Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/570

 § 538.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. IX. another corporation of the same character, and does not work a fundamental change in the nature of the original objects of incorporation. 1 § 537. When a person has subscribed for shares in a de When sub- f ac ^° existing corporation, he cannot plead to a suit scriber can- brought on his subscription that there are irregular- not plead °. . * ° nuitiel lties in the organization or the company ; even aorpor. ^^g^ ^ ne irregularities are such as would be fatal on a quo warranto? Thus, it is no defence to an action by a railroad corporation to recover a subscription that the articles of association were defective in not stating definitely the ter- mini of the road and the counties through which it passed. 3 Moreover, the signature of the defendant to a subscription to shares in the stock of an alleged corporation reciting that a cor- poration had been formed under the general enabling act, and that articles of association with the necessary affidavits had been filed, is conclusive evidence of incorporation as against such subscriber. 4 § 538. When, however, a person signs articles of association 1 Sprague v. Illinois River R. R. Co., 19 111. 174; Hanna v. Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co., 20 Ind. 30. See Bishop v. Brainerd, 28 Conn. 289. Compare Illinois River R. R. Co. v. Zimmer, 20 111. 654. 2 Chubb v. Upton, Assignee, 95 U. S. 665; Sanger v. Upton, Assignee, 91 U. S. 56; Home Stock Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 72 Mo. 461; Monroe v. Fort Wayne, etc., R. R. Co., 28 Mich. 272; Montpelier, etc, R. R. Co. v. Langdon, 46 Vt. 284; Mc- Carthy v. Lavashe, 10 Chi. Leg. N. 342; Ossipee Hosiery, etc., Co. v. Cauney, 54 N. H. 295; McHose v. Wheeler, 45 Pa. St. 32; Freeland v. Pennsylvania Central Ins. Co., 94 Pa. St. 504; Buffalo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75; Eaton v. Aspin- wall, 19 N. Y. 120; Mead v. Keeler, 24 Barb. 20; see Oregon Central R. R. Co. v. Scoggin, 3 Oreg. 161; Hunt v. Kansas, etc., Bridge Co., 11 Kans. 550 412; Weinman v. Passenger Ry. Co., 118 Pa. St. 192; Cotton Mills Co. v. Burns, 114 N. C. 353; Fish, Rec'r, v. Smith, 73 Conn. 377; Anderson v. Thompson, 51 La. Ann. 727. A sub- scriber to shares, who has accepted the charter and assisted in putting it in operation, cannot .plead to a suit on his subscription that the charter had been obtained by fraud. Smith v. Heidecker, 39 Mo. 157. See Slocum v. Providence Steam and Gas Pipe Co., 10 R. I. 112; Slocum v. Warren, ib. 116. Compare Occidental Ins. Co. v. Ganzhorn, 2 Mo. App. 205. See, also, §§ 738, and 145 et seq. 3 Cayuga Lake R. R. Co. v. Kyle, 64 N. Y. 185. 4 Black River, etc., R. R. Co. v. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208. Compare Road Co. v. Creeger, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 122; St. Charles M'f'g Co. v. Britton, 2 Mo. App. 290.