Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/258

 § 277.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. jection. "One who has received from a corporation the full consideration of his engagement to pay money .... cannot avail himself of the objection that the contract thus fully per- formed by the corporation was ultra vires, and not within its chartered privileges and powers." 1 Such a person, having himself made the contract and received its benefit, is clearly estopped from making any such allegation. This rule rests on the corporation's performance. It does not apply so long as the ultra vires contract remains executory on both sides. While that is the case neither party can com- pel the other to perform. 2 § 277. The converse of the above rule is also held to be law. If the other contracting pa rt y lias performed his side of the contract, the corporation cannot j?lead that its charter gave it no power to enter into the contract; at least if the corporate property has been benefited by the performance? It is submitted in the way of logical Converse of this propo- sition in- volves a fal- lacy. 449; Allen o. Freedman's Savings Co., 14 Fla. 418; Brown v. Mortgage Co., 110 111. 235; Eckmau v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 169 111. 312; Chicago & A. Ry. Co. ». Derkes, 103 Ind. 520; Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94; Union Nat. Bk. o. Hunt, 76 Mo. 439; Bond v. Terrell Mfg. Co., 82 Tex. 309. See Goodin v. Evans, 18 Ohio St. 150; Goodin v. Cincinnati, etc., C. Co., ib. 169; Kelly v. People's Trans. Co., 3 Oregon, 189; Shewalter v. Pinter, 55 Mo. 218; Third Avenue Savings Bk. v. Dimock, 24 N. J. Eq. 26; Dutchess Cotton Manufactory v. Davis, 14 Johns. 238, 245; Reynolds v. Craw- fordsville First National Bank, 112 U. S. 405, 413. Contra, Chambers ». Falkner, 65 Ala. 449; compare Screven Hose Co. v. Philpot, 53 Ga. 625; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, 12 N. Y. 569; North River Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 3 Wend. 482; Beach v. Fulton Bank, 3 Wend. 573. Regarding contracts forbidden by statute, see §§ 297 et seq. 1 Whitney Arms Co. c. Barlow, 63 238 N. Y. 70; Building Ass'n v. Lamson, 60 Minn. 422; Bath Gas Co. v. Claffy, 151 N. Y. 24. 2 Nassau Bank ». Jones, 95 N. Y. 115; Bosshardt Co. r. Oil Co., 171 Pa. St. 109; Wilkes v. Pacific R. R. Co., 79 Ala. 180; First Nat. B'k r. Win- chester, 119 Ala. 168; Day i Spiral Springs Buggy Co., 57 Mich. 146. See Camden & A. R. R. Co. v. May's Landing, etc., R. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 530, 561; Simpson v. Bldg. Ass'n, 38 O. St. 349. Compare R. R. Co. v. Tel. Co., ib. 31; Jemison v. City's Sav. B'k, 122 N. Y. 135. 3 Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417 ; Camden & Atl. R. R. Co. v. May's Landing, etc. R. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 530; Chapman v. Iron Clad Co., 62 N. J. L. 497 ; Railroad v. Railroad, m N. H. 100, 127 ; International Tr. Co. o. Company, 70 N. H. 118 ; Denver Fire Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 9 Col. 11 ; Sherman Center Town Co. v. Morris, 43 Kan. 282 ; He i ins Brg. Co. o. Flan- nery, 137 111. 309; Towers, etc., Co. v. Inmau, 96 Ga. 506 ; Pindleton