r
cfc"
orT\paj\y
SB^S
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
5-
^^^c
SELECT CASES
AND
OTHER AUTHORITIES
ON THE LAW OF
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS
BY
EDWARD H. WARREN
Story Professor of Law in Harvard University
LANGDELL HALL, CAMBRIDGE
PUBLISHED BY THE EDITOR
1916
7~
19/4
COPYRIGHT, 1916, BY EDWARD H. WARREN
PREFACE.
The first edition of Cases on Corporations was published seven
years ago. In this second edition there are large changes.
The following subjects are considered at much greater length:
Unincorporated Associations; Issues of Stock at a Discount or for
Overvalued Property; Offenses Against the Sherman Anti-Trust
Act; Reorganizations of Corporations.
The more important cases decided since 1909 are set forth, or
cited in the notes.
There are numerous notes by the editor.
');
}
else if (getClientWidth() > 430)
{
document.write('');
}
else
{
document.write('');
}
//-->
E. H. W.
Langdell Hall, Cambridge,
April, 1916.
671093
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
BOOK I.
THE NATURE OF A CORPORATION.
CHAPTER I.
The Formation of a Corporation:
A. Necessity of Authority from the State 1
B. Grant of Authority from the State 9
CHAPTER n.
Distinguishing a Corporation from an Unincorporated
Association :
A. Where there is no Legislative Enactment 31
B. Where there is some Legislative Enactment 51
CHAPTER III.
Under what, if any, Circumstances the Corporate Fic-
tion SHOULD BE DISREGARDED 82
BOOK II.
THE PROMOTION OF CORPORATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
Subscriptions to Stock of a Corporation to be formed 173
CHAPTER II.
Conveyances to Promoters, and Contracts with Pro-
moters RELATING TO PROPERTY OR SERVICES . . . 183
CHAPTER III.
Issues of Stock at a Discount or for Overvalued Prop-
erty 200
CHAPTER IV.
Transactions between Promoters and the Corporation
Promoted 334
VI CONTENTS,
BOOK III.
THE POWERS OF CORPORATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
Extent of the Powers:
Section 1. In General 380
Section 2. To enter into a Partnership 405
Section 3. To hold Stock in other Corporations 409
Section 4. To hold their own Stock 439
CHAPTER II.
The Exercise of the Powers:
Section 1. In whom the Powers are vested 464
Section 2. Mode of exercising the Powers 487
BOOK IV.
LIABILITY FOR TORTS AND CRIMES.
CHAPTER I.
In General 500
CHAPTER II.
Offenses under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act . . . .514
BOOK V.
UNAUTHORIZED CORPORATE ACTION.
CHAPTER I.
Collateral Attack upon the Formation of a Corporation.
Herein of the Expression "De Facto Corporation":
Section 1. WTiere there have been Dealings between the Parties on
a Corporate Basis 598
Section 2. Where there have been no DeaUngs between the Parties
on a Corporate Basis 638
CHAPTER II.
Collateral Attack upon the Powers of a Corporation.
Herein of the Expression "Ultra Vires":
Section 1. The English Authorities 655
CONTENTS. VU
Section 2. United States Authorities:
A. Torts 677
B. Transfers of Property Rights 686
C. Contracts 712
D. Quasi Contracts 740
E. Liability of Human Beings 743
F. Setting aside an Ultra Vires Transaction .... 753
BOOK VI.
OFFICERS, STOCKHOLDERS, AND CREDITORS.
CHAPTER I.
Directors and other Officers:
A. Unauthorized Action by de jure Officers 761
B. De Facto Officers • 764
C. Liability of Directors for Action or Inaction 769
D. Contracts with the Corporation 782
E. Purchases of Corporate Property or Obhgations 793
F. Relation to Stockholders 798
G. Dealings with Third Persons 818
H. Executive Officers 821
CHAPTER II.
Stockholders:
Section 1. Rights of a Stockholder even when he is in the Minority:
A. To inspect the Corporate Books and Records . . . 827
B. To Dividends 832
C. To subscribe to New Issues of Stock 843
D. To enjoin any Act which the Corporation is unautho-
rized to do, or which it was unauthorized to do
when Plaintiff became a Stockholder 850
E. To prevent and redress an Appropriation of Corpo-
rate Assets by the Majority 857
F. To compel the Corporation to assert Valid Claims,
and to resist InvaUd Claims 859
G. Procedure in a Suit by Stockholder to assert a Cor-
porate Right 873
H. Rights of Persons who became Stockholders at a time
subsequent to the Commission of the Alleged Wrong 881
Section 2. Transfer of Shares 888
Section 3. Voting Trusts 912
viii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
Creditors 925
BOOK VII.
THE REORGANIZATION OF CORPORATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
Issues of Stock by a Corporation with Impaired Capital . 937
CHAPTER II.
Right of Stockholders to prevent a Sale, or Lease, of
Corporate Assets 947
CHAPTER III.
Rights of Creditors as affected by Reorganizations . 982
APPENDIX OF CORPORATE FORMS.
Certificate of Incorporation of United States Steel
Corporation 1007
By-Laws 1013
Minutes of First Meeting of Incorporators .... 1019
Minutes of First Meeting of Directors 1022
Listing of Securities 1026
Syndicate Agreement 1030
Voting Trust Agreement 1037
Certificate of Common Stock 1042
Certificate of Preferred Stock 1044
Bond 1046
Coupon 1048
Voting Trust Certificate 1050
TABLE OF CASES.
Andrews Bros. Co. v. Youngstown
Coke Co 74
Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron
Co. V. Riche 657
Athol Music Hall Company v.
Carey 173
Attorney-General for Canada v.
Standard Trust Co 337
Automatic Self-Cleansing Filter
Co. V. Cuninghame .... 477
Ayers v. The South Australian
Banking Co 664
Bahia & San Francisco Ry. Co.,
in r-e 901
Baldwin v. Canfield 488
Bank v. Trebein 125
Bank of Topeka v. Eaton ... 45
Bank of United States v. Deveaux . 108
Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee
Co 668
Bartholomew v. Derby Rubber
Co 961
Bates V. Coronado Beach Co. . . 407
Bath Gas Light Co. v. Claffy . . 731
Boston & Albany R.R. Co. v. Rich-
ardson ... 902
Boyce v. Towsontown Station . . 600
Brewer v. Boston Theatre . . . 857
Brewer v. The State 645
Brightman v. Bates ..... 921
British South Africa Co. v. De
Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. . 655
Broderip v. Salomon 148
Brown v. Winnisimmet Co. . . 393
Bryant's Pond Steam Mill .Co. v.
Felt 176
Burroughs v. North Carolina R.R.
Co .841
Bushnell v. Consolidated Ice Ma-
chine Co 603
Butler Paper Co. v. Cleveland . . 25
California Bank v. Kennedy . .415
California Bank v. Kennedy . . 694
Callender v. Painesville R.R. Co. . 598
Carmichael's Case 179
Central Railroad Company v. Col-
lins 410
Central R.R. Co. v. Smith . . .682
Central Transportation Co. v.
Pullman's Car Co 728
Chambers v. McKee & Bros. . . 859
Charlestown Boot Co. v. Duns-
more 483
Chestnut Hill Turnpike Co. v.
Rutter 500
Chicago City Railway Co. v. Aller-
ton . . ' 466
Citizens National Bank v. Apple-
ton . . 740
Clapp V. Peterson 446
Clews V. Friedman . . . . . . 897
Coffin V. Ransdell 230
Coit V. Gold Amalgamating Co. . 242
Cole V. Millerton Iron Co. . . . 989
Commercial National Bank v.
Weinhard 468
Continental Securities Co. v. Bel-
mont 875
Continental Tyre & Rubber Co.,
Ltd., V. Daimler Co., Ltd. . . 157
Cook V. Burlington 90
Coppin V. Greenlees & Ransom
Co 442
Cottentin v. Meyer . . . . . 636
Cotton V. Imperial Corporation . 970
CroweUf. Jackson 798
Davenport v. Dows 873
Davenport v. Peoria Insurance
Co 487
David Payne & Co., Ltd., in re . . 666
Davis V. Las Ovas Co 346
Davis V. Stevens 628
Denny Hotel Co. v. Schram . . 409
Denver Fire Insurance Co. v. Mc-
Clelland 720
Dodge V. Woolsey 868
Douglass V. Ireland 265
Downing v. Mount Washington
Road Company 380
Dunphy v. Traveller Newspaper
Association 874
Dupee V. Boston Water Power Co. 449
East Birmingham Land Co. v.
Dennis 890
East Norway Lake Church v.
Froislie 646
Easton National Bank v. Ameri-
can Brick Co 300
Eliot V. Freeman 48
Ellis V. Marshall 17
Elyton Land Co. v. Birmingham
Co 255
TABLE OF CASES.
Elyton Land Co. v. Dowdell . . 947
Erianger v. New Sombrero Phos-
phate Co 334
Ewing V. Composite Brake Shoe
Co 982
Finley Shoe & Leather Co. v. Kurtz 491
First National Bank v. National
Exchange Bank 423
Ford V. Easthampton Rubber
Thread Co 837
Fort Payne Rolling Mill v. Hill . 785
Foss V. Harbottle 862
Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood . . 9
Franklin National Bank v. White-
head 402
Furnivall v. Coombes .... 670
Gallagher v. Germania Brewing Co. 98
General Rubber Co. v. Benedict . 809
Gilbert v. Finch 779
Gillett V. Chicago Title & Trust
Co 276
Goodnow V. American Writing
Paper Co 832
Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel
Co. V. Jones 78
Groel V. United Electric Company 866
Guarantee Trust Co. v. Dilworth
Coal Co 222
Guckert f . Hacke 653
Hall's Safe Co. v. Herring-Hall-
Marvin Safe Co 145
Handley v. Stutz 937
Harris v. Gas Co 756
Heckman's Estate 191
Henry v. Babcock & Wilson Co. . 829
Herron Co. v. Shaw 270
Hibbs V. Brown 63
Hill V. Nisbet 429
Hodges V. New England Screw Co. 777
Hoisting Machinery Co. v. Goeller
Iron Works 492
Hong Kong & China Gas Co., Ltd.,
V. Glen 216
Hospes V. Northwestern Mfg. &
Car Co 292
Hubbard v. Worcester Art Mu-
seum 704
Hun V. Cary 772
Hutchinson v. Green 473
Imperial Building Co. v. Chicago
Open Board of Trade . . .618
Indianapolis Fiu-nace Co. v. Herk-
imer 649
Irvine v. New York Edison Co. . 984
Jackson v. Hooper 100
Jacobus V. Jamestown Mantel Co. 821
Janney v. Minneapolis Industrial
Exposition 793
John Foster & Sons, Ltd., v. Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue . 94
Joint Stock Discount Co. v. Brown 416
Jourdan v. Long Island R.R. Co. 494
Kelner v. Baxter 187
Kerfoot v. Farmers' Bank . . . 689
Kraft V. Griffon Co 943
Kuser v. Wright 764
Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Drexel . 250
Lantz V. Moeller 290
Linn Timber Co. v. United States . 137
Liverpool Insurance Co. v. Massa-
chusetts 51
Luthy V. Ream 912
Malone v. Lancaster Gas-Light Co. 388
Marvin v. Anderson 451
Mason v. Pewabic Mining Co. . . 955
MacGregor v. Dover & Deal Ry.
Co 672
McArthur v. Times Printing Co. . 184
McClure v. Law 818
McDonald v. Dewey 908
McDonald, Receiver, v. Williams . 932
McGraw, Matter of 699
McNab V. McNab & Harlin Mfg.
Co 835
McNeil V. Tenth National Bank . 894
Meyer v. Mining & Milling Co. . 303
Middlesex Husbandmen v. Davis . 20
Minnesota Gas-Light Co. v. Dens-
low 605
Mobile & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Nicho-
las 917
Mobile Improvement Co. v. Gass . 782
Mokelumne Co. v. Woodbury . . 28
Monk V. Barnett 237
Monument National Bank v. Globe
Works 712
Moore & Handley Co. v. Towers
Hardware Co 140
Morgan v. Lewis 456
Munson v. Syracuse R.R. Co. . . 784
National Bank v. Matthews . . 686
National Home Building Ass'n v.
Home Savings Bank . . . .714
Natusch V. Irving 850
New Bedford Railroad v. Old Col-
ony Railroad 983
New England Trust Co. v. Abbott 905
New York Cable Co. v. Mayor, etc.,
of New York 651
Nims V. Mount Hermon Boys'
School 677
North Milwaukee Town Site No. 2
V. Bishop 464
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v.
Boyd 995
Northern Securities Co. i). United
States 532
TABLE OF CASES.
XI
Northwestern Transportation Co.
V. Beatty 787
Oakes v. Turquand 930
O'Conner Mining Co. v. Coosa Fur-
nace Co 791
Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Bige-
low 349
Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewi-
sohn . . . . 341
Ooregum Gold Mining Co., Ltd.,
V. Roper 201
Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co. . . . 84
Parsons v. Joseph 885
Pell's Case 200
Penfield v. Dawson Town & Gas
Co 244
Pennell v. Lothrop 183
Pennsylvania Transportation Com-
pany's Appeal 992
Penobscot Boom Corporation v.
Lamson 14
People V. Coleman 59
People ex rel. Manice v. Powell . . 484
People V. North River Sugar Refin-
ing Co 128
People V. Pullman Car Co. . . .390
People V. Pullman Car Co. . . . 417
People V. Rochester Railway &
Light Co 510
People V. Stockton R.R. Co. . . 24
People ex rel. Tiffany & Co. v.
Campbell 382
Phillips V. Blatchford .... 33
Phillips V. Providence Steam En-
gine Co 951
Pollitz V. Gould 881
Provident Bank & Trust Co. v.
Saxon 631
Reed v. The Richmond Street R.R.
Co 21
Richards v. Wiener Co 454
Richardson v. Williamson . . . 673
Richardson Fueling Co. v. Sey-
mour 611
Riker & Son Co. r. L'nited Drug
Co .963
Royal British Bank v. Turquand . 761
Russell V. Temple 82
St. Louis Railroad v. Terre Haute
Railroad 753
Salomon v. Salomon & Co., Ltd. . 148
Sanford v. McArthur 743
Sawyer v. Hoag 925
Schwab V. Potter Co 974
Scovill V. Thayer 220
Seaton v. Grimm 614
See V. Heppenheimer 278
Seeberger v. McCormick . . . 747
Seymour v. Spring Forest Ceme-
tery Association 796
Sherman v. Fitch 498
Small V. Minneapolis Electro-
Matrix Co 958
Smith V. Hurd 805
Snider's Sons' Co. v. Troy . . .606
Society Rerun v. Cleveland . . . 638
Southworth v. Morgan .... 225
Spering's Appeal 769
Standard Oil Co. v. United States . 552
State V. Atlantic Citv and Shore
R.R. Co. . . . ' 431
State V. Bank of Hemingford . . 726
State V. Dawson 15
State V. Eastern Coal Co. . . . 506
State V. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. . 418
Stevens v. Rutland & Burlington
R.R. Co 852
Stokes V. Continental Trust Co. . 843
Stoutimore v. Clark 616
Strong V. Repide 800
Swift & Co. V. United States . . 547
Tappan v. Bailey 31
Thomas v. Dakin 55
Timmis, Matter of 966
Tisdale v. Harris 888
Trevor v. Whitworth 439
United States v. American Tobacco
Co 574
United States v. E. C. Knight Co. . 516
United States v. Freight Associa-
tion 520
United States v. John Kelso Co. . 503
United States v. Milwaukee Re-
frigerator Transit Co 116
United States v. Winslow . . . 595
U.S. Brewing Co.r. Dolese . . . 384
U.S. Express Co. v. Bedbury . . 613
U.S. Steel Corporation v. Hodge . 786
Varney v. Baker 827
Vent V. Duluth Coffee Co. . . . 462
Wathen v. Jackson Oil Co. . . . 878
Weatherford Ry. Co. v. Granger . 192
Whittenton Mills v. Upton . . . 405
Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Products
Co 622
Williams v. Johnson 397
Williams v. Milton 36
Winget V. Quincy Building Ass'n . 615
Wood V. Whelen 476
Wragg, Ltd., in re 213
CASES ON COEPORATIONS.
BOOK I.
THE NATURE OF A CORPORATION.
CHAPTER I.
THE FORMATION OF A CORPORATION.
A . Necessity of Authority from the State.
BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES.
Book I, pp. 468, 469, 470, 472, 473.
The honor of originally inventing these political constitutions en-
tirely belongs to the Romans. They were introduced, as Plutarch
says, by Numa; who finding, upon his accession, the city torn to
pieces by the two rival factions of Sabines and Romans, thought it
a prudent and politic measure to subdivide these two into many
smaller ones, by instituting separate societies of every manual trade
and profession. They were afterwards much considered by the civil
law, in which they were called universitates as forming one whole out
of many individuals; or collegia, from being gathered together: they
were adopted also by the canon law, for the maintenance of ec-
clesiastical discipline; and from them our spiritual corporations ar6
derived. But our laws have considerably refined and improved upon
the invention, according to the usual genius of the English nation:
particularly with regard to sole corporations, consisting of one per-
son only, of which the Roman lawyers had no notion; their maxim
being that "tres faciunt collegium.'^ Though they held, that if a
corporation, originally consisting of three persons, be reduced to one,
"si universitas ad unum redit," it may still subsist as a corporation,
"et stet nomen universitatis."
Before we proceed to treat of the several incidents of corporations,
as regarded by the laws of England, let us first take a view of the
several sorts of them; and then we shall be better enabled to appre-
hend their respective qualities.
The first division of corporations is into aggregate and sole. Cor-
porations aggregate consist of many persons united together into one
society, and are kept up by a perpetual succession of members, so
2 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES. [CHAP. I.
as to continue forever: of which kind are the mayor and commonalty
of a city, the head and fellows of a college, the dean and chapter of
a cathedral church. Corporations sole consist of one person only and
his successors, in some particular station, who are incorporated by
law, in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages,
particularly that of perpetuity which in their natural persons they
could not have had. In this sense the king is a sole corporation; so is
a bishop; so are some deans, and prebendaries, distinct from their
several chapters; and so is every parson and vicar. And the neces-
sity, or at least use, of this institution will be very apparent, if we
consider the case of a parson of a church. At the original endow-
ment of parish churches, the freehold of the church, the churchyard,
the parsonage house, the glebe, and the tithes of the parish, were
vested in the then parson by the bounty of the donor, as a temporal
recompense to him for his spiritual care of the inhabitants, and with
intent that the same emoluments should ever afterwards continue
as a recompense for the same care. But how was this to be effected?
The freehold was vested in the parson; and, if we suppose it vested
in his natural capacity, on his death it might descend to his heir, and
would be liable to his debts and encumbrances: or at best, the heir
might be compellable, at some trouble and expense, to convey these
rights to the succeeding incumbent. The law therefore has wisely
ordained, that the parson, quatenus parson, shall never die, any more
than the king; by making him and his successors a corporation. By
which means all the original rights of the parsonage are preserved
entire to the successor; for the present incumbent, and his predeces-
sor who lived seven centuries ago, are in law one and the same per-
son; and what was given to the one was given to the other also. . . .
Corporations, by the civil law, seem to have been created by the
mere act, and voluntary association of their members: provided such
convention was not contrary to law, for then it was ilUcitum col-
legium. It does not appear that the prince's consent was necessary
to be actually given to the foundation of them; but merely that the
original founders of these voluntary and friendly societies, for they
were little more than such, should not establish any meetings in
opposition to the laws of the state.
But, with us in England, the king's consent is absolutely necessary
to the erection of any corporation, either impliedly or expressly
given. The king's implied consent is to be found in corporations
which exist by force of the common law, to which our former kings
are supposed to have given their concurrence; common law being
nothing else but custom, arising from the universal agreement of the
whole community. Of this sort are the king himself, all bishops,
parsons, vicars, churchwardens, and some others; who by common
law have ever been held, as far as books can shew us, to have been
corporations, virtute officii: and this incorporation is so inseparably
CHAP. I.] BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES. 3
annexed to their offices, that we cannot frame a complete legal idea
of any of these persons, but we must also have an idea of a corpora-
tion, capable to transmit liis rights to his successors at the same time.
Another method of implication, whereby the Icing's consent is pre-
sumed, is as to all corporations by prescription, such as the city of
London, and many others, which have existed as corporations, time
whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary ; and there-
fore are looked upon in law to be well created. For though the mem-
bers thereof can shew no legal charter of incorporation, yet in cases of
such high antiquity the law presumes there once was one ; and that
by the variety of accidents which a length of time may produce, the
charter is lost or destroyed. The methods by which the king's con-
sent is expressly given are either by act of parliament or charter.
By act of parliament, of which the royal assent is a necessary in-
gredient, corporations may undoubtedly be created : but it is observ-
able, that, till of late years, most of these statutes which are usually
cited as having created corporations do either confirm such as have
been before created by the king, as in the case of the College of Physi-
cians, erected by charter 10 Hen. VIII, which charter was after-
wards confirmed in parliament; or they permit the king to erect a
corporation in futuro with such and such powers, as is the case of
the Bank of England, and the society of the British Fishery. So that
the immediate creative act was usually performed by the king alone,
in virtue of his royal prerogative.
All the other methods, therefore, whereby corporations exist, by
common law, by prescription, and by act of parliament, are for the
most part reducible to this of the king's letters patent, or charter of
incorporation.
Note. — From very early times the courts recognized some cor-
porations as existing bj^ force of the common law alone. See Y.B.
11 Hen. IV, 2; Y.B. 37 Hen. VI, 30; Y.B. 8 Edw. IV, 6; Y.B. 20 Edw.
IV, 12; Y.B. 14 Hen. VIII, 2; Co. Lit. 3a; Finch's Law, c. xvii;
Keilw. 32a; 2 P. Wms. 125; 4 Vin. Abr. 525. There is also evidence
tending to show that, in early times, the Court of Exchequer, in
revenue matters, allowed unchartered bodies of men to be sued, and
even to sue, as a unit. Madox, Firma Burgi, 85, 91.
"Anciently a Gild either Religious or Secular could not legally
be set-up without the Kings Licence. If any Persons erected a Gild
without Warrant, that is, without the Kings leave, it was a Trespass,
and they were lyable to be punished for it. For example. In the
Twenty-sixth year of K. Henry II (1179), several Gilds in London
were amerced to the Crown as Adulterine, that is, as set-up without
Warrant from the King." Madox, Firma Burgi, 26.
In De Li})crtates, Lib. ii, c. 24, fol. 56, Bracton puts the case that
the king should grant some liberty "ut si alicui universitati, sicut
4 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES. [CHAP. I.
civibus vel burgensibus vel aliquibus alis q. mercatum habeant." It
appears, from the chapter as a whole, that he considered this Uberty,
or franchise, together with various other Uberties, to be under the
control of the King {"in manu sua") ; and that private persons
might enjoy it, " sed de gratia ipsuis Regis spedali."
Y.B. 49 Edw. Ill, 3 (1375). A devised lands to B for life, re-
mainder "a deux des meliour homes de la Guild de la Fraternity de
Whitawyers en Londres" forever. A died without heirs, and on the
death of B the king claimed the land by escheat. The court held
that the devise (after B's life estate) was void. Belknap expressed
his opinion that, even if the devise had been to "the Fraternity," it
would not have been good, because the commonalty of London can-
not by their own act create a community within the community
without the charter of the king. A " Fraternity " is not a term known
to the law, nor can a community exist without a charter. ("Le
commen de Londres ne poet my d'eux mesme faire comen deins cest
comen sans chartr le Roy. . . . Fraternity n'est my terine de ley, ne
comen ne putt my estre sans chre") Knyvet, Chancellor, with greater
precision of thought, said that this commonalty of the gild, which is
not confirmed by the king, could not be adjudged a body capable of
taking an estate by purchase. {"II ne poet pas estre p. la ley q. c.
cominalty de la Guilde, q. n'est affirme p. chre le Roy, purroit etre adjudgee
un corps de purchace estate.")
Y.B. 20 Edw. IV, 2 (1480). B, alderman of the X gild, brought
debt against C, and counted upon an obligation made to A, some-
time alderman of the gild, and his successors. Objection that the
plaintiff had not shown how the corporation was formed. Littleton
took a distinction between a "corporation of common right" and
a gild. The judges were all of opinion that, if suit could be main-
tained, it would be by the executor of A. See also Y.B. 22 Edw.
IV, 34,
In Y.B. 14 Hen. VIII, 2 (1522), Fineux remarked: "There is a
corporation by the Pope alone, as those mendicant brothers who
cannot purchase." But Brooke, writing after the Reformation, laid
it down that if the Pope purports to create a corporation, "ideo ceo
est usurpation et voyd a cest jour etfuit imperpetuum." 1 Brooke, Abr.
Corp. 33. See also Dyer, 81, pi. 64.
In Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43, Story, J., said (p. 46): "At a
very early period the religious establishment of England seems to
have been adopted in the colony of Virginia; and, of course, the