ivriLiv

m,
STRICT
COURT
OF
APPEAL
-J
nd
Appellate
District
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
WITNOJtAWN
L.
A.
CO. L.
L
A TREATISE
ON THE LAW OF
PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS
ALSO OF
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES
AND OTHEK
UNmCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
BY
JAMES HART PURDY
Of the Chicago Bab
Enlargement, revision and reconstruction of Beach on Private Corporations
IN THREE TOLUMES
YOLUME I
CHICAGO
T. H. FLOOD AND COMPANY
1905
A-^
COPYEIGHT, 1905,
BY
T. H. FLOOD AND COMPANY
STATE JOURNAL PRINTING COMPANY,
Printers and Stereotypers,
madison, wis.
To
THE
MEMORY
OF
THE LATE
HONORABLE
SEYMOUK D.
THOMPSON,
LL. D.,
the author's
former
associate,
and
life-long
friend,
whose eminent
service
as Judge, and
whose
many
works on
Jurisprudence,
have
secured for him
enduring
fame as a Jurist,
THIS WOKK IS DEDICATED.
735891
PREFACE.
The importance of the law of Private Corporations, today, over-
shadows that of all other branches of the law. Corporations have
come to be the managers in control of tlie world's vast business,
and the trustees of its accumulated wealth. Their power under
progressive consolidations into a few great systems has already
become nearly as potential as that of Congress itself; although
at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, so little
was their coming importance anticipated, that no express provis-
ion regarding corporations,and no mention of themwas made
in that instrument. Congress has only such constitutional power
to control them, as is implied in its authority- to regulate com-
merce among tlie states, and with foreign nations, and power to
create corporations only as necessary instruments of government.
Associations incorporated now control the capitalized wealth
and executive power of the world, while unincorporated associa-
tions exercise its motive powers, intellectual and social.
This work treats of associations incorporated, and also those
unincorporated. I\Iy undertaking herein is the enlargement, re-
vision and reconstruction of Beach on Private Corporations which,
as a standard, has enjoyed, since its pubUcation in
1891,
the favor
of the Bench and Bar.
In tliat time, the number of reported judicial decisions on the
subject, has nearly doubledso rapid has been the growth and
evolution, and so immense the capitalization, of private corpora-
tions,

presenting mmiberless problems to the courts for adju-

dication, in the application of the law to these new conditions.
No apology, therefore, is in order, for the contribution of any
new or useful work, in the effort to keep up with what is now the
most important branch of the law.
The extended scope of this work is comprehensive beyond that
of any other. It embraces, (First), the law of private corpora-
tions, those strictly private as well as those owing service to the
public, and (Second), the law of unincorporated associations
(stock, or non-stock), clubs, societies and companies, for what-
VI
PREFACE.
ever purpose organized,

^cxcepting partnerships and municipal

corporations; these are subjects extensively treated in special
works.
Among the many special subjects given extended treatment, but
which in other works are generally given no prominence, or little
mention, are unlawful Trusts and Monopolies, "Holding" Corpo-
rations, Corporations organized in one State to do Business only
in Another, Watered Stock, Frauds by Corporate Officers, Fidu-
ciary Relations between Directors and the Corporation, Legisla-
tive Control, Rights of Minority Stockholders, etc., etc.
The aim has been to present in the text, in logical sequence, and
Avithout repetitions, not only all the settled principles of the law,
but also all novel applications of those principles to modern condi-
tions
;
with illustrations in the foot-notes, wherein are cited over
fifteen thousand cases, including the latest important decisions of
the courts of last resort, not only of America, but also of Great
Britain, and of her colonies.
The leading and most authoritative decisions are given,omit-
ting, as only cumulative, those cases which merely reaffirm estab-
lished principles, without any new application of them.
The more than fifty thousand corporation cases reported to this
time, would require in a table, alone, nearly a thousand pages,

^
to the confusion and dismay,rather than the assistance of the
practitioner.
The Table of Cases cited gives parallel reference to the Law-
yers' Reports Annotated, American Decisions, Reports, and State
Reports, and to the American Digest.
A feature is the Index, analytic as well as alphabetic, with over
four thousand cross-reference titles,key-words so numerous as
to make reference speedy and effective, in the hurry of practice.
Judges and lawyers complain of the common deficiency of the
law-book index. Although the most necessary part of the work,
it is the conclusion, and therefore often suffers from hurry and
neglect. Thongh full of treasures, if the work lacks a complete
and skillfully prepared index, many of them may remain as in a
sealed book.
This work is offered to the public, in confidence that it will re-
ceive a welcome.
James Hart Purdy.
Chicago, Illinois,
June, 1905.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOLUME I.
CHAPTER I.
DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
1. Definitions of corporation 1
2. Nature and theory of incorporation 3
3. Test whether it is a corporation. Attributes 3
4. Perpetual succession 3
5. Legal fiction of separate corporate entity 4
6. Unincorporated companies, etc., distinguished from 7
6a. Joint-stock companies distinguished from corporations 8
7. Corporation distinguished from partnership 8
8. Corporation as a "person," "citizen," "resident," etc 8
9. Classes of corporations 11
10. Sole and aggregate corporations 11
11. Eleemosynary or charitable corporations 13
12. Ecclesiastical and lay corporations 14
13. Corporations for religious purposes 14
14. Public corporations 15
15. Municipal corporations 16
16. Qttcsi-public corporations 16
17. Corporations for internal improvement 18
18. Stock and non-stock corporations 18
20. Business corporations 19
21. Trading corporations 19
22. Mercantile corporations 19
23. Manufacturing corporations 19
24. Industrial corporations 20
25. Moneyed corporations 20
26. Banking corporations 20
27. Trust companies 20
28. Transportation corporations 21
29. Insurance corporations 21
30. Beneficial corporations, mutual benefit societies 21
31. Building and loan associations 21
32. Literary and educational corporations 21
33. Scientific corporations 21
yiii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I.
CHAPTER
II.
POWER TO
INCORPORATE.
Page-

34. Power of the state to create

corporations
22
35. In
England
23
36. In the United States
23
37.
Power of congress to create
corporations
24
38.
National corporations
25
39. In the District of Columbia
25-
40. In the territories
26
41. Power to create a bank
27
42. To incorporate a railway through the territories
28
43. Incorporation of the Nicaragua Canal
29^
44. Corporations created during the Civil War
2&
45. Interstate corporations created by concurrent action of two
states
30
45a. Constitutional restrictions upon creation of corporations.
Prohibition of the grant of exclusive privileges 32:

CHAPTER in.
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
A.
THE CORPORATE CHARTER,
'
46. Early charters
33
47. Charter defined
34
48. What constitutes a charter 35
B.
THE CHARTER AS A CONTRACT. FRANCHISE DEFINED. EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE^
49. The charter as a contract between the corporation and the
state , 35
50. The Dartmouth College case 36
51. Extension of the doctrine of the Dartmouth College case. .
,
39
52. United States constitutional protection against impairment
of contracts 41
53. Laws impairing obligation of contract 41
54. Statutes creating a new, or modifying an old remedy
44
55. Franchise defined 48
56. Distinction between franchise and license 50
57. Contract of the state v/ith the incorporators 51
58. The contract between the incorporators themselves 53
59. The contract between the incorporators and third parties,
,
53
60. Construction of the charter contract 54
61. Incidental powers granted by the charter 57
62. Exclusive privileges. Charter franchises 59
63. The privilege must be clearly
expressed in the charter
60>
TABLE OF CO^'TENTS

VOLUME I. IX
Pape
64. Incorporation by implication 63
65. Delegation of power to incorporate Uo
66. No power in the courts to incorporate t>5
66a. Self-incorporation by act of court 6ti
67. Acceptance of the charter by the incorporators 67
68. Constitutional limitations upon the state legislature 70
68a. Creation of corporation by acquisition of existing charter 72
CHAPTER lY.
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
A.
GENEIRAI, ENABLING ACTS.
69. General enabling acts 74
70. Who may be incorporators 75
71. Number of incorporators 76
71a. "One man corporation" 77
72. Articles of incorporation. They and the statute are the
charter 78
73. Requirements of the articles 79
74. EfiEect of irregularities in articles 82
74a. Waiver of irregularities 83
75. Filing, publishing, and recording articles of incorporation 83
76. Purposes and objects of incorporation 85
76o. Organization of corporation. When complete 87
B.
CORrORATB EXISTENCE.
77. From what time it dates 87
78. Effect of variance between statute and articles 89
79. A special charter may be perpetual 89
79a. Incorporation and organization. Attacking validity of in-
corporation 89
79&. Corporate existence and franchise. Estoppel to deny 89
79c. Estoppel of corporation to deny its own existence 91
79(i. Corporation by prescription 92
CHAPTEE V.
AJMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS.
80. The reserved power of amendment and repeal 93
81. Right to amend or repeal 94
82. Police power of the state independent of the reserve power 97
83. Amendment of charters granted prior to constitutional res-
ervation 97
84. When the power is reserved by the state constitution 98
b
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I.
85. Construction of constitutional, statutory and charter reser-
vations
98
86. Construction of amendatory statutes 102
87. Effect of amendment 103
88. Legislative discretion 103
89. Legislative discretion not to be questioned judicially 104
90. Limitation upon the reserved power of amendment 106
91. Consent of the corporation to amendment. Power of the
majority 108
92. Of material and immaterial amendments 110
93. The rights of a minority 113
94. Of the dissenting stockholder's remedy 114
95. Amendment of the articles of incorporation 115
CHAPTER VI.
THE CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, DOMICILE, AND RECORDS.
A.
THE COKPOEATE NAME.
96. Necessity for and right to have a name 120
97. Right to protection in use of its name 122
98. Imitation or adoption of name by another corporation.... 123
99. Misnomer. Ground for abatement of suit 124
99a. Misnomer in pleadings 127
100. Proof of the corporate name 128
101. Change of name. Power of the legislature. Effect of
change 128
B.
THE CORPORATE SEAL.
102. Under the common law 130
103. In England corporate contracts require the corporate seal 131
104. In the United States seal is required only where required
of an individual 131
105. When affixed the seal is presumed to be authorized 133
C.
DOMICHLE OF CORPORATION.
106. Its legal residence is the state wherein incorporated 134
107. When not otherwise fixed, is presumed to be where its
meetings are held in the state 135
107a. Of interstate corporations 135
D.
RECORDS.
108. Minutes of corporate meetings 136
109. Minutes are presumed to be properly entered of record .... 136
110. Declaration of dividend must be made of record 138
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 1. XI
Page
I
111. Right of Stockholders to inspect and examine the records.
.
138
112. For what purpose the books may be inspected 141
113. When the corporation may not refuse permission to inspect 143
114. Of the members' remedies herein 143
115. The remedy by mandamus 144
116. Production of corporate books 146
117. Production of books of foreign corporation 147
CHAPTEE VII.
DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPORATION. DE FACTO
CORPORATIONS.
118. Non-compliance with statutory conditions 149
119. Conditions precedent and subsequent. Effect of non-com-
pliance distinguished 150
120. Substantial compliance only is required with conditions
subsequent 151
121. Effect of non-compliance with merely directory provisions 151
122. Where amount of capital stock is fixed and not subscribed
or paid in 151
122a. Who may question regularity of incorporation 152
122b. Defective incorporation. Validity of curative statutes 153
123. De facto corporations 154
124. Regularity of incorporation not to be collaterally attacked.
The state only can attack 154
125. Essentials of de facto corporate existence 158
125a. Deeds of conveyance of land,executed before incorpora-
tion. Devise or bequest to corporation, to be thereafter
created. Conveyances to de facto corporations 159
1256. Performance of corporate acts raises presumption of legal
corporate existence 160
CHAPTER VITI.
PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY.
FPvOJI DEFECTIVE On ILLEGAX, INCORPORATION.
126. Partnership and corporation distinguished 162
127. In cases of defective incorporation under general laws. ..
.
163
128. Liability of members from acts prior to incorporation 167
129. Liability of promoters as partners inter se on failure to
incorporate 168
130. Liability of promoters as partners as to third persons 168
131. Liability from illegal and irregular incorporation
'.
.
.
169
131a. Liability from fraud or deceit 174
132. Liability from migration of corporation of another state.
.
176
133. Liability from continuance of business after dissolution.. 178
134. Liability from purchase of corporate property and fran-
chises 178
Xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I.

135.
Reorganization of a partnership as a
corporation 178
13G. Continuing liability of the partners for the debts of the
firm
181
137. Transfer of the partnership property to the corporation. .
.
181
138. Titles to land in common upon incorporation
181
139.
Liability of the corporation for debts of the partnership..
182
140. "Tramp" corporations. "Dummy" corporations. Incorpo-
ration in one state to dp business in another. Partner-
ship liability
1^2
CHAPTER IX.
BY-LAWS.
142. Definition
185
143. By-law distinguished from ordinance 187
144. By-law distinguished from resolution 187
145. By-law distinguished from regulation 188
146. "Constitution" of unincorporated associations 188
147. General observations 188
147a. The province of by-laws 188
148. Power to make by-laws 190
149. Of unincorporated associations 191
150. No corporate power conferrable by by-laws 192
151. In whom the pov/er to make is vested 192
152. Quorum
193^
153. Adoption of by-laws 194
154. Proof of adoption
194
155. Estoppel
195
156. Place of adoption 195
157. General requisites of by-laws 196
158. (a) May not impair vested rights 196
159. (b) They must be reasonable and legal 197
160. (c) Must be consistent with the charter and law of the
land 199
161. (d) Other requirements 202
162. (e) Must be general in application 203
163. Jurisdiction of the courts 204
164. Who are bound by by-laws 204
165. Effect of by-laws upon strangers 206
166. Enforcement of by-laws 211
167. Penalties, expulsion, fines 212
168. Retroactive and ex post facto by-laws 214
169. Not to be contrary to public policy or in restraint of trade 215
170. By-laws regulating transfer of stock 219
171. Construction of by-laws 221
172. Conflict between statute or charter and by-laws 222
173. Estoppel to question validity of by-laws 223
174. Pleading
, 223
175. Validity and effect of by-laws in general 224
TABLE OF COIS^TENTS VOLUME I. Xlll
Page
176. (a) Of by-laws creating lien on the stock 226
177. (b) Of by-laws retiring stock 227
178. (c) By-laws effecting rights of members
227
179. (d) By-laws restricting suit
228
180. Amendment of by-laws
228
181. Repeal of by-laws 229
182. Waiver of by-laws
231
CHAPTER X.
CAPITAL STOCK.
183. Definitions
235
184. "Capital stock" and "Capital" distinguished 235
185. Shares of stock in general 236
186. Founders' shares 238
187. Amount of capital stock 238
188. Increase of capital stock 239
189. (a) Statute authority requisite to increase or reduce 241
190. (b) Constitutionality of statutes, etc. Vested rights 243
191. (c) Whether directors may increase 244
192. (d) Increase by stock dividends 246
193. (e) Power to issue stock dividends 247
194. Whether life tenant or remainder-man is entitled to stock
dividend
249
195. (f ) Prohibition of stock dividends 250
195a. Reduction of capital stock 250
196. (a) By the company's purchase of its own shares 253
197. (b) Loss of property not a reduction of capital stock 257
198. (c) Change in number of shares without change in their
par value 257
199. (d) Liability of shareholders after reduction 257
200. Increase or reduction. Power of the courts 258
CHAPTER XI.
SUBSCRIPTION.
A.
THE CONTRACT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
202. In general. Membership in companies having capital stock 261
203. Formal requisites of contract
265
204. Contract not necessary to be in writing. Acceptance 266
205. Subscription prior to incorporation
270
206. Subscription after incorporation
272
207. Acceptance of the contract and evidence thereof 273
208. Signing articles of association
275
209. Agreement, before signing articles, to take stock 276
210. Mode of application and allotment of shares 279
Xiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I.
Page

211. Cash deposit on subscription 280

212. Effect of legislation upon agreement of subscription 282
213. Effect of consolidation upon agreement to subscribe 283
214. Construction of the contract 284
215. Intention of the parties, is to govern the contract 285
B.
WHO MAY RECKIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS, AND WHO MAY SUBSCUIBE.
216. Who may receive subscriptions 287
217.
Commissioners appointed to receive subscription 288
218. Limitation of amount of a single subscription 290
219. Subscription in excess of capital stock. Apportionment... 290
220. Competency to subscribe for stock 292
221. Married women, infants, agents, partners, etc., as sub-
scribers 292
222. The state as a subscriber to stock 293
223. Municipal corporation as subscriber 293
224. Substitution of subscriber 300
C.
PROOF OF SUBSCRIPTION.
225. Evidence of subscription 301
D.
CONDITIONAT. SUBSCRIPTIONS. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LIABILIAY.
226. Conditional subscriptions
301"
226a. Conditional subscription as defense. Estoppel 302
227. Subscription before incorporation not to be conditional.. 302
228. May be conditional when made after incorporation 303
229. Valid or void conditions 304
230. Conditional subscriptions made before incorporation 306
231. Revocation or withdrawal of conditions 307
232. Conditions precedent 307
233. Conditions subsequent 309
234. Waiver of conditions 311
235. Recitals in subscription when implied condition 311
236. Secret and separate conditions are void 318
237. Subscription upon special terms 319
238. Subscription not binding until performance of conditions. 320
239. Waiver of performance of conditions 324
E.
WITHDRAWAL, RELEASE, AND DISCHARGE OF SUBSCRIBERS.
240. Withdrawal from subscription by consent of the corpora-
tion 325
241. Want of power in the directors to release 327
242. Release in compromise of doubtful claims 330
243. Withdrawal and abandonment 333
244. Effect of withdrawal 335
245. The English rule as to withdrawal 337
TABLE OF C0NTE:STS

VOLUME I. XV
F.
GROUNDS FOR RESCISSION AND CANCELLATION.
Page
246. Mere irregularities are insufficient ground 337
247. Irregular incorporation as ground for rescission 341
248. Variance from original purpose 345
249. Mismanagement of corporate affairs 348
250. Delay in prosecuting the corporate purposes 350
251. Other grounds for release. Payment. Discharge in bank-
ruptcy
353
G.
FRAUDULENT AGREEMENTS.
252. Secret concessions to other subscribers. Fraud in procur-
ing subscribers 354
253. Fraudulent agreement of subscribers. Secret advantages 358
253a. Constructive fraud in release 360
254. Colorable or fictitious subscriptions by others 360
H.
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND FRAUD IN PROCUTtING SUBSCRIPTION.
255. Parol agreements and false representations distinguished 361
256. Parol agreements and conditions to vary the contract.... 362
257. Subscriptions procured by false representations 363
258. Misrepresentations, when fraudulent 369
259. Made without knowledge of their falsity 370
260. Made by agents, liability of the corporation 370
261. Not binding if not made by authorized agents 370
261a. Subscription to capital stock. Misrepresentation by way
of opinion 370
262. Misrepresentations by a promoter 371
263. Misrepresentations in a prospectus 371
264. Misrepresentations by suppression of the truth 372
265. Misrepresentations in reports to stockholders 373
266. Parol evidence of fraud by misrepresentations 373
266a. Effect of fraud. Rescission of the contract 374
267. Waiver of irregularities. Acquiescence in the contract... 376
268. Recovery of deposits upon abandonment of the contract.. 377
269. Specific performance of the contract of subscription 379
CHAPTER XII.
ISSUE OF STOCK.
A.
270. How issuable in general 384
B.
CERTIFICATE OF STOCK.
271. Certificates of stock distinguished from the stock itself.
.
385
272. Negotiability of stock certificates 387
Xvi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I.
c.
BONA FIDE PURCHASER.
273. Bona fide
purchaser of stock
391
D.
rOST OR STOLEN STOCK.
274. Lost or stolen certificate of stock
393
E.
IKBEGTJLARITY AND FEAUDULENTLT ISSUED STOCK.
275. Overissue of stock. Charter may be forfeited 395
276. Fraudulent overissue 397
277. Liability for overissue of stock 400
278. Knowledge and acquiescence of creditors in overissue. . .
.
404
279. Spurious or overissued stock 406
280. False or fictitious issue of stock 409
281. Forged certificate of stock 414
282. Effect of forgery or fraud in issue of stock 417
283. Liability for fraudulent issue 420
F.
WATERED STOCK.
284. Definition and methods of issue 422
285. Issued by stock dividend 423
286. Issued in exchange for sale of all the corporate property.
.
424
287. Issued in consolidation of corporations 424
288. Issued in exchange for property of less than par value of
the stock 424
289. Shares issued below par 428
290. Shares issued as a gratuity 431
291. Watered stock issued as a bonus 433
292. Shares issued reciting that they are fully paid up 434
293. Liability for issue of watered stock. Corporate officers.. 435
294. Liability of purchaser with notice 436
295. Liability of the stockholder, as transferee 437
296. Who may complain of the issue of watered stock 439
297. Constitutional provisions as to watered stock 440
298. Statutory provisions as to watered stock 441
G.
THE TRUST FUND DOCTRINE.
299. The trust fund theory, as to stock 443
300. Right of subsequent creditors to question right to convey
corporate property
448
301. The theory not recognized in England 448
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I. XVll
Page

301a. American trust fund doctrine 449

301&. Trust fund. The theory obsolete 450
301c. Stock which is, and that which is not, chargeable with
a trust 451
CHAPTER XIII.
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
302. Call defined 453
303. The terms "calls" and "assessment" distinguished 453
304. Payment by instalments 453
305. When a call is necessary 455
306. Calls by whom to be made 456
307. Delegation of authority to make calls 456
308. Discretion of the directors in making 457
309. Calls upon insolvency of the corporation 457
310. Calls by the court
.'
457
311. Notice of call or assessment
460
312. Call, as to time and place of payment 462
313. Validity of calls 465
314. Mode of making calls 466
315. Evidence that call was m.ade 467
316. Payment of calls after transfer, who is liable 468
317. Effect of transfer on liability for calls 468
317a. Calls upon shareholders for unpaid subscriptions 469
318. Calls after consolidation 469
319. Pleading and practice, in suits to enforce payment 470
320. Forfeiture the company's remedy upon unpaid calls 471
321. (a) Forfeiture of shares for non-payment 473
322. (b) Notice of forfeiture
475
323. (c) Method of forfeiture 476
324. (d) Tender by stockholder before forefeiture 477
325. (e) The corporation's claim for deficiency upon sale or
forfeiture 478
326.^
(f) Shareholders relief in equity from forfeiture 479
327. Defenses to actions to enforce calls 481
328. (a) Failure to tender certificate 481
329. (b) Irregular organization as defense 481
330. (c) Infancy 482
331. (d) Accommodation subscription. Stock issued as grat-
uity 482
332. (e) Bankruptcy of shareholder 484
333. (f) Set-off as defense 484
334.
(g)
Statute of limitations as defense to contract of sub-
scriptions to stock 484
335. Assessment upon shareholders 493
336. (a) Assessment requires consent of all the stockholders.. 494
337. . (b) Power to assess, conferred by charter or agreement.
.
494
XViii
TABLE OF CONTENTS YOLDME I.
Pag

337a. (c) Sale of shares for non-payment of assessments of

calls
495
337b. (d) Purchasers at sale of forfeited stock 495
337c. Mandamns to compel calls
496
337<^ Calls by court of equity 497
337e.
Garnishment of the stockholder, after judgment against
the corporation 497
GHAPTER XIV.
PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
338. Subscription for shares implies promise to pay 500
339. Professor Collin's rules as to subscription and payment.. 501
340. Payment in notes, bonds and mortgages 503
341. Payment need not be in cash 504
342. Payment may be in cash, in stock, or in stock dividend. .
.
507
343. Payment may be in property or in service 508
344. Overvaluation of property or service, accepted in payment 509
345. "Gross" overvaluation presumes fraud, when 511
346. Payment of less than par 514
347. Payment of less than par is constructive fraud 516
348. Statutory and constitutional provisions construed 517
348a. Fraudulent method of pretended payment 520
CHAPTER XV.
SALE AND TRANSFER O^^ STOCK.
A.
SALE OF STOCK.
349. Sale distinguished from transfer. 523
350. Shares are personal property. The contract of sale. The
statute of frauds 523
350a. Transfer of shares. Seller's option to repurchase 526
351. Gambling sales 526
352. Who may buy and sell stock 527
353. (a) Married woman as purchaser 528
354. (b) Infant as purchaser 529
355. (c) Person of unsound mind 529
356. (d) Sales by directors and officers 529
357. (e) "Whether directors may transfer qualification shares.. 530
358. (f) Transfer by joint-owners 532
359.
(g) Agents as purchasers 532
360. (h) Sales by trustee 533
361. (i) Sales by guardians, executors, etc 533
362.
(j)
Purchase by assignee in bankruptcy 535
363. (k) Purchase of stock by banks 535
364. (m) Purchase by religious, charitable institutions 535
367. (q) Injunction to restrain purchase by corporation 535
TABLE OF CONTEXTS

VOLUME I. XIX
B.
TEANSFEE BY GIFT OR WILI..
Page
368. Gift of shares of stock
536
369. Legacies of shares, general, specific or demonstrative 538
370. Power of the corporation to take by devise 538
C.
TRANSFER AND ITS EFFECT UPON LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS.
371. Mode of transfer of shares
539^
372. (a) The effect of transfer 544
373. (b) Effect of statutory provisions as to transfers 546
374. (c) Effect upon liability for calls 548
375. (d) Pretended or colorable transfers 550
376. (e) Transfers to a "dummy," a "man of straw" 551
D.
T.TARTT.TTY OF THE TRANSFERRER.
377. (a) Transfer to the corporation itself 552
378. (b) Transfer without consent of the transferee 554
379. (c) Registration, when necessary to relieve the transferrer 555
380. (d) Transfers to infants and married women do not re-
lieve the transferrer 557
E.
LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFEREE.
381. (a) The transferee as a bona fide
purchaser 558
382. (b) Liability of pledgees 561
383. (c) Of the estate of a bankrupt 563
384. (d) Of estates of decedents 565
385. (e) Of legatees and distributees of the estate 567
386. (f) Of trustees, executors and administrators 568
387. (g)
Of guardians 572
388. (h) Of agents 573
389. (i) Of infants 573
390. (j) Of married women 574
P.
THE CONTRACT OF TRANSFER.
391. (a) Breach of the contract. Remedy 575
392. (b) Specific performance of the contract 576
393. (c) Avoidance of the contract 577
394. Transfer of shares in national banks 578
395. Breach of trust in transfer 578
396. Remedies for fraud in the transfer 579
G.
PLEDGE OR MORTGAGE OF STOCK.
397. Pledge and mortgage distinguished 580
398. Stock is rarely mortgaged 581
XX TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I.
Page
399. Registered transfer, absolute in form, held a pledge wlien 581
400. Transfer of possession is necessary to the pledge 581
401. Pledges by agents and trustees, brokers, etc 581
402.- Rights and powers of the pledgee 581
403. Right to register the stock 584
404. Right to receive dividend 584
405. Right to vote at corporate meetings 585
406. Foreclosure of the pledge 585
407. Remedies of the pledgor 586
408. Pledgor's right of redemption 587
H.
REGISTRATION OF TRANSFERS.
409. Registration a necessity to the corporation, as a record of
its stockholders 587
410. Registry when required by statute or charter 588
410a. Effect of omission to register 590
411. To what officers to apply for registration 590
412. Provisions requiring registry 591
413. Formal requisites of registration 591
414. Effect of non-registy of transfer 593
415. Presumption of fraud from failure to register 595
416. Registration as evidence and notice of title 596
417. Of shares held in trust 596
418. Of defective transfer 597
419. Of transfer to an irresponsibe person 598
420. Right and duty of the corporation to refuse to register
when 599
420a. Registration of transfer. Suit to enforce a proceeding in
rem 599
421. Interpleader by the corporation 599
422. Grounds for refusal to allow registry. Lien of the corpo-
ration 600
423. Of transfer of stolen or lost certificate 602
424. Of transfer by trustees 602
425. Of transfer by guardian 602
426. Of transfer by executor or administrator 602
427. Non-liability of the corporation for registry of transfer by
an executor 602
428. Liability of the corporation for allowing registry of forged
certificate 603
429. Liability of the corporation for wrongful registry 606
430. Registry without surrender of the certificate 608
431. Remedies of the transferee for wrongful refusal to allow
registry 616
432. Whether mandamiis will lie to enforce registry 618
CHAPTERS CONTAINED IN YOLS. II, III.
VOLUME II.
Chapter
Page
XVI. Dividends. AND New Stock
621
XVII. Preferred or Guaranteed Stock 660
XVIII. Liens upon Stock
686
XIX. Taxation of Corporations AND of Stock 69-1
XX. Members and Stockholders
764
XXI. Stockholders' Suits
811
XXII. Liability of Stockholders
831
XXIII. Creditors' Suits Against Stockholders 895
XXIV. Defenses of Stockholders to Creditors' Suits 917
XXV. Attachment and Execution
9o-l
XXVL Meetings
971
XXVII. Elections
1007
XXVIIL Directors, Officers and Agents 1043
XXIX. Liabilities OF Directors
1116
XXX. Liability of the Corporation
1156
XXXL Executive and Ministerial Officers 1186
XXXII. Promoters
1213
XXXIII. Powers
1225
XXXIV. Eminent Domain
1300
XXXV. Ultra Vires Acts and Contracts 1324
XXXVL Legislative Control
1378
XXXVII. " Trusts
"
and Monopolies
1403
XXXVIIL Torts
1479
VOLUME III.
XXXIX. Actions and Defenses by Corporations
1507
XL. Crimes and Criminal Prosecutions
1538
XLI. Railroad
1548
XLIL Street Railways
1594
XLIII. Electric Light, Electric Power
1610
XLIV. Telegraph and Telephone Companies
1615
XLV. Express Companies, Common Carriers 1635
XLVI. Other Quasi-public Corporations 163.)
XLVII. Bonds and Coupons
1667
XLVIir. Mortgage 1698
XLIX Foreclosure OP Mortgage 172';)
L. Insolvency
-'
1765
LL Receivers
1775
LII. Reincorporation, and Reorganization 1816
LIII. Consolidation of Corporations 1839
LIV. Forfeiture of Charter 1896
LV. Dissolution op Corporation 1940
LVI. Foreign Corporations 1983
LVIL Unincorporated Associations 2045
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
A.
Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss (Appeal
Court Ch. 273), 372.
Abbey v. Billups (35 Miss. 718;
72 Am. Dec. 143), 132, 1234.
Abbott V. American Hard Rubber
Co. (33 Barb. 578; 57 Barb. 591;
21 How. Pr. 193; 4 Blatchf.
489), 1019, 1021, 1108, 1243,
1246, 1356.
Abbott V. Aspinwall (26 Barb.
202), 68, 896, 906, 910.
Abbott V. Cobb (17 Vt. 597), 2074.
Abbott V. City of Duluth (104 Fed.
Rep. 833), 1634.
Abbott V. Hapgood (150 Mass.
248; 22 N. B. Rep. 907; 5 L. R.
A. 586; 15 Am. St. Rep. 193),
1165, 1176, 1215, 1224, 1234.
Abbott V. Johnstown, etc. R. Co.
(80 N. Y. 27; 36 Am. Rep. 572),
48, 1245, 1565, 1568, 1569, 1571,
1574, 1848, 1851, 1856, 1890.
Abbott V. Merriam (8 Cush. (62
Mass.) 588), 1126.
Abbott V. New York, etc. Co. (145
Mass. 450), 1319, 2000, 2016.
Abbott V. Omaha, etc. Co. (4 Neb.
416), 78, 89, 150, 166, 172.
Abel V. Allemania Bank (79 Minn.
419; 82 N. W. Rep. 680), 1830.
Abeles v. Cochran (22 Kan. 405;
31 Am. Rep. 194), 554, 1122.
Abels V. McKeen (18 N. J. Eq.
462), 2087.
Aberdeen Bank v. Chehalis
County (166 U. S. 440), 740.
Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blaikie (1
Macq. 461), 1099.
Aberman Iron Works v. Mekens
(L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 485), 1677.
Abernethy v. Church of the Puri-
tans (3 Daly, 1), 2124.
Abingtori Dairy Co. v. Railroads
(24 Pa. Super. Ct. 632), 2094.
Abraham, H. & Son v. New Or-
leans (35 So. Rep. (La.) 268),
1679.
Acetelvn, etc. Co. v. Smith (10
Penn. Sup. Ct. 61), 947.
Acid Manuf. Co. v. Waring (15
Gray (81 Mass. 211), 150.
Ackenhauser v. People's Sav. Bank
(110 Mich. 175; 68 N. W. Rep.
118), 207.
Acker v. Alexandria, etc. R. Co.
(84 Vt. 648), 1568.
Ackerson v. Lodi, etc. R. Co. (28
N. J. Eq. 542), 1755.
Ackley School District v. Hall
(113 U. S. 135), 1676.
Acklin V. Paschal (48 Tex. 147),
1980.
Acres v. Moyne (59 Tex. 623),
1763, 1820.
Adamant Manuf. Co., etc. v. Wal-
lace (16 Wash. 614; 48 Pac.
Rep. 415), 406.
Adamantine Brick Co. v. Wood-
ruff (4 McArthur, 318), 1062.
Adams v. Brennan (52 N. E. Rep.
(111.) 614), 1439.
Adam's Case (L. R. 13 Eq. 474),
328, 330, 335.
Adams v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (1
Holmes, 31; 4 Bank Reg. 316),
39.
Adams v. Fort Plain Bank (36 N.
Y. 255), 646, 672, 675.
Adams v. Gate City G. L. Co. (71
Ga. 106), 66.
Adams v. Goodrich (55 Ga. 335),
858, 859.
Adams v. Kehlor Milling Co. (35
Fed. Rep. 433), 1954.
Adams v. Minor (121 Cal. 372),
791, 1535.
Adams v. Nashville (95 U. S. 19),
845.
Adams v. Natchez, etc. R. R. (76
Miss. 714; 25 So. Rep. 667),
1593.
Adams v.
Pennsylvania Bank (35
Hun, 393), 2032.
Adams & Westlake Co. v. Deyette
(5 S. D. 418; 49 Am. St. Rep.
887), 84, 253.
XXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Adams v. Union R. R. Co. (21 R.
I.. 134). 1608.
Adams v. Wiscasset Bank (1
Me.
361),
835.
Adams v. Yazoo & Miss. Val. R.
Co. (77
Miss. 194),
1850.
Adams Express Co. v. Denver, etc.
Ry. Co. (16 Fed. Rep. 712), 28,
2011.
Adams
Express Co. v. Harris (120
Ind. 73; 7 L. R. A. 214; 16 Am.
St. Rep. 315), 1515, 1636.
Adams
Express Co. v.
Hoeing (88
Ky. 373;
11 S. W. Rep. 205),
1637.
Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky
(166 U. S. 171), 698.
Adams Express Co. v. OMo State
Auditor (166 U. S. 185). 752,
1997.
Adams' Mining Co. v. Senter (26
Mich. 73),
1097.
Adamson's Case (L. R. 18 Eq. Cas.
670), 331.
Addams v. Ferick (26 Beav. 384),
567.
Adderlev v. Storm (6 Hill, 624),
404, 562, 568, 884, 886, .890,
891.
Addison v. Lewis (75 Va. 701),
1106, 1110, 1717, 1726.
Addison v. Mayor of Preston (12
C. B. 108),
438.
Addison v. Pacific Coast Milling
Co. (79 Fed. Rep. 459), 857, 858.
Addyston, etc. Co. v. United
States (175 U. S. 211), 1457,
1474.
Adkins v. Thornton (19 Ga. 325),
854.
Adler v. Milwaukee, etc. Mfg. Co.
(13 Wis. 57), 335, 459, 497, 899,
900, 903, 1129.
Adley v. Reeves (2 Maule & S.
53), 212, 474, 770, 2064.
Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New Yorlc
State (176 U. S. 335), 1320.
Adler Weinberger S. T. Co. v.
Rothschild & Co. (123 Fed.
Rep. 145), 1664.
Adley v. Whitstable Co. (19
Vesey, 304), 774.
Adriance v. Roome (52 Barb.
399), 1081, 1356.
Advance, etc. v. Pennsylvania, etc.
Co. (195 Pa. St. 602), 1250.
.^mtna Bank v. Charter Oak Life
Ins. Co. (50 Conn. 167), 1274.
.(^tna Ins. Co. v. Harvey (11 Wis.
394), 2003.
Africa v. Doiluth, etc. Co. (82
Minn. 283; 84 N. W. Rep. 1019;
83 Am. St. Rep. 424), 1189.
Africa v.
Knoxville (70 Fed. Rep.
729), 1601.
African Methodist Episcopal
Church v. Conover (27 N. J.
Eq. 157), 1233.
Agate v. Sands (73 N. Y. 620), 923.
Agnew V. Ancient Order (17 Mo.
App. 254), 2067. 2069.
Agra, etc. Bank v. Barry (Ir. R.
3 Eq. 443), 1724.
Agra, etc. Bank. In re (L. R. 2
Ch. App. 391), 1678.
Agricultural Bank v. Burr (24 Me.
256), 262, 263.
Agricultural Bank v. Wilson (24
Me. 273), 263, 525, 888.
Agricultural Br. Ry. Co. v. Win-
chester (13 Allen (95 Mass.)
29), 97, 111, 305, 473.
Agricultural Ins. Co., In re (1 Ch.
396). 943.
Aiello V. Montecaloo (21 R. I.
409), 122, 123.
Aiken v. Western R. R. (20 N. Y.
370). 1652.
Aiken v. Wasson (24 N. Y. 482),
860.
Alabama v. Montague (117 U.- S,
602), 1711.
Alabama, otc. Ins. Co. v. Central
Assn. (54 Ala. 73), 1265. 1266,
1339, 1750.
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Kenny (39
Ala. (N. S.) 307), 1301.
Alabama, etc. Works v. Dallas
(127 Ala. 513), 369, 937.
Alabama Nat. Bank v. Mary Lee,
etc. Co. (108 Ala. 288), 1806.
Alabama Nat. Bank v. O'Niel (128
Ala. 192; 29 So. Rep. 688), 1080.
Alabama, etc. Ry. v. Thomas (83
Ala. 343), 1488.
Alabama, etc. Co. v. Riverdale, etc.
Mills (127 Fed. Rep. 497), 1736.
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Rowley (9
Fla. 508), 140, 454. 461, 462.
Alabaster's Case (L. R. 7 Eq. 273),
1856.
Alaska, etc. Co. v. Solner (123 Fed.
Rep. 855), 1169.
Alaska Min. Co. v. Whelan (168
U. S. 86),
1628.
Albany City Bank v. Schermer-
horn (9 Paige. 372), 1747.
Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Brownell
(24 N. Y. 345), 1385.
Albert v. Baltimore Savings Bank
(2 Md. 159). 597.
TABLE OF CASES.
XXV
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Albert v. Baltimore Savings Bank
(1 Md. Ch. 407), 533.
Albert v. Clarendon, etc. Co. (23
Ala. (N. J.) 8), 1783.
Albers v. Merchants' Exchange of
St. Lou's (39 Mo. App. 583), 10,
787, 1087, 2060.
Albright v. Lafavette, etc. (102
Pa. St. 411), 80, 118.
Albright v. Texas, etc. R. R. Co.
(8 N. M. 110, 422; 42 Pac. Rep.
73; 40 Pac. Rep. 448), 883.
Alcott V. Tioga Ry. Co. (20 N. Y.
210), 10, 1167.
Alden v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (1
Fed. Cas. 328), 1734, 1800.
Alderman v. School Directors (91
III. 179), 1505.
Aldham v. Brown (7 El. & B. 164;
2 El. & El. 398), 338.
Aldrich v. Anchor, etc. Co. (24
Oreg. 32, 32 Pac. Rep. 756; 41
Am. St. Rep. 831), 904.
Aldrich v. Campbell (97 Fed. Rep.
663; 38 C. C. A. 347), 856.
Aldrich v. Chemical Bank (176 U.
S. 618), 1211.
Aldrich v. Yates (95 Fed. Rep. 78),
856.
Aldrich v. Pardee (24 Tex. Civ.
App. 254), 1712.
Alexander v. Atlanta, etc. R. R.
Co. (108 Ga. 151), 1562.
Alexander v. Automatic, etc. Co.
(2 Ch. 302), 317.
Alexander v. Berney (28 N. J. Eq.
90), 121.
Alexander v. Cauldwell (83 N. Y.
480), 1346.
Alexander v. Central, etc. R. Co.
(3 Dill. 487), 1741.
Alexander v. Donohue (68 Hun,
131; 22 N. Y. Supp. 652), 1536.
Alexander Palace Co.. In re (21
Ch. Div. 149), 636, 637.
Alexander v. Relfe (74 Mo. 495),
1480, 1486, 1886.
Alexander v. Searcy (81 Ga. 536;
12 Am. St. Rep. 337), 804, 828,
1280, 1358, 1360, 1361, 1750, 2037.
Alexander's Case (15 Sol. J. 788),
569, 570.
Alexander v. Simpson (L. R. 43
Ch. D. 139), 979, 980.
Alexander v. Tolleston Club (110
111. 65), 1236, 1521.
Alexander v. Williams (14 Mo.
App. 13), 1114.
Alexandria, etc. R. Co. v. Brown
(17 Wall. 445), 1569.
c
Alexandria. Warsaw, etc. Ferry
Co. v. Wisch (73 Mo. 655; 39
Am. Rep. 535), 63.
Alger v. Thacker (19 Pick (33
Mass. 51), 1422, 1450, 2095.
Allaire v. Hartshorne (21 N. J.
665), 1690.
Alkali Co. v. Campbell (113 Fed.
Rep. 398), 472, 548.
Alleghenj' County v. Cleveland,
etc. R. Co. (51 Pa. St. 228; 88
Am. Dec. 579), 1868, 1870.
Allegheny Nat. Bank v. Bailey
(147 Pa. St. Ill), 879.
Allegheny v. Federal, etc. Ry. Co.
(179 Pa. St. 424), 734.
Allegheny v. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry.
Co. (179 Pa. St. 414), 734.
Allegheny City v. Clarkan (14 Pa.
St. 81), 1343.
Allegheny County v. Adams (55
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 724), 2001.
Allegheny Countv v. Allen (55
Atl. (N. J.) 724), 2027.
Allegheny County Workhouse v.
Moore (95 Pa. St. 408), 1077.
Allemong v. Simmons (124 Ind.
199), 1054.
Allen's Case (16 Eq. 449), 887.
Allen V. American, etc. Assn. (49
Minn. 544; 32 Am. St. Rep. 574),
213, 479.
Allen V. Brown (6 Kan. App. 704),
131, 132, 133.
Allen V. Buchanan (9 Phila. (Pa.)
283), 1937.
Allen V. Clark (108 N. Y. 269),
1132.
Allen V. Curtis (26 Conn. 456),
1125, 1353.
Allen V. Fairbanks (40 Fed. Rep.
188), 874, 875.
Allen V. First Nat. Bank (23 Ohio
St 97) 1^69
Allen V. Graves (L. R. 5 Q. B. 478),
888, 2107.
Allen V. Herrick (81 Mass. 274),
682.
Allen V. Hill (16 Cal. 113), 1008,
1009.
Allen V. Hopkins (62 Kan. 175),
122.
Allen V. Jersey City (53 N. J. L.
522), 1601.
Allen V. Long (80 Tex. 261; 26
Am. St. Rep. 735), 2052.
Allen V. Louisiana (103 U. S. 80),
294.
Allen V. McKean (1 Sumn. 297; 1
Fed. Cas. 489). 39.
XXVI
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Allen V. Montgomery R. Co. (11
Ala. 437), 445, 446, 4-59, 460, 473,
478, 496, 497, 690, 884, 888, 889,
896, 898, 900, 942, 1129.
Allen V. New Jersey, etc. R. R. Co.
(49 How. Pr. 14), 1515, 1601,
1960, 1962.
Allen V. Pegram (16 Iowa, 163),
523 547,
Allen' V. Sewall (2 Wend. 327),
910.
Allen V. South Boston R. Co. (150
Mass. 202), 400, 410, 411, 416.
Allen V. Walsh (25 Minn. 543),
907, 909.
Allen V. Wilson (28 Fed. Rep.
677), 826, 828.
Allen V. Woonsocket Co. (11 R. I.
288), 1031, 1293, 1252.
Allentown School District v. Derr
(115 St. 439), 1675.
Allerton v. Chicago, etc. Co. (18
Wall. 233), 1086.
Allerton v. Lang (10 Bosw. (N.
y.) 362), 389, 537.
Alliance, etc. Co. v. Bartlett (9
N. M. 554), 1519.
Allibone v. Hagar (46 Pa. St. 48),
446, 485. 489, 571. 885.
Ailing V. Ward (24 N. E. 551), 550,
1979.
Allis V. Jones (45 Fed. Rep. 148),
1770.
Allison V. Coal Creek, etc. R. Co.
(87 Tenn. 60), 1141.
Allison V. Versailles (10 Bush
(Ky.), 1), 296.
Allman v. Havana R. etc. Co. (88
111. 521), 313.
Allnutt V. Subsidiary, etc. Court
(62 Mich. 110), 772, 780.
Almy V. California (24 How. 169),
758.
All Saints Church v^ Lovett (1
Hall (N. Y.), 191), 68, 994, 1095.
Alsop V. De Koven (107 111. App.
190), 622.
Alsop V. Riker (155 U. S. 448),
1761, 1828.
Alta Sih^er Min. Co. v. Alta Placer
Co. (78 Cal. 629), 1261.
Altenberg v. Grant (85 Fed. Rep.
345), 442.
Alters V. Journeymen, etc. Assn.
(19 Pa. Super. Ct. 272), 188, 791.
Altgeld V. San Antonio (81 Tex.
436; 13 L. R. A. 383), 1645.
Altmann v. Benz (27 N. J. Eq.
331), 2083, 2132.
Altoona, etc. Co. v. City P. etc. Co.
(58 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 447), 1605.
Altscombe v. Casey (76 Pac. Rep.
(Oreg.) 1083), 1526.
Alward v. Holmes (10 Abb. N. C.
96), 2005.
Amador, etc. Co. v. De Witt (73
Cal. 483), 1301.
Ambergate Ry. Co. v. Mitchell (4
Ex. 540; 20 L. J. Ex. 234; 6 Eng,
Rv. Cas. 234), 240, 453, 454, 455,
456, 465, 691.
Ambrose v. Riddle (3 Md. Ch.
320), 631.
Ambrose, etc. Co., In re (14 Ch.
Div. 397), 425, 448, 514, 550.
American Alkali Co. v. Campbell
(113 Fed. Rep. 398), 153, 173,
938.
American Alkali Co. v. Salom (131
Fed. Rep. 46, U. S. C. C. A.),
353.
American Assn. v. Mordock (39
Neb. 413; 58 N. W. Rep. 107),
195.
American Asylum v. Phoenix Bank
(4 Conn. 172; 10 Am. Dec. 12),
13.
American Bible Soc. v. American
Tract. Soc. (62 N. J. Bq. 219),,
2053.
American Bridge Co. v. Heidel-
bach (94 U. S. 798), 1717, 1724,
1734.
American Button-Hole, etc. Co. v.
Moore (2 Dak. 280; 8 N. W.
Rep. 131), 2028.
American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Hettler
(37 Neb. 849). 2017.
American Central Ry. Co. v. Miles
(52 111. 174), 1064.
American Clay Manuf. Co. v.
American (^lay Manuf. Co.
(IPS Pa. St. 189), 124.
American Const. Co. v. Jackson-
ville, etc. Ry. (52 Fed. Rep.
937), 1789.
American Electropathic Inst., In
re (14 Phila. 128), 86.
American File Co. v. Garrett (110
U. S. 288), 565, 837, 875.
American Grocery Co. v. Flint (5
N. Y. App. Div. 263; 39 N. Y.
Supp. 153), 902.
American Homestead Co. v. Lini-
gan (46 La. Ann. 1118; 15 So.
Rep. 369), 939.
American Live-Stock Co. v. Chi-
cago, etc. Exchange (143 111.
TABLE OF CASES. XXVll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 021-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
210; 36 Am. St. Rep. 385), 766,
1405, 2109.
American Loan Co. v. Minn. etc.
Co. (157 111. 641), 56, 158, 685,
1564, 1851.
American Mut. Aid Soc. v. Hel-
burn (85 Ky. 1), 2071.
American Mut. Aid Soc. v. Quire
(8 Ky. L. J. 101), 2070.
American Nat. Bank, etc. v. Na-
tional, etc.. Co. (70 Fed. Rep.
420), 1806.
American Nat. Bank v. North-
western, etc. Co. (89 Fed. Rep.
610), 1777.
American Order, etc. v. Brown
(112 Ga. 545; 37 S. E. Rep. 890),
215.
American Pastoral Co. v. Gumey
(61 Fed. Rep. 41), 465.
American Press Assn. v. Branting-
ham (75 N. Y. App. Div. 435;
78 N. Y. Supp. 305), 534.
American Printing House v. Trus-
tees (104 U. S. 711), 1378.
American Steel Co. v. Wire, etc.
Unions (90 Fed. Rep. 608), 1429.
American Sugar Refining Co.'s
Case (7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 83),
1443-1446.
American Surety Company v.
Worcester, etc. Co. (90 Fed. Rep.
773), 1798.
American Railway Frog Co. v.
Haven (101 Mass. 398; 3 Am.
Rep. 377), 1013, 1014.
American Silk Works v. Salomon
(4 Hun, 135), 494, 507.
American Tube Works v. Boston,
etc. Co. (139 Mass. 5), 682, 683.
American Tube, etc. Co. v. Hays
(165 Pa. St. 489), 384.
American U. T. Co. v. Daugherty
(89 Ala. 191), 1622.
American U. Tel. Co. v. Union Pac.
Ry. Co. (1 McCrary, 188), 1848,
1851.
American, etc. Union v. Yount
(101 U. S. 352), 1370, 1998, 2005.
American YvT'aterworks Co. v.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. (73 Fed.
Rep. 956; 20 C. C. A. 133), 1759,
1824.
American, etc. Co. v. American,
etc. Co. (198 Pa. St. 189), 127.
American, etc. Bank v. McGetti-
gan (152 Ind. 582), 1720.
American, etc. Co. v. Bulkley (107
Mich. 447), 879.
American, etc. Co. v. Central, etc.
R. R. (84 Fed. Rep. 917), 1798.
American, etc. Co. v. Chicago Ex-
change (143 111. 210; 18 L. R.
A. 190), 189, 261, 765, 766, 767,
2055.
American L. & T. Co. v. East, etc.
R. Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 101), 2002.
American, etc. Co. v. Connecticut
Tel. etc. Co. (49 Conn. 352; 44
Am. Rep. 237; 24 Am. L. Reg.
(N. S.) 573; 59 Am. Rep. 172;
44 Am. Rep. 241; 38 Am. Rep.
589), 1384, 1399, 1617.
American Tel. etc. Co. v. Day (52
N. Y. Super. Ct. 128), 613.
American Nat. Bank v. First Nat.
Bank (27 C. C. A. 274; 82 Fed.
Rep. 961), 1055.
American, etc. Soc. v. Foote (52
Hun, 307), 1517.
American, etc. Co. v. General
Electric Co. (51 Atl. Rep. (N.
H.) 660), 1611.
American, etc. Co. v. Giant Powder
Co. (1 Alaska, 664), 2021.
American, etc. T. Co. v. Harbor
Creek, etc. (23 Pa. Super. Ct.
437), 1616.
American, etc. Co. v. Haven (101
Mass. 398; 3 Am. Rep. 377), 253,
1061, 1284.
American R. Tel. Co. v. Hess (125
N. Y. 641; 13 L. R. A. 454),
1596, 1629.
American, etc. Co. v. Home, etc.
Co. (115 Fed. Rep. 171), 1601.
American, etc. Co. v. Johnson (60
Fed. Rep. 503), 134.
American, etc. Co. v. Klotz (44
Fed. Rep. 721), 1439.
American, etc. Co. v. Morgan, etc.
(36 So. Rep. (Ala.) 178), 1620.
American, etc. Co. v. Pacific, etc.
Co. (74 Pac. Rep. (Wash.) 826),
585.
American, etc. Co. v. Paterson, etc.
Co. (22 N. J. Eq. 72), 1767.
American, etc. Co. v. Phoenix, etc.
Co. (113 Fed. Rep. 629), 791,
793. 1532.
American, etc. Soc. v. Pilling (24
N. J. L. 653), 195, 989, 1003, 1004.
American, etc. Assn. v. Rainbolt
(48 Neb. 434), 349, 2002.
American, etc. Co. v. State Board
(56 N. J. L. 79), 385.
American, etc. Co. v. Taylor, etc.
Co. (45 Fed. Rep. 152), 1440.
XXVlll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I. 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.^
American L. & T. Co. v. Toledo,
etc. R. Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 416),
1745.
American, etc. Co. v. Union, etc.
Co. (1
McCrary, 188; 1 Fed. Rep.
745), 134G, 1754.
American, etc. Co. v. Union Depot
Co. (80 Fed. Rep. 36),
1754.
American, etc. Co. v. Van Nort-
wiclv (52 Fed. Rep. 752), 1215.
American, etc. Co. v. Western, etc.
Co. (67 Ala. 26), 2000.
American, etc. Works v. De Ag-
navo (53 S. W. Rep. (Tex.)
350),
2019.
Ames & Harris v. Sabin (107 Fed.
Rep. 582), 1248.
Ames, etc. Co. v. Heslet (19 Mont.
188; 47 Pac. Rep. 805; 61 Am.
St. Rep. 496), 1766, 1770.
Ames V. Kansas (111 U. S. 449),
25, 1938.
Ames V. Kruzner (1 Alaska, 598),
2027.
Ames V. Lake Superior, etc. Co.
(21 Minn. 241), 98.
Ames V. Union Pac. Ry. (74 Fed.
Rep. 335), 1799, 1808.
Amhurst v. Dowling (2
Vernon,
401), 1032.
Amesbury v. Bowditch (6 Gray
(72 Mass.), 603), 221, 228.
Amesbury v. Insurance Co. (6
Gray (72 Mass.), 596), 198.
Amey v. Mayor (24 How. 365),
296.
Amisiana v. Goldthwaite (34 Tex.
125), 1126.
Amory v. Lawrence (3 Cliff. 523),
565.
Amoskeag Nat. Bank v. Ottawa
(105 U. S. 866), 294, 295.
Amsterdam, etc. Co. v. Dean (162
N. Y. 278; 56 N. E. Rep. 757),
1613.
Amy V. Dubuque (98 U. S. 470),
1683, 1697.
Anacosta Tribe v. Murbach (13
Md. 91), 7, 205, 213, 228, 772,
778, 2047, 2081.
Ancient Order v. Moore (9 Ins.
L. J. 572), 2067.
Andenreid v. East, etc. Co. (124
Fed. Rep. 697), 2020.
Anderson v. Baker (98 Ind. 587),
1313.
Anderson v. Blattan (43 Mo. 42),
1143.
Anderson v. Bullock Co. Bank
(122 Ala. 275; 25 So. Rep. 523 ,.
1769.
Anderson v. Chicago, etc. R. R,
(117 111. 26), 740.
Anderson v. Chicago, etc. T. Co
(101 Wis. 385), 1807.
Anderson v. Condict (93 Fed. Rep.
349), 1802.
Anderson v. Connor (87 N. Y. S
449), 1259.
Anderson v. Jacksonville, etc. R
Co. (2 Woods, 628; 1 Fed. Cas
842), 1737.
Anderson v. Jett (89 Ky. 375; r.
L. R. A. 390), 1422.
Anderson v. Kerns Draining Co.
14 Ind. 199), 1313.
Anderson v. Longden (1 Wheat.
85), 1059.
Anderson v. Line (14 Fed. Rep.
405), 574.
Anderson v. Midland Ry. (85 L. T,
Rep. 408), 1328.
Anderson v. New Castle, etc. R.
Co. (12 Ind. 376; 74 Am. Dec.
218), 277, 302, 340, 356, 367.
Anderson v. Nicholas (28 N. Y.
GOO), 393, 395.
Anderson v. Philadelphia
W. H.
Co. (Ill U. S. 479), 562.
Anderson v. Pensacola R. Co. (2
Woods, 628), 1726.
Anderson v. Santa Anna (116 U.
S. 365), 283, 985, 991.
Anderson v. Scott (70 N. H. 350),
936.
Anderson
v. Thompson (51 La.
Ann. 727), 879.
Anderson v. Turbeville (6 Cold.
(Tenn.) 150), 1303.
Anderson v. United States (171 U.
S. 604), 1474.
Anderson, etc. v. Philadelphia
Warehouse Co. (Ill U. S. 479),
551, 552, 561, 562, 584, 870.
Anderson Bldg. Loan Fund, etc.
Assn. V. Thompson (88 Ind.
405), 768, 2066.
Anderson's Case (7 Ch. Div. 75),
427.
Andes v. Ely (158 U. S. 312), 64.
Andover & Co. v. Hay
(7 Mass.
102), 277.
Andres v. Morgan (62 Ohio St.
236), 182.
Andrew v. Vanderbilt (37 Hun,
468), 862, 863.
Andrews v. Mindi Life Ins. Co..
(92 N. Y. 596), 1171.
TABLE OF CASES. XXIX
IReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Andrews v. Bacon (38 Fed. Rep.
777), 899.
Andrews v. Callender (13 Pick.
(30 Mass.) 484), 570, 875.
Andrews v. Hart (17 Wis. 297),
503.
Andrews v. Murray (33 Barb. 354),
846, 1145.
Andrews v. Oliio, etc. R. Co. (14
Ind. 1G9), 366, 465.
Andrews v. Scotton (2 Bland
(Md.), 629), 1731.
Andrews v. Smith (9 Blatchf.
100), 1734.
Andrews v. Stanton (18 Bradw.
(111. App.) 163), 1799.
Andrews v. Steele City Bank (57
Neb. 173), 1780, 1797.
Andrews v. Union, etc. Co. (37
Me. 257), 192, 1287, 1333, 1664.
Andrews v. Worcester, etc. R. R.
Co. (159 Mass. 64), 54.
Andrews Bros. v. Youngstown
Coke Co. (86 Fed. Rep 525; 39
Fed. Rep. 353), 2, 163, 2094.
Androscoggin, etc. R. Co. v. An-
droscoggin R. Co. (52 Me. 417,
434), 1581.
Anfenger v. Anzeiger Pub. Co. (9
Colo. 377), 1144.
Angel V. Smith (9 Ves. 335), 1724,
1747, 1799.
Angelo, In re (5 De Gex & S. 278),
584, 1808.
Angle V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (151
U. S. 1), 77, 1252, 1964.
Anglesea Colliery Co., In re (L. R.
2 Eq. 279), 563.
Anglo-American, etc. Co. v. Davis,
etc. Co. (169 N. Y. 506), 2018.
Anglo-American, etc. Co. v. Dyer
(64 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 416),
883, 1532.
Anglo-Californian Bank v. Gran-
gers' Bank (63 Cal. 359), 210,
688, 689, 1299.
Anglo-Californian Bank v. Ma-
honey, etc. Co. (5 Sawy. 255;
104 U. S. 192), 1091, 1095.
Anglo-Danubian, etc. Co., In re
(L. R. 20 Eq. 339), 663, 1689.
Anglo-Indian, etc. Inst., In re
(Smith's Cases; 7 Ry. & Corp.
L.. J. 57), 483, 556.
Angus' Case (1 De G. & Sm. 560),
1574.
Anheuser-Busch, etc. Co. v. Houck
(27 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 692),
1440.
Anita Berwind, The (107 Fed. Rep.
721), 1630.
Annapolis, etc. Co. v. Anne Arun-
del County Comm'rs (102 U. S.
1), 721, 722.
Anniston, etc. R. R. Co. v. Jackon-
ville, etc. R. R. Co. (82 Ala. 297),
1311.
Anson, In re (85 Me. 79), 1710.
Ansonia, etc. Co. v. Nev/ Lamp
Chimney Co. (53 N. Y. 123; 91
U. S. 656), 866, 867.
Answer of Justices (9 Cush.
(63 Mass.) 604), 1659.
Anthony v. American Glucose Co.
146 N. Y. 407), 7, 183.
Anthony v. Campbell (112 Fed.
*
Rep. 212; 50 C. C. A. 195), 1758.
Anthony v. International Bank
(93 111. 225), 130.
Anthony v. Unangst (174 Pa. St.
10), 327, 527.
Anthony, etc. Co. v. King Bridge
Co. (23 Minn. 186). 1524.
Anson, In re (85 Me. 79), 1710.
Antoni v. Greenbrow (107 U. S.
769), 45.
Anvil Mining Co. v. Sherman (74
Wis. 226). 931.
Antelope, The (10 Wheat. 66),
1135.
Appleby V. Erie Canal, etc. Bank
(62 N. Y. 17), 207.
Applegarth v. McQuiddy
(77 Cal.
408), 1121.
Appleton, etc. Co. v. Central Trust,
etc. Co. (93 Fed. Rep. 286), 1734.
Appleyard's Case (49 L. J. Ch.
290), 508.
Arapahoe Inv. Co. v. Piatt (5 Colo.
App. 515), 1072.
Arapahoe, etc. Co. v. Stevens (13
Colo. 534; 22 Pac. Rep. 823),
207, 509, 1191.
Arbogash v. American, etc. Bank
(125 Fed. Rep. 518). 1157.
Arljuckle v. Illinois Midland Ry.
Co. (81 111. 429), 1886.
Archambeau v. New York, etc. R.
R. (170 Mass. 272), 1757.
Archambeau v. Piatt (173 Mass.
335), 1809.
Archbishop of San Francisco v.
Shipman (79 Cal, 288), 11, 12,
13.
Archer v. People's Sav. Bank (88
Ala. 249; 7 So. Rep. 53), 1061.
Archer v. Rose (3 Brewst. (Pa.)
264), 850.
XXX
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Archer v. Terre Haute, etc. R. Co.
(102 111. 493), 178, 1560, 1565,
15G6, 1567, 1843.
Arden v. Arden (29 Ch. Div. 702),
960.
Ardesco Oil Co. v. North Am.
Min. Co. (66 Pa. St. 375), 1243.
Arents v. Commonwealth (18
Gratt. 750), 1673, 1674, 1678,
1679, 1681, 1686.
Arenz v. Weir (89 111. 25), 840,
1795.
Argenti v. San Francisco (16 Cal.
255), 1361.
Argus Co. V. Mayor, etc. (55 N. Y.
495; 14 Am. Rep. 296), 1288.
Argus Printing Co.. In re (1 N. D.
434; 48 N. W. Rep. 347; 12 L.
R. A. 781; 26 Am. St. Rep.
639), 1011, 1014, 1021, 1025,
1026.
Arkansas, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc.
(13 Colo. 587; 22 Pac. Rep.
954), 442.
Arkansas, etc. Co. v. Manning (63
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 627), 1247.
Arkansas, etc. R. R. v. St. Louis,
etc. R. R. (103 Fed. Rep. 747),
1560.
Arkansas Tel. Co. v. Ratteree (57
Ark. 429), 1627.
Arkwright v. Newbold (17 Ch.
Div. 301), 579.
Armant v. New Orleans, etc. R.
Co. (41 La. Ann. 1020; 7 So.
Rep. 35), 646.
Armington v. Barnet (15 Vt.
745), 1301, 1658.
Armington v. Palmer (21 R. I.
109), 124, 1832.
Armington v. State (95 Ind. 421),
1061.
Armour v. B. Bement Sons (123
Fed. Rep. 56), 1819.
Armour Bros. & Co. v. St. Louis
Nat. Bank (113 Mo. 12; 35 Am.
St. Rep. 691), 263.
Arms V. Conant (36 Vt. 744), 992,
1089, 1707.
Armstrong v. Abbott (11 Colo.
220), 1163.
Armstrong v. Chemical Bank (41
Fed. Rep. 234; 6 L. R. A. 226),
1211.
Armstrong v. Danahay
(75 Hun,
405), 935.
Armstrong v. Karshner (47 Ohio
St. 276), 307, 937.
Arnold v. Cheoue Bank (1 C. P.
Div. 578), 615.
Arnold v. Covington Bridge (1
Duv. (Ky.) 372), 1308, 1310.
Arnold v. Ruggles (1 R. I. 165),
292, 523.
Arnot V. Sage (5 N. Y. Supp. 447),
490.
Arnot V. Pittston, etc. Coal Co. (68
N. Y. 558), 1416, 1426, 1472, 2115.
Aronwick R. Co. v. Cady (11 R. I.
121), 313.
Arrott V. Pratt (2 Whart. (Pa.)
566), 148, 2035.
Arthur v. Commercial, etc. Bank
(9 Smed. & M. (17 Miss.) 294;
48 Am. Dec. 719), 1253, 1255,
1699, 1957.
Arthur v. Midland Ry. Co. (3 Kay
6 J. 204), 551.
Arthur v. Oakes (63 Fed. Rep.
310; 25 L. R. A. 414), 1591.
Ash V. Guie (97 Pa. St. 493; 39
Am. Rep. 818), 2072, 2073, 2074,
2076, 2119, 2120.
Ashbury v. Watson (28 Ch. Div.
56; 51 L. T. 766), 118, 400.
Ashbury Rv. Co. v. Riche (L. R.
7 H. L. 653), 116, 118, 986, 1124,
1164, 1298, 1328, 1356, 1702.
Ashby v. Blackwell (2 Eden, 299),
419, 612.
Ashe V. Johnson (2 Jones Eq. (N.'
C.) 149), 576.
Asheville Division v. Aston (92
N. C. 578), 1915, 1950.
Ashhurst v. Mason (L. R. 20 Eq.
225), 1124.
Ashhurst's Appeal (60 Pa. St.
290), 828, 1361, 1826.
Ashland Bank v. Jones (16 Ohio
St. 145), 1679.
Ashley v. Blackwell (2 Edw. 290),
631.
Ashley v. Kinnan (18 N. Y. 791),
1069.
Ashley v. Ryan (153 U. S. 436),
753, 1852, 1880.
Ashley Wire Co. v. Illinois Steel
Co. (164 111. 149; 56 Am. St. Rep.
187), 207, 208, 992, 1084, 1164.
Ashley's Case (L. R. 9 Eq. 263),
332, 377.
Ashmead v. Colby (26 Conn. 287),
406.
Ashpitel V. Sercombe (5 Exch.
147), 378, 379.
Ashtabula, R. Co. v. Gardiner (1
Ch. Div. 13), 137, 1005.
Ashtabula, etc. R. Co. v. Smith
(15 Ohio St. 328), 182, 267, 268,
269, 281, 286, 304, 310, 321, 338.
TABLE OF CASES.
XX\1
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Ashton V. Atlantic Bank (85 Mass.
217), 533.
Ashton V. Burbank (2 Dill. 435),
96, 113, 572.
Ashton V. Ellsworth (48 111. 299),
187.
Ashton V. Heydenfeld (114 Cal.
14), 236.
Ashuelot R. Co. v. Elliott (57 N.
H. 397; 58 N. H. 451), 94, 1710,
1761, 1764.
Ashuelot, etc. Co. v. Holt (56 N.
H. 548), 271.
Ashiirst V. Field (26 N. J. Eq. 1),
647.
Ashworth v. Bristol, etc. Ry. Co.
(15 L. T. (N. S.) 561), 448, 617.
Ashworth v. Munn (14 Ch. Div.
363), 524.
Asiatic Banking Corp., In re (4
Ch. App. 252), 1278, 1431, 1577.
Askew's Case (L. R. 9 Ch. 664),
406.
Aspell V. Campbell (64 N. Y. App.
Div. 393), 539.
Aspen V. Aspen (5 Colo. App. 12),
237, 1240.
Aspinwall v. Butler (133 U. S.
595), 242, 291.
Aspinwall v. Daviess County
(22
How. 364), 42, 70.
AspinT\'all v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co.
(20 Ind. 492; 83 Am. Dec. 329),
987, 991, 2008, 2011.
Aspinwall v. Sacchi (57 N. Y.
331), 403, 874, 877.
Aspinwall v. Torrance (1 Lans.
(N. Y.) 381), 874.
Assignment, etc. Co., In re (107
Iowa, 143; 70 Am. St. Rep. 149),
1369, 1372.
Associated Press v. United Press
(104 Ga. 51), 2017.
Association v. Pelton (36 Ohio St.
258), 726.
Aston, In re (27 Beav. 480), 2093.
Astor V. Nev/ York Arcade R Co.
(113 N. Y. 93; 2 L. R. A. 789),
32, 63, 1516, 1598.
Astor V. Schlitz Brewing Co. (104
Tenn. 715), 1434.
Astor V. "V\'estchester Gas L. Co.
(33 Hun, 562), 1703.
Asylum v. School District (90 Pa.
St. 21), 726.
Atchafalaya Bank v. Dawson (13
La. Ann. 497), 1958.
Atcherson v. Troy, etc. R. Co. (6
Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 329), 860.
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Blackshire
(10 Kan. 477), 1321.
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Brown (57
Kan.
785), 1493.
Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. v. Denver,
etc. Ry. Co. (110 U. S. 667), 1393,
1394, 1475, 1558.
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Cochran
(43 Kan. 225; 7 L. R. A. 414;
19 Am. St. Rep. 129), 1278, 1577.
Atchison, etc. R. R. Co. v. David-
son (52 Kan. 739), 1606.
Atchison, etc. Co. v. Forbes (79
S. W. Rep. (Tex. Civ. App.)
1074), 2030.
Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. v. Kansas
City Ry. Co. (70 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 939), 1301.
Atchison, etc. Ry. Co. v. Nave (38
Kan. 744; 5 Am. St. Rep. 803),
104, 106, 1943.
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Phillips
County (26 Kan. 261), 298, 299,
1890.
Athenaeum Life Assurance Co., In
re (4 K. & J. 549), 928.
Athenaeum, etc. Society, In re (3
De G. & J. 660), 928.
Athenaeum L. Soc. v. Poolev (3
De G. & J. 294), 1165, 1677,
1685.
Athol Music Hall Co. v. Cary (116
Mass. 473), 271, 285.
Athol, etc. R. Co. v. Prescott (110
Mass. 213), 473, 479.
Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. Co.
(67 Ind. 334), 88.
Atkins V. Albree (12 Allen (94
Mass.), 359), 247.
Atkins V. Gamble (42 Cal. 86; 10
Am. Rep. 282), 587.
Atkins V. Judson (32 N. Y. App.
Div. 42), 1759, 1792.
Atkins V. Petersburg R. Co. (3
Hughes, 307; 2 Fed. Cas. 90),
1725, 1728.
Atkins V. Wabash, etc. R. Co. (29
Fed. Rep. 161), 1734, 1746.
Atkinson v. Atkinson (90 Mass.
15: 8 Allen, 15), 33, 525, 534,
53.5, 541.
Atkinson v. Marietta, etc. R. Co.
(15 Ohio St. 21), 23, 32, 1263,
1699.
Atkinson v. Pocock (1 Exch. 796),
333, 363, 378.
Atkinson's Appeal (11 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 239), 1110.
Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co.
XXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, G21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(71 Ga. 106), 68, 69, 98, 1915,
1957,
19G2.
Atlanta v. Grant (57 Ga. 340),
970.
Atlanta, etc. R. Co. v. Hodnett (3G
Ga. 669), 364, 371.
Atlanta, etc. R. R. Co. v. Western
Ry. Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 790; 1 C.
C. A. 676), 1770.
Atlantic, etc. Co. v. Andrews (97
Midi. 462), 500.
Atlantic City, etc. v. Consumers'
W. Co. (47 N. J. 427), 1600.
Atlantic Cotton Mills v. Indian,
etc. Mills (147 Mass. 268), 1160,
1162.
Atlantic Delaine Co. v. Mason (5
R. I. 463), 945, 986, 1001.
Atlantic & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Georgia
(98 U. S. 359), 97, 1854, 1864.
Atlantic, etc. R. Co., In re (3
Hughes, 320), 1668.
Atlantic, etc. R. Co. v. Dunn (19
Ohio St. 162; 2 Am. Rep. 382),
1499.
Atlantic, etc. R. Co. v. Hodnett (36
Ga. 669), 366.
Atlantic, etc. R. Co. v. Johnson
(134 N. y. 375), 1094.
Atlantic Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v.
Sanders (36 N. H. 252), 978.
Atlantic, etc. Co. v. Mason (5 R. I.
463), 494.
Atlantic, etc. Co. v. St. Louis (66
Mo. 228), 1311, 1316.
Atlantic State Bank v. Savery (82
N. Y. 291), 965.
Atlantic, etc. Tel. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. R. Co. (2 Fed. Cas. 176;
2 Biss. 158), 1619.
Atlantic, etc. R. Co. Case, In re
(3 Hughes, 320), 1861.
Atlantic, etc. R. R. Co. v. United
States (76 Fed. Rep. 186), 1553.
Atlantic & Pac. Tel. Co. v. Union,
etc. R. Co. (1 Fed. Rep. 745),
1329.
Atlantic T. Co. v. Dana (128 Fed.
Rep. 209), 1717, 1802.
Atlantic Trust Co. v. The Vigi-
lancia (73 Fed. Rep. 452), 1691.
Atlantic T. Co. v. Osgood (116
Fed. 1019), 431, 500.
Atlantic, etc. Co. v. Woodbridge,
etc. Co. (79 Fed. Rep. 501), 1651.
Atlas, etc. Co. v. Exchange Bank,
etc. (Ill Ga. 703), 1773.
Atlas Nat. Bank v. F. B. Gardner
Co. (8 Biss. 537; 2 Fed. Cas.
186), 1049.
Atlas Nat. Bank v. Savery
(127
Mass. 75), 1368.
Atnip V. Tennessee, etc. Co. (52
S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 1093), 233.
Attalla Iron Ore Co. v. Virginia,
etc. Co. (77 S. W. Rep. (Tenn.)
714), 1197.
Attica Bank v. Manufacturers'
Bank (20 N. Y. 556), 523.
Attorney-Gen., In re (82 N. W.
Rep. (Wis.) 912), 1788.
Attorney-Gen. v. Andrews (2
Macn. & G. 222), 1368.
Attorney-Gen. v. Bank of Niagara
(Hopk. Ch. (N. Y.) 354), 1962.
Attorney-Gen. v. Boston Wharf Co.
(109 Mass. 39), 1874, 1921, 1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Brecon (10 Ch.
Div. 204), 1368.
Attorney-Gen. v. Bay, etc. Co. (115
Mass. 431), 1354, 1990.
Attorney-Gen. v. Cambridge (16
Gray (82 Mass.) 247), 1921,
1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Cape Fear, etc.
Co. (37 N. C. 444), 293.
Attorney-Gen. v. Central Ry. Co.
(50 N. J. Eq. 52, 489; 24 Atl.
Rep. 964; 25 Atl. Rep. 942),
1439.
Attorney-Gen. v. Chicago & Ev.
Ry. Co. (112 111. 520), 1427,
1958.
Attorney-Gen. v. City of Salem
(103 Mass. 138), 1937.
Attorney-Gen. v. Clarendon (17
Ves. 491), 1061, 1924.
Attorney-Gen. v. Cockermouth
Local Bank (18 Eq. 172), 1921.
Attorney-Gen. v. Cohoes Co. (6
Paige (N. Y.) 133; 29 Am. Dec.
755), 1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Eastlake (11
Hare, 205), 1353, 1368.
Attorney-Gen. v. Garrison (101
Mass. 223), 1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Germantown, etc.
Road (55 Pa. St. 466). 1658.
Attorney-Gen. v. Geerlings (55
Mich. 562), 2128.
Attorney-Gen. v. Grand Trunk Ry.
Co. (L. C. 9, 668; Dec. des Trib.
(L. C.) 1557.
Attorney-Gen. v. Great Eastern Ry.
Co. (11 Ch. Div. 449; 5 App.
Cas. 473), 1231, 1258, 1328, 1580,
1921.
Attorney-Gen. v. Great Northern
Rv. Co. (1 Drew & Sm. 154),
1340, 1586, 1921, 1924.
TABLE OF CASES. XXXlll
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Attorney-Gen. v. Hanchett (42
Mich. 436), 149.
Attorney-Gen. v. Hudson Riv. R.
Co. (1 Stockton (N. J.), 526),
1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Jamaica, etc.
Corp. (133 Mass. 361), 56, 1354,
1925.
Attorney- Gen. v. Leicester (79
Beav. 546), 129, 1137, 1139.
Attorney-Gen. v. Lorman (29
Mich. 157; 60 Am. Rep. 287), 81,
85, 155.
Attorney-Gen. v. Looker (111
Mich. 498), 974.
Attorney-Gen. v. Lord Gowes (9
Mod. 24), 1979.
Attorney-Gen. v. Manchester, etc.
Ry. Co. (1 R. C. 436), 1368.
Attorney-Gen. v. Mercantile, etc.
Co. (121 Mass. 524), 7, 2089,
2090.
Attornev-Gen. v. Metropolitan Ry.
Co. (125 Mass. 515), 1929.
Attorney-Gen. v. Middleton (2
Vesey, Sen. 327), 230.
Attornev-Gen. v. New Jersey R.
Co. (2 Green Ch. (N. J.) 136),
1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Niagara Falls,
etc. Co. (20 Grants Ch. Rep.
(Can.) 34), 1565.
Attorney-Gen. v. Norwich (35 L.
J. Ch. 41), 1368.
Attorney-Gen. v. Pearson (3 Mer.
353), 2082.
Attorney-Gen. v. Petersburg, etc.
Co. (6 Ired. (N. C.) 456), 1427,
1904, 1918.
Attorney-Gen. v. Railroad Co. (35
Wis. 425), 1874, 1921, 1925.
Attorney-Gen. v. Reynolds (1 Eq.
Cas. Ah. 131), 1921.
Attorney-Gen. v. Scott (1 Ves.
413), 1019.
Attorney-Gen. v. Shrewsbury B.
Co. (1 Ch. Div. 752), 1921.
Attorney-Gen. v. State Bank (1
Dev. & B. Eq. 545), 633, 643.
Attorney-Gen. v. Stevens (1 N. J.
Eq. 369; 22 Am. Dec. 526), 288,
1924.
Attorney-Gen. v. Superior, etc. Co.
(93 Wis. 604), 1911, 1918, 1928,
1949, 1958.
Attorney-Gen. v. Tudor Ice Co.
(104 Mass. 239: 6 Am. Rep.
227), 1354, 1380, 1921, 1924, 1925,
1926; 1936.
Attorney-Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co. (2
Johns. Ch. 371), 1125, 1921,
1924, 1925. 1936.
Attorney-Gen. v. Wilson (1 Craig
& P. 1; 9 Sim. 30), 129, 1099.
Attorney-Gen. v. Wisconsin W. Ry.
Co. (35 Wis. 599), 97.
Attrill V. Huntington (70 Md.
191; 2 L. R. A. 779), 1137.
Atwater v. American, etc. Bank
(152 111. 605), 1774.
Atwater v. Stromberg (75
Minn.
277), 316.
Atwater v. Smith (73 Minn. 507),
1284.
Atwood v. Cobb (16 Pick. (33
Mass.) 227), 682.
Atwood V. Merryweather (5 Eq.
464), 1357.
Atwood v. Rhode Island Agric.
Bank (1 R. I. 376), 832, 835,
1796.
Atwood V. Small (2 CI. & F. 282),
368.
Aubert v. Walsh (4 Taunt. 493),
401.
Auburn Bolt, etc. Works v.
Schmitz (143 Pa. St. 256), 271,
1333.
Auburn, etc. Co. v. Svlvester (68
Hun (N. Y.), 401), 1954.
Auburn, etc. Assn.- v. Hill (32 Pac.
Rep. (Cal.) 587), 948.
Auerbach v. Le Sueur Mill Co. (28
Minn. 291; 41 Am. Rep. 285),
1266, 1272.
Auger, etc. Co. v. Whittier (117
Mass. 541), 68.
Augerhoefer v. Bradstreet Co. (22
Fed. Rep. 353), 2031.
Augir v. Ryan (63 Minn. 373),
881.
Augsburg, etc. Co. v. Penper (95
Va. 92), 1768.
Augusta Bank v. Augusta (49 Me.
507), 297, 1683.
Augusta, etc. R. Co. v. Citv Coun-
cil (100 Ga. 701), 1817.
Augusta Manuf. Co. v. Vertrees (4
Lea (Tenn.) 75), 1927.
Aull V. Colket (33 Leg. Int. (Pa.)
44), 393.
Aull Savings Bank v. Lexington
(74 Mo. 104), 1268.
Aultman v. Waddle (40 Kan. 195),
167.
Aultman, etc. Co. v. Holder (68
Fed. Rep. 467), 1986, 1992.
Aultman's Appeal (98 Pa. St. 905),
545, 551, 562, 587, 794, 844, 885.
888, 897, 904, 928.
XXXI
V
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-MO; Vol. IT, G21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Aurora v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (19
111. App. 300), 738.
Aurora, etc. Co. v. Holt House (7
Ind. 59), 909, 1923.
Aurora, etc. Soc. v. Paddock (80
111. 263), 828, 1260.
Aurora City v. West (9 Ind. 74;
7 Wall. 82), 1679, 1681, 1752.
Austin V. Austin City, etc. Assn.
(87 Tex. 330; 47 Am. St. Rep.
114), 1666.
Austin V. Berlin (13 Colo. 198; 22
Pac. 433), 1135.
Austin V. Columbia, etc. Co. (87
N. Y. S. 497), 1941.
Austin V. Daniels (4 Denio, 299),
1151, 1197.
Austin V. First Nat., etc. Bank
(100 Mich. 613), 1770.
Austin V. Gillespie (1 Jones' Eq.
(N. C.) 261), 576.
Austin V. Searing (16 N. Y. 112;
69 Am. Dec. 665, 672), 189, 198,
204, 205, 206, 228, 230, 771, 772,
777, 778, 785, 2059, 2083, 2118.
Austin V. Tecumseh Nat. Bank (49
Neb. 412; 35 L. R. A. 444; 59
Am. St. Rep. 543), 182, 1833.
Austin's Case (24 L. J. (N. S.)
932), 480, 1052.
Australia, etc. Co. v. Mounsey
(4
K. & J. 733), 1266, 1700, 1702.
Australasia Bank, In re (6 Mo.
P. C. 152), 1266.
Avegno v. Citizens' Bank (40 La.
Ann. 799; 5 So. Rep. 537), 339.
Averill v. IBarber (6 N. Y. Supp.
255), 1127.
Avery v. Boston, etc. Trust Co. (72
Fed. Rep. 700), 1791.
Averv Sons v. Texas, etc. Co. (62
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 793), 122.
Ayer v. Peninsular, etc. Nav. Co.
(26 Law. Rep. Ch. Div. 637),
1631.
Aylesbury Ry. Co. v. Mount (5
Scott N. R. 127; 4 Man. & G.
651), 469, 545, 889.
Ayre v. Seymour (5 N. Y. Supp.
650), 535.
Ayres v. Methodist Church (3
Sandf. 351), 1241.
Ayres' Case (25 Beav. 513), 377.
B.
Baar v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(125 N. Y. 263), 427.
Babb V. Reed (5 Rawles Rep.
(Pa.) 151; 28 Am. Dec. 650), 7,.
2047, 2073, 2119.
Babcock v. Schuylkill, etc. R. Co.
(9 N. Y. Supp. 845), 2030.
Babington v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co. (34 Pa. St. 15, 81), 289.
Bach V. Pacific, etc. Co. (12 Abb.
Pr. (N. S.) 373), 1355.
Bachman, In re (2 Cent. L. J. 119;
12 Nat. Bank Reg. 223; 2 Fed.
Cas. 310). 226, 227, 556, 686, 691,
882, 885, 888.
Bachmann v. New York, etc. Bund
12 Abb. N. Cas. 54), 787, 2061.
Backer v. U. S. etc. Co. (84 N. Y.
S. 189), 1208.
Bachmann v. Supreme Lodge (44
111. App. 188), 51.
Backus V. Lebanon (11 N. H. 19),
1301, 1318.
Bacon v. Michigan, etc. R. Co. (55
Mich. 224), 1494, 1495.
Bacon v. Pomeroy (104 Mass. 577),
567.
Bacon v. Robertson (18 How. (U.
S.) 480). 178, 1786, 1971, 1976,
1977, 1978, 1980.
Badger Paper Co. v. Rose (95 Wis.
145), 261.
Badger v. Badger (2 Wall. 87),
828.
Badger, etc. Co. v. Rose (95 Wis.
145), 882.
Badger T. Co. v. Wolf River T. Co.
(97 N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 907),
1621.
Badlam v. Tucker (1 Pick. (18
Mass.) 389; 11 Am. Dec. 202),
966.
Bagby v. American, etc. Co. (86-
Pa. St. 291), 1811.
Bagg's Case (11 Coke, 94), 774,
2055.
Bagge, Ex parte (13 Beav. 162),
543.
Bagley v. Carthage, etc. R. R. Co.
(165 N. Y. 179). 1065.
Bagley v. Carthage, etc. R. R. (25
N. Y. App. Div. 475; 49 N. Y.
Supp. 718), 1074.
Bagley v. Pittsburgh, etc. Iron Co.
(146 Pa. St. 170), 1070.
Bagley v. Reno, etc. Co. (201 Pa-
st. 78; 56 L. R. A. 184), 976,
986.
Bagley v. Tyler (43 Mo. App. 195),
864.
Bagnall v. Carlton (6 Ch. Div..
371), 1218, 1219.
TABLE OF CASES. XXXV
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bagnalstown, etc. Ry. Co., In re
(Ir. Rep. 4 Eq. 505), 1707.
Bagshaw. Ex parte (L. R. 4 Eq.
341), 1S56, 1S76.
Bagshaw v. Eastern Union Co. (7
Hare. 114), 338, 808, 822, 1355,
135G, 1704.
Bahia & Son Iron Ry. Co., In re
(18 L. T. Rep. 467), 400, 407,
418, 561, 608.
Baile v. Calvert Educational Soc.
(47 Md. 117), 137, 320, 1005.
Bailey v. Assn. etc. (103 Tenn. 99;
46 L. R. A. 501), 189, 191, 772.
Bailey v. Bancker (3 Hill, 188),
906, 910, 916.
Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co.
(12 Beav. 433), 455, 1355.
Bailey v. Burgess (48 N. J. Eq.
411), 1215.
Bailey v. Citizens' Gas Light Co.
(27 N. J. Eq. 196).
Bailey v. Clark (21 Wall. 284),
236.
Bailey v. Coal Co. (69 Pa. St. 334),
511.
Bailey v. Gas Fuel Co. (193 Pa. St.
175), 1643.
Bailev v. Hannibal, etc. R. Co. (17
Wall. 96; 1 Dill. 174), 340, 674.
Bailey v. Hollister (26 N. Y. 112),
101, 111. 114, 570, 840.
Bailey v. Maguire (22 Wall. 215),
718.
Bailey v. Master Plumbers (103
Tenn. 99; 52 S. W. Rep. 853),
216, 430.
Bailey v. Mayor of N. Y. (3 Hill,
531), 67.
Bailey v. Mosher (95 Fed. Rep.
223), 1790.
Bailey v. Mutual Ben. Assn. (27
N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 770), 2070.
Bailey v. New York, etc. Ry. Co.
(1 N. Y. Supp. 304), 1516.
Bailey v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R.
(139 Pa. St. 213), 899.
Bailey v. Platte, etc. Co. (12 Colo.
230), 1972, 1982.
Bailey v. Railroad Co. (22 Wall.
604), 248, 542, 628, 669, 674, 675,
1008.
Bailey v. Sawyer (4 Dill. 463),
855.
Bailey v. Universal Pr. L. Co. (1
C. B. (N. S.) 557); 274.
Bailey, Ex parte (L. R. 3 Ch. 592;
37 L. J. Ch. 255), 274.
Bain v. Cooper (1 Dow. (N. S.),
11), 1878.
Bain v. Whitehaven Railway Com-
pany
(3 H. L. Cas. 1), 588,
592.
Bainbridge v. Louisville (83 Ky.
285), 1687.
Bainbridge v. Smith (60 L. T. Rep.
(N. S.) 879), 532.
Bainbridge, In re (Weekly Notes,
1889, p. 228), 532.
Baines v. Babcock (95 Cal. 581;
29 Am. St. Rep. 158), 573, 883.
Baines v. Coos Bay, etc. Co. (68
Pac. (Oreg.) 397), 1066.
Bsird V. Poole (12 N. Y. 495),
1994.
Baird v. Ross (2 Macqueen, 61),
338, 378.
Baird v. Underwood (74 111. 176),
1803.
Baird's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. 725),
565, 569.
Baird Lumber Co. v. Devlin (124
Ala. 245), 1200.
Baker, Ex parte (45 S. E. Rep.
143; 67 S. C. 74), 1796.
Baker v. Atlas Bank (9 Mete.
(50 Mass.) 182), 949. 1128.
Baker v. Backus (32 111. 79, 110),
949, 1913. 1924, 1938, 1957.
Baker v. Consolidated, etc. Co. (85
N. Y. S. 830), 1743.
Baker v. Drake (53 N. Y. 211; 13
Am. Rep. 507; 23 Am. Rep. 80),
581.
Baker v. Fales (16 Mass. 487),
2082.
Baker v. Fort Worth, etc. (8 Tex.
Civ. App. 560), 952.
Baker v. Harpster (42 Kan. 511),
1097.
Baker v. Marshall (15 Minn 177),
619.
Baker v. Wasson (59 Tex. 140),
291, 609, 610, 614.
Baker v. Woolston (27 Kan. 185),
265.
Baker's Appeal (108 Pa. St. 510;
56 Am. Rep. 231), 1023.
Baker's Case (1 Drew. & S. 54),
573, 574, 1123.
Bakersfleld Congregational Soc. v.
Baker (15 Vt. 119; 40 Am. Dec.
668), 2130.
Baich V. Wilson (25 Minn. 299),
928.
Balch V. New York, etc. R. Co. (46
N. Y. 521), 860.
Bald Eagle, etc. v. Nittany, etc. R.
R. (171 Pa. St. 284; 29 L. R. A.
423), 1474, 1582.
X.XXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Baldwin v. Canfield (26 Minn. 43),
12. 77, 524, 582, 585, 590, 592,
595, 812. 9G3, 1055, 1962, 1963.
Baldwin v. Chicago, etc. Ry. (86
Fed. Rep. 167), 31, 135.
Baldwin v.
Commonwealth (11
Bush (Ky.), 417), 576.
Baldwin v. Hillsborough, etc. Co.
(1 Ohio Dec. 532), 70.
Balfour v. Baker City Gas Co. (27
Oreg. 300), 325, 944.
Balfour v. Ernest (5 C. B. (N. S.)
691), 1353.
Balfour, Guthrie, etc. Co. v. Wood-
worth (124 Cal. 169), 977.
Balkis Consol, In re (58 L. T. 300),
539.
Ball V. Anderson (196 Pa. St. 86),
845, 846.
Ball V. Rutland R. Co. (93 Fed.
Rep. 513), 1392.
Ball V. Wicks (45 Neb. 367), 864.
Ballard v. Mississippi, etc. Co. (62
L. R. A. 407), 44.
Balliet v. Brown (103 Pa. St. 546),
1087, 1243.
Balsh V. Hallett (10 Gray
(76
Mass.), 402), 638.
Balsley v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
(119 111. 68), 1570.
Baltimore v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.
(21 Md. 50; 48 Am. Dec. 531),
1230, 1655, 1881, 1890.
Baltimore v. Hambleton (77 Md.
341), 651, 654, 953.
Baltimore v. Hussey (67 Md. 112),
718.
Baltimore, etc. Assn. v. Alderson
(99 Fed. Rep. 489; 39 C. C. A.
609), 1815.
Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Burris (111
Fed. Rep. 882), 1755.
Baltimore, etc. R. Co. v. Cannon
(72 Md. 493; 20 Atl. Rep. 123),
1785, 1976.
Baltimore, etc. Rv. Co. v. Cary
(28 Ohio St. 208), 2012.
Baltimore, etc. Union Ry. v. City
of Baltimore (18 Atl. Rep.
(Md.) 917), 717, 737.
Baltimore, etc. Co. v. Fifth Bap-
tist Church (137 U. S. 568), 126,
1400, 1482, 1489, 1505, 1936.
Baltimore, etc. R. Co. v. Glenn
(28 Md. 287), 2009.
Baltimore
S; O. R. Co. v. Harris
(12 Wall. (U. S.) 65), 32, 51.
Baltimore, etc. v. Koontz (104 U.
S. 5), 2013.
Baltimore, etc. Co. v. Mali (66 Md.
53), 537.
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Maryland
21 Wall. 456), 754.
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Marshall
Co. (3 W. Va. 319), 1918.
Baltimore, etc. R. Co. v. Mussel-
man (2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 348),
1866, 1890.
Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Ocean City
(89 Md. 89), 727.
Baltimore v. Reynolds (20 Md. 1),
1343.
Baltimore, etc. Ry. Co. v. Sewell
(35 Md. 238; 6 Am. Rep. 402),
300, 379, 602, 614.
Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Allen (22
Fed. Rep. 376), 750.
Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Sloan
(7
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 217), 1322.
Baltimore, etc. Co. v. State (36
Md. 519), 293.
Baltim.ore, etc. R. Co. v. Wilkins
(44 Md. 28), 415.
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Kreger
(61 Ohio St. 212), 1386.
Baltimore & L. v. Powhatan (87
Md. 59; 39 Atl. Rep. 274), 199.
Baltimore, etc. T. Co. v. Interstate,
etc. T. Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 50),
1248.
Baltimore Trust Co. v. Baltimore
(64 Fed. Rep. 153), 1601.
Baltimore, etc. Turnpike Co. v
Barnes (6 Harr. & J. (Md.)
57), 488.
Baltimore, etc. Ry. v. Wabash Ry
(119 Fed. Rep. 678), 1734.
Baltimore & Ohio Tel. Co. v. West-
ern U. T. Co. (24 Fed. Rep. 319)
1416.
Balton, In re (47 La. Ann. 614)
1779.
Baltzen v. Nicolay (53 N. Y. 467)
524.
Bancroft v. Wilmington Confer
ence Acad. (5 Del. 577), 1047.
Banet v. Alton, etc. R. Co. (13 111
504), 277, 323, 454, 456, 1088.
Bangor Boom Co. v. Whitney (29
Me. 123), 1230.
Bangor, etc. Co. v. Robinson (52
Fed. Rep. 520), 395.
Bangor R. R. Co. v. Smith (47 Me.
34), 69.
Bangor, etc. Co., In re (L. R. 26
Eq. 59), 680.
Bangs V. Duckinfield (18 N. Y.
592), 475, 781.
TABLE OF CASES. XXXVll
[References are to pages: "Vol. T, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bangs V. Mcintosh (23 Barb. 591),
1924.
Banigan v. United States (22 R. I.
452), 188, 667, 668.
Bank of Little Rock v. McCarthy
(55 Ark. 473; 29 Am. St. Rep.
eO), 976.
Bank v. Abrahams (L. R. 6 C. P.
App. 262), 454.
Bank v. Alden (129 U. S. 372),
404.
Bank v. Bank (105 U. S. 217), 593.
Bank v. Billings (4 Peters, 514),
1384.
Bank v. Bonnie (43 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 407), 693.
Bank v. Bruce (17 N. Y. 510), 253,
1280, 1284, 1285.
Bank v. Champlain, etc. Co. (18
Vt. 131), 253, 1284.
Bank v. City of Charlotte (85 N.
C. 433), 112.
Bank v. Columbia County (23
Wash. 441), 743.
Bank v. Connors (9 Wall. 353),
743.
Bank v. Commonwealth (10 Pa. St.
442), 721.
Bank v. Cox (11 Rich. Eq. 347),
544.
Bank v. Davenport (123 U. S. 83),
743.
Bank v. Drake (29 Kan. 311), 1067.
Bank v. Elrath (13 N. J. Eq. 26),
544.
Bank v. Flour Co. (41 Ohio St.
552), 977.
Bank v. Francklyn (120 U. S. 747),
471.
Bank v. Garfield, etc, (56 N. Y.
App. Div. 43), 1766.
Bank v. Gibbs
(3 McCord (S. C),
377), 16.
Bank v. Hammond (1 Rich. (S.
C.) 281), 1343.
Bank v. Harris (118 Mass. 147),
1877.
Bank v. Hungate (62 Fed. Rep.
548), 742.
Bank v. Insurance (12 Ohio St.
601), 1285.
Bank v. Kimball (103 U. S. 733),
743.
Bank v. King (44 N. Y. 87), 1426.
Bank v. Lanier (11 Wall. 369),
227, 612, 631, 884.
Bank v. Leach (52 N. Y. 350), 1681.
Bank v. Livingston (74 N. Y. 223),
579.
Bank v. McLeod (38 Ohio St. 174),
1810.
Bank v. Newport Steam F. (61
R. I. 154; 75 Am. Dec. 688), 870.
Bank v. Ocean Nat. Bank (60 N.
Y. 288; 19 Am. Rep. 181), 20.
Bank v. Overman (34 N. W. Rep.
(Neb.) 107), 1388.
Bank v. Page (6 Oreg. 431), 2003.
Bank v. Peoria, etc. Co. (191 111.
128), 1284.
Bank v. Pfeiffer (108 N. Y. 242),
154.
Bank v. Richardson (1 Me. 79),
111.
Bank v. Rome (18 N. Y. 38), 296.
Bank v. St. John (25 Ala. 566),
335.
Bank v. Telegraph Co. (52 Cal.
280), 1483.
Bank v. Transportation Co. (18
Vt. 138), 253, 1280, 1285.
Bank v. Wallaston (3 Harr. (Del.)
90), 209.
Bank of Ashland v. Jones (16 Ohio
St. 145), 1679.
Bank Com'rs v. v. Bank of Buffalo
(6 Paige (N. Y.), 497), 1903,
1930.
Bank Com'rs v. New Hampshire
(G9 N. H. 621), 1670.
Bank Com'rs v. Rhode Island Cen-
tral Bank (5 R. I. 12), 1903.
Bank of America v. McNeil (10
Bush (Ky), 54), 614.
Bank of Atchison Co. v. Durfee
(118 Mo. 431; 40 Am. St. Rep.
396), 226, 541.
Bank of Attica v. Manufacturers,'
etc. Bank (20 N. Y. 556), 523.
Bank of Attica v. Pottier, etc. Co.
(1 N. Y. Supp. 493), 1080.
Bank of Augusta v. Earle (13 Pet.
(U. S.) 519), 39, 1V6, 1338, 1376,
1986, 1988, 1998, 2010, 2012.
Bank of Australia v. Breillat (6
Moo. P. C. 152), 1700.
Bank of Australasia v. Nias (16
Q. B. 717), 919.
Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque
Bank (14 Wall. 383), 856, 1964.
Bank of Bramwell v. Mercer
County (36 W. Va. 341), 742.
Bank of California v. City of Cali-
fornia (75Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 832),
696, 698, 699.
Bank of California v. San Fran-
cisco (142 Cal. 276; 64 L. R. A,
918), 763.
XXXVlll TAIJLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bank of Chenango v. Brown (2G
N. Y. 467), 65, 94.
Bank of Chillicothe v. Chillicothe
(70 Ohio, 415), 1266.
Bank of Chillicothe v. Dodge (8
Barb. 233), 1297.
Bank of Chillicothe v. Swayne (8
Ohio St. 257), 1329.
Bank of China v. Morse (168 N.
Y. 458; 56 L. R. A. 139), 287,
883, 1247, 1832.
Bank of Columbia v. Okely
(4
Wheat (U. S.) 235), 44.
Bank of Columbia v. Patterson's
Adm'r (7 Cranch. (U. S.) 299),
132, 1046, 1358.
Bank of Circleville v. Renick (15
Ohio, 222), 155.
Bank of Commerce's Appeal (73
Pa. St. 79), 1975.
Bank of Commerce v. Central, etc.
Co. (115 Fed. Rep. 878), 1805.
Bank of Commerce v. New York
(2 Black, 620), 1697.
Bank of Cortland v. Green (43 N.
Y. 298), 1686.
Bank of Commerce v. Bank of
Buffalo (6 Paige, 497), 1187.
Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee
(161 U. S. 134; 163 U. S. 416),
714, 721, 727.
Bank of Culloden v. Bank of
Forysthe (48 S. E. Rep. (Ga.)
226), 544, 692.
Bank of Dansville, In re (6 Hill,
370), 2092.
Bank of E. Tennessee v. Hooke (1
Cold. (Tenn.) 156), 1187.
Bank of Fort Madison v. Alden
(129 U. S. 372), 928, 929.
Bank of Gallipolis v. Trimble (6
B. Mon. (Ky.) 599), 1950.
Bank of Healdsburg v. Bailhall
(65 Cal. 327). 1187.
Bank, etc. v. Hill (56 Me. 385;
96 Am. Dec. 470), 1135, 1136.
Bank of Hindustan, In re (L. R.
16 Eq. 417), 1840, 1859.
Bank of Holly Springs v. Pinson
(58 Miss. 421; 38 Am. Rep. 330),
210, 227, 229, 230, 232, 686.
Bank of Ireland v. Evans Charities
(5 H. L. Cas. 389), 614.
Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill
Bank (1 Parson's Sel. Eq. Cas.
(Pa.) 180), 407, 421, 798, 1084.
Bank of Little Rock v. McCarthy
(55 Ark. 473; 29 Am. St. Rep.
60), 976.
Bank of London v. Tyrrell (5 Jur.
(N. S.) 924), 1221.
Bank of Louisiana v. Wilson (19
La. Ann. 1), 1968, 1972.
Bank of Louisville v. Gray (84 Ky.
565), 534, 626, 643.
Bank of Louisville v. Wasson (48
lov.^a, 336), 219.
Bank of Louisville v. Young
(37
Mo. 398). 1994.
Bank of Manchester v. Nolan (7
How. (Miss.) 508), 10.
Bank of Maryland (6 Gill. & J.
(Md.) 205; 26 Am. Dec. 561),
1958.
Bank of Michigan v. Niles (Walk.
(Mich.) 99), 1236, 1660.
Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland,
etc. R. R. Co. (30 Vt. 159), 1083.
Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan
(56 Miss. 166), 1971, 1978, 1980.
Bank of Mississippi v. Wrenn (3
Smed. & M. (Miss.)
791), 1950,
1967.
Bank of Missouri v. Merchants'
Bank of Baltimore (10 Mo. 123),
922, 1958.
Bank of Montgomery v. Reece (26
Pa. St. 143), 652.
Bank of Monroe v. Gifford (72
Iowa, 750), 1272.
Bank of Montreal v. Chicago, etc.
R. Co. (48 Iowa, 518), 1727, 1728,
1803.
Bank of Mut. Redemption v. Hill
(50 Me. 385), 1124;
Bank of National City v. Johns-
ton (133 Cal. 185), 976.
Bank of Pennsylvania v. Common-
Avealth (19 Pa. St. 144), 695, 721.
Bank of New York v. Carroll (55
N. Y. 440), 1686.
Bank v. New York City (2 Black,
620), 699, 743.
Bank of Poughkeepsie v. Ibbotson
(24 Wend. 473), 852, 853, 855,
860, 898, 902, 906, 910, 928,
949.
Bank of Republic v. Hamilton City
(21 111. 54), 13S0.
Bank of St. Marys v. St. John (25
Ala. 566), 329, 645, 1120, 1125,
1129.
.
Bank of Salem v. Caldwell (16
Ind. 469), 1974.
Bank for Savings v. Collerton (3
Wall. (U. S.) 495), 20.
Bank of Shasta v. Boyde (99 Cal.
604), 153.
TABLE OF CASES. XXXIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bank of Sing Sing, In re (32 Hun,
462), 949.
Bank of Statesville v. Town of
Statesville (84 N. C. 169), 267.
Bank of Switzerland v. Bank of
Turkey
(5
L. T. (N. S.) 549),
1948.
Bank of United States v. Dallam
(4 Dana (Ky.), 574), 492, 8G3,
898, 899, 902, 950.
Bank of United States v. Dand-
ridge (12 Wheat. 64), 796, 1084,
1363.
Bank of United States v. Davis (2
Hill. 451), 1160.
Bank of United States v. Deveaux
(5 Cranch. 61), 10, 2010.
Bank of United States v. Earle
(13 Pet. (U. S.) 595), 48.
Bank of United States v. Planters'
Bank (9 Wheat. (U. S.) 904),
16, 76, 1514.
Bank of United States v. Wilson
(3 Cr. C. C. 213), 148, 2035.
Bank of Utica v. Hilliard (5 Cow.
(N. Y.) 133), 147, 1534.
Bank of Utica f. Smalley (2 Cow.
(N. Y.) 770; 14 Am. Dec. 526),
420, 542, 595, 692, 693.
Bank of Vincennes v. State (1
Blackf. (Ind.) 267; 12 Am. Dec.
234), 28, 1427, 1903, 1908.
Bank of Virginia v. Adams (1
Pars. Sel. Cas. 534), 446, 844,
899, 904.
Bank of Virginia v. Craig (6 Leigh
(Va.), 399), 572, 609.
Bank of Watertown v. Watertown
25 Wend. 686), 2092.
Bank of Wilmington v. Wollaston
3 Harr. (Del.) 90), 195, 208.
Bank of Wooster v. Stevens (1,
Ohio St. 233; 59 Am. St. Dec.
619), 919.
Bankers' Union, etc. v. Crawford
(73 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 79), 2102.
Bankers' Union, etc. v. World
(73
Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 79), 1227.
Banking Co. v. Georgia (92 U. S.
665), 1878, 1879.
Banking, etc. Co.. v. Road (132 Mo.
256), 791.
Banks v. Darden (18 Ga. 318),
1123.
Banks v. Judah (8 Conn. 145),
1820.
Banque Franco Egvptiene v.
Brown (34 Fed. Rep. 162), 1710.
Baptist Church v. Baltimore, etc.
R. Co. (4 Maokey, 43), 1531.
Baptist Meeting House v. Webb
(66 Me. 398), 1947, 1958, 1962.
Barber's Case (5 Ch. Div. 963),
1044.
Barber
v. Andover
(8 N. H. 398),
1301.
Barber v. International Co. (73
Conn.
587), 1779, 1782.
Barbot v. Mutual (100 Ga. 681),
207.
Barclay v. Quicksilver Min. Co.
(9 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 283; 6 Lans.
25), 1243, 1357, 1886, 1892, 1949.
Barclay v. Talman (4 Edw. Ch.
123), 904, 1948, 1953, 1957, 1964,
1695.
Barclay v. Wainewright
(14 Ves.
66), 647, 650.
Barcus v. Gates (89 Fed. Rep.
783), 439.
Bard v. Banigan
(39 Fed. Rep.
13),
492.
Bard v. City of Augusta (30 Fed.
Rep. 906), 294.
Bard v. Pennsylvania Traction Co.
(176 Pa. St. 97), 1609.
Bardstown, etc. R. Co. v. Metcalfe
(61 Ky. (4 Mete.) 199; 81 Am.
Dec. 541), 11, 1260, 1745.
Bardstown, etc. Co. v. Nelson Co.
(78 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
851), 1659.
Bardwell v. Sheffield, etc. Co. (L.
R. 14 Eq. Cas. 517), 634, 636,
062.
Bargate v. Shortridge
(5 H. L. Cas.
297), 556, 592, 593, 617, 884, 1083,
1084.
Barker, In re (6 Wend.
509), 585,
1013.
Barker v. Bucklin (2 Denio,
45),
272.
Barksdale v. Finney
(14 Graft.
338), 1887, 1890.
Barling v. Bank of British, etc,
(50 Fed. Rep. 260), 1992.
Barnard, In re (61 Fed. Rep. 531),
808.
Barnard v. Norwich, etc. R. Co.
(4 Cliff. 365), 1713.
Barnard v. Vermont, etc. R. Co.
(89 Mass. (7 Allen), 512), 662,
665, 671, 674.
Barnard v. Whipple (29 Vt. 402),
2131.
Barned's Banking Co., In re (3
Ch. 105), 390, 525.
Barnes v. Brown (80 N. Y. 527),
528, 550, 804, 1026, 1027, 1028,
1031, 1425.
Barnes v. Chicago, etc. Co. (8 Biss.
xl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
514; Fed. 'Cas. 1016; 122 U. S.
1), 1721, 17G1.
Bai-nes v.
District of Columbia
(91 U. S. 552), 1550.
Barnes v. Kornegay (62 Fed. Rep.
671), 2036.
Barnes v. Lynch (9 Okla. 156; 59
Pac. Rep. 995), 1185.
Barnes v. Lacon (84 111. 461), 294.
Barnes v. Ontario Bank (19 N. Y.
152),
1266.
Barnes v. Pennell (2 H. L. Cas.
497), 634.
Barnes v. Ferine (12 N. Y. 18),
272.
Barnes v. Smith (159 Mass. 344),
527.
Barnet v. Alton & S. R. Co. (13 111.
504), 109, 111, 472.
Barnett's Case (L. R. 18 Eq. 507),
427, 922.
Barney v. Keokuk (94 U. S. 234),
1606.
Barney v. Pforr (117 Cal. 56),
1288.
Earnhardt v. Star Mills (123 N.
C. 428), 1199.
Barnum v. Okolona (148 U. S.
393), 1593.
Baron De Beville's Case (L. R. 7
Eq. Cas.. 9), 448.
Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee
Co. (L. R. 10 App. Cas. 354),
1703.
Barr v. New York, etc. R. R. Co.
(52 Hun, 555; 96 N. Y. 444; 125
N. Y. 263), 820, 1182, 1511, 1576.
Barr v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
(40 Fed. Rep. 412), 826.
Barr v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co. (57
Fed. Rep. 86), 1813.
Barre Nat. Bank v. Hingham
Manuf. Co. (127 Mass. 263), 562,
563, 914.
Barren Creek, etc. Co. v. Beck (99
Ind. 247), 1915, 1958.
Barrett, Ex parte (33 L. J. Ch.
617), 809.
Barrett's Case (4 De G., J. & S.
416), 337, 588.
Barrett v. Bloomfield Sav. Ins. (54
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 543), 1660.
Barrett v. Meade (10 Allen (92
Mass.), 337), 2035.
Barrick v. Gifford (47 Ohio St.
180; 21 Am. St. Rep. 798), 854.
Barril v. Calendar Insulating, etc.
Co. (50 Hun, 257), 1076.
Barrington v. Miss. & R. Co. (32
Miss. 370), 281.
Barrington v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
R. Co. (34 Pa. St. 358), 303, 364.
370, 406, 467.
Barrington v. "Washington Bank
(14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 405), 1095.
Barron v. Burnside (121 U. S.
186), 1995, 2000, 2012, 2043.
Barron v. Burrill (86 Me. 66), 275,
850, 953.
Barron v. Paine (83 Me. 312), 850,
Barrow, etc. Co. v. Kane (170 U.
S. Ill), 2012, 2039.
Barrow v. Massachusetts Med. Soc.
(12 Cush. (66 Mass.) 402), 776,
2057.
Barry v. Broach (65 Miss. 450;
4 So. Rep. 117), 1949.
Barry v. Croskey
(2 Johns. & H.
1), 2114, 2115.
Barry v. Edwards (116 U. S. 562),
1485.
Barry v. Merchants Exchange Co.
(1 Sandf. Ch. 280), 236, 238, 447,
634, 1242, 1243, 1266, 1670.
Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co, (22
Fed. Rep. 631), 1737.
Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co. (27
Fed. Rep. 1), 1717, 1718.
Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co. (34
Fed. Rep. 829), 1755.
Barry v. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co.
'(36
Fed. Rep. 228), 1719.
Barry v. Navon, etc. Ry. Co. (Ir.
Rep. 11 Com. L. 403), 326.
Barry v. Nucolls (5 Humph.
(Tenn.) 326), 2074.
Barry v. Yates (24 Barb. 199),
1267.
Barstow v. City R. Co. (42 Cal.
465), 1064.
Barstow v. Savage, etc. Co. (64
Cal. 388; 49 Am. Rep. 705), 387,
393, 395.
Bartemeyer v. Iowa (18 Wall.
129) 1398
Barth 'v. Backus (140 N. Y. 230;
23 L. R. A. 47; 37 Am. St. Rep.
545), 10.
Bartholomew v. Bentley
(1
Ohio
St. 42), 254, 645, 1050, 1051, 1122,
1285.
Bartholomew v. Derby Rubber Co.
(69 Conn. 521; 61 Am. St. Rep.
57), 1244.
Bartlett v. Chouteau Ins. Co. (18
Kan. 369), 2007.
Bartlett v. Cicero, etc. Co. (177 111.
68; 42 L. R. A. 715), 1809.
Bartlett v. Drew (57 N. Y. 587),
446, 645, 900, 913, 914, 968.
TABLE OF CASES. xli
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bartlett v. King (12 Mass. 537),
2050.
Bartlett v. Pentland (1 B. & A.
704), 863.
Bartley v. Hayden (74 Fed. Rep.
913), 1791.
Barto V. Nix (15 Wash. 563), 1284.
Bartol V. Walton, etc. Co. (92 Fed.
Rep. 13), 934, 937, 938.
Barton v. Barbour (104 U. S. 126),
1727, 1799.
Barton v. Cooke (5 Ves. 461), 537.
Barton v. Enterprise Loan, etc.
A?sn. (114 Ind. 226; 5 Am. St.
Rep. 60S), 1949.
Barton v. International, etc. Al-
liance (85 Md. 14), 1952.
Barton v. North Staffordshire
Ry. Co. (38 Ch. Div. 458), 596,
597.
Barton v. Port Jackson, etc. PI.
R. Co. (17 Barb. 397), 553.
Barton Nat. Bank v. Atkins (72
Vt. 33), 548, 837.
Barton's Trust (L. R. 5 Eq. 239),
246, 650.
Barwick v. London (England),
etc. Bank (L. R. 2 Eq. 259),
1180, 1501.
Bas V. Steele (3 Wash. 381), 148,
2035.
Bass V. Roanoke, etc. Co. (Ill N.
C. 439; 19 L. R. A. 247), 1654.
Bashford-Burmeister Co. v. Agua
Fria Copper Co. (35 Pac. Rep.
(Ariz.) 983), 20.
Bassett v. Atwater (65 Conn. 355;
32 L. R. A. 575), 976.
Bassett v. St. Alban's Hotel Co.
(47 Vt. 313), 446, 842, 899, 1129.
Basshor v. Dressel (34 Md. 503),
1918.
Bastian v. Modern Woodmen (166
111. 595), 135, 1086.
Basting v. Anlieny (64 Minn. 133),
1780.
Batchelder, etc. Co. v. Knopf (54
N. Y. App. Div. 329), 2018.
Batcheller v. Pinkham (68 Me.
253), 1138.
Batchelor v. Planters', etc. Bank
(78 Ky. 435), 1138.
Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett
(31 Fed. Rep. 809), 127, 1523.
Bateman v. Mid-Wales Ry. Co. (L.
R. 1 C. P. 499), 1270.
Bateman v. Service (L. R. 6 App.
386), 844, 845.
Bateman v. Western, etc. Co. (1
Tex. Civ. App. 90), 1995.
d
Bates V. Androscoggin, etc. R. Co.
(49 Me. 491), 665, 670, 674, 675.
Bates V. Detroit Mut. Benefit, etc.
Assn. (47 Mich. 646), 2069.
Bates V. Great Western T. Co. (134
111. 536), 385, 431.
Bates V. Houston (66 Ga. 198),
2125.
Bates V. Lewis (3 Ohio St. 459),
358.
Bates V. MacKinley (31 Beav. 280),
631, 647, 649.
Bates V. New York Ins. Co. (3
Johns. Ch. 238), 610, 643, 691.
Bates V. Wilson (14 Colo. 70),
1350 1529.
Bates Co. v. Winters (112 U. S.
325), 267, 1855.
Bates, etc. Co., In re (91 Fed. Rep.
625), 1769.
Bates-Farley, etc. Co. v. Dismukes
(107 Ga. 212), 591.
Bath V. Caton (37 Mich. 199), 1138.
Bath V. Miller (51 Me. 341), 1717.
Bath, etc. Co. v. Claffy (151 N. Y.
24), 1334. 1335, 1369, 1370.
Bath Sav. Inst. v. Sagadahoc Nat.
Bank (89 Me. 500), 1973.
Bath's Case (8 Ch. Div. 334), 331,
097
Battey v. Eureka Bank (62 Kan.
384), 1284.
Battelle v. Northwestern, etc. Co.
(37 Minn. 89), 1109, 1168, 1176.
Batty V. Adams Co. (16 Neb. 44),
8, 2051, 2090.
Battery, etc. Bank v. Western, etc.
Bank (126 N. C. 531), 1813.
Battle V. Davis (66 N. C. 252),
1747.
Bauer v. Sampson Lodge (102
Md. 262), 203, 2085.
Baumgarten v. Nichols (69 Hun,
216; 23 N. Y. Supp. 592), 1026.
Bausman v. Denny (73 Fed. Rep.
69), 483, 921, 1291.
Baxendale v. Bennett (3 Q. B. Div.
525), 615.
Baxter v. Brown (7 Macn. & G.
198), 524.
Baxter v. Lowe (93 Fed. Rep. 358;
35 C. C. A. 344), 1073, 1814.
Baxter v. Moses (77 Me. 465; 52
Am. Rep. 783), 863.
Baxter v. Washburn (8 Lea
(Tenn.), 1), 1275.
Bay City v. State Treasurer (23
Mich. 499), 296.
Bayard v. Bank (52 Pa. St. 232),
606.
xlii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. If, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bavard v.
Farmers,' etc. Bank (52
Pa. St. 232), 534, 596, 599, 602,
603. 607.
Bavles v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. (13
Colo. 181; 5 L; R. A. 480),
1555.
Bayless v. Orne (1 Freeman Ch.
161), 1061, 1062, 1924.
Bayley v. Wilkins (7 Com. B. 88G),
2113.
Bayliss v. La Fayette, etc. Ry. Co.
(8 Biss. C. Ct. 193; 9 Biss. 90),
813, 1726.
Bayliss v. Swift (40 Iowa, 648),
862.
Bayne v. Brewer, etc. Co. (82 Fed.
Rep. 391), 1792.
Bayou Cook, etc. Co. v. Doullut
(111 La. 517), 87.
Beach v. Cooper (72 Cal. 99), 816,
1127.
Beach v. Fulton Bank (3 Wend.
574), 1338.
Beach v. Miller (123 111. App.
151), 1100, 1771, 1772.
Beach v. Smith (30 N. Y. 116),
280, 494, 506.
Beach v. Wakefield (107 Iowa,
567), 174, 1189.
Beach Co. v. Harvard (27 Fed.
Rep. 484), 407.
Beadleston v. Knapp (13 Abb. Pr.
(N. S.) 335), 1710.
Beal V. Bass (86 Me. 325), 156.
Beal V. Dillon (5 Kan. App. 27),
934.
Beats V. Buffalo, etc. Co. (49 N. Y.
App. Div. 589), 935, 952.
Beaman v. Stewart (74 Pac. Rep.
(Colo.) 344), 1777.
Bean v. American L. &; T. Co. (122
N. Y. 622), 410, 1831.
Bean v. People (7 Colo. 200), 821.
Bear v. Heasley (98 Mich. 279; 24
L. R. A. 615), 15, 2123.
Bear Lake Irr. Co. v. Garland (164
U. S. 1), 1713.
Beard v. Union, etc. Pub. Co. (71
Ala. 60), 2008.
Bearden v. People, etc. (49 S. W.
Rep. (Tenn.) 64), 221.
Beardsley v. Beardsley (138 U. S.
262), 174.
Beardsley v. Hotchkiss (96 N. Y.
201), 292.
Beardsley v. Johnson (121 N. Y.
224), 796, 997, 1005, 1009, 1044,
1045, 1046, 1047, 1048 1063, 1094.
Beardsley v. Johnson (49 Hun,
607), 137.
Beardsley v. New York, etc. Co.
(163 N. Y. 230), 1394.
Bear Valley, etc. Co. v. Savings,
etc. Co. (117 Fed. Rep.
94), 1247.
Beattie v. Ebury (L. R. 7 Ch. 777;
7 H. L. 102), 1146, 1154.
Beaty v. Knowles (4 Pet. 162), 60,
1084.
Beatty v. Kurtz (2 Peters, 566),
2078.
Beatty v. Marine Ins. Co. (2
Johns. 109), 1297.
Beaujolais Wine Co., In re (L. R.
Ch. 15), 1949.
Beaumont v. Meredith (3 Ves. &
B. 180), 2102.
Beaver v. Armstrong
(44 Pa. St.
63), 1674, 1679, 1681, 1682, 1683.
Bechtel, etc. Co. v. Bean (58 Me.
89), 470.
Beck v. Kantorowicz (3 Kay & J.
230), 1218.
Becker v. Berlin, etc. (144 Pa. St.
232; 27 Am. St. Rep. 624), 196.
Becker v. Farmers,' etc. Co. (48
Mich. 610), 197.
Becker v. Hoke (80 Fed. Rep. 973;
26 C. C. A. 282), 1778.
Beckett v. Houston (32 Ind. 393),
263, 264, 386, 525, 1008, 1011.,-
Beckman v. Saratoga, etc. R. R.
Co. (3 Paige, 45), 1307.
Beckner v. Turnpike Co. (65 Ind.
468), 308.
Beckwith v. Bean (98 U. S. 295),
39.
Beckwith v. Burroughs (13 R. I.
294), 614, 961, 963.
Bedford County v. Nashville, etc.
R. Co. (14 Lea, 525), 507.
Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser (48 Pa.
St. 29), 115, 303. 328, 329, 330,
334, 876, 878, 943, 1087, 112G,
1129.
Bedford Springs Co. v. McMeen
(161 Pa. St. 639), 1060.
Bedford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stanley
(2 Johns. & H. 746), 1176. 1224.
Bee V. San Francisco, etc. R. Co.
(46 Cal. 248), 1067.
Beebe v. Magoon (97 N. W.
Rep. (Iowa) 986), 44.
Beecher v. Bininger (7 Blatchf.
170), 1800.
Beecher v. Dacey (45
Mich. 92),
860.
Beecher v. Dillsburgh, etc. R. Co.
(76 Pa. St. 306), 273, 363.
Beecher v. Marquette, etc. Co. (45
TABLE OF CASES. xliii
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mich. 103), 1368, 1369, 1668,
1705.
Beecher v. Wells Flouring Mills
Co. (1 McCrary, 62; 1 Fed. Rep.
276), 542, 1024, 1355.
Beechley v. Mulville (102 Iowa,
602), 1428.
Beekman v. New York, etc. Co.
(35 Fed. Rep. 3),
1528.
Beekman v. Hudson River Ry. Co.
(3 Paige, 45), 1694, 1695, 1743,
1744.
Beekman v. Saratoga, etc. Co. (3
Paige, 45, 73), 1308, 1311, 1392,
1528.
Beene v. Cahawba, etc. R. Co. (3
Ala. 660), 472, 501.
Beer Co. v. Massachusetts (97 U.
S. 25), 41.
Beers v.
Bridgeport, etc. Co. (42
Conn. 17), 247, 640, 641, 642.
Beers v. New York Life Ins. Co.
(66 Hun, 75; 20 N. Y. Supp.
788), 1070.
Beers v. Phoenix Glass Co. (14
Barb. 358), 1266.
Beers v. Waterbury (8 Bosw. 396),
874, 906.
Beesley v. Chicago, etc. Associa-
tion (44 111. App. 278), 776,
2057.
Beeson v. Lang (85 Pa. St. 197),
1576.
Beiswanger v. American, etc. Co.
(57 Atl. Rep. (Md.) 202), 1493.
Beitman v. Steiner (98 Ala. 241),
1026, 1030.
Belcher's Sugar Ref. Co. v. St.
Louis Grain, etc. Co. (10 Mo.
App. 401), 1235.
Belcher v. Sugar Ref. Co. v. St.
Louis, etc. Co. (82 Mo. 121),
1656.
Belcher v. Wilcox (40 Ga. 391),
855, 924, 926, 927.
Belcher, etc. Co. v. St. Louis, etc.
Co. (101 Mo. 192; 13 S. W. Rep.
822; 8 L. R. A. 801), 1656, 1922.
Belden v. Burke (72 Hun, 51),
1692.
Belfast & Moosehead Lake Co. v.
City of Belfast (77 Me. 445),
109, 205, 633, 634, 661, 669, 670,
672, 674 675.
Belfast etc. R. Co. v. Cottrell (66
Me. 185), 313, 473.
Belfast, etc. Rv. Co. v. Brooks (60
Me. 568), 360.
Belfast, etc. R. Co. v. Moore (60
Me. 561), 267, 309, 473, 474.
Belhaven's Case (3 De Gox, J. &
S. 41), 331.
Bell V. American, etc. League (163
Mass. 558; 28 L. R. A. 452),
1801.
Bell V. Farwell (176 111. 489; 42
L. R. A. 804), 839, 848, 904.
Bell V. Francis (9 Car. P. 66),
1215.
Bell V. Lafferty
(1 Pa. Super. Ct.
454), 631.
Bell V. Montgomery Light Co.
(102 Ala. 275), 1360.
Bell V. Nashville Bank (Peck
(Tenn.), 269), 22.
Bell V. Pennsylvania, etc. R. Co.
(10 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 741), 1852,
1862.
Bell V. Wood (181 Pa. St. 175),
1778.
Bellaires v. Tucker (L. R. 13 Q.
B. D. 562), 577.
Bellerby v. Rowland, etc. Co. (2
Ch. 14), 1283.
Bello V. Fuller (84 Tex. 450; 31
Am. St. Rep. 75), 1486, 1505.
Bellows V. Bank (2 Mason, 43),
129, 130.
Bellows V. Hallowell, etc. Bank
(2 Mason, 31; Fed. Cas. 1279),
1818, 1819.
Bellows V. Todd (39 Iowa, 209),
992.
Bell's Appeal (115 Pa. St. 88), 345,
377, 555, 561, 601. 834, 915, 945.
Bell's Case (22 Beav. 35), 365.
Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Christy
(79
Pa. St. 54; 21 Am. Rep. 39),
1068, 1216.
Bell's Gap v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (134 U. S. 232),
709, 710, 1697.
Belmont v. Coleman (1 Bosw.
188; 21 N. Y. 96; 52 Barb. 637),
920.
Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co. (52 Barb.
637), 242, 1353, 1695, 1924.
Belmont Nail Co. v. Columbia, etc.
Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 8), 1782.
Belnap v. North American Life
Ins. Co. (11 Hun, 282), 1965.
Belo V. Commissioners (82 N. C.
415), 712.
Beloit V. Morgan (7 Wall. 619),
283, 296.
Belton, In re (47 La. Ann. 1614;
30 L. R. A. 648), 1954.
Belton Compress Co. v. Sanders
(70 Tex. 699), 315, 877.
Belton V. Hatch (109 N. Y. 593;
xliv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. T, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.}
4 Am. St. Rep. 495), 7, 771,
2053, 2088, 2089, 2104.
Benbow v. Cook (115 N. C. 324),
67, 136, 976,
1200.
Bend v.
Susquehanna Bridge &
Bank Co. (6 Harr. & J. (Md.)
128), 545, 593, 889, 890.
Bene v.
Cahawba, etc. R. Co. (3
Ala. 660), 277.
Benedict v. Columbus, etc. Co. (49
N. J. Eq. 23),
1644.
Benedict v. Moore (76 Fed. Rep.
472),
1831.
Benedict v. Western Union Tel. Co.
(9 Abb. N. C. 14), 1473.
Benevolent Soc. v. Baldwin (86 111.
479), 2070.
Bengston v. Thingvalla S. S. Co.
(31 Hun, 96),
1524.
Bennett's Case (5 De G., M. & G.
284), 553, 554, 887.
Bennett, Ex parte (16 Week. Rep.
572; 18 Beav. 339), 618.
Bennett v. Austin (81 N. Y. 308),
583.
Bennett v. Glenn (55 Fed. Rep.
956), 951.
Bennett v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (19
Mo. App. 349), 1108.
Bennett Water Co. v. Burgess, etc.
(202 Pa. St. 616), 1647.
Bennington, etc. Bank v. Mount
Tabor (52 Vt. 87), 1681.
Bennington v. Park (50 Vt. 178),
297.
Bennison v. McConnell (56 Neb.
46), 874.
Bensinger v. Kautzer (112 111. App.
293), 805.
Bensinger, etc. Co. v. National,
etc. Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 81), 2036.
Bensley v. Mountain Lake Water
Co. (13 Cal. 306; 73 Am. Dec.
575), 1306.
Benson, Ex parte (18 S. C. 38),
1556.
Benson v. Albany (24 Barb. 248),
296.
Benson v. Heathhorn (1 Young &
C. Ch. 326), 1099, 1106.
Benson v. Monson, etc. Co. (9
Mete. (50 Mass.) 502), 1546.
Bent V. Hart (73 Mo. 641; 10 Mo.
App. 143), 942, 1886.
Bent V. Priest (10 Mo. App. 543;
86 Mo. 475), 1105, 1106.
Bent V. Underdown (156 Ind.
516; 60 N. E. Rep. 307), 34, 35,
406, 437.
Bentlif v. Londen, etc. Corp. (44'
Fed. Rep. 667), 2039.
Benton v. City of Elizabeth (61
N. J.
Law, 411), 1243.
Berbell v. Lee (40 Fed. Rep. 40),
1828.
Bergamini v. Bastian (35 La. Ann.
60; 48 Am. Rep. 233), 1425.
Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing Co.
(42 N. J. Bq. 397), 1246, 1727.
Beresford, Ex parte (2 Macn. &
G. 197), 942.
Berford v. New York Iron Mine
(56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 236), 642.
Berger v. Williams (4 McLean,
577), 920.
Bergeron v. Hobbs (96 Wis. 641),
88, 173, 880.
Bergman v. St. Paul, etc. (29'
Minn. 275), 196, 200, 206, 224,
227, 252, 803.
Berks, etc. Road v. Myers (6
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 12), 126.
Berkson v. Anderson (87 N. W.
Rep. (Iowa) 402), 173, 880.
Bernard's Case (5 De G. & Sm.
283), 561, 888.
Bernard v. Vermont, etc. R. Co.
(89 Mass. 512), 664.
Bernard Township v. Morrisqn
(133 U. S. 523), 1593.
Berney v. Sewell (1 Jac. & W.
647), 1739.
Berney Nat. Bank v. Pinckard (87
Ala. 577), 961.
Berry v. Broach (65 Miss. 450),
1246.
Berry v. Kansas City, etc. Co. (52
Kan. 774; 39 Am. St. Rep. 381),
1563, 1565, 1833, 1884, 1886, 1887.
Berry v. Marietta, etc. R. Co. (26
Ohio St. 673), 115.
Berry v. Rood (67 S. W. Rep.
(Mo.) 644), 1792.
Berry v. Yates (24 Barb. 199),
357.
Berryman v. Cincinnati & R. Co.
(14 Bush (Ky.) 755), 285, 1588.
Bersch v. Sinnissippi Ins. Co.
(82^
Ind. 64), 2068.
Beshor v. Chappel (6 Colo. App.
323), 1513.
Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen (185
111. 37; 76 Am. St. Rep. 26),
1275, 1332, 1671.
Beston v. Farmers' Bank (12
Peters (U. S.), 102), 9.
Bestor
v. Wathen (60 111. 138),.
1587.
TABLE OF CASES. xlv
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
best's Case (84 Law J. & Rep. Ch.
(N. S.) 523), 273.
Bethel v. Carmack (2 Md. 143),
2082.
Bethlehem v. Burrow Persever-
ance Fire Co. (81 Pa. St. (31
P. F. Smith) 445), 13.
Bethlemen Iron Co. v. Philadel-
phia, etc. Ry. (49 N. J. Eq. 356),
1754, 1756.
Belts V. Menard (1 111. (Breese)
395), 9, 1229.
Betts V. Towanda Gas & Water
Co. (97 Pa. St. 367), 965.
Bevan v. Oxford (6 D. M. & G.
492), 960.
Beveridge v. New York El. R. Co.
(112 N. Y. 1), 639, 1083. 1589.
Beverley v. Brooke (4 Gratt. 187),
1724, 1747.
Beverley v. Lincoln, etc. Co. (6
Adol. & L. 829), 1172.
Bevier, etc. Co. v. Watson (80 S.
W. Rep. (Mo. App.) 287). 1066.
Bibber-White Co. v. White River,
etc. Rv. (110 Fed. Rep. 472),
1754, 1789, 1805.
Riddick v. Anielin (1 Mo. 5), 26.
Biddle v. Bayard (13 Pa. St. 150),
393.
Biddle v. Wayne, etc. Co. (190 Pa.
St. 94), 1647.
Biddle's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 278;
3 Am. Prob. Rep. 442), 647.
Bienville etc. Co. v. Mobile (186
U. S. 212; 112 Ala. 200), 1645,
1649.
Biederman v. Stone (L. R. 2 C. P.
504), 2100.
Big Creek, etc. Co. v. American,
etc. Co. (137 Fed. Rep. (Tenn.)
625), 1750, 1824.
Bigelow, In re (1 Nat. Bank Reg.
632; 3 Fed. Cas. 341), 209.
Bigelow V. Congregational Soc.
(11 Vt. 283), 175.
Bigelow V. Gregory
(73 111. 197),
80, 83, 150, 155, 156, 166, 170.
Biglow V. Hartford Bridge Co. (14
Conn. 578), 1925.
Bignold, Ex parte (22 Beav. 143),
1123.
Riggs V. Elliston Des. Co. (93 Va.
404), 791, 793.
Biggs Case (L. R. 1 Eq. 309), 476,
781.
Biglin V. Friendship, etc.. In re
(46 Hun, 223), 417.
Bill V. Darenth Valley Ry. Co. (26
L. J. Eq. 81; 1 Hurl. & N. 305),
1067.
Bill V. New Albany R. Co. (2 Biss.
390; 3 Fed. Cas. 379), 1734,
1800.
Bill V. Western U. Tel. Co. (16
Fed. Rep. 14), 1114.
Billings V. Robinson (94 N. Y.
415; 28 Hun, 122), 544. 545. 549,
884, 885, 889, 893, 1748. 1795.
Billings V. Trask (30 llun, 314),
1795.
Binder v. McDonald (106 Wis.
332), 1767.
Bingham v. Lipman, etc. Co. (67
Pac. (Oreg.) 98), 1493.
Bingham v. Rushing (5 Ala. 403),
498, 898, 967, 968.
Bingham v. Weiderwax (1 N. Y.
509), 1979.
Binghampton Bridge, The (3
Wall. 51), 36, 54, 1653.
Binney's Case (2 Bland (Md.)
142), 1243, 1303, 1949.
Binninger v. City of New York
177 N. Y. 199), 1609.
Bircher v. Walther (163 Mo. 461),
1432.
Birch's Case (2 De G. & J. 10),
889.
Bird V. Bird's Patent, etc. Co. (L.
R. 9 Ch. 358), 1249, 1356, 1567.
Bird V. Calvert* (22 S. C. 292),
835, 868, 904.
Bird V. Chicago, Iowa. etc. R. Co.
(137 Mass. 428), 537, 596.
Bird V. Daggett (9/ Mass. 494),
150, 1275.
Bird V. Hayden (1 Rob. (N. Y.)
383), 846.
Bird V. St. Mark's Church (62
Iowa, 567), 2127.
Bird V. Wilmington, etc. R. Co. (8
Rich. Eq. 46), 1306.
Bird, etc. Co. v. Humes (157 Pa.
St. 278; 37 Am. St. Rep. 727),
1105, 1218.
Birdsall v. Russell (29 N. Y. 220),
1686, 1688.
Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v. Brown-
rigg (4 Ex. 426), 571, 588.
Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v. Pil-
'
Cher (5 Ex. Ch. 24), 529, 573.
Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v. Web-
ster (6 Ex. Ch. 277), 454.
Birmingham v. Gallagher (112
Mass. 190), 2053, 2078.
Birmingham Bkg. Co., Ex parte
(6
Ch. App. 87), 1703.
xlvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Birmingham
Fire Ins. Co. v. Com-
monwealth (92 Pa. St. 72),
619.
Birmingham
Nat. Bk. v. Mosser
(14 Hun, 605), 490, 860, 867, 949.
Birmingham,
etc. Ry. Co., In re
(L. R. 18 Ch. D. 155),
1796.
Birmingham,
etc. Co. v. Freeman
(15 Tex. Civ. App. 451), 1766.
Birmingham,
etc, R. Co. v. Locke
(1 Q. B. 256), 269, 475, 476, 546,
781, 782, 1009.
Bish V. Bradford (17 Ind. 852),
366, 368.
Bish V. Johnson (21 Ind. 299),
109, 243, 283, 1855, 1856, 1860,
Bisliop V. American, etc. Co. (157
111. 184), 1292, 1413, 1439.
Bishop V. Brainerd (28 Conn.
289), 108, 283, 1781, 1853, 1855,
1864, 1870, 1875, 1890.
Bishop V. Globe Co. (135 Mass.
132), 525, 692.
Bishop V. McKillican (124 Cal.
321; 71 Am. St. Rep. 68),
1790.
Bishop's Fund v. Eagle Bk. (7
Conn. 476), 768, 2065.
Bissell V. Farmers, etc. Bk. (5 Mc-
Lean 495), 576.
Bissell V. Foss (114 U. S. 252),
2098, 2101.
Bissell V. Heath (98 Mich. 472),
934.
Bissell V. Michigan, etc. R. Co. (22
N. Y. 258), 1090, 1159, 1296,
1298, 1299, 1328, 1335, 1339, 1342,
1350, 1351, 1352, 1355, 1367, 1502,
1704, 1872, 1874.
Bi-Spool, etc. Co. v. Acme Manu-
facturing Co. (152 Mass. 404),
1360, 1364.
Bissit V. Kentucky River Nav. Co.
(15 Fed. Rep. 353), 919, 922.
Bitting V. Ten Eyck (85 Ind. 375),
1724.
Bigler v. Summerfield (195 111.
147), 34, 35, 1966.
Bjorngaard v. Goodhue County
Bk. (49 Minn. 483), 794, 1009,
1012, 1100.
Black V. Delaware, etc. Co. (24 N.
J. Eq. 456), 107, 112, 114, 178,
798, 1258, 1315, 1353, 1699, 1811,
1849, 1851, 1853, 1858, 1861, 1948.
Black V. Hobart Tea Co. (53 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 826), 665, 1721.
Black V. Homersham (4 Ex. Div.
24), 628, 631.
Black & White Smith's Soc. v.
Vandyke (2 Whart. (Pa.) 309),
187, 2060, 2061, 2081, 2085.
Black V. Womer (100 111. 328),
840.
Black V. Zacharie (3 How. 483),
392.
Black, etc. Soc. v. Vandyke (2
Whart. 309), 786, 787, 788.
Blackburn v. Selma, etc. R. R. Co.
(Fed. Cas. 1467; 2 Flip. 525), 31,
51, 1700, 1734, 2014.
Blackburn's Case (3 Drew. 409),
365.
Blackman v. Houston (39 La. Ann.
592), 724.
Blackmer v. Royal Ins. Co. (115
Ind. 291), 1996.
Blackmore v. Yates (L. R. 2 Ex.
225), 1700.
Black Rabbitt Assn. v. Mandy (21
Abb. N. C. 99),
122.
Black River, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bar-
nard (31 Barb. 258; 25 N. Y.
208), 68.
Black River, etc. R. Co. v. Clarke
(25 N. Y. 208), 280, 281, 506.
Black River Imp. Co. v. Holway
(85 Wis. 344), 1056.
Black's Case (L. R. 8 Ch. 254),
922, 923.
Blackston v. Martin (Latch. 112).
92
Blac'kwell v. State (36 Ark. 178),
48, 1962.
Blain v. Pac. Ex. Co. (69 Tex. 74),
1202.
Blair v. Gray (104 U. S. 769), 837,
853.
Blair v. Perpetual Ins. Co. (10 Mo.
559; 47 Am. Dec. 129), 1287,
1661, 2004, 2005.
Blair v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (24
Fed. Rep. 148), 1725, 1726, 1727,
1736, 1751, 1835.
Blair v. Rutherford (31 Tex. 465),
281.
Blair v. Telegram, etc. Co. (172
Mass. 201), 1065.
Blair v. Wall^er (26 Fed. Rep. 73),
1735.
Blair Co. v. Rose (26 Ind. App.
487), 618.
Blair Town Lot Co. v. Walker (50
Iowa, 376),
1108.
Blaisdell v. Bohr (68 Ga. 56), 417,
418, 615.
Blake v. Alabama, etc. R. Co. (6
Nat. Bank Reg. 331), 1800.
Blake v. Brown (80 Iowa, 277),
322, 951.
Blake v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co. (56
N. Y. 485),
1103.
TABLE OF CASES. xlvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Blake v. Clausen (10 N. Y. App.
Div. 223; 41 N. Y. Supp. 772),
1136.
Blake v. Griswold (103 N. Y. 429),
1138, 1161.
Blake v. Hinkle (10 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 218), 863.
Blake v. Livingston County (61
Barb. 149). 1674.
Blake v. McClung (172 U. S. 239),
1770, 1807, ISIO, 1973, 1992.
Blake v. Midland Ry. Co. (18 Q.
B. 93), 1500, 1546.
Blake v. Portsmouth, etc. R. Co.
(39 N. H. 435), 1970, 1978.
Blake's Case (34 Beav. 639), 365,
''71
Blakeley's Case (13 Beav. 133),
569.
Blakeley v. Fort Lyon Canal Co.
(73 Pac. Rep. (Colo.) 249), 1651.
Blakeley, etc. Co., In re (3
Ch.
154), 1677, 1678.
Blakeman v. Benton (9 Mo. App.
107), 901.
Blakeman v. Paget Sound, etc. Co.
(72 Cal. 321), 964.
Blakeney v. Dufaur (15 Bejiv. 4),
1724.
Blanc V. Paymaster Min. Co. (95
Cal. 524; 29 Am. St. Rep. 149),
1252, 1833.
Blanchard v. Bissell (11 Ohio St.
96), 187.
Blanchard v. Dedham Gas L. Co.
(12 Gray (78 Mass.), 213, 961.
Blanchard v. Dow (32 Me. 557),
137, 982, 1005.
Blanchard Gunstock Co. v. War-
ner (1 Blatchf. 258), 1230.
Blanchard v. Western U. T. Co.
(60 N. Y. 510), 1631.
Blasinghame v. Royal Circle (111
111. App. 202), 2103.
Blatchford v. Ross (5 Abb. Pr.
434; 37 How. Pr. 100; 34 Barb.
42), 109, 196, 228, 231, 1064, 1088,
1852, 1855, 1861.
Blen V. Bear River, etc. Co. (20
Cal. 602; 81 Am. Dec. 132), 1172,
1187, 1297.
Blien v. Rand (77 Minn. 110; 79
N. W. Rep. 606), 338, 767, 809,
2055.
Blinn v. Gillett (208 111. App. 473),
1012.
Blinn v. Riggs (110 111. App.
37),
1012.
Blindell v. Hagan (54 Fed. Rep.
40), 1473.
Bliss V. Fosdick (76 Hun, 508; 27
N. Y. Supp. 1053), 536.
Bliss V. Kaweah, etc. Co. (65 Cal.
502), 1082, 1085, 1090, 1589.
Bliss V. Anderson (31 Ala. 613),
1353, 1585.
Bliss V. Matteson (45 N. Y. 22),
1786, 1825, 1976.
Blisset V. Daniel (10 Hare, 493),
804.
Elodgett V. Northwestern, etc.
Ry. Co. (80 Fed. Rep. 601; 26
C. C. A. 21), 1607.
Blodgett V. Morrill (20 Vt. 509),
358, 363, 365. 374.
Blodgett V. Utica. etc. R. Co. (64
Barb. 480), 1490.
Blood V. Marcuse (38 Cal. 590; 99
Am. Dec. 435), 1204.
Bloodgood V. Mohawk, etc. Co. (18
Wend. 9), 294, 1310, 1392.
Bloom V. National, etc. Co. (81
Hun, 120), 2018.
Bloomenthal v. Ford (A. C. 156),
436.
Bloomfield Presyt. Church, In re
(111 Pa. St. 156; 107 Pa. St.
543), 128.
Bloomfield, etc. Co. v. Richardson
63 Barb. (N. Y.) 437), 18, 1303,
1314.
Bloomfield R. R. v. Van Slike (107
Ind. 480), 1809.
Block V. O'Connor, etc. Co. (129
Ala. 528), 1956.
Blouin V. Hart (30 La. Ann. 714),
586.
Blouin V. Liquidators (30 La. Ann.
714), 382.
Bloxham v. Metropolitan Ry. Co.
(3 Ch. 337), 634, 635, 636, 809,
822, 1355.
Blue V. Bird, etc. Co. (L. R. 9 Ch.
App. 358), 1356.
Blue V. Capital Nat. Bank (145
Md. 518), 1065.
Blue Jacket v. Scherr (40 S. E.
Rep. (W. Va.) 514), 695, 751.
Blundell's Case (17 Sol. J. & Rep.
87), 1841, 1857.
Blunt V. Walker (11 Wis. 334; 78
Am. Dec. 709), 265, 503, 1234.
Blood V. La Serena, etc. Co. (113
Cal. 221), 132, 1701.
Board v. Gas Light Co. (40 La.
Ann. 382), 1877.
Board of Assessors v. Pullman,
etc. Car Co. (60 Fed. Rep. 37),
735.
Board of Com'rs. etc. v. Coler (113
xlviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are- to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Fed. Rep. 705; 51 C. C. A. 379),
1593.
Board of Com'rs. v. Pierce (90
Fed. Rep. 764),
1790.
Board of Com'rs. v. Reynolds (44
Ind. 509), 530, 547, 529.
Board of
Councilmen, etc. v. De-
posit Bank, etc. (124 Fed. Rep.
18). 1947.
Board of Dir. v. Houston (71 111.
App. 353), 17.
Board of Education v. Bakewell
(122 111. 339), 13, 1550.
Board of Education v. Greenbaum
(30 111. 009), 13, 16.
Board of Excise v. Curley (9
Abb.
N. C. 100; 69 N. Y. 608;
Board of Liquidators v. New Or-
leans Water, etc. Co. (39 La.
Ann. 202), 631.
Board of Trade v. Christie, etc. Co.
(116 Fed. Rep. 944), 2105.
Board of Trade of City of Chicago
V. L. A. Kinzey (125 Fed. Rep.
72), 2103.
Board of Trade v. Hadden-Krull
Co. (109 Fed. Rep. 705), 2105.
Board of Trade, etc. v. Thomson,
etc. Co. (103 Fed. Rep. 902),
2105.
Board of Trustees v. Piedmont,
etc. Co. (46 S. E. Rep. (N. C.)
723), 1530.
Boardman v. Cutler (128 Mass.
388), 238.
Boardman v. Halliday (10
Paige,
228), 1025.
Boardman v. Lake Shore, etc.
Ry. Co. (84 N. Y. 157), 627, 628,
639, .646, 670, 673, 674, 684, 828,
1888.
Boardman v. S. S. McClure Co.
(123 Fed. Rep. 614), 2024.
Boatmen's Ins. etc. Co. v. Able (48
Mo. 136), 609.
Bocock V. Allegheny Coal, etc. Co.
(82 Va. 913; 3 Am. St. Rep.
128), 1078, 1298.
Bodwell V. Eastman (106 Mjiss.
525), 2092.
Bogardus v. Rosendale Manuf. Co.
(7 N. Y. 147), 912, 915.
Boggs V. Brown (82 Tex. 41), 1815.
Boggs V. Lancaster Bk. (7 Watts
& S. 336), 1159.
Boggs V. Alcott (40 111. 303), 293.
Bohannan v. Binns (31 Miss.
355), 1957.
Bohlen's Estate (75 Pa. St. 304),
533, 534, 607.
Bohm & Loewers Or. B. Co. (9 N.
Y. Supp. 514), 210, 1192.
Bohmer v. City Bank (77 Va. 445),
092, 1298.
Bohmer v. Hoffen (101 N. Y. 390),
95.
Bohn V. Brown (33 Mich. 257),
843, 850, 851.
Bolm Manuf. Co. v. Lewis (45
Minn. 164), 321.
Bohrer v. Adair (61 Neb. 824), 967.
Boise City Canal Co. v. Pinkham
(1 Idaho, 790), 150, 1521.
Boise City, etc. v. Boise City (123
Fed. Rep. 232), 1650.
Boisgerard v. New York Bkg. Co.
(2 Sandf. Ch. 231), 2092.
Bolen V. Crosby (49 N. Y. 183),
929.
Bolles V. Duff (35 How. Pr. 481),
1739.
Bolles V. Town of Brimfield (120
U. S. 759), 283.
Bolton V. Nebraska, etc. Co. (96 N.
W. Rep. (Neb.) 148), 20.
Bolton V. Prather (80 S. W. Rep.
(Tex. Civ. App.) 666), 376, 879.
Bolz V. Ridder (12 Daly, 329; 19
Weekly Dig. 463), 511, 513, 1137,
1154.
Bommer v. American, etc. Co. (81
N. Y. 468), 1165.
Bonaparte v. Baltimore, etc. R. (75
Md. 240), 67, 1942.
Bonaparte v. Camden, etc. R. Co.
(1 Baldw. 219), 39.
Bonaparte v. Camden, etc. R. Co.
(Baldw. 205; 3 Fed. Cas. 821),
1303.
Bond V. Appleton (8 Mass. 872),
844, 887, 891.
Bond V. Mt. Hope, etc. Co. (99
Mass. 505; 97 Am. Dec. 49; 57
Am. St. Rep. 379), 264.
Bond V. Pontiac, etc. R. Co. (62
Mich. 643; 4 Am. St. Rep. 885),
1080.
Bond V. Terrell, etc. Co. (82 Tex.
309), 1207, 1372.
Bone V. Ekless (59 Hurl. & N.
925), 401.
Bonelli's Electric Telegraph Co.,
In re (40 L. J. Eq. 567), 1055.
Bonner v. City of New Orleans (2
Woods, 135), 1700.
Bonner v. Franklin C. Assn. (4
Tex. Civ. App. 166), 1788.
Bonewitz v. Van Wert Co. Bk. (41
Ohio St. 78), 893, 900, 909, 912,
913, 914.
TABLE OF CASES. xlix
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Boney v. Vv'illiams (55 N. J. Eq.
C91), 935.
Bonnell v. Grisv/old (89 N. Y.
122), 1132, 1134, 113G, 1137.
Boodv V. Drew (46 How. Pr. 459),
2087.
Booe V. Junction R. Co. (10 Ind.
93), 112, 1856.
Boogher v. Life Assn. (75 Mo.
319; 42 Am. Rep. 413), 1492,
1542.
Booker, Ex parte (18 Ark. 338),
115.
Boom Company v. Patterson (98
U. S. 468), 1174, 1300, 1323.
Boomer v. American Sd.. etc. Co.
81 N. Y. 403), 1300, 1323.
Boorman v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. (17
Hun, 555), 147, 1534.
Booake v. Gulf Ice Co. (24 Fla.
550; 5 So. Rep. 247), 90, 154.
Eootli V. Bank (50 N. Y. 400),
1483, 1542.
Booth V. Bunce (33 N. Y. 139; 88
Am. Dec. 343), 181, 1886, 1892,
1949.
Bootli V. Campbell (37 Md. 522),
853, 857.
Booth V. Clark (17 How. (U. S.)
321), 1747, 1811.
Booth V. Farmers' Bk. (50 N. Y.
396), 1351.
Booth V. Illinois (184 U. S. 425),
527.
Booth V. Robinson (55 Md. 419),
76, 1113, 1260, 1265, 1278, 1433,
1700.
Booth V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (40
Fed. Rep. 1), 2014, 2036.
Booth V. AVonderly (36 N. J. 250),
171.
Borgate v. Shortridge (31 Eng. L.
& Eq. 58), 420.
Borgraefe v. Knights of Honor,
(22 Mo. App. 127), 789, 790,
2064, 2065.
Borland v. Haven (37 Fed. Rep.
394), 555, 842, 849, 915, 930, 1111,
1267.
Borland v. Nevada Bk. (99 Cal.
89; 37 Am. St. Rep. 32), 581.
Borough of Braddock v. Penn.
Water Co. (189 Pa. St. 379), 83.
Borough of East Newark v. New
York, etc. (57 Atl. Rep. (N. J.
Eq.) 1051), 1646.
Bosanquet v. Shortridge (4 Ex.
Ch.-699; 16 Beav. 84), 593.
Bosher v. Richmond, etc. Co. (89
Va. 455), 935, 936, 1217.
Bosley v. National, etc. Co. (123
N. Y. 550), 947.
Bost V. Albert Palmer Co. (35
Hun, 386), 1167.
Bostock V. N. Staffordshire (5 De
Gex & S. 584), 1238.
Boston V. Brines Chase Co. (175
Pa. St. 209), 1780, 1994.
Boston V. Graham (179 Mass. 62),
1562, 1912.
Boston & Albany R. Co. v. Pearson
(128 Mass. 445), 2092.
Boston Beer Co. v. Mass. (97 U. S.
25; 2 Smith Cas. 692; 1 Cum.
Cas. 533), 1395, 1398, 1400, 1401.
Boston, etc. Co. v. Boston, etc. Co.
(149 Mass. 436), 122, 1308. 1581.
Boston, etc. Co. v. City of Racine
(97 Fed. Rep. 817), 2038.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Common-
wealth (100 Mass. 399), 246,
247, 631.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Gilmore (37
N. H. 410), 1716.
Boston, etc. Iron Works, In re (23
Fed. Rep. 880), 850.
Boston, etc. Co. v. Mercantile, etc.
Co. (34 Atl. Rep. (Md.) 778),
771.
Boston, etc. Mfg. Co. v. Langdon,
(41 Mass. 49), 1958, 1960. 1961.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. New Eng-
land, etc. R. Co. (13 R. I. 260),
1861.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. N. Y., etc.
R. Co. (12 R. I. 220), 828, 1243,
1259.
Boston & Providence R. Co. v.
New York & N. E. R. Co. (12 R.
I. 220), 1739.
Boston & A. R. Co. v. Pear.son (128
Mass. 445), 263, 940, 2080.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Richardson
(135 Mass. 473), 291, 411, 417.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Salem, etc.
R. R. (2 Gray (68 Mass.),
1),
1317, 1407, 1412, 1659.
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. State (32 N.
H. 227), 1500, 1539, 1540, 1545,
1546.
Boston, etc. Co. v. Wellington (113
Mass. 79), 268, 269, 270, 302, 303,
312, 313, 314, 338, 472, 473, 506,
808.
Boston Glass Manufactory v.
Langdon (24 Pick. (41 Mass.)
49; 35 Am. Dec. 292), 1245,
1918, 1948, 1949, 1953, 1954.
Boston Music, etc. Assn. v. Cary
129 Mass. 434), 541, 590, 962.
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-ClO; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol: III, 1507-2134.]
Boston R. Co. v. Commonwealth
(100 Mass. 399), 247.
Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v. Boston
Rubber Co. (149 Mass. 436), 126.
Bostwick V. Detroit Fire Dept. (49
Mich. 513), 787, 2061.
Boswell's Lessees v. Otis (9 How.
348), 904.
Bosworth V. Allen (168 N. Y. 157;
55 L. R. A. 751), 1182.
Bosworth V. Jacksonville Nat. Bk.
(64 Fed. Rep. 615; 12 C. C. A.
331), 1773.
Bosworth V. St. Louis, etc. Assn.
(174 U. S. 182), 1799.
Bottomlev's Case (16 Ch. Div.
681), 1064.
Botts V. Simpsonville, etc. Co. (88
Ky. 54; 2 L. R. A. 594), 1856,
1862.
Botts V. Simpsonville & B. C. T.
Co. (88 Ky. 54; 10 S. W. Rep.
134), 1579.
Bouch V. Sproule (L. R. 12 App.
Cas. 385), 649.
Bousrhton v. Otis (21 N. Y. 261),
847.
Boulter v. Webster (11 L. T. (N.
S.) 598), 1500, 1546.
Boulton, etc. Co. v. Mills (78 Iowa,
460), 426, 483, 484, 511, 513.
Boumeister v. G. R. & L Ry. Co.
(63 Mich. 557), 1637.
Bound V. South Carolina Ry. (59
Fed. Rep. 509), 1749, 1757.
Bound V. South Carolina R. Co.
(78 Fed. Rep. (C. C. A.) 49),
1815, 1828, 1830.
Bourget v. Cambridge (156 Mass.
391), 1611.
Buolware v. Davis (90 Ala. 207),
1749, 1750, 1811.
Bouton V. Smith (113 111. 481),
1774.
Bouton V. Dement (123 111. 142),
284, 330.
Boutwell V. Townsend (37 Barb.
205), 860, 864.
Bouwer v. Appleby (1 Sandf. 158),
155, 267.
Bow v. Allenstovm (34 N. H. 351),
92, 160, 1532.
Bowden v. Farmers, etc. Bk. of
Bal. (3 Fed. Cas. 1029), 563.
Bowden v. Johnson (107 U. S.
251), 557, 856, 884.
Bowden v. Santos (1 Hughes (U.
S.), 158), 551, 885.
Bowditch V. New England, etc. Co.
141 Mass. 292; 55 Am. Rep. 474),
1373.
Bowen, Ex parte (27 L. T. 297),
542.
Bower v. B. & S. W. R. Co. (42
Iowa, 546), 1571.
Bowers v. Hechtman (45 Minn.
238), 134.
Bowie v. Society (75 Va. 300), 487
Bowker v.. Hill (60 Me. 172), 1968
Bowker v. Pierce (130 Mass. 262)
533.
Bowlby V. Bell (3 C. B. 284), 525
Bowman v. Chicago (125 U. S
465), 1552.
Bowman v. Foster, etc. C'j. (94
Fed. Rep. 592), 1337.
Bowman v. Harris (95 Fed
lUp,
917), 1791.
Bowmer v. Hoffen (161 N. Y. 390).
71.
Bowring v. Shepherd (L, R. 6
Q
B. 309), 468, 888, 2107.
Bowron, In re (L. R. 5 Ex. 428),
280.
Boyce v. Missouri, etc. H. R. (168
Mo.; 58 L. R. A. 442), 1320.
Boyd V. Alabama (M U. S. 645),
41. 1387, 1398, 1400, 1401.
Boyd v. American, etc. Co. (182
Pa. St. 206), 1291.
Boyd V. Hall (5 Ga. 563), 909,
910, 924, 926.
Boyd V. Hankin.san (92 Fed. Rep.
(C. C. A.) 49), 1967, 1982.
Boyd V. Merrilf (52 111. 151), 2077.
Boyd V. Mutu3i Fire Assn. (90 N.
W. Rep. (Wis.) 1086), 829, 950.
Eoyd V. Peach Bottom Ry. (90 Pa.
St. 169), 281, 303, 304, 384.
Boyd V. Redd (120 N. C. 335), 152,
1942.
Boyd V. Simh (87 Tenn. 771), 824,
820, 827.
Boyer v. Northern, etc. Ry. (66
Pac. Rep. (Idaho) 826), 2022.
Boylan v. buguet (8 Nev. 345),
587.
Boyle v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (88
Fed. Rep 930; 32 C. C. A. 142),
1757.
Boynton v. Andrews (64 N. Y. 93),
513 514 559.
Boynton v Hatch (47 N. Y. 225),
428, 511, 513, 559.
Boynton v. Lynn G. L. Co. (47 N.
Y. 225), 1200.
Boynton v. Roe (114 Mich. 401),
1766.
TABLE OF CASES.
li
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Boynton, etc. Co.. In re (34 Hun
(N. Y.), 269), 1780.
Branner, etc. Co. v. Central, etc.
Co. (18 Ind. App. 174). 1809.
Bracher v. Hat Sweat, etc. Co. (49
Fed. Rep. 921), 1429.
Brackett v. Griswold (13 N. Y.
Supp. 192), 1136. 1142, 1541.
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co. (45 N. J. L. 363), 362, 368,
375. 454, 461, 465.
Braddock, etc. Ry. v. Bily (11 Pa.
Sup. Ct. 144), 944.
Bradford v. Cary
(5
Me. 339),
2125.
Bradford v. Franfort, etc. Co. (142
Ind. 383), 90, 1846, 1852.
Bradford Banking Co. v. Briggs,
etc. Co. (31 Ch. Div. 19; 12 App.
Cas. 29; 29 Ch. Div. 119), 538,
690. 693.
Bradford, etc. R. Co. v. New York,
etc. R. Co. (48 Hun. 621), 1426.
Bradlee v. Warren, etc. Bank (127
Mass. 107; 34 Am. Rep. 351),
1207.
Bradlev v. Ballard (55 111. 413; 7
Am. Rep. 656), 1266, 1328, 1329,
1348, 1367, 1700.
Bradley v. Farwell (1 Holmes (U.
S.), 433), 1702.
Bradley v. Holdsworth (3 Mees &
W. 422), 241.
Bradley v. Luce (99 111. 234), 579.
Bradley v. McKee (5 Cranch. C. C.
298; Fed. Cas. No. 1784), 1954.
Bradley v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co.
(38 Minn. 234), 1311.
Bradley v. Poole (98 Mass. 169; 93
Am. Dec. 144), 358, 577.
Bradlev v. Reffell (133 Mo. 545;
54 Am. St. Rep. 685), 1231, 1950,
1971, 1973.
Bradley v. Richardson (2 Blatchf.
343; 23 Vt. 720), 410, 1097.
Bradley, etc. Co. v. Norfolk, etc.
Co. (101 Fed. Rep. 631), 1968.
Bradstreet Co. v. Gill (72 Tex.
115; 13 Am. St. Rep. 768), 1496,
1510.
Brady v. Bay State, etc. Co. (106
Fed. Rep. 584), 1781.
Bradv v. Coachman's B. Assn. (14
N. Y. Supp. 272). 214.
Bradv v. Evans (78 Fed. Rep. 558;
24 C. C. A. 236), 1118.
Brady v. Johnson (73 Md. 445; 20
L. R. A. 737), 1654.
Bradv v. Mayor (16 How. Pr. 432),
1357.
Brady v. Mt. Morris Bank (65*N.
Y. App. Div. 212), 1211.
Brady v. National, etc. Co. (64
Ohio St. 267), 1527.
Braem v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
(127 N. Y. 508), 1512.
Braginton, Ex parte (12 L. T. (N.
S.) 259), 617.
Brainerd v. New York, etc. R. R.
10 Boswell, 32), 1668, 1674, 1675.
Brainerd v. Peck (34 Vt. 496),
1711, 1716.
Braintree, etc. Co. v. Town of
Braintree (146 Mass.
482"'),
151,
976.
Braithwaite v. State (28 Neb.
832), 1547.
Branch v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (3
Woods, 481), 1721.
Branch v. Augusta Glass Works
(95 Ga. 573), 1055.
Branch v. Baker (53 Ga. 502), 854,
855. 927.
Branch v. Charleston (92 U. S.
677), 728, 729, 1874.
Branch v. Jessup (106 U. S. 468),
507, 667, 1254, 1367, 1560, 1713.
Brand v. Lawrenceville Br. R. Co.
(77 Ga. 506), 303, 321, 940.
Brander v. Brander (4 Ves. 800),
650.
Brandestein v. Hoke (101 Cal.
131), 158.
Brandon Iron Co. v. Gleason (24
Vt. 228), 1908. 1927, 1958, 1962.
Brandt v. Benedict (17 N. Y. 93),
1948, 1949, 1954.
Erandreth, Matter of (58 N. Y.
App. Div. 575), 1034.
Brandt v. Godwin (24 N. Y. 305),
1132, 1137, 1141.
Branham v. Record (42 Ind. 181),
310.
Branson v. Citv of Phila. (47 Pa.
St. 329), 50. 1557.
Branson v. Oregonian Ry. (10
Oreg. 278), 587, 910.
Brant, In re (96 Fed. Rep. 257),
1746.
Brant v. Ehlen (59 Md. 1), 427,
429, 447, 505, 506, 507, 510, 558,
559.
Brass v. N. Dakota (153 U. S.
391), 1555, 1656.
Brass v. Worth (40 Barv. 648),
586.
Brassey v. New Yoi'k, etc. R. Co.
(19 Fed. Rep. 663), 1745.
Braslin v. Somerville, etc. R. Co.
(145 Mass. 64), 1570.
lii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bray v. Farwell (81 N. Y. 600),
313, 2091.
Eray v.
Seligman (75 Mo. 31),
871.
Bray v.
Wallingford, etc. Co. (20
Conn. 4G6), 10.
Brayton v. Fall River (124 Mass.
95),
1314.
Breathitt Co. v. Gregory (78 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 148; Ky. Law Re-
port, 1507),
1073.
Breedlove v. Martinsville, etc. R.
Co. (12 Ind. 114), 454, 461.
Brehm v. Sperry (92 Md. 378),
1213.
Breitung v.
Lindauer (37 Mich.
217), 48, 841.
Breneman v. Franklin (3 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 218), 221.
Brenham v. Water Co. (57 Tex.
542); 1439.
Brennan v. Emery, etc. Co. (99
Fed. Rep. 971), 1160.
Brennan v. Tracey (2 Mo. App.
540), 1540.
Brent v. Bank of Washington (10
Peters, 596), 190, 207. 228, 601.
Brenville, etc. Co. v. Mobile (186
U. S. 212), 1645.
Brewer, etc. Co. v. Boddie (181 111.
622), 1234.
Brewer v. Boston Theatre (104
Mass. 378), 826, 1127, 1360.
Brewer v. Harrison (27 Colo. 349),
1709.
Brewer v. Michigan Salt Assn. (58
Mich. 351), 587, 645, 898.
Brewers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Burger
(10 Hun, 56), 368.
Brewster v. Hartley (37 Cal. 15;
99 Am. Dec. 237), 196, 200, 201,
221, 581, 585, 888, 1008, 1013,
1014, 1015, 1024. 1026.
Brewster v. Hatch (10 Abb. N.
Cas. 400), 819.
Brewster v. Lathrop (15 Cal. 21),
628.
Brewster v. Miller (101 Ky. 368;
41 S. W. Rep. 301), 216.
Brewster v. Sime (42 Cal. 139),
533, 572, 631.
Brewster v. Stratman (4 Mo. App.
41), 1096.
Brice v. Munro (5 Can. L. T. 130),
864.
Brick V. Brick (99 U. S. 514), 582.
Brick Presb. Church v. Mayor of
N. Y. (5 Cowen, 538), 205, 1399.
Brickley v. Welch (31 Conn. 342),
1674.
Bridge v. Chapin (6 Cush. (60
Mass.) 50), 455.
Bridge Co. v. Adams Co. (88 111.
615), 1872.
Bridge Co. v. Hoboken Land Co.
(13 N. J. Eq. 81), 40, 52, 59,
1653.
Bridge Co. v. McCluney
(8 Mo.
App. 500), 510.
Bridge Co. v. Mayer (31 Ohio,
317), 1870, 1873.
Bridgeford v. Hall (18 La. Ann.
211), 121.
Bridgeman v. Keokuk (72 Iowa,
42), 386.
Bridgeport Electric Co. v. Meader
(72 Fed. Rep. 115; 18 C. C. A.
451), 1166.
Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. Co.
15 Conn. 475), 297, 1674.
Bridgeport Bk. v. New York, etc.
R. Co. (30 Conn. 231) 390, 391,
421, 525, 613.
Bridgeport Sav. Bank v. Eldridge
(28 Conn. 556), 1189.
Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken
Land Co. (1 Wall. 116), 40, 52,
r.9, 1653.
Bridger's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. App.
305), 358, 505.
Bridgewater Nav. Co., In re (2 Ch.
317; 3 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 591).
1975.
Bridgewater, etc. Co. v. Lessberger
(116 U. S. 8), 594, 610, 959, 965.
Bridport Old Brewery Co., In re
(L. R. Ch. 191), 986.
Brien v. Paul (3 Tenn. Ch. 357),
1724.
Briggs V. Cape Cod Ship Canal Co.
(137 Mass. 71), 1915, 1917, 1918.
Briggs V. Cornwall (9 Daly (N.
Y.), 436), 431, 923, 924, 932.
Briggs V. Lewiston, etc. R. Co. (79
Me. 363), 1602, 1603.
Briggs V. Massey (42 L. T. 49),
390, 578.
Briggs V. Oliver (68 N. Y. 336).
586.
Briggs V. Penniman (8 Cowen,
387), 387. 460, 497, 852, 853,924,
1129, 1949.
Briggs v. Spaulding (141 U. S.
132), 817, 1060, 1118, 1120, 1130,
1513.
Briggs V. Vanderbilt (19 Barb.
222), 1472.
Briggs, Ex parte (L. R. 1 Eq.
*
483). 377.
TABLE OF CASES. liii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Brigham v. Mead (10 Allen (92
Mass.), 245), 468, 593, 888, 889,
890.
Brl2;ham v. Nathan (62 Hun, 243),
854.
Bright V. Lord (51 Ind. 272), 628,
629.
Bright V. Metaine Cem. Assn. (33
La. Ann. 58), 1189.
Bright V. North (2 Phill. Ch. (N.
C.) 216), 1368, 1803.
Brightman v. Bates (175 Mass.
105). 1034.
Brinckerhoff v. Bostwick (SS N. Y.
52), 826.
Brinham v. Wellersburg Coal Co.
47 Pa. St. 43). 874. 906. 909. 911.
Brinkerhoff v. Lansing (4
Johns.
Ch. 65), 1755.
Brinkerhoff. etc. Co. v. Home, etc.
Co. (118 Mo. 447), 188, 220, 791,
1027.
Brinklev v. Hambleton (67 Md.
169). 468, 469, 548, 549.
Brisbane v. Delaware, etc. R. Co.
(94 N. Y. 204: 25 Hun. 438).
264, 603, 612, 613, 615, 625, 626,
631.
Briscoe v. Bank of Ky. (11 Pet.
257), 1514.
Brisenden v. Chamberlain (53
Fed. Rep. 307), 1791.
Bristol, etc. v. Keavey (128 Mass.
298), 1073.
Bristol, etc. Co. v. Thomas (93 Va.
396), 1781.
Bristol Joint Stock Bk., In re (44
Ch. Div. 703), 1955.
Bristol, etc. Ry. Co., In re (L. R.
6 Ex. 488), 671.
Bristol, etc. Co. v. Selliez (175 Pa.
St. 18), 951, 1416.
Bristor v. Smith (158 N. Y. 157),
860.
Britan v. Newland (2 Dev. & B.
(N. C.) 363), 126.
British Banking Co. v. Charnwood,
etc. Ry. Co. (18 Q. B. Div. 714;
34 N. R. 718), 412.
British, etc. Co. v. Assessors (42
Fed. Rep. 90), 733.
British, etc. v. Comm'rs (31 N. Y.
32), 10.
British, etc. Co. v. Inland
Comm'rs (L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 165),
1669.
British & Am. Tel. Co. v. Colson
(L. R. 6 Ex. 108), 279.
British & Foreign Cork Co., In re
(L. R. 1 Eq. 231), 568, 570.
British Provident, etc. Soc, In re
(L. R. 5 Ch. D. 306), 81, 152,
601, 1053.
British Sugar Ref. Co., In re (3 K.
& J. 408), 465, 983, 999.
British Water Gas Syndicate Lim-
ited V. Notts & Derby Co. Lim-
ited (6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 516),
1956.
Erittan v. Oakdale, etc. Bank (124
Cal. 282; 71 Am. St. Rep. 59),
541.
Broad v. Wickham (1 Sm. Ch. Pr.
500). 1747. 1748.
Broadway Bk. v. McElrath (13 N.
J. Eq. 24), 390, 392, 582, 963.
Broadwell v. Merritt (87 Mo. 95),
1916.
Bristol Bkg., etc. Co. v. Jonesboro,
etc. Co. (101 Tenn. 545), 124,
152, 384.
Brocaw v. Gibson County (73 Ind.
543), 295, 297. 298.
Brock v. Northwestern Fuel Co.
(130 U. S. 34), 2014.
Brockenbrough v. James River,
etc. Co. (1 Patton & H. (Va.)
94), 479.
Brockert v. Iowa Cent. Ry. (93
Iowa. 132), 1757.
Brocklehurst v. Railway, etc. Co.
(Weekly Notes, 1884, p. 70),
1706, 1719.
Brockway v. Innes (39 Mich. 47;
33 Am. Rep. 348), 858, 859, 860.
Brockwell's Case (29 L. T. 375),
364.
Brodrick v. Brown (69 Fed. Rep.
497). 493.
Broderip v. Salomon (2 Chi. Div.
323), 1964.
Brodie v. McCabe (33 Ark. 690),
294.
Bromley v. Williams (32 Beav.
177). 2082, 2085.
Bronson, In re <150 N. Y. 1), 746.
Bronson v. Albion Tel. Co. (93 N.
W. Rep. (Neb.) 201), 1626,
Bronson v. Kinzie (1 How. 311;
40.
Bronson v. La Crosse, etc. R. Co.
(2 Wall. 283), 1676, 1738, 1740,
1949.
Bronson v. Wilmington, etc. Ins.
Co. (85 N. C. 411), 909.
Brookfield v. Hecker (118 Fed.
Rep. 942), 1791.
Brooklyn, etc. R. Co., In re (72 N.
Y. 245; 75 N. Y. 335; 81 N. Y.
69), 105, 1307, 1943, 1956.
liv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Brooklyn, etc, Co. v. City of
Brooklyn (78 N. Y. 524), 1944,
1945.
Brooklyn S. T. Co. v. City of
Brooklyn (78 N. Y. 524, 529),
105, 1942.
Brooklyn, etc. Co. v. Masury (25
Barb. 410, 124.
Brooklyn Park Comm'rs v. Arm-
strong (45 N. Y. 234; 6 Am. Rep.
70). 1980.
Brooklyn Steam Transit Co. v.
City of Brooklyn (78 N. Y. 524),
1959.
Brookman v. Metcalf (32 N. Y.
591), 1674.
Brookman v. Rothschild (3 Sim.
153),
2114.
Brooks V. Greathead (1 Jac. & W.
176), 1724, 1799.
Brooks V. O'Hara Bros. (2 Mc-
Crary, 644), 1752.
Brooksville R. R. v. Byron (50 S.
W. Rep. (Ky.) 530), 939.
Brookville & G. T. Co. v. McCarty
(8 Ind. 392; 65 Am. Dec. 768),
353.
Bross V. Cairo, etc. R. Co. (9
Bradw. 363), 363.
Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v.
Newton (79 111. App. 500), 233.
Brotherhood's Case (31 Beav.
365), 828.
Broughton v. Pensacola (93 U. S.
266), 1877.
Brower v. Passenger Ry. Co. (3
Phila. 161), 289.
Brown, Ex parte (19 Beav. 97),
887.
Brown v. Adams (5 Biss. 181; 4
Fed. Cas. 350), 592.
Brown v. Anderson (104 Ga. 30),
1829
Brown' v. Beatty (34
Miss. 227),
]303.
Brown v. Black (L. R. 8 Ch. 939),
887.
Brown v. Bradford (103 Iowa,
378), 1087.
Brown v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co. (27
Hun, 342), 640, 824, 826, 1500,
1546.
Brown v. Corbin (40 Minn. 508),
1232.
Brown v. Creston Ice Co. (113
Iowa, 615), 1065.
Brown v. Dale (9 Ch. Div. 78),
2072.
Brown v. De Young (167 111. 549;
47 N. E. Rep. 863), 225.
Brown v. Dibbell's Estate (65
Mich. 520), 138, 157, 1006, 1846.
Brown v. Duluth Ry. (53 Fed. Rep.
889), 1511.
Brown v. Erie Ry. Co. (19 How.
Pr. 84), 1728.
Brown v. Eastern State Co. (134
Mass. 590), 928, 929.
Brown v. Fairmount Mine Co. (10
Phila. 32), 109.
Brown v. Farmers', etc. Co. (23
Oreg. 541), 1708.
Brown v. Fisk (23 Fed. Rep. 228),
834, 898, 900, 901, 905.
Brown v. Florida Southern Ry. Co.
(19 Fla. 472), 382, 654.
Brown v. Galveston, etc. Co. (92
Tex. 520), 1074.
Brown v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
(42 Md. 384), 393.
Brown v. Hitchcock (36 Obloi
St. 678), 847, 888, 891, 892, 893,
911.
Brown v. Howard Ins. Co. (42 Md.
384), 419.
Brown v. Hummell (6 Pa. St. 86),
53.
Brown v. Jacobs, etc. Co. (41 S. E.
Rep. 553; 57 L. R. A. (Ga.)
547), 1428.
Brown v. King (62 Fed. Rep. 529;
10 C. C. A. 541), 1814.
Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co.
(134 U. S. 530), 1782, 1783.
Brown v. Maplewood, etc. Assn.
89 N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 872),
881, 1666.
Brown v. Monmouthshire Ry. etc
Co. (13 Beav. 32), 644.
Brown v. Morton (58 Atl. Rep.
(N. J. Supp.) 95), 469.
Brown v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(19 How. Pr. 84), 1725.
Brown v. New York Central R. R.
(75 Hun, 355), 1557.
Brown v. Northrup (15 Abb. Pr.
N. S. 333), 1557.
Brown v. Orr, (112 Pa. St. 233),
2087.
Brown v. Pacific Mail Steamboat
Co. (5 Blatchf. 525; 4 Fed. Cas.
420), 1017, 1019, 1035, 1056.
Brown v. Passenger Ry. Co. (3
Phila. 161), 290.
Brown v. Phelps (103 Mass. 313),
2115.
Brown v. Republican, etc. Mines
(55 Fed. Rep. 7), 1064, 2019.
Brown v. Schleier (118 Fed. Rep.
981), 1257, 1981.
TABLE OF CASES. Iv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1S07-2134.]
Brown v. Scottish American Mort-
gage Co. (110 III. 235), 90, 160,
1032.
Brown v. Smith (122 Mass. 589),
614, :36, 1791.
Brown v. State (62 Md. 439),
1726.
Brown v. State (11 Ohio, 276),
1547.
Brown v. Tinsley (21 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 535), 1593.
Brown v. Trail (89 Fed. Rep.
641), 850, 851.
Brown v. Union Ins. Co. (3
La.
Ann. 177), 178, 498, 898, 968,
1002, 1961.
Brown v. Valley, etc. Co. (127
Cal. 630), 1064.
Brown v. Ward (3 Duer (N. Y.),
fitO), 16S0.
Brown v. Weymouth (36 Me. 414),
1207.
Brown v. Wheeler (17 Conn. 345),
343.
Bro^Ti V. Vv^innisimmet Co. (93
Mass. 326), 1206, 1327, 1350.
Brov>'ne v. Collins (L. R. 12 Eq.
594), 639.
Browne v. Monmouthshire Ry. etc.
Co. (3 Eng. L. & Eq. 118; 13
Bsav. 32), 641, 674.
Browne, etc. Co., In re (106 La.
486), 173, 879.
Browning v. Mullins (13 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 427), 1262.
Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R. Co. (18
Ind. 68), 267, 268, 269, 306, 368,
461.
Brown's Case (L. R. 9 Ch. App.
102), 1052.
Brownson v. Chapman (63 N. Y.
625), 524.
Brovles v. McCov (5 Sneed
(Tenn.), 602), 179.
Bruce v. Piatt (80 N. Y. 379),
1948, 1949. 1961.
Bruce v. Smith (44 Ind. 1), 547,
2116.
Bruff V. Mali (36 N. Y. 205), 400,
406, 421, 422.
Bruffett V. Great Western R. Co.
(25 111. 353), 1244, 1817, 1866,
1894, 1953, 1964.
Brum V. Merchants', etc. Ins. Co.
(16 Fed. Rep. 140; 4 Woods,
156), 1250, 1835, 1886, 1890.
Brundage v. Brundage (60 N. Y,
544; 65 Barb. 397), 623, 626, 628,
631, 650.
Brundage v. Deardorf (55 Fed.
Rep. 839), 15.
Brundage v. Monumental, etc. Co.
(12 Oreg. 322; 7 Pac. Rep. 314),
852, 897, 898, 900, 902, 909, 913.
Brundred v. Rice (49 Ohio St.
640), 1475.
Brunswick Gaslight Co. v. United
Gas, etc. Co. (58 Me. 532), 1244,
1245, 1254, 1336.
Brunswick, etc. Co. v. Nat. Bk.
etc. (99 Fed. Rep. 635; 40 C. C.
A. 22), 872.
Brunswick, etc. R. Co. v. Hughes
(52 Ga. 557), 1706.
Bruschke v. Nord, Chicago, etc.
Co. (145 111. 433), 1514.
Brunson v. Nichols (72 Iowa, 763),
2022, 2023.
Brush V. Reeves (3 Johns. (N.
Y.) 439), 1676.
Browning v. Plinckell (48 Minn.
544), 1178. 1532.
Brvan v. Baldvrin (52 N. Y. 234),
586.
Brvan v. Board of Education (7
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 389). 107. 154.
Bryan v. Cormick (1 Cox, 422),
1747.
Bryan v. Western U. T. Co. (45 S.
E. Rep. (N. C.) 938), 1625.
Bryant v. Goodnow (22 Mass. (5
Pick.) 228), 979.
Bryant v. Ohio College (1 Cin.
67), 675.
Brvant's Pond, etc. Co. v. Felt (87
Me. 234; 33 L. R. A. 593; 47 Am.
St. R. 323), 285, 325.
Brymer v. Butler Water Co. (179
Pa. St. 331; 36 L. R. A. 260),
1650.
Bryon v. Carter (22 La. Ann. 98),
227.
Bryson v. Rayner (25 Md. 424; 90
Am. Dec. 69), 586.
Bryson v. Warwick, etc. Co. (1
Sm. & G. 447), 1861.
Brynjolfson v. Osthus (96 N. W.
Rep. (N. Dak.) 201), 1805, 1806.
B. S. Green Co. v. Blodgett (159
111. 169; 50 Am. St. Rep. 146),
1188.
Buchanan v. Barnes (34 S. W.
Rep. (Tenn.) 425), 1766.
Buchanan v. Meisser (105 111.
638), 923, 924. 926, 928.
Buchan's Case (L. R. 4 App. Cas.
549), 538, 565, 569, 570,
Bucher v. Dillsburg, etc. R. Co.
(76 Pa. St. 306), 267, 269, 317.
Buck V. Colbath (3 Wall. 334),
1734.
Ivi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Biickv. Collins (57 Ga. 391),
821.
Buck V. Seymour (46 Conn. 156),
1713.
Buck V. Tro-, etc. Co. (56
Atl.
Rep. (Vt.) 285), 803, 1158.
Buckeve
Marble, etc. Co. v. Har-
vey (92 Tenn. 115), 1277, 1377.
Buckeye, etc. Co. v. High (92
Tenn. 115; 36 Am. St. Rep. 71),
1278.
Buckfield Branch R. Co. v. Irish
(39 Me. 44), 312, 473, 501.
Buck Mountain Coal Co. v. Le-
high Coal & Nav. Co. (50 Pa. St.
91), 1925.
Buckley v. Edwards (131 Ind. 3),
153.
Buckner v. Hart (52 Fed. Rep.
835), 1598.
Bucksport, etc. R. Co. v. Buck (65
Me. 536), 112, 129, 308, 310, 316,
322, 349, 980.
Bucksport, etc. R. Co. v. Inhabi-
tants of Bremer (67 Me. 295),
302, 305, 307, 311, 324.
Buckwalter v. Whipple (14 S. E.
Rep. (Ga.) 1010), 1248.
Budd V. Monroe (18 Hun, 316),
1051.
Budd V. Multnomah (53 Am. St.
Rep. 355; 15 Oreg. 413; 3 Am.
St. Rep. 169; 12 Oreg. 271), 187,
455, 456, 465, 466, 473, 475, 481,
495, 1085, 2033.
Budd V. New York (143 U. S. 517),
1553, 1656.
Budd V. Walla Walla, etc. Co. (2
Wash. 347), 1109, 1194.
Buell V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co.
(39 N. Y. App. Div.), 1519.
Buell V. Buckingham (16 Iowa,
284; 85 Am. Dec. 516), 1015,
1245, 1252, 1703, 1704.
Buena Vista, etc. Bk. v. Grier (114
Ga. 398; 40 S. E. Rep. 284), 791,
1535.
Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Alberger (22
Hun, 349), 393.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Brainard
(9
N. Y. 100), 1311.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Buffalo St.
Ry. Co. (Ill N. Y. 132; 2 L. R.
A. 284), 1382.
Buffalo & A. R. Co. v. Gary (26 N.
Y. 77), 165, 403, 877, 1924.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co.. v. Clark (22
Hun, 359), 277, 473.
Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Delaware, etc.
R. R. Co. (130 N. Y. 152), 1552.
Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Dudley
(14 N.
Y. 336), 96, 97, 109, 110, 243, 244,.
263, 270, 271, 276, 288, 291, 364,
379, 386, 471, 472, 478, 525.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Ferris (26
Tex. 588), 1311.
Buffalo, etc. v. Gifford (87 N. Y.
294; 22 Hun, 359), 266, 268, 269,
277, 282, 288, 289, 348, 350, 377.
Buffalo & R. V. Hatch (20 N. Y.
157), 278, 345.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Lampson
(47 Barb. 533), 1103.
Buffalo, etc. .R. Co. v. Medina,
etc. Co. (12 N. Y. App. Div. 199;
42 Supp. 781), 792.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Pottle (23
Barb. 21), 305.
Buffalo, etc. v. Standard Oil Co.
(106 N. Y. 669), 1543, 1544.
Buffalo V. Webster (10 Wend. 99),.
195.
Buffet V. Troy, etc. Co. (40 N. Y.
168), 1351, 1471.
Buffum V. Fayette Mut. Ins. Co.
(3 Allen (85 Mass.), 360), 2067.
Buford V. Keokuk, etc. Packet Co.
(69 Mo. App. 159), 1843, 1948.
Bugg, Ex parte (2 Dr. & Sm. 452),
569, 587.
Builders', etc. Co. v. Lucas (119
Ala. 202), 1782.
Building & Loan Association v.
Chamberlain (4 S. D. 271), 153,
879.
Building & L. Assn. v. Dorsey (15
S. C. 462), 225.
Building Assn. v. Kribs (7 Leg. &
Ins. Rep. 21), 2066.
Buker v. Leighton, etc. Assn. (164
N. Y. 557; 63 N. Y. App. Div.
507; 71 N. Y. Supp. 610), 1511.
Bulkley v. Whitcomb (121 N. Y.
107), 924, 927.
Bullan V. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co.
(4 Biss. 35), 1263.
Bullard v. Bank (18 Wall. (U. S.)
369), 227.
Bullard v. Bell (1 Mason, 243; 4
Fed. Cas. 625), 903, 948.
Bullard v. Kinney (10 Cal. 60),
2081.
Bullitt V. Taylor (34 Miss. 708),
904.
Bullock V. Consumers' Lumber Co.
(31 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 367), 1178,
1532.
Bullock V. Falmouth, etc. Co. (85
Ky. 184), 266, 471, 946.
Bullock V. Hubbard (23 Cal. 495),
1291.
TABLE OF CASES. Ivii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1.506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Bullock V. Kilgour (39 Ohio St.
543), 919.
Bulmer, Ex parte (33 Beav. 433),
569, 869.
Bump V. Butler Co. (93 Fed. Rep.
290), 1953.
Buncombe Turnpike v. McCarson
(1 Dev. & B. (N. C.) 306), 68.
Bunrly v. Cocke (128 U. S. 125),
575.
Bunn's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 49),
49S. 545, 898, 968.
Burbridge, Ex parte (1 Deac. 131),
1163.
Burbank v. Bethel, etc. Co. (75
Me. 373), 35.
Burbank v. Jefferson City, etc. Co.
(35 La. Ann. 444), 1371.
Burbank v. Dennis (101 Cal. 90),
1217.
Burden v. Burden (159 N. Y.
287), 188, 1089, 1166, 1199.
Burger v. Grand Rapids, etc. R.
Co. (22 Fed. Rep. 561), 1869,
1870, 2010.
Burges' and Stock's Case (2 Johns.
& H. 441), 1165, 1335.
Burgess v. St. Louis County R. Co.
(99 Mo. 496), 1367, 1826.
Burgess v. Seligman (107 U. S.
20), 563, 582, 871, 872, 873.
Burhop V. City of Milwaukee (21
Wis. 257), 88.
Burk V. Mead (64 N. E. Rep.
(Ind.) 880), 952.
Burk V. Muskegon, etc. Co. (98
Mich. 614), 1797.
Burke, In re (1 Ball & B. 74),
1747.
Burke v. Badlam (57 Cal. 594),
713.
Burke v. Ellis (105 Tenn. 702),
1809.
Burke v. Lechmere (L. R. 6 Q. B.
297), 279.
Burke v. Roper (79 Ala. 138), 785,
787, 2059, 2061.
Burke v. Smith (16 Wall. 390),
115, 290, 303, 304, 307, 311, 312,
316, 321, 334, 335, 339, 384, 447,
515, 593, 8S9, 943, 1129.
Burkinshaw v. Nichols (L. R. 3
App. Cas. 1004) 506, 559.
Burlington, etc. R. Co. v. Boestler
(15 Iowa, 555), 302, 305, 322,
324, 1796.
Burlington, etc. R. Co. v. Palmer
(42 Iowa, 222), 270.
Burlington, etc. R. Co. v. White
(5 Iowa, 409), 243, 765.
Burlington, etc. R. Co. v. Whitney
(43 Iowa, 113), 317.
Burlingson's Case (3 De G. & Sm.
18), 575.
Burneys Case (2 Bland. Ch.
(Md.) 141), 1379.
Burnes v. Pennell (2 H. L. Cas.
497), 338, 363, 543, 636.
Burnham v. Bowen (111 U. S.
776), 1724, 1725, 1726, 1728, 1740.
Burnham v. San Francisco, etc.
Co. (76 Cal. 24), 480.
Bums V. Metropolitan Bldg. Assn.
(2 Mackey, 7), 1950.
Burns v. Beck (83 Ga. 471; 10 S.
E. Rep. 121), 429, 1067.
Burns, Ex parte (1 Tenn. Ch. 83),
65.
Burnsville, etc. Co. v. State (119
Ind. 382), 619.
Burr V. Chariton County (2
Mc-
Crary, 603), 294.
Burr V. McDonald (3 Gratt. 215),
1062, 1095, 1700.
Burr V. Phoenix Glass Co. (14
Barb. 358). 1242.
Burr V. Wilcox (22 N. Y. 551),
264, 462, 573, 887, 916.
Burrall v. Bushwick R. Co. (75 N.
Y. 211), 237, 270, 389, 540, 618,
1975.
Burrel v. Associate Reformed
Church (44 Barb. 282), 2082.
Eurrell v. Jones (3 Barn. & Aid.
47), 1146.
Burrett v. City of New Haven (42
Conn. 174), 1389.
Burrill v. Nahant Bk. (2 Mete.
(43 Mass. 163; 35 Am. Dec.
395), 1056, 1082, 1084, 1089,
1702.
Burroughs v. North Carolina R.
Co. (67 N. C. 376), 638.
Burrows v. Niblack (84 Fed. Rep.
Ill), 1284.
Burrows v. Smith (10 N. Y. 550),
353, 374, 1224.
Burt V. Batavia, etc. Co. (86 111.
66),
1166.
Burt V. British, etc. Assn. (4 De
G. & J. 158), 821.
Burt V. Farrar (24 Barb. 518),
334.
Burt V. Grand Lodge, etc. (44
Mich. 208), 772, 778.
Burt V. Rattle (31 Ohio St. 116),
685, 678.
Burt V. Real Estate Ex. (175 Pa.
St. 619; 52 Am. St. Rep. 858),
551.
Iviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Burton v. Peterson (12 Phila.
397), 392.
Burton v. Schildebach (45 Mich.
504), 159.
Burton, In re (31 L. Q. B. 62),
Burton's Appeal (57 Pa. St. 213),
1243. 2079.
Busenback v. Attica, etc. Co. (43
Ind. 265), 82.
Busey v. Hooper (35 Md. 15; 6
Am. Rep. 350), 70, 272, 273, 327,
804.
Bush V. Cartwright (7
Oreg. 329),
852.
Bush V. Gillmore (45 N. Y. App.
Div. 89; 61 N. Y. Supp. 682),
1150.
Bush V. Shipman (5 111. (Scam.)
186), 16.
Business Men's, etc. Assn. v. Ber-
lan (98 N. W. Rep. (Iowa),
766), 194, 1526.
Busk V. Walsh (4 Taunt. 290),
401.
Bushnell v. Consol., etc. Co. (138
111. 67), 163, 168.
Bushnell v. Leland (164 U. S.
684), 856.
Bushong V. Taylor (82 Mo. 660),
2127.
Buswell V. Supreme, etc. Hall (161
Mass. 224), 1810, 2016.
Butcher v. Dillsburg & R. Co. (76
Pa. St. 306), 282.
Butchers', etc. Assn., In re (38 Pa.
St. 298), 2071.
Butchers', etc. Co. v. Crescent City
Co. (Ill U. S. 746), 63, 1398,
1402, 1528.
Butchers', etc. Bank v. McDonald
(130 Mass. 264), 90.
Butler V. American Toy Co. (46
Conn. 136), 1293.
Butler V. Aspinwall (33 Fed. Rep.
217), 403.
Butler V. Cumpston (L. R. 7 Eq.
16), 568, 575, 888.
Butler V. Eaton (141 U. S. 240),
953.
Butler V. Harrison, etc. Co. (139
Mo. 467; 61 Am. St. Rep. 464),
1773.
Butler V. Holmes (68 S. W. Rep.
(Tenn.) 52), 1510.
Butler V. Rahm (46 Md. 541),
1708, 1729.
Butler V. Smalley (101 N. Y. 71),
1134, 1138.
Butler V. Walker (80 111. 345),
857.
Butler V. Watkins (13 Wall. 456),
1501.
Butler, etc. Co. v. Robbins (151
111. 588), 1284.
Butler University v. Scoonover
(114 Ind. 381; 5 Am. St. Rep.
627), 261, 266, 273, 338, 940, 946.
Butte, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mont. Union
R. Co. (76 Mont. 504; 50 Am. St.
Rep. 508), 18.
Butterfield v. B^ardsley (28 Mich.
412), 8, 542, 1950, 2090.
Butterfield v. Cowing (112 N. Y.
486), 1761.
Butterfield v. Spencer (1 Bosw.
(N. Y.) 1), 264.
Butterworth, etc. T. Co. v. North
(1 Hill, 518). 304. 305.
Butterworth, etc. v. Kritzer, etc.
Co. (115 Mich.
1),
1372.
Button V. Hoffman (61 Wis. 20;
50 Am. Rep. 131), 78, 802, 972,
1018. 1963.
Buttrick v. Nashua, etc. R. Co. (62
N. H. 413; 13 Am. St. Rep. 578),
960, 965. 973.
Butts V. Wood (37 N. Y. 317),
1064, 1108, 1702.
Buxton V. Lister (3 Atk. 383), 576.
Buzard v. Houston (119 U. S. 347),
381.
Buzzard v. Threlfalls Brewing Co.
(88 L. T. 396), 1713.
Bybee v, Oregon, etc., R. R. (139
U. S. 663), 1942.
Byers v. Rollins (13 Colo. 22; 21
Pac. Rep. 894), 347, 395, 819,
891, 1011.
Byram v. Bickford (140 Mass. 31),
2050, 2093.
Byrne v. Schuyler, etc. Co. (65
Conn. 336), 187, 1925, 1929.
Byrne v. Schuyler, etc. Co. (65
Conn. 336), 1280, 1359.
Byron v. Carter (22 La. Ann.
98),
190, 209, 210.
c.
Cabaniss v. Reco, etc. Co. (116
Fed. Rep. 318; 54 C. C. A. 190),
1782 1783
Cable V. Gatz (34 Mo. 573; 86 Am.
Dec. 126), 850, 1134.
Cable V. McCune (26 Mo. 371; 72
Am. Dec. 214), 843, 846, 848, 850,
851, 948, 1505.
Cable Co. v. Adams (71 Miss. 555;
42 Am. St. Rep. 476), 1993.
TABLE OF CASES. lix
IReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Cabot, etc. Bridge v. Chapin (GO
Mass. 50), 313, 361.
Cadillac, etc. Bank v. Cadillac,
etc Co. (88 N. W. Rep. (Mich.)
67), 132.
Cady V. Centreville, etc. Mfg. Co.
(48 Mich. 133), 195G.
Cady V. Potter (55 Barb. 4G3),
419, 609.
Cadv V. Sanford (53 Vt. 632),
1135, 1141.
Cady V. Smith (12 Neb. 628), 843,
948.
Caesar v. Capell (83 Fed. Rep.
403), 1999.
Cahill V. Briggs (8 B. Mon. (Ky.)
211), 129.
Cahill V. Kalamazoo, etc. Ins. (2
Doug. (Mich.) 124, 138), 68,
193, 211, 1095.
Cain V. Sj'raciise, etc. R. R. (27
N. Y. App. Div. 376; 50 N. Y,
Siipp. 1), 1563.
Cairo & P. Ry. Co. v. Hecht (95
U. S. 168), 45, 46, 47.
Cairo, etc. R. Co. v. Fackney (78
111. 116), 1727.
Cairo, etc. R. Co. v. Sparta (17
111. 106), 504.
Cake V. Mohun (164 U. S. 311),
1808.
Cake V. Pottsville Bank (116 Pa.
St. 264), 1197.
Calder, etc. Nav. Co. v. Pilling (14
Mees & W. 76), 202, 225.
Caldwell v. Vicksburg, etc. R. Co.
(40 La. Ann. 753), 1509.
Caledonian, etc. Ry. Co. v. Hel-
ensburgh (2 Macq. 395), 1176.
Caledonian Ry Co. v. Sohvay, etc.
Ry. (49 L. T. 526), 1368.
Caley v. Coburg, etc. R. Co. (14
Grant (U. C), 531), 1888.
Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. R.
(80 Pa. St. 363; 80 Am. Dec.
570), 302, 303. 304, 305, 306, 311,
312, 353, 362, 385.
Calhoun v. Delhi, etc. Co. (28 Hun,
379), 103.
Calhoun v. Memphis, etc. R. Co.
(2 Flip. 442), 1712, 1714.
Calhoun v. Paducah, etc. R. Co. (9
Cent. L. J. 66), 1714.
Calhoun v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
(14 Fed. Rep. 2; 9 Biss. 330),
1717, 1724, 1728.
Calhoun Countv v. Galbraith (99
U. S. 214), 504.
California v. Callender (94 Cal.
120), 387, 948, 953.
California Bank v. Kennedy (167
U. S. 362), 535, 1277, 1278.
California v. Central Pacific R. Co.
(127 U. S. 1), 25, 29, 39, 40, 48,
50.
California, etc. Hotel Co. v. Cal-
lender (94 Cal. 120; 28 Am. St.
Rep. 99), 466, 494.
California, etc. Co. v. Stelling (141
Cal. 713), 89.
California Sugar, etc. Co. v.
Schafer (57 Cal. 396), 277, 359.
Calkins v. Cheney (92
111. 463),
15.
Calkins v. Equitable, etc. Assn.
(126 Cal 531) 536.
Calkins v. State '(18 Ohio St. 366;
98 Am. Dec. 121), 1547.
Callahan v. Donnolly (45 Cal. 152;
13 Am. Rep. 173), 1425.
Callender v. Painesville, etc. R. Co.
(11 Ohio St. 516), 1504.
Callanan v. Edwards (32 N. Y.
483), 1975.
Callanan v. Windsor (78 Iowa,
193), 940.
Calloway, etc. Co. v. Clark (32 Mo.
305), 1656.
Calloway County v. Foster (93 U.
S. 67), 299.
Calumet Paper Company v. Hask-
ell (144 Mo. 331; 66 Am. St.
Rep. 425), 897, 1055, 1085, 1171,
1767.
Calumet Paper Co. v. Stotts, etc.
Co. (96 Iowa, 147; 59 Am. St.
Rep. 362), 897.
Calvert v. Idaho Stage Co. (25
Oreg. 412; 36 Pac. Rep. 24),
1189.
Camacho v. Hamilton, etc. Co. (2
N. Y. App. Div. 369; 37 N. Y.
Supp. 725), 1199.
Camblos v. Phila., etc. R. Co. (4
Brewst. (Pa.) 563; 4 Fed. Cas.
1089), 1355.
Cambrian Ry's. Co., In re (L. R.
3 Ch. App. 278), 663.
Cambridge Water Works v. Som-
erville, etc. Co. (80 Mass. 193),
862, 863, 903.
Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 515),
866.
Camden v. Stuart (144 U. S. 104),
437, 511.
Camden, etc. R. Co. v. Elkins (37
N. J. Eq. 273), 805, 1034.
Camden, etc. Co. v. May's Land-
ing, etc. Co. (48 N. J. Law, 530),
1259, 1328, 1334, 1367, 1560.
Ix
TABLE OF CASES.
IReferenccs are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, G21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Came v. Brigham (39 Me. 35), 198,
813, 919.
Cameron v. Ford, etc. Bk. (34 S.
W. Rep.
(Tex.) 178), 1294.
Cameron v. New York, etc. Co.
(133 N. Y. 336),
1854.
Cameron v. Seaman (69 N. Y.
396: 25 Am. Rep. 212), 1134,
1135.
Cameron, etc. v. Ins. Co. (96
Fed.
Rep. 756),
19.
Cammeyer v. United, etc. Church
(2
Sandf. Ch. 186), 75, 1053,
2124.
Camp V. Byrne (41 Mo. 525), 990,
994.
Camp V. Taylor (19 Atl. Rep. (N.
J.) 968), 819.
Campau v. Detroit, etc. Club (90
N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 49), 1771,
1787.
Campbell v. American Alkali Co.
(125 Fed. Rep. 207), 468, 473,
495.
Campbell v. American Zylonite
Co. (122 N. Y. 455), 549, 670.
Campbell v. Farmers', etc. Bank
(49 Neb. 143), 1251.
Campbell v. Fleming (1
Adol. &
El. 40), 579.
Campbell v. Kansas City (182 Mo.
326), 1666.
Campbell v. Kenosha (5 Wall.
194), 296.
Campbell v. Marietta, etc. Co. (23
Ohio St. 168), 1392, 1884.
Campbell v. Mei'chants', etc. Co.
(37 N. H. 35, 41; 72 Am. Dec.
324) 232 233
Campbell v. Milliken (119 Fed.
Rep. 981), 2042.
Campbell v. Morgan (4 Bradw.
(111.) 100), 392, 516.
Campbell v. Paris, etc. R. R. Co.
(71 111. 611), 294.
Campbell v. Pillsburgh, etc. Co.
(23 Super. Ct. 138), 1194.
Campbell v. Pope (96 Mo. 468),
1162.
Campbell v. Pullman Palace Car
Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 484), 1484.
Cam.pbell v. Railroad Co. (1
Woods, 368; 4 Fed. Cas. 1178),
1742, 1752.
Campbell v. Texas, etc. R. Co. (2
Woods, 263; 4 Fed. Cas. 1188),
1714.
Campbell v. Watson (62 N. J. Eq.
396), 817, 1480, 1792.
Campbell v. Woodstock, etc. Co.
(83 Ala. 351), 581.
Campbell v. Wright (118 N. Y.
594), 2111.
Campbell v. Zylonite Co. (122 N.
Y. 455), 1511.
Campbell's Case (L. R. 4 Ch. D.
470), 474, 770, 1111, 2064.
Canada So. Rv. Co. v. Gebhard
(109 U. S. 527), 1693, 1743, 1819
1820, 1827, 1855.
Canal Co. v. Hill (15 Wall. 94),
286.
Canal Co. v. Railway Co. (4 Gill
& J. (Md.) 1), 1923.
Canal Co. v. Valette (21 How.
414), 1679.
Canal, etc. Co. v. St. Charles, etc.
Co. (44 La. Ann. 1009), 1832.
Canfield v. Gregory (66 Conn. 9),
947.
Canliff V. Manchester, etc. Co. (2
Russ & M. 480), 117.
Camins v. Coe (117 Mass. 45), 529.
Cannon v. Trash (L. R. 20 Eq.
669), 981, 995.
Capdeville v. New Orleans, etc. Co.
(34 So. Rep. (La.) 868), 1559.
Cape Breton Co. v. Fenn (17 Ch.
Div. 198), 820.
Cape May & D. B. N. Co., In re (*16
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 191), 1013,
1014, 1024.
Cape's Case (2 De G., M. & G.
562), 888.
Capital, etc. Co. v. Charter, etc.
Co. (51 Iowa, 31), 1644.
Capital City, etc. Co. v. Tallahas-
see (186 U. S. 401), 1643.
Capper's Case (L. R. 3 Ch. App.
458), 557.
Cappin V. Greenlees, etc. Co. (38
Ohio St. 275; 43 Am. Rep. 425),
553.
Capps V. Hastings, etc. Co. (40
Neb. 470; 2
L. R. A. 259; 58 N.
W. Rep. 956; 42 Am. St. Rep.
677), 89, 938, 939.
Car Co. V. Nolan (22 Fed. Rep.
276), 758.
Card V. Carr (1 C. B. (N. S.) 197),
2070.
Card V. Hope (2 B. & C. 661), 1029.
Card V. Moore (68 N. Y. App. Div.
327; 74 N. Y. Supp. 18), 882.
Cardwell v. Kelly (95 Va. 570),
938, 939.
Carew's Estate Act., In re (31
Beav. 39), 1160.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Carey v. Cincinnati, etc. R. (5
Iowa, 357), 1504, 1923.
Carey v. Coffee, etc. Co. (20 S. E.
Rep. (Va.) 778), 934.
Carey v. Houston, etc. R. Co. (52
Fed. Rep. 671), 1826, 1829.
Carey v. Giles (9 Ga. 253), 47, 105,
106, 1900, 1968.
Carey v. Maver (79 Fed. Rep.
926), 353, 953.
Cargill V. Bower (10 Cli. Div.
502, 406, 1123, 1124. 1139.
Carling's Case (1 Cli. Div. 115),
448, 515, 560.
Carlisle v. Cahawba, etc. Railroad
Co. (4 Ala. 70). 311, 312, 461,
1796.
Carlisle v. Evansville, etc. R. Co.
(13 Ind. 477), 362.
Carlisle v. Pullman Palace Car (8
Colo. 320; 54 Am. Rep. 553), 757.
Carlisle v. Saginaw, etc. R. Co.
(27 Mich. 315), 195, 268, 269,
272, 278, 287, 315, 318, 359.
Carlisle v. Southeastern Ry. Co. (1
Mac. & G. 689; 13 Beav. 295),
625, 642, 643, 644.
Carlisle v. Terre Haute, etc. R. Co.
(6 Ind. 316), 112, 1856.
Car-Load-Lot Cases (7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 269), 1391.
Carpenter v. Northern Pac. R. R.
(75 Fed. Rep. 850), 1789.
Carpenter v. Westinghouse Air
Brake Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 434),
2025, 2036, 2040.
Carpenter & Joiners' Union, In re
(17 Abb. N. Cas. 109), 86.
Carnahan v. Campbell (63 N. E.
Rep. (Ind.) 384), 501.
Carney v. New York Life Ins. Co.
(162 N. Y. 453; 57 N. E. Rep.
78; 49 L. R. A. 471), 221.
Carothers v. Phila. Co. (118 Pa.
St. 468), 21, 57. '
Carpenter v. Black Hawk, etc. Co.
(65 N. Y. 50), 1263, 1699, 1726.
Carpenter v. Catlin (44 Barb. 75),
1821.
Carpenter v. Danforth (52 Barb.
581), 529, 1112.
Carpenter v. Frazer (102 Tenn.
462), 879.
Carpenter v. Logan (16 Wall.
271), 1749.
Carpenter v. Marine Bk. (14 Wis.
705), 900, 907, 911, 912.
Carpenter v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(5 App. Pr. 277), 625, 633, 635,
636, 642, 643, 644.
Carr v. Chartiers Coal Co. (25 Pa.
St. 337), 1064.
Carr v. Harp (110 Ind. 408), 285.
Carr v. City of St. Louis (9 Mo.
191), 201.
Carr v. Lefevre (27 Pa. St. 413),
428, 507, 508, 510, 511, 513, 1674,
1675, 1686.
Carr v. Rischer (50 Hun, 147; 119
N. Y. 117), 1134.
Carraher v. Mulligan (8 N. Y.
Supp. 42), 1142.
Carralli, Ex parte (L. R. 4 Ch.
174), 483.
Carrol v. Green (92 U. S. 509),
949, 961.
Carroll v. Campbell (110 Mo. 557;
108 Mo. 550), 1652.
Carroll v. City of East St. Louis
(67 111. 568; 16 Am. Rep. 632),
1998.
Carroll v. Mullanphy, etc. Bk. (8
Mo. App. 253), 194, 796.
Carroll v. People's Ry. Co. (14 Mo.
App. 490), 1210.
Carson v. Arctic Mining Co. (5
Mich. 288), 478.
Carson v. Iowa City, etc. Co. (80
Iowa, 638), 822, 1514.
Carson v. Maryland (120 U. S.
502), 25.
Carswell v. Farmers' L. T. Co.,
(74 Fed. Rep. 88), 1808, 1809.
Cartan v. Father Matthew, etc.
Soc. (3 Daly (N. Y.), 20), 198,
474, 770, 1957, 2064, 2085, 2102.
Carter v. Ailing
(8 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 428), 1420.
Carter v. Ford, etc. Co. (85 Ind.
180), 816, 1825.
Carter v. Howe Machine Co. (51
Md. 290), 1482, 1543.
Carter v. Lincoln (52 Conn. 73; 52
Am. Rep. 560), 239.
Carter v. Manfs.' Nat. Bank (71
Me. 448), 602.
Carter v. Meuli (122 Cal. 367),
1658.
Carter v. Produce, etc. Co. (164
Pa. St. 463; 182 Pa. St. 551; 200
Pa. St. 579), 1248.
Carter v. Union Printing Co. (54
Ark. 576), 944.
Cartwell's Case (L. R. 9 Ch. 691),
556, 884.
Cartwright v. Dickinson (88 Tenn.
476), 501, 951.
Caruthers v. Kansas City, etc. Co.
(59 Kan. 629; 44 L. R. A. 737),
1563.
Ixii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II. 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Caruthers v. Phila. Co. (118 Pa.
St. 468), 21, 57.
Carver Mercantile Co. v. Hulme
(7 Mont. 566), 71.
Caruths' Case (L. R. 20 Eq. 506),
1052.
Carver v. Braintree Mfg. Co. (2
Story, 432; 5 Fed. Cas. 235),
842, 843, 850.
Carver Co. v. Manufacturers' Ins.
Co. (72 Mass. 214), 1207.
Carwater v. Mei'ideth (1 Wallace,
25), 1852.
Cary v. Cleveland, etc. R. Co. (29
Barb. 35), 1328, 1361.
Cary Library v. Bliss (151 Mass.
364), 2121.
Cary v. State (76 Ala. 78), 1091.
Casco National Bank v. Clark (139
N. Y. 307; 36 Am. St. Rep. 705),
1160.
Case v. Bank (100 U. S. 446), 590,
591.
Case V. Citizens' Bank (100 U. S.
446), 686, 689.
Case V. Kelley (133 U. S. 21), 55,
1234, 1238, 1239, 1981.
Case V. Mechanics' Banking Assn.
(1 Sandf. 693), 2092.
Case V. Small (10 Fed. Rep. 722;
4 Woods, 78), 552.
Case Mfg. Co. v. Soxman (138 U.
S. 431), 1214, 1215.
Case Dean and Chapter of Femes,
In re (Davies 129), 1019.
Case of Plow Works v. Finks (81
Fed. Rep. 529), 1788.
Case of Reciprocity Bank, In re
(22 N. Y.
9), 563, 887.
Case of Telephone Co., In re (29
Fed. 17), 2036.
Casey v. Galli (94 U. S. 673), 156,
167, 391, 855, 856, 916, 1528,
1837.
Casey v. People (132 111. 546), 297,
298, 299.
Cass V. Manchester, etc. Co. (9
Fed. Rep. 649), 806, 1049, 1090,
1257, 1861.
Cass V. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. (80 Pa.
St. 31), 267, 273, 366.
Cass V. Yale University (107 111.
App. 518), 2120.
Cassagne v. Narvin (143 N. Y.
292; 25 L. R. A. 670), 1831.
Cass County v. Gillett (100 U. S.
585), 267.
Cassell V. Lexington, etc. Road Co.
(9 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 502, 701),
982, 1003.
Cassidy v. Uhlmann (170 N. Y.
595), 817, 1660.
Casson v. Churchman (53 L. J. Q.
B. 335), 1719.
Castellan v. Hobson (L. R. 10 Eq.
Cas. 47), 468, 886, 888.
Castello V. City Bank of Albany (1
N. Y. Leg. Obs. 25), 586.
Castello's Case (L. R. 8 Eq. 504),
574, 887.
Castle V. Belfast F. Co. (72 Me.
107), 1195.
Castle V. Bell, etc. Co. (49 N. Y.
App. Div. 437), 1630.
Castleman v. Plolmes (4 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.)
1),
551,"
557, 574.
887, 891.
Castleman v. Templeman (87 Md.
546; 41 L. R. A. 367; 67 Am. St.
Rep. 363), 1791.
Castner v. Farmers' Mut., etc. Co.
(50 Mich. 273), 2069.
Caswell V. Bunch (77 Ga. 504),
1764.
Catawba, etc. Co. v. Flowers (110
N. C. 381), 1652.
Catchpole v. Ambergate Ry. Co. (1
El. & B. Ill), 477, 608, 616.
Gates V. Baxter (97 Tenn. 443),
581. (
Gates V. Sparkman (73 Tex. 619;
15 Am. St. Rep. 806), 1128.
Catholic Church v. Texas & P. Ry.
Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 564), 1972.
Catholic Church v. Tobyn (82 Mo.
418), 154.
Cattell V. Starr (70 Tex. 485). 134.
Catlin V. Eagle Bank (6 Conn.
233), 1246, 1781.
Catlin V. St. Paul's Church (1 N.
Y. Supp. 808), 749.
Catlin V. Trustees of Trinity Col-
lege (113 N. Y. 133), 726.
Catlin V. Wilcox Silverplate Co.
(123 Ind. 477; 18 Am. St. Rep.
338), 1810.
Catskill Bank v. Gray (14 Barb.
471), 1292. 1295, 1296.
Catskill Bank v. Hooper (5 Gray
(71 Mass.), 574), 1296.
Caty V. Sanford (53 Vt. 632), 1133.
Caulkins v. Gaslight Co. (85 Tenn.
683; 4 Am. St. Rep. 786), 413,
537, 549, 558, 607, 610.
Caulkins v. Memphis Gas L. Co.
(85 Tenn. 683; 4 Am. St. Rep.
786), 608.
Cawley & Co., In re (L. R. 42 Ch.
D. 209), 463, 465, 532.
Caylus V. New York, etc. R. Co.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(10 Hun, 295; 76 N. Y. 609),
1671.
Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee (2
Paige, 116), 1653.
Cayuga, etc. R. Co. v. Kyle (64 N.
Y. 185), 270, 305, 338.
Cazeau v. Moli (25 Barb. 578),
400, 577.
Cecil, In re (36 How. Pr. 477), 585,
1021.
Cecil Nat. Bank v. Watsontown
(105 U. S. 217), 387, 687.
Cedar Rapids Ins. Co. v. Butler
(83 Iowa, 124), 947.
Cedar Rapids, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Spafford (41 Iowa, 292), 1588.
Ceder v. Loud & Sons, etc. Co. (86
Mich. 541), 1073, 1199, 1200.
Celluloid, etc. Co. v. Cellonite, etc.
Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 94), 123.
Celluloid V. Celluloid (32 Fed.
Rep. 94), 124.
Centenary M. E. Church v. Plant-
ers, etc. Co. (76 Miss. 406), 126.
Central Agricultural, etc. Assn. v.
Ala. G. L. Ins. Co. (70 Ala. 120),
54, 551.
Central Bank v. Williston, (138
Mass. 244), 961, 963.
Central Branch, etc. Co. v. Atchin-
son, etc. Co. (28 Kan. 453), 1316.
Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell (4
Gray (70 Mass.) 474), 1301,
1386, 1925.
Central City Sav. Bk. v. Walker
66 N. Y. 424), 1786, 1976.
Central Crosstown Ry. Co. v.
Twenty-Third St. (53 How. Pr.
45), 141, 142, 1915, 1918, 1919.
Central Elevator v. People (174
III. 203), 1428, 1656.
Central, etc. Assn. v. Alabama, etc.
Ins. Co. (70 Ala. 120), 90. 96,
154, 166, 839, 841, 853, 854, 885.
Central, etc. Exchange v. Board of
Trade (63 N. E. Rep. (111.) 740),
2021, 2105.
Central, etc. Co. v. Farmers', etc.
Co. (112 Fed. Rep. 81), 1242,
1673, 1812.
Central, etc. Co. v. Georgia (92 U.
S. 665), 1886.
Central, etc. Co. v. McGeorge (151
U. S. 129), 2036.
Central, etc. Co. v. Pullman, etc.
Co. (139 U. S. 24), 1244, 1245,
1325, 1326, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1339,
1377, 1429, 1560, 1563, 2095.
Central, etc. Co. v. Smith (76 Ala.
572; 52 Am. Rep. 353), 1295,
1352, 1365, 1352, 1485, 1502, 1584,
1633.
Central, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Twenty-Third St. etc. Co. (54
How. Pr. 168, 183; 54 How. Pr.
168, 183), 807, 1573.
Central, etc. Mining Co. v. Piatt
(3 Daly (N. Y.), 263), 1243,
1669.
Central, etc. Ry. Co. v. Collins (40
Ga. 582), 185, 187, 1925, 1929.
Central, etc. R. Co. v. Morris (68
Tex. 49, 59), 1567.
Central, etc. R. Co. v. State (42
L. R. A. (Ga.) 518), 1392.
Central Georgetown R. Co. v. Peo-
ple (5 Colo. 39), 1918.
Central Ga. Ry. v. Paul (93 Fed.
Rep. 878), 1829.
Central Land Co. v. Obenchain (92
Va. 130), 1218.
Central Mfg. Co. v. Briggs (106
HI. App. 417), 2027.
Central Nat. Bk. v. Conn. etc. Ins.
Co. (104 U. S. 54),~1964.
Central National Bank of Boston
V. Hazard (49 Fed. Rep. 293),
1803.
Central Ohio Salt Co. v. Guthrie
(35 Ohio St. 666), 1416, 1418,
1450.
Central R. & B. Co. v. Cheatham
(85 Ala. 292), 1202, 1203, 1558.
Central R. & B. Co. v. Cheatham,
1202, 1203, 1558.
Central R. R. Co. v. Clemens (16
Mo. 359), 349, 951.
Central R. R. v. Collins (40 Ga.
582, 617), 114, 1230, 1280, 1282,
. 1417, 1426, 1433.
Central R. R. v. Georgia (54 Ga.
401), 1854, 2032, 2033, 2034.
Central R. R. Co. v. Georgia (92
U. S. 665), 720, 729, 1817, 1842,
1860, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1882, 1886,
1890, 1893.
Central Ry. Co. v. Kisch (L. R. 2
H. L. 99), 358, 363, 371, 374.
Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania R.
Co. (31 N. J. Eq. 475), 75, 183,
1277, 1282.
Central R. Co. v. Wright (164 U.
S. 327), 720.
Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Ward (37
Ga. 515), 1375.
Central R. etc. Co. of Ga. v. Papot
(59 Ga. 342), 628, 631.
Central Sav. Bk. v. Walker (66 N.
Y. 424), 178.
Ceijtral Transp. Co. v. Pullman,
Ixiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
etc. (139 U. S. 24; 171 U. S.
138) 2095.
Central
Trust Co. v. Bartlett (57
N. J. L. 206),
1720.
Central Trust Co. v. Bridges (57
Fed. Rep. 753),
793.
Central T. Co. v. California, etc.
Ry. (110 Fed. Rep. 70),
174.
Central- Trust Co. v. Carter (78
Fed. Rep. 225; 24 C. C. A. 73),
1831.
Central Trust Co. v. Charlotte, etc.
R. R. (G5 Fed. Rep. 264),
1801.
Central Trust Co. v. Cinn. etc. Ry.
(58 Fed. Rep. 500), 1759, 1824.
Central Trust Co. v. Citizens' St.
Ry. (82 Fed. Rep. 1),
1553.
Central Trust Co. v. Chattanooga,
etc. R. R. (94 Fed. Rep. 275),
1776.
Central Trust Co. v. Colorado, etc.
Ry. Co. (89 Fed. Rep. 560), 1562.
Central Trust Co. v. Columbus, etc.
Ry. (87 Fed. Rep. 815), 1739.
Central Trust Co. v. Continental
T. Co. (86 Fed. Rep. 517),
1801.
Central T. Co. v. East Tennessee
R. R. Co. (59 Fed. Rep. 523),
1789, 1797.
Central T. Co. v. E. Tenn. R. R.
Co. (79 Fed. Rep. 19), 1808.
Central T. Co. v. E. Tenn. R. R.
Co. (116 Fed. Rep. 743), 1184,
1792.
Central Trust Co. v. Georgia, etc.
Ry. (87 Fed. Rep. 288), 1757.
Central Trust Co. v. Grant Loco-
motive Works (135 U. S. 207),
1752.
Central T. Co. v. Kneeland (138 U.
S. 414), 1713, 1183.
Central T. Co. v. McGeorge (151
U. S. 129), 1812.
Central T. Co. v. Marietta, etc. R.
R. (75 Fed. Rep. 193), 1800,
1805.
Central Trust Co. v. Moran (56
Minn. 188; 29 L. R. A. 212),
969, 1591, 1536.
Central Trust Co. v. New York,
etc. Co. (110 N. Y. 250; 18 Abb.
N. Cas. 381; 68 N. E. Rep. 1115),
697, 1183, 1697.
Central T. Co. v. Ohio Central R.
Co. (23 Fed. Rep. 306), 2095.
Central Trust Co. v. Peoria, etc.
Ry. (118 Fed. Rep. 30; 55 C. C.
A. 52), 1758.
Central T. Co. v. Richmond, etc.
R. R. (54 Fed. Rep. 723), 1074,
1814.
Central T. Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry.
Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 551; 23 Fed.
Rep. 858), 1873.
Central Trunt Co. v. Sheffield, etc.
Ry. (60 Fed. Rep.
9), 1755.
Central T, Co. v. Tappan (6. N. Y.
Supp. 918), 1804.
Central Trust Co. v. Texas, etc.
Ry. (22 Fed. Rep. 125; 27 Fed.
Rep. 178), 1725.
Central Trusts Co. v. Thurman (94
Ga. 735), 1073, 1749, 1813.
Central T. Co. v. Valentine (10
Pick. (27 Mass.) 142), 356.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. R.
R. Co. (23 Fed. Rep. 858), 1799.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry.
Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 69), 1725.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry.
Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 618), 1734,
1746.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry.
Co. (30 Fed. Rep. 332), 1752.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry.
Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 156), 1800.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry.
Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 26), 1802.
Central T. Co. v. Wabash, etc. Ry.
Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 857),
1801.''
Central T. Co. v. Washington Cen-
tral Rv. Co. (124 Fed. Rep. 813),
1561, i577.
Central Trust Co. v. Western, etc.
Ry. (89 Fed. Rep. 24), 1561,
1754, 1757.
Central T. Co. v. Worcester, etc.
Co. (114 Fed. Rep. 659), 1806.
Central Union, etc. Co. v. Brad-
bury (106 Ind. 1), 1384, 1399,
1617.
Central U. Tel. Co. v. State of Ind-
iana (24 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 215),
1617.
Central Union Tel. Co. v. State
(118 Ind. 194; 19 N. E. Rep.
604; 10 Am. St. Rep. 114), 1617.
Central & K. Turnpike Co. v. Mc-
Conaby (16 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
140), 358.
Chable v. Nicaragua Canal Co. (59
Fed. Rep. 846), 1789.
Chaffe V. Ludeling (27 La. Ann.
607), 23, 72, 170, 178.
Chaffee v. Middlesex Ry. Co. (146
Mass. 224), 1681, 1682, 1695,
1696.
Chaffee v. Rutland R. Co. (55 Vt.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
110), 623, 643, 660, 669, 670, 674,
675, 678, 1694.
Chaffee County v. Potter (142 U.
S 355) 1593.
Chaffin V. City of St. Louis (4
Dill. (U. S.) 24), 919.
Chaffin V. Cummings (37 Me. 76),
377, 887.
Chagrin Falls, etc. Co. v. Cane
(2 Ohio St. 419), 1314.
Challes' Case (L. R. 6 Ch. 266),
1856.
Chamber, etc. v. Kemper, etc. Co.
(92 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 172),
1527.
Chamberlain v. Bromberg (83 Ala.
576). 866, 10S6, 1767, 1795.
Chamberlain v. Lincoln (129 Mass.
70), 778, 788, 2062, 2081, 20S3.
Chamberlain v. N. Y. etc. R. R.
(71 Fed. Rep. 636). 1809.
Chamberlain v. Pacific Wool, etc.
Co. (54 Cal. 103), 1108.
Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc. R.
Co. (15 Ohio St. 225), 281, 304,
305, 306, 307, 310, 311, 324, 975,
982.
Chamberlain v. Rochester, etc. Co.
(7 Hun (N. Y.), 557), 1780.
Chamberlain v. Walter (60 Fed.
Rep. 788), 751.
Chamberlin v. Greenleaf (4 Abb.
N. Cas. 178), 583.
Chamberlin v. Huguenot Mfg. Co.
(118 Mass. 532), 68, 637, 842,
867.
Chambers v. Calhoun (18 Pa. St.
13), 2084.
Chambers v. Falkner (65 Ala.
448), 1268, 1347, 1376.
Chambers v. Goldwin (13 Ves.
377), 1739.
Chambers v. Lancaster (160 N. Y.
342), 1191.
Chambers v. Manchester, etc. Ry.
Co. (5 B. & S. 588), 1849, 1852.
Chambers v. McCreery
(106 Fed.
Rep. 364), 536.
Chambers v. McKee (105 Pa. St.
105), 327.
Chambersburg Ins. Co. v. Smith
(11 Pa. St. 120), 232, 629, 888.
Champion v. Memphis, etc. R. Co.
(35 Miss. 692), 112, 114, 346.
Champollion v. Corbin (51 Atl.
Rep. (N. H.) 674), 237.
Chandler v. Bacon (30 Fed. Rep.
538), 174, 175, 435, 1213, 1218.
Chandler v. Brown (77 111. 333),
331, 334, 1796.
Chandler v. Keith (42 Iowa, 99),
459, 497, 1793, 1796.
Chandler v. Siddle (10 Nat. Bk.
Reg. 236;- 5 Fed. Cas. 459), 898,
899, 968.
Chandler v. Northern Cross R. Co.
(18 111. 190), 339, 340.
Chapin v. Brown (83 Iowa, 156),
1413.
Chapin v. Greenlee (38 Ohio St.
275), 1376.
Chapin v. Holyoke, etc. Assn. (165
Mass. 280). 14.
Chapin v. School Dist. (35 N. H.
445), 126.
Chanin v. Vermont, etc. Ry. Co.
(8 Grav (74 Mass.), 575), 1683,
1774, 1775. 1776.
Chaples v. Brunswick, etc. Society
(5 C. P. Div. 331), 1155, 1702,
1703.
Chapman v. Atlantic T. Co. (119
Fed. Rep. 257), 1749, 1813.
Chapman v. Bates (47 Atl. Rep.
(N. J.) 638; 88 Am. St. Rep.
459), 1034.
Chapman v. Brewer (43 Neb. 890;
47 Am. St. Rep. 779), 10, 2005.
Chapman v. Chumar (54 Hun,
636), 859.
Chapman v. Doray (89 Cal. 52),
695.
Chapman v. Mad River, etc. R. Co.
(6 Ohio St. 119), 325, 1328, 1361,
1855.
Chaoman v. McCraig (63 Ind.
360), 1487.
Chapman v. New Orleans, etc. Co.
(4 La. Ann. 153), 563, 570, 599,
611.
Chapman v. Phoenix Nat. Bk. (85
N. Y. 437), 1375.
Chapman v. Shepherd (L. R. 2 C.
P. 228), 468, 885.
Chapman v. Virginia, etc. Co. (96
Va. 177), 274.
Chapman v. Western Union Tele-
graph Company (90
Ky. 265),
1620.
Chapman's Case (L. R. 3 Eq. 361),
1052.
Chapman and Barker's Case (L.
R. 3 Eq. 361), 569, 570, 571.
Chappel V. Brockway (21 Wend.
163), 1416.
Chappell's Case (L. R. 6 Ch. App.
902), 483, 617, 887, 1975.
Charitable Corporation v. Sutton
(2 Atk. 400), 1117, 1119, 1125,
1140.
Ixvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Charitable Soc. v.
Episcopal
Clnirch (1 Pick. (18 Mass.)
371), 1250.
Charles v. Eshleman (5 Colo.
107), 2099.
Charles River Bridge v. Warren
Bridge (11 Pet. (U. S.) 420; 7
Pick. (24 Mass.) 344), 36, 38,
55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 69, 150, 1412,
1420.
Charleston v. Branch (15 Wall.
470), 99, 100, 728.
Charleston, etc. T. Co. v. Willey
(16 Ind. 34), 1298.
Charleston Boot & Shoe Co. v.
Dimsmore (60 N. H. 85), 1048,
1086.
Charlotte Bk. v. Charlotte (85 N.
C. 433), 346.
Charlotte, etc. R. Co. v. Blakely (3
Strob. (S. C.) 245), 35, 276, 278,
282, 359, 472.
Charlotte, etc. R. R. v. Gibbes (142
U. S. 386), 1555, 1881.
Chai'lton v. Newcastle, etc. Ry. Co.
(5 Jur. N. S. 1096), 1295, 1296,
1582, 1852, 1860, 1861.
Charter v. San Francisco S. F.
Co. (19 Cal. 219), 300, 576.
Charter of Stevedores', etc. Assn.
(14 Phila. 130; 37 Leg. Int. 262),
85.
Chartiers R. Co. v. Hodgens (77
Pa. St. 187; 85 Pa. St. 507), 322,
350.
Chase v. Cheney (58 111. 509), 2122,
2126.
Chase v. Curtis (113 U. S. 452),
845, 847, 849, 850, 1132, 1134,
1141.
Chase v. East Tenn. etc. R. Co. (5
Lea (Tenn.) 415), 474, 774.
Chase v. Ingalls (97 Mass. 524),
850.
Chase v. Lord (77 N. Y. 1), 237,
238, 566, 570, 833, 842.
Chase v. Mich. Telephone Co. (121
Mich. 631), 6, 792, 1833, 1834.
Chase v. Railroad Co. (5 Lea
(Tenn.), 415), 501.
Chase v. Sycamore &, R. Co. (38
111. 215), 278, 321, 322; 359.
Chase v. Tuttle (55 Conn. 455);
3 Am. St. Rep. 64), 137, 975,
977, 985, 1005, 1016, 1050, 1086,
1246.
Chase v. Vanderbilt (62 N. Y. 307;
37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 334), 634,
674, 675, 1888, 1889.
Chatard v. O'Donovan (80 Ind.
20), 2127.
Chatham Bk. v. Brobston (99 Ga.
801), 546, 502.
Chatres, Ex parte (1 De. G. & S.
581), 618.
Chattanooga, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Evans (66 Fed. Rep. 809; 14 C.
C. A. 116), 1248.
Chattanooga, etc. Ry. v. Felton
(69 Fed. Rep. 273), 1788.
Chattanooga, etc. R. R. v. Liddell
(85 Ga. 482), 1178, 1532.
Chattanonoga, etc. R. R. v. Warth-
ern (98 Ga. 599), 346, 935.
Cheale v. Kenward (3 De G. & J.
27), 524, 525, 568, 576, 888, 2116.
Cheeney v. Clark (3 Vt. 434), 2074.
Cheeney v. Lafayette, etc. R. Co.
(68 111. 570), 1068, 1076.
Cheesbrough v. Commissioners
(37 Ohio St. 508), 1313.
Cheltenham, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dan-
iel (2 Q. B. 281)',
376, 481, 614,
809.
Cheltenham & S. W. Ry. etc. Co.,
Ex parte Little (17 W. R. 461),
274.
Chemical Nat. Bank v. Colwell
(132 N. Y. 250; 30 N. E. Rep.
644), 220, 1050, 1051.
Chemical Nat. Bank v. Wagner
(93 Ky. 525; 40 Am. St. Rep.
206), 1204.
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bingham-
ton (3 Wall. 51; 27 N. Y. 87),
38, 39, 40, 56, 59, 63.
Chenango Bridge v. Paige (83 N.
Y. 178), 172.
Chenango, etc. Ins. Co., In re (19
Wend. 635), 999, 1009, 1025.
Cheney v. Maumee, etc. Co. (64
Ohio St. 205), 1720, 1792.
Cheraw, etc. R. Co. v. Commission-
ers (88 N. C. 519), 1863.
Cheraw, etc. R. Co. v. Garland (14
S. C. 63), 314, 454.
Cheraw, etc. Co. v. White (14 S.
C. 51), 151.
Cherokee Nation v. Kansas R. Co.
135 U. S. 641), 1311, 1316.
Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan-
sas R. Co. (135 U. S. 641), 25.
Cherry v. Colonial Bank (L. R.
3 P. C. 24), 1154.
Cherry v. Frost (7 Lea (Tenn.),
1010), 583, 614.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v.
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. (4
Gill & J. 1121), 104.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal Co. v.
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (4
Gill & J. (Md.) 1), 1948, 1957,
1961, 1962.
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v.
Miller (114 U. S. 176), 722, 727.
Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Key (3
Cranch (C. C), 559; Fed. Cas.
2649), 54.
Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Manning
(186 U. S. 238), 1633.
Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. Mayor,
etc. (90 Md. 638; 89 Md. 689),
1030.
Chesapeake, etc. Co. v. United
States (115 Fed. Rep. 610),
1429.
Chesapeake, etc. Ry. v. Atlantic,
etc. Co. (62 N. J. Eq. 751), 1073,
1813.
Chesapeake, etc. R. R. v. Griest
(85 Ky. 619), 1504.
Chesapeake, etc. Ry. v. Miller
(114 U. S. 176), 1885, 1895.
Chesapeake, etc. Ry. v. Speakman
(63 L. R. A. (Ky.) 193), 950.
Chesapeake, etc. v. Virginia (94
U. S. 718), 721, 728.
Chesapeake R. R. v. Virginia (94
U. S. 718), 1860, 1874, 1899.
Chesapeake, etc. T. Co. v. Balti-
more, etc. T. Co. (4 Gill & J.
(Md.) 1, 121), 1623. 1899, 1913,
1916, 1918, 1926, 1928, 1935, 1936.
Cheshire Banking Co., In re (L.
R. 32 Ch. D. 301), 570.
Cheshire Co. Tel. Co. v. State (63
N. H. 167), 712.
Chesley v. Pierce (32 N. H. 388),
887.
Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey (16
Mass. 84: 8 Am. Dec. 128), 263,
994, 1330.
Chesnut Hill. etc. Co. v. Rutter
(4 Serg. & R. 11), 1480, 1542.
Chetlain v. Republic L. Ins. Co.
(86 111. 220), 239, 252, 348.
Chetwood v. California Nat. R. R.
(113 Cal. 414), 817.
Chew V. Bank of Baltimore (14
Md. 299), 607, 614.
Chew V. Ellingwood (86 Ind. 260),
1244.
Chew V. Loucheim (80 Fed. Rep.
500; 25 C. C. A. 596), 583.
Chewacla Lime Works v. Dis-
mukes (87 Ala. 344; 5 L. R. A.
100), 1233, 1336.
Chicago & N. "W. R Co. v Jones
(24 Wis. 388), 1190.
Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Allerton
(18 Wall. 233), 109, 1087.
Chicago V. Ashling (160 111. 373),
1564.
Chicago V. Evans (24 111. 52),
1575, 1600.
Chicago V. Hall (103 111. 342), 874.
Chicago V. Sheldon (9 Wall. 50),
42, 288.
Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Mul-
ford (162 111. 533), 1292, 15/8.
Chicago & Eastern, etc. Co. v.
State (153 Ind. 134), 1844.
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Audi-
tor General (53 Mich. 79), 748,
1870.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Ashling (160
111. 373), 424, 1842, 1844, 1864.
Chicago, etc. v. Douglas County
(90 N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 1030),
755.
Chicago etc. Co. v. Dunbar (100
111. 110), 1302, 1559.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Ferguson (106
111. App. 356), 1887.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Lyon (10 Okla.
704), 944.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Milwaukee (97
Wis. 418), 1386.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Minn. (134 U.
S. 418), 1383, 1553.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Munsell (10?
111. App. 344), 1190.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Needles (113
U. S. 574), 1396.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Pacific, etc. Co.
(36 Kan. 113), 1619.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Southern, etc.
Ry. Co. (70 N. E. Rep. (Ind.
App.) 843), 1530.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. State Board,
etc. (112 Fed. Rep. 607), 763.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Summerour
(101 Ga. 820), 937, 944.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Talbotton, etc.
Co. (106 Ga. 84),
Chicago, etc. Company v. Tomp-
kins (176 U. S. 167), 1392, 1393,
1553, 1554.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Town of Lake
(130 111. 42), 35.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Union Pacific
R. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 15), 1325,
1326, 1583.
Chicago, etc. Co. V. Yerkes (141111.
320; 33 Am. St. Rep. 315), 1101.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Ackley (94
U. S. 179), 1383.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Auditor Gen-
eral (53 Mich. 79), 696.
Ixviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Aurora (99
111. 205), 297. 298.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Ayres (140 111.
644), 1583.
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Belliwith
(83 Fed. Rep. 437; 28 C. C. A.
358), 1177.
Chicago, etc. Bureau v. Koebel
(112 111. App. 21), 125.
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cason
(133 Ind. 49), 1783.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Chicago
(16G U. S. 2GG), 1312, 131G.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co. (112 111. GOl), 1306.
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coleman
(18 111. 297; 68 Am. Dec. 544),
1178.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Crane (113 U.
S. 424), 1590.
Chicago & Atl. Ry. Co. v. Derkes
(103 Ind. 520), 1330, 1345.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v Denver, etc. R.
R. (45 Fed. Rep. 304), 1583.
Chicago, etc. R. R. v. FosdLck (106
U. S. 47), 1694, 1710, 1732, 1737,
1744, 1746, 1751, 1756, 1757,
1764.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Hag-
gerty (67 111. 113), 1402.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Howard (7
Wall. 392), 1674, 1721, 1737,
1742.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. 111. Cent.
R. Co. (113 111. 156), 1306.
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Iowa (94 U.
S. 155), 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. James (22
Wis. 194), 1589.
Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Jones (149
111. 361; 24 L. R. A. 141), 1553,
1636.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Kenney (62
N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 26), 1776,
1782.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Lake (71
111. 333), 1302.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Lake Shore,
etc. Ry. Co. (5 Fed. Rep. 19),
1874.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Loewenthal
(93 111. 433), 1678, 1720, 1721.
Chicago & R. Co. v. Marseilles
(84 111. 245), 252, 349, 1284.
Chicago, etc. R. R. v. McCammon
(61 Fed. Rep. 772; 10 C. C. A.
50), 1757.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. McCarthy
(20 111. 385; 71 Am. Dec. 285),
1568.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Metrop-
olitan, etc. R. R. Co. (152 111.
519), 1307.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Minnesota,
etc. R. Co. (134 U. S. 418), 2043.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Moffitt (75
111. 524), 1503, 1844, 1860, 1872,
1890, 1891, 1893.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Nebraska
(170 U. S. 37), 1316.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Oshkosh, etc.
Ry. (107 Wis. 192), 881, 1585.
Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Pinckney (7^
111. 277), 295.
Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Pullman,
etc. Co. (139 U. S. 79), 1657.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Putnam (36
Kan. 121), 1721.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Pyne (30
Fed. Rep. 86), 1673.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Rio Grande,
etc. R. R. (143 U. S. 596), 1583.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. St. Anne
(101 111. 151), 504.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Schewe (45
Iowa, 79), 322.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Stein (76
111. 41), 1321.
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Suffern
(129 111. 274), 1475.
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Third Nat.
Bk. etc. (134 U. S. 276), 1575,
1833.
Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. v. Turner
(79 Mich. 133), 1686.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Town of
Marseilles (84 111. 145, 643),
253, 553.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Tomp-
kins (176 U. S. 167), 1392, 1393.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Tomp-
kins (90 Fed. Rep. 363), 1553.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Union
Pac. R. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 151),
1325, 1326, 1583.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Wabash, etc.
Ry. (61 Fed. Rep. 993), 11, 17,
1474, 1551.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Wellman (143
U. S. 339), 1215, 1553.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Whipple (22
111. 105), 1569.
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Whiting, etc.
Ry. (139 Ind. 297; 26 L. R. A.
337; 47 Am. St. Rep. 264), 1608.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Wilson
(17 111. 123), 1230, 1311.
Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Wolcott
(141 Ind. 267; 50 Am. St. Rep.
320), 1556.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-GlO; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Chicago Gaslight Co. v. People's
Gaslight Co. (121 111. 530),
1229. 1244, 1245, 1254, 1255.
1291, 1370, 1426, 1438, 1451,
1641, 1763.
Chicago K. & W. R. Co. v. Harris
(23 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 1064),
208.
Chicago K. & W. R. Co. v. Put-
nam (36 Kan. 121), 79, 85, 87.
Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor
(101 111. 82), 47, 1663.
Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Needles
(113 U. S. 574), 43, 45, 110, 1659,
1905, 1937, 1977.
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v.
State (10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462),
101.
Chicago Mutual, etc. Assn. v.
Hunt (127 111. 257), 767, 1909,
2055.
Chicago Terminal T. R. Co. v. City
of Chicago (203 111. 576), 1552.
Chicago T. Co. v. Illinois, etc.
Assn. (106 111. App. 54), 1624.
Chicago Trust, etc. Bk. v. Ball
(108 III. App. 321), 946.
Chicago Title & T. Co. v. Bashford
(97 N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 940),
1985.
Chick V. Fuller (114 Fed. Rep.
22; 51 C. C. A. 648), 637.
Chickaming v. Carpenter (106 U.
S. 663), 299.
Chicopee Bank v. Chapin (8 Mete.
(49 Mass.) 40), 1690.
Chicora Co. v. Crews (6 S. C.
(6 Rich.) 243), 30.
Chicot County v. Sherwood (148
U. S. 529), 295, 1593.
Chief Justice Shaw in Overseers
of Poor of Boston v. Sears (22
Pick. (39 Mass.) ]22), 125.
Child V. Boston, etc. Wks. (137
Mass. 516; 50 Am. Rep. 328),
850, 1133.
Child V. Coffin (17 Mass. 64), 111,
570, 887, 893.
Child V. Hudson's Bav Co. (2 P.
Wm's. 207), 34, 191, 200, 211,
224, 226, 686, 772, 796.
Child V. N. Y. etc. R. Co. (129
Mass. 170), 1823, 1835.
Childs V. Bank of Missouri (17 Mo.
213), 1492.
Childs V. Cleaves (50 Atl. Rep.
(Me.) 714). 904.
'
Childs V. Hurd (32 W. Va. 66),
83. 150.
Childs V. Laflin (55 111. 159), 5G4.
Childs V. New Haven & N. Co.
(133 Mass. 253), 1323.
Chillas V. Snyder (1 Phila. 289),
2114.
Chinnock's Case (Johns. (Eng.
Ch.) 714), 568.
ChiTDpendale, Ex parte (4 De Gex,
M. & G. 19), 1123, 1344.
Chisholm v. Fomy
(65 Iowa,
333), 426.
Chisholm v. Georgia (2 Dall. (U.
S.) 419), 24.
Chittenden v. Thannhauser (47
Fed. Rep. 410), 1138.
Chosen Friends, etc. v. Garrigus
(104 Ind. 133). 203.
Chouteau v. Allen (70 Mo. 290),
1290, 1676, 1740.
Chouteau v. Dean (7 Mo. App.
210), 943.
Chouteau v. Holmes (68 Mo. 601;
30 Am. Rep. S07), 982.
Chouteau Insurance Company v.
Floyd (74 Mo. 286), 327, 335,
336, 339, 358, 359, 362, 455, 481,
482, 1962.
Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Holmes (G8
Mo. 601; 30 Am. Rep. 807), 982.
Chouteau Spring Co. v. Harris (20
Mo. 382), 220, 226, 540, 885, 889,
891.
Chrisman, etc. Co. v. Independ-
ence, etc. Co. (68 S. W. Rep.
(Mo.) 1026), 944.
Christ Church v. Holy Commun-
ion Church (24 How. 300; 14
Phila. 61), 2133.
Christ Church v. Pope (8 Gray
(74 Mass.); 140), 1025.
Christensen v. Colby
(43 Hun.
362), 923.
Christensen v. Eno (108 N. Y.
97; 60 Am. Rep. 429), 235, 430,
431, 432, 435, 482, 656.
Christensen v. Illinois & St. L.
Bridge Co. (52 Hun, 478; 5 N.
Y. Supp. 925), 1691.
Christensen v. Quintard (8 N. Y.
Supp. 400), 488, 492.
Christian v. American, etc. Co.
(89 Ala. 198), 2004, 2008.
Christian County Court v. Smith
(12 S. W. Rep. 134; 13 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 276), 298.
Christian Jensen Co., In re (128
N. Y. 550), 1784.
Christian, etc. Co., In re (128 N.
Y. 550), 1787.
Christian's Appeal (102 Pa. St.
184), 1975.
Ixx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Christian Union v. Yount (101 U.
S. 352), 1999.
Christie, etc. v.
Board of Trade
(116 Fed. Rep. 944; 125 Am.
Dig. 161, Feb. 1904), 2103, 2105.
Christmas v. Biddle (13 Pa. St.
223), 958.
Chubb V. Upton (95 U. S. 665), 90,
364, 368, 375, 377, 395, 397, 404,
430, 446, 450, 459, 497, 655, 658,
725, 876, 877, 888, 932, 939.
Church V. Ayer (80 Fed. Rap.
543), 895.
Church V. Board (12 Minn. 395),
725.
Church V. Church, etc. Co. (75
Minn. 85), 182.
Church V. Citizens' Street Ry. Co.
(78 Fed. Rep. 526), 436.
Church V. Imperial, etc. Coke Co.
(6 Adol. & L. 846), 131.
Church, etc. v. Algemeine, etc.
(31 N. Y. App. Div. 12), 2052.
Church of Christ v. Christian
Church (193 111. 144), 123.
Church of Redeemer v. Axtell (41
N. J. Law, 117), 15.
Chynoweth's Case (L. R. 15 Ch.
D. 13), 551, 885.
Circleville, etc. Co. v. Buckeye
Gas Co. (69 N. E. Rep. (Ohio),
436), 1644.
Citizens', etc. Bk. v. Bav Circuit
Judge (110 Mich. 683), 1787,
1798.
Cincinnati, Selmf^, etc. Ry. Co., Ex
parte (78 Ala. 258), 1518.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Rosenthal
(55 111. 85; 8 Am. Rep. 626),
1990, 1992, 2003, 2012.
Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v. Pearce
(28 Md. 502; 7 Md. 595), 268,
362, 366, 524.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. O'Keefe (44
Hun (N. Y.), 64; 120 N. Y.
603), 1135.
Cincinnati v. Morgan (3 Wall.
275), 1706.
Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v. Clarkson
7 Ind. 595), 494, 1067.
Cincinnati, etc. Railway Co. v.
Clinton County (1 Ohio St. 77),
297.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Cole (29
Ohio St. 126; 23 Am. Rep. 729),
98, 103.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Hoffmeister
(62 Ohio St. 189; 78 Am. St.
Rep. 707), 143, 146.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. City, etc.
Assn. (48 Ohio, 390), 1594, 1595.
1615.
Cincinnati, etc. R. v. Chicago (166
U. S. 22), 1395, 1396.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Bruck (61
Ohio St. 489; 76 Am. St. Rep.
433), 1181.
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Bate (96
Ky. 356), 130, 883.
Cincinnati College v. State (19
Ohio, 110), 724.
Cicotte V. Anciaux (53 Mich. 227),
815.
Citizens' Bank v. Blakesley
(42
Ohio St. 645), 1211.
Citizens' Bank v. Hawkins (34 U.
S. Appeals 423; 71 Fed. Rep.
369; 24 Am. St. Rep. 448), 1281.
Citizens' Bank v. Los Angeles, etc.
Co. (131 Cal. 187), 1730.
Citizens' Building Assn. v. Cor-
iell (34 N. J. Eq. 383), 1117,
1123, 1126.
Citizens', etc. R. R. v. Batley (65
N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 2), 1627.
Citizens', etc. Trust Co. v. Gillis-
pie (115 Pa. St. 564), 460, 497,
549, 834.
Citizens', etc. v. Hawkins (71 Fed.
Rep. 369), 837.
Citizens', etc. Ins. Co. v. Scott (45
Ala. 185), 643.
Citizens', etc. Co. v. Union, etc.
Co. (106 Fed. 97), 1776, 1782,
2036.
Citizens' Loan Assn. v. Lyon (29
N. J. Eq. 110), 1125.
Citizens' M. & L. v. Webster (25
Barb. 263), 212.
Citizens' Mutual, etc. Ins. Co. v.
Sortwell (90 Mass. (8 Allen.)
217), 975. 982, 1016.
Citizens' Nat. Bk. v. Elliott (55
Iowa, 104; 39 Am. Report, 167),
10G4, 1066, 1074, 1076.
Citizens' St. R. R. v. Memphis
(53 Fed. Rep. 715), 89, 94, 1600.
Citizens' Savings Bank v. Owens-
boro (173 U. S. 636), 94.
City V. Lamson (19 Wall. 477),
42, 1683, 1684.
City Bank v. Bartlett (71 Ga.
797), 377, 809, 932.
City Bank v. Bruce (17 N. Y. 507),
252, 553, 1284.
City Bank v. Cutter (3 Pick. (20
Mass.) 414), 1297.
City Bank of Columbus v. Phil-
lips (22 Mo. 85; 64 Am. Dec.
254), 1160.
TABLE OF CASES, Ixxi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
City Council v. Baptist Church (4
Strob. (S. C.) 306), 294.
City Council, etc. v. Montgomery,
etc. Co. (31 Ala. 76), 1332, 1347.
City, etc. Co. v. Charleston, etc.
R. R. Co. (100 Tenn. 138), 1593.
City, etc. Co. v. State (88 Tex.
600), 1815.
City, etc. Ry. v. First Nat. Bank
(65 Ark. 543), 1177, 1204.
City Fire Ins. Co. v. Carriage (41
Ga. 660), 1297.
City Hotel v. Dickinson (72 Mass.
586), 314.
City Ins. Co. v. Commercial Bank
(68 111. 348), 1777, 1964, 1968,
1971.
City Nat. Bank v. Goshen, etc. Co.
(69 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 206), 804.
City Nat. Bank, etc. v. Phelps (97
N Y. 44; 49 Am. Rep. 513), 1838.
City of Allanton v. Gate City, etc.
Co. (71 Ga. 106), 69.
Citv of Atchison v. Butcher (3
Kan. 104), 297.
Citv of Atlanta v. Old Colony, etc.
(88 Fed. 859), 1608.
City of Aurora v. West (9 Ind.
74), 297.
Citv of Austin v. McCall (68 S.
W. Rep. (Tex.) 791), 1647.
City of Baltimore v. Baltimore
Ry. Co. (21 Md. 50), 1267.
Citv of Baltimore v. Hussey (67
Md. 112), 713.
Citv of Baltimore v. Reynolds (20
Md. 1),
1343.
City of Baxter Springs v. Bax-
ter Springs, etc. Co. (68 Pac.
Rep. (Kan.) 23), 1610.
City of Bloomington v. Covington
& Cincinnati Bridge Co. (10
Bush (Ky.), 69), 111, 804. ,
City of Bloomington v. Miller (84
111. 621), 1321.
City of Bradford v. New York, etc.
Co. (206 Pa. 582), 1624.
Ctiy of Brooklyn, In re (143 N. Y.
596; 1G6 U. S. 685), 164.5, 1647.
City of Cape May v. Cape May,
etc. R. R. Co. (44 Atl. Rep. (N.
J.) 973), 1776.
City of Chester v. Commonwealth
(134 U. S. 240), 709.
Citv of Chicago v. Cameron (120
111. 447), 824, 1355, 1357, 1358,
1705.
City of Chicago v. Evans (24 111.
52), 1576.
City of Danville v. Danville
Water Co. (ISO 111. 235), 1382,
1385, 1553, 1650.
City of Denver v. Sherrett (88
Fed. Rep. 226), 1625.
City of Detroit v. Citv Ry. Co. (37
Mich. 558), 106, 107, 1605.
Citv of Detroit v. Mutual Gas. Co.
(43 Mich. 594), 1762.
City of Duluth v. Duluth, etc. Co.
(84 Minn. 486),
1633-.
City of Eli?;abeth v. Force (29 N.
J. Eq. 587), 1688.
Citv of El Reno v. El Reno, etc.
Co. (76 Pac. Rep. (Okl.) 126),
1645.
City of Erie v. Erie Canal Co. (59
Pa. St. 174), 1387.
City of Grand Rapids v. Grand
Rapids Hydraulic Co. (66 Mich.
606), 101.
City of Greenville v. Greenville,
etc. Co. (125 Ala. 625), 153,
1913.
Citv of Hagerstown v. Sehner (37
Md. 180), 16.
City of Helena v. Helena Water,
etc. Co. (122 Fed. Rep. 1), 1646.
City of Indianapolis v. Navin (151
Ind. 139; 41 L. R. A. 337),
1382, 1385.
Citv of Jonesboro v. Cairo, etc. R,
Co. (110 TJ. S. 192), 293.
Citv of Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo,
etc. Co. (124 Mich. 74), 1640.
City of Knoxville v. Knoxville &
O. R. Co. (22 Fed. Rep. 758),
108.
City of Leavenworth v. Leaven
worth, etc. Co. (76 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 451), 1645, 1646.
City of Lexington v. Butler (14
Wall. 282), 1676.
Citv of Lincoln v. Lincoln St. Rv.
(93 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 766),
1560.
Citv of Llano v. Llano Co. (5 Tex.
Civ. App. 132), 1296.
City of Louisville v. Louisville
Board of Trade (14 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 408), 716, 763.
City of Louisville v. Wehimhoff
(76 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 876), 1616.
City of Louisville v. McAteer (81
S. W. Rep. 698), 801.
City of Lynchburg v. Slaughter
(75 Va. 57), 294.
Citv of Memphis v. Brown (17
Am. L. T. R. 434), 1680.
Ixxii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
City of Muscatine v. Chicago (44
N. W. Rep. (Iowa), 909), 735.
City of Menasha v. Milwaukee,
etc. R. Co. (52 Wis. 414), 1251,
1834, 1835.
City of New Orleans v. St. Pat-
rick's Hall Assn. (28 La. Ann.
512),
City of New York v. McLean (170
N. Y. 374), 742.
City of New York v. Twenty-
Third St. Ry. Co. (113 N. Y.
311), 43, 731, 1575.
City of Oakland v. Carpenter (13
Cal. 540), 1108.
City of Ohio v. Cleveland & R. Co.
(6 Ohio St. 489), 246, 627, 628,
638, 642, 644, 662.
City of Philadelphia v. Ridge, etc.
Co. (102 Pa. St. 190), 697.
City of Rochester v. Bell, etc. Co.
(52 N. Y. App. Div. 6; 64 N. Y.
Supp. 804), 1629.
City of St. Louis v. Bell Telephone
Co. (96 Mo. 623; 9 Am. St. Rep.
370), 1616.
Citv of St. Louis v. Gas Co. (70
Mo. 98),
1250.
City of St. Louis v. West. U. Tel.
Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 59), 758.
City of St. Louis v. West. U. Tel.
Co. (107 Fed. Rep. 10; 52 L. R.
A. 730), 1624.
City of San Francisco v. Canavan
(42 Cal. 541), 12S7.
City of Savannah v. Steamboat,
etc. Co. (R. M. Charlt. (Ga.)
342), 1762.
City of Syracuse v. Stacey (45 N.
Y. App. Div. 249), 1614.
City of Van Alstyne v. Morrison
(77 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 655),
1649.
City of Worcester v. Norviach, etc.
Ry. Co. (109 Mass. 105), 97.
City Pottery Co. v. Yates (37 N.
J. Eq. 543), 1787.
City Terminus Hotel Co., In re
(L. R. 14 Bq. 10), 570.
City Water Co. v. State (88 Tex.
600), 1711, 1956.
Clafin Co. v. Bretzfelder (69 Ark.
271), 955.
Claflin V. Farmers', etc. R. R. (25
N. Y. 293), 221.
Claflin V. McDermott (12 Fed.
Rep. 375), 904.
Claflin V. South Carolina R. R. (8
Fed. Rep. 118), 1686, 1692.
Claflin V. Railroad Co. (4 Hughes,
12), 1755.
Clagett V. Kilbourne (1 Black (U.
S.), 346), 8, 2090.
Clancy v. Onondaga, etc. Co. (62
Barb. (N. Y.) 395), 1426, 1427,
1928.-
Clap V. Interstate St. Ry. (61 Fed.
Rep. 537), 1813.
CI app V. Astor (2 Edw. Ch. 379),
629, 631.
Clapp V. Cedar County (5 Iowa,
15; 68 Am. Dec. 678), 296.
Clapp V. Peterson (104 111. 26),
253, 256, 335, 447, 553, 554, 645,
1280, 1285.
Clapp V. Mass. Ben. Assn. (146
Mass. 419), 766.
Clapp V. Wright (21 Hun, 240),
923.
Clark V. American Coal Co. (86
Iowa, 436; 17 L. R. A. 557), 439,
1070.
Clark V. American, etc. Co. (101
Fed. Rep. 962), 1768.
Clark V. Bacorn (116 Fed. Rep.
617), 1797.
Clark V. Barnard (108 U. S. 436),
1869, 1872, 2009.
Clark V. Bever (139 U. S. 96; 31
Fed. Rep. 670), 428, 437, 438,
439.
Clark & Bininger, In re (4 Bene-
dict (U. S.), 88), 1800.
Clark V. Continental Imp. Co. (57
Ind. 135), 268, 269, 338, 376.
Clark V. Denton (1 Barn. & Ad.
97), 223.
Clark V. Edgar (84 Mo. 106; 54
Am. Rep. 84), 1153, 1154, 1155.
Clark V. Elmendorf (78 S. W.
Rep. (Tex. Civ. App.) 538),
1158.
Clark V. Farrington (11 Wis. 306),
503, 507.
Clark V. German S. Bank (61
Mass. 611), 598.
Clark V. Iowa City (20 Wall. 583),
1675, 1679, 1682, 1683, 1696,
1C97.
Clark V. Janesville (10 Wis. 136),
297, 1674.
Clark V. Jones (87 Ala. 474), 1533.
Clark V. Lawrence (59 N. C. 83;
78 Am. Dec. 241), 1666.
Clark V. Le Cren (9 Barn. & Cr.
52), 215.
Clark V. Lehman (65 III. App.
238), 206.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Clark V. Meyers (11 Bosw. (N.
Y.) 396), 874.
Clark V. Monongahela Nav. Co.
(10 Watts (Pa.), 364), 96, 112,
282.
Clark V. National, etc. Co. (105
Fed. Rep. 787), 1952.
Clark V. New England Mut. (6
Cush. (60 Mass.) 342; 53 Am.
Dec. 44), 229.
Clark V. Potter Co. (1 Barr. (Pa.)
163), 126.
Clark V. Reyburn (8 Wall. 318),
1730.
Clark V. San Francisco (53 Cal.
306), 800.
Clark V. South Metropolitian Gas
Company (54 L. J. Ch. 259),
571.
Clark V. Titcomb (42 Barb. 122),
1243, 1266, 1700.
Clark V. Titusville (184 U. S. 329),
1623.
Clark V. Turner (73 Ga. 1), 290,
931.
Clark's Appeal (100 Mich. 448),
860.
Clarke v. Bank of Mississippi (10
Ark. 516; 52 Am. Dec. 248),
2008.
Clarke v. Brooklyn Bank (1 Edw.
Ch. (N. Y.) 361), 1925.
Clarke v. Central R. R. Co. (50
Fed. Rep. 338), 185, 880, 1779.
Clarke v. Hart (6 H. L. Cas. 33),
473, 476, 770, 20G4.
Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co. (59
Wis. 655), 516.
Clarke v. Meigs (10 Bosw. (N. Y.)
337), 2112.
Clarke v. Millegan (58 Minn.
413), 123.
Clarke v. Omaha, etc. R. Co. (4
Neb. 459), 1253, 1567.
Clarke v. Rochester (28 N. Y.
605), 296.
Clarke v. Thomas (34 Ohio St.
46), 341, 401, 402, 877.
Clarke, Ex parte (L. R. 7 Eq. 550),
506.
Clarksburg v. City of Clarksburg
(47 W. Va. 739), 1602.
Clarkson v. Clarkson (18 Barb.
646), 246, 638, 647.
Clary v. Iowa, etc. R. Co. (37
Iowa, 342), 1573.
Clausen v. Head (110 Wis. 405; 84
Am. St. Rep. 933), 879.
Clay V. Postal T. Co. (70 Miss.
406), 1626.
f
Clay V. Rufford (5 De Gex & S.
769), 1581.
Clay County v. Soc. for Sav. (104
U. S. 579), 296.
Clayton v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.
(67 Iowa, 238), 1322.
Claj'ton V. Gresham (10 Ves. 288),
650.
Clearwater v. Meredith (1 Wall.
(U. S.) 25), 53, 112, 114, 300.
345, 1356, 1842, 1849, 1851, 1855,
1856, 1860, 1861, 1863, 1876.
Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co. (61
Iowa, 121), 83, 84, 180.
Cleland v. Anderson (92 N. W.
Rep. (Neb.) 306), 1428.
Clem V. Newcastle, etc. R. Co. (9
Ind. 488), 340, 341, 367.
Clement v. City of Lathrop (18
Fed. Rep. 885), 121.
Clemens, etc. Co. v. Walton (173
Mass. 286), 1583.
Clements v. Todd (1 Ex. 268), 269,
378.
Clerk V. Des Moines (19 Iowa,
213), 1674.
Cleve V. Financial Co. (L. R. 16
Eq. 363), 221, 1001.
Cleveland v. Bangor, etc. St. R. R.
Co. (86 Me. 232), 1627.
Cleveland v. Burnham (55 Wis.
598; 64 Wis. 347), 541. 546, 863,
892, 893, 916, 1748, 1796.
Cleveland v. Marine Bank (17
Wis. 545), 865.
Cleveland v. Stone (105 Fed. Rep.
794), 2105.
Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. v. Closser
(126 Ind. 348), 1377, 1472, 1474,
1582.
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Coburn (91
Ind. 557), 1471.
Cleveland Paper Co. v. Courier,
etc. Co. (67 Mich. 152), 1292,
1294.
Cleveland City Ry. Co. v. First
Nat. Bank (67 N. E. Rep.
(Ohio) 1075), 1859.
Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Himrod
Furnace Co. (37 Ohio St. 321;
41 Am. Rep. 509), 1556.
Cleveland, etc. Rv. Co. v. Illinois
(177 U. S. 514), 1395, 1551.
Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Knick-
erbocker T. Co. (86 Fed. Rep.
73), 1779.
Cleveland T. Co. v. Lander (184
U. S. Ill), 704.
Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co. v. People
(175 111. 359), 1551.
Ixxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[Keferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Prewitt (134
Ind. 557), 1886.
Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Robbins
(35 Ohio St. 483), 613, 616, 627,
(129.
Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Speer
(56 Pa. St. 325; 94 Am. Dec.
84), 1307, 1916.
Cleveland, etc. Co. v. Taylor, etc.
Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 82), 1966.
Cleveland Rolling Mill Co. v.
Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. (27 Fed.
Rep. 250), 560, 1205.
Clevene:er v. Moore (58 Atl. Rep.
(N. J.) 88), 836.
Clews V. Jamieson (182 U. S. 461),
2109, 2111.
Clifton, etc. Co. v. Randall (82
Iowa, 89), 2052.
Clinch V. Financial Corp. (L. R.
4 Ch. App. 117), 1243, 1249,
1840, 1849, 1856, 1861.
Clinkscales v. Pendleton Mfg. Co.
(9 S. C. 318), 1977.
Clive V. Clive (Kay, 600), 631, 647.
Close V. Greenvi^ood Cemetery (107
U. S. 466), 26, 99, 100, 107, 115,
156.
Close v. Potter (155 N. Y. 145),
849.
Clough V. Rocky Mountain Oil
Company (25 Colo. 525), 1134,
1136.
Clow V. Van Loan (6 Thomp. (N.
Y.) 458), 1972.
Clowes V. Brettell (11 Mees. & W.
461), 592, 863.
Clowes V. Miller (50 N. J. Eq.
179), 1034.
Club V. Red, etc.. Club (108 Iowa,
105), 122.
Clubb V. Davidson (95 Mo. 467),
1106, 1192.
Clute V. Loveland (68 Cal. 254),
2106.
Coalfield Co. v. Peck (98 111. 139),
499, 898, 968, 969.
Coann v. Atlanta Cotton Factory
Co. (14 Fed. Rep. 4), 1742.
Coalter v. Bargamin (99 Va. 65),
174.
Coates V. London, etc. Ry. Co. (41
L. T. N. S. 553), 417.
Coates V. Mayor of New York (7
Cowen, 585), 1399.
Coates V. Nottingham, etc. Ry.
Co. (30 Beav.
86), 672.
'Coats, Matter of (75 N. Y. App.
Div. 469), 417.
Coats v. People (22 N. Y. 245), 10.
Cobb V. Covenant, etc. Assn. (153
Mass. 176; 25 Am. St. Rep. 619),
766.
Cobb v. Sweet (46 N. Y. App. Div.
375), 1802.
Coburn v. Ames (57 Cal. 201),
1747.
Coburn v. Boston Papier Mache
Co. (10 Gray, 245), 1954, 1965.
Coburn v. New Tel. Co. (156 Ind.
90), 1630.
Cochran v. Arnold (58 Pa. St.
399), 91.
Cochran v. Chambers (Ambl. 79),
292.
Cochran v. Weichers (53 Hun,
636), 566, 567, 847, 870.
Cockburn v. Union Bank (13 La.
Ann. 289), 139, 144, 145.
Cockerell v. Ancompte (2 Com.
B. (N. S.) 445; 40 Eng. L. &
Eq. 284), 2076.
Cockerell v. Van Dieman's Land
Co. (L. R. 26 C. P. 203), 476, 781,
782.
Cocking V. Ward (48 S. W. Rep.
(Tenn.) 287), 860.
Cockrill V. Abeles (86 Fed. Rep.
505), 435, 816, 1119.
Coddington v. Canaday (61 N. E.
Rep. (Ind.) 567), 817, 1119, 140,
1782, 1792.
Coddington v. Railroad (103 U. S.
409), 386, 387.
Codrington v. Parker (16 Ves.
469), 1739.
Coe V. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. (10
Ohio St. 372; 75 Am. Dec. 518),
1728.
Coe V. Columbus, etc. R. Co. (10
Ohio St. 372), 1253, 1255, 1263,
1264, 1565, 1716, 1720.
Coe V. East, etc. R. R. (52 Fed.
Rep. 531), 974, 1689.
Coe V. Errol (116 U. S. 517), 753.
Coe V. Johnson (18 Ind. 218), 1705.
Coe V. McBrown (22 Ind. 252),
1705, 1715.
Coe V. New Jersey Midland R. Co.
(27 N. J. Eq. 37), 1708, 1711,
1714, 1720, 1721, 1729.
Coeur d' Alene Ry. etc. Co. v.
Spaulding (93 Fed. Rep. 280),
1734.
Coey V. Belfast, etc. Ry. Co. (I. R.
2 C. L. 112), 638, 642, 672.
Coffey V. Bank (46 Mo. 140), 1877.
Coffey V. Coffey (179 111. 283), 536,
541.
Coffey V. Nat. Bank of Missouri
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxv
IReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(46 Mo. 140; 2 Am. Rep. 153,
488), 1837, 1838.
Coffin V. City of Portland (27 Fed.
Rep. 412), 1296.
Coffin V. Collins (17 Me. 440), 69,
467.
Coffin V. Ransdell (110 Ind. 417),
334, 505, 506, 507, 509.
Coffin V. Reynolds (37 N. Y. 640),
859.
Coffin V. Rich (45 Me. 511), 833,
842.
Coggar V. Howard (1 Barb. Ch.
368), 1871.
Coggill V. Bank (1 N. Y. 113), 407.
Coggin V. Central R. Co. (62 Ga.
685; 35 Am. Rep. 132), 1503.
Coghil V. Feelove (3 Mod. 326),
1878.
Cogswell V. Cogswell (2 Edw. Ch.
231), 647.
Cogswell V. Essex Mill Co. (6
Pick.
94), 1491.
Cogwill V. Long (15 111. 202), 988.
Cohen v. Geld Creek, etc. Co. (95
Fed. Rep. 580), 1799.
Cohen v. Gwynn (4 Md. Ch. 357),
578, 607.
Cohen v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co. (34
Kan. 158; 55 Am. Rep. 242),
1490.
Cohen v. Wilkinson (12 Beav.
125), 1355.
Cohn V. Louisville, etc. R. Co. (39
Fed. Rep. 227), 2014.
Coit V. North Carolina, etc. Co.
(14 Fed. Rep. 12.; 119 U. S. 343),
404, 405, 406, 428, 437, 438, 509,
510, 511, 513, 930.
Colbert v. Sutton (5 Del. Ch. 294),
1986.
Colby Univ. v. Canandaigua (69
Fed. Rep. 671), 1647.
Colchester v. Brooke (7 Q. B.
383), 129.
Colchester v. Seaber (3 Burr.
1866), 129, 1978.
Cold Co., In re (11 Ch. Div. 701),
550.
Cole V. Adams (19 Fed. Civ. App.
507), 548, 601.
Cole V. Butler (43 Me. 401), 874,
916.
Cole V. Great Bend, etc. Co. (54
Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 920), 879.
Cole V. Greenwich, etc. Co. (12 R.
I. 202), 17.
Cole V. Knickerbocker Ins. Co. (23
Hun, 255), 1965.
Cole V. Lagrange (113 U. S. 1),
294.
Cole V. Millerton Iron Co. (59
Hun, 217), 1833, 1835.
Cole V. Oil Well Supply Co. (57
Fed. Rep. 534), 1810.
Cole V. Ryan (52 Barb. 168), 545;
592, 889, 890, 891.
Cole V. Satsop R. Co. (9 Wash.
487; 37 Fed. Rep. 700; 43 Am.
St. Rep. 858), 573.
Coleman v. Coleman (78 Ind.
344), 163, 170, 172, 2077.
Coleman v. Columbia Oil Co. (51
Pa. St. 74), 241, 553.
Coleman v. Eastern Counties Ry.
Co. (10 Beav. 1), 925, 1353, 1355,
1584.
Coleman v. Howe (154 111. 458),
402, 436, 511, 874, 875.
Coleman v. Second Ave. R. Co.
(38 N. Y. 201), 1108.
Coleman v. Spencer (2 Blackf.
(Ind.) 197), 200, 961.
Coleman v. V/est Virginia, etc.
Co. (25 W. Va 148), 1045, 1190,
1193.
Coleman v. White (14 Wis 700;
80 Am. Dec. 797), 853, 899, 907,
909. 911, 912, 914, 1796.
Coler V. Allen (114 Fed. Rep. 609;
52 C. C. A. 380), 1766.
Coler V. Barth (24 Colo. 31), 1755.
Coler V. Grainger County (74 Fed.
Rep. 16), 1712.
Coler V. Tacoma, etc. Co. (54 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 413), 882.
Coles V. Bank of England (10
Adol. & E. 437), 597, 614, 642,
644.
Coles V. Whitman (10 Conn. 121),
576.
Coles V. Bristowe (L. R. 4 Ch.
App. 3), 888.
Colglazier v. Louisville, etc. R.
Co. (22 Fed. Rep. 568), 1869,
1870.
Coliseum v. Interstate, etc. Co.
(123 Ala. 512), 1782.
College V. Mercer Co. (101 Pa. St.
530), 726.
Collen V. Wright (8 L. & B. 647),
1154.
Collier v. Bearing, etc. Assn. (66
S. V/. Rep. (Ky.) 183), 2020.
Collingwood v. Berkeley (15 C. B.
N. S. 829), 175.
Collins V. Central Bank (1 Ga.
435), 1706.
Ixxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
IRefercnces are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-1!X6; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Collins V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (14
Wis. 492), 1875.
Collins V.
Evans (5 Q. B. 820),
175.
Collins V.
Locke (L. R. 4 App.
674),
103G, 1425.
Collins V. Russell (48 N. J. Eq.
208), 1030.
Collins V. Steuart (58 N. J. Eq.
392), 536.
Colonial Bank v. Willan (L. R.
5 P. C. 417), 607.
Colonial, etc. Co. v. Catlin (57
Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 140), 2017.
Colorado, etc, Co. v. American,
etc. Co. (97 Fed. Rep. 843; 38
C. C. A. 433), 792.
Colorado, etc. Co. v. Sedalia, etc.
Co. (13 Colo. App. 474),
921.
Colorado Eastern Ry. Co. v.
Union Pac. Ry. Co. (41 Fed.
Rep. 293), 1304, 1305, 1306, 1317.
Colqulionn v. Courtenay (27 L. T.
Rep. 877), 886, 2110.
Colquitt V. Howard (11 Ga. 566),
182.
Colt V. Clapp (127 Mass. 476),
2115.
Colt V. Ives (31 Conn. 25; 81 Am.
Dec. 161), 544, 594, 596, 961.
Colt V. Netterville (2 Pr. Wms.
304), 576.
Colt v. Woollaston (2 P. Wms.
154), 577.
Coltness Iron Co. v. Black (L. R.
6 App. Cas. 315), 634, 636.
Colton V. Mayer (90 Md. 711; 45
L. R. A. 617; 78 Am. St. Rep.
456), 895.
Colton v. Mississippi, etc. Co. (22
Minn. 372), 129.
Coltrane v. Baltimore, etc. Assn.
(110 Fed. Rep. 281), 685, 1973.
Coltraine v. Blake (113 Fed. Rep.
785), 661.
Coltraine v. Templeton (106 Fed.
Rep. 370; 45 C. C. A. 328), 1812.
Columbia v. Paige (6 Oreg. 431),
1992.
Columbia Athletic Club v. State
(143 Ind. 98; 28 L. R. A. 727;
52 Am. St. Rep. 407). 1911.
Columbia Bank v. Jackson (4 N.
Y. Supp. 433), 2010.
Columbia Bottom, etc. Co. v.
Meier (39 Mo. 53), 1017.
Columbia Conduit Co. v. Common-
wealth (90 Pa. St. 307), 21.
Columbia Electric Co. v. Dickson
(46 Minn. 463), 153.
Columbia, etc. Co. v. City of Daw-
son (130 Fed. Rep. 152), 1646.
Columbia, etc. Co. v. Dixon (46
Minn. 463), 156, 953.
Columbia, etc. Co. v. Kentucky,
etc. Ry. (GO Fed. Rep. 794),
1754.
Columbian Bank, In re (147 Pa.
St. 422), 254.
Columbian Bank's Estate (147
Pa. St. 422), 253.
Columbian, etc. Club v. State (143
Ind. 98), 1380, 1539.
Columbine v. Chichester (2 Ph.
Ch. 27), 576.
Columbus Buggy Co. v. Graves
(108 111. 459), 2005.
Columbus, etc. R. R. Appeals (109
Fed. Rep. 177; 48 C. C. A. 175),
1252.
Columbus, etc. Co. v. Indianapolis,
Railroad Co. (5 McLean, 450;
6 Fed. Cas. 193), 1578, 1579,
1581, 1582.
Columbus, etc. Co. v. Long (121
Ala. 245), 1320.
Columbus, etc. Ry. Co. v. Pov.'^ell
(40 Ind. 37), 1863, 1888.
Columbus, etc. Ry. Co. v. Skid-
more (69 111. 566; 95 Am. Dee.
654), 1503, 1875, 1888, 1889.
Columbus, etc. Iron Co. v. Tucker
(48 Ohio St. 41; 29 Am. St. Rep.
528), 1488.
Columbus, etc. Ry. v. Wright (151
U. S. 470), 711.
Colville's Case (48 L. J. Ch. 633),
329 335.
Colvin, In re (3 Md. Ch. Dec. 278),
1724, 1747.
Colvin v. Williams (3 Har. & J.
(Md.) 38; 5 Am. Dec. 417). 524.
Colv/ell V. Colorado Springs Co.
(100 U. S. 55),
Comanche Co. v. Lewis (113 U. S.
198), 1920.
Comb V. Kellogg (48 Hun (N. Y.),
627), 1142.
Combes v. Keyes (89 Wis. 297;
46 Am. St. Rep. 839; 27 L. R. A.
369), 1832, 1947, 1968, 1969.
Combs V. Scott (12 Allen (94
Mass.), 493), 1172, 1363.
Comeau v. Gould Farm Oil Co.
(3 Daly, 218), 963.
Comer v. Felton (61 Fed. Rep.
731; 10 C. C. A. 28), 1792.
Comfort V. Leland (3 Whart. (Pa.)
81), 466.
Comins v. Coe (117 Mass. 45), 280.
TABLE. OF CASES. Ixxvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Commercial Bank v. Chatfield
(127 Mich. 407), 817.
Commercial Nat. Bank v.
Biircti
141 III. 519; 33 Am, St. Rep.
331), 253, 254.
Commercial Bank v. Cunningham
(41 Mass. 270; 35 Am. Dec.
322), 965.
Commercial Bank v. Hutchinson
87 N. C. 22), 1518.
Commercial Bank v. Tola (2 Dil-
lon, 353), 294.
Commercial Bank v. Kortright
(22 Wend. 348; 34 Am. Dec.
317), 391, 525, 542, 589, 590.
Commercial Bank v. Lockwood
(2 Harr. (N. J. L.) 8), 1978,
1979.
Commercial Bank v. Newport
Mfg. Co. (1 B. Mon. (Ky.) 19),
1266.
Commercial Bank v. Nolan (8
Miss. 508), 1290.
Commercial Bank v. Pfeiffer (108
N. Y. 242; N. E. Rep. 311), 156,
1525.
Commercial Bank v. State (6
Smedes & M. (Miss.) 599; 45
Am. Dec. 280), 1905, 1928.
Commercial Bank v. Ten Eyck
(48 N. Y. 305), 1151.
Commercial Bank v. Warthen (119
Ga. 990), 908, 1119.
Commercial, etc. Co. v. Northamp-
ton, etc. Co. (84 N. Y. 38), 2006.
Commercial Nat. Bk. v. Trust Nat.
Bank (80 S. W. Rep. (Tex.)
601), 1179.
Commissioners v. Aspinwall (21
How. 539), 1675.
Commissioners v. Atlantic, etc.
R. Co. (77 N. C. 289), 1266.
Commissioners v. Bolles (94 U.
S. 109), 1673.
Commissioners, etc. v. Buckner
(43 Fed. Rep. 533), 734.
Commissioners v. Clark (94 U. S.
279), 1673.
Commissioners, etc. v. Forrest (59
L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 282, 725.
Commissioners v. Gas Co. (12 Pa.
St. 318), 198.
Commissioners v. Texas Pac. Ry.
Co. (90 Pa. St. 90), 24.
Commissioners v. Union, etc. Co.
(80 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 490), 703.
Commissioners of Craver v. At-
lantic, etc. Co. (77 N. C. 289),
1260, 1700.
Commissioners on Island Fish-
eries V. Holyoke "Water-Power
Co. (104 Mass. 446), 99.
Commonwealth, Appeal of (129
Pa. St. 346), 716.
Commonwealth v. American Bell
Tel. Co. (129 Pa. St. 217), 760,
761.
Commonwealth v. Allegheny
Bridge Co. (20 Pa. St. 185),
1913, 1928.
Commonwealth v. American
Dredging Co. (122 Pa. St. 386),
751.
Commonwealth v. Arrison (15
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 127; 16 Am.
Dec. 531), 1928, 1934.
Commonwealth v. Atlantic, etc.
Co. (53 Pa. St. 9), 1844, 1846,
1865, 1875.
Commonwealth v. Banks (198 Pa.
St. 397), 2120.
Commonwealth v. Boston (97
Mass. 555), 1618.
Commonwealth v. Boston R. Co.
(3 Cush (57 Mass.) 25), 1314.
Commonwealth v. Boston R. Co.
(129 Mass. 500), 1500, 1546.
Commonwealth v. Boston R. Co.
(11 Cush (65 Mass.) 512), 1500,
1547.
Commonwealth v. Boston R. Co.
(8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 2.97),
1500, 1546.
Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. R.
Co. (142 Mass. 146), 250, 252.
Commonwealth v. Boston, etc. R.
Co. (126 Mass. 61), 1500, 1547.
Commonwealth v. Bringhurst (103
Pa. St. 134), 1019.
Commonwealth v. Brush, etc. Co.
(145 Pa. St. 147), 734.
Commonwealth v. Butterworth
(160 Pa. St. 55), 1023.
Commonwealth v. Carlisle
(Brightley (Pa.), 36), 1427.
Commonwealth v. Central Bridge
Corp. (12 Cush. (66 Mass.)
242), 1489, 1541.
Commonweath v. Central, etc. Co.
(12 Cush. (66 Mass.) 245), 1545.
Commonwealth v. Central P. R.
Co. (52 Pa. St. 506), 239, 1915.
Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxi-
cating Liquors (115 Mass. 153),
1400.
Commonwealth v. Citizens' Nat.
Bank (80 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
158), 743, 744.
Commonwealth v. City of Ches-
ter (122 Pa. St. 626), 709.
Ixxviii
TABLE OF OASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II. 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Commonwealth v. Claghorn (13
Pa. St. 133), 68.
Commonwealth v. Cochituate
Bank (3
Allen (85 Mass.), 42),
949.
Commonwealth v. Cullen (13 Pa.
St. 133; 53 Am. Dec. 450, 401),
68, 9C, 110, 114, 798, 804, 971,
972. 977, 980, 981, 1087, 1435,
1817.
Commonwealth v. Commercial
Bank (28 Pa. St. 383), 1427,
1908. 1920, 1921, 1935, 1938.
Commonwealth v. Dalzell (152
Pa. St. 17), 1012, 1014.
Commonwealth v. Delaware, etc.
Canal (123 Pa. St. 594), 709.
Commonwealth v. Delaware, etc.
Canal (43 Pa. St. 295), 1654.
Commonwealth v.
Detwiller (131
Pa. St. 614; 7 L. R. A. 357), 75,
202, 1011, 1049, 1061.
Commonwealth v. Duane (98
Mass. 1), 1381.
Commonwealth v. East Boston,
etc. Co. (13 Allen (95 Mass.),
589), 1500, 1547.
Commonwealth v. Eastern Ry. Co.
(103 Mass. 254; 4 Am. Rep.
555), 97, 1385.
Commonwealth v. East Tennessee
Coal Co. (97 Ky. 358), 1992,
1995, 2012.
Commonwealth v. Emigrant, etc.
Bank (98 Mass. 12), 1688.
Commonwealth v. Empire, etc.
Co. (134 Pa. St. 237), 139.
Commonwealth v. Equitable, etc.
Assn. (137 Pa. St. 412), 21.
Commonwealth v. Erie, etc. R. R.
Co. (27 Pa. St. 339), 1230, 1231,
1307.
Commonwealth v. Fall Brook,
etc. Co. (156 Pa. St. 488),
714.
Commonwealth v. Farmers' &
Mech. Bank (21 Pick. (29
Mass.) 542), 46.
Commonwealth v. Fayette Co. R.
Co. (55 Pa. St. 452), 43.
Commonwealth v. Fisher (7 Phila.
264), 222, 1980.
Comm.onwealth v. Fitchburg Co.
(12 Gray (78 Mass.), 180), 1906,
1909.
Commonwealth v. Fitchburg Co.
(11 Allen (93 Mass.), 189), 1500,
1547.
Commonwealth v. Franklin Ins.
Co. (115 Mass. 278), 1926.
Commonwealth v. German Soc.
(15 Pa. St. 251), 786, 2060, 2071.
Commonwealth v. Gill (3 Whart.
(Pa.) 228), 201, 262, 766, 767,
796, 2054, 2055.
Commonwealth v. Guardian's etc.
(6 Sergt. & R. (Pa.) 469), 775,
2056.
Commonwealth v. Hamilton Mfg.
Co. (120 Mass. 383), 1552.
Commonwealth v. Intoxicating
Liquors (115 Mass. 153), 1400.
Commonwealth v. Iron Co. (105
Pa. St. Ill), 821.
Commonwealth v. Lancaster Sav.
Bank (123 Mass. 493), 695, 697.
Commonwealth v. Louisville, etc.
Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 241), 1931,
1932.
Commonwealth v. Lowell G. L.
Co. (12 Allen (94 Mass.), 775),
739, 1606.
Commonwealth v. Lvlvens Water
Co. (110 Pa. St. 391), 1944.
Commonwealth v. Mahoning, etc.
Co. (129 Pa. St. 360), 715.
Commonwealth v. McWilliams (11
Pa. St. 61), 297.
Commonwealth v. Metropolitan R.
R. Co. (107 Mass. 236), 1500,
1547.
Commonwealth v. Milton (12 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 212), 1986, 1990,
2013.
Commonwealth v. Mobile, etc. R.
Co. (64 S. S. Rep. (Ky.) 451;
54 L. R. A. 910), 1992.
Commonwealth v. Morrison (13
Phila. 135), 2125.
Commonwealth v. Natural Gas Co.
(32 Pittsburgh Leg. J. (Pa.)
310), 19.
Commonwealth v. New York, etc.
Co. (114 Pa. St. 340), 1992, 1998,
2004.
Commonwealth v. New York, etc.
R. R. (188 Pa. St. 169), 763,
829, 1236, 1374.
CommonAvealth v. Northern, etc.
Co. (145 Pa. St. 105), 20.
Commonwealth v. Order of Vesta
(156 Pa. St. 537), 1777, 1778,
1932.
Commonwealth v. Oil Co. (101 Pa.
St. 19), 761.
Commonwealth v. Oliver (2 Pars.
Sel. Cases (Pa.) 420), 787.
Commonwealth v. Overholt (23
Pa. Super. Ct. 199), 1785.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Commonwealth v. Patterson (158
Pa. St. 476), 1021.
Commonwealth v. Penn. Canal Co.
(66 Pa. St. 46), 723.
Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania,
etc. Inst. (2 Sergt. & R. 141),
2071.
Commonwealth v. Perkins (43 Pa.
St. 400), 1674.
Commonwealth v. Philadelphia
Co. (157 Pa. St. 527), 708, 731,
1789.
Commonwealth v. Philadelphia,
etc. R. R. (145 Pa. St. 74), 763.
Commonwealth v. Philanthropic
Soc. (5 Binn. (Pa.) 486), 776,
2057.
Commonwealth v. Phoenix Iron
Co. (105 Pa. St. 117; 51 Am.
Rep. 184; 23 Am. L. Reg. 338;
23 Cent. L. J. 584), 138, 141,
142, 143, 144, 145.
Commonwealth v. Pike Benev.
Soc. (8 Watts & S. 247), 778,
787, 2061.
Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co. (74 Pa. St. 83), 246, 504.
Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh, etc.
Ry. Co. (58 Pa. St. 26), 1898,
1911. 1923, 1957, 1958.
Commonwealth v. Domphert (137
Mass. 564; 50 Am. Rep. 340),
2118.
Commonwealth v. Proprietors, etc.
(2 Gray (68 Mass.), 339), 1408,
1490, 1540, 1547, 1923.
Commonwealth v. Provident Bi-
cycle Assn. (178 Pa. St. 636),
21.
Commonwealth v. Pulaski, etc.
Assn. (92 Ky. 201), 1540, 1544.
Commonwealth v. Punxsutawney,
etc. Co. (197 Pa. St. 569), 1902.
Commonwealth v. St. Bernard
Coal Co. (9 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
709), 708.
Commonwealth v. St. Patrick (2
Binn. (Pa.) 441; 4 Am. Dec.
453), 190, 198, 772, 773, 2056,
2102.
Commonwealth v. Smith (10 Allen
(92 Mass.), 448), 974, 989, 1244,
1253, 1254, 1262, 1275, 1295, 1296,
1371, 1670, 1675, 1699, 1851,1954.
Commonwealth v. Smith (45 Pa.
St. 59), 195.
Commonwealth v. Smith (92 Ky.
38; 36 Am. St. Rep. 578), 1993.
Commonwealth v. Standard Oil
Co. (101 Pa. St. 119), 2007.
Commonwealth v. Stevens (168
Pa. St. 582), 1061.
Commonwealth v. Sturtevant (182
Pa. St. 323), 1932.
Commonwealth
v. Susquehanna,
etc. R. Co. (122 Pa. St. 308),
1835.
Commonwealth v. Tenth Mass.
etc. Corp. (11 Cush. (65 Mass.)
171), 1904, 1905.
Commonwealth v. Texas, etc. Ry.
Co. (98 Pa. St. 90), 748, 2011.
Commonwealth v. Towanda Water
Works (15 Atl. (Pa.) 440), 1913,
1924.
Commonwealth v. Trustees, etc.
(6 Serg. & R. 508), 799.
Commonwealth
v. Union Burial,
etc. Soc. (78 Pa. St. 308). 624,
696, 1660.
Commonwealth v. Union Fire Ins.
Co. (5 Mass. 230; 4 Am. Dec.
50), 1913, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1935,
1936.
Commonwealth v. Union League,
etc. (135 Pa. St. 301), 772, 773.
Commonwealth v. United States
Bank
(2 Ashm. (Pa.) 349), 1933.
Commonwealth v. U. S. Express
Co. (157 Pa. St. 579), 758.
Commonwealth v. Vermont, etc.
R. Co. (108 Mass. 7), 1500.
Commonwealth v. Walters (83
Pa. St. 105), 1934.
Commonwealth
v. Watmough (6
Whart. (Pa.) 117), 963.
Commonwealth
v. Weller (82 Va.
721), 47.
Commonwealth v. Western, etc.
Co. (156 Pa. St. 455), 734.
Commonwealth v. Westinghouse,
etc. Co. (151 Pa. St. 265). 731.
Commonwealth v. Woelper (3
Serg. & R. 29; 8 Am. Dec.
628),
189, 190, 192, 195, 796.
Commonwealth v. Wickersham
(66 Pa. St. 134), 1017, 1019.
Commonwealth v. Woodward (4
Phila. 124), 263.
Commonwealth v. Worcester (3
Pick. (20 Mass.) 462), 204, 2103.
Commonwealth v. Yetter (190 Pa.
St. 448), 79, 82.
Commonwealth Bank v. State (6
Sm. & M. (Miss.) 599), 1918.
Compagnie Francaise v. Western
U. Tel. Co. (11 Fed. 862), 1278.
Compagnie Generale de Belle-
garde, In re (4 Ch. Div. 470),
1689.
Ixxx
TAI5I,E OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Companies Act, In re (4 De Gex,
J. & S. 53),
551.
Comstock V. Buchanan (57
Barb.
127), 527.
Comsto.'k. In re (3 Sawy. 218),
1338. 1992, 2003.
Comstock V.
Frederickson (51
Minn. 350), 1791.
Compton V. Railway Co. (45
Ohio
St. 592), 1877, 1879.
Compton V. Van Volkenburg (34
N. J. L. (5 Vroom.) 134), 199,
221.
Compton V. Wabash, etc. Co. (45
Ohio, 592), 1893.
Conant v. Van Schaick (24 Barb.
87), 54, 858, 919.
Concord, etc. Bank v.
Hawkins
(174 U. S. 364), 535, 848.
Concord v.
Portsmouth, etc. (92
U. S. 625), 1593.
Concord R. Co. v. Clough (49 N.
H. 257). 1151.
Concord R. Co. v. Greeley (17 N.
H. 47), 1303, 1311.
Concord Society v. Stanton (38
Hun, 1), 2128.
Concordia Sav. etc. v. Read (93
N. Y. 474), 262, 1523, 1526.
Condee v. Lord (2 N. Y. 269),
1740.
Condon v. Mutual, etc. Assn. (89
Ind. 99; 73 Am. St. Rep. 169),
205, 2016.
Coney v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
(8 Phila. 173), 1713, 1716.
Coney Island, etc. Co. v. Boynton
(84 N. Y. 347), 1208.
Congdon v. Windsor (17 R. I.
236), 301.
Congregational Soc. v. Sperry (10
Conn. 200), 975.
Congregation, etc. v. Texas Pac.
Ry. Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 564),
1763.
Conkey v. Bond (36 N. Y. 427),
2114.
Conklin v. Butler (4 Biss. 22),
1734. 1800.
Conklin v. Furraan (8 Abb. Pr.
N. S. 161), 920, 949.
Conklin v. Second Nat. Bank (45
N. Y. 655), 210.
Conkling v. Washington Univer-
sity (2 Md. Ch. 497), 1296.
Connecticut v. Chicago, etc. R. R.
(48 Fed. Rep. 177), 2040.
Connecticut v. Emigrant, etc. Bank
(98 Mass. 12), 1682.
Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey
(24 Vt. 465), 270, 346, 353, 356,
357, 358,362, 363, 365, 373, 374,
470, 472, 473, 474, 501, 1916, 1957.
Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v. Baxter
(32 Vt. 805), 285, 287, 305, 374.
Connecticut, etc. Co. v. Cleveland,
etc. Ry. Co., 1274, 1674.
Connecticut, etc. Assn. v. East
Lyme (54 Conn. 152), 724.
Connecticut River Sav. Bk. v.
Fiske (60 N. H. 363), 865, 868,
919, 1080, 1342.
Connecticut, etc. Co. v. Hollister
(50 Atl. Rep. (Conn.) 750), 538.
Connecticut, etc. Co. v. Rockbridge
Co. (73 Fed. Rep. 709), 1780.
Connecticut Mut. etc. Co. v. Sprat
(172 U. S. 602), 2002.
Connelly v. Masonic, etc. Assn.
(58 Conn. 553), 780.
Connelly v. Steer (7 Q. B. Div.
520), 1719.
Conolly V. Sup. Council (131 Cal.
437; 63 Pac. Rep. 727), 205.
Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.
(184 U. S. 540), 1434.
Connor v. Tennessee, etc. Ry. (109
Fed. Rep. 931; 54 L. R. A. 687),
969, 1536, 1591.
Connors v. Aspinwall (21 How.
536), 1683.
Conriff v. Jamour (31 Misc. Rep.
729; 65 N. Y. Supp. 317), 224,
2048.
Conro v. Gray (4 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
166), 1747, 1786, 1962, 1966.
Conro V. Port Henry Iron Co. (12
Barb. (N. Y.) 27), 798, 799, 800,
1090, 1159.
Consolidated Bank v. State (5 La.
Ann. 44), 293.
Consolidated Coal Co. etc. v Peers
(150 111. 344), 1290.
Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Kansas,
etc. Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 204; 45
Fed. Rep. 7), 1161, 1773.
Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Nash (109
Wis. 490), 1171, 1246, 1830.
Consolidated, etc. Co. v. People's,
etc. Co. (94 Ala. 372), 1595, 1611.
Consolidated Gas Co. v. Balti-
more, etc. Co. (57 Atl. Rep.
(Md.) 29), 1880.
Consolidated Tank, etc. Co. v.
Kansas City, etc. Co. (45 Fed.
Rep. 7), 882, 1512.
Const. V. Harrie (Turner & R. Ch.
496), 804.
Consumers', etc. Co. v. Harless
(131 Ind. 446), 1643.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Consumers' Ice Co. v. Webster (32
N. Y. Anp. 592; 53 N. Y. Supp.
56), 882, 2052.
Content v. Metropolitan, etc. Ry.
(37 N. Y. Misc. G18), 1607 1608.
Continental Nat. Bk. v. Eliot Nat.
Bk. (12 Fed. Ren. 35; 13 Fed.
Rep. 494), 582, 629, 964.
Continental Securities v. North-
ern, etc. Co. (57 Atl. Rep (N. J.
Ch.) 876), 253, 1462.
Continental Tel. Co. v. Nelson (49
N. Y. Super. Ct. 197), 427, 517.
Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo,
etc. (86 Fed. Rep. 929), 1182,
1564, 1785.
Contoocook Valley R. Co. v. Bar-
ker (32 N. H. 363), 361, 513.
Contract Corporation, In re
Baker's Case (L. R. 7 Ch. 15),
543, 574.
Converse v. Dimock (22 Fed. Rep.
573), 824.
Converse v. Hood (149 Mass. 471),
805, 821.
Converse v. Norwich, etc. Co. (33
Conn. 166), 1329, 1472.
Converse v. United, etc. Co. (70
N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 444), 812.
Conway v. Duncan (28 Ohio St.
102), 919.
Conway v. John (14 Colo. 30; 23
Pac. Rep. 170; 7 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 437), 610.
Conway v. Smith, etc. Co. (6 Wyo.
468; 46 Pac. Rep. 1084), 1770.
Conwell V. Connersville (15 Ind.
159), 712.
Conyngham's Appeal (57 Pa. St.
474), 586.
Cook V. Berlin Mills (43 Wis.
433), 800, 1106, 1702.
Cook V. Burlington (59 Iowa,
251), 712.
Cook V. Chittenden (25 Fed. Rep.
544), 273, 274, 278, 327, 333.
Cook V. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co. (43
Mich. 349), 1251, 1264, 1833.
Cook V. East Trenton, etc. Co. (53
N. J. Eq. 29), 1783.
Cook V. Emmett, etc. Assn. (90
Md. 284), 2101.
Cook V. Fowler (L. R. 7 H. of L.
27), 1673.
Cook V. Hopkinsville, etc. Co. (32
S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 748), 951.
Cooke V. Marshall (191 Pa. St.
315), 235.
Cook V. Milwaukee, etc. R. Co. (36
Wis. 45), 1571.
Cook V. Sherman (20 Fed. Rep.
167), 796, 797, 1075, 1106.
Cook V. Town of Orange (48 Conn.
401), 1811.
Cook V. Tullis (18 Wall. 332),
1365.
Cook, etc. R. Co. v. Paterson (18
C. B. 414), 283, 1876.
Cooke v. Gwyn (3 Atkinson,
689),
1724.
Cooke V. Marshall (191 Pa. St.
315), 237, 1665.
Cooke V. Pearce (23 S. C. 239),
1134, 1141.
Cooke V. Watson (30 N. J. Eq.
345), 181.
Cookus V. Hollister Min. Co. (92
Wis. 325), 850.
Cooley V. The Board of Port War-
dens (12 How. (U. S.) 299),
1998.
Coolidge V. American, etc. Co. (86
N. Y. S. 318; 91 App. Div. 14),
2017.
Coolidge v. Goddard (77 Me. 579),
550.
Coolidge V. Williams (4 Mass.
140), 1500.
Cooney v. Cooney (65 Barb. 524),
1748.
Coope V. Bowles (28 How. Pr. 10),
1748.
Cooper V. Adel, etc. Co. (122 N. C.
463), 967.
Cooper V. Arctic Ditchers (36 Ind.
233), 1898.
Cooper V. Corbin (105 111. 224),
1863, 1881.
Cooper V. Frederick (9 Ala.
739),
227, 243, 834, 876, 905, 968.
Cooper V. McKee (53 Iowa, 239),
305, 323.
Cooper V. Oriental, etc. Assn.
(100
Pa. 402), 1777, 1968^
Cooper V. Presbvterian Church (32
Barb. 222), 21^4.
Cooper V. Shropshire Union R. etc.
Co. (13 Jur. 443), 470.
Cooper V. Swamp, etc. Co. (2
Murph. (N. C.) 195), 619.
Cooper V. Thompson (13 Blatchf.
434), 283, 1676.
Cooper Hosp. v. City of Camden
(N. J. Sup.: 57 Atl. Rep. (N.
J.) 269), 717.
Cooper Manuf. Co. v. Ferguson
(113 U. S. 727), 1993, 2002, 2006,
2029.
Coopers v. Wolf (15 Ohio St. 523),
1713.
Ixxxii
TABLE OF CASKS.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Cope. Ex parte (1 Sun. N. S. 51),
438.
Cope V. Thame's Haven Dock, etc.
Ry. Co. (3 Ex. 8U), 13:3J.
Copeland v. Johnson Manuf. Co.,
(47 Hun, 237), 1101.
Copeland v. Memphis, etc. Co. (3
Woods. 651; Fed. Cas. No. 3209).
30, 51, 1735, 1870.
Copeland v. North Eastern R. Co.
(G E. & B. 277), 617.
Copes V. Charleston (10 Rich. (S.
C.) 136), 294, 297.
Copley V. Grover, etc. Co. (2
Woods, 494), 1481, 1542.
Copp V. Lamb (12 Me. 312), 982,
994.
Coppage V. Hutton (124 Ind. ^oi;
7 L. R. A. 591), 80, 275, 276, S-'-o.
Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co. (38
Ohio St. 275; 43 Am. Rep. 425),
254, 255, 256, 553, 1284, 128:-,
1286, 1287.
Copsey V. Sacramento Bank (133
Cal. 059), 1755.
Coquard v. Marshall (14 Mo. App.
80), 541.
Coquard v. National, etc. Co. (171
111. 480), 145, 1363, :iS, 1511,
1913, 1951.
Coquard v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (7
S. W. Rep. (Mo.) 176), 519.
Corbett v. State (24 Ga. 287), 1803.
Corbett v. Woodward (5 Sawyer,
403), 1702, 1722.
Corbin v- Washington Co. (1 Mc-
Crary, 527; 3 Fed. Rep. 362),
38.
Corbin & Co. v. Jones (167 N. Y.
158), 858.
Corcoran v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal
Co. (1 MacA. 358), 1679, 1696.
Corcoran v. Snow Cattle Co. (151
Mass. 74), 1162.
Corder v. Com'rs (16 Ohio St. 353),
126.
Corey v. Long (12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.)
427), 1747.
Corey v. Morrill (61 Vt. 598), 79,
1132.
Corey v. Wadworth (99 Ala. 68),
443, 450, 1773.
Corinne Mill, etc. Co. v. Toponce
(152 U. S. 405), 1064.
Cork, etc. R. Co., In re (L. R. 4
Ch. 748), 1335, 1344.
Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cazenove (10
Q. B. 935), 292, 482, 538, 573.
Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Goode (22 L.
J. C. P. 193), 484.
Cork, etc. R. Co. v. Patterson (18
Com. B. 414); Eng. L. & Eq.
398). 470, 1855.
Cormac v. Western White Bronze
Co. (77 Iowa, 32), 468.
Cornell v. Clark (104 N. Y. 451),
1103, 1109.
Cornell v. Hichins (11 Wis. 353),
503.
Cornell v. Roach (101 N. Y. 373).
1144.
Cornell v. Sims (111 Ga. 828),
1520.
Cornell v. Utica, etc. Co. (61 How.
Pr. (N. Y.) 184), 1828.
Cornell's Appeal (114 Pa. St. 153),
950.
Cornell's Case (170 N. Y. 423; 18
Weekly Notes Cas. 289), 292.
Cormick v. Richards (3 Lea
(Tenn.), 1), 582, 584, 963.
Corning v. Green (23 Barb. 33),
2078.
Co^n)^lg v. McCullough (1 N. Y.
47), 471, 846, 851, 910, 948.
Corning v. Mohawk Valley Ins. Co.
(11 How. Pr. 191), 898.
Corrigan v. Young, etc. Soc. (65
Barb. 357), 772, 778, 783.
Corry v. Londonderry, etc. Ry. Co.
(29 Beav. 263), 663, 670, 672.
Corwith V. Culver (69 111. 502),
366.
Cory V. Lee (93 Ala. 468), 174,
878, 882.
Cosenback v. Salt Springs Nat.
Bank (53 Barb. 506), 1957.
Cosgray v. New England, etc. Co.
(22 N. Y. App. Div. 455), 1178,
1532.
Cotting v. Kansas City, etc. Co.
(183 U. S. 79), 1392, 1394, 1657.
Gotten v. Leon County
(6
Fla.
610), 297.
Cotton V. Miss. etc. Boom Co. (22
Minn. 372), 22, 96, 1313, 1817,
1818.
Cotheal v. Brouwer (5 N. Y. 562;
10 Barb. 216), 139.
Cottage St. Church v. Kendall (121
Mass. 528), 272.
Cottam V. Eastern Counties Rail-
way Co. (1 John. & H. 243), 417,
596.
Coughron v. Swift (18 111. 414),
1747.
Coulter v. Weir (127 Fed. Rep.
(Ky.) 897), 698.
Coulter V. Robertson (24 Miss.
278), 1979, 19S0.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Council, etc. Ry. v. Lawrence (3
Kan. App. 274), 1967.
County V. Brinton (47 Pa. St. 307),
297.
County Attorney v. May (5
Cush.
366), 1925.
County Court v. Baltimore, etc.
R. Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 161), 976,
980, 1106, 1112.
County Court v. Griswold (58 Mo.
175), 126.
County Life Assur. Co., In re (L.
R. 5 Ch. 288), 1297.
County Marine Ins. Co., In re (L.
R. 6 Ch. 104), 636.
County of Allegheny v. Cleveland,
etc. R. Co. (51 Pa. St. 228), 2008.
County of Cass v. Gillett (100 U.
S. 585), 299.
County of Macon v. Shores (97
U. S. 272), 1958.
County of Morgan v. Allen (103
U. S. 49S), 903.
County of Moulton v. Rockingham,
etc. Bank (92 U. S. 031), 42.
County of Ralls v. Douglass (105
U. S. 628), 42.
County of San Mateo v. Southern
Pacific R. Co., "The Railroad
Tax Cases" (8 Sawy. 238, 279;
13 Fed. Rep. 722), 99, 107.
County of Schuylkill v. Copley
(67 Pa. St. 386), 333, 341.
County of Schuyler v. Thomas
(98 U. S. 169), 299.
County of Tipton v. Locomotive
Works (103 U. S. 523), 299.
County of Warren v. Marcy
(97
U. S. 96), 1684.
County Palatine, etc. Co., In re
(43 L. J. Eq. 588), 1088.
Coupland v. Challis (2 Ex. 682),
379.
Court Grange Manufacturing Co.,
In re (2 Jur. (N. S.) 494),
1122.
Courtois V. Harrison (12 How. Pr.
359), 903.
Courtright v. Strickler (37 Iowa,
382), 285, 323.
Couse V. Columbia, etc. Co. (33
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 297), 1248.
Cou?ins V. Smith (13 Ves. 544),
2079.
Covell V. Heyman (111 U. S. 176),
1747.
Covenant Mut., etc. v. Keistner
(188 111. 431), 215.
Covenant Mut. v. Spiess (114 111.
463; 2 N. E. Rep. 482), 224, 2069.
Covenant Mut. v. Tuttle (87 111.
App. 309), 197.
Covington, etc. Bridge Co. v. Mayer
(31 Ohio St. 317), 990, 991, 1975.
Coventry v. Great Eastern Ry. Co.
(11 Q. B. Div. 776), 615.
Cover V. Manawav (115 Pa. St.
338), 545, 559, 5G0, 907, 945.
Coverdale v. Edvv'ards (155 Ind.
374), 1611.
Covert V. Rogers (38 Mich. 363),
981.
Covington v. Covington (21 Fed.
Rep. 484), 663, 665.
Covington Bridge Co. v. Ken-
tucky (154 U. S. 204), 1382, 1555,
1653.
Covington, etc. Co. v. Sanford (164
U. S. 578), 9, 1383, 1392, 1658,
1762
Covington, etc. Co. v. Shepherd
(20 How. 227; 21 How. 112),
2010.
Covington Plank Road v. Moore
(3 Ind. 510), 149.
Cowan V. New York Exc. Club
(61 N. Y. Supp. 714), 214.
Cowan V. Plate Glass Co. (184 Pa.
St. 1), 1977.
Cowan V. Western U. T. Co. (98
N. W. Rep. (Iowa), 281), 1626.
Cowden v. Pacific, etc. Co. (94 Cal.
470), 1655.
Cowdrey v. Galveston, etc. R. Co.
(1 Woods, 331), 1727.
Cowdrey v. Railroad Co. (93 U. S.
352), 1072, 1728, 1749.
Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co.
(100 U. S. 55), 1988, 1999, 2005.
Cowles V. Cromwell (25 Barb.
413), 545, 548, 889, 891.
Cowles V. Mercer Co. (7 Wall.
118), 2010.
Cowley V. Grand Rapids, etc. R.
Co. (13 Ind. -61), 466.
Cowley V. Smith (46 N. J. L. 380),
1153.
Cox V. Bodfish (35 Me. 302), 8,
2090.
Cox V. Cummings (33 Ga. 549),
1321.
Cox V. Midland Counties Ry. Co.
(3 Ex. 268), 1082.
Cox V. Robinson (82 Fed. Rep.
277), 1198.
Cox V. Stokes (156 N. Y. 491),
1758, 1831.
Coxe V. Hart (53 Mich. 557), 819.
Coxe V. Huntsville, etc. Co. (129
Ala. 496), 818, 1026.
Ixxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Coxe V. State (144 N. Y. 29G; 21
N. E. Rep. 400), 158.
Coxe's Estate, In re (193 Pa. St.
100), 746.
Cox's Case (4 De G., J. & S. 53),
551.
Coy V.
Indianapolis, etc. Co. (146
Ind. 665; 36 L.. R. A. 535), 1385,
1387.
Coyote Gold, etc. Co. v. Ruble (8
Oreg. 284), 623.
Coyt V. N. C. etc. Co. (14 Fed. Rep.
12), 443.
Co/art V. Georgia R. Co. (54 Ga.
379), 1329.
Cozzens v. Chicago etc. Co. (166
111. 213), 1527.
Cozzens, etc. Co. v. Western, etc.
Co. (112 111. App. 309),
1188.
Crafford v. Warwick Co. (87 Va.
110; 10 L. R. A. 129), 9.
Craft V. McConoiighy (79 111. 346),
1416, 1426, 1450, 1472.
Craft V. Powel (Comyn's Rep.
609), 1032.
Craft V. South Boston R. Co. (150
Mass. 207), 411, 1209.
Craft V. Tuttle (27 Ind. 332), 712.
Cragie v. Hadley (99 N. Y. 131;
52 Am. Rep. 9), 1486, 1500.
Craig V. First Presb. Church (88
Pa. St. 42), 1017, 1019, 1026.
Craig V. Hesperia, etc. Co. (113
Cal. 7; 35 L. R. A. 306), 238,
385, 548.
CrsJg V. James (71 N. Y. App. Div.
238), 1536, 1606, 1793.
Craig Silver Co. v. Smith (163
Mass. 262), 989.
Craig V. Vicksburg (31 Miss. 216),
1674, 1675.
Craig's Appeal (92 Pa. St. 396),
864.
Grain v. Easterly (54 N. Y. 679),
1044.
Cramer v. Bird (L. R. 6 Ex. 143),
815, 821, 1956.
Crampton v. Varna Ry. Co. (7 Ch.
5C2), 1331.
Crandall v. Lincoln (52 Conn. 73),
245, 250, 256, 335, 446, 553, 554,
570, 571, 573.
Crandall v. Nevada (6 Wall.
35),
758.
Crane v. Indiana, etc. Ry, Co. (59
Ind. 165), 323.
Crane & Co. v. Fry (126 Fed. Rep.
(W. Va.) 278), 1844.
Crane, etc. Manuf. Co. v. Reed.
(3
Utah, 506), 1524.
Crane & Co. v. Specht (39 Neb.
123; 42 Am. St. Rep. 562), 130.
Cravens v. Carter Grume Co. (92
Fed. Rep. 479), 1428.
Cravens v. Eagle, etc. Co. (120 Ind.
600), 80, 1528.
Craw v. Easterly (54 N. Y. 679),
973.
Crawford v. Branch Bank of Mo-
bile (7 How. 274), 45.
Crawford v. Dox (5 Hun, 507),
600.
Crawford v. Gross (140 Pa. St.
297), 1032, 2051, 2089, 2118.
Crawford v. Longstreet (43 N. J.
L. 325), 1234, 1235.
Crawford v. North Eastern, etc.
R. Co. (3 Jur. (N. S.) 1073),
670, 672.
Crawford v. Provincial Insurance
Co. (8 U. C. C. P. 263). 589,
591, 615.
Crawford v. Rohrer (59 Md. 599),
427, 429, 430, 460, 477, 899, 900.
Crawford v. Wick (18 Ohio St.
190), 1416.
Crawford County v. Pittsburg, etc.
R. Co. (32 Pa. St. 141), 317, 355.
Crawshay v. Soutter (6 Wall.
(U. S.) 731), 1826, 1828.
Crease v. Babcock (23 Pick (40
Mass.) 334), 103, 104, 105, 106,
175, 553, 562, 568, 585, 854, 886,
890, 900, 909, 910, 911, 916, 1013,
1898, 1900, 1970.
Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central R.
Co. (15 Fed. Rep. 46), 1727, 1728,
1737, 1828.
Credit Co. Limited v. Howe Ma-
chine Co. (54 Conn. 357), 1077,
1078, 1207, 1272.
Credit Foncier, In re (L. R. 11 Eq.
356), 243.
Cree v. Somervail (4 App. Cas.
648), 570.
Cremen v. Hawkes (2 Jones & Lat.
674), 1747.
Crenshaw v. Ullman (113 Mo.
633), 160.
Crescent City, etc. Co. v. Deblieux
(40 La. Ann. 155), 693, 964.
Crescent City, etc. Co. v. Illinois
(32 La. Ann. 934), 1402.
Crescent City R. R. Co. v. New Or-
leans, etc. R. R. Co. (48 La. Ann.
856), 1312.
Cresswell v. Oberly (17 Bradw.
(111.) 281), 84. 85, 172.
Crew V. Breed (10 Mete. (51
Mass.) 569), 568.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Creyke's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. 63),
942.
Cribb V. Waycross Lumber Co. (82
Ga. 597), 1526.
Crickmer's Case (L. R. 10 Ch.. App.
614), 559.
Crittenden v. Southern Home (111
Ga. 266),
Crocker v. Crane (21 "Wend. (N.
Y.) 211; 34 Am. Dec. 228), 66,
280, 281, 288, 289, 291.
Crocker v. Crocker (31 N. Y. 507),
417.
Crocker v. Old Colony R. Co. (137
Mass. 417). 572, 602.
Crocker v. Whitney (71 N. Y. 161),
1371.
Crofoot V. Thatcher (19 Utah,
212), 950.
Croft V. McConoughy (79 111. 339),
1418.
Croker v. Crane (21 Wend. 211),
350.
Croll V. Empire Co. (17 N. Y. App.
Div. 282; 45 N. Y. Supp. 680),
1766.
Cromwell v. Sac County (96 U. S.
51), 1673, 1681. 1683, 1690.
Cromford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lacey
(3 Y. & J. 80), 376.
Cronin v. Potters Co-op. Co. (29
Weekly Law Bull. 52), 35.
Cropper, Ex parte (1 De Gex, M.
& G. 147), 1335.
Crosby v. Hanover (36 N. H. 404),
1301, 1318. 1658.
Crosby v. New London, etc. Ry.
Co. (26 Conn. 121), 1683.
Cross V. Eureka Lake & Yuba
Canal Co. (73 Cal. 302), 582,
584.
Cross V. Evans (86 Fed. Rep. 1),
1802.
Cross V. Jackson (5 Hill, 478),
2084, 2092.
Cross V. Peach Bottom Ry. Co.
(97 Pa. St. 392), 108, 111.
Cross V. Phoenix Bank (1 R. I. 39),
693.
Cross V. Railroad Co. (35 Vf. Va.
172), 1385.
Cross V. Sackett (16 How. Pr.
62; 6 Abb. Pr. 247; 2 Bosw. 617),
436, 550, 577, 1121.
Cross V. West Virginia (37 W. Va.
342), 189.
Crouch V. Credit Foncier (L. R.
8 Q. B. 374), 1677, 1683.
Crowder v. Sullivan (128 Ind.
486), 1610.
Crown V. Brainerd (57 Vt. 625),
1125.
Crown Bank, In re (44 Ch. Div,
634), 85, 1955.
Crown, etc. Co. v. Thomas (177 111.
534), 183L
Crowther v. Appleby (L. R. 9 C. P.
27), 1534.
Croxton's Case (1 De G., M. & G.
600), 546.
Crubb v. Miller (19 Week. Rep.
519), 547.
Crum's Apoeal (66 Pa. St. 474),
1169, 2087.
Crumlisli's Adm'r v. Shenandoah,
etc. Co. (28 W. Va. 623), 1074.
1360, 1814.
Crumlish's Adm'r v. Central Imp.
Co. (38 W. Va. 390; 23 L. R. A.
120), 1071.
Crump v. U. S. Min. Co. (7 Gratt.
362), 68, 364, 370, 374, 1253, 1916,
1957.
Cruse v. Paine (L. R. 6 Eq. 641),
568, 888.
Crutcher v. Kentucky (141 U. S.
47). 758, 1993.
Crystal, etc. Co. v. State (23 Tex.
Civ. App. 293), 1428.
Cucullu v. Union Ins. Co. (2 Rob.
(La.) 573), 459, 460, 496. 498,
968.
Cuddee v. Rutter (1 P. Wms. 570),
576.
Cudden v. Estwick (6 Mod. 124),
187.
Culbertson v. Wabash Naviga-
tion Company (4 McLean, 544),
991.
Cullen V. Queensberry (1
Bro. C.
C. 101), 2079.
Culpepper, etc. Soc. v. Digges (6
Rand. (Va.) 165; 10 Am. Dec.
708), 125, 126.
Culver V. Pocono, etc. Co. (206 Pa.
St. 481), 1208.
Culver V. Reno, etc. Co. (91 Pa. St.
367), 679.
Culver V. Sanford (8 Barb. 225),
2092.
Culver T. Third Nat. Bank (64 111.
528), 867, 868, 902, 910.
Cumberland Coal Co. Sherman (30
Barb. 553), 1020, 1107, 1159,
1185.
Cumberland County v. Randolph
(89 Va. 614), 1593.
Cumberland, etc. R. v. Barren
County (10 Push (Ky.), 604),
267, 299.
Ixxxvi
TAHLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Cumberland, etc. Co. v. City of
Evansvillo (127
Fed. Rep. 187),
1325, 1622.
Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Clinton,
etc. Co. (57 N. J. Eq. 627), 1793.
Cumberland College v. Ish (22 Cal.
641), 1884.
Cumberland, etc. v. Morgan's, etc.
R. R. (51 La. Ann. 29),
1019.
Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Parish (42
Md. 598), 1099.
Cumberland, etc. Corp. v. City of
Portland (56 Me. 77), 712, 1546.
Cumberland, etc. Co. v.
Sherman
(30 Barb. (N. Y.) 553), 1702,
1760.
Cumberland, etc. Co. v. Turner
(88 Tenn. 265), 2025.
Cumberland, etc. Co. v. U. S.
Electric Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 273;
12 L. R. A. 544), 1615.
Cumberland Valley R. Co. v. Baab
9 Watts, 458; 36 Am. Dec. 132),
305.
Cumberland Valley R. R. Co. v.
Gettysburg, etc. Ry. Co. (177
Pa. St. 519), 1583.
Cuming v. Boswell (2 Jur. (N. S.)
1005), 647.
Cumings v. Sawyer (117 Mass.
30), 2125.
Cumm.ings v. Prescott (2 Younge
& C. 488), 1044.
Cummings v. Bank (101 U. S.
153), 743.
Cummings v. American Gear, etc.
Co. (27 Hun, 598; 34 N. Y. Supp.
541), 1512.
Cummings v. Union, etc. Co. (164
N. Y. 401), 1428.
Cummings v. Webster (43 Me.
192), 205, 206.
Cummings v. City of Williamsport
(84 Fa. St. 473), 1322.
Cummings v. Wright (11 Mo. App.
348), 566.
Cummins v. Des Moines, etc. Ry.
Co. (63 Iowa, 397), 1322.
Cunningham v. Alabama, etc. Co.
(4 Ala. 653), 190.
Cunningham v. Campbell (33 Ga.
625), 1321.
Cunningham v. City of Cleveland
98 Fed. Rep. 657), 183, 897, 1647.
Cunningham v. Cunningham (78
Mass. 411), 662.
Cunningham v. Edgefield, etc. R.
Co. (2 Head (Tenn.), 23, 362,
364, 368.
Cunningham v. City of Glasgow
Bank (L. R. 4 App. Cas. 607),
571.
Cunningham v. Macon, etc. R. R.
(156 U. S. 400), 1707, 1739.
Cunningham v. Pell (5 Paige,
607), 1125.
Cunningham v. Vermont, etc. R.
Co. (78 Mass. (12 Gray) 411),
665.
Cunningham's Appeal (108 Pa. St.
546), 653.
Cupit V. Park City Bank (20 Utah,
292), 17G7.
Cupps V. Hastings, etc. Co. (40
Neb. 470; 58 Neb. 956; 42 Am.
St. Rep. 677), 3.
Curd V. Wallace (7 Dana (Ky.),
190; 32 Am. Dec. 85), 2077, 2118.
Curien v. Santini (16 La. Ann.
27), 1949, 1956.
Curran v. Arkansas (15 How.
Pr. 304), 447, 449, 564, 678, 1129,
1702, 1978.
Curran v. State (15 How. 310),
645, 671, 1971, 1975, 1977, 1979.
Currie v. Bowman (25 Oreg. 364;
35 Pac. Rep. 848), 1770.
Currie v. White (45 N. Y. 822),
628, 631.
Currie v. Continental (53 N. H.
538), 232.
Currien v. Lebanon Slate Co.
"(56
N. H. 262), 239, 248, 252, 254,
255, 475, 554, 1285.
Currier v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(35 Hun, 355), 825, 826.
Currie's Case (3 De G., J. & S.
367), 427, 515.
Curry v. Scott (54 Pa. St. 270), 67,
240, 241.
Curry v. Woodward (44 Ala. 305),
449, 459, 485, 488, 489, 496, 497,
498, 625, 898, 899, 900, 967, 1002,
1129, 1961.
Curry Hotel Co. v. Mullins (93
Mich. 318), 271.
Curtin v. Salmon, etc. Co. (130
Cal. 345), 976, 1701.
Curtis V. Butler County (24 How.
435), 296.
Curtis V. Crossley
(59 N. J. Eq.
358), 539.
Curtis V. Harlow (53 Mass. 3),
887, 891, 893.
Curtis V. Leavitt (15 N. Y. 9),
1230, 1270, 1343, 1670, 1700, 1747.
Curtis V. Lewis (15 Atl. Rep.
(Conn.) 878), 1720.
Curtis V. McUhenny
(5 Jones Eq.
(N. C.) 290), 1748.
TABLE OF CASES. IXXXVll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Curtis V. Producers' Oil Co. (182
Pa. St. 551), 1027.
Curtis V. Steven (36 N. J. L. 304),
292 955.
Curtis V. Tracy (169 111. 233), 156.
Curtis' Case (L. R. 6 Eq. 455),
557, 887.
Curtis V. Butler County (24 How.
425), 504.
Cushman v. Bonfield (139 111.
219), 1758, 1761.
Cushman v. Shepherd (4 Barb.
113), 907.
Cushman v. Thayer Manuf. Co.
(76 N. y. 365), 379, 612, 614,
615, 617, 618.
Custar V. Titusville Gas & Water
Co. (63 Pa. St. 381), 359, 361,
374, 489.
Cutright
V. Stanford (81 III. 240),
862.
Cutter V. Estate of Thomas (25
Vt. 73), 2092.
Cutter V. Gudebrod, etc. Co. (44
N. Y. App. Div. 605), 124.
Cutter V. Iowa, etc. Co. (96 Fed.
Rep. 777), 1829.
Cutting V. Baltimore, etc. R. R.
(35 N. Y. Misc. 616), 1759.
Cutting V. Damerel (88 N. Y. 410),
390, 556, 569, 592, 884, 887, 174S,
1795.
Cuykendall v. Corning
(88 N. Y.
129), 846, 1795.
Cuykendall v. Miles (10 Fed. Rep.
342), 903.
D.
Daconing v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(43 Iowa, 96), 1573.
Dade Coal Co. v. Ha.slett (83 Ga.
549), 1508.
Dady v. O'Rourke (172 N. Y. 447),
936.
Daggett V. Davis (53 Mich. 35),
387.
Dail V. Mt. Sterling, etc. Co. (13
Bush (Ky.), 32), 360.
Daland v. Williams (101 Mass.
571), 649.
Dale V. Donaldson L. Co. (48 Ark.
188), 1167, 1203.
Dale V. Grant (34 L. J. 132), 814.
Dallas V. Columbia, etc. Co. (158
Pa. St. 444), 1163.
Dallas, etc. R. R. Co. v. Maddox
(31 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 709), 1561.
Dalton V. Midland Counties Ry.
Co. (12 C. B. 474), 292, 412, 600,
625, 642.
Dalton V. Milwaukee (118 Fed.
Rep. 876), 2039.
Dalton City Co. v. Dalton Manuf.
Co. (33 Ga. 343), 1293.
Dalton, etc. Co. v. McDaniel (56
Ga. 191), 447, 459, 460, 496, 900,
903.
Daly V. National, etc. Co. (64 Ind.
1), 26, 1663, 2011.
Daly V. Thompson (10 Mees. & W.
309), 420.
Dammert v. Osburn (140 N. Y.
30), 160.
Dana v. Bank of United States
(5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 223), 799,
807, 1084, 1091, 1244.
Dana v. Binney
(7 Vt. 501), 1755.
Dana v. Fiedler (12 N. Y. 40),
672, 675.
Danbury Cornet Band v. Bean (54
N. H. 524), 2083.
Danbury, etc. R. Co. v. Wilson (22
Conn. 435), 110, 115, 243, 291,
312, 342, 343, 345, 461, 462, 464,
471, 473, 478, 479, 501, 1206.
Dane v. Dane Manuf. Co. (80 Mass.
(14 Gray) 488), 570, 842.
Dane v. Young (61 Me. 160), 219,
555, 588, 591, 854, 876, 878, 886,
889, 930, 1796.
Danforth v. Penny
(3 Mete. (44
Mass.) 564), 177.
Danforth v. Philadelphia, etc. Ry.
Co. (30 N. J. Eq. 12), 576.
Daniel, Ex parte (1 De G. & J.
372),
Daniell's Case (22 Beav. 43), 435,
553.
Daniel v. Gold Hill, etc. Co. (68
Pac. Rep. (Wash.) 884), 957.
Daniel v. Wood (1 Pick. (18
Mass.) 102), 2132.
Daniels v. Hart (118 Mass. 543),
1577, 1699, 1705, 1710, 1711.
Daniels v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (62
Mo. 43), 1762, 1884, 1890.
Danielson v. Yoakum (116 Cal.
382), 546.
Daniher v. Grand Lodge (10
Utah, 110; 37 Pac. Rep. 245),
233.
Dannemeyer v. Coleman (11 Fed.
Rep. 9; 8 Sawy. 51), 822, 824.
Danville Banking Co. v. Parks (88
111. 170), 712.
Danville Bridge v. Pomroy (15 Pa.
St. 151), 1159.
Ixxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II. C21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Danville, etc. Co. v. Kase (39 Atl.
Rep. (Pa.) 301), 1185.
Danville v.
Watldns (97 Va. 713),
1G27.
Danville
Seminary v. Mott (136
111. 289), 132, 133, 1978, 1980,
1982
Darcy V.
Allien (11 Coke, 85),
1416, 1426.
D'Arcy v. Tamar, etc. Ry. Co. (L.
R. 2 Exch. 158), 973, 975, 977,
1055.
Darling v. Berry (4 McCrary, 485;
13 Fed. Rep. 570), 39.
Darlington v. United States (82
Pa. St. 389), 1306, 1316.
Darlington Forge Co., In re (L. R.
34 Ch. D. 522), 441.
Darnell v. State (48 Ark. 321),
101, 1908, 1927, 1937.
Darner v. Gatewood (89 N. W.
Rep. (Neb.) 603), 1790.
Darragh v. Wetter Manufacturing
Co. (78 Fed. Rep. 7), 1511, 1778,
1783.
Darst V. Gale (83 111. 136), 1169,
1329.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
(17 U. S. 636; 4 Wheat. 518),
13, 14, 18, 19, 36, 37, 38, 41, 48,
49, 56, 67, 68, 70, 1240, 1338, 1383,
1384, 2121.
Dater v. Bank of United States
(5 Watts & S. (Pa.) 223), 1242.
Dauchy v. Brown (24 Vt. 197),
835, 842, 851. 862, 863.
Davelaar v. Blue, etc. Co. (110
Wis. 470), 1783.
Davenport v. Alabama, etc. Ry.
(2 Woods, 519), 1748.
Davenport v. Gifford (47 Iowa,
575), 541.
Davenrort v. Lines (72 Conn. 118),
637, 1792.
Davenport, etc. R. Co. v. O'Connor
(40 Iowa, 477), 323.
Davenport v. Peoria, etc. Co. (17
Iowa, 276), 133.
Davidson's Case (3 De G. & S. 21),
358.
Davidson v. Grange (4 Grant's Ch.
(Up. Can.) 377), 1024.
Davidson v. New Orleans (96 U.
S. 97), 710.
Davidson v. Ramsay County (18
Minn. 482). 297.
Davidson v. Rankin (34 Cal. 503),
842, 868, 890, 949.
Davidson v. Westchester Gas L.
Co. (99 N. Y. 558), 1702.
Davies v. Hawkins (3 Maule &
Sel. 488), 2049.
Davles. Matter of (168 N. Y. 89;
56 L. R. A. 855), 1428, 1434.
Daviess County v. Huidelioper (98
U. S. 98), 295, 1592.
Davies v. Monroe, etc. Co. (107
I^. Ann. 145), 1246, 1247.
Davis, Ex parte (3 Ch. Div. 463),
565.
Davis V. Bank of England (1
Macn. & G. 481; 2 Ring. 393),
417, 419, 597, 607, 612, 614, 631,
642, 644.
Davis V. Bradford (58 N. H. 476),
2079.
Davis V. Dumont (37 Iowa, 47),
364, 374.
Davis V. East Tennesee, etc. R.
Co. (1 Sneed (Tenn.), 94), 1314.
Davis V. Essex Baptist Soc. (44
Conn. 582), 563, 570, 889.
Davis V. Gemmell (70 Md. 356),
824, 825, 826, 1193.
Davis V. Goodman (5 C. P. Div.
128), 1719.
Davis V. Gray (16 Wall. 232), 38,
40, 1728, 1737, 1748, 1799.
Davis V. Haycock (L. R. 4 Ex.
373), 468.
Davis V. Jackson (152 Mass. 58),
649.
Davis v. Marlborough (2 Swanst.
125), 1747.
Davis V. Maj^or (1 Duer (N. Y.),
451), 1648.
Davis V. Memphis Ry. Co. (87 Ala.
633; 22 Fed. Rep. 883), 1101,
1193, 1884.
Davis v. Mills (99 Fed. Rep. 39;
113 Fed. Rep. 678), 848, 849,
1135.
Davis v. Old Colony R. Co. (131
Mass. 258; 41 Am. Rep. 221),
1229, 1230. 1298, 1325, 1326, 1346,
1348, 1355, 1377, 1586.
Davis V. Proprietors, etc. (8 Mete.
(Ky.) 321), 663, 674.
Davis V. Providence, etc. R. Co.
(121 Mass. 134), 1570, 1571.
Davis v. Rock Creek, etc. Co. (55
Cal. 359), 1101, 1108.
Davis Sewing M. Co. v. Best (30
Hun, 638), 1269.
Davis V. Stevens (17 Blatchf. 259),
552, 880, 884.
Davis V. Thomas A. Davis Co. (52
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 717), 1066.
Davis V. United States, etc. Co.
(77 Md. 35), 1463.
TABLE OF CASES. Ixxxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Til, 1507-2134.]
Davis V. Vernon, etc. Co. (103 Ga.
491), 1902.
Davis' Estate v. Watkins (56 Neb.
288), 856.
Davis, etc. Co. v. Dix (64 Fed. Rep.
406), 1986.
Davison v. Holden (55 Conn. 103),
2073, 2075, 2086.
Davone v. Fanning (2
Johns. Ch.
252), 1106.
Dawes' Case (L. R. 6 Eq. 232), 942.
Dawes v. Sliip (L. R. 3 H. L. 343),
114.
Dawli;ins v. Antrobus (11 R. 17 Ch.
D. 615), 771, 777, 786, 2059.
Day V. American Tel., etc. Co. (N.
Y. Daily Reg., July 18, 1885),
417.
Day V. Day (1 Dr. & Sm. 261; 6
Jur. N. S. 365), 567.
Day V. Holmes (103 Mass. 306),
584.
Day V. Mill-Owners,' etc. Ins. Co.
(75 Iowa, 694), 116.
Day V. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. R. Co.
(107 N. Y. 129), 1551, 1718, 1905,
1945.
Day V. Newark, etc. Mfg. Co. (1
Blatchf. 628), 987.
Day V. Spiral, etc. Co. (57 Mich.
146; 58 Am. Rep. 352), 1330,
1332, 1343.
Day V. Worcester, etc. R. Co. (151
Mass. 302; 23 N. E. 724), 1876,
1877, 1878.
Davton v. Borst (31 N. Y. 435),
276, 446, 472, 899, 1748, 1796..
Dayton Bank v. IMerchants' Bank
(37 Ohio St. 208), 616.
Dayton, etc. Co. v. Coy (13 Ohio
St. 84), 359.
Dayton, etc. Co. v. Falsenthall
(116 Fed. Rep. 961), 1801.
Dayton, etc. R. Co. v. Hatch (1
Disnev (Ohio), 84), 110, 114,
324, 799, 2092.
Deaderick v. Wilson (8 Baxt.
(Tenn.) 108), 138, 826, 1861.
Deadwood, etc. Bank v. Gastin
Minerva, etc. Co. (42 Minn.
327), 434.
Dean v. Biggs (25 Hun, 122),
447, 498, 873. 898, 968, 1714.
Dean v. Bennett (L. R. 6 Ch. 489),
774, 785, 2055, 2058.
Dean v. Davis (51 Cal. 406), 64.
Dean v. De Wolf (16 Hun, 186),
859.
Dean v. La Motte Lead Co. (59
Mo. 523), 103, 129, 1250, 1819.
g
Dean v. Mace (19 Hun, 391), 864.
Dean v. Ross (125 Cal. 227), 1197.
Deansville Cemetery, In re (66 N.
Y. 569), 1665.
Dearden v. Townsend (L. R. I.
Q. B. 10), 223.
De Betz, Ex parte (9 Abb. N. Cas.
246), 1737.
Debnam v. Southern, etc. Co. (126
N. C. 831), 2011.
De Bost V. Albert Palmer Co. (35
Hun, 386), 1078.
De Camp v. Alward (52 Ind. 468),
1244, 1953, 1954.
De Camp v. Eveland (19 Barb.
81), 105, 106, 1900.
De Camp v. Railroad Co. (47 N.
J. L. 44), 1305.
De Castro v. Compagnie, etc. (85
Hun, 231; 155 N. Y. 688), 1630.
Decatur Mineral Land Co. v. Palm
(113 Ala. 531), 1071.
De Caumont v. Bogert (36 Hun,
382), 537.
Decker v. Evansville, etc. Ry.
Co. (133 Ind. 493), 1655.
Decker v. Gardner (124 N. Y.
334), 1748, 1781, 1785.
Deckson v. Swansea Vale Ry. Co.
(L. R. 4 Q. B. 44), 1678.
Dedham Bank v. Chickering
(3
Pick. (20 Mass.) 335), 68.
Deering, In re (93 N. Y. 361),
1100.
Defiance, etc. Co. v. City of De-
fiance (100 Fed. Rep. 178),
1734.
De Gendre v. Kent (L. R. 4 Eq.
Cas. 283), 638.
De Graff v. Thompson (24 Minn.
452), 1717.
De Graff v. American, etc. Co. (21
N. Y. 124), 1329, 1342, 1344.
De Groot v. Jay (30
Barb. 483),
1799.
De Kay v. Voorhis (36 N. J. Eq.
37), 391, 392.
Delabere v. Norwood (3 Swanst.
144), 1738.
Delacy v. Neuse River, etc. Co. (1
Hawks (N. C.) 274), 780, 787,
2061.
Delafield v. Illinois (2 Hill, 177),
1679.
Delancey v. Insurance Co. (52 N.
Y. 581), 60.
Deland v. Williams (101 Mass.
571), 247.
Delaney v. Mansfield (1 Hog. 234),
1747.
xc
TABLE OF CASES.
IRcforcnccs are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II. 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Dolano v. Butler (118 U. S. 634),
87G. 926.
Delano v. Case (121 111. 247),
1100, 1125.
Delano V. Rice (23 N. Y. App. Div.
327), 1030.
Delano v. Smith Charities (138
Mass. 63), 1047.
Delaunay v. Strickland ( 2 Star-
Ide, 416), 2075, 2076.
De la Vergne. .etc. CO; v. Gprman,
etc. Inst. (175 U. S. 40), 791, 792,
1187, 1246, 1280, 1463.
Delaware Canal Co. v. Sansom (1
Binn. (Pa.) 70), 477, 888.
Delaware, etc. Canal Co. v. Com.
(50 Pa. St. 399), 1231, 1763.
Delaware, etc. Co. v. Com. (60 Pa.
St. 367: 100 Am. Dec. 570),
1489, 1540, 1541, 1545.
Delaware, etc. Co. v. Camden, etc.
Co. (16 N. J. Eq. 321), 1951.
Delaware, etc. Co. v. Committee,
etc. (50 Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 452),
1618.
Delaware, etc. Iils. Co. v. Wagner
(56 Minn. 240), 1664.
Delaware, etc. R. Co. v. Irick (23
N. J. 321), 113.
Delaware, etc. Co. v. Oxford Iron
Co. (38 N. J. Eq. 340), 190, 227,
1715.
Delaware, etc. R. R. v. Central,
etc. Co. (45 N. J. Eq.), 1657.
Delaware, etc. T. Co. v. State (50
Fed. Rep. 677), 1623.
Delaware R. Co. v. Cox (18 Wall.
206), 1874.
Delaware R. Co. v. Thorp
(1
Houst. (Del.) 149), 109, 323.
Delaware R. R. Tax Cases (IS
Wall. (U. S.) 206), 61, 719, 721,
737, 763, 1873.
Delaware River R. Co. v. Rowland
(9 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 929), 350.
Delmas v. Insurance Co. (14 Wall.
661), 40, 43.
Deller v. Staten Island Athletic
Club (9 N. Y. Supp. 876), 2050.
De Lery v. Rogers (71 N. Y. App.
Div. 99; 75 N. Y. Supp. 513),
1213.
Delta Lumber Co. v. Williams (73
Mich.
86), 1208, 1661.
Dempster v. Rosehill, etc. Co. (206
111. 261), 810.
De Mony v. Johnston (7 Ala.
51),
498, 968.
Deming v. Bull (10 Conn. 409),
887, 893, 908.
Demarest v. Flack (128 N. Y. 205;
13 L. R. A. 854-). 75, 173, 177,
185, 879, 882, 1184.
Dennistown v. New York, etc. R.
Co. (1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 62), 1871.
Dennison v. Austin (15 Wis. 334),
1055.
Dennis v. First Nat. Bank, etc.
(127 Cal. 453), 970, 1537.
Dennis v. Joslyn Manuf. Co. (19
R. I. 666; 61 Am. St. Rep.
805),
138, 971. 973.
Dennis v. Kennedy (19 Barb. 517),
263. 2078, 2081, 2087.
Dennis v. Superior Court (91 Cal.
548), 849.
Denike v. N. Y., etc. Lime Co. (80
N. Y. 599), 1909, 1924, 1948,
1949, 1951, 1955.
Denniston v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(4 Biss. 414; 7 Fed. Cas. 482),
1725, 1728.
Denny v. Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co.
(28 Ohio St. 108, 118), 1696.
Denny v. Cole (22 Wash. 372; 61
Pac. Rep. 38), 1798.
Denny v. Lyon (38 Pa. St. 98),
541.
Denny v. Manhattan Co. (2 Denio,
115), 1126.
Denny Hotel v. Schram (6 Wash.
134; 36 Am. St. Rep. 130), 8_5.
Densmore Oil Co. v. Densmore
"(64
Pa. St. 43), 81, 152, 1218, 1219,
1220, 1221.
Dent V. London Tramways Com-
pany (L. R. 16 Ch. D. 344), 635,
643, 673.
Dent V. Nickalls (29 L. J. Ch.
536), 2113.
Dent V. Matteson (70 Minn. 519),
567.
Denton v. International Co. (36
Fed. Rep. 1; 13 Sawyer, 355),
2040.
Denton v. Ontario Co. Nat. Bank
(150 N. Y. 126), 1730, 1737.
Dent's Case (L. R. 15 Eq. 407)^
441, 506.
Dent's and Forbes' Case (L. R.
H. Ch. 768), 1052.
Denver Chamber of Com. v.
Green (8 Colo. App. 420), 769,
2063.
Denver, etc. Co. v. Atchison, etc.
R. Co. (15 Fed. Rep. 650; 110
U. S. 667), 1377, 1416, 1472.
Denver, etc. Co. v. Denver, etc. R.
R. (69 Pac. Rep. (Colo.)
568),
1307, 1614.
TABLE OF CASES. XCl
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Denver, etc. Ry. Co. v. Harris (122
U. S. 597), 1480, 1484, 1485.
Denver, etc. R. R. v. Roller (100
Fed. Rep. 114, 738), 2038.
De Peyster v. American Fire Ins.
Co. (6 Paige, 486), 633, 634.
Deposit Bank v. Barrett (13 S.
W. Rep. (Ky.) 337), 1859.
Deposit Bnnk v. Hearne (104 Ky.
819), 1059.
Derrick-son v. Smith (27 N. J. L.
166), 846.
Deringer's Admr. v. Deringer's
Admr. (5 Houst. (Del.) 416),
1230.
Dern v. Salt Lake, etc. R. R. (19
Utah, 46; 56 Pac. Rep. 566),
1942.
De Ruvisme's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. D.
306), 376.
De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church
(3 N. Y. 238), 1243.
Desdoitv, Ex parte (1 Wend. 98),
1013, 1024.
Des Moines, etc. R. Co. v. Wabash,
etc. R. Co. (135 U. S. 576), 1707.
Des Moines Valley R. Co. v. Graff
(27 Iowa, 99), 305, 306, 322.
Desmond v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
(77 III. 631), 1833.
Despatch line v. Bellamy Manu-
facturing Co. (12 N. H. 205),
799, 1044, 1050, 1055, 1056, 1083,
1092, 1174.
Dester v. Ross (85 Mich. 370),
1823, 1824.
Detroit v. Black, etc. Co. (105
Mich. 535), 432.
Detroit v. Dean (106 U. S. 537),
827, 1359.
Detroit v. Common Council (125
Mich. 673), 1583.
Detroit v. Detroit, etc. Co. (43
Mich. 140), 99, 1658.
Detroit v. Detroit, etc. Ry. (184
U. S. 368), 1553, 1633, 1707.
Detroit v. Plank Road Co. (43
Mich. 140), 1943.
Detroit City Ry. v. Mills (85 Mich.
634), 1599.
Detroit, etc. Co. v. Board of As-
sessors (91 Mich. 382), 695, 711.
Detroit, etc. Co. v. Starnes (38
Mich. 698), 284, 286, 305, 323.
Detroit, etc. Rv. v. Com'rs. etc.
(127 Mich. 219), 1608.
Detroit, etc. Ry. v. Common Coun-
cil (125 Mich. 673), 1607.
Detroit, etc. Ry. v. Detroit (64
Fed. Rep. 628), 1257, 1601, 1981.
Detroit, etc. Club v. Fitzgerald
(109 Mich. 670), 85, 86, 947.
Detroit Schuetzen Bund v. Detroit
Agitations Verein (44 Mich.
313), 2077.
Detweiler v. Breckenkamp (83
Mo. 45), 199, 474, 1268, 1957.
Deutsch, etc. Co. v.Mabbett (58 N.
Y. 397), 345.
De Varaigne v. Fox (2 Blatchf.
95), 1980.
Deveaux, In re (54 Ga. 637), 78.
Devendorf v. Dickinson (21 How.
Pr. 275), 1747.
Devereges v. Sandeman, etc. Co.
(86 L. T. Rep. 269), 581.
Devine v. Brooklyn, etc. Co. (1
N. y. App. Div. 237), 1627.
De Visser v. Blackstone (6
Blatchf. 235), 1747, 1748.
Devon, etc. R. Co., In re (L. R. 8
Ch. 610), 663.
De Voss V. Richmond (18 Gratt.
(Va.) 338), 1674.
Dew V. Bolton (12 N. J. L. 206),
2133.
Dewey v. St. Alban's Trust Co.
(27 Vt. 332), 842, 843, 1794,
1964, 1965.
Dewey v. Toledo, etc. Co. (91
Mich. 351), 1233, 1278, 1335,
1577.
Dewing v. Perdicaries (96 U. S.
193), 398, 816, 1375.
De Winton v. Brecon (26 Beav.
533), 1704.
De Wolf V. Mollett (3 Dana (Ky.),
214), 518.
Dexter, etc. Plank R. Co. v. Mil-
lerd (3 Mich. 91), 461, 465, 472.
Dey V. Holmes (103 Mass. 306),
2114.
Diamond v. Lawrence Co. (37 Pa.
St. 353), 1674.
Diamond, etc. v. Davenport, etc.
Co. (115 Iowa, 480), 1655.
Diamond Match Co. v. Powers (51
Mich. 145), 2005.
Diamond Match Case of Richard-
son V. Buhl (77 Mich. 632; 43
N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 1102), 1910.
Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber (106
N. Y. 473; 60 Am. Rep. 464),
1250, 1315, 1370, 1415, 1425, 2028.
Diamond, etc. Co. v. San Antonio,
etc. Rv. Co. (11 Tex. Civ. App.
587), 1781.
Dibble v. Richardson (171 N. Y.
121), 2110.
Dickenson v. Central Nat. Bank
XCll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill,
1507-2134.
J
(129 Mass. 279; 37 Am. Rep.
351). 535.
5f.2.
Dickenson v. Chamber of Com. (29
Wis. 45),
214, 224, 769, 770, 772,
775.
Diclienson v.
Consolidated, etc. Co.
(119 Fed. Rep. 871). 1247,
15G2.
Dlclvenson v. Cliamber of Com-
merce (29 Wis. 45). 2057, 2003.
Dicldnson v. Railroad Co. (7 W.
Va. 390), 674, G75.
Dickinson v. Valpy (10
B. & C.
128),
2101.
Dickerman v. Northern, etc. Co.
(176 U. S. 181). 427. 436, 437,
439. 1689. 1746. 1776, 1779.
Dickerman v. Northern T. Co. (80
Fed. Rep. 450), 427, 1181, 1184,
1213, 1510.
Diligent Fire Co. v. Common-
wealth (75 Pa. St. 291), 200,
766. 767, 776, 780, 2055, 2057,
2071.
Dill V. Wabash Valley R. 'Co. (21
111. 91). 362, 366.
Dill V.
Wareham (7 Mete. (48
Mass.) 438). 1343.
Dillingham v. Hawk (60 Fed. Rep.
494), 1788.
Dillingham v. Hook (32 Kan. 185),
504.
Dillingham v. Snow (5
Mass. 547),
92, 160, 1532.
Dillon V. Barnard (1 Holmes (U.
S. C. C), 394), 1713, 1716.
Dillon V. Lee (110 Iowa, 156), 823,
842.
Dillon V. Oregon, etc. Ry. (66 Fed.
Rep. 622), 1812.
Diman v. Providence, etc. R. Co.
(5 R. I. 130), 341, 345.
Dimpfell v. Ohio, etc. Co. (110 U.
S. 209), 824. 828. 1329. 1359,
1360, 1361, 1363, 1364, 1847.
Dingley v. Boston (100 Mass.
544), 1313.
Dinsmore v. Louisville, etc. R. Co.
(2 Flip. 672), 1587.
Dinsmore v. Duncan (57 N. Y.
573), 1675, 1676, 1687.
Dinsmore v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co. (11 Phila. 483), 2080.
Dinsmore v. Racine, etc. R. Co.
(12 Wis. 649), 1255, 1712, 1714,
1716.
Direct Exeter R. Co., In re (Mat-
thews, 558), 273.
Directors of Central Ry. Co. v.
Kisch (L. R. 2 H. L. App. Cas.
99), 365.
Direct U. S. Cable Co. v. Doniinioii
T. Co. (84 N. Y. 153), 2034.
Di.sboroiigh v. Outcalt (1 N. J. E.
298), 959.
Distilling, etc. Co. ^. People (156
111. 448; 47 Am. St. Rep. 200),
1239, 1291, 1437, 1439, 1440, 1901,
1908.
District Attorney v. Lynn & Bos-
ton R. Co. (82 Mass. (16 Gray>
242). 1921. 1925.
District Grand L. v. Cohn (20 111.
App. 344), 194, 2070.
District of Clay v. District of
Buchanan (63 Iowa, 188), 1968,
1969.
District of Columbia v. Camden,
etc. Works (181 U. S. 453), 132.
Ditch Co. V. Zellerbach (37 Cal.
591). 800.
Ditchett V. Spuyten Duyvil R. R.
Co. (67 N. Y. 425; 5 Hun, 165),
1891, 1572.
Dittman, Matter of (65 N. Y. App.
Div. 343), 1966.
Diven v. Lee (36 N. Y. 302), 566.
Diven v. Phelps (34 Barb. 234),
928
Diversev v. Smith (103 111. 378),
101, 566. 567. 839, 848, 948.
Dix V. Shaver (14 Hun, 392), 304.
Dixon County v. Field (111
V.
S.
83), 294. 296. 1592.
Dixon's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. 79), 480.
Dixon's Executors. Ex parte (1 Dr.
& Sm. 225), 808.
Dixon V. Evans (L. R. 5 H. L.
606), 473, 770, 2064.
Dixon V. United States (125 Mass.
11), 15.
D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Shillin^r
(74 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 609), 2027.
Doan V. Chicago City Ry. Co. (51
111. App. 353), 17.
Doane v. Lake Street, etc. R. R.
(165 111.
510)," 1607.
Doboy, etc. v. De Magathias (25
Fed. Rep. 697), 65, 1631.
Dobson V. More (164 111. 110),
1199.
Dobson V. Peck, etc. Co. (119 Fed.
Rep. 294), 1780.
Dobson V. Simonton (86 N. C.
492), 154, 158, 1968.
Dock V. Schlichter & Co. (167 Pa.
St. 370), 253.
Dochkus V. Lithuanian, etc. (206
Pa. 25), 2134.
Dodge V. American, etc. Co. (109
Ga. 394), 1290,
TABLE OF CASES. xcni
fReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Dodge V. Council Bluffs (57 Iowa,
560), 1320, 2005.
Dodge V. Minnesota, etc. Co. (16
Minn. 368), 910.
Dodge V. Platte Countv (82 N. Y.
218; 16 Hun, 285), 295.
Dodge V. Woolsey (18 How. (U.
S.) 331), 39, 58, 97, 114, 719,
763, 803, 812, 813, 1090, 1127,
1358.
Dodge City, etc. Co. v. Alfalfa, etc.
Co. (67 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 462),
1650.
Dodge, etc. Co. v. PvroUisite, etc.
Co. (69 Ga. 665), 1810.
Dodgson V. Scott (2 Exch. 457),
887
Doe V. Fischer (114 U. S. 340),
970, 1537.
Doe V. Harpur (2 Dow & Ry. 708),
2080.
Doe V. Northwestern, etc. Co. (78
Fed. Rep. 62), 1773, 1783.
Doe V. Norton (11 M. & W. 913),
129.
Doheny v. Lacey (168 N. Y. 212),
529.
Doherty v. Mercantile Co. (69 N.
E. (Mass.) 335), 825.
Dolan V. Court Good Samaritan
(128 Mass. 437), 778, 2085.
Dolbear v. American B. T. Co. (8
Sup. Ct. Rep. 778).
120.
Dolgeville, etc. Co., Matter of (160
N. Y. 500), 1966.
Dominion Tel. Co. v. Silver (10
Can. S. C. 238), 1625.
Donahue v. Mariposa, etc. Co. (66
Cal. 317), 813, 1085, 1535.
Donahugh's Appeal (86 Pa. St.
306), 726.
Donald v. American, etc. Co. (62
N. J. Eq. 729), 432.
Donaldson v. Gillot (L. R. 3 Eq.
274), 389, 614, 617.
Donald.-.on v. Miss, etc. Co. (18
Iowa, 280; 87 Am. Dec. 391),
1546.
Donnally v. Hearndon (41 W. Va.
519), 639.
Donnell v. Lewis Co. Sav. Bank
(80 Mo. 165), 689.
Donnellv v. Boston Catholic Assn.
(146 Mass. 163), 14.
Donnellv v. Hodgeson (13 Mo.
App. i5), 566, 567, 834.
Donnelly v. Mulhall (12 Mo. App.
139), 471, 873.
Donohoe v. Mariposa, etc. Co. (66
Cal. 317), 327.
Donovan v. Pennsylvania
Co.
(120 Fed. Rep. 215), 1557.
Donworth v. Coolbaugh (5 Iowa,
300), 919, 1898.
D'Ooge V. Leeds (176 Mass. 558),
1695.
Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co. (15
Gray
(81 Mass.),
494), 68, 91.
Doolan v. Midland Rv. Co. (L.
R 2 App. Cas. 792), 1672.
Doolittle. In re (23 Fed. Rep.
544), 1591.
Doolittle v. Marsh (11 Neb. 243),
850.
Doon V. Cummins (142 U. S. 366),
295, 1593.
Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc. R.
Co. (7 Fla. 265), 348, 350, 354,
358.
Domes v. Supreme Lodge (23 So.
Rep. 191; 75 Miss. 466), 188,
199,
Dorris v. French (4 Hun, 292),
348, 349, 376.
Dorr V. Life Ins. etc. Co. (71
Minn. 38), 688, 1160.
Dorris v. Sweeney (60 N. Y. 463),
345.
Dorsey, etc. Co. v. McCaffrey (139
Md. 545), 358, 399, 934, 1155.
Doty V. Auditorium, etc. Co. (56
Atl. Rep. (N. J. Eq.) 720), 1721.
Doty V. First Nat. Bank, etc. (3
N. D. 9), 618.
Doty V. Patterson (155 Ind. 60),
170, 173, 878.
Doubleday v. Muskett (7 Bing.
110), 1174.
Douchy v. Brown (24 Vt. 197),
885, 887.
Doud v. Mason City, etc. R. Co.
(76 Iowa, 438), 1322.
Doud V. Wisconsin, etc. Ry. (65
Wis. 108), 824, 825.
Dougan's Case (28 L. T. (N. S.)
60), 1841, 1856, 1861.
Dougherty v. Hunter (54 Pa. St.
380), 1189.
Dougherty v. King (41 N. Y. App.
Div.
1),
1815.
Douglas V. Cline (12 Bush (Ky.),
608), 1725, 1728.
Douglas V. Kentucky (168 U. S.
488), 1402.
Douglas V. Merchants (118 N. Y.
484; 7 L. R. A. 822), 228, 1060.
Douglas V. Phoenix Ins. Co. (138
N. Y. 209), 2017.
Douglass V. Branch Bank (19 Ala.
659), 126.
XCIV
TABLE OF OASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-ClO; Vol. II. G21-1506; Vol. Ill,
1507-2134.T
Doiiplass V. Chatham (41 Conn.
211), 297.
DouKla-ss V. County of Pike (101
U. S. 077),
42.
Douglass v. Ireland (73 N. Y. 100),
442. r.l2. 513. 514. 517. 559. 903.
Douj;iass v. Pike County (101 U.
S. r.87), 1684.
Dousnian v. Wisconsin, etc. Co.
(40 Wis. 418), 653.
Dovey's Appeal (97 Pa. St. 153),
389, 417, 609.
Dovey, etc. v. Cory (Appeal Court
Chancery, 477), 632.
Dow V. Clark (7 Gray (73
Mass.),
198), 206.
Dow V. Gould, etc. Co. (31 Cal.
629), 292, 626, 629.
Dow V. Memphis, etc. R. Co. (124
U. S. 652), 1717, 1731, 1732, 1740.
Dow V. Northern Railroad (67 N.
H. 1; 2 Smith Cas. 795), 107.
Dowd V. Stejihenson (105 N. C.
467; 10 S. E. Rep. 770), 1198.
Downer v. Zanesville Bank
(Wright (Ohio), 477), 692.
Downie v. Hoover (12 Wis. 174),
873
Downie v. White (10 Wis. 176),
317, 340, 358.
Downes v. Harper Hospital (101
Mich. 555), 2122.
Downes v. Ship (L. R. 3 H. L.
343), 828.
Downing v. Indiana, etc. (129 Ind.
443). 70.
Downing v. Mann (3 E. D. Sm.
36),
2117.
Downing v. Marshall (23 N. Y.
366). 538, 1376.
Downing v. Mt. Washington Road
Co. (40 N. H. 230). 1241, 1288,
1329, 1334, 1364, 1346, 1658.
Downing v. Potts (3 Zab. (N. J.)
66; 23 N. .T. 66). 256. 262, 476,
495, 542, 998, 1008, 1009, 1011,
1024.
Downing v. St. Columba's, etc.
Soc. (10 Daly (N. Y.). 262), 780.
Downy v. Marshall (23 N. Y. 366),
1240.
Dows V. Naper (91 HI. 44), 263,
840.
Dows V. Town of Elmwood (34
Fed. Rep. 114), 283.
Doyle, Ex parte (2 Hull & Twells
(Eng. Ch.), 221), 570, 809.
Doyle V. Continental Ins. Co. (94
U. S. 535), 747, 1986, 1987, 1991.
1995.
Dovln V. Leitelt (97 Mich. 298),.
1912.
Dovle V. Mizner (42 Mich. 332),
140, 975, 977.
Doyle V. Muntz (5 Hare, 509), 823.
Doyle V. Peerless, etc. Co. (44
Barb. 239), 341, 1924.
Dovle V. San Diego, etc. Co. (46
Fed. Rep. 709), 160.
Draining Co. v. State (43 Ind.
236), 1915.
Drake v. Hudson R. Co. (7 Barb.
508), 187, 199, 203.
Drake v. New York. etc. Co. (36
N. Y. App. Div. 275; 55 N. Y.
Supp. 225). 436.
Drake v. Siebold (81 Hun, 178),
1428.
Draper v. Beadle (16 Weekly Dig.
475), 573.
Draper v. Stone (71 Me. 175), 576.
Dreisbach v. Price (133 Pa. St.
500), 853.
Dreisbach v. Ross (195 Pa. St.
278), 1611.
Dressen v. Bramlier (56 Iowa,
756), 2125.
Drew's Case (16 L. T. (N. S.)
657), 1841, 1857.
Drinkwater v. Portland Marine
Ry. (18 Me. 35), 8G3.
Driscoll V. West Bradlev, etc.'^Co.
(59 N. Y. 96), 210, 219, 226, 227,
589, 601.
Droitwich, etc. Company v. Cur-
zon (L. R. Ex. Ch. 35), 239, 257,
258.
Dronfield, etc. Co., In re (L. R.
17 Ch. D. 76), 330, 334, 335,
337, 448.
Drumheller v. First, etc. Church
(45 Ind. 275), 2077.
Drummond's Case (L. R. 4 Ch.
772), 506.
Drury v. Cross (7 Wall. 299), 1702.
Dryden v. Kellogg (2 Mo. App.
, 87), 849. 850, 853, 866, 867.
Duanesburgh v. Jenkins (66 N. Y.
129), 283. 296.
Dublin, etc. Ry. Co. v. Black (8
Ex. 181), 482, 529, 573.
Dubs V. Egli (167 111. 514; 47 N.
E. Rep. 766), 15.
Dubois, In re (15 How. Pr. 7),
1966.
Dubuque v. Dubuque (4 Greene
(Iowa), 296.
Ducat V. City of Chicago (48 111.
172), 1986, 1987, 1991, 2000, 2010,
2012.
TABLE OF CASES.
xcv
[References are to pages: Vol. T, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Duchenim v. Kendall (149 Mass.
171), 547, 2116.
Duchess Cotton Maniif. v. Davis
(14 Johns. (N. Y.) 238), 341.
Duckworth v. Johnson (4 Hurl. &
N. 653), 1500, 1546.
Duckworth v. Roach (81 N. Y.
49), 948.
Dudley v. Collier (87 Ala. 431),
2000, 2003.
Dudley v. .Jamaica Pond, etc. (100
Mass. 183). 19, 20.
Dudley v. Kentucky High School
(9 Bush. (Ky.) 578). 804, 1017.
Dudley v. Price (10 B. Mon. (Ky.)
84), 1975.
Duff V. Maguire (99 Mass. 300),
375.
DufReld V. Barnum, etc. Co. (64
Mich. 293), 377, 491, 492, 932.
Dugan V. Bridge Co. (27 Pa. St-:
303; 67 Am. Dec. 464), 56.
Dugan V. United States (3 Wheat.
(U. S.) 172), 15.
Duggan V. Colo. Mortgage Co. (11
Colo. 113), 155, 156.
Duke V. Brown (99 N. C. 127),
1685.
Duke V. Cahawha, etc. Co. (10 Ala.
82), 155, 390, 393, 542, 614.
Duke V. Dive (1 Ex. 36), 338.
Duke V. Forbes (1 Ex. 356), 338.
Duke V. Markham (105 N. C. 131;
39 S. E. Rep. 1017), 771, 773,
791, 1705, 1707, 1708, 1719.
Duke V. Taylor (37 Fla. 64; 53
Am. St. Rep. 232), 882, 989, 1988.
Duke's Case (1 Ch. Div. 622), 554.
Dukes V. Love (97 Ind. 341), 860,
1850.
Duluth Club V. McDonald (74
Minn. 254; 73 Am. St. Rep. 344),
196, 206.
Duluth, etc. Co. v. De Witt (63
Minn. 538), 938.
Duluth, etc. Co. v. St. Louis
County (179 U. S. 302), 719.
Dummer v. Pitcher (2 M. & K.
262), 537.
Duncan v. Atlantic, etc. P. Co.
(88 Fed. Rep. 840), 1754.
Duncan v. Findlater (6 Clark &
P. 894), 1500.
Duncan y. Jandon (15 Wall. 165),
579, 606.
Duncan v. Mobile Co. (3 Woods,
597), 1710, 1725, 1726, 1728.
Duncan v. Treadwell Co. (82 Hun,
376; 31 N. Y. Supp. 340), 1782.
Duncan v. Trustees of Chesapeake,
etc. R. Co. (8 Am. Ry. Rep. 336),
1725, 1726.
Duncomb
v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. (84
N. Y.
190), 807, 1086, 1100, 1104.
1106, 1111, 1112, 1690, 1755.
Duncuft
V. Albrecht (12 Sim,
189), 524, 575, 576.
Dundas v. Desjardins (17 Grant
U. C. 27), 1706.
Dundee v. Hughes
(77 Fed. Rep.
855), 1967, 1968.
Dunham v. Cinn. etc. R. Co. (1
Wall.
254), 1713, 1716, 1728.
Dunham v. Isett
(15 Iowa 284).
1699, 1717.
Dunham
v. Trustees
(5 Cow. 462).
223.
Dunlap
V. Gregory
(10 N. Y. 244),
1416.
Dunlap V. Toledo, etc. Ry. Co. (50
Mich.
470), 1319.
Dunlop
v. Higgius (1 H. L.
381),
279.
Dunn V. Commercial Bank (11
Barb.
580), 391, 540.
Dunn V. Insurance
Co. (19 Week.
Dig.
531), 408.
Dunn V. University of Oregon (9
Oreg.
357), 64, 65.
Dunn, Ex parte
(8 S. C. 207), 1724.
Dunphy v. Travelers', etc. Assn.
(146 Mass. 495), 826, 828.
Dunston v. Imperial, etc. Co. (3
Barn. & Adol. 125), 187.
Dupes V. Water Power Co. (114
Ma.ss.
37), 253, 254, 1243, 1280,
1284, 1285.
Dupins V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.
(115 111. 197), 1321.
Dupignac v. Bernstrom (76 N. Y.
App. Div. 105; 78 N. Y. Supp.
705), 643, 1072.
Du Pont V. Northern Pac. R. Co.
(18 Fed. Rep. 467), 815, 1882.
Du Pont V. Tilden (42 Fed. Rep.
87), 510.
Duquesne Club v. Penn. Bk. (35
Hun, 390), 2034.
Durand v. Abendroth (69 N. Y.
148), 280.
Durantv's Case (26 Barb. 268),
934, 1858.
Durfee v. Johnstown, etc. R. R.
(71 Hun, 279), 1562.
Durfee v. Old Colony, etc. R. Co.
97. 109, 243, 804, 1017, 1353.
Durham Co. v. Blackwell, etc. Co.
(116 N. C. 441), 713.
Durham's Case (4 Kay & J. 517),
928.
XCVl
TABLE OF CASES.
[Rcfcroncps are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. ITT,
1507-2134.J
Durhans v. Covey (17 Mich. 282),
2009.
Durkoe v.
National Bank, etc. (102
Fnd. Rep. 845), 1802.
Diirlvee v. People (155 111. 354; 46
Am. St. Rep. 340), 196, 791, 1012,
1018, 1029.
Durst V. Gale (83 111. 136),
1342,
13G7.
Dui-ward v. Jewett (4G La. Ann.
559), 1812.
Dnryea v. Burt (28 Cal. 569),
2101.
Dusen1)erry v. Looker (110 Mich.
58), 974.
Dusenberry v. New York, etc. Co.
(46 N. Y. App. Div. 267; 61 N.
Y. Supp. 420),
1942.
Dutch West India Co. v. Henriq-
uez (1 Str. 612), 845.
Dutcher v. Marine Nat. Bank (12
Blatchf. 435), 1796, 1799.
Dutchess V. Columbia Co. R. Co.,
In re (58 N. Y. 397), 269.
Dutchess Cotton, etc. Co. v. Davis
(14 Johns. 238), 68.
Dutchess & R. Co. v. Mabbett (58
N. Y. 397), 267, 268, 269.
Dutton V. Connecticut Bank (13
Conn. 493), 540, 961, 962.
Dutton V. Hoffman (61 Wis. 20),
811.
Dwelling House Ins. Co. v. Gould
(19 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 793), 1180.
Dwight V. County Com'rs. of
Hampden (11 Cush. (65 Mass.)
201), 1321.
Dwelling House, etc. Co. v. Wilder
(40 Kan. 561), 2004.
Dyer v. Osborne (11 R. I. 321),
523.
Dyer v. Walker (40 Pa. St. 157),
1916.
Dykers v. Allen (7 Hill, 497; 42
Am. Dec. 87), 587.
Dykes v. Miller (25 Tex. Supp.
281; 78 Am. Dec. 571), 15.
Dykman v. Kenney (154 N. Y.
483), 816.
Dynes v. Shaffer (19 Ind. 165),
363.
B.
Eagle, etc. Co. v. Ohio (153 U. S.
446), 1396, 1398, 1659, 1663.
Eaglesfield v. Marquis, etc. (4 Ch.
Div. 693), 1167.
Eagleton v. East India Co. (3 Bos.
& P. 55), 223.
Eagle v. Kohn (84 111. 292), 1674.
Eagle Chair Co. v. Kelsey (23 Kan.
635), 1950.
Eakins v. American White Bronze
Co. (95 Mich. 568), 1065, 1067.
Eakright v. Logansport, etc. R. Co.
(13 Ind. 404), 149, 151, 349, 362,
366, 461, 466, 939.
Eales V. Cumberland Black Lead
Mine Co. (6 H. & N. 481), 1068.
Eames v. Doris (102 111. 350), 896,
902.
Earle v. Seattle, etc. Ry. (56 Fed.
Rep. 909),
Earl of Shaftsbury v. North Staf-
fordshire R. Co. (L. R. 1 Eq.
593), 1339.
Earle v. Carson (188 U. S. 42),
548.
Earle v. Coyle (97 Fed. Rep. 410),
557.
Earle, In re (96 Fed. Rep. 678),
1793.
Earle v. Humphrey (121 Mich.
518), 1797.
Earle v. Seattle, etc. Ry. Co. (56
Fed. Rep. 909), 1559, 1562.
Early & Lane's Appeal (89 Pa. St.
160), 553.
Earp's Appeal (28 Pa. St. 368),
638, 647, 648.
East Alabama v. Doe (114 U. S.
340), 9G9, 1536, 1591.
East Anglian Ry. Co. v. Easteni
Co. Ry. Co. (11 C. B. 775; 21
L. J. C. P.), 1298, 1328, 1368,
1565, 1848, 1849, 1S51, 1852, 1856,
1704.
East Birmingham v. Dennis (85
Ala. 565), 387, 388, 395, 579.
East Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Eastern
R. Co. (95 Mass. (13 Allen),
422), 1256.
East Boston Ry. Co. v. Hubbard
(92 Mass. (10 Allen) 459), 1253,
1699.
East Brandywine, etc. R. Co. v.
Ranck (78 Pa. St. 454), 1321.
East, etc. Min. Co. v. Merry-
weather (2 Hem. & M. 254), 820.
East, etc. R. Co. v. East Tenn. etp.
R. Co. (75 Ala. 275), 1316.
East, etc. R. Co., In re (66 L. T,
Rep. 153), 663.
East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v.
Bartholomew (L. R. 3 Ex. 15),
282.
East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge
Co. (10 How. 378), 38, 39, 50.
East India Co. v. Sandys (10 How.
St. Tr. 1071), 1417.
TABLE OF CASES. XCVll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
East Lincoln v. Davenport (94 U.
S. 801), 244, 299.
East Line, etc. R. Co. v. State (75
Tex. 434), 1849, 1867.
East London, etc. Co. v. Bailey (4
Bing. 283), 131, 1055, 1343.
East New York, etc. R. Co. v. El-
more (5 Hun, 214), 1151.
East N. Y. etc. R. Co. v. Lighthall
(6 Robt. (N. Y.) 407), 280.
East Norway, etc. v. Froislie (37
Minn. 447), 155, 1524.
East Oakland v. Skinner (94 U.
S. 255), 294.
East Rome, etc. Co. v. Brower (SO
Ga. 258), 1189.
East St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. East
St. L. etc. R. Co. (108 111. 265),
# 1318.
East Side Bank v. Columbus Tan-
ning Co. (170 Pa. St. 1), 1768,
1994.
East Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Ander-
son, etc. Co. (74 S. W. Rep. 218;
24 Ky. Law, 2358), 1622.
East Tennessee, etc. Co. v. County
of Hamblen (102 U. S. 273),
722.
East Tennessee, etc. R. Co. v.
Evans (6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 607),
91, 1866.
East Tennessee, etc. R. R. v. Gam-
mon (5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567),
244, 270, 362, 374, 471, 501, 804,
1734, 1747, 1780, 1782.
East Tennessee, etc. R. Co. v.
Humphrys (12 Lea, 200), 1545.
East Wheal, etc. Co., In re (33
Beav. 119), 617.
Easterly v. Barber (65 N. Y. 252),
847, 973, 1044, 1136.
Eastern Archipelago Co. v. Queen
(23 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 82; 22
Eng. L. & Eq. 328), 1910, 1926.
Eastern B. & L. Co. v. Olmstead
(16 App. D. C. 387), 221.
Eastern Plank Road Co. v.
Vaughan (14 N. Y. 546), 68, 80,
118, 281, 344, 349, 476.
Eastern R. R. Co. v. Boston R. R.
Co. (Ill Mass. 125), 69, 1301,
1318.
Eastern Counties' Ry. Co. v.
Hawkes (5 H. L. Cas. 331), 1083,
1298, 1342, 1347, 1856.
Eastern R. Co. v. Benedict (10
Gray (76 Mass.), 212), 126, 238.
Eastern Union Ry. Co. v. Symonds
(6 Ry. Cas. 578), 462.
Eastman v. Fiske (9 N. H. 182),
547, 577.
Eastman v. Wright (6 Pick.
(Mass.) 316), 7.
Eastman's Estate (60 Cal. 308),
58.
Easton v. Amoskeag, etc. Co. (44
N. H. 160; 82 Am. Dec. 201),
35.
Easton v. Delaware, etc. Co. (32
N. J. L. 99), 1871.
Easton v. German Am. Bank (127
U. S. 532), 586, 1823.
Easton v. London Joint Stock Bk.
(L. R. 34 Ch. D. 95), 1678.
Easun v. Buckeye, etc. Co. (51
Fed. Rep. 156), 1088, 1827.
Eaton V. Aspinwall (19 N. Y. 119),
68, 341, 403, 877.
Eaton V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (51
N. H. 504), 1490.
Eaton V. Robinson (19 R. I. 146;
29 L. R. A. 100), 1071.
Eaton V. U. S. etc. Co. (76 Mich.
579; 6 L. R. A. 102), 201, 165.
Eaton V. Walker (76 Mich. 579),
158, 169, 172, 173, 881.
Eaton, etc. R. Co. v. Hunt (20 Ind.
457), 128, 1674, 1736. 1863, 1872,
1874, 1892, 1893, 1894.
Ebbets' Case (L. R. 5 Ch. 302),
573 574.
Ebbw. Vale, etc. Co., In re (4 Ch.
Div. 827), 239, 251, 257.
Eberhart v. Chicago, etc. Ry Co.
(70 111. 347), 1321.
Ebert v. Mutual, etc. Assn. (81
Minn. 116; 83 N. W. Rep. 506),
205, 206.
Eby V. Northern Pacific R. R. (13
Phila. 144),
Ebv V. Guest (94 Pa. St. 160), 553,
963, 966.
Ebv V. Northern Pacific R. R. (13
Phila. 144; 36 Leg. Int. 164),
24, 202.
Ecclesiastical Com'rs v. N. East-
ern Ry. Co. (4 Ch. Div. 845),
1586.
Eddy v. Powell (49 Fed. Rep.
814), 1808.
Edgerly v. Emerson (23 N. H.
555), 977, 1055.
Edgerton v. Electric Co. (50 N. J.
Eq. 354), 441.
Edgerton, etc. Co. v. Croft (69
Wis. 256), 770.
Edgerton, Matter of (35 N. Y.
App. Div. 125), 746.
XCVlll
TABLE OF CASES,
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-GlO; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Edgewood R. R. Co's. Appeal (79
Pa. St. 257), 1392.
Edgeworth v. Wood (58 N. Y. Law,
4(13), 04, 65. 121.
Edffinton v. Fltzmaurice (29 Ch.
Div. 459), 365.
Edinboro Academy v. Robinson
(.^T Pa. St. 210; 78 Am. Dec.
421), 271.
Edinburgh R. Co. v. Hobehvhite
(G ]\T. & W. 715), 478.
Edison v. Edison, etc. Co. (52 N.
J. Eq. 620), 818, 1510.
Edison, etc. v. Manufacturers, etc.
Co. (49 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 766; 86
Am. St. Rep. 712), 1611.
Edison Electric Light Co. v. New
Haven Electric Co. (35 Fed. Rep.
233), 1864.
Edison Storage Battery v. Edison
Automobile Co. (56 Atl. Rep.
(N. J.) 861), 125.
Edmonds v. Blaina, etc. Co. (L. R.
36 Ch. D. 215), 1719.
Edmonds v. Waterman's Co. (1
Jur. (N. S.) 727), 202.
Edsall V. Howell (86 Hun, 424),
1626.
Edwards v. Armour P. Co. (190
111. 467), 87, 880, 1132.
Edwards v. Bates County
(117
Fed. Rep. 526), 1881.
Edwards v. Bay State Gas. Co. (91
Fed. Rep. 942), 818, 1515.
Edwards v. Carson W. Co. (21
Nev. 469), 1172.
Edwards v. Edwards (L. R. 2. Ch.
D. 291), 1719.
Edwards v. Fargo, etc. Ry. Co. (4
Dak. 549), 1067, 1070.
Edwards v. Grand Junction Ry.
Co. (1 Myl. & C. 650), 1174,
1176.
Edwards v. Kearzey
(96 U. S.
595), 39, 42.
Edwards v. Kilkenny R. Co. (14
C. B. (N. S.) 526), 274.
Edwards v. Mich. etc. Co. (92 N.
W. Rep. (Mich.) 491), 174.
Edwards v. Shewsbury, etc. Ry.
Co. (2 De Gex & S. 537), 1355.
Edwards v. Warren, etc. Co. (168
Mass. 564; 38 L. R. A. 791),
2089.
Edwards, etc. Co. v. Arpin (80
Wis. 214), 806.
Edwards, etc. Co. v. Jennings (89
Tex. 618), 1439.
Edwards v. Warren, etc. Works
(168 Mass. 564), 2089.
Eells V. Johann (27 Fed. Rep.
327), 1735.
Eel River R. R. v. State (155 Ind.
4.33), 1902.
Efird V. Piedmont, etc. Co. (55 S.
C. 78), 921.
Ehle V. Chittenango Bank (24 N.
Y. 548). 622, 623.
Ehrenfeldt's Appeal (101 Pa. St.
186), 167.
Ehrlanger v. Sombrero, etc. Co. (3
App. Cas. 1218), 377, 1345.
Eidman v. Bowman (58 111. 444),
07, 240, 245, 651, 652, 653, 806,
1087, 1376.
Eighmie v. Taylor (98 N. Y. 288),
303.
Eilenberger v. Protective, etc. Ins.
Co. (89 Pa. St. 464), 765.
Eisenmann v. Thill (1 Cin. Sup.
Ct. 188), 1800.
Einsphar v. Wagner (12 Neb. 458),
1055.
Eitey Manuf. Co. v. Runnels (55
Mich. 130; 20 N. W. Rep. 823),
90.
Elbogen v. Gerbereux, etc. Co. (30
N. Y. Miscel. 264), 1246, 1912.
Elrlerd v. American, "etc. Co. (105
Fed. Rep. 55), 1247, 1514.
Eldred v. American Palace-' Car
Company (96 Fed. Rep. 59),
1247.
Eldred v. Bell Tel. Co. (119 U. S.
513), 381.
Eldred v. Ripley (97 111. App.
503), 2018.
Eldridge v. Smith (34 Vt. 484),
1264.
Election, etc. Co., Grove Cemetery
Co., In re (01 N. J. L. 422).
1026.
Election of Directors, In re (44
N. J. 529), 263, 204.
Election of St. Lawrence Steam-
boat Co., In re (44 N. J. 529),
1019.
Electric Imp. Co. v. San Francisco
(45 Fed. Rep. 593), 1012.
Electric Light Co. v. Leiten (19
Dist. Col. 575), 1954.
Electric Power Co. v. Metropoli-
tan, etc. Co. (75 Hun, 68),
1614.
Electro Pneumatic, etc. Co., In re
(51 N. J. Eq. 71), 695, 703.
Elevated R. Co., In re (70 N. Y.
327, 351), 104, 106.
Elevator Co. v. Memphis, etc, R.
Co. (85 Tenn. 703), 1229, 1283,
1298, 1355.
TABLE OF CASES.
xciis:
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-610; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.1
Eley V. Postive & Life Assn. (L.
R. 1 Ex. Ch. Div. 20), 206.
Elgin Butter Co. v. Elgin Cream-
ery Co. (155 111. 127), 121.
Elgin Canning Co. v. Atchison,
etc. R. Co. (24 Fed. Rep. 866),
2032.
Elias V. Schwever (13 N. Y. App.
336; 43 N. Y. Supp. 55), 1065.
Elizabeth City v. Lindsay (6 Ired.
476), 155.
Elkington's Case (L. R. 2 Chapp.
305; 42 Law Times, 400), 505.
Elkins V. Camden, etc. R. Co. (36
L. J. Eq. 241), 625, 634, 670, 672,
674, 995, 996, 1091, 1282, 1357,
1578, 1589.
Ellerbe v. Faust (119 Mo. 653),
766, 767, 2054, 2055.
Ellerman v. Chicago, etc. Co. (49
N. J. Eq. 217), 1458, 1510.
Ellicott V. United States Ins. Co.
(7 Gill (Md.). 307, 1724.
Ellicott V. Warford (4 Md. 80),
1724, 1747.
Elliott V. Van Voorst (3 Wall. Jr.
299), 1737.
Ellis V. Barfield (64 L. T. Rep.
625). 649.
Ellis V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (107
Mass.
1), 1724, 1725, 1728, 175V,
1874.
Ellis V. Essex Merrimac Bridge
(19 Mass. 243), 386. 525, 631.
Ellis V. Howe Machine Co. (9
Daly (N. Y.). 78). 1171.
Ellis V. Marshall (2 Mass. 279),
70, 96, 110, 167, 261.
Ellis V. Northern, etc. R. R. (77
Wis. 114), 1593.
Ellis V. Vernon, etc. Co. (4 Tex.
Civ. App. 66), 1806.
Ellis V. Ward (25 N. E. Rep. 530;
137 111. 509), 1071, 1075.
Ellison V. Bignolds (2 Jac. & W.
503), 208. 2072.
Ellison V. Branstroton (153 Ind.
146), 1198.
Ellison V. Mobile, etc. R. Co. (36
Miss. 572), 340, 362, 366, 374.
Ellsworth V. Dorwart (95 Iowa,
108; 58 Am. St. Rep. 427), 140,
143.
Ellsworth V. N. Y. etc. R. Co. (98
N. Y. 648), 674.
Ellsworth V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co.
(98 N. Y. 553), 391, 392, 2002.
Ellsworth Woolen Manuf. Co. v.
Faunce (79 Me. 440), 1016, 1017,
1092.
Elmendorf v. Taylor (10 Wheat.
152), 845.
Elmwood V. Marcy (92 U. S. 289),
283, 845.
Elsas V. Alford (1 City Ct. Rep.
(N. Y.)
123), 143, 198, 224, 771,
778, 2048.
Elston V. Piggott (94 Ind. 14),
1992, 2005.
Elwell V. Dodge (33 Barb. 339),
807, 1091.
Elwell V. Puget Sound, etc. R. R.
(7 Wash. 487; 35 Pac. Rep. 376),
1199.
Ely V. Holton (15 N. Y. 595), 103.
Elyton Land v. Dowdell (113 Ala.
177; 59 Am. St. Rep. 105), 1088,
1252. 1827, 1860.
Emerson v. Commonwealth (108
Pa. St. Ill), 20, 60, 61.
Emerson v. European, etc. R. Co.
(67 Me. 387; 24 Am. Rep. 39),
1717.
Emerson v. McCormick, etc. Co.
(51 Mich. 5), 2034.
Emerson v. Providence Manuf. Co.
(12 Mass. 237), 1090.
Emery v. Boston, etc. Ins. Co. (138
Mass. 412), 207.
Emery v. Candle Co. (47 Ohio St.
320), 1439.
Emery v. Irving Nat. Bank (25
Ohio St. 360), 387.
Emery v. Parrott
(X.07
Mass.
95),
174, 1218.
Emma Silver Min. Co. v. Grant
(L. R. 11 Ch. D. 918), 1218, 1219.
Emmerling v. First National Bank
(97 Fed. Rep. 739), 1337.
Emmert v. Smith (40 Md. 123),
546, 923.
Emnire Assur. Co., In re (L. R.
4 Eq. 341), 1249, 1840, 1841, 1855,
1861.
Empire City Bank, In re (18 N.
Y. 199), 101, 562, 568, 571, 840,
852, 886, 890, 922, 923.
Empire Coal, etc. Co. v. Empire
Mining Co. (150 U. S. 159),
882.
Empire, etc. Co.'s Appeal (7 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 470), 821.
Empire Mills v. Alston, etc. Co.
(15 S. W. Rep. (Tex. App.) 505;
12 L. R. A. 366, notes), 164, 173,
185, 1184.
Empire Manuf. Co. v. Stuart (46
Mich. 482), 1836.
Empire State, etc. v. Beard (151
N. Y. 638), 2018.
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, G21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Empire State Sav. Bank v. Beard
(151 N. Y. G38), 816.
Emporium Real Estate Co. v. Em-
rie (54 HI. 345), 1075.
Empress
Ensineering Co., In re
(16 Ch. 125), 1176.
Employers', etc. Co. v. Commis-
sioner (64 Mich. 614), 1988.
Emsly V. Memphis (6 Baxter
(Tenn.) 553), 712.
Enfield Co. v. Conn. River Co. (7
Conn. 28), 1318, 1904, 1948, 1958,
1962.
Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v. Hart-
ford, etc. R. R. (17 Conn. 40),
1653.
Englefield Colliery Co., In re (8
Ch. Div. 388), 376.
Engel V. South Metropolitan, etc.
Co. (1 Ch. 442), 1789.
England v. Dearborn (141 Mass.
590), 1018, 1190, 1963.
Engle V. Florida, etc. R. R. (14
Fla. 266), 1815.
Engle V. Sohn (41 Ohio St. 691;
52 Am. Rep. 103), 20.
Englehardt v. Fifth Ward (148
N. Y. 281; 35 L. R. A. 289), 191.
Enslehardt v. Thousand Island
Hotel Co. (109 N. Y. 454), 1760.
Ennis, etc. Ry. Co., In re (32 L.
R. Ir. 137), 570.
Enos V. New York, etc. R. R. Co.
(103 Fed. Rep. 47), 1781.
Ensey v. Cleveland, etc. R. Co.
(10 Ind. 178), 91.
Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Grimes (173
Mass. 252), 8811
Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Moffitt (58
Neb. 642; 76 Am. St. Rep. 122;
45 L. R. A. 647), 174, 353, 479,
493, 494.
Ephraim v. Pacific R. R. (136 Cal.
646), 1793.
Ephraim v. Pacific Bank (129 Cal.
589), 1813.
Episcopal Church Soc. v. Episco-
pal Church (1 Pick. (18 Mass.)
372), 128.
Eppes V. Mississippi, etc. R. Co.
(35 Ala.
33), 114, 267, 268, 461,
475, 781.
Eppright V. Nickerson (78 Mo.
482), 1085, 1796.
Equitable Endowment Assn. v.
Fisher (18 Atl. Rep. 808; 106 111.
189), 1046, 1047.
Equitable, etc. Soc. v. Vogel's
Executor
(76 Ala. 441; 52 Am.
Rep. 344), 135.
Equity Gas Light Co. v. McKeige
(139 N. Y. 237), 599.
Era Ins. Soc, In re (9 Week. Rep.
67; 30 L. J. N. S. 137), 1852.
Erb V. Morasch (177 U. S. 584),
1788.
Erd V. Bavarian, etc. Assn. (67
Mich. 233), 780.
Erber v. Dun (12 Fed. Rep. 526),
1496.
Ericson v. Nesmith (86 Mass. 233;
81 Mass. 221; 46 N. H. 371), 826,
.844, 845, 874, 900, 909, 912, 913,
915.
Ericsson v. Brown (38 Barb. 390),
859, 860.
Erie City Iron WorlvS v. Barber
(106 Pa. St. 125), 358, 1167,
1181.
Erie, etc. Co. v. Brown (20 Pa. St.
156), 507.
Erie, etc. Plank R. v. Brown (25
Pa. St. 156), 377.
Erie, etc. Ry. Co. v. Casey (26 Pa.
St. 287), 38, 40, 89, 216, 1896,
1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1923,
1957, 1978, 1980.
Erie Co. v. McCormick (68 N. E.
Rep. (Ohio) 571), 1552.
Erie Ry. Co. v. New Jersey
(2
Vroom. (N. J. L.), 31), 753]
Erie Ry. v. Owen (32 Barb. 616),
270, 276, 278, 313.
Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Patrick (2
Abb. Adp. Cas. 72; 2 Keyes,
256), 470, 471.
Erie Ry. Co. v. State (31 N. J.
L. 531; 86 Am. Dec. 226), 1986,
1991.
Erie R. Co. v. Steward (170 N.
Y. 172), 1558.
Ernest v. Nicholls (6 H. L, C.
401), 1297, 1335.
Ernest v. Rutherford, etc. Co. (38
N. Y. App. Div. 388), 437, 2019.
Ernst V. Bartle (1 Johns. Cas.
317), 161, 1533.
Ernst v. New Orleans, etc. Co. (2
So. Rep. 415), 1385, 1387, 1648.
Erskine v. Loewenstein (82 Mo.
301; 11 Mo. App. 595), 338, 558,
559, 562, 587, 601.
Erskine v. Peck (83 Mo. 465; 13
Mo. App. 280), 336, 337.
Ervin, In re (109 Fed. Rep. 135),
1294.
Erwin v. Hurd (13 Abb. N. Cas.
91), 2124.
Ervin v. Oregon Ry. etc. Co. (35
Hun, 544; 62 How. Pr. 490; 28
TABLE OF CASES.
CI
IReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-15CC; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Fed. Rep. 833; 27 Fed. Rep.
625), 148, 615, 629.
Ervin v. Oregon, etc. Co. (27 Fed.
Rep. 635; 28 Fed. Rep. 833),
794, 803. 1247, 1859, 1976, 2030,
2032, 2035.
Ervin v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co.
(7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 87), 1036,
1037.
Esmond v. Billiard (16 Hun, 65;
79 N. Y. 404), 843, 850.
Espy V. American Legion (7 Kulp.
(Pa.) 134), 195.
Essex Bridge Co. v. Tuttle (2 Vt.
393), 461.
Essex Turnpike Corp. v. Collins
(9 Mass. 292), 287.
Estates, etc. Investment Co., In re
(Pawle's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 497),
332, 1772.
Estell V. Turnpike Co. (41 Ind.
474), 308.
Estell V. University, etc. (12 Lea
(Va.), 476), 1235.
Estill V. New York, etc. R. Co.
(41 Fed. Rep. 849), 2031.
Etna Coal, etc. Co. v. Marting,
etc. Co. (127 Fed. Rep. (Ohio)
32), 1742.
Etowah Mining Companv v. Wills,
etc. Co. (1016 Ala. 492), 1782,
1815.
Etting V. Bank of United States
ai Wheat. (U. S.) 59), 1353.
Eureka Light & Ice Co. v. City
of Eureka (5 Kan. App. 669),
1960.
Ev.i"eka. etc. Co. v. Richmond, etc.
Co. (2 Fed. Rep. 829), 11.
European, etc. R. Co. v. Poor (59
Me. 195), 1099, 1102, 1105, 1108,
1702.
Eustace v. Dublin T, R. Co. (6
Eq. 182), 282, 617.
Evans v. Bailey
(66 Cal. 112),
264, 1278.
Evans v. Boston, etc. Co. (157
Mass. 37), 976.
Evans v. Brandon (53 Tex. 56),
816.
Evans v. Chicago, etc. Ry. (86
Wis. 597), 1606.
Evans v. Coventry
(5 Drew. 75;
5 De G., M. & G. 911), 175, 438,
569, 636, 1746.
Evans v. Hughes County
(3 S.
Dak. 380; 54 N. W. Rep. 603;
3 S. Dak. 244; 52 N. W. Rep.
1062), 1652.
Evans v. Lee (11 Nev. 194), 1204.
Evans v. Nellis (101 Fed. Rep.
620; 187 U. S. 271), 840, 895.
Evans v. Osgood (18 Me. 213),
975.
Evans v. Pease (21 R. I. 187),
1791.
Evans v. Phila. Club (50 Pa. St.
107), 191, 212, 769, 770, 775,
2056, 2063.
Evans v. Smallcombe (L. R. 3 H.
L. 249), 326, 333, 556, 828, 884,
1165.
Evans v. Texas (11 Biss. 178),
1752.
Evans v. Union Pacific Ry. (58
Fed. Rep. 497), 2037.
Evans v. Wood (L. R. 5 Eq.
9),
568, 593, 888, 890.
Evansville, etc. R. Co. v. Dunn
(17 Ind. 603), 324.
Evansville, etc. R. Co. v. Evans-
ville (15 Ind. 395), 320, 504,
662, 665, 671, 672.
Evansville, etc. R. R. v. Frank
(3
Ind. App.
96), 1804.
Evansville, etc. R. Co. v. Posey
(12 Ind. 633), 362, 363, 366.
Evansville, etc. R. Co. v. Shearer
(10 Ind. 241), 289, 305, 321.
Evansville National Bank v.
Metropolitan Nat. Bk. (2 Biss.
527), 210.
Evarts v. Killingworth Manuf.
Co. (20 Conn. 447), 1204, 1956,
1959, 1960, 1961,
Evelyn v. Lewis (3 Hare, 472),
1799.
Evening Journal Assn. v. McDer-
mott (44 N. J. L. 430; 43 Am.
St. Rep. 392), 1494.
Evening Journal Assn. v. State
Board, etc. (47 N. J. L. 36; 36
Am. Rep. 114), 19.
Evenson v. Ellingson (67 Wis.
634), 158, 159.
Evergreen Cem. Assn. v. New
Haven (43 Conn. 234; 21 Am.
Rep. 642), 1665.
Everhart v. West Chester & Phila.
R. Co. (28 Pa. St. 339), 111.
Everham v. Oriental, etc. Assn.
(47 Pa. 352), 2067.
Everhart v. West Chester R. Co.
(28 Pa. St. 339), 376, 690, 885.
Everett v. Smith (22 Minn. 53),
1017.
Evertson v. National Bank (66 N.
Y. 14; 23 Am. Rep. 9), 1674,
1675, 1676, 1681, 1683, 1684,
1686.
Cll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Ewing V. Composite Brake Shoe
Co. (ICO I\la.ss. 72), 1833.
EwiiiK V. Modlock (5 Port. (Ala.)
82), 2079, 2084.
Ewfng V. Oroville Min. Co. (50
Cal. 047). 243, 250. 517.
Excolsior Fire Ins. Co., In re (10
Abb. Pr. 8), 807, 1091.
Excelsior Gr. Binder Co. v. Stay-
ner (25 Hun, 91; 01 How. Pr.
450: 58 How. Pr. 273), 280. 281.
Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Lacey
(03 N. Y. 422), 037, 1117.
Exchange Bank v. Macon, etc. Co.
(97 Ga. 1), 0.
Exchange Bank v. Sibley (71 Ga.
720), 400. 1153, 1154.
Exchange Bank. etc. v. Tiddy (07
N. C. 109), 1971.
Exchange Bk'g. Co., In re (L. R.
21 Ch. D. 519), 030.
Exchange Nat. Bank v. Capp (32
Neb. 242), 153, 1527, 1528.
Executors of Gilmore v. Bank of
Cinn. (8 Ohio, 02), 889.
Exeter, etc. R. Co. v. Buller (11
Jur. 527; 5 Rob. C. 211), 470,
820.
Exter V. Sawyer (140 Mo. 202),
1217.
Exposition Ry. & Imp. Co. v.
Canal St. E. Ry. Co. (42 La.
Ann. 370; 7 So. Rep. 027), 315.
Express Cases (117 U. S. 1; 10
Fed. Rep. 210; 3 McCrary, 147),
1412, 1557, 1035.
Express Co. v. Railroad Co. (99
U. S. 191; 3 McCrary, 147),
1298, 1580, 1587.
Eyerman v. Krieckhaus (7 Mo.
App. 455), 430.
Eyre's Case (31 Beav. 177), 571,
887.
Eyster v. Centennial Bd. (94 U.
S. 500), 033.
Eyton V. Denbigh, etc. Ry. Co. (L.
R. Eq. 488), 1800.
P.
Factage Parisien, In re (34 L. J.
Ch. 40), 1948, 1955, 1950, 1905.
Factors, etc. Ins. Co. v. Marine
etc. Co. (31 La. Ann. 149), 008
009, 013.
Factors', etc. Ins. Co. v. New Har
bor Protection Co. (37 La. Ann
233), 10, 1425, 1850.
Fairbanks v. Humphreys (18 Q
B. Div.
54), 400, 401, 1704, 1705
Fairfield v. County of Gallatin
(100 U. S. 47), 845.
Fairfield v. Weston (2 Sim. & S.
98), 1747.
Fairfield Chemical Co. v. Commis-
sioner, etc. (52 Hun, 93), 705,
700. 707.
Fiiirfield, Co. etc. v. Thorp
(13
Conn. 173), 403, 1177.
Fairfield, etc. Sav. Bank v. Chase
(72 Me. 226; 39 Am. Rep. 319),
1100.
Fairstock, etc. Co., In re (30 L.
J. Ch. 016). 477.
Falconer v. Campbell (2 McLean,
C. C. 195), 22, 04, 2092.
Falconer v. Higgins (2 McLean,
C. C. 190), 07.
Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v.
Bradley (104 U. S. 112), 1051.
Fallon V. Railroad Co. (1 Dill.
121), 570.
Fallon V. Egberts, etc. Co. (56 N.
Y. App. Div. 585), 1808.
Fall River, etc. Co. v. Old Colony,
etc. Co. (5 Allen (87 Mass.),
221), 111, 1558.
Falls V. United States, etc. Co.
(97 Ala. 417; 38 Am. St. Rep.
194), 2005.
Fallsburg, etc. Co. v. Alexander
(43 S. E. Rep. (Va.) 194), 1313.
Falmouth National Bank v. Canal
Co. (106 Mass. 550), 1781.
Falmouth, etc. Bank v. Cape, etc.
Co. (106 Mass. 550), 1770, 1782.
Family Endowment Soc, In re
(L. R. 5 Ch. 118), 1892.
Famous Shoe, etc. Co. v. Eagle
Iron Works (51 Mo. App. 66),
1204.
Fanning v. Gregoire (16 How.
524), 1652.
Fanning v. Hibernia Ins. Co. (37
Ohio St. 339; 41 Am. Rep. 517),
267. 276, 277, 509, 585.
Fanning v. Osborne (102 N. Y.
441), 1254, 1373, 1601, 1880.
Fargasen v. Oxford, etc. Co. (7S
Miss. 05), 384, 945, 1706, 1770.
Fargo V. Louisville, etc. Co. (6
Fed. Rep. 787), 2048, 2091, 2092.
Fargo V. Michigan (121 U. S.
230), 735. 759.
Fargo V. Hart (193 U. S. 490),
698.
Faris, Ex parte (L. J. Ch. 369),
982.
Farm, In re (51 N. H. 376), 1381.
Farmers' & Mech. Bank v. Butch-
TABLE OF CASES,
cm
^References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
ers' & Dr. Bank (16 N. Y. 151;
69 Am. Dec. 678), 414.
Farmers' Bank v. Jenks (7 Mete.
(48 Mass.) 592), 68.
Fanners' Bank v. Ohio R. etc. Co.
(56 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 719),
1511.
Farmers' Bank v. Smith (49 S.
W. (Ky.) 810), 1214.
Farmers' Bank v. Stringer (75 N.
Y. App. 127; 77 N. Y. Supp.
410), 849.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Champlain
Transf. Co. (18 Vt. 131: 16 Vt.
52: 23 Vt. 185; 56 Am. Dec. 68),
553.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Dearing
(91 U. S. 29), 24.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Detroit R.
Co. (17 Wis. 372), 1346.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Kimball
M. Co. (1 S. D. 388; 47 N. W.
Rep. 402; 36 Am. St. Rep. 739),
1161.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Little (8
Watts & S. 207; 42 Am. Dec.
293), 1967, 1968, 1969.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Nelson (12
Md. 35), 282, 288.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Wasson
(48 Iowa, 336; 30 Am. Rep.
398), 220, 226, 523, 601, 1704.
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Wayman (5
Gill (Md.), 336), 596.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Cape Fear,
etc. R. R. Co. (62 Fed. Rep.
275), 1780.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Centralia,
etc. R. R. (96 Fed. Rep. 636),
1805, 1830.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Chicago &
Co. (163 U. S. 31), 264, 1788.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Eaton (114
Fed. Rep. 14), 1789.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Equity, etc.
Co. (84 Hun, 373), 1701.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Harrah (47
Ind. 236), 1986, 1990, 2021.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Kansas City,
etc. Ry. (53 Fed. Rep. 529),
1709.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Louisville,
etc. Ry. (103 Fed. Rep. 110),
1829.
Farmers' & M. Ins. Co. v. Needles
(52 Mo. 17), 1916.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. New York,
etc. Co. (150 N. Y. 410; 55 Am.
St. Rep. 689), 1691, 1759.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Northern
Pacific R. R. (60 Fed. Rep. 803),
1591, 1779, 1812.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Rockaway,
etc. Co. (69 Fed. Rep. 9), 1088.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. Smith (51
Atl. Rep. (Conn.) 609), 1299,
1999.
Farmers', etc. Co. v. St. Joseph,
etc. Ry. (3 Dill, 412), 1713,
1719.
Farmers, etc. Co. v. Toledo, etc.
R. R. Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 769),
1248.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Vicksburg,
etc. R. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 778),
1725, 1727.
Farmers, etc. Co. v. Winona, etc.
Ry. (59 Fed. Rep. 957), 1746,
1776.
Farmers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Meese
(49 Neb. 861), 327.
Farmers' Gold Bank v. Wilson
(58
Cal. 600), 961.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Bankers',
etc. T. Co. (44 Hun, 400), 1736.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
Cary (13 Wis. 110), 1716.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Central,
etc. Ry. (4 Dill, 533: 120 Fed.
Rep. 1006), 1754, 1829.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co. (42 Fed. Rep. 6),
1741.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 520),
2095.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chi-
cago, etc. R. Co. (27 Fed. Rep.
146), 1694, 1709, 1734, 1744.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
Commercial Bank (15 Wis.
465), 1714.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
Grape, etc. Co. (50 Fed. Rep.
481; 16 L. R. A. 603), 1805.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
Green Bay & Minn. R. Co. (45
Fed. Rep. 664), 1353, 1732.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
Hughes (11 Hun, 130), 1709.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
McClure (78 Fed. Rep. 209),
1814.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
McHenry (9 Abb. N. Cas. 235),
1710.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
New York, etc. (150 N. Y. 410;
34 L. R. A. 76), 1462.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
CIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II. 621-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Northern Pacific R. R. (58 Fed.
Roi). 2'u),
1801.
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v.
St. Joseph, etc. R. Co. (2 Fed.
Rep. 117),
1576.
Farmers' National Bank v.
Backus (74 Minn. 2G4), 1813.
Farmers' National Bank v. Noxon
(45 N. Y. 7G2), 1686.
Farmers' Mut. etc. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Chase (50 N. H. 341), 2008.
Farmington Academy v. Allen (14
Mass. 172), 2084.
Farminston, etc. v. Fall (71 Me.
49), 1374.
Farmiimton Sav. Bank v. Fall
(71 Me. 49), 1309.
Farmington Village Corp. v.
Saudv River Nat. Bank (85 Me.
46), 1593.
Farned v. Harris (19 Miss. 366),
904.
Famsworth v. Lime Rock (83 Me.
440). 67. 95, 1303, 1920.
Farnsworth v. Minn. Ry. Co. (92
U. S. 49), 1700, 1891, 1898.
Farnsworth v. Robbins (36 Minn.
369), 315, 335, 429, 446, 941.
Farnsworth v. Western, etc. Co.
(25 N. Y. 393; 53 Hun, 630),
1259, 1715.
Farnsworth v. Wood (91 N. Y.
308), 1748, 1794, 1795.
Farnum v. Ballard, etc. Shop (12
Cush. (66 Mass.) 507), 813, 919.
Farnum v. Blackstone Canal Co.
(1 Sum. (U. S.) 47; 8 Fed. Cas.
1059), 987, 1871, 1872.
Farnum v. Haverhill, etc. Ry.
(178 Mass. 300), 1608.
Farnum v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (23
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 809), 1079.
Farr v. Briggs' Estate (72 Vt.
225), 1142.
Farrar v. Walker (3 Dill. 506),
263, 932.
Farrie v. Supreme Council (47
Hun, 629), 2069.
Farrington v. South Boston R. Co.
(150 Mass. 406), 414, 583.
Farrington v. Tennessee (95 U.
S. 687), 236, 640,712, 718, 723.
Farrow v. Bivings (13 Rich. (S.
C.) Eq. 25), 874.
Farwell v. Babcock (65 S. W. Rep.
(Tex.) 509), 1511.
Farwell v. Great Western Tel. Co.
(161 111. 522), 384, 437, 508, 625,
1074, 1480, 1791, 1797, 1814.
Farwell v, Houghton Copper
Works (8 Fed. Rep. 66), 975,
977.
Farwell Co. v. Wolfe (96 Wis.
10), 1326, 1327, 1350.
Fassett v. First Parish in Boyl-
ston (19 Pick. (36 Mass.) 361),
2132.
Fatman v. Lobach (1 Duer, 354),
390, 542.
Faulds V. Yates (57 111. 416), 804,
1028.
Faulkner v. Daniel (10 L. J. (N.
S.) Ch. 33), 1739.
Faulkner v. Hebard (26 Vt. 452),
547.
Faulkner v. Low (2 Exch. 595),
7.
Faull V. Alaska, etc. Mining Co.
(14 Fed. Rep. 657; 8 Sawy.
420), 497, 498, 898, 899, 967, 968.
Faure Electric, etc. Co. v. Philli-
part (58 L. T. Rep. 535), 1064.
Faurie v. Millaudon (3 Mart. (N.
S.) (La.) 470), 1125.
Faviell v. Eastern Counties' Ry.
Co. (2 Ex. 344), 1046.
Fawcett v. Charles (13 Wend.
473), 774, 776, 2057.
Fawcett v. Laurie (1 Drew & Sm.
192), 025, 042, 643, 044.
Fawcett v. Order, etc. (04 Conn.
170; 24 L. R. A. 815), 1812.
Fay V. Gray (124 Mass. 500), 583,
584.
Fay V. Noble (12 Cush. (06 Mass.)
1), 155, 164, 206, 207, 208, 225,
931, 1266, 1298.
Fay Fruit Co. v. McKinney
(77
S. W. Rep. (Mo.) 321), 2027.
Fayette Land Co. v. Louisville,
etc. Co. (93 Va. 274), 1374.
Faymonville v. McCullough (59
Cal. 285), 907.
Fazherlev v. Wiltshire (1 Willis,
390), 223.
Fearnside and Dean's Case (L. R.
1 Ch. 231), 570.
Featherston v. Cooke (L. R. 16
Eq. 298), 1355.
Featherstonehaugh v. Lee Moor,
etc. Co. (L. R. 1 Eq. 318), 1257.
Feckheimer v. National Exchange
Bank (79 Va. 80), 220, 523.
Federal Land Co. v. Louisville,
etc. Ry. Co. (93 Va. 274), 1237.
Fee V. New Orleans Gas Light
Co. (35 La. Ann. 413), 1864,
1877.
Feige v. Burt (118 Mich. 243),.
954, 955.
I
TABLE OF CASES.
cv
TReferences are to pages: "Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Feighner v. Delaney
(21
Ind.
App. 36), 1493.
Feld V. Roanoke Inv. Co. (123 Mo.
603), 671, 1247, 1248.
Felker v. Standard Yarn Co. (148
Mass. 226), 1132, 1137, 1138.
Felt V. Heye (23 How. Pr. 359),
583.
Felton V. Ackerman (61 Fed. Rep.
225), 1788.
Female Seminary v. State (9 Gill.
(Md.) 379), 1926.
Fennessy v. Ross (90 Hun, 298),
1030.
Fenney's Appeal (59 Fa. St. 398),
582, 963.
Fenton v. Machine Co. (9 Phila.
189), 1493.
Fenton v. Wilson, etc. Co. (9
Phila. 189), 1542.
Fenwick's Case (1 De G. & Sm.
557), 568.
Ferguson v. Miners', etc. Bank (3
Meigs (Tenn.), 609), 1982.
Ferguson v. Sherman (116 Cal.
169; 37 L. R. A. 622), 904.
Ferguson v. Soden (111 Mo. 208;
33 Am. St. Rep. 512), 1122, 1999.
Ferguson v. Wilson (L. R. 2 Ch.
77), 268, 380.
Fernschild v. Yuengling, etc. Co.
(154 N. Y. 667), 1251, 1757.
Fero V. Buffalo, etc. Co. (22 N. Y.
209; 78 Am. Dec. 178), 1487.
Ferras' Case (L. R. 18 Eq. 670),
506.
Ferris v. Ludlow (7 Ind. 517),
239.
Ferris v. Thaw (72 Mo. 446), 172,
2076, 2120.
Ferry v. Cincinnati, etc. (Ill
Mich. 261), 124.
Ferry v. Cincinnati Underwriters
(111 Mich. 261), 124.
Ferry v. Ferry
(2
Cush. (56
Mass.) 92), 1697.
Ferrett v. Taylor (9 Cranch, 43),
1922.
Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park (97
U. S. 659),
Fesh V. Nebraska City, etc. Co.
(25 Fed. Rep. 795), 1975.
Festial v. King's College (10
Beav. 491), 642.
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mechanics'
Savings Bank (97 Fed. 297),
895.
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Mobile, etc.
Rv. Co. (54 Fed. Rep. 26), 1312,
1756.
h
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Norfolk, etc.
Ry. (88 Fed. Rep. 815), 1757.
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Roanoke, etc.
Ry. (98 Fed. Rep. 475), 1756.
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Schenley (189
Pa. St. 363; 42 Atl. Rep. 140;
69 Am. St. Rep. 815), 1722.
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. Shenandoah
Valley R. R. (33 W. Va.), 1077,
1510, 1669.
Fidelity, etc. Co. v. West Penn-
sylvania (138 Pa. St. 494),
1671.
Field V. Cooks (16 La. Ann. 153),
172, 288.
Field V. Field (9 Wend. 394), 945,
1017.
Field V. Jones (11 Ga. 413), 1747.
Fiel'd V. Lamson, etc. Co. (162
Mass. 388; 38 N. E. Rep. 1126;
27 L. R. A. 126), 671, 675.
Field V. New York Central (29
Barb. (N. Y.) 176), 10.
Field V. Post (38 N. J. Eq. 346),
1714.
Field V. Schieffelin (7 Johns. Ch.
150; 11 Am. Dec. 441), 572, 603.
Field V. Sibley
(74 N. Y. App.
Div. 81; 77 N. Y. Supp. 252),
1829.
Fiery v. Emmert (36 Md. 464),
874.
Fietsam v. Hay (122 111. 293), 11,
49, 178, 1254, 1255.
Fifth National Bank v. Navasa
P. Co. (119 N. Y. 256; 23 N. E.
Rep. 737), 1196.
Fifth Ward Sav. Bank v. First
National Bank (48 N. J. L.
513), 1047, 1078, 1079, 1208,
1209, 1270.
Fikener v. Bott (47 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 251), 1808.
Fillmore v. Great Camp (109
Mich. 13; 66 N. W. Rep. 675).
211.
Finance, etc. v. Charleston, etc.
R. R. (52 Fed. Rep. 526), 1073,
1814.
Finance, etc. v. Charleston, etc.
R. R. (62 Fed. Rep. 205), 1804.
Finance, etc. v. Charleston, etc.
R. R. (52 Fed. Rep. 524), 1802.
Finance, etc. v. Charleston, etc.
R. R. (45 Fed. Rep. 436), 1779.
Finance Committee v. Warren (82
Fed. Rep. 525; 27 C. C. A. 472),
1814.
Financial Co., In re (L. R. 2 Ch.
714), 240, 251.
CVl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-GlO; Vol. II, 021-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Financial Corp. v. Lawrence (17
W. R. 854). 483.
Finch V. Grand Grove (60 Minn.
308; 02 N. W. Rep. 384), 221.
Finch V. Travelers' Ins. Co. (87
Ind. 302), 2029.
Fine v. Hornsby (2 Mo. App. Gl),
524.
Finley, etc. Co. v. Finley (32 Atl.
Rep. (N. J. Eq.) 740), 1072.
Finlev Shoe, etc. Co. v. Kurtz (34
Mich. 89), 245, 291, 381, 972,
1435.
Finn v. Brown (142 U. S. 56; 12
Sup. Ct.; 35 L. Ed. 936), 635.
Finnegan v. Lee (18 How. Pr.
186), 1676.
Finnegan v. Noerenberg (52
Min. 239; 38 Am. St. Rep. 552;
18 L. R. A. 778), 19, 85, 158, 879,
881.
Finney's Appeal (59 Pa. St. 598),
392, 959.
Fire Dept. v. Helfenstein (16 Wis.
136), 1990, 1991.
Fire Dept. v. Kip (10 Wend. 267),
67, 150.
Fire Dept.- v. Noble (3 E. D.
Smith (N. Y.), 440), 1991.
Fire Dept. v. Wright (3 E. D.
Smith (N.
y.), 453), 1991.
Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd (120 Pa.
St. 624),
Fireman's B. Assn. v. Lounsbury
(21 111. 511; 74 Am. Dec. 775),
1990.
Fireman's Ins. Co., Ex parte (6
Hill, 243), 619.
Firm of Bristol v. Bristol, etc.
(35 Atl. Rep. 710; 25 R. I. 189),
1650, 1651.
First Ave. etc. Co. v. Parker (111
Wis. 1), 237.
First Baptist Church v. Bigelow
(16 Wend. 28), 2131.
First Baptist Church v. Schenec-
tady, etc. R. Co. (5 Barb.
79),
1489.
First, etc. Bank v. Skinner (62
Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 705), 1161.
First, etc. Church v. Grand Rap-
ids, etc. Co. (15 Colo. 46), 153.
First Church of Christ, In re (55
Atl. Rep. 536; 205 Pa. St. 543),
87.
First M. B. Church v. Chicago (26
111. 482). 724.
Jfirst National Bank v. Albia (52
N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 334), 741.
First National Bank v. Almy (117
Mass. 476), 175.
First National Bank v. Armstrong
(42 Fed. Rep. 193), 1214.
First National Bank, etc. v.
Asheville, etc. Co. (116 N. C.
287), 970, 1199, 1206.
First National Bank v. Ayres (160
U. S. 669), 703.
First National Bank v. Barnum,
etc. Works (60 Mich. 489), 1747.
First National Bank v. Benning-
ton (16 Blatchf. 53), 1681, 1683,
1696.
First National Bank v. Bryce (78
Ky. 42), 393.
First Nat. Bank v. Bunting & Co.
(63 Pac. Rep. (Idaho) 694),
1789.
Fii-st National Bank v. Burch (76
Mich. 608), Sf026.
First National Bank v. Chapman
(173 U. S. 205), 740.
First National Bank v. Christo-
pher (40 N. J. 435), 1055.
First National Bank v. Council
Bluffs & Co. (9 N. Y. Supp.
859), 1209.
First National Bank v. County
Com'rs. (14 Minn. 77), 1673,
First National Bank, etc. v.
Davies (43 Iowa, 424), 171, 172.
First National Bank v. Dovetail,
etc. Co. (143 Ind. 534), 443, 878,
1792.
First National Bank of Ft. Scott
V. Drake (29 Kan. 311), 1056,
1067, 1108.
First National Bank v. Eureka L.
Co. (123 N. C. 24), 192.
First National Bank v. Ewing
(103 Fed. Rep. 168), 1722, 1802,
7 805.
First National Bank v. Fricke (75
Mo. 178), 1163, 1170.
First National Bank v. Garret-
son (107 Iowa, 196), 1766, 1770.
First National Bank v. Gifford
(47 Iowa, 575), 263, 386, 525,
540, 591, 889, 1108.
First National Bank, etc. v. Gra-
ham (100 U. S. 699), 1352, 1480,
1485.
First National Bank v. Gustin,
etc. Co. (42 Minn. 327; 6 L. R.
A. 676), 451, 844, 865, 929, 1191.
First National Bank v. G. V. B.
Min. Co. (89 Fed. Rep. 439),
1708.
TABLE OF CASES. evil
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
First National Bank v. Hartford
(45 Conn. 22, 44), 688, 693.
First National Bank v. Hendrie
(49 Iowa, 402), 1471, 1588.
First National Bank v. Herbert
(44 Fed. Rep. 158), 741.
First National Bank v. Hingham
Manuf. Co. (127 Mass. 563),
562.
First National Bank, etc. v. Hoch
(89 Pa. St. 324), 1661, 2111.
First National Bank v. Holland
(S9 S. E. Rep. 126; 55 L. R. A.
155), 536.
First National Bank v. Hurford
(29 Iowa, 579), 364.
First National Bank v. King (60
Kan. 733), 854.
First National Bank v. Kirkby
(32 South. Rep. (Fla.) 8S1),
1199.
First National Bank v. Krieg (21
Nev. 404), 742.
First National Bank v. City of
Lampasas (78 S. W. Rep. (Tex.
Civ. App.) 42), 743.
First National Bank v. City of
Richmond (39 Fed. Rep. 309),
741, 742, 743.
First National Bank, etc. v. La-
mon (130 N. Y. 336), 1136.
First National Bank v. Lindsay
(45 Fed. Rep. 619), 743.
First National Bank v. Linn (30
Oreg. 296), 1179.
First National Bank v. Lucas (21
Neb. 280; 31 N. W. Rep. 805),
1198.
First National Bank v. National
Exchange Bank (92 U. S. 122),
535, 1277, 1278, 1281, 1432, 1433.
First National Bank v. Northern
R. Co. (58 N. H. 203), 392.
First National Bank of Lyons v.
Ocean National Bank (60 N. Y.
278), 1177, 1661.
First National Bank, etc. v. Ore-
gon (71 Pac. Rep. 144), 1072.
First National Bank v. Peavey
(69 Fed. Rep. 455), 897.
First National Bank v. Price (33
Md. 487), 844, 846.
First National Bank v. Radford,
etc. Co. (SO Fed. Rep. (C. C.
A.) 569),
First National Bank v. Reed (36
Mich. 263). 1096, 1151.
First Natioi
-^
Bank v. Salem, etc.
Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 87), 253, 1262,
1280, 1285.
First National Bank v. Shedd
(121 U. S. 74, 86), 1754.
First National Bank v. Sioux
City, etc. Co. (69 Fed. Rep.
441), 1707.
First National Bank v. Smith (6
Fed. Rep. 215), 645.
First National Bank of Xenia v.
Stewart (107 U. S. 676), 1329.
First National Bank v. Stone (88
Fed. Rep. 409), 741.
First National Bank v. Turner
(154 Ind. 456), 741.
First National Bank v. Watson-
town Bank (105 U. S. 217), 687,
690.
First National Bank v. Winches-
ter (119 Ala. 168; 72 Am. St.
Rep. 904), 1832, 1964.
First National Bank Ins. Co. v.
Salisbury
(130 Mass. 303),
1693, 1730, 1740.
First Parish in Sudbury v.
Stearns (38 Mass. 148), 1025,
2124.
First Presbyterian Church, etc..
In re (2 Grant's Cas. (Pa.)
240), 124.
First Reformed Presbyterian
Church V. Bowden (10 Abb. N.
Cas. 1), 2127.
First Society, etc. Church v.
Brownell (5 Hun (N. Y.), 464),
1819.
First Washington Bank v. Eureka
L. Co. (123 N. C. 24), 208.
Fischer v. Raab (57 How. Pr.
87),
771, 785, 787, 2059, 2061, 2081.
Fiser v. Miss. etc. R. Co. (32 Miss.
359), 281.
Fish V. Smith (73 Conn. 377),
153, 287, 938, 1791.
Fisher v. Adams (63 Fed. Rep.
674), 184.
Fisher v. Brown (104 Mass. 259),
2110.
Fisher v. Bush (35 Hun (N. Y.),
641), 220, 1019, 1029, 1030, 1032,
1034, 1035, 1036, 2115.
Fisher v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.
(140 111. 323), 1559.
Fisher v. Essex Bank (71 Mass.
373), 236, 542, 961, 963.
Fisher v. Evansville, etc. R. Co.
(7 Ind. 412), 283, 305, 461, 470,
1850, 1853, 1855.
Fisher v. Glover (4 N. H. 180),
2131.
Fisher v. Horicon, etc. Co. (10
Wis. 351), 9, 1860.
CVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-150G; Vol. Ill,
1507-2134.J
Fisher v. Jones (S2 Ala. 117),
589, 592, 962.
Fisher v. Keane (L. R. 11 Ch.
D. 353), 774, 2055.
Fisher v. Knight (61 Fed. Rep.
491), 1793.
Fisher v. Marvin (47 Barb. 159),
891.
Fisher v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. (46 N.
Y. 644), 807, 1573, 1574, 1885.
Fisher v. Parr (92 Md. 245), 816,
1513.
Fisher v. Patton (134 Mo. 32),
1511.
Fisher v. People (14 Wend. 9),
1426.
Fisher v. Seligman (75 Mo. 13),
588, 871, 890.
Fisher v. Seligman (7 Mo. App.
383), 427. 430.
Fisher v. San Francisco Supreme
Court (110 Cal. 129), 818.
Fisher v. Western U. T. Co. (96
N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 545), 1624.
Fisher v. World, etc. Insurance
Co. (15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 363),
1966.
Fisher's Case (53 L. T. 832), 505.
Fishmonger's Co. v. Robertson (5
McG. 131), 1344, 1346.
Fisk V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. (53
Barb. 513), 430, 516, 1353.
Fisk V. Jefferson Police Jury (116
U. S. 631), 42.
Fisk V. Patton (7 Utah, 399),
2052.
Fisk V. Potter (2 Abb. App. Dec.
138), 1726.
Fisk V. Rock Island, etc. R. Co.
(53 Barb. 513), 399.
Fisk V. Union Pac. R. Co. (10
Blatchf. 518), 1978.
Fiske V. Carr (20 Me. 301), 961.
Flster V. La Rue (15 Barb. 323),
1174.
Fitch, Matter of (39 N. Y. App.
DiV. 609), 746.
Fitch V. Lewiston, etc. Co. (SO Me.
34), 1261.
Fitch V. Wetherbee (110 111.
475), 1668.
Fltchburg, etc. Co. v. Grand
Junction, etc. Co. (1 Allen (83
Mass.),
552), 1386.
Fltchburg Sav. Bank. v. Torrey
(134 Mass. 239), 542.
Fitchett V. Murphy
(46 N. Y.
App. Dlv. 181), 622,
Fltts V. National, etc. Assn. (130
Ala. 413), 1967.
Fitz V. Muck (62 How. Pr. 69),
771, 778, 780, 786, 787, 2060.
Fitzgerald v. Equitable (3 N. Y.
Supp. 214), 232.
Fitzgerald v. Grand Trunk R. R.
(63 Vt. 169; 13 L. R. A. 70),
1475.
Fitzgerald v. Missouri Pac. Ry.
(45 Fed. Rep. 812), 31, 136.
Fitzgerald v. Weidenbfeck (76
Fed. Rep. 695), 848.
Fitzgerald's Estate v. Union Sav.
Bank (90 N. W. Rep. (Neb.)
994), 485.
Fitzgerald, etc. Co. v. Fitzgerald
(137 U. S. 98), 1066, 1067, 1068,
1181, 1785, 2039.
Fitzpatrick v. Dispatch, etc. Co.
(83 Ala. 604), 250, 432, 519.
Fitzpatrick v. Rutter (160 111.
282), 2049.
Fitzsimmons v. City Fire Ins. Co.
(18 Wis. 234), 2001.
Fitzwater v. National Bank, etc.
(62 Kan. 263), 1520.
Flagg V. Manhattan Rv. (10 Fed.
Rep. 413), 1088, 1563, 1881.
Flagg V. Metropolitan Ry. Co.
(20 Blatchf. 142), 806.
Flagg V. Stowe (85 111. 164), 168.
Flagg V. Swift (25 Hun, 623),
2080, 2086.
Flagler Co. v. Flagler (19 Fed.
Rep. 468), 516, 517, 816.
Flagstaff, etc. Co. v. Patrick (2
Utah, 304), 1090.
Flaherty v. Gary (62 N. Y. App.
Div. 116), 1027.
Flanagan v. Great Western Ry.
Co. (L. R. 7 Eq. 116), 1109,
1558.
Flash V. Connecticut (109 U. S.
371), 471, 844, 846,847, 866, 875,
901, 904, 906, 907.
Fleckner v. Bank of United States
(8 Wheat. 338), 798, 1163, 1164,
1169, 1170, 1327, 1338, 1433.
Pleckenstein v. Waters (160 Mo.
649), 1536.
Fleischauer v. Dittenhoefer (49
N. Y. (Sup. Ct.) 311), 1784.
Fleischman v. Walker (91 111.
318), 956.
Fleitas v. City of New Orleans
(51 La. Ann. 1), 1981.
Fleming v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(34 Iowa, 353), 1321.
Fleming v. Texas, etc. (87 Tex.
238), 1546.
Flemyng v. Hector (2 M. & W.
TABLE OF CASES. CIX
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
172), 2073, 2074, 2076, 2102,
2119.
Fletcher v. Bank of Lonoke (69
S. W. Rep. (Ark.) 580), 883.
Fletcher v. Harnev, etc. Co. (84
Fed. Rep. 555), 1799.
Fletcher v. Marshall (15 M. & W.
755), 2114,
Fletcher v. Peck (6 Cranch, 87),
36, 1947.
Fletcher v. Rutland, etc. R. Co.
(39 Vt. 633), 1709.
Flinn v. Bagley
(7
Fed. Jlep.
785), 429. 430, 516, 656.
Flint V. Clinton Co. (12 N. H.
430), 1766.
Flint V. Pierce (99 Mass. 68), 187,
196, 209, 494, ,833.
Flint, etc. R. Co. v. Lake Erie,
etc. R. Co. (31 Ind. 283), 1102.
Flint, etc. Co. v. Woodhull (25
Mich. 99; 12 Am. Rep. 233),
104, 106, 1899, 1923, 1945.
Flint & R. Co. V. Dewey (14 Mich.
477). 1106.
Flitcroffs Case (L. R. 21 Ch. D.
519), 635, 636.
Florence Gas, etc. Co. v. Hanby
(101 Ala. 15), 1809.
Florida v. Anderson (91 U. S.
667), 1706, 1726, 1730.
Florida, etc. Co. v. State (31 Fla.
482; 20 L. R. A. 419), 1591.
Florida, etc. Co. v. Usina (111
Ga. 697), 1532.
Florida, etc. R. Co. v. Vamedoe
(81 Ga. 175), 1047.
Floyd V. National, etc. Co. (49 W.
Va. 327), 1985.
Flvnn V. Allen (57 Pa. St. 482),
1676.
Flynn v. Brooklyn City Ark. Co.
(9 App. Div. 269; 158 N. Y.
493), 1359, 1816.
Flvnn V. Des Moines & St. Louis
Ry. Co. (63 Iowa, 490), 1047,
1078, 1079, 1165.
Fogg V. Blair (139 U. S. 118), 422,
425, 428, 443, 451, 1252, 1689,
1721.
Fogg V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (148
Mass. 513), 1494, 1495.
Fogg V. Griffen (2 Allen (84
Mass.), 1), 1482.
Fogg V. Receiver (17 Fed. Rep.
516), 1250.
Foley V. Holtry (41
Neb. 563),
947.
Folger V. Chase (35 Mass. 63),
1982.
Folger V. Columbian, etc. Co. (99
Mass. 267), 178, 1913, 1918, 1938,
1948 1951 1957.
FolletV. Field (30 La. Ann. 161),
1786, 1976.
Fontana v. Post, etc. Co. (84 N.
Y. S. 308), 2021.
Foot V. City of Cincinnati (9
Ohio, 31: 34 Am. Dec. 420),
1490, 1499.
Foote, Appellant (22 Pick. (39
Mass.)
299), 638.
Foote V. Anderson (123 Fed. Rep.
659), 801.
Foote V. Cunard Min. Co. (17 Fed.
Rep. 46), 824.
Foote V. Emerson (10 Vt. 344),
1450.
Foote V. Linck (5 McLean, 616),
763.
Foote V. Mt. Pleasant (1 Mc-
Crary, 101), 298.
Foote's Appeal (39 Mass. 299),
628.
Foram v. Howard Ben, Assn. (4
Pa. St. 519), 2085.
Forbes v. Marshall (24 L. J. Ex.
305), 1266.
Forbes v. Memphis, etc. R. Co. (2
Woods, C. C. 323), 795, 797,
1740.
Forbes v. Mohr (76 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 827), 1140.
Forbes v. Whitlock (3 Edw. Ch.
446), 814.
Forbes v. .Whittemore (62 Ark.
229), 173, 879.
Ford V. Binghampton, etc. Co. (54
Hun, 451), 1522.
Ford V. Chicago Milk, etc. Assn.
(155 ni. 166), 1439.
Ford V. Delta, etc. Land Co. (43
Fed. Rep. 181), 715.
Ford V. Harrington (L. R. 5 C.
P 282) 2123
Ford VHill (92 Wis. 188), 1189.
Ford V. Land Co. (164 U. S. 662),
720.
Ford V. Santa Cruz R. C. (59 Cal.
290), 1486.
Ford V. Surget (97 U. S. 594),
42.
Foreman v. Bigelow (4 Cliff. (U.
S.), 508, 544; 9 Fed. Cas. 427),
506, 507, 559, 562, 890.
Forepaugh v. Delaware, etc. (128
Pa. St. 217; 5 L. R. A. 508),
1488.
Forest City, etc. v. Gallagher (25
Ohio St. 208), 212.
ex
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. IT, 621-150G; Vol. IIT, 1507-2134.]
Forest v. Manchester, etc. Ry. (30
Beav. 40). 15S5.
Forrest v.
Manchester, etc. Rail-
way Co. (4 De G., F. & J. 12G),
822.
Forrest v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co.
(IIG Fed. Rep. 357), 2022.
Forre.ster v. Boston, etc. Co. (21
Mont. 544), 1074, 1157, 1248,
1912, 2037.
Fort Edward, etc. Co. v. Payne
(17 Barb. 567), 304, 305, 501.
Fort, etc. Assn. v. Model, etc.
Assn. (159 Pa. St. 308), 121.
Fort Miller, etc. Co. v. Payne (-17
Barb. 577), 478, 479.
Fort Payne Bank v. Alabama
Sanitarium (103 Ala. 358),
1248.
Fort Scott Bank v. Drake (29
Kan. 311), 1070.
Fort Wayne, etc. R. Co. v. Deane
(10 Ind. 563), 364.
Fort Wayne, etc. Co. v. Franklin,
etc. Co. (57 N. J. Eq. 7), 1746,
1776.
Fort Wayne, etc. Co. v. Maumee,
etc. Co. (132 Ind. 880), 1658.
Forwood V. Eubank (50 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 255), 1973.
Fosdick V. Car Co. (99 U. S. 256),
1803.
Fosdick V. Schall (99 U. S. 235),
1706, 1716, 1717, 1719, 1721,
1722, 1724, 1725, 1726, 1740,
1803.
Fosdick V. Sturges (1 Bis6. 255),
430, 550, 577.
Foss V. Harbottle (2 Hare, 461),
470, 812, 814, 999, 1355.
Foster v. Bear Valley, etc. Co. (65
Fed. Rep. 836), 1104.
Foster v. Belcher's, etc. Co. (118
Mo. 238), 384, 1760.
Foster v. Chase (75 Fed. Rep.
797), 574.
Foster v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. (47
Fed. 369), 1593.
Foster v. Essex Bank (16 Mass.
245; 8 Am. Dec. 135), 1197,
1662, 1817, 1970, 1971, 1975,
1982.
Foster v. Fowler (60 Pa. St. 27),
17, 1245.
Foster v. Lincoln Executor (74
Fed. Rep. 382), 557.
Foster v. Mansfield, etc. Co. (146
U. S. 88), 1826, 1828, 1829.
Foster v. Mullanphv, etc. Co. (92
Mo. 79), 1016, 1017.
Foster v. Ohio-Colorado, etc. Co.
(17 Fed. Rep. 130), 1078.
Foster v. Oxford, etc. Ry. Co. (1^
Com. B. 200), 1063, 1109, 1113.
Foster v. Phila. G. W. (12 Phila.
511), 197, 198.
Poster V. Posson (105 Wis. 99),
902.
Foster v. Potter (37 Mo. 526),
238, 954, 966, 967.
Foster v. Row (120 Mich. 1; 77
Am. St. Rep. 565), 546, 552, 554,
835, 839.
Foster v. Seymour (23 Fed. Rep.
65), 512, 550.
Foster v. S. S. Bank (16 Mass.
245; 8 Am. Dec. 135), 154.
Foster v. White (86 Ala. 467), 140,
142, 144, 145.
Foster v. Wilson (75 Fed. Rep.
797), 575.
Fothergill's Case (L. R. 8 Ch. App.
270), 267, 506.
Fouche V. Merchants', etc. Bank
(110 Ga. 827), 141.
Fountaine v. Carmathen Ry. Co.
(L.. R. 5 Eq. 316), 1297, 1298,
1701, 1756.
Fountain Ferry, etc. Co. v. Jewell
(8 B. Mo. (Ky.) 140), 350, 1355,
1955.
Four Mile Valley R. Co. v. Bailey
(18 Ohio St. 208), 341, 366, 427.
Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn
(120 U. S. 747), 46, 841,844, 864.
Fowler's Case (L. R. 14 Eq. 316),
1052.
Fowler v. Great Southern, etc. Co.
(104 La. Ann. 751), 1084.
Fowler v. Jarvis, etc. Co. (64 Fed.
Rep. 279), 1778.
Fowler v. Jarvis, etc. Co. (63 Fed.
Rep. 888), 1779.
Fowler v. Lamson (146 111. 472),
839, 845, 846, 902.
Fowler v. Ludwig (34 Me. 455),
337, 886.
Fowler v. Robinson (31 Me. 189),
906, 926.
Fowler v. Scully (72 Pa. St. 456),
1661.
Fowler v. Western U. T. Co. (80
Me. 381), 1620.
Fox's Case (3 De G., J. & S. 465),
890.
Fox, Ex parte (L. R. 5 Eq. 118),
618.
Fox V. Allensville (46 Ind. 31),
454, 465, 467, 1009.
Fox. V. Clifton (6 Bing. 776), 313.
TABLE OF CASES. CXI
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Fox V. Frith (1 Car. & M. 502),
542.
Fox V. Hale, etc. Co. (108 Cal.
475), 816.
Fox V. Horah (1 Ired. Eq. 558; 26
Am. Dec. 48), 1968, 1971, 1978,
1979.
Fox V. Mackay (125 Cal. 57), 793.
Fox V. Naramore (36 Conn. 382),
2078.
Fox V. RolDbins (62 S. W. Rep.
(Tex.) 815), 829, 1519, 1913.
Fox V. Union, etc. Co. (37 N. Y.
Misc. 308), 1798.
France v. Clark (L. R. 22 Ch. Div.
830), 583.
Francis v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(17 Abb. N. Cas. 1), 579.
Francis v. Western U. T. Co. (58
Minn. 252), 1622.
Francklyn v. Sprague (121 U. S.
215), 1834.
Franco-Texan Land Co. v. Laigle
(59 Tex. 339), 987.
Franco-Texan Land Co. v. McCor-
mick (85 Tex. 416), 1172, 1188.
Franey v. Warner (96 Wis. 222),
371, 1184.
Franey v. Wanwatosa, etc. Co. (99
Wis. 40), 1222.
Frank v. Denver, etc. R. Co. (23
Fed. Rep. 123), 1706, 1719.
Frank v. Drenkhahn (76 Mo. 508),
179.
Frank v. Morrison (58 Md. 423),
195, 228, 1748, 1796.
Frank v. New York, etc. R. R.
(122 N. Y. 197), 1757.
Frank v. Wessel (64 N. Y. 155),
1676.
Frankford, etc. Co. v. Philadel-
phia, etc. Co. (54 Pa. St. 345;
93 Am. Dec. 708), 148.
Frankfort, etc. T. Co. v. Churchill
(6 Mou. (Ky.) 427), 318.
Frankland v. Johnson (147 111.
520), 1122.
Franklin v. North Western T. Co.
69 Iowa, 97), 1615.
Franklin Avenue, etc. Inst. v. Ros-
coe Board of Education (75 Mo.
408), 1330.
Franlvlin B. Association v. Com-
monwealth (10 Pa. St. 357),
217.
Franklin Bank, etc. v. Commercial
Bank, etc. (36 Ohio St. 350),
1014, 1277.
Franklin Bank v. Cooper (36 Me.
179), 1970, 1975.
Franklin Branch Bank v. Ohio (1
Black,
474), 58.
Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood (14
Ga. 80), 23, 65, 67.
Franklin Co. v. Lewiston Inst, for
Savings (68 Me. 43; 28 Am.
Rep.
9), 85, 1229, 1232, 1272,
'1276,
1277, 1282, 1350, 1432.
Franklin Co. v. Lewiston Sav.
Bank (68 Me.
43), 1282, 1350.
Franklin, etc. Assn. v. Common-
wealth (10 Pa. St. 357), 775,
2057.
Franklin Falls Pulp Co. v. Frank-
lin (20 Atl. Rep. (N. H.) 333),
71C.
Franklin Glass Co. v. Alexander
(2 N. H. 380), 346, 800.
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Jenkins (3
Y/end. 130), 1123.
Franklin Min. Co. v. O'Brien (22
Colo. 129; 55 Am. St. Rep. 118),
1163.
Franklin Nat. Bank v. Whitehead
(149 Ind. 560; 39 L. R. A. 725;
63 Am. St. Rep. 302), 1369, 1371.
Franklin Sav. Bank v. Bridges (8
Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 611), 489.
Franklin Tel. Co., In re (119 Mass.
447), 1911, 1966.
Frank's Oil Co. v. McCIeary
(63
Pa. St. 317), 888.
Fraser v. Charleston (11 S. C.
486), 389, 539, 563.
Fraser v. Ritchie (8 Bradw. (8
111.
App.) 554), 553, 554.
Fraternal Guardian, In re (159 Pa.
St. 603), 1777.
Frawlev, etc. v. Penn, etc. Co. (124
Fed. Rep. 259), 2020.
Frazer v. East Tenn. etc. R. R. (88
Tenn. 138), 1832.
Frazer v. Seibem (16 Ohio St.
614), 712.
Frazer v. Whatley (2 Hem. & M.
10), 1014.
Frazier v. Frederick (23 N. J. Eq.
162), 1714.
Frazier v. Wilcox (4 Rob. (La.)
517), 1242.
Fredenborg v. Lyon Lake, etc. (37
Mich. 476), 159.
Frederick, etc. Co. v. Frederick
(84 Md. 599), 1610.
Fredericks v. Pennsylvania Canal
Co. (109 Pa. St. 50), 1363.
Free, etc. Co. v. Spiers (135 Cal.
130), 1789.
Freeland v. McCullough (1 Denio,
414; 43 Am. Dec. 702), 339, 498,
CXll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. III. 1507-2134.]
546, 835, 842, 846, 862, 864, 891,
901. 949, 9(i8.
Freeland v.
Pennsylvania, etc. Co.
(94 Pa. St. 504), 156.
Freeman v. Maehias Water, etc.
Co. (38 Me. 343), 987. 988, 990.
Freeman v. Minneapolis, etc. R.
Co. (28 Minn. 443), 15G8.
Freeman v. Stine (15 Phila. 37),
1112.
Freeman v. Winchester (18 Miss.
577), 1796.
Freeman, etc. Co. v. Osborn (14
Colo. App. 488), 60 Pac. Rep.
730), 1072.
Freeport. etc. Co. v. Freeport City
(180 U. S. 587). 1553. 1650.
Fremont v. Stone (42 Barb. 169),
528, 1029.
Fremont, etc. Co. v. Storey (96 N.
W. Rep. (Neb.) 416), 899, 901.
French v. Connecticut, etc. Co.
(145 Mass. 261), 35.
French v. Donohue (29 Minn. Ill),
1292, 1295. 1296.
French v. Landis (12 Rob. (La.)
633), 1806.
French v. Morse (2 Gray (68
Mass.). 111). 564.
French Spiral Spring Co. v. New
England Car Trust, 1271.
French v. Teschemaker (24 Cal.
518). 833. 835. 839, 841.
Frenkel v. Hudson (82 Ala. 158),
506.
Fresno C. & I. Co. v. Warner (72
Cal 379) 157.
Frey v. Mutual Ins. Co. (43 U. C.
Q. B. 102), 2069.
Frick Co. v. Norfolk, etc. R. R.
(86 Fed. Rep. 725), 135.
Friedlander v. Slaughter House
Co. (31 La. Ann. 523), 611, 614,
958.
Friedman v. Empire, etc. Co. (101
Fed. Rep. 535). 2002.
Friedman v. Gold & Stock Tel. Co.
(32^
Hun, 4), 1384, 2105.
Friedman v. Jannssen (66 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 752). 1213.
Friezen v. Allemania, etc. Ins. Co.
(30 Fed. Rep. 349), 2024, 2032.
Fritts V. Palmer (129 U. S. 122),
1376.
Fritz V. Palmer (132 U. S. 282),
2003.
Fritz V. St. Stephen's Soc. (62
How. Pr. 69). 2069.
Frost V. Domestic, etc. Co. (133
Mass. 563), 1188, 1189, 1203.
Frost V.
Frostburg Coal Co. (24
How. 278), 69.
Frost V. St. Paul, etc. Co. (57
Minn. 325), 849.
Frost V. Walker (60 Me. 468), 8,
162, 2090, 2092, 2093.
Frost Manuf. Co. v. Foster (76
Iowa. 555). 1121, 1125, 1131.
Frostburg Mining Co. v. Cumber-
land, etc. R. Co. (81 Md. 28),
1817. 1818.
Frothingham v. Barney
(6
Hun
(N. Y.), 366), 1249, 1279, 1786.
1855, 1860, 1876, 1950, 1975, 1976.
Fry V. Lexington, etc. R. Co. (2
Mete. (Ky.) 314), 111, 113, 114,
268, 314, 323. 300. 471. 50L
Fry, In re (4 Phila. 129), 2087.
Fyfe's Case (L. R. 4 Ch. 708), 556.
Fulgam V. Macon, etc. Ry. Co. (44
Ga. 597), 338, 339, 481.
Fuller V. Dame (18 Pick. (35
Mass.) 472). 1471. 1587.
Fuller V. Ledden (87 111. 310), 911.
Fuller V. Rowe (57 N. Y. 23), 169,
1880.
Fuller V. Venable (118 Fed. Rep.
543), 1830.
Fuller Co., In re (79 Minn. 414),
880.
Fuqua v. Brewing Co. (90 Tex.
298), 1439.
Furdoonjee's Case (3 Ch. Div.
268), 565.
Furness v. Union Nat. Bank (147
111. 570), 587.
Furniss v. Gilchrist (1 Sandf. 67),
1266.
Fusilier v. Great, etc. Co. (50 La.
Ann. 799), 1628.
Fusz V. Spaunhorst (67 Mo. 256),
1129.
G.
Gableman v. Peoria, etc. Ry. (179
U. S. 335), 1789, 1793.
Gaddis v. Richland Co. (92 111.
114), 283.
Gade v. Forest, etc. Co. (165 111.
367), 83, 878.
Gadsden v. Lance (McMull. Eq.
(S. C.) 87; 37 Am. Dec. 348),
524.
Gaene v. Loemeo Pr. Co. (46 111.
App. 456), 1189.
Gaff V. Greer (88 Ind. 122), 2128,
2132 2134.
Gaff V.' Plesher (33 Ohio St. 107),
333, 690, 885, 948.
TABLE OF CASES. CXlll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Gaff V.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. (31
Pa. St. 489), 331.
Gaff V. Theis (33 Ind. 307). 1136.
Gafford v. American Mortg. & I.
Co. (77 Iowa, 736), 1207.
Gage V. Fisher (5 N. D. 297; 31
L. R. A. 557), 1030.
Gaige v. Grande Lodge (15 N. Y.
St. Rep. 455), 2071.
Gaines v. Fuentes (2 Otto (92 U.
S.) 10),
2010.
Gainey v. Gilson (149 Ind. 58),
1793.
Gaines v. Coates (51 Miss. 335),
60.
Galbraith v. Shasta Iron Co. (76
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 901), 1526.
Gale V. Eastman (7 Mete. (48
Mass.) 14), 844, 846.
Gale V. Troy, etc. R. Co. (2 N. Y.
Supp. 354), 1721.
Galena, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ennor (116
111. 55), 358. 1691.
Galena, etc. Ry. Co. v. Loomis (13
111. 548), 1386.
Galena, etc. R. Co. v. Menzies (26
111. 121), 1717.
Gallon V. Hays (29 Ohio St. 330),
1329.
Gallagher v. Kingston "W. Co. (25
N. Y. Appeal Div. 82), 1614.
Gallatin v. Bradford (1 Bibb.
(Ky.) 209), 208.
Galligos V. Attorney-General (3
Leigh (Va.), 450). 2050.
Gait V. Swain (9 Gratt. 633; 50
Am. Dec. 311), 268.
Galvanized Iron Co. v. Westobv (8

Ex. 17; 21 L. J. Ex. 302), 542.

Galveston City v. Sibley (56 Tex.
269), 263, 393, 395.
Galveston, Harrisburg, etc. R. Co.
V. Butler (56 Tex. 506), 1250.
Galveston Hotel, etc. Co. v. Bolton
(46 Tex. 633), 267, 268, 314.
Oalveston R. R. Co. v. Cowdrey
(11 Wall. 459), 992, 16S9, 1701,
1707, 1713, 1716. 1717, 1724, 1731,
1732, 1741, 1742.
Galveston, Harrisburg, etc. Ry. Co.
V. Donahoe (56 Tex. 163), 1171,
1485.
Galveston City Ry. Co. v. Galves-
ton (63 Tex. 529), 106, 1600.
Oalveston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Gonzales
(151 U. S. 496), 2039.
Galveston, etc. Ry. Co. v. State
(81 Tex. 572), 1942.
Gamble v. Central, etc. Co. (80 Ga.
595), 1269.
Vol. I
h
Gamble v. Queens County, etc. Co.
(123 N. Y. 91; 9 L. R. A. 527),
793, 794, 1009, 1114, 1688.
Garaewell, etc. Co. v. IFire, etc. Co.
(76 S. W. Rep. (Kv.) 862), 852,
1777.
Gamewell, etc. Co. v. Mayor (31
Fed. Rep. 312), 1517.
Gammill v. Johnson (1 S. W. Rep.
(Ark.) 610), 577.
Gamwell v. Pomeroy (121 Mass.
207), 833.
Gane v. Loemo Printing Co. (47
111. App. 456), 1080.
Gann v. Northeastern R. R. Co.
(57 Fed. Rep. 417), 2042.
Cans V. Carter (77 Md. 213), 1274,
1275, 1671.
Gaus V. Switzer (9 Mont. 408),
1136.
Garden City, etc. Co. v. American,
etc. Co. (68 N. E. Rep. (111.)
724), 890.
Garden City. etc. Co. v. Geilfuss
(86 Wis. 612), 1767, 1783.
Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. McLister
(L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39), 466, 480,
481.
Gardner v. Butler (30 N. J. Eq.
702), 1064, 1076.
Gardner v. Freemantle (19 W. R.
256), 774. 777, 2055.
Gardner <v. Hamilton, etc. Ins. Co.
33 N. Y. 421), 67, 114, 283,
1853, 1861. 1876.
Gardner v. Hope Ins. Co. (9 R. I.
194), 101, 494, 840.
Gardner v. London, etc. R. Co. (L.
R. 2 Ch. 201: L. R. 2 Ch. 212),
1580, 1701. 1704, 1712, 1714. 1727.
Gardner v. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co.
(102 Ala. 635), 1536.
Gardner v. Omnibus R. Co. (63
Cal. 326), 1204.
Gardner v. Pollard (10 Bosw. (N.
Y.) 674), 817.
Garesche v. Lewis (93 Mo. 197),
490. 565.
Caring v. Surgart (25 Colo. 136),
1831.
Garlic v. Jones (12 Johns. 146),
1680.
Garner v.
Hall (122 Ala. 221), 950.
Garnett v. Richardson (35 Ark.
144), 172.
Garrar v. Perley (7 Me. 404), 997.
Garretson v. Equitable Mut., etc.
Assn. (74 Iowa, 419), 2069.
Garretsville Bank v. Greene (64
Iowa, 445), 862, 865.
exIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Garrett v.
Burlington Plow Co. (70
Iowa, 697), 1703, 1704.
Garrett v. Dillsburg (78 Pa. St.
465), 278, 281, 282, 333, 342, 345.
Garrett v. Kansas City, etc. Co.
(113 Mo. 330), 442.
Garrett v. May (19 Md. 177), 679,
1GS7.
Garrett v. Sayles (1 Fed. Rep.
371), 875. 906.
Garrett v. Wiggins (1 Scam. (111.)
335), 1853.
Garrick v. Taylor (3 L. T. (N. S.)
460), 527.
Garrison v. Howe (17 N. Y. 458),
874, 891, 902, 906, 907, 910, 924,
926.
Garrison v. Technic, etc. Works
(55 N. Y. App. Div. 498), 370,
936.
Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell (22
Fed. Rep. 197), 164, 169, 171,
1931.
Garwood v. Ede (1 Ex. 264; 17 L.
J. Ex. 29), 378.
Gas Co. V. San Francisco (9 Cal.
453), 187. 1343.
Gas Co. V. Williamson (9 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 314). 826.
Gashwiler v. Willis (33 Cal. 11),
798, 800, 973,. 1054, 1055, 1056,
1445.
Gaskell v. Chambers (26 Beav.
360), 1108.
Gaskill V. Dudley (6 Met. (47
Mass.) 546), 919.
Gaslight Co. v. Terrell (L. R. 10
Eq. Cas. 168), 1702.
Gaslight & B. Co. v. Haynes (7 La.
Ann. 114), 1796.
Gasqnet v. Fidelity Co. (75 Fed.
Rep. 343), 1458.
Gatch V. Fitch (34 Fed. Rep. 566),
927.
Gates V. Boston, etc. Co. (53 Conn.
333), 1G93, 1734, 1743, 1744, 1827,
1828, 1855, 1856.
Gates V. Hooper (90 Tex. 563),
1439.
Gates V. Tippecanoe Stone Co. (57
Ohio St. 60; 48 N. E. Rep. 285;
63 Am. St. Rep. 705), 511.
Gaiich V. Harrison (12 111. App.
457), 842. 925, 928.
Gaiisan v. i3uck (68 Mo. 545), 852,
853.
Gay V. Brlerfield, etc. Co. (94 Ala.
303; 16 L. R. A. 564), 1735.
Gay V. Dare (103 Cal. 454), 526.
Gay V. Keys (30 111. 413), 853.
Gaylord v. Ft. Wayne, etc. R. Co.
(6 Biss. 286), 1913, 1924.
Geiger v. Perkiomen, etc. R. R.
Co. (167 Pa. St. 582; 28 L. R. A.
458), 1658.
Gellathy v. Minnesota, etc. Soc. (27
Minn. 215), 2069.
Gelpecke v. Blake (19 Iowa, 263),
327.
Gelpecke v. Dubuque (1 Wall.175),
42, 283, 294, 296, 1674, 1675, 1676.
1679.
Gemmell v. Davis (75 Md. 546),
639.
General Disc. Co. v. Stokes (35
L. G. C. P. 25), 483.
General, etc. Co. v. Transit, etc.
Co. (57 N. J. Eq. 460), 1289,
2095, 2097.
General Electric Co. v. La Grande.
etc. Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 590), 1737.
General Electric Co. v. Wightman
(3 N. Y. App. Div. 118), 1712.
General Exchange Bank v. Hor-
ner (L. R. 9 Eq. 480), 1123.
General Flo9.ting Dock Company,
In re (15 L. T. (N. S.) 526),
809.
General South American Co., In re
(2 Ch. Div. 337), 1713.
Geneva v. Geneva Tel. Co.
v(30
N.
Y. Misc. Rep. 236), 1629.
Gent v. Manufacturing, etc. Ins.
Co. (107 111. 652), 79, 83, 87, 88,
1216.
George v. Central R. R. Co. (101
Ala. 607), 536, 1462.
George v. Robison (23 Utah, 79),
237.
George v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co.
(44 Fed. Rep. 117), 969, 1536,
1591.
George, etc. Co. v. Range, etc. (16
Utah, 59), 581, 585.
George v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co.
(44 Fed. Rep. 117), 989.
George T. Stagg Co. v. E. H. Tay-
lor, etc. Co. (68 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 862), 122.
Georgeson v. Caffrey
(71
Hun,
472), 1527.
Georgetown College v. Browne (34
Md. 450), 1299, 1999.
Georgetown Co. v. Fidelity, etc. Co.
(78 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 113),
1692, 1764.
Georgia v. Castlebeery (43 Ga.
187), 179. 182.
Georgia v. Meeville (4 D. & R.
641), 1682.
TABLE OF CASES. cxv
TReference's are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Georgia Pac. Ry. Co. v. Gaines (7
So. Rep. (Ala.) 382), 188.5.
Georgia, etc. Life Ins. Co. v. Gib-
son (52 Ga. 640), 212-5.
Georgia, etc. Co. v. Mercantile (94
Ga. 30t5; 47 Am. St. Rep. 153),
158.
Georgia, etc. Co. v. Smith (128
U. S. 174), 1555.
Georgia Ice Co. v. Porter (70 Ga.
687), 183G.
Georgia Pac. R. Co. v. Wilks (86
Ala. 478), 1885.
Gere v. New York, etc. R. Co. (19
Abb. N. Cas. 193), 1573, 1574,
1867.
Gerhard v. Bates (20 Eng. L. &
Eq. 129), 577.
Gerke v. Purcell (25 Ohio, 229),
725, 726.
German, etc. Assn. v. Metzger (3
W. N. C. (Pa.) 204), 2070.
German, etc. Assn. v. Oldenburg
(46 111. App. 281), 125.
German, etc. Assn. v. Sendmeyer
(50 Pa. St. 67), 525.
German Land Assn. v. Scholler
(10 Minn. 338), 2050.
German Ins. Co. v. Strahl (13
Phila. 512), 1520.
German M. Co., In re (4 De G.,
M. & G. 19), 1266.
German Sav. Inst. v. Jacoby (11
S. W. Rep. (Mo.) 256), 1340.
German Sav. Bank v. Renshaw
(78 Md. 475), 583.
German Sav. Bank v. Wulfekuhler
(19 Kan. 60), 254, 553.
German Security Bank v. Jeffer-
son (10 Bush (Ky.), 326), 693.
Germania, etc. Co. v. Flynn (92
Wis. 201), 1059.
Germania. etc. Co. v. King (94
Wis. 439), 453.
Germania Ins. Co. v. State of Wis-
consin (119 U. S. 473), 2044.
Germania Nat. Bank v. Case (99
U. S. 628), 551, 562, 1237.
Germantown, etc. Ins. Co. v. Dhein
(43 Wis. 420; 28 Am. Rep. 249),
1351.
Germantown Passenger Ry. Co. v.
Fitler (60 Pa. St. 134), 447, 459,
474, 476, 480, 488, 497, 501, 854,
900, 943, 1796, 1965.
Germicide Co., In re (65 Hun,
606), 1021.
Gernsheim v. Olcott (7 N. Y. Supp.
872), 1827.
Getty V. Barnes Milling Co. (19
Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 617), 1170,
1192.
Getty V. Devlin (54 N. Y. 413),
1218, 1219.
Gheen v. Johnson (90 Pa. St. 38),
2111.
Gianella v. Bigelow (96 Wis. 185),
557, 567.
Gibbes v. Greenville, etc. R. Co.
(15 S. C. 304), 1669.
Gibbons v. Mahon (136 U. S. 549),
645, 651, 800, 1535.
Gibbons v. Mobile, etc. R. Co. (3G
Ala.
410), 297.
Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 97,
note a), 59, 1455.
Gibbs Estate, In re (157 Pa. St.
59), 154, 173, 880, 2090.
Gibbs V. Baltimore Gas Co. (130
V. S. 396), 1641.
Gibbs V. Consolidated Gas Co.
(130 U. S. 397, 408), 1245, 1472,
1850, 1852.
Gibbs V. Long Island Bank (83
Hun. 92), 82.
Gibbs V. McNeely (118 Fed. Rep.
120), 1474.
Gibbs V. Standard Oil Co. (49
Ohio St.), 1421.
Gibert v. Washington, etc. R. Co.
(33 Graft. (Va.) 586), 1721,
1726, 1727.
Gibson v. Columbia, etc. Co. (18
Ohio St. 396), 485.
Gibson v. Crick (1 Hurl. & C. 142),
2111.
Gibson v. Goldthwaite (7 Ala.
281), 1188.
Gibson v. Hamilton, etc. Co. (21
Wash. 362), 1809.
Gibson v. Mason (5 Nev. 283), 297.
Gibson v. Thornton (112 Ga. 328),
437.
Gibson County v. Pullman, etc. Co.
(42 Fed. Rep. 572), 755, 756, 757.
Gier v. Amalgamated, etc. Co. (61
N. J. Eq. 364), 1511, 1512.
Giesen v. London, etc. (102 Fed.
Rep. 584), 1832.
Gifford v. Carvill (29 Cal. 589),
580.-
Gifford V. Livingston (2 Denio,
380), 2092.
Gifford V. New Jersey R. Co. (10
N. J.
Eq. 171), 115, 804, 828,
1017, 1090.
Gifford V. Thompson (115 Mass.
478), 626, 628, 647, 649.
Gihon V. Belleville (3 Halst. (N.
J.) Eq. 531), 1738.
CXVl
TABLE OF OASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. IIT, 1507-2134.]
Gilbert v. Manchester Iron Co. (11
Wend. (527). 202, 420, 014, 542.
Gilbert's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. App.
r.59), 450, 530, 617, SSfi, 887.
Gilbert v. Finch (173 N. Y, 455),
1530.
Gilbert v. McAnnany (28 Up. C.
Q. B. 384), 1270.
Gilbert v. McNulta (96 Fed. Rep.
S3), 1791.
Gilbert v. Washington City, etc.
R. Co. (33 Gratt. 556). 1895.
Gilbert El. R. Co. v. Henderson
70 N. Y. 361). 32.
Gilboiigh V. Norfolk, etc. Ry. Co.
(1 Hughes (U. S.) 410), 1086.
Gilchrist v. Helena, etc. Co. (47
Fed. Rep. 593; 49 Fed. Rep.
519), 921, 2007.
Giles V. Hutt (3 Ex. Ch. 18), 473,
478.
Giles V. Stanton (86 Tex. 620; 26
S. W. Rep. 615), 1969.
Gilfillan v. Union Canal Co. (109
U. S. 401), 1819.
Gilkey v. Paine (80 Me. 319), 648.
Gilkinson v. Third, etc. R. R. Co.
(47 N. Y. App. Div. 472), 536.
Gill V. Balis (72 Mo. 424), 252,
328, 335, 336, 359.
Gill V. Manchester, etc. Ry. Co.
(L. R. 8 Q. B. 186), 1291, 1295.
Gill V. New York Pub. Co. (48
Hun, 524), 1076.
Gillespie v. Blair Glass Co. (189
Pa. St. 50), 1808.
Gillespie v. Gaston (67 Tex. 599),
713.
Gillespie v. Planters', etc. Co. (76
Miss. 406), 126.
Gillett V. Bate (86 N. Y. 87), 959.
Gillett V. Bowen (23 Fed, Rep.
625), 794.
Gillett V. Missouri, etc. R. Co. (55
Mo. 315; 17 Am. Rep. 653), 1492,
1542.
Gillett V. Moody (3 N. Y. 479; 5
Barb. 179; 13 N. Y. 114), 554,
637, 899, 2092.
Gillett V. Phillips (13 N. Y. 114),
2092.
Gillett V. Whiting (120 N. Y. 402),
586.
Gillis T. Bailey (21 N. H. 149),
1089.
Gilman v. Greenpoint Sugar Co.
(4 Lans. Ch. (N. Y.) 483), 1955.
Gilman v. Gross (97 Wis. 224),
261, 265. 273, 274.
Gilman v. Hlinois, etc. Co. (91 U.
S. 603), 1717, 1725, 1731.
Gilman v. Sheboygan, etc. R. (37
Wis. 317), 1251.
Gilman, etc. R. Co. v. Kelly
(77
111. 426), 436, 516.
Gilmer v. Morris (35 Fed. Rep.
082), 580, 587.
Gilmer v. Stone (120 U. S. 586),
1234, 1236, 2129.
Gilmore v. Herrick (93 Fed. Rep.
526), 1790.
Gilmore v. Mittineague P. Co. (169
Mass. 471), 1177.
Gilmore's Ex'rs v. Bank of Cincin-
nati (8 Ohio, 62), 446.
Gilpin V. Howell (5 Pa. St. 41),
148, 586, 2035.
Gilson V. Dayton (123 U. S. 59),
294.
Gimmell v. Davis (75 Md. 546),
680.
Gindrat v. Dane (4 Cliff. (U. S.)
260), 1125.
Ginger, Ex parte
(5 Jr. Ch. 174),
375.
Ginn v. New England, etc. Co. (92
Ala. 135), 2007.
Ginz V. Stumph (73 Ind. 209), 582.
Girard v. Philadelphia (7 Wall.
(U. S.), 1), 130.
Girard Bank v. Bank of Penn.
Township (39 Pa. St. 102), 489.
Girard Point, etc. v. Southwork
F. Co. (105 Pa. St. 248), 1245.
Girard Trust Co. v. Mellor (156
Pa. St. 579), 581.
Girard Will Case (2 How. 127),
1370.
Girbank's Ex'rs v. Humphreys (18
Q. B. Div. 54), 1155.
Girls' Industrial Home v. Fritchey
(10 Mo. App. 344), 1517.
Cithers v. Clark (158 Pa. St. 616),
1136, 1138, 1142.
Given v. Phelps (34 Barb. 224),
925.
Given v. Wright (117 U. S. 648),
723.
Glaessner v. Anheuser-Busch, etc.
(100 Mo. 508), 1602.
Glasgow Bank Cases (4 App. Cas.
547), 569.
Glass v. Tipton, etc. Co. (32 Ind.
376), 130.
Glavin v. R. I. Hospital (12 R. I.
411; 34 Am. Rep. 675), 1488.
Gleason v. McKay (134 Mass. 419),
7, 2089, 2093.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXVU
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Gleason v. Sanitary, etc. Co. (93
Me. 544), 1150.
Gleaves v. Brick Ctiurch, etc. Co.
1 Sneed. (Tenn.) 491), 69.
Gleason v. V. M. Ry. (140 U. S.
435), 1637.
Glen Iron AVorks, In re (20 Fed.
Rep. 674), 498, 898. 913, 968.
Glenn v. Abell (39 Fed. Rep.
10),
353, 564.
Glenn v. Bergman (20 Mo. App.
343), 164.
Glenn v. Breard (35 La. Ann.
875),
18, 170.
Glenn v. Dorsheimer (24 Fed. Rep.
536), 485, 486, 489, 490.
Glenn v. Foote (36 Fed. Rep. 824),
486, 884.
Glenn v. Garth (133 N. Y. 18),
237, 261. 265,
274,
'883.
Glenn v. Hatchet (91 Ala. 316),
944
Glenn v. Howard (65 Md.
40), 483,
486, 491, 564, 953.
Glenn v. Hunt (120 Mo. 330), 935.
Glenn v. Liggett (135 U. S. 533),
457, 458, 485, 486, 487, 950, 1890.
Glenn v. Macon (32 Fed. Rep. 7),
49L
Glenn v. Marbury (145 U. S. 499),
485, 488, 950.
Glenn v. Orr (96 N. C. 413), 466,
914, 2036.
Glenn v. Priest (48 Fed. Rep. 19),
485, 950.
Glenn v. Rosborough (48 S. C.
272), 952, 953.
Glenn v. Saxton (68 Cal. 353), 457,
485.
Glenn v. Semple (80 Ala. 159; 60
Am. Rep. 92), 446, 459, 486, 491,
497, 900, 913.
Glenn v. Springs (26 Fed. Rep.
494), 813, 914, 919.
Glenn v. Sumner (132 U. S. 152),
483.
Glenn v. Williams (60 Md. 93),
460, 458, 459, 485, 486, 489, 491,
497, 900.
Glens Falls v. Harvey (45
N. H.
292), 222.
Glines v. Order, etc. (20 N. Y.
Supp. 275), 1812.
Globe, etc. Assn., In re (63 Hun
(N. Y.), 263; 17 L. R. A. 547),
76.
Globe, etc. Co. v. Jones (89 N. W.
Rep. (Mich.) 580), 1973.
Globe, etc. Co. v. Reid (19 Ind.
App. 203), 132, 1288.
Gloninger
v. Pittsburg, etc. Co.
(139 Pa. St. 13^ 1670.
Glory Paper Mills, In re (3 Ch.
473), 303.
Gloucester, etc. Co. v. Russia, etc.
Co. (154 Mass. 92; 12 L. R. A.
563), 1438.
Glucose, etc. Co. v. American, etc.
Co. (56 Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 861),
125.
Glymont Imperial Co. v. Toller (80
Md. 278). 992, 1247.
Godbold V. Branch Bank of Mo-
bile (11 Ala. (N. S.) 191), 1117,
1120, 1125, 1139.
Goddard v. Fishel, etc. Co. (9
Col. App. 306), 1834.
Goddard v. Grand Trunk Ry. (57
Me. 202), 1495.
Goddard v. St. Louis Merchants,
etc. (78 Mo. 609), 187, 199, 201,
202, 203.
Goddard's Case (2 Rep. 5), 131.
Goddin v. Crump (8 Leigh (Va.),
120), 295, 296.
Godfrey v. Terry (97 U. S. 171),
837, 854, 949.
Goesele v. Bimeler (5 McLee.n
(U. S.), 223; 10 Fed. Cas. 528),
2128.
Goff V. American Linen, etc. Co.
(21 N. Y. 24), 1328.
Goff V. Great Northern Ry. (3 E.
L. & El. 672), 1493.
Goff V. Hawkeye, etc. Co. (62
Iowa, 691), 319, 339, 516.
Goff V. Winchester College (6
Bush. (Ky.) 443), 273. 359.
Gogebic, etc. v. Iron Chief, etc.
Co. (78 Wis. 427), 325.
Golconda v. Field (108 111. 419),
63.
Gold V. Clvne (58 Hun, 419; 17
L. R. A. 767), 1134, 1135.
Gold Min. Co. v. National Bank
(96 U. S. 640), 1330, 1369.
Golden v. Morning News (156 U.
S. 518), 2023, 2039.
Golden Gate, etc. Co. v. Superior
Court (65 Cal. 187), 1544.
Golden Rule v. People (118 111.
492), 1929.
Goldsmith v. Home Ins. Co. (62
Ga. 379), 1990, 1991.
Goldville. etc. Co., In re (118 Fed.
Rep. 892), 1708.
Goler V. Tacoma R. etc. Co. (54
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 413), 1248.
Golger V. Chase (18 Pick. (35
Mass.) 63), 1970.
CXVlll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.].
Gompertz v. Bartlett (2 El. & Bl.
S49), 406.
Gon V. Colin, etc. Co. (109
Mich.
45), 879.
Gooch V. McGee (83 N. C. 59),
970, 1537, 1591.
Gooch's Case (L. R. 8 Ch. 2GG),
558.
Goodav V. Colchester, etc. Ry. Co.
(L. R. 15 Eq. 59G), 1174.
Goodell V. Verdiigo, etc. Co. (71
Pac. Rep .(Cal.) 354), 1027,
1182.
Goodhue, etc. Co. v. Davis (81
Minn. 210), 1185.
Goodin V. Cincinnati, etc. Co. (18
Ohio St . 183), 1099, 1100.
Goodin v. Evans (18 Ohio St.
150), 115.
Goodlett V. Louisville, etc.. Ry. Co.
(122 U. S. 391), 2011.
Goodloe V. Godly (21 Miss. 233),
1160.
Goodrich v. Reynolds (31 111.
490), 364, 368, 373, 454, 461, 503,
559.
,
Goodrel v. Kreichbaum (70 Iowa,
382), 46, 1995.
Goodspeed v. East Haddam Bank
(22 Conn. 530), 1492, 1543.
Goodspeed v. Wiard Plough Co.
(45 Mich. 322), 1974.
Goodwin v. American National
Bank (48 Conn. 550), 572, 602.
Goodwin v. Hardy (57 Me. 143),
622, 625, 626, 627, 628, 631.
Goodwin v. McGehee (15 Ala.
232), 446, 922, 925.
Goodwin v. Ottawa, etc. Ry. Co.
(13 U. C. C. P. 254), 590, 619.
Goodwin v. Roharts (L. R. 1 App.
Case, 476), 1677, 1678.
Goodwin v. Sleeper (67 Wis. 577),
870.
Goodyear Dental, etc. Co. v. Caduc
(144 Mass. 85), 1152.
Goodyear, etc. Co. v. Goodyear
Rubber Co. (128 U. S. 598), 127.
Goodyear, etc. v. Goodyear, etc.
Co. (21 Fed. Rep. 276), 128.
Gorder v. Connor (56 Neb. 781),
174, 793.
Gorder v. Plattsmouth, etc. Co.
(36 Neb. 548), 134.
Gordon, Ex parte (3 De G. & Sm.
249), 809.
Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court (3
How. 133), 718.
Gordon v. Baltimore (5 Gill
(Md.),
231), 712.
Gordon v. Jennings (8 Q. B. Div.
45), 859.
Gordon v. Parker (10 La. Ann.
56), 577.
Gordon v. Preston (1 Watts (Pa.),
385; 26 Am. Dec. 75), 7, 792,
1833.
Gordon v. Richmond, etc. R. Co.
(78 Va. 501), 246, 248, 634, 664,
669, 670, 681, 684.
Gordon v. Sea, Eire & Life Assur-
ance Soc. (1 Hurl.
&
N.; 26
(Exch.) 209), 438, 599.
Gordon v. Winchester, etc. Assn.
(12 Bush (Ky.), 110), 59, 71.
Gores v. Field (109 Wis. 408),
1514.
Gorham v. Campbell (2 Cal. 135),
998.
Gorham v. Gilson (28 Cal. 484),
799.
Gorman v. Guardians' Sav. Bank
(4 Mo. App. 180), 1355.
Gorman v. Pac. Ry. Co. (26 Mo.
441), 1386, 1393.
Gorman v. Russell (14 Cal. 532),
7, 785, 787, 2047, 2059, 2061,
2102.
Goshen, etc. Co. v. Searson (7
Conn. 86), 88.
Goshorn v. County
(1 W. Va.
308), 296.
Goss V. Hampton (16 Nev. 185),
583.
Gottberg v. United States National
Bank (13 N. Y. Supp. 841), 581.
Gould V. Head (38 Fed. Rep. 886),
618, 1039, 1451, 1452, 1889.
Gould V. Langdon (43 Pa. St.
365), 1891.
Gould V. Maricopa Canal Co. (76
Pac. Rep. (Ariz.) 598), 1652.
Gould V. Norfolk Lead Co. (63
Mass. 38), 1177.
Gould V. Oneonta (71 N. Y. 298),
462, 471.
Gould V. Seney (9 N, Y. Supp.
818), 1825, 1854.
Gouthv/aite, Ex parte (3 Mac.
&
G. 1S7), 569, 570.
Gouthwaite's Case (3 De G. & Sm.
258), 569.
Governor v. Allen (8 Hump.
(Tenn.) 176), 12.
Gowen's Appeal (10 W. N. Cas.
(Pa.) 85), 1017.
Gower's Case (L. R. 6 Eq.
77),
588, 943.
Gozzler v. Georgetown (6 Wheat.
(U. S.) 593), 1229, 1338,
TABLE OF CASES. CXI
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Grabbs-Wiley, etc. Co., In re (96
Fep. Rep. 183), 860.
Grady's Case (1 De G., J. &. S.
488), 554.
Grabner v. Post (96 N. W. Rep.
(Wis.) 783), 462.
Graff V. Bonnett (31 N. Y. 9),
1423.
Graff V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
(31 Pa. St. 489), 317, 318, 358,
36'2,
368, 375, 545, 587, 888.
Graffenreid v. Bruns^wick, etc. R.
Co. (57 Ga. 22), 1799.
Grafner v. Pittsburgh, etc. Co. (56
Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 426), 561, 1065.
Grafton v. Union Ferry Co. (19
N. Y. Supp. 960), 1967.
Graham v. Boston (156 Mass. 75),
1627.
Graham v. Birkenhead, etc. Co.
(2 Mac. (N. G.) 146), 828.
Graham v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (118
U. S. 161), 31, 814, 828, 919,
973, 988, 989, 990, 991, 1627,
1725, 1751, 1752, 1872, 1873,
1975.
Graham v. Carr (41 S. B. Rep.
(N. C.) 379), 1773.
Graham v. First National Bank,
etc. (20 Hun, 325; 84 N. Y.
393), 626.
Graham v. Hendricks (22 La.
Ann. 523), 19.
Graham v. Johns'on (8 Eq. 37),
1678,
Graham v. La Crosse, etc. Co. (102
U. S. 148), 448, 450, 451.
Graham v. National Bank (32 N.
J. Eq. 804), 1371.
Graham v. Partee (35 So. Rep.
(Ala.) 1016), 1289.
Graham v. Railroad Co. (3 "Wall.
704), 1877.
Graliam v. Township of St. Joseph
(67 Mich. 652), 750.
Graham v. Van Dieman's Land
Co. (1 Hurl. & N. 541), 476.
Graham, etc. Co. T. Spielmann (50
N. J. Eq. 120), 1791.
Gram v. Prussia, etc. Soc. (36 N.
Y. 161), 2082.
Granby Mining & Smelting Co. v.
Richards (95 Mo. 106), 52, 156,
15,7.
Grand Commandery v. Stewart
(58 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 26),
213.
Grand Gulf Bank v. Archer (8
Sm. & M. (Miss.) 151), 155.
Grand, etc. Co. v. Rude, etc. Co.
(60 Kan. 145), 1766, 1770.
Grand Junction R. Co. v. Bickford
(23 Grants, Ch. (Ont.) 302),
1703.
Grand Junction R. Co. v. Mid-
dlesex (14 Gray
(80 Mass.),
553), 1317.
Grand Lodge v. Cohn (20 111.
App. 335), 2070.
Grand Lodge v. Graham (96 Iowa,
592; 31 L. R. A. 133), 128.
Grand Lodge v. People (60 111.
App.
550), 211, 214.
Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Run-
nels (43 N. W. Rep. (Mich.)
1006), 1519.
Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v. Cincin-
nati, etc. Co. (45 Fed. Rep.
671), 793.
Grand Rapids, etq. Co. v. Grand
Rapids (33 Fed. Rep. 659), 1318,
1611.
Grand Rapids, etc. Ry. Co. v. San-
ders (17 Hun, 552; 54 How. Pr.
214), 391, 1673, 1690.
Grand River Br. Co. v. Rollins (13
Colo. 4; 21 Pac. Rep. 897), 1521.
Grand Rapids Savings Bank v.
Warren (52 Mich. 557), 101,
910, 916, 928.
Grand Trunk Ry. v. Central Vt.
Ry. (103 Fed. Rep. 740), 1680,
1756, 1757, 1802.
Granger v. Am. etc. Co. (25 Misc.
Rep. (N. Y.) 302), 1059.
Granger v. Bassett (98 Mass. 462),
628.
Granger v. Grubb (7 Phila. 350),
799, 973, 997, 1018.
Granger v. Original Empire Mill,
etc. Company (59
Cal. 678),
986.
Grangers', etc. Co. v. Kamper (73
Ala. 341), 35, 51, 79, 239, 240,
251, 401, 422, 2009.
Granger's Mkt. Co. v. Vinson (6
Oreg. 172), 573.
Granite Roofing Co. v. Michaels
(54 Md. 65), 454, 461.
Grant v. Courier (24 Barb. 232),
296.
Grant v. East, etc. Co. (4 C. C. A.
; 54 Fed. Rep. 569), 513.
Grant v. City of Davenport (18
Iowa, 194), 1748.
Grant v. Lookout, etc. Co. (93
Tenn. 6S1; 27 L. R. A. 98), 816,
1074, 1814.
Grant v. Mechanics' Bank (15
Sergt. & R. 140). 691, 692, 2070.
Grant v. Ross (100 Ky. 44), 639.
cxx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Grant v. Southern Contract Co.
(104 Ky. 781), 1248.
Grant v. United Kingdom Switch-
back Ry. Co. (L. R. 40 (40 Ch.
D.) 135), 1705.
Grape Sugar, etc. Co. v. Small
(40 Md. 395), 1174.
Gratz V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (41
Pa. St. 447), 1576.
Gratz V. Redd (4 B. Mon. (Ky.)
178), 636, 645, 1089.
Graves v. Mono Lake Hydraulic
Min. Co. (81 Cal. 303), 1076.
Grav V. Bennett (3 Mete. (44
Mass.) 522), 850.
Gray v. Chaplin (2 Russ. Rep. Ch.
136), 828.
Gray v. Christian Soc. (137 Mass.
329; 50 Am. Rep. 310), 228,779.
Gray v. Coffin (9 Cush. (63 Mass.)
192), 111, 565, 570, 833, 837, 842,
875.
Gray v. Covert (58 N. E. (Ind.)
731), 1811.
Grav V. Fuller (17 N. Y. App. Div.
29), 1515.
Gi-ay V. Lewis (29 L. T. Rep. 12),
812.
Gray v. Massachusetts (171 Mass.
116), 1758.
Gray v. Mutual Union Tel. Co. (12
Mo. App. 45), 1489.
Gray v. National Benefit Assn.
(Ill Ind. 531), 2071.
Gray v. National, etc. Co. (115
U. S. 116), 1504, 1977.
Gray v. Portland Bank (3 Mass.
364), 239, 240, 262, 272, 596, 651,
653, 802,
Gray v. Taper Sleeve Pulley
Works (15 Fed. Rep. 436), 2031.
Grav V. Turnpike Co. (4 Rand.
(Va.) 578), 479.
Gray v. Western U. T. Co. (87 Ga.
350), 1623.
Gray's Case (1 Ch. Div. 664), 570.
Gravdon v. Graydon (23 N. J. L.
229), 386.
Great Cambrian M. Co., Ex parte
(Hawkins, 2 K. & J. 253; 25 L.
J. Ch. 221), 273, 542.
Great Eastern Ry. Co. v. Turner
(42 L. J. Ch. 83), 554.
Great Falls, etc. R. Co. v. Copp
(38 N. H. 124), 494, 495, 833.
Great Palls Manuf. Co. v. Femald
(47 N. H. 444), 18, 1311.
Great Luxembourg Ry. Co. v.
Magnay (25 Beav. 586), 1099,
1103, 1109, 1702.
Great Northern, etc. Mining Co.,
In re (17 Week. Rep. 462), 1956.
Great North, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bid-
dulph (7 M. &
W. 243), 464,
691.
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. East-
em, etc. Ry. Co. (21 L. J. (Ch.)
837), 1282, 1433.
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Ken-
nedy (4 Exch. 417), 478.
Great Northern R. v. Manchester,
etc. R. Co. (5 L. T. (N. S.)
667), 1579, 1581.
Great Northern Salt, etc. Works,
In re (7 Ry. & L. J. 157), 972.
Great Western Ry. Co. v. Gordon
(16 Mees. & W. 805), 348.
Great Western, etc. Co. v. Haw-
kins (66 N. E. (Ind.) 765),
1314, 1643.
Great Western, etc. Co. v. Harris
(111 Fed. 38),
63V,
1158, 1695.-
Great Western, etc. Co. v. Lowen-
thal (154 111. 261), 325.
Great Western, etc. Co. v. Purdy
(162 U. S. 329), 457, 949, 951.
Great Western Min. Co. v. Wood-
mas, etc. Min. Co. (12 Colo. 46;
13 Am. St. Rep. 204), 1519.
Great Western Ry. Co. v. Good-
man (21 L. J. C. P. 197), 22?.
Great Western Ry. Co. v. Oxford,
etc. Rv. Co. (3 De Gex, M. & G.
341), 828.
Great Western Ry. Co. v. Rushout
(5 De Gex & S. 290), 823, 1356,
Great Western Tel. Co. v. Burn-
ham (79 Wis. 47), 466.
Great Western Tel. Co. v. Gray
(122 111. 630), 429, 437, 908.
Great Western T. Co. v. Loewen-
thal (154 111. 261), 273.
Greaves v. Gonge (69 N. Y. 154),
1125, 1126.
Greeley v. Smith (3 Story, 657;
Fed. Cas. 5748), 1947, 1950, 1967,
1968, 1972.
Greeley v. Provident Sav. Bank
(103 Mo. 212), 1780.
Green v. Abietine Medical Co. (96
Cal. 322), 494.
Green v. African Methodist Epis.
Soc. (1 Sergt. & R. (Pa.) 254),
769, 2063.
Green v. Beckman (59 Cal. 545),
832, 835, 949.
Green v. Biddle (8 Wheaton,
1,
84), 39, 40, 101, 840.
Green v. Blodgett (159 111. 169),
132, 1200.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXl
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Green v. Bostwick (1 Sandf. Ch.
185), 1747.
Green v. Chartiers Ry. Co. (96
Pa. St. 391), 334.
Green v. City, etc. Ry. (78 Md.
294), 1607.
Green v. Compton (83 N. Y. S.
588), 1510.
Green v. Durham
(1 Burr. Repts.
K. B. 127), 978.
Green v. Easton (75 Hun, 329),
1133.
Green v. Green (34 111. 320), 105.
Green v. Hedenberg
(159 111.
489), 1511.
Green v. Hugo (81 Tex. 452),
1077.
Green v. Ivey (33 So. Rep. (Fla.)
711), 1652.
Green v. Kemp (13 Mass. 515),
1369.
Green v. Knife , etc. Co. (35 Minn.
155), 48, 78.
Green v. London, etc. Co. (7 C.
B. (N. S.) 290), 1481, 1539.
Green v. Nixon (23 Beav. 530),
1164.
Green v. St. Albans T. Co. (57
Vt. 340), 1933, 1939.
Green v. Seymour (3 Sandf. Ch.
285), 67, 69.
Green v. Si2;na Iron Co. (76 Fed.
Rep. (C. C.) 947), 261.
Green v. Tulane (52 N. J. Eq.
169), 536.
Green v. Van Buskirk (5 Wall.
307), 1719.
Green v. Wallis Iron Works (49
N. J. Eq. 48), 1798.
Green v. Wolkill National Bank
(7 Hun, 63), 1964, 19G5.
Green v. Williams (22 R. I. 547),
1810.
Green County v. Conness (109 U.
S. 104), 1881.
Greene v. Dennis (6 Conn. 302;
16 Am. Dec. 58), 92, 161, 1533.
Greene v. Iroquois, etc. Co. (84 N.
Y. S. 591), 1563.
Greene v. People (21 N. E. Rep.
(111.) 604), 1423, 1922.
Green Bay, etc. Co. v. Union
Steamboat Company (107 U. S.
98). 57, 1230, 1275, 1471, 1584.
Greenbrier, etc. Express v. Squires
(40 W. Va. 307), 947.
Greenbrier Lumber Co. v. Ward
(30 W. Va. 43), 1913, 1915, 1916,
1970.
Greenbrier, etc. v. Ochiltree (44
W. Va. 626), 265.
Greenbrier, etc. v. Rhodes (37 W.
Va. 738), 276, 9.39.
Greenell v. Detroit Gas. Co. (112
Mich. 70), 1834.
Greenfield Sav. Bank v. Simons
(133 Mass. 415), 1103, 1105,
1106.
Greenhalgh v. Manchester, etc.
Ry. Co. (9 Sim. 416), 1175.
Greenhills, Ex parte (5 De G. &
Sm. 599), 483.
Greenleaf, In re (184 111. 226),
711.
Greenleaf v. Equitable, etc. Soc.
(160 N. Y. 19), 639.
Greenleaf v. Ludington (15 Wis.
558), 393.
Greenleaf v. Norfolk, etc. R. Co.
(91 N. C. 33), 1163.
Green Mountain, etc. Co. v. Bulla
(45 Ind.
1), 590, 619.
Greenpoint Sugar Co. v. Whitin
(69 N. Y. 328), 1369.
Greensboro, etc. Co. v. Stratton
(120 Tnd. 294), 1076, 1111.
Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Cath-
cart (4 Rich. L. (S. C.) 89),
472.
Greenville & C. R. Co. v. Coleman
(5 Rich. (S. C.) 118), 111, 377,
542, 1009.
Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Johnson
(8 Barb. 332), 111, 312.
Greenville, etc. Co. v. Planters,
etc. Co. (70 Miss. 669; 35 Am.
St. Rep. 681), 1428, 1851, 1852,
1866.
Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Smith
(6
Rich. (S. C.) 91), 366, 472.
Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Wood-
sides (5 Rich. L. (S. C.) 145),
291, 338.
Greenwood v. Union Freight R.
Co. (105 U. S. 13), 38, 40, 89,
99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 763,
820, 1301, 1602, 1937, 1971, 1972,
1978.
Greenwood, etc. R. R. v. Strang
(77 Fed. Rep. 498), 1722.
Greer v. Chartiers Ry. Co. (96
Pa. St. 391), 325.
Gregg V. Granby, etc. Co. (164
Mo. 616), 1024.
Gregg V. Mass. Med. Soc. (Ill
Mass. 185). 786, 787, 2060.
Gregg V. Metropolitan T. Co. (124
Fed. Rep. 721), 1807.
CXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Gregg V.
Northeril R. R. (C7 N.
H. 452),
1562.
Gregg V. Riordan (99 Cal. 316),
1189.
Gro^^ory v. Dubois (3
Sandf. Ch.
46G), 262.
Gregory v. German Bank (3 Colo.
3.32), 48, 841, 1144.
Gregory v. Lamb (16 Neb. 205),
li67, 1204.
Gregory v. Patchett (33 Beav.
595), 828, 1361.
Gregory v. Shelby College (2
Met.
(Ky.) 589), 65.
Gregory v. Wendell (39 Mich.
337), 2115.
Grenada Co. v. Brogden (112 U.
S. 261), 283, 988, 991.
Grenell v. Detroit, etc, Co. (112
Mich. 70),
1252.
Gresham v. Island City Sav. Bk.
(2 Tex. Civ. App. 52), 1823.
Grew V. Breed (10 Mete. (51
Mass.) 569), 562, 570, 886, 916.
Grevke's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. 63),
479.
Grice. In re (79 Fed. Rep. 627),
1428.
Gridlev v. Barnes (103 111. 211),
848, 948.
Gridley v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co.
(71 111. 200), 1075.
Griffin v. Asheville, etc. Co. (Ill
N. C. 434), 1527.
Griffin v. City Bank (58 Ga. 584),
504.
Griffin v. Clinton, etc. Co. (1
West Law, M.; 31 Fed. Cas.
5816), 80.
Griffin v. Goldsboro Water Co.
(122 N. C. 206; 41 L. R. A. 240).
1650".
Griffin v. Long Island R. Co. (109
N. Y. 449), 1748.
Griffing Iron Co., In re (63 N. J.
L. 168), 1053.
Griffith's Case (L. R. Ch. 374),
1892.
Griffith V. Blackwater, etc. Ca.
(46 W. Va. 56), 1182, 1974.
Griffiths V. Burden (35 Iowa, 138),
1674.
Griffith V. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(74 Iowa, 85), 1588.
Griffith V. Jewett (Weekly Law
Bulletin, 4), 1028, 1034.
Griffith V. Mangam (73 N. Y. 611),
900, 913, 968.
Griffith V. Paget (6 Ch. Div. 511),
680, 681, 1975.
Griffith V. Watson (19 Kan. 23),
712.
Griggs V. Day (158 N. Y. 1), 1829.
Grigg V. Mercantile T. Co. (109
Fed. Rep. 220), 1073, 1814.
Grignon v. Astor (2 How. 319),
1752.
Grind v. Tucker (5 Kan. 70), 919.
Grintner v. Kansas, etc. R. Co.
(23 Kan. 642), 1315.
Grissell's Case (L. R. 1 Ch. 529),
454, 922.
Grissell v. Bristowe (L. R. 3 C.
P. 112), 468, 545, 891, 888, 2107.
Griswold v. Haven (25 N. Y. 601),
1180.
Griswold v. Seligman (72 Mo.
110), 563, 571, 808, 809, 868,869,
946.
Grizev/ood v. Blane (11 C. B. 526),
2114.
Groceries' National Bank v. Clark
(48 Barb. (N. Y.) 26), 1838.
Groeltz v. Armstrong, etc. Co. (89
N. \Y. Rep. (Iowa) 21), 1158,
1187.
Groesbeck v. Dunscomb (41 How.
Pr. 302), 2133.
Groh Sons v. Groh (80 N. Y. App.
Div. 85), 1024.
Grommes v. Sullivan (81 Fed,
Rep. 45; 43 L. R. A. 419), 1670.
Grose v. Hilt (36 Me. 22), 842,926.
Gross v. Nichols (72 Iowa, 23),
2022, 2023.
Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v. I'Anson
(43 N. J. L. 442), 324, 453, 454,
465.
Grosvenor v. United Soc. of Be-
lievers (118 Mass. 78), 778, 788,
2062.
Groveland, etc. Co. v. Farmers,'
etc. Co. (25 Wash. 344), 1094.
Grover, etc. Co. v. Butler (53 Ind.
454), 1995.
Grubbe v. Vicksburg, etc. R. Co.
(50 Ala. 398), 461.
Grubbs v. National, etc. Co. (94
Va. 589), 133.
Gruber v. Washington, etc. R. Co.
(92 N. C. 1), 1353.
Grund v. Tucker (5 Kan. 70),
849, 902, 916, 920.
Grundy v. Pine Hill Coal Com-
pany (9 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 414),
1075.
Guarantee, etc. Co. v. Duluth, etc.
Ry. Co. (70 Fed Rep. 803), 1741,
1756.
Guarantee Co. v. East Rome & Co.
TABLE OF CASES. CXXIU
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(96 Ga. 511; 51 Am. St. Rep.
150), 264.
Guarantee, etc. Co. v. Galveston,
etc. R. R. (107 Fed. Rep. 311),
035. 1787, 1798.
Guadalupe & S. A. R. Assn. v.
West (70 Tex. 391), 86, 2067.
Guardian, etc. Co. v. White Cliffe,
etc. Co. (109 Fed. Rep. 523),
1514.
Guckert v. Hacke (159 Pa. St.
303), 91, 167, 880.
Gue V. Tide Water Canal Co. (24
How. (U. S.) 257), 1263, 1716.
Guenther v. Baskett (107 Ky. 44),
1119, 1772.
Guerney v. Moore (131 Mo. 650),
866, 904.
Gueruick v. Alcott (66 Ohio St.
94), 1294.
Guernsey v. Cook (120 Mass. 501),
1105.
Guest V. Worcester, etc. Ry. Co.
(L. R. 4 C. P. 9), 448, 563.
Guild V. Parker (43 N. J. L. 430),
1108, 1173.
Guildford v. Western, etc. Co. (59
Minn. 332; 50 Am. St. Rep. 407),
393, 395, 602, 2017.
Guinault v. Louisville, etc. R. Co.
(6 So. Rep. (La.) 850), 2014.
Guinness v. Land Corporation of
Ireland (22 Ch. Div. 349), 118,
192, 200.
Gulf, etc. Co. V. Bowers (80 Mass.
570), 1611.
Gulf, etc. Rv. Co. V. Ellis (165 U.
S. 150), 9.
Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. James (73
Tex. 12), 1082.
Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Moore (69
Tex. 157), 1485.
Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Morris (67
Tex. 692), 1253, 1255.
Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Neely (64
Tex. 344), 268.
Gulf Col. etc. Co. V. Newell (73
Tex. 334; 15 Am. St. Rep. 788),
1818, 1833, 1844.
Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Southwestern
T. Co. (61 S. W. Rep. (Tex.)
406), 1320.
Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. State (72
Tex. 404; 1 L. R. A. 849), 1471.
Gulf, etc. Ry. v. Trawick (68 Tex.
314), 1488.
Gulick V. Llarkham (6 Daly (N.
Y.) 129), 389, 534.
Gull River Lumber Co. v. Keefe
(41 N. W. Rep. (Dak.) 743),
2028.
Gulliver v. Roelle (100 111. 101),
837, 840.
Gunderson v. 111. etc. Bank (65
N. E. Rep. (111.) 326), 153.
Gunderson v. Swarthout (104
Wis. 186), 1715.
Gunmakers' Co. v. Fell (Willes,
384), 218.
Gunn's Case (3 Ch. 40), 279.
Gunn V. Central R. R. (74 Ga.
509), 1296, 1655.
Gunn V. Ins. Co. (12 C. B. (N.
S.) 694), 1176.
Gunn V. White, etc. Co. (57 Ark.
24; 18 L. R. A. 206), 1991, 1993.
Gunnison, etc. Co. v. Whittaker
(91 Fed. Rep. 191), 1741.
Gunsten v. Scranton (181 Pa. St.
327), 1163.
Gunterman v. People (138 111.
518), 1652.
Gurney v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co.
(58 N. y. 358), 859, 1728.
Gurnsey v. Cook (120 Mass. 501),
1029, 1030.
Gustafson v. Hamm (56 Minn.
334; 22 L. R. A. 565), 1602.
Guthrie v. Oklahoma (1 Okla.
188; 21 L. R. A. 841), 158.
Gutzeil V. Pennie (95 Cal. 598),
1275, 1671.
Guy V. Baker (17 Mass. 439), 2132.
G, V. B. Mining Co. v. First Nat-
Bank (95 Fed. Rep. 23), 132.
Gwynn v. Citizens', etc. Co. (69
S. C. 434; 48 S. E. Rep. 460),
1620.
Gypsum, etc. Co. v. Grove (97
Mich. 631), 959.
H.
Haas V. Bank of Commerce (41
Neb. 754), 153, 158.
Habenicht v. Lissak (78 Cal. 351;
5 L. R. A. 713), 2109.
Habersham, etc. Co. v. Taylor (73
Ga. 552), 1911.
Habershon's Case (L. R. 5 Eq.
Cas. 286), 455.
I-Iabicht V. Pemberton (4 Sandf.
657), 2078, 2079.
Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kay
(36 N. J. Eq. 548), 391, 1517.
Hacker v. Mid. Kent Ry. Co. (12
Law T. (N. S.) 669), 1175.
Hackett V.
Multnomah Ry. Co.
CXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.3
(12 Oreg. 124), 1295, 1296, 1517,
1785.
Haokett v. Northern R. R. (36 N.
Y. Mi.sc. 583),
661.
Hadden v. Chorn (8 B. Mon.
(Kv.) 70),
2077.
Hadden v. Dooley (92
Fed. Rep.
274), 17G7, 1190.
Hadden v. Linville (86 Md. 210),
118S.
Hadden v. Kentnoky, etc. R. Co.
(7 Fed. Rep. 793), 1705, 1708.
Haddock v. Citizens' National Blv.
(53 Iowa, 542), 1297.
Haden v. Farmers' and Mer-
chants' Assn. (80 Va. 682), 207,
1298.
Hadley v. Freedman Saving Co.
(2 Tenn. Ch. 122), 26, 1977.
Hadley v. Russell (40 N. H. 109),
874, 875, 900, 909, 912.
Haen v. London, etc. Ry. Co. (30
L. J. Ch. 817),
1356.
Hafer v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(19 Abb. N. Cas. 454), 1028,
1035, 1426.
Hafner v. Herron (165 111. 242),
2111.
Ha2;an v. Bowery Bank (64 Barb.
197), 1687.
Hagar v. Reclamation Dist. (Ill
U. S. 709), 709.
Hagar v. Thompson (1 Black, 80),
577.
Hagar v. Union National Bank
(63 Me-. 509), 643.
Hagarman v. Ohio B. & L. (23
Ohio St. 186), 212.
Hager v. Cleveland (36 Md. 476),
545, 838, 891, 940.
Hagerstown Turnpike Co. v.
Creeger (5 Harr. & J. (Md.)
122), 92, 126, 160, 1532.
Hag2:ertv v. Potter (111 111. App.
433), 1542.
Hague V. City of Philadelphia (48
Pa. St. 527), 1343.
Hague V. Da.nderson (2 Exchange,
147), 691.
Hagy V. McGuire (147 Pa. Sit.
187), 184.
Hain v. Northwestern, etc. Cov
(41 Ind. 196), 314, 952.
Haines v. Kinderhook, etc. Ry.
(33 N. Y. App. 154; 53 N. Y.
Supp. 368), 1830.
Haldeman v. Ainslie (82 Ky. 395),
404, 405, 656.
Haldeman v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
(50 Pa. St. 425), 1980.
Hale V. Burlington, etc. R. Co. (1
McCrary (U. S.) 51), 1726.
Hale V. Cheshire R. R. (161 Mass.
443), 1562.
Hale V. Continental Life Ins. Co.
(16 Fed. Rep. 718), 1518.
Hale V. Frost (99 U. S. 389), 1721,
1724, 1726.
Hale V. Hardon (95 Fed. Rep.
747), 1811.
Hale V. Harris (112 Iowa, 372),
1791.
Hale V. Mutual, etc. Co. (22 N. H.
297), 1328, 1361.
Hale V. Hampshire, etc. Co.
Com'rs. (37 Mass. Ill), 710.
Hale V. Nashua, etc. R. Co. (60^
N. H. 333), 1726.
Hale V. Sanborn (16 Neb. 1; 20
N. W. Rep.
97), 313, 314, 456.
Hale V. Tyler (104 Fed. Rep. 757),
1791.
Hale-Berry v. Diamond, etc. Co.
(94 Ga. 61), 1778.
Halifax Sugar Refining Co. v.
Francklyn (62 L. T. Rep. 562:
8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 91), 983,
984.
Halin's Appeal (7 Atl. Rep. (Pa.)
482), 940.
Halkett v. Merchant Traders'
Association (13 Q. B. 960), 438,
928.
Hall. Ex parte (1 Mac. & G. 309),
556, 569.
Hall V. Auburn Turnpike Co. (27
Cal. 255: 87 Am. Dec. 75), 1188,
1253, 1272.
Hall V. Brown (54 N. H. 495),
1571.
Hall V. Henderson (126 Ala. 449:
62 Am. St. Rep. 141), 450, 1535.
Hall V. Herter Bros. (90 Hun
(N. Y.), 280; 157 N. Y. 694),.
182.
Hall V. Lackmond (15 Ark. 113;
6 Am. St. Rep. 84), 1794.
Hall V. Nixon (82 L. T. 92; 10
Q. B. 152), 212.
Hall V. Norfolk, etc. Co. (21 L. J.
Q. B. 94), 600.
Hall V. Ochs (34 N. Y. App. Div.
103), 122.
Hall V. Rose Hill, etc. Road Co.
(70 111. 673), 420, 421, 613.
Hall V. Selma, etc. R. Co. (6 Ala.
741), 281, 356, 357, 359, 367.
Hall V. Sims (106 Ala. 561), 302.
Hall V. Sullivan Ry. Co. (21 L. R.
138; 2 Redfield's Am. Ry. Cases,
TABLE OF CASES. CXXV
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
621; 1 Briiner's Collected Cases,
613), 1253, 1256, 1262, 1954.
Hall V. Supreme Lodge, etc. (24
Fed. Rep. 450), 787, 2060, 2069.
Hall V. Swansea (5 Q. B. 526),
1335.
Hall V. Twells (Eng. Ch. 221),
570.
Hall V. U. S. Insurance Co. (5
Gill (Md.), 484), 462, 614, 615,
691, 889, 890, 1796.
Hall V. Vermont, etc. R. Co. (28
Vt. 401), 1067, 1069.
Hall V. Walker (31 Iowa, 341),
562.
Hall V. Westchester, etc. County
(180 Pa. St. 561), 1092, 1096.
Hall V. Wisconsin (103 U. S. 10),
39.
Hall's Case (3 De Gex & S. 214),
554, 943.
Halladay v. Patterson (5 Oreg.
177), 1587.
Hallam v. Ashford (70 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 197), 1791.
Hallam v. Indianola Hotel Co. (56
Iowa, 178), 1110, 1111, 1704.
Hallam v. Tillinghost (75 Fed.
Rep. 849), 1790.
Hallenberg v. Cobre, etc. Co. (74
Pac. Rep. (Ariz.) 1052), 1778.
Hallenberg v. Greene (66 N. Y.
App. Div. 590), 2019.
Hallenbeck v. Powers (76 N. W.
Rep. (Mich.) 119), 207.
Plallett V. Metropolitan, etc. Co.
(69 N. Y. App. Div. 258), 899.
Hallett V. Metropolitan (35 N. Y.
Misc. 659), 431.
Hallows V. Fernie (L. R. 3 Ch.
App. 467), 371, 973.
Halpin v. Mutual Brewing Co. (20
App. Div. N. Y. 583), 1061, 1062.
Halsey v. Ackerraan (38 N. J. Eq.
501), 817.
Halsey v. McLean (12 Allen (94
Mass.), 438), 844, 846, 847, 1134.
Halstead v. Dodge (51 N. Y. Sup.
Ct. 169), 386, 1122, 1141.
Halsted v. Coleman (143 Pa. St.
352), 878.
Halsted v. New York (3 N. Y.
439), 1228.
Halsey v. Rapid, etc. Ry. (47 N. J.
Bq. 380), 1597.
Ham v. Wisconsin, etc. Ry. Co. (61
Iowa, 716), 1321.
Hambleton v. Central, etc. R. Co.
(44 Md. 551), 419.
Hambleton v. Glenn (72 Md. 331),
645.
Hamblett v. Bennett (6 Allen (88
Mass), 140), 2050.
Hamer's Case (2 De G. & Sm.
279), 509.
Hamilton, In re (1 Fed. Rep. 800),
1291.
Hamilton v. Annapolis R. Co. (1
Md. Ch. 107), 1916.
Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. R. R.
(144 Pa. St. 34; 13 L. R. A.
779), 485, 488, 938, 939, 951,
1583.
Hamilton v. Glenn (85 Va. 901),
458, 487, 545, 550, 949, 1794.
Hamilton v. Grand Rapids, etc, R.
Co. (13 Ind. 347), 466.
Hamilton v. Grangers', etc. Ins.
Co. (67 Ga. 145), 933.
Hamilton v. McLaughlin (145
Mass. 20), 1262.
Hamilton v. Menominee, etc. Co.
(106 Wis. 352), 1741.
Hamilton v. New Castle, etc. R.
Co. (9 Ind. 359), 1266.
Hamilton v. Reeves & Co. (76 Pac.
Rep. (Kan.) 418), 2025.
Hamilton v. Vicksburg, etc. R. Co.
(31 N. J. Law, 205), 1558.
Hamilton v. Vought (34 N. J. 187),
1686.
Hamilton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton,
etc. Co. (142 111. 494), 2093.
Hamilton Co. v. Indianapolis, etc.
Co. (134 Ind. 209), 1643.
Hamilton Gaslight, etc. Co. v.
Hamilton (37 Fed. Rep. 832),
1643.
Hamilton Ins. Co. v. Hobart (2
Gray (68 Mass.), 543), 67, 114,
263, 1854, 1855, 1861, 1865.
Hamilton, etc. Plank Road Co. v.
Rice (7 Barb. 157), 262, 269,272,
277, 313, 376, 467.
Hamilton, etc. Bank v. American,
etc. Co. (92 N. W. Rep. (Neb.)
189), 895.
Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Hamilton City
(146 U. S. 258), 1643.
Hamilton's etc. Works, In re (12
Ch. Div. 707),
1703.-
Hamley's Case (L. R. 5 Ch. D.
705), 1044, 1052.
Hamlin v. Continental Trust Co.
etc. (47 U. S. App. 422; 78 Fed.
Rep. 664), 677, 877.
Hamlin v.
European, etc. R. Co.
(72 Me. 83), 1714.
CXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill,
1507-2134.J
Hamlin v. Jerrard (72 Me. C2),
1716, 1721.
Hamlin v. Toledo, etc. R. R. (78
Fed. Rep. CC4; 3G L. R. A. 826),
675.
Hammer v. Garfield, etc. Co. (130
U. S. 291), 2001.
Hammerstrom v. Parsons (38 Mo.
App. 333), 2049.
Hammett v. Little Rock, etc. R.
Co. (20 Ark. 204), 349, 352, 353.
Hammock v. Farmers', etc. Co.
(105 U. S. 77), 1719.
Hammond v. Hastings (134 U. S.
401), 122, 687, 688.
Hammond's Appeal (123 Pa. St.
503), 1096.
Hammond v. Hudson River, etc.
Co. (11 How. Pr. 29), 899.
Hammond v. National, etc. Assn.
(58 N. Y. App. Div. 453; 31 N.
Y. Misc. 182), 1806, 1967.
Hammond v. Port Royal, etc. R.
Co. (15 S. C. 10), 1281.
Hammond v. Straus (53 Md. 1),
70.
Hamsher v. Hamsher (132 111.
273; 8 L. R. A. 556; 23 N. E.
Rep. 1123), 1236, 1237, 2130.
Hampshire v. yranklin (16 Mass.
76), 1948.
Hampson v. Ware (4 Iowa, 13),
835, 839, 840, 919.
Hampstead Bldg. Assn. v. King
(58 Md. 279), 1977.
Hanchett v. Blair (100 Fed. Rep.
(C. C. A.) 817), 7, 1709.
Hancock v. Holbrook (40 La. Ann.
53), 805, 1046, 1097, 1106, 1243,
1244, 1837, 1948.
Hancock v. Louisville, etc. Rail-
road (145 U. S. 409), 295, 1564,
1593.
Hancock Nat. Bank v. Ellis (172
Mass. 39; 42 L. R. A. 396), 844,
845, 904.
Hancock v. Toledo, etc. R. Co.
(9 Fed. Rep. 738), 1834.
Hancock, etc. Bank v. Farnum
(176 U. S. 640), 904.
Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.
Worcester, etc. R. Co. (149
Mass. 214), 1890.
Hand v. Clear Field Coal Co. (143
Pa. St. 408), 132.
Hand v. Cole (88 Tenn. 400), 860.
Hand Gold Min. Co. v. Parker (59
Ga. 419), 1308, 1310.
Hand v. Railway Co. (10 S. C.
403), 1728.
Hand v. Savannah, etc. R. Co. (IT
S. C. 219), 1726, 1728. 1735.
Handley v. Stutz (137 U. S. 366),
897
Handiey v. Stutz (139 U. S. 417),
136, 138, 422, 428, 432, 433, 434,
435, 437, 440, 443, 450, 483, 878,
894, 921, 939, 946, 989, 992.
Handrahan v. Cheshire Iron Wks.
(86 Mass. 396), 919.
Handy v. Draper (89 N. Y. 344),
862, 863, 865, 891, 906, 916, 949.
Hanford v. Wash. L. Ins. Co. (149
N. Y. 614), 1830.
Hanna v. International Pet. Co.
(23 Ohio St. 622), 88.
Hanna v. Peoples', etc. Bank (35
N. Y. Misc. Rep. 517), 816.
Hanna v. Peoples' Nat. Bank (76
N. Y. App. Div. 224), 1511.
Hanna v. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co.
(20 Ind.
30), 111, 283, 470, 186G.
Hannah v. Life (27 Mich. 172),
1450.
Hannah v. Moberly Bank (67 Mo.
678), 238, 498, 898, 967, 968.
Hannan v. Sage (58 Fed. Rep.
651), 1973, 1982.
Hannerty v. Standard Theatre Co.
(109 Mo. 297), 1756.
Hannibal Bank v. North Mo. Coa4,
etc. Co. (86 Mo. 125), 1078, 1080.
Hannibal, etc. R. Co. v. Marion
County (36 Mo. 294), 299.
Hannibal, etc. PI. R. v. Menefee
(25 Mo. 527), 349.
Hannibal, etc. R. Co. v. Shacklett
(30 Mo. 558), 237.
Hanover, etc. Co. v. Grubb (82 Pa.
St. 36), 320.
Hanover, etc. R. Co. v. Haldeman
(82 Pa. St. 36), 282, 302, 303,
304, 314. 324, 342.
Hanover National Bank v. Credits,
etc. Co. (118 Fed. Rep. 110),
2042.
Hanson v. Davison (73 Minn. 454),
835, 849.
Hanson v. Donkersley (37 Mich.
184), 910, 928, 1795.
Hanson v. European, etc. Ry. Co.
(62 Me. 84), 1498.
Hanson v. Paige (3 Gray
(69
Mass.), 239), 1296.
Hanson v. Power (8 Dana, 91),
1450.
Harben v. Phillips (L. R. 23 Ch.
D. 14), 1019.
Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Co.
(103 Tenn. 421), 9.
TABLE OF CASES. CXXVll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Hardaway v. Semmes (38 Ala.
657), 902.
Hardcastle v. Commercial Bank
(1 Harr. (Md.) 374) 693.
Hardenbergh v. Bacon (33 Cal.
356), 576, 587.
Hardenburgh v. Farmers', etc.
Bank (3 N. J. Eq. 68), 998.
Hardesty v. Pyle (15 Fed. Rep.
778), 1716.
Hardin v. Detroit Baptist Church
(51 Mich. 137), 773, 2124.
Hardin v. Iowa Ry. etc. Co. (78
Iowa, 726; 6 L. R. A. 52), 999,
1079.
Hardin v. Sweeny (14 Wash. 129;
44 Pac. Rep. 138), 1785.
Hardin County v. Louisville, etc.
Ry. Co. (92 Ky. 412), 247.
Harding v. American Glucose Co.
(182 111. 551; 74 Am. St. Rep.
189), 988, 989, 1246, 1291, 1370,
1375, 1428, 1912, 1_941, 2005.
Harding v. American, etc. Co. (182
111. 551), 35.
Harding v. Chicago & Alton R. Co.
(80 Mo. 659), 2010.
Harding v. Vandewater (40 Cal.
77), 975, 977, S81.
Hardman v. Sage (124 N. Y. 25),
929, 1136.
Hardon v. Newton (14 Blatchf.
376), 1948, 1965.
Hards v. Piatt, etc. Co. (46 Neb.
709), 951.
Hardwick, etc. Co. v. Drenan (72
Vt. 438), 1532, 1178.
Hardv v. Merriweather (14 Ind.
203), 366, 368, 503.
Hardy v. Norfolk Manuf. Co. (80
Va. 404), 1008.
Hardy v. Tittabawassee Boom
Co. (52 Mich. 45), 1079.
Hare v. London, etc. Ry. Co. (1
Johns. & H. 252; 2 Johns. & H.
80), 419, 809, 1473, 1921, 1924.
Hare v. Waring (3
Mees. & W.
362), 525.
Hare's Case (2 J. & H. 229), 808,
809.
Harger v. McCullough (2 Denio,
119), 891, 910, 930, 1019.
Hargraves v. Chambers (30 Ga.
580), 1123.
Hargrave v. Hall (73 Pac. Rep.
(Ariz.) 400), 1651.
Harker v. Mayor (17 Wend. (N.
Y.) 199), 194, 223.
Harkness v.
Manhattan El. Ry.
Co. (54 N. Y. Super. Ct. 174).
15G7.
Harle v. Council Bluffs Ins. Co.
(71 Iowa, 401), 1047.
Harlem Canal Co. v. Seixas (2
Hall (N. Y.), 504), 321, 461, 477.
Harlem G. L. Co. v. Mayor, etc.
33 N. Y. 327), 1606.
Harman v. IMcMullin (4 Ry. &
Corp. L. J. 515), 1724.
Harmon v. Columbia, etc. R. Co.
(28 S. C. 401), 1569.
Harmon v. Dreber (1 Speer Eq.
87), 2082.
Harmon v. Hunt (116 N. C. 678),
944.
Harmon v. Page (62 Cal. 448),
485, 900, 901, 926.
Harmstead v. Washington Fire Co.
(8 Phila. 331), 777, 2058.
Harper v. Carroll (66 Minn.
47),
554, 902.
Harper v. Raymond (3 Bosw. (N.
Y.) 29), 528, 627.
Harper v. Smith (87 N. Y. Supp.
516), 572.
Harper v. Union Manuf. Co. (100
111. 225), 858, 862, 864, 896.
Harper & Bros, In re (100 Fed.
Rep. 266), 1768.
Harpold v. Stobart (46 Ohio St.
397), 542, 545, 556.
Harris v. Gateway, etc. Co. (128
Ala. 652), 153.
Harriman v. Sanborn (43 Me.
128), 1803.
Harrington v. O'Connor (51 Neb.
214; 70 N. W. Rep. 911), 1956.
Harris' Case (7 Ch. 587), 279.
Harris v. Davis (44 Fed. Rep.
172), 1828.
Harris, Ex parte (29 L. J. Ex.
364), 617.
Harris v. First Parish, etc. (23
Pick. (40 Mass.) 112), 900.
Harris v. Gateway, etc. Co. (128
Ala. 652), 938.
Harris v. McGregor (29 Cal. 124),
81, 82, 166, 269.
Harris v. Mississippi Valley, etc.
Co. (51 Miss. 602), 1906, 1926,
1927, 1928, 1961.
Harris v. Muskingum Manuf. Co.
(4 Blackf. 267; 29 Am. Dec.
372), 1525.
Harris v. Nesbit (24 Ala. 398),
353, 1962.
Harris v. North Devon Ry. Co.
(20 Beav. 384), 943,
CXXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Harris v. Norvell (1 Abb. N. Cas.
127), 858.
Harris v. Pullman (84 111. 25),
904.
Harris v. San Francisco, etc. Co.
(41 Cal. 393), 641.
Harris v. Stevens (7 N. H. 454),
(128.
Harris v.
Thompson (9
Barb. 350),
1303.
Harris v. Tumbridge (83 N. Y.
92), 2114.
Harris v. Twenty-Second, etc. Ry.
(1 Pa. Dist. 50G), 1597.
Harrisburg Bank v. Common-
wealth (26 Pa. St. 451), 846.
Harrisburg, etc. R. Co.'s Appeal
(15 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 459), 1737.
Harrison v. Arkansas Valley R.
Co. (4 McCrary, 264; 13 Fed.
Rep. 522), 1836, 1886, 1887, 1890.
Harrison v. Arkansas Valley R.
Co. (4 McCreary (U. S.), 264),
430, 514.
Harrison v. Glucose, etc. Co. (116
Fed. Rep. 304; 58' L. R. A. 915),
1441.
Harrison v. Iowa, etc. R. Co. (36
Iowa, 323), 1321.
Harrison v. Martinsville, etc. R.
Co. (16 Ind. 506), 1525.
Harrison v. Mexican Ry. Co. (32
L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 82); 19 Eq.
358), 118, 664, 669.
Harrison. Ex parte (3 Mont. & A.
506), 596.
Harrison v. Union Pac. R. Co. (13
Fed. Rep. 522), 1888.
Harrison v. Williams (3 Barn. &
Cress.) 139.
Harrod v. Hamer (32 Wis. 162),
149, 150, 151, 859.
Harrow Co. v. Bement (31 N. Y.
App. 290), 1439.
Harshman v. Bates (92 U. S. 569),
283, 299, 300, 1684.
Hart V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (40
Conn. 524), 1966, 1975.
Hart V. Eastern Union Ry. Co.
(7 Ex. 246), 1699, 1701, 1712,
1732.
Hart v. Frontino, etc. Co. (L. R.
5 Ex. Ill), 418, 608, 613.
Hart V. Missouri (21 Mo. 91),
1241.
Hart V. Ogdensburg, etc. R. R. (69
Hun, 378), 1687.
Hart V. Renselaer (8 N. Y. 37),
1843.
Hart V. St. Charles St. R. Co. (30
Da. Ann. 758), 625, 654.
Hart V. Seymour (147 111. 598),
2051.
Harter v. Elzroth (111 Ind. 159),
391.
Harter v. Kernochan (103 U. S.
562), 299.
Hartford v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (40
Conn. 524), 1908.
Hartford, etc. R. Co. v. Boorman
(12 Conn. 530), 545, 593, 889,
890.
Hartford & N. H. R. Co. v. Cros-
well (5 Hill, 383), 113, 501, 1356,
1375, 1585, 1855.
Hartford Iron M. Co. v. Cambria
Min. Co. (80 Mich. 491), 1177,
1202, 1253.
Hartford, etc. R. Co. v. Kennedy
(12 Conn. 499), 277, 471, 472,
478.
Hartford, etc. Co. v. N. Y. etc. Co.
(3 Rob. (N. Y.) 411), 1416, 1426,
1471, 1585.
Hartford Ins. Co. v. Peoria (156
111. 595), 135.
Hartridge v. Rockwell (R. M.
Charlt. (Ga.) 260), 241, 253, 256,
553, 1284.
Hartley v. Pioneer Ironworks (84
N. Y. S. 79), 622, 1110.
Hart's Case (L. R. 6 Eq. 512), 573,
574.
Harts V. Brown (77 111. 226), 1106,
1109, 1111, 1760.
Hartwell v. Armstrong (19 Barb.
166), 1313.
Harvard, etc. Soc. v. Tufts (151
Mass. 76; 7 L. R. A. 300), 538.
Harvey v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co.
(28 Fed. Rep. 169), 1705.
Harvey v. Kay (9 Barn. & C. 356),
341.
Harvey v. Linville Imp. Co. (118
N. C. 693; 32 L. R. A. 265; 54
Am. St. Rep. 749), 1021, 1029.
Harvey v. Lord (11 Biss. (U. S.)
144), 856.
Harvey v. Merrill (150 Mass. 1;
5 L. R. A. 200), 2112.
Harvey v. Raleigh, etc. R. R. (89
Fed. Rep. 115), 2041.
Harwood v. Railwood Co. (17
Wall. 78), 828.
Hasbrouck v. Vandervoort (4
Sandf. 74), 580, 585, 626.
Haskell v. Sells (14 Mo. App. 91),
446.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Haskell v. V/orthington (94 Mo.
560), 313, 314, 365, 366, 481.
Haskins v. Albany, etc. Co. (74
N. Y. App. Div. 21), 1680.
Haskins v. Kentucky, etc. Soc. (8
Ky. 101), 2069.
Hasler v. Philadelphia Musical
Assn. (14 Phila. 233), 773.
Haslett V. Wotherspoon (Strob.
Eq. (S. C.) 209), 67, 175, 875.
Hassell v. Merchant Traders'
Assn. (4 Ex. 525), 438.
Hasselman v. Japanese, etc. Co.
(2 Ind. App. 180), 122, 1964.
Hassey v. Gallagher (61 Ga. 86),
790.
Hastelow v. Jackson (8 Barn. &
C. 221), 401.
Hastie, Ex parte (38 L. J. Ch. 43),
483.
Hastings v. Blue Hill (9 Pick. (26
Mass.) 80), 190, 1052.
Hastings v.
Brooklyn Life Ins. Co.
(138 N. Y. 473), 1203.
Hastings v. Drew (76 N. Y. 9; 50
How. Pr. 254), 445, 446, 645,
891, 1250, 1975.
Hastings, etc. Co. v. Iron, etc. Co.
(65 Minn. 28), 442, 512.
Hat Sweat Manuf. Co. v. Davis,
etc. Co. (31 Fed. Rep. 294), 2022.
Hatch V. American U. T. Co. (9
Abb. N. Cas. 223), 1256.
Hatch V. Borronghs (1 Woods
(U. S.), 439), 847, 855, 862.
Hatch V. Cincinnati, etc. R. R.
(18 Ohio St. 92), 1654.
Hatch V. Citv Bank (1 Rob. (La.)
470), 139, 143.
Hatch V. Dana (101 U. S. 205),
429, 445, 447, 458, 459, 460, 496,
497, 875, 900, 903, 907, 912, 913,
914, 1795.
Hatch V. W. U. Tel. Co. (9 Abb.
N. C. 430), 248.
Hatcher v. Toledo R. Co. (62 111.
77), 1704, 1850, 1888.
Hatchett v. Mt. Pleasant Baptist
Church (46 Ark. 291), 2126.
Hatfield v. Cummings (140 Ind.
547), 1780.
Hathaway v. Addison (48 Me.
440), 137, 1005, 1009.
Hathorn v. Calef (53 Me. 471),
837.
Hattersley v. Earl of Shelburne
(10 Week. Rep. 881), 1062.
Hatton, Ex parte (31 L. J. Ch.
340), 886.
Haugen v. Albina, etc. Co. (21
Oreg.
411; 28 Pac. Rep. 244; 14
L. R. A. 424), 1650.
Haun V. Mulberry, etc. Co. (33
Ind.
103), 454.
Hause v. Mannheimer (67 Minn.
194), 938, 939.
Havemeyer v. Havemeyer (43 N.
Y. S. C. 506; 86 N. Y. 618),
528, 1026, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1032,
1035, 1434.
Havemeyer v. Iowa County
(3
Wall. 294), 42, 296.
Havemeyer v. Superior Ct. (84 CaL
327; 10 L. R. A. 627; 18 Am.
St. Rep. 192), 1779, 1780, 1787,
1980.
Haven v. Emery (33 N. H. 66),
1721.
Haven v. Grand Junction Ry. Co.
(109 Mass. 88), 1684.
Haverford, etc. Co. v. Hart (1 Pa.
Dist. 57), 1611.
Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon P. Co. (101
Mass. 385), 68, 911.
Hawes v. Gas Consumers', etc. Co.
(9 N. Y. Supp. 490), 387, 392.
Hawes v. Knowles (114 Mass.
518), 1495.
Hawes v. Petroleum Co. (101
Mass. 385), 919.
Hawken v. Bourne (8 Mees. & W.
703), 1335.
Hawkes v. Oakland (104 U. S.
450), 824, 827, 1181, 1359, 1360,
2037.
Hawkeye, etc. Assn. v. Blackburn
(48 Iowa, 385), 2070.
Hawkins' Case (2 Kay (N. J.),
253), 2099.
Hawluns V. Donnerberg (66 Pac.
Rep. (Oreg.) 691), 950.
Hawkins v. Fourth Nat. Bank
(150 Ind. 117), 1167.
Hawkins v. Furnace Co. (40 Ohio
St. 507), 948.
Hawkins v. Glenn (131 U. S. 319),
450, 457, 458, 486, 541, 950.
Hawkins v. Maltby (L. R. 4 Ch.
App. 200), 468, 5G8, 887, 888.
Hawkins v. Mansfield, etc. Co. (52
Cal. 513), 300, 602.
Hawkins v. Rutt (1 Peake, 186),
2069.
Hawkshaw v. Supreme Lodge, etc.
(29 Fed. Rep. 770), 137, 1005,
1006.
Hawley v. Brumagim (33 Cal.
394), 385, 524.
Hawley v. Gray Bros. etc. Co. (106
Cal. 337), 1189, 1297.
cxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Hawley v. Kansas, etc. Co. (48
Kan. 593),
1475.
Hawlev v. Upton (102 U. S. 314),
2(;3, '2(i(;, 2(i0, 300, 301, 339, 429,
430i
437, 500, 501, 654, G55.
Havvtayne v. Bourne (7 M. & W.
595),
1335.
Plawthorne v. Calef (2 Wall. 16),
54, 101. 846, 848, 863.
Hay V. Railroad Co. (4 Hughes
(U. S.) 374), 1669, 1717.
Hayes v. Shoemaker (39 Fed. Rep.
319), 578, 885.
Hav's Case (L. R. 10 Ch. 393),
376.
Hayden v. Charter Oak, etc. (63
Conn. 142), 237, 391.
Hayden v. Green (71 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 236), 1184.
Hayden v. Official, etc. Co. (42
Fed. Rep. 875), 1185.
Hayden v. Thompson (71 Fed.
Rep. 60), 1480, 1792.
Hayden v. William (96 Fed. Rep.
279), 1792.
Hayman, v. European Cent. Ry. Co.
(7 Eng. 154), 363.
Haynes v. Brown (36 N. H. 545),
275, 849, 865.
Hayes v. Northern Pacific R. R.
(74 Fed. Rep. 279), 15G3.
Haynes v. Palmer (13 La. Ann.
240), 545, 562, 889.
Hays V. Commonwealth (82 Pa.
St. 518), 53, 1018, 1022, 1023.
Hays V. Gallon, etc. Co. (29 Ohio
St. 338), 254, 1265, 1285, 1704.
Hays V. Holly Springs (114 U. S.
120), 283.
Hays V. Houston, etc. R. Co. (46
Tex. 272), 1481, 1485.
Hays V. Lycoming F. Ins. Co. (99
Pa. St. 621), 460, 496, 498, 898,
967.
Hays V. Ottawa, etc. R. Co. (61
111. 422), 243, 349, 350, 364, 368,
1253, 1699.
Hays V. Pennsylvania Co. (12
Fed. Rep. 309), 1475, 1556.
Hays V. Pierson (58 Atl. Rep. (N.
J. Eq.) 728), 1788.
Hays V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
(38 Pa. St. 81), 454, 456, 465.
Hayt V. Malone (9 N. Y. Supp.
877), 815.
Hayward v. Leeson (l4u Mass.
310), 1184, 1536.
Hayward's Case (L. R. 13 Eq.
30), 1052.
Haywood, etc. Co. v. Bryan (6
Jones, L. (N. C.) 82), 281, 509,
1019.
Haywood v. Lincoln Luml)er Co.
(64 Wis. 639), 1099, 1102, 1702.
Hayworth v. Junction R. Co. (13
Ind. 348), 115.
Hazard v. Durant (11 R. I. 195),
1125.
Hazard v. National Exchange Bk.
(26 Fed. Rep. 94), 611, 616,
964.
Hazard v. Vermont, etc. R. Co.
(17 Fed. Rep. 753), 1894.
Hazlehurst v. Savannah, etc. R.
Co. (43 Ga. 13), 665, 666, 667,
1282, 1433.
Hazeltine v. Belfast, etc. R. Co.
(79 Me. 411), 205, 634, 672, 674,
679.
Hazen v. Essex County (12 Cush.
(66 Mass.) 475), 18.
Hazleton, etc. Co. v. Hazleton, etc.
Co. (137 111. 231; 142 111. 494),,
123, 124, 127.
Hazlett V. Butler University
(84
Ind. 230), 112, 129.
Heacock v. Sherman (14 Wend.
58), 850, 851.
Head's Case (L. R. 3 Ex. 84), 618,
884.
Head v. Daniels (38 Kan. 1), 8Q3.
Head v. Providence Ins. Co. (2
Cranch, 127), 1236, 1338.
Heald v. Owens (79 Iowa, 23),
163.
Healy v. City of New York (83
N. Y. 574), 1649.
Healy v. Root (11 Tex. 389), 844.
Healy v. Story (3 Ex. 3), 1146.
Heap V. Heap Manuf. Co. (97
Mich. 147), 1936.
Heard v. Eldridge (109 Mass.
258), 634.
Heard v. Talbot (7 Gray
(73
Mass.), 113), 1916, 1918, 1957,
1958.
Hearst v. Putnam M. Co. (77 Pac.
Rep. (Cal.) 753), 1243.
Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R.
Co. (16 Ind. 275; 79 Am. Dec.
430), 90, 154, 159, 263, 277, 339,
475, 781, 953, 1528.
Heath v. Barmore (50 N. Y. 302).
1786, 1975, 1976, 1980.
Heath v. Erie Ry. Co. (8 Blatchf.
347), 823, 1360.
Heath v. Erie Ry. Co. (8 Blatchf.
337), 242.
Heath v. Goslin (80 Mo. 310),.
162. 2075.
TABLE OF CASES. CXXXl
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Heath v. Griswold (5 Fed. Rep.
537), 584.
Heath v. Missouri, etc. R. Co. (83
Mo. 617), 1799.
Heath v. Silverthorn Lead, etc.
Co. (39 Wis. 146), 585, 989, 990,
994.
Heath v. West (68 Ind. 548), 2SG.
Heathcote v. North Staffordshire
Ry. Co. (2 Macn. & G. 109),
1368.
Hebhs' Case (4 Eq. 9), 279.
Heclv V. McEwen (12 Lea (Tenn.),
97), 66, 79, 80.
Hecla, etc. Co. v. O'Neill (19 N.
Y. Supp. 592), 1214, 1233.
Heckman Estate, In re (172 Pa.
St. 185), 1166, 1214, 1223.
Hedge's Appeal (63 Pa. St. 273),
8, 20, 83, 275.
Hedges v. Paquett (3 Oreg. 77),
1062, 1117.
Heebner v. Chave (5 Pa. St. 115),
859.
Heffner v. Brownell (78 Iowa,
648; 31 N. W. Rep. 947), 119G.
Hege V. Richmond & D. R. Co.
(99 U. S. 348), 99.
Hegewisch v. Silver (21 N. Y.
Supp. 294), 1785, 1815.
Heinig v. Adams, etc. Manuf. Co.
(81 Ky. 300), 80, 396.
Heintzleman v. Druids, etc. (38
Minn. 138), 229, 230, 1086,1005.
Helkel v. Sanford (40 N. J. L.
180), 129.
Heller v. National, etc. Bank (89
Md. 602; 45 L. R. A. 438), 676,
677, 684, 877, 1774.
Helm V. Swiggett (12 Ind. 194),
572, 602, 616, 687.
Heman v. Britton (88 Mo. 549),
529, 645, 1980.
Hemingway v. Hemingway
(58
Conn. 443), 140.
Hemming v. Maddick (L. R. 9 Eq.
175), 568, 569.
Hempling v. Burr (59 Mich. 294),
529.
Hendee v. Pinkerton (14 Allen
(96 Mass.), 381), 1350, 1700,
1702.
Henderson, Ex parte (19 Beav.
107), 556, 570, 571, 884.
Henderson v. Bank of Australasia
(40 Ch. Div. 170), 1662.
Henderson v. Central, etc. Ry. (21
Fed. Rep. 358), 1602.
Henderson v. Lacon (L. R. 5 Eq.
Cas. 249), 365, 406, 933.
Henderson Bridge Co. v. City of
Henderson
(14 S. W. Rep. (Ky).
85), 740.
Henderson Loan, etc. Assn. v.
People (163 111. 196), 151, 1905,
1907, 1908, 1927, 1935, 1959, 2101.
Henderson, etc. R. Co. v. Leavell
(18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 358), 305,
319, 322.
Henderson v. Railroad Co. (17
Tex. 560; 67 Am. Dec. 675),
365, 374, 406.
Hendei-son v. Walker (55 Ga.
481), 1799.
Hendrix v. Academy of Music (73
Ga. 437), 81, 363.
Henezy v. Langdon Henezy, etc.
Co. (80 Fed. Rep. 178), 1789.
Henkle v. Salem Manuf. Co. (39
Ohio St. 547), 264, 562, 587.
Henkley v. Pfister (83 Wis.
64),
1952.
Hennepin v. Grace (27 Minn.
503),
725.
Hennepin Co. v. St. Paul Ry. Co.
(33 Minn. 534), 736.
Hennessey's Executors' Case (3 De
G. & Sm. 191), 558, 884.
Hennessy v. Brooklyn City R. R
(73 Hun, 569; 147 N. Y. 721),
1608.
Hennessy v. Griggs (1 N. D. 52;
N. W. Rep. 1010), 179, 181.
Hennington v. Georgia (163 U. S.
299), 1386.
Henrietta Mining, etc. Co. v.
.Johnson (173 U. S. 221), 2021.
Henry v. Dubuque, etc. R. Co. (2
Iowa, 289), 1321.
Henriques v. Dutch West, etc. Co.
(2 Ld. Ray. 1535), 341.
Henry v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
(4 Kay, 1 De G. & J. 606), 660,
661, 663, 670, 672, 674.
Henry v. Jackson (37 Vt. 431),
194, 195, 229, 1117.
Henry v. St. Peter's Church (2
Edw. (N. .L) 608), 2124.
Henry v. Thomas (119 Mass. 583),
1313.
Henry v. Vermillion, etc. Co. (17
Ohio, 187), 281, 362, 366, 459,
497, 506, 899, 918, 919, 1129.
Henry County v. Nicolay (95 U.
S. 619), 58, 297.
Henry Woods, Sons Co. v. Shaefer
(173 Mass. 443), 1055, 1064,
1067, 1188.
Hepburn v. Exchange, etc. Co. (4
La. Ann. 87), 876.
CXXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Hepworth v.
Union Ferry Co. (62
Hun (N. Y.), 257), 1970.
Herbert v. Duryea (34 N. Y. App.
47S), 384.
Herbert v. Kenton, etc. Assn. (74
Ky. 296), 225.
Herbert, etc. Bank v. Bank of Or-
land (133 Cal. 64), 1511.
Hercules Ins. Co., In re (19 Ex.
302), 1678.
Hercules Iron Works v. Elgin, etc.
Co. (141 111. 491), 1316.
Herdegen v. Cotzhausen (70 Wis.
589), 601.
Herefordshire Banking Co., In re
(L. R. 2 Ch. D. 621), 869, 1221.
Heritasie's Case (L. R. 9 Eq. 5),
556, 884.
Herkimer Co. Bank v. Furman (17
Barb. 116), 1795.
Hernsheim v. Atlas Steam, etc. Co.
(7 So. Rep. (La.) 784), 716, 730.
Herries v. Piatt (21 Hun, 132; 13
Hun, 492), 889, 928.
Herman v. Plumber (20 Wa?li.
363; 55 Pac. Rep. 315), 211, 230.
Herrman v. Maxwell (47 N. Y.
Supp. 347), 584.
Herring v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(105 N. Y. 340), 1738, 1740, 1752.
Herring v. Ruskin (52 S. W. Rep.
(Tenn. Ch. App.) 327), 220.
Herron v. Vance (17 Ind. 595), 472,
1970.
Hersey v. Tully (8 Cal. App. 110),
1214.
Hersey v. Veazie (24 Me. 9), 816,
1126.
Hertzo v. San Francisco (33 Cal.
134), 1342.
Hervey v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co.
(28 Fed. Rep. 169), 828, 1708.
Hervey v. Rhode Island, etc.
Works (93 U. S. 664), 1706,
1709, 1719.
Heryford v. Davis (102 U. S. 244),
1706, 1719.
Heseltine v. Siggers (1 Ex. 856),
524.
Hess V. Sloane (66 N. Y. App. Div.
522), 1204.
Hess V. Werts (4 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
656), 438, 2077.
Hester v. Memphis & C. R. Co. (32
Miss. 378), 109, 112, 363, 374.
Hetezel v. Tannehill, etc. Co. (4
Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 40), 1784.
Hewett V. Hatch (37 Vt. 16), 1977.
Hewett V. Western Union Tel. Co.
(4 Mackey (D. C), 424), 1312,
148f.
Hewitt V. New York, etc. R. Co.
(12 Blatchf. 461), 38.
Hewitt V. Swift (3 Allen (85
Mass.), 420), 1138, 1486, 1498,
1499, 1542.
Heyman v. European Cen. Ry. Co.
(L. R. 7 Eq. 154), 365, 371, 377.
Heyward v. City of New York (7
N. Y. 314), 1980.
Hibblewhite v. McMorine (6 Mees
& W. 201), 524, 525.
Hiatt V. Griswold (5 Fed. Rep.
373), 584.
Hibernian, etc. Assn. v. Kelly (28
Oreg. 173; 52 Am. St. Rep. 769),
717.
Hibernia Assn. v. McGrath (154
Pa. St. 296), 1120.
Hibernia Bank v. Lacombe (84 N.
Y. 367), 2034.
Hibernia, etc. v. Harrison (93 Pa.
St. 3G4), 198, 2067.
Hibernia Fire Engine Co. v. Com-
monwealth (93 Pa. St. 264),
199, 779, 1977.
Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc.
Co. (13 Fed. Rep. 516), 1250,
1251, 1886.
Hibernia T. Co. v. Henderson (8
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 219; 11 Am.
Dec. 593), 281.
Hichens v. Congreve (1 Russ. &
M. 150), 1218. 1221, 2082, 2088.
Hickling v. Wilson (104 111. 54),
156, 338, 341, 342, 430, 432, 897,
915.
Hickory v. Ellery (103 U. S. 423),
296.
Hickory Farm Oil Co. v. Buffalo,
etc. R. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 22),
842, 1236, 1237, 1922.
Hieronymus v. Bienville, etc. Co.
(131 Ala. 447), 1648.
Higgins, In re (27 Fed. Rep. 443),
1591.
Higgins V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co.
(99 Fed. Rep. 640), 2038.
Higgins V. City of San Diego (45
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 824), 1592.
Higgins V. Downward (8 Houst.
(Del.) 227; 40 Am. St. Rep.
141), 106, 1953.
Higgins Co. v. Higgins Soap Co.
(144 N. Y. 462; 27 L. R. A. 42),
127.
Higgins V. Hopkins (3 Ex. 163),
167, 1223.
TABLE OF CASES, CXXXIU
[References are to pages: "Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; "Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Higgins V. Lansingh
(154 111. 301),
385, 440, 1105.
Higgins V. Tefft (4 N. Y. App. Div.
62), 1480.
Hlgginson and Dean, In re (1 Q.
B. 335), 1321.
Higgs V. Assam Tea Co. (L. R. 4
Exch. 387), 687, 1678.
Higgs Case (2 Hem. & M. & N.
657), 1876.
High Court, etc. v. Zak (35 111.
App. 613; 136 111.
185), 773.
Highland, etc. R. R. v. Thornton
(105 Ala. 225), 1789.
Highland T. Co. v. McKean (11
Johns. 98), 281, 304.
Hightower v. Thornton (8 Ga. 486;
52 Am. Dec. 412), 235, 237, 446,
449, 460, 472, 492, 497, 900, 916,
1129, 1786, 1796, 1968, 1971, 1979.
Hildyard v. South Sea Co. (2 P.
Wms. 76), 419.
Hiles V. Moore (15 Beav. 175),
1793.
Hill, Ex parte (32 L. J. Eq. 154),
1108.
Hill V. Beach (12 N. J. Eq. 31),
176, 184, 185, 845, 1183.
Hill V. City of Memphis (10 Super.
Ct. 562), 294, 298.
Hill V. Comm'rs (67 N. C. 367),
297.
Hill V. Fogg (41 Mo. 563), 1244,
1959.
Hill V. Frazier (22 Pa. St. 320),
636, 846.
Hill V. Glasgow R. Co. (41 Fed.
Rep. 610), 822.
Hill V. Jewett, etc. Co. (154 Mass.
172; 26 Am. St. Rep. 230), 416.
Hill V. La Crosse, etc. R. Co. (11
"Wis. 226), 1255.
Hill V Lane (L R. 11 Eq. 215),
579.
Hill V. Marston (178 Mass. 285),
1773.
Hill Mfg. Co. V. Boston, etc. R. Co.
(104 Mass. 122), 1292.
Hill V. Newichawanick Company
(71 N. Y. 593), 584, 627, 631,
632.
Hill V. Nisbet (100 Ind. 341), 76,
473, 474, 770, 1103, 1109, 1277,
1278, 1376, 1577, 17G0, 1842, 1847,
1852, 1868.
Hill V. Pine River Bank (45 N. H.
300), 292, 529, 574, 687.
Hill V. Reid (16 Barb. 280), 873.
Hill V. Rich Hill, etc. Co. (119 Mo.
9), 976.
Hill V. Rogers (50 Mich. 294), 873.
Hill V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (90 Mo.
103), 1519.
Hill V. Silvey (81 Ga. 500), 857.
Hill V. Spencer (61 N. Y. 274), 859.
Hill V. Standard, etc. Co. (198 Pa.
St. 446), 1771, 1772.
Hill V. "Western "Vt. etc. R. R. Co.
(32 Vt. 68), 1311.
Hilles V. Parrish (14 N. J. Eq.
380), 987, 1034.
Hilliard
v. Allegheny, etc. Ins. Co.
(173 Pa. St. 1; 34 Atl. Rep. 231),
923, 924, 934.
Hills V. Bank (105 U. S. 319), 743.
Hills' Case (20 Eq. (L. R.) 585;
L. R. 9 Eq. 605; L. R. 4 Ch. 769),
532, 556, 1335.
Hills V. Parker (111 Mass. 508),
1800.
Hillyer v. Overman, etc. Manuf.
Co. (6 Nev. 51), 1055.
Hilton V. Eckersley
(6 El. & Bl.
47), 1426.
Hinchman v. Phila. etc. Turnpike
Road (160 Pa. St. 150), 1936.
Hinckley v. Gildersleeve (19
Grant. U. C. 212), 1565.
Hincklev v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
(131 Mass. 147), 1687.
Hinckley v. Pfister (83 "Wis. 64),
600, 1511.
Hinckley v. Railroad Co. (129
Mass. 52), 1682.
Hincks v. Converse (37 La. Ann.
484), 166.
Hinds v. Canandaigua, etc, R. Co.
10 How. Pr. 487), 903.
Hirsh V. Jones (56 Fed. Rep. 137),
2018.
Hirshfeld v. Bopp (39 N. Y. App.
Div. 613), 866.
Hiskey v. Pacific, etc. Co. (20
Utah, 1), 1S85.
Hirshfield v. Fitzgerald (157 N.
Y. 166), 1520.
Hiss V. Bartlett (3 Gray (C9
Mass.), 468; 63 Am. Dec. 776),
204, 770, 777, 785, 2059, 20C4.
Hitch V. Hawley (132 N. Y. 212),
1951.
Hitchcock V. Barrett (50 Fed. Rep.
653), 1536.
Hitchcock V. Coker (6 Adol. &
E. 436), 1419.
Hitchcock V. Galveston (96 U. S.
311), 1329, 1343.
Hitchcock's Heirs, etc. v. United
States, etc. (7 Ala. 386), 1994.
Hite V. Hite (93 Ky. 257), 648.
CXXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Hix V. Edison (27 N. Y. App. Div.
2IS), 1214.
Hoadley v. Essex County, etc. (105
Mass. 519), 23, 1G2, 1851.
Hoagland v. Bell (36 Barb. 57),
4G7, 542, 914.
Hoagland v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R.
(18 Ind. 482), 20G, 313, 314.
Hoagland v. St. Joseph, R. Co. (39
Mo. 4C0), 1584.
Hoard v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. (123
U. S. 222), 1561.
Hoard v. Wilcox (47 Pa. St. 51),
309, 911.
Hoare's Case (2 Johns. & H. 229;
30 Beav. 225), 565, 568, 509, 570,
1123.
Hobard v. Johnston (8 Fed. Rep.
493) 575.
Hobart v. Chapelle (14 Ind. 601),
1875.
Hobart v. Gould (8 Fed. Rep. 57),
923.
Hobbs, Ex rel. (1 Woods, 540), 39.
Hobbs V. Amador, etc. Canal Co.
(66 Cal. 161), 1490.
Hobbs V. McLean (117 U. S. 567),
1074, 1814.
'
Hoblyn v. King (6 Bro. P. C. 511),
198.
Hoboken, etc. Assn. v. Martin (13
N. J. Eq. 427), 1960.
Hoboken, etc. Co. v. Kahn (59 N.
J. Law, 218; 59 Am. St. Rep.
585), 1505.
Hockett V. State (105 Ind. 250),
1384.
Hooker v. Western U. T. Co. (34
So. Rep. (Fla.) 901), 1625, 2030.
Hodder v. Kentucky, etc. Ry. (7
Fed. Rep. 793), 1289.
Hodge V. U. S. Steel Corp. (53 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 601), 976, 1510,
1511.
Hodges' Appeal (84 Pa. St. 359),
1755, 2090.
Hodges V. Green (28 Vt. 358), 2131.
Hodges V. New England Screw Co.
(1 R. I. 312; 53 Am. Dec. 624),
1121, 1125, 1154, 1243, 1278, 1433,
1577, 1949, 2122.
Hodges V. Planters' Bank (7 Gill
& J. (Md.) 306), 693.
Hodges V. Silver Hill Mining Co.
(9 Oreg. 200), 866, 875, 900, 912,
913.
Hodgkinson v. Exeter (L. R. 5
Eq. 63), 191.
Hodgkinson v. National L. S. Ins.
Co. (26 Beav. 473), 329, 335,
1121, 1165.
Hodgson V. Cheever (8 Mo. App.
321), 846.
Hodgson V. Duhith, etc. R. R. (46
Minn. 445), 989.
Hodsdon v. Copeland (16 Me. 314),
1960.
Hotf V. Minneapolis (14 Fed. Rep,
558), 1572.
Hoffman v. Banks (41 Ind. 1),
2003.
Hoffman v. Brooks (11 Week. L.
Bull. 358), 1416, 1418, 1422, 1450.
Hoffman v. John Hancock, etc. Ins.
Co. (92 U. S. IGl), 2067.
Hoffman, etc. Coal Co. v. Cumber-
land, etc. Co. (16 Md. 456), G87,
1099, 1185, 1760.
Hoffman v. Reichert (147 111. 274),
1218.
Hogan V. Walker (14 How. 37),
1738.
Hoge V. Railway Co. (99 U. S.
348), 721.
Hoge V. Richmond, etc. Co. (99
U. S. 348), 61.
Hogg V. Mackay (23 Oreg. 339; 37
Am. St. Rep. 682), 717.
Ilogue V. Capital Nat. Bank (47
Neb. 929), 848, 879.
Holbert v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (l5
Iowa, 23), 1320, 2015.
Holbrook v. Basset (5 Bosw. (N.
Y.) 147), 1266.
Holbrook v. Fauquier, etc. Co. (3
Cranch. C. C. 425), 422, 560.
Holbrook v. Ford (153 111. 633; 46
Am. St. Rep. 917), 1810, 1812,
2016, 2017.
Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc Co.
(57 N. Y. 621), 390, 407, 409, 410,
411, 539, 578, 609.
Holbrook v. St. Paul, etc. Ins. Co.
(25 Minn. 229), 930, 1529.
Holcombe v. Cable Co. (46 S. E.
Rep. (Ga.) 671), 1526.
Hoklen v. Alton (53 N. E. Rep.
(111.) 556). 1439.
Hoiden v. Great Western, etc. Co.
(69 Minn. 527), 1527.
Holden v. Hoyt (134 Mass. 181),
138, 1006.
Holden v. Phelps (141 Mass. 456),
1210.
Holden v. Aultman (169 U. S. 81),
1992.
Holder v. Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co.
(71 111. 106), 1066.
TABLE OF CASES. cxxxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Holgate V. Oregon Pac. Ry. (16
Oreg. 123; 17 Pac. Rep. 859),
1509.
Holladay v. Elliott (8 Oreg. 84),
1284, 1432.
Holland v. Duluth, etc. (65 Minn.
324; 60 Am. St. Rep. 480), 204.
Holland v. Cheshire R. Co. (151
Mass. 231), 682.
Holland v. Duluth (65 Minn. 324),
953.
Holland, etc. Co. v. International,
etc. Co. (85 Fed. Rep. 865), 1734.
Holland v. Pleyman (60 Ga. 174),
927.
Holland v. Lewiston Falls Bank
(52 Me. 564), 1075.
Holliday v. Elliott (8 Oreg. 84),
253.
Holliday's Case (27 Fed. Rep.
830), 1800.
Hollingshead v. Woodward (107
U. S. 96), 336, 866, 867, 927, 942,
948, 949, 1786. 1948, 1949, 1957,
1962, 1964, 1965.
Hollingsworth v. Detroit (3 Mc-
Lean, 472), 1679.
Hollingsworth v. Virginia (3 Dall.
378), 24.
Hollins V. American, etc. Co. (56
Atl. Rep. (N. J. Eq.) 104), 1512.
Hollins V. Brierfield, etc. Co. (150
U. S. 371), 443, 444, 448, 449, 883,
1512, 1769, 1781, 1782.
Hollins V. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. (9
N. Y. Supp. 909), 1000. 1826.
Hollister Bank, In re (27 N. Y.
393), 910.
Hollister v. Hollister Bank (2 Ahb.
App. Dec. (N. Y.) 367), 924.
Hollister v. Stewart (111 N. Y.
644), 1823, 1827.
Hollman v. Williamsport, etc. Co.
(9 Gill & J. (Md.) 462), 290.
Plolloway V. Memphis, etc. Co. (23
Tex. 465; 76 Am. Dec. 68), 128.
Hollwey's Case (1 De G. & Sm.
777), 554.
Holly Springs v. Pinson (58 Miss.
435), 187.
Holman v. Galveston, etc. Ry. (14
Tex. Civ. App. 439), 1757.
Holman v. State (105 Ind. 569),
360, 516, 1905.
Holmes, Ex parte (5 Cow. (N. Y.)
426), 252, 663, 1013.
Holmes v. Gilliland (41 Barb. (N.
Y.) 568), 149, 150, 155.
Holmes v. Holmes, etc. Co. (37
-
Conn. 278; 9 Am. Dec. 324), 123.
Holmes v. Kansas City Board
of Trade
(81 Mo. 137), 1172,
1173.
Holmes
v. Mead (52 N. Y. 332),
2128.
Holmes v. Montauk. etc. Co. (35
C. C. A. 556; 93 Fed. Rep.
731),
1177.
Holmes v. New Castle, etc. Co. (45
L. J. Ch. 383), 635, 036.
Holmes v. Old Colonv R. Co. (5
Gray (71 Mass.),
58), 1292.
Holmes v. Sherwood (3 McCrary,
405; 16 Fed. Rep. 725), 874, 875,
898, 900, 903, 905, 912, 913,
927'.
Holmes v. Willard (5 N. Y. Supp.
619), 1147, 1267.
Holmes v. Turner Falls Co. (150
Mass. 535; 6 L. R. A. 283), 1178.
Holmes v. Wakefield (12 Allen
(94 Mass.) 580), 1486, 1498.
Holmes, etc. Manuf. Co. v. Holmes,
etc. Metal Co. (127 N. Y. 252),
1237, 1278, 1281, 1578.
Holmes, etc. v. Williard (5 N. Y.
Supp. 10), 1273, 1274.
Holt V. Bennett (146 Mass. 439),
1111.
Plolt V. Downs (58 N. H. 170),
2124, 2128, 2132.
Holt V. Indiana Manuf. Co. (80
Fed. Rep. 1), 731.
Holt V. Winfield (25 Fed. Rep.
812), 278, 333, 1146, 1148, 1192,
1331, 1377.
Holt's Case (1 Sim. (N. S.) 389),
569.
Holy Communion Church, In re
(14 Phila. 121), 82, 2123.
Holyoke Bank v. Burnham (11
Cush. (65 Mass.) 183), 562, 569,
885, 886, 887, 890, 891, 892, 894.
Holyoke Bank v. Goodman, etc.
Manuf. Co. (9 Cush. (63 Mass.)
576), 614, 919.
Holyoke, etc. Co. v. U. S. etc. Co.
(65 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 54), 1251.
Holyoke Water-Power Co. v.
Lyman (15 Wall. 500), 38, 55,
99, 101.
Home V. Newmarch (12 Allen (94
Mass.), 49), 1495.
Home Assn., In re (129 N. Y. 288),
1808.
Home Ins. Co. v. Davis (29 Mich.
238), 1986, 1990, 1995, 2012.
Home Ins. Co. v. Head (30 Hun,
405),
1239.
Home' Ins. Co. v. Morse (20 Wall.
445), 2000.
CXXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Home Ins. Co. v. New York (119
U. S. 129), 704.
Home Protection v. Richards (74
Ala. 466), 1508, 1509.
Home Stock Ins. Co. Sherwood (72
Mo. 461),
614.
Home of the Friendless v. Rouse
(8
Wall. 430), 52, 717, 718.
Home, etc. Co. v. McKibben (60
Kan. 387), 1510.
Homer District, etc. Mines, In re
(L. R. 39 Ch. D. 546), 1016.
Honbsach, etc. Co. v. Teague (5
Hurl. & N. 151), 477.
Honold V. Meyer (36 La. Ann.
585), 389.
Hood V. McNanghton (54 N. J. L.
425), 548, 886, 1480, 1791.
Hood V. N. Y. etc. R. Co. (22 Conn.
1, 502), 398, 1229, 1329.
Hook V. Bosworth (64 Fed. Rep.
443), 1783.
Hook V. Great Western Ry. Co.
(L. R. 3 Ch. 362), 640.
Hooker v. Eagle Bank (30 N. Y.
83), 1189, 1343.
Hooker v. New Haven & N. Co.
15 Conn. 313; 36 Am. Dec. 477),
17, 1381.
Hoole V. Great Western Ry. Co.
(L. R. 3 Ch. 362), 634, 662, 821,
1356, 1357.
Hooper v. California (155 U. S.
648), 1455.
Hooper v. Rossiter (McClellan,
527), 650.
Hooper v. Vanderwater (4 Denio,
349), 1416, 1417, 1418, 1426, 1427,
1450, 1472.
Hooper v. Winston (24 111. 363),
1747, 1748.
Hoosac Mining, etc. Co. v. Donat
(10 Colo. 529), 1170.
Hoover v. Montclair, etc. Rail-
road Co. (29 N. J. Eq. 4), 1727,
1728.
Hoover v. Pennsylvania R. R. (156
Pa. St. 220), 1475, 1555.
Hopcroft v. Parker (16 D. Times
(N. S.), 561), 167, 1233.
Hope, etc. Co. v. Flinn (28 Mo.
483; 90 Am. Dec. 438), 101.
Hope Ins. Co. v. Beckman (47 Mo.
93), 245, 792.
Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman (5
Cranch,
57), 2010.
Hope, etc. Ins. Co. v. Perkins (38
N. Y. 404), 1700.
Hopkins v. Roseclare Lead Co. (72
111. 373), 1018, 1963.
Plopkins V. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. (2
Dill. 396), 1834.
Hopkins v. Taylor (87 111. 436),
1809.
Hopkins v. Whitesides (1 Head
(Tenn.), 31), 1980.
Hopkins v. Worcester, etc. (L. R.
6 Eq. 437), 1745.
Hopkins v. United States (171 U.
S. 578), 1457.
Hopkinson v. Marquis of Exeter
(17 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 368), 771,
778.
Hoppin V. Buffum (9 R. I. 513),
264, 585, 1008, 1009, 1013, 1021,
1032, 1035.
Hopson V. ^tna, etc. Co. (50 Conn.
597), 1110.
Hornaday v. Indiana, etc. R. Co.
(9 Ind. 263), 348, 349.
Hornbeck v. Westbrook (9 Johns.
(N. Y.) 75), 2050.
Horbach v. March (37 Neb. 22),
1185.
Horn Silver Co. v. Ryan (42 Minn.
196; 44 N. W. Rep. 50), 1118.
Horn Silver, etc. Co. v. New York
(143 U. S. 305), 747.
Horner v. Carter (3 McCrary, C.
Ct. 595), 1130.
Horner v. Graves (7 Bing. 735),
1415,
Horner v. Henning (93 U. S. 228),
113L
Horton v. Baptist Church (34 Vt.
309), 2078.
Horton v. Morgan (19 N. Y. 170),
584, 486, 587.
Horton v. Thompson (71 N. Y.
520; 7 Hun, 452), 283, 296.
Horton v. Wilder (40 Kan. 222),
1049.
Hospes v. Northwestern, etc. Co.
(48 Minn. 174; 15 L. R. A. 470),
434, 435, 438, 445, 451, 870.
Hot Springs R. Co. v. Trippe (42
Ark. 405), 1472.
Hot Springs R. Co. v Tyler (36
Ark. 205), 1321.
Hotchkiss V. National Bank (21
Wall. 354), 1686.
Houek V. Anheuser, etc. Assn. (88
Tex. 184), 1428.
Hough V. Cook County Land Co.
(73 111. 23), 1376, 1981.
Houghton, etc. v. Common Coun-
cil, etc. (98 N. W. Rep. (Mich.)
393), 1605.
Houldsworth v. Evans (L. R. 3
H. U 263), 1362.
TABLE OF CASES. CXXXVU
IReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Household Fire Co. v. Grant (48
L. J. Ex. 219; 4 Ex. Div. 21G),
279.
Houston V. Filer, etc. Co. (85 Fed.
Rep. 757), 2039.
Houston V. Houston, etc. Ry. (83
Tex. 548), 1942, 1944.
Houston V. Jefferson College (G3
Pa. St. 428), 115, 1832, 1947,
1955.
Houston, etc. Co. v. Drew (13 Tex.
Civ. App. 53G), 1510.
Houston, etc. Co. v. Kennedy
(70
Tex. 233), 1515.
Houston & Tex. C. R. Co. v. Mc-
Kinney (55 Tex. 176), 1079, 1167.
Houston, etc. Ry. v. Norris (41 S.
W. Rep. (Tex.) 708), 1755.
Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Rust (58
Tex. 98), 1556.
Houston & Texas C. R. Co. v.
Shirlev (54 Tex. 125), 1503,
1817, 1860, 1888, 1890.
Houston V. Thornton (122 N. C.
365), 1155.
Houston, etc Ry. Co. v. Van Als-
tyne (56 Tex. 439), 420, 610, 613.
Hovey v. Ten Broeck (3 Rob. (N.
Y.) 316), 858, 859.
Howard v. Bank of England (19
L. R. 3 Eq. 285), 262, 529.
Howard v. Glenn (85 Ga. 238),
481, 953.
Howard v. St. Clair, etc. Co. (51
111. 130), 17.
Howard v. St. Paul P. Works (35
Fed. Rep. 743), 1126.
HoAvard v. Savannah T. U. P.
(Charlt. (Ga.) 173), 214, 215.
Howard v. IVIilwaultee, etc. R. Co.
(7 Biss. 73; 12 Fed. Cas. 645),
1738.
Howard v. Turner (155 Pa. St.
349), 834.
Howard's Case (L. R. 1 Ch. App.
561), 287, 1757.
Howarth v. Angle (162 N. Y. 179),
904, 1791.
Howarth v. Lombard (175 Mass.
570), 904, 1791.
Hov/e V. Barney (45 Fed. Rep.
668), 1513, 20i8.
Howe V. Boston Carpet Co. (82
Mass. 493), 1281.
Hov/e V. Deuel (43 Barb. 504),
1924.
Howe V. Freeman (80 Mass. 566),
988, 991.
Howe V. Morse (174 Mass. 491),
2052. -
Howe V. Robinson (20 Fla. 352),
178, 1977, 1978.
Howe V. Stevens (47 Vt. 262), 2132.
Howe V. West End St. Ry. (167
Mass.
46), 1607.
Howell v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.
(51 Barb. (N. Y.) 378), 239, 246,
247, 248, 638, 644, 1923.
Howell V. Manglesdorf (33 Kan.
194), 499, 843, 949, 969.
Howell V. Ripley
(10 Paige (N.
Y.),
43), 1724.
Howell V. Western R. Co. (94 U.
S. 463), 1732, 1745, 1751.
Howes V. Crush (131 Mass. 207),
1322.
Howland v. Edmonds (24 N. Y.
307), 454.
Howland v. Myer (2 Sandf. 186;
3 N. Y. 290), 798.
Howie V. Scarbrough (35 South.
Rep. (Ga.) 113), 1052.
Hoylake Ry. Co., In re (L. R. 9
Ch. 257), 687.
Hoyle V. Plattsburg, etc. R. Co.
(54 N. Y. 314), 1083, 1098, 1104.
1702, 1716, 1760.
Hoyt V. Sheldon
(3 Bosw. (N. Y.)
287), 190, 194.
Hoyt V. Thompson (19 N. Y. 207),
190. 193, 194, 799, 806, 1056, 1084,
1089, 1297, 1377.
Hub Pub. Co. V. Richardson (13
N. Y. Supp. 665), 1213.
Hubbard v. Chappell (14 Ind. 601),
91.
Hubbard v. Manhattan T. Co. (87
Fed. Rep. 51), 542, 1832.
Hubbard v. Mosley (11 Gray
(77
Mass.), 170), 1676.
Hubbard v. New York, etc. Rail-
way Co. (14 Abb. Pr. 275), 1106,
1676.
Hubbard v. Weare (79 Iowa, 678),
635. 937.
Hubbell V. Drexel (11 Fed. Rep.
(N. S.) 115; 21 Am. Law Reg.
452), 392, 576, 583, 584, 586.
Hubbell V. Meigs (50 N. Y. 480),
"
559.
Hubbersty v. Manchester, etc. Ry.
Co. (L. R. 2 Q. B. 471), 692.
Hudderfield Canal Co. v. Buck-
ley (7 T. R. 36), 545, 593, 889,
890, 891.
Hudson V. Carman (41 Me. 84),
68, 69, 919.
Hudson V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
(92 Iowa, 231), 1636.
Hudson V. Parker Machine Co.
CXXXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. 11, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(173 Mass. 242), 261, 271, 324,
943, 1052, 1091.
Hudsoa City Sav. Inst., In re (5
Hun, 612), 103.
Hudson Real Est. Co. v. Tower
(IGl Mass. 10), 261, 271, 324,
333.
Hudson River, etc. Co. v. Kay (12
Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 191), lOCO.
Hudson, etc. Co. v. City of Johns-
town (37 N. Y. Misc. 41), 1629.
Hudson River, etc. Ry. Co. v. Han-
field (36 N. Y. App. Div. 605),
1689.
Hudson, etc. Co. v. Tower (161
Mass. 10), 943.
Hudson, etc. T. Co. v. Watervliet,
etc. Ry. Co. (135 N. Y. 393),
1599.
Hud--peth V. Hall (111 Ga. 510),
1652.
Huey V. Macon County
(35
Fed.
Rep. 41), 1679, 1697.
Huffman v. Western, etc. Co. (13
Tex. Civ. App. 169), 1985, 1991.
Hugh v. McRae (Chase's Dec. 466;
12 Fed. Cas. 829), 1965.
Hughes V. Antietam Mfg. Co. (34
Ind. 316), 89, 244, 278, 313, 334,
363, 461, 462, 472, 473, 768. 2065.
Hughes v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
(18 Fed. Rep. 106), 1905.
Hughes V. Oregonian Ry. Co. (11
Oreg. 158), 898, 968.
Hughes V. Parker (20 N. H. 58),
998.
Hughes V. Thorpe (5 Mees. & W.
656), 2080.
Hughes V. Vermont Copper Co. (72
N. Y. 207), 632, 633.
Hughes-Hallett v. Indian Mam-
moth, etc. Co. (22 Ch. D. 561),
568.
Huguenin v. Baseley (13 Ves. 105),
1724.
Huguenot Nat. Bank v. Steedwell
(60 Dalv, 13; 74 N. Y. 621),
1953, 1965.
Huidekoper v. Locomotive Works
(99 U. S. 258), 1721, 1724, 1725,
1728.
Hukell v. Mavsville, etc. R. R. (72
Fed. Rep. 745), 1563.
Hull V. Alabama, etc. Co. (79 Ga.
93), 2032.
Hull V. Burtis (90 111. 213), 546,
911.
Hull V. Glover (126 111. 122), 2051.
Hull V. Thomas (3 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 236), 1748.
Hullman v. Honcomp
(5
Ohio St.
237), 1920.
Hulls Flax Co. Wellesley (5 Hurl.
& N. 38), 808.
Humble v. Langsdon (7 Mees. &
W. 517), 468. 888.
Humble v. Mitchell (11 Ad. & E.
205), 524.
Humboldt v. Long (92 U. S. 642),
1674.
Hiimboldt Min. Co. v. American,
etc. Co. (62 Fed. Rep. 356), 1275,
167L
Humboldt Sav. L. Soc. v. Wenner-
hold (22 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 920),
1205, 1206.
Humboldt, etc. Assn. v. Stevens
(34 Neb. 52^), 1025, 1026.
Humby, Ex parte (5 Jur. (N. S.)
215), 542.
Hume V. Commercial Bank (9 Lea
(Tenn.), 728), 376.
Hume V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co.
(8 Biss. C. Ct. 81), 2023.
Humes v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. (82 Mo.
231), 1386.
Humes v. Proctor (73 Hun, 265),
1627.
Humphrey v. Burnside (4 Bush
(Ky.), 215), 2077.
Humohrey v. Coleman (1 Black/.
(Ind.) 199), 148, 2035.
Humphrey v. McKissock (140 U.
S. 304), 791, 800, 1077.
Humphrey v. Mooney
(5
Colo.
282), 75, 76, 84, 171, 172, 992,
994.
Humphrey v. Patrons' Mercantile
Assn. (50 Iowa, 607), 1335.
Humphrey v. Pegues (16 Wall.
244), 719, 722.
Humphreys v. Allen (101 111. 490),
1727, 1728.
Humphreys v. Newport News, etc.
Co. (.33 W. Va. 135), 2031.
Humphrevs v. Stevens (49 Ind.
491), 1962.
Humphries v. Little Sisters (29
Ohio St. 201), 726.
Ilun V. Gary (82 N. Y. 65), 1119,
1120.
Hunn Water Works Co. v. Huron
(7 S. D. 9),
Hunsaker v. Sturgis (29 Cal. 142),
584.
Hunt V. American Grocery Co. (80
Fed. Rep. 70), 797, 1090.
Hunt V. Bullock (23 111. 320). 1715.
Hunt V. Columbia Ins. Co. (55 Me.
290; 92 Am. Dec. 592), 1810.
TABLE OF CASES. CXXXIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Hunt V. Gunn (13 C. B. (N. S.)
226), 300.
Hunt V. Hauser, etc. Co. (90 N. W.
Rep. (Minn.) 95), 829, 1351.
Hunt V. Hunt (72 N. Y. 236), 845.
Hunt, In re (26 Fed. Rep. 739),
2115.
Hunt V. Kansas, etc. Co. (11 Kan.
412), 314, 342, 377.
Hunt V. Le Grande, etc. Co. (143
111. 118), 1951.
Hunt V. Roosen (91 N. W. Rep.
(Minn.) 259), 1831.
Hunt V. Sal'sbury (55 Mo. 310),
84, 164, 167.
Hunt V. Wolfe (22 Daly, 303), 1747.
Hunter v. Roberts, etc. (83 Mich.
63), 639, 795, 799, 800.
Hunter v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co.
(26 La. Ann. 13), 208. lOCO.
Hunterdon Bank v. Nassau Bank
(17 N. J. Eq. 496), 963.
Huntington v. Attrill (42 Hun,
459), 848, 849, 1135, 1138.
Huntington v. Chesapeake, etc. Ry
(98 Fed. Rep. 459), 1812, 1967
Huntington v. District of Colum
bia Sav. Bank (96 U. S. 388), 2G
Huntington v. Little Rock, etc. R
Co. (16 Fed. Rep. 906), 1752.
Huntington v. Mather (2 Barb.
538), 580.
Huntington v. National Bank (96
U. S. 388), 26.
Huntington v. Palmer (104 U. S.
482), 826, 827.
Huntington, etc. Co. v. Schofield
(28 Ind. 95), 153.
Huntsville. etc. Co. (34 South. Rep.
(Ala.) 855), 1609.
Hupfleld V. Automator, etc. Co. (66
Fed. Rep. 788). 1797.
Hurd V. Savannah, etc. R. Co. (12
S. C. 314), 1734.
Hurd V. Tallman (60 Barb. 272),
1129, 1795.
Hurlburt v. Root (12 How. Pr.
511), 873.
Hurlburt v. Western Union T.
Co. (98 N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 794),
1626.
Hurlbut V. Carter (21 Barb. 221),
873.
Hurlbut V. Marshall (62 Wis. 590),
796, 1047, 1231.
Huron Water Works Co. v. Huron
(7 S. D. 9), 1650.
Hurst V. Coe (30 W. Va. 158), 819.
Hurt V. Salisbury (55 Mo. 310),
164, 167, 1233.
Hurt V. Terrill (83 Va. 167), 125G,
1893.
Hurting v. Sweet (33 Kan. 244),
1112.
Husband v. Eppling (81 111. 172),
1803.
Huse V. Ames (104 Mo. 91), 1761.
Hussey v. Gallagher (61 Ga. 86),
211, 2072.
Hussey v. King (98 N. C. 34), 1482,
1493.
Hussey v. Norfolk Southern, etc.
Co. (98 N. C. 34), 1493.
Hussner v. Brookh^n, etc. R. R.
(114 N. Y. 433), i606.
Hussy V. Manufacturers', etc.
Bank (27 Mass. 415), 616, 618.
Huston's Appeal (127 Pa. St 620),
1752, 1975.
Huston V. Rentlinger (91 Ky. 333;
15 S. W. Rep. 867; 34 Am. St.
Rep. 225), 216.
Hutchinson v. American, etc. Co.
(104 Fed. Rep. 182), 2040.
Hutchinson v. Crutcher (98 Tenn.
421), 1786, 1964.
Hutchinson v. Exeter (L. R. 5 Eq.
63), 777.
Hutchinson v. Surrey Gas Assn.
(11 C. B. 689), 1175.
Hutching New England Coal M.
Co. (4 Allen (86 Mass.), 580),
844. 850.
Hutchins v. Smith (46 Barb. 235),
307.
Hutchins v. State Bank (12 Met.
(53 Mass.) 421, 572, 602, 603.
Hutchinson v. Green (91 Mo. 367),
1244, 1800.
Hutchinson, etc. R. R. v. Kingman
County (48 Kan. 70), 1593.
Hutchinson v. Stadler (83 N. Y.
S. 509), 1119.
Hutson V. Morrisiana St. Co. (12
Abb. N. Cas. 278; 64 How. Pr.
268), 1522.
Hutton V. Scarborough C. H. Co.
(12 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 228, 289),
118, 660, 680.
Hutton V. West Cork Ry. Co. (23
Ch. Div. 654), 986, 1558.
Huvlar v. Cragin Cattle Co. (40
N. J. Eq. 392), 143, 146, 164,
1903 2035.
I
Hvatt V. Allen (56 N. Y. 553), 627,
628, 639.
Hyatt V. Van Riper (78 S. W. Rep.
(Mo.) 1043), 879.
Hvde V. Woods (2 Sawy. 655), 189,
191, 198, 199, 205.
cxl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Hyde Park Gas Co. v.
Kerber (5
111. App. 132),
818.
Hydes etc. Co. v. Davidson Co.
(91
Tenu. 231),
1658.
Hygeia Ice Co. v. New York Hy-
geia Ice Co. (140 N. Y. 94),
124.
Hyues v.
Briggs (41 Fed. Rep.
4G8), 2008.
Hyslop V.
Finch (99 111. 171),
1316.
I-
i
lasigi V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (129 i
Mass. 46), 618.
|
Iba V. Hannibal, etc. R. Co. (45
Mo. 469), 830.
\
Ide V. Connecticut Passumpsit i
River Ry. Co. (32 Vt. 297),
1683.
Iddings V. Bruen (54 Sandf. Ch.
417), 1747.
Illinois Assn. v. Plagge (177 111.
431; 69 Am. St. Rep. 252),
141.
Illinois Central R. Co. v.
Barron
(5 Wall. 90), 1568.
Illinois Canal v. Chicago, etc. R.
Co. (14 111. 814), 1316, 1518.
Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Cope-
land (24 111. 322; 76 Am. Dec.
749), 1637.
Illinois Central Ry. Co. v. Frank-
enberg (54 111. 88), 1637.
Illinois Central Co. v. McClellan
(54 111. 58),
1487.
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Stone
(20 Fed. Rep. 472), 38.
Illinois Central, etc. Co. v. Mat-
toon (141 111. 32), 715.
Illinois Central Co. v. People (95
111. 313), 1385.
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Thomp-
son (116 111. 159), 1162, 1342.
Illinois, etc. Bank v. Arkansas,
etc. City "Water Co. (67 Fed.
Rep. 196), 1645.
Illinois, etc. Bank v. Minton (120
Fed. Rep. 187), 1591.
Illinois, etc. Bank v. Pacific R.
R. (117 Cal. 332), 1692.
Illinois, etc. Co. v. Arkansas, etc.
(G7 Fed. Rep. 196), 1S45.
Illinois, etc. Gas Co. v. Berry (113
U. S. 322), 1172.
Illinois, etc. R. Co. v. Cook (29
111. 237), 283, 1855.
Illinois, etc. R. R. Co. v. Doud
(105 Fed. Rep. 123; 2 L. R. A.
481), 1957.
Illinois, etc. Soc. v. Baldwin (86
111. 479), 2048.
Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co. v.
Cook (29 111. 237), 112, 283, 284,
348, 349, 353.
Illinois Health Union v. People
(166 111. 171), 1902, 1908, 1927,
1935.
Illinois Linen Co. v. Hough (91
111. 63), 10C4, 1071.
Illinois Midland R. Co. v. Bar-
nett (85 111. 313), 350.
Illinois Midland Ry. Co. v. Super-
visors (85 111. 313). 349.
Illinois River Co. v. Zimmer (20
111. 654), 109, 110, 243, 281, 284,
314, 461, 472.
Illinois Steel Co. v. O'Donnell
ri56 111. 624; 31 L. R. A. 265),
1765.
Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Pear-
son (140 111. 423), 81.
Imboden v. Etowah, etc. Min. Co.
(70 Ga. 86),
1490.
Imperial, etc. Co. v. Jewett (169
N. Y. 143), 1505.
Imperial, etc. Co. v. Wyman (38
Fed. Rep. 574; 3 L. R. A. 503),
91.
Imperial Hydropathic, etc. Co. ^
,
HaniFSon (L. R. 23 Ch. D. 1),
789, 1062.
Imperial Land Co., In re (11 E(3.
478), 1677.
Imperial Mercantile, etc. Assn.,
In re (L. R. 6 Eq. 455), 557.
Imperial Mercantile, etc. Assn.
V. Coleman (L. R. 6 H. L. 189),
1105.
Importers, etc. Exch., In re (2 N.
Y. Siipp. 257), 803, 1966.
Importing, etc. Co. v. Locke (50
Ala. 335), 1923, 1946.
Independence Assurance Co., Ir re
(1 Sim. (N. S.) 54), 438.
Ince Hall, etc. Co., In re (30
Week. Rep. 945), 437, 448, 44y.
Independent, etc. College v. Peo-
ple (182 111. 274), 1902.
Independent Ins. Co., In re (1
Holmes (U. S.) 103; Fed. Cas.
7017), 1969, 1970.
Independent Order, etc. v. Paine
(14 N. E. Rep. (111.) 42), 167,
1524.
Independent Order v. United
Order (94 Wis. 234), 156, 1590.
Independent Order Silver Star,
In re (1 Luz. Leg. Reg. 768),
85.
Inderwick v. Snell (2 Macn. & G.
216), 799, 995, 1062.
TABLE OF CASES. cxli
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
India Bag Co. v. Kock (14 La.
164), 142G.
India, etc. Assur. Co., In re (L.
R. 7 Ch. 651), 1892.
Indian River S. Co. v. East, etc.
Co. (28 Fla. 387), 1056, 1475.
Indiana, etc. Co. v. McGill (15
Ind. App.
1), 921.
Indiana, etc. Co. v. Ogle (22 Ind.
593), 79, 81, 880.
Indiana, etc. Ry. Co. v. Sprague
(103 U. S. 762), 1671, 1677.
Indiana, etc. Co. v. State (63 N.
E. Rep. 220; 57 L. R. A. 761),
1314, 1643.
Indiana Seliool Dist. v. Stone (106
U. S. 183), 1676.
Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Her-
kimer (46 Ind. 142), 83, 309.
Indianapolis v. Morganstown (103
111. 149), 133.
Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Jones (29
Ind. 465; 95 Am. Dec. 654),
1863, 1881, 1886, 1888, 1890,
1891, 1895.
Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Taylor
(56 Tex. 96), 1855.
Indianapolis Gas' Co. v. Indianap-
olis (82 Fed. R9p. 245), 1643.
Indianapolis R. M. Co. v. St.
Louis, etc. R. Co. (26 Fed. Rep.
140), 1163, 1170, 1178, 1193,
1202.
Indianola R. Co. v. Fryer (56
Tex. 609), 1503, 1860, 1863, 1884,
1890.
Ind's Case (L. R. 7 Ch. App.
485), 563, 569, 570.
Industrial, etc. Co. v. Central,
etc. Co. (66 S. W. (Ky.) 1032),
122.
Ingalls V. Cole (47 Me. 530), 843,
874, 927.
Ingersoll v. Stockbridge, etc. R.
Co. (8 Allen (90 Mass.), 438),
1570.
Inglis V. Great Northern Ry. (16
Jur. 895), 137, 588, 1005.
Ingraham v. Camden, etc. Co. (19
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 861), 1310.
Ingraham v. Terry (11 Humph.
(Tenn.) 572), 1967, 1968.
Ingram v. Supreme Council (14
N. Y. St. Rep. 600), 2071.
Inhabitants v. Morton (25 Mo.
593), 195.
Inhabitants, etc. v. Cole (3 Pick.
(20 Mass.) 232), 1376.
Inhabitants, etc. of Brunswick v.
Dunning
(7
Mass. 445), 12.
Inhabitants, etc. Co. v. New York,
etc. T. Co. (57 N. J. Eq. 123),
1618.
Inhabitants of Norton v. Hodges
(100 Ma.ss. 241), 833, 835.
Inhabitants of Yarmouth v. In-
habitants of New Yarmouth (34
Me. 41; 56 Am. Dec. 666), 3.
Inland & Seaboard c; Co. v. Tol-
son (139 U. S. 551), 1637.
Innes v. Wylie (1 Carr. & K.
257), 780.
Inns of Court Hotel Co. (L. R. 6
Eq. 82), 1701.
Insane Asylum v. Higgins (15
III. 185), 126.
Institute v. Delaware Co. (94 Pa.
St. 163), 726.
Instone v. Frankfort Budgets (2
Bibb. 576; 5 Am. Dec. 638),
271, 478.
Insurance Co., In re (3 Biss. 452),
253, 1280, 1285.
Insurance Co. v. French (18 How.
404), 747.
Insurance Co. v. Connor (17 Pa.
St. 136), 197.
Insurance Co. v. Houghton (6
Gray (72 Mass.), 77), 2067.
Insurance Co. v. Morse (20 Wall.
445), 1995, 2010.
Insurance Co. v. Needles (113 U.
S. 574), 1929.
Insurance Co. v. Sortwell (8 Allen
(90 Mass.), 223), 137, 1005.
Insurance Co. v. State (86 Tex.
250), 1439.
Insurance Com. v. United States
Fire Ins. Co. (22 R. I. 377),
1967, 1968.
Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Mc-
Limans (94 N. W. Rep. (Neb.)
991), 1509, 2032.
Insurance Patrol v. Boyd (120
Pa. St. 624), 1498, 1499.
Interior Constr. etc. Co. v. Gib-
ney (160 U. S. 217), 2036.
Inter-Mountain, etc. Co. v. Jack
(5 Mont. 568), 376, 377, 945.
International Assn. v. Walker (97
.
Mich. 159), 947.
International Bank, etc. v. Faber
(79 Fed. Rep. 919), 1136.
International Contract Co., In re
(L. R. 7 Ch. 485), 563, 569, 570,
1266, 1700.
International, etc. v. Abbott (85
Tex. 320; 20 S. W. Rep. 118),
232.
International, etc. v. Schuford
cxlii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(81 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 1189),
1179.
International, etc. Co. v. Inter-
national L. & C. Co. (153 Mass.
271), 127.
International, etc. Co. v. McMor-
ran (73 Mich. 467), 793.
International, etc. Co. v. Young
Women's, etc. Assn. (194 111.
194), 122.
International, etc. R. Co. v. Bre-
mond (53 Tex. 96), 828, 1859,
ISGl.
International, etc. R. R. v. Coo^jc
(16 Tex. Civ. App. 386), 1809.
International, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dun-
ham (68 Tex. 231), 1570.
International, etc. R. Co. v. Eck-
ford (71 Tex. 274), 1568.
International, etc. Ry. Co. v. State
(75 Tex. 356), 729.
International, etc. R. Co. v. Tele-
phone, etc. Co. (69 Tex. 277),
1491.
International Nav. Co. v. Com.
(104 Pa. St. 38), 716.
Inter Ocean Co. v. Associated
Press (184 111. 438), 216, 2098.
Interstate Commerce Co. v. Bal-
timore, etc. R. (145 U. S. 263),
1475.
Interstate Commerce, etc. v. Tex-
as, etc. Ry. Co. (57 Fed. Rep.
948), 25.
Interstate, etc. Co. v. Indianapo-
lis, etc. Ry. (99 Fed. Rep. 472),
1475.
Interstate National Bank v.
O'Dwyer (15 Tex. Civ. App. 33),
1756.
Intiso V. State, etc. Assn. (53 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 206), 189.
Investment Co. of Phila. v. Eld-
ridge (2 Pa. Dist. R. 394), 141.
Investment Co. v. Ohio, etc. R. Co.
(36 Fed. Rep. 48), 1727.
Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co. v.
Southern Barbed Wire Co. (30
Fed. Rep. 123), 1544.
Iowa, etc. Co. v. American, etc.
Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 735), 1160,
1180.
Iowa, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bliobenes
(41 Iowa, 267), 285.
Iowa, etc. Co. v. Foster (49 Iowa,
25), 250, 1284.
Iowa, etc. Co. v, Hoag (132 Cal.
627), 1791.
Iowa, etc. R. Co. v. Perkins (28
Iowa, 281), 26, 66, 269, 308.
Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster (49
Iowa. 25), 553.
Iowa National Bank v. Sherman,
etc. (97 N. W. Rep. (S. D.) 12),
1197.
Ireland v. Globe, etc. Co. (19
R. I. 180; 61 Am. St. Rep. 756;
29 L. R. A. 429), 135, 187, 1S8,
191, 196, 199, 200, 206, 220, 222,
1027.
Ireland v. Palestine, etc. Turn-
pike Co. (19 Ohio St. 369), 115,
840, 1833.
Iron City Bank v. Pittsburg (37
Pa. St. 341; 21 Am. St. Rep.
148; 7 Am. St. Rep. 43), 93.
Iron, etc. Co. v. Cowie (72 Pac.
Rep. (Colo.) 1067), 2029.
Iron Co. V. Extension Co. (129 U.
S. 644), 1472.
Iron Mountain R. R. v. City of
Memphis (96 Fed. Rep. 113),

1734.
Iron R. R. v. Fink (41 Ohio St.
321), 601, 616, 618.
Iron Ship Building Co. (34 Beav.
597), 617.
Irons V. Manuf. National Bank
(36 Fed. Rep. 843), 916.
Irons V. Manuf. National Bank
(27 Fed. Rep. 591), 890.
Irons V. Manuf. National Bank
(21 Fed. Rep. 197), 566.
Irons V. Manuf. National Bank
(6 Biss. 301; 13 Fed. Rep. Cas.
100), 570.
Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley (164
U. S. 112), 1308, 1310.
Irvin V. Rushville Co-operative T.
Co. (69 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 258),
1622.
Irvin V. Turnpike Co. (2 Penn.
& W. 466), 109.
Irvine v. Elliott (55 Atl. Rei..
(Pa.) 859), 2134.
Irvine v. Forbes (11 Barb. 587),
2092, 2118.
"Irvine v. Lumberman Bank (2
Watts & Serg. (Pa.) 204), 1916.
Irvine v. McKeon (23 Cal. 472),
1123.
Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia
(L. R. 2 App. Cas. 366), 1165,
1705.
Irvine v. Withers (1 Stew. (Ala.)
234), 1678.
Irving Bank v. Corbett (10 Abb.
N. Cas. 85), 1524, 1525.
Irwin V. Bailey (8 Biss. 523; 13
Fed. Cas. 114), 1589.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxliii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Irwin V. Granite, etc. Assn. (5G
N. J. Eq. 244), 1812.
Irwin V. Great Southern Tel. Co.
(37 La. Ann. G3), 1313, 1315.
Irwin V. McKean (23 Cal. 472),
846.
Irwin V. Williar (110 U. S. 499),
526, 2114, 2115.
Irving V. Houston (4 Pat. H. L.
Gas. 521), 650.
Isaac V. Clarice (2 Bulst. Rep. K.
B. 306), 585.
Isbell V. Graybell (76 Pac. Rep.
(Colo.) 550), 593.
Isbell V. Railroad Co. (25 Conn.
556), 137.
Isham V. Buckingham (49 N. Y.
216), 545, 561, 592, 884, 888,
889.
Isham V. Pullager (14 Abb. N.
Gas. 363), 2126.
Isham V. Trustees of First Pres.
Church of Dunkirk (63 How.
Pr. 465), 2132, 2133.
Island City Sav. Bank v.Sachtle-
ben (67 Tex. 420), 1836.
Isle Royale, etc. Go. v. Secretary
of State (76 Mich. 162), 2001.
Isle of Wight Go. v. Smith (51
Hun, 562), 1508.
Isle of Wight Ry. Go. v. Tahour-
din (25 Ch. Div. 320), 799, 975,
1001.
Ismon V. Lader (97 N. W. Rep.
(Mich.) 769), 1288.
Issaquah Goal Co. v. United
States, etc. Co. (126 Fed. Rep.
(Wash.) 89), 1158.
Ithaca, etc. Co. v. Truman (30
Hun, 212), 820.
Iverend and Gurney, Ex parte (4
Ch. 460), 1298.
Ives V. Ganby (48 Fed. Rep. 718),
538.
Ives V. Smith (8 N. Y. Supp. 46),
1000, 1056, 1057, 1424, 1576,
2030.
J.
Jack v. Weinnett (115 111. 105).
717.
Jack v. Williams (113 Fed. Rep.
823), 1788.
Jacks V. Helena (41 Ark. 213),
228, 298, 305, 352.
Jackson v. Akron, etc. Co. (51
Ohio St. 303), 1413.
Jackson v. Brown (5 Wend. 590),
1229.
Jackson v. Cocker (2 R. C. 368;
4 Beav.
59), 525.
Jackson v. Daggett (24 Hun, 204),
1795.
Jackson v. Delaware, etc. Co. (131
Fed. Rep. 134), 2024.
Jackson v. Fidelity, etc. Co. (75
Fed.
359), 1785.
Jackson v. Hampden (20 Me. 37),
981, 983.
Jackson v. Ludeling (21 Wall. (U.
S.) 616), 1677, 1685, 1693, 1743,
1760.
Jackson v. Mclnnis (33 Or. 529;
72 Am. St. Rep. 755), 1954, 1964.
Jackson v. McLean (36 Fed. Rep.
213), 1472.
Jackson v. Marietta Bank (9
Leigh (Va.), 240), 65.
Jackson v. Meek (87 Tenn. 69;
10 Am. St. Rep. 620), 227, 546,
833, 835, 861, 862.
Jackson v. Newark Plank Road
Go. (31 N. J. L. 277), 623, 638,
642.
Jackson v. New York Central R.
Co. (2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.)
653), 807, 1076.
Jackson v. Phillips (14 Allen (96
Mass.), 539), 1915.
Jackson v. North Wales Ry. Co.
(6 R. C. 113), 1331.
Jackson v. Rounseville (5 Met.
(46 Mass.) 127), 2131.
Jackson v. Sisson (2 Johns. Gas.
(N. Y.) 321), 2050.
Jackson v. Sligo Manufacturing
Go. (1 Lea (Tenn.), 210), 559,
888, 891.
Jackson v. South Omaha, etc. (49
Neb. 687), 776, 2057.
Jackson v. Traer (64 Iowa, 469),
426, 439, 511.
Jackson v. Turquand (L. R. 4 H.
L. 305), 175, 365. 570.
Jackson v. Vicksburg R. Go. (2
Woods (U. S. Ct. Ct.), 141),
1677.
Jackson v. York, etc. Ry. Go. (48
Me. 147), 1675, 1681, 1683.
Jackson City v. Cory
(8
Johns.
(N. Y.) 385), 2050.
Jackson Ins. Go. v. Gross (9
Heisk. (Tenn.) 283), 1297, 1487.
Jackson Marine Ins. Co., In re (4
Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 559), 1908,
1962, 1967.
Jacksonport v. Watson (33 Ark.
704), 297.
Jacksonville, etc. Co. v. Hooper
cxliv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(160 U. S. 514), 132, 1166, 1167,
1229, 1364, 1586.
Jacksonville, etc. v. Louisville,
etc. R. R. (150 111. 480), 1757.
Jacobs V. Miller (15 Albany Law
Jour. 188),
528.
Jacobson v. Allen (20 Blatchf.
525; 12 Fed. Rep. 454), 911,
1769, 1793, 1794, 1795.
Jacobus V. American, etc. Co. (38
N. Y. Misc. 371), 1182.
Jacobus V. Congregation, etc. (107
Ga. 518), 1666.
Jacobus V. Monongahela, etc. Co.
(35 Fed. Rep. 395), 954.
Jacques v. Chambers (2 Coll.
435), 567.
Jaecken v. Cangahoga, etc. Co. (24
Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 605), 2104.
Jagger Iron Co. v. Walker (76
N. Y. 521), 928, 929, 948.
James, In re (144 N. Y. 6), 646,
649, 746.
James v. Central, etc. Co. (98
Fed. Rep. 489), 2041.
James v. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co.
(2 Disney Cincinnati Sup. Ct.
261), 289, 481.
James v. Cowing (82 N. Y. 449),
1761, 1827.
James v. May (L. R. 6 H. L. 328),
568, 888.
James v. Pontiac, etc. Co. (9
Mich. 91), 970, 1537.
James v. Sheppard (6 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 478), 2115.
James v. Towne (58 N. H. 462),
2132.
James v. Woodruff (10 Paige, 541;
2 Denio, 574), 1969, 1975.
James Clark Co. v. Colten (91
Md. 195), 1765, 1771.
Jameson v. People (16 111. 257;
63 Am. Dec. 304), 92.
James River Co. v. Thompson (3
Graft. (Ya.) 270), 1301, 1319.
Jamison v. Indiana, etc. Co. (128
Ind. 555), 1386.
Jandon v. National City Bank (8
Blatchf. 430), 534.
Janney v. Minneapolis, etc. Co.
(79 Minn. 488; 30 L. R. A.
273), 1185.
Jansen v. Dreifontein, etc. Mines
(71 Law, J. K. B. 857), 1985.
Jansen v. Ostrander (1 Cow. (N.
Y.) 670), 12, 13.
Jansen v. Otto Stietz, etc. Co. (1
N. Y. Supp. 605), 1271.
Jarman v. Benton (79 Mo. 158),
923, 924.
Jarrett v. Kennedy (6 C. B. 319),
333.
Jarvis v. Manhattan Beach Co.
(53 Hun, 362; 148 N. Y. 652,
31 L. R. A. 776), 407, 408, 416.
Jarvis v. Rogers (13 Mass. 105),
542.
Jaycox, In re (12 Blatchf. 209),
1368, 1369.
Jaynes v. Omaha, etc. Co. (53
Neb. 631; 39 L. R. A. 751), 1599.
Jefferson v. Hewitt (95 Cal. 535),
288, 371, 937.
Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelley
(1 Black, 436), 40, 58, 718.
Jefferson County v. Board of Val-
uation (78 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
443), 754.
Jefferson, etc. Bank v. Francis
(115 Ala. 317), 2020.
Jeffersonville, etc. R. Co. v.
Dougherty (40 Ind. 33), 1316.
Jeffreys v. Jeffreys (24 L. T. Rep.
(N. S.) 177), 570.
Jeffries v. Bellville, etc. Co. (15
La. Ann. 19), 9.
Jeffries v. Ipswich (153 Mass. 42;
26 N. E. Rep. 239), 9, 10.
Jellenik v. Huron, etc. Co. (177
U. S. 1), 1952, 2038.
Jemison v. Citizens' Sav. Bank,
etc. (122 N. Y. 135; 19 Am. St.
Rep. 482), 1240, 1660.
Jenet v. Nims (7 Colo. App. 88;
43 Pac. Rep. 147), 1136.
Jenkins v. Auburn City Ry. (27
N. Y. App. Div. 553), 1513.
Jenkins v. Baxter (160 Pa. St.
191), 1059, 1061.
Jenkins v. John Good, etc. Co.
(56 N. Y. App. Div. 573), 1831.
Jenkins v. Union T. Co. (1
Caines, Cas. in Error (N. Y.),
86),
281.
Jenkinson v. Brandley Min. Co.
(19 Q. B. Div. 568), 1719.
Jenks V. Central R. Co. (52 Barb.
637), 242.
Jenner's Case (7 Ch. Div. 132),
1044, 1052.
Jennie Clarkson, etc. Co. v. Chesar
peake, etc. Co. (83 N. Y. Supp.
913), 606, 1199.
Jennie Clarkson, etc. v. Missouri,
etc. Ry. Co. (83 N. Y. S. 913),
606.
Jennie Clarkson, etc. v. Unloa
TABLE OF CASES. cxlv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2131.]
Pac. Ry. Co. (S3 N. Y. S. 913),
606.
Jennings, In re (1 Irish, Ch. 164),
313, 454.
Jennings v. Banlv of California
(79 Cal. 323; 5 L. R. A. 233),
549,
611,'
6S7, 6S8, 6S9, 690.
Jennings v. Claelsea Div. etc. (28
N. Y. Misc. Rep. 556; Supp.
862), 214.
Jennings v. Neville (180 111. 270),
536.
Jennings v. Phila. etc. R. Co. (23
Fed. Rep. 569), 1734.
Jendee v. Cottage, etc. Ins. Co.
(75 Wis. 353; 44 N. W. Rep.
636), 233.
Jermain v. Lake Shore, etc. R.
Co. (91 N. Y. 483), 626, 627,
628, 639.
Jerman's Admr. v. Benton (79 Mo.
148), 54, 833.
Jerome v. McC^rter (21 Wall.
17), 1727 1728, 1738.
Jersey City Gaslight Co. v. Con-
sumers' Gas Co. (40 N. J. Eq.
427), 61, 1520.
Jersey City, etc. Co. v. Dwight
(29 N. J. 242), 508, 516.
Jessamine v. Swigert (3 S. W.
(Ky.) 13), 348.
Jessopp V. Lutwyche (10 Exch.
614), 2116.
Jessup V. Carnegie (80 N. Y. 441),
845, 846.
Jessup V. Illinois Central Rail-
road Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 483),
829, 1366.
Jessup V. City Bank (14 Wis. 331),
1701, 1741, 1755.
Jesup V. Wabash, etc. Ry. (44
Fed. Rep. 663), 1757.
Jewell V. Grand Lodge (41 Minn.
405), 1524.
Jewell V. Rock River, etc. Co.
(101 111. 57), 316. 317, 320, 354,
357, 362, 363, 429, 446, 482, 808,
850.
Jewett V. Lawrenceburgh, etc. R.
R. (10 Ind. 539), 305, 321, 32b,
324.
Jewett V. Vallev Ry. (34 Ohio St.
601), 312, 314, 334, 357, 359,
366, 374, 936.
Jewett V. West Somerville, etc.
Bank (173 Mass. 54), 1081, 1207.
Jewett v. Whitecomb (69 Fed.
Rep. 417), 1790.
Johannesburg Hotel Co., In re (7
Ch. 119), 372.
John v. Farmers' & Mechanics'
Bank (2 Blatchf. 367), 994.
John Deere Plow Co. v. Wyland
(76 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 863).
1995.
John, etc. Co. v. Woodslde (87
Md. 146), 686.
John Hancock, etc. Co. v. Wor-
cester, etc. R. Co. (149 Mass.
214), 1876, 1878.
Johns V. Johns (1 Ohio St. 350),
523.
Johnson v. Albany (54 N. Y. 416),
476, 477, 493, 525.
Johnson v. Bridgewater, etc. Co.
(14 Gray (80 Mass.), 274), 631.
Johnson v. Brooks (93 N. Y. 337),
576.
Johnson v. City of Indianapolis
(16 Ind. 227), 128.
Johnson v. Conover (64 N. J. Eq.
333), 538.
Johnson v. Crawfordville, etc. R.
Co. (11 Ind. 280), 88, 349, 363,
365, 366, 461, 466, 939.
Johnson v. Crawley (25 Ga. 316;
71 Am. Dec. 173), 1817, 1833.
Johnson v. Crow (87 Pa. St. 184),
1652.
Johnson v. Dakota, etc. Co. (45
N. W. Rep. (N. D.) 49), 1181.
Johnson v. Dexter (2 MacA. 530),
586.
Johnson v. Fischer (30 Minn.
173) 896.
Johnson V. Gallagher (3 De G.,
F. & J. 494), 574.
Johnson V. Georgia (81 Ga. 725),
309.
Johnson v. Gibson (78 Ind. 282),
1524.
Johnson v. Goodyear, etc. Co. (59
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 304), 1992.
Johnson v. Gosslett (18 C. B. (N.
S.) 728), 378.
Johnson v. Gulick (46 Nev. 817),
934.
Johnson v. Hudson River R. (49
N. Y. 455), 94.
Johnson v. Johnson (15 Jur. 714),
647.
Johnson v. Jones (23 N. J. Eq.
216), 975.
Johnson v. O'Kerstrom (70 Minn.
303), 159.
Johnson v. Kessler (76 Iowa, 411),
81, 152, 322.
Johnson v. Kirby (65 Cal. 482),
529 579 800.
Johnson v. Laflin (103 U. S. 800;
cxlvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
5 Dill, 65; 13 Fed. Cas. 758),
219, 220, 2G4, 392, 529, 541, 545,
546, 553, 554, 556, 578, 591, 59b,
017, 645.
Johnson v. Lullman (15 Mo. App.
55), 336, 893, 943.
Johnson v. Lvttle's Iron Agency
(5 Ch. Div. 687), 464, 475.
Johnson v. Mcintosh. (31 Barb.
(N. Y.) 267), 10.
Johnson v. Mulry
(4
Rob. (I*.
Y.) 401), 524.
Johnson v. National, etc. Assn.
(125 Ala. 465), 371, 937.
Johnson v. Pensacola (16 Fla.
623), 111, 362, 366, 1475, 1556,
1655.
Johnson v. Philadelphia (60 Pa.
St. 445), 720.
Johnson v. Shrewsbury, etc. Co.
(3 De G., M. & G. 914), 1580.
Johnson v. Somerville Dyeing,
etc. Co. (15 Gray (81 Mass.),
216), 562.
Johnson v. Stark County (24 111.
92), 1674, 1684.
Johnson v. Sullivan (15 Mo. Api..
55), 559.
Johnson v. Underbill (52 N. Y.
203), 468, 545, 593, 595, 886, 887,
889, 891, 1369..
Johnson Company v. Miller (96
Fed. Rep. 271), 1164, 1815.
Johnson v. Wabash, etc. PI. Road
Co. (16 Ind. 389), 300, 308, 327,
768, 2065.
Johnson v. Weed, etc. Co. (103
Wis. 291), 1294.
Johnston v. Allis (71 Conn. 207),
1432.
Johnston v. Crawley (25 Ga. 316;
71 Am. Dec. 173), 82, 103.
Johnston v. Ewen, etc. (35 111.
518), 83.
Johnston v. Jones (23 N. J. En.
216), 264, 542, 974, 982, 1009,
1024, 1025, 1059.
Johnston v. Laflin (103 U. S.
800; 5 Dill, 65; 13 Fed. Cas.
758), 219, 220, 264, 392, 529,541,
545, 546, 553, 554, 556, 578, 591,
593, 595, 617, 645, 885, 886, 887,
887, 891, 961.
Johnston v. Markle, etc. Co. (153
Pa. St. 189), 445, 898.
Johnston v. Shortridge (93 Mo.
227), 1161.
Johnston v. Renton (9 L. R. Q.
Eq. C-as. 181), 417, 614.
Johnston v. Southwestern R. Bk.
(3 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 263), 884.
Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark
(30 Minn. 308), 1527, 1529.
Joint Stock, etc. Co., In re (33
Kay & J. 408), 557, 569, 983,
1955, 1956.
Joint Stock, etc. Co. v. Brown (L.
R. 8 Eq. 38), 1124.
Joint Stock Dies. Co., In re (L.
R. 3 Ch. 459), 557, 558, 569.
Joliet (the) v. Francis (85 Ih.
App. 243), 91.
Joliffe V. Madison Mut. Ins. Co.
(39 Wis. Ill), 2070.
Jones, Ex parte (17 Weeks. Rep.
Jones, 'Matter of (172 N. Y. 575),
2052.
Jones V. Arena Publishing Co.
(171 Mass. 22), 1807.
Jones V. Ark. Argic. etc. Co. (38
Ark. 17), 446, 915, 1103.
Jones' Case (L. R. 6 Ch. App.
48), 506.
Jones V. Aspen, etc. Co. (21 Colo.
263; 29 L. R. A. 143), 158, 160.
Jones V. Atchison, etc. R. R. Co.
(150 Mass. 304; 5 L. R. A. 538),
533.
Jones V. Avery (50
Mich. 376),
858, 859, 860.
Jones V. Bank of Leadville (10
Colo. 464; 17 Pac. Rep. 272),
1087, 1955.
Jones V. Barlow (62 N. Y. 202),
848, 928, 929, 1132, 1133.
Jones V. Blum (145 N. Y. 333),
1513, 1772.
Jones V. Bolles (9 Wall. 364),
579.
Jones V. Boston Mill Corp. (21
Mass. 507), 1535, 1545.
Jones V. Brown (171 Mass. 318),
1027, 1030.
Jones V. Clark (42 Cal. 180), 2099.
Jones V. Concord, etc. R. Co. (67
N. H. 119; 68 Am. St. R. 650),
241, 243, 651, 684, 792, 976, 977,
986.
Jones V. Durham, etc. Co. (47 S.
B. Rep. (N. C.) 615), 1647.
Jones V. Green (88 N. W. Rep.
(Mich.) 1047), 394,1536.
Jones V. Guarantee Co. (101 U. S.
622), 1262, 1265.
Jones V. Habersham (107 U. S.
174), 1236, 1240.
Jones V. Hale (32 Greg. 465), 153.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxlvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Jones V. Harrison (2 Exch. 52),
37S.
Jones V. Hope (3 Times, L. R.
247), 2074.
Jones V. Jarman (34 Ark. 323),
832, 834, 835, 839, 900. 905, 907.
Jones V. Johnson (SO Ky. 530),
318, 320, 435.
Jones V. King (86 HI. 20), 253.
1284.
Jones V. Kokomo Building Assn.
(77 Ind. 340), 154.
Jones V. Latham (70 Ala. 164),
962.
Jones V. Milton, etc. Turnpike Co.
(7 Ind. 547), 979. 983.
Jones V. Morrison (31 Minn. 140),
246, 506, 652, 654, 1075.
Jones V. Mutual, etc. Co. (123
Fed. Rep. 126), 1778.
Jones V. Nellis (41 HI. 482), 1686.
Jones V. Parker (29 N. H. 31),
1296.
Jones V. Pearl Min. Co. (20 Colo.
417), 988, 1511.
Jones V. Planters' Bank (9
Heisk. (Tenn.) 461), 1177, 1337.
Jones V. Rushville, etc. Co. (135
Ind. 595), 763.
Jones V. Schlapback (81 Fed. Rep.
274), 1798.
Jones V. Sisson (72 Mass. 228)
462, 2069.
Jones V. Smith (69 Mass. 500),
1992, 2003.
Jones V. Tennessee Bank (8 B.
& M. (Ky.) 122; 46 Am. Dec.
590). 91, 155.
Jones V. Terre Haute, etc. R. Co.
(57 N. Y. 196), 626, 627, 628,
631, 632, 638, 639, 642, 1695.
Jones V. Western, etc. Co. (67
Pac. Rep. (Wash.) 586), 386.
Jones V. Williams (24 Beav. 62),
53.J
Jones V. Williams (139 Mo. 1; 37
L. R. A. 632; 61 Am. St. Rep.
430), 10S9, 1090, 1290.
Jones V. Wooley (2 Idaho 790; 28
Pac. Rep. 120), 855, 874, 910,
927, 1290.
Jonesboro v. McKee (2 Yerger
(Tenn.), 167), 1229.
Jordan v. Alabama Gt. Southern
R. Co. (74 Ala. 85; 49 Am. Rep.
800), 1492, 1543.
Jordan v. Indianapolis, etc. Co.
(61 N. E. Rep. (Mich.) 12),
526.
Jordan v. Mead (12 Ala. 247),
962.
Jordan v. Wells (3 Woods (U.
S.),
527), 1800.
Jordan v. Woodward (40 Me.
317), 1313.
Jcrdon v. Hayne (3G Iowa,
9),
296.
Joseph V. Davis (10 So. Rep.
(Ala.) 830), 953.
Joseph V. Raff
( 82 N. Y. App. Div.
47), 1194. 1287.
Joseph Wolf Co. V. Bank of Com-
merce (107 111. App. 58). 1165.
Joslyn V. Pacific, etc. Co. (12 Abb.
Pr. N. S. 329), 243.
Joslyn V. St. Paul. etc. Co. (44
Minn.
183), 413, 590, 611.
Jourdan v. Long Island R. Co.
(115 N. Y. 380), 1192, 1589.
Joy V. Fort Worth, etc. Co. (24
Tex. Civ. App. 94), 829.
Joy V. Jackson, etc. Co. (11 Mich.
155), 111, 1243, 1567.
Joy V. St. Louis (138 U. S. 1),
1583.
Judah V. American Live Stock
Ins. Co. (4 Ind. 333), 455, 975.
979.
Judd V. Harrington (139 N. Y.
105), 1439.
Judson V. Rossie Galena Co. (9
Paige, 598), 546, 874, 887, 891,
893, 899.
Juker V. Commonwealth (20 Pa.
St. 484), 192, 796, 2125.
Julian V. Central T. Co. (115 Fed.
Rep. 956), 1561,
Julliard v. Greenman (110 U. S.
42), 28.
Junction Ry. Co. v. Bank of Ash-
land (12 Wall. 226), 1690.
Junction Ry. Co. v. Cleneay
(13
Ind. 161), 1674, 1683, 1697.
Junction R. Co. v. Reeve (15 Ind.
236), 268, 1055.
Justice V. Bank (83 N. C. 8), 146,
1533.
K.
Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph (70
Mo. 262), 222, 227, 691.
Kahn v. Smelting Co. (102 U. S.
641), 2098, 2099, 2101.
Kaiser v. Detroit, etc. Ry. (99 N.
W. (Mich.) 943), 1609.
Kaiser v. Kellar (21 Iowa, 95),
1747.
cxlviii
TABLE OF CASES,
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II. 621-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings Bank
(5G Iowa. 104; 41 Am. Rep.
8.5), 70. S3, 1G3, 165, IGG, 1G7,
1G9, 172.
Kalamazoo v. Kalamazoo, etc. Co.
(124 Mich. 74), 1583.
Kalamazoo Novelty Manuf. Co. v.
McAlister (36 Mich. 327), 1067.
Kalblleisch v. Kalbfleisch (13 N.
Y. Supp. 397), 1789.
Knmpmann v. Tarver (29 S. W.
Rep. (Tex.) 1144), 390, 947.
Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha,
etc. Coal Co. (7 Blatchf. 391),
166. 1918.
Kanawha etc. Co. v. Ballard, etc.
Co. (43 W. Va. 721), 1783.
Kane v. Bloodgood (7 Johns. Ch.
90), 625, 628, 642.
Kansas v. Bradley (26 Fed. 291),
39.
Kansas City v. Gilbert (70 Pac.
Rep. (Kan.) 350), 1011.
Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Alder-
man (47 Mo. 349), 312.
Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Danghtry (138 U. S. 298), 1518.
Ka,nsas City Hay Press Co. v.
Devol (72 Fed. Rep. 717), 1056,
1188.
Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Harris
(51 Mo. 464), 402, 878.
Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Hunt
(57 Mo. 126), 344, 345, 376, 402,
877, 1016.
Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Farmers', etc. Co. (53 Fed. Rep.
182), 1776.
Kansas, etc. Ry. v. Northwestern
(161 Mo. 288). 183.
Kansas City, etc. R. R. v. Rich
Township (45 Kan. 275), 1593.
Kansas, etc. Co. v. Sauer (65 Mo.
279). 1952, 1962.
Kansas Eagle Chair Co. v. Kelsey
(23 Kan. 632), 1968.
Kansas Lumber Co. v. Central
Bank (34 Kan. 635), 1202.
Kansas, O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Smith
(19 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 636), 127,
1522.
Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Mower (16
Kan. 571), 1386, 1399.
Kansas Pac. Ry. v. Bayles (19
Colo. 348), 1475, 1556, 1788.
Kansas & R. Co. v. Topeka, etc.
R. Co. (135 Mass. 34), 2035.
Karcher v. Supreme Lodge, etc.
137 Mass. 368), 772, 776. 777.
778, 780, 788. 2057, 2062.
Karnes v. Rochester, etc. R. Co.
(4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 107), 623,
640, 641, C43, 644.
Katama Land Co. v. Jernegen (126
Mass. 155), 115, 353, 474.
Katama Land Co. v. Holley (129
Mass. 540), 473.
Katzenberger v. Aberdeen (121
U. S. 172), 1593.
Kauffelt v. Leber (9 Waltz. & S.
(Pa.) 93), 1676.
Kaukauna W. P. Co. v. Green Bay
etc. (142 U. S. 254), 1614.
Kavanaugh v. Omaha Life AlSsh.
(84 Fed. Rep. 295), 1851.
Kean v. Johnson (1 Stock. (9 N.
J. Eq.) 1), 112, 1090, 1243, 1247.
1353, 1357, 1855, 1856, 1861,
1948, 1949.
Keane v. Union Water Co. (52 N.
J. Eq. 813), 1025.
Kearney v. Andrews (10 N. J. Eq.
(2 Stockt. 70), 191, 192, 200,
22, 796.
Kearney Bank v. Froman (129
Mo. 427), 1177.
Keasley v. Codd (2 Car. & P.
408), 2091.
Kebogum v. Jackson Iron Co. (76
Mich. 498), 525.
Keen v. Breckenridge (96 Md,
69), 1799.
Keene v. Roberts (4 Mad. Ch.
332), 603.
Keene, etc. Bank v. Lawrence (73
Pac. Rep. (Wash.) 580), 2006.
Keeney v. Globe Mill Co. (39
Conn. 145), 571.
Keep v. Michigan, etc. R. Co. (6
Chicago Leg. News, 101), 1800.
Kehlor v. Lademann (11 Mo. App.
447), 204, 221, 778.
Kehlenbeck v. Logeman (10 Daly,
550), 429, 430, 439, 507, 866.
Keihl v. South Bend (76 Fed. Rep.
871; 36 L. R. A. 228), 1791.
Keichner v. Gettys (18 S. C. 521),
2116.
Keith V. Bingham (97 Mo. 196),
1235.
Keith V. Clark (97 U. S. 454), 40.
Keith V. Johnson (59 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 487), 1643, 1981.
Keithsburg v. Frick (38 111. 405),
988.
Keithsburg Bridge Co. v. McKay
(42 Fed. Rep. 427), 739.
Kelk's Case (9 Eq. 107), 480, 942.
Keller v. Johnson (11 Ind. 337),
362, 368.

TABLE OF CASES. cxlix
fReferenccs are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Kellerman v. Maier (116 Cal.
416), 440.
Kelley v. Browning
(113
Ala.
420), 1828.
Kelley v. Clark (21 Mont. 291,
69 Am. St. Rep. 668), 850, 851,
857.
Kelley v. Miss. Central R. Co. (1
Fed. Rep. 564), 1520.
Kelley v. Newburyport, etc. R. Co.
(141 Ma^s. 496), 1164. 1171,
1.363, 1364.
Kellock V. Enthoven (L. R. 9 Q.
B. 241), 468, 888.
Kellogg V. Dickinson (18 Vt. 66),
2130, 2131.
Kellogg V. Lehigh, etc. R. R. (61
N. Y. App. Div. 35), 1428.
Kellogg V. Stockwell (75 111. 68),
468. 555, 568, 887, 889.
Kellogg V. Union Co. (12 Conn.
7 ), 1917, 1919.
Kelhim v. State (66 Ind. 588),
1402.
Kelly V. Alabama, etc. Ry. Co.
(58 Ala. 489), 1298, 1700, 1717,
1784.
Kelly V. Biddle (ISO Mass. 147),
1294.
Kelly V. Clark (21 Mont. 291; 42
L. R. A. 621), 442.
Kelly V. Fletcher (94 Tenn. 1),
424, 425.
Kelly V. Forty-Second St. etc. R.
R. (37 N. Y. App. Div. 500).
1668, 1830.
Kelly V. Mariposa, etc. Co. (4
Hun, 632), 1886, 1892.
Kelly V. Mobile (64 Ala. 501), 192.
Kelly V. Pittsburgh (104 U. S.
78), 710.
Kelly V. Receiver of Green Bay,
etc. R. Co. (10 Biss. 151), 1727,
1728.
Kelly V. Trustees (58 Ala. 489),
1255.
Kelly V. Woman's Pub. Co. (4 N.
Y. Supp. 99), 1518.
Keiner v. Baxter (L. R. 2 C. P.
174), 167, 174, 1166, 1176, 1223.
Kelsey v. National Bank, etc. (69
Pa. St. 426), 1163, 1166, 1S38.
Kelsey v. New England, etc. Ry.
(60 N. J. Eq. 230), 1056.
Kelsey v. Northern Light Oil Co.
(45 N. Y. 505), 361, 936.
Kelsey v. Pfaulder (3 N. Y. Supp.
723), 143, 144.
Kelsey v. Pfaulder, etc. Co. (45
Hun (N. Y.), 10), 1966.
Kelsey v. Sargent (40 Hnn, 150\
435, 824, 825, 1064, 1069, 1167.
1168.
Kemble v. Wilmington, etc. R. Co.
(13 Phila. 469), 1668.
Kempson v. Saunders (4 Bing.
5), 406.
Kendall v. Klapperthal Co. (202
Pa. St. 596), 184.
Kendall v. Stone (5 N. Y. 14),
406:
Kenicott v. Supervisors (16 V/all.
452), 294.
Kenicott v. Wayne Co. (16 Wall.
452), 1749.
Kennard v. Cass County
(3 Dill
(U. S.), 147), 1696.
Kennebec v. City of Waterville
(96 Me. 234; 52 Atl. Rep. 774),
1647.
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Jarvis
(34 Me. 360), 312, 314, 339.
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v, Kendall
(31 Me. 470), 201, 473, 475, 480,
770, 833. 1957, 2064.
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Palmer
(34 Me. 364), 50, 472.
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Portland,
etc. R. Co. (54 Me. 73), 1126,
1253, 1263, 1699.
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Waters
(34 Me. 369), 362, 374.
Kennedy v. CaFifornia Sav. Bank
(97 Cal. 93), 837, 848.
Kennedy v. Chicago & Rock
Island R. R. (14 Abb. N. Cas.
326), 139.
Kennedy v. Gibson (8 Wall. 498),
855, 856.
Kennedy v. Indianapolis, etc. R.
Co. (3 Fed. Rep. 97; 2 Flip.
704), 1799.
Kennedy v. Panama, etc. Co. (L.
R. 2 Q. B. 580), 284, 346, 364,
368.
Kennedy v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co.
(2 Dill, 448; 5 Dill, 519), 172G,
1727, 1728.
Kennedy v. Strongs (14 Johns.
129), 105, 106, ISOO.
Kenner v. Lexington Manuf. (91
N. C. 421), 1192, 1517.
Kenner v. Whitlock (152 Ind.
635), 1072.
Kennett v. Woodworth Mason Co.
(68 N. H. 432), 82.
Kenney v. Ranney (96 Mich. 617),
1797.
Kenosha v. Lamson (9 Wall. 477),
296, 1674, 1682, 1696, 1697.
cl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.].
Kenosha R. & R. I. R. Co. v.
Marsh (17 Wis. 13), 108, 353,
18G0.
Kensington, The (183 U. S. 263),
1C55. ,
Kent V. Clark (181 111. 237),
1132.
Kent V. Jackson (2 De G., M. &
G. 49), 338, 11C)5.
Kent V. Lake Superior Co. (144
U. S. 75), 1748, 1804.
Kent V. New York, etc. R. Co. (12
N. Y. 628), 860.
Kent V. Quicksilver Min. Co. (78
N. Y. 159; 17 Hun, 169), 159,
187, 189, 196, 197, 199, 202, 206,
224, 229, 230, 231, 238, 387, 398,
402, 403, 546, 661, 662, 663, 665,
666, 667, 669, 684, 796, 897, 1167,
1265, 1267, 1327, 1338, 1342,
1362, 1363, 1700, 1824, 1826.
Kent Coast Ry. Co. v. London, etc.
Ry. Co. (L. R. 3 Ch. App. Cas.
656), 1567.
Kenton County Ct. v. Bank, etc.
Co. (10 Bush (Ky.), 529), 103.
KentO'n, etc. Co. v. McAlpin (5
Fed. Rep. 737), 424, 979, 982,
1008, 1015.
Kentucky, etc. Assn. v. Galbraith
(77 S. W. (Ky.) 371), 1777.
Kentucky, etc. Co. v. Louisville,
etc. R. Co. (2 L C. C. Rep. 351,
37 Fed. Rep. 567), 1394.
Kenzie v. Kittridge (34 U. C.
(Can.) Com. P. L), 545.
Keokuk, etc. Co. v. County Court
(41 Fed. Rep. 305), 727.
Keokuk, etc. R. R. v. Missouri
(152 U. S. 301), 727, 1564, 1831,
1880, 1941.
Kephart v. People (62 Pac. Rep.
(Colo.) 946), 2007.
Keppel V. Petersburg, etc. R. Co.
(14 Fed. Cas. 357), 637, 639,
642, 643, 646, 1375.
Kerchner v. Gettys (18 S. C. 521),
1049.
Kernaghan v. Williams (L. R. C
Eq. 228), 1353.
Kerr v. Urie (86 Md. 72; 38 L.
R. A. 119), 575, 870.
Kersey Oil Co. v. Oilcreek, etc. R.
Co. (12 Phila. 374), 975, 977,
1171.
Kessler v. Continental, etc. Co.
(42 Fed. Rep. 258), 792.
Kessler v. Ensley Co. (123 Fed.
Rep. 546), 812, 1163.
Ketcham v. Coal Co. (88 Ind.
529), 286.
Ketcham v. Madison, etc. R. Co.
(20 Ind. 260), 1895.
Ketcham v. Duncan (96 U. S.
662), 1676, 1681, 1686, 1761.
Ketchum v. Mobile, etc. R. Co. (2
Woods, 532), 1710.
Ketchum v. Pacific R. Co. (4 Dill,
78), 1706.
Kettle V. City of Dallas (80 S. W.
Rep. (Tex.) 874), 1605.
Key City, The (14 Wall. (U. S.)
654), 1887, 1893, 1894.
Keyes v. Bradley (73
Iowa, 589),
532.
Keyser v. Hitz (2 Mackey (D. C.)
473; 133 U. S. 138), 574, 575,
1662, 1837.
Keystone Bridge Co. v. Barston
(80 Mo. App. 494), 918.
Keystone Bridge Co. v. McCluney
(8 Mo. App. 496), 436, 548, 559.
Keystone, etc. Co. v. Bate (1S6
Pa. St. 566; 187 Pa. St. 460),
1182.
Keystone, etc. Co. v. Williamsport
Gas Co. (2 Pa. St. 85), 1643.
Kickalls v. Eaton (23 L. T. (N.
S.) 689), 468, 887.
Kickland v. Menasha, etc. Co. (68
Wis. 34), 1172, 1173.
Kidd V. New Hampshire T. Go.
(56 Atl. Rep. (N. H.) 465),
2027.
Kidder, In re (2 Mont. & A. (Ky.)
348), 596.
Kidwelly Canal Co. v. Raby
(2
Price, 93), 334.
Kiely v. Singleton (27 Grants,
Ch. (Can.) 220), 387.
Kier v. Boyd (60 Pa. St. 34), 1306.
Kilgore v. Smith (122 Pa. St. 48),
1992, 2008.
Killen v. Barnes (106 Wis. 546),
483, 921.
Killingsworth v. Portland Trust
Co. (18 Greg. 351; 7 L. R. A.
638), 1242.
Kilner v. Baxter (L. R. 2 C. P.
174), 1176.
Kilpatrick v. Home, etc. Assn.
(119 Pa. St. 30), 1178, 1205.
Kilpatrick v. Penrose Ferry
Bridge Co. (49 Pa. St. 118),
1066, 1074.
Kimball v. City of Cedar Rapids
(100 Fed. Rep. 802), 2038.
Kimball v. Lakeland (41 Fed.
Rep. 289), 1593.
Kimball v. St. Louis, etc. R. R.
(157 Mass.
7), 2020.
TABLE OF CASES.
cli
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Kimball v. "Second Parish in Row-
ley (24 Pick. (41 Mass.) 347),
2132.
Kimball v. Union Water Co. (44
Cal. 173), 619.
Kimber v. Bank of Pulton (49
Ga. 419), 8G6.
Kimmel v. Stoner (18 Pa. St.
155), 1125.
Kimmerle v. Dowagiac Manufact-
uring Co. (105 Mich. G40),
1746, 1779.
Kincaid's Appeal (66 Pa. St. 411),
2124.
Kincaid v. Dwinelle (59 N. Y.
548), 859, 866, 887, 920, 1786,
1953, 1957, 1962, 1964, 1965.
Kindred v. New England, etc. Co.
(38 N. y. 553), 2002.
King Ex parte (L. R. 4 Eq. 566),
483.
King V. Amery
(2
Term. Rep.
515), 1948.
King V. Armstrong (50 Ohio St.
222), 1793.
King V. Ashwell (12 East, 22),
230.
King V. Atwood (4 Barn. & Ad.
481), 978.
King V. Avery (2 Term. R. 515),
1908, 1958.
King V. Bank of England (2 Doug.
K. B. 524), 614, 619.
King V. Barnes (113 N. Y. 476),
78, 290, 1151, 1544, 1545.
King V. Bedford Level (6 East,
368), 1084.
King V. Bird (13 East, 367), 198,
978.
King V. Chetwynd (1 Barn. & C.
695), 982.
King V. Clerk (1 Salk. 349), 205.
King V. Cochran (72 Vt. 107), 846.
King V. Company of F. (8 Term.
Rep. 357), 323.
King V. Duncan (38 Hun, 461),-
894, 948.
King V. Fisherman
(8 Term. Rep.
352), 218.
King V. Follett (3 Vt. 385), 628,
631.
King V. Gray
(8 Mod. 358), 1948.
King V. Ilwaco, etc. Co. (23 Pac.
Rep. (Wash.) 924), 127, 1522.
King V. London (8 How. St. Tr.
1087), 1979.
King V. London Assurance Co. (1
Dowl. & R. 510), 619.
King V. Marshall (33 Beav. 565),
873, 1712, 1717.
King
V. Maynard (4 Croke, 231),
1416.
King V. Merchant Tailors (2 B.
6 Ad. 115), 141.
King V. Ohio, etc. R. Co. (7 Biss,
529; 14 Fed. Cas. 539), 1748.
King V. Pasmore
(3 T. R. 240), 67,
1938, 1979.
King V. Paterson Ry. Co. (29 N. J.
L.
82), 625, 638, 642, 643, 644,
1497.
King
V. St. Catherine Dock Co.
(4 Barn. & Adol. 360), 459, 460,
496.
King V. Talbott (40 N. Y. 76), 533.
King V. Theodoric (8 East, 543),
979.
King V. Townshend (141 N. Y.
358), 2052.
King V. Trevenen
(2 Barn. & Aid.
339), 1000.
Kin.<? V. Van Dusen (95 Vv'is.
503),
1772.
King V. Westward (4 Barn. & C.
781), 192, 198, 230, 978.
King V. Whitaker (9 Barn. & C.
648), 1017.
King V. Wooldridge (78 Mass.
179), 1772.
King V. Worcester C. Co. (1 Man.,
& R. 529), 263.
Kingman v. Rome, etc. R. R. (30
Hun,
73), 1514.
Kingman & Co. v. Cornell, etc. Co.
(150 Mo. 282), 7, 793.
King of Spain v. Mullett (2 Bligh
(N. S.),
3), 845.
Kingsbury v Bradstreet Co. (6 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 474), 1498.
Kingsbury v. Kirwan (77 N. Y.
612), 2114.
Kingsbury v. Ledyard (2 Watts
& S. (Pa.) 37), 1095.
King's Case (L. R. 6 Ch. 196), 473,
480, 551, 569, 885.
Kings County Elevated Ry. Co.,
In re (41 Hun, 428), 105, 1959.
Kingsland v. Braisted (2 Lans.
(N. Y.) 17), 2080.
Kingsley v. New England Ins. Co.
(8 Cush. (62 Mass.) 393), 228,
1298.
Kingston v. Kingston (11 M. & W.
233), 2069.
Kinion v. St. Liouis & Kansas City,
etc. R. Co. (St. L. Ct. App. No.
4,440; 31 Cent. L. J. 4), 1875,
1895.
Kinney v. Farnsworth (17 Conn.
381), 343.
clii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Kinney. Ex parte (3 Hughes, 13,
18), 39.
Kinsman v. Fisk (83 Hun, 494),
1801, 1973.
Kinston, etc. R. R. Co. v. Stroud
(43 S. E. Rep. (N. C.) 913),
1311.
Kip V. New York, etc. R. Co. (67
N. Y. 227), 1319, 1S85.
Kiplin V. Todd (3 C. P. Div. 350),
32C
Kirk V. Nowill (1 Term. R. 118),
474, 770, 2064.
Kirker v. Owings (98 Fed. Rep.
49), 1799. 1808.
Kirkey v. Florida R. Co. (7 Fla.
23; 68 Am. Dec. 426), 314, 277.
Kirkham v. Shawcrass (6 T. R. 17;
2 Peek & P. C. 185), 1381.
Kirkland v. Kille (99 N. Y. 390),
1132, 1395.
Kirkpatrick v. Keotu U. P. C. (63
Iowa, 372), 1524.
Kirkpatrick, etc. Co. v. Central,
etc. Co. (65 N. E. Rep. (Ind.)
913), 1518.
Kirkstall Brewing Co., In re (5 Ch.
Div. 535), 239.
Kirtland v. Purdy University
(7
Lea (Tenn.), 243), 814.
Kisch V. Central Ry. Co. of Vene-
zuela (34 L. J. Ck. 545), 364,
365.
Kishacoquillas Turnpike Co. v. Mc-
Conaby (16 Serg. & R. 140), 364.
Kisterbock's Appeal (127 Pa. St.
601; S. C. 14 Am. St. Rep. 868),
406-409, 413.
Kitchen v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (69
Mo. 234), 828, 1098, 1826.
Kittel V. Augusta, etc. R. Co. (78
Fed. Rep. 855), 1512, 1818, 1833.
Kittel V. New Hampshire, etc. Co.
(56 Atl. Rep. (N. H.) 465),
2027.
Kittredge v. Osgood (161 Mass.
384), 1748, 1796.
Klaus, In re (67 Wis. 405), 194.
Kleckner v. Turk (45 Neb. 176),
878.
Klein v. Alton, etc. R. Co. (13 111.
514), 277, 281, 472, 768, 2065.
Kline v. Bank of Tescott (50 Kan.
91), 1150.
Klopp V. Lebanon Bank (46 Pa.
St 88) 693
Klulit's Case
"(3
De G. & Sm. 210),
575, 869.
Knapp V. Publishers (127 Mo.
53),
425.
Knapp V. Railroad Co. (20 Wall.
117), 1710, 1742.
Knapp V. Williams (4 Ves. Jr.
430), 524.
Kneeland v. American, etc. Co.
(130 U. S. 89), 1741, 2095.
Kneeland v. Braintree, etc. Co.
(167 Mass. 161), 1270.
Kneeland v. Foundry, etc. Works
(140 U. S. 592), 1802.
Knevales v. Florida, etc. R. R. Co.
(66 Fed. Rep. 224), 2018.
Knickerbocker T. Co. v. Pennsyl-
vania, etc. Co. (62 N. J. Eq.
624), 1715.
Knight V. Fitch (15 C. B. 566),
211C.
Knight V. Frost (14 Mo. App. 331),
865.
Knight V. Old Nat. Bank (3 Cliff.
429; Fed. Cas. No. 7885), 226,
68(J.
Knights of Pythias v. Weller (93
Va. 605), 35, 79.
Knights Templars v. Jarman (44
C C A 93) 197
Knight's Case
(2*
Ch. 341), 473,
474, 475, 476, 477, 480, 770, 781,
782, 2064.
Knights, etc. v. Abbott (82 Ind.
1), 189, 795.
Knights of Honor Supreme, etc. v.
Johnson (76 Md. 110), 780, 2064,
2065.
Kniskern v. Lutheran Church (1
Sandf. Ch. 439), 2082.
Knott V. Evening Post (124 Fed.
Rep. 342), 1912, 1979.
Knottsville, etc. Company v. Mat-
tingly (35 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
1114), 952.
Knower v. Haines (31 Fed. Rep.
513), 835, 836, 1121, 1133, 1146.
Knowles v. Duffy
(40 Hun, 45),
1103, 1105, 1109.
Knowlton v. Ackley
(8
Cush. (62
Mass.) 93), 842, 900, 1002, 1960,
1961.
Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Co. (14
Blatchf. 364), 239, 240, 401, 402,
516.
Knowlton v. Fitch (52 N. Y. 288),
95&), 1873.
Knox V. Baldwin (80 N. Y. 610),
847, 948, 1769.
Knox V. Childersburg L. Co. (86
Ala. 180), 272, 282.
Knox V. Eden, etc. Co. (148 N. Y.
441; 31 L. R. A. 779), 388, 393,
395.
TABLE OF CASES. cliii
TReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Knox V. Exchange Bank (12 Wall.
379, 383), 43.
Knox V. Protection Co. (9 Conn.
430; 25 Am. Dec. 33), 10.
Knox County v. Asninwall (21
How. 539), 295, 296, 1583, 1592.
Knoxville v. Africa (77 Fed. Rep.
501), IGOl.
Knoxville v. Knoxville, etc. R. Co.
(22 Fed. Rep. 758), 1561, 1856.
Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison
(183 U. S. 13), 1386, 1552.
Koch V. National, etc. Assn. (137
111. 497), 1188.
Koch V. North Ave. Ry. Co. (75
Md. 222), 1602, 1606, 1607.
Koehler v. Black River, etc. Co. (2
Black, 715), 1125, 1702, 1741.
Koehler v. Brown (2 Daly, 78),
170. 2102.
Koenig v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (27
Neb. 699), 1320, 2015.
Kohl V. Lilienthal (81 Cal. 378),
800, 1847.
Kohl V. United States (91 U. S.
367), 1302.
Kohn V. Lucas (17 Mo. App. 29),
499, 969.
Kokomo, etc. Co. v. Pittsburgh,
etc. Co. (58 N. E. Rep. (Ind.
App.) 211), 1784.
Kolff V. St. Paul (48 Minn. 215),
211, 217.
Koons V. First Nat. Bank of Jef-
fersonville (89 Ind. 178), 562,
588.
Korn V. Mutual Assurance Soc. (6
Cranch (U. S.). 192). 230, 1229.
Kortright v. Buffalo Commercial
Bank (20 Wend. 91), 389, 390,
391, 613.
Koshkonong v. Burton (104 U. S.
668), 1683, 1697.
Kossakowski v. People (177 111.
563), 2093.
Kothe v. Krag. etc. Co. (20 Ind.
App. 293), 1289.
Koutz v. Paola Town Co. (20 Kan.
397), 165, 931, 1950, 1969.
Kraft v. Coykendall (34 Hun,
285), 1141.
Kraft v. Freeman Pr. Assn. (87
N. Y. 628). 1195.
Kramer v. Arthur (7 Pa. St. 165),
209.
Kramer v. Cleveland, etc. R. R.
Co. (5 Ohio St. 140). 1307, 1321.
Krause v. Settley (2 Phila. 289),
2114.
k
Krauser v. Ruckel (17 Hun, 463),
859, 861.
Krebs v. Carlisle Bank (2 Wall.
C. C. 33), 1975.
Kreiger v. Shelby R. Co. (84 Ky.
66), 1008.
Kreitzer v. Crovatt (94 Ga. 694),
1754.
Kritzer v. Woodson (19 Mo. 327),
846.
Krohn v. Williamson (62 Fed.
Rep. 869), 1214.
Kropholler v. St. Paul, etc. Co. (1
McCrary, 299; 2 Fed. Rep. 202),
1761.
Kruger v. Bank of Commerce (123
N. C. 616), 1811.
Krugger v. Andrews (65 Mich.
505), 424.
Krulevitz v. Eastern R. Co. (140
Mass. 575), 1543, 1544.
Kruse v. Dusenbury
(19 Week.
Dig. (N. Y.) 201), 177, 882.
Kruse v. Humpert (53 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 657), 880.
Krutz V. Paola Town Co. (20 Kan.
397), 165, 931, 1950, 1969.
Kuhns V. Westmoreland Bank (2
Watts (Pa.), 136), 693.
Kupfert V. Guttenberg, etc. Assn.
(30 Pa. St. 465), 2101.
Kulp V. Fleming (65 Ohio St. 321),
904.
Kunkleman v. Rentchler (15 111.
App. 271), 927. 928.
Kurtz V. Paola Town Co. (20 Kan.
403), 165, 931, 1950, 1969.
Kuser v. Wright (52 N. Y. Eq.
825), 1044, 1049, 1052, 1071.
Kuvkendall v. Draper (19 Hun,
577), 949.
Kuykendall v. McDonald (15 Mo.
416), 1246.
Kvle V. Laurens Ry. Co. (10 Rich.
L. (S. C.) 382), 1471, 1578.
Kvle V. Montgomery (73 Ga. 337),
956, 964.
Kyle V. Wagner (45 W. Va. 349),
1514.
L.
Labouchere v. Wharncliffe (13 Ch.
Div. 346), 774, 780, 783, 784,
2056.
Lacaze v. Creditors (46 La. Ann.
237), 1198.
Laclede Gas Light Co. v. Murphy
(170 U. S. 78),
1316.
cliv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
La Crosse, etc. Co. v. Goddard (91
N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 225), 384.
La Crosse, etc. Ry. Co. v. Higbee
(107 Wis. 389; 51 L. R. A. 923),
1G07.
Ladd V. Foster (31 Fed. Rep. 827),
1G30.
Lady Bryan, In re (1 Sawy. 349),
237.
Lafarge v. Exchange, etc. Co. (22
N. Y. 352), 10.
La Farge v. La Farge Ins. Co. (14
How. Pr. 2G), 147, 1533.
Lafayette v. Cox (5 Ind. 38), 294.
Lafayette Co. v. Neely
(21
Fed.
Rep. 738), 824, 825.
Lafayette, etc. Corporation v.
Ryland (80 Wis. 29), 944.
Lafayette, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cheeney
87 111. 446), 1064.
Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French (18
How. 404), 987, 1986, 1994, 2000,
2036.
Lafayette Plank Road v. New Al-
bany, etc. R. Co. 18 Ind. 90),
1319.
Laflin v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (121
N. Y. 713), 2024.
Lafond v. Deems (81 N. Y. 507),
175, 785, 788, 789, 2059, 20C2,
2081, 2119.
La Grange, etc. Co. v. Rainey
(7
Coldw. (Tenn.) 432), 1919, 1944,
1948, 1957.
La Grange Mill Co. v. Bennewitz
(28 Minn. 62), 1517.
La Grange R. Co. v. Mays (29 Mo.
64), 374.
Lagrone v. Timmerman (46 S. C.
372), 173, 881.
Lail V. Mt. Sterling, etc. R. Co.
(13 Bush (Ky.), 32), 314.
Laing v. Burley (101 111. 591),
892.
Laird v. Birkenhead Ry. Co.
(Johns. 500), 1332.
La Junta, etc. Co. v. Hess (71 Pac.
Rep. (Colo.) 415), 1787.
Lake v. Duke of Argyle (6 Q. B.
477), 175.
Lake v. Munford (4 Smedes & M.
(Miss.) 312), 2093.
Lake Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Acres
(108 Ind. 548), 1505.
Lake Erie, etc. Ry. v. Bailey (61
Fed. Rep. 494), 1591.
Lake, etc. R. R. v. Zeigler (99 Fed.
Rep. 114), 1823, 2038.
Lake Koen, etc. Co. v. Klein (65
Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 684), 1651.
Lakeman v. Mount Stephen (L.
R. 7 H. L. 17), 1154.
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Cur-
tiss (80 N. Y. 219), 267, 271, 278,
304, 305, 359.
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Mason
(16 N. Y. 451), 272, 276, 281.
327, 454, 461, 462, 471, 472, 473,
475, 501, 768, 781, 2066.
Lake Pleasanton, etc. Co. v. Con-
tra, etc. Co. (67 Cal. 659), 1310.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Ohio (173
U. S. 285), 1394, 1551.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. Co. (97 111. 506), 1302, 1319,
1318, 1559.
Lake Shore, etc. Rv. Co. v. Pren-
tice (147 U. S. 101), 1492, 1505,
1506.
Lake Shore, etc. Co. v. Smith (173
U. S. 684), 98, 1382, 1385, 1392,
1394, 1554, 1555.
Lake Shore, etc. Ry. v. Felton (103
Fed. Rep. 227), 1806.
Lake Shore, etc. Ry. v. Grand
Rapids (102 Mich. 374), 969, 970,
1536, 1591.
Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Crane (80
Cal. 181), 161, 1532.
Lake Street, etc. R. R. Co. v. Car-
michael (184 111. 348), 1167,
1188. 1364.
Lake Superior, etc. Co. v. TJrexel
(90 N. Y. 87), 513, 514,553, 857,
1284.
Lake Superior, etc. R. R. v.
United States
(93'
U. S. 442),
1551.
Lake Superior Iron v. Drexel (90
N. Y. 87), 442, 513, 514, 553.
Lake View v. Rosehill C. Co. (70
111. 191), 1386, 1396.
Lakin v. Williamette, etc. R. Co.
(13 Oreg. 436), 1568.
Lamar v. American Fire Ins. Co.
(6 Paige, 482), 644.
Lamar Ins. Co. v. Gulick (102 111.
41), 485, 900, 913.
Lamar v. Micou (112 U. S. 452),
572, 602.
Lamb v. Anderson (54 Iowa, 100),
311.
Lamb v. Cain (129 Ind. 486; 14
L. R. A. 514), 2122.
Lamb v.
Lamb (61 Biss. 420),
2007.
Lambert v. Addison (46 L. T.
201), 230, 772, 778, 786, 2059.
Lambert v. Neuchatel Asphalte Co.
(30 W. R. 912), 635.
TABLE OF CASES.
clv
[References are to pages: "Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Lamm v. Parrot, etc. Co. (Ill Fed.
Red. 241), 2042.
Lamm v. Port Deposit, etc. Assn.
(49 Md. 233), 1501.
Lamoine Val. etc. R. v. Bixby (55
Vt. 235), 1296.
Lamphere v. Grand Lodge (11 N.
W. Rep. (Mich.) 268), 3083.
Lampson v. Arnold (19 Iowa,
487), 1246.
Lamson v. Beard (94 Fed. Rep.
30; 45 L. R. A. 822), 1162.
Lamson v. Stanley
(15 N. Y.
Siipp. 707),
1510.
Lanauze v. Belfast, etc. Ry. Co.
(Ir. R. 3 Eq. 454), 1724.
Lanborn v. Bell (18 Colo. 346),
1610.
Lancaster v. Amsterdam, etc. Co.
(140 N. Y. 576; 24 L. R. A.
322), 75, 177, 185, 879, 882, 1184,
1370, 1374, 1913, 1984, 1998, 1999.
Lancaster, etc. Co. v. Rhoads (116
Pa. St. 377), 1255.
Lancaster, etc. Ry. Co. v. North
Western Ry. Co. (2 Kay & F.
293), 1368, 1473.
Lancaster v. Kennebec Co. (62 Me.
272), 1313.
Lance's Appeal (55 Pa. St. 16),
1306.
Laud V. Chicago, etc. Ry. (78
Fed. Rep. 385),- 1790.
Land Credit Co. v. Fermov (17 W.
R. 562; L. R.
5"
Ch. 763), 1124.
Land Credit Co., In re (L. R. 4
Ch. 460), 1298.
L^nd, etc. Co. v. Asphalt, etc. Co.
(127 Fed. Rep. (N. J.) 1), 1520,
1742.
Landers v. Frank Street Church
(97 N. Y. 119), 2127.
Landes v. Globe Planter Manu-
facturing Company
(73
Ga.
176), 822.
Land Grant Rv. v. Caffey County
(6 Kan. 245), 177, 185, 845,
1184.
Landis' Appeal (102 Pa. St. 467),
2133.
Landis v. Sea Isle, etc. Co. (53
N. J. Eq. 654), 1101, 1130, 1185.
Landis v. Western, etc. R. Co.
(133 Pa. St. 579), 1824, 1828,
1830.
Landman v. Entwistle (7 Ex.
632), 167, 1223, 1224.
Landowners', etc. Co. v. Ashford
(16 Ch. Div. 411), 1701.
Lane's Appeal (105 Pa. St. 49),
245, 499, 861, 897, 899, 905, 968,
969, 1165.
Lane's
Case (1 De G., J. & b.
504), 245, 554.
Lane v. Baker
(2 Grant Cas. 424),
851,
Lane v. Brainerd
(30 Conn.
565),
309, 311, 312, 324, 376.
Lane v. Harris (16 Ga. 217), 855,
862, 863, 926, 910, 927.
Lane v. Morris (8 Ga. 475), 460,
497, 843, 854, 855, 948.
Lane v. Nickerson (99 111. 284),
1769.
Lane v. Washington Hotel Co.
(190 Pa. St. 230), 1801.
Lane v. Wheelwright (69 Hun,
180), 1766.
Langan v. Francklyn (20 N. Y.
Supp. 404), 432.
Langan v. Great Western Ry. Co.
(30 L. T. (N. S.) 173), 1203.
Langan v. Iowa, etc. Co. (49 Iowa,
317), 171, 175.
Langdon v. Branch (37 Fed. Rep.
449), 1431.
Langdon v. Fogg (18 Fed. Rep. 5;
14 Abb. (N. C.) 435), 516, 517.
Langdon v. Hillside Coal, etc. Co.
(41 Fed. Rep. 609), 812.
Langdon v. New York, etc. R. R.
(9 N. Y. Supp. 245), 1555.
Langdon v. Vermont, etc. R. Co.
(54 Vt. 593), 1725.
Lange v. Werk (2 Ohio St. 519),
1422.
Langiord v. Langford (5 L. J. (N.
S.) Ch. 60), 1748.
Langford v. Ottumwa, etc. Co. (59
Ohio, 283), 898, 968.
Langhorne v. Richmond Ry. Co.
(91 Va. 369), 1565, 1886.
Langley v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (10
Gray
(76 Mass.), 103), 1891.
Langley v. Little (26 Me. 162),
111, 887, 949.
Lang's Appeal (87 Pa. St. 114),
45.
Langston v. Greenville, etc. Co.
(120 N. C. 132), 793.
Langston v. South Carolina R. Co.
(2 S. C. 248), 1674, 1675.
Langton v. Waite (L. R. 6 Eq.
165), 587.
Lang Syne Min. Co. v. Ross (20
Nev. 127), 820.
Lanier v. First National Bk. (11
Wall. 369), 390, 392, 613.
Lanier v. Gayoso Savings Inst. (9
Heisk. (Tenn.) 506), 928.
clvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1.50G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Lankestor's Case (L. R. 6 Ch
005), 886.
Lanning v. Osborne (76 Fed. Rep.
319),
1G.51, 1791.
Lantry v. Wallace (182 U. S. 536),
938, 1768.
Lanzit v. Sefton, etc. Co. (184 111.
326), 1440.
Lapham v. Philadelphia, etc. Co.
(56 Atl. Rep. (111.) 366), 125.
Larldn, Ex parte (4 Ch. Div. 566),
1096.
Larkin v. Willi (12 Mo. App. 135),
565.
Larrabee v. Baldwin (35 Cal. 155),
839, 855, 887, 890, 919.
Larrabee v. Franklin Bank (114
Mo. 592), 1771.
Larson v. Aultman, etc. Co. (86
Wis. 281), 2026.
Lasher v. Stlmson (145 Pa. St.
30), 1122.
Late Corp. of Church of Jesus
Christ V. United States (136 U.
S. 1), 1220. 1978, 1981.
Latham v. Boston, etc. Ry. Co.
(38 Hun, 265), 1571.
Lathrop v. Kneeland (46 Barb.
(N. Y.) 432), 239. 290, 918.
Lathrop v. Singer (39 Barb. 396),
851.
Latimer v. Citizens' State Bank
(102 Iowa, 162), 866, 883.
Latimer v. Equitable, etc. Assn.
(78 Mo. App. 463), 637.
Latta V. Lonsdale (107 Fed. Rep.
585; 52 L. R. A. 479), 860.
Lauman v. Lebanon Valley R. Co.
(30 Pa. St. 42; 72 Am. Dec.
685), 112, 114, 261, 804, 1244,
1254, 1315, 1827, 1842, 1851,
1852, 1856, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861,
1862, 1865, 1871, 1947, 1948,
2833.
Laurel Run Building Assn. v.
Sperring (106 Pa. St. 334), 768,
769, 2065, 2066.
Law V. Brainerd (30 Conn. 565),
982.
Law V. California Pacific R. Co.
(52 Cal. 53), 1375. 1700.
Law V. Conn. etc. R. Co. (46 N.
H. 284), 1067, 1214.
Law, etc. Soc. v. Hogiie (37 Oreg.
544), 1532.
Law Guarantee, etc. Co. v. Bank
of England (L. R. 24 Q. B. D.
406), 597.
Lawe's Case (1 De G., M. & G.
421), 399, 553.
Lawler v. Baring Boom Co. (56
Me. 443), 1313.
Lawler v. Burt (7 Ohio St. 340),
846, 948.
Lawrence Countv Bank v. Arndt
(69 Ark. 406), 1150.
Lawrence, etc. Co. v. Rockbridge,
etc. Co. (47 Fed. Rep. 755),
1776.
Lawrence, etc. R. R. Co., In re
(133 N. Y. 270), 1311.
Lawrence v. Fletcher (8 Neb. 153),
65.
Lawrence v. Greenup (97 Fed. Rep.
906), 1689.
Lawrence v. Greenwich, etc. Co.
(1 Paige, 587), 1355, 1746.
Lawrence v. Kidder (10 Barb.
642), 1416.
Lawrence and Kincaid's Case (L.
R. 2 Ch. 412), 941.
Lawrence v. Maxwell (53 N. Y.
19), 583, 585.
Lawrence v. Morgan, etc. Co. (39
La. Ann. 427; 4 Am. St. Rep.
265), 1762.
Lawrence v. Nelson (21 N. Y. 158),
923.
Lawrence v. Smith (57 Iowa, 701),
323. 8
Lawrence v. Stearns (79 Fed.
Rep. 878), 817.
Lawrence v. Tucker (5 Me. 195),
1159.
Lawry v. Bourdien (Doug. (Mich.)
468), 401.
Lawson v. Milwaukee, etc. R. Co.
(36 Wis. 383), 297.
Lawton v. Kittridge (30 N. H.
500), 577.
Lawyer v. Rosebrook (48 Hun,
453), 920.
Laxton v. North River Br. Co.
(153 U. S. 525), 32.
Lay V. Wissman (36 Iowa, 305),
1690.
Laymen v. Iowa, etc. Co. (99 isr.
W. Rep. (Iowa) 205), 698.
Lazare v. Allen (20 N. Y. App.
Div. 616), 2112.
L. D. Garrett v. Clark (87 N. Y.
S. 579), 376.
Lea V. American, etc. Co. (3 Abb.
Pr. (N. S.) 1), 1975.
Lea V. George M. West Co. (91
Fed. Rep. 237), 1777.
Lea V. Iron, etc. Co. (119 Ala.
271), 406, 1792.
Leach Club Cases (28 W. R. 367;
41 L. T. 631), 784.
TABLE OF CASES. clvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Leach v. Fobes (11 Gray (77
Mass.), 506), 576.
Lea,giie v. De Young (11
How.
185, 203), 44.
Leap V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. (58
Ark. 407),
Learv v. Blanchard (48 Me. 269),
1204.
Leary v. Columbia, etc. Co. (82
Fed. Rep. 777), 2016, 2042.
Leavenworth v, Barnes (94 U. S.
70), 845.
Leavenworth Co. v. Chicago, etc.
Ry. Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 219; 134
U. S. 688), 1730, 1751, 1846, 1852.
Leavenworth County v. Miller (7
Kan. 479; 12 Am. St. Rep. 425),
294, 295, 297.
Leavenworth, etc. R. Co. v. Doug-
lass Co. (18 Kan. 169), 297.
Leavitt v. Blatchford (17 N. Y.
521), 2091.
Leavitt v. Fisher (4 Duer (N. Y.),
1), 391, 599.
Leavitt v. Oxford, etc. Co. (3
Utah, 265), 982, 1015, 1083, 1085,
1109.
Leavitt v. Palmer (3 N. Y. 19),
1343.
Leavitt v. Pell (27 Barb. 322>,
504, 1345.
Leavitt v. Tyler (1 Sandf. Ch.
207), 2092.
Leavitt v. Yates (4 Edw. (N. Y.)
134), 1724, 2092.
Leazure v. Hillegas (7 Sergt. &
R. (Pa.) 313), 1237, 1329.
Lebanon, etc. Co. v. Adair (85
Ind. 244), 1092, 1095.
Lebenstone v. Union Elev. R. R.
(80 Fed. Rep. 9, 1897), 1607.
Le Blanc, In re (14 Hun, 8), 625.
Le Croy v. Eastman (10 Modern
(K. B.), 499). 587.
Ledoux V. La Bee (83 Fed. Rep.
761), 1722.
Ledginger v. Central Line Steam-
ers (75 Ga. 567), 1296.
Lee V. Citizens' National Bank (2
Cin. Sup. Ct. 298), 210.
Lee v. Neuchatel Asphalte Co. (L.
R. 41 Ch. D. 1), 636.
Lee V. Pembroke Iron Co. (57 Me.
481), 1490.
Lee V. Sturges (46 Ohio St. 153;
2 L. R. A. 556), 697.
Lee V. Swingley (6
Mont. 596),
1731.
Lee V. Village of Sandy Hill (40
N. Y. 442), 1481.
Lee County v. Rogers (7 Wall.
181), 296.
Leech v. Harris (2 Brewst. (Pa.)
571), 205, 771, 772, 778, 786, 787,
2104, 2060.
Leed & E. Turnpike Road Co. v.
Phillips (2 Penr. & W. 184), 112.
Leeds Banking Co., Ex parte Bar-
rett (34 L. J. 558; 3 De G. &
Sm. 201), 273, 1088.
Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fearnley (18
L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 330), 263, 482.
538.
Leeds Estate etc. Co. v. Shepherd
(36 Ch. Div. 787), 636.
Leeds v. Gifford (41 N. J. Eq.
(464), 1731.
Leeds v. New York, etc. Co. (64
N. Y. App. Div. 484), 1627.
Leep V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (58 Ark.
407; 23 L. R. A. 264), 107, 1551.
1552.
Lee's Bank of Buffalo, In re (21
N. Y. 9), 71, 99, 100, 840.
Lees V. Canal Co. (11 East. 652),
55.
Leffingwell v. Elliott (8 Pick.
(Mass.) 455; 19 Am. Dec. 343),
181.
Leffman v. Flanigan (5 Phlla.
155), 1125.
Legendre v. New Orleans, etc. Co.
(45 La. Ann. 669"; 40 Am. St.
Rep. 243), 143.
Legg V. Mathieson (2 Giff. 71),
1712, 1727, 1732.
Leggand Co. v. Dewing (25 R. I.
568), 1130.
Leggett V. Bank of Sing Sing (24
N. Y. 283), 686, 691, 693.
Leggett V. Hyde (58 N. Y. 272).
1294.
Leggett V. New Jersey, etc. Co.
(1 N. J. Eq. 54; 23 Am. Dec.
728), 799, 1508.
Legonier Valley R. Co. v. Williams
(33 Leg. Int. (Pa.) 50), 303.
Lehigh Coal, etc. Co. v. Cent. R.
Co. (35 N. J. Eq. 379). 976,
1715, 1716, 1748.
Lehigh Coal, etc. Company v.
Scranton, etc. Co. (6 Pa. Dist.
291), 1614.
Lehigh, etc. Co. v. Kelly (160 IT.
S. 327),
2039.
Lehigh, etc. Co. v. Lehigh, etc.
Co. (4
Rawle (Penn.), 9; 26 Am.
Dec. Ill), 1958.
Lehigh R. R. Co.'s Appeal (129
Pa. St. 405), 1267.
clviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Lehigh Valley, etc. Company v.
Hamblen (23 Fed. Rep. 225),
127.
Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Common-
wealth (129 Pa. St. 429), 708,
709, 710.
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. West
Denere, etc. .Works (16 Wis. 45),
1260, 1270.
Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. Mc-
Farlan (31 N. J. Eq. 706), 398,
1307.
Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Orange,
etc.. Co. (42 N. J. Eq. 205),
1647.
Lehigh Valley R. R. v. Penn (145
U. S. 192), 735.
Lehigh Water Co.'s Appeal (102
Pa. St. 515), 60.
Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton (121
U. S. 388), 43.
Lehman v. Glenn (87 Ala. 618),
467, 486, 950.
Lehmann v. Knapp (48 La. Ann.
1148), 883.
Leifchild's Case (L. R. 1 Eq. 231),
570.
Leighty v. Susquehanna, etc. T.
Co. (14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 434),
281
Leitcii V. Wells (48 N. Y. 585),
390, 535, 571, 609.
Leland v. Hayden (102 Mass. 551),
247, 253, 553, 1284.
Leland v. Marsh (16 Mass. 389),
863.
Leloup V. Port of Mobile (127 U.
S. 640), 753, 754, 758, 759, 1455,
1993.
Lemon v. Pullman, etc. Co. (52
Fed. Rep. 262), 1657.
Lemmon v. People (20 N. Y. 562),
847.
Lenawee Co. Sav. Bank v. City
of Adrian (66 Mich. 273), 745,
762.
Lengel v. American, etc. Co. (110
Fed. 19), 2041.
Lennon, In re (150 U. S. 393),
1591.
Lencwr v. Linville Imp. Co. (126
N. C. 922; 51 L. R. A. 146),
1071.
Leo V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (19 Fed.
Rep. 283; 17 Fed. Rep. 273),
804, 828, 1260.
Leonard v. American Ins. Co. (97
Ind. 299), 1298.
Leonard v. Poole (114 N. Y. 371;
4 L. R. A. 728), 2116.
Leonard v. Spencer (108 N. Y.
388), 797.
Leonardville R. R. v. Willard (25
N. Y. 574), 156.
Leonhardt v. Citizens' Bank, etc.
(56 Neb. 38), 1182.
Leoti National Rank v. Fisher (45
Kan. 726), 742.
Le Page Co. v. Russia, etc. Co.
(51 Fed. Rep. 941; 17 L. R. A.
354), 7, 174, 184.
Le Roy v. Cusacke (2 Rolle, 113),
1915.
Le Roy v. Globe Ins. Co. (2 Edw.
Ch. (N. Y.) 657), 626, 638, 642.
Lesher v. Karshner (47 Ohio St.
302; 21 N. E. Rep. 882), 310.
Leslie v. Insurance Co. (63 N. Y.
34), 408.
Leslie v. Lorillard (110 N. Y.
519; 1 L. R. A. 456), 797, 1416,
1418, 1423, 1425, 1445, 1655, 1928.
Leslie v. Urbana (2 Biss. 435),
283.
Lessee of Frost v. Frostburg Coal
Co. (24 How. 278), 930.
Lesseps v. Architects (4 La. Ann.
316), 198, 474, 770, 2064.
Lester v. Howard Bank (33 Md.
558), 1121, 1368, 1369.
Lester v. Webb (1 Allen (83
Mass.), 34), 1207.
Level Land Co. v. Hayward (95
Wis. 109), 290.
Levi V. Brooks (121 Mass. 501).
1495.
Levis V. Newton (75 Fed. Rep.
472), 1643.
Levisee v. Shreveport City R. R.
Co. (37 La. Ann. 641), 294,
1076.
Levy V. Abercarris, etc. Co. (37
Ch. Div. 260), 1719.
Levy V. Loeb (85 N. Y. 365; 89
N. Y. 386), 2114.
Levy V. Magnolia Lodge (110 Cal.
297), 773.
Le Warne v. Meyer (38 Fed. Rep.
191), 431, 1511.
Lewey's Island R. C<x v. Bolton
(48 Me. 451), 313, 314, 360, 475,
476, 480, 495, 781, 782.
Lewis V. American, etc. Co. (119
Fed. Rep. 391), 1791, 1812.
Lewis V. Barbour County (105 U.
S. 739), 296.
Lewis V. Brainerd (53 Vt. 510),
140, 143, 1206.
Lewis' Case (28 L. T. (N. S.>
396), 454.
TABLE OF CASES. clix
FReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Lewis V. Clarendon (5 Dill, 329;
15 Fed. Cas. 474), 299, 1890.
Lewis, etc. Co., In re (89 Hun,
208), 1806.
Lewis V. Glenn (84 Va. 947), 487,
5G5, 566, 1520, 1764, 1767, 1794.
Lewis V. Graham (4 Abb. Pr.
106), 586.
Lewis V. Linden, etc. Co. (183
Pa. St. 248), 1805.
Lewis & IMason Turnpike Road Co.
V. Thomas (3 S. W. (Ky.) 907),
55.
Lewis V. Mutual, etc. Co. (8 Colo.
App. 368), 1290.
Lewis V. Robertson (21 Miss. 558),
447.
Lewis V. Ryder (13 Abb. Pr.
1),
949.
Lewis V. St. Charles County
(5
Mo. App. 225), 852, 853.
Lewis V. Shreveport (108 U. S.
282), 294.
Lewis V. Tilton (64 Iowa, 220),
7, 1122, 2074, 2089, 2118.
Lewis V. Whittle (77 Va. 415),
1379.
Lewis V. Wilson (121 N. Y. 284),
769, 775, 2057, 2063, 2106.
Lewiston, etc. Co. v. Asotin
County (24 Wash. 371), 714.
Lexington v. Butler (14 Wall.
282), 1674, 1681, 1682, 1683,
1684, 1697.
Lexington, etc. Ins. Co. v. Page
(17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 412; 66 Am.
Dec. 165), 7, 634, 645, 793. 1770.
Lexington, etc. R. Co. v. Bridges
(7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 556), 440, 637.
Lexington, etc. R. Co. v. Chandler
(54 Mass. 311), 311, 312, 31G,
475, 476, 781, 782.
Lexington, etc. R. Co. v.
Staples
(71 Mass. 520), 475. 781.
Leyh v. American, etc. Co. (68
N. E. Rep. (111.) 713), 1351.
Levson v. Davis (170 U. S. 36),
536, 539.
Libby v. Hodgson (9 N. H. 394),
10.
Libby v. Tobey (82 Me. 397; 19
Atl. Rep. 904), 442, 506, 549, 885.
Liberian Exodus, etc. Co. v. Rodg-
ers (21 S. C. 27), 1525.
Licausi v. Ashworth (78 N. Y.
App. Div. 486), 1510.
License Tax Cases (5 Wall. (U.
S.) 462), 1370.
Licensed, etc. Assn., In re (L. R.
42 Ch. D. 1), 238, 385.
Liebke v. Knapp (79 Mo. 22), 506,
507, 508.
Liebscher
v. Kraus (74 Wis. 387;
5 L. R. A. 496), 1195.
Life Association of America v.
Fassett (102 111. 315), 1786,
1968. 1969, 1970, 1976, 1977,
1978. 1979.
Life Assn. of America v. Goods
(71 Tex.
90), 1968.
Life Assn. of America v. Levy
(33 La. Ann. 1203), 2029.
Life Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' Ins.
Co. (7 Wend.
35), 1930.
Liggett V. Ladd (17 Ore.
89), 2118.
Lightall Manuf. Co., In re (47
Hun,
258), 199, 1020.
Lightner v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (1
Low (U. S. D. C), 338; 15 Fed.
Cas. 514), 1863, 1864, 1884, 1890.
Lillard v. Oil, etc. Co. (56 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 254), 1065.
Limer v. Traders' Co. (44 W. Va.
175), 1056.
Lincoln, etc. Bank v. Page (9
Mass. 155), 1297.
Lincoln, etc. Bank v. Richardson
,
(1 Me. 79; 10 Am. Dec.
34), 67,
70, 806. 1817, 1818.
Lincoln County v. Luning (133 U.
S. 529), 1593.
Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon (44
Neb. 279), 34, 5, 508.
Lincoln v. Lincoln St. Ry. (77
Fed. Rep. 658), 1790.
Lincoln Park, etc. v. Swatek (204
111. 228), 89, 1963.
Lincoln Savings Bank v. Ewing
(12 Lea (Tenn.), 598), 1268.
Lincoln St. R. Co. v. Lincoln (61
Neb. 109), 719, 720.
Lincoln v. Wright (23 Pa. St. 76),
462.
Lindauer v. Delaware, etc. Co. (13
Ark. 461), 131.
Linder v. Carpenter (62 111. 309),
1587.
Linderman v. Hastings, etc. (38
N. Y. App. Div. 488), 1289.
Lindsay v. First National Bank
(156 U. S. 485), 743.
Lindsav v. Hyatt (4 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 97). 949.
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd
(L. R. 5 P. C. 221), 1221.
Lindsav v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
(10 Hall (N. Y. Sup. Ct.), 664),
1175, 1176.
Lindsay, etc. Co. v. Mullen (176
U. S. 126), 881.
clx
TAULE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. III. 1507-2134.]
Lindsay v.
Simonds (2 Abb. Pr.
(N. S.) 69), 490, 862, 863, 949.
Lindus v. Melrose (3 Hurl. & N.
177),
1146.
Lingle v. National Ins. Co. (45
Mo. 109), 927, 1096.
Link, etc. Co. v. Hughes (174 111.
155),
1802 .
Linnett v. Males (38 Iowa, 25),
364.
Linville v. Hadden (88 Md. 594),
1806.
Lionberger v. Broadway Savings
Bank (10 Mo. App. 499),
1794.
Lionberger v. Rouse (9 Wall. 468),
743.
Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co.
(25 Fed. Rep. 577), 1722, 1917.
Lippitt V. American Wood Paper
Co. (14 R. I. 301), 549, 611, 612,
960, 965, 966, 967.
Liquidators, etc. v. Douglas (11
Ses. Cas. 112; 32 Scot. Jur. 212),
1120.
Liscomb v. Manchester, etc. R. R.
Co. (70 N. H. 312), 536.
Lishman's Claim (23 L. T. Rep.
(N. S.) 759), 873.
Litchfield Bank v. Church (29
Conn. 137), 358.
Litchfield Bank v. Peck (29 Conn.
384), 364.
Litchfield v. Ballou (114 U. S.
190), 2094.
Litchfield v. White (3 Sandf. Sup.
Ct. 545), 1120.
Litchfield's Case (3 De G. & Sm.
141), 558.
Liter v. Ozokerite Mining Co. (7
Utah. 487), 153, 880.
Literati v. Heald (141 Mass. 326),
1210.
Little V. Bowers (46 N. J. 300),
99.
Little V. Dusenberry (46 N. J. L.
614), 1799.
Little V. Kerr (44 N. J. Eq. 263),
1167.
Littledale, Ex parte (24 L. J.
(Banker) N. S. 9), 1044.
Littlefield v. Bloxam (117 U. S.
420), 1669.
Littlehampton Steamship Co., In
re (15 Week. 1), 808.
Little Rock, etc. Ry. Co. v. Alle;i
(41 Ark. 431), 1321.
Little Rock, etc. R. R. Co. v. East
Tenn. etc. Co. (3 U. S. C. C.
Rep. 1; 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
85), 1394.
Little Rock, etc. R. Co. v. Perry
(37 Ark. 164), 1174.
Little Rock, etc. R. Co. v. St. Louis,
etc. Ry. Co. (7 Ry. & Corp. (U.
S. C. Ct.) L. J. 285), 1393, 1394.
Little Rock, etc. Co. v. Worthen
(46 Ark. 312), 717.
Littleton Manuf. Co. v. Parker (14
N. H. 543), 313.
Little Warrior v. Hooper (105
Ala. 65), 1778.
Littlewort v. Davis (50 Miss. 403),
1351.
Livermore v. Bushnell (5 Hun,
285), 2115.
Livermore v. Poor (5 Hun, 285),
1416.
Liverpool v. Charley Waterworks
(2 De Gex, M. & G. 852), 1921.
Liverpool, etc. Co. v. Oliver (10
Wall. U. S. 566), 711.
Liverpool, etc. Co. v. Phoenix Ins.
Co. (129 U. S. 397), 1488, 1538,
1636.
Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Mass. (10
Wall. (U. S.) 566; 1 Cum. Cas.
26), 64, 65, 163, 832, 1986, 2090,
2091.
Livesey v. Omaha Hotel Co. (5
Neb. 550), 313, 952.
Livingston Co. Agricultural So-
ciety V. Hunter (110 111. 155),
1835.
Livingston v. Lynch
(4 Johns. Ch.
573), 1086, 1375, 2092.
Livingston v. Trinity Church (16
Vroom. (N. J.) 230), 2124.
Livingston v. Van Ingen
(9 Johns.
525), 59.
Llanelly Ry. Co. v. London, etc.
Ry. Co. (L. R. 7 H. L. 550),
1582.
Lloyd v. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. Co.
(65 Fed. Rep. 351), 1789.
Lloyd V. Loaring
(6 Ves. 773),
2049, 2078, 2119.
Lloyd V. Preston (146 U. S. 630),
426, 433, 857.
Lloyd V. Supreme Lodge (38 C.
C. A. 654; 98 Fed. Rep. 66), 215.
Lloyd V. Washington, etc. Co. (1
Mack. (D. C.) 331), 1385, 1387,
1642.
Lloyd V. West Branch Bank (15
Pa. St. 172; 53 Am. Dec. 581),
1662.
Loan Assn. v. Steinmetz (29 Pa.
St. 534), 1064, 1075.
Loan Assn. v. Topeka (20 Wall.
655), 295.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1.507-2134.]
Loan, etc. Co. v. Stoddard (89 N.
W. Rep. (Neb.)
301), 1527.
Locke V. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (140
N. Y. 135), 536.
Locke V. Turnpike Co. (100 Tenn.
163), 1809.
Lockhart v. Van Alstyne (31
Mich. 76), 622, 625, 634, 662,
665, 666, 669, 670, 671, 672, 675,
684, 793, 1134.
Loclthaven Bridge v. Clinton Co.
(157 Pa. St. 379), 1307.
Lockie v. Mutual Union Tel. Co.
(103 111. 401), 1313.
Lockwood V. Mechanics' Nat. Bank
(9 R. L 308; 11 Am. St. Rep.
253), 226.
Lockwood V. Thunder Bay River
Boom Co. (42 Mich. 536), 1055.
Lockwood V. Weston (61 Conn.
211), 237.
Loeb V. Peters (63 Ala. 243), 387.
Loefler v. Modern Woodmen (100
Wis. 79; 75 N. 1012), 211.
Loewenthal v. Rubber Co. (52 N.
J. Eq. 440), 196, 1023.
Logan V. Courtown (13 Beav. 22),
1433.
Logan V. McAllister (2 Bell Ch.
176), 48, 88, 89.
Logan V. McCall Pub. Co. (140 N
Y. 447), 1812.
Logan V. McNaugher (88 Pa. St.
103), 2118.
Logan V. Vernon, etc. R. Co. (90
Ind. 552), 1915.
Logan Co. Nat. Bank v. Town-
send (3 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 122),
1330.
Logan Tribe v. Schwartz (19 Md.
565), 2085.
Logan V. Western, etc. R. R. (87
Ga. 533), 1967.
Lohman v. New York, etc. Ry. Co.
(2 Sandf. Superior Ct. 39), 287,
1695.
Lombardo v. Case (45 Barb. 95),
632.
Londheim v. White (67 How. Pr.
469), 2108.
London, etc. Co., In re (L. R. 5
Eq. 519), 621, 1975.
London, In re (5 Ch. Div. 525),
331.
London Assurance Corporation v.
Drennen (116 U. S. 461), 163,
168.
London, etc. Assn. v. Wrexham,
etc. R. Co. (L. R. 18 Eq. 566),
663.
London, etc. Bank v. Aronstein
(117 Fed. Rep. 601). 602.
London, etc. Bank v. Brocklebank
21 Ch. Div.
302), 691.
London, etc. Bank, In re (15 W.
R. 1057), 1876.
London Celluloid Co., In re (39
Ch. D. 190), 449, 675, 680, 1283.
London v. Colman (59 Ga. 653),
9, 1877.
London Ins. Corp., In re (2 Ch.
Div. 860), 257.
London v. Marine, etc. Co., Ex
parte Smith (17 W. R. 491; L.
R. 4 Ch. 611), 273.
London Suburban Bank, In re (L.
R. 6 Ch. 641), 1955.
London, etc. Co. v. American, etc.
Co. (127 Fed. Rep. (Iowa)
1008), 2025.
London, etc. Discount Co., In re
(L. R. Eq.
277), 1949.
London, etc. Exchange Co., In re
(L. R. 2 Eq. 226), 556.
London, etc. Ry. Co., In re (L.
R. 5 Ch. App.
671), 1368.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fair-
clough (2 Man. & G. 674), 136.
269, 355, 477, 478, 546, 889, 1004.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Freeman
(2 Man. & G. 606), 546, 914.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Graham
(1
Q. B. 271), 546.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. London,
etc. Ry. Co. (4 De G. & J. 362),
1849, 1852.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. McMichael
(5 Exch. 855), 454, 482, 588.
London, etc. Rv. Co. v. Price (11
Q. B. Div. 485), 1558.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. South-
eastern Ry. Co. (8 Ex. 584; 8
Vic. Ch. 20, 20), 1575.
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Winter
(Craig & P. 57), 1332.
London, etc. Tel. Co., In re (L.
R. 9 Eq. 633), 571.
London's, etc. Co. v. Ashford (16
Ch. Div. 411), 1707.
Long V. Gray (9 Jur. (N. S.) 805),
191.
Long V. Duluth (49 Minn. 280),
1645.
Long V. Georgia, etc. Co. (91 Ala.
519; 24 Am. St. Rep. 931), 160,
1237, 1329, 1374.
Long V. Guelph, etc. Co. (31 C.
P. Rep. (Can.) 129), 672.
Long V. New London (9 Biss. 539;
5 Fed. Rep. 559), 296.
clxii
tai;le of casks.
tlteferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1500; Vol. Ill, loOT-2134.I
Long V. Penn. Ins. Co. (6 Pa. St.
421), 483, 921.
Long V. Penn. R. R. Co. (147 Pa.
St. 343), 1636.
Longdale Iron Co. v. Pomeroy, etc.
Co. (34 Fed. Rep. 448), 575.
Long Island R. Co., In re (19
Wend. 37; 37 Am. Dec. 429),
198, 210, 213, 217, 264, 474, 476,
480, 495, 769, 770, 979, 981, 994,
1009, 1010, 1011, 1024, 1060,
1957, 2063, 2064.
Long Island, etc. Co. v. Brooklyn
(166 U. S. 685), 1647.
Long Island, etc. R. R. Co. v. Car-
ney (159 N. Y. 334), 1559.
Long's Appeal (87 Pa. St. 114),
45, 52, 1396.
Longmont Supply Ditch Co. v.
Coifman (11 Colo. 551), 974,
1055.
Looker v. Maynard (179 U. S. 46),
1023.
Loomis V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.
(97 Fed. Rep. 755), 682.
Loomis V. Missouri, etc. Ry. (165
Mo. 469), 823, 829, 1366.
Loomis V. Tifft (16 Barb. 541),
866.
Lord V. Brooks (52 N. H. 72), 623,
647.
Lord V. Copper, etc. Co. (2 Phila.
740), 470, 814.
Lord, etc. Co., In re (7 Del. Ch.
Rep. 248; 44 Atl. Rep. 775), 1807.
Lord V. Essex Bldg. Assn. (37 Md.
327), 1913.
Lord Hamilton's Case (L. R. 8
Ch. 548), 1054.
Lord V. Hutzler (64 Md. 634),
468.
Lord V. Litchfield (36 Conn. 116),
727.
Lord V. Wilkinson (56 Barb. 593),
1687.
Lord V. Yonkers, etc. Co. (99 N.
Y. 547), 1668, 1699.
Lorence v. Greenup (97 Fed. Rep.
900), 1695.
Lorenz v. Jacob (63 Cal. 73), 1311.
Lorillard v. Clyde (86 N. Y. 384),
1902.
Lorillard. In re (107 Fed. Rep.
677), 1829.
Loring v. Boston (7 Mete. (48
Mass.) 419). 682.
Loring v. Brodie (134 Mass. 453),
579.
Loring v. Davis (32 Ch. Div. 625),
2107.
Loring v. Frue (104 U. S. 223),
613.
Loring v. Salisburg Mills Co. (125
Mass. 138), 417, 579, 590, 597,
606, 613.
Loring v. Woodward (41 N. H.
391), 626.
Los Angeles Co. v. Hollywood
Cem. Assn. (124 Cal. 344), 1066.
Los Angeles, etc. v. City of Los
Angeles (88 Fed. Rep. 720),
1244, 1644.
Los Angeles v. Los Angeles, etc.
Co. (177 U. S. 558), 1382.
Los Angeles v. Spools (126 Cal.
541), 160.
Los' Case (13 W. R. 883), 1876.
Losee V. Bullard (79 N. Y. 404),.
847, 850.
Lothrop V. Greenfield, etc. Ins. Co.
(2 Allen (84 Mass.), 82), 2069.
Lothrop V. Stedman (42 Conn.
583), 38, 105, 1781, 1900.
Lothrop V. Stedman (13 Blatchf.
134), 104, 100, 1970, 1975.
Lottimer v. Lord (4 E. D. Smith
(N. Y.), 183), 1747.
Loubat V. Le Roy (40 Hun, 546),
778, 779, 780, 782, 783, 789, 2062.
Loud V. Pomona, etc. Co. (153 U.
S. 564), 507.
Lough V. Outerbridge (143 N.
X
271; 25 L. R. A. 674), 1552.
Louisiana v. American Cotton Oil
Trust (1 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 509),
1414, 1417.
Louisiana v. Bank of Louisiana
(6
La. Ann. 745), 798.
Louisiana, etc. Deposit Co., In re
(35 La. Ann. 196), 1749, 1787.
Louisiana Ins. Co. v. Gordon (S
La. Rep. 174), 888.
Louisiana Paper Co. v. Waples (3
Woods, 34; 15 Fed. Cas. 968),
899.
Louisville v. President, etc. of
Union (15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 642),.
1393.
Louisville Banking Co. v. Eisen-
man (94 Ky. 83; 19 L. R. A.
684; 42 Am. St. Rep. 335), 12,
77, 78, 802, 883, 1832, 1963.
Louisville County v. Ballard (2
Mete. (Ky.) 165), 45, 46.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Common-
wealth (10 Bush. (Ky.) 43; 57
L. R. A. 33), 1911.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Cumber-
land, etc. Co. (Ill Fed. 663),
1634.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1.^07-2134.]
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Etheridge,
etc. Co. (43 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
169), 1766.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. KauH'man
(105 Ky. 131), 77, 1963.
Louisville, etc. Gas. Co. v. Citi-
zens' Gas. Co. (115 U. S. 683),
53, 59, 62, 199.
Louisville & R. Co. v. Boney (117
Ind. 501: 3 L. R. A. 435), 1503,
1S86. 1887, 1SS9, 1890.
Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bowl-
ing Green Ry. (63 S. W. (KJ^}
4). 1942.
Louisville, etc. Rv. Co. v. Carson
(151 111. 444). 1102, 1104.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Eakin (100
Ky. 745), 1792.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Eubank
(184 U. S. 27), 1394, 1555.
Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Fairfield
(51 Vt. 257),
294.
Louisville, etc. Railwav Co. v.
Flannagan (113 Ind. 488), 1342,
1556.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Kentucky
(183 U. S. 503), 1279, 1392, 1551,
1583.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Kentucky
(161 U. S. 677; 177 U. S. 230),
1561.
Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Letson
(2 How. 497), 2010.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Louisville
Trust Co. (174 U. S.-552), 1016,
1151, 1287, 1288, 1331, 1341,
1348, 1741, 2010.
Louisville, etc. Rv. Co. v. Louis-
ville T. Co. (174 U. S. 674),
1252, 1337, 1691, 1741.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. McChord
(103 Fed. Rep. 216), 1555.
Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mc-
Vay (98 Ind. 39i), 1189.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Merre-
weather (5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 13),
462.
Louisville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Metcalf
(4 Mete. (Ky.) 199), 1699.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Neal (29
So. Rep. (Ala.) 865), 823.
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Palmes
(109 U. S. 244), 40, 717, 718,
721, 728, 1762, 1862.
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.
Reidmond (11 Lea (Tenn.),
205). 127, 1522.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co.
V. Commissioners (1 Bush.
(Ky.) 250), 10.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Schmidt
(52 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 835),
1783.
Louisville, etc. Co. v. State (3
Head (Tenn.),
523; 75 Am. Dec.
778), 1316, 1489.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Steiner
(30 So. Rep. (Ala.) 741), 2017.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Stewart
(56 Fed. Rep. 808), 1178, 1532.
Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Wangelin
(132 U. S. 599), 2043.
Louisville & N. Ry. Co. v. Wil-
liams
(45 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 229),
47.
Louisville, etc. R. R. v. Wilson
(138 U. S. 501), 860, 1073.
Louisville, Evansville, etc. Co. v.
Caldwell
(98 Ind. 245), 1270.
Louisville T. Co. v. Cinn. etc. Ry.
(78 Fed. Rep. 307), 1788.
Louisville Water Co. v. Clark (143
U. S.
1), 34, 71, 94.
Louisville Water Co. v. Hamilton
(81 Ky.
517), 739.
Louisville Water Co. v. Weimer
(130 Fed. Rep.
257), 1646.
Loup V. California, etc. R. Co.
(63 Cal.
99), 1515.
Love V. Pusey, etc. Co. (52 Ati.
Rep. (Del.)
542), 904.
Loveland v. Garner (94 Cal. 298),
1128, 1144.
Loverin v. McLaughlin (161 111.
417), 83, 164, 167, 880.
Lovett v. Cornwell
(6 Wend.
369),
866.
Lovett v. German Reform Church
(12 Barb. 67), 1095.
Lovett V. Steam, etc. Assn. (6
Paige,
54), 1289.
Low V. Buchanan (94 111. 76),
896, 907.
Low V. Conn. etc. R. Co. (45 N.
H. 370), 345, 1069, 1175.
Low V. Studabaker (110 Ind.
57),
361.
Lowe V. Bliss (24 111. 168), 504.
Lowe V. Edgefield, etc. R. Co. (1
Head (Tenn.), 659), 268, 288.
Lowell V. Street Comm'rs (106
Mass. 540), 850.
Lowenberg v. Greenehaum (99
Cal. 162; 21 L. R. A. 399), 2109.
Lowenstein v. Diamond, etc. Co.
(88 N. Y. S. 313), 827.
Lowerre v. American, etc. Co. (6
Paige, 482), 626.
Lowndes v. Cooch (87 Md. 478; 40
L. R. A. 380), 538.
clxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
LReforcnces are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Lowry v.
Commercial, etc. Bank
(Taney's Dec. 316), 413, 571,
602, G03, 631.
Lowiy V. Inman (46 N. Y. 119),
836, 842, 844, 846, 901, 909, 949.
Lowry v. Parsons (52 Ga. 356),
874.
Lowry v. Tile, etc. Assn. (106 Fed.
Rep. 38),
1441.
Loyd V. Chesapeake, etc. R. R. Co.
(65 Fed. Rep. 351), 1813.
Lozier v. Saratoga, etc. Co. (59
N. Y. App. Div. 390), 143.
Lucas V.
Friant (111 Micli. 426),
1104, 1760.
Lucas V. Pitney (27 N. J. L. 221),
1266, 1700.
Lucas V. White, etc. Co. (70 Iowa,
541), 1348.
Ludinsrton v. Thompson (153 N.
Y. 499), 1804, 1808, 1908.
Ludlow V. Dutch, etc. Ry. Co. (21
Beav. 43), 480, 481.
Ludlow V. Hurd (1 Disney (Ohio)
552), 1713, 1714, 1715.
Ludlow V. Tyler (7 Car. & P. 537),
129.
Ludlum V. Higbee (11 N. J. Eq.
342), 2087.
Ludowiski v.
Polish, etc. Soc. (29
Mo. App. 337), 774.
Luffman v. Hoy (13 N. Y. Week.
Dig. 324), 2113.
Luke's Case (L. R. 6 Ch. 469), 376.
Luling V. Atlantic, etc. Ins. Co. (45
Barb. (N. Y.) 510), 632, 639.
Lum V. Robertson (6 Wall. (U. S.)
277), 1806, 1979, 1998.
Lumbard v. Aldrich (8 N. H. 35),
195.
Lumbard v. Grant (35 N. Y. Misc.
Rep. 140), 2093.
Lumbard v. Stearns (4 Cush.
(58 Mass.) 60), 1908, 1909.
Lumber Co. v. Hayes (18 Pac.
Rep. 392), 1472.
Lumsden's Case (L. R. 4 Ch.. App.
31), 574.
Lumsden v. Buchanan (4 Macq.
950), 569.
Lund V. Wheaton, etc. Co. (50
Minn. 36), 590.
Luse V. Isthmus, etc. Co. (6 Oreg.
125), 1188, 1190.
Lusk V. Riggs (97 N. W. 1033; 24
L. R. A. 259), 89.
Luxton V. North River B. Co. (150
U. S. 525), 30. 32.
Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. v. Lang-
ley (62 Md. 196), 1979.
Lycoming, etc. Co. v. Wright (55
Vt. 526), 1811.
Lyde v. Eastern Bengal Ry. Co.
(36 Beav. 10), 1357.
Lyle V. Staten Island, etc. Co. (48
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 783), 1073,
1813.
Lylos V. Lescher (108 Ind. 382),
286.
Lyman v. Kansas City, etc. R. R.
Co. (101 Fed. Rep. 636), 1830.
Lyman v. White River Bridge Co.
(2 Aik. (Vt.) 255), 1481.
Lynch v. Eastern, etc. Ry. Co. (57
Wis. 431), 109.
Lynch v. Metropolitan, etc. Co. (90
N. Y. 77), 1486.
Lynchburg v. Slaughter (75 Va.
57), 1592.
Lyndeborough Glass Co. v. Massa-
chusetts Glass Co. (Ill Mass.
315), 1169.
Lyndon Mill Co. v. Lyndon (63 Vt.
581), 1187.
Lyne v. Siesfield (1 H. & N. 278),
2116.
Lynn v. Freemansburg (117 Pa.
St. 1; 2 Am. St. Rep. 639), 212,
790, 2072.
Lyon V. American Screw Co. (17
Atl. Rep. (R. I.) 61), 139, 141.
Lyon V. Dennison (80 Mich. 371;
8 L. R. A. 358), 2093.
Lyon V. Ewings (17 Wis. 61), 503.
Lj^ons V. Chamberlain (86 N. Y.
576), 296.
Lyons v. Orange, etc. Co. (32 Md.
18), 67, 68, 69, 150.
Lyttleton v. Blackburn (33 L. T.
641). 771, 778.
M.
Mabire v. New Orleans, etc. Bank
(11 La. 83; 30 Am. Dec. 710), 35.
Mabon v. Ongley, etc. Co. (156 N.
Y. 196), 1791.
Mabury v. Louisville, etc. Co. (60
Fed. Rep. 645), 1652.
McAboy's Appeal "(107
Pa. St.
548), 1557.
McAdams v. Boyer (37 Fed. Rep.
73), 808.
McAleer v. McMurry
(38 Pa. St.
126), 1103, 1353.
McAlees v. Supreme Sitting Order
of Iron Hall (12 Cent. Rep.
(Pa.) 15), 788, 2062.
McAllen v. Woodcock (60 Mo.
174), 1096.
TABLE OF CASES. clxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2131.]
McAllister v. Indianapolis, etc. R.
Co. (15 Ind. H), 362, 366.
McAllister v. Kuhn (96 U. S. 89),
392.
McAllister v. Plant (54 Miss. 106),
1700, 1709.
McAlpine v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.
(23 Fed. Rep. 168), 1894.
McAndrews v. Collerd (42 N. J.
Law, 189; 36 Am. Rep. 508),
1500.
McArthur v. Times, etc. Co. (48
Minn. 319), 1177, 1214, 1215,
1216, 1217.
MacAuley v. Bromell, etc. Co. (67
How. Pr. 252; 14 Abb. N. C.
316), 1518.
McAuley v. Columbus, etc. Co. (83
111. 348), 96, 1875.
McAuley v. Railroad R. Co. (33 111.
348), 64.
Macauley v. Robinson (18 La.
Ann. 619), 473, 942.
McBride v. Porter (17 Iowa, 203),
804.
McCaban v. Columbian, etc. Assn.
(40 Md. 226), 2070.
McCall V. Byram Mfg. Co. (6
Conn. 428), 992.
McCalester v. Maryland (114 U. S
605). 1717.
McCallie v. Walton (37 Ga. 611)
1766.
McCallion v. Hibernia, etc. Com
pany (70 Cal. 163), 78, 80, 788
2062.
McCalmont v. Philadelphia, etc. R
Co. (7 Fed. Rep. 386), 1703
1704.
McCampbell v. Fountain Head R.
Co. (77 S. W. Rep. (Tenn.)
1070). 1530.
McCandless v. Aspen, etc. Co. (112
Ga. 968), 160.
McCandless v. Inland, etc. Co.
(112 Ga. 294; 42 S. E. Rep.
(Ga.) 449), 384, 945, 2052.
McCarthy v. La Vascbe (89 111.
(Wilgus Cas.) 270), 808, 898,
911.
McCarthy v. Louisville R. R. Co.
(102 Ala. 193), 163G.
McCarthy v. Metropolitan, etc. Co.
(162 Mass. 254), 132.
McCarthy v. Selinssirove, etc. R.
Co. (87 Pa. St. 332), 366.
McCauley v. Columbus, etc. R. Co.
(83 111. 348), 1850, 1852.
McClanahan v. Ivanhoe, etc. Co.
(96 Va. 124), 934.
McClaren v. Franciscus (43 Mo.
452), 545, 551, 862, 863, 887, 891.
McClave v. Thompson (36 Hun,
365), 1133.
McClellan v. Cumberland (24 Me.
566), 1491.
McClellan v. Scott (24 Wis. 81),
364, 365.
McClelland v. Norfolk, etc. Ry.
Co. (110 N. Y. 469; 1 L. R. A.
299), 1671, 1674, 1675, 1677,
1680, 1682, 1683, 1694, 1744.
McClelland v. Whitely
(15 Fed.
Rep. 322), 269, 277.
McClinch v. Sturgis (72 Me. 288),
23, 151, 171.
McClintock v. South Penn. Oil Co.
(146 Pa. St. 144), 1171.
McClosky V. Doherty (97 Ky. 300),
11.
McClung V. Embreeville, etc. Ry.
(103 Tenn. 399). 1992.
McClure v. Central T. Co. (165 N.
Y. 108; 53 L. R. A. 153), 1830.
McClure v. Law (161 N. Y. 78),
1105.
McClure v. Manchester, etc. R. Co.
(13 Gray (79 Mass.), 724), 1328,
13G1, 1572, 1891.
McClure v. People's Freight Co.
(90 Pa. St. 269), 114, 273, 308,
362.
McClure v. Sherman (70 Fed. Rep.
(C. C. U. S.) 190), 238.
McClure v. Townshin of Oxford
(94 U. S. 429), 1671, 1673, 1683,
1684.
McClure v. Trask (161 N. Y. 82),
124V.
McClusky V. Cromwell (11 N. Y.
593), 860.
McComb V. Barcelona, etc. Assn.
(134 N. Y. 598), 263, 1750.
McComb V. Cordova Apt. Assn.
10 N. Y. Supp. 552), 1750.
McComb V. Credit Mobilier (13
Phila. 468), 456, 1078.
McComb V. Frink (149 U. S. 629),
532.
McComb V. Kellogg (47 Hun, 634),
1143.
McComber v. Wright (108 Mich.
109), 546.
McConnell v. Alabama, etc. Co.
(85 Ala. 400), 155.
McConnell v. Blood (123 Mass.
47), 1714.
McConnell v. Combinations, etc.
Co. (76 Pac. Rep. (Mont.) 812,
1066, 1168.
clxvi
TAI3LE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. IT, G21-1506; Vol. IIT, ir,07-2134.]
McConnell v. Denver (35 Cal. 365),
2099.
McCord, etc. Co. v. Glenn (21 Pac.
Rep. (Utah) 500), 1C7, 1528.
McCord V. Ohio, etc. R. Co. (13
Ind. 221), 290.
McCord V. Western, etc. Co. (39
Minn. 181), 1483.
McCorkle v. Texas Benevolent
Assn. (71 Tex. 149), 20G9.
McCormick v. Great Bend, etc. Co.
(48 Kan. 614), 953.
McCormick v. Insurance Co. (6G
Cal. 363), 800.
McCorrfick v. Market Bank (165
U. S. 536), 1336.
McCorruick v. Stockton, etc. R. R.
(130 Cal. 100), 1290.
Maccow V. Indiana, etc. R. Co. (9
Ind. 262), 348.
McCoy V. Farmer (65 Mo. 244),
1978, 1980.
McCoy V. Roman Catholic, etc. Co.
(152 Mass. 272), 766, 767. 2055.
McCoy V. Washington County
(3
Wall. Jr. 381; 15 Fed. Cas. 1341),
1674, 1683, 1684, 1697.
McCoy V. World's Exposition (87
111. App. 605), 952.
McCoy's Case (2 Ch. Div. 1), 376.
McCracken v. San Francisco (16
Cal. 571), 1343.
McCracken v. Robison (57 Fed.
Rep. 375), 1182.
McCrary v. Beaudry
(67 Cal.
120), 1385, 1387, 1648.
McCray v. Junction R. Co. (9 Ind.
358), 112, 283, 1356, 1855, 1856,
18G5, 1876.
McCready v. Rumsey (6 Duer (N.
Y), 574), 601, 687, 692, 888.
McCreery v. Garvin (39 S. C. 375),
141.
McCrosky v. Ladd (28 Pac. Rep.
(Cal.) 216), 132.
McCulloch V. Maryland (4 Wheat.
316), 24, 28.
McCulloch V. Stone (8 So. Rep.
(Miss.) 236), 715.
McCulloch, etc. Co. v. National
Bank (111 Ga. 132), 1535, 1807.
McCullough V. Moss (5 Denio (N.
Y.), 567), 797, 798, 799, 887, 891,
1082. 1090, 1091.
McCullough V. Norwood (58 N. Y.
562), 1967.
McCullough V. Talladega Ins. Co.
(46 Ala. 376), 91.
McCully V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
(32 Pa. St. 25), 322, 350, 377,
472, 485.
McCune Min. Co. v. Adams (3S
(Kan. 193), 481.
McCurdy v. Bowes (88 Ind. 583),
1803.
McCurdy v. Myers (44 Pa. St.
535), 1243, 1248, 1948.
McCurdy's Appeal (65 Pa. St.
290), 45, 52, 1705, 1707.
McCurry v. Suydam (10 N. J.
245), 592.
McCutcheon v. Merz Capsule Co.
(71 Fed. Rep. 787; 31 L. R. A.
415), 1279.
McDaniels v. Flower Brook Manuf.
Co. (22 Vt. 274). 37, 195, 264.
585, 981, 982, 1005.
McDaniel v. Gate City G. L. Co.
(79 Ga. 58), 1672.
McDermott v. Board of Police (5
Abb. Pr. 422), 205.
McDermott v. Harrison (9 N. Y.
Supp. 184), 364, 371, 492.
McDevitt V. People's Nat. Gas Co.
(160 Pa. St. 367), 1643.
McDonald, In re (1 Ch. 89), 1609.
McDonald v. Grand Canal Co. (3
Ir. Ch. (N. Y.) 578). 1861.
McDonald v. Houghton (70 N. C.
393), 1104.
McDonald v. Masssachusetts, "etc.
(120 Mass. 432; 21 Am. St. Rep.
529), 13,19.
McDonald v. Ross-Lewin (29 Hun,
87), 789, 2066, 2068.
McDonald v. State of Nebraska
(101 Fed. Rep. 171), 1791.
McDonald v. Williams (174 U. S.
397), 443.
McDonnell v. Alabama Gold Life
Ins. Co. (85 Ala. 401), 157, 490,
838, 841, 852, 866, 873.
McDonnell v. Chisholm (131 111.
273), 134.
McDonough v. Phelps (15 How.
Pr. 372), 844, 845, 1796.
MacDougal v. Bellamy (18 Ga.
412), 166.
MacDougall v. Gardiner (1 Ch.
Div. 13), 811, 814, 820, 981, 998,
999, 1355.
MacDougall v. Jersey, etc. Co. (2
Hem. & M. 528), 635, 643.
McDowall V. Sheehan (13 N. Y.
Supp. 386; 129 N. Y. 200), 548,
1092.
McDowell V. Ackley
(93 Pa. St.
277), 230, 231, 2106.
TABLE OF CASES. clxvii
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
McDowell V. Bank of Wilmington
(1 Harr. (Del.) 27), 686.
McDowell V. Chicago Steel Works
(124 111. 491), 503.
Macedon, etc. Plank Road Co. v.
Snediker (18 Barb. 317), 304,
305.
McElhenny's Appeal (Gl Pa. St.
188), 1218, 1221.
McElrath v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co.
(61 N. Y. 353), 1872.
McElrath v. Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co.
(55 Pa. St. 189), 1683, 1734,
1735.
McElrath v. Taggart (55 Pa. St.
189), 45.
McElree v. Darlington (187 Pa. St.
593), 1789.
McElroy v. Gladseen, etc. Co. (126
Ala. 184), 1966.
McElroy v. Minn. etc. Co. (96 Wis.
317), 1253.
McEl-w^raith v.
Dublin, etc. Ry. Co.
7 Ch. 134), 282.
McEntee v. Kingston, etc. Co. (165
N. Y. 27), 1648.
McEwen v. Montgomery Co. Ins.
Co. (5 Hill, 101), 1159.
McEwen v. West London Wharves,
etc, Co. (L. R. 6 Ch. 665), 282,
555, 884.
McFadden v. Los Angeles (74 Cal.
571), 205, 206, 216. 228.
McFadden v. May's Landing, etc
R. R. (49 N. J. Eq. 176), 1514.
McFadden v. Murphy (149 Mass.
341), 2049.
McFall V. McKeesport, etc. Co.
(123 Pa. St. 259; 16 Atl. Rep.
478), 180.
MacFarland v. West, etc. Assn.
(56 Neb. 277), 947.
McFarlane v. Triton Ins. Co. (4
Denio, 392), 155.
McFell El. & T. Co. v. McFell El.
Co. (110 111. App. 182), 123.
McGannon v. Central Build. Assn.
(19 W. Va. 726), 2070.
McGargell v. Hazelton Coal Co. (4
Watts & S. (Pa.) 424), 1095.
McGavic v. Cossum (72 N. Y. App.
Div. 75), 536.
McGee v. Mathis (4 Wall. 143),
718.
McGilliard v. Donaldsonville, etc.
(104 La. Ann. 544), 1779.
McGinness v. Adriatic Mills (116
Mass. 177), 1177.
MacGinniss v. Boston, etc. Co.
(119 Fed. Rep. 115), 1015, 1435,
2041.
McGinty v. Athol Reservoir Co.
(155 Mass. 183), 1962.
McGoon V. Scales (9 Wall. 23),
1970, 1978.
McGourkey v. Toledo, etc. Ry. (14(>
U. S. 536), 1182, 2095, 2097.
McGowan v. American, etc. Co.
(121 U. S. 575), 155, ISO.
McGowan v. McDonald (111 Cal.
57), 839, 840.
McGowan v. Wilmington, etc. Rj\
Co. (95 N. C. 417), 1386.
McGrath v. Hamilton, etc. Assn.
(44 Pa. St. 383), 2070.
McGraw, In re (111 N. Y. 66; 2
L. R. A. 287), 538, 1238, 1240.
McGreary v. Chandler (58 Me.
537), 2077.
McGregor v. Baylies (19 Iowa,
43), 32.
McGregor v. Birdsall (32 Iowa,
149), 296.
McGregor v. Deal, etc. R. Co. (18
Ad. & El. (N. S.) 618), 1328,
1856.
McGregor v. Dover, etc. Ry. Co.
(18 Q. B. 618; 17 Jur. 21), 1340,
13G8, 1849, 1852.
McGregor v. Erie R. Co. (35 N. J.
L. 118), 1575, 1576, 1870, 1985.
McGregor v. Fuller, etc. Co. (72
Iowa, 464), 127, 1522.
McGregor v. Home Ins. Co. (33
N. J. Eq. 181), 671, 680, 681,
1975.
McGrew v. City Produce Exch.
(85 Tenn. 572), 175, 834, 881,
2104.
McGuire v. Board of Revenue (71
Ala. 401), 704.
McGuire v. O'Halloran (1 Hill &
Denio (N. Y.) 85), 169.
McHenry, Ex parte (9 Abb. N.
Cas. 256), 1739.
McHenry v. Downer (116 Cal. 20;
45 L. R. A. 737), 703.
McHenrv v. Jewett (36 Hun, 453),
264, 585.
Machias Hotel Co. v. Coyle (35 Me.
405), 2085.
Machinists' Nat. Bank v. Field
(126 Mass. 345), 291, 411, 417,
419, 605, 608.
McHose V. Wheeler (45 Pa. St.
32), 587, 909, 911.
Mcllhenny v. Binz (80 Tex. 1; 26
Am. St. 705), 141, 1707.
clxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mcllwaine v. Isely (96 Fed. Rep.
G2; 189 U. S. 122), 2101.
Mclntire v. Preston (10 111. 48),
1290.
Mcintosh V. Flint, etc. R. Co. (1
Ry. & Corp. L. J. (Mich.) 384),
1282, 1718.
Mclntyre v. Ajax Min. Co. (77 Pac.
Rep. (Utah) 613), 1104.
Mack's Appeal (7 Atl. Rep. (Pa)
481), 489.
Mack V. De Bardeleben (90 Ala.
396; 9 L. R. A. 650), 826.
Mack V. Latta (71 N. E. Rep. 97;
178 N. Y. 525), 376.
Mackall v. Chesapeake, etc. Co.
(94 U. S. 308), 1957.
McKay v. Beard (20 S. C. 156),
68, 1946, 1963.
Mackav v. Commercial Bank (L.
R. 5 P. C. 394), 1180, 1501, 1502.
Mackay v. Hudson (118 Fed. Rep.
919), 2111.
Mackay v. St. Mary's Church (15
R. I. 121), 1271.
Mackay v. San Francisco (113
Cal. 392) 711.
McKane v. Adams (123 N. Y. 609),
767, 2055, 2117.
McKean v. Biddle (181 Pa. St.
361), 623.
McKee v. Home, etc. Co. (98 N. W.
Rep. (Iowa) 609), 1019.
McKee v. Needles (98 N. W. Rep.
(Iowa) 618), 1523.
McKee v. Vernon County
(3
Dill.
210), 1680.
MacKellar, etc. Co. v. Common-
wealth (10 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 780),
734.
McKelvey v. Crockett (18 Nev.
238), 967, 968.
McKenney v. Bowie (94 Me. 397),
1150.
McKenney v. Diamond, etc. Assn.
(8 Houst. (Del.) 557; 18 Atl.
Rep. 905), 232.
McKenzie v. British, etc. Co. (6
App. Cas. 82), 614.
Mac Kenzie v. Robinson (3 Atk.
559), 1032.
McKenzie v. Wooley (39 La. Ann.
944), 294.
McKiernan v. Lenzen (56 Cal. 61),
689, 1189, 1190.
1804.
McKim V. Glenn (66 Md. 479),
573.
McKim V. Odom (3 Bland Ch.
418), 23, 34.
McKinley v. Chicago, etc. Co. (44
Iowa, 314), 1498.
McKinley v. Wheeler (130 U. S.
630), 2011.
Mackintosh v. Flint, etc. Co. (34
Fed. Rep. 340), 633, 684, 814;
1356, 1823.
McKittrick v. Arkansas, etc. Com-
pany (152 U. S. 473), 1104, 1185,
1760.
McLane v. Placerville, etc. R. Co.
(66 Cal. 606), 1705, 1710, 1711,
1726, 1731, 1745.
Mcl^aren v. Franciscus (43 Mo.
452), 885.
McLaren v. Pennington (1 Paige
(N. Y.), 102), 1787, 1900, 1916,
1948.
McLaren v. Stainton (3 De Gex,
F. & J. 202), 638.
McLaughlin v. Concordia College
(20 Mo. App. 42), 1082, 2121.
McLaughlin v. Detroit, etc. R. Co.
(8 Mich. 100), 181, 376, 662, 665,
668, 828.
McLaughlin v. Louisville, etc. Co.
(100 Ky. 173; 34 L. R. A. 812),
791.
McLaughlin v. Nash (14 Allen
(96 Mass.), 136, 1714.
McLean, In re (66 Hun, 122, 38
N. Y. 158), 711.
'
McLean v. Eastman (21 Hun, 312),
645.
McLean v. Pittsburg, etc. Co. (59
Pa. St. 112), 671.
McLeary v. Dawson (87 Tex. 524),
181.
Macklem v. Fales (89 N. W. Rep.
(Mich.) 581), 1213.
McLennan v. Hopkins (2 Kan.
App. 260), 173, 879.
McLeod V. Lincoln, etc. Univ. (96
Neb. 265), 78, 1157, 1823, 2120.
Mackley's Case (L. R. 1 Ch. Div.
247), 918.
McLindo v. St. Louis (10 Mo. 577),
1329.
MacLoon v. Smith (49 Wis. 200),
168L
McLune v. Benceni (2 Ired. Eq.
513), 864, 904.
McMahon v. Macy (51 N. Y. 155),
563, 582, 873, 919, 920.
McMahon v. Morrison (16 Ind.
172; 79 Am. Dec. 418), 70, 300,
1842, 1850, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1894,
1947.
McMahon v. Rauhr (47 N. Y. 69),
2053, 2081, 2118, 2119.
TABLE OF CASES. clxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
McMahon v. Supreme Tent (15 Mo.
522; 52 S. W. Rep. ?,84), 211.
McMaster v. Davidson (29 Hun,
5421, 894.
McMaster v. Kohner (12 Jones &
S. (N. Y.) 253), 1123.
McMillan v. Carson Hill, etc. Co.
(12 Phila. 404), 1282.
McMillan v. Maysville & L. R. Co.
(15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 218), 304,
305, 310, 321, 351, 352.
McMillan v. Michigan, etc. R. Co.
(16 Mich. 79), 1577.
MacMillan Co. v. Stewart (56 Atl.
Rep. (N. J. L.) 1132), 2021.
McMillen v. City of Charleston
(1 Bay, 382), 213.
McMillen v. Lee County (6 Iowa,
391), 296.
McMinnville, etc. R. Co. v. Hug-
gins (62 Tenn. 177), 1576.
McMullen v. City Council (1 Bay
(S. C), 46), 1229.
McMullen v. Ritchie (64 Fed. Rep.
104), 1065, 1212.
McMurray v. Moran (134 U. S.
150), 1669, 1692.
McMurrich v. Bond Head Harbor,
etc. Co. (9 U. C. Q. B. 333). 590.
McMurtry v. Montgomery, etc. Co.
(84 Ky. 462), 1111.
McNab V. McNab, etc. Co. (62
Hun, 18), 623.
McNabb v. Porter, etc. Co. (4^
N. Y. App. Div. 102), 1812.
McNaught V. Fisher (96 Fed. Rep.
168), 501.
McNaughton v. McGirl (20 Mont.
124; 63 Am. St. Rep. 610), 1993.
McNeely v. Woodruff (13 N. J.
L. 352), 804, 1014, 1024, 1025.
McNeil V. Southern, etc. (40 App.
Div. 581; N. Y. Supp. 119), 197,
215.
McNeil V. Tenth National Bank
(46 N. Y. 325), 264, 387, 389, 390,
392, 525, 533, 538, 539, 542, 543,
579, 583, 1009, 2110.
McNichol V. United States, etc.
Agency (74 Mo. 457), 2024.
McNulta V. Corn Belt Bank (164
111. 427; 56 Am. St. Rep. 203),
300, 1071, 1087, 1164, 1331.
McNulta V. Lochbridge (141 U.
S. 327), 1748, 1756, 1808, 1809,
1815.
Macon, etc. Co. v. Goldsmith (62
Ga. 463), 103, 12&, 723.
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Gibson (85
Ga. 1), 294.
Macon R. Co. v. Mayes (49 Ga.
355), 1569.
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Parker (9
Ga. 377), 1716.
Macon, etc. B. R. Co. v. Stamps
(85 Ga. 1; 11 S. E. Rep. 442;
21 Am. St. Rep. 135), 60.
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Vason (57
Ga. 314), 331, 340, 461, 462, 465,
466, 473, 476, 478, 781.
McQueen v. New (45 N. Y. App.
Div. 579), 1513, 1792.
McQuillan v. Hatton (42 Ohio St.
202), 1313.
McRae v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (5
Jones & Eq. (N. C.) 395), 366.
McRae v. Russell (12 Ired. (N.
C.) 224), 281.
McReady v. Guardians (12 Ired.
(N. C.) 224), 1353.
McReady v. Rumsey (6 Duer, 582),
6S9.
McShane v. Garten (80 Cal. 310),
1246.
McTighe v. Macon, etc. Co. (94
Ga. 306; 32 L. R. A. 208), 153,
158.
MacVeagh v. Denver, etc. Co. (107
Fed. Rep. 17), 1511.
McVeagh v. Wild (95 Fed. Rep.
84), 1133.
McVicker v. Cone (21 Greg. 353),
156, 173.
McVicker v. Ross (55 Barb. (N.
Y.) 247), 1855, 1860, 1876, 1950,
1975.
McVity V. E. D. Albro Co. (86
N. Y. S. 144), 1530.
Maddick v. Marshall (17 C. B.
N. S. 829), 175.
Maddox v. Graham (2 Mete. (Ky.)
56), 296, 1674.
Madeira v. Merchants', etc. Soc.
(16 Fed. Rep. 749), 214, 2070.
Madison v. Fireman's Ins. Co.
(11 Rob. 177), 551.
Madison Ave. etc. Church v. Bap-
tist Church (5 Robt. (N. Y.')
649), 1017.
Madison County v. Priestly
(42
Fed. Rep. 817), 1593.
Madison College v. Burke (6 Ala.
494), 129.
Madison County v. Brown (70 So.
Rep. (Miss.) 516), 298.
Madison, etc. Co. v. Reynolds (3
Wis. 287), 103.
Madrid Bank v. Pelly (L. R. 7
Eq. 442), 1108.
Magdalena Steam Nav. Co., In re
clxX
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-ClO; Vol. IT, 621-1506; Vol. TIT, 1507-2134.]
(Johns. (Eng. Ch.) 690), 828,
1803.
Magee v. Badger (30 Barb. 246),
503.
Magee v. Mokelumne, etc. Co. (5
Cal. 258; 40 L. R. A. 370), 1266.
Magee v. Overshiner (150 Ind.
127), 1633.
Magee v. Pacific, etc. Co. (98 Cal.
678 >,
1337.
Magoim V. Illinois, etc. Bank (170
U. S. 283), 746.
Magruder v. Colston (44 Md.
349); 496, 551, 552, 562, 885, 890,
892.
Maguire's Case (3 De G. & Sm.
31), 809.
Magwood V. Railroad Bank (5 S.
C. 379), 596, 631.
Mahan v. Wood (44 Cal. 462),
112, 132.
Mahaska, etc. R. Co. v. Des
Moines Valley R. Co. (28 Iowa.
437), 1256.
Maker v. Carman (38 N. Y. 25),
864.
Mahoney v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co.
(63 Me. 68), 1569, 1570, 1572.
Mahonev v. Spring Valley Water,
etc. Co. (52 Cal. 159), 1319.
Mahoney Mining Co. v. Anglo-
Cal. Bank (104 U. S. 192), 1069,
1070, 1084, 1093.
Main v. Mills (6 Biss. 98; Fe-l.
Cas. No. 8974), 633, 636, 645,
1963.
Main ' v. North Biastern Railway
Company (12 Rich. (S. C.) 82),
1485.
Maine, etc. Co. v. Southern, etc.
Co. (92 Me. 444), 945.
Maine v. Grand Trunk, etc. Ry.
(142 U. S. 217), 735, 1997.
Maine Central R. Co. v. Maine
(96 U. S. 499), 1882.
Maine Trust, etc. Co. v. Southern,
etc. Co. (92 Me. 444), 854, 945.
Maisch v. Savings Fund (5 Phila.
30), 1124, 1125.
Maitland's Case (4 De G., M. &
G. 769), 551, 552, 558.
Malott V. State (64 N. E. Rep.
(Ind.) 458), 1797.
Maltby v. Northwestern Va. R.
Co. (16 Md. 422), 342, 377, 709.
Maltz V. American Express Co.
(1 Flip. (U. S.) 611), 2080.
Mallery, Inre (2 N. Y. Supp. 570),
1800.
Mallett V. Simpson (94 N. C. 37),
1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1374,
1375, 1922.
Mallorie's Case (L. R. 2 Ch. App.
181), 570.
Mallory v. Hanaur Oil Works (86,
Tenn. 598), 1291, 1292, 1295,
1296, 1425, 1448, 1449.
Mallory v. Kirkpatrick (54 N. J.
Eq. 50), 875, 1771, 1772.
Mallory v. Russell (71 Iowa, 63),
2052.
Malloy V. Mallett (6 Jones Eq.
(N. C.) 345), 1928, 1979.
Malone v. Crescent City, etc. Co.
(77 Cal. 38), 1516.
Malone v. Lanchester, etc. Co. (182
Pa. St. 309), 1229.
Mammoth Copperopolis, In re (50
L. J. Ch. 11), 637.
Manchester, etc. Assn., In re (L.
R. 9 Eq. 643), 1892.
Manchester, etc. Co. v. Concord
R. Co. (66 N. H. 100; 9 L. R. A.
689), 1343, 1346, 1472.
Manchester St. Ry. v. Williams
(52 Atl. Rep. (N. H.) 461), 387,
540, 1288.
Mandell v. Swan, etc. Co. (154
111. 177; 27 L. R. A. 313), 206,
488, 883.
Manderson v. Commercial Ba,nk
(28 Pa. St. 379), 1359.
Mandeville v. Courtwright (126
Fed. Rep. (Pa.) 1007), 879.
Mandion v. Fireman's Ins. Co. (11
Rob. (La.) 177), 885.
Mandlebaum v. North American,
etc. Co. (4 Mich. 465), 387, 393,
421.
Mangles v. Grand Collier Dock Co.
(10 Sim. 519), 358.
Manhattan Beach Co. v. Harned
(27 Fed. Rep. 484), 412, 608.
Manhattan Co. v. Kaldenberg (165
N. Y. 1), 1134.
Manhatttan, etc. Co. v. Sears (45
N. Y. 799), 1294.
Manhattan Hardware Co. v.
Phalen (128 Pa. St. 110), 1085,
1173.
Manhattan Hardware Co. v. Ro-
land (128 Pa. St. 119; 18 Atl.
Rep. 428), 1085, 1173.
Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Forty-
Second St. etc. (139 N. Y. 146),
417.
Manheim, etc. Co. v. Aradt (31
Pa. St. 317), 112.
Manistee, etc. Co. v. Com'rs. etc.
(118 Mich. 349), 714.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1.506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Manley v. Mayer (75 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 550), 916, 1157.
Mann v. Butler (2 Barb. Ch. 362),
1950.
Mann v. Cook (20 Conn. 188),
358, 430.
Mann v. Currie (2 Barb. 294),
472, 559, 568, 592, 888, 890.
Mann V. Pentz (2 Sandf. Ch. 257),
331, 446, 459, 497, 900, 912, 1129,
1753, 1795, 1796.
Mann v. Williams (143 Mass. 344),
154.
Manney v. Morgan (35 Ch. Div.
598), 598.
Manning v. Norfolk, etc. R. Co.
(29 Fed. Rep. 838), 1694, 1732,
1744.
Manning v. Quicksilver, etc. Co.
(24 Hun, 360), 542, 628, 673.
Mann's Case (L. R. 3 Ch. App.
459), 557, 558, 886, 887.
Manor v. Mechanics' Bank (1
Pet. (U. S.) 46), 308.
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Brown (26
Ohio St. 223), 287,300, 305, 300,
470, 1844, 1852, 1855.
Mansfield, etc. Co. v. Drinker (30
Mich. 124), 470, 1844, 1846.
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Smi^h (15
Ohio St. 326), 268.
Mansfield, etc. Co. v. Stout (26
Ohio St. 241), 284, 306, 470,
1846, 1882.
Mansfield Iron Works v. Wilcox
(52 Pa. St. 377), 908, 909, 911.
]VIanship v. New, etc. Assn. (110
Fed. Rep. 845), 153.
Manson v. Grand Lodge (30 Minn.
509), 790, 2064, 2065, 2067, 2071.
Manufacturing Co. v. Bradley
(105 U. S. 175), -867, 910.
Manufacturing Co. v. Forsyth (108
Ind. 334), 285.
Manufacturing Savings Bank v.
O'Reilly (97 Mo. 38), 1113.
Manville v. Belden Mining Co. (17
Fed. Rep. 425), 1343.
Manville v. Edgar (8 Mo. App.
324), 506, 846.
Manville v. Karst (16 Fed. Rep.
173), 925, 928.
Manville v. Roever (11 Mo. App.
317), 926.
Mappier v. Mortimer (11 Abb. Pr.
(N. S.) 455), 949.
Mar V. Jacksonville, etc. R. Co.
(24 111. 593), 476.
Marblehead Ins. Co. v. Underwood
(3 Gray (69 Mass.), 210Ji,
2068.
Marbury
V. Ehlen (72 Md. 206),
607.
March v. Eastern Ry. Co. .(43 N.
H.
515), 115, 623, 626, 628, 631,
632, 638, 640, 1353, 1359, 1741,
1856.
Marcy v. Clark (17 Mass. 330),
551, 863, 885, 891, 910.
Mareck v. Minneapolis T. Co. (74
Minn.
538), 1758.
Maria Anna, etc. Co., In re (44
L. J. Ch. 423), 566.
Marie v. Garrison (83 N. Y. 14),
1826, 1828.
Marietta, etc. R. Co. v. Elliott (10
Ohio St. 57), 112, 113, 346, 347.
Marine Bank v. Butten Colliery
Co. (5 N. Y. Supp.
29), 1195.
Marine Bank v. Ogden (29 111.
248), 1295, 1296, 1426.
Marine, etc. Exchange v. Western
Union, etc. Co. (22 Fed. Rep.
23; 17 Fed. Rep. 23), 1384.
Marine Grain & Stock Exchange
V. Western Union Tel. Co. (22
Fed. Rep. 23), 2105.
Marine, etc. Manufacturing Co. v.
Bradley
(105 U. S. 280), 813,
1676.
Marine v. Grand Trunk Ry. (142
U. S. 217), 1996.
Mariners' Bank v. Sewall (50 Me.
220), 1832, 1970, 1982.
Marino, Ex parte (L. R. 2 Eq.
226), 617.
Marion, etc. Co. v. Crescent, etc.
Co. (27 Ind. App. 451), 1670.
Marion, etc. Co. v. Perry (74 Fed,
Rep. 425; 41 U. S. App. 14; 33
L. R. A. 252), 1947, 1967, 1969.
Marion Savings Bank v. Dunkiu
(54 Ala. 471), 1347.
Marion Township, etc. Co. v.
Morris (37 Ind. 424), 842.
Markell v. Ray (75 Minn. 138),
571.
Market St. Ry. Co. v. Hellman
(109 Cal. 571), 880, 1278, 1463,
1562.
Markham v. Jaudon (41 N. Y.
235), 586.
Markham v. Manning (96 N. C.
132), 1685.
Marks v. Evans (62 Pac. Rep.
(Cal.) 76). 829.
Marks v. Hardy
(86 Mo. 232),
565, 566, 873.
Marks, In re (6 N. Y. Supp. 105),
2015, 2016.
Marlborough, etc, R. Co. v. Arnold
cLxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(9 Gray (75
Mass.), 159), 274,
345.
Marlborough Manuf. Co. v. Smith
(2 Conn. 579), 109, 244, 456,
494, 592, 805, 888, 1087.
Marmet Co. v. Archibald (37 W.
Va. 778),
124.
Marquette, etc. Co. v. United
States (123 U. S. 722), 736.
Marquand v. Federal, etc. Co. (95
Fed. Rep. 725), 433.
Marr v. Bank of West Tennessee
(4 Coldw. (Tenn.) 471), 1702,
1977. -
Marr v. Union Bank (4 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 471), 1948, 1955, 1956.
Marriot v. Mascall (Anderson
(Rep. C. P.), 206), 121.
Marrs v. Felton (102 Fed. Rep.
775), 1790.
Marsden Co. v. State, etc. (61 N.
J. L. 461), 731.
Marsen v. Deither (49 Minn.
423), 953.
Marsh v. Burroughs (1 Woods
(U. S.) 463: 16 Fed. Cas. 800),
273, 447, 459, 462, 836, 874, 875,
879, 900, 903, 912, 913, 919, 927,
1129.
Marsh v. Fulton (10 Wall. 676),
294.
Marsh v. Keating (1
Bing. N.
Cas. 198), 614.
Marsh v. Matthias (19 Utah, 350),
194, 879.
Marsh v. Russell (66 N. Y. 392),
1416, 1425, 1426, 1587, 1853.
Marsh v. Stone (6 B. & C. 551),
614.
Marshall v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.
(16 How. 314), 1368, 2010.
Marshall v. Elgin (3 McCrary,
35;'
8 Fed. Rep. 783), 1682, 1684.
Marshall v. Farmers', etc. Bank
(85 Va. 676; 2 L. R. A. 534),
1120, 1125.
Marshall Foundry Co. v. Killian
(99 N. C. 501), 362, 445, 587,
832, 915, 945.
Marshall v. Glamorgan Iron Co.
(L. R. 7 Eq. 129), 327, 475.
Marshall v. Golden Fleece, etc.
Mining Co. (16 Nev. 156), 477,
480.
Marshall v. Harris (55 Iowa, 182),
171.
Mai'shall v. Industrial Federation,
etc. (84 N. Y. S. 866), 1065.
Marshall v. Lovelass (Cam. & N.
(N. C.) 217), 2078.
Marshall Paper Co., In re (95
Fed. Rep. 419), 1136.
Marshall v. Selliman (61 111. 218),
283.
Marshall v. Sherman (148 N. Y.
9; 34 L. R. A. 757), 839, 902.
Marshall v. Western North Caro-
lina R. Co. (92 N. C. 322), 1763,
1819, 1834, 1835.
Marson v. Deither (49 Minn.
423), 496, 953.
Marstaller v. Mills (143 N. Y.
398), 1967, 1970, 1982.
Marten v. Gibbon (33 L. T. (N.
S.) 561), 628.
Marten v. Paul, etc. Co. (99 Cal.
355), 947.
Martin's Case (2 Hem. & M. 672),
332, 1876.
Martin, Ex parte (2 H. & M. (Va.)
669), 617.
Martin v. Baltimore, etc. R. R.
,(151 U. S. 673), 2039.
Martin v. Commerce Fire Ins. Co.
(47 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 520), 1060.
Martin v. Continental, etc. Ry.
Co. (14 Phila. 10), 806, 807,
1590.
Martin v. Deetz (102 Cal. 55; 41
Am. St. 151), 158.
Martin v. Eagle, etc. Co. (69 Pac.
Rep. (Oreg.) 216), 792.
Martin v. Fewell (79 Mo. 401),
ISO, 1215.
Martin v. Gleason (139 Mass.
183), 1311.
Martin v. Johnson Co. (62 Hun
(N. Y.), 557), 139.
Martin v. Junction R. Co. (12
Ind. 605), 283.
Martin v. Mobile, etc. Co. (7
Bush. (Ky.) 116), 958.
Martin v. Nashville B. Assn. (2
Coldw. 418), 191, 200, 222.
Martin v. New Trinidad, etc. Co.
(130 Fed. Rep. (N. Y.) 394),
2017.
Martin v. Niagara, etc. Co. (122
N. Y. 165), 1272, 1350.
Martin v. Oil Works (28 La. Ann.
204), 142.
Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R. Co.
(8 Fla. 370), 115, 289, 305, 322,
346, 353, 363, 366, 374.
Martin v. Reming-Martin Co. (88
N. Y. Supp. 573), 1216.
Martin v. Stebbins (126 111. 387),
2103.
Martin's Patent Anchor Co. v.
Morton (L. R. 5 Q. B. 306), 483.
TABLE OF CASES. clxxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. 11, 621-1506; Vol. TIT, 1C07-2134.]
Martindale v. Wilson-Cass Co.
(134 Pa. St. 348), 1070, 1071.
Martino v. Commerce F. Ins. (47
N. Y. Sup. Ct. 520), 230.
Marvin v. Anderson (111 Wis.
387), 1289.
Marye v. Parsons (114 U. S. 336),
39.
Marj'e v. Strouse (5 Fed. Rep.
483; 6 Sawy. 204), 2114.
Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. Dal-
iTmple (25 Md. 242), 58G.
Maryland LFniversity v. Williams
(9 Gill & J. (Md.) 401), 137D.
Marysville, etc. Co. v. Munson (44
Kan. 491), 1973.
Mason v. Alexander (44 Ohio St.
318), 902, 916.
Mason v. Atlantic Fire Co. (70
Ga. 604), 2054.
Mason v. Cronk (125 N. Y. 496),
1513.
Mason v. Decker (72 N. Y. 595),
524.
Mason v. Davol Mills (132 Mass.
76),
654.
Mason v. Equitable League (77
Md. 483), 1952.
Mason v. Finch (28 Mich. 282),
1842, 1850.
Mason v. Harpers Ferry Br. Co.
(20 W. Va. 223), 63.
Mason v. Harris (11 Ch. Div. 97),
1357.
Mason v. New York Silk, etc. Co.
(27 Hun, 307), 1793, 1795.
Mason v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(52 Me. 82), 1741, 1755.
Mason v. Pewabic Mining Co.
(133 U. S. 50; 145 U. S. 349),
1248, 1279, 1759, 1760, 1825,
1970, 1975.
Mason v. Supreme Court (77 Md.
483), 1951.
Mason Temple Assn. v. Channell
(45 N. W. Rep. 716), 315.
Mass V. Averill (10 N. Y. 449),
138.
Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Som-
merville (101 Mass. 319), 724.
Massachusetts v. Western Union
T. Co. (141 U. S. 40), 760.
Massenbury v. Grand Lodge (81
Ga. 212), 726.
Mast Buggy Co. v. Litchfield, etc.
Co. (55 111. App. 98), 225.
Master Stevedores' Assn. v.
Walsh (2 Daly (N. Y,), 1), 213,
1957.
Masters v. Eclectic Ins. Co. (6
Daly (N. Y.), 435), 1955, 1956.
1965.
Masters v. Rossie, etc. Mining Co.
(2 Sandf. Ch. 301), 874, 875,
900, 912.
Masury v. Arkansas National Bk.
(93 Fed. Rep. 603), 388.
Match Co. V. Roeber (106 N. Y.
473), 1419, 1420.
Mather v. Ministers, etc. (2 Serg.
& R. (Pa.) 509; 8 Am. Dec.
663), 1505.
Mathez v. Neidig (72 N. Y. 100),
874, 896, 900, 906, 923, 926.
Mathis V. Pridham (1 Tex. Civ.
App. 58), 302.
Matkin v. Supreme Lodge (82
Tex. 301), 765.
Matson v. Alley (141 111. 284),
1200.
Matson's Fort, etc. Co. v. Com-
monwealth (11 Atl. Rep. (Pa.)
813), 701.
Matteson v. Dent (176 U. S. 521),
556, 567.
Matthewman's Case (L. R. 3 Eq.
781), 575.
Matthews v. Albert (24 Md. 527),
546, 563, 853, 873, 874, 902, 923.
Matthews v. Associated Press
(136 N. Y. 333; 32 Am. St. Rep.
741), 191, 796.
Matthews v. Board of Corpora-
tion Comm'rs, etc. (97 Fed.
Rep. 400), 1553.
Matthews v. Columbia National
Bank (79 Fed. 558), 974, 989.
Matthews v. Great Northern, etc.
R. Co. (28 L. J. (Ch.) 375), 663,
672, 673.
Matthews v. Massachusetts Nat-
ional Bank (1 Holmes,- 396),
390, 419.
Matthews v. Murchison (15 Fed.
Rep. 691), 1751, 1821, 1828.
Maund v. Monmouthshire Canal
Co. (4 Man. & G. 452), 1489.
Maunsell v. Midland, etc. Ry. (32
L. J. Ch. 513; 1 Hem. & M. 130),
1282, 1368, 1433.
Maupin v. Virginia Lead Mining
Co. (78 Mo. 24), 1080.
Mauran v. Crown, etc. Co. (23
R. I. 324), 1073, 1813.
Manx Ferry, etc. Co. v. Branegan
(40 Ind. 301), 1064.
Maxey's Appeal (9 Week. N. Cas.
441), 771.
clxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 021-150(5; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.}
Maxtel V. Paine (L. R. 6 Exch.
132; L. R. 4 Ex. 81), 2107, 2108,
2113.
Maxwell v. Akin (89 Fed. Rep.
ITS), 881.
Maxwell v. Central, etc. Co. (51
W. Va. 121), 1028.
Maxwell v. Foster (41 S. E. Rep.
(S. C.) 776), 585.
Maxwell v. Wilmington, etc. Co.
(77 Fed. Rep. 938), 1712, 1713,
1813.
May V. Cleland (117 Mich. 45; 44
L. R. A. 163), 960.
May V. McQuillan (89 N. W. Rep.
(Mich.) 45), 540.
May V. Memphis Branch R. (48
Ga. 109), 377.
May V. Printup (59 Ga. 128), 1800.
May V. State Bank (2 Rob. (Va.)
56; 40 Am. Dec. 726), 1968.
Mayberry v. Mead (80 Me. 27),
1001, 1005.
Maybin v. Kirby (4 Rich. Eq. (S.
C.) 105), 583, 600.
Mayer v. Child (47 Cal. 142), 238,
524.
Mayer v. Denver, etc. R. R. Co.
(38 Fed. Rep. 197), 823.
Mayfield v. Alton, etc. Co. (65 N.
E. Rep. (111. 1902) 100), 1561.
Maynard v. Eaton (L. R. 9 Ch.
App. 414), 886.
Maynard v. Fireman's Fund Ins.
Co. (34 Cal. 49), 1083.
Maynard's Case (L. R. 9 Ch. App.
60), 506.
Mayo V. Knowlton (134 N. Y. 250),
2111.
Mayor v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.
(52 Atl. Rep. (Md.) 670), 1282.
Mayor v. Charlton (6 M. & W.
815),
Mayor v. Denver, etc. R. Co. (38
Fed. Rep. 197), 823, 1511.
Mayor, etc. v. House (104 Tenn.
1), 1627.
Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v.
Ketchum (57 Md. 23), 417, 613.
Mayor, etc. of Baltimore v. Pitts-
burg & C. R. Co. (1 Abb. (U.
S.) 9), 106, 1923.
Mayor of Colchester v. Lawton (1
Ves. & B. 226), 1949.
Mayor v. Ferry Co. (64 N. Y..
624), 1544.
Mayor of Griffin v. Inman (57 Ga.
370), 1109, 1113.
Mayor v. Groshon (30 Ind. 436),
1353.
Mayor v. Hodge, etc. Co. (78 111.
App. 556), 875.
Mayor of Jonesboro v. McKee (2
Yerger, 167), 1229.
Mayor v. Lodge (53 Ga. 93), 726.
Mayor v. Norwich R. Co. (109
Mass. 103), 1319, 1385.
Mayor, etc. v. Ordrenan (12
Johns. 122), 213.
Mayor, etc. of Soutbampton v.
Graves (8 Town Rep. 590), 139.
Mayor, etc. of Worcester v. R. R.
Com'rs. (113 Mass. 161), 1558.
Mayor, etc. of Worcester v. Nor-
wich & W. R. Co. (109 Mass.
103), 107.
Maysville, etc. Co. v. Johnson (109
Cal. 192), 952, 1659.
Mead v. Bunn (32 N. Y. 274), 365,
369.
Mead v. Railway Co. (45 Conn.
199), 64.
Meade v. New York, etc. Co. (45
Conn. 199), 1849, 1850, 1873,
1875, 1881, 1893.
Meade Furniture Co. v. Rowland
(6 Ohio Dec. 595), 85.
Meadow Dam Co. v. Gray (30 Me.
547), 342, 377, 840.
Mean's Appeal (85 Pa. St. 75),
842, 862, 1748.
Mears v. Moultdn (30 Md. 142),
2078.
Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants'
Bank (45 Mo. 513; 100 Am.
Dec. 388), 226, 264, 686.
Mechanics' Bank v. Merdian
Agency (24 Conn. 159), 1276.
Mechanics' Bank v. New York, etc.
R. Co. (13 N. Y. 599), 239, 291,
392, 395, 398, 409, 414, 420, 421,
1674, 1803.
Mechanics' Bank v. Richards (74
Mo. 77), 599.
Mechanics' Bank v. Seton (1 Pet.
299; 7 L. Ed. 152), 596, 607, 618.
Mechanics' Bank v. Smith (19
Johns. (N. Y.) 115), 1298.
Mechanics' Banking Assn. v. Mar-
iposa Co. (3 Rob. (N. Y.) 395),
607.
Mechanics' Banking Assn. v.
Whitehead Co. (35 N. Y. 505),
1275.
Mechanics', etc. Assn. v. Conover
(14 J. Eq. 219), 580.
Mechanics', etc. Assn. v. Dorsey
(15 S. C. 462), 202.
Mechanics', etc. Bank v. Bridges
(30 N. J. Law, 112), 1898.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxv
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. ITT, 1507-2134.]
Mechanics' National Bank v. Bur-
net, etc. Co. (32 N. J. Eq. 236),
1024, 1025, 1094.
Mechanics' Savings Bank v. Fi-
delity, etc. Co. (87 Fed. 113),
837.
Mechanics,' etc. Bank v. Meriden
Agency Co. (24 Conn. 159),
1432.
Mechanics' National Bank v. New
York, etc. Co. (13 N. Y. 599),
387.
Mechanics' & F. Bank v. Smith
(19 Johns. (N. Y.) 115), 208.
Mechanics' Savings Bank v.
Granger (20 Atl. Rep. (R. I.)
202), 745.
Mechanics' and Traders' Bank v.
Rowly (2 La. Ann. 372), 34.
Mechanics' and Traders' Bank v.
Thomas (18 How. 384), 58, 718.
Mechanics', etc. Co. v. Hall (121
Mass. 272). 247, 474, 500.
Mechanics' Soc, In re (31 La,
Ann. 627), 1918, 1919.
Medbury v. New York, etc. Co.
(26 Barh. (N. Y.) 564), 1348.
Medical College, In re (3 Whart.
(Pa.) 445). 65, 80.
Medical, Surgical Society Co. v.
Weatherly (75 Ala. 248), 776.
779, 780, 782, 786, 789, 2057,
20G0.
Medical Institute, etc. v. Patter-
son (1 Denio (N. Y.), 61; 5
Denio, 618), 65.
Medill V. Collier (16 Ohio St.
599), 170, 174.
Meeker v. Sprague (5 Wash. St.
242), 1798.
Meints v. East St. Louis (89 111.
48), 238, 498, 898, 9G7, 968.
Meeker v. Winthrop Iron Com-
pany (17 Fed. Rep. 48), 804,
1096, 1097.
Meiers v. Metropolitan Gaslight
Co. (11 Daly (N. Y.), 119),
1642.
Melendy v. Barbour (78 Va. 544),
1799.
Melendy v. Keen (89 111. 395),
364, 365, 369.
Melhado v. Hamilton (28 L. T.
578; 29 L. T. 364), 118, 661, 680.
Melhado v. Porto Alegre R. Co.
(L. R. 9 C. P. 503), 278, 1166,
1176.
Melledge v. Boston Iron Co. (5
Cush. (Mass.) 158; 51 Am. Dec.
59), 121, 1172.
Mellon V. Craig (3 Ontario R. Ch.
Div.
546), 1291.
Melvin v. Haitt (52 N. H. 61),
287.
Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co. (80 111.
446), 318, 359, 362, 434, 562, 563,
884.
Melting Co. v. Reese (118 Pa. St.
355), 2094.
Memphis v. Home Ins. Co. (91
Tenn.
558), 713.
Memphis v. Magens (15 Lea
(Tenn.),
37), 1833.
Memphis v. United States (97 U.
S. 293), 47.
Memphis Branch R. Co. v. Sulli-
van (57 Ga. 240), 113, 115, 205,
313, 346, 355, 356, 360.
Memphis City v. Dean (8 Wall.
64), 1126, 1353.
Memphis City Bank v. Tennessee
(161 U. S. 186), 95, 723.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Alabama
(107 U. S. 581), 31, 136, 1872.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Berry (112
U. S. 609), 178, 1711.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Don (124
U. S. 652), 1727.
Memphis, etc. Co. v. Memphis &
Charleston R. Co. (85 Tenn.
703), 1333.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Com'rs.
(112 U. S. 609), 721, 722, 1711,
1822. 1885, 1953.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Dow (120
U. S. 298), 518, 1823.
Memphis & Little Rock, etc. R.
Co. V. Dow (19 Fed. Rep. 388),
1265, 1342.
Memphis, etc. Co. v. Gaines (97
U. S. 697), 722.
Memphis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Gravson
(88 Ala. 572; 16 Am. St. Rep.
69), 1363.
Memphis Gaslight Co. v. Shelly
Tax District (109 U. S. 398), 61,
720.
Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Hoechner
(67 Fed. Rep. 456), 1809.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Railroad
Com'rs. (112 U. S. 609), 72, 728,
1254, 12G4.
Memphis P. R. etc. R. Co. v.
State (37 Ark. 632), 1389.
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Thompson
(24 Kan. 170), 286, 322.
Menasha v. Hazard (102 U. S.
81), 299.
Menasha v. Milwaukee, etc.
R.
Co.
(52 Wis. 414), 1726.
clxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mendenhall, In re (9 Bankere'
Res. 497), 170.
Menier v. Hooper Tel. Works (L.
R. 9 Ch. 350), 1356, 1357.
Mercantile Bank v. Tennessee
(IGl U. S. IGIJ, 720, 722.
Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Collins
Park, etc. R. R. (99 Fed. Rep.
812), 1553, 1601.
Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Florence,
etc. Co. (Ill Ala. 119), 1813.
Mercantile, etc. Co., In re (L. R.
4 Ch. 475), 634, 645.
Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Low (87
Fed. Rep. 241), 1831.
Mercantile, etc. Co. v. Mellon (196
Pa. St. 176), 711.
Mercantile, etc. Co. v. St. Louis
Ry. (99 Fed. Rep. 485), 1757.
Mercantile National Bank v. City
of New York (121 U. S, 138),
21.
Mercantile National Bank v. Par-
sons (54 Minn. 56), 1077.
Mercantile National Bank v.
Shields (59 Fed. Rep. 952), 703.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Atlantic, etc.
R. R. (80 Fed. 18), 1801.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Baltimore,
etc. R. R. (50 Fed. Rep. 877),
1804.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Baltimore,
etc. R. R. (89 Fed. Rep. 606),
1789.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Baltimore,
etc. R. R. (82 Fed. Rep. 360),
677.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Baltimore,
etc. R. R. (79 Fed. Rep. 389),
1787.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Columbus,
etc. Co. (90 Fed. Rep. 148),
1646.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Farmers' L.
& T. Co. (81 Fed. Rep. 254),
1785, 1801.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Kanawha, etc.
Ry. Co. (58 Fed. Rep. 6), 1735,
1757, 1759, 1804, 1824.
Mercantile T. Co. v. LaMoille Val-
ley R. Co. (16 Blatchf. 324; 17
Fed. Cas. 25), 1800.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Missouri, etc.
Ry. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 221),
1732, 1745, 1749, 1784.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Texas, etc.
Ry. Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 529),
1555, 1709.
Merced Bank v. Ivett (127 Cal.
134), 1769.
Mercer County v. Hackett (1
"Wall. (U. S.) 83), 296, 1276,
1674, 1675, 1676, 1681.
Mercer County v. Provident, etc.
T. Co. (72 Fed. Rep. 623), 1593.
Merchant v. Western, etc. Assn.
(56 Minn. 327), 624.
Merchants' Ad. Sign Co. v. Sterl-
ing (124 Cal. 429), 1077.
Merchants' Bank v. Chandler (19
Wis. 435), 920.
Merchants' Bank v. Cook (4 Pick.
(21 Mass.) 405), 264.
Merchants' Bank v. Goddin (76
Va. 503), 1668.
Merchants' Bank v. Livingstop.
(74 N. Y. 223), 533, 2110.
Mercantile T. Co. v. Southern, etc.
Co. (113 Ala. 543), 1801.
Merchants' Bank v. Bliss (35 N.
Y. 412), 847.
Merchants' Bank of New Haven
V. Bliss (21 How. Pr. 366), 949.
Merchants' Bank v. Pennsylvania
(167 U. S. 461), 741.
Merchants' Bank v. Petersburg R.
Co. (12 Phila. 482), 1712.
Merchants' Bank v. Pomeroy, etc.
Co. (41 Ohio St. 552), 1260.
Merchants', etc. Bank v. Richards
(6 Mo. App. 454), 547, 582, 595.
629, 963.
Meirchanjts', etc. Co. v. Lufkin
National Bank (79" S. W. Rep.
(Tex.) 651), 1179.
Merchants' Bank v. State Bank
(10 Wall. 604; 19 L. Ed. 1008),
1351, 1352, 1485.
Merchants' Dispatch, etc. Co. v.
Cornforth (3 Colo. 280; 25 Am.
Rep. 757), 1622.
Merchants', etc. Co. v. Block (86
Tenn. 392), 1636.
Merchants', etc. Co. v. Clair (107
N. Y. 663), 2029.
Merchants', etc. Co. v. Kohn (76
111. 520), 1636.
Merchants', etc. Planters' Line v.
Waganer (71 Ala. 581), 815.
824.
Merchants' Insurance Co. v. Hill
(12 MO'. App. 148), 499, 841,
969.
Merchants' Manuf. Co. v. Grand
Trunk Ry. Co. (63 How. Pr.
459), 2034.
Merchants' National Bank v.
Chattanooga, etc. Co. (53 Fed.
Rep. 314), 1783.
Merchants' National Bank v. Citi-
TABLE OF CASES. clxxvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
zens', etc. Co. (159 Mass. 505),
1091, 1092, 1095, 1270.
Merchants' National Bank v.
Clark (139 N. Y. 314), 1177.
Merchants' National Bank v. De-
troit, etc. Works (68 Mich. 620),
1274.
Merchants' National Bank v.
Hall (83 N. Y. 338), 58G.
Merchants' National Bank v.
Hanson (33 Minn. 40), 1237.
Merchants' National Bank v.
Newton, etc. Mills (115 N. C.
507), 1770.
Merchants' National Bank, etc. v.
Pendleton (9 N. Y. Supp. 46),
931.
Merchants' National Bank v.
State National Bank (10 Wall.
(U. S.) 604), 1480.
Merchants' & Planters' Line v.
Wagner (71 Ala. 581), 1949.
Meredith v. New Jersey, etc. Co.
(59 N. "J. Eq. 257), 95.
Meredith, etc. Savings Bank v.
Simnson (22 Kan. 414), 1799,
1800.
Merriam v. St. Louis, etc. Ry.
(136 Mo. 145), 1778, 1783.
Merrick v. Brainard (38 Barb.
574), 987.
Merrick v. Consumers', etc. Co.
(Ill 111. App. 153), 87, 301,
1216.
Merrick v. Peru Coal Co. (61 111.
472), 1074, 1075, 1098.
Merrick v. Reynolds, etc. Co. (101
Mass. 381), 68.
Merrick v. Van Santvoord (34 N.
Y. 208), 177, 185, 845, 987, 992,
993, 1184, 1923, 1946.
Merrill v. Beaver (46 Iowa, 646),
348, 349, 402.
Merrill v. Consumers' Coal Co.
(114 N. Y. 216), 1194.
Merrill v. Gamble (46 Iowa, 615),
349, 402.
Merrill v. Prescott (74 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 259), 876.
Merrill v. Suffolk Bank (31 Me.
57: 50 Am. Dec. 649), 919, 1967,
1968, 1969, 1970.
Merrimac Min. Co. v. Bagley (14
Mich. 501), 478, 488, 890.
Merrimac Min. Co. v. Levy
(54
Pa. St. 227), 602, 888, 890.
Merriman v. Chicago, etc. R. R.
(64 Fed. Rep. 535), 1757.
Merritt v. Reid (13 N. Y. Weekly
Dig. 453), 949.
Merritt v. Farris (22 111. 303),
978, 985, 986.
Merryman v. Carroll, etc. Co. (4
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 12), 174G.
Mersick v. Hartford, etc. Co. (55
Atl. Rep. (Conn.) 664), 1608.
Messenger v. Pennsylvania Art Co.
N. J. L. (8 Vroora), 531; 18
Am. Rep. 754), 17, 1556.
Messersmith v. Sharon Savings
Assn. (96 Pa. St. 440), 550, 888.
Mestier v. Chevalier, etc. Co. (32
So. Rep. (La.) 520), 1291.
Methodist E. Church v. Pickett
(19 N. Y. 482), 155, 344.
Methodist E. Church v. Sherman
(36 Wis. 404), 798.
Meton v. Isham Wagon Co. (4 N.
Y. Supp. 215), 1518.
Metropole, etc. Co. v. Garden City
(50 111. App. 681), 207.
Metropolitan Board, etc. v. Barrie
('34 N. Y. 657), 1401.
Metropolitan Concert Co. v. Ab-
bey (52 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 97), 1235,
1257.
Metropolitan Elevated Ry. Co., In
re (11 Daly, 367), 808.
Metropolitan, etc. v. Chicago
Board of Trade (15 Fed. Rep.
847), 1384, 2105.
Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. Colemans,
etc. R. R. (95 Fed. Rep. 18),
1582.
Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. Colwell
L. Co. (67 How. (N. Y.) 365),
1599.
Metropolitan Tel. & T. Co. v. Do-
mestic Tel. & T. Co. (44 N. J.
Eq. 568; 14 Atl. Rep. 907), 1425.
Iiletropolitan, etc. Co. v. Domestic,
etc. Co. (43 N. J. Eq. 626), 1167.
Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. Hawkins
(4 Hurl. & N. 146), 142.
Metropolitan, etc. St. R. R. Co.
V. Kennedy (82 Fed. Rep. 158).
1312.
Metropolitan, etc. Ry. Co. v. Knee-
land (120 N. Y. 134), 818, 1077.
Metropolitan, etc. v. Lyndonville,
etc. Co. (57 Atl. Rep. (Vt.) 10),
1530.
Metropolitan, etc. Ry. Co. v. Man-
hattan, etc. (11 Daly, 373; 14
Abb. N. Cas. 103), 367, 806, SOS,
828, 829, 1090, 1091, 1113, 1114,
1172, 1567, 1590.
Lletropolitan National Bank v.
Claggett (141 U. S. 520 j, 1837,
1838.
clxxviii
TABLE OF CASKS.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-019; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Metropolitan National Bank v.
Commercial St. Bank (104 Iowa,
682), 1785.
Metropolitan R. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. Co. (87 111. 317), 1315.
Metropolitan Savings Bank v.
Mayor, etc. of Baltimore (63
Md. 6),
419.
Metropolitan T. Co. v. Lake Cities,
etc. Ry. (100 Fed. Rep. 897),
1805.
Metropolitan T. Co. v. Penn. R.,
Co. (25 Fed. Rep. 760), 1719.
Metropolitan T. Co. v. Tonawanda
Valley, etc. R. Co. (103 N. Y.
245), 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728.
Metz V. Buffalo, etc. R. Co. (58
N. Y. 61),
1762', 1834.
Metzner v. Bauer (98 Ind. 425),
ISll.
Meurer v. Detroit, etc. Assn. (95
Micii. 451), 2061.
Mexican Gulf v. Viavant (6 Rob.
(La.) 305), 268, 269, 472.
Meyer v. Blair (109 N. Y. 600),
316, 317, 318, 321.
Meyer v. Bristol, etc. Co. (163
Mo. 59), 1510.
Meyer v. Citv of Muscatine (1
Wall. 384), 504.
Meyer v. Johnston (53 Ala. 237),
1256, 1714, 1716, 1727, 1728,
1803, 1840, 1863, 1865, 1954.
Meyer v. Richardson (163 U. S.
385), 605.
Mever v. Standard T. Co. (98 N.
W. Rep. (Iowa) 300), 1627.
Mever v. Utah, etc. R. Co. (3
Utah, 280), 1752.
Meysenberg v. People (88 111.
App. 328), 140, 143.
Miami, etc. Co. v. Gano (13 Ohio
St. 269), 19G8, 1979.
Miami Powder Co. v. Hotchkiss
(17 111. App. 622), 1523.
Michigan Central R.. R. v. Chi-
cago, etc. Ry. (93 N. W. Rep.
(Mich.) 882), 1757.
Michigan Central Ry. Co. v. Gou-
gow (55 111. 503), 1189.
Michigan, etc. R. Co. v. Bacon (33
Mich. 466), 323.
Michigan Ins. Bk. v. Eldred (143
U. S. 293), 1527, 1662, 1837,
1838.
Michigan, etc. Co. v. City of Ben-
ton (121 Mich. 512), 1618.
Michigan State Bank v. Gardner
(81 Mass. 352)-, 1970.
Michigan State Bank v. Hastings
(1 Doug. (Mich.) 225; 41 Am.
Dec. 549), 15, 549.
Michoud V. Girod (4 How. 503,
555), 1096.
Mickles v. Rochester City Banl:
(11 Paige, 118), 1024, 1914,
1959 1902 1964.
Middaugh v. Wilson (151 U. S.
333), 1813.
Middlebrook v. Merchants' Bank
(3 Keyes (N. Y.), 135), 1015.
Middlesex Co. Bank v. Hirsch
Bros. etc. Co. (4 N. Y. Sup.
385), 1201.
Middlesex, etc. R. Co. v. Boston,
etc. Co. (115 Mass. 347), 1357,
1763, 1848, 1851.
Middlesex, etc. Co. v. Locke (8
Mass. 268), 1356.
Middlesex Husbandmen v. Davis
(3 Met. (44 Mass.) 133), 68, 69.
Middlesex Turnpike Co. v. Locke
(8 Mass. 267), 112.
Middlesex Turnpike Co. v. Swan
(10 Mass. 384), 112, 836.
Middlesex R. Co. v. Boston, etc.
R. Co. (115 Mass. 347), 1154,
1243.
Middletown v. Boston, etc. R. R.
(53 Conn. 351), 1561, 1855, 1856.
Middletown Bank v. Magill
-
(5
Conn. 28), 874, 887, 891, 90S,
915.
Middletown Savings Bank v. Jar-
vis (33 Conn. 372), 966.
Middletown, etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Watson (1 Rawle (Pa.), 330),
494.
Midland Great Western Ry. Co. v.
Leech (3 H. L. 872), 283, 470,
1843.
Midland Counties Rv. Co. v. Gor-
don (16 M. & W. 804), 345, 542,
555, 556, 561, 593, 884.
Midland Ry. Co. v. Fisher (125
Ind. 19: 21 Am. St. Rep. 189),
1818, 1833.
Midland Ry. Co. v. Great Western
Ry. Co. (L. R. 8 Ch. 84), 1579,
1580.
Midland Ry. Co. v. London, etc.
Railway Co. (L. R. 2 Eq. 524),
1473.
Midland Ry. Co. v. Taylor (8 H.
L. Cas. 751), 417, 617.
Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Turnpike
Co. (11 Ohio, 274; 13 Ohio, 197),
293, 899, 915, 1129.
Mikesell v. Durkee (34 Kan. 509),
1602.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Milbank v. De Riesthal (82 Hun,
537), 1513.
Milbank v. New York, Lake Erie,
etc. R. Co. (64 How. Pr. 20),
12S1, 1430.
Milburn v. Beacli (14 Mo. 104),
1246.
Miles V. Bongh (3 Q. B. 345),
137, 461, 1005.
Miles V. Chamberlain (17 Wis.
446), 213.
Miles V. New Zealand, etc. Assn.
(32 Ch. Div. 266), 690, 1792.
Miles V. Postal, etc. Co. (55 S. C.
403), 1627.
Miles V. Vivian (79 Fed. Rep.
848), 1709, 1720.
Miles V. Woodward (115 Cal. 308),
1996.
Milford & C. T. Co. v. Brush (10
Ohio, 111; 36 Am. Dec. 78), 270.
Military, etc. v. Savannah, etc.
Ry. (105 Ga. 420), 1585.
Milk V. Alston, etc. Co. (4 Wilson
Civ. Cas. (Tex.) Ct. App. 221),
48.
Millaudon v. New Orleans R. etc.
Co. (3 Rob. (La.) 488), 874.
Millard v. Bailey (L. R. 1 Eq.
378), 537.
Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey (21
Pick. (38 Mass.) 417), 131, 309,
850, 887, 891.
Milledgeville, etc. Co. v. Mclntyre,
etc. (98 Ga. 503'), 1770.
Miller v. American, etc. Co. (92
Tenn. 167),
Miller v. Barber (66 N. Y. 558),
577, 580.
Miller v. Bradish (69 Iowa, 278),
635.
Miller v. Commonwealth (67
Grat. 110), 9, 1876.
Miller v. English (21 N. J. Law,
317), 1003, 1817, 1818.
Miller v. Ewer (27 Me. 509), 70,
135, 987, 990, 994, 2005.
Miller v. Great Republic Ins. Co.
(50 Mo. 55), 551, 885, 889, 891.
Miller v. Hanover Jet. R. Co. (87
Pa. St. 95), 318, 362, 363, 368,
375.
Miller v. Hillsborough (44 N. J.
Eq. 224), 228.
Miller v. Illinois Central R. Co.
(24 Barb. 312), 246, 651, 653,
654.
Miller v. Lancaster (5 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 514), 1863, 1881, 1884,
1888.
Miller v. Lennox (5 Coldw.
(Tenn.)
514), 1890.
Miller v. Loeb (64 Barb. 454),
1799.
Miller v. Maloney
(3
B. Mon.
(Ky.) 105), 873.
Miller v. Marion
(50 Mo. 55), 836.
Miller v. Matthews (87 Md. 464),
1766.
Miller v. Murray
(17 Colo. 408),
823.
Miller v. New York (15 Wall. 478,
493, 496), 39, 99, 100, 107, 1301.
Tilillfr V. Newbur? Orrel Coal Co.
(31 W. Va. 836), 1480, 1970,
1971.
IMiller v. New York, etc. R. R.
(8 Abb. Pr. 431), 1692, 1703.
Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. (40
Pa. St. 237), 310, 311, 352, 662,
951.
Miller v. Quincy
(85 N. Y. S.
310), 2028.
Miller v. Ratterman (47 Ohio St.
141), 661, 671, 677, 684, 710,
1008, 1027, 1708.
Miller v. Roach (150 Mass. 146),
1271.
Miller v. Rutland, etc. R. Co. (36
Vt. 452), 1255, 1706, 1708, 1824.
Miller v. State (15 Wall. 478), 115
Miller v. Steamship
(67 Barb.
285), 1504.
Miller v. United States (11 Wall.
268), 1375.
Miller v. White (50 N. Y. 137),
920.
Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. R. Co. (57
Ind. 241), 339, 366, 374, 466, 472.
Miller v. Williams (59 Pac. Rep.
(Colo.) 74T)), 2007.
Miller's Dale Co., In re (31 Ch.
Div. 211), 877.
Miller's Appeal (1 Pa. Sup. Ct.
120), 587.
Milliken v. Whitehouse (49 Me.
527), 891, 919.
Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania (125
U. S. 181), 747.
Miller v. Wheeler, etc. Co. (46 Fed.
Rep. 882), 2039.
Mills V. Boyle, etc. Co. (132 Cal.
95) 977.
Mills 'v. Central R. Co. (41 N. J.
Eq. 1), 97, 110, 115, 1566, 1567,
1568, 1577, 1855, 1858, 1861.
Mills V. County Comm'rs (4 111.
53), 1381.
Mills V. Northern Ry. Co. (L. R.
5 Ch. 621), 634, 644.
clxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pag-es: Vol. T, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mills V. Scott (99 U. S. 25), 903,
179C.
Mills V. Stewart (41 N. Y. 384),
473, 474, 488, 767, 851, 852, 942,
943, 2065.
Mills V. Townsend (109 Mass.
115), 394.
Mills V. Vv^illiams (33 N. C. 558),
1381.
Millsaps V. Chapman (76 Miss.
942), 1130, 1185.
Millward Cliff Cracker Co., In re
(161 Pa. St. 157), 1084.
Milroy v. Spurr Mt. etc. Mining
Co. (43 Mich. 231), 839, 841, 861,
910.
Miltenberger v. Logansport R. Co.
(lOG U. S. 286), 1724, 1725, 1726,
1728, 1738, 1740, 1803.
Milwaukee, etc. Assn. v. Niezer-
owski (95 Wis. 129; 37 L. R. A.
127), 216, 1428.
Milwaukee, etc. v. Arms (91 U.
S. 489), 1485, 1506.
Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Brevoort
(73 Mich. 73), 2026.
Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. City of Mil-
waukee (95 Wis. 42; 36 L. R.
A. 45), 717.
Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Dexter (99
Wis. 214; 40 L. R. A. 837), 1217,
1222.
Milwaukee, etc. R. Co. v. Field (12
Wis. 346), 304, 366.
Milwaukee, etc. R. Co. v. Milwau-
kee, etc. R. Co. (20 Wis. 174).
1712, 1716, 1734.
Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Schoknecht
(108 Wis. 457), 370, 936, 937.
Milwaukee Ry. v. Soutter (2 Wall.
510), 1710, 1747, 1749, 1764, 1783.
Miner v. Bell Isle Ice Co. (93 Mich.
97), 1068, 1071, 1102, 1925, 1952.
Miner v. Mechanics' Bank, etc. (1
Pet. (U. S.) 46), 1304.
Miner v. New York, etc. R. R. (123
N. Y. 242), 1321, 1981.
Miners' Bank of Dubuque v.
United States (1 G. Green
(Iowa), 553; 43 Am. Dec. 115),
105, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1923.
Miners Ditch Co. v. Zellerbach
(37 C. S. 543), 17, 1244, 1250,
1331, 1342, 1347, 1549.
Minick v. Mingo Iron Works Co.
(25 W. Va. 184), 897.
Minkler v. United States Sheep
Co. (4 N. D. 507; 62 N. W. 594;
33 L. R. A. 546), 1782.
Minneapolis, etc. Assn., In re (8S
N. W. Rep. (Minn.) 977), 1982.
Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Bassett
(20 Minn. 535; 18 Am. Rep.
376), 281, 509.
Minneapolis, etc. v. Beckwith (129
U. S. 20), 1479.
Minneapolis, etc. Assn. v. Canfield
(121 U. S. 295), 583.
Minneapolis Thresher, etc. Co. v.
Crevier (39 Minn. 417), 272.
Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Davis (40
Minn. 110; 3 L. R. A. 796; 12
Am. St. Rep. 701), 270, 276,
277, 278, 301, 308, 358, 360, 362,
363.
Minneapolis, etc. R. Co. v. Gard-
ner (177 U. S. 332), 1882.
Minneapolis Harvester Works v.
Libby
(24 Minn. 327), 2G3.
Minneapolis R. R. v. Minnesota
(134 U. S. 467), 1553, 1788, 1792.
Minneapolis, etc. R. Co. v. Rail-
road Comm'rs (44 Minn. 336;
46 N. W. Rep. 559), 1389, 1390.
1392.
Minnehaha, etc. Assn., In re (53
Minn. 423), 457, 1768.
Minnehaha, etc. Assn. v. Legg (50
Minn. 333), 501.
Minnesota v. Denslow (46 Minn.
171), 156.
Minnesota, etc. Ry. Co. v. Em-
monds (149 U. S. 364), 1386.
Minnesota, etc. Co. v. St. Paul Co.
(6 Wall. 142), 1716,
Minnesota, etc. Co. v. St. Anthony,
etc. Co. (82 Minn. 505), 1613.
Minnesota v. Northern, etc. Co.
(184 U. S. 199), 1459, 1514, 1515.
Minnesota Title, etc. Co. v. Drexel
(33 C. C. A. 50), 1665.
Minor v. Bank of Alabama (1 Pet.
(U. S.) 46), 1197.
Minor v. Mechanics' Bank (1 Pet.
(U. S.) 46), 358.
Minot V. Mastin (95 Fed. Rep.
734), 1798.
Minot V. Paine (99 Mass. 101),
247, 628, 639, 648, 650.
Minot v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co.
(Delaware Railroad Tax Case)
(18 Wall. 206), 38, 56, 61, 114,
728, 754.
Minturn v. Larue (23 How. 436),
55 56.
Misli V. Main (81 Md. 36), 1792.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Camdea
(23 Ark. 300), 297.
TABLE OF CASES. clxxxi
TReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mississippi, etc. v. Chicago, etc.
Co. (58 Miss. 846), 1893, 1894.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Crom-
well (91 U. S. 643), 576.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Cross
(20 Ark. 443), 349, 350, 352, 353,
362, 363, 366, 367, 373.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Gaster
(20 Ark. 455), 349, 462, 475, 476,
781, 782.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Harris
(36 Miss. 17), 377.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Howard
(7 Wall. 392), 447.
Mississippi & Mo. R. Co. v. Rock
(4 Wall. (U. S.) 177, ISl), 43.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. U. S. Bx.
Co. (81 111. 534), 1717.
Mississippi Soc. etc. v. Musgrove
(44 Miss. 820; 7 Am. Rep. 723),
67, 70.
Mississippi Valley Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co. (58 Miss. 896), 1714.
Missouri, etc. Ry. Co. v. Henrie
(5 Kan. 433), 1757.
Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Love (61 Kan.
433), 1798.
Missouri, etc. Ry. Co. v. Texas, et6.
Ry. Co. (10 Fed. Rep. 497; 4
Woods, 360), 2009.
Missouri, etc. R. R. v. Union Trust
Co. (156 N. Y. 592), 87 Hun,
377), 1673.
Missouri, etc. Ry. v. Wood (52 S.
W. Rep. (Tex.) 93), 1809.
Missouri Lead, etc. Co. v. Rein-
hard (114 Mo. 218), 177, 185,
882, 989, 1184, 1984, 1998.
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humes
(115 U. S. 512), 1386, 1485.
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mackey
(127 U. S. 205), 9.
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Nebraska
(164 U. S. 403), 1302, 1323.
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Richmond
(73 Tex. 568; 4 L. R. A. 280),
1480, 1494.
Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Tygard
(84 Mo. 204), 305.
Missouri River, etc. R. Co. v.
Owen (8 Kan. 409), 1321.
Missouri River R. Co. v. Richards
(8 Kan. 101), 1076.
Mitchell V. Beckman (64 Cal. 117),
264, 379, 503, 525, 888, 926, 1534.
Mitchell v. Bunch (2 Paige Ch.
606), 1871.
Mitchell v. Burlington (4 Wall.
270), 296, 1592.
Mitchell V. City of Glasgow Bank
(4 App. Cas. 624), 554.
Mitchell v. Colorado, etc. Co. (117
Fed. Rep. 723), 1018.
Mitchell V. Copper Min. Co. (8
Jones, 8; 67 N. Y. Rep. 280),
195.
Mitchell V. Deeds (49 111. 416; 95
Am. Dec. 621), 154, 364, 1850,
1852, 1853, 1875.
Mitchell v. Hotchkiss (48 Conn.
9), 567, 1136, 1142.
Mitchell v. Lycoming Mutual Ins.
Co. (58 Pa. St. 402), 2125.
Mitchell V. Reynolds (1 P. Wms.
181; 10 Mod. 130), 217, 1416.
Mitchell V. Rome R. Co. (17 Ga.
574), 281, 304.
Mitchell V. Rubber, etc. Co. (24
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 407), 140, 146.
Mitchell V. Tillotson (12 Fed. Rep.
738), 1752.
Mitchell V. Vermont, etc. Co. (67
N. Y. 280), 477, 479, 480, 781.
Mitchell's Case (L. R. 4 App. Cas.
548; L. R. 9 Eq. 363), 568, 574,
600, 886, 887.
Mobile, etc. Bank v. Collins (7
Ala. 95), 1381.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. Gass (129 Ala.
214), 1536.
Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. Gilmer (85
Ala. 422; 5 So. Rep. 138), 1173.
Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. Franks (41
Miss. 494), 1230.
Mobile, etc. Ry. Co. v. Owen (121
Ala. 505), 1059, 1072.
Mobile, etc. Co. v People (132 111.
559), 1471, 1558.
Mobile, etc. R. R. v. Postal, etc.
Co. (120 Ala. 21), 1308; 1619.
Mobile, etc. Co. v. State (29 Ala.
586), 1948, 1949, 1977.
Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. Talman (15
Ala. 474), 1266, 1577.
Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. Yandal (5
Sneed. (Tenn.) 294). 287.
Mobile Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cullom
49 Ala. 558), 601.
Mobile & Ohio R. Co. v. Barnhill
(91 Tenn. 395; 30 Am. St. 889),
1869.
Mobile & O. R. Co. v. People (132
111. 559),
Mobile & Ohio Ry. Co. v. State (51
Miss. 137),
1386.
Mobile & Ohio R. R. v. Tennessee
(153 U. S. 486), 622, 632, 633,
714, 717.
clxxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mobile Life Ins. Co. v. Fruett (74
Ala. 487), 1508, 1509.
Modern Woodmen v. Deters (65
111. App. 368),
211.
Moffatt V. Farquahar (7 Ch. Div.
591), 528, 617.
Moffat V. Smith (101 Fed. Rep.
771), 1248.
Moffat V. Winslow (7 Paige Ch.
124), 547.
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor,
etc. Co. (15 Q. B. 476; L. R. 17
App. Cas. 25), 1425.
Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utica, etc.
R. R. (6 Paige, 554), 1412, 1653.
Mohawk & Hudson R. Co., In re
(19 Wend. 135), 983, 1009, 1010,
1013, 1019.
Mohawk v. Schenectady, etc. Co.
(78 Hun, 90), 82.
Mohr V. Minnesota Elevator Co.
(40 Minn. 343), 928, 929.
Mohrfield v. Second German, etc.
Assn. (194 Pa. St. 488), 1171.
Moies V. Sprague (9 R. I. 541),
846.
Mokelumne Hill Mining Co. v.
Woodbury (14 Cal. 424; 73 Am.
Dec. 658), 151, 166, 482, 843, 887,
890.
Molier V. Keystone, etc. Co. (187
Pa. St. 553). 1164, 1766, 1770.
Monadnock R. Co. v. Felt (52 N.
H. 379), 286, 321, 322.
Monahan v. Varnum (11 Gray
(77 Mass.) 405), 181.
Monarch Co. v. Bank, etc. (44 S.
W. (Ky.) 956), 1782.
Monmouth, etc. Ins. Co. v. Lowell
(59 Me. 504), 2068.
Monmouthshire Banking Co., In
re (21 L. J. Q. B. 64), 483.
Monongahela, etc. Co v. Pittsburg,
etc. Co. (196 Pa. St. 225; 79 Am.
Rep. 685), 1654.
Monongahela, etc. Co. v. United
States (148 U. S. 312), 1314.
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon (6
Watts & S. 101; 6 Pa. St. 379;
47 Am. Dec. 474), 50, 98, 101,
112.
Monroe, etc. Assn. v. Webb (40 N.
Y. App. Div. 49; 57 N. Y. Supp.
572), 769, 792, 2063
Monroe, etc. Co. v. Arnold (108
Ga. 449), 1772.
Monroe v. Fort Wayne, etc. R. Co.
(28 Mich. 272), 314.
Monroe Bank of v. Gifford (72
Iowa,
750), 1272.
Montague v. Lowry (115 Fed. Rep.
27), 1441.
Montclair, etc. Acad. v. North
Jei-sey, etc. Ry. Co. (47 Atl. Rep.
(N. J.) 890), 1605.
Montclair, town of v. Ramsdell
(107 U.S. 147), 504.
Monterey, etc. R. Co. v. Hildreth
(53 Cal. 123), 345.
Montezuma, etc. Co. v. Dake (63
Pac. Rep. (Colo.) 1058), 1536.
Montgomery County Agricultural
See. v. Francis (103 Pa. St.
378), 1682.
Montgompry v. Elliott (6 Ala.
701), 1678.
Montgomery v. Ensler (126 Ala.
654), 1797.
Montgomery v. McDermott (103
Fed. Rep. 801), 1831.
Montgomery, etc. Assn. v. Robin-
son (89 Ala. 413), 537.
Montgomery, etc. R. Co. v. Boring
(51 Ga. 582), 1890, 1891.
Montgomery, etc. R. Co. v. Branch
(59 Ala. 139), 1835, 1887.
Montgomery, etc. Co. v. Lahey
(121 Ala. 131), 829, 1514.
Montgomery v. Forbes (148 Mass.
249; 1 Cum. Cas. 69; 1 Smith
Cas.
,94;
2 Keeners Cas. 1945),
68, 77, 81, 158, 164, 169, 184, 185,
1183, 1184, 1964.
Montgomery v. Pickering
(116
Mass. 230), 1716.
Montgomery Southern Ry. Co. v.
Matthews (77 Ala. 357; 54 Am.
Rep. 60), 358, 365, 366, 367, 368,
370, 375.
Montgomery Webb Co. v. Dienelt
(133 Pa. St. 585; 19 Am. St. Rep.
663), 1835.
Monticello Sem. v. People (106 111.
398), 724, 725.
Montpelier, etc. Co. v. Langdon
(46 Vt. 284), 307, 321.
Montrolier Asphalt Co., In re
(34 L. T. (N. S.) 416), 1124.
Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe
Works (101 Mass. 57; 3 Am.
Rep. 322), 1269, 1272, 1273, 1274,
1275, 1341, 1342, 1348, 1349, 1480,
1704.
Mooar v. Walker (46 Iowa, 161),
238, 967.
Moodie v. Seventh Nat. Bank (3
Week. Notes Cas. 118), 417.
Moon Bros. etc. v. Waxahatchie,
etc. Co. (13 Tex. Civ. App. 103),
252.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-loOG; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mooney v. British, etc. Ins. Co. (9
Abb. P. R. (N. S.) 103), 1966.
Moor V. Anglo-Italian Bank (10
Ch. Div. 6S), 1712, 1714.
Moore v. Bank of Commerce (52
Mo. 377), 220, 226, 623.
Moore v. Bennett (140 111. 69),
1413.
Moore v. Boyd (74 Cal. 167; 15
Pac. 670), 490, 949.
Moore v. Brink (4 Hun,
402), 2091.
Moore v. Chicago, etc. Ry. (21
Fed. Rep. S17), 2012.
Moore v. Fitchburg R. Co. (4 Gray
(70 Mass.), 4G5), 1353, 1498,
1499.
Moore v. Garwood (4 Ex. 681),
373.
Moore v. Hammond (6 Barn. & C.
456), 977, 978, 981.
Moore v. Hanover Jet. etc. Co. (94
Pa. St. 324), 305, 323, 346.
Moore v. Hudson River R. Co. (12
Barb. 156), 244, 547, 674.
Moore v. Jones (3 Woods, 53), 562,
592, 890.
Moore v. Lent (81 Cal. 502; 22
Pac. Rep. 875), 1131.
Moore v. Mansert (49 N. Y. 332;
5 Lans. 153), 103.
Moore v. Mercer, etc. Co. (4 Ry.
6 Corp. L. J. 563), 1799.
Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. Bank
(55 N. Y. 41), 390.
Moore v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. (L.
R. 8 Q. B. 36), 1493.
Moore v. Moore (43 L. J. Ch. 617),
537.
Moore v. New Jersey, etc. Co. (5
N. Y. Supp. 192), 480.
Moore v. Rawlins (6 C. B. (N. S.)
289), 2071.
Moore v. Schoppert (22 W. Va.
282), 1957.
Moore v. Southern, etc. Co. (82
Fed. Rep. 399), 1806.
Moore v. Swanton Tanning Co.
(60 Vt. 459), 1884.
Moore, etc. Co. v. Towers Hard-
ware Co. (87 Ala. 205; 13 Am.
Rep. 564), 1166.
Moore v. Universal, etc. Co. (122
Mich. 48), 791, 792, 936.
Moore v. Wabash, etc. (7 Ind.
462), 1514.
Moores v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
(111 U. S. 156), 410, 413, 414,
612.
Moosbrugger v. Walsh (89 Hun
(N. Y.), 564), 866.
Moran v. Hagerman (64 Fed. Rep;
499), 1759, 1824.
Moran
v. Hosmer (83 N. W. Rep.
(Mich.)
1004), 1779, 1780.
Moran v. Lydecker (27 Hun, 582),
1909, 1965.
Moran v. Miami County
(2 Black,
722), 1674.
Moran v. Sturges (154 U. S. 256).
1734.
Morehead
v. Southern Pac. Co.
(123 Fed. Rep.
350), 819, 908.
Morehead
v. Western, etc. R. Co.
(96 N. C. 362), 611.
Morelock "v. Westminster Water
Co.
(4 Atl. Rep. (Md.) 404),
799.
Morgan v. Bank of North America
(8 Sergt. & R. 73; 11 Am. Dec.
575), 187, 209, 686.
Morgan County v. Allen (103 U.
S. 498), 447, 450, 458, 486. 896.
Morgan Co. v. Thomas (76 111.
120), 951, 1817, 1833.
Morgan
& Co. v. White (101 Ind.
413), 2006, 2008.
Morgan v. Donovan
(58 Ala. 241),
1712, 1714.
Morgan v. East Tennessee, etc. R.
Co. (2 Woods, Ct. Ct. 523), 2009.
Morgan
v. Groff (4 Barb. 524),
401.
Morgan v. Hedstrom (164 N. Y.
224), 1133.
Morgan v. Kansas Pac. R. Co. (15
Fed. Rep. 55), 1742.
Morgan v. King
(27 Colo.
539),
823, 1185.
Morgan v. Lewis (46 Ohio St.
1),
254, 327, 554, 866.
Morgan v. Louisiana (93 U. S.
217, 223), 48, 721, 727, 730, 1762.
Morgan v. Morgan (16 Abb. Pr.
(N. S.) 291), 147, 1533.
Morgan v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(10 Paige, 490; 40 Am. Dec.
244), 899, 902, 915.
Morgan v. New York Nat. etc.
Assn. (73 Conn. 151), 1967, 1968,
1969.
Morgan v. Skiddy (62 N. Y. 319),
577, 1153.
Morgan v. Thomas (76 111. 120),
330.
Morgan v. Struthers (131 U. S,
246), 317, 321, 1027.
Morgan v. United States (113 U.
S. 476), 1671, 1687, 1688.
Morgan's Case (28 Cli. Div. 620;
1 De G. & Sm. 750), 145, 554.
clxxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Morley v. Saginaw Circuit Judge
(417 Mich. 246; 41 L. R. A. 117),
1788.
Morley v. Thayer (3 Fed. Rep.
737), 832, 833, 839, 853. 909.
Mormon
Church v. United States
(13G U. S. 1), 1981, 1982.
Morrell v. Long Island R. Co. (22
N. Y. S. 30),
1202.
Morrill V.
Little Falls Manuf. Co.
(46 Minn. 260), 976.
Morrill v. Boston, etc. R. Co. (55
N. H. 531), 1473.
Morrill v. Railroad Co. (55 N. H.
537), 1472.
Morrill v. Segar Manuf. Co. (32
Hun, 543), 1047.
Morrill v. Smith County (89
Tex.
529), 1881.
Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. Central
, R. Co. (16 N. J. Eq. 419),
1231.
Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. Fisher
(1 Stockt. (N. J. Eq.) 667),
1674, 1675, 1679, 1680, 1684, 1C86,
Morris Canal Co. v. Lewis (1
Beasley (N. J. Eq. 23),
1680.
Morris Canal & Banldng Co. v.
Nathan (2 Hall (N. Y.) 239),
304, 322, 324.
Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. Van
Vorst (21 N. J. El. L. 100; 69
N. W. Rep. 541), 207.
Morris v. Cannan (4 De G., P. &
J. 581), 568, 888.
Morris v. Cheney (51
HI. 451),
873.
Morris v. Elyton, etc. Co. (125 Ala.
263), 1248, 1912.
Morris & E. Co. v. Ayres (29 N. J.
Law, 395), 199, 221.
Morris & B. R. Co. v. Central R.
Co. (31 N. J. Law, 205), 1557.
Morris & Essex Ry. Co. v. Comm'r
of R. R. Taxation (37 N. J. Law,
228), 1898.
Morris & Essex Ry. Co. v. Miller
(30 N. J. Law, 368), 43.
Morris, etc. Church v. Dart (67
S. C. 338; 45 S. E. 763), 2134.
Morris, etc. v. East Side Ry. (104
Fed. Rep. 409), 237.
Morris, etc. R. Co. v. Central R.
Co. (31 N. J. L. 205), 1316.
Morris v. Griffith, etc. Co. (69 Fed.
Rep. 131), 1081, 1253.
Morris, etc. R. Co. v. Sussex R. Co.
(20 N. J. Eq. 542), 1228, 1231,
1578, 1582.
Morris v. Johnson (34 Md. 485),
838.
Morris v. Lone Star Chapter (68
Tex. 698), 724, 726.
Morris v. Metalline, etc. Co. (164
Pa. St. 326; 44 Am. St. Rep.
614), 495.
Morris v. St. Paul, etc. Ry. Co. (19
Minn. (Gill, 459) 528), 128, 129,
130.
Morris v. Stevens (178 Pa. St.
563), 435.
Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay
Coal Co. (68 Pa. St. 173), 1036,
1413, 1415, 1418, 11^6, 1427, 2115.
Morrison v. American Snuff Co.
(79 Miss. 330), 1252, 1564.
Morrison v. Baechtold (93 Md?
319), 1150.
Morrison v. Buckner (Hemp.
(Ark.) 442), 1747.
Morrison v. Chicago, etc. Co. (77
L. T. 677), 1673.
Morrison v. Clark (24 Mont. 515),
160.
Morrison v. Dorsey
(48 Md. 46),
195, 940, 2066, 2068.
Morrison v. Forman (177 HI. 427),
1307, 1942.
Morrison v. Gold Mt. etc. Co. (52
Cal. 306), 300, 602.
Morrison v. Lincoln, etc. Co. (89
N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 996), 1793.
Morrison v. Mullins (34 Pa. St.
17), 489.
Morrison v. Ogdensburg, etc. R.
Co. (52 Barb. 173), 1103.
Morrison v. Wilder Gas Co. (91
Me. 492; 64 Am. St. Rep. 254),
1055.
Morrison v. Wisconsin, etc. Co.
(59 Wis. 162), 767, 2055.
Morrow v. Edwards (20 D. C.
475), 1924.
Morrow, etc. Co. v. N. E. Shoe Co.
(60 Fed. Rep. 341; 8 C. C. A.
652; 24 L. R. A. 417), 1783.
Morrow v. James (4 Mackey (D.
C.) 59), 1205.
Morrow v. Nashville Iron, etc. Co.
(87 Tenn. 262; 10 Am. St. Rep.
658), 304, 319, 320, 657, 942.
Morrow v. Superior Court (64 Cal.
383), 854, 868, 896.
Morrow v. United States Mortgage
Co. (96 Ind. 21), 1046.
Morse v. Pacific Ry. (191 111. 356;
61 N. E. Rep. 1136), 173.
Morton v. Grafflin (68 Md. 545),
956, 964.
Morton v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. (34 Hun, 366), 1543, 1544.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
>Iorton V. Smith (5 Bush (Ky),
467), 2087.
Morton v. Stone, etc. Co. (44 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 875), 1797.
Morton G. R. Co. v. Wysong (51
Ind. 4), 192.
Moseley v. Burrow (52 Tex. 39G),
178(3, 1908, 1953, 1954, 1962, 1964.
Moseman v. Heitshausen (50 Neb.
420; 69 N. W. Rep. 957; 18 Am.
St. Rep. 302), 15.
Moses V. Ocoee Bank (1 Lea
(Tenn.) 398), 239, 503, 834, 867,
1123.
Moses V. Philadelphia, etc. Co. (29
So. Rep. (Ala.) 463), 1668.
Moses V. Railroad Co. 32 N. H.
523), 1637.
Moses V. Scott (84 Ala. 608), 1029.
Moses V. Steam Gondola Co. (17
C. B. 180), 274.
Moses V. Tompkins (84 Ala. 613),
456. 1045, 1046, 1059, 1062,
1063, 1064, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093,
1094, 1095.
Moshannon Land, etc. Co. v. Sloan
(7 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 102), 1077,
1167, 1207, 1208.
Mosier v. Parry (60 Ohio St. 388),
1213.
Moss' Appeal (83 Pa. St. 264), 647.
Moss V. Averell (10 N. Y. 450),
910, 920, 1270.
Moss V. Harpeth Acad. (7 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 383), 1266.
Moss V. McCullough (5 Hill (N.
Y.), 131; 7 Barb. 279), 920.
Moss V. Oakley (2 Hill (N. Y.),
265), 545, 546, 887, 891, 920.
Moss V. Rossie Min. Co. (5 Hill
(N. Y.). 137), 1343, 1347, 1348.
Moss V. Syres (32 L. J. Ch. 711),
664.
Mosseaux v. Urquhart (19 La.
Ann. 482), 542, 1009, 1014, 1024.
Mott V. Consumers' Ice Co. (73
N. Y. 543), 1482, 1486.
Mott V. Danville Seminary (129
111. 403), 1192, 1978, 1980.
Mott V. U. S. Trust Co. (19 Barb.
568), 1328, 1329.
Moulton V. Newburyport, etc. Co.
(137 Mass. 163). 1321.
Mound V. Monmouthshire Canal
Co. (2 Dowl. (N. S.) 113), 1481.
Mt. Holley, etc. Co. v. Ferree (17
N. J. Eq. 117), 390, 582.
Mt. Holly Paper Company's Ap-
peal (99 Pa. St. 513), 227, 406,
409, 691.
Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith (100
U. S. 519), 1880, 1890.
Mount V. Radford, etc. Co. (93 Va.
427), 1514.
Mt. Sterling, etc. R. Co. v. Little
(14 Bush (Ky.), 429), 271, 273,
276, 278, 359, 382.
Mt. Sterling, etc. Co. v. Looney
(1 Mete. (Ky.) 550; 71 Am. Dec.
491), 1187, 1188.
Mount Washington Hotel Co. v.
Marsh (63 N. H. 230), 1165.
Mowatt V. Londesborough
(2 EL
& B.
207), 379.
Mowbray v. Antrin (123 Ind. 24;
23 N. E. Rep. 858), 1152.
Mower v. Staples (32 Minn.
284),
111.
Mowry v. Farmers' L. & T. Co. (76
Fed. Rep. 38), 441.
Mowry v. Hawkins (57 Conn. 453;
IS Atl. Rep. 784), 959, 965.
Mowrey v. Indiana & Cincinnati
R. Co. (4 Biss. 73; 17 Fed. Cas.
930), 1856, 1858, 1859.
Mowrey v. Indianapolis, etc. (4
Biss. 78; Fed. Cas. 9891), 112,
114, 244, 1851, 1853, 1855, 1861.
Moxey v. Philadelphia Stock Ex-
change (14 Phila, 185), 788,
2062.
Moxie, etc. Co. v. Baumbach (32
Fed. Rep. 205), 76, 1524.
Moyer v. East Shore, etc. Co. (41
S. C. 300; 25 L. R. A. 48), 208.
Moyer v. Ft. Wayne, etc. Co. (132
Ind. 88), 1833.
Moyer v. Pennsylvania Slate Co.
(71 Pa. St. 293), 842, 858, 860.
Moyle V. Landers (78 Cal. 99),
1127, 1128.
Mozley v. Alston (1 Phila. 790;
11 Jur. 315), 470, 814, 999, 1061,
1861.
Muchlfeld, etc. Co., In re (12 App.
Div. (N. Y.) 492), 1805.
Mudford's Case (14 Ch. Div. 634),
922
Mudg'ett V. Horrell (33 Cal. 25),
on QO'j
Muehlfield, Matter of (16 N. Y.
App. 401), 1792.
Mueller v. Monongahela, etc. Co.
(183 Pa. St. 450), 875, 1771.
Muere v. Detroit, etc. (95 Mich.
451), 776, 787, 2057.
Mugler v. Kansas (122 U. S. 623),
1396.
Muhlenberg v. Philadelphia, etc.
R. Co. (47 Pa. St. 16), 682, 1695.
clxxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Muir V. City of Glasgow Bank (L.
R. 4 App. Cas. 337), 569, 570.
Mulcahey v. Strauss (151 111. 70),
1797.
Mulcrone v. American Lumber Co.
(55 Mich. 622), 1202.
Mulherin v. Kennedy (48 S. E.
Rep. (Ga.) 437, 1663.
Mulholland v. Washington, etc. Co.
(77 Pac. Rep. (Was^h.) 497),
353.
Mullen V. Jenkins (1 Stockt. (N.
J.) 192), 1747.
Muller V. Dows (94 U. S. 444), 4,
5, 1734, 1735, 1872, 1873.
Mullins V. Miller (1 Lower Can.
J. 121), 1291.
Mullins V. North, etc. R. Co. (54
Ga. 580), 482.
Mullins V. Smith (1 Dr. & Sm.
204), 538.
Mulloy V. Fifth Ward, etc. Assn.
(2 McArth. (D. C.) 594), 2070.
Mulloy V. Nashville, etc. Co. (8
Lea (Tenn.), 427), 17G2.
Multon V. Clayton (54 Iowa, 425),
80.
Mumma v. Potomac (8 Peters,
281), 515, 678, 1128, 1385, 1920,
1922, 1946, 1948, 1967, 1969,
1971, 1975, 1977, 1978.
Muncy Traction, etc. Co. v. De La
Green (143 Pa. St. 269; 13 Atl.
Rep. 747). 271, 278.
Munger v. Jacobson (99 111. 349).,
862, 867, 916.
Munhall v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co.
(92 Pa. St. 150), 1471, 1556.
Munn V. Barnum (24 Barb. 2S3),
547.
Munn V. Illinois (94 U. S. 113),
1382, 1383, 1387, 1388, 1398,
1552, 1648.
Munns v. Isle of Wight R. Co. (L.
R. 8 Eq. 655), 663
Munson v. Magee (161 N. Y. 182),
1182.
Munson v. Syracuse, etc. R. Co.
(29 Hun, 76), 1101, 1108, 1174,
1215, 1760.
Munt V. Shrewsbury, etc. Co. (13
Beav. 1), 1368, 1585, 1586.
Munt's Case (29 Beav. 55), 553,
571, 887.
Murch V. Wright (46 111. 488; 95
Am. Dec. 455), 1719.
Murdock v. Woodson (2 Dill,
539), 1706.
Murphy, Ex parte (7 Cow. (N.
Y.) 153), 1025.
Murphy, In re (51 Wis. 519), 961,
963.
Murphy v. Arkansas, etc. Co. (97
Fed. Rep. 723), 1272.
Murphy v. Crouse (135 Cal. 14),
237.
Murphy v. Farmers' Bank (20 Pa.
St. 415), 1934.
Murphy v. Hanrahan (50 Wis.
485; 7 N. W. Rep. 436), 78.
Murphy v. Schuylkill, etc. Bank
(32 Pa. St. 415), 23.
Murrah Co., In re (24 W. R. 49),
1219.
Murray v. American Surety Co.
(59 Fed. Rep. 345), 1777.
Murray v. Beal (23 Utah, 548),
132, 1288.
Murray v. Bush (L. 1 R. 6 H. L.
37), 592, 888.
Murray v. Charleston (96 U. S.
432), 718.
Murray v. Feinour (12 Md. Ch.
418), 533.
Murray v. Glasse (17 Jur. 816),
647, 650.
Murray Hill Bank, In re (N. Y.
L. J. Feb. 5, 1897), 1823.
Murray v. Lardner (2 Wall. 110),
1674, 1681, 1686.
Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken, etc.
Co. (18 How. 272), 1381.
Murray v. Nelson Lumber Co. (143
Mass. 250), 1169, 1170.
Murray V. Stevens (110 Mass. 95),
619.
Murray v. Superior Court (129
Cal. 628), 1779.
Murray v. Vanderbilt (39 Barb.
(N. Y.) 140), 904, 1108, 1923.
Muscatine R. Co. v. Horton (38
Iowa. 33), 296.
Sluscatine Turn Verein v. Funck
(18 Iowa, 469), 1960, 1970.
Muscatine Water Co. v. Muscatine,
etc. Co. (85 Iowa, 112), 132, 133.
Musgrave v. Buckley (114 N. Y.
506), 293.
Musgrave v. Morrison (54 Md.
161), 314, 315, 940.
Musgrave v. Nevinson (2 Ld. Ray,
1358), 1000.
Musgrove v. Gray (123 Ala. 376;
82 Am. St. Rep. 124), 1792.
Muskingum Valley Turnpike Co.
V. Ward (13 Ohio, 120; 42 Am.
Dec. 191), 326, 462, 465, 551, 768.
2065.
Muskogee, etc. v. Hall (118 Fed.
Rep. 382; 55 C. C. A. 208), 1620.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxvii
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Mutual, etc. Assn. v. Brown (29
N. J. Eq. 121), 1898.
Mutual, etc. Assn. v. Meridian, etc.
Co. (24 Conn. 159), 1282.
Mutual Benefit Life Insurance
Co. V. French (30 Ohio St.
240), 2070.
Mutual Brewing Co. v. New York,
etc. Ferry Co. (16 N. Y. App.
Div. 149; 45 N. Y. Supp. 101),
1806.
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Farquhar
(86 Md. G68), 195, 9S6.
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Surgett
(120 111. 36), 1987.
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hohart (2
Gray (C8 Mass.), 543), 115.
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Houghton (6
Gray (72 Mass.), 77), 2071.
Mutual Ins. Co. v. McSherry (68
Md. 41), 1167.
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Paige (1 Hilt.
(N. Y.) 430), 2068.
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Supervisors (4
N. Y. 442), 235.
Mutual Union Tel. Co. v. Chicago
(16 Fed. Rep. 309), 1400.
Mvatt V. St. Helens -Ry. Co. (2
Q. B. 364), 1712.
Mver V. Muscatine City
(1
Wall.
382, 504), 1674, 1683.
Myers v. Hettinger (94 Fed. Rep.
370; 37 C. C. A. 369), 1731.
Myers v. Irvin (2 Sergt. & R.
368), 65, 832.
Myers v. Johnson County (14
Iowa, 47), 396, 1699.
Myers v. Scott (50 Hun, 603), 794.
Myers v. Seeley (17
Fed. Cas.
1118; 10 Nat. Bank Reg. 411),
430, 459, 497, 559, 899.
Mvers v. York. etc. Ry. Co. (43
Me. 239), 1674, 1GS3.
Mylrea v. Superioi-, etc. Ry. (67
N. W. Rep. (Vv^is.) 1138), 1942,
1949.
Myrick v. Brawley (33 Minn. 377),
105, 106, 1900.
N.
Nabob of Carnatic v. East India
Co. (1 Ves. Jr. 371), 845.
Nabring v. Bank of Mobile (58
Ala. 204), 581, 962.
Naff V. Crawford (1 Heisk.
(Tenn.) IIG), 1337.
Nagel V. Linden Ry. (167 Mo.
89), 1597, 1607.
Naglee v. Alexandria, etc. R. Co.
(83 Va.
707; 5 Am. St. Rep.
308), 1568.
Naglee v. Pacific Wharf Co. (20
Cal.
529), 961.
Napa Valley R. Co. v. Napa County
(30 Cal. 435), 297.
Napier v. Poe (12 Ga. 170), 508.
Nappanee, etc. Co. v. Reid, etc.
Co.
(60 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 1068;
59 L. R. A.
199), 444, 1772.
Narragansett
Bank v. Atlantic
Silk Co. (3 Mete. (44 Mass.)
282), 68.
Nash, Ex parte (26 L. T. (N. S.)
689), 1855.
Nash V. Baker (27 Neb. 713), 1593.
Nash V. Towne (5 Wall. 689), 286.
286.
Nashua, etc. Bank v. Anglo-Ameri-
can, etc. (189 U. S. 221), 1532.
Nashua Bank v. Jones (95 N. Y.
115; 47 Am. Rep. 14), 1331. .
Nashua, etc. Corp. v. Boston, etc.
Corp.
(136 U. S. 356), 31, 135,
1843, 1869, 1873.
Nashua Iron, etc. Co. v. Chandler,
etc. Co. (166 Mass. 419), 1253.
Nashua, etc. R. Co. v. Boston, etc.
R. Co. (27 Fed. Rep. 821), 1589.
Nashville v. First National Bank
(1 Baxt. (Tenn.) 402), 1679,
1682, 1684.
Nashville v. Potomac Ins. Co. (2
Baxt. (Tenn.)
296), 1679, 1682,
1634.
Nashville Bank v. Petway
(3
Humph. (Tenn.) 522), 1961.
Nashville, etc. R. Co. v. Baker
(2
Coldw. (Tenn.)
574), 305.
Nashville, etc. Co. v. Davidson Co.
(61 S. W. Rep. (Tenn.)
68),
1413.
Nashville, etc. R. Co. v. Orr (8
Wall. 471), 1742.
Nashville, etc. Co. v. Wilson
County (89 Tenn. 597), 717.
Nassau Bank v. Jones (95 N. Y,
115; 47 Am. Kep. 14), 1278.
Nassau Gaslight Co. v. Brooklyn
(89 N. Y. 409), 20, 1277, 1432.
Natal Inv. Co., In re (3 Ch. 355),
1677.
Natchez v. Mallery (54 Miss.
499),
1329.
Nathan v. Tompkins (82 Ala. 437),
551, 554, 826, 885, 918, 996, 1044,
1058, 1855, 1861, 1862.
Nathan v. Whitlock (3 Paige, 152;
3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y. 352), 1748,
1796, 1975.
clxxxviii
TABLE OF CASES,
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-15CG; Vol. Ill,
1507-2134.J
National Bank v. Cave (99 U. S.
G28),
14G3.
National Bank v. Case (99 U. S.
628), 535, 562, 563, 584, 587, 837,
855, 870, 885.
National Bank v. City of Rich-
mond (42 Fed. Rep. 877), 743.
National Bank v. Colby (21 Wall.
609), 1967, 1969.
National Bank v. Concord (50 Vt.
257), 297.
National Bank v. Davies (43 Iowa,
424), 84.
National Bank v. Deposit Co. (161
U. S. 1), 1786, 1964.
National Bank v. Douglass (1
McCrary, 86), 678.
National Bank v. Earl (2 Old.
217), 1073.
National Bank v. Eliot National
Bank (7 Fed. Rep. 369), 595.
National Bank, etc. v. Furtick (2
Marvel (Del.) 35; 44 L. R. A.
115),
2017.
National Bank, etc. v. Geo. M.
Scott & Co. (18 Utah, 400; 55
Pac. Rep. 385), 1770.
National Bank v. Graham (100 U.
S. 699), 1351, 1485, 1487, 1501.
National Bank v. Hartford, etc.
Ry. Co. (8 R. I. 375), 1GS3.
National Bank v. Ins. Co. (104
U. S. 54), 1953, 1954, 1965.
National Bank v. Kennedy (17
Wall. (U. S.) 19), 856.
National Bank v. Kirby (108 Mass.
497), 1673.
National Bank v. Lake Shore, etc.
R. Co. (21 Ohio St. 221), 611.
National Bank v. Landon (45 N.
Y. 410), 170.
National Bank v. Matthews (98
U. S. 621), 1330, 1342, 1371.
National Bank v. Mayor, etc. (100
Fed. Rep. 24), 740.
National Bank, etc. v. Miller (15
Fed. Rep. 703), 2011.
National Bank v. National Ex.
Bk. (92 U. S. 122), 1433.
National Bank v. Navassa P. Co.
(56 Hun, 136; 8 N. Y. Supp.
929), 1196.
National, etc. Bank v. Porter (125
Mass. 332; 28 Am. Rep. 235),
1237.
National Bank v. Texas (20 Wall.
72), 1686.
National Bank v. Texas Inv. Co.
(74 Tex. 421), 1129, 1132, 1154.
National Bank v. Van Derwerker
(74 N. Y. 234), 266.
National Bank v. Watsontown
(105 U. S. 217), 525, 592, 686.
National Bank, etc. v. Whitney
(103 U. S. 99), 1345, 1371, 1373.
National Bank v. Yankton Co.
(101 U. S. 129), 283.
National Bank of Battle Creek v.
Mallan (37 Minn. 404), 1080.
National Bank of Chester v. At-
lanta, etc. Ry. Co. (25 S. C.
216), 1569.
National Bank of Republic v.
Young ^41 N. J. Bq. 531), 1271,
1273, 1275.
National Bolivian Nav. Co. v. Wil-
son (5 App. Cas. 176), 378.
National Building Soc, In re (L.
R. 5 Ch. App. 309), 1123, 1344.
National Council Bank v. McDon-
nell (92 Ala. 387), 292.
National Docks, etc. R. R. v. State
(53 N. J. L. 217), 1311, 1560.
National, etc. Co., In re (10 Ch.
Div. 118), 662.
National, etc. Co., In re (L. R. 3
Ch. 791), 571.
National, etc. v. Oconto, etc. Co.
(105 Wis. 48; 81 N. W. 125),
1757.
National, etc. Assn. v. Home Sav-
ings Bank (181 111. 35; 72 Am.
St. Rep. 245), 1325, 1332, 1351.
National, etc. Co. v. Hench (83
Fed. Rep. 36; 84 Fed. Rep. 226;
39 L. R. A. 299), 1429.
National, etc. Co. v. Hobbs (90
Hun, 288), 1440.
National, etc. Co. v. Leland (94
Fed. Rep. 502), 1119.
National, etc. Co. v. Rockland Co.
(94 Fed. Rep. 335), 1066, 1691.
National, etc. Co. v. Story, etc.
Co. (Ill Cal. 531), 551, 598, 850.
National, etc. Co. v. Quick (67 Fed.
Rep. 130), 1429, 1439.
National, etc. Works v. Oconto
(52 Fed. Rep. 43), 1650.
National Exchange Bank v. Gay
(57 Conn. 224), 1817, 1818.
National Exch. Bank v. Hartford,
etc. Ry. Co. (8 R. I. 375), 1674.
National Exch. Co. v. Drew (32
Eng. L. & Eq. 1; 2 Macq. 103),
373, 1083, 1353.
National Financial Co., In re (L.
R. 3 Ch. App. 791), 568.
National Foundry, etc. Works v.
TABLE OF CASKS. clxxxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Oconto, etc. Co. (105 Wis. 4-8),
1833.
National G. Lodge v. Jung (65 111.
App. 318), 232.
National Ins. Co. v. Bowman (60
Mo. 252), 1916, 1917.
National Litei-ary Assn., In re (30
Pa. St. 150). 78.
National Park Bank v. German,
etc. Co. (116 N. Y. 281), 1273,
1274, 1341.
National Park Bank v. Harmon
(25 C. C. A. 214; 79 Fed. Rep.
891), 561.
National Pahquioqiie Bank v.
First National Bank of Bethel
(36 Conn. 325), 1957.
National S. S. Co. v. Tugman (106
U. S. 118), 2014, 2015.
National Savings Bank, Ex parte
Hebb (L. R. 4 Eq. 9; 36 L. J.
Ch. 616), 275.
National Security Bank v. Cush-
man (121 Mass. 490), 1160.
National Shoe & Leather Bank v.
Mechanics' National Bank (89
N. Y. 467), 47.
National State Bank v. Vigo Co.
(141 Ind. 352), 1187, 1188.
National Temperance Soc. v. An-
derson (2 N. Y. Supp. 49), 1517,
National Trust Co. v. Miller (33
N. J. Eq. 155), 446, 645.
National Union Bank v. Landon
(45 N. Y. 410), 178.
National Union Bank of Water-
town V. Landon (45 N. Y. 410),
1974.
National Waterworks Co. v. Kan-
sas City (65 Fed. Rep. 691), 89,
1645, 1649.
Nation's Case (L. R. 3 Eq. 77),
556, 617, 618.
Natoma, etc. Co. v. Clarkin (14
Cal. 544), 1236, 1347, 1348, 1376.
Natusch V. Irving, etc. (1 Smith
Cas. 226; 2 Coop. Ch.), 804.
Naugatuck R. Co. v. Waterbury,
etc. Co. (24 Conn. 468), 1580.
Naugatuck Water Co. v. Nicolls
(58 Conn. 403), 945.
Navigation Co. v. Winsor (20
Wall. 64), 1420.
Naylor v. South Devon Ry. Co. (1
De Gex & Sm. 32), 477, 480.
Neal v. M. E. Smith, etc. Co. (116
Fed. Rep. 20), 1161.
Neal v. Wilmington, etc. Ry. (53
Atl. Rep. 338), 1627.
Meale v. Janney (2 Cranch, 188),
210,
Nealis v. American Tube Co. (150
N. Y. 42), 1792.
Neall v. Hill (16 Cal. 146), 818,
1059, 1061, 1062, 1117, 1924,
1951.
Neal's Appeal (129 Pa. St. 64),
1115, 1771, 1772.
Nebraska Loan Co. v. Nine (27
Neb. 507; 43 N. W. Rep. 348; 20
Am. St. Rep. 686), 123, 124. 224.
Nebraska, etc. Assn. v. Townely
(46 Neb. 893; 65 N. W. Kep.
1062), 953.
Nebraska National Bank v. Fer-
guson (49 Neb. 109), 878.
Nebraska Tel. Co. v. York, etc.
Co. (27 Neb.
284), 1595.
Nebraska T. Co. v. Western, etc.
Co. (95 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 18),
1622.
Neely v. State (60 Ark. 66), 1121.
Neely v. Yorkville (10 S. C. 141),
129.
Neff V. Covington, etc. Co. (55 S.
W. Rep. (Ky.) 697), 123.
Neff V. Wolf River Boom Co. (50
Wis. 585), 1833.
Neiffer v. Bank of Knoxville (1
Head (Tenn.), 162), 1197.
Neiler v. Kelly (69 Pa. St. 403),
387.
Neilson's Appeal (13 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 493), 2128.
Nelligan v. New York, etc. Un.
(City Ct. Rep. (N. Y.) 26), 214,
226.
Nellis V. Clarke (4 Hill (N. Y.),
424), 401.
Nelson v. Blakey (54 Ind. 29), 314.
Nelson v. Gushing (56 Mass. (2
Gush.) 530), 13.
Nelson v. Eaton (26 N. Y. 410),
1266, 1700.
Nelson v. Hubbard (96 Ala. 238),
1670, 1947, 1968, 1973.
Nelson v. Luling (62 N. Y. 645),
577, 580.
Nelson v. McArthur (38 Mich.
204), 22.
Nelson v. Vermont, etc. R. Co. (26
Vt. 717), 1568, 1569.
Neosho, etc. Co. v. Hannum (10
Kan. App. 499), 1288.
Neptune v. Paxton (15 Ind. App.
284), 1150.
Nesbit V. Riverside, etc. (144 U.
S. 610), 1647.
cxc
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. I'.l, 1507-2134.]
Nesbitt V. Board (L. R. 10 Q. B.
465), 1648.
Nesmith v. Washington Bank (6
Pick. (23 Mass.) 324), 219, 220.
Ness V. Armstrong (3 De G. &
Sm; 38), 569.
Nestor v. Brewing Co. (29 Atl.
Rep. (Pa. Supp.) 102; 161 Pa
St. 473), 1413, 1440.
Nestor v. Continental, etc. Co. (161
Pa. St. 473), 1428.
Netley v. Clark, Gardner, etc. Co.
(4 Colo. 369), 1990.
Neukirch v. Kepler (67 N, Y.
Supp. 710), 211.
Neuse River, etc. Co. v. Coni'rs.
(7 Jones L.. (N. C.) 275), 430,
506.
Nevada, etc. v. National, etc. Co.
(103 Fed. Rep. 391), 1755.
Nevitt V. Bank of Port Gibson (14
Miss. 513), 1970.
Nevitt v.H First National Bank (91
Hun, 43; 36 N, Y. Supp. 294),
1792.
New Albany v. Burke (11 Wall.
96), 330, 331, 334, 447, 515, 894,
1129.
New Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Fields
(10 Ind. 187), 340, 362, 455, 471.
New Albany, etc. v. Louisville, etc.
Co. (12 Fed. Rep. (Ind.) 776),
1646.
New Albany, etc. R. Co. v. McCor-
mick (10 Ind. 499), 268, 271, 289,
304, 321, 334, 339, 340, 379, 453,
461, 475, 488, 781, 953.
New Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Pickins
(5 Ind. 247), 454, 461.
New Albany, etc. Co. v. Powell (64
N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 640), 538.
New Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Slaugh-
ter (10 Ind. 218), 358, 362.
New Albany, etc. Co. v. Tilton (12
Ind. 3),
1386.
Newall V. Williston (138 Mass.
240), 963.
Newark v. Elliott (5 Ohio St.
113), 2116.
Newark, etc. Co. v. Garden (78
Fed. Rep. 74), 1628.
New Bedford R. Co. v. Old Colony
R. Co. (120 Mass. 397), 1503,
1504, 1833, 1860, 1878.
Newberry v. Detroit, etc. Co. (17
Mich. 141), 601, 963.
Newberry v. Garland (31 Barb.
121), 580,
Newbold v. Bradstreet (57 Md.
38), 1497.
Newbold v. Peoria, etc. Railway
Co. (5 Bradw. (111. App.) 367),
1803.
New Boston v. Dumberton (15 N.
H. 201), 64.
New Britain, etc. Bank v. Cleve-
land Co. (158 N. Y. 722), 1260.
New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Conybeare (9 H. L. Cas. 711),
373, 1501.
New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Muggridge (3 L. T. Rep. (N.
S.) 681), 365, 366, 371, 373.
New Buffalo v. Iron Co. (105 U.
S. 73), 299.
Newburg, etc. Co. v. Weare (27
Ohio St. 343), 185, 1330, 2005.
Newby v. Oregon, etc. Ry. (Deady,
009), 122.
Newcastle, etc. R. Co. v. Peru (3
Ind. 467), 1319.
New Castle, etc. Ry. v. Simpson
(21 Fed. Rep. 533), 519.
New Castle Northern R. Co. v.
Simpson (23 Fed. Rep. 214),
1335.
Newcomb v. Boston, etc. Dept.
(151 Mass. 215), 14, 1381, 1498,
1499, 2122.
Newcomb v. Reed (12 Allen (94
Mass.), 362), 150, 151, 975.
-'
Newell V. Borden (128 Mass. 31),
2076.
Newell v. Minnea^polis R. Co. (35
Minn. 112), 1603.
Newell V. Williston (138 Mass.
240), 965.
New England Bank v. Stockhold-
ers (6 R. I. 188), 832.
New England, etc. Bank v. New-
port, etc. Factory (6
R. I. 154;
75 Am. Dec. 688), 566, 567, 570,
862, 863.
New England, etc. Co. v. Abbott
(162 Mass. 148; 27 L. R. A. 271),
220, 253, 1027, 1284.
New England Trust Co. v. Haynes
(71 Vt. 306; 76 Am. St. Rep.
771), 488.
New England Express Co. v.
Maine Central R. Co. (57 Me.
188; 2 Am. Rep. 31), 1587.
New England, etc. Ins. Co. v.
Robinson (25 Ind. 536), 1265.
New England Mutual, etc. Ins. Co.
V. Phillips (141 Mass. 535),
1014, 1024, 1060, 1709.
New England Theos. Corp., In re
(172 Mass. 60), 14.
New England Trust Co. v. Eaton
TABLE OF CASES. CXCl
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, lu07-21.'?4.]
(140 Mass. 532; 54 Am. Rep.
493), G48.
New, etc. Co. v. Price (50 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 9G3), 1680.
New, etc. Co. v. Schuck (50 S. W.
Rep. (Ky.) 681), 1199.
New Era Life Assn. v. Rossiter
(19 Atl. Rep. (Fa.) 140), 2066,
2067.
Newfoundland R. etc. Company
V. Schacli (40 N. J. Eq. 222),
1784.
Newhall v. Buclcingham (14 III.
405), 955.
Newhall v. Galena, etc. R. (14 111.
273), 243.
New Hampshire Cen. R. Co. v.
Johnson (30 N. H. 390), 263,
311, 319, 361, 472, 473, 474.
New Hampshire Land Co. v. Til-
ton (19 Fed. Rep. 73), 2005.
New tiampshire Savings Bank v.
Downing (16 N. H. 187), 208.
New Haven v. City Bank (32
Conn. 106), 235.
New Haven v. Sheffield (30 Conn.
160), 727, 728.
New Haven, etc. Co. v. Borough
of Walliugford (72 Conn. 293),
1614.
New Haven, etc. R. Co. v.
Chatham (42 Conn. 465), 965.
New Haven, etc. Co. v. Hayden
(107 Mass. 525), 1371.
New Haven, etc. Co. v. Linden
Spring Co. (142 Mass. 349), 507,
843.
New Haven R. R. v. Schuyler (34
N. Y. 80), 590.
New Haven T. Co. v. Nelson (73
Conn. 477), 944.
New Haven T. Co. v. Gaffney (73
Conn. 480), 327.
New Jersey v. Wilson (7 Cranch
(U. S.) 164), 718. 723, 729.
New Jersey v. Yard (95 U. S.
104), 40, 61, 99, 720, 1853.
New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Board of
R. R. Com'rs. (41 N. J. Law,
235), 1954.
New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Brockett
,
(121 U. S. 637), 1485.
New Jersey, etc. Co. v. Security,
etc. Co. (42 Atl. Rep. (N. J.),
746), 1668.
New Jersey, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Strait (35 N. J. 322), 114.
New Jersey Midland Ry. Co. v.
Strait (35 N. J. L. 322), 114,
462, 467, 873, 1856, 1861, 1892.
New Jersey Midland R. Co. v.
Wortendyke (27 N. J. Eq. 658),
1727.
New Jersey So. R. Co. v. Long
Branch Com'rs. (39 N. J. L.
28), 1916.
New Jersey Zinc Co. v. New Jer-
sey Franklinite Co. (13 N. J.
Eq. 322), 1953.
Newling v. Francis (3 T. R. 189),
796, 981, 994.
New Memphis Gaslight Cases (105
Tenn. 268), 1104.
New Orleans v. Canal Co. (32 La.
Ann.
51), 712.
New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank
(167 U. S. 371), 714.
New Orleans G. L. Co. v. Bennett
(6 La. Ann. 457), 1796.
New Orleans G. Co. v. Drainage
Com'rs. etc. (35 So. Rep. (La.)
929), 1644.
New Orleans Gas and Water Cases
v. Louisiana Light Co. (115 U.
S. 650), 23, 41, 42, 58, 59, 61, 62,
71, 97, 1301, 1315, 1642, 1652,
1847, 1882.
New Orleans v. Delaware (114 U.
S. 296), 160, 178, 1711.
New Orleans v. Houston (119 U.
S. 265), 712, 719.
New Orleans v. Philippi (9 La.
Ann. 44), 189.
New Orleans, etc. Bank v. Wiltz
(10 Fed. Rep. 330), 118, 582,
692.
New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey
(40 Miss. 365), 1542.
New Orleans, etc. Packet Co. v.
Brown (36 La. Ann. 1381), 1068,
1076.
New Orleans, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dela-
more (114 U. S. 501), 1605,
1699.
New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. Harris
(27 Miss. 517), 67, 107, 112, 804,
1017, 1699.
New Orleans, etc. Co. v. James (32
Fed. Rep. 21), 2000.
New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. Mc-
Donald (53 Miss. 240), 297.
New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. Mul-
len (12 Wall. 365), 1713.
New Orleans, etc. Co. v. New Or-
leans (143 U. S. 192), 43, 720.
New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Rivers
(115 U. S. 674), 58, 59, 62, 71,
97, 1645.
New Orleans, etc. Co. v. Southern
T. Co. (53 Ala. 211), 1308, 1310.
cxcu
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. Wil-
liams (16 La. Ann. 315), 363.
New Orleans, Mobile, etc. R. Co. v.
Ellerman (105 U. S. 166), 1356.
New Orleans Tel. Co. v. Southern
Tel. Co. (53 Ala. 211), 1308,
1310, 1312.
New Orleans Waterworks Co. v.
Louisiana Sugar R. Co. (125 U.
S. 18), 43.
New Park, etc. Assn. v. Barnes
(39 Neb. 834), 275.
Newport v. Newport, etc. Co. (84
Ky. 166), 1642, 1643.
Newport & C. Bridge Co. v. Wooley
(78 Ky. 523), 1868, 1870, 2032.
Newport News, etc. v. Hampton
Road, etc. Co. (47 S. E. Rep.
(Va.) 839), 1606.
Newport, etc. Co. v. Minims (103
Tenn. 465), 791.
Newport, etc. Co. v. Tax Assessors
(19 R. I. 632), 1612.
Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coombe (3
Ex. Ch. 565), 292, 482, 529, 573.
Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Edmunds
(2 Ex. Ch. 118), 462, 465, 525,
691.
Newry, etc. R. Co. v. Moss (14
Beav. 64), 542, 562, 569.
New Sombrero, etc. Co. v. Erlan-
ger (5 Ch. Div. 73), 1218, 1221.
Newton v. Carberry (5
Cranch C.
C. 632; Fed. Cas. 10,190), 69.
Newton v. Fay (92 Mass. 505), 582.
Newton v. Levis (79 Fed. Rep.
715), 1611.
Newton v. Northern, etc. Assn.
(21 R. L 476; 44 Atl. Rep. 690),
205.
Newton Lime Co. (Duke's Case),
In re (1 Ch. Div. 620), 117, 118.
Newton Manuf. Co. v. White (42
Ga. 148), 12, 77, 1962, 1963.
Newton National Bank v. New-
begin (74 Fed. Rep. 135; 33 L. R.
A. 727), 934.
New Transvaal Co., In re (2 Ch.
750), 238.
New York & Westchester Co., In
re (98 Fed. Rep. 711), 19.
New York Booking Co., In re (N.
Y. L. Jour. Apr. 9, 1892), 881.
New York Cable Ry., In re (40
Hun, 1), 1604.
New York Cable Co. v. Mayor (104
N. Y.
1), 78, 80.
New York Central, etc. R. R., In
re (49 N. Y. 414), 1575, 1656.
New York City v. Pine (185 U. S.
93), 1613.
New York Dist. Co., In re (107 N.
Y. 22), 1597.
New York Elevated R. Co. v. Man-
hattan Ry. Co. (63 How. Pr. (N,
Y.) 14), 93, 1915, 1917, 1918,
1919, 1974.
New York Elevated R. Co. In re
(7 N. Y. 337), 65, 93, 150.
New York, etc. Assn. v. McGrath
(29 N. Y. S. 209), 200, 772.
New York, etc. Bank v. Crowell
(177 Pa. St. 313), 173, 880.
New York, etc. Co. v. Ely
(5
Conn. 560; 13 Am. Dec. 100),
1369.
New York, etc. Canal Co. v. Ful-
ton Bank (7 Wend. 412), 1292,
1295, 1296, 1425, 1426, 1851.
New York, etc. Co. v. Allison (107
Fed. Rep. 179), 1715.
New York, etc. Co. v. Consolidated,
etc. Co. (178 N. Y. 167), 1655.
New York, etc. Co. v. Equitable,
etc. Co. (71 Fed. Rep. 556), 1812.
New York, etc. Co. v. Haring (47
N. J. Law, 137), 1181, 1352, 1502,
New York, etc. Co. v. Helmer (77
N. Y. 64), 1368.
New York, etc. Co. v. Lombard
Ins. Co. (65 Fed. Rep; 271),
1161.
New York, etc. Co. v. State (50
N. J. Law, 303; 53 N. J. Law,
244), 1489, 1541.
New York, etc. Co. v. Squire Peo-
ple, Ex rel. (107 N. Y. 593),
1596.
New York, etc. Bridge Co. v.
Smith (148 N. Y. 540), 1905,
1908, 1935, 1944, 1945, 1965.
New York, etc. Co. v. Young
(33
Pa. St. 175), 1320.
New York, Exch. Co. v. De Wolf
(31 N. Y. 273), 355, 357. 374.
New York Firemen's Insurance
Co. V. Ely (2 Cow. (N. Y.)
678), 1229.
New York Firemen's Ins. Co. v.
Sturges (2 Cow. 664). 1326,
1338.
New York Mutual L. Ins. Co. v.
Wilcox (8 Biss. Ct. Ct. 203),
1269.
New York Rubber Co. v. Rothery
(132 N. Y. 293), 1613.
New York State v. Roberts (171
U. S. 658), 747.
TABLE OF CASES. CXCIU
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
New York Central, etc. R. R., In
re (77 N. Y. 248), 1303, 1306,
1311, 1768.
New York L. & N. Ry. Co., In re
(25 Hun. 556). 116.
New York & N. E. Ry. Co. v. Town
of Bristol (151 U. S. 556), 97.
New York, Pa. etc. R. R. v. New
York, etc. R. R. (58 Fed. Rep.
268), 1801.
New York, etc. Rv. Co. v. Bates
(68 Md. 184), 1168.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Boston,
etc. R. Co. (36 Conn. 196), 105,
106, 1302, 1308, 1316, 1318, 1319,
1559, 1900.
New York, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bristol
(151 U. S. 556), 1396.
New York, etc. Ry. Co. v. Chrystie
(29 Hun, 646), 1321.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Common-
wealth (129 Pa. St. 463), 746,
747, 750, 751.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Hunt (39
Conn. 75), 302, 313.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Ketchum
(27 Conn. 171), 398, 1008.
New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. Kip
(46 N. Y. 546), 1307.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. New York
& N. H. R. Co. (52 Conn. 274),
1852.
New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. Nick-
als (119 U. S. 296), 639, 671.
New York, etc. R. R. v. Pennsyl-
vania (153 U. S. 628), 695.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Sabin
(26 Pa. St. 242), 723.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Saratoga,
etc. R. Co. (39 Barb. 289), 1171,
1890.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Schuyler
(34 N. Y. 30), 239, 240, 386, 389,
392, 395, 398, 399, 409, 410, 411,
413, 414, 420, 421. 542. 559, 596,
609, 612, 613, 634, 981, 1079,
1080, 1180, 1501.
New York, etc. R. R. v. Scovill
(71 Conn. 1361), 1556.
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Van Horn
(57 N. Y. 473), 281, 282.
New Zealand Bankine: Co., In re
(L. R. 3 Ch. 131). 1164.
Niagara Bridge Works v. Jose (59
N. H. 81), 1131.
Niagara, etc. Co. v. Cornell (110
Fed. Rep. 816), 1428.
Niagara Falls, etc. R. R., In re
(108 N. Y. 375), -1313.
Niantic Savings Bank v. Town of
Douglas (5 Bradw. (111. App.)
579), 299, 1856.
Nicholas, Ex parte (21 L. J. Q.
B. 64), 483.
Nichols V. Burlington, etc. R. Co.
(4 Green (N. J. L.), 42), 321.
Nichols V. City of Bridgeport (23
Conn. 189), 1306, 1316.
Nichols V. Mase (25 Hun, 640),
1713.
Nichols V. Ferrv. etc. Co. (11 N.
J. Eq. 126), 1784.
Nichols V. New York, etc. R. Co.
(21 Blatchf. 177), 634, 670, 679.
Nichols V. Stevens (123 Mo. 96),
325.
Nicholson v. Mounsey (15 East,
284), 1138.
Nicholson's Succession (37 La.
Ann. 346), 11, 55.
Nickalls v. Merry (L. R. 7 H. L.
530), 887, 2113.
Nickals v. New York, etc. Ry. Co.
(15 Fed. Rep. 575), 631.
Nickerson v. English (142 Mass.
207), 320, 537.
Nickerson v. Wheeler (118 Mass.
295), 1145.
Nicoll v. New York. etc. Co. (62
N. J. Law, 156), 1618, 1981.
Nicollet National Bank v. City
Bank (38 Minn. 85), 610.
Nichol's Case (L. R. 7 Ch. 533),
506. 553, 554.
Nicrosi v. Irvine (102 Ala. 648),
423, 442.
Niles V. New York, etc. R. R. (69
N. Y. App. Div. 144), 1514, 2018.
Nielson v. Crawford (52 Cal. 248),
946.
Nimick v. Mingo Iron Co. (25 W.
Va. 184), 835, 842, 845, 862, 905,
908.
Nimmo v. Walker (14 La. Ann.
581), 488.
Nimmons v. Tappan (2 Sweeney
(N. Y.) 652), 1962, 1965.
Nims V. Mt. Herman School (160
Mass. 177; 39 Am. St. Rep. 467),
1350, 1502.
Niolon V. Douglas (2 Hill Ch.
433), 1246.
Nippenose Manuf. Co. v. Stadon
(68 Pa. St. 256), 370.
Nitro Glycerine Case (15 Wall.
524), 1636.
Niven v. Spickerman (4 Johns.
(N. Y.) 401), 2078.
Nixon V. Brownlow (3 H. & N.
680), 348, 1855.
CXCIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-150C; Vol. Ill, 150T-2134.J
Nixon V. Green (11 Exch. 550),
887.
Noble V. Gadsden, etc. Co. (31 So.
Rep. (Ala.) 856), 1952.
Noble V. Callendar (20 Ohio St.
199), 320.
Noble V. Turner (69 Md. 519), 960.
Nookells V. Crosby (3
Barn. & C.
814), 379, 406.
Noe V. Gibson (7 Paige, 513), 174S,
1799.
Noel V. Drake (28 Kan. 265; 42
Am. Rep. 162), 1029, 1105.
Noesen v. Town of Port Washing-
ton (37 Wis. 168), 112, 298.
Nolan V. Hazen (44 Minn. 478),
870.
Non-Electric, etc. Co. v. Peabody
(21 N. Y. App. Div. 247), 944.
Noonan v. Caledonia G. Min. Co.
(121 U. S. 393), 1531. .
Norcross v. James (140 Mass.
188), 1879.
Norfleet v. Cromwell (70 N. C.
634), 1313.
Norfolk, etc. R. R. v. Pendleton
(156 U. S. 667; 187 U. S. 258),
1564, 1831.
Norfolk, etc. R. R. v. Pennsylvania
(136 U. S. 114), 753.
Norfolk, etc. R. Co. v. Shippers,
etc. Co. (30 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
57), 1578.
Norris v. Crocker (13 How. 429),
846.
Norris v. Harrison (2 Madd. 268),
647.
Norris v. Irish Land Co. (3 El. &
B. 512), 619.
Norris v. Johnson (34 Md. 485),
853, 857, 902, 907.
Norris v. Stops (Hobart, 211a),
187, 191.
Norris v. Wrenschall (34 Md. 492),
54, 847, 848, 857.
North V. Butts (2 Dyer, 1396),
1878.
North V. Foust (15 Conn. 400),
524.
North V. Platte County
(29 Neb.
447; 45 N. W. Rep. (Neb.)
692),
295, 1592, 1685.
North V. State (107 Ind.
356),
1913.
North America, etc. Assn. v. Sut-
ton (35 Pa. St. 463), 2071.
North American, etc. Assn. v.
Bentley
(19 L. J. Q. B. 427),
469.
North American, etc. Co. v. Wat-
kins (109 Fed. Rep. 101), 818.
Northampton Bank v. Pepoon (11
Mass. 288), 1054.
Northampton National Bank (v.
Kidder (100 N. Y. 221), 1673,
1686, 1687, 1746.
North Branch R. Co. v. City Pas-
senger Ry. Co. (38 Pa. St. 361),
58.
North Carolina R. Co. v. Drew (3
Woods, 691), 1894.
North Carolina End. F. v. Satch-
well (71 N. C. Ill), 30.
North Carolina R. Co. v. Leach
(4 Jones (N. C), 340), 362, 363.
North Carolina R. Co. v. Wilson
(81 N. C. 223), 1710.
North Central Wagon Co. v. Man-
chester, etc. Ry. Co. (35 Ch. Div.
191), 1706.
Northeastern R. Co. v. Rodrigues
(10 Rich. (S. C.) 278), 287, 341,
367.
North of England Joint Stock
Banking Co., In re (4 De G. &
Sm. 283; 3 De G. & Sm. 258),
329, 565, 569, 808.
Northern Assam Tea Co., In re
(L. R. 10 Eq. 458), 687, 1678.
Northern Bank v. Porter Town-
ship (110 U. S. 608), 293.
Northern Bank of Kentucky v.
Stone (88 Fed. Rep. 413), 43.
Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Bas-
tian (15 Md. 494), 1193.
Northern Central R. Co. v. Eslow
(40 Mich. 222), 272, 274.
Northern Electric Wire, etc. Co.,
In re (Ch. Div. 1890),
Northern, etc. Co. v. City of Chi-
cago (7 Biss. 45), 1260.
Northern, etc. Co. v. Snyder (113
Wis. 516), 823.
Northern, etc. R. Co. v. Frost (21
Barb. 541), 473.
Northern, etc. Ry. v. Hopkins (87
Fed. Rep. 505), 1813.
Northern, Liberty, etc. Co. v. Kelly
(113 U. S. 199), 327, 1299.
Northern Ry. Co. v. Eastern
Counties Ry. Co. (21 L. J. Ch.
8). 1704.
Northern R. Co. v. Miller
(10
Barb. 260), 104, 106, 472, 501.
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Traill
County (115 U. S. 600), 735.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Car-
land (5 Mont. 146).
TABLE OF CASES. cxcv
[References are to pages : Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Northern Pacific R. R. v. Dustin
(142 U. S. 492), 1.590.
Northern Pacific R. R. v. Roberts
(42 Fed. Rep. 734), 1593.
Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Spo-
kane (56 Fed. Rep. 915), 1297.
Northern Securities Co. v. United
States (193 U. S. 197), 1459,
1460, 1989.
Northern Trust Co. v. Columbia,
etc. Co. (75 Fed. Rep. 936), 426,
427.
North, etc. Co. v. Bishop (103 V/is.
492; 45 L. R. A. 174), 461, 791.
North, etc. Mining Co. v. Field
(G4 Md. 151), 1810, 2016.
North, etc. Co. v. People (147 111.
234), 185, 1049, 1906. 1911.
North, etc. Co. v. Utah, etc. Co.
(52 Pac. Rep. (Utah) 168; 40
L. R. A. 851), 34, 80.
North Hallensbeagle. etc. Co., In
re (36 L. J. Ch. 317), 476.
North Hudson, etc. v. Childs (82
Wis. 460), 1055, 1118, 1120, 1144.
North Milwaukee v. Bishop
(103
Wis. 492), 186, 188, 194.
North Missouri, etc. R. Co. v.
Winkler (29 Mo. 318), 306, 310,
311.
North Packing, etc. Co. v. Western
U. T. Co. (70 111. App. 275),
1622.
Northport v. Perkins (93 Me. 235;
74 Am. St. Rep. 342), 196.
North River Bank v. Aymar (3
Hill, 362), 415.
Northrop v. Bushnell (38 Conn.
398), 325, 430.
Northrop v. Curtis (5 Conn. 246),
592, 629.
Northrop v. New Town, etc. Co.
(3 Conn. 544), 539.
North Shore Staten Island, etc.,
In re (63 Barb. 556), 264, 1009,
1013, 1015.
North State, etc. Co. v. Field (64
Md. 161), 481, 2030.
Northumberland Ave. Hotel, In re
(33 Ch. 16), 1176.
Northwestern, etc. v. Hyde Park
(99 U. S. 309), 718.
Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v.
Hyde Park (97 U. S. 672), 38,
1397, 1399.
Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Lanning
(83 Minn. 19), 938, 939.
Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Shaw
(37 Wis. 655; 19 Am. Rep. 781),
1336.
Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Village
of Plyde Park (97 U. S. 659),
9, 35, 56.
Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Wanner
(24 111. App. 388), 197.
Northwestern Distilling Co. v.
Brandt (69 111. 65S), 126.
NorHiv.'c.'^tGrn Mutual Life Ins. Co.
v. Stone (31 N. W. Rep. (Minn.)
54), 2043.
Northwestern T. Co. v. Anderson
(98 N. W. Rep. (N. D.), 706),
1628.
Northwestern T. Co. v. Minneap-
olis (81 Minn. 140; 53 L. R. A.
175), 1629.
Nortliwpstern University v. Illin-
ois (99 U. S. 309), 717.
Northwestern University v. People
(99 U. S. 309), 718.
Norton v. Alabama National Bank
(102 Ala. 420), 1766, 1767.
Norton v. Berlin, etc. Co. (51 N.
J. 442), 2022.
Norton v. Dyersburg, town of (127
U. S. 160), 295, 504.
Norton v. Hodges (100 Mass. 241),
833.
Norton v. Nevills (174 Mass. 243),
533.
Norton v. Norton (43 Ohio St.
509), 690, 692, 954.
Norton v. Shelby Co. (118 U. S.
426), 158.
Norton v. Wiswall (26 Barb. 618),
1572.
Norvv'ay t. Rowe (19 Ves. 144),
1739.
Norway Plains Co. v. Boston, etc.
Co. (1 Gray (67 Mass.), 263),
1637.
Norwegian, etc. Co., In re (35
Beav. 223), 569, 573, 574.
Norville v. American Tract Soc.
(123 Mass. 129; 25 Am. Rep.
40). 1270, 1299, 1343.
Norwich, etc. Co. v. Co. Com'rs.
(23 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 721)^
738, 739.
Norwich, etc. Co. v. Norwich, etc.
Co. (25 Conn. 20). 59.
Norwich Navigation Company v.
Theobald (1 Moo. & N. 151),
313.
Norwood, In re (32 Hun, 196),
1968.
Norwood V. Memphis, etc. R. Co.
(72 Ala. 563), 1126.
Nott V. Clews (14 Abb. (N. C.)
437). 516, 517.
CXCVl
TABLE OF CASKS.
[Referpnccs are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Novelty Maniif. Co. v. Connell (88
Hun, 2.54). 1132.
Noves V. Rich (52 Me. 115), 1717.
Noyes v. Spanlding (27
Vt. 420),
243, 547, 578, 587, 591, 595.
Noves V. Ward (19 Conn. 250),
343.
Nugent V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (80
Me. 62), 1570.
Nugent V. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co.
(2 Disnev (Ohio), 302), 368.
Nugent v. R. R. (89 Me. 62), 1572.
Nugent V. Supervisors (19 Wall.
25; 53 Am. Dec. 461), 103, 114,
244, 267, 299, 345, 346, 353, 1853,
1855.
Nulton V. Clavton (54 Iowa, 425),
266, 276, 338.
Nunnally v. Strause (94 Va. 255),
1783.
Nute V. Hamilton (6 Gray (72
Mass.), 174, 228.
Nutter V. Lexington, etc. R. Co.
(72 Mass. 85), 312, 877.
Nyman v. Berry (3 Wash. St. 734;
29 Pac. Rep. 557), 1767.
o.
Oakbank Oil Co. v. Crum (Krum)
(L. R. 8 App. Cas. 65), 639.
Oakdale Manuf. Co. v. Garst (18
R. I. 484; 26 L. R. A. 544), 177,
882.
Oakes' and Peek's Cases (15 L. T.
Rep. (N. S.) 652), 275.
Oakes v. Turquand (L. R. 2 H. L.
325), 268. 36^, 365, 371, 372, 933.
Oak, etc. Co. v. Foster (7 N. M.
650; 41 Pac. Rep. 522), 1204.
Oakland Bank v. Wilcox (30 Cal.
126), 1126.
Oakland, etc. Co. v. People's Cem.
Assn. (93 Tex. 569), 1665.
Oakland, etc. Savings Bank v.
State Bank (113 Mich. 284),
1178.
Oakland R. Co. v. Oakland, etc.
R. Co. (45 Cal. 365), 105, 1900.
Oak Ridge Coal Co. v. Rodgers
(108 Pa. St. 147), 8, 2089, 2090,
2093.
Gates V. Frith (Hob. 130), 1878.
O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer (106
Ala. 205), 450, 1766.
O'Brien v. Blaut (17 N. Y. App.
Div. 288), 816.
O'Brien v. Breitenbach (1 Hilt.
(N. Y.) 304), 528, 1434.
O'Brien v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(53 Barb. 568), 241.
O'Brien v. Cummings (13 Mo.
App. 197), 528.
O'Brien v. Fitzgerald (143 N. Y.
377), 1513.
O'Brien v. Rock Island R. Co. (53
Barb. 568), 399.
O'Brien v. Smith (1 Blackf. (Ind.)
99), 2079.
Ocean, etc. Co. v. Wilder (107 Ga.
220), 1785.
Ochiltree v. Railroad Co. (21
Wall. 249), 835.
Ocmulgee, etc. Assn. v. Thomson
.(52 Ga. 427), 2070.
O'Connor v. Knoxville Hotel Co.
(93 Tenn. 708), 1925, 1955.
O'Connor v. Witherby (111 Cal.
523), 856.
O'Connor, etc. Co. v. Coosa Fur-
nace Co. (95 Ala. 614), 1101,
1104, 1113.
Odd Fellows', etc. Assn. v. James
(63 Cal. 598), 1152.
O'Donald v. Evansville R. Co. (14
Ind. 259), 324.
O'Donnell v. C. R. Johns Co. (76
Tex. 362), 130, 1910.
Oesterreicher v. Sporting Times
Pub. Co. (5 N. Y. Supp. 2), 1525.
Oelbermann v. New York. etc. Ry.
Co. (77 Hun, 332), 1278.
O'Flaherty v. Nassau, etc. Co. (34
N. Y. App. Div. 74), 1625.
Ogden V. City of St. Joseph (90
Me. 522), 713.
Ogden V. Folliot (3 T. R. 726),
846.
Ogden V. Gibbons (4 Johns. Ch.
150), 59.
Ogden V. Kirby (79 HI. 555), 322.
Ogden V. Lathrop (63 N. Y. 158),
586.
Ogden V. Raymond (22 Conn. 379),
1121.
Ogden V. Saunders (12 Wheat.
259), 1381.
Ogden Clay Co. v. Harvey (9 Utah,
497), 939.
Ogdensburg Bank v. Van Ren-
selaer (6 Hill, 240), 1510, 1843.
Ogdensburgh & R. Co. v. Frost (21
Barb. 541), 282, 472, 501.
Ogdensburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Miller
(10 Barb. 260), 473.
Ogdensburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Ver-
mont, etc. R. Co. (4 Hun, 712;
63 N. Y. 176), 1338.
TABLE OF CASES. CXCVli
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Ogdensburgh, etc. R. Co. v. "Wooley
(3 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 398),
280, 503.
Ogilvie V. Currie (37 L. J. (Ch.)
541), 579, 940.
Ogilvie V. Knox Ins. Co. (22 How.
380), 364, 366, 373, 377, 445, 459,
497, 515. 898, 899, 900, 903, 913,
932. 1129.
Oglesby v. Attrill (105 U. S. 605),
471, 814, 1085.
O'Hara v. Lexington, etc. R. Co.
(1 Uana, 2.32) 1311.
O'Hear v. De Goesbriand (33 Vt.
593; 80 Am. Dec. 653), 2131.
Ohio V. Covington (29 Ohio St.
102), 22.
Oliio V. Frank (103 U. S. 697),
1679, 1681.
Ohio V. Washington Library Co.
(11 Ohio. 96),
1229.
Ohio, etc. Co. v. McArthur (96 U.
S. 267), 1370.
Ohio Cent. R. Co. v. Central T.
Co. (103 U. S. 83), 1746, 1750,
1753.
Ohio, etc. Co. v. State (49 Ohio
St. 658), 1055.
Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Cramer (23
Ind. 490), 454, 494, 508, 509.
Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Dunbar (20 111.
623), 1568.
Ohio. etc. R. Co. v. Fitch (20 Ind.
498), 1734, 1747.
Ohio, etc. Ry. Co. v. Indianapolis,
etc. Co. (5 Am. Law Reg. (N.
S.) 733), 1471. 1580.
Ohio, etc. Ry. Co. v. McPherson
(35 Mo. 13), 988, 989, 992, 994,
1092. 1707. 1916.
Ohio. etc. M. Ry. Co. v. People
(123 111. 467), 1049, 1050.
Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Russell (115
111. 52). 1965.
Ohio. etc. R. R. v. Weber (96 111.
443). 31. 136. 1872.
Ohio Ins. Co. v. Nunnemacher (15
Ind. 294), 651, 652, 653.
Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt
(16 How. 416, 432), 40, 42, 43,
718, 719.
Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Merchants'
Insurance Co. (11 Humph.
(Tenn.) 1), 852, 1229, 1988,
2005. 2008.
Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Wheeler (1
Black (U. S.). 286). 1868, 1869,
1870, 1871, 1999. 2010.
Ohio & Miss. Ry. Co. v. McCarthy
(96 U. S. 267). 1290.
Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. McClellan
(25 111. 140). 1386.
Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. McClure
(10 Wall. 511, 515), 42, 43.
Ohio National Bank v. Construc-
tion Co. (17 D. C. App. Cas.
524), 1945.
Oil Citv. etc. Co. v. Porter (99
Ky. 251; 35 S. W. Rep. 643),
206.
Oil Creek, etc. R. Co. v. Pennsyl-
vania Transp. Co. (83 Pa. St.
IGO), 1329. 1345.
Olcott V. Supei'visors (1 Wall.
678), 42, 1311.
Olcott V. Tioga Ry. Co. (27 N. Y.
546), 1471.
Old V. Robson (Q. B. Div. 1890),
217.
Old Colony, etc. Co. v. Allentown,
etc. Co. (192 Pa. St. 596), 1551,
2038.
Old Colony, etc. Co. v. Atlanta Ry.
(100 Fed. Rep. 798), 1553.
Old Colony, etc. Co. v. Evans (72
Mass. 75), 1233.
Old Colony R. R. v. Tripp (147
Mass. 35), 1557.
Old Colony T. Co. v. City of At-
lanta (83 Fed. Rep. 39),
Old Colony T. Co. v. City of Wich-
ita (123 Fed. Rep. 762), 1531,
1634.
Old Colony T. Co. v. Great, etc.
Co. (63 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 945),
1754.
Old Dominion, etc. v. Common-
wealth (46 S. E. Rep. (Va.)
783), 762.
Oldham v. First National Bank
(85 N. C. 240), 1371.
Oldham v. Mt. Sterling, etc. Co.
(103 Ky. 529), 371, 1951.
Old South Soc. V. Boston (127
Mass. 378), 724.
Oldtown, etc. R. Co. v. Veazie (39
Me. 571), 101, 240, 244, 282, 302,
324, 361. 840.
O'Leary v. Board of Com'rs. (79
Mich. 231; 19 Am. St. Rep. 169),
63.
OLeary V. Board of Education (93
N. Y. 1), 1178.
Oler v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co. (41
Md. 583, 591), 126, 268, 281, 290,
340.
Oliphant v. Woodburn, etc. Co. (63
Iowa, 332), 430, 814, 815.
Olerv V. Brown (51 How. Pr. 92),
771, 778, 2073, 2079, 2081.
CXCVill
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II. 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Oliver v. Gilmore (52 Fed. Rep.
5G2), 1429.
Oliver V. Hoplcins (144 Mass. 175),
788, 2062.
Oliver v. Liverpool, etc. Co. (100
Mass. 531). 833, 2091. 2092.
Oliver v. Oliver (45 S. E. Rep.
(Ga.) 232). 1008.
Oliver v. Worcester (102 Mass.
489), 1381.
Olmstead v. DistillinfT, etc. Co. (73
Fed. Rep. 44), 1759, 1779, 1786,
1815, 1982.
Olmstead v. Farmer, etc. Co. (50
Mich. 200), 2048.
Olnev V. Chadsey (7 R. I. 224),
1377.
Olnev V. Conanicnt Land Company
(16 R. L 597; 5 L. R. A. 361),
1100.
Olney v. Harvey (50 111. 453), 129.
Olpherts v. Smith (54 N. Y. App.
Div. 514), 1808.
Olson V. State Bank (67 Minn.
267), 937, 1073, 1768.
Olvphant, etc. Co. v. Borough of
Olyphant (196 Pa. St. 553), 1942.
Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable
Tramway Co. (30 Fed. Rep.
342), 60.
Omnibus R. Co. v. Baldwin (57
Cal. 160), 106.
O'Neal V. King
(3 Jones L. (N.
C.) 517), 32, 310.
O'Neal V. Neider (80 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 451), 1063.
O'Neill V. Webb (78 Mo. App. 1),
Oneida Bank v. Ontario Bank (21
N. Y. 490), 1338.
Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Curtis (80
N. Y. 219). 273.
Ontario Salt Co. v. Merchants'
Salt Co. (18 Grant's Ch. (Upper
Can.) 540), 1296, 1415.
Ontario State Bank v. Tibbits (80
Cal. 68), 1510. 1525.
Opelika v. Daniel (59 Ala. 211),
297.
Orchards v. Hughes (1 Wall. 73),
1368.
Order Chosen Friends v. Auster-
litz (75 111. App. 74), 233.
Order of Foresters v. United Or-
der of Foresters (94 Wis. 234),
1936.
Oregon Cascade Railroad Co. v.
Bailey
(3
Oreg. 164), 1303,
1311.
iiregon Cent. R. Co. v. Scoggin (3
Oreg. 161), 345, 366.
Oregon, etc. Co. v. Balfour (90
Fed. Rep. 295), 1832.
Oregon, etc. R. R. v. Postal, etc.
Co. (Ill Fed. Rep. 842), 182.
Oregon R. Nav. Co. v. Oregonian
Ry. Co. (130 U. S. 1), 80, 1377,
1453, 1454, 1463. 1560, 1565, 1762.
Oregon Short Line, etc. Ry. v. II-
waco, etc. Co. (51 Fed. Rep.
611), 1656.
Oregonian Ry. Co. v. Oregon Ry.
& Nav. Co. (22 Fed. Rep. 245;
23 Fed. Rep. 232),. 1524.
Oregonian Ry. Co. v. Simpson (23
Fed. Rep. 214), 1331.
O'Reilly v. Bard (105 Pa. St. 569),
842, 874.
Oriental Commercial Bank, Ex
parte (L. R. 3 Ch. 791), 568, 569.
Orleans, etc. Ry. Co. v. Jefferson,
etc. R. R. Co. (51 La. Ann.
1605), 1307.
Orman v. English, etc. Trust (61
Fed. Rep. 38), 1669.
Ormsby v. Vermont Copper, etc.
Co. (56 N. Y. 623), 987, 994,
1918.
Orono V. Wedgewood (44 Me. 49;
69 Am. Dec. 81), 1525.
O'Rourke v. West Pennsylvania,
etc. Assn. (93 Pa. St. 308), 2081.
Orr V. Baker (4 Ind. 86), 724.
-'
Orr V. Bank of the United States
(1 Ohio, 36), 1499.
Orr V. Bigelow (14 N. Y. 556), 573.
Orr V. Bracken County (81 Ky.
593), 107.
Orr Water Ditch Co. v. Reno
Water Co. (17 Nev. 166), 1050,
1093.
Ortigosa v. Brown (47 L. J. Ch.
168), 390, 583.
Osage Valley, etc. R. Co. v. Morgan
County (53 Mo. 156), 297.
Osborn v. Bank of United States
(9 AVheat. 61), 28.
Osborn v. Michigan, etc. R. Co. (2
Flip. (U. S.) 503), 1752.
Osborn v. Nicholson (13 Wall.
654), 42.
Osborne v. Florida (164 U. S. 650),
1993.
Osborne v. Missouri Pacific Ry.
(147 U. S. 248), 1597.
Osborne v. Monks (21 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 101), 1185.
Osborne v. State (33 Fla. 162; 25
L. R. A. 120), 758.
Osburn v. United States Bank (9
Wheat. 738), 26.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXCIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt (57 Md.
98), 20
i, 772, 778, 2081, 2102.
Osgood V. King
(42 Iowa, 478),
517, 430, 442, 511.
Osgood V. Laytin (3 Keyes (N.
Y.) 521; 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 1),
446, 645.
Oskaloosa, etc. Works v. Parkhurst
(54 Iowa, 357), 303.
Ossipee, etc. Co. v. Canney (54 N.
H. 295), 91, 1266.
Ottaquechee Woolen Co. v. New-
ton (21 Cent. L. J. 432), 1908,
1917, 1918, 1928, 1929.
Otis V. Gardner (105 111. 436), 534.
Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger (107
Fed. Rep. 131), 1429.
Ottaquechee Woolen Co. v. New-
ton (21 Cent. Law Jour. 422),
1908, 1928, 1929.
Ottawa V. Carey (108 U. S. 110),
294, 295.
Ottawa V. Portsmouth Nat. Bk.
(105 U. S. 342), 1674, 1676.
Ottawa, etc. R. v. Black (79 111.
262), 243, 349, 350, 382.
Ottawa, etc. R. Co. v. Hall (1
Bradw. (111. App.) 612), 267,
363.
Ottawa Glass Co. v. McCaleb (81
111. 556), 698.
Otto V. Journeyman T. (75 Cal.
308; 7 Am. St. Rep. 156), 7, 211,
213, 770, 772, 773, 774, 776, 777,
778, 779, 785, 786, 787, 2U55,
2058, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2106.
Otto V. Union (75 Cal. 308), 2047.
Overend, etc. Co. v. Gibbs (L. R.
5 H. L. 480), 1117.
Overend, Guerney & Co., In re (L.
R. 4 Eq. 189), 618.
Overland, etc. Co. v. People (75
Pac. Rep. (Colo.) 924), 1546.
Overman, etc. Co. v. Pope Manuf.
Co. (46 Fed. Rep. 577), 2039.
Overmyer v. Cannon (82 Ind. 457),
897.
Overseers of Poor v. Sears (22
Pick. (39 Mass.) 122, 125), 11,
13, 125, 262.
Overton v. Hewett (3 Times L. R.
246), 2074.
Overton Bridge Co. v. Means (33
Neb. 857), 1653.
Ovid, etc. Co. v. Sec. of State (90
Mich. 466), 1817.
Owen v. Ogilvie, etc. Co. (32 N. Y.
App. 465), 1496.
'
Owen V. Chains (6 C. B. 115),
379.
Owen V. Purdy (12 Ohio St. 73),
69, 114, 115.
Owen V. Shepard (59 Fed. Rep.
746), 173, 879.
Owen V. Smith (31 Barb. 641),
1786, 1970, 1976, 1979.
Owen V. Van Usten (10 Com. B.
318), 1148.
Owen V. Whitaker (20 N. J. Eq.
122), 1024.
Owen, etc. Co., In re (21 Ontario
Rep. (Can.) 349), 424.
Owens V. Boyd, etc. Co. (95 Va.
560), 921.
Owens V. Missionary
Soc. (14 N.
Y. 380), 2129.
Owensboro, etc. Co. v. Bliss (31
So. Rep. (Ala.)
81), 878.
Owings V. Speed (5 Wheat.
420),
44.
Owsley V. Montgomery, etc. R. Co.
(37 Ala. 560), 1492, 1493, 1543.
Oxford Benefit Building Soc, In
re (55 L. T. Rep. 598), 636.
Oxford Iron Co. v. Spradley
(46
Ala.
98), 156, 1266, 1347, 1700.
Oxford Turnpike Co. v. Bunnel
(6
Conn. 552), 961.
P.
Pacific Bank v. Stone (121 Cal.
202), 1189.
Pacific, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc.
Co. (36 Kan. 118), 1620.
Pacific, etc. Co. v. Dayton, etc. R.
Co. (5 Fed. Rep. 852), 1701.
Pacific, etc. Co. v. Western U. etc.
Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 493), 1244,
1413, 1618.
Pacific, etc. R. Co. v. Hughes (22
Mo. 297), 111, 243, 348.
Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert (44
Fed. Rep. 310), 758.
Pacific Fruit Co. v. Coon (107
Cal. 447), 944.
Pacific Guano Co. v. Muller (66
Ala. 582), 2035.
Pacific Mutual Ins. Co. v. Guse (49
Mo. 332), 2067.
Pacific National Bank, etc. v.
Pierce County (20 Wash. 675),
714.
Pacific R. Co. V. Atlantic, etc. R.
Co. (20 Fed. Rep. 277), 642.
Pacific R. Co. V. Cutting
(27 Fed.
Rep. 638), 645.
Pacific Ry. Co. v. Ketchum
(95 U.
S. 1), 1098.
Pacific R. R. V. Missouri Pac. R.
CO
TAIJLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 621-150(3; Vol. IIT. 1507-2134.]
R. (Ill U. S. 505), 1752, 2013,
2041.
Pacilic R. R. Removal Cases (115
U. S. 2),
2040.
Pacific R. Co. v. Renshaw (18 Mo.
210), 111.
Pacific R. Co. V. Seeley (45
Mo.
212), 1234, 1587.
Pacific R. Co. V. Thomas (19
Kan.
257), 1169.
Pacific T. Co. V. Dorsey (72
Cal.
55),
503.
Paclvard v. Old Colony R. Co. (168
Mass. 92), 1960.
Packard, etc. Co. v. Laev (100 Wis.
644), 263, 967.
Paddock v. Fletcher (42 Vt. ,389),
333, 369, 375, 935.
Paducah, etc. Co. v. Miilholland
(24 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 624), 1183.
Paducah & M. R. Co. v. Parks (86
Teun. 554), 310, 319, 481.
Page V. Edmunds (23 Sup. Ct.
200),
2109.
Page V. Fall River, etc. R. Co. (31
Fed. Rep. 257), 1078, 2041.
Page V. Heineberg (40
Vt. 82;
94 Am. Dec. 378), 1233, 1234,
1998.
Page V. Smith (48 Vt. 266), 241.
Paine, Ex parte (1 Hill (N. Y.),
665), 776, 2057.
Paine v. Central Vermont R. Co.
(118 U. S. 152), 922.
Paine v. Hutchinson (L. R. 3 Eq.
257), 577, 888.
Paine v. Lake Erie, etc. R. Co.
(31 Ind. 283), 1099, 1702, 1881,
1886, 1890, 1892.
Paine v. Loeb (96 Fed. Rep. 164),
2111.
Paine v. Stewart (33 Conn. 516),
844, 867, 885, 910, 949.
Paine v. Strand Union (8 Q. B.
326), 1343.
Paine v. Wright (6 McLean, 395;
18 Fed. Cas. 1010), 763.
Painesville v. Hudson R. Co. (11
Ohio St. 516), 80.
Painesville, etc. R. Co. v. King
(17 Ohio St. 534), 633, 662.
Pairpoint Manuf. Co. v. Philadel-
phia, etc. Co. (161 Pa. St. 17),
1994.
Palfrey v. Paulding
(7 La. Ann.
363), 243, 876.
Palmer v. Forbes (23 111. 301),
1710, 1716.
Palmer v. Hawes (73 Wis. 46),
1127.
Palmer v. Larchmont, etc. Co.
(158 N. Y. 231, 43 L. R. A. 672),
1346, 1599, 1611.
Palmer v. Maine Central (92 Me.
399), 1486.
Palmer v. Manhattan Ry. Co. (133
N. Y. 261), 1487.
Palmer v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins.
Co. (84 N. Y. 63), 2031.
Palmer v. Ridge Mining Co. (34
Pa. St. 288), 888.
Palmer v. Stebbins (20 Mass. 188),
1418.
Palmer v. Yates (3 Sandf. 137),
193.
Palmetto Lodge v. Hubbell (2
Strob. (S. C.) 457), 214, 765.
Panama, etc. Mail Co., In re (5
Ch. 318), 1713.
Pancoast v. Travelers Ins. Co. (79
Ind. 172), 1267, 1269.
Pangborn v. Citizens' Bldg. Assn.
(35 N. J. Eq. 341), 1151.
Panhandle, etc. v. Emery (78 Tex.
498), 1971.
Paola Tovm Co. v. Krutz (22 Kan.
728), 1789, 1976.
Pape v. Capital Bank (20 Kan.
440; 27 Am. Rep. 183), 165.
Paradise v.
Farmers', etc. Bank of
Memphis (5 La. Ann. 710), 1810.
Parbury's Case (64 Eng. Ch.^87),
483, 564.
Paris V. Norv^^ay Water Co. (85
Me. 330; 21 L. R. A. 525), 1650.
Paris V. Paris (10 Ves. 185), 650.
Paris, etc. R. Co. v. Henderson
(89 111. 86), 305, 322.
Paris, etc. v. Southwestern, etc.
Co. (5 Am. Elec. Cas. (Tex. Ct.
of App.) 262), 1596.
Parish v. New York (169 N. Y.
34; 56 L. R. A. 149), 189.
Parish v. Parish (32 Beav. 207),
576.
Parish v. Wheeler (22 N. Y. 494),
341, 1331, 1342, 1346, 1348, 1471,
1655.
Parish of Bellport v. Tooker (29
Barb. 256), 1938.
Parish's Appeal (19 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 569), 853.
Park V. Grant Locomotive Works
(40 N. J. Bq. 114), 634, 641, 795,
798, 1082, 1091.
Park V. Kribs (24 Tex. Civ. App.
650), 934.
Park V. Modern, etc. Co. (181 111.
214), 1214, 1216.
Park V. New York, etc. Ry. (64
TABLE OF CASES. CCl
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Fed. Rep. 190), 81, 813, 1748,
1789.
Park V. Spaulding (lo Hun, 128),
2073, 2080.
Park V. Zwart (92 Iowa, 37), 81.
Park V. Ulster, etc. Co. (25 W. Va.
108), 813, 824.
Park Bank v. German-American
Mut. etc. Co. (53 N. Y. Super.
Ct. 367), 1196.
Park Bank v. Remsen (158 U. S.
337), 71, 1132, 1135.
Park Hotel Co. v. Fourth Nat.
Bank (86 Fed. Rep. 742), 1159,
1197, 1272.
Parker, Ex parte (L. R. 2 Ch. App.
635), 600. 617, 887.
Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co. (96
Tenn. 352; 31 L. R. A. 70G),
792, 1904, 1912, 1941, 1953, 1963.
Parker v. Browning
(8
Paige,
388), 1799.
Parker v. Butcher (16 L. J. Ch.
552), 2070.
Parker v. Carolina, etc. Bank (53
S. C. 583), 556, 866, 1766.
Parker v. Elmira, etc. R. R. (165
N. Y. 274), 1561, 1758.
Parker v. Mason (8 R. I. 429), 636.
Parker v. McKenna (L. R. 10 Ch.
App. 96), 1123.
Parker v. Metro. R. Co. (109 Mass.
506), 1383..
Parker v. New Orleans, etc. R. Co.
(33 Fed. Rep. 693), 1713.
Parker v. Nickerson (112 Mass.
195), 1101, 1103, 1105, 1113.
Parker v. Northern, etc. R. Co.
(33 Mich. 23), 268, 270, 272, 274,
289, 472.
Parker v. Receiver of Washoe
(49 N. J. L. 465), 133.
Parker v. Scogin (11 La. Ann.
629), 297.
Parker v. Thomas (19 Ind. 213),
276, 280, 307, 310, 324, 341, 363,
366, 367, 368.
Parker v. Toronto (32 Ont. 305),
216.
Parker's Appeal (64 Pa. St. 137),
1558.
Parkhurst v. Northern Cent. R.
Co. (19 Md. 472), 1717.
Parks V. Evansville, etc. R. Co.
(23 Ind. 567), 324, 364.
Parmelee v. Price (208 111. 544),
422, 1530.
Parmly v. Tenth Ward Bank (3
Edw. Ch. 395), 1747, 2092.
Parr v. Bell (9 Ir. Eq.
55), 1799.
Parrott v. Colby
(6
Hun, 55; 71
N. Y. 597), 928, 929.
Parrott v. Lawrence (2 Dill. 332),
1653.
Parry v. Citizens' Waterworks Co.
(50 Hun, 196), 1613.
Parson v. Eureka Powder Works
(48 N. H. 66), 1960.
Parsons v. Hays (14 Abb. N. C.
419), 516.
Parsons v. Jackson (99 U. S. 434),
1677, 1685.
Parsons v. Joseph (92 Ala.
403),
436.
Parsons v. Martin (77 Mass. Ill),
2112.
Parsons v. Tacoma. etc. Co. (25
Wash. 492; 67 Pac. Rep. 765),
1247.
Parsons' Sel. Cases (L. R. 8 Eq.
656), 787.
Partridge v. Badger (25 Barb.
146), 301, 1242, 1266.
Paschall v. Whitsell (11 Ala. 472).
645, 968, 1129.
Passenger Conductors' Life Ins.
Co. V. Birnbaun (116 Pa. St.
565), 2068.
Passenger R. Co. v. Young
(21
Ohio St. 518), 1498, 1499.
Patent File Co., In re (6 Ch. App.
87), 1703.
Patent Paper Manuf. Co., In re
(L. R. 5 Ch. 294), 553, 554.
Paterson Ry. v. Grundy
(51 N. J.
Eq. 213), 1597.
Paton V. Sheppard (10 Sim. 186),
650.
Patrol V. Boyd (120 Pa. St. 624),
13.
Patterson v. Baker (34 How. Pr.
180), 949.
Patterson v. Boom Co. (3 Dill.
465), 1313.
Patterson v. Commonwealth (11
Bush (Ky.), 311), 1995.
Patterson v. Farmington, etc, Co.
(Ill Fed. Rep. 262), 599.
Patterson v. Kentucky
(97 U. S.
501), 1401.
Patterson v. Lynde (106 U. S.
519), 461, 496, 845, 851, 852, 864,
866, 897, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904,
905, 907, 914, 921, 926.
Patterson v. Minnesota Manuf. Co.
(41 Minn. 84), 1129, 1140, 1143.
Patterson v. Pittsburg, etc. Co.
(76 Pa. St. 389; 18 Am, Rep.
412), 1159.
Patterson v. Portland,
etc. Works
ecu TARLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2m.]
(35 Oreg. 9C; 56 Pac. Rep. 407),
1912.
Patterson v. Robinson (116 N. Y.
193), 1133, 1140, 1141.
Patterson v. Stev/^art (41 Minn.
84; 4 L. R. A. 745). 1140.
Patterson v. Wyomissing I\Ianiif.
Co. (40 Pa. St. 117), 836, 851,
802, 911.
Patton V. Tribilcock (91 U. S. 47),
1886.
Patty V. Hillsboro, etc. Co. (4
Tex.
Civ. App. 224), 173.
Paul V. Baltimore, etc. R. Co. (44
Fed. Rep. 513), 31.
Paul V. City of Kenosha (22 Wis.
266; 94 Am. Dec. 598), 1336.
Paul V. Virginia (8 Wall. (U. S.)
108), 170, 740, 1135, 1455, 1665,
1986, 1994, 2010, 2011, 2012.
Paul, etc. Ry. v. Western, etc. Co.
(118 Fed. Rep. 497), 1621.
Paulding v. Chrome Steel Co. (94
N. Y. 334), 1953.
Paulding v. London, etc. Ry. (8
Exch. 868), 1172.
Pauly V. Pauly (107 Cal. 8),
1050,
1204.
Paulv V. Sloane (06 N. Y. App.
Dlv. 522), 1204.
Pauly V. State Loan, etc. Co. (165
U. S. 000), 501, 870.
Paup V. Drew (10 How. 218), 54.
Pawle's Case (L. R. 4 Ch. App.
497), 332.
Pawlett V. Clark (9
Cranch, 294),
2129.
Paxon V. Talmadge (87 Mo. 13).
499, 969.
Paxton V. Bacon Mill, etc. Co. (2
Md. 259), 182.
Paxton & Hershey, etc. Co. v.
Farmers', etc. Co. (45 Neb. 884;
50 Am. St. Rep. 585), 18.
Paxton Cattle Co. v. First Nat.
Bank (21 Neb. 621), 110, 1172.
1173, 1175.
Pavne v. Baxter (2 Tenn. Ch.
517), 1799.
Payne v. Bullard (23 Miss. 88),
330 447, 449, 472, 485, 492, 498,
768, 908, 1129, 2005.
Payne v. East, etc. Co. (33 St.
Rep. (La.) 739), 1519.
Payne v. Elliott (54 Cal. 339),
386.
Payne v. New South Wales Coal
Co. (10 Exch. 283), 1175.
Pavne v. Rochester Mut. Relief
Soc. (17 Abb. N. Cas. 53), 782.
Payne v. Snow (12 Cush. (66
Mass.) 443), 2119.
Payne v. Stewart (33 Conn. 517),
551.
Payson v. Stoever (2 Dillon, 427;
19 Fed. Cas. 27), 244, 245, 399,
445, 1129, 1164.
Payson v. Withers (5 Biss. 209),
111. 244, 334, 341, 845, 948.
Peabody v. Eastern Meth. Soc. (87
Mass. 540), 2128.
Peabody v. Flint (88 Mass. 52),
1125. 1361.
Peabody v. Westerly Waterworks
(20 R. L 176), 1247.
Peake v. Wabash R. Co. (18 111.
88), 461, 470.
Pearce v. Madison, etc. Co. (21
Hov,^ 441), 114. 391, 1025, 1229,
1241, 1253. 1272, 1282, 1297, 1298,
1325, 1326, 1333, 1346, 1377, 1584,
1055, 1851, 1852; 1850.
Pearce v. Olney (20 Conn. 544),
1951, 1959.
Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry.
(101 U. S. 040), 48, 94. 95, 200,
714, 1101, 1458, 1584, 1849, 1853.
Pearson v. Concord R. R. (62 N.
H. 537), 535, 1098, 1431, 1433,
1434, 2122.
Pearson v. London, etc. R. Co. (14
Sim. 541), 682.
Pearson v. Tower (58 N. H. 215),
1206.
Pearson v. Wheeler (55 N. H. 41),
1576.
Pearson's Case (5 Ch. Div. 336),
334, 370.
Peavy v. Calais R. R. Co. (30 Me.
498), 1310.
Peck V. Bank of America (16 R.
L 710; 7 L. R. A. 826), 538, 602.
Peck V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (94
U. S. 164), 1872.
Peck V. Coalfield Coal Co. (11 111.
App. 88), 426.
Peck V. Cooper (112 111. 192), 1151,
1153, 1154.
Peck V. Elliott (79 Fed. Rep. 10;
38 L. R. A. 616), 237, 878.
Peck V. Providence Gas Co. (17
R. I. 275; 15 L. R. A. 643), 606.
Peck Bros. etc. Co. v. Peck Bros.
Co. (113 Fed. Rep. 291), 122.
Peckham v. Smith (9 How. Pr.
436), 402.
Pedell V. Gwyn (1 Hurl. & N. 590),
438.
Peebles v. Patapsco Guano Co. (77
N. C. 233), 1481, 1501.
I
J
TABLE OF CASES. CClll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2131.]
Peek V. Gurney (L. R. 6 H. &
L. 377), 579, 1140, 1154, 12^2.
Peek V. Miller (39 Mich. 594),
839, 860.
Peel's Case (L. R. 2 Ch. App.
674), 3^7, 941.
Peik V. Chicago, etc. Co. (94 U. S.
164), 845, 1382.
Peirce v. New Orleans, etc. Co.
(9 La. 397; 29 Am. Dec. 448),
973.
Pekin, etc. Co. v. Kennedy
(81
Cal. 356), 1246.
Pellatt's Case (2 Ch. 527), 279,
922.
Pellazino v. German, etc. (16
Weeky L. B. (Ohio) 27), 196.
Pelletier v. Greenville, etc. Co.
(123 N. C. 596), 1798.
Pells' Case (L. R. 5 Ch. App. 11),
365, 441, 506.
Pelot V. Johnson (33 La. Ann
1286), 210.
Pelton V. Bank (101 U. S. 143),
743.
Pembina, etc. Co. v. Pennsylvania
(125 U. S. 181), 9, 747, 1985,
2012.
Pender v. Liishington (1 Ch. Div.
70), 528, 1009, 1013, 1355.
Pendergast v. Bank of Stockton
(2 Sawy. 108), 190, 219, 686.
Pendergast v. "Turton (1 Younge
& C. Ch. 98), 480.
Pendery v. Carleton (67 Fed. Rep.
41), 1560.
Pendleton Hardware Co., In re
(24 Oreg. 330; 33 Pac. Rep. 544),
1290.
Pendleton v. Lutz (78 Miss. 322;
51 L. R. A. 649), 1790.
Pendleton v. Harris Emery Co.
(100 N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 117),
583.
Pendleton v. Russell (144 U. S.
645), 1968.
Penfield v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co.
(29 Fed. Rep. 495), 1735.
Penfield v. Skinner (11 Vt. 296),
3087.
Peninsula, etc. R. Co. v. Duncan
(28 Mich. 130), 269, 277, 289.
Peninsula Bank, In re (L. R. 2
Eq. 435), 1052.
Peninsular Iron Co. v. Eells (68
Fed. Rep. 24), 1709.
Peninsular R. Co. v. Gary (22 Fla.
356), 1082.
Peninsular R. Co. v. Thorp
(28
Mich. 506), 470, 1844, 1866.
Penn v. Calhoun (121 U. S. 521),
1727, 1740.
Penn Bank v. Hopkins (111 Pa.
St. 328), 1130.
Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood (141
Mass. 145), 1224.
Penn, etc. Ins. Co. v. Semple (38
N. J. Eq. 575), 1715.
Pennant, etc. Min. Co., In re (5
De G., M. & G. 837), 545.
Penniman v. Briggs (1 Hopk. Ch.
343), 853, 866.
Penniman's Case (103 U. S. 714),
45.
Penuison v. Chicago, etc. Co. (93
Wis. 344), 1833, 1834.
Pennock v. Coe (23 How. (U. S.)
117), 1714.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Dela-
ware, etc. Co. (1 Keyes (N. Y.),
72), 1654.
Pennslyvania College Cases (13
Wall. 190), 99. 1850.
Pennsylvania Co. v. City of Chi-
cago (181 111. 289; 53 L. R. A;
223), 1557.
Penns.vlvania Co. v. Elliot (132
111. 654), 1563.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Jacksonville,
etc. Co. (55 Fed. Rep. 134j, 1073,
1746, 177i3.
Pennsylvania Co. etc. v. Jackson-
ville, etc. Ry. (93 Fed. Rep.
60),
1749, 1813.
Pennsylvania Co. v. Weddle (100
Ind. 138), 1543,
Pennsylvania, etc. v. Bauerle (143
111. 439), 2007.
Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v. Dand-
ridge (8 Gill & J. (Md.) 248),
1327, 1329, 1661.
Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v. Murphy
(5 Minn. 36), 229, 23L
Pennsylvania R. R. Co'.s Appeal
(93 Pa. St. 150; 86 Pa. St.
80),
390, 613, 1188, 1315, 1316, 1319.
Pennsylvania R. R. v. Baltimore,
etc. R. R. (60 Md. 263), 1322,
1323, 1412.
Pennsylvania R. R. v. Common-
wealth (7 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 368;
21 Pa. St. 22), 23, 56, 536, 1280,
1458, 1962.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Eby
(107
Pa. St. 166), 1491.
Pennsylvania, etc. R. Co. v. Leuf-
fer (84 Pa. St. 168), 858.
Pennsvlvania R. R. Co. v. Miller
(132 U. S. 75; 13 Wall.
190),
94, 98, 99, 101.
CCIV
TABLE OF CASliS.
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-G19; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.31]
Pennsylvania R. R. v. Mont{?om-
ery, etc. Ry. (1G7 Pa. St. 02),
1007.
Pennsylvania
R. Co. v. New York,
etc. R. Co. (23 N. J. Eq. 157),
1314.
Pennsylvania R. R. v. Philadel-
phia (47 Pa. St. 189), 294, 295.
1593.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Pittsburgh
(104 Pa. St. 522), 700.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. St. L. etc.
R. Co. ai8 U. S. 290), 1254,
1377. 1427, 1565, 15GG, 15G8.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sly (65
Pa. St. 209), 1762.
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Vandiver
(42 Pa. St. 365; 82 Am. Dec.
520), 1499, 1542.
Pennsylvanian
Transportation Co.
Appeal (101 Pa. St. 576),
1828.
Penny, Ex parte (L. R. 8 Ch. 446),
617.
Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson
(16 Me. 224; 33 Am. Dec. 1:56),
13, 23, 68. 69, 77, 1935, 1958.
Penobscot R. Co. v. Bartlett (12
Gray (78
Mass. 244), 287, 313,
314, 316.
Penobscot, etc. R. Co. v. Dummer
(40 Me. 172; 63 Am. Dec. 654),
271, 277, 293, 339, 455, 461, 473.
Penobscot, etc. R. Co. v. Dunn
(39 Me. 587), 304, 322, 331, 455,
1129, 1796.
Penobscot R. Co. v. White (41 Me.
512; 66 Am. Dec. 257), 274, 301,
339, 356, 364.
Penrose v. Chaffraix (106 La.
250), 714.
Pensacolo T. Co. v. Western U.
T. Co. (96 U. S. 1), 25, 759,
1624.
Pentz V. Citizens' P. Ins. Co. (35
Md. 73), 196, 211, 1957.
Pentz V. Hawley (1 Barb. Ch. (N.
Y ) 122) 915 1796.
People V. Adelp'hi Club (149 N. Y.
5), 2118.
People V. Albany Hospital (61
Barb. 397), 1002.
People V. Albany Medical College
(26 Hun, 348), 982.
People V. Albany, etc. R. Co. (12
Abb. Pr. 171; 20 How. Pr. 358),
1544.
People V. Albany, etc. R. Co. (55
Barb. 344), 804, 973, 98^, 995,
996, 1000, 1001, 1003, 1010, 1025,
1029, 1035.
People V. Albany, etr. R. Co. (77
N. Y. 232), 807, 1573.
People V. Albany, etc. Ry. Co. (24
N. Y. 261; 82 Am. Dec. 295),
1904. 1905. 1906.
People V. Albertson (8 How. Pr,
363), 1025.
People V. American Bell Tel. Co.
(50 Hun, 114), 182, 762.
People V. Ameriran Institute (44
How. Pr. 468), 77G, 2058.
People V. Anglo-American, etc.
Assn. (60 N. Y. App. Div. 389),
1789, 1823.
People V. Anglo-American, etc.
Assn. (66 N. Y. App. Div. 9),
817, 1793.
People V. Assessors, etc. (1 Hill
(N. Y.), 616), 64, 2091.
People V. Atlantic Ave. R. Co. (57
Hun (N. Y.), 378; 125 N. Y.
513), 1903, 1907.
People V. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (125
N. Y. 513; 57 Hun, 378), 1900,
1911.
People V. Ballard (134 N. Y. 269;
17 L. R. A. 737), 1060, 1088,
1128, 1153, 1252, 1279, 1380, 1827,
1912, 1941.
People V. Bank of Niagara (6 Cow.
196), 1930.
People V. Bank of Pontiac (12
Mich. 526), 1909.
People V. Barker (140 N. Y. 437;
23 L. R. A. 785), 10, 747.
People V. Barnett, town of (91 111.
422), 349, 1965.
People V. Bartlett (3 Hill, 570),
866.
People V. Batchelor (22 N. Y. 128;
53 N. Y. 128), 283, 296, 978, 981,
985, 997, 998.
People V. Beach (19 Hun (N. Y.),
259), 81, 83, 85.
People V. Bearsley (52 Barb. 205),
728.
People V. Beigler (Hill & Denio,
lOQ-j go
People V. Bell T. Co. (117 N. Y.
241), 182, 702.
People V. Benevolent Soc. (24
How. Pr. 210), 2009.
People V, Bennett (29 Mich. 451),
65.
People v. Beveridge, etc. Co. (91
Hun, 313; 36 N. Y. Supp. 535),
800.
People V. Blake (19 Cal. 579), 19.
People V.' Board, etc. Hospital (61
Barb. 397), 804.
TABLE OF CASES. ccv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1.-07-2134.]
People V. Board of Comm'rs (67
N. B. Rep. (N. Y.) 108S), 152,
505.
People V. Board of Trade (SO 111.
137), 7, 19, 211, 779, 2047, 2048.
People V. Bogart (45 Cal. 73),
1928.
People V. Boston, etc. Ry. Co. (70
N. Y. 569), 1386.
People V. Bristol (23 Wend. 233),
1427, 1926.
People V. Broadway R. R. Co. (126
N. Y. 29), 1602.
People V. Brooklyn, etc. R. R. Co.
(89 N. Y. 75; 172 N. Y. 90), 1560,
1590, 1820.
People V. Buffalo, etc. Co. (131 N.
Y. 140; 15 L. R. A. 240), 1902,
1904, 1905, 1906, 1911, 1959.
People V. California Pac. Ry. Co.
(23 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 310), 1515.
People V. Cartar (122 Mich. 668),
1206.
People V. Caryl (12 Wend. 547),
1547.
People V. Central City Bank (53
Barb. 412), 1966.
People V. Central, etc. Co. (192 111.
307), 1634.
People V. Central, etc. Co. (41
Mich. 166), 642.
People V. Central, etc. Co. (48
Barb. (N. Y.) 478), 1505.
People V. Central Pac. Ry. Co. (83
Cal. 393), 1515.
People V. Chambers (42 Cal. 201),
155, 282, 304.
People V. Cheesman (7 Colo. 376),
81, 83, 84, 89, 92, 152, 155.
People V. Chicago Board of Trade
(45 111. 118), 191, 192, 225, 774,
2055.
People V. Chicago Gas Trust Co.
(130 111. 268; 17 Am. St. Rep.
319; 8 L. R. A. 497), 34, 79, 86,
721, 1229, 1277, 1278, 1282, 1372,
1376, 1421, 1428, 1436, 1437, 1438,
1451, 1463, 1908, 1910, 1932.
People V. Chicago L. S. Exch. (170
111. 556; 39 L. R. A. 373; 48 N.
E. Rep. 1062; 62 Am. St. Rep.
404), 216, 1428.
People V. Chicago West Division
Ry. Co. (18 111. App. 125), 1604.
People V. City Bank (7 Colo. 226),
1910.
People V. City of St. Louis (10 111.
351), 15.
People V. Cohoeton Stone Road (25
Hun, 13), 1977.
People V. Coleman (133 N. Y. 279;
16 L. R. A. 183), 8, 163, 174, 235,
707, 732, 2089, 2090.
People V. College of California (38
Cal. 166), 1786.
People V. Colorado, etc. R. R. Co.
(42 I'ed. Rep. 638), 1590.
People V. Comm'rs, etc. (82 N. Y.
459; 95 N. Y. 554; 104 N. Y. 240),
10, 235, 236, 702, 705, 707, 719,
720, 743.
People V. Cook (110 N. Y. 443),
17G2, 1818, 1822.
People V. Coon (25 Cal. 635), 297.
People V. Cornell (47 Barb. 329;
23 Am. L. Reg. 388), 142.
People V. Cothran (27 Hun, 344),
86.
People V. Crissey (91 N. Y. 615),
1022.
People V. Crockett (9 Cal. 112),
198, 215, 619, 686.
People V. Cromwell (102 N. Y.
477), 1644, 1685.
People V. Crossley (69
111. 195),
191, 192, 796, 1020.
People V. Cummings (72 N. Y.
433), 1002.
People V. Dashaway Assn. (84 Cal.
114; 12 L. R. A. 117), 1929, 1930,
1931.
People V. Davenport (91 N. Y.
574), 103.
People V. De Grauw (62 Hun (N.
Y.) 224; 133 N. Y. 254), 1321,
1819, 1981.
People V. Del., etc. Co. (7 N. Y.
Supp. 890), 701.
People V. Detroit, etc. Company
(90 N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 687),
296, 1658.
People V. Devin (17 111. 84), 1009,
1014, 1025.
People V. Dispensary, etc. (7
Lans. (N. Y.) 304), 1427, 1910.
People V. Duke (44 N. Y. Supp.
336), 1438.
People V. Eadie (63 Hun (N. Y.),
320; 133 N. Y. 573), 139.
PeoDle V. East Buffalo, etc. Assn.
(84 N. E. Rep. (N. Y.), 795),
2063.
People T. Eastman (25 Cal. 603),
1697.
People V. Eaton (100 Mich. 208;
24 L. R. A. 721), 768, 1628.
People V. Empire, etc. Ins. Co. (92
N. Y. 105), 1860,
1-890.
People V. Equitable G. L. Co. (5
N. Y. Supp. 19),
1540.
CCVl
TAHLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 021-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
People V. Equity, etc. Co. (141 N.
Y. 232), 1924, 1929.
People V. Equity Gaslight Co. (141
N. Y. 232), 1354.
People V. Erie Ry. Co. (36 How.
Pr. 129), 242.
People V. Farmers,' etc. Co. (25
Colo. 202), 1G51.
People V. Farnham (35 111. 5G2),
1G6.
People V. Feitner (87 N. Y. S. 304),
G9S, 703.
People V. Fidelity, etc. Co. (153
111. 25; 26 L. R. A. 295), 1985,
199G.
People V. Fire Assn., etc. (92 N. Y.
311; 44 Am. Rep. 380), 1986,
1987, 1990, 1991, 1996, 2012.
People V. Fire Underwriters (7
Hun, 248), 787, 2061.
People V. Fisher (4 Wend. 9),
1416, 1427.
People V. Fishkill P. R. Co. (27
Barb. 445), 1918, 1919.
People V. Flint (64 Cal. 49), 819,
824, 826, 828, 1915, 1930.
People V. Forest (97 N. Y. 97),
739.
People V. Frank (28 Cal. 507),
1547.
People V. Garrahan (19 N. Y. App.
Div. 347; 46 N. Y. Supp. 497),
1541.
People V. Geneva College (5
Wend.
211), 1427.
People V. Gilroy (9 N. Y. Supp.
833; 9 N. Y. Supp. 686), 1598.
People V. Goss Mfg. Co. (99 111.
355), 619.
People V. Granite, etc. Assn. (161
N. Y. 492),
1810.
People V. Gunn (96 N. Y. 317),
14, 58, 85.
People V. Hagar (52 Cal. 171), 19.
People V. Hamill (134 111. 66), 158.
People V. Harp (67 111. 62), 504.
People V. Hektograph Co. (10 Abb.
New Cas. 358), 1949.
People V.
Henshaw (61 Barb. 409),
296.
People V. Higgins (15 111. 101),
10G2.
People V. Hill (16 Cal. 113), 1015.
People V. Hillsdale, etc. Ry. Co.
(23 Wend. (N. Y.) 254), 1904,
1909 1923.
People' V. Holden (82 111. 93), 285,
322, 323.
People V. Holstein Freisian Assn.
(16 Abb. N. Cas. 307),
2126.
People V. Horn Silver Min. Co.
(105 N. Y. 7G), 700, 750.
People V. Hudson Bank (6 Cow.
217), 1938.
People V. Hughes (29 Cal. 257),
1547.
People V. Hutton (18 Hun, 206),
298.
People V. Humphrey (23 Mich.
471), 1300.
People V. Hydrostatic Paper Co.
(S8 N. Y. 623), 1978.
People V. Ice Co. (99 N. Y. 181),
20.
People V. Imlay
(20 Barb. 68),
1990, 2012.
People V. Insurance Co. (]5 Johns.
358), 1929.
People V. Jackson County (92 111.
441), 267, 1928.
People V. James (5 N. Y. App.
Div. 412; 39 N. Y. Supp. 313),
1950.
People V. Kankakee R. I. Co. (103
111. 491), 1907, 1911, 1917, 1936.
People V. Keese (27 Hun, 483),
2125.
People V. Kenney (96 N. Y. 294),
1022.
People V. Kerr (27 N. Y. 188, 204),
1603.
People V. Kingston, etc. Co.
'(23
Wend. (N. Y.) 193; 35 Am. Dec.
551), 1435, 1904, 1905, 1906, 1920,
1935, 1938.
People V. Kip (4 Cowen, 382), 796,
1008.
People V. Lake Shore & M. S. R.
Co. (11 Hun, 1), 140, 142, 145.
People V. Logan County (63
111.
387), 349, 350.
People V. Long Island (134 N. Y.
506), 1551.
People V. Los Angeles Ry. Co. (91
Cal. 338), 1945.
People V. Lucas (25 Hun, 610),
103.
People V. Manhattan Co. (9 Wend.
351), 60, 155, 344, 1935, 1937,
1959.
People V. Marshall (1 Gilman
(111.), 672), 60.
People V. Mechanics' Aid Soc. (22
Mich. 86), 787, 2061, 2126.
People V. Med. Soc. of Erie Co. (32
N. Y. 187), 217, 772, 776, 786,
2058, 2060.
People V. Melvin (2 Wheeler's Cr.
Cas. 262), 1427.
People V.
Mercantile, etc. (65 N. Y.
TABLE OF CASES. CCVll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
App. Div. 306; 72 N. Y. Supp.
858), 1967.
People V. Merchant, etc. Bank (78
N. Y. 269; 34 Am. Rep. 532),
625, 637.
People V. Metropolitan Ry. Co. (26
Hun, 82), 798, 1567.
People V. Mitchell (35 N. Y. 522),
283, 296.
People V. Milk Exchange (145 N.
Y. 267; 45 Am. St. Rep. 609; 27
L. R. A. 437), 1428, 1439.
People V. Miller (114 N. Y. 636;
39 Hun, 557), 698, 699, 2007.
People V. Monroe (83 N. Y. S.
995), 1649.
People V. Montecito. etc. Co. (97
Cal. 276; 33 Am. St. Rep. 172),
79, 80, 83, 150, 155, 1932.
People V. Mount Shasta, etc. Co.
(107 Cal. 256), 79.
People V. Murray Hill Bank (10
App. Div. (N. Y.) 328). 1936.
People V. Musical, etc. Union (118
N. Y. 101), 787, 2061.
People V. Mutual Trust Co. (96 N.
Y. 10), 977, 1093, 1388.
People V. Nappa (45 N. W. Rep.
355), 1010.
People V. Nassau Ferry Co. (86
Hun (N. Y.), 128), 146.
People V. National Savings Bank
(129 ni. 618; 11 N. E. Rep. 170),
1906, 1942, 1980.
People V. National Trust Co. (82
N. Y. 283), 1971, 1972, 1974.
People V. Nelson (60 Barb. 159;
46 N. Y. 477; 3 Lansing, 394), 14.
People V. Nevada (6 Cal. 143), 65.
People V. Newton (48 Hun, 477;
112 N. Y. 396; 3 L. R. A. 174),
1597, 1598.
People v. New York Benev. Soc.
(3 Hun, 361), 2058. 2060.
People V. New York Board, etc.
(101 N. Y. 322), 776, 2057.
People V. New York Commercial
Association (18 Abb. Pr. 271),
2055.
People V. New York Cotton Exch.
(8 Hun,
216), 769, 774, 777, 2055,
2058, 2063.
People V. New York, etc. (149 N.
Y. 401), 772.
People V. New York, etc. Soc. (18
Abb. Pr. 271; 3 Hun (N. Y.),
364), 211, 213, 214, 773, 775, 776,
786.
People V. New York, etc. Under-
writers (54 How. Pr, 228; 7
Hun (N. Y.), 248), 218, 775,
2056.
People V. New York Produce Exch.
(149 N. Y. 401), 769, 779, 2063.
People V. Niagara (4 Hill. 20),
2092.
People V. New York Tax Comm'rs
(101 N. Y. 322), 735.
People V. North Chicago Ry. Co.
(38 III. 537), 1936.
People V. Northern R. Co. (53
Barb. (N. Y.) 98; 42 N. Y.
17),
1778, 1908, 1913, 1927, 1966.
People V. Northern Pac. R. Co. (50
N. Y. Super. Ct. 456), 145, 1053.
People V. North River Sugar Refg.
Co. (121 N. Y. 582; 18 Am. St.
Rep. 843; 7 N. Y. Supp. 406;
9 L. R. A. 33), 4, 1039, 1044,
1252, 1292, 1295, 1354, 1405, 1414,
1415, 1418, 1419, 1421, 1425, 1426,
1429, 1430, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1445,
1446, 1458, 1902, 1907, 1908, 1928,
1937.
People V. Oakland County Bank
(1
Doug. (Mich.) 282), 1427, 1910,
1919.
People V. O'Brien (52 Sup. Ct. 519;
45 Hun (N. Y.) 519; 111 N. Y.
1; 7 Am. St. Rep. 684; 2 L. R.
A. 255), 107, 108, 1321, 1385-,
1763, 1946, 1947, 1971, 1972,
1980.
People V. Ottawa Hydraulic Co.
(115 111. 281), 1917, 1918.
People V. Pac. Mail S. S. Co. (50
Barb. 280). 143, 830.
People V. Parker Vein Coal Co. (10
How. Pr. 551), 240, 291, 398, 409,
619.
People V. Peck (27 Am. Dec. 104;
11 Wend. 604), 979, 981, 983,
998, 1000.
People V. Perrin (56 Cal. 345),
150. 166.
People V. Phillips (1 Denio, 385),
1024.
People V. Phoenix Bank (24 "Wend.
(N. Y.) 431; 35 Am. Dec. 634),
1917, 1918, 1936.
People V. Pittsburgh R. Co. (53
Cal. 694), 1904, 1906, 1915, 1929,
1931.
People V. Plainfield, etc. Co. (105
Mich. 9), 1902, 1904, 1905, 1906,
1927.
People V. Plank Road Co. (86 N.
Y. 1), 1853.
People V. Pratt (129 N. Y. 68),
1666.
CCVlll
TADLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
People V. Pueblo County (2 Colo.
3(J0), 2G7, 297, 299.
People V.
Pullman Palace Car Co.
(175 111. 125; 64 L. R. A. 3GG),
123G, 1531, 1901, 1919.
People V. Reclamation District (53
Cal. 340), 190G.
People V.
Reilly (38
Hun, 429);
7 IT.
People V. Remington (109 N. Y.
631), 1802.
People V. Rensselaer, etc. R. Co.
(15 Wend. 115; 30 Am. Dec. 33),
1913, 1934, 1935.
People V. Rice (G6 Hun, 130; 138
N. Y. 614), 1850.
People V. Richardson (4 Cow. 97),
1915.
People V. River Raisin, etc. Ry.
Co. (12 Mich. 389; 86 Am. Dec.
64), 1272, 1661, 1920, 1937.
People V. Roberts (145 N. Y. 377),
19.
People V. Robinson (64 Cal. 373),
264, 1009.
People V. Rose (188 111. 268; 59
N. E. Rep. 432; 69 N. E. Rep.
762), 72, 87, 1395.
People V. Rosenstein, etc. Co. (131
Cal. 153; 63 Pac. Rep. 163),
1902, 1903.
People V.
Runkel (9 Johns. 147),
1960.
People V. Sailors' Snug Harbor (54
Barb. 532), 198, 204, 224, 2103.
People's Bank v. St. Anthony's R.
C. Church (39 Hun, 498), 2127.
People V. St. Francisco's Ben.
Soc. (24 How. Pr. 216), 769, 773,
777, 786, 1902, 2058, 2060, 2063.
People V. St. Nicholas Bank (151
N. Y. 592), 1785, 1792.
People V. Salem (20 Mich. 452; 4
Am. Rep. 400), 296, 1396.
People V. San Francisco Sav. Bank
(72 Cal. 199), 633.
People V. Schoonmaker (63 Barb.
(N. Y.) 44), 10.
People V. Selfridge (52 Cal. 331),
85, 155.
People V. Sheldon (139 N. Y. 251;
23 L. R. A. 221), 1413, 1439.
People V. Simonson (126 N. Y.
299), 160.
People V. Smith (21 N. Y. 595),
1303.
People V. Spencer (55 N. Y. 1),
296.
People V. Squire (145 U. S. 175),
1612, 1629.
People V. Stanford (77 Cal. 360;
2 L. R. A. 92), 92, 1907, 1914,
1915, 1920.
People V. Stephens (71 N. Y. 545),
1416, 1426.
People V. Sterling Mfg. Co. (82
111. 457), 192.
People V. Stockton, etc. R. Co. (4.5
Cal. 306; 13 Am. Rep. 178), 81,
150, 155, 269, 280, 281.
People V. Supervisors of Mont-
gomery (67 N. Y. 109), 102.
People V. Supervisors of Niagara
(43 Hill, 20), 634.
People V. Sweeting (2 Johns. 183),
1934..
People V. The Mayor, etc. (4 N.
Y. 21), 1301.
People V. Third Ave. R. R. Co. (112
N. Y. 396; 3 L. R. A. 174), 1599.
People V. Township Board (11
Mich. 222), 1100, 1102.
People V. Troy, etc. Co. (82 Hun
(N. Y.) 303), 1796, 1970.
People V. Trustees, etc. (35 N. Y.
Misc. Rep. 675; 72 N. Y. Supp.
750), 1930.
People V. Trustees of College of
California (38 Cal. 166), 1978,
1980.
People V. Theatrical Mechanical
Assn. (8 N. Y. Supp. 675), 2070.
People V. Tuthill (31 N. Y. 550),
1025, 2125.
People V. Throop (12
Wend. (N.
Y.) 183), 138, 145, 187, 203.
People V. Thurber (18 111. 354),
1990.
People V. Twaddell (18 Hun, 427),
1019, 1960, 1961.
People V. Ulster, etc. Co. (128 N.
Y. 240), 1932, 1956, 1958.
People V. Utica Ins. Co. (15 Johns.
(N. Y.) 358; 8 Am. Dec. 243),
9, 10, 48, 207, 1229, 1326, 1338,
1427, 1908, 1920, 1921, 1935, 1937,
1938.
People V. Vein Coal Co. (10 How.
Pr. 543), 245.
People V. Wabash, etc. Co. (104 111.
476), 1382.
People V. Waite (70 111. 25), 1934.
People V. Walker (9 Mich. 328),
140, 141, 145.
People V. Walker (17 N. Y. 502),
1950, 1951.
People V. Walker (23 Barb. 308;
2 Abb. Pr. 421), 17.
People V. Watertown (1 Hill, 616),
2092.
TABLE OF CASES. CCIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
People V. Weaver (100 U. S. 539),
743.
People V. Webster (10 Wend. 554),
1049.
People V. Weigley (155 111. 491),
1952.
People V. Wells (87 N. Y. Supp.
595), 762.
People V. Wemple (131 N. Y. 64;
27 Am. St. Rep. 542; 6 L. R. A.
303), 2006.
People V. Wemple (129 N. Y. 664;
6 L. R. A. 303), 1610.
People V. Wemple (52 Hun, 434),
2092.
People V. Wemple (117 N. Y. 136),
747, 754.
People V. Wharton College (40 111.
186), 202.
People V. Wickham (1 Paige, 590),
998.
People V. Winans (9 N. Y. Supp.
249), 1004.
People V. Women's C. O. F. (162
111. 78; 44 N. E. Rep. 401), 214,
779.
People V. Wren (5 111. 269), 1960.
People V. Young Men's Father
Matthew's Assn. (41 Mich. 67),
193, 199, 204, 226, 225, 228, 767,
772, 778, 783, 2055.
People's Bank v. Gridley (91 111.
457), 614, 961.
People's Bank v. Kurtz (99 Pa. St.
346), 385, 398, 400, 406. 412, 421.
People's Bank v. St. Anthony's
R. C. Church (39 Hun, 498; 109
N. Y. 512), 973, 1054, 1055, 1271.
People's Brewing Co. v. Boebinger
(40 La. Ann. 277), 288.
People's Ferry Co. v. Balch (74
Mass. 203), 308.
People's Home Sav. Bank v. Su-
perior Court (104 Cal. 649; 43
Am. St Rep. 147), 196, 1012,
1020.
People's Home, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Pickard (73 Pac. Rep. (Cal.)
858), 810.
People's Ins. Co. v. Allen (10
Gray (76 Mass.) 297), 2072.
People's Mut. Ins. Co. v. Westcott
(14 Grav (80 Mass.) 440), 977,
985, 1001.
People R. R. Co. v. Memphis R. R.
Co. (10 Wall. 38), 1600.
People's R. T. Co., In re (125 N.
Y. 93), 1597.
People's Sav. Bank v. Collins (27
Conn. 142), 68.
People's Sav. Bank v. Cupps (91
Pa. St. 134), 188.
People, etc. v. American, etc. Co.
(70 N. Y. App. Div. 579), 1073,
1814.
People, etc. v. Knight (67 N. Y.
App. Div. 333), 731.
People, etc. v. St. Louis, etc. R. R.
Co. (176 111. 512), 675, 1591.
Peoria, etc. Rv. Co. v. Coal Valley,
etc. Co. (68 111. 489), 1849, 1851,
1884, 1890, 1891.
Peoria, etc. Ry. v. Coster (97 Fed.
Rep. 519), 1830.
Peoria & O. R. Co. v. Elting
(17
111. 429), 111, 243, 472.
Peoria, etc. v. Hickey (110 Iowa,
276), 1808.
Peoria, etc. R. Co. v. Lane (83 111.
448), 1571.
Peoria & Rock Island R. Co. v.
Preston (35 Iowa, 115), 111, 361,
314.
Peoria & Springfield R. Co. v.
Thompson (103 111. 187), 429,
517, 518, 1367.
Percy v.
JMillaudon (3 La. Ann.
568), 240, 245, 251, 252, 1088,
1116, 1118, 1125, 1187.
Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Graham
(99 N. W. 408), 1913.
Perkins v. Church (31 Barb. 84),
863, 867.
Perkins v. Murphy (46 S. E. Rep.
(Ga.) 832), 1526.
Perkins v. Port Washington (37
Wis. 177), 298.
Perkins v. Rouss (78 Miss. 343),
174, 882.
Perkins v. Sanders (56 Miss. 733),
69, 874, 902, 914.
Perkins v. Savage (15 Wend. 412),
290.
Perkins v. Union, etc. Co. (12
Allen (94 Mass.) 273), 326, 333,
359.
Perrin v. Granger (30 Vt. 595),
473. 474, 769, 770, 1957, 20G4,
2132.
Perrine v. Chesapeake, etc. Co.
(9 How. 172), 39, 1230, 1326,
1338.
Perrine v. Thompson (17 Blatchf.
18), 283.
Perry v. Godbe (82 Fed. Rep. 141).
1796.
Perrv v. Hale (143 Mass. 540),
172, 375, 938.
Perry v. Hoadley (19 Abb. (N. C.)
76), 28L
ccx
TAP.I.E OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I. 1-ClO; Vol. II, C21-130C; Vol. III. 1:07-2134.]
Perrv v. House of Refuge (63 Md.
20) , 283, 1498.
Perrv v. Keene (56 N. H. 514),
297.
Terry v. Little (101 U. S. 216),
897, 900.
Perrv v. Little Rock, etc. R. Co.
(44 Ark. 383), 1173.
Perry v. Maxwell (3 Dev. Eq. (N.
C.) 488), 626.
Perrv v. Pearson (135 111. 318),
529.
Perry v. Simpson & Co. (37 Conn.
520), 1169.
Perry v. Turner (55 Mo. 418), 471,
853, 863, 900, 902, 910.
Perry v. Tuskaloosa, etc. Co. (93
Ala. 364), 436, 1182.
Persch v. Quiggle (57 Pa. St. 247),
2110.
Persch v. Simmons (3 N. Y. Supp.
783), 864.
Persee, In re (8 Ir. Eq. Ill), 1799.
Person v. Crouk (13 N. Y. Supp.
845), 1513, 1890.
Person v. Leary (126 N. C. 504),
1785.
Perum Soc. v. Cleveland (43 Ohio
St. 481), 158, 1922.
Peruvian Ry. Co., In re (L. R. 4
Ch. 322), 279.
Pescia v. Societa, etc. (86 N. Y. S.
952), 1158.
Peter v. Farrel, etc. Co. (53 Ohio
St. 534), 854.
Peter v. Union Manuf. Co. (56
Ohio St. 181), 436, 551.
Peters v. Ft. Madison Construc-
tion Co. (72 Iowa, 405),
925.
Peters v. Lincoln, etc. R. R. Co.
(14 Fed. Rep. 319), 1567.
Petershorough R. Co. v. Nashua,
etc. R. Co. (59 N. H. 385), 480,
520. 1077.
Petersburg, etc. Ins. Co. v. Della-
torre (70 Fed. Rep. 64^), 1073,
1813.
Peter-sburg Sav. etc. Co. v. Lums-
den (75 Va. 337), 692, 693.
Peterson v. Illinois, etc. Co. (6
Bradw. (III. App.) 257), 554.
Peterson v. Lynde (106 U. S. 519),
834.
Peterson v. Mayor (17 N. Y. 449),
1343.
Peterson v. Mil Lacs, etc. Co. (51
Minn. 90), 1189.
Peterson v. People, etc. Assn. (124
Mich. 572), 373, 937.
Peterson v. Sinclair (83 Pa. St.
250), 498, 898, 968.
Peterson v. Wesiern U. T. Co. (72
Minn. 41), 1625.
Petrie v. Clark (11 Sergt. & R.
(Pa.) 377), 603.
Pettamberdass v.
Thackoorseydass
(7 Moore P. C. Cas. 239), 1416.
Pettiljone v. McGraw (6 Mich.
411), 852, 910.
Pettis v. Atkins (60 111. 454), 169,
260.
Petti t V. Stuttgart, etc. Institute
(67 Ark. 430), 793.
Petty V. Tooker (21 N. Y. 267),
2082.
Pew V. First Nat. Bank of Glou-
cester (130 Mass. 391), 1068,
1076.
Pewabic Min. Co. v. Mason (145
U. S. 349), 1754, 1756, 1758.
Peychaud v. Hood (23 La. Ann.
732), 358.
Peyre v. Mutual Relief, etc. (90
240), 774.
Pfaff V. Gruen (69 S. W. Rep.
(Mo.) 405), 904.
Pfeiffer v. Joerges (13 Daly, 101),
781.
Pfeiffer v. Lansberg, etc. Co. (44
Mo. App. 59), 1065.
Pfeiffer v. Weishaupt (13 Daly,
101), 773.
Pfister V. Gerwig (122 Ind. 567),
228
Pfohl' V. Simpson (74 N. Y. 137),
900, 902, 1795.
Phalen v. Virginia (5 Dill. 45),
1402.
Phelan v. Hazard (5 Dill. 45), 427,
506, 509, 559.
Phelan v. Moss (67 Pa. St. 59),
1686.
Phelps v. American, etc. Assn.
(121 Mich. 343), 947.
Phelps V. Farmers', etc. Bank (26
Conn. 268), 235, 628, 632, 639.
Phelps V. Wait (30 N. Y. 78), 400,
422.
Philadelphia v. Empire Railway
(3 Brewst. (Pa.) 547), 1601.
Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Hos-
pital (134 Pa. St. 171), 721.
Philadelphia v. Ridge, etc. Co.
(143 Pa. St. 444), 1503, 1886.
Philadelphia v. W. U. T. Co. (40
Fed. Rep. 615), 1623.
*
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Daube
(71 Fed. Rep. 583), 1809.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXl
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 621-130C; Vol. Ill, 1507-213-1.]
Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. Pennsyl^
vania (122 U. S. 326), 753.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., In re (14
Phila. 501), 1727, 1782.
Philadelphia, etc. Hy. Co., In re
(187 Pa. St. 123), 1958.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co., In re
(6 Whart. (Pa.) 25), 23, 59, 71.
Philadelphia, etc. Ry. Co.'s Appeal
(102 Pa. St. 123), 50, 1316.
Philadelphia, etc. Railroad Cases
(13 Phila. 44, 90 Pa. St. 344),
400.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Adams
(54 Pa. St. 94), 1681.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. An-
derson (94 Pa. St. 351), 1572.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cata-
wissa R. R. Co. (50 Pa. St. 20).
1315, 1575, 1876.
Philadelphia, & Reading R. Co. v.
Commonwealth (104 Pa. St.
80),
697, 738.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. Conway
(177 Pa. St. 364), 302.
Philadelohia, etc. R. R. v. Cowell
(28 Pa. St. 329), 268, 293, 376,
377, 646, 947.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Derby (14 How. 468), 1487, 1495.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Fidel-
ity, etc. Co. (105 Pa. St. 215),
1679, 1681.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Getz
(113 Pa. St. 214), 1322.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Hick-
man (28 Pa. St. 318), 282, 304,
321. 322, 334, 466, 507, 503, 646,
179(5.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. How-
ard (30 How. 307), 1172, 1875,
1892.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Kent
County R. Co. (5 Del. 127), 2009.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Lewis (33 Pa. St. 33), 1350, 1692.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Maryland (10 How. (U. S.) 376),
729. 1862, 1863, 1864, 1871, 1874,
1882.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Quigley (21 How. (U. S.) 202),
1480, 1481, 1485, 1486, 1492, 1494,
1495.
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Smith (105 Pa. St. 95), 1679,
1681.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
Stitcher (21 Am. L. Reg, (Pa.)
713), 1266.
Philadelphia Fire Association v.
New York (119 U. S. 110),
2000.
Philadelphia Trust, etc. Ins. Co.'s
Appeal
(16 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 734),
248.
Philadelphia T. etc. Co. v. Phila-
delphia Trust Co. (123 Fed. Rep.
534), 123.
Philes V. Hickies (18 Pac. Rep.
(Ariz.)
595), 380.
Phillips V. Aurora Lodge (87 Ind.
505), 1086.
Phillips V. Berry
(1
Ld. Raym.
8), 192.
Phillips V. Blatchford (137 Mass.
510), 2090, 2093.
Phillips V. Covington, etc. Co. (2
Met. (Ky.) 219), 292, 360, 361.
Phillips V. Eastern R. Co. (138
Mass. 122), 248, 633, 634.
Phillips V. Postal, etc. Co (130
N. C. 513), 1629.
Phillips V. Providence, etc. Co. (21
R. I. 302; 45 L. R. A.
560), 1912.
Phillips
V. Therasson
(11 Hun,
141), 893, 948.
Phillips V. Wickham
(1 Paige (N.
Y.).
590), 214, 1009, 1019, 1020,
1956, 1960 1962.
Phillips V. Winslow (8 B. Mon.
(Ky.)
431), 1699, 1716.
Phillips
V. Wortendyke (31 Hun,
192), 1146.
Phillips Academy
v. Davis (11
Mass. 113), 2084.
Phillips Academy v. King
(12
Mass. 546), 191, 192.
Phillipsburg- Bank v. Lackawanna
R. Co. (27 N. J. L. 206), 1872.
Phillips Church v. Zion P. Church
(23 S. C. 297), 134.
Philomath College v. Wygatt (27
Oreg. 390; 27 L. R. A. 68), 2122.
Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R. (62
Fed. Rep. 678), 135, 153, 1072,
1528, 1701, 1781, 1813, 1815.
Phinizy v. Murray (83 Ga. 747; 10
S. E. Rep. 358; 6 L. R. A. 426),
629.
Phipps Y. Jones (20 Pa. St. 260),
2079, 2083, 2084.
Phoenix Bank v. Curtis (14 Conn.
437), 1225.
Phosnix, etc. Co. v. Badger (67 N.
Y. 294), 80, 267, 276, 278, 317,
358, 376, 454, 455.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Commonwealth
(5 Bush (Ky.),
68), 1986, 1990,
2009, 2012, 2013.
OCX11
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-150n; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Phoenix, etc. Ins. Co. v. Tennessee
(IGl U. S. 174), 1762, 1885.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v, Pratt (36 Minn.
409), 1152.
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Schultz (80
Fed. Rep. 337), 1791.
Phoenix Iron Co. v. Commonwealth
(113 Pa. St. 563), 139.
Phoenix National Bank v. Cleve
land Co. (11 N. Y. Supp. 873)
1741.
Phosphate, etc. Co. v. Green (L
R. 7 C. P. 43), 979, 13G3.
Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hart
mont (5 Ch. Div. 394), 1218
1221.
Pickard v. East Tennessee, etc. R
Co. (130 U. S. 637), 722, 728
730.
Pickard v. Pullman, etc. Co. (117
U. S. 34), 755, 1993.
Pickering v. Cease (79 111. 328),
2114.
Rckering v. Demerritt (100 Mass.
416), 2114.
Pickering v. Ilfracombe Ry. Co.
(37 L. J. C. P. 118), 873, 960,
1700, 1714.
Pickering v. Stephenson (L. R. 14
Eq. 322), 430, 1377.
Pickering v. Templeton. (2 Mo.
App. 424), 338.
Pickett V. Abney (84 Tex, 645),
1913.
Pickett V. School District (25 Wis.
553), 1702.
Pier V. George (17 Hun, 207; 20
Hun, 210; 86 N. Y. 613), 103,
847, 1137, 1143.
Pier V. Hanmore (86 N. Y. 95),
847, 1134, 1137.
Pierce v. Bank of Emery
(32 N.
H. 484), 1242, 1253, 1262, 1699,
1714.
Pierce v. Chisen (23 Ind. App.
505), 1797.
Pierce v. Commonwealth (104 Pa.
St. 155), 17, 1022, 1023, 1549.
Pierce v. Drew (136 Mass. 75),
1312, 1628.
Pierce v. Feagans (39 Fed. Rep.
587), 1734,
Pierce v. Hacke (1 Pa. Dist. Rep.
517), 878.
Pierce v. Jones (24 Ind. App. 286),
1790.
Pierce v. Milwaukee, etc. Co. (38
.Wis.
250), 900, 909, 912, 1699,
1726.
Pierce v. New Orleans Bldg. Co.
(9 La. Ann. 397), 972, 973, 974,
1435.
Pierce v. People (106 111. 11; 43
Am. Rep. 683), 1991.
Pierce v. Somersworth (10 N. H.
369), 1301.
Pierson v. Bank of Washington
(3 Cranch. C. C. 363; 19 Fed.
Cas. 671), 601.
Pierson v. McCurdy (33 Hun, 520),
1664.
Pike V. Bangor, etc. Ry. Co. (68
Me. 445), 455, 456, 465, 466, 1088.
Pike V. Shore Line (68 Me. 445),
314, 316.
Pike Co. V. Rowland (94 Pa. St.
238), 975, 977.
Pike, Morgan & Co. v. Wathen (78
S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 138), 1523.
Pikes Peak, etc. Co. v. Colorado
Springs (105 Fed. Rep. 1), 1001,
1644.
Pillow V. Roberts (13 How. 472),
132, 302.
Pine Grove v. Talcott (19 Wall.
666), 1303.
Pingree v. Mich. Cent R. Co. (118
Mich. 314; 53 L. R. A. 274), 1383.
Pinkard v. Allen (75 Ala. 73),
1755.
Pinkerton v. Manchester, etc. R.
Co. (42 N. H. 424), 582, 592, :960,
961.
Pinkerton v. Pennsylvania, etc. Co.
(193 Pa. St. 229), 1504, 1563.
Pinney v. Nelson (183 U. S. 144),
902.
Pinto, etc. Co., In re (8 Ch. Div.
273), 828.
Pioneer Paper Co., In re (36 How.
108), 1000.
Pipe V. Bateman (1 Iowa, 369),
2077, 2078, 2081.
Piper V. Chapell (14 Mees. & W.
624), 212.
Piper V. Stratten (75 W. Rep.
(Tex.) 45), 1800.
Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop (16
How. 380), 38, 39, 51, 718.
Piscataqua Bridge Co. v. New
Hampshire Bridge (7 N. H. 35),
59.
Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones (39
N. H. 491), 366, 374, 474.
Pitcher v. Chicago Board of Trade,
_
etc. (121 111. 412), 773.
jeitchford v. Davis (5 Mees. & W.
*2), 313.
Pitkin V. Cowen (91 Fed. Rep.
599), 1790.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXlll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Pitot V. Johnson (33 La. Ann.
1286), 582, 692, 963.
Pitt V. New Mammoth, etc. Co.
(23 Utah, 623; 65 Pa. 1076),
1780.
Pitts V. Temple (2 Mass. 538), 982.
Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
R. Co. (159 Pa. St. 331), 1320.
Pittsburgh Bank v. Whitehead
(10 Watts (Pa.), 397), 1159.
Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. Mc^Iillin
(6 N. Y. Supp. 433; 7 L. R. A.
46), 1425.
Pittsburg, etc. R. Co. v. Allegheny
(63 Pa. St. 126), 634, 662, 671,
675, 1253, 1329, 1607.
Pittsburgh & R. Co. v. Applegate
(21 W. Va. 172), 281, 340. 587.
Pittsburg, etc. R. Co. v. Bedford,
etc. R. Co. (81 Pa. St. Supp.
104), 1565.
Pittsburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bentley
(88 Pa. St. 178), 1322.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Biggar
(34 Pa. St. 178), 289, 303, 310,
311.
Pittsburgh & Connellsville R. Co.
V. Byers (32 Pa. St. 22), 485,
489.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Clarke
(29 Pa. St. 146), 453, 545, 690,
691, 888.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Colum-
bus, etc. R. Co. (8 Biss. 456),
1258.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Com-
monwealth (66 Pa. St. 77; 10
Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 327), 712,
1545.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Dodd (72
S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 822), 1654.
Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Furst (96
Pa. St. 144), 1504, 1833, 1834.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Garrett (50
Ohio St. 403), 1562.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Gazzam
(32 Pa. St. 340), 267, 269, 278,
301, 359. 473.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Graham
(2 Grant (Pa.), 259), 355, 485.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Graham
(12 Casey (36 Pa. St.) 77), 355.
Pittsburgh, etc. v. Hinds (53 Pa.
St. 512), 1487.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Indian-
apolis, etc. R. Co. (8 Biss. 456),
1721, 1724.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Jones (111
Pa. St. 204), 55, 1652.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Kain (35
Ind. 291), 1572.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Keokuk, etc.
Bridge Co. (131 U. S. 371), 1188,
1372, 1551, 1561.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lyon
(123 Pa. St. 140), 1229.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Marshall
(85 Pa. St. 187), 1738, 1752.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. McCully
(8 Casey, 25), 355.
Pittsburgh, etc. Co. v. Moore (33
Ohio St. 384), 1392.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Morton
(61 Ind. 539), 1487.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. v. Point Bridge
Co. (165 Pa. St. 37), 1654.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Proudfit
(2 Pitts. 85), 324.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Reich
(10 111. 157), 1873.
Pittsburgh, etc. Rv. Co. v. Robin-
son (95 Pa. St. 426), 1323.
Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. South-
west, etc. Co. (77 Pa. St. 173),
1386.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Stewart
(41 Pa. St. 54), 268, 289, 303,
324, 429.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Woodrow
(3 Phila. 271), 303.
Pittsburgh Iron Co. v. Otterson (4
W. N. Cas. 545), 888.
Pittsburgh Melting Co. v. Reese
(118 Pa. St. 355), 1253.
Pittsburgh Mining Co. v. Spooner
(47 Wis. 307), 1102, 1220.
Pitzman v. Freeburg (92 111. Ill),
294, 1593.
Pixley V. Boynton (79 111. 351),
2114, 2115.
Pixley V. Roanoke Nav. Co. (75
Va. 320), 1957.
Pixley V. Western Pacific R. Co.
(33 Cal. 183; 91 Am. Dec. 623),
132, 1047, 1073.
Plainview v. Winona, etc. R. Co.
(36 Minn. 505), 1833.
Planks, etc. Co. v. Burkhard (87
Mich. 182), 271, 943.
Plant V. Macon (103 Ga. 666),
1247, 1912.
Planters' Bank v. Bank of Alexan-
dria (10 G. & J. 346), 344.
Planters' Bank v. Sharp
(6 How.
301), 40, 1163.
Planters' Bank v. Whittle (78 Va.
737), 1110, 1770.
Planters' Bank of Mississippi v.
CCXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
State (7 Sm. & M. 163), 1907,
1908.
Planters, etc. Co. v. Assessor etc.
(G So. Rep. 809; 41 La. Ann.
1137), 701.
Planters', etc. Ins. v. Selma Sav-
Bk. (G3 Ala. 585), 210, 219, 227,
591.
Planters' Ins. Co. v. Wicks (4 S.
W. Rep. (Tenn.) 172), 1836.
Planters' Rice Mill Co. v. 01m-
stead (4 S. E. Rep. 647; 78 Ga.
586), 1203.
Plass V. Hausman (2 N. Y. Supp.
235), 914.
Piatt V. Archer (9 Blatchf. 559;
Fed. Cas. 11,213), 1909.
Piatt V. Massachusetts, etc. Co.
(103 Fed. Rep. 705), 2041.
Piatt, In re (52 How. Pr. 468),
1800.
Piatt V. New York, etc. Ry. (26
Conn. 544), 1806, 1808, 1874.
Piatt V. Philadelphia, etc. R. R.
(65 Fed. Rep. 872), 1702, 1758,
1800, 1804, 1823.
Piatt V. Union Pacific R. R. (99
U. S. 48), 1577.
Piatt V. Wilmot (193 U. S. (N.
Y.) 602), 2026.
Platte, etc. Co. v. Dowell (17 Colo.
376), 1654.
Plattsvilie v. Galena, etc. R. Co.
(43 Wis. 493), 312.
Plemmons v. Southern Imp. Co.
(108 N. C. 614), 1510.
Plimpton V. Bigelow (93 N. Y.
592), 237, 398, 954, 957, 958, 987,
992.
Plitt V. Cox (43 Pa. St. 486), 1980.
Plumbe V. Neild (6 Jur. (N. S.)
529), 650.
Plymouth Bank v. Bank of Norfolk
(10 Pick. (27 Mass.) 454), 219.
Plymouth R. Co. v. Colwell (39
Pa. St. 337), 970, 1245, 1537,
1586.
Pneumatic Gas Co. v. Berry (113
U. S. 322), 828, 1109, 1164.
Poage V. Bell (3 Rand. (Va.) 586),
1747.
Pocantico Water Works Co. v. Bird
(130 N. Y. 249), 1314, 1613.
Poche V. New Orleans, etc. Co. (52
La. Ann. 1287), 1288.
Pocheln v. Kemper (14 La. Ann.
308), 172.
Point Pleasant, etc. Co. v. Borough
of Bay Head (62 N. J. Eq.
296),
1611.
Pokork, etc. Co. v. Zizkovsky (42
Neb. 64), 11.
Poland V. LaMoille Valley R. Co.
(52 Vt. 144), 1726.
Polar Star Lodge v. Polar Star
Lodge (16 La. Ann. 53), 178,
1847, 1856, 1948, 1949.
Polhemus v. Fitchburg R. Co. (123
N. Y. 502), 1721, 1887.
Polhemus v. Holland, etc. Co. (59
N. J. Eq. 93), 2019.
Polhemus v. Polhemus (88 N. Y.
S. 273), 827.
Police Jury v. Britton (15 Wall.
(U. S.) 566), 1272.
Police Jury v. McDonough (8 La.
Ann. 341), 297.
Polk V. Plummer (2 Hump.
(Tenn.) 530; 37 Am. Dec. 566),
12.
Polk V. Reynolds (54 Ind. 449),
874.
Pollard V. Bailey (20 Wall. 526),
471, 900, 903, 907, 909.
Pollard V. Maddox (28 Ala. 321),
1699.
Pollard V. Vinton (105 U. S. 5),
387.
Pollitz V. Farmers' Loan, etc. Co.
(53 Fed. Rep. 210), 1821, 1823.
Pollock V. Farmers, etc. Co. (158
U. S. 601; 157 U. S. 429), 746,
1375.
Pollock V. National Bank (7 N. Y.
274), 417, 612.
Pomroy v. Rice (16 Pick. (33
Mass.) 22), 1755.
Pond V. Vermont Valley R. Co.
(12 Blatchf. 280), 826, 1568.
Pontiac, etc. v. Cobb (104 Mich.
395), 1658.
Pontius, In re (26 Hun (N. Y.)
232), 1787.
Pool V. Farmers' etc. Co. (7 Tex.
Civ. App. 334), 1805.
Pool V. Simmons (134 Cal. 621),
1652.
Poole's Case (9 Ch. Div. 322), 435,
1129.
Poole V. Middeton (29 Beav. 646),
576, 615.
Poole V. West Point, etc. Assn.
(30 Fed. Rep. 513), 399, 402, 584,
1195, 1266, 1267, 1364.
Pope V. Brandon (2 Stew. (Ala.)
401; 20 Am. Dec. 49), 7.
Pope V. Capital Bank (20 Kan.
440), 129, 930.
Pope V. Leonard (115 Mass. 286),
903.
TAIJLE OF CASES.
CCXV
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Pope V. Louisville, etc. Ry. (173
U. S. 573), 1791.
Popper V. Supreme Council (61 N.
Y. App. Div. 405), 1812.
Port V. Door (4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.)
412), 1724.
Port V. Russell (36 Ind. 60), 1102,
1108.
Portage City, etc. Co. v. City of
Portage (102 Fed. Rep. 769),
2038.
Portal V. Emmons (L. R. 1 C. P.
D. GG4), 279, 376, 531, 1051.
Port Edwards, etc. Co. v. Arpin
(80 Wis. 214), 109, 273, 1102,
1108.
Porter v. Androscoggin & Co. (37
Me. 349), 131.
Porter v. Blakeley (1 Root, 444),
126.
Porter v. Carolin (50 Hun, 603),
1235.
Porter v. C. R. I. etc. Co. (41 Iowa,
358), 1486.
Porter v. Pittsburg, etc. Co. (12
U. S. 267), 1714, 1716.
Porter v. Plvmouth, etc. Co. (74
Pac. Rep. (Mont.) 938), 256, 526,
1284.
Porter v. Raymond (53 N. H. 519),
321.
Porter v. Robinson (30 Hun, 209),
981, 982.
Porter v. Rockford, etc. R. Co, (76
111. 561), 712.
Porter v. Sabin (149 U. S. 473),
1128, 1513.
Porter v. Sewell Safety Car Heat-
ing Co. (7 N. Y. Supp. 166),
2023.
Porter v. Sherman, etc. Co. (36
Neb. 271), 880.
Porter v. Steel Co. (122 U. S.
267), 1715.
Port Gibson v. Moore (21 Miss.
157), 1779. 1817, 1978.
Porterdell v. Fareham Brick Co.
(L. R. IC. P. 674), 1298.
Portland, etc. T. Co. v. Bobb (10
S. W. Rep. 794; 88 Ky. 226),
1917.
Portland, etc. R. Co. v. Graham
(11 Mete. (52 Mass.) 1), 476,
480.
Portland, etc. R. Co. v. Inhabitants
of Hartford (58 Me. 23), 298.
322.
Portland v. Portland (12 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 77), 178, 1947.
Portland, etc. Co. v. State (135
Ind.
54; 21 L. R. A. 639), 1385,
1387.
Portland
Natural Gas Co. (153
Ind.
483; 74 Am. St. Rep. 314),
1438.
Ponman v. Mills (8 L. J. Ch. 161),
1747.
Port Royal, etc. Ry. v. King
(93
Ga. 63; 24 L. R. A. 730), 1812.
Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Ports-
mouth, etc. Br. Co. (67 N. H.
433), 124.
Post V. Pulaski Co. (49 Fed. Rep.
628), 1592.
Post V. Southern Ry. (103 Tenn.
184; 55 L. R. A.
481), 15S3.
Postal, etc. Co. v. Alabama (155
U. S. 482), 2037.
Postal, etc. Co. v. Cleveland, etc.
Co. (94 Fed. Rep. 234), 1320.
Postal, etc. Co. v. Eaton (170 111.
513; 39 L. R. A. 722), 1628.
Postal, etc. Co. v. Oregon, etc. Co.
(104 Fed. Rep. 623), 1619.
Postal, etc. Co. v. Vane (SO Fed.
Rep. 961), 1804.
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Adams
(155 U. S. 688), 760, 1623, 1997.
Postal Tel. Co. v. Borough of New
Hope (192 U. S. 55), 1623.
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Charleston
(153 U. S. 692), 760, 1623.
Postal Tel. etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc.
Ry. (66 N. W. Rep. 919), 1619.
Postal Tel. C. Co. v. City of New-
port (76 S. W. Rep. 159; 25 Ky.
Law, R. 635; Rev. St. (U. S.)
5263-5269), 1624.
Postal Tel. Co. etc. v. Wells (35
So. Rep. (Miss. 1903), 190),
1625.
Post Express Printing Co. v. Cour-
sey (10 N. Y. Supp. 497), 1395.
Potter's Appeal (56 Conn.
1), 560.
Potter V. Collis (156 N. Y. 16),
1601.
Potter V. New York, etc. Asylum
(44 Hun, 367), 1073.
Potter V. Rio Arriba, etc. Co. (4
N. M, 322; 17 Pac. Rep. 609),
1984.
Potter V. Stevens Machine Co. (127
Mass. 592), 842, 906.
Potteries, etc. R. Co., In re (L.
R. 3 Ch. 67), 663.
Potts v. New Jersey Arms Co. (17
N. J. Eq. 395), 1715.
Potts V. Rose Valley Mills (167
Pa. St. 310), 1768.
Potts V. Wallace (146 U. S. 689;
CCXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II. 021-1500; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
32 Fed. Rep. 272), 325, 330, 339.
379. 944. 10S9.
PoiiKlilieepsie. etc. Co. v. Griffin (24
N. Y. 150), 111, 2(;9. 278, 5(;7.
PouItPrs Co. V. Phillips (6 Bing.
(N. C.) 314). 221.
Poiiltney v. Bachman (31 Hun, 39;
0.2 How. Pr. 4G6), 198, 224, 229.
230, 231, 771, 788, 2062, 2079,
2085, 2103.
Powder River Cattle Co. v. Custer
County (22 Pac. Rep. (Mont.)
383), 2003.
Powell's Appeal (19 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 333). 1261.
Powell V. Brookfi-ld, etc. Co. (78
S. W. Rep. (Mo.) 646), 1488.
Powell V. City of Diiluth (97 N.
W. Rep. (Minn.) 450). 1649.
Powell V. Conover (75 Hun. 11),
141.
Powell V. Dawson (45 "W. Va. 780),
238.
Powell V. Jessopp (18 C. B. 336),
524.
Powell V. Murray (3 N. Y. App.
Div. 273). 385.
Powell V. North Missouri R. Co.
(42 Mo. 63), 1842, 1887, 1892,
1894.
Powell V. Oregonian Ry. Co. (36
Fed. Rep. 726), 490, 849, 851, 919.
Powell V. Williamette Valley R.
Co. (14 Oreg. 356), 550, 691, 1105.
Power V. Hoey (19 Week. Rep.
916), 1146.
Power V. O'Connor (19 Week. Rep.
923), 1145.
Powers Blue, etc. Assn. (86 Fed.
Rep. 705). 792, 1055, 1059.
Powers V. Hamilton Paper Co. (60
Wis. 23), 1784.
Powers V. Hazelton, etc. Co. (33
Ohio St. 429), 1307.
Powers V. Knapp (71 Hun (N. Y.),
371; 158 N. Y. 733), 556.
Powers V. Superior Ct. of Dough-
erty Co. (23 Ga. 65), 297.
Powlet V. Hubert (1 Ves. 267), 533.
Prall V. Hamil (28 N. J. Eq. 66),
527.
Prall V. Tilt (28 N. J. Eq. 479),
392, 571, 579. 603.
Prather v. Jeffersonville, etc. R. R.
(62 Ind. 37). 1306.
Prather v. Western U. T. Co. (89
Ind. 501), 1557.
Pratt V. Adams (7 Paige, 616),
1450.
Pratt V. American Bell Tel. Co.
(141 Mass. 225), 652, 654, 1695,
1S78.
Pratt V. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (42
Me. 579). 1570.
Pratt V. Bacon (10 Pick. (27
Mass.) 122), 910.
Pratt V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (126
Mass. 443), 417, 613.
Pratt V. Jewett (9 Gray
(75
Mass.), 34). 1955. 1956.
Pratt V. M. Cutlery Co. (35 Conn.
36), 141.
Pratt V. Munson (84 N. Y. 582),
1822.
Pratt V. Ogdensburg. etc. Co. (102
Mass. 557), 1472.
Pratt V. Oliver (1 McLean (U. S.),
300), 1450.
Pratt V. Pratt (33 Conn. 446), 623,
641, 642, 1353.
Pratt V. Short (79 N. Y. 437; 35
Am. Rep. 531), 20. 21, 55, 1267.
1368, 1372, 1373, 1659.
Pratt V. Taunton, etc. Co. (123
Miss. 110), 291, 411, 417, 613.
Pray v. Mitchell (60 Me. 430), 524.
Precious, etc. Soc. v. Elsythe (102
Tenn. 40), 132.
Premier Steel Co. v. Yandis (139
Ind. 307), 1814, 1815.
Prentice v. United States, etc. Co.
(78 Fed. Rep. 106), 238, 1249.
Prentiss v. Cleveland T. Co.
^(32
W. L. Bull, 13), 1629.
Prentiss, etc. Co. v. Whitman, etc.
Co. (88 Md. 240), 1806.
Presbyterian Church, etc.. In re
(3 Edw. (N. Y.) 155), 2124.
Presbyterian Congregation v. Car-
lisle Bank (5 Pa. St. 345), 688.
Presbyterian Sem. etc. v. People
(101 111. 578), 15.
Prescott National Bank v. Butter
(157 Mass. 548), 1237.
Prescott V. Hughey (65 Fed. Rep.
653), 935.
President, etc., In re (87 N. Y.
Supp. 1104), 762.
President, etc. v. City Bridge Co.
(2 Beas. (N. J. Eq.) 46), 1924.
President v. Forman (29 Md.
524), 1329.
President, etc. v. Jackson (7
Blackf. (Ind.) 36), 128.
President, etc. v. New York, etc.
(13 N. Y. 599), 414.
President and Trustees v. Thomp-
son (20 111. 197), 1960.
Presstman v. Mason (68 Md. 78),
1520.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXVll
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. IIT, 1507-2134.]
Preston v. Cincinnati C. & H. V.
R. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 54; 1 L.
R. A. 140), 432.
Preston v. Cutter (64 N. H. 461),
592, 596, 1211.
Preston v. Fire Extinguisher
Manuf. Co. (36 Fed. Rep. 721),
2040.
Preston v. Grand Colliery (11 Sim.
327), 253, 358, 455, 456, 570, 1285,
1432.
Preston v. Hixon (22 Ind. App.
139), 1150.
Preston v. Liverpool, etc. Ry. Co.
(L. R. 7 Eq. 124), 1174, 1175.
Preston v. Loughran (58 Hun,
210), 1772.
Preston v. Melville (16 Sim. 163),
647, 650.
Preston v. Northwestern, etc. Co.
(33 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 136),
1272.
Prettyman v. Tazewell Co. (19 111.
406), 1000.
Price's Appeal (106 Pa. St. 421),
493, 495.
Price V. Anderson (15 Sim. 473),
638, 647, 650.
Price V. Denbigh, etc. Ry. Co. (38
L. J. Ch. 461), 943.
Price V. Grand Rapids, etc. R. Co.
(13 Ind. 58), ,456, 466, 471, 472.
Price V. Great Western R. Co. (16
Mees. & W. 244), 1673, 1732.
Price V. Grover (40 Md. 102), 587.
Price V. Holcomb (89 Iowa, 123),
792, 1953, 1955.
Price V. Minot (107 Mass. 49),
2115.
Price V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. (34
111. 36), 289.
Price V. Price (6 Dana (Ky.), 107;
4 Watts, 341), 524.
Price V. Whitney (28 Fed. Rep.
297), 890.
Price and Brown's Case (L. R. 5
Ch. 294), 562, 588.
Priest V. Essex, etc. Manuf. Co.
(115 Mass. 380), 637, 842, 843,
863.
Priest V. Glenn (51 Fed. Rep.
405), 950, 953.
Priest V. White (34 Alb. L. J.
298), 436, 550.
Primrose v. Western U. T. Co.
(154 U. S. 1), 1620.
Prince v. Crocker (166 Mass. 347),
1596.
Prince v. Lynch (38 Cal. 528),
892.
Prince v. Yates (7 Weekly Notes,
51), 948.
Princeton, etc. Co. v. First Nat.
Bk. (7 Mont. 530), 1984.
Princeton Min. Co. v. First Nat.
Bk.
(7 Mont. 530), 1235.
Pringle v. EUringham, etc. Co. (49
La. Ann. 301), 1955.
Printing Co. v. Lamson (L. R. 19
Eq. 465), 1422.
Pritchard v. Barnes (101 Wis. 86),
1958.
Proctor V. Sidney, etc. Co. (8 N.
Y. App. Div.
9), 1012, 1536, 1954.
Pronik v. Spirits, etc. Co. (58 N.
J. Eq. 97), 95.
Propeller Niagara v. Cordes (21
How.
7), 1487.
Proprietary Clubs (7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 438), 778.
Proprietors of the Union Lock &.
Canal v. Towne (1 N. H. 44),
113, 114, 115.
Proprietors of Quincy Canal Co. v.
Newcomb
(7 Mete. (48 Mass.),
276), 1916.
Proprietors, etc. v. Hovey (21 Pick.
(38 Mass.) 417), 849.
Proprietors of Stourbridge Canal
V. Wheel
ey
(Barn & Adol,
792),
56.
Proprietors v. Hoboken (1 Wall.
116), 39.
Prospect Park v. Williamson (91
N. Y. 552), 1318.
Prospect, etc. Mills, In re (12G
Fed. Rep. (U. S. D. C, Mass.)
1001), 1771.
Prospect, etc. R. R. Co., In re
(07
N. Y. 371), 1308, 1852.
Protection Life Ins. Co., In re (9
Biss. 188), 2067.
Protection Life Ins. Co. v. Foote
(79 111. 361), 796, 1047.
Protection Life Ins. Co. v. Osgood
(93 111. 69), 559, 2067, 2069.
Protestant Episcopal Bducv.tion
Society v. Churchman (80 Va.
718), 2129.
Prout v. Chisholm
(26 N. Y. App.
Div. 54), 2111.
Prouty V. Lake Shore, et-r. Ry. Co.
(52 N. Y. 363), 1866, 1886, 1888,
1S89, 1895.
Prouty V. Mich, etc. R. Co. (1 Hun,
655), 646, 665, 666, 670, 672, 674.
Prouty V. Prouty. etc. Co. (155 Pa.
St. 112), 1808.
Providence Bank v. BilMiigs (4
Peters (U. S.), 514), 61, 720, 721.
CC.WllI
TABLE OF CASKS.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-ClO; Vol. IT, G21-150C; Vol. ITT, 1507-21^4.]
Providence,
etc. R. R. Co., In re
(17 R. I. 324). 1301, 1313.
Providence, etc. Co. v. Connell (8G
lliin, 319),
1133.
Providence, etc. Co. v. Hubbard
(lUl U. S. 188), 1134.
Providence, etc. Co. v. Kent (19
R.
R. 5G1), 943.
Providence, etc. R. Co. v. Norwich,
etc. R. Co. (138 Mass. 277),
V.IOC,.
Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber (2
R. I. 211),
1644.
Providence Tool Co. v. Norris (2
AVall. (U. S.) 45),
1371.
Provident Savings Inst. v. Jackson
Place, etc. Co. (52 Mo. 552), 54,
551, 836.
Provident
Springs,
etc. Inst. v.
Jackson, etc. Rink (52 Mo. 557),
885.
Provincial
Marine Ins. Co., In re
Maitland's Case (38 L. J. Ch.
554). 551,
552.
Provost v.
Morgan's etc. R. R. (42
La. Ann. 809),
2052.
Pruyne v.
Adams, etc. Co. (92
Hun,
214), 1290.
Public
Guaranty, etc. v. Fort Lyon
Canal Co. (73 Pac. Rep. (Colo.)
249), 1G51.
Pueblo, etc. Co. v. Taylor (6
Colo.
1; 45 Am. Rep. 512),
17.
Pugh & Sharman's Case, In re (L.
R. 13 Eq. 566), 263, 551, 568,
886.
Pulbrook V.
Richmond, etc. Co. (9
Ch. Div. 610),
1062.
Pulford V. Fire Uept. etc. (31
Mich.
458), 34, 79, 214, 215, 790, 2067,
2069.
Pullan V.
Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. (4
Biss. 35; 5 Biss. 237), 1567, 1699,
1701, 1717, 1851.
Pullis V. Pullis Bros. (157 Mo.
565), 1708, 1770.
Pullman v.
Stebbins (51 Fed. Rep.
10),
1512.
Pullman v. Upton (96 U. S. 328),
241, 397, 404, 429, 430, 450, 462,
592, 877, 878, 890.
Pullman Car Co. v. Pennsylvania
(141 U. S. 18), 755.
Pullman
Palace Car Co. v. Mis-
souri Pacific Ry. Co. (115 U. S.
587), 1394, 1862, 1887, 1889, 1890,
1893.
Pulsford V. Richards (17 Beav.
87), 365, 371.
Pusifer v. Greene (52 Atl. Rep.
(Me.) 921), 904.
Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. (13
Wall. 166), 1314.
Purchase v. New York, etc. Bank
(3 Rob. (N. Y.) 164), 589, 599,
600.
Purdey's Case (16 W. R. C60), 282.
Purdy V. Erie R. R. (162 N. Y.
42; 56 N. E. Rep. 508; 48 L. R.
A. G69), 1392, 1394, 1551.
Puryear v. McGavock (9 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 461), 1337.
Putnam v. City of New Albany (4
Biss. 365), 303.
Putnam v. Jacksonville, etc. Ry.
Co. (61 Fed. Rep. 440), 1777,
1782.
Putnam v. Ruch (54 Fed. Rep. 216;
56 Fed. Rep. 416), 1434, 1942.
Putnam v. Sweet (1 Chand. (Wis.)
286), 1024.
Pyle v. Pennock (2 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 390), 1715.
Pym V. Great Northern Ry. Co. (4
Best & Sm. 396), 1500, 1546.
Pvper v. Salt Lake, etc. Assn. (20
'utah, 9; 57 Pac. Rep. 533), 1066.
Pyrolusite Manganese Co., In re
(29 Hun, 429), 1927, 1955, 1965,
1966.
Q.
Quackenboss v. Globe, etc. Co. ..-(77
N. Y. 77; 69 N. E. Rep. 223), 134.
Quarl v. Abbett (102 Ind. 233),
609.
Quebrada, etc. Co., In re (40 Ch.
D. 363), 684.
Queen v. Arnaud (9 Ad. & El. N.
R. 806), 640.
Queen v. Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co.
(3 Gale & D. 243), 1481, 1489,
1545.
Queen v. Carmatic R. Co. (L. R. 8
Q. B. 299), 574.
Queen v. Darlington School (6
Adol. & E. (N. S.) 682), 200.
Queen v.
Derbyshire, etc. Ry. Co.
(3 Bl. & Bl. 784), 149, 1533.
Queen v. Great Northern, etc. Ry.
(9 Ad. & El. N. R. 325), 1489,
1490.
Queen v. Grimshaw (10 Q. B.
747),
997.
Queen v. Ledyard (1 Q. B. 616),
459, 460, 496.
Queen v. Liverpool, etc. Railway
Co. (21 L. J. Q. B. 284), 619,
635.
Queen v.
Maraquita Min. Co. (1
Ellis & E. 289), 140.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXIX
IReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 021-1.506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Queen v. Saddlers Co. (3 El. & E.
80), 190, 223.
Queen v. Victoria Park Co. (1 Q.
B. 288), 459, 460, 496.
Queen, etc. Co. v. Crawford (127
Mo. 356), 173, 879, 1166, 1214,
1223.
Queenan v. Palmer (117 111. 619),
846, 907.
Queensbury v. Culver (19 Wall.
83) 295
Quein V. Smith (108 Pa. St. 525),
1090.
Quell V. Empire, etc. Co. (92 Hun,
539; 159 N. Y. 1), 1627.
Quested v. Newburyport Horse R.
(127 Mass. 204), 1891.
Quick V. Lemon (105 111. 578), 271,
273.
Quigg V. Kittridge (18 N. H. 137),
488.
Quincey v. White (63 N. Y. 370),
2115.
Quincy, City of, v. Steel (120 U. S.
241), 827, 2037.
Quincy, etc. Co. v. Hood (77 111.
68), 160.
Quincy, etc. Ry. v. Humphries (145
U. S. 82), 1723, 1779, 1801.
Quincy, etc. R. Co. v. Morris (84
111. 410), 297.
Quincy R. etc. Co. v. Adams
County
(88 111. 615), 31, 1869,
1872, 1873.
Quiner v. Marblehead Social Ins.
Co. (10 Mass. 476), 525, 527.
Quinlan v. Houston, etc. Ry. Co.
(89 Tex. 356), 67, 78.
Quinn v. Brittain (3 Edw. Ch.
(N. Y.) 314), 1739.
Quinn v. Shields (62 lov.-a, 129),
1529.
R.
Rabe v. Dunlan (51 N. J. Eq. 40),
23 Atl. Rep. 929), 87, 1363, 1860,
1880.
Race V. Union Paper Mill Co. (95
Ga. 208), 181.
Racine, etc. Co. v. Farmers', Loan,
etc. Co. (49 111. 331: 95 Am. Dec.
595), 1504, 1850, 1863, 1869, 1871,
1872, 1893.
Radebaugh v. Tacoma, etc. R. R.
(8 Wash. 570), 1720.
Raegner v. Hubbard (167 N. Y.
301), 156.
Raenger v. Brockway
(58 N. Y.
App. Div. 166). 943.
Rafferty v. Buffalo Citv Gas Co.
(37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 618), 1689,
1844.
Rafferty v. Central, etc. Co. (147
Pa. St. 579), 1254, 1600.
Rafferty v. Donnelly (197 Pa. St.
423), 1511.
Raft Co. V. Roach (97 N. Y. 378),
1294.
Ragan v. Aiken (9 Lea (Tenn.),
609), 1256, 1556.
Ragan v. McElroy (11 S. W. Rep.
735; 98 Mo. 349), 1239.
Ragland v. Broadnax (29 Graft.
(Va.) 401), 669.
Raht V. Attrill (42 Hun, 414),
172S.
Railroad Commission Cases (116
U. S. 307). 1384.
Railroad Commissioners v. Port-
land, etc. R. Co. (63 Me. 269),
17, 102.
Railroad Co. v. Anderson County
(59 Tex. 654), 714.
Railroad Co. v. Bee (48 Cal. 398),
1250.
Railroad Co. v. Berry (113 U. S.
465), 730.
Railroad Co. v. Boring
(51 Ga.
582), 1250.
Railroad Co. v. Brown (17 Wall
450), 1568.
Railroad Co. v. County of Otoe (16
Wall. 667), 296.
Railroad Co. v. Davis (43 N. Y.
145), 1317.
Railroad Co. v. Derby (14 How.
4G8), 1353.
Railroad Co. v. Evans (6 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 607), 1250.
Railroad Company v. Furnace
Company
(37
Ohio St. 321),
1589.
Railroad Co. v. Georgia (98 U. S.
359), 730, 1864, 1865, 1879.
Railroad Co. v. Glenn (28 Md.
287), 487.
Railroad Co. v. Grayson (119 U. Si
240), 2043.
Railroad Co. v. Harris (12 Wall.
05), 1870, 1871, 1986, 1999.
Railroad Co. v. Howard (7 Wall.
392), 645, 678, 1328, 1361, 1700.
1756, 1769, 1803.
Railroad Co. v. Hutchins (37 Ohio
St. 282), 1503.
Railroad Co. v. King (17 Ohio St.
282), 671.
Railroad Co. v. Jackson (7 Wall.
262), 695.
ccxx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to paijes: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, G21-loOG; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Railroad Co. v. Lockwood (17
Wall. 363), 1G36.
Railroad Co. v. Maine (9G U. S.
499), 720, 729, 1850, 18.^3, 18G2.
Railroad Co. v. Maryland (21
Wall. 45G), 754, 1384.
Railroad Co. v. Mason (16 N. Y.
451), 308.
Railroad Co. v. Morris (68 Tex.
59), 1568, 1572.
Railroad Co. v. Moss (23 Cal. 324),
1304.
Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania (15
Wall. 300), 727.
Railroad Co. v. Pickens (5
Ind.
247), 308.
Railroad Co. v.
Pollard (22 Wall.
(U. S.) 341), 1637.
Railroad Co. v. Pratt (22 Wall.
123), 1578.
Railroad Co. v. Quigley (21
How.
202), 1352.
Railroad Co. v. Schutte (103 U.
S. 118), 1669.
Railroad Co. v. Smith County (65
Tex. 21), 669, 685.
Railroad Co. v. Vance (96 U. S.
436), 1872.
Railroad Co. v. White (10 S. C.
155), 334.
Railroad Tax Cases (8 Sawy.
238), 99.
Railway Co. v. Allerton (18 Wall.
233), 240, 244, 245, 398, 798, 806,
1087.
Railway Co. v. Ailing (99 U. S.
463), 1091, 1510.
Railway Co. v. Dey (35 Fed. Rep.
866), 1648.
Railway Co. v. Fisher (39 Ohio
St. 330), 325.
Railway Co. v. Fuller (17 Wall.
560), 1382.
Railway Co. v. Gill (156 U. S.
649), 720, 1392.
Railway Co. v. Hefley (158 U. S.
98), 1394.
Railway Co. v. Humphries (7
South. Rep. (Miss.) 522), 607.
Railway Companies v. Keokuk
Bridge Company (131 U. S.
371), 1471.
Railway Co. v. McCarthy (96 U.
S. 258), 1231, 1329.
Railway Co. v. Miller (114 U. S.
176), 730.
Railway v. New Orleans (157 U.
S. 219), 45.
Railway Co. v. Nevill (60 Ark.
375), 1636.
Railway Co. v. Pendleton (156 U.
S. 677), 720.
Railway Co. v. Philadelphia (101
U. S. 528), 720.
Railway Co. v. Pratt (22 Wall.
123), 1471.
Railway Co. v. Richmond (96 U.
S. 521), 1386.
Railway Co. v. Sowter (2 Wall.
510), 1781.
Railway Co. v. Telegraph Co. (36
Hun, 205), 1715.
Railway Co. v. Whitton's Adin'r
(13 Wall. 270), 1873, 2010.
Railway Equipment Co. v. Lincoln
Nat. Bank (82 Hun, 8),
1199.
Railway, etc. Co. v. Pierce (27
Ohio St. 155), 2012.
Railway Frog Co. v. Haven (101
Mass. 398), 663.
Railway Light & Heat Co. v. Elk
County (191 Pa. St. 465), 18.
Raleigh v. Fitspatrick (43 N. J.
Eq. 501), 818.
Raleigh, etc. R. Co. v. Davis (2
Dev. & B. (N. C.) 451), 1311.
Raleigh, etc. Co. v. Reed (13 Wall.
269), 52, 719, 722.
Ralls County v. Douglass (105 U.
S. 628), 1593.
Ralph v. Shiawassie, etc. (100
Mich. 164), 1778.
Ralston v. Bank of California
(112 Cal. 208), 618.
Ralston v. Crittenden (3 McCrary,
332), 1726.
Ramsey v. Bradford (2 Dess. 587),
1871.
Ramsey v. Erie Ry. Co. (38 How.
Pr. 193), 242, 1355, 1695.
Ramsey v. Gould (57 Barb. 398),
1695.
Ramsgate, etc. Co. v. Montefiore
(L. R. 1 Ex. 109), 280.
Rance"s Case (L. R. 6 Ch. App.
104), 636, 637, 645.
Rand v. Hubbell (115 Mass. 461),
246, 247, 250, 625, 628, 639, 649.
Rand v. W. Mountains R. Co. (40
N. H. 79), 471, 472, 898, 968.
Randall v. Detroit, etc. Ry. Co. (96
N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 567), 1588.
Randall v. Elwell (52 N. Y. 521),
1716
Randall v Van Vechten (19 Johns.
60), 1046.
Randfield v. Randfield (3 De G.,
F. & J. 766), 1799.
Randolph v. Middleton (26 N. J.
Eq. 543), 1673.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXl
TReferences are to pages: Vol. T, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. TIT, 1507-2134.]
Randolph v. New Jersey, etc. R.
Co. (28 N. J. Eq. 49), 1708, 1714.
Randolph v. Wilmington, etc. Ry.
Co. (11 Phila. 502), 1699, 1734.
Ranger v. Champion, etc. Co. (151
Fed. 61), 146.
Ranger v. Great Western Ry. Co.
(5 H. L. & C. 86), 1502.
Rankin v Sherwood (33 Me. 509),
1969.
Rankin v. Southwest, etc. Co. (73
Pac. (Neb.) 614), 801.
Rankine v. Elliott (10 N. Y. 377),
1796.
Rankins v. McCullough (12 Barb.
103), 586.
Ranney v. Peyser (83 N. Y. 1),
1724.
Ransohi v. Brlnkerhoff (56 N. J.
Eq. 149), 1159.
Ransom v. Priam Lodge (51 Ind.
60), 90.
Rapaillion v. Manusas (108 111.
App. 272), 2134.
Raphael v. Bank (17 C. B. 161),
1687.
Raphael Weill & Co. v. Crittenden
(73 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 238), 1531.
Rapp V. Hutchinson (87 N. Y. S.
459), 1179.
Raritan, etc. Co. v. Delaware, etc.
Co. (18 N. J. Eq. 546), 1952.
Rashdali v. Ford (L. R. 2 Eq.
750), 1705.
Rathbone v. Parkerberg, etc. Co.
(31 W. Va. 798), 799, 800.
Rathbone v. Tioga Nav. Co. (2
Watts & S. (Pa.) 74), 156, 1233.
Rathbiirn v. Snow (123 N. Y.
343). 206, 207, 210, 1201.
Ratcliffe v. Pulaski, etc. Co. (69
Ark. 264; 63 S. W. Rep. 70),
1413.
Ratterman v. Western U. T. Co.
(127 U. S. 411), 28, 748, 759, 760.
Rawlins v. Wickham (3 De G. &
J. 304), 375.
Ray V. Dillingham (41 S. W. Rep.
(Tex.) 188), 1809.
Ray V. Mackin (100 111. 246), 1426.
Ray V. Powers (134 Mass. 22),
2076.
Raymond v. Clark (46 Conn. 129),
1715.
Raymond v. Colton (104 Fed.
219), 1027, 1030.
Raymond v. Leavitt (46 Mich.
447), 1426, 1427, 2115.
Raymond v. Putnam (44 N. H.
160), 1291.
Raymond v. San Gabriel, etc. Co.
(53 Fed. Rep. 883), 369.
Rayner v. Nugent (60 Md. 515),
1666.
Read, Ex parte (36 L. J. Ch. 472),
618.
Read v. Buffum (79 Cal. 77),
1204, 1205.
Read v. Citizens' St. R. Co. (75 S.
W. Rep. (Tenn.) 1056), 1245,
1860.
Read v. Frankfort Bank (23 Me.
318), 104, 1972.
Read v. Head (6 Allen (88 Mass.
174), 647.
Read v. Memphis, etc. Co. (9
Heisk. (Tenn.) 545), 1814.
Reading, etc. Co. v. Graeff (64 Pa.
St. 395), 858.
Reading Iron Works, In re (149
Pa. St. 182), 616.
Reading Trust Co. v. Reading
Iron Works (137 Pa. St. 576),
1828, 1831.
Reading (Town of) v. Wedder
(66 111. 80), 129, 1250.
Ready v. Smith (70 S. W. Rep.
(Mo.) 484), 1185.
Ready v. Tuskaloosa (6 Ala. 327).
129.
Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co.
(154 U. S. 362), 1393, 1554.
Reagan v. First Nat. Bank (62
N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 701), 666.
1670.
Real Estate, etc. Co. v. Silverberg
(108 Ga. 281), 677.
Recamier Mfg. Co. v. Seymour (5
N. Y. Supl. 648), 1194.
Reece v. Newport News, etc. Co.
(32 W. Va. 164), 1992, 1995.
2009, 2010, 2013.
Receivers, etc. v. Wortendyke (27
N. J. Eq. 658), 1726.
Receivership of Columbian Ins.
Co., In re (3 Abb. Ct. of App.
Dec. 239), 697.
Reciprocity Bank, In re (22 N. Y.
9), 255, 263, 292, 574, 588, 840,
878, 889.
Reclamation District, etc. v. Tur-
ner (104 Cal. 334; 37 Pac.
1038), 17.
Rectors of Christ Church v.
County of Philadelphia (24
How. (U. S.) 300), 15, 719, 729.
Reddington v. Pacific P. Co.. (107
Cal. 317), 1622.
Redemption v. Hill (56 Me. 385),
1118.
CCXXll TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. ITT, 1507-2134.}
Redfiold, etc. Co. v. Cyr (95 Me.
287), 1634.
Reel River Bridge Co. v. Clarsk-
ville (1 Sneed (Tenn.), 17G),
1301.
Redmond v. Diclverson (9 N. J.
Eq. 51.5), 1103.
Redmond v. Enfield Maniif. Co. (13
Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 332),
1810, 2016.
Reed's Appeal (130 Pa. St. 333),
1261.
Reed v. Boston Machine Co. (141
Mass. 454), 401, 683.
Reed Bros Co. v. First Nat. Bk.
etc. (46 Neb. 168), 182.
Reed v. Burg (96 N. W. Rep.
(Neb.) 414), 899, 901.
Reed v. Citv of Anoka (85 Minn.
294), 1647.
Reed v. Copeland (50 Conn. 472),
537.
Reed v. Cumberland, etc. Canal
Co. (65 Me. 132), 1938.
Reed v. Hoyt (109 N. Y. 659), 508,
980, 999, 1075, 1112. 1695.
Reed v. Home Savings Bank (130
Mass. 443; 39 Am. Rep. 468),
1486, 1542, 1544.
Reed v. Insurance Co. (95 U. d.
23), 286.
Reed v. .Johnson (27 Wash. 42;
67 Pac. Rep. 381; 57 L. R. A.
404), 1585.
Reed v. .Jones (6 Wis. 680), 1035.
Reed V. Loosemore (197 Pa. St.
26), 1493.
Reed v. Machine Co. (141 Mass.
454), 668.
Reed & McCormick v. Gold (45
S. E. Reo. (Va.) 868), 932.
Reed v. Millikan (79 Ind. 86),
297.
Reed v. Receivers of Richmond,
etc. R. Company
(84 Va. 231),
1799.
Reed v. Reed (114 Mass. 372),
1716.
Reed v. Richmond R. Co. (50 Ind.
342), 83.
Reed v. Schmidt (72 S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 367), 1829.
Reed v. State (15 Ohio, 217), 1547.
Reed v. Upton (10 Pick. (27
Mass.) 522), 966.
Reese v. Bank of Commerce (14
Ind. 271), 687.
Reese v. Bank of Montgomery
Co. (31 Pa. St. 78), 435, 632,
639, 652, 653, 1377.
Reese R. etc. Co. v. Smith (L. R.
4 Bng. & Irish, 64), 274, 358,
363, 365, 933.
Reeves v. Bainbridge (Weekly
Notes, 228), 532.
Reformed Episcopal Church, In re
(12 Phila. 516), 167.
Reg v. Dnlwich College (8 Eng.
& L. & Eq. 385), 191, 192.
Regan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust
Co. (154 U. S. 362). 1391.
Regents' Canal, etc. Co., In re (3
Ch. Div. 43), 1689, 1690.
Regents, etc. v. Williams (9 Gill
& J. (Md.) 365), 2, 16, 1059,
1899, 1913, 1914, 1936, 1937, 1938,
1960.
Regina v. Bewdly
(1 P. Wms.
207), 129.
Regina v. Brown (7 Cox's Crim.
Cas. 442), 580.
Regina v. Carnatic Ry. Co. (L.
R. 8 Q. B. 299), 600, 619.
Regina v. Elsdaile (1 Fost. & F.
213), 580.
Regina v. General Cemetery Co.
(6 El. & B. 415), 525, 617.
Regina v. Great Northern, etc. R.
Co. (9 Q. B. 324), 1490.
Regnia v. Liverpool, etc. Ry. Co.
(21 L. J. Q. B. 284), 528, 617,
618.
Regina v. Londonderry, etc. "'Ry.
Co. (13 Q. B. 998), 601.
Regina v. Maraquita Co. (1 Ellis
& E. 289), 140.
Regina v. Midland Co. etc. Ry. Co.
(15 Ir. Ch. 525), 551, 598.
Regina v. Reed (L. R. 6 Ch. 87;
5 Q. B. Div. 486), 1702, 1703.
Regina v. White (74 Q. B. 645),
1368.
Regina v. Wiltshire, etc. Co. (29
L. T. 922), 145.
Regina v. Wing
(17 Q. B. 645),
600.
Regina, etc. Co. v. Otta, etc. (56
Atl. (N. J.) 715), 1707.
Reichwald v. Commercial Hotel
Co. (106 111. 439), 800, 988, 1084,
1085, 1166, 1243, 1244, 1265, 1953,
1963.
Reid's Case (24 Beav. 318), 557.
Reid V. Allan (4 Exch. 326), 438.
Reid V. Eatonton Manuf. Co. (40
Ga. 98; 2 Am. Rep. 563), 196,
227, 446, 637, 645, 833, 835, 901,
1129.
Reid V. Harvey (5 Q. B. Div. 184),
462.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXlU
TReferencGs arc to pa^es: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, C21-1506; Vol. TIT, 1507-2134.]
Reid V. Joannon (25 Q. B. Div.
300), 1719.
Reid V. Kreling Sons Co. (125
Cal. 117), 174, 882.
Reid V. Northwestern R. R. Co.
(32 Pa. St. 257), 1535, 1515.
Reiff V. Bakkeh (3G Minn. 333),
12G9.
Reiff V. Western U. T. Co. (49
N. Y. Sup. Ct. 441), 1574.
Reifsnider v. American, etc. Co.
(45 Fed. Rep. 433), 2039.
Reilly v. Oglebay (25 W. Va. 3G),
97.5. 982, 1108, 1829, 1825, 1960,
1961.
Reimers v. Seatco Manuf. Co. (70
Fed. Rep. 573), 2017.
Reinliard v. Virginia, etc. Co.
(107 Mo. 616), 160, 878.
Reinliart v. Augusta, etc. Co. (94
Fed. Rep. 901), 1802.
Reining v. New Yorlv, etc. R. R.
(128 N. Y. 157; 14 L. R. A. 133),
1606.
Reinke v. German, etc. Church
(96 N. W. Rep. (S. D.) 90),
2133.
Reinman v. Covington, etc. R. Co.
(7 Neb. 310), 297.
Reis V. Rohde (34 Hun, 161), 1060.
Reissner v. Oxley
(80
Ind. 580),
286.
Relfe V. Columbia Life Ins. Co.
(10 Mo. App. 150), 1329.
Relfe V. Rundle (103 U. S. 222),
1298.
Reliance Mutual Ins. Co. v. Saw-
yer (160 Mass. 413), 1985, 1992.
Relley v. Campbell (134 Cal. 175),
976.
Rembert v. South Carolina Rail-
way Co. (31 S. C. 309; 9 S. B.
Rep. 968),
Remington v. King (11 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 278), 924.
Remington v. Samana Bav Co.
(140 Mass. 494), 863, 865, 866.
Renner v. Bank of Columbia (9
Wheat. 581), 1297.
Rennie v. Clarke (5 Ex. 292), 167,
1223, 1224.
Reno, etc. Co. v. Culver (60 N. Y.
App. Div. 129), 439.
Reno Lodge, etc. v. Grand Lodge,
etc. (54 Kan. 73), 789, 2062.
Reno Water Co. v. Leete (17 Nev.
203), 1194.
Rensselaer, etc. v. Wetzel (21
Barb.
56), 314, 356, 472, 951.
Rensselaer, etc. R. Co. v. Barton
(16 N. Y. 457), 277, 281, 472,
501.
Rensselaer, etc. R. Co. v. Miller
(47 Vt. 146), 1710.
Renville, matter of (46 N. Y. App.
Div. 37), 1029.
Renwick v. Dubuque, etc. R. Co.
(49 Iowa, 664), 1321.
Reorganized Church v. Church of
Christ (60 Fed. Rep. 937), 2052.
Republican, etc. Co. v. Brown (58
Fed. Rep. 644; 24 L. R. A. 776;
19 U. S. App. 203), 78, 79, 188.
1247, 1923, 1951, 1952, 1966.
Republican, etc. Co. v. Northwest-
ern, etc. (10 U. S. App. 72),
774.
Republican Ins. Co., In re (3
Biss. 452), 918.
Republican, etc. Co. v. Pollak (73
111. 292), 712, 714.
Republic L. Ins. Co. v. Swigerl
(135 111. 150), 253.
Reuseus v. Mexican Nat. etc. Co
(22 Fed. Rep. 522), 284, 940.
Revanna, etc. Co. v. Dawsons (3
Gratt. (Va.) 19), 1284.
Revere v. Boston (123 Mass. 375)
711.
Revere v. Boston Copper Co. (15
Pick. (32 Mass.) 363), 197, 1245,
1948.
Rex V. Amery (1 T. R. 589), 67,
68, 69, 70, 1916.
Rex V. Ashwell (12 East, 22), 22L.
Rex V. Askew (4 Burr, 2199), 67.
Rex V. Babb (3 Term Rep. 580),
138.
Rex V. Bank of England (2 Doug.
524; 2 Barn. & A. 620), 144,
262.
Rex V. Barzey (4 M. & S. 255), 6Sf.
Rex V. Cambridge (3 Burr, 1656),
67, 69.
Rex V. Carmathen (1 Maule & S.
702), 997.
Rex V. College of Physicians (7
Term Rep. 282), 191.
Rex V. Coopers Co. (7 Term R.
543), 215.
Rex V. De Berenger (3 M. & S.
702), 1427.
Rex V. Doncaster (2 Burr. 738),
981.
Rex V. Gabonian (11 East, 86),
977, 1000.
Rex V. Head (4 Burr. 2515), 198,
201.
Rex V. Hilkens (2 Chitty, 163),
1427.
CCXX17
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Rex V. Hostmen (2 Stra. 1223),
142.
Rex V.
Langhorn (4 Ad. & E.
538), 977, 981.
Rex V. London (2 Lev. 201),
213.
Rex V. Mayor, etc. Carmathen (1
Maule & S. fi97), 1010.
Rex V. Merchant Tailors' Co. (2
Barn. & Adol. 115), 140, 142.
Rex V. Pasmore (3 T. R. 119, 227),
129. lOKi, 1935, 1936.
Rex V. Registrar (10 Q. B. 839),
130.
Rex V. Shelley (3 Term Rep. 142),
138
Rex v. Spencer (3 Burr. 1827),
1008.
Rex V. Sterling (1
Keble, 650),
1427.
Rex V. Surgeons' Co. (2 Burr.
892), 1901.
Rex V. Theodorick (2 Burr. 892),
977.
Rex V. Thursfield (Skin. 27),
1481.
Rex V. Town of Liverpool (2 Burr.
723), 774, 981, 2055.
Rex V. Waddington (1 East, 143),
1416, 1427.
Rex V. Westwood (2 Dow. & CI.
(Bing.) 217), 68, 70.
Rex V. Westward (4 Barn. &
Adol. 785), 67, 195.
Rex V. Wilshire & B. Canal Co.
(3 Adol. & E. 477), 144.
Rex V. Worcester, etc. Co. (1 Mon.
& R. 529), 619.
Rexford v. Knight (11 N. Y. 308),
1980.
Rev V. Devncourt (4 Best & S.
820), 2071.
Reynolds v. Collins (78 Ala. 97),
689.
Reynolds v. Commissioners (5
Ohio, 205), 1242, 1243.
Reynolds v. Douglas (12 Pet.
497), 866.
Reynolds v. Feliciana Steamboat
Co. (17 La. Rep. 397), 909, 910.
Reynolds v. Ins. Co. (47 N. Y.
, 597), 286.
Reynolds v. Myers (51 Vt. 444),
1504.
Rhawn v. Edge Hill, etc. Co. (201
Pa. St. 637), 6.
Rhey v. Ellensburg, etc. (27 Pa.
St. 261), 273, 382.
Rhines v. Evans (65 Pa. St. 195),
489.
Rhoads v. Hoernerstown, etc.
Assn. (1 Norris (Pa.), 180), 118.
Rhodes v. Hilligoss (16 Ind. App.
478), 1790.
Rhodes v. Rhodes (88 Tenn. 537),
2129.
Rhodes v. Webb (24 Minn. 292),
1108, 1187.
Ribon V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (16
Wall. 446), 1751, 1752.
Ricaud v. Wilmington, etc. Co.
(25 U. S. App. 534; 70 Fed. Rep.
424; 17 C. C. A. 170), 546.
Rice V. Merrimack, etc. Co. (56
N. H. 114), 845.
Rice V. Minnesota & N. R. Co. (1
Black, 380), 56.
Rice V. National Bank (126 Mass.
300), 128, 1913, 1915, 1918, 1936.
Rice V. Peninsular Club (52 Mich.
87), 799, 1054. 1167, 1168.
Rice V. Rockefeller (134 N. Y.
174; 17 L. R. A. 237; 30 Am.
St. Rep. 658), 822, 1442.
Rice V. Rock Island, etc. R. Co.
(21 111. 93), 111, 282, 342, 377.
Rice V. St. Paul & Pacific R. Co.
(24 Minn. 464), 1747.
Rice's Appeal (79 Pa. St. 168),
1217, 1755.
Rich V. Chicago (74 Pac. Rep.
(Wash.) 1078), 2007.
Rich V. Seneca Falls (8 Fed. Rep.
852; 19 Blatchf. 958), 1679.
Richard v. Warren Co. (31 "Md.
381), 1343.
Richards v. Attleborough Nat. Bk.
(148 Mass. 187; 1 L. R. A. 781),
1044, 1045.
Richards v. Beach (5 N. Y. Supp.;
12 N. Y. 136), 867.
Richards v. Brice (16 N. Y. 1018),
926.
Richards v. Chesapeake, etc. R.
Co. (1 Hughes, 28; 20 Fed! Cas,
692), 1737.
Richards v. Cooper (5 Beav. 304),
1738.
Richards v. Crocker (19 Abb. N.
Cas. (N. Y.) 73),
923.
Richards v. Farmers' etc. Inst.
(154 Pa. St. 449; 35 Am. St.
Rep. 848),
1094.
Richards v. Merrimack, etc. R. R.
(44 N. H. 127), 1253, 1255, 1256,
1704, 1709, 1710.
Richards v. Minn. Sav. Bk. (75
Minn. 196), 879, 1954.
Richards v. New Hampshire Ins.
Co. (43 N. H. 263), 1702.
Richards v. Southampton Dock
Co. (1 Man. & Gr. 448), 465.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXV
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Richards v. Todd (127 Mass. 167),
375.
Richardson v. Abendroth (43
Barb. 162), 562, 859, 8S6, 906.
Richardson & B. Co. v. Richardson
& M. Co. (8 N. Y. Supp. 52),
121.
Richardson v. Buhl (Diamond
Match Case) (77 Mich. 632; 43
N. W. Rep. 1102; 6 L. R. A.
457), 633, 1449, 1910.
Richardson v. Chicago, etc. Co.
(63 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 74), 439.
Richardson v. City of St. Albans
(72 Vt. 1), 714.
Richardson v. Emmett (61 N. Y.
App. Div. 205; 70 N. Y. Supp.
546), 605.
Richardson-Gardner v. Freemantle
(24 L. T. 81; Week. Rep. 25G),
771.
Richardson v. Emmett (170 N. Y.
412), 536.
Richardson v. Graham (45 W. Va.
134), 507.
Richardson v. Green (133 U. S.
30), 432, 450, 1697.
Richardson v. Longwood, etc. Co.
(76 Pac. Rep. (Colo. App.) 346),
593.
Richardson v. Massachusetts, etc.
Assn. (131 Mass. 174), 1233,
1234.
Richardson v. Merritt (74 Minn.
354), 921.
Richardson v. Olivier (105 Fed.
Rep. 277; 44 C. C. A. 468; 53 L.
R. A. 113), 791, 792.
Richardson v. Pitts (71 Mo. 128),
168, 172.
Richardson v. Richardson (75 Me.
570; 46 Am. Rep. 428), 647.
Richardson v. Sibley (11 Allen
(65 Mass.), 65; 87 Am. Dec.
700), 1244, 1245, 1253, 1262, 1699,
1763, 1851.
Richardson v. Union Congrega-
tional Soc. (58 N. H. 187), 230,
2124.
Richardson v. Vermont, etc. R.
Co. (44 Vt. 613), 662, 664, 665,
674, 979, 991, 1874.
Richardson v. Wallace (39 S. C.
216), 1968.
Richardson v. William.son (L. R.
6 Q. B. 276), 1154, 1705.
Richardson's Case (L. R. 19 Eq.
588), 551, 557, 886.
Riche V. Ashbury Rv. Car Co. (L.
R. 9 Exch. 244), 1338, 1340.
Riche V. Bar Harbor, etc. Co. (75
Me. 91.) , 1308, 1310.
Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Internat-
ional, etc. Co. (140 111. 248; 33
Am. St. Rep. 234), 271.
Richell's Case (L. R. 3 Ch. 119),
600.
Richfield v. Reynolds (46 Conn.
375), 311.
Richland County v. People (3 III.
App. 210), 283.
Richmond v. Blake (132 U. S.
592), 744.
Richmond v. Clarke (61 Me. 351),
282.
Richmond v. Irons (121 U. S. 27),
491, 555, 566, 567, 571, 594, 856,
916.
Ftichmond, etc. R. R. Co. v. Rich-
mond (26 Gratt. (Va.) 83),
1402.
Richm.ond v. Southern, etc. Co.
(174 U. S. 761), 1624.
Richmond v. Southern B. T. Co.
(42 U. S. App. 686; 28 C. C.
A. 659), 1615.
Richmond Bank v. Robinson (42
Me. 589), 1369.
Richmond, Fredericksburg, etc. R.
Co. V. Louisa R. Co. (13 How.
71), 62.
Richmond Factory Assn. v.
Clark (61 Me. 351), 70, 83.
Richmond Hill Hotel Co., Ex parte
Pellatt (L. R. 2 Ch. 527; 36 L.
J. Ch. 613), 275.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Brown (97
Va. 26), 1590.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Louisa R.
Co. (13 How. 71), 1301.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. New York,
etc. Co. (95 Va. 386), 1975.
Richmond, etc. Co. v. Snead (19
Gratt. (Va.) 394; 100 Am. Dec.
670), 1270.
Richmond St. Ry. Co. v. Reed (83
Ind. 9), 115, 167, 345, 353.
Richmond's Case (4 Kay & J.
305), 330, 335, 553, 554, 571, 943.
Richter v. Frank (41 Fed. Rep.
859), 2116.
Richwald v. Commercial Hotel Co.
(106 111. 439), 1953.
Ricker v. Alsop (27 Fed. Rep.
251), 1710, 1761, 1821.
Ricker v. American Loan & T. Co.
(140 Mass. 346), 2095, 2096,
2097.
Ricker v. Larkin (27 111. App.
625), 84.
CCXXVl TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-Cl'J; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Riokerson, etc. Co. v. Farrell, etc.
Co. (75 Fed. Rep. 554; 23 C. C.
A. 302). 875, 1771.
Ricketts v. Bennett (4 M., G. &
S. 086), 2099, 2101.
Ricketts v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co.
(23 W. Va. 433; 7 L. R. A. 354;
25 Am. St. Rep. 901), 1568.
Riddick v. Amelia (1 Mo. 5), 65.
Riddle V. Bedford (7 Sergt. & R.
302), 1095.
Riddle v. Proprietors, etc. (7 Mass.
184; 5 Am. Dec. 35), 68, 70,
88, 1481, 1915, 1949.
Ridenour v. Mayo (40 Ohio St. 9),
2092.
Rider v. Alton, etc. R. Co. (13
111. 516), 632.
Rider v. Fritchey (49
Ohio St.
2S5; 15 L. R. A. 513), 843, 850
Rider Life Raft Co. v. Roach (97
N. Y. 378), 1340.
Rider v. Morrison (54 Md. 429),
447, 551, 885.
Rider v. Nelson, etc. Factory (7
Leigh (Pa.), 156; 30 Am. Dec.
495), 1971.
Ridgeiield, etc. R. Co. v. Brush
(43 Conn. 86), 302, 304, 319, 324,
362.
Ridgefield, etc. R. Co. v. Reynolds
(46 Conn. 375), 322, 324.
Ridgely v. Dobson (3 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 118), 2076, 2084.
Ridgway v. Farmers' Bank (12
Sergt. & R. (Pa.) 256; 14 Am.
Dec. 681), 798, 1266.
Ridgway Township y. Griswold (1
McCrary, 151), 1863, 1865, 1875,
1890.
Rigby V. Connol (14 Ch. Div. 482),
785, 2059.
Rigg V. Reading, etc. R. R. (191
Pa. St. 298), 1030.
Riggs V. Commercial, etc. Ins. Co.
(125 N. Y. 7; 10 L. R. A. 684),
791, 793.
Riggs V. Whitney (15
Abb. Pr.
383), 1724.
Rike V. Floyd (42 Fed. Rep. 247),
1527.
Rikhof V. Brown's Rotary, etc.
(68 Ind. 388), 278.
Rinesmith v. People's Freight Ry.
Co. (90 Pa. St. 262), 362, 363.
Ring V. Long Island, etc. Co. (87
N. Y. 682), 1179.
Ringo V. Biscoe (13 Ark. 563),
1769.
Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. Burns
(82 Tex. 50), 387.
Ripley v. Evans (87 Mich. 217),
864.
Ripley v. Sampson (10 Pick. (27
Mass.) 371), 474, 570, 842.
Riser v. Southern Ry. Co. (40 S.
E. Rep. (S. C.) 47), 1482.
Risley v. Howell (57 Fed. Rep.
544), 1593.
Risley v. Indianapolis, etc. R. Co.
(1 Hun, 202), 1190.
Ritchie v. McMullen (79 Fed. Rep.
522; 25 C. C. A. 50), 1120, 1215.
Rivanna Nav. Co. v. Dawsons (3
Gratt. 19; 46 Am. Dec. 183), 553.
Riverside Iron Works v. Hall (64
Mich. 165), 1147.
Riverton Ferry Co. v. McKeesport,
etc. Co. (179 Pa. St. 466), 1652.
Rives V. Montgomery, etc. PI. R.
Co. (30 Ala.
92), 362, 364, 370,
374, 456.
Roach V. Burgess (62 S. W. Rep.
(Tex.) 803), 1284, 1768.
Roake v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (57
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 160), 2025.
Roan v. Winn (93 Mo. 503), 1774.
Robbins v. Butler (24 111. 387),
2087, 2091.
Robbins v. Clay
(33 Me. 132),
1356.
Roberts' Case (3 De Gex & Son,
205), 306.
Roberts v. Button (14 Vt. 195),
1054, 1146, 1148.
Roberts v. Bolles (101 U. S. 119),
1674.
Roberts' Api>eal (92 Pa. St. 407),
647, 2087, 2097.
Robbins v. Justice (12 Gray
(78
Mass.), 225), 919.
Roberts v. Mobile, etc. Co. (32
Miss. 373), 305, 319, 322.
Robertson v. H. E. Bucklen & Co.
(107 111. App. 369), 622, 802,
1109, 1168.
Robertson v. Bullions (11 N. Y.
243), 12, 14, 15, 807, 1091, 2082,
2124.
Robertson v. Conrey
(5 La. Ann.
297), 447.
Robertson v. National Steamship
Co. (139 N. Y. 416), 1655.
Robertson v. Noeninger (20 111.
App. 227), 968.
Robertson v. Rockford (21 111.
451), 1890.
Robertson v. Staed (135 Mo. 135;
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXVll
[References are to pages : Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, loOT-2134.]
33 L. R. A. 203; 58 Am. St. Rep.
5G9), 1790.
Robeson v. Centi'al R. R. (7G Hun,
444), 2026.
Robie V. Sedwick (35 Barb. 319),
92.
Robinson v. Atlantic, etc. Ry. Co.
(66 Pa. St. 16a), 1747.
Robinson v. Attrill (66 How. Pr.
121), 1144.
Robinson a*. Bank of Darien (18
Ga. 65), 459, 496, 497, 915, 926.
Robinson v. Beal (26 Ga. 17), 253,
553, 1284.
Robinson v. Bidwell (22 Cal. 379),
297, 438.
Robinson v. Bland (2 Burr. 1077),
1368.
Robinson v. Chartered Bank (L.
R. 1 Eq. 32), 617.
Robinson v. Hall (59 Fed. Rep.
648; 63 Fed. Rep. 222), 817,
1513, 1792.
Robinson v. Hemstreet (21 Fla.
342), 799.
Robinson v. Hurley
(11
Iowa,
410), 586.
Robinson v. Iron Ry. Co. (135
U. S. 522), 1751, 1752.
Robinson v. Lamb (126 N. C. 492;
36 S. E. Rep. 29), 1412.
Robinson v. Lane (19 Ga. 337),
460, 497, 554, 837, 854, 855, 1971,
1978.
Robinson v. Mollett (L. R. 7 H.
L. 802), 2114.
Robinson v. National Bank (95
N. Y. 637), 643.
Robinson v. Nesbit (L. R. C. P.
264), 960.
Robinson v. New Berne Nat. Bk.
(95 N. Y. 637), 627.
Robinson v. Norris (51 Hov.^. Pr.
442), 2107.
Robinson v. Oceanic, etc. Co. (112
N. Y. 315), 2018, 2033.
Robinson v. Philadelphia, etc. Co.
(28 Fed. Rep. 340), 1821, 1823.
Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
(32 Pa. St. 334; 72 Am. Dee.
792), 317, 319, 320, 334, 335, 339,
358, 362, 489.
Robinson v. Robinson (10 Me.
240), 2074, 2077.
Robinson v. Smith (3 Paige, Ch.
322), 1121, 1125, 1154.
Robinson v. W. Virginia L. Co.
(90 Fed. Rep. 770), 2037.
Robinson v. Yates City Lodge (86
111. 599), 221, 772, 778, 2048.
Robinson's Executors' Case (3 De
G. & M. & G. 572), 569.
Robison v. Carey
(8
Ga. 530),
1129.
Robson V. Michigan, etc. R. Co.
(37 Mich. 70), 1720.
Roby V. New York, etc. R. R. Co.
(142 N. Y. 176), 1312.
Roby V. Smith (131 Ind. 342),
1709.
Rochdale Canal Co. v. King
(2
Sim. (N. S.) 89), 828.
Rochester v. Barnes (26 Barb.
657), 54, 1146.
Rochester, etc. v. City of Roch-
ester (82 N. Y. 455), 1646.
Rochester, etc. Co., In re (40 Hun,
172), 1009, 1011.
Rochester, etc. Ry., In re (45
Hun, 126), 1278, 1432.
Rochester, etc. Co. v. Joel (41 N.
Y. App. Div. 43), 1658.
Rochester Savings Bank v. Aver-
ell (96 N.' Y. 467), 1164.
Rochester v. Shaw (100 Ind. 268),
1516.
Rochester Water Commissioners,
In re (66 N. Y. 413), 103.
Rockefeller v. Lamora (80 N. Y.
S. 1), 1187.
Rockford, etc. R. Co. v. Sage (65
111. 328; 16 Am. Rep. 587), 1068,
1076, 1166, 1215.
Rockford, etc. R. Co. v. Schumick
(65 111. 223), 333.
Rockford, etc. Co. v. Standard,
etc. Co. (175 111. 89), 443, 1770,
1773.
Rockland M. etc. Boat Co. v.
Sewall (80 Me. 400), 313.
Rock River Bank v. Sherwood (10
Wis. 230), 1351.
RockAalle, etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Maxwell (2 Cranch, C. C. 451),
767, 2065. ,
Rockville, etc. Turnpike R. v. Van
Ness (2 Cranch, C. C. 449), 342,
377.
Rockwell V. Elkhorn Bank (13
Wis. 653), 1266.
Rocky Mountain Nat. Bk. v. Bliss
(89 N. Y. 338), 864, 865, 906.
Rock Creek v. Strong (99 U. S.
271), 296.
Rock Island Bank v. Loyhed (28
Minn. 396), 1526, 1531.
Rodgers v. Adriatic, etc. Co. (87
Hun, 384), 1967.
Rodgers v. Wheeler (43 N. Y.
598), 1576.
CCXXVlll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-150C; Vol. Ill, l.o07-2134.]
Roe V. Jerome (18 Conn. 138),
343.
llochler v. Mechanics' Aid Sec.
(:^2 Mich. 8), 7G9, 20G3.
Rosters, Ex parte (15 Ch. Div.
207), 2116.
Rogers v. Burlington (3 Wall.
C54), 296, 1674.
Rogers v. Burr (97 Ga. 103),
321.
Rogers v. Danby U. Soc. (19 Vt.
187), 149, 150.
Rogers v. Dexter R. R. (85 Me.
372; 21 L. R. A. 636), 860.
Rogers v. Haines (96 Ala, 589),
1791.
Rogers v. Hastings, etc. Ry. Co.
(22 Minn. 25), 1076.
Rogers v. Huntington Bk. (13
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 77), 690, 2070.
Rogers v. Jones (1 Wend. 200),
223.
Rogers v. Jones (5 D. & R. 484),
139.
Rogers v. Lafayette, etc. Works
(52 Ind. 304), 1359.
Rogers v. Lee County
(1
Dill.
(U. S.) 529), 1679.
Rogers v. Michigan, etc. R. Co.
(28 Barb. 539), 1704.
Rogers v. Mobile, etc. R. Co. (16
Rep. 536), 1799.
Rogers v. Nashville, etc. Ry. Co.
(91 Fed. Rep. (C. C. A.) 299),
72, 793, 1015, 1337, 1711.
Rogers v. New York, etc. Co. (49
Hun, 606), 814, 821, 1161.
Rogers v. New York & Ten. Land
Co. (134 N. Y. 197), 1833.
Rogers v. Pell (154 N. Y. 518),
792.
Rogers v. Phelps (9 N. Y. Supp.
S86), 817.
Rogers v. Prattsville Manuf. Co.
(81 Ala. 483), 1715.
Rogers v. Riley
(80 Fed. Rep.
759), 1748, 1790.
Rogers v. Smith (5 Hun, 475),
283.
Rogers v. Stevens (8 N. J. Eq.
167), 611, 963.
Rogers v. Wheeler (43 N. Y. 598),
1761.
Rogers Locomotive Works v.
Lewis (4 Dill, 158), 1721.
Rogers Locomotive Works v.
Southern R. Assn. (34 Fed. Rep.
278), 1700.
Rogers Manufacturing Co. v. R.
W. Rogers Co. (66 Fed. Rep.
56), 1807.
Rogers, etc. Co. v. Fergus (180
U. S. 624), 1553, 1650.
Rogers Park Water Co. v. Fergus
(178 111. 571), 1385.
Roller Co. v. Cushman (143 Mass.
353), 1438.
Rollins v. Clay (33 Me. 132), 1947,
1962.
Rollins v. Shaver, etc. Co. (80
Iowa, 380; 45 N. W. Rep. 1037),
254, 1246, 1285, 1774.
Rollings v. New IMemphis, etc. Co.
(CO S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 206),
132.
Roman v.
'
Fry (5 J. J. Marsh
(Ky.), 634), 263, 551, 557, 574,
885.
Roman v. Woolfolk (145 Pa. St.
13; 98 Ala. 219), 823.
Romare v. Broken, etc. (114 Fed.
Rep. 194), 1777.
Rome V. Lenchold (101 Wis. 242),
1772.
Romeo v. Chapman (2 Mich. 179),
126.
Romford Canal Co., In re (24 Ch.
Div. 85), 1677, 1701.
Rood V. Railway Passenger, etc.
Assn. (31 Fed. Rep. 62), 2070.
Roofing, etc. Assn., In re (200 Pa.
St. Ill), 881.
Rooney v. Southern, etc. Assn.
(47 S. E. Rep. (Ga.) 345), 1802.
Roosevelt v. Dole (2 Cow. 581),
1866.
Root V. Sinnock (120 111. 350),
588, 852, 853, 893.
Root V. Sweeney (12 S. D. 43),
1791.
Root V. Wallace (4 McLean,
8),
1297.
Rorke v. Russell (2 Lans. (N.
Y.) 244), 2080.
Rorke v. San Francisco Stock Ex-
change, etc. (99 Cal. 196), 2109.
Rorke v. Thomas (56 N, Y. 559),
916, 1949, 1962.
Rosborough v. Shasta River, etc.
Co. (22 Cal. 556), 1071.
Rose V. Barclay (191 Pa. St. 594),
625.
Rose V. Bridgeport (17 Conn.
243), .1681.
Roseboom v. Whittaker (132 HI.
81), 1977.
Rose Hill, etc. Co. v. People (115
111. 133), 92.
Rose V. King (5 S. & R. 241), 148,
2035.
Rose V. Page (2 Sim. 471), 1738.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.
J
Rose V. San Antonio, etc. R. Co.
(31 Tex. 49), 333.
Rosenbaum v. Horton (89 Iowa,
692), 1241.
Rosenbaum v. Rice (83 N. Y.
Siipp. 494), 812, 908, 1859.
Rosenbaum v. United States, etc.
Co. (61 N. J. Law, 543; revers-
ing 60 N. J. Law, 294), 1973,
1974.
Rosenberger v. Washington Fire
Ins. (87 Pa. St. 207), 2067.
Rosenkrans v. Lafayette, etc. Ry.
Co. (18 Fed. Rep. 513), 1696.
Rosenfeld v. Peoria, etc. Ry. (103
Ind. 121), 14SS.
Rosenthal v. Madison, etc. Co. (10
Ind. 358), 128, 129.
Rosevelt v. Brown (11 N. Y. 148),
555, 562, 568, 887, 889.
Roshe's Appeal (69 Pa. St. 462),
2082.
Ross V. Army & Navy Hotel Co.
(34 Ch. Div. 53), 1706, 1719.
Ross V. Bank of Gold Hill (20
Nev. 191), 588, 939.
Ross V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (77
111. 134), 111.
Ross V. Estates Inv. Co. (L. R. 3
Ch. 682), 368, 369.
Ross V. Heckman (84 Fed. Rep.
6), 1797.
Ross V. Lafayette, etc. R. Co. (6
Ind. 297), 454. 461.
Ross V. Ross (25 Ga. 297), 238,
967.
Ross V. Silver & Copper Island
Min. Co. (31 N. W. Rep. 219),
519.
Ross V. South Western R. Co. (59
Ga. 514), 392, 393.
Ross V. States, etc. Co. (L. R. 3
Ch. App. 682), 406.
Ross V. Union Pacific Ry. Co. (1
Woolw. 26), 575, 576.
Rossie Iron Works v. Westbrook
(59 Hun, 345), 134.
Roswell V. Equitable Aid Union
(13 Fed. Rep. 840), 2067, 2071.
Rotch's Wharf Co. v. Judd (108
Mass. 224), 1233.
Rothchild v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.
(10 N. Y. Sup. 36), 1515.
Rothchild v. Memphis, etc. R. R.
(113 Fed. Rep. 476), 1561, 1758.
Rothmiller v. Stein (143 N. Y.
581), 1118.
Rothwell V. Robinson (39 Minn.
1), 824, 826.
Rouede v. Jersey City (18
Fed.
Rep. 722), 1671, 1677, 1684.
Rough V. Brietung (117 Mich.
48), 594, 792.
Rounds V. McCormick (114 111.
252), 459, 496, 896.
Roundtree v. Smith (108 U. S.
269), 2115.
Rousillon V. Rousillon (14 Ch.
Div. 351), 1420.
Rowe V. Granite Bridge Co. (21
Pick. (38 Mass.) 344), 1921,
1925.
Rowe V. New York, etc. Co. (66
N. J. L. 19), 1627.
Rowe V. Wood (2 Jac. & W. 553),
1739.
Rowland's Case (42 L. T. (N. S.)
785), 506, 560.
Rowland v. Meader F. Co. (38
Ohio St. 269), 178, 353, 1978.
Roxbury v. Boston, etc. Co. (6
Cush. (60 Mass.) 424), 94.
Royal Bank v. Grand Jet. R. Co.
(125 Mass. 490), 828.
Royal Bank of India's Case (4 Ch.
App. 252), 229, 562.
Royal British Bank, In re (3 De
G. & J. 387), 553, 554.
Royal British Bank v. Turquand
(5 El. & B. 248), 1297, 1298.
Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc.
Ry. (113 Fed. Rep. 531), 1590,
1787, 1804.
Rubv, etc. Co. v. Prentice (25
Colo. 4), 1065.
Ruchizky v. De Haven (97 Pa. St.
202), 558, 2113.
Rudge V. Bowman (L. R. 3 Q. B.
698), 547.
Rudolph, Ex parte (32 L. J. Q.
B. 369), 617.
Rudolph V. Southern, etc. (7 N.
Y. Supp. 135; 23 Abb. N. C.
199), 122, 1088.
Rugeley, etc. v. Robinson (19 Ala.
404), 565.
Ruggles V. Brock (6 Hun, 164),
932 933.
Ruggles V." Illinois (108 U. S. 536),
55, 61, 62, 101, 1383, 1384, 1385,
1556.
Ruggles V. People (91 111. 256),
Ruhlender v. Chesapeake, etc. R.
R. (91 Fed. Rep. 5),
1802.
Rule V. Omega, etc. Co. (64 Minn.
326), 904.
Rumball v. Metropolitan Bank (2
Q. B. Div. 194), 389, 390, 525.
ccxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-150C; Vol. Ill 1507-2134.]
RumbouKh v. Southern, etc. Co.
(lOG N. C. 4GI), 1178.
Rumsey v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(203 Pa. St. 579),
1182.
Rumsev v. People, etc. Ry. (154
Mo. 215), 1759, 1824.
Run del v. Life Assn. of America
(4 Woods (U. S.), C. Ct. 94),
1977.
Rundle V. Delaware, etc. Canal (1
Wall. Jr. 291), 39.
Runner v. Dwiggins (147 Ind. 238;
3G L. R. A.C45), 895.
Runvan v. Coster (14 Pet. 122),
746, 1237, 1329.
Runyon v. Farmers', etc. Bank (3
Green (N. J. L.), 480),
1748.
Rushville, etc. Co. v. Irvin (27
Ind. App. G2), IGll, 1621.
Rushville Gas. Co. v. Rushville
(122 Ind. 575; 6 L. R. A. 315),
1015.
Rusling V. Union, etc. Co. (5
N.
Y. App. Div. 448), 132.
Russell V. Alabama, etc. Ry. (94
Ga. 510),
935.
Russell V. Bristol (49 Conn. 251),
931.
Russell v. East Anglian Ry. Co. (3
Macn. & G. 125), 1732.
Russell v. Easterbrook (71 Conn.
50), 573.
Russell V. McLellan (14 Pick. (31
Mass.) 69), 12, 69, 77, 1246,
1941, 1953, 1960, 1961, 1962.
Russell V. Post (138 U. S. 425),
i248.
Russell V. Rock, etc. Co. (184 Pa.
St. 102), 7, 793.
Russell V. Stevenson (75 Pac.
Rep. (Wash.) 627), 1158.
Russell v. Texas, etc. Ry. Co. (68
Tex. 646), 1237.
Russell V. Wakefield, etc. Co. (20
Eq. (L. R.) 474; 1 Smith Cas.
291), 636, 802.
Russell's Executors' Case (15 Sol.
J. 790), 570.
Rust Ovv^en L. Co. v. Wellman (10
S. D. 122), 882.
Rust v. United Waterworks (70
Fed. Rep. 129), 1785, 1796.
Rutherford v. Hill (22 Or. 218;
29 Am. St. Rep. 596), 169.
Rutland Bank v. Page (53 Vt.
452), 1132.
Rutland, etc. Co. v. Bates (68
Vt. 579), 1183, 1218.
Rutland, etc. Co. v. Marble City,
etc. Co. (65 Vt. 377), 1595, 1612.
Rutland, etc. Co. v. Proctor (29
Vt. 93), 1346, 1471.
Rutland Ry. Co. v. Chaffee (72
Vt. 404), 970, 1536, 1591.
Rutland R. Co. v. Haven (19 Atl.
Rep. 7G9; 62 Vt. 39), 1210.
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall (35
Vt. 536), 111, 346, 454, 456, 457,
461, 4G2, 464, 465, 472, 473, 474,
475, 476, 477, 479, 624, 662, 663,
664, 665, 674, 781, 1085, 1088.
Rutten v. Union Pacific R. R. (17
Fed. Rep. 480), 1668, 1717, 1721,
1836, 1893, 1894.
(21 Kan. 365), 631, 641, 1108,
Rust v. Esler, etc. Manuf. Co. (3
111. App. S3), 355, 357, 364.
Ryan v. Campbell (71 Iowa, 760),
594.
Ryan v. Commissioners (30 Kan.
185), 712.
Ryan v. Cudahy (157 111. 108),
2109.
Ryan v. Dunlap (17 111. 40; 63
Am. Dec. 334), 1662.
Ryan v. Hayes (62 Tex. 42), 1809.
Rvan v. Leavenworth, etc. R. Co.
1120, 1126, 1278, 1282.
Ryan v. Manufacturers' & Mer-
chants' Bank (9 Daly (N. Y.),
308), 1198.
Ryder v. Alton R. R. (13 111. 516),
281, 300, 334, 472, 593, 637, 690,
768, 1035, 2065.
Rymer, Ex parte (14 Week. Rep.
276), 617.
s.
Sabin v. Bank of Woodstock (21
Vt. 353), 954, 2110.
Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co. (25
Oreg. 15), 1773.
Sacketts' Harbor Bank v. Blake
(3 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 225), 844,
852, 916.
Sacramento Bank v. Pacific Bank
(124 Cal. 147; 45 L. R. A. 863),
854, 855.
Sacramento, etc. R. Co. v. Super-
ior Ct. etc. (55 Cal. 453), 1731.
Sadler's Case (3 De G. & Sm. 86),
575, 592.
Safford v. People (85 111. 558),
1965.
Sage, In re (70 N. Y. 220), 142,
144, 1872.
Soge V. Central R. R. (99 U. S.
334), 1726, 1728, 1731, 1740, 1751,
1761.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXl
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. IT, 021-1500; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Sage V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co.
(70 N. Y. 220), 1888.
Sage V. Memphis, etc. R. Co. (125
U. S. 3G1), 1726, 1740, 1783, 1784.
Sager v. Smith (45 N. Y. App.
Div. 358), 1808.
Sagory v. Dubois (3 Sandf. Ch.
466), 430, 437, 440, 459, 493, 497,
564, 645, 1796.
Sahlgard v. Kennedy (1 McCrary,
291; 2 Fed. Rep. 295), 1759,
1761.
St. Ana's Asylum v. New Orleans
(105 U. S. 3G2), 38, 717, 718.
St. Ann's Church, In re (23 How.
Pr. 2S5), 807, 1091.
St. Anthony & Co. v. King Bridge
Co. (23 Minn. 186), 1524.
St. Cecilia Academy v. Hardin (78
Ga. 39), 1526.
St. Charles Manuf. Co. v. Britton
(2 Mo. App. 290), 269.
St. Clair v. Cox (106 U. S. 350),
747, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2021.
St. Clair Co. T. Co. v. Illinois (96
U. S. 63), 55, 57, 58.
St. Clara Female Academy v. Sul-
livan (116 111. 375; 56 Am. Rep.
776), 13, 19, 1998.
St. Helen Mill Co., In re (3 Sawy.
88), 1045.
St. James' Club, In re (2 De G.,
M. & G. 383), 2053, 2073, 2074.
St. James' Parish v. Newburyport
etc. R. Co. (141 Mass. 500), 1169.
St. John V. Erie R. Co. (22 Wall.
136; 10 Blatchf. 271), 241, 633,
634, 663, 670, 671, 675, 679.
St. Joseph V. Rogers (16 Wall.
663), 283, 988.
St. Joseph V. Saville (39 Mo. 460),
1655.
St. Joseph, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc.
Ry. (89 Fed. Rep. 648), 1559,
1757.
St. Joseph, etc. R. Co. v. Dever-
eaux (41 Fed. Rep. 14), 739.
St. Joseph, etc. Co. v. Ryan (11
Kan. 602), 1471, 1587.
St. Joseph & Iowa Ry. Co. v.
Shambaugh (116 Mo. 557), 67,
69, 71, 151.
St. Lav/rence, etc. R. R., In re
(133 N. Y. 270), 385.
St. Lawrence Steamboat Co., In
re (44 N. J. 329), 770, 1008, 1021,
1024, 1025, 1044, 1045, 1050, 1051,
1052, 1053.
St. Louis V. Bell Tel. Co. (96 Mo.
623), 1617.
St. Louis V. Belleville, etc. (158
111. 390), 1307.
St. Louis V. Missouri R. Co. (13
Mo. App.
524), 1605.
St. Louis V. Neel (56 Ark. 279),
1583.
St. Louis (City of) v. St. Louis
Gas Light Co. (70 Mo. 69), 1250.
St. Louis V. Shields (62 Mo. 247),
1917.
St. Louis V. Western, 'etc. Co,
(148 U. S. (1893) 92), 1601.
St. Louis V. Western, etc. Tel. Co:
(63 Fed. Rep. 68), 1623, 1624.
St. Louis Colonization Assn. v.
Henessy (11 Mo. App.
555), 815,
1017.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Consolidated,
etc. Co. (32 Fed. Rep. 802), 2025.
St. Louis, etc. Coal Co. v. Sand-
oval Coal Co. (116 111. 170),
813, 1778, 1806, 1909, 1947.
St. Louis, etc. Ins. Co. v. Good-
fellow (9 Mo. 149), 199, 202,
222, 226, 686, 692.
St. Louis, etc. Inst, of Christian
Science, In re (27 Mo. App.
633), 11, 14, 15.
St. Louis, etc. Loan Assn. v. Aug-
ustin (20 Mo. 123), 1960.
St. Louis National Bank v. Allen
(2 McCrary,
94), 1662, 1735.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Berry
(113 U. S. 465), 722, 728, 1885.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Blind Inst.
(43 111. 303), 1314.
St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Chen-
ault (36 Kan. 51), 1105.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Cleveland
Ry. Co. (125 U. S. 658), 1725,
1726.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Curl (28
Kan. 622), 1571.
St. Louis & C. Ry. Co. v. Drennan
(26 111. App. 263), 1047.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Eakins
(30 Iov>/a, 279), 321, 322.
St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Foltz
(52 Fed. Rep. 627), 1320, 2016.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Gill (156
U. S. 649), 1393, 1555.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Grove (39
Kan. 731), 1203.
St. Louis R. etc. Co. v. Harbine
(2 Mo. App. 134), 54.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Illinois (185
U. S. 203), 1551.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. James
(161 U. S. 545), 135, 2010, 2014,
2039.
CCXXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1.506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Lamed (103
111. 293), 1471. 1578.
St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co. v. Lof-
tin (30 Ark. 693; 98 U. S. 559),
237, 720.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Marker
(11 Ark. 542), 1503.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Mathers
(71 111. 592; 22 Am. Rep. 122),
1587.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mathews
(1G5 U. S. 1), 1095, 1386, 1587.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. McGee
(115 U. S. 476),
1712.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Miller (43
111. 199), 1833, 1890.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. O'Hara
(177 111. 525), 1064, 1065, 1067.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. v. Paul (64
Ark. 83; 37 L. R. A. 504), 1551.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ryan (56
Ark. 245), 1553.
St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Southwest-
ern, etc. Tel. Co. (121 Fed. Rep.
276), 1619.
St. Louis, etc. Co. v. Terre Haute,
etc. R. Co. (145 U. S. 393), 1245,
1551, 1562, 1567, 1763.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Tiernan
(37 Kan. 606), 1067, 1069, 1104,
1218, 1220, 1249.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Whitley
(77 Tex. 126), 2031.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. "Williams
(53 Ark. 58), 739.
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. "Wilson
(114 U. S. 60), 611.
St. Louis Stoneware Co. v. Part-
ridge (8 Mo. App. 217), 1346.
St. Louis T. Co. V. Des Moines,
etc. Ry. (101 Fed. Rep. 632),
1829.
St. Luke's Church v. Mathews (2
Des. (S. C.) 585), 222.
St. Mary's (Bank of) v. St. John
(25 Ala. 611), 645, 1120, 1125,
1129.
St. Mary's Church, In re (7 Serg.
& R. (Pa.) 517), 1017.
St. Mary's College v. Crawl (10
Kan. 442), 724.
St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk County
(191 Pa. St. 458), 18, 1302.
St. Marylebone Banking Co., In
re (5 De G. & Sm. 21), 571.
St. Patrick v. Byrne (59 N. J.
Eq. 26), 122, 1025.
St. Paul V. Chicago, etc. Ry. (45
Minn. 387), 2026.
St. Paul V. Coulter (12 Minn. 41),
187.
St. Paul, etc. Co., In re (7 Ry. &
Corp. L. J. 235), 728.
St. Paul, etc. R. Co., In re (36
Minn. 85), 1872.
St. Paul, etc. Co. v. Alton (24
Minn. 75), 95.
St. Paul, etc. Co. v. Minnesota,
etc. R. R. (47 Minn. 154; 13 L.
R. A. 415), 767, 1559, 2055.
St. Paul, etc. Co. v. Todd County
(142 U. S. 282), 43.
St. Paul, etc. R. Co. v. Robbins
(23 Minn. 439), 268, 272, 472,
481.
St. Paul, etc. Ry. v. "Western, etc.
Co. (118 Fed. Rep. 497),
St. Paul Land Co. v. Dayton (40
N. W. Rep. 66), 155, 1171, 1516,
1517.
St. Paul & Pac. etc. v. Northern
Pac. etc. (139 U. S. 5), 1600.
St. Peter's Roman Catholic Con-
gregation V. Germain (104 111.
440), 2129.
St. Philip's Church v. Zion, etc.
Church (23 S. C. 297), 1980,
1981.
St. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton,
etc. Co. (127 U. S. 614), 333.
608, 613.
St. Tammany Water Works v.
New Orleans Water Works (120
U. S. 64), 42.
Sala V. City of New Orleans (2
Woods, 188; Fed. Cas. No. 1246),
38, 1994.
Sale V. First R. Baptist Church
(62 Iowa, 26), 785, 2059, 2124.
Salem Bank v. Anderson (75 Va.
250), 1716.
Salem Bank v. Gloucester Bank
(17 Mass. 1), 798, 799, 1197,
1297.
Salem, etc. Co. v. Lake Superior,
etc. (112 Fed. Rep. 239), 1056.
Salem Iron Co. v. Danvers (10
Mass. 514), 712.
Salem Milldam v. Ropes (23
Mass. 23; 19 Am. Dec. 263), 239,
251, 313, 341, 355, 356, 360, 366,
952,1338.
Salem Nat. Bk. v. Almy (117 Mass.
476), 68, 155, 1367.
Salem Turnpike Co. v. Lyme (18
Conn. 451), 1301, 1319.
Sales V. Brown (40 Fed. Rep.
8),
246.
I
TABLE OF CASES. CCXXXIU
tRcferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Sales V. White (18 N. Y. App. Div.
590), 2018.
Salina Nat. Bank v. Prescott (60
Kan. 490; 57 Pac. Rep. (Kan.)
12), 1954.
Salisbury v. Metropolitan Ry. Co.
(18 W. R. 974; 38 h. J. Ch. 249),
634. 635, 636, 637. 662.
Salisbury Mills v. Townsend (109
Mass. 115), 413, 578, 613.
Salladin v. Mitchell (42 Neb. 8.59),
1792, 1793.
Salman v. Hamborough Co. (1
Cas. in Ch. 204), 460, 497, 899.
Salmon v. Richardson (30 Conn.
3G0), 1083, 1154, 1155.
Salomon v. Salomon, etc. Co. (L.
R. App. Cas. 1897, 22), 77, 1964.
Salomons v. Laing (12 Beav. 339),
826, 1282.
Salsbury v. Black (6 Harr. & J.
(Md.) 293,) 488.
Salt Co. V. Guthrie (35 Ohio St.
666), 1413.
Salt Co. V. Saginaw (13 Wall.
373), 61.
Salt Lake City v. Hollister (118
U. S. 256), 1298, 1485, 1502.
Salt Lake City Nat. Bk. v. Hend-
rickson (40 N. J. 52), 832, 835,
842.
Salt Lake, etc. Co. v. Tintic, etc.
Co. (13 Utah, 423), 866, 883.
Saltmarsh v. Planters', etc. Bank
(17 Ala. 761), 1777, 1968, 1974.
Saltmarsh v. Spaulding (147
Mass. 224), 893, 992, 1082, 1084,
1089, 1103, 1104, 1106, 1109, 1111,
1701, 1708, 1760.
Saltsman v. Shults (14 Hun, 256),
2082.
Samainego v. Stiles (20 Pac. Rep.
(Ariz.) 607), 564.
Sampson v. Bowdoinham Steam
Mill Co. (36 Me. 78), 68, 978,
985.
Sampson v. Fox (109 Ala. 662),
1121, 1189:
Sampson v. Shaw (101 Mass. 145),
2115, 2116.
Samuel v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
(49 Hun, 122), 1299, 1330.
Samuel v. Holliday (1 Woolw. (U.
S.) 400; 21 Fed. Cas. 306), 233,
796.
Samuels v. Central, etc. Exch.
(McCahon (U. S.), 214), 209.
Samuels v. Evening Mail Assn.
(75 N. Y. 604), 1494.
Samuel, etc. Co. v. Illinois, etc.
(51 La. Ann. 64), 880.
San Antonio v. Gould (34 Tex.
49), 297.
San Antonio v. Jones (28 Tex.
19), 297.
San Antonio v. Lane (32 Tex.
405), 297.
San Antonio, etc. Co. v. State (22
Tex. Civ. App. 118), 1428.
San Antonio, etc. R. R. v. Davis
(30 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 693),
1783.
San Antonio, etc. Ry. v. South-
western, etc. Co. (93 Tex. 313),
1633.
San Bernardino, etc. Bank v. An-
derson (32 Pac. Rep. (Cal.)
168), 1150.
Sanborn v. Benedict (79 HI. 309),
2114.
Sanborn v. Lefferts (58 N. Y. 179),
906, 1143, 1962.
Sanborn v. School District (12
Minn. 17), 137, 1005.
San Buenaventura, etc. Co. v. Vas-
sault (50 Cal. 534), 979, 981,
983, 984, 995.
Sandberg v. Victor, etc. Co. (24
Utah, 1), 1199.
Sanders v. Chartrand (59 S. W.
Rep. (Mo.) 95), 1172.
Sanders v. Hillsborough Ins. Co.
(44 N. H. 238), 45.
Sanders v. Lisle (Ir. R. 4 Eq. 43),
1724.
San Diego, etc. Co. v. Frame (70
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 295), 160, 1233,
2052.
San Diego, etc. Co. v. National
City (74 Fed. Rep. 79; 174 U.
S. 739), 1651.
San Diego v. San Diego, etc. R.
Co. (112 Cal. 106; 33 L. R. A.
788), 1097, 1114.
San Diego, etc. Co. v. San Diego
(118 Cal. 556; 38 L. R. A. 460),
1392, 1650.
San Diego Water Co. v. San Diego,
etc. Co. (108 Cal. 549; 29 L. R.
A. 839), 1406.
Sands v. Greelv, etc. Co. (88 Fed.
Rep. 130), 1812.
Sands v. Hill (42 Barb.
651), 2068.
Sands v. Kimbark (39 Barb.
108),
907.
Sands v. Sanders (26 N. Y. 239),
476.
Sandusky Coal Co. v. Walker (27
Ont. (Can.) 677 j, 1213.
CO XXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. III. 1507-2134.]
Sanforcl v. Board of Supervisors
(15 How. Pr. 172), 2092.
Santoril v. California ins. Co. (03
Cal. 547), 2070.
Sanford, etc. Co. v. Howe, etc. Co.
(157 U. S. 312), 1769.
San Francisco v. Liverpool, etc.
Ins. Co. (74 Cal. 113), 751, 752.
San Francisco, etc. K. Co. v. Bee
(48 Cal. 398), 1820.
San Francisco, etc. R. Co. v. Cald-
well (31 Cal. 367), 1321.
San Francisco R. Co. v. Gould (127
Cal. 601), 1316.
San Francisco v. Spring Valley
Waterworks (48 Cal. 493), 1650.
San Francisco v. Western U. T.
Co. (96 Cal. 140), 1623.
Sanger, Ex parte (18 L. T. (N.
S.) 67), 809.
Sanger v. Upton (91 U. S. 56),
235, 265, 277, 335, 338, 366, 376,
397, 430, 445, 449, 450, 458, 459,
496, 497, 506, 560, 561, 564, 571,
655, 685, 808, 869, 900, 932, 1528.
Sanigan v. North (69 Ark. 62),
904.
San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher
(101 Cal. 70), 264, 500, 953, 1019,
1092.
San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Beecher
Co. (192 U. S. 21; 13 Fed. Rep.
930), 44.
San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. West (94
Cal. 399), 1166.
San Jose Savings Bank v. Pharis
(58 Cal. 380), 834, 926.
San Jose Savings Bank v. Sierra
Lumber Co. (63 Cal. 179), 1044.
San Mateo Co. v. Southern Pac. R.
R. (8 Sawy. 260; 13 Fed. Rep.
765), 1973.
Santa Ana Water Co. v. San Buen-
aventura (56 Jed. Rep. 339),
1182, 1645.
Santa Clara County v. Southern
Pac. R. Co. (118 U. S. 396), 9.
Santa Clara Mining Assn. v.
Meredith (49 Md. 389), 1068,
xu74, 1076.
Santa Clara R. R. Tax Cases (9
Sawy. 184, 185; 18 Fed. Rep.
397), 39.
Santa Clara Valley Mill Co. v.
Hayes (76 Cal. 387), 1416, 1426,
1439.
Santa Cruz R. Co. v. Schwartz (53
Cal. 106), 313, 322.
Santa Cruz R. Co. v. Spreckles (65
Cal. 193), 494, 495, 1109, 1111.
Santa Rosa, etc. Co. v. Central St.
Ry. (38 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 986),
48.
Santillan v. Moses -(1 Cal. 92),
12.
Sanxey V. Iowa City Glass Co. (63
Iowa, 707), 1751.
Sappington v. Little Rock, etc. Co.
(37 Ark. 23), 1886, 1888, 1890.
Sappona Iron Co. v. Holt (64 N.
C. 335), 30.
Saranac, etc. R. R. v. Arnold (167
N. Y. 368), 147, 1534.
Sargent, Ex parte (17 Eq. (L.
R.J 273), 390, 539, 583.
Sargent v. Boston, etc. R. R. (115
Mass. 416), 1635.
Sargent v. Essex, etc. Ry. Co. (9
Pick. (26 Mass.) 202), 219, 962.
Sargent v. Franklin Ins. Co. (8
Pick. (25 Mass.) 90), 190, 219,
262, 264, 400, 523, 527, 643, 691.
Sargent v. Webster (54 Mass.
497), 976, 982, 1017, 1049, 1052,
1086, 1243, 1246, 1252, 1766,
1948.
Sarle's Case (Ch. Div. 1890), 372.
Sarmiento v. Davis, etc. Co. (105
Mich. 300), 132, 1073, 1200.
Sater v. Burlington, etc. Co. (1
Iowa, 386), 1321.
Saugatuck Bridge Co. v. West^ort
(39 Conn. 337), 288, 315.
Saunder's Case (2 De G., J. & S.
101), 570.
Saunders v. Bluefield. etc. Co. (58
Fed. Rep. 133), 1320.
Saunders v. Memphis, etc. Co. (101
Tenn. 206), 1320.
Savage v. Ball (17 N. J. Eq. 142),
426, 542, 1009.
Savage v. Bartlett (78 Md. 561),
934.
Savage v. Miller (56 N. J. Eq.
432), 875, 1094, 1770, 1773.
Savage v. Russell (84 Ala. 103),
2029.
Savage v. Walsh (26 Ala. 619),
1948.
Savannah v. Silverberg (108 Ga.
281), 672.
Savannah Cotton Exch. v. State
(54 Ga. 668), 777, 779, 2058.
Savannah, etc. R. Co. v. Lancaster
(62 Ala. 555), 1700, 1701.
Savings Assn. v. O'Brien (3 N. Y.
Supp. 764; 20 N. Y. 826), 471,
8^4.
Savings Bank v. Caperton (87 Ky.
306), 1139.
TABLE OF CASES. ccxxxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Savings Bank v. Davis (8 Conn.
191). 981, 9SG.
Savings Bank v. Melfkuhler (19
Kan. 60), 1285.
Savings, etc. Co. v. Bear Valley,
etc. Co. (89 Fed. Rep. 32), 1247,
1806.
Sawyer v. Dubuque Pr. Co. (77
Iowa, 242), 1249.
Sawyer v. Hoag (17
Wall. 610),
330, 335, 360, 443, 445, 450, 511,
515, 520, 564, 645, 659, 857, 884,
903, 924, 926, 935, 1129.
Sawyer v. Methodist, etc. Soc. (18
Vt. 405), 2082.
Sawyer v. Pawner's B:ink (6 Allen
(88 Mass.), 207), 1C75.
Saxton V. Texas, etc. Railway Co.
(4 N. M. 201; 16 Pac. Rep.
851), 134.
Sayles v. Bates (15 R. I. 342), 556,
565, 570, 571, 574, 612, 892, 894.
Sayles v. Blane (19 L. J. Q. B.
19), 555, 884, 888.
Sayles v. Brown (40 Fed. Fep. 8),
84G, 847, 849, 875, 876, 877, 878,
879.
Sayre v. Glenn (87 Ala. 630), 564.
Sayre v. Louisville Union (1 Dov.'
(Ky.) 143; 83 Am. Dec. 613),
216.
Scadden, etc. Co. v. Scadden (121
Cal. 33), 1166, 1224.
Scadding v. Lorant (3 H. L. Cas.
418), 997, 998.
Scaggs V. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.
(10 Md. 268), 1172.
Scammon v. Klimball (92 U. S.
362), 445, 921.
Scanlan v. Crav.'shav/ (5 Mo. App.
357), 1231.
Scanlan v. Snow (2 App. D. Ct.
137), 222, 1020.
Scarborough v. Butler (3 Lev.
237), 129.
Scarlett v. Academy of Music (46
Md. 132), 287.
Scarlett v. Ward (52 N. J. Eq.
197), 393, 417.
Scarritt v. Kansas City, etc. Ry.
(148 Mo. 67G), 1320.
Scase V. Gillett Plerzog Manuf. Co.
(55 Minn. 349), 622.
Schalucky v. Field (124 111. 321;
16 N. E. Rep. (111.) 904; 7 Am.
Rep. 399), 949.
Schaub V. Coffin (10 Detroit Leg.
N. 827; 27 N. W. Rep. 968), 168.
Schelton v. Southern, etc. Co. (19
Oreg. 192), 1199
Schenck v. Andrews (57 N. Y.
134), 442, 510, 514, 559.
Schenck v. Bandmann (22 Pac.
Rep. (Cal.) 254), 1141.
Schenectady, etc. PI. Road Co. v.
Thatcher (11 N. Y. 102), 81, 110,
152, 244, 272, 314, 469, 475, 476,
501, 781, 782, 980, 983.
Schermerhorn v. Talman (14 N.
Y. 93), 1091.
Scheu V. Grand Lodge (17 Fed.
Rep. 214), 2071.
Schilling v. Schneider (110 Mo.
83), 439.
Schillinger Bros. Co. v. Hender-
son, etc. Co. (107 111. App. 335),
2020.
Schleider v. Dillman (44 La. Ann.
462), 1974.
Schlesinger v. Kansas City, etc.
Ry. Co. (152 U. S. 444), 1320.
Schleten v. Keiter (156 Pa. St.
119), 2122.
Schley v. Dixon (24 Ga. 273), 449,
918, 1124.
Schloss v. Montgomery, etc. Co.
(87 Ala. 411; 13 Am. St. Rep.
51), 152, 314, 344, 931, 948, 1523.
Schmidt V. Gayner (59 Minn. 303;,
1808.
Schmidt v. Gunther (5 Daly,452),
2080.
Schmidt v. Huntington (1 Cal.
55), 913.
Schmidt v. Manning (60 Neb.
201), 2018.
Schmidt v. Mitchell (98 Ky. 218;
101 Ky. 570), 1014, 1021, 1050,
1051, 1812.
Schmidt v. Supreme Tent (97
Wis. 532; 73 N. W. 22), 228.
Schmidt Bros. Co. v. Mahoney (60
Neb. 20), 1974.
Schneider v. Turner (130-111.
28),
2116.
Schnorr's Appeal (67 Pa. St. 138),
2082.
Schoening v. Schwenk (112 Iowa,
733), 1005.
Scholf V. Bloomfield (8 Vt. 742),
997.
Schoff V. Improvement Co. (57 N.
H. 110), 1313.
Schofield V. Henderson (67 Ind.
258), 1136.
Schofield V. State Nat. etc. (9
Neb. 316; 31 Am. Rep. 412),
1135, 1838.
Schoharie Valley R. Case (12 Abb.
Pr. (N. S.) 394), 999, 1024.
CCXXXVl
TAULE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Scholey v. Central Ry. Co. (L. R.
9 Eq. 2GG), 377.
Scholfield v. Union Bank (2
Cranch, 115), 585.
Scholl V. Sadowry (24 Pitts. Leg.
J. (Pa. N. S.) 43), 221.
Schollenberger, Ex parte (96 U.
S. 377), 2036.
School Com. V. Dean (2 Stew. &
P. (Ala.) 190), 120.
School District v. Gibbs (2 Cush.
(56 Mass.) 39), 1025.
School Dist. V. Insurance Co. (103
U. S. 708), 1549.
School Dist. V. Town of Greenfield
(64 N. H. 84), 1982.
Schooner v. Holmes (102 Mass.
503), 1074.
Schouton V. Kilmer (8 How. Pr.
527), 851.
Schraink v. Scheringhausen (8
Miss. App. 522), 1415.
Schrick v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (34
Mo. 423). 229, 230.
Schricker v. Ridings (65 Mo. 208),
836, 852, 853.
Schrimplin v. Farmers', etc. Assn.
(98 N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 613),
1530.
Schroeder's Case (L. R. 11 Eq.
131), 511.
Schultz V. German, etc. Co. (21
N. Y. App. Div. 163), 479.
Schultze V. Van Doren (53 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 815), 1016.
Schurtz V. Schoolcraft, etc. Co. (9
Mich. 269), 289.
Schutte V. Florida R. Co. (3
Woods. 692; Fed. Cas. 17434).
1725, 1726, 1893.
Schutzenbund v. Agitations Ver-
ein (44 Mich. 313; 38 Am. Rep.
270) 23 85
Schuyler iCase (34 N. Y. 30), 408.
Schuyler County v. Thomas (98
U. S. 169), 299.
Schuyler Nat. Bk. v. Bollong (45
N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 164), 138S.
Schuvler's, etc. Co., In re (136 N.
Y. 169; 20 L. R. A. 391), 1797,
1806.
Schuylerville Bank v. Van Der-
werker (74 N. Y. 234), 2080.
Schuylkill Electric Ry. (195 Pa.
St. 211), 1081.
Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. Tho-
burn (7 Sergt. & R. (Pa.) 41),
1321.
Schwab V. 'Frisco, etc. Co. (21
Utah, 258), 495, 1052.
Schwanck v. Morris (7 Rob. (N.
Y.) 658), 377.
Schwarting v. Van Wie, etc. Co.
(69 N. Y. App. Div. 282), 1493.
Schwartz v. Keystone Oil Co. (153
Pa. St. 283), 1788.
Schwartz v. State (61 Ohio St.
497), 1024.
Schwarzwaelder v. German, etc.
Ins. Co. (59 N. J. Eq. 589), 1664.
Schweiger v. Voightlander Benev-
olent Assn. (13 Phila. 113), 783.
Schwenck v. Naylor (102 U. S.
638), 577.
Scofield V. Lake Shore, etc. Ry.
(43 Ohio St. 571). 1475, 1556.
Scotland County v. Thomas (94 U.
S. 682), 299, 1881.
Scott V. Armstrong (146 U. S.
499), 1792.
Scott V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. (93
Md. 475), 683.
Scott V. Central R. Co. (52 Barb.
45), 623, 625, 637, 642, 643, 671.
Scott V. Clinton, etc. R. Co. (G
Biss. 529; 21 Fed. Cas. 820),
1713, 1716.
Scott V. De Peyster (1 Edw. Ch.
(N. Y.) 513), 1120, 1139, 1702.
Scott V. Eagle Fire Ins. Co. (7
Paige (N. Y.), 198), 625, 634,
636, 641, 642.
Scott V. Embury
(36
L. J. C. P.
161), 167, 1223.
Scott V. Hansheer (94 Ind. 1),
1885.
Scott V. Jackson IMethodist
Church (50 Mich. 528), 1171,
1701.
Scott V. Jones (5 How. 343, 378),
44.
Scott V. Middletown, etc. R. Co.
(86 N. Y. 200), 1169.
Scott V. Pequonnock Nat. Bk. (15
Fed. Rep. 494), 578, 960, 964.
Scott V. Rainer, etc. Ry. (13 Wash.
108), 1808.
Scott V. United States (12 Wall.
443), 286.
Scottish, etc. Co. Receiver v.
Starkes (73 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
455), 353, 930.
Scottish, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stewart
(3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 382), 1370.
Scovill V. Thayer (105 U. S. 143),
239, 290, 317, 395, 397, 398, 401,
402, 422, 425, 427, 429, 430, 431,
435, 440, 453, 457, 459, 485, 488,
491, 496, 497, 514, 515, 516, 668,
921, 931, 932, 1376.
TABLE OF CASES. ccxxxvu
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Scoville V. Canfield (14 Johns. (N.
Y.) 388; 7 Am. Dec. 4G7), 846.
Scoville V. McNamara (62 Conn.
378), 1665.
Scowhegan Bank v. Cutler (49 Me.
315), 961.
Scranton Electric Light Co'.s Ap-
peal (122 Pa. St. 154; 1 L. R.
A. 285; 9 Am. St. Rep. 79), 60,
62, 1232, 1283.
Scranton, etc. Co. v. Northern, etc.
Co. (192 Pa. St. 80), 1313.
Screwmen's Ben. Assn. v. Benson
76 Tex. 552; 13 S. W. Rep.
379), 788, 2062.
Screwmen's Ben. Assn. v. Smith
(70 Tex. 168), 1209.
Scribner v. Flagg (175 Mass. 536),
1191.
Scripture v. Francistown, etc. Co.
(50 N. H. 571), 541, 544, 961.
Scruggs V. Cotterill (67 N. Y. App.
Div. 583), 1027.
Scudder v. Trenton, etc. Co. (1
N. Y. Eq. 694; 23 Am. Dec. 756),
18.
Seacoast R. Co. v. Wood (56 Atl.
Rep. (N. J.) 337), 1214.
Seaman v. Law (4 Bosw. (N. Y.)
337), 577.
Seamans v. Knapp-Stout, etc. Co.
(89 Wis. 171; 46 Am. St. Rep.
825), 2007.
Searight v. Payne (6 Lea (Tenn.),
283), 506, 508, 1232.
Searight v. Payne (2 Tenn. Ch.
175), 175.
Sarle v. Choate (25 Ch. Div.
723), 1799.
Searles v. Jacksonville, etc. R. Co.
(2 Woods, 621; 21 Fed. Cas.
929), 1738.
Sears v. Waters (44 Hun (N. Y.),
101), 1133.
Seaton v. Grant (L. R. 2 Ch. 459),
822.
Seaton v. Grimm (110 Iowa, 145),
173, 879, 880.
Seattle, etc. Ry., In re (61 Fed.
Rep. 541), 1808.
Seattle, etc. Co. v. Citizens', etc.
Co. (123 Fed. Rep. 588), 1354,
2027.
Seattle National Bank v. Pratt
(111 Fed. Rep. 841), 854.
Seaverns v. Presbyterian Hospital
(173 111. 414), 1161, 1162.
Secomb v. Milwaukee, etc. R. Co.
(49 How. Pr. 75), 1491.
Secombe v. Milwaukee R. (23
Wall. 108), 1303.
Secombe v. Milwaukee, etc. R. Co.
(2 Dill. 469), 1834.
Second Ave. R. Co. v. Mehrbach
(46 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 267), 1190,
1588.
Second National Bank v. Curtiss
(2 N. Y. App. Div. 508), 605.
Second National Bank v. Hall (35
Ohio St. 158), 175, 177, 846.
Second National Bank v. Martin
(82 Iowa, 442), 1290.
Second National Bank v. New
York, etc. Co. (11 Fed. Rep.
532), 1954, 1965.
Second Nat. Bank v. Pottier, etc.
Co. (56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 216),
1274, 1275.
Secor V. Toledo, etc. R. Co. (7
Biss. 513), 1591, 1728, 1748.
Secretary of State v. National, etc.
Co. (86 N. W. Rep. (Mich.)
124), 1986, 2004.
Security Bank v. Kingsland (5 N.
Dak. 263), 1204.
Security Co. v. Bennington (70
Vt. 201), 1214.
Securitv, etc. Assn. v. Moore (151
Ind. 174), 2016.
Security Loan Assn. v. Lake (69
Ala. 456), 537.
Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Abell (17
Mo. App. 645), 314.
Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wilkerson
(83 Mo. 235), 270, 278, 567.
Sedgwick v. Menck (6 Blatchf. (U.
S.) 156), 1677, 1800.
Sedgwick v. McKim (53 N. Y.
307), 1677.
See V. Heppenheimer (55 N. J.
Eq. 240), 1741.
Seeber v. People's, etc. Assn. (36
N. Y. App. Div. 312), 177, 185.
Seebei-ger v. McCormick (178 111.
404), 1121.
Seeley v. New York, etc. Bk. (78 N.
Y. 608; 8 Daly, 400), 249, 636.
Seeley v. San Jose Mill Co. (59
Cal. 22), 210, 1098, 1106, 1195.
Seiberling v. Miller (207 111. 443),
1289.
Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry.
(58 Minn. 53; 20 L. R. A. 535),
1809.
Seibert v. Minneapolis, etc. Ry.
(59 Minn. 65; 59 N. W. Rep.
826), 1814.
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co. (24
CCXXXVlll TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Fed. Rep. 332), 240, 250, 251,
357.
Seller v. Union, etc. Co. (50 W.
Va. 208), 1802.
Seizer v. Mali (41 N. Y. 619), 406.
Selby V. Wilmington, etc. Ry. Co.
(113 N. C. 588), 1C30.
Selden v. Trust Co. (94 U. S. 419),
745.
Seligson v. Brown (61 Tex. 114),
963.
Sellers v. Greer (172 111. 549; 40
L. R. A. 589), 792, 1077, 1082,
1216.
Sellers v. Phoenix Iron Co. (13
Fed. Rep. 20), 1096.
Selma,

etc. R. Co. v. Anderson
(51 Miss. 829), 340, 364, 365,
366, 368.
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Harbin (40
Ga. 706), 1502, 1890, 1895.
Selma, etc. Co. v. Harris (31 So.
Rep. (Ala.) 508), 964.
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Roundtree
(7 Ala. 670), 281.
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Tipton (5
Ala. 805; 39 Am. Dec. 444), 249,
271, 277, 300, 326, 327, 471, 472,
767, 1172, 1525, 1957, 2065.
Semple v. Bank (5 Ind. 88), 2003.
Semple v. Glenn (91 Ala. 245),
950.
Seneca Co. Bank v. Lamb (26
Barb. 595), 193, 199, 201.
Seneca R. Co. v. Auburn, etc. R.
Co. (5 Hill (N. Y.), 170), 1491.
Senn v. Levy (63 S. W. Rep. (Ky.)
776), 95, 835.
Senour Manuf. Co. v. Clarke (96
Wis. 469), 183.
Sercomb v. Catlin (128 111. 556),
1544, 1545.
Serrell v. Derbyshire (19 L. J. C.
P. (N. S.) 371), 1146.
Settembre v. Putnam (30 Cal.
490), 2101.
Seventh National Bank v. Shen-
andoah Iron Co. (35 Fed. Rep.
436), 1722.
Sevire v. Francis (3 App. Cas.
106), 1180.
Sewall V. Brainerd, In re (35 Vt.
364), 1680.
Sewall V. Chamberlain (16 Gray
(82 Mass.) 501), 1975.
Sewall V. Eastern R. Co. (9 Cush.
(63 Mass.) 5), 268, 272, 278, 359,
653, 654.
SewalFs Falls Bridge v. Fisk &
Norcross (3 Foster (N. H.),
171), 353.
Sewall V. Lancaster Bank (17
Sergt. & R. (Pa.) 285), 601,
2070.
Sewell V. Boston, etc. Co. (86
Mass. 277), 387, 395, 417, 605,
614.
Sewell V. East Cape, etc. Co. (50
N. J. Eq. 717), 1912, 1953.
Sewell V. Ives (61 How. Pr. 54),
2079, 2100.
Sewell's Case (L. R. 3 Ch. 131),
240, 245, 399, 1165.
Sewickley, etc. Co., In re (47 Atl.
Rep. (Pa.) 944), 1808.
Seybell v. National Currency Bk.
(54 N. Y. 288), 1686, 16S7.
Seybert v. Pittsburg (1 Wall. 273),
296, 1683.
Seymour v. Canandaigua, etc. R.
Co. (25 Barb. 284), 1714.
Seymour v. Detroit Copper, etc.
Mills (66 Mich. 117), 528.
Seymour v. Jefferson (74 N. W.
Rep. (Minn.) 149), 953.
Seymour v. Spring, etc. Co. (144
N. Y. 333; 26 L. R. A. 859), 1166,
1215, 1216, 1336, 1350, 1689.
Seymour v. Sturges (26 N. "S.
134), 459, 497, 592, 835, 845, 890,
901, 1795, 1796.
Seymour v. Thomas Harrow Co.
(81 Ala. 250), 1509.
Shaaber's Appeal (17 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 209), 794.
Shackleford v. Dangerfleld (L. R.
3 C. P. 407), 130, 462.
Shackleford v. Mississippi Cent.
R. Co. (52 Miss. 159), 1866,
1894.
Shackelford v. New Orleans, etc.
R. Co. (37 Miss. 202), 1076.
Shadford v. Detroit, etc. R. R. (89
N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 960), 1252,
1583, 1608.
Shaffner v. Jeffries (18 Mo. 512),
309.
Shakopee, etc. Works v. Cole (37
Minn. 91), 152.
Shaler, etc. Quarry Co. v. Bliss
(34 Barb. 309), 846.
Shamokin Valley R. Co. v. Liver-
more (47 Pa. St. 465; 86 Am.
Dec. 552), 1711, 1712, 1714, 1716.
Shampeau v. Connecticut, etc. Co.
(37 Fed. Rep. 771), 2024.
Shannon v. Howard, etc. Assn. (36
Md. 383), 2070.
I
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXXXIX
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Sharb v. Eeaudry
(56 Cal. 44G),
1295, 1975.
Sharon Coal Co. v. Fulton Bank
(7 Wend. 412), 1292.
Sharp V. Dawes (46 L. J. Q. B.
104), lOlS, 1963.
Sharp V. Warren (6 Price, 131),
2087.
Sharpless v. Mavor (21 Pa. St.
147), 294, 295, 297.
Sharpley v. South, etc. Rj'. Co.
(2 Ch. Div. 663), 377.
Shattuck V. Oakland Smelting &
R. Co. (5S Cal. 550), 1064.
Shattuck V. Robbins (68 N. H.
565), 500, 936, 937.
Shaver v. Hardin (82 Iowa, 378),
1701.
Shaw, Ex parte (2 Q. B. Div. 463),
2110.
Shaw V. Beveridge (3 Hill, 26),
2131.
Shaw V. Bill (95 U. S. 10), 1714.
Shaw V. Boylan (16 Ind. 384),
835.
Shaw V. Dennis (5 Gilm. (10
111.) 405), 297.
Shaw V. Fisher (5 De G., M. &
G. 596), 468, 568, 888.
Shaw V. Furze (1 L. J. Q. B. (N.
S.) 216), 229, 231.
Shaw V. Little Rock, etc. Co. (100
U. S. 605), 1693, 1737, 1743, 1744,
1823, 1828.
Shaw V. Norfolk, etc. R. Co. (5
Gray (71 Mass., 82 Mass.), 162),
988, 991, 1255, 1256, 1704, 1709,
1731, 1739, 1888, 1890, 1892.
Shaw V. Port Philip, etc. Co. (13
Q. B. Div. 103), 411, 415, 416.
Shaw V. Quincy Min. Co. (145 U.
S. 444), 135. 2039, 2040.
Shaw V. Railroad Company (100
U. S. 504), 392, 1727, 1728,
1827.
Shaw V. Robinson, etc. Co. (50
Neb. 403), 1766.
Shaw V. Rowley
(5 Eng. Ry. &
Can. Cas. 47; 16 Mees. & W.
810), 525, 691, 88S.
Shaw V. Saranac (144 N. Y. 220),
1808.
Shaw V. Spencer (100 Mass. 382),
579, 533, 387, 392, 395.
Shawhan v. Zinn (70 Ky. 300),
813, 819.
Shawmut Bank v. Plattsburgh,
etc. Co. (31 Vt. 491), 1471, 1585,
1656.
Shaw's Claim (L. R. 10 Ch. 177),
1176.
Shayne v. Evening Post, etc. Co.
(168 N. Y. 70; 55 L. R. A. 777),
1973.
Shea v. Lent (22 Pac. Rep. (Cal.)
876), 1131.
Shea v. Mabry
(1 Lea (Tenn.),
319), 1120, 1125.
Sheaf
e v. Larimer (79 Fed. Rep.
921), 934.
Sheboygan Co. v. Parker (3 Wall.
93), 1683.
Sheffield v. Central U. T. Co. (36
Fed. Rep. 164), 1627.
Sheffield Ry. Co. v. Woodcock (7
Mees. & W. 574), 464, 525, 546,
614, 809.
Shelburne, etc. Soc. v. Lake (51
Vt. 353), 2078.
Shelby
v. Guy
(11 Wheat. 307),
845.
Shelby County v. Cumberland, etc.
R. Co. (8 Bush. (Ky.) 209), 296.
Shelby County v. Union, etc. Bk.
(161 U. S. 149), 727.
Shelby R. Co. v. Louisville, etc.
R. Co. (12 Bush. (Ky.) 62), 981,
982, 986.
Shelbyville, etc. Turnpike Co. v.
Barnes (42 Ind.
498), 112, 283,
284. 353, 1856.
Shelbyville Water Co. v. People
(140 111. 545), 1612.
Sheldon V. Chappell (47 Hun,
59),
1242.
Sheldon v. Vail (28 Hun, 354),
2127.
Sheldon, etc. Co. v. Eickemeyer,
etc. Co. (90 N. Y. 607), 403, 828,
877, 1243, 1244.
Shellenberger v. Patterson (168
Pa. St. 30), 1096.
Shellington v. Howland (53 N. Y.
371), 490, 555, 862, 863, 866, 867,
886, 889, 891, 906, 949.
Shelmerdine v. Welsh (47 Leg.
Int. 26), 1033.
Shenandoah Valley Ry. Co. v.
Griffiths (76 Va. 913), 692, 956,
1908, 1954.
Shenango, etc. R. Co. v. Braham
(79 Pa. St. 447), 1322.
Shepang Voting Trust Cases (60
Conn. Supp. 553), 1032, 1033.
Shepheard v. Whitaker (L. R. 2
Ch. 16), 1496.
Shepherd's Case (L. R. 2 Ch.
16),
884.
ccxl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Shepherd, Ex parte (L. R. 2 Ch.
16), G17.
Sheplpy V. Atlantic, etc. R. Co.
(55 Me. 395), 1253, 1699, 1704,
1731.
Sheppard v. Murphy (Ir. Rep. 2
Eq. 544), 2107.
Sheppard v. Oxenford (1 K. & J.
491), 1746.
Sheren v. Mendenhalter (23
Moore, 92), 14.
Sheridan v. Sheridan Electric
Light Co. (38 Hun, 396), 812,
1147.
Shei-idan Electric Light Co. v.
Chatham Nat. Bank (59 Hun,
575), 1056, 1057.
Sheridan, etc. W. v. Marion, etc.
Co. (157 Ind. 292), 823.
Shering's Appeal (71 Pa. St. 11),
1139.
Sherlock v. Winetka (68 111. 530),
504, 1690.
Sherman v. Clark (4 Nev. 138),
398, 1747.
Sherman v. Fitch (98 Mass. 59),
1046, 1169.
Sherman v. Smith (1 Black (U.
S.), 587), 58, 60, 100, 102, 838,
840.
Sherman v. Tradesman National
Bank (16 N. Y. Week. Dig.
522), 524.
Sherman Center Town Co. v. Swi-
gert (23 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 560),
1046, 1191.
Sherman, etc. Co. v. Drake (91
N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 512), 1651.
Sherman Center Town Co. v. Mor-
ris (43 Kan. 282), 82, 134, 1335.
Sherrington's Case (34 W. R. 49),
505.
Sherwood v. Alvis (83 Ala. 115),
1336.
Sherwood v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co.
(12 How. Pr. 137), 900, 902, 903.
Sherwood v. Meadow Vallpy, etc.
Co. (50 Cal. 412), 387, 393, 395.
Shick V. Citizens', etc. Co. (15
Ind. App. 329), 371, 937.
Shickle v. Watts (94 Mo. 410),
426, 484, 515, 560, 864, 868, 894.
Shield V. Ohio (95 U. S. 319), 97,
99, 100, 107, 1383, 1854, 1862,
1898, 1899, 1974.
Shinney v. North American, etc.
Co. (97 Fed. Rep. 9), 1790.
Ship V. Crosskill (L. R. 10 Eq.
73), 114.
Shipley v. Mechanics' Bank (10
Johns. (N. Y.) 484), 619.
Shipley v. Terre Haute (74 Ind.
297), 295, 861.
Shipman's Case (L. R. 5 Eq. 219),
569.
Shipman, Ex parte (L. R. 3 Eq.
219), 618.
Shipman v. ^tna Ins. Co. (29
Conn. 245), 961.
Ship's Case (12 L. T. Rep. (N.
S.) 257), 275.
Shiras v. Ewing
(48 Kan. 170),
1648.
Shockley v. Fisher (75 Mo. 498),
1796.
Shoemaker v. Goshen (14 Ohio St.
569), 1683.
Shoemaker v. Washburne, etc. Co.
(97 Wis. 585), 251, 944.
Shorb V. Beaudry
(56 Cal. 446),
1295, 1975.
Shorer v. Times, etc. Co. (119 N.
Y. 483), 1521.
Short V. Medberry (29 Hun, 39),
859.
Short V. Stevenson (63 Pa. St.
95), 1218.
Shortridge v. Bosanquet (16 Beav.
84), 556, 617.
Shortz V. Unangst (3 Watts & S.
45), 67, 68, 981.
Shotwell V. Mali (38 Barb. 445),
400.
Shrewsbury v. Hart (1 Car. & P.
113), 1532.
Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lon-
don, etc. Ry. Co. (3 Macn. & G.
70; 17 Q. B. 652), 1262, 1425,
1473.
Shrewsbury, etc. Ry. Co. v. North-
western Ry. Co. (6 H. L. 113),
1704.
Shrewsbury, etc. R. Co. v. Stour
Valley Co. (2 De Gex, M. & G.
866), 1843, 1845.
Shreyer v. Turner, etc. Co. (29
Oreg. 1), 1177.
Shrickle v. First National Bank of
Ripley (22 Ohio St. 516), 1661.
Shroeder's Case (L. R. 11 Eq. Cas.
131), 506.
Shropshire Union, etc. Co. v. Reg-
ina (L. R. 7 H. L. 496), 613, 420,
534.
Shufeldt V. Carver (8 111. App.
545), 839.
Shufeldt V. Smith (139 Mo. 367),
182.
TABLE OF CASES. ccxli
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-GlO; Vol. II, G21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.^!.]
Shurtz V. Schoolcraft & T. R. Co.
(9 Mich. 269), 287.
Sibley v. Board, etc. (40 N. J. L.
295), 780, 787, 2061.
Sibley v. Mobile (3 Woods, 535),
296.
Sibley v. Qninsigamond National
Bank (133 Mass. 515), 1769.
Sibson V. Edgeworth (2 Der G. &
Sm. 73), 378.
Sichell's Case (L. R. 3 Ch. 119),
587.
Sickles V. Manhattan, etc. Co. (66
How. (N. Y.) 305), 1385, 1387,
1642.
Sidoner v. Essex (22 Ind. 201),
1321.
Sidney's Case (U R. 13 Eq. 228),
331.
Sidway v Missouri, etc. Co. (101
Fed. Rep. 481), 2010.
Sidway v. Missouri, etc. Co. (116
Fed. Rep. 381), 1535, 2042.
Siegel V. Andrews & Co. (181 111.
350), 875.
Sigua, etc. Co. v. Brown (19 N.
W. App. Div. 143), 548, 1785.
Silber Light Co. v. Silber (12 Ch.
Div. 717), 819.
Bilk Manuf. Co. v. Campbell (27
N. J. 539), 813.
Silkman v. Yonkers Water
Comm'rs (152 N. Y. 327; 37 L.
R. A. 287), 1385.
Silkstone Fall Colliery Co., In re
(1 Ch. Div. 38), 986.
Billiman v. Fredericksburg, etc.
R. Co. (27 Gratt. (Va.) 119),
1297.
Sills V. Brown (9 Carr. & P. 604),
229, 231.
Silpher v. Earhart (83 Ind. 178),
268.
Silsby V. Strong
(38
Oreg. 36)*
1094.
Silver Hook Road v. Greene (12
R. I. 164), 406, 1088.
Silver Lake Bank v. North (4
Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 376), 1343,
1346.
Silver Springs, etc. Co. v. Van
Ness (34 So. Rep. (Fla.) 884),
1559.
Simm y. Anglo-American Tele-
graph Co. (5 Q. B. Div. 188),
419, 420.
Simmons v. Burlington Ry. (159
U. S. 278), 1764.
Simmons v. Dent (16 Mo. App.
288), 557, 574.
Simmons v. Ellis (17 Mo. App.
470), 541, 568.
Simmons v. Hill (96 Mo. 679; 2
L. R. A. 476), 837.
Simmons v. Norfolk, etc. Co. (113
N. C. 147; 37 Am. St. Rep.
614; 22 L. R. A. 677), 1903, 1911.
Simmons v. Sisson (26 N. Y. 264),
1532.
Simmons v. Southwestern R. Co.
(5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 270). 579.
Simmons v. Taylor (63 S. W.
Rep. 1123; 106 Tenn. 729),
1513, 1790.
Simmons v. Troy Works (92 Ala.
427), 1339.
Simmons v. Worthington (170
Mass. 203), 1561.
Simmons, etc. Co. v. Doran (142
. U. S. 417), 1161, 1163.
Simonds v.. East Windsor, etc.
Rj^ (73 Conn. 513), 990.
Simonds v. Lewis (94 Me. 501),
1772.
Simons v. Vulcan, etc. Co. (61 Pa.
St. 217), 1125, 1217, 1218. 1221.
Simonson v. N. Y. City Ins Co.
(141 N. Y. 12), 1072.
Simonson v. Spencer (15 Wend.
548), 906, 910.
Simpson's Case (L. R. 4 Ch. App.
184), 505.
Simpson v. Denison (10 Hare,
54), 112, 1579, 1580, 1582, 1856.
Simpson v. Garland (76 Me. 203),
1052.
Simpson v. Greenfield Building
Assn. (38 Ohio St. 349), 290.
Simpson v. Moore (30 Barb. 637),
638.
Simpson v. Reynolds (71 Mo.
594), 498, 898, 967, 9G8.
Simpson v. South Carolina (59
S. C. 195), 189.
Simpson v. Westminster, etc.
Hotel Co. (8 H. L. Cas. 712),
1357.
Sims v. Brooklyn St. R. Co. (37
Ohio St. 556), 312.
Sims V. Petaluma, etc. Co. (131
Cal. 656), 1101.
Sims V. Street Ry. Co. (37 Ohio
St. 556), 109, 292, 293, 1084,
1090.
Sims V. Tyrer (26 S. E. Rep.
(Va.) 508), 1213.
Sinclair v. Fuller (158 N. Y.
607), 555.
Singer v. Given (61 Iowa, 93),
484, 943.
c. xlii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Singer v.
Hutchinson (183 111.
(iOi;; 75 Am. St. Rep. 133), 445,
874, 875, 1982.
Singer v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co.
(() Mo. App. 427),
1704.
Singer v. Salt, etc. Co. (17 Utah,
143), 97G.
Singer, etc. Co. v.
Barnard, etc.
Co. (113 Iowa, 664), 1739.
Singer Mauuf. Co. v. Effinger (79
Ind. 264), 1524.
Singer Manuf. Co. v.
Hardee (4
N. Mex. 175; 16 Pac. Rep. 605),
2028.
Singer Manuf. Co. v.
Holdfodt
(86 111. 455), 1498.
Singer Manuf. Co. v.
Wright (33
Fed. Rep. 121), 695.
Singleton v.
Southwestern Ry.
Co. (170 Ga. 464; 48 Am. Rep.
574), 56, 1570, 1572.
Sinkler v.
Indiana, etc. Turnpike
Co. (3 Pa. St. 149), 488.
Sinking Fund Cases (99 U. S.
700, 720),46, 54, 104, 106, 107,
840, 1898, 1899.
Sinking Fund Comm'rs v.
Green
& Barren River Nav. Co. (79
Ky. 73), 52.
Sioux City v.
Manhattan T. Co.
(92 Fed. Rep. 428), 1807.
Sioux City, etc. Co. v. Trust Co.
(82 Fed. Rep. 124; 173 U. S.
99), 1257, 1671, 1981.
Sixth Ave. R. Co. v. Kerr (72 N.
Y. 330),
1315.
Sizer v.
Daniels (66 Barb. 429),
2117.
Skaneateles, etc. Co. v.
Village of
Skaneateles (161 N. Y. 154; 46
L. R. A. 687), 1383, 1647.
Skelley v.
Private Coachman's
Soc. (13 Daly (N. Y.), 2),
214.
Skiddv v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (3
Hughes, 320), 1725.
Skillman v. Lockman (23 Cal.
198), 7, 2089, 2098, 2099, 2101.
Skinner v. Dayton (19 Johns.
513), 2091, 2092.
Skinner v. Fort Wayne, etc. R. R.
(58 Fed. Rep. 55; 99 Fed. Rep.
465), 593, 1320.
Skinner v. Garnett, etc. Co. (96
Fed. Rep. 735),
1551.
Skinner v. Maxwell (66 N. C. 45;
68 N. C. 400), 1724, 1747.
Skinner v. New York (134 N. Y.
240), 1772.
Skinner v. Richardson, B. & Co.
(76 Wis. 464; 45 N. W. Rep.
(Wis.) 318), 47, 1508, 1527.
Skinner v. Smith (134 N. Y. 240),
1100, 1912, 1947.
Skinner Co. v. Iri.sh Soc. (1
Mylne & Cr. 162), 1747.
Skip v. Harwood (3 Atkins, 564),
1724, 1747, 1748.
Skowhegan & A. R. Co. v. Kins-
man (77 Me. 370), 313, 316.
Skowegan Bank v. Cutler (49
Me. 315), 886, 961.
Skrainka v. Allen (7 Mo. App.
434; 76 Mo. 384), 430, 431, 546,
552.
Slack V. Maysville, etc. R. Co. (13
B. Mon. (Ky.) 1), 295, 296.
Slack v. North Western Bank, etc.
(103 Wis. 57),
1770.
Slade v. Talbot (65 N. E. Rep.
(Mass.) 374), 538.
Slattery v. North End. Sav. Bank
(175 Mass. 380), 1077.
Slater, etc. Co. v. Lamb (143 Mass.
420), 1330, 1336, 1343.
Slattery v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (91
Mo. 217; 60 Am. Rep. 245), 824,
825, 1250, 1888.
Slaughter House Cases (16 Wall.
36), 1407.
Slavden v. Seip (25 Mo. App. 439),
1377.
Slaymaker v. Bank of Gettysburg
(10 Pa. St. 373), 292, 527.
Slaymaker v. Gundacker (10
Sergt. & R. (Pa.) 75), 1146.
Slaymaker's Adm'r v. Jaffray &
Co. (82 Va. 346), 1141.
Slavens v. Cook Drug Co. (128
Mo. 341), 17G6.
Slee V. Bloom (10 Am. Dec. 273;
5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 366; 19
Johns. 456; 20 Johns. 669), 209,
'
223, 227, 431, 588, 833, 853, 866,
874, 906, 919, 943, 1129, 1916,
1933, liU, 1948, 1949, 1954,1957.
Sleeper v. Goodwin (67 Wis. 577),
493, 562, 834, 840, 859, 860, 861,
949, 1768, 1837, 1958.
Sleeper v. Norris (59 Kan. 555),
1944, 1954.
Slipher v. Earhart (83 Ind. 173),
324, 339.
Sloan v. Kansas Citj% etc. Bank
(158 Mo. 431), 1211.
Slocum V. Head (105 Wis. 431),
167, 882.
Sloman v. Bank of England (14
Sim. 475), 417, 596, 597, 631.
TABLE OF CASES. ccxliii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-610; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, l.o07-2134.]
Smallcombe v. Evans (L. R. 3 H.
of L. 2-49
). 979.
Smalley v. Green (52 Iowa, 241;
35 Am. Rep. 2G9), 1425.
Small V. Elliott (12 S. D. 570; 76
Am. St. Rep. 630), 1122.
Small V. Herkimer Manuf. Co. (2
N. Y. 330; 21 Wend. 273), 473,
474. 477, 478, 480.
Small V. Minneapolis, etc. Co. (10
N. Y. Supp. 456), 1247, 2019.
Small V. Smith (14 S. D. 621; 86
Am. St. Rep. SOS), 1791.
Smathers v. Western, etc. Bank
(74 S. E. Rep. (N. C.) 893),
261.
Smelser v. Mayne (82 Ind. 417),
1526.
Smith V. Allison (23 Ind. 366),
310.
Smith V. Alvord (63 Barb. 415),
992.
Smith V. American Coal Co. (1
Nev. 428), 240, 264, 392, 585,
609, 611, 631, 960, 963, ,1009.
Smith V. Atchison, etc. R. R. (64
Fed. Rep. 272), 1024.
Smith V. Baker (42 Hun, 504),
529.
Smith V. Berndt (1 N. Y. Supp.
108), 1257.
Smith V. Birmingham Gas Co. (1
A. & E. 520), 1481.
Smith V. Bulkley
(70 Pac. Rep.
(Colo.) 958), 1536.
Smith V. Burlington, etc. R. Co.
(55 Mo. 256), 156.
Smith V. Chesapeake, etc. Canal
Co. (14 Pet. 45), 1977.
Smith V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (18
Wis. 17), 1834.
Smith V. Clark County
(54 Mo.
58), 297, 299, 1684.
Smith V. Co-operative Dress Assn.
(12 Daly, 304), 401, 1201.
Smith V. Cork, etc. Ry. Co. (I.
L. R. 3 Eq.-356), 672, 673, 674.
Smith V. Cornelius (41 W. Va.
59; 30 L. R. A. 747), 1913.
Smith V. Crescent City, etc. Co.
(30 La. Ann. 1378), 393, 609,
613, 963.
Smith V. Crum (57 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 953), 1200.
Smith-Dimmick, etc. Co. v. Teague
(119 Ala. 385), 1782.
Smith V. Downev (8 Ind. App.
179; 52 Am. St. Rep. 467), 957.
Smith V. Eastern R. R. Co. (124
Mass. 154), 1717.
Smith V. Eastwood, etc. Co. (58
N. J. Eq. 445), 95.
Smith V. Ely, etc. Co. (79 Miss.
266), 1783.
Smith V. Erb (4 Gill (Md.) 437),
1001, 1095.
Smith V. Everett (126 Mass. 304),
375.
Smith V. Exchange Bank (26
Ohio St. 141), 1241.
Smith, Ex parte (17 W. R. 491),
809. 933.
Smith V. Ferris, etc. Ry. (51 Pac.
Rep. (Cal.) 710), 1511.
Smith V. Galloway
(1 Q. B. 71),
197.
Smith V. Geo. T. Smith, etc. Co.
Hun, 454), 1629.
Smith V. Gold, etc. T. Co. (42
(119 Mich. 11), 1512.
Smith V. Goldsworthy
(4 Ad. &
E. (N. S.) 430; L. R. 4 Q. B.
430), 241, 251.
Smith V. Grower (2 Duer, 17),
1256, 1953.
Smith V. Huckabee (53 Ala. 191),
169, 446, 833, 835, 900, 902, 907,
1129.
Smith V. Hurd (12 Met. (53
Mass.) 371; 46 Am. Dec. 690),
637, 800,. 816, 1125, 1126, 1129,
2018.
Smith V. Indiana, etc. R. Co. (12
Ind. 61), 69, 71, 95, 461.
Smith, In re (2 Woods, 463), 39.
Smith V. Lake Shore, etc. Co.
(114 Mich. 460; 173 U. S. 68'4),
1383, 1564.
Smith V. Lansing (22 N. Y. 520),
1098.
Smith V. Law (21 N. Y. 296),
982, 997, 1266.
Smith V. Lav/son (18 W. Va. 212;
41 Am-. Rep. 688), 1188.
Smith V. Lockwood (1 Code Rep.
(N. S.) 319), 2078.
Smith V. Long Island R. Co. (32
Hun, 38; 102 N. Y. 190), 1067,
1068.
Smith V. Los Angeles, etc. Assn.
(78 Cal. 289; 12 Am. St. Rep.
53), 1018, 1101, 1111.
Smith V. Maine Boys Tunnel Co.
(18 Cal. 112), 481.
Smith V. McCullough (104 U. S.
25), 1711.
Smith V. Mosby (9 Heisk. (Tenn.)
501), 928.
Smith V. Mutual Life Ins. Co. (14
Allen (96 Mass. 336), 844.
ccxliv TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to papes: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.1
Smith V. Natchez Steamboat Co.
(1 How. (Miss.) 479), 1960.
Smith V. New York, etc. Co. (18
Abb. Pr. 419), 1357.
Smith V. North Am. Min. Co. (1
Nev. 423), 258, 291, 559, 610,
G18.
Smith Paper Co. v. Savin (130
Mass. 513), 1714.
Smith V. Parker (148 Ind. 127),
1215.
Smith V. Pedigo (145 Ind. 361;
32 L. R. A. 838), 15.
Smith V. Plankroad Co. (30 Ala.
650), 373, 1957.
Smith V. Poor (40 Me. 415; C3
Am. Dec. 148), 642, 1125, 1126,
1129.
Smith V. Prattville Manuf. Co.
(29 Ala. 503), 641, 1118, 1120.
Smith V. Putnam (61 N. H. 632),
1377.
Smith V. Railroad Co. (33 Gratt.
617), 487.
Smith V. Reading Pass. Ry. (2
Pa. Dist. 490), 1563.
Smith V. Reese, etc. Co. (L. R.
2 Eq. 264), 333, 341, 406.
Smith V. Rude, etc. Ry. (131 Ind.
150), 763.
Smith V. St. Louis,etc. Ry. (151
Mo. 391; 52 S. W. Rep. 378;
48 L. R. A. 368), 1797.
Smith V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (6
Lea (Tenn.), 564; 2 Tenn. Ch.
727), 1810.
Smith V. San Francisco, etc. Ry.
Co. (115 Cal. 584; 56 Am. St.
Rep. 119; 35 L. R. A. 309), 1014,
1021, 1026, 1029.
Smith V. Sheeley
(12 Wall. (U.
S.) 358), 166, 1528, 1916.
Smith V. Town of Stoughton (70
N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 195), 1645.
Smith V. Schmitz (10 Neb. 600),
849.
Smith V. Silver Valley Min. Co.
(64 Md. 85; 54 Am. Rep. 760),
67, 70, 78, 987, 988, 989, 990, 992,
1059.
Smith V. Sioux, etc. Co. (109 Iowa,
51), 1807.
Smith Paper Co. v. Servin (130
Mass. 513), 1714.
Smith v. Skeary
(47 Conn. 47),
1766, 1769.
Smith V. Smith, etc. Co. (125
Mich. 234), 1511, 2055.
Smith V. Smith (3 Desau. (S. C.)
557), 774, 1960, 2082, 2132.
Smith v. Smith (62 111. 493), 206,
208, 209, 1187, 1190, 1198.
Smith V. Society (12 Phila. 380),
2085.
Smith V. South Royalton Bank
(32 Vt. 341; 76 Am. Dec. 179),
1160.
Smith V. Talassee Plank Road Co.
(30 Ala. 650), 304, 349, 364, 461,
462.
Smith V. Tracy (36 N. Y. 78), 577.
Smith V. Warden (86 Mo. 382),
167, 171, 2031.
Smith V. Wells, etc. Co. (96 Fed.
Rep. 375), 1635, 1766, 1770.
Smith V. Wells Manuf. Co. (148
Ind. 333), 797, 1090.
Smith V. Western Union T. Co. (84
Ky. 664), 1629.
Smith V. Woodville, etc. Min. Co.
(66 Cal. 39S; 5 Pac. Rep. 688),
1069, 1075.
Smith V. Wright (5 Sandf. 113),
1291.
Smith's Case (7 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
57; Eng. Ct. of App.), 556.
Smithson v. Hubbell (81 Fed.
Rep. 593), 1791.
Smith's Estate (146 Pa. St. 344;
23 Am. St. Rep. 237), 647.
Smyth v. Ames (169 U. S. 466),
1383, 1392, 1393, 1554.
Smyth V. Darley
(2 H. L. Cas.
789), 977, 981.
Smythe v. Scott (124 Ind. 183;
24 N. E. Rep. 635), 1509.
Snells' Case (L. R. 5 Ch. 22; L.
R. 13 Bq. 228), 331, 473, 554,
942.
Snell V. Buresh (123 111. 151),
1500.
Snell V. City of Chicago (133 111.
413), 89, 95, 1254, 1564, 1658,
1762, 1950, 1953.
Snider v. Partridge
(178 111. 173),
1160.
Snider Sons Co. v. Troy (91 Ala.
224), 158, 167.
Snook V. Georgia Imp. Co. (9
So. Rep. 1104; 83 Ga. 61), 347.
Snow V. Church (13 N. Y. App.
Div. 108), 1027.
Snow V. Wheeler (113 Mass.
179),
2078.
Snow V. Leetham (2 C. & P. 314),
1686, 1687.
Snyder v. Philadelphia Co. (46
S. E. Rep. (W. Va.) 366), 1515.
Snyder v. Wiley
(59 Tex. 448),
1125, 1130.
I
TABLE OF CASES. ccxlv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, ].")07-213^.]
Societe Fonciere et Agricole v.
Milliken (135 U. S. 304), 2022,
2041.
Societe Generale de Paris v^
Walker (11 App. Cas. 21), 525,
538, 607.
Society v. Abbott (2 Beav. 559),
251.
Society, etc. v. City of New Haven
(21 U. S. (8 Wlaeat.) 4G4), 1923.
Society, etc. v. Commonwealth (52
Pa. St. 125), 35, 79, 87, 88, 773,
775, 2056.
Society, etc. v. Meyer (52 Pa. St.
125), 787, 20C1.
Society, etc. v. New Haven (8
Wheat. (U. S.) 483), 14. 1946.
Society, etc. v. Tramways' Union
Co. (14 Q. B. Div. 424; L. R.
11 H. of L. 20), 600, 690.
Society, etc. Gospel v. Pawlet (4
Peters, 480), 166.
Society for Savings v. Coite (6
Wall. 60G), 38.
Society of Italian Union, etc. v.
Montedonico (4 Am. & Eng.
Corp. Cas. (Ky.) 22), 786, 2060.
Sodus Bay, etc. Co. v. Hamlin (24
Hun, 390), 338.
Sohier v. Trinity Church (109
Mass. 1),
2132.
Solkman v. Yonkers, etc. (152 N.
Y. 327; 37 L. R. A. 827), 1387.
Sollory V. Seaver (L. R. Q. Eq.
22), 1747.
Solomans v. Laing (12 Beav. 339),
1353, 1355.
Solomon v. Bates (118 N. C. 311),
817.
Solomon v. Penoyar (89 Mich.
11), 1119.
Solomon v. Schneider & Co. (56
Neb. 680), 1299, 1535.
Solomon Co. v. Barber (58 Kan.
419), 792.
Somerset R. Co. v. Clarke (61
Me. 379), 308, 314, 360.
Somerset &. K. R. Co. v. Cushing
(45 Me. 524), 240, 324, 356, 455.
Somerville v. Horton (4 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 541), 1246.
Sopham v. Grenside (37 Ch. Div.
381), 1719.
Southall V. British, etc. Soc. (L.
R. 6 Ch. App. 614), 1853.
Southampton Dock Co. v. Rich-
ards (2 Railw. Cas. 215), 137,
463, 914, 1004.
South Baltimore, etc. Co. v. Kirby
(89 Mo. 52), 1807.
South Baptist Soc. v. Clapp (18
Barb. 35), 131.
Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Mason
(147 Mass. 500), 1714, 1716.
South Carolina v. Gaillord (101
U. S. 433), 47, 130.
South Carolina, etc. R. R. Co. v.
American, etc. Co. (43 S. E.
Rep. (S. C.) 970), 1619.
South Carolina R. Co. v. Blake (9
Rich. (S. C.) 228), 1319, 1885.
South Carolina, etc. R. R. Co. v.
Carolina, etc. Ry. Co. (93 Fed.
'
543). 1789, 1802.
South Carolina Mfg. Co. v. Bank
of South Carolina (6 Rich. Eq.
(S. C.) 227), 835.
South Covington, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Gest (34 Fed. Rep. 628), 1147.
South Eastern Ry. Co.'s Claim
(L. R. 14 Eq. 10), 553.
South Eastern Ry. Co. v. Heb-
blethwaite (12 Ad. & E. 497),
455.
Southern Bank v. Williams (25
Ga. 534), 90.
Southern Bell T. Co. v. Constan-
tine (61 Fed. Rep. 61), 1626.
Southern Cal. etc. Co. v. Union
L. & T. Co. (64 Fed. 450), 1814.
Southern, etc. Assn. v. Gillespie
(121 Ala. 295), 1519.
Southern, etc. Co. v. City of Rich-
mond (98 Fed. Rep. 671), 1634.
Southern, etc. R. Co. v. Moravia
(61 Barb. 180), 471.
South Essex Co., In re (11 Eq.
157), 1678.
Southern Express Co. v. Fitzner
(59 Miss. 581), 1486.
Southern Express Co. v. Mem-
phis, etc. R. Co. (8 Fed. 799),
1586.
Southern Hotel Co. v. Newman 30
Mo. 118), 115, 353.
Southern Ind. Express Co. v.
United States Express Co. (88
Fed. Rep. 659), 1635.
Southern Life, etc. Co. v. Lanier
(5 Fla. 110; 58 Am. Dec. 448),
349, 1343.
Southern Mut. etc. Ins. Co. (79
Ky. 404), 2070.
'.
Southern Pac. Co. v. City of
'' '
Pomona (77 Pac. Rep. (Cal.) '\
929), 1296.
'i
Southern Pac. Co. v. Denton (146
i
U. S. 202), 2012.
Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Esquibel
(4 N. M. 337; 20 Pac. 109), 1561.
ccxlvi
TAIJLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. T, 1-G19; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Orton (32
Fed. 4^7), 3, 51, 95, 151, 1236,
1238, 1915,1922.
SouUiern Pac. Co. v. Railroad
Commissioners (78 Fed. Roy.
230), 1555.
Southern Plank R. Co. v. Hixon
(5 Ind. 165), 780.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Atlanta, etc.
Co. (Ill Ga. 679; 51 L. R. A.
125), 1597.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Carnegie, etc.
Co. (17G U. S. 257), 172G.
Southern Ry. Co. v. Franklin, etc.
R. R. Co. (96 Va. 693; 44 L. R.
A. 297), 1590.
Southern R. Co. v. North Carolina
R. R. Co. (81 Fed. Rep. 595),
140, 385.
Southc:ate v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co.
(61 Mo. 89), 1875.
South Georgia, etc. R. Co. v.
Avres (56 Ga. 230), 339, 349,
350, 1861.
South, etc. R. Co. v. Chappell (61
Ala. 529), 1492.
South, etc. Ry. Co. v. Second Ave.
etc. Ry. Co. 191 Pa. St. 492),
1583
South Joplin, etc. Co. v. Case (104
Mo. 572), 1184, 1217, 1222.
South London Fish Market Co.,
In re (59 L. T. Rep. (N. S.)
210), 530.
Southmayd v. Russ (3 Conn. 52),
867, 887, 910.
South Mt. etc. Mining Co., In re
(7 Sawy. 30), 376, 429, 515, 592,
890, 892.
South Ottawa v. Perkins (94 U.
S. 2G0), 845.
South School District v. Blakeslee
(13 Conn. 2z8), 985, 986, 996.
South Staffordshire Ry. Co. v.
Burnside (20 L. J. Ex. 120),
476, 483, 565, 782.
South Wales Ry. Co. v. Redjnond
(10 C. B. (N. S.) 675), 1578.
Southwest, etc. Co. v. Fayette, etc.
Co. (145 Pa. St. 13), 823.
Southwestern, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mar-
tin (57 Ark. 355), 623.
Southwestern R. Co. v. Georgia
(92 U. S. 676), 729.
Southwestern R. Co. v. Papot (67
Ga. 675), 577, 628.
Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Paulk
(24 Ga. 356), 10.
Southwestern R. R. Bank v. Doug-
las (2 Spear. (S. C.) 329), 562.
Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Southern,
etc. Co. (46 Ga. 43; 12 Am. Rep.
585), 1320, 1322, 2016.
Southwestern R. Co. v. Thomason
(40 Ga. 408), 523.
Southwestern R. Co. v. Wright
(116 U. S. 231), 61, 715.
Southwestern, etc. Co. v. City of
Joplin (101 Fed. Rep. 231; 113
Fed. 817), 1611.
Southwork R. Co. v. City of Phila-
delphia (47 Pa. St. 314), 50.
South Yorkshire Ry. Co. v. Great
Northern Rv. Co. (9 Ex. 55),
645.
South Yuba, etc. Co. v. Rosa (80
Cal. 333), 1525, 2028.
Sowles V. National Union Bank
(82 Fed. Rep. 139), 1074, 1814.
Spackman v. Evans (L. R. 3 H.
L. Cas. 171), 328, 480, 828, 943,
11G5.
Spackman's Case (11 Jur. (N. S.)
207), 943.
Spahr V. Farmers' Bank (94 Pa.
St. 429), 90, 156.
Spalding v. Paine (81 Ky. 416),
581.
Spangler v. Butterfield (6 Colo.
356), 1195, 1287.
Spangler v. Indiana, etc. R. Co.
(21 111. 276), 454, 461, 465, ^70,
472.
Sparhawk v. Yerkes (142 U. S. 1),
2109.
Sparhawk v. Union, etc. R. Co. (54
Pa. St. 401), 1925.
Sparks v. Company of the Pro-
prietors, etc. (13 Ves. 428), 480.
Sparks v. Dispatch, etc. Co. (104
Mo. 531; 12 L. R. A. 714), 1270.
Sparks v. Farmers' Bank (3 Del.
Ch. 274), 1059.
Sparrow v. Evansville, etc. R. Co.
(7 Ind. 369), 109, 112, 300, 1853,
1855, 1856, 1860.
Spartanburg, etc. R. Co. v. Ezell
(14 S. C. 281), 280.
Spartanburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Graf-
fenreid (12 Rich. (S. C.) 275),
305, 321.
Spalding v. Lowell (23 Pick. (40
Mass.), 71), 1230.
Spaulding v. N. Milwaukee, etc.
Company (106 Wis. 481), 1184,
1222.
Spavo's Case (L. R. 8 Ch. 407),
506.
Spear v. Crawford (14 Wend. 20),
270, 273, 472.
TAP.LE OF CASES. ccxlvii
[Refererces are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1.^07-2134.]
Spear v. Grant (16 Mass. 9), 645,
834, 835. 900, 901, 905, 1128.
Spear v. Hart (3 Rob. (Scotland)
420), 638.
Speckert v. German Nat. Bank
(98 Fed. Rep. 151), 1797.
'
Speights V. Peters (9 Gill. (Md.)
476), 1747.
Speirs v. Union, etc. Co. (174
Mass. 175), 132.
Speiser v. Merchants' Exch. Bank
(110 Wis. 506), 1074, 1814.
Spellier El. T. Co. v. Leedom (149
Pa. St. 185), 358.
Spence's Case (17 Beav. 203), 570.
Spence v. Mobile, etc. Ry. (79 Ala.
576), 1298.
Spence v. Shapard (57 Ala. 598),
8GG.
Spencer v. Champion (9 Conn.
536), 1957.
Spencer v. Grand Lodge (22 Misc.
Rep. 147; 48 N. Y. Supp. 590),
215.
Spering's Appeal (71 Pa. St. 11),
1098, 1116, 1118, 1120, 1121, 1124,
1125.
Spei'ry v. Dransfield (2 N. Zea-
land Sup. Ct. 319), 225.
Sperry's Appeal (116 Pa. St. 691),
771, 778, 783.
Spense v. Iowa Valley, etc. Co. (36
Iowa, 407), 169, 494, 559, 833.
Speyer v. Holgate (4 Hun, 622),
2111.
Spies V. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (40
Fed. Rep. 34), 1718.
Spilman v. Supreme Council, etc.
(157 Mass. 128), 773, 780.
Spinning v. Ohio Life Ins. & T.
Co. (2 Disney (Cinn.), 336),
1748, 1800.
Spokane St. Ry. v. Spokane Falls
(6 Wash. 521), 1597.
Spooner v. Holmes (102 Mass.
503), 1682, 1686.
Spooner v. McConnell (1 McLean
(U. S.), 337), 1925.
Sprague v. Cocheco Manufactur-
ing Co. (10 Blatchf. 173), 578,
609.
Sprague v. Cutler, etc. Co. (106
Ind. 242), 2028.
Sprague v. Dorr (69 N. E. Rep.
(Mass.) 344), 1398.
Sprague v. Hartford, etc. R. Co. (5
R. I. 233), 1870, 1872.
Sprague v. Illinois River R. Co.
(19 111. 174), 109, 111, 114, 283,
1860.
Sprague v. National Bank of Am-
erica (172 111. 149; 42 L. R. A.
606), 402, 435, 436, 858,-1818,
1963.
Spreckles v. Nevada Bank (113
Cal. 27-2; 33 L. R. A. 4.39), 542.
Spring V. Bowery National Bank
(63 Hun, 505), 1785.
Spring Co. V. Knowlton (103 U.
S. 49). 240, 402.
Springfield v. Railroad Co. (4
Cush. (58 Mass.) 63), 1318.
Springfield St. Ry. v. Sleeper (121
Mass. 29), 322.
Spring Garden Bank v. Hullings
Lumber Co. (32 W. Va. 357),
1233, 2051.
Springsteen v. Samson (32 N. Y.
703), 286.
Spring Valley Waterworks, In re
(17 Cal. 132), 81, 84.
Spring Valley Water Works v.
Board of Supervisors of San
Francisco (61 Cal. 3), 107.
Spring Valley Water Works v.
City and County of San Fran-
cisco (124 Fed. Rep. 574), 1390,
1650.
Spring Valley Water Works v.
City and County of San Fran-
cisco (22 Cal. 434; 6 L. R. A.
756), 48, 89, 1240, 1649.
Spring Valley Water Works v.
Schottler (110 U. S. 347), 38,
48, 98, 104, 106, 1385, 1552, 1553,
1650, 1899.
Spurlock V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
(61 Mo. 319), 190, 379, 430, 686,
691.
Sauires v. Brown (20 Hoyv. Pr.
35), 846.
Squires v. Thompson (73 N. Y.
App. Div.), 934.
Stace's Case

(L. R. 4 Ch. App.
682), 398.
Stace and Worth's Case (L. R. 4
Ch. 682), 239.
Stafford v. American Mills Co. (13
R. I. 310), 2016.
Stafford Bank v. Palmer (47
Conn. 443), 172.
Stafford v. Prod. Exch. (8 Ohio,
-183), 194, 683.
Staiubank v. Fernley
(9
Sim.
556), 579.
Stainland v. Willott (3 Mac. &
G. 664), 537.
Stamford Bank v. Ferris (17
Conn. 259), 292.
Standard Cable Co. etc. v. Attor-
ccxlviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to v^ges: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-ir,0G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
ney-General (19 Atl. Rep. (N.
J.) 733), 746.
Standard Oil Co. v. Scofield (16
Abb. N. Cas. 372), 1315, 1353.
Stan don v. New Rochelle W. Co.
(91 Hun, 272), 1013.
Standing v. Bowring (27 Ch. Div.
311), 527, 537.
Standley v. Henrie, etc. Co. (27
Colo. 331), 1S05.
Stanford v. City, etc. Co. (131 Cal.
34), 237, 711.
Stanford v. R. R. Co. (24 Pa. St.
378), 1587.
Stanhope's Case (L. R. 1 Ch. App.
IGl), 337, 943.
Stanley v. Chester, etc. Ry. (1
Ry. Cas, 58; 9 Sim. 264), 1175,
1176.
Stanley, Ex parte (33 L. J. Ch.
535), 455, 873, 1712, 1714.
Stanley v. Luse (36 Oreg. 25; 58
Pac. Rep. 75), 1055, 1185.
Stanley v. Stanley (26 Me. 191),
887, 914.
Stanley v. Richmond, etc. R. Co.
(89 N. C. 331), 1515, 1524, 1525.
Stanton v. Alabama, etc. R. R. (2
Woods, 523), 1691, 1727, 1728,
1755, 1691, 1803.
Stanton v. Allen (5 Denio (N.
Y.), 434), 1416, 1417, 1418, 1426,
1450.
Stanton v. Baird, etc. Co. (32 S.
Rep. (Ala.) 299), 1178, 1532.
Stanton, etc. Co., In re (L. R. 16
Bq. 559), 617.
Stanton v. New York, etc. Ry. Co.
(59 Conn. 272), 1166, 1214.
Stanton v. Wilson (2 Hill, 153),
Stanwood v. Stanwood (17 Mass.
57),
291.
Stanwood v. Sterling, etc. Co. (107
111. App. 569), 159.
271, 272.
Starin v. Town of Genoa (23 N,
Y. 439), 296, 504.
Star Printing Co. v. Andrews (9
N. Y. Supp. 731), 1261.
Stark V. Guffy Petroleum Co. (SO
S. W. Rep. ('Tex. Civ. App.)
1080), 1657.
Stark V. Burke (9 La. Ann. 341),
834,'
867, 1796.
Starrett v. Rockland & Ins. Co.
65 Me. 374), 261, 272, 277, 473.
Statara R. Co. v. Brune (6 Gill.
(Md.) 41), 304.
State V. Abernathy (94 N. C. 545),
1531.
State V. Accommodation Bank (26
La. Ann. 288), 111.
State V. Adams (44 Mo. 570),
1937, 1946.
Stale V. American Book Company
(76 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 411),
2025.
State V. American Cotton Oil
Trust (40 La. Ann.
8), 535, 1447,
1452.
State V. American, etc. Assn. (64
Minn. 349), 1380, 1911.
State V. American, etc. Co. (43
N. J. Law, 381), 1312, 1618.
1932, 1985.
State V. Anderson (90 Wis. 550),
721, 1611.
State V. Armour, etc. Co. (73 S.
W. Rep. (Mo.) 645), 699.
State V. Armstrong
(3
Sneed
(Tenn.), 634), 65.
State V. Associated Press (15 N.
Y. Supp. 887; 136 N. Y. 333; 32
Am. St. Rep. 94), 216.
State V. Associated Press (159
Mo. 410; 51 L. R. A. 6151), 1434,
2098.
State V. Atchison (3 Lea (Tenn.)
729; 31 Am. Rep. 663), 1494,
1541.
State V. Atchison, etc. Co. (24
Neb. 143; 8 Am. St. Rep. 1=64),
1427, 1842, 1848, 1849, 1865, 1867,
1868, 1905, 1906, 1909, 1943, 1959.
State V. Atherton (40 Mo. 209),
207.
State V. Attorney General (30 La.
Ann.954), 1936.
State V. Axtell (41 U. S. 117),
725.
State V. Bailey (16 Ind. 46; 79
Am. Dec. 405), 112, 283, 353,
1768, 1842, 1851, 1860, 1861, 1863,
1865, 1909, 1919, 1958.
State V. Baltimore R. Co. (6 Gill,
(Md.) 363), 246, 625, 638, 639,
642, 643, 646.
State V. Baltimore, etc. (15 W. Va.
362; 36 Am. Rep. 803), 1230,
1539, 1541, 1695.
State V. Bank of Charleston (2
McMullan (S. C.) 441), 1918.
State V. Bank of Commerce (53
Fed. Rep. 735), 714.
State V. Bank of Commerce (95
Tenn. 221), 239, 714.
State Bank of Louisiana (6 La.
Ann. 746), 641, 799.
State V. Bank of Maryland (6
Gill & J. (Md.) 205; 26 Am.
TABLE OF CASES, ccxlix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Dec. 561), 1242, 1244, 1245, 1770,
1953.
State V. Bank of New England (55
Minn. 139), 870, 1783.
State V. Bank of South Carolina
(1 Spear (S. C), 433), 1907,
1908.
State V. Barron (58 N. H. 370; 57
N. H. 370), 1911, 1920, 1958,
19G0, 1962.
State V. Beck (81 Ind. 500), 80,
84, 152, 1911, 1928, 1958.
State V. Bell (34 Ohio St. 194),
1602.
State V. Bell Telephone Co. (23
Fed. Rep. 539), 1634.
State V. Benton (25 Neb. 834),
2004.
State V. Bergen Neck Ry. (53 N.
J. L. 108), 1920.
State V. Bergenthal (72 Wis. 314),
139 143.
State' V. Berry (52 N. J. L. 308;
19 Atl. Rep. 665), 719, 749.
State V. Bissell (4 Greene (Iowa),
328), 296.
State V. Board (34 La. Ann. 574),
724, 726.
State V. Bonnell (35 Ohio St. 10),
978, 995, 996, 998, 1059.
State V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (25 Vt.
433) 1913.
State V. Bradford (32 Vt. 50), 23,
1938.
State V. Bristol, etc. (188 Ala. 3;
54 Am. St. Rep. 131), 2007.
State V. Brown (64 Md. 199), 1693,
1743, 1754.
State V. Brownstown, etc. Co. (120
Ind. 337; 22 N. E. Rep. 316),
151, 1395, 1902, 1905, 1911, 1959.
State V. Buckeye, etc. Co. (61
Ohio St. 520), 1428.
State V. Buffalo, etc. Co. (131 N.
Y. 140), 151.
State V. Building Assn. (35 Ohio
St. 253), 253, 1284, 1286.
State V. Bull (16 Conn. 179), 67,
78.
State V. Butler (86 Tenn. 614; 15
Lea (Tenn.), 104), 593, 728,
1664, 1880, 1915, 1954.
State V. Brice (7 Ohio, 82), 1062.
State V. Canon, etc. Assn. (67
Minn. 14; 8 Am. St. Rep. 179),
1907, 1908, 1927, 1935, 1956.
State V. Capital City Water Co.
(102 Ala. 231). 1902, 1904.
State V. Carteret Club (40 N. J.
295). 786. 2060.
State V. Carpenter (51 Ohio St.
83), 616.
State V. Centerville Bridge Co.
(18 Ala. 678), 1934.
State V. Central Ohio (29 Ohio St.
399), 80, 81, 86, 155, 1957.
State V. Central, etc. Co. (71 Iowa,
410; 60 Am. Rep. 806), 35.
State V. Chamber of Commerce,
etc. (77 Minn. 308), 769, 774,
775, 777, 2055, 2056, 2058, 2063,
2109.
State V. Chehalis, etc. (8 Wash.
210; 25 L. R. A. 354), 1806.
State V. Cheraw, etc. R. Co. (16
S. C. 524), 619, 677, 684.
State V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co. (25
Neb. 165), 1552, 2010.
State V. Cincinnati, etc. Co. (47
Ohio St. 130; 23 N. E. Rep. 928),
1389, 1392, 1475, 1556, 1638.
State V. Citizens' Bank (52 La.
Ann. 1086), 714.
State V. Citizens' Tel. Co. (61 S.
C. 83), 1634.
State V. City, etc. (76 Pac. Rep.
(Mont.) 77 8), 1620.
State V. City of Hamilton (23 N.
E. Rep. (Ohio) 935), 62.
State V. Clancy (20 Mont. 284),
1783.
State V. Clark (23 Minn. 423), 297.
State V. College of California (38
Cal. 166), 1243.
State V. Commercial Bank (6 Sm.
& M. (14 Miss.) 237), 1930.
State V. Commercial Bank (28 Pa.
St. 383), 1926, 1928.
State V. Commercial Bank (33
Miss. 474), 1427.
State V. Commercial Bank (13 Sm.
& M. (21 Miss.) 569; 53 Am.
Dec. 106), 1906, 1909, 1935, 1954,
1958.
State V. Commercial Bank (10
Ohio St. 539), 1907, 1908, 1934.
State V. Commercial State Ba&'~
(44 N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 998), 446,
1977, 1978, 1980.
State V. Commissioners of R. R.
Taxes (37 N. J. L. 240), 720,
1288, 1874.
State V. Common Council (71 N.
W. Rep. (Wis.) 86), 1593.
State V. Comptroller (54 N. J. L.
135), 734.
State V. Concord R. Co. (59 N, H,
85), 1292, 1579.
State V. Conklin (34 Wis. 21),
199, 221.
ccl
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, I-CIO; Vol. II, C21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1307-2131.]
State V.
Consolidation Coal Com-
pany (46
Md. 11), 1253, 1852,
1936.
Stale V. Constantino (42 Ohio St.
4:!7).
1022.
State V. Cook (71 S. W. Rep.
(Mo.) 829), 1985.
State V. Council Bluffs, etc. Co.
. (11 Neb. 354), 1652, 1653, 1904,
1927.
State V. Cowen (83 Md. 549), 1687.
State V. Cox (88 Md. 254), 1135.
State V. Crawfordsville, etc. Co.
(102 Ind. 283), 1816, 1903, 1917,
1919.
State V. Crescent City G. L. Co.
(24 La. Ann. 318), 300.
State V. Critchett (37 Minn. 13),
79 155 225.
State V.' Crowell (9 N. J. 411),
1004.
State V. Curtis (9 Nev. 335), 194,
200, 221, 222, 798, 1019.
State V. Curtis (130 Mo. 440),
194.
State V. Curtis (35 Conn. 374; 95
Am. Dec. 263), 28.
State V. Dawson (16 Ind. 40), 67,
70, 78, 261.
State V. Debenture, etc. Co. (51
La. Ann. 1874), 1903.
State V. Delaware, etc. Co. (47
Fed. Rep. 633), 1634.
State V. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co.
(30 N. J. L. 473), 1872.
State V. Deuham (71 Pac. Rep.
(Wash.) 196), 1792.
State V. Depot Co. (42 Mo. 142),
739.
StateV. Dillon (125 Ind. 65), 1015.
State V. District Court (56 Pac.
Rep. (Mont.) 219; 27 L. R. A.
392), 1780, 19G4.
State V. Dry Fork R. R. (50 W.
Va. 235), 1527.
State V. Eastern, etc. Co. (36 N.
J. L. 181), 1316.
State V. Edwards (86 Me. 102),
1656.
State V. Einstein (46 N. J. 479),
138.
State V. Equitable, etc. Assn. (142
Mo. 325), 1908, 1917, 1936.
State V. Farmers' College (32
Ohio St. 487), 1905, 1027, 1958.
State V. Farmers, etc. Co. (81 Tex.
530), 1691, 1741, 1823.
State V. Faudre (46 S. E. Rep. (W.
Va.) 269), 1653.
State V. Ferguson (33 N. H. 424),
191.
State V. Ferguson (31 N. J. 424),
975, 977.
State V. Ferris (42 Conn. 560), 262,
264, 385, 540, 887, 1008, 1009,
1015, 1049, 1051.
State V. Fidelity, etc. Co. (49 Ohio
St. 440; 10 L. R. A. 611), 81, 88,
152, 1996, 2004.
State V. Fidelity, etc. Co. (153 111.
25; 38 N. E. Rep. 752; 26 L. R.
A. 295), 1996.
State V. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
(77 Iowa, 648), 1933.
State V. P'idelity, etc. Co. (80 S.
W. Rep. (Tex. Civ. App.) 544),
696, 749.
State V. Firemens' Fund Ins. Co.
(152 Mo. 1; 45 L. R. A. 363),
1430, 1434.
State V. First National Bank (89
Ind. 302), 619, 961.
State V. First National Bank (2 S.
D. 568), 1539.
State V. Fisher (28 Vt. 714), 1934.
State V. Fleming (147 Mo.
1), 702,
762, 1994, 2007.
State V. Florida, etc. R. Co. (15
Fla. 690), ,1669, 1706.
State V. Fogerty (105 la. 32),
1982.
State V. Folsom Water Co. (12
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 388), 1388.
State V. Fosdick (21 La. Ann.
434), 1990, 1991.
State V. Foulkes (94 Ind.
493),, 79,
84, 152.
State V. Fourth, etc. Co. (15 N.
H. 162; 41 Am. Dec. 690), 353,
1913, 1917, 1919, 1920, 1957, 1958.
State V. Franklin Bank (10 Ohio,
91), 553.
State Freight Tax Case (15 Wall.
232), 753.
State V. Georgia Med. Soc. (95
Am. Dec. 408), 772, 776, 777,
787, 2057, 2061.
State V. Glenn (18 Nev. 34), 1190.
State V. Godwinsville, etc. Road
Co. (44 N. J. L. 496), 58, 1918.
State V. Goodwill (25 Am. St. Rep.
870), 1396.
State V. Goll (32 N. J. L. 285),
1204.
State V. Gordon (87 Ind. 171),
85.
State V. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (61
Me. 114), 1500, 1546.
TABLE OF CASES. cell
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.1
State V. Granville, etc. Society (11
Ohio, 1), 16G1.
State V. Great Works, etc. Co. (20
Me. 41; 37 Am. Dec. 38), ,1489,
1541.
State V. Green (37 Ohio St. 227),
1017.
State V. Greene County
(54 Mo.
540), 296, 299, 1017.
State V. Greer (78 Mo. 188), 1022,
1023.
State V. Guaranty, etc. Co. (73
P^ed. Rep. 914), 1741.
State V. Guerrero (12 Nev. 105),
619.
State V. Hancock (2 Pennewell
(Del.) 252), 71.
State V. Hannibal, etc. Ry. Co.
(138 Mo. 332), 3, 724, 732, 1593,
1669.
State V. Harshaw (45 N. W. Rep.
(Wis.) 308), 715, 736.
State V. Hartford, etc. Co. (29
Conn. 538), 1471, 1580.
State V. Harris (3 Ark. 570), 1092,
1095.
State V. Hazleton, etc. Co. (40
Ohio St. 504), 1903, 1904.
State V. Heppenheimer (58 N. J.
L. 633; 32 L. R. A. 643), 714.
State V. Herdic Coach Co. (35 La.
Ann. 245), 1787, 1907.
State V. Hogan (163 Mo. 43), 1902.
State V. Holmes (82 N. W. Rep.
(Neb.) 109), 1530, 1741, 1807.
State V. Home, etc. Union (63
Ohio St. 547), 881.
State V. Howard (1 Mich. 512),
172.
State V. Hudson Tunnel Co. (38
N. J. 548), 1317.
State V. Hunton (28 Vt. 594), 663,
1008.
State V. Iberville Parish Judge (30
La. Ann Pt. 1308), 218.
State V. Insurance Co. etc. (99 N.
AV. Rep. (Neb.) 36). 1990.
State V. Inter. Inv. Co. (88 Wis.
512; 43 Am. St. Rep. 920), 85.
State V. Iowa Central Ry. (83
Iowa, 720), 1562.
State V. Ironton Gas Co. (37 Ohio
St. 45), 1385.
State V. Jack (76 Pac. Ren. Kan.)
911), 1535.
State V. Jackson (90 Mo. 156),
1546.
State V. Jacksonville St. R. R. (29
Fla. 590), 1601.
State v. Janesville Water Co. (92
Wis. 496: 32 L. R. A. 391), 439,
1901, 1919.
State v. Jefferson Iron Co. (60
Tex. 312), 1915.
State v. Jefferson T. P. Co. (3
Humph. (Tenn.) 305), 377, 406.
State V. Jennings (4 Wis. 549),
267.
State v. Jersey City (25 N. J. L.
307), 1307.
State v. John (5 Ohio, 217), 846.
State V. Kingan (51 Ind. 142),
1928.
State V. Krallman (38 N. J. 117),
725.
State V. Kupferle (44 Mo. 154),
1019, 1059, 1060, 1092, 1095, 1934,
1935.
State V. Ladies of the Sacred
Heart (99 Mo. 533; 12 S. W.
Rep. 293; 6 L. R. A. 84), 89,
102, 1951.
State V. Laclede Gaslight Co. (102
Mo. 472), 1643.
State V. Langlin (53 Mo. App.
542), 143.
State V. Leete (16 Nev. 242), 542,
1009, 1050, 1051, 1052.
State V. Lehre (7 Rich. (S. C.)
234), 1000, 1025.
State V. Lesueur (145 Mo. 322;
13 S. W. Rep. 237), 726.
State V. Linn County
(44 Mo.
504), 297.
State V. Louisiana, etc. Co. (51
La. Ann. 179), 1423.
State V. McBride (105 Mo. 265),
1758.
State V. McCullough (3 Nev. 202),
1045.
State V. McDaniel (22 Ohio St.
3.54). 1011, 1024, 1050.
State V. McPetridge (64 Wis. 130),
737, 738.
State V. McGann (60 Mo. App.
225), 1019.
State V. McGee (88 N. W. Rep.
(La.) 115), 1813.
State V. McGrath (75 Mo. 424),
125.
State V. McGrath (86 Mo. 239),
242, 399.
State V. McGrath (92 Mo. 355),
125.
State V. Mayor of Mobile (5 Port.
(Ala.) 279), 1229.
State V. Mayor, etc. (Duer (N.
Y.) 119), 1600, 1601.
cclii
TABLE OF CASKS.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II. 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Slate V.
Merchants'
Bank (160
Mo. G40).
711.
State V.
Merchants'
Exchange (2
Mo. App. 90), 198,
203.
State V. Merchants' Ins. etc. Co.
(8
Humph. (Tenn.) 235), 1009,
1924, 192G, 1938, 1953,
1965.
State V. Metz (32 N. .T. 199),
1870.
State V. Mexican, etc. Ry. Co. (3
Rob. (La.) 513),
1699.
State V.
Milwaukee, etc. R. Co.
(45 AVis. 579), 769, 1903. 1904.
1098, 1427, 1910, 1911. 1920, 1938,
2063.
State V.
Milwaukee
Chamber of
Commerce (47 Wis. 683), 212,
769, 776. 2057.
State V.
Minneapolis Ry. Co. (39
N. W. Rep.
(Minn.) 154; 32
Minn. 501). 299.
State V. Minnesota Cent. P. Co.
(36 Minn. 246), 1904, 1927,
1937.
State V.
Minnesota
Thrasher Co.
(40 Minn. 213; 3 L. R. A. 510),
11, 48, 1232, 1926, 1928. 1933.
State V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (29
Neb. 550; 45 N. W. Rep. 785),
1389, 1390, 1392.
State V. Mitchell (104 Tenn. 336),
1535.
State V. Montegudo (48 La. Ann.
1417), 1510.
State V. Morgan (28 La. Ann. 482),
72.
State V. Louisville, etc. Co. (86
Ind. 114), 1500.
State V. Lyons (32 N. J. 360). 725.
State V. Maine Central R. Co. (66
Me. 428), 721. 729, 1500, 1546,
1850, 1853, 1854, 1881, 1889.
State V. Manhattan, etc. Co. (149
Mo. 181), 132.
State V. Marietta & Cincinnati
Railroad Co. (35 Ohio St. 154),
1734.
State V. Martin (51 Kan. 462),
1911, 1928, 1958.
State V. Morris, etc. R. Co. (23 N.
J. L. 360), 1485, 1488.
State V. Morris (73 Tex. 435),
1919.
State V Morris (77 N. C. 512),
1402.
State V. Morristown F. Assn. (23
N. J. L. 195; 3 Zab. 195), 239,
494 833 1593.
State' V. Murphy (130 Mo. 101),
1612.
State V. National Bank of Balti-
more (133 Md. 75), 1838.
State V. National Bank of Missouri
(46 Mo. 140), 1662.
State V. Nebraska Distilling Co.
(29 Neb. 700), 1372, 1437, 1452,
1453.
State V. Nebraska Tel. Co. (17
Neb. 126; 52 Am. Rep. 404),
1384, 1399, 1616, 1902.
State V. New Haven, etc. Co. (45
Conn. 331). 1925.
State V. Nehama County (10 Kan.
569). 300.
State V. Newman (51 La. Ann.
833), 1762.
State V. New Orleans (30 La. Ann.
308), 626.
State V. New Orleans (25 La. Ann.
413), 393.
State V. New Orleans, etc. Co. (51
La. Ann. 1827), 935, 1957.
State V. New Orleans, etc. Co. (2
Rob. (La.) 529), 17, 393, 439,
612, 626, 1927.
State V. Newark (54 N. J. Law,
102), 1617.
State V. New York, etc. Co. (8
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 290), 1526.
State V. Nixon (5 Jones L. (N. C.)
528), 1381.
State V. Nonconnah Turnpike Co.
(1 Tenn. Cas. 511), 151, 1906.
State V. North American (31.-So.
Rep. (La.) 172). 188.
State V. Northern Central Ry. Co.
(44 Md. 121), 43.
State V. Northern Central Ry. Co.
(18 Md. 193), 1713, 1870, 2011.
State V. North Louisiana R. Co.
(34 La. Ann. 947), 393, 406, 547,
1680.
State V. Northern Pacific R. R.
(75 Fed. Rep. 333), 1559, 1790.
State V. Norwalk, etc. Co. (10
Conn. 157), 1919.
State V. Noves (47 Me. 189; 43
Am. Dec. 119), 104, 106. 1301,
1898, 1899, 1936, 1937.
State V. Oberlin, etc. Assn. (35
Ohio St. 528), 327, 1928, 1936,
1937.
State V. Ohio, etc. Co. (23 Ind.
362), 1489.
State V. Old Town, etc. Corp. (85
Me. 17), 1932.
State V. Omaha, etc. Co. (91 Iowa,
517), 1902, 1958.
State V. Overton (24 N. J. Law,
440; 61 Am. Dec. 675), 188, 1402.
State V. Overton (10 Nev. 136),
1402.
TABLE OF CASES. ccliii
[References are to pages. Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
State V. Park, etc. Co. (58 Minn.
330), 185, 882, 1183, 1903, 1911.
State V. Passaic, etc. Soc. (54 N.
J. Law, 260), 1540.
State V. Pasumpsic Turnpike Co.
(3 Vt. 178), 1909.
State V. Paterson. etc. R. R. (43
N. J. L. 505), 1590.
State V. Patersou, etc. Co. (21
N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 9), 1934, 1936.
State V. Pawtucket T. Corp. (8 R.
I. 182; 94 Am. Dec. 123), 1904,
1909, 1910, 1919, 1927.
State V. Pawnee Turnpike Corp.
(8 R. I. 182),
State V. Pavne (129 Mo. 468; 33 L.
R. A. 576), 56, 89.
State V. People's Mut. etc. Assn.
(42 Oliio St. 579), 1064 1904,
1926.
State V. Perkins (90 Mo. App.
603), 1019.
State V. Perry (5 Jones L. (N. C.)
252), 1381.
State V. Perrysburg (14 Oliio St.
472), 295.
State V. Pettineli (10 Nev. 141),
542, 975, 977, 983, 1009.
State V. Ptiilaclelpliia, etc. Co. (45
Md. 361; 24 Am. Rep. 511), 729,
1885.
State V. Phipps (50 Kan. 609; 18
L. R. A. 657), 1428, 1991.
State V. Piplier (28 Kan. 127),
1905, 1907.
State V. Pittam (73 Pac. Rep.
(Wash.) 1042), 1531.
State V. Portage City, etc. Co.
(107 Wis. 441), 10, 1650.
State V. Portland, etc. Oil Co. (153
Ind. 483; 74 Am. St. Rep. 314;
53L.R. A. 413), 1643, 1902, 1908,
1917, 1928, 1932, 1935, 1936.
State V. Port Royal, etc. Ry. (45
S. C. 470; 23 S. E. Rep. 383),
1902.
State V. Primm (50 Me. 87), 765,
767, 2054.
State V. Railroad Co. (45 Md.
384), 737.
State V. Railroad Co. (99 Mo. 80),
727.
State V. Railway Co (45 Wis.
592), 1379.
State V. Ry. Co. (140 Mo. 539),
1954.
State V. Real Estate Bank (5 Ark.
595; 41 Am. Dec. 109), 1905,
1911, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1957.
State V. Reid (125 Mo. 43), 880,
1663.
State V. Reinmund (45 Ohio St.
214), 1996.
State V. Rice (65 Ala. 83), 12C8.
State V. Richmond (72 N. C. 634),
1256.
State V. Rives (5 Ired. (N. C.)
297), 1904, 1953, 1979. 1980.
State V. Rombauer (46 Mo. 155),
619.
State V. St. Louis (145 Mo. 551),
619, 734, 1629.
State V. St. Louis County (21 Mo.
App. 526), 619.
State V. St. Paul, etc. T. Co. (92
Ind. 42), 1943.
State V. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. (35
Minn. 222), 1389, 1938.
State V. Saline County Court (51
Mo. 350), 1592.
State V. San Francisco, etc. (101
Cal. 135), 1952.
State V. Schlitz, etc. Co. (104
Tenn. 715), 1428, 1912, 1985,
2004.
State V. Scholl (17 Wall. 425),
58.
State V. Scott (22 Neb. 628; 36 N.
W. Rep. 121), 2015.
State V. Scougal (3 S. D. 55), 1660.
State V. Seneca (I!o. Bank (5 Ohio
St. 171), 1427, 1904, 1905.
State V. Shelbyville, etc. Co. (41
Md. 151), 83.
State V. Sherman (22 Ohio St.
413), 255, 1256. 1263, 1264, 1319,
1763, 1817, 1851, 1864, 1865.
State V. Sibley (25 Minn. 387),
766, 767, 2054.
State V. Simmons (70 Miss. 485),
740.
State V. Simons (32 Minn. 540),
65.
State V. Simonton (78 N. C. 57),
1906.
State V. Sioux Citv, etc. R. Co. (44
N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 1032), 2000.
State V. Sloss (87 Ala. 119), 748.
State V. Smiley (69 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 199), 1428.
State V. Smith (48 Vt. 290), 252,
475, 1014, 1030, 1032, 1034, 1083.
State V. Smith (15 Oreg. 98), 585,
975, 1010, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052,
1053.
State V. Societe Republicaine
(9
Mo. App. 114), 1911, 1927, 1958,
1960, 1962.
ccliv
TABLE or CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
State V. Somerby (42 Minn. 55),
1932.
State V. Southern, etc. Co. (52 La.
Ann. 1822), 1585, 1911.
State V. Southern Minnesota R.
Co. (18 Minn. 40), 1733.
State V. So. Pac. Ry. Co. (24 Tex.
80), 1903, 1908, 1939.
State V. Southern, etc. Assn. (31
So. Rep. (Ala.) 375), 1932.
State V. Southern R. Co. (24 Tex.
80), 1914.
State V. Spartanburg, etc. Co. (51
S. C. 129), 1945.
State V. Spartanburg, etc. Ry. Co.
(8 S. C. 129: 28 S. E. Rep. 145),
1682, 1942, 1943.
State V. Standard Oil Co. (49
Ohio, 131; 34 Am. St. Rep. 541),
15 L. R. A. 145), 4, 1181, 1291,
1408, 1430, 1436, 1438, 1440, 1441,
1908, 1985, 198G.
State V. Steele (37 Minn. 428),
167, 1087, 1819.
State V. Stevedores', etc. Assn. (43
La. Ann. 1098), 776, 2057.
State V. Stockley (45 Ohio St.
304), 1023.
State V. Stone (118 Mo. 388; 25
L. R. A. 243), 1663.
State V. Stonewall Ins. Co. (8 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 308), 699, 703, 704,
705.
State V. Sullivan County (51 Mo.
522), 297.
State V. Superior Court (71 Pac.
Rep. (Wash.) 1095; 56 Pac. Rep.
35; 45 L. R. A. 177), 1815.
State V. Swearingen (12 Ga. 22),
1024.
State V. Talty (149 Mo. 379), 1789.
State V. Taylor (15 Ohio St. 137),
1920.
State V. Tehoe (7 Rich. (S. C.)
246), 1934.
State V. Thomas (26 N. J. L. 181),
712.
State V. Thompson (23 Kan. 333;
33 Am. Rep. 165), 1547.
State V. Timken (48 N. J. L.
87),
516.
State V. Tolan (33 N. J. 195), 1934.
State V. Tombeckbee Bank (2
Stew. (Ala.) 30), 1905.
State V. Topeka, etc. Co. (60 Pac.
Rep. (Kan.) 337), 1561.
State V. Topeka Water Co. (59
Kan. 151), 9, 103, 1911.
State V. Trinity Church (45 N.
J. (S.) 230), 789.
State V. Truby (37 Minn. 97), 225.
State V. Trustees of Vincennes
University
(5
Ind. 77), 779,
1960.
State V. Tudor (5 Day (Conn.),
329; 5 Am. Dec. 162), 198, 202,
1019, 1020.
State V. Turney (81 Ind. 559),
2002.
State V. Turnpike Co. (15 N. H.
162), 1943, 1959.
State V. Turnpike Co. (46 Atl.
Rep. <N. J.) 569), 1658.
State V. Turnpike Co. (2 Sneed
(Tenn.), 254), 1908.
State V. Union Merchants' Exch.
(2 Mo. App. 96), 224.
State V. Urbana, etc. Co. (14 Ohio,
7), 1904.
State V. Utter (34 N. J. L. 489),
198, 200.
State V. Vail (53 Mo. 97), 1934.
State V. Vanderbilt (37 Ohio St.
590), 1846, 1849, 1867, 1868.
State V. Vermont, etc. Co. (30 Vt.
108), 1541, 1546.
State V. Vermont, etc. Co. (27 Vt.
103), 1489.
State V. Village of Bradford" (32
Vt. 50), 23, 1938.
State V. Vincennes University
(5
Ind. 77), 1918, 1958, 1960.
State V. WabasE Ry. Co. (115 Ind.
466), 1546, 1809.
State V. Wadkins (15 Ohio St.
114), 1920.
State V. Walruff (25 Fed. Rep.
199), 39.
State V. Wapello (13 Iowa, 388),
296.
State V. Waram (6 Hill (N. Y.),
33), 10.
State V. Warren, etc. Co. (32 N.
J. 439), 611.
State V. Webb (110 Ala. 214), 71.
83, 424, 439, 442, 1902, 1920.
State V. Wellman (34 Mich. 221),
19.
State V. Western, etc. Soc. (47
Ohio St.; 24 N. E. Rep. 392),
1931.
State V. Western Irrigating C. Co.
(40 Kan. 96; 10 Am. St. Rep.
166), 1249, 1953.
State V. Western U. T. Co. (165
Mo. 502), 760, 1623.
State V. White (82 Ind. 278; 43
Am. Rep. 496), 1388, 2121.
State V. Whitworth (8 Lea
(Tenn.), 594), 728.
TABLE OF CASES. cclv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. III. 1507-21.34.]
State V. Williams (75 N. C. 134),
201, 212, 772.
State V. Williamson (74 Wis. 2C3),
1205.
State V. Wood (84 Mo. 378), 83,
150, 152, 237, 1906.
State V. Woodward (89 Ind. 110;
46 Am. Rep. 160), 1402.
State V. Woram (6 Hill (N. Y.),
33; 4 Am. Dec. 378). 10.
State V. Wright (10 Nev. 167), 804,
1002.
State Bank v. Cox (11 Rich. (S.
C.) Eq. 344), 389.
State Bank v. Dibrell (3 Sneed
(Tenn.), 378), 293.
State Bank v. Fox (3 Blatchf.
431) 252 553.
State Bank'v. Gill (23 Hun, 410),
959.
State Bank v. Milwaukee (18
Wis. 281), 235.
State Bank of Indiana v. Cook
(100 N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 72),
'
376.
State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop (16
How. 369), 40, 114, 763.
State Bank, etc. Co. v. Peirce (92
Iowa, 668), 939.
State Bank v. State (1 Blatchf.
(Ind.) 267), 1979.
State Board v. Citizens' St. Ry.
Co. (47 Md. 407), 1329, 1343,
1557.
State Board, etc. v. Morris, etc. Co.
(49 N. J. L. 193), 720.
State Council v. Sharpe (38 N.
J. Eq. 24), 1977.
State, etc. Bank v. Fanning, etc.
Co. (92 N. W. Rep. (Iowa) 712),
1788, 1808.
State, etc. Co. v. Elizabeth (58
N. J. L. 619; 32 L. R. A. 170),
1609.
State, etc. Co. v. Superior Court
(101 Cal. 135). 1780.
State, etc. Ins. Co. v. San Fran-
cisco, etc. (101 Cal. 135), 1783.
State, etc. v. Port Royal, etc. Ry.
(S9 Fed. Rep. 565), 1789.
State, Ex rel v. Louisiana Bar
Assn. (36 So. Rep. (La.) 50),
2117.
State, Ex rel Richey (95 Mo. 193;
8 S. W. Rep. 425), 14.
State Fire Ins. Co., In re (1 Hem.
& M. 457), 438.
State Ins. Co. v. Gennett (2 Tenn.
Ch. 100), 599, 959.
State Ins. Co., In re (14 Fed. Rep.
28; 11 Biss. 301), 243, 876, 878.
State Ins. Co. v. Jordan (45 N.
W. Rep. (Neb.) 792), 1180.
State Ins. Co. v. Richmond (71
Iowa, 519), 1152.
State Ins. Co. v. Sax (2 Tenn. Ch.
507), 963.
State Freight Tax Case (15 Wall.
232), 754, 758.
State Lottery Co. v. Fitzpatrick
(3
Woods (U. S.), 242), 38.
State National Bank v. Union Bk.
(168 111. 519), 1766, 1770.
State National Bank v. Robidoux
(57 Mo. 446), 1962.
State of Minnesota v. Central T.
Co. (94 Fed. Rep. 244), 714.
State of Minnesota v. Hoskins (58
Minn. 35), 1609.
State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins.
Co. (127 U. S. 265), 2013.
State Railroad Tax Cases (92 U.
S. 575), 737.
State Savings Assn. v. Kellogg (52
Mo. 583), 471, 490, 853, 866,
867, 949.
State Treasurer v. Auditor Gen-
eral (46 Mich. 224), 1849.
State Trust Co. v. Casino Co. (5
N. Y. App. Div. 381), 1741.
State Trust Co. v. National, etc.
Co. (72 Fed. Rep. 575), 1734,
1779.
Staten Island R. T. R. Co., In re
(37 Hun, 422), 280, 504.
Stationers Co. v. Salisbury
(Comb. 221), 191, 223.
Staver, etc. Co. v. Blake (111
Mich. 282; 38 L. R. A. 798), 883.
Steacy v. Little Rock, etc. Co. (5
Dill, 348), 402, 558. 560, 561.
Steamboat Co. v. McCutcheon (13
Pa. St. 13), 1343.
Steam Engine Co. v. Hubbard (101
U. S. 188), 846.
Steam Nav. Co. v. Weed (17 Barb.
378), 341, 1343, 1345, 1346.
Steamship Co. v. Jersey City (45
N. J. 246), 1649.
Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania
(122 U. S. 326). 759.
Steamship Dock Co. v. Heron (52
Pa. St. 280), 210, 601, 2070.
Stearns v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co.
(46 Me. 95), 1570.
Stebbins v. Jennings (18 Pick. (35
Mass.) 187), 64, 2082.
Stebbins v. Merritt (64 Mass.
27),
133, 974, 975, 981, 982, 1015.
cclvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II.
62J-1506;
Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Stebbins v. Perry County (167 111.
5G7), 823.
Stebbins v. Phoenix Fire Insur-
ance Co. (3 Paige, 350), 420,
689, 691.
Stebbins v. Scott (172 Mass. 356),
854.
Stedman v. Eveleth (6 Mete. (47
Mass. 114), 849, 863.
Stedman v. Merchants', etc. Bank
(69 Tex. 50), 1951.
Steel V. Schaffer (107 111. App.
o9Q'\
2020
Steele's Case (28 W. R. 241), 279,
933.
Steele v. Gourley (3
Times Law
Rep. 118), 2075.
Steele v. Laurens, etc. Co. (24
S. E. Rep. (Ga.) 755), 1778,
1782.
Steele v. N. Met. Ry. Co. (2 Ch.
237), 1368.
Steelton v. East Harrisburg Pass.
Ry. (1 Pa. Dist. 607), 1059.
Steere v. Hoagland (39 111. 264),
864.
Stein V. Bienville, etc. Co. (141
U. S. 67), 1045.
Stein V. Howard (65 Cal. 616),
240, 429, 435, 452, 518.
Stein V. Mayor (24 Ala. 591), 297.
Steiner v. Steiner, etc. Co. (120
Ala. 128), 192, 221, 1273.
Steinke v. Yetzen (108 Iowa, 512),
1253.
Steinmitz v. Versailles R. Co. (57
Ind. 457), 466.
Stephens v. De Medina (4 Q. B.
422) 525.
Stephens v.' Fox (83 N. Y. 313),
281, 852, 899, 900, 919, 920.
Stephens v. St. Louis, etc. R. R.
(47 Fed. Rep. 530; 14 L. R. A.
184), 2039.
Stephenson v. Polk (71 Iowa,
278), 1055, 1261.
Stephenson v. Texas, etc. R. Co.
(42 Tex. 162), 1503.
Stephenson v. Ware (45 Cal. 110),
485, 488, 491.
Stern v. McKee (70 N. Y. App.
Div. 142), 952.
Sternberg v. Wolff (56 N. J. Eq.
555), 1952.
Sterrett v. Philadelphia, etc. T.
Co. (18 W. N. Cas. (Pa.) 77),
1629.
Stetson V. City Bank of New Or-
leans (12 Ohio St. 167), 1766,
1970, 1975.
Stetson V. City of Bangor (56 Me.
274), 696.
Stetson V. Northern Inv. Co. (104
Iowa, 393), 1092, 1104.
Stevedores' B. Assn., In re ( 14
Phila. 130), 82.
Stevens v. Anson (73 Me. 489),
297.
Stevens v. -Buffalo, etc. R. Co. (31
Barb. 390), 1716.
Stevens v. Corbitt (33 Mich. 458),
321, 322.
Stevens v. Davison (18 Graft.
(Va.) 818; 98 Am. Dec. 692),
193, 1126, 1566, 1590, 1861.
Stevens v. Eden Meeting House
Soc. (12 Vt. 688), 974, 975, 981,
982, 983.
Stevens v. Follett (43 Fed. Rep.
832), 837.
Stevens v. Griffith (111 U. S.
48), 42.
Stevens v. Hurlbut Bank (31
Conn. 146), 586.
Stevens v. Merchants' R. Co. (L.
R..8 Ch. 448), 663.
Stevens v. Missouri, etc. Ry. (106
Fed. Rep. 771), 2041.
Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (41
N. Y. 149), 987.
Stevens v. Pratt (101 111. 206),
1999, 2006.
Stevens v. Proprietors, etc. (12
Mass. 460), 830.
Stevens v. Rutland, etc. R. Co.
(29 Vt. 549), 38, 97, 109, 112,
114, 803, 1017, 1090, 1585, 1658,
1861.
Stevens v. South Devon Ry. Co.
(9 Hare, 313; 20 L. J. Ch. 491),
634, 641, 643, 644, 672, 674, 804,
1017, 1368.
Stevenson v. Polk (71 Iowa, 278),
1261.
Stewart v. Austin (L. R. 3 Eq.
299), 114.
Stewart v. Brooklyn, etc. Co. (99
N. Y. 588), 1487.
Stewart v. Canty (8 Mees. & W.
160), 2116.
Stewart v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(27 Iowa, 282), 1573.
Stewart v. Erie Trans. Co. (17
Minn. 372), 828, 1360, 1426,1471.
Stewart, etc. Co. v. Missouri Pac.
Ry. (28 Neb. 39), 1804.
Stewart v. Fireman's Ins. Co. (53
Md. 564), 603.
Stewart v. Harmon (98 Fed. Rep,
190), 1798.
TABLE OF CASES. cclvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Stewart v. Harris (77 Kan. (Kan.)
277), 1098.
Stewart v. Jones. (40 Mo. 140),
1G99.
Stewart v. Lansing (104 U. S.
505), 1679, 1681, 1683.
Stewart v. Lay (45 Iowa, 604),
862, 874, 907, 911.
Stewart v. Lee Mutual, etc. Co.
(64 Miss. 499), 209, 1130.
Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
(38 N. J. L. 505), 1106, 1108,
1556.
Stewart v. Mahoney Min. Co. (54
Cal. 149), 1013.
Stewart v. Marion, etc. Co. (155
Ind. 174), 1792.
Stewart v. Minnesota Tribune Co.
(40 Minn. 101), 1495.
Stewart v. National Bank (2 Abb.
(U. S.) 424), 1342.
Stewart v. New Orleans Water
Works Co. (2 So. Rep. (La.)
416), 1648.
Stewart v. Pierce (89 N. W. Rep.
(Iowa) 234), 1027.
Stewart v. Polk County (30 Iowa,
9), 296, 1303.
Stewart v. St. Louis Railway
Company (41 Fed. Rep. 736),
1071. 1221,
Stewart v. Stebbins (1 Stew.
(Ala.) 299), 1229.
Stewart v. Trustees (2 Denio,
403), 355.
Stewart v. Walla Walla, etc. Co.
(1 Wash. St. 521), 589, 849.
Stewart v. Waterloo, etc. (71
Iowa, 226; 60 Am. Rep, 786),
1546.
Stewart v. Wisconsin, etc. R. R.
(95 Fed. Rep. 577), 1757.
Stewart's Appeal (72 Pa. St. 291),
1253, 1254, 1263, 1834, 1848, 1851.
Stewarfs Case (L. R. 1 Ch. App.
574), 377, 941, 943.
Stewarts' Trustee v. Evans (9
Scotch Ct. of Ses. Cas. 810),
569, 570.
Stickel V. Atwood (25 R. I. 456),
370, 1671.
Stiefel V. New York, etc. Co. (14
N. Y. App. Div. 371; 43 N. Y.
Supp. 1012), 1792.
Stieffel V. Tolhurst (67 N. Y.
App. Div. 521), 835.
Stiles V. Laurel, etc. Co. (47 W.
Va. 838), 1967.
Stilphen v. Ware (45 Cal. 110),
928, 929, 948, 950.
Stilwell V. People's, etc. Assn. (19
Utah, 257; 57 Pac. Rep. 14), 206.
229, 230, 574.
Stinson v. Thornton (56 Ga. 377),
533, 578.
Stinson v. Williams (35 Ga. 170),
899.
Stobo V. Davis Prov. Co. (54 111.
App. 440), 1062.
Stock, Ex parte (33 L. J. Ch. 731),
1050.
Stockbridge v. West Stockbridge
(12 Mass. 400), IGO, 1532.
Stocken's Case (L. R. 2. Eq. 6),
479.
Stockton v. American, etc. Co. (55
N. J. Eq. 352), 177, 184, 1380.
Stockton V. Central R. R. (50 N.
J. Eq. 52; 17 L. R. A. 97), 1562,
1911.
Stockton, etc. R. Co. v. City of
Stockton (41 Cal, 147), 297,
1303.
Stockton, etc. Works v. Houser
(109 Cal. 1), 977.
Stockton V. Harmon (32 Fla. 312),
230, 818.
Stockwell V. St. Louis (9 Mo. App.
133), 224, 589, 629.
Stoddard v. Decatur, etc. Co. (184
111. 53), 829.
Stoddard v. Kimball (6 Cush. (GO
Mass.) 469), 1690.
Stoddard v. Lum (159 N. Y. 265),
1811.
Stoddard v. Shetucket, etc. Co. (34
Conn. 542), 506.
Stokes V. Findlay (4 McCrary,
205; Fed. Cas. 13478), 155, 171.
Stokes V. Hoffman House (167 N,
Y. 554; 53 L. R. A. 870), 1780.
Stokes V. Lebanon, etc. Turnpike
Co. (6 Humph. (Tenn.) 241),
477.
Stokes V. New Jersey P. Co. (46
N. J. L. 237), 1190, 1194, 1210.
Stokes V. Salstonstall (13 Pet.
181), 1637.
Stokes V. Scott County (10 Iowa,
166), 296.
Stokes V. Stickney (96 N. Y. 323),
847.
Stollenwerck v. Thatcher (115
Mass. 224), 392.
Stolze V. Manitowoc, etc. Co. (100
Wis. 208),
1954.
Stone V. Cartwright (6 T. R. 411),
1138.
Stone V. Chisolm (113 U. S. 302),
1131.
cclviii TAHLE OF CASKS.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-21.34.]
Stone V. City and County Bank
(L. R. 3 C. P. D. 282), 933.
Stone V. Farmers', etc. Co. (116
U. S. 307), 1382, 1384, 1385, 1393,
1553, 1554, 1872, 1874.
Stone V. Fenno (6 Allen (88
Mass.), 579), 1145, 1146.
Stone V. Great Western Oil Co. (41
111. 85), 457.
Stone V. Hackett (12 Gray (78
Mass.), 230), 1030, 1032.
Stone V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (116
U. S. 347), 1576, 1872.
Stone V. Kellogg (62 111. 444; 165
111. 192; 56 Am. St. Rep. 240),
140, 143, 144.
Stone V. Mississippi (101 U. S.
814; 1 Keener's Cas, 180), 51,
1396, 1398, 1401, 1402.
Stone V. Wiggin (5 Mete. (46
Mass.) 316), 863.
Stone V. Wisconsin (94 U. S. 674),
97, 1383.
Stonebridge v. Perkins (141 N.
Y. 1), 1792.
Stoneham, etc. R. Co. v. Gould (2
Gray (68 Mass.), 277), 313, 480.
Stoops V. Greensburgh, etc. Co.
(10 Ind. 47), 1959.
Storm V. Waddell (2 Sandf. Ch.
494), 1800.
Storrer, In re (63 Fed. Rep. 564),
1621.
Storrow v. Texas, etc. Assn. (87
Fed. Rep. 612; 31 C. C. A. 139),
672.
Story V. Furman (25 N. Y. 214),
54, 486, 846, 902, 907, 1795.
Story V. Saloman (71 N. Y. 420),
2114.
Stout V. Yeager Milling Co. (13
Fed. Rep. 802), 1722.
Stout V. Zulick <48 N. J. L. 599),
68, 82, 155, 156, 157, 158, 338.
Stout V. Lye (103 U. S. 66), 1740.
Stoutenburgh v. Hennick (129 U.
S. 141), 26, 1993.
Stoutimore v. Clark (70 Mo. 471),
90, 1916.
Stover V. Flack (30 N. Y. 64; 41
Barb. 162), 524, 563, 573, 874.
Stow V. Wyse (7 Conn. 214; 18
Am. Dec. 99), 981, 982, 1190,
1253.
Stowe V. Flagg (72 111. 397), 23,
49, 80, 83, 87, 88, 150, 359, 1851.
Stowell V. Stowell (45 Mich. 364),
323.
Stoystown, etc. Co. v. Graver (45
Pa. St. 386), 1055.
Straffon's Case (1 De G., M. & G.
576), 588, 884.
Strain v. Chicago, etc. Co. (126
Fed. Rep. 831), 2025.
Straine v. Bradford, etc. Co. (88
Fed. Rep. 571), 924, 1797.
Strait V. National, etc. Co. (18 N.
Y. Supp. 224; 21 N. Y. App. Div.
290), 1440.
Strait V. National Harrow Co. (51
Fed. Rep. 819), 1429.
Strange v. Houston, etc. R. Co.
(53 Tex. 162), 389, 393, 592, 613,
884, 2110.
Strangham v. Indianapolis & R.
Co. (38 Ind. 185), 266.
Stratford, etc. Co. v. Stratton (2
Barn. & Ad. 519), 313, 454, 455.
Strasburg R. Co. v. Echternach
(21 Pa. St. 220; 60 Am. Dec. 49),
271, 278, 359.
Straton v. New York, etc. R. Co.
(2 E. D. Smith, 184), 1843.
Stratton v. European, etc. Ry. Co.
(74 Me. 422), 1576, 1710.
Stratton v. Lyons (53 Vt. 130),
274.
Strauss v. ^tna, etc. Co. (126 N.
C. 223; 48 L. R. A. 452), 2017.
Strauss v. Insurance Co. (5 Ohio
St. 59), 254, 1285.
Strauss v. Pub. Association (177
N. Y. 143; 64 L. R. A. 701),
1421.
Street v. Maryland Central Ry.
Co. (58 Fed. Rep. 47), 1805.
Streeter v. Robinson (102 Cal.
542), 1073.
Streeter v. Sumner (31 N. H.
542), 565.
Strickland v. Railroad Co. (27
Miss. 209), 297.
String v. Camden, etc. Co. (57 N.
J. Eq. 227), 1658.
Stringer's Case (L. R. 4 Ch. 475),
634, 636, 637, 644.
Strob V. Hess (1 AVatts & S. (Pa.)
153), 1676.
Strobel v. Kerr Salt Co. (164 N.
Y. 303; 51 L. R. A. 687), 1613.
Stroh V. City of Detroit (90 N. W.
Rep. (Mich.) 1029), 713.
Strong V. Brooklyn & R. Co. (93
N. Y. 426), 249, 636.
Strong V. McCogg (55 Wis. 624),
1913, 1924, 1951, 1956.
Strong V. Smith (15 Hun, 222),
263, 585, 1009, 1032.
Strong V. Wheaton (38 Barb. 625),
846, 909, 910, 920.
TAliLE OF CASES. cclix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Strouse v. Sylvester (66 Pac. Rep.
(Cal.) 6G0), 10G5.
Strout V. Natoma, etc. Co. (9 Cal.
78), 9G1.
Stryker, In re (158 N. Y. 526; 70
Am. St. Rep. 489; 73 Hun,
327),
8G0.
Stuart V. Boulware (133 U. S. 78),
1072, 1813.
Stuart V. Gay
(127 U. S. 518),
1752.
Stuart V. Hayden (169 U. S. 1),
551, 598.
Stuart V. Valley R. Co. (32 Gratt.
147), 269, 273, 281, 288, 289, 301.
326.
Stubbs V. Lister (1 Y. & C. Ch.
81), 481.
Studdert v. Grosvenor (L. R. 33
Ch. D. 528), 1088.
Studebaker Mfg. Co. v. Montgom-
ery (74 Mo. 101), 1529.
Stults V. East Brunswick, etc. Co.
(48 N. J. 596), 1521.
Sturdevant v. Farmers' Bank (62
Neb. 472), 1272.
Sturge V. Eastern, etc. R. Co. (7
De Gex, M. & Y. 158), 663, 672,
674, 675.
Sturgeon Bay, etc. Co. v. Leatham
(164 111. 239), 1655.
Sturges V. Bank of Circlevllle (11
Ohio St. 153; 78 Am. Dec. 296),
1662.
Sturges V. Burton (8 Ohio St.
215), 846.
Sturges V. Chicago Board of
Trade, etc. (86 111. 441), 787,
2060.
Sturges V. Stetson (1 Bjss. 246;
23 Fed. Cas. 311), 402, 429, 430,
431, 478, 495, 550, 577, 892, 1087.
Sturges V. Vanderbilt (73 N. Y.
384), 1944, 1950, 1957, 1969.
Sturgls V. Crescent Jute Mfg. Co.
(10 N. Y. Supp. 470), 2023.
Sturgis V. Drew (11 Hun, 136; 73
N. Y. 384), 1968.
Sturgis
V. Knapp (36 Vt. 1), 1710,
1711.
Stutz V. Handler (41 Fed. Rep.
531), 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 405,
654, 655, 657. 658, 659, 660, 989.
Styles V. Cardiff Steamboat Co.
(12 W. R. 1080), 1163.
Styles V. Village of Newport (56
Atl. Rep. (Vt.) 662), 727.
Suard's Case (1 De G., F. & J.
533), 574.
Suburban Bank, In re (L. R. 7
Ch. 641), 195G.
Suburban Hotel Co., In re (L. R.
2 Ch. 737), 1948, 1955, 1956,
1965.
Suburban, etc. Co. v. Inhabitants,
etc. (41 Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 865),
1611, 1950.
Suffolk Sav. Bank v. Common-
wealth (151 Mass. 103), 745.
Suffell V. Bank of England (9 Q.
B. Div. 555), 1688.
Sugden v. Alsbury (L. R. 45 Ch.
D. 237), 649.
Sullivan v. Campbell (2 Hall,
271),. 2077, 2087.
Sullivan Co. v. Connecticut, etc.
Co. (76 Conn. 464; 57 Atl. Rep.
287), 1941.
Sullivan v. Detroit, etc. Co. (64
L. R. A. (Mich.) 673), 1074,
1215.
Sullivan v. Grass Val. etc. Co. (77
Cal. 418), 1516.
Sullivan v. Haskin (70 Vt. 487),
1758.
Sullivan v. Lewis (56 Me. 507),
207.
Sullivan v. Louisville, etc. R. R.
Co. (128 Ala. 77), 1532.
Sullivan v. Mutual Ins. Co. (2
Mass. 318), 2125.
Sullivan v. Parks (69 N. Y. App.
Div. 21; 74 N. Y. Supp. 787),
1033.
Sullivan v. Portland, etc. R. Co.
(94 U. S. 806), 1834.
Sullivan v. Postal T. Co. (123 Fed.
411), 2104.
Sullivan v. Triunfo Mining Co.
(39 Cal. 459), 1098, 1953.
Sulphur Spring, etc. Ry. Co. v.
St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. (2 Tex.
Civ. App. 650), 1942.
Summerlin v. Fronteriza, etc. Co.
(41 Fed. 249), 381, 382.
Sumner v. City of Gloverville
(35
N. Y. Misc. 523), 1613.
Sumner v. Marcy (3 Woodb. & M,
105; Fed. Cas. 13,609), 919, 1230,
4133, 1661.
Sumrall v. Commercial Bldg. etc.
(50 S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 69; 44
L. R. A. 659), 1973.
Sun National Ins. Co. v. Missis-
sippi, etc. Co. (14 Fed. Rep.
699), 1527.
Sunapee v. Eastman (32 N. H.
470), 129.
cclx
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. IT, C21-1F;06; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Sunderland Marine Ins. Co. v.
Kearney (16 Q. B. 925), 438.
Sunderlin v. Bradstreet (46 N. Y.
188), 1497.
Sunflower Oil Co. v. Wilson (142
U. S. 313), 1800.
Supervisors v. Schenck (5 Wall.
772), 296.
Supervisors v. Stanley (105 U. S.
311), 743.
Supervisors v. Wisconsin, etc. R.
Co. (121 Mass. 4G0), 297.
Supervisors of Fulton County v.
Mississippi & W. R. Co. (21 111.
338), 109, 112.
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott (10
Colo. 327), 394, 542, 549, 610,
612, 613.
Supreme Commandery v. Ains-
worth (71 Ala. 436; 46 Am. Rep.
332), 115, 188, 196, 222, 228.
Supreme Council v. Forsinger
(125 Ind. 52; 21 Am. St. Rep.
196), 2103.
Supreme Council v. Garrigus (104
Ind. 133), 773, 2085.
Supreme Council, etc. v. Jordan
(45 S. E. Rep. (Ga.) 33), 2102.
Sunreme Lodge v. Dalberg (138
111. 508; 28 N. E. Rep. 787),
214.
Supreme Lodge v. Knight (117
Ind. 489; 3 L. R. A. 409), 188,
228.
Supreme Lodge of K. of P. v.
Kutsher (119 111. 340; 53 N. E.
Rep. 620), 188.
Supreme Lodge v. Mondroski (20
Tex. Civ. App. 322; 49 S. W.
Rep. 919), 221.
Supreme Sitting, etc. v. Baker
(134 Ind. 293), 1951.
Supreme Tent v. Valkert (25 Ind.
App. 627; 57 N. E. Rep. 203),
231.
Susquehanna Canal Co. v. Bon-
ham (9 Watts & S. (Pa.) 27;
42 Am. Dec. 315), 1245.
Susquehanna, etc. v. Elkins (124
Pa. St. 484; 17 Atl. Rep. 24),
232.
Susquehanna Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Gackenbach (115 Pa. St. 492),
2068, 2072.
Sussex R. Co. v. Morris, etc. Co.
(19 N. J. Eq. 13), 1578.
Sutliff v. Cleveland, etc. Ry. Co.
(22 Ohio St. 147), 1695.
Sutherland v. Olcott (95 N. Y.
100), 239, 256, 258, 928.
Sutter St. R. Co. v. Baum (06 Cal.
44), 1111.
Sutton V. Bank of England (1
Car. & P. 193), 008.
Sutton Mfg. Co. V. Hutchinson (63
Fed. Rep. 196), 1065.
Sutton's Case (3 De G. & Sm.
262), 546, 875.
Sutton's Hospital Case (10 Rep.
306), 2, 131, 191, 796, 1229.
Suydam v. Moore (8 Barb. 358),
400, 422.
Swain v. West, etc. Co. (127 Pa.
St. 616; 14 Am. St. Rep. 871),
410.
Swaine v. McCohany
(4
Ohio,
157), 2050.
Swan, E:x parte (7 C. B. (N. S.)
400), 417, 617.
Swan V. Clark (110 U. S. 602),
1727, 1803.
Swan V. North British, etc. Co. (2
H. & C. 175), 417, 418, 614, 615,
617.
Swan V. Stiles (87 N. Y. 1089),
1764.
Swan V. Williams (2 Mich. 427),
1303, 1311.
Swan Land & Cattle Co. v. Frank
(39 Fed. Rep. 456), 908, 1248,
1953, 1958, 1960, 1961.
Swann v. Wright (110 U. S. '590),
1752.
Swansea Dock Co. v. Levien (20
L. J. Ex. 77), 466, 982.
Swarto V. Cohen (11 Ind. App.
20), 1290.
Swatara R. Co. v. Brune (6 Gill.
(Md.) 41), 366.
Swartwout v. Michigan Airline R.
R. Co. (24 Mich. 389), 153, 281,
305, 310, 313, 331, 339, 342, 354,
362, 470, 938, 1866.
Swazy V. Choate, etc. Co. (48 N.
H. 200), 381.
Swearingen v. Sewickley (198 Pa.
St. 68), 951.
Sweatt V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (3
Cliff. (U. S.) 343, 353), 39.
Sweeny v. Bank of Montreal (5
Can. Law T. 503), 579.
Sweeney v. Grape Sugar Co. (30
W. Va. 443), 1114.
Sweeney v. Smith (L. R. 7 Eq.
324), 479, 480, 617, 781.
Sweeney v. Talcott (85 Iowa,
103), 150.
Sweet V. Hurlburt (51 Barb. 312),
296.
TABLE OF CASES.
cclxi
^References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Swift V. Easton (73 Pa. St. 362),
726.
Swift V. Jewsbury (L. R. 2 Q. B.
301), 268), IISO.
Swift V. Pannell (24 Ch. Div. 210),
1719.
Swift V. Richardson (7 Houst.
(Del.) 3S8; 40 Am. St. Rep.
127), 146, 2017.
Swift V. Smith (65 Md. 428; 57
Am. Rep. 336), 972, 1018, 1832,
1963.
Swift V. State (7 Houst. (Del.)
338; 40 Am. St. Rep. 127), 2017.
Swift & Co. V. Dyer, Veatch Co.
(28 Ind. App. 1), 1773.
Swigert, In re (119 111.
83), 721.
Swing V. Munson (191 Pa. St.
582; 71 Am. St. Rep. 772), 2008.
Swing V. White River, etc. Co.
(91 Wis. 517), 1791.
Swisshelm v. Swissvald, etc. Co.
(95 Pa. St. 367), 1175.
Swope V. Villard (61 Fed. Rep.
417), 1513.
Sword V. Wickersham (29 Kan.
746), 157.
Swords V. Northern Light Co. (17
Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 115), 1966.
Sykes. In re (10 Ben. 162), 148,
2035.
Sykes' Case (L. R. 13 Eq. Cas.
255), 455.
Sykes v. Holloway
(81 Fed. Rep.
432) 545 552.
Sykes V. People" (132 111. 32), 121,
129, 130.
Svmmes v. Union Trust Co. (60
Fed. Rep. 830), 1511, 1759, 1826,
1829.
Symonds v. Lewis (94 Me. 501),
1770.
Symons' Case (L. R. 5 Ch. App.
298), 558, 574, 887.
Synott V. Cumberland, etc. Assn.
(117 Fed. Rep. 379), 669.
Synott V. Cummings (116 Fed.
Rep. 40), 1247.
Syracuse, etc. Bank v. Davis (16
Barb. (N. Y.) 188), 154, 1853.
Syracuse, etc. R. Co., In re (91
N. Y. 1), 999. 1025.
Syracuse, etc. R. Co. v. Gere (4
Hun, 392), 366.
Syracuse, etc. Ry. v. Salt Springs
etc. Co. (28 N. Y. Misc. 619),
587.
Syracuse Savings Bank v. Town
of Seneca Falls (86 N. Y. 317),
267.
Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse
(116 N. Y. 167; 5 L. R. A. 546),
1413.
T.
Taber v. Royal, etc. Co. (124 Ala.
681), 1782.
Taber v. Goss, etc. Manuf. Co. (11
Colo. 419), 913, 1520.
Tabor, etc. Ry. v. McCormick (90
Iowa,
446), 935.
Tafft V. Presidio, etc. R. R. (84
Cal. 131; 11 L. R. A. 125), 543,
598, 599, 608.
Taft V. Hartford, etc. R. Co. (8
R. I. 310), 622, 663, 669, 670,
671, 672, 674, 675, 680.
Taft v. Pullen (90 N. ^V. Rep.
(Mich.) 529), 1785.
Taft V. Ward (106 Mass. 518),
2090, 2092.
Taggart v. Newport St. Ry. (16
R. I. 668; 7 L. R. A. 205), 1597,
1598.
Taggart v. Perkin (73 Mich. 303),
35.
Taggart v. W^estern Md. R. R. (24
Md. 563; 89 Am. Dec. 760), 96,
97, 109, 110, 268, 273, 282, 287,
288, 301, 305, 307, 344, 345, 349,
489, 938.
Tailors, etc. of Ipswich Case (11
Coke, 53), 215.
Tait V. Pigott (73 Pac. Rep.
(Wash.) 364), 256, 878.
Talbot V. Dent (9 B. Mon. (Ky.)
526), 296.
Tallx)t V. Hudson (82 Mass. 417),
1303.
Talbot V. Silver Bow Co. (139 U.
S. 438), 740.
Talbot v. Scripps (31 Mich. 268),
1949.
Talbot's Case (5 De G. & Sm.
386), 438.
Talladega Ins. Co. v. Peacock
(67 Ala. 253), 1047, 1270.
Tallmadge v. Fishkill Iron Co. (4
Barb. 382), 923. 926.
Talmadge v. Sanitary, etc. Co. (31
N. Y. App. Div. 498), 936, 937.
Talmage v. Pell (7 N. Y. 328), A
1276, 1661, 2092. \
Talmage v. Third Nat. Bank (91 \
N. Y. 531), 417.
l
Tamble v. Queen, etc. Co. (123 N. >
Y. 91), 1100.
Tanner v. Nichols (SO S. W. Rep.
(Ky.) 225), 836, 1528, 2025.
ccljiiii
TABLE OF CASES.
IRefercnccs arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Tanner v. Lindell Ry. Co. (79 S.
W. Rep. (Mo.) 155),
1979.
Tappan v. Bailey (45
Mass. 529),
2092.
Tappan v.
Merchants' Nat. Bank
(19 Wall. 290), 958.
Tappenden v. Randall (2 Bos. &
P. 467),
401.
Tarbell v. Page (24 111. 4G), 90,
446, 460, 497, 1122.
Tarcott v. Yazoo, etc. R. R. (101
Tenn. 102), 2026.
Tardy v. Creasy (81
Va. 553),
1425.
Tarpey v. Deseret Salt Co. (5
Utah, 494; 17 Pac. Rep. 631),
157, 1238.
Tarras v. Raeburn (10 Ga. 345),
153.
Tar River Nav. Co. v. Elizabeth
City (6 Ired. (N. C.) 470), 156.
Tar River Nav. Co. v. Mead (3
Hawks (N. C), 520). 342, 344.
Tar River Navigation Co. v. Neal
(3 Hawks (N. C), 520), 153,
156.
Tasker v. Wallace (6 Daly (N.
Y.), 364), 513, 559.
Tate V. Bates (118 N. C. 287),
1155.
Tatem v. Wright (23 N. J. L.
429) 1991.
Taurine, In re (L. R. 25 Ch. D.
118), 551.
Taussig Y. Hart (49 N. Y. 301),
2114.
Taussig V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co.
(166 Mo. 28), 1072.
Taverner's Case (Raym. 446),
191.
Tavistock Ironworks Co., In re
Lyster's Case (L. R. 4 Eq. 233;
36 L. J. Ch. 616), 275.
Taxpayers of Kingston, Ex parte
(40 How. Pr. 444), 296.
Taxpayers v. Tennessee (11 Lea
(Tenn.), 329), 297.
Taylor v. Agricultural & M. Assn.
(68 Ala. 229), 1700, 1702.
Taylor v. Albemarle, etc. Co. (104
N. C. 484), 1170.
Taylor v. Ashton (11 M. & W.
401), 368.
Taylor v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co. (55
How. Pr. 275), 1735, 1874.
Taylor v. Bailey (169 111. 181),
2111,
Taylor v. Baldwin (14 Abb. Pr.
166), 1799.
Taylor Co. v. Baltimore, etc. R.
Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 161), 1281,
1342.
Taylor v. Branhan (35 Fla. 297),
178.
Taylor v. Calloway (7
Tex. Civ.
App. 461), 1160.
Taylor v. Castle (42 Cal. 307),
2101.
Taylor v. Chichester, etc. R. Co.
(L. R. 4 H. L. 628; L. R. 2
Exch. 356), 1339, 1340.
Taylor v. Cummings (127 Fed.
Rep. 108), 422.
Taylor v. Decatur, etc. Co. (112
Fed. Rep. 449), 1952.
Taj'lor V. Earle (9 Hun (N. Y.),
1), 1249; 1279, 1357, 1860, 1871,
1950, 1975.
Taylor v. Edson (4 Cush. (58
Mass.) 522), 772.
Taylor v. Exporting Co. (6 Ohio,
17G), 253, 1280, 1285.
Taylor v. Fletcher (15 Ind. 80),
303, 305, 324.
Taylor v. Gray (150 N. J. Eq.

621), 1968.
Taylor v. Great Indian, etc. R. Co.
(4 De G. & J. 559), 389, 614,
617.
Taylor v. Griswold (2 Green, 223;
27 Am. Dec. 33; 3 Green, 122;
14 N. J. 222), 192, 195, 199, 201,
202, 214, 223, 981, 1011, 1012,
1018, 1020.
Taylor v. Holmes (14 Fed. Rep.
498; 127 U. S. 489), 822, -'823,
824, 827, 1832, 1947, 1949.
Taylor v. Hughes (2 Jones (N. C.)
24), 337, 809, 888.
Taylor v. Hutton (43 Barb. 195),
1062.
Tavlor v. Ketchum (35 How. Pr.
289), 587.
Taylor v. Manwaring
(48 Mich.
171),
860'.
Taylor v. Miami, Ex. Co. (6 Ohio,
176; 5 Ohio St. 162; 22 Am.
Dec. 785), 252, 253, 475, 553,
1214, 1284, 1286.
Taylor v. Midland R. Co. (28
Beav. 287), 480, 617, 631.
Tavlor v. Mitchell (80 Minn.
492), 1765, 1792.
Taylor v. Mutual, etc. Assn. (97
Va. 60), 2019.
Taylor v. Newburn (2 Jones Eq.
(N. C.) 141).
Taylor v. North Star G. Min. Co.
(79 Cal. 285), 495.
Taylor v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. IT, C21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
(7 Fed. Rep. 377), 1267, 1725,
1727, 1728.
Taylor v. Portsmouth (91 Me.
193; 64 Am. St. Rep. 216), 1007,
1628.
Taylor v. South & North Ala. R.
Co. (13 Fed. Rep. 152; 4 Woods,
575), 399, 1363, 1365, 1366, 1307.
Taylor v. Taylor (L. R. 10 Eq.
477), 566, 569, 570.
Taylor v. Taylor (74 Me. 582),
1151, 1206.
Taylor v. Thompson (66 How. Pr.
102), 1137.
Taylor v. Union Pac. R. Co. (122
Fed. Rep. 147), 1514, 2026.
Taylor v. Weston (77 Cal. 534),
549, 689.
Taylor v. Ypsilanti (105 U. S. 60),
296.
Taylor Orphan Asylum, In re (36
Wis. 552), 1702.
Tazewell Co. v. Farmers,' etc. Co.
(12 Fed. Rep. 752), 1752.
Teachout v. Des Moines, etc. Ry.
(75 Iowa, 722), 814, 1602.
Teaff V. Hewitt (1 Ohio St. 511),
1715.
Teague v. Le Grande (5 South
Rep. (Ala.) 287), 454.
Teasdale's Case (L. R. 9 Ch. 54),
329, 335, 554.
Tecumseh, etc. Bank v. McGee (61
Neb. 709), 1534.
Tees Bottle Co., In re (33 L. T.
(N. S.) 834), 525.
Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Com-
monwealth (172 Mass. 274; 70
Am. St. Rep. 280; 44 L. R. A.
159), 1545.
Telegraph Co. v. Davenport (97
U. S. 369). 393, 417, 599, 607,
613, 614, 1483.
Telegraph, The v. Lee (48 N. W.
Rep. (Iowa) 364), 827, 1210.
Telegraph Co. v. Dryburg (35 Pa.
St. 298), 1483.
Telegraph Co. v. Massachusetts
(125 U. S. 530), 759.
Telegraph Co. v. Mayor (38 Fed.
Rep. 552), 758.
Telegraph Co. v. Middleton (80
N. Y. 408), 1715.
Telegraph Co. v. Texas (105 U.
S. 400), 753, 754, 759, 1980.
Telegraph Const. Co., In re (L. R.
10 Eq. 384), 243, 252, 878.
Telephone Co's Case, (29 Fed. Rep.
17), 2036.
Telephone, etc. Co. v. Forke (2
Tex. App. 367), 1313.
Telfair v. Howe (3 Rich. Eq. (S.
C.) 235), 1240.
Teltord v. Met. Bd. of Worlds (13
Eq. 514), 1308.
Telford, etc. Turnpike Co. v. Ger-
hab (13 Atl. Rep. (Pa.) 90),
010, 616, 963.
Temnel v. Dodge (89 Tex. 60),
193, 1090.
Temperance, etc. Assn. v. Home,
etc. Soc. (187 Pa. St. 38), 1664.
Tempest v. Kilner (3 C. B. 249),
300, 524.
Temple v. Lemon (112 111. 51),
271, 313, 940.
Templin v. Chicago, etc. Ry. (73
Iowa. 548), 354, 1588.
Ten Broeck v. Winn, etc. Co. (20
Mo. App. 19), 206, 208, 1298.
Ten Eyck v. Del. etc. Co. (18 N.
J. Law, 200; 37 Am. Dec. 233),
17, 1392.
Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, etc. R. R.
74 Mich. 226; 41 N. W. Rep.
905; 3 L. R. A. 378; 16 Am. St.
Rep. 633), 136, 1004, 1064, 1073.
Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank
(L. R. 4 App. Cas. 615). 932,
933.
Tennessee v. Sneed (96 U. S. 69),
45.
Tennessee v. Whitworth (117 U.
S. 129), 61, 712, 719, 720, 728,
1881, 1885, 1891.
Tennessee & Coosa R. Co. v. East
Ala. Ry. Co. (73 Ala. 426), 1016,
1251.
Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Ayres (43
S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 744), 1952.
Tennessee, etc. Co. v. Massey
(56
S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 35), 879,
881, 882.
Tenney v. East Warren, etc. Co.
(43 N. H. 343), 1055.
Tenney v. Lumber Co. (43 N. H.
350), 133.
Terhune v. Midland R. Co. (38 N.
J. Eq. 423), 1861, 1961.
Terre Haute, etc. Co. v. Citizens',
etc. Co. (Viga County, Ind.,
Super. Ct.; 6 Am. Elec. Cas.
193), 1595.
Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cox
(102 Fed. Rep. 825), 1801.
Terrett v. Taylor (9 Cranch.
(U. S.) 4351), 13, 1908, 1916,
1920, 1935, 1937, 1938, 1957,
1978.
Territory v. Hilderbran (2 Mont.
426), 15.
cclxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II. 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Territory v. Stewart (1 Wasli.
98), 65.
Terry v. Anderson (95 U. S. 628),
854, 862, 863, 866, 903, 949.
Terry v. Bank of Cape Fear (20
Fed. Rep. 777), 491, 923.
Terry v. Calnan (13 S. C. 220),
847, 854. 948.
Terry v. Eagle Lock Co. (47 Conn.
141), 243, 654, 1019, 1362, 1366.
Terry v. Little (101 U. S. 216),
832, 835, 900, 903, 907, 910.
Terry v. Merchants', etc. Bank
(66 Ga. 177), 1967.
Terry v. McLure (103 U. S.
442),"
949.
Terry v. Tubman (92 U. S. 156),
854, 866, 903, 948.
Texas Brewery Co. v. Templeman
(90 Tex. 277), 1428, 1439.
Texas, etc. Assn. v. Storrow (92
Fed. Rep. 5; 34 C. C. A. 132),
1782.
Texas, etc. Co. v. Worsham (76
Tex. 556), 2028, 2043.
Texas, etc. Ry. v. Bledsoe (2 Tex.
Civ. App. 88), 1809.
Texas, etc. Ry. v. Boyd (6 Tex.
Civ. App. 205), 1809.
Texas, etc. Ry. v. Cox (145 U. S.
593), 1756, 1791, 1797, 1808.
Texas, etc. Ry. v. DaA^is (93 Tex.
378), 1986, 1991, 1993.
Texas, etc. Ry. v. Donovan (86
Tex. 378), 1809.
Texas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Gentry (69
Tex. 625), 1690, 1705, 1713, 1726.
Texas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Kirby
(44
Ark. 103), 1321.
Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Murphy
(46
Tex. 356), 1503.
Texas, etc. Co. v. Robards (60
Tex. 545), 1471.
Texas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Southern
Pac. Ry. Co. (41 La. Ann. 970),
1472.
Texas, etc. Ry. Co. v. Virginia
Ranch (7 S. W.' Rep. (Tex.)
341), 1517.
Texas, etc. Ry. v. Watson (24 S.
W. Rep. (Tex.) 952), 1815.
Texas & Pac. Coal Co. v. Lawson
(89 Tex. 394), 1439.
Texas Pac. Ry Co. v. Huffman
83 Tex. 286), 1809.
Texas Pac. Ry. v. Johnson (151
U. S. 81), 1809.
Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Bloom (164
U. S. 636), 1809.
Texas & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Gay
(86 Tex. 571; 25 L. R. A. 94),
1812.
Texas Trunk Ry. v. Jackson (85
Tex. 605), 1969.
Thacher v. Hardy
(4 Q. B. Div.
685), 2114, 2116.
Thacker v. Chambers (5 Humph.
513), 966.
Thatcher v. Toledo, etc. R. Co.
(62 HI. 477), 1891.
Thayer v. Life Assn. (112 U. S.
720), 1752.
Thayer v. Nehalem, etc. Co. (31
Oreg. 437), 132.
Thayer v. New England Litho-
graphic Co. (108 Mass. 523),
919.
Thayer v. Union Tool Co. (4 Gray
(70 Mass.), 75), 896, 906.
Thebus v. Smiley (110 111. 316),
874, 911, 923, 926, 927.
Thies V. Spokane Falls, etc. Co.
(74 Pac. Rep. (Wash.) 1004),
1942.
Thigpen v. Missouri Cen. S. R.
Co. (32 Miss. 347), 271, 277,
304, 320, 362, 471.
Third Ave. R. R., In re (121 N.
Y. 536; 9 L. R. A. 124), 1599.
Third Ave. R. Co. v. Ebling
(12
Daly (N. Y.), 99), 1194.
Third Congregational Soct v.
Springfield (147 Mass. 396),
725.
Thirteenth, etc. Ry. v. Southern
Pass. Ry. (3 Pa. Dist. 337),
1602.
Thirty-Fourth St. R. Co., In re
(102 N. Y. 343), 1604.
Thomas' Case (L. R. 13 Eq. 437),
335, 554, 565, 569.
Thomas v. Abbott (61 Mo. 176),
1890.
Thomas v. Brownville, etc. Ry.
Co. (2 Fed. Rep. 877; 109 U. S.
522), 1101.
Thomas v. Chisholm (13 Colo.
105), 1230.
Thomas v. Cincinnati, etc. Ry.
(91 Fed. Rep. 195), 1807.
Thomas v. Citizens', etc. R. Co.
(104 111. 462), 1705.
Thomas v. City of Glasgow Bank
(6 Scotch Ct. of Sess. 607),
575.
Thomas v. City of Grand Junc-
tion (13 Colo. App. 80), 1647.
Thomas v. City of Richmond (12
Wall. 349), 401.
Thomas v. Dakin (22 Wend. (103
TABLE OF CASES. cclxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
N. Y.) 9), 3, 7, 12, 22, 64, 65,
121, 122, 162, 163, 190, 1231,
2047, 2091.
Thomas v. Bast Tennessee, etc.
Ry. (GO Fed. Rep. 7), 1802.
Thomas v. Ell maker (1 Pars. Sel.
Eq. Cas. 98). 785, 786, 787, 2059,
20G0, 2061, 2073, 2081.
Thomas v. Farmers' Bank of
Maryland (46 Md. 43), 1662,
1837.
Thomas v. Frederick School (7
Gill & J. (Md.) 369), 129.
Thomas v. Gregg (78 Md. 545;
23 L. R. A. 294), 650.
Thomas v. Hale (82 Minn. 423),
1797.
Thomas v. Marshfield (10 Pick.
(27 Mass.) 364), 2050.
Thomas v. Musical, etc. Union
(51 St. Rep. (17 N. Y.) 51), 216,
217, 814.
Thomas v. Miit. Prot. Union (121
N. Y. 45; 24 N. E. Rep. 26), 213.
Thomas v. New York, etc. Ry.
(139 N. Y. 163), 1687.
Thomas v. Port Hudson (27 Mich.
320), 296.
Thomas v. Railroad Co. (101 U.
S. 71), 398, 1254, 1326, 1328,
1338, 1339, 1376, 1426, 1453,
1562, 1565, 1566, 1568, 1848,
1849, 1851, 1856.
Thomas v. Remington, etc. Co.
(73 Pac. Rep. (Kan.) 909),
2027.
Thomas v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
(164 111. 634), 1307.
Thomas v. Sweet (37 Kan. 183),
1096, 1100.
Thomas v. Wabash, etc. Ry. (63
Fed. Rep. 200), 1588.
Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co.
(101 U. S. 71). 55, 1244, 1291,
1332, 1371, 1565.
Thomas v. Whallon (31 Barb.
178), 2067.
Thom.as v. Wheeling etc. Co. (46
S. E. Rep. (W. Va.) 217), 1609.
Thomas v. Wiley (3 Ohio St. 225).
1422.
Thomas Tunnel Co. v. Sheldon
(6 B. & C. 341), 267, 279.
Thompson, In re (33 Barb. 334),
1299, 1999.
Thompson's Appeal (89 Pa. St.
36), 647.
Thompson's Case (34 L. J. Ch.
525), 505.
Thompson, Matter of (84 Hun,
38), 1G14.
Thompson v. Abbott (61 Mo.
176), 1250, 1882, 1887, 1888,
1889, 1891.
Thompson v. Adams (12 Phila.
484), 2108.
Thompson v. Alexander (11 111.
54), 1853.
Thompson v. Clanmorris (1 Ch.
718), 947.
Thompson v. Erie Ry. Co. (11
Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 188), 669, 670,
674, 675, 679, 683.
Thompson Estate, In re (11 N-.
Cas. (Pa.) 482), 648.
Thompson v. Greeley (107 Mo.
577), 1792.
Thompson v. Guion (5 Jones Eq.
(N. C.) 113), 112, 114.
Thompson v. Huron, etc. Co. (4
Wash. St. 600), 1792.
Thompson v. Knight (74 N. Y.
App. Div. 316), 439.
Thompson v. Lambert (44 Iowa,
239), 828, 1329, 1331, 1347, 1348.
1360, 1700.
Thompson v. Lee County (3 Wall.
377), 283, 294, 296, 1675, 1679,
1681, 1682, 1683, 1696.
Thompson v. Meisser (108 111.
359), 794, 874, 896, 922, 924,
926, 928.
Thompson v. New York R. Co.
(3 Sandf. 625), 67. 70, 155. 1915.
Thompson v. People (23 Wend.
537), 48, 1964.
Thompson v. Perrine (103 U. S.
806; 106 U. S. 58), 283, 1673,
1683.
Thompson v. Reno Sav. Bank (19
Nev. 103), 341, 446, 447, 472,
485, 488, 550, 566, 587, 836, 874,
905, 906, 914, 922, 925, 945.
Thompson v. Schnectady Ry. (119
Fed. Rep. 634), 1793.
Thompson v. Scott (4 Dill. 508),
1799.
Thompson v. Soc. of Tammany
(17 Hun, 305), 766, 2054, 2126.
Thompson v. Stanley (20 N. Y.
Supp. 317; 73 Hun, 248), 1510,
2018.
Thompson v. Texas, etc. Co. (24
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 856), 2026.
Thompson v. The People (23
Wend. 583), 1928.
Thompson v. Toland (48 Cal. 99),
533, 583, 587.
cclxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Thompson v. Van Vechten (3
Diier (N. Y.), G18), 1734.
Thompson v. White, etc. R. R.
(132 U. S. 68), 1714.
Thompson Co. v. Whitehead (185
111. 454), 1766.
Thompson v. Williams (76 Cal.
153), 978, 998.
Thomson v. Clydesdale Bank (A.
C. 282), 2111.
Thomson v. U. P. Ry. Co. (9 Wall.
(U. S.) 579), 739.
Thomson, etc. Co. v. Capital, etc.
Co. (65 Fed. Rep. 341), 1698.
Thomson, etc. Co. v. Murray (60
N. J. L. 20), 834.
Thomson-Houston, etc. Co. v.
Simon (20 Oreg. 60; 10 L. R.
A. 251), 1312, 1608.
Thorington v. Gold (59 Ala. 461),
1093.
Thoruburgh v. Newcastle, etc. R.
Co. (24 Ind. 499), 341, 362, 365,
366, 367.
Thorne v. Cramer (15 Barb. (N.
Y.) 112), 65, 368, 2003.
Thorne v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (80
Pa. St. 15), 2003.
Thornton v. Balcom (85 Iowa,
198), 79, 81, 83, 84.
Thornton v. Bank of Washington
(3 Pet. (U. S.) 36), 10.
Thornton v. Lane (11 Ga. 459),
460, 497, 863, 914, 948.
Thornton v. Martin (42 S. E. Rep.
(Ga.) 348), 616.
Thornton v. Marginal, etc. Rv.
Co. (133 Mass. 32), 94, 1947,
1967, 1969, 1970, 1975, 1978.
Thornton v. Nat. Exch. Bank (71
Mo. 221), 1371.
Thornton v. Wabash R. Co. (81
N. Y. 462), 1820, 1824, 1828.
Thorp v.Wegenforth (56 Pa. St.
82; 93 Am. Dec. 789), 1837.
Thorp V. Woodhull (1 Sand. Ch.
280, 281, 889, 504, 593.
Thorpe v. Hughes (3 Mylne & C.
742), 406.
Thorpe v. Rutland, etc. R. Co. (27
Vt. 140: 62 Am. Dec. 625), 1386,
1387, 1396, 1946.
Thrasher v. Pike County, etc. R.
Co. (25 111. 393), 271, 273, 276,
278, 382, 470.
Thurber v. Crump (86 Ky. 408),
381, 392, 595, 610, 959, 963.
Thurber v. The Railroads (7 Ry.
<B Corp. L. J. 269), 1390.
Thurston v. Duffy (38 Hun, 327),
857.
Thurston v. Houston (98 N, W.
Rep. (Iowa) 637), 1605.
Tiballs V. Libby (87 111. 142), 857.
Tibbets v. Blood (21 Barb. 650),
2079, 2080.
Tickenor v. Williams, etc. Co. (42
S. E. Rep. (Ga.) 505), 883.
Ticonic, etc. R. Co. v. Lang (63
Me. 480), 304, 322.
Tidewater Co. v. Coster (18 N. J.
Eq. 55), 1313.
Tide Water Pipe Co. v. Kitchen-
man (108 Pa. St. 630), 965.
Tiedman v. Knox (53 Md. 612),
387.
Tiffin Glass Co. v. Stoehr (54
Ohio St. 157), 1971, 1973.
Tifft V. Horton (53 N. Y. 377),
1715.
Tift V. Quaker City Nat. Bank
(141 Pa. St. 550), 1188, 1216.
Tilber v. London, etc. Ry. Co. (1
Hurl. & M. 489), 822.
Tilden v. Green (130 N. Y. 29),
160, 2052.
Tileston v. Newell (13 Mass. 406),
1054.
Tilkey v. Augusta, etc. R. Co. (83
Ga. 757; 10 S. E. Rep. 448), 548.
Tilley v. Coykendall (172 N: Y.
587), 177, 1251.
Tilley v. Savannah F. & W. A. Co.
(5 Fed. Rep. 641), 102.
Tillinghast v. Barley (86 Fed.
Rep. 46), 246.
Tillinghast v. Troy, etc. R. Co.
(48 Hun, 420), 1694, 1744.
Tillsonburg R. Co. v. Goodrich (8
Ont. Q. B. Div. 565), 333.
Tilson V. Waunek G. L. Co. (4
Barn. & C. 962), 1176.
Times, etc. Co. v. Carlisle (94 Fed.
Rep. 762), 1496.
Timms v. Williams (2 Gale & D.
621), 2080.
Tink V. Rundle (10 Beav. 318),
1799.
Tinker v. Van Dyke (1 Flip. 521),
847.
Tinkham v. Borst (31 Barb. 407),
1129, 1796, 1978.
Tinsman v. Belvidere, etc. Co. (26
N. J. Law, 2; Dutch. 148), 15.
Tipling V. Poxall (2 Bulet, 233), 2.
Tippecanoe County v. Lafayette,
etc. R. R. (50 Ind. 85), 1356,
1568, 1585, 1848, 1851, 186L
TABLE OF CASES. cclxvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Tippets V. Walker (4 Mass. 595),
524, 802.
Tipton V. Selma, etc. R. Co. (5
Ala. 787), 359.
Tipton County v. Locomotive
Works (103 U. S. 523), 299.
Tipton Fire Co. v. Barnheisel (92
Ind. 88), 814.
Tisdale v. Harris (2 Pick. (19
Mass.) 9), 524.
Titcomb v. Kennebec, etc. Co. (79
Me. 315), 1978, 1979. 1980.
Titus V. Cairo, etc. Company
(37
N. J. 98), 1054, 1187, 1190, 1253,
1588.
Titus V. Groat Western, etc. Co.
(61 N. Y. 280; 5 Lans. 250), 386,
411, 421, 459.
Titus V. Mabee (25 111. 257), 1715.
Titusville, etc. Dissolution (8 Pa.
Sup. Ct. 304), 1024.
Tobey v. Hakes (7 Atl. Rep. 551;
54 Conn. 274), 619.
Tobey v. Robinson (99 111. 222),
517, 2115.
Tobin V. Western Mut. Aid Soc.
(72 Iowa, 261), 2071.
Todd V. Emly (7 Mees. & W. 427),
2073, 2074, 2076.
Todd V. Kentucky, etc. Co. (57
Fed. Rep. 47), 1278, 1323, 1577.
Todd T. Taft (89 Mass. 371), 576.
Toledo Bank v. International
Bank (21 N. Y. 542), 155.
Toledo, etc. Co. v. City of Jackson-
ville (67 111. 37), 1368.
Toledo, etc. Co. v. Thomas (11 S.
E. Rep. 37; 33 W. Va. 566), 2002.
Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Continental
Tr. Co. (95 Fed. Rep. 497), 159,
683.
Toledo, etc. R. Co. v. Dunlap (47
Mich. 456), 1319, 1885, 1890.
Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Hamilton
(134 U. S. 296), 1722.
Toledo, etc. R. Co. v. Hinsdale
(45 Ohio St. 556), 311, 1250.
Toledo, etc. R. Co. v. Johnson (49
Mich. 148, 151), 105, 151, 321,
1521, 1915, 1958.
Toledo, etc. Rv. v. Pennsylvania
Co. (54 Fei. Rep. 730; 19 L. R.
A. 387), 1591.
Toledo, etc. Ry. Co. v. Rodriguez
(47 111. 188), 1229.
Toler V. East Tennessee, etc. Ry.
(67 Fed. Rep. 168), 1458, 1514,
1709. 1740, 1754.
Toll Bridge Co. v. Osborn (35
Conn.
7), 712, 714, 1868,
Tome V. Parkersburg, etc. Co. (31
Md. 36; 17 Am. Rep. 540), 192,
207, 390, 400, 410, 414, 415, 416,
421, 559.
Tompkinson v. South Eastern Ry.
Co. (35 Ch. Div. 675), 1586.
Tomlin v. Tonica, etc. R. Co. (23
111. 429), 462.
Tomlinson v. Branch (15 Wall.
4C0), 720, 729, 1865, 1881, 1886,
1890, 1891.
Tomlinson v. Bricklayers' Union
(87 Ind. 308), 812, 1356, 1962.
Tomlinson v. Jessun (15 Wall.
454), 40, 93, 99, 100, 1853.
Tomlinson v. Miller (7 Abb. Pr.
(N. S.) 364), 524.
Tomlinson v. Tomlinson (9 Beav.
459), 524.
Tomney v. Snartanburg, etc. R.
Co. (4 Hughes, 640), 1728.
Tompkins v. Augusta, etc. R. R.
(102 Ga. 436). 1565.
Tompkins v. Blakey (49 Atl. Rep.
(N. H.) Ill), 904.
Tompkins v. Little Rock, etc. R.
Co. (15 Fed. Rep. 6), 1717.
Tompkins v. Little Rock, etc. R.
Co. (18 Fed. Rep. 347; 5 Mc-
Crary, 602), 1669.
Tompkins v. McLeod (96 Fed.
Rep. 927), 1790.
Tompkins Co. v. Catawba Mills
(82 Fed. Rep. 780), 1776, 1782.
Tompkins Co. v. Chester Mills (90
Fed. Rep. 37), 1815.
Toner v. Fulkerson (125 Ind.
224), 353.
Tonica, etc. R. Co. v. Stein (21
111. 96), 363.
Tooke, Ex parte (6 Eng. Ry. &
Can. Cas. 1), 601.
Tool Co. V. Norris (2 Wall. 45),
1368.
Tootle V. Singer (88 N. W. Rep.
(Iowa) 446), 1985.
Topeka B. Co. v. Cummings (3
Kan. 55), 313.
Tcpeka, etc. Co. v. March (61 Pac.
Rep. (Kan.) 876),
1199.
Topeka Manuf. Co. v. Hale (39
Kan. 23), 362, 482, 595.
Topelia Paper Co. v. Oklahoma
Pub. Co. (7 Okla. 220), 1954.
Topeka Primarv, etc. v. Martin
(39 Kan. 570), 1078, 1079, 1201.
Torbett v. Eaton (49 Hun, 209),
1137.
Torbett v. Godwin (62 Hun, 407),
851.
cclxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. IT, C21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Toronto, etc. Co. v. Blake (2 Ont.
(Can.) 175), 1019.
Toronto G. T. Co. v. Chicago, etc.
R. Co. (32 Hun, 190), 2034.
Toronto Ry. Co., In re (25 Ont.
App. 135), 1G09.
Terras v. Raeburn (108 Ga. 345),
141, 301, 93S.
Torrey v. Baker (1 Allen (S3
Mass.), 120), 778.
Torva v. Kelly (A. C. 612), 1224.
Totten V. Tison (54 Ga. 129), GGO,
665, 676, 877.
Toucey v. Bowen (1 Bliss (U. S.)
81), 862. 866.
Touche V. Metropolitan Ry. etc. (6
Ch. 67), 1176.
Towar v. Hale (46 Barb. (N. Y.)
361), 1786, 1976, 1980.
Tower v. Detroit, etc. R. Co. (34
Mich. 328), 322.
Tower Maniif. etc. Co. v. Ullman
(89 111. 244), 1891.
Towle V. American, etc. Soc. (60
Fed. Rep. 131), 1779.
Town V. Bank of River Raisin (2
Douglas (Mich.), 530), 1245,
1954.
Town of Andes v. Ely (158 U. S.
312), 83.
Town of East Hartford v. Hart-
ford Br. Co. (10 How. (U. S.)
534), 38, 39, 50.
Town of Concord v. Portsmouth
Savings Bank (92 U. S. 625),
42, 504.
Town of East Lincoln v. Daven-
port (94 U. S. 801), 299.
Town of Enfield v. Jordan (119
U. S. 680), 1752.
Town of Genoa v. Woodruff (92
U. S. 502), 1679.
Town of Hinckley v. Kettle, etc.
R. R. (70 Minn. 105; 12 N. W.
Rep. 835), 1882.
Town of Kirkwood v. Meramec,
etc. Co. (68 S. W. Rep. (Mo.)
761), 1413.
Town of Mason v. Ohio, etc. R. R.
(51 W. Va. 183), 1601.
Town of Montclair v. Ramsdell
(107 U. S. 147), 504.
Town of Plainview v. Winona, etc.
R. Co. (36 Minn. 505), 1832.
Town of Platteville v. Galena (43
Wis. 493), 298.
Town of Redding v. Wedder (66
111. 80), 129, 1250.
Town of Strafford v. Sanford (9
Conn. 275), 1505.
Town of Washburn v. Washburn,
etc. (98 N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 539),
762.
Townes v. Nichols (73 Me. 515),
619.
Townsend, matter of (39 N. Y.
171), 1303.
Townsend's Case (13 Eq. 148),
279.
Townsend v. Geowey (19 Wend.
423), 2084, 2092.
Townsend v. Mclver (2 S. C. 25),
528, 599, 619.
Townsend v. ]\Iichigan, etc. R. R.
Co. (101 Fed. Rep. 757), 1320.
Townsend v. Oneonta, etc. R. Co.
(84 N. Y. S. 427), 1804.
Tracy v. Elizabethtown, etc. R.
Co. (80 Ky. 259), 1311.
Tracy v. Talmadge (18 Barb. 456;
14 N. Y. 162), 1338, 1342, 1343,
1347, 1348, 1680, 2092.
Tracy v. Yates (18 Barb. 152),
891 893
Trade v. 6'Dell, etc. Co. (115 Fed.
Rep. 574), 2105.
Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Vickens
(16 Eq. 303), 1355.
Traders', etc. Ins. Co. v. Brown
(142 Mass. 403), 192, 1664.
Traders' Mutual etc. Co. v.
Humphrey (109 111. App. 2.46),
1183.
Traders' Nat. Bk. v. Lawrence
Manuf. Co. (96 N. C. 298), 1690,
1720, 172.3, 1726.
Traer v. Clews (115 U. S. 534),
1099.
Traer v. Lucas P. Co. (99 N. W.
Rep. (Iowa) 290), 818, 1246.
Transit Co. v. Chicago, etc. (U.
S. C. C. A. 7th Dist. May, 1904),
1600.
Trans-Pacific R. Co. v. Atchison,
etc. Co. (112 U. S. 414), 26.
Transportation Co. v. Parkersburg
(109 U. S. 691), 1656.
Transportation Co. v. Ulmann (89
111. 244), 1568.
Traphagen v. City of South
Omaha (96 N. W. Rep. (Neb.)
248), 1199.
Traphagan v. Sagar (63 Minn.
317), 320.
Trask v. Maguire (18 Wall. 391),
718.
Trask v. Peekskill, etc. Works (6
Hun, 236), 1315, 1861.
Traster v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
(23 Neb. 171), 1319.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. IT, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, lo07-2134.]
Travcrs v. Abbey (104 Tenn. GC5;
58 S. W. Rep. 247), 211.
Travelers', etc. Co. v. Connecticut
(185 U. S. 3G4), 711.
Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Fricke (99
Wis. 3G7), 202G.
Travolors', etc. Co. v. Mayor, etc.
(99 Fed. Rep. 663; 49 L. R. A.
123), 1593.
Tre.ad\vav v. Johnson (33 Mo.
App. 122), 469.
Treadwell v. Salisbury IManuf. Co.
(7 Gray (73
Mass.), 393), 804,
1017, 1243, 1250, 1941, 1947, 1948,
1949.
Treadv>rell v. United, etc. Co. (47
N. Y. App. Div. 613), 1246, 1375,
1912.
Treat v. White (181 U. S. 2G4),
2110.
Tregear v. Etiwanda, etc. Co. (76
Cal. 537), 580, 581, 619.
Tremont Bank v. Boston (1 Cush.
(55 Mass.) 142), 712.
Trenton v. Olyphant (56 N. J. Eq.
680), 1440.
Trenton Banking Co. v. Woodruff
(1 Green, Ch. (N. J.) 117),
1159.
Trenton Water Power Co. v. Raff
(56 N. J. 335), 1491.
Trester v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
(33 Neb. 171), 1885.
Trevor v. Whitworth (57 L. T.
Rep. (N. S.) 457), 327, 330, 635.
Triesler v. Wilson (89 Md. 169),
1019.
Trigg V. Drew (10 How. 224), 54.
Trimble v. American, etc. Co. (61
N. J. Eq. 340), 1511.
Trimble v. Exchange Bank (62
S. W. Rep. (Ky.) 1027), 1118.
Trinity Church v. Vanderbilt (98
N. Y. 170), 1133.
Trinity Valley T. Co. v. Stock-
well (81 S. W. Rep. (Tex. Civ.
App.) 793), 370.
Tripp V. Appleman (35 Fed. Rep.
19), 469, 545, 560.
Tripp V. New Metallic, etc. Co.
(137 Mass. 499), 1177.
Tripp V. Northwestern, etc. Bank
(41 Minn. 400), 17G6.
Tripp V. Swanzey Paper Co. (13
Pick. (30 Mass.) 291), 1084,
1702.
Trott V. Warren (2 Fairf. (11 Me.)
227), 68.
Trotter v. Maclean (13 Ch. Div.
574), 462.
Troup's Case (29 Beav. 353), 1123.
Trowbridge v. Scudder (66 Mass.
83), 171.
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Baston, etc. R.
Co. (86 N. Y. 107), 806, 1254,
1565, 1573, 1574, 1704, 1848,
1851, 1855, 1856.
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Kerr (17
Barb. 581), 108, 111, 244, 349,
472, 1699, 1953, 1962.
Trov, etc. R. Co. v. McChesney (21
Wend. 266), 472.
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Newton (74
Mass. 596), 302. 314, 455.
Troy V. Rutland R. Co. (17 Barb.
(N. Y.) 581), 350.
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Tibbits (18
Barb. 297), 269, 288, 289, 304,
472, 567, 662.
Trov, etc. R. Co. v. Warren (18
Barb. 310), 269, 287.
Troy Waste, etc. Co. v. Harrison
(73 Hun (N. Y.), 528), 1767.
Ti'oy Water Co. v. Borough of
Troy (200 Pa. St. 453), 1647.
Truesdell v. Chumar (75 Hun,
416), 1178, 1532.
Trumble v. American Sugar, etc.
Co. (48 Atl. Rep. (N. J. Ch.)
912), 144, 145.
Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Homer (17
Ohio, 407), 341.
Trust V. Staten Island, etc. Rail-
road (6 N. Y. App. Div. 148),
1789.
Trust Co. V. Able (48 Mo. 136).
544.
Trust Co. etc. v. State (109 Ga.
736), 1911.
Trupt Co. V. Weed (14 Phila. 422),
1097.
Trust Nat. Bk. v. Radford Trust
Co, (80 Fed. Rep. 569), 1759,
1824.
Tru.stees v. Campbell (16 Ohio St.
11), 126.
Trustees v. Davis (11 Mass. 113;
6 Am. Dec. 162), 285.
Trustees v. Ellis (38 Ind. 3), 724,
725.
Trustees v. Exeter (58 N. H. 306),
724.
Trustees v. Flint (13 Mete. (54
Mass.) 539), 835.
Trustees v. Jacksonville, etc. R.
Co. (16 Fla. 708), 1669.
Trustees v. Manning (19 Atl.
Rep. (Md.) 599), 1234, 2130.
Trustees v. Park (10 Me. 441),
120.
cclxx TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1306; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Trustees v. Peaslee (15 N. H. 317),
1230, 1242, 1376.
Trustees v. Salmond (11 Me. 109),
1316.
Trustees v. Wheeler (61 N. Y.
88), 1715.
Trustees, etc. Fund v. Roome (93
N. Y. 325), 751.
Trustees, etc. v. Hills (6 Cow.
(N. Y.) 23), 1092, 1961.
Trustees, etc. v. Zanesville, etc.
Co. (9 Ohio, 203; 34 Am. Dec.
436), 1908, 19G2.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward (4 Wheat. (U. S.)
518; 1 Cum. Cas. 490), 37, 38,
1946, 2121, 2124.
Trustees of Free School v. Flint
(13 Mete. (54 Mass.) 539), 190,
227, 833, 835, 836.
Trustees of Schools v. Fatman (13
111. (3 Peck (54 Mass.), 27), 16,
1381.
Trustees of Louisiana Paper Co. v.
Waples (3 Woods. (U. S.) 34),
1796.
Trustees of University v. Moody
(62 Ala. 389), 103, 128, 129,
1819.
Trustees of Vernon Society v.
Hills (6 Cow. (N. Y.) 23; 16
Am. Dec. 429), 1916, 1957.
Trustees of Vincennes University
V. Indiana (14 How. 268), 40,
1239.
Tube Worlis v. Machine Co. (139
Mass. 5), 668.
Tuchband v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(115 N. Y. 437), 2022.
Tuckahoe Canal Co. v. Tuckahoe
R. Co. (11 Leigh (Va.), 92),
1319, 1654.
Tucker v. City of Raleigh (75 N.
C. 267), 1266.
Tucker v. Ferguson (22 Wall.
527), 61, 719, 729, 1700.
Tucker v. Massachusetts Central
Ry. Co. (118 Mass. 546), 1323.
Tucker v. Seaman's Aid Soc. (7
Mete. (48 Mass.) 188), 2050.
Tucker v. Tucker (113 Md. 272),
286.
Tuckerman v. Brown (33 N. Y.
297), 331, 366, 454, 1087.
Tufts V. Plymouth, etc. Co. (14
Allen (Mass.), 407), 138.
Tug, etc. Co. V. Brigel (86 Fed.
Rep. 818), 1737.
Tulare, etc. Bank y. Talbot (131
Cal. 45), 944.
Tullis V. Lake Erie, etc. Ry. Co.
(175 U. S. 348), 1386.
Tumacacori Mining Co., In re (L.
R. 17 Eq. 534), 1956.
Tunesm.a v. Schuttler (114 111.
156), 896, 899.
Tunis V. Hestouville, etc. Co. (149
Pa. St. 70; 15 L. R. A. 665),
1015, 1020.
Turite v. Stevens (98 Mass. 307),
534.
Turnbull v. Payson (95 U. S. 418),
263, 466, 467, 587, 890, 914.
Turnbull v. Pomerov, etc. Co. (24
Weekly L. B. (Ohio) 133), 240.
Turnbull v. Prentis Lumber Co.
(55 Mich. 387), 1784.
Turner v. Com'rs. (27 Kan. 314),
294.
Turner v. Grangers' Life, etc. In-
surance Co. (65 Ga. 649), 369,
375, 933.
Turner v. Grobe (44 S. W. Rep.
(Tex.) 898), 934.
Turner v. Indiananolis, etc. R.
Co. (8 Biss. (U. S.) 215), 1725,
1726, 1727, 1728.
Turner v. Jackson (63 S. W. Rep.
(Tenn.) 511), 1831.
Turner v. Kingston, etc. Co. (106
Tenn. 1), 1290.
Turner v. May (32 L. T. (N;' S.)
156), 576.
Turner v. Peoria, etc. R. Co. (59
111. 134), 1727, 1803.
Turner v. Phoenix Ins. Co. (55
Mich. 236), 1493, 1505.
Turnpike Co. v. Davidson Countv
(3 Tenn. Ch. 396), 1658.
Turquand v. Marshall (L. R. 4
Ch. 376),636, 637, 979.
Turton v. Turton (7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 64), 120.
Tuscaloosa, etc. Assn. v. State (58
Ala. 54), 1903, 1936.
Tuscaloosa, Manuf. Co. v. Cox (68
Ala. 71), 1107, 1355.
Tuscaloosa, etc. Co. v. Perry
(85
Ala. 158), 1172, 1173, 1275.
Tuscaloosa, etc. Assn. v. Green
(48 Ala. 346), 1970, 1971, 19S2.
Tuthill, matter of (36 App. Div.
N. Y. 492), 1316.
Tuthill Spg. Co. V. Shaver Wagon
Co. (35 Fed. Rep. 644), 1181,
1522.
Tuttle v. Mechanics' Bank (6
Whart. 216), 148, 2035.
Tuttle v. Michigan, etc. R. Co.
(35 Mich. 247), 114, 283, 349,
TABLE OF CASES.
cclxxi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
470. 981, 986, 1844, 1852, 1856,
1861.
Tuttle V. Iron National Bank, etc.
(161 111. 497; 34 L. R. A. 750),
839.
Tuttle V. Walton (1 Ga. 43), 190,
226.
Tutwller v. Tuscaloosa, etc. Co.
(89 Ala. 391), 1941.
Twelfth St. ilarket Co. v. Jack-
son (102 Pa. St. 69), 1194.
Twentv-Second St., In re (102 Pa.
St. 108), 1316, 1319.
Twin Creek, etc. T. Co. v. Lan-
caster (79 Ky. 552), 327, 471,
768, 2066.
Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marburv
(91 U. S. 587, 591), 1106, 1108,
1111. 1760, 1822, 1826.
Twin Village Water Co. v. Dam-
ariscotta, etc. Co. (98 Me. 32),
1644.
Twist V. City of Rochester (37
N. Y. App. Div. 307), 1611.
Tyler, In re (149 U. S. 164), 1722.
Tyler v. Savage (143 U. S. 79),
358, 369, 934.
Tyler v. Western U. T. Co. (60
111. 491), 1620.
Tyrell v. Cairo, etc. R. Co. (7 Mo.
App. 294), 1367.
Tyrrell v. Woolley
(1 Man. & G.
809), 1146.
Tysen v. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co. (8
Biss. (U. S.) 247), 1745, 1887,
1888.
Tyson v. Weber (81 Ala. 470),
1732.
u.
Ukiah City v. Ukiah, etc. Co. (76
^
Pac. Rep. (Cal.) 773). 1045.
Ulmer v. Lime Rock R. Co. (57
Atl. Rep. 1001; 98 Me. 579),
800, 801, 1560.
Ulmer v. Maine, etc. Co. (93 Me.
324), 1952.
Umsted v. Buskirk (17 Ohio St.
113), 875, 897, 900, 909, 912,
1796.
Una V. Newark, etc. (46 Atl. Ren.
(N. J.) 660). 1793.
Uncas National Bank v. Rith (23
Wis. 339), 1700.
Underground R. R. v. City of New
York (116 Fed. Rep. 952), 1942.
Underbill v. Agawam, etc. Ins. Co.
(6 Cush. (60 Mass.) 440), 233.
Underbill v. Santa Barbara, etc.
Co. (93 Cal. 300; 28 Pac. Rep.
1049), 134, 232.
Underwood v. Iowa Legion of
Honor (66 Iowa, 134), 777, 2058,
2071, 2072.
Underwood v. New York, etc. R.
Co. (17 How. Pr. 537), 643, 644.
Underwood Lumber Co. v. Peli-
can Boom Co. (76 Wis. 76),
1657.
Underwriters' Fire Ins. Co. v.
Henty
(79 S. W. Rep. (Tex.)
1072), 1523.
Union v. Illinois (94 U. S. 113),
98.
Union v. Scott (24 Up. Can. Q.
B. 341). 194.
Union Agricultural Assn. v. Mills
(31 Iowa,
95). 110.
Union Bank v. Call (5 Fla. 409),
126.
Union Bank v. City of Richmond
(94 Va. 310), 696, 712, 1780.
Union Bank v. Guice (2 La. Ann.
249), 205.
Union Bank v. Hunt (76 Mo. 439),
138, 578.
Union Bank v. Jacobs (6 Humph.
(Tenn.) 515), 1700.
Union Bank v. Knapp
(3 Pick.
(20 Mass.) 96). 138.
Union Bank v. Laird (2 Wheat.
390), 420, 540, 542, 686, 687, 689,
690, 692, 2070.
Union Bank v. McDonough (5 La.
63), 268.
Union Bank v. Marin (3 La. Ann.
54), 1751.
Union Bank v. Morris (6 Gill.
&
J. (Md.) 363), 1245.
Union Bank v. Ridgely (1 Har. &
G. (Md.) 324), 195, 1095.
Union Bank v. United States Bk.
<^ Humph. (Tenn.) 369), 10.
Union Bank v. Wando Mining,
etc. Co. (17 S. C. 339), 490, 920,
927.
Union Bridge Co. v. Troy, etc. R.
R. (7 Lans. (N. Y.) 240), 132.
Union Canal Co. v. Gilfillin (93
Pa. St. 95). 45.
Union Cement Co. v. Noble (15
Fed. Rep. 502), 1525.
Union Central Life Ins. Co. v.
Curtis (35 Ohio St. 343), 503,
504.
Union, etc. Assn. v. Lutz (50 111.
App. 176), 2048.
Union, etc. Assn. v. Masonic Hall
Assn. (29 N. J. Eq. 389), 2070.
cclxxii TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Union, etc. Bank v. Farrington
(13 Lea (Tenn.), 333), 584.
Union, etc. Banlv v. Scott (53 N.
Y. App. 65),
1007.
Union, etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. Co.
(163 U. S. 564),
1364.
Union, etc. Co. v. Robinson (70
Fed. Rep. 420), 1290.
Union, etc. Co. v. Roclcy Mt. Nat.
Bk. (96 U. S. 640), 1199, 13G9,
1374.
Union, etc. Co. v. Soiitliern, etc.
Co. (51 Fed. Rep. 840), 1720.
Union, etc. Co. v. Ttiomas (4G
Ind. 44), 2003.
Union, etc. Co. v. United States
(99 U. S. 700), 212), 1385.
Union, etc. Ry. v. Chicago, etc.
Ry. (163 U. S. 564), 1056, 1321,
1973.
Union, etc. R. Co. v. Philadelphia
(101 U. S. 559), 38.
Union Express Co. v. Graham (26
Ohio St. 595), 1636.
Union Gold Min. Co. v. Rocky
Mt. Bk. (2 Colo. 565), 798, 1266.
Union Horshoe Works v. Lewis
(1 Abb. (U. S.) 518; Fed. Cas.
14, 365), 83.
Union Hotel v. Hersee (15 Hun,
371; 79 N. Y. 454), 33, 293, 303,
304, 311, 322.
Union Iron Co. v. Pierce (4 Biss.
(U. S.) 327), 47, 841, 949.
Union Locks, etc. v. Towne (IN.
H. 44), 353.
Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v.
Keyser (32 N. H. 213; 64 Am.
Dec. 375), 232, 799.
Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Conti-
nental Ins. Co. (37 Fed. Rep.
286), 798, 1424.
Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Frear
Stone Manuf. Co. (97 111.
^7),
320, 359, 361, 430, 885, 930.
Union Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Union
Mills Plaster Co. (37 Fed. Rep.
286), 1424.
Union National Bank v. Byram
(131 111. 92), 237, 955.
Union National Bank of Cincin-
nati V. Miller (15 Fed. Rep.
703), 1662.
Union National Bank, etc. v. Hill
(148 Mo. 380), 1660, 1769.
Union National Bank v. Mathews
(98 U. S. 621), 54, 1329, 1372.
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Burlington,
etc. R. Co. (3 Fed. Rep. 106),
1315.
Union Pacific Ry. v. Chicago, etc.
Ry. (51 Fed. Rep. 309), 24,
25. 134, 1583.
Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co. (163 U. S. 564), 1089.
1171, 1245, 1360.
Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Colorado,
etc. Co. (59 Pac. Rep. (Colo.)
564), 182.
Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Credit
Mobilier (135 Mass. 367), 1101,
1107.
Union Pacific Rv. Co. v. Goodridge
(149 U. S. 680), 225, 1386.
Union Pacific R. R. v. Hall (91
U. S. 343; 3 Dillon C. C. 515),
29, 30. 1590.
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Peniston
(18 Wall. (U. S.) 5). 696.
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Smith (23
Kan. 745), 294.
Union Pacific Ry. v. United States
(59 Fed. Rep. 813), 634, 670,
1621.
Union Pacific R. Co. v. United
States ("Sinking Fund Case")
(99 U. S. 700), 101.
Union Passenger R. Co. v, Phila-
delphia (101 U. S. 528), 43, 61,
99.
Union Ry. Co. v. Sneed (99 Tenn.
1; 41 S. W. Rep. 364), 246.,
Union Savings Assn. v. Seligman
(92 Mo. 635), 56, 563, 808, 868.
869, 870, 871.
Union Steamship Co. v. Mel-
bourne, etc. Com'rs. (9 App. Cas.
(N. Y.) 365), 9.
Union St. Ry. v. City of Sag-
inaw (115 Mich. 300; 73 N. W.
Rep. 243), 1779.
Union Street Rv. v. Snow (113
Mich. 694), 1602.
Union Trust Co. v. Chicago &
Lake Huron R. Co. (7 Fed. Rep.
513), 1727, 1803.
Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Mid-
land R. Co. (117 U. S. 468), 697,
1329, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1740,
1755, 1803, 1804.
Union Trust Co. v. Mercantile, etc.
Co. (189 Pa. St. 263), 1260.
Union Trust Co. v. Missouri, etc.
Ry. Co. (26 Fed. Rep. 485),
1710, 1746.
Union Trust Co. v. Monticello,
etc. Railway Co. (63 N. Y. 311).
1685.
Union Trust Co. v. Morrison (125
U. S. 591), 1726, 1740.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxiii
[Referpnoos are to pages: Vol. I, 1-019; Vol. II, 621-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Union Trust Co. v. Rockford, etc.
R. Co. (6 Biss. (U. S.) 197),
1734, 1800.
Union Trust Co. v. Soutter (107
U. S. 591), 1725, 1726, 1740, 180!?.
Union Trust Co. v. Walker (107
U. S. 596), 1725.
Union Turnpike v. Jenkins (1
Caines (N. Y.) 381), 272.
Union Water Co. v. Kean (52
N. J. Eq. Ill), 990.
United Brotherhood, etc. v. Dinkle
(69 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 707),
1526.
United, etc. Assn. v. Benshimol
(130 Mass. 325), 765.
United, etc. Canal Co. v. Happock
(28 N. J. Eq. 261), 1886.
United, etc. Co. v. Louisiana, etc.
Co. (68 Fed. Rep. 673), 818.
United, etc. Co. v. Omaha, etc.
Co. (164 N. Y. 41), 1830.
United Electric, etc. Co. v. Louis-
iana, etc. Co. (58 Fed. Rep.
673), 2037.
United Ser\^ice Co., In re (L. R.
5 Ch. 707), 554.
United Society v. Eagle Bank (7
Conn. 456), 768, 2065.
United Society of Shakers v. Un-
derwood (13 Am. L. Reg. (N.
S.) 211), 1125, 1126, 1139.
United States v. Addvston, etc.
Co. (85 Fed. Rep. 271), 1438,
1457.
United States v. Alaska, etc. Assn.
(1 Alaska, 217), 1539.
United States v. American, etc.
Co. (29 Fed. Rep. 17), 2007.
United States v. Amedy
(11
Wheat. (U. S.) 392, 412), 9.
United States v. Ames (1 Woodb.
6 M. 76), 1315.
Unite* States v. Arredondo (6
Pet. 738), 38.
United States v. Baltimore, etc.
R. Co. (5 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.)
757), 1545.
United States v. Britton (108 U.
S. 199), 580.
United States v. Cain (23 Fed.
Rep. 748), 1591.
United States v. Chicago, etc. Co.
(7 How. 185), 1315.
United States v. Coal, etc. Assn.
(85 Fed. Rep. 252), 1473.
United States v. Columbian Ins.
Co. (2 Cr. C. C. 266), 1014.
United States v. Cutts (1 Sum-
ner (U. S.) 133), 595.
United States v. Debs (63 Fed.
Rep. 436; 64 Fed. Rep. 724),
1591.
United States v. Dovaux (5
Cranch, 61), 2010.
United States v. Fox (94 U. S.
315), 1999.
United States v. Goldman (3
Woods (U. S.), 194), 39.
United States v. Haggerty (116
Fed. Rep. 510), 1591.
United States v. Home, etc. Ins.
Co. (89 U. S. (22 Wend.) 99).
30.
United States v. Jelico, etc. Co.
(46 Fed. Rep. 432), 1473.
United States v. Joint Traffic
Assn. (171 U. S. 505), 1455,
1457, 1582.
United States v. Jones (109 U. S.
513), 25, 1301.
United States v. Kagama (118 U.
S. 373), 28.
United States v. Knight Co. (156
U. S. 1), 1407, 1438, 1457.
United States v. Kelso Co. (86
Fed. Rod. 304), 1539.
United States v. Knox (102 U. S.
422), 835, 854, 855, 856.
United States v. La Compagnie,
etc. (77 Fed. Rep. 495), 1630.
United States v. Lathrop
(17
Johns, 4), 846.
United States v. Little Miami,
etc. Co. (1 Fed. Rep. 700), 1768,
1837, 1953, 1954, 1958.
United States v. Louisville, etc.
Canal Co. (4 Dill. 601). 1654.
United States v. McKelden (8 Fed.
Rep. 778), 979, 997.
United States v. Masich (44 Fed.
Rep. 10), 1781.
United States v. Means (42 Fed.
Rep. 599), 385.
United States v. Memphis, etc. R.
Co. (6 Fed. Rep. 237), 1544.
United States v. New Orleans (2
Woods, 230; 27 Fed. Cas.), 296.
United States v. New Orleans R.
C. (12 Wall. 362), 1716, 1721,
1722.
United States v. Northern Pac. R.
R. (120 Fed. Ren. 546), 1624.
United States v. Northern Secur-
ity Co. (120 Fed. Rep. 720),
1459, 1584.
United States v. Northway (120
U. S. 327), 1193.
United States v. Railroad Bridge
(6 McLean, 517), 1315.
cclxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
United States v. Railroad Co. (17
Wall. 322). 1715.
United States v. Southern PaC.
R. R. (14G U. S. .593), KJOO.
United States v. Stanford (IGl U.
S. 412), 174, 493. 839, 851.
United States v. Swift, et al (Chi-
cago Beef and Cattle Case),
1464, 1407.
United States v. Tilden (18 Abb.
L. .T. 4tG), 2035.
United States v. Trans-Missouri,
etc. Assn. (166 U. S. 290), 2, 11,
148, 1455, 1457, 1473, 1550, 1551,
1582.
United States v. Union Pac. Ry.
Co. (98 U. S. 569), 1380.
United States v. Union Pac. Ry.
(160 U. S. 1), 1618, 1621, 1921.
United States v. Vauphan (3
Binn.
(Pa.) 294), 960, 963.
United States v. Western Union
T. Co. (50 Fed. Rep. 281; 160
U. S. 456), 1380, 1564, 1618,
1621, 1911.
United States Bank v. Dandridge
(12 Wheat. 71), 61, 1095, 1660.
United States Bank v. Heth (4 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 423), 1242.
United States Chemical Co. v.
Provident, etc. Co. (64 Fed.
Rep. 946), 1429.
United States Electric Co. v. State
(79 Md. 63), 713.
United States, etc. Assn., In re
(4 N. Y. Supp. 916), 120.
United States, etc. Co. v. Atlan-
tic, etc. Rv. Co. (34 Ohio St.
450), 1101.
United States, etc. Co. v. Browne
(25 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 347), 1183.
United States, etc. Co. v. Davies
(2 Kan. App. 611), 301.
United States, etc. Co. v. Grifnn
(126 Fed. Rep. (Cal.) 364),
1407.
United States, etc. Co. v. Hess
(19 N. Y. St. Rep. 883), 1596.
United States, etc. Co. v. Isaacs
(23 Ind. App. 533), 1564.
United States, etc. Co. v. McClure
(10 Pac. Rep. (Oreg.) 543),
1532.
United States, etc. Co. v. Spencer
(46 W. Va. 590), 1519.
United States, etc. Corp. v. Port-
land Hospital (40 Oreg. 523;
56 L. R. A. 627), 1802.
United States Express Co. v. Allen
(39 Fed. Rep. 712), 738, 753.
United States Mercantile R. Co.,
In re (115 N. Y. 176), 128.
United States Mortgage Co., In
re (83 Him, 572), 127.
United States Mortgage Company
V. Speery (24
Fed. Rep. 838),
1269.
United States Rolling Stock Co.,
In re (55 How. Pr. 286), 1735,
1874.
United States Rolling Stock Co.
V. Atlantic, etc. Co. (34 Ohio
St. 4511), 1109, 1113.
United States Rubber Co. v. Amer-
ican, etc. Co. (181 U. S. 434),
176G.
United States Rubber Co. v. Cin-
cinnati, etc. Ry. (58 Fed. Rep.
500), 1759, 1824.
United States Shipbuilding Co. v.
Conklin (126 Fed. Rep. 132),
1776.
United States Trust Co. v. Harris
(2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 75), 433.
United States Trust Co. etc. v.
Lea (73 111. 142), 1234.
United States T. Co. v. Mercan-
tile T. Co. (88 Fed. Rep. 140),
1801.
United States Trust Co. v. New
York, etc. Rv. Co. (101 N. Y.
478), 1728, 1736, 1952.
United States T. Co. v. Wabash,
etc. Ry. Co. (150 U. S. 287),
1714, 1779.
United States Vinegar Co. v. Foeh-
renbach (148 N. Y. 58), 951,
1439.
United States Vinegar Co. v.
Schlegel (143 N. Y. 537), 1439.
United States Vinegar Co. v. Spa-
mer (143 N. Y. 676), 1796.
United Workmen v. Sater (44 Mo.
App. 245), 215.
*
Unity Co. v. Equitable T. Co. (204
111. 595), 1738.
Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram (43 N. H.
636), 79, 149, 155. 172, 288.
Universal Banking Co., In re
Bartlett's Case (17 W. R. 131),
274.
Universal Prov. L. A., Bell's Case
(22 Beav. 35),
Universal Salvage Co., Ex parte
Mansfield (19 L. J. Ch. 258; 2
M. & G. 57),
273.
University v. Moody (62 Ala. 389),
1834.
University v. People (99 U. S.
309), 43.
TABLE OF CASES.
cclxxv
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-ClO; Vol. II, C21-loOC; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
University v. Scoonover (114 Ind.
381), 308.
University, etc. v. Emmert (108
Iowa. 500), 1534.
University of Maryland v. Wil-
liams (9 Gill & J. (Md.) 15, 75,
365.
University of Vermont v. Baxter
(42 Vt. 99), 1884.
Unthank v. Henry Coimtv Turn-
pike Co. (6 Ind. 125), 462.
Updegraff v. Evans (47 Pa. St.
103), 1920.
Uptegrove v. Scliwartzwaelder (46
App. Div. (N. Y.) 20), 1135.
Upton V. Burnham (3 Biss. (U.
S.) 431, 520; 28 Fed. Cas. 833),
430, 471, 546, 560, 561, 592, 593,
884, 888, 889.
Upton V. Englehart (3 Dill. C. C.
496), 363, 364, 365, 367.
Upton V. Hansbroiigh (3 Biss. (U.
S.) 417), 156, 262, 324, 341. 364,
366, 430, 592, 890, 939, 1367.
Upton V. Jackson (1 Flipp. C. C.
413), 115, 241, 877.
Upton V. Tribilcock (91 U. S. 45),
241, 265, 288, 316, 320, 330, 335,
341, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 367,
376, 397, 406, 429, 430, 433, 436,
437, 445, 450, 493, 501, 560, 564,
655. 869, 889, 896, 932, 933.
Urnston v. Whitelegg (63 L. T.
(N. S.) 455), 1413.
Usher v. Skate Co. (163 Mass. 1),
1204.
Utah V. Keith (18 Utah, 464),
2052.
Utah, etc. R. R. v. Utah. etc. Rv.
(110 Fed. Rep. 879), 1618, 1942.
Utica Bank v. Smalley (2 Cowen,
770), 2070.
Utioa Bank v. Smedes (6 Coweu,
684), 1229.
Utica, etc. Co., In re (154 N. Y.
268), 1565.
Utica, etc. R. Co. v. Brinkerhoff
(21 Wend. 139), 305.
Utica Ins. Co. v. Scott (19 Johns.
1), 1229, 1368.
Utley V. Donaldson (94 U. S. 29),
1676.
Utley V. Hill (155 Mo. 232), 935.
Utley V. Union Tool Co. (11 Gray
(77 Mass.), 139), 19.
V.
Vail V. Hamilton (85 N. Y. 453;
20 Hun, 355), 252, 264, 1014,
1705.
Vale of Neath Brewery Co.
Keene's E.xecutor's Case, In re
(3 De G. & Sm. 244), 553, 571,
869.
Valk V. Crandall (1 Sandf. Ch.
179), 504.
Valley Bank v. Ladies' C. S. Soc.
(28 Kan. 423), 1907.
Valley Bank v. Sewing Society (28
Kan. 423). 1954, 1960.
Valley Ry. Co. v. Lake Erie Iron
Co. (46 Ohio St. 44; 1 L. R. A.
412), 1281.
Valparaiso Vv'ater Works Co., In
re Davies' Case (41 Law J. Rep.
(N. S.) Ch.-659), 273.
Van Aemam v. Bleistein (102 N.
Y. 355), 766), 1494, 2093.
Van Allen v. Assessors (3 Wall.
573), 28, 236, 743.
Van Allen v. 111. Cent. R. (7 Bosw.
(N. Y.)
515), 242, 304, 379, 456,
504.
Van Alstyne v. Houston R. R. Co.
(56 Tex. 377), 1824.
Van Blarcom v. Broadway Bank
(9 Bosw. (N. Y. 532), 582.
Van Buren v. Chenango Ins. Co.
(12 Barb.
675), 898.
Vance v. Erie Ry. Co. (32 N. J.
334), 1542.
Vance v. Farmers', etc. Bank (1
Blackf. (Ind.) 80), 26.
Vance v. McNab, etc. Co. (92
Tenn. 47), 1248.
Vance v. Phoenix (4 Lea (Tenn.),
385), 1117, 1119, 1120, 1123.
Vance, etc., Co. v. Bentley
(92
111. App. 287), 951.
Van Cise v. Merchants' Nat. Bk.
(4 Dak. 485), 583, 584, 610, 964,
966.
Vanck v. Medical Soc. etc. (38
N. J. Law, 337), 767, 2054.
Van Cleve v. Berkey
(143 Mo.
109), 513.
Van Cott V. Van Brunt (2 Abb.
(N. C.) 283), 427, 428, 513, 920
Vandenburgh v. Broadway, etc.
Ry. Co. (29 Hun, 348), 1009,
1011.
Van Denmark v. Barous (52 Kan.
779), 546.
Vanderbilt v. Bennett (6 Pa. Co.
Ct. Rep. 193), 1426.
Vanderpoel v. Gorman (140 N. Y.
563; 24 L. R. A. 548), 1766, 1768.
Vanderwerken v. Glenn (85 Va.
9), 459, 466, 467, 486, 491.
Van Doren v. Olden (19 N. J. Eq,
176), 647.
cclxxvi TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, l-GW; Vol. ir, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Van Dyck v. MoQuade (45 N. Y.
Super. Ct. G20), 634, 1120, 1121.
Van Dyke v. Stout (8 N. J. Eq.
333) 291.
Vane v. Cobbold (1 Ex. 798), 378.
Van Etten v. Eaton (19 Mich.
187), 35, 1136.
Van Forel v. State (96 N. W.
Rep. (Neb.) 648), 2121.
Van Glahn v. De Rosset (81 N.
C. 467), 1970. t
Van Hook v. Whitlock (3 Paige
Ch. 409), 488, 902, 906, 949.
Van Hostrup v. Madison City
(1
Wall. 294), 296, 1G74, 1683.
Van Houten v. McElway (17 N.
J. Eq. 126), 15.
Van Keuren v. Central R. Co. (38
N. J. L. 165), 1712.
Van Keuren v. Trenton Co. (13
N. J. Eq. 302), 1296.
Vanneman v. Young (52 N. J. L.
403), 1529.
Van Norman v. Jackson Circuit
Judge (45 Mich. 204), 962, 965.
Van Pelt v. Gardner (54 Neb.
701), 82, 839, 899, 935.
Van Pelt v. Home, etc. Assn. (79
Ga. 439), 78, 83, 84.
Van Pelt v. United States, etc.
Co. (13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 331),
899.
Van Riper, Ex parte (20 Wend.
614), 844, 845.
Van Sandau v. Moore (1 Russ.
Ch. 392), 8, 832, 2089.
Vansands v. Middlesex County
Bank (26 Conn. 144), 210, 686,
689.
Van Schaick v. Third Ave. Ry.
Co. (90 Hun, 550), 1166.
Van Siclen v. Jamaica, etc. Co.
(45 N. Y. App. Div. 1), 1626,
1830.
Van Steuben v. Central R. Co.
(178 Pa. St. 367; 34 L. R. A.
577), 1260.
Van Valkenburgh v. Thomasville,
etc. R. Co. (4 N. Y. Supp. 782),
1588.
Varnum v. Hart (119 N. Y. 101),
1513.
Vatable v. New York, etc. Ry. Co.
(96 N. Y. 49), 495, 1819, 1821,
1824, 1828, 1832.
Vaupell V. Woodward (2 Sandf.
Ch. 143),*524, 586.
Vawter v. Franklin College (53
Ind. 88), 80.
Vawter v. Ohio, etc. R. Co. (14
Ind. 174), 339, 366.
Veazey v. Allen (173 N. Y. 359),
2116.
Veeder v. Baker (83 N. Y. 156),
847.
Veeder v. Mudgett (95 N. Y. 295),
403, 851, 876, 877, 914.
Veiller v. Brown (18 Hun, 571),
551, 885, 886, 891.
Venas v. Merchants' Ins. Co. (27
La. Ann. 367), 1481.
Venice v. Woodruff (62 N. Y.
462), 398.
Venezuela Cen. Ry. v. Kisch (16
L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 500), 372,
373, 406.
Venner v. Atchison, etc. R. Co.
(28 Fed. Rep. 581), 11, 189, 828,
1087, 1364.
Venner v. Farmers', etc. Co. (90
Fed. Rep. 348), 90.
Venner v. Farmers', etc. Co. (54
N. Y. App. Div. 271), 1514.
Vercoutere v. Golden, etc. Co. (116
Cal. 410; 48 Pac. Rep. 375),
188, 194, 935.
Vermilve v. Adams Express Co.
(21 Wall. 138), 1687.
Vernon Society v. Hills (6 Cowen
(N. Y.), 23), 68, 1095.
Vermont Cent. R. Co. v. Cloyes
(21 Vt. 30), 280, 281, 506.
Vermont, etc. R. Co. v. Vermont
Cent. R. Co. (34 Vt. 2), 115,
1566, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1732, 1748,
1751, 1779, 1945.
Vemer v. Simpson (47 S. E. Rep.
(S. C.) 729), 883.
Vernon v. Palmer (62 How. Pr.
425), 1133.
Verplanck v. Mercantile Ins. Co.
(1 Edw. Ch. 85), 904, 1702, 1747,
1748.
Vertue v. East Anglian R. Co. (5
Ex. 280), 1678.
Vick V. Lane (56 Miss. 681), 900,
912.
Vick V. La Rochelle (57 Miss.
602), 336.
Vicksburg v. Oulchita (11 La.
Ann. 649), 298.
Vicksburg Bank v. Worrell (7
So. Rep. (Miss.) 219), 700.
Vicksburg, etc. Co. v. Citizens'
Tel. Co. (79 Miss. 341), 1248.
Vicksburg, etc. Co. v. McKean (12
La. Ann. 638), 281, 340, 363, 364,
366.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Vicksburg, etc. Co. v. Vicksburg
(185 U. S. 65). 1553, 1645.
Vicksburg R. Co. v. Dennis (116
U. S. G68), 61, 722.
Victor, etc. Co. v. National Banlv
(15 Utah, 391), 1161.
Victory Web, etc. Co. v. Beecher
(26 Hun, 48), 1132, 1134.
Vidal V. Girard (2 How. 127),
1242.
Viele V. Wells (9 Abb. N. Gas.
(N. Y.) 277), 859, 862.
Vielie v. Osgood (8 Barb. 130),
2131.
Viesling v. Mechanics', etc. Assn.
(179 III. 524; 53 N. E. Rep.
279),
224.
Vigers v. Pike (8 Clarke & J-.
562), 828.
Vigilancia, The (68 Fed. Rep.
781; 73 Fed. 452), 1688, 1689, 1691.
Vila V. Grand Island, etc. Co. (94
N. W. Rep. (Neb.) 136), 1777.
Vilas V. Page (106 N. Y. 439),
1161, 1727, 1834, 1835.
Vincennes University v. Indiana
(55 U. S. (14 How.) 268), 11,
15, 27, 39.
Vincent v. Bamford (1 Jones &
S. (N. Y.) 506), 858.
Vincent v. Chapman (10 Gill &
J. (Md.) 279), 227, 836, 901.
Vincent v. Parker (7 Paige, 65),
1724.
Vincent v. Sands (42 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 231), 1136.
Vinton's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 434),
647.
Virginia v. Chesapeake Canal Co.
(32 Md. 501), 1675.
Virginia Coupon Cases (114 U. S.
270), 322, 1675, 1678.
Virginia, etc. Co. v. Bristol Land
Company
(88 Fed. Rep. 134),
1806.
Visali-a, etc. Co. v. Sims (104 Cal.
326), 1643.
Virginia Land Co. v. Haupt (90
Va. 533), 371.
Virginia Midland Ry. Co. v. Wash-
ington (86 Va. 629; 7 L. R. A.
344), 1571, 1572, 1573.
Virginia, etc. R. Co. t. Lyon
County, etc. (8 Nev. 68), 322.
Virginia, etc. R. Co. v. Henry
(8
Nev. 165), 1321.
Visalia, etc. R. R. v. Hyde (110
Gal. 632), 548.
Vliet V. Simonton (63 N. J. L.
458), 174, 882.
Voight V. Dregge (97 Mich. 322),
863.
Volger V. Ray (131 Mass. 439).
2073, 2074.
Voluntary Relief D. v. Spencer (17
Ind. App. 123; 46 N. E. Rep.
477), 211.
Von Glahn v. De Rosset (81 N.
C. 467), 1786.
Von Hesse v. Mackaye (121 N. Y.
694; 55 Hun, 365), 1697.
Von Hoffman v. Quincy
(4 Wall.
535), 296.
Von Schmidt v. Huntington (1
Gal. 55), 900.
Voorhees v. Indianapolis Co. (140
Ind. 220), 1792.
Voorhees v. Presbyterian Church,
etc. (8 Barb. 137), 2124.
Voorhis v. Freeman (2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116), 1715.
Voris V. McCready (16 How. Pr.
87), 2114.
Vose V. Bronson (6 Wall. 452),
1737.
Vose V. Grant (15 Mass. 505), 645,
835, 1128.
Voss V. Philbrook (3 Story (U.
S.), 336), 1679.
Voshell V. Hynson (26 Md. 83),
1803.
Vowell V. Thompson (3 Cranch
C. C. 428), 585, 1021, 1030, 1032.
Vredenburg v. Behan (33 La. Ann.
627), 86, 170, 880.
Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co.
(29 N. J. Eq. 188), 267, 363,
374.
Vulcan Iron Works, In re (L. T.
61), 534, 560.
Vulcan Pov/der Co. v. Hercules
Powder Co. (96 Cal. 510), 1413.
w
Wkbash, etc. Co. v. 111. (118 13.
S. 557), 221, 1394, 1553.
Wabash, etc. R. Co. v. Central T.
Co. (22 Fed. Rep. 272), 1746,
1751.
Wabash R. R. v. Dykeman (133
Ind. 56), 1783.
Wabash, etc. R. Co. v. Ham (114
U. S. 587), 443, 721, 1860, 1865,
1882, 1893.
Wachsmuth v. Merchants' Nat.
Bank (96 Mich. 426). 1493.
Wachtel v. Noah Widows', etc.
Soc. (84 N. Y. 28), 780. 782,
2069, 2071.
cclxxviii
TABLE OF OASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-610; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Wade V. Baker (81 N. Y. 622),
1136.
Wade v. Kalbfleish (58 N. Y. 282),
1795.
Wadesborough, etc. Co. v. Burns
(114 N. C. 353), 938, 939, 1906,
1910.
Wadhams v. Gay (73 111. 415),
1751.
Wadsworth v. St. Croix Co. (4
Fed. Rep. 370), 267.
Wagner v. Brooklyn, etc. R. R. (69
N. Y. App. Div. 349), 1627.
Waf!;ner v. Rock Island (146 111.
139; 21 L. R. A. 519), 1387.
Wahlig V. Standard P. M. Co. (9
N. Y. Sup. 739),
1209.
Wait V. Nashua Armory Assn. (66
N. H. 581; 14 L. R. A. 356),
1188.
Wait V. Smith (92 111. 385), 225.
Waite V. Dowley (94 U. S. 527),
743.
Waite V. Garston, etc. (L. R. 3
Q B 5) 204.
Waite V-. Merrill" (4 Me. 102), 2083.
Waite V. Windham Co. Mining
Co. (37 Vt. 608), 1070.
Wakefield v. Fargo (90 N. Y.
213), 533, 545, 561, 587, 810, 858,
859, 889.
Wakeman v. Dalley (51 N. Y. 27),
175, 577, 580.
Walburn v. Chenault (43 K^n.
352), 514.
Waldo V. Chicago, etc. R. R. (14
Wis. 575), 365, 369, 406.
Wales V. Pacific, etc. Co. (130
Cal. 521), 1627.
Walker, Ex parte (L. R. 6 Eq. 30).
618.
Walker, Ex parte (25 Ala. 104),
1724.
Walker v. Anglo-American, etc.
Co. (89 Va. 455), 372, 937.
Walker v. Bartlett (2 Jur. (N.
S.) 643), 468, 524, 525, 577, 888.
Walker v. Chapman (Lofft. 342),
401.
Walker v. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co.
(21 Ohio St. 14), 297.
Walker v. Grain (17 Barb. (N.
Y.) 119), 486, 1795, 1806.
Walker v. Detroit Transit Ry. Co.
(47 Mich. 338), 390, 525, 618,
1047, 1190.
Walker v. Devereaux (4 Paige,
229), 289, 290, 291.
Walker v. Great Western Ry. Co.
(L. R. 2 Ex. 228), 1203.
Walker v. Lewis (49 Tex. 123),
835, 852.
Walker v. Mad River, etc. Co. (8
Ohio, 38), 1355, 1558.
Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co. (34
Miss. 245), 287, 362,364, 366, 374.
Walker v. Ogden (1 Biss. (U. S.)
287), 479, 781.
Walker v. Shelbyville, etc. T. Co.
(80 Ind. 452), 1531.
Walker v. Wilmington, etc. R. Co.
(26 S. C. 80), 1299.
Walker, etc. Co. v. American, etc.
Co. (70 N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 937),
1647.
Wall .V. Chesapeake, etc. Ry. (95
Fed. 398), 2021.
Wall V. Mines (130 Cal. 27), 160,
2052.
Wall V. Piatt (169 Mass. 298),
1809.
Wall V. Tomlinson (16 Ves. 413),
292.
Wallace v. Ann Arbor, etc. Ry.
(121 Mich. 588), 1251, 1561,
1583, 1607.
Wallace v. Carpenter (70 Minn.
321), 445.
Wallace v. First Parish, etc. (109
Mass. 263), 976.
v''allace v. Holmes (9 Blatchf.
(U. S.) 65), 534.
Wallace v. Lincoln Savings Bank
(89 Tenn. 630), 816.
Wallace v. Loomis (97 U. S. 146),
95, 130, 153, 1725, 1726, 1727,
1728, 1803.
Wallace v. Long Island R. R. (12
Hun, 460), 1565.
Wallace v. McConnell (13 Pet.
136), 1678, 1679.
Wallace v. Pierre Wallace, etc.
Co. (101 Iowa, 313; 38 L. R. A.
122), 1951.
Wallace v. Press Co. (48 N. "i.
App. Div. 33), 140.
Wallace v. Townsend (43 Ohio St.
537), 567.
Wallace v. Walsh (125 N. Y. 26),
16, 1094.
Wallace & Sons v. Walse (5 N.
Y. Sup. 351), 1049.
Wallamet, etc. Co. v. Kittredge
(5
Sawy. 44; Fed. Gas. No. 1705),
797, 1945.
Waller v. Hamer (69 Pac. Rep.
(Kan.) 185), 902.
Walla Walla City v.' Walla Walla
Water Co. (172 U. S. 1), 1647,
2038.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxix
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-ClO; Vol. IT, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1307-2134.]
Wallerstein v. Ervin (112 Fed.
Rep. 124), 1294.
Walling V. Miller (108 N. Y. 173),
1747.
Wallingford Manuf. Co. v. Fox (12
Vt. 304), 359.
Wallworth v. Holt (4 Myl, & C.
619), 812.
Wain V. Bank of North America
(8
Sergt. & R. 89), 687.
Walmsley v. Horton (29 Grant
Ch. (Can.) 484), 1967.
Walnut V. Wade (103 U. S. 683),
1678. 1679, 1681, 1683.
Walsenburg Water Co. v. Moore
(5 Colo. App. 144), 792, 1045.
Walser v. Seligman (13 Fed. Rep.
415), 862, Sij'o.
Walsh V. Memphis, etc. R. Co. (2
McCrary, 156; 6 Fed. Rep. 797),
900, 909, 912.
Walsh V. New York & B. Bridge
(96 N. Y. 427), 64.
Walsh V. Sexton (55 Barb. 251),
389 537.
Walsh V. Still (2 Pars. Sel. Cas.
(Pa.) 17), 579.
Walsh V. Union Bank (5 Quebec
L. R. 289), 887.
Walsham v. Stainton (1 De G., J.
& S. 678), 1113.
Walstab v. Spottiswoode (15 Mees.
& W. 501), 379.
Walter A. Zellnicker Supply Co.
V. Mississippi, etc. Co. (77
."-
W. Rep. (Mo.) 321), 2021.
Walter v. Merced, etc. (126 Cal.
582), 265, 266.
Walter v. Robbins (56 Minn. 324),
953.
Walter v. Thomas (42 How. Pr.
344), 2118.
Walter v. Walter (1 Whart. (Pa.)
282), 488.
Walter, etc. Co. v. Jefferson (57
Minn. 456), 953.
Walters v. Anglo, etc. Co. (50
Fed. Rep. 316), 1749, 1779, 1815.
Walters v. Western, etc. R. R. Co.
(68 Fed. Rep. 1002; 69 Fed.
Rep. 706), 1072.
Walter's Case (3 De G. & Sm.
149), 592.
Walter's Second Case (3 De G. &
Sm. 244), 553, 943.
Walton, Ex parte (26 L. J. Ch.
545) 592.
Walton V. Coe (110 N. Y. 109),
865, 867, 910.
Walton V. Oliver (49 Kan. 107; 33
Am. St. Rep. 355), 164, 174, 882.
Walton V. Riley (85 Ky. 413), 84,
152, 396, 1917.
Walworth v. Brackett (93 Mass.
98), 150, 151.
Walworth Co. Bank v. Farmers,'
etc. Co. (16 Wis 291), 1190,
1702.
Wandsworth, etc. Co. v. Wright
(18 W. R. 728), 1024.
Wannell v. Kern (57 Mo. 478),
138.
Wapello Co. v. Burlington, etc.
R. R. Co. (44 Iowa, 585), 206,
29G.
Ward, Ex parte (L. R. 2 Ch.
431), 618.
Ward V. Brigham (127 Mass. 24),
155, 168, 169, 314, 446, 447, 459.
460. 496, 497, 835, 888, 1214.
Ward V. Byrne (5 Mees. & W. 548),
1419.
Ward V. Connecticut, etc. Co. (71
Conn. 345; 71 Am. St. Rep. 207),
ISll.
Ward V. Davis (3 Sandf. 502),
2052.
Ward V. Farwell (97 111. 593), i(h
139G, 1905, 1908, 1909.
Ward V. Insurance Co. (7 Paige,
294) 1930.
Ward 'v. Johnson (95 111. 215),
1270, 1334, 1670, 1700.
Ward v. Joslin (186 U. S. 142),
552, 849.
Ward V. Kitchen (30 N. J. Eq. 31),
531
Ward V. Londesborough (12 C. B.
252), 379.
Ward V. Montclair R. Co. (26 N.
J. Eq. 260), 1751.
Ward V. Pacific, etc. Co. (135 Cal.
235), 1791.
Ward V. Polk (70 Ind. 309), 874.
AVard v. Railroad Co. (119 III.
287), 1307.
Ward V. Sea Ins. Co. (7
Paige (N.
Y.), 294), 1956, 1957, 1960, 1967.
Ward V. Sittingbourne,' etc. R. Co.
(L. R. 9 Ch. 488), 644, 815, 821.
Ward V. South Eastern Ry. Co. (2
Ellis & El. 812), 529, 609, 617,
619, 809.
Ward and Garfil's Case (L. R. 4
Eq. 189), 556.
Ward's Case (L. R. 10 Eq. 659),
268, 279, 556, 618.
Warden v. Union Pac. R. Co. (103
cclxxx
TABLE OF CASKS,
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1G07-2134.]
U. S. C51; 4 Dill. 350), 1114,
1218.
Wardrobe, etc. v. Calil'ornia Stage
Co. (7 Cal. 118; G8 Am. Dec.
231), 150G.
Ware v. Grand Junction W. W.
Co. (2 Kuss. & M. 470), 117,
1090.
Ware v. McCandlish (11 Leigh
(Va.),. 595), G47.
Ware v. Merchants' Nat. Bank (24
N. E. Rep. (Mass.) 328), G30.
Ware v. Regent's Canal Co. (3 De
G. & J. 212), 1921.
Warehousing Co. v. Badger (G7
N. Y. 294), 308.
Warfield v. Marshall County, etc.
Co. (72 Iowa, 6GG; 2 Am. St.
Rep. 2G3), 120, 832, 833, 835,
946, 1266, 12G7, 1702, 1703, 1834.
Waring v. Mayor, etc. of Mobile
(24 Ala. 201), 111.
Waring v. Medical Soc. (Am. Law
Reg. (N. S., Ga.) 533), 2053.
Warner, In re (7 Bankr. Reg. 47;
82 Mich. 624), 1291.
Warner v. Baltimore, etc. Co. (168
U. S. 339), 1487.
Warner v. Beers (23 Wend. (N.
Y.) 103), 7, 22, 64, 163, 2047,
2090, 2091, 2093.
Warner v. Calendar (20 Ohio St.
190), 310, 311, 903, 1974.
Warner v. Mower (11 Vt. 385),
977, 978, 982, 985, 997, 1001,
1767.
Warner v. Rising Town Iron Co.
(3 V/oods, 514), 29 Fed. Cas.
261), 1678, 1680.
Warner's Appeal (7 Atl. Rep.
(Pa.) 216), 1110.
Warnicke v. Noakes (1 Peake, 67),
2069.
Warren v. Brigham (127 Mass.
24), 163.
Warren v. King (108 U. S. 389),
634, G75, 849, 1376.
Warren v. Mobile, etc. R. Co. (49
Ala. 582), 1502, 1887, 1888, 1889.
Warren v. Para, etc. Co. (166
Mass.
97), 1366.
Warren v. Robison (19 Utah, 289),
1120, 1130.
Warren v. Shook (91 U. S. 704),
744.
Warren G. Co. v. Pennsylvania
Gas. Co. (161 Pa. St. 510), 1643.
Warren's Estate, In re (52 Mich.
567), 849.
Warwick R. Co. v. Cady (11 R. I.
131), 313, 314.
Washburn v. Cass County (3 Dill.
251), 299, 470, 1890.
AVashburne College v. Shawnee
County
(8 Kan. 344), 724.
Washburn Mill Co. v. Bartlett (3
N. D. 138), 1373.
Washer v. Allensville, etc. Co. (80
Ind. 78), 1517.
Washington Bank v. Continental
Life Ins. Co. (41 Ohio St. 1),
1208.
Washington Bank v. Lewis (22
rick (39 Mass.), 24). 965.
Washington Beneficial Soc. v.
Bacher (20 Pa. St. 425), 781.
Washington College v. Duke (14
Iowa, 14), 103.
Washington, etc. Bank v. Fletcher
(55 N. Y. App. Div. 580), 1830.
Washington, etc. Co. v. California,
etc. Co. (115 Fed. Rep. 20; 52
C. C. A. 614), 1757.
Washington, etc. Ins. Co. v.
Fleischauer (10 Hun, 117),
1724, 1739.
Washington, etc. Co. v. Lansder
(172 U. S. 534), 148G.
Washington, etc. R. Co. v. Lewis
(83 Va. 346), 1720.
Washington, etc. Co. v. Maryland
(3 Wall. (U. S.) 210), 62, 1909,
1933, 1935, 1939.
Washington, etc. Co. v. State (19
Md. 239), 1909, 1933, 1935, 1939.
Wasson v. Buzzell (G3 N. E. Rep.
(Mass.) 909), 2019.
Wasmer v. Delaware (80 N. Y.
212; 36 Am. Rep. 608), 1572.
Wason V. Fenno (125 Mass. 405),
576.
Waterbury v. Atlas Cordage Co.
(7 So. Rep. (La.) 783), 716,
730.
Waterbury v. Merchants' Union
Ex. Co. (50 Barb. 157), 2087,
2088, 2092.
Water Comm'rs, In re (176 N. Y'.
239), 1650.
Waterford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dalbiac
(20 L. J. Ex. 227), 313.
Waterford R. Co. v. Pidcock (8
Ex. 283; 22 L. J. Ex. 146), 274.
Waterhouse v. Comer (55 Fed.
Rep. 149), 1591, 1787.
Waterhouse v. Jamieson (L. R. 2
H. L. 29), 448, 515, 559.
Waterhouse v. London, etc. Ry.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxi
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Co. (41 L. T. N. S. 553), 419,
420.
Waterloo, etc. Co., In re (128 Fed.
Rep. 517), 1529.
Waterman v. Chicago, etc. Co. (139
111. 658; 15 L. R. A. 418; 32 Am.
St. Rep. 228), 225, 1045, 1071,
1092, 109G.
Waterman v. Troy, etc. R. Co. (18
Gray (74 Mass.), 433), 6G2, 665.
Waterman's Appeal (26 Conn. 96),
182.
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas
(177 U. S. 28), 1474, 1985, 2002.
Water Valley Mfg. Co. v. Seamtia
(53 Miss. 655), 374, 476, 781.
Water Works v. Bartlett (63 Cal.
245), 1648.
Waterworks v. Bryant (52 Cal.
132), 1648.
Waterworks v. City & Co. of San
Francisco (52 Cal 111), 1648.
Water Works v. Schottler (110
U. S. (Wilgus' Cas.) 347), 1385,
1648.
Watkins, Ex parte (2 Mont. 690),
596, 1163.
Watkins v. Hill (8 Pick (25
Mass.) 522), 1755.
Watkins v. Lawrence, etc. Bank
(51 Kan. 254), 1966.
Watkins v. North American, etc.
Co. (31 S. Rep. (La.) 683), 2019.
Watkins v. Workingmen's, etc.
Assn. (97 Pa. St. 514), 2070,
2071.
Watson V. Bonfils (116 Fed. Rep.
159), 183.
Watson Coal & M. Co. v. James (72
Iowa, 184), 1180.
Watson V. Eales (23 Beav. 294),
475, 781, 888.
Watson V. Jones (13 Wall. 679),
2081.
Watson V. Le Grand, etc. Co. (177
111. 203), 1513.
Watson V. Mid-Wales Ry. Co. (L.
R. 2 C. P. 593), 1677.
Watson Seminary v. Pike Co.
Court (45 L. R. A. 675; 149 Mo.
57), 71, 94.
Watson V. Spratley (10 Ex. 222),
524.
Watson V. Thompson Lumber Co.
(49 Ark. 83), 1719.
Watson V. Woody Printing Co. (56
Mo. App. 145), 1087.
Watt V. Lee (39 Ch. Div. 190),
449.
Watts' Appeal (78 Pa. St. 370),
1329. 1360.
Watts V. Salter (10 C. B. 477),
378.
Watts V. West Va. etc. Co. (43 W.
Va. 262), 1068.
Waukon, etc. Co. v. Dwyer (49
Iowa, 121), 271, 454, 501, 508.
Way v.. American, etc. Co. (60 N.
J. Eq. 263), 1026.
Way V. Billings (2 Mich. 397), 68.
Way V. Smith (111 Mass. 523),
1676.
Wayland University v. Boorman
(56 Wis. 657), 1241, 1268.
Wayne Pike Co. v. State (134 Ind.
672), 1797, 1932.
Weakly v. Northwestern Benev.
etc. Assn. (19 111. App. 327),
782.
Wear v. Jacksonville, etc. R. Co.
(24 111. 593), 305, 461.
Weatherly v. Baker (35 N. J. Eq.
505), 236, 505.
Weatherby v. Saxony, etc. Co. (29
Atl. Rep. (N. J.) 326), 860.
Weatherford, etc. Co. v. Granger
(86 Tex. 350; 40 Am. St. Rep.
837), 1166, 1216.
Weatherly v. Capital City Water
Co. (115 Ala. 156), 1925, 1973,
1974.
Weatherly v. Montgomery Co. etc.
Soc. (76 Ala. 5G7), 1002.
Weaver v. Barden (49 N. Y. 286),
387, 392, 417.
Weaver v. Huntingdon, etc. Co.
(50 Pa. St. 314), 955.
Weaver v. Mississippi Boom Co.
(28 Minn. 534), 1313.
Weaversville, etc. Co. v. Trinity
Co. Supervisors (64 Cal. 69),
1521.
Webb, Ex parte (9 Jur. (N. S.)
856), 617.
Webb V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co.
(77 Md. 92), 266, 303, 945, 953.
Webb V. Earle (L. R. 20 Eq. 566),
663, 672.
Webb V. Grandville Mfg. Co. (11
S. C. 396), 534.
Webb V. Heme Bay Comm'rs (L.
R. 5 Q. B. 642), 391.
Webb V. Manchester (4 Mylne &
C 116) 1229.
Webb V. 'Ridgely (38 Md. 364),
1035.
Webb V. Rockefeller (71 Pac.
Rep. (Kan.) 283), 1185.
cclxxxii
TAUI.E OF CASKS.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II. 021-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Webb V.
Vermont Central R. Co.
(iO niakhl'. 218), 1741.
Webber v. Hovey (1U8 Mich. 49),
950:
Webber v. Townley (43
Mich.
534),
821.
Weber v. Fickey (47
Md. 196),
592, 923.
Weber v. Spokane Nat. Bank (29
U. S. App. 97; C4 Fed. Rep.
208), 1373.
Weber v. Supreme Tent (172 N. Y.
490), 189.
Weber v. Zimmerman (22 Md.
156), 779.
Webster's Case (32 L. J. Ch. 135),
480.
Webster v. Couch (6 Rand. 519),
1747.
Webster v. Hale (8 Ves. 140), 626.
Webster v. Howe Machine Co. (54
Conn. 394), 1268, 1273.
Webster v.
Turner (12 Hun (N.
Y.), 264), 1243, 1947, 1948.
Webster v. Upton (91 U. S. 71),
277 288, 320, 397, 430, 436, 446,
450,'
544, 545, 546, 560, 592, 593,
617, 655, 869, 888, 889, 890, 914,
932.
Webster v. Wiggin (19 R. I. 73;
28 L. R. A. 510), 160.
Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat.
Bank (24 U. S. App. 308; 64
Fed. Rep. 90; 26 L. R. A. 470),
164, 167, 174, 882.
'
Weckely v. Geyer (11 Sergt. & R.
(Pa.) 35), 2125.
Weckler v. First Nat. Bank of
Hagerstown (42 Md. 581), 1660,
1661.
Weed V. Littlefalls (31 Minn. 154),
1030, 1031, 1102, 1108.
Weeks v. Ellis (2 Barb. 325),
1025.
Weeks v. Garibaldi, etc. Co. (73
Cal. 599), 2031.
Weeks v. Love (50 N. Y. 568), 902,
906, 1795.
Weeks v. Propert (L. R. 8 C. P.
427), 1705.
Weeks v. Silver, etc. Co. (23
Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1), 213.
Weems v. Georgia R. Co. (11 S.
E. Rep. 503), 365.
Wehn v. Fall (55 Neb. 547), 1975.
Wehrman v. Reakirt (1 Cin. Sup.
Ct. 230), 885, 862, 863, 887, 916.
Weidekind v. Tuolumne, etc. Co.
(74 Cal. 386), 1491.
^eidenfeld v. Allegheny, etc. R.
R. Co. (98 Ala. 219; 47 Fed.
Rep. 11), 823.
Weiderfield v. Northern Pac. Ry.
Co. (129 Fed. Rep. (Minn.)
305), 651, 681.
Weidenger v. Spruance (101 111.
278), 839, 840.
Weigley v. Coal Oil Co. (5 Phila.
67), 843, 858.
Weightman v. Clark (103 U. S.
251), 293.
Weikerheim's Case (L. R. 8 Ch.
831), 562.
Weinburgh v. Union, etc. Co. (55
N. J. Eq. 640), 976.
Weinhenmayer v. Bitner (88 Md.
325; 45 L. R. A. 446), 140.
Weinman v. Wilkinsburg*, etc. Ry.
Co. (118 Pa. St. 192), 342, 377,
560, 593, 930, 1303.
Weir V. Barnett (3 Ex. Div. 32),
1139, 1180.
Weir V. Bell (3 Ex. Div. 238),
1123, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1180.
Weir V. St. Paul R. Co. (18 Minn.
155), 1303.
Weismer v. Village of Douglas (64
N. Y. 91), 294.
Weiss V. Mauch Chunk Iron Co,
(58 Pa. St. 295), 858.
Welch V. Importers' Bank (122 N.
Y. 177), 170, 878, 1182.
Welch V. Old Dominion, etc. Rail-
way Co. (10 N. Y. Supp. 174),
989.
Welch V. Phelps, etc. Co. (89 Tex.
653), 1428, 1439.
Welch V. Post (90 111. 471), 294.
Welch V. Sage (47 N. Y. 143),
1686.
Welch V. Sargent (127 Cal. 72),
433, 551, 552, 598, 899, 921, 1773.
Welch V. Woodruff (51 Hun, 637),
1202.
Welfley v. Shenandoah, etc. Co.
(83 Va. 768), 127, 130, 1522,
1835.
Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway (8
Wend. 480), 1525.
Welland Ry. Co. v. Berrie (6 Hurl.
& N. 416), 467.
Weller v. Pace Tobacco Co. (2 N.
Y. Supp. 292), 967.
Wellersburg, etc. Co. v. Young (12
Md. 476), 268.
Welles V. Cowles (2 Conn. 567; 4
Conn. 182; 10 Am. Dec. 115),
524.
Welles V. Graves (41 Fed. Rep.
459), 1142, 1388.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxiii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Welles V. Stout (38 Fed. Rep.
807), 924.
Welling V. Eastern, etc. Assn. (56
S. C. 280; 34 S. E. Rep. 409),
232.
Wellington v. Continental, etc. Co.
(52 Hun, 408), 899, 915.
Wellman v. Howland Coal, etc.
Works (19 Fed. Rep. 51), 914.
Wells V. Black (117 Cal. 157; 37
L. R. A. 619; 59 Am. St. Rep.
162), 189, 851.
Wells V. Central R. Co. (41 N. J.
Eq. 5), 109.
Wells Fargo Co. v. Northern Pac.
Ry. Co. (33 Fed. Rep. 469), 20,
70.
Wells V. Gates (18 Barb. 554),
2077, 2091, 2092.
Wells V. Green Bay. etc. Co. (90
Wis. 442), 174, 235, 439, 493,
494.
Wells V. Larrabee (36 Fed. Rep.
866), 870.
Wells V. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (23
Fed. Rep. 469), 2006.
Wells V. Oregon, etc. Co. (8 Sawy.
60S; 15 Fed. Rep. 561), 96.
Wells V. Oregon, etc. Co. (18 Fed.
Rep. 667), 129.
Wells V. Rahway,' etc. Rubber Co.
(19 N. J. Eq. 402), 982.
Wells V. Rodgers (60 Mich. 525),
470, 1846.
Wells V. Supervisors (102 U. S.
625), 294.
Wellsborongh, etc. Co. v. GrifQn
(57 Pa. St. 417), 1762, 1820, 1834.
Welsh V. Old Dominion, etc. Ry.
Co. (65 Hun, 650; 10 N. Y. Supp.
174), 72, 1942.
Welsh V. Plumas County (94 Cal.
368), 67.
Welsh V. St. Paul, etc. Railroad
Co. (25 Minn. 314), 1680, 1750,
1833.
Wemple v. St. Louis, etc. Co. (120
111. 196), 204, 311.
Wenr^er v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co.
(114 Fed. Rep. 34), 1829.
W^erner v. Murphy
(60 Fed. Rep.
769), 1797.
Wert V. Crawfordville, etc. Co. (19
Ind. 242), 365.
Wertheim v. Continental, etc. Co.
(15 Fed. Rep. 716), 146, 1533.
Wesan, etc. Assn. v. Starkey (84
Mich.
76), 1890.
Wesheider v. Wabash R. Co. (115
Fed. Rep. 840), 31.
Wesson v. Chanman (76 Hun,
592), 1756, 1804.
West & Co.'s Appeal (81 Pa. St.
19), 339.
West V. Averill, etc. Co. (109
Iowa, 488), 1284, 1370.
West V. Camden (135 U. S. 507),
1029, 1055, 1105.
West V. Carolina Life Ins. Co. (31
Ark.
479), 129, 1916.
West V. Crawford (80 Cal. 19),
473.
West V. Eureka Imp. Co. (40
Minn. 394), 1515.
West V. Foreman (21 Ala. 400),
1803.
West Branch Bank v. Armstrong
(40 Pa. St. 278), 693.
West Devon, etc. Mine, In re (27
Ch. Div. 106), 141.
West End, etc. Co. v. Claiborne
(97 Va. 734), 369, 947.
West End, etc. Co. v. Nash (41 S.
E. Rep. (V/. Va.) 182), 937, 952,
1184, 1222.
Westchester Iron Co., In re (6
Abb. Pr. 386), 1966.
West Chester, etc. R. Co. v. Jack-
son (28 Pa. St. 321), 551, 642,
664, 665, 666, 673, 674, 675, 680,
681.
West Cornw^ell, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Mowatt (15 Q. B. 521), 305.
Westcott V. Fargo (61 N. Y. 542),
2092.
Westcott V. Minnesota, etc. Co.
(43 Mich. 45), 473, 770, 1958,
2064.
Westerfield v. Radde (67 How. Pr.
204; 12 Daly, 450), 1135.
Westerly Water Works v. West-
erly (75 Fed. 181), 1645.
Western Assur. Co. v. Halliday
(127 Fed. Rep. (Ohio) 830),
712, 749.
Western Bank v. Addie (L. R. 11
S. C. App. 145), 375, 1180, 1501,
1541.
Western Bank, etc. v. Gilstrap (45
Mo. 419), 1073.
Western Bank, etc. v. Tallman (17
Wis. 530), 503, 508.
Western, etc. Assn. v. Kribben (48
Mo. 37), 1267.
Western, etc. Assn v. Starkey (84
Mich. 76; 11 L. R. A. 503), 1440.
Western, etc. Bank v. Reckless
(96 Fed. Rep. 70), 902.
Western, etc. Co. v. Anderson (79
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 916), 2017.
cclxxxiv TABLE OF CASES.
[Reforcnces are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, C21-150C; Vol. ni, 1507-2134.]
Western, etc. Co. v. First Nat.
Bank (47 Pac. Rep. (N. Mex.),
721), 133.
Western, etc. Co. v. Kilderhouse>
(87 N. Y. 430), 847.
Western, etc. Co. v. JLicb (76 111.
170), 1990.
Western, etc. Co. v. Mayer (28
Ohio St. 521), 1986, 1987, 1990,
2012.
Western Maryland R. Co. v.
Franldin Bank (GO Md. 26), 412,
415, 421, 15U1.
Western Nat. Bank v. Lawrence
(17 Mich. 669), 904.
Western News Co. v. Wilmarch
(33 Kan. 510), 1544.
Western N. C. Co. v. Rollins (82
N. C. 523), 1925.
Western Pa. etc. Appeal (99 Pa.
St. 155), 389, 1557, 1913, 1914.
Western R. Co. v. Avery (64
N.
C. 489), 488, 489.
Western R. Co. v. Davis (CG Ala.
578), 1888.
Western, etc. R. Co. v. Franklin
Bank (60 Md. 36), 421.
Western Ry. Co. v. Mowatt (12
Jur. pt. I, 407), 516.
Western R. Co. v. Smith (75 111.
496), 1887, 1889, 1891, 1990.
Western, etc. R. Co. v. Rollins
(82 N. C. 523), 1780, 1786.
Western Reserve Bank v. Mcln-
tire (40 Ohio St. 528), 1838.
Western Screw Mfg. Co. v. Cous-
ley (72 111. 531), 1165, 1215.
Western Union R. Co. v. Smith
(75 111. 496), 1886, 1892.
Western U. T. Co. v. Adams (87
Ind. 598; 44 Am. Rep. 766),
1384, 1616.
Western Union T. Co. v. Alabama
(132 U. S. 472), 755, 759, 1623.
Western U. T. Co. v. American U.
T. Co. (65 Ga. 160), 1416, 1619.
Western U. T. Co. v. Anderson
(78
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 34), 1626.
Western U. T. Co. v. Atlantic, etc.
Tel. Co. (7 Biss. (U. S.) 367),
1557.
Western U. T. Co. v. B. & O. T. Co.
(23 Fed. Rep. 12; 2 Fed. Rep.
133), 1416, 1616.
Western U. T. Co. v. Blanchard
(68 Ga. 299), 1622.
Western U. T. Co. v. Borough of
New Hope (187 U. S. 419), 1623.
Western U. T. Co. v. Boston Safe,
etc. Co. (87 Fed. Rep. 788), 1789.
Western U. Tel. Co. v. Bowen (7G
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 1613), 1625.
Western U. Tel. Co. v. Buchanan
(35 Ind. 429; 9 Am. Rep. 744),
1616, 1626.
Western U. T. Co. v. Bullard (67
Vt. 272), 1628.
Western Union Tel Co. v. Burling-
ton, etc. Ry. Co. (11 Fed. 10; 3
McCrary, 130), 1425, 1557.
Western U. T. Co. v. Call Pub. Co.
(44 Neb. 326; 27 L. R. A. 622;
48 Am. St. Rep. 729), 1623.
Western Union Tel. Case (125 U.
S. 530), 737.
Western U. Tel Co. v. Chicago,
etc. R. R. Co. (86 111. 246; 29
Am. Rep. 531), 1413, 1416, 1557.
Western U. T. Co. v. Christensen
(78 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 744),
162G.
Western U. T. Co. v. Cross, Ad-
ministrator (25 Ky. Law R.
646), 1624.
Western U. Tel. Co. v. Harding
(103 Ind. 105), 1617.
Western U. T. Co. v. Hyer Bros.
(22 Fla. 637), 1631.
Western U. T. Co. v. Guernsey,
etc. Co. (46 Mo. App. 120), 1596.
Western U. T. Co. v. Graham
(1
Colo. 230), 1622.
Western U. T. Co. v. Eysef (2
Colo. 141), 1628.
Western U. T. Co. v. Inman, etc.
Co. (43 Fed. Rep. 85; 59 Fed.
Rep. 365), 1631.
Western U. T. Co. v. Los Angeles,
etc. Co. (76 Fed. Rep. 178),
1628.
Western U. T. Co. v. Lyean (60
III. App. 124), 1622.
Western U. T. Co. v. Massachus-
etts (125 U. S. 530), 1623, 1979.
Western U. T. Co. v. Mayor, etc.
Co. (38 Fed. Rep. 552), 1596.
Western U. T. Co. v. Meek (49
Ind. 53), 1384, 1385, 1616.
Western U. T. Co. v. Mellor (76
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 449), 1624.
Western U. T. Co. v. Nelson (82
Md. 293; 31 L. R. A. 572), 1627.
Western U. T. Co. v. Pendleton
(122 U. S. 347), 1623.
Western Union T. Co. v. Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co. (120 Fed. Rep.'
362; 123 Fed. Rep. 33; 129 Fed.
Rep. 849), 981, 1618, 1619, 1620,
1625.
Western U. T. Co. v. Rich (19
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxv
TReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Kan. 517; 27 Am. Rep. 159),
1557, 1586, 1619.
Western U. Tel. Co. v. Seay (132
U. S. 472), 758.
Western U. T. Co. v. Shaw (77
S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 433), 2027.
Western U. T. Co. v. Short (53
Ark. 434), 1620, 1622.
Western U. T. Co. v. Swearingen
(78 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 491),
1626.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Taggart
(163 U. S. 1), 752.
Western U. T. Co. v. Tyler (74
111. 168), 1622.
Western U. T. Co. v. Way (80 Ala.
542), 1631.
Westfield Bank v. Cornen (37 N.
Y. 320), 1160.
Westminster, etc. v. City of West-
minster (56 Atl. Rep. (Md.)
990), 71.
West London Ry. Co. v. Bernard
(3 Nic, H. & C. 649), 136, 1004.
West Missouri, etc. Co. v. Kansas
City, etc. Ry. (161 Mo. 595), 160.
West Nashville, etc. Co. v. Nash-
ville Sav. Bk. (86 Tenn. 252; 6
Am. St. Rep. 825), 548. 558, 601.
Weston V. Bear River Mining, etc.
Co. (5 Cal. 186; 63 Am. Dec.
117), 584, 961, 962, 963.
Weston V. Citizens', etc. Bank (64
N. Y. App. Div. 145), 2021.
Weston V. Columbus, etc. Ry. (90
Ga. 289), 369, 937.
Weston V. Hunt (2 Mass. 500), 11,
12.
Weston V. Ives (97 N. Y. 222),
2108.
Weston's Case (L. R. 4 Ch. 20),
292, 545, 557, 558, 600, 617, 887.
West Park Ave. Church, In re
(12 Phila. 518), 167.
West Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. In-
nes (3 Whart. 198), 469, 545,
888.
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix
(6 How. 507), 38, 1301, 1302,
1315, 1318, 1653.
West St. L. Bank v. Shawnee City
Bank (95 U. S. 557), 1211.
West Salem, etc. Co. v. Montgom-
ery, etc. Co. (89 Va. 192), 1191.
West Side, etc. Co. v. Conn. etc.
Co. (186 111. 156), 1527.
West Virginia, etc. Co. v. Ohio,
etc. Co. (22 W. Va. 600; 46 Am.
Rep. 527), 1371, 1416.
West Virginia Transport Co. v.
Volcanic Oil Co. (5 W. Va. 382).
IS. 21, 1312, 1412.
West Winsted Assn. v. Ford (27
Conn. 282), 68, 1525.
West Wisconsin Ry. Co. v. Su-
pervisors (93 U. S. 595), 719,
729.
Wetherbee v. Baker (35 N. J. Eq.
501), 358, 426, 446, 862, 873, 900,
905.
Wetmore v. St. Paul, etc. Co. (5
Dill, 531; 3 Fed. Rep. 177), 1821,
1826, 1828.
Weyeth, etc. Co. v. James, etc. Co.
(15 Utah, 110), 1954.
Wever v. Second Nat. Bk. (57 Ind.
198), 387.
Whaley, etc. Co. v. Green (5 Q.
B. Div. 109), 1218, 1219.
Wheatland v. Taylor (29 Hun,
70), 504.
Wlieatley v. Silkstone, etc. Co. (29
Ch. Div. 715), 1712.
Wheaton v. Daily Telegr. Co. (124
Fed. Rep. 61), 1793, 1807.
Wheeden v. Camden, etc. Co. (2
Phila. 23), 2012.
Wheeler (Appeal of) (108
Pa.
162), 2052.
Wheeler, In re (2 Abb. Pr. (N.
S.) 361), 652, 798, 998, 1003.
Wheeler v. Faurot (37 Ohio St.
26), 887, 891, 892, 894.
Wheeler v. Home, etc. Bk. (188
111. 34; 80 Am. St. Rep. 161),
1171, 1177, 1360.
Wheeler v. Millar (90 N. Y. 353),
264, 339, 376, 387, 460, 497, 852,
887, 914, 916, 918, 919, 922, 923.
946.
Wheeler v. Newbob (5 Duer, 29;
16 N. Y. 392), 1680.
Wheeler v. Northwestern Sleigh
Co. (39 Fed. Rep. 347), 627, 628.
Wheeler v. Perry (18 N. H. 307),
648.
Wheeler v. Pullman I. & S. Co.
(143 111. 197; 17 L. R. A. 818).
795, 804, 1947, 1952, 1963.
Wheeler v. San Francisco, etc. Co.
(31 Cal. 46; 89 Am. Dec. 147),
1471, 1578, 1585.
Wheeler v. Smith. (9 How. 55),
2050.
Wheeler v. Thayer (22 N. E. Rep.
(Ind.) 972), 851.
Wheeler v. Walker (45 N. H.
355), 263.
Wheeler v. Walton, etc. Co. (65
Fed. Rep. 720), 1806.
cclxxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
[References arc to pages: Vol. I, I-CIO; Vol. IT, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Wheeler & Wilson Manuf. Co. v.
Lawson (57 Wis. 400),
12o:!.
Wheeler, etc. Manuf. Co. v. Doyce
(3G Kan. 350;
5'.) Am. Rep. 571),
1482. 1493, 150.^). 1544.
Wlieless V. Second Nat. Bk. (1
Baxt. (Tenn.) 409 : 25 Am. Rep.
783), 1485, 1542, 1543.
Wheeling, etc. Ry. v. Cockran (68
Fed. Rep. 141), 1793.
Wheelock v. Kost (77 111. 296),
562, 563, 588.
Wheelock v. Moulton (15 Vt. 519),
78, 1054.
Wheelwright v. St. Louis, etc. Co.
(50 Fed. Rep. 709), 1095.
Whetstone v. Crane, etc. Co. (1
Kan. App. 320), 882, 1213.
Whightsel v. Felton (95 Fed. Rep.
923), 1801.
Whipple V. Christian (80 N. Y,
523; 15 Hun, 321), 103.
Whipple V. Parker (29 Mich. 369),
170.
Whipple V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (28
Kan. 474), 1890, 1894.
Whitaker v. Grummond (68 Mich.
249), 330, 335, 944.
Whitaker v. Kilroy (70 Mich.
635), 1079, 1200, 1201.
Whitaker v. Masterton (106 N. Y.
277), 1136, 1395.
Whitbeck v. Bank (127 U. S. 193),
743.
White, Ex parte (2 S. C. 469),
1825.
White V. Blum (4 Neb. 555), 898.
White V. Brownell (2 Daly, 329),
189, 191, 198, 771, 772. 778, 787,
788, 2053, 2060, 2062, 2073, 2081,
2106.
White V. Campbell (5 Humph.
(Tenn.) 38), 1974, 1979.
White V. Commercial, etc. Bk. (45
S. E. Rep. (S. C.) 94; 66 A. C.
491), 888, 892.
White V. Coventry (29 Barb. 305),
341.
White V. Ewing (159 U. S. 36),
1791.
White V. Franklin Bank (22 Pick.
(39 Mass.) 181), 401, 1335, 1369,
1372.
White V. Hart (13 Wall. 646), 42.
White V. Howard (46 N. Y. 144),
1240, 1241, 2053.
White V. Mt. Pleasant Mills Corp.
(172 Mass. 462), 293.
White V. New York, etc. Soc. (45
Hun, 580), 1021.
White Oak v. Murray (145 Mo.
022), IGO.
White V. Price (39 Hun, 394), 579.
603.
White V. Rice (112 Mich. 403),
1299, 1999.
White V. Sali-sbury (33 Mo. 150),
547.
White V. Schuyler (1 Abb. Pr. (N.
S.) 300), 576.
White V. Springfield, etc. Co. (117
Mass. 226), 1044.
White V. State (69 Ind. 273), 92.
White V. Syracuse, etc. R. Co. (14
Barb. 559), 1282.
White V. Thomas, etc. Co. (52 N.
J. Eq. 178), 1U30.
White V. Vermont, etc. R. Co. (21
How. 576), 1674, 1676, 1683.
White V. Westport, etc. Co. (18
Mass. 220), 1177.
Whitecar v. Michenor (37 N. J.
Eq. 6), 2126.
White, etc. Co. v. Pettes (30 Fea.
Rep. 864), 1722.
Whitefield v. Southeastern Ry. (El
B. & E. 115), 1539.
Whitehaven, etc. Co. v. Reed (54
L. T. Rep. 360), 400.
Whitehall, etc. R. Co. v. Myers (16
Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 34), 244, 312,
362.
Whitehead v. Arkansas Cent. R.
Co. (28 Ark. 460), 1491.
Whitehead v. Vineyard (50 Mo.
30), 1706.
Whitehill v. Jacobs (75 Wis. 474),
427.
Whitehouse v. Sprague (7 Atl.
Rep. (Me.) 17), 803.
White Lick Quarterly Meeting v.
White Lick Quarterly Meeting
(89 Ind. 136), 2133.
Whiteman v. Wilmington, etc. R.
Co. (2 Harr. (Del.) 514), 1303.
White Mts. & R. Co. v. Eastman
(34 N. H. 124), 312, 314, 316, 317,
318, 327, 334, 359, 362, 366, 434,
472.
White Mts. R. Co. v. White Mts.
etc. R. Co. (50 N. H. 50), 1910,
1949.
Whiteney v. Hovey (13 Ont. App.
7), 1767.
White Oak, etc. v. Murray (145
Mo. 622), 1233.
White River Turnpike Co. v. Vt.,
etc. Co. (21 Vt. 590), 1301.
White's Bk. v. Toledo, etc. Ins. Co.
(12 Ohio St. 621), 693.
TABLE OF CASES.
cclxxxvii
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
White's Case (3 De Gex & Sm.
157; L. R. 3 Eq. 186), 556, 575,
884.
White's Creek T. Co. v. Davidson
(3 Tenn. Ch. 396), 1919.
Whitesell v. Northampton Co. (49
Pa. St. 526), 712.
Whitesides v. Hunt (97 Ind. 191),
2115.
Whiteside v. Nyack, etc. (142 N.
Y. 585), 776, 2057.
Whitewater, etc. Canal Co. v. Val-
lett (21 How. 414), 1243, 1669,
1704, 1705, 1706, 1707.
Wliitfield V. Southeastern Ry. Co.
(El. B. & E. 115), 1494.
Whiting, In re (150 N. Y. 27),
34 L. R. A. 252; 55 Am. St. 640),
711, 746.
Whiting V. Elmira, etc. Assn. (45
N. Y. App. Div. ,349), 2028.
Whiting V. Town of West Point
(88 Va. 905; 29 Am. St. Rep.
750), 717.
Whitman v. Citizens' Bank (110
Fed. Rep. 503), 1942.
Whitman v. Granite Church (24
Me. 236), 467.
Whitman v. Holmes, etc. Co. (33
N. Y. Misc. Rep. 47), 2018.
Whitman v. Oxford Nat. Bk. (176
U. S. 559), 848.
Whitman v. Porter (107 Mass.
522), 162.
Whitney v. Butler (118 U. S. 655),
545, 557, 578.
Whitney v. Cammann (28 Jones &
S. 391; 137 N. Y. 342), 1135,
1136.
Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow (63
N. Y. 62), 1330, 1334, 1339, 1340,
1342, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1350, 1369,
1704.
Whitney Nat. Bank v. Parker (41
Fed. Rep. 402), 703, 705, 741,
743, 1890.
Whitney v. Wyman (101 U. S.
392), 68, 170, 173, 878, 1165,
1166, 1367.
Whiton V. Batchelder, etc. Corp.
(179 Mass. 169), 1562.
Whittaker v. Howe (3 Beav. 383),
1420.
Whittaker v. Masterson (12 N. E.
Rep. (N. Y.) 604), 1395.
Whittaker v. Smith (84 N. C. 340),
859.
Whittemore v. Amoskeag Bank
(26 Fed. Rep. 819), 822.
Whittenton Mills v. Upton (10
Gray
(76 Mass.), 582), 1292,
1295, 1296, 1426.
Whittlesey v. Frantz (74 N. Y.
456), 356.
Whitwell V. Continental Tobacco
Co. (125 Fed. Rep. 454; 64 L.
R. A. 689), 1455.
Whitwell V. Jacobs (75 Wis. 474),
447.
Whitwell V. Johnson (17 Mass.
245), 1297.
Whitwell V. Warner (20 Vt. 425),
168, 798, 1224, 1770.
Wiberg v. Minnesota (73 Minn.
297; 76 N. W. Rep. 37), 232.
Wichita Nat. Bk. v. Smith (72
Fed. Rep. 568), 1790.
Wickersham v. Brittan (93 Cal.
34; 15 L. R. A. 106), 1060.
Wickens v. Evans
(3 Y. & J. 318),
1415, 1425.
Wickersham v. Crittenden (93 Cal.
17), 1119.
Wickham v. Grant (28 Kan. 517),
365.
Wickham v. New Brunswick, etc.
Ry. Co. (L. R. 1 P. C. 64), 1712.
Wiemer v. Louisville, etc. Co. (130
Fed. Rep. (Ky.) 251), 1646.
Wiggin v. Freewill Baptist Church
(8 Mete. (49 Mass.) 301), 978,
981.
Wiggin v. Knights of P. (31 Fed.
Rep. 122), 223, 2067.
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago &
Alton R. Co. (73 Mo. 389), 1287,
1471, 1578.
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. City of B,
St. Louis (102 111. 560), 35.
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M.
Ry. Co. (142 U. S. 396), 1833.
Wight V. Lee (2 S. D. 596), 989.
Wight V. Shelby R. Co. (16 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 47; 63 Am. Dec.
522), 271, 274, 289, 339, 340, 362,
364, 366.
Wight V. Springfield, etc. R. Co.
(117 Mass. 226; 19 Am. Rep.
412), 1050, 1053.
Wilbur V. Stockholders (18 Bank.
Reg. 178; 29 Fed. Cas. 1189),
454, 459, 497, 898, 900, 903.
Wilcox, etc. Co. v. Mosher (114
Mich. 64), 1136.
Wilcox V. Nat. etc. Bk. (67 N. Y.
App. Div. 466), 1780.
Wild V. Passamaquoddy Bank (3
Mason (U. S.), 505). 1095.
Wilde V. Jenkins (4 Paige, 481),
1975.
cclxxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2131.]
Wilder V. Virginia, etc. Co. (40
1<V(1. Rep. (;7(i), 2041.
Wildman v. Wildman. (9 Ves.
174),
292.
Wilds V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. (102
N. Y. 410), 1073.
Wildy V. Mid-Hants Ry. Co. (0
Week. Rep. 409), 1732.
Wiles V. Suydam (04 N. Y. 173),
847, 903, 900, 949.
Wiley V. First Nat. Bk. of Brat-
tleboro (47 Vt. 550),
IGOl, 1602.
Wilgus V. Germain (72 Fed. Rep.
773), 793, 1532.
Wilhite V. Convent, etc. (78 S.
W. Rep. (Ky.) 138), 130, 1523.
Wilkesbarre, etc. Bank v. Wilkes-
barre (148 Pa. St. 601), 386,
715.
Wilkins v. Thorne (60 Md. 253),
480, 2030.
Wilkinson v. Banerle (41 N. J.
Eq. 635), 1099, 1100, 1706.
Wilkinson v. Delaware, etc. R. Co.
(22 Fed. Rep. 353), 2009, 2014.
Wilkinson v. Fleming (30
111.
353), 1710.
Wilkinson v. Lloyd (7 Q. B. 27),
615.
Wilkinson v. Providence Bank (3
R. L 22), 619.
Wilkinson v. Washington T. Co.
(102 Fed. Rep. 28), 1813.
Wilkinson's Case (L. R. 2 Ch.
App. 536), 941.
Willamette Manuf. Co. v. Bank
119 U. S. 191), 1577, 1959.
Willard v. Denise (50 N. J. Eq.
482), 1160.
Willard v. Pike (59 Vt. 202), 705.
Willard v. Spartinburg, etc. Co.
(124 Fed. Rep. (S. C.) 796),
1903.
Willcocks, Ex parte (7 Conn. 402;
17 Am. Dec. 524), 192, 264, 585,
1008, 1017, 1019, 1025.
Willey V. Parratt (3 Ex. 212), 378.
Willey V. Sargent (14 Am. Dec.
427), 395.
William H. Bailey, The (100 Fed.
Rep. 115), 1630.
William Rogers Manuf. Co. v. R.
W. Rogers Co. (66 Fed. Rep.
56), 127.
Williams' Case (L. R. 1 Ch. Div.
576), 551, 568, 587, 885.
Williams v. Bank of Michigan (7
Wend. 539), 26, 172, 2077.
Williams v. Boice (38 N. J. Eq.
364), 637, 045.
Williams v. Bruffy (96 U. S. 170),
42.
Williams v. Cheney
(3
Gray (09
Mass.), 215), 2003.
Williams v. Chester, etc. Ry. Co.
(15 Jur. 828), 1055.
Williams v. Citizens', etc. Co. (153
Ind. 496), 839, 939.
Williams v. City Electric St. Ry.
Co. (41 Fed. Rep. 550), 1002,
1003.
Williams v. Colby (53 Hun, 637),
1251.
Williams v. College, etc. Road (45
Ind. 170), 143, 144.
Williams v. Cresswell (51 Miss.
817), 26, 2004, 2005.
Williams v. Duanesburgh (66 N.
Y. 129), 283.
Williams v. Evans (87 Ala. 725;
6 L. R. A. 218), 520.
Williams v. Financial Corporation
(L. R. 10 Eq. 363), 983.
Williams v. Germantown Mut.
Fire Ins. Co. (68 111. 387), 983,
2068, 2069, 2072.
Williams v. Gold Hill, etc. Co. (96
Fed. Rep. 454; 186 U. S. 157),
1985, 1991.
Williams v. Harris (198 111. 501),
1150.
Williams v. Hanna (40 Ind. 535),
546, 561, 887, 890, 891.
Williams v. Plewitt (47 La. Ann.
1076), 173.
Williams v. Hintermeister (26
Fed. Rep. 889), 2029.
Williams v. Louisiana (103 U. S.
637), 40.
Williams v. Lowe (4 Neb. 382),
473, 001, 769, 1957, 2004.
Williams v. Mechanics' Bank (5
Blatchf. 59), 964.
Williams v. Metropolitan Railway
Co. (64 L. R. A. (Kan.) 794),
2026.
Williams v. Montgomery (68 Hun
(N. Y.), 416), 220, 1027, 1033.
Williams v. Morgan (111 U. S.
684), 1072, 1710, 1749, 1813, 1835.
Williams v. Mutual Gas. Co. (52
Mich. 499; 50 Am. Rep. 266),
1642.
Williams v. Page (24 Beav. 654),
1121.
Williams v. Parker (136 Mass.
204), 672, 682, 683.
Williams v. Planters' Ins. Co. (57
Miss. 759; 34 Am. Rep. 494),
1542, 1543.
TABLE OF CASES. cclxxxix
tReferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-150C; Vol. Ill, 1D07-2134.]
Williams v. Pullman Palace Car
(49 La. Ann. 87), 1484.
Williams v. Reynolds (7 Ind. 622),
959.
Williams v. Riley
(34 N. J. Eq.
398), 1126, 1151.
Williams v. Roberts (88 111. 11),
283.
Williams v. Savage Manuf. Co. (3
Md. Ch. 418), 252, 291, 653.
Williams v. Sherman (7 Wend.
112), 1679.
Williams v. Smith (2 Hill, 301),
1497, 1690.
Williams v. Stevens Pt. L. Co. (72
Wis. 487), 1524.
Williams v. Taylor (120 N. Y.
244), 454.
Williams v. Turner (88 N. W.
Rep. (Neb.) 668), 1773.
Williams v. Uncompahgre (13
Colo. 469; 22 Pac. Rep. (Colo.)
806), 1165.
Williams v. Union Bank (2
Humph. (Tenn.) 339), 166.
Williams v. Western U. Tel. Co.
(93 N. Y. 162), 236, 242, 246, 247,
248, 424, 624, 628, 633, 639, 1281.
Williams v. Wingo (177 U. S.
601), 1652.
Williams, Ex parte (L. R. 5 Ch.
309), 1851.
Williamson v. Canal Co. (78 N.
C. 156), 1491.
Williamson v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.
(53 Iowa, 126), 1588.
Williamson v. Kokomo, etc. Assn.
(89 Ind. 389), 159.
Williamson v. New Albany, etc. R.
Co. (1 Biss. 198; 30 Fed. Cas.
12), 1745.
Williamson v. New Jersey, etc. R.
Co. (29 N. J. Eq. 311; 28 N. J.
Eq. 277), 580, 1713, 1714, 1716,
1719, 1721, 1742.
Williamson v. Probas Co. (4
Halsted (N. J. L.), 571), 1738.
Williamson v. State of New Jer-
sey (130 U. S. 189), 37.
Williamson v. Wadsworth (49
Barb. 294), 858, 860.
Williamson v. Washington City,
.
etc. R. Co. (33 Gratt. 624), 1725.
Williamsport & Hagerstown Turn-
pike Co. V. Startzman (86 Md.
363), 46.
Willink v. Andrews (16 Ir. R. C.
L. 201), 1713.
Willis V. Bayley (19 Johns. (N.
Y.) 268), 148, 2035.
Willis V. Central Ry. Co. (41 N.
J. Eq.
5), 1086.
Willis V. Chapman (68 Vt. 459; 35
Atl. Rep. 459), 8, 2090.
Willis V. Child (13 Beav. 117),
785, 2058.
Willis V. Derbv Ry. Co. (6 W. (N.
C.) 461), 407.
Willis V. Fit (13 Phila. 33), 421.
Willis V. Mabon (48 Minn. 140; 16
L. R. A. 281; 31 Am. St. Rep.
626), 839, 840.
Willis V. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co.
(13 Phila. 34; 6 Week. N. Cas.
461), 412, 421.
Williston V. Michigan Southern R.
Co. (13 Allen (95 Mass.) 400),
625, 671, 674, 675.
Willock V. Pennsylvania R. R. Co.
(166 Pa. St. 184), 1636.
Willoughby v. Chicago, etc. Co.
(50 N. J. Eq. 656), 1458, 1514,
1536.
Willoughby v. Comstock (3 Hill
(N. Y.) 89), 586, 2092.
Wills V. Murray (4 Ex. 843; 19 L.
J. Ex. 209), 985, 986, 997.
Wilmer v. Atlanta, etc. R. Co. (2
Woods (U. S.), 409), 1734, 1741,
1745, 1871.
Wilmersdoerffer v. Lake Mahopac
Improvement Co. (18 Hun,
387), 1913.
Wilmington City Ry. v. People's
Ry. (47 Atl. Rep. (Del.) 245),
1413.
Wilmington City Ry. v. Wilming-
ton, etc. Ry. (46 Atl. Rep.
(Del.) 12), 1413.
Wilmington, etc. Co. v. Alsbrook
(146 U. S. 279; 110 N. C. 137),
714, 717, 719, 720, 721, 727.
Wilmington, etc. Co. v. Evans (166
111. 548; 46 N. E. Rep. 1083), 48.
Wilmington R. Co. v. Reid (13
Wall. 264), 38, 52, 114, 717, 718,
719, 722, 763.
Wilmington R. R. Co. v. Saunders
(3 Jones (N. C), 126), 68.
Wilmington, etc. -R. Co. v. Thomp-
son (7 Jones (N. C), 387), 342.
Wilmington & Reading R. Co. v.
Downward (14 Atl. Rep. (Del.)
720), 1762, 1823, 1961.
Wilson, Ex parte (L. R. 8 Ch. 45),
1121.
Wilson V. Bank of Montgomery
(29 Pa. St. 537), 653.
Wilson v. Boyce (92 U. S. 320),
1706, 1712.
ccxo
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. IT, C21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Wilson V. California, etc. Co. (95
Mich. 117), 1518.
Wilson V. Carter, etc. Co. (4G W.
Va. 4C9), 1252, 1294.
Wil.son V. Central Bridge (9 R. I.
590), 1013, 1948.
Wilson V. Church (13 Ch. Div. 1),
378.
Wilson V. Clements (3 Mass. 1),
682.
Wilson V. Furness Ry. Co. (L. R.
9 Eq. 28), 1557.
Wilson V. Gaines (3 Tenn. Ch.
602), 1256.
Wilson V. Griess (90 N. W. Rep.
(Neb.) 866), 1289.
Wilson V. Hundley (96 Va. 96),
320.
Wilson V. Kings Co. Elevated R.
Co. (114 N. Y. 487), 1081.
Wilson V. Leary (120 N. C. 90; 58
Am. St. Rep. 778; 38 L. R. A.
240), 1786, 1980.
Wilson V. Little (2 N. Y. 443; 51
Am. Dec. 307), 420, 580, 582, 586.
Wilson V. McCullough (23 Pa. St.
440), 1163.
Wilson V. Merchants, etc. Co. (98
Fed. Rep. 688), 561.
Wilson V, Martin-Wilson, etc. Co.
(149 Mass. 24), 2023.
Wilson V. Metropolitan Ry. Co. (24
N. E. Rep. 384; 120 N. Y. 145;
17 Am. St. Rep. 625), 1197.
Wilson V. Miers (10 C. B. (N. S.)
348), 1949.
Wilson V. Perry (1 S. E. Rep. (W.
Va.) 302), 2123.
Wilson V. Pittsburg, etc. Coal Co.
(43 Pa. St. 424), 919.
Wilson V. Proprietors, etc. Bridge
(9 R. I. 590), 571.
Wilson V. Rogers (1 Wyo. 51),
1126.
Wilson V. St. Louis, etc. Co. (108
Mo. 588; 18 S. W. Rep. 286),
220, 964.
Wilson V. Salamanca (99 U. S.
499), 299.
Wilson V. Seligman (36 Fed. Rep.
154), 843.
Wilson V. Stevens (129 Ala. 630),
1772.
Wilson V. Stockholders (43 Pa. St.
424), 919.
Wilson V. Tallahassee, etc. Com-
pany
(36 So. Rep. (Tex.) 63),
1645.
Wilson V. The Blackbird, etc. Co.
(2 Pet. 245), 1027, 1309, 1313.
Wilson V. Trenton, etc. R. R. Co.
(56 N. J. Eq. 783), 1214.
Wilson V. Welch (157 Mass. 77),
17S5, 1793.
Wil.son V. Wills Valley R. Co. (33
Ga. 466), 111, 461.
Wilson V. West Hartlepool Ry. Co.
(2 De Gex, J. & S. 475), 1332.
Wilson Cotton Mills v. Randle-
man, etc. Mills (115 N. C. 475),
879
Wilson's Case (20 L. T. N. S. 962;
L. 8 Eq. 240), 280, 573.
Wilt V. Reed, etc. Co. (187 Pa. St.
424), 1792.
Wil thank's Appeal (64 Pa. St.
256), 241, 647.
Wiltz V. Peters (4 La. Ann. 339),
999.
Winans v. Gibbs, etc. Manuf. (48
Kan. 777), 1791.
Winburg v. United States, etc. Co.
(173 Mass. 60), 2019.
Winch V. Birkenhead Ry. Co. (5
De G. & Sm. 562; 16 Jur. 1035),
1356, 1581, 1704, 1848, 1851, 1852,
1861.
Winchester, etc. Co. v. Croxton
(98 Ky. 739; 33 L. R. A. 177),
1658.
Windmuller v. Standard Oil, etc.
Co. (114 Fed. Rep. 491), 1.S66.
Wincock v. Turpin (96 HI. 135),
840, 874, 899, 900.
Windham Prov. Inst. v. Sprague
(43 Vt. 302), 832, 842, 909, 911.
Windsor, etc. Co. v. Tandy (66 Vt.
248; 44 Am. St. Rep. 838), 505.
Wineburgh v. United States, etc.
Co. (173 Mass. 60; 73 Am. St.
Rep. 261), 2016.
Winfield v. Barton (2 Dowl. (N
S.) 355), 863.
Wing V. Harvey
(5 De G., M. T
G. 265), 1159.
Wing V. Holland Trust Co. (5 N
Y. Supp. 384), 582.
Winget V. Assn. (128 HI. 67; 2]
N. E. Rep. 12), 158.
Winget V. Quincy, etc. Assn. (128
111. 67), 1520.
Wingfield v. Peel (12 L. J. Q. B.
(N. S.) 102), 863.
Winkler v. Winkler (40 III. 179),
1747.
Winn V. Macon (21 Ga. 275), 297.
Winn V. Wabash R. R. (118 Fed.
Rep. 55), 31, 136, 2039.
Winona, etc. Co. v. Blake (94 U.
S. 180), 1383, 1487.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXCl
[References are to pages: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, C21-150G; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Winona, etc. R. Co. v. St. Paul,
etc. R. Co. (23 Minn. 359), 78.
Winslow V. Fletcher (53 Conn.
390), 263, 386, 957, 958.
Winslow V. Staten Island, etc. R.
Co. (2 N. Y. Supp. 682), 1519.
Winsor, Ex parte (3 Story (C. C),
411), 456.
Winsteci Hosiery Co. v. New Brit-
ain K. Co. (69 Conn. 565), 1253.
Winston v. Brooks (129 111. 64),
318.
Winston v. Dorset, etc. Co. (129
111. 64; 4 L. R. A. 507), 320, 482.
Winston v. Tennessee (57 Tenn.
60), 297.
WinKtoue's Case (12 Ch. Div. 251),
115.
Winter v. Baldrom (89 Ala. 483),
142.
Winter v. Belmont, etc. Co. (53
Cal. 428), 393.
Winter v. City Council (65 Ala.
403), 267.
Winter v. MontgomeiT Gas Lioflit
Co. (8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 244;
89 Ala. 544), 394.
Winter v. Mississippi & 0. R. R.
(20 Ark. 463), 205.
Winter v. Muscogee, etc. Co. (11
Ga. 438), 96, 110, 113, 346, 347,
461, 1356.
Winters v. Armstrong
(87 Fed.
Rep. 508), 246, 306, 668, 952,
1376.
Winters v. Drake (102 Fed. Rep.
545), 1790.
Winters v. Globe, etc. Bank of Chi-
cago (171 Mass. 425), 1810.
Winters v. Hub M. Co. (57 Fed.
Rep. 287), 1214, 1215.
Winton v. Little (94 Pa. St. 64),
1371.
Wintringham v. Rosenthal (25
Hun, 520), 558, 559.
Wisconsin, etc. Co. v. Jacobson
(179 U. S. 287), 224, 1395.
Wisconsin, etc. Co. v. Milwaukee
(95 AVis. 153; 36 L. R. A.
55),
14, 16.
Wisconsin T. Co. v. Oskosh (62
Wis. 32), 57, 87, 1623.
Wise V. Miller (45 Ohio St. 389),
833.
Wishard v. Hansen & Co. (99
Iowa, 307), 402, 445, 810.
Wist V. Grand Lodge (22 Oreg.
271; 29 Am. St. Rep. 603), 196,
215.
Witham v. Cohan (100 Ga. 670),
1030.
Witherhead
v. Allen (4 Abb. App.
Dec. 628; 3 Keyes (N. Y.),
562),
868, 2092.
Witherow v. Slayback (158 N. Y.
649), 1136.
Withers v. Edwards (62 S. W.
Rep. (Tenn.)
795), 1027, 1030.
Witmer v. Schlatter (2 Rawle
(Pa.)
359), 168, 181, 1224.
Witte V. Steere
(13 Yes. Jr. 363),
649, 650.
Wittenden Mills v. Upton (10
Gray
(76 Mass.),
582), 1291.
Witter V. Mississippi, etc. R. Co.
(20 Ark.
463), 109, 112.
Wittei-s V. Sovvies (25 Fed. Rep.
168), 567, 570.
Witters v. Sowles (52 Fed. Rep.
767), 292, 493, 574, 575, 1923.
Wittman v. Concordia, etc. Assn.
(13 Phila.
95), 336.
Woerz V. Schumacher (37 N. Y.
App. Div. 374), 817, 1793.
Wolf V. Davenport, etc. R. R. (93
Iowa, 218), 1204.
Wolf V. Lancaster (56'Atl. Rep.
(N. J.) 172), 2028.
Wolf V. Pennsylvania R. Co. (195
Pa. St. 91), 7.
Wolfe V. Pierce (23 Ind. App.
591),
1798.
Wolf V. Stix (99 U. S. 1), 564.
Wolf Co. V. Western U. T. Co. (24
Pa. Sup. Ct. 129), 1626.
Wolfe V. Underwood (91 Ala. 523),
11.
Wolford V. Crystal Lake Cem.
Assn. (54 Minn. 440), 1245.
Wolfskehl V. Vv^estern U. T. Co.
(46 Hun (N. Y.), 542), 1620.
Wollner v. Lehman (85 Ala. 273),
962.
Wolverhampton, etc. Co. -v.
Hawkesford (7 Com. B. (N. S.)
795), 279, 467, 914.
Wolverton v. Taylor (23 N. E.
Rep. (111.) 1007), 1143.
Woman's C. T. Union v. Taylor
(8
Colo. 75), 1079.
Women's C. O. F. v. Condon (84
111. App. 564), 194.
Wonderly v. Booth (36 N. J. L.
250), 882.
Wontner v. Shairp
(4 C. B. 404),
333.
Wood V. Argyll (6 Macn. & G.
928), 175.
ccxcu
TABLE OF CASES.
[References are to pages: Vol. I. 1-C19; Vol. II. 621-1506; Vol. III. 1507-2134.]
Woofl V. Auburn (87 Me. 287),
1G48.
Wood V. Bedford, etc. R. Co. (8
Phila. 94), 1253, 1255, 1G99, 1848,
1851.
Wood V. Chamber of Com. etc. (96
N. W. Rep. (Wis.) 835), 769,
2063.
Wood V. Com'rs. of Oxford (97
N. C. 277), 297. 1
Wood V. Coosa, etc. R. Co. (32 Ga.
273), 282. 467.
Wood V. Corry, etc. Co. (44 Fed.
Rep. 146), 439, 1341, 1511.
Wood V. Di-aper (24 Barb. 187),
2078.
Wood V. Dummer (3 Mason, 308),
240, 445, 446, 447, 515, 645, 678,
875, 903, 912, 913, 1128, 1975.
Wood V. Friendship, etc. (106 Ky.
424), 153.
Wood V. Goodwin (49 Me. 260; 77
Am. Dec. 259), 1710.
Wood V. Guarantee T. Co. (128 U.
S. 416), 1219, 1220, 1686.
Wood Harvester Co. v. Jefferson
(71 Minn. 367), 387.
Wood Hydraulic, etc. v. King (45
Ga. 34), 987, 992.
Wood V. Lary (124 N. Y. 83), 1694.
Wood V. Lost Lake Manuf. Co.
(23 Oreg. 20), 1068.
Wood V. Manchester, etc. Co. (54
N. Y. App. Div. 522), 1027.
Wood V. Meyer (7 So. Rep. (Miss.)
359), 1700.
Wood V. New York, etc. R. R. (70
Fed. Rep. 741), 1723.
Wood V. Oregon, etc. Co. (55 Fed.
Rep. 901), 1779.
Wood V. Smith (92 Pa. St. 379),
390.
Wood V. Union Gospel, etc. Assn.
(63 Wis. 9), 116, 398, 820, 824,
825.
Wood V. Whelen (93 111. 153), 1084,
1167, 1175, 1702.
Wood V. Wiley, etc. Co. (56 Conn.
87), 156, 1046.
Wood V. Wood (L. R. 9 Exch. 190),
804.
Wood, etc. Co. V. Colwell (54 Ind.
270), 1992.
Woodbury v. McClurg (78 Miss.
831), 881.
Woodbury, etc. Co. v. Loudens-
lager (55 N. J. Eq. 78), 1213,
1217.
Wooden v. Wooden (2 Green. (N.
J.) Ch. 429), 1747.
Woodfork v. Union Bank, etc. (3
Coldw. (Tenn.) 488), 110, 244,
1817.
Woodhaven Bank v. Brooklyn (69
N. Y. App. Div. 489), 141.
Woodhouse v. Commonwealth Ins.
Co. (54 Pa. St. 307), 54.
Woodhouse v. Crescent Mutual
Ins. Co. (35 La. Ann. 238), 598,
603, 608.
Woodkirk v. Union Bank (3
Coldw. (Tenn.) 488), 103.
Woodman v. Simons (20 How.
36G), 1686.
Woodrough, etc. Co. v. Witte (89
Wis. 537), 124.
Woodruff v. Bradstreet Co. (6 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. (N. Y.) 475), 1496,
1497.
Woodruff V. Dubuque, etc. R. Co.
(30 Fed. Rep. 91), 1020, 1021,
1022, 1035.
Woodruff V. Erie Ry. Co. (93 N.
Y. 609), 1560, 1566, 1569, 1573,
1576, 1848, 1855, 1868.
Woodruff V. Erie Ry. Co, (25 Hun,
246), 1565.
Woodruff V. Howes (88 Cal. 184),
1515.
Woodruff V. McDonald (33 Ark.
97), 269.
Woodruff V. New York, etc.
'"
Ry.
(129 N. Y. 27), 1749.
Woodruff V. Trapnall (10 How.
190), 54.
Woodruff, etc. Works v. Chitten-
den (4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 406), 906,
926.
Wood's Appeal (92 Pa. St. 379),
390, 392, 571.
Wood's Claim (9 Week. Rep. 366),
427.
Woods, etc. Co. v. Brady (39 N.
Y. Misc. 79), 502.
Woods V. Lawrence County
(1
Black (U. S.), 386), 1674, 1684.
Woods V. Oregon, etc. Co. (55
Fed. Rep. 901), 1746.
Woods V. Pittsburg, etc. R. Co.
(99 Pa. St. 101), 1752.
Woods V. Wicks (7 Lea (Tenn.),
40), 832, 833, 835, 844, 846.
Woodson V. Murdock (22 Wall.
351), 1706.
Woodstock Iron Co. v. Extension
Co. (129 U. S. 643), 1558.
Woodworth v. Bowles (61 Kan.
569), 895.
Woolford V. Crystal Lake Cem.
Assn. (54 Minn. 440), 1665.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXCIU
rHeferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-G19; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, i;)07-2t34.]
Wooley V. Pole (4 B. & A. 1), 1682.
Woolfolk V. January
(131 Mo.
620), 384.
Woollaston's Case (4 Do G. & J.
437), 480, 942.
Woolsey v. Independent Order,
etc. (1 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas.
172), 744, 2055.
Woonsocket Union R. Co. v. Sher-
man (8 R. I. 564), 305, 310, 311,
324.
Wooster v. Trowbridge (115 Fed.
Rep. 722), 1793.
Wooster, Bank of, v. Stevens (1
Ohio St. 233; 59 Am. St. Dec.
619), 919.
Worcester v. Western R. Co. (4
Mete. (45 Mass.) 566), 1262.
Worcester Corn Exchange, In re
(3 De Gex, M. & G. 180), 1123.
Worcester Med. Inst. v. Harding
(11 Cush. (65 Mass.) 285), 68.
Worcester, etc. R. Co. v. Hinds
(62 Mass. 110), 314, 455.
Workingmen's Building Associa-
tion V. Coleman (89 Pa. St.
428), 80.
Workingmen's Banking Co. v. Rau-
tenberg (103 111. 460; 42 Am.
Rep. 26), 1269.
Workman v. Campbell (46 Mo.
305), 1471, 1588.
Works V. Barber (106 Pa. St. 125),
1501.
World, etc. Co. v. Hamilton, Ken-
wood, etc. Co. (123 Mich. 620),
437.
World's Fair, etc. R. R. (77 Md.
92),
World's Fair, etc. Co. v. Gasch
(162 111. 402), 325, 945.
Woroneik v. Pairskiego (50 Atl.
Rep. (Conn.) 562), 123.
Worrall v. Judson (5 Barb. 210),
555, 568, 886, 889.
Worth, etc. Co. v. Bingham (116
Fed. Rep. 785), 818.
Worth V. Wilmington, etc. Co. (89
N. C. 291; 45 Am. Rep. 679),
722.
Worthen v. Griffith (59 Ark. 562),
1766.
Worthington, The (19 Fed. Rep.
840), 39.
Worthington v. Schuylkill, etc.
Ry. (195 Pa. St. 211), 1187.
Wortley v. Nottingham, etc. (21
L. J. N. S. 582), 204.
Wrav V. Hazlett (6 Phila. 155),
1799.
Wright V. Bundy
(11 Ind. 398),
987, 992, 1707.
Wright V. Central California, etc.
Co. (67 Cal. 532), 398, 560, 822,
1022, 1024, 1192.
Wright V. Commonwealth (109 Pa.
St. 560), 796, 1022, 1045, 1047.
Wright V. Horton (12 App. Cas.
371), 1720.
Wright V. Hughes (119 Ind. 528),
1260, 1262, 1265, 1328, 1331.
Wright V. Kentucky, etc. Ry. (117
U. S. 172), 1722.
Wright V. Knoxville, etc. Co. (59
S. W. Rep. (Tenn.) 677), 1749.
Wright V. Lee (2 S. D. 596), 177,
1766.
Wright V. McCormack (17 Ohio
St. 86), 862, 907, 1796, 1799.
Wright V. Nagle (101 U. S. 791),
40, 61, 63.
Wright V. Orsville Min. Co. (40
Cal. 20), 800, 1084.
Wright V. Pipe Line Co. (101 Pa.
St. 204; 47 Am. Rep. 701), 1341,
1431.
Wright V. Rider (33 Cal. 242),
1416.
Wright V. Shelby R. Co. (16 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 4; 63 Am. Dec. 522),
281.
Wright V. Supr. Com. (87 Ga. 426;
13 S. E. Rep. 564), 194.
Wricrht V. Tuckett (1 Johns & PI.
266), 629.
Wrignt Y. v'ermont, etc. R. Co. (12
Cush. (66 Mass.) 68), 662, 665.
Wright, etc. Co. v. Hixon (105
Wis. 153), 693.
Wright's Appeal (99 Pa. St. 425),
398, 421, 1192.
Wright's Appeal (94 Mo. 410),
560.
Wright's Case (L. R. 12 Eq. 331),
329, 331, 335.
Wrysgan Slate Quarry Co., In re
(28 L. J. Ch. 875), 542.
Y\^utsen v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. (4
Hun, 529), 171G, 1741, 1742.
Wyant v. Central, etc. Co. (123
Mich. 51),
1626.
Wyandotte v. Corrigan (35 Kan.
21), 1151, 1154.
Wyeth, etc. Co. v. Standard, etc.
Co. (47 Kan. 423), 1770.
Wyland Steam Fuel Co. v. Street
(10 Ex. 849; 24 L. J. Ex. 208),
483.
Wylie V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. (41
Fed. Rep. 623), 1687.
CCXCIV
TABLE OF CASES.
[Ri^ferences are to pages: Vol. I, 1-C19; Vol. II, G21-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Wyman v. American Powder Co.
(8 Cush. (62 Mass.) 168), 381,
400, 850.
Wyman v. Bowman (127 Fed. Rep.
(Iowa) 257), 302, 853, 1110,
1771.
Wyman v. City of St. Louis (17
Mo. (335), 724.
Wyman v. Citizens' Nat. Bk. (29
Fed. Rep. 734), 1272.
Wyman v. Eaton (107 Iowa, 214;
43 L. R. A. CDS), 1811.
Wyman v. Hallovvell, etc. Banlv
(14 Mass. 57; 7 Am. Dec. 194),
1197, 1819.
Wyman v. Williams (53 Neb. 670),
921.
Wynne v. Price (3 De G. & Sm.
310), 568, 888.
Wyoming Fair Assn. v. Talbott (3
Wyo. 244; 21 Pac. Rep. 700),
966.
Wyscaver v. Atkinson (37 Ohio St.
80), 1593.
Y.
Yarborough v. Bank of England
(16 East. 6),
1539.
Yardley v. Clothier (51 Fed. Rep.
506; 2 C. C. A. 349; 17 L. R. A.
462), 1793.
Yardley v. Wilgus (56 Fed. Rep.
965), 557.
Yates V. Boston, etc. R. Co. (53
Conn. 33), 17G3.
Yates V. People (207 111. 352), 72.
Yazoo, etc. Co. v. Adams (180 U.
S. 1; 187 U. S. 258; 21 Sup. Ct.
240; 77 Miss. 194), 727, 1564.
Yazoo R. Co. v. Thomas (132 U.
S. 174), 720.
Yeager v. Wallace (44 Pa. St.
294), 1748.
Yeaton v. United States (5 Cranch,
281), 846.
Yeiser v. United States, etc. Co.
(107 Fed. Rep. 340; 52 L. R. A.
724), 1184.
Yellow Jacket, etc. Manufacturing
Co. V. Stevenson (5 Nev. 224),
1055.
Yerkes v. Saloman (11 Hun, 471),
2114.
Yetts V. Norfolk Ry. Co. (3 De G.
& Sm. 293), 455.
Yoe V. Mutual Ben. Assn. (63 Md.
86), 2070.
Yonkers Gazette Co. v. Taylor (30
App. Div. (N. Y.) 334), 276.
Yool V. Great Western Ry. Co. (20
L. T. (N. S.) 74), 644.
York County Mut. Aid, etc. Soc.
V. Meyers (11 Week. Notes, 541),
2068.
York County Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v.
Knight (48 Me. 75), 2069.
York County v. Small (1 Watts
& S. (Pa.) 320), 1095.
York, etc. R. Co. v. Hudson (16
Beav. 485), 1099, 1108.
York. etc. R. Co. v. Pratt (40 Me.
447), 312.
York, etc. R. Co. v. Ritchie (40
Me. 425), 476, 477, 1088.
York, etc. R. Co. v. Winans (17
How. 30), 1262, 1569.
York V. North Midland R. Co. (19
Eng. L. & Eq. 361), 1103.
York V. Passaic Rolling Mill Co.
(30 Fed. Rep. 471), 379, 386.
Yorkshire Ry. Wagon Co. v. Ma-
dura (21 Ch. Div. 309), 1706.
Youghiogheny Shaft Co. v. Evans
(72 Pa. St. 331), 842.
Youghiogheny Bridge Co. v. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. R. (201 Pa. St.
457), 1307, 1653.
Youmans v. Minnesota, etc. Co.
(67 Fed. Rep. 282), 2017.
Younce v. Home, etc. Co. (79 S.
W. 175), 1059.
Young V. Bank of Alexandria'
(4
Cranch (U. S.), 384), 45.
Young V. Brice (18 N. Y. St. Rep.
945), 867, 926, 927.
Young V. Erie Iron Co. (65 Mich.
Ill), 436, 438, 512, 514, 558, 559,
500, 561, 85S.
Young V. Farwell (139 111. 326),
1810.
Young V. Grand Lodge, etc. (173
Pa. St. 302), 779, 780.
Young V. Improvement, etc. Assn.
(48 W. Va. 512), 1767.
Young V. McKay (50 Fed. Rep.
394), 886.
Young Men's Christian Assn. v.
Dubach (82 Mo. 475), 1523.
Young Men's, etc. Assn. v. Doug-
las County (83 N. W. Rep.
(Nev.) 924),
Young V. Montgomery, etc. R. Co.
(2 Woods (U. S.), 606), 1737,
1738, 1739.
Young V. Moses (53 Ga. 638), 1949,
1975.
Young V. Mough (23 N. J. Eq.
325), 693.
Young V. Northern Illinois, etc.
TABLE OF CASES. CCXCV
[References are to pa^es: Vol. I, 1-619; Vol. II, 621-1506; Vol. Ill, 1507-2134.]
Co. (9 Biss. (U. S.) 305; 13
Fed. Rep. 809), 1717.
Young V. Rosenbaum (39 Cal.
646), 868, 910, 926.
Young V. South Tredegar Iron Co.
(85 Tenn. 189; 4 Am. St. Rep.
752), 386, 387, 388, 392, 549, 611,
957, 958, 960, 962, 1999, 2001.
Young V. Stevenson (ISO 111. 608),
1513.
Young, etc. Co. v. Young, etc. Co.
(72 Fed. Rep. 62), 879.
Younglove v. Lime Co. (49 Ohio
St. 663), 950.
Younglove v. Steinman (80 Cal.
375), 495, 982.
Youngman v. Blmira, etc. R. Co.
(65 Pa. St. 278), 712, 716.
Young Men's Christian Assn. v.
Dubach (82 Mo. 475), 1523.
Youtsey v. Hoffman (108 Fed. Rep.
693), 1793, 2042.
Yuengling Brewing, etc. Co., In re
(24 N. Y. App. Div. 223; 49 N.
Y. Supp. 12), 1967.
z.
Zabrislde v. Cleveland, etc. R. R.
(23 How. 381), 296, 401, 441, 828,
986, 1274, 1278, 1297, 1298, 13:^8,
1353, 1361, 1367, 1674.
Zabriskie v. Hackensack, etc. R.
Co. (18 N. J. Eq. 178; 90 Am.
Dec. 617), 38, 804, 828, 1353,
1861, 1948.
Zabriskie v. Smith (13 N. Y. 322),
1795.
Zacher v. Fidelity, etc. Co. (106
Fed. Rep. 593; 45 C. C. A. 480),
1811, 1812.
Zanesville v. ZanesviHe Gas L. Co.
(47 Ohio, 1; 25 N. E. Rep. 55),
61.
Zang v. Adams (23 Colo. 408), 936.
Zang V. Wyant (25 Colo. 551; 71
Am. St. Rep. 145), 1944.
Zebley v. Farmers', etc. Co. (139
N. Y. 461), 1761.
Zehren v. Milwaukee, etc. Co. (99
Wis. 83), 1607.
Zeiss V. Potter (105 Fed. Rep. (C.
C. A.) 671), 1160.
Zeliff V. Grand Lodge, etc. (53 N.
J. L. 536), 788, 2062.
Ziegler v. Lake, etc. R. R. (69
Fed. Rep. 176), 1026.
Ziegler v. Hoagland (32 Hun, 385),
1070, 1475.
Zicr V. Hofflin (33 Minn. 66), 1496.
Zimmer v. Schleehauf (115 Mass.
52), 850.
Zimmer v. State (30 Ark. 677),
1850, 1881, 1885, 1890, 1891.
Zinc, etc. Co. v. First Nat. Bk. etc.
(103 Wis. 125; 74 Am. St. Rep.
845), 1492, 1502.
Zion, etc. Assn. v. Mayo (22 Mont.
100; 55 Pac. Rep. 19), 1986, 1991,
1993, 2017.
Zinn
Y.
Baxter (65 Ohio St. 341),
1511.
Zinn V. Mendel (9 W. Va. 580),
1129.
Zirkel v. Joliet Opera House Co.
(79 111. 334), 325, 334, 884.
Zoetman v. San Francisco (20
Cal. 96), 1343.
Zulueta's Claim (L. R. 5 Ch. 444),
553, 554.
THE
LAW OF PPJY/VTE
CORrORATIONS
CHAPTER I.
DEFINITION. NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
1. Definitions of corporation.
2. Nature and theory of incor-
poration.
3. Test whether it is a cor-
poration. Attributes.
4. Perpetual succession.
5. Legal fiction of separate
corporate entity.
6. Unincorporated companies,
etc., distinguished from.
6a, Joint-stock companies dis-
tinguished from corpora-
tions.
7. Corporation distinguished
from partnership.
8. Corporation as a "person,"
"citizen,' "resident," etc.
9. Classes of corporations.
10. Sole and aggregate corpora-
tions.
11. Eleemosynary or charitable
corporations.
12. Ecclesiastical and lay cor-
porations.
13. Corporations for religious
purposes.

14. Public corporations.

15. Municipal corporations.
16. Quasi-puhlic corporations.
17. Corporations for internal
improvement.
18. Stock and non-stock cor-
porations.
20. Business corporations.
21. Trading corporations.
22. Mercantile corporations.
23. Manufacturing corpora-
tions.
24. Industrial corporations.
25. Moneyed corporations.
26. Banking corporations.
27. Trust companies.
28. Transportation corpora-
tions.
29. Insurance corporations.
30. Beneficial corporations,
mutual benefit societies.
31. Building and loan associa-
tions.
32. Literary and educational
corporations.
33. Scientific corporations.
References
:
Unincorporated associations. Chapter 57, Sections 1361-1423.
Perpetual succession, Powers. Sections 79 and 821.
Colleges and universities. Section 1413.
Cemetery corporations. Section 1136.

I. Definitions of corporation.The attempts to define cor-

poration are very numerotis. Chief Justice Marshall's cele-
brated definition, to the extent that it is "an artificial being-, in-
visible, intangible and existing only in contemplation of law,"
^
asfrees with Lord Coke that "it is invisible, immortal and rests
1
Dartmouth College v. "Woodward, 4 Wheat, 518 (1819).
1
2
DKKIMTION, iNATl IM-; AM) CLASSICS OF CORPORATIONS.
[
1.
onlv in intendment and consideration of the law." He adds:
"'J'licv can't commit treason, nor be outlawed, nor excommuni-
cated, for they have no souls, neither can they appear in per-
son, but by attorney."
^
The opinion of Chief Baron Alanwood was this, as touch-
ing- corporations, "that they are invisible, immortal, and that
they have no soul . . . none can create souls but God, but
the king creates (corporations) and therefore they have no
sOuls."
^
The immortality ascribed to a corporation means
only its capacity to take in perpetual succession, so long as it
exists, the fact being that most corporations now created are
limited in duration to a few years.
Definitions often overlook the view that a corporation may
be constituted by law out of either natural persons, or of arti-
ficial persons, or a mixture of both ; that the individuals of
one corporation may compose another and distinct corpora-
tion, as the president and directors of one bank, or any of
them, may be the incorporated managers of any other institu-
tion.
The United States Supreme Court defines a corporation as:
"An association of individuals, acting as a single person . . .
united for some common purpose . . . and permitted by
the law to use a common name and to change its members
without a dissolution of the association."
*
"A corporation
aggregate is an artificial, intellectual being, the mere creature
of the' law, composed generally of natural persons in their
natural capacity, but may be composed of persons in their po-
litical capacity of members of other corporations."
^
The federal court's definition is : "A corporation is an arti-
ficial person created by law as the representation of those per-
sons, artificial or natural, who contribute to, or become holders
of shares in the property entrusted to it for a common purpose.
As it is the creature of positive law, its rights, powers and
duties are prescribed by the law. Beyond the legitimiate pur-
pose which it was created to serve, and the lines of limitation,
which the law has drawn around it, it is without the power
to act or capacity to fake."
"^
2
Sutton's Hospital Case, 10 Coke
e
Regents of Univ. v. "Williams,
Rep. 132 (1613). 9 Gill. & J. (Md.) 365.
3 Tipling V. Pexall, 2 Bulst, 233 g
Andrews Bros. v. Youngstown
(1613). Coke Co., 86 Fed. 585.
i
United States v. Trinidad Coal
Co., 137 U. S. 160 (1890).
P
2-5.] DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 3

2. Nature and theory of incorporation.The nature and

theory of incorporation is the creation, under legislative grant,
of an artificial person, having the essential attributes of a cor-
poration, among other things, having capacity to receive and
enjoy, by its corporate name, such other franchises, privileges
and immunities, as the legislature may grant to it for special
purposes.
Such artificial person is a collection of natural persons united
in one body, with succession of members, without changing
the identity of the body, and capable of transacting business
like a natural person, but without power to act except through
living agents.'^

3.
Test whether it is a corporation. Attributes of a cor-
poration.If the essential faculties are conferred upon a com-
pany it is a corporation notwithstanding express legislative
declaration to the contrary.^
The powers and faculties of a corporation essential to it are
:
Capacity of perpetual succession, power to take and grant
property and make contract, power to sue and be sued in its
corporate name, power to receive and enjoy grants of privi-
leges and immunities.^

4.
Perpetual succession.The distinguishing feature of a
common-law corporation is its attribute of perpetual succes-
sion, that is, as an artificial person, its rights; and the duties
which its members owe it, remain the sam.e, while the succes-
sion of its members goes on. It is "as a person that never dies
;
in like manner as the river Thames is still the same river,
though the parts which compose it are changing every in-
s'tant."
"

5.
Legal fiction of separate corporate entity.

^The legal
fiction theory of a separate corporate entity, as an artificial
person, apart from its members, is merely figurative descrip-
tion of a corporation, but the separate personality of the cor-
poration was fully recognized by the English common law,
and is the prevailing theory of Am.erican courts.
"
Cupps V. Hastings, etc. Co., 40 Inhab. of New Yarmouth, 34 Me.
Neb. 470 (1894), 58 Neb. 956, 42 41 (1852), 56 Am. Dec. 666.
Am. St. Rep. 677; Southern Pac.
s
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend.
Ry. Co. V. Orton, 32 Fed. 457 (N. Y.) 9.
(1879); People v. Assessors of Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend.
Watertown, 1 Hill. (N. Y.) 616 (N. Y.) 9.
(1841); Inhab. of Yarmouth v.
10
State v. Hannibal, etc. Ry. Co.,
138 Mo. 332, Blackstone Com. 468.
4 DKKIMTION, NATURE AND CLASSPIS OF CORPORATIONS.
[ 5.
And, though the strictly law courts treat the corporation as
an entity, without regard to its membership, it is, neverthe-
less, in fact, an association of ])ersons, and courts of equity so
regard it. Its rights and obligations are those of the indixidual
shareholders who compose the corporation, and courts of
equity generally regard it as an association of persons.
^^
Chief Justice Marshall's much quoted definition of a cor-
poration
^-
has, on the one hand, been made the subject of
much criticism within recent years, both by judges and text-
writers, who maintain that the fiction of a legal person, as
they term it, has survived its usefulness,^^ while, on the other
hand, there is much authority for a strict insistence upon the
earlier and more artificial theory of a body corporate, as a dis-
tinct and personal entity.^* Although a corporation is, in a
iiMuller V. Dows, 94 U. S. 444;
People V. North, etc. Co., 121 N. Y.
582, 18 Am. St. Rep. 843, 9 L. R.
A. 33; State v. Standard Oil Co.,
49 Ohio, 137, 34 Am. St. Rep. 541,
15 L. R. A. 145.
12
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
ward (1819), 17 U. S. 636, 4
Wheat. 518. The quotation in the
text is from that eminent jurist's
opinion in the Dartmouth College
Case, the passage in full being as
follows:

"A corporation is an
artificial being, invisible, intangi-
ble, and existing only in contemp-
lation of law. Being the mere
creature of law it possesses only
those properties which the charter
of its creation confers upon it,
either expressly or as incidental
to its very existence. These are
such as are supposed best to effect
the object for which it was created.
Among the most important are
immortality, and, if the expression
may be allowed, individuality;
properties by which a perpetual
succession of many persons are
considered as the same^ and may
act as a single individual. They
enable a corporation to manage its
own affairs, and to hold property
without the perplexing intricacies,
the hazardous and endless neces-
sity of perpetual conveyances for
the purpose of transmitting from
hand to hand. It is chiefly for
the purpose of clothing bodies of
men in succession with these qual-
ities and capacities, that corpora-
tions were invented and are in
use. By these means a perpetual
succession of individuals are cap-
able of acting for the promotion
of the particular object, like one
immortal being. But this be.ing
does not share in the civil govern-
ment of the country, unless that
be the purpose for which it was
created." Dartmouth College v.
Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518.
13
Mr. Taylor, in his admirable
treatise on the law of Corpora-
tions, says: "It is the opinion of,
the writer that the fiction of the
'legal person' has outlived its use-
fulness, and is no longer adequate
for the purposes of an accurate
treatment of the legal relations
arising through the prosecution of
a corporate enterprise. By dis-
missing this fiction, a clearer view
may be had of the actual human
beings interested, whose rights
may then be determined without
unnecessary mystification." Taylor
on Corporations, preface.
!!
Commenting upon Mr. Tay-
lor's work, Prof. Pomeroy says:

"The author has here' touched

upon, although he has not fully
developed, a fact which, in our

5.]
DEFINITION,
NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
5
certain sense, something distinct from its members, having a
life independent of theirs, the truth
would seem to He between
these conflicting views of its nature.
A corporation in most
of its relations acts as a unit, and may, therefore, for the most
part, be conveniently
regarded as a legal person ; but in many
of its relations it is properly
conceived of as composed of an
opinion, must ere long be recog-
nized and acted upon by the courts
in dealing with the law of corpo-
rations. The common-law
concep-
tion of the 'legal personality' of
the metaphysical entity constitut-
ing the corporation entirely dis-
tinct from its individual members,
arose at a time when corporations
were all created by special char-
ters generally granted by the
Crown; when very few of them
were 'stock' corporations; when
they were mostly perpetual in ex-
istence; when absolutely no per-
sonal liability was imposed upon
the individual corporators, but
the legal status of the corporators
was wholly swallowed up in the
'legal person' of the corporation,
and when corporations were in
reality, as a necessary result from
this creation and legal position,
monopolies. In the United States
at the present day almost all
private corporations, whether
business or otherwise, are formed
under general laws, and in many
States the legislatures are ex-
pressly prohibited from granting
special charters. Under these gen-
eral laws persons complying with
a few formal requisites can or-
ganize themselves into a company
for almost any business purpose.
The associations thus formed are
limited in duration; they are un-
der complete control of the Lregis-
lature; the individual corporators
are all personally liable to some
extent and in some manner, and
in many instances they are fully
liable as though they were the im-
mediate parties and debtors. In
truth, except in the features that
they can sue and be sued, make
contracts,
acquire rights, and in-
cur liabilities in and by their cor-
porate names, and that a change
of membership
does not work
their
dissolution, these associa-
tions differ very little in their
essential
attributes from partner-
ships. And yet our American
courts, both State and national,
have, with few exceptions, gone
on and applied the same language,
the same conceptions, and the
same doctrines to these associa-
tions which were originally ap-
plied to corporations as they ex-
isted under purely common-law
notions and regulations. The
English courts have never fallen
into this error. Of late years
Parliament has enacted statutes
similar in their scope and effect
to our general laws for the forma-
tion of private corporations. The
English courts. have never treated
the joint-stock companies with
limited liability, formed imder
these statutes, as being indentical
with common-law corporations,
but have always carefully distin-
guished between them. In our
opinion, the American courts
must, in time, recognize and en-
force the same distinctions." Le-
gel Idea of a Corporation, 19 Am.
Law Rev. 114. 115, 116. The Su-
preme Court of the United States
also has said that when a suit is
brought by or against a corpora-
tion it is to be regarded as a suit
by or against the stoeklwlclers
of
the corporation; and for the pur-
pose of jurisdiction it is conclu-
sively presumed that all the stock-
holders are citizens of the State
creating the corporation. Muller
v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 445.
DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORI'OUATIONS.
[
5.
aggregation of persons.'" The effort of practical jurisdiction
should be to regard it as a unit, or as a collection of persons
according to the relation in which it acts in a given instance.
As has been aptly said to this point, "the shield will be either
white or red accordingly as it is viewed from the one side or
the other."
"
The corporation exists independent of its stockholders; al-
though one person may own all the stock, he and the corpora-
tion are not the same person.'^ As also the ownership by one
railroad company of all of the stock of another railroad cor-
poration does not necessarily merge the two corporations into
one. They may continue their corporate existence sepa-
rately.'^
Though one person own all the stock the existence and re-
lation of the corporation may continue.'"
But the theory of corporate entity will not be allowed to
serve as a shield for the frauds of a "dummy" corporation.
"We have of late refused to be always and utterly trammeled
by the logic derived from corporate existence where it only
16
"The corporation is something
distinct from its members. Its
life is independent of theirs. Its
will may, at times, be different
from that of any member, or of
any given proportion of its mem-
bers; and it may be bound by con-
duct which binds no one of its
members as an individual. Of
course, there are in reality no
rights or duties but those of nat-
ural persons; but the rights and
duties of natural persons who deal
with a corporation arise from a
fiction, and their nature and ex-
tent are determined by that fic-
tion. A person, therefore, who
confounds a corporation with its
stockholders, who says that they
are the corporation, or that it
consists of its members, not only
misstates the legal view of the
matter, but is in danger of falling
into endless confusion and error.
A corporation is distinct from its
members in the same sense that
a State is distinct from its citi-
zens. Then parallel, indeed, be-
tween a corporation and a State is
very close. A State is generally
spoken and thought of as a per-
son, because that is the simplest
way of picturing to the mind Jthe
collection of powers and obliga-
tions connected with the idea of
a State. The citizens have cer-
tain powers and duties, and the
State may execute their will when
expressed in certain forms; but
to fail to treat a State, either in
its domestic or foreign relations,
as something distinct from its
citizens, would lead not only to
theoretical error, but to endless
practical difficulties." Lowell on
Transfers of Stock,
2.
16
19 Am. L. Review 114.
IT
Monongahela, etc. Co. v. Pitts-
burg, etc. Co., 196 Pa. St. 25
(1900); Rhawn v. Edge Hill, etc.
Co., 201 Pa. St. 637 (1902).
18
Exchange Bank v. Macon, etc.
Co., 97 Ga. 1 (1895), 33 L. R. A.
800.
19
Chase v. Michigan, etc. Co.,
121 Mich. 631 (1899) ;
Mononga-
hela, etc. Co. v. Pittsburg, etc. Co.,
196 Pa. St. 25 (1900).

G.] DEFIMITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 7

serves to distort or hide the truth."
-
And so where an indi-
vidual organizes a corporation to violate a contract which he
would not be allowed to do, the court will enjoin the corpora-
tion as in effect the same person as himself. As, where he
sold a trade mark, and then organized a corporation, and to
it sold an infringement upon the trade-mark.
^^
Entity. Right
of
members to contract and deal ivith the cor-
poration.As the corporation is a legal entity distinct from its
members, they may contract and deal with it as may any third
person. The rule that a person cannot contract with himself
does not apply in such case.^^ Members may convey property
to the corporation or purchase from it.-^ {Iv.fra,
553.)

6. Unincorporated companies and societies distinguished

from corporations,Of unincorporated associations the Su-
preme Court of Pennsylvania said : "They have some elements
in common with corporations, joint-stock companies and part-
nerships, such as associations, and being governed by regula-
tions adopted by themselves, does for that purpose. . . .
1 have very little doubt, therefore, that the same rules of law
and equity, so far as regards the control of them and the adju-
dication of their reserved and inherent powers to regulate the
conduct and to expel their members, apply to them as to cor-
porations and joint-stock companies."
^*
A test, in any given case, whether or not an association is a
corporation, is whether the members are merged into a dis-
tinct artificial existence. If they are so merged the association
is a corporation.-^
20
Anthony v. American Glucose
24
Gorman v. Russell, 14 Cal.
Co., 146 N. Y. 407 (1895). 532; Babb v. Reed, 5 Rawles Rep.
21
Le Page Co. v. Russia, etc. 151, 28 Am. Dec. 650; Otto v.
Co., 51 Fed. 941 (1892), 17 L. R. Union, 75 Cal. 308; People v.
A. 354. Board of Trade, 80 111. 137; Ana-
22
Lexington, etc. Ins. Co. v. costa Tribe v. Murbach, 13 Md. 91.
Page, 17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 412, 66
25
Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend.
Am. Dec. 165; Faulkner v. Lowe, (N. Y.) 103; Thomas v. Daldn, 22
2 Exch. 595; Eastman v. Wright. Wend. (N. Y.) 9.
6 Pick. (Mass.) 316; Kingman &
2g
Atty. Gen'l. v. Merc, etc.
Co. V. Cornell, etc. Co.. 150 Mo. Ins. Co., 121 Mass. 524; Skillman
282; Wolf V. Penn. R. Co., 195 Pa. v. Lockman. 23 Cal. 198; Gleason
St. 91; Hanchett v. Blair (C. C. v. McKay, 134 Mass. 419; Belton
A.), 100 Fed. 817; Russell v. Rock, v. Hatch, 109 N. Y. 593, 4 Am. St.
etc. Co., 184 Pa. St. 102. Rep. 495; Lewis v.Tilton, 64 Iowa,
23
Pope V. Brandon, 3 Ala. 220, 52 Am. Rep. 436; Edwards v.
(O. S.) 401, 20 Am. Dec. 49; Gor- Warren, etc. Co., 168 Mass. 564,
don V. Preston, 1 Watts (Pa.)
385, 26 Am. Dec. 75
8 DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORI'OUATIONS.
[
6(2-8.

6a. Joint-Stock company distinguished from corporation.

A
joint-stock company reseml^lcs a corporation, l)ut is in fact
and in law, a partnership. It has been defined as "a partner-
ship made up of many persons, acting under articles of asso-
ciation, for the purpose of carrying on a particular business,
and of having its capital stock divided into shares, transfer-
able at the pleasure of the holder.-" (Infra,
1397.)
A joint-stock company is an unincorporated association, a
partnership with resemblances to a corporation, wherefore it is
sometimes caled a quasi-cor\-)ord.t'ion.-^
Unless it is otherwise provided by statute its members are
subject to the rules governing partnership at the common
law.-^
It is created by contract of its members, independent of any
State authority, even when organized under statutory pro-
visions.^^
Any shareholder may transfer his stock regardless of con-
sent of any other shareholder or of the company.^"
The company is sued as a partnership, and each member
is liable for the company's debts, when its property is ex-
hausted.
The stockholders of a joint-stock company have no limited
liability, the company cannot sue or be sued in the name of
the association.^^

7.
Corporation distinguished from a partnership.The
chief distinguishing difference between a corporation and a
partnership .is in the limitation of personal liability of the
members of a corporation, to the par value of the stock they
severally hold. The corporation is not dissolved by a transfer
of its stock and each member has not the power to dispose of
its assets.^^

8. Corporation as a "person," "citizen," "resident," etc.

The rule is that corporations are included with natural per-

38 L. R. A. 791; Van Sandau v.
29
people v. Coleman, 133 N.
Moore, 1 Russ. Ch. 441. Y. 279, 16 L. R, A. 183.
27
Oak Ridge Coal Co. v. Rog-
so
Willis v. Chapman, 68 Vt.
ers, 108 Pa. St. 147; People v. 459. 35 Atl. 459.
Coleman, 133 N. Y. 279, 16 L. R.
si
Butterfield v. Beardsley, 28
A. 183. Mich. 412; Taft v. Ward, 106 Mass.
28
Hedges' Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 518.
273; Frost v. Walker, 60 Me. 468;
s2
Cox. v. Bodfish, 35 Me. 302
Batty V. Adams Co.. 16 Neb. 44; (1853).
Clagett V. Kilbourne, 1 Black (U.
S.) 346.

8.]
DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 9
sons in the meaning of constitutions and statutes, using such
words as "person," "persons," "citizen," "inhabitant," etc.,
when not expressly restricted to natural persons, and when
within the reason and purpose of the statute.^^
In an act of Congress "any person within the jurisdiction
of the United States," held to include corporations,^'* and in
an act of Congress punishing any person who shall destroy a
vessel with intent to defraud underwriters,^^ and in the four-
teenth amendment of the United States Constitution, prohibit-
ing any State from depriving any "person" of life, liberty or
property, etc.^
Corporations have been held included by the word "person,"
in a statute giving a machinist a lien for repairs upon ma-
chinery," in a statute giving persons the right to sue and quiet
title,^^ in a statute imposing a tax upon any estate of a deced-
ent which shall pass by his will or upon his intestacy to any
person other than his lineal descendants,^^ in a statute author-
izing persons named therein to erect a dam and providing a
remedy for the overflow of adjacent lands.*"
On the contrary, it has been held that a corporation was not
within a statute where "persons" are spoken of, unless it be
necessary to give efTect to powers conferred on corporations,
and necessary to be exercised by them to effect the objects con-
templated in other grants or charters.*^
In a statute providing that any "person" may make a ces-
sion of his property to his creditors a corporation is not in-
cluded."
33
Beston v. Farmers' Bank, 12 Ry. Co. v. Maclcey, 127 U. S.
Peters (U. S.). 102; Crafford v. 205; Harbison v. Knoxville Iron
Supervisors, 87 Va. 110, 10 L. R. Co., 103 Tenn. 421; Santa Clara
A. 129; Union Steamship Co. v. County v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co.,
Melbourne, etc. Commrs., 9 App. 118 U. S. 396.
Cas. (N. Y.) 365; People v. Utica,
37 London v. Coleman (1877),
59
etc. Co., 15 Johns. 358, 8 Am. Dec. Ga. 653.
243; Jeffries, etc. v. Ipswich, 153
ss
Jeffries, etc. v. Inhab. of
Mass. 42, 26 N. B. Rep. 239. Ipswich (1891), 153 Mass. 42,
26
34
Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Hyde S. B. 239.
Park, 3 Biss. 480.
^^
Miller v.
Commonwealth
35
u. s. V. Amedy, 11 Wheat. (1876), 67 Grat. 110.
(U. S.) 392, 412.
40 Fisher v. Horicon, etc. Co.
36
Covington, etc. Road Co. v. (1860), 10 Wis. 351.
Sanford, 164 U. S. 578;
Gulf, etc.
41
Betts v. Menard (1831), 1
111.
Ry. Co. V. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150 (Breese) 395.
Pembina, etc. Co. v.
Pennsylvania,
42 Jeffries v.
Bellville, etc. Co.
125 U. S. 181;
Missouri Pac. (1860), 15 La. Ann. 19.
10 DKFlMTlDNj XATLIiE AND CLASSES OF CORPOKAl lO-NS.
[ S.
Nor in a statute authorizing formation of a corporation by
any number of persons, not less than six.*^
A corporation was not included in the word "residents," in
a statute authorizing a subscription, in the name of a town, of
a majority of tfie taxpayers on the last assessment roll, of the
"residents" of said town.**
Corporations are "persons" within the meaning of statutes
as follows: Relating to attachment and garnishment;
*^
to tax-
ation
;
*
to limitation of actions;*'^ prohibiting persons from
engaging in banking;*^ providing all persons shall be liable
for injuries, etc. ;
*^
that certain testimony shall be admissible
against certain persons;^" that all "persons" may do certain
acts as to promissory notes ;
^^
that all "inhabitants" or "resi-
dents" shall pay taxes ;
^-
giving a remedy by attachment to
creditors against debtors ;
^^
giving a "person" the right to
file mechanic's lien ;
^*
relating to usury,^^ and to insolvency
proceedings.^^
And in a statute, allowing a party to an action, to be ex-
amined in his own behalf, when the opposite party or "person"
in interest is living.^'' And "private person" in a statute is held
applicable to a private corporation.^^
The word "person" includes a corporation, when such _.was
clearly the legislative intent.^^
43
Factors and Traders' Co. v. 53
Union Bank v. U. S. Bank, 4
New Harbor, etc. Co. (1885), 37 Humph. (Tenn.) 3C9.
La. Ann. 233.
ei
Chapman v. Brewer, 43 Neb.
44
People V. Schoonmaker 890, 47 Am. St. Rep. 779.
(1871), G3 Barb. (N. Y.) 44.
55
Thornton v. Bank of Wash.,
45
Knox V. Protection Co., 9 3 Pet. (U. S.) 36; Bank of Man-
Conn. 430, 25 Am. Dec. 33; Libby Chester v. Nolan, 7 How. (Miss.)
V. Hodgson, 9 N. H. 394; Bray v. 508.
Wallingford, etc., 20 Conn. 466.
so
Barth v. Backus, 140 N. Y.
40
British, etc. v. Commrs., 31 230, 37 Am. St. Rep. 545.
N. Y. 32; People v. Commrs., 23
57
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 Barb.
N. Y. 192, L. & N. R. R. Co. v. (N. Y.) 267; Lafarge v. Exch.,
Commrs., 1 Bush. (Ky.) 250. etc. Co., 22 N. Y. 352; Field v. N.
4T
Alcot V. Tioga R. R. Co.,20 N. Y. Central, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 176.
Y. 210.
58
Coats V. People, 22 N. Y. 245.
48
People V. Utica, 15 Johns, 358.
59
State v. Portage City, etc. Co.,
49
South V. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356. 107 Wis. 441 (1900);
Barth v.
60
Lafarge v. Exchange, etc., 22 Backus, 140 N. Y. 23 (1893);
N. Y. 352. Jeffries Neck Pasture v. Ipswich,
51
State V. Waram, 6 Hill (N. 153 Mass. 42 (1891); People v.
Y.), 33. Barker, 140 N. Y. 437 (1893), 2a
52
Bank of U. S. v. Deveaux, 5 L. R. A. 785.
Cranch, 61.

9, 10.] DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 11

g.
Classes of corporations.The old classification of cor-
porations is now of little practical interest. The important
distinction between private corporations now divides them
into two classes, stock and non-stock. Only corporations hav-
ing a capital stock are of any comparative importance or in-
fluence in the world's business of to-day. Of the other classes
and the principles governing them, which have changed but
little in the last century, modern courts and text-books have
occasion to say but little.
A railroad is a public corporation,"^ or a quasi-public corpo-
ration."^ A mining and manufacturing corporation is a private
corporation.^^ A cemetery corporation is a private corpora-
tion."^ An English corporation is an alien corporation."*
It becomes important to distinguish the class to which any
corporation belongs where the statutes classify corporations.
The real nature and class are determined by what are the pur-
poses and objects declared in the charter or articles of incor-
poration."^
Corporations are classified as aggregate or sole, ecclesias-
tical or civil, public or private, etc., according to their pur-
poses; and sometimes the features of dififerent classes are
joined in one. The rules of law that apply to any one class
widely vary from those of any other class.""

ID. Sole and aggregate corporations.A corporation ag-

gregate is composed of more than one person, while a sole cor-
poration is composed of only one member. It is "a single indi-
vidual having an artificial or legal personality distinguished
from his natural character."
"^
The corporation sole existed in England, under the com-
Go
United States v. Trans-Miss- Ann. 346; Vincennes Univ. v. In-
ouri, etc. Assn., 166 U. S. 290 diana, 55 U. S. (14 How.) 268
(1890).
(1852), 14 L.. Ed. 416; In re
61
Chicago, etc. Ry. v. Wabash, St. Louis Inst. of Christian
etc. R. Co.. 61 Fed. 993 (1894).
Science, 27 Mo. App. 633;
State v.
62
Wolfe V. Underwood, 91 Ala. Minn. Thresher Co., 40 Minn. 213.
523 (1891).
6G
Fietsam v. Hay, 122 111. 293,
63
Pokork, etc. Co. v.
Zizkovsky, 3 Am. St. Rep. 492, Wilgus Cas.
42 Neb. 64 (1894), and see
1136.
c7
Weston v. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500;
64
Eureka, etc. Co. v. Richmond, Overseers of Poor, etc. v. Sears, 22
etc. Co., 2 Fed. 829 (1880). Pick. (Mass.) 122;
Archbishop of
65
Bardstown v. Metcalf, 61 Ky. San Fran. v. Shinman, 79 Cal.
(4 Mete.) 199 (1862), 81 Am. Dec. 288; McClosky v.
Doherty, 97 Ky.
541; Nicholson's Succession, 37 La. 300.
12
DEFINITION,
NATUKE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
[
10.
men law."^
The king was regarded as a corporation sole/'^ and
SO were the
dignitaries of the church.'"
In the United States in most, if not all the States, the gen-
eral incorporation laws expressly require at least three cor-
porators, and so the corporation sole is practically unknown,
except in the older States, as in Massachusetts, where the
minister of a church, as a corporation sole, is seized of lands
in right of the parish."^^
And in California, in the case of a priest of a Catholic mis-
sion, for the recovery of whose lands he was allowed to main-
tain action in his character of priest.'^^
And in California, where a Catholic bishop, as such, was
held to possess lands of the church as a corporation sole, and
similarly, so held in Kentucky, as to a Catholic archbishop,"
although in an earlier case in Kentucky the court said :
"There
is no such being in this State as a sole corporation."
^*
See "One Man Corporation," infra,

yia,
557
and 1316.
In New York a town supervisor was held a quasi-corpora.-
tion sole.''^
In Tennessee, where the governor or other public officer to
whom, as such, is made pa3^able a bond, he or his successor in
office may sue as a corporation sole.'^^
A corporation sole consists of only one person to whom be-
longs the legal perpetuity, which is denied to natural persons.
An officer or other person authorized to so hold to himself and
his successors property, real or personal, constitutes a corpo-
ration sole.'^'^
Corporations sole are of two kinds: One where the person
68
Russell V. M'cClellan, 14 Pick
72
Santillan v. Moses, 1 Cal. 92.
(Mass.) 63; Newton Mfg. Co. v.
73
Archbishop of San Fran. v.
White, 42 Ga. 148, 159; Baldwin Shipman, 79 Cal. 288; McClosky
V. Canfield, 26 Minn. 43; Louisville v. Doherty, 97 Ky. 300.
Bkg. Co. V. Eisenmau, 94 Ky. 83,
t*
Louisville Bkg. Co. v. Eisen-
42 Am. St. Rep. 335, 19 L. R. A. man, 94 Ky. 83, 42 Am. St. Rep.
684. 335, 19 L. R. A. 684.
69
1 Bl. Com. 469; 2 Kyd on 75
Jansen v. Ostrander, 1 Cow.
Corp. 22. (N. Y.) 670.
70
Kyd on Corp. 20; 1 Bl. Com. 76
Polk v. Plummer. 2 Humph.
470. (Tenn.) 530, 37 Am. Dec. 566;
71
"Weston v. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500; Governor v. Allen, 8 Humph.
Inhab., etc. Brunswick v. Dun- (Tenn.) 176.
ning, 7 Mass. 445; Robertson v. 7- Thomas v. Dakin (1839), 22
Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243, Wilgus
Wend. 9.
Cas.

11.] DEFIXITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPOKATIONS. 13

holds a corporate capacity for his own benefit, and the other
wherein he acts only as a trustee for the benefit of others/^
A legislature may authorize one person or his successor to
exercise all the corporate powers and make his acts expressly
or impliedly the acts of the corporation.'^^
"A bishop or parson acting in a corporate capacity, and hold-
ing property to him and to his successor, in right of his office,
has no need of a corporate name, he requires no peculiar seal,
he performs all acts under his own seal, in his own name and
name of office
;
his own will alone regulates his acts, and he has
no occasion for a secretary, for he need not keep a record of
his acts ; no need of a treasurer, for he has no personal prop-
erty except the rents and proceeds of the corporate estate, and
these he takes to his own use when received." "The only in-
stance in Massachusetts of a sole corporation is that of a per-
son seized of parsonage land in right of his parish,"
^

II. Eleemosynary or charitable corporations.

"They are
such as are created for the distribution of the free alms of the
founders of them, to such purposes as they have directed.
"Of this description are hospitals for the poor, sick or im-
potent, and colleges or schools for the promotion of piety or
learning. The true test of an institution is its origin and ob-
jects. If founded on donations, and its purpose is the accom-
plishment of a charity by the distribution of alms, it is elee-
mosynary."
^^
Under a statute in Illinois the board of education was held
to be a private eleemosynary corporation and not a public cor-
poration.^-
Tsjansen v. Ostrander (1824), 471; McDonald v. Mass. General
1 Cow. 670. Hosp. (1876), 120 Mass. 432, 21
T9
Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Am. St. Rep. 529;
Dartmouth Col-
Larason (1839), 16 Me. (4 Shep.) lege v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518,
224, 33 Am. Dec. 656; Day v. Stet- Wilgus Cas.; Bethlehem v. Bur-
son (1832), 8 Me. (8
Greenl.) 365. row Perseverence Fire Co. (1875),
80
Chief Justice Shaw in Over- 81 Pa. St. (31 P. F. Smith) 445;
seers of Poor of Boston v. Sears, Terrell v. Taylor, 9
Cranch. 43;
22 Pick. (Mass.) 125; Arch- St. Clair Female Acad. v. Sullivan,
bishop of San Fran. v.
Shipman, 116 111. 375, 56 Am. Rep. 776;
Fire
79 Cal. 288.
Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. St.
81
Amer. Asylum v. Phcenix 624.
Bank, 4 Conn. 172, 10 Am. Dec.
82
Board of Ed. v. Greenbaum,
12; Nelson v. Gushing (1848),
56 30 111. 610; Board of Ed. v. Bake-
Mass. (2
Gush.) 530; 1 Bl. Com. well, 122 111. 339.
14 DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
[
13.
If not org-anized for the purpose of public charity, but for
pecuniary profit, or the benefit of its members, the corpora-
tion is in no se:ise eleemosynary or charitable.^^
On this principle is not included as an eleemosynary corpo-
ration a cemetery association,** or a young men's Christian
association,''^ or a thcosophic corporation,**^ or a corporation
for the promotion of Christian science,*" or a medical college,**
or a building association,*** or a savings institution,"" or a life
insurance relief fund corporation.**^
The visitorial power of the State over civil corporations is
exercised through the medium of the courts, but the afTairs of
eleemosynary or charitable corporations are generally in-
spected and controlled by some private person as guardian,
provided by the founder."^
All corporations other than eleemosynary and charitable are
termed civil corporations or business corporations.
Their purpose is the pecuniary profit or other benefit of their
members.*'-^'

12. Ecclesiastical and lay corporations.Ecclesiastical

corporations in England were corporations created to perpet-
uate the authority and rights of the church. They were com-
posed only of monks, bishops or other spiritual persons.^'
,
In the United States ecclesiastical corporations technically
do not exist,***
Lay corporations include all other than ecclesiastical cor-
porations.^
13.
Corporations for religious purposes.Though the ec-
clesiastical corporations of the English law are practically un-
83
Newcomb v. Boston Protective
so
Sheren v. Mendenhalter
Dept., 151 Mass. 215; Soc. for
(1876), 23 Moore, 92.
Propog. of Gospel v. Town of New
91
People v. Nelson (1871), 60
Haven (21 U. S.), 8 Wheat. 464. Barb. 159. 3 Lansing 394.
84
Donnelly v. Boston Cath.
92
Wisconsin, etc. Co. v. Milwau-
Assn., 146 Mass. 163. kee Co., 95 Wis. 153, 36 L. R. A. 55.
85
Cbapin v. Holyoke Y. M. C.
92a
Vide infra, 1414 ; Charita-
A., 165 Mass. 280. ble Corporations.
86
In re New England Theoso.
ss
1 b1. 470, 2 Kyd, 22.
Corp., 172 Mass. 60.
*
Robertson v. Bullions, 11 N.
87
In re St. Louis Inst, of Chris- Y. 243, V/ilgus Cas.
tian Science, 27 Mo. App. 633.
95
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
88
People V. Gunn, 96 N. Y. 317. ward, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 518, Vide
89
State ex. rel. Richey (1888), i7ifra, 1416; Ecclesiastical and
95 Mo. 193, 8 S. W. 425. Lay Corporations.

14.] DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF COKFOKATIONS. 15

known in the United States, religious societies and churches
may be, and often are, incorporated under the general incorpo-
ration statutes of the different States ; the property of the
church being held by the corporation in trust for religious pur-
poses alone, and its management is not interfered with by the
courts, where contract rights are not invaded,^" but it is often
favored by exemption from taxation.^^
Those enabling acts, general incorporation laws, provide for
incorporation of religious societies and churches, as religious
corporations.''^
A religious corporation is one chartered to practice and pro-
pogate- a religious belief,^ but it is not to be classified as an
ecclesiastical corporation.^ It is a civil corporation and sub-
ject to the same' legal principles and same control by the civil
courts as in the case of any other civil corporation.^

14.
Public corporations.A public corporation is such
only as is created by a governrnxcnt, and for public purposes,
and whose interests belong entirely to the government.^ The
United States is a public corporation,* and so is each of the
several states of the Union,^ and each of the territories.
06
Britndage v. Deardorf^ 55
Fed. 833; Van Houten v. McEl-
way, 17 N. J. Eq. 126; Dubs v.
Egli, 167 111. 514, 47 N. E. 766;
Moseman v.
Heitshausen, 50 Neb.
420, 69 N. W. 957, 18 Am. St. Rep.
302, note; Bear v. Heasly, 98 Mich.
279, 24 L. R. A. 615; Smith v.
Pedigo, 145 Ind. 361. 32 L. R. A.
838.
97
Rectors of Christ Church v.
County of Phila., 24 How. (U. S.)
300; Presbyter. Sem.. etc. v. Peo-
ple, 101,. 111. 578; Church of Re-
deemer V. Axtell, 41 N. J. Law
117; St. Joseph's Church v.
Providence, etc.. 12 R. I. 19.
98
Brundage y.
Deardorf, 55 Fed.
839; Van Houten v. McElway, 17
N. J. Eq. 126; Dubs v. Egli, 167
111. 514, 47 N. E. 766;
Calkins v.
Cheney, 92 111. 463;
Robertson v.
Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243,
Wilgus Cas.
00
In re St. Louis Inst, of Chris-
tiail Science, 27 Mo. App. 633.
1
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
ward. 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 518, 1
Cum. Cas. 490, 1 Bl. Com. 470.
2 Brundage v. Deardorf, 55 Fed.
839; Van Houten v. McElway, 17
N. J. Eq. 126; Dubs v. Egli, 167 111.
514, 47 N. E. 766; Robertson v.
Bullions, 11 N. Y. 243, Tide infra,

1415-1423; Religious Corpora-

tions.
3 Vincennes Univ. v. Indiana (55
U. S.), 14 How. 268 (1852); Inhab.
of Yarmouth v. Inhab. of N. Yar-
mouth, 34 Me. 411 (1S52); Univ.
of Maryland v. Williams, 9 Gill.
& J. Ill (1839);
Dartmouth Col-
lege V. Woodward, 1 N. H. Ill
(1817)
; Tinsman v. Belvidere,
etc. Co., 26 N. J. Law. 2,
Dutch.
148 (1857).
4
Dixon V. U. S., 125 Mass. 11;
Dugan V. U. S., 3 Wheat. (U. S.)
172.
5
People V. City of St. Louis, 10
111. 351; State of Ind. v. Woran, 6
Hill (N. Y.), 33, 4 Am. Dec. 378;
Dykes v. Miller, 25 Tex. Supp. 281,
78 Am. Dec. 571; Mich. State Bank
V. Hastings, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 225,
41 Am. Dec. 549.
6 Territory v. Hilderbran, 2
16 DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORrORATIONS.
[^
15, 16.
Whether a corporation is public or is private is determined
by what are the purposes of its creation/

15.
Municipal corporations.Namely, those of cities,
towns and villages, are public corporations, "created by the
legislature for political purposes, and with powers to be ex-
ercised for the public good, in the administration of civil gov-
ernment. It is of the essence of such a corporation that the
government has the sole right, as trustee of the public interest,
at its own good will and pleasure, to inspect, regulate, control
and direct the corporation, its funds and franchises,"
^
and so
of public school trustees and boards of education."
The decisions as to powers of municipal corporations and
their officers are not applicable to private corporations.
"It is manifest that no analogy exists between the action of
a body of men invested with the exercise of political power
ufider special conditions and the action of the trustees of a
private corporation in the conduct of its ordinary business
operations. The one relates to the execution of powers and
the other to the performance of duties and the enjoyment of
privileges. The one is controlled by the principles governing
the relations of principal and agent, and the other by the gen-
eral rules regulating the consequences following a neglect or
disobedience of the requirements of statutes affecting private
relations. In the one case the question as to what is a good
execution of a power is involved, and in the other as to what
may be considered an adequate performance of a duty. These
questions are manifestly controlled by dift'erent rules, and that
which is required in one is not an authority for the require-
ments of the other."
^^
Municipal corporations are not included within the scope of
this work, and are not to be generally considered herein.

16. Quasi-corporations.

Qiiasi-puhVic corporations are

those which assume duties for the public, and in considera-
tion of their performance receive special privileges, as right of
eminent domain, etc., but they are nevertheless corporations
for pecuniary benefit of their members. They partake of the
Mont. 426; Regents v. Williams, v. Hartford Bridge Co., 10 How.
9 Gill & J. (Md.) 232; Bank of (U. S.) 534.
U. S. V. Planters' Bank, 9 Wlieat. Bush v. Shipman (1843), 5 111.
(U. S.) 904, Wilgns Cas. (4 Scam.) 186; Trustees of
7
Wisconsin, etc. Co. v. Milv/au- Schools v. Tatman (1851), 13 111.
kee Co., 95 Wis. 153, 36 L. R. A. (3 Peck.) 27; Board of Ed. v.
55; Bank v. Gibbs, 3 McCord (S. Greenbaum (1864). 30 111. 609.
C.) 377, Wilgus Cas.
10
Wallace v. Walsh. 125 N. Y.
8
City of Hagerstown v. Sehner, 26 (1890), 11 L. R. A. 166.
37 Md. 180; Town of E. Hartford

16.] DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 17

nature of both public and private corporations. Railways,
telegraph, telephone, gas, water and electric power corpora-
tions are examples of g;/a^yi-corporations. It is granted the
power to acquire rights of way and other property essential to
tke performance of its public duties, but it has no power un-
less expressly conferred, to mortgage, lease or sell any part
of its property, which is necessary to the performance of its
duties to the public. Its property is not subject to be levied
upon and taken and sold under execution. Its rates are sub-
ject to reduction or other regulation by the legislature. The
legislature exercises control over a (I'na.yj-corporation to what-
ever extent it deems expedient for the protection of life and
property and the public safety, health and morals, and to pre-
vent excessive charge for public service or unlawful discrim-
ination in rates.
^"a^
A railroad company is a qitasi-pnhVic corporation.^^ The
directors' duties are to act as trustees for the public as well
as the company.
In the grant of its franchise there is an implied condition
that it is held as a quasi-public trust, and the company must be
entirely impartial to all who seek the benefit of the trust.^^
And such is also the case of a street railway
^^
and of turn-
pike, ditch and canal companies,^* and of a fire engine com-
pany.^^ But banks, canal and turnpike companies and others
created alone for private gain and whose stock is owned by
private individuals, are not gucwj-corporations, but are essen-
tially private corporations.^
loaYMe
i7ifra,
1032-103S;
is
Cole v. Greenwich, etc. Co.,
Qlias i-imhlic Corporations. 12 R. I. 202.
11
Pueblo, etc. Co. v. Taylor
le
state v. New Orleans, etc. Co.
(1881), 6 Colo. 1, 45 Am. Rep. 512.
(1842), 2 Rob. 529; Ten Eyck v.
12
Messenger v. Pa. Art Co. Delaware & R. Canal Co. (1841),
(1874), N. J. Law. (8 Vroom.) 18 N. J. Law. (3 Har.) 200,
531, 18 Am. Rep. 754. 37 Am. Dec. 233; Hooker v. New
13
Doane v. Chicago City Ry. Co. Haven & N. Co. (1843), 15 Conn.
(1894), 51 111. App. 353. 313, 36 Am. Dec. 477; Pierce v.
1*
Reclamation Dist., etc. v. Commonwealth (18S3), 104 Pa. St.
Turner (1894), 104 Cal. 334, 37 150, 34 Me. 411; Howard v. St.
Pac. 1038; Miner's Ditch Co. v. Clair, etc. Co. (1869), 51 111. 130;
Zellerbach, 37 Cal. 543; Foster v. Board of Dir. v. Houston (1874),
Fowler, 60 Pa. St. 27; Chicago, 71 111. App. 353; Public Corpora-
etc. Co. V. Wabash, etc. Co., 61 tions Distinguished from Private,
Fed. 993; Railroad Commrs. v. see L. R. A, briefs, 29: 708, 798.
Portland, etc. Co., 63 Me. 269.
Vol. 1

2
IS DEFINITION, NATDRE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
[
17,
18.
17.
Corporations for internal improvements.

Qiiasi-cor-
poralions include those incorporated for making internal im-
provements. "The construction of railroads, turnpikes, canals,
ferries, telegraphs, wharfs, basins, etc., creating the necessary
facilities for public inter-communication, constitutes what is
generally known by the name of internal improvements, and
gives occasion for the exercise of the right of eminent do-
main."
"
The same is true in construing the words "work of public
utility" and the words "public improvement," in a sttatute pro-
viding for incorporation for such purposes.'^
For like purposes of internal improvement corporations for
the following purposes have been held to be included within
such statutory descriptions : for construction of irrigation
canals and ditches,^^ for construction of pipe-lines in an oil
district for petroleum transportation for the public,-" for de-
velopment of mining,-^ for establishing pipes to convey natural
gas to consumers,^^ for improving navigation and protecting
fisheries in the waters of the state,^^ for establishing a wharf
boat and steam elevator for storage and forwarding business.-*

18. Stock and non-stock corporations.Stock corporations

include all those for pecuniary profit of its shareholders or
members and are known as business corporations.
'
Nearly all private corporations formed for pectmiary profit
are stock corporations and have their capital stock divided
into shares, whose holders are the members of the corporation.
Where the capital stock is not so divided into shares the
companies are called non-stock corporations, as in the case of
mutual insurance, religious, charitable, etc. corporations, and
the membership is evidenced by certificate in some form.^^
17
West Va. Transport. Co. v. County, 191 Pa. St. 458; Bloom-
Volcanic Oil Co., 5 W. Va. 382. field, etc. Co. v. Richardson, 63
18
Ry. Light & Heat Co. v. Elk Barb. (N. Y.) 437.
County, 191 Pa. St. 465.
23
Kazen v. Essex Co., 12 Cush.
19
Ouray v._ Goodwin (Ariz.), 26 (Mass.) 475; Scudder v. Trenton,
Pac. 376; Pa'xton & Hershey, etc. etc. Co., 1 N. Y. Eq. 694, 23 Am.
Co. V. Farmers', etc. Co., 45 Neb. Dec. 756; Great Falls Mfg. Co. v.
884, 50 Am. St. Rep. 585. Fernald, 47 N. H. 444.
20
West Va., etc. Co. v. Volcanic
21
Glenn v. Breard, 25 La. Ann.
Oil Co., 5 W. Va. 382. 875.
21
Butte, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mont.
25
Am. Live Stock Co. v. Chi-
Union R. Co., 16 Mont. 504, 50 cago, etc. Exch., 143 111. 210, 38
Am. St. Rep. 508; Dayton, etc. Co. Am. St. Rep. 385; Vide infra,
V. SeawelL 11 Nev. 394.
538-551; Stock and Non-Stock
22
St. Mary's Gas Co. v. Elk Corporations.

20-23.] DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 19

20. Business corporations.Business corporations incliule

all Others tlian charitable or benevolent, religious, educational,
literary and scientific,^" and they have been disting-uished in
statutes, according- to their purposes as follows:

21. Trading corporations.Trading corporations include

those engaged in trade or commerce, the business of buying
or selling marketable commodities, including coal, water, gas,
ice, stocks, bonds, lands, mines, etc."

22. Mercantile corporations.The word "mercantile" per-

tains to the business of merchants and has to do with "trade
or the buying and selling of commodities."
^^
Mercantile cor-
porations include trading corporations, but do not include deal-
ing in mines, ores or in sinking oil wells or gas wells.
^

23.
Manufacturing corporations.

"Manufacture is the
operation of making the goods or wares of any kind, the pro-
duction of articles for use from raw prepared materials, by giv-
ing to them new forms, qualities, properties or combinations,
whether by hand labor or by machinery,"
"'^
and thereby pro-
ducing some new article by application of skill and labor,-'^ as
a corporation engaged in book and job printing, lithographing,
engraving and electrotyping upon orders,^^ or in refining and
preparing for use oil, coal and other minerals,^-'' or in printing,
binding and publishing books,^* or making and selling meal
and flour,'^ or in making illuminating gas, or in developing for
consumers, electricity, light, heat or power.^
A corporation organized to cultivate, deal in and manufact-
ure chicory is a mxanufacturing company within the Nebraska
20
St. Clair Female Acad. v. Siil-
so
Century Diet, and Cyclopedia,
livan, 116 111. 375; MacDonald v. "Manufacture."
Massachusetts General Hospital,
si
People v. Roberts^ 145 N. Y.
120 Mass. 432. 377.
27
People V. Board of Trade, 80
32
Evening Journal Assn. v.
111. 134; Finnegan v. Norenberg, State Board, etc.. 47 N. J. Law,
52 Minn. 239, 38 Am. St. Rep. 552; 36, 54 Am. Rep. 114.
People V. Hagar, 52 Cal. 171; In 33
Howes v. Anglo-Saxon, etc.
re New York & Westchester Co., Co., 101 Mass. 385.
98 Fed. 711; People v. Blake, 19
34
Com. v. Lippincott Co., 156
Cal. 579; State v. Wellman, 34 Pa. St. 513; Com. v. Mann Co.,
Mich. 221; Dudley v. Jamaica 150 Pa. St. 64.
Pond, etc., 100 Mass. 184.
35
Cross v. Pinkneyville, etc. Co.,
28
In re Cameron, etc. v. Ins. 17 111. 54.
Co., 96 Fed. 756.
36 Beggs v. Edison Elect, etc.
20
Graham v. Hendricks, 22 La. Co., 96 Ala. 295. 38 Am. St. Rep.
Ann. 523; Com. v. Natural Gas 94; Nassau Gas Light Co. v. City-
Co. 32 Pittsb. Leg. J. (Pa.) 310. of Brooklyn. 89 N. Y. 409.
20 DEriXITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS.
[
24-27.
compiled statutes.-'''' But the manufacturing corporations do
not include those engaged in taking from the earth natural
gas and furnishing it to consumers,^^ or in piping and dis-
tributing water from its natural source.^
A company that produces electricity and sells it to cus-
tomers for the generation of light, heat and power is not a
manufacturing company, within the meaning of the Pennsyl-
vania statute, exempting the capital stock of manufacturing
companies from taxation. The process of generating elec-
tricity is not one of manufacture, because the product is not
a material substance as matter is now defined. It may be too
early to say just what it is. The mere appropriation of an
article which is furnished by nature is not a manufacture.^'^
The collection, storage, preparation for market and transporta-
tion of ice is not a manufacture, but the production of ice by
artificial means is manufacture.^'^ The liberation of natural
gas or oil from the earth and its transportation to consumers
is not a manufacture, but the production of illuminating
gas
is.^'c
24. Industrial corporations.Corporations for industrial
pursuits include trading and manufacturing, also express busi-
ness,*' and the business of selling mining supplies, etc.*^
25. Moneyed corporations.Aloneyed corporations in-
clude banking corporations and trust companies.

26. Banking corporations.Banking corporations include

savings banks and m.ay be banks of deposits, of discount or of
circulation, or of all three.
*-

27. Trust companies.A trust company is distinguished

from a bank in that the trust company's deposits are loans or
trust funds not subject to check, and that it cannot issue its
notes for circulation. It does not deal in exchange, but may
37
Bolton V. Nebraska, etc. Co., Brooldyn, 89 N. Y. 409; Emerson
96 N. W. 148 (Neb. 1903). v. Commonwealth, 108 Pa. St. 111.
38
Com. V. Northern, etc. Co., 4oWel]s, Fargo & Co. v. North-
145 Pa. St. 105. ern Pac. R. Co.. 23 Fed. 469.
39
Dudley v. Jamaica Pond, etc.,
n
Bashford-Burmeister Co. v.
100 Mass. 183. Agua Fria CopiJer Co. (Ariz.), 35
39a
Commonwealth v. Northern Pac. 983.
Electric, etc. Co., 145 Pa. St. 105
42
Bank for Savings v. Collectoi,
(1891); Engle v. Sohn, 41 Ohio 3 Wall. (U. S.) 495; Lyons, etc.
St. 691, 52 Am. Rep. 103. Bank v. Ocean Nat. Bank, 60 N. Y.
39b
People V. Ice Co., 99 N. Y. 288, 19 Am. Rep. 181; Pratt v.
-
181. Short, 79 N. Y. 437. 35 Am. Rep.
39C
Nassau Gas Light Co. v. 531; Tide infra, 1132; Banks.
I

2S-33.] DEFINITION, NATURE AND CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. 21

engage in the purchase and sale of real estate or in other busi-
ness not authorized to l)anking corporations.*^

28. Transportation corporations.The lousiness of a

transportation corporation is the transportation, by whatever
veliicle, of passengers or of property belonging to others.
. Thus a corporation removing petroleum by pipe-line for the
general public was held to be a transportation corporation/*
and so of a corporation transporting natural gas in pipes.'*'

29.
Insurance corporations.The business of an insur-
ance corporation is to contract to indemnify its policy holders
against loss of property, by whatever peril, or against personal
injury, or for insurance upon life, etc.*"

30.
Beneficial corporations. Mutual benefit associations.

A beneficial society for the protection of its members

*^
is not
an insurance corporation.*

31.
Building and loan associations.A building and loan
association when incorporated is for the purpose strictly of
assisting its members to purchase homes for themselves, in
effect upon the instalment plan, by their regular subscriptions
to a fund for the purpose.*

32. Literary and educational corporations.

'A literary cor-

poration is a corporation for the promotion of literature and
learning. But it will not include a corporation for disseminat-
ing philosophic ideas and obtaining converts thereto.
''

33.
Scientific corporations.Science includes knowledge
and education, but it does not include art. A rifle shooting
ckib cannot be a corporation for scientific purposes.'^
43
Mercantile Nat. Bank v. City
*s
Commercial League, etc. v.
of N. Y., 121 U. S. 138; Pratt v. People, 90 111. 166; Com. v. Nat.,
Short, 79 N. Y. 437. 35 Am. Rep. etc. Assn., 94 Pa. St. 481; Vide
531; Vide infra, 1134; Trust infra, 1403; Beneficial Corpora-
Companies, tions.
44
Columbia Conduit Co. v.
49
Jarrett's Exec. v. Cope, 68 Pa.
Com., 90 Pa. St. 307; W. Va. v. St. 67; Vide infra,
1402; Build-
Volcanc Oil Co., 5 W. Va. 382. ing and Loan Associations.
45
Caruthers v. Phila. Co., 118
bo
New Eng. Theosoph. Corp.,
Pa. St. 468; Vide infra,
1103, 172 Mass. 60; Vide infra,

1413;
1110; Common Carriers. Colleges and Universities.
46
Com. V. Equitable, etc. Assn.,
si
Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend.
137 Pa. St. 412.
(N. Y.) 178;
Vredenburg v.
47
Com. V. Provident Bicycle Behan, 33 La. Ann. 627.
Assn., 178 Pa. St. 636.
CHAPTER II.
POWER TO INCORPORATE.
34. Power of the state to cre-
ate corporations.
35. In England.
36. In the United States.
37. Power of Congress to cre-
ate corporations.
38. National corporations.
39. In the District of Columbia.
40. In the Territories.
41. Power to create a bank.
42. To incorporate a railway
through the territories.
44
45
43. Incorporation of the Nica-
ragua Canal.
Corporations created dur-
ing the Civil War.
Interstate corporations cre-
ated by concurrent action
of two states.
45a. Constitutional restrictions
upon creation of corpora-
tions. Prohibition of the
grant of exclusive privi-
leges.
References:
Interstate corporations. Sections 1043, 1054, 1088.
Jurisdiction of Federal Courts. Section 1359
Exclusive privileges. Sections 62, 68, 933a.

34.
Power of the state to create corporations.The power
to create corporations was, in England, vested in the sover-
eign, to whose powers each of the States of the Union suc-
ceeded upon their emancipation from British domination. This
sovereign right may, therefore, be exercised by the several
States, except so far as their constitutions prohibit, or as may
be incompatible with the powers delegated by them to the fed-
eral government.^
The State has the inherent power to create corporations.
This power it exercises by its legislature, and subject only to
federal and State constitutional limitations.^ The leeislature
1 Bell V. Nashville Bank^ Peck.
(Tenn.) 269; Falconer v. Cam-
bell, 2 McLean (C. C.) 195
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9
Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 103
Nelson v. McArthur. 38 Mich.
204; Ohio v. Covington, 29 Ohio
St. 102; Cotton v. Miss, Boom Co.,
22 Minn. 372.
2
Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397;
Penobsbcot Boom Corporation v.
Lamsmon, 16 Me. 224, 33 Am.
Dec. 66; City of Aurora v. West,
9 Ind. 74; Bank of Chenango v.
Brown, 36 N. Y. 467; Atkinson v.
Marietta, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio St.
21; U. S. Trust Co. v. Brady, 20
Barb. (N. Y.) 119.

35, 36. POWER TO INCORI'ORATE. 23

may create a corporation not only without conforming to com-
mon-law rules, but in disregard of them/ and may confer upon
them whatever powers it may see fit, subject alone to consti-
tutional restrictions,* but it cannot create a corporation located
outside of its boundaries."* '
The authority to create a corporation is exclusively a power
of sovereignty. Without its consent, express or implied, no
corporation can exist.

35.
In England.In England the consent of the king was
implied, as to all corporations that existed by force of the
common law or by prescription.
The latter, having exercised corporate powers for a definite
period without objection of the king, were presumed to have
had a charter, which during the lapse of time had been lost or
destroyed.
The king's express consent, when given to the creation of a
corporation, was by royal charter or by his assent to an act of
Parliament creating the corporation.
Among the common-law corporations was the king himself,
and all bishops, parsons, vicars, etc., who in each case was a
sole corporation.'^

36. In the United States.The consent of the State or of

the United States is essential to the existence of a corporation.
It cannot be constituted by the agreement of the parties and
their mere association, but must be created by legislative en-
actment.^
The consent of the legislature is expressed either by special
act granting a charter, or under a general incorporation law,
authorizing a corporation by any persons complying with the
conditions of the statutes.^
3
Penobsbcot Boom Corp. v, 14 Ga. S80; State v. Village of
Lamson (1839), 16 Me. (4 Shep.) Bradford, 32 Vt. 50; Hoadley v.
224, 33 Am. Dec. 66. Essex Co. Commrs., 105 Mass.
4
New Orleans Gas Co. v. 519; McKim v. Odom, 3 Bland Ch.
Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. (Md.) 407; Chaffe v. Ludeling, 27
650; In re Phila. & Trenton R. La. Ann. 607; Murphy v. Schuyl-
Co., 6 Whart. (Pa.) 25, 36 Am, kill, etc. Bank, 32 Pa. St. 415;
Dec. 202.
Schutzenbund v. Agitations, etc.,
sMcClinch v. Sturgis, 72 Me. 44 Mich. 313, 38 Am. Rep. 370;
288.
Penn. R. Co. v. Canal Commrs.,
Gl Bl. Com. 473. 21 Pa. St. 9; Atkinson v. Marietta,
7
1 Bl. Com. 469.
etc. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21.
sStowe V. Flagg (1874), 72 111. oTide infra,
67.
397; Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood,
24:
POWER TO INCORPORA.TE.
[
37.

37.
National or federal corporations
;
power of the fed-
eral
government.The power of the federal government to
create
corporations rests upon a basis entirely different from
that of the State. With the State it is an incident of sover-
eignty and may be exercised for any lawful purpose not re-
pugnant to its constitution or the voluntary limitations im-
posed upon itself by its ratification of the, federal compact.
The nature of the federal government is, however, different;
it possesses no powers save those delegated by the several
sovereignties uniting to form it, or such incidental powers as
may be necessary and proper to carry out the powers thus dele-
gated.^^
It follows, therefore, that wherever there is no express delega-
tion of power in the Constitution to the federal congress to cre-
ate corporations, there can be no implied power to erect such
bodies except as a means or instrument by which to accomplish
the objects for which that government was created.^^ In the con-
vention of States which framed the Constitution an effort was
made to invest the congress with power to grant acts of incorpo-
ration, but after three days of debate the proposition was voted
down, eight out of the eleven States represented voting in the
negative.
^^
National corporations are not residents of any particular
state, nor are they subject to control of its legislature or
courts. A .corporation chartered by Congress is neither an
alien nor a citizen of another State ; it has a legal existence in
every one of the United States.^* A national corporation is a
domestic corporation in any State or Territory where it may
have an office or do any business.^^
Congress has power to create corporations %vherever and
whenever it is a necessary means to the execution of any of
its governmental powers.
^^a
Congress has power to regu-
10
u. S. Const. Amend. X; Chis-
13 Madison Papers, Sept. 14,
holm V. Georgia, 2 Ball. 419;
Hoi- 1787.
lingsworth v. Virginia. 3 Ball.
1*
Eby v. Northern Pac. R. Co.,
378; McCulloch v.
Maryland, 4 13 Phila. 144, 36 Leg. Int. 164
Wheat. 316; Osborn v. Bank of (1879).
the United States, 9 Wheat. 738.
is Commissioners v.
Texas
12
McCulloch V.
Maryland, 4 (Pac.) Ry. Co., 90 Pa. St. 90.
Wheat. 316.
^^^ Farmers', etc. Bank v. Bear-
ing, 91 U. S. 29; Union Pac. R.
I

38, 39.]
POWER TO INCORPORATE. 25
late commerce between the States, and to confer the power of
eminent domain upon any such qiiasi-puhVxc corporation, to
enable it to perform its purposes and without the consent of
the States wherein its corporate purposes are to be executed,"^
and ma}'' confer the power upon corporations created by Con-
gress or by the States.^^c The federal power to regulate com-
merce among the States excludes the power of the St-ates
over that subject.^'<3 Telegraph and telephone lines crossing
the boundaries of States are means of interstate commerce.^'
The powef of Congress to confer franchises upon corporations
created under State laws implies the power to create such cor-
poration by direct legislation.^^^ Under its power to establish
post-offices, post-roads and roads for military purposes Con-
gress may purchase existing lines of telegraph, or incorporate
telegraph lines.^^S Congress has power to give to the federal
courts exclusive jurisdiction in matters of controversy arising
with respect to national corporations and for removal of suits
brought against them in the State courts, to the federal
courts.^^li

38. National corporations.An interstate railroad incor-

porated by the act of Congress has its residence in every State
and thus its domicile may at any time be remote from any part
of its line of raihvay.^*'

39.
Power of Congress to create corporations in the Dis-
trict of Columbia.Under the power delegated to the federal
government to accept a cession of territory for the seat of
government, and to exercise exclusive legislation thereover,
Congress may create corporations therein, both public and
private,^' as freely as may any state create corporations with-
in the boundaries. And thus Congress, under a general en-
abling act, adopted for the District, has incorporated transporta-
Co. V. Miners, 115 U. S. 1; Cali-
isfPensacola T. Co. v. Western
fornia v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U. T. Co., 19 Fed., 2
Wood, 643,
U. S. 1. 96 U. S. 1.
15b
Cherokee Nation v. South-
isgr Western U. T. Co. v. Ala.
ern Kansas R. Co.,135 U. S. 641. 132 U. S. 472.
15c
United States v. Jones, 109
ish
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Myers,
U. S. 513.
115 U. S. 1; Ames v. Kansas, 111
isd
Carson v. Maryland, 120 U. U. S. 449.
S. 502.
i
Interstate Com., etc. v. Texas,
iseRatterman v. Western U. T. etc. Ry. Co.. 57 Fed. 948 (1893).
Co., 127 U. S. 411. 17
21 Cent. Law Journal, 428.
26
rOWER TO IXCORrORATE.
[
40.
tion, manufacturing-, insurance, banking- and railroad companies,
educational institutions and religious, benevolent and other so-
cieties,but these are not national corporations, for they are not
agencies for administration of the g^cncral government of the
United States.^8
In the District of Columbia, under its power to exercise ex-
clusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district, it
has power to create corporations," other than those which
are created as instruments of federal government, for giving-
effect to its general powers. The District of Columbia, being
a municipal corporation, of which Congress is its legislature,
any corporation created therein is a foreign corporation, as to
any State of the Union, to the same extent as is a corporation
created by another State.
^

40. In the Territories.Congress may exercise power over

the public domain, of establishing temporary governments
and creating private corporations therein, or providing for the
creation of the latter by the territorial governments them-
selves.-^ A general grant by Congress to a territory, of power
of legislation, includes the power to create corporations under
general incorporation acts, subject to the United States Con-
stitution and laws of Congress,"^ which corporation becomes
a corporation of the State upon admission of the Territory to
Statehood.-^ Express power is now conferred by act of Con-
gress upon the Territories to create corporations, forbidding
18
Hadley v. Freedman's, etc. Co., ate themselves together as bodies
2 Tenn. Ch. 122; Close v. Glen- corporate for mining, manufactur-
\vood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466; ing or other industrial pursuits.
Williams v. Creswell, 51 Miss. For a further consideration of the
817; Stoutenburg v. Hennick, 129 power of Congress to create a cor-
TJ. S. 141;
Huntington v. Nat. Sav. poration, and a full presentation
Bank, 96 U. S. 388; Daly v. Na- of the subject from the point of
tional, etc. Co., 64 Ind. 1. view of a Hamiltonian, see
It"
Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Hare's American Constitutional
Wheat. 738.
Law (Boston, 1889, 98. 105, 111,
20
Huntingdon v. District of 249, 1310); 21 Cent. Law Jour.
Columbia, etc. Bank, 96 U. S. 388; 428.
Daly V. United States, etc. Ins. 22
Biddick v. Amelin, 1 Mo. 5;
Co., 64 Ind. 1.
Williams v. Bank of Michigan, 7
21
Story on the
Constitution, Wend. (N. Y.) 539; 21 Cent. Law
Section 1265, and Rev. Stat, of the Jour. 428.
U. S., Sections 1889, 1890,
provid- 23
Vance v. Farmers' & Me-
ing that
territorial legislatures chanics' Bank, 1 Blackf. (Ind.)
shall not grant private charters, 80; Trans-Pacific R. Co. v. Atchi-
but may permit persons to associ- son, etc. Co., 112 U. S. 414; Bank

11-]
rOWER TO INCORPORATE. 27
the grant of any special charter or privilege to corporators.^*
Such a corporation cannot sue or be sued in any federal court
as a national corporation.-'^ Under its power to dispose of,
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the ter-
ritory or other property belonging to the United States, it may
create corporations within the Territories, and for that purpose
delegate its power to the territorial legislatures under en-
abling acts.-^a For example, it has created corporations with-
in State limits upon Indian reservations.
^^b

41. Of the power of the federal government to incorpo-

rate a bank.In the discussion of the bill to grant a charter
to the Bank of the United States, the power of Congress to
pass the act was seriously questioned. President Washington
signed the bill only after much hesitation. And when, twenty
3^ears later, the question of continuing the power of the bank
was presented to Congress, so serious was the constitutional
objection deemed to be, that for four years successively a re-
newal of its charter was refused. In 1819 the question came
before the Supreme Court in the case of McCuIloch v. Alary-
land, and it was there decided that, with reference to the per-
formance of such functions as the government of the United
States itself could undertake, which were expressly and in
terms delegated by the States, and in reference to such only,
the federal government could create a corporation as an in-
strumentality and an agency, and that the instrumentality
must be necessary to that end.-^ The doctrine of this case was
of Vincennes v. State, 1 Blackf. have found a place among the
(Ind.) 267. enumerated powers of the govern-
24
u. S. Rev. Stat. 1872, Sec. ment. But being considered as a
1829. means, to be employed only for
25
Adams Express Co. v. Denver, the purpose of carrying into exe-
etc. R. Co., 16 Fed. 712. cution the given powers, there
25a Vincennes University v. In- could be no motive for particularly
diana, 14 How. (U. S.) 2G8. mentioning it." Chief Justice
25b
United States v. Kagama, ]\Iarshall, delivering the opinion
118 U. S. 373. in this case, 9 Wheat. 61, also,
26McCulloch V. Maryland, 4 said:

"Why is it that congress

Wheat, 316, 421, where Chief Jus-
can incorporate or create a bank?
tice Marshall, delivering the opin-
This question was answered in
ion of the court, said:

"Had it McCulloch v. State of Maryland,

been intended to grant this power.
It is an instrument which 'is
as one which should be distinct necessary and proper' for carry-
and independent, to be exercised ing on the fiscal operations of
in any case whatever, it would government." And again, refer-
28 POWER TO INCORPOKATE.
[
42.
subsequently affirmed by the same court in Osborn v. The
Bank of the United States,-^ a case which arose out of an at-
tempt on the part of the State to tax the bank, the right being
denied by the court.-^ Notwithstanding these decisions the
question was re-debated during President Tyler's administra-
tion, the controversy having extended beyond the time when
the life of the bank was destroyed by the action of President
Jackson. The present national banking system was created
under the exigencies of the civil war, as part of the fiscal arm
of the government and in aid of the regulation of the cur-
rency, at a time when its absolute necessity could not be
doubted and when the public mind subordinated every matter
of constitutional law to the paramount question of expediency.
Plaving, moreover, the support of the doctrine declared in Mc-
Culloch V. jMaryland,-'' the constitutionality of its existence
may be deemed, at the present day, to be well established.^*'

42. Of the power of the federal government to incorpo-

rate a railway through the Territories.Until the second ses-
sion of the fiftieth Congress, the only other cases in which the
general government had exercised the power to create corpora-
tions have been those in which it imposed duties and obliga-
tions, or conferred powers upon various State organizations
to enable them and others to extend the building of a railroad
through the Territories of the United States from the Mis-
souri river to the California State line, all of which, so far as
Congress alone authorized its construction, was built through
territory over which the authority of the federal government
was exclusive. Inasmuch as Congress had power to build
post-roads, and therefore to construct a highway within the
territory of the United States, it could delegate that power to
a corporation or create a corporation for the purpose of per-
forming its own functions. That power has not been seriously
ring to the authority to incorpo-
29
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4
rate:

"The question on which V/heat. 316.

this right would depend must al-
so
Osborn v. Bank of United
ways be, are these faculties so
States, 9 Wheat. 738; Van Allen v.
essential to the fiscal operations Assessors, 3 Wall. (U. S.), 373;
of the government as to authorize McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat,
congress to confer them?" (U. S.) 316; State v. Curtis, 35
27
Osborn v. Bank of United Conn. 374, 95 Am. Dec. 263;
States, 9 Wheat. 61. Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U. S.
28
McCulloch V. Maryland, 4 421.
Wheat. 316.

43.] POWEE TO INCORPORATE. 29

questioned. How careful Congress was in the Pacific Rail-
road legislation, which was admittedly of the greatest national
importance, not to overstep the constitutional boundaries in
that regard, is evinced by every act from
1857
to
1873
in rela-
tion to those highways. Land grants were made to the sev-
eral States through which the separate links which were finally
to constitute the great national route were constructed, so as
to enable the States to subsidize and organize the railroads
which were ultimately to form a part thereof. The direct ac-
tion of the United States, in the way of conferring corporate
powers and authority to construct, and its direct investment
by way of subsidies of land, were made only from the borders
of Missouri across a country at that time wholly under a ter-
ritorial form of government, no further than to the State line
of California.
^^

43.
Of the incorporation of the Nicaragua canal by the
federal government.In the second session of the fiftieth Con-
gress that body granted a charter to the Maritime Canal Com-
pany of Nicaragua, a company organized for the purpose of
constructing, equipping and operating a ship canal from the
Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, through the territory of the
Republic of Nicaragua, or in part through that State and the
Republic of Costa Rica. This is the first time in the history
of the Constitution that Congress has attempted to grant an
act of incorporation for a purpose apparently foreign to any
power expressly delegated to the federal government by the
States, and under a most liberal construction of the Constitu-
tion the purposes and objects of this company can be shown,
pursuant to the rule in McCulIoch v. Maryland, to be necessary
and proper to the exercise of power expressly delegated to the
general government. This company, however, derived an un-
questionably constitutional corporate existence from the State
of Vermont, from which it had obtained a charter before it
sought incorporation at the hands of the federal government.^"

44.
Corporations created during the civil war.Corpora-
tions created by legislatures of States, in rebellion against the
31
California v. Central Pac. R.
32
in California v. Pac. R. Co.,
Co., 127 U. S. 1, 39; Union Pac. R. Justice Bradley, referring to
Co. V. Hall, 3 Dillon C. C. 51.5, 91 the Pacific Railway legisla-
U. S. 343; Indiana v. United lion, said:

"It cannot at tiie

States, 148 U. S. 148. present day be doubted that con-
30
POWER TO INCORPORATE.
[
4:4-, 45.
United States government have power (since suppression of
the rebclHon) to sue in the federal courts, if the acts of in-
corporation related only to domestic concerns of the state,
and were not hostile to the Union or in conflict with the Con-
stitution, and were ordinary legislation such as yearly occurs
in all the States.
^^
Under ordinance of 1865,
declaring laws
passed since May, 1861, to be in force unless incompatible
with allegiance to the United States, a corporate charter,
granted by the State convention of 1862, is valid, if consist-
ent with the State and federal Constitution, even though the
charter requires the directors to be citizens of the Confederate
States; that designation was merely to have them accessible.^*
A charter granted during the civil war by one of the States
in rebellion to a corporation organized to provide charity for
confederate soldiers, held to be in aid of the rebellion and
void.^^ The South Carolina act of
1863,
incorporating a com-
pany for purposes of exporting cotton and importing arms
and munitions of war, was held void.^

45.
Interstate corporations created by concurrent action
of two States.Congress has power to create a corporation for
constructing a bridge across a river, forming boundary be-
tween States.^'' Several States may unite in creating the same
corporation, or in combining several pre-existing corpora-
tions in one.^* Where the charter of one state is duplicated
in another, in attempt to create a new corporation, the effect
gress, under the power to regulate sential, the creation of the cor-
commerce among the several porations, upon which the author-
States, as well as to provide for ity is conferred, remaining, as is
postal accommodations and mill-

implied, with the States. Cali-
tary exigencies, had authority to fornia v. Pacific R. Co.^ 127 U. S.
pass these laws. The pov/er to 39.
construct or to authorize Individ-
33
United States v. Home, etc.
uals or corporations to construct Ins. Co. (1874), 89 U. S. (22
national highways and bridges Wend.) 99. 22 L. Ed. 816.
from State to State, is essential to
34
Sappona Iron Co. v. Holt
the complete control and regula- (1870), 64 N. C. 335.
tion of interstate commerce." It
ss
North Carolina Endowment
will be observed that Justice Fund v. Satchwell (1874), 71 N.
Bradley avoids speaking here of C. 111.
the power of congress to create
so
Chicora Co. v. Crews (1875);
any corporation. It is the power 6 S. C. (6 Rich.) 243.
on the part of the government to
3^
Luxton v. North River Bridge
construct, or to "authorize" in- Co., 150 U. S. 525.
dividuals or corporations to con-
ss
Copeland v. Memphis, etc. Co.,
struct which is declared to be es- Fed. Cas. 3209, 3 "Woods, 651.

45.] POWER TO INCOKPORATE. SI

is to consolidate the two, and no separate organization is
necessary.^^ Two states cannot create a corporation of both,
which is not a corporation of each or either, and thus fuse
themselves into a single sovereignty.^" A corporation of one
State which becomes incorporated in one or more other States
is a distinct corporation in each, though it may have the same
name." It is a resident in each of the States in which it is
organized.*" Its dissolution in one State does not affect its
franchise in another State.
*^
Its reincorporation in one State
is not ground for forfeiture of its charter in another.'** When
sued in one of the States it cannot claim citizenship in another
to remove the cause to a federal court.*^ Where a consoli-
dated railroad runs into three States it is a distinct corpora-
tion in each.*'' A railroad running through fiv*e States, incor-
porated in each, and where under consolidation agreement
each corporation conveys its property to a newly organized
corporation, it was held to be a resident only of the States
wherein it was originally incorporated.*^ The same corpora-
tion may be created by the concurrent legislation of two or
more States. It has a distinct entity and a domicile in each
of the States co-operating in its creation.*^ "We see no rea-
son why several States cannot, by competent legislation, unite
in creating the same corporation, or in combining several pre-
existing corporations into a single one. .... Nor do we
see any reason why one State may not make a corporation of
another State as there organized and conducted, a corporation
of its own, quo ad hoc any property within its territorial juris-
diction. ... It is well settled that corporations of one
State may exercise their faculties in another so far and on
such terms and to such extent as may be permitted by the
39
Blackburn v. Selma. etc. Co.,
4*
Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Weber,
Fed. Cas. 1467, 2 Flip. 525. 96 111. 443 (1880).
40
Quincy R. Co. v. Adams Co.,
45
Paul v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.,
82 111. 615. 44 Fed. 513 (1890); Winn v. Wa-
41
Baldwin v. Chicago, etc. Ry., tash R. Co.. 118 Fed. 55 (1902).
86 Fed. 167 (1898).
46 Fitzgerald v. Missouri Fac. R.
42
Nashua, etc. R. Co. v. Boston, Co., 45 Fed. 812 (1891); Winn v.
etc. R. Co., 136 U. S. 356 (1890); Wabash R. Co., 118 Fed. 55
Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. Co., 56 (1902).
Fed. 273 (1893).
47 Wesheider v. Wabash R. Co.,
43
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Ala- 115 Fed. 840 (1902).
bama, 107 U. S. 581 (1882).
4s
Graham v. Boston, etc., US
U. S. 161.
32 rOWER TO INCORPORATE.
[
45a.
latter."
*
Although Congress may, if it see fit, and as it has
often done, recognize and approve bridges erected by author-
ity of two States across navigable waters between them, it
may at its discretion, use its sovereign powers, directly or
through a corporation created for that object, to construct
bridges for the accommodation of interstate commerce by
land, as it undoubtedly may to improve the navigation of
rivers for the convenience of interstate commerce by water.^*

45a. Constitutional restrictions upon the creation of cor-

porations. Prohibition of the grant of exclusive privileges,

The Constitutions of most of the states prohiljit the creation

of corporations by special charter, and prohibit the grant of
any especial privilege or immunity to corporations.^^ The ob-
ject and policy of prohibiting the creation of corporations by
special charter is "to inaugurate the policy of placing all cor-
porations of the same kind upon a perfect equality as to all
future grants of power ; of making such laws applicable to all
parts of the State and thereby securing the vigilance and at-
tention of its whole representation, and finally, of making all
judicial constructions of their powers or the restrictions im-
posed upon them equally applicable to all corporations of the
same class."
^^
Prohibition against such incorporation carries
prohibition against amendment by special statute of an Exist-
ing charter, whereby it might be extended or recreated,^^ but
it may, by amendment, by special act, regulate the existing
powers already conferred upon a corporation, if those powers
or privileges, existing under them are not enlarged or ex-
tended by the amendment.^* Such a prohibition cannot be
evaded by a special act granting privileges upon associates
thereafter to be incorporated under a general law, if the act
be an attempt to evade the constitutional prohibition. The
subsequent incorporation under general law will carry with it
no powers or privileges, except thereby conferred.^
49
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Har-
52
Atkinson v. Marietta, etc. R.
ris, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 65. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21.
50
Lr.xton v. North River Bridge 53
McGregor v. Baylies, 19 Iowa,
Co., 153 U. S. 525. 43.
51
Thomp. Corp., Sections 538- 54
Astor v. New York Arcade R.
568, where all the provisions in all Co., 113 N. Y. 93; Gilbert El. R.
the States down to a late date are Co. v. Henderson, 70 N. Y. 361.
given. Also see Cyc. of Law and
55
San Francisco v. Spring Val-
Procedure, Vol.
10, p. 172. Infra ley Water Works, 48 Cal. 493;
62, 9330-968. Vide infra, 62, 68, 995a; Ex-
clusive Privileges.
CHAPTER III.
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
A.
THE CORPORATE CHAKTER.

46.
47.
Early charters.
Charter defined.

48. "What constitutes a charter.

B.
THE CHARTER AS A CONTRACT. FRANCHISE DEFINED. EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
The charter as a contract
between the corporation
and the state.
The Dartmouth College
case.
Application of the doctrine
of the Dartmouth College
Case.
United States constitutional
protection against im-
pairment of contracts.
Laws impairing obligation
of contract.
Statutes creating a new,
or modifying an old rem-
edy.
Franchise defined.
Distinction between fran-
chise and license.
Contract of the State with
the incorporators.
The contract between the
incorporators themselves.
The contract between the
incorporators and third
parties.
60. Construction of the charter
contract.
61. Incidental powers granted
by the charter.
62. Exclusive privileges. Char-
ter franchises.
63. The privilege must be
clearly expressed.
64. Incorporation by implica-
tion.
65. Delegation of power to in-
corporate.
66. No power in the courts to
incorporate.
66a. Self-incorporation by min-
isterial act of court.
67. Acceptance of the charter
by the incorporators.
68. Constitutional limitations
upon the state legislature.
68a. Creation of corporation by
acquisition of existing
charter.
References
:
Franchises. Forfeiture. Sections 1292-1305.
Perpetual charter. Section 79.
Constitutional restrictions. Sections 62, 45a, 933a.
A.
THE CORPORATE CHARTER.

46. Early charters.The earliest great trading corpora-

tion chartered in England was that of the IMerchant Adven-
turers of London, so named by Henry VH in the 14th cen-
tury. It became an exchisiA'e monopoly, and by the close of
the reign of Queen Elizabeth had gathered into the hands of
its two hundred shareholders, five-sixths of all the foreign
Vol. I

3
34 IXCOEPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
47.
trade of England into the port of London. Under Elizabeth
the East India Company was chartered ; and the Hudson Bay
Company in 1670. The English colonies in America were
planted by corporations similarly chartered and with exclusive
privileges which provoked the hatred of the people, and which,
excepting the Hudson Bay Company/ generally proved dis-
astrous to all concerned. During the early period before the
revolution, corporations were regarded with great disfavor.^
Charters were very difficult to obtain and were therefore very
valuable.

47.
Charter defined.The charter is a contract, first, be-
tween the State and the corporation, second, between the cor-
poration and the stockholders, and third, between the stock-
holders and the State.
"Those charters of incorporation, however, which are
granted, not as a part of the machinery of the government, but
for the private benefit or purpose of the corporators, stand
upon a different footing, and are held to be contracts between
the legislature and the corporators, having for their considera-
tion the liabilities and duties which the corporators assume
by accepting them
;
and the grant of the franchise can no more
be resumed by the legislature, or its benefits diminished or
impaired without the consent of the grantees, than any other
grant of property or valuable thing, unless the right to do^so
is reserved in the charter itself."
^
A charter is the special legislative grant creating the corpo-
ration, or, when formed under a general statute, the charter
consists of such statute and the articles of association, which
are also called the certificate of incorporation.* The charter of
a corporation is the grant of its powers and franchises by legis-
lative act. When the grant is by special act, that constitutes
the charter when read in connection with such articles of as-
sociation, as may have been entered into by the corporators
under authority of the statute.^ When a corporation is formed
under authority of a general corporation law, that and the arti-
1
Child V. Hudson Bay Co. 5 Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon,
(1723), 2 Pr. Wm's. 207; Elliott 44 Neb. 279, 62 N. W. 480; North,
on Private Corporations,
6. etc. Co. v. Utah, etc. Co. (Utah),
2McKim V, Odom, 3 Bland Ch. 52 Pac. 168, 40 L. R. A. 851; Louis-
418. ville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S.
3
Cooley Constitutional Law,
1; People v. Chicago, etc. Co., 130
337; Bent v. Underdown,156 Ind. 111. 268; Mechanics' & Traders'
516 (1901). Bank v. Rowly, 2 La. Ann. 372;
4
Bixler v, Summerfield, 195 111. Piilford v. Fire Dept. etc., 31 Mich.
147 (1902). 458.
I

4S, 49.]
INCOKrOKATION UNDER SPECIAL CnARTER. 35
cles of incorporation executed in compliance therewith, consti-
tute the corporate charter." But whether chartered under spe-
cial act, or otherwise under general statute, the corporation is
not exempt from the operation of general laws or public regu-
lations, applying throughout the State.''

48.
What constitutes a charter.Few private corpora-
tions- at this time have a charter in the sense in which that
word was at first used, that is, a legislative grant of express
powers given to the particular corporation by a special act of
the legislature. The constitution of many States requires that
private corporations shall be incorporated only by compliance
with the provisions of a general enabling act of the legislature,
and most States have so provided for incorporation under gen-
eral statute. The charter now consists of the general statutes
and of the certified articles of incorporation.*
B.
THE CHARTER AS A CONTRACT. TRANCHISE DEFINED. EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGE.

49.
The charter as a contract.It is a contract by the cor-
poration with the stockholders that the corporation will con-
fine itself to the powers granted, and to the business author-
ized, and that it will not attempt to commit any ultra vires
act.*^ That the charter of a corporation is a grant and there-
fore a contract was decided in Fletcher v. Peck. That a grant
from a State is a contract within the purview of the United
States Constitution, article i, section 10, was decided in
Fletcher v. Peck; that the charter of a corporation is a grant
and therefore a contract was decided in the Dartmouth Col-
Granger, etc. Ins. Co. v. etc. Co., 75 Me. 373; Knights of
Camper (1882), 73 Ala. 325; Chi- Pythias v. Weller, 93 Va. 605; :Ma-
cago, etc. Co. v. Town of Lake, hire v. New Orleans, etc. Bank
130 111. 42; Society for Visitation 11 La. S3, 30 Am. Dec. 710; Wig-
V. Commonwealth (1866), 52 Pa. gin's Ferry Co. v. City of East St
St. 125, 91 Am. Dec. 139; Lincoln, Louis, 102 111. 5G0; Northwestern
etc. Co. V. Sheldon (1895), 44 etc. Co. v. Village of Hyde Park
Neb. 279; State v. Central, etc. Co., 97 U. S. 659; Eastman v. Amos-
71 Iowa, 410, 60 Am. Rep. 806; keag, etc. Co., 44 N. H. 160, 82
Taggart v. Perkin, 73 Mich. 303; Am. Dec. 201.
Van Etten v. Eaton (1869), 19
s
Bent v. Underwood, 156 Ind.
Mich. 187; Cronin v. Potters' Co- 516 (1901); Bixler v. Summer-
Op. Co. (1892), 29 Weekly Law. feld, 195 111. 147 (1902).
Bull. 52.
!
Harding v. American, etc. Co.,
-
French v. Connecticut, etc. Co., 182 111. 551 (1899).
145 Mass. 261; Burbank v. Bethel,
3G INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
50.
lege case; and that in respect of the constitutional provision
against enacting of a law by any State impairing the obliga-
tion of contracts, the grant is to be construed strictly in favor
of the state and against the public, was decided in the Charles
River Bridge case. The constitutional doctrines on the sub-
ject are given in these three decisions of the United States Su-
preme Court.^*'

50. The Dartmouth College Case.

"Courts to-day are

estopped from questioning the doctrine of the Dartmouth Col-
lege case."
^^
The case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,'^
decided in
1819,
Chief Justice Marshall rendering the decision
of the court, contains one of the fullest and most elaborate ex-
positions of the constitutional sanctity of vested corporate
rights to be found in any of the law reports. The matters in
controversy in that case were five times the subject of litiga-
tion in the several State and federal courts.^^ In the State
K'
Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch.
87; Dartmouth College v. Wood-
v/ard, 4 Wheat. 518; Charles River
Bridge v. "Warren Bridge, 7 Pick.
344, 11 Peters, 420.
11
Binghampton Case, 3 Wall.
(U. S.) 51.
12
4 Wheat. 516, reversing s. c.
1 N. H. 111.
13
"There were five of these
causes. The first was trespass on
the case, brought by the Trustees
of Dartmouth College in common
pleas against William H. Wood-
ward, chief justice of that court,
for converting, etc., 'the books and
records in writing,' 'the original
charter,' and the 'common seal of
said college.' The mandate was
to attach the defendant's goods to
the value of $50,000, or to arrest
his body. The writ was dated
February 8, 1817, and served on
February 10, 1817, by 'attaching
a chair' valued at one dollar. The
case was entered at the February
term, 1817. By consent the cause
was entered in the Superior Court
the highest court in the State

at the May term, 1817. This case

is reported in 1 N. H. 111-138,
and in 4 Wheat. 518-715 (4
Cur-
tis' Decisions, 463-534). The
case in both courts is also reported
at length in a volume of about
400
pp. by Timothy Farrar, the
son of one of the plaintiffs, the
partner of Mr. Webster, and one
of the counsel in the cause. The
second was the proceeding in -the
name of the State, in which Judge
Woodward was acquitted by the
same jury that rendered the spe-
cial verdict in the first case. The
third was a suit in ejectment for
$3,000, brought in the United
States Circuit Court for New
Hampshire by Horace Hatch, of
Vermont, for a lot of land near
the college. The writ was dated
March 9, 1818. A special verdict,
about twenty pages in length, wa.5
rendered at the October term, 1818,
and the case went, upon a certifi-
cate of the division of opinion be-
tween the judges, to the Supreme
Court of the United States. The
fourth was a similar suit of eject-
ment in the same court for $2,000,
brought by David Pierce, of Wood-
stock, Vermont, ex dem. Job Ly-
man on March 27, 1818, against
Benjamin Gilbert, of Hanover.
The trustees of the college were
vouched in at the October term,
1818, and made defendants, and

50.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 37

court it was held that the trustees of Dartmouth College, hav-
ing- no private interest in the administration of the funds com-
mitted to their charge, but holding them merely as trustees for
a public charity, were not a private, but a public corporation,
..and that as such their charter was subject to amendment at
the discretion of the legislature without their concurrence or
assent. The sanctity of charters granted to private corpora-
tions and their inviolability under the prohibition in the fed-
eral constitution against the passage of laws impairing the
obligations of contracts, was fully admitted by the State tri-
bunal." The one material issue, therefore, when the case came
before the Supreme Court of the United States was, whether
the trustees of the college were a public or a private corpora-
tion; and it was there decided that they were none the less a
private corporation because of the public nature of the charity
and of their having no personal, private interest in the funds
which they administered.^^ The great principle enunciated by
the federal court, that any act of a legislature which takes
away any of the powers or franchises vested by its charter in
a private corporation or its corporate officers, or which re-
the cause went to the Supreme tween the township and the cor-
Court on a similar verdict. The poration. Williamson v. State of
fifth was a similar suit, Marsh v. New Jersey
(1889), 130 U. S. 189.
Allen et al., brought in the same But those charters of incorpora-
court with a similar result." tion "which are granted, not as a
14
Trustees of Dartmouth Col- part of the machinery of the gov-
lege V. Woodward (1817), 1 N. H. ernment, but for the private bene-
111. The legislature may, under fit or purposes of the corporation,
proper limitations, change, modify, stand upon a different footing,
enlarge, or restrain public corpo- and are held to be contracts be-
rations, such as counties, cities, tween the legislature and the cor-
et cetera. Tenett v. Taylor, 9 porators, having for their con-
Cranch, 43. Thus the New Jersey sideration the liabilities and duties
Act of February 18, 1862, author- which the corporators assume by
ized an old township to convey its accepting them; and the grant of
poor-farm to a new corporation the franchise can no more be re-
formed from part of the town- sumed by the legislature, or its
ship, and provided that it should benefits diminished or impaired
still be subject to taxation by the without the consent of the
township. The conveyance was grantees, than any other grant of
made. The Act of April 11, 1866, property or valuable thing, unless
exempted from taxation all prop- the right to do so is reserved in
erty used for charitable purposes, the charter itself." Cooley on
thus repealing the Act of 1862. It Constitutional Limitations, (5th
was held that the Act of 1866 was ed.) 337.
not unconstitutional, as impairing
is
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
the obligation of a contract be- ward (1819), 4 "RTieat. 518.
38
INCORPOKATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[50.
strains or controls the legitimate exercise thereof, or transfers
them to other persons without its assent, is a violation of the
obligations of that charter, and is unconstitutional and void,^**
had not been denied by the court of the State.
^^
Not only the
exalted character and reputation of Chief Justice Marshall, but
also the elaborate consideration of the whole subject of vested
corporate rights, has made this the leading case in the law,
upon which has been founded a line of decisions extending the
doctrine to its utmost limits and confirming it beyond all pos-
sibility, at this day, of successful assault.^^
16
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
ward, 4 Wheat. 518.
17
Trustees of Dartmouth Col-
lege V. Woodward (1817), 1 N. H.
111.
18
As to the contract character
of grants to private corporations
see also. West River Bridge Co. v.
Dix, 6 How. 542, 548; Newton v.
Mahoning Co., 100 U. S. 557; Stone
V. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 816, 819;
Hewitt V. New York, etc. R. Co.,
12 Blatchf. 461; County of San
Mateo V. Southern Pac. R. Co.
(1882), known as "The Railroad
Tax Cases," 8 Sawy. 260; 13 Fed.
Rep. 722, 740, deciding that the
fourteenth amendment of the
federal constitution, in declaring
that no State shall' deny to any
person the equal protection of the
laws, imposes a limitation upon
the exercise of all the powers of
the State which can touch the in-
dividual or his property, including
among them the power to tax, and
that the rule applies to artificial
as well as natural persons; Illinois
Central R. Co. v. Stone, 20 Fed.
Rep. 472; Sala v. New Orleans, 2
Woods, 194; Piqua Branch Bank
V. Knoop, 16 How. 382; Chenango
Bridge Co. v.
Binghamton Bridge
Co., 3 Wall. 51, 73; Holyoke Water
Power Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 511;
Davis V. Gray, 16 Wall. 232; Minot
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 18
Wall. 225; Wilmington R. Co. v.
Reid (1871), 13 Wall. 203;
North
Western Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde
Park, 97 U. S. 672; Corbin v.
Washington County, 1 McCrary,
527; s. c. 3 Fed. Rep. 362; Zabriski
V. Hackensack & N. Y. R. Co.
(1867), 18 N. J. Eq. 178; Lothrop
V. Stedman (1875), 42 Conn. 583;
Stevens v. Rutland & B. R. R. Co.
(1854), 29 Vt. 545; Erie & N. R.
Co. V. Casey (1856), 26 Pa. St.
287, per Jeremiah S. Black, J. To
the point that franchises are legal
estates: Society for Savings v.
Coite, 6 Wall. 606. To the point
that grants of franchises to cor-
porations are similar to other
legislative grants: West River
Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507,
543. As to amendments altering
or modifying corporate charters:
Union, etc. R. Co. v. Philadelphia,
101 U. S. 559; Greenwood v.
Union, etc. R. Co., 105 U. S. 20;
St. Anna's Asylum v. New Orleans,
105 U. S. 368; Spring Valley Water
Works V. Scholler, 110 U. S. 352,
370; Hewitt v. New York. etc. R.
Co., 12 Blatchf. 461; Parrott's
Chinese Case, 6 Sawy. 357; State
Lottery Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 3
Woods, 242; United States v. Ar-
redondo, 6 Pet. 738; Charles River
Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge Co.,
11 Pet. 420, where the court ex-
pressed itself as fully sensible of
their duty in dealing with corpo-
rate property, to proceed with the
utmost caution, guarding as far as
possible the rights of property and
at the same time carefully abstain-
ing from any encroachment on
the rights reserved by the States;
East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge
51-]
INCORPOEATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTEE. 30

51. Application of the doctrine of the Dartmouth College

case.No judicial mind could have foreseen at the time of
this decision, the extent of the subsequent applications to busi-
ness corporations, of a principle declared in the case of a col-
lege, any more than the extensive and varied growth of cor-
porations could at that time have been predicted. But, from
the beginning, the application of the rule to the charters of
business corporations has been asserted and defended as nec-
essary to stimulate corporate enterprise and investments.^
The principle, in subsequent cases, was held to embrace all
contracts, executed and executory, between the State and pri-
vate corporations ;
^
and it is held not to vary the case that
the proposed change is slight, and that presumably it will not
Co.. 10 How. 378; Miller v. New
York, 15 Wall. 493, 496; Edwards
V. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595; Central
Pacific R. Co. V. Gallatin, 99 U. S.
748, 765. As to statutory restric-
tions upon the attributes and
powers of corporations: Bank of
Augusta V. Earle, 13 Pet. 587; Per-
rine v. Chesapeake, etc. Canal Co.,
9 How. 184; Vincennes University
V. Indiana, 14 How. 275. As to
when the obligation of the charter
contract is impaired: Dodge v.
Woolsey, 18 How. 379; Marye v.
Parsons, 114 U. S. 336; Ex parte
Kinney, 3 Hughes, 13, 18. As to
the circumstances which will war-
rant courts in declaring an act
unconstitutional: Bonaparte v.
Camden, etc. R. Co., 1 Baldw. 219;
Darling v. Berry, 4 McCrary, 485;
s. c. 13 Fed. Rep. 570; In re
Smith, 2 Woods, 463;
United
States V. Goldman, 3 Woods, 194.
As to construction of
constitu-
tional provisions: Santa Clara
Railroad Tax Cases, 9 Sawy. 184,
185; 18 Fed. Rep. 397. As to
statutory regulations of
civil in-
stitutions: Ex rel Hobbs, 1 Woods,
540. As to the distinction between
the respective rights of
pitblic and
private corporations: East Hart-
ford V. Hartford Bridge Co., 10
How. 536; Piqua Branch Bank v.
Knoop, 16 How. 380; Bonaparte v.
Camden, etc. R. Co., 1 Baldw. 223;
Adams v. Boston, etc. R. Co., 4
Bank Reg. (*
p. 100) 316; Sweatt
V. Boston, etc. R. Co., 3 Cliff. 343,
353; s. c. 5 Bank Reg. 242, 250;
Allen V. McKean, 1 Sum. 297, 298,
301; Rundle v. Delaware, etc.
Canal, 1 Wall., Jr. 291; Adams v.
Boston, etc. R. Co., 1 Holmes, 31;
Cooley on Constitutional Limita-
tions, (5th ed.) 337. To the point
that the charter comprehends
political relations .ietioeen the
government and its citizens: As-
pinwall V. Daviess Co., 22 How.
377. To the point that the char-
ter comprehends political relations
beticeen the legislature and a put-
lie officer:
Hall v. Wisconsin, 103
U. S. 10. Defining "due process of
laio." and "laio of
the land:" Beck-
with V. Bean, 98 U. S. 295; County
of San Mateo v. Southern Pacific
R. Co. (The Railroad Tax Cases),
8 Sawy. 260; s. c. 13 Fed. Rep.
765; The Worthington, 19 Fed.
Rep. 840; State v.
Walruff, 25 Fed.
Rep. 199;
Kansas v. Bradley
(1885), 26 Fed. Rep. 291.
10
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bing-
hamton Bridge Co... 3 Wall. 51,
74; "The Dartmouth College Case
and Private
Corporations," by
William P. Wells (1886), 9 Am.
Bar Assn. Rep. 229, 239.
20
Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1;
Bridge
Proprietors v. Hoboken, 1
Wall. 116.
40 INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
51.
have an injurious effect on the corporation, for the reason that
the State is held bound to keep each and every part of the
agreement.^^ Accordingly, a grant of corporate privileges for
a specified period cannot be resumed by the State within that
time, and if the charter be without limitation as to time, it is
forever irrepealable.^^ And it is also held that the charter of
a private corporation organized under a general law, is as in-
violable as that of one organized under a special act.-' Thus
business corporations have been secured in the possession and
enjoyment of every privilege, exemption and benefit clearly
conferred by their charters or enabling acts, in the irrevocable
title to property and franchises granted, in the exclusion of
competing corporate enterprises and works, in freedom from
increased public burdens, in the right to the use and enjoy-
ment of their property and franchises, and in immunity from
legislative control,^* The courts of the United States do not,
however, accept as conclusive upon them the judgment of the
State court, either as to the non-existence of contracts or as to
their non-impairment, because if the decision of the State
court were to be accepted without inquiry or examination, the
constitutional prohibition would be nugatory.^^
21
Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 2; Court said: "It has been decided
Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. three times by this court that the
327; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 60th section of the charter of the
311; Hare's American Constitu- State Bank of Ohio was a contract
tional Law, 600. between the State and the bank
22
Erie & N. R. Co. x.
Casey within the meaning, and entitled
(1856), 26 Pa. St. 287; Greenwood to the protection, of the constitu-
V. Freight Co. (1881), 105 U. S. 13. tion of the United States against
23
People V. Keese, 27 Hun, 483. any law of the State of Ohio im-
24
"The Dartmouth College Case pairing its obligation; and the
and Private Corporations," by acts of Ohio, upon which the Su-
William P. Wells (1886), 9 Am. preme Court of Ohio has assumed
Bar Assn. Rep. 229, 240, citing the State's right to tax the State
Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. Bank of Ohio and its branches
301; Trustees of Vincennes Univ. differently from the tax stipulated
V. Indiana, 14 How. 268; Chenango for in the 60th section of the char-
Bridge Co. V. Binghamton Bridge ter, were and are inconstitutional
Co., 3 Wall. 51, 73; Davis v. Gray, and void;" Bridge Proprietors v.
16 Wall. 203; New Jersey v. Yard, Hoboken Co., 1 Wall. 116; Delmas
95 U. S. 104; New Orleans Gas v. Insurance Co., 14 Wall. 661;
and Water Cases, 115 U. S. 650. Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791;
25
State Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. Williams v. Louisiana, 103 U. S.
369; Ohio L. I. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 637; Louisville & N. R. Co. v.
16 How. 416; Jefferson Branch Palmes, 109 U. S. 244; Patterson's
Bank v. Skelly (1861), 1 Black, Federal Restraints on State Ac-
436, where the federal Supreme tion,

59.

52, 53.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 41

52. United States constitutional protection against impair-

ment of contracts.The declaration of the United States Con-
stitution that no State shall pass any law impairing the obliga-
tion of a contract, binds the State so that its grant of a charter
to a private corporation accepting it constitutes a contract be-
tween the State and the corporation without whose consent
the State Legislature cannot repeal or materially alter the
charter, without impairing the obligation of a contract in vio-
lation of the Constitution. To this effect is the leading case,
the Dartmouth College case, holding that the corporation hav-
ing been founded by private means was a private corporation,
and not public ; and that within the meaning of the Constitu-
tion, its charter was a contract, and that the statutes of the
legislature of New Hampshire impaired the contract and were
void.^ A State law as a measure of police regulation, pro-
hibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, is
not repugnant to any clause of the United States Constitution.
Though the company was incorporated to manufacture malt
liquors in all their varieties and this included the incidental
right to dispose of the liquors manufactured, such incorpora-
tion conferred no greater right than any individual citizen had
to manufacture malt, liquor, nor any exemption from legisla-
tive control that would not apply to such individual. The
charter of the corporation was not a contract to manufacture
malt liquors forever, regardless of exigencies as to the morals
or health of the community, that might require such manu-
facture to cease. The legislature had no power to confer any
such rights. Under this clause it is not the charter that is
protected but only any contract which the charter may con-
tain, if there is no contract, there is nothing in the grant of the
charter on which this clause in the constitution can act--^^

53.
Laws impairing obligation of contracts.The pro-
hibition of the passage by a State of any "law impairing the
obligation of contracts," would, if strictly construed, include
under the word "law" only statutes enacted by state legisla-
tures ; but it has been determined that it equally comprehends,
in addition to acts of legislation, state constitutions and con-
stitutional amendments,-' or any act or order from whatever
26
Dartmouth College v. Wood- 97 U. S. 25 (1877); Boyd v. Ala-
ward (1819), (17 U. S.) 4 Wheat. bama. 94 U. S. 645.
518.
27
New Orleans Gas Light Co. v.
26a
Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, Louisiana Light, etc. Co., 115 U.
42
INCORTORxlTION UNDEU SPECIAL CHARTER.
[53.
source emanating, to which a State, by its enforcement there-
of, gives the effect of a law ; as, for instance, a statute enacted
by the congress of the Confederacy and enforced during the
war between the States by a court of a state within the hostile
lines.^^ But decisions of state courts of last resort, establish-
ing a precedent in the same jurisdiction, are not such "laws"
as come within the constitutional prohibition, unless they alter
the construction of the constitution and statutes of the state
in force when the contract was made.'" The prohibition does
U. 650, 1 Keener's Cas. 212; Pat-
terson's Federal Restraints on
State Action, 58, citing Ohio,
etc. R. Co. V. McClure, 10 Wall.
511; White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646;
Osborn v. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654;
County of Moultrie v. Rocking-
ham Ten-Cent Savings Bank
(1875), 92 U. S. 631, 635, distin-
guishing Aspinwall v. County of
Daviess, 22 How. 364, and Town of
Concord v. Portsmouth Savings
Bank, 92 U. S. 625, and saying, "In
neither of these cases was there
any contract made before the
authority to make one was an-
nulled." . . . "The operation
of the constitution was only pros-
pective." Edwards v. Kearzey, 96
U. S. 595; Keith v: Clark, 97 U. S.
454; New Orleans Gas Co. v.
Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S.
650; Fisk v. Jefferson Police Jury,
116 U. S. 631. The constitution of
Louisiana of 1879, which abrogates
the monopoly features of existing
corporations, is inoperative under
the United States constitution, to
affect the obligation of a contract
incurred by the State in granting
to the New Orleans Water Works
Company the exclusive privilege
of using the streets of New Or-
leans to lay water-pipes; and an-
other company, which, by virtue
of the State constitution, attempts
to lay pipes, cannot justify its
action, under the police power of
the State to regulate the supply
of water, by simply showing that
it will supply purer and more suit-
able water than the New Orleans
Water Works Company, neither
the legislature nor the city having
taken any steps in the matter.
Such a question must be first
raised by some action of the State,
not of the parties. St. Tammany
Water Works Co. v. New Orleans
Water Works Co. (1SS7), 120 U.
S. 64.
28
Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S.
176; Stevens v. Griffith, 111 U. S.
4S; Ford v. Surget, 97 U. S. 594;
Patterson's Federal Restraints on
State Action, 58.
20
Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall.
175; Olcott V. Supervisors, 1 Wall.
678; Chicago v. Sheldon,
9"*
Wall.
50; City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477;
Douglass V. County of Pike, 101
U. S. 677; County of Ralls v.
Douglas, 105 U. S. 628; Have-
meyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall.
294; Ohio, etc. Co. v. Debolt, 16
How. 432, per Taney, C. J.; Pat-
terson's Federal Restraints on
State Action, 58. "The State
court may erroneously determine
questions arising under a contract
which constitutes the basis of the
suit before it; it may hold a con-
tract to be void, which, in our
opinion, is valid; it may adjudge
a contract to be valid, which, in our
opinion, is void; or its interpreta-
tion of the contract may, in our
opinion, be radically wrong; but,
in neither of such cases, would
the judgment be reviewable by
this court under the clause of the
constitution protecting the obliga-
tion of contracts against impair-
ment by State legislation, and

53.]
INCOKrORATION UNDER SPECIAL CUARTER. 43
not apply merely to decisions of a State court construing a
contract.
^
"Not only must the obligation of a contract have been im-
paired, but it must have been impaired by a law of the State,
The prohibition is aimed at the legislative power of the State,
and not at the decisions of its court, or the acts of administra-
tive or executive boards or officers, or the doings of corpora-
tions or individuals."
^^
"It must be the Constitution or some
law of the State which impairs the obligation of the contract,
or which is otherwise in conflict with the Constitution of the
United States ; and the decision of the State court must sus-
tain the law or the Constitution of the State in the matter in
which the conflict is supposed to exist."
^^
Obviously the law which is alleged to have impaired the ob-
ligation of the contract must have been enacted subsequently
to the making of the contract, for every law enacted ante-
cedently to the making of the contract is considered to have
entered into and become a part thereof.^^ The constitutional
prohibition is likewise inoperative with regard to the acts of
any political organization which, at the time of the adoption
of the act in question, is not one of the United States ; thus the
Constitution having, under the resolution of the convention of
under the existing statutes defin- v. Rock, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 177;
ing and regulating its jurisdic- Union Passenger Ry. Co. v. Phila-
tion, unless that judgment in delphia, 101 U. S. 528; State v.
terms, or by its necessary opera- Northern Central Ry. Co., 44 Md.
tion, gives effect to some provision 121; Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall,
of the State constitution, or some (U. S.) 454, 2 Smith Cas. 740;
legislative enactment of the State, City of New York v. Twenty-Third
which is claimed by the unsuc- St. Ry. Co., 113 N. Y. 311; Ohio
cessful party to impair the obliga- Life, etc. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How.
tion of the particular contract in (U. S.) 416; Morris & Essex Ry.
question." Mississippi & Missouri Co. v. Miller, 30 N. J. Law, 368;
R. Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177, 181; Northern Bank of Kentucky v.
Ohio & Mississippi R. Co. v. Mc- Stone, 88 Fed. 413; Iron City
Clure, 10 Wall. 511, 515; Knox v. Bank v. City of Pittsburg, 37 Pa.
Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379, 383; St. 340; Wagner Free Inst. v. City
Delmas v. Insurance Co., 14 Wall. of Philadelphia, 32 Pa. St. 612. 19
661, 665; University v. People, 99 Am. St. Rep. 613; Commonwealth
U. S. 309, 319; Chicago Life Ins. v. Fayette Co. R. Co., 55 Pa. St.
Co. v. Needles, 113 U. S. 574. 582; 452.
Lhigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121
si
New Orleans Water Works
U. S. 388, 392, per Harlan, J. Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Ref. Co.,
30
St. Paul, etc. Co. v. Todd 125 U. S. 18.
County, 142 U. S. 282; New Or-
32 Mississippi & Missouri Ry. Co.
leans v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 142 v. Rock, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 177.
U. S. 79; New Orleans Water ?3 Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton,
Works Co. V. Louisiana, etc. Co. 121 U. S. 388, 391.
125 U. S. 18; Mississippi, etc. Co.
44 INCORPORATKIN UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
54.
17S7, and the act of Congress of February,
1788,
gone into ef-
fect on the first Wednesday of March,
1789,
a statute enacted
by the State of Virginia in 1788 was not affected by the con-
stitutional prohibition."'* So, also, a statute enacted by the
republic of Texas, before its admission into the United States
as the State of Texas, could not be held to be void for repug-
nancy to this clause of the Constitution.
'''^
Equal protection
of
the lazv. Discrimination against corpora-
tions.A corporation is denied equal protection of the laws
by a statute making all corporations liable for injuries to em-
ployees by reason of defective machinery, although the em-
ployer had knowledge of the defect, where private individuals
are not so liable, and there is no distinctive difference in the
business that will warrant the classification.^'^a'
Due process
of
lazv.A reduction of water rates by a board
of supervisors to a point where they would return six per
cent, annual income to the v/ater company upon the value of
its plant, is not beyond authority of the statute and is not a
taking of property without due process of law.^^^
Draiimge company.A statute providing for notice only to
owners of abutting lands of an assessment for the construc-
tion of drainage ditches, instead of notice to owners of lands
along or in the vicinity of the improvement, which lands are
to be benefited thereby, is violative of the constitutional inhi-
bition against taking property without due process of law.^'^c

54.
Statutes creating a new or modifying or abolishing
an old remedy.The constitutional prohibition of laws im-
pairing the obligation of contracts, as a rule, has no applica-
tion to statutes modifying or abolishing an existing remedy
or providing a new one. "The forms of administering justice
must always be controlled by the legislature. It cannot di-
vest itself, or any subsequent legislature, of this power."
^*
"There is a difiference between those rights on which the va-
lidity of the transactions of the corporation depends, which
34
Owings V. Speed, 5 Wheat.
ssb
San Joaquin, etc. Co. v.
420; Patterson's Federal Re- Stanislaus Co., 192 U. S. 21
straints on State Action, 57. (1904), 13 Fed. 930.
35
League v. De Young, 11 How.
ssc
Beebe v. Magoun, 97 N. W.
185, 203; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 986 (Iowa 1904).
343, 378; Patterson's Federal Re-
3
Bank of Columbia v. Okely
straints on State Action, 57. 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 235.
"r.a
Ballard v. Mississippi, etc.
Co., 62 L. R. A. 407.

54r.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CIIAUTER. 45

must adhere to those transactions everywhere, and those pe-
cuHar remedies which may be bestowed upon it; the first are
general obligations ; the last, from their nature, can only be ex-
ercised in those courts which the power making the grant can
regulate."
^'^
In this respect again there is no distinction be-
tween natural and artificial persons. The rights of both are
equally sacred; both are equally subject to legislative control.
Besides, the power to regulate procedure may be regarded as of
the police power of the State, of which a surrender could never
be presumed,"^ and so long as no new burden is imposed upon
corporations which might not be lawfully laid upon natural
persons, the State has an undoubted right to provide new rem-
edies by which to enforce the duties of corporations to the
public or to redress injuries occasioned by their acts.^ A
statement of the general law on this subject, by the Supreme
Court of the United States, is that "the general doctrine of
this court on this subject may be thus stated : In modes of pro-
ceeding and forms to enforce the contract, the legislature has
the control and may enlarge, limit or alter them, provided it
does not deny a remedy, or so embarrass it with conditions or
restrictions as seriously to impair the value of the right."
*
For all grants of corporate privileges and franchises are sub-
ject to the condition that they shall not be abused, nor em-
ployed to defeat the ends for which they were conferred, and
to an equally implied condition that the legislature may pre-
scribe such reasonable regulations as will secure the ends for
which the corporation is organized, provided such regulations
do not interfere with or obstruct the enjoyment of the cor-
porate privileges. This principle is expressly declared to be
essential to the protection of the public against perils arising
from the ignorance, misconduct or fraud of those who man-
age corporations.*^ Thus, acts regulating banks, v/hich im-
37
Chief Justice Marshall in Met. (Ky.) 165; Hare's American
Young V. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Constitutional Law, 421, 600.
Cranch (U. S.), 384.
4o
Peuniman's Case, 103 U. S.
as
Cairo & F. Ry. Co. v. Hecht, 714; Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S.
95 U. S. 168. 69; Crawford v. Branch Bank of
.^
39McCurdy's Appeal, 65 Pa. St. Mobile, 7 How. 279; Antoni v.
^
290; McElrath v. Taggart, 55 Pa. Grenhow, 107 U. S. 769; Railway
St. 189; Long's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. v. New Orleans, 157 U. S. 219.
114; Union Canal Co. v. GilfiUin, And see Virginia Coupon Cases,
93 Pa. St. 95; Sanders v. Hills- 114 U. S. 270.
borough Ins. Co., 44 N. H. 238: "Chicago Life Ins. Co. v.
Louisville County v. Ballard, 2 Needles, 113 U. S. 574; The Sink-
46
INCOUrORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
54.
pose no new burdens upon them but merely provide means of
restraining them from conducting business contrary to bank-
ing principles, have been held constitutional.'*- Upon the same
principle where an act was passed for the benefit of a turnpike
corporation already chartered, which contained a clause au-
thorizing a sale of the property for debt in certain cases, and
the company refused to accept the provisions of the act, it was
held that although no right was reserved to the legislature to
amend the charter, yet that it had power to subject the prop-
erty of the corporation to the payment of its debts in this
way.*^ And it may change the remedy prescribed by the char-
ter of a turnpike company for compelling it to keep its road in
repair.** Modifying the form of remedy for enforcing the in-
dividual liability of stockholders for debts of the corporation,
but not annulling their liability, is constitutional, even as ap-
plied to debts contracted by the corporation before the en-
actment.^^ So a statute prescribing a mode' of service of pro-
cess upon a railroad company different from that provided
for in its charter is not void as impairing. the obligation of a
contract, provided the power with respect to remedial legis-
lation be not exercised so as to affect injuriously rights which
have been secured.* And after a corporation has been incor-
porated, a statute which prescribes a mode of judicial sefvice
ing Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700; "The ground of local prejudice, or be-
Dartmouth College Case and Pri- cause it is a non-resident, it shall
vate Corporations," by William P. forfeit its permit, and no new one
Wells (1886), 9 Am. Bar Assn. shall be issued for the space of
Rep. 229. See also Goodrel v. three months, was not contrary to
Kreichbaum (1887), 70 Iowa, 362, section 8, art. 1, Const. U. S., and
where the court decided that section 21, art. 1, Const. Iowa.
Chapter 76, Laws Twenty-first which provide that no law shall
Gen. Assem. Iowa, providing that be passed impairing the obligation
foreign corporations, other than of contracts.
those organized for mercantile
42
y/ard v. Farwell, 97 111. 593;
or manufacturing purposes, shall Commonwealth v. Farmers' & Me-
take out permits before doing chanics' Bank, 21 Pick. 542.
business in that State, or suffer
43
Louisville Turnpike v. Bal-
certain penalties, and shall not be lard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 165.
allowed to exercise the right of
4^ Williamsport & Hagerstown
eminent domain, or other priv- Turnpike Co. v. Startzman, 86 Md.
ileges conferred on corporations, 363.
unless they take out such permit,
45 Fourth National Bank v.
and that if any such foreign cor- Francklyn (1887), 120 U. S. 747.
poration, when sued in the State
46
Cairo & F. Ry. Co. v. Hecht,
courts of that State, removes the 95 U. S. 168.
cause to a federal court, on the

51.]
IXCORPOEATION UNDER SI'KCIAL CIIAUTER. 47
on the corporation different from that provided for in its char-
ter, affects only the remedy, and is constitutional.*^ When a
new remedy is authorized after a contract has been made,
such remedy may be wholly taken away by the legislature be-
fore any vested rights have been acquired under it, because
such remedy could not have formed any part of the contract
as made. But where the creditor proceeds and acquires vested
rights under the new remedy, it will be incompetent for the
legislature to affect those rights by repealing the new rem-
edy.'*^ A statute that merely changes without taking away a
remedy which was in force at the time of creation of a corpora-
tion, and by which its rights might be enforced, does not im-
pair the obligation of contracts.'*" As, a repeal of a charter
limitation of time to six months within which to bring suit
against the railroad company for damages by killing stock
through the company's negligence.'^'' At the time of creating
a corporation the legislature may impose upon it and upon
persons dealing with it, restrictions in regard to subjecting its
assets to the discharge of its obligations ; and also may pro-
vide that any one of the ordinary remedies of creditors shall
be withheld in certain cases.
^^
Neither has the constitutional
prohibition of laws impairing the obligation of contracts any
application to rules of evidence and procedure in State courts.'^
And a statute merely penal in its nature may be constitution-
ally repealed although it may affect existing obligations.^'
47
Cairo & F. Ry. Co. v. Hecht, Under it, on a trial of the validity
95 U. S. 168. of detached coupons of State
48
Memphis v. United States, 97 bonds, the State may require the
U. S. 293; South Carolina v. Gail- bonds from which the coupons are
lard, 101 U. S. 433. alleged to have been detached to
49
Cairo & F. Ry. Co. v. Hecht, be produced in evidence; and also
95 U. S. 168; Chicago Life Ins. Co. that the act of Virginia assembly
v. Auditor, 101 III. 82; Carey v. of January 21, 1886, forbidding
Giles, 9 Ga. 253.
the use of expert testimony in the
BO
Louisville & N. Ry. Co. v. trial of an issue as to the genuine-
Williams (Ky.), 45 S. W. 229. ness of coupons detached from
51
National Shoe & Leather bonds of the State of Virginia, is
Bank v. Mechanics'
National valid, and binding on the courts
Bank, 89 N. Y. 467.
as a rule of evidence.
Cf.
Skin-
52
Commonwealth v.
Weller ner v. Richardson, B. & Co. (Wis.
(1887), 82 Va. 721, where it was 1890), 45 N. Yv''. Rep. 318.
held that the Virginia Act of Jan- 53 Union Iron Co. v. Pierce
uary 26, 1886, ch. 49,
entitled "An (1869), 4 Biss. 327, holding that
act to prescribe a
rule of evidence actions pending at the time of the
in certain cases," is constitutional, repeal of the penal statute under
valid, and binding on the courts. which they are brought, can not
4S
INCORPORATION UNDER SrKCIAL CHARTER.
[
55.

55.
Franchise defined.There is a distinction between a
franchise, a corporate power, and a mere personal privilege or
license revocable at will of the legislature. A franchise is a
right or privilege conferred by law. It is a special privilege
granted by the government to a natural person or to a cor-
poration, which privilege belongs to no person, as of common
right.
'^*
It must be granted by the sovereign power of the
State, and must be a privilege or immunity of a public nature,
such as cannot be exercised without legislative grant. The
right to be a corporation is a franchise.
^
A grant of corporate
existence is a grant of special privileges to the corporators,
empowering them to act for prescribed purposes, as a single
individual, and excepting them from individual liability.^" A
franchise may be granted to individuals in anticipation of
their actual incorporation, and be in abeyance until the cor-
poration is formed, whereupon the franchise immediately vests
in the corporation by virtue of the articles of association, and
either with or without any assignment from the individual
corporators.^^ The franchises or property which the charter
grants to the body remain in abeyance till the corporation is
brought into life, and then the franchises instantaneously at-
tach.^^ The use of the franchise granted is not a condition
precedent to the vesting in the corporation of the right t6 use
it.^^ The franchise vests in the corporation immediately upon
its grant, in the absence of any conditions precedent to be per-
formed.'''* Chancellor Kent's definition is : "A franchise pos-
sessed by one or more individuals who subsist as a body po-
be further prosecuted; Breitung v.
sg
Mills v. Alston^ etc. Co.
Lindaur 37 Mich. 217; Gregory v, (1891), 4 Wilson Civ. Cas. Ct.
German Bank, 3 Colo. 332. App. (Texas) 221.
54
Bank v. Earl, 13 Pet. (U. S.)
57
Spring Valley Water Works
595; Green v. Knife, etc. Co., 35 v. City, etc., 22 Cal. 434; Santa
Minn. 155; Wilmington, etc. Co. Rosa, etc. Co. v. Central St. Ry.
V. Evans, 166 111. 548, 46 N. E. (Cal.), 38 Pac. 986.
1083; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U.
58 Dartmouth College v. Wood-
S. 223; People v. Utica, etc. Co., ward (1819), 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.)
15 Johns. (N. Y.) 386; Thompson 518.
V. People, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 539;
so
Pearsall v. Great Northern
Spring Valley, etc. Co. v. Schot- Ry. Co. (1895) (C. C), 73 Fed.
tier, 62 Cal. 73; State v. Minn., 933.
etc. Co., 40 Minn. 213; Abbott v.
eo
Blackwell v. State (1880), 36
Johnstown Co., 80 N. Y. 27, 36 Ark. 178; Logan v. McAllister
Am. Rep. 572.
(1858), 2 Del. Ch. 176.
55
California v. Central, etc. Co.,
127 U. S. 40.

55.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 49

litic under a special denomination, and are vested by the
policy of the law with the capacity of perpetual succession,
and of acting in several respects, however numerous the mem-
bers of the association may be, as a single individual."
^
This
definition introduces the new element that a corporation is a
franchise. The right to be a corporation is a franchise. The
individual corporators are not the corporation, but with the
franchise conferred upon them, they become the corporation,
thus created by law, which is the sense in which Chief Justice
Marshall defines a corporation as "intangible, invisible and
existing only in contemplation of law."
^^
The franchise to
be a corporation vests in and belongs to the stockholders or
members who compose the corporation and not to the corpo-
ration itself. All the corporate property may be swept away
and yet its franchise to be a corporation remains."^ The policy
of the law in the permission of private individuals to assume
the pov^ers of an artificial personality was to thereby encour-
age and aid private persons in the accomplishment of some
enterprise for the good of the general public, and this grant of
special privilege to be a corporation was called franchise, but
it has lost much of its technical meaning and the franchise to
be a corporation can scarcely be called a special privilege now,
that instead of being the exception it is now the rule to incor-
porate, and that now, under general incorporation statutes, any
one may avail himself of the right, equally and with every
other person.
'^'a
"What is a franchise? Under the English
law, Blackstone defines it as a 'royal privilege, or branch of
the king's prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject'
(2
Blk. Com.
37).
Generalized and divested of the special
form which it assumes under a monarchical government, based
on feudal traditions, a franchise is a right, privilege or power
of public concern, which ought not to be exercised by private
individuals, at their mere will and pleasure, but should be re-
served for public control and administration, either by the
government directly or by public agents acting under such
conditions and regulations as the government may impose in
the public interest and for the public security. Under our
system their existence and disposal are under the control of
61
3 Kent, Com. 458.
63
Fietsam v. Hay, 122 111. 293.
2
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
csa
Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. 397.
ward, 4 Wheat. 518 (1819).
Vol. 1

4.
50 INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
5G.
the legislative department of the government and they can-
not be assumed or exercised writhout legislative authority. No
private person can establish a public highway or a public ferry,
or railroad, or charge tolls for the use of the same, without au-
thority from the legislature, direct or derived. These are fran-
chises. No private person can take another's' property, even
for a public use, without such authority, which is the same as
to say that the right of eminent domain can only be exercised
by virtue of a legislative grant. This is a franchise. No per-
sons can make themselves a body corporate and politic, with-
out legislative authority. Corporate capacity is a franchise.
The list might be continued indefinitely."
^^^

56. The distinction between a franchise and a license.

There is to be noted a distinction between the grant of a

franchise and a mere license, in that the former comes within
the protection of the rule in the Dartmouth College case, while
the latter is revocable at the pleasure of the grantor."* Thus
it is held that a supplement to a charter which merely con-
veys a new right or enlarges an old one without imposing any
additional burden, is a mere license or promise by the State,
and may be revoked at pleasure."^ And a statute or ordinance
authorizing a natural or artificial person to use or occupy a
street or highway is, in the absence of a plainly expressed-' in-
tention that the right shall be permanent, a mere license, and
as such revocable, although the grantee has made valuable
improvements in the belief that the privilege will not be re-
called.''*' For every licensee from a public authority necessa-
rily takes it subject to the right of eminent domain, to be
exercised for the benefit of the public in the future as well as
in the past. "It is one of the fundamental rights of the gov-
ernment, never stationary, but ever keeping step with the
march of science, art and public improvement."
^"^
It is a ques-
63b
California v. Pacific R. Co.,
ee
Southwark R. Co. v. City of
127 U. S. 1. Philadelphia, 47 Pa. St. 314;
64
East Hartford v. Hartford Monongahela Navigation Co. v.
Bridge Co., 10 How. 511 and 541; Coons, 6 Watts & S. 101, 112;
Philadelphia, etc. Ry. Co.'s Ap- Hare's American Constitutional
peal (1884), 102 Pa. St. 123; Law, 665, 666.
Southwark R. Co. v. City of Phila- 67
Branson v. City of Philadel-
delphia, 47 Pa. St. 314; Branson v. phia (1864), 47 Pa. St. 329, 331,
City of Philadelphia (1864), 47 where the court continued, ohiter.
Pa. St. 329. "Turnpikes and canals have had
65
Philadelphia, etc. Ry. Co.'s their day, attracting to their sides
Appeal (1884), 102 Pa. St. 123. the industry and capital of the

57.]
INCOEPOKATION UNDER SPECIAL CnARTER. 51
tion of intent and statutory construction whether or not a par-
ticular statute is a mere Hcense or a charter. A statute of a
State, licensing- a foreign corporation to operate within the
State, does not create a corporation or change the fact of for-
eign domicile.''^

57.
The contract of the State with the incorporators.

The Dartmouth College case is frequently cited as establish-

ing the proposition that all charters of private corporations
are contracts which the State cannot impair. "In this con-
nection, however," said Chief Justice Waite, "it is to be kept
in mind that it is not the charter zuhich is protected, but only
any contract which the charter may contain. If there is no
contract, there is nothing in the grant on which the constitu-
tion can act; consequently, the first inquiry in this class of
cases always is : Whether a contract has in fact been entered
into, and if so, what its obligations are."
"^
Speaking gener-
ally, it may be said that every valuable privilege conferred
upon the incorporators which conduced to the acceptance of
the charter and organization thereunder, constitutes a con-
tract.^" The first of these privileges is that which is conferred
upon the incorporators collectively as natural persons to act
in an artificial and corporate capacity.''''- The extent and lim-
itations of this contract are determined by the common-law
citizen. . . , But who has ever tial attributes of a corporation

heard it said that the Common- the creation of the distinct and in-
wealth is bound to .maintain her dependent franchise called a cor-
works merely because their use porationwhich, when created,
has thus built up a business de- has a capacity, among other
pendent upon them." things, by its corporate name, to
6s
Baltimore & O. Ry. Co. v. receive and enjoy such other fran-
Harris, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 65, 1 chises, privileges, and immunities.
Cum. Cas. 46; Grangers' Life, etc. property and rights, as the legisla-
Co. V. Kemper, 73 Ala. 325; Cope- ture itself, or other persons, with
land V. Memphis, etc. Co., 3 its permission, may grant to it.
Woods, 651, Fed. Cas. No. 3209; The right to be a corporation is a
Bachmann v. Supreme Lodge, etc., distinct, independent franchise,
44 111. App. 188;
Blackburn v. complete within itself, having no
Selma, etc. Co., 2 Flip. 525, Fed. necessary connection with other
Cas. No. 1467.
distinct franchises, which are the
69
Stone V.
Mississippi, 101 U. S. subjects of legislative grant, and
816.
which may or may not be given to
70
Piqua Branch Bank v. Knoop, corporations once created, as well
16 How. 369.
as to natui-al persons, as to the
'1
The creation of a corporation legislature may seem advisable,
is the bringing into being of an Southern Pacific R. Co. v. Orton
^irtificial person having the essen- (1887), 32 Fed. Rep. 457.
52 INCOKPORATION UNDER Sl'KCIAL CIIARTKR.
[
57.
rules respecting corporate powers and ultra vires acts. With-
out this contract there can be no corporate existence ; it may
be also the only contract embodied in the charter, in which
event the artificial person thus created is subject in all respects
to the same control as natural persons/- to the power of the
State to regulate the public health and morals,'^ to regulate
property dedicated to a public use/* to its power of eminent
domain," and to its power to levy and collect taxesJ" There
is no peculiar sanctity attaching to this artificial being or to
its property which does not also attach to natural persons,"
except so far as the State may have entered into and bound
itself by some other and additional contract expressly set
forth either in the original act of incorporation or in some
subsequent statute ; such, for example, as that no other bridges
shall be built within a certain distance of those which a cor-
poration was authorized to erect
;'^^
that the property of the
corporation shall be exempt from taxation
;
'^^
that the corpo-
ration may levy tolls upon a navigable river ;
^^
or the charter,
in addition to the contract that the incorporators shall be
vested with corporate capacity, may contain a further con-
tract that exclusive privileges therein granted shall not be
subject to amendment and repeal by the legislature without
the consent of the corporation.^^ It is such express grants' as
72
Long's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 114; v. Green & Barren River Nav. Co.
McCurdy's Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 290; (1883), 79 Ky. 73.
Hare's American Constitutional
si
Thus a company organized
Law, 600, and cases cited infra, under Act Mo. February 20. 18G5,

928 et seq.
entitled "An act to incorporate the
73
Vide infra,
622, 673, 925. Missouri Petroleum and Mining
74
Vide infra,
924. Company," which expressly ex-
75
Vide infra,
873, 876. empts charters of companies
76
Vide infra,
512. formed thereunder from legisla-
77
Long's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 114. live alterations, is not subject to
78
Bridge Proprietors v. Ho- provisions of Rev. St. Mo. 1855,
boken L. & I. Co., 1 Wall. 116, con- c. 34, art. 1, 7,
declaring that the
struing N. J. Act of 1790; where, charter of every corporation there-
however, it was held that a rail- after granted shall be subject to
way bridge might be erected with- alteration. Granby Mining and
in the prescribed limits without Smelting Co. v. Richards (1888),
impairing the obligation of the 95 Mo. 106. Infra, Chapter V.
contract.
So the act passed by the Legisla-
79
Home of the Friendless v. ture of Kentucky in 1869,
granting
Rouse, 8 Wall. 430;
Wilmington & exclusive privileges to the Louis-
W. R. Co. V. Reid, 13 Wall. 264; ville Gas Company, "plainly e.x-
Raleigh & G. R. Co. v. Reid, 13 presses," within the meaning of
Wall. 269.
the Act of 1856, an intent that the
80
Sinking Fund Commissioners charter of the company should not

58, 59.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 53

these that, taken tog^ether with the grant of corporate entity,
constitute the contract between the State and each corpora-
tion created by it ; and the utmost care is necessary to guard
against rehance upon general statements respecting the sanc-
tity of vested corporate rights, uttered as dicta, in cases in-
volving the construction of a particular charter.

58.
The contract between the incorporators themselves.

The second class of contracts which the State may not impair
is such as have been entered into jointly and severally be-
tween the members of the corporation themselves, or, as it is
sometimes expressed, the contract between the members or
stockholders and the corporation, whereby each subjects his
interests, with certain restrictions, to the control of the cor-
porate management, for the accomplishment of the ends for
which the company was formed.*- Thus, where the act of in-
corporatipn prescribes the mode of electing the president and
directors, another mode cannot be susbstituted, with the efifect
of enabling a minority of the stockholders to choose the offi-
cers, and indirectly to control the afifairs of the corporation;*'
and an act taking a charitable institution out of the hands of
the trustees designated by the charter, and subjecting it to
the control of third persons, is within the same principle.**

59.
The contract between the incorporators and third
parties.The third class of corporate contracts which the
State may not impair is such as are entered into between the
members or stockholders and persons dealing with the cor-
poration
;
as, for example, a statement in the charter that the
capital stock shall be of a certain amount, is a contract that
the amount named shall either be actually paid in or shall con-
stitute a trust fund for the security of corporate creditors.*^
be subject to amendment or repeal the object of the organization, but
at the will of the Legislature, he does not agree that the purpose
without the concurrence of the shall be changed in its character
city council and the company's at the will of the directors, or a
directors. Louisville Gas Co. v. majority of the stockholders, even.
Citizens' Gas Light Co. (1886), 115 The contract cannot be changed
U. S. 685.
without the consent of both con-
82
Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 tracting parties."
Wall. 25, where it is said:

"The
s3
Hays v. Commonwealth, 82
relation between the corporation Pa. St. 518.
and the stockholder is one of con-
si
Brown v. Hummel, 6 Pa. St.
tract. The stockholder subjects 86; Hare's American Constitu-
his interest to the control of the tiona Law, 600.
proper authorities to accomplish
85 This point will be treated in
5i INCOliPORATION UNDER Sl'ECIAL CHARTER.
[
GO.
So, also, a general statute, or provisions in charters, imposing
an additional liability upon stockholders of insolvent corpora-
tions, enter into and become a part of all contracts between
the corporation and its creditors; and the repeal of such a
statute or the amendment of a charter in that respect is void
as to existing obligations." And again, a provision in the
charter of a bank that its bills and notes shall be receivable in
payment of debts due the State, is a contract with the holders
of all notes issued prior to the repeal of the provision, which is
not impaired by the repeal.^

60. The construction of the charter contract.Contracts

embodied in corporate charters are construed according to the
principles which govern ordinary contracts.* But the rule
that the legislative intent must govern applies as well to spe-
cial and general acts of incorporation as to other statutes.*
Chapter XXII. See, also, "Retro-
active Laws Affecting Individual
Liability of Stockholders," 9 Cent.
L. J. 143. But contracts for schol-
arship between one of two colleges
and individuals, before the col-
leges were united, would not in-
hibit the legislature from altering,
modifying, or amending the char-
ter of the corporation by virtue of
a right reserved to that effect, or
with the assent of the corporation.
Pennsylvania College Cases, 13
"Wall. 190.
80
Hawthorne v. California, 2
Wall. 10 (18G4), Conant v. Van
Schaick (1857), 24 Barb. 87; Nor-
ris V. Wrenschall (1871), 34 Md.
492; Provident Savings Institution
V. Jackson Place, etc. Co. (1873),
52 Mo. 552; St. Louis R., etc. Co.
V. Harbine, 2 Mo. App. 134; Central
Agricultural & Mechanical Assn.
V. Alabama Gold .Life Ins. Co.
(1881), 70 Ala. 120, where the
court refused to consider whether
the former act was modified or re-
pealed by the subsequent enact-
ment, the liability in point having
been incurred before the passage
of the later act; Woodruff v. Trap-
nail, 10 How. 190; Story v. Fur-
man (1862), 25 N. Y. 214; Roches-
ter V. Barnes (1858), 26 Barb.
657; Sinking Fund Cases (r878),
99 U. S. 700.
Cf.
Jerman's Admr.
V. Benton, 79 Mo. 148; Woodhouse
V. Commonwealth Ins. Co. (1867),
54 Pa. St. 307.
87
Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How.
190; Paup v. Drew, 10 How. 218.
But where the State sold l^nds
which were held in trust for" the
benefit of a cemetery, and the
terms of the sale were that the
debtor should pay in specie or its
equivalent, such debtor was not at
liberty to tender the notes of the
bank in payment; the right to pay
in such notes was defeated by the
fact that the fund belonged to the
State only as a trustee, as well as
by the terms of the sale. Paup v.
Drew, 10 How. 218; Trigg v. Drew,
10 How. 224.
88
Binghamton, etc. Co. v.
Binghamton Bridge Co., 3 Wall.
51, 1 Smith Cas. 170; Union Na-
tional Bank of St. Louis v. Matth-
ews, 98 U. S. 621, 1 Keener's Cas.
562, 1 Cum. Cas. 95; Chesapeake,
etc. Co. V. Key, 3 Cranch (C. C),
599, Fed. Cas. No. 2649.
89
Union National Bank of St.
Louis v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621,
1 Cum. Cas. 95, 1 Keener's Cas.
562.
GO.J
INCOKPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 55
Although what is fairly implied therein is as much granted as
what is expressed, the charter is the measure of the powers
of the corporation, and the enumeration of those powers im-
plies the exclusion of all others."" AVhen the words of a char-
ter of incorporation are plain and interpret themselves, ex-
trinsic facts will not be considered as bearing on their mean-
ing."^ Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of the terms used
by the legislature must be resolved in favor of the public. If
the meaning of the words be doubtful, they are taken most
strongly against the grantee and in favor of the State. The
words are not to be extended by implication beyond their nat-
ural and obvious meaning, and any claim by the corporation
which depends upon a strained or unusual meaning of the
words of grant, must fail."^ As to what powers are granted
90
Case V. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21, 1
Keener's Cas. 589, 1 Cum. Cas. lOG,
1 Smith Cas. 405; Pratt v. Short,
79 N. Y. 437. 35 Am. Rep. 531;
Thomas v. West Jersey R. Co.,
101 U. S. 71; Nicholson's Suc-
cession (1886), 37 La. Ann. 346.
"Whatever is not unequivocally
granted in such acts is taken to
have been withheld; as all acts of
incorporation and acts extending
the privileges of corporate bodies
are to be taken most strongly
against the corporation." Sedg-
wick on Statute and Constitu-
tional Law, 339; Lees v. Canal
Co., 11 East, 652; Holyoke Co. v.
Lyman, 15 Wall. 511. Where the
charter of a turnpike company
authorized the company to levy
a tax upon adjoining property
owners to aid in constructing the
road, it was decided that the com-
pany had no right, in the absence
of an express charter provision
authorizing them to do so, to bor-
row money in order to complete
the road at an earlier date, and
charge the interest paid on the
loan to the tax-payer, and include
it in the tax levied. Lewis &
Mason Turnpike Road Co. v.
Thomas (Ky. 1887), 3 S. W. Rep.
907. The legislative grant of the
franchise of a ferry gives the
right to maintain a ferry and take
tolls; not the right to make a
landing upon the property of a
private person, nor upon a high-
way. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co. v.
Jones, 111 Pa. St. 204.
91
Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S.
536. The charter of the Charles
River Bridge Company is a writ-
ten instrument which must speak
for itself and be interpreted by its
own terms. The fact that any
rights or privileges were formerly
granted to Harvard College, with
reference to a ferry which has
been superseded by the bridge, on
payment of a large sum by the
company to the college, cannot be
used to extend the privileges of
the the bridge company bej'ond
what the words of the charter nat-
urally and legally import. Charles
River Bridge v. Warren Bridge,
11 Pet. 420.
92
Minturn v. Larue, 23 How.
435; St. Clair County Turnpike
Co. V. Illinois, 96 U. S. 63. "Char-
ters of private corporations duly
accepted, it must be admitted,
are executed contracts, but the
different provisions, unless they
are clear, unambiguous, and free
from doubt, are subject to con-
struction; and their true intent
and meaning must be ascertained
5G INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
GO.
to a corporation, its charter is to be construed strictly against
the corporation and in favor of the public. Powers not clearly-
granted are impliedly withheld.^^ "Every power that is not
clearly granted is withheld, and any ambiguity in the terms
of the grant must operate against the corporation and in
favor of the public."
*
The rule of strict construction of char-
ters will not be applied contrary to the evident legislative in-
tent : "If there is no ambiguity in the charter, and the powers
are plainly marked, it is the duty of the court to sustain and
uphold it and carry out the true meaning and intention of the
parties to it. Any other rule of construction would defeat all
legislative grants and overthrow all other contracts."
^^
Ac-
cordingly, where a right or privilege is claimed under the
charter of a corporation, nothing is to be taken as conceded
to it but what is given in unmistakable terms, or by an im-
plication equally clear.^^ Thus a provision in a railroad char-
ter that the directors of the corporation shall have power to
make all needful rules, regulations and by-laws touching "the
rates of toll, and the manner of collecting the same," does
not constitute an irrepealable contract with the corporation,
by the same rules of interpreta-
tion as other legislative grants.
Repeated decisions of this court
have established that whenever
privileges are granted to a cor-
poration, and the grant comes un-
der revision in the courts, such
privileges are to be strictly con-
strued against the corporation
and in favor of the public, and
that nothing passes but what is
granted in clear and explicit
terms." Rice v. Minnesota & N.
R. Co., 1 Black, 380; Charles River
Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet.
544.
93
Proprietors of Stourbridge
Canal v. Wheeley, 2 Barn & Adol,
792, 1 Smith Cas. 152, 1 Cum. Cas.
298; Singleton v. Southwestern
Ry. Co., 70 Ga. 464, 48 Am. Rep.
574; Dugan v. Bridge Co., 27 Pa.
St. 303, 67 Am. Dec. 464; Ameri-
can, etc. Co. V. Minnesota, 157 111.
641; State v. Payne, 129 Mo. 46S;
Attorney-General v. Jamaica
Pond, etc. Corp., 133 Mass. 361.
9i
Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v.
Canal Commissioners, 21 Pas St.
22; Northwestern, etc. Co. v. Vil-
lage of Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659.
95
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bing-
hamton Bridge Co., 3 Wall, (U.
S.) 51, 1 Smith Cas. 170.
96
Northwestern Fertilizing Co.
V. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659; Min-
turn V. Larue, 23 How. 436; Rice
v. Minnesota & N. R. Co., 1
Black, 358; Chenango Bridge Co.
V. Binghamton Bridge Co. ("The
Binghamton Bridge"), 3 Wall. 51;
Minot V. Philadelphia. W. & B. R.
Co. ("The Delaware R. R. Tax"),
18 Wall. 206. The principle that
grants to corporations are not to
be extended by construction, but
are to be construed strictly
against the grantees, has been
steadily applied where corpora-
tions have invoked the protection
of the rule in the Dartmouth Col-
lege Case. "The Dartmouth Col-
lege Case and Private Corpora-
tions," by William P. Wells
(ISSG), 9 Am. Bar Assn. Rep. 242.
ci.]
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
57
exempting- it from all future Icg-islative control in the matter
of regulating and collecting tolls."
Upon the same principle
it is decided that the enumeration of particular burdens or re-
strictions in a charter, as those to which the company is or
may be subjected, will not preclude the State or a municipal
government from imposing others which fall within the scope
of its general powers.
^^

6i. Incidental powers granted by the chartet.But what-

ever, under its charter and other general laws reasonably con-
strued, may fairly be regarded as incidental to the objects for
which a corporation is created, is not to be taken as pro-
hibited.^ The contract of the State with a corporation con-
97
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co
V. State (1890), 10 Sup. Ct. Rep
462.
98
Hare's American Constitu
tional Law, 666. Expressio unius
exclusio est alterius is not," says
Sharwood, J., "the rule of con
struction applicable to charters.'
Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa.
St. 440, where it was held that
the incorporation of a railway
company with authority to pass
through a city, subject "to such
regulations as may be required for
paving, repairing, and culverting
the streets/' will not preclude the
city councils from exacting an an-
nual license fee of thirty dollars
for each car, nor from prescribing
the charges for the conveyance of
passengers. And in another case
it was held that a clause in the
charter of a city railroad com-
pany, that the company shall pay
such license for each car run as
is paid by other passenger rail-
way companies in the city, which
was thirty dollars, is not a con-
tract that the license charged for
such cases should never exceed the
annual sum of thirty dollars, and
is not protected from impairment
by the United States constitution.
A subsequent act of the legisla-
ture which requires such com-
panies to pay the annual license
of fifty dollars for each car is not
unconstitutional as violating a
contract.
Union Passenger
Ry.
V. Philadelphpia.
101 U. S. 528.
The term of corporate existence
cannot be extended by implica-
tion. An additional privilege re-
specting the erection of a toll-
gate granted to a turnpike com-
pany after its term had more than
half expired, has been held not
to be a perpetual grant, but as
limited in duration to the remain-
der of the term. St. Clair County
Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U. S
63.
90
Green Bay & M. R. Co. v.
Union Steamboat Co., 107
U. S. 98.
In Carothers v. Philadelphia Co.
(1888), 118 Pa. St. 468, it was
held that a corporation author-
ized by its charter to engage in-
"any work or works, public or
private, which may tend or be de-
signed to improve, increase, facili-
tate, or develop" trade, can en-
gage in the business of producing
and supplying natural gas, under
tne Pennsylvania natural gas act
of 1885, whose preamble declares
that natural gas has become "a
prime necessity for use as a fuel,
and otherwise, in the development
of trade." The provisions of the
"Wisconsin statute applicable to
the incorporation of telegraph
companies may be deemed to ap-
ply to telephone companies, al-
though the latter are not named.
Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Osh-
5S
INCOIU'OKATION UNUKU SPECIAL ClIAKTEK.
[01.
sists not only of tlie original statute by which it was created,
but also of all prior acts of legislation relating to corporations
generally, in view of which the incorporators are presumed
to have accepted the grant ; and also of such subsequent stat-
utes as refer especially to the corporation and which may be
acquiesced in by the company, or which the State under a
reservation of the power to amend may constitutionally enact.
^
But the provisions of a special charter or a special authority
derived from the legislature are not affected by subsequent
general legislation on the subject, nor by a change in the State
Constitution, unless the power to amend has been reserved.
-
Terms of present grant in an act of incorporation will be in-
terpreted as only a promise to grant, if the right be with ref-
erence to what does not at the time exist.^ An article in the
charter of a corporation or association which re-enacts an ex-
isting provision of a general law, cannot be regarded as a con-
tract and is not within the protection of the provision of the
Constitution of the United States.* So, also, a grant to a cor-
poration aggregate, limited as to the duration of its existence,
without words of perpetuity being annexed to the grant, cre-
ates only an estate for the life of the corporation,^
kosh, 62 Wis. 32. But the New
York Act of 1848, ch. 319, and the
acts amendatory thereof, provid-
ing for the formation of bene-
volent, charitable, scientific, and
missionary societies, do not
authorize the incorporation of a
medical college, nor is the exist-
ence of such a corporation recog-
nized by the Act of 1882. ch. 367.
People V. Gunn (1SS4), 30 Hun,
322, s. c. 96 N. Y. 317.
1 A condition in a road com-
pany's charter, requiring the road
to be improved in a certain man-
ner before tolls could be exacted,
was held to be discharged by a
supplementary act giving power
to take tolls in a new mode in-
consistent with that previously
prescribed, and showing an in-
tention to acknowledge the per-
formance of the condit'on or to
waive it. State v. Godwinsville,
etc. Road Co., 44 N. J. 496.
estate V. Scholl, 17 Wall. 425;
New Orleans Water Works Co. v.
Rivers
(1885), 115 U. S.-' 674;
Dodge V. Woolsey, 18 How. 331;
Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v.
Thomas, IS How. 384; Jefferson
Branch Bank v. Skelly (18G1), 1
Black, 436; Franklin Branch
Bank v. Ohio, 1 Black, 474; New
Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana
Light Co. (1885), 115 U. S. 650;
Henry County v. Nicolay, 95 U. S.
619. See, also, Eastman's Estate
(1883), 60 Cal. 3C8, as to the ef-
fect of subsequent legislation upon
corporations formed under a gen-
eral act, where it was held that
religious corporations organized
under the California Act of 1850
were not affected by the repeal of
that act ana the substitution of
the provisions of the code.
3 North Branch R. Co. v. City
Passenger Ry. Co., 38 Pa. St. 361.
4 Sherman" v. Smith, 1 Black,
587.
5
St. Clair County Turnpike Co.
V. Illinois, 96 U. S. 63.

62.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECT.VL CHARTER. 59

62. Exclusive privileges. Charter franchises.Nearly all

the State Constitutions prohibit the grant of exclusive fran-
chise or privilege or immunity, except it be given in consid-
eration of public service, and were there no such prohibi-
tion, it would be implied. Incorporated companies for the con-
struction of a street railway, gas works, water works, a bridge
or a ferry, where the corporation obliges itself to serve the
public generally, have been held to be instances of such public
service, and the corporations to be within the exception to
the rule against the grant of exclusive privileges.^ Exclusive
and irrevocable franchises may be granted to corporations
when there is no constitutional inhibition thereof.^ Charters
with exclusive privileges have been repeatedly granted by the
older States. They have been deemed necessary to the pro-
motion of enterprises of public utility, and have in many in-
stances operated greatly to the convenience of the community,
as the means of accomplishing public improvements which
would not otherwise have been undertaken, or must have
been delayed to a much later period.^ The right to make such
exclusive grants has been supported by some of the most
eminent counsel in the United States, and has not been con-
tested by others who would not have failed to deny it had it
been deemed of questionable character. It has received the
sanction of some of the most learned tribunals in the union
and we see no reason to doubt the soundness of the prin-
ciple.'' But such grants are seldom now made, there being
contrary provisions or reservations of power in general laws
or in the special laws or charters, almost invariably.^" And
6 In re Philadelphia & Trenton 1 Wall. 116; Chenango Bridge Co.
Ry. Co., 6 Whart. (Pa.) 25; The v. Binghamton Bridge Co., 27 N.
Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. (U. Y. 87.
S. 51; New Orleans, etc. v. Louisi-
s
parker, J., in Piscataqua
ana, etc. Co., 115 U. S. 650; New Bridge v. New Hampshire Bridge
Orleans Water Co. v. Rivers, 115
(1834), 7 N. H. 35, 63, citing Gib-
U. S. 674; Louisiana Gas Co. v. bons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 97, note a.
Citizens', etc. Co.. 115 U. S. 683; 9 Parker, J., in Piscataqua
Norwich, etc. Co. v. Norwich, etc. Bridge v. New Hampshire Bridge
Co., 25 Conn. 20; Gordon v. Win- (1834), 7 N. H. 35, 63, citing
Chester, etc. Assn., 12 Bush. (Ky.) Charles River Bridge v. Warren
110. Bridge, 7 Pick. 393. 440; Living-
7
Piscataqua Bridge v. New ston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. 525,
Hampshire Bridge (1834), 7 N. H. 551; Ogden v. Gibbons, 4 Johns.
35; Bridge Co. v. Hoboken Land Ch. 150; Gibbons v. Ogden, 17
Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 81; The Bing- Johns. 488; s. c. 9 Wheat. 74, 143.
hamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51; Bridge
10 For example, the right of the
Proprietors v. Hoboken Land Co., legislature, under the code of
60
INCOKFORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHABTEK.
[
C3.
articles of association, under a general act of incorporation,
are a part of the law under which a company is organized, and
subject to alteration or repeal, the same as any other part of
the general system.^^ Such a grant is to be construed most
strictly against the grantee and in favor of the State ; nothing
passes by implication, especially where it would be in deroga-
tion of the sovereign power; and if the grant does not, in clear
and explicit language, make the franchise exclusive, it will
not be so understood.^^ The exercise of the corporate fran-
chise, being exclusive of individual rights, cannot be extended
beyond the letter and spirit of the act of incorporation.^^ And
exclusive privileges of supplying water to the public, or of
manufacturing gas, or of supplying light and heat to the public
by any other means, do not extend to companies formed for
the purpose of furnishing light by electricity.^* Powers, how--
ever, that are clearly implied with those incidental to the cor-
poration are as much beyond the control of subsequent legis-
lation, as those expressly granted.^^ These questions, how-
ever, are to be found more fully treated in amendment and
repeal of corporate charters.^^a

63. Privilege must be clearly expressed in the charter.

Especially in cases where the corporation claims undq.r its

charter some exclusive privilege,^ or exemption, have the
Georgia,
1651, 1682, reserving Water Co.'s Appeal, 102 Pa. St.
to the State the right to modify 515.
or withdraw the charter of any
is
Beaty v. Knowler (1830), 4
private corporation created by it, Pet. 162; Appeal of Scranton Elec-
and to amend the charter of a trie Light & Heat Co. (1888), 122
railroad company before the road Pa. St. 154; s. c. 9 Am. St. Rep.
is built, is not affected by exec- 79.
utory contracts that may have
1*
Appeal of Scranton Electric
been made for the construction of Light & Heat Co. (1888), 122 Pa.
the road, and performance of such St. 154; s. c. 9 Am. St. Rep. 79,
contracts, so far as they are ren- citing Emerson v. Commonwealth,
dered impossible by such amend- 108 Pa. St. 111.
ment, will be excused, as such
is
People v. Manhattan Co., 9
impossibility results from the act Wend. 351; People v. Marshall, 1
of the law. Macon & B. R. Co. v. Oilman, 672.
Stamps, 85 Ga. 1 (1890), 11 S. E.
isa
YMe mfra,
80-95; Amend-
Rep. 442, 21 Am. St. Rep. 135. ment and Repeal of Charters.
11
Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black,
i"
Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable
587.
Tramway Co. (1887), 30 Fed. Rep.
12
Charles River Bridge v. War- 342, where the plaintiff by its
ren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420; Gaines v. charter was given in 1867 the ex-
Coates, 51 Miss. 335; Delancy v. elusive franchise of constructing
Ins. Co., 52 N. Y. 581; Lehigh and operating "horse-railways" in
G3.] INCO;;PORATION UXDEK Sl'IXIAL CHARTER.
CI
courts held that the contract, to be effective, must be clearly
expressed in the charter."
So that whenever an incorporated
company, in any action, asserts a right against another person
based upon an assumed franchise or power, the person against
whom the right is so asserted may, as a defense, deny the
existence of such franchise or power.'^ The policy of the law
is to regard with disfavor any claim to exclusive privileges and
franchises.^** Thus an act in the usual form, incorporating
a
the city of Omaha for fifty years.
The defendant, under a city or-
dinance of 1SS4, undertook to lay
a cable tramway; and plaintiff
sought for an injunction, contend-
ing that .at the date of its grant
"horse railway" meant "street
railway" (cable roads being then
unkno-RTi), and therefore its grant
covered that form of railway com-
munication; but it was held that
all grants of franchises belonging
to the public, and especially those
giving monopolies, should be
strictly construed against grant-
ees, and that the injunction
should not be granted; and that,
even if the grant of the "horse-
railroad" franchise meant a grant
of the "street-i'ailroad" franchise
in the contemplation of the par-
ties, yet a grant of a monopoly
contemplated only such forms of
transportation as were then
known and in existence, not such
as might subsequently be devised
and used. In the same case it
was held that a prohibition in the
plaintiff's charter against the run-
ning of locomotives or cars pro-
pelled by steam, or the cars of
any other company over its tracks,
did not have the disjunctive force
of granting to the plaintiff a mon-
opoly of every form of street-rail-
road transportation except that of
cars drawn by engines, but rather
is an extra precaution on the part
of the legislature to guard against
the possibility of a railroad com-
pany running its cars over the
tracks of the plaintiff. A claim
by a gas company that its charter
entitles it to a monopoly can be
maintained only upon a strict con-
siruction
of the charter. All pre-
sumptions
are against the claim.
Jersey City Gas Light Co. v. Con-
sumers' Gas Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 427.
The Pennsylvania
general incor-
poration act of
1874, permitting
the incorporation of companies for
"the manufacture and supply of
gas, or the supply of light and
heat to the public by any other
means," is held not to authorize
the creation of a corporation for
the purpose of supplying "natural
gas" to consumers; but it has
been decided that a charter
granted for the purpose of supply-
ing "heat ... by means of
natural gas" was not necessarily
void. Emerson v. Commonwealth,
108 Pa. St. 111.
IT
Providence Bank v. Billings,
4 Pet. 514; Salt Co. v. Saginaw,
13 Wall. 373; Minot v. Philadel-
phia, W. & C. R. Co., "The Dela-
ware R. Co. Tax Cases," 18 Wall.
206, 225; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22
Wall. 527; New Jersey v. Yard, 95
U. S. 104; Hoge v. Richmond &
D. R. Co., 99 U. S. 348; Union
Passenger Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia,
101 U. S. 539; Memphis Gas Light
Co. v. Shelby Tax District, 109 U.
S. 398; Southwest R. Co. v.
Wright, 116 U. S. 231; Vicksburg,
etc. R. Co. V. Dennis, 116 U. S.
668; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117
U. S. 139, 148.
IS
Zanesville v. Zanesville Gas-
Light Co., 47 Ohio, 1 (1890),
23 N. E. Rep. 55.
19 Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S.
536; Wright v. Nagle, 101 U. S.
791.
Cf.
New OrleAws Gas Co. v.
62
INCORrORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. [G3.
bridge company, not explicitly granting any exclusive privi-
leges, and containing no agreement by the State not to per-
mit other bridges in competition, cannot be construed, by im-
plication, to prevent the State from subsequently granting a
charter to another company for a competing bridge.-" And
where there is no contract in the charter of a turnpike com-
pany that prohibits the legislature from authorizing the con-
struction of a rival railroad, the construction and operation
of the railroad are not the subject of legal redress.
^^
If, how-
ever, the legislative intent to confer an exclusive privilege or
franchise be clearly expressed in the charter of the corpora-
tion or in a statute amendatory thereof, the grant will be sus-
tained by the courts as a contract which the State cannot im-
pair.2* Thus where the legislature gives to one company all
Louisiana Light, etc. Co., 115 U.
S. 650. A gas company incorpo-
rated under Ohio Stat. (1 Swan &
C.) 271, for supplying gas to the
streets and private houses of a
city, has been held to acquire no
vested rights thereby of which it
would be deprived without due
process of law, by the city's erect-
ing its own gas works. State v.
City of Hamilton (Ohio, 1890), 23
N. B. Rep. 935. A company hav-
ing the exclusive right to furnish
a city with electric light and heat,
which allows its stock to be pur-
chased by the president of the gas
and water company operating in
the same city for the purpose of
destroying competition, and which
is operated in the interest of the
latter company, is guilty of a
fraud on the public, and, as equity
deals only with conscionable de-
mands, is only entitled to have
another company restrained from
furnishing the city with electric
light and heat. Appeal of Scran-
ton Electric Light & Heat Co.
(1888), 122 Pa. St. 154. The con-
tract in a charter of a company,
authorizing it to construct a rail-
road between two points, in which
the legislature pledged itself not
to allow, for a certain time, any
other railroad to be constructed
between the same points, or for
any portion of the distance, the
probable effect of which would be
to diminish the number bf passen-
gers traveling between those
points upon the road authorized,
is not impaired by authorizing a
company, whose road struck the
first at nearly right angles some
distance from one of its termini,
to extend its road to that ter-
minus; and an injunction will not
be granted to prohibit the build-
ing of such extension. Richmond,
Fredericksburg & P. R. Co. v.
Louisa R. Co., 13 How. 71.
20
Charles River Bridge v. War-
ren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420.
21
Washington, etc. Turnpike
Co. V. Maryland, 3 Wall. 210. But
if the charter contains such a con-
tract, the breach of it on the part
of the State furnishes no excuse
for the neglect of the company to,
repair its road, while, at the same'
time, it insists upon collecting the
tolls. Washington, etc. Turnpike
Co. V. Maryland, 3 Wall. 210.
22
New Orleans Gas Co. v.
Louisiana Light, etc. Co. (1885),
115 U. S. 650; Louisville Gas Co.
V. Citizens' Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683;
New Orleans Water Works Co. v.
Rivers, 115 U. S. 674; Ruggles v.
niinois, 108 U. S. 536; Wright v.

64.]
INCORl'ORATION UXUER SPECIAL CUAllTER. 63
the rights and privileges of another, a provision in the charter
of the latter that no other bridge should be built v(,^ithin two
miles becomes a part of the charter of the former." And
a charter to another company authorizing it to construct a
bridge within the prohibited distance is a plain violation of
the contract which the legislature made with the former com-
pany, and as such is in contravention of the federal constitu-
tion.-* Although a State may give an exclusive right, for the
time being, to particular persons or to a corporation, to pro-
vide a stock landing and to establish a slaughter-house in a
city, it has no power to continue such right so that no further
legislature, nor even the same body, can repeal or modify it,
or grant similar privileges to others.^' The constitution of
New York prohibits the legislature from passing any private
or local bills granting to any corporation the right to build
railways or any exclusive privilege or immunity.^ And it has
been held that this inhibition is not to be evaded under pre-
tense of amending the charter of a pneumatic tube company
granted before the adoption of the constitution, the effect of
the amendment being to so enlarge its powers as to authorize
its construction of an underground railway.^^

64. Incorporation by implication.No precise form of

words is necessary in the creation of a corporation.^^ If the
words "found," "erect," "establish," or "incorporate," are
Nagle, 101 U. S. 791. A ferry fit from this fact. It is not to be
franchise is property with which taken into consideration that the
no one may interfere, any more legislature might repeal the law
than with other property, the under which plaintiff had the ex-
owner of the franchise not having elusive privilege of operating a
abandoned it. Galconda v. Field, ferry. Mason v. Harper's Ferry
108 111. 419. But one may ferry Bridge Co., 20 W. Va. 223.
his own property across the river
23
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bing-
in his own boat, although within hamton Bridge Co. ("The Bing-
the limits of an exclusive ferry hamton Bridge"), 3 Wall. 51.
privilege. Alexandria, Y\^arsaw,
24 Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bing-
etc. Ferry Co. v. Wisch, 73 Mo. hamton Bridge Co. ("Bingham-
655, s. c. 39 Am. Rep. 535. Upon ton Bridge Co."), 3 Wall. 51.
a suit to recover damages to
25
Butchers' Union, etc. Co. v.
plaintiff's ferry franchise, caused Crescent City. etc. Co., Ill U. S.
by the erection of a bridge near 746.
the ferry, it is proper to estimate
26
N. Y. Const, art. iil,

16.
the amount of revenues received
27
Astor v. Arcade Ry. Co.
by plaintiff, although he was not (1889), 113 N. Y. 93.
the owner of the land at his land-
23 O'Leary v. Board of Commis-
ing, but was a trespasser; the sioners. 79 Mich. 231, 19 Am. St.
bridge company can have no bene- Rep. 169.
u INCOKrORATION UiS'DEK SPECIAL CHARTER. [G1.
wanting, it is not material,-" and if powers, rights or franchises
such as cannot be exercised or enjoyed without corporate ex-
istence, be conferred by the enabling act upon an association
of persons designated by a collective name, it will be suffi-
cient to invest them with the further franchise of being a cor-
poration.
^
This is the rule, although the statute may in terms
declare that the powers thereby conferred shall not be so con-
strued.^^ But if express words of incorporation be not em-
ployed in the statute, and corporate existence is not essential
to the exercise or enjoyment of the powers or franchises con-
ferred, it will not be presumed that the legislature intended to,
create a corporation.^- Thus a grant of a privilege to raise
20
Dunn v. Oregon Univ. (1883),
9 Oregon, 357; Stebbins v. Jen-
nings, 18 Pick. 187; New Boston
V. Dumberton, 15 N. H. 201; Fal-
coner V. Campbell, 2 McLean C. C.
195; McAuley v. Railroad R. Co.,
33 111. 348; Mead v. Railway Co.,
45 Conn. 199; Andes v. Ely, 158
U. S. 312; Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal,
406.
30
Dunn v. Oregon Univ. (1883),
9 Oregon, 357.
31
In Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend.
9, 103, Cowan, J., said:

"It is im-
possible for me to see the force
of the argument that because
the legislature have constantly
avoided to call these associations,
or any of their machinery, a cor-
poration, therefore we cannot ad-
judge them to be so. If they have
the attributes of corporations, if
they are so in the nature of
things, we cannot refuse to regard
them as such." "For this reason
it vv-as decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States and of
the State of Massachusetts, that a
company formed in England un-
der acts of Parliament, investing
it with' corporate functions, was a
corporation within the meaning of
a law enacted in Massachusetts,
although the acts of Parliament
expressly provided that they
should not be construed to incorpo-
rate the company. The provision in
the acts of Parliament declaring
that they should not be construed
to incorporate the company was
contradictory to the other pro-
visions, which actually did invest
the company with the attributes
of a corporation. The effect of
this provision might perhaps be
to alter the meaning of the word
'incorporated' in the English law,
but it did not change the real
nature of the company. It cer-
tainly did not impose a rule for
the construction of statutes iJassed
by a foreign State." Morawetz on
Corporations,
18, citing Liver-
pool, etc. Ins. Co. v. Massachu-
setts, 10 Wall. 566; s. c. 100 Mass.
531. See also People v. Assessors
of Watertown, 1 Hill, 620; Edge-
worth V. Wood, 58 N. J. S. 453;
Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 103.
32
AValsh V. New York and
Brooklyn Bridge (1884), 96 N. Y.
427, where it was held that as the
purpose of the New York Act of
1875, ch. 300, in relation to 'the
New York and Brooklyn Bridge,
was to extinguish a corporation
then existing and to vest all its
property in the two cities, and
that as all the purposes of the Act
could not be carried out without
the creation of a corporation, the
board of trustees, for whose ap-
pointment the Act provided, were
not to be deemed a corporation,
but merely agents for and repre-
sentatires at the two cities.
Cf.

65,
66.J
INCORl'OKATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 65
money by lottery is not an act of incorporation and confers
no chartered rights.^^ Whether it is or not a corporation is
determined by its faculties and powers rather than by the
name or description given it.^* If powers are granted which
cannot be exercised or enjoyed without corporate existence,
its right to be a corporation will be implied, though the grant
declares the grantee shall not be deemed a corporation.^'^

65,
Delegation of pov/er to incorporate.In England
where the sovereign powers of king and Parliament are free
from any constitutional limitations, and are absolute in leg-
islative authority, the power to grant charters of incorpora-
tion may be delegated to any person by the king or by Parlia-
ment. In the United States, however, the legislature itself
exercises only delegated powder, wherefore a general power
to confer corporate franchises cannot be delegated by the leg-
islature to any other agent.^**

66. No power in courts to incorporate.A court can have

no power of itself to create a corporation unless conferred by
a State Constitution, because the power is exclusively in the
legislature and cannot be delegated to a court or officer or pri-
vate individual." But courts, persons or boards may perform
ministerial acts in the organization of corporations. In so
doing they perform no legislative act, and enact no law ; they
simply aid in carrying the law into effect and applying it. A
distinction is made between creating and organizing. The
legislature may provide that the courts shall supervise the
organization of corporations under the provisions of a general
Gregory v. Shelby College, 2 Met. (N. Y.) 112; Riddick v. Amelin,
(Ky.) 589; Lawrence v. Fletcher, 1 Mo. 5; Thomas v. Dakin, 22
8 Met. 153; Medical Institution v." Wend. (N. Y.) 110; Franklin
Patterson, 5 Denio, 618, Jackson Bridge Co. v. Wood, 14 Ga. 80;
V. Marietta Bank, 9 Leigh, 240; Bank of Chenango v. Brown, 2f>
Myers v. Irvin, 2 Sergt. & R. 368; N. Y. 467; State v. Armstrong, 3
Medical College Case, 3 Whart. Sneed (Tenn.), 634; State v. Si-
445. mons, 32 Minn. 540; Ex parte
33
Gregory v. Shelby College, 2 Burns, 1 Tenn. Ch. 83; People v.
Met. (Ky.) 589. Town of Nevada, 6 Cal. 143; Medi-
3i
Edgeworth v. Wood. 58 N. J. cal Institute, etc. v. Patterson, 1
S. 463. Denio (N. Y.), 61; 5 Denio, 618;
'0
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. Doboy, etc. Teleg. Co. v. De-
108; Dunn v. University of Oregon Magathias, 25 Fed. 697; Territory
(1883), 9 Oregon, 357; Liverpool v. Stewart, 1 Wash. 98; People
Ins. Co. V. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 451.
566, 100 Mass. 531.
37 Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood,
36
Thorne v. Cramer, 15 Barb. 14 Ga. 80.
Vol. 1

5
G6
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
G6a.
corporate act, and determine whether the incorporators have
compHed with the law, and when done, issue certificate or
charter to that effect.^^ A provision that corporations shall
not act until ten per cent, of the capital stock has been paid in,
and that charters shall have no force after two years unless
action shall have been taken, applies only to charters granted
by the courts, not to those granted by the legislature.^'* It is
held in Tennessee that the statute of that State investing the
chancery court with jurisdiction to create corporations is con-
stitutional as far as it undertakes to empower the court to or-
ganize corporations for the purposes and with the franchises
granted by a general law, and an order, therefore, of that
court, organizing a corporation, is valid to the extent of the
provisions of the general law, and void only so far as it goes
beyond such provisions.'*"

66a. Self incorporation by ministerial act of court.It was

formerly asserted that in England only the king himself by
his own immediate act could grant the power to incorporate
and could not delegate the power, but the law has since been
settled to the contrary, and that the persons to whom the
power is delegated are only an instrument in the hands of the
government.'*''^' The proprietaries of Pennsylvania under de-
rivative authority from the crown granted charters of incor-
poration which have since been recognized as valid, and since
then a similar power has been delegated by the legislature of
Pennsylvania with regard to churches.*"!^ The acts of
1843
and
1845
of Georgia empowered the county courts to pass a
rule or order upon petition for incorporation to be entered of
record in the minutes of the court, whereby the petitioners be-
came incorporated. The constitutionality of those acts being
contested, the Supreme Court held that they delegated no leg-
islative power to the courts and gave them no discretion, and
that the courts simply performed a ministerial act, which was
obligatory upon them to do, upon compliance with certain re-
quirements by the petitioners. Those statutes were complete
as laws enacted by the legislature to take effect upon the hap-
38
Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend.
4o
Heck v. McEwen (1883), 12
(N. Y.) 211, 34 Am. Dec. 228; Lea, 97.
In re New York Elev. R. Co.. 70
4oa
Angell and Ames on Cor-
N. Y. 327. porations, 63.
39
Adams v. Gate City Gas Light
4ob
7 Sergt. & R. 517.
Company, 71 Ga. 106.

67.]
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 67
pening of the event of filing- the petition and having it ordered
by the court to be recorded, in analogy to the taking effect of
a charter only upon its acceptance,'*'^^

67.
Acceptance of the charter.Acceptance of the charter
is necessary to the corporate existence. The acceptance may
be by mere acquiescence, as in exercise of the corporate powers
conferred by it or in organizing under it.*^ But if the accept-
ance is delayed beyond the adoption of an amendment to the
Constitution the charter becomes subject to it.*^ Accepting
the benefits is not implied acceptance of the charter where no
burdens are performed, as in the establishment of a road over
a highway.*^ The charter of a private corporation being a con-
tract between the State and the incorporators, its acceptance
by the latter is requisite to give it full force and effect.^* Con-
sent is essential to the existence of a private corporation, and
no rights can be exercised or claimed under the charter before
it has been accepted.*^ If no time for acceptance is prescribed
in the charter it must be accepted within reasonable time, or
its legal effect will expire and the charter will lapse.* There
can be no effective acceptance in advance of compliance with
whatever conditions precedent may be imposed by the charter.
Until such compliance there can be no corporation de jure"
40C Franklin Bridge Co. v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270; Gardner v.
"Wood, 14 Ga. 80 (1853).
Hamilton Ins. Co.. 33 N. Y. 421;
Ji
Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. C. Hamilton Ins. Co. v. Hobart, 2
324 (1894); Farnswortli v. Lime Gray, 543; Rex v. Chan. Cam-
Rock, 83 Me. 440 (1891); St. bridge, 3 Burr. 1661; King v. Pas-
Joseph V. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557 more, 3 T. R. 240; Bailey v. Mayor
(1891).
of New York, 3 Hill, 531; Shortz
42Quinlan v. Houston, etc. Ry. v. Unangst, 3 Watts & S. 45; Ellis
Co., 89 Tex. 356 (1896). v. Marshall, 2 Mass. 279; New Or.
43
Welsh V. Plumas County, 94 leans R. R. Co. v. Harris, 27 Miss.
Cal. 3G8 (1892).
517; State v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40.
44
Dartmouth College v. Wood-
45 Green v. Sej'mour, 3 Sandf.
ward, 4 Wheat. 518; Lincoln & Ch. 285; Lyons v. Orange, 32 Md.
Kennebec Bank v. Richardson, 1 18; State v. Dawson. 16 Ind. 40;
Greenl. 79; Fire Department v. State v. Bull, 16 Conn. 179; Smith
Kip, 10 Wend. 266; Haslett v. v. Silver, etc. Co., 64 Md. 85, 54
Wotherspoon, 1 Strob. Eq. 209; Am. Rep. 760;
Quinlan v. Hous-
Falconer v. Higgins, 2 McLean, C. ton, etc. R. Co., 89 Tex. 356.
C. 196; Rex v. Amery, 1 T. R. 675;
4g
state v.
Bull, 16 Conn. 179;
Rex V. Askew, 4 Burr. 2199; Bonaparte v. Baltimore, etc. R.
Thompson v. New York R. R. Co., Co., 75 Md. 240, 1 Keener's Cas. 77.
3 Sandf. Ch. 285; Green v. Sey-
4t
Rex v. Westwood, 4 Barn &
mour, 3 Sandf. Ch. 285; Eidman v. C. 781, 1 Smith's Cas. 71; Mis-
Bowman, 58 111. 444;
Curry v. sissippi, etc. v. Musgrove, 44 Miss.
68
INOOKPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. [C7.
thoiig'li it may be de facto, as ag-ainst all persons except the
State/^ If acceptance is required to be in a particular way at
a corporate meeting it must be so expressed.*^ When the leg-
islative intent is that all the grantees shall accept, no rights
are acquired by a partial acceptance.
^
It must be accepted
or rejected in toto, unless it provides for acceptance in part and
rejection in part.^^ If it be granted to persons who have not
applied for it, the grant is said to be in fieri, until there has
been an acceptance indicated.^- It may, for a time, remain
optional with the persons intended to be incorporated, whether
they will take the benefit of the act of incorporation,^^ yet if
the grantees execute the powers, and claim the privileges
granted, the duties imposed on them by the act will then at-
tach, from which they cannot discharge themselves.^* It is
820, 7 Am. Rep. 723; Lyons v.
Orange, etc. Co., 32 Md. 18.
48
Stout V. Zulich, 48 N. J. Law,
599.
49
Commrs. v. Cullen. 13 Pa. St.
133, 53 Am. Dec. 450; Short v.
Unangst, 3 Watts. & S. (Pa.) 45;
Hudson V. Carman, 41 Me. 84.
50
Rex V.
Amery, 1 T. R. 589;
Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 Mass.
249, 1 Smith's Cas. 94.
51
Rex V. Westwood, 2 Dow. &
CI. 21, 7 Bing. 1; Lyons v. Orange,
etc. R. Co., 32 Md. 18.
52
Dartmouth v. Woodward, 4
Wheat. 688.
53
Riddle V. Proprietors, etc., 7
Mass. 187.
54
Penobscot Boom Co. v. Lam-
son, 16 Me. 224; Middlesex Hus-
bandmen V. Davis, 3 Met. 133;
Way V. Billings, 2 Mich. 397; Trott
V. Warren. 2 Fairf. 227; All
Saints Church v. Lovett, 1 Hall,
191; Dutchess Cotton Manuf. Co.
V. Davis, 14 Johns. 238;
Vernon
Society v. Hills, 6 Cowen, 23;
Eaton V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119;
Sampson v.
Bowdoinham. 36 Me.
78; Eastern Plank Road v.
Vaughan, 20 Barb. 155; Wilming-
ton R. R. Co. V. Saunders, 3 Jones
(N. C), 126; Crump v. U. S. Min-
ing Co., 7 Gratt. 362; Common-
wealth V. Claghorn, 13 Penn. St.
133; Cahill v.
Kalamazoo Ins. Co.,
2 Doug. (Mich.) 124; Narragan-
sett Bank v. Athletic Silk Co., 3
Met. 282; Farmers' Bank v. Jenks,
7 Met. 592; Dedham Bank v.
Chickering, 3 Pick. 335; Worcester
Med. Inst. v. Harding, 11 Cush.
285; West Winsted Savings Bank
V. Ford, 27 Conn. 282; People's
Sav. Bank v. Collins, 27 Conn.
142; People v. Beigler, HiH &
Denio, 133; Abbott v. Aspinwall,
26 Barb. 202; Buncombe Turn-
pike V. McCarson, 1 Dev. & B. 306;
Dooley v. Cheshire Glass Co., 15
Gray, 494; Merrick v. Reynolds
Engine Co., 101 Mass. 381; Whit-
ney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 392;
Salem National Bank v. Almy, 117
Mass. 476; Chamberlin v. Hugue-
not Manuf. Co., 118 Mass. 532;
Augur A. & C. Co. v. Whittier, 117
Mass. 541; Hawes v. Anglo-Saxon
Petroleum Co., 101 Mass. 385;
Black River R. R. Co. v. Barnard,
31 Barb. 258. The acceptance of
a charter may be presu7ned by the
fact that it has been applied for.
Atlanta v. Gate City Gas-Light
Co. (1885), 71 Ga. 106. Accept-
ance of a charter may be shown by
expenditures and other transac-
tions in furtherance of the pur-
pose thereof, without proof of any
formal organization by meeting,
election, etc. McKay v. Beard
(1884), 20 S. C. 156.
G7.] INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 69
not essential that the acceptance of a charter be expressly-
made
;
it will be inferred from an exercise of the franchises
conferred.^' Neither is it indispensable to show a written in-
strument, or even a vote of acceptance ; there may be instances
in which an acceptance can be inferred.
'^'^
No writing or other
formality of acceptance is necessary," and it is said that a
grant beneficial to the incorporators will be presumed to be
accepted without any indication thereof by the grantees.
'^^
The
presumption of acceptance is a presumption of fact and not of
law, and is subject to rebuttal by showing that there was no
acceptance.^'^ The grant of a charter by special act of the leg-
islature to the applicants is sufficient evidence of their accept-
ance.
''
And the signing by any applicant of call for organiza-
tion of the corporation is evidence of acceptance by him."^ But
if accepted at all, the charter must be taken as it stands in its
entirety and unconditionally. A charter takes effect imme-
diately upon its acceptance by the incorporators.^-
It must be
accepted unconditionally and as offered by the legislature.^
After acceptance no withdrawal of any corporation will affect
55
United States Bank v. Dand-
ridge, 12 Wheat. 71; Russell v.
M'Lellan, 14 Pick. 63; Coffins v.
Collins, 17 Me. 440. "The Books
of a corporation are the regular
evidence of its doings, and the ac-
ceptance of the charter should be
proved by them. But if the books
have not been kept, or have been
lost or destroyed, or are not ac-
cessible to the party upon whom
the affirmative lies, then the ac-
ceptance may be proved by impli-
cation from the acts of the mem-
bers of the alleged corporation."
Hudson V. Carman, 41 Me. 84.
Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lamson,
16 Me. 224, 33 Am. Dec. 656.
56
Charles River Bridge v. War-
ren Bridge, 7 Pick. 344; Eastern
R. R. Co. V. Boston R. R. Co., Ill
Mass. 125; Bangor R. R. Co. v.
Smith, 47 Me. 34; Owen v. Purdy,
12 Ohio St. 73.
5T
Russell V. McClellan, 14 Pick.
63.
sswillcock on Mun. Corp. 30;
Green v. Seymour, 3 Sandf. Ch.
285; Rex v. Pasmore, 3 T. R. 240;
Rex V. Amery, 1 T. R. 589; Rex v.
Cambridge, 3 Burr. 1656. "It is
equally well established that it
cannot be accepted for a limited
time, and if it has once been
received, though but for an hour,
or even a moment, it is conclusive
and obligatory." Rex v. Barzey,
4 M. & S. 255.
59
Newton v. Carberry, 5 Cranch.
C. C. 632, Fed. Cas. 10190.
60
Atlanta v. Gate City Gas-
Light Co., 71 Ga. 106; Middlesex,
etc. V. Davis, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 133;
Smead v. Indianapolis, etc., 11
Ind. 104; Newton v. Carberry, 5
Cranch. C. C. 632; Perkins v. San-
ders, 56 Miss. 733; St. Joseph, etc.
R. Co. V. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557;
City of Atlanta v. Gate City, etc.
Co., 71 Ga. 106.
61
Gleaves v. Brick Church, etc.
Co., 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 491.
62
Frost V. Frostburg Coal Co.,
24 How. 278.
63
Lyons v. Orange, etc. Co., 32
Md. 18; Rex v. Amery, 1 Term R.
589.
70
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
GS.
the validity of the corporation."* Acceptance must be made
within the limits of the State which granted the charter, and
by the corporators in their constituent capacity/'^ and by the
persons only to whom the offer of charter was made.*"* Ac-
ceptance by a person named in the charter is a prerequisite to
his membership in the corporation." The charter may be re-
called at any time before acceptance,*' but it is irrevocable
afterward.^" After grant and acceptance of the charter and
full organization of the corporation it cannot be dissolved
without consent of the State.'^*^ Quo zvarranto proceedings will
lie against the grantees who refuse acceptance of the charter,
but who nevertheless attempt to exercise corporate powers
under it.'^ Acceptance is a question for the jury.'^-
Under the Indiana Constitution of
1851,
providing that "cor-
porations other than banking shall not be created by special
act but may be formed under general laws," a special charter
was granted in 1840 to a railroad corporation, and the directors
not having accepted it till 1852, the court held that the char-
ter, though granted before adoption of the Constitution, was
not accepted before such adoption and therefore no corporation
was created under the charter.''-^ No charter can' be enforced
upon any association of persons who do not chose to accept it.
No charter of incorporation is of any effect until it is accepted
by a majority of the grantees or persons who are to be corpo-
rators under xtP^

68. Constitutional limitations upon the State Legislature.

Owing to the evils of special legislation upon the subjecf^^ the

creation of corporations by special act of the legislature is now
64
Rex V. Westwood, 4 Barn & v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40, 1 Smith
C. 781. 1 Smith Cas. 71; Baldwin Cas. 69.
V. Hillsborough, etc. Co., 1 Ohio
go
Dartmouth v. Woodward, 4
Dec. 532; Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. Wheat. 642.
15, 6 Am. Rep. 350.
'^o
McMahon v. Morrison, 16 Ind.
65
Miller v. Ewer, 27 Me. 509; 172, 79 Am. Dec. 418; Riddle v.
Smith V. Silver Valley, etc. Co., 64 Proprietor, etc., 7 Mass. 169.
Md. 85, 54 Am. Rep. 760.
7i
Thompson v. New York, etc.
66
Rex V. Amery, 1 Term. Rep. R. R. Co., 3 Sandf. Ch. 626.
575.
^^
Hammond v. Straus, 53 Md. 1.
67
Ellis V. Marshall, 2 Mass. 269,
72a
State v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40
8 Am. Dec. 49; Richmond Factory (1861); Aspinwall v. Daviess
Assn. V. Clark, 61 Me. 351. County, 22 How. (U. S.) 364.
68
Lincoln Bank v. Richardson,
72b
Grant on Corporations,
pp.
1 Greenl. 79. 10 Am. Dec. 34; Mis- 13 and 18.
sissippi Society, etc. v. Musgrove, 73
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. North-
44 Miss. 820, 7 Am. Rep. 723; State em Pac. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. 469.

GS.] INCORPOKATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER. 71

prohibited or restricted by the Constitutions of most of the
States of the Union, and corporations are formed under gen-
eral laws, sometimes called enabling acts ; and by act of Con-
gress the Territories are prohibited from granting private char-
ters,'^* but corporations may still be created under a special
act in the absence of any prohibition against itJ Acts grant-
ing exclusive privileges or franchises, unless for services to
the public, are also generally prohibited by State Constitu-
tionsJ*^ A constitutional prohibition against the creation of
a corporation by special act has no retroactive power to in-
validate a prior charter, although the actual organization of
the corporation was subsequent to such prohibition.'^'^ An old
special charter may be amended notwithstanding a subsequent
Constitution prohibits the grant of any special charter;'^ and
may be amended by merely regulating powers already pos-
sessed by the corporation.'^^ A constitutional forbidding of
special act of incorporation does not prevent a special act grant-
ing right-of-way to a previously existing street railway.^" Such
a prohibition does not prevent the passage of a special act cur-
ing defects in the organization of a corporation formed under
a general incorporation law.^ A charter granted by special
act is not affected by the general laws of the State, wherein
they are inconsistent with the special act.^^ Subsequently
granted special charters are subject to a general statute re-
serve the right to amend or repeal.^^ An ultra vires contract
is not protected by the contract clause of the federal constitu-
tion.^^a The statute requiring annual reports by corporations
and declaring failure to make them prima facie evidence of
7-t
U. S. Revised Statutes, 1889.
^n
Bohmer v. Hoffen, 161 N. Y.
Carver Mercantile Co. v. Hulme 390 (1900).
(1888), 7 Mont. 566;
so
Smith v. Indianapolis, etc.
T5
Downing v. Indiana State Ry. Co., 63 N. E. 849 (1902).
Board of Agriculture, 129 Ind. 443.
si
State v. Webb, 110 Ala. 214
6
Gordon v. Winchester, etc. (1896).
Assn., 12 Bush. (Ky.) 110; In re
82
Park Bank v. Remsen, 158 U.
Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co., 6 S. 337 (1895);
United States v.
Whart. (Pa.) 25; New Orleans Stanford, 169 U. S. 412 (1896).
Water Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 674;
s.-;
Watson Seminary v. Pike Co.
New Orleans Gas Co. v.
Louisiana Court, 149 Mo. 57 (1899); Louis-
Light Co., 115 U. S. 674. ville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S.
77
state V. Hancock, 2 Penne- 1 (1892); Re Lee's Bank of Buf-
well (Del.), 252 (1899).
falo, 21 N. Y. 9 (1860).
73
St. Joseph, etc. R. R. Co. v.
ssa
Westminster, etc. v. City of
Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557 (1891).
Westminster, 56 Atl. 990
(Md.
1904).
72
INCORPORATION UNDER SPECIAL CHARTER.
[
6Sa.
non-user, sufficient to authorize a forfeiture of the charter, is
not repugnant to the contract clause of the federal constitu-
tion.2b

68a. Creation by acquisition of existing charter.The

purchasers, assignees or mortgagees of the property and fran-
chises of a corporation do not, by the mere purchase, assign-
ment or mortgage, become a body corporate or authorized to
transact business as a corporation, until they become incor-
porated under legislative authority.^* But an organized cor-
poration may assign its franchises to another, duly corpo-
rated, although the Constitution, in providing for incorpora-
tion under general law, prohibits creation of incorporations by
special acts.^^ An authorized sale and transfer of its charter
and franchises by an existing corporation constitutes aban-
donment of its charter and a grant de novo to the purchasers
of the rights and franchises which belonged to the original in-
corporators.^ A corporation without authority under its own
charter to exercise rights and powers of another corporation
does not succeed to such rights and franchises by purchase of
the property of such other corporation, though it purchase all
of such property employed by that corporation in the business
it was chartered to engage in.^^
1
83b
People V. Rose, 69 N. E. 762,
ss
People v. Stanford (1888), 77
207 111. 352 (1904); and see Yates Cal. 360; Santa Ana Water Co. v.
V. People, 207 111. 316 (1904). Town of Buenaventura (1893), 56
8i
Rogers v. Nashville, etc. Ry., Fed. 339.
91 Fed. 299 (1898), Memphis, etc.
86
state v. Sherman, 22 Ohio St.
R. Co. V. Railroad Commrs., 112 411,
U. S. 609 (1884) ; Chaffe v. Ludel-
87
Southern Ry. Co. v. Mitchell,
ing (1875),
27 La. Ann. 607; 37 So. 85 (Ala. 1904); Rogers v.
Welsh V. Old Dominion, etc. Ry. Nashville, etc. Ry., 91 Fed. 299
Co. (1890), 65 Hun. 650, 10 N. Y. (1898); Memphis, etc. R. Co. v.
Supp. 174; State v. Morgan Railroad Commrs., 112 U. S. 609
(1876), 28 La. Ann. 482. (1884).
CHAPTER IV.
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
GENERAL ENABLIXQ ACTS.
69.
70.
71.
71a.
72.
73.
General enabling acts.
Who may be incorporators.
Number of incorporators.
"One man corporation."
Articles of incorporation.
They and the statute are
the charter.
Requirements of the arti-
cles.
74. Effect of irregularities in
articles.
74a. Waiver of irregularities.
75. Filing, publishing, and re-
cording articles of incor-
poration.
76. Purposes and objects of in-
corporation.
76a. Organization of corpora-
tion. When complete.
B.
COEPOEATE EXISTENCE.
77. From what time it dates.
78. Effect of variance between
statute and articles.
79. A special charter may be
perpetual.
79a. Incorporation and organ-
ization. Attacking valid-
ity of incorporation.
79&. Corporate existence and
franchise. Estoppel to
deny.
79c. Estoppel of corporation to
deny its own existence.
19d. Corporation by prescription.
References:
Incorporation in one state to do business in another. Sec-
tion 140.
Possession of all the stock by one individual. Sections 557,
1316.
"Holding corporations," organized to deal in the stock of other
corporations. Section 937.
Powers. Section 858.
Defective incorporation. Sections 118-125.
De facto corporations. Sections 123-125C.
Effect of irregularities in articles. Sections 557, 1316.
71
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS,
[
Ci).
A.
GENERAL ENABLING ACTS.

6g. General enabling acts.In compliance with the con-

stitutional provisions mentioned in the foregoing section, the
legislatures of the several States have enacted general laws
for the formation of ordinar}'- business corporations. These
acts generally provide, in substance, that the persons purposing
to form a corporation shall sign and acknowledge an instru-
ment called the articles of association, setting forth the name
of the corporation, the object for which it is to be formed, the
principal place of business, the amount of its capital stock and
the number of shares into which it is to be divided, and the
duration of the corporate existence. These articles being filed
in the office of the secretary of State or in designated courts
of record, a certificate is issued therefrom, reciting that the
provisions of the act have been complied with, and thereupon
the incorporators are vested with corporate existence and the
general powers incident thereto.
iJExceptions are made in these
statutes with respect to railway, insurance and banking com-
panies, the formation of which is provided for by separate
acts. The statutes of New York, being regarded as typical of
American legislation upon the subject in hand, are here given.
^
1 The New York Act of 1875, ch. locality of its business. 3. The
611, so far as it relates to the amount and description of the
initiatory steps in the formation capital stock. 4. The number of
of ordinary business corporations shares of which such capital stock
is as follows:
3. Whenever shall consist. 5. The location of
five or more persons, a majority the principal business office. 6.
of whom shall be citizens and The duration of the corporation,
residents of this State, shall pro- which, however, shall not exceed
pose to form a corporation under fifty years.
4. Such certificate
the provisions of this act, they shall be filed in the office of the
shall make a certificate to that Secretary of State, and the Sec-
effect, which certificate shall be retary of State shall thereupon
signed by each of such persons issue a license to the persons
and duly acknowledged by them making such certificate, empower-
before some officer authorized to Ing them as commissioners to
take acknowledgments under the open books for subscriptions to
laws of this State. Such certifi- the capital stock of such corpora-
cate shall set forth: 1. The name tion at such times and places as
of the proposed corporation. 2. they may determine; but no
The object for which it is to be license shall be issued in the case
formed, including the nature and of a proposed corporation, having
70.]
ORGANIZATION UNDEK GENERAL LAWS. T5

70.
Persons who may be incorporated.A corporation
may be composed entirely of natural persons, or of natural per-
sons and corporations, or of corporations only.* The right to
form corporations is conferred upon individuals, upon any per-
son capable of contracting, and regardless of residence in the
absence of any statute requiring corporators to be residents
or citizens of the State.' When residence only is required.
the same name as an existing cor-
poration in this State, or a name
so nearly resembling that of an
existing corporation as to be cal-
culated to deceive. Within ten
days after the said subscribers'
meeting, said commissioners shall
file, in the office of the Secretary
of State, a verified record of the
proceedings thereof, containing a
copy of the subscription list, a
copy of the bj'-laws adopted, and
the names of the directors chosen.
Thereupon the Secretary of State
shall issue to said directors a cer-
tificate, setting forth that said
corporation is fully organized in
accordance with this act. Such
certificate shall include a copy of
the original certificate provided
for in section three of this act. the
date and place of the subscribers'
meeting, the names of the direct-
ors elected, and a statement that
all the provisions of this act have
been duly observed in the organ-
ization of such corporation. A
copy of such certificate shall,
within ten days after the issuing
thereof by the Secretary of State,
be filed in the office of the clerk
of the county in which the princi-
pal business office of such corpo-
ration is si-tuated. Such certifi-
cate shall be recorded at length in
a book to be kept in the office of
the Secretary of State to be known
as the record of incorporations,
and also, in a similar book in the
office of the county clerk afore-
said. Such certificate, or a copy
thereof duly certified by the Sec-
retary of State or his deputy,
shall be presumptive evidence of
the incorporation of the corpora-
tion named therein, in all courts
and proceedings in this State.
The Secretary of State shall re-
ceive for the filing and issuing of
all the the necessary documents
in and about the organization of
a corporation under this act, the
sum of ten dollars, and for each
certified copy of certificate of in-
corporation the sum of three dol-
lars, which sum shall be paid into
the Treasury of the State, and
county clerks shall receive the
fees now allowed by law. Upon
every amendment of the by-laws
of any such corporation, a copy
of the amended by-lav/s shall be
filed in the office of the Secretary
of State and of such county clerk,
and shall not take effect until so
filed, and a copy thereof, certified
by the Secretary of State, or his
deputy, shall be received as pre-
sumptive evidence of such
amended by-law in all courts and
proceedings.
2 Univ. of Maryland v. Williams,
9 Gill & J. (Md.) 365.
3
Central R. Co. v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 31 N. J. Eq. 475; Humph-
reys v. Mooney, 5 Colo. 282;
Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205,
13 L. R. A. 854; Lancaster v. Am-
sterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576.
24 L. R. A. 322; Cammeyer v.
United, etc. Churches, 2 Sandf.
Ch. (N. Y.) 186; Commonwealth
V. Detwiller, 131 Pa. St. 614, 7 L.
R. A. 357.
76
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
71.
citizenship is not necessary.* Neither infants nor persons non
compos mentis may be corporators, they having no power to
contract." A corporation is generally formed by natural per-
sons, but it may also be composed of persons in their political
capacity or of members of other corporations.*' A corporation
may be composed of other corporations, or of partnerships, as
well as of individuals.'^.
State corporations.It is clear that the State may acquire and
hold shares in a private corporation, and be governed by the same
rules as in the case of a private individual. And it is equally
clear that municipalities, counties and subdistricts, as a part of
the State government, are State corporations. But the State
may also create as a State corporation, a business stock company
and own and control all its stock with exemption from taxation
as a State agency. In short, the State may grant a charter to
itself. "It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a govern-
ment becomes a partner, in any trading company, it divests it-
self so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its
sovereign character and takes that of a private citizen ; instead of
communicating to the company its privileges and prerogatives, it
descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and
takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the
business which is to be transacted. Thus, many States of 'this
Union which have an interest in banks are not enabled to sue,
even in their own courts
;
yet they never exempt the corpora-
tion from being sued. Thus, the State of Georgia, by giving
to the bank the capacity to sue and be sued, voluntarily strips
itself of its sovereign character so far as respects the transac-
tions of the banks and waives all privileges of that character.
As a member of a corporation, a government never exercises
its sovereignty. It merely acts as a corporator, and exercises
no other powers in the management of the affairs of the cor-
poration, than are expressly given by the incorporation act."
^^

71.
Number of incorporators.The general incorporation
laws almost invariably require a certain number of corpora-
tors, more than one. But in the absence of any such require-
4Moxie, etc. Co. v. Baumbach, eKyd on Corp.
32.
32 Fed. 205; Humphreys v.
ea
Hill v. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341;
Mooney, 5 Colo. 282. Booth v. Robinson, 55 Md. 419.
5
In re Globe Benevolent Mut.
b
Bank of United States v.
Assn., 63 Hun. (N. Y.) 363. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 907.

Ylci.] OKGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS. 77

mcnt, and of any constitutional prohiljition, there is nothing
to prevent a State from creating a corporation composed of
only one person.

71a. "One man corporation." Corporation sole.A grant

of corporate powers to one person and his associates and suc-
cessors does not require him to take associates. It in efifect
confers upon him alone the right to exercise all the corporate
powers, and his acts, within the corporate sphere of action,
are the acts of the corporation.'' Unless so expressly author-
ized by statute, no one individual may form a corporation con-
sisting of himself only, and thus conduct his business with-
out any personal liability.^ But one man may purchase all the
shares of capital stock of a corporation and continue its busi-
ness in the corporate name. If a sole stockholder wrongfully
cause all the property of the corporation to be transferred
to himself he may be held responsible for the corporation's
debts.
^
If all the shares of a corporation become vested in a
single person, the fact does not make him a corporation sole,

the corporation aggregate retains its original character, for the

holder of all the shares may at any time redistribute them
among many persons.^^ All the shares of a corporation may
be held by a single person, and yet the corporation continue
to exist.^^ The stockholders are not the private and joint
owners of the property of a corporation. As natural persons
they are merged in the corporate identity. Though one stock-
holder of a corporation acquire and own all the stock, and in
efifect own all the property of the corporation, he, nevertheless,
has no power to alienate it. Only the corporation can convey
the corporate property. Such sole stockholder has no title to
the property until a division is made by the corporation upon
its dissolution. Until then the corporation is the absolute
owner and vested with the legal title. Although such sole
7
Louisville Banking Co. v. etc. Co., L. R. App. Cas. (1897)
Eisenman, 94 Ky. 83, 42 Am. St. 22. See Montgomery v. Forbes,
Rep. 335; Swift v. Smith, 65 Md. 148. 249, Wilgus Cas.
428, 57 Am. Rep. 336.
n
Angle v. Chicago, etc. Ry.
8 Penobscot Boom Corp. v. Lam- Co., 151 U. S. 1.
son, 6 Me. 224, 33 Am. Dec. 656.
12 Russell v. McLellan, 14 Pick.
9
Louisville Banking Co. v. 63; Newton Mfg. Co. v. White, 42
Eisenman, 94 Ky. 83, 42 Am. St. Ga. 148; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26
Rep. 335; Swift v. Smith, 65 Md. Minn. 43;
Louisville Bkg. Co. v.
428, 57 Am. Rep. 336.
Eisenman, 94 Ky. 83, 42 Am. St.
10
Louisville v. Kauffman, 105 Rep. 335, 19 L. R. A. 684.
Ky. 131; Salomon v. Salomon,
78 ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
72.
owner has an equitable title he is not the legal owner, the legal
title is in the corporation. As illustration, the sole heir of an
estate has no legal title to any of its property before distribu-
tion by the administrator. Until such distriljution the admin-
istrator holds the legal title, and the equitable title in the heir
is not subject to execution or attachment or other legal proc-
ess for his debts." The fact that all the corporate shares be-
come the property of a single owner does not operate to dis-
solve the corporation or make him personally liable for its
debts. The corporate property remains liable for them and
his individual estate is exempt.^*

72. Articles of incorporation. They and the statute are

the charter.The character of a corporation is determined
from its articles of incorporation and the statute authorizing
its incorporation.^^ In some form, as articles of incorporation
or certificate of association, the general laws require the cor-
porators to sign and record their agreement, to be addressed
to some public officer, usually the secretar}^ of State, and with-
out such articles there can be no incorporation.^^ A legal in-
corporation requires not only legislative authority but also
agreement between the incorporators.^'^ When a corporation
is created by special legislative act, that constitutes the char-
ter, which, when accepted
^^
by the incorporators, becomes the
constitution of the corporation in connection with such arti-
cles of association as the corporators may have entered into.
Almost all the States have adopted constitutional prohibition
against incorporation by special act and against the grant by
the legislature of any special privilege to any corporation or
individual and have adopted general incorporation laws upon
13
Button V. Hoffman, 61 Wis. Neb. 416; New York Cable Co. v.
20 (1884); Wheelock v. Moulton, Mayor, 104 N. Y. 1; McCallion v.
15 Vt. 519 (1843); Winona, etc. Hibernia, etc. Co., 70 Cal. 1G3; In
R. Co. V. St. Paul, etc. R. Co., 23 re Deveaux, 54 Ga. 637; Van Pelt
Minn. 359; King v. Barnes, 109 v. Home, etc. Assn., 79 Ga. 439;
N. Y. 267; Murphy v. Hanrahan, In re National Literary Assn.,
50 Wis. 485, 7 N. W. 436. 30 Pa. St. 150.
14
Louisville, etc. Co. v. Eisen-
17
Green v. Knife, etc. Co., 35
man, 94 Ky. 83, 19 L. R. A. 684, Minn. 155.
42 Am. St. Rep. 335.
is
State v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40;
15
McLeod V. Lincoln, etc. Univ., State v. Bull, 16 Conn. 179; Smith
96 Neb. 265 (1903); Republi- v. Silver, etc. Co., 64 Md. 85, 54
can, etc. Mines v. Brown, 19 U. S. Am. Rep. 760; Quinlin v. Houston,
App. 203 58 Fed. 644. etc. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 356.
10
Abbott V. Omaha, etc. Co., 4

73,] OKGANIZANION UNDER GENERAL LA.WS. 79

compliance with which persons may freely incorporate. The
articles of incorporation are the legislature's agreement and
contract of incorporation as between the members, and when
executed and filed with the proper officer of the State in com-
pliance with the general incorporation law, constitutes the
charter/" and is a contract between the State and the corpo-
rators and shareholders, but subject to all the conditions and
reservations provided by the Constitution and statutes of the
State.-" The obligations of this contract are protected by the
Federal Constitution against impairment by any law of the
State, which may be enacted subsequent to acceptance of the
charter by the incorporators. In nearly every State persons
forming a corporation under general laws are required to
make, execute and sign articles of incorporation.^^ The arti-
cles of incorporation are also called the certificate of incorpora-
tion; anything that they contain or provide beyond what the
statute makes necessary is unauthorized and inoperative.-" For
example, a provision in the articles of a manufacturing corpo-
ration that it may purchase a railroad, thovigh it does not in-
validate the articles, it adds nothing to the corporate powers.-^
The rights of the corporation will not be affected by such un-
authorized powers.-* Whatever the general law authorizes
to appear by the articles, and no more, should appear in them.-^

73.
Requirements of the articles.Substantial compliance
with the requirements of the general incorporation law is a
pre-requisite to the right of forming a corporation under it.-''
19
Pulford V. Fire Department of rill, 61 Vt. 598; Kaiser v. Law-
City of Detroit, 31 Mich. 458; rence Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa, 104, 41
People V. Chicago Gas Trust Co., Am. Rep. 85; State v. Critchett,
130 111. 268, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; 37 Minn. 13; Unity Ins. Co. v.
Society for Visitat. of Sick v. Cram, 43 N. H. 636.
Commonwealth, 52 Pa. St. 125, 91
22
Indiana, etc. Co. v. Ogle, 22
Am. Dec. 139; Chicago, etc. Co. v. Ind. App. 593 (1899).
Town of Lake, 130 111. 42; North
23
People v. Mount Shasta Mfg.
Point, etc. Co. v. Utah, etc. Co., Co., 107 Cal. 256 (1895).
52 Pac. 167, 40 L. R. A. 851.
24 Commonwealth v. Yetter, 190
20
Grangers', etc. Ins. Co. v. Pa. St. 448 (1899).
Camper, 73 Ala. 325; Republican,
25 People v. Chicago G. T. Co.,
etc. Mines v. Brown, 19 U. S. App. 130 111. 268 (1889), 8 L. R. A. 497.
203, 58 Fed. 644; People v. Chi-
2c
People v. Montecito, etc. Co.,
cago, etc. Co., 132 111. 268, 17 Am. 97 Cal. 276, 33 Am. St. Rep. 172;
St. Rep. 319; Hech v. McEwen, Thornton v. Balcom, 85 Iowa, 198;
12 Lea (Tenn.), 97;
Knights of State v. Foulkes, 94 Ind. 493;
Pythias v. "Weller, 93 Va. 605. Gent v. Mfg., etc. Ins. Co., 107
2A Utley V. Union Tool Co., 11 111. 652.
Gray (Mass.), 139; Corey v. Mor-
80
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[ Y3.
Among those requirements as generally conditions precedent
to legal incorporation are that the incorporators must sign,
execute and acknowledge articles of incorporation.-^ Such ar-
ticles have the effect of a charter.^^ There can be no incorpo-
ration where there are no articles, or if they are fatally de-
fective for non-compliance with the essential requirements of
the statute,-" A valid subscription may be made by signing
the articles and writing after the signature the number of
shares subscribed for, but not enforceable until the articles are
acknowledged as required by the statute.^*' When a certain
number of persons are required to sign the articles that num-
ber must sign.^^ It is sufficient to sign the Christian name by
initials,^^ When required by the statute the incorporators
must add a seal to their names.^^ And the corporate seal or
its description must appear in the articles.^* The articles need
contain no other provisions than what the statute requires,
whatever else is contained if unauthorized, will not invalidate
the articles, but will be treated simply as surplusage.'^ Simply
including them in the articles can confer upon the corporation
no power, privilege or immunity not prescribed by the legis-
lature.^ Any act of the company done in pursuance of any
such unauthorized provisions will be void, but until pro-
ceeded against by the State for abuse of its franchises its cor-
porate rights will not be affected by such provisions.^'^ Cer-
tificate of incorporation by some officer or court must be ob-
tained when required, as condition precedent to corporate ex-
istence.^^ If granted by authority the certificate is not re-
ar
See note 16, supra.
32
state v. Beck, 81 Ind. 500.
23
NorthPoint, etc. Co. v. Utah,
33
Griffin v. Clinton, etc. Co., 1
etc. Co., 52 Pac. 168, 40 L. R. A. West. Law. M., 31 Fed. Cas. 5816.
851, 16 Utah, 246. 34 Vawter v. Franklin College,
29
New York Cable Co. v. Mayor, 53 Ind. 88.
104 N. Y. 1; McCallion v. Hiber-
35
Oregon R. Co. v. Oregonian R.
nia, etc. Co., 70 Cal. 263. Co., 130 U. S. 1; Albright v. La-
3oCoppage V. Hutton, 124 Ind. Fayette, etc. Co., 102 Pa. St. 411;
401, 7 L. R. A. 591; Miilton v. Bigelow v. Gregory, 72 111. 197.
Clayton, 54 Iowa, 425; Phoenix, etc.
36
Eastern Plank Road Co. v.
Co. V. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294; Crav- Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546; In re Med.
ens V. Cotton Mills, 120 Ind. 6; College of Philadelphia, 3 Whart.
People V. Montecito "Water Co., (Pa.) 445.
97 Cal. 276, 33 Am. St. Rep. 172.
37
Eastern Plank Road Co. v.
31
Heinige v. Adams, etc. Co., 81 Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546; Hecht v.
Ky. 300; State v. Central, etc. McEwen, 12 Lea (Tenn.), 97.
Assn., 29 Ohio St. 399; Working-
ss
stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. 397;
men's Bldg., etc. Assn. v. Cole- Painesville v. Hudson R. Co., 11
man, 89 Pa. St. 428. Ohio St. 516.

T3.] OKGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS. 81

vocable within the time allowed by statute for completion of
organization."'' The articles must state the name and the ob-
ject or purpose of the proposed corporation.
'
The purposes
must be set out in substantial compliance with the statute."
The articles must name and locate the principal place of busi-
ness of the proposed corporation.'*- The articles must name-
the directors and their number. If required, it is essential"
that the articles shall state name, number and residence of the
directors to serve for the first year. Unless expressly re-
quired they need not be subscribers to the stock or sharehold-
ers.*^ The articles generally must state what is the amount
of the capital stock, and into how many shares it is divided,
and how much stock each has subscribed for, and the names-
and residences of the shareholders. Unless the statute so re-
quires it, it is unnecessary to valid incorporation that all the
capital shall have been subscribed for.** A corporation is not
created merely by the making and filing of the articles of in-
corporation, where no directors have been chosen and no stock
subscribed for or actually paid in.*^ The statute generally re-
quires subscription to and pa3^ment upon some designated
percentage of the capital stock. If the requirement is sub-
stantially complied with, it is not material by whom the pay-
ments are made.* The articles of incorporation, otherwise
called the certificate of incorporation, cannot enlarge or re-
strict the charter powers. Any restrictions inserted in the
articles of incorporation, which are be3'ond the statements re-
quired in the general statute are void.*^ Any. attempt in the
articles to exempt subscribers to stock from personal liability
39
Illinois "Watchcase Co. v.
^*
Johnson v. Kessler, 76 Iowa,.
Pearson, 140 111. 423. 411; Schenectady, etc. R. Co. v.
40
Attorney-General v. Lorman, Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102.
59 Mich. 157, 60 Am. Rep. 287;
State v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 4^
People V. Beach, 19 Hun. (N. Y.) Ohio St. 440, 16 L. R. A. 611.
259.
46
Thompson, Corps. 247;
41
People V. Cheeseman, 7 Colo. Hendricks v. Academy of Music,
376. 73 Ga. 437; People v. Stockton,
42
Montgomery v. Forhes, 148 etc. R. Co., 45 Cal. 306, 13 Am>
Mass. 249; Harris v. McGregor, Rep. 178; State v. Central Ohio,
29 Cal. 124; In re Spring Valley etc. Assn., 29 Ohio St. 399; Thorn-
Water Works, 17 Cal. 132; People ton v. Balcom, 35 Iowa, 198; Park
v. Beach, 19 Hun. (N. Y.) 259. v. Swart, 92 Iowa, 37. Vide infra^
43
Densmore Oil Co. v. Dens-

208.
more, 64 Pa. St. 43; In re British
47 Indiana, etc. Co. v. Ogle, 22
Provident, etc. Assn., 5 Ch. Div. Ind. App. 593 (1899).
206.
Vol. I

6.
82
ORGANIZATIOX UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
74.
to corporate creditors on their subscription, is void.'*^ Though
such unauthorized provisions are void, they will not affect the
rights of the corporation/'' If the statute allows the incor-
porators to include special provisions in their articles of asso-
ciation, the corporation may provide therein for a lien on the
stock and if the stock certificate refer thereto, the purchaser
of such certificate takes it subject to such lien.^ Any unau-
thorized power inserted in the articles has no more force than
a by-Iaw.^^ When a corporation is organized under the gen-
eral laws of the State, and a charter is afterwards granted to
it by the legislature, recognizing its existence as a corporation,
the latter act does not supersede the former ; but so far as they
are consistent with each other, they together form the charter
of the company."^- A charter offered for the approval of the
court should not contain provisions for the internal manage-
ment of the corporation which are properly the subject of by-
laws. The proposed charter should be written upon a single
piece of paper or parchment.^^ Under the Pennsylvania act
of April
29, 1874,
relating to the creation of corporations, a
proposed charter must be open to the inspection of the public.
Although this is not especially directed by the act, the provis-
ion requiring advertisement indicates that such was the inten-
tion of the legislature.^*

74.
Effect of irregularities in articles.While a failure of
corporators to comply with the conditions precedent is fatal
to the creation of a de jure corporation, as against direct at-
tack by the State, the corporation, till thus attacked, will be
a corporation de facto,
and be valid against collateral attack,
either by the State or by a private individual.^^ Among ex-
amples of such non-compliance with the essential require-
ments, that is, the mandatory requirements of the statute, are
:
Omission to state the place of residence
of the corporators,^^
omission to state the principal place of business,^'^ omission to
48
Van Pelt v. Gardner, 54 Neb.
53
Jn re Stevedores' Beneficial
701 (1898).
Assn. (1884), 14 Phila. 130.
40
Commonwealth, v. Yetter, 190
s*
In re Holy Communion
Pa. St. 488 (1899).
Church (1884), 14 Phila. 121.
50
Mohawk v. Schenectady, etc.
S5
stout v. Zulick, 48 N. J. Law,
78 Hun. 90 (1894); Gibbs v. Long 599.
Island Bank, 83 Hun. 92 (1894).
so
Busenback v. Attica, etc. Co.,
51
Sherman, etc. Co. v. Morris, 43 Ind. 265.
43 Kan. 282 (1900).
s- Kcnnett v.
Woodworth-Mason
52
Johnston v. Crawley, 25 Ga. Co., 68 N. H. 432; Harris
16. V. McGregor, 29 Cal. 124; People

75,
75a.] ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAAV8. 83
State the number of directors,''^ and omission to state the
amount of capital stock.
'^'^
Among- examples of substantial
compliance with the statute, and which, though not literal
compliance, will not invalidate the corporation, are : Where
the name of the proposed corporation specifically indicated the
business to be carried on, and the articles not otherwise speci-
fying the purposes or object of incorporation ;
"<'
where, in ac-
knowledgment of the articles, the notary's certificate failed
to state the corporators were personally known to him ;
"^
where the certificate of incorporation failed to state that a
certain percentage of the capital stock subscribed had been
actually paid in good faith, but the fact was that the corpora-
tors had property of market value in excess of the par value
of the capital stock.*'-

74a. Waiver of irregularities.Recognition of a corpora-

tion by the legislature, as a legally existing corporation, will
waive or cure irregularities or defects in the corporate organi-
zation.^ A legislative act authorizing a municipal corpora-
tion to sell its stock in a railroad company is recognition of
its legal existence and cures defects in its organization.*

75.
Filing, publishing and recording articles.The gen-
eral incorporation statutes usually require the articles of in-
corporation to be filed in the office of the secretary of State,
or with some other public officer and their publication or reg-
istration in some form. This is a condition precedent to legal
incorporation.^ Payment of the filing fees is generally a con-
dition precedent. A copy of the articles must also be filed
V. Beach, 19 Hun. (N. Y.) 259; Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 111. 197;
Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co., 61 Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Herkimer,
Iowa, 121. 46 Ind. 142; Clegg v. Hamilton,
58
Reed V. Richmond R. Co., 50 etc. Co., 61 Iowa, 121; Childs v.
Ind. 342. Hurd, 32 W. Va. 66; Gent v. Mfg.
50
State V. Shelbyville, etc. Co., Ins. Co., 107 111. 653, Wilgus Cas.;
41 Ind. 151; Thornton v. Balcom, Richmond Factory Assn. v. Clark,
85 Iowa, 198. 61 Me. 351; Lovering v. McLaugh-
60
Van Pelt v. Home Bldg. & lin, 161 111. 417; Gade v. Forest,
Loan Assn., 79 Ga. 439. etc. Co., 165 111. 367; Kaiser v.
61
People v. Cheeseman, 7 Colo. Lawrence Sav. Bank, 56 Iowa, 104,
376; Johnston v.
Ewen, etc., 35 41 Am. Rep. 85; Borough of Brad-
Ill. 518.
dock V. Pennsylvania Water Co.,
62
State V. Wood, 13 Mo. App. 189 Pa. St. 379;
People v. Monte-
139.
cito, etc. Co., 97 Cal. 276, 33 Am.
63
state V. Webb, 110 Ala. 214. St. Rep. 172.
64
Town of Andes v. Ely, 158 U.
6g
Union Horseshoe Works v.
S. 312.
Lewis. 1 Abb. (U. S.) 518, Fed.
05
Stowe V. Flagg, 72 111. 397; Cas. 14365.
84 ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
75.
for record with the county recorder, if so required/'^ Error by-
recording in the wrong book will not invalidate the incorpora-
tion."^ A record made in violation of agreement among the
incorporators, is void.^ Publication, when required, must be
made, giving notice of application for incorporation.'^*' A pub-
lication of the articles of incorporation which fails to set forth
the names of the incorporators, the amount of the capital
stock,'^ the time when the corporate existence shall begin and
terminate, and where the principal place of business shall be,
is insufficient, but irregularities, as the failure of the notary
to certify that those signing the articles of association were
personally known to him, is not fatal ;
^-
and a requirement
that articles of incorporation shall be recorded in the county
clerk's office in a book kept for that purpose, is satisfied, so
far as the corporation is concerned, by filing the articles for
record.'^^ The antedating of incorporation articles by the Sec-
retary of State upon their being filed, or the omission of the
subscribers' residences in the articles, has been held to be no
ground for quo warranto proceedings against the corporation.
''*
It has also been held that the articles of association are prop-
erly signed, although only the initial letter of the Christian
[names is used,^^ and that the "principal place of business" is
sufficiently designated by the name of a cltyJ^ Many irre^-
larities occur in the formation of companies under general in-
corporation laws, which, while they might be made the basis
of proceedings on the part of the State to oust the corpora-
tion of its franchises, do not afifect the legality of its existence
with respect to persons with whom it deals.^^ And even the
67
Creswell v. Oberly, 7 Bradw. ciation, and shows, in connection
(111.) 281; Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 with the order granting it, that
Mo. 310; National Bank v. Davies, the charter was sufficient. Van
43 Iowa, 424. Pelt v. Home Building and Loan
68
Walton V. Riley, 85 Ky. 413. Assn. (1887), 79 Ga. 439.
69
Ricker v. Larkin, 27 111. App. .
72
People v. Cheeseman, 7 Colo.
625. 376.
70
Thornton V. Balcom, 85 Iowa,
73
Walton v. Riley
(1887), 85
198. Ky. 413.
71
Adams v. West Lake Mfg. Co.,
74
State v. Foulkes, 94 Ind. 493.
81 Ky. 300 (1885); Clegg v. Ham-
75
state v. Beck (1883), 81 Ind.
ilton & Weight County Grange 500.
Co. (1884), 61 Iowa, 121. But
76
i^a; parfe Spring Valley Water
the charter of a private corpora- Works, 17 Cal. 132.
tion is not void where the petition
77 Humphrey v. Mooney (1882),
states the name, and by it the 5 Colo. 382. And see cases cited
purposes and objects of the asso- supra,

118, 125, 127.

TC] ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS. 85

State itself may be barred from proceeding against the cor-
poration by lapse of time, as where for nineteen years a turn-
pike company had acted under articles of incorporation de-
fective in failing to set forth the location of its routeJ^ Re-
cording the certificate with the recorder of the county, or in-
some other designated office, is usually the necessary and final
step which gives the corporation its life and franchises."

76.
Purposes and objects of incorporation.The objects
of the proposed corporation must be particularized in the arti-
cles of association, as every associate has a right to know from
the charter itself what are the purposes of the corporation and
the means or methods of accomplishing them.^" But they
should not contain provisions for the internal management of
the corporation, since this is properly a subject of by-laws."
Parol evidence is incompetent to vary or contradict the arti-
cles.- The purposes for which a corporation is organized
must be determined by the statements made in the articles of
incorporation.^^ A statement that the object of incorporation
is to engage in any business it may consider profitable is not
a sufficient statement of its object.* No corporation can be
formed under the general laws for any purpose not specified
therein.^ A corporation cannot lawfully engage in any busi-
ness transaction, foreign to the purposes of its creation." The
78
state V. Gordon (1S84), 87 19 Hun. (N. Y.) 259; People v.
Ind. 171. Selfridge, 52 Cal. 331.
^9
Cresswell v. Oberly, 17 111.
3
Detroit Driving Club v. Fitz-
App. 281. In Kansas it Is held gerald, 109 Mich. 670, 67 N. W.
that the existence of a corpora- 899.
tion organized under the general
s*
In re Crown Bank, 44 Ch.
laws of the State, dates from the Div. 634.
time of filing its charter, and it is
ss
People v. Gunn, 96 N. Y. 317:
not prerequisite that all the capi- Attorney-General v. Lorman, 59
tal stock of the corporation be Mich. 157, 60 Am. Rep. 287; Meade
subscribed for it to transact Furniture Co. v. Rowland, 6 Ohio
business. Chicago, K. & W. R. Dec. 595; State v. International
Co. V. Putnam (1887), 36 Kan. Inv. Co., 88 Wis. 512, 43 Am. St.
121. Rep. 920; Finnegan v. Noerenberg,
80
7n re Independent Order Sil- 52 Minn. 239, 38 Am. St. Rep. 552;
ver Star (1872), 1 Luz. Leg. Reg. Shutzenbund v. Agitations Verein,
768. 44 Mich. 313, 38 Am. Rep. 270.
siJw
re Charter of Stevedores'
so
Franklin Co. v. Lewiston In-
Beneficial Assn. (1880), 14 Phila. stitution for Savings, 68 Me. 43,
130, 37 Leg. Int. 262. 28 Am. Rep. 9, 1 Cum. Cas. 343;
82
Attorney-General v. Lorman, Denny Hotel v. Schram, 6 Wash.
59 Mich. 157; People v. Beach, 134, 36 Am. St. Rep. 130.
86
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
76.
Statements in the articles of incorporation must determine
what are the purposes for which it is organized.^^ If they
will necessarily result in creating a monopoly the provision
is void.^^ So a statement that "the manner of carrying on
the business shall be such as the association may from time to
time prescribe," is insufficient.^^ Under one of the various
statutes providing for the incorporation of companies, it is
held that a medical college cannot be formed under a law for
the incorporation of "benevolent, charitable or missionary pur-
poses,"
^
nor, again, a rifle club under a law for the formation
of corporations for "literary, scientific and charitable pur-
poses,"
^^
So also the New York act authorizing the incorpo-
ration of societies or clubs for various purposes, does not em-
brace the case of an association, without capital, whose object
is the improvement of its members in an art, and their mutual
protection.^^ But under a statute authorizing private corpora-
tions to be formed for mutual profit or benefit not inconsistent
with the constitution and laws of the State, it has been held
that a company may be incorporated for the purpose of pro-
tecting the personal property of its members from violence or
theft, to raise money for necessary expenses by assessments,
to confer with the State officers, and employ counsel, police
and detectives, when necessary, for the prosecution of crim-
inals.^ Application was made for a charter to establish a
house of worship according to the doctrine of Christian sci-
ence as taught by Mrs. Eddy. It was In evidence that the
purpose also was for education in treatment of disease, by
silent prayer, without other preparation than study of Mrs.
Eddy's teaching based on the theory that no disease exists
87
Detroit Driving Club v. Fitz- tice of medicine does not meet
gerald, 190 Mich. 670, 67 N. "W. the standard required by Penn-
899. sylvania Act of March 24, 1877.
ss
People V. Chicago, etc., 120 In re American Electropathic In-
111. 268, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319. stitute (1884), 14 Phila. 128.
89
State V. Central Ohio Assn.,
9i
Vredenburg v. Behan (1882),
29 Ohio St. 399. 33 La. Ann. 627, rifle shooting not
90
People V. Cothran (1882), 27 being a science, though it may be
Hun. 344. A charter will not be an art.
granted to an institution for in- 92
in re Carpenters' & Joiners'
struction in electricity as a cura- Union, 17 Abb. N. Cas. 109.
tive agent, with power to confer 93
Gua,dalupe & S. A. R. S. Assn.
degrees in medicine or electricity. v. West (1888), 70 Tex. 391.
Such a qualification for the prac-
1

7Ga,
77.] ORGANIZATION TINDER GENERAL LAWS.
87
except in mere belief. Held that the charter was properly de-
nied as opposed to public policy in reference to diseases and
their treatment.^* An act of incorporation
is fatally defective
where it is to carry on works of public improvement and with
privilege of condemning property for the purpose, and is also
incorporated for the purpose of engaging in mercantile busi-
ness.
"'a
General enabling acts, enumerating
purposes and adding
"or for any other lawful purpose," are construed to merely
authorize incorporation for like purpose or business as those
purposes enumerated, as the incorporation of a telephone com-
pany under authority to organize a telegraph company.^^b But
such an enabling act to incorporate for any lawful purposes
except that of insurance would not authorize the incorporation
of a fidelity company to guaranty the faithful service of em-
ployees in places of trust.^^c A corporation chartered with
power to buy and sell land and erect buildings thereon has
no power to carry on the business of an innkeeper or that of a
common carrier.^^d

76a. Organization of corporation. When complete.The

organization of a corporation is complete as to collection of sub-
scription to capital stock when it has all been subscribed for un-
conditionally, and whether or not the stock has been issued for
a valuable consideration.^*^ The organization is not complete for
all purposes until its charter has been filed for record in the office
of the attorney general.^*^
B.

CORPORATE EXISTENCE.

77.
From what time it dates.Corporate existence dates
from filing the articles wdth the designated officer and his ap-
proval,"^ if that is required, and from time of performance of
all conditions precedent,"^ or from acceptance of the charter
04
J re First Church of Christ,
s-^eMerriclv v. Consumers, etc.
Scientist, 55 Atl. 536, 205 Pa. 543 Co., Ill 111. App. 153 (1902).
(1903).
olf
Edwards v. Armour P. Co..
94aBayon Cook, etc. Co. v. 190 111. 467 (1904).
Doullut, 111 La. 517 (1904).
95 Society v. Commonwealth, 52
9-ib
Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Pa. St. 125, 91 Am. Dec. 139;
Oshkosh, 62 Wis. 32. Chicago, etc. Co. v. Putnam
94C
People v. Rose, 174 111. 310. (1887), 36 Kan. 121.
94dRabe V. Dunlap, 51 N. J. Eq.
96 Stowe v. Flagg, 72 III. 397;
40 (1893),
23 Atl. 929.
Gent v. Manufacturers, etc Co.,
107 111. 652.
88
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
77.
in full compliance with its terms."'^ Articles of incorporation
do not make a corporation ; they are simply authority to do
so.^ When organization is a prerequisite to corporate life it
dates from orf^anization and not from time of beginning busi-
ness. The date of filing is no necessary part of the articles.^
If omitted the fact of delivery may be shown by parol evi-
dence. The corporate existence dates from the time the arti-
cles of incorporation or other instrument provided by statute
are duly executed, acknowledged and recorded or filed for rec-
ord, in compliance with the statute, all other conditions pre-
cedent to incorporation having been performed. Or the cor-
porate existence dates from the time of issue of certicate of
approval of the articles by the secretary of state or other des-
ignated official, when such approval and certificate thereof are
required by statute.- "That a corporation should have a full
and complete organization and existence as an entity before it
can enter into any kind of contract or transact any business,
would seem to be self evident. ... A corporation, until
organized, has no being, franchise or faculties. Nor do those
engaged in bringing it into being have any power to bind it by
contract, unless so authorized by the charter. Until organized
as authorized by the charter there is not a corporation nor
does it possess franchises or faculties for it or others to ex-
ercise until it acquires a complete existence."
^
A charter
dates from time of its acceptance.^ If granted without condi-
tion it takes effect at once.^ When there are conditions pre-
cedent to be performed it does not take effect until they are
all performed. When organization is necessary |o corporate
existence it dates therefrom," and not from the time of com-
mencing business.''' A charter granted by special act incorpo-
rating' unconditionally a business already in operation takes
97
Goshen, etc. Co. v. Searsm, 7 * Riddle v. Proprietors, etc., 7
Conn. 86. Mass. 184.
98
State V. Fidelity, etc. Co., 49
s
Logan v. McAllister, 2 Bell
Ohio St. 440, 10 L. R. A. 611. Ch. 176.
99
Hanna v. International Pe-
c
Bergeron v. Hobbs, 96 Wis.
troleum Co., 23 Ohio St. 622. 641; Stowe v. Flagg, 73 111. 397;
1
Johnson v. Crawfordsville, etc. Atherton v. Sugar Creek, etc. Co.,
H. Co., 11 Ind. 280. 67 Ind. 334; Burhop v. City of
2
Society v.
Commonwealth, 52 Milwaukee, 21 Wis. 257.
Pa. St. 125.
7 Hanna y. International Pe-
3
Gent V. Manufacturers, etc. troleum Co., 23 Ohio St. 622.
Co., 107 111. 652.

78-79?;.] ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS. 89

effect upon its passage.^ AVhcre a corporation is or.t^anizcd
luider a general law no acceptance of the charter is requisite."

78, Effect of variance between statute and articles.Tf

stated in the articles, as in excess of that allowed by statute,
the term will nevertheless continue for the statutory period.''^

79.
A special charter may be perpetual.A special charter
is a special act of the legislature creating the corporation. It
is perpetual and irrevocable unless its term of existence is lim-
ited in the special act,^^ or unless a general act, in force at the
time, limits the term for which a corporation shall be created.
'-
or unless the special charter is granted under reserved right
to amend or repeal.'''''

79a. Incorporation and organization. Attacking validity

of incorporation.Where an association of persons claim to
have organized themselves into a corporation, its invalidity may
be shown collaterally by evidence that no articles of incorpora-
tion have been filed as required by statute.'*

7gb. Corporate existence and franchise. Estoppel to deny.

A person who has contracted with another as a corporation can-
not collaterally deny the others corporate existence.'^ One is
estopped to deny the legal organization of a corporation, in which
he has subscribed for stock, and which proceeded to contradict
its business although it erected a building for its use.'*'
Corporations by estoppel. Estoppel
of
private persons to deny
corporate existence.As between themselves, private persons, by
their acts and admissions, may estop themselves from denying the
existence of the corporation, so that as to their own differences
the company assuming to be a corporation, but having only a
de facto existence, becomes to them in effect a corporation de jure.
8
Logan V. McAllister, 2 Bell 287 (1856) ; Greenwood v. Freight
Ch. 176.
Co., 105 U. S. 13 (1881).
Spring Valley Water Works
instate v. Payne, 129 Mo. 468
V. City of San Francisco (1863),
(1895), 33 L. R. A. 576.
22 Cal. 434.
^'
Citizens' Street R. R. v. Meni-
10
People V. Cheeseman, 7 Colo. phis, 53 Fed. 715 (1893).
376. See Hughes v. Antietam
i*
Lusk v. Riggs, 97 N. W. 1033,
Mfg. Co., 34 Md. 316.
24 L. R. A. 259; Capps v. Hast-
11
Snell V. Chicago. 133 111. 413 Ings, etc. Co., 4
Nev. 470;
Abbott
(1890); National Water Works v. Omaha, etc. Co., 4 Nev. 416, 42
Co. V. Kansas City, 65 Fed. 690 Am. St. Rep. 677.
(1895); State V. Ladies of Sacred
ir.
California, etc. v. Stelling,
Heart, 99 Mo. 533 (1889);
Erie, 141 Cal. 713.
etc. R R. Co. V. Casey, 26 Pa. St.
i
Lincoln Park v. Swatek,
204
111. 228.
90
ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
T9if
But as against the State a corporation cannot be created by such
agreements or admissions between private parties. When a pri-
vate person in his agreement with a company purporting to be a
corporation, describes it by the assumed name, he admits the ex-
istence of the corporation, so far that he is estopped to deny its
corporate existence in any suit he may bring against it to en-
force the agreement.^^ A third person dealing with an assumed
corporation is by the fact of such dealing estopped to deny its
corporate existence, except where there are no facts which make
it legally unjust to forbid such denial.^^ Having admitted the
existence of the corporation by entering into a contract with it,
and assuming an obligation to it by a name, which imports that
it is a corporation, he cannot thereafter be heard to deny its legal
existence.^^ So far as he is concerned, the contract he has en-
tered into with the corporation is prima facie evidence of its dc
jure existence.^" In a private suit against the assumed corpora-
tion, its legal existence may be proved by evidence that the party
denying it has dealt with it as a corporation.^^ A person having
dealt with it as a corporation cannot set up its irregular organiza-
tion to show that it is merely an unincorporated association.-- A
person believing a company to be a corporation de jure, and con^
tracting with it in that belief, cannot after receiving the benefit?
of the contract deny its legal incorporation as defense to an ac-
tion brought by the company.-^ The rule is claimed to be that
whoever contracts with a company which has the reputation of
being a de jure corporation, and exercises the powers of such a
corporation, is estopped to deny its de jure existence in any suit
upon the contract.^* Estoppel even as between private personsf
cannot operate to create a corporation, where there is entire ab-
sence of authority in the organic law itself, under which the com-
pany assumes to be a corporation.-^ Creditors knowingly deal-
ing with a corporation fraudulently organized, are estopped to
17
Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665;
20
Brown v. Scottish, etc. Co.,
Venner v. Farmers,' etc. Co., 90 110 111. 535.
Fed. 348; Bradford v. Frankfort,
21
Spaher v. Farmers' Bank, 94
etc. R. Co., 142 Ind. 383; Butch- Pa. St. 429.
ers,' etc. Bank v. McDonald, 130
22
Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46.
Mass. 264.
23
Booske v. Gulf Ice Co., 24
isEitey Manuf. Co. v. Runnels, Fla. 550; Ransom v. Priam Lodge,
55 Mich. 130, 20 N. W. 823. 51 Ind. 60.
19
Southern Bank v. Williams,
24
Central, etc. Assn. v. Ala-
25 Ga. 534; Stoutimore v. Clark, bama, etc. Co., 70 Ala. 120.
70 Mo. 471.
25
Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc.
Co., IG Ind. 275, 79 Am. Dec. 430.

T9c, Y9t/.] ORGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS. 91

show that the charter was obtained by fraud.
^^
Stockholders who
have assisted in organizing the corporation, knowing the charter
to have been obtained by fraud, are estopped to set up the fact in
any suit by or against the corporation." An innocent person deal-
ing with parties claiming to have become incorporated de jure
and extending credit to them upon faith in their valid incorpora-
tion, is not estopped from proceeding against them as partners.--''
A subscriber to shares in a corporation by its corporate name, is
estopped to deny its corporate existence in defense against a suit
to enforce his subscription.-" Any person participating in the
organization of a corporation is estopped to deny its corporate
existence.^"

79c. Estoppel of the corporation to deny its ov/n exist-

ence.In suits by or against a corporation, estoppel to deny
its existence works both ways. As defendant it may plead es-
toppel against the plaintiff who has dealt with it in the corporate
name, and as plaintiff it may be estopped where under its corpo-
rate name it has incurred obligations, assuming to be a valid cor-
poration. It cannot deny the regularity of its organization in de-
fense to an action by its obligee or in any other manner deny its
corporate existence. It is estopped by its very appearance and
pleading as defendant in any suit against it, or by executing a
bond upon appeal.
^^
Exception when corporation has expired.The exception to
the rule as to estoppel to deny corporate existence is that in case
of its dissolution, by lapse of time or otherwise, the corporation
being de facto dead, the fact may be suggested by plea, where-
upon the fact being proved or admitted the suit abates, as in the
case of the death of a natural person.^^

ygd. Corporation by prescription.A corporation may

exist by prescription, although it cannot produce a charter, where
corporate powers have for an indefinite time continuously and ex-
26
Hubbard v. Cbapell, 14 Ind.
si
Dooley v. Cheshire, etc. Co.,
601.
15 Gray (Mass.), 494; McCullough
27
Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. St. v. Talladega Ins. Co., 46 Ala. 376;
399.
Imperial, etc. Co. v. Wyman, 38
28Guckert V. Hacke, 159 Pa. St. Fed. 574, 3 L. R. A. 503; East
303.
Tennessee, etc. R. Co. v. Evans,
29
The Joliet v. Frances, 85 111. 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 607.
App. 243.
3- Ensey v. Cleveland, etc. R.
soOssipee, etc. Co. v.
Canney, Co., 10 Ind. 178; Jones v. Tennes-
54 N. H. 295.
see Bank. 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 122,
46 Am. Dec. 540.
92
OEGANIZATION UNDER GENERAL LAWS.
[
79d.
clusivcly, been exercised witliout question by the sovereign power,
the right to exercise them being supported by the presumption of
a grant ; as, in England, the city of London and other corporations
which have no express charter, but having existed for indefinite
time are presumed to have originally had a charter, and that in
the long lapse of time it has been lost.^^ Such cases are few in the
United States, but that fiction of law has here been recognized,
and the doctrine of corporation by prescription applied, to private
as well as to public corporations, whose existence has come down
from colonial timcs.^* But where there is a general incorporation
law, and constitutional prohibition of creation of corporations by
special act, no express legislative recognition of a corporation by
prescription will be recognized .when its franchise is in question
by proceedings brought by the State.'^ There is no room for
operation of the doctrine of corporation by prescription with re-
spect to modern corporations ; they exist under special legisla-
tive acts or by organization under general enabling statutes.
33
15 Bl. Com. 473. town, 34 N. H. 351, 69 Am. Dec.
34
Dillingham v. Snow, 3 Mass. 489; People v. Maynard, 15 Mich.
276, 5 Mass. 547; Hagerstown, etc. 463; Blackston v. Martin, Latch,
Co. V. Creeger, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 112; Rose Hill, etc. Co. v. People,
122, 9 Am. Dec. 495; Jameson v. 115 111. 133; Robie v. Sedwick, 35
People, 16 111. 257, 63 Am. Dec. Barb. 319.
304; Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn.
35
people v. Cheeseman, 7 Colo.
293, 16 Am. Dec. 58; White v. 376; People v. Stanford, 77 Cal.
State, 69 Ind. 273; Bow v. Allen- 360.
CHAPTER V.
AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS.

80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
The reserved power of
amendment and repeal.
Right to amend or repeal.
Police power of the State
independent of the re-
serve power.
Amendment of charters
granted prior to constitu-
tional reservation.
When the power is reserved
by the State constitution.
Construction of constitu-
tional, statutory and
charter reservations.
Construction of amenda-
tory statutes.
Effect of amendment.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
Legislative discretion.
Legislative discretion not
to be questioned judi-
cially.
Limitation upon the re-
served power of amend-
ment.
Consent of the corporation
to amendment. Power of
the majority.
Of material and immaterial
amendments.
The rights of a minority.
Of the dissenting stock-
holders' remedy.
Amendment of the articles
of incorporation.
References
:
Forfeiture of charter. Section 1292.
Dissolution by repeal. Section 1309.
Police power of the state. Sections 928-932.

8o. The reserved power of amendment and repeal.After

the decision of the Dartmouth College case, by which the
charters of private corporations were declared to be within
the protection of the constitutional prohibition of laws impair-
ing the obligation of contracts, it became customary for Stale
legislatures, in granting acts of incorporation, either to limit
the duration of corporate life, or to reserve to the State the
power of amendment and repeal.^ General statutes also wevft
passed, and constitutional provisions adopted by which the
States reserved the power to amend and repeal the charters
of all corporations not expressly excepted from the operation
thereof,^ while in several States the Constitutions provide that
1 Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105
U. S. 13; Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15
Wall. (U. S.) 454; Iron City Bank
V. Pittsburg, 37 Pa. St. 341, 21
Am. St. Rep. 148 note, 7 Am. St.
Rep. note.
2
Me. Laws of 1831; Mass. Rev
Stat. ch. 44, 23; Mass. Gen. Stat.
ch. 68, 41; N. Y. Const, of 184G.
art. viii,
1 & 2; In re New Yorlv
Elevated R. Co. (1877), 70 N. Y
327; Johnson v. Hudson River R.
u AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTEKS.
[81
the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be so
construed nor abridged as to permit corporations to conduct
their business in such manner as to infringe the equal rights
of individuals or the general well-being of the State.^ And,
for the purpose of acquiring control over corporations created
prior to the adoption of these precautionary reservations, the
Constitutions of several States provide that no general or spe-
cial law, for the benefit of corporations existing at the time of
the adoption of the Constitution, shall be passed, except upon
condition that the corporation shall thereafter hold its charter
subject to the provisions of the Constitution.*

8i. Right to amend or repeal.A charter granted without

reserved right to amend or repeal is not subject to that right.'*
A general statute reserving the right to amend or repeal char-
ters becomes part of every charter subsequently granted.^ A
special charter granted before adoption of a constitutional
Co. (1872), 49 N. Y. 455; Bank of
Chenango v. Brown (1863), 26 N.
Y. 467; Ashuelot R. Co. v. Elliott,
58 N. H. 451, 454; Taylor on Cor-
porations, 496 et seq. In many-
States all charters or special acts
creating corporations may be
altered or repealed. Stimson's
American Statutory Law,

442,
citing the constitutions of Maine,
New York, Pennsylvania, Wiscon-
sin, Maryland, Delaware, North
Carolina, Arkansas, Oregon, Ne-
vada, Colorado and Alabama. And
all general laws for the creation
of corporations may be altered or
repealed under the constitutions
of Maine, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Ne-
braska, Maryland, North Carolina,
Tennessee,
Arkansas, California,
Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, South
Carolina and Alabama. Stimson's
American Statutory Law,
442.
In Iowa, laws creating corpora-
tions can be altered and repealed
only on a two-thirds vote of each
house of the legislature present.
Iowa Const. (1857), art. viii.,
12;
while in Michigan they cannot be
pltered or amended without a two-
thirds vote of each house elected.
Mich. Const.
(1850), art. xv.,
8.
In Texas all privileges and fran-
chises are subject to control by
the legislature, also all laws
granting a right to collect
freights, fares, tolls or wharfage.
Stimson's American Staitutory
Law, 442.
3 Stimson's American Statutory
Law,
444, citing the constitutions
of Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, California and Colo-
rado.
4 Stimson's American Statutory
Law,
444, citing the constitu-
tions of Arkansas, Georgia, Ala-
bama, Louisiana and Pennsyl-
vania.
5 Ashuelot Ry. Co. v.- Elliott, 58
N. H. 451; Thornton v. Marginal
Freight Ry. Co., 123 Mass. 32;
Roxbury v. Boston, etc. Co., 6
Cush. (Mass.) 424; Pennsylvania
Ry. Co. V. Miller, 133 U. S. 75.
6 Citizens' St. R. R. v. Memphis,
53 Fed. Rep. 715 (1893); Pearsall
V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 161 U.
S. 646 (1896); Louisville Water
Co. V. Clark, 143 U. S. 1 (1892);
Watson Seminary v. Pike County
Court, 149 Mo. 57 (1899); Citizens'
Savings Bank v. Owensboro, 173
U. S. 636 (1899).

81.] AMENDMENT
AND REPEAL
OF CUAETERS.
95
amendment, prohibiting
future grant of special charter, may
thereafter be amended/
If a charter is amended, after pas-
sage of an act imposing
personal liability
upon
stockholders,
those of a corporation
afterwards
amending its charter, will
be subject to the liability.^
A special charter is perpetual
where the grant does not limit its term of existence.^
A stock-
holder cannot prevent extension of the time of the existence
of the charter, if the statutes in force at the time the char-
ter is granted, provide for its extension."
The stockholders,
under statutory authority, may, by amendment of the certifi-
cate, change the objects of the corporation,"
but such au-
thority will not give power to reduce a preferred dividend
against the dissent of any holder of preferred stock." Unless
the charter contract is expressly to the contrary, the charter is
subject to a subsequently enacted constitutional provision, as,
where an exemption from taxation was granted before an in-
surance charter amendment changed it into a banking charter,
and the exemption was thereby lost." Where a railroad under
special charter was authorized to consolidate with other roads
it lost the power, not already exercised, by enactment of a gen-
eral statute taking away the power.^* When the constitu-
tional prohibition is only against the creation of a corporation,
by special act, the legislature ,may modify, enlarge or other-
wise amend an existing corporate charter, if in so doing its
character is not essentially changed, so as to become a differ-
ent class of corporation ;
^^
for examples, to authorize a mutual
benefit insurance company to issue capital stock divided into
shares ;
^
to confer on the corporators additional powers or
privileges ;
^'^
to extend the period of existence of an expiring
7
Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146
12
Pronik v. Spirits, etc. Co., 58
(1877); Smith v. Indianapolis, N. J. Eq. 97 (1899).
etc. Ry. Co., 63 N. E. Rep. 849
is
Memphis City. R. v. Tennes-
(Ind. 1902); Bohmer v. Hoffen, see, 161 U. S. 186 (1896),
161 N. Y. 390 (1900);
Farnsworth
i^
Pearsall v. Great Northern
V. Lime Rock R. R., 83 Me. 440 Ry. Co., 161 U. S. 186 (1896).
(1891).
15
Wallace v. Loomis, 97 U. S.
8 Senn v. Levy, 63 S. W. Rep. 146.
776 (Ky. 1901).
ic
St. Paul, etc. Co. v. Alton, 24
9
Snell V. Chicago, 133 111. 413 Minn. 75.
(1890).
IT
Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Or-
10
Smith V. Eastwood, etc. Co., ton, 6 Sawy., Fed. Cas. 13, 188a,
58 N. J. Eq. 445 (1899). 32 Fed. 457.
11
Meredith v. New Jersey, etc.
Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 257 (1899).
96
AMENDMENT AND KEPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[
81.
or expired corporation ;
^^
to change or authorize the corpora-
tion to change its name ;
^^
to waive or cure irregularities or
non-compHance with conditions in organizing a corporation
under general law.-" "A legislature can repeal or suspend the
charter; it can alter or modify; it can take away the charter;;
but it cannot impose a new one, and oblige the stockholders
to accept it. It can alter or modify the old one ; but power to
alter or modify anything can never be held to imply a power
to substitute a thing entirely different. It is not a meaning
of the words in their usually received sense. Power to alter
a mansion house would never be construed to mean a power
to tear down all but the back kitchen and front piazza, and
build one three times as large in its place. In anything altered,,
something must be preserved to keep up its identity, and a
matter of the same kind, wholly or chiefly new, substituted for
another, is not an alteration ; it is a change."
-^
The purpose
of the reserved power is construed to be for protection of the
public, and not to empower the legislature to change the con-
tract between the corporation and its stockholders, in attempt
to authorize the majority of stockholders to bind the dissent-
ing minority, by acceptance of amendment, changing the pur-
poses of the corporation, and substituting new and different
powers and purposes, from those undertaken by the stock-
holders in their contract of incorporation. This would be
within the prohibition against laws impairing the obligation
of contracts.-^ Every stockholder's right is to have the cor-
porate funds applied for the corporate purposes, as they were
set out in the charter or articles of incorporation, and whether
or not the new or different purposes contemplated by the pro-
posed amendment would or would not be for the greater profit
18
Cotton V. Mississippi, etc. Co.,
21
Zabriskie v. Hackensack, 18
22 Minn. 373. N. J. Eq. 178, 90 Am. Dec. 617.
19
Wells V. Oregon, etc. Co., 8 Also see Winter v. Muscogee, etc.
Sawy. 608, 15 Fed. 561; Taggart Co., 11 Ga. 438; Ellis v. Marshall,.
V. Western Md. Ry. Co., 24 Md. 2 Mass. 279; Commonwealth v.
568, 89 Am. Dec. 760; Buffalo, etc. Cullen, 53 Am. Dec. 461.
Co. V. Dudley, 14 N.Y. 336; Clark
22
Natusch v. Irving, etc., 1
V. Monongahela, etc. Co. 10 Watts. Smith Cas. 226; Ashland v. Bur-
(Pa.) 364; Bucksport, etc. Co. v. bank, 2 Dill. 435, Fed. Cas. 582, 1
Buck, 68 Me. 81. Smith Cas. 229; Zabriskie v. Hack-
20
McAuley v. Columbus, etc. ensack, etc. Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 178,.
Co., 83 111. 348; Central, etc. Assn. 90 Am. Dec. 617.
V. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co., 70 Ala.
120.

82, 83.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CIIAUTERS. 97

and benefit of the corporation,-^ and the legislature cannot in
the amendment itself authorize the majority to bind the mi-
nority herein.-*

82. Police power of the State, independent of the reserved

power.Under police power the state can regulate the opera-
tion of railway corporations,
independent of any reserved
power by constitutional, statutory or charter provisions.
Under such reserved power to alter, amend or repeal the char-
ter, are the following examples, as sustained by the courts:
Authorizing the company to unite with another railroad com-
pany;" extending the tim.e limited for construction of its
road
;
^^
requiring a railroad company, with others, to establish
a union depot in a city, for the greater convenience of the trav-
eling public, and to change their railway tracks accordingly ;
^^
requiring a railway to fence its tracks and to construct and
maintain bridges, gates, etc., at crossings ;
^^
authorizing
change of name of the railway corporation without thereby re-
leasing subscribers from liability on their subscription to the
capital stock.
-^

83. Amendment of charters granted prior to constitutional

reservations.No charter granted to a corporation by the
State, before the adoption of any such reservation, can be
radically altered, amended or repealed.^" But if such reserva-
tion was adopted before the corporation accepted the charter,
it is subject to the reserved power to alter or repeal it.^^ In
case a new corporation is formed by consolidation of others,
after adoption of any such reservation, the new corporation
becomes subject to it, notwithstanding the constituent compa-
nies were incorporated before adoption of the reservation.^-
23
Stevens v. Rutland, etc. Co.,
28
New York & N. E. Ry. Co. v.
29 Vt. 545; Proprietors v. Town, 1 Town of Bristol, 151 U. S. 55G;
N. H. 44, 8 Am. Dec. 32. Commonwealth v. Eastern Ry. Co.,
24
New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v. 103 Mass. 254, 4 Am. Rep. 555.
Harris, 27 Miss. 517; Mills v. Cen-
29
Buffalo & N. Y. City Ry. Co.
tral R. Co. (1886), 41 N. J. Eq. 1, v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336.
cited and quoted supra.
so
New Orleans Gas Co. v. Na.
25
Durfee V. Old Colony, etc. Co., etc. Co., 115 U. S. 674; New Or-
5 Allen (Mass.), 230, 2 Smith leans Water Works v. Rivers, 115
Cas.
750.*
U. S. 674; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18
26Taggart v. Western Md. Ry. Howell (Mass.), 331.
Co., 24 Md. 563, 89 Am. Dec. 760;
31 Attorney-General v. Wisconsin
Agl. Br. Ry. Co. v. Winchester, 13 & N. W. Ry. Co., 35 Wis. 599;
Allen (Mass.), 29. Stone v. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 674.
2T
City of Worcester v. Norwich,
32 Atlantic & Gulf Ry. Co. v.
etc. Ry. Co., 109 Mass. 103. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359; Shields v.
You 1

7.
98
AMENDMENT AND KEPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[ 84, 85.
In like manner, if any such existing corporation accepts
amendment by the legislature, of its charter, after adoption of
such reservation, the corporation becomes subject to the State's
reserved power of amendment or repeal,^^ and in other States
a similar condition is annexed to all general or special laws
in favor of railway corporations.^* In others, again, all exist-
ing charters or grants of special or exclusive privileges, under
which a bona fide organization had not taken place at the time
of the adoption of the Constitutions, are declared to be void.^^

84. When the power is reserved by the State Constitu-

tion.If the State Constitution provides that the power to
alter, amend or repeal shall be reserved to the State, in cor-
porate charters or enabling acts, the legislature cannot violate
it by contracting with a corporation not to change its consti-
tution.^^ Likewise, as to provision against creating a corpora-
tion by special act.^^ Unlike the United States, the State has
inherent and inalienable power to grant or withhold corporate
power, or to alter, change or repeal that already granted. Such
repeal is subject alone to federal constitutional restrictions
against impairment of obligation of the State's contract with
the corporators, involved in existing contracts. The reserva-
tion in the State Constitution of power of such amendment
and repeal would have added nothing to the State's inherent
power to make and amend the laws and rules governing corpo-
rations.^^
85.
Construction of constitutional, statutory and charter
reservations.Whether the reservation of the power of amend-
ment and repeal be made in the charter of the company or in
Ohio, 95 U. S. 319; Pearsall v. But corporations regularly char-
Great Northern Ry. Co., 161 U. S. tered by the legislature under the
646; Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co. v. Georgia constitution of 1868, did
Smith, 173 U. S. 684. not become extinct by a failure to
33
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Cole, organize and act before the adop-
29 Ohio St. 126, 23 Am. Rep. 729; tion of that of 1877. The law does
Monongahela Nav. Co. v. Coon, 6 not so declare. Atlanta v. Gate
Pa. St. 379.
City Gas Light Co. (1885), 71 Ga.
34
Stimson's American Statutory 106.
Law,
444, citing the constitu-
36 Spring Valley "Watar Works
tions of Missouri, Texas and Colo- v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347.
rado.
^^
Ames v. Lake Superior, etc.
35
stimson's American Statutory Co., 21 Minn. 241.
Law,

444, citing the constitu-
3s
Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Mil-
tions of West Virginia, Missouri, ler, 132 U. S. 75;
Union v. Illinois,
Arkansas, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, 94 U. S. 113.
Illinois, Nebraska and Colorado.

S5]. AMENDMENT AND EEPEAL OF CHARTERS. 99

the constitution of the State or in a general law, it is equally
valid and effective,''' and applies to all charters or enabling-
acts thereafter granted,^" unless expressly exempted there-
from," entering into and becoming a part of the contract be-
tween the State and the incorporators,"
and thus placing the
State, with respect to subsequently created corporations, in
the position which it would have occupied had the decision in
the Dartmouth College case never been rendered."
Thus, for
39
Miller v. New York, 15 Wall.
478; Pennsylvania College Cases,
13 Wall. 190; Holyoke Water-
Power Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500;
Greenwood v. Union Freight R.
Co., 105 U. S. 13; Shields v. Ohio,
95 U. S. 319.
40
Close V. Glenwood Cemetery
(1882), 107 U. S. 4G6; Miller v.
New York, 15 Wall. 478; Charles-
ton V. Branch, 15 Wall. 470; Tom-
linson v. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454
Pennsylvania College Cases, 13
Wall. 190; In re Lee's Bank of
Buffalo (1860), 21 N. Y. 9; Com-
missioners on Inland Fisheries v.
Holyoke Water-Power Co. (1870),
104 Mass. 446; and cases cited,
infra. But it has been held in a
New Jersey case that a provision
in a supplement to a charter to
the effect that such supplement
and charter might be altered or
amended by the legislature, did
not apply to a contract with the
corporation made in a supplement
thereafter passed. New Jersey v.
Yard, 95 U. S. 104.
41
Holyoke Water-Power Co. v.
Lyman, 15 Wall. 500; Hege v.
Richmond & D. R. Co., 99 U. S.
348, where it was held that a
charter conferring upon one cor-
poration the same rights, privi-
leges and immunities possessed by
certain other company, whose
charter was not subject to amend-
ment, does not confer a like im-
munity upon the former company.
But when a corporate charj;er de-
clares that no alteration or
amendment shall be made without
the concurrence of the corpora-
tion, there is a clear expression of
a legislative intent to except such
corporation from the general right
of amendment or repeal reserved
by the State constitution, "unless
a contrary Intent be expressed" in
the charter. Louisville Gas Co.
V. Citizens' Gas Co. (1886), 115
U. S. 683. In Little v. Bowers
(1885), 46 N. J. 300, a provision
that a charter should not take ef-
fect unless the company filed a
written assent thereto in six
months, was held not to indicate
any purpose to repeal a previous
legislative provision that all char-
ters should be subject to altera-
tion, suspension and repeal by the
legislature.
42
In re Lee's Bank of Buffalo
(1860), 21 N. Y. 9; Commission-
ers, etc. V. Holyoke Water-Power
Co. (1870), 104 Mass. 446.
43
Miller v. New York, 15 Wall.
478; County of San Mateo v.
Southern Pacific R. Co., "The
Railroad Tax Cases" (1882), 8
Sawy. 238, 279, s. c. 13 Fed. Rep.
722; Detroit v. Detroit & Howell
Plank Road Co. (1880), 43 Mich.
140; Union Passenger R. Co. v.
Philadelphia, 101 U. S. 528. When-
ever the power of amendment and
repeal is reserved, it may be ex-
ercisell to change or modify the
charter to almost any extent to
carry into effect the original pur-
poses of the corporate organiza-
tion and secure due administra-
tion of its affairs, or to repeal the
charter altogether, so as to termi-
nate absolutely the existence of
the corporation by the abrogation
of "the organic law on which the
corporate existence depends." Mil-
100 AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[
85.
example, under a general reservation of the power of amend-
ment and repeal in existence when the charter of a corpora-
tion was granted, the State may subject the company to taxa-
tion from which it was previously exempt," and may impose
upon the stockholders a statutory liability for the future debts
of the corporation." The creditors of a corporation have a
ler V. New York, 15 Wall. 478;
Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319. In
Close V. Glenwood Cemetery
(18G2), 107 U. S. 466, where the
act incorporating the defendant
company provided for its altera-
tion or repeal, an amendatory act
which authorized the owners of
the burial lots to elect a majority
of the trustees, who were thereby
created a board to control and
manage the cemetery with due re-
gard to the equitable rights of all
persons having any vested inter-
est therein, and which provided
that a portion only of the receipts
should be paid to the original pro-
prietors, and the rest to the im-
provement and maintenance of the
cemetery, was held to be valid,
although it was over twenty years
after the cemetery had been laid
out, improved and used, and rights
of property in the burial lots had
been acquired by many persons.
And in Greenwood v. Union
Freight R. Co., 105 U. S. 13, it was
held that if the legislature has
the power to repeal the statute
under which a company was or-
ganized, it may charter a new
company, and confer the same
powers on it as the former one
possessed; and, so far as the prop-
erty or franchises of the old com-
pany are necessary to the public
use, it may authorize the new one
to take them, on making due com-
pensation therefor. Annotations
of County of Santa Clara v. South-
ern Pacific R. Co., by Robert
Desty, 18 Fed. Rep. 385, 447.
Cf.
"Inviolability of Corporate Char-
ters," by W. P. Wade, 16 West.
Jur. 521; Annotations of New
Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Louisi-
ana Light & Heat Co. (1886), by
H. Campbell Black, 22 Cent. L. J.
204; "State Regulation of Cor-
porate Profits," by Thomas M.
Cooley, 137 North Am. Rev. 205;
Leading article by Isaac F. Red-
field, 13 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.) 1;
"Legislative Regulation of Cor-
porate Profits," by E. S. Whitte-
more, 30 Alb. L. J. 8; "Legislative
Control of Corporations" (1845),
6 Am. L. Mag. 89; "Legislative
Power to Amend Charters," by
William L. Royall, 11 Am. L. Reg.
(N. S.) 1; "Interference by Law
with the Accumulation and Use of
Capital," by Hon. John A. Jame-
son, 111. State Bar Assn. Rep. for
January 6, 1882; "Legislation Con-
cerning Railroads," by B. W.
Duke, 1 Ky. L. J., 163, 211; "Rail-
road Legislation," by Charles
Francis Adams, Jr., 2 Am. L. Rev.
25; "Legislative Control of Rail-
roads," by S. S. Wallace, 3 So. L.
Rev. 650; "Legislative Control of
Railroads," by F. L. Wells, 12
West. Jur. 17; "Legislative Con-
trol over Railway Charters," by
Charles Francis Adams, Jr. 1 Am.
L. Rev. 451; "Legislative Power
to Regulate Railroad Franchises,"
by Gideon B. Dantz, 12 Cent. L. J.
194; "The Repeal Question"
(1841), 9 Dem. Rev. 107; "Police
Power of the State," by W. P.
Wade, 6 So. L. Rev. (N. S.) 59;
"Amendments of Laws relating to
Joint-Stock Companies," by An-
thony Pulbrook (1876), Soc. Sci.
Assn. 291.
44
Charleston v. Branch, 15 Wall.
470; Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall.
454.
45
Sherman v. Smith (1861), 1
Black, 587; In re Lee's Bank of

So.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS. 101

vested right in the existing contractual HabiHty of the share-
holders, of which they cannot be deprived by repeal of a stat-
ute giving a remedy, by which the right is enforceable.* The
legislature, under the reserved power, may impose additional
personal liability upon the members of a corporation for debts
thereafter to be incurred. When the State Constitution de-
clares that shareholders shall be individually liable for corpo-
rate debts, the legislature has power to determine the means
of enforcing the liability.*^ No statute, however, is to be con-
strued as amending or repealing the charter of a corporation
not expressly referred to therein ;
*^
but the repeal of one fran-
chise acts as a revocation of subsidiary franchises granted
merely for the purpose of aiding the company in the exercise
of the former.*^ The reservation need not be made in direct
language, but may be inferred, as from a provision in a char-
ter that it shall not be altered in any other manner than by
act of legislature.^" A.nd under a charter providing that the
charges of a railway company shall be regulated by the cor-
porate by-laws, and a further provision that no by-law shall
conflict with the laws of the State, the charges of the company
are subject to a general railway act prescribing maximum
rates.^^ So, also, where there is a reservation of power to in-
quire into the management of railroad companies, and "to cor-
rect and prevent all abuses of the same," the legislature may
appoint a commission to make such inquiry, and authorize
Buffalo (1860), 21 N. Y. 9; In re 438; Grand Rapids Savings Bank
Empire City Bank (1858), 18 N. v. Warren, 52 Mich. 557.
Y. 199.
Cf.
Bailey v. Hollister
47
Diversey v. Smith, 103 111.
(1862), 26 N. Y. 112; Union Pa- 378.
cific R. Co. V. United States, and
48
City of Grand Rapids v.
Central Pacific R. Co. v. Gallatin, Grand Rapids Hydraulic Co.
known as the Sinking Fund Cases (1887), 66 Mich. 606.
(1878), 99 U. S. 700; Oldtown,
49
Darnell v. State (1887), 48
etc. R. Co. V. Veazie, 39 Me. 571; Ark. 321.
Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, 1,
so
Pennsylvania College Cases,
84; Gardner v. Hope Ins. Co. 13 Wall. 190.
(1869), 9 R. I. 194. So also the
bi
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v.
legislature, under the reserved State (ISJO), 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 462;
power, may pass laws to enforce Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U. S. 536,
the duty to keep open fishways. where it was held that in the ab-
Holyoke Water-Power Co. v. Ly- sence of direct legislation, the
man, 15 Wall. 500. rates are subject only to the com-
46
Hawthorne v. California, 2 mon-law limitation of reasonable-
Wall. (U. S.) 16; Hope, etc. Co. ness. Cf.
"Power of the Legisla-
V. Flinn, 28 Mo. 483, 90 Am. Dec. ture to Fix Rates of Carriers," by
O. W. Aldrich, 3 O. L. J. 644.
102
AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[
S6.
them to enforce through the courts the regulations which they
may establish.^^ A clause in a general act of incorporation
which reserves to the legislature the power to alter or repeal
the act by necessary legislation, is construed as a reservation
of power to alter or repeal all or any one of its terms and con-
ditions, or rules of liability.^^ And articles of association en-
tered into under a general act of incorporation are deemed to
be a part of the law and subject to alteration and repeal in the
same manner as any other part of the general system.^*

86. Construction of amendatory statutes.The amend-

ment of a statute, by declaring that the same shall be read as
prescribed by the amendatory act-, has the efifect of merging
the former statute in the latter, so that the former has no
longer any vitality as to future transactions. This merger is
so complete that a repeal of the amendatory act does not re-
vive the original statute, but both fall together.^^ Where a
statute has been thus amended, a later statute declaring the
original act (with no reference to the amendment) to be ap-
plicable, makes it applicable in its amended, not in its original
form.^^ Where an act purports thus to amend a former stat-
ute, but a construction, according to the foregoing rule, would
render the whole provisidn meaningless and ineffectual, and
it appears clearly, from either extrinsic or intrinsic circum-
stances, that it was the intention of the legislature, not to abro-
52
Railroad Commissioners v. ure, revised at the present session,
Portland, etc. R. Co., 63 Me. 269. shall be taken as repealing the
When the legislature has power acts so revised. The corporation
to regulate rates, it may delegate law of 1845 was revised in 1855.
that power to a commission. Tilley The latter statute contained the
V. Savannah F. & W. R. Co., 5 Fed. same provision as to limitation of
Rep. 641; "Constitutionality of corporate existence, and provided,
Railroad Commissions," by in section 2, that "the powers
Charles Chauncey Savage (1885), enumerated in the preceding sec-
19 Am. L. Rev. 223-233. tion shall vest in every corpora-
53
Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black, tion that shall hereafter be cre-
587.
ated." And it was held that the
54
Sherman v. Smith, 1 Black, second section d^d not destroy the
587.
effect of the first, but that the
55
People T. Superwsors of specified powers were made to ap-
Montgomery, 67 N. Y. 109; N. Y. ply to corporations then, before.
Corporation Laws (Banks Bros.' and thereafter created.
Ed., 1886), 12. Cf.
State v. La-
56
Board of Excise v. Curley, 9
dies of the Sacred Heart (Mo. Abb. N. C. 100, s. c. 69 N. Y. 608.
1889), 12 S. W. Rep. 293, a case See also 9 Abb. N. C. 117; N. Y.
under Mo. Rev. Stat. 1855, p. 1026, Corporation Laws (Banks Bros.'
which provides that all acts of a Ed., 1886), 12,
public, general, or permanent nat-

87,
8S.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CIIAKTERS. 103
gate the former provision, but to add to it a new clause, effect
will be given to such intention, rather than to the literal terms
of the act.^^

87.
Effect of amendment.Accepted charter amendment
does not destroy the old corporation and create a new one,
but simply varies its constitution and powers, without affect-
ing the existing contract, property rights, or existing obliga-
tions of the corporation.^^ Nor is a new corporation created
by grant of a new charter, either by special act or under gen-
eral law. Its operation is simply to amend the original char-
ter.^^ Acceptance by a corporation of amendment to its char-
ter, is acceptance of the burdens it imposes, if any, as well as
of the benefits conferred by the amendment.""* If the change
is fundamental in the nature of the corporation, whereby his
rights and liabilities are effected, the subscriber or stockholder
may be relieved from the obligation of his contract.''^

88. Legislative discretion.While there is conflict among

the authorities upon the question, the true rule may be de-
duced therefrom that while the legislature may reserve the
power to repeal the charter of a corporation for misuser or
nonuser, or other default, or violation of its franchises,*'- it
cannot constitutionally reserve to itself the exercise of judicial
powers by finally determining whether the conditions and facts
as to such default or violation warrant the repeal, and there-
57
7 re Rochester Water Com- ees of Univ. v. Moody, 62 Ala. 389;
missioners, 66 N. Y. 413; N. Y. Dean v. LaMotte Lead Co., 59 Mo.
Corporation Laws (Banlvs Bros.' 523.
Ed., 1886), 12. For additional
59 Johnston v. Crawley, 25 Ga.
principles and illustrations of 316, 71 Am. Dec. 173; Woodkirk v.
these rules, see also Whipple v. Union Bank, 3 Coldw. (Tenn.)
Christian, 80 N. Y. 523, affirming 488.
s. c. 15 Hun, 321; Ely v. Holton,
eo
Madison, etc. Co. v. Reynolds,
15 N. Y. 595; Moore v. Mansert, 49 3 Wis. 287;
Kenton County Ct. v.
N. Y. 332, affirming 5 Lans. 153; Bank, etc. Co., 10
Bush. (Ky.)
Pier V. George, 17 Hun, 207; 529; Macon, etc. Co. v. Goldsmith,
s. c. 20 Hun, 210; s. c. 86 62 Ga. 463; Cincinnati, etc. Co. v.
N. Y. 613; People v. Lucas, 25 Cole, 29 Ohio St. 126, 23 Am. Rep.
Hun, 610; In re Hudson City 729.
Sav. Inst., 5 Hun, 612;
Calhoun V.
ei
Nugent v. Supervisors, 19
Delhi, etc. Co., 28 Hun, 379; Peo- Wall. 25, 53 Am. Dec. 461.
pie V. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574; N.
62 Crease v. Babcock, 23
Pick.
Y. Corporation Laws
(Banks (Mass.) 334, 34 Am. Dec. 61;
Min-
Bros.' Ed., 1886), 13.
ers' Bank of Dubuque v. United
58
Washington College v. Duke, States, 1 G. Greene (Iowa), 553,
14 Iowa, 14 ; Johnston v. Crawley, Morris, 482.
25 Ga. 316, 71 Am. Dec. 173;
Trust-
lOi
AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CIIAKTERS.
[
S9.
upon, without notice to the corporation and without the judg-
ment of a court, to proceed by statute to declare the repeal.
This is not due process of law. It is the usurpation of judi-
cial powers and functions which are by constitution vested
solely in the courts. The legislature cannot finally repeal a
charter under the reservation of power to do so, without due
notice to the corporation, inquiry and hearing as to the facts,
and judgment by a court thereon,^ either before the act of
repeal or afterward upon judicial review. It is true that the
reserved power of the legislature can be exercised free from
control of the courts,''* but where the right to repeal the char-
ter depends upon the happening of a contingency, the exist-
ence of the fact at the time of repeal must be a matter for judi-
cial investigation. Whether a forfeiture depends upon the
fact of a condition broken the fact must be determined by the
judiciary. The legislature may pass the act of repeal in ad-
vance of judicial inquiry without exercising any judicial func-
tion, but the courts may review the act and decide upon its
validity and effect subsequently. The act does not finally de-
termine the rights of the parties as affected by the act of re-
peal or enforce forfeiture. That is necessarily and inherently
a judicial question.
^^

8g. Legislative discretion not to be questioned judicially.

When the power to amend or repeal corporate charters has
been reserved to the State, it is to be exercisd by the legisla-
ture, and its action in this respect cannot be questioned by
the courts nor its motives impugned.^^ And if there be a pro-
63
state V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189; v. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347; Loth-
Flint & Fentonville Plank Road rop v. Stedman (1875), 13 Blatchf.
Co. V. Woodhull, 25 Mich. 99, 12 134; Sinking Fund Cases (1878),
Am. Rep. 233; Chesapeake & Ohio 99 U. S. 700, 720; Northern R. Co.
Canal Co. V. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. v. Miller (1851), 10 Barb. 260;
Co., 4 Gill & J. (Md.) 1121. In re Elevated R. Co. (1877), 70
64
Spring Valley v. Schottler, 110 N. Y. 327, 351. In Massachusetts,
U. S. 347; Greenwood v. Freight the reserved power of amendment
Co., 105 U. S. 13. and repeal may be exercised "at
65
Erie, etc. Ry. Co. v. Casey, 26 the pleasure of the legislature."
Pa. St. 287; Crease v. Babcock, 23 Mass. Gen. Stat. eh.
68,
41.
Pick. (Mass.) 334; McLaren v. "This expression, 'the pleasure of
Pennington, 1 Paige, 102; Read v. the legislature,' is significant, and
Frankfort Bank, 23 Me. 318. See is not found in many of the simi-
note to Atchison, etc. Co. v. Nave, lar statutes in other States.
38 Kansas, 747, 5 Am. St. Rep. . . . That body need give no
804. reason for its action in the mat-
66
Spring Valley Water Works ter. The validity of such action
89.]
AMENDMENT AXD REPEAL OF CIIAKTERS. 105
viso that certain conditions shall be fulfilled, with a reserva-
tion of power to repeal in case they are not performed, there
may be a repeal without a previous judicial declaration of fail-
ure of the conditions." It is said that the conditional reserva-
tion in the charter becomes binding upon the corporation as
soon as the same is accepted, and that the corporation is es-
topped to question the power of the legislature to determine
the happening of the contingency, although otherwise the
question would have been judicial in its nature.^* So, also,
where the continued existence of the corporation is made to
depend upon compliance with the requirements of the act under
which it came into being, its non-compliance terminates the
corporate existence ipso facto.^^ There is an important dis-
does not depend on the necessity
for it, or on the soundness of the
reasons which prompted it."
Greenwood v. Union Freight R.
Co. (1881), 105 U. S. 13, 17,
per
Miller, J.
6T
Myrick v. Brawley, 33 Minn.
377; Oakland R. Co. v. Oakland,
etc. R. Co., 45 Cal. 365; Kennedy
V. Strongs, 14 Johns. 129; New
York, etc. R. Co. v. Boston, etc.
R. Co., 36 Conn. 196. Thus the
charter of a banking corporation
which provides "that if the cor-
poration shall fail to go into oper-
ation, or shall abuse or misuse
their privileges under this char-
ter, it shall be in the power of
the legislative assembly at any
time to annul, vacate, and make
void this charter," may be re-
pealed by the legislature without
any judicial proceeding or prior
notice to the corporation. Miners'
Bank V. United States, Morris,
482, s. c. 43 Am. Dec. 115.
C8
Crease v. Babcock, 23 Pick.
334; Carey v. Giles, 9 Ga. 253;
Lothrop V. Stedman, 42 Conn. 584;
Miners' Bank v. United States, 1
Greene (Iowa), 553; De Camp v.
Eveland, 19 Barb. 81.
60
In re Brooklyn, etc. R. Co.,
72 N. Y. 245, s. c. 75 N. Y. 335^
R. c. 81 N. Y. 69; In re Kings
County Elevated Ry. Co., 41 Hun,
426; Brooklyn S. T. Co. v. City of
Brooklyn, 78 N. Y. 524, 529;
Green v. Green, 34 111. 320. See,
however, infra, 1308. "A failure
to finish the road and put it in full
operation within the time speci-
fied renders void the act of incor-
poration, in so far as it applies to
the unfinished portion," but the
statute limiting the time within
which the conditions imposed must
be performed should definitely fix
such time. Toledo, etc. R. Co. v.
Johnson, 49 Mich. 148, 151. In like
manner, a license from a munici-
pal government may be condi-
tioned upon its acceptance within
a certain time. Thus the con-
sent of a city council to the occu-
pancy of a street by a railway
company is a mere license, and
until the company has availed it-
self of the license, no contractual
obligation or relation arises which
requires a judicial declaration of
forfeiture. Until the license is
accepted and used, no right vests
in the railway company, and it
may be revoked by the city coun-
cil; and after the time within
which *it may be availed of ex-
pires, the license lapses and no re-
vocation is needed to terminate
the same. The railway company or
licensee can not thereafter occupy
the street, or build its road there-
on without a new permission from
the city authorities. Atchison
106
AMENDMENT AND KKl'EAL OF CUAKTERS.
[90.
tinction between an express reservation to the legislature of
the power to repeal the charter of a corporation conditioned
upon non-user or misuser of its franchises, and that implied
condition annexed to all franchises by which they are sub-
jected to forfeiture for non-user or misuser the exercise of the
pozver in the former case being wholly a matter of legislative
discretion/'' the enforcement of the penalty in the latter case
being a matter for judicial determination.'^^ Mere non-action
does not destroy a franchise, although it may justify a for-
feiture by judicial proceedings.'^^

go. Limitation upon the reserved power.The reserved

power of amendment and repeal cannot be arbitrarily exer-
cised. The power of the State in this respect is subject to the
provision of the federal constitution prohibiting the taking of
private property "without due process of law." Certain cor-
porate franchises have been uniformly regarded as indestruc-
tible by legislative action and as constituting property in the
highest sense of the word, which cannot be taken from cor-
Street Ry. Co. v. Nave, 38 Kan.
744, s. c. 5 Am. St. Rep., 800, citing
Galveston City Ry. Co. v. Galves-
ton C. & S. Ry. Co. (1885), G3 Tex.
529; City of Detroit v. City Ry.
Co., 37 Mich. 558. It is held that

502 of the Civil Code of Cali-

fornia does not declare that a
failure to comply vi^ith the pro-
visions which require the con-
struction to be commenced within
one year, shall of itself work a
forfeiture, but that a failure to
comply with that provision to-
gether with the provision which
requires that it shall be com-
pleted within three years may
work a forfeiture. It is optional,
however, with the authorities
granting the right of way whether
the forfeiture shall be total or
partial. Omnibus R. Co. v. Bald-
win, 57 Cal. 160.
'

70
Spring Valley Water "Works
V. Schottler, 110 U. S. 347; Green-
wood V. Union Freight R. Co.
(1881), 105 U. S. 13; Sinking
Fund Cases (1878), 99 U. S. 700,
720; Lothrop v. Stedman (1875),
13 Blatchf. 134; In re Elevated R.
Co. (1877), 70 N. Y. 327, 351; De
Camp v. Eveland, 19 Barb. 81;
Northern R. Co. v. Miller (1851),
10 Barb. 260; Kennedy v. Strongs,
14 Johns. 129; Carey v. Giles, 9
Ga.
253;' New York, etc. R. Co.
V. Boston, etc. R. Co., 36 Conn.
196; Myrick v. Brawley, 33 Minn.
377; Miners' Bank v. United
States, 1 Greene (Iowa), 553;
s. c. 43 Am. Dec. 115; Crease v.
Babcock, 23 Pick. 334. Contra,
Erie & Northeast R. Co. v. Casey
(1856), 26 Pa. St. 287; Mayor, etc.
of Baltimore v. Pittsburg & C. R.
Co. (1865), 1 Abb. U. S. 9; Flint,
etc. Plank Road Co. v. Woodhull,
25 Mich. 99; State v. Noyes, 47
Me. 189, s. c. 43 Am. Dec. 119;
these cases holding that when the
power of repeal has been condi-
tioned upon an abuse of the fran*
chises, the courts may enquire
whether the corporation has been
guilty of the abuse alleged.
71
See cases cited infra,
1293.
72
Higgins v. Downward, 8
Houst. 227, 40 Am. St. Rep. 141.
90.]
AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS. 107
porate shareholders and creditors, without provision for com-
pensationJ^ Sheer oppression and wrong cannot be wrought
under the guise of amendment^* Where the power is reserved
to repeal or amend "at the pleasure of the legislature," its
motives in exercise of the power are immaterial." All amend-
ments must be made in good faith ; they must be reasonable,
and consistent with the scope and object of the act of incor-
poration.'^*' An amendment must not defeat or substantially
impair the object of the grant, or any rights of property vested
under it,^^ nor deprive the incorporators of control of the cor-
porate property,'^ nor divest or impair the rights of the share-
73
People V. O'Brien (1888), 5
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 27, s. c. Ill N.
Y. 1, holding that where a street
railway company is dissolved by
act of legislature, its right to lay
tracks and run cars on the streets
of the city and to make traffic
contracts with other companies,
survives for the benefit of its cred-
itors and shareholders.
74
Shields v. Ohio (1877), 95 U.
S. 375; Sinking Fund Cases
(1878), 99 U. S. 700; Spring Val-
ley Water Works v. Board of Su-
pervisors of San Francisco (1841),
61 Cal. 3. See "Rise and Probable
Decline of Private Corporations in
America," a paper by Andrew
Allison before the American Bar
Association (1884), 7 Am. Bar
Assn. Rep. 241, 252, and cases
there reviewed.
73
Greenwood v. Freight Co.,
105 U. S. 13.
70
Leep V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 58
Arkansas, 407, 23 L. R. A.
264; Zabriskie v. Hackensack, etc.
Co., 18 N. J. Eq. 178, 90 Am. Dec.
617, 2 Smith Cas. 760;
Shields v.
Ohio (1877), 95 U. S. 375.
77
Black V. Delaware, etc. Co.,
24 N. J. Eq. 456; New Orleans,
etc. Co. V. Harris, 27 Miss. 517;
Dow V. Northern Railroad, 67 N.
H. 1, 2 Smith Cas. 795. Where
the object of an act incorporating
the board of education, appointed
by a church conference for an in-
corporated college under control
of the conference, was to effectuate
a contract between the board of
education and the stockholders of
the institution, though the power
to amend or repeal is reserved, the
legislature can not exercise that
power to the prejudice of vested
rights. Bryan v. Board of Educa-
tion (Ky. 1890), 7 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 389. See also, Close v. Glen-
wood Cemetery (1882), 107 U. S.
466; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319;
Greenwood v. Union Freight R.
Co. (1881), 105 U. S. 19; Miller v.
New York (1872), 15 Wall. 478;
Mayor, etc. of Worcester v. Nor-
wich & W. R. Co. (1871), 109
Mass. 103. The constitutions of
Tennessee, Oregon and Georgia
aeclare that the power of amend-
ment and repeal shall not be so
exercised as to impair or destroy
vested corporate rights. See
Stimson's American Statutory
Law,
443.
78
City of Detroit v. Detroit, etc.
Co., 43 Mich. 140, 2 Smith Cas.
791; Orr v. Bracken County
(1884), 81 Ky. 593. "The property
of the corporation acquired in the
exercise of its functions is held
independently of such reserved
power, and the State can only
exercise over ii the control which
it exercises over the property of
individuals engaged in similar
business." County of San Mateo
v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 8 Sawyj
238, 279.
108
AMENDMENT AND KEI'EAL OF CHARTERS. [91.
holders as between themselves/^ nor alter the relation be-
tween the corporation and subscribers to its stock,^*' nor work
injustice to the incorporators or to the corporate creditors.^^
The legislature "can repeal or suspend the charter, it can alter
or modify it, it can take away the charter, but it cannot im-
pose a new one and oblige the stockholders to accept it. . . .
The power to alter and modify does not give power to make
any substantial additions to the work."
^^

9
1. Consent of the corporation to amendment. Power of
the majority.Within the limits mentioned in the foregoing
section, the legislature may exercise the reserved power of
amendment v/ithout the consent of the corporation.^^ When,
however, an amendment exceeds those limits and alters the
contract relations between the incorporators themselves, or
between them and other parties; or when the charter is not
79
City of Knoxville v. Knoxville
& O. R. Co. (1884), 22 Fed. Rep.
758, where it was said: "It was
not competent for the legislature
to do more in this respect than to
waive the public rights. It could
not divest or impair the rights of
the shareholders, as between
themselves, as guarantied by the
company's charter, without their
consent. It was upon the faith of
the stipulations contained in said
charter that the shareholders sub-
scribed to the capital stock, and
thereby made themselves members
of the corporation."
80
Kenosha R. & R. I. R. Co. v.
Marsh (1862), 17 Wis. 13; Troy &
R. R. Co. V. Kerr (1854), 17 Barb.
581. "The power of amendment
was never reserved with reference
to any question between the cor-
poration and its stock subscribers,
but solely with reference to ques-
tions between the corporation and
the State where the latter desired
to make compulsory amendments
against the will of the former."
All the State "can do is to grant
it the power, and then it is for
the corporation to accept or not,
as it pleases." Kenosha, Rock-
ford & Rock Island R. Co. V.
Marsh (1862), 17 Wis. 13.
81
Stimson's American Statutory
Law, 443, citing the constitu-
tions of Georgia, Alabama, Arkan-
sas, Pennsylvania and Colorado.
People v. O'Brien (1888), 111 N.
Y. 1, s. c. 5 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 27,
30, where it was held that under
the reserved power of repeal, the
franchises and property of a cor-
poration can not be taken frbm
its stockholders and creditors and
transferred to other persons or
corporations, without provision for
compensation.
82
Zabriskie v. Hackensack & N.
Y. R. Co. (1867), 18 N. J. Eq. 178.
83
Bishop V. Brainerd, 28 Conn.
289; Cross v. Peach Bottom Ry.
Co. (1879), 97 Pa. St. 392, where
the court said: "The legislative
reservation is in the nature of
police power, designed for the pro-
tection of the public welfare, and
where such protection becomes
necessary, the law-making power
may act without consulting either
the interests or will of the com-
pany; and in such case it may
well be that not only the company,
but its stockholders must submit.
. . . The reservation
was only intended to enable the
legislature to act without the con-
sent and against the will of the
corporation."

91.] AMENDMENT AND KEI'EAL OF CIIAIiTERS. 109

subject to the reserved power of amendment, the consent of
the corporation is requisite to render the legislative action
complete and effective. Ordinarily the assent of the corpora-
tion to a proposed amendment cannot be validly given by the
directors, but is to be expressed by the stockholders them-
selves.^* Alterations in corporation or charter, authorized by
its charter, may be made by majority of the stockholders ; as
to increase or reduce the capital stock ;
^^
or to issue preferred
stock
;
^^
or to consolidate with another corporation ; or by a
railroad company to change location of its road, or extend its
line where its charter gives it such power." Whether the ma-
jority of the stockholders may bind a dissenting minority by
accepting a legislative amendment to its charter in the inter-
est of the corporation, but not in the interest of the public, de-
pends upon whether the amendment is so fundamental and
radical as to change the purposes and character of the corpo-
ration, or whether the amendment is merely an alteration aux-
iliary to those objects. Such an amendment may be accepted
by a majority of the shareholders against dissent of the mi-
nority,^^^ If the amendment be for the benefit of the corpora-
tion,^ or merely auxiliary to the original purposes for which
the company was organized, the consent of a majority of the
members is sufficient to render it effective and binding upon
84
Wells V. Central R. Co.
87
sims v. Street Ry. Co., 37
(1886), 41 N. J. Eq. 5; Illinois Ohio St. 556.
River R. Co. v. Zimmer (1858),
ss
Durfee v. Old Colony, etc. Co.,
20 111. 65; Marlborough Manuf. Co. 5 Allen (Mass.) 230, 1 Cum. Cas.
V. Smith, 2 Conn. 579; Brov/n v. 773; Stevens v. Rutland, etc. Co.,
Fairmount Mine Co., 10 Phila. 32. 29 Vt. 548; Buffalo, etc. Co. v.
Cf.
Blatchford v. Ross, 5 Abb. Pr. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336; Taggart v.
(N. S.) 434. Contra, Venner v. Westsrn, etc. Ry. Co., 24 Md. 563,
Atchison, etc. R. Co. (1886), 28 89 Am. Dec. 760.
Fed. Rep. 581.
89 Supervisors of Fulton County
85
Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Aller- v. Mississippi & W. R. Co. (1859),
ton, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 233; Port Ed- 21 111. 338; Delaware R. Co. v.
wards, etc. Co. v. Arpin, 80 Wis. Tharp (1856) 1 Houst. (Del.) 149;
214.
Irvin v. Turnpike Co., 2 Penr. &
86
Kent V. Quicksilver Mining W. 466; Illinois River R. Co. v.
Co., 78 N. Y. 159; Belfast & Moose- Zimmer (1858), 20 111. 654;
head Lake Co. v. City of Belfast, Sprague v. Illinois River R. Co.,
77 Me. 445; Sparrow v. Evansville, 19 111. 174; Barnet v. Alton & S.
etc. Co., 7 Ind. 369; Bish v. John- R. Co. (1851), 13 111. 504. Cf.
son, 21 Ind. 299;
Lynch v. East Hester v. Memphis & C. R. Co.
em, etc. Ry. Co., 57 Wis. 431; (1856), 32 Miss. 378;
Witter v.
Sprague v. Illinois, etc. Co., 19 Mississippi.
Ouachita &
Red River
111. 174.
R. Co. (1859), 20 Ark. 463.
110 AMENDMENT AND KKPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[
92.
all the incorporators.'''' But if the amendment be fundamental,
radical and vital, the unanimous acceptance of all the incor-
porators is requisite to render it binding upon the company."^
The reserved power of the legislature to alter, amend or re-
peal is not construed to be power to authorize the majority of
the stockholders to engage in a different enterprise; for that
would be to change and not simply to alter.

92. Of material and immaterial amendments.Whether

an amendment be material or immaterial depends largely upon
the circumstances of each particular case. Under certain cir-
cumstances amendments authorizing railway companies to
90
Union Agricultural & S. Assn.
V. Mills (1870), 31 Iowa, 95;
Woodfork v. Union Bank (1866),
3 Coldw. (Tenn.) 488; Illinois
River R. Co. v. Zimmer (1858), 20
111. 654; Buffalo & N. Y. City R.
Co. V. Dudley (1856), 14 N. Y.
336; Schenectady & S. Plank Road
Co. V. Thatcher (1854), 11 N. Y.
102; Dayton, etc. R. Co. v. Hatch
(1855), 1 Disney, 84; Common-
wealth V. Cullen, 13 Pa. St. 133;
Taggart v. Western R. Co. (1866),
24 Md. 563; Danbury, etc. R. Co.
V. Wilson (1853), 22 Conn. 435.
In Chicago Life Ins. Co. v.
Needles, 113 U. S. 574, it was said
that in addition to the implied
condition that the privileges and
franchises of a corporation shall
not be abused, the condition is
also implied that the corporation
shall be subject to such reasonable
regulations as the legislature may
from time to time prescribe, which
do not materially interfere v/ith
or obstruct the privileges the State
has granted, and which serve only
to secure the ends for which the
corporation was created. Winter
V. Muscogee, etc. Co., 11 Ga. 438;
Ellis V. Marshall, 2 Mass. 279;
Commonwealth v. Cullen, 53 Am.
Dec. 461; note.
91
Woodfork v. Union Bank
(1866), 3 Coldw.- (Tenn.) 488. In
Mills V. Central R. Co. (1886), 41
N. J. Eq. 1, speaking of a statute
authorizing a consolidation, the
court said: "The provision in
that act, Ihat it shall be lawful
to lease or consolidate, is merely
a legislative authorization, a con-
cession on the part of the legisla-
ture, of the power to do that
which could not be lawfully done
without such authority. It is not
an enactment that the directors
may, without the consent of the
stockholders of the company,
lease, consolidate, or merge, nor
is it in effect an enactment, that
they may with the consent of the
majority of the stockholders do
so. But the statute is merely an
enabling act, a law intended to
give, once for all, a general legis-
lative authority to lease, consolid-
ate, or merge. The legislature
did not intend to affect the rights
of stockholders inter sese, and the
act does not do so, either ex-
pressly or by implication. . . .
After the shareholders had en-
tered into a contract among them-
selves, under legislative sanction,
and expended their money in the
execution of the plan mutually
agreed upon, the plan could not,
even by virtue of legislative enact-
ment, be radically changed by the
majority alone, and dissentient
stockholders be compelled to en-
gage in a new and totally different
undertaking, because such action
would impair the obligation of
the dissenting stockholders' con-
tract with their associates and the
State." See also cases cited infra,
92, 93, 94.
92.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CUARTERS, 111
build branch lines have been held to be merely auxiliary to the
original purpose of incorporation, and acceptance thereof by
a majority of the stockholders was deemed sufficient;" so
with respect to amendments authorizing-
an extension of the
road,''^ or consolidations to take the place of part of the line
as laid out,* or even the purchase of other railroads."'' Like-
wise amendments authorizing certain changes in the route of
a railroad/" or a change of termini,^'' or extending the time for
completing the road, have been held binding upon the corpora-
tion when accepted by a majority.''^
And it has been held that
a majority may give the corporate consent to amendments au-
thorizing an issue of preferred stock,^ or of more common
stock,^ or a reduction of capital stock and shortening of the
road,^ or an increase of the capital stock and extending the
road, such changes not appearing on the record to be detri-
mental.^ And there are similar decisions with respect to in-
creasing the number of directors,* and changing the corporate
92
Peoria & Rock Island R. Co.
V. Preston (1872),
3-4
Iowa, 115;
Greenville & C. R. Co. v. Coleman
(1851), 5 Rich. (S. C.) 118;
Peoria & O. R. Co. v. Elting
(1856), 17 111. 429.
93
Cross V. Peach Bottom Ry.
Co. (1879), 90 Pa. St. 392.
94
Sprague v. Illinois River R.
Co. (1857), 19 111. 174; Hannah v.
Cincinnati & Fort Wayne R. Co.
(1863), 20 Ind. 30.
95
Venner v. Atchison, etc. R.
Co. (1886), 28 Fed. Rep. 581.
96Willson v. Y/illes Valley R.
Co. (1863), 33 Ga. 466; Johnson v.
Pensacola, etc. R. Co. (1860), 9
Fla. 299; Peoria & O. R. Co. v.
Elting (1856), 17 111. 429; Barnet
V. Alton & S. R. Co. (1851), 13 111.
504.
97
Pacific R. Co. V. Renshaw
(1852), 18 Mo. 210; Ross v. Chi-
cago, etc. R. Co., 77 111. 134.
98
Agricultural Branch R. Co. v.
Winchester (1866),
13 Allen, 29;
Poughkeepsie, etc. Co. v. Griffin
(1861), 24 N. Y. 150; Bailey v.
Hollister (1862), 26 N. Y. 112.
no
Everhart V. West Chester &
Phila. R. Co. (1857), 28 Pa. St.
339; Rutland & B. R. Co. v. Thrall
(18G3), 35 Vt. 536.
1 City of Covington v. Covington
& Cincinnati Bridge Co. (1873),
10 Bush, 69.
2 Troy & Rutland R. Co. v. Kerr
(1854), 17 Barh. 581.
3 Peoria & O. R. Co. v. Elting
(1856), 17 111. 429; Rice v. Rock
Island R. Co., 21 111. 93.
4 Mower v. Staples (1884), 32
Minn. 284. See also Gray v.
Coffin (1852), 9 Cush. 192; Child
V. Coffin (1820), 17 Mass. 64;
Langley v. Little (1846), 26 Me.
162; Payson v. Withers (1873), 5
Biss. 269; Joy v. Jackson, etc. Co.
(1863), 11 Mich. 155; Fry's Ex'rs
V. Lexington, etc. R. Co., 2 Mete
(Ky.) 322; Waring v. Mayor, etc.
of Mobile, 24 Ala. 201; Bank v.
Richardson, 1 Me. 79; Greenville,
etc. R. Co. V. Johnson, 8 Baxt. 332;
State V. Accommodation Bank, 26
La. Ann. 288; Fall River Iron
Works V. Old Colony R. Co., 5 Al-
len, 221; Pacific, etc. R. Co. v.
Hughes, 22 Mo. 297. Thus an al-
teration in the charter of a pri-
vate corporation increasing the
number of directors from five to
113
AMENDMENT AND EEl'EAL OF CHARTERS.
[92.
name.'' Under other circumstances amendments authorizing
variations in the routes of railway,*' such as changing- a ter-
minus/ shortening,^ or extending the line, have been held to
be material. So, also, an amendment authorizing an increase
in the par value of the stock, has been held to be such a change
as requires the unanimous consent of the stockholders.^*' Like-
wise, amendments authorizing the dividing of a line of railway
and the formation of two or more corporations,^^ consolidating
the corporation with another corporation,^^ allowing business
nine is not a fundamental altera-
tion, and may be accepted by a
majority of the stockholders.
Mower v. Staples, 32 Minn. 284.
5 Bucksport & B. R. Co. v. Buck
(1878), 68 Me. 81; Clark v. Monon-
gahela Nav. Co. (1840), 10 Watts,
364. Ind. Acts 1875, p. 166, pro-
viding that any university incor-
porated under a special charter
might change its name by a.-vote
of a majority of its directors, if
done within a limited time, was
held not unconstitutional, being
neither local nor special, nor cre-
ating a new corporation, nor
amending the charter. Hazlett v.
Butler University, 84 Ind. 230.
6 Middlesex Turnpike Co. v.
Locke (1811), 8-Mass. 267; Middle-
sex Turnpike Co. v. Sv>'an (1813),
10 Mass. 384; Hester v. Memphis
& Charleston R. Co. (1856), 32
Miss. 378; Witter v. Mississippi,
Ouachita & Red River R. Co.
(1859), 20 Ark. 463; Champion v.
Memphis, etc. R. Co., 35 Miss. 692;
Simpson v. Denison, 10 Hare, 54.
7
Manheim, etc. Co. v. Arndt
(1858), 31 Pa. St. 317; Marietta,
etc. R. Co. V. Elliott, 10 Ohio St.
57; Middlesex Turnpike Co. v.
Locke, 8 Mass. 267; Middlesex
Turnpike Co. v. Swan, 10 Mass.
384; Thompson v. Guion, 5 Jones
Eq. 113.
8
Bank V. City of Charlotte
(1881), 85 N. C. 433.
9
Stevens v. Rutland & B. R. Co.
(1855), 29 Vt. 545. See, also,
Noesen v. Town of Port Washing-
ton (1875), 37 Wis. 168, where
there was no amendment author-
izing the purchase of a railroad
running at right angles to the old,
but a release was upheld.
loMahon v. Wood (1872), 44
Cal. 462.
11
Leed & E. Turnpike Road Co.
V. Phillips, 2 Penr. & W. 184; Su-
pervisors of Fulton County v. Mis-
sissippi & Wabash R. Co. (1859),
21 111. 338; Carlisle v. Terre Haute
& Richmond R. Co. (1855), 6 Ind.
316.
12
Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co.
V. Cook (1862), 29 111. 237; Mc-
Cray v. Junction R. Co. (18570, 9
Ind. 358; Sparrow v. Evansville
& C. R. Co., 7 Ind. 369; Shelby-
ville & Rushville Turnpike Co. v.
Barnes (1873), 42 Ind. 498; Booe
V. .Junction R. Co. (1857), 10 Ind.
93; New Orleans & J., G. N. R. Co.
V. Harris (1854), 27 Miss. 517;
Clearwater v. Meredith (1863), 1
Wall. 25, where Mr. Justice Davis,
who delivered the opinion of the
court said obiter, "Clearwater
could have prevented this con-
solidation had he chosen to do
so;" Kean v. Johnson (1853),
1 Stock. (9 N. J. Eq.) 401; Black
v. Delaware & R. Canal Co.
(1873), 24 N. J. Eq. 455; Mowrey
V. Indianapolis & C. R. Co. (1868),
4 Biss. 78, criticising Lanman v.
Lebanon Valley R. Co. (1858), 30
Pa. St. 42, and declaring it to be
the only American case found by
the court which seems opposed to
the rule, and continuing, "There
is, indeed, a dictum in the case of
The State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46,

93.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CUARTKKS, 113

to be commenced before the full capital stock is subscribed/^
making the charter perpetual, and increasing the power to hold
property," allowing a life insurance company to insure against
fire and marine loss,^^ and permitting a railroad to go into
water transportation business, require the consent of all the
stockholders.^"

93.
The rights of a minority.Neither a mandatory stat-
ute nor a vote of the directors nor of a majority of the stock-
holders can compel a dissenting stockholder to accept a ma-
terial alteration of the terms of the contract in view of which
he intrusted his funds to the corporate management.^'' For
"each shareholder in an incorporate company has a right to
insist on the prosecution of the particular objects of the char-
ter. He cannot be deprived of his rights or privileges without
his assent. Such alterations of the charter as are necessary
to carry into effect its main design may be made without his
consent. But an alteration which materially and fundament-
ally changes the responsibilities and duties of the company,
or which superadds an entirely new enterprise to that which
was originally contemplated, may be resisted by the stock-
holders, unless such alterations are provided for in the charter
itself, or in the general laws of the State in force at the time
the act of incorporation was passed."
^^
Some cases go so far
which seems to favor the Pennsyl- v. Elliott
(1859), 10 Ohio St. 57.
vania doctrine above mentioned. The stoclvholder may say: "I have
It is to the effect that in the case agreed to become interested in a
of the consolidation of two rail- railroad company, and have con-
road companies 'those stockhold- tracted in view of the profits to be
ers in the old who do not enter expected and the perils and losses
the new are entitled to withdraw incident to that description of
their shares in the capital stock, business; but I have not agreed
and may enjoin until they are that those to be intrusted with
secured.' This may be true if the the capital I contribute shall have
objecting stockholder should power to use it in a business of a
choose to adopt that course but is different character, and attended
he bound to adopt it as his only with hazards of a different de-
remedy?"
scription." Marietta, etc. R. Co.
13
Memphis Branch R. Co. v. v. Elliott (1859), 10 Ohio St. 57.
Sullivan (1876), 57 Ga. 240. "Winter v. Muscogee R. Co.
14
Proprietors of the Union Lock (1852), 11 Ga. 438.
and Canals v. Towne (1817), 1 N.
is
Fry v. Lexington, etc. R. Co.
H. 44.
(1859), 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314; Dela-
iBAshton V. Burbank, 2 Dill. ware, etc. R. Co. v. Irick (1852),
435.
23 N. J. 321, where it was held,
16
Hartford & N. H. R. Co. v. however, that until the corpora-
Croswell (1843),
5 Hill, 383, a tion has accepted the amendment
leading case; Marietta & C. R. Co. a
stockholder has no ground for
Vol.
18
lU AMENDMENT AND KEPEAL OF CHAETERS.
[95
as to say that all alterations of the corporate charter are
equally material.^

94.
Of the dissenting stockholder's remedy.If the cor-
poration fails to protect itself from legislative interference
with its charter, any stockholder may institute proceedings to
remedy the wrong,^" unless he acquired his interest in the com-
pany after the amendment was made.'^ The proper remedy
is by injunction either to restrain the company from accept-
ing the amendment or from acting under the powers thereby
conferred.-^ Or, if he has not paid for his stock, he may elect
to cancel his contract of subscription, and the illegal amend-
ment will operate as a release.^^ Unauthorized alteration of
articles of incorporation, or of a subscription paper, will re-
lease the subscriber to stock. A subscriber to the stock who
signs the articles of incorporation is not liable in his subscrip-
complaint.
Cf.
Pearce v. Madison
R. Co., 21 How. 441; Tuttle v.
Michigan A. L. R. Co., 35 Mich.
247; New Jersey, etc. R. Co. v.
Strait, 35 N. J, 322; Sprague v.
Illinois R. Co., 19 111. 174; Com-
monwealth V. Cullen (1850), 13
Pa. St. 133.
19
Zabriske v. Hackensack & N.
Y. R. Co. (1S67), 18 N. J. Eq. 178;
Dayton & C. R. Co. v. Hatch, 1
Disney, 84; Central R. Co. v. Col-
lins, 40 Ga. 617.
20
Dodge V. Woolsey (1855), 18
How. 331; State Bank of Ohio v.
Knoop (1853), 16 How. 369; Wil-
mington R. Co. V. Reid (1871), 13
Wall. 264; Minot v. Philadelphia,
W. & B. R. Co. ("The Delaware
Railroad Tax Case") (1873), 18
Wall. 206.
21
Epps V. Mississippi, etc. R.
Co. (1859), 35 Ala. N. S. 54; Mc-
Clure V. People's Freight Co.
(1879), 90 Pa. St. 269.
22
Owen V. Purdy (1861), 12
Ohio St. 73; Fry v. Lexington, etc.
R. Co., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314.
Cf.
Bailey v. Hollister (1862), 26 N.
Y. 112; Thompson v. Guion, 5
Jones Eq. 113; Mowrey v. Indian-
apolis, etc. R. Co. (1868), 4 Biss.
78, holding that one dissenting
shareholder is entitled to an in-
junction; Lanman v. Lebanon
Valley R. Co. (1858), 30 Pa. St.
42, which while holding that a
single stockholder has no right to
object to the consolidation of the
company in which he owns stock,
with another railroad company,
granted an injunction till the dis-
senting shareholder shoijld be se-
cured in the payment of the value
of his stock; Hamilton Ins. Co. v.
Hobart, 2 Gray, 543; Gardner v.
Hamilton, etc. Ins. Co. (1865), 33
N. Y. 421; Stevens v. Rutland &
B. R. Co. (1855), 29 Vt. 545; Black
V. Delaware & R. Canal Co.
(1873), 24 N. J. Eq. 455; Mowrey
V. Indiana, etc. R. Co. (1866), 4
Biss. 78. Cf.
Ship v. Crosskill
(1870), L. R. 10 Eq. 73; Stewart
V. Austin (1866), L. R. 3 Eq. 299.
But see Mowrey v. Indiana, etc.
R. Co. (1866), 4 Biss. 78.
23
Champion v. Memphis, etc. R.
Co., 35 Miss. 692; Clearwater v.
Meredith, 1 Wall. 25; Nugent v.
Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241; "Lia-
bility of Subscribers as affected by
Amendments to Charters of Cor-
porations," by W. H. Whittaker
(1882), 16 Am. L. Rev. 101.
Cf.
Dawes v. Ship (1868), L. R. 3 H.
L. 343.
95.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHAKTERS. 115
tion if the articles are materially amended, amounting to new
articles without his consent.-* He may, however, be estopped
from objecting to an amendment by his express or implied
acquiescence therein
;
-'^
and although as a general rule the con-
sent of the shareholders is not to be presumed but must be
proven,
-
yet if circumstances arise under which it is his duty
to express his dissent, his silence will operate as a bar to any
subsequent objection.-^

95.
Amendment of the articles of incorporation.Al-
though they embody a contract with the State, yet to the ex-
tent it has reserved the power, the State may at will alter,
amend or repeal the articles of incorporation without impair-
ing the obligation of a contract, or depriving anyone of or
violating any vested right within the purview of the United
States Constitution.- The general acts of incorporation of
the several States provide the method by which articles of as-
sociation drawn thereunder may be amended by the incorpo-
rators themselves.- Until such provisions of the enabling
24
Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y.
550; Berry v. Marietta, etc. Ry.
Co., 26 Ohio St. 673; Richmond,
etc. Co. V. Reed, 83 Ind. 9; South-
ern Hotel Co. V. Newman, 30 Mo.
118; Katama Land Co. v. Jerne-
gen, 126 Mass. 155.
25
Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser
(1864), 48 Pa. St. 29; Gifford v.
New Jersey R. Co. (1854), 10 N.
J. Eq. 171; Memphis, etc. R. Co.
V. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240: Houston
V. Jefferson College, 63 Pa. St.
428; Danbury, etc. R. Co. v. Wil-
son, 22 Conn. 435; Vermont, etc.
R. Co. V. Vermont Central R. Co.,
34 Vt. 2; Hayworth v. Junction
R. Co. (1859), 13 Ind. 348; Mills
V. Central R. Co. (1886), 41 N. J.
Bq. 1, holding, however, that a
stockholder merely expressing an
opinion favorable to a lease
authorized by the amendment,
while refusing to vote for it, and
afterwards voting against it, is not
estopped by acquiescence from as-
sailing its validity; Zabrislde v.
Hackensack, etc. R. Co., 18 N. J.
Eq. 178; Ex parte Booker, 18 Ark.
238; Upton v. Jackson, 1 Flipp. C.
C. 413; Goodin v. Evans, 18 Ohio
St. 150.
20
March v. Easton R. Co.
(1862), 43 N. H. 515; Proprietors,
etc. Union Lock and Canals v.
Towne (1817), 1 N. H. 44; Ire-
land v. Palestine, etc. Turnpike
Co. (1869), 19 Ohio St. 369.
27
Commonwealth v. Cullen
(1850), 13 Pa. St. 133; Martin v.
Pensacola & G. R. Co. (1869), 8
Fla. 370; Owen v. Purdy (1861),
12 Ohio St. 73. Contra, Hamilton
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hobart (1854),
2 Gray, 543.
2s
Supreme Commandery v.
Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436; Miller v.
btate, 15 Wall. 478; Close v. Glen-
wood Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466.
2^17.
g..
Wis. Rev. Stat. 1772,
1774; Conn. Act of June, 1880, 8,
whereby amended articles are re-
quired to be subscribed by stock-
holders holding at least two-thirds
of the stock, to be certified, pub-
lished and recorded as provided
for in the original articles. Iowa
Code, 1065, provides "that any
of the provisions of the articles of
incorporation may be changed at
IIG AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[95.
act have been fully complied with, a proposed amendment re-
mains inoperative.^'* For where a company is formed under
a general act of incorporation, the articles of association are
as immutable as a charter granted by especial legislative act ;
^^
any annual meeting of the stock-
holders, or special meeting called
for that purpose; but said changes
snail not be valid unless recorded
and published as the original arti-
cles are required to be; and said
changes in the articles need only
be signed and acknowledged by
the ofBcers of said corporation."
By N. Y. Laws of 1870, ch. 135,
11, "the directors of any cor-
poration organized under any gen-
eral act for the formation of com-
panies in whose original certifi-
cate of incorporation any infor-
mality may exist, by reason of an
omission of any matter required
to be therein stated, are hereby
authorized to make and file an
amended certificate or certificates
of incorporation to conform to the
general act under which the said
corporation may be organized;
and upon the making and filing of
such amended certificate, the said
corporation shall, for all purposes,
be deemed and taken to be a cor-
poration from the time of filing
such original certificate. Nothing
in this act contained shall in any
manner affect any suit or proceed-
ing, at the time of filing such
amended certificate, pending
against said corporation, or
impair any rights already ac-
crued." See In re New York, L,
& W. Ry. Co., 25 Hun, 556. By
N. Y. Laws of 1881, ch. 22, all cer-
tificates of incorporation filed in
the office of the Secretary of State
are to be recorded, and the same
fees paid therefor as for recording
deeds. Further provisions are
made in New York for amendment
of the original agreement between
the incorporators with respect to
the duration of corporate exist-
ence (N. Y. Laws of 1857, ch. 29,
2, as amended by N. Y. Laws of
1867, ch. 12
1; N. Y. Laws of
1867, ch. 937, 1), and with re-
spect to changing the place of
business (N. Y. Laws of 1864, ch.
517, 1), increasing or reducing
the number of trustees (N. Y.
Laws of 1860, ch. 269, 2, amended
Laws of
^
1867, ch. 248, 2
as amende'd by Laws of 1878, ch.
316, 1), increasing or reducing
the capital stock (N. Y. Laws of
1848, ch. 40, 20; Laws of 1878,
en. 264, 1); increasing the num-
ber of shares of which its capital
stock consists (N. Y. Laws of
1866, ch.
73,
1 and 2); chang-
ing the corporate name (N. Y.
Laws of 1870, ch. 322) ; and
changing or extending the busi-
ness of the company. And in that
State, "whenever any company
shall desire to call a meeting of
the stockholders, for the purpose
01 availing itself of the privileges
and provisions of this act, or for
increasing or diminishing the
amount of its capital stock, or for
extending or changing its busi-
ness, it shall be the duty of the
trustees to publish a notice,
signed by at least a majority of
them, in a newspaper in the
county, if any shall be published
therein, at least three successive
weeks, and to deposit a written
or printed copy thereof in the
postoffice, addressed to each stock-
holder at his usual place of resi-
dence, at least three weeks pre-
vious to the day fixed upon for
holding such meeting, specifying
30
Wood v. Union Gospel Church
Assn. (1886), 63 Wis. 9; Day v.
Mill-Owners' Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
(1888), 75 Iowa, 694.
31
Ashbury Ry., etc. Co. v.
Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653; "Immu-
tability of Memorandums of Asso-
ciation," 78 L. T. 314.
95.] AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF CHARTERS. 117
and a majority of the incorporators cannot change the objects
for which the association was formed, against the will of a
dissenting minority. An injunction will issue to restrain them
from so doing.^^ But an application to parliament for author-
ity to effect an alteration of that character will not be enjoined
by the English courts ;
^^
for parliament is a constitutional tri-
bunal for settling in such cases the rights of the parties upon
the footing of the contract, and its decision would be con-
clusive of the rights and authority of the corporation as well
as of the dissenting shareholders. Whereas in one of the
United States, upon a similar legislative decision, the ques-
tion would still present itself upon the original contract.'* A
memorandum of association may contain other provisions than
those required by the statute under which it is drawn, and it
has been contended that with respect to these additional mat-
the object of the meeting, the
time and place when and where
such meeting shall be held, and
the amount to which it shall be
proposed to increase or diminish
the capital, and the business to
which the company would be ex-
tended or changed; and a vote of
at least two-thirds of all the
shares of the stock shall be neces-
sary to an increase or diminution
of the amount of its capital stock,
or the extension or change of its
business as aforesaid, or to en-
able a company to avail itself of
the provisions of this act." N. Y.
Laws of 1848, ch. 40,
21.
32
In Natusch v. Irving, cit. by
Gow on Partnership, 398, 405, 406,
Lord Eldon held that a majority
of stockholders of a life and fire
insurance company could not
change the objects for which they
were associated under their arti-
cles of agreement, to marine in-
surance, and granted an injunc-
tion to restrain the company from
carrying on the latter business.
33
Ware v. Grand Junction W.
W. Co., 2 Russ. & M. 470. See
however, Canliff v. Manchester &
B. Canal Co., 2 Russ. & M. 480 and
note, where an injunction was
granted restraining the canal com-
pany from affixing its seal to a
petition to parliament for author-
ity to convert a portion of the
canal into a railwaJ^
34
"Legislative Control over the
l^'undamental Contract of an In-
corporated Company," 6 Am. L.
Mag. 89, 93. The power of the
British parliament is seldom ex-
ercised in derogation of private
rights of property, or to vary the
obligations of a contract; when
the rights of contracting parties,
however, are submitted to the ac-
tion of parliament, the decision of
the legislature is binding upon
courts of justice. But the con-
stitution of the United States re-
strains the power of the State
legislatures, and no legislative act
which impairs the obligation of a
contract can be recognized as valid
in any court of this country.
Tide supra,
49-53. When
the objects for which a company
was incorporated or a joint-stock
company associated are changed
by legislative enactment, the
validity of the act will depend
upon the question whether any
material alteration of the original
contract which formed the basis
of the association, is attempted by
that statute. "Legislative Con-
trol over the Fundamental Con-
tract of an Incorporated Com-
pany," 6 Am. L. Mag. 89, 90.
35
In re New Buxton Lime Co.,
Duke's Case (1876), 1 Ch. Div.
118
AMENDMENT AND KEPEAL OF CHARTERS.
[
95.
ters it is not equally fixed and immutable, but may be varied,
rescinded or modified after registration as well as before.^*
But it has been decided that these additional provisions are
equally immutable, and that there is no power in a majority
of the members to change or modify the articles of associa-
tion, as originally filed, in any particular which may be said
to form a part of the original contract between the sharehold-
ers,^^ The ground of these decisions seems to be the ordinary
law of contract; and it would appear to follow that there is
prima facie
nothing to prevent the whole body of shareholders
from modifying the terms of their original contract in any
way they choose, provided they do not attempt to alter the
memorandum in those points which are required by statute to
be stated therein.^'^
620; Guinness v. Land Corpora-
tion of Ireland, 22 Ch. Div. 349;
Winstone's Case, 12 Ch. Div. 251,
where as dicta Mr. Justice Fry
said: "The argument has assumed
that everything which is in a
memorandum is immutable. I am
not convinced that this is the
case where the memorandum em-
bodies particulars not required by
the statute."
36
Ashbury v. Watson, 28 Ch.
Div. 56 s. c. 51 L. T. Rep. N. S.
766, distinguishing In re New
Buxton Lime Co., Duke's Case
(1876), 1 Ch. Div. 620; Melhado v.
Hamilton, 28 L. T. 578; s. c. 29
L. T. 364; Harrison v. Mexican
Ry. Co., 32 L. T. Rep. N. S. 82;
s. c. 19 Eq. 358; Hutton v. Scar-
borough C. H. Co., 12 L. T. Rep.
N. S. 228, 289; s. c. 2 Dr. & Sm.
514; s. c. 4 D. J. & S. 672; Ash-
bury Ry., etc. Co. v. Riche, L. R.
7 H. L. 653.
37
"The Immutability of Memor-
andums of Association" (1885),
78 L. T. 314, 315. The incorporS,-
tors of a company organized un-
der a general enabling act, can
not acquire greater powers than
those conferred upon similar com-
panies organized thereunder, by
inserting provisions to that ef-
fect in the articles of association.
Albright v. Lafayette, etc. Assn.,
102 Pa. St. 411, 423, where the
court said: "I think the law to
be clear, that in corporations
formed under the general laws, it
is no objection that the articles of
association contain provisions not
authorized by the act. If unau-
thorized provisions are added, all
acts done in pursuance of such
will be void; but until the cor-
poration is proceeded against for
an abuse of its franchises, its
rights as a corporation will not
be affected by such unauthorized
powers. Such, too, has been ex-
pressly stated in New York, in
Eastern Plank Road Co. v.
Vaughan, 14 N. Y. 546. The case
of Rhoads v. Hoernerstown Build-
ing and Loan Assn., 1 Norris, 180,
does not seem to me to cover this
case. Whatever else appears in
that case, the controlling idea was
that the court that granted the
charter then could not and did not
intend to charter it under the Act
of 1859, because it had no author-
ity under the petition to do so,
and further, because the provis-
ions of the charter were such as
also to rebut any such intention."
And in New Orleans National
Banking Assn. v. Weltz, 4 Woods,
C. C. 43, it was held that, a cor-
poration organized under the
Louisiana general law, can not,
by its private charter and by-
laws, create a privilege on prop-
erty actually and necessarily with-
in commerce.
CHAPTER VI.
THE CORPORATE NAME. SEAL,, DOMICILE AND RECORDS.
96.
97.
98.
THE CORPOBATE NAME.
Necessity for and right to
have a name.
Right to protection in
use of its name.
Imitation or adoption of
name by another cor-
poration.
99. Misnomer. Ground for
abatement of suit.
99a. Misnomer in pleadings.
100. Proof of the corporate
name.
101. Change of name. Power
of the legislature. Ef-
fect of change.
B.
THE COKPOBATE SEAL.
102.
.103.
104.
Under the common law.
In England corporate con-
tracts require the cor-
porate seal.
In the United States seal
is required only where
required of an individ-
ual.
105. When affixed the seal is
presumed to be author-
ized.
DOMICILE OF CORPOEATIOX.
106. Its legal residence is the
State wherein incor-
porated.
107. When not otherwise fixed,
is presumed to be where
its meetings are held in
the State.
107a. Of interstate corporations.
BECOBDS.
108. Minutes of corporate meet-
ings.
109. Minutes are presumed to
be properly entered of
record.
110. Declaration of dividend
must be made of record.
111. Right of stockholders to
Inspect and examine the
records.
112. For what purpose the
books may be inspected.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
When the corporation may
not refuse permission to
inspect.
Of the members' reme-
edies herein.
The remedy by mandamus.
Production of corporate
books.
Production of books of
foreign corporation.
120
COEPOUATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
96.
lieferences
:
Misnomer, Civil actions. Section 1004.
Mode of executing deeds, contracts, etc. Section 862.
Citizenship of corporation. Section 8.
Civil actions, Jurisdiction. Foreign corporations. Ctiapter 56.
Minutes of meetings. Section 685.
Production of books of foreign corporations. Section 1356.
A.
THE CORPORATE NAME.

96. The corporate name.

"The names of corporations

are given of necessity; for the name is, as it were, the very-
being of the Constitution ; for though it is the will of the king
that enacts them, yet the name is the knot of their combina-
tion, without which they could not perform their corporate
acts; for it is nobody to plead and be impleaded, to take and
give, until it hath gotten a name."
^
Coke very justly likens
its name to an individual's proper or baptismal name, and when
bestowed by a private founder he compares him to a god-
father.^ Until recently the king in England, in granting his
patent, usually designated the name by which the corporation
was to be known, or else the recital in the patent was such
as to indicate the corporate name ;
^
and the same was true of
charters granted by parliament.* So, in this country, it is said
that the recital in the act of incorporation may be such as to
indicate the name by which the corporation shall be known.^
i2Bac.Abr. (Am. ed.) 440.
corporate name; and such per-
2
10 Co. 28; 2 Inst. 666.
sons having selected the name of
3
"Names of Corporations," by the American Bell Telephone Co.,
W. W. Thornton, 23 Cent. L. J.
and brought suit in that name,
531; 2 Bac. Abr, 441, citing 1 proof of the special act under
Salk. 191, p. 3. which they were incorporated, and
4
Glover Corp. 52, 53; Willcox a certificate of the secretary of
Corp. 59; Grant Corp. 50. the commonwealth in the form re-
5 Trustees v. Park (1833), 10 quired by Laws & Resolves, 1870,
Me. 441; School Com. v. Dean, 2 eh. 224, 11, is conclusive evi-
Stew. & P. 190. The authority dence of the corporate existence,
granted by Mass. Act of March Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co.,
19, 1880 (Laws & Resolves, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778. The same
1880-81, ch. 117, p. 74), to the business as respondents, the
person named therein, to organize "United States Mercantile Report-
as a corporation under the pro- ing Company," is an infringement
visions of La,ws & Resolves, 1870, of respondent's name. In re
ch. 224, relating to corporations. United States, etc. Assn. (1889),
gave them the right to select a 4 N. Y. Supp. 916. An instructive
96.]
CORrOKATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 121
By the common law, as also by the statutes of all the States,
every corporation is required to have a corporate name by
which to sue and be sued, to grant and receive grant of prop-
erty, and to contract and perform all its corporate acts." A
name is essential to corporate existence/ It may be that
given by the charter, or any name assumed by the corporation,
or acquired by usage.* A corporation may have several names
and sue or be sued under any one of them. The only material
circumstance is a name or names of some kind, in which all
the affairs of the corporation may be conducted. Whether an
aggregate of individuals is a corporation is determined by its
conferred faculties and powers rather than by its name or de-
scription.^" The corporators may select any name they may
see fit, not previously adopted and in use by some other cor-
poration of the same state.^^ The withdrawal and incorpora-
example is afforded by a late case
in England. The plaintiff com-
pany was formed in 1886 to pur-
chase the business of a firm carry-
ing on business under the name of
"Thomas Turton & Sons." The
defendant, John Turton, had for
many years carried on a similar
business, in the same town, under
the name of "John Turton & Co."
In 1888 he took his two sons into
partnership, and adopted the name
of "John Turton & Sons." There
was no evidence of any attempt
on the part of the defendants to
deceive the public by imitating the
plaintiffs' labels or otherwise. And
it was held that the plaintiffs
were not entitled to an injunction
restraining the defendant from
using the name "John Turton &
Sons" though some persons would
occasionally be misled by the
names being similar. Turton v.
Turton (1889), 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
64. An injunction to restrain a
company from using the name of
the Richardson & Morgan Com-
pany on account of confusion
arising from its similarity to the
name of plaintiff, the Richardson
& Boynton Company, was refused
where the two companies manu-
factured different goods, and there
was no further evidence of con-
fusion than that it occurred in
plaintiff's correspondence, (not in
the corporate name, but in the ad-
dress;) although in one instance
credits were wrongly posted; and,
according to the testimony of a
single salesman of plaintiff, mis-
takes daily occurred, during busy
times, as to plaintiff's locality.
Richardson & Boynton Co. v.
Richardson & Morgan Co. (1890),
8 N. Y. Supp. 52.
e
Fort, etc. Assn. v. Model, etc.
Assn., 159 Pa. St. 308 (1893).
7 Bridgeford v. Hall, 18 La. 211;
Harriot v. Mascall, Anderson, 206,
Rep. C. P.
8 Clement v. City of Lathrop, 18
Fed. 885; Sykes v. People, 132 111.
32; Alexander v. Berney, 28 N. J.
Eq. 90; Melledge v. Boston Iron
Co., 5 Cush. (59 Mass.) 158, 51
Am. Dec. 59.
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend.
(N. Y.) 9, 1 Smith Cas. 4, 1 Cum.
Cas. 1; Liverpool Ins. Co. v.
Massachusetts, 10 Wall. (U. S.)
566, 1 Cum. Cas. 26.
10
Edgeworth v. Wood, 58 N. J.
Law, 463, Wilgus Cas.
11
Elgin Butter Co. v. Elgin
122
CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
97.
tion under its name of members of the association does not
affect its right to continue the use of its name.^- Such incor-
poration may be enjoined from the adoption or use of the
name of the association.^^ A corporation may have more than
one name ; it may have one in which to contract, grant, etc.,
and another in which to sue and be sued, so it may be known
by two different names and may sue and be sued in either,
and the name of the president, his official name, or any other,
will answer every purpose. The only material circumstance
is a name or names of some kind in which all the affairs of the
company may be conducted. All the business is to be con-
ducted in a common or proper name.^*

97.
Right to protection in use of its name.Its name is
the trademark of the corporation to which it is entitled to pro-
tection in the exclusive use and independent of any statutory
provision. A court of equity will interpose its protection
against injury and to prevent fraud by the adoption of the
name or a like or similar name by another corporation. It
will be protected in the same way as the name of individuals
or firms are protected from adoption or imitation of their
names.^ Where the name in a bond ends with company it is
presumed to be incorporated,^ Where a person owning all
the stock in a corporation bearing his name sells his stock he
cannot enjoin the continued use of his name as part of that of
the corporation." A corporation does not avoid its contracts
although in making them it does not use its exact name.' Its
contract is enforceable although the corporate name used in
it differs from the authorized corporate name, if the identity
can be proved.^^ Land deeded to a corporation, not by its
Creamery Co., 155 111. 127; Boston, Red., etc. Club, 108 Iowa, 105
etc. Co. V. Boston, etc. Co., 14!) (1899); International, etc. Co. v.
Mass. 436; Armington v. Palmer Young Women's, etc. Assn., 194
(21 R. I.), 43 L. R. A. 95. 111. 194 (1901), 56 L. R. A. 888;
12
Black Rabbit Assn. v. Mandy., Industrial, etc. Co. v. Central, etc.
21 Abb. N. C. 99 (1887). Co., 66 S. W. 1032 (Ky. 1902).
13
Rudolph V. Southern, etc., 7
lo
Allen v. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175
N. y. Supp. 135 (1889), 23 Abb.
(1900); Hammond v. Hastings,
(N. C.) 199. 134 U. S. 401 (1890); Hall v.
14
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. Ochs, 34 N. Y. App. Div. 103
9 (1839). (1889); Avery Sons v. Texas, etc.
15
Saint Patrick v. Byrne, 59 N. Co., 62 S. W. 793 (Tex. 1901).
J. Eq. 26 (1899); Newby v. Ore-
n
George T. Stagg Co. v. E. H.
eon, etc. Ry., Deady, 609 (1869); Taylor, etc. Co., 68 S. W. 862 (Ky.
Peck Bros., etc. Co. v. Peck Bros. 1902).
Co., 113 Fed. 291 (1902);
Club v.
is
Hasselman v. Japanese, etc.

08.] CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 123

rig-ht name but in that of another corporation, does not vest
the title in the latter.^^
"The right of an existing corporation
to the use of its corporate name, which is in the nature of a
trade name, cannot be infringed by a subsequent act of incor-
poration by the legislature, either by the direct grant of a char-
ter to a corporation to be organized under a similar name, or
through a ministerial officer of the State in granting a cer-
tificate of incorporation to a body of adventurers having a
similar name."
^^
The cotirt will enjoin a corporation from
using an adopted name similar to the name in general use
of another corporation engaged in the same business and ex-
ercising similar powers, where the similarity in names is such
as to mislead dealers into belief that the corporations are the
same, and to produce confusion and unfair competition in
business. The statutory authority to insert a corporate name
was not intended to enable the incorporator, in the adoption of
a name to invade the rights of others.-^ A stockholder in a cor-
poration having granted to it the right to use his name as part
of its own, is estopped during its lifetime to resume the use of
his own name in the same business so as to mislead the public.^-

g8. Imitation or adoption of name by another corpora-

tion.A corporation cannot by statute take a name identical
with the name of an existing corporation. The ground upon
which the courts first relieved against the assumption of the
name of an existing company by another was that it was cal-
culated to attract business intended for the older compan}^ to
the new, by deceiving the public.-^ But a loan and trust com-
pany, which has taken the name of the State in which it does
business as a part of its corporate name, is not entitled to an
Co., 2 Ind. App. 180 (1891)
;
braska, etc. Co. v. Nine, 27 Neb.
Church of Christ v. Christian 507, 43 N. W. 348; Hazleton, etc.
Church, 193 111. 144 (1901); Co. v. Hazelton, etc. Co., 142 111.
Woronieki v. Pairskego, 50 Atl. 494, 137 111. 23 (1892).
562 (Conn. 1901) ; Neff v. Coving-
21
Philadelphia Trust, etc. Co.
ton, etc. Co., 55 S. W. 697 (Ky. v. Philadelphia Trust Co., 123 Fed.
1900).
534 (1903).
19
Clarke v. Millgan, 58 Minn.
22
McPell Electric & Telephone
413 (1894).
Co. V. McFell Electric Co., 110 111.
20
Thompson on
Corporation, App. 182 (1903).
Vol. 1, 296; Holmes v. Holmes,
23
"Names of Companies," 10
etc. Co., 37 Conn. 278, 9 Am. Rep. Cent. L. J. 461; Holmes v. Holmes,
324; Celluloid, etc. Co. v. Cel- etc. Co., 37 Conn. 278; s. c. 9
Am.
lonite, etc. Co., 32 Fed. 94; Ne- Rep. 324.
124:
COKPOEATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
98.
injunction restraining a similar use of the name of the State
by another loan and trust company doing business at a point
a hundred miles distant, the proof not showing a conflict of
interest, or that the business transacted by defendants would
materially interfere with plaintiff's business.^* With this ex-
ception as to names indicating locality, any name assumed in
imitation of another is in violation of the right of the owner
thereof.-^ In dealing with corporations, an unlawful imita-
tion of a name is subject to the same rules of law which apply
where the parties are unincorporated firms or companies.^*
A corporation may sue to enjoin others from using its corporate
name to the injury of its trade.
-^
A domestic corporation may
enjoin a foreign corporation, but a foreign corporation cannot en-
join a domestic corporation from using the same name.^^^- If a
corporation is engaged in illegal business, it cannot enjoin an-
other corporation from using the same, or similar name.'^t) An
individual may restrain a corporation from using a name which
violates his riglils.^'^c A corporation may be sued under the name
it adopts.^* Articles of incorporation proposed will not be ap-
proved where the name adopted is the same as that of an exist-
ing corporation.^^ In the sale of the business of a corporation if
the trade name and good will are not included they do not =pass
to the purchaser.^" Exact similitude of name is not a condition
to relief. The similarity is enough if it is such as may deceive
the public. Nor is it essential to relief by injunction that the in-
tention of the defendant corporation was fraudulent or wrongful.
That defendant at the time of adopting the imitated name was
24
Nebraska, etc. Co. v. Nine
27c
Armington et al. v. Palmer,
(Neb. 1889), 43 N. W. Rep. 348. 21 R. I. 109.
25
Brooklyn, etc. Co. v. Masury,
-
Ferry v. Cincinnati Under-
25 Barb. 416. And see 10 Cent. L. writers. 111 Mich. 261 (1896);
J. 481.
Woodrough, etc. Co. v. Witte, 89
26
Celluloid Manuf. Co. v. Cel- Wis. 537 (1895); Marmet Co. v.
lonite Manuf. Co. (1887), 32 Fed. Archibald, 37 W. Va. 778 (1893).
Rep. 94.
29
In re First Presbyterian
27
Hygeia Ice Co. v. New York Churches, 2 Grants Cas. Pa. 240
Hygeia Ice Co., 140 N. Y. 94. (1858).
27a American Clay Manuf. Co.
so
Cutter v. Gudebrod, etc. Co.
V. American Clay Manuf. Co., 198 44 N. Y. App. Div. 605 (1899);
Pa. St. 189; Hazleton, etc. Co. v. Armington v. Palmer, 21 R. I.
Hazleton, etc. Co., 142 111. 494. 109 (1898);
Bristol, etc. Trust Co.
27b Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. v. Jonesboro, etc. Trust Co., 101
Portsmouth, etc. Brewing Co., Tenn. 545 (1898).
67 N. H. 433.

99.] CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 125

ignorant of the existence of the plaintiff corporation is no de-
fense.^^
Infringement
of
right to use the corporate name.Priority in
time of incorporation governs in the right of an existing corpo-
ration to the exclusive use of the corporate name, as against
another company subsequently incorporating and assuming the
same name.^^ It is in the discretion of the secretary of state to
refuse a certificate of incorporation where the name assumed
so nearly resembles that of an existing corporation as to cre-
ate confusion between the two corporations.^^ Illustrations:
Assumption of the name American Glucose Sugar Refining
Company held to be infringement of the Glucose Sugar Re-
fining Company.^* The use of the name Edison Automobile
Company by a corporation may be enjoined by the pre-exist-
ing corporation, the Edison Storage Battery Company, where
the business of the former is in seeming competition with that
of an invention and a corporation already using his surname
in its own, claiming its right to use the same by grant from
the son, where such use was by reason of the prestige of the
father and not because of any connection with the son, or of
any prestige connected with his name.^^

gg.
Misnomer. Ground for abatement of suit.Misnomer
of a corporation in any contract is not fatal, if its identity is
established and well settled.^* The word "the" prefixed to the
corporate name which contains no "the" as a prefix is a mis-
nomer, and when so used improperly in a declaration will
make the action subject to a plea in abatement and conversely
the omission of "the" from the corporate name of which it is
the beginning will have the like effect.^^ Where a statute for-
bade a corporation to take the name of a person or firm with-
out adding the word "company" or "corporation," together
with some word designating the business, it was held that
"Mallinckrodt Chemical Works" was not objectionable, al-
though "Alallinckrodt" is a family name.^^ A misnomer of
31
Chicago, etc. Bureau v. Koe- v. Edison Automobile Co., 56 Atl.
bel, 112 111. App. 21 (1904). 861, (N. J. Eq. 1904).
32
German, etc. Assn.* v. Olden-
36 Culpepper, etc. Co. v. Digges,
burg, etc. Assn., 46 111. App. 281. 6 Rand. (Va.) 165, 18 Am. Dec.
33
state V. McGrath, 92 Mo. 355. 708; Tide infra,
1003, 1004.
34
Glucose, etc. Co. v. American,
37
Lapham v. Philadelphia, etc.
etc. Co., 56 Atl. 861 (N. J. 1899). Co., 56 Atl. 366 (111. 1903).
35
Edison Storage Battery Co.
ss
state v. McGrath, 75 Mo. 424.
126
COKPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. [99.
the
corporation does not invalidate a deed if it can be col-
lected from the face of the deed, aided by extrinsic evidence,
what
corporation is intended.
^
Misnomer of a corporation in
a suit may be pleaded in its abatement, but not in bar.*** For
example, a deed to "The Centenary M. E. Church," v^ith war-
ranty to "the said Trustees of the Centenary M. E. Church,"
the latter being the correct corporate name, passes the land
conveyed to the corporation, the misnomer not being mate-
rial." A petition for leave to file an information in the nature
of quo zvarranto against a corporation for using a certain cor-
porate name will not be granted where it appears that the re-
spondent was legally incorporated under that name, which is
identical, not with the corporate, but with the trade name of
the petitioner ; that the respondent has used the name for ten
years without sensibly injuring the petitioner; and that the
main injury complained of is one expected to rise from the
threatened use of the name by respondent in a particular line
of business in which it has not yet engaged.*^ A federal court
cannot interfere to prevent the organization of a corporation
30
Chapin v. School District, 35
N. H. 445; Northwestern Distilling
Co. V. Brandt, 69 111. 658; Douglass
V. Branch Bank of Mobile, 19 Ala.
C59; Eastern R. Co. v. Benedict, 5
Gray, 561, where it was decided
that on a written order made for
a consideration moving from the
Eastern Railroad Company, to de-
liver property to D. A. Neale, pres-
ident of the Eastern Railroad
Company, the company might sue
in its own name; Berks, etc. Road
V. Myers, 6 S. & R. 12; Hagers-
town, etc. Co. v. Creeger, 5 Harr.
& J. 122; Oler v. Baltimore, etc.
R. Co., 41 Md. 591; Culpepper, etc.
Soc. V. Digges, 6 Rand. 165; Union
Bank v. Call, 5 Fla. 409; Britan
V. Newland, 2 Dev. & B. 363; In-
sane Asylum v. Higgins, 15 111.
185; Clark v. Potter Co., 1 Barr,
163; Porter v. Blakely, 1 Root,
440; Romeo v. Chapman, 2 Mich.
179; County Court v. Griswold, 58
Mo. 175; Corder v. Com'rs, 16
Ohio St. 253, in which case a de-
vise to the county of Fayette in-
stead of to the commissioners of
the county was held to vest the
title to the property devised in
the county. It was here skid:
"The case seems perfectly analog-
ous to those of devises to unincor-
porated churches, to parishioners,
and to the poor of a hospital,
where the title has always been
held to vest in the parson, the
church wardens and the mayor
and burgesses, respectively, for
the use of the beneficiaries in-
tended. In Trustees v. Campbell,
16 Ohio St. 11, this court held that
a grant to the legislature of the
State of Ohio was a grant to the
State of Ohio, and vested title in
the State."
40
Baltimore, etc. R. R. v. Fifth
Baptist Church, 137 U. S. 568
(1891);
Gillespie v. Planters, etc.
Co., 76 Miss. 406 (1899).
41
Centenary M. E. Church v.
Parker (1888). 43 N. J. 307.
42
Boston Rubber Shoe Co. v.
Boston Rubber Co. (1889),
149
Mass. 436; Mass. Pub. Stat. ch.
186 17.

99a.]
COEPORATE NAMI<:, SEAL, ETC. 127
bearing the same name as that of a forcig-n corporation doing
business in the State." A foreign corporation doing business
in the State cannot use the same name as a domestic corpora-
tion, or enjoin it from using its own name."

99a. Misnomer in pleadings.A corporation, Hke an indi-

vidual, may be known by more than one name, and can only
take advantage of a misnomer by plea in abatement." But
services rendered one company cannot be recovered for in a
suit against a company of a similar name on the assumption
that the two are virtually one, Avithout allegation and proof of
the identity.-*" The fact that a corporation has changed its
name, without any change in its membership, is no defense
to an action instituted against it under its former name.*^ And
where an incorporated company attempted to change its name,
but failed through non-compliance with the method prescribed
by statute, and afterwards obtained a judgment in the new
name, objection cannot be made after judgment, if the com-
plaint stated facts which identified the company.^^ A statute
providing that actions are not abated by death or disability
of a party, does not apply to corporations which have consoli-
dated.** A corporation, after having appeared in and de-
43
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v.
Hamblen (1885), 23 Fed. Rep. 225.
And it is a question in the same
case whether, after organization,
it could interfere to prevent the
use of the name in fraud of the
rights of the foreign corporation.
44
International, etc. Co. v. In-
ternational L. & C. Co., 153 Mass.
271 (1891) ; Goodyear, etc. Co. v.
Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S.
598 (1888); Hazleton, etc. Co. v.
Hazleton, etc. Co., 137 111. 231
(1891), 142 111. 494 (1892);
Amer-
ican, etc. Co. V. American, etc. Co.,
198 Pa. St. 189 (1901);
Higgins
Co. V. Higgins Soap Co., 144 N. Y.
462 (1895); Wm. Rogers , Manuf.
Co. V. R. W. Rogers Co., 66 Fed.
56 (1895); In re U. S. Mortgage
Co., 83 Hun, 572 (1895).
45
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Reid-
mond, 11 Lea, 205.
46
McGregor v. Fuller, etc. Co.
(1887), 72 Iowa, 464.
47Welfley v
Co., 83 Va. 768.
IS
King V. Ilwaco
Co. (Wash. 1890),
924.
49
Kansas,
Smith (Kan
Shenandoah, etc.
Ry. &
23 Pac.
Nav.
Rep.
O. & T. Rv. Co. V.
1888), 19 Pac. Rep.
636, construing Kan. Civ. Code,

40. But under a law which pro-
vides that no action to which the
old corporation was a party shall
be abated by reason of consolida-
tion pending suit, but that the
cause shall proceed as if the con-
solidation had not taken place, or
that the new corporation shall be
substituted by order of court, it
was held on motion to dismiss a
bill filed by a corporation subse-
quently consolidated, on the
ground that plaintiff's corporate
existence was terminated by the
consolidation, and that a bill of
review was necessary, and on
counter-motion to substitute the
consolidated corporation, that the
128
COKPOEATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
100, 101.
fended an action against it under an erroneous name, and in-
stituted proceedings in another court under the same name,
cannot, after the lapse of several years, have the decree opened
and all the proceedings against it set aside on account of the
misnomer.^^

100. Proof of the corporate name.The courts will take

no judicial notice of the name of a corporation, adopted under
general law. The name must be proved unless given by special
act.^^ The certificate of the secretary of state will be accepted as
conclusive evidence of the corporation's right to use of the name
certified.^^

loi. Change of name. Power of the legislature. Effect

of change.The name of a corporation may be changed, usu-
ally with the consent of the corporators, and the change does
not affect its liabilities, duties or property.^^ But a corpora-
tion has no right or power of itself to change or alter the
name originally selected by it without recourse to such formal
proceedings as are prescribed by law.^* Under a statute au-
thorizing a court to change the name of a corporation when
there appears to be no reasonable objection thereto, the power
to make the change is entirely discretionary with the court.^^
The Pennsylvania act conferring on counties power to change
the names of corporations applies to religious corporations.^^
suit did not abate, and that the Rep. 276; s. c. 8 Am. & Eng. Corp.
latter motion should prevail. Edi- Cas. 507; Morris v. St. Paul, etc.
son Electric Light Co. v. Westing- R. Co., 19 Minn. 528; Trustees v.
house, 34 Fed. Rep. 232. Moody, 62 Ala. 389.
50
Bate Refrigerating Co. v.
bs
in re United States Mercan-
Gillett, 31 Fed. Rep. 809. tile Reporting Co. (1889), 115 N.
BiHolloway v. Memphis, etc, Y. 176; Laws N. Y. 1870, ch. 322.
Co., 23 Tex. 465, 76 Am. Dec. 68; '^^In re Bloomfleld Presbyterian
Johnson v. City of Indianapolis, Church, 111 Pa. St. 156. In Pa.
16 Ind. 227. Act of April 20, 1869, providing
52
Rice V. National Bank, 126 that it shall be lawful for the
Mass. 300; Grand Lodge v. Gra- courts of common pleas "to change
ham, 96 Iowa, 592, 31 L. R. A. the name, style and title of any
133.
corporation within their respec-
53
Rosenthal v. Madison, etc. R. tive counties, . . . provided
Co., 10 Ind. 358; President, etc. v. that no proceedings for such pur-
Jackson, 7 Blackf. 36; Eaton, etc. pose shall be entertained by the
R. Co. V. Hunt, 20 Ind. 457; courts until notice of such appli-
Episcopal Charitable Soc. v. Epis- cation is given to the auditor-
copal Church, 1 Pick. 372; "Names general and proof of such fact is
of Corporations," by W. "W. Thorn- produced by the courts," the pro-
ton, 23 Cent. L. J. 532. viso is held to be mandatory and
54
Goodyear Rubber Co. v. Good- applicable to church corporations,
year Rubber Manuf. Co., 21 Fed. although their charters are not re-

101.] CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC, 129

A change of name docs not relieve the corporation from its
liabilities.^^ It does not even relieve the corporation from
paying taxes due from it in its old name,^^ for a change in
the name does not create a new corporation.'" It has been
judicialy said that "though the name and style of the corpora-
tion and the mode of electing members were changed, the
identity of the body itself was not affected."
^'^
If the name
of a corporation is changed, all new suits on its old obliga-
tions must be brought in its new name."^ But it is essential
to allege the identity of the corporation as known by its two
names.^^ The change of name does not abate a suit.*'^ The
name of a corporation may be changed by act of the legisla-
ture, though the legislature is prohibited to pass any law
granting a private charter or special privileges, by the con-
stitution.^* A corporation cannot change its name without
express legislative authority.^^ Irregular and ineffectual at-
tempt to change its name does not affect the charter of the
quired to be filed in the auditor-
general's office. In re Bloomfield
Presbyterian Church, 107 Pa. St.
543.
5T
Hazelett v. Butler University,
84 Ind. 230; Dean v. La Motte
Lead Co., 59 Mo. 523; Bucksport,
etc. Co. V. Buck, 68 Me. 81. Here
a valid subscription to the capital
stock of an incorporated company
was held not rendered invalid by
a change of its corporate name in
accordance with a legislative act,
and that the company might sue
for and recover the subscription
under its new name. Girard v.
Philadelphia, 7 Wall. 1, where the
identity of the city of Philadel-
phia and its right to hold prop-
erty devised to it was held not de-
stroyed by its change of corporate
name, and its enlargement in
area; Regina v. Bewdly, 1 P. "Wms.
207; Rex v. Passmore, 3 T. R. 119,
247; Colchester v. Brooke, 7 Q. B.
383; Colchester v. Seaber, 3 Burr.
1866; Bellows v. Bank, 2 Mason,
43; Olney v. Harvey, 50 111. 453;
Neely v. Yorkville, 10 S. C. 141;
Helkel v. Sanford, 40 N. J. L. 180.
68
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Gold-
smith, 62 Ga. 463.
Vol. 1

9.
59
Town of Reading v. Wedder,
66 111. 80; Morris v. St. Paul, etc.
R. Co., 19 Minn. 528; Trustees v.
Moody, 62 Ala. 389.
60
Doe V. Norton, 11 M. & W.
913, 928. See Ludlow v. Tyler,
7 Car. & P. 537; Atty.-Gen. v. Wil-
son, 9 Sim. 30; Atty.-Gen. v.
Leicester, 9 Beav. 546.
81
Colchester v. Seaber, 3 Burr.
1866; 5 Dane Abr. 181; Scar-
borough v. Butler, 3 Lev. 237;
Sunapee v. Eastman, 32 N. H.
470; Colton v. Mississippi, etc.
Co., 22 Minn. 372; Pope v. Capital
Bank, 20 Kan. 440.
62
West V. Carolina Life Ins.
Co., 31 Ark. 478; Rosenthal v.
Madison, etc. Co., 10 Ind. 358; Ca-
hill V. Briggs, 8 B. Mon. 211;
Ready v. Tuskaloosa, 6 Ala. 327;
Madison College v. Burke, 6 Ala.
494.
63
Thomas v. Frederick School,
7 Gill & J. 369.
64
Wells V. Oregon, etc. Co., 18
Fed. Rep. 667; s. c. 16 Am. & Eng.
Corp. Cas. 71.
65
sykes v. People, 132 111. 32
(1890).
130
CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
102.
corporation."" Where after contract to deliver goods and be-
fore their delivery a corporation changed its name it cannot
enforce acceptance and payment for the goods."^ Where a cor-
poration changed its name without complying wdth the statute
and used the new name the stockholders were held liable as
partners."^ The change of name of an insurance company by
act of the general assembly does not affect the company's
rights or liabilities or deprive any member of the old company
of membership rights in the new."'' A corporation may change
its name only in the manner prescribed by the statutes of the
State.'^" Change of corporate name requires legislative au-
thority."'^ Chang-e of corporate name is usually effected by
amendment of the articles of incorporation as provided in gen-
eral enabling acts of the legislature.
Effect
of
change
of
name.Change of name has no effect
upon the identity of the corporation in legal contemplation.
Its responsibilities continue the same.'^- Change of name of
a corporation, it continuing to be the same concern, does not
relieve it from any pre-existing liability. Change of name
without change of membership of a corporation does not effect
its liability.'^^
Suit must be in the corporate name. Vide infra,

985.
^
B.
THE CORPORATE SEAL.

102. Under the common law.

It is probable that a com-

mon seal became incident to every corporation, either from
ignorance of the art of writing on the part of its ofificers or
agents, or from the use of seals established among individual*
and originating in their ignorance.'^* But Blackstone attributes
66
O'Donnell v. C. R. Johns Co., Shackelford v. Dangerfield, L. R.
76 Tex. 362 (1890). 3 C. P. 407; Glass v. Tipton, etc.
67
Crane Co. v. Specht, 39 Neb, Co., 32 Ind. 376; Girard v. Phila-
123 (1894), 42 Am. St. Rep. 562. delphia, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 1; Crane
68
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Bate, Co. v. Specht, 39 Neb. 123, 42 Am.
96 Ky. 356 (1894).
St. Rep. 562; Wallace v. Loomis,
69
South Carolina, etc. Co. v. 97 U. S. 146; Anthony v. Inter-
Price, 45 S. E. 173, 67 S. C. 217 national Bank, 93 111. 225.
(1903).
71
Sykes v. People, 132 111. 32.
70
Morris v. St. Paul, etc. Ry.
72
Welfley v. Shenandoah, etc.
Co., 19 Minn. 528, Gil. 459; Sykes Co., 83 Va. 768.
V. People, 132 111. 32, 23 N. E. 391;
73
wilhite v. Convent, etc., 78
Rex V. Registrar, 10 Q. B. 839; S. W. 138 (Ky. 1904).
Bellows V. Hallowell, etc. Bank, 74
Angell and Ames on Corp.

2 Mason 31, Fed. Cas. 1279; 216.

103, 104.] CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 131

this incident to the pccuHar nature of a corporation aggre-
gate. "A corporation being an invisible body, cannot mani-
fest its intentions by any personal act or oral discourse
;
it
therefore acts and speaks only by its common seal. For
though particular members may express their private consents
to any act, by words or by signing their names, yet this does
not bind the corporation
;
it is the fixing of the seal, and that
only, which unites the several assents of the individuals who
compose the community, and makes one joint assent of the
whole."
''^
It is said, however, that corporations under the early
common law could have contracted by vote or by special
agent in the same manner as under the civil law.'^ But in
course of time it became incident to every corporation aggre-
gate to have a common or corporate seal;
'^''
as the means nec-
essary to enable it to appoint any special agent, except of the
most inferior kind, or to make any contract whatever.'^^ So
by custom, without express authority in their charters or acts
of "incorporation, corporations acquired the power to make
and use a seal.'^^ Under the common law it was at one time
held that the corporation could not contract except under the
corporate seal.*' The rule was gradually relaxed from time
to time allowing the corporation by its subordinate agents to
contract in ordinary business matters in the purchase and sale
of goods.^

103. In England.In England it is still the rule that con-

tracts must be under the corporate seal.^

104. In the United States.In the United States that rule

has been abandoned so that in the absence of express require-
ment of the charter to the contrary,^ any contract that may
be made by a natural person without seal may be so made by
75
1 Blaclvstone's Com. 475. v. Androscoggin R. Co., 37 Me.
TsAngell and Ames on Corp.

349; South Baptist Sec. v. Clapp,
216; Ayliffe Civil Law, b. 2, tit. 18 Barb. 35.
35, p. 198.
80
1 Bl. Com. 475.
77
Davies, 44, 48; 1 Blackstone's
si
Church v. Imperial, etc. Coke
Com. 475; 1 Kyd on Corp. 268; 2 Co., 6 Adol. & L. 846; Beverley v.
Kent. Com. 224.
Lincoln, etc. Co., 6 Adol. & L. 829.
78
Case of the Dean and Chapter
82
East London, etc. Co. v.
of Femes, Davies, 121. Bailey, 4 Bing. 283.
70
Case of Sutton's Hospital, 10
ss
Lindauer v. Delaware, etc.
Rep. 30b. And see Goddard's Co., 13 Ark. 461; Allen v. Bro\yn
Case, 2 Rep. 5; Mill Dam Found- (1897), 6 Kan. App. 704.
ery v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417; Porter
132 CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
104.
a corporation.^* All parol contracts made by its authorized
agents are express promises of the corporation for the enforce-
ment of which an action will lie.^'' The seal is not necessarily
of any particular form or figure; whether it is a mark or a
character, it will be held to be a seal if it was so intended.* A
fac-simile of the regular corporation seal may be legally used
by the board of directors.^ A simple "(L. S.)" will be con-
sidered the corporate seal where the attestation clause is com-
plete.*^ The instrument will be presumed to be scaled where
it recites that it is executed under seal.*^ The fac-simile of
the seal printed on a blank form is not the corporate seal. A
scroll may be a sufficient seal where the execution of the in-
strument is duly proved.^^ Though formerly the impression
of the seal was required to be made upon wax, impression
made upon the paper is now sufficient.^- The instrument may
be executed by simply affixing the seal without any signature
or other writing.^ A deed or mortgage by the corporation
must be under seal where, as generally, such instruments are
required by statute to be sealed in the case of individuals.^* It
is now held to be unnecessary for a corporation to attach its
seal to any instrument where it would not be required in the
case of an individual person.^^ In the conveyance of real e-
8-t
Abbey v. Billups, 35 Miss. 718,
9o
McCarthy v. Metropolitan, etc.
72 Am. Dec. 143; Speirs v. Union, Co., 162 Mass. 254 (1894).
etc. Co. (1899), 174 Mass. 175;
9i
Thayer v. Nehalem, etc. Co.,
Hand v. Clearfield Coal Co., 143 31 Oregon, 437 (1897); Sarmeinto
Pa. St. 408; Pixley v. Western v. Davis, etc. Co., 105 Mich. 300
Pacific R. Co., 33 Cal. 183, 91 Am. (1895);' Blood v. La Serena, etc.
Dec. 623; Green Co. v. Blodgett, Co., 113 Cal. 221 (1896); Mc-
159 111. 169 (1895). Crosky v. Ladd, 28 Pac. 216 (Cal.
85
Bank of Columbia v. Patter- 1891).
son's Adm'r, 7 Cranch (U. S.),
o-' Pillow v. Roberts, 13 How.
299. 472 (1851).
86
Jacksonville, etc. Nav. Co.^
93
Union Bridge Co. v. Troy, etc.
V. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514 (1896); R. R.. 7 Lans. 240 (1872); Globe,
District of Columbia, v. Camden, etc. Ins. Co. v. Read, 19 Ind. App.
etc. Works, 181 U. S. 453 (1901); 203 (1897).
Rollings V. New Memphis, etc. Co.,
s-t
Danville Seminary v. Mott,
60 S. W. 206 (Tenn. 1900) ; Cadil- 136 111. 289 (1901); Allen v.
lac, etc. Bank v. Cadillac, etc. Brown, 6 Kan. App. 704 (1897);
Co., 88 N. W. 67 (Mich. 1901). Precious, etc. Soc. v. Elsythe, 102
87
State V. Manhattan, etc. Co., Tenn. 40 (1899); Murray v. Beal,
149 Mo. 181 (1899). 23 Utah, 548 (1901).
88
G. V. B. Mining Co. v. First
os
Muscatine Water Co. v. Mus-
National Bank, 95 Fed. 23 (1899). catine, etc. Co., 85 Iowa, 112
soRusling V. Union, etc. Co., 5 (1892).
N. Y. App. Div. 448 (1896).

105.]
COKPOKATE NAME, SEAL, ETO. 133
tate it is necessary to attach the corporate seal wherever it is
required of individuals."" The seal alone may be considered
the signature of the corporation. "The English rule that a
corporation cannot expressly bind itself except by deed unless
the act establishing it authorizes it to contract in another
mode, has been broken in upon, and, indeed, entirely over-
turned, as a general proposition, throughout the United States
;
and it is here well settled that the acts of a corporation, evi-
denced by vote, written or unwritten, are as completely bind--
ing upon it, and are as complete authority to its agents as the
most solemn acts done under the corporate seal; that it may
as well be bound by express promises through its authorized
agents as by deed; and that promises may as well be implied
from the acts of its agents as if it had been an individual."
''

105. When affixed the seal is presumed to be authorized.

It is presumed that the seal accompanying the signature of

an authorized agent, is the seal of the corporation. And this
presumption is not overcome by showing that on several other
occasions a different seal has been used by the company."*
And so the use of a corporate seal will be presumed to be a
lawful use."" In extension of the same principle, a wafer at-
86
Danville Seminary v. Mott, should be legally insufficient to
136 111. 2S9 (1891); Allen v. overcome the presumption of due
Brown, 6 Kan. App. 704 (1897).
execution to which the affixing of
7
Muscatine Water Co. v. Mus- the corporate seal gives rise. Par-
catine, etc. Co., 85 Iowa, 112 ker v. Receiver of Washoe Manuf.
(1892); Davenport v. Peoria, etc. Co. (1887), 49 N. J. L. 465. And
Co., 17 Iowa, 276 (1864); Western, even where a certified copy of a
etc. Co. v. First National Bank, 47 deed conveying property of a rail-
Pac. 721 (N. M. 1897); Grubbs v. way company to its stockholders,
ISiational, etc. Co., 94 Va. 589 and recorded for about twenty-five
(1897) ; Vide infra,
862. years, is produced in evidence, and
98
stebbins v. Merritt, 64 Mass. not objected to as being a copy and
27; Tenney v. Lumber Co., 43 N. it concludes: "In witness where-
H. 350.
of the . . . company has exe-
09
Indianapolis, etc. R. Co. v. cuted this deed by the vice presi-
Morganstown, 103 111. 149. So dent thereof, acting in the absence
where certain instruments pur- of the president, signing his name
porting to be the deeds of a pri- thereto, and the secretary thereof
vate corporation, are shown to be countersigning it, and annexing
sealed with the corporate seal, the the corporate seal," but no seal
testimony of a single corporate was attached, the stockholders
officer, whose duty might or might never objecting to the validity of
not make him cognizant of their such
conveyance, the law, after
execution, that he had no knowl- such lapse of time, will presume
edge of corporate authority having that the deed was duly executed
been given to execute
instruments, under seal, and, such being the
134:
CORrOUATE NAIIE, SEAL, ETC.
[
lOG.
tached to a deed as the seal of a corporation having no adopted
seal, has been held sufficient.^ Where l)y law the governing
board of directors alone can alter the common seal of the com-
pany, and adopt a new one, the scroll or private seal of the
chief engineer of a railroad corporation, affixed to a grading
contract, cannot be considered the seal of the company; the
contract is not a specialty, and assumpsit will lie against the
company for its breach.^ It will be presumed that the seal
was affixed by proper authority where the instrument was
signed by the required corporate officers.^ A corporate con-
tract signed by the president and secretary and bearing the
corporate seal is presumed to be properly sealed, and to be
within the power of the officers to execute, the burden being
upon the objecting party to show the contrary.*
DOMICILE OF THE CORPORATION.

rD6. Its legal residence is the State wherein incorporated.

The domicile, citizenship and residence of a corporation are
in the State in which it is incorporated. Its domicile is en-
tirely distinct from the personal domicile of its officers or
stockholders.^ Its residence is in the State where incorpo-
rated,^ though the residence of its officers or stockholders may
be elsewhere.'^ The jurisdiction of the United States courts
depends upon the citizenship of the parties to the suit.
Domicile and residence.The residence of a domestic corpo-
ration is in the county where its principal office is located. A
foreign corporation is, for the purposes of a suit, a resident of
case, that the vice-president had Hechtman, 45 Minn. 238 (1S91);
prima facie
authority to convey. Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chicago,
tlius throwing the burden of dis- etc. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. 309 (1892);
proof on defendants. Catlett v. Mullanphy, etc. Bank v. Schott,
Starr (1888), 70 Tex. 485. 135 111. 655 (1891); Underhill v.
1
St. Philip's Church v. Zion Santa Barbara, etc. Co., 93 Cal.
Presbyterian
Church, 23 S. C. 297. 300 (1892).
2
Saxton V.
Texas, etc. R. Co.
-t
Quackenboss v. Globe, etc. Co.,
4 N. M. 201 (1888), 16 Pac. Rep. 77 N. Y. 77 ,69 N. E. 223 (1903).
851, Laws of N. M.
2623, 2664.
s
Rossie Iron Works v. West-
3
Gorder v.
Plattsmouth, etc. brook, 59 Hun, 345 (1891).
Co., 36 Neb. 548 (1893);
Sherman, 6 American, etc. v. Johnson, 60
etc. Co. V. Morris, 43 Kan. 282 Fed. 503 (1893).
(1890);
McDonald v.
Chisholm, 7 Rossie Iron Works v. West-
131 111. 273 (1890);
Bowers v. brook, 59 Hun, 345 (1891).

107, 107a.] coitroKATE xamk, skal, etc. 135

any State wherein it is allowed to do business.^ A corporation
is conclusively presumed to be a resident of the State creating
it.^ The corporation cannot perform a strictly corporate act be-
yond the State of its existence.^" Though it cannot be re-
garded as a corporation beyond the limits of its own Terri-
tory, it is created with the power to migrate, and so long as
it has not forfeited its corporate existence at home, it may, to
pursue the business for which it is incorporated, go wherever a
natural person may go, and by the comity of nations be al-
lowed to do business.^^ Meetings to accept the charter and
strictly corporate meetings must be held within the State
where incorporated.^^

107.
When not otherwise fixed, is presumed to be where
its meetings are held in the State.If not otherwise fixed the
principal place of busines of the corporation is held to be the
place where the stockholders are called to meet,^^ The cor-
poration is a "citizen" for some purposes and is a "resident"
or "inhabitant" for many purposes. Its legal domicile is the
country or State under whose laws it was created.^* So, also,
the place of its creation fixes its residence and domicile for
jurisdiction under the attachment laws and with respect to
debts due by it.^^

107a. Of interstate corporations.A corporation of one

State which becomes incorporated in one or more other States
is a distinct corporation in each, though it may have the same
name.^^ It is a resident in each of the States in which it is
organized." Its dissolution in one State does not affect its
franchise in another State.^^ When sued in one of the Stater,
it cannot claim citizenship in another to remove the cause to
8
Seymour D. Thompson, 42 Co., 19 R. I. 180, 61 Am. St. Rep.
Cent. L. Jour., No. 11. 756, 29 L. R. A. 429.
9
St. L. & San Francisco Ry. Co.
is
Equitable, etc. Society v.
V. James, 161 U. S. 545.
Vogel's Executor, 76 Ala. 441, 52
10
Bastian v. Modern Woodman, Am. Rep. 344.
166 111. 595; Vide supra,
8.
i"
Baldwin v. Chicago, etc. Ry.,
11
Hartford Ins. Co. v. Peoria, 86 Fed. 167 (1898).
156 111. 595; Vide infra,
709,
it
Nashua, etc. R. R. v. Boston,.
132. 140.
etc. R. R., 136 U. S. 356 (1890):
12
Miller v. Ewers, 27 Me. 509, Phinizy v. Augusta, etc. R. R.,
46 Am. Dec. 619.
56 Fed. 273 (1893).
isFrick Co. v.
Norfolk, etc. R.
is
Paul v. Baltimore, etc. R. R..
R., 86 Fed. 725 (1898).
44 Fed. 513 (1890):
Vide supra.
14
Shaw V. Quincy Min. Co., 145
45, and i7ifra,
1340, 1341.
U. S. 444; Ireland v. Globe, etc.
136 CORPOKATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
108, l09.
a federal court.
^'*
Its reincorporation in one State is not
ground for forfeiture of its charter in anotlier.-'^ Where a con-
soHdated railroad runs into three States it is a distinct corpora-
tion in each.^^
D.
RECORDS.

io8. Minutes of corporate meetings.Minutes of corpo-

rate meetings may or may not be made at the time. They may
be prepared and signed at any time, at or after the meeting,^^
or no record at all may be made of the proceedings of a cor-
porate meeting unless expressly required.-^

109. Minutes are presumed to be properly entered of rec-

ord.Resolutions of a meeting of directors of a private cor-
poration may be shown by the record of the proceedings, if
one is kept; otherwise parol evidence is admissible to show
what was resolved, and by what vote.^* Entries in the min-
is
Winn V. Wabash R. R., IIS
Fed. 55 (1902).
20
Memphis, etc. R. R. v. Ala-
bama, 107 U. S. 581 (1882); Ohio
etc. R. R. V. Weber, 96 111. 443
(1880).
21
Fitzgerald v. Missouri Pac.
Ry., 45 Fed. 812 (1891) ; Winn v.
Wabash R. R., 118 Fed. 55 (1902).
22
Benbow v. Cook, 115 N. C.
324, 44 Am. St. Rep. 454.
23Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S.
217, Vide infra, 685.
24
Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, etc. Co.,
74 Mich. 226 (1889), 41 N. W.
Rep. 905. Cf.
Monographic note
by John D. Lawson, 15 Fed. Rep.
727; "Effect of Failure to Record
Corporate Resolutions," 74 Am.
Dec. 309 ,312. With respect to the
minutes of directors' meetings,
the English Companies Clauses
Act of 1845 provides that the di-
rectors shall cause notes, minutes
or copies, as the case may require,
of all appointments made or con-
tracts entered into by the direc-
tors, and of the orders and pro-
ceedings of all meetings of the
company, and of the directors and
committees of directors, to be
duly entered in books to be from
time to time provided for the pur-
pose, which shall be kept under
the superintendence of the direct-
ors; and every such entry shall be
signed by the chairman of such
meeting; and such entry, so
signed, shall be received as evi-
dence in all courts, and before all
judges, justices and othei:s, v?ith-
out proof of such respective meet-
ings having been duly convened
or held, or of the persons mak-
ing or entering such orders or pro-
ceedings being shareholders or di-
rectors, or members of commit-
tees, respectively, or of the signa-
ture of the chairman, or of the
fact of his having been chairman,
all of which last-mentioned mat-
ters shall be presumed, until the
contrary be proved. 8 Vic. ch. 16,

98. The minutes need not be

signed on the day on which they
are entered. It is sufficient that
they should be signed by the per-
son who was the chairman of the
meeting, and they may be signed,
or signed as confirmed, at a subse-
quent meeting. West London Ry.
Co. V. Bernard, 3 Nic. H. & C.
649; London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fair-
clough, 2 Man. & G. 764; s. c. 2

109.] COI'PORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 137

utes made by the officers of corporations are presumed to be
true.-^ The presumption omnia rite acta applies in favor of the
regularity of corporate meetings.^^ An entry in the minutes
of a corporation, or its board of directors, that a certain prop-
osition was adopted, is p7'i7iia
facie evidence that it received
the' number of votes necessary to legally adopt it." An entry
that certain officers were elected, is prima
facie evidence that
enough votes were cast to elect them.^s
So, also, if the min-
utes be silent as to the mode in which officers were elected, it
will be presumed that they were chosen in the manner re-
quired by law, until evidence to the contrary be produced.^'
If the minutes set forth that certain business was transacted
at a special meeting duly called, and that proper notice was
given, it will be presumed that a quorum was present.^" It has
been held, however, that where it does not appear by the rec-
ord that a majority of the members of a corporation were pres-
ent at a meeting at which it was voted to repair a church
building, to raise the money by assessment on the pews, and
also add an overlay to the sum thus assessed, the assessment
is invalid.^^ While it is permitted to contradict the record of
a voluntary society, or show that its records do not fully dis-
close all the proceedings which ought to be recorded, proof
of that kind must be so convincing and satisfactory as to leave
no doubt but that the matter attempted to be interpolated into
the records of the proceedings actually occurred.^^ A certifi-
cate of the secretary of a railroad company purporting to re-
Nic. H. & C. 544; Southampton Assn. (1888), 38 Minn. 138; s. c.
Dock Co. V. Richards, 1 Man. & G. 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 356; McDaniels
448. And where a meeting for a v. Flower BrooK Maniif. Co., 22 Vt.
particular purpose is adjourned, 274; Sanborn v. School District,
and the minutes of the adjourned 12 Minn. 17; isbell v. Railroad
meeting only are signed by the Co., 25 Conn. 556.
chairman, the whole of the min-
ss
Beardsley v. Johnson (1888),
utes are admissible in evidence. 49 Hun, 607.
Miles V. Bough, 3 Q. B. 345; Inglis
29
Beardsley v. Johnson (1888),
V. Great Northern Ry., 16 Jur. 49 Hun, 607; Hathaway v. Addi-
895; Browne & Theobald's Ry. son, 48 Me. 440.
Law, 114.
30
Insurance Co. v. Sortwell
25
Chase v. Tuttle (1887), 55 (1S64), 8 Allen, 223; Baile v.
Conn. 455; s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 64. Educational Soc. 47 Md. 117.
26
Ashtabula, etc. R. Co. v.
31
Mayberry v. Mead (1888), SO
Gardiner, 1 Ch. Div. 13; Blanch- Me. 27.
ard V. Dow (1851), 32 Me. 557.
32 Hawkshaw v. Supreme Lodge
Cf.
Chase v. Tuttle (1887), 55 of Knights of Honor (1887), 29
Conn. 455; s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 64. Fed. Rep. 770. In a voluntary so-
ar
Heintzelman v. Druids' Relief ciety in which the standing of its
138 CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
110, 111.
cite proceeding's of a meeting of stockholders, which is not
shown to come from any book of records, and as to its recital
that the secretary, and a large stockholder, said to have acted
as chairman, were present, is contradicted by the testimony
of persons who were at the meeting, fails to prove any such
proceedings by the company.^^ A corporation is not bound,
as to third persons, by interpolations fraudulently inserted in
its records, if the third persons have not acted on or seen or
known of the existence of the matters interpolated and appear-
ing to be a part of the record.^* Failure to enter a resolution
upon the minutes at the time of adoption does not affect its
validity as most corporate acts can be proved as well by parol
as by written entries.^^

no. Declaration of dividend must be made of record.

But the declaration of a dividend must be made of record and

cannot be proved by parol, in suits between the corporation
and its stockholders/" The terms of a contract, written in
the minutes and signed by the chairman, are memoranda suffi-
cient to satisfy the statute of frauds.^'^

III. Right of stockholders to inspect and examine the

records.It is well settled, as a general proposition, that the
members or stockholders of a corporation have a righj; to
inspect the company's books and records, at all seasonable
times,^^ either in person or by attorney in fact ;
^^
and that the
members, and the mode of sus-
ss
Brown v. Dibble (1887), 65
pending and reinstating them in Mich. 520.
membership, is regulated by its
s*
Holden v. Hoyt (1883), 134
laws, if the records of the proceed- Mass. 181.
ings of the body show that a mem-
ss
Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S.
ber is not in good standing, he 417 (1890); Moss v. Averill, 10
must be bound by these records N. Y. 449.
and the action of his society in
se
Dennis v. Joslin Manuf. Co.,
that regard; especially when he 19 R. I. 666, 61 Am. St. Rep. 805.
has exercised his right of appeal
3?
Tufts v. Plymouth, etc. Co.,
to a higher lodge, and the action 14 Allen (Mass.), 407.
of which he complains has been
ss
Comm^onwealth v. Phoenix
affirmed by the appellate tribunal. Iron Co. (1886), 105 Pa. St. 117,
Hawkshaw v. Supreme Lodge of annotated 51 Am. Rep. 184 by
Knights of Honor (1887), 29 Fed. Chas. L. Billings in 23 Am. L.
Rep. 770. Reg. (N. S.) 338, 395; s. c. 23
39
Foster v. White (1889), 86 Dorwart, 95 Iowa, 108, 58 Am. St.
Ala. 467; State v. Bienville Oil Rep. 427; Mitchell v. Rubber, etc.
Works Co., 28 La. Ann. 204; Cin-
Co. (N. J. Eq.), 24 Atl. 407; Peo-
cinnati, etc. Co. v. Hoffmeister, 62 pie v. Nassua Ferry Co., 86 Hun
Ohio St. 189. 78 Am. St. Rep.
(N. Y.), 128.
707, 48 L. R. A. 72; Ellsworth v.

111.] CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETO. 139

right to inspect carries with it, as an incident, the right to
make copies.*" A stockholder also has a higher right to de-
mand the production of corporate records in court to aid him
in a suit with strangers, than the other party to the action may
claim." The claim that the stockholder's right to examine the
books and papers of the corporation is equal to that of a part-
ner to inspect the partnership books is too broad. The stock-
holder's right to inspect is subject to limitations. It is his
right to inspect books and papers only when he asserts the
right "in good faith, and for a specific honest purpose, and
where there is a particular matter in dispute involving and
affecting seriously his rights as a stockholder."
^^
He may
Cent. L. J. 584, 587, annotated;
Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96,
108; People v. Throop, 12 Wend.
183; Deaderick v. Wilson, 8 Baxt.
108; State v. Einstein, 46 N. J.
479; Union Bank v. Hunt, 76 Mo.
439; Wannell v. Kern, 57 Mo,
478; Angell & Ames on Corpora-
tions,
681; Redfield on Rail-
ways, 227; Grant on Corporations,
311; Rex v. Stielley, 3 Term Rep.
142; Rex v. Babb, 3 Term Rep.
580; Harrison v. Williams, 3
Barn & Cres. 162; Rogers v. Jones,
5 D. & R. 484; Cockburn v. Union
Bank, 13 La. Ann. 289; 2 Phillips
on Evidence, 313; 1 Wharton on
Evidence,
746; Beach on Rail-
ways, 406. See also, "Inspec-
tion of Books and Papers," 6 Leg.
Adv. 54. Under N. Y. Laws of
1842, ch. 65, a transfer agent of a
foreign corporation is bound, at
all reasonable times, to exhibit to
any stockholder the transfer book
and list of stockholders. Ken-
nedy v. Chicago, Rock Island, etc,
R. Co. (1885), 14 Abb. N. Cas.
326; Phoenix Iron Co. v. Common-
wealth, 113 Pa. St. 563; People v.
Eadie, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 320, 18
N. Y. Supp. 53.
40
Cotheal v. Browner, 5 N. Y.
562; s. c. 10 Barb. 216; Beach on
Railways, 407; Swift v. State. 7
Roust. (Del.) 338, 40 Am. St. Rep.
127; Martin v. Johnson Co., 62
Hun (N. Y.), 557.
41
Mayor of Southampton v.
Graves (1800), 8 Term Rep. 590.
42
Morawetz on Corporations,

473. Unless restricted by the
charter, or by rules or by-laws
passed in conformity thereto, a
stockholder in a banking company
has a right to inspect the "dis-
count book" of the bank, within
proper and reasonable hours.
Cockburn v. Union Bank, 13 La.
Ann. 289; Platch v. City Bank, 1
Rob. (La.) 470. But a by-law of
a corporation authorizing the
stockholders to inspect the books
of account of the business of the
company does not include the
stock ledger, in which the trans-
fers of stock are entered. Lyon
V. American Screw Co. (R. I.
1889), 17 Atl. Rep. 61. Although
Rev. St. Wis. 1878, 1757, is found
under the heading "Capital
Stock," its provision that the
books of every corporation con-
taining the stock subscriptions
and accounts shall be subject to
the inspection of the stockholders,
is not limited to the books con-
taining the stock accounts, but ex-
tends to those containing the gen-
eral accounts. State v. Bergen-
thal (1888), 72 Wis. 314; Phoenix
Iron Co. V. Commonwealth, 113
Pa. St. 563;
Commonwealth v. Em-
pire, etc. Co., 134 Pa. St. 237;
liO
CORPOEATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
111.
not inspect tlicm with hostile purpose, and in the interest of
a rival corporation in which he is interested.'*^ The right only
extends to such documents as are necessary to the stock-
holder's particular purpose. A demand of an inspection of
all the books, records and papers of the company is too broad.**
Ordinarily the right of inspection does not extend to books
containing the minutes of directors' meetings,*'' although, upon
especial occasions and for especial purposes, it may be prop-
erly demanded.*** Statutes giving the shareholders of corpora-
tions the right to inspect the corporate books have been passed
in many of the American States and in England.*'^ These stat-
utes, however, do not supplant the common-law right.*^ In
an action under the statute, the pleading should bring the case
clearly within the statute,*^ Right to inspect the minutes is re-
gardless of what the motive may be. A person having right to
examine the corporate books may do so by his attorney.^" He
may have mandamus to enforce this right, but the examina-
tion must be at a reasonable time.^'- The remedy is not by
an order for inspection.^- The officers cannot be compelled to
produce the corporation books in any suit to which the corpora-
tion is not a party, however material may be the facts which
the books may disclose.^^ Proper evidence to prove authority
of the corporate agent to contract for the corporation is the
Ellsworth V. Dorwart, 95 Iowa, Stat. 1874) ch. 32, 13; Ohio Rev.
107,' 58 Am. St. Rep. 427. Stat. (1886) 3312; Vt. Laws of
43
Hemingway v. Hemingway, 1880,

3294, 3295; Cal. Civ. Code,
58 Conn. 443. 377, 378; Cal. Penal Code,

44
People V. Walker, 9 Mich. 328; 5G5; Mich. Gen. Stat. 1373; Mass.
Regina v. Mariquita Co., 1 Ellis Laws of 1860, ch. 68 10; R. I.
& E. 289.
Gf.
Rex v. Merchant Pub. Stat. ch. 153, 21, and ch.
Tailors' Co., 2 Barn. & Ad. 115. 158.

24; Colo. Gen. Stat. (1882)
45
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Row-
429; 25 & 26 Vic. ch. 89.
ley, 9 Fla. 508; Queen v. Mari-
48
people v. Lake Shore & M. S.
quita Mining Co., 1 Ellis & E. R. Co. (1877), 11 Hun, 1.
289; Lindley on Partnership (4th
4o
Lewis v. Brainerd (1881), 53
ed.), 809. . Vt. 510.
46
Queen v. Mariquita Mining
so
Mitchell v. Rubber, etc. Co.,
Co., 1 Ellis & E. 289; Foster v. 24 Atl. Rep. 407 (N. J. 1892).
White, 86 Ala. 467; Stone v.
5i
Weinhenmayer v. Bitner, 88
Kellogg, 165 111. 192, 56 Am. St. Md. 325 (1898), 45 L. R. A. 446.
Rep. 240; Meysenberg v. People,
52
"Wallace v. Press Co., 48 N. Y.
88 111. App. 328. App. Div. 33>(1900).
47
Ala. Code (1886), 1677; Mo.
b3
Southern Ry. v. North Caro-
Rev. Stat. (1879)
720, 721; Wis. lina, etc., 104 Fed. 700 (1900).
Rev. Stat. (1878) 1757; 111. Rev.

112.] CORPOKATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 141

minute-book record proceedings of directors' meetings.'^* The
records may be shown to be such by the.testimony of the di-
rector who is also treasurer.^^ Though the secretary did not
sign the minutes as they appear in the record, they may, never-
theless, be used to prove the adoption of the resolution at that
meeting,^^ The minutes of directors' meetings are admissible
in evidence though written up long after the proceedings were
had."

112. For what purposes the books may be inspected.The

members of a corporation cannot examine the books of the
company merely for the purpose of gratifying curiosity,''^ nor
because of a general dissatisfaction with the management of
the enterprise, based upon a vague belief that it is improperly
conducted,^^ nor to discover grounds whereon to trump up
charges against the corporate body, nor to use the informa-
54
Torras v. Raelaiirn, 108 Ga.
345 (1899); Fouche v. Merchants,
etc. Bank, 110 Ga. 827 (1900);
Powell V. Conover, 75 Hun, 11
(1894); McCreery v. Garvin, 39
S. C. 375 (1893).
55
Illinois Assn. v. Plagge, 177
111. 431 (1898), C9 Am. St. Rep.
252.
5G
Woodhaven Bank v. Brook-
lyn, 69 N. Y. App. Div. 489 (1902).
5T
Mcllhenny
v.
Binz, 80 Tex. 1
(1890), 26 Am. St. Rep. 705.
58
People V. Walker (1861), 9
Mich. 328; Tide infra, 1010.
50
Central Crosstown Ry. Co. v.
Twenty-Third Street Ry. Co., 53
How. Pr. 45, where it was held
that the corporator must disclose
the sources of his knowledge;
King V. Merchant Tailors' Co., 2
B. & Ad. 115; Pratt v. M. Cutlery
Co., 35 Conn. 36. On a recent pe-
tition for mandamus to compel a
corporation to allow a stockholder
to inspect the stock ledger, the
book containing a list of stock-
holders, the reasons alleged were
that the stock had recently paid
little or no dividends, and had de-
preciated in market value; that
the officers did not distribute to
the stockholders reports as to its
business and condition; and that
the petitioners desired to inform
themselves; and that petitioners
desired to confer with their fel-
low-stockholders, and for this rea-
son to inspect the list. No mis-
management of the company caus-
ing' the lack of dividends or de-
preciation of the stock was al-
leged. The proof showed that
treasurer's reports* had been dis-
tributed to the stockholders. The
by-laws provided for annual and
special meetings, which would
give opportunity for conference,
and petitioners were not deprived
of conference at the annual meet-
ings, nor had they tried to call
a special meeting. It was not al-
leged that there was any consider-
able dissatisfaction among stock-
holders, and it appeared that one
of the petitioners had advertised
for nearly a year for stockholders
to send their names for a confer-
ence, without success. It was held
that sufficient cause for mandamus
was not shown. Lyon v. Ameri-
can Screw Co., 16 R. I. 472 (1889),
17 Atl. Rep. 61.
60
Commonwealth v. Phoenix
Iron Co. (1884), 105 Pa. St. Ill;
In re West Devon, etc. Mine
(1884), 27 Ch. Div. 106; Invest-
ment Co. of Philadelphia v.
Elanage, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 394.
142
OORPOEATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
112.
tion for speculative or fraudulent ends,"^ nor to prove a plea
of justification in an action against the stockholders for libel
in imputing insolvency to the company.*'- It is requisite that
a definite reason be shown,^^ and, generally, that the informa-
tion sought should be necessary with reference to some dis-
pute or question pending in which the parties applying are in-
terested.* "There is no express rule to warrant an applica-
tion to inspect corporation documents that there must actually
have been suit instituted, but it is necessary that there should
be some particular matter in dispute between members or be-
tween the corporation and individuals in it; there must be
some controversy, some specific purpose in respect to which
the examination becomes necessary."
'
There is some author-
ity, however, for doubting whether the right is to be restricted
to cases where the corporator has some private interest for the
enforcement and protection of which an inspection of certain
documents is necessary.^ Thus it has been held that the ac-
quisition of information to enable a shareholder to vote intel-
ligently at a corporate meeting, is a sufficient reason for de-
manding access to the books of the company.^ Where the
statute provides that the stockholders of private corporations
shall "have the right to inspect the books and papers at all
reasonable and proper times," the only implied limitations
upon the right are that the inspection shall not be for mere
idle curiosity, or for speculative purposes, or for purposes hos-
tile to the interests of the corporation. It is not necessary to
show any specific reason, or any particular occasion why the
stockholder derriands to make inspection.^
61
People V. Lake Shore & M. S. some particular matter In dispute
R. Co. (1877), 11 Hun, 1, affirmed between the members, or between
suh nom. In re Sage (1877), 70 the corporation and individuals in
N. Y. 220.
it, in which, the applicant is en-
62
Metropolitan, etc. Co. v. titled, and in respect of which, the
Hawkins, 4 Hurl. & M. 146. examination becomes necessary."
63
Central Crosstown Ry. Co. v. Addison on Torts,

1496.
Twenty-Third Street Ry. Co., 53
es
Rex. v. Merchant Tailors' Co.,
How. Pr. 45. Contra, Foster v. 2 Barn. & Ad. 115.
White (1889),
86 Ala. 467, con-
ee
People v. Conwell, 47 Barb,
struing Ala. Code (1886),
1677. 329; s. c. 23 Am. L. Reg. N. S.
64
Rex V. Merchant Tailors' Co., 388, 395; Martin v. Oil Works, 28
2 Barn. & Ad. 115; Commonwealth La Ann. 204.
V. Phoenix Iron Co., 105 Pa. St.
67
Martin v. Oil Works, 28 La.
117; Rex. v. Hostmen, 2 Stra. 1223; Ann. 204.
In re Burton, 31 L. J. Q. B. 62. "It
cs
Foster v. White, 86 Ala. 467;
Is necessary that there should be Winter v. Baldwin, 89 Ala. 483;

113, 114.] CORrORATE NAME, SEAL, ETO. 14:3

113. When the company may not refuse to permit an in-

spection of its books.A stockholder is not to be denied the
right to inspect the books because he is hostile to the corpora-
tion, and may use the information to its injury, where he has
good reason for making the examination,^" nor because the
books are kept in a particular way,''^ nor because they contain,
besides the information to which he is entitled, other informa-
tion which he has no right to demand/^ Nor is a corporation
excused from granting inspection because it does not keep
the books which the statutes prescribe. It is its duty to per-
mit an inspection of such as it does keep for the purpose of
recording the transactions which the statutes give the stock-
holder a right to know.'^^

114. Of the member's remedies herein.Upon the refusal

of the corporate officers to permit a member of the company
to inspect the books, he may bring an action at law against the
corporation to recover damages.'''* If the officer in custody of the
books wrongfully refuses to allow a stockholder to inspect them,
he may obtain a writ of mandamus commanding the custodian to
allow the inspection to be made ;
'^^
and in some States he may
recover a statutory penalty from the company.'''^ In the action
at law to recover damages the plaintiff need not allege for what
reasons he wished to inspect the books.'^^ And under a statute
imposing a penalty upon the company for refusing to permit a
stockholder to inspect the corporate books, the plaintiff, in order
to recover the amount of the penalty, need not show that he sus-
State V. Langlin, 53 Mo. App. 542;
73
People v. Pacific Mail S. S.
Ellsworth V. Dorwart, 95 Iowa, 108; Co., 50 Barb. 280.
State V. Bergenthal, 72 Wis. 314;
-^
Lewis v. Brainerd (1881), 53
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Hoffmeister, Vt. 510.
62 Ohio St. 189, 78 Am. St. Rep.
ts
Legendre v. New Orleans, etc.
707; Stone v. Kellogg, 165 111. 192, Co., 45 La. Ann. 669, 40 Am. St.
56 Am. St. Rep. 240. Rep. 243; Tide infra
76.
69
Hatch V. City Bank, 1 Rob,
7c
stone v. Kellogg, 62 111. App.
(La.) 470.
444, 165 111. 192, 56 Am. St. Rep.
ToHuylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., 240; Commonwealth v. Phcenix
40 N. J. Eq. 392; Ellsworth v. Dor- Iron Co., 105 Pa. St. Ill, 51 Am.
wart, 95 Iowa, 108, 58 Am. St. Rep. St. Rep. 184.
427; Meysenberg V. People, 88 111. 77
Lozier v. Saratoga, etc. Co.,
App. 328.
59 App. Div. (N. Y.) 390; Kelsey
Ti
People V. Pacific Mail S. S. v. Pfaulder P. F. Co. (1899), 3 N.
Co., 50 Barb. 280.
Y. Siipp. 723;
Williams v. College,
72
People V. Pacific Mail S. S.
'
etc. Road Co., 45 Ind. 170.
Co., 50 Barb. 280.
7s
Lewis v. Brainerd (1881),
53
Vt. 510.
IM
CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
115.
tained any injury/^ The complaint must show, however, that
the officer upon whom the demand for inspection was made, had
notice that the person making the demand was entitled to the in-
spection.^"

115. The remedy by mandamus.If a corporate member

desire to enforce his right to inspect the books of the com-
pany rather than to recover damages for the refusal of the
corporation to allow him to do so, his remedy is by a proper
proceeding praying a writ of mandamus to issue to the proper
officers commanding them to permit him to exercise his right.^^
The prayer should aver that the applicant is a member or
79Kelsey v. Pfaulder P. F. Co.
(1889), 3 N. Y. Supp. 723. In this
case, the plaintiff, a stoclvholder
in defendant company, called at
its oflace during business hours on
Saturday, and informed the presi-
dent that he desired to examine
its stock-book and record-book.
The president stated that the
books were in the safe; that one
P. (who had been, and, as plaintiff
supposed, still was, the secretary)
had the combination; that he was
out of town, and would not return
until the following Monday; and
that the boolis could not be shown
to plaintiff until then. In point
of fact, P. had, two months be-
fore, ceased to be secretary, and
the present secretary was in the
office at the time plaintiff made
the demand, but it was not shown
that the president actually knew
that l^e had the combination. It
was held that the evidence sup-
ported a recovery under N. Y.
Laws of 1848, ch. 40, 25,
provid-
ing that for every neglect or re-
fusal of a corporation to exhibit
to a stockholder the book in which
entries in regard to stock are
kept, the company shall forfeit
and pay to the party injured a
penalty of $50; that as the act
does not
specifically name the
books to be exhibited, but refers
to the entries which they must
contain relating to the stockhold-
ers, the shares owned by each
when they became such owners,
and the amount of stock actually
paid in, the plaintiff's demand for
the stock-book and record-book
sufficiently indicated his desire to
see the book referred to in the
act; that whether it was an un-
reasonable request to ask plaintiff
to wait until the following Mon-
day to see the books was a ques-
tion of fact for the jury; that the
court did not err in refusing to
charge that the jury might infer
that plaintiff consented to wait
until Monday, there being no evi-
dence of such consent further than
that he went away because he was
given to understand he could not
see the books at that time; and
that the plaintiff did not waive
his right to recover the penalty
by the fact that he called on the
following Monday and examined
the books.
80
Williams v. College, etc. Road
Co., 45 Ind. 170.
81
Foster v. White (1889), 86
Ala. 467; In re Sage (1877), 70
N. Y. 220; Commonwealth v.
Phoenix Iron Co. (1884), 105 Pa.
St. Ill; Cockburn v. Union Bank
(1881), 13 La. Ann. 289; Rex v.
Bank of England, 2 Bam. & A.
620; Rex v. Wiltshire & B. Canal
Co. (1835), 3 Adol. & E. 477; Stone
V. Kellogg, 62 111. App. 165,
56 Am. St. Rep. 240; Trumbull v.
115.] CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC. 145
stockholder in the company ;
^-
it should set forth what books
he wishes to inspect, and what information he wished to ob-
tain,^^ and allege that he made the application at a reasonable
time,^* at the office of the company,^ to the officer having au-
thority to grant inspection,'^*' and that the company refused to
permit him to inspect the books." The granting of the writ,
however, is in the discretion of the court,^^ with due regard to
precedent and the reasonableness of the application.^^ If the
writ be granted, it should be issued to the officer to whose
custody the book in question has been committed, and not to
the corporation or the board of directors, even though his
refusal has been ratified by the directors.^^
Per contra.The writ may issue against the corporation or
against both the corporation and the custodian of the books
and papers,^- or may issue to the officer alone without making
the officer a party.^^ If the statute gives a stockholder remedy
within the corporation he must first resort to that before in-
American Sugar, etc. Co. (N. J.
Ch.), 48 Atl. 912; Commonwealth
V, Phoenix Iron Co., 105 Pa. St,
111, 51 Am. Rep. 184.
82
Foster v. White (1889), 86
Ala. 467.
Cf.
Williams v. College,
etc. Road Co., 45 Ind. 170.
83
Morgans Case (1884), 28 Ch.
Div. 620.
84
Foster v. White (1889), 86
Ala. 467.
85
People V. Walker, 9 Mich.
328, where no excuse for not mak-
ing the demand at the office being
shown the writ was refused. See
also 23 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 388, 397.
sGRex
V. Wiltshire & B. Canal
Nav. Co. (1835), 3 Adol. & E. 477.
87
Foster v. White (1889), 86
Ala. 467. In Rex v. Wiltshire &
B. Canal Nav. Co. (1835), 3 Adol.
& E. 477, a stockholder in a canal
company applied to the clerk of
the company for an inspection of
its books, which were in the
clerk's charge. The clerk said he
would refer tue demand to a cer-
tain committee. The stockholder
attended the committee and there
Vou I

10
repeated his request, and the
chairman said they would take
time to consider it. Ten daj-s
afterwards he applied again to the
clerk, who refused the inspection.
It was held, that there had not
been a sufficient refusal by the
committee to warrant a man-
damus. Coquard v. National, etc.
Co., 171 111. 480.
88
People V. Lake Shore & M. S.
R. Co. (1877), 11 Hun, 1; People
V. Northern Pacific R. Co. (1884),
50 N. Y. Super. Ct. 456.
80
Regina v. Wiltshire & B.
Canal Nav. Co. (1874), 29 L. T.
922.
00
People V. Throop, 12 Wend.
183.
01
People V. Throop, 12 Wend.
183. See also 23 Am. L. Reg. N.
S. 388.
02
Phcenix Iron Co. v. Common-
wealth, 113 Pa. St. 563; Cockburn
V. Union Bank, 13 La. Ann. 289.
03
People V. Throop, 12 Wend.
(N. Y.) 183; Foster v. White, 86
Ala. 467.
14G
CORPORATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
IIG.
voking mandainus.^* A non-resident stockholder may have a
writ of mandamus to enforce his right to inspect the books of
a foreign corporation, if they are in custody of an agent with-
in the State.'*^ Where the books of a domestic corporation are
kept without the State, mandamus will lie at the instance of
any stockholder to compel the corporation to bring the books
into the State for his inspection."*' Where, by statute, ade-
quate remedy by injunction is provided, mandamus will not lie
to compel allowance of inspection of the corporate books."^

ii6. Production of corporate books.The law as to the

production of corporate books as evidence does not appear to
be well settled. It has been said, however, in a case to which
the corporation was not a party, that "no authority is found
in any of the federal courts denying the right to compel cor-
porations to produce evidence which may be necessary and
vital to the rights of the litigants. On principle, it is impos-
sible to suggest any reason why a corporation should be privi-
leged to withhold evidence which an individual would be re-
quired to produce. It may be inconvenient and sometimes
embarrassing to the managers of a corporation to require its
books and papers to be taken from its office and exhibited to
third persons, but it is also inconvenient and often onerous ^to
individuals to require them to do the same thing. Considera-
tions of inconvenience must give way to the paramount right
of litigants to resort to evidence which may be in the power of
v/itnesses to produce, and without which grave interests might
be jeopardized and the administration of justice thwarted."
"^
And a motion by a depositor for an order compelling a de-
fendant bank to permit an inspection of its books, was allowed,
where it was made to appear that the plaintiff could not obtain
the information sought otherwise than by inspection."" But
9-i
People V. Nassau Ferry Co., Continental Ry. & Trust Co., 15
86 Hun (N. Y.), 128. Fed. Rep. 716.
95
Swift V. Richardson, 7 Houst.
99
Justice v. Bank, 83 N. C. 8.
(Del.) 388, 40 Am. St. Rep. 127. So also it has been held under
96
Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co., the Companies Clauses Consolida-
40 N. J. Eq. 392; Mitchell v. Rub- tion Act, 1845, that a party who
ber, etc. Co. (N. J.), 24 Atl. 407. had recovered judgment against
97
Cincinnati, etc. Co. v. Hoff- a corporation was not precluded
meister, 62 Ohio St. 189, 78 Am. from issuing execution against
St. Rep. 707; Ranger v. Cham- the shareholders who had not paid
pion, etc. Co., 51 Fed. 61 and 52 for their shares, although lands
Fed. 609. of the company have been de-
08
Wallace, J., in Wertheim v. livered in elegit, if the proceeds

117.] CORPORATE NAME, SKAL, ETC.

1-17
usuall}'- a corporation cannot be compelled to produce its books
when it is not a party to the suit.^ The New York Code of
Procedure, however, provides that "the production upon a
trial, of a book, or paper, belonging- to, or under the control of a
corporation which a party to the suit, may be compelled, in like
manner, as if it was in the hands or under the control of a
natural person. For that purpose a snhpana duces tecum, or
an order made as prescribed in the code, as the case requires,
must be directed to the president or other head of the corpo-
ration, or to the officer thereof in whose custody the book or
paper is."
-
But this does not authorize an order in the nature
of. a subpoena duces tecum to the directors of a defendant cor-
poration. They are not "parties." ' A clerk of a bank can-
not be compelled to produce the books of the bank, because he
is a mere servant of the corporation and the books are not in
his possession or under his control.* And a court refused to
grant an attachment against a secretary and solicitor of a rail-
way company, on the ground that he was nothing more than
the servant of the directors, and as such had no authority to
produce the books.^ The books of the corporation may be ad-
mitted in evidence of illegal conversion of corporate funds by
directors.^

117. Production of books of foreign corporations.The

provision of the New York code in respect to the production
of its corporate records in suits to which the corporation is a
of the lands be insufBcient to sat- corporation over which they have
isfy the debt. And that, there- no absolute control." And, "Even
fore, a mandamus should issue in a case of an action, in which a
commanding the company to give corporation is a party, the produc-
the creditor inspection of the tion of its books cannot be en-
register of shareholders. Queen forced by suhpcena duces tecum
V. Derbyshire, etc. Ry. Co., 3 El. served on its officers, that can only
& Bl. 784.
be affected by way of discovery
1
La Farge v. La Farge Ins. Co., under the provisions of the re-
14 How. Pr. 26; Morgan v. Mor- vised statutes." Morgan v. Mor-
gan, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 291; Bank gan, 16 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 291.
of Utica V. Hilliard, 5 Cow. 419. 2 N. Y. Code Civ. Proc.

868.
tor, it is said: "Where a cor- 3 Boorman v. Atlantic, etc. Ry.
poration is not a party to the Co., 17 Hun, 555.
action, no power of enforcing an 4 Bank of Utica v. Hilliard, 5
examination or production of its Cow. 133.
books and papers is afforded on a
s
Crowther v. Appleby, L. R. 9,
trial betv/een other parties. Nor C. P. 27.
can its agenis or officers, in their
<;
Saranac, etc. R. R. v. Arnold.
Individual
capacities, be com- 167 N. Y. 368 (1901).
pelled to produce the books of the
148
CORPOKATE NAME, SEAL, ETC.
[
110.
party, is held to apply to foreign corporations keeping their
books
within that State ;
^
although, if the books are out of
the State, officers in the State cannot be required under this
provision to produce them. In any case an order for inspec-
tion before a referee, of books of a corporation in a distant
State, should merely direct a delivery of sworn copies within
a reasonable time. The New Jersey statute giving the courts
of that State authority to require a foreign corporation to bring
its books into the State, does not give the courts authority
to require a foreign corporation to bring in all its papers and
memoranda.^"
fin re Sykes, 10 Ben. 162, con-
struing N. Y. Code Civ. Proc.

868.
8
United States v. Tilden, 18
Alb. L. J. 416.
9
Ervin v. Oregon Ry. & Nav.
Co., 22 Hun, 566; Bash v. Steele, 3
Wash. 381; Bank of U. S. v. Wil-
son, 3 Cr. C. C. 213; Tuttle v.
Mechanics' Bank, 6 Whart. 216;
Humphrey v. Coleman, 1 Blackf,
199; Rose v. King, 5 S. & R. 241;
Arrott V. Pratt, 2 Whart. 566; Gil-
pin V. Howell, 5 Pa. St. 41; Willis
V. Bayley, 19 Johns. 268.
10
Huylar v. Cragin Cattle Co.
(1887), 42 N. J. Eq. 139; Tide
infra, 1356; Foreign Corpora-
tions.
CHAPTER VII.
DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE
INCORPORATION.
DE FACTO COKPOUATIONS.

118. Non-compliance with stat-

utory conditions.
119. Conditions precedent and
subsequent. Effect of
non-compliance distin-
.
guished.
120. Substantial compliance
only is required with
conditions subsequent.
121. Effect of non-compliance
with merely directory
provisions.
122. Where amount of capital
stock is fixed and not
subscribed or paid in.
122a. Who may question regular-
ity of incorporation.
122&, Defective incorporation.
Validity of curative
statutes.
123. De facto corporations.
124. Regularity of incorpora-
tion not to be collater-
ally attacked. The State
only can attack.
125. Essentials of de facto cor-
porate existence.
125a. Deeds of conveyance of
land,executed before
incorporation. Devise or
bequest to corporation,
to be thereafter created.
Conveyances to de facto
corporations.
125b. Performance of corporate
acts raises presumption
of legal corporate exis-
tence.
References
:
Conditions precedent and subsequent. Dissolution. Sections
1307, 1308, 329, 635a, 646.
Estoppel to deny corporate existence. Section 1006.
As defenses to creditors' suits. Section 625a.
Partnership liability for defective incorporations. Chapter 8.
Corporate existence. Sections 77-79.
Forfeiture. Sections 1297. 1303.
Dissolution. Sections 1307. 1308.

ii8. Non-compliance with statutory conditions.In form-

ing a corporation under a general enabling act, it is necessary
that all of the mandatory provisions of the statute should be
substantially followed.^ But conditions subsequent, require-
1 Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162;
Atty.-Gen. v. Hanchett, 42 - Mich.
436; Doyle v. Mizner, 42 Mich.
332; Rogers v. Danby Universalist
Society, 19 Vt. 187.
Cf.
Unity Ins.
Co. V. Cram, 43 N. H. 636. If this
be done, although not in the
specified order, the corporation is
a legal one. Covington Plank
Road v. Moore, 3 Ind. 510; Eak-
right V. Logansport R. Co., 13 Ind.
404; Holmes v. Gilliland, 41 Barb.
150 DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPORATION, ETC.
[
119.
ments to be performed, after incorporation, if not complied
with, do not affect the rightful existence of the corporation or
invalidate the contract of membership.- Whether the grantees
may carry on business upon simple acceptance of the charter
or not, until performance of certain conditions precedent, de-
pends upon the terms of the grant.^
119.
Conditions precedent and subsequent. Effect of non-
compliance distinguished.The effect upon the organization
of a corporation of non-compliance with the statutory require-
ments, where they are prerequisites, or are intended to be con-
ditions precedent, differs greatly from where the requirements
are intended to be conditions subsequent. "There is a broad
and obvious distinction between such acts as are declared to
be necessary steps in the process of incorporation, and such
as are required of the individuals seeking to become incor-
porated, but which are not made prerequisites to the assump-
tion of corporate powers. In respect to the former, any mate-
rial omission will be fatal to the existence of the corporation,
and may be taken advantage of, collaterally, in any form in
which the fact of incorporation can properly be called in ques-
568; Boston Acid Manuf. Co. v.
Moring, 15 Gray, 211; Newcomb v.
Reed, 12 Allen, 362; Walwortli v.
Brackett, 93 Mass. 98. Under a
statute providing that the pur-
pose of the association should be
"distinctly and definitely speci-
fied," a specification that the pur-
pose of the association was the
manufacturing and selling of
daguerreotype mattings and pre-
servers, and all of the goods, wares,
merchandise, and articles, made of
bra.ss, silver, gold, iron, or other
metals, or any compounds thereof,
was considered sufficient. Bird v.
Daggett, 97 Mass. 494. In Cali-
fornia the certificate of incorpora-
tion of a savings bank, filed in
1860, omitted to state the amount
of capital stock, but it was held
that although the California Act
of April 14, 1853, did not seem to
authorize the incorporation of a
company without a capital stock
consisting of a specified number
of shares, yet under the amenda-
tory and supplemental Acts, there
could be no doubt as to the valid-
ity of th^ incorporation of the
bank. People v. Perrin (1882),
56 Cal. 345; People v. Montecito,
etc. Co., 97 Cal. 276; Stowe v.
Flagg, 72 111. 397; Bigelow v.
Gregory, 73 111. 197; Abbott v.
Omaha Co., 4 Neb. 416; State v.
Wood, 84 Mo. 378; Rogers v.
Danby, etc. Soc, 19 Vt. 187; Peo-
ple V. Stockton, etc. Co., 45 Cal.
306; Thornton v. Balcom, 85
Iowa, 198; Sweney v. Talcott, 85
Iowa, 103.
2 Charles River Bridge v. "War-
ren Bridge, 7 Pick. 344; Lyons v.
Orange R. Co., 32 Md. 18; Boise
City Canal Co. v. Pinkham, 1
Idaho, 790; In re N. Y. Elev. R.
Co., 7 N. Y. 337; Harrod v. Hamer,
32 Wis. 162; Holmes v. Gilliland,
41 Barb. (N. Y.) 568.
3 Fire Dept. v. Kip, 10 Wend.
267; Charles v. Hurd, 32 W. Va.
67; Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111. 397;
People V. Montecito, etc. Co., 97
Cal. 276.

120-122.] DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPOKATION, ETC. 151

tion. In respect to the latter, the corporation is responsible
only to the government, and in a direct proceeding, to forfeit
its charter. The right of the plaintiff to be considered a cor-
poration, and to exercise corporate powers, depends upon the
fact of the performance of the particular acts named in the
statute as essential to its corporate existence."
*

120. Substantial compliance, only, is required with condi-

tions subsequent.There can be no legal incorporation, or cor-
porate existence without substantial compliance with condi-
tions precedent. Such compliance initiates the corporate ex-
istence, but, to entitle it to legally continue, and the associa-
tion to act as a corporation, also requires that the conditions
subsequent shall be complied with. For its failure herein, the
State, by direct judicial proceedings, may oust the corporation
from exercise of corporate powers and privileges,^ but until
so ousted, by judgment of forfeiture, the corporate existence
remains unaffected." Where the charter of a railroad corpo-
ration provided that it should commence and complete con-
struction of the road within a time specified, the requirement
was held not to be a condition precedent to creation of the cor-
poration, but that its corporate existence began with the com-
pany's acceptance of the charter.'^

121. Effect of non-compliance with merely directory pro-

visions.Failure to comply with a merely directory provision
of a general incorporation law, does not invalidate the organi-
zation of the corporation.^ As, that notice of the first meeting
should be served on each corporator.''

122. Where amount of capital stock is fixed and not sub-

scribed or paid in.If the amount is fixed in the charter it
4
Mokelumne Hill & Min. Co. v. ^ St. Joseph & Iowa Ry. Co. v.
Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424, 73 Am. Shambaugh, 106 Mo. 557; Clieraw,
Dec. 658.
etc. Ry. Co. v. White, 14 S. C. 51;
5
State V. Nonconnah Turnpike Toledo & Ann Arbor Ry. Co. v.
Co., 1 Tenn. Cas. 511; Henderson, Johnson, 49 Mich. 148.
etc. Assn. v. People, 1G3 111. 196;
s
Newcomb v. Reed, 12 Allen,
State V. Brownstown, etc. Co., 120 94 Mass. 362; Eakright v. Logan-
Ind. 337; State v. Buffalo, etc. Co., sport, etc. Co., 13 Ind. 404; Wal-
131 N. Y. 140.
worth v. Brackett, 98 Mass. 98;
eHarrod V. Hamer, 32 Wis. 162; Braintree, etc. Co. v. Braintree,
Cheraw Chester, etc. Co. v. 146 Mass. 482, 16 N. E. 421).
White, 14 S. C. 51; Stokes V. Find- McClinch v. Sturgis. 72 Me.
lay, 4 McCrary, 205, Fed. Cas. 288; Tide infra,
232, 233, 1307,
13478; Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. 1308.
Orton, 32 Fed. 457, 6 Sawy. 157.
152 DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPORATION, ETC.
[
122(X.
must all be subscribed before any regular business of the cor-
poration can be carried on, but if not so fixed, the subscrip-
tion to the whole amount is not a condition precedent to the
legal existence of a corporation.'^'* The rule of the common
law required the capital stock to be fully subscribed before
corporate organization was completed.
^^
Corporators need
not be shareholders or subscribers for stock, in the absence of
express requirement of the statute.^^ Merely making and fil-
ing the articles do not create a corporation, where the stock
has not been subscribed or paid in, or the directors chosen.^*
But a substantial, rather than a literal, compliance with the
act is all that is required. Thus the provision that one-half
the capital stock of a corporation should be "actually paid in
lawful money of the United States" is deemed to be substan-
tially complied with if the corporation has received proeprty,
the market value of which is equal to or greater than the par
value of that amount of the stock ; and, in general, a non-com-
pliance with provisions merel}'- directory in their nature, does
not impair the legality of the incorporation.^* Payment for
stock in a railroad company by an uncertified bank check is
not payment in cash under the New York statutes, requiring
ten per cent, of the capital stock to be paid in cash upon filing
articles of association. The requirement may be complied
with by filing amended articles, and they will operate as a
valid original certificate of incorporation.^^

122a. Who may question regularity of incorporation.

A
subscriber is estopped from questioning its regularity. A
member of a mutual insurance company, when sued for an
assessment, cannot set up as defense, failure of the articles of
incorporation to comply with requirements of the statute.^*
He is presumed to have had knowledge of the facts from the
10
Johnson v. Kessler, 76 Iowa, instate v. Wood (1886), 84 Mo.
411; Schenectady, etc. Ry. Co. v, 378, 13 Mo. App. 139; In re Shako-
Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102. pee, etc. Works v. Cole (1887), 37
11
Schloss V. Montgomery Tea Minn. 91; People v. Cheeseman,
Co., 87 Ala. 411, 13 Am. St. Rep. 7 Colo. 376; Walton v. Riley, 85
51. Ky. 413; State v. Foiilkes, 94 Ind.
12
Jw re British Provident, etc. 493; State v. Beck, 81 Ind. 500.
Assn., 5 Ch. Div. 306; Bristol
is
People v. Board of Commis-
Bkg., etc. Co. V. Jonesboro, etc. sioners, etc. 67 N. E. 1088 (N. Y.
Co. 101 Tenn. 545; Densmore Oil
1903); Vide infra, 348.
Co. V. Densmore, 64 Pa. St. 43.
ic
Boyd v. Redd, 120 N. C. 335
13
State V. Fidelity, etc. Co., 49 (1897).
Ohio St. 440, 16 L. R. A. 611.

1225.] DEFECTIVE AND IXCOMPLETE INCOEPOKATION, ETC. 153

time he l:)ccame stockholder.^^ A member of a building and
loan association indebted to it for money borrowed, cannot, as
defense against the loan, plead illegal organization of the cor-
poration. Its corporate existence cannot be questioned by the
maker of a note given to the corporation for goods purchased
of it.^^ Nor by the treasurer in defense to a suit upon his bond
to the corporation.^* The corporation itself is estopped to set
up irregularities in its incorporation, and to deny its own ex-
istence in order to avoid its contracts,-" or to defeat a fore-
closure of a mortgage given by it.-^ A lessee cannot in an
ejectment suit set
up
defective incorporation by his les?or.--
"Where there is a corporation de facto, with no want of leg-
islative power, to its due and legal existence ; where it is pro-
ceeding in the performance of corporate functions, and the
public are dealing with it on the supposition that it is what
it professes to be ; and the questions suggested are only
whether there has been exact regularity and strict compliance
with the provisions of the law relating to incorporation,it is
plainly a dictate alike of justice and of public policy, that in
controversies betAveen the de facto corporation and those who
have entered into contract relations with it, as corporators
or otherw'ise, such questions should not be suffered to be
raised."
-^

122b. Defective incorporation. Validity of curative stat-

utes.Such defects in the incorporation as the legislature has
17
Manship V. New, etc. Assn. 110 461 (1902); Gunnerson v. Illinois,
Fed. 845 (1991). etc. Bank, 65 N. E. 326 (111.
18
First, etc. Church v. Grand 1902) ; Phinizy v. Augusta, etc.
Rapids, etc. Co., 15 Colo. App. 46 R. R., 62 Fed. 678 (1894); Jones
(1900); Buckley v. Edwards, 1.31 v. Hale, 32 Oregon, 465 (1898);
Ind. 3 (1892) ; Exchange Bank v. Building & Loan Assn. v. Cham-
Capps, 32 Neb. 242 (1891); Colum- berlain, 4 S. D. 271 (1893); Wal-
bia Electric Co. v. Dixon, 46 Minn. lace v. Loomis, 97 U. S. 146
463 (1891) ; Haas v. Bank of Com- (1877).
merce, 41 Neb. 754 (1894); Bank
22
city of Greenville v. Green-
of Shasta v. Boyd, 99 Cal. 604 ville, etc. Co., 125 Ala. 625 (1900).
(1893).
2.^
Cooley, J. in Swartwout v.
19
Wood V. Friendship, etc., 106 INIichigan Air Line R. R., 24 Mich.
Ky. 424 (1900).
389 (1872);
American Alkali Co.
20
Liter v. Ozokerite, etc. Co., 7 v. Campbell, 113 Fed. Rep. 398;
Utah, 487 (1891); Huntington, Harris v. Gateway, etc. Co., 128
etc. Co. V. Schofield, 28 Ind. App. Ala. 652 (1901); Fish v. Smith,
95 (1901).
73 Conn. 377 (1900); Torras v.
2iMcTighe v. Macon, etc. Co., Raeburn, 10 Ga. 345 (1899); Tar
94 Ga. 306 (1894);
Gunderson v. River Nav. Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks
Illinois, etc. Bank, 100 111. App. (N. C), 520 (1825).
154 DEFECTIVE AND INCOMrLETE INCOKPORATIOX, ETC.
[
12o 12k
the power to waive it may cnrc by a curative act, if it docs not
operate to create a new corporation or to enlarge or extend
the franchises of the existing corporation, in the face of a con-
stitutional prohibition against creation of corporations, or
grant of special privilege by special statute. For example, the
legislature by a curative act may validate the organization of
a corporation which had not performed a condition precedent
to the corporate existence.-'* If the legislature in the first in-
stance had the power to create the corporation, it may by cura-
tive act validate its organization, otherwise not.^^

123. De facto corporations.An association of persons

assuming to act in a corporate capacity under color of author-
ity so to do, thereby becomes a corporation de facto. A corpo-
ration de facto exists wherever, under valid authority of legis-
lature, persons, in good fai'h, attempt to organize a de jure
corporation, and fail to comply substantially with the statu-
tory conditions precedent to incorporation, but nevertheless
proceed to exercise and claim corporate powers under such
organization.-" Mere irregularities in incorporation cannot be
shown collaterally, where there is no defect of power to incorpo-
rate. A de facto corporation, that by regularity of organization
might be one de jure, can sue and be sued.-^

124. Regularity of incorporation not to be collaterally at-

tacked. The State only can attack.Neither they themselves
nor persons dealing with them will be heard to deny collater-
ally their legal existence as a corporation, in any action grow-
ing out of their acts or contracts in that capacity. Their de jure
existence can be called in question only by proceedings in the
nature of quo zvarranto instituted by the State.
-^
"The corpo-
21
Central, etc. Assn. v. Ala- have contracted with the board of
bama, etc. Co., 70 Ala. 120; Foster education appointed by the confer-
V. Essex Bank, 16 Mass. 245, 8 ence, by accepting the plan of the
Am. Dec. 135; Syracuse, etc. Bank board for conducting the institu-
V. Davis, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 1S8. tion, cannot question the con-
25
Mitchell V. Deeds, 49 111. 416, stitutionality of the act incorpo-
95 Am. Dec. 621. rating the board. Catholic
26
j^ re Gibbs' Estate, 157 Pa. Church v. Tobyn (1885), 82 Mo.
St. 59, 22 L. R. A. 276, Wilgus Cas. 418; Booske v. Gulf Ice Co. (Fla.
27
Heaston v. Cincinnati R. R. 1889), 5 So. Rep. 247; Commercial
Co., 16 Ind. 275, 79 Am. Dec. 430. Bank v. Pfeiffer (1888), 108 N. Y.
2s
Bryan v. Board of Education 242; Jones v. Kokomo Building
(Ky. 1890), 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. Assn. (1882), 77 Ind. 340; Mann v.
389, where it was held that stock- Williams (1887), 143 Mass. 344;
holders in a college under the con- Dobson v. Simonton (1882), 86
trol of a church conference who N. C. 492; East Norway Lake, etc.

12-1.] DEFECTIVE AXD IXCOMl'LETE IXCOKl'ORATIOX, ETC. 155

rate existence of a dc facto corporation cannot be inquired into
collaterally. It is, as to all who contract with it, to be as-
sumed to be a corporation de jure; the leg^ality of whose ex-
istence may be inquired into by the State, but not by any-
body else. And this is as true where the corporation is formed
under a general law, as it is Vv'hcre the corporate existence is
claimed under a special charter."
-'-'
The reason is, if the rights
and franchises have been usurped, they are those of a sov-
ereign and he alone can interpose. "The rule is in the interest
of the public, and is essential to the safety of business trans-
actions with corporations."
^
A de facto corporation is valid,
as against every person but the State. It alone can challenge
the right of a de facto corporation to exercise corporate powers,
and such attack must be direct and under qtio warranto proceed-
ings.^^ Where individuals have been granted a charter upon a
condition precedent and are actually exercising corporate pow-
ers, it will be presumed as against all except the sovereign,
that the condition has been performed.-''^ Stockholders bv their
contract of subscription are estopped to question the regularity
Church V. Froislie (1SS7), 37
Minn. 447; St. Paul Land Co. v.
Dayton (Minn. 188S), 40 N. W.
Rep. 66; McDonnell v. Alabama
Gold Life Ins. Co. (1889), 85 Ala.
400; Thompson v. New York R.
Co., 3 Sandf. 625; Methodist Epis-
copal Church V. Pickett, 19 N. Y.
482; Elizabeth City Academy v.
Lindsay, 6 Ired. 476; Grand Gulf
Bank v. Archer, 8 Sm. & M. 151;
Duke V. Cahawba Nav. Co., 10 Ala.
82; Bank of Circleville v. Remick,
15 Ohio, 222: Jones v. Tennessee
Bank, 8 B. Mon. 122; Brouwer v.
Appleby, 1 Sandf. 158; McFarlane
V. Triton Ins. Co., 4 Denio, 392;
People V. Manhattan Co., 9 "Wend.
351; Bank of Toledo v. Interna-
tional Bank, 21 N. Y. 542; Holmes
V. Gilliland, 41 Barb. 568; Fay v.
Noble, 7 Cush. 188; Ward v. Brig-
ham, 127 Mass. 24; Salem Na-
tional Bank v. Almy, 117 Mass.
476. Cf.
Bigelow v. Gregory, 73
111. 197. But see Unity Ins. Co.
V. Crane, 43 N. H. 636, and Cook
County V. Chicago Industrial
School for Girls (1888), 125 111.
540, where it was held that in an
action against the county to com-
pel payment for the support of de-
pendent girls, the fact that plaint-
iff is a de facto corporation will
not estop defendant from showing
that it has no actual existence.
20
Stout V. Zulick (1887), 48 N.
J. L. 599, 1 Cum. Cas. 9S9.
30
Duggan v. Colorado Mortgage
& Inv. Co. (1888), 11 Colo. 113.
31
Atty.-Gen. v. Kanchett, 42
Mich. 436; Atty.-Gen. v. Lorman,
59 Mich. 157, 60 Am. Rep. 287;
State V. Critchett, 37 Minn. 13;
People V. Cheeseman, 7 Colo. 376;
State V. Central Ohio, etc., 29 Ohio
St. 399; People v. Chambers, 42
Cal. 201; People v. Montecito
Water Co., 97 Cal. 276, 33 Am. St.
Rep. 172, 1 Smith Cas. 74: People
V. Stockton, etc. Co., 45 Cal. 306,
13 Am. Rep. 178; People v. Sel-
fridge, 52 Cal. 331, 1 Keener's Cas.
90.
32
McGowan v. American
Pressed Tan Bark Co. (1887), 121
U. S. 575.
15G DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPORATION, ETC.
[
12i.
of the incorporationnor can corporate creditors hold the stock-
holders Hable for any such irregularity. Where the purpose for
which the corporation was organized is legal, and the company
has in good faith attempted to incorporate, no one but the state
can question the regularity of the incorporation. No one is per-
mitted to allege its dissolution or the forfeiture of its charter until
after decree of dissolution or forfeiture upon proceedings insti-
tuted by the State.-^^ While a de facto
corporation is estopped to
deny its existence as to those who deal with it,^'* this does not
preclude proof of the subsequent cessation of its corporate func-
tions.^^ The principle that the legality of corporate existence can-
not be questioned collaterally, but can be impeached only by the
State in direct proceedings for that purpose, applies as well to
companies organized under general laws as to those created by
special charter.^*^ When, under a general law for the formation
of corporations, the articles of association have been lodged
for record and the certificate of incorporation issued, a pre-
sumption arises that all the requirements of the enabling act
have been complied with,^^ and the certificate will be received
S3
Hickling v. Wilson, 104 111.
54 (1882) ; Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S.
673 (1876); Upton v. Hausbrough,
3 Biss. 417 (1873); Bigelow v.
Gregory, 73 111. 197 (1874); Mc-
Vicker v. Cone, 21 Oregon, 353
(1891); Independent Order v.
United Order, 94 Wis. 234 (1896);
Raegner v. Hubbard, 167 N. Y.
301 (1901); Leonardsville Bank
V. Willard, 25 N. Y. 574 (1862).
34
Com. Bank v. Pheifer, 108
N. Y. 242, 15 N. E. 311; Minne-
sota, etc. Co. V. Denslow, 46 Minn.
171; Columbia, etc. Co. v. Dixon,
46 Minn. 463; Oxford Iron Co. v.
Spradley, 46 Ala. 98; Smith v.
Burlington, etc. R. Co., 55 Mo.
526; Close v. Glenwood Cemetery,
107 U. S. 466; Curtis v. Tracy,
169 111. 233; Beal v. Bass, 86 Me.
325; Weiman v. Wilkinsburg,
etc. R. Co., 118 Pa. St. 192.
35
Spahr V. Farmers' Bank
(1882), 94 Pa. St. 429; Freeland
V. Pennsylvania Central Ins. Co.
(1882), 94 Pa. St. 504; Tar River
Navigation Co. v. Neal, 3 Hawks,
520; Tar River Navigation Co,, v.
Elizabeth City Academy, 6 Ired.
476; Rathbone v. Tioga Naviga-
tion Co., 2 Watts & S. 74.
36
Vide infra,
1298.
37
Stout V. Zulick (1887), 48 N.
J. 599. Cf. Granby Mining &
Smelting Co. v. Richards
(1888),
95 Mo. 106; Wood v. Wiley Con-
struction Co. (1888), 56 Conn. 87,
v/here It was held that in an ac-
tion against a joint-stock corpora-
tion on contracts entered into by
it, in the absence of evidence as
to the publication of its articles of
organization before commencing
business, as required by Conn.
Gen. Stat. p. 311, 5, it will be
assumed that there Is no legal
bar to its transaction of business
as a corporation. In Duggan v.
Colorado Mortgage & Investment
Co. (1888), 11 Colo. 113, the
plaintiff, in an action of replevin
against a sheriff, claimed the
property under a mortgage from

124.] DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCOUI'OKATION, ETC. 157

as evidence of incorporation in the courts of the State/'^ both
as against all persons dealing with the corporation,^" and as
against the corporators themselves/" "When a body of men
a de facto corporation. Defend-
ant offered evidence to sliow tlie
non-existence de jure of the cor-
poration by reason of a defective
certificate of incorporation, which
was lield inadmissible, the court
deciding that the mortgagee was
entitled to assume that the cor-
poration de facto rightfully pos--
sessed corporate powers, the cer-
tificate being colorable. See also
Tarpey v. Deseret Salt Co., 5
Utah, 494 (1S8S), 17 Pac. Rep.
631. Where incorporators sign
and acknowledge their charter
as "citizensi of G. County, State
of Kansas," and describe them-
selves in the body of the
'
charter as all of "Salt Springs, G.
County, Kansas," it will be pre-
sumed that they were citizens of
Kansas, and all else appearing
regular, that the corporation was
duly incorporated. Sword v.
Wickersham (1883), 29 Kan. 746.
38
Fresno Canal & Irrigation Co.
V. Warner (1887), 72 Cal. 379.
But when it appeared that a com-
pany was formed by the consolid-
ation of a Michigan and an Ohio
company, and that the Ohio com-
pany was organized under a vol-
untary agreement which would
not satisfy the requirements of
the law of Michigan, and it was
not shown that that agreement
was sufficient to authorize its in-
corporation in Ohio, the Michigan
courts refused to assume that it
was legally incorporated. Brown
V. Dibble (Mich.), 32 N. W. Rep.
656.
39
Fresno Canal & Irrigation
Co. V. Warner (1887), 72 Cal. 379,
where it was held that when one
has contracted with an alleged
corporation, and is sued for fail-
ure to perform his contract, he
cannot be heard to say that the
corporation had no existence, and
for that reason no contract was
made. Stout v. Zulick (1887), 48
N. J. 599, holding that in the ab-
sence of a statutory provision
making shareholders liable in
case of failure to comply with the
requirements of the charter,
or with the requirements of
the act under which the com-
pany is incorporated, persons
who have contracted with a dc
facto corporation cannot deny its
corporate existence, in order to
charge its shareholders individ-
ually as partners. Under the
Missouri Act of Feb. 20, 1865,
providing that, where a special
company is created and organized,
a certificate in writing shall be
filed with the circuit clerk in the
county where the business is car-
ried on, and a duplicate filed with
the Secretary of State, the failure
to file such certificate with the
circuit clerk is not fatal to the
existence of the corporation, but
is a mere omission which cannot
be taken advantage of collater-
ally. Granby Mining & Smelt-
ing Co. v. Richards (1888), 95
Mo. 106.
io
In Aultman v. Waddle
(1888), 40 Kan. 195, it was held
that persons who organize them-
selves as a corporation, transact
business, and hold themselves out
to the world as such, cannot,
when proceeded against by cred-
itors, set up as a defense that the
preliminary steps of the organiza-
tion were irregular, thereby to
evade their liability as stockhold-
ers. So in McDonnell v. Ala-
bama Gold Life Ins. Co. (1889),
85 Ala. 401, it was held that stock-
holders and organizers of a life
insurance company are estopped,
as against policy-holders who are
158 DEFECTIVE AND INCOMrLETE INCORPORATION, ETC.
[
125.
are acting as a corporation under color of apparent organiza-
tion in pursuance of some charter or enabling act their author-
ity to act as a corporation cannot be questioned collaterally."
"
Color of apparent organization under some charter or enabling
act, without full compliance or substantial compliance, will
make a corporation de facto. A substantial compliance will
make a corporation de jure. User in pursuance of attempt to
organize a corporation under a charter or statute will consti-
tute a de facto corporation, AVhere persons filed articles of
incorporation, though not stating the place where the busi-
ness was to be carried on ; that was such foundation as with the
user shown, constituted a de facto
corporation.'*-

125. Essentials of de facto corporate existence.An asso-

ciation of persons cannot exist as a corporation de facto,
un-
less they were capable of becoming a corporation de jure,'^^
and under a valid existing law authorizing incorporation, and
under v\'hich there might have been a legal incorporation.**
And the statute must have been authorized by the Constitu-
tion,*^ and there must have been made, in good faith,
*^
at-
tempt to compl}'- with the requirements of such law, and sub-
sequent user of the rights and powers conferred by that law.*^
suing to enforce the individual Soc. Perun v. Cleveland, 43 Ohio
liability of the stockholders for St. 481.
the debts of the company, from
^^
Brandestein v. Hoke, 101 Cal.
setting up the illegality or irregu- 131; Evenson v. Ellingson (1887),
larity of the corporate organiza- 67 Wis. 634; Thompson Corp.
tion. 505; Winget v. Assn., 128 111. 67,
41
Taylor on Pr. Corporations, 21 N. E. 12; Coxe v. State, 144 N.
p. 145. Y. 396, 39 N. E. 400; People v.
42
Finnegan v. Norenberg, 52 iiamill, 134 111. 66; Georgia, etc.
Minn, 239 (1893), 53 N. W. 1150; Co. v. Jilercantile, etc. Co., 94 Ga.
Tide infra, 1005, Estoppel, etc. 306, 47 Am. St. Rep. 153.
43
Dobson V. Simonton, 86 N. C.
4g
Fmnegan v, Norenberg, 52
492, Minn. 239, 30 Am. St. Rep. 552, 1
44
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 Smith Cas. 87, 2 Keener's Cas.
U. S. 426; Stout V. Zulick (1887), 1949; Montgomery v. Forbes, 148
48 N. J. Law, 599, 1 Cum. Cas. Mass. 249, 1 Cum. Cas. 69, 1 Smith
989; McTighe v. Macon, etc. Co., Cas. 94, 2 Keener's Cas. 1945; Al-
94 Ga. 306, 32 L. R. A. 208; len v. Long, 80 Tex. 261, 26 Am.
Guthrie v. Oklahoma, 1 Okla. 188, St. Rep. 735.
21 L. R. A. 841; Jones v. Aspen,
47
Martin v. Deetz, 102 Cal. 55,
etc. Co., 21 Colo. 263, 29 L. R. A, 41 Am. St. Rep. 151; Stout v.
143; Am. etc. Co. v. Minnesota, Zulick (1887), 48 N. J. Law, 599,
etc. Co., 157 111. 641; Eaton v, 1 Cum. Cas. 989; Haas v. Bank of
Wa^lker, 76 Mich. 579; Heaston v. Commerce, 41 Neb. 754; Snider
Cincinnati, etc. Co., 16 Ind. 275; Sons' Co. v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224, 11
L. R. A. 515, 24 Am. St. Rep. 887;

125.] DEFECTIVE AND IXCOMPLETE INCOKPORATION, ETC. 159

A distinction is drawn between the cases of a dc facto corpo-
ration irreg-ularly formed under a valid law, and one whose
want of corporate existence arises from the fact that the stat-
ute under which it claims to be incorporated is void. In the
latter case there is held to be no colorable authority, and not
even a de facto corporate existence.*^ Thus a corporation or-
ganized under a void lav/ cannot enforce a mortg-age made
to it. But if not organized for an unlawful purpose, a receiver
for it can demand in equity an accounting for the debt pur-
porting to be secured thereby.^^ "The test of a de facto cor-
poration is this: Was there a law under which there might
have been a de jure corporation of the kind, character and class
to which the organization in question apparently belongs
?""
If there was such a law, a company which has, in good faith,
attempted to organize under it, and exercise corporate powers
under it, is a de facto corporation, and whether its existence
is de jure is only for the State to question.^^ Its existence may
be proved by parol without producing its books.^^ The essen-
tials of corporations de facto are three, namely : a general law
under which such as it purports to be might lawfully organize
;
bona ade attempt thereunder to organize; and actual user of
the corporate franchise.
^^

125a. Deeds of conveyance of land executed before incor-

poration. Devise or bequest to corporation to be thereafter
created. Conveyances to de facto corporations.The grantor
of land to a de facto corporation cannot avoid his grant on the
ground of defect in organization of the grantee corporation.
It is valid as against all parties except the State. But the
delivery of a deed passes no title to the corporation where,
though its articles of incorporation have been filed and ac-
cepted by the State officers, no other steps whatever have
Williamson v. Kokomo, etc. Assn., composed of two churches in that
8i> Ind. 389; Fredenberg v. Lyon State, are without authority.
Lake, etc., 37 Mich. 476.
4"
Burton v. Schildebach
48Evenson v. Ellingson (1887), (1882), 45 Mich. 504.
67 Wis. 634, deciding that as the
50
Toledo, etc. R. R. v. Conti-
laws of Wisconsin authorizing nental Trust Co., 95 Fed. Rep. 497
churches to organize as corpora- (1899).
tions make no provision for the
bi
Independent Order v. United
organization of two churches into Order, 94 Wis. 234 (1896).
one corporation, a body of persons
52
Johnson v. O'Kerstrom, 70
assuming to act as the board of Minn. 303 (1897).
trustees of a corporation de facto,
53
stanwood v. Sterling Metal
Co.. 107 111. App. 569.
100 DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPORATION, ETC.
[
125J.
been taken to organize, no meetings held, no election of offi-
cers, no issue of stock or adoption of by-laws.'^'* Where the
filing of articles with the secretary of state and the payment
of specified fee is a condition precedent to incorporation a
transfer of property made before such filing and payment con-
veys no title as against the creditors of the transferer." A
deed of conveyance to persons named as incorporators passes
no title to the subsequently incorporated company.^^ Deed to
an unincorporated company to be thereafter incorporated
where it is dated before, but delivered after incorporation,
passes the title.'^'^ A devise or bequest to a corporation to be
thereafter created is valid.^^ A deed of conveyance by or to a
de facto
corporation cannot be questioned by any of the parties
thereto on the ground of defective incorporation or power to
make the deed ; only the State can question its validity.^

125b. Performance of corporate acts raises presumption

of legal corporate existence.Generally "it may be safely re-
lied on as a sound proposition, that, when an association of
persons have for a long time acted as a private corporation,
have been uniformly recognized as such, and rights have been
acquired tmder them as a corporation, the law will countenance
every presumption in favor of their legal corporate existence,
at least, unless against the sovereign."

The execution of
a note and deed to a corporation is prima facie proof of the
existence of the corporation, by way of estoppel to deny it.*'^
Where it appears that plaintiff was recognized in the com-
54
Wall V. Mines, 130 Cal. 27 Doyle v. San Diego, etc. Co., 46
(1900). Fed. 709 (1901); Long v. Georgia,
55
Jones V. Aspen, etc. Co., 21 etc. Ry., 91 Ala. 519 (1891); Rein-
Colo. 263 (1895). hard v. Virginia, etc. Co., 107 Mo.
58McCandless v. Inland, etc. 616 (1891); Crenshaw v. Ullman,
Co., 112 Ga. 968 (1900). 113 Mo. 633 (1893); San Diego,
57
San Diego, etc. Co. v. Frame, etc. Co. v. Frame, 70 Pac. 295
70 Pac. 295 (Cal. 1902); White Cal. 1902); Vide infra, 370,
Oak V. Murray, 145 Mo. 622 829; Devise.
(1898).
eoAngell & Ames on Corpora-
58
Webster v. Wiggin, 19 R. I. tions (11th ed.),
70, citing
73 (1895); People v. Simonson, Hagerstown Turnpike v. Creeger,
126 N. Y. 299 (1891); Tilden v. 5 Harris & J. 122; Shrewsbury v.
Green, 130 N. Y. 29 (1891); Dam- Hart, 1 Car. & P. 113; Dilling-
mert v. Osborn, 140 N. Y. 30 ham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 547; Stock-
(1893).
bridge v. West Stockbridge, 12
59
Los Angeles, etc. v. Spires, Mass. 400; Bow v. Allenstown, 34
126 Cal. 541 (1899); West Miss- N. H. 351.
ouri, etc. Co. v. Kansas City, etc.
ei
Brown v. Scottish Americau
Ry., 161 Mo. 595 (1901);
Morri- Mortgage Co., 110 HI. 235.
son V. Clark, 24 Mont. 515 (1900)
;

1256.] DEFECTIVE AND INCOMPLETE INCORPORATION, ETC. ICl

munity as a corporation, its records show that it was acting
as such, and in all its dcahngs was so styled; that it had held
corporate meetings, and pursued corporate forms of action,
sufficient is shown to bring it within a statute which declares
that the due incorporation of any company claiming in good
faith to be a corporation, and doing business as such, shall
not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to which
such de facto
corporation may be a party.^ But if the acts of
a company or association, however long its standing, are such
only as might be performed by an unincorporated company,
corporate existence will not be presumed therefrom."^ Thus
the fact that the business of a company is conducted by a presi-
dent and secretary raises no presumption of incorporation."*
62
Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Crane 320; Ernst v. Battle, 1 Johns. Cas.
(1889), 80 Cal. 181, construing 319.
Cal. Civ. Code, 358.
64
Clark v. Jones, 87 Ala. 474,
63
Greene v. Dennis, 6 Conn.
Vol. I

11
CHAPTER
VIII.
PARTNERSHIP
LIABILITY.
fKOM DEFECTIVE
OR ILLEGAL
IKCOKPORATIO^T.
126. Partnership
and corpora-
tion distinguished.
127. In cases of defective in-
corporation under gen-
eral laws.
128. Liability of members from
acts prior to incorpora-
tion.
129. Liability of promoters as
partners intet- se on
failure to incorporate.
130. Liability of promoters as
partners as to third
persons.
131. Liability from illegal and
irregular incorporation.
131o. Liability from fraud or
deceit.
132. Liability from migration
of corporation of an-
other State.
133. Liability from continu-
ance of business after
dissolution.

134. Liability
from
purchase
of
corporate
property
and
franchises.
135.
Reorganization
of a part-
nership
as a corpora-
tion.
136. Continuing
liability
of
the partners for the
debts of the firm.
137. Transfer of the partner-
ship property to the
corporation.
13S. Titles to land in common
upon incorporation.
139. Liability of the corpora-
tion for debts of the
partnership.
140. "Tramp" Corporations.
"Durnmy" corporations.
Incorporating in one
State to do business in
another.
References :
Power of corporation to enter into partnership. Sections 865, 866.
Unincorporated associations. Chapter 57, Section 1392.
Partnership liability. Chapter 20, Sections 598, 1381, 1384=
Promoters. Chapter 30, Sections 809, 817.
Defective and illegal incorporation. Chapter 7.

126. Partnership and corporation distinguished.Tlie

corporation has capacity of perpetual succession as an artificial
person distinct and apart from its members. Tliey are merged
into it as one body.^ A partnership is dissolved by the death of
a member, or if he transfers his interest to another who is ad-
mitted to the firm, the existence of the firm is affected ; in either
case, the old partnership is dissolved and a new one is formed.^
1 Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend.
(N. Y.) 9.
2 Whitman v. Porter, 107 Mass.
522; Hoadley v. Essex County,
etc., 105 Mass. 519; Heath v. Gos-
lin, 30 Mo. 310; Frost v. Walker,
60 Me. 4G8.

127.] PAKTNERSniP LIABILITY, ETC. 103

The inherent difference between a corporation and a joint-stock
company is "that the creation of the corporation merges in the
artificial body and drowns in it the individual rights and liability
of the member, while the organization of a joint-stock company
leaves the individual rights unimpaired and in full force."
^
Un-
incorporated associations are, as a rule, partnerships, or governed
by the rules of common law relating to ordinary partnership.*
As to formation.Both partnerships and private corporations
are conventional, so far as the members are concerned. The dif-
ference consists in this : the former are authorized by the gen-
eral law among natural persons exercising their natural powers
;
the latter, by a special authorit)% usually, if not necessarily,
emanating from the legislature and conferring extraordinary priv-
ileges.^
As to period
of
existence.The corporation is, or may continue
perpetually, but the partnership is dissolved by death or with-
drawal of a member.
As to personal liability.Each partner is individually liable for
all the debts of the partnership, whereas each stockholder is lia-
ble to creditors of the corporation, only for the unpaid par value
of the stock he holds.

127. In cases of defective incorporation under general

laws.The effect of irregularities in organization of a cor-
poration, as to the common law liability of the persons attempt-
ing to form it, is a question very diversely considered, in the
opinions of the courts. If such persons fail to comply with the
law, sufficiently to create a de facto
corporation, they generally
are held to be personally liable as partners, for the corporate
debts, due to third persons, but not liable, as partners inter se.^
If a corporation be illegally formed, its members or shareholders
are liable as partners for its acts and contracts ;
^
and directors,
3
Judge Finch, in People V. Cole- 112; Warren v. Brigham, 127
man, 133 N. Y. 279;
Andrews Mass. 24.
Bros.' Co. V. Youngstown Coke
6 Heald v. Owen, 79
Iowa, 23.
Co., 86 Fed. 585; "Warner v. Beers, Persons cannot be made to as-
23 Wend. (N. Y.) 103;
Liverpool sume the relation of partners as
Ins. Co. V.
Massachusetts,
10 Wall. between themselves, when their
(U. S.) 566.
purpose is that no partnership
4Thomas v.
Daldn, 22 Wend. shall exist. London Assur. Corp.
{N Y ) 9.
"^^ Drennen, 116 U. S. 461.
5
Thomas v.
Dakin.
22 Wend.
7 Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav. Bank
<N Y) 9;
Bushnell v.
Consol. (1882), 56 Iowa, 104, s. c. 41 Am.
etc' Co 138 111. 67,
1 Smith Cas. Rep. 85;
Coleman v. Coleman, 78
Ind. 344.
IC-i
partnp:rship
liability, etc.
[
127.
officers and agents acting and contracting in its name render them-
selves
personally liable.^ Where persons organize a corporation
for the transaction of any business, forbidden by the public policy
of the State, they are liable as partners, and those who deal with
them are not estopped." Some States have by statute imposed
liability as partners, upon persons who assume corporate powers,
without organizing in compliance with the law. Mr. Justice
Brewer said : "I think the true rule is that where persons know-
ingly and fraudulently assume a corporate existence or pretend
to have a corporate existence, they can be held liable as individ-
uals, but where they are actng n good faith, and suppose that they
are legally incorporated,that they are stockholders in a valid
corporation,and where the corporation assumed to transact
business for a series of years, and the assumed corporate exist-
ence is not challenged by the State, then they cannot be held lia-
ble, as individuals, as members of the corporation."
^
Mr. Cook,
in his work on Corporations, says : "The great weight of authority
has clearly established the rule that, where a supposed corpora-
tion is doing business as a de facto corporation, the stockholders
cannot be held liable as partners, although there have been irregu-
larities, omissions or mistakes in incorporating or organizing the
company. The corporation is a de facto corporation where thece
is a law authorizing such a corporation and where the company
has made an effort to organize under the law and is transacting
business in a corporate name. This rule applies to claims based
on tort the same as to those based on contract. 'Tt must be ad-
8 Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310,
required; and it was held that
which was an action brought upon the directors were individually
a promissory note, purporting to liable. Montgomery v. Forbes,
be executed by the directors of 148 Mass. 249, 1 Cum. Cas. 69, 1
the North Missouri Central Dis- Smith Cas. 94, 2 Keener's Cas.
trict Stock, Agricultural and Me- 1945; Walton v. Oliver, 49
chanical Association. The action Kan. 107, 33 Am. St. Rep.
was brought against the direct- 355; Fay v. Noble, 7 Cush.
ors upon the ground that the asso- (Mass.) 188, 1 Cum. Cas. 420;
ciation was not incorporated at Wechselberg v. Flour City Nat.
the time the note was given, and Bank, 24 U. S. App. 308, 64 Fed.
that the directors were therefore 90; Glenn v. Bergman, 20 Mo. App.
individually liable. It appeared 343; Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161
that the association at the time 111. 417.
the note was given was fully in-
s
Empire Mills v. Alston, etc.
corporated in every respect, ex- Co. (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 505, 12
cept that it had failed to file its L. R. A. 366, and notes,
articles of incorporation with the
lo
Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell,
Secretary of State, as the statute 22 Fed. 197.

127.]
PARTNERSUIP LIABILITY, ETC, 165
mitted that this conchision of the law is reasonable and just.
There is no reason why parties who have dealt with a corpora-
tion, as a corporation, should afterwards be allowed to claim more
than they originally bargained for, and to hold the stockholders
personally liable. Recent cases have so settled the law beyond
reasonable doubt."
^^
Where the attempted organization is not
even a de facto corporation the associates are liable as partners
or as agents. Where there is no law authorizing creation of a
corporation, or if the general incorporation law is unconstitu-
tional, any attempted organization under it, will be treated as a
partnership.^^ Certain irregularities or omissions \vith respect
to a merely directory provision of an enabling act, while they
might be sufficient to sustain an action by the State to declare a
forfeiture, are yet insufficient to sustain an action brought by cred-
itors to enforce the individual liability of members or stockholders
as partners. But where the attempt at incorporation is under a
general law, and there is a non-compliance with the enabling act
in a material respect, there is such want of incorporation that ex-
emption from individual liability is not secured.
^^
There is here-
in a broad and obvious distinction between such acts as are de-
clared to be necessary steps in the process of incorporation, and
such as are required of the individuals seeking to become incor-
porated, but which are not made prerequisite to the assumption of
corporate powers. In respect to the former, any material omis-
sion will be fatal to the existence of the corporation, and may be
11
Cook on Corporations, Vol. fendant cited Buffalo & A. R. Co.
1,
234. V. Gary, 26 N. Y. 77; Kurtz v.
12
Eaton V. United States, etc. Paola Town Co., 20 Kan. 403; and
Co., 76 Mich. 579, 6 L. R. A. 102. Pape v. Capital Bank, 20 Kan.
13
Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings 440; s. c. 27 Am. Rep. 183. But
Bank (1882), 56 Iowa, 104; s. c. the court distinguished these
41 Am. Rep. 85, 86. This was an cases on the ground that in them
action against one of the pro- the defendants had set up the
prietors of a savings bank to re- want of incorporation of the
cover money deposited therein. plaintiffs, thereby seeking to
The defense was that the bank escape liability, while "in the case
was a corporation, and that it was at bar the defendant sets up ex-
sufficient in order to establish the emption, averring that the at-
corporate existence of the bank tempt to become incorporated and
as against the plaintiff merely to the doing of business under a
show authority to create a corpo- claim of incorporation were
ration, a 'bona fide
attempt on the sufficient to create the exemp-
part of the corporators to become tion." Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav-
incorporated, and the doing of ings Bank (1882), 56 Iowa, 104;
business as a corporation; and in s. c. 41 Am. Rep. 85, 86.
support of this position the de-
1G6
PARTNERSHIP LIAIJIIJTY, ETC.
[
127.
taken advantage of collaterally in any form in which the fact of
incorporation can properly be called in question.^* A distinction
is also drawn between cases where a corporation is created by a
special charter, and there have been acts of user, and where in-
dividuals seek to form themselves into a corporation under a gen-
eral law. In the latter case it is only in pursuance of the pro-
visions of the enabling act that corporate existence can be ac-
quired. And there should seem to be a distinction between a
case where the plea of mil ticl corj^oration is set up, in a suit be-
tween a corporation and a stockholder or other individuals, to de-
feat an alleged liability, and the case of a suit against individuals
who claim exemption from individual liability on the ground of
having become a corporation under the provisions of a general
statute. In the latter case a stricter measure of compliance with
statutory provisions will be required than in the former.^^ A
corporation defectively organized can pass no title to property
held by it as its own ; the title is in the shareholders, and all must
join in the deed in order to render the conveyance complete.^"
A defective incorporation may, however, be cured by subsequent
legislative recognition of the organization as a body corporate.
Thus, a requirement for the formation of a private corporation
that an application be filed with the secretary of state and ac-
knowledged before a proper officer, may be waived by a subse-
quent statute recognizing the existence of a corporation organ-
ized without compliance with that requirement.^^ And neither
i4Molvelumne Hill Mining Co. Assn. v. Alabama, etc. Ins. Co.
V. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 424, 73 Am. (1884), 70 Ala. 120. Laws Minn.
Dec. 658.
1885, ch. 184,
11, authorizing
15
Bigelow V. Gregory, 73 111. the re-incorporation of "any exist-
197; Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings ing corporation, association, or
Bank (1882), 56 Iowa, 104, s. c. society, . . . incorporated un-
41 Am. Rep. 85, 87; Abbott v. der the laws" of that State, is
Omaha Smelting Co., 4 Neb. 416; held applicable to associations
Harris v. McGregor, 29 Cal. 125. whose attempted Incorporation
isHincks v. Converse (1886),
under prior statutes had been un-
37 La. Ann. 484; Kanawha Coal authorized and ineffectual; and a
Co. V. Kanawha, etc. Coal Co., 7 majority of the directors of suchv
Blatchf. 391; People v. Farnham, an association having performed
35 111. 562; Williams v. Union the acts prescribed in that statute.
Bank, 2 Humph. 339; Society for for the purpose of effecting a re-
Propogation of Gospel v. Pawlet, incorporation, and the association
4 Pet. 480; MacDougal v. Bellamy, having thereafter acted as a cor-
18 Ga. 412; People v. Perrin, 56 poration, it will be presumed,
Cal. 345.
upon proceedings of quo warranto
17
Smith V. Sheeley, 12 Wall. (U. on the part of the State to test
S.) 358; Central Agricultural, etc. the question of a corporate ex-

12S.] PARTNERSHIP LIAniLlTY, ETC. 167

the company itself/^ nor one who has dealt with it as a corpora-
tion, will be heard to deny the regularity of its organization.^"

128. Liability of members from acts prior to incorpora-

tion.Persons engaged in organizing a company become per-
sonally liable upon transactions entered into by them on its be-
half, unless their contracts be expressly conditioned upon the suc-
cessful formation and incorporation of the company and its rati-
fication of their acts.-" Persons assuming to act and contract as
a corporation without even de facto corporate existence, if the
business is legitimate, may be held by the contractee, individu-
ally liable as partners. They are no less partners as to third per-
sons, not estopped, because they had assumed to be a corpora-
tion.^^ This liability rests , upon the law "of agency, their posi-
tion being that of agents of an undisclosed principal.
^^
Accord-
ingly, persons dealing with them may, upon the incorporation of
the company and its ratification of the contracts made in its be-
half, elect to have their remedy either against the individuals with
whom the contract was made or against the company,^^ unless.
istence, that the action of the di-
rectors was authorized by the
other members of the association.
State V. Steele (1887), 37 Minn.
428. One who signs articles of
association which are intended to
be final, but which are in fact de-
fective, does not by his sigTiature
empower subscribers at a meeting
held under the articles, to bind
him by new articles made because
of the defect in the earlier ones.
Richmond Street R. Co. v. Reed
(1883), 83 Ind. 9. A church char-
ter will be approved only after it
is amended to conform to the
provisions of Pa. Act of April 26,
1855. In re Reformed Episcopal
Church (1882), 12 Phila. 516:7)1
re West Park Avenue, etc.
Church (1882), 12 Phila. 518. A
pastor having been appointed to
draw up a constitution, notified
his congregation from the pulpit
that it would be read on a certain
day. He did not give notice that
it would be acted on on that day.
It was duly read and at once
adopted, with only one dissenting
vote, and it was held that its
adoption was irregular, the notice
being defective. Ehrenfeldt's Ap-
peal (1884), 101 Pa. St. 186.
18
Independent Order of Mutual
Aid V. Paine (111. 1887), 14 N. E.
Rep. 42; Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S.
673; Snider Sons Co. v. Troy, 91
Ala. 224; Taylor on Corp. 148,
note 3.
loMcCord & N. Mercantile Co.
V. Glenn (Utah, 1889), 21 Pac.
Rep. 500.
-0
Landman v. Entwistle, 7 Ex.
632; Rennie v. Clarke, 5 Ex. 292;
Higgins V. Hopkins, 3 Ex. 163.
-1
Wechselberg v. Flour City
National Bank, 24 U. S. App. 308,
64 Fed. 90; Guckert v. Hacke, 159
Pa. St. 303; Smith v. Warden, 86
Mo. 382; Kaiser v. Lawrence Sav-
ings Bank, 56 Iowa, 104, 41 Am.
Rep. 85; Loverin v. McLaughlin,
161 111. 417; Slocum v. Head, 105
Wis. 431.
-2
Hurt V. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310;
Hopcroft V. Parker, 16 L. Times,
N. S. 561.
23
Scott V. Ebury, 36 L. .T. C. P.
161. In Kelner v. Baxter,
L. R. 2 C. P. 174, it ap-
1G8 PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY, ETC.
[
120, 130.
of course, plaintiffs had agreed to look to the company alone and
the latter has assumed the liability.^* Under such an agreement
the plaintiff may be left without redress by the insolvency of the
company.^" In the absence of such an agreement, even a charter
provision that the company alone shall be liable, is insufficient to
deprive the creditor of his remedy against the persons contract-
ing the liability.-" But a promoter may show that by the terms
under which he and the other members of a provisional commit-
tee consented to enter upon the work of organization, they were
to incur no personal liability and to have no power to bind one
another.^^ An employee of persons purporting to be members of
a corporation, upon recovery of a judgment against the corpora-
tion for breach of contract may enforce payment of his judgment
by those persons upon showing that no such corporation has ever
been formed.
^'^a-

129. Liability of promoters as partners inter se on failure

to incorporate.Although some courts have held that the
members of an association unincorporated de jure or de facto,
who assume to act as a corporation are liable as partners inter se,-^
the contrary is the prevailing opinion.-'' "Persons cannot be
made to assume the relation of partners, as between themselves,
when their purpose is that no partnership shall exist."
^"^

130. Liability of promoters as partners as to third per-

sons.It is held in some States that in the absence of statute
imposing individual liability upon the members of such an as-
peared that a company was evidence was not admissible to
projected for carrying on a prove that personal liability was
hotel, and the pi'omoters thereof not intended.
signing "on behalf of" the com-
-^
Whitwell v. Warner, 20 Vt.
pany, contracted with the plaint- 425.
iff for the purchase of certain
25
Landman v. Entwistle, 7 Ex.
goods. The goods were delivered 632.
to the representatives of the pro-
2g
Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Rawle,
posed company, and v/ere con- 359.
sumed In its business. The com-
27
Rennie v. Clarke, 5 Ex. 292.
pany became incorporated, and
27a
Schaub v. Coffin, 10 Detroit
ratified the agreement, but col- Leg. N. 827, 97 N. W. 968.
lapsed before the purchase-money
2s
Flagg v. Stowe, 85 111. 164;
was paid. It was decided that the Richardson v. Pitts, 71 Mo. 128.
promoters were personally liable
20
Ward v. Brigham, 127 Mass.
for the price of the goods, that 24; Bushnell v. Consolidated, etc.
without the consent of the plaint- Co., 138 111. 67.
iff no subsequent ratification by
so
Mr. Justice Harlan in Lon-
the company could relieve them don Assurance Corporation v.
of this liability, and that parol Drennen, 116 U. S. 461.

131.] PARTNEKSniP LIABILITV, ETC. 1^9

sociation, they arc not individually liable as partners,'^ but even
in those States the contrary is held to be the rule where one or
more individuals fraudulently assume to act as a corporation,^-
and Mr. Brewer of the United States Supreme Court says : "I
think the true rule is this : that where persons knowingly and
fraudulently assume a corporate existence, or pretend to have a
corporate existence, they can be held liable as individuals ; but
where they are acting in good faith, and suppose that they are
legally incorporated,that they are stockholders in a valid cor-
poration,and where the corporation assumes to transact busi-
ness for a series of years, and the assumed corporate existence is
not challenged by the State, then they cannot be held liable, as
individuals, as members of the corporation."
^^

131. Liability from illegal and irregular incorporation.

Exemption from personal liability being one of the chief char-

acteristics of corporations, distinguishing them from partner-
ships or unincorporated joint-stock companies,^* it follows that
where there has been no legal incorporation, the members are
individually liable as partners for all the debts of the organiza-
tion.^^ For obligors are bound not by the style which they give
31
Ward V. Brigliam, 127 Mass. to charge any one of them as a
24; Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Ore. corporator or as a partner, the
218, 29 Am. St. Rep. 596; Gart- same rule applies to each. If as
side Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 22 Fed. a corporator, he must be shown
197. to have been such when the con-
32
Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 tract sued upon was made. Ful-
Mass. 249. ler v. Rowe (1874), 57 N. Y. 23,
33
Gartside Coal Co. v. Maxwell, 26; Moss v. Oakley, 2 Hill, 265,
22 Fed. 197. 268. If as a partner, he must be
3-i
Smith V. Huckabee, 53 Ala. shown to have been such when
191, and Spense v. Iowa Valley the contract sued upon was made.
Construction Co., 36 Iowa, 407, Fuller v. Rowe (1874), 57 N. Y.
cited supra, 115; "Unlimited 23, 26; McGuire v. O'Halloran, 1
Company a Legal Anomaly," 23 Hill & D. 85, 86. In an action
Sol. J. & Rep. 273. against certain persons who al-
35
Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings lege that they are a corporation.
Bank (1882), 56 Iowa, 104; s. c. it is error to exclude the testi-
41 Am. Rep. 85. See dis- mony of plaintiff that he did not
cussion of this topic infra,

know defendants to be a corpora-
576. Parties assuming to act in tion, nor did he deal with them
a corporate capacity without a le- as such, but that he was informed
gal organization as a corporate by one of the defendants that they
body, are liable as partners to were a partnership, and in the
those with whom they contract; belief that they were so he dealt
Fuller V. Rowe (1874), 57 N. Y. with them. Eaton v. Walker
23, 26; Pettis v. Atkins (1871), (1889), 76 Mich; 579.
60 111. 454; but when it is sought
170
PARTNKRSIIir LTAini.TTY, ETC.
[
131.
themselves, but by the consequences which they incur by reason
of their acts.^ As to the common law liability of such persons,
Judge
Seymour D. Thompson, in his work on Corporations, re-
ferring to the conflict among the decisions, and to the fact that
in some States a liability as partners is imposed by statute, says
:
"Outside' of the question of the existence of such statutes, and
chiefly in jurisdictions where they do not exist, there is a class of
cases holding to the simple, just and easily applied doctrine that
where a number of coadventurers assume or attempt, under the
provisions of a general statute, to organize themselves into a cor-
poration, and fail to take the steps which the statute makes essen-
tial to their becoming incorporate, and assume to contract corpo-
rate debts without having taken such steps, they are liable for
such debts as partners."
^'^
The late tendency of courts is to-
ward holding that partnership liability does not attach, where the
parties acted in entire good faith in their attempt to comply with
the general enabling act, and carried on the corporation busi-
ness in the belief that its incorporation was valid.^^ In New
York a society formed for an object not authorized by any gen-
eral enabling act or special charter is held to be a partnership.^^
An ineffectual attempt at incorporation may result in the forma-
tion of a joint-stock company
.*
The rule that the regularity of
an incorporation is not to be questioned collaterally in suits be-
tween private parties but only in direct proceedings instituted in
behalf of the State,*^ does not apply where persons assuming to
act as a corporation under authority of a general law, organize for
a purpose prohibited or not authorized by the enabling act,'*- hr
seChaffe v. Ludeling (1875), 27
4i
Vide supra, 124.
La. Ann. 607. And see National
42
Glen v. Breard (1883), 35 La.
Bank V. Landon (1871), 45 N. Y. Ann. 875; Vredenburg v. Behan
410; Ridenour v. Mayo, 40 Ohio
(1881), 33 La. Ann. 627. "When
St. 9.
the entire business carried on by
37
Thompson Corporations,

persons in the name of a corpora-
2992. tion is such as the corporation is
3S
Bigelow V. Gregory, 73 111. prohibited by law from doing,
197; Coleman v. Coleman, 78 Ind. they cannot interpose the corpo-
344; Cook on Corporations, Vol. 1, rate privileges between them and
234; Whitney v. Wyman (1S79), the liabilities which the law im-
101 U. S. 392; Welch v. Importers' poses upon individuals in the
Bank (1890),
122 N. Y. 177; Doty transaction of similar business
v. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60 (1900). without the use of the corporate
30
Koehler v. Brown, 2 Daly, 78. name." Medill v. Collier (18GC),
40
In re Mendenhall, 9 Bankr. 16 Ohio St. 599, 613. But under
Reg. 497; Whipple v. Parker an act providing for the incor-
(1874), 29 Mich. 369, 380. poration of companies to con-

l-^l-] PAKTNERSHIP LIABILITY, ETC. 171

fail to comply with its requirements in any material point;*'
such, for example, as omissions or indefinite or incorrect state-
ments in regard to material matters required to be stated in the
articles of association,** or delay
,*'^
or entire failure with respect
struct and operate railways, a
company to construct alone may
be formed; for it is said not to be
essential to the idea of a railroad
company that it should both con-
struct and operate a railway.
First Nat. Bank of Davenport v.
Davies (1876), 43 Iowa, 424;
Langan v. Iowa & M. Construction
Co. (1878), 49 Iowa, 317.
43
Marshall v. Harris (1881),
55 Iowa, 182, where it was held
that stockholders in a corporation
which has failed to comply with
the requirements of the law neces-
sary to render their property ex-
empt from corporate debts are
primarily liable for such debts,
and may be sued without the
property of the corporation being
first exhausted. Contra, Gartside
Coal Co. V. Maxwell (1885), 22
Fed. Rep. 197, where it was said
that persons dealing with a corpo-
ration which is not legally organ-
ized can not, for this reason, pro-
ceed against the stockholders
who, in good faith, supposed
them.selves to be incorporated, the
State not having moved in the
matter. As to omissions held not
to be material see: McClinch v.
Sturgis (1881), 72 Me. 288, cited
sttpra,
118, 125, 127; Trow-
bridge V. Scudder (1853),
66
Mass. 83, where it was held
that delay in beginning the
principal business for which the
company was organized does
not render the members liable as
partners; Humphreys v. Mooney
(1881), 5 Colo. 282, where it was
held that the omission from the
certificate of incorpoi'ation of the
latter clause in
93 of Colorado
incorporation act, as to the as-
sessability of the stock of a min-
ing corporation, can not in the
absence of fraud, be regarded as
essential to the corporate exist-
ence in an action by one against
the individual members upon a
contract with the company; and
that no provision is made by
which individual liability attaches
to members of a corporation by
reason of any omission to organ-
ize in the manner prescribed by
that act; Stokes v. Findlay, 4
McCrary, C. C. 202, where a bank
was organized and commenced
business without paid-up capital,
without a sworn statement of its
paid-up capital to the State audi-
tor, and without a certificate from
the State auditor authorizing the
association to commence business,
all these things being required by
Iowa Code, 1576, it was held,
construing this section v\ath other
provisions of the statutes of Iowa,
that, notwithstanding these fail-
ures, there was an imperfect or-
ganization, and it was not the
case of no corporation, in which
the incorporators would be liable
to creditors as partners.
44
In Booth V. Wonderly (1873),
36 N. J. 250, where the misstate-
ment was as to the' principal place
of business, the court said: "The
doctrine that the organization
can not be inquired into collater-
ally, has no application as the
case stands, because the charter
does not fit this company, and
was not intended for it."
45
In Smith v. "Warden (1886),
86 Mo. 382, the defendants were
sued as partners, and claimed to
be a foreign corporation. It ap-
peared, however, that the require-
ment of the statute of the foreign
State as to filing the articles of
association had not been com-
plied with until after the accrual
ot plaintiffs right of action; and
it was held, that the suit was
rightly brought.
172
PARTNEKSniP
LIA];iLITV, ETC.
[
131.
to the requirements as to filing the articles of association/^ or
as to signing and publishing them/^ So, also, if the statute
under which incorporation is claimed be unconstitutional, the
stockholders are liable as partners,** But if the creditor has first
brought suit against the corporation, he is thereby estopped from
subsequently denying the legality of its existence and proceed-
ing against its members as partners.*'' Although the stockholders
are liable as partners through the invalidity of their attempted in-
corporation, an action for money had and received cannot be
maintained by one stockholder against others for money paid by
him for stock which he was induced to purchase by the alleged
fraud of one of them, when it appears that such stockholders were
equally bona fide holders with himself, and equally victims of the
fraud.^" It is said that one who becomes a member after the
irregular incorporation, having taken no part therein, is not to
be held liable as a partner.^^ Where the public policy of the State
forbids the formation of corporations for certain kinds of busi-
ness, they who incorporate for such business are liable as part-
es
Garnett v. Richardson
(1879), 35 Arlv. 144; Ferris v.
Thaw (18S0), 72 Mo. 449; FieUl
V. Coolvs (1861), 16 La. Ann. 153;
First Nat. Bank of Davenport v.
Davies (1876), 43 Iowa, 424; Cole-
man V. Coleman (1881), 78 Ind.
344; Abbott v. Omaha Smelting
Co. (1876), 4 Neb. 416.
47
Unity Insurance Co. v. Cram
(1862), 43 N. H. 636; Kaiser v.
Lawrence Savings Bank (1881),
56 Iowa, 104; disapproving
Humphrey v. Moouey, 1 Colo. 193.
In Eaton v. Walker (1889), 76
Mich. 579, it was held that a find-
ing that defendants were a corpo-
ation, and that plaintiff knew it,
and dealt v\'ith them as such, is
not sustained by evidence that
defendants published their alleged
incorporation in the public press,
and mailed to plaintiffs circulars
and letter heads showing such in-
corporation, where it is not
showed that he ever received
them.
48
Eaton V. Walker (1889), 76
Mich. 579, holding that when a
law, providing for the organiza-
tion of corporations, is held void
on account of its title not being
within the constitutional pro-
vision, an association under jts
provisions, each member sharing
in the profits and losses of the
business in proportion to the
money he has put into the capi-
tal stock, will not constitute the
parties thereto a corporation de
facto, and their carrying on busi-
ness in the corporate name is not
evidence of user which can be
considered in aid of their legal
existence; but they are liable as
partners for debts contracted by
them. Chenango Bridge Co. v.
Paige (1880), 83 N. Y. 178, 190;
Williams v. Bank of Michigan
(1831), 7 Wend. 540; State v.
Howard (1846) 1 Mich. 512.
40Pochelu V. Kemper (1859), 14
La Ann. 308; Cresswell v. Oberly
(1885), 17 Bradw. (111.) 281.
50
Perry v. Hala (1887),
143
Mass. 540.
r.i
Stafford Bank v. Palmer
(1880), 47 Conn. 443.
Cf.
Rich-
ardson V. Pitts (1879), 71 Mo. 128.

131.] PARTNERSHIP LIAHILITV, ETC. 1T3

ners and those who deal witli them in the assumed corporate
name are not estopped to hold them so liablc.'^^ A member of
a mercantile firm cannot bind the firm by his subscription to stock
in a milling corporation.'*^ Where two partners jointly subscribe
to stock independent of firm business, each is liable for one-half
the subscription.^* Corporate creditors may hold subscribers to
the capital stock liable as partners, by reason of non-compliance
with the statutes and for other irregularities in incorporation of a
de facto
corporation.^^ Where no effort has been made to in-
corporate, or where there has been a mere feigned compliance
with the laws of the State of which it is claimed a corporation is
a citizen, all are liable as partners.^" It is a de facto corporation
where such a corporation is authorized by law, and it has made
efforts, in good faith, to organize, and is doing business in a cor-
porate name. Where the de facto corporation is proceeding in
the performance of corporate functions, with no want of legis-
lative power to its corporate existence, the lack of exact regu-
larity and strict compliance with statutory requirements in its
organization, the subscribers cannot be held liable as partners.^^
Under the general rule, stockholders are not personally liable as
partners, because of informalities in the corporation.^^ Where
the general incorporation act is unconstitutional, all attempted cor-
porations organized under it are simply partnerships and the mem-
bers are liable as partners.^ One who acts as agent for a cor-
poration which does not exist, though acting in good faith, is,
nevertheless, liable as partner.'^" The charter affords no protec-
tion w^here the business for which the attempt to incorporate was
52
Empire Mills v. Alston, etc. arcl. 59 Fed. Rep. 746 (1894); In
Co. (Tex. App.), 15 S. W. 505, 12 re Browne, etc. Co., 106 La. 486
L. R. A. 366, notes. (1901); Queen, etc. Co. v. Craw-
53
Patty V. Hillsboro, etc. Co., ford, 127 Mo. 356 (1895); Forbes
4 Tex. Civ. App. 224 (1893). v. Whittemore, 62 Ark. 229
54
Morse v. Pacific Ry., 191 111. (1896).
356 (1901), 61 N. E. 1136.
57
American Alkali Co. v. Camp-
53McVicker v. Cone, 21 Ore. bell, 113 Fed. 398 (1902);
353 (1891); New York, etc. Bank Demarest v. Flack, 32 N. Y. St.
v. Crowell, 177 Pa. St. 313 (1896)
;
Rep. 675; Whitney v. Wyman, 101
In re Gibbs Estate, 157 Pa. St. 59 U. S. 392 (1879); Doty v. Patter-
(1893); Williams v. Hewitt, 47 son, 155 Ind. 60 (1900).
La. Ann. 1076 (1895); Bergeron
ss
Seaton v. Grimm, 110 Iowa,
V. Hobbs, 96 Wis. 641 (1897); 145(1899).
Berkson v. Anderson, 87 N. W.
so
Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich.
402 (Iowa). 579 (1889).
56
McLennan v. Hopkins, 2 Kan,
oo
Lagrone v. Timmermann, 46
App. 260 (1895); Owen v. Shep- S. C. 372 (1895).
174
PARTNEKSHIP LIABILITY, ETC.
[
131.
made, is illegal.''^ The stockholders personal liability for debts
of the corporation docs not exist at common law. It arises only
by force of express statute."^ A statute authorizing additional
assessment on paid-up stock is unconstitutional.^^ Stockholders
are not liable as partners because the full capital stock was never
subscribed.''* All are liable as partners where debts are- incurred,
and no capital stock is subscribed, and the incorporation is aban-
doned."^ Where an unincorporated association or partnership in-
corporates without knowledge of its creditors, and other persons
who continue to do business with it, in excusable ignorance of its
incorporation, the stockholders are liable to them as partners.""
The stockholders are not personally liable upon debts contracted
after due execution . and filing of the incorporation papers."''
Where the entire business, as carried on by the corporation, is
prohibited by law, the stockholders are liable as partners."^
Where a corporation is a mere "dummy" and "cloak for frauds,"
the courts will ignore its existence, and hold its stockholders lia-
ble as partners."^ A partnership or joint ownership of stock by
two or more persons may be shown by their acts.''^" Even though
a partnership becomes incorporated one who has dealt with it, and
believes he is still dealing with it, may hold the partners liable
for goods sold to it after its incorporation."^^

131a. Liability from fraud or deceit,

.When the conduct

of parties operates as a fraud or deceit upon third parties, what-
ever their private intention, the relation of partnership may be
said to exist between them with respect to such third persons.''^
Thus where promoters of a corporation had signed as parties of
61
Edwards v. Michigan, etc. 343 (1901); Vliet v. Simanton,
Co., 92 N. W. 491 (Mich. 1902). 63 N. J. L. 458 (1899); Reid v.
G2
United States v. Stanford, Kreling Sons' Co., 125 CaL 117
161 U. S. 412 (1896); Wells v. (1899).
Green Bay, etc. Co., 90 Wis. 442
ct
Cory v. Lee, 93 Ala. 46S
(1895); People v. Coleman, 133 (1901).
N. Y. 279 (1892); Gorder v. Con- csMedill v. Collier, 16 Ohio St.
nor, 56 Neb. 781 (1898). 599 (1866).
63
Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Moffitt,
C9
Le Page Co. v. Russia, etc.
58 Neb. 642 (1899), 45 L. R. A. Co., 51 Fed. 941 (1892).
647.
'^0
Beardsley v. Beardsley, 138
64Coalter v. B^rgamin, 99 Va. U. S. 262 (1891).
65 (1901).
71
Reid v. Kreling Sons Co.,
65
wechselberg v. Flour City 125 Cal. 117 (1899).
Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. 90 (1894);
72
Chandler v. Bacon, 30 Fed.
Walton V. Oliver, 49 Kan. 107 Rep. 538; Emery v. Parrott, 107
(1892), 33 Am. St. Rep. 335. Mass. 95; Story on Partnership,
66
Perkins v. Rouss, 78 Miss.

49.

131(Z] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITT, ETC. 175

the second part a secret agreement with the owners of certain
patents purchased in behalf of the projected corporation, and
acted in concert for their own common benefit, it was held that
whatever may have been their intention to the contrary they there-
by became liable as partners.''^ And they may incur liability as
partners by holding themselves out as such, or negligently or
fraudulently allowing themselves to be so represented by their
co-promotersJ* So, again, the individuals composing an incor-
porated company or society, may render themselves personally
liable to its creditors by their acts, defaults and representations,
such, for example, as representing the company to be solvent,
when they have knowledge of the contrary ;
'^
permitting their
assets to be wasted, as in uselessly contesting a well founded
claim ;
'^^
or using their corporate existence as a cloak for the
prosecution of an illegal business ;
^^
and in Illinois, by advertis-
ing the company as having a certain capital stock.'^^ Where, of
course, a corporate charter has been obtained merely as a cloak
for a concern which in its inception and prosecution is a fraud
and a swindle, the participants therein will not be thereby pro-
tected from personal responsibility for their illegal acts/^ But
false representations by the shareholders and officers as to the
solvency of a company, made by them in good faith,'"' and fraud-
ulent or ultra vires acts, on the part of the corporation itself, do
not render the members individually liable as partners to corpo-
rate creditors.^ Such a misleading statement wilfully made con-
73
Chandler V. Bacon (18S7), 30 Crease v. Babcock (1S46), 51
Fed. Rep. 538. luass. 525, 557. Contra Haslett v.
Ti
Collingwood v. Berkeley, 15 Wotherspoon (1847), Strob. Eq.
C. B. N. S. 145; Maddick v. Mar- (S. C.) 209, 229.
shall, 17 C. B. N. S. 829; Wood v. fOMcGrew v. City Produce Ex-
Argyll, 6 Man. & G. 928; Lake v. change (1887), 85 Tenn. 572.
Gf.
Argyll, 6 Q. B. 477; Beach on Searight v. Payne (1874), 2 Tenn.
Railways,
9; Taylor on Corpora- Ch. 175, 180.
tions,
77.
80
Searight v. Payne (1874), 2
75
Searight v. Payne (1874), 2 Tenn. Ch. 175, 179; Jackson v.
Tenn. Ch. 175. Tarquand, L. R. 4 H. L. 305.
Cf.
76
Bigelow V. Congregational Collins v. Evans, 5 Q. B. 820.
Society (1839), 11 Vt. 283.
si
Second National Bank v.
77McGrew v. City Produce Ex- Hall (1878), 35 Ohio St. 158;
change (1887), 85 Tenn. 572. Langan v. Iowa & M. C. Co.
78
111. Stat. ch. 32,
18. Not so, (1878), 49 Iowa, 317; Searight v.
however, at common law. Wake- Payne (1874), 2 Tenn. Ch. 175.
man v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27, 30; In Lafond v. Deems (ISSO), 81
First National Bank v. Almy N. Y. 507, it was claimed that a
(1875), 117 Mass. 476; Evans v. "tent" of the order of Reehabitcs
Coventry (1856), 25 L. J. Ch. 489; departed from the objects of its
176
PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY, ETC.
[132
stitutcs a ground of action for damagx'S only against the person
making them ;
^-
and it is a question between the State and the
corporation alone whether it shall be called to account for exceed-
ing the powers conferred upon it by its charter.^^

132. Liability from migration of corporation of another

State.Since a corporation can have no legal existence be-
yond the jurisdiction of the State creating it,^* the privilege of
transacting business in another State existing by comity alone,
a migration from the State of its origin may subject its members
to liability as partners. While its residence in one State creates
no insuperable objection to its powers of contracting through its
agents in another,^^ New Jersey has taken the stand that indi-
viduals desiring to carry on a manufacturing business within her
borders must organize as corporations under her laws, in order
to secure exemption from personal liability.^'^ New York, on the
other hand, has extended every encouragement to the immigra-
organization by accumulation of
a fund from rents of rooms, and
that as to tliat fund the members
were partners. It appeared that
the association originally was
obliged to hire more room than
was actually required, to obtain
the room v/hich they wanted for
their meetings, and that it fitted
up, furnished and sublet what was
not needed, and rented its own
room when not in use. The court
said, however, that while the
renting of rooms was not the
business of the association, it ex-
ercised a proper discretion under
the circumstances, having in view
merely the accommodation and
prosperity of the association.
s2Searight v. Payne (1874), 2
Tenn. Ch. 175, 179.
S3
Searight v. Payne (1874), 2
Tenn. Ch. 175, ISO.
84
Bank of Augusta v. Earle,
13 Pet. 519; Paul v. Virginia, 8
Wall. 168, holding that a corpora-
tion is not a citizen within the
meaning of the federal constitu-
tional guaranty of equal privi-
leges in each State to citizens of
others.
85
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13
Pet. 519, 521. "It is very true
that a corporation can have no
legal existence out of the bound-
aries of the sovereignty by which
it was created. . . . But al-
though it must live and have its
being in that State only, yet it
does not by any means folfow
that its existence there will not
be recognized in other places;
and its residence in one State cre-
ates no insuperable objection to
its power of contracting in an-
other." Bank of Augusta v.
Earle, 13 Pet. 521.
8G
"It cannot be recognized by
any court in New Jersey as a
legally constituted corporation,
nor be dealt with as such. If it
can be, what need is there of any
general or special law in our
State. Individuals desirous of
carrying on any manufacturing
business, may go into the city of
New York, organize under the
general laws of that State, erect
all their manufacturing establish-
ments here, and under their as-
sumed name, transact their busi-
ness, not only free from all per-
sonal responsibility, but under
cover of a corporation not amen-
able to our laAvs." Hill v. Beach
(1858), 12 N. J. Eq. 31.

132.] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY, ETC. 177

tion of foreign corporations. The recognition in that State of
the rights conceded in her courts to foreign corporations is con-
sidered neither injurious to her interests, repugnant to her poHcy,
nor opposed to the spirit of her legislation ; and the court of ap-
peals has declared it to be neither provident nor just to inaugurate
a rule which would unsettle the security of corporate property
and rights by excluding others from the enjoyment there of privi-
leges which have always been extended to citizens of the State
abroad.*'^ This has been the policy of other States as well.^^ But
certainly no rule of comity will allow one State to spawn corpora-
tions, and send them forth into other States to be nurtured, and
do business there, when the State creating them will not allow
them to do business within its own boundaries.^ Accordingly, a
company organized in Pennsylvania to do business anywhere ex-
cept in that State has been denied the privilege of corporate ex-
istence in the State of Kansas.^'' A corporation may be organ-
ized in one State and do all its business in another without be-
coming liable as partner. As, where citizens of New York take
out a charter in West Virginia, although all the company's busi-
ness is to be done in New York, they are not liable as partners.^^
But the corporation must act in good faith. Where, to enable a
New York corporation to do business in New Jersey without
making the statutory deposit required there of foreign corpo-
rations, citizens of New York incorporated in New Jersey a
"dummy" corporation falsely represented to be a bona -fide corpo-
ration, money paid upon its stock was recoverable as from part-
ners.^^ In the case of a Scotch company authorized to purchase
land, anyivhere excepting at home, no rule of comity will allow
87
Merrick v. Van Santvoonl
so
Land Grant Ry. & Trust Co.
(1866), 34 N. Y. 207. But see v. Coffey County, 6 Kan. 245.
Kruse v. Dusenbury (N. Y. Com.
9i
Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y.
P. 1884), 19 Week. Dig. 201, where 205 (1891); Lancaster v. Amster-
a New Jersey corporation having dam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576
no office in that State, was pro- (1894); Missouri Lead, etc. Co. v.
nounced to be a fraud upon the Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218 (1893);
laws of New Jersey, and ineffect- Oakdale Manuf. Co. v. Garst, l.i
ual to screen its organizers from R. L 484 (1894); Tilley v. Coy-
personal responsibility as part- kendall, 172 N. Y. 587 (1902);
ners for contracts made in New Wright v. Lee, 2 S. D. 596 (1892)
;
York; Vide, 24 L. R. A. 462. Stockton v. American, etc. Co., 55
ssDanforth v. Penny, 3 Mete. N. J. Eq. 352 (1897).
564; Second National Bank v. 02
Seeber v. People's, etc. Assn.,
Hall (1878), 35 Ohio St. 158. 36 N. Y. App. Div. 312 (1899).
89
Land Grant Ry. & Trust Co.
V. Coffey County, 6 Kan. 245.
Voul

13
178
PAKTNEKSHIP LIABILITY, ETC.
[
133-135.
the corporation to acquire land in the State of Texas."^ The stock-
holders will be held liable as partners where the charter is granted
in one State and the organization meetings are held in another.
In the absence of proof of authority to so organize, the presump-
tion will be that no corporation has been organized.*
133.
Liability from continuance of business after dissolu-
tion.The fact that a corporation has been dissolved or ousted
by a judgment in qiio warranto proceedings docs not affect the
existing rights of creditors nor liabilities of stockholders."^ Suits
by and against them are not governed by the practice in proceed-
ings by and against partners." "A corporation never can dissolve
itself so as to defeat any of the just rights of its creditors
;
"
"
and proceedings may be instituted in equity to enforce payment
when judgment could not be obtained at law.^ While in the
absence of statute, a corporation cannot contract or incur any
obligation in its corporate capacity after dissolution," its mem-
bers do not incur personal' liability as partners upon the subse-
quent transactions of its agents,^ unless they have expressly au-
thorized the continuance of the enterprise.^
134.
Liability from purchase of corporate property and
franchises.A transfer of the property and franchises of a
corporation . does not invest the purchasers with corporate exist-
ence
;
^
and if they continue the business, they become liable "as
partners in respect of liabilities therein incurred.*
135.
Reorganization of a partnership as a corporation.

-
The facility with which corporations may be formed under the
93
Opinion of Atty.-Gen. of
99
Taylor on Corporations,

Texas (1887), 2 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 435; Beach on Railways,
601;
433. Wood's Railway Law, 1715.
94
Taylor v. Branliam, 35 Fla. 1 Central City Savings Bank v.
297 (1S95). Walker (1876), 66 N. Y. 424.
95
Rowland v. Meader Furniture 2
National Union Bank v. Lan-
Co. (1882), 38 Ohio St. 269; Port- don (1871), 45 N. Y. 410.
land, etc. Co. v. Portland, 12 B. 3 New Orleans, etc. R. Co. v.
Mon. 77. Cf.
Polar Star Lodge Delaware, 114 U. S. 296; Memphis,
V. Polar Star Lodge, 16 La. Ann. etc. R. Co. v. Berry, 112 U. S.
53. 609; Fietsam v. Hay (1887),
122
96
Rowland V. Meader Furniture 111. 293; s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 492;
Co. (1882), 38 Ohio St. 269. Archer v. Terre Haute, etc. R. Co.,
9T
Brown V. Union Ins. Co., 3 La 102 111. 492; Black v. Delaware,
Ann. 177, 182. etc. Canal Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 455;
98
Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. Chaffee v. Ludeling (1875), 27 La.
480; Folger V. Columbian Ins. Co., Ann. 607.
99 Mass. 267, 276; Howe v. Rob- 4
Chaffee v. Ludeling (1875), 27
inson, 20 Fla. 352, where action at La. Ann. 607.
law was barred by the statute of
limitations.

135.] rARTNERsriir liability, etc. 179

modern enabling acts of the several States, the great advantages
to be derived from corporate existence, together with the limited
liability incident thereto, has led to the reorganization of many
existing co-partnerships and their establishment as bodies cor-
porate."* The former partners are not, in such cases, relieved from
the individual liability attaching to them for debts incurred prior
to their incorporation." The rights and liabilities of the partner-
ship, or other unincorporated association, and of the cor])ora-
tion, are distinct in the law, although the express purpose of in-
corporation was to continue the business of the partnership, and
although its members are the same as those of the corporation.'
By statute in some States individual liability is expressly imposed
5 In Hennessy v. Griggs (N.
D. 1890), N. W. Rep. 1010,
three persons formed a part-
nership, the articles providing
that the capital should be
?50,000; G. to furnish $5,000, E.
$10,000, and H. $10,000; $25,000
to be held by G., to be by him
negotiated and raised from out-
side parties, all profits to be
divided in proportion to the capi-
tal furnished by each on the
basis of a capital of $50,000. The
articles also provided for incor-
poration by the same persons, un-
der the same name, and for the
same purposes, and that all part-
nership effects should be assigned
to the corporation, and that the
capital stock should be not less
than $50,000, and should be held
and divided among said persons
in the same proportion as the
capital of the partnership. H.
joined with G. and E. and two
others in executing and filing
articles of incorporation. The
court held that the corporation
dissolved the partnership, and
that, although the articles pro-
vided for five incorporators, in-
stead of thi'ee, and fixed the cap-
ital stock at $100,000, yet, as H.
was one of the incorporators, he
should be conclusively considered
to have assented thereto, and
could not be heard to say that
the corporation was not the one
provided for by the co-partnership
articles. Also that while H. was
a necessary party to a transfer of
the firm property to the corpora-
tion, yet a transfer thereof by G.
and E. could not be avoided by
H. because he wrongfully refused
to join therein. And furthermore
that as all the capital stock be-
longed to the same persons who
furnished the firm capital, and in
the same proportion, it was com-
petent for the corporation to as-
sess its capital stock to pay the
debts incurred by the firm in pro-
curing the property that was
transferred to the corporation, so
long as such assessment was less
than the amount that each person
was originally required to furnish
under the co-partnership articles,
none of said parties having actu-
ally paid in their firm capital,
and said person would not be en-
titled to said stock without pay-
ing such assessment; and H.
would not be entitled to paid-up
non-assessable stock unless he
had paid the full amount, as re-
quired by the partnership articles.
oBroyles v. McCoy (1858), 5
Sneed (Tenn.), 602.
7
Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 43
Ga. 187; Frank v. Drenkhahn, 76
Mo. 508.
ISO
PAKTNEKSUri' LIABILITY, ETC.
[
135.
upon the members of any association who unlawfully assume to
act as a corporation.^ The recognized value of a firm name al-
ready known in business circles, has too often led to the adop-
tion of the same designation for the newly created corporation,
and has been the cause of complications with persons who, hav-
ing no notice of the change, have extended credit upon the faith
of a supposed unlimited partnership liability. Under such cir-
cumstances, the nature and extent of the incorporators' liability,
for debts incurred after they become a corporation, will depend
upon whether or not actual notice of their incorporation was
given to the plaintiffs at the time the debts were incurred.^ In
a recent case in the federal supreme court it was shown that the
defendants held themselves out to plaintiff's agents as a part-
nership, that they had been partners up to a short time previous
to the making of the contract in suit, had signed what purported
to be a firm name to a portion of the correspondence out oi
which the contract had arisen, and that plaintiff had dealt with
them under the belief that they were partners, and without knowl-
edge or notice of the transformation of defendants' business from
a partnership into a corporation. In view of these facts, the de-
fendants were held to be estopped in fact and law from setting
up their corporate existence as a bar to plaintiff's suit against
them as individuals.^" In a case involving a similar principle,
the owners of land whereon a building was erected were the in-
corporators of a company soon after chartered. Just before the
charter issued it was agreed among them that the contract for
the building should be let to one of their number at a fixed sum,
who should sublet it for less, the expense of building and profits
to be divided among them in the ratio of the stock held. This
was done, and the price of the building paid in shares issued to
each ; and they were all held liable as joint contractors to a ma-
terial-man furnishing supplies on the order of the subcontractor.^^
In the absence of any proof of intent to form a partnership a
stockholder of a corporation cannot maintain suit to change it
into a partnership on the ground that the organization was
illegal.i2
8 Clegg V. Hamilton, etc. Co.,
n
McPall v. McKeesport & Y.
61 Iowa, 121. Ice Co., 123 Pa. St. 259 (1889), 16
9 Martin v. Fewell (1883), 79 Atl. Rep. 478.
Mo. 401, 412.
12
Lincoln, etc. Chapter v.
10
McGowan V. American Pressed Swatek, 204 111. 228 (1903).
Tan Bark Co. (1887), 121 U. S.
575.

136-138.] PAUTNERsnip liabilitv, etc. 181

136. Continuing liability of the partners for the debts of

the firm.Unless the corporation releases the partnership
from liability to creditors of the firm, the partners continue liable
therefor." The partners are estopped to deny the dissolution of
the partnership by organizing- the corporation, and in pursuance
of agreement, dividing among themselves the capital stock of the
corporation in the same proportion as they held the capital of the
partnership.^'*
137.
Transfer of the partnership property to the corpora-
tion.The partnership assets remain the property of the part-
ners, and subject to the claims of any bona Me purchaser from
them. The legal title will vest in the corporation only by express
assignment, or, in the case of real estate, by formal conveyance
of the individual partners.
^^
The equitable title may pass by a
sale by the partners to the corporation, without formal deed of
conveyance, if it enters into possession. In such case, the cor-
poration may effectively mortgage the property.^" The corpora-
tion, as in the case of any other purchaser, will take the partner-
ship property subject to the rights of creditors, as where the mem-
bers of an embarrassed partnership formed a corporation and
transferred to it all the property of the partnership. Afterward,
its judgment creditor bought in the property upon sale under
the execution, and later a judgment creditor of the corporation
levied his execution upon the same property, as that of the cor-
poration. In an action to determine the rights of the parties the
property was held liable to execution, as that of the partnership,
if its named transactions were intended to hinder, delay and de-
fraud its creditors.^'''

138. Titles to land in common upon incorporation.

Where tenants in common of a wharf, upon their petition, were

incorporated by special statute for the purpose of managing and
improving the property, it was not thereby vested in the cor-
poration, but a deed of conveyance to it, by the individuals as
ov/ners, was necessary.^^ But, where similarly, persons owning
lands as tenants in common were incorporated by special act for
13
Witmer v. Schlatter, 2 Rawle
ic
Cooke v. Watson, 30 N. J. Eq.
(Pa.), 359. 345.
11
Hennessy v. Greggs, 1 N. D.
i7
Booth v. Bunce, 33 N. Y. 139,
52. 88 Am. Dec. 372.
15
Monahan v. Varnum, 11 Gray
is
Leffingwell v. Elliott, 8 Pick.
(Mass.), 405; McLeary v. Dawson, (Mass.) 455, 19 Am. Dec. 343.
87 Tex. 524; Rau v. Union Paper
Mill Co., 95 Ga. 208.
182
PARTNERSHIP LIABILITV, ETC.
[
139, 140.
the express purpose of improving and selling the lands, as the
corporation was authorized to do, it was held that the title to the
lands vested in the corporation by virtue of its incorporation and
its acceptance thereof."
139.
Liability of the corporation for debts of the partner-
ship.Unless the corporation assumes the debts and con-
tracts of the partnership and upon sufficient consideration, it
does not become liable for them,-" but if the corporation receives
the assets of the firm, that is sufficient consideration for assump-
tion to answer for its liabilities.-^ The receipt of all the assets
of the firm, for the purpose of continuing its business raises the
presumption that the corporation has assumed the partnership
debts, and that it is liable for them,^- except where there are
other stockholders than the members of the firm.-^

140. "Tramp" corporations. "Dummy" corporations. In-

corporating in one State to do business in another.A "dummy"
corporation may be formed as an agency for another corpora-
tion, or for individuals for the sole purpose of holding land, the
stockholders being aliens or corporations of other States ; and
the only limitation to its holding of the land being that the use
shall be incident to the business specified in the charter. Thus, a
corporation in one State may be formed for the purpose of doin^
all its business in another state ;
^*
a corporation may be formed
in one State owning substantially all the stock with subsidiary
corporations in another State operating locally, and for the pur-
pose of dividing responsibilities for taxing or for the exercise of
eminent domain ;
^^
or a telegraph company in New York, as
parent company owning practically all the stock in an Idaho cor-
poration, which is a mere "dummy" for the purpose of con-
demning right-of-way.2^ Similarly, a railroad company may be
formed to act as a "dummy" for a coal company to condemn
19
Colquitt V. Howard, 11 Ga. Bros.' Co. v. First Nat. Bank, etc..
566.
46 Neb. 16S; Andres v. Morgan,
20
Georgia Co. v. Castleberry, 62 Ohio St. 236.
43 Ga. 187; Cliurcli V. Church, etc.
23
Paxton v. Bacon Mill, etc.
Co., 75 Minn. 85;
Austin v. Co., 2 Nev. 259.
Tecumseh Nat. Bank, 49 Neb.
24
Union Pac. R. R. v. Colorado,
412, 59 Am. St. Rep. 545. etc. Co., 69 Pac. 564 (Colo. 1902).
21
Shufeldt V. Smith, 139 Mo.
25
People v. Bell T, Co., 117 N.
367; Waterman's App. 26 Conn. Y. 241 (1889).
96.
2G
Oregon, etc. R. R. v. Postal,
22
Hall V. Herter Bros., 90 Hun etc. Co. of Idaho, 111 Fed. 842
(N. Y.), 280, 157 N. Y. 694; Reed (1901).

140.] PARTNERSHIP LIABILITY, ETC.

183
rig-ht-of-way.-^ A bank having' land, acquired on foreclosure
sale, may form a "dummy" corporation to conceal the amount of
money it has invested in land and to deal in the land, the invest-
ment being' fraudulent as to creditors of the bank. In such a case
the land was held to be subject to attachment as belonging to the
bank.-^ A railroad company building" another railroad under a
"dummy" corporation was enjoined. "A corporation cannot in
its own name subscribe for stock or be a corporator under the
general railroad law, nor can it do so with a simulated compli-
ance with the provisions of the law through its agents as pre-
tended corporators and subscribers of stock."
"^.
"It is a com-
mon plan to have a parent company engaged in a national busi-
ness of installing local companies and taking stock in the local
companies, but they are distinct legal entities and the interest of
the larger company in the smaller is no reason for holding other-
wise.^" A "dummy" corporation may be illegal and fraudulent,
a cheat on the law, and a "cloak" for fraud, or it may be legal.
The court may ignore the corporate existence.Where the
operation of a dummy corporation is fraudulent the court may
and sometimes does ignore its corporate existence. As, where the
president of the company owns practically all the stock, keeps no
proper books of account, and mingles his private business vv^ith
that of the corporation, the court may allow attachment of the
corporate property because of its fraudulent disposal, and ignore
the corporate existence.^^ "We have of late refused to be always
and utterly trammeled by the logic derived from corporate ex-
istence where it only serves to distort or hide the truth."
^^
"For
purposes of equity, courts will look behind that artificial person-
ality, and if need be, ignore it altogether, and deal with the indi-
viduals who constitute the corporation; and that is what, in jus-
tice and fairness, must be done here, where practically the same
persons were associated together for one common purpose, under
three or four different names corresponding to the several
branches of the single common enterprise, and acted together only
formally as distinct organizations, each devoted to the corporate
2T
Kansas, etc. Ry. v. North
3o
Cunningham v. City of Cleve-
Western, etc. Co., 161 Mo. 288 land, 98 Fed. 657 (1899).
(1901).
31
Senour Manuf. Co. v. Clarke,
2s
Watson v. Bonfils. 116 Fed. 96 Wis. 469 (1897).
159 (1902).
32
Anthony v. American Glucose
29
Central R. R. v. Pennsylvania Co., 146 N. Y, 407 (1895).
R. R., 31 N. J. Eq. 475 (1879).
18J:
rAUTNERSIHP LIAIUMTY, ETC.
[
140.
pursuit, of its appropriate branch.^^ The formation of a corpora-
tion to sell lumber through it, which one had contracted to sell
exclusively through certain agents, will not be allowed to evade
the contract.^* In the case of a sale by one of a trade-mark and
then sale of an infringement upon it to a dummy corporation
formed and controlled by himself, the court enjoined him from
manufacturing or selling the trade-mark,^^ Where an insolvent
bank incorporated a trust company and owns all its stock in the
names of dummies, thereby becoming debtor of the trust company,
the* court will ignore the corporation.^'' Because of the greater
liberality of the incorporation laws of some States, it is a com-
mon practice to incorporate therein with no intention of doing
business there, but with the purpose of doing all the corporate
business beyond the limits of the corporating State. The courts
of Massachusetts hold such incorporation to be fraudulent and
void, and that the "dummy" stockholders are liable as partners,^''
and long ago it was so held in New Jersey,^* whose corporation
laws now are ingeniously formed for incorporation of the very
companies luider consideration. Injunction was denied there
against such corporation doing business, where the ground was
that it had no office in the State and was incorporated there, with-
out any intention to do business there.^" The New York court
of appeals holds that doing business by the citizens of a State
under the form of a foreign corporation, is according to the
comity of States, and not contrary to public policy, and refuses
to hold the stockholder of such companies liable as partners, the
court saying: "We think the recognition, in our State, of the
rights hitherto conceded in our courts to foreign corporations, is
neither injurious to our interests, repugnant to our policy, nor
opposed to the spirit of our legislation. ... It would be
neither provident nor just to inaugurate a rule which would un-
settle the security of corporate property and rights, and exclude
others from the enjoyment here, of privileges which have always
been accorded to us abroad. ... A corporation is an arti-
ficial being, and has no dwelling, either in its office, its ware-
33
Kendall v. Klapperthal Co.,
st
Montgomery v. Forbes, 148
202 Pa. St. 596 (1902). Mass. 249 (1849).
34Hagy V. McGuire, 147 Pa. St.
ss
Hill v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31
187 (1892). (1858). .
35
Le Page Co. v. Russia, etc.
so
Stockton v. American, etc.
Co., 51 Fed. 941 (1892). Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352 (1897).
36
Fisher v. Adams, 63 Fed. 674
(1894).

140.] PARTNEKSniP LIABILITY, ETC. 185

houses, its depots, or its ships. . . . The grant of franchises
without restriction, is equivalent to a specific authority to exer-
cise them wherever the company might find it convenient or
profitable, whether within or without the limits of the State of
Connecticut."
^^
The weight of authority is in support of this
view of the New York court,that a company may organize
under the laws of one State and transact its business beyond its
limits." But the corporation and the State creating it must both
act in good faith; and so, a subscription to a "dummy" corpora-
tion, organized in New Jersey to enable a New York corporation
to do business in New Jersey, without making the deposit re-
quired by the latter State, was held recoverable back by the sub-
scriber.*- Some States, by the laxity of their enabling acts and
low charge of fees, have invited incorporation by non-residents,
having a nominal office and "dummy directors" within the State,
but with no intent to do business there; on the contrar}', intend-
ing to do business elsewhere where its principal directors and
stockholders live. So much has the practice grown, that these
corporations have become known as "tramp corporations." In
cases of such evasion of the spirit of the law some States have
forfeited the charter.*^ Others ignore such incorporation and
hold the corporators liable as partners.** "No rule of comity will
allow one State to spawn corporations, and send them into other
States to do business there when said first-mentioned State will
not allow them to do business within its own borders."
*^
In
Texas and in Massachusetts such an incorporation will not pro-
tect its members from liability as partners.*^ But they will not
be held liable as partners where there is no fraud or evasion of
the laws of the State of incorporation.*^
40
Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34
45
Landgrant, etc. Co. v. Coffey
N. Y. 208 (1866). Co., 6 Kan. 245, et al.
41
Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y.
46
Empire Mills v. Alston, 15 S.
205 (1891); Missouri Lead Co. v. W. 200 (Tex. Civ. App.), 12 L. R.
Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218 (1893); A. 366, with notes; Montgomery
North, etc. Co. v. People, 147 111. v. Forbes, 148 Mass 249.
234 (1893); Clarke v. Central R. 4- Demarest v. Flack, 128 N. Y.
R., 50 Fed. 338 (1892); Newburg 205, 13 L. R. A. 854; Merrick v.
V. Weare, 27 Ohio St. 343 (1875). Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208;
42
Seeber v. People's, etc. Assn., Missouri, etc. Co. v. Reinhard,
36 N. Y. App. Div. 312 (1899). 114 Mo. 218; Lancaster v. Amster-
43
state V. Park, etc. Lumber dam, etc. Co., 140 N. Y. 176; Vide
Co., 58 Minn. 330. supra, 132; Migration of Corpo-
44
Montgomery v. Forbes, 148^
.
rations.
Mass. 249; Hill v. Beach, 12 N. J.
Eq. 31.
CHAPTER IX.
BY-LAWS.
142. Definition.
143. By-law distinguished from
ordinance.
144. By-law distinguished from
resolution.
145. By-law distinguished from
regulations.
146. "Constitution" of unin-
corporated associations.
147. General observations.
147c. The province of by-laws.
148. Power to make by-laws.
149. Of unincorporated asso-
ciations.
150. No corporate power con-
ferrable by by-laws.
151. In whom the power to
make is vested.
152. Quorum.
153. Adoption of by-laws.
154. Proof of adoption.
155. Estoppel.
156. Place of adoption.
157. General requisites of by-
laws.
158. (a) May not impair vested
rights.
159. (b) They must be reason-
able and legal.
160. (c) Must be consistent with
the charter and law of
tlie land.
161. (d) Other requirements.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
1G7.
1G8.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173. E
174.
175.
176.
177.
173.
179.
180.
181.
182.
(e) Must be general in ap-
plication.
Jurisdiction of the courts.
Who are bound by by-
laws.
Effect of by-laws upon
strangers.
Enforcement of by-laws.
Penalties, expulsion, fines.
Retroactive and ex post
facto by-laws.
Not to. be contrary to
public policy or in re-
straint of trade.
By-laws regulating trans-
fer of stock.
Construction of by-laws.
Conflict between statute
or charter and by-laws.
Estoppel to question vsa-
lidity of by-lavvs.
Pleading.
Validity and effect of by-
laws in general.
(a) Of by-laws creating
lien on the stock.
(b) Of by-laws retiring
stock.
(c) By-laws effecting rights
of members.
(d) By-laws restricting suit.
Amendment of by-laws.
Repeal of by-laws.
Waiver of by-laws.

142. Definition.

"A by-law is a permanent and continu-

ing rule for the government of the corporation and its officers."
^
A by-law is a private law, or general rule, adopted by a private
corporation, or unincorporated voluntary association, for its gov-
ernment. The office of a by-law is to prescribe the duties of the
members toward the corporation, and among themselves ; control
1 North, etc. Co. v. Bishop, 103 Wis. 492 (1899).

143, 144.]
BY-LAWS. 187
its officers and agents, and regulate the management of the busi-
ness of the corporation.- A by-law when adopted by the corpo-
ration is as much a law of the corporation as though its provis-
ions had been a part of its charter.^
143.
By-law distinguished from ordinance.A rule or
law for the government of a municipal corporation is generally
called ordinance. What, in America, are generally known as
municipal ordinances, are termed by-laws in many of the English
cases, cited upon the subject.* By-law was originally applied to
the laws and ordinances of municipal and other public corpora-
tions. Those ordinances are local laws, prescribed by public of-
ficers under legislative power delegated by the State, whereas,
by-laws are rules prescribed under authority of the members of
a private corporation.^ Ordinances bind all within the territorial
jurisdiction of the municipal corporation, strangers as well as
corporators, and with or without their assent, but by-laws of a
private corporation have no binding force upon any one v\-ithout
his assent, express or implied.

144.
By-lav/ distinguished from resolution.A. by-law
may be in the form of a resolution, and require the sanie solemni-
ties to pass it, but a resolution is not necessarily a by-law. A by-
law must be general and not for the benefit or detrim.ent of any
particular person, but a corporate resolution may be aimed at a
single individual, as, to exclude a certain director from enjoy-
ment of his rights.'' A mere resolution in reference to a particu-
lar case, and not of general application does not constitute a by-
law,^ and where the statute requires the by-laws to be in writing,
a resolution not in writing is not a by-law.*
2 Flint V. Pierce (1868), 99
e
Black and White Smith's
Mass. 68, 96 Am. Dec. 691; Norris Soc. v. Van Dyke
(1836), 2
V. Staps (1614-1625), Hobart Whart. (Pa.) 311; Cudden v.
211a. 1 Smith Cas. 209; Ireland Estwick
(1704), 6 Mod. 124; Bank
V. Globe Milling Co. (1898), 21 R. of Holly Springs v. Pinson
I. 9, 79 Am. St. Rep. 769. (1880), 58 Miss. 435; Morgan v.
3 Kent V. Quicksilver Mining Bank of North America (1822),
Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879). 8 Serg. & R. P. 88, 11 Am. Dec.
4Dil. Mun. Corp., 244, Gas Co. 575; Boisot on By-Laws,
p. 2.
V. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; St. 7
people v. Throop
(1834), 12
Paul V. Coulter, 12 Minn. 41; Ash- Wend. 183; Godaard v. Mer-
ton V. Ellsworth, 48 111. 299; chants' Exchange (18S0), 9 Mo.
Blanchard v. Bissell, 11 Ohio St. App. 290; Drake v. Hudson, etc.
96; Morawitz Pr. Corp. 491, 596; R. R. Co. (1849), 7 Barb. 508, 540.
Ireland v. Globe Milling Co.
s
Budd v. Multnomah St. Ry.
(1898), 21 R. I. 9, 79 Am. St. Rep. Co. (1887), 15 Ore. 413.
769.
9 Dunston v. Imperial Gas Light
sLumly on By-laws, Ch. 1, Defi- & C. Co. (1831), 3 Barn. & Adol.
nition. 125.
ISS
BY-LAWS.
[
145-147.

145.
By-laws distinguished from regulations.The regu-
lations of railroad companies and other common carriers for
guidance of their passengers, shippers and employees, are binding
upon all persons dealing with the company. They are often not
in writing, and emanate from the corporate officers, while by-
laws of a strictly private corporation are binding upon the mem-
bers or shareholders by virtue of their contract of membership,
but do not bind strangers, and are generally in writing and
adopted by the board of directors.^" Similarly, the regulations
of savings banks bind the depositors as part of their contract with
the bank, whether or not they are shareholders therein.^^

146. "Constitution" of unincorporated associations.The

constitutions of benefit and other societies, distinguished from
the charter, are by-laws in fact, though not so named."
147.
General observations.Among the few powers to be
exercised directly by the stockholders is that of making the cor-
porate by-law^s. If the statute enumerates the purposes for which
by-laws may be passed, none others can be adopted.^' The board
of directors have no power to adopt by-law^s, unless it is expressly
given by statute.^* The stockholders cannot delegate to the di-
rectors the exclusive right to make by-laws.^^ The charter pre-
vails, wherein a by-law conflicts with it.^" A by-law may be good
in part, and void as to other parts.^^ A by-law that is arbitrary,
unreasonable and unjust will be disregarded by the courts.^^ A
by-law requiring differences between the corporation and its
stockholders to be arbitrated cannot be enforced,^ nor a by-law
allowing a stockholder to return his stock to the corporation at
a fixed price,^" nor a by-law releasing stockholders from their
10
State V. Overton (1854), 24
i*
North, etc. Co. v. Bishop, 103
N. J. Law, 440, 61 Am. Dec. 675. Wis. 482 (1899); Brinkerhoff, etc.
11
People's Savings Bank v. Co. v. Home, etc. Co., 118 Mo. 447
Cupps (1879), 91 Pa. St. 315; Bur- (1893).
rill V. Dollar Savings Bank, 92
is
Alters v. Journeymen, etc.
Pa. St. 134; Supreme Command- Assn., 19 Pa. Supp. Ct. 272
ery v. Ainsworth (1882), 71 Ala. (1892).
436.
!<'
Republican, etc. v. Brown, 58
12
Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Fed. Rep. 644 (1893).
Knight (1889), 117 Ind. 195, 20
it
Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y.
N. E. 479; Supreme Lodge K. of 287 (1899).
P. V. Kutscher (1899),
119 111.
is
Banigan v. United States, etc.
340, 53 N. E. 620; Domes v. Su- Co., 22 R. I. 45 (1901).
preme Lodge K. of P. (1898), 75
" State v. North American, etc.
Miss. 466, 23 So. 191. Co.. 31 South. Rep. 172 (La. 1902).
13
Ireland v. Globe, etc. Co., 19
20 Vercoutere v. Golden, etc.
R. I. 180 (1895).
Co., 116 Cal. 410 (1897).

147tr.] BY-LAWS.
189
statutory liability to creditors,-^ nor a by-law to limit the lia-
bility of a benefit association to policy-holders on policies already
issued,'- or to change the amount to which a member of a build-
ing association is entitled, upon his withdrawal.^' The by-laws
may properly forbid the members of an exchange to carry on
deals outside of the exchange.-* An exchange cannot amend its
by-laws to authorize distribution among its members of a fund
accumulated for benefit of the widows and children of deceased
members,-^ or to make ineligible to the office of director one who
is an attorney against the corporation in a pending suit.- The
by-laws of a plumbers' association providing payment of a fine
by any member for doing work in competition with another mem-
ber, is illegal." Upon the renewal of a charter, the by-laws con-
tinue ;
-
courts will not take judicial notice of corporate by-laws.^
A by-law may regulate or modify the constitution of a corpora-
tion, but it cannot alter it.^

147a. The province of by-laws.Persons who form

themselves into vohmtary associations may agree to be governed
by such rules as they see fit to adopt so long as they are not im-
moral, contrary to public policy, or in contravention of the law
of the land.^^ In the case of corporations, however, there are
two additional requisites of a valid by-law, to wit, that it be rea-
sonable
'^
and that it be in conformity with the charter or en-
abling act.^' In this connection it should be noted that express
authority to make ordinances in certain cases and for certain
purposes is exclusive by implication of all others.'* It is within
the province of the by-laws to provide for the appointment of
inspectors of elections by the president of the company ;
'^
and
21
Wells V. Black, 117 Cal. 157
29
Simpson v. South Carolina,
(1897).
etc. Co., 59 S. C. 195 (1900).
22
Weber v. Supreme Tent, etc.,
so
Kent v. Quicksilver M. Co., 78
172. N. Y. 490 (1902). N. Y. 159 (1879).
23
Intiso v. State, etc. Assn., 53
3i
White v. Brownell, 2 Daly,
Atl. Rep. 206 (N. J. 1902). 329, 359; Hyde v. Woods, 2 Sawy.
24
American, etc. Co. v. Chicago, 655, 659; Note to Austin v. Sear-
etc. Exchange, 143 111. 210 (1892). ing, 69 Am. Dec. 672.
25
Parish v. New York, etc.
32
yide infra,
159.
Exch., 169 N. Y. 34 (1901).
33
yide infra,
160. See further
20
Cross V. West Virginia, etc. as to what may be adopted as
Ry., 37 W. Va. 342 (1892).
by-laws by private corporations,
27
Bailey v. Association of Mas- 85 Am. Dec. 617,
622.
ter Plumbers, etc., 103 Tenn. 99
34
New Orleans v. Philippi, 9
(1899).
La. Ann. 44.
28
Campbell v. Watson, 62 N. J.
35 Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3
Eq. 396 (1901).
Serg. & R. 29.
190
BY-LAWS.
[
148a.
to rcgulfile the counting of ballots, as, for example, to direct that
none shall be counted which contain anything besides the name
of the officer voted for.^ Where the charter is silent as to what
mmiber of directors shall constitute a quorum, but confers upon
them the power to make by-laws necessary and convenient for its
business, they may lawfully fix the quorum by by-law." So, also,
a by-law may validly prescribe the qualifications of officers where
they are not prescribed by statute or charter,^^ or the qualifica-
tions of applicants for admission.^" Charter power to adopt by-
laws "for the regulation of its affairs" and "the transfer of stock,"
gives the company power to create by by-law a lien upon shares
for debts due it from the holders.^" But it has been held that
charter or statutory authority to pass by-laws regulating the con-
duct of the corporate "officers,"nothing being said about the
transfer of stock,does not confer the power to make a by-law
subjecting the transfer of shares to the lien of the company.*^
And it remains doubtful whether the corporation may create a
lien by by-law, in the absence of express or implied authority in
its charter or in some statute of the State.*- A corporation may
for its own security enact a by-law requiring its clerk to be sworn
;
but it cannot avail itself of his omission to take the oath in de-
fense of an action against it.*^

148. Power to make by-laws. Is incidental to corporate

existence.The power to make by-laws is incidental to the
grant of corporate existence. It is implied in the charter whether
expressly given or not.'** It is usually expressed in the charter
3G
Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3 Taylor on Corporations,

601,
Serg. & R. 29. C/. Tuttle v. Walton, 1 Ga. 43.
37
Hoyt V. Sheldon, 3 Bosw.
41
Delaware, etc. R. Co. v. Ox-
267; Hoyt v. Thompson (1859), ford Iron Co., 38 N. J. Eq. 340, and
19 N. Y. 207. the reporter's notes thereto;
ss
Queen v. Saddlers' Co.. 3 El. Beach on Railways, 390.
& E. 42; s. c. 32 L. J. Q. B. 337.
42
See Angell & Ames on Corpo-
39
Rex V. Surgeons' Co., 2 Burr. rations (10th ed.),
355, 356;
892, where a by-law that appli- Beach on Railways,
390; 1 Pot-
cants should pass an examination ter's Corporations,

267-269;
upon their knowledge of Latin, Field on Corporations,

136-138;
was upheld as reasonable. Green's Brice's Ultra Vires (2nd
4opendergast v. Bank of Stock- ed.), 15, note; Morse on Banking
ton (171), 2 Sawy. 108; Brent v. (2nd ed.), 505; Overton on Liens,
Bank of Washington, 10 Peters,

82-86; Sargent v. Franklin Ins.
596;
Cunningham v. Alabama, Co., 8 Pick. 90; s. c. 19 Am. Dec.
etc. Trust Co., 4 Ala. 652; Spur- 306; Boisot on By-Laws, p.
61.
lock V. Pacific R. Co., 61 Mo. 319;
43 Hastings v. Blue Hill Turn-
Byron V. Carter, 22 La. Ann. 98; pike, 9 Pick. 80.
44
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend.

149.]
BY-LAWS.
191
or statute of incorporation, but where the power is expressly given
only for specified purposes, a by-law for a purpose not specified
is invalid, however reasonable it may be, because the enumeration
of certain purposes is an implied exclusion of others.*' The right
to make by-laws rests upon the implied agreement of the share-
holders or members in forming the company.*' Therefore by-
laws oppressive, unequal or otherwise subversive of their con-
tract of incorporation are unauthorized and void.*^
149.
Of unincorporated associations.Private associa-
tions for trade or commerce,*^ clubs,* colleges,^ religious so-
cieties
'^
and other voluntary associations, though unincorporated,
have like incidental power of corporations to make by-laws, but
they may not make by-laws for expulsion or disfranchisement of
members, without reasonable grounds therefor.'- Such associa-
tions may adopt whatever rules, however unreasonable, if not
immoral, contrary to public policy, or law of the land,'^ but cor-
porations have the additional requisites that their by-laws must
be reasonable,'* and in conformity with the charter or enabling
act." Charitable corporations have no incidental power of leg-
islation, contrary to the regulations or conditions, v.iiich the
founder alone has provided. He alone has the right to prescribe
for the dispensation of his charity.'"
9 (1839); Norris v. Staps (1614-
48
Taverner's Case, Raym. 446;
1625), Hobart 211c. 1 Smith Cas. Stationer's Co. v. Salisbury, Comb.
209; Child v. Hudson's Bay Co. 221.
(1723), 2 P. Wm's, 207, 1 Keener's
49
Hodgkinson v. Exeter, L. R.
Cas. 744; Matthews v. Associated A. 5 Eq. 63; Lyttleton v. Black-
Press of St. of N. y. (1893), 136 burn (1876), 33 Law T. (N. S.)
N. Y. 333, 32 Am. St. Rep. 741; 643.
Bailey v. Association of Master
eo
Rex v. College of Physicians
Plumbers (1899), 103 Tenn. 99, (1771), 7 Term Rep. 282.
46 L. R. A. 561.
bi
Long v. Gray, 9 Jur. N. S.
45
Ireland v. Globe M. & R. Co. 805; Commonwealth v. St. Pat-
(1895), 19 R. L 180, 61 Am. St. rick, etc. Soc, 2 Buhn. Pa. 441
Rep. 756, 2 Keener's Cas. 745; (1810), 4 Am. Dec. 453.
Child V. Hudson's Bay Co. (1723),
52
Evans v. Philadelphia Club,
2 P. Wm's. 207; State v. Fergu- 50 Pa. St. 107 (1865); People v.
son (1856), 33 N. H. 424. City of Chicago B. of T., 45 111.
4G
Martin v. Nashville (1865), 112 (1867).
2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 418; Englehardt 53
white v. Brownell (1868), 2
V. Fifth Ward (1896), 148 N. Y. Daly 329, 359.
281, 35 L. R. A. 289; Case of Sut- 54
Hyde v. Woods (1871), 2
ton's Hospital, 10 Coke, 30, 2 Sawy. 655.
Cum. Cas. 14.
55
Reg. v. Dulwich College, 8
47
People V. Crossley (1873), 69 Eng. L. & Eq. 385.
111. 195; Kearney v. Andrews
se
Phillips Academy v. King, 12
(1854), 10 N. J. Eq. 70. Mass. 546.
192
BY-LAWS.
[
150, 151.

150. No corporate power conferrable by by-law.No by-

law can add to the corporate powers,^' or authorize any power
foreign to the corporate purposes, as set out in the articles of in-
corporation.

Any by-law whose subject is alien to the nature

of the corporation is ultra vires and void.^** Nor can any by-
law detract from the corporate powers, though a by-law may
limit the authority of any corporate officer, by prohibiting acts,
though they be authorized by the charter.*'^

151. In whom the power to make is vested.If the char-

ter or articles of association be silent in regard to what integral
part of the corporate body shall be vested with the power to make
by-laws for the government of its affairs, it wall be deemed to be
lodged in the members at large."^ But if by charter it be ex-
pressly vested in some integral part thereof, such as the board
of trustees, or directors, the right in the body at large is by im-
plication taken away.^- Where, however, the charter authorizes
a select body within the corporation to adopt by-laws, a majority
of that body is the least number that can constitute a quorum for
the purpose.^ Although the power of making by-laws be vested
in the managers of the corporation and not in the stockholders,
a by-law passed at a meeting called as a stockholders' meeting
will be valid if the stockholders and managers, being the same
persons, were all present and participated.*'*
In the shareholders or members.The power to make by-laws
is in the shareholders or members, unless otherwise provided by
the charter or articles of incorporation, or valid usage to the con-
trary.
^
57
state V. Utter, 34 N. J. Law, C. 24; Tome v. Parkersburg B. R.
489; Traders/ etc. Co. v. Brown, Co., 39 Md. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 540.
142 Mass. 403; Andrews v.
ci
Morton Gravel Road Co. v.
Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1854), Wysong (1875), 51 Ind. 4; Com-
37 Me. 256; Steiner v. Steiner monwealth v. Woelper, 3 Serg. &
(1898), 120 Ala. 128. R. 29; s. c. 8 Am. Dec. 628; Juker
58
Guinness v. Land Corpora- v. Commonwealth, 20 Pa. St. 484;
tion of Ireland, 22 Ch. Div. 349; Kearny v. Andrews (1854), 10 N.
Phillips Academy v. King, 12 J. Eq. 70; People v. Crossley, 6&
Mass. 546; Reg. v. Dulwich Col- 111. 195.
lege, 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 385; Phil-
02
King v. Westwood, 4 Barn,
lips V. Berry, 1 Ld. Raym. 8. & C. 798, cited by Lumley on By-
59
People V. Chicago Board of Laws, 12.
Trade (1867), 45 111. 118; Taylor
<^^
Ex parte Willcocks (1827), 7
V. Griswold (1834), 14 N. J. Law. Cow. 402.
227.
C4
People v. Sterling Manuf.
60
Kelly V. Mobile B. & L. Assn., Co. (1876), 82 111. 457.
64 Ala. 501; First National Bank
g5
Morton Gravel Road Co. v.
of Wash. V, Eureka L. Co., 123 N. Wysong (1875),
51 Ind. 4; Com-

152.]
BY-LAWS. 193
In the directors.The charter or general law often vests the
power to make by-laws in the directors, instead of the sharehold-
ers, but it is immaterial by whom the power is exercised, if by
duly authorized persons.
Delegation
of
the pozver.Where the powder is in the share-
holders or members they may delegate it to a select body, as to the
directors.^ A by-law which gives control of the corporate affairs
to persons outside of the corporation is void." But the legis-
lature cannot in any instance so far delegate its powers as to
confer upon a corporation authority to enact by-laws which, with-
in the sphere of their operation w^ould be practically a repeal of
the statutes of the State or an abrogation of the common law.^'
A corporation cannot by by-law vest its management in an execu-
tive committee, when in the charter or enabling act it vests the
management in the board of directors.''" But a banking associa-
tion may by by-law entrust to separate committees of the directors
exclusive charge of its several distinct departments.'^" When the
board of directors has general authority to pass by-laws it cannot
alter or amend a by-law adopted by the shareholders as a limita-
tion of the directors' powers."^

152. Quorum.Where, however, the charter authorizes a

select body within the corporation to adopt by-laws, the majority
of that body is the least number that can constitute a quorum for
the purpose.'^ If the charter contains no provision to the con-
trary, the majority may prescribe how many directors shall con-
stitute a quorum, and the powers of the whole board may be ex-
ercised by such quorum at any meeting.'^^ The charter may re-
quire larger vote to adopt a particular by-law and tmless other-
wise provided, a majority must be present and vote to constitute
a quorum.'^* The by-laws may lawfully provide that less than
monwealth v. Woelper (1817), 3
ss
Seneca County Bank v. Lamb,
Serg. & R. 29, s. c. 8 Am. Dec. 26 Barb. 595.
628; Juker v. Commonwealth, 20
so
Tempel v. Dodge (1895), 89
Pa. St. 484; itearny v. Andrews Tex. 69.
(1854), ION. J. Eq. 70.
to
Palmer v. Yates (1849), 3
CG
Stevens V. Davison (1868),
18 Sandf. (N. Y.) 137.
Grat. (Va.) 819; Cahill v. Kala-
7i
Stevens v. Davison (1868), 18
mazoo Mut. Ins. Co. (1845). 2 Grat. (Va.) 819.
Doug. (Mich.) 123.
-^'^
Ex parte Willcocks (1827), 7
6T
People V. Young Men's F. :\I. Cow. 402.
Soc. (1879), 41 Mich. 67, 1 N. W. " Hoyt v. Thompson (1859),
19
931; Allnutt v. Subsidiary, etc. N. Y. 207, 215.
(1886), 62 Mich. 110, 28 N. W.
ti
Cahill v. Kalamazoo (1845),
802.
2 Doug. (Mich.) 124, 43 Am. Dec.
457.
Vol. 1

13
194
BY-LAWS.
[
150.
a
majority of the directors shall constitute a quorum, as where
in a board of twenty-three directors five were authorized to act/'^
but a by-law cannot authorize less than a majority to act where
the charter requires a majority
J^
153.
Adoption of by-laws.It is not essential to the va-
lidity of adoption of a by-law that it be in writing or under seal.
It may be adopted by the company's conduct as well as by vote
at a meeting;
"
except when expressly required by charter or en-
abling act. If the statute requires the adoption of by-laws after
corporate organization, a copy of the by-laws signed by the share-
holders or directors before organization is invalid.'^^ Where the
directors are not given the power to make by-laws under enabling
act, or act of incorporation, they must be adopted by the share-
holders at a shareholders' meeting."'^ By-laws adopted by direct-
ors without any authority are invalid.^" By-laws adopted by the
shareholders are invalid where the power is vested in the di-
rectors.^^ A corporation can make no by-law after dissolution
by expiration of the period prescribed for its existence.
^-
154.
Proof of adoption.By-laws must be pleaded in any
action at law involving them.^^ By-laws may be proved by cus-
tom or by acts of acquiescence of the authorized enacting parties,
or by acts and uniform procedure of the corporation.* Acquie^s-
cence in, and acting upon, presume regular adoption.
^^
The
courts do not take judicial notice of corporate by-laws, as they do
of statutes. When in question, they must be proved.* Proof may
TsHoj-t V. Thompson, 19 N. Y. Commandery (1891), 87 Ga. 426,
215 (1859).
13 S. E. 564; Women's C. O. F. v.
76Hoyt V. Sheldon, 3 Bosw. (N. Condon (1899), 84 111. App. 564;
Y.) 287 (1858; State v. Curtis, 9 Ottawa Union, etc. v. Scott
Nev. 325 (1874). (1865), 24 Up. Can. Q. B. 841.
77
Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin-
ss
Harker v. Mayor, 17 Wend,
son, 58 Miss. 421 (1880); State v. (N. Y.) 199; Wright v. Supreme
Silva, 130 Mo. 440 (1895); Staf- Commandery, 87 Ga. 426, 13 S. E.
ford V. Produce Exchange, 8 Ohio, 564 (1891) ; Women's C. O. P. v.
483 (1898).
* Condon, 84 111. App. 564 (1899);
78Vercoutere v. Golden, etc. Ottawa Union, etc. v. Scott, 24
Land Co., 116 Cal; 410, 48 Pac. Up. Can. Q. B. 341 (1865).
375 (1897).
84
state v. Curtis, 9 Nev. 335
79
North Milwaukee, etc. v. (1874); Dist. Grand Lodge v.
Bishop, 103 Wis. 492 (1899). Cohn (1886), 20 111. App. 344;
80
Carroll v. Mullanphy, 8 Mo. Henry v. Jackson, 37 Vt. 431
App. 253 (1880). (1865).
81
In re Klaus, 67 Wis. 405
ss
Marsh v. Matthias, 19 Utah,
(1886).
350 (1899).
82
Harker v. Mayor, 17 Wend.
so
Haven v. New Hampshire
(N. Y.) 199; Wright v. Supreme Asylum (1843), 13 N. H. 532.

151.]
BY-LAWS.
105
be by the minutes of meetings or other corporate records/'^ or by
parol or other competent evidence in the absence of record evi-
denced^ In proof of by-laws it is generally necessary to produce
them.^" But if they were not entered on the books, or if they can-
not be produced, the by-laws may be proved by parol or by other
competent testimony." They may be proved by implication,"^
by ancient usage,"^ by the corporation's custom of doing busi-
ness.
^
A member of the corporation is presumed to know the
by-laws.* They are evidence against its officers and of their au-
thority, whether corporators or not.^
155.
Estoppel.
By
his consent or other acquiesence a
shareholder may be estopped to object to the manner of adop-
tion."" The adoption must be at a meeting duly called and con-
ducted as prescribed in the charter or general law.''

156. Place of adoption,The place of adoption must be

where prescribed by any mandator}' provision of law, charter or
notice for holding corporate meeting.^ The meeting may be
held at any convenient place, if within the state. If held at a
dififerent place from that named in the notice the meeting is a
nullity.* The presumption will be that the meeting was held at
the place prescribed.^
*
No subscription to stock is binding if
made before adoption of by-laws.^
87
Commonwealth v. Woelper, 3
ss
Bank of Wilmington v. Wol-
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 29, 8 Am. Dec. laston (1840), 3 Har. (Del.) 99.
628 (1817).
96
Morrison v. Dorsey, 48 Md.
88
Union Bank of Maryland v. 46 (1877).
Ridgely, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 324
97
Jiutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Far-
(1827).
quhar, 86 Md. 668 (1898).
89
Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H.
ss
McDaniels v. Flower Brook
35 (1835).
Manuf. Co. (1850), 22 Vt. 274, and
90
American Assn. v. Mordock Vide supra, 147a, note 39.
(1894), 39 Neb. 413, 58 N. W. 107;
99
Commonwealth v. Smith, 45
Frank V. Morrison (1882), 58 Md. Pa. St. 59; Mitchell v. Copper
438; Espy v. American Legion Mining Co., 8 Jones, s. c. 406, 67
(1893), 7 Kulp. (Pa.) 134. N. Y. 280 (1876).
91
Union Bank of Maryland v. 1 Brown v. Company, 22 Pillsb.
Ridgely, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 324 Leg. J. (N. S.) 343; Miller v. Eng-
(1827).
lish, 21 N. J. Law, 317; American
92
Rex V. Westwood (1830), 4 Promotive Soc. v. Pilling, 24 N. J.
Barn. & C. 786; Taylor v. Gris- Law, 653.
wold, 2 Green C. & E. 223 (1834). 2 McDaniels v. Flower Brook
83
Henry v. Jackson, 37 Vt. 431 Co., 22 Vt. 274 (1850).
^865).
3
Carlisle v. Saginaw Valley,
94
Inhabitants v. Morton, 25 Mo. etc. R. R. (1873); 27 Mich. 315.
593; Buffalo v. Webster, 10 Wend.
99.
19G
BY-LAWS.
[
157,
158.
157.
General requisites of by-laws.No power gives any
authority to make by-laws in any way to impair the obligation
of a contract between the corporation and its memi)ers and share-
holders, or to deprive them of any vested right under such con-
tract, whether of membership or otherwise, nor under contract
with any third person. Any such unauthorized by-law is void
against any non-consenting member.^ A by-law may not impair
a shareholder's right to vote at a corporate meeting,"^ nor impose
on a shareholder an unauthorized liability without his consent,"
but he cannot object to a by-law adopted after he became a mem-
ber, adopted under expressly reserved right to subsequently adopt
by-laws affecting his membership contract.'^

158. (a) May not impair vested rights.Power conferred

upon the executive committee to amend the by-laws does not,
however, authorize them to so amend as to take away from the
shareholders' rights, reserved for their protection.^ As the first
must be reasonable, and in accordance with principles of law, so
must be the amendment ; and so a by-law may not conflict with
the charter of the corporation, or the statute of the state, or dis-
turb any vested right," nor impair the obligation of contract
rights of members, shareholders or persons dealing with the
company, in reliance upon its by-laws.
^'^
The right to modify
a
contract does not include the right to repudiate a debt any more
4 Northport, etc. Assn. v. Per- Schools in Andover v. Flint, 13
kins, 93 Me. 235, 74 Am. St. Rep. Mete. (Mass.) 543 (1847); Duluth
342; People's Home Savings Bank Club v. MacDonald, 74 Minn. 254,
V. Superior Ct. (1894), 104 Cal. 73 Am. St. Rep. 344; Flint v.
649, 43 Am. St. Rep. 147; Pentz v. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68, 96 Am. Dec.
Citizens' Fire, etc. (1871), 35 Md. 691 (1868); Reid v. Eatontou
73; Ireland v. Globe Milling Co. Manuf. Co., 40 Ga. 98, 2 Am. Rep.
(1898), 21 R. I. 9, 79 Am. St. Rep. 563 (1869).
769 ; Duluth Club v. MacDonald, 7 Supreme Commandery K. G.
74 Minn. 254, 73 Am. St. Rep. 344; R. v. Ainsworth (1882), 71 Ala.
Bergman v. St. Paul, etc. Assn. 436, 46 Am. Rep. 332.
(1882), 29 Minn. 275; Kent v.
s
Blatchford v. Ross (1868), 54
Quicksilver Mining Co. (1879), Barb. 42; Boisot on By-Laws, 9.
78 N. Y. 159, 2 Keener's Cas. 936. 152.
5 People's Home Savings Bank 9 Lowenthal v. Rubber, etc. Co.,
V. Superior Ct. (1894), 104 Cal. 52 N. J. Eq. 440; Wist v. Grand
649, 43 Am. St. Rep. 147; Durkee Lodge, etc. (1892), 22 Ore. 271,
V. People (1895), 155 111. 354. 46 29 Am. St. Rep. 603; Becker v.
Am. St. Rep. 340; Brewster v. Berlin Ben. Soc, 144 Pa. St. 232,
Hartley
(1869), 37Cal. 15, 99 Am. 27 Am. St. Rep. 624.
Dec. 237.
10
Pellazino v. German Cath.,
6 Kent V. Quicksilver Mining etc. Soc. (1886), 16 Weekly Law.
Co. (1879), 78 N. Y. 159, 2 Keen- Bui. (Ohio) 27.
er's Cas. 936; Trustees of Free
159.]
BY-LAWS.
197
than the reserved right of the legislature to repeal the charter of
the corporation gives the right to confiscate its property.
^^
But
"where the only contract between the society and the member is
the original contract under which he became a member, and that
provides for alterations of the rules, he is bound by any subse-
quent alteration that may be made wathin the authorized power
of alteration, wdiatever the extent of that alteration may be.^^
Upon this question of vested rights the most numerous class of
cases cited are decisions affecting the rights of members of mutual
insurance benefit societies and building and loan associations.
Though there is much conflict among the authorities it is gen-
erally held that the by-laws enter into and form part of the con-
tract of membership, and whether referred to in his certificate
or not,^^ except as they are excluded as where the certificate pro-
vides that it and the application for membership "shall consti-
tute the complete and only contract."
^*
But whether the by-laws
which form part of the contract of membership exclude those
adopted subsequent to the issue of the certificate is a question
not settled by the authorities.^^ It is held as to mutual insurance
companies that there is a distinction between the rights of a mem-
ber as such and his contract of insurance, and that while as a
member he is bound by any lawful amendment of the by-laws,
his contract of insurance binds him in no different way than it
would bind any stranger to the company having a contract with
it.^' No by-law can be made that would infringe a right already
given and secured by the contract of the corporation,^^
159.
(b) They must be reasonable and legal.B3^-laws
should, of course, be reasonable.^^ Thus an integral part of the
11
Smith V. Galloway, 1 Q. B. 71. (Mass.) 363; Becker v. Farmers'
12
Stilwell V. People's, etc. Assn. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (1882), 48
(1899), 19 Utah, 257, 57 Pac. 14. Mich. 610.
13
Covenant Mut., etc. v. Tuttle
i^
Kent v. Quicksilver Mining
(1900), 87 111. App. 309. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879).
i-t
McNeil v. Southern, etc.
is
Lumley on By-Laws, 101. Un-
Assn., 40 App. Div. 581, 58 N. Y. der the power given by the city
Supp. 117.
ordinances of Philadelphia, tha
15
Knights Templars, etc. Co. trustees of the city gas works may
V. Jarman (1900), 44 C. C. A. 93; enforce reasonable regulations
Covenant Mut, etc. v. Tuttle concerning the use of meters, and
(1900), 87 111. App. 309. a regulation that all governors
16
Insurance Co. v. Connor shall be connected with the pipe
(1851), 17 Pa. St. 136; North- at least a foot from the meter is
western, etc. v. Wanner (1887), a reasonable rule. Foster v. Phil-
24 111. App. 388; Revere v. Bos- adelphia Gas Works Trustees, 12
ton Copper Co. (1834), 15 Pick. Phila. 511.
198
BY-LAM'S.
[
159.
body corporate is not to be deprived, by a by-law, of participation
in its affairs." A by-law providing- that a member of a benevo-
lent association failing to pay his dues should forfeit his right to
any benefits while in arrears and for a certain period after pay-
ment, is void, being unreasonable, vexatious, oppressive and man-
ifestly detrimental to the interests of the corporation.-" A by-
law providing for the expulsion of a member from an incorpo-
rated mutual benefit society, whereof the right of membership
was a valuable property right, was judicially questioned in an
early Pennsylvania case, and it was held that a cause of expulsion
therein prescribed, to wit, "vilifying" any other member, was
bad, not being necessary for the good government and support
of the affairs of the corporation.^^ Voluntary associations may
\ /
agree to be governed by such rules as they choose to adopt,
y
whether reasonable or not,'^ so long as they are not immoral, con-
''
\ trary to public policy or the law of the land.^^ But in the case of
corporations two other requisites are essential to a valid by-law
:
it must be reasonable,^* an4 conformable to the charter, enabling
act and law of the land. In order to be reasonable it must be
calculated to carry into effect the objects and purposes of the
corporation as set out in the charter,-^ and articles of incorpora-
tion," and must not be oppressive, vexatious or unequal.'^ 'A
by-law enacted by a majority of the shareholders providing for
forfeiture of stock for non-payment of calls, held not invalid as
against public policy or beyond the corporate powers.-^ Where
the validity of a by-law as to third persons depends on its rea-
19
Rex V. Head, 4 Burr. 2515;
25
state v. Tudor, 5 Day, 329;
Hoblyn v. King, 6 Bro. P. C. 511; Came v. Brigham, 39 Me. 35
King V. Westwood, 7 Bing. 84. But
(1854); People v. Sailor's Snug
see King v. Bird, 13 East, 367; Harbor, 54 Barb. 532 (1868);,
King V. Westwood, 4 Barn. & C. Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun, 49
781; s. c. 7 Bing. 1.
(1883).
20
Cartan v. Father Matthew, etc. 26
Cartan v. Father Matthew Soc.
Soc. (1869), 3 Daly, 20.
3 Daly, 20 (1869); State v. Mer-
21
Commonwealth v. St. Pat- chants' Exch., 2 Mo. App. 96
rick's Soc. (1810), 2 Binn. (Pa.)
(1876); Hibernia Fire Engine Co.
441, 448. V. Harrison, 93 Pa. St. 264 (1880).
22Elsas V. Alford (1878), 1 City 27
People v. Crockett, 9 Cal. 112
Ct. Rep. (N. Y.) 143.
(1858); Amesbury v. Ins. Co., 6
23
White V. Brownell, 2 Daly,
Gray, 596 (1856); Commrs., etc.
329, 359 (1868); Hyde v. Woods,
v. Gas Co., 12 Pa. St. 318.
2 Sawy. 655, 659 (1871); Austin 28
Lesseps v. Architects Co. of
V. Searing, 69 Am. Dec. 672, note
New Orleans. (1849), 4 La. Ann.
(1857). 316; contrary to In re Long Isl-
24
Foster v. Philadelphia Gas
and R. Co. (1837), 19 Wend. 37.
Works' Trustees, 12 Phlla. 511.

160.]

BV-LAWS.
199
sonablencss, the question is for the jury,"" but so far as relates
to members only, it is a question of law for the court solely, and
they will construe it reasonably as to its validity.^" A shareholder
only (but no third person) can object to a by-law as unreasonable,
oppressive or against public policy, where it operates as forfeiture
of stock in the association by reason of the shareholder's non-
compliance with the by-law.^^ To be reasonable, a by-law must
be general in its application, and afifect shareholders and mem-
bers, all alike, under like circumstances. By-laws must operate
equally upon all within the sphere of their operation. They may
not be for the benefit or detriment of any particular person.^^ A
by-law must not make personal exemptions of a general nature,
from any valid regulation, binding the mass of shareholders.^^ All
the by-laws must be reasonable and consistent with the general
principles of the laws of the land, which are to be determined by
the courts w^hen a case is properly before them.^*

i6o. (c) Must be consistent with the charter and law of the
land.A by-law is void if it is contrary to any general law of
the State, or settled principle of the common law, or repugnant
to the law of the land.^^ And the legislature cannot delegate to
any private corporation any power to enact a by-law, which, with-
in its sphere of operation, would contravene any statute of the
State or common law of the land.^^ But a by-law of a trading
corporation is not invalid mierely because it establishes a rule in
regard to sales, different from the common law.^^ By-laws must
conform to the charter or enabling act and articles of association.
29Compton V. Van Volkenburg Soc. (1879), 41 Mich. 67; Hyde
(1870), 34 N. J. Law. 5 Vroom. v. Woods (1871), 2 Sawy. 655, 659.
134; State v. Conklin (1874),
34
34 Kent v. Quicksilver Mining
Wis. 21; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879).
Ayres (1862), 29 N. J. Law (5
s5
St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co.
Dutcli), 393.
V. Goodfellow (1845), 9 Mo. 149;
30
Hiberuia Fire Eng. Co. v. Ireland v. Globe Mill. & Red. Co.
Commonwealtli (1880), 93 Pa. St. (1895), 19 R. I. 180, 32 Atl. 921,
264.
29 L. R. A. 429.
31
Detweiler v. Breckenkamp.
ss
Taylor v. Griswold, 14 N. J.
(1884), 83 Mo. 45. Law, 122, 27 Am. Dec. 33 (1834);
32
Drake v. Hudson R. R. Co. Seneca Co. Bank v. Lamb, 26
(1849), 7 Barb. 508, 540; Goddard Barb. 595; Kent v. Quickskilver,
V. Merchants' Exch. (1880), 9 etc. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879) ; 77i re
Mo. App. 290; Domes v. Supreme Lighthall Manuf. Co., 47 Hun,
Lodge K. of P. (1898), 75 Miss. 258; Goddard v. Merchants' Ex-
466, 23 So. 191; Baltimore, B. & change, 9 Mo. App. 290 (1880).
L. Assn. V. Powhatan Impv. Co.
37 Goddard v. Merchants' Ex-
(1898), 87 Md. 59, 39 Atl. 274. change (1880), 9 Mo. App. 290.
33
People V. Young Men's, etc.
200
BY-LAWS.
[
160.
The fundamental law of the corporation is its charter, and any
by-law contrary to its provisions or purposes is unauthorized and
void.^ By-laws may not modify the articles of incorporation as
to any matter which the enabling act requires to be stated there-
in.
^'^
The corporation can make no by-law for any other purpose
than those prescribed in the enumeration of the objects and pur-
poses of incorporation, when such other purpose is impliedly ex-
cluded.*^ The corporation may make no by-law in excess of its
corporate powers.*^ Nothing can be better settled than that a by-
law which conflicts with or attempts to alter the constitution of
the corporation is void.*" To permit it to pass and enforce by-
laws in conflict with its charter "would be to enable the corpora-
tion to make a new constitution for itself and thereby wholly de-
feat the object of the law which gave it birth."
*'
Thus by-laws
of a Musical Mutual Protective Union, which provide that it
shall be the duty of every member to refuse to perform in any
orchestra in which are any persons not members in good stand-
ing, and that it shall be deemed a breach of good faith between
members to employ a suspended or non-member, or to assist in
a public performance given wholly or in part by amateurs, and
imposing a penalty for the violation of these provisions, have been
38
Bergman v. St. Paul, etc. under Laws N. Y. 1875, c. 267,
Bldg. Assn., 29 Minn. 275, 282 membership in which was re-
(1882) ; Martin v. Nashville Bldg. stricted to the members of certain
Assn., 2 Coldw. 418; Child v. Hud- "local assemblies" of the "Knights
son's Bay Co., 2 P. Williams, 207, of Labor" under the jurisdiction
209.
of "District Assembly 49."
Sec-
39
Guiness v. Ld. Corp. of Ire- tion 3 of the statute referred to,
land, 22 Ch. biv. 349. provided for the termination of
40
Child V. Hudson Bay Co., 2 P. membership in the corporation by
Williams, 207, 1 Keener's Cas. 744;
death, voluncary withdrawal, and
Ireland v. Globe Mill. & Red. Co., expulsion. And the court held
19 R. I. 180, 61 Am. St. Rep. 756. that a by-law which declares that
41
State V. Utter, 34 N. J. Law, the removal of a local assembly
489; Brewster v. Hartley, 37 Cal. from the jurisdiction of District
15, 99 Am. Dec. 237 (1869).
Assembly 49 shall be equivalent
42
Kearney v. Andrews (1854), to a voluntary withdrav/al of all
10 N. J. Eq. 70; State v. Curtis membership in the corporation is
(1874), 9 Nev. 325; Queen v. Dar- in conflict with the statute, and
lington School, 6 Adol. & E. N. S. the removal for insubordination,
682.
in which defendant took no
43
Diligent Fire Ins. Co. v. Com- part, from the jurisdiction of
monwealth (1874), 75 Pa. St. 291, District Assembly 49, of the
296. In New York Protective local assembly of which de-
Assn. V. McGrath (1889), 23 N. Y. fendant was a member, will not
St. Rep. 209, the defendant was d-^prive him of his membership on
a member of a corporation created that ground.

160.] BY-LAWS. 201

held to be void as arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of its
charter, which declares that its objects are the cultivation of
music and the promotion of good feeling among the members
of the profession, and the relief of such of their members as
should be unfortunate.** So also where the salaries of certain
officers are fixed by charter, they cannot be changed by b;\'-law,
even though the charter authorize the company to fix the salaries
of officers, this provision applying only to salaries not prescribed
by the charter.*^ A by-law must be consistent wath the law of the
land,* and in so far as it is repugnant thereto it is ineffective and
void. This is the rule not only w'hcre the power to malce by-
laws is derived incidentally from a grant of the franchise to be
a corporation,*^ but also where it is conferred by express men-
tion among the powers enumerated in the charter.*^ Not only
does a general and express legislative authority to make by-laws
not authorize the passage of such as are in contravention of the
law of the land,*^ but the legislature cannot in any instance so
far delegate its powers as to confer upon a corporation authority
to enact by-laws which within the sphere of their operation would
be practically a repeal of the statutes of the State, or an abroga-
tion of the common law.^ The fact that a by-law was adopted
prior to the enactment of the statute with which it conflicts does
not save it from the operation of the general principle above
4*
Thomas v. Musical Mutual to the general la-w of the land,
Protective Union (1888), 17 N. Y. that being the rule to regulate the
St. Rep. 51, Daniels, J. dissenting. proceedings of artificial bodies,
45
Carr v. City of St. Louis, 9 as well as the conduct of natural
Mo. 191.
persons, independently of express
46
State V. Williams, 75 N. C. provisions of the charters of those
134; Taylor v. Griswold, 14 N. J. companies to the contrary." In re
222; s. c. 27 Am. Dec. 33; Brew- Long Island R. Co. (1S37), 19
ster v. Hartley (1869), 37 Cal. 15, Wend. 37, 41.
24; s. c. 99 Am. Dec. 237; In re 4sKennebeck & P. R. Co. v.
Long Island R. Co. (1838), 19 Kendell (1849), 31 Me. 470. Even
Wend. 37; s. c. 32 Am. Dec. 429; a by-law in pursuance of an ex-
Commonwealth V. Gill, 3 Wharton, press power in a charter granted
228; People V. Phillips, 1 Denio, by the King, if contrary to the com-
388; Rex v. Head, 4 Burr. 2515; mon law or act of Parliament is
Companies Clauses Act, 8 & 9 Vic. void. Kyd on Corporations, 109;
ch. 16, 125; Railways Regula- Wilcox on Corporations, 95. Cf.
tion Act, 8 & 9 Vic. ch. 20,
109. Clark's Case, 5 Coke, 64.
But see Goddard v. St. Louis
49 Kennebeck & P. R. Co. v.
Merchants' Exchange (1883),
78 Kendall (1849). 31 Me. 470.
Mo. 609.
^'^
Seneca County Bank v. Lamb,
47
"When taken as incidental it 26 Barb. 595.
must be exercised in conformity
202
BY-LAWS.
[161.
stated.'*^ The power to make by-laws is the power to make such
as are not inconsistent with the constitution and the law/'-

i6i. (d) Other requirements.A by-law must not make

a provision respecting a matter already provided for by the law
of the land other than what the general law has prescribed.'*^
Thus a company cannot lawfully enact a by-law imposing a
greater penalty upon persons committing certain acts than is im-
posed by the statutes of the State.^* A by-law contrary to a gen-
eral principle of the common law, although there be no direct
statute or decision declaring it unlawful, has been held within the
rule that by-laws shall not be repugnant to the law of the land.^^
But a by-law is not invalid merely because its action differs from
that of the common law, if such law is reasonable and not in-
consistent with the corporate charter and enabling act or other
statute.
^^
Companies cannot impart a retroactive effect to their
by-laws, since the polity of civilized States is contrary to retro-
active legislation.^'^ But a by-law cannot be said to be inconsist-
ent with the law of the land merely because it forbids the doing
of something which might have been lawfully done before, or
requires something to be done which there was no previous obli-
gation to do; otherwise a nominal power of making by-laws
would be utterly nugatory.^^ Thus a by-law of a board of trade
which varies the common law in providing that on all sales of
grain in bulk on elevator receipts, the buyer shall pay the first
ten days' storage, unless otherwise specified at the time of sale,
has been held to be valid.
^^
So, also, a college may by by-law
forbid its students to join secret societies, although they be in-
corporated by act of legislature.
''^
But this qualification of the
general rules is not to be carried so far as to uphold by-laws
51
Mechanics & Farmers' Build- cliange, 9 Mo. App. 290; People v.
ing & L. Assn. v. Dorsey, 15 S. C. Crossly, 69 111. 195; State v.
462. Tudor, 5 Day (Conn.), 329, 5 Am.
52
Kent V. Quicksilver Mining Dec. 162; Commonwealth ,v. Det-
Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879). wilier, 131 Pa. St. 614; St. Louis
53
Lumley on By-Laws, 91. Perpetual Ins. Co. v. Goodfellow,
54
Calder & Hibble Nav. Co. v. 9 Mo. 149.
Pilling, 14 Mees. & W. 76, where 57
Vide infra,
168.
the company imposed a penalty
58
Edmonds v. Watermen's Co.,
of five pounds upon persons navi- 1 Jur. N. S. 727, per Lord Camp-
gating on the Sabbath day, the bell.
statutory penalty being five shil-
5o
Goddard v. St. Louis Mer-
lings. chants' Exchange (1S83), 78 Mo.
55
Taylor v. Grisw^old, 14 N. J. 609.
Law, 122, 27 Am. Dec. 33.
eo
People v. Wharton College, 40
66
Goddard v. Merchants' Ex- 111. 186.

162.]. BY-LAWS.
2<)3
which attempt to prevent the members of companies from re-
sorting to the tribunals of the State for the enforcement of their
rights. Thus it has been held that a by-law of a merchants' ex-
change which compels members to submit their business con-
troversies to arbitration on pain of expulsion or suspension, is
unreasonable and void.^ And when a member of a benevolent
or mutual benefit society, under his contract with it, is entitled to
money, he may resort to the courts for the enforcement of his
rights, notwithstanding a by-law prohibiting him from so doing.^-

162. (e) Must be general in application.^"A by-law may

be in the form of a resolution and require the same solemnities
to pass it ; but a resolution is not necessarily a by-law."
^^
For
by-laws must be general and not for the benefit or detriment of
any particular person.*'* They "must be directed to all within
the sphere of their operation, and must operate equally."
*
A
resolution entered by the directors which is in effect a command
to the officers to exclude one of the directors from the enjoyment
of his rights, being aimed at a single individual, and not a gen-
eral regulation afifecting the directors at large or the stockholders,
"is not entitled to the name of a by-law."
^^
And where a com-
pany had no by-law providing for the forfeiture of shares for
non-payment of assessments and the directors attempted to effect
a forfeiture in a particular instance by a resolution which was
claimed to be a by-law, declaring the shares of a delinquent to
be forfeited, and ordering them to be sold, the sale was decided
to be irregular and unauthorized, and the company was held lia-
ble in damages for conversion of the shares.
^'^
It has been re-
marked by the English writer on this subject, Mr. Lumley, that
the authorities who make by-laws are very prone to reserve to
themselves powers to provide specially for special cases, to make
individual exceptions out of the general rules, or to dispense with
regulations when they deem it convenient or proper to do so;
that it has also been considered that this discretionary power of
dispensation will assist the authority in cases where the by-law
61
State V. Merchants' Exchange
65
Goddard v. Merchants' Ex-
(1876), 2 Mo. App. 96. change, 9 Mo. App. 290.
62
Bauer v. Samson Lodge, 102
ee
People v. Throop, 12 Wend.
Ind. 262; Chosen Friends' Su- 183.
preme Council v. Garrigus, 104 67 Budd v. Multnomah Street
Ind. 133. Ry. Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413
63
Drake v. Hudson Riv. R. Co. s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 169; s. c. 12
(1849), 7 Barb. 508, 540. Ore. 271; s. c. 53 Am. St. Rep. 355.
64
Lumley on By-Laws, 99.
204:
BY-LAWS.
[
163, 164.
as expressed is in excess of the legal power vested in thcm/'^ It
is plain, however, that all corporate b3'-laws must stand on their
own validity, and not on any dispensation granted to members.
They cannot be subjected to any condition which does not apply
to all alike, and cannot be compelled to receive as a matter of
grace anything which is matter of right; neither on the other
hand should there be personal exemptions of a general nature
from any valid regulations that bind the mass of corporators.*"'

163. Jurisdiction of the courts.Whether the courts will

interfere where by-laws are unreasonable, depends upon whether
the company or association is incorporated or a mere voluntary
organization. Thus when a corporation expels a member in pur-
suance of its by-laws, the courts will at the instance of the ex-
pelled member inquire whether the by-laws were legal and rea-
sonable
;
but in the case of unincorporated associations the courts
will not question the reasonableness of the rules or by-laws ; and
unless it can be shown that they are contrary to natural justice,
the decision of the association, if in accordance therewith and
arrived at in good faith, is not open to judicial review.'^'' So,
also, where, under its by-laws, a benevolent society has decided
that a member is not entitled to benefits, the decision is con-
clusive, and will not be reversed or questioned by the courts."^^
When in a proper case the courts undertake to inquire into the
reasonableness of a by-law, it is a question of law, and evidence
of its unreasonableness is inadmissible.'^^

164. Who are bound by by-laws.A member of a corpo-

ration or association is bound by all by-laws, rules or regulations,
68
Liimley on By-Laws, 100. To Md. 98. But see Sutherland. J. in
the point, however, that the dis- People v. Sailors' Snug Harbor
pensing power does not remove (1868), 54 Barb. 532, 535, where
the objection of ultra vires, he it was said, obiter, "The accused
cites Waite v. Garston Local inmate should have reasonable no-
Board, L. R. 3 Q. B. 5, and "Wort- tice of such examination, and an
ley V. Nottingham Local Board, opportunity of being heard, of ex-
21 L. J. N. S. 582. culpating himself and of disprov-
60
People V. Young Men's Father ing the charge. Nor am I willing
Matthew T. A. B. Soc. 41 Mich. 67. to concede that the action and
TO
Niblack on Mutual Benefit proceeding of the trustees or of
Societies, 25; Hirschl on Fra- the executive committee in In-
ternities, 63; Note to Hiss v. Bart- vestigating such charge is beyond
lett, 63 Am. Dec. 776; Note to the control of, or a review by,
Austin V. Searing, 69 Am. Dec. this court."
672; Kehlenbeck v. Logeman, 10
72
Commonwealth v. Worcester
Daly, 447, 448. (1826), 3 Pick. 462, 473.
Ti
Osceola Tribe v. Schmidt, 57

164.] BY-LAWS. 205

to which he has assented, provided they be not immoral, contrary
to pubHc poHcy or in contravention of the charter or the law of
the land
;
^^
and his duties, rights and privileges are to be meas-
ured thereby.'^* They embody the terms of a contract between
the company and its members ;
^
and provided they be made in
pursuance of its charter are as binding upon its members and
upon others acquainted with its method of business as any public
law of the State.^ The fact of absence from a duly constituted
meeting at which a by-law is passed does not relieve a member
from any obligation thereby created." The binding effect of by-
laws is said to be derived from the assent of the member there-
to.^^ But it is not necessary .that his assent be directly expressed
by signing the constitution, articles or by-laws.^ It will be pre-
sumed from his act in becoming a member.^" While by-laws are
not always binding upon strangers, a person who becom.es a mem-
ber of an association or company after the adoption of a by-law,
is not considered a stranger; and by joining the organization he
is deemed to accord his assent thereto and to be thereafter bound
by the obligations which it may impose upon the members.^^ By-
laws enter into and form part of a memiber's contract,^^ and
whether or not referred to in his membership certificate.^-^
Members.A subscriber or purchaser of shares, contracts with
reference to the charter** and by-laws, and the laws of the
73
Tide supra,
160.
tt
i Roll. Abr. 366.
74
Hyde v. Woods (1871), 2
ts
Austin v. Searing, 16 N. Y.
Saw. 655, 659. Tide infra, 542, 112; s. c. 69 Am. Dec. 665, an-
1365. notated; Leech v. Harris, 2
75
"There can be no possible Brewst. 571. Tide Infra,
542,
doubt that the obligation of the 1365.
company to the privileged shares
79
McFadden v. County of Los
rests on by-law 18, and that the Angeles (1888), 74 Cal. 571.
by-law establishes the terms of a
so
Note to Austin v. Searing, 69
contract between company and Am. Dec. 665.
stockholders. "We have already so
si
King v. Clerk, 1 Salk. 349.
decided." Hazeltine v. Belfast &
82
Ebert v. Mutual, etc. Assn., 81
M. R. Co. (1887), 79 Me. 411; Minn. 116, 83 N. W. 506 (1900):
s. c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 330, 332; s. c. Newton v. Northern, etc. Assn., 21
Belfast & M. R. Co. v. Belfast, 77 R. I. 476 (1892), 44 Atl. 690; Con-
Me. 445. noly v. Supreme Council, 131 Cal.
76
Brick Pres. Church v. Mayor, 437 (1901), 63 Pac. 727.
etc. of New York (1827), 5 Cow.
ss
Condon v. Mutual, etc. Assn.,
538; Anacosta Tribe v. Murbach, 89 Md. 99 (1899), 42 Atl. 944.
13 Md. 91; Cummings v. Webster,
s-t
Memphis Branch R. R. Co. v.
43 Me. 192; McDermott v. Board Sullivan (1876), 57 Ga. 240; Wit-
of Police, 5 Abb. Pr. 422; Union ter v. Mississippi & O. R. R. Co.
Bank v. Guice, 2 La. Ann. 249. (1859), 20 Ark. 463.
206
BYLAWS.
[
1G5.
country wherein the company is created,^" as fully as if it were
written out as part of the contract of subscription.
'^^
The sub-
scriber is presumed to know the provisions of the company's
charter.^^ By-laws in force at the time of subscription for cor-
porate stock form part of the subscriber's contract of member-
ship.^ A similar rule governs unincorporated associations, and
whether or not the contract is referred to in the certificate of
membership.^ A shareholder or member of a corporation is
chargeable with notice of any by-law authorized by the charter
and legally adopted, whether consenting to it or not, and whether
he has actual notice of it or not,'"' unless it was adopted without
his consent and impairs his contract of membership."^ A share-
holder in a corporation dealing with it otherwise than as a share-
holder, is in the position of any stranger dealing with it, and is
not differently chargeable with notice of its by-laws or resolu-
tions.''^

165. Effect of by-laws upon strangers.A stranger to the

company is not bound by the rules adopted for its government."^
One who is neither member nor officer of a corporation is not
bound by its b3^-laws, of w^hich he has no notice, either actual or
constructive, nor can he claim any right under any of them."*
"The right of any third party, a stranger to the association, to
establish a legal claim, through such by-law, must depend upon
the general principles applicable to express contracts."
""*
The
85Mandel v. Sv/an Land & C. Minn. 275; Duluth Club v. Mac-
Co. (1894), 51 111. App. 204; Donald, 74 Minn. 254, 73 Am. St.
Wapello County v. Burlington & Rep. 344; Ireland v. Globe Milling
Mo. R. R. Co., 44 Iowa, 585. Co. (1898), 21 R. I. 9, 79 Am. St.
ssHoagland v. Cincinnati & Ft. Rep. 769.
Wayne R. Co. (1862), 18 Ind. 482.
92
Pearsall v. Western Union
87
Oil City Land & Impv. Co. v. Tel. Co., 124 N. Y. 256, 21 Am. St.
Porter (1896), 99 Ky. 251, 35 S. Rep. 662.
W. 643.
93
Smith V. Smith (1872), 62
88
Wapello County V. Burlington 111. 496; Fay v. Noble (1853),
12
& Mo. R. R. Co., 44 Iowa. 585. Cush. 1; Ten Broeck . Winn
89Ebert v. Mutual R. F. Life Boiler, etc. Co. (1885), 20 Mo.
Assn. (1899), 81 Minn. 116, 83 N. App. 19.
W. 506; Clark v. Lehman (1896),
9*
McFadden v. Los Angeles Co.
65 111. App. 238; Stilwell v. Peo- (1888), 74 Cal. 571; Cummings v.
pies B. L. & S. Assn. (1899), 19 Webster (1857), 43 Me. 192; Aus-
Utah, 257, 57 Pac. 14. tin v. Searing, 16 N. Y. 112, 69
soMcFadden v. Los Angles, etc. Am. Dec. 665, notes; Rathbun v.
Co. (1888), 74 Cal. 571. Snow (1890), 123 N. Y. 343, 10 L.
91
Kent V. Quicksilver Mining R. A. 355, note.
Co. (1879), 78 N. Y. 159, 2 Keen-
95
Dow v. Clark, 7 Gray, 198;
er's Cas. 936; Bergman v. St. Eley v. Positive, etc. Life Assn.,
Paul Mutual B. Assn. (1882), 29 L. R. 1 Exch. Div. 20, 88.

165.]
BY-LAWS.
207
rule that by-laws bind only those who assent to them applies to
such third persons as agree to be bound, as a bank depositor sign-
ing the by-laws printed in his pass-book, thus making express
contract."'' But one who has knowledge of a by-law, deals with
reference to it,^ and unless expressly excluded, it enters into any
contract he may have with the company."^ Persons dealing with
a corporation, or its members, are chargeable with notice of, and
are bound by any by-law which is expressly authorized by the
charter ; and they are bound by by-laws of which they have actual
notice. The corporation's by-laws are binding not alone upon
its members, but also upon all others dealing with the corpora-
tion, who are acquainted with its methods of doing business, suffi-
ciently to place them upon inquiry whether such course of busi-
ness is controlled by the by-laws.^ "By-laws of business corpo-
rations, are, as to third persons, private regulations binding as
between the corporation and its members or third persons hav-
ing knowledge of them, but of no force as limitations per sc as to
third persons, of an authority, which, except for the by-laws,
would be construed as within the apparent scope of the agency."
^
Third persons are not bound by such limitations upon the appar-
ent powers of particular officers unless they have actual knowl-
edge d them.^ By-laws are private laws and only accessible to
the officers of the company; and such third persons, bona Me
dealers with the company, are not affected by such limitations of
the officers' authority.^ A by-law solely for the benefit of the
corporation confers no right upon any third person, and does not
affect any contract of his with the corporation.^ The corpora-
98
Ackenhauser v. People's Sav-
2 Rathbun v. Snow (1890), 123
ings Bank (1896), 110 Mich. 175, N. Y. 343.
(58 N. W. 118; Sullivan v. Lewis, 3 Tome v. Parkersburg B. R. Co.,
etc. (1869), 56 Me. 507; Appelby 39 Md. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 540; Rath-
V. Erie Co. Savings Bank (1875), bun v. Snow (1890), 123 N. Y.
62 N. Y. 17. 343.
87
Hallenbeck v. Powers (Mich.), . 4 Fay v. Noble (1853), 12 Cush.
76 N. W. Rep. 119. (Mass.) 1: Emery v. Boston Ma-
osBarbot v. Mutual, etc. Assn., rine Ins. Co. (1885), 138 Mass.
100 Ga. 681.
412; Arapahoe C. & L. Co. v. Stev-
99
Brent v. Bank of Washing- ens (1889), 13 Colo. 534, 540, 22
ton, 10 Pet. (IT. S.) 596; Haden v. Pac. 825; Ashley Wire Co. v. Illi-
Farmers' & Merchants' F. Assn., nois Steel Co. (1896), 164 111. 149,
80 Va.
683". 45 N. E. 410.
iMetropole B. & T. Bath Co. v.
s
State v. Atherton (1867), 40
Garden City Fan Co. (1894), 50 Mo. 209; Morris Canal & Banking
111. App. 681. Co. v. Van Vorst (1847), 21 N. J.
Law, 100, 69 N. W. 541.
208
BY-LAMS.
[
105.
tion's authority to make by-laws was not intended to affect the
rights of strangers. Whether or not an outsider is charged with
notice of a by-law, it will not affect his right, if he acts in good
faith, where a course of action is unauthorized by reason of some
by-law, but is acquiesced in by the corporation.". By-laws merely
regulating corporation management and the duties of its officers,
do not affect the rights of third persons dealing with the corpo-
ration.'^ A by-law of a bank that all payments made and received
be examined at the time, does not prevent a person paying or de-
positing money, from afterward showing a mistake in his ac-
count with the bank.^ That a corporation's indorsement of a
note is not in accordance with its by-laws will not relieve it from
liability on the indorsement.^ A surety on obligation to a bank
is not released by failure of its officers to notify all the sureties,
as required by a by-law of the corporation.^" "By-laws are bind-
ing upon the officers of the corporation, whether or not they are
members of it,^^ for they are presumed to have custody of, or
access to its by-laws, and to have full knowledge of them, hence
their acceptance of office implies assent to them. And the pre-
ponderance of authority holds that such officers have the powers
implied in their titles as officers ; and not limited within the pow-
ers enumerated in the by-laws, and that the corporation is bound
by the acts of such officers dealing with third persons without
notice of the limitations.^^ Thus, in a case where the by-laws of
a railroad company required its deeds of conveyance of land to
be executed by the president and countersigned by the secre-
tary, such a deed was executed alone by the president. In hold-
ing the deed was good the court said : "By-laws are private and
only accessible to the officers of the company. Strangers to the
company cannot be bound by the rules adopted for the govern-
ment of the company. The charter did not require the deed to
6
Fay V. Noble (1853), 12 Cush. Eureka Lumber Co., 123 N. C. 24.
(Mass.) 1; Ten Broeck v. Winn
lo
New Hampshire Savings Bank
Boiler, etc. Co. (1885), 20 Mo. v. Downing (1844), 16 N. H. 187.
App. 19.
11
Bank of Wilmington v. Wol-
T
Smith V. Smith (1872),
62 111. laston, 3 Harr. (Del.) 90 (1840);
493; Ashley Wire Co. v. Illinois Hunter v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 26
Steel Co. (1896), 164 111. 149, 56 La. Ann. 13 (1874).
Am. St. Rep. 187.
12
Fay v. Noble, 12 Cush.
8
Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank (Mass.) 1 (1853); Smith v. Smith,
V. Smith (1821), 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 62 111. 493 (1872);
Moyer v. East
115; Gallatin v. Bradford (1808), Shore, etc. Co.. 41 S. C. 300, 25 L.
1 Bibb. (Ky.) 209. R. A. 48.
9
First Wash. Bank of Wash. v.

165.]
BY-LAAVS. 209
be attested by the secretary, and persons not officers of the com-
pany cannot be required to know the provisions of their by-
laws."
^^
Whether a by-law of a company or association can have
any binding effect upon a stranger, depends, first, upon its being
something more than a rule merely for the government of the
members and officers in conducting the affairs of the organiza-
tion
;
and, second, upon the stranger having or being affected
with knowledge of it. And, on the other hand, the purpose of
by-laws being to regulate the internal affairs of the company,
the duties of the members toward each other and toward the com-
pany itself, an outsider cannot enforce them unless he can show
some privity, as, for example, that he relied upon them in giving
credit to the company.^* By-laws regulating the use and enjoy-
ment of joint property, or to govern the conduct of the members
of a private corporation, or to protect, secure or enhance their
rights or interests, have no binding effect upon strangers.
^^
A
by-law which is a rule merely for the government of the officers
of a corporation in conducting the corporate business can have
no effect upon its contracts with other parties.^^ Thus, where
under the charter of a mutual fire insurance association, the in-
corporators are authorized to make such by-laws as they may
deem advisable for the management of their corporate affairs,
their by-laws can have no effect to modify contracts entered into
between the corporation and the assured.^^ And a by-law allow-
ing stockholders, upon paying thirty per cent, of their shares, to
forfeit them is void as against creditors of the company.^^ So,
again, a by-law creating a lien upon shares of stock in favor of
the corporation for debts due to it from the shareowner, are in-
operative as against his judgment creditors.
^^
His assignee in
bankruptcy, however, is not a stranger in respect of a by-law cre-
ating a lien.^" Whether a lien so created will operate against a
transferee of the shareholder, depends, under the second consid-
13
Smith V. Smith, 62 111. 493
" Stewart v. Lee Mut. Fire Ins.
(1872). Assn. (1887), 64 Miss. 499.
i-t
Flint V. Pierce, 99 Mass. 68
is
Slee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456.
(1868).
19
Byron v. Carter, 22 La. Ann.
isLumley on By-Laws, 66, 67. 98.
The hy-laws are evidence against
20
Jn re Bigelow, 1 Nat. Bank,
the corporate officers although Reg. 632, 667; IMorgan v. Bank of
they be not corporators. Bank v. North America, 8 Serg. & R. 73;
Wollaston, 3 Harr. (Del.) 90. s. c. 11 Am. Dec. 575.
ifi
Samuels v. Central, etc. Ex-
press Co., McCahon, 214.
Vou 1

14
210
BY-LAWS.
[
105.
eration stated above, upon the transferee having- knowledge there-
of.^^
Whether the transferee will be affected with knowledge of
a regulation of this character by notice upon the face of the cer-
tificates that the shares represented by them are subject to all
debts due the company from the holder, seems to be still unsettled.
In Connecticut he is held to be affected with the knowledge ;
^^
but in New York a contrary ruling has been made.--'' Persons,
although not members of the company, who engage in business
transactions with its officers are affected with notice of limita-
tions upon their powers prescribed in the corporate by-laws.
So that a by-law providing that all contracts involving a certain
amount shall be executed by certain officers with certain formali-
ties is binding upon strangers, they being presumed to know the
extent of the powers of the agents with whom they deal.^* A
corporation, however, may be estopped by acquiescence in a con-
trary course of dealing from setting up its by-laws as against
strangers.- The general principle applicable to the rules of the
Stock Exchange, as well as other trades, is, that a person who
deals in a particular market must be taken to deal according to
the custom of that market, and he who directs another to make
a contract at a particular place must be taken as intending that
the contract may be miade according to the usage of that placCj-^
21
In re Long Island R. Co.
24
Bohm v. Loev^^er's Gambrinus
(183S), 19 Wend. 37; s. c. 32 Am. Brewery Co. (1890), 9 N. Y.
Dec. 429; Bank of Holly Springs Supp. 514, stated infra,
795.
V. Pinson, 58 Miss. 421 ;s. c. 38 Rathbun v. Snow
(1889), 22 N.
Am. Rep. 330; Driscoll v. West Y. St. Rep. 227, stated infra, 801.
Bradley, etc. Co. (1874), 59 N. Y. 25
Seeley v. San Jose Independ-
96, 109; Planters, etc. Ins. Co. v. ent Mill, etc. Co. (1882), 59 Cal.
Selma Savings Bank, 63 Ala. 585; 22, stated infra, 797.
Steamship Dock Co. v. Heron, 52 .
26
V\^illiams' Forensic Facts &
Pa. St. 280; Pelot v. Johnson, 33 Fallacies (1885), 105. "But the
La. Ann. 1286; Byron v. Carter, 22 rules of the Stock Exchange, being
La. Ann. 98; Anglo-Californian the rules of a domestic forum, can
Bank v. Grangers' Bank, 63 C?J. not affect persons who are neither
359; Morawetz on Corporations, members nor the clients of mem-
2nd ed.
203.
Cf.
Neale v. Jan- bers. Thus they can not affect
ney, 2 Cranch, 188; Evansville the rights of the general creditors
National Bank v. Metropolitan of a defaulting member. A de-
National Bank, 2 Biss. 527; Lee faulting member, therefore, can
V. Citizens' National Bank, 2 Cin. not voluntarily pay money to the
Super. Ct. 298. ofiicial assignee to be distributed
22
Vansands v. Middlesex County exclusively amongst those credit-
Bank, 26 Conn. 144. ors whose claims arise out of
23
Conklin v. Second Nat. Bank, Stock Exchange transactions, for
45 N. Y. 655. that is a fraud upon the general
creditors. And if it be urged that

IGO.]
BY-LAWS.
211

i66. Enforcement of by-laws.Power in a corporation

to make by-laws implies the power to enforce them ; and by any
lawful ways to which its members by their contract of mem-
bership may assent. The ordinary ways of enforcing by-laws is
by means of pecuniary penalties, including fines and forfeitures,
and by expulsion or suspension from membership. Pecuniary
penalties may be collected by deduction from dividends,^'' or by
suit brought in the name or on behalf of the corporation.-^ Re-
fusal to pay a fine for violation of a by-law may not be punished
by additional fine, as this would be double punishment for the
same offense.-^ And so a member cannot be expelled for the
same offense for which he has already been fined and paid his
fine.^ The courts will interfere to prevent injustice in the en-
forcement of by-laws, where property interests are involved,-''^
but will not interfere so long as the acts of the corporation are
in pursuance of its charter authority, and according to its by-
laws. If not in violation of any State law or of a member's vested
rights, the determination of a corporation, like that of a judicial
tribunal, is conclusive.^^ And in case of merely voluntary unin-
corporated associations the general rule is that the courts will not
interfere.^^ By-laws of associations may provide tribunals for
trying disputed claims and rights of membership, but they can-
not preclude recourse of its members to the courts.^* But be-
fore a member can appeal to the courts, he must exhaust his rem-
edies under the by-laws of the association.^" Voluntary unincor-
that is the rule of the Stock Ex- St. Paul, 48 Minn. 215, 50 N. Y.
change, the answer, as Lord Jus- 1036 (1892).
tice James said, is that the Stock
32
otto v. Journeyman Tailor,
Exchange is not an Alsatia; the etc., 75 Cal. 308 (1888); Neu-
Queen's lav.'s are paramount there, kirch v. Kepler, 67 N. Y. Supp.
and the Queen's v/rit runs even 710 (1900); Travers v. Abbey, 104
into the sacred precincts of Capel Tenn. 665 (IrfOO), 58 S. W. 247.
Court." Williams' Forensic Facts 33
McMahon v. Supreme Tent.,
& Fallacies (1885), 106. 15 Mo. 522 (1899), 52 S. W. 384;
2T
Child V. Hudson Bay Co. Vol. Relief Dept. v. Spencer, 17
(1723), 2 P. Williams, 208. Ind. App. 123 (1897), 46 N. E. 477.
28Cahill V. Kalamazoo Mut. Ins.
34
Fillmore v. Great Camp, etc.
Co. (1845), 2 Doug. (Mich.) 138. 109 Mich. 13 (1896), 66 N. W. 675;
29
Pentz V. Citizens' F. Ins. Co. Loefler v. Modern Woodmen, 100
(1871), 35 Md. 73. Wis. 79 (1898), 75 N. W. 1012;
30
People V. New York Ben. Soc. Herman v. Plumber, 20 Wash. 363
(1875), 3 Hun (N. Y.), 364. (1898), 55 Pac. 315.
31
Grand Lodge v. People, 60
35
People v. Board of Trade
111. App. 550 (1895); Modern (1875), 80 111. 134; Hussey v. Gal-
Woodmen of America v. Deters, lagher, 61 Ga. 80; Boisot on By-
flS 111. App: 368 (1890) ;
Kolff v. Laws, pp.
172-179.
212
BY-LAWS.
[
107.
poratcd associations, as clubs, benevolent societies, etc., may expel
a member for violation of their by-laws,^ but corporations own-
ing property may not expel a member, unless under express au-
thority of charter. It cannot be conferred by by-law.

167.
Penalties, expulsion, fines.The enforcement of by-
laws is usually by means of the imposition of fines or amotion
from office or suspension or expulsion from membership. Where
the governing body of the company or society enforce a by-law
by these means, acting in good faith, not capriciously or oppres-
sively, there is no legal mode of reversing their action.^'^ The
formality of expulsion, however, cannot be lawfully made to in-
volve a battery.^^ The penalty must not be left to the arbitrary
assessment of the makers of the law according to the circum-
stances, even though the utmost extent of the sum be limited.''''
But a by-law may empower any other body than that enacting
it to fix the amount within certain limits.*" A stoppage of a
line out of profits accruing to the offending member is legal but
a stoppage of all profits is illegal.*^ Even under express legis-
lative authority to impose fines, there are limits beyond which the
corporation by its by-laws cannot go. The amount of the fine
must be reasonable; it can be imposed only by way of punish-
ment for some delinquency in the performance of a duty which
the member may owe to the corporation by reason of his mem-
bership ; and no more than one fine should be imposed for the
same offense.*^ The courts have been unanimous in discounte-
nancing a repeated imposition of the same fine increased every
time upon the principle of arithmetical progression."*^ When
under the by-laws a certain offense is made punishable by fine,
an offending member otherv/ise in good standing cannot be ex-
pelled therefor; and when a member is expelled nominally for
an offense which would warrant expulsion but in reality for
an offense punishable by fine only, he will be reinstated by the
36
Evans v. Philadelphia Club
Adey v. Reeve, 2 M. & S. 53.
(1865), 50 Pa. St. 107; State v.
42
Lynn v. Freemansburg Build-
Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce ing & L. Assn., 117 Pa. St. 1; s. c,
(1879), 47 Wis. 670. 2 Am. St. Rep. 639, 643; Hagar-
37
Yicle infra,
544, 1367. man v. Ohio Building & L. Assn.,
38
State V. Williams, 75 N. C. 23 Ohio St. 186; Forest City
134, United Land & Building Assn. v.
39
2 Kyd on Corporations, 156; Gallagher, 25 Ohio St. 208.
Hall V. Nixon, 32 L. T. 92; s. c.
-is
Endlich on Building Associa-
10 Q. B. 152. tions, 412, citing Citizens' Mut-
40
Piper V. Chappell, 14 Mees. ual Loan & A. F. Assn. v. Web-
& W. 624. ster, 25 Barb. 263.

107.] BY-LAWS. 213

courts.** Where the amount of a penalty is fixed by the charter,
a by-law, the penalty of which exceeds that amount, is void.*^ A
corporation having- authority to enforce its by-laws by fine is im-
pliedly precluded from adopting any other method.'*'' A by-law
cannot be enforced by disfranchising the offender.*'^ The cor-
poration itself must enforce its by-laws. A third party can en-
force them only when he shows some privity, as where his claim
is for value advanced on the credit of the by-law.*^ A by-law
of a non-stock corporation may impose reasonable fine upon mem-
bers for violating its rules, where the amount of the fine is rea-
sonable, limited in amount, and not excessive or ex post facfo.*^
And wdiere a violation of a by-law is made punishable by fine and
expulsion, a member who has been fined and paid his fine cannot
afterwards be expelled for the same offense.
^
A by-law cannot
provide that neglect to pay a fine shall effect a suspension till the
fine is paid, since that would be to inflict a penalty upon a penalty.
Forfeiture of stock of a corporation for non-payment of assess-
ment was unknown to the common law, and unless authorized by
the charter, a by-law authorizing a forfeiture is invalid,^^ unless
it be assented to by the shareholder, as in case where the by-law
is printed on his certificate of stock.^- When the charter au-
thorizes the forfeiture, and a by-law prescribes the manner of
sale, a sale made in any different way is invalid.^^ The power
of a corporation to pass by-laws providing for expulsion of mem-
bers, is one of its incidental powers. Where by his own act the
member made it impossible for him to attend the proceedings for
expulsion, a by-law providing for expulsion without notice will
not invalidate the proceedings.^* A mutual benefit society's by-
law that failure to pay his dues within thirty days from publica-
tion of an assessment shall forfeit the delinquent's membership,
44
otto V. Journeyman Tailors' Walsh, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 1; Hussey
Protective & Benev. Union (1S88), v. Gallagher, 61 Ga. 86.
75 Cal. 308; s. c. 7 Am. St. Rep.
5o
people v. New York Benev.
156. Soc. (1875), 3 Hun (N. Y.), 364.
45
McMullen v. City of Charles-
si
in re Long Island R. Co., 19
ton, 1 Bay, 382; Mayor, etc. v. Wend. 37, 37 Am. Dec. 429.
Ordrenan, 12 Johns. 122.
b2
weeks v. Silver, etc. Co., 23
46
Miles V. Chamherlain, 17 Wis. Jones & S. (N. Y.) 1.
446.
53
Allen v. American, etc. Assn.,
47
Rex V. London, 2 Lev. 201. 49 Minn. 544.
48
Anacosta Tribe v. Murbach,
54
Grand Commandery of Mass.
13 Md. 91; Flint v. Pierce (1868), v. Stewart (1900. Mass.), 58 N. E.
99 Mass. 68. 26; Thomas v. Musical Protective
49
Master Stevedores' Assn. v. Union (1890), 121 N. Y. 45, 24
N. E. 26.
214
BY-LAWS.
[
108.
was held valid.""* But a member may not be suspended or for-
feit his membership, in such case, without proof of such no-
tice as the by-laws provide.'**' Where the charter of a board of
trade incorporated gives power to expel a member, in manner
prescribed by the by-laws, the board may by by-law provide to
expel a member for violation of contract or for practicing a
fraud.
"'^
The by-laws of mutual benefit societies suspending a
member from benefits for a time, after payment of arrearages,
have latterly been upheld by the courts,^^ though formerly held
void.'*^ A by-law, forfeiting funeral benefits of a member be-
cause his dues, though fully paid, were not paid at exact time
when due, is void,*'** but a by-law may provide that a member in
arrears for a year is not entitled to benefits.''^ The Illinois rule
as to whether the courts will assume jurisdiction to review ex-
pulsion from membership, is that they will entertain appeals to
secure and protect property rights, and enforce money demands,
but not in cases of expulsion for simple violations of the by-laws
of the order.
''^

1 68. Retroactive and ex post facto by-laws.By-laws can-

not be made to operate retrospectively.*'^ For a by-law, or regu-
lation, means a rule for future action. Ex post facto laws are
no more lawful for corporations than for States. For all by-
laws contrary to the general principles of the common law or the
policy of the State are void.* Accordingly, the rights of a trans-
feree of shares cannot be afifected by a by-law passed af<-er the
55
Madeira v. Merchants' Ex- Brady v. Coachman's Ben. Assn
change Mut. Ben. Soc. (1883), 16 (1891), 14 N. Y. Supp. 272.
Fed. 749; Palmetto Lodge v. Hub-
go
Nelligan v. New York, etc
bell (1848), 2 Strob. (S. C.) 457, Union (1886), City Ct. Rep. (N.
49 Am. Dec. 604. Y.) 261.
5G
Supreme Lodge K. of H. v.
ei
Cowan v. New York Caled.
Dalberg (1891), 138 111. 508, 28 N. Club (1899), 61 N. Y. Supp. 714.
E. 787, Nat. Corp. Rep. 348. 62
People v. Women's C. O. F.
57
Dickenson V. Chamber of Com-
(1896), 162 111. 78, 44 N. E. 401;
merce (1871), 29 Wis. 45; Peo- Grand Lodge K. of P. v. People
pie V. New York Com. Assn.
(1895), 60 III. App. 550.
(1864), 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 282. 63
Howard v. Savannah, T. U.
58
Jennings v. Chelsea Div., etc.
P., Chart. (Ga.) 173.
(1899), 28 Misc. Rep. 556, N. Y. 64
Pulford v. Fire Department
Supp. 862; Rubino v. Frat. Assn. of Detroit (1875), 31 Mich. 458,
(1899), 29 Misc. Rep. 339, 60 N. 465, 466, citing Angell & Ames on
Y. Supp. 461; Skelly v. Private Corporations,

332, 335, 339;
Coachman's, etc. Soc. (1884), 13 Taylor v. Griswold, 2 Green, 223;
Daly (N. Y.), 2. Philips v. Wickham (1829), 1
59
Cartan v. Father Matthew, etc. Paige, 590.
Soc. (1869), 3 Daly (N. Y.), 20;

169.]
BY-LAWS.
215
transfer was made."'^ Amendment of a by-law, containing no
such provisions, requiring dues in arrears to be paid before a
day named, on penalty of loss of membership, is analogous to a
decree of foreclosure fixing short term of payment. In fixing such
new penalty, not existing at the time of default, the by-law is
ex post facto and void." A corporation has no power to enact
a by-law which shall have a retroactive effect on any contract
previously made.''' Subsequent by-laws of benefit societies will
not be given retroactive effect unless their terms are impartial,*
even though both the member's application and certificate stipu-
late that his right to participate in benefits is conditioned on the
by-lavrs.^ The New York court thus summarizes the doctrine
of this class of cases : "The true doctrine, we think, is that the
by-laws of such an association that would have the effect of ma-
terially changing or impairing the obligation of an existing con-
tract, cannot be given a retroactive effect." If it is attempted to
give it such a retroactive effect, the by-law is unreasonable, espe-
cially in case where by the terms of the contract of insurance
entered into by such a corporation, no right to amend its by-laws
is expressly reserved.''"

i6g. Not to be contrary to public policy or in restraint of

trade.The general rule is that by-laws are invalid when not
expressly authorized, if they are in unreasonable restraint of trade.
As a by-law forbidding a gunmakers' society from selling a gun
barrel to any non-member in London or within four miles there-
of.'^^ And a by-law, by an organization of dealers prohibiting
any one from Vv^orking at his trade, until his apprenticeship had
been approved by such organization, or until it allowed him to
be a workman.''^ And a by-law limiting the number of appren-
tices to be taken by the members of an organization, was held
void, as in restraint of trade.''^ And a by-law forbidding mem-
65
People V. Crockett, 9 Cal. 112. (1901), 112 Ga. 545, 37 S. E. 890.
66
Pulford V. Fire Dept. of De-
""
McNeil v. Southern, etc. Assn.
troit (1875), 31 Mich. 458. (1S99), 40 App. Div. 581, 58 N. Y.
6T
United Workmen v. Sater Supp. 119; Lloyd v. Supreme
(1891), 44 Mo. App. 445; Howard Lodge (1899), 38 C. C. A. G54, 98
V. Savannah, T. U. P, Chart. (Ga.) Fed. 66.
173.
Ti
Gunmakers' Soc. v. Fell
68
Wist V. Grand Lodge (1892), (1742),
Willes 384.
22 Ore. 271, 29 Pac. 611; Covenant T2Rex v. Cooper's Co. (1798), 7
Mutual, etc. v. Kentner (1900). Term R. 543.
188 111. 431; Spencer v. Grand
t.t
Tailors,' etc. of Ipswich Case
Lodge, etc. (1897), 22 Misc. Rep. (1G15), 11 Coke, 53;
Clark v.
147, 48 N. Y. Supp. 590. LeCren (1829), 9 Barn. & C. 52.
69
American Order, etc. v. Brown
216
BY-LAWS.
[
169.
bers of a society from working at their trade or occupation at
any such prices or under such conditions as the member may
choose to accept.'^* And a by-law of an association of master
plumbers, fixing a fine upon any member for work done in com-
petition with any other member."^ And a by-law of a society of
captains and owners of steamboats, limiting the rate of freight
any member should chargeJ^ And a by-law of a board of insur-
ance underwriters, forbidding a member to employ more than
one solicitor or to limit his salary, or term of service, or to pro-
hibit employment of any solicitor who has left the service of any
other member of the board/^ There is conflict of authority upon
the question of the validity of b3^-laws of press associations, at-
tempting to prohibit their members from furnishing news to any
non-m.ember, without special consent of the association. Such
p. regulation, in Illinois, is held to be void, but good in Missouri
and in New York."^ In Kentucky, a by-law of a funeral directors'
association, prohibiting any member from rendering any service
for, or furnishing any material, to any debtor to the association,
was held to be not unlawful."'' And in California, an irrigation
company incorporated to furnish water for owners and occu-
pants of land within a certain district, adopted by-laws limiting
the right to use the water, to shareholders of the company, wfio
were also landowners, and the by-laws were sustained.

Also
held valid a by-law of a chamber of commerce prohibiting its
members from gathering in any public place near its exchange
room, and forming a market for trading for future delivery of
produce and grain, before or after the exchange room is open
for business.^^ A medical society incorporated may not by by-
law establish a tariff of prices to limit charge of its members for
74
Thomas V. Musical, etc. Union Live Stock Exch. (1897), 170 111.
(1888), 49 Hun (N. Y.), 171, 17 N. 556, 48 N. E. 1062, 62 Am. St. Rep,
Y. St. Rep., 2 N. Y. Soc. 195; Par- 404.
ker V. Toronto, etc. Assn. (1900),
fs
interoc. Pub. Comp. v. Asso-
32 Ont. 305. ciated Press (1900), 184 111. 438,
75
Bailey v. Master Plumbers 56 N. E. 822; State v. Associated
(1899), 103 Tenn. 99, 52 S. W. Press (1900), 159 Mo. 410, 60 S.
853; Milwaukee Assn. v. Nieze- W. 91; Matthews v. Associated
rowski (1867), 95 Wis. 129, 70 N. Press (1891), 15 N. Y. Supp. 887,
W. 166. 136 N. Y. 333, 32 Am. St. Rep. 94.
76
Sayre v. Louisville Union,
79
Brewster v. Miller (1897), 101
etc. Assn. (1863), 1 Dov. (Ky.) Ky. 368, 41 S. W. 301.
143, 83 Am. Dec. 613.
so
McFadden v. Los Angeles Co.
77
Huston v. Rentlinger (1891), (1888), 74 Cal. 571.
91 Ky. 333, 15 S. W. 867, 34 Am.
si
State v. Milwaukee Chamber
St. Rep. 225; People v. Chicago of Commerce (1879), 47 Wis. 683.
169.]
BY-LAWS.
217
medical service.^- An incorporated musical society may not by
by-law forbid its members to play in any orchestra or band with
persons not members of the society
.^^
A corporation organized
to buy and sell fuel, may not pass a by-law to limit prices to be
charged by its members in their separate business, to the prices
fixed by the directors of the corporation.^* A mutual benefit so-
ciety by by-law may provide for forfeiture of membership, by
reason of enlistment in the regular army in time of peace, but not
to afifect enlistment in a volunteer regiment in time of war.*^ A
by-law must not be against public policy, as, for example, in gen-
eral restraint of trade ;
^
and where the design and object of an
association of persons are illegal, as in restraint of trade, the
courts refuse to enforce any of their rules and regulations infer
sese.^'' Thus, in a recent English case, a society was registered
as a trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1871, and in addi-
tion to its rules laying down the duties of njembers with refer-
ence to trade questions, and imposing fines, suspension and ex-
pulsion upon members violating the rules as to trade matters,
there were also rules giving to members certain allowances out
of the funds in cases of sickness, accident, infirmity or want of
employment, and other allowances similar to those of a friendly
society. A member sued for one week's sick benefit, which was
refused to him by the society; the lower court made an order
for the payment of the sum claimed, holding that the society was
substantially a friendly society, and that it had jurisdiction in the
matter. But upon appeal it was decided that as some of the ob-
jects of the society were in restraint of trade, it was at common
law an illegal association, and although societies of that char-
acter were made legal to a certain extent by the Trade Union
Act of 1871,
the fourth section of'tliat act prevented any court
from entertaining or enforcing any agreement between the mem-
bers to provide benefits to the members, and that consequently
the lower court had no jurisdiction to make the order in ques-
82
People V. Med. Soc. (1857), 24 Commonwealth (1849), 10 Pa. St.
Barb. (N. Y.) 570. 357.
83
Thomas v. Musical, etc. Union
ss
in re Long Island R. Co.
(1888), 17 N. Y. St. Rep. 51, 49 (1837), 19 Wend. 37. 41; s. c. 32
Hun (N. Y.), 171, 2 N. Y. Supp. Am. Dec. 429; Mitchell v. Rey-
195, 121 N. Y. 45, 24 N. E. 24. nolds, 1 P. Williams, 181; s. c.
84Kolf V. St. Paul Fuel Exch. 10 Mod. 130, where the authori-
(1892), 48 Minn. 215^ 50 N. Y. ties are reviewed.
1036.
87
Old V. Robson (Q. B. Div,
85
Franklin Beneficial Assn. v. 1890), 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 511.
218
BY-LAWS.
[
K'O^
tion.^^ But restraints particulnr as to time and place arc g;ood
if founded upon sufficient consideration.*" Thus a trading;- com-
pany may prohibit its members from carrying on the trade sep-
arately at a different place from that of the company's domicile.
*
So where a company was chartered for the purpose of maintain-
ing uniformity in the business of insurance, a by-law requiring
members to follow uniform rates of insurance is not void as being
against public policy in restraint of trade."^ And a company may
mipose reasonable restrictions as to the manner of transferring
shares of its stock; as, for example, that no transfer shall be
made on the books of the company without a surrender of the
old certificates or proof of their loss,"^ or until the transferrer
8s
"If a society were iHegal at
common law as being in restraint
of
trade, all the members of that
society would be indictable, and
contracts made by the members
inter se could not be enforced;
then came the Trade Union Act
1871, which removed the incapac-
ity of members, so that it could
no longer be said that they were
members of an illegal society. The
legislature has to a certain extent,
and to the limits defined by the
act, altered the law, and to a cer-
tain extent such societies should
not be treated as unlawful socie-
ties; but the legislature goes on
to say that in respect of disputes
of members of such societies
amongst themselves to enforce
their rules, no court should enter-
tain the matter. It seems to me
that it is immaterial whether this
society is a trade union or not;
the only question is, whether this
was an illegal association at com-
mon law. If so, it remains so as
to this purpose. The consequences
of the illegality are gone to the
extent to which these acts applj^
but only to that extent, and not
for purposes such as the present.
The only question here is, whether
this was a society illegal at com-
mon law, and on looking at the
various rules of the society there
can be no doubt that it is so.
There are various provisions, the
object of which are in restraint of
trade. A man shall not carry on
his trade as he likes, but must
look to the government of the so-
ciety. It is clear, therefore, that
the society is illegal at common
law, and that the incapacity t
appear in court has not been re-
moved by any legislation. It has
been argued that Knowles v.
Booth, 32 Week, Rep. 432, is an
authority for the decision of the
magistrates in this case; but that
case does not seem to me to touch
the matter at all. That case ap-
plies to what is a friendly society
and no more. It will not do to
say that the society is a legal so-
ciety for some purposes, but
illegal for other purposes. So far
as the present question is con-
cerned the point is left exactly as
it was at common law, and there-
fore in my opinion the decision of
the magistrates was wrong."
Wills, J., in Old v. Robson (Q. B.
Div. 1890), 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
511.
89
Gunmakers' Co. v. Fell,
Willes, 384.
00
King V. Fishermen of Faver-
sham, 8 Term Rep. 352, cited by
Lumlej^ on By-Laws, 131.
01
People V. New York Board of
Underwriters (1875), 54 How. Pr.
228.
')-
State V. Iberville Parish
Judge, 30 La. Ann. pt. 1, 308.

lYO.] BV-LAWS.
219
shall have discharg^crl all ckbts due from him to the company."^
But a by-law making: the consent of the president requisite to
effecting a transfer has been held invalid as in restraint of trade."'*
In Massaclmsctts it has been doubted,"^ and even entirely denied,
that the company can by means of a by-law in any way limit the
free transfer of stock."" In New Hampshire restrictions of this
character are forbjdden by statute."'' In New York it has been
held in the superior court that a by-law assuming to prohibit a
trans'fcr of stock in a manufacturing company because the owner
is in debt to the company, is ultra vires and void, the statutory
power of these companies to make by-laws extending only to pre-
scribing the manner and form in which transfers shall be made."^

170. Bj'--laws regulating transfer of stock.The by-laws

of a corporation, for its own convenience and protection, may im-
pose reasonable regulations for the transfer of its shares of stock.
This is necessary to the corporation's knowdedge of who are its
shareholders, entitled to vote at its meetings, and to payment of
dividends. And b3^-laws almost universally provide that no trans-
fer shall be made except upon the company's books, and upon
surrender of the old certificate or proof of its loss ; and so far as
the rights of shareholders are not violated, the courts have sus-
tained such regulations.^ Even when such provision for transfer
on the books of the corporation is provided for in the statute or
charter, it is intended merely for the protection of the corpora-
tion, so that it may know who are the stockholders, and as such
entitled to vote, etc., and is not intended to give to corporate di-
rectors the power of approval or disapproval of the registry of
any such transfer, "It does not restrict the right of the owner
to transfer his stock or clothe tlie corporation with the power to
refuse to register bona fide transfers."
^
But notwithstanding the
by-law, the sale of the stock accompanied by delivery of the cer-
tificate, passes good title to the vendee, as against the corpora-
03
Pendergast v. Bank of Stock-
os
Driscoll v. West Bradley, etc.
ton (1871). 2 Sawy. 108. Manuf. Co. (1874), 36 N. Y. Super.
94
Sargeant v. Franklin Ins. Co., Ct. 488.
8 Pick. 90. Cf.
Sargeant v. Essex 1 Planters' & Merchants' Mutual
M. R. Co., 9 Pick. 202. Ins. Co. v. Selma Savings Bank,
95
Plymouth Bank v. Bank of 63 Ala. 585; Dane v. Young, 61
Norfolk, 10 Pick. 454; Nesmith v. Me. 160; Farmers' & Merchants'
Washington Bank, 6 Pick. 324. Bank of Louisville v. Wasson, 48
96
Sargeant v. Franklin Ins. Co., iowa, 336.
8 Pick. 90; s. c. 19 Am. Dec. 30G.
2 Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65,
9T
N. H. Laws of 1849, eh. 860, 103 U. S. 800.

2.
220
BY-LAWS.
[
170.
tion.'' A by-law providing that shares shall be "transferable only
on the books of the company" will not authorize the directors to
refuse to register a transfer, although they may consider the
transfer detrimental to the interest of the corporation.* The re-
quirement of transfer on the books is generally held to be alone
for protection and benefit of the corporation, and not as prevent-
ing any transfer without entry on the books. Except as against
the corporation, the shareholder may, as an incident of his right
of property, transfer both his legal and equitable title to liis stock."*
Under the pretense of prescribing the manner of transfer, the as-
sociation cannot clog it with useless restrictions, or make it de-
pendent upon the consent of the directors or other shareholders.'
A by-law which prohibits a transfer of shares to one not already
a shareholder, without first offering the shares to the corporation,
is invalid.'^ So an agreement by the organizers of a corporation
that their stock shall be put in trust, and not drawn out for six
months without the w^ritten consent of all, is void as against pub-
lic policy, if it is to be construed so as to prevent a sale of the
stock within the six months.^ Restrictions upon the power to
make a bona fide sale and transfer of shares must be based upon
authority conferred by the charter, or upon by-law adopted under
the authority of a charter provision,^ or upon a valid contract
with the shareholder." But the power to regulate the transfer
does not include the power to restrict, and a corporation has no
power to prohibit transfers of shares, or condition such transfer
upon the approval of the board of directors, or other agent of the
company. Any such restricting by-law is void, as in the nature
of a restraint of trade, and contrary to public policy."
3
Moore v. Bank of Commerce 35 Hun (N. Y.), 641; Nesmith v.
(1873), 52 Mo. 379; Wilson v. St. Washington Bank, 6 Pick. (Mass.)
Louis, etc. Co. (1891), 108 Mo. 324.
588, 18 S. W. 286.
^ Johnson v. Laflin, 5
Dill. 65,
4
Chemical Nat. Bank v. Col- 103 U. S. SCO.
well (1892), 132 N. Y. 250, 30 N.
lo
New England, etc. Co. v. Ab-
E. 644.
'bott, 162 Mass. 148, 27 L. R. A.
5
Chouteau Spring v. Harris, 271.
20 Mo. 382; Feckheimer v. Nat.,
n
Farmers', etc. Bank v. Wasson
etc. Bank, 79 Va. 80. (1896), 48 Iowa, 336, 30 Am. Rep.
6
Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S. 398; Ireland v. Globe Milling Co.
800.
(1898),
21 R. I. 9, 79 Am. St. Rep.
TBrinkerhoff, etc. Co. v. Home, 769; Herring v. Ruskin, etc. Assn.
etc. Co., 118 Mo. 447, Wilgus Cas. (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899), 52 S. W.
8
Williams v. Montgomery, 68 327.
Hun (N. Y.), 416; Fisher v. Bush,

171.] BY-LAAVS.
221

171. Construction of by-laws.By-laws of a corporation

affect merely the management of its business and the control of
its officers and agents. They are no part of its charter and cannot
vary its powers.^- It is a question for the court, and not for the
jury, to decide whether or not a by-law of a corporation is with-
in its authorized power to pass, and what the by-law means.^'
Where the by-law is ambiguous, and requires extrinsic evidence
to explain it, the jury will decide.^* Where the distinct parts of
a by-law are separable, the valid from the invalid, the former will
stand,^^ but if not so separable, and part is invalid, the whole by-
law is void.^*' By-laws are liberally construed, and in accordance
with the construction given them by the corporation.^^ Proof
of long usage in the method of a society in calling its annual
meetings for election of officers, is held to be the society's con-
struction of its by-laws regulating the calling of such meetings.^^
In mutual insurance questions that construction of a by-law
which is most favorable to the insured will be adopted.^ A by-
law of a bank authorizing the president to certify checks drawn
on the bank is held not to include checks drawn by the president
himself.-" The reasonableness of by-laws of unincorporated so-
cieties will not be passed upon by the courts.-^ A provision in
the charter of a corporation that "all rules and restrictions made
by the board of directors, concerning the transfer of stocks, shall
be subject to the general law of the State," requires only, as to
the by-laws, that they shall be reasonable and not contrary to the
12
Brewster v. Hartley (1869),
is
state v. Curtis (1874), 9 Nev.
37 Cal. 15, 99 Am. Dec. 237; 325.
Steiner V. Steiner, etc. Co. (1898),
it
Breneman v. Franklin, etc.
120 Ala. 128. Assn. (1842), 3 Watts & S. Pa.
13
Scholl V. Sadoury (Pa. 1894), 218; Poulters Co. v. Phillips, 6
24 Pittsburg Leg. J. (N. S.) 43; Bing. (N. C.) 314.
Bearden V. People, etc. (Tenn. Ch.
is
State v. Conklin (1874), 34
App. 189S), 49 S. W. 64; Carney v. Wis. 21.
New York Life Ins. Co. (1900),
10
Finch v. Grand Grove, etc.
162 N. Y. 453, 57 N. E. 78, 49 L. R. (1895), 60 Minn. 308, 62 N. W.
A. 471. 384; Supreme Lodge, etc. v. Mon-
"
State V. Conklin (1874), 34 drowski (1899), 20 Tex. Civ. App.
Wis. 21; Morris & E. Co. v. Ayres 322, 49 S. W. 919; Eastern B. & L.
(1862), 29 N. J. Law, 395; Comp- Assn. v. Olsmsted (1900), 16
ton V. Van Volkenburg (1870), 34 App. D. C. 387.
N. J. Law, 134.
20 Claflin v. Farmers' & Citizens'
isAmesbury v. Bowditch, etc. Bank (1862), 25 N. Y. 293.
Co. (1856), 6 Gray (Mass.), 607;
21 Kehlenbeck v. Logeman
Cleve V. Financial Co., L. R. 16 Eq. (1882), 10 Daly (N. Y.), 447;
363.
Robinson v. Yates City Lodge
(1877), 86 111. 599.
222
EY-LAWS.
[
1T2.
general law of the State, other than that governing those mat-
ters
which the corporation by-laws are intended to govern.-^
Where the general statues of the State, governing corporations,
give a corporation express power to make by-laws for specified
purposes, its power is limited thereto, and it can make no by-law
for any other purpose.-^ A clause in the.charter giving "the force
and effect of legal enactment" to "the constitution and by-laws,"
that may be adopted, gives no greater 'power than is ordinarily
given in charters without such clause.-* A by-law of a corpora-
tion does not affect contracts made with the corporation prior to
its adoption, in the absence of express stipulation, that subsequent
amendments shall apply.^^ Where such a contract provides that
it was subject to the lr.ws in force at the time of its execution or
afterwards adopted, a by-law adopted after such execution of the
contract, becomes a part of it.-^ A court of equity cannot make
by-laws for a corporation, as by substituting "by-laws" for "con-
stitution," in construing a provision in the by-laws that the con-
stitution may be altered or amended by a two-thirds vote at any
annual meeting.^^

172. Conflict between statute or charter and by-lav7S.

If the constitution and by-laws of a corporation are inconsistent

with the purposes for which it was incorporated, they are void,^^*
By-laws of a corporation must be conformable and subordinate
to the charter regulations,^'^ and run with their spirit and intent,
and not conflict therewith.^" There is no presumption that a
member of a corporation assented to any such conflicting by-law,
and it is inoperative as to those members who did not assent
to it.^^ But a by-law will not be given a construction, that it con-
flicts with a statute of the State, where the by-law is susceptible
of a construction making it valid.^-
22
St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co,
28
state v. Curtis (1874), 9 Nev.
V. Goodfellow (1845), 9 Mo. 149. 325; Kearney v. Andrews (1854),
23
Ireland v. Globe M. & R. Co. 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stockt.) 70.
(1895), 19 R. I. 180, 32 Atl. 921,
20
St. Luke's Cliurch v. Matth-
29 L. R. A. 429. ews (1815), 4 Dessaus. (S. C.)
24
Martin v. Nashville Building 585.
Assn. (18G5), 42 Tenn. (2 Cold.
so
Commonwealth v. Fisher
418). (1869), 7 Phila. 264.
25
Supreme Commandery, etc. v.
si
Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Harvey
Ainsworth (1882), 71 Ala. 436, 46 (1864), 45 N. H. 292.
Am. Rep. 332.
32
Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph
26
Idem. (1879), 70 Mo. 262.
27
Scanlan v. Snow (1894), 2
App. D. C. 137.
173, 174.] EY-LAws. 223
173.
Estoppel to question validity of by-laws.It was
held no ratification of a by-law by a trustee of the corporation
vvho was also its creditor, who openly protested against the by-
law, though he accepted money under it, and was present at a
subsequent meeting of the trustees, who directed the appUcation
of the money, and to which he assented.
^^
174.
Pleading.A by-law may be good in part and partly
void."* Where there are several distinct by-laws, one may be
void and the other good ; where they are combined, and yet the
parts are separable, the same rule applies to the separate parts
;
but where they are so framed as to be inseparable or to depend
upon each other, if part be void the whole is void.'^ Where a
by-law is open to two constructions and according to one it would
be illegal, the court will prefer to adopt the other, although in
that event the facts of a particular case will constitute a breach.^
Although the rules and regulations of a society or order enter
into and become a part of the contract of life insurance which
it makes with its members, its own practice or opinion as to the
meaning of the w^ords used to express the rule or regulation in
controversy is not binding on the courts, in construing the con-
tract, if the language be plain, unambiguous and well understood
to have a fixed m.eaning, either generally or as a technical term
of the law. The latter meaning will be given to the words used
as in other cases for the interpretation of contracts.^'^ In ac-
tions arising under the by-laws of a corporation they must be set
forth in the pleadings ; and an omission to do so may be taken
advantage of by demurrer.^^ Corporations must show their power
to pass by-laws, and must bring themselves by proof within that
power.^^
33
Slee V. Bloom (1822), 19 other." Clark v. Denton, 1 Barn.
Johns. 456, 10 Am. Dec. 273, re- & Ad. 97; Stationers' Co. v. Salis-
versing the decree in (1821) 3 bury. Comb. 222.
Johns. 366.
36
Lumley on By-Laws, 269, cit-
34
3 Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. ing Dearden v. Townsend, L. R. 1
260; Boisot on By-Laws, p. 98. Q. B. 10; Eagleton v. East India
35
Lumley on By-Laws, 157, cit- Co., 3 Bos. & P. 55; Great Western
ing Fazaherley v. Wiltshire, 1 Ry. Co. v. Goodman, 21 L. J. C.
Willes, 390; Regina v. Lundie, 5 P. 197.
L. T. N. S. 831; Queen v. Saddlers' 37
Wiggin v. Knights of Pythias
Co., 32 L. J. Q. B. 345; King v.
(1887), 31 Fed. Rep. 122.
Company of Fisherman, 8 Term
ss
Harker v. Mayor, 17 Wend.
Rep. 357, where it was said by 199, in any court whether of
Lord Kenyon, "though a by-iaw record or not.
may be good in part, yet it can be
so
Dunham v. Trustees of
so only where the two parts are Rochester, 5 Cow. 462; Taylor v.
ntire and distinct from each Griswold, 2 Green, 223.
224
BY-LAWS.
[
175.
175-
Validity and effect of by-laws in general.A
valid
by-law is as much a law of the corporation as is its charter.'*" As
a
general rule, by-laws of a corporation, whether expressly au-
thorized or not, which are reasonable and calculated to effect
the authorized purposes of the corporation, and which are
adopted by a majority of the governing board, are valid.*^ But
by-laws contrary to the provisions or purposes of the charter are
void.*- The validity of by-laws is tested by their reasonableness.*^
Lapse of time, however long, will not validate a by-law, which
is intrinsically illegal.** The rule that by-laws must be rea-
sonable to be valid does not apply to the by-laws of voluntary
unincorporated associations, associations organized for other than
business purposes. The courts do not interfere to enforce or set
aside their by-laws, except where they are contrary to law or to
public policy.*^ It is the inalienable right of every citizen to in-
voke the aid of the courts for his assistance or protection, and
a by-law of a merchant's exchange which requires members to
submit their controversies to arbitration, on pain of expulsion if
they bring suit, is invalid.* A by-law of a chamber of commerce,
providing for the expulsion of a member for non-compliance with
the terms of any contract, whether verbal or written, is reasonable
and valid.*'^ The corporation is subject to the restrictions of its
by-laws,*^ and is entitled to rely on them, in its dealiiigs with its
members and with third persons. So that a transfer of its stock
not made on its books in accordance with its by-laws does not
bind the corporation.*^ Nor is it bound by acts unratified, of its
officers, in excess of their authority when it is defined by the by-
laws.^" And where ^n officer receives money contrary to the by-
laws, and embezzles it, the corporation cannot recover on his
bond, conditioned that he shall account for all money received by
40
Kent V. Quicksilver Mining Ct. Rep. (N. Y.) 186; Conniff v.
Co. (1879), 78 N. Y. 179. Jamoiir (1900), 31 Misc. Rep. 729,
ii
People V. Sailors' Snug Har- 65 N. Y. Supp. 317.
bor (1868), 54 Barb. 532: Poultney 46
state v. Union Merchants' Ex-
V. Bachman (1883), 31 Hun, 49. change (1876), 2 Mo. App. 96.
42
Child V. Hudson Bay Co. 47
Dickenson v. Chamber of
(1723), 2 P. Williams, 207, 209; Comnjerce (1871), 29 Wis. 45.
Bergman v. St. Paul Assn. (1882),
4s
Covenant Mut. Assn. v. Spies
29 Minn. 275, 282. (1885), 114 111. 463, 468, 2 N. B.
43
Vierling v. Mechanics,' etc. 482.
Assn. (1899). 179 111. 524, 53 N. E.
49
stockwell v. St. Louis Merc.
979. Co. (1880), 9 Mo. App. 133.
44
Rex V. Ashwell, 12 East, 22.
so
Adriance v. Roome (1868), 52
45
Elsas V. Alford (1878),,
1 City Barb. (N. Y.) 411.

175.]
'
BY-LAWS. 225
him, because the corporation is bound by the by-law/'^ Where
the directors of a corporation hold meeting- to elect a president
at a place elsewhere than provided by the by-law such election is
void.^^ If the by-laws require that all meetings of the board of
directors shall be specially called, a meeting of part, although a
majority of the members of the board, not called as required by
the by-law, is not a legal meeting.^^ Where the by-laws of a
mutual benefit insurance company require that the assessments
shall be levied by the directors, the board cannot delegate the
power to the president and the secretary.^* A by-law which oper-
ates to promote usurious loans from the association to its mem-
bers is void.^^ The by-laws of a corporation, organized for lit-
erary and scientific purposes may not limit membership to per-
sons of any particular religious faith, or subject its affairs to
ecclesiastical control.^'' A by-law of a public canal company,
closing navigation on Sunday under penalty, is void. A void by-
law can acquire no validity by amendment.^^ The preponderance
of authority is, in trading and manufacturing corporations, that
the officers have the apparent powers implied in their designa-
tions, and that they are not limited to the powers enumerated in
the by-laws, as against third persons dealing with such officer,
without notice of such limitation.^^ A by-law clearly foreign to
the purposes of the corporation is void.^^ A by-law 'making less
than a majority a quorum at meeting of directors, is valid, if not
contrary to the charter or statute of the State.^" No director or
officer of a corporation is entitled to any salary, except as au-
thorized by the corporation by-laws, but payment in excess of
that so authorized is not void, though voidable at suit of a share-
holder showing his injury thereby.*''- A mutual benefit society
81
Sperry v. Dransfield (1884),
b6
People v. Young Men's, etc.
2 New Zeal. Sup. Ct. 319. Soc. (1879), 41 Mich. 67, 1 N. W.
52
-Waterman v. Chicago I. R. 931, 6 Am. Corp. Cas. 626.
Co. (1S92), 139 111. 658, 29 N. E.
57
Calder, etc. Nav. Co. v.
689.
Pilling (1845), 14 Mees. & W. 76,
53
Mast Buggy Co. v. Litchfield 58
state v. Crotchett, 37 Minn.
F. H. & I. Co. (1893), 55 111. App. 13; State v. Truby, 37 Minn. 97.
98.
59
Fay v. Noble, 12 Cush. 1;
BiGarretson v. Eq. Assn. Wait v. Smith, 92 111. 385; Rath-
(1895), 93 Iowa, 402, 61 N. W. bun v. Snow, 123 N. Y. 343, 10 L.
952. R. A. 355.
55
Herbert v. Kenton, etc. Assn.
go
People v. Chicago Board of
(1875), 74 Ky. 296; Building & Trade (1867), 45 111. 118.
Loan Assn. v. Dorsey (1881),
15
pi
Brown v. DeYoung
(1897),
S. C. 462. 167 111. 549, 47 N. E. 863.
Vol. I

15
226
BY-LAWS.
[
176.
may not by by-law increase the amount of mortuary benefit pay-
able on account of any member, beyond that prescribed by char-
ter."^ Where the articles of incorporation prescribe the condi-
tions of membership the by-laws cannot impose additional con-
ditions."^

175. (a) Of by-laws creating lien on the stock.A corpo-

ration has no lien upon its shares in tlie hands of a shareholder,
to secure his indebtedness to the corporation, in the absence of
any contract or provision of the charter or by-laws to that ef-
fect."* Where the charter or g^eneral law neither grants nor pro-
hibits power to reserve lien by by-law, but gives the corporation
authority to regulate transfers, such authority implies the power
to pass by-laws giving it a lien upon its shares of stock for the
holder's indebtedness to it, which by-law will bind the share-
holder and purchasers with notice of it. Though there is great
conflict of authority upon this question, the preponderance is in
support of the validity of such a by-law."^ And shareholders and
transferees either with or without actual notice of the by-law, are
chargeable with notice of it, when the authority to pass it is ex-
pressly given by charter or general law."" On the contrary many
cases deny such implied power."^ Such by-law applies whether
the debt of the shareholder is due or not."^ Such by-law does
not affect stock in hands of an innocent purchaser, for value and
without actual notice of the by-law."^ If such a lien is conferred
by by-law, the purchaser of the stock, without notice of the by-
law, is not bound, but all persons are charged with notice of such
lien provided by the company's charter, articles of association or
by a general law. And the corporation may refuse to transfer
62
Nelligan v. New York, etc. Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants'
Union (1886), 2 City Ct. Rep. (N. Bank, 45 Mo. 513, 100 Am. Dec.
Y.) 261. 388.
63
People V. Young Men's, etc.
67
Driscoll v. West Bradley, 59
Soc. (1879), 41 Mich. 67, 1 N. W. N. Y. 96; Chouteau Spring Co. v.
931, 6 Am. Corp. Cas. 626. Harris, 20 Mo. 382; Moore v. Bank
64
Farmers' Bank v. Wasson, of Commerce, 52 Mo. 377.
48 Iowa. 336, 30 Am. Rep. 398.
es
St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co.
65
Child V. Hudson Bay Co. v. Goodfeirow (1845), 9 Mo. 149;
(1723), 2 P. Williams, 207, the In re Bachman (1875), 2 Cent. L.
leading case; Lockwood v. Me- Jour. 119, 12 Nat. Bank Reg. 223;
chanics' Nat. Bank (1869), 9 R. Knight v. Old Nat. Bank (1871),
I. 308, 11 Am. St. Rep. 253. 3 Cliff. 429, Fed. Cas. No. 7885.
. 66Tuttle V. Walton. 1 Ga. 43;
69 Farmers' Bank v. Wasson, 48
Bank of Atchison Co. v. Durfee, Iowa. 536; Driscoll v. West Brad-
118 Mo. 431, 40 Am. St. Rep. 396; ley & Manuf. Co., 59 N. Y. 96.

177, 178.]
BY-LAWS, 227
the shares until its claim is satisfied.'^'' The liability of the stock-
holder for the unpaid portion of his stock does not constitute debt
within the contemplation of such by-lawJ^ But a national bank
organized under the act of 1S64, cannot acquire a lien on its own
shares by such by-law, because it is forbidden by the act to make
any loan on security of its own stock, and the courts hold it to be
against the spirit and policy of the act to acquire any such lien."
177.
(b) Of by-laws retiring stock,A corporation may
not by by-law retire any part of its capital stock so long as any
shareholder objects.''^ No liability can be imposed by means of
by-laws upon shareholders for debts of the corporation,^* nor by
resolution of the trustees,"^ beyond the shareholders agreement
to contribute to the capital stock of the company.''" A by-law al-
lowing shareholders, upon paying thirty per cent, of their shares,
to forfeit them, is void, as against creditors of the company,
where such payment w^ould not create a fund sufficient to pay the
debts of the corporation ; though it would be valid as between
the corporators and shareholders.
'^'^
A by-law creating a lien
upon shares of stock in favor of the corporation for debts due
it from the shareowner are inoperative, as against his judgment
creditors."^ In the absence of charter or statutory liability of
members of a corporation, for the corporate debts, such liability
may not be imposed by by-law.''^
178. (c) By-laws afTecting rights of members.

^A by-law
of a mutual benefit insurance company that any member, after
admission, who shall engage in any occupation that bars appli-
ToDriscoll V. West Bradley, etc. Bldg. Assn. (1882), 29 Minn. 278.
Manuf. Co., 59 N. Y. 109; Bank of
74
Reid v. Eatonton Manuf. Co.
Holly Springs v. Pinson (1880), (1869), 40 Ga. 98. 2 Am. Rep. 563;
58 Miss. 421; Planters,' etc. Mut. Trustees of Free Schools v. Flint
ual Ins. Co. v. Selma Savings (1847), 13 Mete. 539.
Bank, 63 Ala. 585; Mt. Holly
75 Vincent v. Chapman, 10 Gill.
Paper Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. & J. 279.
513.
7G
Jackson v. Meek, 87 Tenn.
71
Kahn v. Bank of St. Joseph 69, 10 Am. St. Rep. 620.
(1879), 70 Mo. 262. But see In re
77
siee v. Bloom, 19 Johns. 456;
Bachman (1875), 2 Cent. L. Jour. Cooper v. Frederick (1846), 9 Ala.
119, 12 Nat. Bank Reg. 223. 739.
72Bullard v. Bank (1873), 18
78 Bryon v. Carter, 22 La. Ann
Wall. (U. S.) 589; Bank v. Lanier 98.
(1870), 11 Wall. (U. S.) 369;
79 Trustees v. Flint (1847), 13
Delaware L., etc. Co. v. Oxford Mete. (Mass.) 539; Reid v. Eaton-
Iron Co. (1884),
38 N. J. Eq. 340. ton Manuf. Co. (1869), 40 Ga. 101.
73
Bergman v. St. Paul Mut.
22S
BY-LAWS.
[
179, ISO.
cants for admission, shall stand suspended, Is valid."" Where the
articles of incorporation set out the conditions of membership
the by-laws may not impose other conditions."^ A society in-
corporated as a religious organization may provide by by-law
that any member ceasing to worship regularly with the society
or failing to contribute to its support shall lose his membership.**-
179.
(d) By-laws restricting suit.A mutual insurance
company may by by-law limit the time for bringing suit against
the company for loss, to a reasonable period after the directors
determine the amount of the loss."^ But it may not limit the
bringing of suit to any particular jurisdiction. Any corporation's
by-law is void which undertakes to impair the right of a mem-
ber to sue in the courts of the State, or to change the jurisdic-
tion of the lawfully established courts. Such a by-law is unrea-
sonable and contrary to law."* Members are bound to take no-
tice of the by-laws."^ Members of mutual insurance and benefit
societies are bound to take notice of their by-laws."" Only such
by-laws of an insurance company as are referred to in the policy
are binding upon the policy holder."'^

180. Amendment of by-laws.The same authority which

makes a by-law may subsequently amend or repeal it."" Thus,
where the articles of association of a corporation provide for the
management of its business by a board of directors, and for meet-
ings of the corporation and the first by-laws were adopted by the
80
Schmidt v. Supreme Tent K. chants,' etc. Co., 118 N. Y. 484, 7
of M. (1897), 97 Wis. 532, 73 N. L. R. A. 822; McFadden v. Los An-
W. 22. geles Co., 74 Cal. 571; Austin v.
81
People V. Young Men's Father Searing (1857), 16 N. Y. 112, G9
Matthew, etc. Soc. (1879), 41 Am. Dec. 665.
Mich. 67, 1 N. W. 931, 6 Am. Corp.
se
Pfister v. Gerwig, 122 Ind.
Cas. 626. 567; Supreme Lodge K. of P. v.
82Grayv. Christian Soc. (1884), Knight (1889), 117 Ind. 489;
137 Mass. 329, 50 Am. Rep. 310. Supreme Comm. v. Ainsworth
83Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. (1882), 71 Ala. 436, 46 Am. R.
F. Ins. Co. (1856), 6 Gray 332.
(Mass.), 603.
87
Kingsley v. New England,
84Nute V. Hamilton Mut. F. Ins. etc. Co., 8 Cush. (Mass.) 393; Mil-
Co. (1856), 6 Gray (Mass.), 174; ler v. Hillsborough, etc. Co., 44
Amesbury v. Bowditch Mut. F. N. J. Eq. 224; and see Brent v.
Ins. Co. (1856), 6 Gray (Mass.), Bank of Wash., 10 Pet. (U. S.)
603. And see Anacosta Tribe, etc. 594.
V. Murbach 13 Md. 91, 71 Am.
ss
Blatchford v. Ross (1868),
Dec. 625; Boisot on By-Laws, 70. 54 Barb. 42; Amesbury v. Bow-
85
Frank v. Morrison (1882), ditch, etc. Co. (1856),
6 Gray, 596.
58 Md. 423; Douglas v. Mer-

181.] BY-LAWS.
229
directors, the latter have power to amend them.^' And the mem-
bers are bound by amendment made in accordance with existing
rules to the same extent as by the original by-law." Accord-
ingly a member of a company whose by-laws are subject to amend-
ment cannot maintain an action against it under a by-law which
has been repealed by amendment during his membership and be-
fore the bringing of his action," "A subject of great importance
to members of mutual insurance and building and loan associa-
tions is the effect upon those of subsequent alterations of the by-
laws. In recent years this question has been a fertile source of
litigation, and the decisions are in irreconcilable conflict."
^
The
alteration of a by-law is but making of another on the same mat-
ter.^ Any alteration of the by-laws must be expressly made. It
cannot be effected by usage contrary to the by-law.* Yet the
company may be estopped from setting up a by-law to show its
non-liability for an act done on its behalf where all of the mem-
bers have assented to its performance.^ The power to make
amendment to the by-laws is to make such as are not inconsistent
W'ith the constitution and the law."

i8i. Repeal of by-laws.A by-law may be modified or

repealed by usage and without any formal action.^ The corpo-
ration may be estopped from setting up a by-law to show its non-
liability for an act done on its behalf where all the members have
assented to its performance.^ If \vith acquiescence of the share-
holders or members the corporation acts or contracts in disre-
gard of a by-law it is thereby waived as against shareholders, as
well as against strangers. Where the by-law reserved lien on
89
Heintzelman v. Druids Re- 604; Shaw v. Furze, 1 L. J. Q. B.
lief Assn. (1888), 38 Minn. 138. N. S. 216.
90
Poultney v. Bachman (1883),
95
Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v.
31 Hun, 49; Stilwell v. People's, Murphy, 5 Minn. 36.
etc. Assn. (1899), 19 Utah, 257, 57
9g
Kent v. Quicksilver Mining
Pac. 14. Co.. 78 N. Y. 159 (1879).
91
Schrick v. St. Louis, etc. Co.,
9^
Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin-
34 Mo. 423.
son (1880), 58 Miss. 421, 38 Am.
92
See Boisot on By-Laws of Rep. 421; Henry v. Jackson, 37 Vt.
Private Corporations,

118-131. 431 (1865).
93
Kent V. Quicksilver Mining
9s
Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v.
Co. (1879), 78 N. Y. 159, 2 Keen- Murphy, 5 Minn. 36.
er's Cas. 936; Crittenden v. South-
99 Royal Bank of India's Case,
ern Home, etc. Assn., Ill Ga. 266; 4 Ch. App. 252; Clark v. New Eng-
Schrick v. St. Louis Home, etc. land Mut., etc. Co., 6 Cush. (Mass.)
Assn., 34 Mo. 423 (1864). 342, 53 Am. Dec. 44.
84
Sills V. Brown, 9 Carr. & P.
230
BY-LAWS.
[
181.
shares of stockholder for his debt to the corporation and required
that the certificates of stock should contain notice of the by-law,
the issue of certificates bearing no such notice, constitute a repeal
of the by-law.^ A by-law is not repealed by the adoption of a
new
constitution, making no reference to the by-laws.^ Repeal
under charter authority is the act of the whole association, and
must be only in pursuance of the express or implied terms of
that authority.' A repeal may be presumed from general non-
observance but not if any vested right could be impaired by such
repeal.^ A by-law m'ay be repealed, as in case of a statute, by
implication, by a subsequent by-law inconsistent with it.^ A by-
law amendment reducing from four to three the number of di-
rectors necessary for quorums does not by implication repeal an-
other by-law requiring a vote of two-thirds of the directors to
suspend certain officers. The same authority which makes a by-
law may subsequently repeal or amend it.'^ Thus, where the arti-
cles of association of a corporation provide for the management
of its business by a board of directors, and for meetings of that
board, but do not provide for meetings of the corporation, and
the first by-laws were adopted by the directors, the latter have
power to amend them.^ And the members are bound by amend-
ments made in accordance with existing rules, to the same ex-
tent as by the original by-law.^ Accordingly, a member of a com-
pany whose by-laws are subject to amendment cannot maintain
an action against it under a by-law which has been repealed by
amendment during his membership and before the bringing of
his action.^" So, by-laws relating to the rights of members to
1 Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin- a by-law of a religious society, re-
son (18S0), 58 Miss. 421. quiring a two-thirds vote to alter
2 Herman v. Plummer (1898), by-laws, may, nevertheless, be re-
20 Wash. 363. pealed by a majority. Richardson
3 Martino v. Commerce Fire Ins. v. Union Congregational Society,
Co., 47 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 520. 58 N. H. 187.
4
Atty.-Gen. v. Middleton, 2
s
Heintzelman v. Druids' Relief
Vesey, Sen. 327. Assn. (1888), 38 Minn. 138.
5
Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co.

Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun,
(1879), 78 N. Y. 159. 49; Note to Austin v. Searing, 69
5
Stockton V. Harmon (1893), Am. Dec. 674; McDowell v. Ack-
32 Fla. 312, 13 So. 833. ley, 93 Pa. St. 277; Stilwell v.
7
Newling v. Francis, 3 Term People's, etc. Assn. (1899), 19
Rep. 198; King v. Ashwell, 12 Utah, 257, 57 Pac. 14; Korn v.
East, 22; King v. Westwood, 4 Mutual Assurance Soc. (1810), 6
Barn. & C. 806. Gf.
Lambert v. Cranch. (U. S.) 192.
Addison, 46 L. T. 20. But in New
lo
Schrick v. St. Louis, etc. Co.,
Hampshire it has been said that 34 Mo. 423.

182.] BY-LAWS. 231

benefits under the constitution and by-laws of a benevolent vol-
untary association, if amended in accordance with the existing
constitution and by-laws, may be so altered as to reduce the
amount due a sick member, and an alteration of this kind, even
though made during- his sickness, docs not necessarily impair the
obligation of a contract." The amendment is binding both upon
the member and upon those claiming benefits under him. Thus
it has been held that a member of the Philadelphia Stock Ex-
change, who subscribed to its constitution and by-laws, was bound
by an amendment made in accordance therewith, providing for
a gratuity fund from which payments were to be made to the
representatives of deceased members who should pay dues and
assessments, and providing that members failing to pay dues and
assessments should be debarred from participation in the benefits
from the fund ; and it was decided that the representatives of a
member thus failing to pay could not be heard to question the va-
lidity of the amendment, and could receive no benefit from the
fund.^^ Power conferred upon the executive committee to amend
the by-laws does not, however, authorize them so to amend them
as to take away from the shareholders rights reserved for their
protection.^^ And any alteration of the by-laws must be ex-
pressly made. It cannot be effected by a usage contrary to the
by-law.^* Yet the company may be estopped from setting up a
by-law to show its non-liability for an act done on its behalf
where all the members have assented to its performance.^" An
alteration of a by-law is pro tanto repeal, but no private corpora-
tion can repeal a by-law so as to impair rights which were vested
by the by-law afterwards repealed.^

182. Waiver of by-laws.Corporations have the same in-

cidental power to repeal by-laws as to make them, and the power
to repeal implies the power to waive. Waiver is repeal in a par-
ticular case. The power to waive a by-law is as inalienable as the
power to make it.^^ By-laws, not based on any limitation by
statute or charter, may be waived at the convenience of the cor-
11
Poultney v. Bachman, 31 Hun,
is
Pennsylvania, etc. Co. v.
49.
Murphy, 5 Minn. 36.
12
McDowell V. Ackley, 93 Pa.
- is
Kent v. Quicksilver Mining
St. 277. Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879).
isBlatchford V. Ross (1868), 54
it
Supreme Tent v. Volkert
Barb. 42. (1900), 25 Ind. App. 627, 57 N. E.
14
Sills V. Brown, 9 Carr. & P. 203.
604: Shaw v. Furze, 1 L. J. Q. B.
N. S. 216.
232
BY-LAWS.
[
1S2.
poration," and they may do so expressly or impliedly.^" Its di-
rectors by their act or contract may waive any by-law which they
have power to make. The decisions relating to waiver of by-
laws, for most part, have been made in cases involving policies of
insurance. As where a mutual fire insurance company in viola-
tion of its by-laws, issues a policy of insurance, it is not void
;
its issue being a waiver of the by-laws, and though expressly re-
ferred to in the policy
.^
In such case, the rights of the person
insured, are fixed by the policy, and against it the company can-
not invoke the by-laws it has waived.-^ In case of waiver of its
by-law, the corporation, by estoppel or otherwise, can assert no
right under it. As where its by-law required transfer of stock
by any shareholder indebted to the company, to be consented to
by the board of directors ; but the requirement was ignored in
practice. A transfer by such a shareholder, though made with-
out such consent, is binding upon the company."^ And where a
by-law provides for lien on the stock, and that the stock certifi-
cates shall bear notice of the by-law, the corporation cannot main-
tain such lien against any transferee of the stock, where the cer-
tificate contains no such notice."^ And where an assessment was
paid to the association by method different from that required
by its by-laws, the association is estopped from declaring a for*-
feiture.-* And so where a policy of insurance was issued by a
mutual insurance company, in a case where insurance was pro-
hibited by the company's by-laws, the issue of the policy was
held to be a waiver of the by-law.^^ The directors of a corpora-
is
Wiberg v. Minnesota, etc.
21
Fitzgerald v. Equitable, etc.
(1898), 73 Minn. 297, 76 N. W. 37; Assn. (1888), 3 N. Y. Supp. 214;
Underbill v. Santa Barbara, etc. International, etc. v. Abbott
Co. (1892), 93 Cal. 300, 28 Pac. (1892), 85 Tex. 320, 20 S. W. 118;
1049; McKenney v. Diamond, etc. Susquehanna, etc. v. Elkins
Assn. (1889), 8 Houst. (Del.) 557, (1889), 124 Pa. St. 484, 17 Atl.
18 Atl. 905; Currier v. Conti- 24.
nental, etc. Co. (1873), 53 N. H.
22
Chambersburg Ins. Co. v.
538; Swedish Christian Mission v. Smith (1849), 11 Pa. St. 120.
Lawrence (1900), 79 Minn. 124,
23
Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin-
81 N. W. 756.
son (1880), 58 Miss. 438.
19
Bank of Holly Springs v. Pin-
24
National G. Lodge v. Jung
son (1880), 58 Miss. 421, 38 Am. (1896), 65 111. App. 318.
Rep. 330; Currier v. Continental
25 Campbell v. Merchants,' etc.
Life Ins. Co.. 53 N. H. 538. Ins. Co. (1858), 37 N. H. 41; Mc-
20
Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Keyser Coy v. Northwestern Relief Assn.
(1855), 32 N. H. 213, 64 Am. Dec. (1896), 92 Wis. 577;
Welling v.
375; Campbell v. Merchants,' etc. Eastern, etc. Assn. (1899), 56 S.
Co. (1858), 37 N. H. 35, 72 Am. C. 280. 34 S. E. 409.
Dec. 324.

182.] BY-LAWS. 233

tion having made a by-law may waive it, as where they made a
contract with a stranger, at their meeting, held without notice
thereof having been given as provided in the by-laws, this, as
to such third party, was held to be waiver of the by-law."*' The
by-laws of an unincorporated benefit association provided that
it should disband, if the dues of its members should fall below a
certain sum per month for three successive months. Held, that
the contingency does not upon its happening terminate the asso-
ciation, because the by-law may be waived.-^
Right to waive.A by-law made by the directors may be m'od-
ified or waived by them, but by-laws adopted by the shareholders
are as binding upon the directors as the charter and statutes are,
and as much beyond their power to repeal, to modify, or to
waive.^^ Waiver of by-laws by mutual insurance benefit associa-
tions is illustrated by the following cases given as examples:
Waiver of requirement of proof of death, by failure to forward
upon request therefor the proper blanks and instructions for
proofs, upon receipt of notice of death,^^ although it claimed
forfeiture of rights by deceased, and had cancelled his certifi-
cate.^" And waiver of a by-law providing for submission of
claims to subordinate lodge, and for an appeal to a superior lodge,
if the former defers action till too late to take appeal within time
allowed by the by-law.^^ And waiver of forfeiture of insurance
policy for violation of by-law, by demanding proofs of loss, with-
out objecting to such violation.^- And waiver of failure to in-
sert in proofs of loss certain details required by the by-law by
receiving the proofs without objection to absence of such de-
tails.
^^
2fi
Samuel v. Holliday (1869),
3i
Brotherhood of R. R. Train-
1 Woolw. 400, 1 Am. Corp. Cas. 139. men v. Newton (1898), 79 111.
2T
Atnip V. Tenn. etc. Co. App. 500.
(1898), 52 S. W. 1093.
32
jerdee V. Cottage, etc. Ins.
28
Campbell v. Merchants' Ins. Co. (1890), 75 Wis. 353, 44 N. W.
Co. (1858) 37 N. H. 41. 636.
29
Order TDhosen Friends v. Aus-
33 Underhill v. Agawam, etc. Ins.
terlitz (1897), 75 111. App. 74. Co. (1850), 6 Cush. (Mass.) 440.
30
Daniher v. Grand Lodge See Boisot on By-Laws,

26 and
(1894), 10 Utah, 110, 37 Pac. 245. 27.
CHAPTER X.
CAPITAL STOCK.

1S3. Definitions.
184. "Capital stock" and "Capi-
tal" distinguished.
185. Shares of stock in gen-
eral.
186. Founders' shares.
187. Amount of capital stock.
188. Increase of capital stock.
189. (a) Statute authority re-
quisite to increase or
reduce.
190. (b) Constitutionality of stat-
utes, etc. Vested rights.
191. (c) Whether directors may
increase.
192 (d) Increase by stock divi-
dends.
193. (e) Power to issue stock
dividends.

194 Whether life tenant or re-

mainderman is entitled
to stock dividend.
195. (f) Prohibition of stock
dividends.
195a. Reduction of capital stock.
196. (a) By the company's pur-
chase of its own shares.
197. (b) Loss of prol^erty not a
reduction of capital
stock.
198. (c) Change in number of
shares without change
in their par value.
199. (d) Liability of sharehold-
ers after reduction.
200. Increase or reduction.
Power of the courts.
References:
One individual owning all the stock. "One man" corporation.
Sections 71a, 10. 1316.
Power of company to purchase its own shares. Section 859.
Power to invest in stock of other companies. Section 855.
"Holding" corporations. Sections 704/=, 939, 941, 1053.
Dividends. Sections 433-4G7e.
Subscriptions. Sections 202-2G9.
Issue of stock. Sections 270-301.
Transfers. Sections 349-432.
Preferred or guaranteed stock. Sections 467/'-487.
Liens upon stock. Sections 488-495.
Taxation. Sections 496-537.
Execution, attachment and garnishment. Sections 651-662o.
Calls and assessments upon stock. Sections 302-337a.
Of joint-stock companies. Section 1397.
Forfeiture of stock. Sections 320-326.
Trust-fund theory. Sections 1213, 299-301c.
Stock certificates. Section 271.
,
Bona fide
purchaser. Sections 272, 273, 295.
Overissued stock. Spurious stock. Sections 275-283.
Increase of capital stock. Sections 276-279, 485, 597.
Watered stock. Sectfons 284-298.

183, IStt.J CAPITAL STOCK. 235

183. Definitions.The capital stock of a corporation is

the sum required by the charter to be subscribed and paid in, by
the shareholders, for the business enterprise of the corporation,
and for the payment of its debts. Capital stock means the en-
tire number of shares authorized, while "shares" of stock indi-
cate the ownership by individual stockholders. Capital stock is
the fund contributed by the shareholders as the basis "of the
financial operations of the corporation.^
184. "Capital stock" and "capital" distinguished."The.
capital of a corporation is the property or means which the cor-
poration owns, and it may vary in amount, while the capital stock
is fixed and represents the interests of the stockholders and is
their property."
^
In respect of corporate capital the word is in
general use as signifying the sums paid in by the subscribers,
with the addition of all gains and profits realized, with such dim-
inutions as have resulted from losses incurred in transacting busi-
ness.^ In this sense the capital of a corporation is the fund with
which it transacts its business and embraces all its property, real
and personal, constituting the assets of the corporation, such as
are subject to execution at law.* So much of the capital as is
represented by the capital stock issued, must always be kept un-
impaired during the existence of the corporation ; but that por-
tion of the capital which represents the surplus arising from the
operation of the business of the corporation is subject to the dis-
cretion of the managers in regard to its disposition. Therefore,
profits remain a part of the fund constituting the capital until actu-
ally divided among the stockholders, and if this fund is after-
ward reduced by losses, only the surplus can be divided, after
deducting the amount of the capital first invested.^ There is a
distinction between the "capital" of a corporation and its "capital
stock," though they are often used as interchangeable terms.''
1
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Supervisors, the capital of a corporation. High-
4 N. Y. 442. tower v. Thornton, S Ga. 4S6; s. c.
2
Cook V. Marshall, 191 Pa. St. 52 Am. Dec. 412; State Bank v.
315 (1899); Sanger v. Upton, 91 Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 281.
U. S. 56; People v. Coleman, 126 * New Haven v. City Bank, 32
N. Y. 433. Conn. 106.
3
Wells V. Green Bay, etc. Co.,
& Phelps v. Farmers,' etc. Bank,
90 Wis. 442 (1895); Christensen 26 Conn. 268; Morawetz on Cor-
V. Eno, 106 N. Y. 97, 60 Am. Rep. porations,

348.
429; Comstock, J. in People v.
e
"Stock Dividends and their
Commissioners, 23 N. Y. 192, 219. Restraint," by M. Dwight Collier
But more properly, the amount of (1884), 7 Am. Bar. Assn. Rep. 257,
the shares subscribed and not the 263.
sum actually paid in, constitutes
23G
CAPITAL STUCK.
[
185.
The capital stock is clearly not the same as property possessed
by the corporation ; for the capital stock remains fixed, although
the actual property of the corporation varies in value and is con-
stantly increasing or diminishing in amount. What the amount
of the capital shall be is within the discretion of the managers,
but the amount of the capital stock is limited and determined by
the charter and the laws governing it.'^ It follows, therefore, that
a limit imposed upon the capital stock of a corporation does not
restrict the amount of property which it may own.^ Upon the
distinction between the capital of a corporation which is its prop-
erty, and the capital stock, which represents the interests of stock-
holders in the corporation, and is tJicir property, the power of the
States, to subject the shares of national banking associations to
taxation, is based.^

185. Shares of stock in general.

"The share is, strictly

speaking, a right to participate in a certain proportion in the
immunities and benefits of the corporation, to vote in the choice
of their officers and the management of their concerns; to share
in the dividends of profits and to receive an aliquot part of the
proceeds of the capital, on winding up and terminating the active
existence and operations of the corporation."
^
Until a division
by the proper authorities, this surplus fund belongs to the cor:^
poration.^'- And thus shares of stock, although personal prop-
erty are incorporeal and intangible, and as distinguished from
the certificate, are incapable of seizure under replevin, execution,
etc.^^ The words "capital stock" describe the interest of the
stockholders in the corporation.^^ They have been used to denote
the property or means contributed by the stockholders as the
fund or basis for the business or enterprise for which the cor-
poration or association was formed.^* But capital stock, in its
7
Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.
i^
"Stock Dividends and their
S. 686.
Restraint," by M. Dwight Collier
8
Barry V. Merchants' Exchange (1884), 7 Am. Bar Assn. Rep.
Co., 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 280. 263.
Weatherby v. Baker, 35 N. J.
1*
Bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284.
Eq. 505; Van Allen v. Assessors, So also it has been said to be the
3 Wall. 573, 584; People v. Com- property of the corporation con-
missioners, 4 Wall. 244. tributed by its stockholders, or
10
Fisher v. Essex Bank, 5 Gray otherwise obtained by it, to the
(Mass.), 373.
extent required by its charter.
11
Williams v. Western, etc. Co. Williams v. Western Union Tel.
(1883), 93 N. Y. 189. Co. (1883), 93 N. Y. 162,188.
12
Ashton V. Heydenfeld, 114 Again, capital stock is "that money
Cal. 14.
or property which is put in a sin-

185.]
CAPITAL STOCK. 237
strict significance, exists only nominally; the money or property
which it represents is the tangible reality. The one is the rep-
resentative of the othcr.^"^ "Stock" is the term commonly used
to mean "shares of stock," held by the stockholders or share-
holders.^** A "share" of stock is a right which the owner has
in the management and surplus profits, and in the assets of the
corporation, remaining after payment of its debts.^^ Shares of
stock are personal property, although the property of the cor-
poration may consist only of land.^^ The law of the State gov-
erns in questions relating to shares of stock.^ For purpose of
taxation the situs of the shares may be the place of residence of
the owner.-" The law of the State governs in the sale of stock
held in pledge and sold on default of the pledgor,"^ and in the
sale of stock belonging to estate of a decedent.-- Overissued
stock or spurious stock is that issued in excess of the amount of
capital stock authorized by the charter.-^ "Corporators exist be-
fore stockholders, and do not exist with them. When stockhold-
ers come in, corporators cease to be."
-*
Stock.A stock corporation cannot maintain a suit before it
has had any subscription to stock, or before it has issued stock.-^
To issue stock a corporation must have express authority of
statute.- A stock coi*poration cannot be formed for the con-
gle corporate fund by those who
i^
Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N. Y.
by subscription therefor become 592; Union Nat. Bank v. Byram,
members of a corporate body." 131 111. 92.
Burrall v. Bnshwick R. Co., 75 N.
is
George v. Robison, 23 Utah,
Y. 211. It has been held that the 79 (1901) ; Champollion v. Corbin,
stock of a railroad company is the 51 Atl. Rep. 674 (N. H. 1901).
aggregate of the property and ef-
i
Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360
fects of the company; and that in (1892).
its general form it is a sum of
20
Stanford v. City, etc., 131 Cal.
money contributed in fixed proper- 34 (1900).
tions to the adventure. St. Louis,
21
Morris, etc. v. East Side Ry.,
etc. Ry. V. Loftin (1875), 30 Ark. 104 Fed. Rep. 409 (1900).
708,
quoting Mr. Justice Ingles in
22
Murphy v. Crouse, 135 Cal. 14
State V. Wood, 15 Rich. 185. In (1901).
the assessment of taxes and for 23
First Avenue, etc. Co. v. Par-
many other purposes, the capital ker. 111 "Wis. 1 (1901); Hayden v.
does not include land grants to a Charter Oak Driving Park, 63
railway corporation from the State Conn. 142 (1893).
or federal government. High- 24
Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1
tower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486; s. c. (1879); In re Lady Bryan, 1
52 Am. Dec. 412; St. Louis, etc. Sawy. 349.
R. Co. V. Loftin, 30 Ark. 693.
25
Aspen, etc. Co. v. Aspen, 5
15
Hannibal, etc. R. Co. v. Shack- Colo. App. 12 (1894).
lett (1860), 30 Mo. 558.
20
Cooke v. Marshall, 191 Pa.
loLockwood V. Western, 61 St. 315 (1899).
Conn. 211.
238
*
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
186, 187.
struction of churches and the promotion of rehgion.-'^ The
amount of its capital stock does not hmit the amount of property
which a corporation may hold.- Shares of stock are in the nature
of choses in action and give the holder a fixed right in the divis-
ion of the profits or earnings of a company so long as it exists,
and of its efifect when it is dissolved.-^S' Shares of stock at com-
mon law are not representatives of money nor evidence of debt.
They are choses in action and not the subject of garnishee proc-
ess.
^^
Where calls are made and unpaid the shareholder is debtor
to the corporation, and is subject to garnishee process by its cred-
itors."'"' But the contrary is the case, where no call has been made
upon the shareholder.^^ The settled American doctrine is, that
shares of stock are personal property within the meaning of the
statute of frauds.^^ Therefore where no written memorandum
has been made of a sale of stock as required by that statute, the
contract is not binding in the absence of part performance, which
may be by part payment of the consideration or by delivery.^'

i86. Founders' shares.In England founders' shares are

shares entitling the holder to profits after other shares have paid
a dividend.^* The stock ledger kept by corporations is a record
of the shares at any time held by stockholders, and showing
amount due upon each certificate.^^ Undcrivriting
of
shares is
an agreement of the underwriter to take all the shares offered to
the public, which shall be subscribed for.^*

187. Amount of capital stock.The amoimt of original

capital stock authorized to be issued by a corporation, is generally
fixed by its charter or other statute, or articles of association, and
when so fixed, the amount cannot be changed, either by increase
or decrease, without power expressly conferred by the legisla-
27
Powell V. Dawson. 45 W. Va.
si
Hannah v. Moberly Bank, 67
780 (1899); Barry v. Merchants' Mo. 678.
Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280
32
Boardman v. Cutter, 128
(1844). Mass. 388; Mayer v. Child, 47 Cal.
28
Chase v. Lord, 77 N. Y. 1 142.
(1879).
33
Eastern R. Co. v. Benedict, 10
28a
Kent V. Quicksilver Mining Gray (Mass.), 212; McClure v.
Co., 78 N. Y. 159 (1879). Sherman, C. C. U. S., 70 Fed. 190.
29
Foster v. Potter, 37 Mo. 526;
34
ije New Transvaal Co. (1896),
Mooar v. "Walker, 46 Iowa, 164; 2 Ch. 750.
Ross v. Ross. 25 Ga. 297.
35
Craig v. Hesperia, etc. Co.,
30Meints v. East St. Louis, etc. 113 Cal. 7 (1896).
Co., 89 111. 48; Prentice v. United
sg
i?e Licensed, etc. Assn., L. R.
States, etc., D. C. U. S.. 78 Fed. 42 Ch. D. 1 (1889).
106.
188.] CAPITAL STOCK. 239
ture.^'^ If the amount is not otherwise fixed, it must be fixed by
the stockholders, or under their authority by the directors,^ and
may be issued in any amount in their discretion,^* as increased or
diminished from time to time by the by-laws."" The amount of
the established capital stock is not changed by any increase or
decrease of the assets of the corporation, by reason of profits or
losses. "Its funds may fluctuate. Its capital stock remains in-
variable, save by legislative enactment."
"^
When the amount is,
by the charter, fixed within certain limits, the corporation may
begin with the minimum amount, and any time afterward increase
it to the limit."-

i88. Increase of capital stock.A corporation cannot

legally increase its capital stock be3^ond the maximum am.ount
fixed in its charter or original articles of association."' It is well
37
Carter v. Lincoln, 52 Conn.
73, 52 Am. Rep. 560; Sutherland
V. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 100.
38
State V. Bank of Commerce,
95 Tenn. 221; Commonwealth v.
Central Passenger Ry. Co., 52 Pa.
St. 506.
39
Commonwealth v. Central
Passenger Ry. Co., 52 Pa. St. 506.
40
Peck V. Elliott, 79 Fed. Rep.
10, 38 L. R. A. 616.
41
State V. Morristown Fire
Assn., 23 N. J. Law, 195.
42
Gray v. President, etc., 30
Mass. 364, 3 Am. Dec. 156.
43
Scoville V. Thayer (1S81), 105
U. S. 143; Knowlton v. Congress,
etc. Co., 14 Blatchf. 364 ; Grangers'
Life, etc. Ins. Co. v. Kamper, 73
Ala. 325; Moses v. Ocoee Bank,
1 Lea, 398; Ferris v. Ludlow, 7
Ind. 517; In re Ebbw. Vale, etc.
Co., 4 Ch. Div. 827; Droitwich, etc.
Co. V. Curzon, L. R. 3 Ex. Ch. 35,
42; Stace & Worth's Case, L. R.
4 Ch. 682; Salem Mill Dam Co. v.
Ropes, 6 Pick. 23; s. c. 19 Am.
Dec. 363; New York, etc. R. Co.
V. Schuyler (1866), 34 N. Y. 30;
Sutherland v. Olcott (1884), 95 N.
Y. 93, 100; Mechanics' Bank v.
New York, etc. R. Co., 13 N. Y.
599; Lathrop v. Kneelanj, 46
Barb. 432,
Cf.
Chetlain v. Re-
public Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220;
In re Kirkstall Brewery Co., 5 Ch.
Div. 535. When a corporation is
to increase its capital stock, this
may be done as well by increasing
the par value of those already out-
standing, as by the issue of new
shares. Currier v. Lebanon Slate
Co., 56 N. H. 262.
Cf.
Howell v.
Chicago, etc. R. Co., 51 Barb. 378.
If an increase is to be made by the
issue of new shares, the manner
of effecting the increase not being
prescribed in the enabling act, it
is immaterial whether it be made
by awarding the stock to the
stockholders as dividends in lien
of money, retaining the money for
the purposes of the company, or
by paying the stockholder the divi-
dends in cash from the earnings
of the enterprise, and selling the
stock in the market to raise money
for the corporate purposes. Howell
V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 51 Barb.
378. Increasing the capital stock
of a corporation, and issuing new
shares to be sold at less than par
to supply a fund actually needed
by the corporation, has been held
not to be a fictitious increase of
the stock within the meaning of
a constitutional provision making
fictitious increases void. Stein v.
240
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
188.
settled that a corporation has no implied authority, either hy res-
olution of the shareholders or by-law, to alter the amount of its
capital stock where the charter has definitely fixed it at a certain
sum. The shares of a corporation can neither be increased nor
diminished in number or in their nominal value, unless this be
expressly authorized by the company's charter or by an act of the
legislature.** Every attempt of the corporation to exert such
power by any direct or express act of its officers before it is con-
ferred by the legislature, is void.*^
Legislative ratification.If the increase is made by consent of
all the stockholders without authority of the legislature, it may
subsequently ratify the issue, but not to impair any vested right.**^
By zvhont the increase must b'e made.Unless the power is ex-
pressly conferred upon the directors by the charter or the stock-
holders, the directors cannot increase the amount of the capital
stock without the consent of the stockholders. Such increase is
not ordinary business of the corporation. But the stockholders
may ratify, expressly or by acquiescence, such increase.*^
Howard, 65 Gal. 616; Cal. Const,
art. xii,
11. But when the char-
ter of a company does not fix its
capital stock more definitely than
to declare its maximum and mini-
mum amount, a corporation hav-
ing begun business with less than
the maximum capital, may, with-
out legislative grant, increase it
to the higher limit. Gray v.
Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364; s. c.
3 Am. Dec. 156; Somerset, etc. R.
Co. v. Gushing, 45 Me. 524.
4*
Spring Co. v. Knowlton
(1880), 103 U. S. 49; Knowlton v.
Congress, etc. Co., 14 Blatch. 364;
New York. etc. R. Co. v. Schuyler
(1866),
34 K. Y. 30; Railway Co.
V. Allerton, 18 Wall. 233; Oldtown
R. Co. V. Veazie, 39 Me. 511;
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co.
(1885),
24 Fed. Rep. 332, s. c.
25 Am. L. Reg. 29; Percy v. Mil-
laudon, 3 La. 569; Grangers' Life
Ins. Co. V. Kamper, 73 Ala. 325;
Morawetz on Corporations, 230;
Taylor on Corporations,
133;
Green's Price's Ultra Vires, 158;
In re Financial Co., L. R. 2 Ch.
714; Sewell's Case, L. R. 3 Ch.
131; Smith v. Goldsworthy, 4 Q.
B. 430. But see Ambergate, etc.
Ry. Co. V. Mitchell, 4 Ex. 540;
s. c. 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 234.
15
Railway v. Allerton (1873),
18 Wall. 233; Wood v. Dummer, 3
Mason, 308; New York, etc. ""R.
Co. V. Schuyler (1866), 34 N. Y.
30; Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270;
Smith V. American Co., 1 Nev.
428; Smith v. Goldsworthy, L. R.
4 Q. B. 430. The officers, direct-
ors and stockholders of a corpo-
ration can not, even by a unani-
mous agreement, made under an
honest misapprehension of their
powers, effect a valid increase of
the capital stock. People v. Par-
ker Vein Coal Co.. 10 How. Pr.
543. The amount of shares is
properly a part of the constitution
of the company and does not
strictly depend upon any clause,
resolution or provision of - the
deed. The alteration of shares
seems, therefore, not to come with-
in provisions for the alteration of
the deed. Smith v. Goldsworthy,
4 Q. B. 430.
46
Turnbull v. Pomeroy, etc. Co.,
24 Weekly Law Bui. (Ohio) 133.
47Eidman v. Bowman, 58 111.
444, 11 Am. Rep. 90.

189.] CAPITAL STOCK. 241

Necessity
for increase.The question of necessity for increase
of capital stock when authorized by the legislature, is within its
discretion. The courts will not inquire into that question, upon
any attempt to enjoin the issue.*^ It is said that whether the cor-
porate stock has been properly increased or not, is a question the
State only ean raise.* Although, on the other hand, it is held
that an illegal increase or diminution of the capital stock of a
company may be restrained by injunction.^" But a company hav-
ing a portion of its originally authorized capital stock 'undis-
posed of, may permit one who is not a stockholder to subscribe
for it.^^ And old shares purchased by the corporation may be
disposed of by the directors to whomsoever they will.^^

189. (a) Statute authority requisite to increase or reduce.

The subject of increasing or reducing the capital stock of corpo-

rations is regulated in England by statute,^^ and in the American
States both by statute and by constitutional provisions.^* The
New York "Stock Corporation Law" of
1890,
provides that the
stockholders' vote upon the question shall be taken at a meeting
especially called for that purpose after notice to the members as
prescribed therein.
^^
It is held that the provision of a similar
48
Jones V. Concord, etc. R. Co.,
67 N. H. 119, 68 Am. St. Rep.
650-.
49
Pulln?an v. Upton, 96 U. S.
328; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
45; Upton v. Hansbrough, 3 Biss.
421; Upton v. Jackson, 1 Flippin,
418.
50
O'Brien v. Chicago, etc. R.
Co., 53 Barb. 568.
51
Curry v. Scott, 54 Pa. St. 270,
275.
52
Hartridge v. Rockwell,
Charlt. R. M. 260; Page v. Smith,
48 Vt. 266. If the corporation,
uses its surplus to buy up some
of its own stock, the stockholders
have no right to claim this pro
rata, until it is ordered to be
divided among them. Wood's Ry.
Law,
72, citing Coleman v.
Columbia Oil Co., 51 Pa. St. 74;
Wiltbank's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 256;
St. John v. Erie R. Co., 10 Blatch.

271; Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3

. Mees. & W. 422.
53
The Companies Clauses Act
of 1863, 26 & 27 Vic. ch. 118,

12, 13, 16-21; the Railway Com-
V0L.I

16
panies Act of 1867, 30 & 31 Vic.
ch. 127, 6; and the Railway Con-
struction Facilities Act of 1864,
27 & 28 Vic. ch. 127, 56.
SI
Stimson's Am. Stat. Law
(Jan. 1, 1886) 453, citing the
constitutions of Colorado, Ala-
bama, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
Missouri, Arkansas, California,
Illinois and Nebraska; Revision
of N. J. (1877), p. 181, 24; p.
1290, 29; Pa. Bright. Purd. Dig.
p. 343, 33, 34; p. 348. 55; Mo.
Rev. Stat. 939; Mass. Pub. Stat.
ch. 106, 34; ch. 112, 60; Ohio
Rev. Stat. (1866),
3262-3264;
111. Ann. Stat. (1885), ch. 32, 50;
ch. 114, 15; La. Rev. Stat. 693.
55
N. Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 564,
which directs:

45. Notice of the
meeting, stating the time, place
and object, and the amount of the
increase or reduction proposed,
signed by a majority of the direct-
ors, shall be published once a
week, for at least three successive
weeks, in a newspaper in the
county where the company's pi'in-
2i2
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
189.
act which
requires a weekly newspaper notice, is for the benefit
of the public at large, that the certified copy of the statement of
proceedings filed with the secretary of state must show the pub-
lication of this notice, and that if it docs not, the secretary's cer-
tificate of compliance with the law cannot issue.
^*'
While legisla-
tive authority is requisite to a valid increase, the power may be
inferred from charter authority to issue convertible bonds.'*" A
telegraph company having statutory power to increase its stock
and to 'purchase the property and franchises of other companies,
may pay for the purchases with a part of an issue of new stock,
if the property purchased is worth the price.^^
'
A statutory pro-
vision that no increase of the capital stock of a national bank shall
be valid until the whole amount of the increase is paid in, and
notice thereof has been transmitted to the comptroller of the cur-
rency, and his certificate obtained specifying the amount, is not
violated where the proposed increase is reduced to the amount
actually paid in, the latter being the amount of increase specified
in the notice.^ For the vote of the shareholders is not per se an
increase of the capital stock. Until the new stock is subscribed
cipal business office is located, if
any is published therein, and a
copy of such notice shall be per-
sonally served upon or duly
mailed to each stockholder or
member at his postoffice address
at least three weeks before the
meeting. 46. If at a meeting
called for the purpose, a sufficient
number of votes shall be in favor
of an increase or reduction of the
stock of the company, a certificate
of the proceedings showing a com-
pliance with the law, the amount
of capital actually paid in, the
whole amount of the debts and
liabilities of the corporation, and
the amount of the increased or re-
duced capital stock, shall be made,
signed, verified and acknowledged
by the chairman and secretary of
the meeting, and filed in the office
of the clerk of the county where
its principal place of business
shall be located, and a duplicate
thereof in the office of the Secre-
tary of State. When the certifi-
cate provided for has been filed,
the capital stock of the corpora-
tion concerned shall be increased
or reduced as the case may be, to
the amount specified in such cer-
tificate. In case of the increase
or reduction of the capital stock
of a railroad corporation the cer-
tificate thereof shall have indorsed
thereon the approval of the board
of railroad commissioners. The
proceedings of the meeting at
which an increase or reduction is
voted shall be entered upon the
minutes of the corporation.
56
state V. McGrath, 86 Mo. 239;
Mo. Rev. Stat. 939.
57
Belmont v. Erie Ry. Co., 52
Barb. 637, 699; Ramsey v. Erie
Ry. Co. 38 How. Pr. 193, 216.
Cf.
Heath v. Erie Ry. Co., 8 Blatchf.
337; Jenks v. Central R. Co., cit.
52 Barb. 637, 675; Van Allen v.
Illinois Central R. Co., 7 Bosw.
515; People v. Erie Ry. Co., 36
How. Pr. 129.
58
Williams v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 93 N. Y. 162.
59Aspinwall v. Butler (1890),
133 U. S. 595, construing U. S.
Rv. Stat.
5142.

190.J
CAPITAL STOCK. 243
for, at least, there is an clement of uncertainty respecting- the in-
crease; and the shareholders m,ay at any time before the new
stock is taken, reconsider their vote."" Under the New York
"Stock Corporation Law" of 1890 an increase of the capital stock
renders the stockholders subject to the same liabilities with re-
spect to the additional capital as are provided by law in relation
to the original capital."^

190. (b) Constitutionality of statutes, etc. Vested rights.

Within constitutional provisions, the power to increase or di-

minish the original amount of the capital stock may be conferred
by the charter or other statute, or, under their authority, by the
articles of association.*^^ The power of the legislature to au-
thorize an increase or reduction of the capital stock depends upon
the principles heretofore set forth in treating of charters and
amendnients,*'^ to wit, that the charter embodies a contract, the
obligation of which the State may not impair ;
"*
that any altera-
tion thereof must either be unanimously accepted by the share-
holders,"^ or must be enacted under a constitutional reservation
to the State of the power to amend ;
"^
that even under this re-
served power an amendment must not defeat or substantially im-
pair the object of the corporate charter or any rights of property
vested under it, either by impairing the rights of shareholders as
between themselves,^^ by working injustice to the corporate cred-
itors and diminishing the security upon which they have relied ;
"*
60
Terry v. Eagle Lock Co., 47 etc. R. Co. v. Black, 79 111. 262;
Conn. 141. Hay v. Ottawa, etc. R. Co., 61 111.
61 N. Y. Laws of 1890, eh. 564, 422; Newhall v. Galena, etc. R.

44. Co., 14 111. 273; Danbiiry, etc. R.

62
Ewing V. Oroville Min. Co., Co. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435; Noyes
56 Cal. 649; Jones v. Concord, etc. v. Spauldlng (1855), 27 Vt. 420;
Co., 67 N. H. 119, 68 Am. St. Rep, Bish v. Johnson. 21 Ind. 299; Bur-
650. lington, etc. R. Co. v. White, 5
63
Supra, Chapters III, V. Iowa, 409.
64
Vide supra, 49, 68.
e?
vkle sripra,
58, 90.
a^Yide supra. 91; Pacific R.
es
Diirfee v. Old Colony, etc. Co.,
Co. V. Hughes (1885), 22 Mo. 294; 5 Allen (Mass.) 230; Buffalo, etc.
Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer Co. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336; Vide
(1858), 20 111. 654. supra.
60, 90; In re State Ins..
oQVide su2-a, 80; Pacific R. Co. (1882), 14 Fed. Rep. 28; s. c.
Co. V. Hughes (1855), 22 Mo. 294; 11 Biss. 301; Cooper v. Frederick,
Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer 9 Ala. 742; Palfrey v. Paulding, 7
(1858),
2(^
i\i. 654; Buffalo, etc. R. La. Ann. 363; In re Credit Fon-
Co. V. Dudley (1856), 14 N. Y. cier, L. R. 11 Eq. 356; In re Tele-
336; Joslyn v. Pacific, etc. Co., 12 graph Construction Co., L. R. 10
Abb. Pr. N. S. 329; Peoria, etc. R. Eq. 384.
Co. V. Elting, 17 III. 429; Ottawa,
244:
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
191.
and that, accordingly, when the contract of the shareholder ig ma-
terially altered he may either restrain the acceptance of the amend-
ment by the corporation,"" or may consider himself released from
his contract of subscription to its stockJ" As in regard to other
amendments, the distinction between material and immaterial al-
terations, is here important as determining whether the accept-
ance of a majority is sufficient,^* or whether the consent of all the
members is requisite to give validity and effect to the proposed
increase or reduction/^ Upon the question, when in the charter
no authority is given to vary the capital stock, whether it may
subsequently be increased, even by authority of the legislature
against the will of a dissenting stockholder, the courts do not
agree, but the weight of authority is that it may be so varied
against such dissent, and that the statute so authorizing the
change is constitutional, the increase of the capital stock valid,
and that under such a statute the majority of the stockholders
in meeting assembled may authorize the change, against the dis-
sent of a minority. This is so held upon the ground that such
change in the charter powers is not a fundamental change from
the original plan, but is only incidental and auxiliary to carry-
ing it out, and that the statute is consequently constitutional and
valid/^

191. (c) Whether directors may increase.The enabling

statutes usually provide that every increase or reduction of capital
69
Vtde supra,
94. 581; Moore v. Hudson River R.
''o
Vide supra, 94; Oldtown, etc. Co., 12 Barb. 156; Whitehall, etc.
R. Co. V. Veazie, 39 Me. 571; R. Co. v. Myers, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S.
Hughes V. Antietam, etc. Co. 34; East Tennessee, etc. R. Co.
(1871), 34 Md. 316. But when v. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.),507.
the power, to amend the corporate
7i
yide supra, 92, cases cited
charter has been reserved by the on p. Ill, notes 99, 1, 2, 3. An
State, dissenting shareholders are amendment to the charter of ?>.
not ordinarily released from their company taking from the share-
duties and liabilities by an amend- holders and vesting in the direct-
ment authorizing an increase or ors the power to authorize an in-
diminution of the capital stock. crease of the capital stock, is not
East Lincoln v. Davenport (1876), such a fundamental change in the
94 U. S. 801; Nugent v. Super- constitution of the corporation as
visors, 19 "Wall. 241; Mowrey v. will release dissenting sharehold-
Indianapolis, etc. R. Co., 4 Biss. ers from obligation upon their
78; Pacific R. Co. v. Hughes stock. Payson v. Withers, 5
Biss.
(1855), 22 Mo. 291; s. c. 44 Am. 269; Payson v. Stoever, 2
Dill. 428.
Dec. 265; Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. -r^Vide supra,

92.
Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336 ; Schenectady,
73 Woodfork v. Union Bank, 3
etc. Co. V. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102; Coldw. (Tenn.) 488;
Marlborough
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Kerr, 17 Barb. Manuf. Co. v. Smith, 2
Conn. 579;

191.]

CAPITAL STOCK. 21:5
stock must be authorized by a vote, of the stockholders owning
at least a majority of the stock of the corporation.^* Although
the charter provide that "all the corporate powers of said corpo-
ration shall be vested in and exercised by a board of directors,"
this is considered to refer to the ordinary business transactions
of the corporation, and does not extend to a reconstruction of
the body itself, or to an enlargement of its capital stock."'^ Ac-
cordingly in the absence of an express declaration to the con-
trary, power to increase or reduce the capital stock granted by
statute to the company, is to be exercised by the body of mem-
bers at largeJ It has been said, however, that where no mode of
exercising a power given in a charter to increase the capital stock
of a company is therein provided, or is to be found in any gen-
eral act, and the charter does not require the assent of stockhold.-
ers to the increase, nor provide for any public record of the ac-
tion of the company, the only thing required is that a majority of
the directors determine upon the increase; and their determina-
tion, shown by the records of the company declaring an increase,
fulfills all the requiremtntsJ^ And in any case the shareholders
may be estopped by acquiescence from contesting the legality of
an increase or reduction made by the directors under statutory
authority to the corporation.'^^
Substantial compliance with the authority in making the in-
crease is all that is necessary. Technical informalities or irregu-
Hope Insurance Co. v. Beckman, s. c. 17 Am. Dec. 196: Railway Co.
47 Mo. 93. V. Allerton (1873), 18 Wall. 233;
74
N. Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 564,
People v. Vein Coal Co., 10 How.
45, requiring a two-thirds vote of Pr. 543; Crandall v. Lincoln, 52
the stock. By the Companies Conn. 73, 99; Eidman v. Bowman,
Clauses Act of 1863, it is provided 58 111. 444; Finley Shoe, etc. Co.
that a vote of three-fifths of the v. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89.
shareholders shall be necessary,
tt
Sutherland v. Olcott (1884),
unless the enabling act provides 95 N. Y. 93, holding also that when
for a different majority. 26 & 27 the charter of the company prac-
Vic. ch. 118,
12, 13. So, too, tically directs that the power to
the consent of the holders of a ma- increase the capital stock shall be
jority of the shares is required by exercised by the directors, their
the constitutions of some States. decision as to the necessity for an
Stimson's Am. Stat. Law (Jan. 1, increase, if imbiased by fraudulent
1886),
453 citing the constitu- motives, is conclusive,
tions of Pennsylvania, Missouri,
ts
Railway Co. v. Allerton
Arkansas, California, Colorado,
(1873), 18 Wall. 233; Eidman v.
Alabama and Louisiana. Bowman, 58 111. 444; Payson v.
"5
Railway Co. v. Allerton Stoever, 2 Dill. 424; Sewell's Case,
(1873), 18 Wall. 233. L. R. 3 Ch. 131; Lane's Case, 1
76
Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568; De Gex. J. & S. 504.
246
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
192.
larities
will not
invalidate the issue, but any omission of essen-
tial
provisions may do so.''^
Estoppel as against creditors.Creditors of a corporation can-
not contend that subscribers to unauthorized stock are estopped
to deny its validity, in order to escape liability. For creditors are
charged with notice of the want of power; but as to new stock
issued by authority, the shareholder is estopped as against cred-
itors to deny its validity by reason of informality in its issue, ex-
cept where the creditor, as a managing director, took part in the
increase.
^^
National banks have no authority to increase their capital stock,
except as provided in the Acts of Congress.^^

192. (d) Increase by stock dividends.The capital stock

of corporations may be increased by means of stock dividends
which are the issue by a corporation, as a dividend, of new shares,
which have been paid up by the transfer from the surplus or
profit and loss account to the account representing capital stock,
of a sum equal to their par value.^- After a stock dividend, a
corporation has just as much property as it had before. It is just
as solvent, and just as capable of meeting all demands upon it.
After such a dividend, the aggregate of the stockholders own no
moi'e interest in the corporation than before. The whole number
of shares before the stock dividend represented the. whole prop-
erty of the corporation, and after the dividend they represent that
and no more. A stock dividend does not distribute property but
79
Tillingbast v. Bailey, 86 Fed. books of the company. See gen-
46; Union Ry. Co v. Sneed, 99 erally, State v. Baltimore, etc. R.
Tenn. 1, 41 S. W. 364. Co., 6 Gill. 363; City of Ohio v.
80
Sales V. Brown, 40 Fed. 8. Cleveland, etc. R. Co., 6 Ohio St.
81
Winters v. Armstrong, 87 489; Rand v. Hubbell, 115 Mass.
Fed. 508.
461, 474; Boston, etc. R. Co. v.
82
"Stock Dividends and their Commonwealth, 100 Mass. 399;
Restraints," by M. Dwight Collier Miller v. Illinois Central R. Co.,
(1884), 7 Am. Bar Assn. Reps. 24 Barb. 312; Commonwealth v.
268. In Williams v. Western Pittsburg, etc. R. Co.^ 74 Pa. St.
Union Tel. Co., 93 N. Y. 189, a S3; Barton's Trust, L. R. 5 Eg.
stock dividend has been sustained 239; Howell v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.,
on the grounds that there was no 51 Barb. 378; Clarkson v. Clark-
statute in the State prohibiting it. son, 18 Barb. 646; Gordon v. Rich-
Such dividends do not affect the mond, etc. R. Co., 78 Va. 501. But
title of the property or transfer instead of paying the stock divi-
any legal
consideration of prop- dend to the shareholders it may
erty from the receiver to the cor- be issued to the corporation and
poration. They are merely be sold for its benefit. Jones v.
changes of the entries in the Morrison, 31 Minn. 140.

193.]
CAriTAL STOCK.
247
simply dilutes the shares as they existed before.^' The English
cases decided that profits and dividends must be paid in cash
;
but
the leading American case has stated the rule to be that they may
be declared and divided in property, if the property be capable of
division. And if the p'rofits have been invested in other property
necessary for the use of the corporation which cannot be divided
in kind, then a dividend may be declared, based upon these profits,
or the corporation may borrow money on the faith of them and
divide it.^* Such dividends are legal, unless prohibited by con-
stitutional or statutory provisions.^^ Where the corporation issues
stock to represent interest on subscriptions, until dividends are
declared, a stock dividend does not stop the interest.^^ In cases
of increase of the capital stock by issue of stock dividend, the cor-
poration must possess property in excess of its debts to an amount
equal to its whole capital stock including such increase, and
afterwards the amount cannot be used for any kind of dividend.
^^
In making such a dividend the corporation cannot discriminate
between stockholders, but each is entitled to receive new shares
in proportion to the stock he holds at the time.^^ The money
earned by a corporation is corporate property, and not the sep-
arate property of the stockholders, unless and until distributed
among them by the corporation. In the absence of any restrain-
ing statute, the corporation may treat it either as an increase of
its property or as profits of its business.
^^
193.
(e) Power to issue stock dividends.The power to
issue stock dividends, hoAvever, depends upon the company hav-
ing authority to increase its capital stock or upon all the original
shares not having been issued.^" Subject to this restriction and
83
Williams v. Western Union 102 Mass. 542; Deland v. Williams,
Tel. Co. (1883), 93 N. Y. 189. 101 Mass. 571; Boston, etc. R. Co.
8i
Williams v. Western, etc. Co., v. Commonwealth, 100 Mass. 399;
93 N. Y. 189; Beers v. Bridgeport, Minot v. Paine, 99 Mass. 101; At-
etc. Co., 42 Conn. 24. kins v. Albree, 12 Allen, 359. The
85
Howell V. Chicago, etc., 51 Western Union Telegraph Co. con-
Barb. 378. tracted with two other companies
80
Hardin County v. Louisville, to purchase their property and
etc. Ry. Co., 92 Ky. 412. franchises, and to pay for the
8T
Cook on Corps. 287, p.
629. same with a part of an addition'
88
Luling V. Atlantic, etc. Co., of capital stock, the rest of the
45 Barb. (N. Y.) 510. addition to be paid to its stock-
89
Rand v. Hubbell, 115 Mass. holders as a stock dividend, and
474, 15 Am. Rep. 121. it was held, that the New York
90
Howell V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., statutes concerning telegraph com-
51 Barb. 378; Leland v. Hayden, panies conferred ample power to
24:8
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
193.
to the
further restriction that every dollar of new stock shall rep-
resent an equal increase in the value of the corporate property,^l
the
discretion of the directors herein is uncontrollable by the
courts."^ A stock dividend is exceptional in its character, and the
objections to it as bearing; upon the value of the stock, address
themselves
more to the managers than to the court.^^ But a
gratuitous
distribution of stock npon no increase of value in the
corporate property, a mere inflation, or, to use a phrase much
in vogue, a "watering of stock," is condemned by law.^* The
holders of preferred stock are entitled to share equally with com-
mon stockholders in a distribution, of stock dividends."^ Scrip
certificates of debt, representing profits earned by the corpora-
tion and issued to its stockholders, convertible into stock when
authority to increase the stock shall be obtained, belong to the
life-tenants of the stock, who are entitled to the income and profits
thereof.^^ A company may refund to its stockholders a definite
portion of each share, and thereby eflfect a reduction of its capital
stock.^^ The New York "Stock Corporation Law" of 1890 pro-
vides that if the capital stock of any corporation is reduced, the
amount of capital over and above the amount of the reduced cap-
ital shall be returned to the stockholders pro rata at such times
increase the stock and to make
92
Williams v. Western Union
the purchase, it appearing that Tel. Co. (1883), 93 N. Y. 192;
the property purchased was worth Terrj^ v. Eagle, etc. Co., 47 Conn,
the price, and that nothing in the 141, holding that a vote to issue a
law or in the principles of public stock dividend may be revoked at
policy prohibited the stock divi- any time before the certificates
dend ordered to be paid to stock- are issued.
Cf.
Howell v. Chi-
holders, the amount of the divi- cago, etc. R. Co., 51 Barb. 307,
dend not exceeding the value of holding that the courts of one
the surplus. Williams v. Western State will not inquire into the
Union Telegraph Co., 93 N. Y. 162, legality of an issue of stock divi-
overruling Hatch v. Western dends by a corporation deriving
Union Tel. Co., 9 Abb. N. C. 430, its origin from another State,
which declared that accumulated
03
Howell v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.,
earnings on which no dividend 51 Barb. 307.
has been declared, furnish no con-
9*
Williams v. Western Union
sideration for issuing stock to be Tel. Co. (1883), 93 N. Y. 189.
divided among the stockholders,
os
Phillips v. Eastern R. Co.,
and that such a dividend would 138 Mass. 122; Gordon v. Rich-
be ultra vires. mond, etc. R. Co., 78 Va. 501.
91
Williams v. Western Union
so
Appeal of Philadelphia Trust
Tel. Co. (1883), 93 N. Y. 189; Safe Deposit, etc. Ins. Co. (Pa.
Howell v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 1889), 16 Atl. Rep. 734.
51 Barb. 378; Bailey v. Railroad 9- Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co.,
Co., 22 Wall. 604. 56 N. H. 262.

194.]
CAPITAL stoce:. 249
and in such manner as the directors shall determine."' In con-
struing- a similar act, it has been said by the New York appellate
court, that the objects sought to be obtained by the enactment
were the protection of corporate creditors, and the assurance of
a fund sufficient to carry out the corporate purposes, and it per-
mits a reduction where either it was orig^inally fixed at too high
a sum or has become impaired, so that the nominal exceeds the
actual sum. It does not, therefore, permit the distribution among
stockholders of a sum equal to the difference between the nominal
and the reduced capital, although if that sum may be taken out
and yet leave the capital of the company unimpaired and the cred-
itors secure, it may be divided among shareholders as a surplus
entitled to be distributed in dividends.^^ Upon a reduction being
made, however, the shareholders may properly claim a distribu-
tion of the money which the corporate body, on account thereof,
has no longer the right to use as capital.^ The corporation is not
entitled to hold any excess of actual capital which is left remain-
ing over the amount of nominal capital reduced ; but, if de-
manded, such excess must be divided proportionate to their shares
among the shareholders, the corporation retaining property in
value equal to the amount of its debts added to the amount of its
nominal capital so reduced.^
194.
Whether life tenant or remainderman is entitled to
stock dividend.So far as the respective rights of the bene-
ficiary and the remainderman are concerned, in some jurisdictions
no distinction is made between dividends payable in cash and
98
N. Y. Laws of 1S90, ch. 564, had become impaired, and, in such

46. case, a distribution such as was

99
Strong V. Brooklyn, etc. R. herein attempted would bfe illegal,
Co. (1883), 93 N. Y. 426. In this yet as, in the suit at bar, the cor-
case a corporation, by proceedings poration had on hand capital
under the statute, reduced its sufficient for the payment of all
capital stock and issued to stock- its debts after making the distri-
holders certificates of indebted- bution, no reason existed why it
ness for the apparent amount of should not be permitted, even con-
the reduction. The owners of all ceding the certificates to have
but one hundred shares out of been illegally issued.
four thousand accepted the cer- 1 Seeley v. New York, etc. Bank,
tificates, and it was held upon the 78 N. Y. 608, aflSrming s. c. 8 Daly,
application of the owner of a part 400.
of the hundred shares to have the 2 Mechanics,' etc. Co. v. Hall,
issue declared illegal, that al- 121 Mass. 272; Selma, etc. Co. v.
though the act probably contem- Tipton, 5 Ala. 787, 39 Am. Dec.
plated a reduction of capital stock 344.
only in cases where the capital
250
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
195, 195a^
dividends payable in stock or scrip, entitling the holder to stock,
and it is held that the stock dividend declared on profits belongs
to the person entitled to the income or profits, the same as he
would be entitled to cash dividend. The English rule, also that
of most of the eastern States and of the United States Supreme
Court and of Illinois, makes a distinction between a cash divi-
dend and a stock dividend, holding that the former, but not the
latter, will go to the life-tenant, on the ground that the corpora-
tion may treat its surplus profits, either as an increase of its cor-
porate property, and so issue it, or may treat it as profits, and
issue it as cash dividend ; and that so long as the dividend re-
mains in stock, it is corporate capital.-''
195.
(f) Prohibition of stock dividends.There are many
statutes and constitutional provisions in the American States
prohibiting the fictitious issue and increase of corporate stock.*
Some of these provisions do not specifically mention stock divi-
dends
;
but a prohibition of the issue of stock except for labor
done, or money or property actually received, is held to forbid
the gratuitous issue of nev/ shares even though representing an
increase in the value of the corporate property.^ But the Massa-
chusetts act, above cited, is held not to prohibit a company from
purchasing its own shares and distributing them among its share-
holders.^ The prohibition in the California constitution is held
to be self-enforcing and to require no statute to render it effective.'^

195a. Reduction of capital stock.The capital stock of a

corporation cannot be reduced except by express legislative au-
thority.^ Thus a provision that for the better conduct and man-
agement of the affairs of the company, it should be lawful for
a special general meeting called for the purpose, from time to
3 Rand v. Hubbell, 115 Mass. 275-283, Overissued and Spurious
461, 15 Am. Rep. 121. Stock; Vide infra,
284-298,"
*
The New Yorlv "Stoclv Corpo- Watered Stocl^.
ration Law of 1890," N. Y. Laws
s
Fitzpatrick v. Dispatcli, etc.
of 1890, ch. 564, 42; Ark. Const. Co. (1887), 83 Ala. 604.
(1874) art. xii; Pa. Const, art.
s
Commonwealtli v. Boston, etc.
xvi,
7; Ala. Const, art. xiii,
6; R. Co. (1886), 142 Mass. 146.
Mo. Rev. Stat. 927; N. H. Gen. 7 Ewing v. Oroville Min. Co.,
Stat. ch. 134 8; Wis. Rev. Stat. 56 Cal. 649, construing Cal. Const.
(1878)
1753, as amended by art. xii,

11.
Laws of 1881, ch. 93; Mass. Pub.
s
Crandall v. Lincoln, 52 Conn.
Stat. ch. 112, 61; Stimson's Am. 73, 52 Am. Rep. 560; Seignouret v.
Stat. Law (Jan. 1, 1886), 452; Home Ins. Co. (1885), 24 Fed.
Vide infra, 465; Vide infra,

Rep. 332; s. c. 25 Am. L. Reg. 29.

195<2.]
CAPITAL STOCK.
251
time, to amend, alter or annul, either wholly or in part, all or any
of the clauses of the deed, or of existing regulations and provis-
ions of the company, does not authorize a reduction of the num-
ber and value of the shares of the company." Where a constitu-
tion and the law thereunder provide for the increase of the stock
of corporations, but are silent as to a decrease, the power to de-
crease the stock is intentionally denied.' Nor docs a statute giv-
ing authority to make modifications, additions or changes in their
act of incorporation, or to dissolve it, with the assent of three-
fourths of the stock, confer upon them power to_ reduce the cap-
ital stock.'' Even the power to dissolve does not carry the power
to change the capital stock. Reducing the capital stock is prac-
tically the dissolution of the company and the organization of a
new company.'^ Persons dealing with the corporation, its cred-
itors, the public at large and the stockholders themselves are in-
terested in the preservation of the capital stock intact." A de-
crease of capital stock affects injuriously more parties and in-
terests than an increase thereof could do, an increase being gen-
erally considered to be beneficial to shareholders and creditors
aliketo the former as tending to diminish and not to add to
their individual risks ; to the latter as increasing the amount of
their security.^* When expressly authorized by charter or stat-
ute to reduce its capital stock the corporation may do so by pur-
chasing its own shares and retiring them,'^ or by canceling its
shares which have not been issued.'^ But this will not be allowed
9
Smith V. Goldsworthy, 4 Ad. the notes of the institution are is-
& E. N. S. 430;Droitwich, etc. Co. sued, money is deposited and paper
V. Curzon, L. R. 3 Exch. 35; In re is lodged for collection. So has
Ebbw Vale, etc. Co.. 4 Ch. Div. the public on account of the ad-
827; In re Financial Corporation, vantages which the legislature
L. R. 2 Ch. 714; Society v. Abbott, has stipulated the bank should
2 Beav. 559; Grangers,' etc. Co. v. afford, as a consideration for the
Kamper, 73 Ala. 325; Salem Mill immunities and privileges which
Dam v. Ropes, 6 Pick. 23. the charter couiers. So have
10
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co. stockholders on account of the
(1885),
24 Fed. Rep. 332; Suther- profits which they have a right to
land v. Alcott (1884), 95 N. Y. expect on the investments they
93.
have respectively made. Percy
11
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co. v. Millaudon, 3 La. 569.
(1885),
24 Fed. Rep. 332; s. c. 25
i*
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co.
Am. L. Reg. 29. (1885),
24 Fed. Rep. 332; Green's
12
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co. Price's Ultra Ylres. 160.
(1885),
24 Fed. Rep. 332.
is
/ re Catling Gun, 43 Chanc.
13
Creditors and customers have Div. 628; Tide infra, 859, Power
a claim to the preservation of the to
Purchase Its Own Stock,
capital of a bank in its original
ic
Shoemaker v. Washburn, etc.
Integrity, upon the faith of which Co., 97
Wis. 585.
252
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
195(J.
lo be
done in prejudice to the rights of existing creditors, whether
such
purchase is made by money or by exchange of other corpo-
rate proi)crty.^^
The effect of purchase of shares is to extinguish
them, and all liability upon them to the corporate creditors, either
on the p.irt of the former holders or remaining shareholders.^*
Of course a company may accomplish a reduction by purchasing
and extinguishing its own shares, where it has authority to buy
thcm.^'' This, however, does not necessarily reduce the capital
stock, unless so intended, nor extinguish the shares bought in;
for they may be, sold and reissued at any time.-" A statute which
.
authorizes a corporation at any meeting called for the purpose,
to reduce its capital stock and the number of shares therein, does
not empower it to elTect a reduction by purchasing shares of a
particular subscriber. Unless such a course is adopted as will
work exact and even justice to all the owners of stock, the stat-
ute is inoperative.
2^
When the purpose is to reduce the capital
stock by purchase of shares they may not be purchased from any
particular stockholder alone without consent of all, but each stock-
holder is entitled to share pro rata, with all the others, in his sur-
render of shares for such purchase.-- No stockholder can be
forced to sell his shares for reduction of the capital stock.^'
Therefore when the transaction would operate for the rehef and
benefit of those from whom the stock is purchased and would in-
crease the liability of the remaining stockholders, it is invalid.^*
Upon reduction of its capital stock a corporation may distribute
17
771 re Telegraph, etc. Co., L. Ry. Frog Co. v. Haven, 101 Mass.
R. 10 Eq. 384. 398; Commonwealth v. Boston,
18,Moon Bros., etc. v. Waxaha- etc. R. Co. (1886), 142 Mass. 146;
chie, etc. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266; Will-
103; City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. iams v. Savage Manuf. Co., 3 Md.
507.
Ch. 418; Currier v. Lebanon Slate
19
Taylor v. Miami Exporting Co., 56 N. H. 262; Chetlain v. Re-
Co., 6 Ohio. 176; s. c. 5 Ohio St. public Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220.
162; s. c. 22 Am. Dec. 785; City Cf.
Percy v. Millaudon, 3 La. 568,
Bank V. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507; Cur- 587; s. c. 17 Am. Dec. 196.
rier v. Lebanon Slate Co., 56 N. H.
21 Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co.,
262; State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266; 56 N. H. 262; Gill v. Balis, 72 Mo.
Williams v. Savage Manuf. Co., 424; Chetlain v. Republic Life Ins.
3 Md. Ch. 418.
Co., 86 111. 220; N. H. General
20
Taylor v. Miami
Exporting Statutes c. 354,
6.
Co., 5 Ohio, 162; s. c. 22 Am. Dec.
22
Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co.,
785; s. c. 6 Ohio, 176; Vail v. Ham- 56 N. H. 262.
ilton, 85 N. Y. 453; City Bank v.
2.3 Bergman v. St. Paul, etc.
Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507; Ex parte Assn., 29 Minn. 275.
Holmes, 5 Cow. 426; State Bank
24
Currier v. Lebanon Slate Co.,
v. Fox, 3 Blatchf. 431; American 56 N. H. 262.

196.] CAPITAL STOCK. 253

a portion of its assets, retaining' as its property the remainder.
Sucli distribution may be in stock instead of in cash.-^

196. (a) Reduction by the company's purchase of its own

shares.The doctrine that corporations, when not prohibited
by their charters, may buy and sell their own stocks, is supported
by a respectable line of authorities.^ And the rule appears to be
well settled in the United States that a corporation may, unless
prohibited by statute, purchase its own stock, or take it in pledge
or mortgage ; that it may purchase its own stock in exchange for
money or other property, and hold, reissue or retire the same,
provided such at is done in entire good faith, is an exchang'e
of equal value, and is free from all fraud, actual or constructive ;
-^
provided that the corporation is neitl^er insolvent nor in process
of dissolution, and that the rights of creditors are not injuriously
affected.-^ "If it were shown that the purchase was made to pro-
mote the interests of the officers alone of the company and not the
stockholders generally, or if for the benefit of a portion of the
stockholders and not all, or for the injury of all, or only a por-
tion of them, or if it operated to the injury of creditors or would
defeat the end for which the body was created, or if it Was done
for any other fraudulent purpose, then chancery could interfere.-^
In the absence of legislative provision to the contrary, a corpora-
tion may hold and sell its own stock, and may receive it in pledge
25
Continental Securities v. on Railroads, 505. But see Holla-
Northern,
_
etc. Co., 57 Atl. 876 day v. Elliott, 8 Ore. 84; Preston
(N. J. Ch.' 190.4). V. Grand Colliery, etc. Co., 11 Sim.
2c.
Republic Life Ins. Co. v. 327.
Swigert, 135 111. 150; New Eng- 27
First Nat. Bank v. Salem, etc.
land- Trust Co. v. Abbott, 160 Co. (1889), 39 Fed. Rep. 89, Deady
Mass. 148; Dock v. Schlichter, etc. J., citing Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y.
Co., 167 Pa. St. 370; Dupee v. Bos- 510; Taylor v. Exporting Co., 6
ton, etc. Co., 115 Mass. 37; Chi- Ohio, 176; In re Insurance Co., 3
cago, etc. R. Co. v. Marseilles, 84 Biss. 452; Bank v. Transportation
111. 145; s. c. 84 111. 643; Hart- Co., 18 Vt. 138; Clapp v. Peterson,
ridge v. Rockwell, R. M. Charlton, 104 111. 26; Dupee v. Water Power
260; Robinson v. Beal, 26 Ga. 28; Co., 114 Mass. 37.
Leland v. Hayden, 102 Mass. 551;
23
Commercial Nat. Bank v.
American, etc. Co. v. Haven, 101 Burch, 141 111. 519, 33 Am. St. Rep.
Mass. 308; Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. 331; Columbian Bank's Estate, 147
Y. 507; Jones v. King, 86 111. 20; Pa. St. 422; Adams & Westlake Co.
Iowa, etc. Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa, v. Deyette, 5 S. D. 41S, 49 Am. St.
25; Taylor v. Miami Ex. Co., 6 Rep. 887; Clapp v. Peterson, 114
Ohio, 176; State v. Building Assn., 111. 26.
35 Ohio St. 253; Bank v. Cham-
29 Chicago, etc. Co. v. Marseil-
plain, etc. Co., 18 Vt. 131; Pierce les, 84 111. 145,
254
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
196.
or in payment in the lawful exercise of its corporate powers.^"
In the absence of express restriction, a corporation may make a
loan of its funds, and take as collateral or pledge its own stock.^^
A corporation, if not prohibited by its charter, which gives it
general contractual powers, may receive its own capital stock
from a stockholder and pay him therefor with the bonds of an-
other corporation, with which he had originally purchased the
stock.^^ But an Ohio court declares that the decided weight of
authority is against the existence of the power unless conferred
by express grant or clear implication.
''^
So, therefore, an agree-
ment between a manufacturing corporation and a stockholder, to
purchase its stock from the stockholder, was held void.^* The
foundation principle, says the Ohio court, upon which these lat-
ter cases rest, is that a corporation possesses no powers except
such as are conferred upon it by its charter, either by express
grant or necessary implication. It is true, however, that in most
jurisdictions, where the right of a corporation to traffic in its own
stock has been denied, an exception to the rule has been admitted
to exist, whereby a corporation has been allowed to take its own
stock in satisfaction of a debt due. This exception is supposed
to rest on a necessity which arises in order to avoid loss. It was
early recognized in Ohio.^ Even in those jurisdictions which
hold that express authority is required by a corporation to pur-
chase its own shares, it is held that a solvent corporation may
accept its own shares in compromise of a disputed claim, or in
the settlement and payment of a debt previously in good faith con-
tracted.^'' But an insolvent corporation can neither purchase its
own shares nor receive them as security for, or in payment of a
debt due the corporation," A purchase by a corporation of its
stock will not relieve the vendor stockholder from his statutory
soDupee v. Boston Water Power Hays v. Gallon, 29 Ohio St. 338;
Co., 114 Mass. 37. Currier v. Lebanon, etc. Co., 56
31
German Savings Bank V. "Wulf- N. H. 262; German, etc. Bank v.
kuhler, 19 Kan. 60. Wulfkuhler, 19 Kan. 60.
32
Rollins V. Shaver Wagon &
35
Taylor v. Miami Exporting
Carriage Co., 80 Iowa, 380 (1890), Co., 6 Ohio, 176; Coppin v. Green-
45 N. W. Rep. 1037. lees, etc. Co. (1882), 38 Ohio St.
33
Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co. 278.
(1882), 38 Ohio St. 275.
so
Coppin v. Greenlees, etc. Co.,
34
Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co., 38 Ohio St. 275. 43 Am. Rep. 425;
(1882), 3S Ohio St. 275; s. c. 43 Morgan v. Lewis, 46 Ohio St. 1.
Am. Rep. 425; Bartholomew v.
^t
In re Columbian Bank, 147
Bently, 1 Ohio St. 42; Strauss v. Pa. St. 422; Commercial Bank v.
Insurance Co., 5 Ohio St. 59; Bank Burch, 141 111. 519.
V. Insurance Co., 12 Ohio St. 601;

196.]
CAPITAL STOCK.
255
individual liability to crcditors.^^ "The right of a corporation to
traffic in its own stock appears to be inconsistent with the prin-
ciple of the liability of stockholders to creditors.
^^
Now it is just
as plain that a business or trading- corporation cannot exist with-
out stock and stockholders as it is that the creditors of such cor-
poration are entitled to the security from the liability of stock-
holders named in the constitution.'"' The corporation itself can-
not be a stockholder of its own stock within the meaning of this
provision of the constitution. Nobody will deny this proposition.
And if a corporation can buy one share of its stock at pleasure,
why may it not buy every share? If the right of a corporation
to purchase its own stock at pleasure exists and is unlimited,
where is the provision intended for the benefit of creditors ? This
is not the security to which the constitution invites the creditors
of corporations."
"1
am aware that the amount of stock required
to be issued is not fixed by the constitution or by statute, and also
that provision is made by statute for the reduction of the capital
stock of corporations ; but of these matters creditors are bound
to take notice.*^ They have a right, however, to assume that stock
once issued, and not called back in the manner provided by law,
remains outstanding in the hands of stockholders liable to re-
spond to creditors to the extent of the individual liability pre-
scribed. In this view it matters not whether the stock purchased
by the corporation that issued it, becomes extinct, or is held sub-
ject to be reissued. It is enough to know that. the corporation,
as purchaser of its own stock, does not aflford to creditors the
security intended. And surely, if the law forbids the organiza-
tion of a corporation without stock because the required security
is not furnished, it cannot be, that having brought the corpora-
tion into existence, it invests it with power to assume at pleasure
the identical character or relation to the public that was an in-
surmountable objection to the giving of corporate existence in the
38
Matter of Reciprocity Bank, eacli stockholder shall be liable,
22 N. Y. 9; Currier v. Lebanon over and above the stock by him
Slate Co.. 57 N. H. 262. or her owned, and any amount un-
39
Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co. paid thereon, to a further sum, at
(1882), 38 Ohio St. 278; Ohio least equal in amount to such
Const, art. xiii, 3, which reads stock."
as follows: "Dues from corpora-
40
Coppin v. Greenlees, etc. Co.
tions shall be secured by such in- (1882), 38 Ohio St. 278; State v.
dividual liability of stockholders, Sherman, 22 Ohio St. 411.
and other means, as may be pre-
-ti
Coppin v. Greenlees, etc. Co.
scribed by law; but in all cases, (1882), 38 Ohio St. 278.
250
CAPITAL STOCK.
[
19G.
first place."
^^
It follows from such view that a corporation can-
not purchase its own shares unless the power is expressly con-
ferred by charter or statute, that any such purchase is ultra
vires, although made in good faith, and by consent of all the
stockholders, without any intent to defraud creditors and whether
or not there be any creditors. Such view is based upon the
ground, (i) that express power is required to increase or to
diminish the capital stock of the corporation;
*^
(2)
that such pur-
chase is a fraud upon the stockholders and creditors ;
^*
and
(3)
that it is foreign to the corporate purposes and is a diversion
of the corporate funds to a use not contemplated or authorized
by the charter.*^ The first ground does not apply where pur-
chased shares are reissued ; and the second does not apply in the
absence of creditors and where the stockholders all consent to
the purchase. But the contrary view now prevails in most courts
passing upon the question. In them it is held that a corporation
may purchase and hold its own stock without any express au-
thority unless expressly prohibited, provided only that the pur-
chase shall be made in good faith gnd free from prejudice to the
rights of stockholders and creditors.^ "Private corporations may
purchase their stock in exchange for money or other property,
and hold, reissue or retire the same, provided such act is had ill
entire good faith, is an exchange of equal Ajalue, and is free from
all fraud, actual or constructive, this implying that the corpora-
tion is neither insolvent nor in process of dissolution and pro-
vided the rights of creditors are not affected."
"
Under statute
prohibiting the payment of any part of the capital stock of the
company to a stockholder, he is liable to action by the receiver
to recover the proceeds of stock sold by him to the company in
attempt to cancel and retire it and to reduce its capital stock, the
corporation being insolvent at the time.'*^
Reduction by repurchase.Where directors repurchase capital
stock the presumption is that they do not violate the law and de-
crease the capital stock. Positive proof to the contrary is neces-
sary to overcome that presumption.*"
42
Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co.
46
Same as note 26 on p. 253.
(1882), 38 Ohio St. 278. 47 Clapp v. Peterson, 104 111. 26;
43
Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. Hartridge v. Rockwell, R. M.
100; Crandall v. Lincoln, 52 Conn. Charlt. (Ga.) 260.
73, 52 Am. Rep. 560.
48
Tait v. Pigott, 73 Pac. 364
44
2 Thompson Corp., 2054. (Wash. 1903).
45
Coppin V. Greenlees, etc. Co.,
49
Porter v. Plymouth, etc. Co.,
38 Ohio St. 275, 43 Am. Rep. 425. 74 Pac. 938 (Mont. 1904).

197-199.] CAPITAL STOCK. 257

197.
(b) Loss of property not a reduction of capital stock.
In case of a loss of property it is held that a reduction of capital
stock which amounted to a mere writing off of the loss, is not a
reduction of the company's capital within the meaning of stat-
utes authorizing a reduction.^" Thus, where since the organiza-
tion of a corporation the capital had been nominal, to the extent
that only by estimation had the actual capital of the company been
equal to the par value of the shares, and it was proposed to write
off the par value of the shares so that the par value and the esti-
mated value might be equal, the actual capital not being affected^
the actual stock being the same after the proposed action as be-
fore, it was said that the writing off the value of shares was such
an infringement of the rights of property as could only be ac-
complished by consent or a clear power given in the charter.
It could not be lawful over the protest of dissenting stockhold-
ers.^^ In case of reduction of the capital stock, where all the
shares are of the same class, the loss must be borne by all the
stockholders by surrender of their shares, but, if these are of dif-
ferent classes, the loss by reduction must be borne by those whose
loss it would be in case of dissolution and winding-up of the cor-
poration.^^
1
98. (c) Change in number of shares without change in
their par value.Any variance made in the number of shares
of the capital stock without change in the par value, or any
change of par value without change made in the number of shares,
is to increase or reduce the capital stock. Without express au-
thority no such valid change can be made.^^

199. (d) Liability of shareholders after reduction.The

liability of shareholders as affected by an increase* or reduction
of the capital stock is hereinafter treated.'* The recent "Stock
Corporation Law" of New York, enacts with respect to reduc-
tion of capital stock that the amount of the company's debts and
liabilities shall not exceed the amount of its reduced capital, and
that the owner of any stock shall not be relieved from any lia-
bility existing prior to such reduction,
^^
Where capital stock has
50
In re Ebbw. Vale, etc. Co.,
ss
Drditwicb, etc. Co. v. Curzon,
(1877), 4 Ch. Div. 832. L. R. 3 Exch. 35.
51
Seignouret v. Home Ins. Co.
54
Yide infra, 485.
(1885), 24 Fed. Rep. 332; s. c. 25 55
n. Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 564,
Am. L. Reg. 29.
44. In case of a reduction of
52
In re London, Inv. Corp., 2 the capital stoclc, except of a rail-
Ch. Div. 860. road corporation, the certificate
thereof shall have indorsed there-
VoL. 1

17
253
CAPITAL SIOCK.
[
200.
been only
partially paid in, it is not permissible to reduce the
nominal capital to the sum actually paid. Even in a case where
there was apparent statutory autliority so to do, it was said that
if such a proceeding were permitted, the shareholders' liability
would be limited not, as was intended, by the amount of their
shares, but by the amount of the already paid-up portion of their
shares. Justice, the language of the act, and the indention of the
legislature, alike forbid an interpretation which would lead to
such a result-^** Where directors have increased their capital
stock by resolution, as empowered by their charter, they can-
not afterwards, even at the unanimous request of the stockhold-
ers, rescind their vote increasing the stock, so as to accomplish a
reduction from the figure first determined upon to one represent-
ing the amount of the stock subscribed, being a greater amount
than that from which the increase was made.^^

200. Increase or reduction. Power of the courts.The

courts have no power to effect increase or decrease in the cor-
porate capital stock.^^
on the approval of the comptroller,
to the effect that the reduced cap-
ital is sufficient for the proper
purposes of the corporation, and
is in excess of its debts and lia-
bilities, and that the actual mar-
ket value of the stock before re-
duction was less than its par
value. N. Y. Laws of 1890, ch.
564, 46.
50
Droitwich, etc. Co. v. Curzon
(1867), L. R. 3 Ex. 42.
5T
Sutherland v. Olcott (1884)/
95 N. Y. 93.
58
Smith V. North American
Min. Co., 1 Nev. 423; Sewall v.
Eastern R. R., 63 Mass. 5.
CHAPTER XL
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
A.
THE CONTRACT OF SUBSCRIPTION.

202. In general. Membership

in companies having
capital stock.
203. Formal requisites of con-
tract.
204. Contract not necessary to
be in writing. Accept-
ance.
205. Subscription prior to in-
corporation.
206. Subscription after incor-
poration.
207. Acceptance of the con-
tract and evidence
thereof.
208. Signing articles of asso-
ciation.
209. Agreement before signing
articles to take stock.
210. Mode of application and
allotment of shares.
211. Cash deposit on subscrip-
tion.
212.' Effect of legislation upon
agreement of subscrip-
tion.
213. Effect of consolidation
upon agreement to sub-
scribe.
214. Construction of the con-
tract.
215. Intention of the parties is
to govern the contract.
B.
WnO MAY RECER'E SUBSCRIPTIONS, AND WHO MAY SUBSCRIBE.
216. Who may receive subscrip-
tions.
217. Commissioners appointed
to receive subscription.
218. Limitation of amount of
a single subscription.
219. Subscription in excess of
capital stock. Appor-
tionment.
220. Competency to subscribe
for stock.
221. Married women, infants,
agents, partners, etc., as
subscribers.
222. The State as a subscriber
to stock.
223. Municipal corporation as
subscriber.
224. Substitution of sub-
scriber.
PROOF OF SUBSCBIPTION.
225. Evidence of subscription.
D.
CONDITIONAL SUBSCBIPTIONS. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LIABILITY.
226. Conditional subscriptions.
226a. Conditional subscriptions
as a defense. Estoppel.
227. Subscription before incor-
poration not to be con-
ditional.
200
SULSCRIl'TIONS.

22S.
229.
230.
231.
232.
233.
234.
Jlay be conditional when
made after incorpora-
tion.
Valid or void conditions.
Conditional subscriptions
made before incorpora-
tion.
Revocation or withdrawal
of conditions.
Conditions precedent.
Conditions subsequent.
Waiver of conditions.
235. Recitals in subscription
when implied condition.
236. Secret and separate con-
ditions are void.
237. Subscription upon special
terms.
238. Subscription not binding
until performance of
conditions.
239. Waiver of performance of
conditions.
B.
WITHDRAWAL, RELEASE, AND DISCHABGE OF SUBSCRIBERS.
240. Withdrawal from subscrip-
tion by consent of the
corporation.
241. Want of power in the di-
rectors to release.
242. Release in compromise
of doubtful claims.
243. Withdrawal and abandon-
ment.
244. Effect of withdrawal.
245. The English rule as to
withdrawal.
GROUNDS FOR RESCISSION AND CANCELLATIOI^
246.
247.
248.
252.
253.
Mere irregularities are in-
suflBcient ground.
Irregular incorporation
as ground for rescission.
Variance from original
purpose.
249. Mismanagement of cor-
porate affairs.
250. Delay in prosecuting the
corporate purposes.
251. Other grounds for release.
Payment. Discharge in
bankruptcy.
G.
FRAUDULENT AGREEMENTS.
Secret concessions to other
subscribers. Fraud in
procuring subscribers.
Fraudulent agreement of
subscribers. Secrfet ad-
vantages.
253a. Constructive fraud in re-
lease.
254. Colorable or fictitious sub-
scriptions by others.
H.
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND FRAUD IN PROCURING SUBSCRIPTION".
225. Parol agreements and false
representations distin-
guished.
256. Parol agreements and con-
ditions to vary the con-
tract.
257. Subscriptions procured by
false representations.
258. Misrepresentations, when
fraudulent.
259. Made without knowledge
of their falsity.
260. Made by agents, liability
of the corporation.
261. Not binding if not made
by authorized agents.

202.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 261
261a. SubsoiMption to capital
stock. Misrepresentation
by way of opinion.
2C2. Misrepresentations by a
promoter.
263. Misrepresentations in a
prospectus.
264. Misrepresentations by sup-
pression of the truth.
265. Misrepresentations in re-
ports to stockholders.
266. Parol evidence of fraud
by misrepresentations.
266a. Effect of fraud. Rescis-
sion of the contract.
267. Waiver of Irregularities.
Acquiescence in the con-
tract.
268. Recovery of deposits upon
abandonment of the con-
tract.
269. Specific performance of the
contract of subscription.
References:
Fraud in procurement as defense to suits to enforce payment.
Chapter 24, Sections 628 to 635.
Creditors' suits for non-payment of. Chapter 23, section 605.
Suits on subscription by members of unincorporated associa-
tions. Section 1404.
Calls and assessments upon subscribers. Chapter 13, sec-
tion 302.
Payment of subscriptions. Chapter 14, section 338.
Defenses to creditors' suits. Chapter 24, section 620.
A.
THE CONTR.\CT OF SUBSCRIPTION.

202. In general. Membership in companies having capital

stock.Membership, whether acquired by purchase of stock
or otherwise, depends upon a contract and its mutual acceptance.^
Though no formality is necessary, a subscription contract, namely,
an offer and an acceptance, is necessary to any valid subscrip-
tion.^ An accepted offer to take shares of stock, whether made
before or after organization of the corporation, constitutes the
contract of subscription, and the subscriber thereby becomes a
stockholder.^ Unpaid subscriptions are corporate assets recover-
able by suit as in case of other assets so far as required for pay-
ment of the corporate debts.* Membership in companies having
a capital stock consists in the ownership of one or more shares
1 Ellis V. Marshall, 2 Mass. 269,
3 Am. Dec. 49; State v. Dawson,
16 Ind.
'40;
Green v. Sigua Iron
Co. (C. C), 76 Fed. 947; Lauman
V. Lebanon Valley R. Co., 30 Pa.
St. 42, 72 Am. Dec. 685; American,
etc. Co. V. Chicago, etc. Exchange,
143 111. 210, 36 Am. St. Rep. 385;
Hudson, etc. Co. v. Tower, 161
Mass. 10, 42 Am. St. Rep. 379, 156
Mass. 82, 32 Am. St. Rep. 434.
2 Butler University v. Schon-
over, 114 Ind. 381, 5 Am. St. Rep.
627; Glenn v. Garth, 103 N. Y. 18;
Gilman v. Gross, 97 Wis. 224.
3 Badger Paper Co. v. Rose, 95
Wis. 145; Starrett v. Rockland,
etc. Co., 65 Me. 374.
4 Smathers v. Western, etc.
Bank, 47 S. E. 893 (N. C. 1904).
202
SULSCKIPTIONS.
[
202.
thereof."
This ownership may be acquired either by signing the
articles of association for a specified number of shares, or by a
contract of subscription to the capital stock," either before or
after the articles are filed,^ or by transfer of the shares together
with registration of the transferee's name upon the books of the
company
.*
No vote of admission is requisite ; for the rights and
privileges of membership are incident to the ownership of stock."
And one whose subscription has been accepted by the company,
although he has paid nothing thereon, is none the less entitled to
vote at corporate meetings.^" All persons capable of making a
contract may become members by subscription. Thus, a married
woman may become a stockholder with respect to her separate es-
tate. And persons under disabilities may acquire membership
by gift, bequest or devolution.^^ Mandamus will lie to compel
B
Upton V. Hansbrough, 3 Biss.
417; State v. Ferris, 42 Conn. 560;
Gilbert v. Manchester Manuf. Co.,
11 Wend. 627; Sargent v. Franklin
Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 90; Overseers of
the Poor v. Sears, 22 Pick. 122;
Downing v. Potts, 3 Zab. 66;
Gregory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch.
466; Agricultural Bank v. Burr,
24 Me. 25G. Cf.
Concordia Sav-
ings & Aid Assn. v. Read (1883),
93 N. Y. 474, construing N. Y.
Laws of 1881, ch. 122, 3. As to
the duties incident to ownership
of shares, see "Duties of Stock-
holders," 3 Cent. L. J. 620; same
article, 24 Pitts. Leg. J. 31.
6
Hamilton, etc. Plank Road Co.
v. Rice, 7 Barb. 157. "The situa-
tion of a person who has signed
the memorandum of association
of a limited company for a given
number of shares differs in some
respects from that of a person
who has merely applied for
shares, and has had them allotted
to him. In the latter case com-
munication of the fact of the
allotment, coupled with the entry
of the name on the share register,
is needed to establish the binding
contract to take the shares, which
in the former case is established
by the simple act of signing the
memorandum of association.
. . . The single act of signing
the memorandum, therefore, puts
the person signing it in exactly
the same situation as regards the
company, as the person who has
applied for shares, has had them
allotted to him, and has had his
name entered on the register."
"Signing the Memorandum of
Agreement and its Consequences,"
14 Sol. J. & Rep. (1869) 92.
7 Concordia Savings & Aid Assn.
V. Read (1883), 93 N. Y. 474.
sYide infra,
371. "A party
can in general not otherwise be-
come a member of such a com-
pany than by himself subscribing
to the undertaking, or stepping
into the place of an original sub-
scriber." Walford on Railways,
253.
9 Gilbert v. Manchester Iron Co.,
11 Wend. 627; Sargent v. Frank-
lin Ins. Co.. 8 Pick. 90. The con-
stitution or by-laws of the com-
pany, however, may require an
election to membership in addi-
tion to the mere ownership of
stock. Commonwealth v. Gill
(1838), 3 Whart. 228.
10
Downing v. Potts, 3 Zab. 66;
Gray v. Portland Bank, 3 Mass.
364; Rex v. Bank of England, 2
Doug. 524; Angell & Ames on Cor-
porations (11th ed.),
113.
11
Mathewman's Case, L. R. 3
Eq. 781; Howard v. Bank of Eng-

202.]
SUBSCKIPTIOXS. 263
the registration of legatees.^- Cut no one can be made a member
of a corporation against his will.^^ Thus, the dissenting minority
of a mutual insurance company consoHdating with another, are
not members of the new company unless they expressly consent
to become so." The possession of a stock certificate is not neces-
sary to the ownership of shares ; it is merely a convenient voucher
thereof.^^ Neither do the stockholder's liabilities depend upon his
having received a certificate. If his name appear upon the list
of stockholders he -is answerable for the corporate obligations,
although a certificate may never have been issued to him.^^ Nor
land, 19 L. R. 3 Eq. 295; In re
Richardson, L. R. 3 Eq. 588; In re
Piij'h ft Sharman's Case, L. R.
13 Eq. 566; Roman v. Fry, 5 J. J.
Marsli, G3-I; In re Reciprocity
Bank, 22 N. Y. 9.
12
King V. Worcester Canal Co.,
1 Man. & R. 529.
1"
Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fearn-
ley, 18 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 330.
i-t
Harailton J.Iutnal Ins. Co. v.
Hobart, 2 Gray, 543.
15
Ha-vley v. Upton, 102 U. S.
314; Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S.
418; Dennis v. Kennedy (1854),
19 Barb. 517; Boston & A. R. Co.
V. Pearson (1880), 128 Mass. 445;
Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16
Mass. 94; Agricultural Bank v.
Burr, 24 Me. 256; Agricultural
Bank v. Wilson, 24 Me. 273; Buf-
falo & N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dudley,
14 N. Y. 336; Beckett v. Houston,
32 Ind. 393; Farrar v. Walker, 3
Dillon, 506; First National Bank
V. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575; In re
Election of Directors of the St.
Lawrence Steamboat Co. (1882),
44 N. J. 529, 539, holding that the
books of the company "are the
only evidence of who are the
stockholders, and, as such, are
entitled to vote at elections;" New-
Hampshire Central R. Co. v. John-
son, 30 N. H. 390; Dows v. Naper,
91 111. 44; Minneapolis Harvester
Works v. Libby, 24 Minn. 327
Wheeler v. Walker, 45 N. H. 355
Strong V. Smith, 15 Hun, 222
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 4
Phila. 124. In Galveston City v.
Sibley (1882), 56 Tex. 269, the
heirs of one to whom a negotiable
certificate of stock in a land com-
pany had been issued, sought to
establish their rights thereto, the
certificate having been lost or de-
stroyed several years before. The
court decreed that, in view of the
fluctuating value of the stock, the
uncertainty when it would be
necessary to give a bond of in-
demnity in case the plaintiffs
should eeek to obtain exclusive
control of their share in the capi-
tal stock of the company, and the
number of the plaintiffs, the case
should remain open on the docket
in the trial court, until it could
be finally dismissed without preju-
dice to either party; that the
plaintiffs should have the privi-
leges of stockholders, so long as
no superior title to the certificate
was set up, and should give the
company a bond of indemnity
against all loss in case a superior
title should be established, and
also give other bonds whenever
they claimed exclusive ownership
of any of the capital stock. Pack-
ard Machinery Co. v. Laev, 100
Wis. 644; Armour Bros., etc. Co.
V. St. Louis Nat. Bank, 113 Mo.
12, 35 Am. St. Rep. 691; Winslow
V. Fletcher, 53 Conn. 390, 55 Am.
St. Rep. 122.
icMcComb V. Barcelona, etc.
Assn., 134 N. Y. 598; Chester
Glass Co. V. Dewey, 16 Mass. 84,
8 Am. Dec. 128; Heaston v. Cincin-
nati, etc. Co., 16 Ind. 275, 17 Am.
2Gi SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
202.
arc his rights as a stockholder dependent thereon. Thus, he may
transfer his stock before the certificates have been issued/^ and
after having received his certificates neither his rights nor his
liabiHties depend upon his retention of them. He may hypothe-
cate thcm,^^ or transfer them witli a power of attorney endorsed
thereon authorizing the purchaser to have the transfer registered
upon the books of the company, and yet, until the transfer has
been registered, he may continue to vote at corporate meetings,^''
he may continue to receive dividends,-*' and his habilities to the
corporation' and its creditors remain unafifected.^^
So, conversely,
Dec. 430; Wemple v. St. Louis,
etc. Co., 120 111. 196; Mitchell v.
Beekman (1885), 64 Cal. 117.
17
Butterfield v. Spencer (1856),
1 Bosw. 1.
18
The registered stockholder re-
mains a member although he may
have pledged his certificates. Vail
V. Hamilton, 85 N. Y. 453; s. o.
20 Hun, 355; Merchants' Bank v.
Cook, 4 Pick. 405; Hoppin v.
Buffum (1870), 9 R. I. 513; Ex
parte Willcocks, 7 Cowen, 402;
McDaniels v. Flower Brook
Manuf. Co., 22 Vt. 274. The fact
that a pledgee of corporate stock
has, without authority from the
pledgor, caused it to be registered
on the company's books in his
name as trustee, does not author-
ize him to vote thereon; and the
pledgor need not, in order to
maintain an action to restrain
such voting, show that his rights
would thereby be injuriously af-
fected. McHenry v. Jewett, 36
Hun (1882), 453; Johnson v.
Laflin, 103 U. S. 800; Farmers,'
etc. Co. V. Chicago, etc. Co., 163
U. S. 31; Sargent v. Franklin Ins.,
8 Pick. (Mass.) 90, 19 Am. Dec.
306; Bond v. Mount Hope Iron
Co., 99 Mass. 505, 97 Am. Dec. 49;
see note 57 Am. St. Rep. 379; Me-
chanics' Bank v. Merchants' Bank,
45 Mo. 513, 100 Am. Dec. 388.
19
Beckett v. Houston, 32 Ind.
393; McNeil v. Tenth National
Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; State v. Fer-
ris, 42 Conn. 560; Evans v. Bailey,
66 Cal. 112; People v. Robinson
(1885), 64 Cal. 373. If the right
to vote be disputed, the books of
the company are the only evi-
dence to which it can be required
to look. In re Long Island R.
Co., 19 Wend. 37; Smith v. Ameri-
can Coal Co., 7 Lansing, 317; In
re North Shore Staten Island
Ferry Co., 63 Barb. 556; Johnston
V. Jones, 23 N. J. Eq. 216; In re
Election of Directors of St. Law-
rence Steamboat Co. (1882), 44 N.
J. 529, 539; People v. Robinson, 64
Cal. 373. The real owner having
acquiesced in the control of tt^e
stock by the registered holder un-
til a contested election, equity
will not interfere with the result.
Hoppin V. Buffum (1870), 9 R. I.
513.
20
Wheeler v. Miller, 90 N. Y.
353; Holland v. Duluth, etc. Co.,
65 Minn. 324, 60 Am. St. Rep. 480;
San Joaquin, etc. Water Co. v.
Beecher, 101 Cal. 70; Brisbane v.
Delaware, etc. Co., 94 N. Y. 204;
Guarantee Co., etc. v. East Rome
Town Co., 96 Ga. 511, 51 Am. St.
Rep. 150; McNeil v. Tenth Na-
tional Bank. 46 N. Y. 325.
21
Burr V. Wilcox, 21 N. Y. 551.
In Henkle v. Salern Manuf. Co.
(1884), 39 Ohio St. 547, the holder
of shares of stock merely as col-
lateral security for a debt without
a transfer thereof to him on the
books of the company, was held
not to be the legal or equitable
owner of the stock, and therefore
not liable as a stockholder.

203.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
2G5
the mere possession of stock certificates does not constitute their
holder a share-owner in the corporation.^^

203. Formal requisites of the contract.A contract for

"subscription" is an agreement offered and accepted, of the sub-
scriber to take a certain number of shares of the capital stock of
a corporation. It may generally be made in any way in which
other contracts may be made,-^ and is governed substantially by
the same principles. However the intention to become a stock-
holder may be expressed, it binds the subscriber and the corpo-
ration.-* A subscription accepted by the corporatiouy or the ac-
ceptance and the holding of a certificate of stock, constitutes one
a stockholder,-^ and binds him to pay for his stock according to
the terms of his agreement. There may be no' formal subscrip-
tion, where one assumes the position, and claims and enjoys the
privileges of a stockholder, with the acquiescence of the corpo-
ration. Such person and a corporation are both estopped to deny
that he is a stockholder.^" No particular formality is necessary
to a valid contract of subscription. Where an offer of subscrip-
tion is made and accepted by the mutual assent of the corpora-
tion and the subscriber, without any other act of either, he be-
comes a stockholder entitled to all the rights and subject to all
the liabilities of that relation.^'^ But, in the absence of any such
estoppel or of any such agreement, no person can become a stock-
holder. "Although it may be true, that a binding contract of
subscription to the stock of a corporation, unless the statute or
articles of association provide to the contrary, may be made, with-
out actually signing a formal subscription paper or stock book,
in any manner that the subscriber and corporation clearly mani-
fest their purpose to enter into a contract whereby the relation
of stockholder of the corporate stock is to result, yet there must,
in every case, be some sort of subscription or contract whereby
the subscriber obtains the right, upon some condition, to demand
stock and to exercise the rights of a stockholder. Contracts for
membership in a corporation are not different in their essential
elements from other contracts. There must be contracting parties
22
In Baker V. Woolston (1885),
2*
Greenbrier, etc. v. Ocheltree,
27 Kan. 185. it was held that 44 W. Va. G26.
where a person holds stock in a
25
Walter v. Merced, etc. Assn.,
bank merely as collateral secur- 126 Cal. 582; Upton v. Tribilcock,
ity, he is not such part of the cor- 91 U. S. 45.
poration as to be bound by the
215
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56.
knowledge of its officers.
27 Glenn v. Garth, 133 N. Y. IS;
23
Blunt V. Walker, 11 Wis. 334. Gilman v. Gross, 97 Wis. 224.
2G6
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
2(J4.
whose minds mutually assent to some' proposition, and whose
agreement creates corresponding obligations between the par-
ties."
-'

204. The contract not necessary to be in writing. The

statute of frauds. Acceptance of the contract.

If the sub-
scription be in writing it matters not how informal the writing
may be, if the intent of the parties can be collected from it.^^ For
example, it may be by subscription in a small memorandum
book,'^*' or upon a single sheet of paper.^^ Though the statute
authorizes the opening of subscription books, it does not pre-
clude the subscription in other ways.^^ The agreement may be
entered into either by parol or in writing, or in both ways. No
writing is necessary, unless it is expressly required by the charter
or other statute.^^ The agreement is not within the statute of
frauds, if it is to be performed within a year.^* Contracts of this
character are not considered as within the statute of frauds in
Kentucky, even though payment is not to be made until the or-
ganization of the company at some indefinite future time."^ So,
in Indiana, it is held that a stipulation that certain things shall
be done by the company within a time longer than one year,
does not bring the contract within the statute of frauds where it
may be performed within one year.^^ A municipal subscription
to the stock of a railway need not be in writing. A resolution
by the proper board of officers or agents declaring the subscrip-
tion to be made, acceptance on the part of the railway and notice
thereof to the municipality, is sufficient ; and a contract made in
that manner is binding upon both parties although there has been
28
Butler University v. Scoon-
34
Webb v. Baltimore, etc. Co.,
over, 114 Ind. 381, 5 Am. St. Rep. 77 Md. 92, 39 Am. St. Rep. 396.
627.
ss
The statute of frauds (Gen.
29
Nulton V. Clayton, 54 Iowa, Stat. Ky. ch. 22, 1), providing
425, 37 Am. Rep. 213. that no action shall be brought to
"0
Buffalo V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. charge any one upon any agree-
294. raent which is not to be performed
31
Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S. within one year, unless the agree-
314; loM^a R. R., etc. v. Perkins, ment is in writing, refers to con-
28 Iowa, 281. tracts which are not to be per-
y-
Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Gifford, 87 formed within a year from the
N. Y. 294. making of them, not to those that
33
Walter v. Merced, etc. Assn., may 'be performed within that
12b Cal. 582; National Bank v. time. Bullock v. Falmouth &
Van Derwerker (1878), 74 N. Y. Chipman Hall Turnpike Road Co.
234; Pettis v. Atkins (1871), 60 (1887), 85 Ky. 184.
111. 454.
36
strangham v. Indianapolis,
etc. R. Co., 38 Ind. 185.

204.] SUBSCRIPTIONS.
26'
no exchange of the bonds of one for the stock of the other." But
generally a contract to take shares in the capital stock of an in-
corporated company, must be in writing,^^ and must be such as
to constitute a valid and complete contract on both sides.^ To
this end it is requisite on the one hand that it be unconditionally
delivered to an agent of the company authorized to receive sub-
scriptions,*" and on the other hand that it be accepted by the cor-
poration." The offer must be accepted, if at all, within a rea-
3T
Bates County v. Winters, 112
U. S. 325; Cass County v. Gillett,
100 U. S. 585; Nugent v. Super-
visors, 19 Wall. 241; State v. Jen-
nings, 4 Wis. 549; Beach on
Railways,
218, where it said
that the vote of the people, how-
ever, in favor of the subscription,
does not amount to a contract of
subscription, nor vest in the rail-
way a right to enforce specific
performance, where the enabling
act confers any discretion in rela-
tion to the matter, upon the of-
ficers of the municipality; Bates
County V. Winters, 97 U. S. 83;
Wadsworth v. St. Croix County, 4
Fed. Rep. 370; Syracuse Savings
Bank v. Town of Seneca Falls, 86
N. Y. 317; Cumberland, etc. R. Co.
V. Barren County, 10 Bush, 604;
Winter v. City Council of Mont-
gomery, 65 Ala. 403; People v.
Jackson County, 92 111. 441; Peo-
ple V. Pueblo County, 2 Cal. 360.
Cf.
Bank of Statesville v. Town of
Statesville, 84 N. C. 169.
38
Bouwer v. Appleby, 1 Sandf.
N. Y. 170; Vreeland v. New
Jersey Stone Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 188;
Fanning v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 37
Ohio St. 339; Pittsburgh & S. R.
Co. V. Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340; Gal-
veston Hotel Co. V. Bolton, 46 Tex.
633; Fothergill's Case, L. R. 8 Ch.
App. 270; Thames Tunnel Co. v.
Sheldon, 6 B. & C. 341; Phoenix
Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N.
Y. 294; Note to Parker v. Thomas,
81 Am. Dec. 392, 396.
30
Belfast & M. L. R. Co. v.
Moore, 60 Me. 561; Bucher v. Dills-
burg & M. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 306;
Dutchess, etc. R. Co. v. Mabbett,
58 N. Y. 397. See Lake Ontario
Shore R. Co. v. Curtiss, 80 N. Y.
219; "Subscriptions to the Capi-
tal Stock of Corporations," by
James M. Kerr
(1890), 6 Ry, &
Corp. L. J. 422.
40
For there can be no accept-
ance of an escrow subscription un-
til its final delivery to the com-
pany. Cass V. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry.
Co., 80 Pa. St. 31. But it is held
that a delivery of a subscription
of that character to an agent of
the company who is taking sub-
scriptions, or to a director, does
not destroy its character as an
escrow. Cass v. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 31; Ottawa, etc.
R. Co. V. Hall, 1 Bradw. 612;
Beach on Railways,
76. For a
subscription delivered in escrow
is, strictly speaking, no subscrip-
tion until the occurrence of the
contingency upon which it was to
be a second time delivered; and it
can only be delivered to the cor-
poration upon the happening of
that event. Ottawa, etc. R. Co. v.
Hall, 1 Bradw. 612; Ashtabula,
etc. R. Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St.
328.
4iFanning v. Insurance Co., 37
Ohio St. 539; Thames Tunnel Co.
V. Sheldon, 6 Barn. & C. 341.
Where
the subscription is made
in the manner provided by stat-
ute, acceptance by the company is
presumed; but when it is irregu-
larly made (Brownlee v. Ohio, etc.
R. Co., 18 Ind. 68; Ashtabula, etc.
R. Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328;
Eppes V. Mississippi, etc. Co., 35
268
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
204.
sonabic time.^- A person cannot be held bound by a subscription
to an incomplete copy of the articles of association ;
*^
nor when
the names of the directors were left blank and afterwards filled
without their consent.** Directors are personally liable for re-
fusal to receive subscriptions/'^ The intention to subscribe is a
question of fact for the jury.*" When the statute does not pre-
scribe a fixed mode of making a subscription to the capital stock
of a corporation, any contract of subscription, which is good at
common law, is valid under the statute.
*''
The courts look to the
intention of the contracting parties rather than to the manner in
which that intention is manifested.*^ If the manner of making
subscriptions is prescribed by the charter or general incorporat-
ing act, every material mandatory provision thereof must be sub-
Ala. 33; New Albany, etc. R. Co.
V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; s. c.
71 Am. Dec. 337; Clark v. Con-
tinental, etc. Co., 57 Ind. 134; Se-
wall V. Eastern R. Co., 9 Cush. 5;
Parker v. Northern, etc. R. Co.,
33 Mich. 23; Carlisle v. Saginaw,
etc. R. Co., 27 Mich. 315; St. Paul,
etc. R. Co. V. Robbins, 23 Minn.
439; Gulf, etc. Ry. Co. v. Neely,
64 Tex. 344.
Cf.
Silpher v. Ear-
hart, 83 Ind. 178; Cincinnati, etc.
R. Co. V. Pearce, 28 Ind. 502, or
made conditionally, acceptance
must be proven in order to bind
the subscriber. Taggart v. West-
ern Maryland R. Co., 24 Md. 563;
Gait V. Swain, 9 Gratt, 633; s. c.
50 Am. Dec. 311; Junction R. Co.
V. Reeve, 15 Ind. 236; Lowe v.
Edgefield, etc. R. Co., 1 Head
(Tenn.), 659; Ashtabula, etc. R.
Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328. This
may be shown by the corporation
entering the subscription upon its
records (New Albany, etc. R. Co.
V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; s. c.
71 Am. Dec. 337) or it may even
be shown by parol evidence. Mans-
field, etc. R. Co. V. Smith. 15 Ohio
St. 328. Acceptance by a presi-
dent of the company, all of whose
acts are afterwards ratified by the
directors, is sufficient to bind the
company and the subscriber. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co. V. Stewart, 41
Pa. St. 54; Beach on Railways.

85. Notice of acceptance is not
requisite (Brownlee v. Ohio, etc.
R. Co., 18 Ind.
68), unless required
by statute. Eppes v. Mississippi,
etc. R. Co., 35 Ala. 33.
42
Ward's Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 659.
A conditional subscription being
a continuing offer merely, it may
be recalled if acceptance is un-
reasonably deferred. Taggart v.
Western Maryland, etc. R. Co., 24
Md. 563; Beach on Railways,
86.
43
Dutchess, etc. R. Co. v. Mab-
bett, 58 N. Y. 397; Bucher v. Dills-
burg, etc. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 306.
44
Dutchess, etc. R. Co. v. Mab-
bett, 58 N. Y. 397.
45
Union Bank v. McDonough, 5
La. 63. Contra, Ferguson v. Wil-
son, L. R. 2 Ch. 77. Cf.
Swift v.
Jewsbury, L. R. 2 Q. B. 301.
46
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329; s. c. 70 Am.
Dec. 128; Galveston, etc. Co. v.
Bolton, 46 Texas, 633.
47
Buffalo & Jamestown R. Co.
V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294.
48
Dutchess, etc. R. Co. v. Mab-
bett, 58 N. Y. 379; Boston, etc. R.
Co. V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79;
Fry V. Lexington, etc. R. Co., 2
Met. (Ky.) 314; Mexican Gulf,
etc. R. Co. V. Viavant, 6 Rob. (La.)
305; Oler v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.,
41 Md. 583; Wellersburg, etc. Co.
V. Young, 12 Md. 476; Oakes v.
Turquand, L. R. 2 H. L. 325.

204.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 269
stantially complied with, to effect a complete contract binding
upon the parties.'* But all that is required is a substantial bona
fide compliance with the statute.^" Where the paper as a whole
clearly indicates what was the intention of the parties, many irreg-
ularities and defects are held to be immaterial, and the contract
will not be rendered void by reason of these slight departures
from the statutory form.^^ For example, subscriptions upon sep-
arate sheets of paper, or in private memorandum books, instead
of in the book which the statute provides for, have been held to
be valid and binding.-"^- Where duplicate sets of articles are used
for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions, and only one set is
properly filed in the office of the secretary of state, the subscribers
to the paper not so filed, do not become members of the corpora-
49
Dutchess, etc. R. Co. v. Mab-
bett, 58 N. Y. 379: Troy. etc. R.
Co. V. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297; Troy,
etc. R. Co. V. Warren, 18 Barb.
310; Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v.
Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340; Carlisle
V. Saginaw, etc. R. Co., 27 Mich.
315.
50
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Gifford,
87 N. Y. 294; Ashtabula, etc. R.
Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328; Peo-
ple V. Stockton, etc. R. Co., 45 Cal.
306; Harris v. McGregor, 29 Cal.
124; Brownlee V. Ohio, etc. R. Co.,
18 Ind. 68.
51
Peninsular, etc. R. Co. v.
Duncan, 28 Mich. 130; Birming-
ham, etc. R. Co. V. Locke, 1 Q. B.
256; London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fair-
clough, 2 Man. & G. 674.
5.i
Iowa & M. R. Co. V. Perkins,
28 Iowa, 281; Mexican Gulf R. Co.
V. Viavant, 6 Rob. (La.) 305; Ash-
tabula & N. L. R. Co. v. Smith, 15
Ohio St. 328; Hamilton & D. P. R.
Co. V. Rice, 7 Barb. 157; Clark v.
Continental Improvement Co., 57
Ind. 135; Boston B. & G. R. Co. v.
Wellington, 113 Mass. 79; St.
Charles Manuf. Co. v. Britton, 2
Mo. App. 290; Clements v. Todd,
1 Ex. 268; Brownlee v. Ohio I. &
I. R. Co., 18 Ind. 68; Buffalo & J.
R. Co. V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294;
Stuart V. Valley R. Co., 32 Gratt.
146. In Woodruff v. McDonald,
33 Ark. 97, the loose sheets were
afterwards bound together in a
volume and made a part of the
records of the company. Ace.
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Tibbits, 18
Barb. 297; Troy, etc. R. Co. v.
Warren, 18 Barb. 310; Pough-
keepsie & Salt Point R. Co. v.
Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150; In re
Dutchess & Columbia Co. R. Co.,
58 N. Y. 397; Ashtabula, etc. R.
Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328;
Iowa, etc. R. Co. v. Perkins, 28
Iowa, 281.
Cf.
Hawley v. Upton,
102 U. S. 314; Bucher v. Dills-
bury, etc. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 306;
"Subscriptions to the Capital
Stock of Corporations," by James
M. Kerr (1890), 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 422. But it is said by the
United States circuit court in the
case of McClelland v. Yvliiteley, 11
Biss. C. C. 444; s. c. 15 Fed. Rep.
322, that one can not be held
liable as a stockholder of a com-
pany, until his name has been
signed by himself, or his author-
ized agent, in the book of the com-
pany -kept for that purpose; and
that writing one's name in a pri-
vate memorandum book of a party
soliciting subscriptions to the cap-
ital stock of the company, is not
of itself authority to that person
to sign a subscription for shares.
270
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
205.
tion, and arc not liable on their subscriptions.^^ Where the stat-
ute requires the termini of railways to be stated in the articles of
association, the incorrect designation of them will not vitiate the
contract, provided the road be otherwise sufficiently described.^*
It is essential that an irregularly made subscription be accepted
by the company.^^

205.
Subscription prior to incorporation.A subscription
by a number of persons to the stock of a corporation to be there-
after fonned by them, has, in law, a double character. First, it
is a contract between the subscribers themselves to become stock-
holders, without further act on their part, immediately upon the
formation of the corporation. As such a contract, it is binding
and irrevocable from the date of the subscription, unless canceled
by all the stockholders before acceptance by the corporation.
Second, it is also in the nature of a continuing offer to the pro-
posed corporation, which upon acceptance by it after its forma-
tion becomes as to each subscriber a contract between him and
the corporation.^^ Delivery of the subscription contract to the
promoter of the corporation is a valid delivery, so that the sub-
scription becomes co instanti a binding contract. It is not the
case of delivery of a writing to a third party to be held in escrow.
Each succeeding subscriber executed this contract in the hands
of the promoter upon the faith of the subscriptions of others
preceding him and as a completed contract.^'' In the case of
original subscriptions made for the purpose of effecting the or-
ganization of the company, a subscriber becomes a stockholder
only upon the performance of all the conditions precedent to cor-
porate existence which may be required by the charter or general
act of incorporation.^ Before the company enters upon its cor-
53
Erie & N. Y. City R. Co. v. 58
Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend.
Owen, 32 Barb. 616. 20; s. c. 28 Am. Dec. 513; Burrall
54
Cayuga, etc. R. Co. v. Kyle, v. Bushwick R. Co., 75 N. Y. 211;
64 N. Y. 185; Boston, etc. R. Co. Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Dudley, 14
V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79; Bur-
N. Y. 337; Milford & C. T. Co. v.
lington, etc. R. Co. v. Palmer, 42
Brush, 10 Ohio, 111; s. c. 36 Am.
Iowa, 222. Dec. 78; Sedalia. W., etc. Ry. Co.
55
Parker v. Northern, etc. R.
v. Wilkerson (1886), 83 Mo. 235;
Co., 33 Mich. 23.
East Tennessee, etc. R. Co. v.
56
Minneapolis, etc. Co. V. Davis,
Gammon, 5 Sneed, 567; Mobiel,
40 Minn. 110 (1889), 3 L. R. A.
etc. R. Co. v. Yaudal, 5 Sneed,
796, 12 Am. St. Rep. 701.
294; Connecticut & P. Rivers R.
57
Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Davis, Co. v. Bailey (1852), 24 Vt. 465;
40 Minn. 110 (1889), 3 L. R. A. s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 181, where, how-
796, 12 Am. St. Rep. 701. ever, it is held that the sub-
scriber can not avail himself of

205.] SDBSCKIPTIOXS. 271

porate existence, however, he may withdraw
;
""
and although he
may have been active in persuading others to subscribe, he can-
not be held liable for any part of his subscription/'" For sub-
scriptions to the stock of a company to be formed in the future
are not mutual promises between the subscribers themselves/'^
any act of the company which the
State may set up as a ground of
forfeiture; Selma, etc. R. Co. v.
Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; s. c. 39 Am.
Dec. 344; New Albany, etc. R. Co.
V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; s. c.
71 Am. Dec. 337; Instone v.
Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 Bibb, 576;
s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 638; Waul*t)n, etc.
R. Co. V. Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 121;
Wight V. Shelby R. Co. (1885), 16
B. Mon. 47; s. c. 63 Am. Dec. 522,
holding that whether the com-
pany was properly organized or
not according to its charter is a
question that can not be made col-
laterally, but can only be made
by a direct proceeding against the
corporation; Penobscot R. Co. v.
White, 41 Me. 512; s, c. 66 Am.
Dec. 257; Penobscot R. Co. v.
Dummer, 40 Me. 172; s. c. 63 Am.
Dec. 654; Thigpen v. Mississippi
Central R. C, 32 Miss. 347; 1
Morawetz on Corporations,
56.
In Temple v. Lemon (1886), 112
111. 51, it was held that when the
aggregate amount of the capital
stock is fixed, a subscriber be-
comes liable only after the whole
is subscribed, and that, until then,
he is not liable for corporate
debts, in the absence of any cir-
cumstances of estoppel. Edin-
boro Academy v. Robinson, 37 Pa.
St. 210, 78 Am. Dec. 421; Hudson
Real Estate Co. v. Tower, 156
Mass. 82, 32 Am. St. Rep. 434;
Richlieu Plotel Co. v. Interna-
tional, etc. Co., 140 111. 248, 33 Am.
St. Rep. 234; Curry Hotel Co. v.
Mullins, 93 Mich. 318.
"9
Stanton v. Wilson, 2 Hill,
153; Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Dud-
ley, 14 N. Y. 336; Ashuelot, etc.
Co. V. Hoit, 56 N. H. 548; Athol
Music Hall Co. v. Carey, 116 Mass.
473; Hudson Real Estate v.
Tower, 156 Mass. 82, 32 Am. St.
Rep. 434, 161 Mass. 10. 42 Am. St.
Rep.
79; Plank's Tavern Co. v.
Barkhard, 87 Mich. 182; Auburn
Bolt, etc. Works v. Schultz, 143
Pa. St. 256.
'"Muncy Traction Engine Co.
V. Green
(1888), 143 Pa. St. 269, 13
Atl. Rep. 747; s. c. 12 Cen. L. J.
386.
'1
Hudson Real Estate Co. v.
Tower, 156 Mass.
82, 32 Am. St.
Rep. 434; Muncy, etc. Co. v. DeLa
Green, 143 Pa. St. 269; Athol
Music Hall Co. v. Carey, 116 Mass.
473. "If parties mutually agree
to subscribe for shares in a cor-
poration to be formed in the fu-
ture, there is no unconditional
agreement to become shareholders
as soon as the corporation is
formed, but it is contemplated
that the parties shall perform the
additional act of executing the
statutory contract of membership
by subscription upon the stock-
books, before they shall become
shareholders. In such a case
there is no offer which the cor-
poration, when formed, can ac-
cept; and the parties do not be-
come stockholders and liable to
be charged as such, imless they
carry out their agreement by sub-
scribing for the shares." Mora-
wetz on Corporations (2nd ed.),

49, citing Lake Ontario Shore R.
Co. v. Curtiss (1880); 80 N. Y.
219; Quick v. Lemon (1883), 105
111. 578, 585; Mt. Sterling Coal
Road Co. V. Little
(1879), 14
Bush, 429; Strasburg R. Co. v.
Echternacht (1853), 21 Pa. St.
220; s. c. 60 Am. Dec. 49. But see
Thrasher v. Pike County R. Co.,
25 111. 393, holding that such a
272
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
206.
nor binding upon them as such. But, upon the organization of
the corporation, a subscription made prior thereto becomes bind-
ing,^'- the prospective rights of membership being deemed a suffi-
cient consideration to support the contract.
"^^

206. Subscription after incorporation.A subscription

made after the organization of the corporation, does not consti-
tute the subscriber a shareholder until it be accepted by the com-
pany,^* and until accepted, it may be withdrawn, as is the case
mutual agreement may be binding
as a contract and incapable of re-
vocation; and that since the con-
tract is made for the benefit of the
corporation, although it is not a
party to it, the corporation, upon
the general principles of contracts
governing such cases, should be
allowed to sue upon it and re-
cover damages for its breach.
C2
Minneapolis Thresher Ma-
chine Co. V. Crevier (1888),
39
Minn. 417, which was an action by
a corporation to recover the
amount of a subscription to its
capital stock. The complaint al-
leged that the defendant and
others entered into a certain
agreement with J. S. M., in view
of the organization of a company
for manufacturing purposes, and
subscribed certain sums to con-
stitute the capital stock; that in
pursuance of the agreement the
corporation was organized by the
defendant and the other subscrib-
ers; that such stock subscrip-
tions were transferred to the cor-
poration; that all the conditions
of such agreement had been ful-
filled as thereby required; that
calls had been made for the pay-
ment of such subscriptions, and
due notice given to defendant to
pay the same prior to the com-
mencement of this action. It v/as
held that these allegations were
sufficient to make a prima facie
case of liability against the de-
fendant. Knox v. Childersburg
Lang Co., 86 Ala. 180; Starrett v.
Rockland, etc. Ins. Co.. 65 Me.
374.
63
Waterman on Corporations,
167, citing Lake Ontario R. Co. v.
Mason, 16 N. Y. 451; Hamilton &
D. Plank R. Co. v. Rice. 7 Barb.
157; Stanton v. Wilson, 2 Hill,
153; Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Denio,
45; Schenectady, etc. Plank R.
Co. V. Thatcher. 11 N. Y. 102;
Barnes v. Perine, 12 N. Y. 18.
See also. Union Turnpike Co. v.
Jenkins, 1 Caines, 381; Cottage
St. Church v. Kendall. 121 Mass.
528.
G4
Gray v. Portland Bank, 3
Mass. 364; Sewall v. Eastern R.
Co., 9 Cush. 5; Carlisle v. Sagi-
naw Valley, etc. R. Co., 27 Mich.
318; Parker v. Northern Central,
etc. R. Co.. 33 Mich. 23; Northern
Central R. Co. v. Eslow. 40 Mich.
222; Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15;
s. c. 6 Am. Rep. 350. Mere sub-
scription to preferred capital
stock, after the organization of
the company, while it constitutes
a valid contract on the part of
the company to issue the stock to
the subscriber upon his paying
for it, and on his part to pay for
it, does not give him an interest
in the company, nor vest in him
the title to the stock. St. Paul,
etc. R. Co. V. Robbins, 23 Minn.
439. The English Companies Act
of 1862 (25 & 26 Vic. ch. 89,
23) declares that the subscribers
of the memorandum of association
shall be members of the com-
pany, and then proceeds thus:
"And every other person who has
agreed to become a member of a
company under this Act. and
whose name is entered on the
register of members, shall be
deemed to be a member of the
207.] SUBSCKIPTIOXS. 273
with offers generally
;
"'
but the offer, when accepted, becomes
binding both upon the subscriber and upon the corporation.
*'

207. Acceptance of the contract and evidence thereof.

There is no prescribed form by which the acceptance of an offer

to take shares in the capital stock of a corporation need be indi-
cated. Any act unequivocally showing an intention on the part
of duly authorized corporate agents to accept an offer to sub-
company." As a general rule, in
order to fix a person with mem-
bership, it must be proved that
the person applied for shares, and
that his application was accepted
by the company, such acceptance
being generally signified by allot-
ment or appropriation of shares,
and being duly communicated to
the applicant. The application
for shares constitutes an offer
merely unilateral, the bargain
being complete only after the of-
fer has been acceded to on the
part of the company. "How to be-
come a Contributor/' 8 L. J.
(1873), 73, 74, citing Best's Case,
34 Law J. & Rep. (N. S.) Ch. 523.
But apart from the above rule, a
person may become liable, as a
shareholder, to pay calls on
shares as soon as he has entered
into such an agreement in respect
of the ownership of the shares as
satisfies the conditions attached
by the law to ordinary contracts.
Suppose that there be a valid con-
sideration moving from the com-
pany, and a promise by the party
based on such consideration, and
proper proof is forthcoming of
both these elements of a legal
contract, there is nothing in the
statutes affecting companies to
defeat the effect of the agreement
thereby created. "How to become
a Contributor," 8 L. J. (1873),
73, 74, citing In re Valparaiso
Water Works Co., Davies' Case,
41 Law J. Rep. (N. S.) Ch. 659.
Oilman v. Gross, 97 Wis. 224.
65
Thrasher v. Pike County R.
Co., 25 111. 393; Rhey v. Ellens-
burg, etc. Plank R. Co., 27 Pa. St.
261; Mt. Sterling Coal Road Co.
Vol. 118
V. Little, 14 Bush. 429; Quick v.
Lemon, 105 111. 578; Ontario, etc.
R. Co. V. Curtis, 80 N. Y. 219;
Stuart V. Valley R. Co., 32 Oratt.
147; Goff V. Winchester College,
6 Bush, 443; Morawetz on Cor-
porations,
50. Bryant's Pond,
etc. Co. V. Felt, 87 Me. 234, 47 Am.
St. Rep. 323; Cook v. Chittenden,
25 Fed. 544; Oreat Western Tel.
Co. V. Loewenthal, 154 111. 261;
Taggart v. Western Md. R. Co., 24
Md. 563, 89 Am. Dec. 760.
66
Spear v. Crawford, 14 Wend.
20; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods,
463; Busey v. Hooper, 35 Md. 15;
McClure v. People's Freight Ry.
Co., 90 Pa. St. 269; Cass v. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 31;
Beecher v. Dillsburgh, etc. R. Co.,
76 Pa. St. 306. Persons who have
contracted to take new shares
from a company are, in the event
of the company's being wound
up, liable to contribute in the
same way as if their membership
had been complete. Universal
Salvage Co., ex parte Mansfield,
19 L. J. Ch. 258; 2 M. & O. 57;
Port of London Ship Owners' As-
surance Co., ex parte Yelland, 21
L. J. Ch. 852; Great Cambrian
Mining Co., ex parte Hawkins, 2
K. & J. 253; s. c. 25 L. J. Ch. 221;
London & Marine Assurance Co.,
ex parte Smith, 17 W. R. 491;
s. c. L. R. 4 Ch. 611; Leeds Bank-
ing Co., ex parte Barrett, 34 L. J.
558; s. c. 3 DeG. & Sm. 20! In re
Direct Exeter R. Co., Matthews'
558; s. c. 3 DeG. & Sm. 20; In re
Universal Provident Life Assur-
ance, Bell's Case, 22 Beav. 35;
Shelford on Joint Stock Com-
panies, 114.
27J:
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
207.
scribe, is sufficient to conclude the transaction and to constitute a
contract binding both upon the subscriber and the company.''^
The best evidence of acceptance is an entry by the company of
the subscriber's name upon its register of shareholders. For the
company is estopped from pleading or proving the contrary."^
And while the corporate register is not necessarily conclusive as
against the subscriber,^ as, for example, where an application was
67
Morawetz on Private Corpo-
rations, 48; Parker v. Northern
Central R. Co., 33 Mich. 23;
Northern Central, etc. R. Co., v.
Eslow, 40 Mich. 222; Butler Uni-
versity v. Scoonover, 114 Ind. 381,
5 Am. St. Rep. 627; Glenn v.
Garth, 133 N. Y. 113; Gilman v.
Gross, 97 Wis. 224.
68
Penobscot R. Co. v. White,
41 Me. 512, 66 Am. Dec. 257;
Marlehorough, etc. Co. v. Arnold,
9 Gray (Mass.), 159, 69 Am. Dec.
279; Chapman v. Virginia, etc.
Co., 96 Va. 177;
Stratton v.
Lyons (1882), 53 Vt. 130, holding
that when the records of a corpo-
ration recorded in the town
clerk's office, as required by law,
show a certain person to be a
stockholder, the corporation is
estopped from introducing evi-
dence to prove him not a stock-
holder.
69
Reese River Silver Mining
Co. V. Smith, L. R. 4 Eng. & Irish,
64. In Cook v. Chittenden
(1886), 25 Fed. Rep. 545,
where
a person agreed to take stock in
a corporation, and then withdrew
and was released, and his cash in-
stallment was never paid nor de-
manded during the year and a
half that the corporation did busi-
ness, but twelve years afterwards
the assignee in bankruptcy of the
corporation
sought to hold him
liable for an assessment, it was
held, that he was not liable, al-
though his name appeared on the
stock-book.
"Where shareholders
are liable to the creditors of the
company, the mere fact of per-
sons' names being on the register
of shareholders will not render
them liable to be sued on a writ
of sci. fa."
Shelford on Joint
Stock Companies, 124, citing Ed-
wards V. Kilkenny R. Co., 14 C.
B. (N. S.) 526; Moses v. Steam
Gondola Co., 17 C. B. 180; Bailey
V. Universal Provident Life Assur-
ance Co., 1 C. B. (N. S.) 557. See
also, Waterford R. Co. v. Pidcock,
8 Ex. 283; s. c. 22 L. J. Ex. 146,
where it was held that a person
whose name was on the register
of shareholders of a railway com-
pany was not obliged to take
steps to take it off in order to
defend an action upon a call.
Brown, Bailey & Co., ex parte
Bailey, L. R. 3 Ch. 592; s. c. 37
L. J. Ch. 255, 670, where a person
applied for shares in a company,
but as they were not allotted to
him within a reasonable time, he
refused to take them; his name
was, however, kept on the regis-
ter till the winding up of the
company; and it was held, that
he was not bound to take active
steps to remove his name from
the register, and his name was
removed on motion. Nor is a di-
rector affected with notice of his
name being placed on the regis-
ter of shareholders, so as to be
made a contributory. In re Uni-
versal Banking Co., Bartlett's
Case, 17 W. R. 131. In In re
Cheltenham & Swansea Ry. Car-
riage Co., ex parte Little, 17 W.
R. 461, cited by Shelford on
Joint Stock Companies, a person
whose name had been put on the
register in respect of shares for
which he had not applied, in
April, 1867,
informed the direct-
ors of the fact, and asked them
^
208.] SUBSCEIPTIONS. 275
made conditionally and the shares were allotted without the con-
ditions being- complied with/ or where the name of a person
whose shares had been forfeited was allowed to remain on the
register/^ yet it is usually strong prima facie evidence of mem-
bership and of liability for corporate debts.'^ The acceptance,
however, need not be shown to have been formally made ; it is
sufficient evidence thereof that the subscriber has been suffered
to participate in corporate meetings/^ or that he has paid calls
or assessments/*

208. Signing articles of association.

Subscriptions to the
capital stock of corporations formed under general enabling acts
are frequently made by writing the number of shares intended
to be taken by each incorporator opposite his signature to the
articles of association/^ Subscriptions so made are presumed
to remove his name, which was
not done. Calls were made on
him from time to time dov/n to
October, 18GS, which he did not
pay and for which he was not
sued. In February, 1869, he
moved to have the register recti-
fied; and it was held, that he was
not too late in asserting his right
to have his name removed.
ToJn
re Richmond Hill Hotel
Co., ex parte Pellatt, L. R. 2 Ch.
527; 36 L. J. Ch. 613. Also
where the applicant withdraws
his application before allotment.
In re National Savings Bank As-
sociation, ex parte Hebb, L. R.
4 Eq. 9; s. c. 36 L. J. Ch. 748.
71
In re Tavistock Ironworks
Co., Lyster's Case, L. R. 4 Eq.
233; 36 L. J. Ch. 616.
72
Under the English Com-
panies Act of 1862 (25 & 26 Vic.
ch. 89) requiring the registration
of shareholders, it is held that,
since these provisions were made
for the benefit of persons dealing
with a limited company for the
purpose of informing them to
whom they are to look in the
event of the company becoming
indebted to them, whatever may
be the rights of persons regis-
tered as shareholders as against
the company and its directors in
respect to fraud and misrepre-
sentation of the directors in in-
ducing them to become share-
holders, they have no right to be
taken off the list of contributors
until the whole of the debts of
the company have been paid.
Oakes' and Peek's Cases, 15 L. T.
Rep. (N. S.) 652; Elkington's
Case, cit. 42 Law Times, 400, 401.
But "there is a large class of
cases represented by Ship's Case,
12 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 257, where,
by reason of variation of the arti-
cles from the prospectus, the
name appears on the register in
virtue of no contract on the part
of the apparent shareholder to
become a member of the company
constituted under the articles.
The difference is between a void
registration in such a case and
registration voidable at the elec-
tion of the registered person on
the ground of fraud." 42 Law
Times (1867), 400; Hedge &
Home's Appeal (1869), 63 Pa. St.
273.
73
Haynes v. Brown, 36 N. H.
545; New Park, etc. Assn.
V. Barnes, 39 Neb. 834.
74
Barron v. Burrill, 86 Me. 66;
Lexington, etc. Co. v. Chandler, 13
Mete. (Mass.) 311; Frost v.
Walker (1872), 60 Me. 468.
75Coppage V. Hutton (1890), 124
Ind. 401, 24 N. E. Rep. 112; Nulton
270
SUESCRIl'TIONS.
[
209.
to be accepted by the corporation, are equally binding upon it
and upon the subscrilxT,'" and take effect upon the filing of the
certificate as required by the statute." If, however, the enabling
act require the articles to be acknowledged before an officer, one
who has subscribed in the manner above stated, but who has not
joined in the acknowledgment, cannot be held bound as upon a
complete contracts So, also, where the enabling act requires the
articles to be filed, and the subscription was made upon a dupli-
cate copy thereof which was not filed, the contract remains in-
completeJ Signing the articles of association is not essential to
the validity of the subscription, unless expressly required by
charter or other statute.^" Where the certificate of incorporation
materially varies from the preliminary subscription agreement,
the subscriber is released.^^

2og. Agreement before signing articles to take stock.

A mere informal promise to take stock before the articles of as-

sociation have been signed, does not constitute a contract of sub-
scription.^^ Thus, it is held that an oral promise, pending the
V. Clayton, 54 Iowa, 425; Erie,
etc. R. Co. V. Owen, 32 Barb. 616:
"Signing the Memorandum of As-
sociation and its Consequences,"
14 Sol. J. & Rep. 92.
76
Nulton V. Clayton, 54 Iowa,
425; Phoenix Warehousing Co. v.
Badger, 67 N. Y. 294.
'^'^
Phcenix Warehousing Co. v.
Badger, 67 N. Y. 294; Dayton v.
Borst, 31 N. Y. 435. See Lake
Ontario, A. & N. Y. R. Co. v.
Mason, 16 N. Y. 451, n.; Buffalo
& N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dudley, 14
N. Y. 336.
TsCoppage V. Hutton (1890),
124 Ind. 401, 24 N. E. Rep. 112.
Cf.
Ind. Rev. Stat.
3851; Green-
brier, etc. V. Rhodes, 37 W. Va.
738.
79
Erie & N. Y. City R. Co. v.
Owen, 32 Barb. 616.
soYonkers Gazette Co. v. Tay-
lor, 30 App. Div. (N. Y. 334.
81
Greenbrier, etc. v. Rhodes,
37 W. Va. 738.
82
Fanning v. Hibemia Ins. Co.,
37 Ohio St. 339; s. c. 41 Am. Rep.
517; Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Tibbits,
18 Barb. 297; Troy, etc. R. Co. v.
Warren, 18 Barb. 310; Thrasher
v. Pike County R. Co., 25 111. 393;
Charlotte, etc. R. Co. v. Blakely,
3 Strobh. 245; Mt. Sterling Coal
Road Co. V. Little, 14 Bush, 429.
But see Minneapolis Threshing
Machine Co. v. Davis (1889), 40
Minn. 110; s. c. 12 Am. St. Rep.
701.
Cf.
Note to Parker v.
Thomas, 81 Am. Dec. 392, 397.
The defendant agreed to sub-
scribe to the stock of a company,
providing a certain appointment
was secured for him, but declar-
ing at the same time that he
could not then subscribe for the
stock. He subsequently author-
ized the party soliciting for sub-
scription to the stock to appear
for him by proxy at the meeting
of the stockholders, in anticipa-
tion of his future subscription to
the stock, which was never made,
and it was held, that giving the
proxy was not a ratification by
the defendant of the act of the
one to whom it was given, in
having signed defendant's name
on the stock-book of the company
as a subscriber without his

209.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 277
organization of a corporation, to take shares of the stock does not
constitute the promisor a stockholder or member, and will not
support a note given to pay for shares.^ These preliminary sub-
scriptions are said to be mere continuing offers to take stock upon
the organization of the corporation, which must be accepted by
the company before an action will lie.^* But a subscription by a
number of persons to the stock of a corporation, to be thereafter
formed by them, constitutes a contract between the subscribers
to become stockholders when the corporation is formed, upon the
conditions expressed in the agreement, and is irrevocable from
the date of the subscription. It is in the nature of a continuing
offer to the proposed corporation, which, upon acceptance by it,
becomes as to each subscriber a contract between him and the
corporation.^^ A promoter of a proposed corporation, who solicits
knowledge. McClelland v. Whitely,
15 Fed. Rep. 322. Neither can
one be held liable upon an ora-
torical declaration at a public
meeting of a corporation, to the
effect that he would spend half of
his estate if need be to insure
the success of the scheme. An-
dover, etc. Co. v. Hay, 7 Mass.
102. Several persons signed a
paper purporting to be an agree-
ment to take stock in a corpo-
ration, which, as the paper re-
cited, was about to be formed;
afterwards the paper was signed
by the president and secretary,
and the corporate seal afflxed, and
an action brought to recover
from one of the subscribers the
price named in the paper. The
complaint did not state when the
company was incorporated, and it
was not shown that any of the
subscribers joined in its forma-
tion or membership, or were
authorized to sell any of the
stock, and it was held that the
action could not be maintained.
California Sugar Manuf. Co. v.
Schafer, 57 Cal. 396.
83 Fanning v. Hibernia Ins. Co.,
37 Ohio St. 339; s. c. 41 Am. Rep.
517.
SI
Starrett v. Rockland, etc. R.
Co., 65 Me. 374. Cf.
"Agreements
to Take Shares in Joint-Stock
Companies," 10 Sol. J. & Rep.
1081, 1112, 1133 (three articles).
85
Minneapolis Threshing Ma-
chine Co. V. Davis (1889), 40
Minn. 110; s. c. 12 Am. St. Rep.
701; Starrett v. Rockland, etc. R.
Co., 65 Me. 374; Buffalo, etc. R.
Co. V. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294;,
Rensselaer, etc. R. Co. v. Barton,
10 N. Y. 457; Buffalo, etc. R. Co.
V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336; Lake On-
tario, etc. R. Co. V. Mason, 16 N.
Y. 451, 463; Buffalo, etc. R. Co.
V. Clark, 22 Hun, 359; Kirkey v.
Florida R. Co., 7 Fla. 23; s. c.
68 Am. Dec. 426; Peninsula, etc.
R. Co. V. Duncan, 28 Mich. 130;
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 59;
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65;
Bene v. Cahawba, etc. R. Co., 3
Ala. 660; Selma, etc. R. Co. v.
Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; s. c. 39 Am.
Dec. 394; Thigpen v. Mississippi,
etc. R. Co., 32 Miss. 347; Penob-
scot, etc. R. Co. V. Dummer, 40
Me. 172; s. c. 63 Am. Dec. 654;
Hartford, etc. R. Co. v. Kennedy,
12 Conn. 499; Klein v. Alton,
etc. R. Co., 13 111. 514; Banet v.
Alton, etc. R. Co., 13 111. 504;
Heaton v. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co.,
16 Ind. 275; s. c. 79 Am. Dec. 430.
Ace. Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7
Barb. 157; Anderson v. Newcastle,
278
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
209.
and procures stock sulDScrlptions, is the agent of the body of the
subscribers to hold the subscriptions until the corporation is
formed, and then turn them over to it without any further act of
delivery on the part of the subscribers, and a delivery of a sub-
scription to him is a complete delivery, so that it becomes eo in-
stanti a binding contract as between the subscribers.^" Subscrip-
tions made prior to incorporation, however, are deemed to be con-
ditional upon due performance of all acts requisite" to the estab-
lishment of the organization as a corporate body.^^ And there
are cases holding that a subscriber is at liberty to withdraw at
any time before the filing of the articles of association,*^ not-
withstanding his having induced others to subscribe.^^ But his
associates have an action against one who refuses to carry out
the agreement, for such damages as they may have sustained by
reason of his refusal.^"
etc. R. Co., 12 Ind. 376; s. c. 74
Am. Dec. 218; Hughes v. Antie-
tam, etc. Co., 34 Md. 316. But see
cases cited supra, p. 271, note 61,
and Poughkeepsie, etc. R. Co. v.
Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150; Charlotte,
etc. R. Co. V. Blakely, 3 Strobh.
L. 245; Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v.
Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340; Chase v.
Sycamore, etc. R. Co., 38 111. 215.
In Carlisle v. Saginaw, etc. R. Co.,
27 Mich. 315; s. c. 10 Am. Ry.
Rep. 283, the statute of incorpora-
tion enacting that subscriptions
to the stock of a railway should
be made only in the manner to be
provided in its by-laws, it was
held that subscriptions made be-
fore the adoption of by-laws were
not enforceable, although one of
the by-laws, subsequently passed,
expressly ratified them. Beach
on Railways, 85; Melhado v.
Porto Alegre, etc. Ry. Co., L. R.
9 C. P. 503. Of.
Carlisle v. Sagi-
naw, etc. R. Co., 27 Mich. 315;
Sewell V. Eastern R. Co., 9 Cush.
5; Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wil-
kerson, 83 Mo. 235; Phoenix, etc.
Co. V. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294; Buf-
falo, etc. R. Co. V. Hatch, 20 N.
Y. 157; Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Owen.
32 Barb. 616; Garrett v. Dills-
burg, etc. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 465;
Rikhoff V. Brown's Rotary, etc.
Co., 68 Ind. 388.
80
Minneapolis Threshing Ma-
chine Co. V. Davis (1889), 40
Minn. 110; s. c. 12 Am. St. Rep.
701.
87
Vide cases cited supra, p. 270,
note 58.
88
Holt V. Winfield Bank, 25
Fed. Rep. 812; Garrett v. Dills-,
burg, etc. R. Co., 78 Pa. St.
465,'
and cases cited supra, p. 271, note
59, and infra,
213. This is the
view taken by Mr. Wood in his
treatise on Railway Law, 26,
where he says, it is difficult to
see how a subscription made be-
fore the corporation was incorpo-
rated can be enforced, unless the
subscriber, after the incorporation,
does some act in affirmance of his
former promise. See Strasburg
R. Co. v. Echternach (1853), 21
Pa. St. 220; s. c. 60 Am. Dec. 49;
Thrasher v. Pike County R. Co.
(1861), 25 111. 393; Mt. Sterling
Coal Road Co. v. Little (1879),
14 Bush, 429.
89
Muncy Traction, etc. Co. v.
Green (1888), 143 Pa. St. 269, 13
Atl. Rep. 747; s. c. 21 Am. & Eng.
Corp. Cas. 328; s. c. 12 Cent. Rep.
386. Contra, Cook v. Crittenden
Bank, 25 Fed. Rep. 544.
90
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v.
Curtiss (1880), 80 N. Y. 219.

210.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
279

210. Mode of application and allotment of shares.The

English method of taking shares in companies having capital
stock is by application, allotment and notice, the latter being of
the essence of the contract,"^ which is thereby concluded, and the
contract dates from the mailing of the notice,"^ whether it ever
reaches the allottee or not."^ Accordingly, in order to constitute
a valid allotment of shares, there must be an application followed
by allotment and communication of that allotment to the appli-
cant. So that in a case where no allotment had been made since
application, the only allotment which the directors had resolved
on being before application, there was held to be no contract, and
the allottee was considered entitled to have his name withdrawn
from the register of shareholders."* The words in the Compa-
nies Clauses Act, "and whose name shall have been entered on
the register of shareholders,"
"^
are held to be descriptive merely
and not to make registration a condition precedent to liability
as a shareholder." The letter of allotment is required to be
stamped."^ An application for shares may be withdrawn at any
time prior to allotment."*
91
"Application for Shares," 12
Sol. J. & Rep. 172; Pellatt's Case,
2 Ch. 527; Gunn's Case, 3 Ch. 40.
Notice to an agent of the com-
pany is not notice to the allottee.
Hebb's Case, 4 Eq. 9; In re
Peruvian Ry. Co., L. R. 4 Ch. 322;
Ward's Case, L. R. 10 Eq. 659.
Contra, Burke v. Lechmere, L. R.
6 Q. B. 297; Thames Tunnel Co.
V. Sheldon, 6 Bam. & C. 341;
In re Peruvian Ry. Co., L. R. 4.
Ch. 322, where it is said that if
the applicant become cognizant of
the fact of allotment by other
means and has acted or permitted
others to act upon the assump-
tion of his being a share-owner,
he is estopped to object that he
received no notification of allot-
ment.
02
Dunlop V. Higgins, 1 H. L.
381; Harris' Case, 7 Ch. 587.
93
Harris' Case, 7 Ch. 587;
Townsend's Case, 13 Eq. 148;
Household Fire Co. v. Grant, 48
L. J. Ex. 219; s. c. 4 Ex. Div. 216;
Steel's Case, 28 W. R. 241. See,
however, British & American
Telegraph Co. v. Colson, L. R. 6
Ex. 108.
94
In re Northern Electric Wire
& Cable Manuf. Co., Limited (Ch.
Div. 1890), 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
177, per Kay, J. In this case, the
proceedings on the part of the
company having been grossly ir-
regular, the allottee was entitled
to have his deposit returned with
interest at four per cent, per an-
num from the date of payment,
and he was likewise held to be
entitled to the costs of the appli-
cation.
95
8 Vic. ch. 16, 8.
96
Wolverhampton, etc. Co. v.
Hawkesford, 7 Com. B. N. S. 795,
814; Portal v. Emmens, 1 C. P.
Div. 201, 664.
97
In re Northern Electric Wire,
etc. Co. (Ch. Div. 1890), 8 Ry. &
Corp. L. J. 177.
98
In re Northern Electric Wire,
etc Co. (Ch. Div. 1890), 8 Ry. &
Corp. L. J. 177. In this case, on
the 14th of August, H. verbally in-
formed the managing director of
the company that he intended to
280 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
211.
211. Cash deposit on subscription.A deposit in money
to the amount of ten per cent, of the subscription is required to
be made at the time of subscribing by the New York "Stock Cor-
poration Law" of 1890.^ Similar requirements are found in the
statutes of other States,^ and in the New York acts of which the
act of 1890 is a consolidation.^ A promissory note, negotiated by
the company and met by the subscriber at maturity, has been held
equivalent to a cash payment.* It is doubtful, however, whether
a check can be regarded as "money" or "cash" within the mean-
ing of these statutes.^ A subscription taken in violation of these
statutory provisions cannot be enforced by the corporation. The
withdraw his application for
shares, but he was told that he
must communicate with the com-
pany. H. did not, however, make
any communication directly to
the company, but wrote to the
vendors and promoters of the
company withdrawing his appli-
cation for shares. On the 23d of
August the secretary of the com-
pany forwarded to H. a letter of
allotment of shares dated the 4th
of July and duly stamped, to re-
place the notice sent to him pre-
viously, and asking him to pay
the 1 per share due on allot-
ment. Thereupon H. applied un-
der section 35 of the Companies
Act 1862 to have the register of
members rectiiied by the removal
of his name therefrom, and ask-
ing that the company might be
ordered to repay the deposit of
80 paid by him upon his appli-
cation for shares, which he had
withdrawn, and interest thereon.
Ace. Wilson's Case, 20 L. T. N. S.
962; Ramsgate, etc. Co. v. Monte-
fiore, L. R. 1 Ex. 109; In re
Bowron, L. R. 5 Ex. 428.
iN.
Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 564,

4.
2.
g.,
Va. Code of 1873, ch. 57,
3, requiring a deposit of two
dollars; Note to Parker v.
Thomas, 81 Am. Dec. 392, 397.
3N. Y. Laws of 1875, ch. 611;
N. Y. Laws of 1850, ch. 140,
4.
4 Ogdensburg, etc. R. Co. v.
Wooley, 3 Abb. App. Dec. 398.
See also Vermont Central R. Co.
V. Cloyes, 21 Vt. 30; s. c. 1 Am.
R. Cas. 226.
Cf. East New York,
etc. R. Co. V. Lighthall, 6 Robt.
(N. Y.) 407.
5 In California payment may be
by check. People v. Stockton,
etc. R. Co., 45 Cal. 306. The same
has been held by the inferior
courts in New York. I71 re
Staten Island Rapid Transit R.
Co., 37 Hun. 422; Thorp v. Wood-
hull, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411.
Cf.
Comins
V. Coe, 117 Mass. 45. But the
New York court of appeals has
held contra.. Durant v. Aben-
droth, 69 N. Y. 148.
Cf.
Excelsior
Grain Binder Co. v. Stayner, 25
Hun, 91; s. c. 61 How. Pr. 456;
affirming s. c. 58 How. Pr. 273.
In this case a subscriber to the
stock of a corporation organized
under New York Laws 1875, ch.
611, paid ten per cent, of the
amount of his subscription by
check, but stopped payment
of the check so that the
amount was never actually paid;
and it was helld that an action
could not be maintained against
him upon his subscription.
6 Excelsior Binder Co. v. Stay-
ner, 25 Hun, 91; s. c. 61 How. Pr.
456; affirming s. c. 58 How. Pr.
273; Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116;
Black River, etc. R. Co. v. Clark,
25 N. Y. 208; Croker v. Crane, 21
Wend. 211.

211.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 281

subscription and the payment of the ten per cent, must both con-
cur to satisfy the requirements of the statute/ A subscription
unaccompanied by the required ten per cent, of the par vakie in
cash is void,^ It has been said, however, that a subscription is not
invaHd because a short interval of time occurs between the actual
signing" of the subscription-book and the payment of the money ;
^
and it has also been held that the failure to pay the necessary per-
centage at the time of the subscription furnishes the subscriber
with no defense, on the principle that no man will be permitted
to take advantage of his own wrong.^ But in New York and
Pennsylvania a failure to comply with the requirement may be
pleaded in defense to actions to enforce subscriptions.^^ A few
7
Perry v. Hoadley, 19 Abb. N.
C. 76.
8 Perry v. Hoadley, 19 Abb. N.
C. 76.
9 Excelsior Grain Binder Co. v.
Stayner, 25 Hun, 91; s. c. 61 How.
Pr. 456; affirming s. c. 58 How.
Pr. 273.
10
Vicksburgb, S. & T. R. Co. v.
McKean, 12 La. Ann. 638; Henry
V. Vermillion & A. R. Co., 17 Ohio,
187; Swartwout v. Michigan, etc.
R. Co., 24 Mich. 389; Lake On-
tario, etc. R. Co. V. Mason, 16 N.
Y. 451; Illinois River R. Co. v.
Zimmer, 20 111. 654; Oler v. Balti-
more, etc. R. Co., 41 Md. 583;
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Apple-
gate, 21 W. Va. 172; Haywood,
etc. R. Co. V. Bryan, 6 Jones L.
(N. C.) 82; Barrington v. Missis-
sippi, etc. R. Co., 32 Miss. 370;
Wright v. Shelby R. Co., 16 B.
Mon. 4; Minnesota, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Bassett, 20 Minn. 535; Mitchell
V. Rome R. Co., 17 Ga. 574:
Spartanburg, etc. R. Co. v. Ezell,
14 S. C. 281; Stuart v. Valley R.
Co., 32 Gratt. 146; Fiser v.
Mississippi, etc. R. Co., 32 Miss.
359; Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Round-
tree, 7 Ala. 670;
Chamberlain v.
Painesville, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio
St. 225; Klein v. Alton, etc. R.
Co., 13 111. 514; Ryder v. Alton,
etc. R. Co., 13 III. 516; Ashtabula,
etc. R. Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St.
328; "Subscriptions to the Capital
Stock of Corporations," by James
M. Kerr (1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 422.
Cf. People v. Stockton,
etc. R. Co., 45 Cal. 306; McRea v.
Russell, 12 Ired. 224; Vermont
Central R. Co. v, Cloyes, 21 Vt.
30; Hall v. Selma, etc. R. Co., 6
Ala. 741; Greenville, etc. R. Co.
v. Woodsides, 5 Rich. L. (S. C.)
145; Blair v. Rutherford, 31 Tex.
465; Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc. R.
Co., 78 Pa. St. 465.
11
Hibernia Turnpike Co. v.
Henderson, 8 Serg. & R. 219;
s. c. 11 Am. Dec. 593; Leighty v.
Susquehanna, etc. Turnpike Co.,
14 Serg. .S; R. 434; Boyd v. Peach
Bottom Ry. Co., 90 Pa. St. 49:
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Van
Horn, 57 N. Y. 473; Jenkins v.
Union Turnpike Co., 1 Caines'
Cas. in Error, 86, reversing s. c.
1 Caines' Rep. 381; Excelsior
Grain Binder Co. v. Stayner, 25
Hun, 91; Stephens v. Fox, 83 N.
Y. 313, 316, 317; Black River, etc.
R. Co. V. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208.
Cf.
Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Bar-
ton, 16 N. Y. 457, doubting Jen-
kins V. Union Turnpike Co., l'
Caines' Cas. in Error, 86, supra:
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Ma-
son, 16 N. Y. 451; Croker v.
Crane, 21 Wend. 211; Thorp v.
Woodhull, 1 Sand. Ch. 411; East-
ern Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan,
14 N. Y. 546; Highland Turnpike
Co. V. McKean, 11 Johns. 98; Og-
2S2
SUBSCKIPTIONS.
[
212.
cases in other States follow the New York and Penns3'lvania
rule.^^ In England the authorities are conflicting, but it is
thought that the only effect of a failure to make the cash deposit
is to restrict the subscriber's right to transfer his shares.^^

212. Effect of legislation upon agreement of subscription.

Non-essential irregularities in the subscription may be cured by
legislative enactment." The extension by the legislature of the
time allowed by a railroad company's charter in which to build
the road will not release the subscribers to stock.^^ Where at the
time a contract of subscription was made under an agreement
that payment should be made in property, the laws of the State
permitted contracts of that character, but subsequently, before
the organization of the company, a change in the code of the
State required payments of subscriptions to be made in monc}',
it was held that the subscription, not having been accepted by the
company before it had become illegal, could not be enforced.^*
But a statute in respect of subscriptions to the stock of compa-
nies, not prescribing the form in which they shall be made, does
not invalidate a contract of that character which would be valid
at common law.^'^ A subsequent reduction of the capital stock
by the legislature to the amount actually subscribed cannot re-
lieve prior subscriptions from the implied condition that the full
amount originally fixed be taken.^^ The legislature may impart
densliurgh, etc. R. Co. v. Wooley, East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v.
3 Abb. Ct. of App. 398; Ogdens- Bartholomew, L. R. 3 Ex. 15; Mc-
burgh, etc. R. Co. v. Frost, 21 Ewen v. West London, etc. Co.,
Barb. 541. But only uncondi- 6 Ch. 655. But see Eustace v.
tional subscriptions, taken by Dublin Trunk Ry. Co., 6 Eq. 182,
commissioners after the incorpo- and McElwraith v. Dublin Grand
ration of the company, may be Trunk Ry. Co., 7 Ch. 134, holding^
thus impeached. Hanover, etc. R. that the allottee can not be com-
Co. V. Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 36; pelled to take the shares.
Garrett v. Dillsburg, etc. R. Co.,
i*
Rice v. Rock Island, etc. R.
78 Pa. St. 465; Beach on Rail- Co., 21 111. 93; Clark v. Mononga-
ways, 126; Philadelphia, etc. R. hela Navigation Co., 10 Watts,.
Co. V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318. 364. Contra. New York, etc. R.
Cf.
Butcher v. Dillsburg, etc. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473;
Co., 76 Pa. St. 306. Richmond, etc. Co. v. Clarke, 61
12
People v. Chambers, 42 Cal.
Me. 351.
201; Farmers,' etc. Bank v. Nel-
is
Jacks v. Helena, 41 Ark. 213.
son, 12 Md. 35; Taggart v. West-
is
Knox v. Childersburg Land
ern Maryland R. Co., 24 Md. 588;
Co. (1889), 86 Ala. 180.
Charlotte, etc. R. Co. v. Blakeley,
it
Buffalo &. Jamestown R. Co.
3 Strobh. Eq. 245; Wood v. Coosa, v. Gifford, 87 N. Y. 294.
etc. R. Co., 32 Ga. 273. isQldtown,
etc. R. Co. v. Veazie,
isPurdey's Case, 16 W. R. 660; 39 Me. 571.

213.] SUBSCRIPTIONS.
283
validity to a municipal subscription made without its authority,
provided it would have had power in the first instance to author-
ize it/ unless special remedial legislation of this character be
prohibited by the constitution of the State."''

213, Effect of consolidation upon agreement to subscribe.

If the consolidated corporation has complied with the law author-
izing the consolidation, it succeeds to the rights of the merged
companies under subscriptions to their stock,-^ but a consolida-
tion of one corporation with another releases dissenting sub-
scribers who agreed to take shares at a time when consolidation
was not authorized either by the charters of the companies or by
some existing statute, and it is immaterial that the union may be
authorized by a subsequent amendment of the charters or by a
statute thereafter enacted.
^^
The fact that the consolidated com-
19
Grenada County v. Brogden,
112 U. S. 261; Anderson v. Santa
Anna, 116 U. S. 365; Thompson v.
Perrine, 106 U. S. 589; National
Bank v. Yankton Co., 101 U. S.
129; Thompson v. Lee County, 3
Wall. 377; Beloit v. Morgan, 7
Wall. 619; St. Joseph v. Rogers,
16 Wall. 663; Cooper v. Thomp-
son, 13 Blatchf. 434; Perrine v.
Thompson, 17 Blatchf. 18; Hor-
ton V. Thompson, 7 Hun, 452;
Rogers v. Smith, 5 Hun, 475; Du-
anesburgh v. Jenkins, 57 N. Y.
188, where the court said: "As
it might have authorized action in
this way and on these conditions
by the town originally, I see no
objection to giving effect to its
ratification of the action of the
town, and holding its consent,
thus expressed, effectual." Ace.
Williams v. Duanesburgh, 66 N.
Y. 129; People v. Mitchell, 35 N.
Y. 522; Gelpecke v. Dubuque, 1
Wall. 253; Dows v. Town of Elm-
wood, 34 Fed. Rep. 114; Leslie v.
Urbana, 2 Biss. 435; Duanes-
burgh V. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 188,
restricting People v. Batchelior,
53 N. Y. 131, to the circumstances
of that particular case.
Cf.
Hays
V. Holly Springs, 114 U. S. 120;
Bolles V. Town of Brimfield, 1:^0
U. S. 759. The decisions in the
United States Supreme Court to
the contrary (see Elmwood v.
Morey, 92 U. S. 289), do not ex-
press the prevailing doctrine of
the court, but simply follow the
decisions or the appellate court
in the State in which the case
arose. Wood's Railway Law,

113, note.
20
Horton v. Thompson, 71 N.
Y. 520.
21
Tuttle V. Michigan, etc. R.
Co., 35 Mich. 247; Gaddis v. Rich-
land County, 92 111. 114; William
V. Roberts, 88 111. 11; Marshall v.
Selliman, 61 111, 218; Richland
County V. People, 3 III. App. 210.
22
Illinois, etc. R. Co. v. Cook,
29 111. 237; Lauman v. Lebanon
Val. R. Co., 30 Pa. St. 42; Gard-
ner V. Hamilton, 33 N. Y. 421;
Midland, etc. Ry. v. Leech, 3 H.
L. 872; Cook, etc. R. Co. v. Pater-
son, 18 C. B. 414; Shelbyville, etc.
Turnpike Co. v. Barnes, 42 Ind.
498; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46;
s. c. 79 Am. Dec. 405; Harshmau
V. Bates County, 92 U. S. 569;
Martin v. Junction R. Co., 12 Ind.
605; McCray v. Junction R. Co.,
9 Ind. 356; Bish v. Johnson, 21
Ind. 299; Hanna v. Cincinnati,
etc. R. Co., 20 Ind. 30; Sprague
v. Illinois River R. Co., 19 111.
174; Bishop v. Brainerd, 28 Conn.
284
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
214.
pany bears the same name as the original company does not
change the rule.^^ Even though consoHdation may have been
authorized at the time the subscription contract was made, a dis-
senting subscriber cannot be held liable thereon, if the effect of
the consolidation is to work a material alteration in the original
purpose for which the company was formed.^* It is not necessary
that the subscribers' consent be expressly given. It may be pre-
sumed from such acts as taking stock in the new corporation
formed by the consolidation.^^ By a converse rule to the gen-
eral doctrine, the consolidated company cannot release a sub-
scriber to one of the original companies from his liability to cor-
porate creditors by acquiescing in a devise whereby he seeks to
evade it.^^ If a subscription be induced by promises on the part
of the corporation which it fails to fulfil, the contract is not en-
forceable, since there is held to be a failure of consideration."
Thus, where a railway company, by a promise of collateral securi-
ties, induced a party to subscribe to a road it proposed to build,
and, after part payment on the subscription, placed the collaterals
beyond the reach of the subscribers, in violation of the original
agreement, he was declared relieved from his obligations.^^

214. Construction of the contract.The same rules are

generally applicable in the construction of contracts of subscrip-
tion to the capital stock of companies as control the construction
of other ordinary contracts, the aim of the court being always to
discover the intent and meaning of the parties as indicated by
the language employed by them, taken in connection with the cir-
cumstances attending each particular case.^''
289.
Cf.
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v.
29
Cravens v. Eagle Cotton M.
Stout, 26 Ohio St. 241; Illinois Co. (1889), 120 Ind. 600; s. c.
River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 411; Detroit,
654. etc. R. Co. v. Starnes, 38 Mich.
23
Shelbyville, etc. Co. v. Barnes, 698; Beach on Railways,
99. In
42 Ind. 498. the case first cited the plaintiff
24
Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co. corporation was organized for the
V. Cook, 29 111. 237. purpose of acquiring and operat-
26
Fisher v. Evansville, etc. R. ing a cotton mill, a proposition
Co., 7 Ind. 407. by another corporation to sell its
26Bouton v. Dement (1887), 123 cotton mill and plant being at the
111. 142. time under consideration by the
27
Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. incorporators of plaintiff, and de-
550.
Cf.
Kennedy v. Panama, etc. fendant subscribed to plaintiff's
Co., Li. R. 2 Q. B. 580. capital stock on condition that
28
Reusens v. Mexican National the subscription was not to be
Construction Co., 22 Fed. Rep. payable until the contract with
522.
the other corporation had been

215.]
suBSCRii'rioNS. 285
Subscription paper.The usual subscription paper signed by
those who agree to take shares in the corporation to be formed,
is generally construed to be a contract, not of the subscribers with
one another, but with the corporation when formed.^" "The
promise of each subscriber 'to and with each other' is not a con-
tract capable of being enforced, or intended to operate literally as
a contract to be enforced between each subscriber and each other
who may have signed previously, or who should sign afterwards,
nor between each subscriber and all the others collectively as in-
dividuals. The undertaking is inchoate and incomplete as a con-
tract until the contemplated organization is effected, or the mut-
ual agent constituted to represent the association of individual
rights in accepting and acting upon the propositions offered by
the several subscriptions, \\nien thus accepted, the promise may
be construed to have legal effect according to its purpose and in-
tent, and the practical necessity of the case, to wit, as a contract
with the common representative, of the several associates."
^^

215. Intention of the parties is to govern the contract.

The rule that a formal written contract, which appears upon its
face to be complete, cannot be enlarged, modified or contradicted
by proof of prior or contemporaneous parol negotiations or agree-
ments, is -abundantly settled, and receives the fullest recognition
in the decisions of the courts.
^^
It is equally well settled, how-
ratified by a majority of the vided. One who has contracted
stockholders. Mitchell, J., de- with a corporation as such is
livering the opinion of the court, estopped to deny its legal exis-
held in an action to enforce de- tence. For examples of the con-
fendant's subscription, where he struction of conditional contracts
defended on the ground that the of subscription see: Berryman v.
terms of contract between the Cincinnati, etc. R. Co., 14 Bush,
two corporations had been 755; People v. Holden, 82 111. 93;
changed, that it was competent Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v. Baxter,
for plaintiff to show that no con- 32 Vt. 805; Iowa, etc. Ry. Co. v.
tract had been consummated at Bliobenes, 41 Iowa, 267; Court-
the time of defendant's subscrip- right v. Strickler, 37 Iowa, 382;
tion, and that it was apparent that Beach on Railways,
99.
the contract referred to was only
so
Trustees v. Davis, 11 Mass.
contemplated. Under such a sub- 113, 6 Am. Dec. 1G2.
scription it is not a condition pre-
3i
Bryant's Pond, etc. v. Felt,
cedent to defendant's liability 87 Me. 234, 47 Am. St. Rep. 323;
that plaintiff shall enter into a Athol Music Hall Co. v. Carey,
contract of a particular kind with 116 Mass. 473.
the other corporation, and in an
32
Cravens v. Eagle Cotton M.
action to enforce his subscription Co. (1889), 120 Ind. 600; s. c. 6
he can not assail a contract there- Ry. & Corp. L. J. 411; Manufactur-
after made v/ith the corporation, ing Co. v. Forsyth, 108 Ind. 334;
which has been ratified as pro- Carr v. Hays, 110 Ind. 408;
286
suBSCKii'Tioxs.
[
215.
ever, that the first duty of the court in interpreting- a contract is
to discover the intention of the parties, and while that must be
done solely by considering the meaning of the language em-
ployed in the instrument, yet when the terms employed are sus-
ceptible of more than one meaning, it is the duty of the court not
only to regard the nature of the instrument, but also to inform
itself of the circumstances which surrounded the parties at the
time, so as to interpret the language employed from the stand-
point which the parties occupied when they executed the con-
tract.^^ Circumstances which afterwards arose, are not to be con-
sidered in construing its meaning.^* If the words of the instru-
ment are clear in themselves, it must be construed accordingly
;
but if they are susceptible of more meanings than one, the court
must avail itself of the light enjoyed by the parties when the con-
tract was executed, so as to arrive at the meaning of the words
and give them a correct application to the persons and things de-
scribed.^^ The court may not deviate therefrom, on account
of the contract so interpreted being unwise for either party.^*
Where the language employed admits of more than one construc-
tion, one of which renders the contract insensible, that construc-
tion will be adopted which will give effect to the contract, and
in cases of doubt the practical construction which the parties
themselves have given it will be of great, if not controlling, in-
fluence.^'^ Accordingly, it is essential in order that the contract
of subscription may be intelligently applied to the collateral mat-
ters therein referred to, that the court should be informed of the
circumstances existing at the time the subscription was made.^^
Tucker v. Tucker, 113 Ind. 272. J. 411, citing Springsteen v. Sam-
Vicle infra.
256. son, 32 N. Y. 703.
33
Cravens v. Eagle (1889), 120
36
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v,
Ind. 6, 16 Am. St. Rep. 299; Thompson, 24 Kan. 170.
Heath v. West, 68 Ind. 548;
37
Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills
Ketcham v. Coal Co., 88 Ind. Co. (Ind. 1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
529; Nash v. Towne, 5 Wall. 689-
J. 411; Ashtabula, etc. R. Co. v.
699; Scott v. United States, 12 Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328; Reissner
Wall. 443; Canal Co. v. Hill, 15 v. Oxiey, 80 Ind. 580; Lyles v.
Wall. 94; Reed v. Insurance Co., Lescher, 108 Ind. 382; Chicago v.
95 U. S. 23; Reynolds v. Insur- Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50.
ance Co., 47 N. Y. 597.
38
Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills
34
Detroit, etc. R. Co. v. Starnes, Co. (1889), 120 Ind. 600; s. c. 6
88 Mich. 698; Monadnock R, Co. Ry. & Corp. L. J. 411, 413, where
V. Pelt, 52 N. H. 379. Mitchell, J., delivering the opinion
35
Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills of the court, continued: "It was
Co. (Ind. 1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L. therefore competent for the
21G.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 287
The meaning of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact for
the jury.^
Lex loci contractu.The validity and effect of the contract de-
pends upon the law of the State creating the corporation, unless
payment is to be made elsewhere.^"
B.
WHO MAY RFXEIVE SUBSCRITIONS, AND WHO MAY SUBSCRIBE.

2i6. Who may receive subscriptions.It is essential to

the validity of a subscription that it be taken by a person author-
ized to receive it.*^ The company is under no obligation to ac-
cept subscriptions taken by an unauthorized agent.*^ A corpo-
ration or its board of directors may authorize any person it may
choose to receive subscriptions.*^ If it ratify his act in receiv-
ing subscriptions, the contract will be then complete.** And it
may ratify a subscription received by a person who had no previ-
ous authority to receive it.* Acceptance of it or other recogni-
plaintiff, when the appellant
claimed exoneration from his sub-
scription, on the ground that the
contract between the two com-
panies in respect to the amount of
stock which the Pittsburgh com-
pany had agreed to subscribe, or
the terms upon which it had
agreed to sell its mills, had been
changed, or that the agreement
had been varied in any other re-
spect, to show that no contract
had in fact been consummated,
and that the situation of the par-
ties was such as to make it ap-
parent that the contract referred
to was one that might possibly be
made in the future. This in no
way tended to alter or modify the
contract of subscription, but to
give it intelligent application to
the collateral matters to which it
referred."
39
Connecticut R. Co. v. Baxter,
32 Vt. 805.
40
Penobscot, etc. Co. v. Bart-
lett, 78 Mass. 244; Fish v. Smith,
73 Conn. 377; Bank of China v.
Morse, 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 435.
41
Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co.,
34 Miss. 245; Essex Turnpike Cor-
poration V. Collins, 9 Mass. 292;
Carlisle v. Saginaw Val. & St. L.
R. Co., 27 Mich. 315; Shurtz v.
Schoolcraft & T. R. Co., 9 Mich.
269; Troy & B. R. Co. v. Warren,
18 Barb. 310; Grangers' Market
Co. v. Vinson, 6 Oregon, 174;
Northeastern R. Co. v. Rodrigues,
10 Rich. (S. C.) 278; Howard's
Case, L. R. 1 Ch. App. 561.
42
Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co.,
34 Miss. 245; Taggart v. Western,
etc. R. Co., 24 Md. 563; Mobile,
etc. R. Co. v. Yandal, 5 Sneed
(Tenn.), 294; Melvin v. Haitt, 52
N. H. 61. Compare, as to accept-
ance of such subscriptions, Mans-
field, etc. R. Co. V. Brown, 26 Ohio
St. 223, where it is held that act
ceptance may be shown by parol.
13
Lohman v. New York, etc.
Co., 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 39; East-
ern R. Co. V. Rodrigues, 10 Rich.
Law (S. C), 278.
44
Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co.,
34 Mich. 245.
45
Scarlett v. Academy of Music,
etc., 46 Md. 132.
2SS
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
*
[217.
tion of it will make it binding- upon the corporation.^" Agents
appointed to receive subscriptions have no authority to make spe-
cial terms, or modify, or rescind the contract.^'^

217.
Commissioners appointed to receive subscriptions.

Where the charter appoints commissioners to open subscrip-

tion books and receive subscriptions, their acts are not .discre-
tionary, but are merely ministerial, and may be done by agent or
deputy.*^ In such case of appointment of commissioners they arc
generally required to give public notice of the time of opening the
books for subscription. They may themselves subscribe for shares
but not to the exclusion of others wishing to subscribe.*^ It has
been questioned whether, when the statute provides for the tak-
ing of subscriptions by commissioners, those given to other per-
sons will be binding; and there are some authorities which hold
that they will not.^" The better rule, however, seems to be that
statutory provisions for commissioners are directory rather than
mandatory, and that subscriptions taken by other persons, duly
authorized, or whose acts are subsequently ratified, are valid and
binding upon the parties.^^ The New York "Stock Corporation
Law" of 1890
provides that if the whole capital stock be not sub-
scribed at the time of filing the certificate, the directors may con-
tinue to take subscriptions upon giving notice thereof.^- Persons
taking subscriptions may incur personal liability by failing to de-
liver them to the company.^* Although the statute provide for
46Taggart v. Western, etc. Co., 32 Gratt. 146; Webster v. Upton,
24 Md. 563, 89 Am. Dec. 760; Jef- 91 U. S. 65; Upton v. Tribilcock,
ferson v. Hewitt, 103 Cal. 624. 91 U. S. 45.
47
Farmers,' etc. Bank v. Nel-
62
n. Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 564,
son, 12 Md. 35; Lowe v. Edgefield,

41.
etc. Co., 1 Head (Tenn.), 659.
53
in People's Brewing Co. v.
48
Crocker v. Crane, 21 Wend. Boebinger (1888), 40 La. Ann.
(N. Y.) 211, 34 Am. Dec. 228; 277, the defendants were sued to
Saugatuck Bridge Co. v. Town of deliver a list containing subscrip-
Westport, 39 Conn. 337. tions of various parties to eight
49
Atty.-Gen. v. Stevens, 1 N. J. hundred shares of the stock of
Eq. 369, 22 Am. Dec. 526. plaintiff corporation of the face
50
Troy & B. R. Co. v. Tibbits, value of fifty dollars per share,
18 Barb. 297; Field v. Cooks, 16 and, in default of delivery, for
La. Ann. 153; Parker v. Northern judgment condemning them to pay
Cent. M. R. Co., 33 Mich. 23; the value of the list. But it was
Unity Ins. Co. v. Cram, 43 N. H. held that their liability could not
636. exceed an obligation to discharge
51
Buffalo & J. R. Co. v. Gifford, the liabilities of the subscribers
87 N. Y. 294. See also Buffalo & in accordance with the terms of
N. Y. City R. Co. v. Dudley, 14 their subscriptions, and that a
N. Y. 336; Stuart v. Valley R. Co., judgment for $40,000
cash, where

217.] SUBSCEll'TIONS. 289

subscriptions to be made through commissioners, those made in
another way are not necessarily void.^* Commissioners appointed
under a statute to take subscriptions and to make distribution and
allotment of shares, in the performance of the former duty exer-
cise a ministerial function ; in the latter, a judicial ; and when
acting judicially, it is essential that all of them be present, other-
wise the distribution of shares is void.^^ While the organization
of the company cannot be effected until the commissioners have
received subscriptions and allotted shares of the requisite amount
for the beginning of operations,^^ they have only such general
powers as are requisite to render valid the subscriptions made
through them ; and upon the organization of the corporation their
powers and duties are terminated,^'^ The commissioners may
themselves subscribe for the stock of the company,^^ provided
they allow themselves no priority. The books must be open, and
the public must have an opportunity to subscribe. No subscrip-
tion can be lawfully taken with closed doors.^^ In Pennsylvania
commissioners are held to have no authority to accept conditional
subscriptions ;
^^
while in other States conditions may be annexed
to subscriptions whether made before commissioners or taken by
agents of the company.
^^
But delivery of an escrow subscription
to a commissioner will render the contract absolute.*'^ The fact
the subscriptions were on credit, 229; Crolver v. Crane, 21 Wend,
and without reserving their right 211; s. c. 34 Am. Dec. 228; Pen-
to receive the stock subscribed insular, etc. Co. v. Duncan, 28
for, was manifestly insupportable. Mich. 130; James v. Cincinnati,
54
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Gifford, etc. R. Co., 2 Disney, 261.
87 N. Y. 294; Stuart v. Valley R.
ss
Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige,
Co., 32 Gratt. 146. Contra, Troy, 229.
etc. R. Co. V. Tibbits, 18 Barb.
sd
Brower v. Passenger Ry. Co.,
297; Schurtz v. Schoolcraft, etc. 3 Phila. 161.
R. Co., 9 Mich. 269; and see
eo
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Big-
Parker V. Northern, etc. R. Co., gers. 34 Pa. St. 4.55; Babington v.
33 Mich. 23. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 34 Pa. St.
55
Beach on Railways,
84; 15, 81; Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser,
Croker v. Crane, 21 Wend. 211; 48 Pa. St. 29. See, however, Pitts-
s. c. 34 Am. Dec. 228. In Penob- burgh, etc. R. Co. v. Stewart, 41
scot, etc. R. Co. V. White, 41 Me. Pa. St. 54.
512; s. c. 66 Am. Dec. 257, a ma-
fi
Evansville, etc. R. Co. v.
jority of the board of commis- Shenner, 10 Ind. 244; New
sioners was declared to be a Albany, etc. R. Co. v. McCormick,
quorum for the transaction of 10 Ind. 499; Martin v. Pensacola,
business. etc. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370.
50
Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige,
62
Wight v. Shelby R. Co., 16 B.
229. Mon. 4.
Cf.
Price v. Pittsburgh,
57
Walker v. Devereaux, 4 Paige, etc. R. Co., 34 111. 36.
Vol. 1

19
290
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
218, Stl9.
that the commissioners did not take the oath prescribed by the
statute does not invalidate subscriptions given to them, in other
respects regular."^

218. Limitation of amount of single subscription.There

is no rule at common law forbidding a single person to subscribe
to the whole of a company's capital stock."* But statutory com-
missioners appointed to take subscriptions have authority, inde-
pendent of any express provision in the statute, to limit the num-
ber of shares which a single subscriber may be allowed to take.*'^
And when the number of shares which one person may take is
limited by the incorporating act, no agreement between the sub-
scriber and the company in respect of a greater number is en-
forceable.""

219. Subscription in excess of capital stock. Apportion-

ment.As a general rule subscriptions in excess of the amount
limited as the capital stock of the corporation are void
;
"'
and no
liability thereon attaches to a subscriber to whom stock in excess
of the amount authorized has been issued."^ A company fre-
quently obtains subscriptions for stock beyond the limit fixed by
its charter. But a suit to recover a defendant's subscription in
such a case, cannot be met with the defense that the taking of sub-
scriptions beyond the prescribed amount releases him. If, how-
^
ever, he is a subscriber for the additional unauthorized shares,
there can be no recovery against him
;
but being one of the earliest
subscribers, and there being stock remaining not yet issued, he is
liable.*"* Under acts of incorporation making provision for the
apportionment of the subscriptions, the contract of subscription
is not complete until the apportionment has been made.^ Where
63
Hollman V. Williamsport, etc. which was decided under the
Co., 9 Gill & J. 462. Ohio Act of May 9,
1868.
64 King V. Barnes (1888),
109
67 Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S.
N. Y. 267,
where it was decided 143; Clark v. Turner, 73 Ga. 1;
that an agreement to organize a Kampman v. Tarver, 87 Tex. 491:
corporation, and that one of the Ijevel Land Co. v. Hayward, 95
persons furnishing the capital Wis. 109; Burrows v. Smith
should subscribe for the whole (1853), 10 N. Y. 550; Lathrop v.
stock intended to be taken by the Kneeland, 46 Barb. 432; Oler v.
associates, was not illegal nor Baltimore, etc. R. Co. (1874),
41
void as against public policy. Md. 583.
66
Brown v.
Passenger Ry. Co.,
cs
Clark v. Turner, 73 Ga. 1.
3 Phila. 161; Perkins v. Savage,
69
oier v. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.
15 Wend. 412. (1874), 41 Md. 583;
distinguish-
es
Simpson v.
Greenfield Build. ing McCord v. Ohio, etc. R. Co.,
Assn. (1882),
38 Ohio St. 349, 13 Ind. 221.
70
Burrows v. Smith (1853),
10

219.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 291

subscriptions are taken by commissioners the act of incorporation
often vests them with a discretion in the distribution of the shares,
and in case of subscriptions in excess of the capital stock, they
may allot to each subscriber such a proportion of the whole capital
stock as the amount of his subscription bears to the whole amount
subscribed, and no subscription will then be entirely voidJ^
Equity will grant relief against the failure of the commissioners
to mal<e a proper apportionment."- Where a person subscribes
to a certain proposed increase of stock of a national bank, and
pays his subscription, he is bound thereby, though the bank,
under the provisions of its by-laws to determine what disposi-
tion shall be made of the privilege of subscribing for the new
stock when it has not all been subscribed for within the time
given in its notice, limits the amount of the increase to the amount
paid in.''^ But in the absence of an express statutory authority,
the commissioners have no implied power to apportion an excess
of subscriptions.'^* Where the whole amount of the corporate
stock has been issued and the corporation becomes liable, either
to issue certain certificates to a subscriber or to pay him damages,
the court having no authority to direct such an issue, can only
give judgment that the corporation pay damages.
'^^
For the
courts have no power by mandate or decree, or in any other man-
ner, to effect an increase or reduction of the capital stock.'^
Under these circumstances, specific performance is impossible.'^'''
But in Massachusetts the rule prevails that the corporation may
be compelled to issue the stock, and, to prevent an illegal over-
issue, it must purchase an equal amount of shares in the market.'^^
N. Y. 550; Crocker v. Crane, 21 Co., 10 How. Pr. 551; Finley Shoe,
Wend. 211; s. c. 34 Am. Dec. 228; etc. Co. v. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89;
Walker v. Devereanx, 4 Paige, Mechanics' Bank v. New York,
229. Cf.
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. etc. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599; Will-
Dudley (1856),
14 N. Y. 33G, 346. iams v. Savage Manuf. Co., 3 Md.
71
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Dudley Ch. 418; Smith v. North Ameri
(1856), 14 N. Y. 336. Cf.
Dan- can Mining Co., 1 Nev. 423.
bury, etc. R. Co. v. Wilson
tg
Williams v. Savage Manuf.
(1860),
22 Conn. 435, 454. Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418; Baker v. Was-
T2
Walker v. Devereanx, 4 Paige, son, 59 Tex. 140; Smith v. North
229. American, etc. Co., 1 Nev. 423; 2
'3
Aspinwall v. Butler (1890), Morawetz on Corporations,

683.
133 U. S. 595.
T7
Finley Shoe, etc. Co. v. Kurtz,
T^Van Dyke v. Stout, 8 N. J. 34 Mich. 89.
Eq. 333. Cf.
Crocker v. Crane,
ts
Boston, etc. Co. v. Richard-
21 Wend. 211; s. c. 34 Am. Dec. son, 135 Mass. 473; Machinists'
228.
Nat. Bank v. Field, 126 Mass.
T5
People V. Parker Vein, etc. 345; Pratt v. Taunton, etc. Co.,
292
6UBSCKIPTI0NS.
[
220, 221.

220. Competency to subscribe for stock.A subscription

for stock is a contract, and any one who is competent under prin-
ciples of the common law to become a party to an ordinary con-
tract, may make a valid subscription for stock in a corporation,
in the absence of any express restriction in the charter or other
statute.'''* All natural persons capable of making a valid contract
may subscribe to the capital stock of a corporation.^''

221. Married women, infants, agents, partners, etc., as

subscribers.Although at common law a married woman
could not subscribe for stock,^^ she now, by statute, in England,
and generally in the United States, may bind her separate estate
by a contract of subscription, as also by other contracts.^^ But
the husband is not bound in any event, when he did not join his
wife in the contract.^^
Subscription by infants.A subscription by an infant is not
void, though voidable upon his disaffirmance upon reaching his
majority, in which event of repudiation of the contract, he can-
not be held liable by the corporation or its creditors.^* Unless
within a reasonable time after reaching majority, he expressly
disaffirms the act, he will be held to have ratified it and will be
liable as in the case of any other person, free from disability to
contract, and he may be held to pay all "calls" made from the
time of making the subscription.^^ One who subscribes in the
name of a minor is personally bound on the subscription, to the
corporation or to his creditors.^^ Where an infant subscribed and
123 Mass. 110; Lowell on the 36 N. J. L. 304; Dow v. Gould,
Transfer of Stock,
116. etc. Co., 31 "Cal. 629; Slaymaker v.
TO
Newry, etc. Co. v. Coombe, 3 Bank of Gettysburg, 10 Pa. St.
Exch. 565; Phillips v. Covington, 373; Cornell's Case, 114 Pa. St.
etc. Co., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 219. 153; Wall v. Tomlinson, 16 Ves.
soYide supra,
202; Sims v. 413; Wildman v. Wildman, 9 Ves.
Street R. Co., 37 Ohio, 556; s. c. 174; Cochran v. Chambers, Ambl.
4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 132. 79, note.
81
National Commercial Bank
82
witters v. Sowles, 32 Fed.
V. McDonnell, 92 Ala. 387. The 767; In re Reciprocity Bank, 22 N.
capacity of a married woman to Y. 9.
take, hold and transfer shares of
^"
Dalton v. Midland, etc. R. R.,
stock is governed by the law of 12 C. B. 474.
her domicile. Hill v. Pine River
84 Phillips v. Covington, etc.
Bank, 45 N. H. 300. As to the Co., 2 Mete. (Ky.) 219.
husband's right to transfer stock
ss
Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96
standing in the name of his wite, N. Y. 201; Cork, etc. Ry. v. Caze-
see: Stanwood v. Stanwood, 17 nove, 10 Q. B. 935.
Mass. 57; Arnold v. Ruggles, 1
8g
Weston's Case, L. R. 5
Ch.
R. I. 165; Stamford Bank v. Fei'- App. 614.
ris, 17 Conn. 259; Curtis v. Stever,

222, 223.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 293
paid his subscription to a corporation, afterwards merged by con-
solidation, into a now corporation, he cannot recover his money
from it.^^
Subscription by an agent.One may make a vaHd subscription
by his agent,^^ who acts by authority, or if unauthorized, may
ratify the subscription and thus become Hable thereon, and en-
titled to its benefits.^^
Subscription by a partner.A partner, by express authority of
his firm, may make valid subscription in its name, or if the sub-
scription is within the scope of the partnership busijiess. If made
without authority and without ratification, the partner is per-
sonally liable to the corporation.^"
Subscription by directors and corporate ofUccrs and commis-
sioners.Directors and corporate officers and commissioners may
subscribe to the capital stock."^

222. The State as a subscriber to stock.In the United

States a State sometimes becomes a subscriber to the stock of a
private corporation, when not constitutionally restrained from
so doing.^- But it does not thereby become liable as in the case
of a private individual shareholder, to assessment, or to suit upon
its subscription, or for the debts of the corporation, inasmuch
as the State cannot be sued without its consent, and subscription
to stock is not such consent. Such a subscription is generally
treated as a donation to the corporation."^ Though the State
own all the stock of an incorporated bank, the fact does not
make a debt due to the bank a debt due to the State.''*

223. Municipal corporation as subscriber.A municipal

corporation has no inherent power to make contracts of sub-
scription to the stock of any private company.*^ Its authority to
do so is entirely dependent upon legislative grant,^ expressly
87
White V. Mount Pleasant Co., 37 N. C. 444; Baltimore, etc.
Mills Corp., 172 Mass. 462. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 519.
88
Musgrave v. Buckley, 114 N.
03
Miers v. Zanesville, etc. Co.,
Y. 506; Philadelphia, etc. Co. v. 11 Ohio, 273; Consolidated Bank
Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329, 70 Am. v. State, 5 La. Ann. 44.
Dec. 128. 94
State Bank v. Dibrell, Z
89
Penobscot R. Co. v. Dummer, Sneed (Tenn.) 378.
40 Me., 172, 63 Am. Dec. 654; 94a
Dillon on Municipal Cor-
Boggs V. Olcott, 40 111. 303. porations,

161; Weightman v.
90
Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79 Clark, 103 U. S. 251.
Cf.
North-
N. Y. 454. ern Bank v. Porter Township,
91
Sims V. Street R. R., 37 Ohio 110 U. S. 608.
St. 556.
95
City of Jonesboro v. Cairo,
92Atty.-Gen. v. Cape Fear, etc. etc. R. Co., 110 U. S. 192; Wells
294:
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
223.
given to the municipality itself cither in its charter or in a spe-
cial enabling act,"" and the constitutionality of the enabling act
will depend upon the nature of the business which the company
is organized to conduct, upon its being in some way dedicated
to a public use, either wholly or in part." Without express
power under its charter, or other statute, a municipal corporation
may not subscribe for stock in any other corporation,^ as where
a city or county is authorized to subscribe for stock in aid of a
railroad corporation, as an aid in its construction.* Wherever
V. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625;
East Oakland v. Skinner, 94 U. S.
255; Kenicott v. Supervisors, IG
Wall. 452; Thompson v. Lee
County, 3 Wall. 327; Gelpecke v.
Dubuque, 1 Wall. 220; Brodie v.
McCable, 33 Ark. 690; City of
Lynchburg v. Slaughter, 75 Va.
57; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Phila-
delphia, 47 Pa. St. 189; Louisville,
etc. R. Co. v. Fairfield, 51 Vt. 257;
Barnes v. Lacon, 84 111. 461;
Campbell v. Paris, etc. R. Co., 71
111. 611; Taylor on Corporations,
319; Wood's Ry. Law,
lOC^
Under Const. Mo. 1865, art. xi,

14, prohibiting the legislature to
authorize a municipal corpora-
tion to become a stockholder in,
or lend its credit to a corporation,
without the assent of two-thirds
of the qualified voters at a gen-
eral or special election, such a
vote, under legislative authority
(Gen. Stat. Mo. 338) to sub-
scribe to the stock of a railroad
company, will authorize a sub-
scription, but will not validate
the issue of negotiable bonds in
payment therefor. Hill v. City
of Memphis (1890), 10 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 562, 134 U. S. 198.
96
Beach on Railways, 190,
citing Pitzman v. Freeburg, 92
111. Ill; Sharpless v. Mayor, 21
Pa. St. 147; s. c. 59 Am. Dec. 759;
Lewis V. City of Slireveport, 108
U. S. 282; Ottawa v. Carey, 108
U. S. 110; Allen v. Louisiana, 103
U. S. SO; Marsh v. Fulton, 10
Wall. 676; Commercial Bank v.
Ida, 2 Dillon, 353; Welch v. Post,
99 111. 471; Leavenworth County
V. Miller, 7 Kan. 479; La Fayette
V. Cox, 5 Ind. 38; Dillon on
Munic. Corp., 161; Wood's Ry.
Law,
100. Ga. Act of Nov.
7,
1889, enacting that the railroad
therein named, if its route is lo-
cated within five miles of the
town of T., shall run into that
town, provided that the excess of
the cost of the route through T.
over the route proposed by the
company' shall be paid "by the
town of T. or the citizens there-
of," was construed to mean that
the requisite amount was to be,
raised voluntarily by the people
of the town, and not furnished by
the corporation out of the public
revenue. Macon & B. R. Co. v.
Gibson (1890), 85 Ga. 1. But see
Bard v. City of Augusta, 30 Fed.
Rep. 906; Copes v. Charleston, 10
Rich. 491; City Council v. Baptist
Church, 4 Strob. 306; Burr v.
Chareton County, 2 McCrary, 603.
oTCole V. La Grange, 113 U. S.
1; Bard v. City of Augusta, 30
Fed. Rep. 906; Bloodgood v. Mo-
hawk, etc. R. Co., 18 Wend. 965;
McKenzie v. Wooley (1887), 39
La. Ann. 944; Union Pacific R.
Co. V. Smith, 23 Kan. 745;
Weismer v. Village of Douglass,
64 N. Y. 91. Cf.
Turner v. Com-
missioners, 27 Kan. 314; Amos-
keag Nat. Bank v. Town of Ot-
tawa, 105 U. S. 866; Gilson v.
Town of Dayton, 123 U. S. 59.
98
Dillon Mun. Corp., 19, 20.
99
Dixon County v. Field, 111
U. S. 83.

223.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 295

the right is conferred upon municipal corporations to subscribe
for stock in any other corporation it is rarely otherwise exercised
than in the subscription to the stock of railroad corporations. It
is foreign to the purposes of corporate municipalities to become
stockholders in private corporations, but it is now well settled
that the legislature may constitutionally authorize a municipal
corporation to subscribe to the stock of a railroad or other
qitasi-puhlic corporation, and for that purpose to issue and sell
its municipal bonds.^ But such legislative authority will not avail
unless it is passed according to all the constitutional formalities.^
A de facto
municipal corporation recognized by the legislature
cannot defeat its bonds by plea of its irregular incorporation,
and such a municipal subscription may be made to a railroad cor-
poration yet to be built. But such municipality can have no
power to subscribe to any other than a quasi-puhVic corporation,
such as a railroad company owing duties to the public.^ Some
States have by constitution prohibited municipal corporations
from subscribing or lending their credit to any corporation not
strictly and exclusively governmental.* The municipal power to
subscribe for stock does not authorize the issue of negotiable
bonds therefor. The municipality becomes a stockholder with
the same rights and privileges and subject to the same duties and
liabilities as other holders of the corporate stock.^ It has not
been without considerable doubt, however, that the weight of
authority has finally established that, in the absence of any ex-
press constitutional prohibition, the legislature may confer this
power upon municipal corporations in respect of enterprises not
of a wholly governmental or strictly public character.'^ To the
iKnox County v. Aspinwall, 21 Huidekoper, 98 U. S. 98; North
How. 539; Queensbury v. Culver, v. Platte County, 29 Neb. 447.
19 Wallace 83; Chicot County v. 3 Loan Assn. v. Topeka, 20 Wall.
Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529 (1893); 655; Ottawa v. Carey, 108 U. S.
Boon V. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366 110.
(1892); Goddin v. Crump, S 4 Pennsylvania R. R. v. Phila-
Leigh (Va.), 120; Leavenworth delphia, 47 Pa. St. 189; State v.
County V. Miller, 7 Kan. 479; Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 472; Chi-
Slack V. Maysville, etc., R. R. 13 cago, etc. R. R. v. Pinckney, 74
B. Mon. (Ky.) 1; Knox v. Aspin- 111. 277; Dodge v. Platte County,
wall, 21 How. (U. S.) 539; Sharp- 82 N. Y. 218; Brocaw v. Gibson
less V. Mayor, 21 Pa. St. 149; Dil- County, 73 Ind. 543.
Ion, Mun. Corp., 12, 117, 157; 6 Norton v. Dyerburg, 127 U. S.
Cooley Const., Lim.,
p.
261, 160.
et seq.
^ Shipley v. Terre Haute, 74
2Amoskeag Bank v. Ottawa, Ind. 297; Hancock v. Louisville,
105 U. S. 667; Daviess County v. etc. R. R., 145 U. S. 409 (1892).
T
Beach on Railways,
187, cit-
29G
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
223.
validity of a municipal subscription it is essential that the require-
ments of the State constitution and of the enabling act be strictly
ing, on the one hand, as contend-
ing against the constitutionality
of such grants, two of the most
eminent of American commenta-
tors (Dillon on Municipal Cor-
porations,
12, 17, 153; Cooley
on Constitutional Limitations,
261, 266) supported by the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court of
New York (People v. Henshaw,
61 Barb. 409; Sweet v. Hurlburt,
51 Barb. 312; Grant v. Coorter,
24 Barb. 234; Benson v. Albany,
24 Barb. 248; Ex parte Taxpayers
of Kingston, 40 How. Pr. 444.
Cf.
Clarke v. Rochester, 28 N. Y. 605),
a line of cases in Iowa extending
from 1858 to 1862 (Stokes v.
Scott, 10 Iowa, 166; State v.
Wapello, 13 Iowa, 388; Myers v.
Johnson, 14 Iowa, 47), and an
unbroken line of cases in Michi-
gan. People V. Detroit, 28 Mich.
228; Thomas v. Port Hudson, 27
Mich. 320; Bay City v. State
Treasurer, 23 Mich. 499; People
V. Salem, 20 Mich. 452. On the
other hand, sustaining the con-
stitutionality of tlie grants, are
the decisions of the New York
Court of Appeals (Lyons v. Cham-
berlain, 86 N. Y. 576; Horton v.
Thompson, 71 N. Y. 513; affirmed,
101 U. S. 665; Duanesburgh v.
Jenkins, 66 N. Y. 129; People v.
Spencer, 55 N. Y. 1; People v.
Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 128; People
V. Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 551; Starin
V. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439; Bank v.
Rome, 18 N. Y. 38), the decisions
in Iowa prior to 1858 and since
1869 (Dubuque v. Dubuque, etc.
R. Co., 4 Greene, 1 (1853); State
V. Bissell, 4 Greene, 328 (1854);
Olapp V. Cedar County, 5 Iowa,
15, (1857); s. c. 68 Am. Dec. 678;
McMillen v. Lee County, 6 Iowa,
391, (1858); Stewart v. Polk
County, 30 Iowa,
9, (1870); Mc-
Gregor V. Birdsall, 32 Iowa, 149;
Jordan v. Hayne, 36 Iowa, 9; Mus-
catine R. Co. V. Horton, 38 Iowa,
33; Wapello v. Burlington, etc.
R. Co., 44 Iowa, 585), the de-
cisions of the federal Supreme
Court (Knox County v. Aspinwall,
21 How. 539; Dixon County v.
Field, 111 U. S. 83; Lewis v. Bar-
bour County, 105 U. S. 739; Tay-
lor V. Ypsilanti, 105 U. S. 60;
Clay County v. Society for Sav-
ings, 104 U. S. 579; Hickory v.
Ellery, 103 U. S. 423; Rock Creek
V. Strong, 99 U. S. 271: Railroad
V. County of Otoe, 16 Wall. 677;
Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477;
Beloit V. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619;
Lee County v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 181;
Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 Wall.
772; Campbell v. Kenosha, 5 Wall.
194; Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4
Wall. 535; Mitchell v. Burlington,
4 Wall. 270; Rogers v. Burling-
ton, 3 Wall. 654; Thompson v.
Lee County, 3 Wall. 327; Have-
meyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall.
294; Van Hastrup v. Madison, 1
Wall. 291; Seybert v. Pittsburgh,
1 Wall. 273; Mercer County v.
Hackett, 1 Wall. 81; Gelpeke v.
Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175; Curtis v.
Butler County, 24 How. 435;
Amey v. Mayor, 24 How. 365, 376;
Zabriskie v. Cleveland R. etc. Co.,
23 How. 381), of the federal cir-
cuit and district courts (Sibley v.
Mobile, 3 Woods, 535; United
States V. New Orleans, 2 Woods,
230; Long v. New London, 9 Biss.
539), and the decisions of courts of
last resort in all the other States.
In Virginia: Goddin v. Crump, 8
Leigh, 120. In West Virguda:
Goshorn v. County, 1 W. Va. 308;
Allison V. Versailles R. Co., 10
Bush, 1. In Kentucky: Maddox
V. Graham, 2 Met. (Ky.) 56; Shel-
by County V. Cumberland, etc. R.
Co., 8 Bush, 209; Slack v. Mays-
ville, etc. R. Co., 13 B. Mon. 1;
Talbot V. Dent, 9 B. Mon. 526. In
Missouri: State v. Greene County,

223.] SUBSCRIPTIONS.
29"
complied with," except, according to the general rule of statutorv'
construction, as to mere directory provisions respecting matters
54 Mo. 540; Smith v. Clark
County, 54 Mo. 58; Osage Valley,
etc. R. Co. V. Morgan County, 53
Mo. 156; State v. Sullivan County,
51 Mo. 522; State v. Linn County,
44 Mo. 504. In North Carolina:
Wood V. Commissioners of Ox-
ford (1887), 97 N. C. 227; Hill v.
Commissioners, 67 N. C. 367; Tay-
lor V. Newbern, 2 Jones Eq. 141.
In Tennessee: Winston v. Tennes-
see, etc. R. Co., 57 Tenn. 60; Tax-
payers v. Tennessee, etc. R. Co.,
11 Tenn. 329. In Arkansas: Jack-
sonport v. Watson, 33 Ark. 704;
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Camden,
23 Ark. 455. In South Carolina:
Copes v. Charleston, 10 Rich. 136.
In Georgia: Powers v. Superior
Ct. of Dougherty County, 23 Ga.
65; Winn v. Macon, 21 Ga. 275.
In Alabama: Opelika v. Daniel,
59 Ala. 211; Gibbons v. Mobile,
etc. R. Co., 36 Ala. 410; Stein v.
Mayor, 24 Ala. 591. In Missis-
sippi: New Orleans, etc. R. Co.
V. McDonald, 53 Miss. 240; Strick-
land V. Railroad Co., 27 Miss. 209.
In Florida: Cotton v. Leon
County, 6 Fla. 610. In Texas:
San Antonio v. Gould, 34 Tex. 49;
San Antonio v. Lane, 32 Tex. 405;
San Antonio v. Jones, 28 Tex. 19.
In Louisiana: Parker v. Scroggin,
11 La. Ann. 629; Police Jury v. Mc-
Donough, 8 La. Ann. 341. In Penn-
sylvania: Sharpless v. Mayor, 21,
Pa. St. 147; s. c. 59 Am. Dec. 759;
County V. Brinton, 47 Pa. St. 367;
Commonwealth v. McWilliams, 11
Pa. St. 61. In Massachusetts:
Supervisors v. Wisconsin, etc. R.
Co., 121 Mass. 460. In Maine:
Stevens v. Anson, 73 Me. 489; Au-
gusta Bank v. Augusta, 49 Me.
507. In Vermont: Bennington v.
Park, 50 Vt. 178; National Bank
V. Concord, 50 Vt. 257. In Neio
Hampshire: Perry v. Kean, 56
N. H. 514. In Connecticut: Doug-
lass v. Chatham, 41 Conn. 211;
Bridgeport v. Housatonic R. Co.,
15 Conn. 475. In California:
Stockton, etc. R. Co. v. Stockton,
41 Cal. 147; Napa Valley R. Co.
V. Napa County, 30 Cal. 435;
People V. Coon, 25 Cal. 635: Rob-
inson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379. In
Colorado: People v. Pueblo
County, 2 Col. 360. In Illinois:
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Aurora, 99
111. 205; Quincy, etc. R. Co. v.
Morris, 84 111. 410; Shaw v. Den-
nis, 5 Gilm. 405. But one of the
"separate articles" of the Illinois
constitution forbidding municipal
corporations from subscribing for
railroad stock having gone into
effect July 2, 1870, municipal
bonds issued for railway stock,
pursuant to a vote taken after
that date, are void. Casey v. Peo-
ple (1890), 132 111. 546, 24 N. E.
Rep. 570. In Indiana: Reed v. Mil-
likan, 79 Ind. 86; Brocaw v. Gib-
son County, 73 Ind. 543; City of
Aurora v. West, 9 Ind. 74. In
Kansas: Leavenworth Co. v.
Miller, 7 Kan. 479; Leaven-
worth, etc. R. Co. V. Douglass
Co., 18 Kan. 169; City of
Atchison v. Butcher, 3 Kan. 104.
In Mmnesota: State v. Clark, 23
Minn. 423; Davidson v. Ramsay
County, 18 Minn. 482. In Ne-
braska: Reinman v. Covington,
etc. R. Co., 7 Neb. 310; Hallenbeck
V. Hahn, 2 Neb. 377. In Nevada:
Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 283. In
Ohio: Walker v. Cincinnati, 21
Ohio St. 14; Cincinnati, etc. R.
Co. V. Clinton County, 1 Ohio St.
77. In Wisconsin Lawson v.
Milwaukee, etc. R. Co., 36 Wis.
383; s. c. 30 Wis. 597; Clark v:
Janesville, 10 Wis. 136.
8 Beach on Railways,

192.
Thus, Mo. Act of March 24, 1868,
providing for the funding of their
debts by incorporated towns, and
empowering them to issue their
bonds in payment of their past
298
SUBSCRII'TIONS.
[
223.
of form." But the purchaser of municipal bonds issued to a
raihvay company is not bound to go behind the return of the
board of supervisors to inquire whether all the steps necessary
to their validity have been taken.^ A municipal subscription may
be made conditionally." Thus, where a town is authorized to
or future subscription to the
stock of a railroad company, but
providing for no vote as a prere-
quisite to the issue, is in contra-
vention of Mo. Const. 1865, art.
xi, 14,
prohibiting legislative
authority to a municipal corpora-
tion to lend its credit to a corpo-
ration, without the assent of two-
thirds of the qualified voters. Hill
V. City of Memphis (1890),
134
U. S. 198. So again it was held
In a recent case in Kansas that
where an election is ordered
in a county under Kansas
Laws of 1876, ch. 107, and the
amendments thereto, including
Laws of 1877, ch. 142, for the
purpose of authorizing the county
to subscribe to the capital stock
of a railroad company, and to is-
sue the bonus of the county in
payment for stock, and the elec-
tion is ordered upon a petition
presented to the county board,
which does not contain the names
and is not the petition of two-
fifths of the resident taxpayers of
the county, as required by those
laws, but the county board de-
clares it to be sufficient, and the
election is held, the returns can-
vassed, and the result declared in
favor of subscribing for the stock
and issuing the bonds, and the
county clerk ordered by the
county board to make the sub-
\cription does so, the election
must be deemed to be void, be-
cause of the want of a sufficient
petition. Chicago, K. & W. R.
Co. V. Harris (Kan. 1890), 23
Pac. Rep. 1064. And under Ky.
Act of March 17, 1870, declaring
that if more than one question of
taxation is voted on at any one
election the tax shall be void, an
election upon county subscrip-
tions to the capital stock of two
different railroad companies, at
the same time, is void, and is not
validated as to one of the sub-,
scriptions by the fact that it is
void as to the other. Christian
County Court v. Smith (Ky.
1890). 13 S. W. Rep. 276.
9 Tide supra, Railroads,

1065.
10
On a question as to the
validity of certain bonds issued
by a county to a railway company,
it was claimed that the issue was
not authorized by two-thirds of
the qualified voters, as required
by Const. Miss. art. xii, 14, and
that the fact would appear from
an inspection of the registration
lists. The board of supervisors,
in th" performance of their du-
ties, had declared that two-thirds
of the voters had voted for the
measure. And it was held that a
purchaser was not required to go
behind the returns, and one who
purchased for value, without act-
ual notice of the wrongfulness
thereof, was entitled to recover.
Madison County v. Brown (Miss.
1890), 7 So. Rep. 516.
11
Casey v. People (1890),
132 ni. 546; Town of Platte-
ville V. Galena, etc. R. Co., 43
Wis. 493; Portland, etc. R. Co. v.
Inhabitants of Hartford, 58 Me.
23; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Phil-
lips County, 25 Kan. 261; Brocaw
V. Gibson, 73 Ind. 543; Chicago,
etc. R. Co. V. Aurora, 99 HI. 205;
Noesen v. Port "Washington, 37
Wis. 168; Perkins v. Port Wash-
ington, 37 Wis. 177; Vicksburgh
V. Ouchita, 11 La. Ann. 649; Foote
V. Mt. Pleasant, 1 McCrary, 101;
People V. Hutton, 18 Hun, 206;
Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Tygard,
84 Mo. 263; s. c. 54 Am. Rep. 97;
Jacks V. Helena, 41 Ark. 213.

223.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
299
subscribe for railroad stock, and to issue bonds in payment there-
for, the fact that the bonds are issued upon condition that the road
should build its shops in that town, does not invalidate the bonds,
since the imposing of the condition does not change the object
for which the bonds were issued.^- A writ of niandanins will not
issue to compel municipal officers to issue bonds in payment of a
subscription conditionally made, until the condition has been com-
plied with by the company.^^ So long as any condition remains
unfulfilled by the company, or any discretionary act is to be per-
formed by the municipal officers, neither the vote of the electors
nor the order of the municipal officers becomes operative ; but
w^hen the officers are merely to perform a simple ministerial or
clerical duty, the vote or order is in itself the subscription, and
mandamus lies to compel the performance of the ministerial duties
requisite to the formal execution of the contract.^* A new con-
solidated company succeeds to the rights of either constituent
company in respect of any municipal aid which it may be entitled
under its charter to have voted to it; and if the bonds were voted
prior to the consolidation to one of the old companies, the new
company will be entitled to have them issued to it.^^ The en-
abling act is regarded as conferring a privilege upon the orig-
inal corporation which is not lost by its merger in the new.^^ But
a vote of the electors to take stock in a railway company prior to
its consolidation with another, does not authorize the municipal
officers to subscribe to the stock of the consolidated company.^^
12
Casey v. People (1890), 132 73; Niantic Savin.g-s Bank v.
111. 546, 24 N. E. Rep. 570. Douglass, 5 111. App. 579.
13
State V. Minneapolis, 32 Minn.
i'^
Scotland County v. Thomas,
501.
94 U. S. 682; Smith v. Clarke
14
Wood's Ry. Law, 117, cit- County, 54 Mo. 58; Hannibal, etc.
ing People v. Pueblo County, 2 R. Co. v. Marion County, 36 Mo.
Cal. 3G0; Cumberland, etc. R. Co. 294; Lewis v. Clarendon, 6 Re-
V. Barren County, 10 Bush, 604. porter, 609; Harter v. Kernochan,
15
State V. Greene County, 54 103 U. S. 562; County of Tipton v.
Mo. 540; Henry County v. Locomotive Works, 103 U. S. 523;
Nicolay, 95 U. S. 617; East Lin- Menasha v. Hazard, 102 U. S. 81;
coin V. Davenport, 94 U. S. 801; County of Cass v. Gillet, 100 U. S.
Calloway County v. Foster, 93 U. 585; Wilson v. Salamanca, 99 U.
S.
567- Scotland County v. S. 499; County of Schuyler v.
Thomas. 94 U. S. 682; Smith v. Thomas, 98 U. S. 109; Henry
Clark County, 54 Mo. 284; Wash- County v. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619;
burn v. Cass County, 3 Dill. 251; Town of East Lincoln v. Daven-
Nugent v. Supervisors, 19 Wall. port, 94 U. S. 801. Contra,
241; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Phil- Harshman v. Bates County, 92 U.
lips County ,25 Kan. 261; Chicam- S. 569.
ing V. Carpenter, 106 U. S. 663;
it
Harshman v. Bates (1874), 3
New Buffalo v. Iron Co., 105 U. S. Dill. 150.
300 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
224.
Thus, where a township has authorized the county court to make
a subscription in its behalf, and the subscription has not been
made at the time of the consoHdation, the consohdation revokes
the power, and a subscription thereafter will be invalid without
a new povver.^^ Dissenting tax-payers may generally object to
the payment, if the consolidation materially alters the plan of the
enterprise to which the aid was originally voted ; and they are
not estopped by any consent or acquiescence therein by the mu-
nicipal authorities.^^ But this is not the case if the consolidation
was made under authority existing at the time the vote in favor
of subscription was taken.
^^

224. Substitution of subscriber.Where, after the incor-

poration, the subscriber causes the stock to be issued to another
person who pays for it, the original subscriber is discharged from
liability.^^ But, if before incorporation, a cancellation has been
made illegally and substitution of another subscriber, the sub-
stitution amounts to a transfer and leaves the original subscriber
liable, as in other cases of transfer of stock. The mere erasure
of a subscriber's signature will not release him from the sub-
scription.^^ A subscription to be paid for, when the directors may
find some other person to purchase the stock, is illegal, as an at-
tempt to release a subscriber.-' The substitution of one stib-
scriber for another may be accomplished by the erasure of the
name of the original subscriber, with the consent of the com-
missioners, and the substitution of another name.^* Otherwise
the corporation is not bound to recognize the new party or to
issue a certificate of stock to him.^^
18
Harshman v. Bates County,
Co., 13 111. 516. See Hawley v.
92 U. S. 569.
* Upton, 102 U. S. 314; "Subscrip-
19
McMahan v. Morrison, 16 tions to the Capital Stock of Cor-
Ind. 172; s. c. 79 Am. Dec. 418;
porations," by James M. Kerr
Clearwater v. Meredith, 1 Wall. (1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 422.
40; State v. Nehama County, 10
25
Hawkins v. Mansfield G.
Kan. 569. Min. Co., 52 Cal. 513; Morrison v.
20
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Gold Mountain G. M. Co., 52 Cal.
Brown, 26. Ohio St. 223; Sparrow 306; Coleman v. Spencer, 5
V. Evansville, etc. R. Co., 7 Ind. Blackf. (Ind.) 197. Cf.
Charter v.
369. San Francisco S. F. Co., 19 Cal.
21
Re Glory Paper Mills (1894), 219; Baltimore City P. R. Co. v.
3 Ch. 473. Sewell, 35 Md. 238; State v.
22
Johnson v. Wabash, etc. Co., Crescent City G. L. Co., 24 La.
16 Ind. 389 (1861).
Ann. 318; Hunt v. Gunn, 13 C. B.
23McNulta V. Corn, etc. Bank, (N. S.) 226; Tempest v. Kilner.
164 111. 427 (1897). 3 C. B. 249.
Cf.
"Purchase of
24
Selma & T. R. Co. v. Tipton, Chance of an Allotment of
5 Ala. 787; Ryder v. Alton & S. R. Shares," 17 Co. Ct. Chr. 77.

225, 226.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 301

C.
PROOF OF SUBSCRIPTION.

225. Evidence of subscription.The appearance of the

name of a subscriber as such, upon the corporate stock books, is
prima facie evidence of his subscription,'" as is also the original
subscription paper,-'' and the subscription books of the commis-
sioners appointed to receive subscriptions.'^ Creditors of a cor-
poration are presumed to have relied upon the corporate books
as to who are stockholders.-^ In case of loss of the original stock
book other books of record are admissible,^** but not until proof
of an original subscription, and of the loss of the record or sat-
isfactory account of its absence.^^ But such evidence is only
prima facie, and is subject to rebuttal by evidence that the sub-
scriber's name was subscribed without his consent.^^
D.
CONDITIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO LIA-
BILITY.

226. Conditional subscriptions.A conditional subscrip-

tion is one which can be enforced by the corporation only after
the performance of some condition specified in the subscription
itself. It is "a continuing offer which is final and absolute when
accepted."
^^
To be effectual, the condition must be inserted in
the written contract of subscription. It cannot be varied or aided
by parol.
^*
It is not competent to show by parol evidence that
stock subscriptions were conditional, where they purport to be
unconditional.^^ It does not make the subscriber a stockholder
until performance of some condition or its waiver, or in case of
estoppel to set up its non-performance. A conditional subscrip-
2G
Torras v. Raeburn, 108 Ga.
3i
Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Gaz-
345 (1899); Penobscot R. Co. v. zam, 32 Pa. St. 340 (1858).
White, 41 Me. 512, 66 Am. Dec. 32
Mudgett v. Horrell, 33 CaL
257. 25 (1867).
2T
Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb.
33
Taggart v. "Western, etc. R.
146 (1857); Stuart v. Valley R. R., 24 Md. 563.
Co., 32 Gratt. (Va.) 146.
34
Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Davis,
28Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S. 40 Minn. 110 (1889), 3 L. R. A.
314. 796, 12 Am. St. Rep. 701.
29
United States, etc. Co. v.
35
Merrick v. Consumers,' etc.
Davies, 2 Kan. App. 611 (1895). Co., Ill 111. App. 153 (1902).
30
Congdon v. Windsor, 17 R. I.
236.
302
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
22G(j, 227.
tion involves two
contracts, one on the part of the corporation to
do some specified act and the other on the part of the subscriber
\\'hose contract is enforceable, whether or not the conditions are
performed, as where they are subsequent, for the breach of which
the only remedy is an action for damages.^^ Acceptance by the
corporation is necessary. Until the conditional subscription is
accepted, it is but a continuing offer. After the condition has been
performed the subscription cannot be revoked.^^ The condition
must be performed or complied with before the subscriber can
be compelled to pay the subscription,^^ As where the condition
is that certain work shall be performed within a certain time,
time is of the essence of the contract, and failure of performance
within the time will defeat the subscription.^^ "Whether the con-
dition be precedent or subsequent is a question purely of intent,
and the intention must be determined by considering not only the
words of the particular clause, but also the language of the whole
contract, as well as the nature of the act required and the sub-
ject matter to which it relates.*"
Waiver
of
the condition.The conditional subscriber may
waive the performance and thus become liable to pay his sub-
scription, in any event. He may waive the performance by his
silence or by his oral statement of agreement,*^

226a. Subscription conditional. As a defense. Estoppel.

A subscriber to stock who uses and sells it without requiring com-
pliance with the condition is estopped from asserting it.*^

227. Subscription before incorporation not to be condi-

tional.A condition that payment shall be in property or serv-
ices, excludes a subscription from being counted among those
taken for the purpose of obtaining the charter.*^ The same is
true of those made by contractors upon special terms.** And,
36Mathis V. Pridham, 1 Tex. 74 Tilass. 596; Oldtown, etc. R.
Civ. App. 58. Co. V. Veazie, 39 Me. 571; New
37
Philadelphia, etc. R. R. v. York, etc. R. Co. v. Hunt, 39 Conn.
Conway, 117 Pa. St. 364. 75. Ridgefleld, etc. R. Co. v.
38
Hall V. Sims, 106 Ala. 561. Brush, 43 Conn. 86, is not contra,
39
Burlington, etc. R. R. v. as the agreement there to pay in
Boestler, 15 Iowa, 555. work was parol and could not be
40
Bucksport, etc. R. R. v. allowed to vary an apparently ab-
Brewer, 67 Me. 295. solute written contract of sub-
41
Hanover, etc. R. R. v. Hal- scription. Contra, Phillips v.
deman, 82 Pa. St. 36. Covington, etc. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.)
42Wyman v. Bowman, 127 Fed. 219.
257 (U. S.) C. C. A. (Iowa, 1904).
4i
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Welling-
43
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Nev/ton, ton, 113 Mass. 79; Oskaloosa, etc.
g
228.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
303
generally, when a certain amount of stock is required by statute
to be subscribed before the company shall become
incorporated,
conditional subscriptions cannot be reckoned,^'* unless it be shown
that the conditions have been performed or have been waived.**
Any other rule would lead to the procurement from the Com-
monwealth of valuable charters without any absolute capital for
their support, and thus give rise to a system of speculation and
fraud which would be intolerable.*^ After incorporation, how-
ever, the com.pany may receive conditional subscriptions.** In
New York, subscriptions taken for the purpose of obtaining in-
corporation, are rendered void by being made conditionally ;
*^
while in Pennsylvania the subscription itself is valid and binding,
but the condition null and void.^"

C28. May be conditional v/hen made after incorporation.

Conditional subscriptions after incorporation are valid, by the
common law of all the States.^^ A conditional subscription made
after organization of the corporation, is valid, unless it is ex-
pressly restricted by charter or other statute, or is otherwise be-
yond the corporate powers.^- As, in case of a railroad corpora-
tion, a condition that it shall establish its line between certain
points,
^^
or that the road shall be commenced within a specified
time.^*
Works V. Parkhurst, 54 Iowa, court would seem to follow the
357; Beach on Railways, 108. New York rule.
45
Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
bo
Boyd v. Peach Bottom Ry.
Co., 80 Pa. St. 363; Boston, etc. R. Co., 90 Pa. St. 169; Caley v. Phila-
Co. V. Wellington, 113 Mass. 79; delphia, etc. R. Co., 80 Pa. St.
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Newton, 74 363; Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser, 48
Mass. 596. Cf.
Brand v. Law- Pa. St. 29; Barrington v. Pitts-
renceville Branch R. Co. (1888), burgh, etc. R. Co., 44 Pa. St. 358;
77 Ga. 506.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Biggar,
16
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Wei- 34 Pa. St. 455; Pittsburgh, etc.
lington, 113 Mass. 79; Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Woodrow, 3 Phila. 271.
R. Co. V. Newton, 8 Gray, 569.
Cf.
Legonier Valley R. Co. v.
4T
Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Williams, 33 Leg. Intel. 40. See
Co., 80 Pa. St. 363. also Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390,
48
Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R. where the United States court
Co., 80 Pa. St. 363; Pittsburgh, would seem to follow the Pennsyl-
etc. R. Co. V. Stewart, 41 Pa. St. vania rule.
54; Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79
si
Pittsburgh, etc. R. R. v. Stew-
N. Y. 454. Cf.
Hanover Junction, art, 41 Pa. St. 54.
eCc. R. Co. V. Haldeman, 82 Pa.
52
Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79
St. 36.
N. Y. 454, 35 Am. Rep. 536.
49
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Tibbits,
53
Webb v. Baltimore, etc. Co..
18 Barb.^ 297. See also Putnam v. 77 Md. 92, 39 Am. St. Rep. 396.
City of New Albany, 4 Biss. 365, 54 Taylor v. Fletcher, 15 Ind. 80.
383, where the United States
304
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
229.

229.
Valid or void conditions.Conditional subscriptions
made prior to the incorporation of a company are void,^^ but those
made after incorporation are valid/" where not contrary to public
policy
"
or inconsistent with the charter or some statute of the
State/* or in conflict with the obligations which the contract it-
self imposes upon the subscribers. Ordinarily anything which
may be legally done by the corporation may be made a condition
to a subscription for stock.^^ Thus, subscriptions may be legally
conditioned as to the time, manner or means of payment.^" A
condition that calls shall not be made until a certain amount has
been subscribed is valid,"^ although the charter may allow opera-
tions to commence when a less sum has been subscribed.*'^ But
a contract with a subscriber to organization stock of a corpora-
tion that for every share subscribed for he shall receive interest-
bearing bonds to an equal amount, secured by mortgage on the
55
Troy & B. R. Co. v. Tibbits,
18 Barb. 297. See also Chamber-
lain V. Painsville, H. R. Co,. 15
Ohio St. 225; Boyd v. Peach Bot-
tom R. Co., 90 Pa. St. 169; Caley
V. Philadelphia & C. C. R. Co., 80
Pa. St. 363.
56
New Albany & S. R. Co. v.
McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; McMillan
V. Maysville & L. R. Co., 15 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 218, Union Hotel Co.
V. Hersee, 79 N. Y. 454; Burrows
V. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550; Morris
Canal & Banking Co. v. Nathan,
2 Hall (N. Y.), 239; Ashtabula &
N. L. R. Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St.
328.
57
Lake Ontario Shore R. Co. v.
Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219; Fort Ed-
ward & Fort Miller Plank Road
Co. V. Payne, 15 N. Y. 583; Mace-
don & Bristol" Plank Road Co. v.
Snediker, 18 Barb. 317; Butter-
nuts & Oxford Turnpike Co. v.
North, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 518; Dix v.
Shaver, 14 Hun, 392. In Morrow
V. Nashville, etc. Co. (1889), 87
Tenn. 262; s. c. 10 Am. St. Rep.
658, it is said that conditional sub-
scriptions to stock of corporations
are contrary to sound public pol-
icy, by reason of their tendency
to mislead and ensnare creditors,
and they ought not, therefore, to
be encouraged.
58
Thigpen v. Mississippi, etc.
R. Co., 32 Miss. 347.
59
Penobscot & K. R. Co. v.
Dunn, 39 Me. 587; Hanover Junc-
tion, etc. R. Co. V. Haldeman, 82
Pa. St. 36; Ticonic, etc. R. Co. v.
Long, 63 Me. 480; Ashtabula, etc.
R. Co. v. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328;
Milwaukee, etc. R. Co. v. Field,- 12
Wis. 340.
Cf.
McMillan v. Mays-
ville, etc. R. Co., 15 B. Mon. 218;
s. c. 41 Am. Dec. 181; New Al-
bany, etc. R. Co. V. McCormick,
10 Ind. 499; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 337.
60
Smith V. Tallahassee B. P. R.
Co., 30 Ala. 650; People v. Cham-
bers, 42 Cal. 201; Mitchell v.
Rome R. Co., 17 Ga. 574; Statara
R. Co. V. Brune, 6 Gill. 41; Van
Allen V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 7
Bosw. 515; Highland Turnpike
Co. V. McKean, 11 Johns. (N. Y.)
98; Milwaukee & N. I. R. Co. v.
Field, 12 Wis. 340.
61
Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79
N. Y. 454; Penobscot, etc. R. Co.
V. Dunn, 39 Me. 587; Ridgefleld,
etc. R. Co. V. Brush, 43 Conn. 86;
Hanover Junction, etc. R. Co. v.
Haldeman, 82 Pa. St. 36; Philadel-
phia, etc. R. Co. v. Hickman, 28
Pa. St. 318.
62
Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79
N. Y. 454.

229.] SUBSCRIPTIONS.
3u;
company's plant, is void, both as to creditors and the corpora-
tion.^ In New York, where the general turnpike act did not
authorize the commissioners to accept conditional subscriptions, it
has been held that a subscription conditioned upon a certain loca-
tion of the road was void as against public policy.* This rule,
how^ever, does not seem to have been generally applied to the
location of railways.^ In other States also, conditions in sub-
scriptions to the stock of railroad companies that the road go by
a certain town are valid." And it may be validly stipulated that
the location shall be subject to the subscriber's approval.'^
63
Morrow v. Nashville Iron &
Steel Co. (1889), 87 Tenn. 262;
s. c. 10 Am. St. Rep. 658. In this
case the bonds agreed to be issued
being secured by mortgage on the
plant, which could only be ob-
tained hy payment of the capital
stock, and the subscriber having
jecome a director without re-
ceiving his bonds, the agreement
to issue bonds is not a condi-
tion precedent, and the stock sub-
scribed stands absolute, though
the agreement be void.
61
Beach on Railways, 109;
Fort Edward, etc. Plank Road Co.
V. Payne, 15 N. Y. 583; Butter-
nuts, etc. Turnpike Co. v. North,
1 Hill, 518; Macedon, etc. Plank
Road Co. V. Snediker, 18 Barb.
317.
65
Beach on Railways,
109;
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Cur-
tiss, 80 N. Y. 219; Cayuga Lake
R. Co. v. Kyle, 5 Thomp. & C. 659;
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Pottle, 23
Barb. 21. Ace. Roberts v. Mobile,
etc. R. Co., 32 Miss. 373; Martin
V. Pensacola, etc. R. Co., 8 Fla.
370; Nashville, etc. R. Co. v.
Baker, 2 Coldw. 574; McMillan v.
Maysville, etc. R. Co., 15 B. Mon.
218; s. c. 61 Am. Dec. 181; Hen-
derson, etc. R. Co. V. Leavell, 18
B. Mon. 358; Charlotte, etc. R. Co.
V. Blakely, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) 245;
Spartanburgh, etc. R. Co. v.
Graffenried, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 275;
Taggart v. Western Maryland R.
Co., 24 Md. 563; Taylor v.
Vol. 1

20
Fletcher, 15 Md. 80; Missouri Pa-
cific Ry. Co. V. Taggard, 84 Mo.
264; Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v.
Baxter, 32 Vt. 805; Fisher v.
Evansville, etc. R. Co., 7 Ind. 407;
Agricultural, etc. R. Co. v. Win-
chester, 13 Allen, 29; Caley v.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 80 Pa.
St. 363. Contra, Utica, etc. R.
Co. V. Brinkerhoff, 21 Wend. 139;
s. c. 64 Am. Dec. 220.
66
Jacks V. Helena, 41 Ark. 213;
Moore v. Hanover Junction R. Co.,
94 Pa. St. 324; Caley v. Philadel-
phia, etc. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363;
s. c. 80 Arn. Dec. 570; Cumberland
Valley R. Co. v. Baab, 9 Watts,
458; s. c. 36 Am. Dec. 132; Woon-
socket, etc. R. Co. v. Sherman, S
R. I. 564; Paris, etc. R. Co. v.
Henderson, 89 111. 86; Wear v.
Jacksonville, etc. R. Co., 24 111.
595; Bucksport, etc. R. Co. v.
Brewer, 67 Me. 295; Jewett v.
Lawrenceburgh, etc. R. Co., 10
Ind. 539; Evansville, etc. R. Co. v.
Sharer, 10 Ind. 246; Detroit, etc.
R. Co. V. Starnes, 38 Mich. 698;
Swartwout v. Michigan, etc. R.
Co., 24 Mich. 389; Cooper v. Mc-
Kee, 53 Iowa, 239; Chamberlain v.
Painesville, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio
St. 225; Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v.
Brown, 26 Ohio St. 223; Des
Moines Valley R. Co. v. Graff, 27
Iowa, 99; Burlington, etc. R. Co.
V. Boestler, 15 Iowa, 555; West
Cornwall, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mowatt,
15 Q. B. 521.
67
Spartanburgh, etc. R. Co. v.
30G
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
230.

230.
Conditional subscriptions made before incorpora-
tion.In the absence of any provision to the contrary, it is
always an implied condition that the full amount of the capital
stock shall be subscribed.*'^ And in New York and Pennsyl-
vania it is held that a subscription cannot be conditional, when
made under a statute granting a charter upon a certain amount
of capital being subscribed. "Any other rule would lead to the
procurement from the Commonwealth of valuable charters with-
out any absolute capital for their support, and thus give rise to
a system of speculation and fraud which would be intolerable."
^
And, in the United States Supreme Court, it was held in a lead-
ing case : "When a company is incorporated under general laws,
. . . and the law prescribes that a certain amount of stock
shall be subscribed before corporate power shall be exercised, if
subscriptions, obtained before the organization was effected, may
be subsequently rendered unavailable by conditions attached to
them, the substantial requirements of the laws are defeated. The
purpose of such a requisition is, that the State may be assured of
the successful prosecution of the work, and the creditors of the
company may have, to the extent, at least, of the required sub-
scription, the means of obtaining satisfaction of their claims. The
grant of the franchise is, therefore, made dependent upon secur*'
ing a specified amount of capital. If the subscriptions to the stock
can be clogged with such conditions as to render it impossible to
collect the fund which the State required to be provided before it
would assent to the grant of corporate powers, a charter might be
obtained without any available ^capital. Conditions attached to
subscriptions, which, if valid, lessen the capital of the company,
thus depriving the State of the security it exacted that the rail-
road w^ould be built, and diminishing the means intended for the
protection of creditors, are therefore a fraud upon the grantor
of the franchise, and upon those who may become creditors of
the corporation. They are also a fraud upon unconditional stoek-
holders, who subscribed to the stock in the faith that capital suffi-
Graffenried, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 275; Iowa, 99; Robert's Case, 3 De Gex
North, etc. R. Co. v. Winkler, 29 & Sm. 205; s. c. 2 Mac. & G. 196;
Mo. 318; Chamberlain v. Paines- Beach on Railways,

109.
ville, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 225;
es
winters v. Armstrong. 37
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Stout, 26 Fed. Rep. 508.
Ohio St. 241; Mansfield, etc. R.
69
Caley v. Philadelphia, etc.
Co. V. Brown, 26 Ohio St. 224; Des R. R., 80 Pa. St. 363,
Moines, etc. R. Co. v. Graff, 27
f
231, 232.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
307
cient would be obtained to complete the projected work, and who
may be compelled to pay their subscriptions, though the enterprise
has failed, and their whole investment has been lost. It is for
these reasons that such conditions are denied any efifect."
"''
The
rule as to invalidity of a conditional subscription made before in-
corporation, does not apply to a condition that all the capital stock
shall be subscriber for. That is always implied.
'^^
If the corpo-
ration is without corporate power to accept a conditional subscrip-
tion, it will be treated as an offer to take the stock, and if not pre-
viously withdrawn, it will become binding upon performance of
the conditions.'^^

231. Revocation or withdrawal of conditions, at any

time before their performance.A conditional subscription
ni.ade upon performance of condition precedent by the corporation,
is a continuing offer, revocable at any time before performance
of the condition, if that is entirely optional with the corporation.'^'
But if it has bound itself to the pereformance, the subscriber can
not, without consent of the corporation, revoke his subscription
before the time provided for performance.'^*

232. Conditions precedent.Whether a subscription to

stock be precedent or subsequent, is a question purely of intent,
to be determined by considering the words both of the clause con-
taining the condition and of the whole contract, as well as the
nature of the act required and the subject-matter to which it re-
lates.'^^ When subscriptions are made to take stock in an ex-
isting or proposed corporation, upon a condition precedent, as, for
example, upon condition that a specified amount of subscriptions
shall hereafter be obtained, the contract of the several subscribers
is twofold in character. It is, in a sense, a contract between the
several subscribers, which cannot be withdrawn or revoked as
to any one without the acquiescence of all. It is also a continu-
ing offer or proposition to the corporation to take and pay for the
amount of stock subscribed, upon the terms proposed, whenever
70 Burke v. Smith. 16 Wall.
75
Beach on Railways,
97, cit-
(U. S.) 390. ing Bucksport, etc. R. Co. v. In-
Ti
Montpelier, etc. Co. v. Lang- habitants of Bremer, 67 Me. 295;
don, 45 Vt. 137. Chamberlain v. Painesville, etc.
"2
Armstrong v. Karshner, 47 R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 225; "Condi-
Ohio St. 276. tional Application for Shares," 17
-sTaggart v. Western, etc. Co., Sol. J. & Rep. 383; Note to Parker
24 Md. 563, 89 Am. Dec. 760.
v, Thomas, 81 Am. Dec. 392.
74
Hutchins v. Smith, 46 Barb.
(N. Y.) 235.
30S
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
232.
the specified amount of subscriptions shall have been obtained.
The obtaining of the amount specified within a reasonable time is
an acceptance of the proposition or offer by the corporation, and
the contract of each subscriber then becomes absolute and uncon-
ditional/" A subscriber cannot withdraw his subscription even
though it be conditional, unless unreasonable delay occurs in per-
forming the condition.''^ When the company obtains solvent sub-
scriptions for the amount specified, that becomes an effectual ac-
ceptance of the offer of all those who have previously subscribed.
Their subscriptions are no longer conditional, but become abso-
lute, and are thereafter payable, according to the terms of the
contract, on the call of the board of directors.'^^ The subscribers
thereupon become entitled to all the rights and privileges of
stockholders, and they come under the correlative obligations and
duties of holders of stock in a corporation.''^
Implied conditions precedent.Although a subscription ma}^
not be upon its face expressly conditional, certain conditions pre-
cedent are implied ; as, if the amount of capital stock is not fixed
by the charter it must be fixed by the corporation before any lia-
bility attaches to the subscriber, upon his subscription.^'' And
that the full amount of the capital stock must be subscribed be-
fore the corporation can levy any assessment, or otherwise en-
force any part of the subscription.^^ Payment on subscription is
not a condition precedent to liability upon subscription, unless
such be the expressed intention of the contract. That the cor-
76
1 Mor. Priv. Corp.,
47; Cra- son, 16 N. Y. 451; McClure v.
vens V. Eagle Cotton Mills Co. Railway Co., 90 Pa. St. 269.
(1889), 120 Ind. 600; s. c. 6 Ry.
78
Railroad Co. v. Pickens. .5
& Corp. L. J. 411; Minneapolis Ind 247; Estell v. Turnpike Co.,
Thresher Machine Co. v. Davis 41 Ind. 174; Beckner v. Turnpike
(1889), 40 Minn. 110; s. c. 12 Am. Co., 65 Ind. 468; Warehousing
St. Rep. 701; Morawetz on Corpo- Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294, 300;
rations,
47. Cf. Bucksport, etc. Cravens v. Eagle Cotton Mills Co.
R. Co. v. Buck, 65 Me. 536; Iowa, (18S9), 120 Ind. 600; s. c. 6 Ry.
etc. R. Co. V. Perkins, 28 Iowa, & Corp. L. J. 411.
281. A suhscription to a ferry
to
University v. Scoonover, 114
company conditioned upon suffic- Ind. 381; Cravens v. Eagle Cot-
ient subscriptions for the corpo- ton Mills Co. (1889), 120 Ind.
rate purposes being secured, has
600; s. c. 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 411.
been held not enforceable until so
Somerset, etc. Co. v. Clark, 61
funds for the land, structures and
Me. 379.
boats had been secured. People's
si
Manor v. Mechanics' Bank, 1
Ferry Co. v. Balch, 74 Mass. 203. Pet. (U. S.) 46.
77
Johnson v. Plank Road Co.,
16 Ind. 389; Railroad Co. v. Ma-

233.] ,
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 309
poration shall be legally organized is also an implied condition
precedent to any liability upon the subscription made before in-
corporation.
'*-
233. Conditions subsequent.A condition subsequent is
one which docs not affect the subscriber's liability to take and
pay for his shares, but which gives him a right of action against
the corporation upon its failure to perform the specified act.*^
For example, a specification in notes given for a subscription to
the stock of a railway company that the road is to be operated
independently of a certain existing railroad, relates to what is to
be done after the notes are paid, not before, and is therefore a
condition subsequent.^* In the case last cited, notes given by a
subscriber for capital stock in a railroad, each note being for an
installment, and payable on completion of a section of the road,'
"ready for the cross-ties, trestles and bridges," of which com-
pletion publication in a newspaper by the directors was to be
conclusive notice, were held to be mature and payable as soon
as the publication was made, although the notes described the
road as one which was to have a certain privilege, and the privi-
lege had not yet been secured. The securing of it was not a con-
dition precedent to payment, the specification thereof being merely
part of the description of the road as it was to be ultimately, but
not as it was to be at maturity and on payment of the subscrip-
tions.^'' So an agreement that commissioners should be appointed
to see that other conditions are carried out, is a condition subse-
quent.^ And a condition that the money paid shall be expended
on a particular part of the route is necessarily subsequent.^'^ Al-
though, for the purpose of procuring a subscription, the corpora-
tion contracted that a side track would be constructed on the
premises, or "at the place" of the subscriber, this stipulation con-
templated that the side track would be constructed after the pay-
ment, there being no agreement that its construction was to be
a condition precedent.^ A stipulation that alterations shall be
ordered only by a vote of the directors, is also regarded as a sub-
82
Indianapolis, etc. Co. v. Her- 85
Johnson v. Georgia M. & G. R.
kimer, 46 Ind. 142. Co. (1889), 81 Ga. 725.
83
Belfast, etc. Ry. Co. v. Moore,
86
Schaffner v. Jeffries (1853),
0 Me. 561; Mill Dam Foundry v. 18 Mo. 512.
Harvey, 38 Mass. 417, 437; Beach
st
Lane v. Brainerd (1862). 30
on Railways,
97. Conn. 565.
Si
Johnson v. Georgia, M. & G.
'^'^
Johnson v. Georgia M. & G.
R. Co. (1889), 81 Ga. 725. R. Co. (1889), 81 Ga. 725.
310
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
233.
sequent condition.'"* An action, however, cannot be maintained
for an installment not maturing: until after all work on the road
has been abandoned."" A condition as to location is fulfilled
when the route is fixed in accordance with the contract,"^ and the
subscription thereupon becomes absolute although the road has
not been built."^ Even where one subscribed upon condition that
the line of the road should be "located and built" within one mile
80 Buoksport, etc. R. Co. v.
Buck, 68 Me. 81. Under subscrip-
tions to railroad stock on the fol-
lowing terms: "One-fourth to be
paid when the road is completed
to a certain county line;" the re-
mainder "to be paid in four equal
instalments, of four months, as
the work progresses through the
county, provided the company es-
tablished a depot" at a certain
point,the erection of the depot
is not a condition precedent to
payment of the subscriptions
and an assignee of the subscrip-
tion list may maintain an action
thereon for a call maturing after
the road is completed to the
county line, and while work
thereon is in progress; although,
at the time the action is
brought, work on the road has
been abandoned, the depot has not
been built, the railway company
is insolvent, and its property and
franchises have been sold. Pa-
ducah & M. R. Co. v. Parks
(1888), 2 Pickle (Tenn.), 554.
An agreement to subscribe for the
stock of a railroad company pro-
vided that the subscription should
not be due until the road was
completed between named points.
The separate undertaking of de-
fendant annexed to the agree-
ment bound him to make the pay-
ment "when the road is com-
pleted on the within terms." It
was held that the company need
not complete the whole road be-
fore demanding such payment,
but only the part between the
points named. Lesher v. Karsh-
ner (Ohio, 1890), 24 N. E. Rep.
882.
00
Paducah & M. R. Co. v.
Parks (1888), 2 Pickle (Tenn.),
554.
91
Smith v. Allison, 23 Ind. 366;
McMillan v. Maysville. etc. R. Co.,
15 B. Mon. 218; s. c. 61 Am. Dec.
181; Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co., 41 Pa. St. 237; s. c. 80 Am.
Dec. 570; O'Neal v. King, 3 Jones
(N. C), 517; North Missouri, etc.
R. Co. v. Winkler, 29 Mo. 218;
Parker v. Thomas, 28 Ind. 277;
Branham v. Record, 42 Ind. 181;
Woonsocket, etc. R. Co. v. Sher-
man, 8 R. I. 564; Chamberlain v.
Painesville, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio
St. 225; "Warner v. Callander, 15
Ohio St. 190.
92
Swartwout v. Michigan Air.
Line R. Co. (1872), 24 Mich
389,"
405, citing Chamberlain v. Paines-
ville, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 225.
Ace. Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co., 40 Pa. St. 237; s. c. 80 Am.
Dec. 570. See, also, McMillan v.
Maysville, etc. R. Co., 15 B. Mon.
218; s. c. 61 Am. Dec. 181. So,
also, conditions that the road
shall "pass through" a certain
county (North Missouri R. Co. v.
Winkler, 29 Mo. 318; Chamber-
lain V. Painesville, etc. R. Co., 15
Ohio St. 225; Ashtabula, etc. R.
Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328.
Cf.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Biggar,
34 Pa. St. 455), or if the road
"shall be built" through a cer-
tain place, are construed to refer
to the location of the route and
not to the completion of construc-
tion. Woonsocket Union R. Co.
V. Sherman, 8 R. I. 564; Swart-
wout V. Michigan, etc. R. Co., 24
Mich. 389; Warner v. Callander,
20 Ohio St. 190; Beach on Rail-
ways,
111.

234, 235.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
311
of the post-office in the villag-e of Three Rivers, he was held to
be assessable thereon when the road was finally located within
one mile of the post-office, notwithstanding it was not yet con-
structed. For, applying the condition to the subject-matter to
which it relates, it is seen that to consider the latter a condition
precedent would impose the unreasonable obligation upon the
company of building the road without money and delivering in
a finished work to the subscribers."^ So, in respect to an issue of
stock, a promise to pay a certain amount therefor upon condition
that the company's road shall have been constructed to designated
points by a specified date, upon which the money shall be paid
and the shares issued, requires the shares to be issued only after
payment.*
234.
Waiver of conditions.The subscriber will im-
pliedly w^aive the perfomiance by the corporation of any con-
dition precedent in the contract of subscription, by any act done
before he knows or supposes that the condition is performed,

when such act is inconsistent with his intention to insist upon

the performance of the condition
f^
as, by taking part in a stock-
holders' meeting, or by acting as a director or other officer
when only a stockholder may act as such officer,"^ or by payment
of a subscription.^
235.
Recitals in subscription when implied conditions.

Recitals in the contract of subscription or charter or articles of

association are frequently regarded as implied conditions.^ Thus,
93
Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
^~
Riolifield, etc. Co. v. Reyn-
Co., 40 Pa. St. 237; s. c. 80 Am. olds, 46 Conn. 375.
Dec. 570; Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
ss
Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 79
V. Biggar, 34 Pa. St. 455; Woon- N. Y. 454, 35 Am. Rep. 536.
socket Union R. Co. v. Sherman,
00
Carlisle v. Cahawba & M. R.
8 R. I. 564; Warner v. Callendar, Co., 4 Ala. 76; Caley v. Philadel-
20 Ohio St. 190.
Cf.
North Mis- phia, etc. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363;
souri R. Co. v. Winkler, 29 Mo. Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550;
318; Belfast, etc. Ry. Co. v. Lamb v. Anderson, 54 Iowa, 100.
]\loore, 60 Me. 561, 576; Bucks- A subscription to the stock of a
port, etc. R. Co. v. Inhabitants of railroad comj^any, payable on the
Bremer, 67 Me. 295; Chamberlain order of the directors in instal-
V. Painesville, etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio ments, when the road is com-
St. 225. pleted, is conditional, and the
9-tWemple v. St. Louis, J. & S.
grantee of the first company can
R. Co. (1887), 120 111. 196. not, by performing the condition
f5
New Hampshire, etc. Co. v. precedent, fix and make absolute
Johnson, 30 N. H. 390, 64 Am. the liability of the subscriber. To-
Dec. 300. ledo, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hins-
96
Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn. dale (18S83, 45 Ohio St. 556.
565.
312 SUDSCRIPTIONS.
[
235.
if the charier of a corporation require certain acts to be per-
formed before the shareholders shall become liable upon their
subscription, the performance of those acts is a condition pre-
cedent to the liability upon their stock subscriptions.^ And a
recital that the capital stock of the company shall be a certain
amount, may render subscriptions thereto conditional upon that
amount of stock being taken.^ So, again, a description of the
route of a railway, and mention of the termini thereof, although
the language be not conditional, will be construed as an implied
condition that the road should be so built, and any material al-
teration of route or a change of the termini will release the sub-
scriber from payment.^ But recitals respecting unimportant mat-
ters do not create conditions. For example, a recital that cer-
tain subscriptions to the stock of a railway company are to be ex-
pended upon a specified portion of the route, has been held to be
a mere direction or request as to the manner in which the money
should be applied.* And recitals as to the time within which a
railway is to be completed, are not considered to be of the essence
of the contract of subscription.^ Subscriptions to stock are not
deemed to be upon condition precedent that the whole capital of
the company shall be paid in. But a recital in the charter, or
1 Carlisle v. Cahawba & M. R. constructed as indicated. But see"
Co. (1842), 4 Ala. 76. Cf.
White Jewett v. Valley R. Co., 34 Ohio
Mountains R. Co. v. Eastman St. 601; Greenville, etc. R. Co. v.
(1856), 34 N. H. 134. Johnson, 8 Baxter (Tenn.), 332;
2 Tide infra, 252, and infra, Whitehall, etc. R. Co. v. Myers, 16

338. Abb. Pr. N. S. 34.

3 Burrows v. Smith. 10 N. Y. 4 Beach on Railways,
95, cit-
550; Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. ing Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn.
R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363; Burling- 565.
ton, etc. R. Co. v. Whitney, 43 s
in such a case there might
Iowa, 113; Buckfield, etc. R. Co. be an abatement by way of dam-
V. Irish, 39 Me. 44; Oldtown, etc. ages if injury had resulted from
R. Co. V. Veazie, 39 Me. 579; Dan- the delay, but not an entire re-
bury, etc. R. Co. V. Wilson, 22 lease from liability. Kansas City,
Conn. 435; Beach on Railways,

etc. R. Co. v. Alderman, 47 Mo.
109; Plattsville v. Galena, etc. R. 349; Beach on Railways,
95.
Co., 43 Wis. 493, holding that if g
Sims v. Brooklyn Street R.
a railway in submitting to a town Co., 37 Ohio St. 556; Wood's Ry.
a proposition for aid, states Law, 29, citing, among others,
therein that it has surveyed and Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Jarvis, 34
located the line through certain Me. 360; York, etc. R. Co. v. Pratt,
sections of the town to a desig- 40 Me. 447; Somerset, etc. R. Co.
nated point, and solicits aid to v. Cushing, 45 Me. 524; Nutter v.
build the road "on the route in- Lexington, etc. R. Co., 6 Gray. 85;
dicated," it will raise an implied Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Wellington,
condition that the road shall be 113 Mass. 79; Lexington, etc. R.

235.] SUBSCKIPTIONS. 313

articles of association, in a prospectus or the contract of subscrip-
tion, that the capital stock of a company, which at the time has
not commenced active operations, shall be a certain amount, is an
implied condition that the amount of stock specified, shall be
taken before the subscribers shall become liable upon their con-
tracts
;
"^
unless a contrary intention appear in the charter, en-
Co. V. Chandler, 13 Met. 311; Ar-
onwick R. Co. v. Cady, 11 R. I.
121; Hoagland v. Cincinnati, etc.
R. Co., 18 Ind. 452; Hamilton, etc.
Plank Road Co. v. Rice, 7 Barb.
157. See also In re Jennings, 1
Irish Ch. 654; Waterford, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Dalbiac, 20 L. J. Ex. 227;
Waterford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dal-
biac, 6 Ex. 443; Strafford, etc. Co,
V. Stratton, 2 Barn. & Ad. 518.
'
Haskell v. Worthington
(1888), 94 Mo. 560; Bray v. Far-
well, 81 N. Y. 600, 608; Memphis
Branch R. Co. v. Sullivan, 57 Ga.
240; Templeton v. Lemon, 112 HI.
51; Contoocook Valley R. Co. v.
Baker, 32 N. H. 363; Rockland M.
D. & S. S. Boat Co. v. Sewall
(1888), 80 Me. 400, where it was
held that an agreement, signed
by several, to form a corporation
under the general statute of
Maine, with a certain capital
stock, divided into shares, by
which each agrees to contribute
the sum set against his name, is
not an unconditional agreement
to take and pay for a certain num-
ber of shares of the capital stock
when the corporation is formed,
and no action can be maintained
upon it by the corporation, unless
the whole amount of the capital
is subscribed and taken, or there
is a waiver of such subscription
by the subscriber; Allman v. Ha-
vana R. & E. R. Co., 88 ni. 521;
Santa Cruz R. Co. v. Schwartz, 53
Cal. 106; New York. H. & N. R.
Co. V. Hunt, 39 Conn. 75; Hoag-
land V. Cincinnati & F. W. R. Co.,
IS Ind. 452; Topeka B. Co. v.
Cummings, 3 Kan. 55; Hughes v.
Antietam Manuf. Co., 34 Md. 332;
Cabot & W. S. B. Co. v. Chapin, 6
Cush. 50; Salem Mill Dam Co. v.
Ropes, 6 Pick. 23; s. c. 9 Pick.
187; Swartwout v. Michigan Air
Line R. Co., 24 Mich. 390; Schurtz
V. Schoolcraft & T. R. Co., 9 Mich.
269; Selma, M. & M. R. Co. v. An-
derson, 51 Miss. 829; Livesey v.
Omaha Hotel Co., 5 Neb. 50; Hale
V. Sanborn, 16 Neb. 1; Fox v. Clif-
ton, 6 Bing. 776; Wontner v.
Shairp, 4 C. B. 404, 440; Norwich
Nav. Co. V. Theobald, 1 Moo. &
M. 151; Pitchford v. Davis, 5
Mees. & W. *2, in which the re-
cital was In a prospectus. In
Skowhegan & A. R. Co. v. Kins-
man
(1885), 77 Me. 370, it was
held that an unconditional prom-
ise in a stock subscription to pay
for a certain number of shares
at par is binding, though the
amount of capital stock was not
fixed, and the minimum number
of shares named in the charter
v/as not subscribed for. Penob-
scot R. Co. V. Dummer, 40 Me.
172; s. c. 63 Am. Dec. 654; Pen-
obscot, etc. R. Co. V. Bartlett, 12
Gray, 244; Waterford, etc. Ry. Co.
V. Dalbiac, 6 Ex. 443: Erie, etc.
R. Co. V. Owen, 32 Barb. 616; Bos-
ton R. Co. V. Wellington, 113
Mass. 79; Stoneham Branch R.
Co. V. Gould. 2 Gray, 277, where
it is said: "This is no arbitrary
rule. It is founded on a plain
dictate of justice, and the strict
principles regulating the obliga-
tion of contracts;" Warwick R.
Co V. Cady, 11 R. I. 131; Belfast,
etc. R. Co. V. Cottrell, 66 Me. 185;
Lewey's Island R. Co. v. Bolton,'
48 Me. 451; s. c. 77 Am. Dec. 236;
Littleton Manuf. Co. v. Parker, 14
314:
SUBSCUIPTIONS.
[
235.
abling act, articles of association or contract of subscription/ as
where the agreement is to pay "when required."

Accordingly,
where a stock company, incorporated under a general law, re-
quiring that the amount of its stock be stated in the recording
certificate, enters into active business with a less capital sub-
scribed than the amount thus stated, a subscriber to the stock,
who is not estopped from setting up this fact in defense, cannot
be held to his subscription.^" So, also, when the charter has left
the amount of the capital stock to be fixed by the corporate au-
thorities, it is a general rule that no subscriber is bound until the
amount has been determined and the whole subscribed." And,
again, it has been held that subscribers for stock of an incorpo-
rated company, whose capital is fixed at a certain sum, whose
N. H. 543.
Cf.
Monroe v. Fort
Wayne, etc. R. Co., 28 Mich. 272;
Hale V. Sanborn, 16 Neb. 1. See,
however, Rensselaer, etc. Plank R.
Co. V. Wetzel, 21 Barb. 56; Nel-
son V. Blakey, 54 Infl. ?9. In
seeking to enforce a contract of
subscription, the corporation miist
aver that the full capital stock
has been subscribed. Hain v.
North Western, etc. R. Co., 41 Ind.
196; Fry v. Lexington, etc. R. Co.,
2 Met. (Ky.) 314. Contra,
Lewey's Island R. Co. v. Bolton,
48 Me. 451; Lail v. Mt. Sterling,
etc. R. Co., 13 Bush. 34.
8 Peoria, etc. R. Co. v. Pres-
ton, 35 Iowa, 118; Musgrave v.
Morrison, 54 Md. 161. Under the
Alabama Code of 1886, 1663.
business corporations may organ-
ize upon fifty per cent, of the cap-
ital stock being subscribed. And
under this and similar statutes
and charters it is not essential
to the validity of subscriptions
tliat the whole be taken. Schloss
V. Montgomery Trade Co. (1888),
.87 Ala. 411; s. c. 13 Am. St. Rep.
51; Penobscot, etc/ R. Co. v. Bart-
lett, 12 Gray, 244; s. c. 71 Am.
Dec. 753; Schenectady, etc. Plank
Road Co. V. Thatcher. 11 N. Y.
102; Rensselaer, etc. Plank Road
Co. V. Wetzel, 21 Barb. 56; Hoag-
land V. Cincinnati, etc. R. Co., 18
Ind. 452; Hunt v. Kansas, etc. Co.,
11 Kan. 412; Sedalia, etc. Ry. Co.
V. Abell, 17 Mo. App. 645; Boston,
etc. R. Co. V. Wellington, 113
Mass. 79; Lexington, etc. R. Co.
V. Chandler, 54 Mass. 311; Han-
over, etc. R. Co. V. Haldeman, 82
Pa. St. 36.
9 Cheraw, etc. R. Co. v. Gar-
land. 14 S. C. 63; Illinois River
R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654;
.Tev/ett V. Valley Ry. Co., 34 Ohio
St. 601. Contra, Galveston Hotel
Co. V. Balton, 46 Tex. 663.
Cf.
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Jarvis, 34
Me. 360.
10
Haskell v. Worthington
(1888), 94 Mo. 560.
11
Beach on Railways,
106;
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Newton, 74
Mass. 596; Worcester, etc. R. Co.
V. Hinds, 62 Mass. 110; Pike v.
Shore Line. 68 Me. 445; Somerset
R. Co. V. Clarke, 61 Me. 384. But
for authorities holding that the
subscriber is liable although the
amount of capital has not been
determined, see Kirkey v. Flor-
ida, etc. R. Co., 7 Fla. 23; s. c.
77 Am. Dec. 426; City Hotel v.
Dickinson, 72 Mass. 586; War-
wick R. Co. V. Cady, 11 R. I. 131;
Ward V. Grisv/oldville Manuf. Co.,
16 Conn. 593. See White Moun-
tains R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. H.
124.

235.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 315

shares are limited to a certain number, and whose charter pro-
vides that payment shall be made as may be determined by the
board of directors, cannot be compelled to pay until the whole
capital has been subscribed for and the board has called for pay-
ment, unless it is shown that by their acts they have waived their
rig-lits in those regards.^- General incorporation acts providing
that when articles of incorporation are filed and published ac-
cording to law the incorporators shall be authorized to carry into
effect the objects of the corporation, do not abrogate the common-
law rule that, where the charter or the terms of subscription do
not provide otherwise, payment of a subscription cannot be re-
quired till the whole capital stock is subscribed ; but the sub-
scriber may waive that defense by acts done by him, as stock-
holder or director, which constitute a part of the business for
wliich the corporation is formed, and which assume it to be
ready for business, and evince a willingness to enter upon that
business, with the stock already subscribed.^' But a person who
subscribes a certain amount for the starting of a corporation is
not relieved from paying his subscription by the fact that the
amount of capital stock provided by a subseqnently adopted char-
ter is not all taken.^* Nor where a company is already engaged
in the prosecution of its business and the subscriber has knowl-
edge of the fact that the whole capital stock has not been taken,
is it to be presumed in an action against him by a receiver, that
his subscription was conditioned upon the full amount being
taken.^"^ And the general rule as to payment for stock is seldom
applicable where suit is brought by or in behalf of corporate cred-
itors.^*' When the amount of stock to be subscribed is not fixed
by statute, it is usually in the discretion of the commissioners to
determine what amount is sufficient.
^^
When the charter pre-
scribes maximum and minimum limits between which the di-
rectors are to fix the capital stock and provides also that assess-
ments be made when the minimum has been subscribed, when that
amount has been taken, the subscribers are bound to pay the as-
sessments, although the directors have not determined upon the
12
Exposition Ry.& Imp. Co. v.
i*
Belton Compress Co. v. San-
Canal St. E. Ry. Co. (La. 1890), ders (1888), 70 Tex. 699.
7 So. Rep. 627.
is
Musgrave v. Morrison, 54 Md.
13
Masonic Temple Assoc, v. 161.
Channell (Minn. 1890), 45 N. W.
73
Farnsworth v. Robbins, 36
Rep. 716, construing Minn. Gen. Minn. 369.
Stat. ch. 34,
4.
i
Saiigatuck, etc. Co. v. West-
port. 39 Conn. 337. 348.
;UG SLBSCKIl'TIONS.
[
236.
amount of the full capital stock.
^'^
But ordinarily, the minimum
having been subscribed is not sufficient to render the subscriber
liable unless that amount has been fixed as tlie capital.^" The
articles of association certified by the Secretary of State are
prima facie
evidence as to the amount of capital stock that has
been subscribed.
-

236. Secret and separate conditions are void.Tn cases of

subscriptions to the stock of corporations accompanied by a secret
agreement between the company and the subscriber that the latter
shall not be bound by his subscription, or changing in some other
respects its ostensible terms, the collateral agreement is held to
be void.^^ Though the fraudulent stipulation is void, the sub-
scription is not void. The subscriber is liable tliiereon the same
as if no such stipulation had been made.'^ Any secret agreement,
whereby in whole or in part, the subscriber is to be released from
his agreement, is void when it is in fraud of the other subscribers,
or of subsequent creditors of the corporation, but the subscription
is enforceable regardless of the fraudulent agreement.-^ Where
a note was given in payment of a subscription to the capital stock
of a National bank whose president secretly agreed with a sub-
scriber that he might return his shares after full subscription to
the capital stock and organization of the corporation and haye
return of his note cancelled, the agreement was held void, and the
note enforceable by the receiver against the subscriber.-* In
England, though it is legal to provide that no calls shall be made
on certain shares till the winding up, yet, if directors are subscrib-
ers and fail to inform other subscribers of the situation, they
18
White Mountains R. Co. v. Chandler, 54 Mass. 311, a resolu-
Eastman. 34 N. H. 124; Penob- tion to close the books at a cer-
scot R. Co. V. Bartlett, 12 Gray, tain time; Penobscot, etc. R. Co.
244; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 253; Skow- v. Bartlett, 78 Mass. 244; s. c. 71
began, etc. R. Co. v. Kinsman, 77 Am. Dec. 753.
Me. 370; Beach on Railways,

20 Jewell v. Rock River Paper
106.
Co., 101 111. 57.
19
Pike v. Shore Line, 68 Me.
21
Meyer v. Blair (1888), 109
445; Beach on Railways,
106. N. Y. 600; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep.
As to what acts of the corporate 500.
authorities are equivalent to an
22
Upton y. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
express resolution fixing the
45.
amount of capital, see Bucksport,
23
Burke v. Smith, 16 Wallace,
etc. R. Co. v. Buck, 65 Me. 53G, U. S. 390.
a resolution to limit the time of
24
Atwater v. Stromberg (1899),
subscription and then close the 75 Minn. 277.
books; Lexington, etc. R. Co. v.

230.] suBsciiii'Tioxs. 317

must pay when the others pay, although there was no actual
fraud.
-^a
An agreement that the whole or a part of the subscrip-
tion need not be paid, or will be retained,-^ or shall be payable only
on call of the directors, is valid between the directors, but the sub-
scription is liable to enforcement to pay the corporate debts.-" But
such a rule docs not apply to an agreement between a promoter or
particular stockholders and a subscriber, to buy back his stork, be-
cause it does not affect his liability, and is not in fraud of other sub-
scribers.-^ The courts hold the subscriber to the ostensible contract,
and permit it to be enforced in an action by the company as the only
means of preventing the consummation of the fraudulent scheme
and protecting other subscribers and creditors.-^ The doctrine
that an agreement between one subscriber to the stock of a cor-
poration, and the company, made concurrently with the making of
the subscription, which purports to annul its obligation or mate-
rially limit and change the liability of the subscriber to the detri-
ment of the company, is invalid and void, is founded upon the
principle that a subscription to the stock of a corporation whose
stock is open for general subscription is not only an undertaking
between each subscriber and the company, but between him and
all other subscribers to the common enterprise ; and that each sub-
scriber has the right to suppose that the subscription of every
other subscriber is a bona ilde undertaking according to its
24a
Alexander v. Automatic, etc. ing the amount blank, intending
Co. (1900"), 2 Ch. 302. that they shall be represented as
25
Scoville V. Thayer, 105 U. S. subscribers for the purpose of in-
143. fluencing others, as to creditors
2G
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. seeking to recover unpaid sub-
271. scriptions, such persons impliedly
--
Morgan v. Stuthers, 131 U. S.
authorize the filling up of the
246. blanks by those taking the sub-
28
Meyer v. Blair (1888). 109 N. scriptions. Jewell v. Rock River
Y. 600: s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 500;
Paper Co. 101 111. 57. But where
503; White Mountains R. Co. v. a person made a conditional parol
Eastman, 34 N. H. 124; Phoenix, subscription and wrote his name
etc. Co. V. Badger, 6 Hun, 293; upon a blank sheet of paper and
s. c. affirmed 67 N. Y. 294; Graff the secretary of the company aft-
V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 31 Pa. erwards without his knowledge
St. 489; Robinson v. Pittsburgh, subscribed the name to an uncon-
etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; ditional contract of subscription,
s. c. 72 Am. Dec. 792; Dow- it did not render the subscriber
nie v. White, 12 Wis 176; s. liable upon the latter contract.
c. 78 Am. Dec. 736; Crawford v. Tonica, etc. R. Co. v. Stein, 21
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 111. 96. Cf.
Bucher v. Dillsburg,
141. If persons sign the subscrip-
etc. R. Co., 76 Pa. St. 306.
tion book of a corporation, leav-
!1S
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
236.
terms.-" Their respective subscriptions are contributions or ad-
vances for a common object. The action of each in his subscrip-
tion may be supposed to be influenced by that of the others, and
every subscription to be based on the ground that the others are
what, upon their face, they purport to be.^ So that where the
condition is not secret and other subscribers are not thereby mis-
led, it may be relied on by the subscriber as valid,^^ except as
against corporate creditors in the event of the company becoming
insolvent.^- And there is nothing illegal in an agreement between
the subscribers themselves that at the end of a year they would
take the shares off the hands of one of their number, if at that
time he wished to sell, there being no actual fraud and the rela-
tions between that subscriber and the company being unaffected
by this agreement with the other subscribers."^ If there be no evi-
dence as to when the condition was made^ it will be presumed to
29
Meyer v. Blair (1888), 109 N.
Y. 600; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 500,
503, 504; Graff v. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489; Miller v.
Hanover Junction, etc. R. Co., 87
Pa. St. 489; s. c. 30 Am. Rep. 349;
Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111.
446; s. c. 22 Am. Rep. 199.
30
White Mountains R. Co. v.
Eastman, 34 N. H. 124.
31
White Mountains R. Co. v.
Eastman, 34 N. H. 124. One sub-
scribed to bank stock on condition
that at the end of a certain
period, if he wished, he could
return the stock, and receive back
the note he had given in payment.
The note contained the same stip-
ulation, and the other stockhold-
ers thus having notice of the con-
dition could not claim to have
been deceived nor to be released
from their contracts. Jones v.
Johnson (1888), 86 Ky. 530. And
a written agreement separate
from the contract of subscription,
containing a covenant to return
the money received if the road
were not located along a certain
route, has been held to be en-
forceable. Frankfort, etc. Turn-
pike Co. V. Churchill, 6 Mon. 427.
32
Winston v. Brooks (1889),
129 111. 64; s. c. 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 150, where it was held that one
who subscribes to the capital
stock of a corporation solely in
order to enable it to obtain a
certificate of organization, under
an agreement with the other sub-
scribers that he is not to be lia-
ble on the stock, and is not to be
required to pay assessments
thereon, is not liable to an assess-
ment on the stock as against the
other subscribers, until it becomes
necessary to assess it in order to
pay debts of the corporation.
33
Meyer v. Blair (1888), 109 N.
Y. 600; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 500.
So in Morgan v. Struthers
(1889),
131 U. S. 246, it was held that an
agreement by the incorporators of
a company to take the shares of
one of the subscribers, and re-
fund his money ,if he should de-
mand it within a fixed time, is
valid, there being no design to
deceive or defraud any one,-
though none of the subscriptions
were to be paid in until the stock
was all reliably subscribed, and
the other subscribers neither
made such an agreement as to
their stock, nor were aware that
the one in question was made.

237.] suiiscKirxioNS. 310

have been made at the time of subscribing.^* It cannot be
subsequently annexed without the consent of all the parties
in interest.^^ The issuing by agreement of the stockholders
of false certificates of paid-up stock is no ground for one of the
subscribers, a party to the agreement, to have his subscription set
aside.^
237,
Subscription upon special terms.A subscription on
special terms is not a conditional subscription, but is an absolute
subscription, whereby upon its acceptance the subscriber becomes
a stockholder. A conditional subscription is distinguished from
one made upon special terms in that the former does not make
the subscriber a shareholder, while the subscription upon special
terms is an absolute subscription, which, when accepted, makes
the stockholder liable to payment.^^ For example, where the sub-
scription for the stock of a railroad company provided that the
company should establish a depot at a stated place on its line, the
court held that the failure to establish a depot did not release the
subscriber from payment of his subscription.^^ Payment depends
upon no condition. The special terms are an independent
collateral agreement, for breach of which the corporation will be
liable in damages
;^
as in mal<ing such absolute subscrip-
tion, without any condition, to the stock of a railroad, which binds
itself to the subscriber to establish a depot at a specified location
on its line of road, for a breach of the obligation it would be
liable only in damages to the subscriber, but he would not be re-
leased from his subscription.*" Unless expressly restricted by its
charter or other statute, a corporation may accept subscriptions
vipon special terms, as to the time, mode or medium of their pay-
ment, unless in fraud of others who are, or may become, stock-
holders or creditors of the corporation.*^
Special terms.For example, under such special agreement a
railroad corporation may accept subscription for its stock, payable
in property, labor or services, if fairly equivalent in value and the
property is not beyond the corporate power to receive.*^ The
34
Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc.
ss
Paducah, etc. Co. v. Parlvs, 86
R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; Wood's Ry. Tenn. 554.
Law,

30.
39
Paducah, etc. Co. v. Parks, 86
35
New Hampshire Central R. Tenn. 554.
Co. V. Johnson, 30 N. H. 390.
40
Henderson, etc. Co. v. Leavell
36Goff V. Hawkeye Pump & 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 358.
Windmill Co., 62 Iowa. 691.
4i
Roberts v. Mobile, etc. Co., 32
37
Morrow v. Nashville, etc. Co., Miss. 373.
8 Tenn. 262, 10 Am. St. Rep. 658. 42Ridgefield, etc. Co. v. Brush,
43 Conn. 86.
32U suBsciiiPTioNS.
[
238.
corporation may stipulate to expend the money subscribed upon a
certain part of the road/^

238. Subscription not binding until performance of condi-

tions.Any agreement with a subscriber upon special terms
violating constitution, or charter, or statutory provisions, is gen-
erally void as against subsequent creditors, and also against the
corporation,'** Any agreement to return part of the subscription,
where it is required to be paid in full,*^ or to accept payment in
propert}', services or labor, where payment is required to be paid
in money, is void.*^ Fraudulent and unauthorized stipulations in
subscription agreement are void, and the subscriber is liable to
corporate creditors to full payment of his unpaid subscription."
A secret agreenlent between a subscriber and the corporation, or
its officers, promoters or agents, allowing him more advantageous
terms than those allowed to other subscribers not consenting
thereto, is a fraud upon them, and upon subsequent creditors, and
is void ; and the subscription is enforceable, in disregard of any
such agreement.*^ "In most cases, where subscriptions to the
capital stock of corporations have been condemned, as being con-
ditional, or accompanied by secret or qualifying agreements, the
rights of creditors or stockholders have been prejudiced. Cred-
itors are entitled to look upon the stock as it appears upon the
face of the subscription list. Each stockholder has a vested right
in the contract for subscription of CA^ery other stockholder. In
the case at bar, no creditor is injured and no creditor is complain-
ing. The appellant stockholders cannot object to the release of
stock which they permitted to be subscribed for, with the under-
standing that, so far as they themselves were concerned, it should
be released."
*
An exception to the invalidity of such secret
43
Hanover, etc. Co. v. Grubb, Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Webster
82 Pa. St. 36. v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65; Wilson v.
44
Morrow v. Nashville, etc. Co., Hundley, 96 Va. 96.
87 Tenn. 262, 10 Am. St. Rep.
48
Union, etc. Co. v. Frear, etc.
658; Noble v. Callender (1890), Co., 97 111. 537, 37 Am. Rep. 129;
20 Ohio St. 119; Evansville, etc. Nickerson v. English, 142 Mass.
R. Co. V. City of Evansville, 15 267; Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc.
Ind. 395. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; 72 Am.
45Thigpen r. Miss., etc. R. Co., Dec. 792; Webster v. Upton. 91
32 Miss. 347. U. S. 65; Jewell v. Rock River,
46
Baile v. Calvert, etc. Soc, 47 etc. Co., 101 111. 57.
Md. 117; Noble v. Callender, 20
49
Winston v. Dorsett, etc. Co.,
Ohio St. 119. 129 111. 664; Jones v. Johnson, 86
47
Downie v. White, 12 Wis. Ky. 530; Traphagan v. Sagar
176, 78 Am. Dec. 731; Upton v. (1895), 63 Minn. 317.

238
]
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 321
agreements is an agreement between a subscriber and the pro-
moters and certain stockholders who agree to buy back his stock.
Such agreement, being only between those parties, does not affect
the subscriber's liability upon his subscription.'^*' The performance
of conditions annexed to contracts of subscription being the con-
sideration upon which they depend, the subscriber does not be-
come a member of the corporation nor liable to pay for his shares
until the conditions have been fulfilled.
^
The same principles
apply as in case of any other conditional contract. Unless in case
of w'aiver or estoppel of the subscriber, the conditions must be
fairly performed, and within the time prescribed, or the subscriber
is discharged,^^ and if no time is fixed for the performance, it
must be within reasonable time, as measured by the circum-
stances.^^ Substantial compliance is all that is required.^* Though
it has been held that a subscriber is entitled to notice of the per-
formance of the condition, and until notice is given a general call
does not apply to conditional subscribers,^^ the prevailing opinion
is that notice may be presumed from the circumstances,^'^ and that
a special call operates as notice of compliance with the condition.
^'^
All of several conditions must be performed before calls can be
made
f^
but if one part of the subscripton be free from condition
it may be collected independently.^" Whether j;he conditions have
been fully performed is a question of fact for the jury,^** -the alle-
50
Morgan v. Struthers (1S89),
ss
Chase v. Sycamore, etc. R.
131 U. S. 246; Mej^er v. Blair Co., 38 111. 215. Contra, Spartan-
(1888), 109 N. Y. 600; 4 Am. St. burgh, etc. R. Co. v. De Graffen-
Rep. 500; Rogers v. Burr (1S98), reid, 12 Rich. 275; Nichols v. Bur-
105 Ga. 432, 70 Am. St. Rep. 50. lington, etc. R. Co., 4 Greene, 42.
51
Montpelier, etc. R. Co. v.
se
New Albany, etc. Co. v. Mc-
Langdon, 46 Vt. 284; Philadel- Cormick, 10 Ind. 499, 71 Am. Dec.
phia, etc. R. Co. v. Kickman, 28 337.
Pa. St. 318; Monadnock R. Co. v.
5 7 Harlem Canal Co. v. Seixas,
Felt, 52 N. H. 379; Ashtabula, etc. 2 Hall
(
(N. Y.), 504.
R. Co. V. Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328;
ss
Porter v. Raymond, 53 N. H.
Burrows v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550;
519.
Chase v. Sycamore, etc. R. Co.,
so
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Eak-
38 111. 215; McMillan v. Maysville,
ins, 30 Iowa, 279.
etc. R. Co., 15 B. Mon. 218; s. c.
cost. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Eak-
61 Am. Dec. 181; Evansville, etc. ins, 30 Iowa, 279; Toledo, etc.
'
R. Co. V. Shearer, 10 Ind. 244. Co. v. Johnson, 49 Mich. 148;
52Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 45 Jewett v. Lawrenceburg, etc. R.
Minn. 164. Co., 10 Ind. 539. Buf see Brand
53
Stevens v. Corbitt, 33 Mich. v. Lawrenceville Branch R. Co.
458. (1888), 77 Ga. 506, where it was
54
Jackson v. Stockbridge, 29 held to be for the court to de-
Tex. 394, 94 Am. Dec. 390. cide whether a condition that a
Vol. 1

21
322
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
238.
gation of performance"^ and burden of proof being upon the com-
pany."" To bind tlie other party, the company must perform the
conditions imposed within a reasonable time."^ Upon its so doing,
the consideration relates back and the promise of the subscriber
at once becomes obligatory."* If the condition itself relates to the
time within which the company is to do certain things, the con-
tract ceases to bind the subscriber upon the limitation therein
fixed."^ A substantial rather than a literal, or nominal, perform-
ance of conditions annexed to contracts of subscription, is what
is required by the courts."" Thus it has been held that a railway
company is not to be held strictly to the day upon which.it under-
took to complete or set its road in operation."^ So also, if a rail-
certain contract should be made,
had been fulfilled by an agree-
ment in writing which was al-
leged to be a compliance there-
with. Performance may be
proven by parol (St. Louis, etc.
R. Co. V. Eakins, 30 Iowa, 279),
or by the corporate records. Pen-
obscot, etc. R. Co. V. Dunn, 39
Me. 587. Contra, Philadelphia,
etc. R. Co. V. Hickman, 28 Pa. St.
318. But a certificate of the di-
rectors that a condition has been
performed within a certain time
may be impeached by evidence to
the contrary. Morris, etc. Co. v.
Nathan, 2 Hall, 239.
ci
Roberts v. Mobile, etc. R. Co.,
32 Miss. 373; Henderson, etc. R.
Co. V. Leavell, 16 B. Mon. 358.
G2
Union Hotel Co. v. Hersee, 15
Hun, 371; Santa Cruz R. Co. v.
Schwartz, 53 Cal. 106; People v.
Holden, 82 111. 93; Chase v. Syca-
more, etc. R. Co.. 38 111. 215;
Ridgefield, etc. R. Co. v. Reyn-
olds, 46 Conn. 375; Monadnock R.
Co. V. Felt, 52 N. H. 379; Bucks-
port, etc. R. Co. V. Buck, 65 Me.
536; Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v.
Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318.
63
Blake v. Brown (Iowa, 1890),
45 N. W. Rep. 751, where four-
teen years was considered an un-
reasonable time for completing a
railway, Stevens v. Corbitt, 33
Mich 458; Chartiers R. Co. v.
Hodgens, 85 Pa. St. 507; Chicago,
etc. R. Co. V. Schewe, 45 Iowa, 79.
But see Johnson v. Kessler
(1889), 76 Iowa, 411, where the
failure of a railroad company to
perform its part of a contract as
to the time of the completion of
its road was held not to release
stockholders from their subscrip-
tion.
64
Des Moines Valley R. Co. v.
Graff, 27 Iowa, 99; Tower v. De-
troit, etc. R. Co., 34 Mich. 328.
05
McCully V. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 25; Ticonic, etc.
Co. V. Long, 63 Me. 480; Mem-
phis, etc. R. Co. V. Thompson, 24
Kan. 170; Portland, etc. R. Co. v.
Inhabitants of Hartford, 58 Me.
23; Burlington, etc. R. Co. v,
Boestler, 15 Iowa, 555.
66
Des Moines Valley R. Co. v.
Graff, 27 Iowa, 99; Paris, etc. R.
Co. V. Henderson, 89 111. 86;
Springfield Street Ry. Co. v.
Sleeper, 121 Mass. 29; O'Neal v.
King, 3 Jones (N. C), 517; Vir-
ginia, etc. R. Co. V. County, etc.,
8 Nev. 68; Ogden v. Kirby, 79 111.
555. Contra, Martin v. Pensacola,
etc. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370, 390; s. c.
73 Am. Dec. 713, where a strict
compliance is said oMter to be
necessary.
67
Des Moines Valley R. Co. v.
Graff, 27 Iowa, 99, where there
was a delsy of more than two
months; Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
V. Taggard, 84 Mo. 264.

238.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 823

way route as located conform substantially to the one described
in the charter or contract, the condition will not be considered to
be broken by slight deviations,"^ except as to subscribers especially
affected thereby.'''" The same principle is applied to conditions
respecting tcnninl of railways.'^" And again, it has been held that,
so long as a railway be completed, it is immaterial to the sub-
scriber whether it was constructed by the company to which he
gave his subscription or by a corporation succeeding to the rights
and franchises of the former.'^^ But the location of a depot just
beyond the limits of a town is not a sufficient compliance with a
a condition that it be located "within the limits."
'-
When a com-
pany has undertaken to perform conditions annexed to a contract
of subscription to its capital stock, unforeseen difficulties, such,
for example, as floods preventing the completion of a railway
within the time fixed, do not release it from its obligation.
'^^
And
when non-performance results from a change in the plans of the
6s
Cayuga Lake R. Co. v. Kyle,
5 Tliomp. & C^ 569.
C9
Moore v. Hanover Junction
R. Co., 94 Pa. St. 324; Crane v.
Indiana, etc. Ry. Co., 59 Ind. 1C5.
But where ttiere is no express
condition with respect to location
of the road, and the charter con-
fers upon the company the author-
ity to change its location, a sub-
scriber cannot be released from
his contract because the private
advantage which would have ac-
crued to him from the proximity
of the line to his property has
been lost by the change. Beach
on Railways,

109-111; Fry v.
Lexington, etc. R. Co., 2 Met.
(Ky.) 314; Delaware R. Co. v.
Thorp, 1 Houst (Del.), 149; Banet
V. Alton, etc. R. Co., 13 111. 504.
70
People V. Holden, 82 lU. 93.
In Stowell V. Stowell, 45 Mich.
364, a promissory note, payable
to the treasurer of the Chicago
6 Canada Southern Railway Com-
pany, was made "in consideration
of the construction of" the rail-
v,-ay through or within half a mile
of the village of Dundee "within
three years after this date, and
the building of a passenger and
freight depot" at Dundee; pay-
able "in thirty days after said
road and depot are constructed
as aforesaid." The articles of
incorporation of the company
named Chicago as one of the ter-
mini. The track was laid through
Dundee, and the depot put up, but
instead of extending the road to
Chicago it was connected with
other routes at the point
bej'ond Dundee, so as to
form a through line; and it
was held that the promise was
made to afford aid in constructing
the road, and was ijitended to be
payable in case of the comple-
tion, as agreed, of the portion
built, regardless of the failure to
extend it to Chicago within three
years as stipulated. But see
Cooper V. McKee, 52 Iowa, 239;
Lawrence v. Smith, 57 Iowa, 701,
as examples of material non-
compliance with conditions as to
termini.
71
Detroit, etc. R. Co. v. Starnes,
38 Mich. 698; Michigan, etc. R.
R. Co. V. Bacon, 33 Mich. 466.
72
Davenport, etc. R. Co. v.
O'Connor, 40 Iowa, 477.
Cf. Court-
right V. Strickler, 37 Iowa, 382.
73
Jewett V. Lawrenceburgh, etc.
R. Co., 10 Ind. 539.
32-i
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
239.
company,
after the subscribers have made partial payments upon
their shares, they may be released from their contracts and may
recover the amounts paid in.'^* But if it throu.s^h some act or de-
fault of the subscriber himself that performance is prevented, the
company is released.'^
239.
Waiver of performance of conditions.AVaiver of
conditions annexed to contracts of subscription cannot be pre-
sumed from mere silenced" But giving a promissory note in pay-
ment, which makes no mention of the conditions upon which the
subscription was made,'^ payment of the whole of the subscrip-
tion,''^ acting- as judge of an election held by the corporation,^**
serving as a director of the company
,^
or as president,^ in con-
junction with silence respecting the conditions upon which sub-
scriptions were made, is considered to be a waiver of the com-
pany's performance. The fact, however, that notwithstanding the
terms of the contract, the subscriber paid the full price for part
of the stock, does not establish his liability to pay in like manner
for the rest, and is not evidence of an agreement on his part to
pay without call.^ Under an Ohio statute permitting a change
of location by a railroad company on consent of the stockholders,
provided that "any subscription of stock made on the faith of the
74
Jewett V. Lawrenceburgh, etc.
o
Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Conn.
R. Co., 10 Ind. 539, 565. But election to office with-
75
Upton V. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. out entering upon the duties
417, 423.
thereof does not operate as
7G
Bucksport, etc. R. Co. v. In- waiver. Ridgefield, etc. R. Co. v.
habitants of Bremer, 67 Me. 295; Reynolds, 46 Conn. 375.
Burlington, etc. R. Co. v. Boest-
si
Dayton, etc. R. Co. v. Hatch,
ler, 15 Iowa, 555. Cf.
Hanover 1 Disney, 84.
Junction, etc. R. Co. v. Haldeman,
S2
Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v. I'An-
82 Pa. St. 36.
son, 43 N. J. L. 442. So gener-
''
Slipher v. Earhart, 83 Ind. ally partial payments made with-
173; Evansville, etc. R. Co. v. out knowing that the condition
Dunn, 17 Ind. 603; O'Donald v. has not been performed, or in re-
Evansville, etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. liance upon false assurances- of
259; Chamberlain v. Painesville, officers of the company that it
etc. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 225.
Cf.
has been performed, are not to be
Woonsocket Union R. Co. v. Sher- deemed a waiver of the condition,
man, 8 R. I. 564. But see Taylor Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Stewart,
lor V. Fletcher, 15 Ind. 80, and 41 Pa. St. 54; Jewett v. Lawrence-
Parker V. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213,
burgh, etc. R. Co., 10 Ind. 539;
where the notes were fraudu- Morris, etc. Co. v. Nathan, 2 Hall,
lently obtained. 239; Somerset, etc. R. Co. v.
78
Parks V. Evansville, etc. R.
Cushing, 45 Me. 524; Oldtown, etc.
Co., 23 Ind. 567. R. Co. v. Veazie, 39 Me. 571;
79
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Ridgefield, etc. R. Co. v. Brush, 43
Proudfit, 2 Pittsb. 85. Conn. 86.

2-tO.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 325

location of such railroad, . . . upon any line abandoned by
such change, shall be cancelled at the written request of the sub-
scriber not having assented," it is held that a subscriber who ex-
pressly stipulates against a change does not waive his right to en-
force that condition by failing to make the request.^^ Laches will
bar the remedy by injunction to restrain a change of route.**
WITHDRAWAL, RELEASE AND DISCHARGE OF SUBSCRIBERS.

240. Withdrawal from subscription by consent of the cor-

poration.Voluntary withdraAval from membership in compa-
nies having capital stock may be accomplished by a rescission or
cancellation of the contract whereby the member agreed to take
and pay for his shares.^^
Release and discharge
of
subscriber.-^A subscription may, of
course, be withdrawn any time before its acceptance by the corpo-
ration, and without its consent, whether made before or after or-
ganization of the corporation
f'^
but after it has been accepted, the
subscriber cannot, without consent of the corporation, surrender
his shares in a way to avoid liability to payment of his subscrip-
tion.^ The corporation, for a valuable consideration, may release
a subscriber from liability on his contract of subscription, where
such release is not in fraud of creditors, and where the stockhold-
ers consent to the release.* To effect such a surrender of shares
the express or implied consent of all the parties in interest is
requisite. While the shareholder cannot himself work a for-
83
Railway Co. v. Fisher, 39 Felt, S7 Me. 234, 47 Am. St. Rep.
Ohio St. 330. 323; Great Western etc. Co. v.
84
Chapman v. Mad River, etc. Loewenthal, 154 111. 261.
R. Co., 6 Ohio St. 119.
87
Greer v. Chartiers Ry. Co.,
sMt is provided by statute in 96 Pa. St. 391; 42 Am. Rep. 548;
England that the company may Selma, etc. Co., 5 Ala. 787, 39 Am.
from time to time accept, on such Dec. 344,
terms as they think fit, surren-
ss
zirkel v. Joliet Opera House
ders of any shares which have not Co., 79 111. 334; Northrop v. Bush-
been fully paid up; but it shall nell, 38 Conn. 498.
not pay or refund to any share-
89
As to the consent of corpo-
holder any sum of money for or rate creditors, vide infra,
244,
in respect of the cancellation or 245; Nichols v. Stevens, 123 Mo.
surrender of any shares. 26 & 27 96, 45 Am. St. Rep. 514; Potts v.
Vic, ch. 118,
9 and 10. Wallace, 146 U. S. 689; Balfour
86
Hudson Real Estate Co. v. v. Baker, etc. Co., 27 Or. 300;
Tower, 156 Mass. 82, 32 Am. St.
World's Fair, etc. Co. v. Gasch,
Rep. 434, 161 Mass. 10, 42 Am. .5t.
162 111 402; Gogebic, etc. v. Iron
Rep. 379; Bryants, etc. R. Co.. v. Chief, etc. Co., 78 Wis. 427, 23
326
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
240.
fciture by abniKlonmcnt,"" nor plead as a defense to an action to
enforce payments brought in behalf of the corporate creditors, that
the company might have forfeited his stock,''^ yet his desire to
rescind the contract of subscription may be shown by his failure
to pay calls and neglect to exercise the rights of a shareholder
;
and when he has thus neglected his obligations, the company may
elect to treat him as having abandoned his privileges and strike
his name from the list of shareholders.^- The consent of the cor-
poration, in like manner, to a cancellation of the contract of sub-
scription may be inferred from long continued acquiescence."^ So,
also, where a director appointed in the act of incorporation soon
afterwards resigns and all the shares were allotted to others, it
was considered an abandonment by the company of its right to
treat him as a shareholder with respect to his qualification shares.*
If the consent of the corporation be expressly given, it must be
done by the shareholders, not by the directors, and a unanimous
vote of the shareholders is requisite to bind the company to a can-
Am. St. Rep, 417; Muskingum,
etc. Co. V. Ward, 13 Ohio St. 120,
42 Am. Dec. 191; Selnua, etc. R.
Co. V. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787, 39 Am.
Dec. 344.
90
Rockville, etc. Turnpike. Co.
V. Maxwell, 2 Cranch, C. C. 451.
Cf.
Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384;
Laurel Run Building Assoc, v.
Sperring, 106 Pa. St. 334, and
cases cited supra,
98.
91
Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb. 294;
Sagory v. Dubois, 2 Sandf. Ch.
466; Hightower v. Thornton, 8
Ga. 486, 502; s. c. 52 Am. Dec. 412.
Forfeiture is imposed as a penalty
for breach of the promise to pay,
and it is not for the subscriber to
elect by submitting to the for-
feiture, or rendering himself lia-
ble thereto to escape the obliga-
tion to pay. Troy, etc. R. Co. v.
McChesney, 21 Wend. 266. "We
have to inquire whether it was
competent for him, by an an-
nouncement of his withdrawal
from the company, to absolve him-
self froin liability to pay any fur-
ther installments which might be
demanded of him. It will result
from what has been already said,
that such a privilege is not ac-
corded to a subscriber. This con-
clusion necessarily follows, if, as
we have seen, he is liable to the
action of the corporation, and can-
not force them to resort to the
remedy afforded by the charter, of
claiming a forfeiture of stock. Be-
'
sides, the subscription for stock, as
it entitles the subscriber to all the
benefits and immunities of a cor-
porator, is a valid contract, and
of consequence obligatory upon
him until it has been rescinded ac-
cording to lavvT." Selma R., etc.
Co. V. Tipton, 5 Ala. 787; s. c. 39
Am. Dec. 344, 350.
92
Perkins v. Union, etc. Co., 12
Allen, 273.
'<
Evans v. Smallcombe, L. R.
3 H. L. 249. It may be received as
suflBcient evidence of a cancella-
tion, without any record of the
cancellation having been made
upon the books of the corporation,
that neither the subscriber nor
the company regarded the sub-
scriber as a stockholder. Stuart
V. Valley R. Co., 32 Graft. 146.
94Kiplin V. Todd, 3 C. P. Div.
350; Barry v. Navon, etc. Ry. Co.,
Ir. Rep. 11 Com. L. 403.

241.
J
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 327
cellation."^ For the promise of each subscriber to contribute to
the capital stock of a company is the consideration for the promise
of the others, the object of the enterprise being the advancement
of the private interests of all ; and after the act of incorporation
has been obtained, none can withdraw without the consent of the
others, whether the work has been undertaken or not." A re-
lease by the directors is of no avail."^ In the subscripton of each
person, every other subscriber has a direct interest. Their re-
spective subscriptions are contributions or advancements for a
common object. The action of each in his subscription may be
supposed to be influenced by that of the others, and every subscrip-
tion to be based upon the ground that the others are what upon
their face they purport to be. The fact that one man has bound
himself to place a certain amount of his money upon the risk
involved in the enterprise is an inducement to others to venture
in like manner. Seeing who are his associates, and the extent of
the liability which they have assumed, he regulates his own upon
that consideration ; and though in form and legal effect the con-
tract of each is with the corporation, yet among the subscribers
theniselves it is to be regarded as an agreement with every other
subscriber to bear that proportion of the common burden to which
he professes to bind himself by the contract which he holds out
to them as his contract with the corporation."^

241. Want of power in the directors to release.The cor-

poration, in case of the subscriber's inability to pay for his shares,
or in case of bona Ude disputes as to his liability, may bona Ude
compromise the dispute upon surrender of his shares, and release
him from liability thereon."" While the directors may compromise
doubtful claims,^ they have no authority to release stockholders
95
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Tipton,
ss
White Mountains R. Co. v.
5 Ala. 787; s. c. 39 Am. Dec. 344; Eastman (1856), 34 N. H. 124,
Johnson v. Wabash, etc. R. Co., 16 141, 142.
Ind. 389; Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co.
so
New Haven Trust Co. v. Gaff-
V. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451; Busey v. ney, 73 Conn. 480; Trevor v.
Hooper, 35 Md. 15.
Cf.
Cook v. Whitworth, 12 App. Cas. 409;
Chittenden, 23 Fed. Rep. 544; Gel- Morgan v. Lewis, 46 Ohio St. 1;
pecke V. Blake, 19 Iowa, 263; State v. Oberlin, etc. Ass'n, 35-
Marshall v. Glamorgan, etc. Co., Ohio St. 258; Northern, etc. Co. v.
L. R. 7 Eq. 129. Kelly, 113 U. S. 199; Farmers,'
00 Twin Creek, etc. Turnpike R. etc. Ins. Co. V. Meese, 49 Neb.
Co. V. Lancaster (1883), 79 Ky. 861; Chambers v. McKee, 105 Fa.
552. St. 105; Donohoe v. Mariposa, etc.
07
Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd Co., 66 Cal. 317.
(1882), 74 Mo. 286. 1 Tide supra,
240.
)2i SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
241.
from liability upon their binding and undisputed contracts of sub-
scriptions. This would be putting into their hands an almost un-
limited povver.^ For in tlieir capacity as corporate agents, their
powers are defined and limited by the fundamental law of the cor-
poration.^ For any loss occasioned by exceeding their pow-
2
"It would be putting into the
hands of directors an almost un-
limited power. I could not hold
that the directors have power to
release any shareholders who say
that they wish to have their shares
canceled, or that such desire
would be reason enough for the
directors to resolve that they
should be discharged from the
company. That would be to in-
flict a monstrous injury on the
shareholders, and would be di-
rectly against the constitution of
the company, and a violation of
the powers of the directors, and it
might happen in cases where it
would be impossible to fix fraud
otiL them." Adams' Case, L. R. 13
Eq. 474, 483.
3 "First then, what power had
the directors to cancel these
shares? I can read nothing to
that effect in the articles. They
are entitled to compromise dis-
putes, but they are not at liberty
to cancel an allotment of shares."
Adams' Case (1872), L. R. 13 Eq.
474, 482. In Gill v. Baylis (1880),
72 Mo. 424, 435, the court said:
"It is, however, urged by counsel
that notwithstanding the retire-
ment of defendants from the com-
pany under the resolution of the
directors, with $150,000 of its as-
sets, the unpaid stock notes of
other stockholders who did not re-
tire, were sufficient to pay all cred-
itors, and that no wrong was done
by virtue thereof to creditors, and
that they could not. therefore,
complain. In the case of the Bed-
ford R. Co. v. Bowser, 48 Pa. St.
?9. a simil?,r question to the one
here presented was considered. In
that case two hundred and sixty-
six subscribers to the stock of a
railroad company claimed to be re-
leased by virtue of an order of the
board of directors authorizing the
cancellation of their stock, and the
court [below] instructed the jury
that, if the company had sufficient
assets to pay its debts, such order
was valid, and the cancellation of
the stock under it released the
defendants. The court [above]
held that this instruction was er-
roneous; and remarked, in passing
upon it, that the directors of the
company then in office were its
agents, with limited power, the ex-
tent of which the defendant was
bound to know. Their duties were
to conduct the affairs to the fur-
therance of the ends for which the
company was created. They had
no right to give any of its funds,
or to deprive it of any
of its
means, to accomplish the full pur-
pose for which it was chartered.
The creditors were not the only
persons who had interest at stake,
their subscriptions or bought their
The stockholders who had paid
stock . . . were at least equally
interested. So in the case of
Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3 H. L.
Cas. 186, where a kindred question
came before the court. Lord Cran-
worth remarked that a stockholder
might well object to relieving
other stockholders and say: 'I be-
came a stockholder, relying upon
the names of those who were en-
gaged with me in the partnership.
I delegated the management to
certain directors, with defined
powers and duties. It was part of
the stipulation of the deed of part-
nership that none of my fellow
shareholders should quit the part-
nership except by substituting in
his place some other person ap-

241] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 329

ers in this regard, the directors are personally liable to the com-
pany,* While, of course, the power to release subscribers may be
vested in the directors by the charter or by-laws of the company,'*
it is not to be inferred by implication from general authority to
proved by the directors. This was,
I thought, sufficient security to me,
that, in the event of my being
called upon by a creditor, who,
having recovered judgment
against the company, should pro-
ceed to enforce payment against
me, I had solvent partners, from
whom I might obtain contribu-
tion; and now I find that, with-
out authority, you, the directors,
have taken upon yourselves to en-
able several of my partners to
withdraw from the partnership, a
proceeding which I never author-
ized.'
"
In Bedford R. Co. v.
Bowser (1864), 48 Pa. St. 29, 37,
cited in the quotation above, the
language of the court, was: "The
directors of the company then in
office were its agents with limited
powers, the extent of which the
defendant was bound to know.
Their duties were to conduct its
affairs to the furtherance of the
ends for which the company was
created. They had no power to
destroy it, to give away its
funds, or to deprive it of any of
its means, to accomplish the full
purpose for which it was char-
tered."
4
"We have already seen that
the conduct of the directors of the
Bank of St. Mary's, in allowing
the stockholders to withdraw the
amount of their subscriptions
from its vaults, and in permitting
Joseph S. Winter & Co. and John
G. Winter to use, without secur-
ity, more than a million and a
half of its funds in their own pri-
vate business, is a fraud upon the
creditors, and will not only ren-
der the directors liable for the
sums thus fraudulently with-
drawn, but would render each
agent of the bank who partici-
pated in it liable in his individual
capacity to the creditors, for so
much of said sum as could be
traced to his hands. (Attorney-
General v. Corporation of Lei-
cester, 7 Beav. 176.) It is also
clear, that, as to the creditors,
these directors and agents are
trustees, and as such liable to ac-
count with them for such sums
as may have been lost by their
mismanagement or misapplied by
themselves; and in this respect
the chancery court may afford re-
lief independent of the act of
1846." Bank of St. Mary's v. St.
John, Powers & Co. (1854), 2.5
Ala. 5CG, 618. In Hodgkinson v.
National Live Stock Ins. Co.
(1859), 26 Beav. 473, the directors
of a company were alleged to
have paid calls merely on a small
portion of the shares for which
they had subscribed the deed, and
they had also, out of the com-
pany's funds, purchased part of
the chairman's shares, and had
canceled a considerable number
of those subscribed for by him and
by themselves. This not being au-
thorized by the constitution of the
company, or by the provisions of
the deed of settlement, it was
held that it was not a matter of
internal management to be con-
firmed by a general meeting, and
a demurrer to a bill to make the
directors liable was therefore
overruled.
5
Teasdale's Case, L. R. 9 Ch.
54; Wright's Case, L. R. 12 Eq.
331; Colville's Case, 48 L. J. Ch.
633. Thus, in In re North of Eng-
land Banking Co., Thomas' Case
(1872), L. R. 13 Eq. 437, the di-
rectors of a limited company, who
were authorized by their articles
"to enter into, alter, rescind or
SUBSCKII'TIOXS.
[
242.
forfeit shares," or to compromise doubtful claims/ nor 3'et even
from so wide a grant of power as is conferred upon the directors
by authority to do anything "conducive to the attainment of the
objects" of incorporation.* Neither has the president of a corpo-
ration any authority by virtue of his office to consent that an ab-
solute and unconditional subscription shall be changed so as to
become conditional, to the prejudice of the company or its cred-
itors."
Release is subject to rights
of
creditors zvJicn.If the sub-
scriber to stock is released by the corporation under the terms of
a bona tide compromise, it is binding upon the corporation and the
creditors
,^'^
otherwise the release as against them is fraudulent
and void, and the stockholder rftnains liable to them for the pay-
ment of his unpaid subscription.^^ Nor can the agents of the cor-
poration consent, on its behalf, to the withdrawal of a subscriber.^-

242. Release in compromise of doubtful claims.The di-

rectors or corporate officers may compromise doubtful claims
against subscribers to the capital stock ; and if they have acted in
good faith in so doing, the subscriber is not to be held liable
abandon contracts, in such man-
ner as they should think fit," and
also, by another clause in their
articles, with the previous sanc-
tion of a general meeting, to pur-
chase the company's shares, or
reduce, or cancel unissued or for-
feited shares, accepted an offer
from Thomas, their paid secre-
tary, to take a thousand shares in
order to raise money for the pur-
poses of the company. After
Thomas had taken and paid for
eight hundred and fifty of the
shares, he resigned his secretary-
ship, and the directors, in consid-
eration of the resignation, re-
solved to relieve him from further
payments in respect of such
shares as he had agreed to take.
The company was subsequently
wound up. It was held that the
directors had not exceeded tbeir
powers in relieving him from his
obligation, and that Thomas was
not a contributory.
6 Richmond's Case, 4 Kay & J.
305.
7 Adams' Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 474.
8
In re Dronfield Silkstone Coal
Co., 17 Ch. Div. 76, in which, how-
ever, the surrender accepted by
the directors was sustained on
the ground that their action had
been ratified by a general meeting
of the shareholders.
9 Morgan Co. v. Thomas, 76 111.
120.
10
Trevor v. Whitworth, 12 App.
Cas. 409; Whitaker v. Grummond,
68 Mich. 249; New Albany v.
Burke, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 96.
11
Potts V. Wall, 146 U. S. 689;
Payne v. Bullard, 23 Miss. 88, 55
Am. Dec. 74; Bouton v. Dement,
123 111. 142; Sawyer v. Hoag, 17
Wall. (U. S.) 610.
12
Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
45, 48; Bedford R. Co. v. Bowser,
48 Pa. St. 29; Hughes v. Antietam
Manuf. Co., 34 Md. 316; Jewett v.
Valley Ry. Co., 34 Ohio St. 601;
Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74 Mo.
286; Gill v. Balis, 72 Mo. 424; 1
Morawetz on Corporations,

109.

242.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 331

thereon even by the creditors of the company.^' Even in such a
case, however, it is requisite that the company be still a "going
concern," and it must appear that there was in fact a dispute or
doubt as to the liability of the subscriber, or an uncertainty as
to his financial ability to pay the whole amount due upon his con-
tract
; and that by the release he was not placed in a position su-
perior to other shareholders in respect of the shares retained by
him ; and further, that the compromise in no wise operated as a
fraud upon the corporate creditors or upon the other shareholders
of the company,^* It cannot be necessary for the directors to
maintain a hopeless defense of a shareholder's well grounded
claim to repudiate his shares ; and the submission to an immediate
decree after a bill filed can hardly be more efficacious than a sub-
mission to the same relief after the bill is prepared, but before it is
filed ; or after it is threatened, but before it is prepared ; or after
the claim is formally made, but before the bill is threatened in
terms.^^ An an agreement by the directors to abide by the deter-
13
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318; Hol-
lingshead v. Woodward, 35 Hun,
410.
Cf.
Bath's Case, 8 Ch. Div.
334. Where stock has been mis-
takenly registered in a wrong
name {Ex parte Knightley, Wood
& M. 18, 47; Hartley's Case, L. R.
Ch. 157), or there has been an
unauthorized issue of a stock divi-
dend, the directors may correct
the mistake or cancel their unau-
thorized acts. Hollingshead v.
Woodward, 35 Hun, 410.
14
Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
45; Tuckerman v. Brown, 33 N. Y.
297; Mann v. Pentz, 2 Sandf. Ch.
(N. Y.) 257; Macon, etc. R. Co. v.
Vason, 57 Ga. 314; Bedford, etc.
R. Co. V. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29;
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Hick-
man, 28 Pa. St. 318; Gaff v. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489;
Swartwout v. Michigan, etc. R.
Co., 24 Mich. 389: Penobscot, etc.
R. Co. v. Dunn (1855), 39 Me. 587,
601, where the court while ex-
pressing doubt as to whether the
directors had power, under the
charter of the defendant company,
without a consideration to release
a subscriber from his obligation
to take stock, was clear in its
opinion that if the release was
within their power the stock-
holder to avail himself of it must
accept it within a reasonable
time. "He could not avail him-
self of the privileges of a stock-
holder, by reason of his subscrip-
tion, for those shares, and at the
same time repudiate his liability
as a subscriber, on the ground
that he had elected not to pay
under that vote of the directors."
Chandler v. Brown, 77 111. 333;
Snell's Case. L. R. 5 Ch. 22; Sid-
ney's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 228; In re
London, etc. Co., 5 Ch. Div. 525;
Bath's Case, 8 Ch. Div. 334; Kep-
ling V. Todd, 3 C. P. Div. 350;
Adam.son's Case, L. R. 18 Eq. 676;
Belhaven's Case, 3 De Gex, J. & S.
41. But see Sawyer v. Hoag, 17
Wall. 610. Cf.
New Albany v.
Burke, 11 Wall. 96; Wood's Rail-
way Law,
82.
IB
Wright's Case, 19 W. R. 947;
s. c. L. R. 12 Eq. 351, per Vice
Chancellor Wickens. See, also,
"What is 'Repudiation' of Shares."
16 Sol. J. & Rep. 365, 366.
332 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
242.
mination of a suit by one shareholder as governing the case of
another is as effectual for the exoneration of the latter as if he
had filed a bill of his own." Thus, in the case last cited, one Ross,
a shareholder in the Estates Investment Company, had filed a bill
to repudiate his shares on the ground of misrepresentation in the
prospectus, and nine other shareholders, of whom Pawle was one,
entered into an arrangement with the directors, through their
solicitors, that with a view of Ross's case being treated as a repre-
sentative one, they were not to be prejudiced by their not taking
separate proceedings of their own. Ross's bill succeeded, but the
company went into liquidation. Pawle having taken no further
proceedings for removing his name from the register, the official
liquidator took out a summons to settle him on the list of con-
tributors. But the Lords Justices Selwyn and Giffard, affirming
the Master of the Rolls, decided, without calling on Pawle's
counsel, that there was no pretense for contending that Pawle had
not done enough in assertion of his repudiation. They said it
would be contrary to all the principles of the court to hold that
there was any necessity for separate proceeding by all these nine
shareholders, or for any such vexatious accumulation of costs.
They said is would have been "improper and vexatious" of Pawle
had he filed a separate bill.^^ But a shareholder who does not
identify himself with the test case by notifying the directors that
he claims the benefit of the decision, must institute separate pro-
ceedings in his ovv'U name in order to have his name stricken from
the register
;^^
unless the test case having been decided before the
winding up, the directors decline to fight his case, knoAving any
defense thereto to be hopeless, and agree, therefore, to act upon
the decision and to strike his name from the register.^'' It is
deemed more prudent, however, even under such circumstances,
for the shareholder to obtain an adjudication upon his case.-
16
In re Estates Investment Co., cases corresponded that their
Pawle's Case (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. names had been struck off. Mar-
497. tin, nevertheless, pushed his mo-
17
Pawle's Case. L. R. 4 Ch. 497. tion to a hearing, and Vice Chan-
is
Ashley's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 263. cellor Wood considered his pro-
is
Wright's Case, L. R. 12 Eq. ceeding prudent as well as justi-
351, cited supra. fiable, and said "that the direct-
so
In Martin's Case, 2 Hem. & M. ors' voluntary act would not have
672, after a decision in removing bound the creditors." "What is
a name in consimili casu the di- 'Repudiation' of Shares," 16 Sol.
rectors sent around a circular in- J. & Rep. 365, 366.
forming all shareholders whose

243.] SUBSCRIPTIONS.
333
"
243. Withdrawal and abandonment.A subscriber who
for a long- period has failed to pay his subscription or to exercise
the rights of a member of the company, may be treated by it as
having abandoned his connection tberewith.^^ But it is seldom
that the company takes the initiative in the cancellation of sub-
scriptions. It is generally the subscriber who seeks to sever his
relations with the corporation ; and it has been said tbat he may
do this at any time before the organization of the company has
been completed,-- or any time before acceptance of the subscrip-
tion, but not afterwards, except by special terms of the contract,
or upon special grounds for his release.
^^
Thus, prior to the date
of filing- of the certificate from which the incorporation of the
company dates under the New York General Railroad Act of
1850,
a promoter who retains possession thereof may erase or alter his
subscription thereto notwithstanding his having induced others
21
Perkins v. Union, etc. Co., 12
Allen, 273. Cf.
Evans v. Small-
combe, L. R. 3 H. L. 249. La. Civil
Code, art. 3506 (3472), declaring
that three years' possession in
good faith of a movablewhich,
corporate stock is declared to be,
Civil Code, art. 474 (466)is suf-
ficient to give good title, does not
apply to a suit brought by a stock-
holder against a corporation to
compel it to replace in his name
certain shares of stock alleged to
have been negligently canceled,
and the certificates therefor un-
lawfully issued to a third person;
the defendant in such case never
having been in possession of the
stock. St. Romes v. Levee Steam
Cotton-Press Co. (1888), 127 U. S.
614.
22
Gaff V. Fleseher, 33 Ohio St.
107; Garrett v. Dillsburg & M. R.
Co., 78 Pa. St. 465: Holt v. Win-
field Bank, 25 Fed. Rep. 812;
Cook V. Chittenden Bank, 25 Fed.
Rep. 544. See Rose v. Sail An-
tonio & M. G. R. Co.. 31 Tex. 49:
Tillsonburg R. Co. v. Goodrich, 8
Ont. Q. B. Div. 565. Where one
signs a subscription paper, en-
tirely misunderstanding the nat-
ure of the agreement, he may ob-
tain release from the obligations
thereby incurred. County of
Schuylkill v. Copley, 67 Pa. St.
386; Smith v. Reese, etc. Co., L. R.
2 Eq. 264.
Cf. Rockford, etc. R.
Co. V. Schunick, 65 111. 223. One
induced to subscribe through
fraud may upon discovery there-
of recover money paid by him on
his subscription in an action for
money had and received. Atkin-
son V. Pocock, 12 Jur. 60; Woutner
v. Shairp, 4 C. B. 404; Jarrett v.
Kennedy, 6 C. B. 319. Or the sub-
si^riber ma}/- wait until an action
at law has been brought against
him by the corporation to enforce
payment of his subscription and
then set up by way of defense any
valid cause for the illegality of
the contract: or he may file his
bill in equity to restrain such
suit at law and to set aside the
contract and to recover back pay-
ment?: or, where his defense is
founded upon fraud, he has also
his action for damages against
the parties making the misrepre-
sentations. Paddock v. Fletcher,
42 Vt. 389.
=3
Hudson Real Estate Co. v.
Tower, 156 Mass. 82, 32 Am. St.
Rep. 434; 161 Mass. 10, 42 Am. St.
Rep. 379.
334
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
243.
to subscribe.-'* But the better opinion is thought to be that in
those cases where a subscription is made with full knowledge of
the purpose and scope of the undertaking, and has been acted
upon either by the corporation, or by other subscribers, it is irre-
z'ocahlc. Accordingly, the consent of all the other subscribers
is necessary to effect a valid cancellation of a subscription con-
tract
\-^
and in America, if the affairs of the company have become
involved, the consent
of
creditors, whose equities have inter-
vened, is also requisite to render the cancellation valid.
-'^
In
England, the consent of the company alone is required."* While
the directors have authority to compromise claims based upon
subscription contracts where it is doubtful whether any ben-
efit would accrue to the company from attempting to enforce
them by legal proceedings,
^
this power of compromise must not
2*
Beach on Railways, 129, cit-
ing Burt V. Fa,rrar, 24 Barb. 518.
5
See New Albany & S. R. Co.
V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499;
Hughes V. Antietam M. Co., 34
Md. 316; Hutchins v. Smith, 4(5
Barb. 235; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co.
V. Neely, 64 Tex. 344; Kidwelly
Canal Co. v. Raby, 2 Price, 93.
But see Payson v. Withers, 5
Biss. 269, holding that the sub-
scriber cannot plead that he was
ignorant of the true condition of
the affairs of the corporation.
26 Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; s. c. 72
Am. Dec. 772; Zirkel v. Joliet, etc.
Co., 79 111. 334; Ryder v. Alton,
etc. R. Co., 13 111. 516; White
Mountains R. Co. v. Eastman, 34
N. H. 124; Jewett v. Valley Ry.
Co., 34 Ohio St. 601; Burke v.
Smith, 16 Wall. 390; New Albany
V. Burke, 11 Wall. 96; Bedford R.
Co. V. Bowser, 48 Pa. St. 29. Thus
a receiver cannot compromise sub-
scriptions except by leave of court
when all the stockholders are par-
ties to the action. Chandler v.
Brown, 77 111. 333.
Cf.
Pearson's
Case, L. R. 7 Ch. 309. In a Penn-
sylvania case the defendant had
been active in soliciting subscrip-
tions for the building of a rail-
road, having taken a book from
its agent, subscribed therein him-
self and persuaded others to sub-
scribe, and after keeping the
book for about six months, by
reason of a disagreement with
the company's agent about the
payment for his services, cut his
name out of it and returned it to
the company, and it was held that
he could not thus cancel his con-
tract but was liable for the
amount of his subscription. Green
V. Chartiers Ry. Co., 96 Pa. St.
391; s. c. 42 Am. Rep. 548. Ace.
Railroad Co. v. Vv^'hite, 10 S. C.
155.
Cf.
Jewett v. Valley R. Co.,
34 Ohio St. 601.
2T
Coffin V. Ransdell
(1887), 110
Ind. 4H.
28
In re Dronfield, etc. Co., 17
Ch. Div. 76.
20
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
Hickman, 28 Pa. St. 318. Thus,
where a subscriber for two hun-_
dred shares agrees with the di-
rectors to pay for one hundred,
and be released from further lia-
bility, and thereafter the company
voluntarily dissolves, a.nd a new
one takes its place, which under
a provision allowing holders of
paid-up stock in the old company
the same number of shares in the
new, credits the subscriber on its
subscription list with one hun-

2-1-1.] SUBSCKIPTIONS. 335

be extended to cancel a contract which the company could clearly
enforce."- And whatever be the general powers of the directors
in respect of the corporate affairs, they cannot cancel these con-
tracts unless authority to do so be expressly conferred upon them.^^
If they do so, they incur personal liability to the company for their
unauthorized act."-
244.
Effect of withdrawal.In companies having capital
stock a surrender of shares or cancellation of the contract of sub-
scription cannot release the withdrawing member from his lia-
bilities to corporate creditors without their express or tacit consent
thereto.^^ For "the capital stock of a corporation, contributed or
agreed to be contributed by its stockholders, is, in equity and as to
creditors, deemed a trust
fund,
charged with the payment of the
debts of the corporation, and must be treated as such by the cor-
poration.^^ The capital paid in and promised to be paid in, is a
fund which the directors cannot squander. "They are bound to
call in what is unpaid and carefully husband it when received."
'^^
And no mere resolution or by-law of the stockholders can, "as
opposed to the rights of creditors in that fund, authorize a release
of such an obligation of a solvent stockholder, even in considera-
tion of his surrendering his stock."
^^
And since any one creditor
dred shares paid up, the new com-
s*
Farnsworth v. Robbing
pany's stockholders are estopped (18S7), 36 Minn. 369; Upton v.
to attack the original compromise. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger v.
Whitaker V. Grummond (18SS),68 Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Sawyer v,
Mich. 249; s. c. 70 Mich. 635. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610; Clapp v. Pet
30
Adam's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 474. erson, 104 111. 26; Crandall v.
31
Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc.
Lincoln, 52 Conn. 73; Adler v.
R. Co.. 32 Pa. St. 334; s. c. 72 Am. Milwaukee, etc. Manuf. Co., 13
Dec. 772; In re Dronfleld, etc. Co., Wis. 57: 2 Morawetz on Corpora-
17 Ch. Div. 76; Richmond's Case, tions. 8 780, 781, 790, 820.
4 Kay & J. 305; Burke v. Smith, 35
Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
16 Wall. 390; Thomas' Case, L. R. 45; Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd
13 Eq. 474: Teasdale's Case, L. R. (1881), 74 Mo.*286, 291, where the
9 Ch. 54; Wright's Case, L. R. 12 court said: "It is equally well

Eq. 334; Colville's Case, 48 L. J. settled in this State and else-
Ch. 633. where that a release, by the di-
32
Bank v. St. John, 25 Ala. 566; rectors of a corporation, of a stock
Hodgkinson v. National Co., 26 subscriber from his liability on
Beav. 473. such subscription is of no avail,
33
Farnsworth v. Robbins and that he remains bound for the
(1887), 36 Minn. 369. This sub- amount of such subscription as to
ject will be more fully treated in the other stockholders and cred-
the succeeding chapters on the itors of the corporation." See,
liabilities of members to corporate also. Gill v. Balis, 72 Mo. 432.
creditors.
sg
Farnsworth v. Robbins
(1887), 36 Minn. 369, 371.
336
SDBSOKIPTIONS.
[
244.
to whom the company was indebted at the time of the cancellation
may object and have the transaction set aside in the event of cor-
poration insolvency, it follows that the unanimous consent of all
persons to whom the company is indebted at the time is necessary
to render the cancellation or surrender eflfective.^'^ But the con-
sent of persons subsequently becoming creditors of the corpora-
tion is not requisite; and a surrender having been once accepted
by the company, the withdrawing member is not to be held liable
upon debts thereafter incurred, otherwise a corporation could
not save itself from loss by forfeiture of shares for non-payment
of calls.
^^
Surrender and cancellation.In case of surrender to the corpo-
ration of his shares by the original subscriber or other stock-
holder, it is of prime importance to him whether or not, in case of
insolvency of the corporation, such surrender will be held to re-
lease him from liability to corporate creditors to make good any
37Vick V. La Rochelle, 57 Miss.
602; Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd,
74 Mo. 286; Gill v. Balis, 72 Mo.
424.
Cf. Wittman v. Concordia
Building Assn., 13 Phila. 95, hold-
ing that a stockholder withdraw-
ing from a building association
must pay his proportion of losses
sustained prior to notice of with-
drawal.
38
Hollingshead v. Woodward
(1885), 35 Hun, 410; Johnson v.
Lullman (1885), 15 Mo. App. 55;
Erskine v. Peck (1886), 83 Mo.
465; affirming s. c. (1883) 13 Mo.
App. 280, 284, where the court
said: "It appears from the record
that the plaintiff's claim against
the corporation aro^e about a year
after the surrender in question,
and his judgment was three years
later than the same event. There
was. then, neither in the purposes
entertained, nor in the practical
accomplishment, anything 'given
away' by the directors, any delib-
erate breach of their duty as
trustees, or any impairment of
the fund to which plaintiff, in
afterwards becoming a creditor,
might look for his ultimate secur-
ity. A person, competent to own
and dispose of personal property,
transfers to a party competent to
acquire and hold as owner, all his
interest in a commodity univers-
ally recognized as personalty, hav-
ing a transferable quality, and
this, without a shade of interfer-
ence with the rights or reasonabjie
expectations of any third party.
If a transfer so circumstanced is
null, it must be because the rela-
tion once established, between
stockholder and corporation, is,
like the marriage bond, wholly un-
alterable by mutual agreement of
the parties, during their joint
lives; or, because a corporation is
incapable of acquiring or holding
its own stock on any terms, after
the shares have once been pos-
sessed by another. If such be the
law, a corporation cannot save it-
self and its creditors from loss, by
re-acquiring shares from an in-
solvent person who cannot pay for
them, and selling them to one who
can; nor can there be any more
forfeitures of stock to corpora-
tions, for non-payment of assess-
ments, or other dues. We do not
think that the law so stands."
Erskine v. Peck (1883), 13 Mo.
App. 280, 284; s. c. affirmed, 83
Mo. 465,

245, 24:6.] suBSCKiPTioNS. 337

deficiency there may have been in payment of the face vahie of the
stock as originally subscribed for. In short, whether or not the
relation between the stockholder and the corporation, when once
established, is indissoluble like the marriage contract, which dur-
ing their joint lives the parties thereto may not by their mutual
agreement rescind or alter.^^
245.
The English rule as to withdrawal.In England the
consent of the company alone is sufficient to the validity of a sur-
render of shares or cancellation of the contract of subscription,
so long as the company is "a going concern." For the American
doctrine in respect of the trust-fund nature of subscriptions to
capital stock is not there recognized. The directors of English
companies have a wide discretion in respect of the compromise of
claims against withdrawing shareholders.**' If the company,
either by its express consent or by acquiescence, is estopped from
questioning the validity of a surrender or cancellation, the corpo-
rate creditors can assert no claim to have the withdrawing mem-
ber placed upon the list of contributories.*^ And it is held in that
country that a creditor may be restrained from proceeding at law
against a person whom the company has treated as no longer a
shareholder.*^
F.
GROUNDS FOR RESCISSION AND CANCELLATION,

246. Mere irregularities are insufficient ground for re-

scission.If a number of persons, meaning to join in a com-
mon undertaking, raise a common fund, eventually to be increased,
but commencing by a deposit, and they put these deposits for a
common object into the hands of a committee, with directions to
them to do certain acts, it is not competent for any one or more
30
Erskine v. Peck, 13 Mo. App. fictitiously issued as fully paid.
280, 83 Mo. 465. "Retirement from Joint-Stock
40
Bath's Case, 8 Ch. Div. 334, Companies," 45 L. T. 435, review-
where the directors having ing Stanhope's Case (1865), L. R.
deemed it wiser to relinquish a 1 Ch. App. 161; and Spackman v.
part of the company's claim Evans (1868), L. R. 3 H. of L.
against a shareholder than to at- 171. But see "Delay in Repudiat-
.
tempt to enforce the whole claim, ing Shares," 13 Sol. J. & Rep. 261,
their success in the attempt being
285.
doubtful, it was held that the com-
41
in re Dronfleld, etc. Co., 17
promise was valid and binding Ch. Div. 76.
upon all the parties in interest. 42
Taylor v. Hughes, 1 Jones &
Cf. Barrett's Case, L. R. 13 Eq. L. 24, Tide infra,
122.
507, where the shares had been
Vol. 1

23
338
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
240.
of the subscribers against the will of the others to withdraw and
say,
''1
think you ought not to go any further,"''^ Accordingly, if
one subscribes for shares in a corporation to be organized, and the
corporation is in fact
organized and the shares accepted by the
subscriber, he cannot repudiate his liability.** As a subscriber,
he is estopped, as against the corporation and its creditors, to
deny the dc jure existence of the corporation,*^ and is estopped
to deny that he is a subscriber and stockholder, or to allege that
the subscription was invalid.'*" Merc informal irregularities in
the contract cannot be made a pretext for withdrawing and refus-
ing to pay the amount subscribed.*'^ Thus a subscriber is not held
released because of his signature being cut from a printed paper
of subscription and pasted on a fac-simile,*^ nor by the failure of
the agent to deliver the original subscription paper to the com-
pany.*'' As the ownership of shares in an undertaking and the
rights and liabilities incident thereto are in no wise dependent
upon the possession of a certificate of stock,^ it follows that a
failure on the part of the company to tender a certificate to the
subscriber is no ground for him to repudiate his shares and re-
fuse to pay therefor
f^
unless, of course, the delivery of the cer-
43
Lindley on Company Law
(5th ed. 1889), 29, citing Baird v.
Ross, 2 Macqueen, 61; Burnes v.
Pennell, 2 H. L. C. 497.
Cf.
Kent
V. Jaclvson, 14 Beav. 367; s. c. 2
De G. Mac. & G. 491. As to the
right of script holders to have the
money subscribed by them ap-
plied to the purposes for which
they subscribed it, see Bagshaw v.
Eastern Union Ry. Co., 7 Hare,
114; s. c. 2 Mac. & G. 389. See,
also, Aldham v. Brov/n, 7 El. & B.
164; s. c. 2 El. & El. 398. In a
more recent case it was held upon
precisely the same principle, that
where a person had covenanted to
pay a deposit which was to be ap-
plicable, amongst other things, to
the discharge of the expenses of
forming a company, he was bound
by his covenant, and was liable to
an action upon it, although before
the action was brought, the forma-
tion of the company had become
impossible. Ace. Duke v. Dive, 1
Ex. 36; Duke v. Forbes, 1 Ex. 356.
44
Inter-Mountain Publishing Co.
V. Jack, 5 Mont. 568.
45
Stout V. Zulick, 48 N. J. Law,
599.
46Hickling v. Wilson, 104 111.
54; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56;
Erskine v. Lowenstein, 82 Mo.
301; Greenville, etc. Co. v. Wood-
sides, 5 Rich. Law (S. C.) 145, 55
Am. Dec. 708; Blien v. Rand, 77
Minn. 110.
iT
Ashtabula, etc. R. Co. v.
Smith, 15 Ohio St. 328; Clark v.
Continental Imp. Co., 57 Ind. 135;
Cayuga Lake R. Co. v. Kyle, 64
N. Y. 185; Nulton v. Clayton, 54
Iowa, 425; Boston, etc. R. Co. v.
Wellington, 113 Mass. 79; Water-
man on Corporations, 164.
48
Sodus Bay. etc. R. Co. v.
Hamlin, 24 Hun, 390.
49
Pickering v. Templeton, 2
Mo. App. 424.
50
Fulgam v. Macon, etc. R. Co.,
44 Ga. 597.
51
Butler University v. Scoon-
over (1887), 114 Ind. 381; s. c. 5

246.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 539

lificate has been stipulated for in the contract of subscription
;'"'-
or unless the failure arises from the whole capital stock having
been already issued to others.^^ But a refusal to issue a certificate
when demanded may release the subscriber. Thus, if the defend-
ant can show that while the corporation was yet solvent he ten-
dered the full amount of his subscription, demanding a certificate
of stock, which was refused, it is a good defense even to an action
by the assignee of the company brought in behalf of the corporate
creditors.'^* Sundry other grounds have been taken by subscribers
and stockholders as reasons for repudiating their shares, but have
been held insufficient by the courts, as, for example, that stock had
been allotted by the commissioners to persons whose names were
not on the subscription list
f^
that all the shares of a new issue
increasing the capital stock had not been taken
f^
that the corpo-
ration failed to put in a certain amount of working capital accord-
ing to agreement with the subscriber, when he knew of the corpo-
ration's lack of funds, and that no provision had been made for
raising any
f'^
that a creditor who is enforcing payment is a di-
rector also of the corporation
f^
that the corporation was not in
Am. St. Rep. 627; Slipher v. Ear-
hart (1883), 83 Ind. 173; Miller v.
Wild Cat Gravel R. Co., 52 Ind.
51; Heaston v. Cincinnati, etc. R.
Co., 16 Ind. 275; s. c. 79 Am. Dec.
430; New Albany, etc. R. Co. v.
McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; Chandler
V. Northern Cross R. Co., 18 111.
190; Kennehec, etc. R. Co. v. Jar-
vis. 34 Me. 360.
5-2Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S.
314; Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y.
353; s. c. 24 Hun, 541; South
Georsria, etc. R. Co. v. Ayers, 56
Ga. 234; Fulgam v. Macon, etc. R.
Co., 44 Ga. 597; Vawter v. Ohio,
etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. 174.
53
Burrows v. Smith. 10 N. Y.
550.
54
Potts V. Wallace (1887), 32
Fed. Rep. 272.
55
Swartwout v. Michigan, etc.
R. Co., 24 Mich. 389. As to sub-
scriptions to corporate stock, when
binding, and defenses to gener-
ally, see extensive note to Free-
land v. McCullough, 43 Am. Dec.
694, 703; s. c. 1 Denio, 414. See,
also, Wight V. Shelby R. Co., 63
Am. Dec. 522; Penobscot R. Co. v.
Dummer, 63 Am. Dec. 654; Penob-
scot R. Co. V. White. 66 Am. Dec.
257; s. 0. 41 Me. 512, and notes
thereto; Robinson v. Pittsburgh,
etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; s. c.
72 Am. Dec. 792.
5fi
Avegne v. Citizens' Bank (La.
1889). 5 So. Rep. 537, where it was
held that an original stockholder
who signs without qualification a
subscription for new stock to in-
crease the original stock is not en-
titled to cancellation of his sub-
scription and repayment of the
amount paid in, on the ground
that all the new shares were not
subscribed for. In the absence of
any stipulation or limitation to
the contrary, his subscription is
not contingent or dependent upon
the taking of all the shares, but is
absolute and binds him accord-
ingly.
57
Goff V. Hawkeye Pump &
Windmill Co., 62 Iowa, 691.
58
Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 74
Mo. 286.
340
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
246.
existence when the member agreed to take the shares
;^
that an
illegal by-law prohibits his voting until payment of calls;"*' that
the member himself failed to make the cash deposit required by
statute at the lime of subscribing
;"
that other members have been
allowed to pay in a depreciated currency
f-
that more than the cap-
ital stock has been subscribed
f^
and that the member misunder-
stood the legal effect of his agreement to take shares in the stock
of the company.*'* A mistake of fact, however, may constitute a
ground for the rescission of a contract. "Except," says Mr. Lind-
59
Inter-Mountain Publishing Co.
V. Jack (1885), 5 Mont. 568. "Sub-
scriptions to certain amount of
corporate stoclv are necessary to
organization of contemplated cor-
poration, and for that reason and
purpose are valid before such or-
ganization, and may be collected
afterwards; and, in an action on
such a subscription, the defendant
cannot set up the non-existence of
the corporation at the time of
making the contract." Anderson
V. Newcastle & R. Co. (1859),
12
Ind. 376; s. c. 74 Am. Dec. 218.
60
Chandler v. Northern Cross
R. Co., 18 111. 190; New Albany,
etc. R. Co. V. McCormick, 10 Ind.
'499; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 337.
61
Pittsburg, W., etc. R. Co. v.
Applegate (1884), 21 W. Va. 172.
62
"The testimony, however, goes
further, and shows that all the
Confederate money thus taken
was paid out, dollar for dollar. If
this payment, dollar for dollar,
was upon contracts made at gold
rates, then no harm was done, and
there would be no loss, but, if for
work at prices corresponding with
the depreciated currency, it is
clear that all other stockholders
were hurt, and upon this point the
record is silent. But the plea
here is, the naked one. that the
defendant was released by the
fact that such money was so
taken by the directors, and upon
this naked plea, the act of the di-
rectors, being ultra vires, is a
mere nullity; nobody was thereby
relieved from future payment at
the instance of anybody hurt, and
the defendant is not thereby re-
leased from the payment of his
stock. Upon his going into
equity, and making the stockhold-
ers parties, and showing damage
to himself and praying that all be
made to pay as much real money
for their stock as he will have to
pay for his, we will not say that
he maj' not have relief if this de-
preciated currency did not go .as
far as good money would have
done to pay contracts and debts of
the company." Macon & Augusta
R. Co. V. Vason (1876). 57 Ga.^
314, 316, citing Angell & Ames on
Corporations, 297 et seq.
63
Oler V. Baltimore, etc. R. Co.,
41 Md. 583.
64
New Albany, etc. R. Co. v.
Fields, 10 Ind. 187; Clear v. New-
castle R. Co., 9 Ind. 488; Ellison
v. Mobile, etc. R. Co., 36 Miss. 572
:
Selma. etc. R. Co. v. Anderson, 51
Miss. 829, 833; Bailey v. Hannibal,
etc. R. Co., 17 Wall. 96; Wight v.
Shelby R. Co.. 16 B. Mon. 4; s. c.
63 Am. Dec. 522. Cf. Vicksburg,
etc. R. Co. V. McKean, 12 La. Ann.
638. Even though his misconcep-
tion of the legal effect of his act
was induced by misrepresenta-
tions by the corporate promoter
or agent, a mistake of law will
not avail him. Ellison v. Mobile,
etc. R. Co., 36 Miss. 572, 588; New
Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Fields, 10
Ind. 187; Clem v. Newcastle, etc.
R. Co., 9 Ind. 488. For misrepre-
sentations with respect to matters
of law which are supposed to be
247.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
341
ley, "where a person has induced others to act on his own repre-
sentations, ignorance of material facts on his part affords a suffi-
cient reason for not holding him bound, by what, in such igno-
rance, he may have said or done.''^ But a subscriber who has by
mistake agreed to take more shares than he intended, after allow-
ing the company to act upon the faith of his subscription, cannot
obtain relief in equity in the absence of proof of fraud
f'
nor can
he plead that he was ignorant of the true condition of the com-
pany's affairs."^
247.
Irregular incorporation as ground for rescission.
A
member of a corporation who has accepted his shares,*^^ paid calls'
equally within the knowledge of
both parties, do not constitute a
fraud. Upton v. Tribilcock, 91
U. S. 4g;
Parker v. Thomas,
"19
Ind. 213; Thornburgh v. New-
castle, etc. R. Co., 24 Ind. 499;
Northeastern R. Co. v. Rodriguez,
10 Rich. 278, where the represen-
tation was that the subscriber
might allow forfeiture; Clem v.
Newcastle, etc. R. Co., 9 Ind. 488,
where the representation was
that payment would not be de-
manded until completion of con-
struction.
65
Lindley on Partnership, 135.
See, also, Taylor on Corporations
(2d ed. 1889), 527; Salem Mill
Dam Co. v. Ropes. 9 Pick. 187;
s. c. 19 Am. Dec. 363; Four Mile
Valley R. Co. v. Bailey, 18 Ohio
St. 208; Payson v. Withers, 5 Biss.
269; County of Schuylkill v. Cop-
ley, 67 Pa. St. 386; Smith v. Reese,
etc. Co., L. R. 2 Eq. 264.
66
Diman v. Providence, etc. R.
Co., 5 R. I. 130.
67
Payson v. Withers, 5 Biss.
269: Beach on Railways,
118.
68
To the public this company
had all the extent indicia of being
the corporation, and legally en-
titled to exercise the rights and
franchises it assumed to exercise.
A party voluntarily taking stock
in such company is not in a posi-
tion, when sued for the balance
due for such stock, for the benefit
of the creditors of such company,
to deny the authority of the com-
pany to issue such stock and
transact business lawfully. Upton
V. Hansbrough (1873), 3 Biss. 417,
421, citing Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19
N. Y. 119; Harvey v. Kay, 9 Barn.
& C. 356; Doubleday v. Muskett, 7
Bing. 110; White v. Coventry, 29
Barb. 305; Trumbull Co. Ins. Co.
V. Horner, 17 Ohio, 407; Parish v.
Wheeler, 22 N. Y. 494; Steam
Navigation Co. v. Weed, 17 Barb.
378; Doyle v. Peerless Petroleum
Co., 44 Barb. 239; Duchess Cotton
Manufactory v. Davis, 14 Johnson,
238; Henrioues v. Dutch West
India Co., 2 Ld. Ray. 1535; Clark
V. Thomas (1877). 34 Ohio St. 46,
59; Hickling v. Wilson (1882),
104 111. 54; Thompson v. Reno
Savings Bank (1885), 19 Nev. 103;
Inter-Mountain, etc. Co. v. Jack, 5
Mont. 568.
69
"There is no doubt that, in
general, a strict compliance must
be shown with the provisions of
the charter, and that, in this case,
so much of the Code of Virginia
as is applicable, is made part of
the act of the plaintiff's incorpo-
ration. But, in some cases, a com-
pliance will be presumed: and, in
others, it may be waived. As-
suming the authority to make the
subscription, and the fact of its
having been made, the payment of
installments on it is a sufficient
recognition of the legal existence
and organization of the plaintiff.
312
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
247.
thereon, voted at corporate meetings/" or otherwise participated
in its affairs, after the organization of the company
,^^
cannot with-
draw from membership nor evade his Hability to the company or
its creditors upon the ground that the statutory formahtics requi-
site to its legal organization have not been observed/^ For it is
That the law will make presump-
tion in favor of the legality of
the
proceedings of corporations is
settled."
Maltby v. Northwestern
Virginia R. Co. (ISGO), 16 Md.
422, 444.
70
"When subscribers to the
stock of a private corporation
meet and elect a board of direct-
ors, and thereby effect a perma-
nent organization, and engage in
the corporate enterprise for sev-
eral years, by which debts are in-
curred, voting and acting as bo7ia
fide
subscribers, they will not be
allowed to dispute the binding ef-
fect of their subscriptions, or the
legality of the organization of the
corporation, as against third per-
sons who give credit to the com-
pany on the faith of its being
legally organized, but will be re-
quired to pay, their subscriptions
as to creditors who are entitled
in equity to be subrogated to the
rights of the company." 15 Cen-
tral L. J. 18, citing Hickling v.
Wilson (1882). 104 111. 54. It is
not competent for any stockholder
to make the objection to the ex-
istence of the corporation, inas-
much as they have chosen the
president and managers, and have
had all the benefits of the corpo-
ration. They cannot now set up
as a defense their own want of
power. Rockville, etc. Turnpike
Road V. Van Ness, 2 Cranch, C. C.
449, 451.
71
As, for example, by acting as
a director. Rice v. Rock Island,
etc. R. Co., 21 111. 93; Danbury &
N. R. Co. V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435;
Meadow v. Gray, 30 Me. 547; Hunt
V. Kansas, etc. Co., 11 Kan. 41!^.
"But we do not see how the de-
fendant in this case can raise this
question. He is a stockholder in
the defendant company. He has
been, if he is not still, a director.
He is not dealing with it as a
stranger, but as a member who
has participated in its organiza-
tion, and claimed and exercised
authority under and by virtue
thereof.
. It will not do for him
now to deny the rightful existence
of this company as to himself and
his own stock subscription, which
he has affirmed as to all others.
As to him, we must treat this cor-
poration as having a legal organ-
ization and a right to call upon
him to fulfill his engagement as
a subscriber to its stock." Wein-
man V. Wilkinsburg & E. L. P.
Ry. Co. (1888), 118 Pa. St. 192,
203. In another case it was held'
that where a member was an
original subscriber to the com-
pany, and was one of the com-
missioners for receiving the sub-
scriptions, and was elected one
of the managers of the company,
and acted as such, in virtue of his
election, it was not competent
for him to object that a sufficient
number of shares had not been
subscribed to justify the election.
Rockville, etc. Turnpike Road v.
Van Ness, 2 Cranch, C. C. 449, 450.
72
Swartwout v. Michigan, etc.
R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, per Cooley,
J.; Tar River, etc. Co. v. Neal
(1825), 3 Hawks (N. C), 520.
534; Wilmington, etc. R. Co. v.
Thompson, 7 Jones (N. C). 387;
Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson,
22 Conn. 435; Hanover, etc. R.
Co. v. Haldeman. 82 Pa. St. 36.
See, also. Garrett v. Dillsburg,
etc. R. Co., 78 Pa. St. 465, where
the plea was that the charter had
been fraudulently obtained. "But

247.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS. 343
well settled that non-compliance with the provisions of a charter
is not a matter of defense collaterally between a corporation and
its stockholders or debtors. It belongs exclusively to the State to
it is not necessary for us to ex-
press a decided opinion on that
or any other of these objections,
because we have no doubt that
the conduct of the defendant, in
regard to the organization by the
choice of directors, and the pre-
liminary steps which led to it,
and his conduct since that organ-
ization, was such as ought to pre-
clude him, as between himself and
the plaintiffs, in an action like
the present, which is brought to
recover the amount due on the in-
stallments assessed on his stock,
from disputing the regularity or
validity of these steps taken in
the organization of the plaintiffs
as a corporation. He was a party
to and co-operated very actively
with the other subscribers and
the commissioners in that organ-
ization, and participated in all the
proceedings which led to it. He
was one of the earliest and largest
subscribers to the stock, and in-
duced others also to subscribe to
it. Attended, on the call of the
commissioners, all the meetings of
the stockholders as one of them,
and acted with them in the
choice of directors, accepted the
ofBce of director, to which he was
chosen, and acted as such in the
meetings of the directors and in
the meetings at which the install-
ments on the stock were laid, and
until called upon long afterwards
for his part of those installments,
it does not appear that he ever
questioned the regularity of the
organization of the company or
its corporate powers; and he con-
tinued to be, and acted as, a di-
rector, subsequently during all
the time while the arrangements
were made by the directors for
the building of the road and the
operations connected with it. In
consequence of this conduct on
his part, and on the strength of
what was thus done by him, in
connection with the other stock-
holders and directors, the other
subscribers, generally, were in-
duced to pay for their stock; and
the company have also been in-
duced to incur the expense of
building their railroad, and of
carrying on all the branches of
their business connected with it.
The other stockholders have thus
been led to invest their funds and
assume responsibilities in a mode
and to an extent which they
would not have done but for this
conduct of the defendant. The
consequence of permitting him,
now, to repudiate his acts, might
be to devolve upon the other sub-
scribers a personal liability for
the engagements of the company,
to make them even trespassers in
regard to those whose property
has been taken for the construc-
tion of their road, and to frus-
trate the whole object of their un-
dertaking. It requires no argu-
ment to show that, under these
circumstances, the case comes
within the well-established and
most just and wholesome prin-
ciple, that a person who, by his
declarations, or a course of con-
duct, which is a species of decla-
ration, has wilfully induced an-
other injuriously to alter his con-
dition, is, as against the latter,
estopped from denying the truth
of such declarations, or the right-
fulness of such conduct." Dan-
bury & N. R. Co. V. Wilson (1853),
22 Conn. 435, 450; citing Brown v.
Wheeler, 17 Conn. 345; Kinney v.
Farnsworth, 17 Conn. 361; Roe
V. Jerome, 18 Conn. 138; Noyes v.
Ward, 19 Conn. 250. "The com-
pany being thus established in
the manner pointed out by the
p"*-,
the defendant ought not to be
844 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
247.
determine whether it will exercise its prerogative of forfeiting or
annulling the chartcrJ^ The articles must contain the statements
alhrmativcly required by the statute, because those statements con-
stitute conditions precedent to the right of the company to become
incorporated. If unauthorized provisions are added, all acts done
pursuant to such provisions will be void ; buf
until the company
is proceeded against for an abuse of its franchises, its rights as
a corporation will not be affected by such unauthorized provis-
ions.''* If the State chooses to tolerate such irregularities, it is not
for individuals to question these acts, certainly not for individuals
w'ho mal<e contracts with them.''^ But while a person partici-
permitted to dispute its existence;
and the less so, as he in part, by
his vote, had confirmed it. If the
commissioners improperly exer-
cised the powers conferred upon
them by the act, they cannot be
called to an account by the de-
fendant in the present action;
some other remedy must be re-
sorted to." Tar River Navigation
Co. V. Mead (1825). 3 Hawks
(N. C.) 520, 536.
73
Taggart v. Western Maryland
R. Co., 24 Md. 563, 596, citing Peo-
ple V. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend.
351; Angell & Ames on Corpora-
tions (3d ed.), 747; Planters'
Bank v. Bank of Alexandria,
10 G. & J. 346. "I do not go
the whole length of the plaint-
iff's counsel in saying that
persons in possession of cor-
porate rights or franchises shall
be considered as rightfully cor-
porators against all persons but
the sovereign; but agree with
them with this qualification, that
where it is shown that such cor-
poration may by law exist, that
is, where it is shown that a char-
ter has been granted, those in
possession and actually in the ex-
ercise of those corporate rights,
shall be considered as rightfully
there, against wrong-doers, and
all those who have treated or
acted with them in their corpo-
rate character; and even when it
is shown that such charter has
been granted upon a precedent
condition, and persons are found
in the quiet possession and exer-
cise of those corporate rights as
against all but the sovereign, the
precedent condition shall be taken
as performed." Tar River Navi-
gation Co. V. Neal (1825), 3
Hawks (N. C), 520, 537. Schloss
V. Montgomery Ti'ade Co. (1889),
87 Ala. 411, was an action by an
alleged corporation for the bal-
ance due on subscriptions of
stock. The plaintiff demurred to
a plea of mil tiel corporation om
the ground that defendants were
estopped from denying plaintiff's
incorporation by having paid all
of their subscription except the
amount sued for, which was al-
leged to have been regularly
called in by plaintiff, and de-
mand made on defendants. The
circumstances of the assessments
were not shown, and it did not
appear that they were made under
color of corporate organization or
capacity. It was held that, as
from the facts shown it did not
appear that the payments were
not made as preliminary to cor-
porate organization, the facts
were not sufiicient to create an es-
toppel.
-i
Eastern Plank Road Co. v.
Vaughan (1856), 14 N. Y. 546,
551, per Selden, J.
T5
Kansas City Hotel Co. v.
Hunt (1874), 57 Mo. 126, citing
Methodist E. Church v. Pickett,
19 N. Y. 486.

248.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 545

pating" in the affairs or subscribing to the stock of a corporation
dc facto after its formation, is precluded from setting up the in-
validity of its organization as a defense to an action on his con-
tract, upon the ground that by contracting with it he has recognized
its existence as a corporation ; no such ground can be taken where
the contract of subscription was made before the formation of the
corporation, and was conditioned upon its formation. A legal and
effectual formation of a corporation or joint-stock company for
the purpose specified in the contract is a condition precedent to
his obligation to put in his capital. He will not be bound under
such a contract to invest his capital in the stock of a corporation
not legally formed, or which has not obtained the franchise of
carrying on the business contemplated by the contract, and in
which he had agreed to become interested.'^*'

248. Variance from original purpose.Another valid

ground upon which the subscriber or stockholder may be relieved
from the obligation of his contract, or withdraw from membership
in the company, is the fact that there has been some fundamental
change in the nature of the corporation whereby his rights and
liabilities are materially affected.'^ Where one subscribes to stock
TODorris v. Sweeney (1875), 60
N. Y. 463, 467, per Rapallo, J.
"The cases in regard to this
point have been examined, and
they all agree, that where the sub-
scription has been acquiesced in,
either by payment of part of the
subscription, or by becoming a di-
rector, or by attending meetings
of stockholders, or by any other
act indicating an acquiescence in
the validity of his subscription,
his defense based on mere tech-
nical objections will be disre-
garded. But the present case is
peculiar, in that it shows nothing
but the bare act of subscribing;
nor is the date of the subscription
averred or proved. It appears
that the ten per cent, required
by the articles of association to
be paid on subscription was never
paid; that the defendant never
took part in the company's acts,
except to subscribe." Kansas
City Hotel Co. v. Hunt (1874), 57
Mo. 126, 130; Low v. Connecticut,
etc. R. Co.. 45 N. H. 370; Rich-
mond Street Ry. Co. v. Reed, 83
Ind.
9; Taggart v. Western R.
Co., 24 Md. 563; Monterey, etc. R.
Co. V. Hildreth, 53 Cal. 123.
Cf.
Danbury & N. R. Co. v. Wilson
(1853), 22 Conn. 435; Diman v.
Providence, etc. R. Co., 5 R. I.
130; Marlborough, etc. R. Co. v.
Arnold, 9 Gray. 159; s. c. 69 Am.
Dec. 279; Buffailo, etc. R. Co. v.
Hatch (1859), 20 N. Y. 157, 161;
Garrett v. Dillsburg. etc. R. Co.,
78 Pa. St. 465; Midland, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Gordon,. 16 Mees. & W. 804.
Contra, Oregon, etc. R. Co. v.
Scroggin, 3 Oregon, 161. Bell's
Appeal (1887), 115 Pa. St. 88, a
late case apparently contra, turns
upon the subsequent acts of the
subscriber estopping him from
denying the regularity of the in-
corporation.
77
Coppage V. Plutton, 124 Ind.
401; Deutsch, etc. Co. v. Mabbett,
58 N. Y. 397; Clearwater v. Mere-
dith, 1 Wall. 25; Nugent v. Su-
J4G
SUBSCKirXIONS.
[
248.
in a corporation to be formed, and without his consent it is sub-
sequently formed of a different character, or for different pur-
poses from those contemplated, he is not liable on his subscrip-
tion,^^ as, for example, an increase in the capital stock whereby
his relative influence and control of the corporate affairs is dimin-
ished/ Neither a mandatory statute nor a vote of the directors
pervisors. 19 "Wall. 241; Cham-
pion V. Memphis, etc. R. Co., 35
Miss. 692; Marietta, etc. R. Co.
V. Elliott (1859), 10 Ohio St. 57;
Charlotte Bank v. Charlotte
(1882), 85 N. C. 433; Kennedy v.
Panama, etc. Mail Co., 17 L. T.
Rep. (N. S.) 62. A contract of
subscription to stock provided for
the building of the A. railroad
according to the survey made by
the B. railroad, the original route
running within 500 feet of M.'s
mill. This route was changed so
as to make it run 1,200 feet from
the mill. In a suit against M.
for the amount of his subscrip-
tion, it was held that he might
show that this alteration in the
route was as to him and his inter-
est a material variation. Moore v.
Hanover Junction & L. R. Co., 34
Pa. St. 324. The effect upon sub-
scriptions of a subsequent change
of the charter of a corporation is
considered in the note to Com-
monwealth V. Cullen, 53 Am. Dec.
461. See also notes to Franklin
Glass Co. V.
Alexander, 9 Am.
Dec. 100; Connecticut, etc. R. Co.
V. Bailey, 58 Am. Dec. 181; Pa-
cific R. Co. V. Hughes, 64 Am. Dec.
265; Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R.
Co., 73 Am. Dec. 713.
"8
Chattanooga, etc. R. Co. v.
Warthen, 98 Ga. 599; Rutland,
etc. R. Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536.
79
Tide supra, 92, 93. "In re-
spect to the amendment of the
charter, it appears from the rec-
ord that the court left Its mate-
riality to the jury, and this is as-
signed for error. That am.endment
was to the effect that the capital
stock may be as much as five hun-
dred thousand dollars, but that
the company may commence work
when one hundred thousand dol-
lars was subscribed. We think
that the materiality of this al-
teration was a question for the
court and that the judge should
not have turned it over to the
jury; but as they found it mate-
rial, of course, if we agree with
them, we ought not to interfere
with what they did. We do think
that the change is material in
so far as it would force collec-
tions from those who have sub-
scribed only on condition that
five hundred thousand dollars
should be subscribed. Besides,
it legalized acts done by the di-
rectors and stockholders in re-
leasing ficticious subscribers, arid
otherwise. Taking it altogether,
it is such an alteration as mater-
ially affects the contract Sullivan
made, and the principle ruled in
Winter v. The Muscogee Railroad
Company (11 Ga. 438), will ap-
ply to this case." Memphis
Branch R. Co. v. Sullivan
(1876),
57 Ga. 240, 243. But in an ac-
tion by certain stockholders
against the officers and other
stockholders of a bridge corpora-
tion, to cancel all the stock held
by defendants, it appeared that
the cost of the bridge was esti-
mated at three thousand dollars,
and that the capital stock was
limited to this amount, equal to
sixty shares. The actual cost was
seven thousand dollars, and to
provide for the difference the
stock was increased to the latter
amount. No vicJa fides on de-
fendants' part was shown, and the
only irregularity consisted in the
failure to have the articles of in-

24S.]
.SUBSCRIPTIONS.
347
nor a majority of the stockholders can compel a dissenting stock-
holder to accept a material alteration of the terms of the contract
in view of which he intrusted his funds to the corporate manage-
ment.^*' The member may say, I have agreed to become interested
in a business of a certain description and have contracted in view
of the profits to be expected and the perils and losses incident to
that description of business ; but I have not agreed that those to
be intrusted with the capital I contribute shall have power to use
it in a business of a different character and attended with hazards
of a different nature.^^ Slight variations, however, between the
corporation amended so as. to per-
mit the increased issue. Plaint-
iffs alleged that they purchased
the certificate of a stockholder on
his representation that his cer-
tificate was for all the capital
stock, and that they purchased
after having examined the ar-
ticles in the Secretary of State's
office, showing that sixty shares
were the entire stock. It ap-
peared that the defendants had a
majority of the original capital
stock, and plaintiffs obtained a
majority of the increased issue.
It was held that the subsequent
issue did not invalidate the or-
iginal issue of stock, and, as can-
cellation of all the stock in de-
fendants' hands was asked for,
such cancellation was properly re-
fused. It was apparent that at
the time of the purchase of the
certificate by plaintiffs it was well
known that the principal defend-
ants were the managers and di-
rectors and had been such man-
agers and directors since the cor-
poration's organization, and that
plaintiffs purchased with knowl-
edge of those facts, and the fur-
ther fact that under the law none
but stockholders could be direc-
tors of a corporation. The cer-
tificate which plaintiffs purchased
was not under the seal of the
company, and was not signed by
its president. And it was de-
cided that the plaintiffs were put
on inquiry, and reasonable in-
quiry would have disclosed the
condition of affairs as shown by
the books of the corporation; and
that under this aspect of the
case, plaintiffs were not entitled
to a decree of cancellation. Byers
V. Rollins (Colo. lbJ<9), 21. Pac.
Rep. 894. So also, where a rail-
road corporation obtains author-
ity from the legislature to change
one of its termini and to increase
its capital stock without the con-
sent of a subscriber to stock under
the original charter, the latter is
released from his subscription,
where at the time thereof the
general law, under which the first
charter was obtained, authorizes
amendments to the charter in-
creasing the capital stock, and
changing the route, but does not
authorize a change in the ter-
mini. Snook V. Georgia Imp. Co.
(Ga. 1889), 9 So. Rep. 1104.
sn
Winter v. Muscogee R. Co.
(1852), 11 Ga. 438.
81
Marietta, etc. R. Co. v. El-
liott
(1859), 10 Ohio St. 57. By
a Kentucky statute (2 Ky. Acts
of 1865, p. 97, 2), the Kentucky
River Navigation Company was
incorporated, for the purpose of
improving the navigation of the
river by building additional locks
and dams. A county interested
in securing such additional im-
provements subscribed to the
stock. The work of making new
locks and dams was soon aban-
doned, and the company under-
318 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
249.
undertaking authorized in the act of incorporation and the original
plan contemplated, will not constitute a valid ground of with-
drawal.**" And when the articles of agreement authorize the di-
rectors to vary or ahandon any part of the undertaking, the sub-
scriber will not be released from liability by an alteration of the
scheme.^^ Even a permanent abandonment of a part of the orig-
inal plan has been held, under certain circumstances, not to release
him.** The main points in such cases have been the nature of the
variance which has caused the liability to be contested, and the
acquiescence of the shareholder in the actual constitution of the
company ; while the consideration of these points has had reference
sometimes to companies where the question lay between the share-
holder and the company only ; and at others to companies where,
by reason of winding-up proceedings, creditors had acquired a
statutory interest in the retention of the objecting member, and
were parties to the litigation.*^
249.
Mismanagement of corporate affairs.Unwise and
injudicious management of the affairs of the company on the part
of those to wdiom they have been intrusted does not constitute a
valid ground for withdrawal and repudiation of shares ; for it is
the duty of the members to select competent ofiFicers to conduct
the corporate affairs, and failing so to do, they cannot complairl if
those whom they have chosen for that purpose commit errors of
judgment and are led into making unprofitable bargains.*" Mis-
took to maintain and repair the
84
Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Gifford,
old locks, which were not in any 87 N. Y. 294; s. c. 22 Hun, 359;
way beneficial to the county. It Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc. B.
was held that the subscription Co.. 7 Fla. 265.
could not be enforced either by 85
"Relief from Shares," 44 L.
the corporation or by creditors T. 40. These questions have been
whose debts had been contracted already treated supra,

91-94.
after the abandonment of the
se
Illinois Grand Trunk R. Co.
building of new locks. Jessamine v. Cook, 29 111. 237; Chetlain v.
V. Swigert (Ky. 1887), 3 S. W. Republic Life Ins. Co., 86 111. 220;
Rep. 13, not officially reported. Merrill v. Beaver, 50 Iowa, 404.
82
Great Western Ry. Co. v. Gor- "Procuring subscriptions of stock
don, 16 Mees. & W. 805, where was directly in the line of their
the original plan was to construct (the directors') duty. If land
a railroad from A. to B. via C, was taken, it was because the rail-
but the charter authorized a rail- way charter permitted it. It was
way only from A. to B., substi- only an error of judgment if they
tuting the purchase of a canal paid too high a price." Horna-
from B. to C. day v. Indiana & I. C. R. Co.
83
Nixon V. Brownlow, 2 Hurl. (1857), 9 Ind. 263. See also Dor-
& N. 455; s. c. 26 L. J. Ex. 273; ris v. French, 4 Hun, 292; Mac-
s. c. 27 L. J. 509. cow v. Indiana, etc, R. Co., 9 Ind.

249.] SUBSCKIPTIOXS. 349

management of a corporation does not discharge a stockholder
from liability on his subscription, and is no defense to an action
thereon.^'' It has been said obiter that a member might complain
if the directors should go beyond the common course of procedure,
as, as if they should consolidate a railway company with others,
without the consent of the shareholders of the company.^^ But
it seems to be well settled that even illegal and wrongful acts of
the corporate managers do not constitute a valid ground of with-
drawal from the company and repudiation of shares ; and that a
subscriber will not be released from paying for his shares because
the managing agents of the corporation have violated its charter.*^"
For example, such acts as making a fraudulent contract with a
262. The member can not plead
that insufficient notice of the elec-
tion of directors was given. East-
em Plank Road Co. v. Vaughan,
14 N. y. 546; Central Plank Road
Co. V. Clemens, 16 Mo. 399; nor
that officers of the company were
illegally elected. Bucksport, etc.
R. Co. V. Buck, 68 Me. 81; Eak-
right V. Logansport, etc. R. Co.,
13 Ind 404; Johnson v. Crawfords-
ville, etc. R. Co., 11 Ind. 2S0.
87
Southern Life, etc. Co. v.
Lanier, 5 Fla. 110, 58 Am. Dec.
448; People v. Town of Barnett,
91 111. 422; American, etc. Ass'n
V. Rainbolt, 48 Neb. 434.
88
Hornaday v. Indiana & I. C.
R. Co. (1857), 9 Ind. 263.
80
Hannibal, etc. Plank Road
Co, V. Menefee, 25 Mo. 547; Mis-
sissippi, etc. R. Co. v. Cross. 20
Ark. 443; Smith v. Tallassee, etc.
Plank Road Co., 30 Ala. 650; Mer-
rill V. Gamble, 46 Iowa, 615; Mer-
rill V. Beaver, 46 Iowa, 646; Mer-
rill V. Beaver, 50 Iowa, 404; Dor-
ris V. French. 4 Hun, 292; Troy,
etc. R. Co. V. Kerr, 17 Barb. 581;
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Gastner,
20 Ark. 455; Hammett v. Little
Rock, etc. R. Co., 20 Ark. 204;
Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. McKean,
12*La. Ann. 638; People v. Logan
County, 63 111. 387, where it was
said that if the railway company
bad exceeded its powers by giv-
ing a perpetual lease of its road
instead of one for years, the sub-
scribing municipality would have
a remedy against such an exer-
cise of power after receiving its
shares of stock, but that it formed
no excuse for failing to pay sub-
scriptions previously made; Ill-
inois, etc. R. Co. V. Cook, 29 111.
237; Hays v. Ottawa, O. & F. K
V. R. Co., 61 111. 422; Ottawa, O
& F. R. V. R. Co. V. Black (1875),
79 111. 262, 268, where the court
said: "If the company had no
power to lease the road and its
franchises, then the lease is void,
and appellees can, when they re-
ceive their stock apply to a court
of equity and have the lease can-
celled;" Chicago, etc. R. Co. v.
McGinnis, 79 111. 269; Illinois
Midland Ry. Co. v. Supervisors,
85 111. 313: Johnson v. Crawfords-
ville, etc. R. Co., 11 Ind. 280; Tut-
tle V. Michigan, etc. R. Co., 35
Mich. 247; Taggart v. Western
Maryland R. Co., 24 Md. 563, 596;
Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Lanier,
5 Fla. 110; s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 448;
1 Morawetz on Corporations.

115, 116. But in South Georgia
6 F. R. Co. V. Ayers (1876), 56
Ga. 230, 234, it was held that an
unauthorized sale of a railway did
release a subscriber from his con-
tract to take and pay for shares.
350
SUBSOKII'TIONS.
[
250.
construction company for the building of a railway,"" making an
unauthorized change in the location of a railway,"^ or misapplying
a check given in payment of a subscription by paying it away
upon a private debt of one of the directors,''^ or selling or giving
a perpetual lease of the corporate property, being ultra vires or
illegal acts, are void and cannot injuriously affect the sharehold-
ers' rights ; and, accordingly, are not accepted as a ground for
the repudiation of shares or as an excuse for non-payment of- sub-
scriptions previously made.**^

250. Delay in prosecuting the corporate purposes.It may

be said, by way of generalization, that unreasonable delay on the
part of the corporate managers in carrying out the purposes for
which the company was projected, amounting practically to an
abandonment of the enterprise, is a sufficient ground for his with-
drawal and repudiation of the shares which he had agreed to
take."* There must be evidence, however, of formal abandon-
ment,^ or of such unreasonable delay as practically to amount to
90
People V. Logan County, 63
111. 374, 387.
91
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v.
Cross, 20 Ark. 443. But see Char-
tiers R. Co. V. Hodgens, 77 Pa.
St. 187.
92
Croker v. Crane, 21 Wencl.
211; s. c. 34 Am. Dec. 228.
93
Troy V. Rutland R. Co., 17
Barb. (N. Y.) 581; Hays v. Ot-
tawa, etc. R. Co., 61 111. 422. "If
the purchase was unauthorized,
we do not consider that it forms
an excuse for not paying sub-
scriptions previously made. In
People V. Logan County, 63 111.
387, it was said, in reference to
a somewhat analogous question,
that, if the railroad company had
exceeded their powers by giving
a perpetual lease of their road,
instead of one for years, the
county would have its remedy
against such an exercise of power
after receiving its shares of
stock, but that it formed no ex-
cuse for not paying subscriptions
previously made. The remark,
we think, applies equally here."
Illinois Midland R. Co. v. Bar-
nett
(1877), 85 111. 313, 318, cit-
ing Ottawa, O. & F. R, V. R. Co.
V. Black, 79 111. 262; Hays v. Ot-
tawa, O. & F. R. V. R. Co., 61 111.
422. See also Taylor on Corpora-
tions (2d ed. 1889), 529. But
see South Georgia, etc. R. Co. v.
Ayres, 56 Ga. 230.
94
Delaware River R. Co. v.
Rowland (1887), 9 Atl. Rep. 929;
s. c. 8 Cent. Rep. 814; McCully v.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. he.
25; Fountain Ferry T. R. Co. v.
Jewell, 8 B. Mon. 147, where there
was a delay of nine years in be-
ginning to construct the road.
95
In Buffalo & J. R. Co. v. Gif-
ford (1882), 87 N. Y. 294, the ar-
ticles of association for organiz-
ing a railroad company stated
that the road was to be con-
structed, maintained and operated
from Buffalo to a point on the
state line between New York and
Pennsylvania. The road was ac-
tually built from Buffalo to
Jamestown, about twelve miles
north of the state line; and the
proof was simply that the con-
struction stopped at Jamestown.
There was no finding that the re-
maining portion was formally
abandoned, and it was held that
a subscriber was liable on his

250.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 351

a final abandonment of the enterprise.''^ But when the company
has contracted debts, or has expended funds contributed by other
members, in attempting to carry out the scheme, new equities
arise which will debar a member who has not yet contributed his
pro rata of the common expenses, from availing himself of the
abandonment as a means of avoiding liability.'*'^ For debts due
by the company to other individuals for work and service ren-
dered are not abrogated, and its own ability to discharge these
njay be dependent upon its" reahzing upon the claims due by its
own debtors.^ Even if the debts due by the corporation were
settled and adjusted, it might be that one or a few stockholders
had paid all their subscriptions and advanced means, whilst others
had paid none and thereby defeated the undertaking. To acquit
and discharge the latter would be to offer a premium to wrong

to tempt those who enter upon these undertakings to seek the

means of evasion and of escape from a just responsibility.^^ The
unreasonableness of the delay which in other cases, where no
such equities as those referred to above have arisen, may justify
a repudiation of shares, depends in a large measure upon the cir-
cumstances of each case. Thus, for example, after a railway had
been located and its construction begun and fairly prosecuted as
rapidly as the company's means would permit, a suspension of
the work under pressure of hard times and default in payment
subscription, and the fact that tional fact that the means of the
after commencement of an action company are wholly inadequate
on such subscription, a mortgage to the accomplishment of this ob-
issued by the plaintiff company ject, do not furnish any sufficient
was foreclosed, and the road and reason why the defendant should
its franchises sold to purchasers not pay for his stock. It may be,
who took possession, was held to and probably is, necessary to aid
be no defense. in the payment of debts already
96
Yide cases cited in the two incurred in the work previously
notes preceding. done upon the road, or it may be
97
Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc. required for the purpose of as-
R. Co. (1857), 7 Fla. 265, 281. sisting in its further prosecution.
98
In McMillan v. Maysville & The defendant could only be ab-
L. R. Co. (1854), 15 B. Mon. 218; solved from liability for the pay-
s. c. 61 Am. Dec. 181, 184, it was ment of his stock by alleging and
said: "The other matters of de- proving a final abandonment of
fense set up and relied upon in the work by the company, and
the answer, are obviously unten- also that its payment was not
able. The fact that the company necessary for the purpose of sat-
have suspended operations upon isfying any existing demand
the road, and that it v/ill require against the corporation."
a large additional expenditure of 90
Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc.
labor and money to complete its
R. Co. (1857), 7 Fla. 265, 181.
construction, and even the addi-
352 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
250.
of subscriptions, has been held to be no ground for a refusal to
pay the amounts due upon the shares subscribed for, even though
they were taken upon condition that the company should locate
"and construct" the road along a designated route.^ So again, a
statutory extension of the time allowed in the charter for build-
ing the road, does not warrant a repudiation of shares ; for, if the
legislature chose to relieve the road from a cause of forfeiture of
charter, instead of enforcing it by quo warranto, it does not de-
stroy or impair existing contracts, unless that were made and ac-
cepted as a condition of relief.^ Nor when a suit is brought by a
corporation against delinquent shareholders, can it be shown in
defense that the plaintiff has forfeited its corporate rights by mis-
user or nonuser. Advantage can be taken of abuse or neglect only
on process in behalf of the State instituted directly against the cor-
poration for the purpose of avoiding the charter or act of incorpo-
ration, and individuals cannot avail themselves of it in collateral
suits, until it be judicially declared.^ A plea or answer, therefore,
as a general rule, to the suit of a corporation, showing facts upon
which in a direct proceeding the corporate powers might be de-
1 Miller v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co. (1861), 40 Pa. St. 257; s. c.
80 Am. Dec. 570, 572, where the
court said: "The condition in his
contract did not mean that the
road should be constructed and
finished before he paid, but only
meant that when it was located
and constructed, it should occcpy
the route designated. On his
part the undertaking was to pay
as calls should be made. On the
company's part the undertaking
was to locate as stipulated and to
construct 'bona fide as fast as the
means at their command would
allow. This was the whole scope
and effect of the condition. A
suspension of the work two years
and a half after the time when
every dollar of the defendant's
subscription ought to have been
in the treasury of the company,
is no defense for him. The ne-
cessity for that suspension was
no doubt aggravated, perhaps in-
duced, by the failure of himself
and others to pay up this stock;
but, whether it was or was not,
the suspension was the exercise
of a discretion which every sub-
scriber had committed to the di-
rectors. Let them not complain,
therefore, that their constituted
agents have, under the pressure
of the times and the default of
subscribers, exercised the discre-
tion that was voluntarily com-
mitted to them for the benefit of
the common enterprise. Until It
can be shown how railroads can
be built without money, no such
defense as is here set up can pre-
vail." Ace. McMillan v. Mays-
ville & L. R. Co. (1854), 15 B.
Mon. 218; s. c. 61 Am. Dec. 181.
2 Jacks V. City of Helena
(1883), 41 Ark. 213, 222, per S. W.
Williams, Special Judge.
3 Hammett v. Little Rock, etc.
R. Co. (1859), 20 Ark. 204, 208,
citing Angell & Ames on Corpo-
rations, 636. See also Missis-
sippi, etc. R. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark.
443.

251.] SL'BSCEIPTIONS.
clared at an end, is not sufficient. It must show that they have
ceased.*

251. Other grounds for release. Pa5mient. Discharge in

banlcruptcy.The subscriber is discharj:^ed from Habihty to
creditors upon his contract for subscription by full payment
thereof, though he may, by charter provision, be subject to fur-
ther assessment for payment of corporate debts, or for direct cor-
porate purposes.^ By discharge in bankruptcy he is discharged
from existing liability on prior subscription.*' He is discharged
by alterations made without his consent in the subscription paper;"
or by alterations or amendments of the charter, fundamentally
changing the corporate objects. And he is discharged by breach
of condition precedent upon which the subscription was made;*
or by consolidation with another corporation v.'ithout his con-
sent.^" Though the incorporation was under the laws of another
state, the validity of the cancellation of the stock of a corporation
having its office in the state will be governed by the laws of the
state.^^ False representation made in a circular issued by author-
ity of the directors and officers of a corporation and made to in-
duce purchase of treasury stock entitles the purchaser to rescind
the contract.^^
4 Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v.
Cross (1859), 20 Ark. 443, 451,
citing Brookville & G. Turnpike
Co. V. McCarty, 8 Ind. 392; Ex
parte Booker, 18 Ark. 338; Ham-
mett V. Little Rocl<: & Napoleon
R. Co., 20 Ark. 204; Sewall's Falls
Bridge v. Fisk & Norcross, 3 Fos-
ter, 171; State v. Fourtli N. H.
Turnpike, 15 N. H. 166; Connec-
ticut & P. Rivers R. Co. v. Bailey
(1852), 24 Vt. 476; Harris v. Nes-
bit, 24 Ala. 398. But see Row-
land V. Meader, etc. Co., 38 Ohio
St. 269.
5 Toner v. Folkerson, 125 Ind.
224; Enterprise Ditch Co. v. Mof-
fitt, 58 Neb. 642, 76 Am. St. Rep.
122, 45 L. R. A. 647.
e
Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. 10;
Carey v. IMayer (C. C. A.), 79
Fed. 926.
7 Richmond St. R. Co. v. Reed,
83 Ind. 9: Burrows v. Smith, 10
N. Y. 550; Katama Land Co. v.
Vou 1

23
Jernegan, 126 Mass. 155; Southern
Hotel Co. V. Newman, 30 Mo. 118.
8
Nugent V. Supervisors, etc., 19
Wall. (U. S.) 241; State' v. Bai-
ley, 16 Ind. 46, 79 Am. Dec. 405;
Union Locks, etc. v. Town, 1 N. H.
44, 8 Am. Dec. 32; Kenosha R. Co.
V. Marsh, 17 Wis. 13.
9 Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R.
Co., 8 Fla. 370, 73 Am. Dec. 713;
Caley v. Philadelphia R. Co., SO
Pa. St. 363.
10
State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46,
79 Am. Dec. 405; Shelbyville, etc.
Co. V. Barnes. 42 Ind. 498; Illin-
ois Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cook,
29 111. 237.
11
Scottish, etc. Receiver v.
Starkes, 78 S. W. 455 (Ky. 1904).
12
American Alkali Co. v. Sa-
lom, 131 Fed. 46, U. S. C. C. Ai
(Pa. 1904); Mulholland v. Wash-
ington, etc. Co., 77 Pac. 497
(Wash. 1904).
354:
SL'uscKH'TKJNs.
[
252.
G.
FRAUDULENT AGREEMENTS. "dUMMY" SUBSCRIBERS,

252.
Secret concessions to other subscribers. Fraud in
procuring subscriptions.It has frequently happened that sub-
scriptions to a portion of the capital stock of a company have been
colorable and fictitious, that the subscribers in some instances
were notoriously insolvent, in others that it was expressly under-
stood that payment was not expected or to be exacted, in others
that only a part of the subscription should be paid, and in other
instances that payment should be made in services of some kind,
or in property, accepted at an overvaluation
;^^
again, some of the
subscribers may have neglected to make the cash deposit required
'
by the statute to constitute a valid subscription,^* or the shares of
other members may have been forfeited and the subscriptions of
others compromised
;^^
and the question arises whether a share-
holder to whom no such concessions have been made may avail
himself of these circumstances to withdraw from the company
and repudiate his shares. It is said, on the one hand, that where
subscriptions are made under an agreement that they are not to
be binding unless a specified sum is subscribed, it is essential that
there should be no conditions as to the liability of any of the sub-
scribers not applicable to all ; that confidential subscriptions, given
for the purpose, of making up the required sum, are a fraud upon
the other subscribers, and should not be treated as valid subscrip-
tions
;
and that when by deducting these confidential subscriptions
the required sum remains unsubscribed, the contract of subscrip-
13
Jewell V. Rock River Paper by the corporation, and has made
Co. (1881), 101 111. 57, 67.
these conditions precedent to its
14
Swartwout v. Michigan, etc. right to enforce the obligations of
R. Co., 24 Mich. 389, 396, where its members. Performance of
the court said: "But although the these the corporators have the
plaintiff below was a corporation right to insist upon; and the
de facto, and entitled to maintain plaintiff was necessitated to show
actions as such, it may still be such performance before recovery
true that it was not authorized could have been had in this suit,
to recover upon subscriptions to The first and most important of
its corporate stock. For this pur- these is that subscriptions to a
pose it is not sufficient that its certain amount should be ob-
corporate powers are, under the tained to the capital stock."
circumstances, to be taken as con- 15
Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc.
ceded by the subscribers. The
Plank R. Co., 7 Fla. 265.
statute has pointed out cer-
tain steps, which are to be taken

252.] SUBSCKirTIONS. 355

tion does not become operative, so as to bind other subscribers
;^'
so that unless there be some proof that the member seeking to
withdraw had assented to this release of other subscribers, or
some fact appearing from which his assent could be implied, he
is released from his liability upon his original subscription.^' In
support of this view it is argued that when one agress to pay so
much for an enterprise, how much it will take to complete it, is a
most important question. There can be no doubt that he sub-
scribes on condition that the charter shall be complied with, that
instrument forming part, and an important part, of his con-
tract. The law of the corporation defines the terms upon which
he agrees to pay ; and the amount of valid subscriptions made for
the common enterprise is most material. One might be willing
to be one of ten men to raise a thousand dollars, but not one of
ten to raise five hundred for a given purpose. The former sum
might, in his judgment, be the least sum that could accomplish
the object; while he might believe the latter sum could not, and
that his subscription in the latter case would be money thrown
away.^^ It surely cannot alter the case if a large and material
ic
New York Exchange Co. v.
De Wolf (1865), 31 N. Y. 273, 281,
282.
17
Rutz V. Esler, etc. Manuf. Co.
(1878), 3 Bradw. (111.) 83, 89. In
this case a resolution was passed
authorizing an arrangement with
certain subscribers to the capital
stock, by which, upon giving their
individual notes for one-half of
their subscriptions, they were to
be released from the payment of
the other half: and this arrange-
ment was made with quite a num-
ber of the original stock subscrib-
ers, and their notes taken and
accepted for a moiety of their sub-
scriptions in full satisfaction.
"Did this act of the board release
appellant from his obligation to
pay his subscription? The courts
of this country, with but few ex-
ceptions, have held that a release
of a portion of the subscribers
to the capital stock releases all
the subscribers who do not assent
to that release, or In some way
give their sanction to it." Rutz
V. Esler, etc. Manuf. Co.- (1878),
8 Bradw. (111.) 83, 88, citing
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Graham,
12 Casey, 77; Pittsburgh & C.
R. Co. V. McCully, 8 Casey, 25;
Pittsburgh & C. R. Co. v. Graham,
2 Grant, 259; Stewart v. Trustees
of Hamilton College, 2 Denio, 403;
Crawford County v. Pittsburgh,
etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. 141; New York
Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 31 N. Y.
273.
18
Memphis Branch R. Co. v.
Sullivan
(1876), 57 Ga. 240, 242,
where the court, applying the il-
lustration above, continued, "In
this very case he might be quite
willing to be one of five thousand
shareholders at a hundred dollars
each, believing that the road, a
good substantial road, could not
be built for a dime less than five
hundred thousand dollars; 'but he
might think It folly to venture
on such an enterprise with one
hundred thousand dollars, and
would not subscribe a cent for it,
because it would waste his money
for nothing; and so we find the
authorities to be," citing Salem
350
suBSCRii'TioNs.
[
252.
subscription were merely nominal, and was afterwards released
because it had always been a sham, and all this had been done
without the knowledge and consent of the member seeking' to
repudiate his shares, who was thus duped and cheated into his
subscription by the sham." On the other hand, it is said that
each subscription to the stock of a corporation is an independent
contract and in no way connected with or dependent upon the
terms or agreements concerning other subscriptions.
'
And under
this view it is held that a member cannot repudiate his shares on
the ground that other subscribers were allowed to obtain shares
upon more favorable terms.-^ Certainly a subscription to corpo-
rate stock will not be invalidated by the irresponsibility of other
subscribers for shares necessary to be subscribed before the or-
ganization of the corporation, if such other subscriptions were
made and accepted by the company in good faith, the subscribers
being apparently responsible.-^ And it is held that if the direct-
ors of the company, either with or without authority, have re-
leased even the larger stockholders from the payment of a part of
their stock, such an act cannot discharge another member from
the payment of his stock, either in whole or in part. For if such
a release were made in virtue of a legal power, it could not be ob-
jected to, and if without authority, it would be merely void.-^ So
that in an action upon a subscription to corporate stock, the de-
fendant cannot set up secret fraudulent arrangements by which
other subscribers were to have stock upon terms different from
those specified in the contract, those arrangements beijig of no
avail to the persons in whose behalf they were made.^* And in the
Milldam Co. v. Ropes, 6 Pick. 23; after another subscriber, and the
Central Turnpilve Co. v. Valen- subscription paper showed the
tine, 10 Pick. 142; Somerset & K. name of the letter canceled by
R. Co. V. Cushing, 45 Me. 524; 1 lines across it, and opposite ap-
Redfield on Railways, 176 et seg., peared the words "by agree't Mar.
and cases cited there. 5,
'73"
the alteration did not,
19
Memphis Branch R. Co. v. per se, discharge the defendant.
Sullivan
(1876), 57 Ga. 240, 242, Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y.
per Jackson, J. 456.
20
Connecticut & P. Rivers R.
22
Penobscot, etc. R. Co. v,
Co. V. Bailey (1852), 24 Vt. 465; White, 41 Me. 512; s. c. 66 Am.
s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 181, 182; Reus- Dec. 257.
selaer, etc. Plank Road Co., v.
23
Hall v. Selma & T. R. Co.
Wetsil, 21 Barb. 56. (1844), 6 Ala. 741, 744.
21
Anderson v. Newcastle, etc.
24
Anderson v. Newcastle, etc.
R. Co., 12 Ind. 376; s. c. 74 Am. R. Co. (1859), 12 Ind. 376; s. c.
Dec. 218. Thus, where the de- 74 Am. Dec. 218; Memphis Brant;h
fendant's subscription was made R. Co. v. Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240;

252.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 357

case of fictitious subscriptions to influence others, the parties to
the fraud would not be permitted to avail themselves of their own
wrongful acts to avoid their contract. They would be estopped
to deny its binding character and obligation, and be required to
discharge to the corporation and all interested therein that obliga-
tion which they have assumed, according to its terms. In de-
priving them of such matters in defense, the law makes the sub-
scription bona fide, and requires them to fulfill and answer those
expectations and inducements which they have held out for the
purpose of procuring other subscribers.^^ Since then, the prior
subscribers are held bound to their subscriptions, and to carry
out to the letter every inducement they have held forth, no fraud
has been practiced upon others to make their subscriptions, and
they have no reason to complain, for they see fulfilled and an-
swered every inducement that was held out to operate upon them.
The case is made to stand, in that respect, in the same situation
in which they were induced to believe it stood when they sub-
scribed for the stock.^^ Another consideration in point is that the
creditors of the company are not to be afifected by mere private
understandings between the subscriber and the subscription agent
of the company, by which the former is exonerated from the per-
formance of that which his subscription, by its very terms, plainly
requires. To permit such a thing would be to sanction a palpable
fraud upon the creditors of the company and the other stockhold-
ers.-^ If wrong has been done in this respect, the injury may be
repaired by the directors or injured stockholders, or by legal ac-
tion, but not by a renewal of the wrong by the court.^^ If the
subscriber was fraudulently induced to subscribe for or purchase
stock by any managing officer or other agent of the corporation,
the subscriber, within reasonable time after discovery of the
fraud, may treat the subscription as void or institute action for
Hall V. Selma & T. R. Co., 6 Ala. well as of good faith, and is now
74; Jewell v. Rock River, etc. Co., considered as settled law in this
101 111. 57; Connecticut & P. Riv- state." Connecticut & P. Rivers
ers R. Co. V. Bailey (1852), 24 Vt. R. Co. v. Bailey (1852), 24 Vt.
4G5; Jewett v. Valley Ry. Co., .34 465; s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 181, 188.
Ohio St. 601. But see New Yorlc 26
Connecticut & P. Rivers R.
-
Exchange Co. v. De Wolf, 31 N. Co. v. Bailey (1852), 24 Vt. 465;
Y. 270, reversing s. c. 5 Bosw. s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 181, 189.
593; Berry v. Yates, 24 Barb. 199; 27
Jewell v. Rock River Paper
Rutz V. Esler & R. Manuf. Co. Co. (1881), 101 111. 57, 67.
(1878), 3 Bradw. (111.) 83.
23
Dorman v. Jacksonville, etc.
25
"This doctrine is enforced by
R. Co. (1857),, 7 Fla. 265, 281.
considerations of public policy, as
35S
SUBSCRIl'TIONS.
[
253.
deceit, or both. "As a corporation can only speak or act by agent,
there is stronger reason for holding it answerable for the acts
and representations of the agent done within the ostensible scope
of his authority and while transacting the business of the princi-
pal, than where the principal is a natural person. However, ilw
some rule applics-alikc to natural and artifical persons. The pur-
chaser can maintain an action of deceit against the innocent prin-
cipal when the fraud of the agent has been coinmitted within the
scope of his authority and where the principal has benefited by
it. In this respect it makes no difference whether the principal be
a corporation or an individual."
^
253.
Fraudulent agreement of subscribers. Secret ad-
vantages.Agreements between prospective subscribers to
the proposed stock of a corporation, which are fraudulent in their
nature, cannot be enforced. Thus an agreement that the subscrip-
tion shall merely be nominal for the purpose of inducing others
to subscribe is invalid.^'' And a secret agreement entered into be-
tween the directors of a corporation and a subscriber for shares
in its capital stock, that he may within a specified time reduce the
20
Erie City Iron Works v.
Barber, 106 Pa. St. 125, 51 Am.
Rep. 508; Central Ry. Co. of Ven-
ezuela V. Kirch, L. R. 2 H. L. 99;
Reese, etc. Co. v. Smith, L. R. 4
H. L. 64; Tyler v. Savage, 143 U.
S. 79; Spellier Electric Time Co.
V. Leedom. 149 Pa. St. 185; Brad-
ley V. Poole, 98 Mass. 169, 93 Am.
Dec. 144; Dorsey Machine Co. v.
McCaffrey, 139 Ind. 545, 47 Am.
St. Rep. 290; Montgomery, etc.
Ry. Co. V. Mathews, 77 Ala. 357,
54 Am. Rep. 60.
30
Mann v. Cooke, 20 Conn. 178;
Galena & S. W. R. Co. v. Ennor,
116 111. 55; s. c. 12 Am. & Eng.
Corp. Cas. 88; Peychaud v. Hood,
23 La. Ann. 732; "Wetherbee v,
Baker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501; Phoenix
Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 6
Hun, 293; Robinson v. Pittsburgh
& C. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 334; Graff
V. Pittsburgh & S. R. Co., 31 Pa.
St. 489; Centre & K. Turnpike Co.
V. McConaby, 16 Serg. & R. 140;
"Subscriptions to the capital
Stock of Corporations," by James
M. Kerr (1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L..
J. 422. A person sued for instal-
ments due on his subscription
will not be allowed to defeat a re-
covery by showing that he at-
tached a secret oral condition to
the delivery of his subscription
to the promoter. Minneapolis
Threshing Machine Co. v. Davis
(1889), 40 Minn. 110; s. c. 12 Am.
St. Rep. 701; Connecticut & P.
Rivers R. Co. v. Bailey, 24 Vt.
465; Downie v. White, 12 Wis.
176; Davidson's Case, 3 De G. &
S. 21. See Litchfield Bank v.
Church, 29 Conn. 137; Nev/ Al-
bany & S. R. Co. V. Slaughter, 10
Ind. 218; Chouteau Ins. Co. v.
Floyd, 74 Mo. 286; Bates v. Lewis,
3 Ohio St. 459; Blodgett v. Mor-
rill, 20 Vt. 509; Minor v. Mechan-
ics' Bank, 1 Peters,
46; Preston
V. Grand Collier Dock Co., 11 Sim.
327; s. c. 2 Eng. R. & Canal Cas.
335; Mangles v. Grand Collier
Dock Co., 10 Sim. 519; s. c. 2 Eng.
R. & Canal. Cas. 360; Bridger's
Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 74.

253.] SUBSCKIPTIONS. 359

number of shares thus subscribed for, the subscription being held
out as bona fide for the full amount, in order to induce others to
become subscribers, is void, as a fraud upon the other subscribers
;
and the original subscription may be enforced for its full amount
between the corporation and the subscriber.^^ It may be laid down
generally, that a party may be concluded from denying his own
acts or admissions, which were expressly designed to influence
the conduct of another, and did so influence it ; and when his de-
nial will operate to the injury of the latter.^- So, also, agreements
that the subscription shall be merely a pledge of stock by the cor-
poration to the subscriber,^^ or that the subscriber shall not be
liable for the par value of his stock,^* or that the subscriber shall
be released, or that the stock may be surrendered, are invalid.^^
Thus, if one subscribe for the capital stock of a corporation under
a parol promise by the agent who procures the subscription that
the subscriber shall not be called upon to pay for the stock or re-
spond to any assessment, he is nevertheless bound.^'' And again,
an agreement entered into between prospective subscribers to the
capital stock of a corporation, that they alone shall take the stock
in the company when organized, is a contract which cannot be en-
forced.^'^
31
White Mountains R. Co. v.
Eastman, 34 N. H. 124, quoted in
Jewett V. Valley Rj. Co., 34 Ohio
St. mi, 609. Cf.
Field on Corpo-
rations,

90.
32
Hall V. Selma & T. R. Co.
(1844), 6 Ala. 741, 745, per Col-
lier, C. J., citing Tipton v. Selma
& T. R. Co., 5 Ala. 787.
33
Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80
111. 446; White Mountains R. Co.
V. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124.
34
Union Mut Life Ins. Co. v.
Frear Stone Manuf. Co., 97 111.
397; Custar v. Titusville Gas &
Water Co., 63 Pa. St. 381; Upton
V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45.
35
Gill V. Balis, 72 Mo. 424;
Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111.
446; White Mountains R. Co. v.
Eastman, 34 N. H. 124; "Sub-
scriptions to the Capital Stock of
Corporations," by James M. Kerr
(1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 422.
36
Chouteau Ins. Co. v. Floyd,
74 Mo. 286.
3T
Lake Ontario Shore R. Co. v.
Curtiss, 80 N. Y. 219; Poughkeep-
sie & S. P. Plank Road Co. v.
Griffin, 24 N. Y. 150; California
Sugar Manuf. Co. v. Schafer, 57
Cal. 396; Stowe v. Flagg, 72 111.
397; Chase v. Sycamore & C. R.
Co., 38 111. 215; Mt. Sterling Coal
Road Co. V. Little, 14 Bush, 429;
Goff V. Winchester College, 6
Bush, 443; Perkins v. Union B.
H. & E. Mach. Co., 12 Allen, 273;
Sewall V. Eastern R. Co., 19 Cush.
5; Carlisle v. Saginaw Valley &
St. L. R. Co., 27 Mich 315; Day-
ton W. B. & X. Turnpike Co. v.
Coy, 13 Ohio St. 84; Strasburg R.
Co. V. Echternacht, 21 Pa. St.
220; Pittsburgh & S. R. Co. v.
Gazzam, 32 Pa. St. 340; Charlotte
& S. C. R. Co. V. Blakely, 3 Strobh.
245; Wallingford Manuf. Co. v.
Fox, 12 Vt. 304.
300 SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
253a, 254.

253a. Constructive fraud in release,The unpaid sub-

scriptions to the capital stock of an insolvent corporation are a
trust fund for the benefit of the general creditors of the corpora-
tion. The governing officers cannot, by agreement or other trans-
action with the stockholder, release him from his obligation to
pay, to the prejudice of the corporate creditors, except by fair and
honest dealing and for a valuable consideration. An undertaking
by the corporation and the subscriber to convert his debt owed to
the corporation for his stock, into a debt for the loan of money,
whereby to extinguish the stock debt, is a fraud upon the public
who are expected to deal with them. Where the method adopted
is pretended payment for the stock by check, which is never paid,
and immediate loan of the amount to the stockholder upon secur-
ity which is never paid to the corporation, no actual money being
paid or received by either party to the transaction, such system
of operation is to the injury of the corporate creditor and bene-
ficial alone to the stockholder and the corporation. The result is
that the capital stock is not paid up in actual money, nor does it
exist in the form of instalments, properly secured.^^ A secret
parol arrangement by which a subscriber was to be released while
his fellow subscribers were to be bound, was an attempted fraud
not only upon them, but upon the corporation which had been or-
ganized upon the faith of the subscription, and is a fraud upon the
corporate creditors.''^
254.
Colorable or fictitious subscriptions by others.

Colorable or fictitious subscriptions,*** subscriptions by persons

having no reasonable expectation of being able to pay,*^ by per-
38
Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall. 610 (Ky.) 219; Belfast, etc. Ry. Co.
(1873). V. Inhabitants of Brooks, CO Me.
39
Minneapolis, etc. Co. V. Davis, 568; Lewey's Island R. Co. v.
40 Minn. 110 (1889), 3 L. R. A. Bolton, 48 Me. 451; s. c. 77 Am.
796, 12 Am. St. Rep. 701. Dec. 236; Salem Mill Dam Corpo-
40
Memphis Branch R. Co. v. ration v. Ropes, 26 Mass. 187. As
Sullivan, 57 Ga. 240. to whether or no a subscription
41
Holman v. State, 105 Ind. 569, may be avoided on the ground
holding that under a statute mak- that the subscriptions of insoi-
Ing it an essential prerequisite vents have been counted in esti-
to the valid organization of a cor- mating the full capital stock to
poration that stock to a certain have been subscribed, see Mem-
amount shall be subscribed, the phis Branch R. Co. v. Sullivan,
subscriptions must have been 57 Ga. 240; Fry v. Lexington, etc.
made in good faith by persons R. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 314; Dail v.
having a reasonable expectation Mt. Sterling Coal Road Co., 13
of being able to pay. Ace. Phil- Bush, 32; Somerset R. Co. v.
lips V. Covington, etc. Co., 2 Met. Clarke, 61 Me. 379; Oldtown, etc.

255.] suBscuiPTioNs. 3^1

sons under the disabilities of coverture and infancy
;^-
and sub-
scriptions payable in a depreciated ciu'rency, are not to be counted
as a part of the subscriptions required by the statute as a prerequi-
site to valid organization.*^
H.
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND FRAUD IN PROCURING SUBSCRIPTIONS.
255.
Parol agreements and false representations dis-
tinguished.Parol agreements and fraudulent representations
have been the source of most of the litigation concerning sub-
scriptions to stock. Mr. Cook defines and distinguishes them as
follows : "A parol agreement includes all representations and
stipulations made before or at the time of subscribing, but not in-
cluded in the v^^ritten subscription, whereby the corporation is to
do something or refrain from doing something in the future. A
fraudulent representation, on the other hand, is a statement as to
past acts or existing facts, or the omission of such a statement,
which amounts to a fraud on one who, relying thereon, subscribes
to the stock of the company. Difficulty sometimes arises in de-
termining whether a statement by a corporate agent inducing a
subscription is merely a parol agreement or is a fraudulent rep-
resentation. This question is one which must be decided first of
all ; since the rules of law applicable to parol agreements, as a
defense to an action on a subscription, differ greatly from those
applicable to fraudulent representations."** The rule excluding
parol evidence to explain or contradict a written instrument ap-
plies to a subscription for stock in a corporation. The contract as
written must explain itself. Thus, an oral agreement is held to be
no defense to a suit to enforce payment of the subscription, as ex-
amples, an oral agreement that the subscriber should not be lia-
ble for the par value of the stock, though allowed to keep it,* or
that a railroad should be extended to a certain point,*^ or that pay-
ment might be made in a certain way or at a certain time.*^
R. Co. V. Veazie, 39 Me. 571; Con- 44
Cook on Corporations,

136.
toocook, etc. R. Co. v. Barker,
'62
45
Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
N. H. 336; New Hampshire Cen- 45; Custar v. Titu.sville Gas, etc.
tral R. Co. v. Johnson, 30 N. H.
Co., 63 Pa. St. 381; Union Mut.
390; s. c. 64 Am. Dec. 300; Peoria, L. Ins. Co. v. Frear Stone Mfg.
etc. R. Co. V. Preston, 35 Iowa,
Co., 97 111. 537.
115.
46
Low V. Studabaker, 110 Ind.
42
Phillips V. Covington, etc. Co., 57 (1887).
2 Met. (Ky.) 219.
4t
Kelsey v. Northern Light Oil
43
Cabot, etc. Bridge v. Chapin,
Co., 45 N. Y. 505 (1871).
6 Cush. 50.
SUIJSCRll'TIONS.
[
256.

256.
Parol agreements aiid conditions to vary the con-
tract.Parol evidence is not admissible to vary the terms of
a subscription to the capital stock of a corporation, or to show a
discharge therefrom in any manner other than that required by
the terms of subscription, charter, and by-laws/^ All separate
agreements and conditions made at the time of subscribing which
are inconsistent with the written contract are void, whether they
be verbal,''" or are contained in a separate written contract.^'*
48
Marshall Foundry Co. v. Kil-
lian (1888), 99 N. C. 501; s. c. 6
Am. St. Rep. 539; Topeka Manuf.
Co. V. Hale (1S88), 39 Kan. 'I'd;
Minneapolis Threshing Machine
Co. V. Davis (1889), 40 Minn. 110;
s. c. 12 Am. St. Rep. 701; Melvin
V. Lamar Ins. Co., 80 111. 44G; s. c.
22 Am. Rep. 199; Anderson v,
Newcastle, etc. R. Co., 12 Ind. 37G;
s. c. 74 Am. Dec. 218; Robinson v.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa, St.
334; s. c. 74 Am. Dec. 792; New Al-
bany, etc. R. Co. V. Fields, 10 Ind.
187; Jewell v. Rock River Paper
Co., 101 111. 57; Chouteau Ins. Co.
V. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286; Swartwout
V. Michigan, etc. R. Co., 24 Mich.
389; Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co.,
34 Miss. 245; White Mountains R.
Co. V. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124;
Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey,
24 Vt. 465; s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 181;
Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45;
Beach on Railways, 128; White-
hall, etc. R. Co. V. Myers, 16 Abb.
Pr. N. S. 34; Ellison v. Mobile, etc.
R. Co., 36 Miss. 572; Mississippi,
etc. R. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443;
Johnson v. Pensacola, etc. R. Co.,
9 Fla. 299; North Carolina K. Co.
V. Leach, 4 Jones (N. C), 340;
East Tennessee, etc. R. Co. v.
Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567;
Wight V. Shelby R. Co., 16 B.
Mon. 4; McClure v. People's
Freight Ry. Co., 90 Pa. St. 269;
Dill V. Wabash Valley R. Co., 21
111. 91; Ridgefleld, etc. R. Co. v.
Brush, 43 Conn. 86; Braddock v.
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 45 N. J.
363; Kennebeck, etc. R. Co. v. Wa-
ters, 34 Me. 369; Keller v. John-
son, 11 Ind. 337; s. c. 71 Am. Dec.
355; Evansville, etc. R. Co. v.
Posey, 12 Ind. 333; Thornburgh
V. Newcastle, etc. R. Co., 14 Ind.
4?9; Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v.
Pearce, 28 Ind. 502; New Albany,
etc. R. Co. V. Slaughter, 10 Ind.
218; Eakright v. Logansport, etc.
R. Co., 13 Ind. 404; Carlisle v. Ev-
ansville, etc. R. Co., 13 Ind. 477;
McAllister v. Indianapolis, etc. R.
Co., 15 Ind. 11; Thigpen v. Mis-
sissippi Central S. R. Co., 32 Migs.
347; Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R.
Co., 17 Ohio St. 187; Graft" v.
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 91 Pa. St.
489. Contra, Mahan v. Wood, 44
Cal. 462, where the par value of
the shares was not what was
promised; Rives v. Montgomery,
etc. Plank R. Co., 30 Ala. 92. So
in Pennsylvania parol evidence is
admissible where but for the ver-
bal contract, the subscription
would not have been made. Rine-
smith V. People's Freight Ry. Co.,
90 Pa. St. 262; Caley v. Philadel-
phia, etc. R. Co., 80 Pa. St. 363.
49
Whitehall, etc. R. Co. v. My-
ers, 16 Abb. Pr. N. S. 34; Missis-
sippi, etc. R. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark.
443; Thigpen v. Mississippi Cen-
tral R. Co., 32 Miss. 347; Cunning-
ham V. Edgefield, etc. R. Co., U
Head (Tenn.), 23; Miller v. Han-
50
White Mountains R. Co. v.
Eastman
(1856), 34 N. H. 124;
Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. K. Co.
(1862), 18 Ind. 68.
on Railways,
94.
But see Beach
257.] SUESCRIPTIONS. 363
When, however, the whole contract of subscription was originally
oral, and afterwards a part only was reduced to writing, parol
evidence is admissible to prove the whole original contract.'^
And it may be shown by parol that a corporate agent agreed that
the signing of one's name upon a blank sheet of paper should not
be a subscription to stock until the person so signing should see
and approve the agreement subsequently to be written above.^^
But as a general rule parol declarations made by agents of the
company can only avail a subscriber to enable him to escape his
subscription when they amount to fraud.^^
257.
Subscriptions procured by false representations.

A contract of subscription to the capital stock of a corporation

procured through fraud cannot be enforced against the sub-
scriber.^* Such a subscription, however, is valid until disaffirmed,^"
but the party must act promptly in disaffirming the contract after
the knowledge of the fraud is brought home to him, in order to
secure relief.^ A subscriber to the stock of a corporation may
over Junction R. Co., 87 Pa. St.
95; North Carolina R. Co. v.
Leach, 4 Jones (N. C), 340; Con-
necticut, etc. R. Co. V. Bailey, 24
Vt. 46.5; Blodgett v. Morrill, 2
Vt. 509; Evansville, etc. R. Co. v.
Posey, 12 Ind. 363; Johnson v.
Crawfordville, etc. R. Co., 11 Ind.
280. But see Rinesmith v. Peo-
ple's Freight Ry. Co., 90 Pa. St.
262; Beach on Railways,

128.
51
Beach on Railways,
128,
Brewers' Fire Insurance Co. v.
Burger, 10 Hun, 56; Bross v.
Cairo, etc. R. Co., 9 Bradw. 363.
Cf.
Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y.
288; Hendrix v. Academy of Mu-
sic, 73 Ga. 437.
52
Beecher v. Dillsburg, etc. K.
Co., 76 Pa. St. 306. So again parol
evidence is admissible to show
that a subscription delivered in
escrow wa,s not absolute. Ottawa,
etc. R. Co. V. Hall, 1 Bradw. 612.
Cf.
Jewell V. Rock River, etc. R.
Co., 101 111. 57; Tonica, etc. R.
Co. V. Stein, 21 111. 96; Beach on
Railways, 76. But see Minneap-
olis Threshing Machine Co. v. Da-
vis (1889), 40 Minn. 110; s. c. 12
Am. St. Rep. 701.
53
Beach on Railways,
128;
Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R. Co., 8
Fla. 370; s. c. 73 Am. Dec. 713;
Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. McKean,
12 La. Ann. 638; Mississippi, etc.
R. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443.
51
New Orleans, 0. & G. W. R.
Co. V. Williams, 16 La. Ann. 315;
Hester v. Memphis & C. R. Co.,
32 Miss. 378; Upton v. Tribiicock,
91 U. S. 45; Burnes v. Pennell, 2
H. L. Cas. 497; Atkinson v. Po-
cock, 12 Jur. 60; Reese Rover S.
M. Co. V. Smith, L. R. 4 H. L.
641; Vreeland v. New Jersey
Stone Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 118; "Ef-
fect of Fraud on Subscriptions to
Stock," by Seymour D. Thompson,
14 Am. L. Rev. 177; note to Par-
ker V. Thomas, 81 Am. Dec. 392,
401; Central Ry. Co. v. Kisch, L.
R. 2 H. L. 99; Hayman v. Euro-
pean Central Ry. Co., 7 Eq. 154;
"Subscriptions to the Capital
Stock of Corporations," by James
M. Kerr (1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 422.
55
Upton V. Englehart, 3 Dill.
C. C. 496.
50
Dynes v. Shaffer, 19 Ind. 165;
Hughes V. Antietam Manuf. Co.,
304
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
257.
brint;- suit to have the contract cancelled, or may successfully de-
fend an action brought by the company seeking to enforce it,
where he has been induced to make the subscription by fraudu-
lent misrepresentations/"' contained in a prospectus or report is-
sued by the authority of the company, whether to the public gen-
erally or to its own members/^ or by fraudulent misrepresenta-
tions, in any other way, made by an agent of the company author-
ized to receive subscriptions, while acting in the line of his em-
ployment, whether the misrepresentation consisted in an actual
statement of falsehood or in a mere suspression of truth, giving
to the truth which was told the character of falschood,^*^ either in
34 Md. 316; Cunningham v. Edge-
field & Ky. R. Co., 2 Head
(Tenn.), 23; Upton v. Tribilcock,'
91 U. S. 45; Upton v. Hans-
brough. 3 Biss. C. C. 417; Kish-
acoquillas Turnpike Co. v. Mc-
Conaby, 16 Serg. & R. 140; Chubb
V. Upton, 95 U. S. 6G5; Upton v.
Englehart, 3 P'll. 496; Ogilvie v.
Knox Insurance Co., 22 How. 380;
McDei-mott v. Harrison (1890), 9
N. Y. Supp. 184; Parks v. Evans-
ville, etc. R. Co., 23 Ind. 567;
Davis V. Durriont, 37 Iowa, 47;
Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H. Li.
325.
57
Litchfield Bank v. Peck, 29
Conn. 384; Brockwell's Case, 29
L. T. 375. But see Ogilvile v.
Knox Insurance Co., 22 How. 380.
It must appear, however, that the
subscriber relied upon the truth
of the misrepresentation, and
that it constituted a material in-
ducement to him to make the
subscription. Beach on Rail-
ways, 131, citing Linnett v.
Males, 38 Iowa, 25; Melendy v.
Keen, 89 111. 395; Mitchell v.
Deeds, 49 111. 416; Selraa, etc. R.
Co. V. Anderson, 51 Miss. 829;
Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co.. 34
Miss. 245; Kennedy v. Ipanama
Royal Mail Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 580;
Kish V. Central Ry. of Venezuela,
3 De Ger, J. & S. 122.
58
Beach on Railways,
133.
Vide infra, 263.
B9
Beach on Railways,

132;
Crump V. United States Mining
Co., 7 Gratt. 353; s. c. 56 Am.
Dec. 116; Penobscot R. Co. v.
"White, 41 Me. 512; s. c. 66 Am.
Dec. 257; Cunningham v. Edge-
field, etc. R. Co., 2 Head, 23; Good-
rich V. Reynolds, 31 111. 490;
Rives V. Montgomery, etc. Plank
Road Co.. 30 Ala. 92; Ft. Wayne,
etc. R. Co. V. Deane, 10 Ind. 563;
Wight V. Shelby R. Co., 16 B.
Mon. 4; Barington v. Pittsburgh,
etc. R. Co., 34 Pa. St. 358; Buf-
falo, etc. R. Co. V. Dudley, 14 N.
Y. 336; Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v.
McKean, 12 La. Ann. 638; Smith
V. Tallahassee, etc. R. Co., 30 Ala.
650; Hays v. Ottawa, etc. R. Co.,
61 111. 422; First National Bank
V. Hurford, 29 Iowa, 579. Contra,
McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81;
Atlanta, etc. R. Co. v. Hodnett, 36
Ga. 669. Statutory commission-
ers to take subscriptions are not
agents of the company under this
rule, and misrepresentations by
them are not available as a
ground of recission. "While there
has been much contraversy in the
courts of this country over this
question of fraudulent misrepre-
sentations by commissioners in
the procurement of stock sub-
scriptions, we think the doctrine
is pretty well settled that this de-
fense is not available." Rutz v.
Esler, etc. Manuf. Co.' (1878), 3
Bradw. (111.) 83, 88.
60
Beach on Railways,

134;

257.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 365

a statement of what was known not to be true, or in a statement
of what was not knozvn to be true
f^
provided the misrepresenta-
tion were in relation to some material matter of fact affecting the
status of the company,^^ or the nature of the business it was or-
ganized to conduct,^ concerning which it was the duty of the
agent to be informed/* and the truth of which was not ascertain-
able by the subscriber as well as by the agent.^ In this connec-
Directors, etc. of Central Ry. Co.
V. Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. App. Cas.
99; Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H.
L. App. Cas. 325; New Bruns-
wick, etc. Ry. Co. v. Muggeridge,
1 Dr. & Sm. 363, 381; Heyman v.
European Central Ry. Co., L. R.
7 Eq. Cas. 154.
Cf.
Pulsford v.
Richards, 17 Beav. 87.
61
Beach on Railways,
134;
Henderson v. Railroad Co., 17
Tex. 560, s. c. 67 Am. Dec. 675;
Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, 29 Ch.
Div. 459; Reese River Co. v.
Smith, L. R. 4 H. L. 6; affirm-
ing s. c. L. R. 2 Eq. 264.
62
Waldo V. Chicago, etc. R. Co.,
14 Wis. 575; Montgomery, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Matthews, 77 Ala. 357; Mc-
Clellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81; Wick-
ham V. Grant, 28 Kan. 517; Me-
lendy v. Keen, 89 111. 395; Bell's
Case, 22 Beav. 35. But see Jack-
son V. Turquand, L. R. 4 H. L.
305. In a recent action by a rail-
road company in Georgia on a
note given for a subscription to
its capital stock, it was held that
a good defense is set up by a
plea that plaintiff's agents pro-
cured the subscriptions by repre-
sentations that plaintiff would is-
sue stock only to the amount of
three thousand dolars per mile,
majority of the subscribers to the
memorandum of association, and
until such directors should have
and bonds only to the amount of
twelve thousand per mile, where-
as, at the time the representa-
tions were made, stock had al-
ready been issued to the amount
of twelve thousand and bonds to
the amount of fifteen thousand
dollars per mile. Weems v.
Georgia, M. & G. R. Co. (Ga.
1890), 11 S. E. Rep. 503. So
misrepresentations that the worlc
of construction has reached a cer-
tain stage of completion (Peel's
Case, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 674), that
certain persons are directors
(Blake's Case, 34 Beav. 639), and
that the directors have taken
stock in the company (Henderson
V. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 249),
have been held to be material
and good by way of defense.
63
West V. Crawfordsville, etc.
Co., 19 Ind. 242; Blackburn's
Case, 3 Drew. 409.
6*
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Ander-
son, 51 Miss. 829; Waldo v. Chi-
cago, etc. R. Co., 14 Wis. 575.
63
Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v,
Bailey, 24 Vt. 465; s. c. 58 Am.
Dec. 181; Thornburg v. Newcastle,
etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. 499; Johnson
V. Crawfordville R. Co., 11 Ind.
280; Blodgett v. Morrill, 20 Vt.
509; Haskell v. Worthingtou
(1888), 94 Mo. 560. "Every con-
tracting person has an absolute
right to reply on the express
statement of an existing fact, tho
truth of which is known to the
opposite party, and unknown to
him, as a basis of a mutual en-
gagement, and he is under no
obligation to investigate and ver-
ify statements, to the truth of
which the other party to the con-
tract, with full means of knowl-
edge, has deliberately pledged his
faith." Mead v. Bunn, 32 N. Y.
274; Upton v. Englehart, 3 Dill.
496; Kisch v. Central Ry. Co., Li.
R. 2 H. Li. App. Cas. 99; New
;gg
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
257.
tion matters of fact arc disting^uishccl from mere matters of opin-
ion, of
expectation or of hope."" And as every one is presnmed to
Bninswirk, etc. Ry. Co. v. Miig-
geridge. 1 Dr. & S. 363. But it is
no defense to an action on stock
Rubscription
that the words "ot
St. Louis" were added to the
name of the company, as given
in the
subscription
paper, upon
its
incorporation, or that defend-
ant was induced to sign by the
false representation
that certain
of his friends had agreed to take
stock in the company, there hav-
ing been opportunity to* ascertain
the truth of the asertion. Has-
kell V. Worthington (1888),
94
Mo. 560.
CG
Beach on Railways,

13G;
Milwaukfee, etc. R. Co. v. Field, 12
Wis. 346; Johnson v. Pensacola,
etc. R. Co., 9 Fla. 229; McCarthy
V. Selinsgrove, etc. R. Co., 87 Pa.
St. 332; Cass v. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co., SO Pa. St. 31; Piscataqua
Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491;
Corwith V. Culver, 69 111. 502;
Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v. Pearce,
28 Ind. 502; Thornburgh v. New-
castle, etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. 499;
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Anderson,
51 Miss. 829; Wight v. Shelby R.
Co., 16 B. Mon. 4; s. c. 63 Am.
Dec. 522; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U.
S. 56; Upton v. Hansbrough, 3
Biss. C. C. 417; Tuckerman v.
Brown, 33 N. Y. 297; Syracuse,
ptc. R. Co. V. Gere, 4 Hun, 392;
Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Smith,
6 Rich. (S. C.) 91; Ellison v.
Mobile, etc. R. Co., 36 Miss. 272;
Swartara R. Co. v. Brune, 6 Gill
(Md.), 41; White Mountains, etc.
R. Co. V. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124;
McRae v. Atlantic, etc. R. Co., 5
Jones (N. C.) Eq. 395; Dill v.
Wabash Valley R. Co., 21 111. 91;
Oregon Central R. Co. v. Scog-
gin, 3 Oregon, 161; McAllister v.
Indianapolis, etc. R. Co., 15 Ind.
11; Miller v. Wildcat Gravel
Road, 57 Ind. 241; Jewett v. Val-
ley R. Co., 34 Ohio St. 601; Henry
v. Vermillion, etc. R. Co., 17 Ohio.
187. Thus representations as to
the probable cost and profit of
the road (Ogilvie v. Knox Insur-
ance Co., 22 How. 380; Walker v.
Mobile, etc. R. Co., 34 Miss. 245;
Andrews v. Ohio, etc. R. Co., 14
Ind. 1G9), the value of a federal
grant (Walker v. Mobile, etc. R.
Co.. 34 Miss. 245), the ability of
the company to complete the road
within a certain time (Montgom-
ery Southern Ry. Co. v. Matthews,
77 Ala. 357; Parker v. Thomas, 19
Ind. 213; Brownlee v. Ohio, etc.
R. Co., 18 Ind. 68; Bish v. Brad-
ford, 17 Ind. 490; Hardy v. Mer-
riweather. 14 Ind. 203, and dec-
larations of an agent as to the
route of the road have been held
to be mere expressions of opinion
and as such not to release the
subscriber nor bind the company,
unless the agent made them Vv^ith
intent to deceive and with full
knowledge of their falsity. Moht-
gomery Southern Ry. Co. v. Mat-
thews, 77 Ala. 357; Mississippi,
etc. R. Co. V. Cross, 20 Ark. 443.
And as statements with regard
to the future,the prospects and
anticipated value of the enter-
prise (Salem Mill Dam Corpora-
tion V. Ropes, 9 Pick. 187; s. c.
19 Am. Dec. 363; Hardy v. Merri-
weather, 14 Ind. 203; Vav/ter v.
Ohio, etc. Co., 14 Ind. 174), and
representations as to what the
corporation toill do (Mississippi,
etc. R. Co. v. Cross, 20 Ark. 443;
Eakright v. Logansport, etc. R.
Co., 13 Ind. 477; Evansville, etc.
R. Co. V. Posey, 12 Ind. 363; John-
son V. Crav/fordville, etc. R. Co.,
11 Ind. 280;, Four Mile Valley R.
Co. v. Bailey, IS Ohio St. 208.
But see Atlantic, etc. R. Co. v.
Hodnett, 36 Ga. 669; Vicksburgh,
etc. R. Co. V. McKean, 12 La. Ann.
638; Martin v. Pensacola, etc. R.
Co., 8 Fla. 376; s. c. 73 Am. Dec.

25 Y.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 3G7

know the law, a misrepresentation as to the legal effect of the
contract is not deemed to have deceived the subscriber."^ But no
one is presumed to know the law of a foreign State, and, accord-
ingly, misrepresentations concerning it may amount to fraud.''"
After railroad stock had depreciated, and railroad schemes had be-
come less popular than they formerly were, it became common to
set up fraud in obtaining the subscriptions as a ground of avoiding
their payment, and difficult questions were often thus presented.
Representations which, in the feverish excitement produced by
an extraordinary temporary success, seemed to all as probably
below the promised reality, afterwards, in the ebbing of the rail-
road tide to a lower stage than was natural, appeared like stu-
pendous attempts at swindling; and means then used to obtain
subscriptions of stock which the deluded, no doubt, sincerely
thought justified by the supposed certain profitable results, now,
in more sober times, shock the moral sensibility of every right-
minded man. But when these questions were presented to the
courts, they endeavored to sift the exaggerated representation
from the deliberate assertion of a material fact of which the sub-
scriber had not the means of knowledge, and for the truth of
which he rightly relied upon the solicitor of stock authorized to
assert it for his principal ; it was the aim of the judiciary to
separate the fraudulent device of which the subscriber was inno-
cent from those in which he participated ; in short, they decided
upon railroadupon corporation contracts, under the guidance
and in the application of the established rules governing their ac-
tion upon contracts in other cases, and between private individ-
uals."^ Accordingly, is was established that, where there has been
an innocent misrepresentation or misapprehension, it does not
713; Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v.
67
Beach on Railways,
137;
Cross, 20 Ark. 443), taust neces- Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45;
sarily be merely a matter of opin- Hall v. Selma, etc. R. Co., 6 Ala.
ion, they do not ordinarily con- 741; Thornburgh v. Newcastle,
stitute a ground for the recission etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. 499; Clem v.
of contracts of subscription. Newcastle, etc. R. Co., 9 Ind. 488;
Beach on Railways,

136. If, Parker v. Thomas, 19 Ind. 213.
Cf.
however, the opinion is falsely North Eastern R. Co. v. Rod-
expressed with intent to deceive, riques, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 278.
the contract thereby procured
cs
Upton v. Engelhart
(1874),
will be void, unless the represen- 3 Dill. 496.
tation relates to a matter equally
go
Anderson v. New Castle, etc.
open to both parties. Montgom- R. Co. (1859), 12 Ind.
376; s. c.
ery Southern Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 74 Am. Dec. 218, 220.
77 Ala. 357.
308
suBSCKii'Tioxs.
[
257.
authorize a rescission, unless it is such as to show that there is a
complete dilTcrcnce in substance between what was supposed to
be, and what were the facts, "so as to constitute a failure of con-
sideration."
"**
The weight of authority seems to hold that a sub-
scriber seeking release from his contract on the ground of fraud
must show some injury or detriment resulting therefromJ^ And
many of the American cases hold that there must have been a
fraudulent purpose in contemplation or that the agent knew that
tlic statements were untrue -p and intended them to influence the
action of the subscriber.''^ Thus it is held that false representa-
tions by the agent of a railroad corporation, soliciting subscrip-
tions for stock from persons living along the contemplated route,
in respect to the intended location, and the time within which it
will be completed to a particular place, are not fraudulent, nor
available as a defense to an action on a subscription for stock
made on the faith of ihcm, unless known by the agent to be false,
and made by him with intent to deceive
;''*
and that proof of the
promoters of a railroad scheme having guaranteed that the route
would pass near a certain tract, and of its having deviated there-
from, will not discharge one who has subscribed in reliance on.
that statement, unless a fraudulent intent be established."^ A
court of equity will not release a subscriber on the ground of
fraud, Avhen by so doing other subscribers or the creditors of tlie
corporation would be injured thereby.'^' And one who has been
70
Kennedy v. Panama, etc. Co., 357; s. c. 54 Am. Rep. 60; Selma,
L. R. 2 Q. B. 580. etc. R. Co. v. Anderson, 51 Miss.
71
Keller v. Johnson, 11 Ind. 829; Cunningham v. Edgefield,
337; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 355; Cun- etc. R. Co., 2 Head, 23; Nugent v.
ningham v. Edgefield, etc. R. Co., Cincinnati, etc. R. Co., 2 Disney,
2 Head, 23. CA Hays v. Ottawa, 302; Story on Agency,

127, 135,
etc. R. Co., 61 111. 422. Thus a 137, 452; Chitty on Contracts,
false statement as to the amount 682.
of stock that has been subscribed,
73
Kennedy v. Panama Royal
is not ordinarily a material mis- Mail Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. 580; Thorn
representation. Goodrich v. Rey- v. Begland, 8 Ex. 725; Atwood v.
nolds, 31 111. 490; Parker v. Small, 2 CI. & F. 282; Taylor v.
Thomas, 19 Ind. 213; Brownlee Ashton, 11 Mees. & W. 415.
V. Ohio, etc. R. Co., 18 Ind. 68;
7
i Montgomery Southern Ry.
Bish V. Bradford, 17 Ind. 490; Co. v. Matthews, 77 Ala. 357; s. c.
Hardy v. Merriweather, 14 Ind. 54 Am. Rep. 60,
203. There is, however, some au-
75
Braddock v. Philadelphia,
thority to the contrary. Ross v. Marlton, etc. R. Co., 45 N. J. 363.
Estates Investment Co., L. R. 3
76
chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 665;
Ch. 682. Miller v. Hanover Junction R.
72
Montgomery Southern Ry. Co., 87 Pa. St. 95; Grate v. Pitts-
Co. V. Matthews
(1885), 77 Ala. burgh, etc. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489.

25S.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 369

induced to subscribe for corporate stock by fraudulent representa-
tions cannot recover the amount paid until the claims of creditors
of the corporation are satisfied.'^ It is no answer to the sub-
scriber claiming to be relieved from his subscription induced by
fraudulent misrepresentation, to say that he might have learned
the facts regarding the prospects of the venture by proper inquiry.
The court said in a New York case, as to the right of a subscriber
to rely upon representations by the corporate officers : "Every con-
tracting party has an absolute right to rely on the express state-
ment of an existing fact, the truth of which is known to the op-
posite party, and unknown to him, as the basis of a mutual engage-
ment
;
and he is under no obligation to investigate and verify state-
ments, to the truth of which the other party to the contract, with
full means of knowledge, has deliberately pledged his faith."
"^
For the promoters are liable in damages for misrepresentations
made by them."

258. Misrepresentations when fraudulent.A misrepre-

sentation is fraudulent if it is false as to any past or present ma-
terial matter of fact as to the status of the corporation, whereby
one is induced to subscribe to its stock
f^
for example, that
others have paid the same price for their stock, or that a de-
scribed amount of stock has been subscribed for,- or that the
company is out of debt and prosperous,^ or that it has purchased
and paid for certain property.* But matters of opinion and con-
jecture and statements simply as to the prospects and probabilities
of the corporate business, however unwarranted, do not consti-
tute false representations,^ as, that the business wall be profitable,
or that it will pay a specified dividend.^ A stockholder induced
by fraudulent representations to surrender his certificates of stock
7T
Turner v. Grangers' Life, etc,
si
Alabama, etc. Works v. Dal-
Ins. Co., 65 Ga. 649; s. c. 38 Am. las, 127 Ala. 513.
Rep. 841.
82
Ross v. Estates Investment
79
Mead v. Bunn, 32 N. Y. 275. Co., L. R. 3 Ch. App. 682.
One cannot rescind a subscription
3
Tyler v. Savage, 143 U. S.
for stock because of false state- 79; Melendy v. Keen, 89 111. 395.
ments in a prospectus, where he
s*
Waldo v. Chicago, etc. R. R.,
was an officer of the corporation 14 Wis. 575.
and participated in its prepara-
ss
West End, etc. Co. v. Clai-
tion. Raymond v. San Gabriel, borne, 97 Va. 734.
etc. Co., 53 Fed. Rep. 83.
so
Weston v. Columbus, etc. Ry.,
80
Paddock v. Fletcher, 4,2 Vt 90 Ga. 289.
389.
Vol. 1

24
370
suBscRiPTioxs.
[
259-2Gla.
for others is entitled to enforce his rights under the terms of the
orif^inal certificates so exchanged."'
259.
Made without knowledge of their falsity.Ct^ntrary
to the English rule, the tendency in this country is to hold that
a misrepresentation, to be fraudulent, must be made with knowl-
edge of its falsity, or recklessly, and without any knowledge of its
truth or falsity. If made with honest belief that it was true, the
statement is not fraudulent.^^ The president who participated in
the issuance of bonds of the corporation, falsely represented to be
secured upon all the corporate property, is liable to the purchaser
in an action of deceit, although the president was ignorant of the
sale.^''

260. Made by agents, liability of the corporation.It is

now the established rule that a corporation is liable to the extent
it has profited by fraud or misrepresentation of its agents, and
may not retain the benefits so obtained, and regardless of the
agent's authority, whether or not he had it, or exceeded it or not,
where the corporation claims the benefit of the fraud, because it
cannot do so without assuming the misrepresentations.^^

261. Not binding if not made by authorized agents.The

corporation is not bound by representations made by any person
who has no authority to make them, as in the case of commis-
sioners appointed to receive subscriptions^ nor by representations
made by the presfdent, who had no authority to take subscrip-
tions,-'' nor by unauthorized representations of a director.^*

261a. Subscription to capital stock. Misrepresentation

by way of opinion.Representations by agent of the corpora-
tion concerning the happening of a future event cannot be relied
on as a defense to creditor's suit for payment of subscription.
They must necessarily be matters of opinion merely, and cannot
be misrepresentations. "A statement made by an agent obtaining
subscriptions for shares in a railroad company to the effect that
87
Trinity Valley T. Co. v.
si
Garrison v. Technic, etc.
Stockwell, 81 S. W. 793, Tex. Civ. Works, 55 N. J. Eq. 708.
App. (1904.) 92Nippenose Mfg. Co. v. Sta-
88
Montgomery, etc. Co. v. Mat- don, 68 Pa. St. 256; Bavington v.
thews, 77 Ala, 537, 54 Am. Rep. Pittsburgh, etc. R. R., 34 Pa. St.
60. 358.
89
Stickel V. Atwood, 25 R. I.
as
Crump v. U. S. Min. Co., 7
456 (1903), Gratt. (Va.) 352; Rives v. Mont-
90
Montgomery, etc. Ry. v. Mat- gomery, etc. Co., 30 Ala. 92.
thews, 77 Ala. 357.
a*
Milwaukee, etc. Co. v. Schok-
necht, 108 Wis. 457.

202, 263.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 371

the proposed road would be built upon a certain route or within
a certain period of tinre, would not render a subscription made
upon the faith of it voidable, though the statement be made with
the intention to deceive, and the road be not built upon the route
or within the time indicated."
^^
Statement of opinion as to
when the works will be completed, that the enterprise will pay cer-
tain dividends, and like expressions, are simply conjectures or
prophecies and cannot be misrepresentations.^''

262. Misrepresentations by a promoter.Misrepresenta-

tions by promoters are no defense to a subscription.^ Where the
promoter is acting for himself only, and the corporation has in
no way become a party to the fraudulent misrepresentation, it is
not responsible,^ but if the promoter was acting for the corpora-
tion, or accepts the benefits of the subscription, it is responsible
for the representations by which it was obtained.

263. Misrepresentations in a prospectus.The liability of

a company on a prospectus is very strict. Those who issue a
prospectus holding out to the public great advantages which
would accrue to persons who should take shares in a proposed
undertaking, and inviting them to take shares on the faith of the
representations therein contained, are bound to state everything
with strict and scrupulous accuracy, and not only to abstain from
stating a fact which is not sOj but to omit no one fact within their
knowledge, the existence of which may in any degree affect the
nature, or extent, or quality of the privileges and advantages
which the prospectus holds out as inducements to subscribe.^
95
1 Mor. Pri. Corp., 98. Cited ards, 17 Jur. 865; Oakes v. Tur-
in Jefferson v. Hewett (1892), 95 quand, L. R. 2 H. L.
App.
Cas.
Cal. 535. 325; Central Ry. Co. v. Kisch, L.
9
Johnson v. National, etc. R. 2 H. L. 99; Heyman v. Euro-
Assn. (19000, 125 Ala. 465. pean, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 7 Eq.
97
Oldham v. Mt. Sterling Imp. 154; Hallows v. Fernie, L. R. 3
Co., 103 Ky. 529. Eq. 520; Blake's Case, 34 Beav.
98
Shick V. Citizens.' etc. Co., 639. In a recent English case, a
15 Ind. App. 329, 57 Am. St. Rep, company which was incorporated
230; Franey v. Warner, 96 Wis. on the 25th of September, 1889,
222. issued a prospectus on the 27th
99
Virginia Land Co. v. Haupt, of the same month representing
90 Va. 533, 44 Am. St. Rep. 939; that certain persons, four in num-
McDermott v. Harrison, 56 Hun. ber, were the directors. S., on
(N. Y.) 640, 9 N. Y. Supp. 184. the 27th of Septemher, 1889, ap-
1 New Brunswicik & C. Ry. Co. plied for five hundred shares on
V. Muggeridge, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. the faith of the statement in the
681; "Relief from Shares," 44 L. prospectus that these persons
T. 40; Atlanta, etc. R. Co. v. Hod- were directors, and on the 1st of
nett, 36 Ga. 669; Pulsford v. Rich- October, he received notice of al-
SLI;.S('KI1T10XS.
[
20i.
The corporation is liable where a subscription is made by one re-
lying upon a representation in a prospectus, authorized by the
corporation
nianag-enient, if the representation is false,^ or if its
statements taken together give a false and fraudulent impression
as to existing facts.^ "But in an advertisement of this description
some allowance must always be made for the sanguine expecta-
tions of the promoters of the adventure ; and no prudent man will
accept the prospects which are always held out by the origina-
tors of every new scheme, without considerable abatement."*

264.
Misrepresentations by suppression of the truth.

If the corporation issues a prospectus, it must be a presentation of

the material facts, so full as not to be misleading by omission of
other important facts. It must not be the half truth only,^ it must
"state everything with strict and scrupulous accuracy, and not
lotment. On the 12tli of Novem-
ber, 1889, S. took out a summons
to have his name removed from
the register of shareholders, and
for the return of the amount
which he had paid on allotment,
on the ground that the statement
in the prospectus as to the direc-
tors was untrue. It appeared
that the persons named in the
prospectus as directors were not
directors at the time the notice
of allotment was sent out, but the
promoters of the company and
acting as directors under the pro-
their nominees had been actually
visions of the articles of associa-
tion, which stated that the first
directors were to be named by a
been apponited the subscribers
themselves were to be deemed to
be and to have power to act as
directors. Some of these subscrib-
ers met on the 26th of September
and passed resolutions that the
prospectus be approved and is-
sued, and that a certain agree-
ment relating to payment of the
preliminary and formation ex-
penses be adopted; and on the
1st of October they held another
meeting and passed resolutions
for the allotment of shares, and
for the election of the four per-
sons named in the prospectus as
directors. Two of the elected di-
rectors did afterwards accept the
office and act, but one never ac-
cepted at all. S. swore that he
applied for the shares believing
that the persons named in the
prospectus were the directors,
and that he would not have ap-
plied for any shares in the com-
pany if he had known that they
were not in fact directors. The
company was ordered to be wound
up on the 23d of November, 1889.
The court held that the prospec-
tus was false, as at the date it
was issued persons other than
those named therein were acting
as directors, and that S. was en-
titled to have his name removed
from the register of shareholders,
and to prove in the winding up
for the amount paid in respect
of the shares. In re Johannes-
burg Hotel Co., Limited, Sarle's
Case (Ch. Div. 1890), per Chitty,
J., 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 197.
2 Oakes v. Turquand, L. R. 2 H.
L. App. 325.
3 Aaron's Reefs v. Twiss, A. C.
273.
4 Venezuela Central Ry. v.
Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. App. 99.
5
Walker v. Anglo-American,
etc. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.), 334.

2o5,
266.] suBscRirTio^... 373
only abstain from stating as facts that which is not so, but omit
no one fact within its knowledge the existence of which might
in any degree affect the nature or extent or quality of the priv-
ileges and advantages which the prospectus holds out as induce-
ments to take shares
;"''
as, the omission to state the price, where
it was extravagant, for the corporate property described/ Thus
wdiere a prospectus stated that the company had obtained a conces-
sion from a foreign government to make a railwa}-, when in
truth the company had contracted to purchase the concession from
another company for a large sum, this was held to be a material
misrepresentation, entitling a shareholder to have his purchase of
shares set aside. The Lord Chancellor stated his opinion that the
public who were invited by a prospectus to join in any new adven-
ture ought to have the same opportunity of judging of everything
which had a material bearing on its true character as the pro-
moters themselves possessed. The company cannot plead that
the reports were intended for stockholders alone. The law holds
that the report is known and intended to be known to all who con-
template becoming stockholders.

265. Misrepresentations in reports to stockholders.

A
proposing subscriber has a right to rely upon reports made by
corporate officers to the stockholders, as also upon printed state-
ments made by the corporation and given him by the agent to in-
duce subscription.^*^

266. Parol evidence of fraud by misrepresentations.The

general rule that parol representations are inadmissible to vary
the terms of a written agreement of subscription,^^ is not ap-
plicable to those representations which amount to fraud on the
part of the company, were made at the time of subscribing, and
6
New Brunswick, etc. Ry. v. new scheme, without considerable
Muggeridge, 1 Dr. & Sm. 363. abatement."
'
Venezuela Central Ry. v.
9
New Brunswick, etc. Ry. Co.
Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. App. 99. v. Conybeare, 9 H. L. Cas. 711;
8 Venezuela Ry. Co. v. Kisch, 16 National Exchange Co. v. Drew,
L. T. Rep. N. S. 500; s. c. L. R. 32 Eng. Law & Eq. 1.
2 H. L. App. Cas 99, where, how- 10
Peterson v. People's etc.
ever, it was said that representa- Assn., 124 Mich. 573.
tions of a prospectus are to be
n
Smith v. Plank Road Co., 30
taken with some allowance "for Ala. 650; Mississippi, 0., etc. R.
the sanguine expectations of the Co. v. Cross, 20 Ark. 343; Good-
promoters of the adventure; and rich v. Reynolds, 31 111. 490; Con-
no prudent man will accept the necticut & P. Riv. R. Co. v. Bai-
prospects which are always held ley, 24 Vt. 465; Ogilvle v. Knox
out by the originators of every Ins. Co., 22 How. 380.
374
suBsciiiPTioNs.
[
266a.
were the inducements by means of which the subscription was ob-
tained.^- Parol evidence is admissible to prove fraudulent mis-
representations.^^ In such cases, however, parol evidence is not
introduced for the purpose of varying or contradicting the con-
tract, but to show that no contract was properly formed.^*

266a. Effect of fraud. Rescission of the contract.The

same rules govern the effect of fraud, practiced in the procure-
ment of a subscription to stock, as govern other contracts. The
subscriber in such case, upon the discovery of the fraud, may
both repudiate the contract and hold the responsible person lia-
ble in an action for deceit. "Contracts of this description be-
tween an individual and a company, so far as misrepresentation
or suppression of the truth is concerned, are to be treated like
contracts between any two individuals. If one man makes a false
statement which misleads another, the way in which that is to be
treated affords the example for the way in which a contract is to
be treated where a company makes a false statement which mis-
leads an individual."^^ Thus, it is held that false representations
by the agent of a railroad corporation, soliciting subscriptions for
stock from persons living along the contemplated route, in re-
spect to the intended location, and the time within which it will
12
Rives V. Montgomery Plank Waters, 34 Me. 369; Connecticut,
Road Co., 30 Ala. 92; Martin v. etc. R. Co. v. Baxter, 32 Vt. 805;
Pensacola & G. R. Co., 8 Fla. 370; Blodgett v. Morrill, 20 Vt. 509;
Miller v. Wildcat Gravel Road Co., Piscataqua Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39
57 Ind. 241; Davis v. Dumont, 37 N. H. 491; Jewett v. Valley Ry,
Iowa, 47; Kennebeck & P. R. Co. Co., 34 Ohio St. 601; Henderson
v. Waters, 34 Me. 369; Water Val- v. Railroad Co., 17 Tex. 560; s. c.
ley Manuf. Co. v. Seaman, 53 67 Am. Dec. 675; New York Ex-
Miss. 655; Ellison v. Mobile & O. change Co. v. De Wolf, 31 N. Y.
R. Co., 36 Miss. 572; Piscataqua 273; s. c. 5 Bosw. 593; Burrows
Ferry Co. v. Jones, 39 N. H. 491; v. Smith, 10 N. Y. 550; Ellison
Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone Co., v. Mobile, etc. R. Co., 36 Miss.
29 N. J. Eq. 188; Custar v. Titus- 572; Walker v. Mobile, etc. R. Co,,
ville Gas & Water Co., 63 Pa. St. 34 Miss. 245; Hester v. Memphis
381; East Tennessee & V. R. Co. R. Co., 32 Miss. 378; La Grange
v. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567; R. Co. v. Mays, 29 Mo. 64.
Blodgett V. Morrill. 20 Vt. 509;
i-i
New York Exchange Co. v.
Crump V. United States Mining De Wolf, 31 N. Y. 273; Jewett v.
Co., 7 Graft. 352. "Subscriptions Valley R. Co., 34 Ohio St. 601;
to the Capital Stock of Corpora- "Subscriptions to the Capital
tions," by James M. Kerr (1889), Stock of Corporations," by James
6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 422. M. Kerr (1889), 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
13
Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v. J. 422.
Bailey, 24 Vt. 465; s. c. 58 Am.
is
Central Railway Co., etc. v.
Dec. 181; Wight v. Shelby R. Co., Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. 99.
16 B. Mon. 5; Kennebec R. Co. v.

2G6rt.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 875

be completed to a particular place, are not fraudulent, nor avail-
able as a defense to an action on a subscription for stock made on
the faith of them, unless known by the agent to be false, and made
by him with intent to deceive
'^"^
and that proof of the promoters
of a railroad scheme having guaranteed that the route would pass
near a certain tract, and of its having deviated therefrom, will
not discharge one who has subscribed in reliance on that state-
ment, unless a fraudulent intent be established.^^ A court of
equity will not release a subscriber on the ground of fraud when
by so doing other subscribers or the creditors of the corporations
would be injured thereby.^ And one who has been induced to
subscribe for corporate stock by fraudulent representations can-
not recover the amount paid until the claims of creditors of the
corporation are satisfied.^" If a person is induced by the fraudu-
lent representations of the promoter of a corporation to subscribe
for shares of stock in the corporation, and pays his subscription
to the person holding the office of treasurer, he cannot, by rescind-
ing the contract, maintain an action for money had and received
against the other shareholders, even if the incorporation is invalid,
and the shareholders are partners.-^ He cannot be both plaintiff
and defendant. His remedy, if upon the facts he is entitled to
any, is by an action of tort against the person or persons who
practiced the fraud upon him
;
or, by a bill in equity to rescind the
contract of partnership, to have the partnership articles cancelled
as to him, and to compel those who practiced the fraud to repay
the money and to make further compensation and indemnity, if
such relief is necessary.^" For the promoters are liable in dam-
ages for misrepresentations made by them.^^ The purchaser of
worthless stock of an insurance company may rescind and recover
the money paid to the owner upon discovery of the fraud, where
17 Montgomery Southern Ry. Ins. Co., 65 Ga. 649; s. c. 38 Am.
Co. V. Matthews, 77 Ala. 357; s. c. Rep. 841.
54 Am. Rep. 60; Ex parte Ginger
21
Perry v. Hale (1887), 143
(1856),
5 Ir. Ch. 174; Western Mass. 540,
Bank v. Addie (1867), L. R. Sc.
22
perry v. Hale (1887), 143
App. 145, and cases cited supra, Mass. 540, 542, citing Richards v.
257. Todd, 127 Mass. 167; Smith v.
isBraddock v. Philadelphia, Everett, 126 Mass. 304; Duff v.
Marlton, etc. R. Co., 45 N. J. 363. Maguire, 99 Mass. 300; Rawlins
19
Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; v. Wickham, 3 De G. & J. 304; 2
Miller v. Hanover Junction R. Lindley on Partnership (4th ed.),
Co., 87 Pa. St. 95; Graff v. Pitts- 925, 927, et seq.
burgh, etc. R. Co., 31 Pa. St. 489.
=3
Paddock v. Fletcher, 42 Vt.
20
Turner v. Grangers' Life, etc. 389.
fG SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
267.
ihc purchase was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations of an
executive committee of directors.-^ Purchasers of stock in a com-
pany representing itself as incorporated, which no one questioned,
its directors conducting its business as that of a corporation, are
not charged with the duty of investigating whether or not it was
incorporated. Upon discovery that it was not, they were entitled to
rescind the contract of purchase.-^ Where other subscribers were
induced to subscribe by the subscription of a person upon secret
agreement that he should pay only half as much for his stock as
the others, they were justified in rescinding the contract.-"

267. Waiver of irregularities. Acquiescence in the con-

tract.While a subscription should be in writing and in ac-
cordance with the statutory form, if one be prescribed, there are
nevertheless many cases in which the liabilities incident to a reg-
ularly made subscription have been imposed by implication of
law.^"^ Thus, serving as a director of a company is an implied
subscription for the necessary qualification shares.
-"^
So, too, ac-
cepting and holding certificates of stock,^*^*^ or selling or transfer-
ring the shares,^' attending and voting at corporate meetings.
24
L. D. Garrett v. Clark, 87 N.
Y. S. 579.
25
Bolton V. Prather, 80 S. W.
666, Tex. Civ. App. (1904).
20
State Bank of Indiana v.
Cook, 100 N. W. 72 (Iowa, 1904),
Mack V. Latta, 71 N. E. 97, 178
N. Y. 525 (N. Y. 1904).
26a
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
Cowell, 28 Pa. St. 329; s. c. 70
Am. Dec. 128; Wheeler v. Millar,
90 N. Y. 353; PhcEnix, etc. Co. v.
Badger, 67 N. Y. 294; s. c. 6 Hun,
293; Dorris v. French, 4 Hun,
292; Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice,
7 Barb. 159; Kansas City Hotel
Co. V. Hunt, 57 Mo. 126; Upton
V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger
V. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Chelten-
ham, etc. Ry. Co. v. Daniell, 2
Q.
B. 781; Cromford, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Lacey, 3 Younge & J. 80.
26b
In re Englefield Colliery Co.,
8 Ch. Div. 388; De Ruvigne's
Case, 5 Ch. Div. 306, 322; Pear-
son's Case, 5 Ch. Div. 336; Mc-
Coy's Case, 2 Ch. Div. 1; Portal
v Emmons, 1 C. P. Div. 201, 664;
Hay's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. 393;
Luke's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. 469. The
mere publication, however, of a
person's name as one of a board
of directors, without his assent
and without his participating in
the management of the affairs of
the corporation, does not estop
him to deny that he is a share-
holder in an action against him
by creditors of the corporation.
Hume V. Commercial Bank, 9 Lea,
728.
26C
Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7
Barb. 157; Lane v. Brainerd, 30
Conn. 565; Upton v. Tribilcock. 91
U. S. 45; In re South Mountain,
etc. R. Co., 7 Sawy. 30; McLough-
lin V. Detroit, etc. R. Co., 8 Mich.
100; Inter-Mountain, etc. Co. v.
Jack, 5 Mont. 568. Cf.
Clarke v.
Continental, etc. Co., 57 Ind. 135,
138.
27
Everhart v. Westchester, etc.
R. Co., 28 Pa. St. 339, where no
cash deposit had been made.

268.]
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
377
either in person or by proxy
,-^
paying calls,^^ or paying for one
of the shares irregularly taken,^" accepting dividends,^^ or acting
as a director,^- operate to estop a person from denying the reg-
ularity and validity of an alleged subscription.^^ And in general
any defense to the subscriber's liability may be considered as
waived by acquiescence or delay after discovery of the facts,^* or
by an act indicating a clear intent to abide by the contract, or to
pass over an objection thereto v^hich might have been made.^^

268. Recovery of deposits upon abandonment of the con-

tract.In case of the w^ithdrawal of a member from a com-
pany the questions sometimes arise whether he is entitled to be re-
imbursed for deposits made by him in furtherance of the enter-
prise, and if so, whether he may claim the whole amount paid in
by him or only the balance remaining after deducting his pro
rata of the expenses incurred. It seems to be well settled in re-
spect of the first of these questions that no subscriber to a pro-
28Duffield V. Barnum, etc. Co.
(1887), 64 Mich. 293; Erie, etc.
Plank Road v. Brown, 25 Pa. St.
156; Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Gifford,
87 N. Y. 294; Rockville, etc. Co.
V. Van Ness, 2 Cranch, C. C. 449.
But see Stewart's Case, L. R. 1
Ch. App. 574; McCully v. Pitts-
burg, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. St. 25.
29
Maltby v. Northwestern, etc.
R. Co., 16 Md. 422; Mississippi,
etc. R. Co. V. Harris, 36 Miss. 17;
Inter-Mountain Publishing Co. v.
Jack, 5 Mont. 568.
30
Bell's Appeal (1887), 115 Pa.
St. 88.
31
Duffield V. Barnum, etc. Co.
(1887), 64 Mich. 293. Contra,
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. Cow-
ell, 28 Pa. St. 329; s. c. 70 Am.
Dec. 128, where demanding a divi-
dend was not considered a waiver.
32
Weinman v. Wilkinsburgh,
etc. Ry. Co. (1888), 118 Pa. St.
192; Rice v. Rock Island, etc. R.
Co., 21 111. 93; Hunt v. Kansas,
etc. Co., 11 Kan. 412; Meadow v.
Gray, 30 Me. 547.
33
But see Stewart's Case, L. R.
1 Ch. App. 574, where merely at-
tending meeting, and Philadel-
phia R. Co. v. Cowell, 28 Pa. St.
329, where demanding a dividend,
and Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Cole-
man, 5 Rich. L. 118, and McCully
v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa.
St. 25, where voting by proxy,
were not considered acts sufficient
to amount to a waiver.
34
Cf.
Schwanck v. Morris, 7 Rob.
(N. Y.) 658; State v. Jefferson
Turnpike Co., 3 Humph. (Tenn.)
305; City Bank v. Bartlett, 71 Ga.
797; Sharpley v. Louth, etc. Ry.
Co., 2 Ch. Div. 663; Ehrlanger v.
Sombrero, etc. Co., 3 App. Cas.
1218; Peel's Case, L. R. 2 Ch.
App. 674; Ashley's Case, L. R.
9 Eq. Cas. 263; Heyman v. Euro-
pean Central Ry. Co., L. R. 7 Eq.
Cas. 154.
35
Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S.
665; Ogilvie v. Knox Insurance
Co., 22 How. 380; City Bank v.
Bartlett, 71 Ga. 797; Chaffln v.
Cummings, 37 Me. 76; Ex parte
Briggs, L. R. 1 Eq. Cas. 486;
Scholey v. Central Ry. Co., L. R.
9 Eq. 266, n.; Ayres' Case, 25
Beav. 513; May v. Memphis
Branch R., 49 Ga. 109; McCully
V. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa.
St. 25.
37S
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
208.
jcctcd company can recover his money on the ground that the
consideration for his subscription has failed, until the formation
of the company upon the terms assented to by him has been aban-
doned or has become impracticable.^" But even in that case, if
the articles of association or the preliminary deed signed by the
member authorize the promoters to defray the expenses incident
to the undertaking out of the deposits paid for shares, the de-
posits are not returnable.
^^
And although the plaintiff may not
have signed any such deed, yet if he has undertaken to sign it,
and has accepted scrip certificates which state that he has signed
it, he is held to have authorized the application of his deposits in
the discharge of preliminary expenses, as mentioned in the deed.
^*'
And the same rule is applied where the authority to defray pre-
liminary expenses out of the deposits was conferred by the terms
of the letter of allotment, and not by any deed intended for exe-
cution after the allotment was made.^" But it would seem that in
the absence of any agreement that the expenses shall be defrayed
out of the sums deposited, the whole amount is returnable upon
the abandonment of the scheme. In a leading case in point, the
defendants, in circulars published by them, had proposed to re-
ceive subscriptions of ten shillings a week for the space of one
year, and to invest these subscriptions and to divide the interest
twice a year equally amongst the subscribers or the survivors of
them. The plaintiff subscribed to this scheme, but there not being
a sufficient number of other subscribers, nothing was ever in-
vested, and the defendants came to a resolution to proceed with
it no further, and to return to each subscriber the amount of his
subscription, less a percentage for expenses incurred. The plaint-
iff demanded to have the whole amount subscribed by him re-
turned, and he brought an action against the defendants for its
recovery and was held entitled to a verdict.*"
!"
Lindley on Company Law ley on Company Law (5tli ed.
(5th ed. 1889), 29, citing Johnson
1889), 33.
V. Gosslett, 18 C. B. 728; s. c. 3
ss
Clements v. Todd, 1 Ex. 268;
C. B. N. S. 569; "Wilson v. Church, Lindley on Company Law (5th
13 Ch. Div. 1; s. c. su'b nom. Na- ed. 1889), 33.
Of.
Ashpitel v. Ser-
tional Bolivian Navigation Co. v. combe, 5 Ex. 147; Sibson v. Edg-
Wilson, 5 App. Cas. 176. worth, 2 De. G. & Sm. 73.
37
Garwood v. Ede, 1 Ex. 264;
s
a Jones v. Harrison, 2 Ex. 52;
Willey V. Parratt, 3 Ex. 211; Lindley on Company Law (5th
Baird v. Ross, 2 Macqueen, 69; ed. 1889), 33, citing Willey v.
Watts V. Salter, 10 C. B. 477; Parratt, 3 Ex. 211; Baird v. Ross,
Vane v. Cobbold, 1 Ex. 798; At- 2 Macqueen, 61.
kinson V. Pocock, 1 Ex. 796; Lind-
4o
Lindley on Company Law

269.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 379

269. Specific performance of the contract of subscription.

As has been said above, the possession of a stock certificate is not
necessary to the ownership of shares
;^^
but if the company re-
fuse without just cause to issue a certificate to a subscriber who,
while the corporation is still a going concern, tenders the amount
due and demands the certificate, he will be thereby released from
liability upon his contract, even as against corporate creditors.'*-
The established rule is that a contract for the sale of stock will
not be enforced by specific performance if the remedy at law for
damages is adequate, but it is otherwise if the value of the stock
is uncertain, or if for other reason a decree of specific perform-
ance will place the purchaser in a better position.*^ It is con-
ceivable, however, that the subscriber may not desire to be re-
leased from his contract, that the enterprise may have proven suc-
cessful and that he may seek specific performance of the contract
on the part of the company,** or damages for his exclusion from
(5th ed. 1889), 30, citing Nockells
V. Crosby, 3 Barn. & C. 814, recog-
nized and followed in Walstab v.
Spottiswoode, 15 Mees. & W. 501;
Moore v. Garwood, 4 Ex. 681;
Ashpitel V. Sercombe, 5 Ex. 147;
Coupland v. Challis, 2 Ex. 682;
Owen V. Challis, 6 C. B. 115; Ward
V. Londesborough, 12 C. B. 252;
Mowatt V. Londesborough, 3 El.
& B. 307; s. c. 4 El. & B. 1.
41
Tide cases cited supra, 202;
and also New Albany, etc. R. Co.
V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499; s. c.
71 Am. Dec. 337, n.; Buffalo, etc.
R. Co. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336,
347; Mitchell v. Beckman, 64 Cal.
117. But see York v. Passaic Rol-
ling Mill Co. (1887), 30 Fed. Rep.
471, where the defendant company
having drawn up a certificate of
stock to plaintiff, which it re-
tained in the stock book, and in-
dorsed thereon a receipt by de-
fendant for plaintiff, it was held
that the certificate was never de-
livered so as to confer any rights
thereunder on plaintiff.
42
Potts v. Wallace, 32 Fed. Rep.
272, Under the eighth section of
the Mo. Act of 1851, p. 268,
amendatory of the special act of
the Missouri legislature of March,
1849, incorporating the Missouri
Pacific Railroad, which provides
that, when payment for the shares
of any subscriber shall be fullx
made, the president, etc., shall
deliver certificates for the amount
of stock belonging to him, no cer-
tificates can be demanded by a
subscriber until the whole sub-
scription is paid. Spurlock v. Mis-
souri Pac. Ry. Co. (1887), 90 Mo.
199.
43
Cushman v. Thayer, Mfg. etc.
Co., 76 N. Y. 365, 32 Am. Rep.
315.
44
As to measure
of
damages in
such cases, see Van Allen v. Illin-
ois, etc. R. Co., 7 Bosw. 515; Bal-
timore, etc. Ry. Co. v. Sewall, 35
Md. 238. Where mines were con-
veyed to defendant in trust to or-
ganize a joint stock company to
develop them, the grantors to re-
ceive in consideration therefor a
proportion of the stock of the
company after a certain amount of
it had been set aside for a work-
ing capital, it was held that when
the company was organized, and
the stock had been set apart for
the working capital, the grantors
at once became entitled to their
shares, and could not be made to
3 so
SUliSCRIl'TIO>;.S.
[
269.
the benefits resulting from the successful prosecution of the busi-
ness. There are circumstances under which a bill in equity to en-
force specific performance of the contract will be sustained
;*'^
but
where an allotment of stock has been disregarded by the company
and the shares issued to different persons, the original allottees
cannot enforce specific performance if the injury resulting to them
can be adequately compensated for by a judgment at law for
money damages,'*" and the usual remedy is by an action in as-
wait until the stock set apart for
working capital was actually sold;
that the defendant held the stock
in trust for such grantors, and
that the statute of limitations
could not hegin to run. Philes v.
Hickles (Arizona, 188S), 18 Pac.
Rep. 595, annotated.
"*"
Ferguson v. Wilson, L. R. 2
Ch. 77.
46
In a recent case the com-
p'aints alleged that they and cer-
tain other persons agreed to or-
ganize a corporation for the pur-
pose of operating mines; that aft-
erwards they organized a mining
company, adopted by-lawe, and
elected officers; that at a regular
meeting of the corporation it was
agreed that the capital stock
should be divided among the dif-
ferent members thereof, com-
plaints to receive a certain num-
ber of shares. Subsequently com-
plainants were induced to resign
from the board of directors in
order to let in other investors;
they being promised that their in-
terests should remain the same.
Thereafter they were excluded
from the meetings, and denied
all information of the affairs of
the corporation. A new distribu-
tion of the stock was made,
the original distribution being
disregarded, and the shares of
stock which . had been allot-
ted to complainants were al-
lotted to others. They prayed:
"That the said corporation called
ond known as the 'Fronteriza Sil-
ver Mining & Milling Company,'
by and through its proper officers,
may be compelled to deliver to
your orator, Robert L. Summer-
lin, 11,750 shares of stock in said
corporation, and to your orator,
George F. Lupton, 15,000 shares of
the stock of said corporation, be-
ing in the aggregate 20,750 shares
allotted to your orators by said
corporation at its organization, or,
if that cannot be done, by rea-
son of the sale, transfer hypoth-
ecation, misappropriation, or any
other disposition of the, said
shares of stock, that an account
may be taken, by and under the
direction of this honorable court,
concerning all the corporate
dealings and transactions in and
about the sale, transfer, hypothe-
cation or misappropriation of the
said shares of stock allotted to or
agreed to be distributed to your
orators, and how much was real-
ized therefrom, and what. If any-
thing, was due to your orators,
and what dividends have been de-
clared or profits made from the
sale of silver ore or bullion; and
that whatever may be found due
to your orators on account of the
said 26,750 shares of stock, and a
proportionate share of all divi-
dends and profits and products
may be decreed to your orators,
together with costs; and that your
orators shall have such other and
further relief as the nature of
their case may require, and to
your honors shall seem meet."
To this bill the defendant com-
pany and C. E. Lyman demurred.
The court sustained the demurrer
and held that their allegations

2G9.] SUBSCRIPTIONS. 381

siimpsit.^'^ But to maintain an action against the company for the
vakie of the shares the facts must clearly show a contract between
the partieson the one hand, a definite offer to take, and on the
other, an aceptance of the subscription.*^ Where the original al-
did not show any contract on the
part of the company as a corpo-
ration, nor that in its corporate
capacity had it taken part in the
alleged Avrongful acts, and it
could not be made a party de-
fendant to an action to compel the
issue to the complainants of the
shares of stock originally allotted
to them, or for damages in case
such shares could not be used.
Summerlin v. Fronteriza Silver,
etc. Co. (1S90), 41 Fed. Rep. 249;
s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 451, 456,
where Pardee, J., said: "Com-
plainants' whole cause of action
seems to be that the contract to
give them shares was violated,
and that they have been damaged
thereby; and their right to re-
cover, if they can recover at all,
seems to be limited to a money
decree, making a case where a
complete remedy at law can be
had, for the damages can be as
well ascertained at law as in
equity. See Buzard v. Houston,
119 U. S. 347, and the cases there
cited."
47
Wyman v. American Powder
Co., 8 Cush. 168; Finley, etc. Co.
V. Kurtz, 34 Mich. 89. Cf.
Swazy
V. Choate, etc. Co., 48 N. H. 200.
48
In Eldred v. Bell Telephone
Co. (1887), 119 U. S. 513, it ap-
peared that in 1879 the plaintiff
undertook to acquire the right to
operate telephone exchanges in
Kansas City and St. Louis. He
was to secure the rights of the
Kansas City Telephone Exchange
and the American District Tele-
graph Company of St. Louis. Ac-
cordingly, he organized the de-
fendant company, taking in four
friends as stockholders. Before
their stock was delivered, an ar-
rangement was affected for the
consolidation of the American Dis-
trict Telegraph Company with de-
fendant, the former receiving two
hundred and fifty shares of the
stock of the latter. These shares
were deducted from the shares of
stock previously allowed to plaint-
iff, who had charge of and directed
all these transactions; but subse-
quently sued the defendant on an
implied contract for the reason-
able worth of the two hundred and
fifty shares. It was held, how-
ever, that there was no contract,
the allotting of the two hundred
and fifty shares to the American
District Telegraph Company be-
ing simply a new arrangement
in the creation of defendant and
distribution of its stock, and not
a contract between defendant and
plaintiff for stock of that amount.
In Thurber v. Crump (1888), 86
Ky. 408, the plaintiff had con-
tracted with another to assist in
selling his patent-right, and was
to receive for his services half of
the amount realized above a speci-
fied sum. In payment for the
right, certain corporate stock was
to be issued to the owner of the
right. And it was held that per-
formance of the contract by plaint-
iff would merely make him a
creditor of the owner and did not
confer on him any title to the
stock when issued. In a well-
considered Pennsylvania case, the
plaintiff agreed to put money in
a proposed corporation, certain se-
curity to be given him, and he to
be superintendent for five years.
He subsequently agreed to take
corporate stock to hold as secur-
ity, with the option of purchas-
ing it out of the dividends; each
share to be transferred as paid
for. After serving two years as
382
SUBSCRIPTIONS.
[
269.
lottees have no community or privity of interest, not being stock-
holders in the defendant company, the contract with each com-
plainant being separate, there being no privity in the considera-
tion, a demurrer to the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of
complainants will be sustained.*^ The company cannot specifically
enforce in equity a preliminary contract of subscription made be-
fore
its incorporation, since it cannot be considered a party
thereto, but it may bring an action at law to recover damages for
its brcach.^'>
superintendent he resigned. Each
year he demanded a settlement,
and transfer of the stock due him.
And it was held that he exercised
his option in purchasing the
stock, and that it was not affected
by his resignation. Appeal of
Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.
(1888), 117 Pa. St. 514; s. c. 2
Am. St. Rep. 696. In a Florida
case the plaintiff in equity com-
plained that, although he had
been an original incorporator of
a certain railroad company, the di-
rectors thereof had ignored him in
the distribution of stock, and had
distributed all the stock among
other persons. There was no evi-
dence that the persons to whom
it was distributed had not regu-
larly subscribed for the stock, nor
was there evidence of bad faith or
fraud, although plaintiff charged
both. It was held that the plaint-
iff showed no rights in the prem-
ises, and that it was nothing to
him that the company was about
to acquire, under the terms of its
charter, possession of lands
granted by the state on certain
conditions that had been complied
with, he showing no interest
therein except as aforesaid. Brown
V. Florida Southern Ry. Co., 19
Fla. 472.
40
Summerlin v. Fronteriza Sil-
ver Mining & Milling Co., 41 Fed.
Rep. 249; s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
451.
50
Thrasher v. Pike County, etc.
R. Co., 25 111. 393; Rhey v. Ebens-
burg, etc. R. Co., 27 Pa. St. 261.
Cf. Mt. Sterling, etc. R. Co. v. Lit-
tifl.
14 Bush, 429: Ottawa, etc. R.
Co. v. Black, 79 III. 93.
CHAPTER XII.
ISSUE OF STOCK.
A.
270. How issuable in general.
B.
CEETmCATE OF STOCK.
271. Certificates of stock dis-
tinguished from the
stock itself.
272. Negotiability of stock cer-
tificates.
C.
BONA FIDE PUBCHASEB.
273, Bona
fide
purchaser of stock.
D.
LOST OR STOLEX STOCK.

274. Lost or stolen certificate of stock.

275.
276.
277.
278.
279.
284.
285.
286.
B.
lEBEGULAELT AND FEAtjnULENTLY ISSUED STOCK.
Overissue of stock. Char-
ter may be forfeited.
Fraudulent overissue.
Liability for overissue of
stock.
Knowledge and acquies-
cence of creditors in
overissue.
Spurious or overissued
stock.
280.
281.
282.
283.
P.
WATEEED STOCK.
Definition and methods of
issue.
Issued by stock dividend.
Issued in exchange for
sale of all the corporate
property.
287.
288.
False or fictitious issue of
stock.
Forged certificate of
stock.
Effect of forgery or fraud
in issue of stock.
Liability for fraudulent
issue.
Issued in consolidation of
corporations.
Issued in exchange for
property of less than
par value of the stock.
38i
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
270.
289.
290.
291.
292.
293.
Shares issued below par.
Shares issued as a grat-
uity.
Watered stock issued as a
bonus.
Shares issued reciting
that they are fully paid
up.
Lialiility for issue of wa-
tered stock. Corporate
oflBcers.

294. Liability of purchaser

with notice.
295. Liability of the stockhold-
er, as transferee.
296. Who may complain of the
issue of watered stock.
297. Constitutional provisions
as to watered stock.
298. Statutory provisions as to
watered stock.
F.
THE TRUST FUND DOCTEINE.
299. The trust fund theory, as
to stock.
300. Right of subsequent cred-
itors to question right
to convey corporate
property.
301. The theory not recognized
in England.
301a. American trust fund doc-
trine.
301b. Trust fund. The theory
obsolete.
301c. Stock which is, and that
which is not, not charge-
able with a trust.
A.
STOCK HOW ISSUABLE.
270. How issuable in general.Stock may be issued ''in
payment for property or labor, or both.^ It cannot be issued for
service rendered prior to incorporation, where the statute requires
payment in cash or in property.^ It may be issued for property
where the statute requires a certain percentage to be paid in be-
fore beginning business.^ Where subscription to a specified per-
centage of the capital stock is required by statute to be paid as a
condition to incorporation, payment cannot be accepted in prop-
erty or in labor.^ After the charter has been obtained upon pay-
ment of the required percentage of capital stock in cash, subscrip-
1 Farwell v. Great Western T.
Co. (1896), 161 111. 522; Woolfolk
V. January (1895), 131 Mo. 620;
Foster v. Belcher & Co. (1893),
118 Mo. 238; Bristol, etc. Co. v.
Jonesboro, etc. Co. (1898), 101
Tenn. 545; American Tube Co. v.
Hays (1895), 165 Pa. St. 489.
2 Herbert v. Duryea (1898), 34
N. Y. App. Div. 478.
3
Fargasen v. Oxford, etc. Co.
(1900), 78 Miss. 65; La Crosse,
etc. Co. V. Goddard (Wis. 1902),
91 N. W. Rep. 225; McCandless
V. Inland, etc. Co. (Ga. 1902), 42
S. E. Rep. 449.
4 Boyd V. Peach Bottom Ry.
(1879), 90 Pa. St. 169.

271.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 385

tion to any part of the remainder may be payable in labor or prop-
erty.^ Where the purchase of property is tdtra vires, it is not a
valid consideration for the issue of stock. For purposes of taxa-
tion, stock is issued when it is subscribed.^ The stock ledger is
the corporate record of stock at any time owned by its stockhold-
ers, whereby its title may be traced to the original issue, and the
fact shown whether it is subject to any lien in favor of the corpo-
ration.^ In England, underwritten stock is where the underwriter,
in advance of original public offer of the stock, agrees with the
corporation to take whatever part thereof may not be taken by
the public.'*
Subscription
for
stock differs from
sole.Subscription applies
to original issue.^'^ "Shareholder" in the United States is used
interchangeably with stockholder, to mean one who has been ac-
cepted as an owner of stock.^^ Officers of the corporation include
the directors,^^ and the attorney of the corporation.^^ The rights
of a state as stockholder in a corporation do not dift"er from those
of any other stockholder.^'*
B.
CERTIFICATE OF STOCK.

271. Certificate of stock distinguished from the stock it-

self.A certificate of stock is not the stock itself, but is the
mere evidence of the ownership of the stock, and of the stockhold-
er's rights.
^^
"Stock is one thing and certificates another. The
former is the substance and the latter is the evidence of it."
^
"A share of stock in a corporation consists of a set of rights and
duties between the corporation and the owner of the share. These
rights and duties are in fact and law quite distinguishable from
5
Caley v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
12
United States v. Means
R. (1876), 80 Pa. St. 363. (1890), 42 Fed. Rep. 599.
6
Powell V. INIurray (1896), 3 N.
is
Matter of St. Lawrence, etc.
Y. App. Div. 273. R. R. (1892), 133 N. Y. 270.
"^
American, etc. Co. v. State
14
Southern Ry. v. North Caro-
Board (1894), 56 N. J. L. 389. lina R. R. (1897), 81 Fed. Rep.
8 Craig V. Hesperia, etc. Co. 595.
(1896), 113 Cal. 7.
is
Higgins v. Lansingh (1895),
9 J2e Licensed, etc. Assn. (1889), 154 111. 301; Peoples' Bank v.
L. R. 42 Ch. D. 1. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344.
10
Bates V. Great Western T.
is
Hawley v. Brumagim, 33 Cal.
Co. (1890), 134 111. 536. 394.
11
State V. Ferris (1875), 42
Conn. 560.
Vol. 1

25
SSG ISSCE OF STOCK.
[
271.
tlic certificate?? and the power to transfer those rights and (Uitics.
Tlie certificate is evidence that the person therein named pos-
sesses tliose rights and is subject to those duties, but is not in
law the equivalent of those rights and duties. They are muni-
ments of title, but not the title itself, much less the real property.^"
In form and execution the certificate must comply with the by-
laws.^^ Omission of the corporate seal does not invalidate the cer-
tificate.^^ When revenue stamps are required to be attached they
may, if omitted, be affixed at an}^ time.-" When the certificate is
void or voidable, the corporation may sue to cancel it and enjoin
its transfer.^^ Delivery of the certificate is essential to its issue.-^
The corporation is bound, upon demand, to deliver to the share-
holder a certificate to represent the stock of which he is owner.
^^
Whether or not the shareholder has a certificate of his shares, he
may transfer his stock,-* receive dividends,^^ and vote.^" The
certificate is not a credit, or money, or a security."^ It is not a
negotiable instrument. The transferee takes it subject to the
equities existing against the assignor or transferer.-^ The cer-
tificates or shares of stock are personal property ; they are simply
the evidence of the shareholder' interest in the capital stock, which
may consist in whole or in part of real estate.^^ The stockholder
has a right to receive a certificate as such evidence, but it is not
necessary to the complete ownership that any certificate shall be
issued. A subscriber to, or purchaser of stock, becomes a stock-
holder, entitled to all the rights and subject to the liabilities of
that relation to the corporation, whenever his subscription is ac-
cepted, or the purchase of stock completed, whether any certifi-
cate is issued to him or not,^ and whether his subscription is paid
17
Winslow V. Fletcher, 53 Conn,
24
First Nat. Bank. v. Gifford,
890, 52 Am. Rep. 122. 47 Iowa, 575.
18
Titus V. Great Western, etc.,
25
Ellis v. Essex, etc. Bridge, 19
61 N. Y. 237. Mass. 343.
19
Halstead v. Dodge, 51 N. Y.
26
Beckett v. Houston, 32 Ind.
Sup. Ct. 169; Coddington v. Rail- 393.
road, 103 U. S. 409. 27Bridgeman v. City of Keokuk,
20
Jones V. Western, etc. Co. 72 Iowa, 42; Graydon v. Graydon,
(Wash. 1902), 67 Pac. 586. 23 N. J. Law, 229.
21
New York, etc. R. Co. v,
28
Young v. South, etc. Co., 85
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30. Tenn. 189, 4 Am. St. Rep. 752.
22
York V. Passaic Rolling Mill
29
Wilkes Barre, etc. Bank v.
Co., 30 Fed. 471. Wilkes Barre (1902), 148 Pa. St.
23
Buffalo, etc. v. Dudley, 14 N. 601.
Y. 336. ' 30 Payne v. Elliott (1880), 54
Cal. 339.

272.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 387

or not.'^ But the corporation must issue a certificate to him upon
demand." Under the common law no seal to the certificate is
necessary.^^ Where the corporation sells shares of stock, it can
maintain no action for the price until it has issued or tendered the
certificate."
^*
The certificate is property.The certificate itself is property,
and when withheld the owner may recover it by action of detinue
or replevin, or may recover its value in an action of trover.^^
Where no certificates have been issued, an oral transfer and reg-
istry upon the books is sufficient.^" It is not necessary to the owner-
ship of stock that a certificate shall have been issued to the owner.^^
The certificate of stock is the muniment of the shareholder's title
and evidence of his right. It expresses the contract between the
corporation and his co-shareholders and himself, and without his
assent cannot be taken away from him, or changed as to him, with-
out his prior dereliction, unless the power is reserved in the first
instance. The right which a shareholder gets on the purchase of
his shares and the issue to him of the certificate therefor is a
A'ested right.
^^

272. Negotiability of stock certificates.The weight of

authority denies to certificates of stock the principal character-
istics of negotiable instruments,^^ and it is denied that commercial
usage can clothe them with that character.*" On the other hand,
31
Wheeler v. Millar (1882), 90 7 Am. St. Rep. 73; Young v.
N. Y. 353. South Tredegar Iron Co. (1887),
32
Rio Grande Cattle Co. v. 85 Tenn. 189; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep.
Burns (1891), 82 Tex. 50. 752; McNeil v. Tenth National
33
Coddington v. Railroad Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; Mechanics'
(1880), 103 U. S. 409. National Bank v. New York, etc.
34
Wood Harvester Co. v. Jeffer- R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599; Cecil Na-
Eon, 71 Minn. 367. tional Bank v. Watsontown, 105
35Neiler v. Kelly, 69 Pa. St. U. S. 17; Pollard v. Vinton, 105
403; Daggett v. Davis, 53 Mich. U. S. 5; Weaver v. Barden, 49 N.
35. Y. 286, 288; Loeh v. Peters, 63
36
Manchester St. Ry. Co. v. Ala. 243; Tiedman v. Knox, 53
Williams (N. H. 1904), 52 Atl. Md. 612; Sewall v. Boston, etc.
461; Kiely v. Singleton (1879), Co., 86 Mass. 277; Barstow v. Sav-
27 Grants. Ch. (Can.) 220. age, etc. Co., 64 Cal. 391; Weyer
37
California, etc. Hotel Co. v. v. Second National Bank, 57 Ind.
Callender (1892), 94 Cal. 120, 28 198, 208; Mandlebaum v. North
Am. St. Rep. 99. American, etc. Co., 4 Mich. 465,
38
Kent v. Quicksilver M. Co. 473; Emery v. Irving National
(1879), 78 N. Y. 159. Bank, 25 Ohio St. 360.
39
Hawes v. Gas Consumers'
-lo
Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass.
Benefit Co. (1890), 9 N. Y. Supp. 382; Sherwood v. Meadow Valley,
490; East Birmingham Land Co. etc. Co., 50 Cal. 417.
v. Dennis (1889), 85 Ala. 565; s. c.
3bS ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
272.
the New York court of appeals said tliat, though not negotiable
in form : "Certificates of stock are treated by business men as
property for all practical purposes. They arc sold in the market,
and they are transferred as collateral security for loans, and they
are used in various ways as property. They pass by delivery
from hand to hand, and they are subject to larceny."
*^
And the
federal court said : "It is a well known fact, that stock certificates
frequently circulate in places far remote from the home of the cor-
poration by which they were issued ; that in all commercial centers
they are commonly transferred from hand to hand like negotiable
paper, and that they are hypothecated for temporary loans by a
'
simple indorsement and delivery thereof, the latter being perhaps
the most common use to which such securities are put. In the
great majority of cases when stock is merely pledged for a loan,
no record of the transfer is made on the books of the corporation,
and, in the judgment of laymen, the making of such a record
seems to be a needless formality. The trend of modern decisions
has been to encourage the free circulation of stock certificates in
the mode last indicated, on the theory that they are a valuable aid
to commercial transactions, and that the public interest is. best
subserved by removing all restrictions against their circulation,
and by placing them as nearly as possible on the plane of com-
mercial paper."
*^
Accordingly, an innocent purchaser for value
of such certificate, indorsed in blank by the owner, and stolen
from him without negligence on his part, acquires no ti^le
thereto.*^
Situs
of
the corporation determines that
of
the certificate.It
is held that the situs of the corporation will determine the situs
of the stock without regard to the location of the certificates for
the purpose of giving jurisdiction for the attachment of the
stock.*'^
Negotiability
of
stock certificates signed in blank. Estoppel.

The common practice of passing the title to stock by delivery

of the certificate with blank assignment, and power has been re-
peatedly shown and sanctioned in cases which have come before
our courts. Such is the common practice in the city of New
York, and the rights of parties holding under such instruments
are fully recognized there and in other states. Even in the ab-
41
Knox V. Eden, etc. Co. (1896), Dennis (1889), 85 Ala. 565; s. c.
148 N. Y. 441. 7 Am. St. Rep. 73.
42
Masiiry v. Arkansas National
44
Young v. South Tredegar Iron
Bank (1899), 93 Fed. Rep. 603. Co. (1887), 85 Tenn. 189; s. c. 4
43
East Birmingham Land Co. v. Am. St. Rep. 752.

272.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 3S9

sence of such a usage, a blank transfer on the back of the cer-
tificate to which the holder has affixed his name is a good assign-
ment, and a party to whom it is delivered is authorized to fill it up
by writing a transfer and power of attorney over the signature,
As between the parties, the delivery of the certificate, with as-
signment and power indorsed, passes the entire title, legal and
equitable, in the shares, notwithstanding that by the charter or by-
laws of the corporation the stock is declared to be transferable
only on its books. Such provisions are intended solely for the
protection of the corporation, and may be waived or asserted at
pleasure. They do not incapacitate the shareholder from parting
with his interest. His assignment not on the books, passes the en-
tire legal title to the stock, subject only to such liens or claims as
the corporation may have upon it, and excepting the right to vote
at elections, etc.*^
Although certificates of stock are not strictly negotiable, yet,
where they have been assigned in blank, with an irrevocable power
of attorney, the rules of agency and estoppel are applied so as to
give to the transaction practically the same effect as if it were a
transfer of commercial paper, for it is held that where such an
assignment in blank has been made it amounts to a representa-
tion that any bona Ude purchaser for value will acquire good title,
and that the person to whom it is delivered, is either his assignee
or his agent. It offers an inducement to purchasers, and the as-
signor will be estopped from repudiating the consequences of his
act.* Under some conditions, simple delivery, without indorse-
ment of any kind, operates as an equitable assignment, and inter-
vening equities will be defeated.*'^ So, when executors put it in
the power of one of their number to dispose of stock belonging
to their testator's estate, and he pledges it to secure his personal
indebtedness, accompanied by an irrevocable power of attorney,
45
McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, Markham, 6 Daly, 129; West, etc.
(1871), 46 N. Y. 325, 7 Am. Rep. Co.'s Appeal, 81 Pa. St. 19; Otis
341; New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. v. Gardner, 105 111. 436; Martin v.
Schuyler, 43 N. Y. 41; Kortright Sedgwick, 9 Beav. 333. Contra:
V. Buffalo Bank, 20 Wend. 91. As to the English rule see Taylor
40
McNeil V. Tenth National v. Great, etc. Ry. Co., 4 De Gex &
Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; Rumball v. J. 559; Donaldson v. Gillot, L. R.
Metropolitan Bank, 2 Q. B. Div. 3 Eq. 274.
194; Honold v. Meyer, 36 La. Ann.
47
Burrall v. Bushwick R. Co.,
585; Strange v. Houston, etc. R. 75 N. Y. 211; Walsh v. Sexton, 55
Co., 53 Tex. 162; Dovey's Appeal, Barb. 251; Allerton v. Lang, 10
97 Pa. St. 153. Cf. State Bank v. Bosw. 362. Gf.
Eraser v. Charles-
Cox, 11 Rich. Eq. 344; Gulick v. ton, 11 S. C. 486.
390
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
272.
it is, if it passes into the hands of a tliird party, presumptive evi-
dence of ownership, and when all the indicia of ownership have
thus been conveyed by one executor, they are all estopped from
asserting title to the stock as against one who has purchased it in
good faith and for value. It is upon this principle that the rights
of a bona Me holder rest, and not upon the negotiability of the
certificates.*^ Under this application of the rule of estoppel, the
title of an innocent purchaser of the stock for value comes through
the acts of the real owner, which make it possible for any one to
purchase the certificates in the belief that his vendor is vested with
title and authority to make a valid and efifective sale, and do not
depend upon the rights of the apparent owner in any degree."*^
This doctrine has been so extended that a bona fide purchaser of
stock for value is protected by estoppel in almost every case in
which he would be as the holder of a negotiable instrument.
Thus, if certificates of stock are transferred with the assignment
indorsed in blank, and with an irrevocable power of attorney to
have the transfer recorded on the books of the company, -it in-
vests them with the character of negotiable paper as nearly as
can be done,^ for any bona fide holder for value may then fill in
the blanks, over the signature of the assignor, with his own name
as assignee and as attorney, or with the name of any one as agent
and attorney to have the transfer recorded on the corporate
books
;^^
and the person so authorized by the indorsement of the
certificates may make the demand upon the company for the issue
48
Wood V. Smith, 92 Pa. St. burgh R. Co., 39 Md. 36; Bridge-
379; Moore v. Metropolitan Nat. port Banl^; v. New York, etc. R.
Bank, 55 N. Y. 41; Matthews v. Co., 30 Conn. 231, 275; Wood's
Massachusetts National Bank, 1 Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 379; Wood's Ry.
Holmes, 396; Fatman v. Lobach, Law,

95.
1 Duer, 354; Mount Holly, etc.
si
Cutting v. Damerel, 88 N. Y.
Co. V. Ferrie, 17 N. J. Eq. 117; 410; Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc
Walker V. Detroit Transit Ry. Co., Co., 57 N. Y. 616, 623; Kort-
47 Mich. 338, 347; Ex parte Sar- right v. Buffalo, etc. Bank. 20
gent, L. R. 17 Eq. 273; Rumball Wend. 91; Pennsylvania R. Co.'s
V. Metropolitan Bank, 2 Q. B. Div. Appeal, 86 Pa. St. 80; Matthews
194.
Cf.
Briggs v. Massey, 42 L. v. Massachusetts Nat. Bank, 1
T. 49. Holmes, 396; Bridgeport Bank v.
40
McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, New York, etc. R. Co., 30 Conn.
46 N. Y. 325. 231; Broadway Bank v. McElrath,
50
Duke V. Cahawba, etc. Co., 10 13 N. J. Eq. 24; Walker v. Detroit
Ala. 82; s. c. 44 Am. Dec. 472; Transit Ry. Co., 47 Mich. 338; Or-
Lanier v. Bank, 11 Wall. 369, 377; tigosa v. Brown, 47 L. J. Ch. 168;
McNeil V. Tenth National Bank, Ex parte Sargent, L. R. 17 Eq.
46 N. Y. 325; Leitch v. Wells, 48 273; In re Barned's Banking Co.,
N. Y. 585, 613; Tome v. Parkers- L. R. 3 Ch. 105.

273.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 391

of new certificates to the assignee so denominated.^^ A certificate
indorsed in blank may pass through a series of hands in the course
of business with the blanks unfilled, and each bona fide holder
into whose possession it comes may fill the blanks in the manner
indicated, and in pursuance of the power require the corporation
to register the transfer, either himself or through such agent a|
he may designate.^^ Such a power of attorney is not revoked by
the death of the person who executed it.^* One who sells certifi-
cates of corporate stock does not thereby impliedly warrant that
the company by which they were issued is a corporation de jure.
It is sufficient, so far as any implied warranty is concerned, if
they are issued by a corporation de facto.^^
C.
BONA FIDE PURCHASER.
273.
Bona fide purchaser of stock.A certificate of stork
is not a negotiable instrument, but a bona fide purchaser may, by
operation of the law of estoppel, take it free from equities of
previous holders, who have enabled persons to sell it to the pur-
chaser who has given value for it, before he knew of any defect
in the seller's title.^* The general rule of law respecting bona
fide purchasers of commercial paper for value, before maturity,
are applied to stock and corporate securities so far as their pe-
culiar nature will admit. Although corporate bonds may have
been wrongfully put into circulation, a purchaser in good faith,
ignorant of the circumstances, may enforce their payment.^''' Ac-
cordingly, where a corporation was authorized to issue bonds se-
cured by mortgage to the amount of two-thirds of its capital paid
in, and it issued bonds to an amount less than two-thirds of its
authorized capital, but much more than the amount paid in, the
bonds were enforceable in the hands of bona fide holders.^^ So
52
Commercial Bank v. Korfe-
ss
Hayden v. Charter Oak, etc.
right, 22 Wend. 348; Dunn v. (1893), 63 Conn. 142.
Commercial Bank, 11 Barb. 580;
57
De Kay v. Voorhis, 36 N. J.
Bridgeport Bank V. New York, etc. Eq. 37; Hackensaclc Water Co. v.
R. Co., 30 Conn. 231. De Kay, 36 N. J. Eq. 548; Pearce
53Kortright v. Buffalo, etc. v. Madison R. Co. (1858), 21 How.
Bank, 20 Wend. 91; affirmed in 22 442; Grand Rapids, etc. R. Co. v.
Wend. 348; Leavitt v. Fisher, 4 Sanders, 17 Hun. 552; Webb v,
Duer, 1. Heme Bay Commissioners, L. R.
54
Leavitt v. Fisher, 4 Duer, 1. 5 Q. B. 642.
55
Harter v. Elzroth (1887), 111
ss
Hackensack Water Co. v. De
Ind. 159. Kay, 36 N. J. Eq. 548. Ace. Ells-
392
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
273.
in respect of stock certificates, if the owner indorses them in
blank, and puts them in the hands of a broker or agent, who sells
or pledges them in fraud of the owner's rights, he nevertheless
cannot reclaim them from an innocent holder for value.'^^ A bona
fide purchaser of a certificate from defendant before levy of at-
tachment or execution in a suit, is entitled to retain the stock.*'"
The assignee thereof takes them subject to all equities existing
against the assignor."^ If the company transfers the shares to
the indorsee of the certificate after notice of an adverse claim, it
does so at its own peril."^^ They are said to be of the nature of
quasi negotiable instruments, mere evidences of ownership.*'^ Yet,
while not within the category of negotiable instruments as defined
by the law merchant, like warehouse receipts and bills of lading,
they frequently convey as good a title as though they were actually
negotiable.* This title is grounded in estoppel.
worth V. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 98
N. Y. 553. And where, under
statutory authority, certain mort-
gage bonds were issued by a water
company, and talven by the con-
tractors who built the company's
works, in part payment therefor,
and the company's property and
franchises were afterwards bought
by the contractors, who reorgan-
ized the company and conveyed
the property and franchises to the
new company, the contractors and
both companies were estopped
from alleging any invalidity in
the execution or delivery of the
bonds, in the hands of assignees
of the contractors, or want of
power of the old company to issue
them. De Kay v. Voorhis, 36 N.
J. Eq. 37.
69
Burton v. Peterson, 12 Phila.
397. But one who takes it for
an antecedent debt due him from
the broker or agent is not such a
holder for value. Burton v. Pe-
terson, 12 Phila. 397. Where,
however, one takes stock in satis-
faction of a debt due him from
the equitable owner thereof, the
legal title to the stock being in
another, the creditor becomes the
'bona
fide purchaser of the stock,
and will be protected as such.
Thurber v. Crump (1888), 86 Ky.
408.
CO
Smith V. American Coal Co.
(1873), 7 Lans. 317.
61
Young V. South Tredegar Iron
Co., 85 Tenn. 189.
62
Hawes v. Gas Consumers'
Benefit Co. (1890), 9 N. Y. Supp.
490.
63
Lanier v. Bank, 11 Wall. 369;
Johnson v. Lafflin, 103 U. S. 800;,
Shaw V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S.
504; McAllister v. Kuhn, 96 U. S.
89; Black v. Zacharie, 3. How.
483; Hubbell v. Drexel, 11 Fed.
Rep. 115; Stollenwerck v. That-
cher, 115 Mass. 224; Shaw v. Spen-
cer, 100 Mass. 382; Campbell v.
Morgan, 4 Bradw. 100; Wood's
Appeal, 92 Pa. St. 379; Finney's
Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 598; Prall v.
Tilt, 27 N. J. Eq. 393; Broadway
Bank v. McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq.
24; First National Bank v. North-
ern R. Co., 58 N. H. 203; Burton
V. Patterson, 12 Phila. 397; Con-
ant V. Seneca County Bank, 1
Ohio St. 298.
64
McNeil V. Tenth National
Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; New York,
etc. R. Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y.
80; Mechanics' Bank v. New York,
etc. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 599; Weaver
V. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286; Ross v.

271.] ISSUE OF STUCK.

S93
D.
LOST OR STOLEN STOCK.
274.
Lost or stolen certificate of stock.The true owner
of shares of stock from whom, without his fault or negligence,
they have been stolen, loses no right in them even against one
who, in good faith and for value, buys them from the theif, they
having been regularly indorsed by a former owner, in whose
name they stand on the corporation books."^ The bona fide pur-
chaser of a stolen certificate indorsed in blank is not protected.''''
But after registery and sale of the certificate, the transferee is pro-
tected in his possession.*^^ The loser of the certificate may have
new certificates issued onl}^ upon clear proof of loss or upon giv-
ing bond of indemnity to the corporation.* It has likewise been
held that even where the corporation was without fault and the
stolen certificates were purchased in good faith, the real owner's
rights would not be defeated.*^^ But when such a transfer is reg-
istered, the parties to the registration being ignorant of the fact
that it has been stolen, the innocent purchaser so registered is
entitled to assert his right to the stock.'^" Where one to whom
certificates of stock were issued, alleges that they have been lost,
the corporation will not be compelled to issue new ones in lieu
thereof without requiring him to give a bond of indemnity ac-
cording to its by-laws, where the lapse of time since their alleged
loss is not so great as to exclude danger of their reappearance.'^
South Western R. Co., 53 Ga. 514;
ce
Knox v. Eden, etc. Co. (1896),
First Nat. Bank v. Bryce, 78 Ky, 148 N. Y. 441.
42; Strange v. Houston, etc. R.
gt
Searlett v. Ward (1893), 52
Co., 53 Tex. 162; Duke v. Ca- N. .T. Eq. 197.
hawba, etc. Co., 10 Ala. 82; State
es
Guilford v. Western Union T.
V. North Louisiana R. Co., 34 La. Co. (1890), 43 Minn. 434.
Ann. 947; Smith v. Crescent City
co
Telegraph Co. v. Davenport,
Co., 30 La. Ann. 378. 97 U. S. 369.
65
Sherwood v. Meadow Valley,
to
Mandlebaum v. North Ameri-
etc. Co., 50 Cal. 412; Brown v. can, etc. Co., 4 Mich. 465. In one
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 42 Md. case this was held even when the
384; Buffalo, etc. Co. v. Alberger, transferee had notice of the facts.
22 Hun, 349; Barstow v. Savage, State v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 25
etc. Co., 64 Cal. 388; s. c. 49 Am. La. Ann. 413.
Rep. 705, substantially overruling
^i
Guilford v. Western Union
Winter v. Belm.ont, etc. Co., 53 Tel. Co., 43 Minn. 434, 46 N. W.
Cal. 428.
Cf.
Anderson v. Nicho- Rep. 70; N. Y. Laws of 1890, ch.
las, 28 N. Y. 600; Aull v. Colket, 564, 51; Galveston City Co. v.
33 Leg. Intell. 44: Biddle v. Bay- Sibley, 56 Tex. 269. Cf. Greenleaf
ard, 13 Pa. St. 150. v. Ludington, 15 Wis. 558.
39-i ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
274.
In New York the owner of lost or stolen certificates may compel
the issuance of new certificates, when the corporation refuses to
do so, by petitioning the supreme court, which, upon due proof
that the petitioner is the lawful owner, w ill make an order directing
the corporation to issue new certificates. The proceedings are had
upon an order to show cause.'^^ In a noted case in Colorado
''^
it was said that certificates of stock are assignable, and pass from
hand to hand by indorsement, as bills of exchange and promissory
notes pass, a proposition which appears to be exactly the reverse
of the law as stated in the authorities cited in the last section. It
is qualified, however, by the further statement that an innocent
purchaser for value will hold them against the true owner where
the latter has placed it in the power of the assignor to perpetrate
a fraud upon the innocent assignee. So qualified, it is probable
that the proposition may be accepted as the law, and this view is
further fortified by the fact that the case of Lanier v. Bank
^*
is
cited as authority, in which Justice Davis, who delivered the opin-
ion of the court, said that certificates, "although neither in form
or character negotiable paper, approximate to it as nearly as pos-
sible."
^^
In a still more recent case in Alabama it is said that
while the certificates of stock are not negotiable instruments when
indorsed in blank, they are nevertheless intended to pass from
hand to hand by delivery
;
and a bona fide purchaser of certificates
of stock, upon which a power of attorney, authorizing their trans-
fer to any person, is indorsed by the person in whose name the
certificates were issued, and who was the last registered stock-
holder, takes them relieved of a trust existing back of the regis-
try, though the transfer to the purchaser is not registered.''^
Certificates indorsed in blank.The rule as to negotiable notes
when indorsed in blank and then lost or stolen, that a bona fide
purchaser is protected against the loser, seems not to apply to cer-
72
N. Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 564, ages of trade, that the indorse-
50 and 51. ment of the certificates invests the
73
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott assignee with the legal title to
(1887), 10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am. the interest so assigned as against
St. Rep. 586. all persons except the corporation.
74
11 Wall. 369. It was ruled that a hona fide pur-
75
In Mills V. Townsend, 109 chaser, through mesne conveyan-
Mass, 115, it is said that while a ces, starting from a trustee who
transfer of shares by an assign- sells the stock in breach of trust,
ment of the certificates can be ef- is protected.
fective only between the parties
76
Winter v. Montgomery Gas
to the assignment, it has been Light Co. (1890), 8 Ry. & Corp.
held, in accordance with the us- L. J. 244.

275.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 395

tificatcs of stock. To that extent they are not negotiable. In the
absence of negligence, the owner may recover such a certificate
from a bona fide purchaser;" and the latter cannot compel the
corporation to recognize him as a stockholder.'^ The rule in
such case is, that the corporation must issue to the loser a new
certificate upon his giving a bond of indemnity to the corpora-
tion against any liability to a possible legal holder.'^" The pur-
chaser of a certificate of stock, it not being negotiable paper, al-
though indorsed in blank by the owner, where no question arises
under the registration laws, acquires no better title to the stock
than his vender had, in the absence of all negligence on the part
of the owner or his authority to make the sale. A bona Ude as-
signee, with full power to transfer the stock, takes the certificate
subject to the equities which existed against his assignor.^**
E.
IRREGULARLY AND FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED STOCK.
275.
Overissue of stock. Charter may be forfeited.Ad-
ditional stock issued without authority is void ; the holder of cer-
tificates therefore has no rights as shareholder, and cannot vote
;
and so is void any agreement to make such issue, or in pursuance
of it.^^ Such new stock does not affect the validity of the orig-
inal stock.^^ The validity of irregularly issued stock is based
upon its analogy to the case of a de facto corporation.**^ If a cor-
poration is authorized by law to increase its capital stock, upon
complying with certain prescribed forms or conditions, and the
77
Anderson v. Nicholas, 28 N. ing Co., 64 Cal. 388; Willey v. Sar-
Y. 600; Barstow v. Savage Min. gent, 14 Am. Dec. 427, note.
Co., 64 Cal. 388; Bangor, etc. Co.
si
New York, etc. Co. v. Scliuy-
V. Robinson, 52 Fed. 520; Knox ler, 34 N. Y. 30.
V. Eden, etc. Co., 148 N. Y. 441,
82
Byers v. Rollins, 13 Colo. 22.
51 Am. St. Rep. 700.
ss
Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S.
78
Sherwood v. Meadow, etc. Co., 143; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U. S. 667,
50 Cal. 412. where it is said that "if it be con-
79
Galveston City Co. v. Sibley, ceded that its increased stock is
56 Tex. 269; Guilford v. Western but de facto, and that it could
Union Tel. Co., 43 Minn. 434. have been anulled or suppressed
80
East Birmingham v. Dennis by the action of the attorney-gen-
(1888), 85 Ala. 565, 2 L. R. A. eral as acting under an irregular
836, 7 Am. St. Rep. 73; Mechanics' organization, the defendant de-
Bank V. Railroad Co. (1856), 13 rives no aid from the admission.
N. Y. 599; Shaw v. Spencer, 100 The cases cited are clear to the
Mass. 382; Sewall v. Water Power point that he cannot make the
Co., 4 Allen, 282; Barstow v. Min- objection, but must perform the
engagement he has made."
396
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
275.
corporation or its agents appear to have endeavored to comply
with the prescribed forms or conditions, and have in fact increased
the company's capital stock by issuing new shares, on the assump-
tion that the legal right to increase the capital stock had been ac-
quired, and if the holder of the new shares has acted as a share-
holder, and enjoyed the rights of a shareholder, then the creation
of the new shares will be recognized by the courts, and given ef-
fect according to the intention of the parties, although the stat-
utory forms or conditions were not complied with, and no legal
right to create the new shares was in fact obtained.^* Therefore,
where a corporation has by its charter the power to increase its
capital stock, its stockholders, who have acquiesced in such an in-
crease and received the stock issued thereupon, when sued by a
creditor of the corporation for the amount unpaid on their shares,
are estopped to say that the increase was invalid because it was not
published and recorded as required by the general law under which
it was made.^^ Being invested with authority of law to make an
increase of its capital stock, it is settled by the decisions, especially
of the federal supreme court, that neither the corporation, nor the
stockholders who accept such increased stock, can, after the in-
solvency of the company, question its validity as against creditors,
for any failure or neglect on the part of the company to do some
other act, the performance of which rested or depended upon it-
self. There is a clear distinction between the power to make an
increase of stock, and the formality to be observed or act to be
subsequently performed by the corporation in the exercise of such
power. A want of power or lawful authority will defeat or ren-
der void an attempted increase, while irregularities in the exercise
of conceded power are never allowed to invalidate such stock, or
to furnish the holders thereof an available defense against liability
thereon. Where the power to increase its capital stock exists,
and is exercised, the corporation's failure to perform some act
devolving upon itself, in connection therewith, such as recording
and publishing its action, constitutes an irregularity or neglect of
duty of which the State only can complain or take advantage in
a direct proceeding against the corporation ; but stockholders who
have accepted portions of such increased stock are estopped from
siMorawetz on Corporations,

L. J. 407; "Walton v. Riley (1887),
763, quoted in Stutz v. Handley 85 Ky. 413, overruling Heinig v.
(1890), 41 Fed. Rep. 531. Adams, etc, Manuf. Co., 81 Ky.
85
stutz V. Handley
(1890), 41 300.
Fed. Rep. 531; s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp.

276.] ISSUE OF STOCK. m

denying the validity of the increase upon any irregularity or neg-
lect. This is clearly settled by what are known as the Upton
Cases.
^

276. Fraudulent overissue of stock.

^A corporation with
a fixed capital, divided into a fixed number of shares, can have no
8G
Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
45; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 58
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65
Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665
Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328
and Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673
Stutz V. Handley (1890), 41 Fed
Rep. 531; s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J
407. The principles announced in
these cases are not in anywise
modified or affected by the subse-
quent decision of Scovill v.
Thayer, 105 U. S. 148, in which
the distinction between the want
of power to make an increase, and
Irregularities or informalities in
the exercise of a conceded power,
as above suggested, is illustrated
and applied. Stutz v. Handley
(1890), 41 Fed. Rep. 531; s. c. 7
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 407. In Scovill
V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143, by the
law of Kansas, the power of the
company to increase its stock was
expressly limited and confined to
double the amount originally au-
thorized. The attempted increase
w^as in excess of that amount. It
was held that such excess was
void, and conferred not right and
imposed no liabilities upon the
holders thereof, upon the ground
that there was a want or lack of
power on the part of the company
to make such an increase. For this
reason, those Avho received cer-
tificates for such unauthorized
stock, although they attended cor-
porate meetings, were held not to
be estopped from disputing its
validity. The Supreme Court,
speaking by Mr. Justice Woods,
say: "We think he (the holder
of such stock) is not estopped
to set up the nullity of the un-
authorized stock. It is true that
it has been held by this court
that a stockholder cannot set
up informalities in the issue of
stock which the corporation
had the power to create;"
citing the Upton Cases. "But
those were cases where the in-
crease of the stock was authorized
by law. The increase itself was
legal, and within the power of
the corporation, but there were
simply informalities in the steps
taken to effect the increase. These,
it was held, were cured by the
ant; but there, the corporation
acts and acquiescence of defend-
ant; but here the corporation
being absolutely without power to
increase its stocR above a certain
limit, the acquiescence of the
shareholder can neither give it
validity nor bind him or the cor-
poration." The reason for the
distinction thus indicated is
founded upon the principle that a
corporation has no inherent au-
thority of its own motion, or by
its own action, to effect fundamen-
tal changes in its constitution or
organic law, such as an increase
in its capital stock involves. It
is an essential prerequisite or con-
dition precedent to the validity of
such a change that the sovereign
by whom the corporation is cre-
ated, or under whose law it is or-
ganized, shall give its consent
thereto, either in the company's
charter, or by some general or
special act. But when such au-
thority is conferred, those who
accept stock under the exercise
of the power by the corporation
are not allowed to shield them-
selves from liability in respect
therto by setting up the failure
on the part of the conmpany or
of themselves to perform any sub-
3t)S
ISSUK OF STOCK.
[
276.
power of its own volition, or by any acts of its officers and
agents, to enlarge its capital or increase the number of shares into
which it is divided. The supreme legislative power of the State
can alone confer that authority and remove or consent to the re-
moval of restrictions which are part of the fundamental law of
the corporate being, and hence every attempt of the corporation
to exert such a power before it is conferred by any direct or ex-
press action of its officers is void, and hence every indirect and
fraudulent attempt to do so is void.^^ So that overissued stock,
fraudulently issued, is "utterly invalid," even in the hands of bona
fide purchasers,^^ whether the issue has been directed by the cor-
poration itself, or whether it has been made by agents without its
authority.^'* The corporation itself,^" or the stockholders in their
own behalf, may file a bill to have the spurious stock canceled,"^
and the transfer of overissued stock, or the voting of its holders
at corporate meetings, or the payment of dividends upon it, may
be restrained by injunction.^^ In case of fraudulent increase of
the capital stock, as by an insolvent corporation in order to pay
its debts and wrongfully deceive the purchaser of the new stock
into the belief that the corporation is prosperous, the corporation
will be liable in damages to the purchaser, and any director or
sequent act or duty resting with- Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 425; People's
in its or their own control, such Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344.
as making-, recording, or publish-
89
Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S.
ing a certificate of such corporate 143; Railway Co. v. Allerton, 18
fiction. Stutz V. Handley (1890), Wall. 233; New York, etc. R. Co.
41 Fed. Rep. 531; s. c. 7 Ry. & v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30; Mechan-
Corp. L. J. 407. ics' Bank v. New York, etc. R. Co.,
87
New York, etc. R. Co. v. 13 N. Y. 599; New York, etc. R.
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 49, holding Co. v. Ketchum, 3 Keyes, 363 (the
that the company is entitled to last three cases named growing
have all certificates and transfers out of the Schuyler frauds)
;
which represent such spurious Stace's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 688, note,
stock declared void and ordered
oo
Plimpton v. Bigelow, 93 N.
to be cancelled. And in an action Y. 592, 602; Venice v. Woodruff,
on the contract against the com- 62 N. Y. 462; New York, etc. R.
pany, it will not be estopped from Co. v. Schuyler, 17 N. Y. 592; s. c.
setting up its want of corporate 34 N. Y. 30; Lehigh Valley R. Co.
power to issue the spurious cer- v. McFarland, 31 N. J. Eg. 730.
tificates.
Wood's Ry. Law,
93,
oi
Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U.
citing Hood v. New York, etc. R. S. 193; Wood v. Union, etc. Assn.,
Co., 22 Conn. 502. 63 Wis. 9.
88
Scovill V. Thayer, 105 IJ. S.
92
Thomas v. The Railroad, 101
143; Bruff v. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; U. S. 71; Kent v. Quicksilver Min-
New York, etc. R. Co. v. Schuyler, ing Co., 78 N. Y. 139; Sherman v.
34 N. Y. 30, 49; People v Parker, Clark, 4 Nev. 138,
etc. Co., 10 How. Pr. 543; Wright's

270.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 399

stockholder participating in the increase will be similarly liable
to him.^^ Overissued stock is called also "spurious" stock. . With-
out express authority, an overissue of stock beyond the amount
fixed in its charter or other statute, or pursuant to articles of as-
sociation, is absolutely void, and the holder thereof has none of
the rights of a stockholder.^* Overissued stock, unless issued
fraudulently, may, it seems, be legalized by a subsequent legal
increase of the capital.^^ For example, where directors took it
upon themselves to issue stock in excess of the capital limited,
but afterwards, by regular legislative authority, raised the capital
to a larger amoimt, and recognized the former issue as part of
the latter, the illegality of the first issue was cured.**^ But an over-
issue of stock by a company incorporated.
by
two States, cannot be
cured except by the legislative sanction of both of the States
from which it derives its existence."^ An increase in the capital
stock, although not made with the formalities required by a State
statute, is binding upon the stockholders and the corporation, if
made with the consent of all the stockholders.^* And long-con-
tinued acquiescence on the part of the stockholders will bar any
remedy they may have with respect to the increase.^ For, assent
to irregularly issued stock may be shown as conclusively by ac-
quiescence as by a formal vote.^ Where all the stockholders of
a corporation assent to the action of a stockholders' meeting in
increasing the capital stock, or ratify that action, they cannot
afterwards object" to the increase that no formal notice of the
meeting was given.^ But the contrary has been held, on the
ground that public notice of the increase was a formality in which
the public was interested and could not be waived by stockhold-
ers.^
03
Dorsey Machine Co. v. Mc- 09 Taylor v. South, etc. R. Co.,
Caffrey, 139 Ind. 545, 47 Am. St. 4 Woods, 575. In this case the ac-
Rep. 290. ' quiescence was for ten years.
94
New York, etc. R. Co. v.
i
Payson v. Stoever, 2 Dill. 428;
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30. Lawe's Case, 1 De G. J. & S. 504.
95
Sewell's Case, L. R. 3 Ch.
"
Or that it v/as held in another
App. 131; New York, etc. R. Co. state than that in which the cor-
V. Schuyler (1866), 34 N. Y. 56. poration was chartered, there be-
9G
Sewell's Case (1868), L. R. 3 ing nothing in the charter to pro-
Ch. App. 131. hibit it being so held. Stutz v.
97Fisk V. Rock Island, etc. R. Handley (1890), 41 Fed. Rep. 531;
Co., 53 Barb. 513; O'Brien v. Rock s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 407.
Island R. Co., 53 Barb. 568. 3 state v, McGrath (1885), 86
98
Poole V. West Point, etc. Mo. 239.
Assn. (1887), 30 Fed. Rep. 513.
400
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
277.
277.
Liability for fraudulent overissue of stock.Officers
of the corporation who knowingly overissue stock incur personal
liabihty to the shareholder, whether original tal<er or bona Ude
transferee, for damages in an action for deceit.* The holder of
the overissued stock may recover from the officer in an action
against him, either jointly with the company or separately. The
injured party can sue the directors in a separate action for deceit,
if they knowingly pledge overissued stock.'' In actions by a bona
fide purchaser against a company that refuses to transfer or re-
deem shares of stock fraudulently overissued, the measure of
damages is the market value of the shares at the time the corpo-
ration refused to transfer or redeem them
f
or, if no demand were
made, at the date of filing the bill, subject to such lien as would
properly have attached to genuine stock under similar conditions.^
And the same measure is applied in an action against the vendor.^
But a somewhat diiiferent rule was announced in a leading case,
where, in an action against a corporation growing out of an
overissue of stock, the measure of damages was considered to be
the amount which the plaintiff paid, or the stock together with
interest thereon, if the jury deem it proper to allow interest.^**
i
Fairbanks v. Humphreys, 18
Q. B. Div. 54; Shotwell v. Mali,
38 Barb. 445; Beach on Railways,
276; Bruff v. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200;
Cazeau v. Mali, 25 Barb. 578; Na-
tional Exchange Bank v. Sibley,
71 Ga. 726; Whitehaven, etc. Co.
V. Reed, 54 L. T. Rep. 360. The
New York Penal Code, 518, pro-
vides that an officer, agent or other
person employed by any corpora-
tion, who wilfully and with de-
sign to defraud sells, pledges or
issues or causes to be sold, pledged
or issued, or for those purposes
signs or procures to be signed a
false instrument purporting to be
a scrip, certificate or other evi-
dence of the ownership or trans-
fer of any share in the company,
or bond or other evidence of debt
of the company, is guilty of fori
gery in the third degree and may
be punished not only with the
usual penalties for that offense,
but also by a fine not exceeding
three thousand dollars.
6 Bruff v. Mali, 36 N. Y. 205;
Phelps V. Wait, 30 N. Y. 78; Suy-
dam V. Moore, 8 Barb. 358.
-'
c
National Exchange Bank v.
Sibley, 71 Ga. 726; Ashbury v.
Watson, 54 L. T. 30 ; Bruff v. Mali,
36 N. Y. 200; Cazeau v. Mali, 25
Barb. 578.
7 Allen V. South Boston R. Co.
(1889), 150 Mass. 207; In re Ba-
hia, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 584.
This would be the rule of damages
if the certificates were valid. Al-
len V. South Boston R. Co. (1889),
150 Mass. 207; Sargent v. Frank-
lin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 90; Wyman
-.
American Powder Co., 8 Cush.
168.
s
In re Bahia, etc. R. Co., L. R.
3 Q. B. 595; Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co. Cases, 13 Phila. 44; s. c. 99
Pa. St. 344, 513.
9 People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa.
St. 344, 349.
10
Tome V. Parkersburg Branch
R. Co., 39 Md. 36, 87. And in this
case it was further said that the
depreciation of the value of the
stock in the market at the time
277.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 401
An attempt to increase the stock of a company beyond the
Hmit fixed by its charter, is ultra vires. The stock itself is
therefore void. It confers on the hokler no rights, and sub-
jects him to no liability." Accordingly, a stockholder who
agrees to take new stock of the company that was issued in ex-
cess of the amount by which the capital might be increased by
law, is not estopped to set up the invalidity of the issue upon suit
brought upon his contract to pay for it,^^ neither by having at-
tended by proxy the meeting at which it was voted to issue it, nor
by receiving certificates for the stock thus voted for, nor by the
fact that after the unauthorized issue the company by its agents
held itself out as possessing a capital equal to the amount rep-
resented both by its genuine and its spurious certificates, and ob-
tained credit on the faith of these representations.^^ So, of course,
the mere subscription to irregularly issued stock, without any
payment thereon, or other act of recognition, will not be binding,
and when a subscriber has done nothing by which he may be held
the money was paid, is not to be
taken into consideration; nor if
the value of the stock should ex-
ceed the amount paid therefor
with interest, can the plaintiff re-
cover in any event more than that
sum with interest.
Cf.
Fairbanks
v. Humphreys, 18 Q. B. Div. 54,
from which it seems that in an
action against the directors for
an overissue of stock the measure
of damages would be the value
of the stock, less, possibly, the
amount which the allottees can
recover from the company.
11
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105
U. S. 143; Grangers', etc. Co. v.
Kamper, 73 Ala. 325.
12
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105
U. S. 143; Knowlton v. Congress,
etc. Co., 103 U. S. 49; s. c. 14
Blatchf. 364; Thomas v. City of
Richmond, 12 Wall. 349, 355; Nel-
lis V. Clarke, 4 Hill (N. Y.), 424;-
Morgan v. Groff, 4 Barb. 524; Reed
V. Boston Machine Co., 141 Mass.
454; White v. Franklin Bank, 22
Pick. 181; Clark v. Turner, 73 Ga;
1; Lawry v. Bourdien, Dougl. 46S;
Bone V. Ekless, 5 Hurl. & N. 925;
Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 Barn. & C.
Vol. 1

26
221; Walker v. Chapman, Lofft.
342; Tappenden v. Randall, 2 Bos.
& P. 467; Aubert v. Walsh, 4
Taunt. 293; Busk v. Walsh, 4
Taunt. 290.
13
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105
U. S. 143, where the court said
that the public is bound to know
that the law permitted no such
increase of the capital stock as the
company had attempted to make,
and that any representation that
it had been made was false. See
also Zabriskie v. Cleveland, etc.
R. Co., 23 How. 381. Cf. Smith
V. Co-operative Dress Assn., 12
Daly, 304. An act absolutely and
wholly void, because under the
law incapable of being performed,
can not be made valid by estoppel.
This is true where under the law
there is an entire lack of power
to do the act which is brought
in question. The distinction is
well illustrated in Scovill v.
Thayer, 105 U. S. 149. Under the
law of Kansas, no company like
that then before the court could
increase its capital to more than
double an amount originally au-
thorized. The capital was sought
402
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
277.
estopped, he may decline to receive stock improperly issued, and
may be in a position to defend a suit brought to enforce his sub-
scription to it.^* He may even recover money paid thereon if it
appear that the issue was irregular.^^ And a note, the considera-
tion whereof is stated therein as being shares of the capital stock,
is held to be non-collectible if there has been an overissue of stock
;
inasmuch as it cannot be shown but that the shares delivered to
the purchaser were among those illegally issued.^^ The holder of
"watered" or fictitiously paid-up stock cannot escape liability to
creditors by its transfer to an irresponsible person, or to a "bona
fide" purchaser.^^ The transferee, if a bona fide purchaser with-
out notice, express or constructive, that the stock was not fully
paid up, is not liable to creditors, otherwise he is subject to the
same liability as his transferrer.^^ Holders of irregularly increased
stock may be liable on account thereof by estoppel.^ In a case
where the meeting at which the stock was increased was not for-
mally called, nor the certificate of the increase of capital made
and filed as prescribed by statute, where the stock was all issued
to stockholders who had voted for the increase, and who subse-
quently received dividends thereon, the court held them estopped.
to be increased in excess of that Ry. & Corp. L. J. 407, citing Seo-
amoimt. As against creditors, it vill v. Tliayer, 105 U. S. 143.
was claimed to be a valid increase,
i-i
Kansas City Hotel v. Hunt,
by the operation of an estoppel, 57 Mo. 126; Stiirges v. Stetson
hut the court ruled otherwise, on (1858), 1 Biss. 246.
the ground that the very founda-
is
Spring Co. v. Knowlton, 103
tion of an estoppel, the misleading U. S. 49, affirming s. c. s?(6 nom.
of creditors to their injury, was Knowlton v. Congress, etc. Co., 14
wanting. The latter knew, and Blatchf. 364; Peckham v. Smith,
were bound to know, that no 9 How. Pr. 435.
power existed to so increase the
is
Merrill v. Beaver, 50 Iowa,
capital, and therefore that it was 404; s. c. 46 Iowa, 646; Merrill v.
not increased; and hence they Gamble, 46 Iowa, 615; Beach on
were not and could not be mis- Railways,
277.
led. "But where, as in the pres-
i7
Sprague v. National Bank of
ent case, the abstract power did America^ 172 111. 149, 64 Am. St.
exist, and there was a way in Rep. 17; Wishard v. Hansen, 99
which the increase could lawfully Iowa, 307, 61 Am. St. Rep. 238.
be made, and the creditors could,
is
Coleman v. Howe, 154 111. 458,
without fault, believe that the in- 45 Am. St. Rep. 133; Steacy v. Lit-
crease had been lawfully effected, tie Rock. etc. Co., 5 Dill. 348.
and the necessary steps had been
i"
Pool v. West, etc. Asso.
taken, then the doctrine of es- (1887), 30 Fed. Rep. 513; Kent v.
toppel roay apply, and the in- Quicksilver Co., 78 N. Y. 180; Kan-
creased stock be deemed valid as sas City Hotel v. Harris, 51 Mo.
to creditors." Stutz v. Handley 464; Clark v. Thomas, 34 Ohio
(1890). 41 Fed. Rep. 531; s. c. 7 St. 46.

277.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 403

For here the abstract power did exist and there was a way in
which the increase could lawfully be made, and the creditors
could without fault believe that this increase had been lawfully
effected. The necessary steps had been taken, and the doctrine of
estoppel was held to apply, and the increased stock was deemed
valid as to the creditors who had acted upon the faith of an in-
crease so effected.
^
Where a defendant subscribed for new stock
in a bank, and received a certificate on the basis of a total sub-
scription of one amount, and the actual increase was somewhat
smaller, and he protested, and refused to vote on the stock, but re-
tained his certificate until the bank w^ent into the hands of a re-
ceiver, several months later, it was held that he was liable on his
subscription, and that it was too late to claim that the increase as
to him was invalid.-^ The highest of our courts has given an ex-
tended and authoritative resume of the law upon the subject, say-
ing: "It is settled by the decisions of the federal courts and by
the decisions of many of the State courts, that one who contracts
with an acting corporation cannot defend himself against a claim
on such contract, in a suit by the corporation, by alleging the ir-
regularity of its organization. The same principle applies to the
case of a subscription to the capital stock in an organization which
has attempted irregularly to create itself into a corporation and
has acted as such. The rule applies to increasing the stock of the
corporation, when the question arises upon paying a subscription
for stock forming a part of such increase. The duty and neces-
sity of performing the contract of subscription are the same as in
the case of an original stockholder.^^
soVeeder v. Mudgett, 95 N. Y. attended meetings. It is idle to
310; Shelton v. Eickenmeyer, 90 deny that this was a case of or-
N. Y. 613; Kent v. Quicksilver, etc. ganization which claimed to have
Co., 78 N. Y. 159; Buffalo, etc. R. taken, and evidently supposed it
Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75; Aspin- had taken, the measures required
wall V. Sacchi, 51 N. Y. 331; Eaton by law to complete its increase of
V. Aspinwall, 19 N. Y. 119. capital. It acted as such, and the
21
Butler V. Aspinwall (1888), 33 defendant, by receiving his certifi-
Fed. Rep. 217. cate of stock, entered into engage-
22
"The statute authorized an in- ments as such. If it be conceded
crease of the capital stock, pa- that its increased stock be but
pers were filed under the law for de facto, and that it could have
that purpose, which were exam- been annulled or suppressed by
ined by the attorney general and the action of the attorney-general
certified to in due form, and the as acting under an irregular or-
company proceeded to issue its ganization, the defendant derives
stock upon that theory. The de- no aid from the admission. The
fendant became a subscriber and cases are clear to the point that
40J:
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
278.

278.
Knowledge and acquiescence of creditor in overissue.
Where, upon the purchase of additional property, the capital of
a corporation is increased by the issue to the stockholders, upon
the surrender of their old certificates, of new stock to a much
greater extent than the cost or value of the additional property,
the stockholder cannot be held individually liable upon the stock
issued at the suit of a creditor who was cognizant of the whole
transaction and acquiesced in it.-^ Where it does not appear that
a complainant had any knowledge of, or gave any consent to, the
arrangement under which increased stock was distributed to sub-
scribers for bonds and to existing stockholders, the complainant
is not required to go further and show affirmatively that he knew
of the stock being increased, and treated or dealt with the corpo-
ration upon the faith that it had actually been or would be paid.
If the increase of the stock is made public, those thereafter deal-
ing with the company will be presumed to have done so in re-
liance upon the new stock as a part of the corporate capital
pledged for their security.-* The public has the right to believe
that each holder of the increased stock has either paid for his
share or is liable for the amount; and a creditor who trusts the
corporation upon the faith of its ability to pay, and without any
he cannot make the objection, but transaction at that time, and
must perform the engagements he there was no proof that he knew
has made." Chubb v. Upton, 95 of it, it would present a different
U. S. 667. case." The claim originated be-
23
Coit V. North Carolina Gold, fore the temporary increase of the
etc. Co. (1887), 119 U. S. 343, af- stock, and the supreme court, in
firming s. c. suh nom. Coit v. pa.ssing upon the case (119 U. S.
Amalgamation Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 12. 347), say: "Had a new indebted-
In that case there was a new issue
ness been created by the company
of stock, connected with the ac- after the issue of the stock, and
quisition by the corporation of
before its recall, a different ques-
certain real estate, the title to
tion would have arisen." In the
which failing, or proving defect-
subsequent case of Bank v. Alden,
ive, the new stock was thereupon 129 U. S. 372, the supreme court
called in and canceled, and the again held that a creditor of a cor-
transaction rescinded. The credit- poration, who had knowledge of
ors, who after the cancellation of
and assented to a transaction be-
the transaction and this new stock tween the corporation and a stock-
sought to compel parties to whom holder at the time when it took
portions of it were issued to pay place, could have no resort against
it, knew of and acquiesced in the such stockholder,
whole transaction. Mr. Justice
24
Haldeman v. Ainslie, 82 Ky.
Bradley said, in deciding the case 395; Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S.
on the circuit, that "if a legal 331; and Adderley v. Storm, 6 Hill,
presumption did not arise that Mr. 629. In this last case it is said:
Coit (the creditor) knew of the "It seems to have been thought a

27S.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 405

knowledge of the contract or arrangement between the stockhold-
ers and the company under which the stock is treated as paid up,
may compel shareholders to make actual payment.-^ And aside
from any provision of the statute, which is nothing more than the
legislative recognition of the general principle enforced by courts
of equity, it is well settled by the authorities that old stockholders
who accept and hold portions of increased stock, cannot claim ex-
emption from liability thereon, as against creditors, especially
those who have dealt with the company in ignorance of the ar-
rangement that such stock was treated and received as fully paid
up, when such was not the fact.^" The burden of showing any
such express representation that the new shares had actually been
issued, as a condition to his right to compel stockholders to pay
up their unpaid shares, is not imposed upon creditors.^'^ After the
insolvency of the corporation, it will not avail holders of the
shares that they w^ere induced by mistake or fraud to accept and
receive the stock in question, nor can they, after the rights of
matter of some moment that the
plaintiff, so far as appeared on
the trial, had not examined the
stock ledger before he gave credit
to the company. But there are
other ways in which he may have
learned that the defendants were
stockholders, and, besides, I do
not see that the liability of the
stockholder has been made to de-
pend on the fact that the creditors
knew he could be reached. . . .
As the defendants were in fact
stockholders, they must answer
to the plaintiff, although he may
not have known at the time he
trusted the company that the de-
fendants could be reached."
25
Haldeman v. Ainslie, 82 Ky.
395; Stutz v. Handley (1890), 41
Fed. Rep. 332; s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 407.
26
Stutz v. Handley (1890), 41
Fed. Rep. 332; s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 407.
27
Stutz V. Handley (1890), 41
Fed. Rep. 331; s. c. 7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 407. The court in this case
says the statement in section 833
of Morawetz on Private Corpora-
tions, that subsequent creditors
would have an equitable claim to
have new shares paid up in full,
"if it was expreslly represented
to the creditors that the new
shares had actually been issued,"
is hardly warranted by the au-
thorities. It being settled by the
authorities referred to that the
coal company could not lawfully
give or distribute to defendants
paid-up shares of its increased
stock as a bonus to go with its
bonds subscribed for by them, and
it being further settled that the
acceptance and holding of certifi-
cates for such shares of stock is,
in effect, the same as a promise to
take shares, which imports a
promise to pay for them whenever
the liability of the company re-
quired it (102 U. S. 316), or as
expressed by Mr. Justice Bradley
in Coit V. Amalgamation Co., 14
Fed. Rep. 18, "that stock issued
to a party which he receives is the
same as though he had subscribed
for it," the conclusion is inevita-
ble that the defendants are sev-
erally liable for the unpaid shares
of capital stock received and held
by them so far as may be neces-
sary to satisfy the corporate debt.
406
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
279.
creditors have attached, disclaim its ownership, so as to escape lia-
bility. Even before suit commenced, the corporation could not
have released them, so far as creditors were concerned.
^^
A cred-
itor who has dealt with the corporation with actual or constructive
notice or knowledge of the circumstances of the issue of "watered"
stock, and that it was not intended to be paid up in full, cannot
hold the corporation or the stockholder liable for payment of the
deficiency.^
(a) As where the recorded articles provide that only a certain
per cent, of the par value of the stock shall be collected, except by
unanimous consent of the stockholders.""
(b) But the record of incorporation proceedings is not con-
structive notice to subsequent creditors of the real value of prop-
erty received in payment of subscription to stock, or that it was
grossly overvalued.^^
279.
Spurious or overissued stock.The transferee of
spurious or overissued shares may hold the transferrer liable for
damages upon proof that the latter was cognizant of the fraud.
^^
But when knowledge of the fraud cannot be proven against the
vendor, the remedy of the transferee is against the corporate offi-
cers through whose fraud or negligence the certificates were is-
sued, and against the company, against both jointly or either
separately.^^ The transferee's claim upon the company is riot
upon the stock, but it is a claim to be indemnified for the fraudu-
lent acts of the officers of the company from which he has suf-
fered damages.^* Stock certificates issued by a corporation hav-
28
2 Morawetz Priv. Corp.,

83
Henderson v. Railroad Co., 17
840, 841; Taylor Corp.,

744; Up- Tex. 560; s. c. 67 Am. Dec. 675;
ton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 47, 48,
holding that the company should
50, 54, 55, and cases cited. be made co-defendant if the action
29Coit V. Gold, etc. Co., 119 U,
be against the officers; Bruff v.
S. 343; Adamant Mfg. Co., etc. v. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; Ashmead v.
Wallace, 16 Wash. 614. Colby, 26 Conn. 287; State v. Jef-
30
Bent V. Underwood, 156 Ind. ferson, etc. Co., 3 Humph. 305;
516. Waldo V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 14
31
Lee V. Iron Belt, etc. Co., 119 Wis. 575; Cargill v. Bower, 10 Ch.
Ala. 271. Div. 502; Venezuela Ry. Co. v.
32Seizer v. Mali, 41 N. Y. 619;
Kisch, L. R. 2 H. L. 99; Hender-
Bruff V. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; Ken- son v. Lacon, L. R. 5 Eq. 249;
dall V. Stone, 5 N. Y. 14; People's Askew's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. 664;
Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. 344; Ross v. States, etc. Co., L. R. 3
State V. North Louisiana, etc. Co., Ch. App. 682; Smith v. Reese, L.
34 La. Ann. 947; Kempson v. R. 2 Eq. 264; Thorpe v. Hughes,
Saunders, 4 Bing. 5; Gompertz v. 3 Mylne & C. 742.
Bartlett, 2 El. & Bl. 849; Nockles
34 Mount Holly Paper Co.'s Ap-
V. Crosby, 3 Barn. & C. 814. peal, 99 Pa. St. 513; Appeal of
279.]
ISSUE OF STOCK. 407
ing power to issue are a continuing- affirmation of the ownership
of the special amount of stock by the person designated therein
or his assignee, and the purchaser has a right to rely thereon and
claim the benefit of an estoppel in his favor against the corpora-
tion.'^ "This being so, it will be seen at once that the right to re-
Kisterbock (1889), 127 Pa. St.
601; s. c. 14 Am. St. Rep. 868, 871.
35
Appeal of Kisterbock (1889),
127 Pa. St. 601; s. c. 14, Am. St.
Rep. 868, 871, citing Holbrook v.
New Jersey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y.
616; Willis v. Derby Ry. Co., 6
W. N. C. (Pa.) 461; Bank of Ken-
tucky V. Bank, 1 Pars. Cas. 180;
In re Bahia & San F. Ry. Co., L.
R. 3 Q. B. 585. Ace. Jarvis v.
Manhattan Beach Co. (1889), 53
Hun, 362; s. c. 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
325, citing Beach Co. v. Harvard,
27 Fed. Rep. 484, and saying, in
that case "the purchase had been
made without any previous in-
quiry of the company, yet the
court held that it was estopped
by issuing a new certificate. By
that act 'they not only re-afiirmed
the authenticity of the surren-
dered certificate, but recognized
the defendants' title to the shares,
and thereby authorized the de-
fendants to repose without fur-
ther inquiry upon the validity of
the title they had acquired.' And
the court further held that the
company was estopped by its sub-
sequent negligence in not discov-
ering the fraud and notifying the
defendants in time to enable them
to seek restitution from the swin-
dler. He paid his money on the
false representation, made by the
certificate, that title could be ac-
quired by a genuine assignment,
when in truth a genuine assign-
ment was impossible. The legal
effect of such certificate was sub-
stantially the same as if it had
been issued to 'bearer.' Such is
the rule with regard to bills put
in circulation with a fictitious
payee. Cogill v. Bank, 1 N. Y. 113:
and the analogy is not strained
when we consider, as was said
by the learned judge in the Har-
vard Case, that 'shares of corpo-
rate certificates issued as evidence
of the ownership of the shares
are the indicia of title, and are
treated as representing the shares
themselves.' It is not necessary,
however, to decide definitely
whether the plaintiff could re-
cover upon the representation
made by the certificate standing
alone, for this case differs from
the Harvard Case in the crucial
fact that Fox & Co. did not rely
upon the certificate alone, but
sought, as we have already seen,
to make assurance 'doubly sure,'
to quote the testimony, by inquiry
of the defendant. In considering
the effect of this inquiry, it must
be remembered that the company
had caused its stock to be listed
on the Stock Exchange, and that
it was av/are of the requirement
of a guaranty, in transactions be-
tween members of that body, not
only of the genuineness of the-
certificate, but of the indorse-
ment. It knew, too, that members
of the board relied upon the com-
pany for information and invar-
iably gave the guaranty upon the
faith thereof. The company kept
a record of its stockholders' sig-
natures, and it was its duty to
verify such signatures when ap-
plied to for a transfer. It had
also repeatedly assumed the duty
of knowing and vouching for
such signatures, when applied to
for information as to the genuine-
ness of a transfer. Indeed, such
was the custom of Wall street,
and the defendant was well aware
that business was being trans-
acted, and transfers made, upon
the faith of the double inquiry,
first, as to the genuineness of the
408
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
279.
lief depends upon the equity of the person claiming it. If he has
expended money upon the faith of the official certificates of the
officers of the company, he has a right to be indemnified, to the
extent of his expenditure, ag-ainst loss from false certificates, but
only because of the fact of his expenditure. The false certificates
are no certificates in legal contemplation, and give no rights of
their own force. But the act of the officers in issuing them, hav-
ing been accepted and acted upon by another, the company can-
not be heard to deny the truth of the fact represented. It is sim-
certificate, and second, as to the
genuineness of the transfer en-
dorsed thereon. In the light of
these surrounding circumstances.
Fox & Co. presented the certifi-
cate at the defendant's general
transfer office, and were informed,
as already stated, that it was
properly indorsed for transfer,
and that the person in charge
was willing to transfer it. The
proximate cause of Fox & Co.'s
inquiry was plainly this represen-
tation, coupled with the affirma-
tion of the certificate. This was
a re-affirmation of the validity of
the certificate, of the reality of
B. Bignell, and of the genuine-
ness of the signature of that fic-
titious person to the transfer in-
dorsed. It was made with full
knowledge of the purpose of the
inquiry, namely, that the stock
might be safely purchased, and
with the means directly at hand

in books lying before the agent

of discovering the fraud, and sav-

ing the innocent inquirer from
loss. This is a plain case of es-
toppel, entitling the plaintiff to
genuine stock, if that were pos-
sible, but that being impossible,
entitling him, upon the defend-
ant's repudiation of the certificate,
to appropriate damages. The au-
thority of the person who made
these
representations is ques-
tioned, but the evidence on that
head was certainly sufficient to
go to the jury. Leslie v. Insur-
ance Co., 63 N. Y. 34. And see
Dunn V. Insurance Co., 19 Week.
Dig. 531. Indeed, there was tes-
timony from which the presence
of the defendant's treasurer, Mr.
Moulton, might have been in-
ferred, and that it was he who
answered the inquiry. Fullerton
was the transfer clerk, and he
acted under Mr. Moulton's 'super-
vision and inspection.' The de-
fendant's present secretary, Mr.
McDonough, testified that at the
time when the inquiry was made
'there was no other employee of
the Manhattan Beach Company in
the office with Mr. Fullerton, ex-
cept the treasurer, Mr. Moulton.'
But even if it were not Mr. Moul-
ton, the testimony was ample that
it was at least an authorized per-
son. Fox & Co. testified that this
person was in charge of the office,
and was in the regular employ of
the defendant. When Fullerton
was out this person was in his
place, and he had personally trans-
ferred stock for Fox & Co. and
had had transactions with their
clerk in regard to the transfer of
certificates. This evidence being
sufl^cient to go to the jury, the
questions which the plaintiff asked
to submit, should, under the prin-
ciple of the Schuyler Case, 34 N.
Y. 30, have been submitted, and
if answered in the affirmative,
would have warranted* a verdict
for the amount received by Fox
& Co. from the original purchaser,
and paid over to Fullerton." Bar-
rett, ,T., in .larvis v. Manhattan
Beach Co. (18S9), 53 Hun, 362.

280.] ISSUE OF STOCK, 409

ply the application of the principle that if you make a representa-
tion with the intention that it shall be acted upon by another, and
he does so, you are estopped from denying the truth of what you
represent to be the fact."^*' It is said, however, to be a condi-
tion precedent to maintaining such an action for damages, that
the holder of the overissued stock shall discharge any lien upon
it which would have properly attached to genuine stock under like
circumstances."^

280. False or fictitious issue of stock.It cannot now be

denied that if a corporation having power to issue stock certifi-
cates does in fact issue such a certificate, in which it affirms that
a designated person is entitled to a certain number of shares of
stock, it thereby holds out to persons who may deal in good faith
with the person named in the certificate that he is the owner and
has capacity to transfer the shares. This does not rest on any
view of the negotiability of stock, but on the general principle ap-
pertaining to the law of estoppel. The certificate itself must be'
regarded as a continuous representation- of the ownership of the
holder; it is equivalent to an affirmative answer to an inquiry
made at the office of the company.^* Accordingly, a corporation
whose agents have issued spurious stock, is answerable where the
directors of the corporation have either authorized, or by their
negligence allowed the fraud to be perpetrated ; but not other-
wise.^'* Thus, it has been held that a corporation was liable for
money advanced to the treasurer upon certificates of shares of
stock of the company, signed in conformity with its resolutions
and issued to the treasurer himself, although they were in fact
spurious and fraudulently issued, it appearing that they were
taken by the plaintiff in good faith.*" And where a corporate
agent is clothed with authority, either by direct appointment or
recognition and ratification, or by actual enjoyment of the fruits
of his acts, or by long acquiescence therein from which a pre-
sumption of implied agency arises, the issuing of the certificates
by him must be held to be within the scope of the real and ap-
se
Appeal of Kisterbock (1889), however, tlie earlier cases of Me-
127 Pa. St. 601; s. c. 14 Am. St. chanics' Bank v. New York, etc.
Rep. 868, 871, 872. R. Co., 15 N. Y. 599, and New
37
Mt. Holly Paper Co.'s Ap- York, etc. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 38
peal, 99 Pa. St. 513. Barb. 534.
38
Holbrook v. New Jersey Zinc
-lo
Titus v. Great "Western, etc.
Co., 57 N. Y. 621. Co., 61 N. Y. 280; s. c. 5 Lans.
30
New York, etc. R. Co. v. 250; People v. Parker, etc. Co., 10
Schuyler (1865), 34 N. Y. 30. See, How. Pr. 551.
410
ISSUK OF STOCK.
[
2S0.
parent authority which he possessed ; and the remedy of the
shareholders is not prejudiced by the fact that the agent used and
intended to use the avails for his own purpose.*^ In such cases,
where the condition upon which the agent can issue a certificate
of stock is a transfer on the hooks and the surrender of a previous
certificate, if any had before been issued, these facts are wholly
extrinsic and peculiarly within the knowledge of the agent as part
of the special duties to be attended to by him, and are represented
by him to exist by the certificate itself. Where the principal has
clothed his agent with power to do an act upon the existence of
some extrinsic fact necessarily and peculiarly within the knowl-
edge of the agent, and of the existence of which the act of execut-
ing the power is itself a representation, a third person dealing
with such an agent in entire good faith, pursuant to an apparent
power, may rely upon the representation, and the principal is es-
topped from denying its truth to his prejudice.*^
False and fictitious certificates.As a rule, if a corporation it-
. self, or its officer or ageot, acting within the scope of his author-
ity, fraudulently, or even by mistake, issues a certificate of stock
fictitious or otherwise unauthorized, the corporation is liable upon
an action in damages by a bona fide purchaser who is deceived
and injured thereby. The corporation is estopped to deny the
validity of the certificate or its w^ant of powder to issue it.*^ 'For
examples, as in the issue of a new certificate in place of the orig-
inal, by transfer on the books without surreder of the same, and
the new certificate is subsequently bought by an innocent pur-
chaser relying upon the original.^* And where an unauthorized
officer recognized as valid a forged transfer and issued a new cer-
tificate, which afterwards for value was sold to a bona fide pur-
chaser, the corporation was held liable to him in damages.*^ It
is the general rule that a corporation is estopped to deny the valid-
ity of certificates issued in proper form under its seal, and duly
signed by the officers authorized to issue certificates, if they are
held by persons who took them for value without knowledge or
notice that they had been fraudulently issued.* Thus, where a
41
New York, etc. R. Co. v.
43
Swain v. West, etc. Co., 127
Schuyler (1865), 34 N. Y. 30, 64; Pa. St. 616, 14 Am. St. Rep. 871.
Bradley v. Richardson, 2 Blatchf.
44
Holbrook v. N. J. Zinc Co., 57
343; s. c. 23 Vt. 720; Tome v. Par- N. Y. 616.
kersburg Branch R. Co., 39 Md.
45
Bean v. American, etc. Co.,
36, 87; Ang. & Ames on Corp. 216; 122 N. Y. 622.
Story on Agencs^,
54. 46
Allen v. South Boston R. Co.
42
New York, etc. R. Co. v. (18S9), 150 Mass. 202, citing
Schuyler
(1865), 34 N. Y. 30. Moores v. Citi?;pns' Not. Bnnk, 111

2S0.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 411

clerk of a corporation fraudulently filled out a certificate for
shares of its stock in the name of a fictitious person, procured the
signatures of the officers and negotiated it, signing the name of
U. S. 156; Boston, etc. R. Co. v.
Richardson, 135 Mass. 473; Ma-
chinists' Nat. Banli v. Field. 126
Mass. 345; Pratt v. Taunton, etc.
Co., 123 Mass. 110; New York, etc.
R. Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30,
64; Titus v. Great Western Turn-
pike, 61 N. Y. 237, 245; Hol-
brook V. New Jersey Zinc Co.,
56 N. Y. 616; Shaw v. Port
Philip, etc. Co., 13 Q. B. Div. 103.
In a later case this rule was ap-
plied upon the following state of
facts: The treasurer of a corpo-
ration authorized a broker to sell
a number of shares of the stock
for him. Plaintiff purchased the
shares, receiving from the broker
a power of attorney in blank au-
thorizing the transfer of the
shares to him . He presented the
power of attorney to the treasurer,
who filled in the purchaser's name,
and his own name as attorney,
and thereupon issued to plaintiff
the number of shares called for,
entering in the transfer book a
transfer of the shares from him-
self, as treasurer, to the broker,
and the transfer from the broker
to plaintiff. The shares issued to
plaintiff were a fraudulent over-
issue. The president of the cor-
poration was in the habit of leav-
ing blank certificates signed by
him with the treasurer, and the
shares thus issued to plaintiff were
entered on the dividend sheets,
and also in the annual reports of
the corporation, the footings being
falsified to correspond to the au-
thorized capital stock of the cor-
poration. The fraudulent issue
being discovered, the corporation
refused to transfer or redeem the
shares thus issued. And the hold-
ing was that, as the negligence of
the officers of the corporation
made the fraudulent overissue pos-
sible, the corporation was liable in
damages to the plaintiff. Allen
V. South Boston R. Co. (1889),
150 Mass. 200. The next case in
the safe report, and involving one
of the same series of transactions,
indicates the boundary of the rule.
The treasurer of a corporation, be-
ing also engaged in business as
a broker, was employed by plaint-
iff to purchase a number of shares
of stock in the corporation. He
informed plaintiff that he had
purchased the stock, and delivered
to her a certificate therefor. He
entered in the transfer book of
the corporation a transfer of the
stock to plaintiff from himself as
agent. In fact, he had no stock
as agent or otherwise, all the
stock of the corporation having
been previously issued, and the
issue to plaintiff was a fraudulent
overissue. The court considered,
therefore, that the fraud on the
part of the treasurer being for
his own benefit, and against the
plaintiff as well as the corpora-
tion, plaintiff could not be charged
with knowledge thereof, on the
ground that he was acting as her
agent in the purchase of the stock.
Craft V. South Boston R. Co.
(1889), 150 Mass. 207. Where the
signatures of the president and
treasurer of a company were left
with a clerk, a son of the treas-
urer, during the enforced absence
of these officials, the clerk forged
the name of the treasurer of the
Safe Deposit Company to the re-
ceipt for coupons which was at-
tached to the funding . certificate
issued by the company and nego-
tiated by them with persons
aware of the fact that he held the
position of clerk. It may be con-
ceded, the court said, and was
doubtless the case, that the agent
had no authority in fact to issue
such certificates; he had no real
authority as between himself and
his principal, or other parties cog
412
ISSL'E OF SIOCK.
[
2S0.
the fictitious person to the assignment and power of attorney on
the back, and the transferee, buying it in good faith, obtains a
transfer on the books and the issue of a new certificate to him-
self, it was held, in a suit in equity, whereby the corporation
sought to restrain the transfer of the certificate and compel its
surrender, that it was estopped from denying its validity.*^ The
argument that the president and treasurer cannot by a fraudulent
reissue bind the company to that which it is powerless to perform,
might be unanswerable, if the power to give certificates were
identical with the power to create stock. But it has been said, in
answer, that while a certificate of stock is not a negotiable in-
strument, it is a written declaration that the holder has a definite
share in the capital or profits of the concern, which, though de-
livered to him, is intended for circulation, and is virtually ad-
dressed to all the world ; so that third parties who are misled by
such instruments may justly require that the loss shall fall on the
corporation and not on them.*^ A certificate of stock formally is-
nizant of the facts, for doing the
particular acts complained of.
But the company by its own act,
and, as it turned out. misplaced
confidence, placed the agent in a
position to do, and procure to be
done, that class and description
of acts to which the particular
acts in question belong; and in
such case, where the particular
acts in question are done in the
name of and apparently on be-
half of the principal, the latter
must be answerable to Innocent
parties for the manner in which
the agent has conducted himself
in doing the business confided to
him. Upon no other principle
could the public venture to deal
with an agent. In such case the
apparent authority must stand as
and for the real authority. West-
ern Maryland R. Co. v. Franklin
Bank, 60 Md. 36. But in an ac-
tion brought to recover damages
for fraudulent misrepresentations
alleged to have been made by the
defendant corporation through
their secretary, it appeared that
certain customers of the bank had
applied to them for an advance
on the security of transfers of de-
benture stock of the defendant
company. The plaintiff's manager
called upon the defendant's secre-
tary, and was informed in effect
that the transfers were valid, and
that the stock which they pur-
ported to transfer existed. The
plaintiff thereupon made the ad-
vances. It subsequently appeared
that the secretary, in conjunction
with another, had fraudixlently is-
sued certificates for debenture
stock in excess of the amount
which the company were author-
ized to issue, and the transfers
concerning which the plaintiff in-
quired related to this overissue.
And it was held that although
what the secretary stated related
to matters about which he was
authorized to speak, he did not
make the statements for the de-
fendant but for himself. British
Banking Co. v. Charnwood, etc.
Ry. Co. (18S7), 18 Q. B. Div. 714,
reversing s. c. 34 W;- R. 718.
47
Manhattan Beach Co. v. Har-
ned, 23 Blatchf. C. Ct. 494; s. c.
27 Fed. Rep. 484.
ts
Willis V. Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co., 13 Phila. 34; People's Bank
V. Kurtz. 99 Pa. St. 346.

2S0.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 413

sued by a corporation, having charter power to issue it, is a con-
tinuing affirmance of ownership of the shares named therein, by
the person named as owner or transferee. Any purchaser of it,
or interest in it, in the absence of notice of its invahdity, or cir-
cumstances calculated to create doubt of it, is entitled to rely upon
such affrmation without inquiry as to the validity of the certifi-
cate.*'* In general, a party must be presumed to have notice of
everything that appears upon the face of the instrument under
which he claims title. But a transfer of stock cannot, in this re-
spect, be likened to an ordinary conveyance of real or personal
property. The instrument transferring the title is not delivered
to the party; the laws require it to be written on the company's
books in which the stock is held ; the party to whom it is trans-
ferred rarely, if ever, sees the entry, and relies altogether upon
the certificate of the proper company officer, stating that he is
entitled to so many shares.^" The remedy of bona fide holders is
precisely the same as if the board of directors had issued the
same certificates in fraud of their powers under -the law and ob-
tained the shareholders' money thereon.
^^
The advice of legal
counsel will not relieve a corporation from liability for improp-
erly issuing stock.^- It has been said, however, that where the
surrender and transfer of the old certificate are prerequisite to
the lawful issue of a new one, a transferee who accepts a nev*'
certificate without taking any steps to assure himself that this
prerequisite to the vaHdity of his certificate, which was to be ful-
filled by the former owner and not by the company, had been com-
plied with, cannot, as against the company, stand in the position
of one who receives a certificate of stock from the proper officers
without notice of any facts impairing its validity.^^ When false
49
Kisterbock's Appeal, 127 Pa. severely criticised, on the grounO
St. 601, 14 Am. St. Rep. S68; Jos- that the provision in the by-lav/s
lyn V. St. Paul, etc. Co., 44 Minn. and upon the face of the certifi-
183.
cates provided solely that that
50
Lowry v. Commercial, etc. certificate could only be trans.
Bank, Taney's Dec. 316; Salis- ferred upon a surrender of that
bury Mills v. Townshend, 109 certificate and did not refer to
Mass. 115; Taylor on Corporations, prior certificates. Lowell on the
598.
Transfer of Stocks,

112, n. The
51
New York, etc. R. Co. v. case most unreconcilable with the
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 64.
modern rule was one in which by-
52Caulkins v. Gas-light Co. laws passed in conformity with
(1887), 85 Tenn. 683; s. c. 4 Am. the charter declared that all
St. Rep. 786.
transfers of stock should be made
53Moores v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, in the transfer book, kept in tVe
111 U. S. 156. This case has been proper office; and where a certifi-
414 ISSUE OF STOCK,
[
281.
certificates are issued, cither by vote or consent of a majority of
the stockholders, or by the board of directors, or other officers,
upon whom general authority is conferred to issue certificates of
stock, the corporation is clearly liable. And it is held that the
corporation is liable when such false or fictitious certificate is is-
sued by a subordinate officer, in the absence of actual authority
from such stockholders or directors, when the act is done in the
course of his employment and within the apparent scope of his
authority, although issued in fact without authority, or contrary
thereto ; and, although issued by the officer not for any corporate
purpose, but, on the contrary, for his own purposes.^* "The
ground of liability is not that the principal has been benefited by
the act of the agent, but that an innocent third person has been
damaged by confiding in the agent, who was accredited by the
principal as worthy of trust in that particular business."
^^
Where
the president signed in blank and intrusted to the secretary,
who was the authorized agent to issue stock, a large number of
stock certificates, and the secretary fraudulently filled in the
blanks to himself as owner, signed them ,as secretary, attached
the corporate seal and indorsed and sold them, the corporation
was held liable to a bona fide purchaser from the secretary, not-
withstanding that the stock was an overissue and fraudulent.^

281. Forged certificate of stock.In the case of forged

certificates, it is essential to public welfare, where the acts of
cate of stock had been issued, dicially said of this case that it
that the same should be surren- was not decided "upon the ground
dered before transfer made. It that the plaintiffs were not in
was shown that the agent of the privity of dealing with the de-
defendant had fraudulently given fendants by reason of the non-
to a particeps criminis a certifi- negotiable character of the cer-
cate in the usual form for a cer- tificates, and therefore could not
tain number of shares of stock, sue for fraud." Farmers' & Me-
when in fact the latter owned no chanics' Bank v. Butchers' & Drov-
stock, no certificate for such stock ers' Bank, 16 N. Y. 151; s. c. 69
had been surrendered, and no Am. Dec. 678.
stock stood in his name on the
54
New York, etc. v. Schuyler,
books. The plaintiff, in good faith, 34 N. Y. 30: Tome v. Parkersburg,
and in reliance upon the certifi- etc. Co., 39 Md. 36, 17 Am. Rep.
cate as regularly issued and valid, 540.
made a loan upon and received the
55
President, etc. v. New York,
certificate, with an assignment of etc. Co., 13 N. Y. 599; Moores v.
the stock, and a power of attor- Citizens' Nat. Bank, etc., Ill U.
ney to transfer the same. The S. 156.
court held the plaintiff was not
so
Farrington v. South Boston
entitled to recover. Mechanir
R. R., 150 Mass. 406; Moores v.
Bank v. New York, etc. R. Co., 13 Citizens' Nat. Bank, 111 U. S.
N. Y. 699. But it has been ju- 156.
r^^'O
ISSUE OF STOCK. 415
acknowledged agents are accompanied with all the indicia of gen-
uineness, and are issued for a valuable consideration, that the
principal should be responsible, whether the indicia are true or
not.^^ When certificates of stock contain apparently all the es-
sentials of genuineness, a bona Ude holder thereof has a claim to
recognition as a stockholder, if such stock can legally be issued,
or to indemnity, if this cannot be done. The fact of forgery does
not extinguish his right when it has been perpetrated by or at the
instance of an officer placed in authority by the corporation and in-
trusted with the custody of its stock-books, and held out by the
company as the source of information on the subject.^*
57
Tome V. Parkersburg Branch,
etc. R. Co., 39 Md. 36; North River
Bank v. Aymar, 3 Hill, 362; West-
ern Maryland R. Co. v. Franklin
Bank, 60 Md. 36; Shaw v. Port
Philip, etc. Co., 13 Q. B. Div. 103.
Thus where the secretary of a
company without any authority
aflBxed the seal of the company,
which was in his custody, to cer-
tificates of stock, and either him-
self forged the signature of a di-
rector or procured it to he forged
and issued it, the court said; "It
Is admitted on behalf of the de-
fendant that, if there had been
merely a false issue of the cer-
tificates in the absence of the di-
rectors, it would have bound the
company. But it is contended that
the present case differs from these
because the director's name was
forged, and that the secretary car-
ried out this fraud by means of
forgery. How does this make any
difference? It is said that it does
so because no decision has ever
yet given validity to a forged doc-
ument. It is asserted that there
is a distinction between forgery
and other fraud, but the court
fail to see that it is so. A di-
rector is to sign every certificate
and certain other formalities had
to be observed. These formalities
had in the present case apparently
been observed. The person who
receives the certificate knows
whether he received it from the
secretary, but he can not verify
the due observance of the other
formalities. The company has
therefore made it part of the duty
of the secretary and within the
scope of his authority to warrant
the genuineness of each certificate
he issues, and the plaintiff in this
case is entitled to judgment. Shaw
V. Port Philip, etc. Co., 13 Q. B.
Div.
lOJt.
58
Baltimore, etc. R. Co. v. Wil-
kins, 44 Md. 28. F. & Co., stock-
brokers, were requested by defend-
ant's transfer clerk to sell a cer-
tificate for one hundred shares of
defendant's stock purporting to
stand in the name of B. The
signatures of defendant's presi-
dent and treasurer were genuine,
and at defendant's request the
certificate had been regularly
countersigned and registered by
the registrar of transfers. B.,
however, was a fictitious person,
and the certificate was signed
after all of defendant's stock had
been issued and was in circula-
tion. The transfer clerk had
fraudulently receipted for the cer-
tificate in B.'s name on the books
of the company, and had signed
B.'s name on the back of the cer-
tificate. F. & Co., after ascertain-
ing that the stock was properly
registered, inquired at defendant's
general transfer office, and were
informed by its authorized agent
that the stock was properly in-
dorsed and that the agent was wil-
ling to make the transfer. There-
416
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
281.
Under the English rule, the corporation was held responsible,
where the secretary of a corporation, whose duty was to re-
ceive, examine, and register transfers, and who fraudulently is-
sued a false certificate of transfer, upon which he forged the name
of a director, whose signature was necessary to the transfer.^ In
Maryland, the corporation was held liable where the corporate
treasurer, whose duty is was to keep the stock-books, make trans-
fers and countersign the certificates, issued, signed and sealed a
fraudulent certificate, although it was uncertain whether or not
he had forged the signature of the president thereto.''" Other-
wise in Massachusetts, where the corporation was held not lia-
ble. The president of a corporation whose only duty in connec-
tion with certificates of stock was to sign them, issued a fraudu-
lent certificate for his own benefit, signing it himself, attaching
the corporate seal and forging the signature of the treasurer, nec-
essary to it as provided by the by-laws, and it was held that the
certificate, being for his own benefit and no part of his duty in
its issue beyond signing it, that the corporation was not liable,
not even upon the ground of negligence."^ In New York, in 1881,
the then president of a corporation signed and left in blank, cer-
tificates of stock with the secretary, who was transfer agent, and
who afterwards, in 1888, himself became president, and then filled
up and antedated the certificates to himself as stockholder, forged
the name of the treasurer of 1881, signed his own name as secre-
tary and transfer agent as to that date, and afterwards pledged
the certificates for personal loan to himself. It was held that the
corporation was not responsible, the forger, as president, having
at the time of the forgery no authority as transfer agent, or au-
thority to sign and antedate the certificates ; and that, in bor-
rowing the money, he was not acting in the business of the cor-
upon F. & Co. sold the stock, and and refund the purchase price,
gave a guaranty in compliance Upon these facts defendant was
with a rule of the stock exchange, held liable to F. & Co.'s assignee
which was known to defendant, for the damages. Jarvis v. Man-
that, as between members, the hattan Beach Co. (1889), 53 Hun,
seller of stock must guaranty to 362.
the purchaser the correctness of
59
Shaw v. Port Philip, etc. Co.,
the certificate, and also of the 13 Q. B. Div. 103; Allen v. South
transfer. F. & Co. duly ac- Boston R. R., 150 Mass. 200.
counted to the transfer clerk for
go
Tome v. Parkersburg, etc. Co.,
the proceeds. When the fraud of 39 Md. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 540.
the transfer clerk was discovered,
ei
Hill v. Jewett, etc. Co., 154
they were compelled to take back Mass. 172; 26 Am. St. Rep. 230.
the stock from their purchaser.

282.] ISSUE OF STOCK.

417
poration, and that as to his statements regarding the certificates
the company was not responsible.
'''-

282. Effect of forgery or fraud in issue of stock.Neither

forgery, theft, nor fraud, can confer power or convey title to stock.
The corporation and its officers are trustees of the stockholders
and are bound to protect their rights. They must therefore use
extraordinary diligence in the examination of applications for
transfers. When in doubt as to the genuineness of the applica-
tion, they may even require the person in whose name the stock
stands on the books to be present, and are in general entitled to
satisfactory evidence of the regularity of the transfer."^ What-
ever is done by the corporation or officers in such case must be
done in their discretion and upon their own responsibility, and
therefore a corporation may maintain an action against a person
who presents a forged power of attorney to transfer stock, upon
the faith of which the corporation issues to him a new certificate
of stock, although he acted in good faith.
"^^
So, where a forged
transfer has been registered, the real owner of the stock has his
remedy against the corporation either by a bill in equity to com-
pel a re-transfer on the books, or by an action for damages.*'^ He
62
Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v.
Forty-second St. etc., 139 N. Y,
146.
63
Telegraph Co. v. Davenport,
97 U. S. 369; Crocker v. Crocker,
31 N. Y. 507: Dovey's Appeal, 97
Pa. St. 153; Weaver v. Borden, 49
N. Y, 286; Moodie v. Seventh Nat.
Bank, 3 Week. Notes Cas. (Pa.)
118; Talmage v. Third Nat. Bank,
91 N. Y. 531; Matter of Coats
(1902), 75 N. Y. App. Div. 469;
In re Biglin v. Friendship, etc., 46
Hun, 223.
61
Boston V. Albany R. Co. v.
Richardson, 135 Mass. 473; Davis
V. Bank of England, 2 Bing. 393;
Dalton V. Midland Ry. Co., 12 C.
B. 458; Coates v. London, etc. Ry.
Co., 41 L. T. N. S. 553; Swan v.
North British, etc. Co., 7 H. & N.
603; Johnston v. Renton, L. R. 9
Eq. 181; Midland Counties Ry.
Co. V. Taylor, 8 H. L. Cas. 751, af-
firming Taylor v. Midland Ry. Co.,
29 L. J. Ch. 731; Sloman v. Bank
of England, 14 Sim. 475; Cottam
v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 1 J.
Vol. 1

27
& H. 243; Ex parte Swan, 7 C. B.
N. S. 400; Telegraph Co. v. Dav-
enport, 97 U. S. 369; Pollock v.
National Bank, 7 N. Y. 274; Day
V. American Tel. etc. Co., N. Y.
Daily Reg. July 18th, IP385; Pratt
V. Boston, etc. R. Co., 126 Mass.
443; Pratt v. Taunton, etc. Manuf.
Co., 123 Mass. 110; Mayor, etc. of
Baltimore v. Ketchum, 57 Md. 23;
Machinists' National Bank v.
Field, 126 Mass. 345; Loring v.
Salisbury Mills Co., 125 Mass. 138;
Sewall V. Boston Water Power
Co., 86 Mass. 277; Blaisdell v.
Bohr, 68 Ga. 56.
65
Blaisdell v. Rohr, 68 Ga. 56;
Pollock V. National Bank, 7 N. Y.
274; Cottam v. Eastern Counties
Ry. Co., 1 J. & H. 243; Midland
Ry. Co. V. Taylor, 8 H. L. Cas.
751; Browne & Theobald's Ry.
Law, 71; Swan v. North British,
etc. Co., 2 H. & C. 175; Johnston
V. Renton, 9 Eq. 181; Sloman v.
Bank of England, 14 Sim. 475.
Also in Pollock v. National Bank, 7
N. Y. 274; Dalton v. Midland Ry.
418
ISSUE OF STOOK.
[
282.
may force the issue of new certificates by the company."" Inas-
much as a forged transfer can convey no title, the corporation is
under no obligation to the transferee to recognize him as a stock-
holder. So, where such a transfer was made and registered with-
out knowledge on the part of the corporation of the forgery, it
may cancel the registry, and the transferee is without power to
prevent it. One who, even in good faith, first obtains registry
of a forged certificate, cannot retain the newly-issued certificate
Co., 12 C. B. 458; Blaisdell v.
Bohr, 68 Ga. 56. "It has been held
in a case, the authority of which
has never been judicially doubted
(In re Bahia & San Francisco
Railway Co., 18 L. T. Rep. 467),
and which, though it arose on a
foreign railway case, is very hard
to distinguish, that where the
transferee who took by a forged
transfer himself receives a certifi-
cate, and on the strength of that
certificate becomes a transferrer,
his transferee can call upon the
company for a complete indem-
nity. The cases will be few in-
deed in which the stockholder will
lose the value of his stock; but
even a single case in which he
loses it has (and quite naturally)
so terrifying an effect upon the
stockholders throughout the coun-
try, and upon their bankers, so-
licitors and brokers, that the law
of the subject and the question
whether and how far it ought to
be altered require instant and
careful examination. . . . But
is the Bahia case perfectly good
law? We are rather inclined to
doubt it. The ground of that de-
cision was that the company, by
giving a certificate, had enabled
the transferees, under the forged
transfer, to hold themselves out
as real owners. Now, by sec-
tion 12 of the Companies Clauses
Act, 1845, which applies to all rail-
way companies incorporated in
and after 1845, and is to a great
extent similar to section 31 of the
Companies Act, 1862, on which the
Bahia case was decided, it is en-
acted that 'the certificates shall
be admitted in all courts as prima
facie evidence of the title of the
shareholder.' In the Bahia case
the court held that the doctrine
.of Freeman v. Cooke, 2 Ex. 654,
applied, and that the company
was 'estopped.' But in Swan v.
North British Australasian Co., 2
H. & C. 188, Cockburn, C. J., ob-
served: 'To bring a case within
the principle established by the
decision in Freeman v. Cooke, it
is essentially necessary that the
representation or conduct com-
plained of, whether active or pas-
sive in its character, should have
been intended to bring about the
result whereby loss has been oc-
casioned to the other party, pr
his position has been altered;'
and the opinion of Blackburn, J.,
is to the same effect. Curiously
enough, both these judges were
parties to the judgment in the
Bahia case, and saw no difficulty
in applying the principle of Free-
man V. Cooke to it. For ourselves,
we submit with diffidence that
there is considerable difficulty in
so applying it; but, as we have
already said, the Bahia case has
never been judicially called in
question; and it appears to have
been approved of in Hart v.
Frontino, etc. Company, 22 L. T.
Rep. N. S. 30. Be this as it may,
however, it can not be said that
the law it at present in a satis-
factory state, as it seems clear at
any rate that he who takes the
first transfer of 'bad' stock must
bear all the loss of a holder with-
out title." 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
398.
GeSearlett v. Ward (1893), 52
N. J. Eq. 197.

282.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 419

as against the owner of the old one.^'' Although, if the corpora-
tion makes the transfer by mistake, it cannot be held liable,'" yet,
when a bank takes forged certificates in pledge from the forger,
and he applies for a second loan, upon which the corporation in-
sists upon a registration in its name, it becomes liable to the
pledgee for the second loan, but not for the first."^ But when one
is not the immediate purchaser under a forged transfer, but
claims the shares from one who is, he has his remedy against the
latter under the implied warranty of title, even though the latter
transferred the stock without knowledge oi the forgery
;'^^
except
that when such a transfer is made through an agent the agent
incurs no liability
J^
The immediate purchaser of forged certifi-
cates has no right to new certificates which have been issued to him
upon the transfer, for the reason that they do not operate to divest
the real owner of his title to the stock.'*
Registration as protection against fraudulent transfer.A lead-
ing case upon this subject is that of New York, etc. R. Co. v.
Schuyler,'*a in which it is held that a transferee must be regis-
tered in order to be protected against a fraudulent transfer.'^^ In
this case Davis,
J.,
said : "Where the stock of a corporation is, by
the terms of its charter or by-laws, transferable only on its books,
the purchaser who receives a certificate with power of attorney,
gets the entire title, legal and equitable, as between himself and
his seller, with all the rights the latter possessed ; but as between
himself and the corporation he acquires only an equitable title,
which it is bound to recognize, and permit it to be ripened into
a legal title, when he presents himself, before any efifective trans-
fer on the books has been made, to do the acts required by the
charter and the by-laws in order to make a transfer. Until these
acts be done, he is not a stockholder and has no claim to act as
such. . . . The stock not having passed by the delivery of
69
Davis v. Bank of England, 2 Ry. Co., 41 L. T. 553; Simm v.
Bing. 393; Hare v. London, etc. Anglo-American Tel. Co., 5 Q. B.
Ry. Co., 2 Johns. & H. 480; s. c. Div. 188.
30 L. J. Ch. 817; Waterhouse v.
^i
Metropolitan Savings Bank v.
London, etc. Ry. Co., 41 L. T. N. Mayor, etc. of Baltimore, 63 Md. 6.
S. 553; Simm v. Anglo-American
72
Matthews v. Massachusetts
Tel. Co., 5 Q. B. Div. 188; Brown National Bank, 1 Holmes, 396.
v. Howard Ins. Co., 42 Md. 384;
t3
Machinists' National Bank v.
Hambleton v. Central, etc. R. Co., Field, 126 Mass. 345.
44 Md. 551; Hildyard v. South
t4
Johnston v. Renton (1870),
Sea Co., 2 P. Wms. 76. Cf.
Ashby L. R. Q. Eq. Cas. 181.
v. Blackwell, 2 Eden, 299.
i'4a
34 N. Y. 30.
70
Waterhouse v. London, etc.
'^s
See also Cady v. Potter, 55
Barb. 463.
420
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
283.
the certificates and power of attorney, the legal title remains in
the seller, so far as affects the company and subsequent bona fide
purchasers who take by transfer duly made on the books. And
hence a buyer in good faith who takes a transfer in conformity
to the charter and by-laws, permitted to be made by the author-
ized officer of the corporation, becomes vested with the complete
title to the stock and cuts off all rights and equities of the holder
of the certificate to the stock itself
."
"^^
Where, however, the
transfer is made effectual by the surrender and cancellation of
the old certificates, no valid transfer can be made without com-
pliance with this formality." And where a transferee has waived
the right to the cancellation of the old certificates and consents to
a transfer on the books without their presence, he has no recourse
against the corporation for damages.''^

283. Liability for fraudulent issue.Where stock is fraud-

ulently overissued by the proper ofificer of a company, the false
certificates cannot be regarded as valid stock, but bona tide hold-
ers of them are entitled to indemnity
.'^^
Thus, where a bank has
been held responsible, although stock had been issued beyond the
limit fixed by the charter, bona fide holders were entitled to in-
demnity, but not to become stockholders. The court said that
the idea that the purchaser of stock was to lose the property he
had honestly paid for, because the bank had not done its duty to
TO
New York, etc. R. Co. v. the initiative step in the pro-
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 80, citing ceedings may have been taken by
Wilson v. Little, 2 Comst. 443, 447 the corporation against the hold-
s. c. 51 Am. Dec. 307; Bank of ers of overissued stock, praying
Utica V. Smalley, 2 Cow. 770; s. c. its cancellation, a court of equity,
14 Am. Dec. 526; Stebbins v. Phce- having granted the relief sought
nix Fire Ins. Co., 3 Paige, 350; by the plaintiff, will not stop
Union Bank v. Laird, 2 Wheat. there, but will proceed in the same
390; Mechanics' Bank v. New case to grant the defendants dam-
York, etc. R. Co., 3 Kern. 621; ages against the plaintiff for the
Gilbert v. Manchester Iron Co., 11 fraud practiced upon them by the
Wend. 627; Borgate v. Shortridge, corporate agents. Pollock on Con-
3 Eng. L. & Eq. 58. tracts, 94; Simm v. Anglo-Amer-
77
Beach on Railways,
383, lean Telegraph Co., 5 Q. B. Div.
384. 188; New York, etc. R. Co. v.
78
Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Van Schuyler (1865), 34 N. Y. 30; In
Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439; Hall v. Rose re Bahia, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Q.
Hill, etc. Road Co., 70 111. 673.
Cf.
B. 584, 595; Daly v. Thompson, 10
Shropshire, etc. Ry. & Canal Co. v. Mees. & W. 309; Waterhouse v.
Queen, L. R. 7 H. L. 496. London, etc. Ry. Co., 41 L. T. N.
79
New York, etc. R. Co. v. S. 553,
Schuyler
(1865), 34 N. Y. 73,
where it was held that although

283,] ISSUE OF STOCK. 421

itself, was unreasonable in the last degree.^" The general rule is,
therefore, that a bona fide purchaser of certificates for shares in
a corporation, issued in due form by agents of the company hav-
ing authority to issue such certificates, under ordinary circum-
stances, can compel the corporation to recognize the certificate
as valid and accord to him the rights of a shareholder, unless the
creation of new shares is prevented by some legal prohibition
;
and if the shares which the certificate purports to represent can-
not legally be created, by reason of some legal prohibition, the
purchaser is entitled to recover his damages from the corporation
for the false representation contained in the certificate.^^ So that
"the incapacity to create the spurious stock would be no defense
to an action for damages for the injury."
^^
To entitle the ag-
grieved party to sue on spurious stocks, no privity is necessary,
except such as is created by the unlawful act and the consequen-
tial injury, because the injured party is not seeking redress upon
the contract, but purely for the tortious act in the commission of
which the contract is an accidental incident.^ Defenses by a cor-
poration that certificates were not issued in conformity with the
charter or by-laws are not considered with favor by the courts.
But where the charter provides that certificates of stock should
be signed by the president, directors and treasurer, fraudulent
overissues signed by the president and treasurer alone were not
80
Bank of Kentucky v. Schuyl- Railways and Field on Corpora-
kill Bank, 1 Pars. Sel. Eq. Cas. tions, 144; following Mechan-
180. ics' Bank v. New York, etc. R.
81
2 Morawetz on Corporations, Co., 13 N. Y. 599. And in a case
761, Taylor on Corporations,

where the president of a railway
591; Bridgeport Bank v. New company fraudulently issued cer-
York, etc. R. Co., 30 Conn. 231 tificates of stock, properly signed
(one of the Schuyler fraud cases)
;
and sealed, in excess of the
Hall V. Rose Hill, etc. Road Co., amount authorized by law, it was
70 111. 673; Mandelbaum v. North- held, that the stock should be
American Mining Co., 4 Mich. 465; treated as genuine in the hands
"Wright's Appeal, 99 Ra. St. 425; of bona fide holders. Willis v.
People's Bank v. Kurtz, 99 Pa. St. Fry, 13 Phila. 33.
344; Willis v. Philadelphia, etc.
82
New York, etc. R. Co. v.
R. Co., 6 Week. N. Cas. 461; Bruff Schuyler (1S65), 34 N. Y. 30, 50.
V. Mali, 36 N. Y. 200; Western, etc.
83 New York, etc. R. Co. v.
R. Co. V. Franklin Bank, 60 Md. Schuyler, (1865), 34 N. Y. 30,
36; Tome v. Parkersburg, etc. R. quoting Bank of Kentucky v.
Co., 39 Md. 36; Titus v. Great Schuylkill Bank. 1 Parson's Sel.
Western Turnpike Co., 61 N. Y. Eq. Cas. 180; Bruff v. Mali, 36 N.
237; Pollock on Contracts,

94. Y. 206; Titus v. Great Western
But the contrary doctrine re- Turnpike, 61 N. Y. 280; s. c. 5
ceives the sanction of Redfield on Lans. 250.
422
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
284.
sufficient to charge the corporation.^* In the case of a fraudulent
overissue of stock by the proper officer of a corporation, a joint
action will lie against the company and the agent,^^ or a separate
action against either.^"
Liabilitv
of
stockholders,
of
overvalued stock.Where a part-
nership was incorporated to continue the business of the firm, and
in the valuation of its assets by the bookkeeper they were over-
valued by his unintentional errors, and the stock issued in lieu
thereof was issued as full paid, the stockholders were held not
liable to the creditors for such overvaluation." Though the issue
of stock for property fraudulently overvalued is voidable as to
creditors or other stockholders, it will bind the corporation.^
F.
WATERED STOCK.
284. Definition and methods of issue.

"Watered" or
fictitiously paid-up stock, is that issued as paid up, whereas the
par value has not been paid in money, or money's worth. It is
"watered" to the extent that the par value exceeds the value paid.
"The stock of a corporation is supposed to stand in the place of
actual property of substantial value, and as being a convenient
method of representing the interest of each stockholder in such
property, and to the extent to which it fails to represent such
value it is either a deception and fraud upon the public, or an evi-
dence that the original value of the corporate property has become
depreciated. . . . If it be once admitted that a corporation
may issue stock without receiving a consideration therefor, and
where it does not represent actual or substituted value in corpo-
rate assets, there is apparently no limit to the extent to which the
original stock may be "watered," except the caprice of the stock-
holders.
"
"Watered" stock is not necessarily illegal. It may be
entirely fair and lawful as to one person and fraudulent and illegal
as to another. When its issue by agreement is valid as to the parties
thereto, it is not in violation of any principle of public policy.^"
84
Holbrook v. Fauquier, etc.
st
Taylor v. Cummings (III.
Co., 3 Cranch. C. C. 425; Grang- 1903), 127 Fed. 108.
ers' etc. Co. v. Kamper, 73 Ala.
ss
Parmelee v. Price (1904), 70
341. N. E. 725, 208 111. 544.
85Bruff V. Mali, 36 N. Y. 205;
89
Handley v. Stutz (1891), 139
Phelps V. Wait, 30 N. Y. 78. U. S. 417.
ssBruff V. Mali, 36 N. Y. 205;
so
Scovill v. Thayer (1881), 103
Suydam v. Moore, 8 Barb. 358. U. S. 143.

285.] ISSUE OF STOCK, 423

"Watered" stock is void rather than voidable.^ It is claimed that
on principle there is no more harm in the negotiation by a corpo-
ration of its stock below par than of its bonds or notes at a dis-
count. There is no liability on corporate stock exchanged for
property of less value than the par value of the stock. At com-
mon law there is no express or implied contract to pay to the cor-
poration or to the creditors the par value of the stock it has ex-
changed for property, however exaggerated may have been the
agreed valuation. If the transaction be palpably fraudulent, the
only remedy is in rescission of the contract, at the instance of the
party injured, return of the stock and resumption of the property.
Fraud is not implied from proof that the property was worth
less than the par value of the stock. For issue of the stock
for property at whatever gross overvaluation, the stockholders
are not liable to pre-existing creditors, because they did not rely
upon that part of the capital stock being paid in, and no subse-
quent creditor can complain where he contracted with the cor-
poration knowing of such issue of stock for property taken at
overvaluation. The stockholders who participated or acquiesced
in the transaction have no ground for complaint. The courts
sustain such exchanges of stock for property however greatly
overvalued, except where the property is practically worthless,
or its possible value is merely conjectural. When it purports to
be "paid up" in property, the value is seldom equal to the par
value of the stock. The important question with those who have
right to complain in any instance is whether liability attaches,
and to whom, and what is the remedy. "Watered" stock is is-
sued (i) at a discount for money when the certificate recites that
it is fully "paid up," or
(2)
in the favorite way, by accepting
overvalued property or work, or
(3)
by stock dividends whose
par value has not been added to the capital stock, or
(4)
under
statutory consolidation. "Watered stock" is not necessarily ille-
gal or void, or a fraud upon any one, or contrary to public policy.
It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of any given case.

285. Issued for stock dividend.Where instead of dis-

tributing the surplus profits of the corporate business among the
stockholders by a cash dividend, they are invested in the business
as an additional investment by the stockholders, upon issue to them
of a stock dividend, the security of creditors is so much increased,
consequently the law encourages the stock dividend. It may be
siNicrosi v. Irvine (1893), 102 Ala. 648, 48 Am. St. Rep. 92.
424
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
280-288.
made by an issue of stock at less than its par value.^^ But, where
the actual property and the capital stock are not increased to the
extent of the par value of the stock issued as a dividend, it is
fraudulent or irregular."^ The corporation by agreement with
the stockholders may credit such surplus profits, as a payment
pro tanto upon their subscriptions.^*

286. Issued in exchange for sale of all the corporate prop-

erty. By sale of all the property of one corporation to an-
other.Another method sustained by the law
"^
for the issue of
watered stock, is by sale of all the assets of one corporation to
another, for its full paid stock. For such a sale by a quasi
public corporation, express legislative authority is required. The
buying corporation often issues for distribution among the stock-
holders of the selling corporation, full paid stock several times
larger than the amount of its issued capital stock. Or upon trans-
fer of the property to the buying corporation it may issue the
stock to the stockholders of the selling corporation in exchange
for its old stock. By such a sale one corporation buys the prop-
erty of another. It differs from a consolidation. That dissolves
the old corporations and creates a new one.

287. Issued in consolidation of corporations.A consoli-

dation of two or more strictly private corporations may be affected
legally without any express legislative authority, but such author-
ity is necessary for the consolidation of railroads and other com-
mon carriers and waterworks, etc., owing duties to the public.
These corporations often resort to consolidation as a legal means
of watering their stock, as in cases to over ten times its original
amount and without question.

288. Issued in exchange for property of less than par value

of the stock. When issued for overvalued property or con-
struction work.To invalidate stock issued for overvalued
property or work, the fact of overvaluation must be proved, and
that the overvaluation was intentional and fraudulent.^^ Quo
warranto will lie wdiere a million dollars of stock is issued for
patents applied for and unissued.^^ The courts now hold that
92
7n re Owen, etc. Co. (Can.
95
Chicago, etc. Co. v. Ashling
(1891), 21 Ontario Rep. 349. (1895), 160 111. 373.
93
Williams v. Western Union
so
Kelly v. Fletcher (1894), 94
Tel. Co. (1883). 93 N. Y. 162. Tenn. 1.
9*
Kenton, etc. Co. v. McAlpin
st
State v. Webb (1893), 97 Ala.
(1880), 5 Fed. 737: Kryger v. An- 111, 38 Am. St. Rep. 151.
drews
(1887), 65 Mich. 405.

288.] ISSUE OF STOCK. ti:2."'>

an issue of stock as fully paid, under agreement that it is not
to be fully paid, is legal and valid, as between all the parties to
the agreement, and is not opposed to any principle of public
policy.^* As where paid-up stock was issued at a gross overvalua-
tion and the court said : "It seems to me impossible to say that
however wrong the transaction was in respect to other persons,
there was anything wrong as between the company and the ven-
dors.
"^
And where paid-up stock at great discount was issued
to all the stockholders the court said : "It is conceded to have
been the contract between him and the company that he should
never be called upon to pay any further assessments upon the
stock. The same contract was made with all the other share-
holders and the fact was known to all. As between them and
the company this was a perfectly valid agreement. It was not
forbidden by the charter or by any law or public policy."^ In
Knapp V. Publishers,- where there were no creditors, and all
the stockholders assented, a distribution of increased capital
stock without any consideration, was sustained. In the
absence of express legislative rule to the contrary, such stock
is binding upon the corporation, and as against all other parties,
excepting rights of existing stockholders, and creditors. The
favored and most common way of issuing so-called "paid-up
stock," which is not paid-up, is by exchange of property taken
at exaggerated valuation, the difficulty herein being to determine
what measure of overvaluation will render the contract invalid,
and what is the remedy.
The overvaluation, when shown, must also be shown to be
intentional and fraudulent.^ Though the stock be found in-
valid, the holder is not necessarily liable thereon.* Where stock
is issued for property or service, the courts will treat the stock
as full paid, however much the par value of the stock exceeds
the value of the property, labor or services. Where, without dis-
sent by any stockholder or other interested person, the corpora-
tion, being solvent, makes an exchange of a certain amount of its
capital stock at a discount, for property, all parties to the exchange
are thereafter estopped to complain of the transaction, regardless
9s
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105
2 Knapp v. Publishers (1895),
U. S. 143. 127 Mo. 53.
99
Ira re Ambrose, etc. Co.
3 Kelly v. Fletcher (1894), 94
(1880), L. R. 14 Ch. D. 390. Tenn. 1.
1 Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105
*
Fogg v. Blair (1891), 139 U.
U. S. 143. S. 118.
420
rsi;R uf stcick.
[,
288.
of what may have been thic value of the property which the corj)0-
ration acccpteil in the exchange; and no court can interpose its
power in any way to cancel or reform the contract, in the absence
of positive fraud. In such case of exchanj^e no one can be preju-
diced." ]]ut such payment in property will not be good as against
subsequent bona I'lclc creditors of the corporation Vvho dealt with it
on the faith of its stock beinrf fully paid, if the overvaluation was
fraudulent or intentional." The provision of the Iowa Code sub-
jecting shareholders to liability for the amount of their unpaid
stock," has been held to apply to a stockholder who paid his sub-
scription by transferring a worthless patent right to the company.*
So also a contractor, a part of whose remuneration for construct-
ing the works of a corporation consisted of the company's stock at
fifty per centum of its par value, has been held to be liable thereon
to corporate creditors. The creditors are not bound by the contract
between the company and the contractor as to the price of the
works, and only to the extent of the reasonable value thereof can
the latter avoid payment of the balance due on the par value
of the stock.'' But it is generally held that persons receiving
full paid shares of a company for property accepted at an over-
valuation, can not be held liable by the corporate creditors for
the difference between the real value of the property and the
valuation at which the company agreed to accept it.^'' For such
5 Northern Trust Co. v. Colum- that certain property constituting
bia, etc. Co. (1896), 75 Fed. 9.3G. the consideration for the stock
6 Lloyd V. Preston (1892), 146 was worth more than that amount
tr. S. 630. was held inadmissible.
7 Iowa Code,

1082. 9 Shickle v. Watts (1888), 94
8 Chisholm v. Forny, 65 Iowa, Mo. 410.
336. See also Wetherbee v. Baker,
lo
in Peck v. Coalfield Coal Co.
35 N. J. Eq. 501, where there was
(1883), 11 111. App.
88, it was held,
a total failure of consideration, where stockholders were allowed
the purchaser having no title to to pay their subscriptions by con-
the property.
Cf. Savage v. Bull, veying, or causing to be conveyed,
17 N. J. Eq. 142; Jackson v. Traer, to the corporation, coal lands, the
64 Iowa, 469; s. c. 52 Am. Rep. business of the corporation being
449. Boulton Carbon Co. v. Mills to mine coal and to buy and sell
(1889), 78 Iowa, 460, was an ac- coal lands, and the value thereof
tion to enforce a liability against was bona fide fixed at
$500,000,
a stockholder of a corporation to the whole amount of the capital
the amount of the unpaid instal- stock, although the land cost only
ments on his stock, and defend- $57,000, when bought from the far-
ant having conceded that he paid mers, that they were not liable as
but one-third of the par value for upon unpaid stock for the debts
the stock issued to him, evidence of the corporation. Nor can any

288.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 427

a transaction can not be attacked at all except for fraud, and if
fraudulent, it is altogether void. The court will not make a new
contract for the parties and say to the purchaser "though you have
bargained for paid-up shares, we will change that into a bargain
to take shares not paid up and put you on the list of contributories
on that ground."^^ The most that can be done is to "take away
any profit from the person who has improperly made it."
^^
"Whatever may have been, in fact, the value of the property
turned over to the company for its stock, the company agreed to
take it for the stock. The persons interested .were the stock-
holders, and there was no dissent on the part of any person
concerned from what was done. Neither person then holding
stock, nor any person who afterwards became a stockholder by
assignment from one who then held stock, can now make com-
plaint on behalf of the corporation as against the fairness of that
transaction. This, I take to be the settled law on that subject."^^
A dissenting stockholder may have the receiver of stock at a dis-
count, compelled to return the stock. A transferee may hold
him liable, where the transaction is fraudulent.^* Where full-
paid stock is issued for property received, there must be actual
fraud in the transaction to enable creditors of the corporation to
call the stockholders to account. If the stock has been fairly
created and paid for, there is an end of trusts in favor of anybody,
and this does not affect the general rule that unpaid subscriptions
of stock are a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of
creditors after a corporation becomes insolvent. Where the
charter authorizes capital stock to be paid in property, and the
shareholders honestly and in good faith put in property, instead
of money, in payment of their subscriptions, third parties have
liability be imposed upon the S. 367; Anderson's Case, 7 Ch. Div.
stockholders by a resolution of 75.
the directors, subsequently made
12
Anderson's Case, 7 Ch. Div.
without their assent, declaring the 75; Four Mile, etc. R. Co. v. Bai-
stock unpaid. ley, 18 Ohio St. 208.
11
Scovill V. Thaj^er, 105 U. S.
i3
Showalter, J., in Northern
143,156; Phelan V. Hazard, 5 Dill. Trust Co. v. Columbia, etc. Co.,
45; Van Cott v. Van Brunt, 82 N. 75 Fed. 936, affirmed, Dickerman
Y. 535. Ace. Continental Tele- v. Northern Trust Co. (C. C. A.),
graph Co. v. Nelson, 49 N. Y.
80 Fed. 450; Whitehill v. Jacobs,
Super. Ct. 197; Brant v. Ehlen, 59 75 Wis. 474; Van Cott v. Van
Md. 1; Crawford v. Rohrer, 59 Md. Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535; Baar v. New
599; Wood's Claim, 9 Week. Rep. York, etc. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 263.
366; Barnett's Case, L. R. 18 Eq. "Fisher v. Seligman
(1881), 7
507; Currie's Case, 3 De Gex, J. & Mo. App. 383.
428
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
289.
no ground of complaint, but otherwise where such property is
grossly over\'alued ; that is strong evidence of fraud. The case
is very different from that in which subscriptions to stock are
payable in cash, and where only a part of the installments has
been paid. In that case there is still a debt due to the corporation
which, if it becomes insolvent, may be sequestered in equity
by the creditors.^^
Issue
of
stock in payment
for
construction
of
raikcay.Where
a railroad corporation being unable to pay the claim of its con-
struction company, compromised the claim by delivery of
3500
shares of its stock at twenty cents on the dollar, which was ac-
cepted in full satisfaction of the debt, and the stock was worth
nothing in the market, and where a judgment creditor of the
company filed a bill to compel payment by the defendant to whom
a part of such stock Avas directly issued, the court held the stock-
holder not liable to pay in the amount of the stock, and said : "To
say that a public corporation charged with public duties may
not relieve itself from embarrassment by paying its debt in stock
at its real valuethere being no statute forbidding such a transac-
tionwithout subjecting the creditor surrendering its debt to
the liability attaching to stockholders who have agreed, expressly
or impliedly, to pay the face value of stock, subscribed by them,
is in effect to compel them to either suspend operations the
moment they become unable to pay their current debts, or to
borrow money secured by mortgage upon the corporate prop-
erty."i

289. Shares issued below par.The "trust fund" doctrine

stated above, has permeated to a great extent the law of cor-
porations as expounded by our American courts, and innumerable
illustrations of its application are met with in the State and federal
reports. When the stock of a corporation is not subscribed for
up to the minimum amount of capital fixed by the charter, and
none of it is paid in, if the corporators organize, elect themselves
officers, proceed to business, and contract debts up to and beyond
the nominal capital, having paid in nothing whatever, they are
held to be guilty of a legal fraud and liable to creditors to make
iBCoit
V. Gold Amalgamating Clark v. Bever (1890), 139 U. S.
Co. (1886), 119 U. S. 343; Boyn- 96; Handley v. Stutz (1890), 139
ton V. Hatch, 47 N. Y. 225; Van U. S. 417; Coit v. Gold Amalga-
Cott V. Van Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535; mating Co. (1886), 119 U. S. 343;
Carr v. Lefevre, 27 Pa. St. 413. Fogg v. Blair (1890), 139 U. S.
10
Harlan, Chief Justice, in 118.

289.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 429

good the minimum capital, together with interest thereon, should
this be necessary to discharge the corporate debts.
^"
No by-law
or resolution of the stockholders, as opposed to the rights of
creditors, can authorize the release of the obligation of a solvent
stockholder to pay for the stock taken by him, even though the
release be in consideration of his surrendering his shares.^^ So
creditors of a company are not affected by private understandings
between subscribers and a subscription agent, exonerating the
former from the performance of that which the subscription re-
quires.^^ Shareholders may be held liable to the full face value
of their shares notwithstanding a contract by which the company
has agreed to accept a less amount as payment in full.^" While
a contract of this nature, unless forbidden by statute,^^ is binding
17
Burns v. Beck (Ga. 1889), 10
S. E. Rep. 121.
18
Farnsworth v. Robbins
(1887), 36 Minn. 369.
19
Jewell V. Rock River Paper
Co. (1882), 101 111. 57.
20
Scoville V. Thayer (1882),
105
U. S. 143; Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md.
1; Keblor v. Lademann (1883),
11 Mo. App. 550; Hatch v. Dana,
101 U. S. 205; Pullman v. Upton,
96 U. S. 328; Upton v. Tribilcock,
91 U. S. 45; Hawley v. Upton, 102
U. S. 314; Plinn v. Bagley, 7 Fed.
Rep. 785;
Sturges v. Stetson, 1
Biss. 246; Great Western, etc. Co.
V. Gray (1887),
122 111. 630; Craw-
ford V. Rohrer (1883), 59 Md. 699;
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Stewart,
41 Pa. St. 54. See, also, "Liability
of Holders of Nominally Paid Up
Stock," by B. F. Rex, 19 Cent. L.
J. 465; "Personal Liability for
Subscriptions," 2 Leg. Int. 109;
monographic note by H. Budd,
Jr., in 15 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 638,
and note in 9 Am. Dec. 96. But
see In re South Mountain, etc. Co.,
7 Sawy. 30, holding that the cus-
tom of the country may exempt
shareholders from liability upon
stock issued fictitiously.
21
In several of the American
States there are constitutional
provisions declaring fictitiously
paid up stock to be void. Ala.
Const. (1874), art. xiv, 6;
Ark.
Const. (1874), art. xii,
8; Mo.
Const. (1875), art. xii,
8; Texas
Const. (1876), art. xii,
6; La.
Const. (1879), 238; Cal. Const.
(1873), art. xii,
11; 111. Const.
(1870), art. xi,
13; Neb. Const.
(1875), art. xi, 5; Pa. Const.
(1875), art. xvi,

7. In others
there are statutes to the same ef-
fect. 2 N. Y. Rev. Stat. 507, 49;
504, 38; 505, 40, 41; N. Y.
Session Laws, 1848, ch. 40, 38,
40, 41, 49; Wis. Rev. State. (1878),
1753; Wis. Laws of 1881, ch. 93;
Mo. Gen. Stat., ch. 62,
11.
Cf.
Ohio Rev. Stat,
3, 313. But
these provisions have been con-
strued to be applicable only in
case of the issue of entirely fic-
titious stock and "not intended to
interfere with the usual and cus-
tomary methods of raising funds
by railroad companies for the pur-
pose of building their roads or of
accomplishing other legitimate
corporate purposes," (Peoria & S.
R. Co. V. Thompson, 103 111. 187)
;
such as the issue of stock below
par (Stein v. Howard, 65 Cal.
616; New Castle R. Co. v. Simp-
son, 21 Fed. Rep. 535); or for la-
bor, property or contract work.
Peoria & S. R. Co. v. Thompson,
103 111. 187; Beach on Railways,

71. But an issue for less than

par may be forbidden by a stat-
ute not expressly prohibitory in
430
ISSUE CF STOCK.
[
289.
as
between the company and the subscriber, and will hold so long
as the
company
remains solvent and able to meet all its obliga-
tions," it will not stand as against the claims of corporate cred-
itors, when the company has become insolvent." Accordingly
corporate
creditors may impeach the validity of an issue of stock
below par
made prior to their having extended credit to the com-
pany and may compel
payment in full or so much as is re-
quired to satisfy their claims against the company.-* Even the
terms. Thus the amendment of
the charter of the Missouri Pa-
cific Railway Company
provides
that any subscriber upon making
Cull payment for his shares shall
be entitled to have certificates of
stock issued to him, (Mo. Acts,
1851, p. 208); and this has been
held to render it necessary that
full payment should be made be-
fore the subscriber shall be en-
titled to demand the issue of cer-
tificates. Spurlock V. Missouri Pa-
cific Ry. Co., 90 Mo. 199.
22
Harrison v. Arkansas Valley
R. Co., 4 McCrary, 264.
23Scovill V. Thayer (1882),
105
U. S. 143; Sturges v. Stetson, 1
Biss. 246; Fosdick v. Sturges, 1
Biss. 255; Fisk v. Chicago, etc, P.
R. Co., 53 Barb. 513; O'Brien v.
Chicago, etc. P. R. Co., 53 Barb.
568; Mann v. Cook, 20 Conn. 188;
Neuse River, etc. Co. v. Commis-
ioners, 7 Jones L. 275; Kehlor v.
Lademan (1883), 11 Mo. App. 550;
Crawford v. Rohrer (1883), 59
Md. 599. And see Oliphant v.
Woodbury, etc. Co., 63 Iowa, 332;
Osgood V. King, 42 Iowa, 478;
Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 143.
24
Sagory v. Dubois, 4 Sandf.
Ch. 466, 499; Hawley v. Upton, 102
U. S. 314, where the court said,
"all that need be done, so far as
creditors are concerned, is that
the subscriber shall have bound
himself to become a contributor
to the fund which the capital
stock of the company represents;"
Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 328;
Chubb V. Upton, 95 U. S. 666;
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65;
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Up-
ton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Up-
ton V. Burnham, 3 Biss. 431; s. c.
3 Biss. 520; Upton v. Hansbrough,
3 Biss. 417; Myers v. Suley, 10
Nat. Bank. Reg. 411; Flinn v.
Bagley (1881), 7 Fed. Rep. 785,
792, where the court after stat-
ing the law as above and review-
ing the authorities concluded,
"This case is certainly a hard one
upon the defendants. Finding the
company embarrassed for want
of funds they agreed to subscribe
a certain sum and take in pay-
ment stock at what it was really
worth. It is clear that no fraud
was intended, and that they must
be held liable upon an implied
agreement to pay more for the
benefit of the creditors than they
had expressly agreed to pay for
the benefit of corporation. It is
a hardship, however, from which
1 see no way of relieving them
consistent with the views of the
supreme court in Hawley v. Up-
ton, and a decree musc therefore
be entered for the complainant."
Union, etc. Co. v. Frear, etc. Co.,
97 111. 537, and cases there re-
viewed; Christensen v. Bno
(1887), 106 N. Y. 97; Eyerman v.
Krieckhaus, 7 Mo. App. 455;
Fisher v. Seligman, 7 Mo. App.
383; Skrainka v. Allen, 7 Mo.
App. 434; Pickering v. Templeton,
2 Mo. App. 424; Hinkling v. Wil-
son, 104 111. 54; Northrop v. Bush-
nell, 38 Conn. 498; Mann v. Cooke,
20 Conn. 178. The stockholders
cannot be compelled to pay more
of the balance due upon their

290.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 431

fact that a stockholder was induced to take the stock by the
false representations of the president or directors of the company
that it was full paid capital stock, is no defense to an action by
a corporate creditor to recover the difference between the amount
paid and the par value of the shares.'^
The rule is that, unless expressly authorized by governing stat-
ute, a corporation can not issue shares of its capital stock in the
first instance payable at a discount. Any agreement to issue its
shares at less than face or par value is tdtra vires and voidable
at the instance of creditors in case of insolvency of the cor-
poration,"*^ The directors have no power to fix the price of
shares at less than face value and to issue them at reduced price,
without express legislative authority.^'^ A contract to issue shares
at less than par being fraudulent in law will not be aided in
equity.^^ Purchasers of shares at less than par value will, in
case of insolvency of the corporation, be liable to its creditors for
the deficiency, the difference between par value and that which
they paid in money or in money's worth.-

2go. Shares issued as a gratuity.It is held that the holders

of "bonus" stock which has been given away to purchasers of
bonds of the corporation, as inducement to the purchase, are liable
to the corporate creditors, to pay the par value of the stock, in case
of insolvency of the corporation.^" But in New York it is held
that unissued shares of stock, and even bonds of the company,
may be given away to the stockholders without any liability upon
them to pay the par value, or any part of it, to the corporation or
its creditors.^^ But, it is otherwise, where the stockholders have
agreed to pay, or where the statute requires payment.^- The
issue of stock gratuitously is violative of the rights of exist-
ing, non-consenting, stockholders, and in fraud of subsequent
subscribers and creditors who deal with the corporation on
shares than is sufficient to satis-
28
Le Warne v. Meyer, 38 Fed.
fy the claims of the corporate 191.
creditors. Scoville v. Thayer, 105 29
Bates v. Great Western T.
U. S. 143, 155.
Gf.
Slee v. Bloom, Co., 134 111. 536.
19 Johns. 456.
"o
Skrainka v. Allen (1882), 76
25
Briggs V. Cornwall, 9 Daly, Mo. 384.
436; Wood's Ry. Law,

56.
si
Christenson v. Eno (1897),
26
Sturges V. Stetson, 1 Biss. 106 N. Y. 97.
246. 32
Hallett v. Metropolitan, etc.
2T
Chouteau V. Dean, 7 Mo. App. Co. (1901), 35 Misc. Rep. 659;
210. Atlantic T. Co. v. Osgood (1902),
116 Fed. Rep. 1019.
432
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[^
li'JO.
the faith of its capital stock. Any such stockholder may en-
join the gratuitous issue/^ and any such creditor in case of
insolvency of. the corporation may in equity compel payment by
liim to whom such stock was issued.^* But the corporation can
not repudiate the agreement not to require payment unless such
agreement is in violation of the charter or general law, for a
shareholder's liability on his stock arises not out of his relation
to the corporation, but out of contract, either express or implied,
or out of some statute ; and accordingly, where no contract can
be shown and no statute imposes liability upon a gratuitous allot-
tee of shares, he commits no wa-ong upon the creditors and is
not to be required to pay the full nominal face value of his stock.-^
In the case last cited the subscribers had been required to pay
calls in excess of the amount expected and represented to them
as necessary at the commencement of the enterprise, and the cor-
poration to make good their loss, issued to them as a gratuity,
stock credited with a payment of forty per cent, which as a
matter of fact had not been paid, and it was held that corporate
creditors could not compel the holders of stock so issued to ac-
count for the unpaid forty per cent, as though they had been
subscribers therefor.^ The doctrine has also been applied in
33
Langen v. FrancMyn, 20 N. bonds, amounting to about three
Y. Supp. 404; Donald v. Ameri- times the value of the road, upon
can, etc. Co. (N. J.), 48 Atl. 771; which bonds judgment was ren-
Fitzpatrick v. Despatch, etc. Co., dered against the company. Com-
83 Ala. 604. plainants had refused to receive
34
Richardson V. Green, 133 U. the road itself, or the capital
S. 30; Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. stock, in payment of their debt,
S. 417; Detroit v. Black, etc. Co., and the sole object of the organ-
105 Mich. 535. ization of the company was to
35
Christensen v. Eno (1887), make use of the road in the pay-
106 N. Y. 97. ment of the debt; but whether
36
Christensen v. Eno (1887), complainants knew that fact was
106 N. Y. 97. But in Preston v. doubtful. It was held that the
Cincinnati, C. & H. V. R. Co. stockholders were liable, respec-
(1SS8), 36 Fed. Rep. 54, the de- tively, for the payment of the
fendant being the owner of a rail- judgment, to the amount of their
road, organized a company to subscriptions notwithstanding a
whose stock he was the only ac- provision in the bonds that no
tual subscriber, some shares being stockholder should be individually
issued to others at his instance, liable therefor. And in Hickling
and sold his road to the company v. Wilson (1883), 104 111. 54, a
at a price about fifteen times its corporation was organized to build
value, taking in payment the dams across two rivers. A city
sto'i'k and bonds of the company. delivered to one of the subscrib-
To pay a debt he owed complain- ers $60,000 in its bonds to be ap-
ants, he sold them a portion of the plied in this v/ork or to be re-

291.]
ISSUE OF STOCK. 433
equity to defeat attempts to escape liability to creditors, by fraud-
ulent release or cancellation of stock,''' by payment of dividends
out of the capital stock,
"^
by purchase of outstanding shares of
capital stock,^'-' and by fraudulent transfer of stock to a "dum-
my."^"
29 1. Watered stock issued as a bonus.Where stock is
issued as a bonus or at discount from par value, or for property
at exaggerated valuation, antecedent creditors, or those who sub-
sequently became creditors with knowledge of the transaction
can not complain, for there was no misrepresentation to them.*^
Bonus stock and the trust fund theory.The capital means all
the assets, however invested, as well as the mere share certificates.
If the assets are given back to the stockholders the result is the
same as if the shares had been issued wholly, or partly, as a
bonus, or in payment of dividends, or in payment for overvalued
property, all are forms of disposition of the corporate assets, and
may or may not be a fraud on creditors, depending on the cir-
cumstance of each case. The creditor cannot recover on the
ground of contract when the corporation could not. Where the
contract between the corporation and the takers of shares is
specific that they should not be paid for, there is no ground for
implying a promise to pay for them and the creditors' rights, if
he has any superior to the corporation, can not rest on any such
implication but must b*e based on tort or fraud, actual or pre-
sumed. If a statute implicitly forbids the issue of stock not paid
for, such issue may be cancelled as tdtra vires and void, but such
a prohibition would not of itself be sufficient to create aji implied
contract contrary to the actual one that the holder should not
pay for his stock. An equity does not arise in favor of a
turned. The subscriber turned against a stockholder for the
over the bonds to the corporation whole amount of his unpaid sub-
upon its guaranty so to use them. scription.
The dams were built and stock is-
37
Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
sued to the several subscribers, 45; Welch v. Sargent (1899), 127
for which they paid nothing, and Cal. 72.
some of which they sold. And it
"S
Marquad v. Federal, etc. Co.
was held that creditors of the cor- (1899), 95 Fed. 775.
poration who could not collect
39
United States T. Co. v. Har-
their judgment from the corpora- ris (1857), 2 Bosw. 75.
tion could pursue the sub-
-lo
Lloyd v. Preston (1892), 146
scribers in equity; that two or U. S. 630.
more of the creditors could join
4i
Handley v. Stutz (1891), 139
in one suit, and that such a cred- U. S. 417.
itor was entitled to an execution
Vol. 1

28
43
i
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
292.
creditor, whose debt was contracted prior to the issue to have the
holder of bonus stock pay for it contrary to his actual contract
w ith the corporation,and docs not exist in favor of a subsequent
creditor who has dealt with the creditor with full knowledge of
the arrangement by which the bonus stock was issued, or where
the stock is issued at its full market value to pay corporate debts,
or where the corporation, whose capital has been unpaid, issues
new stock to re-incorporate itself, and sells the stock in the market
for the best price obtainable, though below par. These cases can-
not be reconciled to predicate Hability of the stockholder, on the
trust fund doctrine. But to place his liability on the ground of
fraud, we have rational and logical ground to stand. So that
where the creditor gives the corporation credit upon the mis-
representation that the capital stock has been paid for, and the
representation is false, it is a fraud upon him, and in case of
corporate insolvency, the delinquent stockholder must make that
representation good by paying for his stock. And it is only
the creditor who has relied upon the professed amount of the
capital stock, in whose favor the law will recognize and enforce
an equity against the holders of bonus stock. It is then only
necessary for him to show that he is a subsequent creditor and
presumption will follow that he gave the corporation credit 'on
the faith that its capital stock had been paid for.*-

292. Shares issued reciting that they are fully paid up.

The common but entirely inefifective device to escape the liabili-

ties under their contract of subscription is the agreement of stock-
holders among themselves that their stock shall be deemed "fully
paid," although in fact not so paid.*^ Such agreements and re-
leases of subscribers upon pretended payments of their subscrip-
tions are void, as frauds upon subsequent stockholders.** Where
the shares of watered stock recite that they are "fully
paid up" an agreement between the corporation and the share-,
holder, that the shares shall be considered fully paid up is not
effectual as against a creditor, but a bona fide purchaser of shares
reciting that they are fully paid, who purchased without notice
that they are not fully paid, is not liable to creditors for any
42Hospes V. Northwestern, etc. 676; Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S.
Car Co. (1892), 48 Minn. 174, 15 417.
L. R. A 470, 31 Am. St. Rep. 637.
**
White Mt. R. Co. v. Eastman,
43
Deadwood, etc. Bank v. Gas- 34 N. H. 129; Melvin v. Lamar
tin Minerva, etc. Co., 42 Minn. Ins. Co., 80 111. 446, 22 Am. Rep.
327, 18 Am. St. :^ep. 510, 6L. R. A. 199.
203.]
ISSUE OF STOCK.
435
deficiency of payment."^ The late Judge
Thompson
summarizes
the law upon the subject as follows:'" "Even in England, where
the questions are generally considered solely with reference to
the rights of the shareholders inter se;^'' such agreements, as be-
tween the original parties and their, privies, have been declared
invalid by the courts.*^ And even the supreme court of the
United States concedes the principle while refusing to apply it,
that a contract between the subscribers to stock, and the corpora-
tion that the stock shall be considered as fully paid and non-
assessable, or otherwise limiting their liability therefor, is void as
against creditors.*'* And we may conclude with great confidence
that the general doctrine is, except in so far as it has been shaken
in California,^'' Minnesota,^'^ New York,^- arid the Supreme
Court of the United States,^^ that any agreement, secret or other-
wise, between the corporation and its shareholders, that its shares
shall not be paid in full, though possibly good as between the
corporation and its shareholders, is void as to creditors of the
corporation in the event of its insolvency."
293.
Liability for issue of watered stock. Corporate of-
ficers.In the case of an issue of corporate stock for money
or property less in value than the par value of the stock, a director
or other managing officer is liable, not for such par value, but
only for the actual market value of the stock, less the value of the
property or service received.^* And so where a director also acts
as promoter, and receives stock in pay for his services, and is
liable both as director and as promoter.
^^
Or, where directors
vote stock to themselves for service to the corporation.^" Direc-
tors may be held liable or the transaction be set aside where they
act in bad faith and obtain advantages not enjoyed by other
stockholders.^^ Where bad faith is not imputable to them they
45
Sprague v. Nat. Bank of
^-
Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S.
America, 172 111. 149, 42 L. R. A. 14.3.
606. 54Cockrill v. Abeles (1898), 86
46
Thomp. Corp.
Fed. Rep. 505.
47
Poole's Case, 9 Ch. Div. 322.
bs
Chandler v. Bacon (1887), 30
48
Daniell's Case, 1 De J. J. 372.
Fed. Rep. 538.
40Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S.
so
Jones v. Johnson (1888), 86
417.
Ky. 530; Kelsey v. Sargent (1886),
50
Stein v. Howard, 65 Cal. 616.
40 Hnn, 150.
51
Hospes V. Northwestern Car,
" Reese v. Bank of Montgomery
etc. Co., 48 Minn. 174, :15 L. R. A. (1855), 31 Pa. St. 78, 72 Am. Dec.
470, 31 Am. St. Rep. 637.
726; Morris v. Stevens (1897),
52
Christensen v. Eno, 106 N. Y.
178 Pa. St. 563.
^7, 60 Am. Rep. 431.
4,;o
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
294.
may receive stock issued to them at a cash discount without
liability to pay the deficiency.'^'*
294.
Liability of purchaser with notice.The purchaser
of stock with notice that it is not paid-up, though purporting to
be, is liable to the same extent as his transferrer is liable.^" The
liability of a bona fide purchaser without notice of stock issued
as paid-up, although it is not paid-up, is not liable to the cor-
poration or to its creditors or to other persons. He may rely
upon representations of the corporate agents that it is paid-up,
or that payment will not be required." He may rely upon the
words "fully paid-up" or "non-assessable" or equivalent words
unqualified, appearing upon the face of the certificate."^^ One
purchasing such stock sold in the open market, with nothing ap-
pearing on the face of the certificate, stating that it is paid-up,
is presumed to be a bona fide purchaser, and is not liable for any
part of the par value which may not have been paid.*^- The pur-
chaser of bonds with a bonus of stock, from the vendor of property
who received them in payment from the corporation, is presum-
ably a bona fide purchaser of them.^
A transferee
of
zvatered stock, stands in no better position than
his transferrer.*'* As transferee he has no remedy against the
corporation to hold it liable,"'^ but a bona fide purchaser m^y
hold the vendor liable to him in damages, if the stock was fraud-
ulently overissued with the vendor's participation or acquies-
cence. The transferee must prove that the stock w^as represented
to be fully paid, that he relied upon the representation, and that
it was false and fraudulent."' A dissenting stockholder, by bill
in equity, may cause a fraudulent overissue of stock to be can-
celled.*'^ He may, by bill in equity, defeat collection of an assess-
58
Peter v. Union Mfg. Co.
g3
Dickerman v. Northern Tel.
(1897), 56 Ohio St. 181; Upton Co. (1900), 176 U. S. 181.
V. Tribilcock (1875), 91 U. S. 45.
c4
Church v. Citizens' R. R. Co.
50
Coleman v. Howe (1895), 154 (1897), 78 Fed. Rep. 526.
111. 458, 45 Am. St. Rep. 133.
gs
Drake v. New York, etc. Co.
GO
Webster v Upton (1875), 91 (1898), 26 N. Y. App. Div. 499.
U. S. 65.
6G
Cross v. Sackett (1858), 6
61
Young V. Erie Iron Co. Abb. Pr. 247.
(1887), 65 Mich. Ill; Webster v.
e?
McAleer v. McMurray (1868),
Upton (1875), 91 U. S. 65; Bloom- 58 Pa. St. 126; Priest v. White
enthal v. Ford (1897), A. C. 156. (1886), 89 Mo. 609.
G2
Sprague v. National Bank,
cs
Perry v. Tuskaloosa. etc. Co.
etc. (1898), 172 111. 149, 42 L. R.
(1891), 93 Ala. 364; Oilman, etc.
A. 606; Keystone Bridge Co. v. R. R. Co. v. Kelly (1875), 77 111.
McCluney
(1880), 8 Mo. App. 496. 426; Parsons v. Joseph (1891), 92
g
295.]
ISSUE OF STOCK.
437
ment upon his stock, by the receiver of an insolvent
corporation,
where the claim and the receivership are based on fraud."''^
Where
stock is issued for cash at less than par value and as fully
paid up, a corporate creditor, upon the insolvency of the com-
pany may compel the stockholder to pay his stock in full as to
the deficiency in payment^" Though the payment at discount was
sufficient between the corporation and the stockholders, it will
not avail against creditors of the corporation, upon its insolvency.'^^
Where the stock is payable in cash, the corporate creditor may
recover from the stockholder any deficiency in payment, notwith-
standing any agreement between him and the corporation, that,
though he received the stock at a discount, it should be deemed
as fully paid-up/^ English authority now agrees with American,
that stock can not be issued for cash at a discount."^^ Where an
insolvent corporation settles with a creditor by a transfer of stock
at twenty per cent, of its par value, he cannot be held liable to
other creditors for the remaining unpaid eighty per cent."* A
corporation in embarrassment may sell its increase in stock for
wdiatever price it may obtain in the market, and may give away
fully paid-up stock free from liability upon it, as a bonus upon
sale of its bonds.'^^
295.
Liability of the stockholder a.s transferee.While
unpaid installments on stock are subject to the payment of the
corporate debts, yet where shares have been issued to a sub-
scriber, and settled for by him under an arrangement made in
good faith with the company, it is not in the power of a creditor
in all cases and as a matter of right, to disturb the arrangement
so made on the ground that in the light of subsequent events
it was a disadvantageous one.^ Persons extending credit to a
Ala. 403; Gibson v. Thornton
71
Handley v. Stutz (1891), 139
(1900), 112 Ga. 328; Ernest v. U. S. 417; Camden v. Stuart
Rutherford, etc. Co. (1899), 38 (1892), 144 U. S. 104.
N. Y. App. Div. 388.
'^2
Dickerman v. Northern Tel.
GoFarwell v. Great Western T. Co. (1900), 176 U. S. 181.
Co. (1896), 161 111. 522.
73
/ re Ince Hall, etc Co.
70
Sagory V. Dubois (1846), 3 (1882), L. R. 23 Ch. D. 545.
Sandf. Ch. 466; Upton v. Tribil-
74 Clark v. Bever (1891), 139 U.
cock (1875), 91 U. S. 45; Hawley S. 96.
V. Upton (1880), 102 U. S. 314;
75 Handley v. Stutz (1891), 139
Great Western T. Co. v. Gray U. S. 417.
(1887), 122 111. 630; Bent v. Un-
to
Coit v. North Carolina Gold
derdown (1901), 156 Ind. 516; Amalgamating Co. (1883), 14 Fed.
Dickerman v. Northern T. Co, Rep. 12.
(1900), 176 U. S. 181.
438
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
ti95.
corporation, may, of course, consent not to hold the shareholders
personally liable or may agree to hold them liable only to a limited
extent." And persons dealing with a corporation by contracting
with it after having acquired knowledge of arrangements which
limit the liability of the subscribers to pay the full amount of the
capital stock, may thus estop themselves from asserting any right
to compel the stockholders to contribute the full amount of their
subscriptions in discharge of the corporate obligations/* So a
corporate creditor can not object to an issue below par of new
capital stock, the increase having been made after he had extended
credit to the company ; for in such a case he can not be presumed
to have acted upon the faith of the increased capital stock being
issued for its full face value.'^" Only those creditors, who became
such in reliance upon the amount of paid-up capital, can enforce
an equity against the holder of "bonus" stock.^" Again, when the
strict construction of a statute prohibiting attempted exemptions
from the full payment for shares of stock will work a positive
injury to creditors for whose protection it was intended, the
court will apply a liberal construction in accordance with the
spirit of the enactment.^^ Thus in a case where a creditor of an
insolvent corporation accepted, in payment of his claim, the
valueless stock of the company to an amount in excess of the
debt due him, it was held that he should not be held liable to
^^
In re State Fire Insurance L. J. Ex. 199; Gordon v. Sea, Fire
Co. (1863), 1 Hem. & M. 457; s. c. & Life Assurance Soc. (1857), 1
1 De G. J. & S. 634; s. c. 35 L. J. Hurl. & N. 599; s. c. 29 L. J. Ex.
Ch. 834; s. c. 34 L. J. Ch. 436; 202; Hess v. Werts (1818), 4 Serg.
Halkett v. Merchant Traders' & R. 361; Shelford on Joint Stock
Assn. (1849), 13 Q. B. 960; s. c. Companies (2d London ed.), 4;
29 L. J. .Q. B. 59; Hassell v. Mer- Lindley on Partnerships, 377; In
chant Traders' Assn., 4 Ex. 525; re Athenasiim Life Assurance Co.
Evans v. Coventry (1854), 3 (1858), 4 Kay & J. 517; s. c. 3 De
Drew, 75; s. c. 5 De G. M. & G. G. & J. 660; s. c. 27 L. J. Ch. 798.
911; s. c. 8 De G. M. & G. 835;
ts
Young v. Erie Iron Co.
s. c. 25 L. J. Ch. 834; Talbot's (1887), 65 Mich. Ill, citing Rob-
Case (1852), 5 De G. & Sm. 386; inson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379; Coit
s. c. 21 L. J. Ch. 846; Reid v. Al- v. North Carolina, etc. Co. (1883),
Ian (1849), 4 Ex. 326; s. c. 19 L. 14 Fed. Rep. 12; Morawetz on Cor-
J. Ex. 39; Addison v. Mayor of porations,
829.
Preston, 12 C. B. 108.
Cf.
In re
79
Coit v. North Carolina, etc.
Independent Assurance Co., Ex Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 12.
parte Cope, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 54; soHospes v. Northwestern Car
Sunderland Marine Ins. Co. v. Co., 48 Minn. 174, 31 Am. St. Rep.
Kearney (1851), 16 Q. B. 925; s. c. 637, 15 L. R. A. 470.
20 Q. B. 417; Pedell v. Gwynn
si
Clark v. Bever, 31 Fed. Rep.
(1857), 1 Hurl. & N. 590; s. c. 26 676.

290.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 439

corporate creditors, the arrangement being to their advantage,
diminishing the corporate Habihties without a corresponding dim-
inution of assets.^^

296. Vv''ho may complain of the issue of watered stock.

If the stock be issued with palpable intent to defraud the public,

the State, for such abuse of its powers, may forfeit the' corporate
charter.^^ The corporation itself cannot complain that property
was taken at excessive valuation.^* A charter may be forfeited
where upon subscribing for the stock the subscribers are in-
solvent.^ The attorney general was refused leave to bring suit
to forfeit the charter of a corporation which eight years before had
issued watered stock and bonds.^" The charter was forfeited
where a debenture company's subscribers paid
95
per cent, of
their subscription with money loaned to them by the company
upon their notes, and the stock was issued to them as full-paid,
contrary to the statute.
^^
One stockholder who participated in
the issue of stock to all of them, at less than par, can not com-
plain as a creditor, to have the others pay in full.^ A stock-
holder who has acquiesced in the issue of watered stock, is es-
topped to complain.^ The corporation having issued the stock
as paid-up is estopped from proceeding to collect the unpaid part
of the par value.
^"^
The stockholders who participate or aid in
tlie issue, are estopped by their acquiescence in it, from after-
82
Clark V. Bever, 31 Fed. Rep. Knight (1902), 74 N. Y. App. Div,
670. Ace. Kehlor v. Lademan 316.
(1883), 11 Mo. App. 550. But see
ss
state v. Webb (1892), 97 Ala.
Jackson v. Traer, 64 Iowa, 469; 111, 38 Am. St. Rep. 151.
s. c. 52 Am. Rep. 449, where a
SR
State v. .Tanesville, etc. Co.
railroad company issued certifi- (1896), 92 Wis. 496, 32 L. R. A.
cates of its stock of the face value 391.
of $350,000 in satisfaction of a
st
State v. New Orleans, etc. Co.
debt of $70,000, which it was un- (1899), 51 La. Ann. 1827.
able otherwise to discharge, the 88 Richardson v. Chicago, etc.
recipients were declared liable as Co. (Cal. 1900), 63 Pac. Rep. 74;
stockholders to the company's Wood v. Corry, etc. Co. (1900),
creditors for the eighty per cent. 44 Fed. Rep. 146.
of the par value yet remaining.
so
Clark v. American Coal Co.
(Rothrock, C. J., and Seevers, J., (1892), 86 Iowa, 436; Schilling v.
however, dissenting.) Schneider (1892), 110 Mo. 83;
83
State v. Webb (1892), 97 Ala. Barcus v. Gates (1898), 89 Fed.
111. Rep. 783; World, etc. Co. v. Ham-
si
Wells V. Green Bay, etc. ilton-Kenwood, etc. Co. (1900),
(1895), 90 Wis. 442; Reno, etc. 123 Mich. 620.
Co. V. Culver (1901), 60 N. Y.
oo
Dickerman v. Northern Tel
App. Div. 129; Thompson v. Co. (1900), 176 U. S. 181.
440 ISSL'E OF STOCK.
[
297.
wards complaining of it, as stockholders or creditors."^ The
transferee's title to the stock being tainted with the same fraud,
he is estopped from action to hold liable the corporation or the
stockholders."- A dissenting stockholder, if not estopped, may
maintain suit in equity to set aside any transfer of such stock.''-''
The corj^'orate creditors' established rights are based upon the
obligation of the subscriber for stock to pay for the same at
par, and they may enforce such payment regardless of his agree-
ment with the corporation that he may pay less than par.*** Only
creditors who became such after the issue of watered stock can
be heard to complain of its issue, and hold the stockholders liable."^
The issue of stock for no consideration is a void transaction, and
the holder is not liable thereon.^''
297.
Constitutional provisions as to watered stock.As-
suming that "watered stock" purporting to have been paid for
at par is harmful because, deceptive, and the common law allowing
it to be issued, many American states adopted constitutional re-
strictions intended to protect the people against watered stocks ; in
substance generally that "no corporation shall issue stocks, or
bonds except for money, labor done, or money or property actually
received, and all fictitious increase of stock or indebtedness shall
oe void." These provisions have generally failed in their pifr-
pose. Where they have been applied they are declared to have
been so disastrous to bona fide purchasers of stock, bonds and
other corporate securities, that courts now hesitate to declare them
void, as declared by the law, and have practically construed away
its intent.^ The practice has become so general to capitalize the
corporation at high figures, and issue stock for property at over-
valuation, that the investor now expects it, and no longer relies
upon its nominal capitalization, but before investing or giving
credit, examines into its financial condition. The only success
attained in prevention or control of the issue of w^atered stock
is in Massachusetts, where the issue by a corporation of stock or
bonds for property is prohibited until examined and approved by
commissioners appointed by the State, and thus the evil is pre-
91
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105 Sandf. Ch. 466; Scovill v. Thayer
U. S. 143. (1881), 105 U. S. 143.
92Higgins V. Landsingh (1895),
95
Handley v. Stutz (1S91), 139
154 111. 301. U. S. 417.
93Fisk V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.
"o
Kellerman v. Maier (1897),
(1868), 53 Barb. 513. 116 Cal. 416.
9*Sagory v. Dubois (1846), 3
97
Cook on Corp., 46.

2'J5.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 44:1

vented before the harm is done. "That State does not wait until
the stock and bonds have been issued and either sold or used
as collateral security. The remedy is applied in the origin of the
transaction, and has been found to be effective as well as
just, . . . On the other hand the Hood of litigation in the
courts of Alabama, Missouri and the other States, on this subject
is similar proof of the injustice and failure of the policy of
repudiation. Moreover, the bewildering currents of conflicting
decisions, even in those States where the most earnest efforts are
made to enforce the constitutional provisions, leave the investor
on an unknown sea, without chart, compass, landmark, or pilot."''^

298. Statutory provisions as to watered stock,In Eng-

land the statute regulates the issue of stock for property or service,
requiring publication by registry as condition precedent to the
validity of such contracts,
^^
In case of issue of stock for property,
in the absence of such registration, the stock was held paid for,
if the sums reciprocally due were expressly offset, otherwise cash
must be paid upon a winding-up, if the property is insufficient
payment.^ Decisions, in the States of this country, which have
adopted statutes upon the subject, are numerous, and are often
confused with cases decided alone upon the common law.
In New Jersey, under its statute regulating the issue of stock in
railroad corporations, where the company agreed to issue sixty
per cent, of its stock for two patents, one turning out worthless,
and the other was not perfected, the court said : "To justify a
corporation in issuing stock under our act for property purchased,
there should be an approximation, at least in true value of the
thing purchased, to the amount of the stock which it is sup-
posed it represents,"^
In Wisconsin, issue of stock at less than par is prohibited, as
also is the issue of bonds at less than seventy-five per cent, of
their face value,
^
In Ohio, stock issued for property at overvaluation, or issued to
a director at less than par, is void,*
In Iowa, where stock was issued for land, grossly overvalued,
98
Cook on Priv. Corp., 47.
2 Edgerton v. Electric Co.
90
Jw re Darlington Forge Co. (1892), 50 N. J, Eq. 354.
(1887), L. R. 34 Ch. Div. 522.
s
Mowry v. Farmers' etc. Co.
1 Pell's Case (1869), L. Pv. 5 Ch. (ISDfi), 76 Fed. 38.
App. 11; Dent's Case (1873), L. R. 4 Zabriskie v. Cleveland, etc. R.
15 Eq. Cas. 407, R. (1859), 23 How. 381,
442
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
298.
tlie vendor, a director, was held liable to the corporation for the
par value of the stock, less actual value of the land.^
In Minnesota, in case of issue of stock for property largely
overvalued, the stockholders are held liable to- creditors for the
difference between par value of the stock and real value of the
property."
In Maine, the stockholders, contrary to present statutes, were
formerly liable to corporate creditors, where stock was issued for
property overvalued.^
New York, since 1901,
has no restricting statutes upon the
subject, but formerly the directors of manufacturing corporations
were held liable to the creditors for issue of stock for property
intentionally taken at a fraudulent overvaluation.^
The constitutional provisions in Alabama and Missouri are con-
strued to protect innocent stockholders."
In Missouri it was held, where a large amount of paid-up stock
in a corporation to be organized, was issued to a promoter for his
services and interest in options on land, that the contract was not
enforceable, its consideration being no fair equivalent for the face
value of the stock,^"
In California, it is held that corporate stock issued and sold at
its market price, whatever that may be, is not fictitious stock.'^^
In Colorado the corporate stock issued without any payment
made, or agreed to be made, is void.^-
In Kentucky stock or bonds are invalid where issued for labor
or property whose market value is not equal to the par value of
the stock or bonds.^^
In Montana, stock issued for labor done, or for money or prop-
erty, is treated as unpaid to the extent of the difference between
the actual value of the property or labor, and the par value of the
stock.
^*
^Osgood V. King (1876), 42
'
214; Nicrosi v. Irvine (1893), 102
Iowa, 478. Ala. 648.
6 Hastings, etc. Co. v. Iron, etc.
10
Garrett v. Kansas City, etc.
Co. (1896), 65 Minn. 28. Co. (1892), 113 Mo. 330, 35 Am.
TLibby v. Toby (1890), 82 Me. St. Rep. 713.
397. "Stein v. Howard (1884), 65
8 Schenck v. Andrews (1874), Cal. 616.
57 N. Y. 133; Lake Superior Iron
12
Arkansas, etc. Co. v. Far-
V. Drexel (1882), 90 N. Y. 87; mers' etc. (1889), 13 Colo. 587.
Douglass V. Ireland (1878), 73 N.
is
Altenberg v. Grant (C. C. A.
Y. 100. 1898), 85 Fed. 345.
9 State V. Webb (1892), 110 Ala.
14
Kelly v. Clark (1898), 21
Mont. 291, 42 L. R. A. 621.

299.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 413

G.
THE TRUST FUND DOCTRINE.
299.
The trust fund theory as to stock.The theory is,
that "the capital of a corporation constitutes a trust-fund for
the benefit of creditors." According to the weight of authority
there is in reality no such doctrine.^^ "The property of the cor-
poration is 'a. trust-fund for the payment of its debts.' in the
sense that when the corporation is lawfully dissolved and all its
business wound up, or when it is insolvent, all its creditors are
entitled in equity to have their debts paid out of the corporate prop-
erty, before any distribution thereof among the stockholders. It
is also true, in case of a corporation, as in that of a natural per-
son, that any conveyance of the debtor without authority of law,
and in fraud, of existing creditors, is void."^ Only in this
sense is the trust fund doctrine recognized by the weight of
authority as sound.
^'^
Formerly, the United States courts re-
garded the capital stock as a trust fund for the benefit and security
of corporate creditors,^^ but its later and recent decisions dismiss
that doctrine regarding capital stock. "When a corporation is
solvent, the theory that its capital is a trust fund upon which there
is any lien for the payment of its debts, has in fact very little
foundation. No general creditor has any lien upon the fund under
such circumstances, and the right of the corporation to deal with
its property is absolute, so long as it does not violate its charter
or the law applicable to such corporation."^^ The trust-fund
doctrine was supposed to have been adopted by the United States
Supreme Court, but that court in passing upon the subect in
1893
decided that: "While it is true, language has been frequently
used to the effect that the assets of a corporation are a trust fund
held by a corporation for the benefit of creditors, this has not
been to convey the idea that there is a direct and express trust
attached to the property. ... In other words, that the cor-
15
Clark & Marshall Priv. Corp., Dovetail, etc. Co., 143 Ind. 550, 52
p. 2326; Coyt v. North Carolina, Am. St. Rep. 435.
etc. Co., 119 U. S. 343; Hollins v.
" wabash, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ham,
Brierfleld, etc. Co., 150 U. S. 371; 114 U. S. 587.
Handley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417; "Clark & Marshall Priv, Corp.,
Fogg V. Blair, 133 U. S. 534; p. 2326.
Corey v. Wadsworth, 118 Ala. 488;
is
Sawyer v. Hoag (1873), 17
Rockford, etc. Co. v. Standard, Wall. 610.
etc. Co., 175 111. 89, 67 U. S. Rep.
i9
McDonald v. Williams (1899),
205; First National Bank, etc. v. 174 U. S. 397.
4-14 ISSL'E OF STOCX.
[
299.
poration is an entity, distinct from its stockholders as from its
creditors. Solvent, it holds its property as any individual holds
his, free from the touch of a creditor who has acquired no lien;
free also from the touch of a stockholder who, though equitably
interested in, has no legal right to, the property. Becoming in-
solvent, the equitable 'interest of the stockholders in the property,
together with their conditional liability to the creditors, places the
property in a condition of trust, first, for the creditors, and then
for the stockholders. Whatever of trust there is, arises from the
peculiar and diverse equitable rights of the stockholders as against
the corporation in its property, and their conditional liability to its
creditors. It is rather a trust in the administration of the assets
after possession by a court of equity, than a trust attaching to
the property, as such, for the direct benefit of either creditor or
stockholder.-*' "As between the corporation and its creditors, the
corporation does not hold its property in trust for its creditors in
any other sense than does an individual debtor, and that, until a
court takes charge of the property of an insolvent corporation, it
has the same control over its property that an individual would
have over its property under like circumstances."-^ The doctrine
has given rise to much confusion of ideas as to its real meaning,
and much conflict in decision in its application. . . .
1*110
doctrine was invented by Justice Story in 1824, 'in Woods v.
Dummer
(3
Mason (U. S.) 308.) which called for no such in-
vention, the fact in that case being that a bank divided up two-
thirds of its capital among its stockholders without providing
sufficient funds to pay its outstanding bill-holders. Upon an old
and familiar principle, this was a fraud on creditors. Evidently,
all the eminent jurist meant by the doctrine was that corporate
property must first be appropriated to the payment of the debts
of the company, before there can be any distribution of it among
stockholders, a proposition that is sound upon the plainest prin-
ciples of common honesty. In Fogg v. Blair
(133
U. S.
534.)
it is said that this is all that the doctrine means. The expression
by Justice Story that "the capital of a corporation constitutes a
trust fund for the benefit of creditors" has been taken up as a new
discovery which furnished a solution of every question on the
subject, but the expression is misleading. Corporate property is
not held in trust in any proper sense of the term. A trust implies
20
Hollins V. Briei-field, etc. Co.,
-i
Napanee, etc. Co. v. Reid, etc.
(1893), 150 U. S. 371. Co. (1901), 60 N. E. 1063.

^'J'J.j ISSUE OF STOCK. 445

two estates, one equitable, and one legal ; one person as trustee
holding- the legal title, while another as the cestui que trust has
the beneficial interest. Absolute control and power of disposition
are inconsistent with the idea of a trust. The capital of a cor-
poration is its property. It has the whole beneficial interest in it,
as well as the legal title. It may use the income and profit of
it, sell and dispose of it the same as a natural person. It is a
trustee for its creditors in the same sense and to the same extent
as a natural person, but no further."-- There being, unless by
express statute, no personal liability on the part of the stock-
holder, for debts of the corporation, its creditors must look for
payment of their claims to the capital stock and other assets of
the corporation. In case of its insolvency its creditors are en-
titled to payment by the stockholder to the extent of any unpaid
subscription to his stock, aiid such paym^ent in equity may be
compelled by creditor's suit or other appropriate procedure. Many
of the courts have unnecessarily based this liability of the stock-
holder upon the theor}^ that the capital stock is a trust-fund for
the benefit of creditors.-^
The capital stock as a fund for
corporate creditors.The 'stock-
holders of a corporation being in general free from personal re-
sponsibility, the capital stock constitutes the sole fund to which
creditors may look for the satisfaction of their demands. It is
the basis of the credit which is extended to the corporation b}'
the public, and a substitute for the indi^ddual liability which exists
in other cases. So far as creditors are concerned, it has been
characterized as a trust fund pledged for the payment of the
debts of the corporation.-* Until they are paid, the stockholders
22
Mitchell, J., in Hospes v. ilfock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger v. Up-
Northv.-estern, etc. Car Co., 48 ton (1875), 91 TJ. S. 56, 60; Scam-
Minn. 174, 31 Am. St. Rep. 637. men v. Kimball, 92 U. S. 362, 367,
23
Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205. where the court said, "Such an
Og-ilvie V. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How- indebtedness [for unpaid shares]
ard, U. S. 380; Hastings v. Drew, constitutes an exception to the
76 N. Y. 9; Johnston v. Markle, rule that when there are mutual
etc. Co., 153 Pa. St. 189; Singer debts 'one may bs set against
V. Hutchinson, 183 111. 606, 75 Am. the other;'" Marshall v. Killian
St. Rep. 133; Wishard v. Hansen, (1SS8), 99 N. C. 501; s. c. 6 Am.
99 Iowa, 307, 61 Am. St. Rep. 238; St. Rep. 539; Eunn's Appeal
Wallace v. Carpenter, etc., 70 (1884), 105 Pa. St. 49; Ogilvie v.
Minn. 321, 68 Am. St. Rep. 530. Knox Ins. Co. (1859), 22 How.
24
Wood V. Dummer (1824), 3 380; Mumma v. Potomac Co.
Mason, 308, per Story: Sawyer v. (1834), 8 Peters, 281; Payson v.
Hoag, 17 Wall. 610; Upton V. Trib- Stoever (1873), 2 Dillon, 427;
Uij
ISSUE OF STOCK.
[
:^99.
are postponed ; they are only entitled to that which remains, after
the claims of the creditors are extinguished. This is as true of the
unpaid shares subscribed or balances due thereon, as of the amount
which has been actually paid in. Such unpaid shares and balances
are as much a part of the capital stock as the sums which have
already been realized thereon. Aside from the funds on hand,
they often constitute the only resource of the company. They are
debts due to it, the payment of which can be enforced by its offi-
cers. The delinquent subscribers are its debtors, and the directors
are clothed with authority to compel them to pay.-^ Creditors are
supposed to have trusted as well to the unpaid subscriptions and
to the fair and faithful exercise of the compulsory power for their
payment, as to the sums actually paid in ; and when it becomes
necessary to their security or satisfaction, they have a legal right,
either by the voluntary action of the proper officers, or through
the aid of the courts of the country, to have it exercised in their
behalf.- If, therefore, by the wilful or stubborn inaction of the
Webster v. Upton (1875), 91 U. S.
G5, 66, 67; Chubb v. Upton (1877),
95 U. S. 665.
25
Wood V. Dummer (1824), 3
Mason, 308, per Story; Bassett v.
St. Albans Hotel Co. (1875),- 47
Vt. 313; Tarbell v. Page (1860),
24 111. 46; Osgood v. Laytin, 3
Keyes (N. Y.), 521; s. c. 5 Abb.
(N. S.) 1; Thompson v. Reno Sav-
ings Bank (1885), 19 Nev. 103;
s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 797; Allen v.
Montgomery R. Co., 11 Ala. 437;
Goodwin v. McGehee, 15 Ala. 232,
246; Smith v. Huckabee, 53 Ala.
191, 195; Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala.
159; s. c. 60 Am. Rep. 92, 94;
Jones V. Arkansas Mechanical, etc.
Co., 38 Ark. 17; Ward v. Griswold-
ville Manuf. Co., 16 Conn. 593,
599; State v. Commercial State
Bank (Neb. 1890), 44 N. W. Rep.
998, where' it was held that the
assets of a banking corporation
organized under the laws of Ne-
braska, after it had ceased to
carry on business, are a trust
fund for the payment of its debts.
The rights of the creditors to the
corporate property are superior to
those of the stockholders, or the
assignee of an insolvent stock-
holder; Crandall v. Lincoln, 52
Conn. 73; s. c. 52 Am. Rep. 560,
562; Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga.
486; s. c. 52 Am. Dec. 412; Farjis-
worth V. Robbins (1887), 36 Minn.
369; Haskell v. Sells, 14 Mo. App.
91; National Trust Co. v. Miller,
33 N. J. Eq. 155; Wetherbee v. Ba-
ker, 35 N. J. Eq. 501.
26
Wood V. Dummer (1824), 3
Mason, 308, 2)er Story; Mann v.
Pentz, 3 N. Y. 415, 422; Dayton
V. Borst, 31 N. Y. 435, 436; Bart-
lett V. Drew, 57 N. Y. 587, 589;
Hastings v. Drew, 76 N. Y. 9;
Gilmore's Ex'rs v. Bank of Cin-
cinnati, 8 Ohio, 62, 71; Bank of
Virginia v. Adams, 1 Pars. Sel.
Cas. 534; Lane's Appeal, 105 Pa.
St. 49; s. c. 51 Am. Rep. 166;
Jewell V. Rock River Paper Co.
(1882), 101 111. 57; Reid v. Eaton-
ton Manuf. Co., 40 Ga. 98, 102;
s. c. 2 Am. Rep. 563, 565; Alli-
bone V. Hagar, 46 Pa. St. 48,
where the court said that what-
ever might be the law between
the delinquent subscribers and
the corporation, the rights and
equities of the corporate creditors

2y0.] ISSUE OF STOCK. 447

directors or stockholders, the company fails to meet its obligations
and perform its duties, a court of equity will, on a proper applica-
tion, afford th.e requisite relief.-' The interest of the general cred-
itors of a company in the unpaid subscriptions of its members is
not impaired by a mortgage of ''the property, rights, privileges and
franchises" of the corporation.-*" It is necessary in speaking of
the assets of an insolvent corporation as constituting a trust fund
to understand precisely what is meant by the courts. No one will
pretend for a moment that in subscribing to the stock of a com-
pany, the purpose is to create a trust fund for creditors. On the
contrary, the object primarily, is to furnish means to carry on
its business, and to share the profits earned by the corporation
;
and so long as it is a going concern, it has the right, and indeed
it is its duty, to manage and dispose of its assets, including stock
subscriptions, for the promotion of its own interest. If it ceases
to do business, or if it becomes insolvent, then all assets which it
has or owns, including paid and unpaid subscriptions, either in
the hands of the original subscriber, or in the hands of his assignee
vvith notice, become liable to the creditors, and they have
the right to follow the property and subject it to the payment of
their debts, unless it has passed into the hands of a bona fide
purchaser without notice.^^
were not to be affected thereby; courts, a mandamus is sometimes
Clapp V. Peterson (1882), 104 111. awarded to compel the directors
26, 31; Robertson v. Conrey, 5 La. to make the necessary calls; . . .
Ann. 297; Rider v. Morrison but this remedy can avail only
(1880), 54 Md. 429, 444; Payne v/here there are directors. The
V. Bullard (1851), 23 Miss. 88; remedy in equity is more com-
s. c. 55 Am. Dec. 74. See also plete, and is well recognized.
Whitwell V. Jacobs, 75 Wis. 474. (Ward v. Griswoldville M. Co.,
27
Wood V. Dimimer (1S24), 3 16 Conn. 593.) In such cases it
Mason, 308, per Story; Burke v. is nowhere held, so far as we
Smith (1872), 16 Wall. 390; Nev/ know, that a formal call must be
Albany v. Burke (1870), 11 Wall, made before a bill can be filed.
96; Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Indeed, the filing of the bill is
Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. 280; Dalton, etc. equivalent to a call." County of
R. Co. V. McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191, Morgan v. Allen (1880), 103 U.
saying, "Principle and sound rea- S. 498; Marsh v. Burroughs, 1
son accord with authority that Woods, 463, 468; Curran v. Ar-
equity will grant relief in all kansas (1853), 15 How. 304; Mis-
such cases;" Germantown, etc. sissippi, etc. R. Co. v. Howard, 7
Ry. Co. v. Fitler (1869), 60 Pa. Wall. 392, 409; Thompson v. Reno
St. 124; Crawford v. Rohrer Savings Bank (1885), 19 Nev. 242;
(1882), 59 Md. 599; Lewis v. Rob- s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 883.
ertson (1850), 21 Miss. 558; Hatch
28 Dean v. Biggs (1881), 25
V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 215, where Hun, 122.
the court said, "In the English
29
Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1.
4-18 ISSL'E OF STOCK.
[
3UU, oUl.

300. Right of subsequent creditors to question right to

convey corporate property.In law a corporation is as dis-
tinct a being as an individual. To the extent its charter has not
restricted its power to hold property, it is entitled to hold, enjoy it,
and dispose of it as absolutely as an individual can hold it. Not
until it is insolvent can a court of equity treat its assets as a trust-
fund for the payment of its debts ; and then in the same manner
as it would in case of any natural person,^** As between the cor-
poration and its creditors the relation is simply that of debtor and
creditor; it does not hold its property in trust or subject to a lien
in their favor, in any other sense than does an individual debtor.''^
"Neitlier the insolvency of the corporation, nor the execution of
an illegal trust deed, nor the failure to collect in full all stock-
subscriptions, nor all together, gave to these simple contract cred-
itors, any lien upon the property of the corporation, nor charged
any direct trust thereon."^'

301. The theory net recognized in England.In England,

where this doctrine has not been recognized, the creditors have
no higher rights against the shareholders than the company it-
self. They "can obtain nothing but what the company can get
from the shareholders,""^ The price to be paid for shares is there
regarded as a matter of contract irrespective of their face value.^^
And a person who has entered into a valid contract to take fully
paid-up shares, can not be made liable to the company or its
creditors for shares not fully paid, which have been registered in
his name.^^ The only safeguard of persons extending credit to
English companies is a statutory requirement that contracts for
the issue of stock at less than par, shall be in writing and be filed
with the Registrar of Joint-Stock Companies.
^^
Shares may even
30
Graham v. La Crosse, etc. Ry. right." Waterhouse v. Jamieson,
Co., 102 U. S. 148. L. R. 2 H. L. 29, 37,
31
Hollins V. Brierfield, etc. Co.,
34
Guest v. Worcester Ry. Co.,
150 U. S. 371. L. R. 4 C. P. 9; Baron De Beville's
32
Hollins V. Brierfield, etc. Co., Case, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas. 9; Carling's
150 U. S. 371. Case, 1 Ch. Div. 115, distinguish-
33
In re Dronfield, etc. Co., 17 Ing Ex parte Daniel, 1 De G. & J.
Ch. Div. 76; In re Ambrose, etc. 377,
Co., 14 Ch. Div, 390; In re Ince
35
Ashworth v. Bristol, etc. Ry.
Hall, etc. Co., 30 Week. Rep. 945. Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 561; Guest v.
The rights of creditors against Worcester, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 4 C,
the shareholders when enforced P, 9.
by a liquidator "must be enforced
so
30 & 31 Vic, ch, 131, 25, and
by him in right of the company; 32 & 33 Vic, ch. 48, 5, repealing
what is to be paid by the share- 26 & 27 Vic, ch. 118, 8 21.
holders is to be recovered in that
^^
oUla.] ISSUE OF STOCK.
4-19
be issued by way of gift and the recipient incur no liability there-
on, if the agreement under which it is done be duly registered."^
Even this statutory requirement operates rather as a warning than
as a safeguard; for while an unregistered contract not to require
full payment of the stock issued to a subscriber, is declared ultra
vires,^^ the courts have declined to hold the taker of stock at less
than par, liable thereon because of the ultra vires nature of the
issue ; for, it is said, assuming that the contract was ultra vires
what would be the result? It can then be set aside only in toto,
the consequence being that the holders would be entitled to be
relieved of their shares and to receive back the money paid upon
them.^'' In harmony with these decisions is that of Hollis v.
Brierfield.^o

301a. American trust fund doctrine.This doctrine that

the assets of a corporation are a trust-fund for the payment of
its creditors, that they have an equitable lien upon it, superior to
that of the stockholders ; and that the directors are trustees for its
creditors, is becoming obsolete.*^
Of
zvhat the fund consists.Under the doctrine, the trust fund
consists of all the subscribed stock ; the money subscribed, whether
or not paid in ; and the money paid in and which has been wrong-
fully divided among the stockholders, leaving the corporate debts
unpaid.*^ Every stockholder, to the extent of his unpaid sub-
scription at par, is deemed to hold so much of this fund in his
pocket, which a court of equity will compel him to pay or
surrender for the payment of corporate debts.
^^
The doctrine 7nakes shareholders trustees
for
creditors.Such
delinquent shareholders are held to be constructively trustees for
the creditors, unaffected by the statute of limitations, so long as
the corporation survives.**
37
Watt V. Lee (1888), 3 Ry. &
4i
Schley v. Dixon, 24 Ga. 273,
Corp. L. J. 430; s. c. 39 Cli. Div. 71 Am. Dec. 121; Lexington, etc.
190. Cf. In re London Celluloid Co. v. Bridges, 7 H. Mon. (Ky.)
Co. (1888), 4 Ry. & Corp. 'L. J. 556, 46 Am. Dec. 528.
69, 70.
42
Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga.
38
7n re London Celluloid Co. 486, 52 Am. Dec. 412; Sanger v.
(Eng. Ct. of Appeal, May 31, Upton, 91 U. S. 56.
18SS), 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 69, 70.
-is
Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How.
39
7/z re Ince Hall, etc. Co., 30 (U. S.) 304; Adler v. Milwaukee,
Week. Rep. 945. etc. Co., 13 Wis. 57.
40
Hollins V. Brierfield, etc. Co.
44
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala.
(1893), 150 U. S. 371. 371; Payne v. Bullard, 23 Miss.
5, 55 Am. Dec. 74.
Vol. 1

29
450
ISSUE OF STUCK.
[
30li.
Trust fund
doclrine applies to insolvent corporations.It is a
settled doctrine of the United States Supreme Court that the
capital stock of an insolvent corporation is a trust fund for the
payment of its debts
;
that the law implies a promise by the original
subscribers of stock who did not pay for it in money or other
property, to pay for the same when called upon by creditors ; and
that a contract between themselves and the corporation that the
shares shall be treated as fully-paid and non-assessable, or other-
wise limiting' their liability therefor,, is void as against creditors.^'

301b. Trust fund. Theory now obsolete.In Alabama

it is held that there is no jurisdiction in equity at the suit of a
corporation creditor to coerce the payment by stockholders of their
subscriptions to its capital. "The trust-fund doctrine has in times
past received the recognition of this court, but not so now." To
the contrary, the proposition as a whole and in part, has been
repudiated by this court, and it has been directly ruled, adjudged
and settled that the assets of a corporation and its capital and
subscriptions, due to its capital stock, are part of assets, and under
no circumstances constitute a trust fund for its creditors, hut that,
so far as creditors are concerned, all the property, including its
choses in action of all kinds, is held and owned by it just as
property, choses in action, or what not, is held and owned -"by
an individual debtor, subject to no interest, no trust resting en-
tirely on the artificial character of the debtor.^
Bonus stock. Trust fund.
Pleading. Trust-fund theory.

The facts of the case that invoked the invention of the trust-fund
theory by Justice Story, were that a bank divided up two-thirds
of its capital stock among its stockholders without providing funds
sufficient to pay its outstanding bill holders. This, upon old
and familiar principles, was a fraud on creditors, and called for
no such invention as that of the trust-fund doctrine, and it is
evident that the eminent jurist meant no more by it, than that
corporate property must first be appropriated to pa3'ment of the
corporate debts before any distribution of it can be made among
45
Sawyer v. Hoag (1S73), 84 kins v. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319; Gra-
U. S. , 17 Wall. 610; Handley ham v. La Crosse, etc. Co., 102 U.
V. Stiitz (1890), 139 U. S. 417; S. 148; Richardson v. Green, 133
Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; U. S. 30.
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Web- 46
Hall v. Henderson (1900), 134
ster V. Upton. 91 U. S. 65; Chubb Ala. 455; O'Brear Jevs'elry Co. v.
V. Upton, 95 U. S. 665; Pullman Volfer, 106 Ala. 205. 28 L. R. A.
V. Upton. 96 U. S. 328: Morgan 707; Corey v. Wadsworth, 118 Ala.
Co. V. Allen, 103 U. S. 498; Haw- 488, 44 L. R. A. 766.

yOlc'.]
ISSL'E OF STOCK. 451
the stockholdes. It is a plain principle of common honesty, as true
in the case of a corporation as in that of a natural person, that
any conveyance of the property of the debtor without authority of
law, and in fraud of existing creditors, is void. The property
of a corporation is doubtless a trust fund for the payment of its
debts in the sense that when the corporation is lawfully dissolved
and all its business wound up, or when it is insolvent, all its
creditors are entitled in equity to have their debts paid out of
the corporate property before any distribution thereof is made
among stockholders. But the phrase that "the capital of a corpor-
ation constitutes a trust fund for the benefit of creditors," is mis-
leading. Corporate property is not held in trust in any proper sense
of the term. A trust implies two estates or interests, one equitable,
and one legal. One person as trustee, holds the legal title, while
another, as the cestui que trust, has the beneficial interest. The ab-
solute control and power of the corporation over its property, the
whole beneficial as well as legal interest in it, are inconsistent
with the idea of a trust. It is a trustee for its creditors to the
same extent as a natural person, but no further.*^

301C. New stock and other stock which is not chargeable

with a trust.In every case where the courts have impressed
a trust upon the subscription of the shareholders, it has been in
favor of creditors, becoming such afterwards, and therefore pre-
sumed as relying upon the amount of capital the company was
represented as having, and no case is found where any such trust
was enforced in favor of creditors who dealt with the corporation
with the full knowledge of the facts, for in such cases they suf-
fered no fraud, actual or constructive. As to new shares issued
after the claim of the creditor arose, he could not have dealt with
the corporation on the faith of any capital represented by such
new shares. And so if the creditor deals with a corporation with
full knovv"ledgc that its nominal paid-up capital has not been paid
for in money or property, to the full amount of its par value, he
deals on the faith of what has been actually paid in and has no
equitable right to insist on the contribution of a greater amount
of capital by the shareholders, than the corporation itself could
claim as part of its assets.*^
47
Hospes V. Northwestern, etc. 541; Graham v. La Crosse, etc. Co.,
Co. (1892), 48 Minn. 174, 15 L. R. 102 U. S. 148.
A. 470, 30 Am. St. Rep. 627; Wa-
48
First National Bank v. Gus-
hash, etc. R. Co. v. Ham, 114 U. ten, etc. Co. (1890), 42 Minn. 327.
S. 587; Fogg v. Blair, 133 U. S. 6 L. R. A. 676, 18 Am. St. Rep.
510.
CHAPTER XIII.
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
302.

302-304.J
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
453

302. Call defined.A call is a requirement by resolution

and notice, by the corporate officers for payment of all or of a
part of the subscriptions to the capital stock.

303.
The terms "call" and "assessment" distinguished.

As used with reference to subscriptions to capital stock, the term

"call,"' usually means the resolution of the Board of Directors,
declaring payable at a time named, all or a portion of the unpaid
subscriptions.^ "The word 'call' is capable of three meanings. It
may either mean the resolution, or its notification, or the time
when it becomes payable. It must mean either one of these
three."^ The term "assessment" as to unpaid subscriptions, is
used in the same sense as "call," but, also used to indicate demands
made upon stockholders for payments above the par value of their
stock, to meet the money demands of creditors, or of the cor-
poration. "Call" applies to unpaid subscriptions, while "assess-
ment" applies also to stock full paid.

304.
Pa5mient by instalments.Instalment is one of the
several part payments, into which a single call may be divided.
If the subscription is all payable at once or upon a day certain, or
upon instalments payable at specified times, no call is necessary,
in order to render the subscriber liable to action on his subscrip-
tion.^ No call is necessary in case of insolvency of the corpora-
tion.* Subscription is a promise to pay, but not at a time cer-
tain. The time of payment or payments, is to be named by the
corporation in its declaration, known as a "call." A subscription
is a debt payable at a future time.^ The call must precede any
liability of the subscriber to an action upon his subscription.^ The
whole amount of a subscription is seldom required to be paid at
one time, but is usually to be paid in instalments as the affairs
of the corporation require. This is implied by the language of
statutes conferring upon directors the power to require subscrip-
tions to be paid in such instalments as they deem proper.'^ And
in the contract itself, there isaisually some phrase, such as, "when
the directors shall require," or "when called," indicating that
1 Germania, etc. Co. v. King
5
Pittsburg, etc. R. R. v. Clarke
(ISOfi), 94 Wis. 439. (1S57), 29 Pa. St. 146.
2 Ambergate, etc. Ry. v. Mitchell
e
Grosse, etc. Co. v. FAnson
(1849), 4 Exch. 540. (1880), 42 N. J. L. 10.
3 New Albany, etc. Co. v. Mc-
"!
E. g. Revision of N. J., p. 926,
Cormiclc, 10 Ind. 499, 71 Am. Dec.
7; N. Y. Laws of 1875, ch. 108,
337.
8; N. Y. Laws of 1850, cb. 140,
4Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105 7.
U. S. 143.
454
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
304.
the balrincc is to be paid in instalments.^ So that, as a general
rule, the amount not paid at the time of taking the shares, is
not due and payable until regularly called for by the board of
directors;" and aii action to enforce payment does not lie until
they have done so.^ B-ut notwithstanding such provisions as
those referred to above, if the corporate affairs require it, there
is no rule of law rendering a call for the whole amount invalid.^
^
Even an express statutory provision that only a certain sum shall
be called at any one time, seems not to render a resolution of
8 Williams v. Taylor (1890), 120
N. Y. 244; Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v.
I'Anson (1880), 34 N. J. 442.
-J
Williams v. Taylor (1890), 120
N. Y. 244; Grosse Island Hotel v.
I'Anson (1880), 42 N. J. 10; s. c.
43 N. J. 442; Braddock v. Phila-
delphia, etc. R. Co. (1888), 45 N.
J. 363; Williams v. Taylor (1890),
120 N. Y. 244, distinguishing Lake
Ontario R. Co. v. Mason, 16 N. Y.
451; Howland v. Edmonds, 24 N.
Y. 307, and Tuckerman v. Brown,
33 N. Y. 297, and reversing s. c.
41 Hun, 545; Grissill's Case, L. R.
1 Ch. App. 528, 535; Bank v. Abra-
hams, L. R. 6 C. P. App. 262.
10
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Row-
ley, 9 Fla. 508; Grissill's Case, L.
R. 1 Ch. App. 528, 535; Wilber v.
Stockholders, 18 Bankr. Reg. 178;
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co., 45 N. J. 363; Spangler v. In-
diana, etc. R. Co., 21 111. 276;
Banet v. Alton, etc. R. Co., 13 111.
504; Bank v. Abrahams, L. R. 6
P. C. App. 262; Granite Roofing
Co. V. Michael, 54 Md. 65, holding
that a call is necessary before the
subscription can be enforced even
when stock has been fraudulently
issued as fully paid, for property
taken at an overvaluation. But
when payment is to be made in
land, the subscriber having failed
to convey, when suit is brought
for damages, it is not necessary
to allege that a call has been
made, an allegation of a general
demand being sufficient. Cheraw,
etc. R. Co. V. Garland (1880), 14
S. C. 63; Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Cra-
mer, 23 Ind. 490. A balance due
on a subscription to the capital
stock of a corporation, to be paid
when calls should be made there-
for, is not liable to garnishment
on a claim against the corpora-
tion when no call has been made.
Teague v. Le Grand (Ala. 1889),
5 So. Rep. 287. But, as a matter
of course, a call is unnecessary
if the contract of subscription or
the charter of the company fix a
certain time for payment. Phco-
nix Warehousing Co. v. Badger
(1876), 67 N. Y. 294; Goodrich^ v.
Reynolds, 31 111. 490; Waukon, etc.
R. Co. V. Dwyer, 49 Iowa, 121;
Breedlove v. Martinsville, etc. R.
Co., 12 Ind. 114; Ross v. Lafay-
ette, etc. R. Co., 6 Ind. 297; New
Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Pickins, 5
Ind. 247.
11
Fox V. Allensville, etc. Turn-
pike Co. (1874), 46 Ind. 31; Haun
V. Mulberry, etc. Co., 33 Ind. 103;
Ross V. Lafayette, etc. R. Co., 6
Ind. 297; Spangler v. Indiana, etc.
R. Co., 21 111. 276; Hays v. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co. (1861), 38 Pa.
St. 81; Rutland, etc. R. Co. v.
Thrall (1863), 35 Vt. 536; London,
etc. R. Co. V. McMichael, 4 Eng.
L. & Eq. 459; s. c. 20 L. J. Ex.
227; Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Webster, and Ambergate Ry. Co.
v. Norcliffe, 20 L. J. Ex. 234; s.
CASES, 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 461; In re
Jennings, 1 Ir. Ch. 654. But see
Stratford, etc. Ry. Co. v. Stratton,
2 Barn. & Ad. 519.
Cf. Lewis'
Case, 28 L. T. N. S. 396.

305.]
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
455
the directors void, which, while ordering several calls for that
amount, makes them pa3ablc at different times.^^ But when the
charter provides that calls shall be made at certain intervals,
several calls made at one time are invalid.
^^

305.
When a call i,s necessary.Unless for payment of
preliminary expenses, there is no liability to call on subscription,
until compliance by the corporation with the conditions precedent
to its right to commence business. It is necessary to make a
call to render the subscription, or any part of it, payable to the
corjDoration. It is hot due until call made. A call is unnecessary
if the subscription be made payable upon a day certain, by its
terms, or by the charter or other statute.^* Although calls can not
be validly made for any but a legal object,^^ the necessity for them
can not be questioned by the shareholders, as that is for the
directors to determine.^ But where there is evidence of fraud
or impending corporate insolvency, the court will examine the
matter, and if necessary, set aside the call.^' Calls must bear
equally and upon all the shares
;^
and therefore, when made upon
the towns and cities subscribing for stock, not including the stock
held by private persons, they are void,^^ and may be set aside and
rectified.-** There is no ground upon which a call can be made
when the number of shares has not been fixed by charter, or
determined by the directors.^^ Where the capital stock of a cor-
poration is fixed at a given sum, divided into shares of a certain
amount each, the capital must be fully subscribed before the sub-
12
Penobscot R. Co. v. Diimmer Co. v. Floyd, 74 Mo. 286, 290;
(1855), 40 Me. 172; s. c. G3 Am. Yetts v. Norfolk Ry. Co., 3 De G.
Dec. 654; Penobscot R. Co. v. & Sm. 293; Jiiclah v. American
Dunn, 39 Me. 587; Browne & The- Live Stock Assn., 4 Ind. 333; Ex
obald's Ry. Law, 77, citing Amber- 'parte Stanley, 33 L. J. Ch. 535.
gate Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 4 Eng.
it
Haberton's Case, L. R. 5 Eq.
L. & Eq. 461; English Companies Cas. 286; Sykes' Case, L. R. 13 Bq.
Clauses Act of 1845, 8 Vic, ch. 16, Cas. 255.

22.
18
Pike v. Bangor, etc. R. Co.
13
Stratford, etc. Co. V. Stratton, (1878), 68 Me. 445; Preston v.
2 Barn. & Ad. 518. Grand, etc. Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327.
14
Phoenix, etc. Co. v. Badger 19
Pike v. Bangor, etc. R. Co.
(1876), 67 N. Y. 294. (1878), 68 Me. 445, 446.
15
South Eastern Ry. Co. v. Heb- 20 Preston v. Grand Dock Collier
blethwaite, 12 Ad. & E. 497. Co., 11 Sim. 327, 346.
16
Budd V. Multnomah St. Ry.
21
Somerset, etc. R. Co. v. Cush-
Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413; s. c. 3 ing (1858), 45 Me. 524; Worcester,
Am. St. Rep. 169; New Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Hinds, 8 Cush. 110;
etc. R. Co. V. Fields, 10 Ind. 187; Cabot, etc. Bridge v. Chapin, 6
Bailey v. Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co., Cush. 50; Troy, etc. R. Co. v. New-
12 Beav. 433, 440; Chouteau Ins. ton (1857), 8 Gray, 596.
456 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
30G, 307.
scriber can be subject to calls.-- Stock subscribed for, after a call
has been made, is not subject thereto.-^ The company can not
legally contract to postpone indefinitely the making of calls.-* Nor
can directors legally postpone making a call so as to have an op-
portunity to escape liability by disposing of the stock held by
them.26

306. Calls by whom to be made.A call to be valid must

be made by the authorized managing agents of the corporation.-"
A call made at a director's meeting, no quorum being present, is
void.-^

307.
Delegation of authority to make calls.A power
granted to a company to raise a fund in addition to its capital
stock, by assessment upon the stockholders, can be exercised by
the stockholders only.-* But calls for the balance due upon sub-
scriptions to shares, are to be made by the directors in their
capacity as general managers of the corporate affairs,-^ unless
the power be expressly vested by the charter in the stockholders
at large. Even when that is the case, however, they may, and
frequently do, delegate their power to the directors.'" When,
however, the power of making calls is vested in the directors,
they can not deleg'ate it to others, as, to an executive committee
of their own number,
^^
although they may commission anotlTier,
for example, the president, to determine the amounts and times
of payment of the instalments.^^ If the directors have illegally
delegated their authority and the call has been made by another,
22
Hale V. Sanborn, 16 Neb. 1. Rep. 540. Contra, Ex parte Win-
23
Pike V. Bangor, etc. R. Co. sor, 3 Story, C. C. 425.
Cf.
Haim
(1878), 68 Me. 445. v. Mulberry, etc. Gravel Road Co.,
24
Van Allen v. Illinois Central 33 lud. 103.
R. Co., 7 Bosw. 515; McComb v.
so
Rives v. Montgomery, etc.
Credit Mobilier Co., 13 Phila. 468. Plank R. Co. (1857), 30 Ala. 92.
25
Gilbert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. But in Ex parte Wlnsor (1844),
App. 559; Preston v. Grand Col- 3 Story, C. C. 411, 425, 426, it was
lier Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327. held that the delegation of the
28
Budd V. Multnomah, etc. Co., authority must be express, and
15 Oregon, 413, 3 Am. St. Rep. that it would not be inferred from
169; Moses v. Tomkins, 84 Ala. a by-law declaring that the direc-
613. tors shall take care of the inter-
27
Price V. Grand Rapids, etc. ests and manage the concerns of
R. R., 13 Ind. 58. the corporation.
as
Marlborough Manuf. Co. v.
3i
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall,
Smith (1818), 2 Conn. 579. 35 Vt. 536.
29
Budd V. Multnomah Street
^-
Banet v. Alton, etc. R. Co.
Ry. Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413; (1851), 13 111. 504.
Cf.
Hays v.
Amebergate Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 38 Pa. St.
4 Eng. L. & Eq. 461; s. c. 4 Ex. 81.

308-310.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 457

a subsequent ratification by the directors will make it their own
act and therefore valid,^^

308. Discretion of the directors in making.The discre-

tion lies with the managing directors to determine as to the
necessity and purpose of making a call or assessment upon unpaid
subscriptions, and as to the manner of their payment.^*

309.
Calls upon insolvency of the corporation.In case
of insolvency of the corporation, and there remain unpaid sub-
scriptions, there need be no call by the directors for purpose of
paying the corporate debts. A court of equity will disregard
the formality of call and order payments to be made to a re-
ceiver.^^

310. Calls by the court. Mandamus to compel calls.

When stock is subscribed, to be paid upon call of the company,
and the company refuses or neglects to make the call, a court
of equity may itself make the call, if the interests of the creditors
require it. The court wall do what it is the duty of the company
to do.'** But under such circumstances, before there is any ob-'
ligation upon the stockholder to pay without an assessment and
call by the company, there must be some order of a court of
competent jurisdiction, or, at the very least, some authorized de-
mand upon him for payment.^'^ Accordingly, as unpaid sub-
33
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall The defendant owed the creditors
(1S63), 35 Vt. 536. nothing, and he owed the com-
3-t
Great Western, etc. Co. v. pany nothing save such unpaid
Purdy, 162 U. S. 329; Stone v. portion of his stock as might be
Great Western Oil Co., 41 111. 85. necessary to satisfy the claims of
35
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105 the creditors. Upon the bank-
U. S. 143; Glenn V. Saxton (1886), ruptcy of the company, his obli-
68 Cal. 353; Re Minnehaha, etc. gation was to pay to the assignees
Assn. (1893), 53 Minn. 423. upon demand such an amount
3G
Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. upon his unpaid stock as would be
143, 155; Hawkins v. Glenn sufficient, with the other assets
(1889), 131 U. S. 319; Glenn v. of the company, to pay its debts.
Liggett (1890), 135 U. S. 533; s. c. He was under no obligation to
8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 52. The court pay any more, and he was under
in Hawkins v. Glenn (1889), 131 no obligation to pay anything un-
U. S. 319, cited the rule laid down til the amount necessary for him
in Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. to pay was at least approximately
143, 155, as applying to the case, ascertained. Until then his obli-
and said: "In that case it was gation to pay did not become com-
said by Mr. Justice Woods, speak- plete.'
"
ing for the court: 'There was no 37
Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S.
obligation resting on the stock- 143, 145; Hawkins v. Glenn
holder to pay at all until some (1881), 131 U. S. 319; Glenn v.
authorized demand in behalf of Liggett (1890), 135 U. S. 533; s. c.
creditors was made for payment. 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 52.
458
CALLS AND AhSKiiS.M KNTS.
[310.
scriptions constitute a fund for ihc payment of corporate debts,
when a creditor has exhausted his legal remedies against the
corporation which fails to make an assessment, he may, by bill
in equity or other appropriate means, subject such subscriptions
to the satisfaction of his judgment, and the stockholder can not
then object that no call has been made.^^ For, as between creditor
and stockholder, it would seem to be singular, if the stockholders
could protect themselves from paying what they owe by setting
up the default of their own agents.^" In a suit by a creditor,
where the corporation and the trustees are made parties defend-
ant, a court of equity may by its decree direct a stock assessment
for the benefit of creditors, which will bind stockholders who are
not individually parties to the suit.*" Accordingly, where a
3s
Hawkins V. Glenn (1880), 131
U. S. 319; Glenn v. Liggett (1S90),
135 U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 52, in which case the court
quoting the former case said:
"The condition that a call shall
be made is, under such circum-
stances, as Mr. Justice Bradley-
remarks in In re Glen Iron Works,
20 Fed. Rep. 674, 681, 'but a spi-
der's web, which the first breath
of the law blows away.'
"
39
Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205,
214; Hawkins v. Glenn (1889),
131 U. S. 319; Glenn v. Liggett
(1890), 135 U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 52.
40
Hawkins v. Glenn (1889), 131
U. S. 319. In Glenn v. Liggett
(1890), 135 U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 52, it was said:
"It was also contended in that
suit by the defendant that the de-
cree of the chancery court of the
city of Richmond was void as
against him, because he was not a
party to the suit. On the latter
ponit this court said: 'We under-
stand the rule to be otherwise,
and that the stockholder is bound
by a decree of a court of equity
against the corporation in enforce-
ment of a corporate duty although
not a party as an individual, but
only through representation by
the company. A stockholder is
so far an- integral part of the
corporation that in view of the
law he is privy to the proceed-
ings touching the body of which
he is a member;' citing Sanger
V. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 58; County
of RTorgan v. Allen, 103 U. S. 498,
509; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md.
93, 116; Hamilton v. Glenn (1889),
85 Va.
901." And further: "The
point is taken by the defenc^nt
that, under the statute of Virginia,
the balance remaining unpaid on
subscriptions to the stock was pay-
able as called for or required by
the president and directors of the
company; that it appears by the
amended petition that the con-
tract between the company and
the subscribers v/as that eighty
dollers per share was payable
'only in such amounts and at such
times as the same might be re-
quired to be paid by the said com-
pany through its president and
board of directors;' and that it
is not averred in the amended pe-
tition that either the president or
any of the directors was a party
to the suit in the chancery court
of the city of Richmond. But
the president and directors stand
for the corporation, and it is al-
leged in the amended petition that
the corporation was a party to
the amended bill, and that it was
duly served with process in the
cause in accordance with the laws

310.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 45i)

corporation made an assignment to a trustee, including therein
unpaid subscriptions, and provided that future assessments should
be payable directly to the trustee, and a decree to which the stock-
holders were not individually parties, made an assessment on said
stockholders, and directed the trustee to take such steps to collect
the same as he might be advised, the trustee might sue therefor
in his own name, the decree being valid and binding on the stock-
holders."*^
Calls by courts
of
equity.Where stock is subscribed to be
paid upon the call of the company, and the company becomes in-
solvent and refuses or neglects to make the call, a court of equity
will assume the function if the interests of the creditors require
it."*- In England the courts have, at the instance of corporate
creditors, compelled the directors of a corporation to issue a call for
unpaid subscriptions, by mandamus*^ a doubtful remedy in the
United States.*'* Although a call is generally necessary to fasten
the obligation absolutely upon the stockholders, yet in case of cor-
porate insolvency, no call is necessary. It is sufficient that a
court of equity orders the subscriptions to be paid.*^ A decree
of a court of equity making an assessment upon the capital stock
and practice of the state of Vir-
ginia. Tlie corporation sufficiently
represented the president and di-
rectors in their officia,! capacitj^
in which alone they were to act
in making a call, and it also, as
held in Hawkins v. Glenn, 131 U.
S. 319, sufficiently represented the
defendant."
41
Vanderwerken v. Glenn
(1888), 85 Va. 9.
42
Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S.
H3; Robinson v. Bank, 18 Ga. 65;
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371;
Ward V. Griswoldville Manuf Co.,
16 Conn. 59.3, 601. Where share-
holders are liable to the corporate
creditors as a class, the legal rem-
edy is inadequate and the aid of
equity must be invoked. Rounds
V. McCormick, 114 111. 252.
43
Queen v. Victoria Park Co.,
1 Ad. & E. N. S. 544; Queen v.
Ledyard, 1 Ad. & E. N. S. 616;
King V. St. Catharine Dock Co., 4
Barn. & Ad., 360.
44
Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205;
Dalton, etc. R. Co. v. McDaniel,
56 Ga. 191. Cf. Cuculla v. Union
Ins. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 573; Allen
V. Montgomery, etc. R. Co., 11 Ala.
437.
45
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56;
Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods,
463; Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf.
Ch. 466; Glenn v. Williams, 60
Md. 93; Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U.
S. 143, 155; Hatch v. Dana, 101
U. S. 205, 214; Chubb v. Upton,
95 U. S. 665; Wilbur v. Stock-
holders, 18 Bankr. Reg. 178; My-
ers V. Seeley, 10 Bankr. Reg. 411;
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371;
Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala. 150; s. c.
60 Am. Rep. 92; Robinson v. Bank
of Darien, 18 Ga. 65; Ward v.
Griswoldville Manuf. Co., 16 Conn.
593; Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R.
Co., 17 Ohio, 187. Cf. German-
town, etc. R. Co. V. Fitler. 60
Pa. St. 124; Chandler v. Keith,
42 Iowa, 99: Mann v. Pentz, 3 N.
Y. 415; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co.,
22 How. 380; Adler v. Milwaukee
Manuf. Co., 13 Wis. 62. And see
Seymon v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134;
460 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
311.
of a corjioration for the pa}ment of corporate debts is binding
upon all stockholders whether or not they were individually parties
to the action.^" A call by trustees or directors is only a step in
the process of the collection of unpaid subscriptions, and there-
fore a court of equity may pursue its own method of collection
provided no injustice is done the stockholders.*^ The dissolution
of a corporation does not destroy the right of creditors to enforce
the unpaid subscriptions to the stock, and they may reach this fund
through the courts of equity.
''^
Although it is a rule of the com-
mon law that debts due to and from a corporation are extinguished
by its dissolution, yet when the legislature has interposed to pre-
vent that result, the courts must sustain the legislative enact-
ments.*^ Where an assignment for the benefit of its creditors has
been made by a corporation, it is competent for the court in
chambers during vacation to authorize by order the collection of
all the unpaid balance due on stock.
^^
Mmidamus to compel calls.

Mandamus by creditors of cor-

porations to compel the officers to make calls for the purpose of
raising funds to meet their demands, is a remedy to which a
resort does not appear to have been attempted in this country;
and the use of the writ for this purpose has been doubted.
^^
But in England a mandamus, is sometimes granted.^^ Creditors
need not, however, apply for a mandamus, but may compel the
payment of unpaid subscriptions by suit in equity.^^

311. Notice of call or assessment.Whether notice of

calls is a pre-requisite to an action to enforce their payment is
Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353; Cucnllu v. Union Ins. Co. (1842),
Briggs V. Penniman, 8 Cow. 387, 2 Rob. (La.) 573; Allen v. Mont-
395; s. c. 18 Am. Dec. 454; Sal- gomery, etc. R. Co. (1847), 11 Ala.
mon V. Hamborough Co., 1 Cas. 437.
Ch. 204.
52
Queen v. Victoria Park Co., 1
46
Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93. Q. B. 288; Queen v. Ledyard, 1 Q.
47
Crawford v. Rohrer (1882), B. 616; King v. St. Catherine Dock
59 Md. 599. Co., 4 Barn. & Adol. 360.
48
Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga.
53
Ward v. Griswoldville Manuf.
486 (1850) ; s. c. 52 Am. Dec. 412; Co., 16 Conn. 593, 601: Dalton, etc.
Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 46. R. Co. v. McDaniel, 55 Ga. 191. A
49
Robinson v. Lane (1856), 19 foreign insolvent corporation, if
Ga. 337; Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. still in existence, could be com-
459; Lane v. Morris (1850), 8 Ga. pelled by mandamus, or by bill
468, 476. in equity, to collect the unpaid
50
Citizens,' etc. Trust Co. v. subscriptions from its stockhold-
Gillispie (1887), 115 Pa. St. 564.
'
ers. If it had ceased to exist, a
51
Hays V. Lycoming F. Ins. Co., receiver should be appointed, who
98 Pa. St. 184; Hatch v. Dana would represent the corporation.
(1879), 101 U. S. 205; Dalton, etc. Patterson v. Lynde, 112 111. 196,
R. Co. V. McDaniel, 56 Ga. 191.
Cf.
206.

311.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 461

a point upon which the authorities are conflicting. j\Iany well
considered cases hold that it is
f*
while there seems to be a larger
array of cases to the contrary.
^^
Where no provision is made in
the charter or statute, or otherwise prescribed, the opinion prevails
that no notice is necessary, but that action may be maintained
without averring it or proving it.^*^ After notice has been given,
however, certainly no demand is necessary before bringing suit
to collect.
^^
Service
of
notice.Unless otherwise expressly provided, the
notice must be either in writing or orally given to the subscriber,
naming amount, time, place, and person to whom payment is to
be made.^^ Notice by mail, or by publication is not effective,
unless it is shown to have been received, or read as published.^^
When provision is made by statute, charter or by-laws for notice
of calls by publication in a gazette or journal, the fonnalities
prescribed must be strictly followed
;^
yet all that is generally
required in the absence of statutory, charter or by-law provisions
as to the form of notice, and the time and manner of serving it,
is that for a reasonable interval before the call is due, the share-
54
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc.
R. Co., 45 N. J. 363; Granite Roof-
ing Co. V. Michaels, 54 Md. 65;
Dexter, etc. Co. v. Millerd, 3 Mich.
91; Hughes v. Antietam Manufac-
turing Co. (1S70), 34 Md. 316.
See also Carlisle v. Cahav/ba, etc.
R. Co., 4 Ala. 70; Alabama, etc.
R. Co. V. Rowley, 9 Fla. 508; Wear
V. Jacksonville, etc. R. Co., 24 111.
593; Spangler v. Indiana, etc. R.
Co., 21 111. 275; Rutland, etc. R.
Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536; Essex
Bridge Co. v. Tuttle, 2 Vt. 393;
Miles V. Bough, 3 Q. B. 845.
ssPeake v. Wabash R. Co., 18
111. 88; Penobscot R. Co. v. Dum-
mer (1855), 40 Me. 172; s. c. 63
Am. Dec. 654; Eakright v. Lo-
gansport, etc. R. Co., 13 Ind. 404;
Brownlee v. Ohio, etc. R. Co., 18
Ind. 68; Smith v. Indiana, etc. R.
Co., 12 Ind. 61; Breedlove v.
Martinsville, etc. R. Co., 12
Ind. 114; Johnson v. Craw-
fordsville R. Co., 11 Ind. 280; New-
Albany, etc. R. Co. V. McCormick,
10 Ind. 499; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 337;
Fisher v. Evansville, etc. R. Co.,
7 Ind. 407; Ross v. Lafayette, etc.
R. Co., 6 Ind. 297; New Albany,
etc. R. Co. V. Pickins, 5 Ind. 247;
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Ma-
son, 16 N. Y. 451; Harlem Canal
Co. V. Seixas, 2 Hall (N. Y.), 504;
Illinois River R. Co. v. Zimmer
(1858), 20 111. 654; Grubbe v.
Vicksburg, etc. R. Co., 50 Ala.
398; Eppes v. Mississippi, etc. R.
Co., 35 Ala. 33; Wilson v. Wells
Valley R. Co., 33 Ga. 466; Macon,
etc. R. Co. V. Vason (1876), 57
Ga. 314; Danbury, etc. R. Co. v.
Wilson, 22 Conn. 485.
56
Wilson V. Wills, etc. R. R.
(1863), 33 Ga. 466.
5T
Winters v. Muscogee R. Co.,
11 Ga. 438; Penobscot, etc. R. Co.
V. Dummer (1855), 40 Me. 172;
s. c. 63 Am. Dec. 654; Goodrich
V. Reynolds, 31 111. 491.
Cf.
Spangler v. Indiana, etc. R. Co.,
21 111. 275. b.
58
Smith V. Tallahassee, 30 Ala.
650.
5
North, etc. Co. v. Bishop
(1,899), 103 Wis. 492.
CO
Thus a requirement that
sixty days' notice be given, is not
complied with by publication
4:62
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
312.
liolders shall have actual knowlcdci^e of the amount and day of
payment. Tliis may be done verbally, by letter, or by newspaper
publication."^ When notice is given by publication in a journal,
it must be proven that the article was actually read by the stock-
liolder."- According to the general principle above announced,
proof of the fact of mailing is not sufficient ; it must be proved to
have been received also.'^'^ For the doctrine of constructive notice
does not apply unless by express statutory provision.*'* But proof
that notice of a call was duly mailed to a subscriber, has been held
to make a prima facie case of notification.*'''' In either case
ivhether it was ever received is a question of fact for the jury.*"^
Calls. Waiver
of
Notice.A stockholder waives irregularity
in calls and notice by participating as director in proceedings
making and ratifying the calls.*'^

312. Call as to time and place for payment,As interest

on subscriptions to stock runs from the time that the call is
due,^* and as notice of the time of i^ayment must be reasonable,*'
forty-nine days before. Macon, etc.
R. Co. V. Vason (1876), 57 Ga.
314.
61
Jeremiah Black, J., in Lin-
coln V. Wright, 23 Pa. St. 76; s. c.
62 Am. Dec. 316; New Jersey Mid-
land R. Co. V. Strait, 35 N. J. 322;
Shackleford v. Dangerfield, L. R.
3 C. P. 407; Newry, etc. R. Co. v.
Edmunds, 2 Ex. Rep. 118; Mis-
sissippi, etc. R. Co. V. Gaster, 20
Ark. 455; Tomlin v. Tonica, etc.
R. Co., 23 111. 429; Smith v. Tal-
lahasse Plank Road Co., 30 Ala.
650, 666; Braddock v. Philadel-
phia, etc. Co. (1883), 45 N. J. 363;
Hall V. United States Insurance
Co., 4 Gill (Md.), 484.
Cf.
Louis-
ville, etc. Co. V. Merreweather, 5
B. Mon. 13; Danbury, etc. R. Co.
V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435. A pro-
vision for notice by publication
"at least sixty days," is complif^;
with by one publication sixty
days before. Muskingum "Valley
Turnpike Co. v. Ward, 13 Ohio,
120; s. c. 42 Am. Dec. 191; Marsh
V. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463.
62
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Row-
ley, 9 Pla. 508. See oUter Lake
Ontario, etc. R. Co. v. Mason, 16
N. Y. 451; Tomlin v. Tonica, etc.
R. Co., 23 111. 429; Rutland, etc.
R. Co. v. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536; ,Un-
thank v. Henry County Turnpike
Co.. 6 Ind. 125.
63
Hughes V. Antietam Manuf.
Co. (1870), 34 Md. 316.
6i
Hughes V. Antietam Manuf.
Co. (1870), 34 Md. 316.
05
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc.
R. Co. (1883), 45 N. J. L. 363.
Ace. Eastern Union Ry. Co. v. Sy-
monds, 6 Ry. Cas. 578; Jones v.
Sisson, 72 Mass. 228. See also
Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. Div.
574; Reid v. Harvey, 5 Q. B. Div.
184.
66
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc.
R. Co., 45 N. J. L. 363.
67
Grabner v. Post (Wis. 1903),
96 N. W. 783.
68
Gould v. Oneonta, 71 N. Y.
298; Burr v. Wilcox, 22 N. Y. 551.
The English Companies Clauses
Act of 1845 provides that "if be-
fore or on the day appointed for
payment, any shareholder do not
en
Fairfield, etc. Co.- v. Thorp,
13 Conn. 173.
Cf.
Hall v. United
States Insurance Co., 4 Gill (Md.),
484.

312.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 4GJ

even if no specified notice is required to be given/ the resolution
for a call must state the time at which it is to be paidJ^ The
directors' resolution need not state the place of payment, neither
pay the amount of any call to
which he is liable, then such
shareholder shall be liable to pay
interest for the same at the rate
allowed by law from the day ap-
pointed for the payment thereof
to the time of actual payment."
The Companies Clauses Act, 1S45,
8 Vic, ch. 16,
23. A special
claim for the interest is not nec-
essary in an action under this
act; but the amount claimed
should cover the interest.
Browne & Theobald's Ry. Law,
78, citing Southampton Dock Co.
V. Richards, 1 Macn. & G. 488;
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fair-
clough, 2 Macn. & G. 674.
TO
Fairfield, etc. Co. v. Thorp,
13 Conn. 173. See 1375, infra,
as to notice.
Ti/ra
re Cawley & Co., 42 Ch.
Div. 209. In an editorial article,
"What is necessary to a goovi
Call on Shares" (1890), Law
Times, 166, this case is discussed
as follows: In that case one of
the articles laid it down "that
the amount payable on the
shares in the capital shall be
payable at the bankers of the
company, or at such other place
as the board shall appoint, with
such deposit and such instalments
and manner, and at such time,
as shall be appointed from time
to time by the board." And an-
other said that "all calls in re-
spect of shares shall be deemed
to be made at the time when the
resolutions authorizing them are
passed by the board." This being
so, a resolution was passed by
the board in the following terms:
"That the remainder of the capi-
tal be and is hereby called up,
payable as follows: As to shares
numbered, etc., the sum of 5s.
per share paj'able on the daj*'
of , and as to the whole of
the shares of the company" (ex-
cept certain shares which had
been issued as fully paid up)
"5s. per share payable on the
day of , and 5s. per share
payable on the day of
."
The dates of the calls were left
in blank in the resolution, the
chairman deposing that he did
not think it necessary to insert
the dates or to order immediate
notice of the calls to be sent out,
because he was still hoping that
other financial arrangements
might be made which would dis-
pense with the necessity of en-
forcing the calls. Before the next
meeting of the board, three days
later, the three blanks in the
minutes of the resolution were
most properly filled in by the
secretary by the insertion of three
proximate dates. It appeared
that the secretary had no instruc-
tions to alter the minutes, and
that be inserted the dates of the
calls in the exercise of his own
discretion. At the next board
meeting the minutes of the pre-
vious meeting, v/ith the dates of
the calls thus inserted, were
"read and confirmed." On these
facts the court of appeal dis-
tinctly laid down that a resolu-
tion for a call, to be valid, must
state not only the amount of the
call, but also the time at which
It is to be paid; this being so,
in this case there was no proper
call made until the second resolu-
tion fixing the date of payment,
and that the second resolution did
not, in point of date, relate back
to the first. The opinion of Lord
Esher, M. R., was that at the first
of the two board meetings there
was no call whatever made. The
directors could not, of course,
make a call without a resolution,
and there could be no valid call
46i CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[312.
is it necessary that it should specify the person to whom pa}ment
shall be made. It is sufficient that these matters of detail be
set forth in the notice sent to the shareholders ; and when not
specified therein, the money is deemed payable to the treasurer
of the company at his usual place of business.''^
in this company until the time
and place for its payment had
been appointed by the board; that
is to say, until it had been re-
solved by the directors that the
call should be payable in certain
instalments, and in a certain man-
ner, and at a certain time ap-
pointed by the board. The article
quoted says, "as shall be appointed
from time to time." That means
that the directors are not bound
to make a call of the whole of the
unpaid capital, but they may make
a call of part only, and at an-
other time they may deal with the
rest, so that there may be suc-
cessive calls until the whole of
the capital has been called up.
After making a call, as, for in-
stance, of 5s. per share, if a par-
ticular number of shareholders
did not pay on the day appointed,
the directors might appoint an-
other day, but only after they
had made a valid appointment
of a certain day in the first in-
stance; then, owing to interven-
ing circumstances, they might ap-
point a further day on which
those who had been called upon
to pay on the first day, and had
not paid might pay the call.
Failing payment on that day, the
remedy of the directors was either
by action or by forfeiture. And
again. Lord Justice Fry added
that, in this company, according
to the articles which we have
quoted, the fixing of the time was
of the essence in the making of
a call: "In fact," he added, "I
scarcely know what the making
of a call is, except the fixing of
the time at which the money is
to be paid. I am clearly of opin-
ion that, according to the con-
stitution of the company, no call
was made until the time for pay-
ment was fixed. All the ar-
ticles in fact show that the fix-
ing of the tim-e was an essential
part of the call." It will be ob-
served that the Lord Justice was
careful to guard himself by the
articles of the company, and he
laid down no general proposition
apart from the articles. And
Lord Justice Cotton did not ad-
vert to the point. But the Mas-
ter of the Rolls added a post-
script to his judgment, which ef-
fectually prevents the decision in
the case being rested merely on
the particular articles. Lord
Esher said: "I do not wish it to
be supposed that my decision in
this case rests only on the ar-
ticles. I take it to be of the viery
essence of a call that the time
and place for payment should be
determined." The time of the call
can not, it seems, be fixed by a
mere verbal direction to the sec-
retary of the company. Johnson
V. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 5 Ch.
Div. 687. Though a resolution
that a call "shall be made" on a
future day is good, the time,
place and manner of payment
may be fixed by a distinct act
after the original resolution.
Sheffield, etc. Ry. Co. v. Wood-
cock, 7 Mees. & W. 574.
72 Danbury, etc. R. Co. v. Wil-
son (1853), 22 Conn. 435; Great
North, etc. Ry. Co. v. Biddulph,
7 Mees. & W. 243. That a reso-
lution need not specify the time
and place of payment, see: Rut-
land, etc. R. Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt.
536; Great North, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Biddulph, 7 Mees. & W. 243. That
a resolution need not state the
person to whom it shall be pay-
able see: Great North, etc. R. Co.
313.]
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 465

313-
Validity of calls.There are no formal requisites to
the validity of a call.'^^ The validity or sufficiency of calls depends
upon the laws of the state wherein the corporation is located^*
A resolution by the directors showing their intent to render pay-
able a part or all of unpaid subscription constitutes a call, or as
it is frequently loosely termed an "assessment."''^ Accordingly a
call may be valid notwithstanding a failure to enter the resolution
in the minutes of the meeting.'*' A call being nothing more than
an official declaration that the sums subscribed are required to
be paid/' it has been said that a shareholder shall not take ad-
vantage of any irregularity therein
;'
nor may a director who
participated in making it set up its informalities.'''' A call is
scarcely anything more than the fixing of the time when money
is to be paid.^" The making of the call, or informalities in the
notice thereof, may be waived by the subscriber, either expressly
or by implication from certain acts.^^ So also errors in making
V. Biddulph, 7 Mees. & W. 243.
So also notice to pay the treas-
urer of the company is a sufficient
designation of the place of pay-
ment, namely, at his office. Mus-
kingum Valley Turnpike Co. v.
Ward, 13 Ohio, 120; s. c. 42 Am.
Dec. 191. Contra, Dexter,, etc.
Plank Road Co. v. Millerd, 3 Mich,
91.
73
Fox V. Allensville, etc. Turn-
pike Co., 46 Ind. 31; Andrews v.
Ohio, etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. 169.
74
American Pastoral Co. v.
Gurney, 61 Fed. 41.
75
Budd V. Multnomah Street R.
Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413; s. c.
3 Am. St. Rep. 169. The word
call is capable of three meanings.
It may mean either the resolution
by the corporate authorities that
payment be made on the subscrip-
tions, or the notification to the
subscribers, or it may be used to
refer to the time when payment
becomes due. Ambergate, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Mitchell, 4 Ex. Rep. 540.
Cf.
Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ed-
munds, 2 Ex. Rep. 118; Braddock
V. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. (1S83),
45 N. J. 3G3. But either meaning
taken must be consistently ad-
hered to. Thus the interval be-
VOL. 1

30
tv/een the making of calls can not
be reckoned from the time the call
is payable in one case, to the
time when the resolution for the
call is made in the other. Am-
bergate, etc. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell
(1849), 4 Ex. 540.
70
Hays v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co. (1860), 38 Pa. St. 81.
77
Braddock v. Philadelphia, etc.
R. Co. (1883), 45 N. J. 363.
Gf.
Spangler v. Indiana, etc. R. Co.,
21 111. 275, b.
78
7n re British Sugar Ref. Co.,
3 Kay. & J. 408; Richards v.
Southampton Dock Co., 1 Man. &
Gr. 448; s. c. 2 Ry. Cas. 215, 234.
79
Hays V. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co. (1860), 38 Pa. St. 81.
80
7n re Cawley & Co., 42 Ch.
DiV. 209.
81
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Vason
(1876), 57 Ga. 314; Rutland, etc.
R. Co. V. Thrall, 35 Vt. 536. But
it has been held that the vote of
a city to pay a call does not waive
its invalidity. Pike v. Bangor,
etc. R. Co., 68 Me. 445. And pay-
ment of a portion of the subscrip-
tion is no waiver of the right to
require calls to be made for the
balance. Grosse Isle Hotel Co. v.
I'Anson (1881), 43 N. J. L. 442.
4l)C CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
314, 315.
a call may be cured by a subsequent call after the liability has
accrued and before action brought.*^ As a further matter, not
merely formal, when calls are made by the directors, it is essential
to their validity that they be made by a majority of a quorum.^^
Accordingly, in England, if directors have been illegally elected,
their calls and forfeitures may be set aside.^* But in this country,
it is sufficient that the calls were made by directors de facto.^^
And an allegation that the directors were duly elected is un-
necessary."

314.
Mode of making calls.It is requisite to the validity
of a call that it shall be made in the manner prescribed, if any,
in the charter, by laws, or articles of association.^^ To make a
valid call, no formality is necessary by the Board of Directors
except : "That there should be some act or resolution which
evinces or shovvs a clear official intent to render due and payable
a part or all of the unpaid subscription."^^
Inequality.A call must be made alike upon all stockholders
who are equally delinquent in payment.^^

315.
Evidence that call was made.The books of a corpo-
ration are competent evidence to prove that one is a stockholder,
and the state of his account in respect to his shares."" They are
prima facie
evidence and throw the burden of proving the con-
82
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
st
California, etc. Hotel Co. v.
Hickman (1857), 28 Pa. St. 318. Callender, 94 Cal. 120, 28 Am. Rep.
83
Hamilton v. Grand Rapids, 99.
etc. R. Co. (1859), 13 Ind. 347;
8s
Budd v. Multnomah St. Ry.
Price V. Grand Rapids, etc. R. Co., 15 Oregon, 413, 3 Am. St.
Co., 13 Ind. 58; Cowley v. Grand Rep. 169.
Rapids, etc. R. Co., 13 Ind. 61;
89
Great Western Telegraph Co.
Pike V. Bangor, etc. R. Co., G8 v. Burnham, 79 Wis. 47, 24 Am.
Me. 445; Silver Hook Road v. St. Rep. 698.
Greene, 12 R. I. 164.
so
Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S.
84
Ira re Garden Gully, etc. Co., 418; Glenn v. Orr (1887), 96 N.
L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39; Swansea C. 413; Vanderwerken v. Glenn,
Dock Co. V. Lewien, 20 L. J. Ex. 85 Va. 9; Barrington v. Pitts-
85
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Vason burgh, etc. R. Co., 34 Pa. St. 358,
447. 3G4; Comfort v. Leland, 3 V/hart.
(1876), 57 Ga. 314; Eakright v. (Pa.) 81, 88. In a case in which
Logansport, etc. R. Co. (1851), 13 it appeared that a person had
111. 404; Steinmitz v. Versailles R. agreed to subscribe for some of
Co. (1877), 57 Ind. 457; Johnson the shares of the stock of the
V. Crawfordsville R. Co., 11 Ind. company, under the name it then
280. bore; that by his proxy he partic-
86
Steinmitz v. Versailles, etc. ipated in the organization of the
Turnpike Co. (1877), 57 Ind. 457; company; and that, on motion of
Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co., 52 his proxy, the corporate name was
Ind. 51. changed to that borne at the time

315.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 467

trary upon the person whose name or account so appears
f^
par-
ticularly when the genuineness of the subscriptions in question
is not denied, and another assessment levied by the same authority
as the one resisted, has been paid."- The entry in the record book
of the board of directors of a turnpike company, signed by the
secretary, is competent evidence of the act of the board requiring
payment from subscribers to capital stock."^ But when an action
is brought to enforce payment of a call, proof must be given that
it was made by the proper corporate authorities. That the notice
itself declares the call to be made by the board of directors, is
no proof of the fact.*** An authorized call for a subsequent in-
stalment is evidence that the former had been made by authority,
the former being necessarily implied by the later call."^ But if
the directors rely upon the fact that a former call is void, they
must prove it or show that it has not been paid." An action for
calls under the English Companies Clauses, Act of
1845,
will not
lie against a person who is not shown to be the holder of some
specific shares."^ This act provides that it is sufficient for the
of the assessment, his name also
appearing on the company's books
as holder of the stock, it is suf-
ficient evidence of his being a
stockholder of the present com-
pany. In that action the books
of the corporation being identi-
fied by its superintendent and
trustee in an assignment, and
having been previously proved be-
fore a commissioner in a chan-
cery suit to which the corpora-
tion was a party, and it being
shown that the books now offered
were the same used by the com-
missioner, upon which his report
had been made, which report was
confirmed, in the absence of any
circumstances tending to discredit
the books they were admitted as
evidence. A^anderwerken v. Glenn
(188S), 85 Va. 9. And where a
statute provided that a person in
v>'hose name shares of stock stand
on the books of a company shall
be deemed the owner thereof, as
regards the company, and a com-
pany's stock ledger showed that
five certificates of fifty shares
each were issued in the name of
a person who testified that he
transferred three of these certifi-
cates to third persons, but who
failed to have them transferred
to their own names on the books;
and that of the remaining shares,
he transferred fifty to othfer per-
sons, the transfer being made on
the books, it was held that, as to
creditors, he still remained the
owner of two hundred shares.
Hawkins v. Glenn (1889), 131 U.
S. 319.
91
Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S.
418; Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Rice, 7
Barb. 157; Coffin v. Collins, 17 Me.
440; Whitman v. Granite Church,
24 Me. 256; Wood v. Coosa, etc.
R. Co. (1861), 32 Ga. 273; Hoag-
land V. Bell, 36 Barb. 57.
92
Lehman v. Glenn (1889), 87
Ala. 618.
93
Fox V. Allensville, etc. Co.
(1874), 46 Ind. 31.
94
New Jersey Midland Ry. Co.
V. Strait (1871), 35 N. J. 322.
95
Barrington v. Pittsburgh, etc.
R. Co. (1859), 34 Pa. St. 358.
90
W^elland Ry. Co. v. Berrie, 6
Hurl. & N. 416.
9T
Wolverhampton, etc. Co. v.
Hawkesford, 6 C. B. N. S. 336;
4:06 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[316,317.
company to prove, in an action to enforce the payment of calls,
that the defendant at the time they were made was the holder
of one or more shares, and that the call was in fact made and
such notice thereof given as is directed by the statute or the
special act of incorporation ; and it is not necessary to prove the
appointment of the directors who made the call, nor any other
matter whatsoever.^*

316. Payment of calls after transfer; who is liable.A reg-

istered stockholder is not released from liability to pay an assess-
ment, by transfer of the stock after the call has been made, but
before it is payable.'-'^

317.
Effect of transfer on liability for calls.Where shares
of stock have been assigned, but from neglect, or omission from
any cause, the assignor remains the nominal owner on the books
of the company, there is an implied obligation on the part of
the assignee to reimburse him for money paid on calls made
by the company on the stock during the time he remains nominal
owner.^ If the shares have been a second time transferred, the
original transferrer may have recourse upon either of the trans-
ferees.- The obligation to indemnify previous holders of the
Companies Clauses Act of 1845, 8 the second transferee, Hawkins
Vic, ch. 16,
26. v. Maltby, L. R. 3 Ch. 188. The
98
8 Vic, ch. 16, 27. holder of shares in a corporation
99
Campbell v. American Alkali agreed to sell them, and placed
Co. (1903), 125 Fed. 207. the certificate in the hands of a
1
Brinkley V. Hambleton (1SS7). third party, to be delivered to
67 Md. 169; Johnson v. Underhill, the vendee on payment of a note
52 N. Y. 203; Brigham v. Mead given for the stock, but the note
(1865), 10 Allen, 245; Lord v. was never paid, and the stock re-
Hutzler (1886), 64 Md. 534; Kel- mained on the books of the cor-
logg V. Stockwell, 75 111. 68; Cas- poration in the name of the ven-
tellan v. Hobson, L. R. 10 Eq. Cas. dor. Though the vendee voted on
47; Kellock v. Enthoven, L. R. 9 the stock by virtue of a proxy,
Q. B. 241; s. c. L. R. 8 Q. B. 458; and the note was subsequently
Bowring v. Shepherd, L. R. 6 Q.
taken by the corporation, but not
B. 309; Davis v. Haycock, L. R. on account of any transaction be-
4 Ex. 373; Grissell v. Bristowe, tween it and him, he was not lia-
L. R. 3 C. P. 112; Chapman v. bie to the corporation for unpaid
Shepherd, L. R. 2 C. P. 228; assessments on the stock. Cor-
Walker v. Bartlett, 18 Com. B. mac v. Western White Bronze Co.
845; Humble v. Langsdon, 7 Mees. (1889), 77 Iowa, 32. And where
& W. 517; Morawetz on Corpora- one sold and delivered stock in a
tions, 2d ed., 175.
Cf.
Shaw v. corporation, for a certain sum
Fisher, 2 De Gex & Sm. 11; s. c. cash, and it was agreed that the
5 De Gex, M. & G. 596. vendor should have the option
2
Kickalls v. Eaton, 23 L. T. N. for a time, to take back the stock,
S. 689, as to the first, and as to on payment of a large sum, and

31Ta, 318.] CALLS and assessments. 469

stock is confined to the holders of the shares at the time the call
was made by the company.^ But whether in case a call is made
before, but payable after, a transfer has been completed, it should
be paid by the transferrer, must be largely determined by the
circumstances, the contract between the parties, and the statutes
;*
though in some cases the transferee has been held liable.^ An
original stockholder, who has been compelled to pay calls on stock
after he has assigned it, is entitled to be subrogated to the rights
of the corporation against the delinquent assignee, only upon clear
proof of acceptance of the transfer by the assignee."

317a. Calls upon shareholders for unpaid subscriptions.

Where the stock certificate provides that stockholders of record

when assessments are levied for unpaid subscriptions, shall be
liable therefor, it is binding upon a person who acquired his stock
subsequent to the organization of the corporation and who had
sold his stock and given the corporation notice of the sale before
the assessment was made, but had failed to surrender his certificate'
or to furnish to the company the name of his vendee.'^

318. Calls after consolidation.After several companies

have consolidated, the new company may maintain actions against
all assessments made after the it was decided that the blotter of
contract of sale, and the vendor the company's treasurer, and the
afterwards paid an assessment, stubs of its check-book, both of
and thereafter, before the option which contained entries to the ef-
expired, notified defendant that feet that defendant had paid calls
he declined to exercise the option on the shares, were inadmissible
or take back the stock, *it was as evidence, the assignee being a
held that the vendor could not stranger to the corporation. And
recover from defendant the as between the administrator of
amount of the assessment paid. the original stockholder and his
Treadway v. Johnson, 33 Mo. App. alleged assignee, who denies hav-
122. ing bought the stock or authorized
3 Brinkley V. Hambleton (1887), the transfer, the record of the
67 Md. 169. transfer upon the books of the
1
Schenectady, etc. Plank Road company is not sufficient proof of
Co. V. Thatcher, 11 N. Y. 102, 113; acceptance by the assignee to ren-
North American, etc. Assn. v. der him liable to the estate for
Bentley, 19 L. J. Q. B. 427. See calls and assessments paid by it
Thompson on Liability of Stock- subsequent to the assignment;
holders, 210; Morawetz on Cor- and this is especially so where
porations, 2d ed., 161. the transfer was made under a
.5 West Philadelphia Canal Co. power of attorney given by the
V. Innes, 3 Whart. 198; Aylesbury original stockholder, and executed
Ry. Co. V. Mount, 4 Man. & G. at his instance without the knowl-
651; s. c. 5 Scott's N. R. 127. edge or consent of the assignee.
6 Tripp V. Appleman (188S), 35 7 Brown v. Morton (N. J. Supp.
Fed. Rep. 19. In the same case 1904), 58 Atl. 95.
470
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
319.
the stockholders of the old companies who have become stock-
holders of the new, for calls on their shares.** The new share-
holders, however, can not be sued for assessments on their new
stock until the organization of the new company has been lawfully
perfected." Moreover, calls made by the original companies, re-
maining unpaid at the time of consolidation, are also payable to
the consolidated corporation, and payment thereof may be en-
forced by the latter as if the calls had been originally made by
it.^ But the stockholder is not precluded from questioning the
validity of the steps which have led up to the pretended con-
solidation." For unless a consolidation be authorized, the new
company can not enforce the payment of calls on the stock of the
former.^^ It seems, too, that the corporation must prove its cor-
porate existence unless the shareholder has in some way recognized
it.i^

319.
Pleading and practice in suits to enforce payment.

In actions to enforce the pa)^ment of calls, facts sufficient to

show that they are due and payable must be alleged in the plead-
ings.^* As each contract is to be separately construed and to
be in no way affected by the terms of other subscriptions,^^ an ac-
tion against subscribers jointly to enforce the payment for stock
will not lie, for the contract of subscription is not joint but
several.^" And accordingly when one person makes two sub-
8 Cork, etc. R. Co. v. Patterson, England. 26 & 27 Vic, cli. 92,
18 C. B. 414; Fisher v. Evansville,

52.
etc. R. Co., 7 Ind. 407; Hanna v.
n
Tuttle v. Michigan Air Line
Cincinnati, etc. R. Co., 20 Ind. R. Co., 35 Mich. 247, 249; Penin-
30; Washburn v. Cass County, 3 sular R. Co. v. Tharp, 28 Mich.
Dill. 251; Swartwout v. Michigan, 506; Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v.
etc. R. Co., 24 Mich 389; Wells v. Brown, 26 Ohio St. 223; Mansfield,
Rodgers, 60 Mich. 525; Cooper v. etc. R. Co. v. Stout, 26 Ohio St.
Shropshire Union R., etc. Co., 13 241.
Jur. 443; Foss v. Harbottle, 2
12
Thrasher v. Pike County R.
Hare, 461; s. c. 7 Jur. 163; Exeter, Co., 25 111. 393.
etc. R. Co. V. Buller, 11 Jur. 527;
is
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Drin-
Lord V. Cooper Miners' Co., 18 L. ker, 30 Mich. 124, and cases cited
J. Ch. 65; Mozley v. Alston, 1 supra.
Phil. Ch. 790; s. c. 11 Jur. 315;
1*
Bechtel, etc. Co. v. Bean
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Brown,
(1870), 58 Me. 89; Spangler v.
26 Ohio St. 223; Mansfield, etc. R. Indiana, etc. R. Co., 21 111. 276;
Co. V. Stout, 26 Ohio St. 241, 255; Peake v. Wabash R. Co., 18 111.
Mansfield, etc. R. Co. v. Drinker,
88.
30 Mich. 124. 15
Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v.
9 Midland, etc. R. Co. v. Leech, Bailey, 24 Vt. 465.
3 H. L. Cas. 872.
le
Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Patrick, 2
10
This is expressly enacted In Abb. App. Cas. 72; s. c. 2 Keyes,

3:i0.] CALLS AND ASSESSMEiN'TS. 471

scriptions in different capacities, as an individual and as a trustee,
actions to enforce payment must be brought separately upon each.^^
The right to recover unpaid subscriptions for stock vests on dis-
solution, in the ofiticers who by statute represent the corporation,
and not in creditors, unless otherwise provided.^^ But where a
statute gives creditors a right of action against the stockholders at
the time of dissolution, a personal liability is created, which may
be enforced by a common-law action in or out of the State of
the corporation's domicile.^'' The measure of damages in an
action to enforce payment of subscriptions is the amount of the
call with interest from the time of default of payment.^'' It is
not a sufficient defense to allege that the call was unnecessary
;
for, provided the directors in making it do not exceed their
powers, the court will not inquire into the necessity of it nor
into the motives prompting it.-^

320. Forfeiture the company's remedy upon unpaid calls.

The remedy of forfeiture, is by sale of the stock and application
of its proceeds to payment of the subscription. The contract of
subscription is founded upon the consideration of the pecuniary
advantages and the profits anticipated through membership in the
company
;--
although the mutual promises of the subscribers, and
the implied engagement of the company to issue the stock, have
also been held to support the contract,^^ as also have the prior
256; Price v. Grand Rapids, etc. ern, etc. R. Co. v. Moravia, 61
R. Co., 18 Ind. 137; Herron v. Barb. 180; 8 Vic, eh. 16, 25.
Vance, 17 Ind. 595.
21
Oglesby v. Attrill (1881), 105
17
Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Patrick, 2 U. S. 605.
Keyes, 256; s. c. 2 Abb. App. Cas.
22
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Tipton,
72. 5
Ala. 787; Lake Ontario, etc. R.
IS
Savings Assn. v. O'Brien Co. v. Mason (1857), 16 N. Y. 451,
(1889), 51 Hun, 45. 463; Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v. Dud-
19
Savings Assn. v. O'Brien ley, 14 N. Y. 336; Schenectady,
(1889), 51 Hun, 45; Pollard v. etc. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y.
Bailey, 20 Wall. 526; Bank v. 102, 108; Thigpen v. Mississippi
Francklyn (1887), 120 U. S. 747; Central R. Co., 32 Miss. 348; New
Flash V. Connecticut, 109 U. S. Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Fields, 10
371; Corning v. McCullough, 1 N. Ind. 187; Fry v. Lexington, etc.
Y. 47; Perry v. Turner, 55 Mo. R. Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 314; Hart-
418; State Savings Assn. v. Kel- ford, etc. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 12
logg (1876), 63 Mo. 540; s. c. 52 Conn. 499.
Cf.
East Tennessee,
Mo. 583; Donnelly v. Mulhall, 12 etc. R. Co. v. Gammon, 5 Sneed
Mo. App. 139. (Tenn.), 567; Danbury, etc. R. Co.
20
Rand V. White Mountains R. v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435.
Co. (1860), 40 N. H. 79; Upton v.
23
Bullock v. Falmouth, etc. Co.
Burnham, 3 Biss. C. C. 520; Gould (1887), 85 Ky. 184; Twin Creek,
V. Oneonta, 71 N. Y. 298; South- etc. Co. v. Lancaster, 79 Ky. 552;
472 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
320.
acts of the parties, and the partial execution of the purpose of
incorporation.-* In case of the faikire of a stockholder to pay
legal demands on account of his stock, the corporation may or-
dinarily bring an action for breach of contract.^^ The remedy
by forfeiture is cumulative merely."" The remedy, when granted
is cumulative to the common law remedy of action by assumpsit
on the contract, and does not by implication deny the corporation
its option of remedies."''' Accordingly whether the law, as in some
States, implies from the subscription itself a promise to pay for
the shares of stock, or whether there is an express promise to
pay, the statute conferring upon the company authority to forfeit
and sell the shares of delinquent stockholders, does not by im-
plication exclude the common-law remedy for the enforcement
of payment.^^ But unless both remedies are expressly conferred
St. Paul, etc. R. Co. v. Robbins
23 Minn. 439.
24
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Pal
mer, 34 Me. 366. Cf.
McCully v
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 32 Pa. St
25; Miller v. Wild Cat, etc. Co.
52 Ind. 51, 64; Parker v. North
ern, etc. R. Co., 33 Mich. 23; Illin
ois River R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 111
C54.
25
Rand V. White Mountains R.
Co. (1860), 40 N. H. 79.
26
Dexter, etc. Co. v. Miller, 3
Mich. 91; Hughes v. Antietam,
etc. Co., 34 Md. 316; Price v.
Grand Rapids, etc. R. Co., 18 Ind.
137; Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind. 595;
Thompson v. Reno Savings Bank
(1885), 19 Nev. 103; s. c. 3 Am.
St. Rep. 881.
27
Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113
Fed. Rep 398 (1902).
28
Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga.
486 (1850); s. c. 52 Am. Dec. 412;
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. Tipton, 5 Ala.
787; s. c. 39 Am. Dec. 344; Spear
V. Crawford, 14 Wend. 20; s. c.
28 Am. Dec. 513; New Hampshire,
etc. R. Co. V. Johnson, 30 N. H.
390; s. c. 64 Am. Dec. 300; Rut-
land, etc. R. Co. V. Thrall (1862),
35 Vt. 536; Connecticut, etc. R.
Co. V. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465; s. c. 58
Am. Dec. 181; Greenville, etc. R.
Co. V. Smith (1852), 6 Rich. 91;
Charlotte, etc. R. Co. v. Blakely,
3 Strob. 245; Greenville, etc. R.
Co. V. Cathcart, 4 Rich. 89; Mexi-
can Gulf, etc. R. Co. V. Viavant,
6 Rob. (La.) 305; Boston, etc. R.
Co. V. Wellington (1873), 113
Mass. 79; White Mountains, etc
R. Co. v. Eastman, 34 N. H. 124
147; Hartford, etc. R. Co. v. Ken
nedy, 12 Conn. 499; Peoria, etc
R. Co. V. Elting, 17 111. 429; Ry-
der V. Alton, etc. R. Co., 13 111
516; Klein v. Alton, etc. R. Co., 13
111. 514; Barnet v. Alton, etc. R.
.Co., 13 111. 504; Spangler v. Indi-
ana, etc. R. Co. (1859), 21 111. 276;
Dayton v. Borst (1865), 31 N. Y.
435; Renssalaer, etc. R. Co. v.
Witzel, 21 N. Y. 56; Lake Ontario,
etc. R. Co. V. Mason (1857), 16
N. Y. 451; Renssalaer, etc. R. Co.
v. Barton, 16 N. Y. 457; Buffalo,
etc. R. Co. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y.
336; Troy, etc. R. Co. v. McChes-
ney, 21 Wend. 296; Ogdensburgh,
etc. R. Co. V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541;
Troy, etc. R. Co. v. Tibbits, 18
Barb. 297; Troy, etc. R. Co. v.
Kerr, 17 Barb. 581; Northern R,
Co. V. Miller, 10 Barb. 260; Mann
V. Currie, 2 Barb. 294; Beene v.
Cahawba, etc. R. Co., 3 Ala. 660.
Cf.
Note to Payne v. Bullard, 55
Am. Dec. 74, 77; s. c. 23 Miss. 88.

321.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 473

by statute,-" it may not 'avail itself of both. It can not after declar-
ing the stock forfeited, sue the shareholder for the balance which
the sale of his shares failed to pay.' In Massachusetts and
Maine, and in Vermont, no action will lie unless there has been
an express promise to pay.^^ This would seem to be the rule
in California also.^^ In jurisdictions where it is held that sub-
scriptions may be specifically enforced, it is unnecessary that the
corporation should have formally accepted the subscriptions.^-^
A statutory provision for forfeiture and sale of stock for non-
payment of assessments, is not an exclusive remedy, but is cumula-
tive and at its election the corporation may maintain against the
delinquent an action in assumpsit.^^

321. (a) Forfeiture of shares for non-pa5anent.The power

to forfeit and sell the shares owned by stockholders for non-
payment of their subscriptions, is not a common-law remedy and
can only be exercised when expressly conferred by statute.^'' For-
.
29
New Hampshire Central R.
Co. V. Johnson (1885), 30 N. H.
390; s. c. 64 Am. Dec. 300; Dan-
bury, etc. R. Co. V. "Wilson, 22
Conn. 435; Agricultural Branch
R. Co. V. Winchester, 13 Allen, 29.
30
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall
(1862), 35 Vt. 536, 553; Mills v.
Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384; Small v.
Herkimer, etc. Co., 2 N. Y. 330,
reversing s. c. 21 Wend. 273; Og-
densburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Miller, 10
Barb. 260, 271; Northern, etc. R.
Co. V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541; Allen
V. Montgomery, etc. R. Co., 11 Ala.
437; Macauley v. Robinson, 18 La.
Ann. 619; Athol, etc. R. Co. v. In-
habitants of Prescott (1872), 110
Mass. 213; Macon, etc. R. Co. v.
Vason, 57 Ga. 314; Kennebec, etc.
R. Co. V. Kendall, 31. Me. 470;
Giles V. Hutt, 3 Ex.
1*8;
Snell's
Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 22; Knight's
Case, L. R. 2 Ch. 321; King's
Case, L. R. 2 Ch. 714.
31
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Welling-
ton (1873), 113 Mass. 79; Belfast,
etc. R. Co. V. Cottrell (1876), 66
Me. 185; Belfast, etc. R. Co. v.
Moore, 60 Me. 56; Buckfield, etc.
R. Co. v. Irish, 39 Me. 44; Kenne-
bec, etc. R. Co. V. Kendall, 31 Me.
470; Connecticut, etc. R. Co. v.
Bailey, 24 Vt. 465; s. c. 58 Am.
Dec. 181.
Cf.
New Hampshire, etc.
R. Co. V. Johnson (1855), 30 N.
H. 390; Katowa Land Co. v. Hol-
ley, 129 Mass. 540. Ace. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co. V. Gazzam, 32
Pa. St. 340, where a statute au-
thorizing suit was declared un-
constitutional.
32
West V. Crawford (1889), 80
Cal. 19.
33
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v.
Mason, 16 N. Y. 451; Buffalo, etc.
R. Co. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y.
33'6;
Northern R. Co. v. Miller, 10
Barb. 260; Buffalo, etc. R. Co. v.
Clark, 22 Hun, 359; Hughes v. An-
tietam, etc. Co. (1870), 34 Md.
316.
Cf.
Penobscot, etc. R. Co. v.
Dummer, 40 Me. 172. Contra,
Starrett v. Rockland, etc. R. Co.,
65 Me. 374.
3i
Campbell v. American Alkali
Co. (1903), 125 Fed. 207.
35
Budd V. Multnomah Street
Ry. Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413;
s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 169; Westcote
V. Minnesota Min. Co., 23 Mich.
145; Hill V. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341;
Perrin v. Granger, 30 Vt. 595;
Williams v. Lowe, 4 Neb. 382;
Dixon V. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L.
606; Clark v. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas.
47J: CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
321.
fcitnre of his stock relieves the stockhiolder from Habihty thereon
to the corporation. It cannot forfeit th.e stock and then bring
an action for any part of the calls remaining unsatisfied. Which-
ever remedy is first exercised excludes the other.^^ The like
rule of release from liabilit}' of the stoclcholder to the corporation
also releases him from the claims of creditors.
^^
The validity of
the forfeiture and sale of th.e stock depends upon a strict com-
pliance with the requirements of the enabling statute.
^^
Of course
a forfeiture of stock may follow non-payment of an assessment,
under a statute which explicitly so provides.
^
And where there
has been a simple taking of shares without any express agree-
ment to pay assessments thereon, resort must first be had to the
forfeiture of the shares provided by statute.
*
But a corporation
without power to declare stock forfeited for non-payment of sub-
scriptions may, after failing to collect the full amount by suit,
collect the rest by a sale of the stock, under execution and levy.*^
In no case can a company obtain the right to forfeit shares for
non-payment of calls, by passing a by-law to that efTect,''- unless
the authority to make such by-laws be given by statute. But a
statute providing that a company may make and collect assess-
ments in such m.anner as shall be prescribed in its by-laws, does
not confer authority to make a shareholder personally liable for
633; Campbell's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. Jonegan, 126 Mass. 155; Mechan-
1; N. Y. Laws of 1890, ch. 5G4; ics' Foundry Co. v. Hall, 121 Mass.
43; Ind. Rev. Stat., 1881,
272; Ripley v. Lampson, 10 Pick.
3896; 8 Vic, ch. 16,
29. 371.
6
Small V. Herkimer Mfg. Co.
4i
Chaso v. East Tennessee, etc.
(1849), 2 N. Y. 330; Mechanics,' R. Co. (1880), 5 Lea, 415.
etc. Co. V. Hall (1876), 121 Mass.
42
j^ re Long Island R. Co., 19
272.
Wend. 37; s. c. 32 Am. Dec. 429;
37
Mills V. Stewart (1869), 41 Kirk v. Norvill, 1 Term Rep.
N. Y. 384. 118. Even a temporary forfeiture
38
Germantown, etc. Ry. v. Fit- until payment of assessments or
ler (1869), 60 Pa. St. 124. fines, can not be authorized by
30
Hill v. Nisbet, 100 Ind. 341. by-law. Cartan v. Father Matthew,
40
New Hampshire Central R. etc. Soc, 3 Daly, 20: Adley v.
Co. v. Johnson (1855), 30 N. H. Reeves, 2 Maule & S. 53. But a
390; s. c. 64 Am. Dec. 300; Bel- subscriber who has voted for such
fast, etc. R. Co. v. Cottrell, G6 Me. a by-law has been held estopped
185; Belfast, etc. R. Co. v. Moore, to deny its validity and authority.
CO Me. 561; Piscataqua Ferry Co. Lesseps v. Architects Co., 4 La.
V. Jones, 39N. H. 491; Connecticut, Ann. 316.
Cf.
Perrin v. Granger,
etc. R. Co. V. Bailey, 24 Vt. 465;
30 Vt. 595; Detv-^eiler v. Breckin-
s. c. 58 Am. Dec. 181; Rutland, camp, 83 Mo. 45; Knight's Case,
etc. R. Co. V. Thrall (1862), 35 L. R. 2 Ch. 321.
Vt. 536, 553; Katama Land Co. v.
322.J
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 475
deficiency after forfeiture.*^ Nor under a statutory authority to
pass by-laws regulating the sale of delinquent stock, can the
directors by resolution compel or order a sale of the stock
owned by a particular party in arrears thereon.'** The company
may issue new shares in lieu of those that have been cancelled
or forfeited.'^

322. (b) Notice of forfeiture.Where there is no statute

upon the subject, notice of forfeiture must be reasonable in point
of time.*^ But if a statute prescribes notice, it is a condition
precedent to forfeiture and must be strictly followed, while if
it be merely directory, substantial compliance is sufficient.*^ Ac-
cordingly, where a company's articles require ten days' notice
of forfeiture, a notice given on February 27th for Monday, March
9th, that date falling on Friday, was held insufficient both be-
cause there were but nine clear days intervening and because
the last date mentioned was an impossible one.*^ And where
the notice to the shareholder claims interest from the date
of the call instead of from the time of its payment a subsequent
forfeiture is invalid.*^ So also the pleadings should show that
43
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Ken-
dall (1850), 31 Me. 470.
44
Biidd V. Multnomah Street
Ry. Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413;
s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 169.
45
Currier v. Slate Co., 56 N. H.
262; State v. Smith, 48 Vt. 266;
Taylor v. Miami, etc. Co., 6 Ohio,
176; s. c. 5 Ohio, 162; s. c. 22 Am.
Dec. 785; 26 & 27 Vic, ch. 118,

11; Brice's Ultra Vires, 192, citing
dictum in Marshall v. Glamorgan
Iron Co., L. R. 7 Eq. 137.
46
Lexington, etc. R. Co. v. Sta-
ples, 71 Mass. 520, where three
days' notice to a shareholder liv-
ing out of the State was held in-
sufficient; Rutland, etc. R. Co. v.
Thrall (1S62), 35 Vt. 536, where
thirty days' notice was held suf-
ficient.
47
Lake Ontario, etc. R. Co. v.
Mason (1857), 16 N. Y. 451;
Knight's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. 321;
Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Locke, 1 Q. B. 256; Mississippi,
etc. R. Co. V. Gaster, 40 Ark. 455;
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall
(1862), 35 Vt. 546; Lexington, etc.
R. Co. v. Staples, 71 Mass, 520;
Lexington, etc. R. Co. v. Chandler,
13 Met. 311; Lewey's Island R. Co.
v. Bolton (1860), 48 Me. 451; s. c.
77 Am. Dec. 236; Heaston v. Cin-
cinnati, etc. R. Co., 16 Ind 275; s. c.
70 Am. Dec. 430.
Cf. Bangs v. Duck-
infield, 18 N. Y. 592; Schenectady,
etc. R. Co. v. Thatcher, 11 N. Y.
102; Eppes v. Mississippi, etc. R.
Co., 35 Ala. 33; New Albany, etc.
R. Co. V. McCormick, 10 Ind. 499.
In England under the Companies
Clauses Act of 1845, before a dec-
laration of forfeiture, notice must
be given the shareholder, by serv-
ing the notification at his place
of abode or sending it by mail,
if his address be known, or if
not known, by publication in the
London or Dublin Gazette, and
the notice must be given at least
twenty-one days before declara-
tion of forfeiture. 8 Vic, ch. 16,
30.
48
Watson v. Eales, 23 Beav.
294.
49
Johnson v. Little's Iron
Agency, 5 Ch. Div. 687.
476 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
323.
the statutory requirements with respect to notice have been strictly
complied with.-'''" But on the other hand, the method of giving
notice has been said to be directory rather than mandatory.^^ Ac-
cordingly a charter' requirement of notice by publication does not
preclude personal notice.^- And a provision for notice by letter
sent by mail, is sufficiently complied with by leaving a written
notice signed by the treasurer at the house of the shareholder,
provided it be received by liim as soon as he is entitled to receive
it by mail.^^ Although it would seem that notice of the intent
to forfeit having been given, no further notice that the shares
have been forfeited is required.^* Notice of impending forfeiture
is not equivalent to forfeiture; nor can it be effected ipso facto by
the failure of the shareholder to pay within the time specified in
the notice ; there must be a due declaration of forfeiture at a law-
ful corporate meeting."^

323.
(c) Method of forfeiture.The power given to a cor-
poration to forfeit stock must be strictly pursued, and if any
restrictions or limitations therein provided have been disregarded,
^the alleged act of forfeiture must be declared invalid.^^ Thus
where authority is given to the directors to order the treasurer to
sell the stock, they have no authority to order the sale to be made
50
Sands v. Sanders (1863), 26
5i
in re North Hallensbeagle,
N. Y. 239; Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. etc. Co., 36 L. J. Ch. 317.
Rawley, 9 Fla. 508; Mississippi,
55
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Vason
etc. R. Co. V. Caster (1859), 20 (1876), 57 Ga. 314; Water Valley
Ark. 455; Mar v. Jacksonville, etc. Manufacturing Co. v. Seaman, 53
R. Co., 34 111. 276. Miss. 655; Bigg's Case, L. R. 1 Eq.
51
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Gas- 309; Cockerell v. Van Dieman's
ter (1859), 20 Ark. 455; Schenec- Land Co., 26 L. R. C. P. 203.
tady, etc. Co. v. Thatcher (1854), Contra, Knights Case, L. R. 2 Ch.
11 N. Y. 102; Lexington, etc. R. 321.
Co. V. Chandler, 13 Met. 311;
56 Germantown, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Knight's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. 321. Fitler, 60 Pa. St. 124; s. c. 100
But see Lewey's Island R. Co. v. Am. Dec. 546; In re Long Island
Bolton, 48 Me. 452; s. c. 77 Am. R. Co., 19 Wend. 37; s. c. 32 Am.
Dec. 236. Dec. 429; Eastern, etc. Plank Road
52
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v. Gas- Co. v. Vaughn, 20 Barb. 115;
ter (1859), 20 Ark. 455. Lewey's Island R. Co. v. Bolton
53
Lexington, etc. R. Co. v, (1860), 48 Me. 451; s. c. 77 Am.
Chandler (1847), 13 Met. 311.
Cf.
Dec. 236; Downing v. Potts, 23
Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co. v. N. J. 66; Portland, etc. R. Co. v.
Locke, 1 Q. B. 256; Graham v. Graham, 11 Met. 1; York, etc. R.
Van Dieman's Land Co., 1 Hurl. Co. v. Ritchie, 40 Me. 425.
Cf.
& N. 541; Cockerell v. Van Die- Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. Co.,
man's Land Co., 26 L. J. C. P. 40 How. Pr. 193; Rutland, etc. R.
203; South Straffordshire Ry. Co. Co. v. Thrall (1862), 35 Vt. 536;
V. Burnside, 5 Ex. 129. Clarke v. Hart, 6 H. L. Cas. 633.

324:.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 477

by a committee of themselves.^'' And forfeiture declared, but
not ratified by a general meeting of the stockholders according
to the provision of a statute, is void.^^ But some cases, especially
the earlier ones, would seem to hold that a substantial rather
than a strict compliance with the statute is sufficient.'^'' If, how-
ever, no formal mode of procedure be prescribed, the forfeiture
must be reasonably and justly conducted.*'*' Accordingly it has
been held that a general resolution of the directors that ail stock
on which assessments shall remain unpaid at a certain future date
shall be sold, will effect a valid forfeiture
f^
although it would
seem that the resolution must designate the shares forfeited.'^-
The right of forfeiture must be exercised as the successive de-
faults of payment occur, or the company will be barred from this
remedy.*^'* And if at the time that certain successive assessments
were levied, the corporation had no funds, and the assessments
were needed for legitimate purposes, sales of delinquent stock
made thereunder are not void for the reason that the trustees had
previously misappropriated the corporate funds.^"* It is not, how-
ever, essential to a valid forfeiture that the name of the stock-
holder should be 'erased from the company's books.
'''^

324.
(d) Tender by stockholder before forfeiture.Tender
by the stockholder to the proper officer of the amount due on a
subscription, any time before actual sale, will invalidate the for-
feiture.
Surplus realized on sale, belongs to the corporation.Any
surplus above the debt due, that is realized upon the sale of the
stock forfeited, belongs to the corporation.^ Unless the pur-
chaser pays all instalments, wdiether due or undue, there must be
67
York, etc. R. Co. v. Ritchie (1862), 35 Vt. 536. Cf.
KnigM's
(1855), 40 Me. 425. Case, 15 L. T. N. S. 546.
5s
London, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fair-
02
Johnson v. Albany, etc. R.
clough, 2 Man. & G. 674; Compan- Co., 40 How. Pr. 193.
ies Clauses Act of 1845, 8 Vic, ch. 63
Harlem Canal Co. v. Seixas,
16,
31. 2 Hall, 504; Stokes v. Lebanon,
59
Knight's Case, L. R. 2 Ch. etc. Turnpike Co., 6 Humph. 241;
321; Catchpole v. Ambergate Ry. Delaware Canal Co. v. Sansom, 1
Co., 1 Ell. & B. Ill; Naylor v. Binn. 70.
South Devon Ry. Co., 1 De Gex
g4
Marshall v. Golden Fleece,
& Sm. 32.
Cf.
Honbeach, etc. Co. etc. Mining Co., 16 Nev. 156.
V. Teague, 5 Hurl. & N. 151.
cs
in re Fairstock, etc. Co., 36
60
Mitchell v. Vermont, etc. Co. L. J. Ch. 616.
(1876), 67 N. y. 280; Rutland, etc.
go
Small v. Herkimer Mfg. Co.
Co. V. Thrall' (1862), 35 Vt. 536. (1849), 2 N. Y. 330.
61
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall
478 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
325.
a resale of the stock.
"^
Under the EngHsh statute the company
may not sell any more of the shares of a defaulter than is neces-
sary for the payment of the amount due from him on calls'''*

325.
(e) The corporation's claim for deficiency upon sale
or forfeiture.The right of a company to sue for a deficiency
after it has sold or forfeited the shares of a subscriber has been
upheld,^" even in the case of a stockholder who was not one of
the original subscribers.'^*' Although, generally, if stock is for-
feited to the use of the company, and not sold, upon failure to
pay an assessment, the right to sue for the amount unpaid is
lost.'^^ But only after actual forfeiture and sale of the shares,
and not a mere threat of forfeiture in the call, is an action to
enforce payment barred; for as long as the stockholder retains a
title to his shares his obligation to pay for them continues.'^^
When forfeiture is made an alternative and not a concurrent rem-
edy, this is certainly the result.'^^ The principle to be deduced
from the cases, however, is that if the act of incorporation or any
public statute declares the subscriber to the stock or owner of the
shares shall pay calls made thereupon ; or if he agree to do so,
whether in the articles of association or other legal instrument, he
is personally liable, even though the corporation has power to
forfeit his stock for non-payment.'^* Where a right of forfeiture
is given, the remedies are either cumulative or in the alternative
according to the terms of the statute or of the agreement.'''^ But
where there is a right of forfeiture given, either by the act of
67
Sturges V. Stetson (1858), 1 v. Herkimer Manuf. Co. (1849),
Biss. 246. 2 N.' Y. 330; Allen v. Montgomery
68
8 Vic, ch. 16,
34. R. Co., 11 Ala. 437.
69
Carson v. Arctic Mining Co.
72
Macon, etc. R. Co. v. Vason
(1858), 5 Mich. 288; Hartford, (1876), 57 Ga. 314; Instone v.
etc. R. Co. V. Kennedy, 12 Conn. Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 Bibb, 576;
499; Danbury, etc. R. Co. v. Wil- s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 638.
Cf.
Buffalo,
son, 22 Conn. 436; Instone v. etc. R. Co. v. Dudley, 14 N. Y.
Frankfort Bridge Co., 2 Bibb, 576; 336, 347.
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Ken-
73
Carson v. Arctic Mining Co.
nedy, 4 Exch. 417. (1858), 5 Mich. 295, citing Lon-
7oMerrimac Mining Co. v. Bag- don, etc. R. Co. v. Fairclough, 2
ley (1866), 14 Mich 501. Where Man. & G. 674; Edinburgh R. Co.
both remedies exist together, the v. Hobelwhite, 6 M. & W. 715;
remedy upon the contract of sub- Giles v. Hutt, 3 Exch. 18.
scription may be brought before
74
Fort Miller, etc. Co. v. Payne
the stock is forfeited. Boston, (1854), 17 Barb. 577.
etc. R. Co. V. Wellington, 113
75
per Hand, J., in Fort Miller,
Mass. 79. etc. Co. v. Payne (1854), 17 Barb.
71
Carson v. Arctic Mining Co. 577, where the cases are classi-
(1858), 5 Mich, 295. citing Small fied.

320.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 479

incorporation or by the terms of the subscription, but no promise
to pay, neither the subscriber to the stock nor the transferee is
personally liable to the corporation for calls.'" Having lost his
previous payments and his stock, still to hold him liable for the
deficiency which the compulsory sale of this stock fails to pay,
would be injustice, unless the charter or general law made such a
rule and the subscriber signed with knowledge of it.'^ Yet, if
the statute or charter expressly gives a right to recover the de-
ficiency after forfeiture, and the sale be advertised,, but for want
of bidders the stock is not sold, the company may proceed against
the subscriber for the whole amount due from him.' But the
company may not sell the stock to other parties, and then sue the
original subscriber for the difference between the assessment and
the sum for which the shares sold, there having been no formal
declaration of forfeiture.'^'' By the English statute, cancellation
does not affect the right of the company to compel the holder to
pay arrears of calls, interest and expenses due at the time of
cancellation, deducting therefrom, however, the value of the
shares.^"

326. (f) Shareholder's relief in equity from forfeiture.In

case of illegal or unauthorized forfeiture, the stockholder, or a
corporate creditor, may obtain relief in equity by decree annulling
the forfeiture.^^ In exceptional cases he may enjoin the sale.^
As where prima facie
he shows that the corporation owes him
more than the unpaid subscription,^" or he may recover damages,
if deprived of his stock by irregular sale.* A shareholder may
come in and tender the amount due on his stock and redeem it,
while it remains in the company's hands.^ And equity will re-
76
Fort Miller, etc. Co. v. Payne
- Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Moffitt
(1854), 17 Barb. 577, per Hand, J. (1S99), 58 Neb. G42.
77
Rutland, etc. R. Co. v. Thrall,
s^
Schuetz v. German, etc. Co.
35 Vt. 536, 553. (1897), 21 N. Y. App. Div. 1G3.
78
Gray v. Turnpike Co. (1826),
84
Allen v. American, etc. Assn.
4 Rand. 578.
Cf.
Brockenbrougli (1892), 49 Minn. 544.
V. James River, etc. Co., 1 Pat-
ss
walker v. Ogden (1859), 1
ton & H. 94; Danbury, etc. R. Co. Biss. 287; Mitchell v. Vermont,
V. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435, 45G; etc. Co. (1876), 67 N. Y. 280, where
Greyke's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 63; a check for the amount due being
Stocken's Case, L. R. 5 Eq. 6. refused, but no objection -being
79
Athol, etc. R. Co. v. Pi'escott made to the tender, it was held
(1872), 110 Mass. 213. a good tender to stay the tor-
so
26 & 27 Vic, ch. 118, 6. feiture proceedings; Sweny v.
81
Mitchell V. Vermont, etc Co. Smith, L. R. 7 Eq. 324. The
(1876), 67 N. Y. 280. English Companies Clauses Act
of 1845 provides that on payment
480 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
326.
lieve against a forfeiture of stock made after a tender of the
amount due before the sale was made,**" as wcU as in cases of
unauthorized forfeiture generally.^^ Thus where the directors
make a call on the corporate stock, and threaten to forfeit the
shares of those who refuse to respond, they will be enjoined from
forfeiting such shares as are paid in full.''*^ And forfeiture for
non-payment of a call illegally made or for non-payment of an
amount part of which was illegally assessed, is invalid.*'' But
where the forfeiture has been made regularly, and the power
given the corporation strictly pursued, equity will not relieve
against it."*' Accordingly, where a stockholder fails to pay an
assessment lawfully made, and his stock is advertised for sale,
the facts that the company refused to show plaintiff its bills and
vouchers, as required by statute, and that it was a worthless con-
cern, and desired to get plaintiff's stock for the assessment, con-
stitute no ground for the appointment of a receiver, or for the
granting of an injunction to restrain the sale."^ But, as a for-
feiture defective in form or irregular is voidable only, both the
shareholder and the company may waive the irregularities by
acquiescence therein."^ Mere acquiescence, however, has been
of calls and interest and ex-
penses, made before any share
that has been forfeited be sold,
the share shall revert to the party
to whom it belonged before for-
feiture, in such manner as if calls
had been duly paid. 8 Vic, ch,
16,
35.
86
Mitchell V. Vermont, etc. Co.
(1876), 67 N. Y. 280.
8T
Spackman v. Evans, L. R. 3
H. L. 171; Taylor v. Midland Ry.
Co., 28 Beav. 287; Sweny v. Smith,
L. R. 7 Eq. 324; Dixon's Case, L.
R. 5 Ch. 79; Thompson's Liability
of Stockholders, 226.
88
Moore v. New Jersey, etc. Co.
(1889), 57 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep.
1; s. c. 5 N. Y. Supp. 192.
89
Lewey's Island R. Co. v. Bol-
ton (1860), 48 Me. 451; s. c. 77
Am. Dec. 236; Stoneham, etc. R.
Co. V. Gould, 2 Gray, 277; Port-
land, etc. R. Co. V. Graham, 11
Met. 1.
90
Small V. Herkimer Manuf
.
Co. (1849), 2 N. Y. 330, 340; Ger-
mantown, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fitler
(1869), 60 Pa. St. 124; s. c. 100
Am. Dec. 546; Petersborough R.
Co. V. Nashua, etc. R. Co., 59 N.
H. 385; Wilkins v. Thorne (1883),
60 Md. 253; Marshall v. Golden
Fleece, etc. Co., 16 Nev. 156; Nay-
lor V. South Devon Ry. Co., 1 De
Gex 5; Sm. 32; Sparks v. Com-
pany of the Proprietors, etc., 13
Ves. 428; Garden Gully, etc. Co.
V. McLister, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39.
Cf.
Ludlow V. Dutch, etc. Ry Co.,
21 Beav. 43.
91 Burnham v. San Francisco,
etc. Co. (1888), 76 Cal. 24.
92Kelk's Case (1869), L. R. 9
Eq. 107; Knight's Case, L. R. 2
Ch. 321; King's Case, L. R. 2 Ch.
714, 731; Austin's Case, 24 L. J.
N. S. 932; Webster's Case, 32 L.
J. Ch. 135; Woolaston's Case, 4
De Gex & J. 437; Pendergast v.
Turton, 1 Young & C. Ch. 98.
Cf.
In re Long Island R. Co., 19
Wend. 37; s. c. 32 Am. Dec. 429;
Kennebec, etc. R. Co. v. Kendall,
31 Me. 470.
o2(-329.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 481
said not to bar the shareholder's right to equitable relief against
an invalid forfeiture.''^ An action to set aside the forfeiture
should be brought in the State of the company's domicile."* The
measure of damages for wrongful forfeiture of stock is the market
value thereof at the time of conversion."^ In no case, however,
will the court decree a successful plaintiff an undivided interest
in the property of the company corresponding to the amount of
his shares unlawfully forfeited.""

327.
Defenses to actions to enforce calls. (Fu/<?

620.)

328. (a) Failure to tender certificate as defense.An ac-

tion to enforce payment of subscriptions may be maintained
without a previous tender of stock certificates."^ And this is true
even though the contract may provide for their issue "upon pay-
ment.""^ A willingness, however, to deliver the certificates must
be averred in the company's pleadings, in actions for the whole
amount su])scribed or to enforce payment of the last instalment.""

329.
(b) Irregular organization as defense.A share-
holder sued by the corporation for instalments of his subscription
can not question the existence of the corporation or the regularity
of its organization,^ nor dispute the necessity for the calls.- He
is not released from liability on his subscription because the cor-
poration changed its name after he subscribed.^ Nor is it a de-
fense to an action on a subscription to the stock of a company
organized to carry on the business contemplated in the subscrip-
tion, and engaged in that business only, that it might, under the
act of incorporation, have carried on other business.* It is no
93
Garden Gully, etc. Co. v. Mc- (1888), 86 Tenn. 500; Fulgan v.
Lister, L. R. 1 App. Cas. 39, 53. Macon,"etc. R. Co., 44 Ga. 597.
Cf.
94
Noi'th State, etc. Co. v. Field, Cheltenham, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dan-
40 Md. 151; Ludlow v. Dutch iel, 2 Eng. Ry. Cas. 728. But see
Rhenish Ry. Co., 21 Beav. 43. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. v. Robbing,
95
Budd V. Multnomah Street 23 Minn. 439.
Ry. Co. (1887), 15 Oregon, 413;
98
Paducah & M. R. Co. v. Parks
s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 169. Direc- (1888), 86 Tenn. 500.
tors who forfeit shares without 99
James v. Cincinnati, etc. R.
selling them are bound to credit Co., 2 Disn. 261; Clark v. Conti-
the shareholders with the highest nental, etc. Co., 57 Ind. 135.
market price without allowance 1 McCune Mining Co. v. Adams
for the effect upon the market of (1886), 35 Kan. 193.
offering a large number of shares 2
Chouteau Ins. Co. v, Floyd, 74
for sale. Stubbs v. Lister, 1 Y. Mo. 286.
& C. Ch. 81. 3
Howard v. Glenn (1890), 85
96
Smith V. Maine Boys Tunnel Ga. 238, 11 S. E. Rep. 610.
Co. (1861), 18 Cal. 112. *
Haskell v. Worthington, 94 Mo.
97
Paducah & M. R. Co. v. Parks 560 (1888).
Vou 1
31
4S2 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
330, 331.
defense that some of those subscribing were notoriously insolvent
at the time.'"' Where the directors of an insurance company com-
promised and paid the liabilities of the corporation at less than
their amounts, it was held that this did not free a stockholder from
liability for a call to pay debts upon winding up." That the
property of the company has been seized by the State under
execution can not be set up in defense to a suit upon a sub-
scription.'''

330-
(c) Infancy as defense.It is no answer to an action
for calls that the shareholder was an infant at the time of regis-
tration, where nothing more is alleged. For allowing shares to
remain in his name after majority is a ratification of his liability
to the company.'' And to avoid liability he must also show that
while he was an infant, or within a reasonable time after coming
of age, he repudiated the shares.^"

331. (d) Accommodation subscription. Stock issued as

gratuity.The holder of shares may plead in defense to an
action against him by the company that the stock was issued
to him as a gratuity, and that neither expressly nor by implica-
tion did he promise to pay for it.^^ Accordingly, one who sub-
scribes to the capital stock of a corporation solely in order to
enable it to obtain a certificate of organization, under an agreement
with the other subscribers that he is not to be liable on the stock,
and is not to be required to pay assessments, is not liable to an
assessment thereon as against the other subscribers until it be-
comes necessary to assess it in order to pay debts of the cor-
poration.^^ But a written agreement to pay assessments on the
stock contained in the book of subscription will bind the signer,
notwithsta.nding a verbal understanding or agreement that some
other member of the corporation will release him from the stock
and liability thereon.^^
5
Jewell V. Rock River Paper
9 Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cazenove,
Co., 101 111. 57. 10 Q. B. 935.
6 Chouteau Ins. Co. V. Floyd
10
Ncwry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Coombe,
(1881), 74 Mo. 286. 8 Ex. 5G5; Dublin, etc. Ry. Co. v.
7Mullins V. North, etc. R. Co. Black, 22 L. J. Ex. 94; s. c. Ex.
(1875), 54 Ga. 580. 181.
8 Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cazenove,
n
Ghristensen v. Eno, 1887) 106
10 Q. B. 935; Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. N. Y. 97.
V. Fearnley, 4 Ex. 26; London, etc.
12
Winston v. Dorsett, etc. Co.
Ry. Co. V. McMichael, 20 L. J. (1889), 129 111. 64.
Ex.
97; s. c. 5 Ex. 114.
13
Topeka Manuf'g Co. v. Hale
(1888), 39 Kan. 23.

332, 333.]
CALLS and assessments. 483

332. (e) Bankruptcy of shareholders.If calls were made

and remained unpaid prior to the bankruptcy of a stockholder,
undoubtedly they would be carried by his discharge in bankruptcy,
but his discharge is no bar to an action for an instalment subse-
quently called for, the unpaid subscription not constituting such a
debt or liability as is provable against his estate in bankruptcy.^*
If, however, the company is in liquidation at the time of his
bankruptcy, the estimated amount of future calls may be proved.^
^
In an action by a trustee under an assignment from an insolvent
corporation to recover an assessment on its stock, a finding that
defendant never subscribed for the shares, and was not liable
to pay the assessment, is conchisive in defendant's favor, and the
question of the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy is wholly im-
material.^*'

333-
(f) Set-off as defense,The rule is, that upon insolv-
ency of the corporation, a subscriber cannot set up a set-off, or
counter claim in a creditor's suit to enforce payment for sub-
scription.^" He must take his share of the assets, with other cor-
porate creditors.
^^
But he may defend by a set-off or counter
claim, where the suit is for enforcement of the subscription for
the benefit of the corporation itself.^'' In the case of stock issued
as fully paid up, but for w-hich less than par was paid, the
holder can not set off against the creditor of the corporation a
debt due himself from the corporation.-" And when a subscriber
to the capital stock of a corporation is sought to be held on a
judgment against the corporation to the amount of his unpaid
14
Glenn v. Howard (1886), 65 Morton, L. R. 5 Q. B. 306; 37 L. J.
Md. 40. Q. B. 98; South Staffordshire R.
15
General Discount Co. v. Co. v. Burnside, 20 L. J. Ex. 120;
Stokes, 35 L. J. C. P. 25; s. c. 17 s. c. 5 Ex. 129; Anglo Greek Steam
C. B. N. S. 765; s. c. 5 New Rep. Navigation Co., Ex parte Carralli.
134; In re Monmouthshire Bank-
L. R. 4 Ch. 174; Ex parte King,
ing Co., Ex parte Nicholas, 21 L.
L. R. 4 Eq. 566; s. c. 3 Ch. 10.
J. Q. B. 64; s. c. 2 D. M. & G. 271;
ic
Glenn v. Sumner (1889), 132
Chappie's Case, 4 DeG. & Sm. 400;
U. S. 153.
Ex parte Greenhills, 5 De G. & 17
Handley v. Stutz (1891), 139,
Sm. 599; s. c. 21 L. J. Ch. 733;
U. S. 417; Killen v. Barnes
(1900),
Financial Corporation v. Law-
106 Wis. 546.
rence, 17 W. R. 854;
Parbury's is
Long v. Penn. Ins. Co. (1S47),
Case, 30 L. J. Ch. 512;
Wyland
6 Pa. St. 421.
Steam Fuel Co. v. Street, 10 Ex. 19
Bansman v. Denny (1S96), 73
849; s. c. 24 L. J. Ex. 208; Ex
Fed. Rep. 69.
parte Hastie, 38 L. J. Ch. 43, 233; 20
Boulton, etc. Co. v. Mills
s. c. L. R. 7 Eq. 3; s. c. 4 Ch. 274; (1889), 78 Iowa, 460; s. c. 6 Ry
Martin's Patent Anchor Co. v. & Corp. L. J. 417, 5 L. R. A. 649.
48i CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
334.
subscription, he can not set off against that judg-ment what the
corporation may owe him for services, rent of property, and such
Hke demands.-^ And where one had a contract with a corpora-
tion to build its works for a certain sum, part of which was
to be paid in stock, which he, hke other stockholders, was to
take at fifty per cent, of its par value, and a judgment creditor
of the company sought to subject defendant to liability, by cred-
itors' bill, on unpaid stock which he had taken in pursuance of his
contract with the company, it was held that the creditor was not
bound by the contract between the defendant and the company,'
as to the price for the works, and that only to the extent of their
reasonable value, could he recoup himself against the unpaid
balance on the par value of the stock.-^

334- (g)
Statute of limitations as defense to contract of
subscription.

^After a call has been made, rendering the sub-

scription due and payable, the statute of limitations begins to
run. In England the liability for calls being created by statute,
the limitation thereon is twenty years.*'' And it has been held
in this country that stockholders in a bank can not oppose the
statute of limitations to the claim of creditors to have the stock
paid up, it being a continuing trust and confidence to which the
21
Singer v. Given, 61 Iowa, 93. mitted to do so, his claim as a
In Boulton, etc. Co. v. Mills creditor might be paid in full
(1S89), 78 Iowa, 460, the court while the other creditors would
said: "In Thomp. Liab. Stockh.

receive only a part of the amount
381, it is said that a 'stockholder due them. It is true a stockholder
can not, in a proceeding against has a right to deal with a cor-
him by or on behalf of a creditor poration the same as any other
or creditors, set off a debt due to person, and, if sued by the corpor-
him by the corporation.' An exam- tion for unpaid instalments on his
ination of the authorities cited in stock, he may have the right to set
support of the respective views of off debts due to him from the cor-
these text-writers has led us to the poration. But as against the claim
conclusion that we ought not to of a mere creditor, who has the
overrule the case of Singer v. Giv- right to demand that the capital
en, 61 Iowa, 93. It is a fundamen- stock shall be kept unimpaired for
tal principle that the capital stock the payment of creditors, it is ap-
of a corporation is in the nature parent that the rights of the par-
of trust property held for the ben- ties are quite different. The debt
efit of creditors. As there is or- due to a stockholder ought not to
dinarily no individual liability of be held as superior to the claims
the stockholder in excess of his of creditors."
obligation to pay in full for his
22
Shickle v. Watts (1888), 94
stock, it appears to us manifestly Mo. 410.
unjust to allow him to set off his
23
Cork, etc. By. Co. v. Goode, 22
claim as a creditor against his L. J. C. P. 193; s. c. 13 C. B. 826.
liability as a stockholder. If per-

334.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 485

statute has no application.-* In any case a right of action to re-
cover instahiicnts of a subscription to corporate stock, does not
accrue until a call is made, and the statute of limitations does
not begin to run until that time, or until the corporation has
ceased to be a going concern.-^ And in Pennsylvania the rule
is, that although the statute does not begin to run against a sub-
scription until a call has been made, yet the call must have
been made within six years, or the delay satisfactorily accounted
for, or else a recovery on the subscription is barred.- But the
rule best supported is, that the statute begins to run only after
a call has been made, and is due.^^ And when the statute is a
bar against the corporation, it is also a bar against corporate cred-
itors.-^ But a receiver having been appointed to take charge of the
affairs of an insolvent insurance company upon a proceeding in-
stituted by creditors, and the court having been petitioned to assess
the stockholders upon their unpaid stock, and having assessed
them and authorized the receiver to sue for the recovery of such
assessment, it has been held that a stockholder was not made a
party to these proceedings by the mere publication and mailing
of notices of the petition for an assessment, in accordance with an
order of the court to that effect, and that one who did not receive
notice was not bound by the order making an assessment.-^ The
fact that the court in which the suit was originally brought ordered
an assessment for only part of the unpaid subscriptions, without
expressly reserving the right to call for the balance, does not
prevent a court of competent jurisdiction, to which the cause is
afterwards removed, from making a call.^ An assessment made
24Payne V. Bullard, 23 Miss. 88; ers, 32 Pa. St. 22; s. c. 72 Am.
s. c. 55 Am. Dec. 74. Dec. 770; McCully v. Pittsburgh
23
Gibson v. Columbia, etc. Co. R. Co. 32 Pa. St. 25; Pittsburgh,
(18CS), 18 Ohio St. 39G; Scovill v. etc. R. Co. v. Graham, 36 Pa. St.
Thayer (1881), 105 U. S. 143, 155; 77.
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371;
27
Glenn v. Marbury (1892), 145
Harmon v. Page, 62 Cal. 448; U. S. 499; Fitzgerald's Estate v.
Glenn v. Saxton, 68 Cal. 353; Union Savings Bank (Neb. 1902),
Glenn v. Williams (1883), 60 Md. 90 N. W. Rep. 994.
93; Payne V. Bullard, 23 Miss. 83;
2s
Stephenson v. Ware (1872),
s. c. 55 Am. Dec. 74; Thompson 45 Cal. 503; Hamilton v. Clarion,
V. Reno Sav. Bank, 19 Nev. 171; etc. R. R. (1891), 144 Pa. St. 34.
s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 881; Allibone
29 Lamar Ins. Co. v. Gulick, 102
V. Hayes, 45 Pa. St. 48; Glenn v. HI. 41.
Dorsheimer, 23 Fed. Rep. 695; s. c.
so
Glenn v. Liggett (1890), 135
24 Fed. Rep. 536; Glenn v. Priest, U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
28 Fed. Rep. 907. 52.
26
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. By-
4S6
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. [334.
by a receiver pursuant to an ex parte order of the court, is not
conclusive upon a stockholder, but may be questioned by him
upon special statutory provisions in an action to recover it.^^ In
the case of a call by the court, no previous call having been made
by the corporation, the statute of limitations does not begin to
run against the stockholder's liability on his subscription until
the date of the decree ordering the assessment.^^ For, as be-
51
Cuj'kendall v. Corning (1SS2),
8S N. Y. 129; Walker v. Grain, 17
Barb. 128, and Story v. Furman,
2r. N. Y. 215, distinguished Hurd
V. Tallman, 60 Barb. 272, limited
New York Laws 1852, ch. 3G1, and
1S53, ch. 179,as to manufactur-
ing corporations in Herkimer and
Cayuga counties,does not affect
the liability of stockholders of cor-
porations formed under laws 1848,
ch. 40. Hence a receiver appoin-
ted in proceedings under said laws
of 1852, and 1853, can enforce no
greater liability than that imposed
by the law of 1848. He can not
maintain an action against a
stockholder to recover a general
assessment, based on the com-
pany's entire indebtedness. And
if the company, in contemplation
of insolvency, has made prefer-
ences, neither the trustees nor the
receiver can under the proviso, in
the law of 1853, exercise the pow-
ers conferred by the law of 1852.
In an action against a stockholder
to recover an assessment, it m^ay
be shown that the corporation, or
its trustees, violated this condi-
tion. Cuykendall v. Corning, 88
N. Y. 129.
32 Hawkins v. Glenn (1889), 131
U. S. 319; Glenn v. Liggett (1890),
135 U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry & Corp.
L. J. 52; Lehman v. Glenn (Ala.
1889), 6 So. Rep. 44; Glenn v.
Foote, 36 Fed. Rep. 824; Glenn v.
Semple, 80 Ala. 159; Glenn v. Wil-
liams, 60 Md. 95; Vanderwerken v.
Glenn (1888), 85 Va. 9;
Glenn v.
Howard (1889), 81 Ga. 383; s. c.
6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 197. In the
last case it was said: "We are
aware that there is a decision to
the contrary by Judge Brewer, of
the United States circuit, Glenn v.
Dorsheimer, 23 Fed. Rep. 695, in
which it v/as held that where an
insolvent corporation ceases to do
business and assigns all its" prop-
erty, including unpaid stock sub-
scriptions to trustees for the ben-
efit of its creditors, the liability
of its stockholders at once becomes
absolute, and the statute of lim-
itation begins to run in their
favor and against such creditors
and trustees immediately. And
this is the only decision to tlie
contrary that we have been able to
find directly upon the question.
Other cases have been referred to
by learned counsel who argued the
case, which seem to look in that
directionand I must say for my-
self that there is a great deal
of reason in favor of the decision
of Judge Brewer; but the weight
of authority is unquestionably
against the ruling of the court be-
low in this case."
County of Morgan v. Allen, 103
U. S. 498; Hawkins v. Glenn
(1889), 131 U. S. 319; Glenn v.
Liggett (1890), 135 U. S. 533; s. c.
8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 52, in which
case the court said: "We are of
opinion that the judgment in favor
of Liggett must be reversed. The
decisions of the circuit court were
made before the case of Hawkins
V. Glenn, 131 U. S. 319, was de-
cided by this court, on the 13th
of May 1889. All the points urged
on the part of the defendant in
the present case were fully ar-
gued, considered and decided by
this court in Hawkins & Glenn,
131 U. S. 319. The syllabus

334.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 487

tween the stockholder and the corporation, it does not lie in the
mouth of the stockholder to say, in response to the attempt to
collect his subscription for the payment of creditors, that the
claim is barred because the company did not discharge its cor-
porate duty in respect to its creditors earlier. Although the
occurrence of the necessity of resorting to luipaid stock may be
said to fix the liability of the subscriber to respond, he can not
be allowed to insist that the amount required to discharge him be-
came instantly payable, though unascertained, and though there
was no request or its equivalent for payment.^^ The law of the
State creating the corporation governs the rights of its stock-
holders and creditors, and the statute of another State, prescribing
a different period of limitation, can have no application to an ac-
tion brought in that State to enforce the decree ordering the assess-
ment.^* Where a subscription is payable at once, without necessity
of that case correctly em-
bodies the rulings of this court in
these words: 'In the absence of
fraud, stockholders are bound by
a decree against their corporation
in respect to corporate matters,
and such a decree is not open to
collateral attack. Statutes of lim-
itation do not commence to run as
against subscriptions to stock,
payable as called for, until a call
or its equivalent has been had;
and subscribers can not object,
when an assessment to pay debts
has been made, that the corporate
duty in this regard had not been
earlier discharged. Rules appli-
cable to a going corporation re-
main applicable, notwithstanding
it may have become insolvent and
ceased to carry on its operations,
where, as in this case, it continues
in the possession and exercise of
all corporate powers essential to
the collection of debts, the enforce-
ment of liabilities and the applica-
tion of assets to the payment of
creditors.' " Tide infra, note 34.
33
Glenn v. Liggett (1S90), 135
U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 52. And here there was a deed
of trust made by the debtor cor-
poration for the benefit of its cred-
itors, and it has been often ruled
in Virginia that the lien of such
a trust deed is not barred by any
period short of that sufficient to
raise a presumption of payment.
Smith v. Railroad Co., 33 Gratt.
G17; Bowie v. Society, 75 Va. 300;
Hamilton v. Glenn (1SS9), S5 Va.
901. This deed was not only up-
held and enforced by the decree
of December 14, 1880, but also the
power of the substituted trustee
to collect the assessment by suit
in his own name was declared by
the court of appeals of Virginia in
Lewis V. Glenn (1888), 84 Va. 947.
See, also, Railroad Co. v. Glenn,
28 Md. 287. By the deed the sub-
scriptions, so far as uncalled for,
passed to the trustees, and the
creditoi's were limited to the relief
which could be afforded under it,
while the stockholders could be
subjected only to equality of as-
sessment; and, as the trustees
could not collect except upon call,
and had themselves no power to
make one, rendering resort to the
president and directors necessary,
or, failing their action, then to the
courts, it is clear that the statute
of limitation could not commence
to run until after the call was
made.
34
Glenn v. Liggett (1890), 135
U. S. 533; s. c. 8 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 52. Vide supra, note 32.
488 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
334.
for call, the statute begins to run at once, or if payable upon a day
certain, it begins to run from that clay,"^ But when it is payable
only upon a call or assessment, the statute does not begin to nm
until such call or assessment is made and is due,^" and then begins
to run against that particular call or assessment only,^^ Where
the statute is a bar against the corporation it is likewise- a bar
against the corporate creditors.
'"^^^
Under statute in New York
the statute of limitations runs against a creditor from the date
of his judgment.^'' The effect of a forfeiture or sale of his stock
for non-payment, is to extinguish the holder's rights as a stock-
holder in the corporation,'*" and he is not afterwards subject to
any statutory liability to the corporation or its creditors in case
of its insolvency.*^ The statutory power in such case to sell the
stock is, as in case of any other security for a contract debt, and
the corporation may maintain an action against the delinquent
stockholder to recover whatever deficiency may be left due upon
the sale.'*^ There is some conflict of authority as to the tim.e
when the statute of limitations begins to run upon contracts of
subscription to the capital stock of corporations. There is one
line of cases holding that some adverse action on the part of
the company or of the representative of its creditors, such as a
call by the directors or by the assignee under authority of couft,
is necessary to set the statute in motion.*^ A second line of cases
35
Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala. 155; Van Hook v. Whitlock, 3
371; Hamilton v. Clarion, etc. Co., Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 409; s. c. 26
144 Pa. St. 34. Wend. 43; s. c. 37 Am. Dec. 246;
36
New Albany, etc. v. McCor- Nimmo v. Walker, 14 La. Ann.
mick, 10 Ind. 499, 71 Am. Dec. 337. 581; Salsbury v. Black, 6 Harr.
37
Glenn v. Marbury, 145 U. S. & J. (Md.) 293; Quigg v. Kitt-
499; New England, etc. Co. v. ridge, 18 N. H. 137; Sinkler v.
Haynes, 71 Vt. 306, 76 Am. St. Indiana, etc. Turnpike Co., 3 Pa.
Rep. 771. St. 149; Walter v. Walter, 1
38
Stephenson v. Ware (1872),
Whart. (Pa.) 292; Thompson v.
45 Cal. 110; Hamilton v. Clarion, Reno Savings Bank (1885), 19
etc. Co. (1891), 144 Pa. St. 34. Nev. 171; s. c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 881,
39
Christensen v. Quintard where the court said: "It was a
(1885), 36 Hun, 334. continuing liability of the sub-
40
Germantown, etc. Co. v. Fit- scribers, which neither the indulg-
ler, 60 Pa. St. 124, 100 Am. Dec, ence of the trustee nor mere lapse
546. of time could defeat. The statute
41
Mills V. Stewart, 41 N. Y. 384. of limitation is not available as
Mandel v. Swan, etc. Co., 154 111. a defense, because it has not been
177, 45 Am. St. Rep. 124. set in motion by any adverse ac-
42
Merrimac Min. Co. v. Bagley, tion, such as a call by the corpora-
14 Mich. 501. tion upon appellant to pay his sub-
43
Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. scription;" Western R. Co. v.

331.]
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 4S9
holds that an act of insolvency on the part of the company rcndcis
the obUgation of the subscribers to pay absolute and that, accord-
ingly, the statute begins to run from that time.** A third line
of authorities holds that if a call be not made within the time
barring action upon contracts of like character, the company is
to be presumed to have abandoned the contract.*^ These lines
of authorities are not to be confounded with cases in which
creditors of the company seek to enforce the personal liability of
shareholders under the statutes which in some States impose this
additional liability upon them. The former is a liabilicy
ex contractu, while the latter is one created by law, and, in respect
of the time of accrual, depends upon the wording of the several
statutes under which it exists.*'' It was held that where an in-
Avery, 64 N. C. 4S9; Curry v.
Woodward, 53 Ala. 37G; Taggart
V. Western Maryland R. Co., 24
Md. 563. Cf.
Appeal of Mack (Pa.
1SS6), 7 Atlan. Rep. 481, not offi-
cially reported. Ace. The "Glenn
Cases" of Georgia, Virginia, Mary-
land and Alabama, cited supra.
In this line of cases the statute
is considered as running from
the time the call is due and pay-
able. Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala.
376; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93;
Baltimore, etc. Turnpike Co, v.
Barnes, 6 Harr. & J. 57.
44
Glenn v. Dorsheimer, 23 Fed.
Rep. 695; s. c. 24 Fed Rep. 536,
where it is said that the statute
begins to run within a reasonable
time after an assignment for the
benefit of creditors. In Pennsyl-
vania it begins to run upon a
subscription to the capital stock
of a corporation which afterwards
becomes insolvent. From the date
of its assignment for the benefit
of creditors, and not from
the time of a call for the unpaid
balance of such subscription.
Franklin Sav. Bank v. Bridges,
(Pa. 1887), 8 Atlan. Rep. 611.
43
Where a condition precedent
to bringing action exists, as where
a call is a condition precedent to
bringing action on subscription,
the condition must be performed
within a reasonable time, and cer-
tainly not after the period within
which an action could be main-
tained. Morrison v. Mullin, 34 Pa.
St. 17; Girard Bank v. Bank of
Penn Township, 39 Pa. St. 102;
Allibone v. Hagar, 46 Pa. St. 54;
Rhines v. Evans, 65 Pa. St. 195;
Robinson v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co., 32 Pa. St. 334. "We hold,
therefore, that the company were
bound to demand payment of the
subscription within six months
from its dateor at least, to call
in an instalment within that pe-
riod. And this in strict analogy
to the statute; for, whether the de-
mand be an essential preliminary
to the action or not, it is beyond
question one of the remedies given
to the company upon the con-
tract. The statute in terms bars
only the action. But we ground
a
presumption on the statute, that
a party who did not employ the
other means afforded for enforcing
the contract within the period of
the statute meant to abandon the
contract. After that period de-
mand could not be made with ef-
fect. Pittsburgh & Connellsville
R. Co. V. Byers (1858), 32 Pa. St.
22; s. c. 72 Am. Dec. 770, 772.
Cf.
Custar V. Titusville G. & W. Co.,
63 Pa. St. 387.
40
Thus the cause of action
490 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
-
[
334.
solvent corporation ceases to do business and assigns all its prop-
erty, including unpaid stock subscriptions, the liability of its
stockholders at once becomes absolute, and the statute of limita-
tions begins to run in their favor/^ But is is held in
Georgia that the statute does not begin to run against the
against the stockliolders of a cor-
poration by creditors, to enforce
the stocliholder's individual liabil-
ity under the Alabama statute,
does not accrue until dissolution,
and the statute of limitations then
begins to run. McDonnell v. Ala-
bama Gold Life Ins. Co. (1889),
85 Ala. 401. Ace. Garesche v.
Lewis, 9 Mo. 197. Under another
statute it is held that in a suit
to collect a judgment against an
insolvent corporation from a
stoeVholder thereof, the statute of
limitations does not comm.ence to
run against the judgment creditor
and in favor of the stockholder
until the entry of the judgment.
Powell V. Oregonian Ry. Co.
(1889), 38 Fed. Rep. 1S7. In a
California case the defendants
were sued as stockholders for an
indebtedness contracted by a com-
pany. Code Civil Proc. Cfil.
S59.
limits the time for bringing such
an action to three years after the
discovery by the aggrieved party
of the facts upon which the liabil-
ity v/as created. And it was held
that if the plaintiffs desired to
rely on the stockholders it was in-
cumbent upon them to examine
the books of the company to dis-
cover how the stock stood, and
that, as the books of the company
were open to inspection by the
plaintiffs, they would be charged
with that knowledge which could
have been ascertamed by such in-
quiry, and that the time com-
menced to run when the debt was
incurred. The liability of a stock-
holder for a debt of a corporation
is a liability "created by law," re-
ferred to in Code Civil Proc. Cal.
359. which enacts that an action
to enforce a liability created by
law must be brought within three
years after the discovery of the
facts upon which the liability
was created. Moore v. Boyd
(1SS7), 74 Cal. 1G7. Sometimes
there is a provision that the ac-
tion must have been commenced
by the creditors against the coi*-
poration within a given limited
time after the maturity of the
debt, in order to hold the share-
owner on his statutory liability.
New York laws of 1848, ch. 40,
24; Shellington v. Rowland
(1873), 53 N. Y. 371; Birmingham
National Bank v. Mosser (1878),
14 Hun, G05; Lindsley v. Simonds,
2 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 69. Cf.
State
Savings Association v. Kellogg
(1873), 52 Mo. 583. But failure
to sue a corporation organized un-
der New York laws of 1S4.S, ch.
40, within one year after the debt
becomes due, as required by sec-
tion 24 of that act, to entitle the
creditor to sue the stockholders,
under section lO, on their unpaid
subscriptions, is excused by the
dissolution of the corporation
within the year after the debt be-
comes due. Arnot V. Sage (1889),
5 N. Y. Supp. 447. The charter of
a manufacturing and mining cor-
poration made the stockholders
liable for debts of the corporation
payable in one year from the time
when they should be contracted,
if sued against the corporation,
within a year. Notes were given
by the corporation, and paid as
tliey matured, by giving new
notes, and it was held that the
year began to run from the matur-
ity of the original notes, not from
the maturity of the substituted
notes. Union Bank v. Wando
Mining & Manuf. Co., 17 S. C. 339.
i"
Glenn v. Dorsheimer, 23 Fed.
Rep. C95, per Brewer, J.

334.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 491

assignee until a call has been made by him, either under a power
conferred upon him in the deed of assignment or under a decree
of a court of equity.'*^ The Supreme Court of Virginia, in a
similar suit, involving the same question, held that the statute
did not begin to run until after the call was made under the
decree above referred to.*" The Supreme Court of Maryland,
when the question came before it, held to the same effect.
^"
And
the Supreme Court of Alabama, in a case involving the sanie
question, likewise held that the statute of limitations did not
begin to run until the call was made.^^ When the statute of
limitations has barred an action upon the contract by the cor-
poration, the creditors are likewise barred from enforcing pay-
ment of subscription.^- But this is not the rule as to the statutory
liability. The shareholders are not, however, to be charged with
the payment of debts due to the corporate creditors who neglect
to appear and prove their claims.^^
Equity generally zuill follow the lazv.Equity generally will
follow the law in applying the statute of limitations to subscrip-
tions of stock, but not when it would "have a manifestly inequitable
and unjust operation."^* Thus where a party bought stock of a
48
Glenn v. Howard (1S89), 81 "will proceed to collect and recover
Ga. 3S3; s. c. 12 Am. St. Rep. 318, the same, unless the persons from
where commenting upon Judge whom the said sums may be due
Brewer's decision in the case shall be wholly insolvent, and for
above cited, the court said: "This this purpose may prosecute ac-
Is the only decision to the contrary tions," etc. It was held that the
that we have been able to find authority intended to be conferred
directly lipon the question. Other was merely to bring suit in case
cases have been referred to by the court should levy an assess-
learned counsel who argued the ment, and that the order of itself
case, which seem to look in that did not amount to a call, from
direction; and I must say for my- which prescription would begin to
self that there is a great deal of run. Glenn v. Macon (1887), 32
reason in favor of the decision of Fed. Rep. 7.
Judge Brewer; but the weight 49 Vanderwerken v. Glenn, 85
of authority is unquestionably Va. 9, 6 S. E. 806.
against the ruling of the court be-
so
Glenn v. Williams, GO Md. 95.
low in this case." In a suit
bi
Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala. 159;
brought by a stockholder, against s. c. GO Am. Rep. 92.
the corporation, seeking an in-
52
Stephenson v. "Ware, 45 Cal.
junction to prevent waste, and 110.
asking for a receiver, a receiver 53
Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S.
w^as appointed, and the order con- 27.
tained these words: "And, if
54 Duffield v. Barnum Wire &
there shall be any sums due upon Iron Works (18S7), G4 Mich. 293;
the shares of the capital stock of Terry v. Bank of Cape Fear, 20
said company, the said receiver Fed. Rep. 777; Scovill v. Thayer,
492 CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
334r.
corporation, relying in good faith upon false and fraudulent state-
ments of its officers, and afterwards attended meetings of stock-
holders, by proxy and in person, and voted to increase the capital,
and received a dividend, and aj)proved the action of the directors,
not discovering the fraud, or commencing proceedings to rescind
his purchase till the company had become insolvent and attach-
ments had been filed against it, and then tendered back his dividend
and brought action for his purchase money just before an assign-
ment was made for the benefit of the corporate creditors, he was
held to be estopped from recovery by his conduct and laches, by
reason of which the rights of the creditors represented by the
assignee and receiver became superior to his.^^ But a subscription
to stock which has been obtained by fraudulent representations
on the part of the promoters of the corporation, v/ho afterwards
became directors thereof, may be annulled by the subscriber, if he
rescinds promptly and before the rights of creditors or subsequent
stockholders have accrued.^*' Where a subscription to the stock
of a manufacturing corporation is claimed to have been obtained
by false representations, and a resolution is passed by the board
of directors cancelling the subscription, and imder the resolution
the subscribers return to the company their stock certificates,
four years' acquiescence by the corporation in the action of the
board, operates as a ratification thereof, even though it was
ultra vires.^"^ The statute of limitations does not begin to run
against the creditors' right to object to an issue of stock below
par, until they have brought suit against the corporation upon the
debts owing them and have recovered judgment.^^ A subscriber
who has availed himself of the statute, even as to a part of his
105 U. S. 143, 155. In Payne v. upon which it was issued have
Billiard, 23 iMss. 88; s. c. 55 Am. been fulfilled, and then, on the in-
Dee. 74, the statute was declared solvency of the company, assert
to have no application in equitable the invalidity of the stock and
actions to enforce payment of sub- recover back his money. Bard v.
scriptions; so also in Hightower v. Banigan (1889), 39 Fed. Rep. 13.
Thornton, 8 Ga. 486; s. c. 52 Am. Contra, Bank of United States v.
Dec. 412. A purchaser of prefer- Dallam, 4 Dana, 574.
red stock issued without express
55
Duffield v. Barnum Wire &
statutory authority, who volun- Iron Works (1887), G4 Mich. 293.
tarily subscribed and paid for it
5g
McDermott v. Harrison, 9 N.
for the purpose of promoting the Y. Supp. 184.
scheme under which it was issued,
57 McDermott v. Harrison, 9 N.
and who was a promoter of the Y. Supp. 184.
scheme, can not hold it for twenty-
ss
Christensen v. Quintard, 36
eight months after the conditions Hun, 334.
335.]
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 493
subscription, can not, without payment, claim a certificate of stock
;
for the statute of hmitations, although it bars the remedy, does not
pay the debt.^^ The Wisconsin statute, which prohibits any action
from being maintained against a corporation after its dissolution,
or against its stockholders after the expiration of three years from
the date of an assignment made by it for the benefit of creditors,
is limited to cases where the corporation expires by its own
limitation, or is dissolved voluntarily, or is annulled by forfeiture
or otherwise, and does not apply to cases where the corporation
has simply ceased to do business for want of funds.*'''

335.
Assessments upon shareholders.The word assess-
ment, when used in reference to members of companies liaving
capital stock, more properly refers to amounts levied upon share-
holders after their subscriptions have been fully paid."^ It was
always a principle of the law of stock corporations, that the
holder of stock, whose par value is paid, is not liable to any addi-
tional payment, unless the charter or other statute provides other-
wise.^^ "Where stockholders voluntarily assess themselves, to
relieve the corporation from pecuniary embarrassment, or for the
betterment of their stock, whatever may be the occasion of the
assessment, the advances thus made are not debts against, but
assets of, the corporation."
^^
In New York and in New England
the statutes authorize the organization of corporations with either
limited or unlimited liability at the option of the incorporators.
Limited liability is the feature that distinguishes a corporation
from a partnership. Statutory authority for additional assess-
ment upon stock already paid up, is unconstitutional.'^ The
59
Johnson v. Albany, etc. R. Co., diAadual stockholders, where an
54*
N. Y. 41G, 426. assessment was made upon the
CO
Sleeper v. Goodwin (1S87), 67 shareholders of a national bank to
Wis. 579, construing Wis. Rev. satisfy a contractual liability, a
Stat, of 1878,
1764. married woman who held stock in
ci
The correct use of the word the bank could claim no immunity
is shown by cases holding that from the assessment on the ground
while stock issued as "non-assess- that she had no legal capacity to
able," cannot be assessed beyond contract. Witters v. Sowle.'j
the full par value, yet that these (18S8), 32 Fed. Rep. 767.
words do not exempt the holder
62
United States v. Stanford
from the payment of calls until (1896), 161 U. S. 412; Wells v.
the full face value has been paid. Green Bay, etc. Co. (1895), 90
Price's Appeal (1884), 106 Pa. St, Wis. 442.
421; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S.
C3
Brodrick v. Brown (1895),
45; Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. 69 Fed. Rep. 497.
(N. Y.) 466; Taylor on Corpora-
fi^
Enterprise, etc. Co. v. Moffitt
tions,

522. As the contracts of (1899), 58 Neb. 642, 45 L. R. A.
a bank are not contracts of the in- 647.
49i CALLS A^'D ASSESSMENTS.
[
336, 337.
limitation is a privilege conferred by the charter, and can not be
revoked by the legislature, in the absence of power reserved to
repeal the corporate franchises including the privilege of limited
liability.^^
Calls.It is not necessary to a recover}^ on the contract of
subscription that the directors should have levied assessments
upon the stock in the mode provided by the statute/^'''

336.
(a) Assessment requires consent of all the stockhold-
ers.The many efforts to authorize assessment of stockholders
beyond the paid-up par value of their stock, have failed. Any
dissenting stockholder may enjoin the corporation from enforcing
such an assessment.
"
Right to levy Assessments.In the absence of legislative
authority, or consent of all the stockholders, neither the board
of directors, nor a majority of the stockholders can assess shares
of stock fully paid, for whatever purposes of the corporation, or
for paying its debts.
"^^

337-
(b) Power to assess conferred by charter or agree-
ment.Liability to assessment may be imposed by a statute
in force when the corporation is formed, or by its charter, or by
agreement of all the members or stockholders.^ But whatever
may be the authority for allowing assessments, it is to be strictly
construed and not extended beyond its express terms.^^ As-
sessments must be just and equal upon all the stockholders.^^
The power to levy assessments, using the word in its proper sense,
is wholly statutory
;'^^
and will not be lightly inferred from the
language of a statute or charter.'^^ And although the power may
have been conferred by charter or statute, it may be restricted by
65
Gardner v. Hope Ins. Co. Beach v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 116;
(1SC9), 9 R. I. 194. American Silk "Works v. Salomon,
66
Cal. etc. Hotel Co. v. Callen- 4 Hun, 135; Spence v. Iowa, etc.
der (1S92), 94 Cal. 120, 28 Am. St. R. Co., 36 Iowa 407; Ohio, etc. R.
Rep. 99. Co. V. Cramer, 23 Ind. 490; Cincin-
6T
Flint V. Pierce (1868), 99 nati, etc. R. Co. v. Clarkson, 7 Ind.
Mass. 68. Vide. 45 L. R. A. 647. 595.
Cf.
Great Falls, etc. R. Co.
68
Enterprise Ditch Co. v. Mof- v. Copp, 38 N. H. 124; Atlantic,
fitt, 5S Neb. G42, 76 Am. St. Rep. etc. Co. v. Mason, 5 R. I. 463;
122. Marlborough Manuf. Co. v. Smith
69 Wells V. Green Bay, etc. Co., (1818), 2 Conn. 579; Middletown,
90 Wis. 442. etc. Turnpike Co. v. Watson, 1
70
State V. Morristown Fire Rawle, 330.
Assn., 23 N. J. Law 195.
73
Accordingly under a charter
71
Green v. Abietine Medical Co., which provided that no assess-
9G Cal. 322. ment should be laid upon any
72
Santa Cruz, etc. R. Co. v. share of a greater amount than
Spreckles (1884), 65 Cal. 193; one hundred dollars in the whole.

337c<5 337^.]
CALLS and assessments. 495
the by-laws of the company.^* Under the California Civil Code,
members of corporations may be assessed beyond the par value of
their shares to pay expenses or debts, and to conduct the business
of the companyJ^

337^-
(c) Sale of shares for non-payment of assessments
or calls.The power is generally given to forfeit or sell the
stock of delinquent stockholders, but a corporation has no power
to forfeit or sell the shares of a stockholder against" his consent,
for non-payment of an assessment or a call, unless the power
has been expressly conferred by general law, special charter, or
articles of association. In the absence of such authority a by-law,
providing for such forfeiture or sale, cannot be enforced against
a non-assenting stockholder.'^*' Such power is strictly construed
and all its provisions must be fully complied with to be effective
against the stockholders.'^ A registered stockholder is not re-
leased from liability to pay an assessment by transfer of the stock
after the call has been made, but before it is payable.'^^

3S7b.
Purchasers at sales of forfeited stock.If the stock
has been only partially paid for, the purchaser at a forfeiture sale
must pay the instalments due and to become due, and if he fails to
do so the shares must be sold again.
'^'^
A sale of stock pursuant
to the authority contained in a pledge is not open to the charge
that it was done in fraud of creditors, even though the object of
it was held that the charter lim- for the money borrowed, and can
ited the aggregate amount of all levy an assessment to pay for it.
the assessments to one hundred Taylor v. North Star Gold Min. Co.
dollars. Great Falls, etc. R. Co. (1SS9), 79 Cal. 285.
V. Copp, 38 N. H. 124; Lewey's
7c
Budd v. Multnomah, etc. Co..
Island R. Co. v. Bolton (1860), 48 15 Ore. 413; Morris v. Metalline,
Me. 451; s. c. 77 Am. Dec. 23G. etc. Co., 1C4 Pa. St. 82G; In re
T4
Price's Appeal (1884), 106 Pa. Long Island R. Co., 19 Wend. (N.
St. 421.
Y.) 37.
T5
Santa Cruz R. Co. v. Spreclc-
77 Downing v. Potts, 23 N. .1. L.
les, 65 Cal. 193. As, for example, 66; Schwab v. Frisco, etc. Co., 21
to repair an engine and other ma- Utah, 258, 60 Pac. 940.
chinery necessary in conducting
7s
Campbell v. American Alkali
the corporation's business. Young- Co. (1903), 125 Fed. 207.
love V. Steinman (1889), 80 Cal.
79
Sturges v. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246,
375. So again, where a mining 251; "Contributories on Forfeited
corporation buys an adjoining Shares," 43 L. T. 97. In England,
property and transfers all the however, it is enacted that the
property to a new company, re- purchaser at a forfeiture sale
ceiving stock in the new corpora- holds the shares discharged of all
tion therefor, and borrows money calls due prior to purchase. He
from one of its stockholders to pay is not bound to see to the applica-
the expenses thereof, there being tion of the purchase money, nor is
no fraud, the company is liable his title to be affected by any ir-
496
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
3376-, Z2>ld.
the pledges was to avoid the HabiUty imposed by the national
banking act.

337c. Mandamus to compel calls.

Mandamus by credit-
ors of corporations to compel the officers to make calls for the
purpose of raising funds to meet their demands, is a remedy to
which a resort does not appear to have been attempted in this
country ; and the vise of the writ for this purpose has been
doubted.*^ But in England a mandainns is sometimes granted.*^
Creditors need not, however, apply for a mandainns, but may
compel the payment of unpaid subscriptions by suit in equity.^

SSyd.
Calls by courts of equity.The court has authority
and jurisdiction, when insolvency proceedings are there pending,
to make an order requiring payment of unpaid stock subscrip-
tions, as the directors might have done before insolvency pro-
ceedings.^* Where stock is subscribed to be paid upon the call
of the company, and the company becomes insolvent and refuses
or neglect to make the call, a court of equity will assume the
function, if the interests of the creditors require it.^^ In England
the courts have, at the instance of corporate creditors, compelled
the directors of a corporation to issue a call for unpaid subscrip-
tions by mandamus,^^ a doubtful remedy in the United States.^''
regularity in the proceedings in
reference to the sale. 8 Vic. ch.
16, 33.
soMagruder v. Colston, 44 Md.
349, 22 Am. Rep. 47.
81
Has'-s V. Lycoming F. Ins. Co.,
98 Pa. St. 184; Hatch v. Dana,
(1879), 101 U. S. 205; Dalton, etc.
R. Co. V. McDaniel, 5G Ga. 191.
Cf.
Cuculhi" V. Union Ins. Co.
(La. 1S42), 2 Rob. 573; Allen v.
Montgomer3^ etc. R. Co. (1847),
11 Ala. 437.
82
Queen v. Victoria Park Co.,
1 Q. B. 288; Queen v. Ledyard,
1 Q. B. 616; King v. St. Catharine
Dock Co., 4 Barn. & Adol. 360.
83
Ward V. Griswoldville Manuf.
Co., 16 Conn. 593, 601; Dalton, etc.
R. Co. V. McDaniel, 55 Ga. 191. A
foreign insolvent corporation, if
still in existence, could be compel-
led by mandavius, or by bill of
equity, to collect the unpaid sub-
scriptions from its stockholders.
If it had ceased to exist, a receiver
should be appointed, who would
represent the corporation. Patter-
son V. Lynde, 112 111. 196, 206.
84
Marson v. Deither. 49 Minn.
423; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56;
Hatch v. Dana., 101 U. S. 215;
Scovill V. Thayer. 105 U. S. 155.
85
Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S.
143; Robinson v. Bank, 18 Ga.
65; Curry v. Woodward, 53 Ala.
371; Ward v. Griswoldville Man-
uf. Co., 16 Conn. 593, 601. Where
shareholders are liable to the cor-
porate creditors as a class, the
legal remedy is inadequate and
the aid of equity must be invoked.
Rounds V. McCormick, 114 111. 252.
S6
Queen v. Victoria Park Co.,
1 Ad. & E. N. S. 544; Queen v.
Ledyard, 1 Ad. & Ens. 616; King
V. Katherine Dock Co., 4 Barn. &
Ad., 360.
s7
Hatch V. Dana, 101 U. S. 205;
Dalton, etc. R. Co. v. iMcDaniell,
56 Ga. 191.
Cf.
Cucullu v. Union
Ins. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 573; Allen

337e.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.

497
Although a call is generally necessary to fasten the obligation
absolutely upon the stockholders, yet in case of corporate in-
solvency, no call is necessary. It is sufficient that a court of equity
orders the subscriptions to be paid.*"* A decree of a court of
equity making an assessment upon the capital stock of a corpora-
tion for the payment of corporate debts, is binding upon all stock-
holders whether or not they were individually parties to the ac-
tion.^" A call by trustees or directors, is only a step in the process
of the collection of unpaid subscriptions, and therefore a court of
equity may pursue its own method of collection provided no in-
justice is done the stockholders."*^ The dissolution of a corpora-
tion does not destroy the right of creditors to enforce the unpaid
subscriptions to the stock, and they may reach this fund through
the courts of equity."^ Although it is a rule of the common law
that debts due to and from a corporation are extinguished by its
dissolution, yet when the legislature has interposed to prevent
that result, the courts must sustain the legislative enactments.''-
Where an assignment for the benefit of its creditors has been
made by a corporation, it is competent for the court in chambers
during vacation, to authorize by order the collection, of all the
tmpaid balance due on stock.^^

3376.
Garnishment of stockholder after judgment against
the corporation.After a call has been made, a creditor of the
company may garnishee the stockholder.^* For, if subscriptions
V. Montgomery, etc. R. Co., 11 Y. 415; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co.,
Ala. 437. 22 How. 380; Adler v. Milwaukee
8s
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56; Manuf. Co., 13 Wis. 62. And see
Marsh v. Burroughs, 1 Woods, 463; Seymon v. Sturgess, 26 N. Y. 134;
Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch. Wheeler v. Millar, 90 N. Y. 353;
466; Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. Briggs v. Penniman, 8 Cow. 387,
93; Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 395; s. c. 18 Am. Dec. 454; Sal-
143; 155; Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. mon v. Hamborough Co., 1 Cas.
S. 205, 214; Chubb v. Upton, 95 Ch. 204.
U. S. 665; Wilbur v. Stockholders,
so
Glenn v. Williams, 60 Md. 93.
18 Bankr. Reg. 178; Myers v.
&o
Crawford v. Rohrer (1882),
Seeley, 10 Bankr. Reg. 411; Cur- 59 Md. 599.
ry V. Woodward, 53 Ala. 371;
oi
Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga.
Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala. 150; s. c. 486 (1850); s. c. 52 Am. Dec. 412;
CO Am. Rep. 92; Robinson v. Bank Tarbell v. Page, 24 111. 40.
of Darien, IS Ga. 65; Ward v.
92
Robinson v. Lane (1856), 19
Griswoldville Manuf. Co., 16 Conn. Ga. 337; Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga.
593; Henry v. Vermillion, etc. 459; Lane v. Morris (1850), 8
R. Co., 17 Ohio, 187.
Cf.
German- Ga. 4GS, 476.
town, etc. R. Co. v. Fitley, 60
93
Citizens', etc. Trust Co. v.
Penn. St. 124; Chandler v. Keith, Gillespie (1887), 115 Pa. St. 564.
42 Iowa 99; Mann v. Pentz, 3 N.
a*
Faull v. Alaska, etc. Mining
Vol. 1

33
'J:9S
CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS.
[
337^.
are due and payable, they are, to that extent, like other debts due
the corporation, subject to garnishment.''^ But a creditor can
not resort to garnishment proceedings until a call has been made,
unless by the terms of the subscription the amount was payable
without call,"*^ or unless, as is sometimes the case, this remedy
be given by statute whether a call has been made or not.'^ In
Pennsylvania the efficacy of attachment process is not confined
to the garnishment of legal demands, but extends to those of an
equitable nature, and it has been held that the unpaid subscriptions
to the capital stock of an insolvent corporation can be reached
by writ of attachment, although no assessment or call has been
made;^^ But a limitation has been placed upon the right of a
creditor of a corporation to resort to garnishment proceedings.
It is admitted that if the corporation is solvent, and the subscrip-
tion is in the form of an absolute engagement to pay the price of
Co. (1S82), 8 Sawyer, 520; Meints
V. East St. Louis, etc. Co., 89 111.
48; Hannah v. Moberly Bank, 67
Mo. 678; Simpson v. Reynolds
(1880), 71 Mo. 594; Curry v.
Woodward, 53 Ala. 371; Bingham
V. Rushing, 5 Ala, 403; Hays v.
Lycoming, etc. Co. (1882), 99 Pa.
St. 621.
Cf.
"Execution against
Members of Corporations," 6 Am.
Jur. 468. But see In re Glen Iron
Works (1883), 17 Fed Rep. 324;
s. c. (1884) 20 Fed. Rep. 674; Cu-
cullu V. Union Ins. Co., 2 Rob.
(La) 571; Bunn's Appeal, 14
Week. N. Cases, 193. An unpaid
balance due on a subscription to
the stock of a corporation is a
thing in action which may be se-
questered in proceedings had upon
a judgment against the corpora-
tion. Dean v. Biggs, 25 Hun, 122.
95
Fault V. Alaska G. & S. Min.
Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 657; De Mony
V. Johnston, 7 Ala. 51; Meints v.
East St. Louis, etc. Co., 89 111. 48;
Brown v. Union Ins. So., 3 La.
Ann. 177, 182; Payne v. Bullard,
23 Miss. 88; s. c. 55 Am. Dec. 74;
Hannah v. Moberly Bank, 67 Mo.
678; Peterson v. Sinclair, 83 Pa.
St. 250. See Note to Freeland v.
McCullough, 43 Am. Dec. 702; 2
Morawetz on Corporations,

819.
9G
Lane's Appeal, 165 Pa. St,
49; s. c. 51 Am. Rep. 166; McKel-
vey V. Crockett, 18 Nev. 238; Pas-
chall V. Whitsett, 11 Ala. 472, 477;
Cooper V. Frederick, 9 Ala. 737,
742; Bingham v. Rushing, 5 Ala.
403; Brown v. Union Ins. Co.,
3 La. Ann. 117, 182; Hannah v.
Moberly Bank, 67 Mo. 678; Simiv
son V. Reynolds, 71 Mo. 594;
Hughes V. Oregonian Ry. Co., 11
Oregon, 158; Peterson v. Sinclair
(1877), 83 Pa. St. 250; Langford
V. Ottumwa Water Power Co.
(1882), 59 Iowa, 283; Chandler v.
Liddle, 10 N. B. R. 236; In re
Glen Iron Works, 20 Fed Rep. 674;
s. c. 17 Fed Rep. 324; Bunn's Ap-
peal (1884), 105 Pa. St. 49; Coal-
field Coal Co. V. Peck (1881), 98
111. 139.
Cf.
Rand v. White Moun-
tains R. Co. (1860), 40 N. H. 79;
Angell & Ames on Corporations,
517; Thornpson on Liability of
Stockholders,
265, 276, 317;
Dean v. Biggs (1881), 25 Hun, 122.
oTBartlett v. Drew (1874), 57
N. Y. 587; Griffith v. Mangam
(1878), 73 N. Y. 611; Robertson
V. Noeninger, 20 111. App. 227; Ala.
Civ. Code (1887),
2972.
9s
In re Glen Iron Works, 20
Fed Rep. 674, affirming 17 Fed.
Rep. 324; s o. 16 Phila. 563.
337^.] CALLS AND ASSESSMENTS. 499
the stock, there is no doubt that the creditor can reach the amounts
unpaid by attachment in execution, but it is denied that this can
be done if the corporation be insolvent, because upon insolvency
the unpaid amounts constitute a trust fund for the benefit of all
the creditors.^'' Although a statute which provides that, upon the
return unsatisfied of an execution against a corporation, execu-
tion may, on notice and motion, issue against any shareholder for
the amount of his unpaid balance due on shares, is retrospective,
it is nevertheless valid, and applicable to a corporation chartered
previously under a special act.^ A petition asking for an execu-
tion against a stockholder, based on a judgment against the cor-
poration, must be filed in the court by which the judgment was
rendered
f
for a proceeding by motion for execution against a
stockholder of an insolvent corporation is in no sense the institu-
tion of an independent suit, but a mere supplementary proceeding
in aid of the execution against the corporation.^ Under the Illi-
nois corporation act of 1872,
making stockholders liable to cred-
itors, garnishee process lies after judgment against the corpora-
tion
;
it is not necessary to proceed against the stockholders at the
time of instituting suit against the corporation.* Under the Kan-
sas statute, declaring that in the absence of corporate property
on which to levy, execution may be issued against any of the
stockholders, but no execution shall issue except upon an order
of the court in which the action, suit or other proceeding shall
have been brought, made upon motion in open court after reason-
able notice in writing to the person sought to be charged. The
service of notice must be in like manner as in the case of an
original summons, and jurisdiction can not be obtained by service
without the State.^
99
Lane's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49;
4 Coalfield Co. v. Peck, 98 111.
s. c. 51 Am. Rep. 166. 139.
1
Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Hill,
s
Howell v. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan.
86 Mo. 466. 194; 194; Kan. Comp. L. 1879, eh.
2
Paxon V. Talmage, 87 Mo. 13. 23, 32, 5 Pac. 759.
3
Kohn V. Lucas, 17 Mo. App. 29.
CHAPTER XIV.
PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
338. Subscription for shares
implies promise to pay.
339. Professor Collin's rules as
to subscription and pay-
ment.
340. Payment in notes, bonds
and mortgages.
341. Payment need not be in
cash.
342. Payment may be in cash,
in stock, or in stock
dividend.
343. Payment may be in prop-
erty or in service.
344. Overvaluation of property
or service, accepted in
payment.
345. "Gross" overvaluation pre-
sumes fraud, when.
346. Payment of less than par.
347. Payment of less than par
is constructive fraud.
348. Statutory and constitu-
tional provisions con-
strued.
348a. Fraudulent method of pre-
tended payment.
References
:
Subscription. Chapter 11. Sections 209-269.
Payment of calls after transfer. Chapter 13, Section 316.
Payment by installment. Chapter 13, Section 304.
Sale of shares for non-payment of subscription. Chapter 13.
Section 337a.

338.
Subscription for shares implies promise to pay.The
rule is sustained by the weight of authority that subscription for
stock implies a promise to pay for it, without proof of considera-
tion, and although the subscription was made before incorpora-
tion.^ A subscription for shares accepted by the corporation im-
plies a promise of the subscriber to pay any valid assessments and
the corporation may enforce payment by an action of assumpsitr
The special remedy by forfeiture or sale of shares, given by
the charter or other statute, against subscribers for stock who are
delinquent in payment of assessments, is merely a cumulative
remedy.^ The power to forfeit or sell shares for non-payment of
assessments, or calls, is generally conferred, but it does not exist
unless expressly conferred by charter or other statute, or by con-
1 Shattuck V. Robbins (189G),
68 N. H. 565; Hawley v. Upton
(1880), 102 U. S. 314; Atlantic T.
Co. V. Osgood (1902), 116 Fed.
1019.
2
Mechanic's, etc. Co. v. Hall,
121 Mass. 272; Hawley v. Upton,
102 U. S. 314.
3 Atlantic, etc. Co. v. Andrews,
97 Mich. 462; San Joaquin, etc.
Co. V. Beecher, 101 Cal. 70.

331).]
PAYMKNT OF SUBSCRIPTION. 501
sent of all stockholders.* Whether expressly prescrilDcd by charter
or otherwise, the shareholder is entitled to reasonable notice of
call or assessment, before a forfeiture or sale can be made.^ The
taking of stock creates a contract to pay for it in the mode
prescribed by the charter, and a stipulation to that effect is not
necessary. The signing of the subscription paper implies a
promise to pay the subscription.'^ The consideration supporting
this implied promise is the right to membership, and its probable
advantages,^ and the stock to be received, and the probable div-
idends thereon.^ The law implies a consideration, and thereby
creates a duty and a liability to pay for the stock.^*^ And this
rule applies as well to a subscription made before incorporation
as to one made afterward.^^ As was said in an early New York
case, whatever may be the form or language of a subscription to
the stock of an incorporated company, any person who in any
manner becomes a subscr'ber for, or engages to take any portion of
the stock of such company, thereby assumes to pay according to
the conditions of the charter.^^ Accordingly, in subscribing for
stock in a railroad company, the charter of which creates and
defines the terms of the contract between the company and the
stockholder, it is only necessary that the writing should indicate
the intention to become a stockholder, and the number of shares
that are taken by the subscriber.^^

339.
Professor Collin's rules as to subscription and pay-
ment.Professor Collin, of the Cornell law school, formulates
4
Minnehaha, etc. Assn. v. Legg, v. Wilson, 22 Conn. 435; Hawley
50 Minn. 333; Cartwright v. Dick- v. Upton (1S80). 102 U. S. 314;
enson, 88 Tenn. 476, 17 Am. St. Rensselaer, etc. R. Co. v. Barton
Rep. 910. 7 L. R. A. 706. (1857), 16 N. Y. 457; Lake On-
5
Germantown, etc. Co. v. Fitler, tario, etc. R. Co. v. Mason (1857),
60 Pa. St. 124. 100 Dec. 546. 16 N. Y. 451.
c
Fry V. Lexington, etc. R. Co.
'^
Upton v. Tribilcock. 91 U. S.
(1859), 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314; Con- 45: Hawley v. Upton, 102 U. S.
necticut, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey 814; Carnahan v. Campbell (Ind.
(1852), 24 Vt. 465; s. c. 58 Am. 1902), 63 N. E. 384.
Dec. 181; Ogdensburg, etc. R. Co.
s
Fort Edward, etc. Co. v. Payne,
V. Frost, 21 Barb. 541; Hartford, 17 Barb. 567.
etc. R. Co. V. Croswell, 5 Hill, Schenectady, etc. Co. v. That-
383; Northern, etc. R. Co. v. Mil- cher, 11 N. Y. 102.
ler, 10 Barb. 266; Chase v. Rail- if>East Tennesee, etc. R. R. v.
road Co., 5 Lea, 415; Beene v. Gammon, 5 Sneed (Tenn.), 567.
Cahawba, etc. R. Co., 3 Ala. 660;
n
McNaught v. Fisher (1899),
Buckfield Branch R. Co. v. Irish
96 Fed. 168.
(1854), 39 Me. 44; Kennebeck, 12
Rensselaer, etc. Co. v. Barton
etc. R. Co. V. Palmer, 34 Me. 364;
(1857), 16 N. Y. 460.
Waukon, etc. R. Co. v. Dwyer, 49 13
Fry v. Lexington, etc. R. Co.
Iowa, 121; Danbury, etc. R. Co. (1859), 2 Mete. (Ky.) 314.
502 PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
[
339.
the law upon the subject of subscription to corporate stock as
follows
:
"The following propositions are given as the substan-
tially harmonious net result of much confusion in cases and text-
books. Rambling remarks may be found contrary to each prop-
osition, but very few reported cases have been decided contrary
to any one of these propositions upon the facts coming within
it, and I believe every proposition can be sustained in any State
or federal court:
"(a) A preliminary agreement to form a corporation and take
stock therein is not a contract by the subscribers with each other,
and can not be enforced by one or more against any other, but
only by the corporation.
''(b) Such an agreement, not made as a step authorized by
statute in the process of forming the corporation, is a mere ofifer
to the corporation not yet in existence, and is revocable by any
subscriber until the birth of the corporation, which operates as
an acceptance of the ofifer, and thereafter the subscription, if not
previously revoked, is irrevocable and may be enforced by the
corporation.
"(c) Such an agreement, made as a step authorized by statute
in the process of forming the corporation, is made valid by the
statute, and is binding upon each subscriber from tlie time of sign-
ing, and is irrevocable thereafter, but can be enforced only by the
corporation.
"(d) An agreement to pay money to trustees, to be by them
paid to a corporation thereafter to be created, the trustees to re-
turn to the subscribers stock in the corporation accordingly, is a
valid contract between the subscribers and the trustees.
"(e) The distinction made between a present subscription and
an agreement to subscribe to the stock of a corporation thereafter
to be created, is unsound in principle, and disappears as mere
dicta upon a thorough sifting of the cases. Woods, etc. Co., v.
Brady,
39
N. Y. Misc.,
(1902).
"(f) The damages recoverable by the corporation upon a sub-
scription is the amount of the subscription ; and all discussion of
any other measure of damages, such as difference between par
and market value of stock subscribed, arises from a misconception
of the situation, and disappears from the net result of the author-
ities.""
'
"Cook on Corporations, 75; Woods, etc. Co. v. Brady (1902), 39
N. Y. Misc. 79.

340.] PAYMENT OF SUBSCKIl'TION. 503

340.
Payment in notes, bonds and mortgages.

^A corpora-
tion may give credit for its stock as well as for other property
sold by it, and it has the same right to enforce the contract against
the subscriber.^^ Thus, stock may be issued for promissory
notes where the charter clearly contemplates giving credit to sub-
scribers.^^ So also a note given by a subscriber to the capital
stock of a bank, in payment of a first assessment, the certificate
for the stock being issued thereupon, is not void under the section
of a State constitution providing that "no corporation shall issue
stock except for money paid
;"
nor is it void under an act requiring
corporations to publish semi-annual statements of their paid-up
capital, and that nothing should be counted as capital except
money
; nor is it void under the penal provision that any director
of a corporation, voting to receive a note in payment of an assess-
ment on a stock subscription, should be guilty of a misdemeanor.^'^
Again, stock may be issued for bond and mortgage.^^ A sub-
15
Mitchell V. Beckman (1883),
64 Cal. 117.
16
Ogdensburg, etc. R. Co. v.
Wooley, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y. App.)
398; Magee v. Badger (1859), 30
Barb. 246; Goodrich v. Reynolds,
31 111. 490; Hardy v. Merri-
weather, 14 Ind. 203; Vermont
Central R. R. v. Clays, 21 Vt. 30.
In Wisconsin, stock may be issued
for a note secured by real estate,
where no provision as to the pay-
ment for stock is made. Clark v.
Farrington (1860), 11 Wis. 306;
Blunt V. Walker (1860), 11 Wis.
334; s. c. 78 Am. Dec. 709; Cornell
V. Hichins, 11 Wis. 353? Andrews
V. Hart, 17 Wis. 297; Lyon v.
Ewings, 17 Wis. 61; Western
Bank v. Tallman, 17 Wis. 530.
In an Illinois case, the plaintiff
alleged that, before the organiza-
tion of the corporation, it was
agreed between him and the in-
dividual members thereof that
the subscriptions to the capital
stock should be paid, not in
money, but out of the profits of
the business. A by-law provided
that the subscribers should be
charged with their stock liability,
and credited with the dividends,
until the liability should be ex-
tinguished. This was afterwards
repealed, with the plaintiff's as-
sent, and a resolution adopted
that each subscriber give his note,
payable on demand, for the
amount of his subscription and
interest, and pledge his right to
stock as collateral, and the plain-
tiff withdrew his dividends as
they accrued. It was, therefore,
considered that, even if such an
agreement were valid and proved,
it was abrogated, and the note re-
mained valid. McDowell v. Chi-
cago Steel Works (1888), 124 111.
491. But in some States it is held
that stock is not to be issued for
promissory notes, but that the
subscriber will be credited with
the amount actually collected
thereon. Moses v. Ocoee Bank,
1 Lea, 398. So in New^ York, it
can not be issued for the subscri-
ber's own note. 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat,
eh. 18, tit. 4,
2.
17
Pacific Trust Co. v. Dorsey
(1887), 72 Cal. 55, construing Cal.
Const, art. xii,
11; Cal. Laws of
1875-76, p. 729; Cal. Pen. Code,
560.
18
Blunt V. Walker, 11 Wis. 334,
78 Am. Dec. 709.; Andrews v.
Hart, 17 Wis. 297; Union Central
5U4 PAYMENT OF SCBSCKIPTION.
[
341.
scription by a municipal corporation to the capital stock of a
railway company may be paid in bonds of the municipality.^'' It
is further held that the statutory requirement that subscriptions
to capital stock shall be paid in cash is met by a payment by
a certified check on a national bank, wherein the drawee has
funds sufficient to meet it.-*' But the subscription is void if the
corporation has contracted to allow the subscriber an indefinite
time in which to pay.^^ Municipal bonds issued in aid of rail-
ways can not be made to run for a longer period than that
prescribed by the enabling act.-- And by an indorsement they
may be made to become due and payable upon default in pay-
ment of interest.-^ In the absence of express authority to make
municipal bonds payable elsewhere, they are to be made pay-
able at the municipal treasury.-* And when the place of pay-
ment is named in the bonds, neither the municipality nor the
legislature can make any change therein.-^

341.
Payment need not be in cash.Payment for stock in
a railroad company by an uncertified bank check, is not payment
Life Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 35 Ohio
St. 343; Valk v. Crandall, 1 Sandf.
Ch. (N. Y.) 179; Leavitt v. Pell,
27 Barb. 322.
19
Meyer v. City of Muscatine, 1
Wall. 384, 392; Town of Montclair
V. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147; Town
of Concord v. Portsmouth Savings
Bank, 92 U. S. 625; Common-
wealth V. Pittsburgh, 41 Pa. St.
270; Curtis v. Butler County, 24
How. 435; Evansville, etc. R. Co.
V. City of Evansville, 15 Ind. 395.
Contra, Starin v. Town of Genoa,
23 N. Y. 439. But it is not with
the railway company to elect to
take bonds and to bring proceed-
ings to compel their issue; its
only claim is for money. Chicago
etc. R. Co. V. St. Anne, 101 111.
151; Wood's Ry. Law,
128.
20
Jw re Staten Island Rapid
Transit R. Co., 37 Hun, 422.
Cf.
Thorp V. Woodhull
(1844), 1
Sandf. Ch. 411, holding that an
issue of stock upon a subscription
paid by check taken in payment
as equivalent to specie can not
be objected to by the subscriber
making such payment.
21
Van Allen v. Illinois, etc. R,
Co., 7 Bosw. 515.
22
Cairo, etc. R. Co. v. Sparta,
17 111. 106; People v. Harp, 67 111
62.
Cf.
Wheatland v. Taylor, 29
Hun, 70. In Norton v. Town of
Dyersburg, 127 XJ. S. 160, a gen-
eral act authorized municipal cor-
porations to issue railroad-aid
bonds running six years, and a
special act authorized the issue
by a town of such bonds running
four years, are not to be construed
together to authorize the town to
make its bonds payable in ten
years.
Cf. Wheatland v. Taylor,
29 Hun, 70.
23
GrifBn v. City Bank, 58 Ga.
584.
24
Shelock V. Winetka, 68 111.
530. But in Calhoun County v.
Galbraith, 99 U. S. 214, it was
held that the act being silent as
to place of payment, the county
might designate the place.
25
Dillingham v. Hook, 32 Kan.
185; Lowe v. Bliss, 24 111. 168;
s. c. 76 Am. Dec. 742; Childs v.
Lafiin, 55 111. 159; Chitty on
Bills, 566.

341.] PAYMENT OF SUBSdUPTION.

505
in cash, under the New York statutes, rcquirinjj ten per cent, of the
capital stock to be paid in cash upon fiUng articles of association.
The requirement may be complied with by filing amended articles
and they will operate as a valid original certificate of incorpora-
tion.- Subscriptions to the capital stock of a corporation need
not be paid in cash. Unless expressly required by the charter or
other statute, subscription to the stock of a corporation need
not be paid in cash upon its organization or at any fixed time.
The money may be paid as needed and when demanded by call
or assessment."^ Nevertheless, the subscriber becomes a stock-
holder from the time of his subscription and entitled to all the
rights and privileges of stockholders.-'^ The payment, if made and
received in good faith, may be either in money or in property which
the corporation is authorized to purchase.^ Wherefore, it may
be stated as a general rule that, in the absence of fraud, the courts
will treat as a payment what the parties have agreed shall be
a payment, even when the rights of creditors are involved.^'' The
earlier cases held that the contract of the subscribers could only
be fulfilled by payment in money. In later cases this doctrine
has been relaxed, and stock issued and paid up in work and labor
or in purchase of property of a kind that the corporation is
authorized to hold, has been held to have been legally issued.
Statutes have been passed authorizing corporations to purchase
property needed for their business, and to issue stock in payment
for it, or to accept such property in payment for subscriptions to
capital stock. But transactions under these statutory powers
have been upheld only when the contract for the rendition of
services or the purchase of property, payable in stock, has been
made in good faith and taken in payment at a fair valuation ; and
the courts have inflexibly enforced the rule that payment of stock
subscriptions is good as against creditors, only where payment has
been made in money or in what may fairly be considered as
money's worth.^^ When, however, this has been done, the valid-
2G
People V. Board of Commis- 2 Ch. App. 527; Bridger's Case,
sioners. etc. (N. Y. 1903), 67 N. L. R. 5 Ch. App. 305; Simpson's
E. 1088. Case, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 184;
27
New Albany, etc. Co. v. Mc- Thompson's Case, 34 L. J. Ch. 525;
Cormick, 10 Ind. 499, 71 Am. Dec. Fisher's Case, 53 L. T. 832; Sher-
337. rington's Case, 34 W. R. 49.
28
Windsor, etc. Co. v. Tandy,
so
Brant v. Ehlen (1882), 59
66 Vt. 248, 44 Am. St. Rep. 838. Md. 1.
29
Coffin V. Ransdell (1887), 110
si
Weatherby v. Baker, 35 N. J.
Ind. 417; Elkington's Case. L. R. Eq. 501, and authorities there
506 PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
[
341.
ity of the transaction is not to be questioned.^- It is not necessary
for any purpose that the ceremony of paying the money by the
company to the subscriber, and by him again to the company,
should be gone through with.^^ The issue of stock for property
or services is discretionary, however, on the part of the corpora-
tion, and that discretion can not be questioned by other subscribers
who are not injured.^* Nor, indeed, is a disposition of corporate
stock upon any terms, agreed to by all the members, to be
questioned save by creditors of the company. Thus, where un-
issued stock of a corporation which had no creditors was, by
agreement of all stockholders, paid for with corporate funds,
and issued to one stockholder to be held in trust for all, it was
held that the issue was valid, and that the directors had. no
authority afterwards to direct the stock to be sold.""
cited. Ace. Libby v. Tobby (Me.
1890), 19 Atlan. Rep. 904.
32Frenkel v. Hudson (1886), 82
Ala. 158; Sanger v. Upton (1875),
91 U. S. 56, 60; Brant v. Ehlen
(1882), 59 Md. 1; Searight v.
Payne, 6 Lea, 283; Burkenshaw v.
Nichols, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1004,
1012; Foreman v. Bigelow, 4 Cliff,
508, 544; Coffin v. Ransdell
(1887), 110 Ind. 417; Chouteau v.
Dean, 7 Mo. App. 210. Contra,
Neuse River, etc. Co. v. Commis-
sioners, 7 Jones' L. 275. Cf.
Henry v. Vermillion, etc. R. Co.,
17 Ohio, 187. By 30 & 31 Vict.
ch. 131, 25, stock is deemed to
be payable in money, unless a
contract that it be otherwise pay-
able shall be duly made in writing
and filed with the registrar of
joint-stock companies at or before
the issue of the shares. But even
though there has been no registra-
tion of the contract as required by
this statute, yet if the payment
has been actually made in prop-
erty or services rendered, or upon
accounts stated and settled, where
there has been no fraud, the par-
ties will be bound. Jones' Case,
L. R. 6 Ch. App. 48; Shroeder's
Case, L. R. 11 Eq. Cas. 131; Fore-
man V. Bigelow (1878), 4 Cliff.
508; Phelan v. Hazard, 5 Dill. 45;
Pell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 11;
Spayo's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. 407, 413;
Drummond's Case, L. R. 4 Ch.
772; Maynard's Case, L. R. 9
Ch. 355; Ferras' Case, L. R. 18
Eq. 670; Nichol's Case, L. R. 7
Ch. 533; s. c. on appeal t the
House of Lords, 26 W. R. 819;
Ex parte Clarke, L. R. 7 Eq. 550.
But if the accounts be not thus
liquidated, and there is only an
agreement that the property be
taken in payment for the stock,
a settlement in cash will be nec-
essary upon a winding-up. Crick-
mer's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. App. 614;
Fotheringill's Case, L. R. 8 Ch.
App. 270; Dent's Case, L. R. 15
Eq. Cas. 407; Rowland's Case, 42
L. T. N. S. 785.
33
Liebke v. Knapp, 79, Mo. 22,
49 Am. Rep. 212; Chouteau v.
Dean, 7 Mo. App. 210; Beach v.
Smith (1864), 30 N. Y. 116; Black
River, etc. R. Co. v. Clarke, 25 N.
Y. 208; N. Y. Laws of 1850, ch.
140,
2.
34
Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Wel-
lington (1873), 113 Mass. 79;
Stoddard v. Shetucket, etc. Co.
(1868), 34 Conn. 542; Vermont
Central R. Co. v. Clayes (1848),
21 Vt. 30.
35
Jones V. Morrison (1883), 31
Minn. 140.

342.]
PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
507

342.
Payment may be in cash, in stock, or in stock divi-
dend.If there be no express agreement to the contrary, a sub-
scription for stock is presumed to be for payment in cash. The
rule now is, that if a subscription for stock by its terms is made
payable in property or labor, or both, and is so taken at a valua-
tion made without fraud, the payment is as valid as though made
to the same amount in cash."*^
Subscriptions may be payable in property or service.After a
company is organized it often happens that new subscriptions
can be obtained only on new and peculiar terms, as, for example,
that the subscriber be permitted to pay in labor or materials. And
since the company frequently could not otherwise fulfill the object
of its creation,^'^ it is held that it may accept in payment of its
shares any property of a kind which it is authorized to purchase,
or which is necessary for the purposes of its legitimate business.^*
Thus, stock may be issued for labor, construction work, materials
or land
;
provided always that these transactions are entered
into and carried out in good faith.-"^^ "In the absence of fraud,
an agreement may ordinarily be made in which stockholders may
be allowed to pay for their shares in patents, mines, or other
property to which it is not easy to assign a determinate value."*"
A corporation, in payment of its stock, may receive whatever prop-
erty it may lawfully purchase.*^ "Payment of stock subscrip-
tions need not be in cash, but may be in any fair, just, lawful, and
needed equivalent for the money subscribed."*^ As, by a railroad
company, payment in materials or labor or land necessary for its
road
;*^
or, stock issued in cancellation of a debt ' owed for a tract
of land
;**
or, stock issued by an irrigation company in payment for
pipe-lines, wells, and ditches.*^ Stock may be issued by a rail-
so
Foreman V. Bigelow (1878), etc. R. Co. v. Hickman (1857),
4 Cliff. 508, 544; s. c. 9 Fed. Cas. 28 Pa. St. 318; Clark v. Farring-
427.
ton, 11 Wis. 306.
37
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v.
39 Branch v. Jessup, 106 U. S.
Hickman (1887), 28 Pa. St. 318; 468.
Erie, etc. Co. v. Brown, 25 Pa. St.
40
New Haven, etc. Co. v. Lin-
156.
den Spring Co.. 142 Mass. 349.
38
Coffin V. Ransdell (1887), 110
41
Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1.
Ind. 417; Liebke v. Knapp (1883),
42 Leibke v. Knapp, 79 Mo. 22.
79 Mo. 22; Kehlor v. Landemann,
43
Clark v. Farrington, 11 Wis.
11 Mo. App. 550; Carr v. Le Fevre, 306.
27 Pa. St. 413; Brant v. Ehlen
44
Richardson v. Graham (1898),
(1882),
59 Md. 1; American Silk 45 W. Va. 134. 30 S. E. 92.
Works V. Solomon, 4 Plim, 135;
45
Loud v. Pomona, etc. Co.
Bedford County v. Nashville, etc. (1894), 153 U, S. 564.
R. Co., 14 Lea, 525; Philadelphia,
508
TAYMENT OF SUBSCKIPTION.
[
343.
way company for cros^-tics to be used in the construction of its
road/" And subscriptions to stock of a corporation, organized to
carry on an iron-furnace, may be paid in coal-lands and in iron
lands.*^ It may issue stock in lieu of damages which it is liable to
pay/^ cvnd in satisfaction of its debts.
'*^
And where certain shares
of stock in a corporation organized to construct a bridge over a
river, were issued to the proprietor of a newspaper published
in the city where the bridge was to be built, the consideration
therefore being the publication of articles and communications
in his journal favoring the enterprise and pointing out its value
to the community and its standing as an investment, this was held
a good consideration.^"

343.
Payment may be in property or in service.Stock
subscriptions, though made payable in cash, may be paid in land
even though it turns out to have been overvalued.^^ The issue
of stock for property, labor, or contract work, need not neces-
sarily be with the formality of a subscription.^^ An agreement
to buy stock v/as held to be a subscription to stock.^^
Subscription to stock distinguished from
sale.Original issue
of stock is subscription, and not sale. A "sale" of stock is its
transfer after its original issue by subscription. When the sub-
scription is payable in property, it is an informal subscription,
but not a sale.^*
Effect
of
non-payment.Where, as a condition precedent, the
charter or other statute expressly requires subscribers to pay
their subscriptions or a specified percentage thereof, the corpora-
will fail to acquire any legal corporate existence in the absence
-of such payment.^^ But, unless expressly so required, the non-
payment of the subscription, or any part of it, does not invalidate
it, whether it was made before or after incorporation.^'' A sub-
46
Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Cramer, lawful a-nd needed equivalent for
23 Ind. 490. the money subscribed.
47
Searight v. Payne, 6 Lea, 283.
5i
Carr v. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St.
48
Philadelphia, etc. R. Co. v. 413.
Hickman (1857), 28 Pa. St. 318. 52 Western Bank, etc. v. Tall-
49
Carr v. Le Fevre, 27 Pa. St. man, 17 Wis. 530.
413; Reed V. Hayt, 51 N. Y. Super.
53
Lincoln, etc. Co. v. Sheldon
Ct. Rep. 121; Appleyard's Case, (1895), 44 Neb. 279.
49 L. J. Ch. 290.
54 Farwell v. Great Western
eoLiebke v. Knapp (1883), 97 Tel. Co. (1896), 161 111. 522.
Mo. 22, where it was said that
55 Napier v. Poe, 12 Ga. 170;
payment of a stock subscription Jersey City v. Dwight, 29 N. J.
may be made in whatever repres- Eq. 242.
ents to the corporation a fair, just,
^'C
Waukon, etc. Co. v. Dwyer,
49 Iowa, 121,

344:.] PAYMENT OF SUBSCKIPTION. 509

scribcr can not plead his failure to make such a required payment
in a suit by the corporation on his subscription ; as, where it was
required that five dollars per share should be paid at the time
of subscribing, the court said: 'If the plaintiff sees fit to accept
the subscription, without requiring the concurrent payment which
it is authorized to require, this is a waiver of its right to insist
upon such payment, a waiver to which the subscriber assents and
agrees by the very act of subscription without concurrent pay-
ment. In the absence of any rule of law or provision of statute,
forbidding a waiver, or invalidating any subscription made upon
a waiver, this indulgence upon tlie part of the comp uiy can not
be turned against it, as a defense to an action to recover the
subscription price of shares."^^ Subscriptions payable in property
are not subject to calls ; the corporation must demand the prop-
erty.
^^
On failure of the subscriber to furnish the property, or
upon his insolvency, the subscription becomes payable ir: cash.'^"

344.
Overvaluation of property or service accepted ui pay-
ment,Where a corporation agrees to issue shares of it'^^ stocl*
in payment for services rendered to it, the fact that the rcsul'
shows that the price agreed to be paid is extravagant dees no-
of itself furnish a ground to release the corporation from its con
tract, particularly where no claim is made that the contract is pre
judicial to creditors."" Unless the agreement is rescinded or im
peached for fraud, the courts, as between the parties, will treal
that as a payment which they have agreed should be a payment."'
Accordingly, an action at law can not be maintained by the re-
ceiver of a corporation to collect, as unpaid subscriptions, the
difference between wdiat is claimed to be the actual value of
property given by certain subscribers and received by the corpora-
tion in payment of their subscriptions, and the amount of the
subscriptions, where there was no fraud, and the property, al-
though overvalued, was such as the corporation required for the
purposes of its legitimate business."- For there must be actual
fraud in the transaction to enable creditors of the corporation tc
call the stockholders to account."^ And where a corporation which.
57
Minneapolis, etc. Co. v. Bas-
ci
Phelan v. Hazard (1878), 5
sett, 20 Minn. 535, 18 Am. Rep. Dill. 45; Coffin v. Ransdell (1887).
376. 110 Ind. 417.
58
Ohio, etc. R. R. v. Cramer, 23
r,-
Coffin v. Ransdell, 110 Ind.
Ind. 490. 417.
50
Haywood, etc. Co. v. Bryan,
C3
Field, J., in Coit v. North
6 Jones. L. (N. C.) 82. Carolina, etc. Co. (1887), 119 U.
60
Arapahoe, etc. Co. v. Stevens S. 343.
(Colo. 1890), 22 Pacif. Rep. 823.
510 PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
[
344:.
is authorized by its charter to buy land and pay for it in full-paid
stock, issues stock to an amount greatly in excess of the value
of the land, and the shares are sold to a purchaser for value,
he is not liable to the creditors of the corporation on the ground
that his stock is not fully paid for, where there was no fraud in
the original transaction and the corporation has taken no steps
to rescind it.^^ For, even if a purchaser of stock were bound to
inquire whether the stock had been fully paid for or not, a
proposition not supported by authority, such inquiry at most
would, if made, only have disclosed the fact that the stock had
been paid for in lands, and that perhaps some persons did not con-
sider them worth as much as the stock at par, but that would
not prove that the company had not accepted them in full payment,
as the resolution of the stockholders' meeting shows it did, nor
that the stock so issued was not full paid. Nor would such facts
have suggested that if he purchased the stock he would become
liable to contribute to the difference between the value of the
land and the par value of the stock. The stock having already
been paid for once, that payment was sufficient to protect a pur-
chaser for value against tlie company or its creditors.^ And a
creditor of the corporation can not maintain a bill to compel the
shareholders to pay the amount of their subscription, if it appears
that the stock has been fully paid up in property, at an honest
and fair valuation, though by reason of subsequent events the
property has depreciated, and no longer represents the face value
of the stock.^
64
Du Pont V. Tilden (1890), for value, and coal has been large-
42 Fed. Rep. 87; s. c. 8 Ry. & ly mined out of the land. The
Corp. L. J. 28. cases of Bridge Co. v. McCluney,
65
Du Pont V. Tilden (1890),
42 8 Mo. App. 500, and Brant v. Eh-
Fed. Rep. 87; s. c. 8 Ry. & Corp. len, 59 Md. 1, seem to me to be
L. J. 28. "But on the ground of instructive upon the points raised,
gross overvaluation alone, the and conclusive against complain-
company might, if it had acted in ants' right to recover." Du Pont
apt time, have had this transac- v. Tilden (1890), 42 Fed. Rep. 87;
tion set aside, and the stock sur- s. c. 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 28.
rendered and cancelled on a re-
ee
Coit v. North Carolina, etc.
conveyance of the land for the Co. (1887), 119 U. S. 393. Ace.
stock while it still remained in Schenck v. Andrews (1874), 57
the hands of the original holder, N. Y. 133, where it is held that
but not when it is impossible to the directors are the judges of the
restore the parties to their orig- value of the property, and subse-
inal condition, as after the stock, quent depreciation in prices
at least a part of it, has gone into should not be used to impeach the
the hands of bona
fide
purchasers good faith of the parties. Carr

345.]
PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION. ill

345-
Overvaluation, when "gross," presumes fraud.If
the property received is grossly unequal in value to the par value
of the shares, the shareholder who received the shares originally,
or his subsequent transferee with notice of the circumstances, may
be compelled to make up the difference in value, in a suit brought
by or on behalf of the persons injured thereby." "A gross and
obvious overvaluation of property would be strong evidence of
fraud.
"''^
If unexplained, it is conclusive evidence that the over-
valuation was intentional and fraudulent.*'^ An intentional over-
valuation is fraudulent as a matter of law.''" Where the trustees
of a corporation were authorized to issue stock and to exchange
it for property, the statute declaring that when exchanged, it
should be taken to be full-paid stock and not liable to further
calls, the trustees, who were the only members of the corporation,
exchanged the whole capital stock for their own property, then
distributed the stock among themselves, and sold it to innocent
purchasers as fully paid, and it was held that the purchasers
could not maintain a suit to compel the trustees to account to
the corporation for a fraudulent disposition of its capital stock.
V. LeFevre (1S56), 27 Pa. St. 413,
where it was said that taking
property at a prospective value
never realized, is an error of judg-
ment merely, and, in the absence
of fraud, it forms no ground for
rescinding the contract. Schroe-
der's Case, L. R. 11 Eq. 131. Ace.
Osgood V. King, 42 Iowa, 478,
where the property was worth
tM'enty-seven thousand dollars and
stock was issued to the amount
of one hundred and ninety thous-
and. And see Bolz v. Ridder, 19
AVeekly Dig. 463, where a patent
right valued at one time at one
thousand dollars, being afterwards
sold for shares to the amount of
a hundred thousand, was held
only presumptively fraudulent,
and sufficiently capable of explan-
ation to be submitted to the jury.
67
Taylor on Corporation, 545,
citing Bailey v. Coal Co., 69 Pa.
St. 334, and Boynton v. Hatch, 47
N. Y. 225. Under the rule of these
cases, if the defendant's claim be
true, that he took his shares of
stock from the vendor as full-paid
shares, his liability would be the
same as that of the vendor be-
cause he knew the circumstances
under which it was issued. Boul-
ton, etc. Co. v. Mills (1889), 78
Iowa, 460; s. c. 6 Ry. & Corp. L.
J. 417, where it was held to be
immaterial that all the stock was
at first issued to three of the in-
corporators, and was afterwards
re-issued to the defendant and
others, it being shown that he
was an original subscriber for
stock, which he only partly paid
for, and that the organization of
the corporation, the percentage to
be paid for the stock, and the
issuance and acceptance thereof,
were parts of a single transac-
tion. Iowa Code, 1082; Osgood
V. King, 42 Iowa, 478; Jackson v.
Traer, 64 Iowa, 469; Sawyer v.
Hoag, 17 Wall. 610.
cscoit V. Gold, etc. Co., 119
U. S. 343.
69
Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S.
104; Coleman v. Howe, 154 111. 458.
TO
Gates v. Tippecanoe Stone
Co., 57 Ohio St. 60.
512
PAYMENT OF SUBSCUIPTION.
[
345.
notwithstanding the fraudulent character of the transaction."^
The fact that the property accepted in payment of stock was not,
at the date of incorporation, worth more than one-fifth of the
vahiation set upon it, although presumptive evidence of fraud,
does not charge the incorporators with legal fraud where they
are shown to have made their valuation honestly.'" "Where the
nature and condition of the property are such that its value is
well known and understood, or is capable of being readily es-
timated and ascertained, and the property is transferred to the
corporation at a gross overvaluation for paid-up shares, the
transaction is prima facie fraudulent as to subsequent creditors,
and as against them the burden is upon the shareholder to rebut
the presumption by clear and satisfactory evidence. If he knew
or- ought to have known that he was paying for his stock in
property at a material overvaluation, it will not be sufficient for
him to shov\^, as a mental operation, that he did not intend to
defraud any one. He must go further, and show that, in the
exercise of ordinary business sense, he was justified in believing,
and did honestly believe, that the property was being turned in
at a fair valuation. Where the facts are undisputed, and the
overvaluation so great as to show that the stockholder ought to
have known it, if he had exercised ordinary business prudence, his
actual belief or intention in the premises will not avail him
;
he will be presumed to have intended the reasonable and natural
consequence of his act, which is to defraud creditors in case
of the insolvency of the corporation."'^^ "The transaction may
be impeached for fraud, but not for error of judgment or mistaken
views of the value of the property, inasmuch as good faith and
the exercise of an honest judgment is all that is required."'^''
"Although there was in fact an overvaluation of the property,
it will not render the stockholders liable for the deficiency if it
was the result of an honest mistake or error of judgment."'^
"The transfer of a patent which has no ascertained value ; which,
in the language of the witness, 'as it turned out, was worth
nothing,' cannot be regarded as 'money,' or its equivalent, because
71
Foster v. Seymour, 23 Fed.
74
Douglass v. Ireland, 73 N. Y.
Rep. 65. 100.
72
Young V. Erie Iron Co. (1887)
75
Hastings, etc. Co. v. Iron, etc.
65 Mich. 111.
Co., 65 Minn. 28, 67 N. W. 65.
73
Hastings, etc. Co. v. Iron, etc.
Co., 65 Minn. 28.

345.] PAYMEiiT OF SUBSCKIPTION. 513

those engaged in the management of the company beUeve at the
time it is valuable, and receive it after organization, upon some
fixed estimate of its value between them and the subscriber, as
so much money. Before a thing can be regarded as money or its
equivalent, it must have an actual, positive, and ascertained
valuea value so thoroughly ascertained and fixed at the time,
that it can at once be changed into money, of which it is re-
garded as the equivalent."^*' In case of payment in an invention
or patent right which turns out worthless, even where the parties
believed it to be valuable, proof of fraudulent intent is not neces-
sary to entitle the subsequent bona fide creditors to enforce pay-
ment.'^^ In the purchase of property and issue of stock in pay-
ment, the measure of value of the property is what it is actually
worth, regardless of what it cost the vendor." While it is
generally the province of the jury to determine whether property
has been accepted for the issue of shares at an overvaluation and
whether there was a fraudulent intent in so doing,'^ yet it is not
necessary in the action by the creditor to allege fraud in the
petition in order to render competent evidence of fraud in the
organization of the corporation and the issuance of the stock."^
For if the evidence shows the overvaluation to have been so ex-
cessive that it must have been intentional, the court will itself,
as a presumption of law, pronounce the transaction fraudulent,
unless it be reasonably explained.^^ Yet in order for the court
to find a fraud in law, there must be shown, either an intentional
fraud in fact, or such reckless conduct in the valuation without
regard to the real value of the property as would indicate, with-
76
Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly the property worth ?50,000 was
(N. Y.), 364. taken at $100,000; Coit v. North
77
Van Cleve v. Berkey, 143 Mo. Carolina, etc. Co. (1S87), 119 U.
109, 42 L. R. A. 593. S. 343; Van Cott v. Van Brunt,
7s
Grant v. East, etc. Co., 13 82 N. Y. 535; Boynton v. Hatch,
U. S. App. 1, 54 Fed. 569. 47 N. Y. 225; Carr v. Le Fevre, 27
79
Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Pa. St. 413. Defendant having
Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87; Boynton v. conceded that he paid but five
Hatch, 47 N. Y. 225; Draper v. hundred dollars for twenty-five
Beadle, 16 Week. Dig. 475; Bolz hundred dollars in stock can not
V. Ridder, 19 Week. Dig. 463. introduce evidence that the prop-
so
Boulton, etc. Co. v. Mills ertj'' was believed to be worth
(1889), 78 Iowa, 460; s. c. 6 Ry. three times the par value of the
& Corp. L. J. 417, 5 L. R. A. 649. stock, one-half of which was is-
81 Douglass V. Ireland, 73 N. Y. sued for it. Boulton, etc. Co. v.
100, where property worth $64,000 Mills (1889), 78 Iowa, 460; s. c.
was valued at $300,000; Boynton 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 417.
V. Andrews, 63 N. Y. 93, where
Vol. 1

33
514
PAYMENT OF SUBSCRirTION.
[
3i6.
out explanation, an intent to defraud.^- In England, when no
creditors' rights are involved and all the shareholders of the
corporation have acquiesced, the directors will not be liable to the
company with respect to profits accruing to them from an issue of
shares for property grossly overvalued.^'^

346.
Payment of less than par.A corporation may dis-
pose of its stock for less than its face value, and the transaction,
as between the corporation and the purchaser, will be valid, unless
prohibited by statute,^* where there is no fraud against creditor
and no suit can be maintained by the company to collect the
unpaid balance for any purpose of its own, the shares being issued
as full-paid on a fair understanding.^ As between the parties,
and where all the stockholders consent, such a transaction is
valid and binding, and the corporation cannot afterwards enforce
a payrhent of the difference between the par value of the stock and
the price agreed as full payment." "The stock held by the de-
fendant was evidenced by certificates of full-paid shares. It is
conceded to have been the contract between him and the company
82
Young V. Erie Iron Co. (1887),
65 Mich. Ill; Lake Superior Iron
Co. V. Drexel, 90 N. Y. 87; Doug-
lass V. Ireland, 73 N. Y. 100; Boyn-
ton V. Andrews, 63 N. Y. 93;
Schenck v. Andrews, 57 N. Y. 134.
In Boynton v. Hatch, 47 N. Y.
225, the Court of Appeals of New
York was evenly divided upon the
question, whether, after having
shown that the property given in
payment of shares was taken at
an overvaluation, it was necessarj''
for the plaintiff to further prove
that it was done knowingly and
with fraudulent intent. Where
property is taken in payment for
shares of the capital stock of a
corporation, and the transaction
is made matter of record, and
ratified by the directors and stock-
holders, the shares will be treated
as fully paid, as against one who
became assignee of a judgment
creditor of the corporation, after
he had purchased the shares with
full knowledge of the facts attend-
ing their issue. Walburn v. Che-
nault (Kan. 1890), 23 Pacif. Rep.
656.
83
In re Ambrose, etc. Co., 14
Ch. Div. 390.
84
Harrison v. Arkansas Valley
Ry. Co. (1882), 4 McCrary C. Ct.
264; Scovill v. Thayer (1881), 105
U. S. 153. The court in the latter
case said: "The stock held by
the defendant was evidenced by
certificates of full-paid shares. It
is conceded to have been the con-
tract between him and the com-
pany that he should never be
called upon to pay any further
assessemnts upon it. The same
contract was made with all the
other shareholders, and the fact
was known to all as between
them and the company. This was
a perfectly valid agreement. It
was not forbidden by the charter
or by any law or public policy,
and as between the company and
the stockholders was just as bind-
ing as if it had been expressly
authorized by the charter."
85
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105
U. S. 154.
86
Barr v. New York, etc. Co.,
125 N. Y. 263.

340.] PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION. 515

that he should never be called upon to pay any further assessments
upon it. The same contract was made with all the other share-
holders, and the fact was known to all. As between them and the
company this was a perfectly valid agreement. It was not for-
bidden by the charter or by any law or public policy, and as
between the company and the stockholders was just as binding
as if it had been expressly authorized by the charter. If the
company, for the purpose of increasing its business, had called
upon the stockholders to pay up that part of their stock which
had been satisfied 'by discount' according to their contract, they
could have successfully resisted such a demand. No suit could
have been maintained by the company to collect the unpaid stock
for such a purpose. The shares were issued as full-paid, on a
fair understanding, and that bound the company."*^ Accordingly
the stockholders of a mining corporation, organized under the
laws of California, are not obliged to pay in the par value of their
shares, and independent of an agreement to the contrary, an
assessment on their stock can be enforced only by the sale of
their shares.
^^
It has been held generally in English cases that
not only is the company bound, but its creditors also are bound
"by such a contract.* But the American rule is that the contract,
although binding on the company, is a fraud in law on its cred-
itors, which they can set aside ; and when their rights intervene
and their claims are to be satisfied, the stockholders can be re-
quired to pay the subscriptions in full.'''' This grows out of the
American doctrine that the stock subscribed is a trust fund for
the payment of creditors.^ It is so held out to the public, who
have no means of knowing the private contracts made between
the corporation and its stockholders. The creditor has, therefore,
the right to presume that the stock subscribed has been or will
be paid up." The company can not compel specific performance
87
Scovill V. Thayer, 105 U. S. 11 Wall. 96; Burke v. Smith, 16
143. Wall. 390.
88
In re South Mountain Consol-
9i
Scovill v. Thayer (1881), 105
idated Mining Co. (1881), 7 Saw- U. S. 154; Wood v. Dummer, 3
yer, C. Ct. 30. Mason, 308; Mumma v. Potomac
89
Waterhouse v. Jamieson, L. Co., 8 Pet. 281; Ogilvie v. Knox
R. 2 H. L. (Sc.) 29; Currie's Case, Ins. Co., 22 How. 387; Sawyer v.
3 De G., J. & S. 367; Carling's Hoag, 17 Wall. 610.
Case, 1 Ch. Div. 115.
"2
Scovill v. Thayer (1881), 105
90
Scovill V. Thayer (1881), 105 U. S. 154; Shickle v. Watts ^1888)
U. S. 154; Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 94 Mo. 410.
Wall. 610; New Albany v. Burke,
510 PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
[
347.
of a contract to take shares below par, for to carry out its own
part of such an agreement would be an tdtra vires act."^

347.
Payment of less than par is constructive fraud.

While a presumption of fraud arises in the case of an issue of

shares for property or services, only when gross overvaluation
is shown,in the case of an issue for money, the acceptance of
any amount less than par as payment in full, is sufficient, without
proof of actual fraudulent intent, to constitute constructive fraud,
for in the latter case there is no room for mistaken judgment.
^^
Accordingly, mandamus will not lie at the suit of a subscriber to
compel the issue of shares at less than par in pursuance of a
resolution of the stockholders that it be so issued."^ And cancel-
lation of an issue of stock below par may be decreed at the in-
stance of any shareholder not estopped by his conduct or acquies-
cense from objecting thereto.
^
Furthermore, it seems that when
the issue would amount to a fraud upon the public, the attorney-
general of the State may prevent it by injunction.'''^ Unless the
issue were absolutely void by statute,''^ stockholders who are par-
ties to the transaction by which stock has been issued to them
for less than par, or who have knowingly acquiesced in an issue
for less than the face value of the stock, are estopped from
questioning its legality.'' Nor can their transferees bring suit in
behalf of the corporation and other stockholders against the par-
ties participating in the issue.^ Accordingly, a participating sub-
scriber can not withdraw and recover back the money already
paid ; for he is in pari delicto with the corporation.^ And if
shareholders participate in an issue of stock for no consideration
whatever, their contracts among themselves in regard to it will
93
Western Ry. Co. v. Mowatt,
os
Knowlton v. Congress, etc.
12 Jur. pt. I. 407. Co., 14 Blatchf. 364, 368; s. c. 103
94
Plinn V. Bagley, 7 Fed. Rep. U. S. 49, reversing s. c. 57 N. Y.
785. 513.
95
State V. Timken (1886), 48
99
Scovill v. Thayer (1881), 105
N. J. L. 87. U. S. 143; In re Gold Co., 2 Ch.
96Fisk V. Chicago, etc. R. Co., DiV. 701, 712.
53 Barb. 513; Gilman, etc. R. Co.
1
Nott v. Clews, 14 Abb. N. C.
V. Kelly
(1875), 77 111. 426; Camp- 437; Parsons v. Hays, 14 Abb. N.
bell V. Morgan, 4 Bradw. 100. C. 419; Flagler Co. v. Flagler
97
Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, (1883), 19 Fed. Rep. 468; s. c. 14
3d ed. 708, 709.
Cf.
Holman v. Abb. N. C. 435; Langdon v. Fogg
State
(1886), 105 Ind. 569; Jersey (1883), 18 Fed. Rep. 5.
City, etc. Co. v. Dwight, 29 N.
2
Clarke v. Lincoln Lumber Co.
J. 242; Erie Ry. Co. v, Casey, 26 (1884) 59 Wis. 655; Goff v. Hawk-
Pa. St. 287, 318. eye, etc. Co., 62 Iowa, 691.

3i8.] PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION. 517

not be enforced by the courts.^ If the directors have participated
in the profits of the issue, the company has recourse against
them for the damages it has sustained.'*

348.
Statutory and constitutional provisions construed.

There are many statutory and constitutional provisions prohibit-

ing the issue of stock except for money, property or labor actually
rendered.^ Under these constitutional provisions, an issue to an
unreasonable amount beyond the value of property actually re-
ceived, can not be authorized by statute." But the prohibition of
the Illinois constitution against the issue, by railway corporations,
of "stock or bonds, except for money, labor, or property actually
received and applied to the purposes for which such corporation
was created," is not intended to interfere with the usual methods
of raising" money for legitimate purposes, as for construction of
the road by the issue and sale of stock and bonds before the
work to be paid for has been actually done.'^ For the latter part
of the clause of the constitution in question, which declares that
all stocks, dividends, and other fictitious increase of the capital
stock or indebtedness shall be void, clearly points out the chief
object which the constitutional convention sought to accomplish in
adopting it; and to this we must look in a large degree for a
solution of the language which precedes it. The object was,
sTobey v. Robinson (1881), 99 cb. 664,
42. Substantially sim-
111. 222. ilar prohibitions are made by Wis.
4
Flagler, etc. Co. v. Flagler Rev. Stat. (1878) 1753, as
(1883), 19 Fed. Rep. 468; Contin- amended by Laws of 1881, ch.
ental Telegraph Co. v. Nelson, 49 93; Mass. Pub. Stat. ch. 112, 61;
N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 197; Nott v. Mo. Rev. Stat.
927; N. H. Gen.
Clews, 14 Abb. N. C. 437; Osgood Stat. ch. 134, 8; Ark. Const,
v. King, 42 Iowa, 478.
Cf.
Lang- (1874) art. xii; Pa. Const, art.
don V. Fogg, 18 Fed. Rep. 5; s. c. xvi,
7; Ala. Const, art. xiii,
14 Abb. N. C. 435; Douglass v. 6; Cal. Const, art. xii,

11. See
Ireland, 73 N. Y. 100; De Ruv- also the constitutions of Colorado,
igne's Case, 5 Ch. Div. 316; Car- Louisiana and Texas, as to cor-
ling's Case, 1 Ch. Div. 115; Cur- porations in general, and of Illi-
rie's Case, 3 De Gex, J. &. S. 367. nois and Nebraska, as to railway
5
For example the New York companies, cited by Stimpson's
"Stock Corporation Law of 1890," Am. Stat. Law (1886),
452.
Cf.
enacts that "no corporation shall constitutions and statutes cited
issue either stock or bonds ex- in

194, supra.
cept for money, labor done, or
c
Ewing v. Oroville Min. Co.
property actually received for the (1880), 56 Cal. 647; Cal. Const.
use and lawful purposes of such art. xii, 11. Cal. Code,
559, is
corporation, at its fair value, and therefore unconstitutional.
all stock issued in violation of
'
Peoria & Springfield R. Co. v.
the provisions of this section shall Thompson, 103 111. 187.
be void." N. Y. Laws of 1890,
518 PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
[
348.
doubtless, to prevent reckless and unscrupulous speculators, under
the guise or pretense of building a railroad, or of accomplishing
some other legitimate corporate purpose, from fraudulently issu-
ing and putting upon the market bonds or stocks that do not,
and are not intended to, represent money or property of any kind,
either in possession or expectancy. Under this provision of the
constitution, railroad companies have no right to lend, give
away, or sell on credit, their bonds or stock, nor have they
any right to dispose of either, except for a present consideration,
and for a corporate purpose.^ And therefore under a similar
constitutional provision that "no private corporation shall issue
stock or bonds except for money or property actually received,
and all fictitious increase of stock or indebtedness shall be void,"

mortgage bondholders, who buy in the property and franchise of

a corporation upon foreclosure sale under their mortgage, are not
prohibited from fixing the terms upon which they will surrender
those interests ; and they may reorganize upon substantially the
same basis, as to capital stock and bonded indebtedness, as that
of the old corporation and its predecessor previous to the adoption
of the constitution ; although under that arrangement they re-
ceive both stock and bonds in a large amount, of which the
amount of the stock alone is sufficient to cover the full value
of the property, rights, and privileges of the reorganized com-
pany.* For this provision does not necessarily indicate a pur-
pose to make the validity of every issue of stock or bonds by a
private corporation depend upon the inquiry whether the money,
property, or labor actually received therefor was of equal value
in the market with the stock or bonds so issued. It is not clear,
from the words used, that the framers of that instrument intended
to restrict private corporations, at least when acting with the
approval of their stockholders, in the exchange of their stock or
bonds for money, property or labor, upon such terms as they
deem proper, provided always, the transaction is a real one, based
upon a present consideration, and having reference to legitimate
corporate purposes, and is not a mere device to evade the law and
accomplish that which is forbidden.^" But a contract to furnish
the labor and materials for construction of a railroad at an ex-
8 Harlan, J., in Memphis, etc. R. (1887), 120 U. S. 287.
Cf.
Stein
Co. V. Dow (1887), 120 U. S. 298, v. Howard (1884), 65 Cal. 616.
quoting from Peoria, etc. R. Co.
lo
Harlan, J., in Memphis, etc.
V. Thompson, 103 111. 187, 201. R. Co. v. Dow (1887), 120 U. S.
9 Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Dow 299.

348.] PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.

510
penditure not to exceed a certain sum, the corporation, in consider-
ation thereof, to issue to the contractor an amount of its capital
stock fifty per centum greater, as fuhy paid up, and an equal
amount of its first mortgage bonds, was held to contravene a
constitutional provision prohibiting issuance of stocks or bonds
except for money, labor done, or property actually received ; it
appearing that the materials could be furnished and the road built
for less than the first sum in cash." Under a constitutional
provision, that no corporation shall issue stock or bonds except
for money, labor done, or money or property actually received,
an increase in the value of the property in which the original
stock is invested will not justify an issue of additional capital
stock to the stockholders as a stock dividend.^- So also under
a statute providing that a corporation shall not lend money to its
stockholders ; and prohibiting a corporation from issuing stock or
bonds except "for money paid, labor done, or money or property
actually received," and making all fictitious issues of stock or
bonds void, it is held that a corporation whose plant is not sus-
ceptible of division, or prudently convertible into cash, and which
has no ready money, can not adopt a resolution reducing its capital
stock one-half, on the ground of its being necessary and the re-
maining capital being all-sufficient for the purposes of the cor-
poration
;
and then on the same day of the reduction, adopt further
resolutions requiring the directors to pay to the stockholders pro
rata the amount of the surplus thus created ; call in and cancel the
existing certificates of stock ; issue new ones instead ; authorize
the directors to purchase from the stockholders the surplus for the
use of the corporation ; for the payment of the amount of such
surplus issue bonds ; secure them by deed of trust on all the
property of the company, and create a sinking fund out of the
earnings of the company to pay ofif the principal and interest on the
bonds." And, if there be no fraud, even the creditors of the
corporation have no recourse against the purchasers or holders of
shares originally issued below par for the difiFerence between the
par value and the price at which they were sold.^^ Under a con-
11
New Castle, etc. Ry. Co. v.
i3
Coquard v. St. Louis, etc. Co.
Simpson, 21 Fed. Repi 533, con- (Mo. 1S88). 7 S. W. Rep. 176, de-
struing Pa. Const, art. xvi,
7. cided under Mo. Rev. State.
933,
12
Fitzpatrick v. Dispatch, etc. 937.
Co. (1887), 83 Ala. 604, construing
n
Ross v. Silver & Copper Isl-
Ala. Const, art. xiii, 6. Tide and Min. Co. (Minn. 1887), 31
supra,
479. N. W. Rep. 219.
520 PAYMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION.
[3
48.
stitutional prohibition of the issue of stock "except for money ac-
tually received," it is held that a contract transferring shares is-
sued at less than par, is void, as in violation of public policy.^'
So also a statute prohibiting a corporation from disposing of its
capital stock at less than par, except at auction, for nonpayment
of assessments, does not apply to a holder of stock which the
corporation has pledged or mortgaged.^

348a. Fraudulent method of pretended payment.

'AVhere
a' stockholder in an insurance company gave his note for eighty-five
per cent, of his subscription, to the capital stock of the corporation
after it became insolvent, and he knew the fact, and bought up a
claim against the corporation for one-third its face, and being sued
on his note by the assignee in bankruptcy of the corporation, set
up the claim as an off-set, this was an attempted fraud on the
bankrupt act, independent of the trust-fund doctrine.
The unpaid subscriptions to the capital stock of an insolvent
corporation are a trust fund for the benefit of the general creditors
of the corporation. The governing officers can not by agreement,
or other transaction with the stockholder, release him from his
obligation to pay, to the prejudice of the corporate creditors, ex-
cept by fair and honest dealing and for a valuable consideration.
An undertaking by the corporation and the subscriber to convert
his debt owed to the corporation for his stock, into a debt for
the loan of money, whereby to extinguish the stock, debt, is a fraud
upon the public who are expected to deal with them. Where the
method adopted is pretended payment for the stock by check, which
is never paid, and immediate loan of the amount to the stock-
holder upon security which is never paid to the corporation,
no actual money being paid or received by either party to the
transaction, this system of operation is to the injury of the
corporate creditor and beneficial alone to the stockholder and the
corporation. The result is that the capital stock is not paid up
in actual money, nor does it exist in the form of instalments prop-
erly secured.^^
15
Williams v. Evans (1889), struing N. H. Gen. Stat. ch. 134,
87 Ala. 725, construing Ala. Const. 8.
of 1875, art. xiv,

6.
17
Sawyer v. Hoag (1873), 17
16
Peterborough R. Co. v. Nashua Wall. 610.
& Lowell R. Co., 59 N. H. 385, con-
CHAPTER XV.
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
SALE OF STOCK.

349. Sale distinguished from

transfer.
350. Shares are personal prop-
erty. The contract of
sale. The statute of
frauds.
350a. Transfer of shares. Sell-
er's option to repur-
chase.
351. Gambling sales.
352. Who may buy and sell
stock.
353. (a) Married women as pur-
chaser.
354. (b) Infant as purchaser.
355. (c) Person of unsound
mind.
356. (d) Sales by directors and
officers.

357.
358.
359.
360.
3G1.
362.
363.
364.
367.
(e) Whether directors may
transfer qualification
shares.
(f) Transfer by joint-o\^'n-
ers.
(g)
Agents as purchasers.
(h) Sales by trustee.
(i) Sales by guardians, ex-
ecutors, etc.
(j)
Purchase by assignee in
bankruptcy.
(k) Purchase of stock by
banks.
(m) Purchase by religious,
charitable institutions.
(q)
Injunction to restrain
purchase by corporation.
TEANSFEE BY GIFT OE WILL.
368. Gifts of shares of stock.
369. Legacies of shares, gen-
eral, specific or demon-
strative.
370. Power of the corporation
to take by devise.
TEANSFEE AND ITS EFFECT UPON LIABILITT OF STOCKHOLDEBS.
371. Mode of transfer of shares.
372. (a) The effect of transfer.
373. (b) Effect of statutory pro-
visions as to transfers.
374. (c) Effect upon liability for
calls.
375. (d) Pretended or colorable
transfers.
376. (e) Transfers to a
"dummy," a "man of
straw."
377. (a) Transfer to the corpo
ration itself.
378. (b) Transfer without con^
sent of the transferee.
379. (c) Registration when nee-
LIABILITY OF THE TBANSFEEEEB.
essary to relieve the
transferrer.
380. (d) Transfers to infants
and married women do
not relieve the trans-
ferrer.
522 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
B.
LIABILITY OF THE TEANSFEEEE.

381. (a) The transferee as a

bona
fide
purchaser.
(b) Liability of pledgees.
(c) Of the estate of a bank-
rupt.
(d) Of estates of decedents,
(e) Of legatees and dis-
tributees of the estate.
382.
383.
384.
385.
386 (f) Of trustees, executors
and administrators.
387. (g)
Of guardians,
388. (h) Of agents.
389. (i) Of infants.
390.
(j)
Of married women.
391. (a) Breach of the contract.
Remedy.
392. (b) Specific performance of
the contract.
393. (c) Avoidance of the con-
tract.
: F.
THE CONTRACT OP TEANSFER
394. Transfer of shares in na-
tional hanks.
395. Breach of trust in trans-
fer.
396. Remedies for fraud in the
transfer.
G,
PLEDGE OB MORTGAGE OF STOCK,
397.
398.
399.
400.
401.
Pledge and mortgage dis-
tinguished.
Stock is rarely mortgaged.
Registered transfer, abso-
lute in form, held a
pledge when.
Transfer of possession is
necessary to the pledge.
Pledges by agents and
trustees, brokers, etc.
402. Rights and powers of the
pledgee.
403. Right to register the
stock. i
404. Right to receive dividend.
405. Right to vote at corporate
meetings.
406. Foreclosure of the pledge.
407. Remedies of the pledgor.
408. Pledgor's right of redemp-
tion.
H.
REGISTRATION OF TRANSFERS.
409. Registration a necessity to
the corporation, as a rec-
ord of its stockholders.
Registry when required by
statute or charter.
410a. Effect of omission to reg-
ister.
To what officers to apply
for registration.
Provisions requiring reg-
istry.
Formal requisites of regis-
tration.
Effect of non-registry of
transfer.
410.
411.
412.
413.
414.
415. Presumption of fraud from
failure to register.
416. Registration as evidence
and notice of title.
417. Of shares held in trust.
418. Of defective transfer.
419. Of transfer to an irre-
sponsible person.
420. Right and duty of the cor-
poration to refuse to
register when.
420a. Registration of transfer.
Suit to enforce a pro-
ceeding in rem.
421. Interpleader by the corpo-
ration.

319, 350.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 523

422.
423.
424.
425.
42G.
427.
428.
Grounds for refusal to
allow registry. Lien of
the corpora.tion.
Of transfer of stolen or
lost certificate.
Of transfer by trustees.
Of transfer by guardian.
Of transfer by executor or
administrator.
Non-liability of the corpo-
ration for registry of
transfer by an executor.
Liability of the corpora-
tion for allowing reg-
istry of forged certifi-
cate.
429. Liability of the corpora-
tion for wrongful reg-
istry.
430. Registry without surren-
der of the certificate.
431. Remedies of transferee for
wrongful refusal to al-
low registry.
432. V/hether mandamus will
lie to enforce registry.
A.
SALE OF STOCK.

349.
Sale distinguished from transfer.The right to dis-
pose of stock in the same manner as other personal property is
inherent in the title, and laws prohibiting this right or interfering
with it are generally void.^
"Sale"
of
stock distinguished
from "transfer"
of
stock. A sale
of stock is made by oral agreement, or by written contract to
transfer of ownership, and, either with or without delivery of
possession, the evidence of ownership being the certificate. A
"sale" of stock, is the exchange of its ownership for whatever may
be the consideration. A "transfer" of stock, strictly, is its formal
delivery by transfer of the certificate, which is only the evidence of
title to the stock, but not the stock itself. "Sale" is executed by
the "transfer" of the certificate, and whether its registry takes
place at the time or not.

350.
Shares are personal property. The contract of sale.
The statute of frauds.A contract for sale of shares of stock
in a corporation is governed by the same rules of law as a contract
for any other personal property. It is now a well-established
principle that the shares of the capital stock of corporations are
personal property.^ And this applies equally to all corporations,
1 Bank of Attica v. Manufact-
urers,' etc. Bank, 20 N. Y. 556;
Moore v. Bank of Commerce, 52
Mo. 377; Sargent v. Franklin Ins.
Co., 8 Pick. 90; s. c. 19 Am. Dec.
306; Fechheimer v. National Ex-
change Bank (1884), 79 Va. 80;
Farmers,' etc. Bank v. Wasson, 48
Iowa, 336.
2 Allen V. Pegram, 16 Iowa, 163,
173; Southwestern R. Co. v. Thom-
ason, 40 Ga. 408; Dyer v. Osborne,
11 R. I. 321, 325; Arnold v. Rug-
gles, 1 R. I. 165; Johns v. Johns,
524:
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
350.
including those whose property consists of real estate, although
attempts were formerly made to give to the stock of those com-
panies the character of an interest in real estate.^ Sales of stock
are, therefore, excluded from the provisions of the Statute of
Frauds regulating conveyances of real estate or interests in real
estate.* In the United States, transfers of stock are generally de-
cided to be within the seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds,
which provides that in sales of "goods, wares and merchandise,"
there must be some instrument in writing, or part payment or an
acceptance of part of the property, in order to make a valid con-
tract binding upon the parties.^ In England, however, the con-
trary rule prevails. It must be borne in mind that there is a
marked distinction between certificates of stock, and shares in the
capital of a corporation, a distinction that is not always observed.
The certificate does not constitute the title to stock, which is cre-
ated only by the registry of the holder's name in the corporate
books, with a statement of the number of shares of which he is
the owner, the certificate being simply an evidence of that owner-
ship
f
and without a certificate a duly registered shareholder may
1 Ohio St. 350; Tippets v. Walker,
4 Mass. 595, 59G; "Stock, Its Nat-
ure and Transfer," by Henry
Budd, Jr., Esq., 7 So. L. Rev.
(N. S.) 430. The recent "Stock
Corporation Law" of New York
enacts that: "The stoclv of every
corporation shall be deemed per-
sonal property and shall be repre-
sented by a certificate prepared by
the directors and signed by the
president and treasurer, and
sealed with the seal of the corpo-
ration." N. Y. Laws of 1890,
ch.
564, 40.
Cf. 8 Vic, ch. 16,

7.
3 Welles V. Cowles, 2 Conn. 567;
s. 0. 4 Conn. 182; s. c. 10 Am. Dec.
115; Price v. Price, 6 Dana, 107;
Meason's Estate, 4 Watts, 341;
Knapp V. Williams, 4 Ves. Jr. 430;
Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 9 Beav.
459.
4 Ashworth v. Munn, 14 Ch. Div.
363; Walker v. Bartlett, 18 C. B.
845; Powell v. Jessopp, 18 C. B.
336; Watson v. Spratley, 10 Ex.
222.
Cf. Baxter V. Brown, 7 Macn.
& G. 198.
5
Mason v. Decker, 72 N. Y. 595;
Reed on Statute of Frauds, . 234;
Colvin V. Williams, 3 Harr. & J.
38; s. c. 5 Am. Dec. 417; Tisdale
V. Harris, 20 Pick. 9; Baltzen v.
Nicolay, 53 N. Y. 467; Sherman v.
Tradesman's National Bank, 16
N. Y. Week. Dig. 522; Johnson v.
Mulry, 4 Rob. (N. Y.) 401; North
V. Forest, 15 Conn. 400; Pray v.
Mitchell, 60 Me. 430; Fine v.
Hornaby, 2 Mo. App. 61; Mayer v.
Child, 47 Cal. 142.
Cf. Brownson
V. Chapman, 63 N. Y. 625; Vanpell
V. Woodward, 2 Sandf. Ch. 143;
Storer v. Flack, 41 Barb. 162;
Gadsden v. Lance, 1 McMull. Eq.
87; Tomlinson v. Miller, 7 Abb.
Pr. (N. S.) 364.
6 Duncuft V. Albrecht, 12 Sim.
189, 199; Humble v. Mitchell, 11
Ad. & E. 205; Hibblewhite v. Mc-
Morine, 6 Mees. & W. 201, 214;
Heseltine v. Siggers, 1 Ex. 856;
Tempest v. Kilner, 3 C. B. 249;
Cheale v. Kenwood, 3 De Gex &
J. 27.
7 Cincinnati, etc. R. Co. v.
Pearce, 28 Ind. 502; Hawley v.

350.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 525

exercise the privileges and incur the obhgations of a stockholder.^
The certificate holder has certain rights, however, which can not
be barred by laches until they are repudiated by the corporation,
as the latter is a trustee for the certificate holder." Under the
English Companies Clauses Act of
1845,
every transfer of stock
must be made by a formal deed of transfer in which all the
parties to the transaction are named and the consideration cor-
rectly set forth." Except where it is provided by the by-laws
or charter,^^ a seal is not necessary to give efifect to a contract for
the transfer of stock.
^-
A contract for the sale and delivery of a
certificate of stock is a contract for the sale and delivery of the
stock which the certificate represents. But the sale is valid,
wdiether or not attended by immediate delivery of the certificates
therefor. The law implies that the contract will be performed by
their delivery within a reasonable time.
Brumagim, 33 Cal. 394; Johnson
V. Albany, etc. R. Co., 40 How. Pr.
193.
8
Vide supra, 202; Beckett v.
Houston, 32 Ind. 393; Mitchell v.
Beckman, 64 Cal. 117; Agricult-
ural Bank v. Wilson, 24 Me. 273;
Walker v. Detroit Transit, etc.
Co., 47 Mich. 338; Buffalo, etc. R.
Co. V. Dudley, 14 N. Y. 336; Ellis
V. Proprietors of Essex M. Bridge,
2 Pick. 243; National Bank v.
Watsontown, 105 U. S. 217; First
Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47 Iowa, 575.
9 Kebogum v. Jackson Iron Co.
(1889), 76 Mich. 498.
108
Vic, ch. 16, 14; Browne &
Theobald's Ry. Law, 71, citing Co-
lonial Bank, 36 Ch. Div. 36; Hib-
blewhite v. McMorine, 6 Mees. &
W. 200; Societe Generale de Paris
V. Walker, 11 App. Cas. 20; Regina
V. General Cemetery Co., 6 El. &
B. 415; Hare v. Waring, 3 Mees.
& W. 362; Stephens v. De Medina,
4 Q. B. 422; Bowlby v. Bell, 3 C. B.
284, 294; Shaw v. Rowley, 16
Mees. & W. 810. Cf.
Cheale v.
Kenwood, 3 De Gex & J. 27. But
a vendee cannot evade his liabil-
ity to the corporation when he has
himself on his part executed a
deed of transfer on the ground
that his vendor has executed the
deed without nominating the
vendee. Sheffield, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Woodcock, 7 Mees. & W. 574;
Straffon's Executor's Case, 1 De
Gex, M. & G. 576; In re Barned's
Banking Co., 3 Ch. 105. As to the
status of unregistered transferees
of preliminary scrip certificates,
see Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v. Ed-
munds, 2 Ex. 118, where it is held
that they are not liable for calls;
and Jackson v. Cocker, 2 R. C.
368; s. c. 4 Beav. 59, in which it
appears that the transferee of
these certificates cannot in the
absence of a special agreement be
compelled by his transferrer to
place himself upon the register.
Cf.
Rumball v. Metropolitan Bank,
2 Q. B. Div. 194.
11
Bishop V. Globe Co., 135 Mass.
132.
12
McNeil V. Tenth Nat. Bank, 4G
N. Y. 325; Quiner v. Marblehead
Social Ins. Co., 10 Mass. 476; At-
kinson V. Atkinson, 8 Allen, 15;
Walker v. Bartlett, 36 Eng. L. &
Eq. 369; In re Tees Bottle Co., 33
L. T. (N. S.) 834; Commercial
Bank v. Kortright, 22 Wend. 348;
Bridgeport Bank v. New York, etc.
R. Co., 30 Conn. 231, 247; German,
etc. Assu v. Sendmeyer, 50 Pa.
St. 67.
526 SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
350a, 351.
Options.An "option," or agreement by seller for future de-
livery at his option, if made without some payment at the time,
is unilateral and not binding.^'' A sale of stock with agreement,
though oral, to take it back when the purchaser desires, is en-
forceable."

350a. Transfer of shares. Sellers option to repurchase.

A purchaser of shares who is entitled to reconvey them to the

corporation and receive the price paid, can not compel such re-
conveyance without concurrent redelivery of the stock.^^ The sell-
er's option to repurchase at the expiration of "six months from
this date" need not be exercised until the expiration of that time.
Any earlier offer of the purchaser to resell is premature.^^
Whether completed sale or option to purchase.Where to the
letter of acceptance of an offer to sell stock requiring part payment
and deferred payment of remainder within ninety days, or for-
feiture of the part payment, the seller replied by letter offering
collateral note for the remainder instead of the provision, for
forfeiture of prepayment, and it was dropped and the purchaser
on receipt of the prepayment replied by letter acknowledging re-
ceipt of the first payment and again reciting the terms of sale
and the note was never delivered nor the stock transferred : ^eld,
that the transaction was a completed sale and not a mere option,
v/ith forfeiture of the prepayment or failure to complete the con-
tract.^^ An option contract for the purchase of corporate bonds
vests no equitable title thereto in the conditional purchaser.^^

351.
Gambling sales. Gambling sales of stock.An ex-
ecutory contract for sale of stock, with intent to actually deliver
the stock, is legal and valid at common law, but if made with
intent by both parties not to deliver the stock, but to pay in cash
what is lost or won by fluctuation of the market price, it is a
gambling, or wager contract, and not enforceable, because against
public policy
.^^
The test of legality of such contracts is the intent.
If that was to actually deliver the stock, the contract was legal.
13
Jordan V. Indianapolis, etc.
i7
Porter v. Plymouth, etc. Co.
Co. (Ind. 1901), 61 N. E. 12. (Mont. 1904), 74 Pac. 938.
14
Gay V. Dare (1894), 103 Cal.
is
Patterson v. Farmington, etc.
454.
Ry. Co. (Conn. 1904), 57 All. 853.
18
Porter v. Plymouth, etc. Co.
is
Irwin v. Williar (1884), 110
(Mont. 1904), 74 Pac. 938. U. S. 499.
16
Porter v. Plymouth, etc. Co.
(Mont. 1904), 74 Pac. 938.

352.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 527

if otherwise there was no such intent, then the transaction was
a wager and illegal and void. The fact that such a contract is
made upon the payment of a "margin" and that neither party has
the stock in hand at the time, but intends to purchase it in time
for delivery, is not evidence that it is a gambling contract.-"
A state statute declaring illegal any option to sell or buy at a
future time, is constitutional, although the prohibited contract
would otherwise be lawful.-^ "The history of these stock-jobbing
acts seems to prove conclusively that they have never been effec-
tive in preventing speculations in stocks. In almost every instance
in which they have been adopted, after lingering for years on the
books, scorned and violated by 'the unbridled and defiant spirit of
speculation,' despite the earnest efforts of the courts to enforce
them, they have finally been repealed. It is, perhaps, better to
allow the evil to correct itself, as it surely does, than to bring the
administration of justice into contempt by filling the books with
useless laws, which are at all times openly violated and laughed
at, and which seem hardly more effective to prevent the practices
at which they are aimed than legislation directed against the laws
of nature."--

352.
Who may buy and sell stock.

Questions regarding
the competency of parties to buy and sell shares of stock, are to
be determined in accordance with the general rules applicable to
other ordinary contracts,-^ and do not ordinarily involve any
principle peculiar to the law of corporations.-* There are, ap-
parently, some qualifications of the general rule above stated,
which, however, grow not so much out of the incompetency of the
parties as out of express charter or statutory provision and out
of principles of public policy. Thus, the articles of association of
a joint-stock company which partakes rather of the nature of a
partnership than of a corporation, may prohibit the transfer of
20
Anthony v. Ungangst (1896), 27 Ch. Div. 341; Slaymaker v.
174 Pa. St. 10; Barnes v. Smith Bank of Gettysburg, 10 Pa. St.
(1893), 159 Mass. 344. 373; Comstock v. Buchanan, 57
21
Booth V. Illinois (1902), 184 Barb. 127; Garrick v. Taylor, 3
U. S. 425. L. T. (N. S.) 460; Hill's Case, L. R.
22
Dos Passos, Stock Brokers 20 Eq. 585. And by partners, see
and Stock Exch. (1882), p. 405. Quiver v. Marblehead Social Ins.
23
As to sales of stock by insane Co., 10 Mass. 476; Sargent v.
persons, see Chew v. Bank of Bal- Franklin Ins. Co., 8 Pick. 90; s. c.
timore, 14 Md. 299. 19 Am. Dec. 306.
Cf.
Comstock v.
21
As to sales of stock by joint- Buchanan, 57 Barb. 127; V\''eikers-
owners, see Standing v. Bowring, heim's Case, L. R. 8 Ch. 831.
528 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
353.
shares.^"^ And where the holders of each block of five shares in
the stock of a theater corporation were entitled by its charter to
a free seat, it has been held that the owner of more than five shares
could not by a transfer valid in form, but fictitious in fact, confer
on the transferee the right to another seat, and that a transfer for
that purpose could be enjoined at the instance of other share-
holders.-" But ordinarily the corporation can not refuse to register
a transfer on account of objection to the intention of the transferrer
in making it.^^ There is no equity, for example, to prevent the
transfer of shares to a nominee, to increase voting power.-^ And
where one of the articles of incorporation limited each stockholder
to an ownership of one hundred shares, it was held that, as this
was not required by the laws of the State, it was a mere voluntary
proposal, and that a transfer of more than that number of shares
to one shaiL^iolder was valid.^^

353-
(a) Married woman as purchaser.At common law
a married woman could neither acquire the rights nor assume the
liabilities of stockholder, but now in England partially, and in the
United States generally, her rights as shareholder are equal to
those of a single woman, but the statutes vary, and for certainty
must be consulted in the state of her domicile, as also in that of
25
And in that case the trans- v. Detroit Copper, etc. Mills, 56
feree talves only the right to prof- Mich. 117. In Regina v. Liver-
its, not as a partner, but as an pool, etc. Ry. Co., 21 L. J. Q. B.
assignee. Harper v. Raymond 284, it was held that, the under-
(1858), 3 Bcsw. 29. taking having been virtually aban-
26
Baker's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. doned, and a portion of the sub-
510; s. c. 56 Am. Rep. 231. scriptions having been returned to
27
Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. C. shareholders, a purchaser with no-
25; Moffatt v. Parquhar, 7 Ch. Div. tice of these facts, whose good
591; Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. faith in becoming a shareholder
527. In this case the president of was questionable, was not entitled
a company, who owned a majority to registration.
of its shares, contracted to sell
28
Moffatt v. Farquhar, 7 Ch.
them and to resign his office for Div. 591; Pender v. Lushington, 6
the purpose of enabling his pur- Ch. Div. 70. As to purchase of
chasers to acquire control of the shares for the purpose of control-
corporate affairs; and it was said ling the corporation, see Haver-
by the court that, inasmuch as meyer v. Havermeyer, 86 N. Y:
those who have the largest inter- 618; Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y.
ests in corporations may control 527; Jacobs v. Miller, 15 Alb. L. J.
them, it was unable to see that 188; Fremont v. Stone, 42 Barb.
any policy of the law was thereby 169; O'Brien v. Breitenbach, 1
violated, or that upon the evi- Hilt. 304.
dence any wrong was thereby done
20
O'Brien v. Cummings, 13 Mo.
to any one. Contra, Fremont v. App. 197.
Stone, 42 Barb. 169.
Cf.
Seymour

354-356.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 529

the corporation.^" The ability or disability of a married woman
to take, hold and transfer shares docs not depend upon the charter
of the company nor upon statutes relating generally to corpora-
tions, but upon the law as to married women ; because a feme
covert domiciled in one State may have power to buy and sell the
shares of a corporation, while one having her domicile in another
State may be incompetent to deal in the stock of the same.'^

354.
(b) Infant as purchaser.So again, according to the
general rule governing contracts of minors, a purchase of stock
by an infant is not absolutely void, but merely voidable before
or w'ithin a reasonable time after his becoming of age.^^ An in-
fant's sale of stock does not bind him, though made by transfer
of the certificate.^^

355*
(c) Person of unsound mind as purchaser.A sale of
stock by a person non compos mentis is void, though it is difficult
to set aside on the ground of mental incapacity of the vendor.
The question of soundness of mind is one for a jury.^*

356.
(d) Sales by directors and ofBcers,A stockholder has
no right of action against a director growing out of any supposed
trust relation existing between them respecting the purchase and
sale of stock, for the contract of transfer involves none of the
peculiar obligations and privileges of trustee and cestui que trust
between such parties. So a director in selling stock to a stock-
holder is not bound to disclose facts bearing upon the value of
the stock, which are peculiarly within his knowledge by reason of
his relation to the company.^^ And the same is the rule as to sales
30
Hill V. Pine River Bank 8 Ex. ISl; Newry, etc. Ry. Co. v.
(1864), 45 N. H. 300. Coombe, 3 Ex. 655; Lumsden's
31
Hill V. Pine River Bank, 45 Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 31; Birkenhead,
N. H. 300. In England this is reg- etc. Ry. Co. v. Pitcher, 5 Ex. 24.
ulated by the "Married Woman's
33
Smith v. Baker (1886), 42
Property Act" of 1870, 33 & 34 Vic, Hun, 504.
ch. 93, 4. But in that country
34
Perry v. Pearson (1890), 135
a married woman cannot transfer 111. 318; Doheny v. Lacey (1901),
her stock unless it has been form- 168 N. Y. 213.
ally set apart as her separate es- 35
Johnston v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65,
tate. Howard v. Bank of England, 83; Grant v. Attrill, 11 Fed. Rep.
L. R. 19 Eq. 295. If, however, she 469; Carpenter v. Danforth, 52
has done so and registration has Barb. 581; Board of Commission-
been permitted, it cannot be can- ers v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509; He-
celled thereafter. Ward v. South- man v. Britton, 84 Mo. 657; Gil-
eastern Ry. Co., 2 Ellis & El. 812. bert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 559;
As to the husband's right to trans- Camins v. Coe, 117 Mass. 45;
fer shares standing in his wife's Hempling v. Burr (1886), 59 Mich.
name, see cases cited supra,

220.
294; Johnson v. Kirby, 65 Cal. 482.
32
Dublin, etc. Ry. Co. v. Black,
Vol. 134
530 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
357.
by any official whose position affords him opportunity to obtain
information enabhng him to buy and sell at a profit.^" A director
may freely buy and sell the stock of his own corporation, unaffect-
ed by his "inside" information regarding it, and without being
chargeable with fraud, so long as he does not mislead the other
party to the sale.^^
357
(^)
Whether directors may transfer qualification
.shares.Whether a director can transfer his qualification
shares is a question still involved in considerable doubt.^^ Mr.
36
Board of Commissioners v.
Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509.
37
Grant v. Attrill (1882), 11
Fed. 469.
38
In the case of "In re National
Provincial Marine Insurance Com-
pany, better knov/n as Gilbert's
Case, 33 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 34;
s. c. 5 Ch. App. 539, Gilbert was
a director of the company and the
holder of two hundred and forty-
five shares of 25 each, on which
2 10s. had been paid. It does not
appear, either in this case or an-
other case arising out of the af-
fairs of tbe same company {Ex
parte Parker, 2 Ch. App. 685)
what was tfte number of the quali-
fication shares which a director
was required to hold. Gilbert
parted with half his shares in
order to avoid an impending call,
and the transler and registration
were declared void. Lord Romily-,
M. R., said that he did not at all
mean to dispute the cases which
have been decided, that a person
who has a certain number of
shares in a company which he
thinks is turning out ill may get
rid of those shai-es by selling them
to anybody whom he can get to
take them, provided there is no
fraud committed: 'Whether a di-
rector can do that is a question
which has never yet been deter-
mined, and I apprehend that he
cannot. His situation is that of
trustee for the shareholders, and
therefore he is not at liberty to do
things which he does not think
for the benefit of all the share-
holders of the company. Still less
may he do so to obtain pecuniary
advantage to himself.' The case
went on appeal to Lord Justice
Giffard, and he also declared Gil-
bert's transfers to be void. In
his eyes there was no inherent
pov/er in the directors, apart from
the provisions of the articles, to
refuse to register a proper and
valid transfer, if that proper and
valid transfer is submitted to
them. 'I quite agree that because
a man is a director he is not nec-
essarily a trustee of the shares he
holds for the general body of
shareholders, and in a vast variety
of circumstances he is just as free
to deal with his sharesexcept,
perhaps, his qualification, which
he cannot deal with without giv-
ing up his directorshipas any
other person.' These judgments
were referred to and approved by
Mr. Justice Kay in the recent case
of In re South London Fish Mar-
ket Company, 59 L. T. Rep. (N. S.)
210; s. c. 39 Ch. Div. 324; on
appeal, 60 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 68.
There a company was incorpo-
rated by special Act of Parlia-
ment, eight persons being the
first members. The company was
not registered under the Compa-
nies Act of 1862, 25 & 26 Vict.
ch. 89, and never held an ordi-
nary meeting. A vestry had re-
covered judgment for an action
for penalties against the company
for not having completed certain
works by a stipulated time. While
this action was pending the eight

357.]
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
531
Buckley in his work on Companies says : "In the matter of deal-
ing with his shares, a director is in general as free as any other
shareholder. He is not a trustee for the general body of share
-
first directors held meetings at
which they allotted to themselves
their qualifying shares, paid a
call thereon, and applied the
money in payment to one of them
of preliminary expenses which he
had paid and was liable to pay.
Five of them then transferred
their shares to a nominee in con-
sideration of money paid to the
transferee. Judgment was given
against the company in the action
for penalties. No other shares in
the company beyond the directors'
qualification shares were ever sub-
scribed for. The plaintiffs in the
action presented a petition for the
winding-up of the company, and
Mr. Justice Kay held that the
transfers by the directors of their
Qualification shares, for the pur-
pose of escaping liability, were
fraudulent and void, that there-
fore there were in fact eight mem-
bers of the company, and that the
court had jurisdiction to make a
winding-up order. The company
appealed, but in vain. The court
of appeal held that the special act
imposed upon the eight persons in-
corporated thereby the statutory
obligation of continuing directors
and members of the company until
the first ordinary meeting, and no
such meeting having been held,
that such eight persons still con-
tinued members of the company.
Consequently the court had juris-
diction to make a winding-up
order. It will be seen that the
court of appeal decided the ques-
tion upon grounds different from
those taken by Mr. Justice Kay.
True, Lord Justice Cotton re-
ferred, but only obiter, to the
point which we have now in view,
saying that it might be the proper
construction of a section in the
company's private act as it was in
Portal v. Emmens, 35 L. T. Rep.
(N. S.) 8S2; s. c. 1 C. P. Div. 664,
that there was a parliamentary
fetter upon the directors, obliging
them to continue to hold their
shares. But the court of appeal
did not make this the basis of
their decision, as did Mr. Justice
Kay. It should also be noted that
the judge treated the whole of the
two hundred and forty-five shares
in Gilbert's Case, 5 Ch. App. 539,
as having been the director's qual-
ification sharesa fact which is
not so stated in the reportsand
considered himself as having in
that case the authority of two
eminent judges that a director
cannot deal with his qualification
shares as freely as he may with
other shares. 'Looking at the doc-
trine of this court, that a volun-
tary transfer to escape liability in
some cases is a fraud, I cannot
doubt,' said the judge, 'that a di-
rector voluntarily transferring his
qualification shares in order to
escape liability is committing a
fraud.' These two decisions, it
will be observed, leave untouched
the question whether a director
can validly transfer his qualifica-
tion shares when he does so with-
out any design of escaping liabil-
ity. Is the transfer which he exe-
cutes, purporting to vest his quali-
fication shares in a transferee,
valid? Under section 22 of the
Companies Act of 1862, 25 & 26
Vict., ch. 89, the right to transfer
his shares is incident to every
shareholder; and therefore a di-
rector shareholder has as much
right as any ordinary shareholder
to transfer his shares and to have
his transfer registered, unless he
falls within a provision in the
company's articles of association
enabling the directors to refuse
registration where the shareholder
seeking to transfer is 'indebted to
532 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
358, 359.
holders, so as to be unable to deal with his shares in a manner
prejudicial to the interest of his ccstuis que trustcnt, but in a vast
variety of circumstances is just as free to deal with his shares

except, perhaps, his qualification shares, which he can not deal with
without giving up his directorshipas any other person," imply-
ing that the point has never been directly decided. Granting that
the director who transfers his qualification shares gives up his seat
on the board ; cannot he make a perfectly valid transfer of hio
shares? As between him and the company he is no longer under
the slightest obligation to retain the shares. Parting with his
directorate, the shares no longer qualify him for anything, for
no qualification is needed by him. Pie can surely transfer them
as fully and as freely as any other shareholder in the company.""

358.
(f) Transfer by joint-owners.Where the stock stands
on the books in the name of two or more persons all must join
in any transfer and the survivor succeeds to the exclusive owner-
ship.*

359' (g)
Agents as purchasers.Purchase and sale of stock
may be by agent, but he is not allowed to make any secret profits
in the transaction.'*^ The real owner may compel him to transfer
the stock.*^ The real owner, holding stock in the name of a
the company in respect of calls or tice North did in the latter case,
otherwise.' The point as to quali- that the mortgagor of shares holds
fication shares was not raised in them in his own right for the pur-
the recent case of In re Cawley & pose of a director's qualification.
Co., 61 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 601; It is clear law now that a director
s. c. 42 Ch. Div. 409, in which the does not lose his qualification by
court of appeal threw a great deal mortgaging his qualification
of much needed light upon the shares; and he may be qualified
legal requisites for a valid call, by shares to which he is entitled
upon the discretion of directors to as trustee, and not in his own
take their business agenda in any
right, and even by shares of which
order they may think proper, and he is trustee for the company."
upon the limited discretion of di- The Law Times, of June 28, 1890;
rectors to refuse registration. It same art. 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 99.
is somewhat curious that the point
so
The Law Times, of June 28,
was not touched in In re Cawley 3 890; same art. 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J.
& Co., for the case went very near 99, citing Buckley on Companies
it. And the very recent cases of (5th ed. 1887), 25.
Bainbridge v. Smith, 60 L. T. Rep.
4o
Hill's Case (1874), L. R. 20
(N. S.) 879; s. c. 41 Ch. Div. 462, Eq. 585.
and In re Bainbridge; Reeves v.
41
Keyes v. Bradley (1887), 73
Bainbridge, Weekly Notes 1889, Iowa, 589.
p. 228, have gone near the point,
42 MacComb v. Frink (1892),
but have not trenched upon it ex- 149 U. S. 629.
cept by laying down, as Mr. Jus-
|
300, 361.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
533
"dummy" may be held liable upon the stock.*^ The purchaser
from an agent with notice of the agency is bound to know his
authority.** A bona fide purchaser of a certificate indorsed in
blank by the owner and sold by his agent in violation of orders,
is protected in his ownership.*^
360.
(h) Sales by trustee.Under the common law, trus-
tees, executors and guardians were not allowed to invest trust
funds in the stock of private corporations without being per-
sonally liable, and such is the rule in the United States.*" It is
a breach of trust for a trustee, without express authority in the
instrument of trust, to make a sale of the trust property.*'^ A
bona Ude purchaser of stock belonging to a trust estate, the cer-
tificates showing no trust, is protected in his purchase whether
or not the transfer is registered upon the corporate books. Other-
wise he is liable, if the purchaser knows that his vendor sells as
trustee, and he has no express power to sell.*^

361. (i) Sales by executors, guardians, trustees.A stat-

ute which provides, that the delivery of a stock certificate of a
corporation to a bona Ude purchaser, with a written transfer or
power of attorney, shall be a sufficient delivery to pass title, in
no way affects the power of an executor or trustee to sell and
convey property.*^ It has been held that simple knowledge of the
fact that his vendor holds the stock in trust does not put the
vendee upon further inquiry,^" but this has been strongly disap-
proved.^^ Certainly, if the purchaser has any reason to suppose
that his vendor is a trustee and, in selling the stock, is acting ad-
versely to the interest of his cestui que trust, he becomes charge-
able with knowledge of the breach of trust, and if he consummates
43
Wakefield v. Fargo (1882), 90
so
Brewster v. Sims, 42 Cal. 139;
N. Y. 213.
Albert v. Baltimore, 2 Md. 159;
44
Norton v. Nevills (1899), 174 Thompson v. Toland, 48 Cal. 99.
Mass. 243.
si
Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass.
45
McNeil V. Tenth National 382; Jones v. Williams. 24 Beav.
Bank (1871),
46 N. Y. 325. 62; Article by Francis B. Patten,
40
King V. Talbott (1869), 40 18 Am. L. Rev. 975. See, also, on
N. Y. 76.
this subject: Murray v. Feindur,
4T
Bohlen's Estate (1874), 75 Pa. 12 Md. Ch. 418; Powlet v. Hubert,
St. 304. 1 Ves. 267; Ward v. Kitchen, 30
48
Stinson v. Thornton (1876), N. J. Eq. 31; Bowker v. Pierce, 130
56 Ga. 377. Mass. 262; Perry on Trusts (3d
49
Stat. Mass. 1884, ch. 229; ed.), 225; Lewin on Trusts (7th
Jones V. Atchison, etc. R. Co. ed.), 417; Merchants' Bank v. Liv-
(Mass. 1890), 23 N. E. Rep. 43. ingston, 74 N. Y. 223.
Gf.
Ashton
V. Atlantic Bank, 85 Mass. 217.
534 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
361.
the sale he becomes bound to restore the stock ; for, in equity, he
also becomes a trustee,^^ as an equitable title, superior to that of
his cestui que trust, can not be created in another by a trustee.^''
While, generally, in such a case a bona -fide purchaser from an
agent will be protected,^* yet one who has notice that an agent
is acting without authority deals with him at his own risk.^^
Purchase from Guardian.With respect to guardians, there are
sometimes statutes which prescribe that, before guardians can
sell or transfer stock or other personal property belonging to their
wards, authority to do so must be obtained from a court of com-
petent jurisdiction.^^ So that when a vendee is chargeable with
knowledge of the fact that his vendor acts in the capacity of a
guardian, he is put upon inquiry, and to escape loss in case of
fraud must examine the authority to sell.^'^ A bona fide purchaser,
however, will be protected even when he purchased at private sale,
in the face of a statute requiring a sale at auction, it being held
that such a statute is merely directory.^^ When stock is so trans-
ferred before certificates are issued, and the original certificates
are finally issued to the transferee, he is not entitled to the ad-
vantage of the position of a bo7ia Ude purchaser without notice,
but stands in the place of an original holder.^^ So when a trans-
feree of stock executes a paper purporting to be an original sub-
scription and makes an agreement to pay assessments, he becomes
an original stockholder liable for unpaid subscriptions.^** Unlike
the case of a trustee, a guardian or executor may, without special
authority, sell shares of stock as other personal property, which
he holds for his ward or the estate, and a bona Me purchaser will
be protected, regardless of what disposition is made of the pro-
52
Bohlen's Estate. 75 Pa. St. ing a guardian to sell stock does-
312; Jandon v. Nat. City Bank, 8 not vest him with power to pledge
Blatch. 430; s. c. 15 Wall. 165; it. Webb v. Grandville Manuf. Co.,
Bayard v. Farmers,' etc. Bank, 52 11 S. C. 396.
Pa. St. 232. BsTurite v. Stevens, 98 Mass.
5s
Shropshire Union, etc. Co. v. 307.
Regina, L. R. 7 H. L. 496.
59
in re Vulcan Iron Works, Law
54
Otis V. Gardner (1883), 105 Times, 1885, p. 61; Rowland's Case,
111. 436; Gulick v. Markham 42 L. T. (N. S.) 785; Potter's Ap-
(1875), 6 Daly, 129. peal, Week. Notes, 1878, p.
81.
55
Bank of Louisville v. Gray Contra, Carling's Case, 1 Ch. Div.
(1886), 84 Ky. 565. 115.
56
Mass. Rev. Stat., ch. 79, 21;
eo
Citizens,' etc. Co. v. Gillespie
Wallace v. Holmes, 9 Blatch. 65. (1887), 115 Pa. St. 564; American
57
Atkinson v. Atkinson, 90 Press Assoc, v. Branlingham
Mass. 15. But an order authoriz- (1902), 75 N. Y. App. Div. 435.

362-367.] SALE AND TRANSFEK OF STOCK. 535

ceeds of the sale, unless by statute special authority is required
as a condition precedent to such sale/'^

362.
(j)
Purchase by assignee in bankruptcy.An assignee
in bankruptcy or for the benefit of creditors, takes only the rights
and equities of his assignor. A previous transfer of the stock of
the insolvent is protected, though unrecorded.^

363.
(k) Purchase of stock by banks.At common law a
bank has no power to purchase or invest in the capital stock of
any other corporation, whatever its business may be.^ As, when
a national bank invests its money in the stock of another national
bank the purchase is !.'/?ra vires
f*
but a bank may take stock in
pledge as collateral security for a loan made at the time. This
is the ordinary course of dealing of bankers.*'^ Or it may accept
stock in satisfaction of a doubtful debt due to itself for the pur-
pose of avoiding loss, and with purpose to sell such stock.

364.
(m) Purchase by religious, charitable institutions.

Religious and charitable institutions, as exception to the rule,

have implied authority to invest in the stock of other corporations.
This is on the ground of preserving and making productive the
funds with which such institutions are endowed.'^

367.
(q)
Injunction to restrain purchase by corporation.

Whatever, it is said, be the validity of stock certificates of a cor-

poration, and whether or not they confer on the holders the priv-
ileges of corporate shareholders, if they represent an interest in
the property for which they were taken, they can not be sup-
pressed by injunction.** Yet there are cases in which injunctions
have been granted to restrain transfers of stock, as, for example,
where a pledgee was about to sell shares of stock in fraud against
his pledgor.'* And where the purpose of a fictitious transfer was
61
Atkinson v. Atkinson (1864),
67
Pearson v. Concord R. R. Co.
90 Mass. 15; Leitch v. Wells (1883), 62 N. H. 537.
(1872), 48 N. Y. 585.
68
state v. American Cotton Oil
62
Dickenson v. Central Nat. Trust (1888), 40 La. Ann. 8.
Bank (1880), 129 Mass. 279.
69
Ayre v. Seymour (1889), 5
63
California Bank v. Kennedy N. Y. Supp. 650. In this case it
(1897), 167 U. S. 362. was sought to enjoin defendant
61
Concord, etc. Bank v. Hawk- from selling or voting on certain
ins (1899), 174 U. S. 364. shares of stock pledged by plaint-
65
National Bank V. Case (1878), iff, the president of the corpora-
99 U. S. 628. tion, to defendant S. It appeared
66
First National Bank v. Nat. that the stock of the corporation.
Exchange Bank (1875), 92 U. S. while very valuable, had no mar-
122. ket value, as it had not been sold
)36 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
3G8.
to entitle the transferee to a free seat in a theatre, injunction was
issued.'^"' Again, under certain circumstances, an injunction has
issued to restrain one corporation from obtaining control over
another by purchasing the stock of the latter.'^
Restraint upon voting stock.It has been held that where one
corporation illegally holds stock in another, the former corporation
may be enjoined from voting such stock, particularly if in the act
of perpetrating a fraud/"
B.
TRANSFER BY GIFT OR WILL.

368. Gifts of shares of stock.A gift of stock, inter vivos,

mav be made by mere indorsement in blank and delivery of the
certificate.'^^ Delivery of a certificate unindorsed is good as a
donatio cottsa mortis, where there is clear proof of intent to make
the gift.^* The title of stock may be transferred by gift,may
in the market. Including the
stoclt pledged to S., four hundred
and ninety-eight shares, plaintiff
owned nine hundred and sixty-
eight shares out of a total of one
thousand. S. had transferred the
four hundred and ninety-eight
shares to his son's wife, who was
plaintiff's daughter, and hy this
means plaintiff was excluded from
the management of the business.
There was proof that S. and his
son, who had control of the busi-
ness, and who were parties defend-
ant, had conspired to keep plaint-
iff out of the country, and away
from her business, by sending her
false telegrams, and suppressing
genuine telegrams to her, by re-
porting that she was insane, and
by abstracting papers, etc. The
injunction was granted and a re-
ceiver pendente lite appointed;
and the son's wife, who held the
four hundred and ninety-eight
shares of stock in her own name,
was included in the injunction,
though she was not served with
summons and complaint, nor with
the injunction and motion papers.
70
Yide supra,
352.
71
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Com-
monwealth (1887), 116 Pa. St. 65.
72
George v. Central R. R., etc.
Co. (1894), 101 Ala. 607; Ameri-
can, etc. Co. V. Linn (1890), 93
Ala. 610. Vide infra, 855.
73
First National Bank v. Hol-
land (1899), 39 S. E. 126; Calkins
V. Equitable, etc. Assoc. (1899),
126 Cal. 531; Bliss v. Fosdick
(1894), 76 Hun, 508; McGavic v.
Cossum (1902), 72 N. Y. App. Div.
35; Coffey v. Coffey (1899), 179
111. 283; Green v. Talane (1893),
52 N. Y. Eq. 169; Liscomb v. Man-
chester, etc. R. R. Co. (1900), 70
N. H. 312; Locke v. Farmers' L. &
T. Co. (1893), 140 N. Y. 135; Mat-
ter of Brandreth (1902), 169 N. Y.
437; Matter of Cornell (1902), 170
N. Y. 423; Richardson v. Emmett
(1902), 170 N. Y. 412; Jennings v.
Neville (1899), 180 111. 270.
74Leyson v. Davis (1895), 17
Mont. 220; (1898) 170 U. S. 36;
Chambers v. McCreary (1901), 106
Fed. 364; Gilkinson v. Third, etc.
R. R. Co. (1900), 47 N. Y. App.
Div. 472: Collins v. Stewart
(1899), 58 N. J. Eq. 392.

308.
]
SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
537
be the subject of gift^^ and by will.'^'' Great care should be exercised
by the company, however, in such cases, for it is charged with the
duty of trustee toward the stockholders for many purposes, and
must, therefore, exercise due diligence to protect the interest of
its cestui que trust.''' Where a certificate of stock is issued to one
as legatee, it gives him title subject to all the conditions imposed
upon it by the will. If the corporation allows him to surrender
his certificate and issues to him in lieu thereof a certificate with no
mention of the fact that it is subject to such will, it will be an-
swerable for injury therefrom.'^* If a trustee under a will, on
demanding of a corporation a transfer of shares of stock standing
in the name of his testator upon the books of the corporation, pres-
ents to the corporation certified copies of the will and of his ap-
pointment as trustee, as evidence of his authority to demand a
transfer, the corporation has no right to require that the copies
shall remain in its custody."^^ Under a provision in the charter
of a corporation that on the death of a shareholder his heirs or
legal representatives might continue the relation, it was held that
the right to continue the membership was in the heirs or devisees,
and not in the personal representative.^" Where a testator's bank-
stock is sought to be transferred by the executrix (nine years after
the testator's death, and six years after the period limited by law
for the settlement of estates has elapsed), not to another person to
raise money for the estate, but to herself individually, for the pur-
pose of securing a note on which she is indorser for a third per-
75
De Caumont v. Bogert, 36 case of the recovery of the donor
Hun, 382. Provided the gift is one where the gift is causa mortis.
which is in other respects lawful. Stainland v. Willott, 3 Mac. & G.
Nickerson v. English (1886), 142 664.
Mass. 267. Simple delivery has
tg
Millard v. Bailey, L.. R. 1 Eq.
been said to be sufficient. Reed v. 378; Barton v. Cooke, 5 Ves. 461;
Copeland, 50 Conn. 472. Contra, Caulkins v. Gas-Light Co. (1887),
Baltimore, etc. Co. v. Mali, 66 Md. 85 Tenn. 683; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep.
53. A gift of stock catisa mortis 786; Eckfeld's Estate, 7 Week,
may be made by mere delivery of Notes Cas. (Pa.) 19.
the certificates without any writ-
'
Caulkins v. Gas-Light Co.
ten transfer. Walsh v. Sexton, 55 (1887), 85 Tenn. 683; s. c. 4 Am.
Barb. 251; Allerton v. Lang, 10 St. Rep. 786.
Bosw. 362. Except where there
'S
Caulkins v. Gas-Light Co.
are other formalities prescribed (1887), 85 Tenn. 683; s. c. 4 Am.
by statute. Moore v. Moore, 43 St. Rep. 786.
L. J. Ch. 617. And the gift once
td
Bird v. Chicago, Iowa, etc. R.
duly made cannot be revoked. Co., 137 Mass. 428.
Delamater's Estate, 1 Whart.
so
Montgomery Mutual Building
(Pa.) 362; Standing v. Bowring, & Loan Assoc, v. Robinson, 69
27 Ch. Div. 341; Dummer v. Ala. 413.
Cf.
Security Loan Assn
Pitcher, 5 Sim. 35. Except in the v. Lake, 69 Ala. 456.
538 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
369, 370.
son, the circumstances are sufficient to put the bank on incjuiry
as to her authority,**^ In England provision is made by statute^"
for tlie registration of stock in case of its transfer, by death, bank-
ruptcy or marriage, thus recognizing, by implication, the validity
of a transfer by that means.^^

369.
Legacies of shares, general, specific, or demonstra-
tive.The legacy is general where the will gives to the legatee
certain shares of stock, independently of their ownership by the
testator. If he dies in the absence of such ownership, it becomes
the duty of the legal representatives of his estate to purchase them
for the legatee. The legacy is demonstrative if the will designated
that such purchase shall be made out of a particular fund of the
estate.** The legacy is specific where the will bequeaths to the
legatee certain shares of stock then belonging to the testator.*^
"The points of difference between specific and demonstrative leg-
acies are these : A specific legacy is not liable to abatement for
the payment of debts, but a demonstrative legacy is liable to abate
when it becomes a general legacy by reasons of the failure of the
fund out of which it is payable. A specific legacy is liable
to ademption, but a demonstrative legacy is not. A specific legacy,
if of stock, carries with it the dividends which accrue from the
death of the testator, while a demonstrative legacy does not carry
interest from the testator's death."''

370.
Power of the corporation to take by devise.A grant
of power to take land by purchase "includes power to take by
devise. The word purchase includes all means of acquiring
jiroperty not coming to one by descent or by the mere operation
of law."*^ By statute in New York no corporation can take land
by devise, unless expressly authorized by its charter.^
81
Peck V. Bank of America
se
Mullins v. Smith (1860), 1 Dr.
(R. I. 1890); 19 Atl. Rep. 369. & Sm. 204; Connecticut, etc. Co. v.
82
8 Vic, ch. 16, 18. Hollister (Conn. 1901), 50 Atl.
83
Societe Generale de Paris v. 750; Harvard Unitarian Society v.
Wallver, 14 Q. B. Div. 424; s. c. 11 Tufts (1890), 151 Mass. 76; New
App. Cas. 20; Bradford Banlving Albany, etc. Co. v. Powell (Ind.
Co. V. Briggs, etc. Co., 31 Cli. Div. 1902), 64 N. E. 640; Slade v. Tal-
19; s. c. 12 App. Cas. 29; Cork, bot (Mass. 1902), 65 N. E. 374;
etc. Ry. Co. v. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. Lowndes v. Coach (1898), 87 Md.
935; Leeds, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fearn- 478.
ley, 4 Ex. 27; Buchan's Case, 4
87
j re McGraw's Estate, 111
App. C. 583. N. Y. 66.
81
Johnson V. Conover (1896), 54
88
Downing v. Marshall, 23 N.
N. J. Eq. 333. Y. 366, 80 Am. Dec. 290.
85
Ives V. Canby (1891), 48 Fed.
718.
371.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 539
C.
TRANSFER AND ITS EFFECT UPON STOCKHOLDERS.

371.
Mode of transfer of shares.The assignment of the
certificate may be, (i), simply by its delivery, as in case of
donatio causa mortis
f^
or where in a deed of trust including stock,
the trustee is authorized to transfer the stock to himself on the
books
;^
or,
(2),
the assignment may be made by a paper, separate
from the certificate, or by assignment indorsed thereon, signed by
the transferrer; or,
(3),
it may be in the usual form so indorsed
and signed together with power of attorney to the holder whose
name is left blank, authorizing him to sign the .transfer upon the
corporate books ; which power, being coupled with an interest, i?
irrevocable.^^

Certificate
of
stock signed in blank.In the United States the
transfer of the certificate may be signed by the transferrer with
the name of the transferee left blank, and the person to whom
it is delivered is authorized to fill it up by writing a transfer and
power of attorney over the signature. Any holder may fill up
the blanks and constitute himself the attorney.''^ But in England,
though the transfer be duly signed and sealed, it is void if the
name of the transferee is left blank.''^
Seal unnecessary to transfer.In America a transfer of stock
may be made, as of any other chose in action, without seal.^* In
England a seal is a requisite, except where the charter does not
require it."^
Assignment passes all interest.
By
its assignment the transfer-
rer's' interest in the certificate ceases, independent of its registry.^*^
Stock is ordinarily transferred by written assignment with a power
of attorney to trans'fer upon the books of the company
.^^
"An as
-
soLeyson v. Davis (1898), 170 e* McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bank
U. S. 36. (1871), 46 N. Y. 325.
90
Curtis V. Crossley (1900),
59
sz
Ex parte Sargent (ISli), Li. R.
N. J. Eq. 358.
17 Eq. 273.
01
Eraser v. Charleston (1878),
as
Northrop v. New Town, etc.
11 S. C. 486.
Co. (1821), 3 Conn. 544.
92
Holbrook v. New Jersey, etc.
^^
Certificates of stock, in al-
Co. (1874), 57 N. Y. 616; McNeil most every instance, have a blanlc
V. Tenth Nat. Bank (1871), 46 power of assignment printed on
N. Y. 325; Aspell v. Campbell their bacli, generally in the fol-
(1901),
64 N. Y. App. Div. 393. lowing form:
OS
In re Balkis Consol. (1888),
"For Value Received, have
58 L. T. 300.
bargained, sold, assigned and
540 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
sn.
signmcn': of the stock in writing- is made by the former owner of
it, wi'i'.! a power of attorney to transfer it on the books of the
corporation. Books of transfer are kept for that purpose, and on
the production of those papers, the nominated attorney makes the
formal transfer, the old certificate is cancelled, and a new cer-
tificate is issued to the new owner."^^ A valid transfer may be
made without any certificate,"" by delivery of the certificate without
any assignment, or by registry of the transfer v/ithout delivery
of the certificate, or by oral transfer, and entry upon the corporate
books when no certificate has been issued.^ But the usual form
of transfer is by delivery of the certificate issued by the corporation
to the stockholder named therein, as the owner of a certain num-
transferred, and by these presents
do bargain, sell, assign and trans-
fer unto the Capital
Stock named in the within Certifi-
cate, and do hereby consti-
tute and appoint ,
true
and lawful attorney, irrevocable,
for , and in name and
stead, but to use, to sell, as-
sign, transfer and set over, all or
any part of the said stock, and for
that purpose to make and execute
all necessary acts of assignrpent
and transfer, and one or more
persons to substitute with like full
power.
"Dated,

, 19.
"Signed and acknowledged in
the presence of
."
"Business Methods & Customs of
Wall Street," by John H. Davis
& Co.
9s
Burrall v. Bushwick R. Co.
(1878), 75 N. Y. 211. See also
Dunn V. Commercial Bank, 11
Barb. 580; State v. Ferris, 42
Conn. 560; Dutton v. Connecticut
Bank, 13 Conn. 493; Chouteau
Spring Co. v. Harris, 20 Mo. 382;
First Nat. Bank v. Gifford, 47
Iowa, 575. Vide next page, note 6.
The following is a usual form
of an irrevocable power of assign-
ment:
"Know all men by these pres-
ents, that for value re-
ceived have bargained, sold, as-
signed and transferred, and by
these presents do bargain, sell, as-
sign and transfer unto
,
shares of the stock ot
the standing in name
on the books of the said rep-
resented by certificate No.
herewith. And do hereby
constitute and appoint
,
true and lawful attorney, irrevoc-
ably, for and in name
and stead, but to use, to sell,
assign, transfer and make over all
or any part of the said stock, and
for that purpose to make and ex-
ecute all necessary acts of assign-
ment and transfer thereof, and to
substitute one or more persons
with like full power, hereby rati-
fying and confirming all that
-^
said attorney or substitute
or substitutes shall lawfully do
by virtue thereof.
"In witness whereof, have
hereunto set hand and seal at
the day of ,
19

.
"Signed, sealed, and delivered
in the presence of
"
. [L. S.]
"Business Methods & Customs
of Wall Street," by John H. Davis
& Co.
89
May V. McQuillan (Mich.
1902), 89 N. W. 45.
1 Manchester St. Ry. v. Williams
(N. H. 1902), 52 Atl. 4G1.

371.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 541

ber of shares of stock, with blank form of power of attorney upon
the back, to enable the person whose name may be filled in to regis-
ter the name of the transferee upon the corporate books as a stock-
holder. The transfer of the certificate may be made by simple
delivery without writing or by formal assignment, or by signing
lis transfer upon the corporate books of registry. The formalities
of transfer and the effect of its registration upon the corporate
books are given elsewhere.^
At Common Law the delivery of a stock certificate with a writ-
ten transfer to the purchaser sufficiently transfers title to the shares
represented.^ This is symbolical delivery of stock which is rep-
resented.* Although unnecessary, a power of attorney usually ac-
companies the assignment of the certificate.^ In such case the cer-
tificate passes like a note unindorsed, any holder being authorized
to enter his own name as transferee and any person as attorney
in fact, whereupon the certificate of transfer is entitled to registry
upon the books of the corporation.*' In case of the acquisition
of corporate stock by transfer, whether in the ordinary course of
business or by gift, bequest, or under the Statute of Distribution,
it is generally necessary in order to perfect the title of the new
owner and to relieve the former holder of liability, that the transfer
be recorded upon the books of the company.'^ If the charter or
general law provides that the certificates shall be transferable only
on the books of the corporation, such registry is necessary to pass
2
Tide infra, 413. the transferee liable for corporate
3 Brittan v. Oakland B'k. etc., debts, is shown, prima facie, by
124 Cal. 282, 71 Am. St. Rep. 58; the stock certificate, or by the
Boston, etc. Assn. v. Cory, 129 copy of the list of shareholders,
Mass. 435; Scripture v. Francis- filed under the statute, with the
town, etc. Co., 50 N. H. 571. registrar of deeds. Cleveland v.
4
Bank of Atchison County v. Burnham (1886), 64 Wis. 347. A
Durfee, 118 Mo. 431, 40 Am. St. distributee of the estate of a de-
Rep. 396; Johnston v. Laflin, 103 ceased stockholder, no portion of
U. S. 800; Denny v. Lyon, 38 Pa. the stock having been distributed,
St. 98, 80 Am. Dec. 463. is not liable as a stockholder on
s
Atkinson v. Atkinson, 8 Allen motion, under the statute, by a
(Mass), 15. judgment creditor of the corpora-
6 Andrews v. Worcester, etc. Co. tion; even though, as administra-
159 Mass. 64; Davenport v. Gif- tor, he refused to inventory the
ford, 47 Iowa, 575; Coffey v. stock on the ground that it was
Coffey, 74 111. App. 241. 179 111.
not an asset, but might become
283; Brittan v. Oakland B'k, 124
a liability. Simmons v. Ellis
Cal. 282, 71 Am. St. Rep. 58. (1886), 17 Mo. App. 470. But in
7 Hawkins v. Glenn (1889), 131 Coquard v. Marshall (1885), 14
U. S. 319. The former transfer
Mo. App. 80, it was held that a
of shares, necessary to constitute widow who assents to an order of
542
SALE AND TEANSFER OF STOCK. [371.
the legal title to the shares, but the cbmplete equitable title passes
reg-ardless of registry.*^ For, while a lawful acquisition of the
certificate vests in the new holder all the rights of ownership as
between
himself and the former holder,'' and entitles him to de-
mand registration, upon presentation of the certificate to the cor-
poration and proper proof of lawful ownership,^** his title as .be-
tween himself and the company remains inchoate until he has
caused the transfer to be made upon the corporate books, neither
having the rights nor being subject to the liabilities of member-
ship.^^ If through the negligence of the company a transfer be
distribution of her husband's es-
tate, by which certain shares of
stock are allotted to her, becomes
a stockholder and liable to credi-
tors of the corporation, though
fihe has not received the certifi-
cates of stock, and though they
have not been transferred on the
company's books.
8
Union B'k, etc. v. Laird, 2
Wheat. (U. S.) 390; Johnston v.
Laflin, 103 U. S. 800;
Hubbard v.
Manhattan Trust Co., 87 Fed. 51;
Spreckles v. Nevada B'k, 113 Cal.
272, 54 Am. St. Rep. 348; Fitch-
burg Savings B'k v. Torrey, 134
Mass. 239; Harpold v. Stobart,
46 Ohio St. 397, 15 Am. St. Rep.
618.
t>
McNeil V. Tenth National
Bank, 46 N. Y. 325; New York &
N. H. R. Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N.
Y. 30; Fatman v. Loback, 1 Duer,
354; Jarvis v. Rogers, 13 Mass.
105; Duke v. Cahawba Nav. Co.,
10 Ala. 82; Butterfield v. Beards-
ley (1874), 28 Mich. 412.
10
Downing v. Potts, 3 Zab. 66;
State V. Leete, 16 Nev. 242; Sav-
age V. Ball, 17 N. J. Eq. 142;
Greenville, etc. R. Co. v. Coleman,
5 Rich. 118; Bailey v. Railroad
Co., 22 Wall. 604; N. Y. Laws of
1880, ch. 510.
11
Fox V. Frith, 1 Car. & M. 502;
Midland Great Western R. Co. of
Ireland v. Gordon, 16 M. & W.
804; s. c. 16 L. J. Ex. 166; Newry,
etc. R. Co. V. Edmunds, 17 L. J.
Ex. 102; s. c. 2 Ex. 118; Galvan-
ized Iron Co. V. Westoby, 8 Ex.
17; s. c. 21 L. J. Ex. 302; In re
Wrysgan Slate Quarry Co., ex
parte Humby, 28 L. J. Ch. 875;
Great Cambrian Mining Co., ex
parte Bowen, 27 L. T. 297. Only
the registered shareholders are
entitled to vote and to receive div-
idends. Gilbert v. Manchester
Iron Co., 11 Wend. 627; Bank of
Utica V. Smalley, 2 Cowen, 770,
778; Commercial Bank v. Kort-
right, 2 Wend. 348, 362; Fisher
V. Essex Bank, 5 Gray, 373, 380;
Hoagland v. Bell, 36 Barb. 57,
58; Manning v. Quicksilver Min-
ing Co., 24 Hun, 360; Johnston v.
Jones, 23 N. J. Eq. 216; State v.
Pettinelli, 10 Nevada, 141; Beecher
V. Wells Flouring Mill Co., 1 Mc-
Crary, 62; Mousseaux v. Urquhart,
9 La. Ann. 482. In a Colorado
case the plaintiff was a supply
ditch company, and each share of
its stock entitled the owner to ten
inches of water. Defendant was
the holder of stock that had never
been transferred on the books of
the company. He applied for
water, but did not claim it as
owner of the stock. He after-
wards demanded that the stock be
transferred to him, but did not
produce his certificates or account
for them, nor did he at that time
demand the water. On refusal he
took ten inches of water. It was
held that he was not a shareholder
of the company, and was liable
as a trespasser. Supply Ditch Co.
V. Elliott (1887), 10 Colo. 327.

371.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 543

not properly registered, the transferrer can not be subjected to
liability by reason of his name remaining upon the corporate rec-
ords as the owner of the stock.''- The transferee, however, is not
relieved of liability by the company delaying until after the com-
mencement of a winding up, to recQrd a transfer of shares lodged
with it for that purpose
;"
nor can a purchaser avail himself of
his own neglect in respect of registration to withdraw from the
obligations incurred by his contract.^* His position is analogous
to that of the holder of an unrecorded deed of land.^^
Transfer by pozver
of
attorney not indorsed on the certiUcate.

The lack of the owner's indorsement on the certificate is not in-

consistent with the right of the attorney to cause the stock to be
transferred to himself. The neglect of the officers to require an
indorsement of the certificate is only non-feasance, and is no
evidence of conversion. It is not the duty of the officers of a cor-
poration to inquire into the motives of an attorney in fact, having
full power to transfer stock, for desiring it to be transferred to
himself. So if the attorney in fact of a stockholder presents the
certificate of stock, together with a power of attorney from the
stockholder giving him full authority to deal with the shares, and
the corporate officers are ignorant of any intention on the part
of the attorney to misappropriate the stock, the corporation will
not be guilty of conversion simply by issuing another certificate
in the name of the attorney, who wrongfully appropriates the
shares. The fact that the attorney was also a director of the cor-
poration does not warrant the presumption that it had notice of
his intention to convert the stock to his own use, as he assumed
to act not for the corporation, but for his principal.^ The pos-
12^3? jjarte Bagge, 13 Beav. 162. corded deed of land, and possesses
13
Ex parte Contract Corpora- a no less perfect title as against
tion, L. R. 2 Ch. App. 350; s. c. the assignor and others. And he
36 L. J. Ch. 81. would have an action as against
14
Bm-ness v. Pennell, 2 H. L. the corporation for allowing such
Cas. 497. a transfer in violation of his
15
By "omitting to register his rights. He also takes the risk of
transfer, the holder of the cer- the collection of dividends by his
tificate and power fails to obtain assignor, or any lien the corpora-
the right to vote, and may lose tion may have on the shares. But
his stock by a fraudulent transfer in other respects his title is com-
on the books of the company by plete." McNeil v. Tenth National
the registered holder to a hona Bank, 46 N. Y. 325.
fide
purchaser; but in this respect
lo
Tafft v. Presidio & Ferries R.
he is in a condition analogous to Co. (1889), 84 Cal. 131; s. c. 7 Ry.
that of the holder of an unre- &. Corp. L. J. 33.
5J4
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
372.
session of a certificate of stock, together with a power of attorney
to transfer it, even if the latter is not indorsed upon the certificate,
is prima facie
evidence of an equitable assignment, at least." It
is not necessary to indorse the transfer upon the stock certificate.
The transferee may demand registration of transfer and a new
certificate where the transfer appears by statement in a collateral
note deposited as security for the debt with power in the pledgee
to sell at public auction.^^

372.
(a) The effect of transfer.The immediate effect of
a complete transfer of shares upon change of ownership is a
novation of the contract of membership and substitution of the
transferee for the transferrer as a stockholder. "If the law implies
a promise by the original holders or subscribers to pay the full
par value Vv^hen it may be called, it follows that an assignee of
stock, when he has come into privity with the company by having
stock transferred to him on the company's books, is equally liable.
The same reasons exist for implying a promise by him as exists
for raising up a promise by his assignor. And such is the law
as laid down by the textwriters generally, and by many decisions
of the courts. . . . We think, therefore, the transferee of
stock in an incorporated company is liable for calls made after
he has been accepted by the company as a stockholder, and his
name has been registered on the stock books as a corporator ; and,
being thus liable, there is an implied promise that he will pay
calls made while he continues the owner."^^ Complete transfer
involves three steps, (i) The agreement of sale,
(2)
delivery of
the certificate,
(3)
registry by entry on the corporate books. An
absolute transfer of shares,
^
made in good faith and not in view
of the impending insolvency of the company,^^ to a solvent trans-
feree,-- who is competent to take, and who has contracted to accept
IT
Colt V. Ives, 31 Conn. 25; able as Stockholders," 8 Cent. L.
Trust Co. V. Able, 48 Mo. 136; J. 182.
Bank v. McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq.
21
Billings v. Robinson (1884),
26; Scripture v. Soapstone Co., 5 94 N. Y. 415.
N. H. 571; Baldwin v. Canfield,
22
A stockholder, who, in good
26 Minn. 43; Bank v. Cox, 11 Rich. faith, sells and transfers his stock
Eq. 347; Lowell on Transfer of to one who afterwards becomes in-
Stocks,
43, 44. solvent, is liable to creditors of
18
Bank of Culloden v. Bank of the corporation for such portion
Forsythe (Ga. 1904), 48 S. E. 226. only of the debts existing while
19
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65. he held the stock, and remaining
20
Billings V. Robinson (1884), due (not in excess of the amount
94 N. Y. 415; "Who are Charge- of stock assigned), as will be
372.]
SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK. 545
the shares,-^ relieves the transferrer from further habiHty to the
company and to corporate creditors,-* provided it be duly registered
on the company's books.
-^
It has been said that the registration
may be made by the company even against the protest of the
transferee.^ It is the rule that the assignee of corporate stock
equal to the proportion which the
capital stock assigned by him
bears to the entire capital stock
held by solvent stockholders with-
in the jurisdiction, liable in res-
pect of the same debts, to be as-
certained at the time judgment is
rendered. Harpold v. Stobart
(Ohio, 1889), 21 N. E. Rep. 637.
In Maryland, (Hagar v. Cleve-
land, 36 Md. 476) and in Pennsyl-
vania, an original subscriber to
the stock of companies formed
under the General Railroad Act
of 1849, continue liable vipon the
unpaid balance of the subscription
notwithstanding a transfer made
in good faith to a solvent trans-
feree. Graff v. Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co., 31 Pa. St. 489; Pittsburgh,
etc. R. Co. V. Clarke, 29 Pa. St.
146; Aultman's Appeal (1881), 98
Pa. St. 505.
Gf.
West Philadel-
phia Canal Co. v. Innes, 3 Whart.
198, decided before the enactment
of that statute.
23
But the liability of a sub-
scriber of stock is not discharged
by an ex parte transfer of stock
entered upon the books. Cover v.
Manaway (1886), 115 Pa. St. 338;
s. c. 2 Am. St. Rep. 552. An or-
iginal stockholder who has been
compelled to pay calls upon stock
after having assigned it, is not
entitled to be subrogated to the
rights of the corporation against
the delinquent assignee 146.
Contra as to stockholders not
original subscribers. Bunn's Ap-
peal, 105 Pa. St. 49; Aultman's
Appeal, 98, without clear proof of
his having accepted the transfer.
Tripp v. Appleman, 35 Fed. Rep. 19,
24
Under Va. Code, 1873, ch. 57,
26, an assignor of shares of stock
is still liable for unpaid subscrip-
tions, whether the instalments ac-
VOL. 1

35
crue before or after the assign-
ment. Hambleton v. Glenn (Va.
1889), 9 S. E. Rep. 129.
25
Whitney v. Butler, 118 U. S.
655; Sykes v. Holloway, 81 Fed.
432; Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 665.
26
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65;
Johnson v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65; Bil-
lings V. Robinson, 94 N. Y. 415;
s. c. 28 Hun, 122; Wakefield v.
Fargo, 90 N. Y. 213; Johnson v.
Underbill, 52 N. Y. 203; Isham v.
Buckingham, 49 N. Y. 216; Moss
V. Oakley, 2 Hill, 265; Cole v.
Ryan, 52 Barb. 168; Cowles v.
Cromwell, 25 Barb. 413; Haynes
v. Palmer, 13 La. Ann. 240; Allen
V. Montgomery, etc. R. Co., 11
Ala. 437; Bend v. Susquehanna
Bridge & Bank Co. (1823), 6 Harr.
& J. 128; s. c. 14 Am. Dec. 261,
holding that parol evidence is in-
admissible to show that a transfer
absolute on its face and duly made
on the company's books was in
fact a mere mortgage of the
shares; McClarin v. Franciscus,
43 Mo. 452; Hartford, etc. R. Co.
v. Boorman, 12 Conn. 530; Wes-
ton's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 20; Ayles-
bury Ry. Co. V. Mount, 5 Scott,
N. R. 127; Huddersfield Canal Co.
V. Buckley, 7 Term Rep. 36; Mc-
Kenzie v. Kittridge, 24 U. C. Com.
P. 1; Grissell v. Bristowe, L. R.
3 C. P. 112; In re Pennant &
Craigwen Consol. Lead Mining Co.
(1854), 5 De G. M. & G. 837, 848,
where the Lord Chancellor said
in regard to a disputed transfer
of shares in a cost-book mining
company: "It seems to me that
when a partnership is constituted
of several hundred persons, and
its articles stipulate that any
shareholder may transfer, the
meaning necessarily is, that he
may so transfer as to put the
5-16 SALE AND TKANSFKR OF STOOK.
[
373.
takes no greater right than his assignor had to give, and is subject
to all the equities which burden the assignor.^^

373-
(t>) Effect of statutory provisions as to transfers.

There is much conflict of authority in construction of statutory

provisions as to the effect of transfers of stock upon the individual
liability of stockholders, the questions being:

(i) whether the

liability attaches only to those who were holders when the debt
was contracted, and,
(2)
if so, whether such liability was avoided
by subsequent transfer, and,
(3)
wdiether such transferees escape
the liability.- Under statute making a stockholder liable for cor-
porate debts, he is not released by transfer, as held in Indiana,^"
and New York.^*' The stockholder is not liable for corporate
debts contracted after transfer of his stock and registration of the
transfer upon the corporate books,^^ unless there is express provi-
sion that he shall remain liable.^^ Where the statute provides for
individual liability for corporate debts, to the amount of the
stockholder's shares of stock, he who was stockholder at the time
the action was commenced, is held responsible, and not he who
was stockholder at the time the debt accrued.^^ When a contract
has been made for the sale of stock by which the title is to be
transferee in the place of him, the 23
Danielson v. Yoakum, 116
transferrer; otherwise it is holding Cal. 382; Jackson v. Meek,
'87
a nugatory inducement which can Tenn. 69, 10 Am. St. Rep. 620;
never be realized. . . . The Judson v. Rossie, etc. Co., 9 Paige
liability of the transferrer is en- (N. Y.) 598, 38 Am. Dec. 569.
tirely divested from him and
29
McComber v. Wright, 108
passes to the transferee;" Crox- Mich. 109; Williams v. Hanna, 40
ton's Case, 1 De G. M. & G. 600; Ind. 535.
Sutton's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 262;
30
Moss v. Oakley, 2 Hill (N-. Y.)
Birmingham, etc. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 265.
1 Q. B. 256; London, etc. Ry. Co.
si
Johnson v. Laflin, 103 U. S.
V. Graham, 1 Q. B. 271; London, 800; Mathews v. Albert, 24 Md.
etc. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 2 Man. 527; Emmert v. Smith, 40 Md.
& G. 606; Sheffield Ry. Co. v. 123; Ricaud v. Willmington, etc.
Woodcock, 2 R. C. 522. It has be- Co., 25 U. S. App. 434, 70 Fed.
come a part of the statutory law 424, 17 C. C. A. 170.
of England that until the deed
s
2 Hull v. Burtis, 90 111. 213;
of transfer is delivered to the Chatham Bank v. Brobston, 99
secretary of the company for reg- Ga. 201.
istration, the vendor remains lia-
33
Foster v. Row, 120 Mich. 1,
ble for calls. 8 Vic. ch. 16, 15; 77 Am. St. Rep. 565; Cleveland
Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65; Up- v. Burnham, 55 Wis. 598; Freeland
ton v. Burnham, 3 Biss. 520; Lon- v. McCullough, 1 Denio 414, 43
don, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fairclough, 2 Am. Dec. 685; Van Demark v.
Man. & G. 674, 706. Barrons, 52 Kan. 779; Skrainka v.
27
Kent V. Quicksilver M. Co. Allen, 76 Mo. 384.
(1879), 78 N. Y. 159.
^ 373.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 547
passed from one person to another, the question of what is a
sufficient transfer is an important one. The performance of the
contract on the part of the vendor must be such as to vest the
title to the stock in the vendee. Thus, when the vendor tenders
the certificates, indorsed with a proper assignment and with power
of attorney duly executed, authorizing the assignee to have the
transfer recorded upon the corporate books, he has sufficiently
performed upon his part.^* Where such a tender is made, the
vendee can not evade performance on his part and refuse to accept
the stock, in the absence of fraud on the part of his vendor, simply
because stock has been issued by the corporation at a price below
par or its property has been mortgaged
;"^
nor because the com-
pany's title to its property turns out to be worthless
f^
nor because
the Vi'inding up of the corporation made it impossible to register
the transfer
;^^
nor because the vendor sought to escape payment
of calls by transferring his stock
;^^
nor because the shares were
sold at a speculative price.^^ Neither, in the absence of fraud, does
the fact that the corporation was insolvent at the time the con-
tract was made, constitute a defense.*" In an action for damages
for a breach of a contract to take stock, where the defendant agreed
to secure to plaintiff a bid of a certain amount for the stock within
a year, and, failing so to do, to take the stock from him at his
option at the end of the year for a named sum, and on the evening
of the last day, plaintiff notified defendant that he was expected
to take the stock, and for four or five days afterwards his agent
called on defendant and tendered him the stock, who refused to
take it, but not on the ground that the tender was too late,the
defense of a failure to make a tender was not available.*^ It has
been held that the vendee may demand that the vendor shall him-
self cause the registration of the transfer to be made.*- A contract
34
Munn V. Bamum, 24 Barb.
38
Grant v. Attrill, 11 Fed. Rep.
283; Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. 469.
420; Eastman v. Fiske, 9 N. H.
so
Moffat v. Winslow, 7 Paige
182; Merchants' National Bank v. Ch. 124; Board of Commissioners
Richards, 6 Mo. App. 454; Bruce v. Reynolds, 44 Ind. 509; Allen v.
v. Smith, 44 Ind. 1. Cf.
Moore v. Pegram, 16 Iowa, 163.
Hudson River R. Co., 12 Barb. 156.
4o
Rudge v. Bowman, L. R. 3. Q.
35
Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt. B. 689; Crubb v. Miller, 19 Week.
420; Faulkner v. Hebard, 26 Vt. Rep. 519.
452.
41
Duchemin v. Kendall (1889),
36
State V. North Louisiana R. 149 Mass. 171.
Co., 34 La. Ann. 947.
42
white v. Salisbury, 33 Mo.
37
Crubb V. Miller, 19 Week. 150.
Rep. 519.
548 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
374.
to exchange goods for corporate stock without naming its vakie,
calls for the stock at its par valne.*^

374.
(c) Effect upon liabilitj^ for calls.The transferrer
having made in good faith an absolute transfer, duly recorded on
the corporate books, is discharged from further liability upon the
uncalled subscription price.** Although unpaid calls are due, the
stockholder may sell his stock and have it transferred upon the cor-
porate books. The corporation has no right to refuse such reg-
istry.*^ He nevertheless remains liable for calls made before the
registry, and although made payable after the registry.*^
Liability
of
transferee after registry^ on unpaid subscription.

The transferee upon registry of the transfer becomes liable for

any unpaid subscription price, which is uncalled and unpaid, and
the transferrer is released therefrom.
'^'^
A bona fide transferee,
buying stock in open market in good faith without notice or know-
ledge that the subscription price is not fully paid, is not liable for
the amount unpaid, although there is nothing on the face of the
certificate stating that it is fully paid.*^ No liability to the cor-
poration or its creditors, attaches to the transferee of stock before
its registry upon the corporate books.*'' Until registry is made,
corporate creditors may hold transferrer liable as though he had
not sold the stock. The transferrer remains liable upon the stock
until it is registered,^*' or by fault of the corporation, is unregist-
ered, or the corporation has recognized the transferee as stock-
holder, in the absence of registry of the stock.^^
Statutory liability, including that existing before the sale, fol-
lows the stock into the hands of the transferee.
^-
Liability
of
transferee to transferrer.Though the transferee
is not liable to the corporation upon liabilities arising upon the
stock after the transfer, but before registry, he is liable to the
transferrer when the latter has paid such liabilities.^^
43
Tilkey v. Augusta, etc. R. Co.
48
Keystone Bridge Co. v. Mc-
(Ga. 1890), 10 S. E. Rep. 448. Cluney (18S0), 8 Mo. App. 496.
44
Cole V. Adams (1898), 19 Tex.
49 McDowell v. Sheehan (1891),
Civ. App. 507. 129 N. Y. 200.
45
Craig V. Hesperia, etc. Co.
50
Hood v. McNaughton
(1892),
(1896), 113 Cal.
7,
35 L. R. A. 36. 54 N. J. I-aw 425.
46Visalia, etc. R. R. v. Hyde
51 Earle v. Carson
(1903), 188 U.
(1895), 110 Cal. 632; Alkali Co. v. S. 42.
Campbell (1902), 113 Fed. Rep.
52
Barton, etc. Bank v. Atkins
398. (1899), 72 Vt. 33.
47
Sigua, etc. Co. v. Brown
b3
Brinkley v. Hambleton, 67
(1902), 171 N. Y. 488. Md. 169

374.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 549

Tlic prior assignor's liabifity
for calls.While each assignor
and assignee of shares is liable to the corporation for calls made
upon the stock until the full par value has been paid, l>etvveen
the assignor and assignee there is no obligation implied on the
part of the former to pay calls made after his transfer against a
prior assignor.^* So also when a lawful agreement has been en-
tered into by the stockholders of a corporation, by the terms of
which new obligations are imposed on the stock, one purchasing
some of the shares takes them subject to the agreement, and can
only demand a certificate conforming to the agreement.^ In like
manner where a subscriber to the stock of a manufacturing cor-
poration agrees in the usual form to pay it, makes partial pay-
ments, and, at a time when there were no calls, makes a transfer
in good faith, and new certificates are issued by the company in
accordance therewith, the assignee becomes liable for the balance
of the payments, and neither the company nor its receiver can
maintain an action for the balance against the original subscriber
and assignor.^" Where stock has been subscribed for but not
taken by the subscribers, and is then transferred as treasury stock
to the company, which afterwards sells it to third parties for less
54
Note to Jennings v. Bank of Maine a purchaser of stock as-
California, 12 Am. St. Rep. 145, sessable upon its face, or by the
152, citing Brinkley v. Hamble- charter or by-laws of the corpora-
ton, 67 Md. 169. Cf.
West Nash- tion, and payable by instalments,
ville, etc. Co. v. Nashville S. Bank, is liable for the amount remain-
86 Tenn. 252; s. c. 6 Am. St. Rep. ing unpaid as if an original sub-
835, and note 838, 839; Caulkins scriber, and chargeable with notice
V. Gas Light Co., 85 Tenn. 683; of any such unpaid balances,
s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 786, and note whether purchased of the corpor-
798; Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott, ation or in open market. Libby v.
10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am_. St. Rep. Tobey (1890), 82 Me. 397, 19 Atl.
586, and note 594; Lippitt v. Am- Rep. 904. A transferee of sto"k
erican Wood Paper Co., 15 R. I. of a corporation who signs a paper
141; s. c. 2 Am. St. Rep. 886, and purporting to be an original sub-
note 891; Young v. South Trede- scription, and expressly agrees to
gar Iron Co., 85 Tenn. 189; s. c. pay the amount subscribed as the
4 Am. St. Rep. 752, and note 759; board of directors may order, as-
Taylor v. Weston, 77 Cal. 534. A sumes the liability of an original
subscriber to the capital stock of stockholder, and is liable for the
a corporation who has in good amount of the unpaid subscrip-
faith transferred his shares to tion. Citizens', etc. Co. v. Gilles-
another, which transfer has been pie (1887), 115 Pa. St. 564.
accepted by the corporation before
ss
Campbell v. American Zylo-
an assessment is made, is not nite Co. (1889), 55 N. Y. Super,
liable for the unpaid subscription. Ct. Rep. 562.
Stewart v. Walla Walla, etc. Co.
se
Billings v. Robinson, 28 Hun,
(1889), 20 Pacif. Rep. 605. In 122. Daniels, J., dissenting.
550 SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
375.
than its face value, the original subscribers can not be held to
liability as assignors of the stock.^'^ In an action against a stock-
holder by the trustee of an insolvent corporation appointed by a
competent court to collect unpaid subscriptions to its stock for
the benefit of its creditors, it is no defense that subsequent to his
appointment the trustee obtained an order from the court per-
mitting him to compromise with those stockholders who should
pay within a given time a certain per cent, of the call assessed in
the original decree.^^ But where a purchaser of shares buys them
supposing that they are full paid stock, he is not only relieved of
the necessity of paying calls, but may rescind the contract and
recover the payment.^^ He also has his remedy, for any actual
damages he has sustained, against those by whose misrepresenta-
tions he was induced to take the stock,^" but he must, of course,
show that misrepresentations were made and that he relied upon
them.'^^ If the directors have participated in the profits of an
issue of stock below par, bona fide transferees of the stock have
recourse against them for the damages suffered.
^^

375
(d) Pretended or colorable transfers.A transfer,
though made for the purpose of escaping liability of the transfer-
57 Ailing V. Ward (111. 1890), 24 R. Co. (1887), 14 Oregon, 356, con-
N. E. Rep. 551. It was further struing Hill's Misc. Laws of Ore-
held in this case that such stock, gon, ch. 32, 3230.
though purporting to be full paid,
bs
Hambleton v. Glenn (Md.
will, when called in question by 1890), 8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 372.
creditors of the corporation, be On the subject of the two pre-
held to be paid up only to the ceding sections, see note to
amount that was actually paid for Thompson v. Reno Savings Bank,
it, within the meaning of Rev. 3 Am. St. Rep. 860 and 866.
Stat. 111. ch. 32, 8, which makes 59
Sturges v. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246,
stockholders liable for corporate 253; Messersmith v. Sharon Sav-
debts for the amount unpaid upon ings Bank, 96 Pa. St. 440; Fosdick
the stock. The statutes of Oregon v. Sturgess, 1 Biss. 255; Coolidge
provide that a transferee of cor- v. Goddard (1885), 77 Me. 579;
porate stock is subject to the pay- Foster v. Seymour, 23 Fed. Rep.
ment-of balances due thereon; and 65.
where a debtor to the company
fio
Cross v. Sackett, 6 Abb. Pr.
conveye'd all his stock to one as 247; Barnes v. Brown (1880), 80
trustee, to sell it to any one who
N. Y. 527; In re Ambrose, etc.
would pay its indebtedness to the
Co., 14 Ch. Div. 390, 397; In re
corporation, and get him a dis- Gold Co., 11 Ch. Div. 701, 713, 714.
charge therefrom, this was held
ei
McAleer v. McMurray, 58 Pa.
to be no sale, and the trustee was St. 126; Priest v. White, 34 Alb.
not such a purchaser as would Law J. 298.
create a liability, as against him,
62
Cross v. Sackett, 6 Abb. Pr.
for any unpaid balance on the 247; In re Gold Co., 11 Ch. Div.
stock. Powell V. Willamette Val. 701.

370.]
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STCiCK. 651
rer to corporate creditors, will nevertheless be effective, if made
in good faith and to a responsible person,^^ but otherwise, if the
transfer is merely so in form, and the transferrer remains the
beneficial owner."*
Transfer to Irresponsible person.In England the stockholder
may purposely escape liability by actual transfer to a person known
to be insolvent, and irresponsible. But in the United States a
transfer under like circumstances is generally held to be a fraud
upon corporate creditors, and void as to them.^ This is the
settled rule under the National Bank Act.*""'
.

376.
(e) Transfers to a "dummy," a "man of straw."
A
transfer to a "man of straw" made to avoid liability is a nullity, and
the transferrer remains liable upon the stock as before." So that
63
Miller v. Great Republic Ins.
Co., 50 Mo. 55; Magruder v. Cole-
ston, 4 Md. 349, 22 Am. Rep. 47.
64
Germania Nat. Bank, etc. v.
Case, 99 U. S. 628; Peter v. Union
Manufacturing Co., 56 Ohio St.
181.
65
Burt V. Real Estate Exchange,
175 Pa. St. 619; National, etc. Co.
V. Story, etc. Co., Ill California
531; Anderson v. Philadelphia Co.,
Ill U. S. 479; Bowden v. Johnson,
107 U. S. 251; Welch v. Sargent,
127 Cal. 72.
60
Stuart V. Hayden, 18 C. C. A.
618, 72 Fed. 402, 36 U. S. App.
462, 169 U. S. 1.
67
"A man of straw," meaning
either a fictitious or an irrespon-
sible party, such as insolvents,
infants, or married women. Bow-
den V. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251;
Bowden v. Santos, 1 Plughes, 158;
Provident Savings Inst. v. Jack-
son Place Skating Rink, 52 Mo.
557; McClaren v. Franciscus, 43
Mo. 452; Rider v. Morrison, 54
Md. 429; Central Agricultural, etc.
Assn V. Alabama Gold Life Ins.
Co., 70 Ala. 120; Madison v. Fire-
man's Ins. Co., 11 Rob. (La.) 177;
Marcy v. Clark, 17 Mass. 330;
Nathan v. Whitlock, 9 Paige, 152;
Payne v. Stewart, 33 Conn. 517;
Dauchy v. Brown, 24 Vt. 197;
Castleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J.
Marsh. 1; Roman v. Fry (1831),
5 J. J. Marsh. 634; "West Chester,
etc. R. Co. V. Jackson, 28 Pa. St.
339; Veiller v. Brown, 18 Hun,
571; Aultman's Appeal (1883), 98
Pa. St. 505; "Transfer of Company
Shares to Paupers," 56 Law Times,
67; "Who are Chargeable as Stock-
holders," (1879) 8 Cent. L. J. 182;
Arthur v. Midland Ry. Co. (1857),
3 Kay & J. 204; Muskingum Valley
Turnpike Co. v. Ward (1844), 13
Ohio, 120; In re The Companies'
Act, Cox's Case, 4 De Gex, J. &
S. 53; Pugh & Sharman's Case,
(1872),L. R. 13 Eq. 566. Cf.Inre
Provincial Marine Ins. Co., Mait-
land's Case (1869), 38 L. J. Ch.
554; Richardson's Case, L. R. 19
Eq. 588; King's Case, L. R. 6 Ch.
196. In England, however, a con-
trary rule prevails with respect
to transfers to infants and ir-
responsible parties, provided only
that the transfer be absolute, with
no secret trust between the par-
ties for the benefit of the transfer-
rer in the event that the contem-
plated insolvency does not occur.
In re Taurine Co., 25 Ch. Div. 118;
Chynoweth's Case, 15 Ch. Div. 13;
King's Case, 6 Ch. Div. 196; Wil-
liam's Case, 1 Ch. Div. 576; Regina
V. Midland Counties, etc. Ry. Co.,
15 Ir. Ch. 525. And in Missouri
under Wag. Mo. St. p. 291, 13,
providing that where execution
against a corporation can not be
552 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
377.
where a purchaser of shares assuming to take them in the name
of an infant, had the certificates made to a fictitious person, the
vendor remained hable."^ But it has been held that a sale of
stock in a national bank under authority conferred by the terms
of a pledge, may relieve the pledgee, although done for the purpose
of avoiding liability under the National Banking Act.'''' And
where the purchaser of shares, for the purpose of escaping liability,
had them transferred on the corporate books direct from the
seller to an irresponsible person, the purchaser was held to be the
actual owner, and, as such, liable to the creditors upon the in-
solvency of the corporation.'^*' Where, in good faith, a stock-
holder sold his stock in a corporation actually insolvent, though
he did not know the fact, to an insolvent person, the transferrer
was held not liable to the corporate creditors.'^^ Where the cor-
poration is insolvent, the transferrer can not escape liability as
a stockholder by transfer to an irresponsible person, one incapable
of responding to such liability. The transferrer remains liable
to the corporation and to its creditors and stockholders, regardless
of what was his intent in making the transfer.^^
D.
LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFERRER.

377- (3)
Transfer to the corporation itself.When, as in
England, and under charters and statutes in some American
States,'^-^ corporations are incompetent to acquire shares of their
satisfied on the corporate property,
7o
Case v. Small, 4 Woods 78, 10
it may be levied on the property Fed. 722; Anderson v. Philadel-
of the stockholders to the extent phia, etc. Co., Ill U. S. 479; Davis
of their shares, but only upon an v. Stevens, 17 Blatchf. 259.
order from the court in which
''^i
Sykes v. Holloway, 81 Fed.
the action has been brought, and 432; Foster v. Row, 120 Mich. 1,
upon motion after notice to the 77 Am. St. Rep. 565.
stockholders, it is held that the
72
Magruder v. Coleston, 44 Md.
stockholders' liability depends 349, 22 Am. Rep. 47; Ward v.
upon the amount of shares held .Toslin (1900), 100 Fed. Rep. 676;
at the return of the execution, and Welch v. Sargent (1899), 127
not at the time of malving the Cal. 72.
motion. Skrainka v. Allen
(1883),
^.^
in New York it is declared
76 Mo. 384. unlawful for any railway company
^s
In re Provincial Marine Ins. formed under the act of 1850, "to
Co., Maitland's Case (1869), 38 use any of its funds in the pur-
L. J. Ch. 554. chase of any stock in its own or
69
Magruder v. Colston, 44 Md. in any other corporation," (N.
349.
Cf. Anderson v. Philadelphia Y. Laws of 1850, ch. 140, 8)
Warehouse Co., Ill U. S. 479. "except so far as the same may

377.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 553

own stock, a stockholder who sells his shares to the corporation
itself/* or to one whom he, or his agent making the sale, knows
to be acting in behalf of the company,'^ he is not relieved thereby
from his liability to corporate creditors/" The stockholder is not
relieved of liability to creditors, by transfer to the corporation it-
be agreed upon in its articles
of association." N. Y. Laws of
1881, ch. 468, 12. In the
absence of such statutory or
charter restrictions, however, it
is the rule in nearly all the
American States, with the excep-
tion of Kansas probably alone,
where the English rule is followed
(German Savings Bank v. Wulfe-
kuhler, 19 Kan. 60), that a solvent
corporation may buy and sell
shares of its own stock, receive
them in payment of debts, or by
way of pledge, gift or bequest.
State Bank v. Fox, 3 Blatchf. 431.
Lake Superior Ii'on Co. v. Drexal,
90 N. Y. 87, where the legality of
a gift to a corporation of shares
of its own stock was assumed;
City Bank v. Bruce, 17 N. Y. 507;
Robinson v. Beale, 26 Ga. 17;
Hartridge v. Rockwell, Charlt. R.
M. 260; Dupre v. Boston, etc. Co.,
114
'Mass. 37; Leland v. Haydea,
"102
Mass. 542; Crease v. Babcock,
51 Mass. 525, 557; s. c. 34 Am. Dec.
61; Farmers', etc. Bank v. Cham-
plain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131, 139;
s. c. 16 Vt. 52; s. c. 43 Am. Dec.
491; s. c. 23 Vt. 185; s. c. 56 Am.
Dec. 68; Early & Lane's Appeal,
89 Pa. St. 411; Eby v. Guest, 94
Pa. St. 160; Coleman v. Columbia
Oil Co., 51 Pa. St. 74; State v.
Franklin Bank, 10 Ohio Rep. 91,
97; Taylor v. Miama Exporting
Co., 6 Ohio Rep. 176; s. c. 5 Ohio
Rep. 162; s. c. 22 Am. Dec. 785; Ri-
vanna Navigation Co. v. Dawsons,
3 Gratt. 19; s. c. 46 Am. Dec. 3 83,
where it was held that a corpora-
tion may receive shares of its own
stock by bequest; Clapp v. Peter-
son, 104 111. 26; Chicago, etc. R.
Co. V. Town of Marseilles, 84 111.
145; Fraser v. Ritchie, 8 Bi'adw.
554; Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster,
49 Iowa, 25. But see Barton v.
Port Jackson, etc. Plank Road Co.,
17 Barb. 397, where the purchase
was held to be against public
policy and ultra vires; Cappin v.
Greenlees, 38 Ohio St. 275. Cf.
Thompson on Liability of Stock-
holders,
234, 242.
"i
Case of the Reciprocity Bank,
(1860), 22 N. Y. 9; Currier v.
Lebanon Slate Co. (1875), 56 N.
H. 262; Johnston v. Lafiin (1878),
5 Dill. 65; s. c. 6 Central Law
Jour. 124; s. c. (1880) 103 U. S.
800 ; In re Vale of Neath & South
Wales Brewing Co., Walter's Sec-
ond Case (1850), 3 De G. & Sm.
244; Zulueta's Claim (1870), L. R.
5 Ch. 444 ; South Eastern Ry. Co.'s
Claim (1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 10;
In re Patent Paper Manuf. Co.
(1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 294.
75
Richmond's Case (1849), 3
De G. & Sm. 96.
TGDaniell's Case (1856). 22
Beav. 43; Munt's Case, 22 Beav,
55; Bennett's Case, 5 De G. M.
6 G. 284; In re Vale of Neath &
South Wales Brewing Co., Wal-
ter's Second Case (1853), 3 De G.
& Sm. 244; Richmond's Case
(1849), 3 De G. & Sm. 96; "Who
are Chargeable as Stockholders,"
(1879), 8 Cent. L. J. 182; Lawe's
Case (1852), 1 De G., M. & G. 421;
In re Royal British Bank, Nicols'
Case (1859), 3 De G. & J. 387,
433.
Cf.
Johnston V. Laflin (1878),
5 Dill. 65; s. c. Thompson Na-
tional Bank Cases, 331; s. c.
(1880), 103 U. S. 800; Crandall
V. Lincoln (1884), 52 Conn. 73.
Conversely, if neither the vendor,
nor his agent, knew that he was
selling to an agent of the com-
pany, he will be discharged from
his liability. Johnston v. Laflin
(1880), 103 U. S. 800; Richmond's
554
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
3TS.
sclf.'^^ Transfer to a non-resident, if in good faith, will relieve
the transferrer from lia1)ility to the corporate creditors.'^^

378.
(b) Transfer without consent of the transferee.

Transfer, without the consent of the transfe"ee, will not relieve

the transferrer from liability, or impose it upon the transferee,
unless he has notice of the transfer and acquiesces in it.'^^ Even
in those jurisdictions where a corporation ha? general power to
acquire shares of its own stock, it can not be exercised at such
a time nor in such a manner as to take away the security upon
which the corporate creditors have the right to rely for the pay-
ment of their claims,^'' as, for example, in view of, or after in-
solvency.^^ It can not after insolvency be compelled to register a
transfer of shares which it has contracted to take.^ Although the
transaction may wear the appearance of a cancellation of the con-
tract of subscription, the courts are inclined, whenever the cir-
cumstances will admit it, to regard it as a sale, for the puipose
of holding the stockholders liable
f^
and so long as the contract of
sale remains executory, the corporation may repudiate it,^* and
corporate creditors who are injured thereby may have the transac-
tion set aside.*'*
Case (1849), 3 De G. & Sm. 96;
Hollvi^ey's Case (1849), 1 De G.
& Sm. 777; In re Royal British
Bank, Nicols' Case (1859), 3 De
G. & J. 387; Grady's Case (1863),
1 De G., J. & S. 488; Lane's Case
(1863), 1 De G., J. & S. 504. But
see Crandall v. Ljincoln (1854),
52 Conn. 73; s. c. 52 Am. Rep.
560, where although the seller did
not actually know that the pur-
chaser was acting for the com-
pany he was held liable, since the
circumstances were such that he
might have known.
77
Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S.
800; Harper v. Carroll, 66 Minn.
487.
78
Foster v. Row, 120 Mich.
1,
77 Am. St. Rep. 565.
70
Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga. 337.
soGillett V. Moody, 3 N. Y. 479;
Fraser v. Ritchie, 8 Bradw. 554.
81
Crandall V. Lincoln (1SS4),
52 Conn. 73, 100; s. c. 52 Am. Rep.
560; Currier v. Lebanon Slate
Co., 56 N. H. 262.
82
Mitchell V. City of Glasgow
Bank, 4 App. Cas. 624.
83
Duke's Case, 1 Ch. Div. 622;
Teasdale's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. 54;
In re United Service Co., Hall'r'
Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 707, distinguish-
ing Snell's Case, L. R. 5 Ch. 22;
Thomas' Case, L. R. 13 Eq. 437;
Morgan's Case (1849), 1 De G. &
Sm. 750; Bennett's Case (1854),
5 De G., M. & G. 284; In re Patent
Paper Manuf. Co. (1870), L. R,
5 Ch. 294; Nathan v. Whitlock
(1841), 9 Paige, 152.
siZulueta's Claim, L. R. 5 Ch.
444.
Cf.
Abeles v. Cochran, 22
Kan. 405; Great Eastern Ry. Co.
V. Turner, 42 L. J. Ch. 83, holding
t*hat when the contract has been
executed the stock belongs to the
corporation and does not pass to
the vendor's assignee in bank-
ruptcy.
85
Clapp V. Peterson, 104 111. 26;
Peterson v. . Illinois, etc. Co., 6
Bradw. 257. In Morgan v. Lewis
(1888), 46 Ohio St. 1, however, it
379.] SALE AND TUANSFER OF STOCK. 555
When the statute prohibits transfer.The New York statute
prohibits the transfer of his stock by a stockholder of a corpora-
tion, insolvent or contemplating' insolvenc}'.^"

379-
(c) Registration when necessary to relieve the trans-
ferrer,If the transfer be not recorded upon the corporate
books, when so required by the charter or statute, the transferrer
continues liable upon his subscription both to the corporation and
to its creditors.*'^ No contract between him and his transferee by
which the latter may undertake to assume this liability, will de-
prive the corporation or its creditors of the right to look to him
for payment.^^ And it does not avail the transferrer that he has
was held that upon the trial of the
action to enforce the statutory
liability of stockholders, a de-
fendant may show that he origin-
ally became a stockholder by re-
ceiving from the corporation its
stock in exchange for his interest
in a furnace; that the furnace
not proving as profitable as had
been expected, some of the stock-
holders were dissatisfied with the
purchase, and contentions arose
among them; that defendant was
blamed by many of them for hav-
ing induced the company to make
the purchase, and was requested
to take the furnace back and
transfer to the company the stock
he had received for it; that to
settle such contention and dis-
satisfaction he complied with this
request, transferred his stock to
the company and accepted there-
for a deed for the furnace.
80
Sinclair v. Fuller, 9 App. Div.
(N. Y.) 297.
8T
Shellington v. Rowland, 53 N.
Y. 371; Rosevelt v. Brown, 11 N.
Y. 148; Worrall v. Judson, 5 Barb.
210; Kellogg v. Stockwell, 75 111.
68; Dane v. Young, 61 Me. 160;
Sayles v. Blane, 19 L. J. Q.
B.
19; s. c. 6 Eng. Ry. Cas. 79; Lon-
don, etc. Ry. Co. v. Fairclough,
2 Man. & G. 674; Midland, etc. Ry.
Co. V. Gordon, 16 Mees. & W. 804;
McEuen v. "West London, etc. Co.
6 Ch. 655.
88 Bell's Appeal (1887), 115 Pa.
88. A mere informal ex parte
transfer in writing of shares of
a corporation by the original sub-
scriber, never entered or appear-
ing on the books of the company,
and a private agreement of the
transferee that the subscriber
shall not be liable for anything
due on the shares, is not such
an assignment as will relieve the
original subscriber from liability
to pay the amount unpaid on the
shares so transferred. In Rich-
mond V. Irons (1887), 121 U. S.'
27, a stockholder in a national
bank sold certain stocks several
months before the insolvency of
the bank, but the transfer was not
made on the books till the date
of the bank's failure, and it was
held that he did not escape his
statutory personal liability for
debts of the bank, the stock being,
by Rev. St. U. S. 5139, transfer-
able only on the books of the
bank. So, under Civil Code Cal.
322, the liability of an owner of
stock continues until a transfer
of the shares once held by him
has been entered upon the records
of the corporation, and this
whether the stock stood on the
books in the name of such owner,
or in the name of some other per-
son as trustee, without disclosing
the name of the ti'ue owner. Bor-
land V. Haven (1889), 37 Fed.
Rep. 394,
55G SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
379.
in good faith attempted to have the transfer registered, if in fact
it has not been done.**^ In the absence of statutory or charter re-
quirement that the transfer of shares shall be made on the books
of the corporation, such registration is not necessary to relieve
the transferrer from liability or to impose it upon the transferee."''
The transfer will not be good as against creditors, and relieve the
transferrer from liability unless it is registered, if the charter or
statute requires it; though the transfer may be good as between
the parties to it, without registration."^ Where the stockholder,
having sold his stock, delivers to the secretary or other proper
89
7n re Bachman (1875), 12
Nat. Bankr. Reg. 223; Johnston v.
Laflin, 5 Dill. 65; Cartwell's Case,
L. R. 9 Ch. 691; Heritage's Case,
L. R. 9 Eq. 5; Midland Counties
Ry. Co. V. Gordon, 16 Mees. & W.
804; Ex parte Hall, 5 Ry. & Canal
Cas. 624. In re Anglo-Indian, etc.
Inst., Smith's Case (Eng. Ct. of
App. Dec. 11, 1889), 7 Ry. & Corp.
L. J. 57, holding that though the
company was in default in not
registering the transfer on the
13th of November, 1883, yet, as S.
knew in February of their failure
to register, and did not take legal
steps to compel registration, he
was not, owing to his delay, en-
titled as against creditors to have
the transfer registered as at an
earlier date than the 31st of May,
1884. So, in a suit by a creditor
of an insolvent corporation to en-
force the stockholder's statutory
liability, a defendant pleaded that
prior to the insolvency, he sold,
in good faith, his shares to an-
other party, who was solvent. It
appeared that the vendor caused
an entry of transfer to be made
by the secretary of the company,
in a book then present at the
company's office other than the
stock book, with the expectation
that it would be entered in an-
other book then at the residence
of the secretary, but no transfer
was made in the stock book of the
company, and at the time of the
accruing of the debts of the cor-
poration and at the time of the
trial, the vendor appeared, by the
stock book, to be the owner of the
shares. It was held that the
entry of transfer was not sufficient
to relieve the vendor of liability
to the creditors of the corporation,
notwithstanding the fact that the
sale was made in good faith and
for value, and that the vendor
believed he had done all that was
necessary to effect a transfer of
the stock, and the further, fact
that the company thereafter treat-
ed the purchaser as the owner of
the stock so sold. Harpold v. Sto-
bart (Ohio, 1889), 21 N. E. Rep.
637. Contra, Bargate v. Short-
ridge, 5 H. L. Cas. 297; Evans v.
Smallcomb, L. R. 3 H. L. 249;
Hill's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 769, note;
Fufe's Case, L. R. 4 Ch. 768; s. c.
L. R. 9 Eq. 589; Ward and Garfit's
Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 189; Nation's
Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 99; In re Lon-
don, Hamburg & Continental Ex-
change Co., Ward's Case, L. R.
2 Eq. 226; Ex parte Henderson,
19 Beav. 107; Shortridge v. Bosan-
quet, 16 Beav. 84, overruling s. c.
4 Ex. 699.
Cf. White's Case, L.
R. 3 Eq. 86.
00
Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342.
Cutting V. Damerell, 88 N. Y. 410.
91
Powers V. Knapp, 71 Hun, N.
Y. 371, 158 N. Y. 733; Matteson v.
Dent, 176 U. S. 521; Parker v.
Carolina, etc. Bank, 53 S. C. 583
69 Am. St. Rep. 888.

380.]
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 557
corporate officer, the stock certificate with power of attorney to
effect the transfer, this is a fiUng for registration and sufficient
to end the transferrer's HabiHty, whether or not such transfer is
actually entered in the corporate books,''- In any case of pro-
cedure by the creditor, to hold the stockholder liable, he must elect
which one to proceed against, the transferrer or the transferee.
He cannot in succession or otherwise proceed against both.'^^
Where the statute provides that stock transfers shall be made only
upon the corporate books, it is unnecessary, in order to hold the
estate of a decedent stockholder liable for corporate debts, that
the shares shall be transferred on the corporate books to the exec-
utor or administrator.^*

380. (d) Transfers to infants and married women do not re-

lieve the transferrer.To relieve the transferrer from liability,
the transferee must not only be a real person, but must be legally
competent to take the shares. Upon the winding-up, the trans-
ferrer must be able to show that at some time or other there was
a transferee of his upon the register who could be made liable in
respect of the shares.^^ Accordingly, transfers to the corporation
itself,^'' to a married woman^^ or to infants, do not discharge
the transferrer from liability to creditors of the company.^^ A
husband may transfer his shares to his wife if she is capable,
under the statute, of being a stockholder, and he will not remain
liable to the corporate creditors.^ A stockholder, who transfers
to an infant, will remain liable to creditors, unless the infant has,
on attaining his majority, ratified the transfer.^ Thus, where
the vendor allowed the certificate to be made to the infant son of
92
Earle v. Coyle, 38 C. C. A. charge her transferrer. Simmons
228, 97 Fed. 410; Whitney v. But- v. Dent (1884), 16 Mo. App. 288.
ler, 118 U. S. 655.
ss
Roman v. Fry (1831), 5 J. J.
03
Yardley v. Wilgus, 56 Fed. Marsh, 634; Castleman v. Holmes
965. (1830), 4 J. J. Marsh, 1; Capper's
94Gianella v. Bigelow, 96 Wis. Case (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 458; In re
185. Joint-Stoclv Discount Co., Mann's
95
In re Imperial Mercantile Case (1867), L. R. 3 Ch. 459, note;
Credit Assn., Curtis' Case (1868), Weston's Case (1870), L. R. 5
L. R. 6 Eq. 455; Reid's Case Ch. 614; Richardson's Case
(1857), 24 Beav. 318.
Cf. In re (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 588; "Who
Joint-Stock Discount Co., Mann's are Chargeable as Stockholders,"
Case (1867), L. R. 3 Ch. 459, note. (1879), 8 Cent. L. J. 182.
90
Vide infra, 377.
99
Simmons v. Dent, 16 Mo. App.
97
Where, however, a femme 288.
covert has statutory competency 1 Foster v. Lincoln Executor,
to become a stockholder, a trans- (C. C. A.) 470, 79 Fed. 170.
fer to her will be effective to dis-
558 SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
3S1.
his vendee, and the son upon attaining majority repudiated the
stock, the vendor was made liable upon it.^ And a father trans-
ferring shares to an infant son, continues liable if they be re-
pudiated by the latter.^ It is immaterial that the transferrer to
a minor was entirely innocent of a fraudulent intent in the trans-
action, and not aware that the shares were transferred to a minor.*
And although the transferee may affirm the transaction after be-
coming of age, the liquidators may elect to enforce the claim
against the transferrer.^ Even a broker purchasing for an infant,
subjects himself to the claims of corporate creditors. But where
shares have passed through several hands, the ultimate transferee
is liable even though his title be derived through an infant.'^
E.
LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFEREE.

381. (a) The transferee as a bona fide purchaser. Overvalu-

ation of property.It is a general rule that a purchaser of
stock standing in the name of his vendor on the corporate books,
is a bona Me holder against the equities of third persons, of which
he had no notice.^ Accordingly, when shares of stock, issued as
fully paid, have been transferred by the original subscriber t:o a
purchaser for value without notice, either from the face of the
certificate or otherwise, that they have been in fact issued for
less than their full value, the transferee can not be held liable
thereon either to the company or to its creditors. He may rely
2
Hennessey's Case (1850), 3 De (1887), 85 Tenn. 683; s. c. 4 Am.
G. & Sm. 191. Ace. Maitland's St. Rep. 786; West Nashville Pla-
Case (1869), 38 L. J. Cli. 554. ning Mill Co. v. Nashville Sav-
3
Litchfield's Case (1850), 3 De ings Bank (1867), 86 Tenn. 252;
G. & Sm. 141; Weston's Case s. c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 835.
(1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 614. Cf.
9 Young v. Erie Iron Co. (1887),
Roman v. Fry (1831), 5 J. J. 65 Mich. Ill; Erskine v. Loewen-
Marsh, 634. stein (1885), 82 Mo. 301; West
4
Weston's Case (1870), L. R. 5 Nashville, etc, Co. v. Nashville
Ch. 614. . Savings Bank, 86 Tenn. 252;
5
Symon's Case (1870), L. R. 9 Steacy v. Little Rock, etc. R. Co.,
Eq. 363. 5 Dill. 348; Brant v. Ehlen (1883),
sRuchizky v. De Haven (1881), 59 Md. 1. In Wintringham v. Ro-
97 Pa. St. 202; In re Joint-Sto-k senthal (1882), 25 Hun, 580, A.
Discount Co., Mann's Case (1S67), transferred to B., for an old debt,
L. R. 3 Ch. 459, note. shares of bank stock, on which
7 Gooch's Case (1872), L. R. 8 no payment had been made, al-
Ch. 266. though B. supposed the sharr-? to
8 Caulkins v. Gaslight Co. have been paid up. Afterwards
381.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 559
Upon statements in the certificate itself,^ or upon the books of
the company," or even, it is held, upon the fact that the certificate
is "in customary form" and offered for sale in open market,^^ as
evidence that it has been fully paid.^^ He is not bound to suspect
fraud when everything seems fair.^* And although the customary
form has not been followed, yet if the form and contents of the
certificate of stock be not prescribed by the charter or by-laws
of the company, and they contain no requirement that it be signed
by designated officers of the corporation, or be issued with certain
formalities, the fact that the issue was not made in accordance
with the method usually employed, will not affect the purchaser
with notice of its illegality.^^ When, however, formalities of this
kind are required by the charter, the purchaser is then affected
A. paid forty per cent, upon the
shares as calls were made, and B.
received dividends. Tlie banlc he-
came insolvent and a receiver was
appointed who sued B. to recover
the balance of A.'s subscription,
and it was held that tlie action
could not be maintained. Water-
house V. Jamieson, L. R. 2 H. L.
29; Burkinshaw v. Nichols, L. R.
3 App. Cas. 1004; Douglass v. Ire-
land, 73 N. Y. 100; Boynton v.
Andrews, 64 N. Y. 93; Boynton v.
Hatch, 47 N. Y. 225; Schenck v.
Andrews, 57 N. Y. 134; Phelan
V. Hazard (1878), 5 Dill. 45; Smith
V. North American, etc. Co., 1 Nev,
423; Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 HI.
490; Spencer v. Iowa Valley, etc.
Co., 36 Iowa, 407, 411; "Liability
of Holders of Nominally Paid-up
Stock," by B. F. Rex, 19 Cent. L. J.
4G5. But in Cover v. Manaway
(1886), 115 Pa. St. 338; s. c. 2
Am. St. Rep. 552, it was held that
the obligation to make good un-
paid stock when the necessities of
creditors require it, is a charge on
stock and passes with it to trans-
ferees.
10
Young V. Erie Iron Co.
(1887), 65 Mich. Ill; Foreman v.
Bigelow, 4 Cliff. 508; Wintring-
ham V. Rosenthal, 25 Hun, 580;
Jackson v. Sligo, etc. Co., 1 Lea,
210; Hubbell v. Meigs, 50 N. Y.
480, 489; Protection Life Ins. Co.
V. Osgood, 93 HI. 69. Cf. Crick-
mer's Case, L. R. 10 Ch. App. 614.
But see Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb.
294; Tasker v. Wallace, 6 Daly,
364, 374, outer.
11
Erskine v. Loewenstein
(1882). 11 Mo. App. 595; s. c. 82
Mo. 301.
12
Johnson v. Sullivan, 15 Mo.
App. 55; Foreman v. Bigelow, 4
Cliff. 508; Keystone Bridge Co. v.
McCheney, 8 Mo. App. 496; Ers-
kine V. Loewenstein, 82 Mo. 301.
13
In Brant v. Ehlen (1883), 59
Md. 1, it was said that any other
doctrine would virtually destroy
the transferable nature of such se-
curities and paralyze all the deal-
ings of the Stock Exchange. But
see Myers v. Seeley, 10 Nat.
Bankr. Reg. 411, where it is held
that the assignee of shares can
stand upon no firmer ground
than the assignor; that although
relying upon the representations
of the latter and of the corporate
officers that the stock was fully
paid, he will as against creditors
of the company be liable for the
amount remaining unpaid.
14
Brant v. Ehlen (1883), 59 Md.
1; Burkinshaw v. Nichols, L. R.
3 App. Cas. 1004, 1017.
15
Tome V. Parkersburg, etc. R.
Co., 39 Md. 36; New York, etc. R.
Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30.
560 SALE AND TJBANSFER OF STOCK.
[
381.
with knowledge of them.^ Accordingly a creditor's bill in equity
to subject to liability, holders of stock, which is nominally paid up,
but on which nothing has really been paid, must allege that they
took with notice of that fact.^^ When it is deemed necessary to
tlie protection of the purchaser that there should be an official
representation upon the face of the certificate, or on the corporate
records, that the stock has been paid in full, it is only a representa-
tion that the full payment has actually been made, that will save
him. No agreement on the part of the corporation not to require
further payment,^^ no writing of such words as "non-assessable"
across the certificate of stock, is equivalent to a recital contained
thereon that it has been fully paid.^^ If a subscriber to whom
shares have been allotted transfers them to a bona Ude purchaser
before the certificate of stock has been issued, and the certificate
is then issued directly to the transferee, the latter does not thereby
become the original taker of the stock so as to lose his equities
as a bona Ude purchaser without notice, and, accordingly, is not
liable to corporate creditors if the shares, issued as full-paid stock,
were in fact issued below par, or for property taken at an over-
valuation.-*' A transferee of stock is not liable either to the cor-
poration or to its creditors until he has accepted the stock-^ and
16
Holbrook V. Fauquier, etc. become members shall subscribe.
Turnpike Co., 3 Cranch, 425.
Cf.
But see Weinman v. Wilkinsburg
Wright's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 425. & E. L. P. Ry. Co. (18S8), 118 Pa.
17
Cleveland Rolling Mill Co. v. St. 192, where the evidence
Texas, etc. Ry. Co., 27 Fed. Rep. showed that defendant's partner
250. had subscribed to a number of
18
Upton V. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. shares, acted as director, and had
45; Webster v. Upton, 91 U. S. 65. taken defendant to a meeting of
19
Upton V. Burnham, 3 Biss. the board of directors, to be sub-
431. stituted as a subscriber in his
20
Young V. Erie Iron Co. (1887), stead, and to take his place in the
65 Mich. Ill, citing Sanger v. Up- board; that defendant subse-
ton, 91 U. S. 56, 60; Steacy v. Lit- quently acted as director, attended
tie Rock, etc. R. Co., 5 Dill. 348, meetings, and voted for calls on
373-377. See, also, Carling's Case, the stock. Defendant denied his
1 Ch. Div. 115. Contra, In re Vul- liability because he had made no
can Iron Works, L. T. 1885, p. 61; formal undertaking, and the trans-
Rowland's Case, 42 L. T. (N. S.) fer had not been entered upon the
785; Potter's Appeal, Wk. Notes, books of the company. But it was
1878, p. 81. And in Shickle v. held that in as much as the trans-
Watts (1888), 94 Mo. 410, it is action was not a sale but a mere
held that the holder of unpaid substitution, the defendant was
stock in an insolvent corporation liable.
is liable whether he was a sub-
21
Cover v. Manaway (1886), 15
scriber or not, though the charter Pa. St. 338; s. c. 2 Am. St. Rep.
prescribes that persons wishing to 552; Tripp r. Appleman, 35 Fed.

382.] SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK. 561

has been recognized by the corporation as the holder of the
shares.'" But an unregistered transferee may become hable as a
stockholder, by an express or implied waiver of the formalities of
registration.-^ The transferee of an agent can not avoid liability
by denying the agent's authority.^* A purchaser with full notice
of stock issued to a director without authority as compensation
for service, is not a bona Ude purchaser and can not compel the
corporation to transfer the stock to him.^^ But when the corpora-
tion has incurred a liability for an overvaluation of property re-
ceived by it from original subscribers in payment of their sub-
scriptions, the fact that original certificates are issued to bona Ude
purchasers of stock from the subscribers, does not render them
liable to the corporate creditors.-*^ Neither the corporation noi
the real owner of stock, can compel the surrender of a new cer-
tificate by one who has purchased it in good faith."

382. (b) Liability of pledgees.A pledgee of shares in a

National bank taking the security for his own benefit, but in the
name of an irresponsible non-stockholding trustee, was held to
incur no liability to creditors, the transaction, although for the
purpose of avoiding such liability as stockholder, being in good
faith, and without any fraudulent intent.^* A pledgee is not
liable as a stockholder to corporate creditors, for balance due on
the stock, when he does not appear on the corporate books as a
stockholder, or if the corporate records show that he holds the
stock merely as collateral security
.^^
"It has never, to our know-
Rep. 19, where it was held that
26
Young v. Erie Iron Co.
the blotter of the company's treas- (1887), 6.5 Mich. Ill, citing Sanger
urer and the stubs of his check v. Upton, 91 U. S. 56, 60; Steacy
book, containing entries to the ef- v. Little Rock, etc. R. Co., 5 Dill,
feet that the assignee had paid 348, 373-377.
calls on the shares, were not ad-
27
Machinists' National Bank v.
missible to prove an acceptance Field, 126 Mass. 345; In re Bahia,
of the transfer, the defendant be- etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Q. B. 584.
ing a stranger to the corporation.
28
Wilson v. Merchants,' etc. Co.,
22
Bell's Appeal (1887), 115 Pa. 39 C. C. A. 231, 98 Fed. 688; An-
88; Williams v. Hanna, 40 Ind. derson v. Philadelphia, etc. Co.,
535; Midland Counties Ry. Co. v. Ill U. S. 479; National Park Bank
Gordon, 16 Mees. & W. 804. v. Harmon, 25 C. C. A. 214, 79 Fed.
23
Upton V. Burnham, 3 Biss. 891.
431; Isham v. Buckingham, 49 N.
29
Union Savings Assn. v. Selig-
Y. 216; Bernard's Case, 5 De G. & man, 92 Mo. 635. 1 Am. St. Rep.
Sm. 283. 776; F'auly v. State Loan, etc. Co.,
24 Wakefield V. Fargo (1882), 90 7 C. C. A. 422, 58 Fed. 6G6, 15
N. Y. 213. U. S. App. 259, 165 U. S. 606; An-
25 Grafner v. Pittsburg, etc. Co. derson v. Philadelphia, etc. Co.,
(Pa. 1903), 56 Atl. 426. Ill U. S. 479.
Vol. 1

36
5G2 SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
382.
ledge, been held that a mere pledgee of stock is chargeable
where he is not registered as owner."^ One who appears as a
stockholder on the corporation books, although he may hold the
stock only as collateral security, is liable as a stockholder to cor-
porate creditors
;^^
and this is also the rule of National banks.
^-
He so remains liable, notwithstanding payment of the debt for
which the stock was pledged, if the corporate books show no
retransfer of the stock.^^ A person holding stock as pledgee is
under no obligation to pay calls thereon, although upon failure of
payment the shares be subject to forfeiture.^* But it is thoroughly
established that one to whom stock has been transferred in pledge
or as collateral security for money lent, and who appears on the
books of the company as the owner of the stock, is liable as a
stockholder for the benefit of creditors.
^^
For this several reasons
are given. One is that he is estopped from denying his liability
by voluntarily holding himself out to the public as the owner of
the stock, and his denial of ownership is inconsistent with the
30
Chief Justice "Waite in Ander-
son V. Philadelphia Warehouse Co.,
Ill U. S. 479.
31
First Nat. Bank, etc. v. Hing-
ham Mfg. Co., 127 Mass. 563; Ault-
man's Appeal, 98 Pa. St. 905; Chat-
ham Bank v. Brohston, 99 Ga. 801.
32
Germania Nat. Bank, etc. v.
Case, 99 U. S. 628; Anderson v.
Philadelphia, etc. Co., Ill U. S.
497.
33
Johnson v. Summerville, etc.
Co., 15 Gray (Mass.), 216; Erskine
V. Loewenstein, 82 Mo. 301.
34
Southwestern R. Co. v. Doug-
las, 2 Spear (S. C), 329; Newry,
etc. R. Co. V. Moss, 14 Beav. 64.
35
National Bank v. Case (1S78),
99 U. S. 628; Pullman v. Upton
(1877), 96 U. S. 328; Sleeper v.
Goodwin (1887), 67 Wis. 579;
Moore v. Jones (1877), 3 Woods,
53; Adderley v. Storm (1844), 6
Hill, 624; Crease v. Babcock
(1846), 10 Mete. 525; Holyoke
Bank v. Burnham (1853), 11 Cush.
183; Johnson v. Somerville Dye-
ing, etc. Co. (1860), 15 Gray, 216;
Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co. (1875),
SO 111. 446; Rosevelt v. Brown
(1854), 11 N. Y. 148; In re Em-
pire Bank (1858), 18 N. Y. 199;
Grew V. Breed (1846), 10 Mete.
569; Aultman's Appeal (1882), 98
Pa. St. 505, 516, the court saying:
"Most especially is this just knd
right as to creditors who trust to
his [the transferee's] name, and
have no notice of the secret trust
upon which the stock is held;"
Price & Brown's Case (1870), L. R.
5 Ch. 294; Royal Bank of India's
Case (1868), L. R. 7 Eq. 91; s. c.
(1869) L. R. 4 Ch. 252; Weikers-
heim's Case (1873), L. R. 8 Ch.
831; Haynes v. Palmer (1858), 13
La. Ann. 240; Magruder v. Colston
(1875), 44 Md. 349; Wheelock v,
Kost (1875), 77 111. 296; Hall v.
Walker (1871), 31 Iowa, 344;
Barre National Bank v. Hingham
Manuf. Co. (1879), 127 Mass. 563.
Cf.
Dickenson v. Central National
Bank (1880), 129 Mass. 279; s. c.
37 Am. Rep. 351; Richardson v.
Abendroth (1864), 43 Barb. 162;
Koons V. First National Bank of
Jeffersonville (1883), 89 Ind. 178.
But see Anderson, Receiver, v.
Philadelphia Warehouse Co., Ill
U. S. 479, and Henkle v. Salem
Manuf. Co. (1883), 39 Ohio St. 547.

383,] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 563

representations he has made; another is that by taking the legal
title he has released the former owner; and a third is, that, after
having taken the apparent ownership, and thus become entitled
to receive dividends, vote at elections, and enjoy all the privileges
of ownership, it would be inequitable to allow him to refuse the
responsibilities of a stockholder.''*' The pledgee continues liable,
even after payment of the deb't secured by the shares, so long
as they remain registered in his name.-''^ In New York, under
the General Manufacturing Act of 1848 and the General Railroad
Act of
1850, the pledgee of shares is relieved from liability to
corporate creditors
f^
and in Maryland he enjoys a similar ex-
emption."^ In Massachusetts he is liable only when the certificate
fails to show that he holds as pledgee.
*
In Missouri it is held
that one does not become a stockholder by issuing to him stock
as collateral security ; that to make him answerable as a stock-
holder to creditors he must be a stockholder as between himself
and the corporation
;*^
and that voting as a stockholder at an
election will not estop the voter from showing that he was not
actually a stockholder,*^ And this has been determined to be the
law of that State even where shares were issued directly to a
pledgee to secure moneys lent by him to the company.'*^

383.
(c) Of the estate of a bankrupt.The liability of a
stockholder for the unpaid balance of a subscription, is a "prov-
able" debt against his estate within the m.eaning of the federal
Bankruptcy Act,** even though no call has been made by the
30
National Bank v. Case (187S),
41
Union Savings Assn. v. Selig-
99 U. S. 628, 631. man (1S87), 92 Mo. 635; s. c, 1
37
Bowdell V. Farmers' & Mer- Am. St. Rep. 776.
chants' National Bank of Balti-
42
Union Savings Assn. v, Selig-
more (1877), 25 Nat. Bank. Reg. man (1887), 92 Mo. 635; s. c. 1
405. Am. St. Rep. 776.
38 N. Y. Laws of 1848, ch. 40,
43
Burgess v. Seligman (1882),
16; N. Y. Laws of 1850, ch. 140, 107 U. S. 20. The contrary was
11; McMahon v. Macy (1872), 51 held by the state court in Gris-
N. Y. 155.
Cf.
Guest V. Worcester, wold v. Seligman (1880), 72 Mo.
etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 9; Stover 110.
Cf.
Melvin v. Lamar Ins. Co,
V. Flack (1864), 30 N. Y. 64; s. c.
(1875), 80 111. 446; Wheelock v.
41 Barb. 162; Case of Reciprocity
Kost, 77 111. 298; Chapman's, etc.
Bank (1860), 22 N, Y. 9, 17. Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 365; In re An-
sa
Matthews v. Albert, 24 Md. glesea Colliery Co., L. R. 2 Eq.
527. . 379; In re International Contract
40
Barre National Bank v. Hing- Co., Ind's Case, L. R. 7 Ch. 485.
ham Manuf. Co. (1879), 127 Mass,
44
u, S. Rev, Stat,
5067,
563; Davis v, Essex Baptist So-
ciety (1877), 44 Conn. 582.
5Gi SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
383.
corporation.*" Every subscriber when he makes his subscription
agrees to take and pay for his shares. The directors have no
authority as against creditors to release liini from the obHga-
tions;*' and conditions in the contract of subscription are un-
availing after the superior equities of creditors have intervened.*^
The fact that the balance due may have been payable on calls by
the company, does not destroy the absolute character of the ob-
ligation
;
although solvendiim in futiiro, it is none the less dehitum
in pracsenti}^ Here then, is an absolute promise to pay whenever
called ; that is to say, a demand existing, the accrual of the cause
of action thereon dependent upon a contingency ; and as such it
is provable in bankruptcy.*^ If the corporate creditors, or their
representatives, the assignee of the company, fail to enforce the
demand against the bankrupt's estate prior to his discharge, he
can not be held liable thereon at any subsequent time.^*' The fact
45
Glenn v. Abell (U. S. Circ. Ct.
1S8S), 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 230;
Samainego v. Stiles (Ariz. 1889),
20 Pac. Rep. 607. A complaint in
the nature of a creditor's bill, by
a judgment creditor of a corpora-
tion against the assignee for the
benefit of creditors of a stock-
holder, which sets out judgments
In favor of plaintiff recovered
against the corporation while the
subscriptions of defendant's as-
signor were unpaid, and alleges
that executions were issued there-
on and returned nulla bona, suflB-
ciently shows an indebtedness of
the corporation to plaintiff to en-
title him to maintain his action
against defendant. Samainego v.
Stiles (1889), 20 Pac. Rep. 607.
46
Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 60;
Sagory v. Dubois, 3 Sandf. Ch.
501; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91
U. S. 48.
47
Sawyer v. Hoag, 17 Wall.
628; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How.
307.
48
Glenn v. Abell (1888), 6 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 230, 39 Fed. 10.
49
French v. Morse, 2 Gray, 111.
In Glenn v. Abell (1888), 6 Ry. &
Corp. L. J. 230, the court said:
"Let us assume that a call was
necessary before payment could be
required; that such call might
never have been made, either
through neglect of the corpora-
tion, its assignee, or its creditors;
that thus the remainder of the
subscription was 'payable upon an
event which might never have oc-
curred'

yet the contract of sub-

scription and the liability of the
defendant to pay were in full
force when the petition of bank-
ruptcy was filed. The sum for
which he could be made liable
was certain in amount

$80 per
share. In the language of Waite,
C. J., in Wolf V. Stix, 99 U. S. 1,
this clearly is such a case as was
provided for in section 5068, Rev.
St., and the debt was provable in
bankruptcy. See, also, Parbury's
Case, 64 Eng. Ch.
87."
50
Glenn v. Abell (1888), 6 Ry.
& Corp. L. J. 230; U. S. Rev. Stat..

5119. The state courts are in

conflict with the federal in this
regard, holding generally that a
demand for an unpaid subscrip-
tion to stock payable upon call is
not provable against the bankrupt
subscriber's estate and hence that
it may be enforced against him
after his discharge. Sayre v.
Glenn (1889), 87 Ala. 630; Glenn
V. Howard (1886), 65 Md. 40.
Cf.
Glenn v. Semple, 80 Ala. 159.
^
384.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 565
that his assignment was not recorded on the books of the company,
does not impair the effect of his discharge.^^ The assignee of the
shareholder is not personally liable to corporate creditors, nor
need he accept shares which may prove a burden rather than an
asset.^- The bankrupt is not personally liable, although he may
have attended the corporate meetings and acted as a stockholder.^^

384.
(d) Of estates of decedents.Unless the shares of a
deceased stockholder have been bequeathed and accepted by a
legatee,^* the estate continues liable thereon to creditors of the
corporation until final distribution and settlement,^^ whether the
51
Sayles v. Bates (1886), 15
R. I. 342.
52
Amory v. Lawrence, 3 Cliff.
523; Rugeley & Harrison v. Robin-
son, 19 Ala. 404; Streeter v. Suna-
ner, 31 N. H. 542; South Stafford-
shire Ry. Co. V. Burnside, 3 Exch.
129; Ex parte Davis, 3 Ch. Div.
463; Furdoonjees' Case, 3 Ch. Div.
268. In American File Co. v. Gar-
rett, 110 U. S. 288, B., a stock-
holder in a corporation, pledged
bonds of the corporation to C. to
secure a debt. B. became banlv-
rupt. The assignee in bankruptcy
demanded the bonds, but finally
withdrew his demand, C. agreeing
to prefer no further claim against
the estate in bankruptcy, and to
indemnify the estate against any
claim that might be asserted
against it to enforce B.'s individ-
ual liability as a stockholder, and
it was held that the estate in bank-
ruptcy incurred no- such liability,
the assignee not having accepted
the stock, and that therefore
stockholders against whom C.
sought to enforce an individual
liability upon the bonds could
avail themselves of no defense by
virtue of the transaction between
C. and B.'s assignee in bankruptcy.
53
American File Co. v. Garrett,
110 U. S. 288; Gray v. Coffin, 9
Cush. (Mass.) 192.
54
In which case the legatee be-
comes answerable. Tide
385.
55
Marks v. Hardy (1886), 86
Mo. 232; Lewis v. Glenn (18S8),
84 Va. 947; In re North of Eng-
land Banking Co., Thomas' Case
(1849), 1 De G. & Sm. 579; Baird's
Case (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 725;
Buchan's Case (1879), L. R. 4 App.
Cas. 549; Hoare's Case (1862), 2
John. & H. 229. It is provided by
Mo. Rev. Stat.,
185, 189, that
where a claim against an estate
is exhibited to an administrator
within two years from date of ad-
ministration, it may be proven
during the third year. Sections
205 and 206 provide for the prov-
ing of claims not yet due. De-
fendant's intestate died in 1877,
owning unpaid stock in a railroad
company that became insolvent in
1878, and that had guarantied the
bonds of an insolvent railroad
company maturing at a certain
date, but which were not due at
the death of intestate. It was con-
ceded that the proper notice to
creditors of the intestate had been
published, June, 1877. It was held
that intestate's liability to the
creditors of the company on his
unpaid stock matured at its dis-
solution, and not at the maturity
of the claim against the corpora-
tion, and a suit upon it, begun in
1883, was barred by the statute of
limitations. Garesche v. Lewis
(1888), 93 Mo. 197. In Larkin v.
Willi (1884), 12 Mo. App. 135, a
corporation became insolvent
pending the settlement of the es-
tate of a stockholder whose stock
was only half paid up at the time
of his death. No call was made
on him or on his executors, and
iib > SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
384.
shares be inventoried as an asset or not.^" Even a statutory liabil-
ity, in addition to that attaching by common law, provided it be
not in the nature of a penalty, survives against the personal rep-
resentatives.^^ If the executor or administrator distribute all the
assets without making provision for the claims of creditors of the
company, he renders himself personally liable to satisfy the same.^
He can not render the estate liable as stockholder by investment
in the stock of the corporation.^ A proceeding by motion brought
by a corporate creditor in accordance with the Missouri statute,*"*
to enforce a shareholder's liability upon the unpaid balance due
on his stock, does not abate on the death of the shareholder.^^ And
the corporate creditors may sue the representative of a deceased
stockholder without presenting a claim for allowance as on an
ordinary claim.^^ The estate of a deceased joint-owner of stock
is not liable thereon.^ Where under a general act of incorpora-
tion, a person can become a subscriber to the capital stock of a
company formed in accordance therewith, only by signing the
articles of incorporation or by subscribing to the capital stock after
the incorporation, a preliminary subscription to a contract to take
it was held that after settlement
and distribution, a creditor of the
corporation could not maintain an
action against the executor who
was legatee and devisee as well.
As to the distribution of the es-
tate of a deceased shareholder in
an English unlimited banking
company, see 54 Law Times, 264.
56
Lewis V. Glenn (1888), 84 Va.
947, was an action by a trustee
against the administrator of a
stockholder on the unpaid stock
of his intestate. It appeared that
the subscription had been made
many years before by intestate's
brother, as her agent. There was
some evidence that he had been
acting as her agent in business
matters, and her name appeared
on the books as a stockholder and
as having paid three assessments.
Her estate consisted principally of
stocks; but the stock in this com-
pany, which had long since ceased
to do business, was not invento-
ried. It was held that there was
sufficient evidence that deceased
was a stockholder.
BT
Cochran v. Weichers
(1889),
53 Hun, 636; Chase v. Lord,
%?
N. Y. 1; s. c. 6 Abb. N. Cas. 258;
Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27;
Irons V. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank,
21 Fed Rep. 197; Manville v. Ed-
gar, 8 Mo. App. 324.
Cf.
Diversey
v. Smith, 103 111. 379.
58
Taylor v. Taylor (1870), L. R.
10 Eq. 477, and cases cited in

136.
69 Diven v. Lee, 36 N. Y. 302,
60
Mo. Rev. Stat.,
736.
61
Marks v. Hardy (1886), 86
Mo. 232. But see Cummings v.
Wright (1883), 11 Mo. App. 348.
Cf.
Donnelly v. Hodgson, 13 Mo.
App. 15.
62
Thompson v. Reno Savings
Bank (1885), 19 Nev. 171; s. c. 3
Am. St. Rep. 882.
63
In re Maria Anna, etc. Co.
(1875), 44 L. J. Ch. 423. But see
New England Commercial Bank v.
Newport Steam Factory, 6 R. I.
154; s. c. 75 Am. Dec. 688, from
which it would seem that the es-
tate may be proceeded against in
equity by the corporate creditor.

385.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 567

shares by a person who did not sign the articles of fncorporation,
is revoked by his death, and his estate can not be made hable by
corporate creditors."* If the stockholder's liability to coi^porate
creditors is in the nature of a penalty,"^ or if the statutory remedy
for enforcement of liability is such that it is not enforceable
against the estate of a decedent,"" the Hability does not survive
his death so as to be enforceable against his legal representatives
;
it is otherwise, if the liability is contractual."'^ It is -unnecessary
to register the stock in the name of the executor or administrator,
in order to fix liability upon the estate."^ If in due administration
of the estate the shares are allotted to the widow, heirs, or lega-
tees, they become liable as stockholders upon the insolvency of
the corporation."^ Where the statute provides that stock shall be
transferable only on the corporate books, it is not necessary, in
order to establish liability for corporate debts against the estate,
to so transfer to the executor or administrator the shares be-
longing to the estate.'"

385. (e) Of legatees and distributees of estates.Legatees

accepting bequests of stock, are hable thereon to the corporation
and its creditors. They must pay all calls made after the death
of the testator,''^ also those made before his death and payable
thereafter,'^- and even those due and unpaid at the time of his
death.'^^ But a distributee of the estate of a deceased shareholder,
none of the shares having been distributed, can not be subjected
64Sedalia, W. & S. Ry. Co. v. 577; Donnelly v. Hodgson, 13 Mo.
Wilkerson, 83 Mo. 235, where the App. 15.
court said: "It has been held by
e?
Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S.
the courts of New York, in con- 27; Cochran v. Weichers, 119 N.
struing a statute in most respects Y. 399; New England, etc. Bank v.
like our own, that a party failing Newport Steam Factory, 6 R. I.
to sign the articles of association 154, 75 Am. Dec. 688.
could not be subjected to the lia-
es
Gianella v. Bigelow, 96 Wis.
bility of a stockholder, although 185.
he had signed a preliminary sub-
69
Matteson v. Dent, 176 U. S.
scription paper. Troy & Boston R. 521; Dent v. Matteson, 73 Minn.
Co. V. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297; 170.
Poughkeepsie & S. R. Plank R. Co.
70
Gianella v. Bigelow, 96 Wis.
V. Griffin, 24 N. Y.
150." See, also, 185.
Wallace v. Townsend, 43 Ohio St.
71
Day v. Day (1860), 6 Jur.
537.
(N. S.) 365. Cf.
Witters v. Sawles
65
Diversey v. Smith, 103 111. 378, (1885), 25 Fed. Rep. 168.
42 Am. Rep. 14; Mitchell v. Hotch-
72
Addams v. Ferick (1859), 26
kiss, 48 Conn. 9, 40 Am. Rep. 146. Beav. 384.
66
Bacon v. Pomeroy, 104 Mass.
73
Jacques v. Chambers, 2 Coll.
435.
;g8 SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
386.
to liability as a shareholder, by motion under the Missouri statute/*
on a judgment against the corporation, even though in the capacity
of administrator he refused to inventory the stock, alleging that
it was not an asset but might become a liability/^

386. (f) Of trustees, executors, and administrators.

While
of course, the trustee has his remedy against the cestui que trust,'"^
it is he, and not the beneficiary, that is primarily liable to corpor-
ate creditors upon stock standing in his name upon the company's
register," although the registration may show that he holds merely
74
Mo. Rev. Stat.,

736.
75
Simmons v. Ellis, 17 Mo. App.
470.
7G
In re National Financial Co.
(1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 791; Hughes-
Hallett V. Indian Mammoth, etc.
Co. (1882), 22 Ch. Div. 561; Shaw
V. Fisher, 5 De G., M. & G. 596;
Hoare's Case (1862), 2 John. & H.
229; Evans v. Wood, L. R. 5 Eq.
9; Hawkins v. Maltby, L. R. 4 Ch.
200; Morris v. Cannan, 4 De G.,
F. & J. 581; Wynne v. Price, 3 De
G. & Sm. 310; Kellogg v. Stock-
well, 75 111. 68; Cheale v. Ken-
ward, 3 De G. & J. 27; James v.
May (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 328;
Hemming v. Maddock (1872), L.
R. 7 Ch. App. 395; Cruse v. Paine
(1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 641; Butler v.
Cumpston (1868), L. R. 7 Eq. 16;
Mitchell's Case (1870), L. R. 9 Eq.
363; Ex 'parte Oriental Commer-
cial Bank (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 791.
7T
William's Case (1875), 1 Ch.
Div. 576; Hoare's Case (1862), 2
John. & H. 229; In re British &
Foreign Cork Co. (1865), L. R.
1 Eq. 231; Adderley v. Storm
(1844), 6 Hill, 624; Mann v. Cur-
rie (1848), 2 Barb. 294; Worrall v.
Judson (1849), 5 Barb. 210; Rose-
velt V. Brown (1854), 11 N. Y.
148; In re Empire City Bank
(1858), 18 N. Y. 199, 225; Crease
V. Babcock (1846), 10 Mete. 525,
545, where the court said: "If a
person was a holder of stock at
the time of dissolution of the
charter (sic), although he held
the shares as collateral security,
or as trustee for other pei'sons,
he was not on that account ex-
empted from individual liability;"
Fenwick's Case (1849), 1 De G. &
Sm. 557; In re National Financial
Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 791; James
V. May (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 328;
In the Matter of the Companies
Act (1863), 4 De G., J. & S. 53;
Chinnock's Case (1860), John.
(Eng. Ch.) 714; Pugh & Shar-
man's Case (1872), L. R. 13 Eq.
566. In Crew v. Breed (1846), 10
Mete. 569, 576, the court divided
the shareholders into four classes
and said: "The first are absolute
owners of stock, at the time of the
repeal of the charter of the bank.
About the liability of these there
is no doubt or question. The
second class consists of those who
were absolute owners of part of
the stock held by them, and spe-
cial holders of the residue; that
is, they held part of the stock as
collateral security only, or in
trust for others, who furnished
the money to pay for it, but the
shares stood in their own names
on the books of the bank. These
holders are chargeable in the same
manner as if they were absolute
owners of all the stock standing
in their names. The third class
are holders of stock as trustees for
others, and the trust appears on
the books of the bank, either by
its being there stated the owners
hold in trust for some person
named, or by the owner's 'being
described as administrator. These
also are chargeable like the two
former classes. The fourth class

380.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.

569
as trustee.^^ While the Habihty of an executor or administrator
is limited to the extent of the trust estate/" and only becomes per-
sonal through his paying away its assets without mal-cing provision
consists of those who hold stock
as administrators of deceased
stockholders. They are chargeable
as for other debts of their intes-
tates in their representative ca-
pacity." Fanning v. Insurance Co.
(1881), 37 Ohio St. 339; In re
Norwegian Charcoal Iron Co.
(1870), L. R. 9 Eq. 363; King's
Case (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 196;
Newry, etc. R. Co. v. Moss (1851),
14 Beav. G4; Shipman's Case
(1868), L. R. 5 Eq. 219; Buchan's
Case (1879), L. R. 4 App. Cas. 549;
Chapman & Barker's Case (1866),
L. R. 3 Eq. 361; Ex parte Bugg, 2
Drew. & Sm. 452; In re Joint-Stock
Discount Co. (1867), L. R. 3 Ch.
119.
Cf.
Hemming v. Maddock
(1870), L. R. 9 Eq. 175; Holyoke
Bank V. Burnham (1853), 11
Cush. 183. But see Cutting v.
Demerel (1882), 88 N. Y. 410, 415,
and Shipman's Case, L. R. 5 Eq.
219.
78
Hemming v. Maddock (1870),
L. R. 9 Bq. 175; Ex parte Oriental
Commercial Bank (1868), L. R. 3
Ch. 791; Holt's Case (1851), 1
Sim. (N. S.) 389; In re Interna-
tional Contract Co., Ind's Case
(1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 485; Lumsden
V. Buchanan, 4 Macq. 950; Muir v.
City of Glasgow Bank, 4 App. Cas.
337. See, also, the Glasgow Bank
Cases, 4 App. Cas. 547.
!^Ex parte Hall (1849), 1 Mac.
& G. 309; Hamer's Devisee's Case
(1852), 2 De G., M. & G. 366; Rob-
inson's Executors' Case (1856), 6
De G., M. & G. 572; Ness v. Arm-
strong (1849). 3 De G. & Sm. 38,
n.; Buchan's Case (1879), L. R.
4 App. Cas. 549; Hoare's Case
(1862), 2 John. & H. 229; Bul-
mer's Case, 33 Beav. 433; In re
North of England Joint-Stock
Banking Co., Gouthwaite's Case
(1850), 3 De G. & Sm. 258, where
it was held that, as the executrix
had participated in the profits by
receiving a dividend, it was un-
reasonable to attribute to her and
the directors the intention that
she was not to be liable to con-
tribute to the losses in some man-
ner; but queere, whether she
should be a contributory person-
ally or as executrix; Taylor v.
Taylor (1870), L. R. 10 Eq. 477;
Alexander's Case (1871), 15 Sol. J.
788; Hamer's Case (1850), 2 De G.
& Sm. 279, where a shareholder in
a joint-stock company bequeathed
his personal estate to his wife
for life and after her death to his
daughter absolutely (subject to
certain payments), and appointed
his wife and daughter executrixes,
and devised to them real estate.
The widow received dividends on
the shares and died; and after-
ward, on the company being
wound up, the daughter and her
husband were placed on the list
of contributories in right of the
daughter as executrix of her
father. The vice-chancellor held
that a call was properly made
upon the daughter and her hus-
band payable out of the testator's
personal assets, whether the con-
duct of the executrixes in suffer-
ing their testator's assets to re-
main in the company was a breach
of trust or not; and secondly, on
its appearing that the personal as-
sets had been fully administered,
the daughter and her husband
could not be put on the list in re-
spect of her being a devisee; In re
North of England Banking Co.,
Thomas' Case (1849), 1 De G., &
Sm. 579; Baird's Case (1870),
L. R. 5 Ch. 725; Stewart's Trustee
V. Evans (1871), 9 Scotch Ct. of
Ses. Cas. (3d Series) 810; Evans
V. Coventry (1856), 25 L. J. Ch.
489; Blakeley's Case (1850), 13
Beav. 133; Ex parte Gouthwaite
570
SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
3S6.
for payments on the stock, or through accepthig a transfer into
his own name
;^^
the rule is otherwise in the case of ordinary
trustees, whose HabiHty is personal and not restricted to the
funds of the trust estate,^^ unless so limited by statute, as in New
York^^ and under the federal act relating to trustees of stock in
the national banks.^* A trustee may, however, avoid personal
liability by stipulating against it at the time' of accepting the
trust.
^^
The rule as to the personal liability of trustees applies
as well to those holding stock for the benefit of the company, as
to other ordinary trustees.^" Two or more trustees of the same
(1851), 3 Mac. & G. 187; Ex parte
Doyle (1850), 2 Hall & Tv/ells.
(Eng. Ch.) 221; Grew v. Breed
(1846), 10 Mete. 569, 576, cited and
quoted supra; New England Com-
mercial Bank v. Stockholders of
the Newport
*
Steam Factory
(1859), 6 R. I. 154; Crandall v.
Lincoln (1884), 52 Conn. 73;
Bailey v. Hollister (1862), 26
N. Y. 112; Chase v. Lord (1879).
77 N. Y. 1; Witters v. Sawles
(1885), 25 Fed. Rep. 168. Cf.
Schouler on Executors, 380; New
York Lav/s of 1850, ch. 140, 11;
New York Laws of 1848, ch. 40,
13. But see Child v. Coffin, 17
Mass. 64; Gray v. Coffin, 9 Cush.
200; Ripley v. Sampson, 10 Pick,
371; Andrews v. Callendar, 13
Pick. 484; Dane v. Dane Manuf.
Co., 14 Gray, 489.
so
Taylor v. Taylor (1870), L. R.
10 Eq. 477; Jeffreys v. Jeffreys
(1871), 24 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 177.
Cf.
Stewart's Trustees v. Evans
(1871), 9 Scotch Ct. of Ses. Cas.
(3d Series) 810; Witters v.
Sawles (1885), 25 Fed. Rep. 168.
SI
Alexander's Case (1871), 15
Sol. J. 788. An executor accept-
ing new shares cannot have re-
course upon the estate if held lia-
ble upon them. Fearnside &
Dean's Case (1866), L. R. 1 Ch.
231; Spence's Case (1853), 17
Beav. 203; Jackson v. Turquand
(1866), L. R. 4 H. L. 305; Mal-
lorie's Case (1867), L. R. 2 Ch.
181.
Cf. Russell's Executor's
Case (1871), 15 Sol. J. 790. If the
executor does not have the shares
transferred into his own name, he
is entitled to a reasonable time to
find a purchaser who will take a
transfer of them. Buchan's Case
(1879), L. R. 4 App. Cas. 549, 588.
See, also, In re Cheshire Banking
Co. (1886), 54 L. T. Rep. 558.
82
Chapman's Case (1866), L. R.
3 Eq. 361; In re British & For-
eign Cork Co., Leifchild's Case
(1865), L. R. 1 Eq. 231; Hoare's
Case (1862), 2 John. & H. 229;
Muir V. City of Glasgow BSnk
(1879), L. R. 4 App. Cas. 387;
Grew V. Breed (1846), 10 Mete.
569, 576, cited and quoted supra.
Cf.
Sayles v. Bates (1886), 15 R. L
342.
83
N. Y. Laws of 1850, ch. 140,
11; N. Y. Laws of 1848, ch. 40,

13.
84
u. S. Rev. Stat.,

5151, 5152;
Davis V. Essex Baptist Soc.
(1877), 44 Conn. 582; Irons v.
Manufacturers' National Bank
(1884), 6 Biss. 301.
85
Saunders' Case (1864), 2 De
G., J. & S. 101; Gray's Case
(1876), 1 Ch. Div. 664; In re City
Terminus Hotel Co. (1872), L. R.
14 Eq. 10. Cf.
Chapman & Barker's
Case (1866), L. R. 3 Eq. 361.
86
Preston v. Grand Collier
Dock Co., 11 Sim. 327; In re En-
nis, etc. Ry. Co., 3 L. R. Ir. 187;
Cree v. Somervail, 4 App. Cas.
648; In re International Contract
Co., Ind's Case (1872), L. R. 7
Ch. 485; Hoare's Case (1862), 2
Johns. & H. 229; Ex parte Hender-

380.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 571

stock are jointly liable thereon.
^^
But when the registration is in
the name of one of the trustees "and others," the entry is not
prima facie
evidence against the others, their names not appearing
therein.*** One who holds in trust an estate, any part of which
is corporate stock, is bound to contribute from the trust property
in his hands, when not personally liable.'' Executors and ad-
ministrators are not personally liable for corporate debts, on ac-
count of stock belonging to the estate, although the estate may be
liable.
As Executor.A distinction is made between transfers by or-
dinary trustees who have no power to make transfers unless es-
pecially authorized to do so, and transfers by executors and ad-
ministrators whose general powers include the power to dispose
of securities by converting them into money for distribution So
where one purchases shares in good faith for a valuable considera-
tion from an executor or administrator, he is not called upon to
examine the sources of his vendee's authority.''*' The title of a
bona fide transferee of stock that has been sold by an executor
or administrator for his own benefit, will be sustained
;
^^
but where
a long time has elapsed since the death of the testator or intestate,
it may be evidence that neither the sale nor the purchase was
made in good faith
f^
so also where it is customary for executors
or administrators to obtain permission from the court to sell stock,
a failure to obtain permission may be a reflection on the character
of the sale.^' The same rule applies in the case of a pledge of
son, 19 Beav. 107; Eyre's Case, 31 Cas. 607; Griswold v. Seligman
Beav. 177; Mimt's Case, 22 Beav. (1880), 72 Mo. 110.
55; Richmond's Case, 3 De G. &
ss
Birkenhead, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Sm. 96; In re Vale of Neath and Brownrigg, 4 Ex. 426.
South Wales Brewery Co., 3 De
so
Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342;
G. & Sm. 244.
Cf.
Sanger v. Up- Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27;
ton (1875), 91 U. S. 56, 60; Wil- Markell v. Ray, 75 Minn. 138.
son V. Proprietors of Central soLeitch v. Wells, 48 N. Y. 585;
Bridge (1870), 9 R. I. 590; In re Lowry v. Commercial, etc. Bank,
Empire City Bank (1858), 18 N. Y. Taney, 310; Wood's Appeal, 92 Pa.
199, 226; Allibone v. Hager, 46 St. 379; Clark v. South Mctropol-
Pa. St. 48; Crandall v. Lincoln itan Gas Co., 54 L. J. Ch. 259; In
(1884), 52 Conn. 73; In re St. re London, etc. Telegraph Co., L.
Marylebone Banking Co. (1849), 5 R. 9 Eq. 633.
Cf.
Prall v. Tilt, 28
De G. & Sm. 21; In re National N. J. Eq. 479; s. c. 27 N. J. Eq. 393.
Financial Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ch.
9i
Keeney v. Globe Mill Co., 39
791; Chapman & Barker's Case Conn. 145.
(1866), L. R. 3 Eq. 361.
92 Lowry v. Commercial Bank,
87 Cunningham v. City of Glas- Taney, 310, 15 Fed. Case, 1040.
gow Bank (1879), L. R. 4 App
93
Lowry v. Commercial Bank,
Taney, 310; V/hite v. Price, 39
572
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
387.
Stock by an executor or aclministrator."* ^^'hcre stock of a for-
eign corporation always holding its directors' and stockholders'
meetings in the State, stands in the name of defendant as trustee
of plaintiff claiming title jointly with defendant, he may be en-
joined from voting or transferring the stock during pendency of
the suit to determine the title of the stock.''^'

387.
(g)
Of guardians.The corporation has no power to
interfere with the transfer of stock by the holder of the legal
title, upon the ground that it is a transfer by a guardian in fraud
of the rights of his ward, for at common law a guardian has
the right without the direction of the court to sell such personal
property of the ward as he has in his possession, and take proper
care of the proceeds.^*' And it is said that to recognize such a
power in a corporation would unduly interfere with the nature
of shares of stock by checking their circulation."'^ Where a
guardian has legal power to sell or dispose of the personal estate
of his ward in any manner he may think most conducive to the
purposes of his trust, a purchaser, who deals fairly, has a right
to presume that he acts for the benefit of his ward, and is not
bound to inquire into the state of the trust ; nor is he responsible
for the faithful application of the money, unless he knew, or had
sufificient information, at the time, that the guardian contemplated
a breach of trust, and intended to misapply the money, or was
in fact, by the very transaction, applying it to his own private
purpose."^ And it is no part of the duty of the corporation to
inquire into the purposes of the parties, or to investigate the ques-
tion whether the transaction is in good faith or is fraudulent.^
Accordingly, where there is no statute to the contrary, the cor-
poration will be required to record a transfer of stock by a guard-
ian upon due proof of his appointment. So, in the case of as-
signees in insolvency, the corporation can require no more evi-
dence of the propriety of a transfer than the duly attested assign-
ment.^
Hun, 394; Prall v. Hamil, 28 N. J.
97 Bank of Virginia v. Craig, 6
Eq. 66. Leigh, 399, 432.
94
Goodwin v. American Na-
os
Albert v. Bank, 2 Md. 169;
tional Bank, 48 Conn. 550. Cf.
Hutchins v. Bank, 12 Mete. 421;
Crocker v. Old Colony R. Co., 137 Ashton v. Bank, 3 Allen, 222.
Mass. 417.
99
Crocker v. Railroad Co., 137
95
Harper v. Smith (N. Y. Sup., Mass. 417; Helm v. Swiggette, 12
1904), 87 N. Y. Supp. 516. Ind. 195; Brewster v. Sime, 42 Cal.
96
Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 143.
475; Field v. Schieffelin, 7 Johns.
1
"The Rights and Duties of Cor-
Ch. 154; s. c. 11 Am. Dec. 441. porations in Dealing with Stock

3S8, 389.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 573

388. (h) Of agents.

An agent whose name appears on

the company's books as the holder of his principal's shares may
be rendered liable thereby to corporate creditors.- If he appears
on the corporate books as owner, he cannot escape liability to
corporate creditors, for the amount unpaid on subscription to the
stock, by showing that he holds it only as agent or trustee for
the real owner.^ Or, in such case, the creditors or a receiver of an
insolvent corporation may elect to maintain suit against the real
owner or owners, for the amount of their subscription, and with-
out any proof of fraud, show the facts by parol evidence that
they are the real beneficiaries and that the nominal subscriber
acted simply as their agent.'* Thus, where a bank purchased
shares of stock as a broker for a customer and took the transfer
into its own name, it was held to assume the liability of a stock-
holder, and, as between itself and the corporation and those claim-
ing through the corporation, to be estopped from denying the
liabilities incident to that relation.^ The creditors, however, may
elect to hold either the principal or the agent liable." If they re-
cover from the agent, he has, of course, as in other cases of lia-
bility in a representative capacity, his remedy over, against his
principal for the loss sustained.''

389.
(i) Of infants.A person who has become a share-
holder during his minority, but who repudiates the shares either
before attaining majority or within a reasonable time thereafter,
can not be subjected to liability thereon.^ The reasonableness of
held in a Fiduciary Capacity," by (1S47), 10 Q. B. 935; Hart's Case
Francis B. Patten, 18 Am. Law (1868), L. R. Eq. 512; In re Nor-
Rev. 975, 978. wegian Charcoal Iron Co. (1870),
2Crandall v. Lincoln (1884), 52 L. R. 9 Eq. 3G3; Ebbett's Case
Conn. 73, 52 Am. Rep. 560. (1870). L. R. 5 Ch. 302; Baker's
sBaines v. Babcock, 95 Cal. 581, Case (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 115; Wil-
29 Am. St. Rep. 158; Russell v. son's Case (1869), L. R. 8 Eq. 240:
Easterbrook, 71 Conn. 50; McKim Dublin, etc. Ry. Co. v. Black
V. Glenn, 66 Md. 479. (1852), 8 Ex. 181. Cf.
Birken-
i
Cole V. Satsop R. Co., 9 Wash. head, etc. Ry. Co. v. Pilcher
487, 43 Am. St. Rep. 858. (1850), 5 Exch. 24; "Liability of
5
McKim V. Glenn (1887), 66 Infants on Subscription of
Md. 479. Shares," 4 Ir. Jur. 89. In
e
Burr v. Wilcox (1860), 22 N. Newry, etc. E. Ry. Co. v. Coombe
Y. 551; Stover V. Flack (1864), 30 (1849), 3 Ex. 565, 578, the court
N. Y. 64.
Cf.
Grangers' Market said: "He became a shareholder
Co. V. Vinson, 6 Oreg. 172. by contract during infancy and
7 Orr V. Bigelow (1856), 14 N. during infancy he disaffirmed the
Y. 556; affirming s. c. (1854) 20 contract; therefore, in my opin-
Barb. 21. ion, he ceased to be a shareholder
8 Cork, etc. Ry. Co. v. Cazenove liable to be sued for calls."
574: SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
390.
the time ig a question of fact.^ Holding the shares for six months
after majority, together with the fact of selHng a part of them,
has b'iPn held to estop a shareholder from repudiating the transac-
tion wh'jreby he acquired them.^" When the winding up of the
company occurs just before or just after his becoming of age, he
aced not expressly repudiate the shares in order to escape liability
npon them,^^ But he is liable, if, after attaining his majority, he
expressly ratifies his subscription, or ownership of the shares, or
impliedly does so by acting as stockholder, or accepting benefit
therefrom, or by failing within reasonable time to repudiate his
shares.^- A stockholder remains liable after transferring his
shares to an infant who, upon attaining his majority, repudiates
them.^^ One who subscribes for, or purchases stock in the name
of, an infant, becomes liable to the corporate creditors, as himself
a stockholder.^^

390.
(j)
Of married women.The competency of a married
woman to take, hold and transfer shares of stock, is governed by
the law of her domicile, and to that law also recourse must be
had to determine the respective liabilities of the husband and wife
upon shares standing in her name.^^ Where a married woman
has power to become a stockholder, she is generally subject to
the liabilities incident thereto,^" whether existing at common law
or created by statute.^^ Thus, the federal statute,^^ providing that
^
In re Contract Corporation, Marsh. (Ky.) 1; Roman v. Fry,
Baker's Case (1S71), L. R. 7 Ch.
-
J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 634.
115; In re Norwegian Charcoal
is
Hill v. Pine River Bank, 45
Iron Co., Mitchell's Case (1870), N. H. 300. In England she is ca-
L. R. 9 Eq. 363; Ebbett's Case pable of being a transferee of
(1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 302; Harts' stock. Angus' Case, 1 De G. &
Case (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 512. Sm. 560; Johnson v. Gallagher, 3
loLiimsden's Case (1868), L. R. De G., F. & J. 494; Mrs. Matthe-
4 Ch. 31, where the court said: wan's Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 781;
"The transaction originally ap- Suard's Case, 1 De G., F. & J. 533;
pears to have been voidable, not Queen v. Carmatic R. Co., L. R. 8
void; for a deed will pass an in- Q. B. 299. So, also, in New York,
terest to an infant, even when unless the charter of the corpora-
coupled with a liability, if it be tion forbid it. In re Reciprocity
for his benefit to accept it." Bank, 22 N. Y. 9.
11
/. re Norwegian Charcoal
lo
Sayles v. Bates (1886), 15 R. I.
Iron Co., Mitchell's Case (1870), 342.
L. R. 9 Eq. 363. "Witters v. Sawles (1887), 32
12
Ebbett's Case, 5 Ch. App. 302
Mitchell's Case, L. R. 9 Eq. 363.
13
Symon's Case, 5 Ch. App. 298
Castello's Case, L. R. 8 Eq. 504.
1*
Foster v. Chase, 75 Fed. 797
Fed. Rep. 767; Anderson v. Line,
14 Fed. Rep. 405; Keyser v. Hitz,
2 Mackey, 473; In re Reciprocity
Bank, 22 N. Y. 9; Sayles v. Bates,
15 R. I. 324; Simmons v. Dent, 12
Castleman v. Holmes, 4 J. J. Mo. App. 288.
IS
U. S. Rev. Stat.,
5151.

391.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 575

"the shareholders of every national banking association shall be
held individually responsible, equally and ratably and not one for
another, for all contracts, debts and engagements of such asso-
ciation, to the extent of the amount of their stock therein, at the
par value thereof, in addition to the amount invested in such
shares," includes a married woman, and her separate property
can be charged with an assessment,^^ But where stock was
entered on the company's books by authority of a director in the
name of his wife, he afterwards voting and representing the
shares, and it did not appear that she authorized or ratified his
acts, or received any dividends, or claimed any interest in them,
it was held to be error to charge her separate estate with the
debts of the company to the amount of stock thus standing in
her name.-" In England, the husband is liable upon shares owned
by his wife at the time of marriage,^^ or accepted by her as a
legacy after marriage.^^ But his liability is only for the debts of
the company subsequently incurred.^^ At common law she can-
not contract, and therefore cannot be held liable to creditors on a
subscription to corporate stock;-* but in the United States she
may take and hold corporate stock, whether or not her common
law disability to contract has been removed by statute. As such
*
stockholder, she is subject to the same individual liability for cor-
porate debts, as the law imposes upon other persons who are
free to contract,
^^
F.
THE CONTRACT OF TRANSFER.

391.
(a) Breach of the contract. Remedy.When an ac-
tion at law for damages on failure to perform the contract of
transfer will afford the injured party an adequate remedy, equity
will not, as a general rule, interfere for the purpose of decreeing
specific performance against the defaulting party.^* Thus, a court
"Witters v. Sawles (1877), 32 210; Butler v. Cumpston, L. R. 7
Fed. Rep. 767.
.
Eq. 16.
20
Longdale Iron Co. v. Pomeroy
24
Matthewan's Case, L. R. 3 Eq.
Iron Co. (1888), 34 Fed. Rep. 448. 781; Bundy v. Cocke, 128 U. S.
21
Burlinson's Case, 3 De G. & 185; Keyser v. Hitz, 2 Mackey, D.
Sm. 18; Sadler's Case, 3 De G. & C. 473, 133 U. S. 138; Foster v.
Sm. 86; White's Case, 3 De G. & Wilson, 75 Fed. 797.
Sm. 157.
25
Hobart v. Johnston (1881),
22
Thomas v. City of Glasgow 8 Fed. Rep. 493; Kerr v. Urie
Bank (1879), 6 Scotch Ct. of Ses. (1897), 86 Md. 72.
(4th Series) 607.
2g Duncuft v. Albrecht, 12 Sim.
23Kluht's Case, 3 De G. & Sm. 198; Ross v. Union Pacific Ry. Co.,
576 SALK AND TRANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
3<Ji5.
of equity will not decree specific performance in the transfer of
particular shares of stock.
-^
Nor will the specific performance of
a contract be ordered when the vendor is not in a position to per-
form, or when he does not own the stock he has contracted to sell,
or has not a sufficient amount to fill the order he has accepted,-^
though in the latter case he will be compelled to perform to the
extent of his ability by transferring the number of shares which
he has.-'' When, however, a court of equity refuses to give effect
to the contract by compelling specific performance, it may give
the suitor pecuniary compensation by awarding damages ; that is,
it may deny the relief prayed for and grant another in the same
action.
"'^

392.
(b) Specific performance of the contract.A contract
for the sale of stock will not be specifically enforced if the remedy
at law^ in action for damages is adequate. Equity will compel
specific performance of the contract for the transfer of stock
in cases where such a contract is part of one over which equity
has jurisdiction for this purpose.^^ And in cases where money
damages can not aft'ord adequate compensation, as, w^hen the
vendee can not purchase the shares for which he has contracted
for the amount to which he w^ould be entitled as damages,^^ pro-
vided, of course, the contract is otherwise proper, both as regarHs
consideration and public policy
.^^
Either party may be entitled to
1 Woolw. 26, 32; Buxton v. Lister,
3 Atk. 383; Colt v. Netterville, 2
P. Wms. 304; Cuddee v. Rutter,
1 P. Wms., 570; Danforth v. Phila-
delphia, etc. Ry. Co., 30 N. J. Eq.
12; Fallon v. Railroad Co., 1 Dill.
121; Turner v. May, 32 L. T.
(N. S.) 56; Poole v. Middleton, 29
Beav. 646; Parish v. Parish, 32
Beav. 207. Contra, Ross v. Union
Pac. Ry. Co., 1 Woolw. 26, though
this is obiter.
27
Hubbell V. Drexel, 21 Am. Law-
Reg. (N. S.) 452; Hardenberg v.
Bacon, 33 Cal. 356.
23
Columbine v. Chichester, 2
Phil. Ch. 27.
23Turnure v. May, 32 L. T.
(N. S.) 56.
30
Austin V. Gillespie, 1 Jones'
Eq. 261; Wason v. Fenno, 129
Mass. 405.
31
So where a stock transfer is
involved in the enforcement of a
trust the transfer will be ordered.
Taylor on Corporations,
790;
Draper v. Stone, 71 Me. 175; Colea
V. Whitman, 10 Conn. 121. So,
also, where the contract is part of
a contract for the conveyance ol
land. Leach v. Fobes, 11 Gray,
506; s. c. 71 Am. Dec. 732; Bissell
V. Farmers,' etc. Bank, 5 McLean,
495; Taylor on Corporations,

790.
32
Duncuft V. Albrecht, 12 Sim.
189; Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G.
& J. 27. Ace. Todd v. Taft, 89
Mass. 371; Baldwin v. Common-
wealth, 11 Bush, 417; Ashe v.
Johnson, 2 Jones' Eq. 149; John-
son V. Brooks, 93 N. Y. 337; White
V. Schuyler, 1 Abb. Pr. (N. S.)
300; s. c. 31 How. Pr. 38; Chater
V. San Francisco, etc. Co., 19 Cal.
219; Cushman v. Thayer Manuf.
Co., 76 N. y. 368.
33
Mississippi, etc. R. Co. v.
Cromwell, 91 U. S. 643.

393.J
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 677
specific performance of the contract, the vendor as ^vell as the
vendee. Thus, wliere the stock is in such a condition that some
liabiHty is imposed upon the registered owner, the vendor is en-
titled to an order or decree in equity compelhng' the vendee to
have the transfer recorded on the books of the company.^*

393'
(c) Avoidance of the contract.Where the stock has
been attached in the hands of the vendor, it is sufficient ground
for the refusal of the vendee to take it.^^ And, as is the rule in
respect of contracts generally, fraud and fraudulent misrepresenta-
tions on the part of the vendor or his agent^ constitute a valid
ground for refusing to take shares of stock which one has con-
tracted to purchase.^' This rule has been applied where it was
falsely represented the property of the corporation was unin-
cumbered
f^
that its affairs were prosperous
f^
that certain per-
sons of influence were members of the corporation
;*
that certain
dividends were to be guarantied by the comp''ny
;"
that a dividend
was about to be made, thus giving the stock a standing as a good
investment;*^ that the stock was full paid stock and not subject
to calls.*^ So where the vendor instigates employees to make
false memoranda and statements as to the condition of the com-
pany, the vendee may refuse to take the shares.** There is a
class of cases in which circumstances are relied upon as evidence
of fraud, in which it is held that the contract is valid, and no
presum.ption of fraud is raised. Thus, where the vendor states
that the stock is worth its full par value, the contract will stand, for
34
Paine v. Hutchinson, L. R. 3 Morgan v. Skiddy, 62 N. Y. 319,
Eq. 257; s. c. L. R. 3 Ch. 388; 328.
Walker v. Bartlett, 2 Jur. (N. S.)
ss
Southwestern R. Co. v. Papot,
643; s. c. 18 C. P. 845. 67 Ga. 775.
35
Eastman v. Fiske, 9 N. H. 182.
39
Cazeaux v. Mali, 25 Barb. 578.
36
Smith V. Tracy, 36 N. Y. 78.
4o
Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y.
37
Bradley v. Pool, 98 Mass. 558.
169; Gammill v. Johnson (Ark.
4i
Gerhard v. Bates, 20 Eng. L.
1SS7), 1 S. W. Rep. 610; Wakeman & Eq. 129.
V. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27; Nelson v.
42
Lawton v. Kittridge, 30 N. H.
Luling, 62 N. Y. 645; Schwenck
500.
V. Naylor, 102 N. Y. 638;
Gordon 43
sturges v. Stetson, 1 Biss. 246;
V. Parker, 10 La. Rep. 56; Beach Fosdick v. Sturges, 1 Biss. 255;
on Railways, 131, 132, 135, 136. Cross v. Sackett, 2 Bosw. 617.
The intent to deceive must be Contra, Nelson v. Luling, 62 N.
proven. Bellaires v. Tucker, 13 Y. 645.
Cf.
Colt v. Woollaston,
Q. B. Div. 563; Southwestern R. 2 P. Wms. 154; Seaman v. Law,
Co. V. Papot, 67 Ga. 775, 692. But 4 Bosw. 337.
the fraud need not have been the
44
Hagar v. Thompson, 1 Black,
sole inducement to the contract. 80.
Vol. 1

37
5TS SALE AND TKAKSFEE OF STOCK,
[
394, 395.
such a statement is an expression of opinion as distinguished from
misrepresentation of a material fact,*

394,
Transfer of shares in national banks,The statutes
of the United States and not those of the States regulate the
transfer of the stock of national banks, though no exclusive method
of transfer is prescribed by the national banking act,* And while
it is of the utmost importance that the liability of stockholders of
national banks should be rigorously enforced, it is declared that
the court should not treat them with exceptional severity, and
apply to their transfers different rules from those which obtain in
other business transactions.*'^ So where a shareholder of a national
bank makes a bona Ude sale of his stock, and goes with the pur-
chaser to the bank, indorses the certificate, and delivers it to the
cashier of the bank, with directions to make the transfer on the
books, he has done all that is incumbent upon him to discharge
his liability,*^ Likewise in a State, the courts of which lean
strongly against unrecorded transfers, but where the statute gives
no peculiar rights to attaching creditors of stock so transferred,
precedence will be given to an unrecorded transfer of the stock
of a bank which has passed no by-law on the subject,* over a
subsequent attachment by a creditor of the assignor,

395-
Breach of trust in transfer.A purchaser of stofck
in good faith and for a valuable consideration, will take the stock
as against the real owner, although his vendor made the sale to
him in breach of a trust,^''upon the ground that the legal title,
by which a trustee holds the stock, is a title which can be trans-
ferred. And the delivery of certificates, indorsed in blank, be-
ing a sufficient performance of a contract to sell stock,^^ it follows
that such a purchase in good faith and for value from a trustee,
will vest the title in the purchaser even though no record of the
transfer has been made upon the corporate books,-
45
Union Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 76
so
Briggs v. Massey, 42 L. T. 49
;
Mo. 439. Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 109
46
Scott V. Pequonnock Bank, 15 Mass. 115; Stinson v. Thornton,
Fed. Rep. 494. 56 Ga. 377; Holbrook v. New Jer-
4T
Hayes v. Shoemaker (1889), sey Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616; Cohen
39 Fed. Rep. 319; s. c. 6 Ry. & v. Graysen, 4 Md. Ch. 357; Sprague
Corp. L. J. 324; Whitney v. But- v. Chicago Manuf. Co., 10 Blatch,
ler, 118 U. S. 655. 173.
48
Hayes v. Shoemaker (1889),
si
Noyes v. Spaulding, 27 Vt,
39 Fed. Rep. 319; s. c. 6 Ry. & 420.
Corp. L. J. 324.
52
Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S.
49
Scott V. Pequonnock Bank, 15 800.
Fed. Rep. 494.

396,] SALE AXD TRANSFER CF STCCK. 579

As Pledgee.When stock is pledged, and the pledgee knows
that the pledgor holds it in trust and lends it to secure a private
debt, he enters into the transaction at his own risk, and may be
obliged to surrender the stock to its rightful owner.^^ Where the
holder of a certificate of stock indorsed in blank by the owner of
record, is clothed with power as agent or trustee to deal with
such stock and transfers it by exceeding his powers, or in breach
of trust, the true owner, having conferred on the holder unlimited
power of disposition over the stock, is estopped to assert his
title as against a third person who boita fide acquires it' from the
apparent owner.^*

396.
Remedies for fraud in the transfer.It may be stated
as a general rule that the vendee of stock will be released from
the obligations of his contract in cases where there is such a
degree of deceit practiced upon him as would entitle the vendee
of ordinary personal property to similar relief, and equity will
afiford him affirmative relief.^^ So the whole transaction may be
set aside by means of a bill in equity, which is the most effective
remedy, for the reason that, in order to entitle the party to the
relief prayed for, it is not necessary to show actual fraud, fraud
being often presumed from certain facts and circumstances which,
at law, will not constitute a cause of action.^ Thus, even when
representations are innocently made, the vendor will often be
called upon, in equity, to make them good.^' When a transferee
finds that he is a victim of misrepresentation, he may, of course,
affirm or repudiate the contract, but in the latter case he should
make a tender of the stock to the vendor and ask to be reinstated
in the position existing before the contract was made,^^ and he
53
Shaw V. Spencer, 100 Mass.
55
Taylor on Corporations,
792.
382; Duncan v. Jandon, 15 Wall.
so
Arkwright v. Newbold, 17 Ch.
165; Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125 Div. 301.
Mass. 138; Loring v. Brodie, 134 57 Jones v. Bolles, 9 Wall. 364;
Mass. 453; Sweeny v. Bank of Bradley v. Luce, 99 111. 234; John-
Montreal, 5 Can. L. T. 503; Walsh son v. Kirby, 65 Cal. 482; Stain-
V. Stille, 2 Parson's Select Cas. bank v. Fernley, 9 Sim. 556; Peek
Eq. 270; Simmons v. Southwestern v. Gurney, L. R. 5 N. H. 377; Hill
R. Co., 5 Rich. Eq. 270; White v. v. Lane, L. R. 11 Eq. 215; Camp-
Price, 29 Hun, 394. bell v. Fleming, 1 Adol. & El. 40.
5i
McNeil V. Tenth Nat'l Bank But see Ogilvie v. Currie, 37 L.
(1871), 46 N. Y. 325; Prall v, J. Ch. 541.
Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 479; Bank v. 5s
Francis v. New York, etc. R.
Livingston, 74 N. Y. 223; East Co., 17 Abb. N. C. 1.
Birmingham v. Dennis (1888), 85
Ala. 565.
5S0
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
397.
should act promptly. Thus, when he has given a note in payment
for the stock, he should repudiate the contract, and make a tender
of the stock, for it is not a defense to an action, on such a note,
that the transaction was tainted with fraud.^^ The injured party
also has a remedy at law for damages.^" In some cases where in-
dividuals have combined for the purpose of influencing the price
of stock by false representations, they may become liable to a
criminal prosecution for conspiracy."
PLEDGE OR MORTGAGE OF STOCK.

397.
Pledge and mortgage distinguished.At common
law, in case of pledge, only the possession is transferred, while
in mortgage the title is transferred, either with or without the
possession. Formerly it was thought that the shareholder could
not pledge his stock.*'- Pledge is the common method at present
of securing an indebtedness by stock; formerly, however, it was
accomplished by mortgage in which the pledgor retained posses-
sion of the stock.^2 But it has recently been held that a mortgage
of shares of corporate stock, although land is also included in tlie
mortgage, is valid and binding between the parties, without de-
livery of possession of the certificate of stock.^* In Kentucky a
conveyance of shares in a corporation is not within the recording
59
Gifford V. Caliill, 29 Cal. 589. a corporation to compel the exe-
Go
Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558
Nelson v. Luling, 62 N. Y. 645
Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N. Y. 27
cution and delivery of a certificate
of certain shares of stock which
stand on the books of the company
Newbery v. Garland, 31 Barb. 121. in the name of another, from
61
Regina v. Brown, 7 Cox's
- whom plaintiff claims title under
Grim. Gas. 442; Regina v. Esdaile, a mortgage and sheriff's deed in
1 Fost. & F. 213.
Cf.
United foreclosure proceedings, the mort-
States V. Britton, 108 U. S. 199. gagor is not a necessary party.
02
Gilmer v. Morris, 80 Ala. 78, And the complaint in such an ac-
60 Am. St. Rep. 85. tion is not unintelligible for the
63
Mechanics', etc. Assn v. Con- reason that the writ issued in the
over, 14 N. J. Eq. 219.
Cf.
Wil- foreclosure proceedings, (under
son V. Little, 2 N. Y. 443; s. c. Code Civil Proc. Cal.
684, which
51 Am. Dec. 307; Huntington v. requires that the writ shall recite
Mather, 2 Barb. 53'S; Hasbrouck v. the judgment or the material
Vandervoort, 4 Sand. 74; William- parts thereof, and direct the offl-
son V. New Jersey, etc. R. Co., cer to make the sale for its en-
26 N. J. Eq. 398. forcement,) is termed "an order
64Tregear v. Etiwanda Water of sale." Tregear v. Etiwanda
Co. (1888), 76 Cal. 537; s. c. 9 Am. Water Co. (1888), 76 Cal. 537;
St. Rep. 245. In an action against s. c. 9 Am. St. Rep. 245.
|
398-402.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 581
acts, and a record of a mortgage of shares does not charge with
constructive notice.
"^^

398.
Stock is rarely mortgaged.Though it is rarely done,
stock in a corporation may be mortgaged as between the parties,
and without transfer of the certificates, but not to affect the cor-
poration or a creditor of the mortgager, or a bona fide purchaser
or pledgee of the certificate, without notice of the mortgage.*'*'
Unless there is clear intent to the contrary, the courts will treat
the transaction as a pledge instead of mortgage.**^ A delivery
of the certificates as security is a pledge and not a mortgage."^
In England it is common to mortgage corporate stock, and the
mortgagee may sell after a reasonable time, without notice to
the mortgager."^

399.
Registered transfer, absolute in form, held a pledge
when.Transfer on the books absolute in form, or delivery of
the certificate, will be held a pledge, if so intended by the parties.'**
Where a debtor delivers shares to his creditor, the transfer is
presumed to be a pledge.'^^ A stockbroker buying stock for a
client upon margins, holding it as security for advances, is a
pledgee.'^-

400. Transfer of possession is necessary to the pledge.

There can be no pledge without transfer of possession or control

to the pledgee.''^

401. Pledges by agents and trustees.An executor or ad-

ministrator may pledge the stock of the decedent's estate, and
the pledgee, even with knowledge that he is executor, will be
protected. But a trustee has no implied power to pledge or sell
shares of stock, held in trust. A purchaser or pledgee of such
trust shares, taking them without notice of the trust, is protected
as a bona fide holder, but one who takes with notice, is not pro-
tected.'^*

402. Rights and powers of the pledgee.It may now be

considered as established, that shares of stock may be pledged
;
65
Spalding v. Paine, 81 Ky. 416.
eo
Deverges v. Sanderman, etc.
66
Campbell v. Woodstock, etc. Co. (1901), 1 Ch. 70.
Co., 83 Ala. 351; Tregear v. Et-
to
Brewster v. Hartlez, 37 Cal.
iwanda, etc. Co., 76 Cal. 537; 15, 99 Am. Dec. 237.
Spalding v. Paine's Admr., 81 Ky.
71
Borland v. Nevada Bank, 99
416; Cates v. Baxter, 97 Tenn. 443. Cal. 89, 37 Am. St. Rep. 32.
C7
Nabring v. Bank of Mobile
72
Baker v. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518.
(1877), 58 Ala. 204.
t3
Girard Trust Co. v. Mellon,
68
George, etc. Co. v. Range, etc. 156 Pa. St. 579.
Co. (1897), 16 Utah, 59.
74
Gottberg v. U. S. Nat. Bank,
(1890), 13 N. Y. Supp. 84.
582 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
402.
and that this can be affected by any valid contract between the
parties, either written or oral." The pledgee of stock can retain
it, till the debt is satisfied, although during such time he can not,
by holding adversely, acquire title under the Statute of- Limita-
tions.^ While as a general rule it is said that a pledgee of stock
TsMcMahon v. Macy, 51 N. Y.
155; Wilson v. Little, 2 N. Y. 443;
Mount Holly, etc. Co. v. Ferree, 17
N. J. Eq. 117; Broadway Bank v.
McElrath, 13 N. J. Eq. 24; Fen-
ney's Appeal, 59 Pa. St. 398; Ginz
V. Stiimph, 73 Ind. 209; Baldwin
V. Canfield, 26 Minn. 43; Burgess
V. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20; Brick
V. Brick, 98 U. S. 514; Continental
National Bank v. Eliot National
Bank, 12 Fed. Rep. 35; Merchants'
National Bank v. Richards, 74 Mo.
77; Bitot v. Johnson, 33 La. Ann.
1286; Blouin v. Liquidators, 30
La. Ann. 714; Newton v. Fay, 92
Mass. 505; Pinkerton v. Railroad
Co., 42 N. H. 424; New Orleans
National Banking Assn. v. Wiltz,
10 Fed. Rep. 330; Van Blarcom v.
Broadway Bank, 9 Bosw. 532;
Cornick v. Richards, 3 Lea, 1.
76
Cross V. Eureka Lake & Yuba
Canal Co. (1887), 73 Cal. 302; s. c.
2 Am. St. Rep. 808. In a recent
case in New York, the fiscal agent
of a railroad company negotiated,
a loan from defendant, to he se-
cured by a mortgage on the cor-
porate property. Pending the ex-
ecution of the mortgage, certain
certificates of stock in a coal com-
pany, issued in the names of
plaintiffs, and which plaintiffs
claimed to own, were delivered to
defendant as temporary security,
with the consent of plaintiffs. A
power of attorney, executed in
blank, was indorsed on each cer-
tificate. Afterwards the stock cer-
tificates were handed back to the
agent of the railroad company, on
the delivery to defendant of the
mortgage.
Thereafter, the stock-
holders of the railroad company
having refused to ratify the mort-
gage, defendant caused it to be
canceled at the request of the rail-
road company, and obtained from
the agent a return of the stock
certificates. In the meantime the
railroad company had passed a
resolution to the effect that it
was not the owner of the certifi-
cates, and that they should be de-
livered to the president of the
coal company. But the resolution
did not state who the owners of
the stock were, and it did not ap-
pear that the defendant had any
notice that the shares were
claimed by plaintiffs; and it was
held that the defendant was en-
titled to recover possession of the
certificates. Wing v. Holland
Trust Co. (1889), 5 N. Y. Supp.
384. In a federal Supreme Coiu't
case one K., who owned all the
stock of an association, and who
used its land as his individual
property, agreed to sell the stock
to plaintiff, and procure a deed to
him of the land. The plaintiff,
thinking his deed sufficient, failed
to demand the stock, which was
held by defendant bank as collat-
eral, which bank had been in-
formed of the agreement by K.
The State court having decreed
the stock to be plaintiff's subject
to the bank's interest, the bank
sold it to J. for the amount due
on the obligation for which it was
collateral. J. sold nine-tenths of
the stock, and this passed, in the
course of many transfers, to S.
& L.. who were made defendants
in this cause, and who held as
trustees. These trustees, and all
through whom they held, had
knowledge of plaintiff's rights. It
was decided that the plaintiff was
entitled to the stock, subject to
the payment of the amount for

402.]
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 583
can not alienate it/^ yet, in the absence of a specific agreement
to the contrary, he may transfer the stock to his own name on the
books of the company, and, when so transferred, he is not bound
to return the identical shares/^ He may make any use of them
which will not defeat the pledgor's ultimate rights.''^
Right to rcplcdge.He has no right to sell or repledge stock,
except by transfer of the debt secured by the pledge.^" If he does
so, he is guilty of a conversion.^^ A purchaser or pledgee of
stock from the pledgee, with notice of the pledge, is not a bona Me
holder of the stock." On the other hand, if such purchaser buys
in good faith, certificates, indorsed in blank, without knowledge of
the pledge, he is fully protected as a bona fide purchaser.^^ The
pledgor of stock is the real owner, and has the right to agree
with the corporation which issued it, to change its status upon
the books of registry from preferred stock, to common stock,
subject to the lien of the pledgee.^* Accordingly, where stock
is delivered upon pledge with a power of transfer, a bona fide
purchaser for value is relieved from liability to the pledgor.^^ A
person taking in pledge a certificate of stock, newly issued in his
name by an officer of a corporation, as security for the private
debt of the officer is, however, required to investigate the title to
the stock, and is affected with notice of whatever he might have
found out if he had made proper inquiry, where the officer is one
having the power, either alone or with others, to issue stock cer-
tificates.^^ The rights of the holder of a certificate of stock, are
held to be superior to those of a person to whom the stock has
been transferred without the possession of the certificate there-
for."
which it was originally sold by
ss
McNeil v. Tenth National
the bank as pledgee. Minneapolis Bank (1871), 46 N. Y. 325.
Agricultural & Mechanical Assn.
84 Pendleton v. Harris Emery
V. Canfleld (1887), 121 U. S. 295. Co. (Iowa 1904), 100 N. W. 117.
77
Fay V. Gray, 124 Mass. 500;
85
Wood's Ry. Law,
99, citing
Goss V. Hampton, 16 Nev. 185; Felt v. Heye, 23 How. Pr. 359;
France v. Clark, 22 Ch. Div. 830. McNeil V. Tenth National Bank,
78
See note to Hubbell v. Drexel, 46 N. Y. 325; Cherry v. Frost, 7
21 Am. L. Reg. 454. Lea, 1; Thompson v. Toland, 48
79
Lawrence v. Maxwell, 53 N. Cal. 99 ; jEa; parie Sargent, L. R. 17
Y. 19;
Chamberlin v. Greenleaf, 4 Eq. 273. Contra, Ortigosa v. Brown,
Abb. N. C. 178. 47 L. J. Ch. 168.
80
Bennett v. Austin (1880), 81
se
Farrlngton v. South Boston
N. Y. 308. R. Co. (1890), 150 Mass. 406; s. c.
81
Chew V. Loucheim (1897), 80 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 196.
Fed. 500.
87
Beach on Railways,

330,
82
Germ.an Savings Bank v. Ren- citing Maybin v. Kirby, 4 Rich.
Shaw (1894), 78 Md. 475. Eq. 105. In Van Cise v. Mer-
584
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
403, 404.

403.
Right to register the stock.Unless the contract be-
tween the pledgor and pledgee forbid, the latter may have himself,
or any one nominated by him, registered as the holder of the
stock upon the books of the company.^^ By doing so he assumes
the responsibilities of a stockholder, because he has also talven the
apparent ownership of the stock, including the right to receive
dividends, and vote at elections.^ But, even where the pledgee
has not been registered, a purchaser of the pledged stock sold in
execution of a judgment obtained against the pledgor will, if he
knew that the stock had been hypothecated, have his rights post-
poned to those of the pledgee.^"

404.
Right to receive dividend.Although as between
pledgor and pledgee the title is in the former, and the pledgee's
lien is extinguished upon payment of the debt,''^ yet the pledgee
is entitled to receive dividends.^^ And he may hold the corpora-
tion liable if it wrongfully paid the dividends to the pledgor.^^
The pledgee is entitled to the dividend even though the stock
stands in the name of the pledgor on the books of the corpora-
chants' Nat. Bank (Dakota, 1887),
33 N. W. Rep. 897, certain stock
of a mining corporation was
"pooled." F., who was cashier of
the D. bank, and also a member
of the firm of S., M. & F., was
made the chief trustee of the com-
bination. R., one of those who
"pooled" the stock, was indebted
to S., M. & F. At the time his
stock was "pooled," he pledged it
to them as collateral; the certifi-
cate, which was indorsed by R.,
remaining in possession of F. as
trustee of the "pool." He subse-
quently pledged it, while still in
"pool," to secure an indebtedness
to the bank. It was held that
both pledges were valid, under
Civil Code Dak.
1759, providing
that "the lien of a pledge is de-
pendent on possession, and no
pledge is valid until the property
pledged is delivered to the pledgee,
or to a pledge-holder."
88
Anderson v. Philadelphia
Warehouse Co., Ill U. S. 479;
Heath v. Griswold, 5 Fed. Rep.
573; Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y.
170; s. c. 75 Am. Dec. 311; Day
v. Holmes, 103 Mass. 306; Hiatt v.
Griswold, 5 Fed. Rep. 873; Union,
etc. Bank v. Farrington, 13 Lea,
333; Coi'nick v. Richards, 3 Lea,
1; Hubbell v. Drexel, 21 Am. L.
Reg. N. S. 452; Fay v. Gray, 124
Mass. 500; In re Angelo, 5 De Gex
& S. 278.
89
National Bank v. Case, 99 U.
S. 628; Poole v. West Point, etc.
Assn (1887), 30 Fed. Rep. 513.
no
Weston v. Bear River, etc. Co.,
6 Cal. 425; s. c. 5 Cal. 186.
91
Cross V. Eureka Lake & Yuba
Canal Co. (1887), 73 Cal. 302; s. c.
2 Am. St. Rep. 808, construing Cal.
Civ. Code,
2889, under which
one to v/hom a certificate of shares
of corporate stock is issued as
security for a debt does not, as
against the pledgor, obtain the
legal title to the stock.
02
Hill V. Newichawanich Co., 48
How. Pr. 427; Herrman v. Max-
well, 47 N. Y. Super. Ct. Rep. 347.
93
Hunsaker v. Sturgis, 29 Cal.
142.

405, 406.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 585

tion.^* He must account however, therefor, in the final adjust-
ment of the transaction between him and his pledgor.^^

405.
Right to vote at corporate meetings.A pledgee of
shares, having had himself registered as holder thereof on the
company's books, is entitled to vote at corporate meetings."*'
Where shares of stock are pledged as collateral, the pledgee re-
serving the right to sell in case of default, and the pledgee causes
a transfer to himself to be recorded on the books of the corpora-
tion, until the pledgor's rights shall have been foreclosed by a
sale, he, and not the pledgor, is entitled to vote on the stock, in
the absence of a statute providing otherwise.^ The registered
pledgee must exercise this right, however, with some regard to
the pledgor's interests."^ Until the pledgee has been registered,
the pledgor retains the right to vote upon the stock at corporate
meetings."" A bona Ude purchaser of bank stock assigned in
blank to secure a loan without notice that the holder was only
pledgee, will take the stock free from the equities of the pledgor.^
Where, by statute, the stockholder, notwithstanding pledge of his
stock, may vote it at all meetings, the pledgee's remedy to subject
the stock to payment of the debt, is by bill to foreclose the pledge,
or by sale on notice, and not by bill to compel transfer of the stock
on the books, to the pledgee.^

406.
Foreclosure of the pledge.Where the contract of
pledge has not been complied with and the stock not redeemed,
94
George, etc. Co. v. Range, etc. nia Ins. Co., 37 Ohio St. 339;
Co. (1897), 16 Utah, 59. Heath v. Silverthorn, etc. Mining
95
Hasbrouck v. Vandervoort, 4 Co., 39 Wis. 146.
Sandf. 74; Isaac v. Clarke, 2 Bulst.
^^
Ex parte Willcocks, 7 Cowen,
306; Edwards on Bailments, 300. 402; Hoppin v. Buffum, 9 R. I.
96
See generally the cases cited 513; s. c. 11 Am. Rep. 291; Brews-
supra.
594. ter v. Hartley, 37 Cal. 15; s. c. 99
97
State V. Smith (1887), 15 Ore- Am. Dec. 237; Crease v. Babcock,
gon, 98. 10 Mete. 525, 545; McDaniell v.
^&Ex parte Willcocks, 7 Cowen, Flower Brook Manuf. Co., 22 Vt.
402, 410; s. c. 17 Am. Dec. 524; 274; In re Cecil, 36 How. Pr. 477;
Stephens on Joint-Stock Compan- In re Barker, 6 Wend. 509; Vowell
ies, 401; Lawrence v. Maxwell, 53 v. Thompson, 3 Cranch, 428;
N. Y. 19; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Scholfleld v. Union Bank, 2
Minn. 43; Scholfleld v. Union Cranch, 115; Smith v. American
Bank, 2 Cranch, 115; McHenryv. Coal Co., 7 Lans. 317; N. Y.
Jewett, 90 N. Y. 58; Strong v. Laws of 1848, ch. 40,
17.
Smith, 15 Hun, 222; Vowell v.
1 Maxwell v. Foster (S. C.
Thompson, 3 Cranch, 428; Mc- 1903), 45 S. B. 927.
Daniell v. Flower-Brook Manuf.
2 American, etc. Co. v. Pacific,
Co., 22 Vt. 274; Fanning v. Hiber- etc. Co. (Wash. 1903), 74 Pac. 826.
5SG
"
SALI-: AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
i07.
the pledgee may sell the shares at public auction after giving
notice to the pledgor,^ and without any judicial proceedings,
whether a sale is expressly authorized or not.^ But he must
first make demand for payment and give the pledgor reasonable
notice of the time and place of sale. Otherwise the sale will con-
stitute a conversion of the stock.^ He can not himself become the
purchaser against the objection of the pledgor.^ Without express
permission of the pledgor, the pledgee can not directly, or in-
directly, purchase the stock at the sale in his own name, or in
the name of another. Such a sale is voidable at the election of
the pledgor.'^ It has been held, however, that an express agree-
ment that the pledgee shall have the right to sell, authorizes him
to do so by private sale.^ The more usual remedy of the pledgee
is by a bill in equity to foreclose the right of redemption, especially
when there has been no formal transfer of the certificates.^** If
the pledgor redeems the stock before sale or foreclosure, he can
not demand a return of the identical shares which he hypothecated,
unless they can be distinguished from other stock of the same kind
by ear-marks or some other means of identification.^^

407.
Remedies of the pledgor.The pledgor can not en-
join a sale of the pledge by the pledgee, unless the latter is in-
3
Ogden V. Lathrop, G5 N. Y. estop him from future objection.
158; Markham v. Jaudon, .41 N. Willoughby v. Comstock, 3 Hill,
Y. 235, 243, holding, also, that the 389.
time and place must be reason-
* "Wilson v. Little, 2 N. Y. 443,
able; Conyngham's Appeal, 57 Pa. 51 Am. Dec. 307.
St. 474; Lewis v. Graham, 4 Abb.
s
Gillett v. Whiting, 120 N. Y.
Pr. 106, that newspaper advertise- 402.
ment is not sufficient notice;
e
Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. Dai-
Bryan V. Baldwin, 52 N. Y. 234, rymple, 25 Md. 242; Brj'-an v.
holding that the notice must be Baldwin, 52 N. Y. 232.
personal ; Stevens v. Hurlbut
7 Easton v. German American
Bank, 31 Conn. 146, holding that Bank (1888), 127 U. S. 532.
express power to sell in a certain
s
Bryson v. Raynor, 25 Md. 424.
event is not a waiver of notice. Vaupell v. Woodward, 2 Sandf.
A sale upon the Stock Exchange is Ch. 143.
held not to be public. Willoughby
10
Robinson v. Hurley, 11 Iowa,
V. Comstock, 3 Hill. 389; Brass v. 410; s. c. 79 Am. Dec. 497; Mer-
Worth, 40 Barb. 648; Rankins v. chants' National Bank v. Hall, 83
McCullough, 12 Barb. 103. And a N. Y. 338; Briggs v. Oliver, 68 N.
private sale of pledged stock, after Y. 336; Johnson v. Dexter, 2
default, is illegal. Willoughby v. MacA. 530; Blouin v. Hart, 30 La.
Comsto-k, 3 Hill, 389; Castello v. Ann. 714.
City Bank, 1 Leg. Obs. 25. Any
n
See note to Hubbell v. Drexel,
irregularity in the sale may be 21 Am. L. Reg. 454; Gilpin v. How-
remedied by the conduct of the ell (1846), 5 Pa. St. 41; s. c. 45
pledgor, which may be such as to Am. Deo. 720; Horton v. Morgan

408, 409.] SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK. 587

solvent.^^ Where the stock upon sale fails to realize enough to
satisfy the debt, the pledgee may recover the deficiency from the
pledgor or his estate.^-''

408. Pledgor's right of redemption.Where no time for

redemption of the stock pledged has been fixed by the parties,
the pledgor may redeem any time before the debt secured by
the pledge is barred. Though the statute of limitations does not
run against the pledgor's right to redeem, he will be denied relief
in equity, on the ground of laches, where the circumstances render
his demand stale.^*
H.
REGISTRATION OF TRANSFERS.

409.
Registration, a necessity to the corporation, as a
record of its stockholders.To ascertain what persons are
liable as stockholders to the creditors of the company, recourse
must be had to the corporate records,^^ For this purpose the
creditors are entitled to an examination of the books.^'' And per-
sons whose names are found to be registered thereon as holders
of the stock, are presumed to be the regular and lawful owners
of the shares and as such liable for the company's debts.^'^ In
England it is provided by statute that the production of the reg-
(1859), 19 N. Y. 170; s. c. 75 Am. Sichell's Case, L. R. 3 Ch. 119;
Dec. 311; Taylor v. Ketchum, 35 Bugg's Case, 2 Dr. & Sm. 452.
How. Pr. 289; Dykers v. Allen, 7
is
Marshall Foundry Co. v. Kil-
Hill, 497; Noyes v. Spaulding lain (1888), 99 N. C. 501; s. c.
(1855), 27 Vt. 420; Price V. Grover, 6 Am. St. Rep. 539; Brewer v.
40 Md. 102; Thompson v. Toland, Michigan Salt Assn. (1886), 58
48 Cal. 99; Atkins v. Gamble, 42 Mich. 351.
Cal. 86; Hardenburgh v. Bacon, 33
it
National Bank v. Case, 99 U
Cal. 356; Boylan v. Huguet, 8 Nev. S. 628; Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U
345; Langton v. Waite, L. R. 6 Eq. S. 418; Wakefield v. Fargo (1882)
165; Le Cray v. Eastman, 10 Mod- 90 N. Y. 213; Erskine v. Loewen
ern (K. B.), 499, stein, 82 Mo. 301; s. c. 11 Mo. App
12
Syracuse, etc. Ry. v. Salt 595; Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Ap
Springs, etc. Co. (1899), 28 N. Y. plegate, 21 W. Va. 172; Appeal of
Misc. Rep. 619. Miller (1881), 1 Pa. Sup. Ct. 120;
13
Furness v. Union Nat. Bank, Graff v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co.
etc., 147 111. 570. (1858), 31 Pa. St. 489; McHose v.
14
Gilmer v. Morris, 80 Ala. 78, Wheeler (1863), 45 Pa. St. 32;
60 Am. Rep. 85. Aultman's Appeal (1882), 98 Pa.
15
Note to Thompson v. Reno St. 505, 516, holding that this rule
Savings Bank, 3 Am. St. Rep. 806, applies even where the stock
866; Branson v. Oregonian Ry. Co., standing in the name of the regis-
10 Oregon, 278; Henkle v. Salem tered holder was transferred to
Manuf. Co., 39 Ohio St. 547; Wil- him merely as collateral. Chief
liams' Case, L. R. 1 Ch. Div. 576; Justice Sharswood saying: "Most
588
SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
410.
ister of shareholders shall be prima facie evidence of the defendant
being a shareholder,^* If the company keep no subscription book,
the fact that the defendant was a subscriber may be proven
aliunde}^ In an action to enforce a shareholder's individual lia-
bility, it is sufficient if it appear that he was a shareholder at the
time of the institution of the action, without it being shown that
he occupied that position at the time of the accrual of the cause of
action.
-

410.
Registry when required by statute or charter.

Where the charter or by-laws of a corporation provide that its

stock shall be transferable only by registry on the books of the
company, the title to, and ownership of the stock can only pass by
a transfer on the books.
-^
The national banking act, and the gen-
especially is this just and right as
to creditors who trust to his name
and have no notice of the secret
trust upon which the stoclf is
held;" Price & Brown's Case
(1850), 3 De G. & Sm. 146; Bar-
rett's Case (1864), 4 De G. J. & S.
416; Straffon's Case (1852), 1 De
G., M. & G. 576; Gower's Case
(1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 77; Fox v.
Clifton (1830), 6 Bing. (Eng.)
776; "Who are Chargeable as
Stockholders," (1879), 8 Cent. L.
J. 182; "What is a Contributory,"
2 Jour. Jur. 521; Case of the Re-
ciprocity Bank (1860), 22 N. Y. 9;
Slee V. Bloom (1821), 19 Johns.
456; Fisher v. Seligman (1881),
75 Mo. 13; Dane v. Young (1872),
61 Me. 160; Wheelock v. Kost
(1875), 77 111. 296.
IS
The Companies Clauses Act
(1845), 8 Vic. ch. 16, 28; Birken-
head, etc. Ry. Co. v. Brownrigg. 4
Ex. 426; Bain v. Whitehaven Ry.
Co., 3 H. L. 1; London, etc. Ry.
Co. V. McMichael, 5 Ex. 855; s. c.
20 L. J. Ex. 6; Inglis v. Great
Northern Ry. Co., 16 Jur. 895;
s. c. 1 Macq. 112.
19
Thus, in Ross v. Bank of Gold
Hill (Nev. 1888), 19 Pacif. Rep.
243, which was an action by a
creditor of a bank against the sub-
scribers to its capital stock, it was
proved that one defendant, at the
organization of the bank, paid
$200, and took a certificate to that
effect, and that upon the payment
of the "balance due" he would be
entitled to tv'enty shares at $100
each. Defendant testified that he
regarded the transaction as an op-
tion giving him the right to take
the stock by the payment of the
residue, or forfeit the amount
paid. It was proved that the
bank received the money as pa^rt
of its capital, and the managing
officer testified that there were
$1,800 yet due. The bank kept no
subscription book, but it was held
that the defendant was shown to
be a subscriber. In the same case
it was shown that another defend-
ant paid in ten per cent, and took
a similar certificate; that he was
one of the incorporators, and kept
an open account at the bank for
several years after its organiza-
tion. Defendant testified that the
money paid was a loan to one of
the officers of the bank, for
which he had demanded payment
before the bank's complications.
The officer referred to testified
that the money was paid upon
the capital stock of the bank, and
the evidence was considered suffi-
cient to show that the defendant
was a subscriber.
20
Root V. Sinnock, 120 111. 350;
s. c. 60 Am. Rep. 558.
21
Koons V. Jeffersonville Bank,
89 Ind. 178.

410.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 589

eral corporation laws of most of the States so provide. The purpose
of such a requirement is for protection of the corporation and its
creditors, by always knowing who are its shareholders and owners
entitled to vote at its meetings, receive dividends, take part in
the corporate management, and respond to corporate liability.
Where such registry is required, an unregistered transfer is in-
effective against the corporation or its creditors, without notice
thereof.
By-Laws.Without express legislative authority the corpora-
tion has no power to provide by by-law that the corporate stock
shall be transferable only upon the corporate books.-- But though
the by-laws of a corporation require the entry of transfers of
shares on a stock-ledger, if none is kept and such a transfer is
entered, according to the custom of the company, on the subscrip-
tion list, and an assignment is indorsed on the shares themselves,
and a new certificate is issued to the purchaser by the company,
the latter can not deny the validity of the transfer.-^ The trans-
fer must be registered in the manner prescribed by the law under
which the corporation acts, or in the manner in which it is ac-
customed to do business in order to bind it.^* So when the by-
laws require simply the production of the old certificate and that
the transfer shall be made by the owner or his attorney, the ap-
plication for a transfer by the attorney and the production of the
certificate is a sufficient compliance with the rule, and the trans-
feree is entitled to damages for a refusal to make the transfer
complete on the b'ooks.^^
22
Driscoll V. West Bradley, etc. book of stock certificates with stub
Co., 59 N. Y. 96. attached to each, on which are en-
23
Stewart V. Walla Walla Print. tered the date, name, serial num-
& Pub. Co. (Wash. T. 1889), 20 bers, etc., corresponding with each
Pacif. Rep. 605; Crawford v. Prov- certificate issued, a memorandum
idential Ins. Co., 8 U. C. Com. P. entered on the stub in these words,
263. In Alabama under the statu- "Transf. to Winston Jones, as-
tory provisions regulating the signee, for collateral, December 1,
transfer of certificates of stock in
'84,"
is a substantial compliance
incorporated companies, and prov- with the statutory requisition, and
iding that no transfer shall be charges a subsequent creditor or
valid, as against bona fide credi- purchaser with notice of such
tors and subsequent purchasers transfer. Fisher v. Jones (1887),
without notice, "except from the 82 Ala. 117.
time such transfer shall have been
24
See, however, Purchase v. New
registered or made upon the book York Exchange Bank, 3 Rob. (N.
or books of such company," (Code, Y.) 164; Stockwell v. St. Louis,

2041-2044) if a company has etc. Co., 9 Mo. App. 133.

adopted no by-law regulating such
25
Commercial Bank v. Kort-
transfer, and keeps only a single right, 22 Wend. 348; s. c. 34 Am.
590
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[ 4lO, 411.

410a. Effect of omission to register.

By
omitting to
register his transfer, the holder of the certificate and power of
attorney, fails to obtain the right to vote, and may lose his stock
by a fraudulent transfer on the books of the company by the
registered holder to a bona fide purchaser. He also takes the risk
of the collection of dividends by his assignor, or of any lien the
corporation may have on the shares.-*' Though the decisions are
not uniform, the weight of authority holds that an unregistered
sale and transfer of stock,, which either by statute or charter is
required, is declared to be transferable only on the books of the
corporation, is effectual to pass the property as against subsequent
attaching creditors of the vendor. "Provisions of this kind are
intended solely for protection and benefit of the corporation ; they
do not incapacitate a shareholder from transferring his stock with-
out any entry upon the corporate books. Except as against the
corporation, the owner and holder of shares of stock may, as an
incident of this right of property, transfer the same as any other
personal property of which he is the owner."^'^

411. To w^hat officer to apply for registration.There has

been some controversy concerning what officer the transferee
should apply to for registration. No general rule can be given
applicable to all cases, except, perhaps, that he should apply to
the officer having general control of the books wherein registration
is made.^^ In the case above cited an application to the president
of the company was held sufficient.^^ In another, the person act-
ing as secretary and treasurer of a railroad company, was held to
be the officer to whom it was proper to apply.^ And it would
seem that the transferee may generally consider a refusal by the
secretary equivalent to a refusal by the corporation.^^ In the case
of a bank, the cashier generally has authority to act for the com-
pany, and to bind it in this respect.^^ If the by-laws require the
Dec. 317; Green Mountain, etc. Co.
28
Green Mountain, etc. R. Co. v.
V. Bulla, 45 Ind. 1. Bulla, 45 Ind. 1.
26
New Haven R. R. v. Schuyler,
29
Green Mountain, etc. R. Co. v.
34 N. Y. 80. Bulla, 45 Ind. 1.
27
Lund V. Wheaton, etc. Co.
3o
Goodwin v. Ottawa, etc. Ry.
(1893), 50 Minn. 36, Am. St. Rep. Co., 13 U. C. C. P. 254.
623; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn.
si
McMurrich v. Bond, etc. Co.,
43; Joslyn v. St. Paul, etc. Co., 44 9 U. C. Q. B. 333.
Minn. 183; Boston Music, etc.
32
Case v. Bank, 100 U. S. 446.
Assn. V. Gary
(1880), 129 Mass.
Cf.
Commercial Bank v. Kortright,
435.
22 Wend. 348.

4:12, 413.] SALE AND TliANSFER OF STOCK. 591

transfer to be made in the presence of the cashier or two wit-
nessess, it must be attested by their signatures, or the transfer
is void.^"

412. Provisions requiring registry.As between the trans-

ferrer and the transferee, the transfer is complete, independent of
any registration, as much so as in case of transfer of real estate,
where the title passes to the grantee as between himself and the
grantor, whether or not the deed is ever recorded.''* The same
is the rule with unregistered transfers of stock, although the
charter and by-laws may provide that no transfer shall be valid
until it is registered upon the corporate books.^^ The courts hold
these provisions to affect only the relations of the transferee as
against creditors of his transferrer and other third parties, in-
terested in the stock, and to limit the right to dividends, and to
vote, to those stockholders whose ownership appears on record in
the company's books.^^

413.
Formal requisites of registration. Who may have
registry made.In registration of the certificate, the tendency is
to eliminate the unnecessary formalities of transfer book, and
power of attorney. It is only essential that the registered share-
holder, or his assignee, or attorney, shall appear before the cor-
porate officer in charge of the stock register, produce and sur-
render the certificate, have it registered in the name of the person
to whom assigned, and surrender the old certificate in place of a
new one to be delivered to or for the assignee. The demand for
registry is sufficient if made in business hours upon the principal
officer or clerk in attendance at the office of the corporation.^'
Where the corporation has no book of registry of stock transfers,
and none is by the charter required to be kept, a mere notice of
the transfer constitutes registry.^^ It is not essential to the reg-
istry that a new certificate shall be issued.'
In England the formalities of a stock transfer are strictly ob-
served. The transfer is made by deed which is delivered to, and
kept in the custody of the secretary of the company, who makes
33
Planters', etc. Ins. Co. v. Sel-
se
Bates-Farley, etc. Co. v. Dis-
ma Savings Bank, 63 Ala. 585; mukes (1899), 107 Ga. 212.
Dane v. Yonng, 61 Me. 160.
37
Case v. Bank (1879), 100 U. S.
3-1
Noyes v. Spaulding (1855),
446.
27 Vt. 420.
38
Crawford v. Provincial Ins.
35
Johnston v. Laflin (1880), 103 Co. (1859), 8 U. C. C. P. 263.
U. S. 800.
'9
First Nat. Bank v. Gifford
(1877), 47 Iowa, 575.
592
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
413.
an entr}' of it in a book called the "register of transfers," and in-
dorses the entry on the deed/"
In the United States a substantial compliance with the require-
ments of the charter or by-laws or other statutory provisions res-
pecting the transfer of stock, is sufficient to complete the transfer.'*^
From the point of view occupied by the corporation, it is of es-
pecial importance that a transfer should be properly recorded on
tne books, in order that it may know whom to treat as stock-
holders, and thus avoid complications and perhaps liabilities and
litigation. And an assignment of stock duly registered will, even
when it contains some apparent irregularity, operate to protect the
corporation.'*^ But, in order to obtain the full benefits of regis-
tration, the corporation must make the transfer on the books, and,
so far as it is concerned, the registration must be made on books
kept for that purpose, for if the duty is neglected it can not take
advantage of its own wrong.
*^
And such a neglect to make the
registration after the written assignment properly executed has
been lodged with it for that purpose, or the failure to insist upon
a registration after it has notice of a transfer, may operate as a
waiver of its right to the protection afforded by a recorded trans-
fer, particularly where it has performed certain acts or acquiesced
in the performance of certain acts by the parties.** So, where the
statute requires certain formalities to be observed in the transfer
of stock, among which is the recording of a certificate, signed by
its president, in the county clerk's office, and the company re-
cords such a certificate without the president's signature, it can
not hold the original stockholder liable for unpaid calls.*^ So, in
40
8 Vic. ch. 16, 15. Marlborough Manuf. Co. v. Smith,
41
National Bank v. Watsonto-wn 2 Conn. 579; McCurry v. Suydam,
Bank, 105 U. S. 217; Preston v. 10 N. J. 245; Pinkerton v. Man-
Cutter (1888), 64 N. H. 461; Chester, etc. R. Co., 43 N. H. 424.
Fisher v. Jones, 82 Ala. 117.
44
Weber v. Feckey, 52 Md. 500,
42
Pullman v. Upton, 96 U. S. 516; Isham v. Buckingham, 49 N.
328; Webster v. Upton, 95 U. S. Y. 216; Baine v. Whitehaven Ry.
65; In re South Mountain, etc. Co., Co., 3 H. L. Cas. 1; Ex parte Wal-
7 Sawyer, 30; Upton v. Hansbor- ton, 26 L. J. Ch. 545; Clowes v.
ough, 3 Biss. 417; Moore v. Jones, Brettell, 11 Mees. & W. 461; Wal-
3 Woods, 53; Foreman v. Bigelow, ter's Case, 3 De Gex & S. 149;
4 Cliff. 508; Seymour v. Sturges, Sadler's Case, 3 De Gex & S. 36.
26 N. Y. 134; Cole v. Ryan, 52
45
Cutting v. Damerell, 88 N. Y.
Barb. 168; Mann v. Currie, 2 Barb. 410; Isham v. Buckingham, 49 N.
294; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 Minn. Y. 216; Upton v. Burnham, 3 Biss.
43.
431, 520; Strange v. Houston, etc.
43
Brown V. Adams, 5 Biss. 181; R. Co., 53 Tex. 162; Murray v.
Northrop v. Curtis, 5 Conn. 246; Bush, L. R. 6 H. L. 37; Bargate

ttli.J SALE AND TKAN'SFER OF STOCK. 593

a case when there is a transfer by attorney and the attorney re-
cords the transfer on the corporate books, but by mistake signs
as attorney for the transferee instead of the transferrer, the cor-
poration may recover instalments due upon the stock from the
former.**^ Stock may be transferred before the issue of shares,^'
by substituting upon the subscription books the name of the
transferee for that of the subscriber,*^ who is then reheved of
further liabiHty.*^
lllio may have tegist7'y made.The transferrer, in order to re-
lease himself from further liability on the stock, may require reg-
istry of the transfer, upon surrender of the certificate, or at his
instance, where the transferrer refuses to register the transfer,
a court of equity may compel its registry
.^
And the transferee
in like manner may compel registry of the stock to be made in
his name.^^
Transfer on surrender
of
old certificate.Where the corporation
issues a certificate of shares to a bona fide transferee of a stock-
holder, the corporation waives the by-law requirement, which
was not complied with, that the surrender may be made only
upon surrender of the old certificate/^ To be good as against
execution creditors of the transferer, the transfer of stock upon
the books must be made within the time provided by the statute,
or every effort to comply therewith must be shown to have been
made.^^

414.
Effect of non-registry of transfer.

^Where, the char-

ter, or statute, or authorized by-law requires that transfer of
V. Shortridge, 5 H. L. 297. See
49
Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 390;
also Beach on Railways,

305, "Weinman v. Wilkinsburg, etc. Ry.
374, 389.
Cf.
Johnson v. Under- Co. (1888), 118 Pa. St. 192; Thorp
hill, 52 N. Y. 203; Bosanquet v. v. Woodhull, 1 Sandf. Ch. 411;
Shortridge, 4 Ex. 699. Brigham v. Mead, 10 Allen, 245;
46
Bend v. Susquehanna Bridge
Cf. Upton v. Burnham, 3 Biss. 431,
Co., 6 Harr. & J. 128; s. c. 14 Am. 520; Midland Counties Ry. Co. v.
Dec. 261; Hartford, etc. R. Co. v. Gordon, 16 Mees. & W. 804.
Boorman, 12 Conn. 520; Brigham
so
Webster v. Upton (1875), 91
V. Mead, 10 Allen, 245; Hudders- U. S. 71; Johnston v. Laflin
field Canal Co. v. Buckley, 7 Term (1880), 103 U. S. 800.
Rep. 36; Evans v. Wood, 37 L. J.
si
Sldnner v. Fort Wayne, etc.
Ch. 159. R. R. (1893), 58 Fed. 55.
4T
Bank v. Bank, 105 U. S. 217;
52
Richardson v. Longwood, etc.
State v. Butler (1888), 86 Tenn. Co. (Colo. App. 1904), 76 Pac. 346.
614; s. c. 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 178,
53
isbell v. Graybell (Colo. App.
180. 1904), 76 Pac. 550.
48
Ryder v. Alton, etc. R. Co., 13
111. 516.
Vol. 1

38
594 SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
414.
Stock shall be made only on the corporate books, there must
be such registry before the transferee can acquire any rights as
against the corporation, other than right to registry of his transfer.
In case of insolvency of the corporation, the transferrer of an
unregistered transfer of stock is not relieved from liability to
creditors for any unpaid balance due on his stock to the cor-
poration, or from statutory liability of stockholders above the par
value of the stock.^*
Effect as against pledgees or purchasers.Where stock is trans-
ferable only on the corporate books, the provision is held to protect
a bona fide pledgee or purchaser of shares from the owner of rec-
ord, against an unregistered transfer.^^ In jurisdictions where
an unregistered bona fide transfer conveys the legal title as well
as the equitable, the transferee is protected against a subsequent
attaching or execution creditor of the transferrer. Where such
a transfer is held to convey only the equitable title, the courts dis-
agree as to the effect of such an attachment or execution.^^ But
most courts, including also the United States Supreme Court,
hold that the transferee will be protected against such attaching
creditor, if he has notice of the transfer before the levy.^'^ "Shares
in the stock of a corporation are the subjects of sale, mortgage,
or pledge, and are liable to attachment and execution like other
personal property. And when the question is between a vendee
and an attaching creditor of vendor, as to which of them has the
better title, and it appears, as it does here, that the instrument
of transfer or assignment was executed prior in point of time, to
the service of the attachment, then, if the vendee's purchase was
made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, ... it
would seem that in equity his title ought to prevail, provided he
has done all that the law requires of him, and all that it was
possible for him to do, in taking such possession as the nature
of the property is susceptible of."^^ It is well settled that a trans-
fer of stock, otherwise regular, operates only as a contract be-
tween the parties, if there has been no record thereof on the books
when the statute, charter or by-laws provide that transfers shall
be made in that way. Thus, where one is sued by a creditor of
54
Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S.
st
Bridgewater, etc. Co. v. Less-
27.
berger, 116 U. S. 8.
B6
Rough V. Breitung, 117 Mich.
ss
Colt v. Ives, 31 Conn. 25, 81
48.
Am. Dec. 161.
56
Ryan V. Campbell, 71 Iowa,
760.

415.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 595

a corporation, as a stockholder, for the amount of his subscription
remaining unpaid, it is no defense that he has transferred his in-
terest in the stock to another, unless the transfer is made a matter
of record on the corporate books, for the omission of registra-
tion does not relieve a stockholder of liability.^" And it is held
that, except as against the corporation, the owner of stock may,
as an incident of his proprietary right, transfer the stock in the
same manner in which he may dispose of the title to other personal
property. So, where certificates of stock are delivered in pledge
as security for the payment of notes and the return of other stock
lent, the pledgees are bona fide holders of the shares represented
by the certificates as collateral security."" Likewise, w'here one
contracts with another to sell patent rights belonging to the latter,
b}^ which a corporation is to be formed, in the stock of which pay-
ment is to be made for the patent right, and half of what is realized
above a certain sum is to be paid to the first party for his services,
a third person who assists him in making the sale is simply his
creditor, and does not confer title to the stock when issued.*^^
It is also held that an assignment of stock made for the simple
purpose of enabling the transferrer to testify on its behalf in an
action in which the corporation is a party, is a valid transfer as
between the parties, and passes the interest in the stock so as to
render the transferrer a competent witness.*'-

415.
Presumption of fraud from failure to register.

"The
ground on which stock sold, but not legally transferred, is open
to attachment by the creditors of the vendor, is . . . the same
upon which personal chattels sold, but retained in the possession
of the vendor, are liable to attachment by the vendor's creditors.
The principle in such case is, that the retention of possession is
a badge of fraud, that is, is evidence of a fraudulent secret
trust. . . . But it is well settled that this retention of pos-
session, in every case", is only a badge, that is, is evidence of fraud.
B9
Topeka Manuf. Co. v. Hale ner, 133; Johnson v. Underbill, 52
(1888), 39 Kan. 23. N. Y. 203; Bank of Utica v. Smal-
60
Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S. ley, 2 Cowen, 770; s. c. 14 Am. Dee.
800, 804; Noyes v. Spaiilding, 27 526; First Nat. Bank v. Gifford,
Vt. 420; Baldwin v. Canfield, 26 47 Iowa, 575. Cf.
Baldwin v. Can-
Minn. 43. field, 26 Minn. 43. See also Con-
61
Thurber V. Crump (1888), 86 tinental National Bank v. Eliot
Ky. 408. National Bank, 7 Fed. Rep. 369;
62
Noyes v. Spaulding. 27 Vt. Merchants', etc. Bank v. Richards,
420; United States v. Cutts, 1 Sum- 6 Mo. App. 654.
596
SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
-ilC, ilT.
to be regarded as conclusive when the retention of possession
is vohmtary and unnecessary.
"'^^

416.
Registration as evidence and notice of title.A
trans-
feree is not required to carry his investigation as to the title of
his assignor to the stock beyond the books of the company, but
may rely upon them, and if they show the assignor to be the
owner of the stock which afterwards turns out to be spurious,
it is no defense in an action against the corporation "that its offi-
cer had no authority to keep any but correct books."''* And where
the corporation is required by statute to keep a book for the
registration of its stockholders, such a book is competent evidence
of the transfer of stock.''^

417.
Of shares held in trust.

^^When stock is held by the

person in whose name it stands on the books in a fiduciary capa-
city, the corporation has notice of that fact, and it is liable to the
cestui que trust for a fraudulent transfer made by the trustee.""
Although the company is not chargeable with notice of a trust
merely because certain officers have knowledge of it.*''' But where
stock, which was inadvertently registered in the name of one of
several beneficiaries, was transferred by the cestui que trust, in
whose name it stood instead of that of the trustee, the corporation
-
was held liable to the other beneficiaries.^ When stock is regis-
tered in the names of two or more persons as trustees, they must
unite in making a transfer, and if one undertakes to transfer for
all by signing the names of his co-trustees, he exposes himself to
the charge of forgery,^ and the other trustees are entitled to be
63
Colt V. Ives, 31 Conn. 25, 81
go
Barton v. North Staffordshiro
Am. Dec. 161. Ry. Co. (1888), 38 Ch. Div. 458;
04
New York, etc. R. Co. v. s. c. 4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 34; Slo
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 76, 77; Gray man v. Bank of England, 14 Sim
V. Portland Bank, 3 Mass. 364; 475; Magwood v. Railroad Bank,
s. c. 3 Am. Dec. 156.* 5 Richardson (S. C.) 379; Bay-
c5
Preston v. Cutter (1888), 64 ard v. Farmers,' etc. Bank, 52
N. H. 461. Pa. St. 232, where the company
6G
Mechanics' Bank v. Seton, was su.stained in refusing regis
1 Pet. 299; Cottam v. Eastern tration until its attorney had ex
Counties Ry. Co., 1 John. & H. amined the terms of the trust;
243, where the signatures of the Bird v. Chicago, etc. R. Co."
13'(
other trustees were forged by Mass. 428; Bohlen's Estate, 75
one. Tide supra,
417. Pa. 312, where there were tws.
67
Ex parte Watkins, In re Kid- trustees and the transfer was
der, 2 Mont. & A. 348; Ex parte made by one only; Loring v. Salis-
Harrison, 3 Mont. & A. 506. bury Mills, 125 Mass. 135, where
68
Farmers,' etc. Bank v. "Way- the certificates contained the
man, 5 Gill. 336. word "trustee." Certificate!* in

^H8.] SALE AND TEAJN'SFER OF STOCK.

597
registered together with the person appointed to succeed the for-
ger, as owners of the stock.'^'^ Equity will compel the corpora-
tion to purchase stock, when there has been such an illegal trans-
fer, and substitute it upon its books for that which has been the
subject of transfer
J^
The injured party also has his remedy
against the trustee, but his right of action against the corporation
is not thereby barred, unless a judgment has been recovered and
satisfied as against the trustee/^ The rights of the injured party
may be lost or waived by laches,'^^ or barred by limitation/* But
a waiver of his remedy upon former breaches of trust is not con-
sidered to estop him from seeking redress for a breach committed
thereafter.'^^ It has been held that the Bank of England need
not recognize trusts or tenancies in common, being exonerated
from registering transfers to tenants in common under the terms
^f the National Debt Act of
1870.'^

418. Of defective transfer.A defective deed of transfer

does not pass title in England and will not be registered until it
the nsime of an institution, or in
a nams with title affixedas
"cashier," "president," or other
official dosignationare not a
good transfer or delivery unless
the assignment be acknowledged
before a notary (with seal and
date), who must certify that he
knows the person signing and
knows him to be the person
authorized to aign, and that he
has seen the minutes of the in-
stitution authorsizing said person
to make said assignment. Many
companies requlr-s, in addition, a
certified copy of the resolution of
the directors of vhe company in
whose name the stock stands,
authorizing the assignment. The
assignments of cercificates in name
of "administrator," "executor,"
etc., must be accompanied by a
surrogate's certificate, showing
that the party making the as-
signment is, by the verms of the
will, made administrator, execu-
tor, etc., and authorized to dis-
pose of said stock. Certificates
in name of parties lesiding in
foreign countries must have the
assignments witnessed by United
States consuls, with seal and
date. Business Methods & Cus-
toms of Wall Street," by John H.
Davis & Co.
70 Barton v. North Staffordshire
Ry. Co. (Ch. Div. March, 1880),
4 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 34, 37.
Ti
Bohlen's Estate, 75 Pa. St.
312; Loring v. Salisbury Mills,
125 Mass. 138.
72
Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125
Mass. 138.
73
Albert v. Savings Bank, 2
Md. 159; s. c. v Md. Ch. 407.
74
Barton v. North Staffordshire
Ry. Co. (Ch. Div. March, 1888), 4
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 34, 36, citing
and quoting the opinion of Best,
C. J., in Davis v. Bank of Eng-
land, 2 Bing. 393, and declaring
that opinion not affected by the
reversal of the case which v/as
founded upon another point; cit-
ing, also. Coles v. Bank of Eng-
land, 10 Ad. & E. 449, and Slo-
man v. Bank of England, 14 Sim.
48G.
75
Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125
Mass. 138.
76
Law Guarantee & Trust Co.
V. Bank of England (1890), 8
Ry. & Corp. L. J. 47; 33 & 34
Vic. ch. 71.
598
SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
419.
is remcdled.^^ In Louisiana a corporation which without a man-
date "express and special" within the provisions of the code of
that State, has permitted a transfer of a stockholder's stoclc, is
liable for its full value and for dividends unlawfully divested.'^
The lack of the owner's indorsement on the certificate is not in-
consistent with the right of the attorney to cause the stock to be
transferred to himself.'^^ The neglect of the officers to require
an indorsement of the certificate is only non-feasance, and is no
evidence of conversion.^"

419.
Of transfer to an irresponsible person.A
valid
transfer may be made to a pauper, and, in the absence of any
other objection, the transfer on the books may be compelled,^^ but
not in case of insolvency or seeming inevitable insolvency of the
corporation ; then the corporation may refuse to allow registry of
transfer from a solvent stockholder to a "dummy" or insolvent
transferee, and whether the subscription price has been paid or
not.^^ If the corporation is solvent, it cannot refuse a transfer,
however irresponsible may be the transferee.
^^
The right of a
boiui Ude assignee of a joint-stock certificate to have the transfer
made on the company's books to his name, is not affected by an
attachment of the stock by his creditors. A charter provision
that "all stock shall be transferable only on the books of the com-
pany" refers only to the relation between the shareholders and
the company.^*
77
Manney v. Morgan, 35 Ch. stock, the corporation will not be
Div. 598. guilty of conversion simply by
78
An order by the shareholder's issuing another certificate in the
general business agent is not name of the attorney, who ap-
such a mandate. Woodhouse v. propriates the stock wrongfully.
Crescent Mut. Ins. Co.. 35 La. Tafft v. Presidio & Ferries R.
Ann. 238 (Manning, J., dissent- Co. (1889), 84 Cal. 131; s. c.
ing), construing La. Code, art. 6 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 329.
2997. . 80
Tafft v. Presidio, etc. R. Co.
T9
Tafft V. Presidio, etc. R. Co. (1889), 84 Cal. 131; s. c. 6 Ry.
(1889), 84 Cal. 131; s. c. 6 Ry. & & Corp. L. J. 329.
Corp. L. J. 329. If the attorney
si
Regina v. Midland Counties,
in fact of a stockholder presents etc., Ry. Co., 15 Ir. Ch. 525.
the certificate of stock, together
82
National, etc. Co. v. Story, etc.
with a power of attorney from Co. (1896),
111 Cal. 531; Welsh v.
the stockholder giving him full Sargent (1899), 127 Cal. 72.
authority to deal with the
83
Stuart v. Hayden (1898), 169
stock, and the corporation's U. S. 1.
oflBcers are ignorant of any
84
Clark v. German Security
intention on the part of the at- Bank, 61 Miss. 611.
torney to misappropriate the

420-421.] SALE AND TKAXSFER OF STOCK. 599

420. Right and duty of the corporation to refuse to reg-

ister, when.The corporation when in doubt of the identit}-
or of the right of the applicant for registry of a transfer of stock
may require proof of identity,^^ and of the genuineness of the
signature to the power of attorney.^ It is not the duty of the
officers of a corporation to inquire into the motives of an at-
torney in fact, having full power to transfer stock, for desiring
it to be transferred to himself. And the fact that the attorney is
also a director of the corporation, does not warrant tlie presump-
tion that the corporation had notice of his intention to convert
the stock to his own use, as he assumed to act, not for the cor-
poration, but for his principal.*"

420a. Registration of transfer. Suit to enforce a pro-

ceeding in rem.An action in equity to compel registry on
the corporate books of the legal title in the owner of stock, as
determined by the court, is in the nature of a suit in rem, and
the decree will bind non-residents where the statutory notice is
given.*

421. Interpleader by the corporation.The most effective

safeguards of the corporation against mistakes in allowing registry
of transfer, are the right of interpleader and right to refuse, until
compelled by the court to make registry, in case of demand b}"
two or more conflicting claimants. Where there is doubt as to
the right of either of two supposed transferees of the same stock
to have the transfer registered, the corporation ma}^ in an action
against it for its refusal to register, either transfer or file a bill
of interpleader.*^ It is not incumbent upon the corporation to
assume the franchises of a court to decide between conflicting
parties and rights. But where the right of one claimant appears
reasonably just, the corporation, after reasonable time allowed for
suit, and no action is taken by the contestant, should allow
85
Telegraph Co. v. Davenport
sa
Leavitt v. Fisher, 4 Duer, 1;
(1878), 97 U. S. 369. Mechanics' Bank v. Richards, 74
so
Bayard v. Farmers,' etc. Mo. 77; State Ins. Co. v. Gen-
Bank (1866), 52 Pa. St. 232. nett, 2 Tenn. Ch. 100; Purchase
87
Tafft V. Presidio, etc. R. Co. v. New Yorlc Exchange Bank, 3
(1889), 84 Cal. 131; s. c. 6 Ry. & Rob. (N. Y.) 164; Chapman v.
Corp. L. J. 329; Equity Gas New Orleans, etc. Co., 4 La. Ann.
Light Co. V. McKeige (1893), 139 153; Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. C.
N. Y. 237. 25; State Ins. Co. v. Gennett, 2
88
Patterson v. Farmington, etc, Tenn. Ch. 82.
Co. (Conn. 1904), 57 Atl. 853.
600
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
422.
registry by the other party. If the corporation is under mandate
of a court to allow registry, it must obey it, and will be protected
in obeying the decree, though it be reversed on appeal.^^ Where
there are two such claimants to stock, he who holds the certificate
is in the better position."- But if the corporation has registered
the transfer of either of the claimants, it can not thereafter inter-
plead, having expressly recognized a title to the stock.^ Where
a corporation receives notice of a transfer but is enjoined, from
completing it on the books, it must still observe the rights of the
transferee."* In England a corporation is bound to register
shares purchased by a married woman in accordance with the
terms of the Married Woman's Property Act,^^ unless it can show
that her title is not otherwise good.^ The company, having the
control of the register, has it in its own power, while a going con-
cern, to complete the membership of the transferee; but it may
be doubted whether, after a winding-up order has been made, it
has any right to have the register altered.'^ By the English Com-
panies Clauses Act, the effect of the closing of the register of
transfers for a specified time before such regular meeting, is that
"any transfer made during the time when the transfer books are
so closed shall, as between the company and the party claimino;
imder the same, but not otherwise, be considered as made subse-
quently to such ordinary meeting."^^

422. Grounds for refusal to allow registry. Lien of the

corporation.Under the Companies Clauses Act of England, a
corporation may refuse to register a transfer of stock until the
transferrer has paid all calls due from him upon his stock."^ And
a call, within the meaning of the act, is made when the resolution
90
Hinckley v. Pfister (1892),
90
Regina v. Carnatic Ry. Co.,
83 Wis. 64. L. R. 8 Q. B. 299.
91
Purchase v. New York, etc.
97
Shelford on Joint-Stock Corn-
Bank (1865), 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 164. panies, 115, citing Joint Stock
92Maybin v. Kirby, 4 Rich. Eq. Discount Co., Richell's Case, L.
105; Societe Generale de Paris v. R. 3 Ch. 119; General Floating
Tramways Union Co., 14 Q. B. Dock Co., 15 L. T. N. S. 526;
Div. 424; s. c. L. R. 11 H. of L. Mitchell's Case, L.. R. 4 App. Cas.
20.
Gf. Crawford v. Dox, 5 Hun. 548; Chappell's Case, L. R. 6 Ch.
507.
902; Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch.
93Dalton V. Midland Counties 685; Ex parte Parker, L. R. 2
Ry. Co., 12 C. B. 458. Ch. 685.
94
Purchase v. New York Ex-
98
8 Vic. ch. 16,
17.
change Bank, 3 Rob. (N. Y.), 164.
99
8 Vic' ch. 16, 16; Hall v.
95
33 & 34 Vic. ch. 93,
S
4. Norfolk, etc. Co., 21 L. J. Q. B.
94; Regina v. Wing, 17 Q. B. 645.

422,] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 601

authorizing it has been passed.^ This rule is followed in the
United States.-
Lieii upon subscription price.The corporation has no lien
upon the subscription price, and no right to refuse registry because
it is not fully paid, unless such lien is expressly provided for in
the charter or by-laws. For that part of the subscription price not
called in, the transferrer is released, upon making the transfer,
and the transferee assumes the liability upon all calls made after
application for registry of transfer.^ Even if the indebtedness of
the stockholder to the corporation is less than the amount of stock
held by him, the corporation can not be forced to register all
the shares over and above the amount of the indebtedness.* But
where the original subscriber to the stock of a corporation neg-
lected to pay the instalments, an assignee, consenting to comply
wath the corporate regulations, may, on tendering the amount of
the instalments, with interest, maintain a suit in equity to compel
an issue to him of a stock certificate.^ On the other hand, where
stock is actually transferred upon which the corporation has a
lien, without, however, any notice of the lien to the purchaser,
the lien is discharged as to him. Under the Wisconsin statute,
which provides that a corporation shall have a lien on all stock
for debts due it from the owner, the purchaser of stock upon
w^iich a portion of the purchase price is still due from the original
owner, is entitled to a registration of the transfer of the stock,
subject to the lien of the corporation for the unpaid balance.'^ A
corporation may not, by means of a by-law, create a lien on the
stock of a stockholder indebted to it, and so defeat the transfer
of the stock upon its books.^ It can not refuse to make a trans-
1
Regina v. Londonderry, etc.
s
iron R. Co. v. Fink, 41 Ohio
Ry. Co., 13 Q. B.. 998; Ex parte St. 321; s. c. 52 Am. Rep. 84.
Tooke, IS L. J. Q. B. 343; In re
e
West Nashville etc. Co. v.
British Provident, etc., Soc, 32 Nashville Savings Bank, 87 Tenn.
L. J. Ch. 633. 252; Erskine v. Loewenstein, 82
2McCready v. Rumsey, 6 Duer, Mo. 301; s. c. 11 Mo. App. 595.
574; Brent v. Bank of "Washing- 7 Rev. Stat. Wis.
1751; Herde-
ton, 10 Peters, 596; Newbury v, gen v. Cotzhausen (1888), 70 Wis.
Detroit, etc. R. Co., 17 Mich. 141. 539.
3 Cole v. Adams (1898), 19 Tex.
s
Farmers,' etc. Bank v. Was-
Civ. App. 507; Bell's Appeal son, 48 Iowa, 336; s. c. 30 Am.
(1887), 115 Pa. St. 88. Rep. 398; Driscoll v. West Brad-
4Pierson v. Bank of Washing- ley, etc. Co., 59 N. Y. 96; Steam-
ton, 3 Cranch, 363; Sewall v. ship Dock Co. v Heron, 52 Pa. St.
Lancaster Bank, 17 Serg. & R. 2S6: Mobile Mutual Ins. Co. v.
285. Cullom, 49 Ala. 558; Williams v.
Lowe, 4 Neb. 382, 398.
G02
SALE AND TKANSKER OF STOCK.
[
423-427.
fcr upon its books for want of consideration for the transfer,*
But it is not bound to recognize the transferee of one who sub-
scribed before incorporation.^"

423.
Of transfer of stolen or lost certificate.Upon al-
leged loss of the old certificate, the corporation, before registry of
its transfer, muSt require bond of indemnity against possibility
of its not being lost."

424.
Of transfer by trustees.It is the duty of the cor-
poration to refuse registry of transfer of stock by a trustee unless
upon his production of the instrument creating the trust and
expressly authorizing the sale. For transfer in neglect of this
duty, the corporation is liable to the trust estate.^
^

425.
Of transfer by guardian.As it is the right of the
guardian to change the investment of the funds of his ward, and
consequent right to sell the stock he holds as guardian, the cor-
poration must register any transfer of such stock upon his applica-
tion, and without requiring any order or decree of court authoriz-
ing the transfer.^^

425. Of transfer by executor or administrator.The cor-

poration must register a transfer of the sale of stock belonging
to the estate, by a domestic executor or administrator, upon
presentation of his letters of administration, and regardless of the
necessit}^ for such sale,^'* unless the corporate oiBcers have actual
knowledge that a breach of trust is attempted by such executor.^^

427.
Non-liability of the corporation for registry of trans-
fer by an executor.So far as the corporation is concerned, it
incurs no liability by reason of its registration of a transfer of
stock by an executor or administrator, nor is it under any obliga-
tion to investigate the object or intention of the transferrer,^?
except in cases in which it is chargeable with notice that the
transfer is made for the benefit of the executor or administrator.^'^
9 Helm V. Swiggett, 12 Ind. 194.
i*
London, etc. Bank v. Aron-
10
Hawkins v. Mansfield, etc. stein (1902), 117 Fed. 601.
Co., 52' Cal. 513; Morrison v. Gold iRPeck v. Bank of America
Mountain, etc., Co., 52 Cal. 306. (1890), 16 R. I. 710.
Contra, Baltimore, etc. Ry. Co. v.
ic
Crocker v. Old Colony R. Co.,
Sewell, 35 Md. 238; s. c. 6 Am. 137 Mass. 417; Goodwin v. Ameri-
Rep. 402; Merrimac, etc. Co. v. can National Bank, 48 Conn. 550;
Levy, 54 Pa. St. 227. Hutchins v. State Bank, 53 Mass.
11
Guilford v. Western Union 421; Carter v. Manufacturers' Na-
Tel. Co. (1890), 43 Minn. 434. tional Bank, 71 Me. 448.
12
Bayard v. Farmers,' etc.
17
Lowry v. Commercial, etc.
Bank
(1866), 52 Pa. St. 232. Bank, Taney, 310.
13
Lamar v. Micou (1884), 112
U. S. 452.

42S.] SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK. 603

Where a corporation, upon the appHcation of an administrator,
transfers the shares standing in the name of his testator to him,
the administrator not producing the certificate, if the transfer is
unauthorized, the corporation is Hable.^^ It has been held that
the corporation is chargeable with knowledge of the contents of
a will,^" but, upon better authority, this is denied.-" Where, how-
ever, the time fixed by statute for the administration of an estate
has passed and its afl^airs should be finally settled, the executor
ceases to be an executor, except sub illo nomine, and assumes the
duties of an ordinary trustee created subject to the terms of the
will. The corporation, and parties dealing with him for, a trans-
fer of the shares, are then put upon inquiry, and in order to be-
come entitled to protection in the future, they must examine the
terms of the will to determine his power to sell.-^ And where
an executor combines in his person the functions of an ordinary
trustee with those of an executor, transfers of stock by him as
trustee are subject to the rules regulating such transfers.^- The
corporation is not bound to go back of the letters testamentary, or
letters of administration, to determine the authority of an ex-
ecutor or administrator, and they will protect the corporation
where it permits registration.^^ But when a corporation has no-
tice that a transferrer is acting as agent without power to sell, it
becomes liable to the principal if it registers the transfer, even
if the certificates in the agent's possession are indorsed in blank.-*

428. Liability of the corporation for allowing registry of

forged certificate. The English rule.The question of re-
sponsibility for forged transfers of stocks long ago attracted at-
tention in England. It is the custom of railway companies, when
a deed of transfer is sent in for registration, to notify the regis-
is
Brisbane V. Delaware, Lacka- 22
white v. Price, 39 Hun, 394;
wanna, etc. R. Co., 25 Hun. 438. Prall v. Tilt, 28 N. J. Eq. 479;
19
Stewart v. Firemen's Ins. Co., s. c. 27 N. J. Eq. 393.
53 Md. 564.
23
Bayard v. Farmers,' etc.
20Hutcliins V. State Bank, 53 Bank, 52 Pa. St. 235; Lowry v.
Mass. 421. 310, 332; Field v. Schieffelin, 7
21
Lowry v. Commercial, etc. Comm.ercial, etc. Bank, Taney,
Bank, Taney, 310, 332; "The Johns. Ch. 155; Petrie v. Clark, 11
Rights and Duties of Corpora- Serg. & R. 377; s. c. 14 Am. Dec.
tions in Dealing with Stock held 636; Hutchins v. State Bank, 12
in a Fiduciary Capacity," by Fran- Met. 423; Keene v. Roberts, 4
els B. Patten, 18 Am. Law Rev. Mad. Ch. 332.
975, 977; Bayard v. Farmers,' 24
Woodhouse v. Crescent Mu-
etc, Bank, 52 Pa. St. 236; Petrie tual Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 238.
V. Clark, 11 Serg. & R. 377; s. c.
14 Am. Dec. 636.
GOi
SALE AND TEANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
428.
terecl holder whose stock it is proposed to transfer, that the deed
has been deposited, giving at the same time the amount and
description of stock, and the purchaser's name, and stating that,
if the holder has executed the transfer, no further notice need
be taken of the information so conveyed. Failing any notification
to the contrary, it is assumed that the deed of transfer is correct,
and has been duly executed by the registered holder. So far as
the company is concerned, this is all the precaution that can
reasonably be expected. The attestation of the signature in the
form required on every transfer, is accepted as a guaranty of its
genuineness by the purchaser, as well as by the company, who act
as the mere agents for transferring the stock as registered in their
books. At the half-yearly meetings of some of the railway com-
panies, the shareholders present, by resolution, authorize the
directors to affix the seal of the company to the register of share-
holders, and by such act they adopt all the changes that may have
been made to that date, on the register of shareholders. If the
registrar of the company makes the transfer required, and if the
shareholders accept the transfer, the question arises, who, in the
event of forgery or other irregularity in the deed of transfer, is
to be responsible?-^ The London Stock Exchange Committee
has, among its rules now in force, one to the effect that "the seller
of shares of stock is responsible for the genuineness and regularity
of all documents delivered, and for such dividends as may be
received, until reasonable time has been allowed to the transferee
25
The Railway News, London, kept at the Bank of England. The
Oct. 25, 1890, where It is said Bank of England, however, re-
further: "The London Stock Ex- placed the stock, thus continuing
change Committee has expressed to uphold their principle 'that
the opinion that certificates of registration in their books give
stock should be made indefeasible. an indefeasible title.' Mr. Wal-
In support of the view that rail- ford points out that 'during
way certificates should be inde- the last two years, Parlia-
feasible, Mr. Ernest L. Walford ment, by means of the Trust
points out that, although in the Funds Investment Act, has au-
Barton case the amount of North- thorized the transfer of these
Western Company's stock involved funds to various English railway
was only 1,000, the total amount securities. It is, therefore, in-
involved in the various stocks cumbent on Parliament either to
forged was 40,000, and it is revise the Trust Funds Investment
most melancholy to contemplate Act, striking out all English rall-
the extent of misery which these way securities, or to insist that
forgeries have caused. Among the the companies shall give an inde-
stocks were some Scinde Railway feasible title.'
"
annuities, the register of which is

428.] SALE AND TKAKSFEK OF STOCK. 605

to execute and duly lodge such documents for verification and
registration."^^
Allowing registry
of
forged transfer.Although a forged cer-
tificate of stock may have come to the hands of an innocent pur-
chaser and thus be lost by the owner, he can not lose his property
by the forgery. In place of the stock, he may recover its value,
either from the corporation for permitting the transfer, or from
the transferee obtaining the registry. The forgery is generally
of the name of the shareholder to the indorsed form of the
transfer.^^ One who signs as witness, though innocently, a
forged transfer of stock, is liable to the owner for its value." A
bona Rde purchaser of a forged bond, may recover the price from
a bona fide vendor thereof, there being an implied warranty of
identity of the thing sold.-'' A forged transfer conveys no title
to stock.^" The transferee of a forged certificate of stock cannot
retain the stock where no transfer has been registered since the
forgery. One who obtains the first registry of a forged cer-
tificate of stock has no rights except as against his transferrer.^^
Forgery
of
transfer
of
registered bonds.The treasurer of
a corporation having railroad bonds registered in its name, of
his own motion, forged a resolution of authority of transfer by
directors of the corporation, also forged the corporate seal and
26
stock ExQhange Rules, No. a certificate be lost or destroyed,
86. And it is added that "when then, upon proof thereof to the
an official certificate of registra- satisfaction of the directors, a new
tion of shares or stock has been certificate shall be given to the
issued, the committee will not party entitled to the certificate so
(unless bad faith is alleged lost or destroyed." It is, we be-
against the sellers) take cogni- lieve, the almost universal prac-
zance of any subsequent dispute tice of companies to exact these
as to title until the legal issue indemnities, but whether any of
has been decided, the reasonable them has ever been successfully
expenses of which legal proceed- sued on we cannot say. We
ing shall be borne by the seller." gravely doubt whether they would
It is plain that this rule requires be supported in a court of law.
very careful examination and re- The Law Times, Nov. 1, 1890.
vision. The expression "reasona-
27
Sewell v. Boston, etc. Co.
ble time," for instance, is very (1862), 86 Mass. 277.
vague, and some express prima
2s
Second Nat. Bank v. Curtiss
facie limitation of time should (1896), 2 N. Y. App. Div. 508, 153
take its place. Apropos, by what N. Y. 681.
authority do the companies exact
29
Meyer v. Richardson (1896),
indemnities from holders of stock 163 U. S. 385.
who have lost their certificates
3o
Richardson v. E m m e tt
before they will issue new ones? (1901), 61 N. Y. App. Div. 205.
The Companies Clauses Act, 1845,
31
Machinists' National Bank v.
section 13, simply enacts that "if Field (1879), 126 Mass. 345.
C06
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK.
[
429,
signatiues of the officers, and forged a power of attorney to the
local transfer agent of the railroad, to transfer the bonds to
bearer. The railroad agent thereupon, in good faith, executed the
power by transfer of the bonds to a broker by whom they were
sold. Held, that the corporation was not liable, but that the rail-
road company was responsible. The ,bonds being registered, it
was its duty, by its transfer agent, to satisfy itself of the genuine-
ness of the power of attorney to him, upon which he made the
transfer, and that the railroad was therefore liable to the cor-
poration for the value of the bonds so transferred."-

429.
Liability of the corporation, for wrongful registry.

The rule is well settled that the corporation occupies the position
of a trustee towards its stockholders, so far that it is bound to ex-
ercise reasonable diligence in protecting the title of the beneficial
owner of stock, against wrongful registry of transfer by the trus-
tee, executor or other trustee; and that the corporation is respon-
sible to the beneficial owner for any injury sustained by him
through its negligence, or misconduct in permitting such wrongful
registry.^^
Illustrations
:
Where the transfer by an executor was intended
to be in pledge and not as a sale, but there was nothing in the
transaction that would lead an ordinarily prudent man to suspect
that a wrong was being committed, the corporation was held not
liable in permitting the registry as an absolute sale.^* Where the
corporation had notice that the holder of certain shares held them
in trust, and allowed the registry of sale without making due in-
quiry into the authority of the trustee to sell the shares, it was
held liable to the beneficiary of the trust.^^ Where the executors
of a will, who w^ere also trustees thereunder with power to sell the
real estate, but no express power to sell the stock owned by tes-
tator at his decease, and the corporation had express notice of the
trust, and it appeared on the certificates and on the transfer
books of the corporation, and after the death of the trustees ap-
pointed in the will, the orphan's court appointed others in their
32
Jennie Clarkson, etc. v. Ches- 643; Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125
apeake & O. Ry. Co. (1900), 83 N. Mass. 138; Duncan v. Jandon, 15
Y. Supp. 913; Jennie Clarkson, Wall. (U. S.) 165; Bayard v.
etc. V. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (1900), Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232.
83 N. Y. Supp. 913; Jennie Clark-
34
Peck v. Providence, etc. Gas
son, etc. V. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (1892), 17 R. I. 275, 15 L. R.
Co. (1900), 83 N. Y. Supp. 913. A. 643.
33
Peck V. Providence Gas Co.
35
Loring v. Salisbury Mills, 125
(1892), 17 R. I. 275, 15 L. R. A. Mass. 138.'

429.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. COT

place, to whom the stock was transferred as trustees, the corpora-
tion afterwards permitted one of the trustees, acting for himself,
with power of attorney from the others, to transfer the stock, and
he converted the proceeds to his own use and ahsconded, the cor-
poration was held liable."*' Where the will creating the trust gave
the trustee no power of sale, and he was entitled only to the income
during his life, and the corporation permitted him to register on
the corporation books, absolute sale and transfer of the stock to
an innocent purchaser without notice, the corporation was held
liable.^'^ Where an executor transferred upon the corporate
books stock belonging to the estate, after his removal by the court
from his office of executor, the corporation was held liable for
the wrongful transfer.^* Where the corporation permitted stock
standing in the name of a trustee under a will, to be transferred
without an order of court, the corporation having constructive
knowledge of the will under which the stock was held in trust,
was held liable.^ Where the bank transferred stock under power
of attorney from an insane person, it was held that the corpora-
tion took the risk of invalidity of the powxr. If it is void, for any
cause, for example, if it be forged or given by an infant, or by
a lunatic, the corporation is responsible. Its ignorance of such
invalidity of the power is no defense. It may refuse to recognize
the power.'*'' If a transfer is improperly allowed, the company
is liable to the party injured.*^ Accordingly, if upon presenta-
tion of an application for the transfer of stock, the officers of the
company are not satisfied that the proposed transfer is regular and
proper, they may require the person applying for the transfer to
produce sufficient proof of his authority.*^ They may take a
reasonable length of time to complete their investigations.*"
36
Bohlen's Estate, 75 Pa. St. deem it necessary they may re-
;04.
quire the presence of the stoclc-
3T
CaulMns v. Gas Light Co., 95 holder himself. Telegraph Co. v.
Tenn. 634, 4 S. W. 287. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369; Mechan-
38
Railway Co. v. Humphries ics' Banking Assn. v. Mariposa
(Miss.), t South. 522. Co., 3 Rob. (N. Y.) 395; Davis v.
39Marbury v. Ehlen, 72 Md. Bank of England, 2 Bing. 393.
,206, 19 Atl. 648.
^^ Bayard v. Farmers,' etc.,
40
Chew V. Bank, 14 Md. 299. Bank, 52 Pa. St. 232; Societe Gen-
41
Cohen v. Gwynn (1848)),
4 erale de Paris v. Walker 11 App.
Md. Ch. 357; Mechanics' Bank v. Cas. 21, 41; Colonial Bank v.
Seton, 1 Pet. 299. Whinney, 11 App. Cas. 426. But
42
Telegraph Co. v. Davenport, a reasonable time only can be
97 U. S. 3B9; Davis v. Bank of consumed in the investigation,
England, 2 Bing. 393. And if they and unneccessary delay, even the
COS
SALE AND TEANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
430.
Where a forged transfer has been registered and the purchaser
thereunder sells to an innocent third party new certificates issued
by the company, the company is liable upon the statements con-
tained in the new certificates. The measure of damages in such
a case is : value of the stock at the time of the company's
refusal to recognize the last purchaser of the stock.'** The fact
that the company consults counsel before making the transfer to
the purchasers, does not protect it from liability, if there is no
evidence as to what facts were communicated, or what records ex-
hibited, to the attorney upon which he based his opinion.*^ Where
a corporation negligently cancels a member's stock, and issues cer-
tificates therefor to a third person, who has purchased it from
one not authorized to sell it, the true owner is not bound to pursue
the purchaser, but may proceed directly against the corporation
alone, to compel it to replace his stock, or pay him its value.''^
A stockholder may sue the corporation alone for the value of his
stock, illegally transferred, or he may contest the title of the trans-
feree contradictorily with both.*^

430.
Registry without surrender of the certificate.

Whether the surrender of the old certificate is by by-law or other-

wise, required to be made or accounted for upon registry of its
transfer, the obligation is upon the corporation where it does not
so require it, and the outstanding certificate is wrongfully trans-
ferred, the owner may hold the corporation liable for the value of
the stock.*^ Where the by-laws and certificates of a corporation
provide that stock shall be transferable only on the books of the
company, either in person or by attorney, and upon the surrender
and cancellation of the old certificate, no one can claim to be a
bona fide holder of the stock who acquiesces in the registration of
unexplained delay of more than a Harned, 23 Blatchf. 494; Machin-
day, tias been held sufficient to ists' National Bank v. Field, 126
entitle the transferee to dam- Mass. 345; In re Bahia, etc. Ry.
ages. Catchpole v. Ambergate, Co., L. R. 3 Q. R. 584.
etc. Ry. Co., 1 El. & B. Ill; Sut-
45
Caulkins v. Memphis Gas
ton V. Bank of England, 1 Craig Light Co. (1887), 85 Tenn. 683;
& P. 193.
s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. 786.
44
In re Bahia, etc. Ry. Co., L.
46
st. Romes v. Levee Steam
R. 3 Q. B. 584; Hart v. Frontino, Cotton Press Co. (1888), 127 U. S.
etc., Co., L. R. 5 Ex. 111. The cer- 614.
tificate is an evidence of the title
47
Woodhouse "v. Crescent Mut.
of the person in whose name it Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 238.
is issued to a portion of the cap-
48
Tafft v. Presidio, etc. R. R.
ital of the company, and that fact (1890), 84 Cal. 131; Factors,' etc.
is formally certified by the corpor- Ins. Co. v. Marine, etc. Co. (1879),
ation.
Manhattan Beach Co. v. 31 La. Ann. 149, 11 L. R. A. 125.

430.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 609

his name as a stockholder without insisting upon the surrender
and cancellation of the certificate, even if new certificates are
issued to him, for the failure to produce the old certificates for can-
cellation is notice of the possible existence of equities against him.
If the corporation allows transfer without surrender for cancella-
tion of the old certificate, unless it was lost or stolen, the cor-
poration is liable to any bona Me purchaser.*^ Though the failure
to have stock certificates surrendered and cancelled upon a trans-
fer on the corporate books, does not necessarily render the title of
the transferee incomplete, the transfer upon the books being suf-
ficient to vest the title in a bona fide transferee,^^ yet he may insist
upon the production and cancellation of the certificates.^^ When,
therefore, a corporation has finally permitted the transfer on its
books, it will not thereafter be permitted to set it aside on the
ground that the legal title of the transferee is not perfect, and he
may enforce his right to have his name appear as a stockholder
on the official records of the corporation.^^ But where stock is
49
Factors,' etc. Ins. Co. v. Ma-
rine, etc. Co., 31 La. Ann. 149.
50
Baker v. Wasson, 53 Tex. 150,
156; citing New YorK, etc. R. Co.
V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 80.
51
Boatmen's Ins. etc. Co. v.
Able, 48 Mo. 136.
52Cady V. Potter, 55 Barb. 463;
Ward V. South-Eastern Ry. Co., 2
El. & E. 812. When a certificate
of stock is transferred as collat-
eral with power of attorney in-
dorsed, the holder of the certifi-
cate is the only person en-
titled to make the transfer
on the books, and a sale of the
original owner's interest under an
attachment in an action against
him, after the delivery, passes no
title, and the corporation has no
power to make a transfer under
the sale; if it does it is liable.
Smith v. American Coal Co.
(1873), 7 Lans. 317; Smith v.
Crescent City, etc. Co., 30 La.
Ann. 1378. So that a transferee
who has been registered, but has
been unable to obtain the cer-
tificates, must, in order to obtain
title, either attach the stock or
enjoin his vendor from transfer-
VOL. 1

39
ring the certificates Quarl v. Ab-
bett
(1886), 102 Ind. 233. This
is the only method in which the
rights of such a transferee to the
stock can be preserved, for a no-
tice to the corporation is of no
avail. So in a case where a
guardian is sued by sureties to
prevent a transfer of stock by
him, the filing of a suit is not
effective as a notice to the corpor-
ation to refuse to permit a trans-
fer by the defendant. Bank of
Virginia v. Craig, 6 Leigh, 399.
Cf.
Dovey's Appeal, 97 Pa. St. 153.
Likewise one to whom stock is
transferred by the defendant in
an action in which the title to
stock is involved can not be made
chargeable with notice of the
action. Holbrook v. New Jersey
Zinc Co., 57 N. Y. 616; Leitch v.
Wells, 48 N. Y. 586. But a trans-
fer by a defendant after judgment
is obtained, will be ineffectual to
pass the title of the stock and
the rights of the plaintiff and tho
corporation will be unimpaired.
Sprague v. Cocheco Manuf. Co.
(1872), 10 Blatch. 173.
/7
GIO SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
430.
assigned and a certificate is obtained by the transferee from the
company, upon whose books the transaction is properly entered,
and the same stock is subsequently assigned to a third party, who
also obtains a certificate, which, by an oversight on the part of
the secretary, is issued, the second transferee acquires neither a
legal nor an equitable title to the stock
f^
although, if he were
a bona fide purchaser, and the sale to him had been made upon
false representations of the company or its officers, he might have
a remedy."^* When a transferee has had the transaction properly
recorded by the company, and is without notice of the previous
sale of the certificates, he is not liable.^'' And a bona fide pur-
chaser for value of stock standing in the name of his vendor on
the books of the company, does not hold it subject to equities of
third persons of which he had no notice.^"
Liability
of
the corporation
for
registry zvithoiit certificate.

When a transfer is made for the purpose of collateral security

without surrender of the certificate and transfer on the books as
required by a statute, the corporation can, on the ground that
it has a lien on the stock, which is prohibited by the statute, refuse
to make the proper transfer of the stock without making itself
liable to the assignee in damages for the conversion of the stock.^''
In Colorado it has been held that the title to stock can pass, under
the laws of that State, as against creditors of the stockholders,
only by transfer upon the books of the company. So, where
stock, which is purchased but not so transferred by the purchaser,
is subsequently sold in attachment proceedings by a creditor of
the vendor, the title to the stock passes to the purchaser in the
attachment proceedings.^'' An unrecorded transfer of corporate
stock prevails, in Massachusetts, as against the attachment of
one having knowledge or notice of the transfer.^^ The surrender
of the old shares should be demanded even when the transferee
53
Houston & Texas Central Ry.
s?
Nicollet National Bank v. City-
Co. V. Van Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439; Bank (1887), 38 Minn. 85.
Smith V. North American, etc.
58
Conway v. John (Colo. 1890),
Co., 1 Nev. 423. 7 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 437.
54
Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Van
59
Bridgev/ater Iron Co. v. Liss-
Alstyne, 56 Tex. 439. berger, 116 U. S. 8; Telford & F.
55
Baker v. Wasson, 53 Tex. 150. Co. v. Gerhab (Pa. 1888), 13 At-
56Caulkins v. Gas L. Co., 85 Ian. Rep. 90. Cf. Van Cise v.
Tenn. 683; s. c. 4 Am. St. Rep. Merchants' Nat. Bank (Dak.
786.
Gf.
Supply Ditch Co. v. El- 1887), 33 N. W. Rep. 897; Thur-
liot, 10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am. St. ber v. Crump (1888), 86 Ky. 408;
Rep. 586. Bates v. New York Ins. Co., 3
Johns. Cas. 238.

430.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 611

is the purchaser of the stock at an execution sale.'' And when
an assignee takes a certificate of stock upon which conditions af-
fecting the title thereof are printed, he takes it under a title
subordinate to that of the corporation under those conditions,
when he allows the corporation to perform certain acts in pur-
suance of the conditions and in ignorance of the transfer.^ Where
the legal title to shares of stock is only assignable on the books
of the corporation, an assignment not made or recorded on the
books, is not valid.''^
CO
Hazard v. National Exchange
Bank, 26 Fed. Rep. 94; Smith v.
American Coal Co., 7 Lans. 317.
Cf. St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Wil-
son, 114 U. S. 60; Rogers v. Ste-
vens, 8 N. J. Eq. 167. And when
stock was purchased subsequent to
an attachment levy, the title did
not pass superior to that acquired
hy the purchaser at the attach-
ment sale, even when negotir^tions
for the purchase were had before
the writ was issued, and at the
time of the assignment of the
stock neither the vendor nor- ven-
dee had any actual notice of the
levy. Young v. South Tredegar
Iron Co., 87 Tenn. 189; s. c. 4
Am. St. Rep. 752. If the attach-
ment is made and the stock levied
on before a transfer of the stocJ^.
the corporation cannot refuse to
make a transfer on its books and
issue a certificate to the purchaser
at a sale in execution of the judg-
ment on the ground that the
stock had been assigned to a
third party before judgment.
Morehead v. Western, etc. R. Co.,
96 N. C. 362. In an action by
the purchaser, under attachment
and execution, of shares of a rail-
road company, to compel the cor-
poration to transfer to him, upon
the stock books of the company,
the shares so purchased, and to
execute the proper certificate, it
is no defense on the part of the
company that, prior to the judg-
ment under which the stock was
sold, the stock had been duly as-
signed to a third party, there
being no allegation or evidence
that the assignment was made
prior to the attachment levy.
Morehead v. Western N. C. R. Co.
(1887), 96 N. C. 362. Yet, when
the stock purchased at an execu-
tion sale was transferred by the
direction of the court after a trial
and the decision of the court of
last resort without the cancella-
tion of the certificate, the cor-
poration is not liable to the holder
of the outstanding certificate who
took no pains to protect himself.
Friedlander v. Slaughter House
Co., 31 La. Ann. 523; National
Bank v. Lake Shore, etc. R. Co.,
21 Ohio St. 221.
Cf. State v. War-
ren, etc. Co., 32 N. J. 439; Chap-
man v. New Orleans, etc. Co., 4
La. Ann. 153. When, however,
the court commanded the defend-
ant corporation to cancel, to a
certain extent and amount, a
stock certificate which it had
previously issued to one H., in
which was a statement as to own-
ership and transfer, and in lieu
thereof to issue another certifi-
cate to the plaintiff, the court
having jurisdiction of the defend-
ant corporation and the defendant
H., but not having possession of
the certificate which it attempted
to cancel, it was held that the de-
cree was erroneous. Joslyn v. St.
Paul Distilling Co. (Minn.
1890 J,
8 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 332.
ci
Jennings v. Bank of Califor-
nia (1889), 79 Cal. 323; s. c. 12
Am. St. Rep. 145, 5 L. R. A. 233.
G-'Lippitt V. American Wood
612
SALE AND TKANSFER OF STOCK.
[
430.
Registry unnecessary unless required by charter.No record
on the books of the company is required, however, to perfect the
transfer of stock unless so provided by the charter and by-laws of
the corporation.^^ A corporation is ordinarily justified in treating
the assignee, or holder of stock certificates, as the legal or equit-
able owner thereof.^* The company is trustee for the stockhold-
ers and i^ bound to protect their interest,^^ and having the power,
upon the demand of an alleged assignee of its stock, to have a
transfer on the books made, to ascertain who this owner is, by re-
quiring the production of the certificate, it is liable to the real
holder of the certificate ; and the title of the transferee upon the
books is not affected by the non-cancellation of the old certificate.^
And therefore the transfer of stock on the books, without the
presence of the original certificate, is made at the peril of the cor-
poration."^ So that, upon stock so issued by wrong or mistake,
Paper Co. (1885), 15 R. I. 141; s.
c. 2 Am. St. Rep. 886. By the terms
of a stock certificate, it was trans-
ferable upon the books of the
corporation only upon its produc
tion. B., the owner of the certi-
ficate, transferred it to A. No
transfer was made on the books.
After B.'s death his administrator
represented that the certificate
was lost, and the corporation
thereupon issued a new one to
him, made a transfer on its books
and paid to him dividends, and it
was held that, notwithstanding
A. could compel the issue of a
certificate to himself, but that the
dividends were properly paid to
B.'s administrator, as no rule re-
quired the production of a certi-
ficate upon making a demand for
dividends. Brisbane v. Delaware,
L. & W. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 204.
03
Sayles v. Bates, 15 R. I. 342.
6i
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott
(1887), 10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am.
St. Rep. 586.
csSupply
Ditch Co. v. Elliott
(1887), 10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am.
St. Rep. 586; New York, etc. R.
Co. V. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 81;
Moores v. Citizens' National Bank,
111 U. S. 156; Bank v. Lanier, 11
Wall.
369; Brisbane v. Delaware,
L. & W. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 204;
Cushman v. Thayer, Manuf. Co., 76
N. Y. 365; s. c. 3 Am. Rep. 315.
60
New York, etc. R. Co. v.
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 81; Pol-
lock V. National Bank, 7 N. Y.
274; s. c. 57 Am. Dec. 520; Davis.
V. Bank of England, 2 Bing.
397;'
Ashby V. Blackwell, 2 Eden, Ch.
299. A by-law providing that
stock can only be transferred on
surrender of the certificate to
the president or secretary, who
shall write "cancelled" thereon
before issuing a new certificate,
was held merely intended to pro-
tect the interests of the corpora-
tion. A delivery of a certificate
by A. to B., without transfer on
the books, as collateral security,
with A.'s name signed thereon to
a blank transfer, is valid as
against C, an attaching creditor
of A., and on garnishment thereof,
the court may order the shares
to be sold, and the proceeds paid
first to B., to the extent of his
debt, and the surplus, if any, to
be applied to C.'s judgment. See-
ligson V. Brown, 61 Tex. 114.
07
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott
(1887), 10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am.
St. Rep. 586; State v. New Or-
leans, etc. R. Co., 30 La. Ann. 308;

430.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 613

the corporation is liable to a bona Me holder of the certificate.*
The stock thus receives a character of negotiability,* "When
the original stockholder, to whom such a certificate has been
issued, comes to the corporation to transfer the stock, its books
are notice to it that the certificate has been issued. The by-laws
and the certificate are notice that it must be surrendered before
the stock can be transferred, and its non-production is notice
that it is not in possession of the party claiming the transfer.
These facts operate as notice that some other party is its owner,
and they put the corporation upon inquiry that would lead ordin-
ary sagacity to the truth ; and this is equivalent in equity to
actual notice of all the rights that inquiry might develop."'^"
A purchaser, in good faith, of certificates of stock which a cor-
poration has transferred on its books without the surrender and
cancellation thereof, when the certificate and by-laws state that
transfers will be made only upon such surrender, has his remedy
against the corporation, or the officer responsible for the im-
Smith V. Crescent City, etc. Co., 30
La. Ann. 378; Strange v. Houston,
etc. R. Co., 53 Tex. 162; Bridge-
port Bank v. New York. etc. R.
Co., 30 Conn. 231; Cleveland, etc.
R. Co. V. Robbins, 35 Ohio St. 483.
Cf.
Hart V. Frontino, etc. Co., L.
R. 5 Ex. 111. Contra, Shropshire,
etc. Ry. & Canal Co. v. Queen, L.
R. 7 H. L. 496, 509; Houston, etc.
Ry. Co. V. Van Alstyne, 56 Tex.
439; Hall v. Rose Hill, etc. Road
Co., 70 111. 673. Especially where
the certificate contains the state-
ment that transfers will be made
upon the books of the company
upon the surrender and cancella-
tion of the certificate, it is an as-
surance on the part of the com-
pany that stock will be transferred
only to those in possession of the
certificate. Lanier v. First Nat.
Bank, 11 Wall. 377; Brisbane v.
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 94 N. Y.
204; s. c. 25 Hun. 438.
68
Supply Ditch Co. v. Elliott
(1887), 10 Colo. 327; s. c. 3 Am.
St. Rep. 586, holding that a boiia
fide
purchaser of certificates of
stock will hold them against the
true owner, where the latter
placed it in the power of the as-
signor to perpetrate a fraud on an
innocent purchaser. The real
owner of stock transferred by the
carelessness of the corporation,
where certificates have been is-
sued therefor, may compel the cor-
poration to replace the stock or
pay the value of it. He is not con-
fined to a remedy against the
transferee. St. Romes v. Cotton
Press Co., 127 U. S. 614; Loring v.
Frue, 104 U. S. 223; Telegraph Co.
V. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369; Loring
V. Salisbury Mills, 125 Mass. 138;
Pratt V. Taunton Copper Co., 123
Mass. 110; Pratt v. Boston, etc. R.
Co., 126 Mass. 443; Salisbury Mills
V. Townsend, 109 Mass. 115;
Pennsylvania R. Co.'s Appeal, 86
Pa. St. 80; American Telegraph,
etc. Co. V. Day, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct.
Rep. 128; Mayor, etc. of Baltimore
V. Ketchum, 57 Md. 23.
69
Factors,' etc. Ins. Co. v. Ma-
rine, etc. Co., 31 La. Ann. 149.
TO
New York, etc. R. Co. v.
Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30, 83; Kort-
right V. Buffalo Commercial
Bank, 20 Wend. 91: Bridgeport
Bank v. New York, etc. R. Co., 30
C14
SALE AND TEANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
^30.
proper transfer
;'^^
though if such a transfer is directed by a court
of competent jurisdiction, there will be no such liability.'^^ As
between the parties, by an assignment of the stock certificates,
even though the transfer be not consummated upon the books
of the company, the transferrer's title is cut off and he is estopped
from claiming any title as against anybody.'^^ Thus, a transfer
of stock, unrecorded on the books of the company, made with
blank assignment and power of attorney to transfer on the books,
gives a pledgee of the transferee, without knowledge of the
rights of the original holder, an equitable titled* If the corpora-
Conn. 270; King v. Bank of Eng-
land, Dongl. 523. So, if tlie owner
of certificates of stock sells part
of his holding and executes an as-
signment by filling up part of the
blank form on the back of the
certificate, the fact that the as-
signment is so altered afterward
as to make it appear that he as-
signs all his stock, will not re-
lieve the corporation from lia-
bility for carelessness in permit-
ting the transfer to be made.
Sewall V. Boston, etc. Co. (1862).
86 Mass. 277; Coles v. Bank of
England, 10 Ad. & E. 437. Thus,
where a forged transfer has been
made by a member of a firm, as
one of the firm's transactions, the
firm becomes liable for the value
of the stock and dividends which
may be recovered in an action for
money had and received. Marsh
V. Keating, 1 Bing. New Cases,
198; Marsh v. Stone, 6 B. & C.
551. Likewise when a person
owning shares in two companies
gives one address to one and an-
other to the other and deposits
the certificates with a person at
one of the addresses, and the lat-
ter forges a transfer of the shares,
and the companies make the
transfer after communicating
with him and receiving an answer
from the forger, the companies
must replace the stock; although
in an action to enforce the right
the plaintiff is not entitled to
costs.
Johnston v. Renton
(1870),
L. R. 9 Eq. Cas. 181; Taylor v.
Great Indian, etc. Ry. Co. (1859),
4 De G. & J. 559; Coles v. Bank of
England, 10 Ad. & E. 437; Donald-
son V. Gillot, 3 Eq. 274; McKenzie
V. British Linen Co., 6 App. Cas.
82; Sv/an v. North British, etc,
Co., 2 H. & C. 175; Davis v. Bank
of England, 2 Bing. 393; Bank ot
Ireland v. Evans' Charities, 5 H.
L. 389. And a ward is protected
from the negligence of his guard-
ian in allowing the registration of
a forged transfer. Telegraph Co.
V. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369.
71
Baker v. Wasson, 59 Tex. 14Q.
72
Friedlander v. Slaughter-
House Co., 31 La. Ann. 523.
73
Duke V. Cahav/ba Navigation
Co., 10 Ala. 82; s. c. 44 Am. Dec.
472; Cushman v. Thayer. 76 N. Y.
365; s. c. 32 Am. Rep. 315; Balti-
more, etc. Ry. Co. v. Sewall, 35
Md. 238; Hall v. United States Ins.
Co., 5 Gill, 484; Gilbert v. Man-
chester, etc. Co., 11 Wend. 627;
Brown v. Smith, 122 Mass. 589;
Beckwith v. Burroughs, 13 R. I.
294; Bank of America v. McNeil,
10 Bush, 54; People's Bank' v.
Gridley, 91 111. 457.
74
Otis V. Gardner, 105 111. 436;
Holyoke Bank v. Goodman, etc.
Co., 9 Cush. 576; CheAV v. Bank of
Baltimore, 14 Md. 299; Home
Stock Ins. Co. V. Sherwood, 72 Mo.
461; Cheltenham, etc. Ry. Co. v.
Daniel, 2 Q. B. 281; Sheffield, etc.
Ry. Co. V. Woodcock, 7 Mees. &
W. 574. In Cherry v. Frost, 7
430.] SALE AND TKANSFKK OF STOCK. G15
tion refuses to make the transfer on the books, the vendor is
liable on the impHed guaranty in his contract that the corporation
will permit the transfer;"^ and the vendee's title to the stock, and
the dividends thereon, will not be affected as between him and
the vendor b}- the corporation's refusal
^'^
although, if the vendor
dies and his administrator receives dividends on the stock before
the transfer is made on the corporate books, the corporation is
not liable to the vendee, no presentation of a certificate being
necessary upon a demand for dividends by the owner of record
of the stock or his personal representative.'^'^ If scrip represent-
ing stock be stolen by means of the forgery of the true owner's
name, and the stock transferred on the company's books, a bill
will lie to compel the issue of new stock to the true owner and
the accounting for dividends by the company, or in default thereof
to compel the purchasers of the forged certificates to replace
the stock.'^ The person whose rights have been jeopardized by a
forged transfer, may lose his rights by his own negligence ; the
omission on his part must be material, however, and must be
the failure to perform some duty.'^^ Failure of consideration or
informality in the transfer can not be made a ground for setting
it aside before resfistration.^"
Lea, 1, A. assigned to B., as col-
lateral security for a loan, a
stock certificate accoinpanied by a
blank power of attorney to trans-
fer the stock on the books of the
corporation. B. sub-pledged the
certificate to secure a loan from
C, who had no knowledge of A.'s
interest, but supposed the sto^k
to be B.'s property. At the time
of the loan from C. to B. no trans-
fer had been made on the books
of the corporation, and it was
held that, as between A. and C,
C. had the better equity and could
hold the stock for the amount of
his advances to B.
75
Wilkinson v. Lloyd, 7 Q.
B. 27.
TO
Poole V. Middleton, 29 Beav.
646; Cra/ford V. Provident Ins.
Co., 8 U. C. C. P. 263. In a New
York case stock was transferred
to A. on the day of the commence-
ment of an action to set aside
sales made by the corporation, in
order that A. might join in the ac-
tion. The money with which the
purchase was made was placed to
A.'s credit by the person who
wanted him to join, and the
shares were not transferred on
the books of the corporation, and
it was held that the transfer car-
ried title to A., and- that he was
properly a party to the action.
Ervin v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co.,
35 Hun, 544, Davis, P. J., dissent-
ing.
7T
Brisbane v. Delaware, L. &
W. R. Co., 25 Hun, 438; s. c. 94
N. Y. 203.
78Blaisdell v. Bohr (1881), 68
Ga. 56.
79
Arnold v. Cheque Bank, 1 C;
P. Div. 578; Baxendale v. Ben-
nett, 3 Q. B. Div. 525; Coventry
V. Great Eastern Ry. Co., 11 Q. B.
Div. 776; Swan v. North British,
etc. Co., 2 H. & C. 181.
80
Cushman v. Thayer Manuf.
Co., 76 N. Y. 365; s. c. 32 Am. Rep.
315; Hall v. United States Ins.
Co. (Md.), 5 Gill, 484.
616
SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
431.

431.
Remedies of transferee for wrongful refusal to allow
registry.If, in violation of its duty, the corporation refuses to
allow registry of a transfer, the transferee, as to remedies, may
either apply to a court of law for mandamus to compel registry,
or may apply to a court of equity for decree for allowance of
registry, or may bring suit at law for damages, as for conversion
of the stock. Where the registration of a proper transfer of
stock has, through the neglect or refusal of the corporation, failed,
the corporation becomes responsible for the damages incurred.^^
Thus, when a transfer of corporate shares is made to one, but not
recorded as the corporate by-laws required, and a creditor of the
assignor, without notice, subsequently attaches the shares as his,
and causes a sale and transfer to a third party, the first transferee
may maintain an action against the corporation for its refusal
to record the transfer to him.^^ And j;he party making the de-
mand upon the corporation for registration, whether it be the
transferee or his assignor, is entitled to recover for such damages
as he has sustained from the refusal of the corporation.^^ But on
failure to transfer stock at the request of a pledgee, a bank is not
liable for subsequent depreciation of the stock.^* And a stock
company, which refuses to transfer certain shares of stock on its
books to the party to whom a certificate has been assigned, but
marks them on the books as the property of another, is not liable
in assumpsit for conversion of the stock, but only in an action on
the case for damages for the refusal to note the transfer.^ The
measure of damages in such cases is usually the same as that
governing actions for conversion of stock.^^
Remedy by Suit in Equity.The relief, usually demanded, is
in the alternative, either for registry of the transfer, or damages
instead.*'^ A preliminary injunction is sometimes granted, pend-
ing the suit.* The corporation must complete the transfer on
its books upon the demand of either party, and equity will enforce
81
Catchpole v. Ambergate, etc.
ss
Telford & F. Turnpike Co. v.
Ry. Co., 1 El. & B. 111. Gerhab (Pa. 1888), 13 Atl. Rep. 90.
82
Hazard v. Exchange Bank, 26
sg
Iron R. Co. v. Fink, 41 Ohio
Fed. Rep. 94. St. 321; s. c. 52 Am. Rep. 84;
83
Hussey v. Manufacturers', etc. Cleveland R. Co. v. Robbins, 35
Bank, 27 Mass. 414; Telford & F. Ohio St. 483.
Turnpike Co. v. Gerhab (Pa.
87
state v. Carpenter (1894), 51
1888), 13 Atl. Rep. 90; Helm v. Ohio St. 83; In re Reading Iron
Swiggett, 12 Ind. 194. Works (1892), 149 Pa. St. 182.
8*
Dayton Bank v. Merchants'
88
Thornton v. Martin (Ga.
Bank, 37 Ohio St. 208. 1902), 42 S. E. 348.
'

431.]
SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 617
the performance of this duty.^^ Unless expressly provided by
statute or articles of association of a corporation, its officers have
no power or discretion to repudiate a transfer of stock.^ The
power is sometimes delegated by the charter or articles of in-
corporation.^^ But courts will, at all times, scrutinize the ex-
ercise of this power to determine whether it has been just and
reasonable,"- for it is contrary to all customs and rules regulating
transactions in stocks, and may easily be greatly abused.^
Where, in order to complete the membership of any person, there
is only wanting registration, or some formality on the part of
the company, he can generally compel the company to perform
the acts to complete his membership, and the transferrer has a
similar right against the company;^* and although, in general,
the person on the register as member at the time of a winding-up
order, is liable to contribute, if he has remained there through
default of the company, he can have his name removed and be
freed from that liability.^ Where it is possible, the transferee
89
Ciishman v. Thayer Manuf
.
Co., 76 N. Y. 365; s. c. 32 Am. Rep.
315; Johnston v. Laflin, 103 U. S.
800, 804; Webster v. Upton, 91 U.
S. 65, 71; Eustace v. Dublin, etc.
Ry. Co., L. R. 6 Eq. 182.
90
Johnston v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65;
s. c. 103 U. S. 800; In re Stanton,
etc. Co., L. R. 16 Eq. 559; Chap-
pell's Case, L. R. 6 Ch. App. 902;
Gilbert's Case, L. R. 5 Ch, App,
559; Weston's Case, L. R. 4 Ch.
App. 20. But in Ex parte Penny,
L. R. 8 Ch. 446, it was held that
the directors might refuse to give
their reasons for refusing to rec-
ognize a transfer and that it
would be presumed that their rea-
sons were sufficient,
91
Bargate v. Shortridge, 5 H. L.
Cas. 297; Shortridge v. Bosanquet,
16 Beav. 84.
92Moffatt V. Farquhar, 7 Ch.
Div. 591; Robinson v. Chartered
Bank, L. R. 1 Eq. 32.
93
Johnston v. Laflin, 5 Dill. 65.
94
Shelford on Joint-Stock Com-
panies, 115, citing Ex parte Ru-
dolph, 32 L. J. Q. B. 369; Swan v.
North British Australian Co., 32
L. J. Ex. 273; Ex parte Swan, 30
L. J. C. P. 113; Ward v. South
Eastern R. Co., 29 L. J. Q. B. 177;
Ex parte Harris, 29 L. J. Ex. 364;
s. c. 5 H. & N. 809; Taylor v.
Great Indian Peninsular R. Co., 4
De G. & J. 559; Midland R. Co.
v. Taylor, 31 L. J. Ch. 336, affirm-
ing Taylor v. Midland R. Co., 28
Beav. 287; Eustace v. Dublin T.
R. Co., 16 Week. Rep. 1110;
Donaldson v. Gillot, L. R. 3 Eo.
274; Sweeney v. Smith, L. R. 7
Eq. 324; Ashworth v. Bristol R.
Co., 15 L. T. 561; Ex parte
Rymer, 14 Week. Rep. 276; Re-
gina V. General Cemetery Co., 6
E. & B. 415; Copeland v. North
Eastern R. Co., 6 E. & B. 277;
Regina v. Liverpool R. Co., 21 L.
J. Q. B. 284; In re East Wheal
Martha Mining Co., 33 Beav. 119;
Ex parte Marino, L. R. 2 Eq. 226;
2 Ch. 596; Iron Ship Building Co.,
34 Beav. 597; Ex parte Martin, 2
H. & M. 669; Ex parte Webb, 9
Jur. N. S. 856; Ex parte Parker,
L. R. 2 Ch. 685; Ex parte Bragin-
ton, 12 L. T. (N. S.) 259.
95
Shelford on Joint-Stock Com-
panies, 115, citing Ex parte Shep-
herd, L, R. 2 Ch. 16; Nation's
CIS SALE AND TKANSFEK OF STOCK.
[
432.
may file a bill in equity, praying for a decree directing the registry
to be made. In an action to compel the o-fficers of a corporation
to register a transfer of corporate stock, the corporation is not
a necessary party."'' In a suit to compel the officers of a corpora-
tion to register a transfer of stock, an agreement between the
complainant's vendor and the defendant, from whom he purchased
the stock, that the vendor would not transfer it to any third per-
son, is not a good defense where it appears that the agreement
was made after the defendant had sold the stock to complainant's
vendor, and no consideration is alleged for the agreement. And
an answer, alleging that the complainant had acquired the stock
without consideration, for the purpose of obtaining control of
the corporation to the exclusion of defendant, and all other per-
sons interested therein, states a good defense.*
Remedy in an action for damages.Where, however, the equit-
able remedy is not practicable, and the court can not direct a reg-
istry to be made, it will grant a recovery for damages.^^ An
action at law for damages in case of refusal to allow registry
of a transfer, is the established remedy.^ It may sound in tort,
or in contract. The common law action of trover, is a proper
remedy.^ The statute of limitations runs only from the time of
demand made for registry.^

432.
Whether mandamus will lie to enforce registry.

Though the decisions are conflicting, the weight of authority is

that mandamus will not lie to enforce registry of transfer of
Case, L. R. 3 Eq. 77; Ex parte
Read, 36 L. J. Ch. 472; Ex parte
Shipman, L. R. 3 Eq. 219; Ex
parte Chatres, 1 De G. & S. 581;
Ex parte Bennett, 16 "Week. Rep.
572; Ex parte Ward, L. R. 2 Ch.
431; reversing s. c. L. R. 2 Eq.
226; Ex parte Walker, L. R. 6 Eq.
30; ^x parte Fox, L. R. 5 Eq. 118;
In re Overend, Gurney & Co.,
Ward's Case, L. R. 4 Eq. 189;
Head and White's Cases, L. R. 3
Eq. 84.
96
Iron R. Co. v. Fink, 41 Ohio
St. 321; s. c. 52 Am. Rep. 84;
Cushman v. Thaj^er Manuf. Co., 76
N. Y. 365; s. c. 32 Am. Rep. 315;
Mechanics' Banlc v. Seton, 1 Pet.
299; Burrall v. Bushwick R. Co.,
75 N. y. 211; lasigi v. Chicago,
Head (1890), 41
etc. R. Co., 129 Mass. 46; Walker
V. Detroit Transit Ry. Co., 47
Mich. 338.
Cf.
Regina v. Liver-
pool, etc. Ry. Co., 21 L. J. Q. B.
284.
97
Gould V. Head (1890),
41
Fed. Rep. 240.
98
Gould V.
Fed. Rep. 240.
90
Smith V. North American
Mining Co., 1 Nev. 423.
1
Blair Co. v. Rose (1901), 25
Ind. App. 487; Hussey v. Manu-
facturers,' etc. Bank (1830), 27
Mass. 415; Doty v. First Nat.
Bank, etc. (1892), 3 N. D. 9.
2
Ralston v. Bank of California
(1896), 112 Cal. 208.
3 Iron R. R. v. Fink (1884), 41
Ohio St. 321, 52 Am. Rep. 84.
432.] SALE AND TRANSFER OF STOCK. 61^
shares. Whether or not a court of equity will compel registra-
tion by viandamus, is involved in some uncertainty, though if no
public interest is involved, and no sufficient reason is shown for
the granting of any remedy, or other remedies are possible, it
seems to be settled, upon good authority, that suitors can not re-
sort to this proceeding.* On the other hand, where registration
is denied a party without ground for it, many authoritiees are
to the effect that this remedy is proper.^ As a general rule, how-
ever, uiandamus does not lie against the officers of a private cor-
poration to compel the transfer of stock.*^ In Indiana, on
application for mandamus to compel the transfer by a corporation
of shares of stock on its books to relator, it was held that man-
damus will only lie when there is a clear legal right, and that
the relator's right was only equitable.''
4
Murray v. Stevens, 110 Mass.
95; Shipley v. Mechanics' Bank,
10 Johns. 484; Birmingham Fire
Ins. Co. V. Commonwealth, 92 Pa.
St. 72; Ex parte Fireman's Ins.
Co., 6 Hill, 243; People v. Parker,
etc. Co., 10 How. Pr. 543; State v.
Rombauer, 46 Mo. 155; State v. St.
Louis, etc. Co., 21 Mo. App. 526;
Townes v. Nichols, 73 Me. 515;
Wilkinson v. Providence Bank, 3
R. I. 22; Baker v. Marshall. 15
Minn. 177; Kimball v. Union Wa-
ter Co., 44 Cal. 173; State v. Guer-
rero, 12 Nev. 105; King v. Bank
of England, 2 Doug. K. B. 524;
King v. London Assurance Co., 1
Dowl. & R. 510;
Queen v. Liver-
pool, etc. Ry. Co., 21 L. J. Q. B.
284; Rex v. Worcester Navigation
Co., 1 Mon. & R. 529, 13 Am. Rep.
157.
6 People V. Goss Manuf. Co., 99
111. 355; State v. First Nat. Bank,
89 Ind. 302; Green Mountain, etc.
Co. V. Bulla, 45 Ind. 1; State v.
Cheraw, etc. R. Co., 16 S. C. 524;
Townsend v. Mclver, 2 S. C. 25;
Cooper V. Swamp, etc. Co., 2
Murph. (S. C.) 195; Goodwin v.
Ottawa, etc. Ry. Co., 13 U. C. C. P.
254; People v. Crockett, 9 Cal.
112; Regina v. Carnatic Ry. Co.,
L. R. 8 Q. B. 299; Norris v. Irish
Land Co., 8 El. & B. 512; Browne
& Theobald's Ry. Law, 73, citing
Ward v. South Eastern Ry. Co., 29
L. J. Q. B. 177.
6Tobey v. Hakes (1887),
54
Conn. 274, 7 Atl. Rep. 551.
T
Bumsville, etc. Co. v. State
(1889),
119 Ind. 382. Cf.
Tregear
V. Etiwanda Water Co. (1888), 76
Cal. 537; s. c. 9 Am. St. Rep. 245,
3 L. R. A. 265.
LAW
LIBRARY
imrVEF^ITY
OF
CALIPORNU
LOS
ANGELES
SOUTHERN
REGIONAL
LIBRARY
FACILITV
AA
000
927 507 4
:,^}\^. ;y:?>_.