Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/285

 PART III.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 304. § 303. It is in accordance with this reasoning that a deed of real estate to a national bank, or other corporation, rendered incompetent by its charter or enabling act ized con- to hold the real estate conveyed, is not void, but void- Je^estate* able only at the suit of the government ; for to make tf £s rpora " such conveyances void would work the greatest hard- ship and uncertainty of title in subsequent purchasers, and all purposes of public policy are amply subserved by holding the deed voidable at the suit of the government. 1 The same ap- plies to unauthorized conveyances of personal property to a corporation. 2 § 304. We proceed now to consider the third of the three general classes into which ultra vires acts which are also illegal were divided; 3 i. e., those acts which, though neither immoral in themselves, nor forbidden by statute, certain corporations cannot do for reasons of public policy. Third class of illegal ultra vires acts. Cor- porations with public duties. authorized to make. Nat. Pember- ton Bk. ». Porter, 125 Mass. 333 ; Atlas Nat. Bk. v. Savery, 127 Mass. 75 ; see Attleborough Nat. Bk. v. Rogers, 125 Mass. 339 ; Merchants' Nat. Bk. v. Hanson, 33 Minn. 40, overruling First Nat. Bk. v. Pierson, 24 Minn. 140. 1 National Bank v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 621, 628; Mapes v. Scott, 94 111. 379; Warner v. De Witt County Nat. Bank, 4 111. App. 305; Leazure v. Hillegas, 7 S. & R. 313; Goundie v. Northampton Water Co., 7 Pa. St. 233; Runyan ». Coster, 14 Pet. 122; The Banks b. Poitiaux, 3 Rand.( Va. ) 136; Litchfield ». Preston, 98 Va. 530; Kelly v. People's Trans'n Co., 3 Oreg. 189; C. B. and Q. R. Co. v. Lewis, 53 Iowa, 101 ; Barrow v. Nash- ville, etc., T. C, 9 Humph. (Tenn.) 304; Mallett o. Simpson, 94 N. C. 37; Barnes v. Suddard, 117 111. 237; Long v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co.. 91 Ala. 519; Raganv. McElroy, 98 Mo. 349; S. & N. Ala. R. R. Co. v. Highland Ave. 6 Belt R. R. Co., 119 Ala. 105; Big- bee, etc., P. Co. v. Moore, 121 Ala. 379; First Nat. B'k of Sutton v. Grosshaus, 61 Neb. 575. See Grant v. Henry Clay Coal Co., 80 Pa. St. 208; Burden v. Burden, 159 N. Y. 287; Voltz v. Nat. Bk., 158 111. 532; Watts v. Gantt, 42 Neb. 869; Land Co. v. R. R. Co., 93 Va. 274; Cooney o. Pack'g Co., 169 111. 370. Compare Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 7 Crancb, 604; Madison Ave. Bap. Chr. v. Oliver St. Bap. Church, 73 N. Y. 82. Contra, Theveatt ». Bank, 81 Ky. 1; Gas, etc., Co. r. Dairy Co., 60 Oh. St. 96; Water Supply, etc., Co. v. Tenney, 24 Colo. 344; Hall ». Bank, 145 Mo. 418; George v. Somer- ville, 153 Mo. 7. After a corporation that has the power to hold land has made a pur- chase, the collateral question whether it was a violation of the charter for it to receive the convey- 2 For note 2 3 For note 3 see p. 266. see p. 266. 265