Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/438

 § 437.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. § 436. It is the legislative policy of some states to prolong the existence of the corporation after the expiration of its charter, for the purposes of winding up its affairs, though not for the purpose of continuing its business. 1 Under such cir- cumstances, whether any given legal proceeding should be instituted in the corporate name, or in the name of a receiver or of trustees appointed to wind up the corporate affairs, de- pends on the statutory provisions. 2 § 437. In regard to the substantial effects of a dissolution, clearly the common law rule that upon the dissolution of a corporation, its real estate reverts to the grantor, its personal property to the sovereign, and all debts due from and to it become extinguished, 3 has no longer any application to stock corporations. And that it has no application is the combined 66 Ga. 177; Greely v. Smith, 3 Story, 657; Merrill v. Suffolk Bank, 31 Me. 57; Ingraham v. Terry, 11 Humph. (Tenn. ) 572; Mumma u. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 281; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Little, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 207; Bank of Miss. v. Wrenn, 3 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 791; May v. State Bank, 2 Rob. (Va.) 56; Thornton v. Mar- ginal Freight R'y Co., 123 Mass. 32; McCulloch v. Norwood, 58 N. Y. 566; Taylor v. Gray, 59 N. J. Eq. 621 ; Ins. Com. v. U. S. Fire Ins. Co., 22 K. I. 377; compare Shayne v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 168 N. Y. 70; Piatt v. Archer, 9 Blatchf. 559; Fiskr. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 10 Blatchf. 518; Wil- cox v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 56 Conn. 468; Life Ass'n v. Goode, 71 Tex. 90; Shore Line R. R. Co. v. Maine Cen. Ry. Co., 92 Me. 476; Morgan v. N. Y. Nat. Bldg. Assn., 73 Conn. 151. Contra, Lindell v. Ben- ton, 6 Mo. 361. So it is also held in Missouri that consolidation — which causes dissolution — does not abate a pending suit. Evans v. Interstate R'y Co., 106 Mo. 594. 1 See Life Ass'n of America u. Fas- sett, 102 111. 315; St. Louis, etc., Coal, etc., Co. v. Sandoval Coal Co., Ill 418 111.32; Folger v. Chase, 18 Pick. 63; Herron v. Vance, 17 Ind. 595 ; Tusca- loosa Scientific, etc., Ass'n v. Green, 48 Ala. 346; Nelson v. Hubbard, 96 Ala. 238; Stiles v. Laurel Fork, etc., Co., 47 W. Va. 838. As to extra- territorial recognition of such a stat- ute, see Rodger§.«. Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. 34. 2 See Mariners' Bank c. Sewall, 50 Me. 220; Blake v. Portsmouth, etc., R. R. Co., 39 N. H. 435; Tuscaloosa, etc., Ass'n v. Green, 48 Ala. 346; Re Independent Ins. Co., 1 Holmes, 103; Von Glahn v. De Rosset, 81 N. C. 467; Muscatine Turn Verein v. Funck, 18 Iowa, 469; Pomeroy's Les- see v. State Bank, 1 Wall. 23; Lo- throp v. Stedman, 13 Blatchf. 134, 143; Owen v. Smith, 31 Barb. 641; Heath v. Barmore, 50 N. Y. 302; Wright v. Nostrand, 94 N. Y. 31; State e. Bk. of Washington, 18 Ark. 554; Cooper v. Oriental Sav. Asso., 100 Pa. St. 402; Gray v. Lewis, 94 N. C. 392. 3 See Ang. and Ames on Corp., §779; Life Ass'n of American. Fas- sett, 102 111. 315; Mott v. Danville Seminary, 129 111. 403; Danville Sem- inary v. Mott, 136 111. 289. See Seixas