Davis v. Old Colony Railroad Company
Decision Date | 28 June 1881 |
Citation | 131 Mass. 258 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Parties | George H. Davis & others v. Old Colony Railroad Company. Same v. Smith American Organ Company |
Exceptions overruled.
M. F Dickinson, Jr. & J. Fox, for the plaintiffs.
J. H Benton, Jr., for the defendant in the first case.
R. D Smith, (C. Allen with him,) for the other defendant.
These actions are brought upon an agreement signed by the Old Colony Railroad Company in the sum of $ 6000, and by the Smith American Organ Company in the sum of $ 5000, and by other corporations, partnerships and individuals in various sums, amounting in all to more than $ 200,000.
The agreement is in these words:
At the trial of the first action, the plaintiffs offered to prove that the signature of each corporation was made by authority of its directors, with the reasonable belief that the holding of the festival proposed would be of great pecuniary benefit to the corporation by increasing its proper business, and that the signature would promote such holding; that the festival was held as mentioned in the agreement of guaranty; and that the reasonable expenditures therefor, made under authority of the plaintiffs, who relied upon that agreement in making them, exceeded the receipts by more than $ 200,000.
The only point argued and decided when one of these cases was before us upon demurrer to the declaration was, that the promise of the subscribers was to the executive committee therein mentioned, and that these plaintiffs as such committee were the proper parties to sue thereon. Davis v. Smith American Organ Co. 117 Mass. 456.
The principal question now presented by the answer, and which lies at the threshold of each case, is whether it was within the power of the defendant corporation to bind itself by such an agreement. Upon full consideration of the elaborate arguments of counsel upon that question, the court is of opinion that the agreement is ultra vires, and therefore no action can be maintained upon it against either defendant.
The reported cases on the subject are so numerous, that we shall refer to comparatively few of them, except the principal cases in England and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and of this court.
A corporation has power to do such business only as it is authorized by its act of incorporation to do, and no other. It is not held out by the government, nor by the stockholders, as authorized to make contracts which are beyond the purposes and scope of its charter. It is not vested with all the capacities of a natural person, or of an ordinary partnership, but with such only as its charter confers. If it exceeds its chartered powers, not only may the government take away its charter, but those who have subscribed to its stock may avoid any contract made by the corporation in clear excess of its powers. If it makes a contract manifestly beyond the powers conferred by its charter, and therefore unlawful, a court of chancery, on the application of a stockholder, will restrain the corporation from carrying out the contract; and a court of common law will sustain no action on the contract against the corporation.
Every person who enters into a contract with a corporation is bound at his peril to take notice of the legal limits of its capacity, especially where, as in this Commonwealth, all acts of incorporation are deemed public acts, and every corporation organized under general laws is required to file in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth a certificate showing the purpose for which the corporation is constituted. Gen. Sts. c. 3, § 5. St. 1870, c. 224, §§ 7, 11. Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray 582, 598. Richardson v. Sibley, 11 Allen 65, 72. Pearce v. Madison & Indianapolis Railroad, 21 How. 441, 443. East Anglian Railways v. Eastern Counties Railway, 11 C. B. 775, 811. Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653.
There is a clear distinction, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Campbell in Zabriskie v. Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Railroad, 23 How. 381, 398, by Mr. Justice Hoar in Monument Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57, 58, and by Lord Chancellor Cairns and Lord Hatherley in Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 668, 684, between the exercise by a corporation of a power not conferred upon it, varying from the objects of its creation as declared in the law of its organization, of which all persons dealing with it are bound to take notice; and the abuse of a general power, or the failure to comply with prescribed formalities or regulations, in a particular instance, when such abuse or failure is not known to the other contracting party.
In the leading case of Colman v. Eastern Counties Railway, 10 Beav. 1, the directors of a railway company were restrained by injunction from carrying out an agreement by which, for the purpose of increasing its traffic, they proposed to guarantee certain profits to, and to secure the capital of, a steam-packet company, to ply between a port near one end of the railway in England and certain foreign ports; and Lord Langdale, M. R., said: 10 Beav. 14, 15. And after full consideration of the case he summed up his opinion thus: "To pledge the funds of this company for the purpose of supporting another company engaged in a hazardous speculation is a thing which, according to the terms of this act of Parliament, they have not a right to do." "They have the power to do all such things as are necessary and proper for the purpose of carrying out the intention of the act of Parliament, and they have no power of doing anything beyond it." 10 Beav. 17, 18. See also Salomons v. Laing, 12 Beav. 339, 352, 353.
In Bagshaw v. Eastern Union Railway, 7 Hare 114; 2 Macn. & Gord. 389, and 2 Hall & Twells 201; where a railway company, authorized by act of Parliament to purchase a branch line, and to raise a sum of money for the purpose of constructing that line, applied part of the sum so raised to the construction of its main line, Vice Chancellor Wigram, and Lord Chancellor Cottenham on appeal, sustained the bill of a shareholder, not only to restrain such application of the rest of the sum, but also for an account of the part already illegally expended.
The same principles have been frequently applied in actions at law. In East Anglian Railways v. Eastern Counties Railway, 11 C. B. 775, it was held that no action could be maintained by one railway company against another upon an agreement made by the latter to take a lease of the railway of the first company, and to pay the expenses incurred by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wyoming Construction and Development Co. v. Buffalo Lumber Co.
...... Action. by the Wyoming Construction and Development Company against. the Buffalo Lumber Company to recover upon an alleged written. ... Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 87 Mass. 446, 448; Swortwout v. Railroad Co., 24 Mich. 389; Monroe v. Railroad. Co., 28 Mich. 272; Anderson v. ...R. Co. v. Keokuk &c. Bridge. Co., 131 U.S. 385; Davis v. Old Colony R. Co., . 131 Mass. 258; Steinway v. Steinway, 17 Misc. ......
-
New England Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Department of Public Utilities
...corporate activity. From the early view that philanthropic contributions generally were improper and ultra vires (e.g., Davis v. Old Colony R. Co. (1881) 131 Mass. 258), the common law has come to recognize such contributions not only as legitimate expenses of business but as the discharge ......
-
Power County v. Evans Brothers Land & Live Stock Co.
...... EVANS BROTHERS LAND & LIVE STOCK COMPANY, a Corporation, and J. PAUL EVANS, Appellants Supreme Court of ... Ill. 579; Caldwell v. Alton, 33 Ill. 416, 75 Am. Dec. 282; Davis v. Old Colony, 131 Mass. 258, 41 Am. Rep. 221; Madison W. M. Plank R. Co. ... . . "The. president of the railroad company at the time of the. execution of this note was also the ......
-
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co.
...Indianapolis & C. R. Co., 5 Am. Law Reg., n. s., 733; Chicago City R. Co. v. Allerton, 18 Wall. [U. S.], 233; Davis v. Old Colony R. Co., 131 Mass. 258; Colman v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 10 Beav. [Eng.], 1; Bagshaw v. Eastern Union R. Co., 7 Hare [Eng.], 114; Commonwealth v. Erie C. N. E. ......