the enforcement of their contracts upon the assent of such states, which may be given on such terms as the states may respectively prescribe.11 But the right to prescribe terms, or impose conditions, will not authorize the exclusion or regulation of foreign corporations engaged in interstate commerce. 12 And a corporation which has a legal existence in any one state can sue in the federal courts of any other state.13 Foreign corporations, including those created by foreign governments, are allowed by the comity of states to come into the District of Columbia, open offices for the transaction of business, and make contracts upon which they may sue or be sued in the. courts of the district, provided the contract is made there, and all the circumstances attending its alleged violation occur there.14 A corporation chartered by two states, having property in both, will be treated as a domestic corporation by each state to the extent of its property in that state, and as a foreign corporation with respect to the property out of the state. The word "resident" in statutes relative to remedies, taxation, etc., generally includes corporations created by and carrying on business within the State.16

15

1 Hubbard v. Nat. etc. Ins. Co. 11 How. Pr. 149; Glaize v. So. Car. R. R. Co. 1 Strob. 70; Thorn v. Cent. R. R. Co. 2 Dutch. 121.

2 Adams v. Great Western Railw. Co. 6 Hurl. & N. 404; and see Land Grant Railw. Co. v. Coffey Co. 6 Kan. 245.

3 Richardson v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co. 8 Clarke, 260; Toledo etc. R. R. Co. v. Milligan, 52 Ind. 505; and see Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. v. Su pervisors etc. 43 N. Y. 93.

4 Conn. etc. R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 30 Vt. 476; and see Androscoggin etc. R. R. Co. v. Stevens, 23 Me. 434; Southwestern R. R. Co. v. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356.

5 St. Louis o. Wiggin's Ferry Co. 40 Mo. 58.

6 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 519; Farnum v. Blackstone Canal Co. 1 Sumu. 47; Camp v. Byrne, 41 Mo. 525; Matthews r. Theolog. Seminary, 2 Brewst. 541; Evans v. Monot, 4 Jones Eq. 231; New Or leans etc. R. R. Co. v. Wallace, 50 Miss. 244; Gill v. Ky. etc. Min. Co. 7 Bush, 635: Lathrop v. Union Pacific Railw. Co. 1 McAr. 234.

7 Day v. Newark India Rubber Co. 1 Blackf. 629; Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black. 236; Wright v. Bensly, 11 Ind. 398; Ormsby v. Vt. Copper etc. Co. 53 N. Y. 623; Hadley v. Freedman's Savings etc. Co. 2 Tenn. Ch. 12.

8 Newburg Petroleum Co. v. Weare, 27 Ohio St. 343; Baltimore etc. R. R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287; Williams v. Creswell, 51 Miss. 817.

9 Paul r. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Smith v. Alvord, 63 Barb. 415; Second Nat. Bank v. Lovell, 2 Cin. (Ohio) 397; Carroll . City of East St. Louis, 67 Ill. 568; Ducat v. Chicago, 48 id. 172; Merrick v. Van Sant voord, 34 N. Y. 208, 217; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co. 94 U. S. 535. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Doyle, 6 Biss. 461.

10 Myers v. Manhattan Bank, 20 Ohio, 283: Ducat v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 172.

11 West. Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St. 521; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall, 566; Lambv. Lamb, 13 Bank. Reg. 17; Home Ins. Co. v. Davis, 2) Mich. 233; Farmers etc. Ins. Co. v. Harrah, 47 Ind. 236; Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co. 94 U. S. 535; Indiana v. Am. Express Co. 7 Biss. 230; State v. Fosdick, 21 La. An. 434; Slaughter v. Commonw. 13 Gratt. 767; Northwest. Ins. Co. v. Overholt, 4 Dill. 287; Miluor v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 53 N. Y. 363; County of Alleghany v. Cleveland etc. R. R. Co.51 Pa. St. 228; Bellows v. Todd, 39 Iowa, 209; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Commonw. 5 Bush, 68; Wood Mowing Machine Co. v. Caldwell, 54 Ind. 270.

12 Pensacola Tel. Co. v. West. Union Tel. Co. 96 U. S. 11, 13; and see Reading R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 15 Wall. 232; City of Council Bluffs . Kansas etc. R. R. Co. 45 Iowa, 338; Almy v. State of California, 24 How. 169; State v. Carrigan, 39 N. J. L. 35. But see Am. Union Ex. Co. v. St. Joseph, 66 Mo. 675.

13 Nat. Park Bank v. Nichols, 4 Biss. 315; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369; Railway Co. v. Whiton, 13 Wall. 270. Sec Pomeroy v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 6 Blatchf. 105; Myers v. Dorr, 13 id. 22; McCoy v. Washington County, 3 Wall. Jr. 381; West. Union Tel. Co. v. Dickin. son, 40 Ind. 444; 13 Am. Law Reg. 295.

14 Weymouth v. Washington etc. R. R. Co. 1 McAr. 19; and see Liv. erpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall. 566.

15 State v. Northern Cent. Railw. Co. 18 Md. 193. See Ohio etc. R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 286; Sprague v. Hartford etc. R. R. Co. 5 R. I. 235.

16 Louisville etc. R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. v. Shepard, 5 McLean, 455; and see Bank of Ga. v. Gibson. 11 Ga. 453. Compare Sherwood v. Buffalo etc. R. R. Co. 12 How. Pr. 136.

§ 34. Organization.-The life of a corporation dates from its organization, and not from the time it begins to do business. And the words "organize" and " organization" mean the election of officers constituting the body complete for the transaction of its business.2 Provisions of a charter, relative to the steps to be taken to organize, should receive a liberal interpretation. If all the requirements of the charter are observed, though not in the order prescribed, the organization is sufficient. The production of the corporate books, showing the election of officers, is, prima facie, sufficient to show a compliance with statutory prerequisites, and that the corporation has an existence.5 If a company has been in operation unquestioned for several years, due organization is presumed. The regularity

of the proceedings taken to organize a corporation cannot be questioned collaterally; as by way of defense to an action by a railroad company to recover an unpaid balance of subscription to the capital stock; or by way of defense to proceedings instituted by the company to acquire lands for its road;9 r upon a bill to enjoin the company from constructing its road.10 And the legislature has power to cure any defect in the organization of a corporation formed under a general act.11 Where a corporation is formed, or attempted to be formed, under a general law which provides that, before such corporate body shall commence business, a certificate of the purposes of the organization shall be filed in certain public offices, such filing is a necessary prerequisite to relieving the corporators from individual liability.12

1 Hanna v. International Petroleum Co. 23 Ohio St. 622. Compare Vt. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30; Stoops v. Greensburg etc., Plank Road Co. 10 Ind. 47; Brouwer v. Appleby, 1 Sand. 158.

2 New Haven etc. R. R. Co. v. Chapman, 38 Conn. 56.

3 Judah v. American etc. Ins. Co. 4 Ind. 333.

4 Eakright v. Logansport etc. R. R. Co. 13 Ind. 404. Compare Miller v. Wild Cat Gravel Road Co. 57 Id. 241.

5. Ryder v. Alton etc. R, R. Co. 13 Ill. 516.

6. Agricultural Bank v. Burr, 24 Me. 256; and see Bank of U. S. v. Lyman, 1 Blatchf. 297: 20 Vt. 666; Stockton etc. Gravel Road Co. v. Stockton etc. R. R. 45 Cal. 680.

7. Doyle v. Peerless Petroleum Co. 44 Barb. 239; Aurora etc. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 56 Ind. 88; Daunenbroge Min. Co. v. Barrett, 26 Cal. 286; § 21 ante.

8 Swartwout v. Mich. etc. R. R. Co. 24 Mich. 389.

9 Aurora etc. R. R. Co. v. Miller, 56 Ind. 88.

10 Aurora etc. R. R. Co. v. Lawrenceburg, 56 Ind. 80.

11 Goodrich v. Reynold, 31 Ill. 400; Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. 188; Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha etc. Coal Co. 7 Blatchf. 391; St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Northwestern St. Louis Railw. Co. 2 Mo. App. 69. See Blanchard v. Kaull, 44 Cal. 440.

12 Bigelow v. Gregory, 73 Ill. 197; and see Indianapolis etc. Mining Co. v. Herkimer, 46 Ind. 142; Abbott v. Omaha Smelting etc. Co. 4 Neb. 416. Contra, Harrod v. Hamer, 32 Wis, 162; Childs v. Smith, 46 N. Y. 34, reversing 55 Barb. 45; First Nat. Bank v. Davies, 43 Iowa, 424. The expression" constating instruments," has been employed to signify the document or collection of documents which fix the constitution of any corporation: see Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 26, 27.

CHAPTER IV.

CORPORATE POWERS.

$35. Whence derived.

§ 36. Construction of powers.
§ 37. Common-law powers.

§ 38. Resumption of granted powers.
§ 39. Mode of exercising powers.
§ 40. Powers in respect of property.
§ 41. Nature of corporate title.
§ 42. Presumptions in favor of title.

§ 43. Powers in respect to contracts.

§ 44. Mode of contracting.

§ 45. Principles of construction.

§ 46. Capacity to sue.

§ 47. Name in which to sue.

§ 48. In what courts suit may be brought.

$ 49. Disfranchisement of members.

§ 50. Corporate seal.

§ 51. Power to hold property in trust.

§ 52. Bequests to corporations.

$ 53. Devise to corporation.

54. Deeds by corporations.

§ 35. Whence derived.—Corporations have none of the elements of sovereignty,1 and can have and exercise only such powers as are expressly conferred on them by the act of incorporation, and such implied powers as are necessary to enable them to perform their prescribed duties.2 A corporation is confined strictly to the sphere of action limited by the terms and intention of the charter; 3 and no vote or act of the corporation can enlarge its chartered authority, either as to the subjects on which it is intended to operate, or the persons or property of the corporators. The legislature of a state may confer exclusive franchises upon corporations, unless restricted by the constitution.5 And without the assent or authority of the

legislature, the franchise of a corporation cannot be levied upon and sold under execution, in payment of the corporate debts. But, in this country, no franchise can be held which does not emanate from the government or sovereign power. A franchise consists of the entire privileges embraced in the graut, but does not embrace property acquired by the exercise of the franchise as at first granted. 1 St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo. 547.

2 Smith r. Morse, 2 Cal. 524; Vandall r. South San Francisco Dock Co. 40 11. 83; Russell r. Topping, 5 McLean, 154; City Council v. Plank Road Co. Ala. 76; Commonw. r. Erie etc. R. R. Co. 27 Pa. St. 339; Matthews r. Skinker,62 Mo. 329; Bellmeyer v. Ind. Distr. of Marshalltown, 44 Iowa, 564; Weckler. First Nat. Bauk. 42 M. 581; Bowling Green R. R. r. Warren County Court, 10 Bush, 712; Downing v. Mt. Washington Road Co. 40 N. II. 231; White's Bank v. Toledo Ins. Co. 12 Ohio St. 601; Le Couteulx r. City of Buffalo, 33 N. Y. 333; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 65, 666; Turupike Co. v. Illinois. 96 id.63; Thomas v. Railroad. 101 id. 71; Salomons v. Laing, 12 Beav. 339; Nat. Manure Co. v. Donald, 28 Law J. Ex. 185; South Yorkshire etc. Co. v. Great North. Railw. Co. 9 Ex. 55; Eastern Counties Railw. v. Hawkes, 5 H. L. Cas. 348.

3 Utica Ins. Co. v. Scott, 19 Johns. 1; State v. Washington Library Co. 11 Ohio, 96; Broughton v. Manchester Water Works Co. 3 Barn. & Ald. 1; Dublin Corp. v. Att.-Gen. 9 Bligh N. S. 395.

4 Salem Mill Dam Co. v. Ropes, 6 Pick. 23.

5 Piscataqua Bridge Co. v. N. H. Bridge Co. 7 N. H. 35; California State Tel. Co. v. Alta Tel. Co. 22 Cal. 398; Truckee etc. Road Co. v. Campbell, 44 d. 89; Atlantic etc. R. R. Co. v. Allen, 15 Fla. 637.

6 Randolph. Larned, 27 N. J. Eq. 557; Stewart v. Jones. 40 Mo. 140; and see Arthure. Com. ete. Bank, 9 Smedes & M. 394; Foster v. Fowler, 60 Pa. St. 27; Gibbs v. Drew, 16 Fla. 147; 26 Am. Rep. 700.

7 Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 519; People v. Utica Ins. Co. 15 Johns. 387; Cominouw. v. Arrison, 15 Serg. & R. 130; Chicago City Railw. Co. v. People, 73 Ill. 541; State v. Burlington etc. R. R. Co. 26 Vt. 433.

8 Bridgeport . N. J. etc. R. R. Co. 36 Conn. 255. See Evangelical etc. Home v. Buffalo Hydraulic Assoc. 64 N. Y. 561.

§ 36. Construction of powers. Extraordinary powers will not be implied; 1 and an express grant of extraordinary powers which contravene established rights must be construed with reasonable strictness. Such a grant is not to be construed to carry as an incident anything not implied in the principal, nor usually appurtenant to it, and not possessed of a similar character. Any ambiguity or doubt arising out of the terms used by the legislature, must be resolved in favor of the public. The specific grant of certain powers in a charter is an implied BOONE CORP.-4.