Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/142

 124 HARVARD LAW REVIEW.

have been that the question should be answered in the negative, at least whenever dolus or culpa was necessary to make the act under consideration wrongful.^ In England, however, it was very early held that corporations might be liable in actions on the case or in trespass,* and afterwards in trover.' But it is not likely that a corporate body would have been held liable for any tort of which actual malice or dolus was an essential part Similarly it was held that a corporation could not be guilty of a true crime,* that is, it could not have a criminal intent, but it could be indicted for a nuisance or for breach of a prescriptive or statutory duty, and, in general, where only the remedy was criminal in its nature.*

It was generally laid down that a corporation could not hold in trust.* It is not very clear exactly on what reasoning the conclu- sion was based. There is very little to support it, except in very old cases. The view gradually became obsolete, and though there was no decision before the year 1800 definitely deciding the point, it is probable that it was recognized before that time that a corporation might hold in trust^

Samuel Williston.

Cambridge, May 31, 1888.

(To be contifmed.)

1 Savigny, System, §§ 94, 95.

Year Books.
 * See Grant on Corp. 277, 278, and notes, in which are cited many cases from the


 * Yarborough v. Bank of England, 16 East, 6.


 * Anon., 12 Mod. 559 ; that it cannot commit treason see Vin. Abr., Corpor. Z, pi. 2.


 * Grant on Corp. 283, 284.

7 See Atty.-Gen. v. Stafford, Barnard. Ch. 33.
 * The authorities are collected in Gilbert on Uses, 5, 170, and Sugden's note.