Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/143

 PART I.] CONSTRUCTION OF CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 157. this may be pleaded by any one whose property the corporation is seeking to condemn. 1 And in a proceeding to condemn land for a railroad, it has been held that an owner ma}*- den}^, and thus force the corporation to prove, its due legal incorporation. 2 §156. Likewise a person, affected by no estoppel, against whom a special separately granted franchise is sought to be exercised, may, without questioning the general validity of the corporate organization, deny the right of the company to exer- cise that particular franchise. Thus, a corporation was organ- ized to construct a bridge over a navigable stream, and by dis- tinct action on the part of the county supervisors received the franchise to take tolls for twenty years. It was held that a person sued for tolls could plead that its right to demand them had expired by the lapse of the twenty years. 3 § 157. If a corporation is defectively organized at the begin- ning, legislative recognition of it as a corporation Defective will cure the defects, 4 which often may be cured by ( proper measures taken on the part of the corporation. 3 tion re- mediable. 1 Matter of Brooklyn, W. and N. Railway Co., 72 N. Y. 245; see § 166. 2 Powers v. Hazleton, etc., R'y Co., 33 Ohio St. 429; Atkinson v. Marietta, etc., R. R. Co., 15 O. St. 21. Contra, McAuley r. Columbus, Cbicago, etc., R'y Co., 83 111. 348; Peoria & P. W. R'y Co. v. Peoria & F. R'y Co., 105 111. 110; Reisner v. Strong, 24 Kan. 410; Schroeder v. Detroit, etc., R'y Co., 44 Mich. 387; St. Joseph, etc., R'y Co. v. Sbambaugh, 106 Mo. 557. Compare Buncombe T. Co. v. Mc- Carson, 1 Dev. & Bat. (N. C.) Law, 306; Railroad Co. v. Lumber Co., 114 N. C. 690; Farham v. D. & H. Canal Co., 61 Pa. St. 265; National Docks R. R. Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 32 N. J. Eq. 755. A court of equity will enjoin a railroad company im- properly and fraudulently organized from condemning land. Niemeyer v. Little Rock, etc., R'y Co., 43 Ark. 111. Compare East & West R. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, etc., R. R. Co., 75 Ala. 275. 3 Grand Rapids Bridge Co. v. Prange, 35 Mich. 400. See Denver and Swancy R'y Co. v. Denver City R'y Co., 2 Col. 673. Compare Truc- kee, etc., Turnpike Co. v. Campbell, 44 Cal. 89; Pixley v. Roanoke Navi- gation Co., 75 Va. 320; Attorney- General v. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 371. 4 Comanche County v. Lewis, 133 U. S. 198; Kanawha Coal Co. v. Kanawha and Ohio Coal Co., 7 Blatchf. 391 ; Basshor v. Dressel, 34 Md. 503; People v. Perrin, 56 Cal. 345; White v. Coventry, 29 Barb. 305; Cochran v. Arnold, 58 Pa. St. 399; State v. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Mo. 562. A statute curing the defects in the organization of a de facto corpora- tion is not repugnant to a constitu- tional provision prohibiting the crea- tion of corporations by special act. 6 See Augur Steel Axle, etc., Co. Whittier, 117 Mass. 451. 123