Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/388

 § 384.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. some of them, as well as the legislation of Congress, all concur in proving the truth of this proposition." In Christian Union v. Yount, 1 the rule was restated thus: "In harmony with the general law of comity, obtaining among the states composing the Union, the presumption should be indulged that the cor- poration of one state, not forbidden by the law of its being, may exercise within any other state the general powers con- ferred by its own charter, unless it is prohibited from so do- ing either in the direct enactments of the latter state, or by its public policy to be deduced from the general course of its legislation or from the settled adjudications of its highest court." 2 i 101 U. S. 352, 356, per Harlan, J. 2 In accordance with these princi- ples are the following authorities: Tombigbee R. R. Co. v. Kneelantl, 4 How. 16; Cowell v. Spring Co., 100 TJ. S. 55; Williams v. Creswell, 51 Miss. 817; Silver Lake Bank v. North, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 370; Bard v. Poole, 12 N". Y. 495; Merrick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208; British Am. Land Co. v. Ames, 6 Mete. 391; Martin v. Mobile, etc., R. R. Co., 7 Bush (Ky.), 116; Guaga Iron Co. v. Uawson, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 202; Lea- sure v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 Pa. St. 491; Dodge v. City of Council Bluffs, 57 Iowa, 560; Life Ass'n v. Levy, 33 La. Ann. 1203; Kennebec Co. v. Augusta Ins. Co., 6 Gray, 204; Flash ». Conn, 16 Fla. 428; Newburg Petroleum Co. v. Weare, 27 Ohio St. 343; Bank of Washtenaw b. Mont- gomery, 3 111. 422; Lycoming Fire Ins. Co. «. Langley, 62 Md. 196. See Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, 12 N. Y. 569; Eslava b. Ames Plow Co., 47 Ala. 384; Floyd v. Nat. Loan Inv. Co., 49 W. Va. 327; State v. Water Co., 61 Kas. 547. A foreign corpora- tion may sue as administrator in Del- aware when authorized by the state creating it (Pennsylvania) to admin- ister decedents 1 estates. Deringer's 368 Adm'r v. Deringer's Adm'r, 5 Houst. (Del.) 410; see ib., 6 Houst. 64. When there is nothing to the con- trary in the policy of the state as de- clared by its legislature, a foreign corporation may purchase real estate. Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55; Christian Union v. Yount, 101 U. S. 352; Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y. 576; State p. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 25 Vt. 433; Claremont Bridge Co. v. Royce, 42 Vt. 730; Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214; Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H. 30; Santa Clara Female Academy v. Sul- livan, 116 111. 375; Taylor v. Trust Co., 71 Miss. 694. See Runyan v. Coster's Lessee, 14 Pet. 122; Whit- man M'g Co. v. Baker, 3 Nev. 386. A foreign corporation may take a lease of premises for its business. Steamboat Co. v. McCutcheon, 13 Pa. St. 13; Northern Trans'n Co. v. Chi- cago, 7 Biss. 45; Black v. Dela- ware and R. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 130, 422. Or a mortgage on real estate. National Trust Co. v. Mur- phy, 30 N. J. Eq. 408 ; Lebanon Sav- ings Bank v. Hollenbeck, 29 Minn. 322; American Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 15 Gray, 491; Silver Lake Bank v. North, 4 Johns. Ch. 370; Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8