Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/466

 § 460.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VHI. held not to be grounds of forfeiture : insolvency of the corpora- tion; 1 the mere omission of a corporation to use its powers; 2 that the corporation has obtained a charter from another state. 3 § 460. Grounds of forfeiture cannot be taken advantage of or enforced collaterally or incidentally, or in any other mode than by a direct proceeding for that purpose against the corporation. 4 And the state may waive a forfeiture by express legislation to that effect or by legislation recognizing the exist- ence of the corporation. 5 But mere lapse of time is not a Grounds of forfeiture not to be taken ad- vantage of collater- ally. Waiver. required by statute to have paid up one-half its capital stock " in lawful money of the United States," it suf- fices if the corporation has received as payment property whose market value exceeds the par value of the stock. State v. Wood, 8-4 Mo. 378 (quaere ?). See State ex inf. Crow v. Hogau, 163 Mo. 43. 1 State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46; but see State v. Real Estate Bank, 5 Ark. 595; Commercial Bank of Natchez v. State, 6 Sin. & M. (Miss.) 617; but see People v. Milk Exchange, 133 N. Y. 565. 2 Attorney-General v. Bank of Ni- agara, Hopkins Ch. (N. Y. ) 354; see State v. Barron, 58 N. H. 370; People v. Dasbaway Ass'n, 84 Cal. 114. Non-user of franchises held a ground of forfeiture in State v. Min- nesota Cent. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 246; Edgar Collegiate Inst. v. People, 142 111. 363. 8 Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh and Connellsville R. R. Co., 58 Pa. St. 26. An unauthorized consolida- tion of two turnpike companies, en- tered into in good faith, hut subse- quently declared void, is not a ground of forfeiture of the original charters; and the property reverts to the two original companies. State v. Craw- fordsville T. P. Co., 102 Ind. 283; Crawfordsville, etc., T. P. Co. v. State, ib. 435. 446 4 Duke v. Cahawba Navigation Co., 16 Ala. 372; Briggs v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Co., 137 Mass. 71; Pet. of P. & M. R'y Co., 187 Pa. St. 123; Gas Co. v. Borough of Downington, 193 Pa. St. 255; Olyphant Sewage Co. v. Oly- phant Borough, 196 Pa. St. 553; see Cowell v. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 480; Atty. Gen'l v. Am. Tobacco Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 352; S. C, 56 N. J. Eq. 847; Ga. Nor. R'y Co. v. Tifton, T. & G. R'y Co., 109 Ga. 762; cf. State v. Spartanburg, etc., R. R. Co., 51 S. C. 129; and cases in the following note. Except where the act or omission produces in itself a forfeiture; Brook- lyn Steam Transit Co. v. Brooklyn, 78 N. Y. 524; and indeed this last is taking advantage of a forfeiture, not a ground of forfeiture. See, gener- ally, §§ 145 et seq. & Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203; State v. Mississippi, etc., R. R. Co., 20 Ark. 495; People v. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351; In re New York Elevated R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 327; Central, etc., Road Co. v. People, 5 Col. 39, 46; People v. Ottawa Hy- draulic Co., 115 111. 281. A statute waiving a forfeiture of corporate rights confers no new rights upon the corporation, but is simply a sur- render or waiver by the sovereign of its right to claim the forfeiture. So a statute to extend the time within