Page:Black's Law Dictionary (Second Edition).djvu/281

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.


CORPORATE

49 N. E. 424: State v. Andrews, 11 Neb. 52$, 10 N. W. 410; Corn. v. Upper Darby Antil- unis. 2 Pa. Dist. R. 89; Schaell’er v. liunham. 53.‘. Ill. 3S2.—Corpo:rs.te body. This term. or its equivalent "body corporate," is appl.ie(l_to piww-re corporations aggregate: not including nmidpsl cor orutions. Ccdar County v. _John- .knn. 50 M0. 2.5; East Oakland Tp. v. Skinner, ‘I4 U. S. 256, 24 L. Ed. 1%; Campbell v. Rail- roiid Co., 71 Ill. G11: Com. v. Beamish. 81 Pa. St. 3.")1.—Carpors.te franchise. _'1‘he right to exist and do business as a corporation: the right or priillege granted by the state or gunri-ninent to the persons forming an aggregate private corporation, and their successors, to exist and do business as a corporation and to exercise the rights and powers incidental to that form of organization or necessarily implied in the urzint. Iiilllk of C-oliforn.i'i v. San Fran- glsro, 1-12 Cal 276. 75 Puc. S72. 64 L. R. A. ‘*1 100 Am. St. Rep. 130: Jersey City Gas-

llrllt ("o. v. United Gas imp. 00. (C. C.) 46 122 N. c.

. _ . Corpo- rate ns.me. ivlien a corporation is erected, a. name is always given to it. or. supposing none

- In be actually given, will attach to it by impli- CIIUOD, and by that name alone it must sue and be sued, and do all legral acts. though a very m'uute variation, therein is not material, and lie name is capable of being changed (by compctt-nt authority) without atfectjng the identity nr capacity of the corporation. orton.— Curpornte purpose. In reference to munici- Dill corporations, and especially to their powers of taxation. :1 “corporate purpose" is one which shall promote the general prosperity and the welfare of the municipality. (Wethereii v. De- rine. 116 Ill. 631, 6 N. E. 24.) or a purpose necessary or proper to carry into effect the oh’vct ot‘ the creation of the corporate body. (People v. School Trustees, 78 Ill. 140,) or one which is germane to the general scope of the objects for which the corporation was created or has I). legitimate connection with those ob- jects and a manifest relation thereto. (\"\.'e.ir.ht- man v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256. 26 L Ed. 392.)

CORPORATION. An artificial person or legal entity created -‘by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation. composed. in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular oilice, but ordinarily consisting of an association of iJl1iilel‘0llS individ- unls, who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded in law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members. and which is, by the same authority, vested Willi the capacity of continuous succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either in perpetuity or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single individual in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and authorities conferred upon such bodies by law. See Case of Sutton's Huspital, 10 Cake. 82; Dartmouth College v. Wlmd\vurd, 4 Wlieat. 518. 636, 657. 4 L. Ed. 4-2!); U. S. v. Trinidad Coal Co., 137 U. S. mo. 11 sup. Ct. 57, 34 L. Ed 640; Andrews iii s. Co. v. Youngstown Coke Co., 86 Fed. 55.3. 30 C. C. A. 293; Porter v. Railroad Co., 76 ill 573-, State v. Payne. 129 M0. 468. 31 S. W. T97. 36 L. R. A. 576; Farmers L. s T. Co. v. New York, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 283; Stats

Bl.Law Dict.(2d Ed.)—18

273

CORPORATION

V. Turley. 142 M0. 403. 44 S. W. 267; Barber V. International Co., 73 Conn. 587, 48 Atl. 758; Sovereign Camp v. Fraley. 94 Tex. 200, 59 S. W. 905, 51 L. R. A. 8 Sellers V. Greer. 172 Ill. 5-19, 50 N. E. 2' , 40 L. It. A. 580; Old Colony. etc.. 00. v. Parker, etc., Co., 183 Mass. 557. 67 N. E. 870; Warner V. Beers, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 103. 129. 142.

A franchise posse-ssod by one or more individuals, who subsist as a hod_V politic. under 3 special denoininiition, and are Vested by the policy of the law with the capacifr of perpetual succession, and of acting in several respects, however numerous the associitiou may be, as a single individual. 2 Kent, Comm. 267.

An artificial person or being. endowed by law with the capacity of perpetual succes- D sion; consisting either of a single individual, (termed a “corporation sole,") or of a collection of several individi -i , (irhlch is termed a “Corporation aggrega 166; 1 Bl. Comm. 467, 469.

A corporation is an intellerhnil body. cre- ated by law, composed of indiriilimls united under a common name, the members of u hich succeed each other, so that the body contin- ues always t_he same, notwithstanding the change of the individuals who compose it, F snd which, for certain purposes. isconsidered a natural person. Civil Code La. art. 427.

Classification. According to the accepted defiiiiticns and rules, corporations are classified as follows: G


Public and private. A pnbiic corporation is one created by the state for political purposes and to act as an agency in the ad- ministration of civil government, generally H within a particular territory or Si.ll)(l'l\lSl0lJ of the state, and usually invested, for that purpose, with subordinate and iocal powers of legislation; such as a county. city. town. or school district. These are also snmeiimes called “political corporations." People v. McAdai.ns, 82 Ill. 356; Wooster v. Plymouth. 62 N. H. 208; Goodwin v. East Hartford 70 Conn. 18. 38 At]. 876: Dean v. Davis, 51 Cal. 409; Regents v. \l'lili:ii.ns, 9 Gill 6:. J. (M11) 401, 31 Am. Dec. 72; Ten Eyd: v. Canal Co., 1 18 N. J. Law, 200. 37 Am. Dec. 233: Toiedo Bank v. Bond. 1 Ohio St. 622; Murphy V. Mercer County, 57 N. J. Law, 245. 31 Atl. 229. Private corporations are those founded by and composed of private individuals, for private purposes, as distinguished from .-zov- K ernmentai purposes, and having no [)0llhr‘ll or governmental franchises or duties. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pnc. R. Co. (0. C.)

18 Fed. 402; Swan v. Wiliianis, 2 Mich. 434; People v. Mcadnms, 82 Ill. 361; McKim v. L Odom. 3 Bland (Md.) 418; Rundle v. Canal Co., 21 Fed. Cas. 6.

The true distinction between public and pri- vatc corporations is that the former are urgnn- izecl for governmental purposes, the latter not.

The term “pnhiic" has sometimes been applied M