Executors, 2 How. 127; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539; Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U.S. 174.

It is obvious that any property of the corporation which may be adjudged to be forfeited and escheated will be subject to a more absolute control and disposition by the government than that which is not so forfeited. The non-forfeited property will be subject to such disposition only as may be required by the law of charitable uses; whilst the forfeited and escheated property, being subject to a more absolute control of the government, will admit of a greater latitude of discretion in regard to its disposition. As we have seen, however, congress has signified its will in this regard, having declared that the proceeds shall be applied to the use and benefit of common schools in the territory. Whether that will be a proper destination for the nonforfeited property will be a matter for future consideration in view of all the circumstances of the case.

Decree affirmed generally, Fuller, C. J., Field and Lamar, J.J., dissenting.

1. Franchises can no longer be exercised: 1844, White v. Campbell, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 38; 1844, Bank of Mississippi v. Wrenn, 11 Miss. (3 Sm. & M. ̄) 791; 1877, Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U. S. 63; 1879, State v. Lawrence Bridge Co., 22 Kan. 438; 1881, Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13, infra, p. 1422; 1882, Campbell v. Talbot, 132 Mass. 174; 1889, People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, infra, p. 1426; 1890, Marysville Invest. Co. v. Munson, 44 Kan. 491. And see supra, pp. 868-871.

2. Executory contracts:

a. Involuntary dissolution, at common law, extinguished executory contracts, and all claims for damages for non-performance: 1797, Bracken v. William & M. College, 1 Call (Va.) 161; 1876, Silliman v. Fredericksburg, etc., R. Co., 27 Gratt. (Va.) 119; 1883, People v. Globe Mut. L. Ins. Co., 91 N. Y. 174; 1892, Schleider v. Dielman, 44 La. Ann. 462; 1897, Rosenbaum v. U. S. Cred. Sys. Co., 60 N. J. L. 294; 1899, Griffith v. Blackwater B. & L. Co., 46 W. Va. 56, 33 S. E. Rep. 125, supra, p. 897.

b. Voluntary dissolution does not extinguish executory contracts: 1834, Revere v. Boston Copper Co., 15 Pick. (Mass.) 351; 1865, Muscatine T. V. v. Funck, 18 Iowa 469, on 472; 1870, Pahquioque Bank v. Bethel Bank, 36 Conn. 325, 4 Am. Rep. 80; 1877, Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319, on 324; 1892, Schleider v. Dielman, 44 La. Ann. 462; 1896, Tiffin Glass Co. v. Stoehr, 54 Ohio St. 157. c. In equity the obligation of such contracts survives, and may be enforced against corporate assets: 1819, Vose v. Grant, 15 Mass. 505, on 522; 1819, Spear v. Grant, 16 Mass. 9, on 15; 1824, Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mason 308; 1834, Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. (U. S.) 281, supra, p. 896; 1852, Coulter v. Robertson, 16 Ind. 46, 79 Am. Dec. 405; 1853, Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. (U. S.) 304, on 311-2; 1855, Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. (U. S.) 480-6, supra, p. 899; 1861, State v. Bailey, 99 Mass. 267, 96 Am. Dec. 747; 1867, Powell v. North Mo. R. Co., 42 Mo. 63, on 68; 1873, Oakland R. Co. v. Oakland, etc., R. Co., 45 Cal. 365, 13 Am. Rep. 181; 1876, Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266, on 268; 1877, Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319, on p. 324; 1877, Wallamet Falls Canal, etc., Co. v. Kittridge, 5 Saw. 44, on 50; 1877, Shamokin Valley, etc., R. Co. v. Malone, 85 Pa. St. 25, on 36; 1882, Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Rep. 498; 1887, Stamm v. N. W. Mut. Ben. Assn., 65 Mich. 317, on 330; 1899, Boyd v. Hankinson, 92 Fed. Rep. 49. See infra, 3b, and dicta in cases next paragraph.

d. Under statutes rights arising from executory contracts are preserved:

1843, Read v. Frankfort Bank, 23 Maine 318; 1866, Towar v. Hale, 46 Barb.. (N. Y.) 361; 1877, Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319; 1879, Von Glahn v. De Rosset, 81 N. C. 467, 473; 1880, People v. Trust Co., 82 N. Y. 283; 1882, Life Assoc. v. Fassett, 102 Ill. 315; 1882, Taylor v. Holmes, 14 Fed. Rep. 498; 1886, Beck v. Henderson, 76 Ga. 360; 1889, Mott v. Danville Seminary, 129 Ill. 403; 1891, Nelson v. Hubbard, 96 Ala. 238, 244; 1892, Schleider v. Dielman, 44 La. Ann. 462; 1894, Mason v. Pewabic Min. Co., 66 Fed. Rep. 391, on 394; 1896, Tiffin Glass Co. v. Stoehr, 54 Ohio St. 157.

3. Debts due to or from the corporation:

a. At common law debts were extinguished: 1835, Commercial Bank v. Lockwood, 2 Har. (Del.) 8; 1841, Fox v. Horah, 1 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 358, 36 Am. Dec. 48; 1844, White v. Campbell, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 38; 1847, Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 9; 1849, Town of Port Gibson v. Moore, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 157; 1850, Hightower v. Thornton, 8 Ga. 486, 52 Am. Dec. 412; 1854, Moultrie v. Smiley, 16 Ga. 289; 1863, Malloy v. Mallett, 59 N. C. (6 Jones Eq.) 345; 1867, Conwell v. Pattison, 28 Ind. 509; 1872, Exchange Bank v. Teddy, 67 N. C. 169; 1878, Bank of Mississippi v. Duncan, 56 Miss. 166; 1888, Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst. (Del.) 227, 40 Am. St. 141, supra, p. 152.

b. But debts and claims are preserved in equity: 1861, State, ex rel. Brown, v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46, 79 Am. Dec. 405; 1868, Folger v. Columbia Ins. Co., 99 Mass. 267, 96 Am. Dec. 747; 1877, McCoy v. Farmer, 65 Mo. 244; 1883, Howe v. Robinson, 20 Fla. 352; 1888, People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684, infra, p. 1426; 1888, Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst. (Del.) 227, 40 Am. St. Rep. 141, supra, p. 152; 1890, Havermeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 327, 18 Am. St. Rep. 192; 1895, Conover v. Hull, 10 Wash. 673, 45 Am. St. Rep. 810. See, supra, 2c.

c. And very generally now by statute, rights, credits or liabilities arising ex contractu or ex delicto are preserved, and trustees provided for the settlement of such claims: 1847, Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 9; 1856, Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga. 337; 1860, Hargroves v. Chambers, 30 Ga. 580; 1861, Bank of Salem v. Caldwell, 16 Ind. 469; 1867, Hunt v. Co-lumbia Ins. Co., 55 Maine 290, 92 Am. Dec. 592; 1885, Society Perun v. Cleve-land, 43 Ohio St. 481, supra, p. 617; 1888, Miller v. Newburg Coal Co., 31 W. Va. 836, 13 Am. St. Rep. 903; 1891, Hepworth v. Union Ferry Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 257; 1891, Grafton v. Union Ferry Co., 19 N. Y. Supp. 966, contra; 1894, People v. Troy St. & I. Co., 82 Hun 303, 1 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 138; 1894, Marsteller v. Mills, 143 N. Y. 398, 38 N. E. Rep. 370; 1898, State v. Fogerty, 5 Iowa 32; 1899, American Surety Co. v. Great W. S. Co., 58 N. J. Ea. 526, 43 Atl. Rep. 579; 1899, Boyd v. Hankinson, 92 Fed. Rep. 49. See, supra, 2d. Compare, 1885, Gray v. National S. S. Co., 115 U. S. 116 (tort).

4. Personal property, at common law, upon dissolution, vested in the crown or state: Coke's Littleton, 136; Rex v. Pasmore, 3 Term R. 199; 1823, StateBank v. State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 267, supra, p. 891;1841, Fox v. Horah, 1 Ired. Eq. (N. C.) 358, 36 Am. Dec. 48; 1844, White v. Campbell, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 38; 1856, Erie R. Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287. See infra, 5c.

5. Real property:

a. At common law real estate reverted to the grantor. 1823, State Bank v.. State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 267, supra, p. 891; 1844, White v. Campbell, 5 Humph.. (Tenn.) 38; 1848, Bingham v. Wiederwax, 1 N. Y. 509; 1852, Nicoll v. N. Y. & E. R. Co., 12 Barb. 460; 1856, Erie, etc., R. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 287 (goes to the state); 1862, Plitt v. Cox, 43 Pa. St. 486 (same); 1869, People v. College of California, 38 Cal. 166; 1875, Mercer Academy v. Rusk, 8 W. Va. 373; 1877, Turnpike Co. v. Illinois, 96 U. S. 63; 1885, New York, etc., R. v. Parma-lee, 1 Ohio C. C. 239; 1891, Danville Seminary v. Mott, 136 Ill. 289. See also, supra, 3c.

b. But a corporation whose duration is limited may take or grant an estate in fee: 1848, People v. Mauran, 5 Denio 389; 1852, Nicoll v. N. Y. & E. R. Co., 12 Barb. 460; 1854, Nicoll v. N. Y. & E. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 121; 1856, Rives v. Dudley, 3 Jones Eq. (56 N. C.) 126, 67 Am. Dec. 231; 1864, Erie R. Co. v. State, 31 N. J. L. 531, 86 Am. Dec. 226; 1889, Bailey v. Platte, etc., Co., 12,

Colo. 230; 1889, Davis v. Memphis, etc., R., 87 Ala. 633; 1890, Miner v. N. Y., etc., R., 123 N. Y. 242; 1894, Detroit Citizens' St. R. v. Detroit, 64 Fed. Rep. 628; 1896, Union, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R., 163 U. S. 564; 1897, Sioux, etc., Co. v. Trust Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 124; 1897, Wilson v. Leary, 120 N. C. 90, 58 Am. St. Rep. 778, supra, p. 903.

c. But in equity or by statute, real or personal estate, or the proceeds from its sale, are considered a fund for the payment of debts, and distribution among shareholders, and there is no reversion either to the grantor or to the state in the case of private business corporations, but in eleemosynary and non-business corporations the common law doctrines are applied frequently: 1860, Owen v. Smith, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 641; 1866, Towar v. Hale, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 361; 1872, Heath v. Barmore, 50 N. Y. 302; 1887, Titcomb v. Kennebunk Mut. F. Ins. Co., 79 Maine 315, supra, p. 904; 1888, People v. O'Brien, 111 N. Y. 1, 7 Am. St. Rep. 684; 1889, Bailey v. Platte L. D. Canal & M. C., 12 Colo. 230; 1889, Davis v. Memphis, etc., R., 87 Ala. 633; 1890, Havermeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 327, 18 Am. St. Rep. 192; 1890, Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, supra, p. 906; 1891, Danville Seminary v. Mott, 136 Ill. 289; 1893, Sulphur S. &. M. P. R. v. St. Louis, 2 Texas Civ. App. 650; 1897, Wilson v. Leary, 120 N. C. 90, 58 Am. St. Rep. 778, supra, p. 903; 1901, Noble v. Gadsen Land Co., 133 Ala. 250, 91 Am. St. R. 27; 1902, Insurance Co. v. Dunscomb, 108 Tenn. 724, 91 Am. St. R. 769.

6. Actions by a corporation:

a. Suits by a corporation at common law abate upon its dissolution: 1810, Bank of U. Š. v. McLaughlin, 2 Cranch C. C. 20, Fed. Cas. 928; 1843, May v. State Bank, 2 Rob. (Va.) 56, 40 Am. Dec. 726; 1844, Bank of Miss. v. Wrenn, 3 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 791; 1844, Miami Exporting Co. v. Gano, 13 Ohio 269; 1846, Bank of Gallipolis v. Trimble, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 599; 1851, Ingraham v. Terry, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 572; 1852, Torry v. Robertson, 24 Miss. 192; 1891, Van Pelt v. Home Bldg. Assn., 87 Ga. 370.

b. But see the following cases holding dissolution of a plaintiff corporation after suit is begun is not ground for nonsuit: 1828, Agnew v. Bank, 2 Har. & G. (Md.) 478; 1842, City of Louisville v. Bank of U. S., 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 138; 1849, Grand Gulf Bank v. Wood, 12 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 482; 1850, Kimball v. Grafton Bank, 20 N. H. 347; 1877, Kansas City Hotel Co. v. Sauer, 65 Mo. 279; 1882, Butchers' & D. Bank v. Pulitzer, 11 Mo. App. 594.

c. Statutes may prevent abatement of suits by dissolution of plaintiff corporation: 1826, President, etc., of N. J., etc., Bank v. Thorp, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 46; 1847, Bank of U. S. v. Leathers, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 126; 1857, State v. Bank, 18 Ark. 554; 1897, Richmond Union Pass. Co. v. R. Co., 95 Va. 386: 1898, Singer & Talcott Stone Co. v. Hutchinson, 176 Ill. 48.

7. Suits against a corporation:

a. No valid judgment at common law could be rendered against a dissolved corporation: 1836, Rider v. Nelson, etc., Fac., 7 Leigh (Va.) 154, 30 Am. Dec. 495; 1845, Musson v. Richardson, 11 Rob. (La.) 37; 1845, Greeley v. Smith, 3 Story 657, Fed. Cas. 5748; 1849, Merrill v. Bank, 31 Maine 57, 50 Am. Dec. 649; 1874, McCullough v. Norwood, 58 N. Y. 562; 1874, First National Bank v. Colby, 88 U. S. 609; 1878, Sturgis v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384; 1880, Ferry v. Merchants', etc., Bank, 66 Ga. 177; 1891, Pendleton v. Russell, 144 U. S. 640; 1895, In re N. Y. Oxygen Co., 33 N. Y. Supp. 726, 24 Civ. Proc. Rep. 398; 1895, Combes v. Keyes, 89 Wis. 297, 46 Am. St. Rep. 839; 1897, In re Directors, etc., Brewing Co., 24 App. Div. (N. Y.) 223. See, infra, c and d and 8. b. Attachment or garnishment proceedings are terminated by dissolution of defendant corporation: 1844, Farmers', etc., Bank_v. Little, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 207, 13 Am. Dec. 293; 1874, Frailey v. Central Fire Ins. Co., 9 Phil. 219; 1895, Walters v. Western, etc., R. Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 679. But see, 1840, Lindell v. Benton, 6 Mo. 361; 1882, Hays v. Lycoming Fire Ins. Co., 99 Pa. St. 621, contra; 1901, Fitts v. Natl. Life Assn., Ala., 30 So. 374.

c. Statutes may provide that dissolution shall not abate suits pending, nor prevent the bringing of suits against the defunct corporation: 1859, Blake v. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 39 N. H. 435; 1870, Ramsay v. Peoria, etc., Ins. Co., 55 Ill. 311; 1887, Greenbrier Lumber Co. v. Ward, 30 W. Va. 43; 1890, Lake Superior Iron Co. v. Brown, B. & Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 539; 1894, People v. Troy Steel & Iron Co., 82 Hun (N. Y.) 304; 1895, State v. Port Royal, etc.,

R., 45 S. C. 413, 23 S. E. Rep. 363; 1898, Steinhaur v. Colmar, 11 Colo. App. 494, 55 Pac. Rep. 291; 1901, Shayne v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 168 N. Y. 70, 55 L. R. A. 777.

An action for libel against a corporation which abates by the expiration of the corporate charter may be revived against the trustees of the dissolved corporation in office at the time of dissolution: 1901, Shayne v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 168 N. Y. 70, 55 L. R. A. 777.

d. And it seems that a decree dissolving a corporation may provide that pending suits against the corporation shall not be affected: 1882, Life Association v. Funck, 102 Ill. 315; 1891, Hepworth v. Union Ferry Co., 62 Hun (N. Y.) 257; 1895, People v. Troy Steel, etc., Co., 82 Hun (N. Y.) 303, 1 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 138.

8. Judgments: At common law, a judgment in favor of a corporation was extinguished by the dissolution of the corporation: 1842, May v. State, 2 Rob. (Va.) 56, 40 Am. Dec. 726; but if such judgment was assigned before dissolution the assignee could enforce it after dissolution: 1855, De Vendell v. Hamilton, 27 Ala. 156; 1861, Leach v. Thomas, 27 Ill. 457.

A judgment against a corporation, obtained while an appeal from a judgment of dissolution is pending, may be enforced before the judgment of dissolution is affirmed: 1894, Giles v. Stanton, 86 Tex. 620, 26 S.W.Rep. 615, 1111.

58-WIL. CASES.

PART III.

THE CORPORATION AS A SUBJECT AND SOURCE OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.

TITLE I. RIghts and Duties of the CORPORATION IN GENERAL.

CHAPTER 12.

POWERS AND AUTHORITY IN GENERAL.

ARTICLE I. THEORIES OF CORPORATE CAPACITY.

Sec. 258. Corporate powers.-"The capacities of corporations are limited: (1) by natural possibility, i. e., by the fact that they are artificial and not natural persons; (2) by legal possibility, i. e., by the restrictions which the power creating a corporation may impose on the legal existence and action of its creature.

"First, of the limits set to the powers and liabilities of corporations by the mere fact that they are not natural persons. The requirement of a common seal is sometimes said to spring from the artificial nature of a corporation. The fact that it is not known in Scotland is, however, enough to show that it is a mere positive rule of English law. The correct and comprehensive proposition is that a corporation can do no act except by an agent (for even if all the members concur they are but agents).

"We come now to consider the far more difficult and complicated questions of special restrictions. On this there have been many decisions, much discussion, and some real conflict of judicial opinions. There are two opposite views by which the consideration of the matter may be gov erned, and they may be expressed thus: