Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/410

 398 FEDEBAIi BBFOBTEB. �331j 341-5; Field, Corp. ^ 364, 271, 273. The courts will not enforce pyrely executory ultra «ires contracts, or award damages for their breach. Screven Rose Go. v. Philpot, 53 Ga. 625 ; Thomas v. Ballroad Oo. 101 U. S. 71 ; Field, Corp, § 264. �IV. Apparent Power. Where the question ofautliority depends, not merely upon the provision of law authorizing the contract, but also on extraneous facts, the corporation ynW be estopped to pJead ultra vires as against a person without notice that the exercise was for a purpose, with an intent, or under circumstances unauthorized. Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zdlerbach, 37 Cal. 543, 686-7, 595 ; Bigelow, Estoppel, 423 ; Potts, Corp. § 549 ; 2 Kent, 300, Holmes' note ; Ossipee ete.,Vo. v. Oanney, 64 N. H. 295, 325-6. Thus, when a corporation has power under any circumstances to issue negotiable securities, the title of a borta fide bolder of such paper is no more liable to be impeached than that of any other commercial paper. Oelpekev. Citff of Dubugue, l Wall. 175; Tovin of Voloma v Eaves, 92 U. S. 484; Monument Nat. Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57; Mad., etc., B Co. V. Norwieh, 24 Ind. 467 ; Field, Corp. h 270 ; Jones, Rail. Secur. H asi 295. �y. EsTOPFBL. As bas been seen, a contract is not illegal simply because it exceeds the powers of the corporation. Is the corporation, then, tibao- \ate\y incapable oi doing an act wbicb transcenda its powers? Theoret- ically, yes ; practically, no. The well-settled liability for torts, and in cases of apparent power, is tnconsistent with the idea that it is. See article on Ultra Vires by G. H. Wald, Esq., in 6 Cent. Law Jour. 2 ; Selden, J., in Bissell y. Bailvsay Oos. 22 N. Y, 2S2-3. And it would seem to be established by the more recent decisions that, where a contract has in good faith been fully performed either by the corporation or the other party, the one who has received the benefit will not be permitted to resist the enforcement of the contract by the plea of mere want of power. OU Creek, etc., B. Oo. v. Pa. Trantp. Co. 83 Pa. St. 160 ; State Bd. of Agrie. v. Oitizens' /St. By. Co. 47 Ind. 407 ; Whitney Arms Co. y. Baarlow, 63 N. Y. 62 ; Kent v. Quieksilver Min. Co. 78 N. Y. 169 ; Newburg Pet. Oo. y. Weare, 27 Ohio 8t. 343, 363-4; Uhester Glas» Co. y. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94, 102; Gdd Min. Oo. y. Nat. Bank, 96 U. 8. 640 ; Nat. Bank y. Matthetos, 98 U. 8. 621 ; Darst y. Gale, 83 111. 136; Lawrence, 0. J., in BracUey v. Ballard, 66 111. 417 ; Co^rt y. Ga. B. Co. 64 Qa. 379 \ A.e P. Tel. Co. v. Union, etc., By. Co. 1 FED. Rbp. 745 ; Field, Corp. $ 273 ; Bedgwick, Stat. & Const. Law, (Ist Ed.) 90 ; and cases cited in Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, (2d Ed.) 729, note a ; and 12 Cent. Law Jour. 389. Contra, older CBses—Hood y..N. Y., etc., B. Co. 22 Conn. 502 ; [but see Converse v. Norwieh, etc., B. Co. 33 Conn. 16C, 180;] Pa., etc., Co. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill & J. 248; Dotoning.y. Mt. Wash., etc., Cu. 42 N. H. 230; BankofChillicothey. Swayne, 8 Ohio, 627; [but see 29 Ohio St. 330; Id. 341; 27 Ohio. St. 343.] As to what will constitute assent and acquiescence on part of stockholders, see Jones, Rail. Secur. 4 356 ; Comrt v, Ga. By. Co. 54 Ga. 379 ; Sent v. iiuieksHwr Min. Co. 78 N. Y. 159. �VI. ToETS. Corporations are liable for their torts in the same manner and to the same extent that individuals are liable under like circum- stances. Merchants' Nat. v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604 ; Nat. Bank v ��� �