Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/465

 CHAP. VIII.] CORPORATION AND STATE. [§ 459. public should have some real interest in procuring a forfeit- ure of corporate franchises. 1 The following have been held grounds of forfeiture : a constant and wilful violation by a bank of the fundamental articles of its charter, by discounting paper at higher rates than those prescribed ; 2 that the princi- pal office of the corporation and its books and records are kept out of the state, and that none of its general officers reside within the state; 3 a sale by a turnpike company of a portion of its road, and its neglect thereafter to keep that portion in repair ; 4 non-compliance by a turnpike company with the re- quirements of its act in regard to the construction of its road ; 5 an unauthorized assumption by an insurance company of bank- ing privileges ; 6 and, in general, any substantial non-compliance on the part of a corporation, in respect of its organization, with the provisions of its enabling act. 7 The following have been Ry. Co., 88 111. 537; People v. Ulster, etc., R. R. Co., 128 N. T. 240. 1 Harris b. Mississippi Valley, etc., R. R. Co., 51 Miss. 602; see King v. Howell, Hardwicke's Cases, 235 ; Ibbottson's Case, ib. 248; Attorney- General b. Tudor Ice Co., 104 Mass. 239; People v. Bogart, 45 Cal. 73; Commonwealth b. Arrison, 15 S. & R. 127; Commonwealth b. Union Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 5 Mass. 230; State v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 40 Minn. 213. Compare State v. Rio Grande R. R. Co., 41 Tex. 217. As to when a state has such an in- terest as will entitle it to move in the Federal courts against a corpo- ration, see State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, etc., Bridge Co., 13 How. 618. Compare People v. Atlantic Ave. R. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 513. 2 Commonwealth v. Commercial Bk., 28 Pa. St. 383; see Commercial Bk. v. State of Mississippi, 14 Miss. 599. 8 State b. Milwaukee, etc., Ry. Co., 45 Wis. 579. See Simmons v. Steam- boat Co., 113 N. C. 147. 8 R. I. 182. 5 People b. Kingston, etc., Turn- pike Co., 23 Wend. 193; see People b. Fishkill, etc., Plank Road Co., 27 Barb. 445. 6 People v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns. 358. 7 State b. Central Ohio Relief As- sociation, 29 Ohio St. 399; State v. Vanderbilt, 37 Ohio St. 591 ; State b. Hazleton, etc., Ry. Co., 40 O. St. 504; State b. Capital City Dam Co., 62 Oh. St. 350; State b. Equitable L. & I. Co., 142 Mo. 325; People b. Cheese- man, 7 Col. 376; People v. Buffalo Stone Co., 131 N. Y. 140. Where the statute requires a specified amount to be subscribed for a rail- road company, the subscription must be made in good faith by persons having a reasonable expectation of being able to pay; or the state may forfeit the franchises, and is not con- cluded by the articles of incorpora- tion filed, showing that the requisite amount has been subscribed for. Holman b. State, 105 Ind. 569. Substantial compliance with con- ditions attached to a grant of corpo- rate franchises is all that is neces- sary. Thus, where a corporation is 445
 * State b. Pawtuxet Turnpike Co.,