Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/180

 § 187.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. requires modification in this respect : shareholders by their separate and individual action or acquiescence may estop them- selves from questioning the validity of an act done on behalf of a corporation. 1 Conversely, a person owning all the capital stock of a corporation is not the legal owner of its property, and, for example, cannot maintain replevin for it in his own name.- principles which estop a corporation from denying the existence of a fact certified to by an agent, on the ex- istence of which the authority of the agent to act depends; also, §§ 329- 332. 4 Humphreys v. McKissock, 140 U. S. 304, 312; Duke v. Markham, 105 N. C. 181; Shay v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 6 Cal. 73; Ruby v. Abyssinian Society, 15 Me. 306; Bartlett v. Kinsley, 15 Conn. 327; Hartford Bank v. Hart, 3 Day (Conn.), 491; Hayden v. Middlesex Turnpike Co., 10 Mass. 397, 403; Harris v. Muskingum Mfg. Co., 4 Blackf. ( Iud. ) 267. See Canal Bridge v. Gordon, 1 Pick. 296, 303; Bidwell v. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 114 Pa. St. 535; Rough v. Breitung, 117 Mich. 48; Sellers v. Greer, 172 111. 549. All the shareholders act- ing individually cannot convey the corporate property. Wheelock v. Moultou, 15 Vt. 519; Isham v. Ben- nington Iron Co., 19 Vt. 230, 249; Baldwin v. Canheld, 26 Minn. 43; Parker v. Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252. Compare Gordon v. Swan, 43 Cal. 504; Castleberry v. State, 62 Ga. 442. So a person who is president, treas- urer, and general manager of a cor - poratio n, and owns all but two share s of itsstock, cannot i^ive a mortgage of the pro perty~oTthe corporation to secure a pre-existing debt; England D. Dearborn, 141 Mass. 590. Semble contra, Swift v. .Smith, 65 Md. 428. S^asjdg of fi(p-pnvn.tft property made in good_faU^i_Jry_the^ assignee of an 100 insolvent corporation cannot be, set aside o n account of any frau d com- mitted by a shareholder with which the assignee was in no way connected. Trevitt v. Converse, 31 Ohio St. 60. Notice to individu aJLs hareholdg rs is not not ice to th e^corjiQration. Davis Improved Wrought Iron Wagon Wheel Co. u. Davis, etc., Co., 22 Blatchf. 221; Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 28 S. C. 143; Blood v. La Serena L. & W. Co., 134 Cal. 361; Nor is notice to corporators. Mercantile Nat. Bk. v. Parsons, 54 Minn. 56. But if the shareholders covena nt that the corporation shall do certain acts, they will be individually liable, at least in damages, if it do not per- form. Tileston v. Newell, 13 Mass. 406; see Wheelock v. Moulton, 15 Vt. 519, 524. 1 Sheldon Hat Blocking Co. v. Eickemeyer Hat Blocking Machine Co., 90 N. Y. 607; Hull v. Glover, 126 111. 122; Manhattan Hardw. Co. v. Plialen, 128 Pa. St. 110; Same v. Ro- land, ib. 119; McCaleb v. Goodwin et al., 114 Ala. 615; Nicrosi v. Calera Land Co., 115 Ala. 429. See §§ 213- 217. 2 Button v. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 20; First Nat'l B'k of Gadsden v. Win- chester, 119 Ala. 168. See, also, Compton v. The Chelsea, 128 N. Y. 537; Richter ». Henningsan, 110 Cal. 530; Exchange Bank v. Macon Cons. Co., 97 Ga. 1; Bridge Co. v. Traction Co., 19(5 Pa. St. 25; Sparks v. Dun- bar, 102 Ga. 129; Harrington v. Con- nor, 51 Neb. 214; Durlacher v. Frazer,