Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/427

 PART V.] CONSOLIDATION. [§ 421. § 420. The authority to consolidate may exist in the original constitution of the corporation ; x or it may be given Authoriw by a subsequent statute passed before consolidation ; 2 to consoii-' or an unauthorized consolidation may be ratified by statute after it has taken place. 3 And power given to a cor- poration to consolidate with any other is sufficient to another corporation, if it choose, to unite with the former, although the latter is not named in the statute. 4 Corporations incorporated by different states may be united by consolidation. 5 § 421. When two or more corporations are consolidated, the legal relations thereby occasioned depend primarily Effect f on the intention of the legislature as expressed in the consoiida- statute authorizing the consolidation. 6 Generally the effect is to dissolve all the corporations consolidating, and to create a new corporation out of their elements. 7 But consolida- tion does not necessarily work a dissolution of all the consolidat- ing corporations; and one may become merged in the other, the latter continuing its corporate existence. 8 1 Nugent v. Supervisors, 19 Wall. 241. 2 See Black v. Delaware and Rar. Canal Co., 24 N. J. Eq. 455. A state may authorize two or more existing corporations to organize themselves into a new corporation just as much as it may authorize individuals to in- corporate themselves. State Treas- urer v. Auditor-General, 46 Mich. 224, 233. 8 Bishop v. Brainerd, 28 Conn. 289 ; Mead v. New York, Housatonic, etc., R. R. Co., 45 Coun. 199. See Mc- Auley v. Columbus, etc., Ry. Co., 83 111. 348. 4 Matter of Prospect Park, etc., R. R. Co., 67 N. Y. 371. See New York and N. E. R. R. Co. v. New York, etc., R. R. Co., 52 Conn. 274 ; contra, Morrill v. Smith Co., 89 Tex. 529, 552. 5 See Muller v. Do ws, § 408, and gen- erally for status of such corporation, see §§ 403 et seq. ; also Racine, etc., R. R. Co. v. Farmers' L'n & Trust Co., 49 111. 331. 6 Central R. R., etc., Co. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 665; Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359 ; Keokuk, etc., R. R. Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301 ; Adams v. R. R. Co., 77 Miss. 194 ; State ex rel. Houck v. Lesuer, 145 Mo. 322. 7 Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359; Clearwater ». Meredith, 1 Wall. 25 ; McMahon v. Morrison, 16 Ind. 172 ; State v. Bailey, ib. 46 ; Shields v. Ohio, 95 U. S. 319 ; Ridgway Town- ship v. Griswold, 1 McCrary, 151 ; Cheraw, etc., R. R. Co. v. Commis- sioners, 88 N. C. 519 ; Fee v. New Orleans Gas Light Co., 35 La. Ann. 413 ; Kansas, O., etc., Ry. Co. v. Smith, 40 Kan. 192 ; Board of Ad- ministrators v. Gas Light Co., 40 La. Ann. 382 ; Adams v. R. R. Co., 77 Miss. 194. 8 Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. 376 ; Central R. R., etc., Co. v. Georgia, 92 U. S. 665 ; 407