common stock. The company then became more prosperous, and was about to pay a dividend of four per cent upon both classes of shares, when a preferred stockholder applied for an injunction against such distribution, praying a declaration that any profits remaining after the payment of the preferential dividend ought to be distributed fro rata among both classes of shares, or that any surplus after paying four per cent to common as well as preferred stockholders should be distributed 'pro rata. The former contention sought to exaggerate the preference of the preferred shares to a preposterous degree, and as stated above certainly could not be sustained.'' Its rejection was suflScient to justify a refusal of the injunction, since there was no pretense that the company expected at that time to pay more than four per cent to the holders of common stock. The court, however, proceeded to express the opinion that under no circumstances could the preferred shareholders get more than four per cent. This opinion, however, may well be questioned. For if it be sound, the common shares have one very important preference over the so-called preferred shares, although the language used nowhere exhibited any intention to prefer the common shares in any respect whatsoever. The whole object was to define the limits of a preference to be given to the preferred shares. Accord- ingly, where the provision was that the preferred shares "should bear a dividend of six per cent per annum and should rank in all respects in priority" to the other shares, an English judge expressed the opinion that the meaning was "to give to the ■ Scott V. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 93 ' Supra, § 554. Md. 475; 49 Atl. 327. 461 § 556 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X holders of the preference shares a first dividend at the rate of six per cent out of profits, then to give the holders of ordinary shares a dividend up to the amount of 6 per cent out of profits, and if any profits should remain after paying those two dividends to allow the ordinary and preferential shareholders to divide them equally or proportionately." ' It is submitted that this is the better general rule, and that the case in the Maryland Court of Appeals, if it is to be regarded as more than a mere dictum upon this question, should be supported upon the special circumstances adverted to by that court in its opinion. § 556. Rights where both Classes of shares are to participate equally in Profits remaining after paying on both Classes of Shares Dividends eqval to the preferred Dividend. — At any rate, cases sometimes occur where, either by express provision or by judicial construction of an ambiguous provision, both classes of shares are entitled to participate equally in any profits that may re- main for distribution after the common shares have received a dividend equal to the preferential dividend of the preferred shares. Where this is the case, if the preferred shares are cumu- lative, they cannot claim anything beyond their preferential dividend until the common shareholders have not merely re- ceived a dividend for the current year equivalent to the prefer- ential dividend but also have been compensated for all arrears or passed dividends, so that taking into consideration the entire period since the issue of the shares, each common shareholder shall have received as much as each preferred shareholder.^ If the preferred shares were non-cumulative, it might be plausibly argued that an intent was evinced that each year should stand on its own bottom. But, nevertheless, the sound doctrine is believed to be that unless a different intention is very clearly expressed the common shareholders must be placed on an equality with the preferred as to the whole period since the issue of the stock, whether the preferred shares be cumulative or not, before any -pro rata division among both classes is proper. Whether the ' Alexandra Palace Co., 21 Ch. Co., 25 W. R. 524. But see contra: D. 149, 157. The terms of the reso- Gordon's Exrs. v. Richmond, etc. R. lution defining the rights of the pre- R. Co., 78 Va. 501, 518. Cf. Fidelity ferred shares appear more clearly Triist Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. from the report of the case in 46 L. (Pa.), 64 Atl. 829 (stated supra, T. 730. § 553). ' Allen V. Londonderry, etc. Ry. 462 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCE AS TO DIVIDENDS § 559 preference be cumulative or not, each ordinary share must re- ceive as much as each preferred share has actually received when the whole period since the issue of the stock is taken into account, before the two classes of shares can be deemed to have been put upon an equality. § 557. How Preferential Dividend payable — Gold, Cash, Bonds, etc. — Where dividends are paid in bonds or other obligations of the company, as may sometimes lawfully be done, the rights of the preferred shareholders to a preference are of course the same as if the dividends were paid in cash.' In the absence of some peculiar stipulation, however, or consent, preferred share- holders have the right to insist that their preferential dividend be paid in cash and not in bonds or other securities ; ^ but the common or deferred shareholders cannot, it seems, object to paying the preferential dividend in stock rather than in money.' There may be an express stipulation that the preferred dividend shall be payable in gold, but in the absence of such a provision payment may be made in any legal tender.* § 558. Provisions for Termination of Preference. — Where preferred shares are entitled "to the payment of six dollars per share semi-annually until the net earnings of the road sh^l be suflBcient to pay an interest of six per cent per annum on all the stock issued," it seems that when once the earn- ings of the road are suflBcient for one whole year to pay a dividend of six per centum on all the stock, the preferred share- holders would thereafter have no rights superior to the holders of the other shares ; ^ but the fact that for six months or any other fraction of a year the profits may have been sufficient to pay a dividend on all the shares at the rate of six per cent per annum does not put an end to the preference.* § 559. Effect of Cancellation or Surrender of some of the Pre- ferred Shares. — Where some of the preferred shares are can- celled or exchanged for common shares, the holders of the re- ' Gordon's Exrs. v. Richmond, ' Howell v. Chicago, etc. By. Co., etc. B. B. Co., 78 Va. 501. Cf. HoweU 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 378. V. Chicago, etc. By. Co., 51 Barb. * Baltimore, etc. B. R. Co. v. (N. Y.) 378. State, 36 Md. 519. See also infra, § 568. " Bates v. Androscoggin, etc. B. ' M'Laughlin v. Detroit, etc. By. B. Co., 49 Me. 491, 503 (semhie). Co., 8 Mich. 100. » Bates v. Androscoggin, etc. R. B. Co., 49 Me. 491. 463 § 560 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X maining preferred shares are entitled to all the subsequent profits until their preferential dividends are paid, and not merely to the proportion of such profits which they would have received if the holders of the cancelled or exchanged shares had retained their rights.' § 560. Discretion of Company as to withholding Preferred Divi- dends although earned. — In general, the holders of preferred shares cannot require payment of their preferential dividend, even if the funds available for that purpose have been earned, unless the dividend has been declared in the ordinary way by the directors of the corporation. That is to say, the preference given to the preferred shareholders is between themselves and the other shareholders, and does not deprive the company of its discretion to accumulate profits, as a reserve fund, to make good a loss of fixed capital, or for other purposes, instead of distributing them as dividends. Hence, although profits suffi- cient to pay the preferential dividend may have been earned, the directors may ordinarily withhold declaration of the preferred dividend if so to do is honestly and reasonably believed by them to be for the best interest of all concerned in the company,^ and this is true although the preferred dividend is "guaranteed" by the company.' A provision that the preferential dividend shall be dependent on the profits of each particular year will not be construed as pledging the profits to such payment so as to deprive the directors of their discretion to use them in the ' West Chester, etc. B. R. Co. v. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 512 (headnote Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321, 328 (head- inadequate), note misleading). But see Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. ' Bond V. Barrow Hcematite Steel R. R. Co., 34 Fed. 582, 598-601 Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 353; New York, (where the court held, among other etc. R. R. Co. V. Nichols, 119 U. S. things, that as between preferred 296; 7 Sup. Ct. 209 (where the di- and common shareholders the ex- rectors devoted net earnings to the pense of permanent betterments building of a double track, erection should not be paid out of earnings, of buildings, construction of docks, with the result of diminishing the and other improvements, instead of preferred dividends). d.SeaiUe Trust paying the preferred dividend) ; Mc- Co. v. Pitner, 18 Wash. 401 ; 51 Pac. Lean v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 1048; Cratty v. Peoria Law Library 169 Pa. 112; 28 Atl. 211. Ass'n, 219 111. 516; 76 N. E. 707. Cf. Hazeltine v. Belfast, etc. R. R. ' Field v. Lamson, etc. Mfg. Co., Co., 79 Me. 411; 10 Atl. 328; 1 Am. 162 Mass. 388; 38 N. E. 1126; 27 St. Rep. 330; Storrow v. Texas, etc. L. R. A. 136. Mfg. Ass'n, 87 Fed. 612; 31 C. C. A. Cf. Barnard v. Vermont, etc. R. R. 139; Barnard v. Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Allen (Mass.) 612. 464 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCE AS TO DIVIDENDS § 561 business' of the company.' Similarly, a clause in an incorpora- tion paper which provides that as between the holders of the different classes of shares, "the profits available for dividend shall be applicable as follows: (1) to the payment of a non- cumulative preferential dividend" with further provisions as to the distribution of any excess, does not override a clause in the contemporaneous articles of association which purports to authorize the directors to accumulate profits as a reserve fund, so that the directors may in good faith accumulate a reserve before paying the preferential dividend in fuH.^ So, too, a pro- vision that the second preferred shares shall be entitled to their preferential dividend "only after payment" of interest on the bonded debt and of the preferential dividend on the first pre- ferred shares does not preclude the company from accumulat- ing profits as a surplus or reserve fund.' Indeed, where the com- pany has a license to use a patent in consideration of a royalty amounting to a certain proportion of the annual "profits avail- able for dividend," it was held that the company might deduct each year a certain sum for depreciation in the value of the license before determining the amount of "profits available for dividend" within the meaning of the contract, although the company could not have been enjoined from paying dividends without making any such deduction for depreciation.* § 561. Remedies of Preferred Shareholders for arbitrary With- holding of Preferential Dividend. — But if the company's re- fusal to declare the preferred dividend is arbitrary and oppres- sive and contrary to the terms on which the preferred shares were issued, a court of equity will overrule their determination and compel the declaration of a dividend ; ^ and this is espe- ' New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. 1 Ch. 146 (with which compare Nickals, 119 U. S. 296; 7 Sup. Ct. infra, § 1326). 209. But see Dent v. London Trarrv- ^ Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. ways Co., 16 Ch. D. 344. Ry. Co., 84 N .Y. 157, 179-180. ' Fisher v. Black & White Pub. Cf. Richardson v. Vermont, etc. Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 174. Cf. Wemyss R. R. Co., 44 Vt. 613; Barnard v. Collieries Trust v. Melville, 8 Fraser Vermont, etc. R. R. Co., 7 Allen (Sc.) 143 (to substantially the same (Mass.) 512; Cratty v. Peoria Law effect). Liiworj/Ass'n, 219111. 516; 76 N.E. ' Bond V. Barrow Hwmatite Steel 707. Co. (1902), 1 Ch. 353, 363 (headnote As to whether the directors and inadequate). officers are proper parties defendant * Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. to such a suit, see Chase v. Vander- Clipper Pneumatic Tyre Co. (1902), bUt, 62 N. Y. 307. VOL. I. — 30 465 § 562 CAPITAL AND SHAKES [ChAP. X cially true where the preferential dividend is non-cumulative, so that, if once passed, it is gone forever,' or where the preferred shareholders have no vote in the management of the corpora- tion and therefore no voice in determining whether dividends should be declared.^ The remedy of the preferred shareholders in such cases, however, even when the preferential dividend is "guaranteed" is exclusively in equity and not at law.^ In order that sufficient profits to justify and require the payment of the preferred dividend should be in hand, it is not necessary that the available earnings should be sufficient to pay the dividend on the total authorized number of preferred shares but only on the number actually issued.* The wrongful withholding of preferential dividends is certainly not sufficient cause for ap- pointing a receiver to manage the business of the company.* Where the certificate of the cumulative preferred shares is under the corporate seal, it has been held that the statute of limitations will not bar the claim of the preferred shareholders to arrears of dividends until the lapse of the period of limitations applicable to actions on contracts under seal." § 562. Remedies against Payment to Deferred Shareholders in fraud of Preferential Rights. — It is very clear that a court of equity will enjoin the corporation from paying dividends to the ordinary or common shareholders in fraud of the preferential ' Belfast, etc. R. R. Co. v. Belfast, Co. v. Jackson, 77 Pa. St. 321; Bates 77 Me. 445; 1 Atl. 362; Hazeltinev. v. Androscoggin, etc. R. R. Co., 49 Belfast, etc. R. R. Co., 79 Me. 411; Me. 491. 10 Atl. 328; 1 Am. St. Rep. 330. Of. M'Laughlin v. Detroit, etc. Ry. Cf. Nichols V. N. Y., etc. Ry. Co., Co., 8 Mich. 100; Richardson v. Ver- 15 Fed. 575 (reversed, 119 U. S. mont, etc. R. R. Co., 44 Vt. 613; 296). Cratty v. Peoria Law Library Ass'n, Qtt(Er€, whether the directors may 219 111. 516; 76 N. E. 707 (overrul- accumulate a ■ reserve "for the ing an objection in a suit in equity purpose of equalizing dividends." that complaining preferred share- Fisher v. Blade & White Pub. Co. holders had adequate remedy at (1901), 1 Ch. 174. law). ' Storrow v. Texas, etc. Mfg. * Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. R. Ass'n, 87 Fed. 612; 31 C. C. A. 139. Co., 34 Fed. 582, 610. ' Field V. Lamson, etc. Mfg. Co., ° Texas Consol., etc. Ass'n v. 162 Mass. 388; 38 N. E. 1126; 27 Storrow, 92 Fed. 5, 10-12; 34 C. C. L. R. A. 136; Boardman v. Lake A. 182. ShM-e, etc. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 179; « Smith v. Cork, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Ir. WUliston V. Michigan, etc. R. R. Co., Rep. Eq. 65, 75-76. 13 Allen (Mass.) 400. Cf. infra, § 1360. But see West Chester, etc. R. R. 466 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCE AS TO DIVIDENDS § 563 rights of the preferred shareholders.' A bill for this purpose may be filed by one of the preferred shareholders on behalf of all, notwithstanding a dispute has arisen between transferors and transferees of some of the other preferred shares as to their relative rights to arrears of dividends.^ The complainant may represent both transferors and transferees for the purpose of the suit. It is suflScient to make one or more of the common or deferred shareholders parties defendant as representatives of all of their class.' The effect of laches of preferred shareholders in enforcing their rights to prevent payments to the common or deferred shareholders has been discussed in several cases.* In one case where the holders of cumulative preferred shares had omitted to oppose the payment of dividends to the ordinary shareholders before making good the arrearages of the prefer- ential dividends, Lord Hatherley held that while perhaps this acquiescence barred the preferred shareholders from calling back the dividends which had been already paid to the ordinary shareholders, it drd not prevent them from enjoining the pay- ment of further dividends to the ordinary shareholders before making good the arrears of the preferential dividend.* § 563. When Deferred Shareholders may compel Declaration of Preferential Dividend. — In general, the deferred or common shareholders would have no interest to compel the declaration of the preferred dividend; but sometimes the preference is to continue only for a period of years until a certain number of the preferential dividends have been paid, and in such cases the common shareholders would have the same right to compel declaration of a dividend for payment of which sufficient profits have been earned as a preferred non-cumulative shareholder would have. Thus, when subscribers to common stock are not to be regarded as shareholders or entitled to any voice in the ' Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc. Hun (N. Y.) 655, 666; Elkins v. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157; Smith v. Camden, etc. R. R. Co., 36 N. J. Eq. Cork, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Ir. Rep. Eq. 65, 233, 239-240. affirming 3 Ir. Rep. Eq. 356. " Matthews v. Great Northern Ry. 2 Smith V. Cmk, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Co., 28 L. J. Ch. 375, 382-383. Ir. Rep. Eq. 65, 77-78. Cf. Elkins v. Camden, etc. R. R. ' Smith V. Cork, etc. Ry. Co., 5 Co., 36 N. J. Eq. 233 (headnote mis- Ir. Rep. Eq. 65, 78-79. leading) ; Smith v. Cork, etc. Ry. Co., * See Boardman v. Lake Shore, 5 Ir. Rep. Eq. 65, 74 (headnote etc. Ry. Co., 84 N. Y. 157, 182-184; inadequate). Prouty V. Michigan, etc. R. R. Co., 1 467 § 564 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X management of the company until five successive annual divi- dends shall have been paid to the preferred shareholders, the court will treat that as done which ought to have been done, and, where amply sufficient profits have been earned for the payment of the five annual seven per cent dividends, although such dividends were not actually declared or paid, will compel the company to admit the subscribers to common stock to all the rights of ordinary shareholders, at the same time decreeing that an amount equal to the preferential dividends that ought to have been paid be distributed to the preferred shareholders.' § 564r-§ 568. Preference as to Repayment of Capital in Liquidation. § 564. Legality of such a Preference. — Where a corpora- tion has power to issue shares with such preference as it may determine, it may issue shares which shall have a preference with respect to repayment of capital in liquidation as well as with respect to dividends.^ Indeed, the matter of the relative rights of shareholders in assets remaining after payment of all creditors in liquidation or winding-up is, like the subject of the distribution of profits available for dividends, a mere matter for their private concern, and hence by agreement among them- selves, without any affirmative authorization, they may provide that preferred shares shall be entitled to a preference in respect of capital.^ It is competent for the company in issuing pre- ferred shares to provide that the holders of such shares shall in the event of liquidation not merely receive back the nominal value of the shares before any capital is returned to the other shareholders, but shall also be entitled to a premium or bonus in addition thereto.* § 565. When Preference as to Capital exists and when not. — The law is well settled that a preference as to dividends does not carry by implication any preference as to capital in a dis- ' Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. R. B. ' Cf. South African Supply, etc. Co., 34 Fed. 582. Co. (1904), 2 Ch. 268 (where the pre- ' Supra, § 531. f erred shareholders were entitled to ' Toledo, etc. B. B. Co. v. Coiv- a premium or bonus in the event of tinental Trust Co., 95 Fed. 497, 531; winding-up for the purpose of recon- 36 C. C. A. 155. struction or amalgamation). 468 § 493-§ 573] PREFEKENCK AS TO CAPITAL § 565 tribution of assets in winding-up.' Priority, in respect to capital, therefore, if it is to be conferred upon the preferred shares, must generally be given by appropriate language.^ Even overdue cumulative preferential dividends are not a charge upon capital in proceedings for reduction of capital or for liquidation of the company.^ Where, however, the general incorporation law of the state provides that preferred shares in companies organ- ized thereunder shall have a preference in respect of capital, the court will presume that preferred shares issued by a com- pany incorporated by special act were intended, in the absence of any circumstances indicative of contrary intent, to have a like preference ; * and so where a general incorporation law provides that upon dissolution the assets shall be distributed among the common shareholders after payment of creditors and the preferred shareholders, and also contains a further pro- vision that any incorporation paper may create two or more kinds of shares with such preferences or restrictions as may be fixed in the incorporation paper, shares which by the incorpo- ration paper are declared to have a preference as to dividends will also have a preference as to capital unless the contrary be provided by the incorporation paper.^ A provision that preferred shares shall be a lien subject only to an existing issue of mort- gage bonds gives the preferred shares a preference over the common in respect to capital as well as dividends.* '^ London India Rubber Co., -5 Eq. the assets in case of dissolution. 519; Griffith V. Paget, 6 Ch. D. 511] Consumers' Gas Trv^t v. Quinhy, North West Argentine Ry. Co. (1900), 137 Fed. 882 ; 70 C. C. A. 220. 2 Ch. 882 (where the point was ap- ^ As to what language will be psCrently treated as too clear for sufficient to confer a preference as argument); Odessa Waterworks Co., to capital, see in addition to cases W. N. (1897) 166; Jones v. Concord cited below Bangor Slate Co., 20 Eq. & Montreal R. R. Co., 67 N. H. 119 59 (stated supra, § 532). (semble); 38 Atl. 120; Jones v. ' Roberts v. Roberts-Wicks Co., Concord & Montreal R. R. Co., 67 184N. Y.257; 77N. E. 13; 112 Am. N. H. 234; 30 Atl. 614; 68 Am. St. St. Rep. 607. Rep. 650 (semble). * McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 Cf. McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 181. N. J. Eq. 181. By parity of reason- ' Hellman v. Pennsylvania Elec- ing, an agreement that a public trie Vehicle Co. (N. J.), 67 Atl. 834. service company's business shall be ' Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., carried on with only such charges 78 Fed. 664, 670; 24 C. C. A. 271; or tolls as may be necessary to de- 36 L. R. A. 826; Toledo, etc. R. R. fray e.Kpenses, does not destroy the Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 95 Fed. ultimate right of the shareholders in 497, 529-531, 36 C. C. A. 155. 469 § 566 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X § 566. Attempts to confer indirectly a Preference as to Capital upon Shares not entitled thereto. — Where preferred shares have no preference as respects capital, they must in a winding-up, which is in theory a return of capital, receive no more than the common shareholders receive. This rule cannot be evaded by any scheme of reconstruction or reorganization. Thus, where preferred shares have no preference as regards capital, a scheme of reconstruction under the English Companies Act which pro- vides that the preferred shareholders in the company being wound up shall receive in exchange preferred shares in a new corporation formed to take over the assets and business of the old company, while the ordinary shareholders in the old com- pany shall receive ordinary shares in the new, gives the pre- ferred shareholders more than the ordinary shareholders, and is therefore ultra vires. ^ On the other hand, where a statute authorized the consolidation of two railway companies upon such terms and conditions as might be approved by a majority of both companies, a scheme for amalgamation whereby the preferred shareholders of one of the old corporations, although entitled to no preference as respects capital, received for every four shares of their old stock five shares in the new company while the common stockholders only received for every two shares of their old stock one share in the new company, was held to be intra vires' § 567. What Funds regarded as Capital and what as Profits in Liquidation. — Where the preferred shares are entitled to a pref- erence as to dividends but not as to capital, it is important to inquire, when the corporation goes into liquidation, what prop- erty or funds can be regarded as capital divisible pro rata among holders of both classes of shares and what as profits subject to the preferential claim of the preferred shareholders. To the extent necessary to repay the several shareholders the amount nominally paid upon their respective sharfes, it seems clear that any funds of the corporation, whether due to earnings or to any other source, must in winding-up or liquidation be regarded as capital as between the preferred and common or ordinary share- holders. Indeed, as a general rule any surplus funds over and above the amount necessary to repay the several shareholders ' Simpson v. Palace Theatre, 69 ' Hale v. Cheshire R. R. Co., 161 L. T., N. 8., 70. Mass. 443; 37 N. E. 307. 470 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCE AS TO CAPITAL § 567 the paid-up capital must also, in winding-up or liquidation, be treated as capital as between the preferred and deferred share- holders. Thus, the House of Lords has held that where, in a winding-up, the company's business or "undertaking" is sold, the residue of the purchase price remaining after paying off all liabilities and returning all paid-up capital is, as between pre- ferred and deferred shareholders, to be treated as capital and not profits.^ The company having ceased to be a going concern, the discretion of the directors, or of the corporation, to treat an appreciation of assets in excess of the nominal capital as profits available for dividends had terminated. It was once held that profits accumulated as a reserve fund should, upon the volun- tary winding-up of the company, be treated as still profits and not capital.^ By the later decisions this rule has been qualified, if not overtlirown ; and it is now held that where the company has a discretionary power of reserving profits before paying the preferential dividend to preferred shareholders, if the company goes into liquidation before this discretion is exercised or the preferred dividend declared out of profits earned shortly before the liquidation, the profits so earned should be regarded as capital as between the preferred and ordinary shares, and as such distributed fro rata among both the classes of share- holders.' The question here, as in the similar case where the rights of tenants for life and remaindermen are involved,* is whether accumulated profits are, in liquidation or winding-up, regarded as capital unless they have been declared as dividends ' Birch V. Cropper, 14 App. Cas. 86; Odessa Waterworks Co. (1901), 525. 2 Ch. 190 n. Cf. Frames v. Btdtfontein Mining But see Re Rogers, 161 N. Y. 108, Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 140; Morrow v. 113; 55 N. E. 393, where the court Peterborough Water Co., 4 Ont. L. said, "After effecting a sale of the R. 324 (where the company's regu- company's plant it ceased to do busi- lations provided that in liquidation ness and went into liquidation, after repaying to the preferred After such sale it could no longer shareholders the capital contributed earn profits for distribution, and the by them, the amount remaining directors were no longer vested with should be distributed among ordi- any discretion with reference to the nary shareholders, and were enforced conduct of the business or judgment accordingly). as to the amount of profits to be ' Bridgewater Navigation Co. retained and employed as a working (1891), 2 Ch. 317; Bishop v. Smyrna capital." & Cassaba Ry. (1895), 2 Ch. 265. * See infra, § 1394. ' Crichton's Oil Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 471 § 568 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X or are regarded as profits unless they have been capitalized by proceedings for the increase of capital. Even, however, when the company is in liquidation, it has been held that a fund due to the appreciation of certain bonds held by the company will, as between preferred and ordinary shareholders and for the benefit of the former, be treated as profits where a previous depreciation of the same bonds has been debited to the revenue account to the prejudice of the preferred shareholders ; ' but this decision is not easy to reconcile with the principles acted upon in the later cases above cited. It seems that moneys earned after the commencement of liquidation proceedings should be treated as capital.^ § 568. Whether Preferred Shareholders are entitled in Liquida- tion to " Interest " from the Time of Cessation of Business in lieu of Preferential Dividend. — As the preferential dividends are pay- able only out of profits it follows that if the company ceases to do business, with a view to winding-up, the preferential dividend ceases to be payable even though the preferred shareholders be entitled to a preference as to capital as well as dividends. For example, if the company goes into liquidation any balance which may remain after satisfying all claims of creditors should be used for the purpose of returning capital to the several shareholders according to their respective rights; and no part should be de- voted to paying to the preferred shareholders "interest" on their shares from the date of the last payment of the preferential dividend, to the prejudice of the claim of the common or deferred shareholders for the return of the capital invested by them.^ § 569. Preference as to Distribution of New Shares upon an Increase of Capital. — Upon the principle that preferred share- holders stand on equality with the ordinary shareholders except in so far as their preferential rights expressly or by necessary implication carry, a preference in respect to dividends does not confer a preference in respect to the distribution of new shares ' Bishop V. Smyrna & Cassaba (where counsel conceded the By. Co., No. 2 (1895), 2 Ch. 596. point). ^ Bishop V. Smyrna & Cassaba ' Wilson v. Parvin, 119 Fed. 652; Ry. Co., No. 2 (1895), 2 Ch. 596 56 C. C. A. 268. 472 § 493-§ 573] PREFERENCE AS TO VOTING RIGHTS § 570 upon an increase of capital; and accordingly upon such an increase both common and preferred shareholders have the same option of subscribing to the new shares before any of them are offered for subscription to non-members of the company.' In one case, the payment of a "stock dividend" payable to preferred shareholders in preferred stock and to common shareholders in common stock was held to be, under the circumstances, no violation of the rights of the common shareholders.^ § 570. Preference as to Voting Rights. — Inasmuch as pre- ferred shareholders are members of the company, and, except in so far as their rights may be altered by the contract, statute, or by-law under which the shares are issued, entitled in all respects to the same rights as other shareholders, it follows that they have the same voting rights as other shareholders. The right of shareholders to vote is, however, Uke the right to divi- dends or to participate equally in a division of capital on liqui- dation, regarded as a private matter for each shareholder which he may waive if he choose. Consequently, a provision that share- holders of a certain class shall have no right to vote is, if assented to by them, quite valid.^ Such a provision might theoretically be made as to either the preferred or the deferred shares, but is much more common with respect to the preferred shares so as to compensate the, other shareholders for the preference of the preferred shareholders as to dividends. A provision in an incorporation paper, whereby the preferred shareholders shall have no right to vote is, therefore, valid even though a statute provide that -every shareholder shall be entitled to one vote for every share held by him.* On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently held that where the incorporation law enacts that at an election of directors each shareholder shall have as many votes as he holds shares, a provision in the incor- poration paper whereby the holders of certain preferred shares should have the right to choose three of the five directors is ' Jones V. Concord & Montreal ' State ex rel. Frank v. Swanger B. fi. Co., 67 N.H.I 19; 38 Atl. 120; (Mo.), 89 S. W. 872; 190 Mo. Jones V. Concord & Montreal R. R. 561. Co., 67 N. H. 234; 30 Atl. 614; 68 * State ex rel. Frank v. Swanger Am. St. Rep. 650. (Mo.), 89 S. W. 872; 190 Mo. ^ Howell V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 561. 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 378. 473 § 571 CAPITAL AND SHARES [ChAP. X invalid.' It is submitted that this construction of the statute is narrow, and it is encouraging to find that the American court has taken the more liberal view. § 571. Preference as to Liability to Creditors. — We have seen that in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, preferred shareholders are subject to any statutory liability to creditors that may attach to other members ; '' and indeed it would not be competent by mere agreement to exempt the preferred shareholders from this liability, except as between them and the ordinary shareholders. § 572. Consequences of Distinction between Preferred and De- ferred Shares upon Rules as to Parties in legal Proceedings. — In consequence of the division of a company's shares into preferred and common or ordinary, a distinction is created between the two classes of shares which may render it proper that in certain suits regarding the corporate affairs representatives of both classes should be made parties. Thus, where the preferred shares are entitled to a preference over the common in respect both to dividends and capital, and do not enjoy the ordinary voting rights, the preferred shareholders are proper to be ad- mitted as parties to consolidated suits for the winding-up of the company and the foreclosure of the mortgage securing its bonds.* Similarly, as more fully pointed out below, in cases of share- holders' bills, it is sometimes necessary to join jis defendant a representative of a class of shareholders whose interests conflict with those of the plaintiff." Where a representative of some one class of shareholders is desired, an individual should be selected who is not an officer or director in the company ; since the duty of officers and directors is to represent all classes of shareholders impartially.* It has been held that the common stockholders, although proper, are not necessary parties to a suit by preferred • Colonist Printing & Pub. Co., . ' Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co., V. Dunsmuir, 32 Can. Sup. Ct. 679. 78 Fed. 664; 24 C. C. A. 271; 36 L. Cf. Durkee v. People, 155 111. 354; R. A. 826. 40 N. E. 626; 46 Am. St. Rep. 340 * See infra, 5 11V7. (stated infra, § 1239). ' Chase v. Vanderbilt, 62 N. Y. ' Supra, § 540. 307. 474 § 493- § 573] PREFERRED SHARES § 573 stockholders to compel declaration or payment of the preferen- tial dividend.' § 573. Consequences of Distinction upon Powers of Manage- ment of Majority of Company. — As the interests of preferred and common shareholders often conflict, controversies between them often arise. The rules of law applicable in such cases are the same as apply to other cases in which some shareholders have individual interests in matters of corporate management con- flicting with those of the general body of their fellows. That is to say, any class of' shareholders are not deprived of their control over the corporate management merely because their in- terests may not coincide with those of the other class of share- holders.^ Thus, a railway company having power to lease its road may against the objection of common shareholders execute a lease for ninety-nine years at a rental which is less than suffi- cient to pay the preference dividend, and which therefore will exclude the common shareholders from any income throughout the whole long period of the lease.^ ' Thompson v. Erie By. Co., 45 ' But cf. infra, § 1397. N. Y. 468 ; Provty v. Michigan, etc. ' Middletovm v. Boston, etc. R. B. B. B. Co., 1 Hun (N. Y.) 655. Co., 53 Conn. 351; 5 Atl. 706. 475 CHAPTER XI INCREASE, REDUCTION, AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS OF CAPITAL Section Whether amount of nominal capital as fixed by the incorpoTation paper can be altered 574 Whether amount when not fixed by incorporation paper can be altered 575 Three kinds of alteration of capital 576 Increase of capital 577-61& Definition and kinds of increase of capital 577 Effects of increase upon creditors and shareholders 578 Illegal increase of capital 579-582 Shares in excess of amount of authorized capital void . . . 579 Liability of company for representing overissued shares to be valid 580 Liability of company on contract to issue valid shares . 581 Illegal increase no effect on old shareholders — not ground for receiver 582 Increase under statutory authority 583-619 What will confer authority to increase capital — authority to issue convertible bonds 583 Amount and kind of increase — successive increases — new shares of different par value from old . . . 584 How increase may be effected 585-592 Required formalities . 585 Requisites of meeting at which increase is voted . . . 586 Motives actuating increase, how far material . . 587 Examination of proceedings by public official — cer- tificate of regularity . . 588 Whether full amount of new stock must be taken . . . 589 Provision confining increase to number of new shares taken 590 Whether subscriber to new shares becomes a share- holder before payment in full 591 Consequences of failure to comply with statutory requirements 592 Rescission of increase 593_ Contracts to exercise statutory power of increase 594 Contracts to refrain from exercising statutory power . . . 595 Stock dividends 596-601 LegaUty of stock dividends 596 Necessity that profits equivalent in amount to the stock dividend should be in hand 597 Consequences of an illegal stock-dividend 598 476 i 574-§ 677] SYNOPSIS Increase of capital (continued) Section Necessity for distributing stocic dividends equally among shareholders 599 Stock dividend distinguished from cash dividend ac- companied by an option to subscribe to new shares 600 Rescission of stock dividends 601 Sale of new shares in the market followed by distribution of premium among old shareholders 602 Right of old shareholders to preference in allotment of new shares 603-619 In general 603 Exceptional cases 604 In whom the right vests 605-609 In general 60S Relative rights of transferor and transferee .... 606 Relative rights of tenant for life and remainder- man of old shares 607 Relative rights of preferred and common share- holders 608 Rights of shareholder who has not fully paid for old shares 609 Time for exercise of right 610-611 Before increase of capital is effected 610 After expiration of time limited for exercise of right 611 Waiver of pre-emptive right 612 ' Assignment of the right 613 Remedies against company for failing to recognize the pre-emptive right 614-616 In general 614 Remedy personal to shareholder whose right is denied . . . 615 Company not accountable for premium reaUzed on quota of shareholder who has waived or otherwise lost pre-emptive right 616 Rights and UabiUties of persons to whom new shares are issued in violation of pre-emptive right of old shareholders 617 Rights of old shareholders upon issue of previously unissued shares of old capital, surrendered and forfeited shares, etc 618 Distinction between acceptance of company's offer of quota of new shares and application for shares in addition to quota at suggestion of company . . 619 Reduction of capital 620-674 Definition 620-621 What reduction of capital means 620 What it does not mean 621 Why reduction of capital without affirmative legislative sanction is forbidden 622-624 Reduction of actual capital 622 Reduction of nominal capital 623 477 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChaP. XI Reduction of capital {contmued) Section General principle 624 Reduction without statutory authority — evasion of the prohi- bition of reduction 625-642 Payment of dividends out of capital 625 Purchase by company of its own shares 626-633 Whether purchase is lawful 626-627 On principle 626 English authorities 627 American authorities . 628 Purchase on credit or with borrowed money — issue of bonds in exchange ... . . 629 Purchase by a person secretly acting as agent for the company 630 Effect of purchase where a purchase is deemed illegal . . 631-632 In general .... 631 Purchase by company followed by reissue to another person 632 Effect of purchase where a purchase is deemed lawful . 633 Acquisition by company of its own shares otherwise than by purchase . ... 634-641 Whether permissible — in general 634 Surrender of shares . 635-637 In general ... . 635 Surrender of shares which are liable to forfeiture 636 Surrender of shares in compromise of contro- versy as to validity of their issue . . . 637 Acceptance of shares in satisfaction of, or as security for, a debt due the company . ... 638 Acquisition of shares by satisfying a judgment for converting them . . 639 Acquisition of shares in pursuance of terms of the original issue — redeemable and convertible shares . 640 Acquisition of shares as trustee for third person . ... 641 Release of shareholder from liability for unpaid subscrip- tions to capital 642 Reduction under statutory authority 643-674 In general — authority not readily implied 643 English and American statutes compared ... . 644 Effect of failure to comply with statutory conditions . . 645 Statutes making certificate of public official conclusive evidence of regularity 646 Whether statutory power extends to all kinds of reduc- tion of capital, i. e., cancellation of liability, return of paid-up capital, angl reduction of nominal capital . . 647 Return of actual capital on footing that it ' may be called up again . . . . ... . . 648 Whether scheme must contemplate a permanent reduc- tion . . . . 649 Whether statutory reduction may retroactively ratify illegal reduction 650 478 § 574-§ 677] SYNOPSIS Reduction of capital {coTvtinued) Section Reduction need not affect all shares equally 651 Consent of creditors as a statutory condition to reduction . 652 Reduction of nominal capital so as to correspond with the actual capital ... 653-657 Writing off lost capital . . 653-656 Whether authorized by power of reduction 653 Importance of determining whether a loss of actual capital has occurred 654 Rules for determining whether a loss of actual capital has occurred 655 Whether the loss should fall on preferred or common shareholders 656 Wiping out illegal over-capitaUzation . . .... 657 Reduction in order to return to shareholders assets which the company had no power to hold 658 Reduction of capital as substitute for winding-up pro- ceedings. . 659 Whether reduction of nominal capital should be accom- panied by corresponding reduction of actual capital and vice versa — distributing amount by which capital is reduced among the shareholders 660-668 Statement of the problem . . . . 660 Of the doctrine that reduction must not destroy equili- brium of balance sheet . . 661 Whether and to what extent a reduction of nominal capital should be accompanied or followed by a distribution of paid-up capital among the share- holders 662-668 Where such distribution should not be made . 662 Where the distribution should be made 663 Time of making the distribution 664 Manner of distribution — in kind or in cash — borrowing to distribute — distribution of bonds .... . . 665 Whether reduction of nominal capital for purpose of writing off assets beUeved to be valueless casts title to those assets on the shareholders individually . . . . 666 Whether moneys distributed upon reduction of capital are income or capital — rights of preferred and common shareholders, of ten- ants for life and remaindermen 667 Certificates issued to shareholders on reduction of capital in lieu of immediate distribution of cash or property 668 Reduction as affecting voting rights of shareholders . . . 669 Agreement to exercise power of reduction by redeeming certain shares . ... 670 Agreement not to reduce capital or not to affect certain shares by reduction .671 Preferred shares as affected by reduction of capital . . 672-674 In general 672 479 § 574 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI Reduction of capital {continued) Section In case of reduction for purpose of writing off lost capital 673 Whether reduction of cumulative preferred shares affects overdue dividends 674 Modification of capital otherwise than by increase or reduction — consolidation and subdivision of shares .' 675-677 Whether company has power to consoUdate or subdivide shares , 675 Consolidation or subdivision of shares under statutory authority 676 ■ Effect of unauthorized consolidation or subdivision 677 § 574. Whether Amount of Capital as fixed by Incorporation Paper can be altered. — The amount of the nominal or share capital of a corporation is usually fixed by the act of incorpora- tion if the company be incorporated by special act, or by the incorporation paper if the company be organized under a general law. Like other provisions of a special act of incorporation or incorporation paper, the provision fixing the amount of the com- pany's capital cannot be changed by the corporation unless some mode of alteration be provided by statute. Hence, where the statute requires the amount of the capital stock to be stated in the incorporation paper, a clause, inserted without statutory authority, purporting to confer upon the company the power to increase or alter the amount of the capital at pleasure is null and void.^ § 575. Whether Amount can be altered when not fixed by Incor- poration Paper. — In comparatively rare cases, incorporation laws provide that the amount of the company's capital shall be fixed by the corporation itself after its organization. In such cases the question arises whether the company, having once fixed the amount of its capital in pursuance of the statute, has any power to alter its determination in that regard. According to ' Grangers' Life and Health Ins. thorize a reduction unless the arti- Co. v. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325. cles or by-laws are first amende^ so Cf. Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, as to provide therefor). 72 Minn. 266, 276-277 (headnote in- As to a provision in an incorpora- adequate); 75 N. W. 380; Dexine tion paper for the simultaneous Patent Packing & Rubber Co., 88 issue and cancellation of part of the L. T. 791 (holding that where stat- authorized capital, the scheme being ute allows reduction in pursuance adopted as a matter of bookkeeping of a provision in the articles or by- convenience, see Stale v. Consolir- laws a clause in the memorandum dated Gas, etc. Co. (Md.), 65 Atl. 40. or incorporation paper cannot au- 480 § 574-§ 677] INCREASE § 577 the better view, it would seem that no such power of altera^ tion exists,' although some authorities support the contrary view.^ § 576. Three Ends of Alteration of Capital. — A corporation may desire to alter its capital either (1) by way of increase or (2) by way of decrease or (3) by some change in the number or par value of the shares without either increasing or diminishing the aggregate amount of the capital. § 577-§ 619. INCREASE OF CAPITAL. § 577. Definition and Kinds of Increase of Capital. — First, then, of increase of capital. This may, provided the laws per- mit, be accomplished either by issuing new shares or by in- creasing the par value of the old shares. The former is much the more common way of increasing capital, and in the follow- ing pages may be taken as referred to whenever the phrase "increase of capital" is used unless that phrase is qualified by an explicit declaration that increase by adding to the par value of the shares is meant.' An increase of nominal capital may or may not be accompanied by an increase of actual capi- tal. Thus, when a company in pursuance of statutory authority cancels its existing stock and issues to each holder in lieu thereof a larger nominal amount of new stock, although the actual or working capital is not affected, there is clearly an in- crease of the nominal or share capital, which is taxable as such.* The acquisition of additional property by gift, devise, or in any other way, although it may augment the actual or work- ing capital of the company, does not amount to any increase in its nominal or share capital, and is not to be deemed an ' Cf. Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. the minimum sum as the capital of 93. the company, afterwards without ' Somerset, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cush- objection issued new shares up to ing, 45 Me. 524; Peck v. Elliott, 79 the maximum amount). Fed. 10; 24 0. C. A. 425; 38 L. R. A. = As to an illegal attempt to in- 616. crease the capital by increasing the Cf. Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 par value of the shares, see Tschumi Mass. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156 (where v. HUls, 6 Kan. App. 649; 51 Pac. a company incorporated by a special 619. act which fixed a maximum and * Midland Railway Co. v. Attcyr- minimum capital, having fixed upon ney-Oeneral (1902), A. C. 171. VOL.1. — 31 481 § 578 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAF. XI increase of capital in the legal sense: the prohibition of unau- thorized increase of capital on the part of a corporation does not prevent it from accepting as much property as it can law- fully acquire, even in excess of its nominal capital.' Moreover, the acquisition by one corporation of all the shares in another company, thereby accomplishing a virtual consolidation, does not amount to an increase in the capital of the second or sub- sidiary company either in the technical legal sense or within the meaning of a contract between such subsidiary company and a third person which entitled him to an allotment of forty- eight per cent of any increased capital of said company.^ § 578. Effects of Increase upon Creditors and Shareholders. — An increase of capital in either of the two ways above mentioned works a fundamental change in the constitution of the company. So far as creditors are concerned, the change thus wrought is much less serious than the change effected by a diminution of capital. A creditor is not prejudiced by an increment to the resources of the company and to the fund to which he must look for payment of his claims. Even if the addition to the nominal capital of the company is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in the actual or working capital, nevertheless the exist- ing creditors are no worse off than they were before the change. The only way in which an increase of actual capital can injuri- ously affect creditors is by tempting the company to use its newly acquired resources in new and speculative enterprises. As re- spects shareholders, however, the increase of capital may be far more prejudicial. Thus, an increase in the par value of the shares may enlarge the amount of the shareholders' liability to the com- pany or its creditors. If new shares are issued, the proportionate interest of an old shareholder is diminished. For instance, if a man owns forty-eight per cent of the capital stock, he can gener- ally dominate the policy of the company; but if the capital be doubled by the issue of new shares, he will own only twenty-four per cent of the shares, and will therefore be reduced to a com- paratively insignificant factor. ' Barry v. Merchants' Exchange ' Einstein v. Rochester Gas, etc. Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280. See infra, Co., 146 N. Y. 46; 40 N. E. 631. § 1345. 482 § 574^§ 677] ILLEGAL INCREASE § 579 § 579- § 582. Illegal Increase of Capital. § 579. Shares in Excess of authorized Capital void. — As already stated, an increase of capital is unlawful unless some en- abling statute exists, the provisions whereof are followed. If a corporation, being wholly without legal power to increase its capital, undertakes to issue shares in excess of its authorized capi- tal, such shares are void and do not confer upon the holders the rights of shareholders ' nor subject them to the liabilities of share- holders,^ even though the holders actively promoted and partici- pated in making the illegal increase ; ^ and payments made on account of such void shares in the belief that the issue was valid may be recovered back.* The law is the same where the company has power to increase its capital after a certain time, and undertakes to increase it before that time arrives. For instance, if the company has power to increase its capital stock after the original stock shall have been fully allotted and paid in, an increase which the company attempts to make before the original capital has been fully sub- scribed or paid in has been held to be wholly void, so that the holders of such new stock are not subjected to any liability as stockholders.^ The rule is the same where the company having power to increase its capital to a certain amount undertakes to ' People ex rel. Jenkins v. Parker of the company, see Dwinnell v. Vein Coal Co., 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) Minneapolis Fire, etc. Ins. Co., 97 543. See also infra, § 909. Minn. 340; 106 N. W. 312. ' ScovUl V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, * Grangers' Life, etc. Ins. Co. v. 149 (explaining Upton v. Trebilcock, Kamper, 73 Ala. 325 (where it was 91 TJ. S. 45; Chubb v. Upton, 95 held that the remedy was at law U. S. 665; Pullman v. Upton, 96 and not in equity); Anthony v. U. S. 328) ; Page v. Austin, 10 Can. Household, etc. Machine Co., 16 R. I. Sup. a. 132; Clark v. Turner, 73 571; 18 Atl. 176; 5 L. R. A. 575 Ga. 1; Latkrop v. Kneeland, 46 (recovery allowed notwithstanding Barb. (N. Y.) 432. passage of a statute after the making But see Kansas City Hotel Co. v. of the contract authorizing the issue Harris, 61 Mo. 464 ; Palmer v. Bank of the new shares). of Zumbrota, 72mnr>..26d; 75 N. W. Cf. Western Nat. Bank v. Arm- 380. strong, 152 U. S. 346, 353-354; 14 ^ Railroad v. Sneed, 99 Tenn. 1; Sup. Ct. 572 (holding that such a 41 S. W. 364; 47 S. W. 89. claim is not a preferred claim against But as to the hability of directors the receiver of the company), for representing to creditors that ° Page v. Austin, 10 Can. Sup. they have subscribed to valid stock Ct. 132. 483 § 580 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OP CAPITAL [ChAP. XI increase it to a greater amount : ' in such case the new shares will not be held valid as far as the power of increasing the capital extended and void as to the excess, but are void in toto' the good and bad being indistinguishably blended. So, also, shares issued in pursuance of an unconstitutional statute are void and subject the holder to no liability as shareholder.^ Indeed, even the ex- istence of a general law authorizing an increase of capital will not affect the case where an increase is made by a company in- corporated by special act, even though the company might have accepted the general law as an amendment to its charter.* All these cases should be carefully discriminated from cases in which the company has the power to make the increase of capital but in making it omits some of the prescribed formalities.^ § 580. Liability of Company foT Representing overissued Shares to be valid. — If the holders of overissued shares have been induced to pay for the shares by the company's representations that the shares in question are part of its authorized capital, then the holders may have a right of action against the company for damages, the company being estopped to deny the truth of its representations. As this estoppel usually arises in cases of trans- fers of shares, where the transferee is ignorant of the facts surrounding the issue of the shares and relies upon the repre- sentation contained in the share-certificate that the shares have a real and not a merely fictitious existence, the subject is dealt with in connection with transfers of shares." § 581. Liability on' Contract to issue valid Shares. — More- over, if the company has contracted with a subscriber to issue to him shares of its capital, the issue of shares in excess of its au- thorized capital amounts to a breach of contract, for which it would seem that the subscriber" might have an action of assump- sit for his damages.' The only ground on which the contrary conclusion could be sustained would be that the contract was ultra vires and therefore void.' An answer to this argument ' Laredo Imp. Co. v. Stevenson, ° See infra, § 592. 66 Fed. 633; 13 C. C. A. 661. « See intra, § 908-§ 923, espe- ' Kampman v. Tarver, 87 Tex. daily § 909. 491; 29 S. W. 768. ' Of. supra, § 230. ' Marion Trust Co. v. Bennett ' Cf. Anthony v. Household Seu>- (Ind.), 82 N. E. 782. ing Machine Co., 16 R. I. 571; 18 * Marion Trust Co. v. Bennett Atl. 176; 5 L. R. A. 575. (Ind.), 82 N. E. 782. 484 § 574r-§ 677] INCREASE UNDER STATUTES § 584 would be that the company has power to issue shares and that whether or not the legal limit of the capital has been exceeded lies peculiarly within its own knowledge, so that the contract is at worst within the class of contracts which are not apparently tdtra vires but are objectionable only by reason of some secret fact within the company's own knowledge.' § 582. Illegal Increase no ESect on old Shareholders — Not Ground for Receiver. — The illegal issue of new shares should not be allowed to affect the rights of the old shareholders.^ Cer- tainly it is no ground for the appointment of a receiver for the corporation.^ § 583-§ 619. INCREASE UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY. § 583. What will confer Authority to Increase Capital — Au- thority to issue Convertible Bonds. — Statutory authority to ef- fect an increase of capital often exists. A statute which au- thorizes a corporation to issue bonds convertible at the election of the holders into shares of capital stock impliedly authorizes the company to increase its capital, beyond the amount fixed and limited by the charter, to the amount necessary to effect such conversion,* and that too without complying with formalities prescribed by another statute empowering the company under certain circumstances to increase its capital.^ But if the issue of the bonds in such a case be a mere scheme or device to ac- complish an increase of capital stock, a court of equity will enjoin the proceeding as a fraud on the law.® § 584. Amount and Kind of Increase — Successive Increases — New Shares of different par Value from old. — Usually, general incorporation laws expressly provide some means by which com- panies organized under them may increase their capital. Often the amount of the increase is entirely within the discretion of the company ; but sometimes statutes limit the amount to which the increase may go. A power of increasing the capital is not ordi- » As to which see infra, § 1061. Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 669-675; Ramsey ' Byers v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 22; v. Erie Ry. Co., 38 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 21 Pac. 894. 193, 216-217. ' Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. ' Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 V. Provident Sav., etc. Ass. Soc. (Ga.), Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 669-675. 54 S. E. 929. ' Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 * Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 637, 669-675. 485 § 585 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI narily exhausted by one increase, but may be exercised repeatedly by successive increases.^ Where, however, the statute provides that the increase shall not exceed double the amount of the au- thorized capital, the meaning is that the company shall not either at one time or by successive increases enlarge its capital beyond twice the amount originally fixed.^ A statute authorizing an increase to an amount equal to two thirds of the capital actually paid in refers to the amount paid in at the time the increase is authorized by resolution rather than at the time the new shares are issued.^ It has also been held that such a statute refers to the actual value of the capital paid in and not to the nominal amount credited as paid up on the shares.* Where a statute authorizes a corporation to increase its capital by the issue of additional shares, it is not necessary that the new shares be of the same denomination or par value as the old shares.* § 585- § 592. How Increase may he effected. § 585. Required Formalities. — The formalities required by the several incorporation acts of the American states and of Great Britain in order to effect an increase of capital differ so widely among themselves that any attempt to set forth the requisites prescribed by the various laws would be both tedious and unprofitable. If no formalities be prescribed by the ena- bling act, the increase may be accomplished by mere resolution duly entered on the company's minutes declaring an increase in presenti." But if the increase is to be made by amending the incorporation paper and no method of making the amend- ment is prescribed, then the amendment must be executed and acknowledged in the same way as the original incorpora- tion paper.' > Massey Mfg. Co., 13 Out. App. (Pa.), 67 Atl. 1081 (where the actual 446. value of the capital paid in exceeded ' Berg v. San Antonio Street By. the nominal amount paid upon the Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 291 ; 42 S. W. shares). 647; 43 S. W. 929; Scovill v. « Sewdl's Case, 3 Ch. 131, 141. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 (headnote in- » Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. adequate). 93, 99. Cf. Payson v. Stoever, 2 ' Continental Varnish, etc. Co. v. Dillon 427. Secretary of State, 87 N. W. 901; ' Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 128 Mich. 621. 72 Minn. 266, 277; 75 N. W. 380. * Person & Riegel Co. v. Lipps 486 § 574- § 677] HOW increase may be made § 586 Where the power of increasing the capital is conferred upon the corporation as a whole, it can be exercised only by the shareholders and not by the directors ; ' but if the power be conferred on the directors, it may be exercised by them with- out the consent or authority of the shareholders.^ Where an amendment to the articles of association is a statu- tory prerequisite to an increase of capital, the issue of the new capital cannot be authorized simultaneously with, or prior to, the consummation of the resolution amending the articles ; ^ but it is not necessary that the articles should be first amended and that afterwards another meeting of the shareholders should be held to authorize the additional capital, for the issue of the new capital may be authorized at the same meeting that finally adopts the alteration of the articles.* If the filing of a certificate showing the amount of capital paid in be a statutory condition precedent to a lawful increase of capital, a certificate stating that the amount of the company's capital is $12,000 "and all but . . . paid in," is construed to mean that all has been paid in and therefore complies with law.' Where the certificate of increase is incomplete in that some of the particulars embodied in the resolution of the company authorizing the increase and required by statute to be mentioned in the certificate are omitted, the registrar may be required to file and record an amended certificate supplying these defects ; * for the original certificate not being in accordance with the actual facts or in compliance with the law may be disregarded. § 586. Requisites of Meeting at which Increase is voted. — The meeting, whether of the shareholders or directors, at which the resolution making the increase is passed must be a valid meeting, and the requisites of a valid meeting are determined by principles of law which are elsewhere stated.' If the meeting ' Railway Co. v. Allerton, 18 ' Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. Wall. 233; Eidrmn v. Bowman, 58 93, 99. 111. 444; 11 Am. Rep. 90; Hum- ' Cf. Patent Invert Sugar Co., 31 boldt Driving Park Ass'n v. Stevens, Ch. D. 166. 34 Nebr. 528: 52 N. W. 568; 33 * Campbell's Ca^e, 9 Ch. 1. Am. St. Rep. 654. " Moosbru^ger v. Walsh, 89 Hun Cf. BaUey v. Champlain, etc. Co., (N. Y.) 564, 567; 35 N. Y. Supp. 550. 77 Wise. 453; 46 N. W. 539 (where » State ex rel. Ely, etc. Co. v. the shareholders had acquiesced in Swanger, 195 Mo. 539 ; 93 S. W. 932. the action of the directors). ' See infra, § 1193 et seq., § 1445 See infra, § 1438. et seq. 487 § 587 INCEEASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI is required to be convened by notice of any particular form or for any specified length of time, the requirement will be con- strued in the same way as other requirements as to notice of company meetings. That is to say, the notice will be deemed to have been designed for the benefit of the members, and the lack of it may be waived by those who aire not properly notified.^ Where the statute requires the resolution for an increase of capital to be passed at a meeting called for the purpose, the requirement is not satisfied by a notice stating that the meeting is called to act on a report of the board of directors, although that report recommended the increase and had been generally circulated among the shareholders.^ Under a statute which re- quires a notice stating "what increase is proposed to be made in the capital stock or indebtedness of the corporation," one notice of an intention to increase both the capital stock and the bonded indebtedness is sufficient ; ' and, if the statute also pro- vide that the increase may be either equal to or less than that stated in the notice, a notice giving the maximum amount of the proposed increase is good.* § 587. Motives actuating Increase, how far material. — The motive of the increase is no concern of the registrar charged with the duty of recording the certificate of increase. Hence, he may not refuse to record the certificate on the ground that the increase was made immediately after the incorporation of the company for the purpose of avoiding a tax which would have been payable if the enlarged capital had been provided for in the certificate of incorporation.^ On the other hand, if the increase is for a fraudulent purpose, the defrauded party may doubtless enjoin its consummation or have it set aside." So, as will presently ' Nelson v. Hubbard, 96 Ala. 238 ; (where all the shareholders assented 11 So. 428; 17 L. R. A. 375; State without any meeting being held). ex rel. Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware ' PaUiser v. Home Telephone Co. Co. V. Cook, 178 Mo. 189; 77 S. W. (Ala.), 44 So. 575. 559 (overruling State ex rel. Donnell * PalUser v. Home Telephone Co. Mfg. Co. V. McGrath, 86 Mo. 239). (Ala.), 44 So. 575, 579 (headnote See also infra, § 1210. inadequate). ' Jones v. Concord, etc. B. R. Co., ° State ex rel. Home Bldg., etc. 67 N. H. 119, 140 (headnote inade- Ass'n v. Rotwitt, 17 Mont. 537; 43 quate) ;■ 38 Atl. 120. Pac. 922 (where it was said that the Cf. Jones V. Concord, etc. R. R. objection could only be made by the Co., 67 N. H. 234; 30 Atl. 614; 68 state on quo warranto). Am. St. Rep. 650; Fvnley Shoe & ° Donald v. American Smelting, Leather Co. v. KuHz, 34 Mich. 89 etc. Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 729; 48 Atl. 488 § 574- § 677] HOW increase may be made § 588 be shown, any shareholder may enjoin an increase which is proposed to be made without recognizing his prior right to sub- scribe to his proportion of the new shares.' § 588. Examination of Proceedings by Public Official — Cer- tificate of Regularity. — Statutes sometimes provide that the pro- ceedings looking to an increase of capital shall be scrutinized by some pubUc official who before the increase can be made must certify that they comply with law.^ Notably, a provision of this sort is found in the National Banking Act. In construing this provision, the federal courts have held that the certificate of the comptroller of the currency, to whom is intrusted the duty of examining the proceedings under which the increase is to be made, conclusively establishes that the proceedings are legal and regular.^ For example, the certificate precludes the objec- tion that the requisite two-thirds vote was not cast for the reso- lution to increase the capital.* But notwithstanding the comp- troller's certificate, directors who falsely represent that profits sufficient for the declaration of a stock dividend have been earned and who by these means induce the comptroller to ap- prove the increase of capital involved in such a dividend, are liable to the company for its damages.* Moreover, notwithstand- ing the certificate, any person who is alleged to have subscribed for the new shares is free to show that he never became a share- holder.* But a subscriber to the new shares cannot escape lia- bility because the comptroller issued the certificate after the bank was known to be insolvent and for the mere purpose of subjecting to liability as shareholders persons who had sub- scribed to new shares and had been held out as shareholders for several years, but who had never become actual shareholders 771 (increase for the purpose of issu- 85 Fed. 934; 29 C. C. A. 491; Til- ing the new stock for less than par Unghast v. Bailey, 86 Fed. 46 ; Lati- enjoined). mer v. Bard, 76 Fed. 536; Brovm v. ' Infra, § 614. TiUinghast, 93 Fed. 326; 35 C. C. A. ^ As to similar provisions ap- 323. plicable to reductions of capital, see Cf. Scott v. Deweese, 181 U. S. infra, § 646. Such a certificate of 202; 21 Sup. Ct. 585. increase of capital by an officer of * Bailey v. TiUinghast, 99 Fed. another state may be received in 801 ; 40 C. C. A. 93. evidence although not certified in ° Cockrill v. Abeles, 86 Fed. 505; accordance with the Act of Congress : 30 C. C. A. 223. Person & Riegel Co. v. Lipps (Pa.), " Bailey v. TiUinghast, 99 Fed. 67Atl. 1081. 801, 809 (headnote inadequate); ' Columbia Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 40 C. C. A. 93. 489 § 589 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI because the certificate necessary to consummate the legal increase of capital had been withheld.' § 589. Whether full Amount of new Stock must be taken. — An increase of capital may in ordinary cases be complete before the whole number of the new shares is subscribed for. More- over, calls may be made upon a subscriber to shares issued by way of increase of capital even though the entire amount of the increase has not been subscribed for.^ The reason for holding that a subscriber to shares in the original capital of a corporation is not liable for calls until the entire capital has been subscribed is that the company is not authorized to commence business and therefore can have no need of money before its capital is wholly taken; but this reason has no application to shares which are issued by way of increase of capital, for the company is usually engaged in the lawful prosecution of its business before the increase is projected. Where, however, the increase is made before the company has begun business and when only a very few shares have been issued, the increase being accompanied by a change in the par value of the shares, a person who shortly before the increase, subscribes to shares of the new par value cannot be called upon to pay until the entire new capital is subscribed.^ § 590. Provision confining Increase to Number of Shares taken. — Although ordinarily the nominal authorized capital may be increased before all the new shares are taken, yet sometimes sub- ' BaUey v. TUlinghast, 99 Fed. 595; 10 Sup. Ct. 417; Scott v. De- 801; 40 C. C. A. 93. weese, 181 U. S. 202; 21 Sup. Ct. " Clarke v. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 585. 46; Greenbrier Indust. Exp. v. But see Bead v. Memphis Gayoso Ocheltree, 44 W. Va. 626, 633 (head- Gas Co., 9 Heisk (Tenn.), 545 (some note inadequate); 30 S. E. 78; expressions thrown out by the court Nutter V. Lexington, etc. B. B. Co., obiter being difficult to reconcile 6 Gray (Mass.) 85; Gettysburg Nat. with the authorities cited by the Bank V. Brown, 95 Md. 367; 52 Atl. court); Winters v. Armstrong, 37 975 (semble) ; Pope v. Merchants' Fed. 508 (overruled by Supreme Trust Co. (Tenn.), 103 S. W. 792. Court cases, supra). In Hahn's Ap- Cf. Avegno v. Citizens Bank, 40 peal, 7 Atl. Rep. 482 (Pa.) the sub- La. Ann. 799; 5 So. 537; Pacific scription was subject to an express Nat. Bank v. Eaton, 141 U. S. 227 condition that it should not be bind- (headnote inadequate) ; 1 1 Sup. Ct. ing unless the whole of the proposed 984; Thayer v. Butler, 141 U. S. increase should be subscribed. 234; 11 Sup. Ct. 987; Butler v. ' Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. Brovm, Eaton, 141 U. S. 240; 11 Sup. Ct. 95 Md. 367; 52 Atl. 975. 985; Aspinwall v. Butler, 133 U. S. 490 § 574- § 677] HOW increase may be made § 592 scription of the whole number of new shares is expressly made a condition precedent to the accomplishment of any increase; and sometimes it is provided that the increase shall extend only to the number of shares that may be subscribed for within a certain time. For instance, where the company, having power to increase its capital from $25,000 to $1,000,000, resolves to open its books for thirty days for subscriptions for $600,000, the meaning is not that a present increase of capital to the amount of $600,000 be then and there made but rather that the increase to be made extend to so much only of the $600,000 as may be subscribed within the thirty days.' § 591. Whether Subscriber to new Shares becomes a Share- holder before Payment in full. — The question whether a sub- scriber to shares which are part of an increase of capital can become an actual shareholder before he has paid for the shares in full has been considered elsewhere.^ The National Banking Act provides that "no increase of capital shall be valid until the whole amount of such increase is paid in"; but this provision does not have the effect of invalidating shares of increased capital that have been fully paid for, merely because some of the other shares are not paid for ; and therefore the holder of such paid-up shares is subject to the statutory liability of shareholders to creditors.^ § 592. Consequences of Failure to comply with Statutory Re- quirements. — As to cases where a company, having statutory power to increase its capital, attempts to do so without observ- ing the statutory conditions,^ there is both in England and America considerable conflict of authority. There seems to be no doubt that though the statutory conditions are disregarded at the time the increase is made, yet a subsequent compliance with the terms of the law validates the issue.^ But even where the statutory requirements or conditions have never been fully com- plied with, the decided weight of American authority and sev- eral important English cases hold that the non-compliance is a ' Read v. Memphis Gayoso Gas provisions should be presumed. Man Co., 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 545. v. Boykin (S. Car.), 60 S. E. 17. ' Supra, § 174. Compare also in- * Sewell's Case, 3 Ch. 131. Cf. fra, § 779. First Nat. Bank v. Wyoming Valley ^ Scott V. Latimer, 89 Fed. 843; Ice Co., 136 Fed. 466; Pacific MUl 33 C. C. A. 1. Co. V. Inman, Poulsen & Co. (Oreg.), * Compliance with the statutory 90 Pao. 1099. 491 § 592 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI mere irregularity of which, after a subscriber to the new shares has acted and been treated as shareholder, both he and the com- pany will be estopped to take advantage.' On the other hand, authority is not lacking for the view that statutes authorizing corporations to increase their capital confer a special power and > MiUer's Dale Co., 31 Ch. D. 211; Campbell's Case, 9 Ch. 1; Rich- mond's Case, 4 K. & J. 305 ; Payson V. Withers, 5 Biss. 269; Barrows v. Natchang Silk Co., 72 Conn. 658; 45 Atl. 951 (certificate of increase not filed for record as required); Bailey v. Champlain, etc. Co., 77 Wise. 453; 46 N. W. 539; Hoeft v. Kock, 123 Mich. 171; 81 N. W. 1070; 81 Am. St. Rep. 159 (resolution making increase not recorded as re- quired) ; Clarke v. Thomas, 34 Ohio St. 46; ScoviU v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, 149 (explaining Upton v. Tre- bUcock, 91 U. S. 45; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; PuUman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328); Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417, 424-426; 11 Sup. Ct. 530; Peck V. Elliott, 79 Fed. 10, 18; 24 C. C. A. 425; 38 L. R. A. 616 (failure to pay a tax on increase as required) ; Olson V. State Bank, 67 Minn. 267; 69 N. W. 904; Feeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. 295, 309-311; Columbia Nat. Bank v. Mathews, 85 Fed. 934; 29 C. C. A. 491 ; Tillinghast v. Bailey 86 Fed. 46; Latimer v. Bard, 76 Fed. 536; Scott v. Deweese, 181 U. S. 202; 21 Sup. Ct. 585; Manufacturers' Paper Co. v. AUen^Higgins Co., 154 Fed. 906 (certificate not recorded as required by statute as condition pre- cedent to validity of new shares); Thunder Hill Mining Co., 4 Brit. Columb. 61 (resolution not duly passed and not recorded but sub- scribers liable as contributories in winding-up, with which decision compare Twigg v. Thunder Hill Min- ing Co., 3 Brit. Columb. 101, where a person who had accepted some of the same issue of new shares was relieved of them, while the company re- mained a going concern) on pro- ceedings to rectify the register of shareholders); Pope v. Merchants' Trust Co. (Tenn.), 103 S. W. 792 (subscriber liable in liquidation al- though assets sufficient to pay creditors in full); Man v. Boykin (S. Car.), 60 S. E. 17. Cf . Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126 (where recorded certifi- cate of increase did not state all data required by law) ; Western Nat. Bank v. Armstrong, 152 U. S. 346, 354; 14 Sup. Ct. 572; McFarlinv. First Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 868; 16 C. C. A. 46 (where the comptroller of the currency had never certified his approval of the increase as re- quired by law); Sayles v. Brown, 40 Fed. 8 (where the company never approved the increase by a valid majority vote) ; First Nat. Bank v. Wyoming Valley Ice Co., 136 Fed. 466 (as to non-payment of required tax on increase of capital); Gowdy Gas, etc. Co. v. Patiison, 64 N. E. 485; 29 Ind. App. 261; Cunning- ham V. German Ins. Bank, 101 Fed. 977; 41 C. C. A. 609 (held, that the amount which the company might borrow should be determined with reference to the capital as irregu- larly increased, no formal resolution of the shareholders, as required by law having been recorded, but only an amendment to the incorporation paper signed by the president and secretary) ; Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Toledo, etc. By. Co., 67 Fed. 49, 56-58 (similar point to that of pre- ceding case); Poole v. West Point Butter, etc. Co., 30 Fed. 513 (as to amount of authorized indebtedness determined with reference to the capital). 492 § 574-§ 677] HOW increase may be made §592 that unless the terms of the statute (except such as can be deemed directory merely) are strictly pursued, the power fails altogether and the case is to be treated as if no statute were in existence, so that the new shares are wholly void.' At any rate, until the statutory conditions have been performed, the inclina- tion of the .courts will be to hold that acts looking to an increase of capital were not intended to operate as a present issue of additional shares but merely as steps taken with a view to effect- ing an increase of capital in the future by first complying with the statutory formalities and then issuing new shares.^ More- over, a mere executory contract of subscription to shares con- stituting part of an increase of capital will not be specifically enforced in equity unless all the requirements of law as to the manner of issuing the new shares have been complied with ; ^ and similarly, if the company is suing to enforce a contract one of the conditions of which is that the capital shall have been increased, the company must show that the increase has been duly made.* ' Bank of Hindustan, etc. v. Alison, L. R. 9 C. P. 222 (relating to the same issue held to be valid in Campbell's Case, ubi supra); Mc- Card v. Ohio, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Ind. 220; Lincoln v. New Orleans Ex- press Co., 45 La. Ann. 729; 12 So. 937 (where the subscriber recovered back from the company the sums paid on the shares); Schierenberg v. Stephens, 32 Mo. App. 314 (where the company being insolvent, the subscriber recovered back from the receiver the amounts paid in on the shares) ; Railroad v. Sneed, 99 Tenn. 1 ; 41 S. W. 364 ; 47 S. W. 89 (where the subscriber to the new shares successfully defended an action for calls); Winters v. Armstrong, 37 Fed. 508. Cf. Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 TJ. S. 49, 57 (headnote inadequate) ; Wood V. Union Gospel Church Bldg. Ass'n, 63 Wise. 9; 22 N. W. 756; Lathrop v. Kneeland, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 432; American Tube Works v. Boston Machine Co., 139 Mass. 5; 29 N. E. 63 (relating to an attempted issue of "special stock" under a Massachusetts statute) ; Tschumi v. HUls, 6 Kan. App. 549; 51 Pac. 619; Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266; 75 N. W. 380 (where the subscribers to the new shares irregu- larly issued were allowed to stand as creditors upon their claim to re- cover back money paid upon the new shares, in competition with prior, but not subsequent creditors of the corporation, to whom indeed the holders of new shares were held subject to a statutory liability). ' See Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103 U. S. 49, 57 (headnote inade- ,quate); McFarlin v. First Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 868; 16 C. C. A. 46. ' Smith V. Franklin Park, etc. Co., 168 Mass. 345; 47 N. E. 409. * Pacific Mill Co. v. Inman, Paul- sen & Co. (Oreg.), 90 Pac. 1099. 493 § 593 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI § 593. Rescission of Increase. — A resolution increasing the capital, once duly passed in pursuance of a statutory power, cannot subsequently be revoked or rescinded even before the new shares are actually issued, except in the mode, if any, provided for reducing the capital.' § 594. Contracts to exercise Statutory Power of Increase. — A contract by a corporation to exercise its statutory power of increasing its capital would seem, at least under some statutes, to be unenforceable and void. For if such a contract could be enforced, the statutory conditions and formalities would be reduced to a mere ceremony which the company could not refuse to perform, and thus indirectly by making the contract the company would bind itself to do that which can be done directly only by observing the statutory requirements.^ Perhaps the question depends on the nature of the statutory conditions. For instance, if a vote of two thirds of the shareholders is required by statute as a condition to increasing the capital, obviously a contract to increase the capital authorized by a bare majority of the shareholders could not bind the min- ority. But on the other hand, where the only requirement is that the resolution making the increase be recorded in a public registry, the argument is very forcible that recording is a mere formality which is required before the increase can be actually made but which is not at all necessary for a mere contract to make the increase. The objection, more- over, goes rather to the remedy of specific performance than to the validity of the contract; for even a corporation which has no power at all to increase its capital may be required to respond in damages to a person to whom it has contracted 1 Sutherland v. Olcott,'95 N. Y. Machine Co., 16 R. I. 571; 18 Atl. 93; Moses v. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea 176; 6 L. R. A. 575. (Tenn.) 398, 408 (semble). But see Reid v. Detroit Ideal But see Terry v. Eagle Lock Co., Paint Co., 94 N. W. 3 (headnote in- 47 Conn. 141. adequate); 132 Mich. 528 (where a Cf. HoUingshead v. Woodward, 35 subscription to shares to be issued Hun (N. Y.) 410; Nettles v. Marco, by increase of capital though made 33 S. Car. 47; 11 S. E. 595. before the increase was accom- ' See Finley Shoe & Leather Co. plished was held binding); Bratten V. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89; McNtdta v. v. Catavnssa R. R. Co., 211 Pa. 21; C(yrn Belt Bank, 164 111. 427; 45 60 Atl. 319 (bonds convertible into N. E. 954 ; 56 Am. St. Rep. 203. stock at the option of the holder Cf. Anthony v. Household Sewing enforced). 494 § 574^ § 677] STOCK dividends § 596 to issue valid shares '■ or whose right to vaUd shares it is estopped from denying.^ § 595. Contracts to refrain from exercising Statutory Power. — A contract not to exercise the statutory privilege of increasing the capital stands on a different footing. The true rule is sub- mitted to be that a company cannot contract itself out of its statutory power, but that on the other hand a contract that no exercise of the power shall affect the rights of certain privileged shareholders would be competent.^ At any rate, a provision in the by-laws or internal regulations forbidding an increase of capital although all the statutory conditions are complied with, unless certain other conditions are performed, is quite nugatory.* § 596-§ 602. Stock Dividends. § 596. Legality of Stock Dividends. — So-called " stock divi- dends" ' constitute a peculiar form of increase of capital that is not infrequently met with in America. A company, having accumulated profits which would be available for distribution among the shareholders in the shape of dividends, determines to retain the profits for the expansion of its business and to distrib- ute new shares, to a par value equal to the amount of the profits, among the old shareholders. Such a scheme is obviously an increase of capital, which the law does not permit without some aflBrmative statutory provision. To be sure, even without special authority the company might have retained the undrawn profits for use in its business — in other words, might have virtually ' Supra, § 581. dividend" was held not to be a divi- ^ Supra, § 580, and infra, § 909. dend within the meaning of a statute ' Cf. infra, § 671, where the similar requiring the company to pay in- question as to reductions of capital terest on amounts subscribed by is discussed. certain municipal corporations until See also Martin v. Remington- the first dividend, see Hardin County Martin Co., 95 N. Y. App. Div. 18; v. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 92 Ky. 88 N. Y. Supp. 573; Howell v. 412; 17 S. W. 860. Cf. Louisville, Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 51 Barb. etc. R. R. Co. v. Hart County (Ky.), (N. Y.) 378, 381. 75 S. W. 288; 25 Ky. Law Rep. * Ayre v. Skelsey's Adamant 395. Cement Co., 20 Times L. R. 587 As to whether stock dividends (affirmed on another ground in 21 are taxable as dividends, see Com- Times L. R. 464). See infra, § 696. monwealth v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co., "For a case where a "stock 74 Pa. St. 83. 495 § 596 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI capitalized the profits ; ' but the objectionable feature is the increase ^in nominal or share capital — the capital stock, as we say in America. One need not speculate why the law should freely permit an increase in the actual capital but should frown upon an increase in the nominal capital. Suffice it to say that the nominal capital is fixed and limited by the incorporation paper in pursuance of statute while no limit is usually put upon the actual capital which the company may accumulate. Perhaps one reason for the apparent anomaly is that by increasing the nominal capital the company could diminish the apparent prof- itableness of its undertaking and thus perhaps by a certain kind of misrepresentation ward off demagogic attacks, in state legis- latures and elsewhere, upon the supposedly undue or uncon- scionable prosperity of the corporation. At all events, if the company's legal capital has been fully issued, a stock dividend is an increase of capital, and as such is permissible only by virtue of affirmative statutory authority.^ When a corporation has the power to increase its nominal capital and also has an accumu- lated surplus, the law does not prohibit the distribution of new shares to the extent of the company's surplus among the old shareholders as a dividend, provided the formalities prescribed for an increase of capital be observed.' ' Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Brundage, 60 N. Y. 544, where the Co., 1 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 280. See court left open the question as to the also infra, § 1345. legaUty of the scrip-dividend in- ^ Cf. Bailey v. Railroad Co., 22 volved in Bailey v. Railroad Co., ubi Wall. 604 (where a company having supra. no power to increase its capital and As to distributing among the being restricted by statute to annual shareholders as a dividend shares dividends of ten per cent, issued to which after being issued have been its shareholders, to represent their acquired by the company by pur- interest in accumulated earnings, chase or otherwise, see Comnwn- scrip-certificates entitling the hold- wealth v. Boston & Albany R. R. Co., ers to share pro rata with holders of 142 Mass. 146; 7 N. E. 716; Dock capital stock in subsequently de- v. ScWicMer-,eic. Co., 167 Pa. St. 370; clared dividends and generally to 31 Atl. 656. See infra, § 1385. enjoy substantially all the rights of As to using money of the corpo- shareholders except that of voting, ration to pay for shares to be issued and was held subject to a tax on to a third person as trustee for the scrip-dividends, the vaUdity of the existing shareholders, see Jones v. scrip-dividends being assumed and Morrison, 31 Minn. 140; 16 N. W. no point being made, that the issue 854. thereof amounted to an evasion of ' Williams v. Western Union Tel. the law preventing an increase of Co., 93 N. Y. 162; Re Barton's capital). See also Brundage v. Triist, 5 Eq. 238, 244 (headnote 496 § 574-§ 677] STOCK dividends § 600 § 597. Necessity that Profits equivalent to amount of Stock Dividend should be in Hand. — In order to sustain such a stock dividend, there must be evidence that the company has in hand the requisite amount of surplus profits.^ Thus, where the state constitution forbids the issue of stock except for money or prop- erty, a stock dividend of one hundred per cent on the old shares, where there is no affirmative proof that funds to such an extent in excess of the original capital are actually in hand, will be enjoined.^ § 598. Consequences of an Illegal Stock Dividend. — Even if the company is without power to declare a stock dividend, a share- holder cannot recover the amount of the dividend in money. He must either take the shares as offered to him or do without any dividend at all.^ § 599: Necessity for distributing Stock Dividends equally. — Of course, a stock dividend, like any other dividend, must be distrib- uted among the shareholders fro rata} This rule corresponds with the rule that where new shares are offered for iSubscription the old shareholders are entitled to a preference over strangers. § 600. Stock Dividend distinguished from Cash Dividend ac- companied by Option to subscribe to new Shares. — A stock dividend differs from a cash dividend accompanied by an offer of the proposed new shares to the old shareholders for subscription, in that in the case of a stock dividend no shareholder has any option to take cash and decline the stock.^ To be sure, he may refuse to accept the new shares which the company offers to inadequate); Howell v. Chicago, etc. shares exceeding in par value the Ry. Co., 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 378, amount declared to be available for 380; Cunningham v. Oerman Ins. dividend was held to be unlawful Co., 101 Fed. 977, 981 (headnote under a statute forbidding the use inadequate). of money raised by calls on shares for But see Hoole v. Great Western payment of dividends). By. Co., 3 Ch. 262, criticised infra, ' FitHpatrick v. Dispatch Pub. § 1356. Co., 83 Ala. 604; 2 So. 727. '■ CockriO. v. Abeles, 86 Fed. 505; ' Rand v. Hubbell, 115 Mass. 461, 30 C. C. A. 223. 478; 15 Am. Rep. 121. Cf. Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. Cf. Harris v. San Francisco Sugar R. R. Co., 142 Mass. 146; 7 N. E. Ref..Co., 41 Cal. 393, 408. 716 (where the rule was held to be * Knapp v. Publishers, etc. Co., dispensed with by a statute author- 127 Mo. 53; 29 S. W. 885; Jones v. izing the company to dispose of the Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Co., 57 N. Y. shares as its absolute property); 196. Hoole v. Great Western Ry. Co., 3 Ch. * Lyman v. Pratt, 183 Mass. 58; 262 (where a dividend payable in 66 N. E. 423. VOL. I.— 32 497 § 601 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI distribute to him ; but he cannot obtain cash in lieu of the stock.' On the other hand, where a cash dividend is declared, accom- panied by an offer of new shares "pro rata with the amount of the dividend credited as paid thereon, it would seem that any share- holder may elect to take the cash and to refuse the new shares,^ although indeed Lord Watson seems to have been of a con- trary opinion on this point.^ According to Lord Watson's view a transaction of that sort is in substance identical with a stock dividend.* § 601. Rescission of Stock dividend. — A stock dividend should also be distinguished from a cash dividend in that in the case of cash dividend, the right of the shareholder becomes indefeasible immediately upon the declaration of the dividend, and the com- pany cannot subsequently rescind its action. In the case of a stock dividend, on the other hand, until the formalities required by law as conditions precedent to an increase of capital have been completed, all is in 'fieri, so that until then the company ipay revoke-the dividend.^ The reason of this rule applies, how- ever, only where the stock dividend involves an increase of the company's nominal capital, and therefore a dividend payable in shares which had been purchased by the company should be in this respect assimilated to a cash dividend, and is irrevocable.* § 602. Sale of new Shares in Market followed by Distribution of Premium among old Shareholders. — A method of increasing capital, which has been sometimes employed, and which some- what resembles a " stock dividend," although it certainly cannot properly be called by that name, consists in selling the new shares in the market and distributing the premium obtained from the sale among the old shareholders. Such a distribution is not a dividend within the meaning of a law levying a tax upon "divi- ' Cf. State V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. ' Bouch v. Sproule, 12 A. C. 385, Co., 6 GiU (Md.) 363 (where the 404. dividend was declared payable in * See infra, § 1380, § 1386. bonds). ' Terry v. Eagle Lock Co., 47 2 Bouch V. Sproule, 12 A. C. 385, Conn. 141. 398 (per Lord Herschell). Cf. Ma- « Dock v. Schlichter Jute Cordage lam V. HUchens (1894), 3 Ch. 578. Co., 167 Pa. St. 370; 31 Atl. 656. 498 § 574-§ 677] EIGHT OF PEE-EMPTION § 603 dends" paid to shareholders.' Moreover, money so distributed should, it seems, be regarded as capital rather than income as between a tenant for life and remainderman of the old shares.^ § 603-§ 619. RIGHT OF OLD SHAREHOLDERS TO PREFERENCE IN ALLOTMENT OF NEW SHARES. § 603. In general. — Usually, where the capital of a cor- poration is increased by the issue of additional shares, the old shareholders have a right to subscribe to the new shares in pro- portion to their holdings in the existing capital, before the new shares can be allotted to outsiders. A right of this sort is often expressly conferred by statute or by the company's incorpora- tion paper or regulations. Where that is the case, the extent of the right will depend of course on the terms of the particular statutes or regulations by which the right is conferred. To give the old shareholders such a preferential right of subscribing to the new shares is generally a wise and just provision ; for in that way the several shareholders, provided they possess sufficient pecuniary resources to exercise the right, are enabled to pre- serve their proportionate interest in the company. The American cases and text-writers generally state that the same absolute right inheres in each of the old shareholders even apart from any ex- press statute or resolution ; ' and this doctrine has recently been ' State V. Franklin Bank, 10 Ohio Co., 90 N. W. 1040; 131 Mich. 79; St. 91 (headnote inadequate). 100 Am. St. Rep. 582; Electric Co. ' Ldand v. Hayden, 102 Mass. v. Edison Electric, etc. Co., 200 Pa. 542. See infra, § 1334. But see 516; 50 Atl. 164; WaU v. Utah Wiltbank's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 256, Copper Co. (N. J.), 62 Atl. 533. 259; 3 Am. Rep. 585. But see contra: Ohio Ins. Co. v. ' Reed Estate Trv^t Co. v. Bird, Nunemacher, 15 Ind. 294; Meredith 90 Md. 229; 44 Atl. 1048 (semble); v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 55 Gray v. Porttand Bank, 3 Mass. 364; N. J. Eq. 211, 219-220; 37 Atl. 539; 3 Am. Dec. 156; Jones v. Concord, affirmed short in 56 N. J. Eq. 454; etc. B. R. Co., 67 N. H. 119; 38 Atl. 41 Atl. 1116 (where the new stock 120 ; Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111. 444 was issued in exchange for property), (semble); 11 Am. Rep. 90; Hunv- Cf. Be Wheeler, 2 Abb. Pr., n. s. boldt Driving Park Ass'n v. Stevens, (N. Y.), 361, 363; Morris v. Stevens, 34Nebr. 528; 52N. W. 568; 33 Am. 178 Pa. St. 563, 578-579; 36 Atl. St. Rep. 654 (semble); Jones v. 151 (where it was said that the Morrison, 31 Minn. 140, 151-153; shareholders themselves may order 16 N. W. 854; State ex rel. Page v. that the new shares be offered for Smith, 48 Vt. 266, 289 (semble); public subscription). Hammond v. Edison Illuminating 499 § 604 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OP CAPITAL [ChAP. XI affirmed, after full consideration, by the Court of Appeals of New York.' If this be so, however, the shareholders cannot claim as of right to subscribe to the new shares at par if they could be sold in the market at a greater price ; ^ but can at most claim the right to subscribe for the new shares at the same price as could be got for them in the market from a stranger. It would seem, however, that where by statute or resolution, the old shareholders are entitled to their proportion of the new shares, their right is prima facie a right to subscribe at par.' Certainly, it is not illegal to permit the old shareholders to subscribe for the new shares pro rata at par even though the shares could be sold in the market for a larger sum.* It has been said obiter that a majority of the shareholders may "provide for a sale in parcels or bulk at public auction, when every stockholder can bid the same as strangers " ; " but this dictum, inasmuch as it would en- able the wealthy shareholders to "squeeze out" their poorer fellows by offering the new shares in large blocks for which only men of great means could bid, has been forcibly criticised." § 604. Exceptional Cases. — The issue of bonds convertible into shares at the option of the holder without according any pre-emptive right to the existing shareholders is certainly no less objectionable than the issue of the new shares in presenti to strangers instead of to the old shareholders.' If the increase of capital is effected upon an amalgamation with another company to whose shareholders the new shares are issued, it has been ' Stokes V. Continental Trust Co., ' Cf. Oray v. Portland Bank, 3 186 N. Y. 285; 78 N. E. 1090. Mass. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156; Cun- ' Stokes V. Continental Trust Co., ningham's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 546; 186 N. Y. 285, 301 ; 78 N. E. 1090. Attorney-Oeneral v. Boston & Maine Cf. Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunemacher, R. B., 109 Mass. 99. 10 Ind. 234, 236; 15 Ind. 294; Mil- ♦ Jones v. Concord, etc. R. R. Co., ler V. Illinois Central R. B. Co., 24 67 N. H. 234, 239; 30 Atl. 614; 68 Barb. (N. Y.) 312, 329-330; Mere- Am. St. Rep. 650. dith V. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., Cf. State v. Bank of Charleston, 55 N. J. Eq. 211, 219-220; 37 Atl. Dud. (S. Car.) 187; 39 Am. Dec. 539; affirmed short in 56 N. J. Eq. 135. 454; 41 Atl. 1116 (where the new ° Stokes v. Continental Trust Co., shares were issued in exchange for 186 N. Y. 285, 298; 78 N. E. 1090 property). (semble). But see Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 » See N. Y. Financial Chronicle, Mass. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156; Harris Vol. 83 (Dec. 8, 1906), p. 1380, 1381. mond V. Edison Illuminating Co., 90 ' WaU v. Utah Copper Co. (N. J.), N. W. 1040; 131 Mich. 79; 100 Am. 62 Atl. 533. St. Rep. 582. 500 § 574-§ 677] RIGHT OP PRE-KMPTION § 60G held that the old shareholders of the corporation which absorbs the other company have no right to demand any of the new shares.' It has been thought that the common law pre-emptive right of the old shareholders does not exist if the new shares are not to be issued for cash, but are to be paid for in property.^ § 605- § 609. In whom the Right vests. § 605. In general. — The right of the old shareholders to a preference in the distribution of the new shares, whether created by statute or by the terms of the resolution authorizing the increase of capital, belongs to those persons who are members of the company when the increase is made. Hence, it may be claimed by the executors of a deceased shareholder although they have never been registered as shareholders in the place of their testator.^ An owner of scrip or bonds convertible at the holder's option into shares has no right to participate in an issue of additional shares made before he exercises his option.* The time of the increase for the purpose of determining who are entitled to subscribe to new shares is taken to be the time when the increase is definitively resolved upon by the corporation and made part of the constitution of the company.* § 606. Relative Rights of Transferor and Transferee. — An assignment of the shares prior to the increase would of course convey this right along with other incidents of ownership to the ' Bonnet v. First Nat. Bank, 60 * Miller v. Illinois Central R. B. S. W. 325; 24 Tex. Civ. App. 613; Co., 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; Pratt v. Stokes v. Continental Trust Co., 186 American Bell Tel. Co., 141 Mass. N. Y. 285, 299; 78 N. E. 1090 225; 5 N. E. 307; 55 Am. St. Rep. (semble). 465. ^ Stokes V. Continental Trust Co., * Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird, 186 N. Y. 285, 298, 299; 78 N. E. 90 Md. 229, 245 (headnote inade- 1090 (semble). Cf. Meredith v. New quate) ; 44 Atl. 1048. Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 55 N. J. Ci. Jones v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Bq. 211; 37 Atl. 539; affirmed Co., 57 N. Y. 196 ^as to stock divi- short in 56 N. J. Eq. 454; 41 Atl. dends). 1116. As to whether a holder of redeem- ' James v. Buena Ventura Nitrate able shares is entitled to participate Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 456. in an allotment of new shares issued Cf. Jackson v. Turquand, L. R. 4 for the purpose of obtaining the H. L. 305; Leeds Banking Co., 1 Ch. funds necessary to consummate the 231; Bushee v. Freeborn, 11 R. I. 149 redemption, see Weidenfeld v. North- (as to the relative rights of specific ern Pac. Ry. Co., 129 Fed. 305, 309- and residuary legatees to shares 310; 63 C. C. A. 537. subscribed to by the executor). 501 § 607 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI transferee ; but there would seem to be no objection to an express reservation of the right by the assignor, although the reservation would be operative only in equity. Where the increase is made after a contract for the sale of shares has been entered into but before it has been executed, the right of pre-emption as between the vendor and the purchaser vests in the latter.' But the vendor is under no obligation to advance his own money in order to pro- cure the new shares for the purchaser, and by failing to do so and thus suffering the pre-emptive right to be lost, he incurs no liability to the purchaser, who if he wished to avail of the option of pre-emption should have provided the vendor, the holder of the legal title to the old shares, with the necessary funds.' It has been said that an assignment of the original shares after the option to subscribe for the rateable portion of the new capital has been exercised but before the new shares have been actually issued will carry as an incident the right of the assignor to the new shares when issued ; ' but the questions suggested by this dictum, which are merely questions of the presumed intention of the parties, would seem to depend in large measure on the terms of the statute or by-law by which the pre-emptive right of the old shareholders is conferred or regulated. § 607. Relative Bights of Tenant for Life and Remainderman of old Shares. — The privilege of subscribing to the new shares is not to be deemed income and therefore does not enure ex- clusively to the benefit of a tenant for life of the old shares, but the new shares when subscribed to, or the proceeds of sale of the pre-emptive right if it be sold, constitute part of the corpus of the estate.* In those states which adopt the Pennsylvania rule of apportioning extra dividends between life tenant and ' Currie v. White, 45 N. Y. 822 § 1386); Atkins v. Albree, 12 Allen (semble). (Mass.) 359; Lelaiid v. Hayden, 102 'Currie v. White, 45 N. Y Mass. 542 ; i?e Kerraocfeare, 104 N. Y. 822. 618,630; UN. E. 149; Biddle'sAp- ' Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. peal, 99 Pa. St. 278; Moss's Appeal, Hambleton, 77 Md. 341, 350-351 83 Pa. St. 264 ; 24 Am. Rep. 164 ; (semble — headnote inadequate) ; 26 W-alker v. Walker, 68 N. H. 407 Atl. 279. (headnote inadequate); 39 Atl. 432; * Sanders v. Bromley, 55 L. T., Peirce v. Burroughs, 58 N. H. 302, N. s., 145; Malamv. Hitchens (1894), 303 (headnote inadequate); Law v. 3 Ch. 578 (stated infra, § 1380) ; Alley, 67 N. H. 93 (headnote inade- Davis V. Jackson, 152 Mass. 58 quate — the court saying that the (headnote misleading); 25N. E. 21; value of the pre-emptive right is 23 Am. St. Rep. 801 (stated infra, presumptively capital) ; 29 Atl. 636; 502 § 574- § 677] RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION § 609 remainderman according to the time when the profits out of which they are declared are earned/ there would seem to be no reason why so much of the value of the pre-emptive right as is due to profits earned during the pendency of the life estate should not be treated as income, as indeed was done in a recent New Hampshire case ; '' but the cases are, to say the least, rare in which life tenants even in states which adopt the rule of ap- portioning stock dividends have been awarded any part of the value of the pre-emptive right.' § 608. Relative Rights of Preferred and Common Shareholders. — The right inter sese of holders of preferred shares and of holders of ordinary or common shares to participate in an in- crease of capital has been considered in connection with the subject of preferred shares.* § 609. Rights of Shareholder who has not fully paid for old Shares. — The fact that a larger proportion has been paid in on some shares than on others is no reason for denying to the holders of the latter the same right of pre-emption as the holders of the > former have. So far is this principle carried that even a share- holder who is in default for non-payment of calls has been held to be entitled to participate in an increase of capital pari passu with shareholders who are not delinquent.^ Hite V. Hite, 93 Ky. 257, 267-268; Supp. 298; Hydey. Holmes (Mass.), 20 S. W. 778; 40 Am. St. Rep. 189; 84 N. E. 318. 19 L. R. A. 173; Thomson's Estate, But see WUtbank's Appeal, 64 153 Pa. St. 332; 26 Atl. 652, 653; Pa. St. 256; 3 Am. Rep. 585 (dis- ' Greene v. Smith, 17 R. I. 28; 19 tinguished in Pennsylvania cases Atl. 1081 (with which compare cited supra and to be compared with Bushee v. Freeborn, 11 R. I. 149, peculiar Pennsylvania rules on a where the new shares were issued similar subject, infra, § 1387-§ 1389). to the old shareholders on payment As to the right to subscribe for of less than the par value) ; Brinley shares in a subsidiary company V. Grou, 50 Conn. 66; 47 Am. Rep. organized to lease the property of 618; De Koven v. Alsop, 205 111. the principal corporation, see TFng/it's 309, 319-320; 68 N. E. 930; 63 L. Estate, 24 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 376 R. A. 587; Robertson v. De Brida- (where the "adventitious" right was tour, SO N. E. 938, 943 (headnote held to be income), inadequate); 188 N. Y. 301; Brown ' See infra, § 1387-§ 1389. V. Brown (N. J.), 65 Atl. 739 ;CMr«is v. ^ Holbrook v. Holbrook (N. H.), Osborn (Conn.), 65 Atl. 968 (holding 66 Atl. 124. also that the new shares are held by 'See Pennsylvania and New Hamp- the tnastee subject to the same duties shire cases cited supra, p. 502, n. 4. of conversion, etc., as the old); Love- * Supra, § 569. lace v. Anson (1907), 2 Ch. 424; ^ Reese v. Bank of Montgomery Richmond v. Richmond, 108 N. Y. Cownti/, 31 Pa. St. 78; 72 Am. Dec. 726. 503 610 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI § 610-§ 611. Time for Exercise of Right. § 610. . Before Increase of Capital is effected. — The right can- not well be exercised by anticipation before the increase is de- ■ termined upon. A shareholder might promise to exercise the right when it accrues, and such a promise if supported by a consideration might operate as a contract which would bind him personally, and perhaps bind any transferee of the shares with notice of the promise.' § 611. After Expiration of Time limited for Exercise of Right. — - The very nature of the right of the old shareholders to partici- pate pro rata in the distribution of new capital before non- members of the company can subscribe thereto presupposes that the right must be exercised in some reasonable time, else it will be lost. Moreover, the company would have the right to name a particular date before which the existing shareholders must subscribe or lose their prior right to do so. The only re- striction upon this power of the company is that the date so named must allow the shareholders a fair opportunity to avail themselves qf their preference should they be disposed to do so.^ When a reasonable date is named at which the shareholders' option of subscribing to the new issue will be terminated, time is of the essence, and no shareholder can subscribe as a matter of right after that date,' even though his failure to subscribe in time was due to no fault of his. Thus, where the resolution for the issue of new capital was passed on July 25th, and the shareholders were allowed until the 10th of the next month for the exercise of their option, a shareholder who was abroad and who did not learn of the option until August 12th and who thereupon wrote immediately attempting to exercise the option, is too late, and cannot require the company to issue to hini his proportion of the new shares.* The only exception to the rule of which the case just stated is an illustration is that if the share- ' Cf. Real Estate Trust Co. v. held ineffective as to a shareholder Bird, 90 Md. 229, 246; 44 Atl. 1048. who happened to be in Europe). ^ Jones V. Morrison, 31 Minn. " Hart v. St. Charles Street R. R. 140, 153; 16 N. W. 854 (where the Co., 30 La. Ann. 758. company's attempt to limit the time * Pearson v. London & Croydon within which the old shareholders Ry. Co., 14 Sim. 541. might subscribe to eleven days was 504 § 574^§ 677] EIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION § 612 holder's failure to subscribe in due time is due to the company's own fault — for example, if the letter notifying him of his right to subscribe be misdirected — he will be allowed to subscribe within a reasonable time after the expiration of the prescribed period.' The company may require a deposit to be paid at the time of subscribing by a shareholder who wishes to exercise his option of subscribing for new shares; and if a shareholder or his assignee fails to make the payment within the stipulated time the right to subscribe is lost.^ § 612. Waiver of pre-emptive Right. — The right of the old shareholders may be waived by them before the expiration of the time for subscribing to the new shares, or, perhaps, even before the increase of capital is made or authorized.^ No such waiver, however, will bind a purchaser of the shares without notice thereof.* The only way in which the company can make such a waiver certainly effective as against a purchaser of the shares is by noting the same on the share-certificate. Inasmuch as the right vests in those persons who are shareholders at the time of the increase, it seems to have been thought that a waiver of the right before that time would not bind a person who, after the waiver but before the increase is resolved upon, acquires shares of the original capital by transfer, even though he have notice of the waiver ; " but there would seem to be no reason why an absolute owner of shares should not in equity be allowed to waive the right before it accrues nor why such a waiver should not bind a purchaser with notice, for it must be remembered that the privilege does not come as a mere windfall or gift of Providence to those who are shareholders where the increase is resolved but vests in them in consequence of the rights of owner- ship which have all along been possessed, potentially at least, by them and their predecessors in title. The fact that a share- ' James v. Buena Ventura Nitrate * Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird, 90 Syndicate (1896), 1 Ch. 456. Md. 229, 246-248; 44 Atl. 1048. ^ SewaU V. Eastern B. B. Co., 9 = Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird, 90 Cush. (Mass.) 5. Md. 229, 245-246; 44 Atl. 1048. ' Cf. Hoyt V. Shenango Valley Steel Co., 207 Pa. 208; 56 Atl. 422. 505 § 613 INCEEASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI holder demands the right to subscribe to the new shares at par, whereas the extent of his legal right is to subscribe at such price as the majority of the shareholders may fix, does not amount to a waiver of his legal right, or justify the company in allotting the new shares to third persons without first offering to the pro- testing shareholder his proportion of the new shares at the same price as the strangers are willing to pay.' Moreover, an accept- ance of a part of the new stock to which an old stockholder is entitled does not amount to a waiver of his right to the rest of his quota.^ § 613. Assignment of the Right. — The right may be as- signed as well as waived.' Indeed, such rights are often bought and sold on the stock exchange. As there is no certificate or other tangible evidence of ownership of the right separable from the share-certificate, the purchaser's only security is the promise of the vendor or his broker. When the shareholder has exercised his option of subscribing, he usually receives from the company a scrip-certificate stating that he will be entitled to so many of the new shares when issued; and this certificate may be sold on the stock exchange precisely like a share-certifi- cate.^ Such a sale, however, makes the purchaser merely an assignee of a contract and not an actual shareholder. Hence, he cannot compel the company to issue to him a share-certificate for the shares subscribed for by his assignor ; and not until the new shares are actually issued does he become a shareholder, entitled to vote and exercise the other rights of a shareholder.^ It has been said that an assignment of the original shares after the option to subscribe for a rateable portion of the new capital has been exercised but before the new shares have been actually issued will carry as an incident the right of the assignor to the new shares.' ' Stokes V. Continental Trust Co., the new stock — "himself, he was 186 N. Y. 285, 299-301 ; 78 N. E. entitled to sell the right to one who 1090. could, as is frequently done." ' Schmidt v. Pritchard (Iowa), 112 * As to transfer of the right to the N. W. 801. new shares by a sale of the old shares ' Stokes V. Continental Trust Co., see supra, § 606. 186 N. Y. 285, 297; 78 N. E. 1090, " Baltimore City Passenger By. where the court said: "If so situ- Co. v. Hambleton, 77 Md. 341; 26 ated that he" — i. e., the old share- Atl. 279. holder — "could not take it" — i. e., " See supra, § 606. 506 § 574r-§ 677] EIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION §614 § 614^1 616. Remedies against the Company for failing to recognize pre-emptive Right. § 614. In general. — If the company disregards or refuses to recognize the rights of an old shareholder to a preference in the allotment of new shares, several remedies are available. He may by bill in equity compel the company to accord him the privilege to which he is entitled, and enjoin it from disre- garding his rights.' If the company has already issued all the shares to other persons who are entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers,' so that specific performance of the duty owed to him by the company is impossible, or if he does not choose to ask for specific performance, he may recover his damages.^ In order to maintain an action for damages, he must first offer and demand to subscribe to the shares to which he is entitled.* The measure of damages in such an action will be the difference between the amount which he would have had to pay to the com- pany for the shares to which he was entitled to subscribe and the value of the shares at the time the company wrongfully refuses ' Dousman v. Wisconsin, etc. Co., 40 Wise. 418; Cunningham's Ap- peal, 108 Pa. St. 546; Electric Co. v. Edison Electric, etc. Co., 200 Pa. 516, 521 (headnote inadequate) ; 50 Atl. 164; Schmidt v. Pritchard (Iowa), 112 N. W. 801. Cf. Sewcdl V. EaMernR. B. Co., 9 Cush. 5, 11; Hammond v. Edison Mfg. Co., 90 N. W. 1040; 131 Mich. 79; 100 Am. St. Rep. 582 (manda- mus granted against company). But see Meredith v. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 211; 37 Atl. 539, affirmed short in 56 N. J. Eq. 454; 41 Atl. 1116 (where the remedy at law by way of damages was thought adequate). ^ Cf. infra, § 617. ' Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird, 90 Md. 229; 44 Atl. 1048; Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156; Reading Trust Co. v. Beading I. Works, 137 Pa. St. 282; 21 Atl. 169, 170; Stokes v. Conti- nental Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 285, 301; 78 N. E. 1090. Cf. Crosby v. Stratton, 68 Pao. 130; 17 Colo. 212 (where the in- jured shareholder sought in vain to recover damages from another share- holder who was alleged to have re- ceived more than his just proportion of the new shares). * Wilson V. Bank of Montgomery County, 29 Pa. St. 537; Beese v. Bank of Montgomery County, 31 Pa. St. 78; 72 Am. Dec. 726 (where the form of action was assumpsit) ; Bori/- net V. First Nat. Bank, 60 S. W. 325; 24 Tex. Civ. App. 613. Cf . Hart V. St. Charles Street B. B. Co., 30 La. Ann. 758 (where a tender of the amount of the new shares was required by the court). But see Stokes v. Continental Trust Co., 186 N. Y. 285, 299-301; 78 N. E. 1090. 507 § 615 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI to issue them to him.* The statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the corporation from the time of its refusal to issue to the complainant his proportion of the new shares. If the company exacts the payment of a premium as a condition of allowing a shareholder to subscribe to his proportion of the new shares, it has been held in Pennsylvania that if he pays the premium even under protest, he cannot subsequently recover it back.^ § 615. Remedy personal to Shareholder whose Bight is denied. — In order that a shareholder should have a standing in court to complain of the distribution of new or additional shares, he must show some violation of his own personal rights and not merely a violation of the rights of other shareholders. For instance, a common shareholder has no ground of complaint because the preferred shareholders have not been permitted by the company to participate in the allotment of new shares.^ § 616. Company not accountable for Premium realized on Quota of Shareholder who has waived or otherwise lost pre-emptive Right. — A shareholder who waives or omits to exercise his right to subscribe for his proportion of the new shares cannot compel the company to pay him the amount of a premium, or excess over the par value, realized by it on a sale of the shares to which he would have been entitled, unless a statute affirmatively con- fers such a right.* § 617. Rights and Liabilities of Persons to whom new shares are issued in Violation of Pre-emptive Right of old Shareholders. — If the right of the old shareholders to a preference in the dis- tribution of new shares be disregarded and the new shares be allotted to others, the allotment cannot be cancelled after the shares have come into the hands of bona fide holders for value." > Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. ' Weidenfeld v. Northern Pac. Ry. 364; 3 Am. Dec. 156. Co., 129 Fed. 305; 63 C. C. A. 537. Cf. Beading Trust Co. v. Reading * Mason v. Davol Mills, 132 /. Works, 137 Pa. St. 282; 21 Atl. Mass. 76. 169, 170. ' Morris v. Stevens, 178 Pa. St. 2 De la Cuesta v. 7ms. Co., 136 563; 36 Atl. 151. Pa. St. 62; 20 Atl. 505; 9 L. R. A. Cf. Re Wheeler, 2 Abb. Pr., n. s. 631. (N. Y.), 361 (where shares issued ia 508 § 574-§ 677] RiaHT of pre-emption § 618 So long as the shares are in the hands of persons who are cogni- zant of the circumstances under which they were allotted, the issue may be cancelled ; ' and if one of the original allottees has sold some of the new shares to an innocent purchaser, the vendor may be enjoined from voting on or selling a corresponding number of his old shares until the validity of the allotment be finally passed upon.^ § 618. Rights of old Shareholders upon Issue of previously un- issued Shares of old Capital, surrendered and forfeited Shares. — Whilst the distinction between an increase of capital and the issue of previcfusly unissued shares of the existing capital or shares which have been surrendered or forfeited must not be over- looked, yet if a corporation has begun business before its capital has been fully subscribed or, as the saying is, with some of its stock remaining in its treasury, it may offer the shares so re- maining to the existing shareholders before putting them up for public subscription; and where that is done, the rights of the shareholders are much the same as if the shares so offered had constituted an increase of capital.' No obligation, however, rests upon the company to offer to its existing shareholders in preference to the public at large any shares of its original author- ized capital which it may have in its disposal * — most certainly not where the company is reissuing shares which were sur- rendered by the original allottees.' But the company has no disregard of the old shareholders' illustrative of some points in the right of pre-emption were said to be law as to increase of capital, illegal). * State ex rel. Page v. Smith, 48 ^ a. Schmidt y. Pritchard (Iowa.), Vt. 266, 289-290; Hartridge v. 112 N. W. 801 (where the sub- Rockwell, R. M. Charit. (Ga.) 260; scribers for the new shares, not being Brown v. Florida Southern Ry. Co., bona fide purchasers, were required 19 Fla. 472; Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. to recognize the rights of the old St. 270. shareholders); Whitaker v. KUby, But see Jones v. Morrison, 31 106 N. Y. Supp. 511 (a similar Minn. 140, 146 (semble); 16 N. W. case). 854; Way v. American Grease Co., But Bee Shellenberger V. Patterson, 47 Atl. Rep. 44, 46; 60 N. J. Eq. 168 Pa. St. 30; 31 Atl. 943. 263; Crosby v. Stratton, 68 Pac. 130, ' Morris v. Stevens, 178 Pa. St. 132 (semble); 17 Colo. 212. 563, 579-580 (headnote inadequate) ; Cf . Miller v. Illinois Central R. R. 36 Atl. 151. Co., 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 312; Shellen- ' Some cases of this sort, for ex- berger v. Patterson, 168 Pa. St. 30; ample, Jackson v. Turquand, L. R. 31 Atl. 943. 4 H. L. 305, and Addinell's Case, 1 ' Crosby v. Stratton, 68 Pac. 130; Eq. 225, have been cited above as 17 Colo. 212. 509 § 619 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI right to accord the privilege to some favored shareholders whilst denying it to others.' And of course the directors have no right to issue hitherto unissued shares of the original capital to their own friends for the purpose of maintaining themselves in control of the company.^ So, where shares have been surrendered to the company as "treasury stock," the directors have no right to sell such shares to a friend for the purpose of maintaining themselves in power, especially where the price to be obtained for them, although under ordinary circumstances a good one, is less than could be realized by taking advantage of the contest for control of the corporation; and if the vendee has notice of the object of the directors, the court will cancel the reissue.' § 619. Distinction between Acceptance of Company's OSer of Quota of new Shares and Application for Shares in Addition to Quota at Suggestion of Company. — The exercise by shareholders, within the time limited to them, of the right to subscribe for the new shares completes a contract between the company and the share- holder so subscribing.^ On the other hand, if the company writes to the various shareholders asking them whether they desire to take any of the new shares over and above their pro- portion, the company is not making an offer but is merely, as it we?e, advertising for offers; and therefore a reply by a shareholder signifying his desire to subscribe for a certain number of the new shares in addition to his proper propor- tion does not complete a contract, but is a mere offer which will not ripen into a contract unless and until it be accepted by the corporation.^ ' Eeese v. Bank of Montgomery ' Elliott v. Baker (Mass.), 80 N. County, 31 Pa. St. 78 (headnote mis- E. 450. leading); 72 Am. Dec. 726. * Jackson v. Turquand, L. R. 4 ' Luther v. C. J. Luther Co. H. L. 305. (Wisc.),94N. W. 69; 118 Wise. 112; ^ Addindl's Case, 1 Eq. 225; 99 Am. St. Rep. 977; WhUaker v. Jackson v. Turquand, L. R. 4 H. L. KUhy, 106 N. Y. Supp. 511 (head- 305. note misleading). 510 § 574^§ 677] MEANING OF REDUCTION § 621 § 620-§ 674. REDUCTION OF CAPITAL. § 620-§ 621. Definilim. § 620. What Reduction of Capital means. — Reduction or decrease of capital means either a return to shareholders of actual capital once paid in or contributed by them to the common stock,' or a release of shareholders from a liability once incurred to make such contribution if and when called upon to do so, or a diminution in the nominal amount of the capital by cancelling some of the shares or by reducing the nominal or par value of some or all of the existing shares. § 621. What it does not mean. — It is scarcely necessary to say that the mere fact that a corporation is parting with some of its property does not indicate a reduction of capital in the legal sense. Whenever such a surrender of corporate property is reasonably necessary for the attainment of the objects for which the company was formed, it cannot be said to be a reduction of capital, even though no immediate return is secured to the com- pany. Thus, where an investment company holds railway shares, it may, in compliance with a scheme for reorganizing the rail- road, surrender some of its holdings with a view to improving the value of the remainder: to regard such a surrender as a reduction of capital would be an entire misconception.^ Even where losses are sustained in the prosecution of the business so that the company's actual capital is impaired, there is never- theless no return of actual capital to the shareholders and no diminution in the nominal capital; and consequently there is no reduction of capital in the legal sense.' Of course, a sale of part of the company's capital to one of the shareholders at a fair price is not forbidden as a reduction or return of capital.* ' Cf. Audenried v. East Coast called up again by company is re- Milling Co., 59 Atl. (N. J.) 577, 585 duction of capital requiring legisla- (where it was said that a return of tive sanction). See also § 497. capital once paid in was a with- ' Thompson v. Trustees, etc. Cor- drawal of "capital stock" within the poration (1895), 2 Ch. 454. Cf. meaning of a statute) ; WhitwhamY. Beardslee v. Shickler (Pa.), 68 Atl. Piercy (1907), 1 Ch. 289 (holding 44. that payment of money to share- ' Cunningham v. German Ins. holders to go in reduction of paid- Bank, 101 Fed. 977 ; 41 C. C. A. 609. up capital and to be subject to be ' Robinson v. Muir (Cal.), 90 511 § 622 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI Moreover, a distribution of new shares among the existing share- holders as a stock dividend is not a payment or return of capital stock to the stockholders : it is an increase rather than a reduc- tion of the capital stock.' § 622-§ 624. Why RedvMion of Capital without affirmative Legislative Sanction is forbidden. § 622. Reduction of Actual Capital. — :As heretofore stated, a reduction of capital affects the rights of shareholders and especially creditors more seriously than an increase. The capital of a corporation or limited company is the fund provided by law for the carrying on of its business and the payment of its debts; and any attempt, without special legislative authority to diminish the same is both ultra vires and illegal,^ and should be ruthlessly stricken down by the courts. This rule is founded in the policy of the law, and cannot be evaded by any artifice. A decrease of capital, so far as creditors are concerned, is most serious when it takes the form of a return to shareholders of capital once paid in ^ or of a release from liability for uncalled capital. § 623. Reduction of Nominal Capital. — But a reduction in the nominal amount of capital may also be very objectionable, and unless clearly authorized by statute should be held to be illegal even though it may be designed merely to make the nominal capital correspond with the actual capital as diminished by losses.* For instance, if a corporation could reduce its nominal capital, it could subsequently treat any excess in the value of Pac. 521; Chase v. Mich. Tel. Co., its capital, loses that power upon 121 Mich. 631; 80 N. W. 717 (sale of becoming incorporated with limited company's entire property and busi- liability under the Companies Acts, ness to a corporation which is owner although the statute provided that of all except eight of the shares). existing companies when incorpor- 1 Williams v. Western Union Tel. ated under the act should retain the Co., 93 N. Y. 162. powers conferred by their deeds of " Haas Co., 131 Fed. 232. settlement). Cf. Droitwich Patent Salt Co. v. ' Cf. Holmes v. NewcasUe-upon- Curzon, L. R. 3 Ex. 35 (holding that Tyne Abattoir Co., 45 L. J. Ch., n. s., an unlimited company, or partner- 383. ship, which under its deed of settle- * Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160, ment possessed the power to reduce 169-170 (headnote inadequate). 512 f 574-§ 677] REDUCTION § 624 its assets over the capital as so reduced as representing surplus or profits available for distribution among the shareholders as dividends.' So, too, the effect of a reduction of the nominal capital, if valid, would be to diminish jiro tanto any statutory liability of shareholders to creditors which may be measured by the nominal or par value of the shares.^ § 624. General Principle. — At all events, the true view would seem to be that the capital having been fixed by the mem- orandum of association or incorporation paper is by statute made irreducible except in the mode, if any, expressly provided by law, and that whether in any particular case a reduction of capital in a certain way would be hurtful either to creditors or shareholders is a question with which the courts need not con- cern themselves.^ ' Whether a particular decrease of capital be good or bad policy for the corporation, be injurious or beneficial to the shareholders, be fraught with danger to creditors or in no way jeopardizing their interests, — these are not questions for the courts ; for every decrease of capital is forbidden by the legislature by the very scheme of incorporation, unless some clear statutory sanction can be found. In a recent California case, a corporation was formed, under a statute authorizing incorporation for any lawful objects, for the purpose of developing and selling a tract of land, which was accepted in payment for shares of the capital stock, in parcels or building lots. The incorporation paper provided that as portions of the tract should be sold, the proceeds of sale should be divided among the shareholders. Undoubtedly, this provision attempted to authorize a reduction of the actual capital. Never- theless, the court held that the provision was valid, and that any shareholder might compel a distribution of the proceeds of sales, even against the opposition of other shareholders.* The court emphasized the fact that the rights of creditors were not involved in the proceeding. Nevertheless, it is submitted that a contrary decision would have been more consistent with the legal theory of the nature of a corporation,^ and that the proper course to ' See infra, § 1314. * Baldwin v. MUler & Lux (Cal.), " See Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160, 92 Pao. 1030. 169-170 (headnote inadequate). * See supra, § 53 and § 122. ' Holmes v. Newcastte-upon^Tyne Abattoir Co., 45 L. J. Ch., n. s., 383. VOL. I.— 33 513 § 625 INCREASE AND SEDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI pursue in any such case would be to exercise the statutory power, if any such be conferred upon the company, of reducing the capital. § 625-§ 642. REDUCTION WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHOR- ITY—EVASION OF PROHIBITION OF REDUCTION. § 625. Payment of Dividends out of Capital. — A not uncom- mon and exceedingly pernicious method of violating the rule against reducing or returning capital is by paying so-called divi- dends out of the company's capital, when no profits properly available for dividends have been earned. This practice amounts to a thinly disguised return of capital to the shareholders,' and is carried out by false balance sheets and other fraudulent de- vices. The rules for determining whether or not moneys available for dividends are in the company's hands are treated in connection with the subject of dividends in general.^ So, too, the liability of directors who declare and pay a dividend out of the company's capital will be stated below.^ § 626-§ 633. PURCHASE by company of its own shares. § 626-§ 630. Whether Purchase is lawful. § 626. On Principle. — A more subtle method of evading the rule against unauthorized reductions of capital lies in the purchase by a corporation of some of its own shares. Most unquestionably, any such purchase reduces by the amount of the purchase price the fund available for the payment of the com- pany's debts. As such, it brings about a diminution of the com- pany's actual or working capital. It also reduces the nominal capital outstanding. While the purchased shares may doubtless be reissued if the purchase is valid, nevertheless such reissue may never be feasible; for the company may never be able to find a subscriber for the shares. Hence, the purchase. by a corpo- ration of its own shares amounts to a reduction of both the ' American Steel, etc. Co. v. Eddy, holders responeible for the claims of 89N. W. 952; 130 Mich. 266 (where creditors injured by a withdrawal shareholders who received illegal of capital), dividends were held liable to credit- = Infra, § 1313-§ 1344. ors under a statute making share- ' Infra, § 1362. 514 § 574-§ 677] UNAUTHORIZED REDUCTION § 626 actual and the nominal capital of the company, and as such it should be held both vtira vires and illegal unless clearly sanc- tioned by statute. It is no answer to say that if the company is thoroughly solvent, so that its assets after the purchase are still amply sufficient for payment of all claims against it, the creditors are not prejudiced. For, while the assets may still remain suf- ficient, yet they are, after the consummation of the purchase, undeniably less by the amount of the purchase money than they were before; and hence the fund which the creditors had an absolute right to have preserved intact for the payment of their claims has been diminished without their consent. This is obviously true where the shares are purchased with capital moneys of the company ; and the real fact is but thinly disguised where they are bought with accumulated profits. For the com- pany after buying the shares might treat them as extinguished and distribute any excess of its assets over its outstanding nomi- nal capital among its shareholders in the shape of dividends. Moreover, even if it were conceded that under some circum- stances the purchase might not injure creditors, yet it most seriously disturbs the rights of shareholders. To enable the corporation to purchase, hold, and vote its own shares would so obviously enable the majority to strengthen their grip upon the company with money belonging in part to the minority, that no one would contend that the corporation should have the right to vote in respect of the purchased shares.' Even if the purchased shares be treated as extinguished, the change in the relative position of the majority and minority shareholders, although less in degree, is the same in kind. For example, suppose, as may well be the case, the directors of a corporation own between them forty-nine per cent of the company's capital — say, forty-nine out of a total one hundred shares. If, now, they can with the company's money purchase for the corporation three more shares, their forty-nine shares, formerly a minority of the total capital, are converted into a majority. Prior to the purchase, the directors might have been ousted from control of the company by a combination of all the other shareholders; after the purchase, any such combination would be futile. Can it be that those in control of a corporation can be allowed thus to intrench them- ' See infra, § 1233. 515 § 627 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI selves in power with money of the company — money belonging in part to the minority shareholders ? ' Even where the purchase of shares by the corporation does not have the effect of convert- ing those temporarily in control from a minority into a majority, yet it does necessarily always result in increasing the relative strength of the large holders. For all these reasons, it is sub- mitted that no corporation should be held to have implied power to purchase its own shares. § 627. English Authorities. — The English law is now settled in accordance with the principles set out in the last paragraph. Soon after the passage of the Companies Act of 1862, it was held that a company could not purchase its own shares unless power so to do was reserved in the memorandum or articles of associa- tion.^ Afterwards, the lower courts fell into the error of holding that where such a power was contained in the articles of associa- tion, the purchase might lawfully be made;" but the House of Lords in Trevor v. Whitworth * corrected this error and over- ruled these cases. The broad principle laid down was that the purchase by a company of its own shares is impliedly forbidden by the Companies Act, so that even if the memorandum of as- sociation or incorporation paper contained a clause purporting to authorize the company to purchase its own shares, the clause would be void.^ § 628. American Authorities. — In America, many courts up- hold the same sound and wholesome doctrine as the English cases.' But it must be conceded that a somewhat larger number of the American courts have taken the view that a corporation ' " Can it be contended that when ' Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 A. C. the policy of directors is assailed they 409, 436-437 (semble, per Lord may spend the capital of the com- Macnaghten). pany in keeping themselves in power, ° Maryland Trust Co. v. National or in purchasing the retirement of Mechanics Bank, 102 Md. 608; 63 inquisitive and troublesome critics 7" Atl. 70 (a very forcible opinion); Per Lord Macnaghten, in Trevor v. Cartwright v. Dickenson, 88 Tenn. Whitworth, 12 A. C. 409, 435. 476; 12 S. W. 1030; 17 Am. St. Rep. ^ Hope y. Iriternational Financial 910; 7 L. R. A. 706; Crandall v. Society, 4 Ch. D. 327. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73 (but see p. 100) ; ' Dronfield Silkstone Coal Co., 17 52 Am. Rep. 560; Percy v. Mil- Ch. D. 76; Taylor v. Pilsen Joel iaudon, 3 La. 568, 580-589 (headnote Electric Light Co., 27 Ch. D. 268; inadequate); State v. Franklin Bank, i Teasdale's Case, 9 Ch. 54. 10 Oh. St. 91, 97-98 (semble); Bed- * Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 A. C. ford R. R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 409 29; Bank of San Luis Obispo v. 516 § 574- § 677] UNAUTHORIZED REDUCTION 628 may without express statutory authority purchase its own shares, provided the purchase is entered into bona fide and does not endanger the claims of creditors.' It should be observed that the American cases which agree with the English doctrine are often well-considered and fully reasoned, whereas those which uphold the contrary view generally lack any extended examina- tion of the subject ; and furthermore the English rule is supported by the weight of Mr. Morawetz's opinion.^ Even where a Wickersham, 99 Cal. 655, 661; 34 Pac. 444; State v. Oberlin Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 35 Oh. St. 258, 263 (headnote inadequate) ; German Savings Bank V. WulfekuMer, 19 Kan. 60; Abeles V. Cochran, 22 Kan. 405, 411; 31 Am. Rep. 194; Coppin v. Greenlees, etc. Co., 38 Oh. St. 275; 43 Am. Rep. 425; St. Louis Mfg. Co. v. HUbert, 24 Mo. App. 338; Barton v. Port Jackson, etc. Plant Road Co., 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 397; St. Louis Raw- hide Co. V. Hill, 72 Mo. App. 142 (semble); Tait v. Pigott, 38 Wash. 59; 80 Pac. 172; Burrows v. Ni- black, 84 Fed. Ill, 113-114 (semble); 28 C. C. A. 130; Walters v. Porter (Ga.), 59 S. E. 452. Cf. Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H. 262 ; Coleman v. Columbia Oil Co., 51 Pa. St. 74; United Society V. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 456; Clark v. Clark Co. (Mich.), 115 N. W. 416. ' Shoemaker v. Washburn Lumber Co., 97 Wise. 585; 73 N. W. 333; Cooper V. Frederick, 9 Ala. 738; Hartridge v. Rockwell, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 260 (semble); Western Imp. Co. V. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa 455, 462; 72N. W. 657; Glenn V. Hatchett, 91 Ala. 316; 8 So. 656; Republic Life Ins. Co. v. Svrigert, 135 III. 150; 25 N. E. 680; 12 L. R. A. 328; Howe Grain & Mercantile Co. V. Jones, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 198; 51 S. W. 24; Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa 25; 31 Am. Rep. 140; Rol- lins V. Shaver Wagon Co., 80 Iowa 380; 45 N. W. 1037; 20 Am. St. Rep. 427; Dock v. Schlichter, etc. Co., 167 Pa. St. 370; 31 Atl. 656; Bla- lock V. Kernsville Mfg. Co., 110 N. Car. 99; 14 S. E. 501; Dupee v. Boston Water Power Co., 114 Mass. 37; New England Trust Co. v. Ab- bott, 162 Mass. 148; 38 N. E. 432; 27 L. R. A. 271 ; Farmers', etc. Bank v. Champlain, 18 Vt. 131, 138-139 (holding that the purchase makes the vendor a competent witness at common law in a suit to which the company is party); Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. V. Marseilles, 84 111. 145; Taylor v. Miami Exporting Co., 6 Ohio 176; First Nat. Bank v. Salem Capital, etc. Co., 39 Fed. 89; Leonard V. Draper, 187 Mass. 536; 73 N. E. 644 ; Burnes v. Burnes, 137 Fed. 781 ; 70 C. C. A. 357; Porter v. Plymouth Gold Mining Co., 29 Mont. 347; 74 Pac. 938; 101 Am. St. Rep. 569 (where a statute expressly prohib- ited the company from reducing its capital stock) ; Fremont Carriage Mfg. Co. V. Thomsen, 91 N. W. 376; 65 Nebr. 370; Marvin v. Anderson, 111 Wise. 387, 391; 87 N. W. 226; Vrooman v. Vansant Lumber Co., 64 Atl. 394; 215 Pa. St. 75; United States Mineral Co. v. Camden (Va.), 56 S. E. 561. Cf. City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507, 511 (headnote misleading); Jones V. Morrison, 31 Minn. 140; 16 N. W. 854 ; Barto v. Nix, 15 Wash. 563, 568; 46 Pac. 1033; Yeaton v. Eagle OH, etc. Co., 4 Wash. 183; 29 Pac. 1051 (as to presumption in respect to foreign law). " 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 112-§ 113. Judge Thompson seems to have been of the same opinion: 2 Thompson's Comm. oa Corps., § 2054. 517 § 628 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OP CAPITAL [ChAP. XI statute expressly forbade the company to " divide, withdraw, or in any way pay to the stockholders or any of them any part of the capital ... or reduce its capital stock except as authorized Hy law," with a proviso allowing the company to accept its own shares in settlement of a bad or doubtful debt, a federal judge held that the company, if at the time not insolvent, might with the assent of all its shareholders purchase a majority of its own shares.' In some states, notably in New Jersey, the statutes expressly authorize corporations to purchase shares of their own capital stock ; ^ but even these statutes apply only where the purchase is for a "legitimate corporate purpose" and do not justify the surrender of stock to the company as "treasury stock" in pursuance of an illegal scheme for the issue of shares in ex- change for property of less value than the nominal value of the shares.^ If the purchase is directly injurious to the company's creditors, — for example, if the company is insolvent, — all the courts agree that it may be set aside,* even though the shareholder made the contract of sale in good faith without knowledge of the facts concerning the company's financial condition which ren- dered the sale prejudicial to creditors of the company.^ Some ' Casae Braid Co., 145 Fed. 224. HaU v. Henderson, 126 Ala. 449; 28 ^ Chapman v. Iron Clad Rheostat So. 531; 85 Am. St. Rep. 53; 61 Co., 62 N. J. Law 497; 41 Atl. L. R. A. 621; Farnesworth v. Rob- 690. Uns, 36 Minn. 369; 31 N. W. 349; Cf. Hamor v. Taylor-Rice Engi- S. P. Smith Lumber Co., 132 Fed. neering Co., 84 Fed. 392, 399 (where 618 (proof on note given in payment the court distinguished between a for stock disallowed in bankruptcy) ; purchase with money representing State v. Bank of OgolaUa, 65 Nebr. capital and a purchase with accumu- 20; 90 N. W. 961; 91 N. W. 497; lated profits). Olmstead v. Van^:e, etc. Co., 196 111. ' Knickerbocker Importation Co. 236; 63N. E. 634; Hall v. Alabama, V. State Board of Assessors (N. J.), 65 etc. Imp. Co., 39 So. 285; 143 Ala. Atl. 913. 464; Alabama, etc. Imp. Co. v. Hall * Clapp V. Peterson, 104 111. 26; (Ala.), 44 So. 592 (holding the trans- Heggie v. People's Bldg. & Loan action bad as against subsequent Ass'n, 107 N. Car. 581, 595-596; 12 creditors without notice). S. E. 275 ; Adams, etc. Co. v. Deyette, Cf . Payne v. BvUard, 23 Miss. 5 S. Dak. 418, 424-426; 59 N. W. 88; 55 Am. Dec. 74; United Society 214; 49 Am. St. Rep. 887; Colum- v. Eagle Bank, 7 Conn. 456; Tait v. Man Bank's Estate, 147 Pa. St. 422; Pigott, 32 Wash. 344; 73 Pac. 364; 23 Atl. 625, 626, 628 ; Carter v. Van Brocklin v. Queen City Printing Union Printing Co., 54 Ark. 576 Co., 53 Pac. 822; 19 Wash. 552 (headnote misleading) ; 16 S. W. (where claim of vendor for purchase 579; Hamar v. Taylor-Rice Engi- money was postponed to claims of neering Co., 84 Fed. 392; Currier v. other creditors of the company). Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H. 262; " Commercial Nat. Bank v. Burch, 518 § 574:-§ 677] UNAUTHORIZED REDUCTION § 631 authorities, while conceding that the purchase is not vltra vires, maintain that any shareholder may object and enjoin the purchase.' § 629. Purchase on Credit or with Borrowed Money — Issue o£ Bonds in Exchange. — Where a corporation has power to pur- chase its own shares, it may buy them on credit '' or may borrow money on mortgage or otherwise — for example, may issue mortgage bonds — to pay for them.^ An issue of bonds in ex- change for shares is in effect a purchase of shares with borrowed money, and by parity of reasoning must be sustained.^ § 630. Purchase by Person Secretly Acting as Agent for Com- pany. — Even where a purchase of shares by or on behalf of the corporation is forbidden by law, a transfer of shares cannot be annulled because, unknown to the transferor at the time of the contract of sale, the transferee was acting as trustee for the company;^ § 631-§ 632. Effect of Purchase where a Purchase is deemed Illegal. § 631. In general. — ^- Where it is held illegal for a corpora- tion to purchase its own shares, such a purchase even if fully consummated by transfer of the shares and payment of the pur- chase price may be repudiated and treated as void.' Hence, the purchase money or consideration may be recovered back by the company or its receiver.' If the purchase money was paid 141 111. 519; 31 N. E. 420; 33 Am. * See cases cited supra, n. 3. St. Rep. 331. « Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S. ^' Lowe V. Pioneer Threshing Co., 800; Crandall v. Lineoln, 52 Conn. 70 Fed. 646. 73, 104-105 (but cf. pp. 103-104, ' Blalock V. Kernsville Mfg. Co., the case of Eldridge), 105-108 (the 110 N. Car. 99; 14 S. E. 501. Cf. case of iCeigwin & Reynolds); 52 Castle Braid Co., lib Fed. 224 (where Am. Rep. 560; Corn v. Skillern the vendor was allowed to prove (Ark.), 87 S. W. 142. against the company's estate in " But see Joseph v. Rajf, 82 N. Y. bankruptcy for the amount of the App. Div. 47; 81 N. Y. Supp. 546, purchase price). affirmed short, 176 N. Y. 611; 68 ' Berger v. V. S. Steel Corp., 63 N. E. 1118 (where the company was N. J. Eq. 809 ; S3 Atl. 68 ; First Nat. said to be estopped from questioning Bank v. Salem Capital, etc. Co., 39 the transaction, because the stotMs in Fed. 89 ; Hoskins v. Seaside Ice, etc. quo could not be restored). Co. (N. J.), 59 Atl. 645. ' Crandall v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. But cf . Coquard v. St. Louis Cot- 73 ; 52 Am. Rep. 560 ; Percy v. Mil- ton, etc. Co., 7 S. W. Rep. 176 (Mo.), laudon, 3 La. 568, 580-589 (headnote 519 § 631 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI to an executor, it may be recovered back from the administrator de bonis non} The fact that the vendor did not know who the purchaser was in no respect affects his Hability to return the purchase money.^ If, however, a shareholder sells to another individual who unknown to him is acting as agent or trustee for the company, the agent or trustee is liable to refund the amount of the purchase money to the corporation, but the innocent vendor is not.^ In all these cases, where a recovery of the pur- chase money is sought, the remedy is, at least according to a Connecticut decision, in equity as well as at law.* A fortiori, if the consideration remains unpaid, it cannot be recovered from the company.^ If the shares sold to the company were not fully paid, the vendor remains liable upon them as if no sale had been made," and moreover will be subject to any statutory liability in inadequate); St. Louis Mfg. Co. v. Hubert, 24 Mo. App. 338; Burrows V. Nihlack, 84 Fed. HI; 28 C. C. A. 130 (holding that the action may be maintained without tendering back the stock). Cf. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. Wickersham, 99 Cal. 655; 34,Pac. 444; Sanderson v. Mtna Iron, etc. Co., 34 Oh. St. 442; HaR v. Hender- son,. 12Q Ala. 449; 28 So. 531; 85 Am. St. Rep. 53; 61 L. R. A. 621; Tait V. Pigott, 32 Wash. 344; StaU V. Bank of Ogolalla, 65 Nebr. 20; 90 N. W. 961; 91 N. W. 497. ' CrandaU v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73, 102-103; 52 Am. Rep. 560 (the case of Tracy's Estate). Cf. TaU V. Pigott, 38 Wash. 59; 80 Pac. 172. ^ CrandoU v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73, 103-104; 52 Am. Rep. 560. Ci. Tait V. Pigott, 38 Wash. 59; 80 Pac. 172. ^ CrandoU v. Ldncoln, 52 Conn. 73, 104-105 (but cf. pp. 103-104, the case of Eldridge), 105-108 (the case of Keigwin & Reynolds); 52 Am. Rep. 560. See also supra, § 630. Cf. Hall V. Henderson, 126 Ala. 449; 28 So. 531; 85 Am. St. Rep. 53;. 61 L. R. A. 621; FaUs City Tin,- ware Co.'s Trustee v. Levine (Ky.), 104 S. W. 716. * CrandoU v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73, 108-110; 52 Am. Rep. 560. ' Hamor v. Taylor-Rice Engir- neering Co., 84 Fed. 392; State v. Bank of OgolaUa, 65 Nebr. 20; 90 N. W. 961; 91N. W. 497. But see Chapman v. Iron Clad Rheostat-Co., 62 N. J. Law 497, 499; 41 Atl. 690 (where the court, after deciding that the purchase was au- thorized by statute, declared that if it had not been authorized, the share- holder having fully performed on his part would have been entitled to enforce the idtra vires contract against the company). " Carter v. Union Printing Co., 54 Ark. 576 (headnote misleading); 16 S. W. 579; Mann v. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 257; Vale of Neath & South Wales Brewery Co., 3 De G. & Sm. 96 (where the pur- chase was made by an agent known to be acting on the company's be- half and where the transfer remained unquestioned for years). Cf. Colonial Investment & Agency Co., 19 Vict. L. R. 381 (where the argument was advanced in vain that the company itself had paid the amount due on the shares so that they should be deemed fully paid). 520 § 574-§ 677] UNAUTHORIZED REDUCTION § 632 favor of creditors — even subsequent creditors.' If the vendor, being ignorant that the company is the real purchaser, execute a transfer in blank, and if the transfer is not registered, he remains liable, as shareholder.^ The transferor, even after the lapse of years, may compel the company to recognize him as shareholder and restore his name to the register in respect of the surrendered shares.^ A shareholder who made no objection to the purchase of shares by the company and who afterwards sells some of his shares to a third person cannot be heard to allege that the pur- chase by the company was ultra vires and that therefore the shares purchased enured to the benefit of the then shareholders in proportion to their holdings, instead of becoming corporate property distributable as dividends among those who are share- holders when the dividend is declared ; for if the purchase was void the title never passed from the company's vendor and the complaining shareholder is out of court.* § 632. Purchase by Company followed by Reissue to another Person. — If shares are purchased by the corporation and subsequently reissued to another person, the two transactions when consummated may sometimes be deemed equivalent to a transfer from the vendor to the second allottee and therefore effective; and this is true even though the purchase by the company was illegal.^ So, where a corporation in defiance of law lends money on the security of shares in its own capital and upon default in payment of the debt sells the shares, the pledgor ' Chrisman^Sawyer Banking Co. issuing but that intention was not V. Independence Wool Mfg. Co., 68 carried out) ; Weidenfeld v. Northern S. W. 1026; 168 Mo. 634; Walters Pac. Ry. Co., 129 Fed. 305; 63 V. Porter (Ga.), 59 S. E. 452. C. C. A. 537; Lantry v. WaUace, 182 ' Weedon's Case, 22 Vict. L. R. U. S. 536, 551-556; 21 Sup. Ct. 878; 235 (distinguishing Nicol's Case, 3 First Nat. Bank v. Peoria Watch Co., De G. & J. 387, where the transfer 191 111. 128; 60 N. E. 859 (where the was nominally to a definite person purchase by the company was held and not in blank). legal). ' Bdlerby v. Rowland, etc. S. S. As to whether the shares in the Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 14. hands of the second allottee shall * Coleman v. Columbia Oil Co., be deemed fully paid or not, see 51 Pa. St. 74. Belknap v. Adams, 49 La. Ann. 1350; = See supra, § 868. 22 So. 382; WaUace v. Hood, 89 Fed. Cf. Joseph V. Raif, 82 N. Y. App. 11. Of. Ailing v. Wemel, 133 111. 264, Div. 47; 81 N.Y.Supp. 546, affirmed 275-276; 24 N. E. 551; First Nat. short in 176 N. Y. 611; 68 N. E. Bank v. Peoria Watch Co., 191 111, 1118 (where the purchase was made 128; 60 N. E. 859. with the intent of immediately re- 521 § 633 INCREASE AND REDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI cannot recover the purchase money from the company.' The illegal character of a company's purchase of its own shares does not make the purchased shares public property or justify any officer of the corporation in appropriating them to his own use.^ Thus, where shares are purchased with funds of the company itself, a director without authority from the corporation has no right to issue them to himself; and if he do so, the company may enjoin him from transferring or voting in respect of them.' § 633. EfEect of Purchase where a Purchase is deemed lawful. — The effect of a lawful purchase or other acquisition by a corporation of its own shares is that the shares so purchased or acquired are suspended or temporarily merged or extinguished.* Certainly, the other shareholders do not become individually liable -pro rata for the amount, if any, remaining unpaid upon the purchased shares.' The purchased shares may, however, be reissued in the sarne manner as shares of the originally authorized capital which have never been subscribed for or issued." The terms of the contract of reissue may be such that ' National Bank of Xenia v. ing that shares surrendered to or Stewart, 107 U. S. 676; 2 Sup. Ct. purchased by the corporation are to 778. be treated as outstanding for the pur- ' Cf . Walden Nat. Bank v. Birch, pose of ascertaining the amount of 14 L. R. A. 211; 130 N. Y. 221; 29 the capital by which the company's N. E. 127 (holding that sureties of franciuse tax is gauged, until retired national bank cashier in whose name and cancelled under formal proceed- shares of the bank's stock are regis- ings for the reduction of capital) ; tered as security for a loan made by Pdbst v. Goodrich (Wise), 113 N. W. the bank to the real owner, notwith- 398 (holding that for the purpose of standing the Act of Congress which calculating the number of shares prohibits national banks from lend- necessary to satisfy a bequest of ing money on the security of their such number of shares as represent own stock, are liable for the conver- a book value of $1,000,000, shares sion of the stock to his own use by which have been lawfully purchased the cashier). by the company should be treated ' Dacovich v. Canizas (Ala.), 44 as still outstanding). So. 473. As to voting rights of such shares * Williams v. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 see infra, § 1233. Md. Ch. 418, 451-153 (semble). « Crawford v. Roney (Ga.), 55 Cf. Western Imp. Co. v. Des S. E. 499. Moines Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa 455, ° Williams v. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 462-463; 72 N. W. 657; Knicker- Md. Ch. 418, 451^53; State Bank of backer Importation Co. v. State Board. Ohio v. Fox, 3 Blatchf. 431; Hart- of Assessors (N. J.), 65 Atl. 913 (hold- ridge v. Bockwdl, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 522 § 574-§ 677] UNAUTHORIZED REDUCTION § 635 the purchasers will be entitled to dividends on the shares in question even before the reissue is fully consummated.' Never- theless, the purchased shares are not deemed property of the corporation, and hence do not pass by a sale of all its property, rights, and franchises except the franchise to be a corporation and to carry on business.^ § 634^§ 641. ACQUISITION BY COMPANY OF ITS OWN SHARES OTHERWISE THAN BY PURCHASE. § 634. Whether Permissible — In general. — While, according to what has been submitted to be the better view, a corpora- tion has no implied power to purchase its own shares, yet not every acquisition by a corporation of shares in its own capital is obnoxious to the same objection. For instance, forfeiture of shares for non-payment of calls or other breaches of duty on the part of the holders is permissible.' Moreover, in certain cases a corporation may accept a surrender of shares. In what cases this may be done consistently with sound principle shall be our next inquiry. § 635-§ 637. Surrender of Shares. § 635. In general. — A "surrender" of shares founded upon any valuable consideration moving from the company to the surrenderer is really a purchase, and is liable to the same objections as a purchase for a money consideration.^ Conse- quently, a so-called gratuitous surrender of shares which are not fully paid up is really a surrender in consideration of a release from the liability attaching to the shares, and therefore likewise 260 ; Commonwealth v. Boston & Al- '■ Hartley v. Pioneer Iron Works, bany R. R. Co., 142 Mass. 146; 7 181 N. Y. 73; 73 N. E. 576. N. E. 716; Bank of San Luis Obispo ' Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. Ka- V. Wickersham, 99 Cal. 655; 34 Pac. weak Canal, etc. Co., 44 Pao. Rep. 444 (where the purchase of the shares 662 (Cal.). was ultra vires) ; State ex rel. Page ' See infra, § 808. V. Smith, 48 Vt. 266; City Bank v. ■• Trevor v. WhitwoHh, 12 A. C. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507; Hartley v. 409, 418, 438 (semble). Pioneer Iron Works, 181 N. Y. 73; Cf. ColvUle's Case, 48 L. J. Ch. 73 N. E. 576; Draper v. Blackwdl, 633; Wallscourt's Case, 7 Manson 35 So. 110; 138 Ala. 182. 235; Addison's Case,-5 Ch. 294. 523 § 636 INCREASE AND BEDUCTION OF CAPITAL [ChAP. XI falls within the ban of the law.* A gratuitous surrender of paid-up shares is certainly less objectionable, and might be held legitimate.^ So, a bequest to a corporation of its own stock has been held valid.' It has been held that a surrender of paid-up ordinary shares in exchange for an equivalent amount of pre- ferred shares is valid ; * but this decision has been disapproved, perhaps on insufficient grounds, by the very judge by whom it was rendered.^ A surrender of shares, whether paid up or not, coupled with a reissue of the same to other persons may be supported as equivalent to a transfer from the surrenderer to the person to whom they are reissued.' § 636. Surrender of Shares which are liable to Forfeiture. — There is no legal obstacle to the acceptance of a surrender of shares which are liable to forfeiture for non-payment of calls,^ provided the arrangement is not a mere device to enable the shareholders to retire : " if bona fide, it merely relieves the com- pany from going through the formalities attendant upon a a forfeiture of shares in invitum.^ § 637. Surrender of Shares in Compromise of Controversy as to Validity of their Issue. — A corporation may accept a sur- render of certain shares, or release part of a subscription, in • Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. S. S. Wash. 381; BeUerby v. Rowland, Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 14. etc. S. S. Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 14 (where Cf. Walker v. Hacking, 57 L. T. Cozens-Hardy, L. J., expressed the 763 ; Ex parte Jones, 27 L. J. Ch. opinion, obiter, that a gratuitous sur- 666; Cooper V. Frederick, 9 Ala. 738 render of fully paid shares would be (where the transaction was held idtra vires). valid) ; Bedford R. R. Co. v. Bowser, ' Rivanna Nav. Co. v. Dawsons, 48 Pa. St. 29 ; Glenn v. Hatchett, 91 3 Gratt. (Va.) 19. Ala. 316; 8 So. 656; Ailing v. * Eichbaum v. City of Chicago Wenzd, 133 111. 264; 24 N. E. 551; Orain Elevators (1891), 3 Ch. 459. Pacific Fruit Co. v. Coon, 107 Cal. ' Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. S. S. 447; 40 Pae. 542; Payne v. BiUlard, Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 14, 29. 23 Miss. 88 ; 55 Am. Dec. 74 ; Fames- ' See supra, § 632 and infra, worth V. Robbins, 36 Minn. 369; 31 § 868. N. W. 349; Chrisman-Sawi/er Bank- ' Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 A. C. ing Co. v. Independence Wool Mfg. 409, 438 (semble). Co., 68 S. W. 1026; 168 Mo. 634 Cf. HaZZ's Cose, 5 Ch. 707. (as to "treasury stock"); Beacons- ' Beaconsfleld Heights Estate Co., field Heights Estate Co., 22Vict.L.R. 22 Vict. L. R. 97 (which seems to 97. overrule silently an earlier case in ' Cf. Wheeler v. Mineral Farm, the same state, Melbourne Locomo- etc. Co., 31 Colo. 110; 71 Pac. 1101; live & Engineering Works, 21 Vict. Krisch v. Interstate Fisheries Co., 81 L. R. 442). Pac. 855 (headnote inadequate) ; 39 ° Infra, § 826. 524 § 574- § 677] UNAUTHORIZED REDUCTION § 638 compromise or settlement of a bona fide dispute whether the shares were vaUdly issued so as to bind the subscriber ; and that too even though in point of fact the issue was legal and regular.' A fortiori, the surrender is good where the issue was capable, legally, of being upset ^ but where the surrenderer claimed to be relieved upon some ground other than that which would have entitled him to repudiate the shares.' If the issue was in law vahd, such a surrender while effective for the future does not relate back so as to cancel the shares ab initio; and hence the compromise or settlement of a bona fide dispute whether the surrenderer remains subject to any liabilities attaching to past members of the company.* The surrender is effective although the ground on which the surrenderer repudiated the shares was that his subscription had been induced by fraud or misrepre- sentation and although the surrender is not accompanied or followed by the removal of his name from the register of mem- bers.^ In order that a surrender by way of compromise may be valid, there must be a real, bona fide dispute as to whether the shares were properly issued.' Moreover, the surrender must be actually intended as a compromise.' § 638. Acceptance of Shares in Satisfaction of, or as Security for, a Debt due the Company. — It has been frequently declared that a corporation may accept from one of its shareholders a surrender of his shares in satisfaction of a debt that could be collected in no other way.^ Indeed, there seems to be no reported case ' Bath's Case, 8 Ch. D. 334; New (subscription to shares induced by Albany v. Burke, 11 Wall. 96. innocent misrepresentation). Cf. Morgan v. Leviis, 46 Oh. St. 1 ' Wright's Case, 7 Ch. 55. . Bank, 67 " Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinr- Pac. 609; 27 "Wash. 192. son, 58 Miss. 421, 439; 38 Am. Rep. Cf. Richmondville Mfg. Co. v. 330; Sanvud v. HoUaday, 1 Woolw. Prall, 9 Conn. 487; Curri^ v. Cmin 400, 408-^09 (by-law regulating tinental Life Ins. Co., 53 N. H. 538 method of convening meetings of (headnote inadequate); National directors); Martino v. Commerce Gross Lodge v. Jung, 65 III. App. 313 ; Fire Ins. Co., 47 l^J. Y. Sup. Ct. 520 ; Attorney-General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. Royal Bank of India's Case, 4 Ch. Sr. 327, 330; Grand Valley Irr. Co. 252, 258. V. Fruita Imp. Co. (Colo.), 86 Pac. Cf. Sorrentino v. CUetti, 75 N. Y. 324, 329, 330-331. App. Div. 507; 78 N. Y. Supp. 322. But see Watson v. Bendigo Bldg. But see Flaherty v. Benevolent Soc., 10 Vict. Rep. (cases at law) Soc, 99 Me. 253; 59 Atl. 58. 26 (as to "rules" of a building soci- * See infra, § 1241. ety) ; Sperry v. Dransfield, 2 New ' Boschoek Proprietary Co. v. Zeal. (Sup. Ct.) 319 (a? to "rules" Fuke (1906), 1 Ch. 148. of a building society) ; ConneU v. _ 688 § 678- § 738] WAIVER of by-laws § 730 § 729. Reformation of Mistakes in By-laws. — In England it has been held that the general power of a court of equity to reform mistakes in written instruments does not extend to the correction of mistakes in the articles of association of a company incorporated under the Companies Acts.' The ground of this ■decision was that the articles of association of an English com- pany are a statutory instrument like the incorporation paper. This reasoning does not apply with the same force to the by- laws of an American corporation. § 730. Waiver of By-laws intended for Company's Benefit. — The corporation may always waive by-laws that are intended for its benefit,^ such as a by-law giving to it a lien on the shares of its members for debts owing by them/ or a by-law of a mutual life insurance company prescribing a maximum age for applicants for membership.* This principle relates rather to the construction of the by-law than to its validity or efficacy, or to its continuance in force. Any provision in by-laws, by whomsoever adopted, that is clearly intended for the benefit of the company, may be ' Evans v. Chapman, 86 L. T. Wise. 162; 18 N. W. 13; Susque- 381. hanna Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Elkins, ' See Swedish, etc. Mission Soc. 124 Pa. St. 484; 17 Atl. 24. V. Lawrence, 79 Minn. 124 ; 81 N. W. Cf . Priest v. Citizens Mut. Fire 756; McKenney v. Diamond State Ins. Co., 3 Allen (Mass.) 602 (head- Loan Ass'n, 8 Houst. (Del.) 557; note inadequate) ; Brewer v. Chelsea 18 Atl. 905; Delaney v. Delaney, Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 14 Gray 175 lU. 187; 51 N. E. 961; Inde- (Mass.) 203. pendent Order v. Haggerty, 86 111. See also as to waiver of require- App. 31; Burlington Voluntary Re- meuts for registration of transfers, lief Dept. v. White, 41 Nebr. 547; infra, § 861; Smith v. People's Mut., 59N. W. 747; 43 Am. St. Rep. 701 ; etc. Soc, 19 N. Y. Supp. 432; 64 Watts V. Equitable Mut. Life Ins. Hun 534. As to waiver of other Co., 82 N. W. Rep. 441; 111 Iowa restrictions on transfers of shares, 90 ; Grand Lodge v. Reneau, 75 Mo. see infra, § 949-§ 950. App. 402; Metropolitan Ace. Ass'n ' Trust & Savings Co. v. Home V. FroUand, 161 lU. 30; 43 N. E. Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 447, 460-161; 766; 52 Am. St. Rep. 359 (by-law 24S. W. 129; Bank of HoUy Springs limiting time for suing company v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421; 38 Am. waived by refusal to show copy to Rep. 330. ' member on request); McMahon v. Cf. Currier v. Continental Life Supreme Tent, 151 Mo. 522; 62 Ins. Co., 53 N. H. 538; Supreme 8. W. 384 (provision for forfeiture Tent v. Volkert, 25 Ind. App. 627; of policy in mutual insurance com- 57 N. E. 203. See also infra, pany) ; Davidson v. Old People's, etc. § 957. Soc, 39 Minn. 303; 39 N. W. 803; * Wiberg v. Minnesota, etc. Re- 1 L. R. A. 482; Morrison v.- Wis- lief Ass'n, 73 Minn. 297; 76 N. W. consin Odd Fellows, etc Ins. Co., 59 37. 589 § 731 BY-LAWS AND INTERNAL REGULATIONS [ChAP. XII waived by it; but though this rule is not per se objectionable, yet the courts have applied it in some rather doubtful cases. Thus, a by-law of a benefit society requiring members to desig- nate in vsriting the name of the beneficiary may be waived, so that a person designated as beneficiary by parol, with the com- pany's assent, is entitled to the rights of a beneficiary.' So, the fact that a member of a building society is permitted to hold a greater number of shares than is allowed by the by-laws is no defence to an action by the company for dues or assessments on shares so held ; '' the limitation on the number of shares being for the company's benefit may be waived by it. § 731. Construction of By-laws. — The rules which govern the construction of by-laws do not diifer from those for the construc- tion of other similar instruments. "Wherever a code or set of by-laws is in force, all must be construed together, so as to har- monize, if possible, apparent discrepancies.' By-laws imposing forfeitures or penalties will be strictly construed.* The courts will lean against a construction which would give a by-law a retroactive effect.^ We have seen that a long-continued custom in a corporation may have the effect of a by-law or of repealing a previously adopted by-law ; ° and a fortiori, therefore, the usage of the company may be deferred to in the construction of by-laws which in themselves are ambiguous.' But the admis- sion of parol evidence, such as the opinions of officers of the corporation, as to the meaning of an unambiguous by-law is a very different thing, and will not be permitted.' ' Hanson v. Minnesota Scan- 643-644; 44 C. C. A. 93; Arecierai dinavian, etc. Ass'n, 59 Minn. 123; Order v. Brown, 112 Ga. 545; 37 60 N. W. 1091. S. E. 890; Gundlach v. Germania, ' Hagerman v. Ohio, etc. BUg. etc. Inst., 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 190 Ass'n, 25 Oh. St. 186. (headnote inadequate) ; Roxbury ' Cf. Hartford v. Co-operative Lodge v. Hocking, 60 N. J. LsiW 439; Homestead Co., 128 Mass. 494. 38 Atl. 693; Modern Woodmen v. * Occidental Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Wieland, 109 111. App. 340; Taylor SvUivan, 62 Cal. 394; Ottawa Union v. Modern Woodmen, 72 Kans. 443; Bldg. Society v. Scott, 24 Up. Can. 83 Pac. 1099; United Workmen v. Q. B. 341. Haddock, 72 Kans. 35; Kaemmerer ' Brotherhood of Railroad Train- v. Kaemmerer (111.), 83 N. E. 133. men V. Newton, 79 111. App. 500 Wist V. Grand Lodge, 22 Oreg. 271 29 Pac. 610; 29 Am. St. Rep. 603 Lloyd V. Supreme Lodge, 98 Fed. 66 Supra, § 688, § 727. ' McDonough v. Hennepin, etc. Ass'n, 62 Minn. 122; 64 N. W. 106; State ex rd. Attorney-General v. 38 C. C. A. 654; Knights Templars', ConkHn, 34 Wise. 21. etc. Co. V. Jarman, 104 Fed. 638, « Brendon v. Worley, 8 N. Y. 590 § 678-738] CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE §732 The construction of a written by-law is for the court, rather than the jury, to the same extent as the construction of a written contract, a deed, or a will.' § 732-§ 735. Constructive Notice of By-laws. § 732. Strangers to the Company. — Of the ordinary Ameri- can by-laws, strangers to the company, according to the almost uniform current of authority, are hot affected with constructive notice. Indeed, this feature is one of the chief infirmities of the American system of by-laws. As the by-laws are not matter of record, strangers could not be charged with constructive knowl- edge of them without the greatest injustice.^ Thus, where the by-laws contain a limitation upon the powers of some officer or agent of the company, a stranger who contracts with him is not affected by the limitation without actual notice thereof.^ Of Misc. 253; 28 N. Y. Supp. 557; Thomas v. Societa Italiena, 10 N. Y. Misc. 746; 31 N. Y. Supp. 815; Badesch v. Congregation Bros., 23 N. Y. Misc. 160; 50 N. Y. Supp. 958. ' Cf. State ex rel. Attorney-General V. Conklin, 34 Wise. 21; Traders' MiU. Life Ins. Co. v. Humphrey, 109 111. App. 246, affirmed, 69 N. E. 875. ' So, the by-laws of a Canadian company, as a learned judge has pointed out, "are not public prop- erty. They concern matters of in- ternal management. Those who deal with the 'company have no means of access to them, no right to pry into the company's archives or interrogate its officials." Montreal, etc. Power Co. v. Robert (1906), A. C. 196, 202-203 (headnote inade- quate). ' Royal Bank of India's Case, 4 Ch. 252, 262; Montreal, etc. Power Co. V. RobeH (1906), A. C. 196, 202-203 (by-law fixing a quorum of directors — headnote inadequate) ; Pirw Beach, etc. Corp. v. Columbia Amusement Co. (Va), 56 S. E. 822; Russell V. Washington Sav. Bank, 23 App. D. C. 308,; Arapahoe, etc. Co. V. Stevens, 13 Colo. 534; 22 Pac. 823; Moyer v. East Shore Terminal Co., 41 S. Car. 300; 19 S. E. 651; 44 Am. St. Rep. 709; 25 L. R. A. 48; Trawick v. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co., 68 111. App. 156; Ten Broek v. Boiler Compound Co., 20 Mo. App. 19; Smith V. Martin Anti-Fire, etc. Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 285; 47 N. Y. St. Rep. 26; Fay v. Noble, 12 Cush. 1; Smith V. Smith, 62 111. 493; WaU v. Smith, 92 111. 385; Ward v. Johnson, 95 111. 215, 248; Unirni Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. While, 106 lU. 67; Barries Bros. v. Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 354; 47 S. W. 498; Metropole Bath Co. V. Garden City Fan Co., 50 lU. App. 681; Rathbun v. Snma, 123 N. Y. 343; 25 N. E. 379; 10 L. R. A. 355 (semble) ; Perry v. Council Bluffs, etc. Co., 67 Hun (N. Y.) 456; 22 N. Y. Supp. 151; MiUedgevUle Water Co. v. Edwards, 121 Ga. 555; 49 S. E. 621 ; Lyndon Sav. Bank v. International Co., 54 Atl. 191; 75 Vt. 224 (by-law requiring promis- sory notes of the company to be signed by treasurer and counter- signed by two directors); Powers V. Schlicht Heat, etc. Co., 23 N. Y. App. Div. 380; 48 N. Y. Supp. 237; 591 § 733 BY-LAWS AND INTERNAL REGULATIONS [ChAP. XII course, a by-law may appoint an agent with such closely limited authority, or may define the powers of officers in such a way, that acts clearly in excess of the authority so marked out will not bind the corporation; but this is not because persons who deal with such agents or officers are charged with notice of the limitations on their powers contained in the by-laws, but be- cause an agent who acts altogether beyond his authority does not bind his principal whether the third party does or does not know the limits of the agent's powers.' As strangers are not chargeable with notice of the provisions of by-laws, a policy of insurance issued by a benefit society, the terms of which con- flict with the by-laws of the society, may nevertheless be bind- ing according to its terms.^ So, where the by-laws of a fire insurance company establish different rates for different kinds of property, even a deliberate mis-classification of property by the directors will not necessarily vitiate the policy.' § 733. Shaxeholders. — Indeed, there is authority for the view that even members of the corporation are not chargeable with constructive notice of its by-laws.* Thus, a transferee of affirmed short in 165 N. Y. 662; 59 N. E. 1129; Equitable Endouyment Ass'n V. Fisher, 71 Md. 430; 18 Atl. 808; Produce Exchange Trust Co. V. Bieherhach, 58 N. E. 162; 176 Mass. 577. But see Adriance v. Roome, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 399, 411; Haden v. Farmers', etc. Fire Ass'n, 80 Va. 683, 691; Dahney v. Stevens, 2 Sweeney (N. Y.) 415; 40 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 341 (semble); Bohm v. Loewer's, etc. Brewery Co., 9 N. Y. Supp. 514; 16 Daly (N. Y.) 80; DeBost V. Palmer Co., 1 How. Pr., N. s. (N. Y.), 501; 35 Hun 386; Harvey v. Schuylkill Real Estate, etc. Co., 24 Pa. Co. Ct. Rep. 693; MUl- ward-Cliife Cracker Co.'s Estate, 161 Pa. St. 157; Worthington v. Skuyl- kUl Electric Ry. Co., 195 Pa. St. 211; 45 Atl. 927 ; Kansas City Hay Press Co. V. Devol, 72 Fed. 717, 721 (head- note inadequate). Cf. Tres Palacios, etc. Co. v. Eidman (Tex.), 93 S. W. 698 (hold- ing that by-law restricting power of agent to bind company is admissible in evidence in favor of corporation when plaintiff counts on an actual contract and not on an estoppel — sed gucere); Northwestern Packing Co. V. WhUney (Cal.), 89 N. W. 981. ' Cf. Carney v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 162 N. Y. 453; 57 N.. E. 78; 76 Am. St. Rep. 347; 49 L. R. A. 471; Davis v. Rockingham Invest- ment Co., 89 Va. 290; 15 S. E. 547; Twelfth Street MarUet Co. v. Jackson, 102 Pa. St. 269; Railway Equip- ment, etc. Co. V. Lincoln Nat. Bank, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 8, 11; 31 N. Y. Supp. 44. ' Davidson v. Old People's, etc. Soc, 39 Minn. 303; 39 N. W. 803; 1 L. R. A. 482. See also Fitzgerald V. Equitable, etc. Life Ass'n, 3 N. Y. Supp. 214; 18 N. Y. St. Rep. 914. ' Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Keyser, 32 N. H. 313; 64 Am. Dec. 375. See also Campbell v. Mer- chants, etc. Ins. Co., 37 N. H. 35; 72 Am. Dec. 324. * Northwestern Life In^. Co. v. 592 § 678- § 738] CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE § 735 shares is not affected with constructive notice of a by-law pur- porting to create a lien on the shares in favor of the company.' So, a person who lends money on the security of a share-cer- tificate signed and issued by the company's treasurer is not chargeable with notice of by-laws limiting the powers of the treasurer in that regard.^ § 734. Directors and Ofiaoers. — The directors and higher oflBcers whose duties require an intimate knowledge of the com- pany's internal affairs may fairly be charged with constructive notice of the by-laws,^ or at least with such by-laws as have been duly published and entered in the company's minutes. At any rate, knowledge will be presumed,* and the burden of prov- ing ignorance will rest on the directors. It would seem that a subordinate employee of the company cannot be similarly affected by such presumptive or constructive notice.^ § 735. Persons who are in act of becoming or who subsequently become Members or Oflacers. — In determining whether a per- son is to be charged with constructive notice of a company's by-laws as a member or otherwise, some authorities maintain that regard must be had to his status at the time the contract was made, and that it is immaterial whether the effect of the Erlenkoetter, 90 111. Apip.99; McKerin Co., 59 N. Y. 96; Bank of Holly ney v. Diamond State Loan Ass'n, 8 Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421 ; Houst. (Del.) 557; 18 Atl. 905; 38 Am. Rep. 330. See infra, § 956 Underhill v. Santa Barbara, etc. Co., and supra, § 706. 93 Cal. 300, 311-312; 28 Pac. 1049 ' Tome v. Parkersburg Branch (semble); Williamson v. Eastern 22. fi. Co., 39 Md. 36, 74-75; 17 Am. Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 54 S. Car. 582; Rep. 540. 32 S. E. 765; 71 Am. St. Rep. 822. ' Darrah v. Wheeling Ice, etc. Co., But see Pfister v. Gerwig, 122 Ind. 60 W. Va. 417; 40 S. E. 373. 567; 23 N. E. 1041; Harvey v. Cf. Jones v. Vance Shoe Co., 92 Grand Lodge, 50 Mo. App. 472, 477; 111. App. 158; Mutual Life Ins. Co. Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102 Ind. v. McSherry, 68 Md. 41, 45-46 262; IN. E. 571; Came y. Brigham, (headnote inadequate); 11 Atl. 39 Me. 35, 38; Crittenden v. South- 577; Beers v. New York Life Ins. em Home Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 111 Ga. Co., 66 Hun (N. Y.) 75; 20 N. Y. 266; 36 S. E. 643; Cdes v. lerwa Supp. 788. State, etc. Ins. .Co., 18 Iowa 425; * Hunter v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., Mitchell V. Lycoming Mut. Ins. Co., 26 La. Ann. 13; Ellis v. N. C. In- 51 Pa. St. 402; People's Bldg., etc. stitutim, 68 N. Car. 423. Ass'n V. Purdy, 78 Pac. (Colo.) 465; ^ Moyer v. East Shore Terminal Columbia Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Jun- Co., 41 S. Car. 300; 19 S. E. 651; quist. 111 Fed. 645; Richardson v. 44 Am. St. Rep. 709 ; 25 L. R. A. 48. Devine (Mass.), 79 N. E. 771. But see Hunter v. Sun Mutual ' Driscoll V. West Bradley, etc. Ins. Co., 26 La. Ann. 13. VOL. I. — 38 693 § 736 BY-LAWS AND INTERNAL REGULATIONS [ChAP. XII contract may be to make him an officer or member of the com- pany; ^ but the weight of authority supports a different view on this point.^ At all events, the rights of a party under a contract with the corporation made in disregard of by-laws of which he had no notice will not be affected by the fact that subsequently by an independent transaction he becomes a member of the company.^ § 736. Who are subject to By-laws. — The power of a cor- poration to enforce its regulations by penalties or forfeitures must necessarily be confined to members, and cannot extend to strangers who have never consented to be bound by its rules. To be sure, officers and agents, and others who contract with the company with knowledge of its regulations, must be deemed to have agreed, so far as their agency or contract is concerned, to abide thereby.* Indeed,> if a person who contracts with a corporation has actual notice of the terms of by-laws affecting his contract or the authority of the agents or officers of the company by whom it was made to enter into it — for example, if the contract is in writing and expressly incorporates the by-laws in question — it has even been said that he is bound by all the provisions of the by-laws to the same extent as if they had been statutes of the state.^ Only shareholders, however, are permanently subject to the by-laws, and subject to them as rules prescribed by a lawgiver." Moreover, even members of ' Moyer v. East Shore Terminal 7 L. R. A. 822. See also books on Co., 41 S. Car. 300; 19 S. E. 651; mutual insurance. 44 Am. St. Rep. 709; 25 L. R. A. ' Wait v. SmUh, 92 111. 385. 48. * Cummings v. Wehster, 43 Me. Cf. Equitable Endowment Ass'n 192, 197. Cf. Bank of Wilmington V. Fisher, 71 Md. 430; 18 Atl. 808 v. Wollaston, 3 Hair. (Del.) 90; (contract of employment as general Sanitary Can Co. v. MvUins, 86 manager). See also supra, § 733. N. Y. App. Div. 450; 83 N. Y. Supp. . ' Hunter v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 918. 26 La. Ann. 13; Ellis v. N. C. In- ^ Cannon v. Farmers' Mut. Fire stitution, 68 N. Car. 423; Jones v. Ass'n, 58 N. J. Eq. 102; 43 Atl. 281; Vance Shoe Co., 92 111. App. 158; Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. Fire Ins. Darrah v. Wheeling Ice, etc. Co., 50 Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 596, 603. W. Va. 417; 40 S. E. 373; Cdpe v. Cf. Nute v. Hamilton Mut. Ins. Jubilee Mining Co. (Cal.), 84 Pac. Co., 6 Gray (Mass.) 174. 324; Douglass v. Merchants' Ins. ° Mechanics, etc. Bank v. Smith, Co., 118 N. Y. 484; 23 N. E. 806; 19 Johns (N. Y.) 115. Cf. Seneca 694 § 678-738] PLEADING AND PROOF § 738 the corporation are not subject to the corporate jurisdiction except in their capacity as members. Thus a by-law attempting to impose a fine on members for non-payment of interest on debts owing by them to the corporation has been held void.' On the other hand, the application of this principle to the mem- bers of such corporations as mutual insurance companies, the members of which occupy a dual relation, as members and as creditors, will be found very difficult. § 737. Who may take Advantage of By-laws. — Conversely, a stranger to the company can, in general, acquire no right of action by virtue of the by-laws.^ As was said by a Massachu- setts judge: "The office of a by-law is to regulate the conduct and define the duties of the members toward the corporation ' and between themselves. So far as its provisions are in the nature of contract, the parties thereto are the members of the association, as between themselves; or the corporation upon the one side, and its individual members upon the other. The right of any third party, stronger to the association, to estab- lish a legal claim through such a by-law, must depend upon the general principle applicable to express contracts." ^ Thus, a stranger cannot sue to recover a penalty which a by-law directs to be paid to him by some delinquent member.* Upon the same principle, a provision in the articles of association of an English company purporting to adopt a contract made by promoters on behalf of the company prior to its incorporation will not enable the other party to the contract to sue the company thereon.^ § 738. Pleading and Proof of By-laws. — In pleading, the degree of particularity necessary in mentioning or setting out by-laws depends so largely on the local system of pleading that little can be profitably said on the subject.* In an action of debt to recover a fine imposed by virtue of a by-law, the terms County Bank v. Lamb, 26 Barb. » Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68, (N. Y.) 595, 697-^98; State v. Over- 70-71; 96 Am. Dec. 691; per Wells, ton, 24 N. J. Law 435, 440^42; 61 J. Am. Dec. 671. * Bodwic v. Fenndl, 1 Wils. 233; >■ Hagerman v. Ohio Bldg., etc. Cf. Graves v. Colby, 9 Ad. & E. 356. Ass'n, 25 Oh. St. 186, 203; Parker " Supra, § 328. v. U. S. Bldg., etc. Ass'n, 19 W. Va. » Cf. Hingston v. Montgomery 744. (Mo.), 97 S. W. 202, 205 (where a ^ Flint v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68; 96 by-law which was not pleaded was Am. Dec. 691. enforced). 595 § 738 BY-LAWS AND INTERNAL REGULATIONS [ChAP. XII of the by-law must be set out in the declaration ; for otherwise it may be held bad, at least on special demurrer.' By-laws must be proved like other resolutions of a corpo- ration.^ If in actions at law the existence of a by-law is in dispute, its adoption must, where the evidence is conflicting or inconclusive, be left to the jury.^ ' Master, etc. of Feltmakers, IB. ' Cotton Jammers, etc. Ass'n v. & P. 98. Taylor, 23 Tex. Qv. App. 367; 56 ' See Boisot on By-laws, 2d ed., S. W. 553. § 158, § 159. 596 CHAPTER XIII PAYMENT FOR SHARES Section Liability to contribute to company's capital — scheme of treatment . 739 Normal liability 740-773 In general — liability to pay on call 740 Nature of liability before and after call 741-742 In general — effect of call — liability as for a debt .... 741 Whether hability is statutory, contractual, etc 742 What a call is 743-746 In general 743 Requirement of uniformity 744 Call not necessarily demand for immediate payment -^ calls payable by instalments 745 Particulars as to hour, place, and manner of payment not necessary to be stated in call 746 Notice of calls 747-752 Whether necessary 747 Kind of notice 748 Length of notice . 749 To whom notice should be given 750 Waiver of notice by repudiating liability 751 Effect of lack of notice 752 Time and amount of calls 753-757 In general — discretion of company 753 Calls before company authorized to commence business — defence of incomplete subscription of capital . . . 754 Calls after abandonment of business by company .... 755 Calls after tdtra vires acts — after acceptance of uncon- stitutional legislative amendment to charter .... 756 Statutory and other regulations as to amount and fre- quency of calls ,. 757 By whom calls may be made — by directors, shareholders, etc. . 758 How calls may be paid — cash — set-off 759 Liability of shareholders for interest 760 Statute of limitations as defence 761 Who are subject to the liability 762-773 Actual shareholders as distinguished from mere sub- scribers 762 Owners of shares at time of call liable 763 Criterion of ownership of shares for this purpose 764 Effect of transfer of shares upon liabiUty 765 Statutes making former shareholders liable notwith- standing transfer 766 Liability in respect of shares held in trust, etc. — liability of holder of legal title 767 597 PAYMENT FOK SHARES [ChAP. XIII Normal liability (continued) Section Liability of executor or administrator 768 American statutes exempting trustees, executors, pledgees, etc., from personal liabilitj' 769 Infant shareholders 770 Effect of bankruptcy of shareholder 771 Holder of less than minimum or more than maximum number of shares allowed to be held by one person . 772 Holder of shares issued without authority of law or irregularly 773 Special agreements varying normal liability — subscriptions on special terms 774-799 In general — validity 774 Issue of shares at a premium 775 Special agreements amounting to complete or partial release from liability to pay par value — issue at a discount . 776 Issue as security for debt of the company 777 Effect of striking down stipulation for exemption from liability for full par value . . . 778 Whether prohibition of issue of shares at a discount applies to reissue of shares, to issue as a part of increase of capital, or to other issue of shares by a going concern 779 Disregard by directors of resolution of shareholders on increas- ing capital forbidding issue of new shares for less than par 780 Liability of holder of shares issued at discount distinguished from liability under executory contract to pay less than par for paid-up shares 781 Effect of impossibility of paying in the mode specially stipu- lated ... . 782 Stipulations for payment at fixed dates instead of on call .... 783 Statutes requiring shares to be paid up before a certain time . . 784 Payment in property or services 785 Evils of "watered stock" 786 Statutory attempts to remedy these evils 787-799 Companies Act of 1867 . 787-795 In general . 787 Importance to American lawyers of cases arising under this statute ... . . 788 Act not applicable to executory contracts to issue shares . . .... . . 789 Act functus ofjicio when contract registered . ... 790 Who charged with burden of seeing to registration of contract . . 791 What amounted to sufficient registration of a contract . 792 When contract must be registered 793 What is payment in cash 794 Objections to the Companies Act of 1867 . . . 795 Companies Act of 1900 796 American Statutes . . 797-799 Statutes requiring payment in cash — what amounts to payment in cash ... 797 Statutes forbidding the issue of shares except in ex- change for money, property, or services . . . 798 598 § 739-§ 807] NORMAL LIABILITY § 740 Special agreements varying normal liability (continued) Section Statutes requiring recording of contracts for payment of shares otherwise than in cash 799 Estoppel of company to exact payment for shares which have not been paid up 800-801 Estoppel in favor of a transferee of the shares 800 Estoppel in favor of original allottee 801 Assessments on paid-up shares 802-806 In general not lawful .... 802 Assessments by agreement of shareholders 803 Assessments authorized by statute 804 Assessments in reorganization 805 Attempts to evade the rule prohibiting assessments on paid-up shares 806 Liabilities of shareholders to creditors 807 § 739. Liability to contribute to Company's Capital — Scheme of Treatment. — The status of shareholder carries with it certain rights and certain obUgations. Chief among the latter, at least according to the theory of the law, is the obligation of contribut- ing to the capital of the company an amount equal to the nominal value of the shares. The nature of this obligation and the methods of enforcing it should first be considered, and sub- sequently the question should be considered how far this normal obligation may be departed from or varied by special agreement between the shareholders and the company. § 740-§ 773. NORMAL LIABILITY. § 740. In general — Liability to pay on Call. — Normally every shareholder is bound to pay in cash the par value of the shares held by him, in such instalments and at such times as the com- pany may call for the same.' In the absence of some special regulation or agreement, an applicant for shares is not bound to pay a deposit on allotment or issue of the shares, but is merely bound to pay on call.^ Payment of deposits on application or allotment or both is, however, often required by statute. Under such statutes, the authorities are in conflict whether non-payment of the required deposit renders the subscription wholly void.' If by statute or by valid internal regulations of the company ' But see Harris v. Gateway Land ' Alexander v. Automatic Tele- Co., 29 So. 611; 128 Ala. 652. phone Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 56. " See supra, § 200. 599 §741 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [Chap. XIII payment is required at certain fixed periods, there is then no necessity for a call; ' and a fortiori the same is true where the time of payment is fixed in the subscription itself.^ § 741-§ 742. Nature of Liability before and after Call. § 741. In greneral — Effect of call — Liability as for a Debt. — Until a call is made, the liability of the shareholders is potential merely; ' but immediately upon the call the shareholders become debtors to the company for the amount of the call.* From that time on the obligation scarcely differs from any other debt.* To be sure, in one or two New England states, it has been held that a corporation cannot sue a shareholder in debt or assumpsit to recover the amount of a call, unless his subscription for the shares contained an express promise to pay for them ; ° but this doctrine is unsupported by any sound principle, has been uniformly discountenanced by the best text-writers,' and is opposed to the overwhelming weight of authority in the common- law world.* The remedy of the company by forfeiture of the ' Waukon, etc. B. R. Co. v. Dwyer, Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 214- 49 Iowa 121. Cf. Phoenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 300. See also infra, § 774, and § 783. 2 WUliams v. Matthews, 103 Va. 180; 48 S. E. 861. Cf. infra, § 783. See also California, etc. Co. v. Callender, 94 Cal. 120, 127-128; 29 Pac. 859; 28 Am. St. Rep. 99 (hold- ing that where a subscription by its terms is payable "at such time and in such manner as may be deter- mined by the board of directors," action may be brought without prov- ing a call complying with the statu- tory formalities). ' Cawley & Co., 42 Ch. D. 209; Ex parte Rudolph, 11 W. R. 806; South Milwaukee Co. v. Murphy, 112 Wise. 614; 88 N. W. 583; 58 L. R. A. 82. But see Pitisburgh, etc. R. R. Co. V. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146. As to the right of a creditor to enforce payment from shareholders though no call has been made, see 600 215; GUn Iron Works, 17 Fed. 324; affirmed, 20 Fed. 674; Cleveland Rolling-Mill Co. v. Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. 250. Cf. infra, § 807. * A call is "owing" from the time it is made although not payable until afterwards. Faure Electric, etc. Co. V. PhUlipart, 58 L. T. 525. = Cf. Crawford v. Roney (Ga.), 55 S. E. 499 (holding that where call is proved, onus of proving payment is cast upon shareholder as in any other case of debt). " Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Abbott, 9 Cush. 423 ; Katama Land Co. v. Jer- negan, 126 Mass. 155; Kennebec, etc. R. R. Co. V. Kendall, 31 Me. 470; Jay Bridge Co. v. Woodman, 31 Me. 573. Cf. Penobscot, etc. R. R. Co. v. Dunn, 39 Me. 587, 594 (agreement to "take and fill" a certain number of shares). ' E. g. 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 128-§ 129. Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., § 739-§ 807] WHAT A CALL IS §743 shares is cumulative,' and being in the nature of security for the debt, may be waived without affecting the right to enforce the call by action of assumpsit.^ § 742. Whether Liability is Statutory, Contractual, etc. — The obligation to pay calls grows out of the relation of shareholder, and may indeed be regarded as founded upon the incorporation act.^ It does not originate in the written contract of subscription * of which therefore profert need not be made in an action to recover a call even though by the lex fori in actions on written contracts, as at common law in actions on specialties, profert is required.^ On the other hand, the liability sounds in contract.* § 743-§ 746. What a Call is. § 743. In general. — What, then, is necessary to consti- tute a call?' A call is a demand by the company upon the shareholders for the payment at some designated time of a definite sum not exceeding the amount, remaining unpaid on 34 Md. 316, 326; Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65; Ogdensburgh, etc. R. B. Co. V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541; Rennsa- laer, etc. Co. v. Barton', l& N.IY. 457n. ; Western R. R. Co. v. Avery, 64 N. Car. 491; Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Co., 189 U. S. 221; 23 Sup. Ct. 517; Sigua Iron Co. v. Brmvn, 171 N. Y. 488; 64 N. E. 194; Campbell v. Am,erican AlkUi Co., 125 Fed. 207; 61 C. C. A. 317. ' People's Hume Sav. Bank v.. Sadler (Cal.), 81 Pac. 1029; Tar River Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks (N. Car.) 520. See also cases cited in last note. But see New Hampshire Central B. B. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; 64 Am. Dec. 300 (declaring that when the subscriber makes no express promise to pay, he cannot be held personally Uable until the com- pany has forfeited and sold the shares, when he can be sued for the balance). Cf. International Fair, etc. Ass'n v. Walker, 83 Mich. 386, 394; 47 N. W. 338. " American AlkHi Co. v. Camp- beU, 113 Fed. 398; 125 Fed. 207. ' Cork, etc. By. Co. v. Goode, 13 C. B. 826. But cf . Newry, etc. Ry. v. Coombe, 3 Ex. 565 (headnote inadequate). * But see Gold v. Paynter (Va.), 44 S. E. Rep. 920; Lester v. Bemis Lumber Co., 74 S. W. 518; 71 Ark. 379; McCoy v. World's Columbian Exposition, 186 111. 356, 363 (head- note inadequate); 57 N. E. 1043; 78 Am. St. Rep. 288; Christensen V. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97, 102; 12 N. E. 648; 60 Am. Rep. 429 (a passage quoted infra, p. 630, n. 2). ' Mississippi, etc. R. B. Co. v. Gaster, 20 Ark. 455. ' Commercial Bank v. Warthen, 119 Ga. 990; 47 S. E. 536. ^ We are deaUng here exclusively with calls by the corporation. Calls made by the court or by the official liquidator or receiver in winding-up proceedings lie outside the scope of this work. 601 § 744 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [ChAP. XIII their shares.' A call made before a person subscribes is of no effect as to him.'' § 744. Requirement of Uniformity. — A call must be uni- form upon all the shareholders similarly situated: the directors or the company have no right to discriminate between the shareholders by making demands upon some of them while suffering their fellows to escape.' But if a greater proportion has been paid upon some of the shares than upon others, the dis- parity not only may but must be corrected before a call can be made on those who have paid in the greater amount.* If the call be uniform by its terms, the mere failure to enforce it against some of the shareholders will not release the others.^ § 745. Call not necessarily Demand for immediate Payment — Calls payable by Instalments. — The resolution making the call need not demand immediate payment. On the contrary, a resolution may be passed that a call be made at some certain date in the future, payable some time thereafter." So, a call may be made payable by instalments : ' or, in other words, several successive calls may be resolved upon at the same time. § 746. Particulars as to Hour, Place, and Manner of Payment not necessary to be stated in Call. — It is not necessary that the resolution making the call should state all the details — such as the precise hour and place for payment.* Such matters are ' "A call is nothing more than Improvement Co. v. Des Moines Nat. an official declaration that the sums Bank, 103 Iowa 455; 72 N. W. 657. subscribed are required to be paid. * Great Western Tel. Co. v. Burro- Pi. direction to collect such sums in- ham, 79 Wise. 47 ; 47 N. W. 373 ; 24 volves, necessarily, such a declara^ Am. St. Rep. 698; Bowenv. Kvehn, tion." Braddock v. PhUadelphia, 79 Wise. 53; 47 N. W. 374. See also etc. R. R. Co., 45 N. J. Law, 363, 365. supra, § 519. ^ Pike V. Bangor Shore Line R. R. ^ Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. Co., 68 Me. 445. 331; 20 Atl. 115. Cf. Hambleton v. ' Brockway v. Gadsden, etc. Land Glenn, 72 Md. 351 ; 20 Atl. 121 (hold- Co., 102 Ala. 620; 15 So. 431; Pike ing that a release of some share- V. Bangor Shore Line R. R. Co., 68 holders, being vltra vires and void. Me. 445; 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., will not discharge the others). 2d ed., § 154. See also infra, § 752. But see Odessa Tramways v. ' Sheffield, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wood- Mendels, 8 Ch. D. 235, 245, where cock, 7 M. & W. 574. it was held that the company's arti- ' London, etc. Ry. Co. v. M'Mich- cles dispensed with this requirement aeJ, 5 Exch. 855; Amhergate Ry. Co. of uniformity. Shares owned by the v. Norcliffe, 20 L. J. Ex. 234. company itself may of course be * London, etc. Ry. v. Fairclough, excluded from the call. Western 2 M. & Gr. 674; Rutland, etc. R. R. e02 § 739- § 807] NOTICE OP calls § 747 merely administrative, and may therefore be left to the company's executive officers. If no time is fixed for payment, the call is payable immediately or after the expiration of the required notice at the option of the shareholder.' On the other hand, a resolu- tion calling for payment either in cash or in "land contracts," without stating who should have the option as to the mode of payment, is too indefinite to constitute a valid call.^ A provision in articles of association requiring the directors to specify the person to whom a call should be payable has been construed to apply only to cases where the call is payable at some place other than the company's registered office.^ § 747-§ 752. Notice of Calls. § 747. Whether Notice is necessary. — A call is generally not enforceable until some notice thereof be given to the share- holders. Such notice is often explicitly required by statute * or the company's regulations. Upon principle, it is submitted that notice is necessary even without any express requirement,' but the contrary doctrine is laid down as settled law by some Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536; Cfreat for payment blank could not amount North of England By. Co. v. Bid- to a call until the blank was filled). didph, 7 M. & W. 243 ; American ' North Milwaukee Tovm Site Co. Pastoral Co. v. Gurney, 61 Fed. 41; v. Bishop, 103 Wise. 492; 79 N. W. Western Imp. Co. v. Des Moines 785; 45 L. R. A. 174. Nat. Bank, 103 Iowa 455; 72 N. W. ' Re Kozminsky, 16 Vict. L. R. 657. 137. C{. Andrews y. Ohio, etc. R. B. Co., * Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 14 Ind. 169; Banet v. Alton, etc. R. 34 Md. 316; Scarlett v. Academy of R. Co., 13 111. 504 (headnote inade- Music, 43 Md. 203; Macon, etc. R. quate); Hays v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314, 318; R. Co.,, 38 Pa. St. 81 (in which cases Carlisle v. Cahawba, etc. R. R. Co., the amount of the call as well as the 4 Ala. 70. place for payment was left unde- Cf. Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. termined by the resolution); Ruck Thrall, 35 Vt. 536. V. Caledonia Silver Mining Co. (Cal.), ' MUes v. Bough, 3 G. & D. 119; 92 Pac. 194 (statute requiring that Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 call state place of payment held Md. 316, 330-331; Germania Iron, mandatory). etc. Co. v. King, 94 Wise. 439; 69 ' Baile v. Calvert Coll., etc. Soc, N. W. 181; 36 L. R. A. 51 (semble); 47 Md. 117, 124. Cf. Western Imp. Alabama, etc. R. R. Co. v. Rowley, Co. V. Des Moines Nat. Bank, 103 9 Fla. 508. Iowa 455; 72 N. W. 657. Cf. Maltby v. NoHhwestern Ya. But see Cawley & Co., 42 Ch. D. R. R. Co., 16 Md. 422; 10 Cyc. p. 496 209 (where the court held that a (per Judge Thompson), resolution for a caU leaving the date 603 § 748 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [ChAP. XIII standard American text-writers/ and is supported by some adjudicated cases.^ § 748. Kind of Notice. — Usually, notice by advertisement is provided for by statute or by the company's regulations ; and per- haps such notice would be sufficient in the absence of any such provision.^ At all events, unless the matter is governed by some positive regulations, any reasonable notice will be sufficient.* In the absence of an explicit regulation on the subject, the notice need not specify the place for payment.^ Oral notice is good unless written notice be affirmatively required." Explicit regu- lations should, however, be observed.' For example, where an act of incorporation provided that all notices of every sort should . be signed by three directors or by their clerk by their order, a notice of a call must conform to those requirements.^ Thus, where the statute requires personal demand or notice by publica- tion, notice by posting a letter in the public mails is not sufficient.* On the other hand, where the shareholder receives actual notice of the call, the fact that the notice may not have been in the required form is perhaps immaterial."' If the statute con- ' 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d " Smith v. Plank Road Co., 30 ed., § 147; 2 Clark & MarshaU on Ala. 650. Priv. Corps., § 500. ' As to what is a shareholder's ' Eakright v. Logansport, etc. R. "regular address" within the mean- R. Co., 13 Ind. 404, 408 (headnote ing of a by-law requiring notice to inadequate) ; Heaston v. Cincinnati, be sent to him there, see Bange v. etc. R. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275; 79 Am. Supreme Council (Mo.), 105 S. W. Dec. 430; Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. 1092. Co. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 ; Eastern » MUes v. Bou^h, 3 G. & D. 119, Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan, 20 Barb. 132. 155; United Fruit Growers Co. v. ° Hughes v. Antietam Mfg. Co., Eisner, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 5; 47^ 34 Md. 316, 331. N. Y. Supp. 906; Hill v. Nishet, 100 Cf. Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. Ind. 341, 356. R. R. Co., 45 N. J. Law 363; Morris ^ Hall V. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill v. Metalline Land Co., 164 Pa. St. (Md.) 484. 326; 30 Atl. 240; 44 Am. St. Rep. But see Lake Ontario, etc. R. R. 614; 27 L. R. A. 305. Co. V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451, 463-464 '» BrUish Sugar Co., 3 K. & J. 408; (semble); Alabama, etc. R. R. v. Mississippi, etc. R. R. Co. v. Gaster, Rowley, 9 Fla. 508. As to what is 20 Ark. 455. a reasonable notice by pubUcation, Cf. Jones v. Sisson, 6 Gray (Mass.) see Moore v. Wheal Byjerkerno Tin 288; Sands v. Sanders, 26 N. Y. 239; Mining Co., 17 Vict. L. R. 680. Grand Valley Irr. Co. v. Fruita Imp. * Cf. National Ins. Co. v. Egle- Co. (Colo.), 86 Pac. 324, 329, 330- son, 29 Grant (Can.) 406. 331; 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., = Vawter v. Franklin College, 53 2d ed., § 147, p. 148. Ind. 88. But see Morris v. MetaUine Land 604 § 739-§ 807] NOTICE OF calls § 750 templates "such notice as may be prescribed by the by-laws," nevertheless, if no by-laws on the subject are adopted, any reasonable notice will be suflBcient.' How far the terms of the notice must be approved by the directors and how far such details may be committed to executive officers will depend very largely upon the terms of the laws and regulations governing the company.^ § 749. Length of Notice. — Provisions as to the length of notice are mandatory. Where notice of, say, twenty-one days is required, there must be twenty-one clear days exclusive both of the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem; so that even in a leap year notice given on Februrary 9th of a call payable on March 1st would be invalid.^ However, a call may by its terms be payable on a date prior to the expiration of the stipulated length of notice, although it will not be collectible until after- wards.* Where "at least sixty dayS' notice" by publication is required, the notice need not be published daily throughout the sixty days, but if the first publication be sixty days before the time fixed for payment, that is enough.^ § 750. To whom Notice should be given. — Notice of a call addressed to a deceased member at his late address is good.' No notice need be given to a person who as director was present at the meeting at which the call was made.' In the case of shares Co., 164 Pa. St. 326; 30Atl. 240; 44 * Scarlett v. Academy of Music, Am. St. Rep. 614; 27 L. R. A. 46 Md. 132. 305. Cf. People's Home Savings Bank ' Danbury, etc. R. B. Co. v. WU- v. Rauer (Cal.), 84 Pac. 329. son, 22 Conn. 435. ° Muskingum VaUey Turnpike But see Oermania Iron, etc. Co. v. Co. v. Ward, 13 Oh. 120; 42 Am. Kiv^, 94 Wise. 439; 69 N. W. 181; Dec. 191. 36 L. R. A. 51 (holding that no call » New Zealand Gold Co. v. Pea- could be collected until the adoption cock (1894), 1 Q. B. 622. of by-laws prescribing the notice to Cf. Alien v. Gold Reefs of West be given) ; North Milwaukee Town Africa (1900), 1 Ch. 656. Site Co. V. Bishop, 103 Wise. 492; As to notice to the representatives 79 N. W. 785; 45 L. R. A. 174 (a of a deceased shareholder, see fur- similar case). ther, South Milwaukee Co. v. Mur- ' See Sheffield, etc. Ry. Co. v. phy, 112 Wise. 614; 86 N. W. 583; Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 574; London, 68 L. R. A. 82. See also infra, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fairclough, 2 M. & Gr. § 976 et seq. 674. ' Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, ' Re Jennings, 1 It. Ch. 236, 240- 11 N. Y. 102. 241. Cf. Graebner v. Post, 119 Wise. Cf. National Ins. Co. v. Egleson, 392; 96 N. W. 783; 100 Am. St. 29 Grant (Can.), 406, 412. Rep. 890. 605 § 751 PAYMENT FOE SHARES [ChAP. XIII owned by co-partners, or perhaps by any two persons jointly, notice to one is notice to all.' § 751. Waiver o£ Notice by repudiating Liability. — It has been held that a shareholder who altogether repudiates ownership of the shares and the attendant liability, thereby waives notice of all subsequent calls.^ Although no reason was assigned by the court for this conclusion, doubtless the basis of the doctrine is that notice need not be given to one who has shown that the notice will be useless. § 752. Effect of Lack of Notice. — A shareholder who has received regular notice of a call cannot defend an action therefor because other shareholders may not have been duly notified.* This rule is proper, and indeed almost necessary ; yet one should observe that it enables directors, if they should be so minded, to evade the rule which requires calls to be uniform on all share- holders, merely by omitting to give notice to those shareholders whom they desire to favor.* § 753-§ 757. Time and Amount of Calls. § 753. In general — Discretion of Company. — The object of the law in requiring subscriptions to the capital of a corporation to be paid in instalments when called for by the company is of course to enable the company to call in only so much of its capital as its necessities from time to time may require. Never- theless, the company or the directors are the exclusive judges of whether or not the corporation needs the capital called up; and a shareholder, therefore, cannot resist payment of a call because the money is not in fact needed by the company.* So, ' National Ins. Co. v. Egleson, ^ Odessa Tramways v. Mendel, 8 29 Grant (Can.) 406 (semble). Ch. D. 235; Penobscot R, R. Co. v. ' Cass y. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co., White, 41 Me. 512, 518-520; 66 80 Pa. St. 31. Am. Dec. 257; Visalia, etc. R. R. Co. ' Shacklefard, Ford & Co. v. v. Hyde, 110 Cal. 632; 43 Pac. 10; Dangerfield, L. R. 3 C. P. 407, 411; 52 Am. St. Rep. 136 (where the Baile v. Calvert College, etc. Soc, 47 unsuccessful defence was that the Md. 117, 125 (headnote inadequate); call was made for the purpose of Hastings Lumber Co. v. Edwards, 75 paying liabilities contracted before N. E. 57 ; 188 Mass. 587. defendant became a shareholder) ; Cf. Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. Judah v. American, etc. Ins. Co., 4 331; 20Atl. 115. Ind. 333; Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, * Cf. 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 74 Mo. 286; Budd v. Multnomah 2d ed., § 154. Street Ry. Co., IS Oreg. 413; 15 Pac. 606 § 739- § 807] TIME OF CALLS §754 too, the amount of calls is wholly discretionary with the company. To be sure, in one case it was held that the corporation could not call in the whole amount of the stock at once ; '■ but this decision is opposed to the reason of the law and to other decided cases.^ § 754. Calls before Company authorized to commence Business — Defence of incomplete Subscription of Capital. — On the other hand, except for preliminary expenses, a corporation can have no need of capital until it is competent to commence business; and until that time should have no power to make calls upon its shareholders for the purpose of engaging in business.^ We have seen above that according to the American rule a corporation may not commence business unless by unanimous consent until its authorized capital has been fully subscribed.' Accordingly, in America, until the whole authorized capital of the company has been subscribed, no call can be made,^ except for the pur- 659; 3 Am. Rep. 169; Nashua Sav- ings Bank v. Anglo-American Co., 189 U. S. 221; 23 Sup. a. 517 (leav- ing the question open whether an assessment made unnecessarily and in bad faith would be enforceable); Anglo-American Land, etc. Co. v. Dyer, 181 Mass. 593; 64 N. E. 416; 92 Am. St. Rep. 437; Fitzgerald's Estate V. Union Sav. Bank, 90 N. W. 994; 65 Nebr. 97. Cf. Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co., 12 Beav. 433; Bank of China V. Mffrse, 168 N. Y. 458; 85 Am. St. Rep. 676; 61 N. E. 774; 56 L. R. A. 139. ' Spangler v. Indiana, etc. Ry. Co., 21 111. 276. ^ Haun V. Mulberry, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 103 ; Budd v. Multnomah Street Ry. Co., 15 Oreg. 413; 15 Pac. 659; 3 Am. Rep. 169. ' But see United Fruit Growers Co. V. Eisner, 22 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 6-7; 47 N. Y. Supp. 906. " Supra, § 177. " Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316; Salem Mia Dam Corp. V. Ropes, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 23; Denny Hotel Co. \.Schram,e Wa-sKlZi; 32 Pac. 1002; 36 Am. St. Rep. 130; Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Nebr. 50; Haskell v. Worthington, 94 Mo. 560 ; 7 S. W. 481 ; Allman v. Havana, etc. R. R. Co., 88 111. 521; Galveston Hotel Co. V. Bolton, 46 Tex. 633 (not- withstanding a statute which pro- vided that the corporation might be "organized" when part only of the capital should be subscribed); New Hampshire Central R. R. v. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; 64 Am. Dec. 300; Proprietors of Cabot, etc. Bridge, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 50. But see Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 157, 166-167; Schenectady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102; Jewett v. VaUey Ry. Co., 34 Oh. St. 601. This rule has no application if the company is expressly authorized by statute to commence business before the capital is completely taken. 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 140; Jewett v. Valley Ry. Co., 34 Oh. St. 601. Calls may be made upon subscrib- ers to the original capital although the capital has been increased and the new shares have not been fully subscribed. McCoy v. World's Co- lumbian Exposition, 186 111. 356; 57 607 §754 PAYMENT FOR SHAKES [Chap. XIII pose of defraying preliminary expenses.' In England, however, inasmuch as a company may, except where prohibited by statute, commence business before its capital is subscribed, the rule just stated probably does not prevail ; ^ and so, too, whenever in the United States a corporation is authorized to commence business before its capital is fully subscribed, it may levy calls upon the shareholders as soon as it is authorized to start business.^ Moreover, in America, the defence of non-complete subscription of the capital is always one which may be waived either expressly or by participating in the commencement or transaction of business by the company with knowledge of the incomplete sub- scription of capital.* In order to have that effect, however, the N. E. 1043; 78 Am. St. Rep. 288. Cf. supra, § 589. A requirement that the capital must be subscribed by ''responsible persons" is satisfied if the subscrib- ers are bona fide believed to be sol- vent. Penobscot R. R. Co. v. Dumr- mer, 40 Me. 172; 63 Am. Dec. 654; Penobscot B. R. Co. v. White, 41 Me. 512; 66 Am. Dec. 257. ' Salem MUl Dam Corp. v. Ropes, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 23; 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 189. ' Ornamental Pyroffraphic Co. v. Brown, 2 H. & C. 63; Re Jennings, 1 Ir. Ch. 236, 241-243; ManM v. Swan Land Co., 154 lU. 177, 188; 40 N. E. 462; 45 Am. St. Rep. 124; 27 L. R. A. 313 (governed by the law of Great Britain) ; London, etc. Ass. Co. v. Redgrave, 4 C. B., N. s., 524. But cf. Howbeach Coal Co. v. Teague, 5 H. & N. 151 ; Elder v. New Zealand Co., 30 L. T. 285; Pitchfard v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2; Galvanized Iron Co. V. Westoby, 8 Ex. 17; North Stafford Steel, etc. Co. v. Ward, L. R. 3 Ex. 172 (where the articles provided that in case all the shares should not be allotted the existing subscribers should, if the directors shmdd so declare, continue associated for the objects of the company, and a call made without any previous resolution of the directors for con- tinuing the business notwithstand- ing the incomplete subscription, was held void); Lindley on Companies, 6th ed., 576^77 (^vhere the learned author states the English law in sub- stantial accord with the American law). Even where the subscription of a certain proportion of the capital of a railway company is expressly made a condition to the right of the com- pany to exercise its powers, the Court of Exchequer held that a call might be made before that amount of capital was taken. Waterford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dalbiac, 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 753; 6 Ex. 443. But see contra: Norwich, etc. Naviga- tion V. Theobald, 1 Moody & M. 151. ' Hunt V. Kansas, etc. Bridge Co., 11 Kans. 412; Willamette Freight- ing Co. V. Stannus, 4 Oreg. 261; Nichols V. Burlington, etc. Co., 4 G. Greene (Iowa) 42; Boston, etc. R. R. Co. V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79. * StiUman v. Dougherty, 44 Md. 380; Ho^erv. awrfond, 36Md. 476; Anderson v. Railroad, 91 Tenn. 44; 17 S. W. 803; Masonic Temple Ass'n V. Channell, 43 Minn. 353; 45 N. W. 716; International Pair, etc. Ass'n v. TFoifeer, 83Mich. 386; 47N.W. 338; Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 502; De- troit Driving Club v. Fitzgerald, 109 608 § 739-§ 807] TIME OF CALLS § 755 participation must be qua shareholder : it is not enough that the shareholder may have dealt with the company as any stranger might do.' The defence may be waived in advance by a stipu- lation in the subscription,^ or the shareholder will be pre- cluded from raising it if at the time he subscribed the company was already engaged in business.' On the other hand, the payment of one call which was unauthorized because the capital had not been fully subscribed will not, it has been held, neces- sarily estop the shareholder from resisting on that ground subsequent calls ; ^ for the first payment may have been made without knowledge of the facts or in the belief that the money was needed for preliminary expenses. § 755. Calls after Abandonment of Business by Company. — The abandonment by the company of its enterprise or under- taking constitutes no defence to an action for calls.* So, the sale of the entire undertaking and franchise of the company by way of foreclosure of a mortgage will not affect a shareholder's obligations.^ Perhaps the money may be needed to discharge obligations incurred prior to such abandonment. A fortiori, the abandonment of a part only of the undertaking will not exoner- ate a shareholder from payment for his shares.' Mich. 670; 1 Morawetz on Priv. construction by the company should Corps., 2d ed., § 156. progress). But" see Oldtown, etc. R. B. Co. v. Cf. Anderson v. RaUroad, 91 Tenn. Veazie, 39 Me. 571. 44; 17 S. W. 803; LaU v. Mt. Ster- Cf. New Hampshire Central R. R. ling Coal Road Co., 13 Bush (Ky.) 32. V. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390; 64 Am. ' Miisgravev.Morrison,54,M.d. 161. Dec. 300 (where there was held to be * Somerset, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cush- no waiver by attending meetings of ing, 45 Me. 524, 533 ; North Stafford the corporation without assenting Steel, etc. Co. v. Ward, L. R. 3 Ex. to the transaction of business). 172 (headnote inadequate); Garling ' Gettysburg Nat. Bank v. Brown, v. Baechtel, 41 Md. 305, 326. 95 Md. 367; 52 Atl. 975. " Re Jennings, 1 Ir. Ch. 236, 241; ^ Emmitt v. Springfield, etc. R. R. Phtenix Warehousing Co. v. Badger, Co., 31 Oh. St. 23; Sweeney \. Tenn., 67 N. Y. 294; Armstrong v. Karsh- etc. R. R. Co. (Tenn.), 100 S. W. ner, 47 Oh. St. 276; 24 N. E. 897. 732 (where the defence was held to But see South Georgia, etc. R. R. be precluded by a provision for pay- Co. v. Ayres, 56 Ga. 230. ment of the subscription at definite " Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Gif- times, so that no call need be made ford, 87 N. Y. 294 ; Buffalo, etc. R. R. by the company before enforcing Co. v. Clark, 22 Hun (N. Y.) 359. payment) ; St. Charles Mfg. Co. v. Cf . Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 Oh. Britten, 2 Mo. App. 290; Iowa, etc. St. 276; 24 N. E. 897. R. R. Co. V. Perkins, 28 Iowa 281 ' Buffalo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Clark, (agreement to pay as certain work of 22 Hun (N. Y.) 359. VOL. I.— 39 609 § 756 PAYMENT FOK SHAKES [ChAP. XIII § 756. Calls after Ultra Vires Acts — After Acceptance of Un- constitutional legislative Amendment to Charter. — By parity of reasoning, excess of power by the corporation will not justify a dissenting shareholder in refusing to pay calls.' On the other hand, with apparent inconsistency, the courts have held that the acceptance of an unconstitutional legislative amendment to the charter by the majority of the shareholders will release the dissenting minority from any further hability,^ unless some one or more of the minority choose to enjoin the corporation from acting under the amendment.^ § 757. Statutory and other Regulations as to Amount and Frequ- ency of Calls. — Not infrequently, by statute or by a company's regulations, some limit is placed on the amount which may be called in from the shareholders at any one time, and a minimum interval to elapse between calls is prescribed. If a call be made for more than the prescribed maximum, or if it be made too soon after a previous call, it is invalid and unenforceable.' If an act of incorporation provides that at least two months shall elapse between calls, a call made within two months after an- other call is invalid even though the earlier call was itself invalid because made within two months of a still earlier call, unless the second call had been collected from none of the share- holders and had been formally declared void by the company.^ Regulations limiting the amount which may be assessed at any one time apply to the amount which is required to be paid at any one time, and do not, according to American decisioiis, invalidate successive calls voted at one time but payable sep- arately." The contrary, however, was held by the House of ' Cartvxright v. Dickinson, 88 2d ed., § 119-§ 120, 153; 2 Clark & Tenn. 476; 12 S. W. 1030; 17 Am. Marshall on Priv. Corps., § 482, St. Rep. 910; 7 L. R. A. 706; Pro- § 484. prietors of City Hotel v. Dickinson, But of. Midland, etc. Ry. Co. v. 6 Gray (Mass.) 586; 1 Morawetz on Gordon, 16 M. & W. 804. As to the Priv. Corps., 2d ed., § 115-§ 117; 2 effect of forfeiture of shares upon Clark & Marshall on Priv. Corps., liability of the holder see infra, I 488. § 828. But see SoiUh Georgia, etc. R. R. = Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Thrall, Co. v. Ayres, 56 Ga. 230. 35 Vt. 536. ' Ashton V. Burbank, 2 Dillon * Cf. Re Jennings, 1 Ir. Ch. 236. 435; Oldtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. « WeUand Ry. Co. v. Berrie, 6 H. Veazie, 39 Me. 571; Hartford, etc. & N. 416. R. Co. V. Croswell, 6 Hill (N. Y.) " Penobscot R. R. Co. v. Duv}^ 383; 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., mer, 40 Me. 172; 63 Am. Dec. 654; 610 § 739-§ 807] SET-OFF § 759 Lords.' But even according to this English doctrine, while the voting of the two calls simultaneously is irregular, the one pay- able first is valid.^ Moreover, if the required interval elapse between the time when the resolution for the first call is made and the time when the resolution for the second call is made, as well as between the time fixed for payment of the first call and that fixed for payment of the second, both calls are valid; the court "cannot construe the time of the making of the. call to be the time when the call is payable in the one case, and in the other case, the time when the resolution for the call is made." ^ If the law prohibits the making of a call while a previous call remains unpaid unless an attempt has been made to enforce its collection, the off-setting of a fraudulent claim against the former call is not such payment as will authorize the second call.* § 758. By whom Calls may be made — By directors, by Share- holders, etc. — Where the statutes applicable to a company as well as its regulations are silent upon the question by whom calls shall be made, the power of levying them may be exercised by the directors.' If the power be expressly conferred upon the directors or other agents, it cannot be delegated by them ; " but nevertheless a general meeting of the shareholders, the supreme corporate authority, might, it is submitted, take the matter into its own hands and call in unpaid capital.' Where, how- ever, by the express terms of the subscription it is payable on call by the directors, a call levied by a meeting of shareholders is ineffective.' § 759. How Calls may be paid — Cash — Set-ofi. — Calls are, in the absence of special agreement — a matter which is treated Rutland, etc. B. R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 ' Ambergate, etc. Ry. Co. v. Vt. 536; Penobscot, etc. R. R. Co. v. MitcheU, 4 Exch. 540, 543. Dunn, 39 Me. 587. * Strouse v. Sylvester, 66 Pac. ' Baaiie v. Edinburgh Oil Gas 660; 134 Cal. xx. Light Co., 3 CI. & Fin. 639; Strat- ' See infra, § 1435. ford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stratton, 2 B. & ' 1 Morawetz on Priv. Corps., 2d Ad. 518. ed., § 145. Cf. infra, § 1467. Cf. Ambergate, etc. Ry. Co. v. ' See infra, § 1191. Mitchell, 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 235. ' Cf. Brockway v. Gadsden, etc. ' BaiRie v. Edinburgh Oil Gas Land Co., 102 Ala. 620; 15 So. 431. Light Co., 3 CI. & Fin. 639, 661. 611 § 759 PAYMENT FOE SHARES [ChAP. XIII below — payable only in cash. They go to make up a fund — often called in America a "trust-fund" — for defraying the expenses and paying the debts of the company. If the require- ment of payment in cash be rigorously enforced, a shareholder who may happen also to be a creditor of the company should not be permitted to set-off his liability for calls against that indebtedness.' Such is the law where the company is insolvent and has ceased to be a going concern, both in England ^ and America ; ^ and similarly the shareholder cannot deduct the amount of the unpaid calls from the indebtedness and prove against the company for the balance,* nor can he prove for the full amount of the debt and set off the calls against the dividend payable to him on his claim.^ Hence, too, a shareholder cannot set off sums which he has paid upon void shares issued in excess of the company's authorized capital against his liability for unpaid subscriptions to the lawful capital." In the United States the same rules apply where the company has been adju- dicated a bankrupt, and that too although the bankrupt act expressly provides that set-off shall be allowed in all cases of mutual debts.' In England that precise question cannot arise, since corporations are not within the British Bankrupt Acts. It is, however, held by the English courts, that where a shareholder becomes bankrupt, debts owing to him by the company may by * So-called set-off by agreement ' Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610; ■with the company is really payment, Bailsman v. Kinnear, 79 Fed. 172; and is valid. Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 24 C. C. A. 473. Ala. 232, 249. See infra, § 794, § 797. Cf . Bovlton Carbon Co. v. Mills, As to crediting sums paid promoters, 78 Iowa 460; 43 N. W. 290; 5 L. R. JVos/i V. ifoseniM (Cal.), 94 Pac. 850. A. 649; HaU v. U. 8. Ins. Co., 5 ' Black & Co.'s Case, 8 Ch. 254; Gill 484. Washington Diamond Co. (1893), 3 * Orissell's Case, 1 Ch. 528. Ch. 95; Whitehouse & Co., 9 Ch. D. Cf. Addison v. Pacific Coast MiM- 595; Hiram Maxim Lamp Co. (1903), ing Co., 79 Fed. 459 (holding that a 1 Ch. 70 (where the company went shareholder who is indebted to the into liquidation after plea of set-off company for unpaid subscriptions but before judgment in an action by cannot in respect to a claim against the company against the share- the company for wages have the holder to recover the call). benefit of a statute making claims But see Clark's Case, 7 Eq. 550. for wages preferred claims) ; Somer- Cf. Holden's Case, 8 Eq. 444 set Nat. Banking Co. v. Adams, 72 (where an attempt was made to pay S. W. 1125; 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2083. calls with coupons cut from the ^ Grissell's Case, 1 Ch. 528. company's debentures) ; Be G. E. » ScovUl v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 14^ B. (1903), 2 K. B. 340. ' Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 WaU. 610. 612 § 739-§ 807] INTEREST § 760 virtue of the provision in the bankrupt law for set-off of mutual debts be set off against calls, whether the debt is less than the calls, so that the question arises in the bankruptcy proceeding,' or whether it is greater than the calls, so that the question must be decided in the winding-up of the company.^ A shareholder who is also a creditor of the company may prove against it in liquidation proceedings pari passu with other creditors even though his shares are not fully paid-up, provided only all calls then due have been paid.^ The question whether set-off can be allowed against a shareholder's statutory liability to creditors is entirely distinct and is not here considered.* § 760. Liability of Shareholders for Interest. — As a share- holder is not in default until a call is made and the requisite notice given, it follows that interest should not begin to run against him until that time; and such is undoubtedly the law.^ On the other hand, upon the expiration of the prescribed period of notice, interest runs against the shareholders in default, ac- cording to some authorities in the discretion of the jury* and according to others as a matter of right.' So, where by the terms of a subscription to shares, payment is to be made in regular monthly instalments, the instalments should ordinarily carry interest from the time they respectively fall due.' If a statute expressly enact that interest shall run on overdue calls, the interest will be recoverable whether the declaration contain ' Re Duckworth, 2 Ch. 578. interest and no call for payment) ; Cf. Kingstown Yacht Clvb, 21 L. Johnson v. Lyt&e's Iron Agency, 5 R. Ir. 199; Re G. E. B. (1903), 2 K. Ch. D. 687. B. 340. ° Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md. ' Ex parte Strang, 5 Ch. 492. 161 ; Frank v. Morrison, 55 Md. 399. ' GrisseU's Case, 1 Ch. 528. ' Hambletonv.Glenn,72Md. 331; * As to this see Cahill v. Original 20 Atl. 115 (as to law of Virginia); Big Gun, etc. Ass'n, 94 Md. 353; 50 North River Meadow v. Shrewsbury Atl. 1044; 89 Am. St. Rep. 434; 3 Church, 22 N. J. Law 424; 53 Am. Clark & Marshall on Priv. Corps., Dec. 258; Gould v. Oneonta, 71 N.Y. § 827, and cases cited. 298; McCoy v. World's Columbian ' Hambleton v. Glenn, 72 Md. Exposition, 186 111. 356; 57 N. E. 331; 20 Atl. 115; Jackson, etc. Ins. 1043; 78 Am. St. Rep. 288. Cf. Co. V. PToZZe, 105 La. 89; 29 So. 503. Lackey v. Richmond, etc. R. Co., Cf. Seattte Trust Co. v. PUner, 18 17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 43. Wash. 401; 51 Pac. 1048 (holding Contra: Frank v. Morrison, 55 that interest does not run on a note Md. 399. Cf. American Pastoral Co. given in payment of a subscription v. Gurney, 61 Fed. 41. to shares, even after maturity, where ' Hawkins v. Citizens' Real Esr there was no express stipulation for tate, etc. Co. (Oreg.), 64 Pac. 320. 613 §761 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [Chap. XIII a count for interest or not.' A provision in a company's regu- lations stipulating that overdue calls shall carry interest at a high rate applies only to calls made by the company while a going concern, and not to calls made by the liquidator or receiver in the winding-up.^ In England interest is allowed on unpaid calls under the statute, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, § 28.^ § 761. Statute of Limitations as Defence. — The statute of limitations begins to run when a call is made and notice given,* but not before that time,^ except in a few states in which it runs from the date of the defendant's subscription.^ If by the terms of the subscription the shareholder agrees to pay at some fixed ■ Southampton Dock Co. v. Rich- ards, 1 Man. & Gr. 448.- As to statutes allowing interest by way of penalty for non-payment of calls, see further, Lackey v. Rich- mond, etc. R. Co., 17 B. Monr. (Ky.) 43. ^ Welsh Flannel Co., 20 Eq. 360. = Ex parte Lintott, 4 Eq. 184; Barrow's Case, 3 Ch. 784; Welsh Flannel Co., 20 Eq. 36t). But cf. Stocken's Case, 3 Ch. 412. See also Faure Electric, etc. Co. v. Phillipart, 58 L. T. 525. * Baltimore, etc. Turnpike Co. v. Barnes, 6 H. & J. (Md.) 57; Western R. R. Co. V. Avery, 64 N. Car. 491. Cf. Morrison v. Savage, 56 Md. 142. « Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93; ScovUl V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143 (where the company had become a bankrupt); Taggart v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 24 Md. 563, 597; 89 Am. Dec. 760; Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319; 9 Sup. a. 739; Glenn v. Marbury, 145 U. S. 499; 12 Sup. Ct. 914; Moses v. Ocoee Bank, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 398; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371 ; Vanderwerken v. Glenn, 85 Va. 9; 6 S. E. 806; Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245; 6 So. 46; 9 So. 265; 24 Am. St. Rep. 894; Glenn v. Howard, 81 Ga. 383; 8 S. E. 636; 12 Am. St. Rep. 318; Great Westr- ern Td. Co. v. Gray, 122 111. 630; 14 N. E. 214; Glenn v. Macon, 32 Fed. 7; Glenn v. Liggett, 135 TJ. S. 533; 10 Sup. Ct. 867; Brockway v. Gadsden, etc. Land Co., 102 Ala. 620; 15 So. 431; Union Savings Bank v. Leiter, 145 Cal. 696; 79 Pac. 441; Otter View Land Co.'s Receiver v. Bowling's Extx., 70 S. W. 834; 24 Ky. Law Rep. 1157; Cook v. Car- penter, 61 Atl. 799; 212 Pa. 165; 108 Am. St. Rep. 854; Haggert Bros. Mfg. Co., 19 Ont. App. 582. Cf . New England Fire Ins. Co. v. ffa?/«cs, 71 Vt. 306; 45 Atl. 221; 76 Am. St. Rep. 771; Union Savings Bank v. Leiter, 145 Cal. 696, 709; 79 Pac. 441 (where a call was made and then rescinded, and a subse- quent call made); West v. Topeka Savings Bank, 66 Kans. 524; 72 Pac. 252; 97 Am. St. Rep. 385; 63 L. R. A. 137; Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union Sav. Bank, 90 N. W. 994; 65 Nebr. 97. ° Great Western Tel. Co. v. Purdy, 83 Iowa 430; 50 N. W. 45 (affirmed, in so far as federal questions were decided, in 162 U. S. 329; 16 Sup. Ct. 810); Harris v. Gateway Land Co., 29 So. 611; 128 Ala. 652. Cf. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. Plummer, 37 Pa. St. 413; Chilberg V. Siebenbaum, 41 Wash. 663; 84 Pac. 598 (holding that against the derivative right of creditors the statute begins to run upon the de- clared or notorious insolvency of the corporation). 614 § 739-§ 807] WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY § 762 time or times, then, as stated above, there is no necessity for a call, and consequently the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as, by the terms of the subscription, payment becomes due.^ The period applicable would seem to be that which gov- erns actions on simple contract; but in an English case, the court held that the claim was founded upon a statute, the incor- poration act, which is deemed a specialty, and that accordingly the action would not be barred until the lapse of the period applicable to actions on specialties.^ An Alabama case holds that after the lapse of twenty years the subscription will be presumed to have been paid, although no call had been made, so that the statute of limitations would not be a bar ; '" but it would seem that the same reasons which prevent limitations from running should also prevent the rise of any presumption of payment from mere lapse of time. The fact that the remedy of the corporation against a shareholder is barred by limitations does not have the same effect as actual payment, and hence the shareholder in such a case has no right to a certificate stating the shares to be paid-up.^ § 762-§ 773. Who are subject to the Liability. § 762. Actual Shareholders as distinguished from mere Sub- scribers. — The liability incident to the status of shareholder attaches to those persons, and those only, who have actually attained that status.' What is necessary and what is not neces- sary in order to constitute a person a shareholder has been aheady considered, and need not be repeated." When a sub- scriber attains the status of a shareholder, he becomes subject to the liabilities of a shareholder. For example, as the issue of a share-certificate is not necessary in order to make a man a shareholder, it follows that he may be held for calls without proof of the issue or even of the readiness to issue the same.' ' Williams v. Matthews, 103 Va. * Johnson v. Albany, ete. R. R. 180; 48 S. E. 861; WiUiams v. Co., 54 N. Y. 416. Taylor, 99 Md. 306; 57 Atl. 641. » New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co. v. ' Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Goode, 13 Muggeridge, 4 H. & N. 580. See C. B. 826. infra, § 778. ' Semple v. Glenn, 91 Ala. 245; ' Supra, § 170 et seq. 6 So. 46; 9 So. 265; 24 Am. St. ' Hawley v. VpUm, 102 U. S. Rep. 894. 314. Cf. supra, § 171. 615 § 763 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [ChAP. XIII § 763. Owners of Shares at Time of Call liable. — As between successive owners of shares, by transfer and so forth, the liability to pay calls attaches to the person who holds the shares when the call is made. The date when the call is payable is not material ; the crucial point is the date of the making of the call.^ Prima facie, this means the date of the passage of the resolu- tion making the call ; but as we have seen a resolution may be passed that a call be made at some fixed date in the future, and in such a case the liability attaches to the person who holds the shares at the date so fixed. § 764. Criterion of Ownership of Shares for this Purpose. — For the purposes of this rule, the ownership of the shares must in general be determined by the company's share register or stock- book.^ One of the most important reasons for requiring tKe company to keep a register of its members is to enable it to know who may be held liable as shareholders at any given time. Hence, the register must serve this function. If, how- ever, the register is erroneous through the company's own fault, the person whose name is improperly registered will be exempted from liability, and the person whose name ought to have been registered will be liable in his stead.' It is often thought that the liability of a person whose name is registered as shareholder while the entire beneficial interest is in another must rest upon ' Campbdl v. American AlkUi 61 Atl. 804; 212 Pa. 177; People's Co., 125 Fed. 207; 113 Fed. 398; 61 Home Sav. Bank v. StadtmvUer C. C. A. 317. (Cal.), 88 Pac. 280 (where a statute ^ Giesen v. London, etc. Mge. Co., expressly enacted that an unregis- 102 Fed. 584; 42 C. C. A. 516; tered transfer should not be valid ex- Ritssell V. Easterhrook, 71 Conn. 50; cept as between the parties). 40 Atl. 905 ; Visalia, etc. R. R. Co. v. But see Cutting v. Damard, 88 ■Hyde, 110 Cal. 632; 43 Pac. 10; 52 N. Y. 410; Dain Mfg. Co. v. Trumr- Am. St. Rep. 136; Plumb v. Bank bvU Seed Co., 95 Mo. App. 144; 68 of Enterprise, . 48 Kans. 484 ; 29 S. W. 951 ; Vale Mills v. Spalding, Kans. 699; WorraU v. Judson, 5 62 N. H. 605. Barb. 210; Johnson v. SomerviUe ' Hunt v. Seeger, 98 N. W. 91; Dyeing, etc. Co., 15 Gray (Mass.) 91 Minn. 264; Earie v. Carson, 188 216; Brown v. Morton, 58 Atl. 94; U. S. 42; 23 Sup. Ct. 254 (as to 71 N. J. Law 26; Hurlburt v. Ar- statutory liability under National thur, 140 Cal. 103; 73 Pac. 734; 98 Banking Act); Hayes v. Shoemaker, Am. St. Rep. 17; White v. Commer- 39 Fed. 319 (same point as last case) ; cial, etc. Bank, 66 S. Car. 491 ; 45 S. Bracken v. Nicol (Ky.), 99 S. W. 920 ; E. 94; 97 Am. St. Rep. 803; Sher- Smith v. Bank of N ova Scotia, 8 Can. wood V. lUinois Trust, etc. Co., 195 Sup. Ct. 558; Alston's Cose, 22 Vict, ill. 112; 62 N. E. 835; 88 Am. St. L. R. 243 n. Rep. 183; Cook v. Carpenter (Pa.), See infra, § 861. 616 § 739- § 807] EFFECT OF TRANSFERS § 765 estoppel; but if the theory of the legal title to shares which is advocated below is correct, the liability of the registered share- holder rests rather on the fact that he is the holder of the legal title. In order that the registered owner be held liable, the doc- trine of estoppel' need be resorted to only when by statute a trustee of shares is exempted from liability.' The cases which deal with the question whether the registered holder or the "true owner" is the person subject to the statutory liability to creditors ^ depend perhaps upon somewhat different considera- tions, and are not treated here. § 765. EfCect of Transfer of Shares upon Liability. — It follows that a transfer of shares completed by a proper entry in the company's books releases the transferor from all liability for subsequent calls.' This is true although the transferor was the original allottee,* his case not being assimilated to that of an original lessee of land, whose liability persists in spite of an assignment of the term. Probably, a transfer would release the original allottee from future liability even though he might have expressly promised at the time of subscribing to the shares to pay their par value.* A transfer works a complete novation, so that the transferee may be sued in assumpsit for any calls made after the transfer, although he may have made no express prom- ise to pay the same ; " and a declaration or complaint charging the defendant as subscriber to shares has been held to be sus- tained by proof that the defendant acquired shares by transfer.'' ' See infra, § 769. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Gibson, 37 = E. g. Ohio VaUey Nat. Bank v. Nebr. 750, 764-765; 56 N. W. 616. Hvlitt, 204 U. S. 162; White v. Cf. AuLtman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. Marquardt, 105 Iowa 145; 74 N. 505 (semble). See also infra, § 766. W. 930. As to liability under the ' But see Schenectady, etc. Co. v. National Bank Act, see also infra, Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102, 108. p. 621, n. 3, and p. 622, n. 2. « Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65; ' Brinkley v. Hambleton, 67 Md. Visalia, etc. B. R. Co. v. Hyde, 110 169, 176; 8 Atl. 904 (semble). Cal. 632; 43 Pac. 10; 53 Am. St. * Hvddersfield Canal Co. V. Btick- Rep. 136; Bend v. Susquehanna ley, 7 T. R. 36; Rochester, etc. Land Bridge Co., 6 H. & J. (Md.) 128; 14 Co. V. Raymond, 158 N. Y. 576; 53 Am. Dec. 261; Sigua Iron Co. v. N. E. 507; 47 L. R. A. 246; Stewart Brown, 171 N. Y. 488; 64 N. E. 194. V. Walla Walla, etc. Pub. Co., 1 Wash. Cf. Bell's Appeal, 115 Pa. St. 88; 8 St. 521; 20 Pac. 605; Finletter v. Atl. 177; 2 Am. St. Rep. 532 (review- Acetylene Light Co., 215 Pa. 86; 64 ing earlier Pennsylvania cases) ; Reid Atl. 429. V. Dejarnette, 123 Ga. 787 ; 51 S. E. 770. Contra in Nebraska by virtue of ' Glenn v. Porter, 73 Fed. 275; a provision in the state constitution. 19 C. C. A. 503. 617 § 765 PAYMENT FOR SHARKS [ChAP. XIII As intimated above/ however, the transferor and not the trans- feree is liable for any calls that were made prior to the transfer/ even though payable afterwards.' The transferor is not, how- ever, relieved from Uability for future calls, whether the transfer be absolute or security for a debt, until the transfer is registered,* unless the failure to register is occasioned by the company's own wrongful refusal.^ Accordingly the transferor refnains liable when the transfer books were lawfully closed when the transfer was presented for registration, and the company became in- solvent before the transfer could be registered." If the transferor promise the transferee to pay future calls, the question whether the company can sue upon that promise depends upon the law of the lex fori as to the right of a stranger to sue upon a con- tract performance of which would inure in part to his benefit.'' In order that the transfer should relieve the transferor from future liability, the only requirement in England is that the transfer be absolute, the transferor retaining no interest in the shares.' The American law, on the other hand, refuses to relieve the transferor from liability where the assignment was made with knowledge of the company's failing condition and for the purpose of escaping liability and where the transferee is insolvent." Even in America, a creditor who has acquired ' Supra, § 763. ed., 1122-1124. Cf. Nat. Bank v. ' Visalia, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hyde, Case, 99 U. S. 628. But see Discov- 110 Cal. 632; 43 Pac. 10; 62 Am. erers' Finance Corp. (1908), 1 Ch. St. Rep. 136. 141 (holding that the fact of the ' Campbell v. American Alkili transfer being "out and out" is not Co., 125 Fed. 207; 61 C. C. A. conclusive against the transferor's 317. continuing liability). * Plumb V. Bank of Enterprise, Cases where the transfer is merely 48 Kans. 484; 29 Pac. 699; Mc- colorable, the transferor retaining Donald v. Dewey, 134 Fed. 528; 67 the beneficial ownership, constitute C. C. A. 408; Kenyan w. Fowler, 155 an exception to the rule that the Fed. 107, 109; Knickerbocker Trust trustee and not the cestui que trust Co. V. Myers, 133 Fed. 764 (affirmed of shares is Uable in respect thereof, in 139 Fed. 111). See also cases See King's Case, 6 Ch. 196; Massey cited supra, § 764. & Griffin's Case (1907), 1 Ch. 582. » Seesupra,§ 764, and infra, §861. Cf. Cox's Case, 33 L. J. Ch. 145 ° Cook V. Carpenter, 61 Atl. 804; (where the trust was created in order 212 Pa. 177. to "bull" the company's shares in ' See Crown Slate Co. v. Allen, the market). 48Atl. Rep. 968; 199 Pa. 239. But " Aultman's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. d. Discoverers Finxmce Corp. {\9QS), 505; Burt v. Real Est. Exch., 175 1 Ch. 141. Pa. St. 619; 34 Atl. 923; 52 Am. St. * 2 Lindley on Companies, 6th Rep. 858; Bowden v. Johnson, 107 618 § 739-§ 807] EFFECT OF TRANSFERS §765 shares as security for a debt is relieved from any future liability by a transfer in exercise of a power of sale contained in the contract of hypothecation, although the sale was made for a nominal consideration and although his only motive in making it was to escape liability as shareholder.' Even if a transfer be colorable merely, so that the company might continue to hold the transferor liable as shareholder, yet if it registers the transfer and sues the transferee to collect a call, it cannot there- after change front and sue the transferor.^ Although perhaps a transfer from the insolvent transferee to a solvent person would relieve the first transferor from further liability, yet the burden is upon the latter to establish the defence by proving the solvency of the second transferee.' A transfer to a fictitious transferee will, of course, leave the transferor liable.* If the transfer is made to a bona fide purchaser without notice that the shares are not paid-up, the purchaser, as will presently be shown, incurs no liability,' and therefore necessarily the vendor remains liable for any sum which the company is thus prevented from collecting from the purchaser.' U. S. 251; 2 Sup. Ct. 246; Rider v. Morrison, 54 Md. 429, 444 (headnote inadequate) ; People's Home Savings Bank v. Richard, 139 Cal. 285; 73 Pac. 858; Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1; 18 Sup. a. 274 (distin- guished in Earle v. Carson, 188 U. S. 42 ; 23 Sup. Ct. 254) ; Gottschalk v. Stover, 85 Mo. App. 566; Lamson v. Hutchings, 118 Fed. 321 (transferor liable at law and not merely in equity); Baker v. Reeves, 85 Fed. 837 (both transferor and transferee liable); McDonald v. Dewey, 202 U. S. 510; 26 Sup. Ct. 731 (burden of proving solvency of transferee on defendant); Earle v. Carson, 188 U. S. 42; 23 Sup. Ct. 254; Central Agricidtural, etc. Ass'n v. Gold Life Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120 (burden of prov- ing solvency of transferee on trans- feror). Anglo-American Land, etc. Co. v. Lombard, 132 Fed. 721, 738- 739 (transfer of all the shares together with all the assets of the company to another corporation); McDonald v. Dewey, 202 U. S. 510; 26 Sup. Ct. 731 (as to whether the transferor can be held liable for the benefit of subsequent creditors). Cf. McConey v. Belton Oil, etc. Co., 97 Minn. 190; 106 N. W. 900 (holding that if transfer proved to have been made without considera- tion and when company was insol- vent, "fraudulent" intent to escape liability is presumed). ' Magruder v. Colston, 44 Md. 349; 22 Am. Rep. 47. ' Rochester, etc. Land Co. v. Ray- mond, 158 N. Y. 576; 53 N. E. 507; 47 L. R. A. 246. But see People's Home Savings Bank v. Rickard, 139 Cal. 285; 73 Pac. 858 (where the company was insolvent). ' People's Home Savings Bank v. Rickard, 139 Cal. 285; 73 Pac. 858. * Muskingum Valley, etc. Co. v. Ward, 13 Oh. 120; 42 Am. Dec. 191. Cf. infra, § 879. ' Infra, § 800. ° McBryan v. Universal Elevator 619 766 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [Chap. XIII A transferee of shares, who is duly registered, cannot escape liability for calls by showing that he was induced to purchase the shares by the fraud of the transferor, even though the trans- feror was an officer of the company.' § 766. Statutes making: former Shareholders liable notwithstand- ing Transfer. — Statutes sometimes provide that past members of a corporation shall continue liable for calls for some time after the transfer.^ In such cases, the transferor is a qvasi surety for the transferee, and if he is called upon to pay has a right to compel the transferee, or whoever holds the shares at the time of the call, to reimburse him.' § 767. Liability in respect of Shares held in Trust, etc. — Lia- bility of Holder of Legal Title. — The liability ordinarily, and in the absence of statute, attaches to the holder of the legal title to the shares. For example, where shares are held in trust, the trustee and not the cestui que trust is liable ; ' but he has of course a right to be indemnified by the trust estate,' or if the benefi- Co., 89 N. W. 683; 130 Mich. Ill; 97 Am. St. Rep. 453. Contra: Wiarton Beet Sugar Co., 12 Ont. L. R. 149. • Hart V. Globe Ins. Co., 113 Fed. 307. Cf. Stufflebeam v. DeLashmvM, 83 Fed. 449. See also infra, § 963. ' See Spragtie v. National Bank of America, 172 111. 149; 50 N. E. 19; 64 Am. St. Rep. 17; 42 L. R. A. 606; Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146. ' Infra, § 972. * M iichell's Case, 9 Eq. 363; Wil- liams' Case, 1 Ch. D. 576 (headnote inadequate); Ex parte Bugg, 2 Drewiy & Sm. 452; Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319; 9 Sup. Ct. 739; Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328, 330; McKim V. Glenn, 66 Md. 479 ; 8 Atl. 130; Hampton v. Foster, 127 Fed. 468 ; Union Savirigs Bank v. Willard (Cal.), 88 Pac. 1098; Kerr v. Urie, 86 Md. 72 ; 37 Atl. 789 ; 63 Am. St. Rep. 49S; 38 L. R. A. 119 (where the cestui que trust was an infant). But see Ulster Ry. Co. v. Bain- bridge, Ir. Rep. 2 Eq. 190; Lloyd v. Preston, 146 U. S. 630, 644-645; 13 Sup. Ct. 131 (arising under an Ohio statute enacting that cestuis que trust of stock should be deemed stockholders). Cf. Preston v. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327 (where the cestui que trust was the company itself); Colonial Investment & Agency Co., 19 Vict. L. R. 381 (where the cestui que trust was the company itself and where the argument that the com- pany itself had paid for the shares in full did not prevail); Winston v. Dorsett, etc. Co., 129 111. 64; 21 N. E. 614; 4 L. R. A. 507 (where the shares were held in trust for the other shareholders) ; Andrews v. Nat. Foundry, etc. Works, 76 Fed. 166; 22 C. C. A. 110; 77 Fed. 774; 23 C. C. A. 454 (where the shares were held by a mortgagee from the com- pany). As to cases where the cor- poration is the cestui que trust, see further, supra, § 202. ' Mitchell's Case, 9 Eq. 363 (sem- ble); Morse v. Pacific Ry. Co., 93 111. App. 33, 37 (semble). 620 § 739- § 807] SHARES HELD IN TRUST § 767 ciary be sui juris by the cestui qvs trust personally.^ If the name of the trustee and not that of the cestui que trust appears on the company's books, the former is liable under the doctrine which has been meptioned above, that ordinarily the registered shareholder should be liable ; but if the shares are registered in the name of "A, trustee for B," then A's liability can rest only upon the ground that the trustee, or holder of the legal title, is the person who is subject to the burdens of ownership.^ The rule that the trustee and not the beneficiary is liable as shareholder applies even where the trust is created by the cestui que trust for the purpose of avoiding liability,^ unless indeed the cestui que trust has already become the legal owner of the shares, or at any rate has agreed with the company to take them, before they are put in the name of his nominee or trustee.* The rule exempting the cestui que -trust from direct personal liability to the company has been applied where the trustee or nominee was an infant.* But where shares are regis- tered in the name of a married woman who was incapable of contracting and signed the application at her father's instance and in ignorance of its effect, the court held that the daughter was not a trustee for the father, but that her name was a mere alias for his, just as if a fictitious name had been used, so that he was liable as shareholder.' A person to whom shares are trans- ferred as security for a debt and who is registered as share- ' Hardoon v. BelUios (1901), 33 C. C. A. 574; Ohio Valley Nat. A. C. 118. Bank v. HulUt, 204 U. S. 162 — may ' Union Sav. Bank v. Willard be supported on the ground that the (Cal.), 88 Pac. 1098. National Banking Act expressly pro- ' King's Case, 6 Ch. 196 (semble) ; vides that trustees shall not be per- Higgins v. Fidelity Ins., etc. Co., 108 sonally liable, but that the trust Fed. 475 ; 46 C. C. A. 509 (where a estate shall be liable instead, pledgee of shares had them registered * See supra, § 765. in the name of an employee rather ' Massey & Griffin's Case (1907), than in his own); Hayes v. Fidelity 1 Ch. 582. But see Victorian Mtge., Ins., etc. Co., 105 Fed. 160. etc. Bank v. Australiian Financial, The cases holding that the "real etc. Co., 19 Vict. L. R. 680 (where owner" of shares in a national bank the cestui que trust had procured the may always be liable as shareholder, company's assent to the transfer by — e. g. American Alkali Co. v. Kurtz, a fraudulent representation that the 134 Fed. 663 ; Dunn v. Howe, 107 infant had paid value for the shares). Fed. 849 ; 47 C. C. A. 13 (holding » Pugh and Sharsman's Case, 13 that both the registered holder and Eq. 566. the "real owner" may be liable); Cf. Hvlitt v. Ohio Valley Nat. HoughtoA v. Hubbell, 91 Fed. 453; BonA;, 137 Fed. 461 ; 69 C. C. A. 609. 621 § 768 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [ChAP. XIII holder is liable in respect of the shares.' Even if the shares were registered in his name expressly as pledgee, it would seem that he might well be deemed the holder of the legal title and therefore liable.^ § 768. Liability of Executor or Administrator. — Even an ex- ecutor who applies for shares qua executor is liable personally in respect thereof/ with, however, the same right of indemnity as a trustee. Upon a shareholder's death, although the title to the shares devolves upon his executor, yet the latter is liable for calls made before or after the testator's death, not individually, but in his representative capacity,* unless the shares are with his consent registered in his name.^ The liabilities of an executor or adminis- trator of a deceased shareholder are considered at length below.* § 769. American Statutes exempting Trustees, Executors, Pledg- ees, etc., from personal Liability. — In the United States, statutes are frequently found which enact that a trustee, executor, or pledgee of shares shall not be liable in respect thereof, but that the cestui que trust, the estate of the testator, or the pledgor, shall be liable instead.' The United States Supreme Court has held that such a statute exempts from liability one who has accepted shares of stock as collateral security for a debt of the company,' and that the exemption may be claimed although the certificates of stock and the entries on the company's books do not disclose the fact that the shares are not held in his own right by the apparent owner,' and although the registered holder '' Tuthill Spring Co. v. Smith, 90 ' Leeds Banking Co., 1 Ch. 231. Iowa 331; 57 N. W. 853; Bend v. * Houldsworth v. Evans, L. R. 3 Sicsquehanna Bridge Co., 6 H. & J. H. L. 263; Baird's Case, 5 Ch. 725. (Md.) 128; 14 Am. Dec. 261; Pvll- See also infra, § 976. many. Upton, 96 U. S. 328; People's » Buchan's Case, 4 A. C. 549. Home Savings Bank v. Eauer (Cal.), ° Infra, § 976 et seq. 84 Pac. 329. ' In addition to cases cited below, ' But see Pavly v. State Loan, etc. see Fowler v. Gowing, 152 Fed. 801 ; Co., 165 U. S. 606; 17 Sup. Ct. 465. Lucas v. Coe, 86 Fed. 972; Sayles v. This case arising under the National Bates, 15 R. I. 342, 345 (headnote Banking Act, there was a dilemma : inadequate) ; 5 Atl. 497 (as to a suit if the creditor was invested with against the trustee in order to reach legal title to the hypothecated the assets of the trust estate). And shares, he was a trustee, and as see supra, p. 621 n. 3. Buch exempted from liability by ' Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. the express terms of the statute ; 20 ; 2 Sup. Ct. 10. and if he was not the holder of the » Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. legal title, he was exempted because 20 ; 2 Sup. Ct. 10 ; McMahon v. he was not a shareholder. Macy, 51 N. Y. 155; Colonial Trust 622 § 739-§ 807] BANKRUPTCY OF SHAREHOLDER § 771 may have voted on the shares.' Other courts, however, have held that the statute is no protection unless the company's books disclose the fact that the shares were held in a fiduciary capacity.^ § 770. Infant Shareholders. — The right of an infant who has subscribed to the shares of a corporation to repudiate the contract, disown the shares, and escape liability, has already been considered.' So, too, the status of an infant transferee of shares is considered below.* Inasmuch as the obligation to pay for shares attaches to the ownership thereof, it follows that an ' infant who has become the owner of shares not by virtue of con- tract, but by will or by devolution of law, may be Kable as share- holder unless he disown the shares.' § 771. Effect of Bankruptcy of Shareholder. — If any of the shareholders becomes bankrupt, the company may prove against his estate for any calls that were overdue at the time of the bankruptcy." If, however, the company has a lien on the shares for overdue calls, it must either deduct from its claim the market value of the shares and prove merely for the balance, or else it must surrender its lien for the general benefit of all cred- itors.' Under bankrupt laws which permit proof for contingent claims, a corporation cannot prove in respect of its potential claim for future calls, estimated according to the probabilities of calls being made ; * but where th^ statute provides for proof Co. v. McMillan, 188 Mo. 547; 87 liability. Nat. Bankv.Case,99V.S. S. W. 933; 107 Am. St. Rep. 335. 628, 631; Paidy v. State Loan & Cf. May V. Genesee County Savings Trust Co., 165 U. S. 606; 17 Sup. Ct. Bank, 120 Mich. 330; 79 N. W. 630. 465 (semble). ' Burgess v. Sdigman, 107 U. S. ' Supra, § 198. 20; 2 Sup. Ct. 10. * Infra, § 877. " Hurlburt v. Arthur, 140 Cal. * Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. v Fearnley, 4 103; 73 Pac. 734; 98 Am. St. Rep. Ex. 26, 31 (semble). 17; Sherwood v. Illinois Trust, etc. » Be McMahon (1900), 1 Ch. 173; Co., 195 m. 112; 62 N. E. 835; 88 Glenn v. Howard, 65 Md. 40, 58; 3 Am. St. Rep. 183; Morse v. Pacific Atl. 895. Ry. Co., 93 111. App. 33; Adams v. ' Be Jennings, 1 Ir. Ch. 236, 243- Clark (Colo.), 85 Pac. 642 (a well con- 244. sidered case). Compare the cases ' Glenn v. Howard, 65 Md. 40; in which the United States Supreme 3 Atl. 895 ; Sayre v. Glenn, 87 Ala. Court has declared that a person 631; 6 So. 45; Furdonjee's Case, 3 who is registered as shareholder in Ch. D. 264. a national bank is liable by estoppel Under some insolvent laws the although the National Banking Act corporation's potential claim is dis- expressly exempts trustees from charged by the release, although not 623 § 772 PAYMENT FOR SHARES [ChAP. XIII for any liability or possibility of an obligation to pay money or money's worth, the potential claim for future calls has been held to be provable.^ In consequence of such proof, however, the shares do not become fully paid shares, although the bankrupt is discharged from all personal liability in respect of them ; and consequently the assignee cannot receive any dividends in the liquidation or winding-up of the company without first paying the amount which after receipt by the company of the dividend from the bankrupt's estate still remains unpaid on the shares.^ The assignee or trustee in bankruptcy is at liberty to refuse to accept the shares if he deems the ownership of them too onerous ; ' and if he do so, neither he nor the assets in his hands will be, it seems, subject to any individual liability for debts of the company imposed by statute upon shareholders.* § 772. Holder of less than minimum or more than maximum Number of Shares allowed to one Person. — A provision in a company's regulations that no person shall be allowed to hold less than a certain number of shares will not have the effect of exonerating from liability a person who holds less than such minimum ; ^ and similarly a provision that no person shall hold more than a certain number of shares will not relieve from liability a person who holds more than the maximum." § 773. Hold«r of Shares issued without Authority of Law or Irregularly. — ■ The question is often raised whether ownership of shares issued without authority of law or irregularly will provable. See Glenn v. Clabaugh, Ch. 173 (where the contrary propo- 65 Md. 65, 67; 3 Atl. 902 (semble). sition was assumed by counsel and In one case the Uability for un- court), called subscriptions to capital was ' Sayre v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 631; deemed to be a present debt sol- 6 So. 45; Glenn v. Howard, 65 Md. vendum in future, and as such prov- 40; 3 Atl. 895. able against the bankrupt estate. Cf. Re Hooley (1899), 2 Q. B. Glenn v. AbeU, 39 Fed. 10. 579; South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Cf. Carey v. Mayer, 79 Fed. 926; Burnside, 5 Ex. 129. See also infra, 25 C. C. A. 239; South Staffordshire § 983. Ry. Co. V. Burnside, 5 Ex. 129. ■• American File Co. v. Garrett, ' Re McMahon (1900), 1 Ch. 173. 110 U. S. 288; 4 Sup. Ct. 90. For a clear analysis of the Eng- But see Graham v. Piatt, 65 Pac. Ush oases, which are somewhat con- 30; 28 Colo. 421. fusing, see 1 Lindley on Companies, ' Leeds Banking Co., 1 Ch. 231. 6th ed., pp. 752-754. ' Hagerman v. Ohio Bldg., etc. ' Rowe's Trustee's Claim (1906), A'ss'n, 25 Oh. St. 186 (leaving the 1 Ch. 1. question open as to the effect of a But see Re McMahon (1900), 1 similar provision in a statute). 624 § 739-§ 807] SPECIAL AGREEMENTS § 774 subject the holder to the liabilities incident to ownership of shares of stock. This question is discussed in connection with the subject of illegal or irregular increases of capital.' § 774-§ 799. SPECIAL AGREEMENTS VARYING NORMAL LIABILITY — SUBSCRIPTIONS ON SPECIAL TERMS. § 774. In general — Validity. — We have given above a brief statement or description of the liability which normally, if not most frequently, attaches to the holder of shares in a corpora- tion ; we must now consider how far the nature or extent of that liability may be varied by agreement between the company and the shareholder. The general rule is that subscriptions on special terms — that is to say, subscriptions on terms which do not involve an obligation to pay the amount of the shares in cash as and when called for by the company — are quite permissible.^ For example, a company may stipulate with some applicants for shares for ^he payment of a deposit on application or allotment although no such payment is exacted of other subscribers ; ' or a shareholder may promise to pay his subscription at a fixed date without any call or notice.* Likewise, the company may exact from the subscriber a waiver of the general rule of American law that calls cannot be made until the entire authorized capital has been subscribed,' or may insist upon a stipulation dispensing with statutory formalities as to calls and assessments." So, the ■ See supra, § 579, § 592. be made until shares are issued, dif- " See supra, § 228. fering in ttiis respect from a deposit It is submitted that even where payable on application or allotment. a statute expressly lays down the Croskey v. Bank of Wales, 4 Giff. rule that subscriptions to shares shall 314, 330-331. be payable on call, yet special con- * Northwood Union Shoe Co. v. tracts providing for payment in a Pray, 67 N. H. 435; 32 Atl. 770; different way should not be deemed Ruse v. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619; 7 prohibited. But see Thigpen v. So. 384. Mississippi Central R. R. Co., 32 Cf. California, etc. Co. v. CaUender, Miss. 347. 94 Cal. 120; 29 Pac. 859; 28 Am. As to the result of an unauthor- St. Rep. 99; Bohrer v. Adair, 61 ized attempt of an agent to make Nebr. 824 ; 86 N. W. 495. special terms as to the mode of pay- ' Emmitt v. Springfield, etc. R. R. ment, see Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Co., 31 Oh. St. 23. See supra, § 754. Stadon, 68 Pa. St. 256. " People's Home Sav. Bank v. ' Alexander v. Automatic Tele- Sadler (Cal.), 81 Pac. 1029, 1032 phone Co. (1900), 2 Ch. 56. (headnote inadequate). A call, properly speaking, cannot VOL. I. —40 625 § 775 PAYMENT FOB SHAKES [ChAP. XIII corporation may receive payment in advance of calls, and may agree to pay interest on the sums so advanced.' So, also, where shares have been issued subject to payment in a particular manner, the company may agree to accept payment in any other mode that it may deem advisable.^ § 775. Issue of Shares at a Premium. — A peculiar form of subscription on special terms is exhibited by the issue of shares at a premium — that is to say, for more than their par value.^ This is an expedient often resorted to in the organization of banks and trust companies and other corporations upon whose shareholders there rests some additional statutory liability regulated as to its amount by the par value of the shares held by them respectively. In such cases, for the purpose of diminishing the extent of the statutory liability, all persons who subscribe to shares are often required to take them at a premium, thus raising a working capital in excess of the nominal capital of the company. Although in this way the statute which imposes the liability is to a certain degree evaded, it seems that the validity of the practice has never been challenged on that score. The amount of the premium so voluntarily paid by the shareholder cannot be claimed as a credit in an action to enforce his lia- bility upon his unpaid subscription to the capital,* and certainly cannot be recovered either from the company or the other shareholders.'* § 776. Special Agreements amounting to complete or partial Re- lease from Liability to pay par Value — Issue at a Discount. — But while special terms inserted in subscriptions mdy affect the time or manner of payment, yet they should not amount to a virtual release from payment, in whole or in part. If a subscriber accepts shares upon the faith of the company's agreement that he shall not be called on to pay anything, or at any rate not the whole of their nominal amount, the stipulation is certainly not ' Lock V. Queendand, etc. Co. v. Matahde, etc. Co. (1901), 2 Ch. (1896), A. C. 461; Rvaand, etc. R. R. 23. Cf. supra, § 603. Co. V. ThraU, 35 Vt. 536. As to the effect of issue of shares See also infra, § 1340. at a premium and as to the rights ' See New Albany v. Burke, 11 of holders of such shares, see supra WaU. 96. § 522. ' As to whether shares can law- * Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md. fully be issued at par when the 161. market price is higher, see HUder y: ^ Esgen v. Smith, 84 N. W. 954; Dexter (1902), A. C. 474; Burrows 113 Iowa 25. 626 § 739-§ 807] ISSUE AT A DISCOUNT §776 countenanced by the law.' In England, in such a case, the attempt to relieve from payment is quite nugatory, and the shareholder may be compelled either by the corporation or its liquidator to pay in full the par value of the shares.^ This liability exists although the company may be perfectly solvent, so that creditors could not possibly be injured by the arrange- ment, and although payment is sought to be enforced for the benefit of other shareholders ^ who perhaps had themselves approved or even participated in the arrangement, or who held their shares by assignment from persons who had approved or participated therein.* In the United States, on the other hand, such agreements for the issue of shares at a discount are by the weight of authority valid so far as the rights of the assenting shareholders inter sese are concerned,^ or even as against prior creditors," or subsequent ' As to construing a contract of subscription, if possible, so as not to provide for an issue for less than par, see Tulare Sav. Bank v. Talbot, ISlCal. 45; 63 Pac. 172. ' Society of Practical Knowledge v. Abbot, 2 Beav. 559; Ooregum Gold Mining Co. v. Roper (1892), A. C. 125. So in Canada. Northr-West Elec- tric Co. V. Walsh, 29 Can. Sup. Ct. 33 (where the company declared the shares forfeited for non-payment of the full par value). De Ruvigne's Case, 5 Ch. D. 306, and other similar cases, which are sometimes cited as inconsistent with this rule (see 2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. Corps., § 401 a), proceed on principles elsewhere explained. See infra, § 1619. Cf. InnSs & Co. (1903), 2 Ch. 254; Leinster Contract Corp. (1902), 1 Ir. 349. As to what amounts to an issue at a discount, see Midland Electric, etc. Co., 37 W. R. 471. See also infra, § 785, as to issue for property, services, etc. ' Wdton v. Saffery (1897), A. C. 299. Cf. Ooregum Gold Mining Co. v. Roper (1892), A. C. 125; Weymouth, 627 etc. Steam Packet Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 66. * Society of Practical Krundedge v. Abbot, 2 Beav. 559. But see Gold Co., 11 Ch. D. 701. ' Goodnow V. Am. Writing Paper Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. 607; Green v. Abietine Med. Co., 96 Cal. 322; 31 Pac. 100; Arnold v. Searing (N. J. Ch.), 67 Atl. 831 (holding that a person claiming under such a con- tract is not within the rule that a plaintiff in equity must come into court with clean hands). ° Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Farrdl, etc. Co., 75 Fed. 554; 23 C. C. A. 302; Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417, 43'5-436; 11 Sup. Ci. 530; Peter v. Union Mfg. Co., 56 Oh. St. 181; 46 N. E. 894; Fdker v. Svlli^ van (Colo.), 83 Pac. 213. But see Marrow v. Nashville Iron & Sted Co., 87 Tenn. 262; 10 S. W. 495; 10 Am. St. Rep. 658; 3 L. R. A. 37; Zdaya, etc. Co. v. Meyer, 8 N. Y. Supp. 487; 28 N. Y. St. Rep. 759; New Haven Trust Co. v. Gaffney, 73 Conn. 480; 47 Atl. 760; Easton Nat. Bank v. Am. Brick & Tile Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 917 (an able opinion). In some cases where issue at a discount is prohibited by statute, §776 PAYMENT FOE SHARES [Chap. XIII creditors who contracted their claims with knowledge of the circumstances of the previous issue ; ^ and consequently pay- ment in full can be enforced only by or for the benefit of subse- quent creditors of the company who were ignorant that the shares were not really fully paid,^ or perhaps by dissenting shareholders.^ Even in England, so long as the company continues to be a going concern, a person to whom shares have been issued at a discount may repudiate the issue as ultra vires, rescind the contract, and have his name removed from the register of share- holders,* unless indeed he be barred by laches.^ Of course it the courts have held that the at- tracted their claims in ignorance of tempted issue for less than par is the fact that shares had been issued wholly void, so that the allottees at a discount will be presumed in neither enjoy the rights nor are sub- the absence of allegation and proof ject to the liabilities of shareholders, to the contrary. Northwestern Mut. 2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. Corps., Life Ins. Co. v. Cotton Exch., etc. Co., p. 1231-1232. 46 Fed. ^2. ' Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. It seems that this right of subse- v. Cotton Exch., etc. Co., 70 Fed. 155; quent creditors is equitable as dis- Bent v. Vnderdown, 156 Ind. 516, tinguished from legal. First Nat. 520; 60 N. E. 307 (where the sub- Bank v. Peavey, 69 Fed. 455; Thomr- eequent creditors were held to have son^Houston, etc. Co. v. Dallas, etc. constructive notice by reason of the Ry. Co., 54 Fed. 1001; 5 C. C. A. contract being embodied in the in- 11. corporation paper) ; Cunningham v. ^2 Clark & Marshall on Priv. Holly, Mason, Marks & Co., 121 Corps., § 397. Fed. 720; 58 C. C. A. 140; Euston Cf. Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Chff. v. Edgar (Mo.), 105 S. W. 773; Col- 508; Kraft v. Griffon Co., 82 N. Y. onial Trust Co. v. McMillan, 188 Mo. App. Div. 29; 81 N. Y. Supp. 438; 547; 87S. W. 933; 107 Am. St. Rep. Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 335; Meyer y. Ruby-Trust, etc. Co., 90 176 U. S. 181, 202, 203; 20 Sup. Ct. S. W. 821; 192 Mo. 162; Lea v. Iron 311 (indicating that minority share- Belt Mercantile Co. (Ala,.), 42 So. 415. holders have no right to object to But see Easton Nat. Bank v. Am. issue of shares at a discount) ; Sivin Brick & Tile Co. (N. J.), 64 Atl. 917. v. Mutual Match Co. (N. J.), 66 Atl. ^ Rickerson, etc. Co. v. Farretl, 921 (where complaining shareholders etc. Co., 75 Fed. 554; 23 C. C. A. 302; failed being in -pari delicto). Flinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed. 785; Hand- ' Almada and Tirito Co., 38 Ch. Ze?/ v. Agency Land & Finance Co., 164 Pa. St. 326; 30 Atl. 240; 44 Am. 20 Times L. R. 41. St. Rep. 614; 27 L. R. A. 305. ' Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Thrall, But see Austin's Case, 24 L. T. 35 Vt. 536; Pvlford v. Fire Dept, 932, upholding as against the com- 31 Mich. 458; Ddacy v. Neuse Nav. pany a forfeiture for non-payment of Co., 1 Hawks (N. Car.) 274; 9 Am. a call of which due notice had not Dec. 636. been given. Cf. supra, p. 580, n. 1. 658 § 808-§ 831] NOTICE OF FORFKITURE § 813 The same notice is sometimes made to serve the double pur- pose of notifying the shareholder that a call has been made and of warning him that unless payment is made within a certain time the shares will be forfeited. §812. Requisites of Notice in general. — Where notice of forfeiture is required, a notice expiring on an impossible date — e. g., on Monday the 9th where the 9th falls on Friday — is bad.' A notice demanding, under pain of forfeiture, payment of a larger sum than is due is of no effect.^ The notice must describe the shares truthfully ; and if it contains a material misdescription, the resulting forfeiture will be invalid.^ It is not necessary that the notice should specify that failure to make payment as required will be followed by forfeiture.* If the by-laws require a notice from the general secretary of the corporation, notice from a local secretary would be insufficient.* Where notice of thirty days is required before the resolution declaring the for- feiture or ordering the sale, notice given thirty days before the sale is insufficient.' If the statute require such notice as may be prescribed by by-law, there cannot be a valid forfeiture unless a by-law fixing the kind of notice be first adopted.^ A regulation providing that the notice must "require" the shareholder to pay is complied with if the notice indicate that failure to pay will be followed by forfeiture.' § 813. Kind of Notice. — Constructive or Personal Notice, etc. — Personal notice should be given where practicable. Indeed, the notice must be -personal unless some form of constructive notice be provided for by statute or by-law.' A notice which is taken to the shareholder's last place of business and forwarded in pursuance of directions there found, but which in fact never reaches him, is not sufficient,'" unless the regulations provide that notice sent to the shareholder's business address shall be good. Where notice by publication in a newspaper is directed by the ' Watsm V. Bales, 23 Beav. 294. tm, 48 Me. 451 ; 77 Am. Dec. ' Johnson v. Lytde's Iron Agency, 236. 5 Ch. D. 687. ' Armstrong v. Merchants' Man- » Financial Corporation, 2 , Ch. He Co., 32 Ont. R. 387. 714. ' Oray v. Stevenson, 25 Vict. L. * Hm v. Nishet, 100 Ind. 341, R. 476. .355-356. ° Van Diemen's Land Co. v. ' Cf. Payn v. Mutiud Relief Soc., Cockerell, 1 C. B. n. s. 732. 17 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 53. " Fields v. United Brotherhood, 60 ' Lewey's Island R. R. Co. v. Bol- 111. App. 258. 659 § 814 FORFEITURE OF SHARES [ChAP. XIV company's regulations, it must be given ; and not even personal notice to the delinquent will suffice to sustain the forfeiture unless the required publication is had.' So, if the by-laws require notice by mail or personal notice, notice by publication is^ in- effective, even though the notice as published was actually seen by the delinquent shareholder.^ § 814. To whom Notice should be given. — Notice should be given to the registered owner of the shares.' Hence, in case of a bankrupt shareholder whose assignee has not been registered on the company's books as a member, the notice should be given to the bankrupt although the company knows of the bankruptcy.* § 815-§ 816. When Forfeiture becomes absolute. § 815. In general. — The forfeiture becomes absolute at whatever time the regulations by which the company is governed so provide. Usually a formal declaration of forfeiture is passed. Certainly some such formality is desirable. Consequently, even where the regulations provide that, upon the happening of this or that event, the shares shall be forfeited without any further act on the company's part, nevertheless the construction will be, not that the shares become ipso facto forfeited, but that the company may at its option by some overt act enforce a forfeitm-e." 'Any legal evidence of an intention to exercise this option is sufficient to complete the forfeiture, a formal declaration of forfeiture by resolution of the directors or shareholders not being necessary," unless expressly required by statute or the company's ' Morris v. Metalline Land Co., Childy. Hudson's Bay Co., 27.^1115. 164Pa. St. 326; 30AtI. 240; 44 Am. 207, 209; Northwestern, etc. Ass'n, St. Rep. 614; 27 L. R. A. 305. v. Schauss, 148 III. 304 ; 35 N. E. 747. ' Mitchell V. Vermont Copper But see Weeks v. Silver Islet, etc. Mining Co., 40 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 406, Mining Co., 23 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1 ; 413 (headnote inadequate). See Carr v. Carr, 1"C. B. n. s. 197. S. C. 67 N. Y. 280. Cf. Freckmann v. Supreme Coun- ' Cf. Armstrong v. Merchants' ciZ, 96 Wise. 133 ; 70 N. W. 1113 (as Mantle Co., 32 Ont. R. 387. to mutual benefit societies); Leh- * Graham v. Van Diemen's Land mun v. Clark, 174 111. 279; 51 N. E. Co., 1 H. & N. 541. 222; 43 L. R. A. 648 (as to mutual Compare the cases as to notice of insurance companies) ; McDonald calls, supra, § 750. v. Ross-Lewin, 29 Hun (N. Y.) 87 « Bigg's Case, 1 Eq. 309; Moore (mutual benefit society); Rood v. V. Rawlins, 6 C. B. n. s. 289; Canal Railway Pass. etc. Ass'n, 31 Fed. 62. Co. V. Sansom, 1 Binney (Pa.) 70; » Woollaston's Case, 4 De G. & J. 660 § 808-§ 831] WHEN FORFEITURE BECOMES ABSOLUTE § 816 regulations.' But a declaration of an intention to forfeit shares at some future day will not become absolute by mere lapse of time : there must be evidence of a present election to treat the shares as forfeited.^ When the statute or by-law providing for the forfeiture requires a sale of the forfeited shares for the ac- count pf the delinquent holder, the forfeiture is not complete until such sale is had ; ' but ordinarily it is no concern of the delinquent what is done by the company with the forfeited shares.* § 816. EfEect of Provision for Notice to Delinquent. — Without the very clearest provision in the statute or by-law which regulates the forfeiture, the courts will refuse to hold that the forfeiture becomes absolute before the expiration of the prescribed notice.^ This is true although some of the language of the statute author- izing the forfeiture, if taken by itself, might seem to indicate that the forfeiture should become absolute before the expiration of the notice; for the very object of prescribing notice is to afford a period of grace before the extreme penalty is exacted." 437; Webster's Case, 32 L. J. Ch. 135. Of. Crissey v. Cook, 72 Pac. 541 ; 67 Kans.* 20 (where the resolu- tion was general, that all shares upon which defaults had been com- mitted be forfeited). But see Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633. ' Edinburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Heb- blewhite, 6 M. & W. 707. " Macon, etc. R. R. Co. v. Vason, 57 Ga. 314; Hays v. Franklin Co. Lumber Co., 35 Nebr. 511 (headnote inadequate) ; 53 N. W. 381. Cf. Crissey v. Cook, 72 Pac. 541; 67 Kans. 20. ' Minnehaha Driving Park Ass'n V. Legg, 50 Minn. 333 (headnote in- adequate); 52 N. W. 898. Cf. Lewey's Island R. R. Co. v. Bolton, 48 Me. 451; 77 Am. Dec. 236; Dearborn v. Washington Sav. Bank, 18 Wash. 8; 50 Pac. 575; Moore v. Wheal Byjerkerrio Tin Mining Co., 17 Vict. L. R. 680 (holding that if sale does not take place on day first advertised, a new notice of sale may be given, preserving, however, the delinquent's right of redemption un- til a sale is actually had). As to difference between a power to for- feit shares and a power to sell them and apply the proceeds in payment of the indebtedness, see § 955, and also Athol, etc. R. R. Co. v. Prescott, 110 Mass. 213; Mueller v. Madison Bldg., etc. Ass'n, US. Dak. 43; 75 N. W. 277. * Weeks v. Silver Islet, etc. Mirtr ing Co., 23 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1, 14 ; Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. ThroR, 35 Vt. 536 ; Murphy v. Patapsco Ins. Co., 6 Md. 99. ^ Van Diemen's Land Co. v. Cockerell, 1 C. B. n. s. 732. ° Van Diemen's Land Co. v. Cockerell, 1 C. B. N. s. 732. 661 § 817 FORFEITURE OF SHARES [ChAP. XIV § 817-§ 819. Purging Forfeiture by Payment or Tender of Amount due. § 817. When and how Forfeiture may be Purged. — At any time before the forfeiture becomes absolute, the dehnquent may purge the forfeiture by paying the overdue calls with interest and expenses.^ Tender of the amount due for calls will have the same effect as actual payment in preventing or purging a for- feiture ; ^ and a tender of a cheque may be. equivalent to a tender of cash if no objection be made on the ground that commercial paper instead of cash was offered.^ If the delinquent wishes to be relieved of the shares because his subscription was obtained by fraud but is not willing to run the risk of forfeiting money that he has already paid thereon, he may pay the overdue calls into court without prejudice to any right to have his membership rescinded; but he cannot have the forfeiture enjoined.* After the forfeiture has once become absolute, not even a court of equity has jurisdiction to relieve against it, even though the delinquent should offer to pay all calls with interest as well as all damages and expenses of the company.* § 818. Acceptance of Payment after Forfeiture has become Absolute. — Even after the forfeiture has become absolute, it would seem that the acceptance by the company of the amount due on the shares would be equivalent to a waiver or cancellation of the forfeiture ; * but the fact that cases of former delinquencies ' Van Diemen's Land Co. v. * Ripley v. Paper Bottle Co., 57 Cockerell, 1 C. B. n. s. 732; MUchdl L. J. Ch. 327. V. Vermont Copper Mining Co., 67 ' Sparks v. Liverpool Waterworks N. Y. 280. Cf. Bostock v. Edgar, 24 Co., 13 Ves. 428; Weeks v. SUver Vict. L. R. 677 (holding that under Islet, etc. Mining Co., 23 Jones & S. the Victoria Companies Act the re- (N. Y.) 1 ; Germantovm Pass. Ry. demption does not relate back to the Co. v. FiUer, 60 Pa. St. 124 ; 100 time of the delinquency, but that Am. Dec. 546. there is an interval during which the ' Cf. Li?ne City Bldg., etc. Ass'n delinquent is not a shareholder). v. Black, 136 Ind. 544, 558^60; 35 ^ Mitchell V. Vermont Copper N. E. 829 ; Order of Chosen Friends Mining Co., 67 N. Y. 280; Wilson v. Austerlitz, 75 111. App. 75 (ac- v. Duplin Telephone Co., 52 S. E. 62; ceptance of a less sum in compro- 139 N. Car. 395 (where the delin- mise); Metropolitan Accident Ass'n quent tendered more than the v. Windover, 137 111. 417; 27 N. E. amount due). 538; Bartling v. Edwards, 84 111. » Clarke's Case, 27 L. T. 843. App. 471; Supreme Tribe v. Hall, 662 § 808-§ 831] WHEN NOT BENEFICIAL TO CORPORATION § 822 have not been visited with the penalty of forfeiture does not justify a member in faihng to make prompt payment of calls subsequently made.' § 819. Effect of Set-ofE against Call. — A forfeiture of shares for non-payment of calls is not invalidated by the fact that the supposedly delinquent shareholder has a good set-off against the calls.^ § 820. Effect of Judgment for Amount of Call on Right to enforce Forfeiture. . — It has been held that after a company has recov- ered judgment against a shareholder for an overdue call, it cannot subsequently enforce a forfeiture for default upon that very call ; '" but this decision turned largely on the peculiar terms of the regulations by which that particular corporation was governed. § 821. Effect of Company's Refusal to accord to Delinquent his full Rights as Shareholder. — In one case it was held that a forfeiture for non-payment of assessments cannot be sustained where the shareholder's refusal to pay is induced by the com- pany's refusal to permit him to exercise his right of examining the books ; * but it is difficult to see why the company should be subjected to this penalty for its failure to recognize the share- holder's right, and perhaps the decision was not intended to lay down a principle of general application. § 822. Forfeiture invalid unless intended to benefit Company. — No forfeiture should be enforced unless really beneficial to the company; and any forfeiture which is not believed bona fide to be for the good of the company may be set aside.^ For this 24 Ind. App. 316; 56 N. E. 780; 79 ' Giles v. HvU, 3 Ex. 18. Am. St. Rep. 262 ; Modern Woodmen * Buker v. Leighton Lea Asfn, V. Jameson, 48 Kans. 718; 30 Pac. 164 N. Y. 557; 58 N. E. 1085 (re- 460. versing s. c. 18 N. Y. App. Div. But see Carr v. Carr, 1 C. B. 548; 46N. Y. Supp. 35; and affirm- N. s. 197. ing the dissenting opinion of Follett, ' Harvey v. Grand Lodge, 50 Mo. J., in the court below). App. 472. But see Moore v. Order ' Richmond's Case, 4 K. & J. 305 ; of Railway Conductors, 90 Iowa 721 ; Common v. McArthur, 29 Can. Sup. 57 N. W. 623. Ct. 239. ' Johnson v. LytUe's Iron Agency, Cf. Hall's Case, 5 Ch. 707. 5 Ch. D. 687, 689, 692 (headnote inadequate). Cf. supra, § 759. 663 § 823 FORFEITURE OF SHARES [ChAP. XIV reason a forfeiture of shares held by a person about whose solvency no doubt is entertained is in general invalid.' So, too, a forfeiture of shares on which nothing has been paid and which ,are not selling at a premium cannot well be advantageous to the company and is therefore invalid.^ Similarly, an agreement by which a dehnquent shareholder is allowed to retire upon payment of less than could have been collected from him if a forfeiture had been enforced cannot be supported as a forfeiture.' § 823. Loss of Right to forfeit Shares by Waiver or Laches. — The company's right to enforce a forfeiture may be lost by laches or waived by the company in any particular case.* Any action or inaction on the company's part which would render the enforcement of the forfeiture unjust may be relied upon as establishing such a waiver. It has been held in Tennessee that where a corporation has the right to sell or forfeit shares for non-payment of each call as made, the company, after omitting to exercise that power as each call became due and having waited until a number of calls are made, loses by the delay its remedy by forfeiture or sale.^ This case stands alone, however, and one may well doubt whether the same doctrine would be applied in other states." Indeed, the decision is rested by the court itself upon the peculiar terms of the statute which was being construed, rather than upon any general principles of law. § 824. Waiver by Shareholder of Irregularities in Forfeiture — • Laches. — Irregularities in a forfeiture of shares may be cured by waiver.' For instance, an objection to a forfeiture of shares based upon the fact that in the notice and resolution of forfeiture the shares were described as £20 shares instead of, according to the real legal nature, as £100 shares, is waived by asking a re- mission of the forfeiture as a matter of grace.' Mere laches will not, however, disentitles a shareholder to relief against an invahd forfeiture: there must be evidence of abandonment of y's Case, 17 Sol. J. 745; * Cf. supra, § 818. Esparto Trading Co., 12 Ch. D. 191. « Stokes v. Lebanon, etc. Turn- 2 Ex parte Jones, 27 L. J. Ch. pike Co., 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241. 666. ° See supra, § 818. Cf. Slee V. Broom, 19 Johns. ' Cf. Miller v. Orand Lodge, 72 (N. Y.) 456; 10 Am. Dec. 273. Mo. App. 499. ' Hall's Case, 5 Ch. 707. Cf. « Financial Corpcyration, 2 Ch. supra, § 636. 714. 664 § 808-§ 831] IRREGULAR AND VOID FORFEITURES § 827 his rights or some facts sufficient to estop him from attacking the forfeiture.' § 825. Waiver by the Company of Irregularities in Forfeiture. — In some cases a shareholder who is anxious to retire sets up an irregular forfeiture and relies upon a waiver by the company to cure the irregularities.^ Notably was this the case in a series of English decisions arising in the winding-up of the Agi-iculturists Cattle Company.' That company was incorporated under the Companies Act of 1844 so that the liability of its members was unlimited : hence questions as to illegal reductions of capital, so important in the case of limited companies, did not arise. These cases, therefore, are of little or no general importance in America at the present day; and accordingly it has not seemed worth while to attempt a statement or explanation of their somewhat complicated facts.* § 826. Surrender or Cancellation of Shares as equivalent to Forfeiture. — Inasmuch as the company and the shareholder may respectively waive irregularities in the forfeiture, it follows that by agreement between them a formal forfeiture may be entirely dispensed with, the shares which are liable to forfeiture being surrendered or cancelled by agreement. But in order to be sustained as a forfeiture, any such cancellation or surrender of shares must have been intended as, in substance, a forfeiture.* § 827. Remedies of Shareholder against Irregular or void For- feiture. — The shareholder hats several remedies open to him against an irregular or void forfeiture. In general, he may have the same remedies by action for damages, writ of mandamus, or bill in equity, which are open to a shareholder whose name has been stricken from the list of members in pursuance of a forged or otherwise void transfer." He may have an action for damages, ' Garden Gvlly Mining Co. v. 5 H. L. 606; Spackman v. Evans, McLister, 1 A. C. 39. Cf. Prendergast L. R. 3 H. L. 171 ; HouLdsworth v. V. Twrttm, 1 Y. & C. Ch. 98; Ride v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L. 263. Jewell, 18 Ch. D. 660 ; Clarke v. Hart, * For a clear statement see Ham- 6 H. L. Cas. 633; Raht v. Sevier ilton's Manual of Company Law, 2d Mining, etc. Co., 18 Utah 290; 54 ed., pp. 222-225. Pac. 889; Ormshyv. Vermont Copper ° Esparto Trading Co., 12 Ch. D. Mining Co., 56 N. Y. 623. 191. See also Gmoer's Case, 6 Eq. 2 Crissey v. Cook, 72 Pac. 541 ; 77, and supra, § 636, § 822. 67 Kans. 20. ° Herbert Kraft Co.. v. Bank of ' See Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R. Orland, 133 Cal. 64; 65 Pac. 143. 3 H. L. 249; Dixon v. Evans, h. R. See infra, § 93S-§ 937. ^^ 665 § 828 FORFEITURE OF SHARES [ChAP. XIV as for a conversion, against the company.' Or, he may file a bill in equity to have the forfeiture annulled.^ In such a suit he may pray a declaration that the forfeiture is void instead of a concellation of the forfeiture and return of the shares ; it is all one and deceives nobody.' A bill in equity to enjoin an irregu- lar forfeiture * will not lie unless the plaintiff offers to do equity by paying any calls or assessments that may be overdue.* An irregular forfeiture is to be distinguished from a void forfeiture ; and therefore a statute of limitations restricting the period within which actions may be brought for the recovery of forfeited shares where the forfeiture is attacked because of some irregularity does not apply where the gi-ound of attack is that the assessment for non-payment whereof the forfeiture was attempted was wholly void.' § 828-§ 831. Consequences of Forfeiture of Shares. § 828. Effect of Forfeiture on Liability of Shareholder. — The effect of a consummated forfeiture is that the holder of the for- feited shares ceases to be a member of the company from the moment when the forfeiture becomes absolute. - From that time forth, he is a mere stranger to the company. Hence he is not » New Chile Gold Mining Co., 45 Telephone Co., 52 S. E. 62; 139 N. Ch. D. 598; Allen v. Am. Bldg. & Car. 395. Loan Ass'n, 49 Minn. 544; 52 N. W. As to the remedy by mandamus, 144; 32 Am. St. Rep. 574. As to see Delacy v. Neuse Nav. Co., 1 the measure of damages in such Hawks (N. Car.) 274. an action, see Budd v. Mvltnomah ' Sweny v. Smith, 7 Eq. 324, 333. Street Ry. Co., 15 Oreg. 413, 419- * As to whether the remedy at 420 (headnote inadequate) ; 15 Pac. law is adequate so as to exclude 659; 3 Am. Rep. 169; Carpenter equity jurisdiction, see Isbester v. V. Am. Building & Loan Ass'n, Murphy Mfg. Co., 95 111. App. 105 54 Minn. 403; 56 N. W. 95; 40 (headnote inadequate). Am. St. Rep. 345; Nicholson- ' Burham v. San Francisco Fuse Watson, etc. Co. v. Urquhart (Tex.), Mfg. Co., 76 Cal. 26; 17 Pac. 939. 75 S. W. 45; 32 Tex. Civ. App. As to bills to enjoin a forfeiture of 527; Grand Valley Irr. Co. v. shares, see further Schuetz v. Ger- Fruita Imp. Co. (Colo.), 86 Pac. man-American Real Estate Co., 21 324 (full value not recoverable where N. Y. App. Div. 163; 47 N. Y. Supp. the shares were bought in by the 500; Moore v. JV. J. Lighterage Co., shareholder). 25 Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1. ' Sweny v. Smith, 7 Eq. 324 » Herbert Kraft Co. v. Bank of (holding that the bill may be filed Orland, 65 Pac. 143 ; 133 Cal. 64. on behalf of plaintiff and all other ' New Chile Gold Mining Co., 45 shareholders); Wilson v. Duplin Ch. D. 598. 666 § 808-§ 831] CONSEQUENCES § 828 liable for calls or assessments subsequently made upon the shareholders.' It makes no difference that his name is not removed from the register of shareholders and that the company is in liquidation.^ By the weight of authority, a forfeiture wipes out all liability upon the forfeited shares, even for calls made before the forfeiture ; ^ and the same rule is applied where the shareholder has given his note for the call or assessment in question,* or where the company prior to the forfeiture had brought suit to recover the call.' But according to some authori- ties and under some statutes, the holder of forfeited shares remains liable for the calls that were due at the time of the for- feiture ; ° though the amount realized by the company from a sale of the forfeited shares must be credited in satisfaction ■pro tanto of any such liability.' The question of course turns on the construction of the particular statute or other instrument which authorizes the forfeiture ; and for this reason no general rule can be laid down. Cases of strict forfeiture may be governed, perhaps, by slightly different principles from cases of sale of the shares for the account of the delinquent holder.* Where the regulations to which the corporation is subject provide that a holder of forfeited shares shall continue liable for all calls due at the time of forfeiture, such liability is an ordinary debt " and is therefore not barred by any statute of limitations applicable to » Knight's Case, 2 Ch. 321. Cf. * Ashton v. Burbank, 2 Dillon Webster's Case, 32 L. J. Ch. 135. 435. But see contra: Mitchell v. ' Lyster's Case, 4 Eq. 233. Rome R. R. Co., 17 Ga. 574. ' Stocken's Case, 3 Ch. 412, 415 " Small v. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 (semble) ; Rutland, etc. R. R. Co. v. N. Y. 330. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536; Macavly v. ° Inglis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., Robinson, 18 La. Ann. 619; Allen 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 112; Great V. Montgomery R. R. Co., 11 Ala. Northern Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 4 437; Srnall v. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 Exch. 417; Succession of Thomson, N. Y. 330. 46 La. Ann. 1074; 15 So. 379; Car- Cf. Ladies Dress Ass'n v. Pvl- son v. Arctic Mining Co., 5 Mich. brook (1900), 2 Q. B. 376; Mandd 288; Merrimac Mining Co. v. Bag- V. Swan Land Co., 154 111. 177; 40 ley, 14 Mich. 501. N. E. 462; 45 Am. St. Rep. 124; 27 ' Inglis v. Great Northern Ry. Co., L. R. A. 313; Instone v. Frankfort 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 112, 116. Bridge Co., 2 Bibb (Ky.) 576, 580- * Carson v. Arctic Mining Co., 581; 5 Am. Dec. 638. See also 5 Mich. 288, 295 (holding that in a Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384, hold- case of sale the delinquent remains ing that a statutory liability di- liable). Tectly to creditors is destroyed by a ° As to right to defend against forfeiture, as if the defendant had this liability on the ground of fraud, never owned shares in the company, see supra, § 205. 667 § 829 FORFEITURE OF SHARES [ChaP. XIV claims against shareholders as such or as "contributories" in winding-up proceedings.' So, too, the hability which persists after a forfeiture is not affected by the company's acceptance of a material amendment to its charter or act of incorporation.^ Of course, the mere fact that the company has taken some steps looking towards forfeiture but has not yet performed all the statutory requirements of a complete forfeiture will not release , the shareholder from liability.^ A former holder of the forfeited shares who had transferred them prior to the forfeiture remains subject to any statutory liability attaching to past members,* and a fortiori the person who held the shares at the time of the for- feiture is similarly liable.^ The same principles should be applied where the delinquent is a transferee of the shares and where he is an original subscriber.^ § 829. Sale or Reissue of Forfeited Shares. — The forfeited shares may be sold by the company for less than their par value without violating any statute prohibiting the issue of shares at a discount.' Where the shares are reissued and a certificate issued which states the amount which has been paid on the shares and that the remainder owing thereon ha^ been called in but not paid, a further provision in the certificate that the shares shall be held discharged from all calls due prior to its date will not be construed to make the shares paid-up shares, but will merely prevent the vendee from being held in default for non- payment of the previous calls and therefore liable for interest thereon, leaving the company at liberty to make a new call for the amount still owing on the shares and to compel the vendee to pay the same.' Moreover, under regulations which provide that the former owner of forfeited shares shall pay all calls that were due at the time of forfeiture, the reissue of forfeited shares with ' Ladies Dress Ass'n v. PuLbrook 827; Morrison v. Trustees, etc. Corp.,. (1900), 2 Q. B. 376. 79 L. T. 605. 2 Mitchell V. Rome B. B. Co., 17 But see Randt Gold Mining Co. Ga. 574. V. New Balkis Eerstdling, 85 L. T. s Edinburgh, etc. By. Co. v. Heb- 780; (1903), 1 K. B. 461, affirmed, blewhUe, 6 M. &. W. 707. (1904) A. C. 165. * Bridgers and NeiU's Case, 4 * New Balkis Eerstdling v. Randt Ch. 266. Gold Mining Co. (1904), A. C. 165 ' Creyke's Case, 5 Ch. 63. (headnote inadequate). " Merrimac Mining Co. v. Bagley, Cf . Moore v. Wheal Byjerkerno' 14 Mich. 501. Tin Mining Co. 17 Vict. L. R. 680. Bamwdl's Case, 50 L. J. Ch. 668 § 808-§ 831] CONSEQUENCES § 831 a proviso that the new holder shall be subject to no liability thereon nevertheless leaves the amount of the previous calls due and payable "in respect of" the shares, so that»the new holder is debarred from voting by a regulation that " no member shall be entitled to vote . . . whilst any sum shall be due and payable to the company in respect of any of the shares of such member. " ' Conversely, any sum which the former owner of forfeited shares is required to pay, after the forfeiture, under the company's regulations, is deemed to be payable in respect of the shares and therefore goes in reduction of the liability of the person to whom the shares are reissued.^ Sometimes a sale of forfeited shares is made compulsory.' A statutory provision for a sale of paid-up shares in the event of non-payment of certain assessments does not necessarily mean that the shares shall be forfeited or deprive the former owner of the proceeds of sale.* § 830. Cancellation of Forfeiture. — Inasmuch as forfeited shares may be reissued, it is competent to the company with the consent of the former holder to cancel the forfeiture : * such cancellation amounts merely to a reissue of the shares of the former owner. But after the company has gone into liquidation, the forfeiture cannot be cancelled even with the consent of both the liquidator and the shareholder." Moreover, a power vested in the company to cancel a forfeiture without the consent of the former shareholder, who in consequence of a completed forfeiture has ceased to be a member of the company, would be so very extraordinary that it cannot be reserved to the company without the clearest language. For example, a provision in a company's regulations that the directors may "annul" a forfeit- ure upon such conditions as they see fit will not authorize them to cancel a completed forfeiture without the consent of the former holder of the shares.' § 831. EfEect of Forfeiture on Agent's Right to Commissions for procuring Subscriptions. — Where an agent procures subscrip- tions to the company's shares under a contract by which he is to be paid a commission as the subscriptions are paid in, the effect • Randt Oold Mining Co. v. Bank of Ambia, 86 Fed. 863; 30 Wainwright (1901), 1 Ch. 184. C. C. A. 443. = Randt Gold Mining Co. (1904), « Cf. supra, § 818. 2 Ch. 468. ' Dawes" Case, 6 Eq. 232. ' See supra, § 815. ' Larkwrnihy's Case (1903), 1 * Chicago Tide, etc. Co. v. State Ch. 711. 669 § 831 FOKFEITUEE OF SHAKES [ChAP. XIV of a forfeiture of the shares for non-payment is to prevent the subscription from being paid and therefore to prevent the agent's right to commissions from accruing.' The court in the case last cited suggested, however, that the agent might have some remedy to compel the company either to sell the forfeited shares (in which case it seems to have been thought that the agent would be entitled to a commission on the amount realized) or to remit the forfeiture and sue for the amount due on the subscription.* ' Maryland Agricultural CoUege ' Maryland Agricultural College V. Baltimore, etc. B. B. Co., 43 Md. v. Baltimore, etc. B. B. Co., 43 Md. 434. 434, 439. 670 CHAPTER XV TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION OF SHARES Section Transferability of shares 832 Definition of complete transfer of shares — transfer of legal title . 833 Transfer of possession as a step, in the transfer of title to shares 834 Transfer as distinguished from transmission — from sales 835 Partial transfers of shares .... . . 836 Of the doctrine that neither shares nor share-certificates are negotiable . 837-844 What is negotiability 837-842 Two elements of negotiability 837 (1) Negotiability as an exception to the rule that legal title to choses in action is not transferable — rights of bona ^de endorsee for value 838 Shares have this element of negotiability with its consequences 839 (2) Negotiability as an exception to the rule that a seller of personal property can pass no better legal title than he himself has — rights of purchaser from a thief 840 Shares do not have this element of negotiability .... 841 Share-certificates do not, and cannot by endorsement in blank be made to have this element of negoti- ability 842 Shares not within the rule that transferee of negotiable instru- ment as security for antecedent debt deemed holder for value 843 Shares so far negotiable as to be exempt from doctrine of lis pendens . . 844 Shares not subject to doctrine of Dearie v. Hall 845 Mode of effecting a transfer of shares 846-880 Nature of subject — comparison with conveyancing ... . 846 Transfer by formal deed of assignment 847 Transfer by writing not under seal 848-851 In general 848 Disadvantages of separating the written transfer from the share-certificate 849 American practice of endorsing transfer on share-certificate . 850 Same principles applicable whether transfer separate from certificate or endorsed thereon 851 Transfer by mere delivery of certificate — "share warrants" . . 852 Transfer on the company's books — registration of transfers 853-866 Transfer by mere entry in the company's books 853 Entry of transfer on books ineffective imless made by au- thority of former owner 854 671 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV Mode of eSecting a transfer of shares (continued) Section Necessity for completing written transfer by entry or regis- tration in the company's books 853-863 In general 855 Function of the company's register of shareholders in determining persons who are to be officially, rec- ognized as shareholders 856 Registered shareholders as holders of legal title . . 857 Doctrine that transfer not complete until registered 858 Answer to argument that registration not necessary unless affirmatively required by statute or by- law 859 Whether delivery of certificate endorsed with transfer passes legal title 860 Passing of legal title without registration where failure to regbter is due to company's fault . . . . 861 Registration not necessary in order to pass equitable title 862 Whether registration necessary where transferee bears same name as transferor . . . . 863 What is the proper book for registration of transfers . . 864 What entry amounts to registration of a transfer . . '. 865 Power of attorney to effect registration of transfer on be- half of transferor 866 Issue of shares-certificate to transferee or surrender of transferor's certificate not necessary in order to pass complete title . 867 Implied transfers . 868 "Certification" of transfers 869 American receipts corresponding to English certifications . . 870 Similar receipts issued under reorganization schemes . . . 871 Acceptance of transfer by transferee 872-879 Transfer complete without acceptance 872 Effect of renunciation of shares by transferee 873 How acceptance of transfer may be proved 874 Inconvenience of trusting to parol proof of acceptance 875 Regulations requiring transfer to be executed by transferee as well as transferor 876 Infancy or other disability of transferee 877 Corporations as transferees 878 Fictitious transferee .... 879 Incapacity of transferor . . 880 Application of general principled as to completeness of transfers to certain special cases .... 881-889 Enumeration of five classes of special cases . . . .881 (1) Between cestui qite trust and purchaser from trustee . . . 882 Where the company is cestui que trust or has some eqxiity against the transferor 883 (2) Between donor and donee . . 884 (3) Between successive transferees from the same transferor . . 885 (4) Between transferee and creditors of transferor .... 886-888 Rights of attaching creditors 886 Rights of trustee in bankruptcy 887 Transfers in fraud of creditors 888 672 § 832-§ 1011] SYNOPSIS Application of- general principles, etc. {continued) Section (5) Transfers which have passed from hand to hand — trans- fers in blank 889 Estoppel 890-923 Classification of cases of estoppel ... 890 Estoppel of owner of shares to deny title of person claiming under a void transfer 891-907 General principles which apply without reference to the cause of the invalidity of the transfer . . ." . 891 Estoppel precluded by negligence of transferee . . . 892 Transfers in blank 893-903 Statement of problem 893 English doctrine . . . 894 Criticism of English doctrine 895 American doctrine . . . . 896 No estoppel when share-certificate retained by trans- feror . 897 No estoppel unless transfer is regular on its face . . 898 Alteration of transfer after blank is filled up . . 899 Transfer in blank by executors . . . 900 Transfer in blank by guardians . . .901 Theft of certificate endorsed with transfer in blank 902-903 Theft from transferor before delivery to transferee 902 Theft from transferee or subsequent holder . . 903 Forged transfers .... 904-906 In general . 904 Negligence of person whose name is forged 906 Adoption of forged signature by transferor 906 Altered transfers 907 Estoppel of company to deny title of person claiming under a void transfer .... . . . . 908-923 Existence of estoppel independent of cause of invalidity of transfer ... 908 Estoppel by issue of share-certificate 909-921 In general 909 Whether certificate estops company from asserting that the holder has lost his title, by transfer or other- wise, after issue of certificate 910 Certificate issued to fictitious person 911 In whose favor estoppel will be raisefl .... 912-916 Only in favor of transferee who relied, and acted reasonably in relying, on the certificate . . 912 Mere volunteers .... . . . 913 Estoppel in favor of the person to whom the cer- tificate was issued 914-921 When such estoppel will not be raised . 914 When it will be raised 915 Whether person to whom certificate is issued acts reasonably in relying thereon . 916 Requisites of certificate in order to raise an estoppel 9 1 7-92 1 Certificate must be issued by authority of com- pany . 917 Certificate issued for unlawful purpose 918 VOL. I. — 43 673 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChA.P. XV Estoppel (continued) Section Certificate issued to one of the oflBcers who sign it on behalf of the company .... 919 Certificates surrendered to company and reissued without its authority . . 920 Informal certificates . . 921 Estoppel otherwise than by issue of share-certificate . 922-923 In general 922 No estoppel by "certification" of transfer . . . 923 Rights and liabiUties upon presentation of transfer for registra- tion 924-944 LiabiUties of company . . 924—939 Duties and rights of company upon presentation of transfer for registration 924-930 Duty in general to register any vaUd transfer when presented . . 924 Right to regulate times at which transfers may be reg- istered .... . . . 925 Right to refuse to register transfers after insolvency of company 926 Right to delay for consideration of vaUdity of transfer 927 Right to demand evidence of validity — production of transferor's certificate, etc. . . . 928 Where transferor is trustee or other fiduciary 929 Right to demand evidence of acceptance by transferee 930 To whom transfer should be presented for registration . 931 Remedies against company for wrongfully refusing to reg- ister transfer 932-934 Remedies of transferor . 932 Remedies of person selling shares under a power 933 Remedies of transferee ... .... 934 Liability of company for registering invalid transfer 935-939 Company in dilemma when disputed transfer presented for registration — interpleader . 935 Right of owner of shares to enjoin registration of invalid transfer or to compel company to cancel same if registered . 936 Liability of company to owner in damages for register- ing invalid transfer ... 937 Liabihty of company for failing to require surrender of transferor's certificate 938 Estoppel of owner to proceed against company for reg- istering invaUd transfer . . . 939 Liability of claimant under invalid transfer which is wrongfully registered . 940-941 Liability to true owner of the shares . 940 Liabihty to the company 941 LiabiUty of person who presents invalid transfer for registration 942 Liability of transferor in and about registration of transfer . . 943 Liability of transfer agent or clerk 944 By-laws and express regulations respecting transfers .... 945-962 Validity of by-laws relating to transfers 945 Regulations as to form or manner of transfer 946-948 674 § 832-§ 1011] SYNOPSIS By-laws and express regulations respecting transfers {continued) Section Mandatory regulations 946 Directory regulations 947 Regulation that shares shall be transferable only on the com- pany's books 948 Waiver by company of regulations intended for its benefit . 949-950 In general ... 949 Waiver of restrictions on shareholder's right of alienation . 950 Regulations authorizing company to reject transfers deemed in- imical to its interests 951-952 Whether by-laws prescribing such regulations are valid . 951 Operation and effect of such regulations where valid . . 952 Regulations authorizing directors to prescribe form of transfer . 953 Regulations authorizing directors to decline to register transfer by shareholder who is indebted to the corporation . . 954 Liens on shares for debts of holders to the company . . 955-961 When lien exists 955 Nature and effect of lien in general 956 Waiver of lien 957 Loss of lien otherwise than by waiver 958 What is subject to the lien 959 What debts are covered by the lien 960 Enforcement of lien 961 Regulations giving company a right of pre-emption .... 962 Rescission of transfer of shares for fraud of transferor 963 Contracts for sale or transfer of shares 964-975 In general 964 Whether contract is several on the part of vendors 965 Whether non-disclosure of contract for sale of shares is a fraud upon other persons interested in the company . ... 966 Description of the shares to be transferred 967 Statute of Frauds . . 968 Sales on the stock exchange — usages of brokers 969 When purchase money is payable 970 Burden of procuring registration of transfer on transferee . . 971 Obligation of purchaser to indemnify vendor against liability as shareholder 972 Implied warranties by vendor . 973 Purchase on margin 974 Specific performance of contracts for sale or transfer of shares . 975 Transmission of shares 976-984 Death of shareholder 976-981 In general — rights and liabilities of executor or adminis- trator before entry of decedent's death in the com- pany's register — mutual rights of specific and residu- ary legatees . . . 976 Registration of executor or administrator as shareholder . 977 Rights and liabilities of executor or administrator after reg- istration as shareholder . 978 Devolution of title from executor to legatee 979 Requisites of formal transfer by executors 980 Sales of shares by executors 981 Marriage of female shareholder 982 675 ■§ 832 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV Transmission of shares (continued) Section Bankruptcy of shareholder 983 Transmission or devolution under special statute 984 Trusts of shares and equitable interests in shares 985-994 Relevancy of subject — scope of treatment 985 Theory of a trust applied to shares ... . 986 Tendency of American courts to depart from this principle . . 987 The principle emphasized in England — Companies Act, 1862, § 30 . ... . . 988 Obligation of company to protect cestui que trust of shares . . 989 What amounts to notice of existence and terms of trust . . 990 Liability of trustee's bond .... 991 Change of trustees 992 Assignments of equitable interests in shares 993-994 In general . . . 993 Assignments by shareholders who have assented to voting- trusts, reorganization schemes, etc 994 Pledges and mortgages or hypothecation of shares .... 995-1005 Confusion in the law of mortgages in general . . . 995 Difficulty in applying general principles of law to mortgages and pledges of shares — distinction between "pledge" and ""mortgage " of shares . . 996 Classification of charges or Uens upon shares 997 (1) Mere agreement that shares shall be held as collateral security ... 998 (2) Similar agreement coupled with delivery of share-certificate, without transfer or endorsement to creditor . . 999 (3) Delivery of share-certificate coupled with transfer or endorse-- ment in blank ... . 1000-1002 Rights of creditor with respect to third persons 1000 Rights of creditor and debtor inter sese 1001 Redelivery of certificate to debtor . 1002 (4) Transfer to creditor on the company's books coupled with a qualification that the shares are held as collateral security merely 1003 (5) Transfer on the company's books absolute in form . . . 1004 Parol evidence of terms of agreement between debtor and creditor 1005 Co-ownership of shares 1006-1008 Rights and liabilities of co-owners 1006 Transfer to tenants in common, whether company compellable to register . . 1007 Joint ownership not evidence of trusteeship 1008 Executory limitations of shEires . . . . . . .1009-1011 In general — duty of company to protect remaindermen . . . 1009 Liability for calls as between tenant for life and remainderman 1010 Mutual rights of tenant for life and remainderman with respect to dividends, bonuses, etc 1011 § 832. Transferability of Shares. — Shares in incorporated companies are, at common law as well as under modern incor- poration acts, freely transferable, notwithstanding the fact that 676 § 832-§ 1011] TRANSFERS OF LEGAL TITLE § 833 they are choses in action, and therefore belong to a class of prop- erty which was generally inalienable at common law. In other words, shares of capital stock constitute an exception to the rule that choses in action are not transferable at common law. A statute authorizing corporations to "render the interest of the stockholders transferable" will not be construed to abrogate this common-law rule so as to make the stock non-transferable unless the company adopts an' enabling regulation.' The right of transfer is absolute and unfettered (provided any reasonable formalities required by the company be observed) except in so far as it may be cut down or qualified by statute or by the company's internal regulations. In England, the validity of regulations, or articles of association, restricting the share- holder's otherwise unfettered right of transfer has been ex-, pressly adjudged in spite of objections founded upon the rule against perpetuities and upon the principle of pubUc policy which invalidates restrictions on alienation and agreements in restraint of trade and commerce.^ In many of the United States, on the other hand, by-laws restricting the freedom of alienation, as distinguished from by-laws which merely regu- late, in a reasonable way, the mode of alienation, are deemed contrary to public policy, and are held void.' In those states, therefore, no restrictions upon the right of alienating shares of capital stock which transcend the limits of reasonable regula- tion are valid unless affirmatively authorized by some statute. § 833. Definition of Complete Transfer of Shaxea — Transfer of Legal Title. — A completed transfer of a share invests the trans- feree with all the rights and obligations incident to ownership previously enjoyed and borne by the transferor. The transfer is complete when, and not before, the transferee attains the status of shareholder not merely with respect to the transferor but also with respect to the corporation. The legal title to the shares may then be said to pass.* The most instructive analogy ' Miller v. Farmers' Milling, etc. 346; Fisher v. Essex Bank, 5 Gray Co. (Nebr.), 110 N. W. 995. (Mass.) 373, 378, where Shaw, C. J., ' Borland's Trustee v. Sted Bros, said, "When a transfer is rightfully & Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 279. made and completed, it vests a Accord: Attorney-General v. Jame- right in the transferee, not merely son (1904), 2 Jr. 644. to act in the place of the vendor and ' Supra, § 706 et seq. in his name, but substitutes him, in * Nanney v. Morgan, 37 Ch. D. all respects, as the legal and only 677 § 834 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV is furnished by the case of an assignment of a term for years in real estate. The legal title to the term passes when the assignee not merely acquires the rights and undergoes the liabilities of a tenant as between himself and the assignor but actually as- sumes the relation of tenant with respect to the lessor, all legal formalities — the execution and acknowledgment of a deed, re- cording, attornment, and the like — having been complied with. The corporation with respect to. an assignment of shares occu- pies a position analogous to that of a lessor with respect to an assignment of the term. § 834. Transfer of Possession as Step in Transfer of Title to Shares. — Transfer of possession plays an important part in the transfer of title to personal property in general. Shares, being choses in action and therefore intangible property, cannot be said, if the proprieties of language be observed, to be capable of possession. For some purposes, however, connected with our present subject, shares may be possessed constructively or in law. For instance, an hypothecation of shares by a transfer endorsed upon the share-certificate has often been said by American judges to clothe the creditor with possession of the shares within the meaning of the law of pledges. So, where a married woman is the owner of shares, an exercise of ownership by the husband by executing a transfer thereof will be deemed a reduction to possession suiBcient to vest the husband at com- mon law with the absolute title, although the shares are never registered in his name on the company's books.' § 835. Transfer as distinguished from Transmission — From Sales. — Transfers should be distinguished from transmission of shares. Transfer implies a voluntary passing of title from the holder of the shares transferred, to Md. 155 (city stock not reduced to the same extent to which they were possession by husband by receiving before held by the vendor. The dividends and demanding that the title/therefore, by which such inter- stock be registered in his name,which est is held, is strictly a legal title." demand the city refused to comply ' Johnson v. Hume, 138 Ala. 564 ; with unless the husband would 36 So. 421. attend at the registration office in But see Slaymaker v. Bank of person) ; Arnold v. Buggies, 1 R. I. Gettysburg, 10 Pa. St. 373. 165 (where the court in holding that Cf. Burr v. Sherwood, 3 Bradf. shares had not been reduced to (N. Y.) 85, 89 (receipt of dividends possession by the husband em- by the husband "only reduced the phasized the fact that they had not dividends into possession and not been transferred to his name), the stock"); Brown v. Bokee, 53 678 § 832-§ 1011] PARTIAL TRANSFERS § 836 transferor to the transferee. Transmission, on the other hand, is properly applied to a devolution of title by operation of law — for example, by death, marriage, or bankruptcy.' A transfer must not be confused with a' sale. Thus, an assignment of shares to the assignor's sister in consideration of a nominal sum and of love and affection, although not a sale, is a transfer as distinguished from a transmission of the shares.^ So, an assign- ment to the equitable owner from a bare trustee, in whose name the shares have been put for convenience, is not a sale, ^ but it clearly is a transfer. § 836. Partial Transfers of Shares. — As already stated, a complete and perfect transfer involves an assignment of all the transferor's rights of ownership. There may, of course, be par- tial transfers conveying some only of those rights ; ^ but such partial transfers can operate only in equity, and do not amount to a conveyance of the legal title to the shares. For example, the right to dividends is one of the most important rights inci- dent to the ownership of shares, lyet an assignment by a share- holder of his right to receive dividends would not amount to a transfer of the legal title to the shares, and would at most con- stitute the assignor a trustee for the assignee.^ The same thing is true, speaking generally, of each of the other rights which are incident to ownership of shares of stock, such, for example, as the right to vote. A transfer of the share — that is, a transfer of the legal title to the share — takes place, as stated above, when all the rights and liabilities of a shareholder are shifted upon the transferee and when he is substituted as a shareholder in the place of the transferor in the eyes of all the world, and particularly in the eyes of the corporation. ' Barton v. London, etc. By. Co., Div. 575; 69 N. Y. Supp. 142; 24 Q. B. D. 77, 88; Bentham Mills State ex rel. Tozer v. Probate Court Co., 11 Ch. D. 900. (Minn.), 113 N. W. 888. As to execu- ' Copdand v. North Eastern Ry. tory limitations of shares, see infra, Co., 6 E. & B. 277. § 1009-§ 1011. ' Victor G. Bloede Co. v. Bloede, 84 ' Cf. Re Brandreth, 58 N. Y. App. Md. 129; 34Atl. 1127; 57 Am. St. Div. 575; 69 N. Y. Supp. 142. Kep. 373; 33 L. R. A. 107. Mortimer v. Potter, 213 111. 178; 72 * Re Brandreth, 58 N. Y. App. N. E. 817. 679 § 837 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 837-§ 845. OF THE DOCTRINE THAT NEITHER SHARES NOR SHARE-CERTIFICATES ARE NEGOTIABLE. § 837- § 842. What Negotiability is. § 837. The two Elements of Negotiability. — The books often state that although shares are transferable, yet neither the shares themselves nor the certificates which represent them are negotia- ble.' Such statements are likely to prove misleading unless the nature of negotiability be first clearly apprehended. Negotia^ bility is an attribute of certain choses in action and consists of two parts or elements — first, an exception to the rule that choses in action are non-assignable, and, second, an exception to the rule that a transferor of personal property can pass to an assignee no greater legal title than he himself possesses. The former element or feature of negotiability is common to all negotiable instruments, while the latter is confined to instruments which either by their original tenor or by endorsement in blank are payable to bearer. § 838. Negotiability as an Exception to the Rule that Legal Title to Choses in Action is not transferable — Rights of Bona Fide Endorsee for Value. — The fact that a bona fide endorsee for value takes commercial paper free of any equitable defences in favor of prior parties can readily be demonstrated to be due to the first element of negotiability — that is, to be a mere corol- lary of the proposition that negotiable choses in action differ , from other choses in action in being, like tangible property, freely transferable. The holder of legal title to an ordinary chattel, or other tangible property, subject to some trust or equity in favor of a third person can transfer the legal title dis- charged from the trust or equity by a sale to a bona fide purchaser for value. The reason that the same rule does not apply to the full extent to the owner of a non-negotiable chose in action is that, choses in action being non-assignable at common law, an attempted assignment does not confer legal title on the assignee but operates only as an irrevocable power of attorney to collect ' Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286 ; Am. Coal Co., 86 Iowa 436; 53 N. W. Hammondv. Hastings, 13'iV.S.iOl, 291; 17 L. R. A. 657. 404-405; 10 Sup. a. 727; Clark v. 680 § 832-§ 1011] NON-NEGOTIABILITY § 840 any moneys payable in respect thereof, and necessarily there- fore clothes the assignee or attorney with no greater rights against the debtor or obligor than the assignor or principal possessed, so that the assignee takes subject to all equities of the debtor or obligor, whether he had notice of them or not. As a transfer or endorsement of a negotiable chose in action does not operate as a power of attorney but as a transfer of legal title, an en- dorsee for value takes discharged from all equitable defences of prior parties of which he had no notice. This rule is, therefore, a mere consequence of the fact that negotiable choses in action are exempt from the common-law rule that choses in action are not assignable, and merely places negotiable choses in action on the same footing as tangible property. § 839. Shares have this Element of NegotiabUiiy with its Consequences. — Inasmuch as this important feature of negotia- bility is a mere consequence of the fact that negotiable choses in action are not assignable, it follows that the same consequences should attach to shares in incorporated companies, which are also exempt from the common-law rule of non-assignability. Such is, indeed, the law. For although shares of capital stock are not negotiable, yet being freely assignable they resemble in this respect negotiable choses in action and tangible property rather than other non-negotiable choses in action. In other words, a completed transfer of shares is a transfer of legal title, and as such, when made to a purchaser for value, cuts off all equitable rights in third persons ' or in the company itself ^ of which the transferee had no notice.' § 840. Negotiability as an Exception to the Rule that a Seller of personal Property can pass no better legal Title than he himself has — Rights of Purchaser from a Thief. — The second and more peculiar element of negotiability consists in an exception to the rule that a possessor of personal property can pass to an assignee no better or greater title — that is, legal title — than he himself has. The only other exception, at common law, to this rule was in the case of a sale in market overt. The exception which we ' Weaver v. Borden, 49 N. Y. 286 weight of American authority, a (semble); N. Y., etc.^ B. R. Co. v. 6orao /ide purchaser of shares acquires Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 78-81. See no right to maintain a shareholder's infra, § 882. bill on account of transactions in ^ See infra, § 883. which his assignor participated or ' Note, however, that by the acquiesced. See infra, § 1169. 681 § 841 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV are now considering, namely, the exception in the case of nego- tiable choses in action, appUes only to instruments which are payable to bearer either by their original tenor or by virtue of an endorsement in blank. The possessor of a negotiable chose in action payable to order, unless he be the payee — that is to say, unless he be the holder of the legal title — can pass no greater title than he has. But in the case of bearer paper, the rule is different. If the instrument is stolen, the thief of course has no title either at law or in equity; but, nevertheless, he can pass an unimpeachable title to a bona ftde purchaser. § 841. Shares do not have this Element of Negotiability. — Now, neither shares of stock nor share-certificates have this element of negotiability.^ The shares themselves, being in- tangible, are not capable of manual possession or delivery, and cannot be stolen. An unauthorized entry of a transfer in the company's books may be deemed analogous to theft of tangible property; but it is well settled that such an entry passes no title and does not affect the rights of the true owner,^ except that he may, if he so elect, treat the transaction as a conversion of the shares.' In other words, a thief of shares — if a person who wrongfully procures himself to be registered as the owner of shares which belong to some one else may be so denominated — obtains no title and can pass none even to a bona fide pur- chaser. Under some circumstances the principle of estoppel may seem to bring about exceptions to this rule, which, how- ever, are only apparent. § 842. Share-Certificates do not, and cannot by Endorsement in Blank be made to have this Element of Negotiability. — Share- certificates, likewise, are not payable to bearer, and cannot be made so payable by any endorsement thereon by the holder.* Consequently, where share-certificates are stolen, the thief can pass no title even to a bona fide purchaser,^ unless indeed the circumstances are such that the true owner is estopped from 1 Weaver v. Borden, 49 N. Y. 286. 7 Am. St. Rep. 73; 2 L. R. A. 836; ^ See infra, § 936. Sherwood v. Meadow Volley Mining ' Infra, § 937, § 940. Co., 50 Cal. 412; Barstow v. Savage * Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 A. C. Min. Co., 64 Cal* 388; 1 Pac. 349; 267 (headnote inadequate). See 49 Am. Rep. 705 (overruling Winter infra, § 852. v. Belmont Mfg. Co., 53 Cal. 428). ' East Birmingham Land Co. v. See infra, § 889. Dennis, 85 Ala. 565; 5 So. 317; 682 § 832-§ 1011] NON-NEGOTIABILITY § 843 setting up his title against the purchaser.' It has been held that any custom of stock brokers to treat share-certificates as ne- gotiable instruments is unreasonable and void.^ The true owner may require a bona fide purchaser of stolen share-certificates to return them, or if registered as shareholder to retransfer the shares; and the fact that a bank from whose custody the cer- tificates were abstracted may be paying the expenses of the litigation does not affect the true owner's right to recover the shares.^ Any transferee of a stolen share-certificate is liable for a conversion of the shares, however innocently he may have acted; and the same is true of a broker through whose hands the certificate passes.^ On the other hand, the presumption is that the possessor of a share-certificate endorsed in blank is legally entitled thereto; and he will not be required to prove his title affirmatively by showing that the certificate was duly dehvered by the endorser and that it came to his hands by a regular series of assignments without any break in the chain by theft or otherwise.^ Share-certificates not being negotiable, no dealing with the certificates can pass any greater rights to the shares than if the certificates, regarded as mere pieces of paper, — tangible personal property, — were the shares themselves. § 843. Shares not within Rule that Transferee of Negotiable Instrument as Security for antecedent Debt deemed Holder for Value. — An incident, or test, of negotiability in many jurisdictions is that although, in the case of property in general, one who takes the same as security for an antecedent debt is not deemed a purchaser for value, yet the rule is otherwise in the case of nego- tiable securities. Shares or share-certificates are not negotiable within the meaning of this rule ; and hence a person who accepts share-certificates as security for a pre-existing debt is not deemed a holder for value." » See § 902, § 903. « Holbrookv.New Jersey Zinc Co., ' East Birmingham Land Co. v. 57 N. Y. 616, 623-624; Cojfey v. Dennis, 85 Ala. 565; 5 So. 317; Coif^y, 179 lU. 283; 53 N. E. 590. 7 Am. St. Rep. 73 ; 2 L. R. A. 836. Cf. Plankinton v. HUdebrand, 89 » O'Herron v. Gray, 168 Mass. Wise. 209; 61 N. W. 839. 573; 47 N. E. 429; 60 Am. St. Rep. » National, etc. Trust Co. v. Gray, 411; 40 L. R. A. 498. 12 D. C. App. Cas. 276. Cf. Kister- * Berdch v. Marye, 9 Nevada book's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 601; 18 312; Simmy. WUson, 90 Cal. 126; Atl. 381; 14 Am. St. Rep. 868; 27Pac.33; 25Am. St. Rep. 110; 13 Gurley v. Reed, 190 Mass. 509, 512; L. R. A. 605. 77 N. E. 642; and infra, § 913. 683 § 844 TEANSFEK AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 844. Shares so far Negotiable as to be Exempt from Doctrine of Lis Pendens. — There is much doubt whether the doctrine of constructive notice by lis pendens applies to personal chattels or articles of commerce, and no doubt at all that it does not apply to negotiable paper. It does not apply to shares in the capital of incorporated companies.' § 845. Shares not within Doctrine of Dearie v. Hall. — Nego- tiable instruments are not subject to the doctrine laid down in the leading case of Dearie v. Hall,^ that of two adverse claim- ants to a chose in action other than the original creditor or obligee he who first gives notice of his claim to the debtor or obligor will prevail. This doctrine as applied to non-negotiable choses in action is accepted in England and in some of the United States; but there is much doubt whether it applies to transfers of legal title to shares in incorporated companies. The whole doctrine rests, perhaps, upon no very satisfactory ground; and even if it is to be accepted at all it should not be extended to choses in action of such a very peculiar kind as shares.^ Indeed, the doctrine is purely an equitable one, whereas transfers of shares are transfers at law as well as in equity. § 846-§ 880. MODE OF EFFECTING A TRANSFER OF SHARES. § 846. Nature of Subject — Comparison with Conveyancing. — That branch of the law which treats of the methods by which the transfer of shares is effected is a topic which might appro- priately be called corporate conveyancing. Just as the science of conveyancing treats of the manner in which a transfer of title ^ Holbrookv. New Jersey Zinc Co., (headnote inadequate); Houser v. 57 N. Y. 616; Davis v. Miller Signal Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134. Co., 105 111. App. 657; American Note, however, that transfers of Press Ass'n v. Brantingham, 75 N. Y. equitable interests in shares naay be App. Div. 435; 78 N. Y. Supp. 305. subject to the rule in Dearie v. Hall, But see Dana v. Brown, 1 J. J. so that the transferee who first Marsh. (Ky.), 304, 306. notifies the trustee of his claim may ' Dearie v. Hall, 3 Russ. 1. have prior right. Cf. Hov^er v. ' Cf. PitoJ V. /o/wison, 33 La. Ann. Richardson, 90 Mo. App. 134; Holt 1286; Continental Nat. Bank v. v. Deiueii, 4 Hare 446 (a case relating Eliot Nat. Bank, 7 Fed. 369, 375-376 to an interest in British consols or (headnote inadequate); Cornick v. government stock). See also infra, Richards, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 1, 16-22 § 993. 684 § 832-§ 1011] TRANSFERS NOT UNDER SEAL § 848 to real estate is effected, so the subject which we are now con- sidering relates to the modes by which a transfer of title to shares is accomphshed. § 847. Transfer by formal Deed of Assignment. — In Eng- land, the instrument of transfer is often if not usually a formal deed of assignment. This deed is a formal instrument, entirely separate from the share-certificate. When the deed of transfer is presented to the company for registration on its books, the transferor's certificate is regularly and usually surrendered to the company ; but the deed is not endorsed upon the certificate or physically connected with it. Such a deed of transfer is sub- ject to all the technical rules of the common law applicable to other deeds. For instance, authority to fill up a material blank left in the instrument when sealed and delivered can only be conferred by a power of attorney under seal ; '■ and consequently a deed of transfer containing a material blank — for example, a blank for the name of the transferee — cannot pass legal title to the shares.^ Some diversity of opinion has existed among English judges whether the transfer could be validated by estoppel in favor of a bptia fide purchaser to whom the trans- feree after filling up the blanks may have sold the shares.' Of course, if the deed is redelivered by the transferor after the blanks have been filled up, then upon familiar principles the instrument is valid.* § 848-§ 851. Transfer by Writing not under Seal. § 848. In general. — These technical rules of law respecting deeds of transfer seriously interfere with the free alienation of shares which is so important in modern commercial or financial ' Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 6 "Wend. (N. Y.) 348, 364-366; 34 M. &. W. 200. Am. Dec. 317. ' Powell V. London & Provincial ' See Ex parteSwan,7C.B.,N.a., Bank (1893), 2 Ch. 555; Colonial 400; Swan v. North British Austra- Bank v. Whinney, 11 A. C. 426; lasian Co., 7 H. &. N. 603 (affirmed Sodke Generale de Paris v. Walker, on other grounds, 2 H. &. C. 175); 11 A. C. 20; Hibblewhite v. Mc- Tayler v. Great Indian Peninsida Marine, 6 M. &. W. 200; Swan v. Ry. Co., 4 De G. & J. 559. North British Australasian Co., 2 Cf. Bridgeport Bank v. New Yorlc, H. & C. 175. etc. B. k. Co., 30 Conn. 231. But see Bridgeport Bank v. New * Cf. Societe Generale de Paris v. York, etc. R. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231; Walker, 11 A. C. 20. Commercial Bank v. Kortright, 22 685 § 849 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV transactions, and particularly with the convenient practice of executing transfers with a blank for the name of the transferee. The English as well as the American courts have therefore for- tunately held that whilst, particularly in the early days of modern incorporated joint-stock companies, a deed of transfer was re- garded as the normal method of alienation, yet a transfer by simple instrument in writing not under seal is quite effective,' unless the company's regulations require a deed,^ even though the practice in the company has been to insist upon a deed.' The rigid common-law rules as to deeds are thus escaped. § 849. Disadvantages of separating the written Transfer from the Share-Certificate. — Whilst this modern English method of transferring shares by a writing under the hand but not under the seal of the transferor is much more flexible than the older method of transfer by deed, yet, inasmuch as the transfer is upon a separate sheet of paper from the share-certificate, there is always danger of inconvenience in case the two instruments come into different hands. The possibilities of fraud are thus increased; and the English books contain a nuinber of cases dealing with the relative rights of a transferee claiming under such a transfer and a person who without knowledge of the former's rights has got possession of the share-certificate — for example, as collateral security for a loan. Moreover, there is always the possibility that the shares may be misdescribed in the transfer, either accidentally or by fraudulent design; and in such cases hardship to innocent persons is not unlikely to result. These drawbacks seem to be inseparable from the English custom of having the transfer upon a separate piece of paper from the share-certificate, whether the transfer be under seal or not. § 850. American Practice of endorsing Transfer on Share-Cer- tificate. — In America, all the disadvantages referred to in the last paragraph have been obviated by the simple expedient of endorsing the transfer upon the back of the share-certificate, ' Ex parte Sargent, 17 Eq. 273 ; man v. Henderson, 1 Teirn. Ch. App. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 8 Allen (Mass.) 749. 15. Cf. Fox V. Martin, 64 L. J. Ch. " See infra, § 946. 473; Ortegosa v. Brown, 38 L. T. 145. ' Ex parte Sargent, 17 Eq. 273. As to an oral transfer, see Love- § 832-§ 1011] BY ENDORSEMENT OF CERTIFICATE § 851 which usually bears a printed form of transfer to be filled out and signed by the transferor. The endorsed transfer is rarely under seal, and therefore all technicalities of the common law respecting specialties are avoided. Moreover, as the transfer usually covers the shares which are represented by the certifi- cate, and no others, there is no possibility of trouble arising from a misdescription of the shares intended to be transferred, either by misstating their number or the name of the company. Finally, the transfer being inseparable from the certificate, no question can come up as to the conflicting rights of the holder of the certificate and the holder of the transfer. This last ad- vantage of the American system was mentioned and recognized by Lord Watson in the House of Lords ; ^ but nevertheless the American method does not seem to have been adopted by any English companies. § 851. Same Principles applicable whether Transfer separate from Share-Certificate or endorsed thereon. — Transfers of shares are governed by the same principles whether, as in England, they are separate and distinct from the share-certificate or whether, as usually in the United States, they are endorsed upon it.^ Indeed, a transfer of shares in an English company endorsed upon the certificate would be quite as valid as if it were written upon a separate paper; and, conversely, in America, a transfer disconnected from the certificate has the same effect as if endorsed upon it.' The American practice is one of con- venience merely. The American system tends, however, to emphasize more than the English system the importance of the share-certificate, and naturally produces the impression among ' Colonial Bank v. Cody, 15 A. C. ' Smith v. Savin, 141 N. Y. 315; 267, 275. Said the learned lord: 36N. E. 338; DeCaumontv. Bogert, "The system thus adopted"— 36 Hun (N. Y.) 382; Mahaney v. that is, the ordinary American sys- Walsh, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 601 ; 44 tem of transfers endorsed upon the N. Y. Supp. 969; Lipscomb v. share-certificates — "has the merit Condon, 56 W. Va. 416; 49 S. B. of inseparably connecting the certifi- 392; 107 Am. St. Rep. 938; 67 cate with the transfer, and so pre- L. R. A. 670 (where no certificate venting the dishonest creation of a had been issued); Richardson v. legal right by transfer to one person, Longmont Supply Ditch Co., 19 Colo, and a competing equitable right App. 483 ; 76 Pac. 546. by deposit of the certificate with But see Tajft v. Presidio, etc. another." R. R. Co., 84 Cal. 131; 24 Pac. 436; ' See Colonial Bank v. Cody, 15 11 L. R. A. 125; 18 Am. St. Rep. 166. A. C. 267 (headnote inadequate). 687 f 852 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV business men that the certificate actually is the shares instead of being merely convenient evidence of ownership of shares. § 852. Transfer by mere Delivery of Certificate — " Share Warrants." — Apart from express statutory authority, a corpor- ation has no power to create shares which shall be transferable merely by delivery — in other words, to issue certificates certi- fying the bearer to be the holder of the shares represented thereby.' To do so is impliedly prohibited by statutory provi- sions requiring the company to keep a register of shareholders — a provision which could not be complied with if shares were made transferable by mere delivery of the certificate. To be sure, in America, after a certificate is endorsed in blank, it passes from hand to hand much in the same way as commer- cial paper payable to bearer ; but whilst in this way as between successive holders of the certificate, title to the shares passes by mere delivery, yet the legal title — the only title which the company is bound to recognize — remains in the registered holder. It is this legal title — the title as against the company — which cannot be made transferable by mere delivery of the cer- tificates.^ Moreover, as stated above, transfer of a certificate even when endorsed in blank passes no greater title to the shares than if the paper on which the certificate is printed, regarded as a mere chattel, were the shares themselves which are repre- sented thereby; and consequently a bona fide purchaser of the endorsed certificate from a thief does not acquire a better title than the thief, as he would do if the certificates were negotiable by delivery. ' Reuss V. Bos, L. R. 5 H. L. 176, be made to the effect that share- 191-192, 200; McEwen v. London certificates should be transferable to Wharves Co., 6 Ch. 655. bearer; and that the bearer should be ^ "Except under the provisions entitled to be registered; but that the of the Companies Act, 1867, which persons on the register should alone authorize the issue of share war- be members of the company. Such rants to bearer in the case of shares certificates or the share warrants or stock fully paid-up, shares trans- above referred to might then be- ferable to bearer can hardly exist; come negotiable by usage." 1 Lind- for they are not consistent with ley on Companies, 6th ed., 656-657. the statutory enactments relating Cf. Rumball v. Metropolitan Bank, to registers. But regulations might 2 Q. B. D. 194, and infra, § 860. 688 § 832-§ 1011] ON THE company's books § 853 In England, however, the Companies Act of 1867 expressly empowers companies limited by shares organized under the Companies Acts to issue, for fully paid shares, certificates — called share warrants — stating that the bearer of the warrant is entitled to the share or shares therein specified.' Similar pro- visions are found in some other British statutes. By virtue of these enactments, companies may make their shares trans- ferable by mere delivery of the certificate from hand to hand, just as bonds or debentures payable to bearer are transferred, without the necessity of registration. Such certificates or share warrants are negotiable in the fullest sense of the word, and if lost or stolen, a bona fide purchaser from the thief gets a good title.^ In view of the popularity in the United States of securi- ties such as corporation bonds, which are transferable by de- livery, and ownership of which cannot easily be traced by tax collectors or other inquisitive persons, one might not be sur- prised if some state legislatures should authorize the issue of securities like these English share warrants; but no such law is known to be on the statute books of any state at the present time. § 853-§ 866. TRANSFER on the company's books — REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER. § 853. Transfer by mere Entry on the Company's Books. — In view of the principles which are stated below as to the func- tion in corporate conveyancing of the company's share register, the simplest method of effecting a transfer of shares might be thought to be by a mere entry in the books of the company without the execution of any previous transfer. There is no reason to doubt that such an entry, made by the authority of the transferor, although without any writing signed by him or by any one as his agent, would constitute a valid transfer.' '30 & 31 Vict., c. 131, § 27 Oriental Mills, 17 R. I. 551 ; 23 Atl. et seq. 795; White v. Salisbury, 33 Mo. 150. ' Webb, Hale '& Co. v. Alexandria See infra, § 868, as to implied trans- Water Co., 93 L. T. 339, disposing of fers, and infra, § 970. doubt expressed in Simmons v. Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47 London Joint Stock Bank (1891), Iowa 575; Haynss v. Brown (Okl.), 1 Ch. 270, 296. 89 Pac. 1124 (where a statute pro- ' See American Nat. Bank v. viding that shares should be trans- VOL. I. — 44 689 § 854 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV Even if, as in some of the American States, a contract for the sale of shares be deemed to be within the Statute of Frauds, yet an actual transfer on the books of the company even without any writing signed by the transferor would be effective; the Statute of Frauds applies only to contracts for sale of personal property and not to transfers ' completed by delivery, for which an entry in the company's books is in the case of shares of capital stock the only possible substitute or equivalent. However, a transfer by a mere entry in the books, though legally possible, is inconvenient and consequently rare in prac- tice. In the first place, the very important fact of the trans- feror's assent to the transfer is left to be proved by parol, so that if at any time the transferor or his representative should deny that the entry. in the books was authorized by him, the company, in order to exculpate itself, would be subject to the burden of establishing such authority by parol proof, ^ which in convincing form might not be readily forthcoming. Secondly, unless the transferor surrendered his share-certificate, he would still retain the indicia of title so that, as will presently be more fully explained, the company might incur serious liability to persons who might deal with him on the faith of the certificate.* A transfer by mere entry in the company's books is therefore rarely resorted to. § 854. Entry of Transfer on Books ineffective unless made by Authority of former Owner. — Of course, a transfer on the company's books is void, at law and in equity, unless the entry upon the books is made in pursuance of authority from the transferor. A transfer, though registered with all possible formalities, is ineffective unless made by the authority of the supposed transferor.* If for any reason the entry is made with- f arable on delivery of certificate and Div. 205; 70 N. Y. Supp. 546 registration on the company's books (holding a gift of shares effectuated was thought to render invalid a by mere entry in the company's transfer on the books without de- books to be incomplete), livery of the certificate) ; First Nat. '■ Cf. French v. White (Vt.), 62 Bank v. StriUing, 16 Okl. 41; 86 Atl. 35 (where statute requiring Pac. 512. See also Newell v. Willis- a transfer to be by "assigrmient" ton, 138 Mass. 240, 243 (where it was held to necessitate a written was said obiter that registration transfer), would not be effective unless there ' See infra, § 936, § 937. is a prior complete transfer); Rich- ' See infra, § 910. ardson v. Emmett, 61 N. Y. App. ' France v. Clark, 26 Ch. D. 257. 690 ?' 832-§ 1011] NKCESSITY FOR REGISTRATION § 856 out his authority — for example, if the transferor's signature to the transfer is a forgery — the registration confers no title whatsoever upon the transferee.' This doubtless is all that is meant by the dictum of a learned judge that registration of the name of a transferee is effective only in the cass of a prior valid transfer.^ Moreover, registration of a transfer cannot confer title unless the transferor had the title to convey.^ The transferee in any of these cases may, however, have valuable rights by estoppel.^ § 855- § 863." Necessity for completing written Transfer hy Entry or Registration on the Company's Books. § 855. In general. — The formal instrument of transfer of shares, whether it be under seal or not, and whether it be sepa- rate from the certificate or endorsed thereon, should as a prac- tical matter always be followed by entry of the transfer in the company's books. It is submitted that such an entry or regis- tration of the transfer is required by law. The consideration of this question involves a brief digression into the law respect- ing the nature and function, in general, of the company's share register or stock book. § 856. Function of Company's Register of Shareholders in de- termining the Persons who are to be officially recognized as Share- holders. — Often, either by statute or under by-laws, the shares are expressly made transferable only upon the books of the com- pany. Even where no such express declaration exists, some statutory provision, either express or imphed, requiring the company to keep a share register or stock book, is usually to be found ; and wherever a register of shareholders is to be kept, its very object and purpose is to enable the company to know who are its members and to act accordingly. Hence, the cor- poration should always be protected in treating the registered shareholder as the legal owner, either by paying him dividends,* Cf. May V. Genesee County Savings 263. Cf. Newell v. Williston, 138 Bank, 120 Mich. 330; 79 N. W. 630. Mass. 240, 243. » See infra, § 904, as to forged = France v. Clark, 26 Ch. D. 257. transfers, and § 880, as to transfers * See infra, § 890-§ 923. by persons under disability. " See infra, § 1369. ' France v. Clark, 26 Ch. D. 257, As to dividends in Uquidation, 691 § 857 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV receiving his vote at a general meeting,' or otherwise.^ More- over, the registered holder of shares is usually the person who is subject to the Uabilities of a shareholder in respect thereof.^ § 857. Registered Shareholders as Holders of Legal Title. — Indeed, the generalization may be deduced that the person who is registered as the owner of shares is to be deemed the holder of the legal title : the company's books as a rule determine the legal title to its shares. To this principle there is one important exception, namely, cases in which the registry is erroneous owing to the company's own fault * — ■ for example, where the company wrongfully neglects to register a transfer which is duly presented for registration.^ Of course, a shareholder whose name is stricken from the books, whether by accident or design, without his authority, does not lose his shares, and, conversely, a person whose name is inserted on the register without his con- sent does not become liable as a shareholder.' But in all ordi- nary cases ownership of shares does not amount to complete legal ownership unless the owner's name be entered on the com- pany's books. Persons other than the registered holder can in general have no greater rights than those of cestuis que trust or equitable, as distinguished from legal, owners. § 858. Doctrine that Transfer not complete until registered. — No transfer, therefore, can well be deemed fully and in all re- spects consummated until the transferee's name is entered as a shareholder in the company's books in the room of the trans- feror.' A fortiori, a transfer is incomplete until entered on the company's books, where a statute provides that shares shall be transferable only on the books of the corporation in such manner see Bath Savings Institution v. Saga- ^ See infra, § 861. dahoc, 89 Me. 500; 36 Atl. 996. » Wdch v. GUlden, 82 Pao. 248; ' See infra, § 1220. 147 Cal. 571. ' Cf. Pray v. Todd, 71 N. Y. App. ' McMurrich v. Bond Head Har- Div. 391; 75 N. Y. Supp. 947; Hoi- hour Co., 9 Up: Can. Q. B. 333. lister V. De Forest Wireless Tel. Co., But see Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 47 N. Y. Misc. 674 (headnote inade- 342, 346; 5 Atl. 497; Dain Mfg. quate); 94 N. Y. Supp. 504 (corpor- Co. v. Trumbull Seed Co., 95 Mo. ation not bound to allow unregis- App. 144; 68 S. W. 951; Crawford tered transferee of shares to inspect v. Provincial Ins. Co., 8 Up. Can. its books). C. P. 263 (where the court refused But see Sylvania, etc. Co. v. Hoge a mandamus to compel registration (Ga.), 59 S. E. 806. of a transfer, on the ground that ' See supra, § 764. registration was unnecessary). * See infra, § 1221. 692 S 832-§ 1011] NECESSITY FOR REGISTRATION § 860 as the by-laws may prescribe but where no by-laws are adopted on the subject.' A provision in the share-certificate requiring transfers to be registered would seem to have the same effect as a duly adopted by-law.^ Some statutes go so far as to enact that no transfer which is not promptly registered on the com- pany's books shall be valid "for any purpose" except to render the transferee liable for the company's debts.' §. 859. Answer to Argument that Registration not necessary unless aflSrmatively required by Statute or By-law. — To be sure, the position is taken by some authorities that, at common law and apart from any by-laws or regulations on the subject, the formality of registration on the company's books should not be required in the case of a transfer of shares any more than in the case of a transfer of other personal property ; but this reasoning overlooks the fact that shares belong to a class of property, namely, choses in action, which is not assignable at common law. Hence, there is, on principle, nothing to prevent a court from taking the position that the same policy which justifies in the case of shares an exception to the rule of the non-assigna- bility of choses in action also requires that a transfer of this exceptional class of property should not be deemed complete at law until entered on the company's books. That position is strongly reinforced by considerations of practical conven- ience. At any rate, some notice of the transfer should be brought home to the company before the novation, or substitution of the transferee in place of the transferor, is fully and legally consummated. § 860. Whether Delivery of Certificate endorsed with Transfer passes Legal Title. — Many American authorities declare that, even where by statute or by-law shares are transferable only upon the company's books, nevertheless the delivery of the share-certificate endorsed in the ordinary way will pass legal title as between the parties.* It has remained for a member ' Plumb V. Bank of Enterprise, ' Williams v. Mechanics' Bank, 5 48 Kans. 484; 29 Pac. 699. Blatchf. 59. But see Allen v. Stewart, 7 Del. ^ Pueblo Sav. Bank v. Richardson Ch. 287, 297; 44 Atl. 786. (Colo.), 89 Pac. 799. As to failure to adopt by-laws on '' Carroll v. Midlanphy Savings the subject of transfers, see further Bank, 8 Mo. App. 249; Joslyn v. American Nat. Bank v. Oriental St. Paul Distilling Co. , 4^4 Minn. 183 ; Mais, 17 R. I. 551; 23 Atl. 795. 46 N. W. 337 (semble); Leitch v. 693 § 860 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV of the House of Lords in a case relating to a transfer of Ameri- can railway shares to explain what is really meant by such a statement and to point out that in the bald form above given it is inaccurate and capable of misconstruction. "Delivery," said Lord Watson, referring to a delivery of the certificate coupled with an endorsed transfer in blank, "does not invest him" — i.e., the transferee — "with the ownership of the shares in the sense that no further act is required to perfect his right. Notwithstanding his having parted with the certificate and transfer, the original transferor, who is entered as owner in the certificate and register, continues to be the only share- holder recognized by the company as entitled to vote and draw dividends in respect of the shares, until the transferee or holder for the time being obtains registration in his own name. It would, therefore, be more accurate to say that such delivery passes, not the property of the shares, but a title, legal and equitable, which will enable the holder to vest himself with the shares without risk of his right being defeated by any other person deriving title from the registered owner." ' In order that delivery of the certificate coupled with the endorsed transfer should have this effect, the delivery must have been with intent to pass title, unless the registered owner is estopped from denying such intent, a matter which will be considered below. Some American authorities state that delivery of the certificate with the endorsed transfer confers only an equitable right; ^ but whilst such delivery may Wdls, 48 N. Y. 585; McNeil v. certificate and never registered Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 325, might maintain trover against the 331; 7 Am. Rep. 341; Commercial transferor for executing a second Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) transfer to somebody else). 348; 34 Am. Dec. 317; Parker v. ' Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 A. C. Bethel Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252; 34 267, 277-278. S. W. 209; 31 L. R. A. 706; Hub- ^ Fisher v. Essex Bank, 5 Gray hard v. Bank of U. S., 12 Fed. (Mass.) 373; Bercich v. Marye, 9 Cas. 777; Cherry v. Frost, 7 Lea Nevada 312, 316; lAppitt y. Ameri- (Tenn.) 1. can Wood Paper Co., 15 R. I. 141; Cf. Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S. 23 Atl. Ill; 2 Am. St. Rep. 886; 800; Bank of Commerce v. Bank of Noble v. Turner, 69 Md. 519; 16 Newport, 63 Fed. 898; 11 C. C. A. Atl. 124; Baltimore Retort, etc. Co. 484; Butter v. Montgomery Grain v. Mali, 65 Md. 93; 3 Atl. 286; 57 Co., 85 Mo. App. 50; Mahaney v. Am. St. Rep. 304; Bank of CoTra- Walsh, 16 N. Y. App. Div. 601; 44 merce's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 59; Tali- N. Y. Supp. 969 (holding that a aferro v. First Nat. Bank, 71 Md. transferee claiming under a written 200, 214. transfer not endorsed on the share- 694 § 832-§ 1011] NECESSITY FOR REGISTRATION § 861 convey only equitable title to the shares, it does confer some legal as well as equitable rights. The passage quoted from Lord Watson's judgment in Colonial Bank v. Cody is believed to be a sound and accurate statement of the law. The conflict between the various authorities upon this point is largely a dispute about words.' The delivery of a certificate with a mere parol or oral transfer will have the same effect as if the transfer were on the certificate in the usual way,^ except where by statute- or the company's regulations transfers are required to be in writing or where the case is within the Statute of Frauds. § 861. Passing of Legal Title without Registration where Failure to register is due to Company's Fault. — Whilst registra- tion of a valid transfer invests the transferee with the legal title, and whilst registration is in general indispensable in order to clothe the transferee with complete legal title, yet if a failure to register is due to the fault of the company, the transferee's rights and liabilities will be the same as if his name had been duly entered on the register. In other words, the legal title to shares passes as soon as an absolute right to immediate registration accrues and is wrongfully disregarded by the company.^ ' "Such a title is sometimes Berne, 95 N. Y. 637; McLean v. called an equitable title with an ir- Medicine Co., 96 Mich. 479; 56 revocable power to acquire the legal N. W. 68; Chemiccd Nat. Bank v. title, and sometimes a legal title as Colwell, 132 N. Y. 250; 30 N. E. between the parties; but this is a 644 (where the company kept no question of the proper use of words." books) ; Blooming Grove Cotton OU Fitchburg Savings Bank v. Torrey, Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 56 S. W. Rep. 134 Mass. 239, 242. 552 (Tex. Civ. App.); Hunt v. ' Commonwealth v. Compton, 137 Seeger, 98 N. W. 91; 91 Minn. Pa. St. 138; 20 Atl. 417; Walsh v. 264; Earle v. Carson, 188 U. S. 42; Sexton, 55 Baih. 251. See also infra, 23 Sup. Ct. 254; Earle v. Coyle, § 884. 97 Fed. 410; 38 C. C. A. 226; EquitOr- But see Matthews v. Hoagland, hie Securities Co. v. Johnson (Cal.), 48 N. J. Eq. 455; 21 Atl. 1054. 85 Pac. 840 (headnote inade- ' Nanney v. Morgan, 37 Ch. D. quate); Hayes v. Shoemaker, 39 346, 354 (semble) ; Mowe v. North Fed. 319. Western Bank (1891), 2 Ch. 599; , But see Perkins v. Lyons, 111 Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. Iowa 192; 82 N. W. 486; Pray v. (Mass.) 90; 19 Am. Dec. 306; Todd, 71 N. Y. App. Div. 391; 75 Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris, 20 N. Y. Supp. 947; Man v. Boykin Mo. 382; Real Estate Trust Co. v. (S. Car.), 60 S. E. 17 (holding that Bird, 90 Md. 229; 44 Atl. 1048; transferor remains subject to lia- Rohinson v. National Bank of New bilities of a shareholder although 695 § 861 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV Where the transferee is also an officer of the company, de- livery of the transfer to him as transferee and not as an officer of the corporation is not equivalent to requesting or demanding registration of the transfer by the company ; ' but the fact that the transferor is a director and charged with the duty of seeing that the books are properly kept does not prevent him from being discharged from all liability if the transfer is presented to the proper officer who states that nothing further need be done in order to consummate the transfer.^ Of course, a transferee does not, within the meaning of this rule, have a right to imme- diate registration unless the transferor had a good title and duly authorized registration of the transfer,' — in other words, unless the circumstances are such that an actual registration of the transfer would, according to the principles stated in the fore- going paragraphs, pass the legal title. And where the directors have a discretion to reject a transfer, a present absolute right to registration, sufficient to clothe the transferee with legal title, cannot be deemed to arise until the directors have considered and actually approved the transfer.' In any case, a corpora- tion is not bound to register a transfer until the transferor's share-certificate is surrendered or tendered ; * and therefore until such surrender or tender, a present absolute right to regis- failure to register is due to com- equivalent to registration); Stewart pany's own fault). v. Walla WaRa, etc. Pvb. Co., 1 ■ Cf. Brown v. Adams, 5 Biss. 181 Wash. St. 521; 20 Pac. 605. (where the court seems not to have ' Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. had in mind the rule of law stated 27, 56-59; 7 Sup. Ct. 788. in the text); I sham v. Buckingham, Cf. Earle v. Coyle, 97 Fed. 410; 49 N. Y. 216; Plymouth Bank v. 38 C. C. A. 226; Hamilton v. Grant, Bank of Norfolk, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 30 Can. Sup. Ct. 566 (where the 454; Ireland v. Hart (1902), 1 Ch. transferor was relieved from lia- 522 ; Smith v. Bank of Nova Scotia, bility although the transfer had 8 Can. Sup. Ct. 558 (where in an never been registered, on the ground action for calls a plea on equitable that the transferee had acted as an grounds that defendant had trans- officer, the transferred shares being ferred his shares by a transfer which necessary to qualify him), affirming the company had improperly re- 33 Nova Scotia 77. fused tp register was held good). ^ Bracken v. Nicol (Ky.), 99 As to waiver of the requirement S. W. 920. of registration by recognizing a ' Fox v. Martin, 64 L. J. Ch. 473. transferee as shareholder, see Upton * Moore v. North Western Bank v. Bwnham, 3 Biss. 431 (an action (1891), 2 Ch. 599. for calls); Cutting v. Damerel, 88 Cf. Roots v. Williamson, 38 Ch. N. y. 410; Laing v. Burley, 101 111. D. 485. 591 (issue of certificate to transferee ° See infra, § 928. 696 § 832-§ 1011] NECESSITY FOR REGISTRATION § 862 tration does not accrue ' nor does the legal title pa-ss, unless indeed the certificate is satisfactorily proved to have been de- stroyed, and a sufficient bond of indemnity offered. More- over, a corporation is not bound to register a transfer as soon as it is presented but may wait a reasonable time to examine into its genuineness and validity ; ^ and until the lapse of such reasonable time the company is not in default and the legal title cannot be deemed to have passed. As the company has a right to close its books for a reasonable time before a shareholders' meeting,' the company is not in default for refusing to.register a transfer which is presented while the books are so closed.* If by the company's regulations a fee be required for registration of a transfer, the company is not in default in failing to register a transfer unless the fee be paid or tendered.^ So, if the com- pany is forbidden by the revenue laws from registering an un- stamped transfer, the company is not in default unless a transfer presented for registration be duly stamped.' § 862. Registration not necessary in order to pass Equitable Title. — Registration is, of course, not necessary in order to give the transferee an equitable title. This is true even when a statute declares that no transfer shall be effectual, or that no transfer shall be effectual except as against the transferor or his administrators, unless registered on the company's books ; ' and hence such a statute will not avail a subsequent trans- feree or lienor with actual notice of the prior unrecorded transfer.' ' Socike Generale de Paris v. Scherck v. Montgomery, 33 So. 507; Walker, 11 A. C. 20. 81 Miss. 426. " Societe Oenerale de Paris v. Of. Pueblo Sav. Bank v. Richard- Walker, 11 -A. C. 20, 41. See infra, son (Colo.), 89 N. W. 799 (where a § 927. statute provided that no transfer ' Infra, § 925. should be valid "for any purpose" * Cook V. Carpenter (Pa.), 61 Atl. except to render the transferee liable 804; 212 Pa. 177. as shareholder unless registered ^ Giesen v. London, etc. Mge. Co., within sixty days). 102 Fed. 584 (headnote inadequate) ; ' Hotchkiss v. Union Nat. Bank, 42 C. C. A. 515. 68 Fed. 76; 15 C. C. A. 264; Prince " Giesen v. London, etc. Mge. Co., Investment Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Land 102 Fed. 584 (headnote inadequate); Co., 68 Minn. 121; 70 N. W. 1079. 42 C. C. A. 515. Cf. Home Stock Ins. Co. v. Sher- ' Black V. Zacharie, 3 How. 483 ; wood, 72 Mo. 461 (headnote mis- Kellog v. StockweU, 75 111. 68; John,- leading). son V. UnderhUl, 52 N. Y. 203 ; But see First Nat. Bank v. Hast- Shdlington v. Howard, S3 N. Y. 371; ings, 7 Colo. App. 129; 42 Pac. 691. 697 § 863 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 863. Whether Registration necessary where Transferee bears same Name as Transferor. — Where a transfer is made to a per- son of the same name as the transferor, although convenience certainly dictates that some note of the transfer should be made on the company's books, it seems that no entry on the register is necessary in order to vest the legal title in the transferee. Thus where shares standing in the name of a married woman passed on her death to the surviving husband by whom they were given to his second wife who bore precisely the same name as the former wife, it was held that, the company having notice of all the above-mentioned facts, the title of the second wife was com- plete without any entry on the books and without surrendering or changing the certificate issued to the first wife.' § 864. What is the proper Book for Registration of Transfers. — In view of the importance of registration of transfers in the company's books, it is pertinent to inquire, first, what book or books should be deemed for these purposes the company's regis- tration book, and secondly, what entries therein will be deemed sufficient. As to the first of these questions, it may be said that a very informal or irregular book will accomplish the purpose if no other book is kept.^ Thus, the book containing the stubs of share-certificates may be a sufiicient share register.^ "The account in a stock ledger, showing the names of the stock- holders, the number and amount of the shares belonging to each, and the sources of their title, whether by original subscription and payment or by derivation from others, is quite suitable, and fully meets the requirements of the law."- * On the other hand, ' ColUm V. Williams, 65 111. App. R. I. 551; 23 Atl. 795; Fisher v. 466. Jones, 82 Ala. 117; 3 So. 13; U. S. ' Stewartv.WaUaWalla,etc. Pub. Cast Iron Pipe, etc. Co. (N. J.), 65 Co., 1 Wash. St. 521 (headnote in- Atl. 849 (where the cancelled cer- adequate) ; 20 Pac. 605. tificates were pasted in) ; Perkins v. As to the case where the com- Lyons, 111 Iowa 192; 82 N. W. pany keeps several share registers, 486. or stock books, not altogether har- But see Newell v. WUliston, 138 monious, see Noyes Bros., 136 Fed. Mass. 240; Tourtdot v. Stoleben, 101 977, 980 (headnote inadequate). Fed. 362. Cf. supra, § 172, and ' Plumb v. Bank of Enterprise, infra, § 1129, § 1220. 48 Kans. 484; 29 Pac. 699; Ameri^ 'National Bank v. Watsontown can Nat. Bank v. Oriental Mills, 17 Bank, 105 U. S. 217, 222. 698 § 832- § 1011] WHAT AMOUNTS TO REGISTRATION 865 when once a particular book has been adopted either formally or in practice as the company's registration book, no entry in any other book will be deemed a registration of the transfer un- less it be intended that the latter book shall supersede the former.' Thus, where a note of a transfer is made in a small book kept at the secretary's office with an intention of entering it later in the large stock book kept at another place, it was held that the transfer could not be deemed to have been registered.^ § 865. What Entry amounts to Registration of a Transfer. — - As to what entries in a share register will be deemed a sufficient registration of a transfer, little need be said. Any entry indica- tive of an intention on the part of the company to recognize the transferee as shareholder in the room of the transferor with re- spect to certain shares will suffice.' The entry of the transferee as holder of shares bearing the same numbers as those which are still allowed to stand in the name of the transferor has been ' Cf. Pinkerton v. Manchester, etc. R. R. Co., 42 N. H. 424, 449 (where an entry in the books of a transfer agent in a foreign state was held insufficient on the ground that the law required the record of the transfer to be made on the books at the company's home office). As to entries made in books in a foreign state, see also Perkins v. Lyons, 111 Iowa 192; 82 N. W. 486. 2 Harpold v. Stobart, 46 Oh. St. 397; 21 N. E. 637; 15 Am. St. Rep. €18. The court said: "While it is not necessary that a book of any special kind be adopted for" that pur- pose, yet when one is selected and used, that becomes the stock book, and transfers, to be valid, must be made upon that. The object to be accomplished by the keeping of such a book requires reasonable cer- tainty as to its identity." ' See National Bank v. Watson- town Bank, 105 U. S. 217, 322-223 (headnote inadequate) ; Bank of Commerce v. Bank of Newport, 63 Fed. 898, 901-902 (headnote mis- leading); 11 C. C. A. 484; Cham- bersburg Ins. Co. v. Smith, 11 Pa. St. 120; Plumb v. Bank of Enter- prise, 48 Kans. 484 (memorandum on stubs of certificates sufficient); Upton V. Burnham, 3 Biss. 431 (headnote inadequate); Stewart v. Walla Walla, etc. Pub. Co., 1 Wash. St. 521 (headnote inadequate); 20 Pac. 605; Perkins v. Lyons, 111 Iowa 192; 82 N. W. 486 (entry in pencil on stub of certificate) ; Fisher v. Jones, 82 Ala. 117, 121-122; 3 So. 13; Moore v. Marshalltovm Opera- House Co., 81 Iowa 45; 46 N. W. 750. Cf. Cutting v. Damsel, 88 N. Y. 410; Northrop v. Curtis, 5 Conn. 246; Rankin v. Fidelity Trust Co., 189 U. S. 242, 251-252; 23 Sup. Ct. 553. But see Marlborough Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 2 Conn. 579; Northrop v. Newtown, etc. Turnpike Co., 3 Conn. 644, 551 (where it was said that a transfer is not registered unless copied at full length) ; Newell v. WUliston, 138 Mass. 240. As to entry of a transfer "sub- ject to the rights of attaching credit- ors and others," see State Ins. Co. V. GenneU, 2 Tenn. Ch. 100, 103. 699 § 866 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV held insufficient.' The notion has been to some extent preva- lent that a provision making shares transferable only on the books of the company means that the actual instrument of transfer must be a writing on the company's books.^ But the true view is that such a provision merely requires that some note or record of the transfer be made on the books, and that any written transfer on the back of the certificate or elsewhere is still the effective instrument of transfer. Consequently, the entry of a transfer in the company's books is not the "execution of a written instrument." ^ § 866. Power of Attorney to effect Re^stration of Transfer on behalf of Transferor. — The ordinary American transfer en- dorsed upon a certificate of stock is usually coupled with a power of attorney — or, to speak more accurately, comprises a power of attorney — authorizing any one, the name being usually left blank in order that the transferee may fill it in at his own con- venience, to apply for and effect in the transferor's name a transfer on the company's books. This express power of at- torney would seem to be surplusage, inasmuch as the execution of a transfer would doubtless of itself be held to amount to a grant of implied authority to use the transferor's name in de- manding registration of the transfer.* Indeed, when once a formal transfer has been executed, the registration or entry thereof on the company's books may be accomplished by the officers of the company without any deputed authority from the transferor.^ Moreover, where the name of some particular per- son is inserted in the power of attorney, yet if he be unwilling, or neglect, to act, the rights of the transferee will not be preju- diced." The practice of giving these powers of attorney prob- ' Heights of Maribyrnong Estate * Cf. Plymouth Bank v. Bank of Co., 22 Vict. L. R. 438. Norfolk, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 454, where ' Marlborough Mfg. Co. v. Smith, the transfer was to two persons and 2 Conn. 579 ; Williams v. Mechanics' the power of attorney was to one of Bank, 5 Blatchf. 69. them only. Cf. RichmondviUe Mfg. Co. v. ° Green Mount, etc. Co. v. Bulla, Prall, 9 Conn. 487; Northrop v. 45 Ind. 1. Curtis, 5 Conn. 246. Compare also But cf. McFall v. Buckeye, etc. the English practice as to Bank of Ass'n, 122 Cal. 468; 55 Pac. 253; 68 England stock and other "inscribed" Am. St. Rep. 47. stocks, Shepherd v. Harris (1905), See also Mechanics' Banking 2 Ch. 310, 315-316. Ass'n v. Mariposa Co., 3 Rob. (N. ' Pine V. Western Nat. Bank, 65 Y.) 395. Pac. 690, 692; 63 Kans. 462. ' Cushman v. Thayer Mfg. Jew- 700 § 832-§ 1011] ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE § 867 ably originated in the notion, which has been shown above to be unfounded,' that a transfer on the books means an actual instrument of transfer in writing on the company's books and is not satisfied by entering on the books a mere note or record of a transfer.^ The power of attorney does not have the effect of connecting the transferor with the person whose name as attorney is sub- sequently inserted so as to charge him with the latter's knowl- edge of facts which if communicated to the transferor would invalidate the transfer.' In one federal case, the court said that if a failure to enter a transfer on the company's books was due to the person whose name was inserted in the power of attorney, he being an officer of the corporation, the default was attributable to him as agent of the transferor and not as agent for the company, so that the company could not be deemed re- sponsible for the failure to register the transfer.^ But such a doctrine might be very inconvenient and indeed unjust in its practical operation; and it is submitted that the sound princi- ple is that the usual "power of attorney" connected with an American transfer of shares is little if anything more than matter of form.^ § 867. Issue of Share-Certificate to Transferee or Surrender of Transferor's Certificate not necessary to pass 'complete Title. — Of course the issue of a share-certificate to the transferee is not necessary in order to effect a passage of the legal title," nor is it necessary that the transferor's certificate should be surren- elry Co., 76 N. Y. 365, 371; 32 Am. « Re Bachman, 2 Fed. Cas. 310. Rep. 315. ' But see Taliaferro v. First Nat. But cf. Re Bachman, 2 Fed. Cas. Bank, 71 Md. 200; First Nat. Bank 310. V. Taliaferro, 72 Md. 164; German ' Supra, § 865. Sav. Bank v. Renshaw, 78 Md. 475, ' Compare the English practice with which cases compare Kern's in respect to consols and Bank of Estate, 35 Atl. 231; 176 Pa. St. 373. England stock and other "in- " Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris, scribed" stock. Starkey v. Bank of 20 Mo. 382; National Bank v. Wat- England (1903), A. C. 114; Shep- sontown Bank, 105 U. S. 217, 222 herd v. Harris (1905), 2 Ch. 310, (headnote inadequate); First Nat. 315-316. Bank v. Gifford, 47 Iowa 575; Ag- ' Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S. riadtural Bank v. Wilson, 24 Me. 800. 273. 701 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV dered.' The certificate is merely evidential in its legal opera- tion ; and the title of the transferee, if the transfer be registered, is quite as complete, both at law and in equity, before it is issued as afterwards. Even an express provision that shares shall be transferable only upon surrender of the transferor's certificate is construed as intended for the company's benefit, so that a failure to surrender the certificate would be waived by registering the transfer.^ § 868. Implied Transfers. — In some cases transfers can be implied. For instance, a corporation accepts or attempts to accept a surrender of shares, and subsequently reissues the shares. Under some circumstances, where the surrender is, as such, invalid, the transaction may be construed as a transfer from the original holder to the second allottee so as to release the former from liability as a shareholder.^ Such a construc- tion can, however, rarely if ever be adopted where the company has under its control other unissued shares to which the second allotment can be referred.* § 869. " Certification " of Transfers. — The English system of separating the transfer from the certificate, operating in con- junction with the greater length of time that elapses in England between the presentation of a transfer for registration and the actual registration and issue of a certificate to the transferee, has led to what is called "certification" of transfers. That is, when a transfer and share-certificate are deposited with the company preliminary to the registration of a transfer, the company issues a receipt acknowledging, or as it is called, "certifying" that a share-certificate has been lodged with the company. The in- ' Boatmen's Ins. & Trust Co. v. 41; Wyman v. Bowman, 127 Fed. Able, 48 Mo. 136; Bank of Kentucky 257, 266-267; 62 C. C. A. 189. See V. Schuylkill Bank, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. also supra, § 632. (Pa.) 180, 247-249; Colton v. Wil- But see Cartwright v. Dickinson, liam^, 65 111. App. 466. 88 Tenn. 476; 12 S. W. 1030; 17 Cf. supra, §'853, infra, § 882. Am. St. Rep. 910; 7 L. R. A. 706; ' As to the liability of the com- Scott v. Houpt, 83 S. W. 1057; 73 pany to a holder of the certificate Ark. 78 (where a creditor of the for registering a transfer without re- first allottee endeavored, but with- quiring a surrender of the certificate, out success, to attach the shares on see infra, § 910, § 938. the ground that the transfer was not ' Cf. Macdonald Sons & Co. registered as required by statute). (1894), 1 Ch. 89, 101-102; £a; parte * Wallscourt's Case, 7 Manson Jones, 27 L. J. Ch. 666; Wells & Co. 235; Ex parte Jones, 27 L. J. Ch. V. Thompson Mfg. Co., 54 Mo. App. 666. 702 § 832-§ 1011] CERTIFICATION § 869 strument is a very informal one, consisting usually of some such words as these, "Certificate for * * * shares has been lodged at the company's oflBce. Date * ** *^ Secretary." The corporate seal is not attached. The distinction between such a certification and the ordinary share-certificate is wide and fundamental. As Lord Macnaghten said in a recent case in the House of Lords, "There is a marked difference between a certificate and a certification. A certificate is under the seal of the company. By the Companies Act, 1862, a certificate is made prima facie evidence of title. If faith were not given to the solemn asser- tions of a company under its common seal, 'it would,' as Lord Cairns observed in Burkinshaw v. Nicolls, 'paralyze the whole of the dealings with shares in public companies.' A certifica- tion stands on a different footing altogether. Transfers are never certified under the company's seal. There is no obliga- tion on a company to certify transfers at all. The certification is not passed by the directors or brought before the board. A certification, in fact, is only required for a temporary purpose to meet the exigencies of business on the Stock Exchange, which has stated days and fixed periods for the different stages of a business transaction intended to be carried out under its rules. In dealings in shares not under the rules of the Stock Exchange, a certification is really out of place. In such dealings, in the case of a purchase, the price would only be paid in exchange for the transfer and share-certificate on the completion of the transaction, and not before." ' Sometimes, the "certification" of a transfer is done, not by the company, but by the secretary of the stock exchange. For in- stance, if the holder of a certificate for one hundred shares sells fifty, he lodges the certificate with the secretary of the stock ex- change, who issues to him two papers each certifying that a cer- tificate representing fifty shares has been lodged. One of these papers the transferor delivers to the transferee as evidence of his ownership of the shares. The purchase money is thereupon paid; and afterwards the share-certificate is surrendered to the company, the transferee is registered as a shareholder and receives a certificate for his fifty shares, and another certificate is issued to the transferor for the fifty shares retained by him. ' George Whitechurch, Ltd. v. Cavanaugh (1902), A. C. 117, 126. 703 § 870 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 870. American Receipts corresponding to English Certifica- tions. — In America, "certification" of transfers of shares is by that name unknown. Often, when a certificate and transfer are presented at the oflBce of an American corporation in order that the transfer may be registered, the company gives no receipt or acknowledgment of any kind similar to an English certificate of transfer. Sometimes a brief, informal acknowl- edgment of the receipt of the share-certificates is given. Such receipts are often marked "non-transferable," and even where they are not, they are not often assigned or dealt in on the stock exchange as representing the shares. The English decisions relative to "certification" of transfers would be pertinent au- thority in respect to the nature and legal effect of such receipts. § 871. Similar Receipts issued under Reorganization Schemes. — Instruments similar in some respects to the English certifica- tions of transfers are often issued under reorganization or amal- gamation schemes. Shareholders deposit their shares with the trust company which is financing the reorganization or con- solidation, and receive in exchange certificates or scrip. The law applicable to such scrip certificates is stated in another place.' Such certificates differ from English certifications in that they are usually intended to be transferred from hand to hand as quasi-negotiable instruments. § 872-§ 879. Acceptance of Transfer by Transferee. § 872. Transfer complete without Acceptance. — Transfers of shares, like other unilateral conveyances, are, according to the prevailing doctrines of law, complete upon registration with- out the necessity of any acceptance on the part of the trans- feree.^ For instance, the transfer though gratuitous cannot be revoked by the transferor after registration but before the trans- feree has knowledge of it and therefore necessarily before he has accepted it.^ Sometimes the same result is reached by say- 1 Infra, § 994. Cf. supra, § 237. 56 L. R. A. 728 (transferor not re- ' But the company cannot be re- lieved from liability as shareholder quired to register a transfer unless where transferee has not accepted the transferee is ready to accept it. shares and transfer not registered). Infra, § 930. ' Cf. Standing v. Bowring, 31 Ch. Cf. Vermont, etc. Co. v. Dedez, D. 282 (a case of a gift of consols or etc. Co., 135 Cal. 579, 588-589; 67 pubUc stocks). Pac. 1057; 87 Am. St. Rep. 143; 704 § 832-§ 1011] ACCEPTANCE § 874 ing that acceptance is presumed ^ from the supposedly bene- ficial character of the conveyance; but this is not the true ground historically, nor is it logical. • § 873. Effect of Renunciation of Shares by Transferee. — Ac- cording to all the authorities, however, if the transferee promptly repudiates the transfer upon receiving notice thereof, the title reverts to the transferor although the transfer has been regis- tered ; ^ and it has been held that if upon such repudiation by the transferee, his name is stricken from the register, the trans- feror becomes subject once more to the liabilities of a share- holder.^ Indeed, it might well be questioned whether prompt repudiation of the transfer by the transferee would not ipso facto revest the title in the transferor and make him liable as share- holder by relation as if no transfer had been executed. § 874. How Acceptance of Transfer may be proved. — Ac- ceptance or disaffirmance by the transferee can often be proved only by parol. Whilst the burden of disproving acceptance ordinarily rests upon the party who denies it,^ and therefore upon a transferee who is seeking to escape from the liabilities attaching to ownership of shares, yet the burden may be shifted upon the company or its liquidator or receiver by the trans- feree's sworn testimony that he knew nothing of the transfer until immediately before his repudiation thereof. The acceptance of dividends would ordinarily be conclusive evidence .of acceptance.^ So, a transferee who retains the trans- fer in his possession and does not notify the transferor of his re- ' Cf. Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall, cannot be used to validate a transfer 390, 400; South Texas Nat. Bank v. from a director to the principal made Texas, etc. Lumber Co. (Texas), 70 and registered without the knowl- S. W. 768; 30 Tex. Civ. App. 412. edge of the attorney and after the " Ex parte Heritage, 9 Eq. 5; latter had accepted a share-certifi- Simmons v. HUl, 96 Mo. 679 ; 10 cate from the company itself, which S. W. 61; 2 L. R. A. 476. had some unallotted shares). Cf. Mechanics Banking Ass'n v. ^ Ex parte Heritage, 9 Eq. 5. Mariposa Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 395; ' South Texas Nat. Bank v. Texas, Welch V. GiUelen, 82 Pac. 248; 147 etc. Lumber Co. (Texas), 70 S. W. Cal. 571 (transferee who repudiated 768; 30 Tex. Civ. App. 412; Finn not liable as shareholder); Sigua v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56, 67; 12 Sup. Iron Co. V. Greene, 104 Fed. 854; Ct. 136. Cf. infra, § 1128. 44 C. C. A. 221 (transferee not liable But see Sigua Iron Co. v. Greene, as shareholder without acceptance 88 Fed. 207, 213-214. — headnote misleading) ; Paton's * Ker's Case, 4 A. C. 549. Case, 5 Ont. L. R. 392 (holding that Cf. Royal Bank of India's Case, » power of attorney to accept shares 4 Ch. 252 259. VOL. I. — 45 705 § 875 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV pudiation of it may be estopped from denying his acceptance.' Moreover, if one of several trustees authorizes the investment of certain of the trust moneys in the shares of a certain company, and the moneys are so invested in the names of all the trustees he is deemed to have accepted, especially if he has signed a letter written to the company about the payment of dividends.^ A sale by the transferee of some of the transferred shares is a sufficient acceptance of the transfer.^ Indeed, the execution of a transfer on the back of the share-certificate, without receiving any purchase money and without in fact intending to claim any interest in the shares, is a sufficient acceptance of the shares.* The transferee's acceptance may be shown although he did not explicitly authorize the registration of the transfer. Thus, after a contract of sale of shares has been made, the vendor is justified in having the transfer registered without the purchaser's knowledge, and the latter, having accepted in advance, can- not escape liability as shareholder by subsequently repudiat- ing the transfer.^ So, if a person has given his assent to a course of dealing which involves transferring shares to his name from time to time, acceptance of each particular transfer need not be proved." But a voluntary promise to purchase certain shares when issued to the promisee contemplates a unilateral contract, and may therefore be withdrawn at any time before the shares have been registered in the promisor's name.' If the transferee is a director and the shares are necessary to qualify him, acceptance is easily inferred.* Indeed, if the trans- feree Is an officer having charge of the transfer book, it seems that in order to avoid the burdens of ownership of the shares he must cancel the transfer or enter a transfer back to the transferor.' § 875. Inconvenience of trusting to Parol Proof of Acceptance. — The doctrines of law stated in the foregoing paragraphs lead ' Shepherd v. GiUespie, 3 Ch. 764. " Nicol's Case, 3 De G. & J. 387. ' Cunninghame v. City of Glasgow ' Greene v. Sigita Iron Co., 88 Fed. Bank, 4 A. C. 607. 203. ' Royal Bank of India's Case, 4 ' Finn v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56; Ch. 252, 259. 12 Sup. a. 136. * Kenyan v. Fowler, 155 Fed. 107. » Finn v. Brown, 142 U. S. 56, 71 ; » Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65, 12 Sup. a. 136. 71-72. Cf. Greene v. Siffua Iron Co., 88 Fed. 203. 706 § 832-§ 1011] ACCEPTANCE § 876 to the undesirable result that important rights and serious lia- bilities depend upon the fact of acceptance or repudiation of a transfer — a fact which can often be proved only by parol. This inconvenience is greater in the case of shares in corpora- tions than in the case of transfers of real estate ; because in the case of land acceptance can generally be proved by notorious facts such as taking possession, collecting rents, paying taxes, and so forth. Moreover, shares are liable to great and sudden fluctuations of value, so that the incentive may be strong to in- duce a transferee to repudiate a transfer when the company gets into diflBculties, although his real intention at the time was to accept it. Upon the whole, the desirability of requiring acceptance on the part of the transferee to be evidenced in writing before the transfer is registered is apparent. § 876. Regulations requiring Transfer to be executed by Trans- feree as well as Transferor. — Accordingly, the regulations of some English corporations require a transfer of shares to be executed by the transferee as well as by the transferor.' The reason- ableness of such a regulation is abundantly supported by the considerations mentioned in the last paragraph ; ^ and some American corporations might perhaps do well by their by-laws to adopt a similar requirement.^ Such regulations are satisfied, so that the transfer is valid and entitled to registration, if the transferee enters into direct contractual relations with the com- pany; and the transferee will be deemed for all purposes a shareholder if he act as such, although he may never have form- ally executed the required paper.* Even where the regulations do not expressly require a transfer to be executed by the trans- feree, yet if the uniform practice of the company has been to require execution by both parties, it may refuse to register a transfer which ex facie contemplates execution both by transferor and transferee but which in fact is executed by the former alone.^ ' See Ortigosa v. Brown, 38 L. T. for execution of an acceptance of the 145; Roots v. Williamson, 38 Ch. D. transfer before the transfer could be 485. registered. » Marino's Case, 2 Ch. 596, 601. * Re Taurine Co., 25 Ch. D. 118 ' One inconvenience consequent (semble); Murray v. Bv^h, L. R. upon such a regulation would be 6 H. L. 37; Royal Bank of India's that the purchaser's broker who Cose, 4 Ch. 252, 259. usually sees to the registration of the But see Ortigosa v. Brown, 38 1 ransfer would have in each case L. T. 145. to present the certificate to his client ' Marino's Case, 2 Ch. 596. 707 § 877 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 877. Infancy or other Disability of Transferee. — Inasmuch as transfers of shares, in the absence of regulations or by-laws such as those referred to in the last paragraph, are valid with- out any acceptance on the part of the transferee (subject of course to his right to repudiate the title), it would seem logically to follow that a transfer would not be invalidated because of some incapacity on the part of the transferee, such as infancy, coverture,' or the like. Accordingly, the opinion was expressed in an Irish case that a transfer of shares to an infant, if duly registered, will relieve the transferor, for the future, from lia- bility as shareholder; ^ but the contrary has been held in Eng- land,^ and in America.* At any rate, the infant is privileged to repudiate the shares when he becomes of age and thus escape liability in respect thereof; but unless on obtaining his major- ity he promptly repudiates the shares, he will be deemed to have elected to affirm the transaction, and therefore will be liable as shareholder.^ Where the infant transferee comes of age after the commencement of the winding-up, it has been held that he cannot, by electing to affirm, compel the liquidator to accept him as a shareholder." The inconveniences of having as share- holder a person who may at the end of his minority elect either to retain or to repudiate the shares are, from the company's point of view, so great, where the shares are not fully paid up, that a corporation cannot be compelled to register a transfer of partly paid shares to an infant.' The question has been left open whether the rule would be the same in the case of fully paid shares ; * but it is submitted that a company ought not '■ Cf. Christopher v. Norvdl, 201 * Regina ex rel. Blackbom v. U. S. 216; 26 Sup. Ct. 502; Kerr Midland Counties By., 15 Ir. Com. V. Vrie, 86 Md. 72; 37 Atl. 789; L. 514, 522 (semble). 63 Am. St. Rep. 493; 38 L. R. A. Cf. Lumsden's Case, 4 Ch. 31. 119; Tucker v. Curtin, 148 Fed. ' Capper's Case, 3 Ch. 458; 929; 78 C. C. A. 557 (holding that Mann's Case, 3 Ch. 459 n. Cf. transfer of shares in ordinaty way Brown v. Black, 8 Ch. 939. front husband to wife is a transfer * Aldrich v. Bingham, 131 Fed. through a third person, namely the 363. corporation, within the meaning of a ° Lumsden's Case, 4 Ch. 31. rule of Massachusetts law by which ° Symon's Case, 5 Ch. 298. a transfer of personal property from ' Regina ex rel. Blackborn v. Mid- a husband to his wife without the land Counties Ry., 15 Ir. Com. L. 514. intervention of a third person is ' Regina ex rel. Blackborn v. Mid- constructively fraudulent as against land Counties Ry., 15 Ir. Com. L. 514. his creditors). 521-522. 708 § 832-§ 1011] INCAPACITY OF TRANSFEROR § 880 to be compelled to execute a transfer to an infant whether the shares are fully paid or not. Where the transfer is made to an infant as trustee or nominee of an adult, the infant's name can- not be treated as a mere alias for that of the cestui que trust, so as to justify the company or the liquidator in putting the name of the cestui qv£ trust on the list of shareholders.' § 878. Corporations as Transferees. — If the transferee be a corporation, and if the acceptance of the transfer would be ultra vires, the transferee cannot compel the company to register the transfer.^ The question whether such a transfer, if registered, will subject the transferee to liability as a share- holder or entitle him to rights of a shareholder is considered be- low.^ If a transfer of shares to a corporation be presented for registration, but before the registration be actually completed the transferee company is thrown into liquidation, the transfer is nevertheless valid, and the assets of the transferee company are subject to any liability attaching to the ownership of the shares.* § 879. Fictitious Transferee. — A transfer to a fictitious trans- feree is wholly void even though it be entered on the company's books.^ There cannot be a transfer without a transferee. § 880. Incapacity of Transferor. — Any legal incapacity of the transferor of course invalidates the transfer. For example, a transfer by an infant is voidable, and if he elect to disaffirm, no title passes; and if the transfer has been registered, he may compel the company to reinstate him as shareholder or may pursue any of the other remedies open to a shareholder whose name has been stricken from the register in pursuance of an invalid transfer. The same law applies to a transfer by a lunatic," ■ Massey & Giffin's Case (1907), 191. As to effect of share-certificate 1 Ch. 582. Cf. supra, § 767. in the name of a fictitious person, ' Franklin Bank v. Commercial see infra, § 911. Bank, 36 Oh. St. 350; 38 Am. Rep. » Chew v. Bank of Baltimore, 14 594. Cf. infra, § 1049. Md. 299; McLaughlin v. Daily ' Infra, § 1034, § 1049, § 1231. Telegraph, 1 Comm. L. R. (Aust.) * Barned's Banking Co., 3 Ch. 105, 243. 117-118. As to transfers by married women, ' Muskingum Valley Turnpike Co. see Dow v. Gould, etc. Mining Co., V. Ward, 13 Oh. 120; 42 Am. Dec. 31 Cal. 629. 709 § 881 TEANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV at all events unless it appear that he has received full value and has not been imposed upon. All these and similar questions are governed by the general law of infancy, lunacy, coverture, etc., and not by any peculiar principles applicable to shares in incorporated companies. § 881-§ 889. Application of General Principles as to Complete- ness of Transfers to Special Cases. § 881. Enumeration of Five Classes of Special Cases. — The principles which have been set forth above as to the method of making valid and complete transfers may require to be appUed in several classes of special cases arising between various parties: (1) between a cestui que trust and a purchaser from the trustee, without notice of the trust; (2) between donee and donor; (3) between successive transferees from the same trans- feror ; (4) between the transferor and creditors of the transferor, or the representative of creditors of the transferor; (5) where transfers have passed from hand to hand, like negotiable instru- ments. Of these in their order : § 882. Between Cestui Que Trust and Purchaser from Trustee. — As between a cestui que trust and a purchaser from a misbe- having trustee, the question is simply. Has the purchaser acquired a legal as distinguished from an equitable right before receiving notice of the cestui que trust's claim ? So long as the purchaser's right is equitable merely, the equity of the cestui que trust, being prior in time, is the stronger in law.' But in order that the bona fide purchaser should prevail, it is not necessary that he should be actually registered as shareholder, or should acquire the technical and complete legal title to the shares as explained above : he will be protected if, before learning of the cestui que trust's claims, he gets possession of the indicia of ownership, and clothes himself with authority sufficient to enable him to procure registration without calling upon the transferor to do any further act.^ This he does, whenever he ' Roots v. Williamson, 38 Ch. D. ' Dodds v. HiUs, 2 Hem. & Miller, 485; Moore v. Nort^ Western Bank 424; Winter v. Montgomery 6as- (1891), 2 Ch. 599; Ireland v. HaH Light Co., 89 Ala. 544; 7 So. 773. (1902), 1 Ch. 522. But see Roots v. Williamson, C3 710 § 832-§ 1011] PURCHASERS FROM TRUSTEES § 883 gets possession of the share-certificate with a transfer in regular and ordinary form.' Consequently, a purchaser or mortgagee from a trustee, who pays his money and receives the share- certificate coupled with a transfer, without notice of the trust, will be preferred to the cestui que trust, although he is notified of the latter's rights before presenting the transfer for registration and thus actually clothing himself with complete legal title.^ If the purchaser from the trustee is actually registered as share- holder, his title is superior to that of the cestui qu^ trust, although the share-certificate may not have been delivered to him by the trustee, having been in the possession of the cestui que trust} The only ground on which a different result could well be reached would be that a transferee who does not get the share- certificate should be charged with notice of any rights of the holder of the certificate. § 883. Where the Company itself is Cestui que Trust or has some Equity against the Transferor. — A special class of cases coming under the general head which we are now considering is where the purchaser of shares is sought to be affected with some equity which existed in favor of the company against his transferor. The rule in such cases is that a purchaser for value of the shares without notice of the company's equity takes discharged therefrom. Of course, if the company allows the transfer to be registered, it would by so doing waive its equity. But even where registration is refused, the company would be estopped from setting up its right against a bona ftde purchaser of the share-certificate. Thus, a corporation cannot refuse to register a transfer because of a lien in its own favor which was Ch. D. 485; Moore v. North Western Dougherty, 62 Oh. St. 589; 57 N. E. Bank (1891), 2 Ch. 599; Ireland v. 455 (where the bona fide transferee Hart (1902), 1 Ch. 522. was protected although he acquired ' Dodds y. Hills, 2 Hem. & knowledge of the prior equity before Miller 424 ; Winter v. Montgomery delivery of the certificates). Gas-Light Co., 89 Ala. 544 ; 7 So. 773 ; = Dodds v. HiUs, 2 Hem. & Miller, Salisbury MUls v. Tovmsend, 109 424. Mass. 115; Anderson v. Waco State ' N. Y., etc. R. B. Co. v. Schuyler, Bank, 92 Tex. 506; 49 S. W. 1030; 34 N. Y. 30, 78-81. 71 Am. St. Rep. 867; Boss v. South- Cf. First Nat. Bank v. Clifford, 47 western R. R. Co., 53 Ga. 514; Iowa 575 (where no certificate had Gurley v. Reed, 190 Mass. 509; 77 ever been issued to the trustee). N. E. 642. Cf. Dueber, etc. Mfg. Co. v. 711 § 884 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV created by the transferor, but of which the purchaser of the certificate hacl no notice.' Where the company colorably issues shares for the purpose of qualifying the holder as a director, the trust or equity in favor of the company is not regarded as of great merit, so that the company's claim will be postponed to that of a person to whom the director has agreed to sell or pledge the shares : ^ the equities are not deemed equal, and hence the company's priority in point of time is of no avail. § 884. Between Donor and Donee. — As between a, donee and donor of shares the rule to be applied is that while equity will not aid an incomplete gift, yet its assistance will not be lent to the donor to enable him to revoke his gift. Consequently, if the donee has obtained dominion over the shares so that he can perfect his rights without calling upon the donor to do any further act, the gift will be irrevocable by the donor even though the technical legal title to the shares may not have been vested in the donee by registration. Accordingly, where the donor has delivered the share-certificates to the donee endorsed in the usual way, the latter's title is so far complete that nothing that the donor can do can impair it or prevent the donee- from requiring the company to register him as shareholder;' and, indeed, even a parol delivery of the certificate without any endorsement or written transfer will have the same effect.' K no share-certificates have been issued, a gift by execution and delivery of a transfer under seal has been held to be complete.* ' Trust & Savings Co. v. Home 107 N. W. 935 (where the certificate Lumber Co., 118 Mo. 447; 24 S. W. was delivered to a trustee for the 129. Cf. supra, § 706, § 707. donee, who was accordingly allowed ^ Dueber, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Dough- to maintain a bill to compel the erty, 62 Oh. St. 589; 57 N. E. 455. trustee 'to transfer the shares to ' Grymes v. Hone, 49 N. "Y. 17; her). 10 Am. Rep. 313. But see Matthews v. Hoagland, ' Reed v. Copdand, 50 Conn. 472; 48 N. J. Eq. 456; 21 Atl. 1054. 47 Am. Rep. 663; Commonwealth v. Cf. Colton v. WilUams, 65 111. Compton, 137 Pa. St. 138; 20 Atl. App. 466 (a peculiar case stated 417; Walsh v. Sexton, 55 Barb, supra, §863); Nicolls v. Reid, 109 (N. Y.) 251 (gift mortis causa); Cal. 630; 42 Pac. 298. CfUkinson v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., As to gift from husband to wife, 47 N. Y. App. Div. 472; 63 N. Y. see Tucker v. Curtin, 148 Fed. 929; Supp. 792; Bond v. Bean, 72 N. H. 78 C. C. A. 557; First Nat. Bank v. 444; 57 Atl. 340; First Nat. Bank Holland, ubi supra. V. Holland, 99 Va. 495; 39 S. E. ' De Caumont v. Bogert, 36 Hun, 126; 86 Am. St. Rep. 898; 55 L. R. (N. Y.) 382. A. 155; Larimer v. Bearddey (Iowa), 712 § 832-§ 1011] SUCCESSIVE transfers § 885 These rules are not accepted in Maryland, where the courts have adopted the doctrine that until the donee has perfected his title by having the transfer registered, the donor may revoke it,' and of course his death operates as a revocation. The rule in England seems to be the same as in Maryland.^ It has been said in New York that the mere entry of a transfer of shares in the company's books cannot be a complete gift unless the donee be invested in sonie further way with dominion over the shares; ' but one may doubt whether this dictum embodies sound law.* In all the United States a mere voluntary executory promise to cause shares to be transferred may be revoked by the donor.' Moreover, a delivery of the share-certificates with transfers endorsed thereon to the company's secretary, coupled with directions to hold the certificates subject to the trans- feror's order and in case of her death to deliver them tg the transferees is clearly not a completed gift mortis caicsa.'^ § 885. Between Successive Transferees from same Transferor. — DiflBcult questions sometimes arise between successive trans- ferees from the same transferor. The registered owner first executes a formal transfer to A and subsequently but before the first transfer is presented for registration executes another transfer to B. Neither transfer having been registered, who has the better right to the shares, A or B ? Other things being equal, the first transferee has the better right : ' qui prior est tempore potior est jure. Wherever either by law or by custom transfers should be registered only upon surrender of the cer- tificate issued to the transferor, the transferee who gets posses- sion of the certificate would seem to have a stronger right ' Baltimore Retort, etc. Co. v. * Griffin v. Knoblock (Colo.), 77 Mali, 65 Md. 93; 3 Atl. 286; 57 Pac. 370. Am. St. Rep. 304; Pennington v. ' Noble v. Learned (Cal.), 87 Pac. cuttings, 2 GiU & J. (Md.) 208. 402; Nohle v. Garden, 146 Cal. 225; = MUroy v. Lord, 4 De G. F. & J. 79 Pac. 883. 264; Bartholomew v. Menzies (1902), ' Societe Generale de Paris v. 1 Ch. 680 (where no written transfer Walker, 1 1 A. C. 20 ; Peat v. Clayton was executed); Moore v. Moore, (1906), 1 Ch. 659. As to the circum- 18 Eq. 474 (holding also that stock stances under which a transfer to cannot be the subject of a gift the company itself will be postponed mf Kentucky v. Schuylkill Bank, 1 639; 95 Am. St. Rep. 627; Daily Pars. Eq. Cas. 180, 245 et seq. ; Telegraph Newspaper Co. v. Cohen, Willis V. Philadelphia, etc. B. B. Co., 5 N. So. Wales State Rep. 520 (hold- <3 Wkly. N. Cas. (Pa.) 461; Am. ing that where the shares have in- Exch. Nat. Bank v. Woodlawn Ceme- creased in value, the measure of tery, 105 N. Y. Supp. 305 (holding damages is the value at the time the also that the fact that the several company first refused to recognize certificates presented to a transferee plaintiff as shareholder), were not consecutively numbered, Cf. First Ave. Land Co. v. Parker, was not sufficient to charge him with 111 Wise. 1 ; 86 N. W. 604; 87 Am. notice of an overissue). St. Rep. 841. ' Bahia & San Francisco By. Co., But see contra: Mechanics' Bank L. R. 3 Q. B. 584; Ottos Kopje Dion v. N. Y., etc. B. B. Co., 13 N. Y. ■morarfMines (1893), ICh. 618; Shaw 599 (distinguished in iV. Y., etc. B. v. Port PhUip Mining Co., 13 Q. B. B. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30). D. 103; Mount Holly Paper Co.'s ' Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co. Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 513, 521 (head- v. Cohen, 5 N. So. Wales State Rep. note inadequate); Allen v. South 520. Bostonfl.iJ. Co., 150 Mass. 200, 207; ' Mount Holly Paper Co.'s Ap- 22 N. E. 917; 15 Am. St. Rep. 185; peal, 99 Pa. St. 513 (headnote in- S L. R. A. 716; Havens v. Bank of adequate). 731 § 910 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV company to retain the certificate. If he, being still possessed of the indicia of ownership, executes a transfer to some other person to whom the certificate is delivered and who pays his moiiey in reliance upon the certificate, is the company estopped from deny- ing the title of this second transferee? In order that such an estoppel should be raised, it is necessary to show that the com- pany was guilty of some negligence or breach of duty. If the shares are, as is usually the case, at least in America, expressed to be transferable only upon surrender of the certificate, the registration of the first transfer without requiring the transferor to surrender the certificate would seem to be sufficient to charge the company with a continuing representation that the trans- feror remained entitled to the shares represented by the cer- tificate, so that the company should be estopped from denying the title of the second transferee,' or from denying the title of a transferee to whom the certificate had been delivered before the registration of the other transfer.^ At all events, this result should be reached unless the company had reasonable ground to suppose that the certificate had been destroyed. Nevertheless, the opposite conclusion was recently reached by the English Court of Appeal, which held that under such cir- ' Cushman v. Thayer Mfg. Jew- v. Thompson, 103 Va. 58 ; 48 S. E. elry Co., 76 N. Y. 365; 32 Am. Rep. 506. 315; Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369; ' Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 11 Strange v. Houston, etc. R. R. Co., A. C. 426, 437-438, per Lord 53 Tex. 162 ; Greenleaf v. Lwdington, Blackburn. 15 Wise. 558; 82 Am. Dec. 698; Cf. Strange v. Houston, etc. R. R. Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, 10 Colo. Co., 53 Tex. 162, 168; Greenleaf v. 327; 15 Pac. 691; 3 Am. St. Rep. Ludington, 15 Wise. 558; 82 Am. 686. Dec. 698 ; Guilford v. Western Union But see Bank of Commerce v. TeL Co., 59 Minn. 332; 61 N. W. Bank of Newport, 63 Fed. 898, 902 324'; 50 Am. St. Rep. 407 (where (headnote misleading); 11 C. C. A. the certificate h^d been lost for 484. twelve years); Cleveland, etc. R. R. 2 Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Roh- Co. v. Rabbins, 35 Oh. St. 483 (where hins, 35 Oh. St. 483; Factors, etc. the fact that the transfer had been Ins. Co. V. Marine Dry Dock, etc. Co., registered and a new certificate is- 31 La. Ann. 149; Brisbane v. Dela- sued in pursuance of a by-law to ware, etc. R. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 204; replace a certificate which was sup- First Nat. Bank v. Stribling, 16 Okl. posed to be lost was thought to 41 ; 86 Pac. 512. make no difference in the company's As to the effect of the issue of a liability) ; PottsvUle Bank v. Miners- new certificate to the transferor in vUle Water Co., 211 Pa. 566; 61 Atl. pursuance of judicial proceedings 119 (where the first transferee and presupposing that the original cer- holder of the certificate was held to tificate had been lost, see Downing be barred by laches). 732 I 832-§ 1011] ESTOPPEL OP COMPANY § 911 cumstances no estoppel should be raised against the company.* It is submitted that this decision is narrow, and unsuited to modern commercial conditions. The precise ground for the estoppel which has been suggested above does not seem to have been called to the attention of the court, the- contention of coun- sel being that the company was estopped by a "certification" ^ of the first transfer — a contention which the judgments of the learned judges answer very clearly and conclusively. As stated above, the true doctrine would seem to be that an outstanding certificate is a continuing representation on the company's part that the person named therein is holder of the shares represented thereby ; " and that this representation con- tinues until the certificate is cancelled or surrendered, or until its remaining in circulation can no longer be attributed to the company. Thus, even a decree against the certificate holder declaring him to hold the shares in trust will not prevent the company from being estopped to deny the title of a subsequent bona fide purchaser taking the certificate from the trustee; * and hence the court will not enter such a decree without first secur- ing a surrender of the certificate.^ On the other hand, it has been held that where shares are sold under a decree of a court of equity passed in a case to which the holder is party, the com- pany is not bound to recognize the title of a purchaser who sub- sequently obtains the certificate from the holder, without notice of the judicial sale." § 911. Certificate issued to Fictitious Person. — A share- ' Longman V. Bath Electric Tram- (headnote misleading); 11 C. C. A. ways (1905), 1 Ch. 646. Cf. Rain- 484; Guilford v. Western Union Td. ford V. Jam^s Keith <& Blackman Co. Co., 59 Minn. 332, 345-346; 61 (1905), 1 Ch. 296 (reversed on an- N. W. 324; 50 Am. St. Rep. 407. other point in S.C. (1905), 2 Ch. 147. * Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc An earlier Ontario case is in accord Co., 57 N. Y. 616; Joslyn v. St. with the English law as established Pavl Distilling Co., 44 Minn. 183; by Longman v. Bath Electric Tram- 46 N. W. 337. ways. Smith v. Walkerville Malle- Cf. Bean v. Am. L. & T. Co., 122 abU Iron Co., 23 Ont. App. 95. N. Y. 622; 26 N. E. 11. ' As to what is "certification" ' Joslyn v. St. Paul Distilling Co., of a transfer, see supra, § 869. 44 Minn. 183; 46 N. W. 337. ' Joslyn V. St. Pavl Distilling Co., ° Sprague v. Cocheco Mfg. Co., 10 44 Minn. 183; 46 N. W. 337; Strange Blatchf. 173. v. Houston, etc. B. R. Co., 53 Tex. Cf. Printing Telegraph News Co. 162, 168. V. Brantingham, 77 N. Y. App. Div. But see Bank of Commerce v. 280; 72 N. Y. Supp. 190. Bank of Newport, 63 Fed. 898, 902 733 § 912 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV certificate impliedly represents that the person named therein as shareholder is a real person, and the company is therefore estopped from asserting him to be fictitious. Hence, it has been thought that a certificate made out in favor of a fictitious person is in effect the same as if it represented the bearer to be the owner of the shares.' This notion is based on analogy to the law of bills and notes, by which an instrument payable to a fictitious payee is deemed payable to bearer ; but inasmuch as corporations usually have no power to issue share-certificates payable to bearer,^ the analogy is far from complete. § 912-§ 916. In whose Favor Estoppel will be raised. § 912. Only in favor of Transferee who relied and acted reason- ably in relying upon the Certificate. — A transferee of a certificate cannot claim title by estoppel to the shares purporting to be rep- resented thereby unless he was actually led by the certificate to believe that his transferor's title was good, nor unless he acted reasonably in so believing. But a transferee is not negli- gent who relies upon the company's representation as expressed in the certificate, and therefore makes no inquiries at the com- pany's ofiGice; and hence such a transferee can enforce the estoppel against the company even though the inquiries, if he had made them, would have disclosed the defect in title.^ More- over, the estoppel arises even in favor of a transferee who had knowledge of a doubt as to the title of his transferor; * for he had a right to infer that the company before issuing a certificate to the transferor had considered all such doubts and found them baseless. An officer or director of the company whose duty it was to know of the invalidity of the share-certificate will not be allowed as transferee thereof to claim title to the shares as against the company by estoppel.^ ' Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co., Third Nat. Bank, 1 Oh. CSrc. Ot. 53 Hun (N. Y.) 362, 365; 6 N. Y. 199). Supp. 703, affirmed, 148 N. Y. 652; Cf. Allen v. South Boston R. R. 43 N. E. 68; 31 L. R. A. 776; 51 Co., 150 Mass. 200; 22 N. E. 917; Am. St. Rep. 727. 15 Am. St. Rep. 185; 5 L. R. A. 716. ' Supra, § 852. * Mandelbaum v. North American ' Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. v. Citi- Mining Co., 4 Mich. 465. zena Nat. Bank, 56 Oh. St. 351; 47 " Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Van N. E. 249; 43 L. R. A. 777 (over- Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439. But cf. infra, ruling Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. v. § 1538, § 1540. 734 § 832-§ 1011] ESTOPPEL OF COMPANY § 914 § 913. Mere Volunteers. — The estoppel will not be raised in favor of a mere volunteer. Hence, inasmuch as share- . certificates are not negotiable instruments, a transferee who takes the certificate as collateral security for an antecedent debt cannot claim the rights of holder for value, and there- fore cannot hold the company estopped from denying his title.' Moreover, he must actually have given value; it is not enough that he may have agreed to do so by a contract which he can rescind for failure of consideration if the title to the shares is not good.^ On the other hand, a volunteer claiming through a person whose title the company was estopped from denying succeeds to the rights of his predecessor in title. § 914. Estoppel in Favor of Person to whom Certificate was issued — When it will not he raised. — The estoppel raised against a corporation by its issue of a share-certificate to a person who is not legally entitled to the shares which the cer- tificate purports to represent can in general be invoked only by some transferee from the person to whom the certificate is issued and not by that person himself.' Only in exceptional cases can the person named in the certificate be proved to have altered his position in reliance upon the representation contained in the certificate ; and, therefore, in most cases a necessary prerequisite to an estoppel in pais is lacking. The certificate holder's loss is not occasioned by the company's representation. For instance, if a corporation issues a share-certificate to a person who pre- sents a forged transfer for registration, and the certificate holder pledges the certificate as collateral for a loan, the company ' Kisterbock's Appeal, 127 Pa. St. 4 Sup. Ct. 345. Cf. Luenle Dreyfus 601; 18 Atl. 381; 14 Am. St. Rep. Mining Co. v. Willard (Wash.), 89 868. Cf. supra, § 843, and Miller v. Pac. 935. Houston City Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 63; But see Allen v. Sovih Boston 16 C. C. A. 128 (where the certificate B. R. Co., 150 Mass. 200; 22 N. E. was deposited as margin on a pur- 917; 15 Am. St. Rep. 185; 5 L. R. A. chase of cotton for future delivery). 716. ' Hoyden v. Charter Oak Driving As to whether the company can Park, 63 Conn. 142; 27 Atl. 232. maintain a bill in equity to cancel a ' Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Van certificate on the ground of the lia- Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439; TrinMe v. bihty which might be created by Union Nat. Bank, 71 Mo. App. 467 ; transferring the same to a bona fide Brown v. Howard Fire Ins. Co., 42 purchaser, see Reno OH Co. v. Cid- Md. 384; 20 Am. Rep. 90; Wright's ver, 69 N. Y. Supp. 969; 60 N. Y. Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 425; Moores v. App. Div. 129. CiHzens' Nat. Bank, 111 U. S. 156; 735 § 915 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV would be estopped from denying the title of the pledgee ; ' but if the loan is paid off so that the unincumbered title revests in the pledgor, the estoppel is at an end,^ for he had not been mis- led by any representation of the company. It would be different if the person to whom the certificate was issued first sold the shares to a bona fde purchaser and then bought them back. In that case he would succeed to the purchaser's title by estoppel. § 915. When it will be raised. — In some rather exceptional cases, however, the company may be estopped by the issue of a certificate even when the certificate has never passed from the possession or control of the person to whom it was issued. Wherever it can be shown that the person to whom the certifi- cate was issued altered his position in some way to his preju- dice in reliance upon the company's representation that he was entitled to the shares represented, or supposed to be represented, by the certificate and that he acted as a reasonable man in so relying thereon, the company will be estopped from denying the truth of its representation just as it would be in the case of a transferee of the certificate. For instance, the company will be estopped if the person to whom the certificate is issued makes a contract to sell the shares supposed to be represented by the certificate and so incurs liability,* or pays a call upon the shares.' So, where th^.,person to whom the certificate is issued is led to believe that everything in conhfetion with his title is correct — is lulled into security — so that he loses his remedy against the person who was responsible for the defect in his title, the com- ' Metropolitan Sav. Bank v. N. E. 109; 15 Am. St. Rep. 222; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 63 Md. 6 5 L. R. A. 849. (holding that the corporation is lia- ' Cf. Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty- ble to make good to the lender second St., etc. R. R. Co., 137 N. Y. money advanced to the forger after 231, 238; 33 N. E. 378; 33 Am. St. the issue of a certificate in the Rep. 712; 19 L. R. A. 331. forger's name but not money ad- * Balkis Consolidated Co. v. Tom- vanced to the forger prior to that kinson (1893), A. C. 396. time upon the faith of the old cer- But the rule is otherwise where tificate with forged transfer endorsed the contract of sale was made after thereon). notice of the forgery. Hambleton v. ' Simm V. Anglo-American Tele- Central Ohio R. R. Co., 44 Md. 551. graph Co., 5 Q. B. D. 188; Erskine Cf. Brown v. Howard Fire Ins. V. Leewenstein, 82 Mo. 301, 305- Co., 42 Md. 384; 20 Am. Rep. 90. 306 (headnote inadequate). ' Hart v. Froniino Gold Mining Cf. Farrington v. South Boston Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 111. B. R. Co., 150 Mass. 406, 408; 23 736 § 832-§ 1011] ESTOPPEL OF COMPANY § 916 pany is estopped from denying his right to the shares.' For instance, the company will be estopped if the broker who sold the shares to the person to whom the company issued the cer- tificate becomes in the meantime insolvent so that the remedy against him becomes worthless; but in order to raise an estoppel of this sort, it must appear, first, that the broker was originally solvent,^ so that the person to whom the company issued the certificate had originally a valuable remedy, and secondly, that the broker subsequently became insolvent,^ so that the remedy became worthless; and thirdly, that the inaction was really in reliance upon the company's representation and was not due to some other cause.* The person who invokes the estoppel must prove afiirmatively the insolvency of the broker or other person against whom he claims that a remedy was lost; but solvency at the time of the issue of the certificate will be presumed unless the contrary appear.^ If a person claiming under a forged or otherwise invalid trans- fer agrees to sell the shares and accordingly presents the transfer for registration with a request that a certificate be issued in the name of his vendee without any active intervention on the latter's part, the vendee, if he pay the money on the faith of the new certificate so made out in his name, may hold the company estopped from denying his title." Where an agent of the corporation issues shares on its behalf to a person who understands that he is acquiring shares not by transfer, but from the company itself, the company is liable if the transaction was within the real or apparent scope of the agent's authority; but not otherwise.' § 916. Whether Person to whom Certificate was issued acts reasonably in relying thereon. ■ — • Furthermore, the estoppel will not be raised unless the person to whom the certificate was issued acted reasonably in relying upon the company's assur- ' Dixon V. Kennaway & Co. ' Dixon v. Kennaway & Co. (1900), 1 Ch. 833; Manhattan Beach (1900), 1 Ch. 833. Co. v. Harned, 27 Fed. 484. " Trimble v. Union Nat. Bank, 71 ' Foster v. Tyne Pontoon, etc. Co., Mo. App. 467. 63 L. J. Q. B. 50, 55-56. Cf. Machinists Nat. Bank v. ' Dixon V. Kennaway, etc. Co. Field, 126 Mass. 345. (1900), 1 Ch. 833. ' Rogers v. Southern Fiber Co. * Foster v. Tyne Pontoon Co., 63 (La.), 44 So. 442. See also supra, L. J.-Q. B. 50, 55. § 581. Cf. supra, § 800. VOL. 1. — 47 737 § 916 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV ance of the soundness of his title. Whether he does act reason- ably in so relying depends in part on whether the defect in his title is due to circumstances of which he has at least as much opportunity of knowing as the company, or to facts which lie peculiarly within the knowledge of the corporation. If the latter be the case, he is entitled to rely upon the company's assurance.' For instance, if the defect in his title be due to the fact that the person from whom he derived title was not the registered owner of the shares, he is not guilty of negligence because he relies upon the certificate issued to him by the com- pany and fails to inspect the register so as to discover the defect in his title.^ On the other hand, where the defect in the title grows out of facts which do not lie peculiarly within the knowledge of the company, particularly where the company has been induced to issue the certificate by some representation express or implied of the person to whom it is issued, the latter has no right to go to sleep in reliance upon the certificate, and if he do so cannot hold the company estopped by. the certificate. This principle finds application in the case of forged transfers. If a person presents to a corporation a forged transfer of shares and requests registration, he impliedly riepresents that the transfer is genuine; * and, however innocent he may have been of complicity in the forgery or even of any knowledge or suspicion that the transfer was spurious, he cannot complain that by registering the transfer and issuing a certificate according to his request the company lulled him into security, and if by reason of his false feeling of security he loses his remedy against the forger or against any other person, he cannot maintain that the company is estopped from denying his title.* ' Balkis Consolidated Co. v. Tom- ' Infra, § 942. kinson (1893), A. C. 396 (headnote * Simm v. Anglo-American Tde- inadequate). graph Co., 5 Q. B. D. 188. ' Dixon V. Kennaway & Co. Cf. Balkis Consolidated Co. v. (1900), 1 Ch. 833. See also Salis- Tomkinson (1893), A. C. 396; Bos- bury Mills V. Tovmsend, 109 Mass. ton, etc. R. R. Co. v. Richardson, 135 115; Cincinnati, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mass. 473; Trimble v. Union Nat. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 56 Oh. St. 351; Bank, 71 Mo. App. 467; HUdyard 47 N. E. 249; 43 L. R. A. 777. v. South Sea Co., 2 P. Wms. 76; But cf. Houston, etc. By. Co. v. Brown v. Howard Fire Ins. Co., 42 Van Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439. Md. 384; 20 Am. Rep. 90; Hamble- 738 § 832-§ 1011] REQUISITES OF CERTIFICATE § 917 § 917-§ 921. Requisites of Certificate in order to raise Estoppel. § 917. Certificate must be issued by Authority of Company. — In order that the company should be estopped by the issue of a certificate, there must of course be evidence that the certificate was issued by the company's authority — that is to say, by agents of the corporation acting within the scope of their real or apparent authority.' Whether the. issue of the certificate can be deemed within the scope of authority of the officers or agents by whom the issue is effected must be decided by the principles of the law of agency, which are not within the scope of the present discussion. The fact that the agent in issuing the certificate is acting fraudulently and for his own gain is by no means conclusive to show^ that the instrument is not issued within the scope of the agent's authority so as to estop the company. The circum- stance that a share-certificate, while not technically negotiable, is intended to pass from hand to hand as the evidence of owner- ship of the shares which it purports to represent is sufficient to exclude the application of the doctrine of Grant v. Norway j' in which leading case the court held that a carrier is not bound by a bill of lading issued by an agent where no goods at all had been delivered for carriage. In the case of certificates of shares, issued by a transfer agent to a supposed transferee, the company may, therefore, be bound although no transfer at all had been presented.^ Indeed, even the fact that some at least ton V. Central Ohio-R. R. Co., 44 Md. porate seal and blank certificates of 651; Ruben v. Great Fingall Con- stock not sufficient evidence of au- solidated (1906), A. C. 439. thority in president). As to the rights of the company ^ Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665. against a transferee under a forged ' N. Y., etc. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, transfer, see infra, §941. 34 N. Y. 30; Fifth Ave. Bank v. ' Farmers' Bank v. Diebold Safe, Forty-second St., etc. R. R. Co., 137 etc. Co., 66 Oh. St. 367; 64 N. E. N. Y. 231; 33N. E. 378; 33 Am. St. 518; 90 Am. St. Rep. 586; 58 Rep. 712; 19 L. R. A. 331; Havens L. R. A. 620 (where a certificate v. Bank of Tarboro, 132 N. Car. which had been endorsed in blank 214; 43 S. E. 639; 95 Am. St. Rep. and deUvered to the company as 627. collateral security was fraudulently But see Hall v. Rose Hill, etc. Co., abstracted and reissued by the secre- 70 111. 673. This case would seem tary) ; Rogers v. Southern Fiber Co. difficult to reconcile with the rule in (La.), 44 So. 442 (custody of cor- Royal British Bank v. Turguand, 6 739 § 918 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV of the signatures attached to a certificate are forgeries and that the seal of,the company is aflaxed without the authority of the directors will not prevent the certificate from estopping the com- pany if it was issued from the company's office by a transfer agent clothed with apparent authority and impliedly representing the instrument to be valid.' On the other hand, where in 1881 a certificate was signed in blank by the president of a company and intrusted to the other officers to be used in case a shareholder should desire to transfer his shares in the president's absence, and where in 1888 the then president of the company, who in 1881 had been secretary, filled up the blanks, inserting his own name as shareholder, and forg- ing the signature of the person who had been treasurer in 1881 (which was the date borne by the certificate), and countersign- ing with his own name as secretary, the court held that the forger's authority to issue certificates dated in 1881 while he was secretary had absolutely determined upon his ceasing to hold the office of secretary, and consequently that even a bona fide purchaser or pledgee from the forger had no claim against the company by reason of the certificate.^ § 918. Certificates issued for unlawful Purposes. — It has been held by high authority that share-certificates issued in aid of rebellion will not create any estoppel prejudicial to the loyal E. & B. 327 (as to which see infra, R. B. Co. v. Franklin Bank, 60 Md. § 1474), and with established princi- 36. pies of the law of agency. But see Hill v. Jewett Publishing Cf. Mechanics Bank v. New York, Co., 154 Mass. 172; 38 N. E. 142; etc. R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599. 26 Am. St. Rep. 230; 13 L. R. A. ' Shaw V. Port Philip Mining Co., 193; Ruben v. Great Fingall Con^ 13 Q. B. D. 103; Fifth Avenue Bank solidated (1906), A. C. 439 (a mere V. Forty-second St., etc. R. R. Co., dictum, since the person in whose 137 N. Y. 231; 33 N. E. 378; 33 favor the estoppel was invoked was Am. St. Rep. 712; 19 L. R. A. 331; the person to whom the certificate Hetlman v. Forty-second St., etc. R. was issued and, therefore, under the R. Co., 74 Hun 529; 26 N. Y. Supp. circumstances was not entitled to 553, affinned short, 148 N. Y. 727; rely thereon). 42 N. E. 723; Tome v. Parkersburg ^ Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Branch R. R. Co., 39 Md. 36; 17 Forty-second St., etc. R. R. Co., 139 Am. Rep. 540. N. Y. 146; 34 N. E. 776. Note that Cf. Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Mutiud Life Ins. Co. v. Forty-second Co., 53 Hun (N. Y.) 362; 6 N. Y. St.,ete.R.R. Co., 74 Hun 505; 26 N. Supp. 703, affirmed, 148 N. Y. 652; Y. Supp. 545, a later case in a lower 43 N. E. 68; 31 L. R. A. 776; 51 New York court, would seem to be Am. St. Rep. 727; Western Md. inconsistent with the principal case. 740 § 832-§ 1011] REISSUED CERTIFICATES § 920 members of the company.' Perhaps this decision was due in part to unconscious political prejudice. At any rate, it would hardly be a safe generalization that certificates issued for any illegal purpose will be insufficient to raise an estoppel against the company. § 919. Certificate issued to one of the Officers who sign it on behalf of the Company. — The fact that one of the oflBcers who sign a share-certificate is the person named therein as the owner of the shares represented thereby is not deemed a sus- picious circumstance, and will not prevent the raising of an estoppel in favor of a bona fide purchaser who relies upon the certificate.^ The certificate is held to be sufiiciently authenti- cated by the signature of the other and disinterested officer, and by the corporate seal. There is nothing to excite suspicion in such a certificate as there is, according to many authorities, in a note payable to one of the officers who execute it on behalf of the company; for although officers should not ordinarily enter into contracts with the corporation, yet officers are usually shareholders and must have certificates as evidence of title. § 920. Certificate surrendered to Company and reissued with- out its Authority. — Where a share-certificate which has been surrendered to the corporation for cancellation is abstracted from the company's safe and sold to a bona fide purchaser by an employee who had access thereto, the company is not deemed chargeable with negligence even though the failure to cancel the certificates upon their surrender was a violation of the by- laws: and hence the company is not estopped from denying the title of the purchaser of the certificates to the shares pur- porting to be represented thereby.' ' Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. ton B. R. Co., 150 Mass. 406; 23 193. N. E. 109; 15 Am. St. Rep. 222; 5 Cf. Central R. R. & Banking Co. L. R. A. 849. V. Ward, 37 Ga. 515. ,Cf. Havens v. Bank of Tarboro, ' Tihisv. Great Western Turnpike 132 N. Car. 214; 43 S. E. 639; 95 Road, 61 N. Y. 237; Cincinnati, etc. Am. St. Rep. 627; Ludle Dreyfus Ry. Co. V. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 56 Mining Co. v. WiUard (Wash.), 89 Oh. St. 351; 47 N. E. 249; 43 Pac. 935, 938-940 (headnote in- L. R. A. 777 (overruling Cincinnati, adequate). ■etc. Ry. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 1 Oh. ' Knox v. Eden Musee Co., 148 CSrc.a. 199); Western Md. R. R. Co. N. Y. 441; 42 N. E. 988; 51 Am. ■v.FranUin Bank, 60 Md. 36, 47-48. St. Rep. 700; 31 L. R. A. 779. But see Farrington v. South Bos- Cf. supra, p. 739, n. 1. 741 § 921 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 921. Informal Certificates. — A share-certificate may estop the company, though not under the corporate seal, to the same effect as if the seal were duly affixed.' The seal, though usual, is not necessary in order to make the instrument a share-cer- tificate.^ Indeed, although the certificate expressly state that it shall not be deemed evidence of the holder's title, the estoppel may nevertheless be raised.^ However, the more informal the instrument be, and the less it resemble the ordinary and normal share-certificate, the more difficult it will be to raise an estoppel.* § 922-§ 923. Estoppel raised otherwise than by Issue of Share-Certificate. § 922. In general. — Whilst it would be too sweeping an assertion to say that a corporation can be estopped from deny- ing the title of a claimant to shares in no other way than by the issue of a share-certificate, yet that is far the most usual ground of estoppel. Other forms of representation sufficient to raise an estoppel, there may undoubtedly be; but they are rarely met with. Unless the company has issued a share-certificate, there is apt to be very great difficulty in making out a case of estoppel.' For instance, the regular payment of dividends to a claimant of shares may have the effect of lulling him into security and of leading him to believe his title to be unimpeachable, yet it does not amount to a representation made by the company with a view to being acted upon that his title is good, and conse- quently is no foundation for an estoppel." Likewise, entering a person's name in the register of shareholders does not, it is submitted, amount to a representation upon which he is en- titled to rely that his title needs no attention.' If, however, a ^ Mart V. Frontino Gold Mining Delaware Loan Co., 9 Houst. (Del.) Co., L. R. 5 Ex. Ill (headnote 354; 32 Atl. 980, although not called inadequate). a share-certificate would seem to " Cf. supra, § 512. have been such in legal effect. ' Hart V. Frontino Gold Mining ° Foster v. Tyne Pontoon, etc. Co., Co., L. R. 5 Ex. Ill (headnote 63 L. J. Q. B. 50, 54. inadequate). Cf. Hambleton v. Central Ohio * See infra, § 923, as to "cer- B. R. Co., 44 Md. 551. tification." ' Foster v. Tyne Pontoon, etc. Co., ° The instrument relied upon to 63 L. J. Q. B. 50, 55. raise an estoppel in Richardson v. But see Hart v. Frontino Gold 742 § 832-§ 1011] CEETIFICATION § 923 person whq is contemplating dealing in certain shares in- quires of the company/whether a certain share-certificate (which *in fact is forged) is valid and whether a transfer endorsed thereon is genuine, an affirmative answer will estop the com- pany from asserting as against him that the certificate is spurious and the supposed transferor and endorser a fictitious person.^ § 923. No Estoppel from Certification of Transfer. — The "certification" of a transfer according to the English custom cannot, at least as a general rule, be relied upon as foundation for an estoppel.^ A certification, as explained above, is an in- formal written statement given out by the company to the effect that a share-certificate has been lodged with the company by a certain person. But by reason of its informality and also be- cause of the fact that it is not intended to pass from hand to- hand or to be used like a share-certificate as evidence of the holder's title, the House of Lords has Held that, like a bill of lading, it is within the doctrine of Grant v. Norway, so that if the company's secretary "certificates" a transfer when in fact no share-certificate has been lodged with the company, his act is deemed to be without the scope of his authority and will not estop the company from showing that fact.' This decision of the House of Lords is sometimes cited in the United States as though it were applicable to ordinary share-certificates. This is a fundamental error, and overlooks the whole point of the case. The very ground of the decision was that the informal "certification" could not, like a formal share-certificate, be re- lied upon to raise an estoppel. Lord James of Hereford added an express caution: "The judgment now given must not be Mining Co., L. R. 5 Ex. Ill (head- 53 Hun (N. Y) 362; 6 N. Y. Supp. note inadequate); Ashby v. Black- 703, affirmed, 148 N. Y. 652; 43 well, 2 Eden 299, Ambler 503; Cev^ N. E. 68; 31 L. R. A. 776; 51 Am. tral R. R. & Banking Co. v. Ward, St. Rep. 727. 37 Ga. 515; Bank of England v. Cf. Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty- Cutter (1907), 1 K. B. 889 (where the second St., etc. R. R. Co., 137 N. Y. Bank of England by permitting 231; 33N. E. 378; 33 Am. St. Rep. registration of a forged transfer of 712; 19 L. R. A. 331; Mutual Life India Stock was held to be estopped Ins. Co. v. Forty-second St., etc. from denying the title of the trans- R. R. Co., 74 Hun (N. Y.) 505, feree to the prejudice of a subse- 514-517; 26 N. Y. Supp. 545. quent bona fide purchaser from " Supra, § 869. him). ' George Whitechurch, Ld. v. ' Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co., Cavanagh (1902), A. C. 117. 743 § 924 - TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV supposed to extend to certificates which are made, evidence of title by the Act of 1862, and which are passed under the seal of the company." * § 924^§ 944. RIOHTS AND LIABILITIES UPON PRES- ENTATION OF TRANSFER FOR REGISTRATION. § 924-§ 939. LIABILITIES OP COMPANY. § 924^§ 930. Duties and Rights of Company upon presentation of Transfer for Registration. § 924. Duty in general to register any valid Transfer when presented. — When a valid transfer is duly presented for regis- tration, the duty of the company is to register it and enter the transferee's name in the list of shareholders.^ Unless expressly conferred by statute or the company's regulations, neither the directors nor the shareholders in a corporation have any dis- cretion to decline to register a valid transfer.^ It makes no dif- ference that the transfer may be very prejudicial to the interests of the company.* For instance, the company cannot decline to register a transfer because the transferor is indebted for calls or otherwise, unless such a power is expressly conferred by the regulations ; * nor because the transferee is engaged in a rival ' George Whitechurch, Ld. v. Mvllanphy Sav. Bank, 8 Mo. App. Cavanagh (1902), A. C. 117, 134. 249; People ex rd. Bosqui v. Crock- ' As to the right to refuse to ett, 9 Cal. 112; Herdegen v. Cotz- register a transfer which is insufS- hausen, 70 Wise. 589 ; 36 N. W. 385 ; ciently stamped, see Maynard v. Herrick v. Humphrey Hardware Co. Consolidated Kent Collieries Corp. (Nebr.), 103 N. W. 685. Cf. infra, (1903), 2 K. B. 121. § 955. ' Weston's Case, 4 Ch. 20; GU- But see Ex parte Parker, 2 Ch. bert's Case, 5 Ch. 559, 665 (semble) ; 685 (where the court refused to order Imperial Starch Co., 10 Ont. L. R. registration of a transfer made to 22 (holding that express authority escape payment of certain calls the to regulate transfers does not justify making of which the transferor had a prohibition of transfers) ; Smith persuaded the directors to postpone V. Bank of Nova Scotia, 8 Can. Sup. for the very purpose of getting an Ct. 558. opportunity to effect the transfer). * Tovmsend v. Mclver, 2 S. Car. A shareholder may, by agree- 25. ment — for example, by accepting ' Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co., a share-certificate which states that 8 Pick. (Mass.) 90, 99-100; 19 Am. no transfer by a shareholder in- Dee. 306; Heart v. State Bank, 2 debted to the company will be per- Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) Ill; Carroll v. mitted — voluntarily give the com- 744 •• § 832-§ 1011] TIMES FOK REGISTRATION § 925 business.' In England, the transfer must be registered, although it be made to a man of straw for the very purpose of escaping liability as a shareholder,^ provided only it be not colorable merely — that is, provided the transferor retain no interest in the shares. In America, the company may always decline to register a transfer made to a man of straw in contemplation of insolvency on the part of the company for the purpose of escap- ing liability; ' but even with us a company cannot lawfully re- fuse to register a transfer merely because the transferee is in- solvent.* Indeed, the fact that the transferee is an undischarged bankrupt is no excuse for refusing to register the transfer.^ The motive or purpose of a transfer is generally quite immaterial so far as the duty of the company to register the transfer is con- cerned.' If, however, a transfer is executed to a corporation which has no corporate capacity to hold shares in another com- pany, registration of the transfer may be refused.' § 925. Right to regulate Times at which Transfers may be registered. — The company may, of course, refuse to receive transfers for registration at unreasonable hours. For instance, they are not bound to receive and register a transfer presented at midnight. So, too, as to the days on which transfers can be registered. They are not bound to register a transfer on Sunday, or on a holiday, or on Saturday or Wednesday, or any other day that they may deem inconvenient, so long as the right to pany a contractual right to refuse to * Sutton v. English & Colonial register a transfer. Reynolds ~ v. Produce Co. (1902), 2 Ch. 502. Bank of Mt. Verroon, 6 N. Y. App. » Re Klaus, 67 Wise 401 ; 29 Div. 62; 39 N. Y. Supp. 623, N. W. 582; State ex ret. Page v. affirmed short, 158 N. Y. 740; 53 Smith, 48 Vt. 266; Rice v. Rocke- N. E. 1131. See also supra, § 707, feller, 134 N. Y. 174; 31 N. E. 907; § 708. 30 Am. St. Rep. 658; 17 L. R. A. ' Rice V. Rockefeller, 134 N. Y. 237; Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. Car. 174; 31N. E. 907; 30 Am. St. Rep. 25; Senn v. Union, etc. Mercantile 658; 17L. R. A. 237. Co., 115 Mo. App. 685; 92 S. W. 507. ' Regina ex rel. Crea v. Midland Cf. infra, § 1217, as to transfers Counties Ry., 15 Ir. Com. L. 525; for the purpose of increasing trans- Weston's Case, 4 Ch. 20; Cawley & feror's voting rights. See also Co., 42 Ch. D. 209. Baker's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 510; 1 ' That such a transfer, even if Atl. 78; 56 Am. Rep. 231. registered, does not release the As to the power of a court of transferor from liability as a share- equity to refuse to aid a transfer holder, see supra, § 765. made for the purpose of wrecking * Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris, the company, see infra, § 934. 20 Mo. 382. ' See supra, § 878. 745 § 926 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV transfer is not, under color of such rules, substantially abridged. Moreover, companies may, and often do, close their transfer books temporarily for some reasonable time prior to a share- holder's meeting,' or to the declaration of a dividend.^ If this were not done, it might be difficult to determine who should have the right to vote at the meeting or to receive the dividend. § 926. Right to refuse to register Transfers after Insolvency of Company. — Furthermore, when the company is insolvent and after the directors have resolved, subject to the approval of a shareholders' meeting, to go into liquidation, they may direct that no transfers subsequently received shall be registered.^ Such a step is regarded as a reasonable preliminary to the winding-up, and is proper in order to preserve the statiis in quo for the benefit of creditors and to prevent all solvent shareholders from assigning their shares and escaping liability. This rule, which prevails in England as well as in the United States, is in some ways a close approximation to the American doctrine which, as stated above, precludes a shareholder from trans- ferring his shares to a man of straw in contemplation of the company's insolvency for the purpose of escaping liability.^ However, the company cannot refuse to register a transfer which was made and presented for registration before the company's insolvency, although after presentation of the transfer the com- pany has become insolvent.^ Moreover, where a bank which has suspended payment resolves not to go into liquidation but to attempt to rehabilitate itself, it cannot refuse to register trans- fers subsequently made by its shareholders." § 927. Right to delay for Consideration of Validity of Transfer. — Moreover, a company is never bound to register a transfer ' Cook v. Carpenter (Pa.), 61 ' A. Mitchell's Case, 4 A. C. 548; Atl. 804; 212 Pa. 177. N. Mitchell v. City of Glascow Bank, Contra: Panton and the Cramp 4 A. C. 624. Steel Co., 9 Ont; L. R. 3. Cf. Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. ' Jones v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. 27, 56-59; 7 Sup. Ct. 788; Violet Co., 57 N. Y. 196, 202 (semble — Consolidated Gold Mining Co., 80 where the company adopted the un- L. T., n. s., 684. usual and, as the court held, unrea- * Supra, § 765. sonable course of opening the books ' Nation's Case, 3 Eq. 77. again for a day or two immediately ° Smith v. Bank of Nova Scotia, before the declaration of the divi- 8 Can. Sup. Ct. 558. dend). 746 § 832-§ 1011] DUTIES OF CORPORATION § 928 forthwith upon its presentation : ' a reasonable delay for the purpose of investigating the genuineness of the transfer is always justifiable.^ Indeed, in England, the common practice seems to be, upon presentation of a transfer, to post a letter of inquiry to the address of the person named as transferor;' and not until the expiration of a reasonable time for reply to this letter or until an answer recognizing the transfer as genuine is actually received, will the company proceed with registration. In the United States such care and deliberation are not usually prac- tised, but are nevertheless always permissible and proper. A peremptory refusal to register, however, not placed upon the ground of a desire to investigate the transfer, is not justifiable because the company might properly have demanded time for investigation.* Moreover, temporizing on the part of the com- pany will not be tolerated; and evasive, dilatory answers to a request to register a transfer will be equivalent to an absolute refusal.^ § 928. Right to demand Evidence of Validity — Production of Transferor's Certificate, etc. — The company may also require the person who presents a transfer for registration to adduce reasonable evidence of its genuineness. Precisely what evidence shall be required rests within the discretion of the ofiicers of the company. To insist upon the production of the transferor's share-certificate is certainly a reasonable -requirement ; ° and indeed in most cases, at least in America, a surrender of the certificate would be necessary in order to relieve the company ' Cf. Tucker v. MvUigan, 28 Vict. " Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 11 L. R. 1 (holding that under the com- A. C. 426; Societe G'enerale de Paris pany's articles of association four- v. Walker, 11 A. C. 20; State ex rel. teen days were to be allowed for Martin v. New Orleans, etc. R. R. registering a transfer). Co., 30 La. Ann. 308; Supply Ditch ' Societe Generale de Paris v. Co. v. Elliott, 10 Colo. 327; 15 Pac. Walker, 11 A. C. 20, 41; Ireland v. 691; 3 Am. St. Rep. 586; Isbdl v. Hart (1902), 1 Ch. 522, 528-529 Grat/ftii^, 19 Colo. App. 508; 76 Pac. (headnote inadequate). 650. ' See Barton v. London & N. W. Cf. Shropshire Union Rys., etc. Ry. Co., 24 Q. B. D. 77; Johnston Co. v. Queen, L. R. 7 H. L. 496; V. Renton, 9 Eq. 181. National Bank v. Lake Shore, etc. ' * Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines Ry. Co., 21 Oh. St. 221 (where (1893), 1 Ch. 618. plaintiff claimed under an attach- Cf. Ex parte Sargint, 17 Eq. 273. ment against an equitable owner of ' Goodwin v. Ottawa, etc. Ry. Co., 13 Up. Can. C. P. 254. 747 § 929 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV from liability in case the certificate should subsequently turn up in the hands of somebody else.' If the certificate is proved to be lost or destroyed the company may be required to register the transfer if a suflScient bond of indemnity be given ; ^ but the directors are not guilty of a wrong in re- fusing to accept a bond which they honestly deem insuffi- cient,^ The company may require the transferor's certificate to be not merely exhibited for a hasty inspection, but may also require it to be deposited and left at the transfer office for examination at leisure, before a transfer will be regis- tered ; * but the failure to deposit the certificate cannot be relied upon to excuse the refusal to register the transfer if the refusal was placed exclusively on another ground/ That the transfer fails to state the address of the transferor or to specify the denoting numbers of the shares is no ground for refusing registration, even where the regulations of the company require all transfers to be "in the usual common form." • § 929. Where Transferor is Trustee or other Fiduciary. — If the shares are held in trust, reasonable evidence of the authority of the trustee to transfer them may properly be required.' § 930. Right to demand Evidence of Acceptance by Trans- feree. — A corporation before registering a transfer of shares may properly demand satisfactory evidence of acceptance on the part of the transferee, and cannot be compelled to register a transfer to a person who refuses to accept the same even though that refusal be a breach of a contract between him and the trans- feror.* The necessity for acceptance on the transferee's part ' See supra, § 910. ' Letheby & Christopher (1904), See also Smith v. Am. Coal Co., 1 Ch. 815 (headnote inadequate). 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 317. ' Bayard v. Farmers', etc. Bank, ' Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 11 52 Pa. St. 232. A. C. 426, 437-438 (semble, per Cf. First Nat. Bank v. National Lord Blackburn); Kinnan v. Forty- Broadway Bank, 156 N. Y. 459; 51 second St., etc. Ry. Co., 140 N. Y. N. E. 398; 42 L. R. A. 139; 183; 35 N. E. 498. Cf. supra, lissy v. Cook & Bernheimer Co., 58 § 516. ^ N. Y.App. Div. 283; 68N. Y. Supp. ^ Sodete Generale de Paris v. 995. Walker, 11 A. C. 20. As to what is sufficient evidente * East Wheal Mining Co., 33 of an executor's authority to trans- Beav. 119. fer shares, see infra, § 981. ' Bond V. Mount Hope Iron Co., ' Bussdl v. Easterbrook, 71 Conn. 99 Mass. 505; 97 Am. Dec. 49. 50; 40 Atl. 905. 748 § 832-§ 1011] REMEDIES OF TRANSFEROR § 932 and the effect of a transfer registered without such acceptance have been discussed above.' § 931. To whom Transfer should be presented for Registration. — The demand that a transfer be registered should ordinarily be made upon the officer or agent in charge of the transfer books. A demand on the person in charge of the company's principal office is prima facie sufficient.^ A demand outside the office may have the same effect as if made within its four walls.^ § 932- § 934. Remedies against Company for wrongfully refusing to register Transfer. § 932. Remedies of Transferor. — If a corporation wrong- fully refuses to register a transfer, the transferor has several remedies. First, he may perhaps sue out a writ of mandamus to compel the company to perform its duty by registering the transfer.* Or, secondly, he may have the same relief upon bill in equity.' Or, thirdly, he may treat the company's action as a conversion of his shares, and sue for damages." If he pursue the latter course, he is entitled to recover the value of the shares at the time when the company wrongfully refused to register the transfer.' If instead of claiming full damages the transferor ' See supra, § 872-§ 879. » Craig v. Hesperia, etc. Co., 113 ' Commercial Bank v. Kort- Cal. 7; 45 Pac. 10; 54 Am. St. right, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 348, 350- Rep. 316; 35 L. R. A. 306; WUhers 351; 34 Am. Dec. 317. v. Lafayette County Bank, 67 Mo. But of. Bridgeport Bank v. New App. 115; Humphreys v. Minnesota York, etc. R. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231, Clay Co., 94 Minn. 469; 103 N. W. 272 (semble). 338. ' Dooley v. Gladiator, etc. Co. But see Penfold v. Charlevoix (Iowa), 109 N. W. 864. Sav. Bank, 103 N. W. 572 (headnote * Townsendv.McIver, 2 S.Ca,T.25. inadequate); 140 Mich. 126. But see Rex v. Bank of England, As to whether an action ex con- 2 Doug. 525; Terrell v. Georgia R. tractu could be maintained, see Case R., etc. Co., 115 Ga. 104; 41 S. E. v. Bank, 100 U. S. 446 (headnote 262; 2 Dos Passos on Stock Brokers inadequate). and Stock Exchanges, 2d ed., 848- ' Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines 858._ (1893), 1 Ch. 618. °"This relief may be barred by But see Penfold' v. Charlevoix laches. See Gresham v. Island City Sav. Bank, 103 N. W. 572; 140 Savings Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. ^2; Mich. 126. 21 S. W. 556. 749 § 933 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV elect to retain the shares, he cannot subsequently recover more than his actual damages, as in any other case of conversion of a chattel where the plaintiff has retaken possession before the case is tried. In one case, it was held that the transferor who has lost a good sale by the company's refusal to register the transfer, and who afterwards in consequence of a decline in the price of the shares realized much less for them, cannot charge the company with the difference, but that his damages must be nominal merely.' The decision was placed upon the ground that the company had no notice of the special terms of the first contract of sale, and therefore under the rule in Hadley v. Baxerv- dale could not be charged with special damages arising from the frustration of that contract. Without venturing to question the actual decision, one may be permitted to doubt whether the court in assigning its reason for its conclusion did not over- look the fact that the transferor's cause of action sounded in tort for a conversion. § 933. Remedies of Person selling Shares under a Power. — It has been held that a pledgee of shares with a power of sale in case of default may sue the company for damages if the latter refuses to register a transfer in pursuance of a sale made under the power.' But in connection with this decision the fact should be borne in mind that a pledgee of shares is not an actual share- holder and that apart from authority serious question might be raised whether he could maintain an action at law in his own name against the company for refusing to recognize his power of sale. § 934. Remedies o£ Transferee. — Upon principle, where registration of a transfer is wrongfully refused,^ the transferee has substantially the same remedies as the transferor against the company, notwithstanding the fact that the very ques- tion at issue is his right to be deemed a member. Thus, the transferee may compel the company by mandamus * or bill in ' Skinner v. CUy of London Ma^ * Green Mount, etc. Co. v. BuUa, Tine Ins. Corp., 14 Q. B. D. 882. 45 Ind. 1; Hair v. Burnett, 106 Fed. ' Case V. Bank, 100 U. S. 446. 280 (where the writ was against ' As to whether the transfer need the officers of the company) ; Cooper actually be presented for registra- v. Dismal Swamp Canal Co., 6 N. tion before the aid of the courts is Car. 195; Tovmsend v. Mclver, 2 invoked, see Richardson v. Long- S. Car. 25 ; Smith v. Automatic Pho- mont Ditch Co., 19 Colo. App. 483; tog^aphic Co., 118 111. App. 649; 76 Pac. 546. State ex rd. Jurgens v. Consumers' 750 § 832-§ 1011] REMEDIES OF TRANSFEREE §934 equity ' to register the transfer. That the transfer was without consideration does not diminish the transferee's rights,^ nor is the Brewing Co., 40 So. 45; 115 La. 782. But see contra: Shipley v. Me- chanics Bank, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 484; Kimbail v. Union Water Co., 44 Cal. 173; 13 Am. Rep. 157; Ex parte Firemen's Ins. Co., 6 Hill (N. Y.) 243; Tobey v. Hakes, 54 Conn. 274; 7 Atl. 551; 1 Am. St. Rep. 114 (where the proceeding was against the company's secretary); State ex rd. Bornefidd v. Romhauer, 46 Mo. 155 (proceeding against the company's president) ; Wilkinson V. Providence Bank, 3 R. I. 22 ; Birm- ingham Fire Ins. Co. v. Common- wealth, 92 Pa. St. 72; Durham v. Monumental Silver Mining Co., 9 Oreg. 41 ; Stackpole v. Seymour, 127 Mass. 104 (proceeding against com- pany's president and treasurer); Murray v. Stevens, 110 Mass. 95 (against president and secretary); Freon v. Carriage Co., 42 Oh. St. 3d; 51 Am. Rep. 794 (where the shares were not salable on the market); Gblbraith v. People's Bldg. & Lodn Ass'n, 43 N. J. Law 389. Cf. Regina v. Liverpool, etc. Ry. Co., 21 L. J. Q. B. 284 (where the writ was refused because it was thought that the applicant was not proceeding bona fide) ; BvMerfly Ter- rible Oold Mining Co. v. Brind (Colo.), 91 Pac. 1101 (writ refused because petition did not allege that any by-laws there might be as to transfers had been complied with); Crawford v. Provincial Ins. Co., 8 Up. Can. C. P. 263 (mandamus re- fused on the ground that registra- tion was under the statutes appli- cable to this company unnecessary to perfect transferee's title) ; 2 Dos Passos- on Stock Brokers and Stock Exchanges, 2d ed., 848-858 (con- taining an elaborate discussion of the question). The mandamus may run against the corporation without making its officers parties defendant. Good- win V. Ottawa, etc. Ry. Co., 13 Up. Can. C. P. 254. ' Rice V. RockefeUer, 134 N. Y. 174; 31 N. E. 907; 30 Am. St. Rep. 658; 17 L. R. A. 237; Cushman v. Thayer Mfg. Jewelry Co., 76 N. Y. 365; 32 Am. Rep. 315; Feckheimer V. Nat. Exchange Bank, 79 Va. 80; Real Estate Trust Co. v. Bird, 90 Md. 229; 44 Atl. 1048; Buckmaster V. Consumers' Ice Co., 5 Daly (N. Y.) 313; Hubbard v. Bank of U. S., 12 Fed. Cas. 777; Spencer v. James, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 327; 31 S. W. 540; 43 S. W. 556; Mechanics Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299; Scherck V. Montgomery, 33 So. 507; 81 Miss. 426 ; Westminster Nat. Bank v. New England Electric Works, 62 Atl. 971; 73 N. H. 465; 111 Am. St. Rep. 637; Gould v. Head, 41 Fed. 240, 248 (bill maintained against the company's officers without join- ing the company itself as defendant). Cf. Gresham v. Island City Sav. Bank, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 52; 21 S. W. 656 (where the plaintiff was held to be barred by the laches of the trans- feror); Archer v. American Water Works Co., 50 N. J. Eij. 33; 24 Atl. 508. But see Cooper v. Dismal Swamp Canal Co., 6 N. Car. 195. Qucere, whether the transferor is a necessary party to the bill. Cf. Buffalo German Ins. Co. v. Third Nat. Bank, 19 N. Y. Misc. 564; 43 N. Y. Supp. 550; Mechanics Bank V. Seton, 1 Pet. 299, 306; Balti- more Retort, etc. Co. v. Mali, 65 Md. 93; 3 Atl. 286; 57 Am. St. Rep. 304; Wadlinger v. First Nat. Bank, 209 Pa. 197; 58 Atl. 359; Thornton V. MaHin, 116 Ga. 115; 42 S. E. 348. ^ Cushman v. Thayer Mfg. Jew- elry Co., 76 N. Y. 365; 32 Am. Rep. 315; GUkinson v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. App. Div. 472; 63 N. 751 § 934 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV illegality of the consideration any defence to the company.' But if the transferee's object is to acquire control of the company for the purpose of wrecking it, a court of equity may refuse to lend him its aid.^ It is no answer to a bill in equity to compel exe- cution of a transfer that the company has previously registered another transfer of the same shares without requiring a sur- render of the certificate, if the company and the transferee in the last-mentioned transfer were all the time apprised of plain- tiff's rights.' If the transferee neglects for a long period of time to present the transfer for registration, he may be held to be estopped, or barred by laches, from obtaining relief ; * but there is also authority, supported by weighty reasons, for the view that no mere delay in presenting the transfer should operate as a bar.^ If the transferor has executed an agreement, of which the transferee had notice, to assent to a plan for the winding-up of the company or its consolidation with another corporation, a court of equity in directing the transfer to be registered may qualify its decree with a proviso that the transferee should be bound by the agreement to the same extent as the transferor." It would seem also that the transferee should have the right to maintain an action for damages on the theory that the legal title to the shares vested in him as soon as an immediate right to be registered as shareholder accrued, and that the company by refusing to recognize his legal title converted the shares, and should be liable to him as in trover.' The transferee has also Y. Supp. 792; Senn v. Union etc., ^ Barker v. Montana Gold, etc. Mercantile Co., 115 Mo. App. 685, Co. (Mont.), 8'9 Pac. 66. 696 (headnote inadequate) ; 92 S. W. " Senn v. Union, etc. Mercantile 507. See supra, § 884. Co., 115 Mo. App. 685; 92 S. W. 507. ' Crenshaw v. Columbian Mining ' Ottos Kopje Diamond Mines Co., UOMo. App. 355; 86 S. W. 260. (1893), 1 Ch. 618; Trust & Savings ' Gould V. Head, 41 Fed. 240; Co. v. Harm Lumber Co., 118 Mo. Senn v. Union, etc. Mercantile Co., 447; 24 S. W. 129 (where the meas- 115 Mo. App. 685; 92 S. W. 507 ure of damages was considered); (semble). Hussey v. Manufacturers', etc. Bank, = Cushman v. Thayer Mfg. Jew- 10 Pick. (Mass.) 415; Wain's As- elry Co., 76 N. Y. 365, 370; 32 Am. signees v. Bank of North America, 8 Rep. 315. S. & R. (Pa.) 73; 11 Am. Dec. 575; * Newberry v. Detroit, etc. Iron Nicollet Nat. Bank v. City Bank, 38 Co., 17 Mich. 141. Minn. 85; 35 N. W. 577; 8 Am. St. Cf. Pueblo Sav. Bank v. Richard- Rep. 643; Helm v. Svnggett, 12 Ind. son (Colo.), 89 Pac. 799 (where a 194; German Union, etc. Ass'n v. statute required the transfer to be Sendmeyer, 50 Pa. St. 67 (bearing presented within sixty days). also on the measure of damages); 752 § 832-§ 1011] REMEDIES OF TRANSFEREE §934 been allowed to recover in assumpsit.' •The action may be main- tained where the secretary of the company refuses to register the transfer, although the transferee is the head ofiScer of the com- pany and might perhaps have registered the transfer himself.^ The fact that the transfer was executed in pursuance of an illegal gambling contract is no defence to the company when the objec- tion has not been raised by the transferor.^ The statute of limi- tations does not begin to run until the transferee is notified that his title is disputed by the company.* The transferee may in the same action recover any dividends that have accrued since he became entitled and which have been wrongfully withheld from him ; ° or, the transferee whose title the company has wrongfully refused to recognize may in a separate action recover any such dividends from the company without first compelling the company, by bill in equity, to enter the transfer on its books.® Mount Hotly, etc. Co. v. Perree, 17 N. J. Eq. 117 (semble); McLean v. Medicine Co., 96 Mich. 479; 56 N. W. 68 (an action on the case in which it was held that only nominal damages were recoverable); Mc- Murrich v. Bond Head Harbour Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 333; Ral- ston v. Bank of California, 112 Cal. 208; 44 Pac. 476; Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns, 82 Tex. 50; 17 S. W. 1043; Protection Life Ins. Co. V. Osgood, 93 111. eS; Second' Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 8 N. Dak. 50; 76 N. W. 504 (as to measure of damages where transferee holds as collateral security merely); Baltic more City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Sewdl, 35 Md. 239; 6 Am. Rep. 402; Her- rick V. Humphrey Hardware Co. (Nebr.), 103 N. W. 685; Dooley v. Gladiator, etc. Co. (Iowa), 109 N. W. 864 (value at time of refusal recov- erable notwithstanding subsequent offer to recognize plaintiff's rights). ' Sargent v. Franklirk, Ins. Co., 8 Pick. (Mass.) 90; 19 Am. Dec. 306; Commercial Bank v. Kort- right, 22 Wend. (N. Y.) 348; 34 Am. Dec. 317. Cf. Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns, 82 Tex. 50, 57; 17 S. W. 1043. ' McMurrich v. Bond Head Har- bour Co., 9 Up. Can. Q. B. 333. ' Miller v. Houston City, etc. Ry. Co., 55 Fed. 366; 5 C. C. A. 134. * Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Robbins, 35 Oh. St. 483. ' Baltimore City Pass. Ry. Co. v. Sewell, 35 Md. 239; 6 Am. Rep. 402. The soundness of this de- cision on this point may perhaps be doubted because any dividends that accrued prior to a demand by the transferee were, so far as the company was concerned, pay- able to the transferor. See Cleve- land, etc. R. R. Co. v. Robbins, 35 Oh. St. 483; Brisbane v. Dela- ware, etc. R. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 204; in which cases the company was held not liable to the transferee and holder of the certificate for paying dividends to the transferor and per- sons to whom by a subsequent transfer the transferor assigned the shares. Cf. infra, § 1369. ° Hill V. Atoka Coal, etc. Co., 21 S. W. Rep. 508 (Mo.) ; Robinson v. Nat. Bank of New Beirne, 95 N. Y. 637. VOL. I. — 48 753 § 935 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 935^ § 939. LidhUily of Company for registering invalid Transfer. § 935. Company in Dilemma when disputed Transfer presented for Registration — Interpleader. — When a transfer of shares is presented for registration, the company is in a strait betwixt two. If the company refuses to register the transfer and the refusal turns out to have been wrongful, the company may be held liable, according to the principles stated above. If on the other hand, it registers the transfer, and afterwards the fact transpires that the transfer was forged or otherwise invalid, the company is then liable to the true owner of the shares. Accordingly, if the company is in doubt whether a transfer ought to be regis- tered or not, a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader may be filed against the various claimants ; ^ but if the company decides the question for itself and registers the transfer, it can- not subsequently file a bill to require the claimants to interplead.* § 936. Right of Owner of Shares to enjoin Registration of In- vaUd Transfer or to compel Company to cancel same if registered. — The true owner of shares may enjoin the company from regis- tering a void transfer;^ or if his name is improperly stricken from the register in pursuance of a spurious or otherwise invalid transfer, he may compel the company to restore his name, prob- ably by a writ of mandamus at law, and certainly by bill in equity.* The transferee or person whose name was substituted ' Cody V. PoUer, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 57 Am. Dec. 520; Telegraph Co. v. 463. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369; Ashby v. ' Mount Holly, etc. Co. v. Ferree, BlackwM, 2 Eden 299, Ambler 503 17 N. J. Eq. 117 (headnote inade- (headnote inadequate); Pratt v. quate); Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, Taunton Copper Co., 123 Mass. 110; 164 111. 323, 330; 45 N. E. 534. 25 Am. Rep. 37; Blaisdell v. Bohr, But see Cady v. Potter, 55 Barb. 68 Ga. 56; Chicago Edison Co. v. (N. Y.) 463; Lakewood Gas Co. v. Fay, 164 111. 323; 45 N. E. 534; Smith, 51 Atl. 152, 153 (headnote in- HUdyard v. South Sea Co., 2 P. Wms. adequate); 62 N. J. Eq. 677 (where 76; Chew v. Bank of Baltimore, 14 one of the officers by abuse of his Md. 299; Herbert Kraft Co. v. Bank authority had procured the issuance of Orland, 133 Cal. 64; 65 Pac. 143; of a share-certificate to himself). McLaughlin v. Daily Telegraph ^ Reynolds v. Touzalin Imp. Co., Newspaper, 1 Comm. L. R. (Aust.) 87 N. W. 24; 62 Nebr. 236. 243 (where transferor was a lunatic); * Johnston V. Renton, 9 Eq. 181 Ashton v. Heggerty, 130 Cal. 516 (headnote inadequate); Pollock v. (where it was said that the trans- National Bank, 7 N. Y. 274, 276; ferees were necessary parties). 754 § 832-§ 1011] REGISTRATION OF INVALID TRANSFER § 937 for that of the complainant may properly be joined as a co- defendant to such a bill ; ' but he is not an indispensable party.^ In a New York case, it was said that if the company should be unable to restore the shares, it might be compelled to pay their "value; ' but it would seem always to be legally possible to restore the shares by cancelling the entry of the transfer, and that if the owner asks that form of relief he should have it.^ The statute of limitations does not begin to run against the right to file such a bill until a demand and refusal to restore the complainant's name to the register.^ In addition to this relief, the true owner of the shares may require the company to pay to him any dividends which were payable while his name was erased from the register, and which were paid to the person whose name was wrongfully substituted.* Simple interest calculated from the time when the company became assured of the invalidity of the transfer is also recoverable.' § 937. Liability of Company to Owner in Damages for regis- tering invalid Transfer. — As an alternative to these remedies the true owner of the shares may elect to treat the registration of the forged or otherwise invalid transfer as a conversion of his shares by the company, and may accordingly sue the company for damages.' So, if a trustee of shares is knowingly permitted ' Johnston v. Renton, 9 Eq. 181 ;" etc. R. R. Co. v. RobUns, 35 Oh. St. SewaU V. Boston Water Power Co., 4 483. Allen (Mass.) 277; 81 Am. Dec. ' Johnston v. Renton, 9 Eq. 181; 701 (where no objection on account SewaU v. Boston Water Power Co., 4 of the joinder was raised). Allen (Mass.) 277, 282-283 (head- Cf. Chicago Edison Co. v. Fay, note inedaquate) ; 81 Am. Dec. 701 ; 164 111. 323, 330; 45 N. E. 534; Pollock v. National Bank, 7 N. Y. Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56. 274, 279 (headnote inadequate) ; 57 ' Barton v. London & N. W. Ry. Am. Dec. 520; Telegraph Co. v. Co., 38 Ch. D. 144. But see Astora Davenport, 97 U. S. 369; Telford, V. Heggerty, 130 Cal. 516. etc. Co. v. Gerhab (Pa.), 13 Atl. 90 ' Pollock V. National Bank, 7 N. (headnote inadequate); Ashby v. y. 274; 57 Am. Dec. 520. Blackwell, 2 Eden 299; Ambler 503 * But see SewaU v. Boston Water (headnote inadequate). Power Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 277; 81 Cf. Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. R. Am. Dec. 701 (where an alternative R. Co., 94 N. Y. 204. decree for a restoration of the shares ' Chew v. Bank of Baltimore, 14 or for their value was passed). Md. 299, 320. Cf. Telegraph Co. v. Davenport, ' SewaU v. Boston Water Power 97 U. S. 369. Co., 4 Allen (Mass.) 277; 81 Am. » Barton v. North Staffordshire Dec. 701 ; Bank of Attica v. Manu- Ry. Co., 38 Ch. D. 458; Cleveland, facturers', etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 501; 755 § 938 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV by the company to transfer the shares in violation of his trust to a purchaser or pledgee for value, the corporation is liable to the cestui que truM} The liability of the company in damages for registering a transfer cannot be determined upon a bill of interpleader filed by the corporation for the purpose of ascer- taining to which of two claimants dividends on the shares should be paid.^ The wrongful registration of a transfer being a tort in the nature of a conversion of the true owner's interest, it follows that all persons who aid or incite the wrong are liable as well as the company itself.^ § 938. Liability of Company for failing to reqiiire Surrender of Transferor's Certificate. — If the company registers a transfer without exacting a surrender of the share-certificate, so that the legal title to the shares is vested in the transferee, a cestui que tru^t whose equitable interest in the shares has thus been cut off by purchase for value may have an action against the com- pany for damages.* Indeed, the broad principle is accepted in America if not in England that if a company registers a transfer without insisting upon a surrender of the share-certificate, it will be liable to any hona fide holder of the certificate.^ § 939. Estoppel of Owner to proceed against Company for reg- istering invalid Transfer. — Any circumstances which would estop the true owner of shares from disputing the title of a bona fide purchaser claiming under an invalid transfer will also estop such owner from holding the company liable for registering the trans- fer in good faith in the ordinary course of business. This estop- pel would prevent an action for damages against the company. It would also prevent a bill in equity to require the issue of Telegraph Co. v. Davenport, 97 U. S. As to liability for registering wrong- 369; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. ful transfers by executors, see infra, Norman, 4 Md. 352 (demand and § 981. refusal to restore plaintiff's name to ' Salisbury Mills v. Tovmsend, register not condition precedent to 109 Mass. 115. action for conversion) ; Mayor, etc. ' Greenleaf v. Ludington, 15 Wise. of Baltimore v. Ketchurfi, 57 Md. 23 558; 82 Am. Dec. 698. (holding that action may be main- * A'^. Y., etc. R. R. Co. v. Schuy- tained without showing that claim- ler, 34 N. Y. 30, 81-86 (headnote ant under invalid transfer is a bona inadequate). Cf. infra, § 989. fide purchaser). Cf. Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. R. But see Telford, etc. Co. v. Ger- B. Co., 94 N. Y. 204; Smith v. Am. hah (Pa.), 13 Atl. 90. Coal Co., 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 317. ' Lowry v. Commercial, etc. Bank, ' See supra, § 910. Taney 310. See infra, § 989, et seq. 756 § 832-§ 1011] KEGISTKATION OF INVALID TRANSFER § 94] new share-certificates to the owner if certificates have been pre- viously issued honestly to a person claiming under the invahd transfer and have come, or may have come, into the possession of a holder for value whose title the company would be estopped from denying.' § 940- § 941. Liability of Claimant under invalid Transfer which is wrongfully registered. § 940. Liability to true Owner of the Shares. — Besides his various remedies against the company, the owner of shares whose name is stricken from the register of shareholders in pur- suance of a forged or otherwise invalid transfer has valuable rights against the transferee whose name is substituted for his own.^ Presumably, he may sue him in an action in the nature of trover for conversion of the shares.^ Certainly he may recover from him any dividends paid to him by the company.* These rights of course exist only in cases in which the true owner is not estopped from denying the validity of the transfer in ques- tion. It has been held that in an action of trover by an alleged owner of shares against a person whose name has been regis- tered in his stead, a judgment in an action by the plaintiff against the corporation whereby the corporation was exonerated from liability to the plaintiff for registering the transfer is admis- sible in evidence to prove that the plaintiff is without title to the shares claimed by him.' § 941. Liability to the Company. — Where the company has treated a transferee as shareholder under a mistaken belief that the transfer is genuine, any dividends paid to him as shareholder may be recovered back by the company as money paid under mistake of fact.' Of course, the transferee cannot be required to repay the dividends to the corporation and also to pay the ' Pennsylvania R. B. Co.'s Ap- charged with notice of the invalidity peal, 86 Pa. St. 80. of his title). ^ Cf. Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56; But see O'Dwyer v. Verdon, 115 Harrison v. Pryse, Barnard. Ch. N. Y. App. Div. 37. 324. * Johnston v. Renton, 9 Eq. 181 ; But see Pratt v. Taunton Copper Hildyardv.SouthSeaCo.,2P.WTaB.76. Co., 123 Mass. 110; 25 Am. Rep. ' O'Dwyer v. Verdon, 115 N. Y. 37. App. Div. 37. ' Anderson v. Nicholas, 28 N. Y. » Foster v. Tj/ne Pontoon, etc. Co., 600 (where the transferee was 63 L. J. Q. B. 50. 757 § 942 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XY amount of them to the true owner of the shares. Recovery by the company would be a bar to a claim by the true owner against the transferee. And the amount recovered by the com- pany from the transferee would be held in trust for the true owner of the shares. Of course, if the company be estopped from denying the validity of the transfer, as we have seen above may be the case, the transferee would be under no liability to the company. As the transferee or his agent usually presents the transfer for registration, the transferee often incurs the lia- bility attaching to any person who presents an invalid transfer for registration — a matter which is considered below.* § 942. Liability of Person who presents invalid Transfer for Registration. — A person who presents a transfer for registra- tion impliedly asserts its genuineness. If the transfer is in fact forged, he is liable to the company for any damages it may suffer in acting thereon although he was quite ignorant of the forgery ; ^ and if the transfer is executed by an agent or attorney, he is liable unless the agent or attorney had in fact authority to execute the same.' The same rules apply where the transfer is invalid because of the lunacy or other incapacity of the transferor.* If after the registration of a forged transfer the shares are assigned to a bona fide purchaser, and the person whose name was forged calls upon the company to cancel the transfer and issue another certificate to him, the company may give notice of this claim to the person who presented the forged transfer, and ■ Infra, § 942. land v. Cutter (1907), 1 K. B. 889 ^ Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay (where a person who introduced the (1905), A. C. 392 (overruUng the transferor for the purpose of identi- judgment of Lindley, J., in Anglo- fying him was held to warrant his American Tel. Co. v. Spurling, 5 Q. identity with the registered owner). B. D. 188) ; Starkey v. Bank of Eng- ' Clarkson Home v. Missouri, etc. land (1903), A. C. 114; Clarkson Ry. Co., 182 N. Y. 47; 74 N. E. 571 Home V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 182 (depending partly on a rule of the N. Y. 47; 74N. E. 571; Boston, etc. stock exchange). R. R. Co. V. Richardson, 135 Mass. * McLaughlin v. Daily Tde- 473; HUdyard v. South Sea Co., 2 graph Newspaper, 1 Comm. L. R. P. Wms. 76 (disapproved in, and (Aust.) 243, 280 (headnote inade- perhaps overruled by Ashby v. Black- quate). well, Ambler 603); Bank of Eng- 758 § 832- § 1011] REGISTRATION OF INVALID TRANSFER § 943 may require him to pay its costs in resisting the claim as well as the amount which the company may have expended in pur- chasing shares in the market in order to respond to the claim.' So, if the company pays dividends to the transferee who presented the forged transfer, and is afterwards compelled to cancel the transfer, reinstate the true owner, and pay the dividends to him, the amount of the dividends may be recovered back from the person who presented the forged transfer.^ A fortiori, the company may on bill in equity require the person who presented the transfer to surrender the share-certificate which the com- pany issued to him and the validity of which in the hands of a bona fide purchaser the company would be estopped from denying.^ The liability of the person who presents an invalid transfer for registration is founded not merely on an implied warranty of the validity of the transfer, in which case the statute of limi- tations would begin to run forthwith, but rather upon an implied contract of indemnity, so that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the company suffers a loss by being compelled to respond to the true owner of the shares in damages or other- wise.* On the other hand, where the company registers a forged transfer of stock and the stock is afterwards transferred by the forger to a bona fide purchaser, the company upon discovering the forgery is not bound to strike out the forged transfer, and remove the name of the bona fide purchaser from the register, but may purchase stock in the market for the original owner without waiting for the bona fide purchaser to set up a claim by estoppel, and may thereupon sue' the person who presented the forged transfer for indemnity against the loss sustained on the purchase of the stock in the market.* § 943. Liability of Transferor in and about Registration of Transfer. — As will be more fully explained below, to procure the registration of a transfer is the part of the transferee rather ' Boston, etc. R. B. Co. v. Ricfi- ' Brown v. Howard Fire Ins. Co., ardson, 135 Mass. 473. 42 Md. 384; 20 Am. Rep. 90. ' Hildyard v. South Sea Co., 2 P. * Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay "Wms. 76 (disapproved in and per- (1905), A. C. 392, 404-405 (headnote haps overruled by Ashby v. Black- inadequate). -well. Ambler 503); Hambleton v. « Bank of England v. Cutler Central Ohio R. R. Co., 44 Md. (1907), 1 K. B. 889. 551. 759 § 944 TRANSFEE AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV than of the transferor.' It follows that the transferor is under no active duties in the matter. He is, however, bound to do nothing to interfere with the transferee in his endeavor to have the transfer registered. If at his instance the company refuses or postpones the registration of the transfer, he is liable to the transferee for all damages sustained in consequence of such refusal or postponement.^ This liability is not strictly con- tractual but is imposed by the law. Indeed, it sounds rather in tort than in contract. Consequently, it may be enforced by a person with whom the transferor, the defendant, has entered into no direct contractual relations — for example, by the ulti- mate purchaser of a blank transfer which has passed from hand to hand and which the purchaser has filled up with his own name, or by a person claiming under a transfer which is for some reason defective but the validity of which the transferor is estopped from denying.' § 944. Liability of Transfer Agent or Clerk. — The agent who negligently or fraudulently registers an invalid transfer, or issues a share-certificate to a person who is not entitled to it, is obviously liable to the corporation for so doing. In most cases, the culp- able agent is financially irresponsible, so that this remedy is rarely resorted to. Sometimes, however, the corporation ap- points some bank ^ or trust company its transfer agent, and delegates to it the duty of registering transfers and issuing cer- tificates. In such cases, the bank or trust company is liable for the negligent or fraudulent registration of an invalid trans- fer or for the issuing of a certificate to a person not entitled thereto ; " even though due care may have been used in the selection' of the sub-agent or clerk." Where the transfer agent's sub-agent has engaged in a systematic fraudulent issue of cer- tificates to persons who were not entitled to them, the entire liability of the transfer agent may be enforced in one equity suit without resorting to separate actions at law.' Such a bill ' Infra, § 971. ' Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill ' Hooper v. Herts (1906), 1 CIi. Bank, 1 Pars. Eq. Gas. (Pa.) 180. 549. " Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill 3 iJcoperv.fferis (1906), ICh. 549. Bank, 1 Pars. Eq. Gas. (Pa.) 180, * As to the corporate power of a 239-244. bank to act as such agent, see Bank ' Bank of Kentucky v. SchuylkiU of Kentucky v. Schuylkill Bank, 1 Bank, I Pars. Eq. Gas. (Pa.) 180. Pars. Eq. Gas. (Pa.) 180, 236-239. 760 § 832-§ 1011] BY-LAWS § 946 may be filed even before the corporation has been compelled to discharge any liability to the holders of the wrongfully issued certificates.' On the other hand, the duty of the transfer agent or clerk to register a valid transfer when presented is owing to his principal alone; and for mere nonfeasance in refusing or neglecting to register a valid transfer when presented, the trans- fer agent is not liable in damages either to the transferor or transferee.^ § 945-§ 962. BY-LAWS and express regulations respecting TRANSFERS. § 945. Validity of By-laws relating to Transfers. — The by-laws and conventional regulations of incorporated companies generally contain provisions relating to transfers of shares. iThe validity of these provisions is sometimes open to dispute; but with such questions, which are discussed in another place,^ we are not now concerned. For present purposes, the validity of the regula- tions may be assumed; and we shall accordingly confine our- selves to questions as to their construction, operation, and ejBPect, assuming them to be valid. § 946-§ 948. Regulations as to Form or Manner of Transfers. § 946. Mandatory Regulations. — Regulations respecting the form or manner of transfers may of course be either mandatory or directory. General rules for determining whether any par- ticular provision should be construed to be the one or the other are apt to be misleading rather than helpful. A provision that transfers must be by deed has been held to be mandatory, so as to invalidate an unsealed transfer.* So a provision that trans- fers shall be executed by both transferor and transferee will pre- vent a transfer executed by the transferor only from passing a ' Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill shares by refusing to register trans- Bank, 1 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 180, fer not sustainable). 244-245. Cf. Cooley v. Curran, 104 N. Y. ' Dunham v. City Trust Co., 101 Supp. 751. N. Y. Supp. 87; Cooley v. Curran, ' See supra, § 706-§ 711. 104 N. Y. Supp. 424 (action against * Powell v. London & Provincial company's president for converting Bank (1893), 2 Ch. 555; Bishop v. Globe Co., 135 Mass. 132. 761 § 947 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV complete title.' Similarly, a provision that transfers shall be signed in the presence of an officer of the company or of two witnesses has been held to invalidate a transfer not so attested.' § 947. Directory Regulations. — On the other hand, a pro- vision that a transfer should contain a true statement of the con- sideration upon which it was executed has been thought to be directory merely.^ § 948. Regulations that Shares shall be transferable only on Company's Books. — A very common provision in American by-laws is that shares shall be transferable only on the books of the company. This provision is not treated separately in this work, because the transfer books of a corporation play so im- portant a role in the matter of transfers of shares that it seemed inadvisable to relegate the consideration of their function to a sub-heading under the subject of by-laws and regulations affect- ing transfers of shares. Moreover, it has seemed to the writer that the actual effect of a regulation that shares shall be trans- ferable only on the company's books is comparatively slight; that is to say, by statute or custom every incorporated company is required to keep a hst or roll of its shareholders, and even where the regulations of the company do not expressly provide that transfers of shares shall be made only by entry on the company's books, the importance to a transferee of seeing that his name is properly entered on the company's books is only slightly less. § 949- § 950. Waiver by Company of Regulations intended for its Benefit. § 949. In general. — Even where a provision regulating transfers is mandatory rather than directory, nevertheless if it be intended solely for the company's benefit or protection, non-compliance may be waived, and will be deemed to have been waived if the company with knowledge of the irregularity proceeds to register the transfer. Thus, although a provision that transfers shall be executed by both parties be mandatory and, not merely directory, yet if the company accept as valid a transfer executed by the transferor only, and recognize the ' Ortigosa v. Brown, 38 L. T. 145. ' Powell v. London & Provincial ' Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160. Bank (1893), 2 Ch. 555, 560 (semble). 762 § 832-§ 1011] WAIVER OF RESTRICTIONS § 951 transferee as shareholder, the irregularity will be deemed waived and cured. ^ So a provision that every transferee of shares must sign the by-laws of the company may be waived by issuing a share-certificate to the transferee and paying him dividends.^ § 950. Waiver of Restrictions on Shareholder's Right of AUenation. — This same principle applies to restrictions upon the right of a shareholder to transfer his shares: they may be waived by registering the transfer and treating the transferee as a shareholder.^ For instance, a provision that an ofBcer of the company shall not alienate his qualification shares does not invalidate a transfer made with company s consent.* So, a statutory provision that no shareholder who is indebted for calls upon his shares shall be entitled to transfer any of his shares, does not invalidate such a transfer if the company waives the irregularity by registering the transferee as a shareholder,^ unless the registration of the transfer was done by mistake, in which case it may be stricken out and the transferor's name restored." And a fortiori if the registration of the transfer be procured by fraudulent mis-representation of the transferor, the company may strike out the name of the transferee and restore that of the transferor.' Moreover, a provision that no officer of a bank shall hold shares in the bank without the con- sent of the directors is waived by paying dividends annually to an officer who has purchased shares, even though the transfer when presented for registration was never actually registered.' § 951-§ 952. Regulations authorizing Company to reject Transfers deemed inimical to its Interests. § 951. Whether By-laws prescribing such Regulations are Valid. — A common provision in England vests in the company ' Taurine Co., 25 Ch. D. 118 Ass'n v. Griffiths, 1 Cabab6 & Ellis, (semble). 15. Cf. Burnes v. Pennett, 2 Ho. Lds. « Ex -parte LitUedale, 9 Ch. 257. Cas. 497. Cf. Chambersburg Ins. Co. v. ' People's Home Savings Bank Smith, 11 Pa. St. 120; Watson v. v. Richard, 139 Cal. 285; 73 Pac. £aZes, 23 Beav. 294. See also infra, 858. § 957. ' People's Home Savings Bank v. " Anderson's Case, 8 Eq. 509. Richard, 139 Cal. 285; 73 Pac. 858. ' WUliams' Case, 9 Eq. 225 n.; Cf. Royal British Bank, 26 L. J. Payne's Case, 9 Eq. 223. Ch. 545. ' Earle v. Coyle, 97 Fed. 410; 38 * London & Westminster Supply C. C. A. 226. 763 § 952 ■ TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV or its directors a power of rejecting a transfer that they may deem prejudicial to the interests of the corporation. Great doubt exists whether such a provision can in America be enacted by mere by-law.^ Certainly, however, the law ought to provide some method by which a corporation could be formed subject to such a regulation. The business of many corporations is such that unless entire harmony prevails in the management the interests of all the members may suffer. If the organizers of a corporation desire to form the company upon a plan which will prevent any member from alienating his shares tp a person whom the other shareholders may not deem a desirable asso- ciate, the law should furnish the means by which they can do so. It is a reproach to the jurisprudence of the United States if such a plan is not feasible without the aid of special legislation. § 952. Operation and EfEect of such Regulations where Valid. — The effect of a valid regulation requiring transfers to be ap- proved by the directors of the company is that no transfer is valid at law — the rule in equity will be considered presently — until it has received such approval.^ The approval may, how- over, be implied from the fact of registration.^ A court of law may by mandamus compel the directors to consider a transfer,* but cannot control the exercise of their discretion even though they act arbitrarily, unfairly, and oppressively.* A court of equity, however, if the rejection of the transfer be shown to be arbitrary and not bona fide, has power to override the determina- tion and to direct that the transfer be registered as if it had been approved instead of being rejected." Even in equity, the company's rejection of the transfer is con- clusive, however erroneous it may be, unless bad faith be proved.^ Moreover, the decision reached by the company in rejecting the transfer is presumed to have been reached bona fide} This ' Supra, § 706-§ 711. Bell Bros. 65 L. T. 245; Robinson 2 Nicol's Case, 3 De G. & J. 387, v. Chartered Bank, 1 Eq. 32. 433 (semble) ; Ex parte Penny, 8 Ch. ' Yuruari Co., 6 Times L. R. 119; 446. Hannan's King Mining Co., 14 ' Ex parte Bentinck, 1 Megone 23. Times L. R. 314; Ex parte Penny, But see Battie's Case, 39 L. J. Ch. 8 Ch. 446. 391. But cf. Hubbard v. Manhattan * Ex parte Penny, 8 Ch. 446 Trust Co., 87 Fed. 51, 67-58; 30 (semble). C. C. A. 520. ' Ex parte Penny, 8 Ch. 446. ' Hannan's King Mining Co., 14 « Ex parte Penny, 8 Ch. 446; Times L. R. 314. 764 § 832- § 1011] REQUIREMENT OP APPROVAL § 952 IS true even where no reasons are assigned by the company for the rejection ' although the right to reject a transfer is confined to certain named grounds.^ If, however, reasons for rejecting the transfer are assigned, the reasons so specified must be ade- quate and furnish some just ground for the rejection ; for other- wise a court of equity will deem the rejection unjustifiable, treating the rejection of the transfer for certain specified rea- sons as equivalent to an approval in all other respects — an approval subject to an inadmissible objection.^ It makes no difference, therefore, that another ground for rejecting the transfer can be suggested upon which if the directors had acted, the court would not have felt justified in overruling their determination.* A refusal to approve any transfer at all, thus virtually making the shares inalienable, is of course deemed arbitrary.' So, an objection to a person for whom the transferee is acting as trustee has been held to be insufficient cause for rejecting the transfer; ' but this decision, if it be law, certainly greatly reduces the advantages to the company from a require- ment that transfers shall be subject to the approval or rejection of the corporation. In Australia, a refusal to approve the trans- fer because of a belief that the transferee would vote for a cer- tain person as director has been held unjustifiable ' — a decision which likewise greatly reduces the value of the company's dis- cretionary power. A refusal to register a transfer because of a desire to keep the control of the company in a particular family is unjustifiable.' And a refusal because the transferor is in- debted to the company is also improper under a general power to reject any transfer; ° for the effect would be, virtually, to ' Ex parte Penny, 8 Ch. 446; ° Robinson v. Chartered Bank, 1 Yuruari Co., 6 Times L. R. 119. Eq. 32; New Lamhton Land & Coal But see New Lamhton Land & Co. v. London Bank, 1 Comm. L. R. Coal Co. V. London Bank, 1 Comm. (Aust.) 524. L. R. (Aust.) 524; Alfred Shaw & « Bell Bros., 65 L. T. 245, 248; Co., 21 Vict. L. R. 599 (where the New Lamhton Land & Coed Co. v. court drew unfavorable inferences London Bank, 1 Comm. L. R. (Aust.) from the refusal of the directors on 524, 545. cross examination to disclose their Cf. Robinson v. Chartered Bank, 1 reasons). Eq. 32; Moffat v. Farquahar, 7 ' Coalport China Co. (1895), 2 Ch. D. 591. Ch. 404. ' Alfred Shaw & Co., 21 Vict. ' Bell Bros., 65 L. T. 245, 249. L. R. 599 (headnote inadequate). * Bell Bros., 65 L. T. 245, 248- ' Bell. Bros., 65 L. T. 245. 249. " Pinkett v. Wright, 2 Hare 120; 765 § 953 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV give the company a lien on the shares for the indebtedness of the holder — a result which requires an express regulation.^ The justifiableness vel non of a rejection of a transfer must be judged according to facts existing at the time the transfer is presented to the company, and cannot be affected by any sub- sequent occurrences.'' The company may rescind an approval of a transfer which was procured by fraudulent misrepresentations of the trans- feror ^ or by bribing the directors of the company ; * but it seems that the mere fact that the transferor is a member of the board of directors and participates in the approval of the transfer will not invalidate the approval.* An approval of a transfer in consideration of the transferor's guarantee of any calls that might be payable by the transferee is valid so that the transferor is no longer liable as a shareholder, although he may be liable upon his contract." Sometimes the right to reject a transfer is conditional upon a substitute being found who will take the shares at the same price as the proposed transferee; and in such a case the com- pany has no right to reject a transfer without first finding a substitute." Sometimes, if a transfer is rejected the directors are bound to purchase the shares on behalf of the company; but even under such a regulation they cannot be required to purchase the shares if the company has no funds available for the purpose.* § 953. Regulations authorizing Directors to prescribe Form of Transfers. — Sometimes, the board of directors without being invested with any discretion absolutely to reject a transfer, are empowered to prescribe the form of transfer. Under such a New Lambton Land & Coal Co. v. * Bennett's Case, 5 Pe G. M. & G. London Bank, 1 Comm. L. R. (Aust.) 284. 524, 544. Cf. Eyre's Case, 31 Beav. 177. ' See infra, § 954, § 955. ' Ex parte Littledale, 9 Ch. 257. ' Cawley & Co., 42 Ch. D. 209; See infra, § 1602. Ex parte Rudolph, 11 W. R. 806. « Harrison's Case, 6 Ch. 286. Cf. Nation's Case, 3 Eq. 77. ' Chappell's Case, 6 Ch. 902. 'Williams' Case, 9 Eq. 225n; » Ta/i v. ifomsore, 10 Hare 489. Payne's Case, 9 Eq. 223. Cf. BaUie's Case, 39 L. J. Ch. 391. 766 § 832-§ 1011] transferor's indebtedness § 954 power, the directors cannot arbitrarily reject a form of transfer which they have approved in other cases.' § 954. Regulations authorizing Directors to decline to register Transfer by Shareholder who is indebted to the Corporation. — ■ Sometimes, provisions are found entitling the company to de- cline to allow a transfer in any case where the transferor is in- debted to the corporation. Such a provision does not render a transfer by a shareholder who is indebted to the company absolutely void; for the transferor may pay off the indebted- ness, and then the transfer should be registered.^ Hence a trans- fer by a shareholder who was indebted to the company passed all his interest, and removed his commoil law incompetency to testify in an action to which the corporation was party.* Even where the regulations provide that a transfer disapproved by the directors shall be void, a refusal to register a transfer on the ground that the transferor is indebted to the company is not such a disapproval as will render the transfer utterly void.* A provision authorizing the company to decline to register a transfer by a shareholder who is indebted to it, applies to an indebtedness of any kind and not merely to a debt for calls or some other debt due by the transferor qua shareholder;'^ but does not apply to the potential hability for future calls which have not been actually made at the time of the transfer." The point of time at which the indebtedness must exist is the time of presentation of the transfer for record and not the time of execution of the transfer.' If the shareholder is indebted to the • Poole V. Middleton, 29 Beav. etc. Co., 4 Ala. 652 (debt due by 646. firm of which shareholder was ' Ex parte Harrison, 28 Ch. D. member). 363. Cf. Mobile Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cid- ' Bank of Utica v. Smalley, 2 lorn, 49 Ala. 558 ; Sproid v. Standard Cow. (N. Y.) 770, 778; 14 Am. Giass Co., 201 Pa. 103; 50 Atl. 1003 Dec. 526. (a claim against an officer for mis- * Ex parte Harrison, 28 Ch. D. feasance). See also infra, § 960. 363. See supra, § 952. ' Cawley & Co., 42 Ch. D. 209; = Ex parte Stringer, 9 Q. B. D. Ex parte Rudolph, 11 W. R. 806; 436; Nat. Bank v. Rochester Turn- Hall v. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill (Md.) ftierCo., 172Pa. St.6r4; 33 Atl. 748; 484. Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph, 70 Mo. Contra : Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. Co. 262; Mechanics Bank v. Barp, 4 v. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146. Rawle (Pa.) 384 (where the debt in See also cases cited infra, § 960. question was owing by a firm of Cf. Re Bachman, 2 Fed. Cas. 310. which the shareholder was a mem- ' Michigan Trust Co. v. State ber); Cunningham v. Ala. Life Ins., Bank, 111 Mich. 306; 69 N. W. 645. 767 § 955 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV company, and the company is indebted to the shareholder on another and entirely separate account, the company may de- cline to register a transfer even though upon a full settlement of accounts a balance would have been due to the shareholder.' § 955-§ 961. Liens on Shares for Debts of Holders to the Company. § 955. When Lien exists. — Sometimes, the company has a lien upon its several shares for debts due to it by the holders thereof. Such a lien does not exist apart from some express provision either in some statute or in the company's regula- tions.^ It has been said that a statute giving the company a lien upon its shares for debts of the holders should be strictly construed.' It may be argued that a lien is something more than a mere power to decline to register a transfer by a share- holder who is indebted to the company; and consequently it is held in England and in Ireland that a provision vesting such a power in the company does not create a lien upon the shares.* But the American cases in which the point has arisen generally hold that such a provision does give the company a lien.' It has been held that no lien is created by a provision for for- feiture of the shares in case the shareholder fails to pay a debt owing to the company." On the other hand, a provision that, ' Mechanics Bank v. Earp, 4 ' Kingstown Yacht Club (1888), 21 Rawle (Pa.) 384, 392. L. R. Ir. 199; Duniop v. Dunlop, 21 " Merchants' Bank v. Shouse, 102 Ch. D. 583. Pa. St. 488; Heart v. State Bank, 2 ' Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 84 Dev. Eq. (N. Car.) Ill; Mass. Iron Ky. 430; 1 S. W. 717; Farmers' Co. V. Hooper, 7 Gush. (Mass.) 183; Bank of Maryland's Case, 2 Bland Lankershin Ranch Land, etc. Co. v. (Md.) 394; Wetherdl v. Thirty-first Herberger, 82 Ca.\. 600; 23 Pac. 134; Street, etc. Ass'n, 153 111. 361; 39 Gemmell v. Davis, 75 Md. 546; 23 N. E. 143. Atl. 1032; 32 Am. St. Rep. 412; Cf. Brent v. Bank of Washington, Steamship Dock Co. v. Heron's 10 Pet. 596 (headnote inadequate); Admx., 52 Pa. St. 280; Herrick v. Tetev. Farmers', etc. Bank, iBiewst. Humphrey Hardware Co. (Nebr.), (Pa.) 308; Sproul v. Standard Glass 103 N. W. 685. Co., 201 Pa. 103, 109-110; 50 Atl. Cf. Re Rowe (1904), 2 K. B. 489. 1003. As to the validity of by-laws But see Brent v. Bank of Wash- creating such liens, see supra, § 706- ington, 2 Cranch C. C. 517. § 711. ' DurUop V. Durdop, 21 Ch. D. ' Boyd V. Redd, 120 N. Car. 335; 583; Dearborn v. Washington Sav. 27 S. E. 36; 58 Am. St. Rep. 792. Bank, 18 Wash. 8; 50 Pac. 575; 768 § 832-§ 1011] LIENS ON SHARES § 956 in case of non-payment of the debt, the company may sell the debtor's shares and retain the amount of the debt out of the proceeds does create a lien.^ § 956. Nature and Effect of Lien in general. — A lien upon shares for a debt due by the holder to the company is an equi- table charge, and as such subject, in general, to all the rules, whether prescribed by statute or existing apart from statute, applicable to charges of that description. Hence, where the company has a lien upon its shares for the debts of the holder a loan to a shareholder is deemed a loan upon security.' So, the lien gives priority in respect to th^ shares covered thereby even over a debt owing to the sovereign.^ Moreover, a surety of the shareholder, on paying the debt, is entitled to be sub- rogated to the company's lien.' The existence of the lien may be offered in evidence in reduction of damages in a suit against the company by the shareholder in the nature of an action for conversion of the shares." If the company at the time of making the loan has notice of another existing equitable charge upon the shares, the company's lien will be postponed to the prior charge.' If the lien be created by statute, even a bona fide pur- Small v. Herkimer Mfg. Co., 2 N. Y. ropolitan Nat. Bank, 2 Biss. 527; 330. First Nat. Bank v. Hartford, etc. Ins. But see Be Jennings (1851), 1 Ir. Co., 45 Conn. 22. Ch. 236; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. * Brent v. Bank of Washington, Kennedy, 4 Exch. 417, 425. 10 Pet. 596. ' Deering v. Hibernian Banking ° Klopp v. Lebanon Bank, 46 Co., 16 W. R. 578; Arnold v. Suf- Pa. St. 88; Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co. folk Bank, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 424. v. Lumsden, 75 Va. 327; Re Mor- But see Dearborn v. Washington rison, 10 N. B. R. 105 (semble); jSown^sBanS;, 18Wash.8;50Pac.575. Young v. Vough, 23 N. J. Eq. ^ Everitt w.. Automatic Weighing 325. Machine Co. (1892), 3 Ch. 506. But of. Cross v. Phcenix Bank, 1 Cf. Farmers' Bank of Maryland's R. I. 39. See also West Branch Bank Cd,se, 2 Bland (Md.) 394. v. Armstrong, 40 Pa. St. 278. But see German Security Bank v. ° Arnold v. Suffolk Bank, 27 Jefferson, 10 Bush (Ky.) 326, hold- Barb. (N. Y.) 424. ing that the company after exhaust- ' Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs, ing the shares cannot prove in com- 12 A. C. 29 ; Nesmith v. Washington petition with the debtor's general Banfc, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 324; Birming- creditors until the latter have been ham Trust, etc. Co. v. La. Nat. Bank, made equal out of the general estate. 99 Ala. 379 ; 13 So. 112 ; 20 L. R. A. Sed guoere. 600 ; Curtice v. Crawford County ' National Bank of Wales (1899), Bank, 118 Fed. 390. 2 Ch. 629 (affirmed sub nom. Dovey See also infra, § 960. V. Cory (1901), A. C. 477). Cf. Evansmlle Nat. Bank v Met- VOL. I. — 49 769 § 956 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV chaser of the shares claiming under a transfer endorsed on the share-certificate would take subject to the lien ; '■ for he has constructive notice. But where a mere by-law of an American corporation attempts to create a lien, it will not, according to the prevalent view, be valid as against a bona fide purchaser of the certificate, even if the by-law have any effect at all — a point on which the authorities are not unanimous.^ A purr chaser of the shares at a sale under an execution against the shareholder takes subject to the lien.' A lien created by statute for a particular class of debts will have priority over a lien for all debts without distinction created by the by-laws.* The company's lien is a general one; and hence if the company takes other security, it must exhaust the same before resorting to the shares.* The lien protects all debts owing* to the com- pany equally, without regard to the date when they were con- tracted. Hence a surety for the debt first contracted has no equity, it has been held, to have the shares applied to the dis- charge of that debt rather than of other debts subsequently contracted by the shareholder ; ° but it is submitted that a differ- ent decision would have been more just to the surety without in any way diminishing the right of the corporation and with- out doing violence to any rule of law. If some of the shares are assigned to a bona fide purchaser, although he takes subject to ' Farmers' Bank of Md. v. Igle- mile, 68 Ark. 234; 57 S. W. 257; hart, 6 Gill (Md.) 50; Dorr v. Life Mechanics Bank v. Merchants Bank Ins. Clearing Co., 71 Minn. 38; 73 45 Mo. 513; 100 Am. Dec. 388; N. W. 635; 70 Am. St. Rep. 309; Tuttte v. Walton, 1 Ga. 43; Farmers', First Nat. Bank v. Hartford, etc. Ins. etc. Bank v. Haney, 87 Iowa 101 ; , Co., 45 Conn. 22, 35-36; Bohmer v. 54 N. W. 61. > City Bank, 77 Va. 445 ; Union Bank Aliter where the company's debt V. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390 (where the had not been contracted at the time lien was created by a special act of of the levy : Pitot v. Johnson, 33 La. incorporation); Hammond v. Hast- Ann. 1286; Geyerlv. Western Ins. Co., ings, 134 U. S. 401; 10 Sup. a. 727 3 Pittsb. (Pa.) 41. (where the lien was created by a Cf. Bryon v. Carter, 22 La. Ann. general statute); Wright Lumber 98; Owens v. Atlanta Trust, etc. Co., Co. V. Hixon, 105 Wise. 153; 80 122 Ga. 521; 50 S. E. 379 (where the N. W. 1110, 1135; Reese v. Bank of purchaser at the execution sale had Commerce, 14 Md. 271 ; 74 Am. Dec. notice of the company's claim). 536; Curtice v. Crawford County * Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. Lums- Bank, 110 Fed. 830. den, 75 Va. 327. ' See supra, § 706. « Dunlop v. Dunlop, 21 Ch. D. ^ Oliphint V. Bank of Commerce, 583. 60 Ark. 198; 29 S. W. 460; Spring- « Cross v. Phcenix Bank, 1 R. I. field Wagon Co. v. Bank of Bates- 39. 770 § 832-§ 1011] LIENS ON SHARES § 957 the company's lien (unless the company waive the lien by regis- tering the transfer or otherwise), still the effect of the assign- ment, according to the doctrine of marshalling, is to charge the lien in the first instance upon the shares retained by the trans- feror, to the exoneration of the transferred shares ; ' and this rule applies even as against judgment creditors of the transferor who have levied upon the shares remaining in his name.^ Where the lien is for the full value of the shares, the company may, it has been held, upon getting the share-certificate in its posses- sion, lawfully refuse to redeliver it until the indebtedness be adjusted.^ § 957. Waiver of Lien. — According to some authorities and the reason of the thing, the company by registering a transfer of shares waives any lien thereon for a debt of the transferor." It would follow, therefore, that the company may always refuse to register a transfer of shares upon which it has a lien for moneys owing by the transferor,'' even though the transferee may have acquired the certificate in the open market without knowledge of the debt for which the lien is claimed." On the other hand, in one or two states, the courts have held that while even a bona fide purchaser of the certificate takes in subordina- tion to the lien, yet the company may be required to register the transfer subject to the lien.' Transmission of shares by death ' Gray v. Stone, 69 L. T. 282. istration of shares in name of exec- " Gray v. Stone, 69 L. T. 282. utor of deceased shareholder not a ' Bishop V. Globe Co., 135 Mass. waiver of lien). See also supra, 132, 138 (headnote inadequate). § 950. Cf. Arnold v. Suffolk Bank, 27 But see Re Bachman, 2 Fed. Cas. Barb. (N. Y.) 424, 429-430. 310; Dobbins v. Walton, 37 Ga. 614; * Hodges v. Planters' Bank, 7 95 Am. Deo. 371. G. & J. (Md.) 306; Downers Adm'r ° Jennings v. Bank of California, V. ZanesvUle Bank, Wright (Oh.) 79 Cal. 323; 21 Pac. 852; 12 Am. 477; Hill v. Pine River Bank, 45 N. St. Rep. 145; 5 L. R. A. 233; Tete H. 300; National Bank v. Watson- v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 4 Brewst. tovm Bank, 105 U. S. 217 (headnote (Pa.) 308. inadequate). Cf. W. Key & Son (1902), 1 Ch. Cf. Hall V. U. S. Ins. Co., 5 Gill 467. (Md.) 484; Moore v. Bank of Com- ' See supra, § 956. merce, 52 Mo. 377; Petersburg, etc. ' Craig v. Hesperia, etc. Co., 113 Ins. Co. V. Lumsden, 75 Va. 327; Cal. 7; 45 Pac. 10; 54 Am. St. Rep. Just V. State Bank, 94 N. W. 200; 316; 35 L. R. A. 306; Herdegen v. 132 Mich. 600; London, Paris & Coiz/iausere, 70 Wise. 589 ; 36 N. W. American Bank v. Aronstein, 117 385. Fed. 601, 606; 54 C. C. A. 663 (reg- 771 § 957 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV or bankruptcy does not affect the lien ; and consequently the lien is not waived by registering as shareholder the executor or the trustee.' The fact that the person in charge of the transfer books when a transfer is presented for registration promises to make the transfer and issue a new certificate will not amount to a waiver of the lien or estop the company from relying thereon, where the agent in charge of the books was not shown to have author- ity to do more than i-eceive requests and communicate with the proper officers.^ Even a letter from the company explicitly stat- ing that the shares are unencumbered will not, it has been held, estop the corporation from asserting a lien some twelve months afterwards.^ On the other hand, if the company leads the transferee to believe that the lien does not exist or will not be insisted upon, thereby lulling him into security and causing him to alter his position, the lien cannot subsequently be set up against him.* An express mortgage or pledge o£ shares to the company would seem to supersede the general lien.* But the fact that the company has taken other security for the debt, such as a mortgage of land, does not amount to a waiver of the lien." A by-law providing that a shareholder desiring to sell his shares shall give the company ten days to find a purchaser, and after the expiration of that time may sell at pleasure, does not amount to a waiver of a lien secured to the company by statute.' The failure of the company, when the shareholder's debt is ' See infra, § 977, § 983 and supra, the lien and yet an estoppel was p. 771, n. 4. raised by representations of the ' Bishop V. Globe Co., 135 Mass. casbiier); St. Paid Nat. Bank v. 132. Cf. Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bow- Life Ins. Clearing Co., 71 Minn. 123; man, 84 Ky. 430; 1 S. W. 717. 73 N. W. 713. ' Planters', etc. Ins. Co. v. Selma " McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 Savings Bank, 63 Ala. 585, 594-595. McLean 587, 617-619. * National Bank v. Watsontown ' Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 84 Sanfc, 105 U. S. 217; Moore v. Bank Ky. 430; 1 S. W. 717; Union Bank of Commerce, 52 Mo. 377; Des v. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390 ; German Nat. Moines, etc. Trust Co. v. Des Moines Bank v. Ky. Trust Co., 40 S. W. 458; Bank, 97 lowa 668; 66 N. W. 914; 19 Ky. Law Rep. 361. Oakland, etc. Bank v. State Bank, 113 Cf. Durdop v. Durdop, 21 Ch. D. Mich. 284; 71 N. W. 453; 67 Am. 583; Re Morrison, 10 N. B. R. 105. St. Rep. 463 (where by statute the ' Citizens Bank v. Kalamazoo Co. directors alone had power to waive Bank, 111 Mich. 313; 69 N. W. 663. 772' § 832-§ 1011] LIENS ON SHARES § 959 contracted, to insist upon a surrender of the share-certificate does not amount to a waiver of the Hen ; ' and, indeed, one may well doubt whether it could lawfully have demanded a surrender of the certificate. A statement in a share-certificate that the shares may be transferred on the company's books on surrender- ing the certificate does not amount to a waiver of the lien or estop the company, from asserting it against a bona fide purchaser of the certificate.^ On the other hand, if the regulations which create the lien provide that a copy of the by-law shall be endorsed on the certificate, an omission of the endorsement from the cer- tificate has been held a waiver of the lien.' § 958. Loss of Lien otherwise than by Waiver. — The repeal of the statute which gave the lien will not divest the lien as to debts contracted prior to the repeal.* The lien is not lost because the debt secured is barred by limitations.^ § 959. What is subject to the Lien. — The lien covers any moneys distributable or payable to the shareholder on account of his shares in liquidation or amalgamation or consolidation proceedings." The lien extends to dividends payable on the shares; but the right to deduct a debt due from a shareholder from the amount of dividends payable to him may often be supported on ordinary principles of set-off even though the company have no lien.' All shares owned by the debtor are subject to the lien, and the company cannot be required to ' Bohmer v. CUy BanK, 77 Va. 447; 24 S. W. 129; Bank of HoUy 445; Bank of Commerce v. Bank of Springs v. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421; 38 Newport, 63 Fed. 898, 902 (headnote Am. Rep. 330. misleading); 11 C. C. A. 484; Piatt * Wright Lumber Co. v. Hixon, V. Birmingham Aide Co., 41 Comi. 105 Wise. 153; SON. W. 1110, 1135. 255. ' Oeyer. v. Western Ins. Co., 3 ' Union Bank v. Laird, 2 Wheat. Pittsb. (Pa.) 41 ; Farmers', etc. Bank 390 (headnote inadequate) ; Ham^ v. Iglehart, 6 Gill (Md.) 50. mond V. Hastings, 134 U. S. 401 ° General Exchange Bank, 6 Ch. (headnote inadequate); 10 Sup. Ct. 818. 727; Bank of Commerce .v. Bank of ' OemmeU v. Davis, 75 Md. 546; Newport, 63 Fed. 898, 902 (headnote 23 Atl. 1032; 32 Am. St. Rep. 412. misleading); 11 C. C. A. 484; Nat. (X. Hagar v. Union Nat. Bank, GS Bank of the Republic v. Rochester Me. 509; Bates v. N. Y. Ins. Co., 3 Tumbler Co., 172 Pa. St. 614; 33 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 238; and infra, Atl. 748; Bohmer v. City Bank, 77 § 1361. Va. 445; Reese v. Bank of Commerce, As to dividends in Uquidation, 14 Md. 271; 74 Am. Dec. 536. see Merchants' Bank v. Shou^e, 102 = Brinkerhoff-F arris Trust, etc. Pa. St. 488; Bridges v. Nat. Bank Co. V. Home Lumber Co., 118 Mo. of Troy, 185 N. Y. 146. 773 § 960 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV release any of them from the Hen, although the remainder might be more than sufficient to secure the debt.' § 960. What Debts are covered by the Lien. — When the lien is expressed to be for "moneys due," it extends to a debt for which time bills of exchange not yet mature have been taken ; ■= for the taking of the bills merely suspends the remedy without making the original indebtedness any the less "due." A lien for any indebtedness of a shareholder of course includes a debt which is not yet payable.' Where one of the articles of associa- tion provides that the company shall have a lien upon its shares for debts "due" from the holders and another provides that the company may decline to register a transfer by any member who is "indebted" to it, the two articles being in pari materia must be construed together, and hence the company may not refuse to register a transfer unless the transferor's indebtedness is "due" and payable.* Ordinarily, only legal as distinguished from equi- table claims against a shareholder are within the lien.* The lien extends to an indebtedness of a trustee though not con- tracted on behalf of the trust estate,^ unless of course the com- pany has notice of the trust before contracting the debt;' but ' Sewall V. Lancaster Bank, 17 ' Child v. Hudson's Bay Co., 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 285 (semble). P. Wms. 207, 209 (headnote inade- Cf. Cross V. Phcenix Bank, 1 R. I. quate). Qiusre as to claims for 39 (criticised, supra, § 956). torts: Hotchkiss, etc. Co. v. Union ' London, Birmingham, etc. Bank- Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 76 ; 15 C. C. A. in? Co., 34 Beav. 332. 264. ' Grant v. Mechanics Bank, 15 " Nete London Bank v. Brockle- S. & R. (Pa.) 140; St. Louis, etc. Ins. bank, 21 Ch. D. 302. Co. V. GoodfeUow, 9 Mo. 149. Cf. Young v. Vough, 23 N. J. Eq. Cf. Sewall V. Lancaster Bank, 17 325. S. &R. 285; Pittsburgh, etc. R. B. Co. ' Conant, Ellis & Co. v. Seneca V. Clarke, 29 Pa. St. 146. County Bank, 1 Oh. St. 298; Brad- * Stockton Iron Co., 2 Ch. D. 101. ford Banking Co. v. Briggs, 12 A. C. Cf. Michigan Trust Co. v. State 29; Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 BoTiA;, 111 Mich. 306; 69N. W. 645; Bush. (Ky.) 54; Prince Investment Reese v. Bank of Commerce, 14 Md. Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Land Co., 68 271; 74 Am. Dec. 536. Minn. 121; 70 N. W. 1079; Nesmith But see Downer's Adm'r v. Zanes- v. Washington Bank, 6 Pick. (Mass.) ville Bank, Wright (Oh.) 477; Leg- 324; Birmingham Trust, etc. Co. v. gett V. Bank of Sing Sing, 24 N. Y. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 99 Ala. 379; 283 (where a lien for debts "due 13 So. 112; 20 L. R. A. 600; Me- and payable" was held to cover a chanics Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299; debt evidenced by a promissory note McLaughlin v. Bank of Victoria, 20 which had not reached maturity). Vict. L. R. 433. Cf. Brent v. Bank of Washington, 10 Pet. 596 (headnote inadequate). 774 § 832-§ 1011] LIENS ON SHAKES 960 it does not extend to debts owing to the company by a cestui que trust of shares.' Moreover, the lien applies to debts con- tracted by the registered owner of the shares even after a transfer by endorsement and delivery of the share-certificate,^ unless the company has notice of the assignment ; ^ and by parity of rea- soning debts contracted by a purchaser of shares who has not been registered as shareholder are not within the lien.* But debts contracted by a shareholder in favor of a third person, and afterwards acquired by the company by assignment, are not covered.^ It has been held that debts contracted by the ' Re Perkins, 24 Q. B. D. 613. Cf. Hdm V. Svnggett, 12 Ind. 194 (headnote inadequate). But see contra: ^Planters', etc. Ins. Co. V. Selma Savings Bank, 63 Ala. 585 ; Sabin v. Bank of Wood- stock, 21 Vt. 353. Cf. Lanier Lumber Co. v. Rees, 103 Ala. 622; 16 So. 637; 49 Am. St. Rep. 57 (where the cestui que trust was a corporation which had no power to hold shares in another company, and for this reason its debt was held not to be secured by the lien). ' Jennings v. Bank of Ccdifornia, 79 Cal. 323; 21 Pac. 852; 12 Am. St. Rep. 145; 5 L. R. A. 233 (where the indebtedness secured was stated by the terms of the certificate to be "that of the person in whose name the stock stands on the books of the bank ") ; Gibbs v. Long Island Bank, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 92, 96 (headnote inadequate); 31 N. Y. Supp. 406; Stafford v. Produce Exch. Banking Co., 61 Oh. St. 160; 55 N. E. 162; 76 Am. St. Rep. 371 ; Mount HoUy Paper Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 513; Leggett v. Bank of Sing Sing, 24 N. Y. 283, 287-288 (headnote inadequate) ; Piatt V. Birmingham Axle Co., 41 Conn. 265; Reese v. Bank of Conv- merce, 14 Md. 271 ; 74 Am. Dec. 536; People's Bank of Talbotton v. Ex- change Bank, 116 Ga. 820; 43 S. E. 269; 94 Am. St. Rep. 144. Cf. Michigan Trust Co. v. State Bank, 111 Mich. 306; 69 N. W. 645. ' Bank of America v. McNeil, 10 Bush. (Ky.) 54; White River, etc. Bank v. Capital, etc. Trust Co., 59 Atl. (Vt.) 197; 77Vt. 123; 107 Am. St. Rep. 754 (where it was said that the hen of the company would attach to the interest of a pledgor who had pledged the shares and given notice to the company before the company's claim was contracted); People's Bank of Talbotton v. Ex- change Bank, 116 Ga. 820; 43 S. E. 269; 94 Am. St. Rep. 144; Curtice V. Crawford County Bank, 110 Fed. 830 (burden of proving that com- pany had notice of the assignment held to rest on the transferee of the shares). Cf. Prince Investment Co. v. St. Paul, etc. Land Co., 68 Minn. 121; 70 N. W. 1079; Birmingham Trust, etc. Co. v. Louisiana Nat. Bank, 99 Ala. 379; 13 So. 112; 20 L. R. A. 600; Hotchkiss, etc. Co. v. Union. Nat. Bank, 68 Fed. 76; 15 C. C. A. 264. * But see WethereU v. Thirty-first Street, etc. Ass'n, 153 111. 361; 39 N. E. 143 (where the purchaser was secretary of the company and as such charged with the duty of reg- istering transfers). = Boyd V. Redd, 120 N. Car. 335; 27 S. E. 35; 58 Am. St. Rep. 792. Cf. Bank of Kentucky v. Bonnie Bros., 102 Ky. 343; 43 S. W. 407; White's Bank v. Toledo Ins. Co., 12 Oh. St. 601. But see Grant v. Mechanics Bank, 775 § 961 . TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV shareholder before he acquired his shares are within the lien.' Of course, the lien cannot be restricted by implication to debts due by the shareholder qua shareholder.^ A debt owing by a partnership of which the shareholder is a member is within the lien,^ and so is a claim against the shareholder as surety.* A statute creating a lien in favor of the company has been held to apply to debts contracted prior to the enactment.^ §961. Enforcement of Lien. — The company's lien, like any other equitable charge, may be enforced by a foreclosure suit." Where the debtor has assigned the shares subject to the lien by endorsement of the certificate, a decree of foreclosure may be entered in a suit between the company and the assignee although the assignor, who remains the registered holder, is not a party.' But it has been held in Pennsyl^jania that the com- pany cannot take the law into its own hands and sell the shares covered by the lien.* § 962. Regrulations giving Company a Right of Pre-emption. — Provisions are sometimes found requiring a shareholder before selling his shares to offer them to the company at the price which he is able to obtain from an outsider. Such regulations 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 140; Union Bank * St. Louis, etc. Ins. Co. v. Good- V. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390 (where this fellow, 9 Mo. 149. point was not raised by counsel or ° Birmingham, Trust, etc. Co. v. noticed specifically by the court); East Lake Land Co., 101 Ala. 304; Rogers v. Huntingdon Bank, 12 Serg. 13 So. 72 ; First Nat. Bank v. Hart- &R. (Pa.) 77. ford, etc. Ins. Co., 45 Conn. 22. ' Schmidt . v. Hennepin County ° Mechanics Bldg., etc Ass'n v. BarreL Co., 35 Minn. 511; 29 N. W. King, 83 Cal. 440 (headnote inade- 200. quate); 23 Pac. 376. ^ Mobile Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cul- But see Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Phil- lom, 49 Ala. 558; Rogers v. Hunting- lips, 118 Mich. 162; 76 N. W. 371 ; don Bank, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 77. 74 Am. St. Rep. 380; 42 L. R. A. See also Ex parte Stringer, 9 Q. B. D. 531. 436. Cf. supra, § 954. Cf. Reese v. Bank of Commerce, 14 ' Arnold\. Suffolk Bank,21Baxh. Md. 271, 284; 74 Am. Dec. 536; (N. Y.) 424, 430; Citizens' Bank v. Farmers' Bank of Maryland's Case, Kalamazoo Co. Bank, 111 Mich. 313; 2 Bland (Md.) 394. 69 N. W. 663 ; Cunningham v. Ala. ' Citizens' Bank v. Kalamazoo Co. Life Ins. Co., 4 Ala. 652 (headnote Bank, 111 Mich. 313; 69 N. W. 663. inadequate); Mechanics Bank v. ' Tete v. Farmer^, etc. Bank, 4 Earp, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 384. Brewst. (Pa.) 308. 776 § 832-§ 1011] CONTRACTS FOR SALE § 964 should be held void as contemplating a reduction of capital, unless clearly authorized by statute. A provision of that sort has been held to have no application to a sheriff's sale under an execution against the shareholder; ' but on the other hand, it has been held to apply to a transfer to a principal from an agent in whose name shares belonging to the principal have been reg- istered.^ A provision of this kind is not satisfied by offering to the company a larger number of shares than the outside pur- chaser offers to take.^ If the company registers a transfer, non- compliance with any such provision giving to the corporation a right of pre-emption is waived.' § 963. Rescission of Transfer of Shares for Fraud of Transferor. — A transfer of shares, like any other conveyance of property, may be set aside at the instance of the transferee if he was induced to accept the shares by the fraud of the transferor. Where the transfer has been completed a bill in equity to cancel it may be maintained by the transferee against the transferor and the company.^ But if the company was not party to the fraud, it would seem clear on principle that the defrauded trans- feree should be subject to a shareholder's liabilities to the com- pany, and its creditors, during such time as the shares stand in his name, and that his only relief against such liabilities would be by holding the transferor responsible by way of indemnity." § 964-§ 975. Contracts for Sale or Transfer of Shares. § 964. In general. — Contracts for the sale or transfer of shares differ in some respects from ordinary contracts for sale of personal property. As shown above, the complete legal title does not pass immediately upon the making of the contract, as is usually the case in contracts of sale of chattels. ' Barrows v. Nat. Rubber Co., 12 ' FarweU v. Colonial Trust Co., R. I. 173. 147 Fed. 480; 78 C. C. A. 22. ^ Barrett V. King, 63 N. E. 934; But see BeUow v. Fischer, 102 181 Mass. 476. Cal. 208, 214; 36 Pac. 509 (declar- ' Sweetland v. Quidnick Co., 11 ing that the corporation is not a R. I. 328. proper party to such a bill). * Am. Nat. Bank v. Oriental Mills, " But see Stufjiebeam v. DeLash- 17 R. I. 551; 23 Atl. 795. mutt, 101 Fed. 367. 777 § 965 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 965. Whether Contract is Joint or Several on Part of Vendors. — Where a contract is made for the sale of all the shares of a corporation, as is often done in pursuance of schemes of con- solidation, amalgamation, and redrganization, there is sometimes a question whether the contract should be construed as a several sale by each shareholder of the shares held by him or whether it should be construed as a sale by the corporation of its entire property and assets. Where in such a case the purchaser buys at so much a share, and there is no provision that the proceeds shall become a joint fund, the contract is several on the part of each shareholder, and each may therefore maintain a separate action against the purchaser.' § 966. Whether Non-disclosure of Contracts for Sale of Shares is a Fraud upon other Persons interested in the Company. — Inasmuch as shares are freely transferable, an agreement made between a promoter and a subscriber to shares, whereby the former agrees to purchase from the latter the shares subscribed by him, if the undertaking should prove unsuccessful, is quite valid even though the existence of the agreement be kept secret so that the public may be induced to believe that the subscriber in question — perhaps a capitalist of repute — had shown faith in the com- pany by actually risking his money in its shares.^ Inasmuch as shares are freely transferable, no one is justified in concluding that a shareholder has made no contract whereby he is guaran- teed against loss from depreciation of his shares. § 967. Description of the Shares to be Transferred. — The number and character of the shares contracted to be trans- ferred ought to be and usually are specified in the contract.' A contract which calls for "£1000 worth of fully paid-up shares," has been held to mean shares of that actual value in ' Dowling v. Wheeler, 117 Mo. to be transferred all the stock of a App. 169; 93 S. W. 924. corporation is subject to a condi- " Morgan v. Struthers, 131 U. S. tion precedent that he be able to 246; 9 Sup. Ct. 726; Meyer v. Blair, deliver the entire amount of stock, 109N. Y. 600; 17N. E. 228; 4 Am. see AldenSpeare's Sons Co. v. Casein St. Rep. 500. Co., 106 N. Y. Supp. 980 (where a ' ' As to an English statute re- provision that the vendor should quiring contracts for sale of bank cause the transfer of shares owned shares to specify the denoting num- by a third person was held a mere bers of the shares, see infra, § 969. collateral stipulation and not a As to whether the right of a vendor condition), under a contract to transfer or cause 778 § 832-§ 1011] CONTRACTS FOR SALE § 969 the market and not shares of that nominal or par value.^ Inas- much as all shares in a corporation prima facie stand on an equality, a contract calling for the transfer of shares in a com- pany to be subsequently incorporated means shares which shall stand on an equality with all other shares in the same company, and therefore is not satisfied by a transfer of ordinary or deferred shares in a company which has issued preferred shares.^ § 968. Statute of Frauds. — In England, contracts for sale of shares are held not to be contracts for sale of goods, wares, and merchandise within the seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds.' In the United States, a conflict of authority exists on this point.* Where contracts for sale of shares are held to be within the statute, a transfer of the shares or some of them to the vendee and the issue of a certificate for them to him con- stitute such delivery and acceptance as will take the contract out of the statute.^ § 969. Sales on the Stock Exchange — Usages of Brokers. — Contracts for sale of shares in large corporations whose securi- ties are listed are usually made through brokers upon the stock exchange." Such contracts in their interpretation and operation are governed by the rules and customs of the stock exchange upon which they are made.' By these rules and customs even public statutes are sometimes brushed aside or evaded. For example, a British statute known as Leeman's act,* pro- vides that every contract for sale of bank shares shall be void unless it designates in writing the distinguishing numbers of the shares in the register of the company, if there are such distin- guishing numbers. Nevertheless, the London stock exchange ' Mcllguham v. Taylor (1895), entered into on the London Stock 1 Ch. 53. Exchange, see Levitt v. Hamblet ' Mcllquham v. Taylor (1895), (1901), 2 K. B. 53; Beckhanson & 1 Ch. 53 (per StirUng, J.). Gibbs v. Hamhlet (1901), 2 K. B. 73; ' Supra, § 505. Scott & Horton v. Godfrey (1901), * Ibid. 2 K. B. 726. » Dinkier v. Boer, 92 Ga. 432; 17 ' Stray v. Russell, 1 E. & E. 888; S. E. 953. As to what is sufficient London Founders' Ass'n v. Clarke, to take the contract out of the 20 Q. B. D. 576. Dos Passes on statute, see further 2 Dos Passes on Stock Brokers and Stock Exchanges, Stock Brokers and Stock Exchanges, 2d ed., Chap. IV, pp. 410-474 (where 2d ed. 892 et seq. a full citation and discussion of the ' Cf. NickaUs v. Merry, L. R. 7 authorities will be found). H. L. 530. As to privity between " 30 Vict., c. 29. principals in respect of contracts 779 § 970 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV frequently disregards the provisions of this act. Indeed, one can readily perceive the inconvenience that would result from a uniform compliance with the statute. Consequently, the courts have held that a person who with knowledge of this usage of the stock exchange employs a broker to buy or sell shares for him impliedly consents that the contract of sale shall be made in accordance with the custom of the stock exchange instead of in accordance with the provisions of the statute; and hence, if the contract is made accordingly, and if the broker, being by the rules of the stock exchange bound to perform the agreement under penalty of expulsion from the exchange, does perform it, he may sue his customer and recover indemnification for any losses sustained in performing the agreement.' To that extent, the custom of the stock exchange is permitted to override the policy of the statute; but the courts could not well be expected to go any further in sustaining the brokers' usage in opposition to the statute. For instance, unless the customer had actual knowledge of the usage, the broker would not be permitted, as in the case just stated, to perform the legally invalid agreement at the customer's expense.'' So, where a person commissions a broker to sell shares without cognizance of or reference to the custom, the broker impliedly agrees to make a legally binding contract; and if the contract which he makes does not comply with the act of parliament and is repudiated on that ground, he must make good the loss which results to his principal.' If a transfer made in pursuance of a contract which does not comply with the act of parliament is accepted by the transferee or by his broker on his behalf, the transferor may require the trans- feree to indemnify him against any further liabihty as share- holder ; ^ but this result is reached not because of the custom of the brokers to disregard the act, but because the acceptance of the transfer makes the transferor trustee for the transferee and vests in the latter an equitable title to the shares, so that the void executory contract is performed and the act of parlia- ment no longer applies. § 970. When Purchase Money is payable. — Where a contract for sale of shares is made without any extraordinary or unusual ' Seymour v. Bridge, 14 Q. B. D. ' Neilson v. James, 9 Q- B. D. 546. 460. * Loring v. Davis, 32 Ch. D. 625. = Perry v. Barnet, 15 Q. B. D. 388. 780 § 832-§ 1011] CONTRACTS FOR SALE § 971 terms, whether on the stock exchange or otherwise, the purchase money is payable on delivery or tender of the share-certificate coupled with a transfer in regular form ; ' although a valid transfer on the books of the company without the delivery of any certificate would amount to performance of the contract.^ If no certificate has been issued to the transferor, a tender of a deed of assignment is sufficient.' A tender of certificates made out in the name of a third person without any endorsement by or transfer from him, is of course not a sufficient tender of per- formance by a vendor of shares.* The purchase money may be payable, although the vendor retains the certificate in his pos- session by way of security for payment of the price : thus, where the selling broker deposited the certificates duly endorsed with a trust company by whom they were to be delivered out only on the joint order of the buying and selling brokers, the court held that the transaction amounted to a transfer of the title subject to the vendor's right to require the trust company to obtain the purchase money before surrendering the certificate, and that accordingly an action for the purchase price might be maintained by the vendor.^ § 971. Burden of procuring Eegistration o£ Transfer on Trans- feree. — The burden of procuring registration of the transfer does not rest upon the transferor." Hence, where the company has the right to reject any transferee, the purchase money can- not be recovered back by a transferee who is rejected: ' he un- dertook the burden of procuring registration, and the transferor consequently cannot be deemed impliedly to have contracted • London Founders' Ass'n v. influenced by the peculiar terms of Clarke, 20 Q. B. D. 576; Noyes v. an Oklahoma statute). SpavUing, 27 Vt. 420. ^ McOue v. RommeU (Cal.), 83 Of. Brovm v. Smith, 122 Mass. Pac. 1000. 589; Bruce v. Smith, 44 Ind. 1 * Nicolls v. Reid, 109 Cal. 630; (where the delivery of the endorsed 42 Pac. 298. certificate was admitted by de- " Frazier v. Simmons, 139 Mass. murrer to have been accepted as 531; 2N. E. 112. full performance). ° Skinner v. City of London ' White v. Salisbury, 33 Mo. 150. Marine Ins. Corp., 14 Q. B. D. 882. See supra, § 853. Cf. Nefvberry v. Detroit, etc. Iron Cf. Boatmen's Ins. & Trust Co. Co., 17 Mich. 141; Webster v. Upton, V A We, 48 Mo. 136; Dinkier v. Baer, 91 U. S. 65, 71-72. 92 Ga. 432; 17 S. E. 953. ' Stray v. Russell, 1 E. & E. 888; But see Haynes v. Brovm (Okl.), London Founders' Ass'n v. Clarke, 89 Pac. 1124 (where the decision was 20 Q. B. D. 576. 781 § 972 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV that the transferee should be axicepted as a shareholder. Nor can the money be recovered back on the ground of total failure of consideration, for the transferee still has the certificates, which are of some value even though the company refuses to recog- nize him as a shareholder, so that the failure of consideration is at most partial merely. It is sometimes said that " it is the duty of the transferor to see that his transfer is registered " ; ' but this dictum means merely that if he wishes to escape further liability as shareholder he must see to the registration of the transfer, and should not be construed as conflicting with the rule that as between transferor and transferee the duty of procuring registration rests on the latter. § 972. Obligation of Purchaser to indemnify Vendor against Liability as Shareholder. — The procurement of registration of the transfer being within the province of the transferee, the transferor is entitled to be indemnified by the transferee for any liability he may sustain as shareholder in consequence of a delay in registering the transfer.^ The statute of limitations does not begin to run against such a claim for indemnity until the transferor is actually compelled to pay, even though a rea- sonable time for registration of the transfer has elapsed after the delivery of the certificate.^ An action by a transferor against ' Tucker v. Mulligan, 28 Vict. ret9.imng the transfer in his posser- L. R. 1, 6; Heights of Maribyrnong sion); Man v. Boykin (S. Car.), GO Estate Co., 22 Vict. L. R. 438, 445. S. E. 17. ' Paine v. Hutchinson, 3 Ch. 388 ; But see Sayles v. Blane, 14 Q. B. Loring v. Dams, 32 Ch. D. 625; 205; Treadway v. Johnson, 33 Mo. NickaUs v. Merry, L. R. 7 H. L. App. 122 (decision based on peculiar 530; Bowring v. Shepherd, L. R. 6 terms of contract); Humble v. Q. B. 309; Hawkins v. MaUby, 4 Lareffston, 7 M. &. W. 517. Ch. 200; Hutder v. Lord, 64 Md. Cf. Ex parte Head, 15 L. T. 262; 534; 3 Atl. 891; Brinkley v. Hamble- Davis v. Haycock, L. R. 4 Ex. 373. ton, 67 Md. 169, 178 (semble) ; 8 Atl. In Walker v. Bartlett, 18 C. B. 845, 904; Kellogg v. Stoekwell, 75 111. 68; it was said that the purchaser was Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & S. 310; under no obligation to have him- Johnson V. UnderhiU, 52 N. Y. 203; self registered as shareholder, but Gordon v. Parker, 10 La. 56 (head- was bound only to indemnify the note inadequate) ; Gustard's Case, vendor in case he exercised his right 8 Eq. 438 (semble) ; People's Home not to present the transfer for Sav. Bank v. StadtmuUer (Cal.), registration. Cf. McClure v. Central 88 Pac. 280, 281-282 (semble); Trust Co., 28 N. Y. App. Div. 433, Shepherd v. OiUespie, 3 Ch. 764 441; 53N. Y. Supp. 188. Sedquosre. (where a transferee who had not " Hutder v. Lord, 64 Md. 534; authorized the transfer was estopped 3 Atl. 891. from denying his acceptance by 782 § 832-§ 1011] CONTRACTS FOR SALE § 973 a transferee for indemnity may clearly be maintained notwith- standing the fact that the company is in liquidation : ' the ques- tion is entirely collateral to the liabiUties to be adjusted in the winding-up proceedings. If the nominal transferee is an infant, so that the registration of the transfer does not relieve the trans- feror from Uability as a shareholder, the transferor may demand indemnity from a person for whom the infant was acting as trustee.^ The transferee is also bound to indemnify the trans- feror against any statutory liability as a past member which the latter may have been compelled to discharge.' If the nominal transferee is a mere nominee or bare trustee of another, the transferor may require indemnity from the cestui que trust as well as the trustee.* But an arrangement between the transferor and the nominal transferee whereby the purchase money is returned and the transfer cancelled will bar any such claim against the cestui que trust.^ If the transferee has in turn assigned the shares before the original transferor is called upon to pay, the latter may proceed against the ultimate purchaser. According to an English case, he may also, if he choose, proceed against his own immediate transferee ; * but a Maryland decision is diametrically opposite on this point.' If the only basis for the claim of indemnity is a quasi-contractual obligation springing out of the principle qui sentit commodum sentire debet et onus, then the reasoning of the Maryland court is irresistible. If, on the other hand, it is an im- plied term of every contract for sale of shares that the purchaser shall reimburse the vendor against any further liability as share- holder, then it would seem that the purchaser should not be able to avoid this obligation by assigning the shares. § 973. Implied Warranties by Vendor. — The vendor im- pliedly warrants the genuineness of the certificate ^ and of the ' Joseph V. Holroyd, 22 W. R. * Castellan v. Hobson, 10 Eq. 47. 614. ^ Maynard v. Eaton, 9 Ch. 414 ' Brown v. Black, 8 Ch. 939. (where the nominal transferee being ' Kellock V. Enthoven, L. R. 9 an infant had sued the transferor for Q. B. 241 ; Roberts v. Crowe, L. R. damages for fraud). 7 C. P. 629 (holding that a compro- ' Kellock v. Enthoven, L. R. 9 mise of the liquidator's claim against Q. B. 241. the transferee does not protect the ' Brinkley v. Hambleton, 67 Md. latter from his obligation to re- 169; 8 Atl. 904. imburse the transferor from liability ' Fifth Ave. Bank v. Forty- as a past member). second St., etc. B. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 783 § 973 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. X^" transfer.' If the transferor endorses the certificate in blank, he warrants the genuineness of the certificate not merely in favor of the immediate transferee but also in favor of any one who in due course acquires the certificate and who according to ac- cepted principles of law would, if the certificate were genuine, have the right to insert his own name in the blank and become registered a^ shareholder, even though the immediate trans- feree was aware of the spuriousness of the certificate and there- fore could not have claimed any benefit from the warranty.^ On the other hand, it has been held that the vendor does not warrant the corporate existence — at any rate, not the de jure corporate existence — of the company which issued the shares ; ' but in England, where the doctrine of de facto corporations is not recognized,* it seems that the vendor is held impliedly to warrant the legal existence of the company.^ In New York, it has been held that the vendor impliedly warrants the shares to be free of liens or encumbrances in favor of the company ; ° but this decision would probably not be universally followed. For instance, where a share-certificate with a transfer duly endorsed thereon is delivered and accepted in performance of a contract of sale, there is, at least according to a Pennsylvania case, no implied warranty that the shares represented by the certificate are legally issued, so that if it subsequently transpires that the shares in question were part of an illegal overissue, the pur- chaser cannot rescind the contract and recover back the pur- chase money.' 231,238; 33 N. E. 378; 33 Am. St. 703, affinned, MSN. Y. 652; 43 Rep. 712; 19 L. R. A. 331 (semble). N. E. 68; 31 L. R. A. 776; 51 Am. Cf. Wood V. Sheldon, 42 N. J. St. Rep. 727 (based upon a rule of Law 421; 36 Am. Rep. 523; Jarvis the stock exchange). V. Manhattan Beach Co., 53 Hun ^ Matthews v. Massachusetts Nat. (N. y.) 362; - 6 N; Y. Supp. 703, Bank, 16 Fed. Cas. 1113. affirmed, 148 N.Y. 652; 43 N.E. 68; 'Marshall v. Reach (111.), 81 31L. R. A. 776; 51 Am. St. Rep. 727 N.E. 29; Harter v. Eltzroth, Ul Ind. (based upon a rule of the stock 159; 12 N. E. 129; Burwash v. exchange). Ballou (111.), 82 N. E. 355. ■ As. to whether the vendor war- * See supra, § 284. rants the shares to be full-paid as " Kempson v. Saunders, 4 Bing. 5. stated in the certificate, see Higgins ' McClwne v. Central Trust Co., v.IllinoisTrust,etc.Bank,193I\\.3Qi; 165 N. Y. 108; 58 N. E. 777; 53 61 N. E. 1024; Foote v. Illinois Trust, L. R. A. 153. etc. Bank, 194 111. 600; 62 N. E. 834. ' People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. 1 Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co., St. 344; 44 Am. Rep. 112. 63 Hun (N. Y.) 362; 6 N. Y. Supp. Contra: Lincoln v. New Orleans 784 § 832-§ 1011] SPECIFIC PERFOEMANCE § 975 § 974. Purchase on Margin. — Purchases of shares on margin, a familiar feature of dealing in stocks at the present day, have few or no legal peculiarities pertinent to the present subject. According to the weight of authority, such a purchase amounts in legal effect to a purchase coupled with an hypothecation of the purchased shares with the purchaser's broker to secure pay- ment of the portion of the purchase money advanced by the broker.' The purchaser's broker is not bound to keep the pur- chased shares separate from other shares standing in his name, but does his full duty if he is always ready to transfer an equal number of shares of the same issue.^ § 975. . Specific Performance of Contracts for Sale or Transfer of Shares. — Although courts of equity will not ordinarily grant specific performance of contracts for sale of personal property, and although in an early case specific performance was refused of a contract for sale of South Sea stock,^ yet in modern times in England the rule has been established that equity will grant specific performance of contracts to sell or transfer shares in railway and other companies.* The reason assigned by the courts for this conclusion was that shares in railway companies, for example, were limited in number and could not always be procured in the market, like consols or public stocks.^ This reason is hardly applicable to shares in the large railway and industrial companies of the present time which can always be purchased on the stock exchange. Perhaps sounder reasons for granting specific performance are the rapid fluctuation of value to which shares in many corporations are liable and which renders pecuniary damages an uncertain and therefore inade- Express Co., 45 La. Ann. 729; 12 taken up with a discussion of the So. 937 (where the plaintiff acquired various questions involved, which, the shares from the company itself), however, hardly relate to corpora- Cf. supra, § 579-§ 582. tion law, properly so called. Cf. Wood V. Sheldon, 42 N. J. Law ' Worthington v. Tormey, 34 Md. 421; 37 Am. Rep. 523. 182. See also supra, § 500, and cases ' 1 Dos Passos on Stock Brokers there cited, and Stock Exchanges, 2d ed., 179- ' Cud v. Rutter, 1 P. Wms. 570. 200. But as to a peculiarity of * Duncuft\. Alhreckt, 12 B\m.l8Q; Massachusetts law, see Be Sm/i, 105 Poole v. Middleton, 29 Beav. 646; Fed. 493, affirmed 112 Fed. 319. Cheale v. Kenward,^ 'De,Gi.& 3.27; A large portion of the law of stock Paine v. Hutchinson, 3 Ch. 388; brokers and their dealings relates to Wynne v. Price, 3 De G. & S. 310. these transactions, and Mr. Dos " Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189. Passes' valuable book is largely VOL.1. — 50 785 J § 975 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV quate form of relief, and also the fact that shares are often pur- chased for the purpose of obtaining control of the corporation, in which case the damages would be difficult to estimate fairly. Accordingly, in the United States, specific performance of a contract for sale of shares will be granted when the uncertain value of the shares renders it difficult to do justice by an award of damages,' or where the shares agreed to be sold constitute a controlling interest in the company;^ but unless some such special ground for equitable interference exists the parties will according to many authorities be left to the remedy at law.* It should be observed, however, that the American authorities supporting this latter proposition rest upon the early English ' White V. Schuyler, 1 Abb. Pr., contract was regarded as one to N. s. (N. Y.), 300; Treasurer v. which a court of conscience ought Commercial Mining Co., 23 Cal. not to lend its aid); Clements v. 390 (mining stock) ; Mardon v. Bay, Sherwood-Dunn, 95 N. Y. Supp. 18 R. I. 672; 29 Atl. 998; 49 Am. 766; 108 N. Y. App. Div. 327. St. Rep. 811 (where the bill alleged ' Treasurer v. Commeircial Min^ and a demurrer admitted that ing Co., 23 Cal. 390 (semble); plaintiff could not obtain the stock OoodwinGas Stove, etc. Co.'s Appeal, elsewhere); Newton v. Wooley, 105 117 Pa. St. 514; 12 Atl. 736; 2 Am. Fed. 541; Dennison v. Keasbey St. Rep. 696; Avery v. Ryan, 74 (Mo.), 98 S. W. 546 (where none of Wise. 591; 43 N. W. 317; Rigg v. the stock was procurable in the Reading, etc. Ry. Co., 191 Pa. St. market); Rau v. Seidenberg, 104 298; 43 Atl. 212; Kennedy v. N. Y. Supp. 798; 53 N. Y. Misc. 386; Thompson, 97 N. Y. App. Div. 296; Baumhoff v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. 89 N. Y. Supp. 963; Bateman v. (Mo.), 104 S. W. 5. Straus, 86 N. Y. App. Div. 540; 83 But see Clements v. Sherwood- N. Y. Supp. 785. Dunn, 95 N. Y. Supp. 766; 108 Cf. Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. N. Y. App] Div. 327. 286; Todd v. Taft, 7 Allen (Mass.) Cf. Fleishman v. Woods, 135 371; Leach v. Forbes, 11 Gray- Gal. 256; 67 Pac. 276; Currie v. (Mass.) 506; 71 Am. Dec. 732 Jones, 138 N. Gar. 189 ; 50 S. E. » (specific performance decreed of a 660; Eichbaum v. Sample (Pa.), 62 contract to transfer both land and Atl. 837; 213 Pa. 216. shares of capital stock) ; Johnson -v. ' O'Neill V. Webb, 78 Mo. App. 1 ; Stratton, 109 111. App. 481 ; Watkins Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Wal- v. Robertson (Va.), 54 S. E. 33 (where worth, 193 Pa. St. 207; 44 Atl. 253; specific performance was allowed 74 Am. St. Rep. 683. Cf. Hower v. without noticing this objection); Weiss, etc. Co., 55 Fed. 356; 5 Boggs v. Boggs & Buhl (Pa.), 66 G. C.-A. 129; Butler v. Murphy, 80 Atl. 105. The most elaborate dis- S. W. 337 (Mo.); Scruggs v. Cot- cussion of the question on principle terHl, 67 N. Y. App. Div. 583; 73 and in the light of the conflicting N. Y. Supp. 882. authorities to be found in the books But see Ryan v. McLane, 91 Md. is contained in 2 Dos Passos on 175; 46 Atl. 340; 80 Am. St. Rep. Stock Brokers and Stock Exchanges, 438; 50 L. R. A. 501 (where the 2d ed., 810-848. 786 § 832-§ 1011] SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE § 973 cases which refused specific performance of contracts for sale of "public stocks, "whereas the "public stocks" in question were not capital stocks at all but were government obligations. The English cases, as stated above, grant specific performance of contracts for sale of shares in corporations — in other words, shares of capital stock — even in the case of railway corpora^ tions and other companies whose securities are dealt in on the stock exchange. A suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of shares must be distinguished from a suit by a transferee of shares to compel the company to register a transfer already executed by the vendor.' Moreover, an executory contract to sell shares should be distinguished from an executed sale, the legal title being retained by the vendor as security for the purchase money.^ Such a transaction is equivalent to a formal transfer followed by a mortgage back to secure the purchase money, and in all such cases the vendee has a remedy by a bill to redeem. Wherever specific performance of a contract to sell shares is allowed, the remedy as in other cases of specific performance is mutual,' and will be granted either at the suit of the transferor * or the transferee.* The assumption of the liabilities of a share- holder by the transferee is sufficient consideration for the trans- feror's promise.' The court will not refuse to decree specific performance where the directors of the company have a right to prescribe the mode of transfer, but will compel the vendor to do all he can to perfect the transfer.' The decree may pass even though the company has gone into liquidation; and the transferee may be required to indemnify the transferor against any liability as shareholder in the liquidation proceedings.' ' See supra, § 934. Mechanics ' But see Eckstein v. Downing, Bank v. Seton, 1 Pet. 299, 305; 64N. H.248; 9Atl. 626; 10 Am. St. Lucas V. MUliken, 139 Fed. 816, Rep. 404. 822-826 (holding that the company * Paine v. Hutchinson, 3 Ch. 388; is not a necessary party to a bill Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G. & J. 27. for specific performance of a con- Ci. Ex parte Head, \S \j. T . 2&2. tract for the sale of some of its ' Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim. 189, shares); Scherck v., Montgomery, Poole v. Middleton, 29 Beav. 646. 33 So. 507; 81 Miss. 426; Thornton " Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G.& J. V. Martin, 116 Ga. 115, 118; 42 27. S. E. 348. ' Poole v. Middleton, 29 Beav. 2 Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138 646. U. S. 262; 11 Sup. Ct. 318. " Paine v. Hutchinson,3 Ch. 388. 787 § 976 TEANSFEH AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV § 976-§ 984. TRANSMISSION OF SHARES. § 976-§ 981. Death of Shareholder. § 976. In general — Eigfits and Liabilities of Ezecutor or Ad- ministrator before Entry of Decedent's Death in the Company's Reg- ister — Mutual Rights of specific and residuary Legatees. — The subject of transmission or change in the ownership of shares otherwise than by transfer next demands attention; and we shall first consider the transmission or devolution of shares upon the death of the owner.' For certain purposes, the shares vest in the executor or administrator immediately upon the death of the decedent, or grant of letters, without the necessity for any entry upon the company's register and while the shares still stand in the name of the deceased.^ Thus, the executors are entitled, while the shares remain in their testator's name, to receive any dividends payable thereon, and probably, in the absence of any by-law or regulation to the contrary, to vote in respect of the shares.^ So, also, the executors may participate pari passu with the registered shareholders in any increase of capital offered for subscription to the existing members of the company.* The executors, moreover, may execute a transfer of the shares which will pass a good title to the transferee and entitle him to be registered as shareholder.^ Furthermore the executors are liable in their representative capacity for calls upon the shares made after the testator's death and before any sale or distribution of the shares ; ° but unless the executors are registered as shareholders, they are not liable personally.' The estate of a deceased shareholder in whose name the shares continue to stand on the company's ' The fullest consideration of original shares ; Jacgrues v. Chambers, this subject in any text-book is found 4 Eng. Ry. & Canal Cas. 205. in 1 Lindley on Companies (6th ed., ° Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 A. C. p. 731 et seq.) Bis:. Ill, Chap. 7. 267. See infra, § 980, § 981. ' As to the right to inspect books ° James v. . Buena Ventura al the corporation, see infra, § 1107. Nitrate Co. (1896), 1 Ch. 456 (sem- » See infra, § 1227. Cf. Dana v. ble). See also supra, § 768. Cf. American Tobacco Co. (N. J.), 65 Matteson v. Dent, 176 U. S. 521; 20 Atl. 730, affirmed, 69 Atl. 223. Sup. Ct. 419; Lanigan v. N(yrth, 69 * Supra, § 605. Shares acquired Ark. 62; 63 S. W. 62. by the executors in exercise of this ' Buchan's Case, 4 A. C. 549. right go to a specific legatee of the 788 § 832-§ 1011] DEATH OF SHAREHOLDER § 977 books is liable for calls made after the decedent's death, even though the company's regulations provide that an executor or administrator shall not be a shareholder nor entitled to the rights of a shareholder.' In the absence of a direction to the contrary, calls made after a testator's death upon shares bequeathed specifically should as between the specific legatee and the resid- uary legatee be paid by the former; ^ but if payment of the calls be necessary to constitute the testator a complete shareholder the rule is different.^ If the will contain a direction that debts shall be paid out of the real estate, calls made after the testator's death must be borne by the realty to the exoneration of the per- sonal estate.* Any liability of the decedent's estate is terminated when the shares are transferred to or devolve upon the legatee or distributee.^ Of course, executors are Hable for any calls made in the lifetime of the testator to the same extent as for any other debt of the deceased." Sometimes, the rights of executors or administrators of a de- ceased shareholder who have not been registered in his place, to receive dividends on the shares, to vote in respect thereof, and to transfer the same, are taken away or abridged by statute.' § 977. Registration of Executor or Administrator as Share- holder. — In order that the registration of an executor as share- holder should have any effect, it must be accomplished by his authority. The mere production of papers to prove the exec- utor's title will not authorize the company to substitute his name for that of the testator in the register of shareholders.* ' Houldsworth v. Evans, L. R. 3 As to the case where the shares are H. L. 263; Baird's Case, 5 Ch. 725. bequeathed to one for Hfe with re- ' Day V. Day, 1 Dr. & Sm. 261 mainder over, see infra, § 1110. Armstrong v. Burnet, 20 Beav. 424; ' Day v. Day, 1 Dr. & Sm. 261 Addams v. Ferick, 26 Beav. 384 (semble); Armstrong, v. Burnet, 20 (where the call although determined Beav. 424 (semble). upon before the testator's death * Blount v. Hipkins, 7 Sim. 51 was not deemed to be made until (where the testator had expressly afterwards) ; Re Box, 1 Hem. & covenanted to pay the calls). Mill. 552, 555 (semble). = See infra, § 979. See 1 Lindley on Companies, 6th ° HoiCldsworth v. Evans, L. R. 3 ed., 739-740. As to laying by a re- H. L. 263. serve fund to meet future calls which ' Barton v. London & N. W. Ry. ought to be borne by the general Co., 24 Q. B. D. 77 (applying the estate, see Jacques v. Chambers, 4 Companies Clauses Act). Eng. Ry. & Can. Cas. 499; Went^ « Buchan's Case, 4 A. C. 549. wirrth v. Chevill, 3 Jur., n. s., 805. Cf. Dana v. American Tobacco Co. 789 § 978 THANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV The ordinary and regular method of putting the shares into the name of the executor is as follows : the executor signs a transfer in the ordinary form to himself as executor; this transfer to- gether with the testator's share-certificate and a certificate from the proper court of the grant of letters is presented to the com- pany, and the appropriate entries are thereupon ^nade.' The registration of an executor as shareholder in the room of his testator is not the registration of a transfer within the meaning of regulations authorizing the company to decline to register a transfer by a shareholder who is indebted to it or requiring all transfers to be executed by the transferor and the transferee.^ The registration of an executor in his capacity of executor in respect of shares owned by the testator — an entirely proper proceeding — should be distinguished from a registration of the shares in the name of the executor individually, which may amount to a devastavit or tortious conversion of the shares on his par't.^ § 978. Rights and Liabilities of Executor or Administrator after Eegistration as Shareholder. — If the executors of a deceased shareholder have the shares registered in their own name, though as executors, they become virtually trustees. For instance, they become liable personally for any calls made while the shares stand in their names. ^ So, one of two co-executors whose names are entered upon the register of shareholders as such has no more power to transfer the shares without the concurrence of his fellow than one of two co-owners not executors would have, not- withstanding the common law rule that one of two co-executors may transfer any part of the estate without the concurrence of his colleague.^ § 979. Devolution of Title from Executor to Legatee. — It would seem that a transfer from an executor to a legatee should (N. J.), 65 Atl. 730 (letter from Bank v. Aronstein, 117 Fed. 601, 606^ administrator to company respecting 54 C. C. A. 663. payment of dividends not sufficient ' Holland v. Ball (Mass.), 78 to charge the corporation with the N. E. 772. duty of registering him as share- * Buchan's Case, 4 A. C. 549; holder or of taking notice of his Leeds Banking Co., 1 Ch. 231. address), affirmed, 69 Atl. 223. " Barton v. London & N. W. Ry. » Cf. Colonial Bank v. Cady, 15 Co., 24 Q. B. D. 77. Qucere: Is this A. C. 267. See supra, § 900, for decision applicable in America, or statement and criticism of this case, does it depend entirely upon the ' London, Paris Supra, § 834. v. Gilbert, 173 lU. 348; 50 N. E. ' Cf. Barse^ Live Stock Co. v. 1087; Manns v. Brookmlle Nat. Range VaUey Cattle Co., 16 Utah 5Q; Bank, 73 Ind. 243; Campbell v. 50 Pac. 630 (hypothecation of shares Woodstock Iron Co., 83 Ala. 351; 3 in ordinary way held not to be within So. 369 ; Greene v. Dispeau, 14 R. I. a chattel mortgage act) ; Hasbrouck 575, 576 ; Bryson v. Rayner, 25 Md. V. Vandevoort, 4 Sa.ndi. (N. Y.) 74 424; 90Am. Dec. 69; Richardson v. (where the court said that the trans- Longmont Supply Ditch Co., 19 Colo, action was a pledge but that the App. 483; 76 Pac. 546; (hypotheca- legal title passed to the pledgee) ; tion not a mortgage within meaning WUson V. Little, 2 N. Y. 443; 51 Am. of statute limiting time for foreclos- Dec. 307 ; Doak v. Bank of the State, ing chattel mortgages) ; Irving Park 6 Ired. Law (N. Car.) 309; Me- Ass'n v. Watson, 67 Pac. 945; 41 chanics Bldg., etc. Ass'n v. Conover, Oreg. 95 (hypothecation of shares 14 N. J. Eq. 219 (as to a pledge or not within statute relating to fore- mortgage to the corporation); Rice closure of chattel mortgages). 803 § 09S TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV certificate, being retained in the possession of the debtor; (2) where the share-certificate is delivered to the creditor but without any transfer or endorsement sufficient to enable the creditor to have himself registered as the owner or to sell the shares in the market, without some further act on the part of the debtor ; (3) where the certificate is delivered to the debtor coupled with a transfer or blank endorsement; (4) where the shares are transferred to the creditor on the books of the com- pany but coupled with an entry indicating that they are held as collateral security merely, and (5) where the shares are transferred to the creditor on the company's books, no entry being made to indicate that they are held as collateral security and no communication of that fact being made to the company. We shall now consider the rights of the parties in these several cases, without pausing to inquire whether the transactions are more properly denominated pledges or mortgages. (1) § 998. Mere Agreement that Shares shall be held as Collateral Security. — The transaction in this case evidently amounts to no more than an executory contract to hypothecate the shares for payment of the debt. Such a contract, however, should, it is submitted, be enforced specifically in equity, so that it may amount, virtually, to an equitable charge.' The creditor obviously has no means of enforcing his rights, or of obtaining any control over the shares without the aid of a court of equity. Hence, if the debtor be a sovereign state and as such exempt from suit, the creditor is without remedy to enforce the charge or contract.^ • Schwind v. Boyce, 94 Md. 510; Pa. St. 579; 27 Atl. 662; LaOande 51 Atl. 45. Cf. Harris's Appeal, 12 v. Ingram, 19 La. Ann. 364; Siuxes- Atl. Rep. 743 (Pa.); First Nat. sion of Lanaux, 46 La. Ann. 1036; Bank v. Bacon, 113 N. Y. App. Div. 15 So. 708; 25 L. R. A. 577; Third 612; 98 N. Y. Supp. 717; Dexter Nat. Bank v. Buffalo German Ins. Hwton & Co. V. McCafferty (Wash.), Co., 193 U. S. 581; 24 Sup. Ct. 524 84 Pac. 733. (agreement held, in accordance with But see Atkinson v. Foster, 134 settled principles of law, inoperative 111. 472; 25 N. E. 528 (where the against a subsequent bona fide lien was held invalid even in equity pledgee of the share-certificate), as against the general creditors) ; ' Christian v. Atlantic & North Nisbit v. Macon Bank, etc. Co., 12 Carolina R. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233 Fed. 686. Cf. Campbell v. Wood- (where the creditor attempted to stock Iron Co., 83 Ala. 351; 3 So. proceed against the corporation). 369; Girard Trust Co. v. Mellor, 15& 804 § 832-§ 1011] PLEDGES OF SHARES § 1000 (2) § 999. Agreement coupled with Delivery of Share-Certifi- cate without Transfer or Endorsement. — In this case as in the preceding, the creditor must resort to equity to obtain specific performance of the contract of hypothecation. The mere pos- session of the share-certificate does not enable him to transfer the shares or to have himself registered as the owner.- It does, however, enable him to embarrass the debtor if the latter should attempt to dispose of the shares in violation of his agreement with the former, and by refusing to surrender the certificate the creditor may often extort from" the debtor either payment of the debt or some more effective pledge of the shares. In such a case as this, the creditor might be deemed a pledgee of the cer- tificate considered merely as a chattel, and as such entitled to hold the certificate precisely as the pledgee of a coat or a hat would be entitled to do.^ However, it has been held that the creditor may have a strict foreclosure, and is not limited to his remedy by sale of the shares as an ordinary pledgee of a chattel would be.^ (3) § 1000-§ 1002. Delivery of Share-Certificate coupled with Transfer or Endorsement in Blank. § 1000. Rights of Creditor with respect to Third Persons. — This case illustrates the ordinary method of hypothecating shares. In many respects the creditor's rights are the same as those of a transferee under an absolute transfer, to whom the share- certificate has been delivered coupled with a transfer signed by the transferor but who has not yet been registered as a share- holder. This is certainly the case in so far as the rights and liabilities of the pledgee with reference to the corporation or any third person are concerned. For example, if the pledgor was a trustee who was disposing of the shares in violation of his trust, the question whether a person to whom the certificate has been deUvered coupled with a transfer in blank is to be deemed a bona fide holder for value without notice and therefore entitled to hold the shares as against the cestui que trust is precisely the ' Cf. Wagner v. Marple, 10 Tex. Loveman v. Henderson, 1 Tenn. Ch. Civ. App. 505; 31S. W. 691; NisUt App. 749. V. Macon Bank, etc. Co., 12 Fed. 686; ' Harrold v. Plenty (1901), 2 Ch, 314. 805 § 1001 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV same whether the transfer be intended as absolute or as col- lateral security merely. So, too, the question whether the holder of the certificate with the endorsed transfer is to be preferred to a person claiming under another transfer from the same transferor is precisely the same whether the first-mentioned transfer was absolute or by way of collateral security. The debtor, being the registered owner, is entitled to collect any dividends payable upon the shares.^ If, however, the cred- itor notify the company of the hypothecation, he has been held to be entitled to recover from the company any such dividends.^ The creditor under such circumstances has been allowed to maintain the action even though the debt had been paid, the theory of the court being that the amount collected would be held for the use of the debtor; ^ but it would seem that the action should have been brought in the debtor's name. If the debtor collects dividends declared on the shares after the contract of hypothecation, the creditor is entitled to require him to account for the same, for such dividends are part of the creditor's security.* § 1001. Rights of Creditor and Debtor Inter Sese. — The rights of the debtor and the creditor inter sese in the case we are now considering are as follows: The transfer in blank as collateral security authorizes the creditor to fill up the blank with his ' H-iU V. Newichawanich Co., 8 cation liable over again to the cred- Hun 459, affirmed on opinion below, itor) ; Central Nebr. Nat. Bank v. 71 N. Y. 593; Gemmdl v. Davis, 75 Wilder, 32 Nebr. 454; 49 N. W. 369 Md. 546; 23 Atl. 1032; 32 Am. St. (same point as last case). Rep. 412. Cf. Gemmell v. Davi^, 75 Md. 546; Cf. Hermann v. Maxwell, 47 N. Y. 23 Atl. 1032; 32 Am. St. Rep. 412. Super. Ct. 347 (holding the debtor ' Guarantee Co. v. East Borne a trustee of the dividends for the Town Co., 96 Ga. 511; 23 S. E. 503; creditor); Meredith Village Savings 51 Am. St. Rep. 150. Bank v. Marshall, 68 N. H. 417; 44 * Fairbank v. Merchants' Nat. Atl. 526 (same point as preceding Bank, 132 111. 120, 134 (headnote case); Fairbank v. Merchants' Nat. inadequate); 22 N. E. 524; Gaty y. Bank, 132 111. 120; 22 N. E. 524 HoHidai/, 8 Mo. App. 118 (overruling (holding that the creditor has no the objection that the creditor's only claim to dividends declared prior to remedy was against the corporation the pledge). whicfh had paid the dividends to the ' Gaty V. Holliday, 8 Mo. App. debtor after notice of the creditor's 118, 119 (semble); Guarantee Co. v. claim). East Rome Town Co., 96 Ga. 511; Cf. Page Belting Co. v. Prirux 23 S. E. 503; 51 Am. St. Rep. 150 (N. J.), 67 Atl. 401; HigheU v. (company paying dividends to Highett, 22 Vict. L. R. 352. debtor with notice of the hypothe- 806 § 832-§ 1011] PLEDGES OF SHARES § 1001 own name as transferee and to have the transfer registered ; * and if the company refuses to recognize him as shareholder he may avail of any appropriate remedy that would have been available if the transfer had been absolute instead of as col- lateral security merely.^ Instead of putting the shares in his own name, he may put them in the name of an agent or nominee.' Whether the creditor must keep the hypothecated shares- sepa- rate and distinct or whether he may mingle them indiscrimi- nately with other shares of the same kind standing in his name will depend on the terms of the contract as interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances and of the customs or usages of the trade.* Moreover, in England the creditor is entitled to repledge the shares as security for his own indebt- edness, conferring upon the second pledgee the right to hold the shares as security until the first debt is paid off.* If a mort- ' Davies' Case, 33 L. T. 834; Fed. 366; 5 C. C. A. 134 (where the Ex parte Sargent, 17 Eq. 273 (criti- debt was barred by limitations), cised in France v. Clarke, 26 Ch. D. Cf. Wadlinger v. First Nat. Bank, 257); Skijf v. Stoddard, 63 Conn. 209 Pa. 197; 58 Atl. 359 (as to mak- 198,217-218; 26 Atl. 874; 28 Atl. ing the pledgor a party). 104; 21 L. R. A. 102; Union, etc. ' Dg,y v. Holmes, 103 Mass. 306; Bank v. Farrington, 13 Lea (Tenn.) Hiatt v. Griswold, 5 Fed. 573, 576- 333; Day v. Holmes, 103 Mass. 306 577 (where the creditor transferred (holding further that the creditor the shares from his own name in may put the shares in the name of order to avoid liability as a share- an agent); HvhbeU v. Drexd, 11 holder); Rankin v. Fidelity Trust Fed. 115; Feige v. Burt, 118 Mich. Co., 189 U. S. 242, 252, 254; 23 Sup. 243; 77N. W. 928; 74 Am. St. Rep. Ct. 553; Higgins v. Fidelity Ins., 390 (semble); Rich v. Boyce, 39 Md. etc. Co., 108 Fed. 475, 477; 46 C. C. 314 (custom to the contrary held unreasonable and void); Davis v. Hardwick (Tex.), 94 S. W. 359. A. 509. Cf. Terry v. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 93 Ala. 599; V So. 299; 30 Cf. Commercial Bank v. Kart- Am. St. Rep. 87; Smith v. Becker 22 Wend. 348; 34 Am. Dec. (Wise), 109 N. W. 131. * See supra, § 500. » France v. Clark, 26 Ch. D. 257. Contra: Westinghotise v. German 317; Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y, 170; 75 Am. Dec. 311. But see contra : where no default has been made in payment of the Nat. Bank, 188 Pa. St. 630; 41 Atl. debt. Spreckds v. Nevada Bank, 113 734 (rehypothecation forbidden by Cal. 272; 45 Pac. 329; 33 L. R. A. statute). 459; 54 Am. St. Rep. 348. Cf. State Cf. Fay v. Gray, 124 Mass. 500; ex rel. Canal Bank v. North Amerir- Skiff v. Stoddard, 63 Conn.-198, 218- can Land, etc. Co., 112 La..441; 36 220, 231; 26 Atl. 874; 28 Atl. 104; So. 488.^ ' 21 L. R. A. 102; Price v. Cover, 40 2 Herbert Kraft Co. v. Bank of Md. 102, 115-116; Lawrence v. Orland, 65 Pac. 143; 133 Cal. 64; MaxweU, 53 N. Y. 19; New York, Miller v. Hmston City Ry. Co., 55 etc. R. R. Co. v. Dames, 38 Hun (N. 807 §1001 TRANSFER AND TRANSMISSION [ChAP. XV gagee assumes to do more than this, he is exceeding his actual authority, and his dealings with the shares can be sustained, if at all, only on the principle of estoppel. That such an estoppel will be raised in favor of a bona fide transferee of the certificate is the general American rule.' Tn general, we may say that the rights and remedies of the parties are the same as in case of a pledge of tangible personal property, leaving a detailed statement of such rights and reme- dies to books which deal specifically with pledges of personal property. For example, if default be made in payment of the debt, the creditor may, as in case of pledge of tangible personal property, if he be willing to assume the risk, sell the shares by public sale"" although not by private sale;^ but must first demand payment of the debt* and also must give the debtor reasonable notice of the time and place of sale,^ any custom Y.) 477; German Sav. Bank v. ijerc- Dairymple, 25 Md. 242; Rankin v. shaw, 78 Md. 475; Oregon & Trans- McCidloug^ 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 103; continental Co. v. Hilmers, 20 Fed. Tucker v. Wilson, 1 P. Wms. 261 ; 5 717. Bro. P. C. 193. ' McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 46 * WUson v. LitUe, 2 N. Y. 443; N. Y. 325; 7 Am. Rep. 341; Brittan 51 Am. Dec. 307; Nabring v. Bank V. Oakland Bank of Savings, 124 of Mobile, 58 Ala,. 204. Cal. 282; 57 Pac. 84; 71 Am. St. But see Franklin Nat. Bank v. Rep. 58; Westinghouse v. German Newcombe, 1 N. Y. App. Div. 294; Nat. Bank, 188 Pa. St. 630, 632; 41 37 N. Y. Supp. 271 (where a definite Atl. 734; Gilbert v. Erie Bldg. Ass'n time for payment was JBxed by the (Pa.), 39 Atl. 291 (semble); Com^ contract). mercial Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wend. ' Stenton v. Jerome, 54 N. Y. 480; (N. Y.) 348; 34 Am. Dec. 317; Markhcfhi v. Jandon, 41 N. Y. 235; O'Mara v, Newcomb (Colo.), 88 GUlettv. Whiting, 120 N.Y. 402; 2i Pac. 167. See also supra, § 896. N. E. 790 (with which cf. s. c, 141 But see German Sav. Bank v. N. Y. 71; 35N. E. 939; 38 Am. St. Benshaw, 78 Md. 475; Kern's Es- Rep. 762, where the objection was tote, 176 Pa. St. 373 (headnote inade- held to have been waived); Stevens quate) ; 35 Atl. 231. v. Hurlbut Bank, 31 Conn. 146 (no- ' Brown v. Ward, 3 Duer (N. Y.) tice of less than one day held in- 660. sufficient); Hempfling v. Burr, 59 ' DUler v. Brubaker, 52 Pa. St. Mich. 294; 26 N. W. 496; Feige v. 498; 91 Am. Dec. 177; Baltimore Bur«, 118 Mich. 243; 77 N. W. 928; Marine Ins. Co. v. Dairymple, 25 74 Am. St. Rep. 390; Conyngham's Md. 269. Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 474; McCutcheon As to whether a sale on the stocK v. Dittman, 23 N. Y. App. Div. 285; exchange is a private sale, see Brass 48 N. Y. Supp. 360 (forwarding v. Worth, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 648, 653- newspaper advertisement of sale to 654; WilloTighby v. Comstock, 3 debtor held insufficient notice) ; Fur- Hill (N. Y.) 389; Child v. Hugg, 41 her v. National Metal Co., 103 N. Y. Cal. 519 ; Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. Supp. 490 (as to the necessity of 808 § 832-§ 1011] PLEDGES OF SHARES § 1001 of brokers to the contrary notwithstanding/ unless the con- tract of hypothecation is expressly made subject to such usage.^ The place of sale must be a reasonable one.^* The sale may be complete so as to cut off the debtor's right of redemption although the transfer is never entered on the books of the com- pany, the shares standing all the time in the name of a clerk of the creditor's broker, and although the same certificate ultimately gets back into the hands of the creditor.* It has been held in California that an irregular sale is not a forfeiture of all title to the shares, but passes to the purchaser the right of the creditor to hold them until the debt is paid.^ If the creditor desire to have the protection of a court of equity, he may file a bill for the purpose of realizing on his security,® and, at least, according to the English law, may, if he so elect, have a strict foreclosure instead of a sale.' In order to confer these various rights upon the creditor as between himself and his debtor, the certificate must have been delivered to him with intent to secure the particular indebted- ness in question. For instance, if a certificate endorsed in blank is delivered to a creditor to secure a debt which is after- giving a new notice when sale is * Smith v. Becker (Wise), 109 postponed at debtor's request from N. W. 131. date first fixed therefor). As to a sale accompanied or fol- But see Wallace v. Burdell, 24 lowed by a repurchase by the cred- Hun (N. Y.) 379; McDowell v. itor, see Macoun v. Erskine,Oxenard Chicago Steel Works, 124 111. 491;