95 F. 23 | 9th Cir. | 1899
after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
We have stated the facts in this case at great length, in order that the general expressions in this opinion may be'interpreted and understood in the light of all the circumstances disclosed by the record. The peculiar and irregular manner in which the business of the corporation, appellant herein, was transacted, necessarily leads to many complications, and presents several legal questions of an important character, as to how far such transactions can be upheld by the courts. Conceding, as we shall, for the purposes of this opinion, that the stockholders of the corporation might have objected to being bound by the acts of Bryan and Venable, if they had made timely objections thereto, the answer is that they did not make any such objections, and are not asking for any relief herein, except under the name of the corporation.
Can appellant take any advantage of its own wrong or of any of the irregular acts of its officers? .Can it, after allowing Bryan and Venable to pursue the course they did, holding them out to the world as qualified to transact the business in the manner stated, be allowed to deny their authority? Should a court of equity visit their faults of omission or commission upon innocent parties who acted in good faith, honestly believing that Bryan and Venable had authority from the corporation? Do the facts show, as appellant claims, that the appellee had full knowledge of the true state of facts, and acted with its eyes wide open, knowing that the acts of Bryan and Venable were without authority of law? It may be admitted that the bank seems to have transacted business with Bryan and Venable in a careless manner, without much regard to strict banking principles; but it is not shown that, as against the GL V. B. Mining Company, or any of its stockholders, it has been guilty of any wrongdoing which, under the law, in the light of all the facts, will prevent it from maintaining this suit.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the interesting legal questions involved herein, we deem it proper to make some general oh-
We have said that Bryan and Venable constituted the corporation from the time of its organization up to, and at the time of, the execution of the notes and mortgage upon which this suit was brought, and it might be added that they continued as such until H. K. Thurber assumed the management and control. Venable thereafter acted with the Thurber party. In the light of the entire history of the corporation, as shown by the record in this case, it might be, perhaps, more properly said that Bryan, until July 11, 1895, by the consent of all parties interested and concerned, and H. K. Thurber thereafter, were to all intents and purposes the G. V. B. Mining Company; that, as was said by the circuit court, “the so-called directors and officers in New York constituted simply the dumb machinery, entirely directed by these parties, and through whom they operated when it was necessary to invoke the legal status of the corporation to strengthen their hands or advance their objects.”
In the consideration of the legal questions herein .presented, it must constantly be borne in mind that we are confining ourselves to the peculiar facts established by the evidence, as distinguished from the general principles applicable to the power of officers to bind the corporation. We are called upon to deal solely with exceptions to the general rule. In this view it becomes unnecessary to discuss the various authorities cited by appellant’s counsel as to tlie general manner in which corporations, are legally authorized to transact their business. The vital question is whether, from the manner in which the G. V. B. Mining Company transacted its business, it can take advantage of its acts against the appellee. We are of opinion that, from the facts, it cannot do so.
As to the power and authority of Bryan, as president, to incur the indebtedness and to give notes in the name of the corporation, but
Moreover, the corporation for several years had the benefit of the money drawn from the bank, and upon divers notes, which were renewed by the notes which the mortgage was given to secure, and cannot, after such length of time, never having made any objection thereto during the transactions, be heard to deny the validity of the same. Union Gold-Mining Co. of Colorado v. Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank, 90 U. S. 640; Pittsburg, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Keokuk & H. B. Co., 131 U. S. 371, 381, 9 Sup. Ct. 770; Construction Co. v. Fitzgerald, 137 U. S. 98, 109, 11 Sup. Ct. 36; Wood v. Waterworks Co., 44 Fed. 147, 150; Railroad Co. v. Kittel, 2 C. C. A. 615, 52 Fed. 63, 73; Railway Co. v. Sidell, 14 C. C. A. 477, 67 Fed. 464, 469; Hardware Co. v. Phalen, 128 Pa. St. 110, 118, 18 Atl. 428; Allen v. Power Co., 13 Wash. 307, 309, 43 Pac. 55; Gribble v. Brewing Co., 100 Cal. 67, 71, 34 Pac. 527; Bradley v. Ballard, 55 Ill. 413, 419.
In Crowley v. Mining Co., 55 Cal. 273, 275, the court said:
“The common-law rule, that a corporation has no capacity to act or to make a contract, except under its common seal, has been long since exploded in this country. Even in England, it has been found to be impracticable, so that the classes of cases which constitute exceptions to the rule have become so numerous that the exceptions have almost abrogated the rule. In the United States, nothing more is requisite than to show the authority of the agent to contract. That authority may be conferred by the corporation at a regular meeting of the directors, or by their separate assent, or by any other mode of their doing such acts.”
If this were not so, “it would,” as said by Redfield, C. J., in Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 30 Vt. 159, 170, “become impossible to dispose of such contracts with any hope of reaching the truth and justice of the rights and duties' of the several parties involved,
In Sherman v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59, 64, the court, speaking of the authority of the president to execute a. mortgage in behalf of the corporation, said:
“It is not necessary that the authority should be given by a formal vole. Such an act by the president and general manager of the business of the corporation, with tin: knowledge and concurrence of the directors, or with (heir subsequent and long-continued acquiescence, may properly be regarded as the act of the corporation. Authority in the agent of a corporation may be inferred from the conduct of its officers, or from their knowledge and neglect to make objection, as well as in ¡he ease of individuals.”
The principal contention of appellant is that, whatever the rule may he as to the indebtedness incurred by Bryan and Venable, while they controlled and managed the property of the corporation, or as to the validity of the notes executed by tlic-m as the notes of the corporation, the mortgage is absolutely void, because it was not executed in the manner provided for by the statute of Yew York, which required, as a condition precedent to the execution of the mortgage, the writ ten assent of two-thirds of the stockholders, in the manner therein provided. Act to Amend Stock Corporation Law, approved May 18, 1892 (Laws N. Y. 1892, vol. 2, c. 688). In support of his contention appellant’s counsel cites Vail v. Hamilton, 85 N. Y. 453; Bank v. Averell, 96 N. Y. 467; In re Wendler Mach. Co., 2 App. Div. N. Y. 16, 20, 37 N. Y. Supp. 444; Sugar Co. v. Whitin, 69 N. Y. 328, 333; and Pauling v. Steel Co., 94 N. Y. 334.
In the Vail Case there was no assent given as required by the statute, or in any other manner, and the court held the mortgage to be invalid.
In the Rochester Savings Bank Case, it was held, as in all the cases, that such an assent is an indispensable condition of the creation of a valid mortgage; but, where such assent was not given at the time the mortgage was executed, It would be validated, in the absence of any intervening rights, by a subsequent assent, which would operate as of the time of the execution of the mortgage and make it valid. The court, among other things, said:
“The obj'ect of the legislature, in requiring such assent, was the protection of stockholders against improvident, collusive, or unwise acts of the trustees, the governing body of the corporation, in incumbering the corporate property. Sugar Co. v. Whitin, 69 N. Y. 333. That the enactment was in the interest of stockholders is indicated by their designation as the assenting body. * * * Tlie stockholders of a corpora! ion are the equitable owners of the corporate property. The trustees are the managers. * * * The act of 1864 put it in the power of the stockholders to prevent any incumbrance of the corporate property by the act of the trustees alone.”
In Sugar Co. v. Whitin the court held that the statute under con-sidera,lion was intended simply to- protect the stockholders from improvident or corrupt acts of the officers of the corporation, and was not enacted because the mortgaging of corporate property was regarded as improper per se. In the course of the opinion, Church, C. J., said:
*32 “Without considering the question whether any but stockholders may inter* pose the objection to the authority exercised in this case, the inference that the general purpose and design of the act was in the interest of stockholders only, has some bearing upon the question presented as to the proper rule of construction to be adopted of the paper produced as an assent of the stockholders. The officers of a corporation are the agents of the stockholders, who occupy, in some respects, the character and position of principals, and this relation is recognized in the act in question, permitting the mortgaging of corporate property. The officers were prohibited from mortgaging, but may do it with the consent of the stockholders. The act of mortgaging is not deemed illegal; but the principal must assent in writing, and, to make the provision of practical value, the difficulty of procuring the assent of every stockholder was avoided by permitting the owner of two-thirds to assent. It is important to observe that the statute does not prescribe any particular form of assent, nor what it shall specify or contain. It only requires an assent in writing to secure a debt by mortgage. The statute should receive a practical, and not a technical, construction, and especially in the absence of fraud, and in the absence of any objection on the part of those for whose benefit the proviso was inserted, we are not called upon to exercise great astuteness in discovering defects which are not of such a substantial and radical character as to render the assent ineffective for the purpose designed. * * * He [appellant] seeks to gain a preference, not by objecting either that the amount of the debt or its nature was not correct and legitimate, nor claiming that he was in manner deceived or misled, but by criticising the form in which those interested saw fit to express their assent. Assuming his right to object, we think the defects must be so radical that an intention to consent cannot be inferred.”
In Pauling v. Steel Co., the court, referring to Sugar Co. v. Whitin, said:
“It is, at least, doubtful whether anybody but stockholders can complain that the condition was not complied with.”
The mortgage in the present case was executed by the “G. V. B. Mining Co. [L. S.], by G. V. Bryan, President,” and indorsed thereon is the following: “I hereby assent to the making of the mortgage. G. W. Venable.” Bryan and Yenable, be it remembered, at that time owned more than two-thirds of the stock of the corporation. In fact, they owned all the stock except 352 shares, as shown by the preponderance of the evidence given at the trial. Following the reason and spirit of the decisions in the state of New York, we think the acts of Bryan and Yenable, in the absence of any allegation or proof of fraud upon their part, constituted a substantial compliance with the statute, and that the corporation is not in a position to'make any objection thereto upon this ground.
It is next claimed that the mortgage is not the deed of the corpora tion, because the seal thereto affixed by Bryan is not its corporate seal. The by-laws of the corporation provide that “the trustees shall provide a seal, with a suitable device, and containing thereon the corporate name of the company, which shall be in charge of the secretary or treasurer, and said seal shall be affixed to all certificates of stock, and to such contracts and agreements as is required by law.” The mortgage in the present case closes with the words: “In testimony whereof, the said party of the first part, by G. V. Bryan, its president, has hereunto subscribed its name, and affixed its corporate seal, the day and year first above written.” There are several authorities which hold that, in the execution of important contracts, deeds-, and mortgages by a corporation, it is essential that the corporate seal
“The old doctrine that corporations can act only by deed or instrument under seal lias been very much modified. It has given way to the pressure put upon it by the great growth of corporate transad ions, and the necessity for greater freedom in their operations for the convenience of business.”
Where an instrument, which requires a seal, is in all other respects properly signed and executed, it should not be declared invalid because the corporate seal was not attached, where, as here, it affirmatively appears that the “[L. 8.]” was adopted and used for the occasion as the seal of the corporation. Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland & W. R. Co., 30 Vt. 159, 171; Thayer v. Mill Co., 31 Or. 437, 444, 51 Pac. 202; 1 Mor. Priv. Corp. (2d Ed.) § 339; 2 Cook, Stock, Stockh. & Corp. Law (3d Ed.) § 722; B. S. Green Co. v. Blodgett, 159 Ill. 169, 174, 42 N. E. 176; Proprietors, etc., v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417, 428; Porter v. Railroad Co., 37 Me. 349; Eureka Co. v. Bailey Co., 11 Wall. 488, 491; Navigation Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514, 518, 16 Sup. Ct. 379; Tenney v. Lumber Co., 43 N. H. 343, 350; Johnston v. Crawley, 25 Ga. 316, 326; 1 Devl. Deeds, § 337.
A contract of a corporation which is ultra vires is something outside the object of its creation, as defined in the law of its organization, and therefore beyond the powers conferred upon it by the legislature. Such a contract is not voidable only, but wholly void, and'of no legal effect. The objection to the contract is, not merely that the corporation ought not to have made it, hut that it could not make it. The contract cannot be ratified by either party, because it could not have been authorized by either. No performance on either side could give the unlawful contract any validity, or be the foundation of any right of action upon it. But, when a corporation is acting within the general scope of the powers conferred upon it by the legislature, the corporation, as well as persons contracting with it, may be estopped to deny that it has complied with the legal formalities which are prerequisites to its existence, or to its action, because such requisites might in fact have been complied with. The doctrine of ultra vires has been often said to rest upon three distinct grounds: (1) The obligation of persons dealing with a corporation to take notice
In McCracken v. Robison, 6 C. C. A. 400, 57 Fed. 375, 377, the court held that directors who own all the stock of a corporation are not within the rule prohibiting persons in a fiduciary relation from contracting for their own advantage in the name of the beneficiary, and such a contract, made in the name of the corporation by the unanimous consent of the directors, is not invalid, as against public policy. Among other things, the court said:
“The defendants, by confounding names with things and form with substance, have built up a theory to shelter themselves from performing their own part of the contract, which is as unsound as their own conduct is dishonest.”
In Barr v. Railroad Co., 125 263, 273, 26 N. E. 145, the court, among many other things applicable to this case, said:
“If the company’s directors were interested in the work and profits of construction, and evaded a direct contract through the form or device of an intermediary contractor, that was a matter for the company or for its stockholders to take hold of; but the stockholders and the members of the syndicate were the same persons, and, however wrong the transaction might be if other persons were concerned, here no injury was effected to any one interested in the corporation, and, however illegal the transaction, there was no person apparently to complain of it.”
See, also, Wood v. Waterworks Co., 44 Fed. 146, 151, and authorities there cited.
It is evident that neither Bryan nor Venable, if they had continued in charge of the corporation, could be heard to say that their acts were illegal, without authority of law, and wholly void. It cannot consistently be said that the acts of the Thurber. faction stand in any better light. When they took charge of the mines on July 11, 1895, which was within a month after the execution of the mortgage in question, they apparently endeavored to be honest and just to all parties concerned. They continued working under the lease and agreements referred to in the foregoing statement up to October 6, 1897, with full knowledge of all the facts, without interposing any objection to the manner in which the indebtedness was incurred and
There is but one other point to notice, 'no testimony seems to have been offered upon the allegation in the complaint concerning the alleged mistake in the description of the property mortgaged, and the decree declares that this alleged error is “corrected to conform to the intent of the parties to said mortgage as to the premises and property which should be mortgaged thereby.” It is claimed that, the mortgage expressly covered the group by name, and that, under the allegations, must have covered the Sumol claim in question; that the answer simply denies that any mistake was made, and did not deny that the Bumol was a part of the group; and that it was therefore unnecessary to prove the facts alleged in the complaint. The objection to this part of the decree was raised for the first time on appeal, and the court might for this reason be justified in not considering it; but inasmuch as the appellee “offered to release it from the effect of the decree,” and as it is stated in the brief that it "was written into the decree through inadvertence,” we are of opinion that the decree should be modified by striking out the order and description herein referred to, but that this correction should not affect the right of appellee to recover its costs. The decree, as modified, is affirmed, with costs.