Albert Sidney Bolles, Ph.D., LL.D. (continued 2)

Though the United States is a common carrier for carrying mails, it cannot be held liable because it is a branch of the government. Mail matter may be carried by private persons, but this is limited to special trips. By statute no person can establish any private express for carrying letters or packets by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route, or between towns, cities or other places where the mail is regularly carried.

A public officer in performing his duties is exempt from all liability. But a postmaster is liable to a person injured by his negligence or misconduct and for the acts of a clerk or deputy authorized by him. The assistant unless thus shielded must answer for his own misconduct. A rider or driver employed by a contractor for carrying the mails is an assistant in the business of the government. Although employed and paid, and liable to be discharged at pleasure by the contractor, the rider or driver is not engaged in his private service; he is employed in the public service and therefore the contractor is not liable for his conduct.

Chattel Mortgage.—A chattel mortgage is a conveyance of personal property, as distinguished from real property, to secure the debt of the lender or mortgagor. The essence of the agreement is, if the mortgagor does not repay the money as he has agreed to do, the mortgagee becomes the owner of the property. Until the mortgagor fails to execute his part of the agreement, he retains possession of the property. By statutes that have been enacted everywhere, the mortgagee's interest, or conditional title in the property conveyed to him, is secure by recording the deed even though the mortgagor still retains possession.

The usual form of a chattel mortgage is a bill of sale with a conditional clause, stating the terms of the loan and that, on the mortgagor's failure to pay, the mortgagee may take possession of the property. Any persons who are competent to make a contract may make a chattel mortgage, and an agent may act for another as in many other cases. When thus acting his authority may be either verbal, or written, or may be shown by ratification. Persons also who have a common ownership in chattels, tenants in common or partners for example, may mortgage either their common or individual interests. A husband may give a chattel mortgage to his wife, and she in turn can give one to him. Likewise a corporation may make such a mortgage.

The law is broader in the way of permitting a minor, married woman, or corporation to be mortgagees when they cannot act as mortgagors of their property. Two or more creditors may join in such a mortgage to secure their separate debts. If the debt of one of them is fraudulent, his fraud, while rendering the mortgage fraudulent as to him, will not affect its validity as to the other.

How must the mortgaged property be described? With sufficient clearness to enable third persons to identify the property. The description must contain reasonable details and suggest inquiries which if followed will result in ascertaining the precise thing conveyed. A description of a baker's stock "stock on hand," would be too meager, so would be a description of "our books of account, and accounts due and to become due," but cattle described by their age, sex and location will satisfy the law, though the cattle of other owners should form part of the same herd, when they can be ascertained by following out the inquiries suggested by the mortgage. Again, a description that is wholly false avoids the mortgage, but if it is false only in part, this may be rejected and the mortgage remain valid for the remainder.

More generally the nature of the chattels conveyed determine largely the character of the description. Thus animals may be described by weight, age, height, color and breed; vehicles by their style and manufacturer's name; furniture by piece or set; crops growing or to be grown by their location and year. A general claim of "all" articles in a stated place is regarded as sufficient. Oral evidence is admissible to aid the description in identifying the subject-matter of the mortgage, and to explain the meaning and extent of the terms of the description.

A mortgage may be given for a future advance of money. Nor need the mortgage state that it is thus given; and the fact may be proved orally. But when the right of third parties are affected, such a mortgage is not valid against them unless the specific sum that is to be secured is set forth. Likewise to render a mortgage secure against attaching creditors of the mortgagor, there must be a distinct statement of the condition or terms of the mortgage; in other words the creditors have a right to know what interest the mortgagee really has in the property that secures to him rights superior to their own. The rule should also be stated that where the rights of third parties are in issue, it must appear that the mortgagee acquired the mortgage before they had any rights to the property.

The statutes require that chattel mortgages should be acknowledged and recorded. In some states the requirements are strict in respect to the disinterestedness of the official who takes the acknowledgment. An affidavit is another requirement. This must state several things, especially that the mortgage was given in good faith, and the nature and amount of the consideration.

What may be mortgaged? In general, any personal property that may be sold; many of the statutes define it. They cover a life insurance policy, corporation stock, railway rolling stock, seamen's wages, growing crops and trees, profits from the use of a steamboat, premiums earned by a horse, book accounts, leasehold interests, nursery stock, besides many other things. Whenever fixtures annexed to real estate retain the character of personal property they may be mortgaged. And when animals are mortgaged their natural increase are included. A mortgage made of an unfinished article will hold the article when finished if it can be identified.

By the common law nothing could be mortgaged that was not in existence at the time of the mortgage. By statute a mortgage may cover after-acquired property, and this statute has become very important especially with merchants, manufacturers, and others who are constantly changing their stocks of goods.

When the mortgagor fails to pay his debt, the right of the mortgagee to proceed in taking the property is usually regulated by statute, except when the parties have agreed themselves and in conformity with statute. The rights of the mortgagee depend in many cases on the title, whether that has passed to him by virtue of the mortgage, or whether it still remains conditionally in the mortgagor. Where the mortgagor still retains the title, a clause is often put into the mortgage to the effect that, should the mortgagor default in payment, the mortgagee may take possession of the property and sell it; and such a provision is valid and enforcible. Where the title is vested or transferred to the mortgagee by virtue of the mortgage, this is equivalent to giving him possession whenever he chooses to demand it. In other states the mortgagee's discretion is not so broad, before taking possession he must have reasonable grounds for believing himself insecure, that the mortgagor has done, or threatens to do, something that would impair the mortgagee's security.

Where the common law prevails and no statute has been enacted regulating the rights of parties, an important question is still unsettled in cases of a mortgage given on a stock of merchandise which permits the mortgagor to remain in possession and to sell the property mortgaged in the course of trade. Can he do this? In many states such a mortgage is regarded as fraudulent to creditors, in other states if such a mortgage is not, on proper judicial inquiry, proved to be a fraud, it will be upheld.

A provision in a mortgage that it shall cover after acquired property is regarded in some states as an executory agreement that it shall be held by the mortgagee as security; and the mortgagee may take possession of it, should the mortgagor fail to pay his debt, in accordance with his promise, before the rights of third persons have intervened. See Mortgage.

Chauffeur.—In many states minors are forbidden by statute to run automobiles. If therefore the owner of a car permits a minor to drive his car, he may be held liable for the injuries resulting from the driver's negligence. Should a chauffeur's license not disclose physical disabilities the license is not void, nor is he a trespasser in operating the machine on the highway. Such a license though defective is valid until revoked by the proper authority.

If discharged before the expiration of the term of his employment, an employer is still liable for his chauffeur's pay unless he has been unwilling or unable to fulfill his contract. If, however, he has been prevented by sickness or similar disability, he can recover, not perhaps the amount stated in the contract, but the worth of his services during the period of serving his employer.

A chauffeur may recover damages from his employer for injuries received while operating his car. The basis of the action is his employer's negligence. If the engine "kicks back" while he is cranking the car, and the employer contributed to the result by moving the spark lever, he is liable. If he is injured while running a car from a defective brake of which he had knowledge, he cannot recover. But if the employer knew, and the chauffeur did not know that the brake was defective, he could recover if injured in consequence of it. The employer is under no duty to warn his chauffeur of obvious dangers, or instruct him in matters that he may be fairly supposed to understand. If a chauffeur is riding at the owner's request, who is driving the car, he may recover if injured by the negligence of the owner in running the machine. Under the Workmen's Compensation Laws a chauffeur who is injured while running his car beyond the speed limit prescribed by statute can recover nothing. Nor is he justified by the custom of other chauffeurs in disregarding the rule. Lastly, if the owner of a car is injured, physically or financially, by reason of the wrongful conduct of his chauffeur, he has a remedy against him. See Automobile; Garage Keeper.

Check.—A check should be properly signed. A check signed by an individual with the word "agent," "treasurer," or other descriptive term, has sometimes been regarded as the check of the individual signer, and not that of a principal or company. The proper way is to sign the name of the principal or company, adding the name of the person by whom this is done, thus: "John Smith by John Doe, agent," or "The Atlas Co. by John King, Treasurer," or other official designation.

The statement will not accord with the view of many a reader, that a bank on which a check is drawn is under no legal agreement with the holder to pay it, whether the maker has a sufficient deposit or not. Consequently, should the bank refuse to pay, the holder has no cause of action against the bank. The agreement to pay is between the bank and the depositor, and if the bank fails to fulfill its agreement with him, he has a just cause for complaint. Sometimes a bank declines to pay supposing, through an error of bookkeeping perhaps, that the depositor has not money enough there to pay his check. In such a case, as the bank is in the wrong, if the depositor has suffered from loss of credit or in any other way from the bank's action, it must respond and make the loss good.

Suppose a person presents a check and the maker's deposit is not enough to pay the full amount, what can be done? Usually the bank declines to pay. Suppose the holder says he is willing to give up the check and take the amount in the bank? There is no reason why the bank should not accede to his wishes. Suppose a bank should pay more than the amount on deposit through no fraud of the holder, from whom can it recover the amount? If the holder has been free from wrong in presenting the check, the bank cannot look to him, but to the drawer for repayment. If the maker of a check has no money in the bank, perhaps he may not be a depositor, he commits a fraud in making and giving his check to another, and the offense in many states is deemed a crime: likewise a person who receives such a check knowing its true nature is equally deep in the wrong.

The law is very strict in its requirement of banks when paying the checks of customers. After a check has been delivered and has therefore passed beyond the maker's control, the law requires the greatest care on the part of a bank in paying it. The bank must be especially careful in examining the signature and the amount, and if the signature has been forged, or the amount changed, the bank is liable for an improper payment. Once an employer gave his trusted clerk a post-dated check, which he was to present on the day specified, and, after drawing the money, was to pay this to his employees. The clerk changed the date to an earlier one, drew the money, kept it and fled. The court said the bank should have detected the alteration. The bank contended that had the clerk waited until the proper day, and then drawn the money, it would not have been liable. The court said that was not the case presented, the clerk did not wait. Banks suffer, far more than the public knows, from the payment of raised checks, for it is quite impossible always to detect them, yet banks are held liable therefor.

There are two rules relating to the payment of checks worth mentioning. One is, the maker of a check should use proper precaution in making it. He should write in a way that will not be likely to confuse the paying official. For instance, if in the above case the maker, intending to give a post-dated check, had written the date so imperfectly that the teller was misled, the bank would not have been liable for paying it, or for refusing to pay because there was not money enough in the bank at the time of presentation for payment. Some persons are very careless in making figures; when they are, they cannot look to the bank for the ill consequence of their own neglect.

Again, if a bank paid forged checks, for example, which were returned with other checks on the balancing of a depositor's book, and months, perhaps years afterward, the depositor discovered the forgeries or forged indorsements, he could, notwithstanding the lapse of time, demand of the bank the sums wrongfully paid. This was a great hardship to banks, and has been corrected in many states by statutes and by the courts in others. The rule now is, the depositor must, within a reasonable time after the return of his bank book, examine it, also his checks, and, if payments have been improperly made, demand immediate correction.

The holder of a check should demand payment within a reasonable time after he has received it. He may keep it longer if he pleases, but if he does, and the bank should fail, he cannot demand payment again from the maker of the check. He in effect says to the holder of the check when giving it to him, "present this check to the bank within the proper time and it will be paid, if you keep it longer, you do it at your risk." What is a reasonable time? The law has fixed it. If the bank is in the town or city where the holder of the check dwells, he must present it the day he received it, or the next day. If it is drawn on a bank outside, the check must be forwarded for presentment at the latest on the day after it is received. With respect to the first class of checks therefore if the maker and receiver are both depositors of the same bank, the operation on the part of the bank consists simply in debiting one account and crediting another with the amount; if checks are drawn on another bank in the same city the receiver usually deposits them in his own bank and they are paid through the clearing house the next day.

A drawer may stop the payment of his check. And when he requests the bank to do so it must heed his instruction, and is liable if neglecting, though not always for the whole amount of the check. Suppose the check was given for a bill which the maker actually owed, yet for some reason, after giving the check, he did not wish to pay. If it was actually due and undisputed it would be hardly just to require the bank to pay the check over again to the holder, this would be too much. But for whatever injury the maker of the check may have sustained the bank must make good.

When a check has been certified by the bank on which it is drawn, the effect of the certification after the drawer has parted with it "is precisely as if the bank had paid the money upon that check instead of making a certificate of its being good." The check is charged up to the maker, or should be, and therefore as between him and the bank has been paid.

Citizen.—In modern usage this means a member of the body politic who owes allegiance to the nation and is entitled to public protection. One may be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of any state, for example, a citizen of the District of Columbia, or the territory of Alaska. Citizen-ship implies the duty of allegiance to the government, and the right of protection from it. A citizen of the United States who resides in a state owes a double allegiance, and can demand protection from each government. For the ordinary rights of person and property he looks to the state for protection. The rights for which he can seek the protection of the United States are only such as are established by the constitution and federal laws. For some purposes even a corporation may be included within the term citizen, for example the right to sue in the federal courts as a citizen of the incorporating state.

By the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States. In 1855 Congress passed an act conferring citizenship on alien women who should marry American citizens. An American woman therefore who marries an alien takes the nationality of her husband. When her marital relation ends she may elect to retain her marital or her original citizenship. Since minor children follow the status of their parent, by the marriage of an alien widow to an American citizen, her children also become American citizens.

An alien may be naturalized. To do this he must have continuously resided in the United States for five years before his application, and he must have appeared in court at least two years before, and there declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce allegiance to his former sovereign. He must prove by the oath of at least two persons his residence, also during that time that he has behaved as a man of good moral character and attached to the principles of the federal constitution. He must take an oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States and renounce allegiance to any foreign prince. The naturalization of a person confers citizenship on his minor children if dwelling in the United States, also on his wife, unless she is of a race incapable of American citizenship.

The rights of aliens, from the very beginning of the American government, have been expanded by treaty provisions and by liberal legislation. In nearly all the states resident aliens were given the right to take title to land, whether by deed or by inheritance, to hold such real estate and to transfer it by law or by descent. In some states they were given the right to vote and hold office. And at common law they were entitled to purchase, own and sell personal property, engage in business and to make contracts and wills. By the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution their rights and privileges have been further secured.

Aliens owe to the country in which they reside a temporary and limited allegiance, that is, an obligation to obey its laws and subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts. A non-resident alien is not within the terms of the fourteenth amendment, indeed it is doubtful if he can ask any aid or relief under the state or federal constitutions. A statute therefore imposing a higher inheritance tax on property passing to a non-resident alien than on his property if he resided here is valid. Non-resident aliens can acquire no rights incident to residence here except as permitted by the federal government. This power may be exercised, either through treaties made by the president and senate, or through statutes enacted by congress. So congress has excluded not only diseased, criminal, pauper and anarchist immigrants, but also contract and Chinese laborers.

Contracts.—At the outset the various kinds of contracts should be explained so that the principles which apply to them may be better understood. One of the divisions is into simple contracts and specialties. A simple contract may be verbal or it may be in writing, but no seal is appended to the signatures of the parties. A specialty is in writing and a seal is added to the signature. A written contract may be a duplicate of another with a seal, yet the two belong to different classes and different rules of law apply to them as we shall learn.

Another classification is into executed and executory contracts. An executed contract, as the name implies, is completed, an executory contract is to be executed or completed. An unpaid promissory note is an executory contract, when paid it becomes an executed one.

Another classification is into express or implied contracts. An express contract is one actually made between two or more persons or parties; an implied contract is one that the law makes for the parties. Suppose a man worked a day for another at his request, and nothing was said about payment, the law would require him to pay a reasonable sum for his day's work. Another kind of contract technically called quasi contract differs somewhat from an implied contract and will be explained in another place.

To every contract there must be two or more parties, who have the legal right to make it. Not every person therefore who wishes to make a contract can legally do so. Of those whose ability to contract are limited are minors or infants. The period of infancy is fixed by law, and is therefore a conventional, yet needful regulation. In most states infancy ends at the age of twenty-one, though some states fix a younger period, eighteen for women. A person becomes of age at the beginning of the day before his twenty-first birthday. The reason for this rule is, the law does not divide a day into a shorter period or time except when this is required in judicial proceedings. Another class of incapable contractors are married women. Their disability however has been largely removed by statutes in all the states, as we shall learn in another place.

Insane and drunken persons also are under disability to make contracts. By the old law a drunken man who made a contract was still liable, and required to fulfill as a penalty for his conduct. A more humane rule now prevails and he can be relieved, though like a minor, if he wishes to avoid a contract, he must return the thing purchased, in other words he can take no advantage of his act to the injury of the other contracting party. If however he has given a negotiable note that has passed into the possession of an innocent third person, who did not know of his drunkenness at the time of making it, he can be held for its payment. It is not quite so easy to state rules that apply to insane persons because their conditions vary so greatly. A person may be insane in some directions and yet his insanity may not be of a kind affecting his capacity to make at least some kind of contracts. Again, he may have lucid intervals during which he is quite as capable of contracting as other persons. And again when an insane man has made a contract, the relief to which he is entitled depends on circumstances. In some cases he may repudiate it, a partial fulfillment only may be required.

The law has much to say about the consideration that is an element in every contract; in other words, there must be a cause, something to be gained by the parties in every contract to sustain it. If A should promise to give to B a house next week, and on the day fixed for transferring it A should change his mind, he could not be compelled to transfer it, for the promise would be without any consideration or thing coming from B. But if the house had been transferred, A could not afterwards repent of his act and demand its return. An executed gift therefore, free from all fraudulent surroundings, is valid: the donor of an executory gift is free to withhold its execution.

A consideration need bear no relation or adequacy to the other thing that is to be received. Nothing is more frequent than a one-sided contract, in which one party has gained far more than the other. If the law attempted to adjust these cases, many more courts would be needed than now exist.

We will briefly note the need of consideration in some classes of cases. First, a voluntary undertaking to work for another without compensation cannot be enforced. Under this head is the promise to pay the debt of another. Why should one do such a thing? Let us remember that should one make such a promise and keep it, the money could not be recovered back, that is quite another thing. Again, if A owed B a debt and delayed payment, and B should say to him, "if you will pay me half of it next week I will give up the rest," B would not be bound by his promise. Suppose that B learning that A had ample means to pay, should sue him, A could not relieve himself from liability by offering to pay the amount A promised to take in settlement of the debt. But should B accept one half, in fulfillment of his promise, that would be the end of the matter.

Again should a bank defaulter make good the amount taken, and the directors, in consideration thereof, promise to take no steps towards his prosecution by the government, there would be no valid consideration to sustain the promise. The state would be just as free to prosecute him as before. Very often such criminals are not prosecuted after returning all or a part of their unlawfully taken money, nevertheless no settlement of this kind stands in the way of prosecution.

Suppose A agreed to work for B for a month and, after working a week, should leave him without good reason, can he recover for his week's work? If he can get anything, he cannot claim it under his contract for he has broken it and therefore a court could not enforce it. If he can recover anything it is on the implied contract which the law makes, the worth of his work after deducting the loss to his employer. Suppose the employer should prove that he had lost more by A's going away when he did than he had gained by his week's work, he could recover of B, for the rule works both ways. In some states he cannot recover anything, for, having broken his contract, he has no standing in court.

Suppose one signs his name to a subscription paper, calling for the payment of money, to build a church, for example, and the designated amount has been subscribed, can a subscriber refuse to pay? He cannot. Suppose he withdraws before the subscriptions have been completed, what then? He can refuse. If a subscription has not been completed, death operates as a revocation and the subscriber's estate is not held for the amount. Sometimes a moral obligation to pay money is a good consideration for a promising to pay it. Thus if one owes another for a bill of goods, and the debt has ceased to be binding by lapse of time, yet he should afterwards promise to pay, he could be held on his promise because there was a good consideration for the debt. Lastly a contract may be modified by mutual agreement without another consideration.

Another element in a contract is mutuality, a meeting of minds in the same sense. In every contract there is an offer made by one party and an acceptance or refusal by the other. When an acceptance occurs, there is a meeting of minds, or an assent. Very often the parties do not understand each other, they acted hastily, ignorantly perhaps, their minds did not really meet in the same sense. In such cases there is no contract.

Generally the acceptance must be at the time of receiving the offer. If it is not, there is no meeting of minds, no assent. A person however may make an offer on time, this is common enough. When this is done the other party must furnish some kind of consideration to make the offer good for anything, otherwise the offerer can withdraw his offer whenever he pleases. Many an offeree has been disappointed by the action of the other party in withdrawing his offer, yet the offerer has been clearly within his rights in doing so when he has received no consideration for giving the other party time to think over his offer.

An eminent jurist has said "that an offer without more is an offer in the present to be accepted or refused when made. There is no time which a jury may consider reasonable or otherwise for the other party to consider it, except by the agreement or concession of the party making it. Until it is accepted it may be withdrawn, though that be at the next instant after it is made, and a subsequent acceptance will be of no avail."

If no time is given, or no consideration for the time given, an offer therefore may be withdrawn as soon as made if not accepted. A person may suddenly think of something which leads him to withdraw his offer as soon as it is out of his mouth, and in doing so is within his rights, but if he does not, how long does his offer last? A reasonable time. What this is depends on many things, one of the questions like so many others in the law to which no definite answer can be given. An offer to sell some real estate was accepted five days afterward, this was held to be within a reasonable time. One can readily imagine cases in which five days would not be thus regarded, or even five hours.

When does assent occur in contracts made by correspondence? The rule is in nearly every state (Massachusetts being the chief exception) where an offeree has received an offer by letter and has put his acceptance in the postoffice, the minds of the parties have met and made a contract. The post-office is the agency of the offerer both to carry his offer and bring back the return. If the offeree should use a different agency, the telegraph for instance, to convey his acceptance, it would not be binding until the offerer had received and accepted it. Of course, an offerer by letter may withdraw his offer at any time. Suppose he should receive an acceptance by letter or telegraph but deny it, and insist that no contract had been made. Then the controversy would turn on the proof. If the acceptance had been by letter, and the offeree could prove that the offeree had written and mailed it, the offeree's proof would be complete. If the offeree sent a telegram, then he would be obliged to prove the delivery of the dispatch. Suppose one should mail a letter of acceptance, but before its receipt by the offerer, should send a telegram declining the offer which was received before the letter of acceptance? The acceptance would stand, for as there had been a meeting of minds when the letter was put into the postoffice, the offeree could not afterwards withdraw his offer. A person who makes an offer cannot turn it into an acceptance. An old uncle wrote to his nephew that he would give thirty dollars for his horse and added, "If I hear no more about the matter, I consider the horse is mine." The game did not work, for no man can both make and accept an offer at the same time, and that is what the foxy uncle tried to do.

Offers and rewards are often made through the newspapers. Thus the owner of a carbolic smoke ball offered to pay a specified sum to any one who suffered from influenza after using one of his smoke balls in accordance with directions if he was not cured. A person who failed to receive the benefit advertised recovered the reward. Two other cases may be mentioned that illustrate the uncertainty of the law. An excited farmer offered the following reward, "Harness stolen! Owner offers $100 to any one who will find the thief, and another $100 to prosecute him!" The farmer cooled off and declined to pay after the thief was caught and the court relieved him, declaring that his advertisement was not an offer to pay a reward, but simply an explosion of wrath. In another case a man's house was burning, and he offered $5,000 to any one who would bring down his wife dead or alive. A brave fireman accomplished the feat. This offerer too cooled off and declined to pay, but he did not escape on the ground that this was only an explosion of affection, and was obliged to pay.

Lastly a contract dates from the time of acceptance, and is construed or interpreted by the law of the place where it was made. If it is to be performed in another place, then the parties must be governed by the law of that place in performing it.

A contract having been made, next follows its execution. When a contract is not executed, or not executed properly, the party injured usually may recover his loss. Sometimes the contract states what the offending or wrongful party must pay should he fail to execute it. Many questions have arisen from such agreements. Suppose a contractor agrees to build a home for another and to finish it within a fixed time, and, failing to do so, shall forfeit or pay to the other $5,000 as a penalty for his failure. One would think that if he failed to execute it the other party could demand the $5,000. But the courts have a way of their own in looking at things. Suppose the contractor's failure did not in fact result in any loss whatever to the other party? The courts in such a case are very reluctant to enforce the agreement. If there had been a loss, something like that amount, then the courts would compel him to pay. In other words, the most general rule is, notwithstanding such a clearly written agreement, the courts seek to do justice between the parties. Whenever the parties do not attempt to fix the damages themselves, should their contract not be fulfilled, then the amount that may be recovered depends on a great variety of circumstances. Suppose a woman should go to a store to buy a piece of silk. She asks if the piece shown to her by the saleswoman is all silk, who makes an affirmative reply. The buyer knows much more about it than the saleswoman, which is often the case in buying things, and knows it is half cotton, can the buyer recover anything? Surely she has not been deceived. The seller may have tried to fool her but did not, and having failed, the buyer has no legal ground for an action. On the other hand, if the buyer was ignorant, knew nothing about silk and had been deceived by the seller, then she would have a clear case. This is one of the fundamentals in that large class of cases growing out of deceit. The party seeking redress, must have been deceived, and also injured by the deceit in order to recover. The remedies that may be employed whenever contracting parties have failed, or partly failed to fulfill their agreements or promises will be considered under other heads. See Deceit; Drunkenness; Quasi Contract.

Corporations.—There are many kinds of corporations. Those most generally known are business corporations; and though many of them are very large, legally they are private corporations. A railroad corporation, though performing a public service, nevertheless is a private corporation.

Public corporations are formed for governing the people and are often called municipal corporations. They are created or chartered by the legislatures of the states wherein they exist. Formerly, all private corporations in this country were granted charters by the legislative power, and many corporations are doing business by virtue of the authority thus granted to them. More recently general statutes have been enacted whereby individuals may form such corporations without the aid of a legislature. Authority has been conferred on the courts, secretary of state, or other official to grant to individuals, who may apply for them, charters on complying with the requirements of these statutes. There are other kinds of corporations, religious, charitable and the like; only one other need be mentioned, to which the term quasi has been applied. These resemble corporations in some ways, and this is the reason for calling them quasi corporations. A county or school district is such a corporation. The supervisors of a county, or the trustees of a school district, can make contracts, own and manage real estate for their respective bodies, sue and be sued like the officers of other corporations.

By the general comity existing between the states corporations created in one state are permitted to carry on any lawful business in another, and to acquire, hold and transfer property there like individuals.

FORMATION OF CORPORATIONS.

Formerly charters were granted to corporations for a long term of years, or forever. The policy of the law has changed in this regard, and the duration of their existence is limited to a comparatively short period. The life of a national bank is only for twenty years; at the end of that period the charter is renewed, and the charters of the older national banks have been renewed several times. Perpetual charters are infrequently granted, and some of the older ones have been limited by legislative or judicial action. A private corporation had perpetual authority to build and maintain a bridge across the Susquehanna River at Harrisburg, nor could any other company build one within the distance of ten miles above or below. Notwithstanding this clear and exclusive grant, another company was formed which attempted to build a bridge within a mile of the other. The old company tried to prevent by law the new company from building the bridge. The court said that "perpetual" did not mean literally perpetual, but a long time, that the old company had enjoyed its exclusive grant a long time, long enough, and that the new company was justified in its undertaking.

A corporation has no heirs like an individual; it continues through succession, one sells his interest or stock to another, and thus it lives to the end of its charter unless it fails or, through some other event, comes to an end. Suppose a stockholder buys all the stock of the other members, does the corporation still exist? It does for a limited time. How long? No court has answered this question. It depends on the particular case. The courts also say, that he can sell his stock to other individuals and thus practically revive a dying corporation. A stockholder who had bought all the stock of a corporation claimed that he should be taxed as a corporation, which was at a lower or favored rate than that paid by individuals. The court said the game would not work, that for the purposes of taxation the concern must be regarded as an individual. So the stockholder knew more after that decision than he did before.

CAPITAL.

Every private corporation has a capital composed usually of money, which is advanced or paid by its members or shareholders. Among the reasons for forming corporations two may be stated. It is a way for collecting money from many sources needful for an enterprise; the many contributors are like the small streams that unite and create a great reservoir. The other reason is, the contributors are free from the liabilities that attach to every member of a partnership for its entire indebtedness. A stockholder may indeed, if his corporation does not succeed, lose a part or all of the capital he has contributed, but no more or only a fixed amount, as will be hereafter explained.

Almost anyone can subscribe for stock, with a few limitations. A minor cannot subscribe for stock, nor can his guardian act for him. Doubtless they do subscribe in some cases; the practical difficulties will be shown in another connection. A married woman cannot always subscribe, unless by virtue of a statute. What usually happens when she wishes to subscribe is to act through a friend, who, after the corporation is fully formed, transfers the stock to her. There is no legal stone in the way of such a course.

Sometimes fictitious subscriptions are made to induce others to subscribe for stock. Whenever the fraud is found out an innocent subscriber can do one of three things. If he has paid for his stock, he can bring an action to recover it; if he has not paid, he can refuse to do so, and set up the fraud as a defense. He can do another thing, accept the stock and sue for the damage he has sustained by the deceit that has been practiced on him. The discovery of a fictitious subscriber among the number, after all have subscribed, where his action in subscribing did not affect their action, will not justify them in not fulfilling their obligation to pay for their shares.

The issuing of a share certificate is not an essential condition of ownership. It is merely evidence of it, like the deed of a piece of real estate. All the shareholders of a corporation are the owners whether any certificates are issued to them or not. Of course a stockholder desires to have his certificate for obvious reasons.

Whenever the capital stock of a company is increased, each shareholder has a right to his proportionate number of the new shares on fulfilling the terms on which they are issued before they can be offered to the public. Occasionally a clique seeks to get control of a corporation by the issue of new stock and taking it among themselves. They can be defeated for the courts carefully guard the rights of all stockholders to take their shares of new stock before it can be offered to, and taken by others.

Of late years private corporations have been issuing a kind of stock, called preferred, that must be explained. Formerly such stock was more like a loan of money to a company, and was issued primarily as the most feasible way of getting a fresh supply of money capital. The lenders or takers of the stock received a fixed per cent. on their money, which was paid before the common shareholders received anything. His preference or dividend was not guaranteed, but the probability of regular payment was so strong in most cases that his shares usually possessed a real value. Preferred shareholders are not liable for the debts of their corporations, and the right to vote at any meeting of the shareholders is sometimes given to them, though not always. The tendency of the day is to confer this right on them. Whether, when the amount of the preferred stock is increased, the preferred shareholders are entitled to subscribe for their proportionate amount, like common shareholders, is an open question.

The authority of agents or commissioners to receive subscriptions is strictly regarded. They cannot refuse to receive a subscription made by a competent person, nor release a subscriber, nor vary the terms of subscription to anyone.

A subscription for shares is a contract in writing and cannot be proved by oral evidence unless the original subscription paper has been lost. As the contract is an open one, any subscriber must inform himself of the legal consequences of subscribing, and cannot therefore refuse to execute it on the ground of ignorance or misunderstanding. Suppose an agent who was soliciting subscriptions, in reply to questions concerning the laws relating to the proposed company, should give incorrect answers to a subscriber, these would furnish no ground for refusing to pay, as he has promised to do, for he could have found out what the laws were without inquiring of the agent. This may seem a hard rule, yet it has a wide application. In one sense it is true that every person can find out the law for himself, the books are open, the statutes especially may be easily found, but how many know enough to find the laws in which they are interested?

Of course if a person has been deceived by an agent, if a fraud has been practised on him, he can avoid his contract. Thus a person who, unable to read a subscription paper, was induced to subscribe through misrepresentation of its contents, was not bound by it. If he wishes to act, he must lose no time after discovering the fraud that has been practiced on him. He cannot say, "I will abide by a company if successful, and will leave it if it fails." He must therefore decide at once either to continue his membership or withdraw.

A company cannot purchase its own shares unless by charter or statute such action is clearly authorized. For, to do this is to reduce its assets or fund for paying its indebtedness, which the law will not permit to be done. If a company has no debts, a reduction in its capital made in an open manner in accordance with law, is legal. The tendency of the times everywhere is to increase the capitals of private corporations; reductions though are sometimes made to lessen especially the burden of taxation.

A corporation has no lien on its stock for the indebtedness of the owner unless conferred by charter or statute. Once such a lien could be established by usage or by-law under authority given to a corporation to regulate the transfer of its stock. The national banking law prohibits the creation of such liens, and the strong current of the law runs in this direction. But a bank can retain a dividend that has been declared to reduce the indebtedness of the owner to the bank for his stock.

LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS.

The liability of the shareholders of a corporation is very unlike that of members of a partnership. It was the liability of each partner for all the debts of a concern that kept many persons from forming that relation. The shareholders of many corporations are liable only for the amount they have contributed and paid, or have agreed to pay. National bank shareholders are liable for another sum, equal to the par value of their stock, provided as much may be needed to pay its debts should the bank fail. Thus if a shareholder owned ten shares, having a par value of $100 a share, he might be required to pay, should the bank fail, $1,000 more provided as much was needed to pay its debts. In a few states shareholders are required to pay twice the amount of the par value of the stock if as much may be needed to pay its indebtedness.

If a corporation fail, one or more persons are usually appointed by a court to settle its affairs, who are called receivers. Several years are sometimes required to settle the affairs of a corporation. First an inventory is made of its property, names of the debtors and creditors, and the amounts due from and to them, and as soon as its property can be converted into cash, dividends are declared and paid to the creditors; and this work is continued until there has been a disposition of all the property, and the amount received therefrom less the expense of the receivership, has been paid to the creditors. When the shareholders are required to pay more, as above explained, on the failure of their corporation, they are notified by the receiver how much and when they must pay. This requirement is based on an order from the court that appointed him, which, in turn, is based on information which he has furnished to the court of the amount that may be needed to pay the debts of the corporation. Several assessments may be ordered, but they never exceed in the aggregate more than the amount of liability fixed by law, the amount or twice the amount of the par value of the stock subscribed. Should shareholders decline to pay these assessments as ordered, the receiver sues them and obtains judgments, the proceeds of which are paid to the creditors.

MEETINGS.

The power of a corporation vests or rests in its members. The charter and statutes provide that they shall meet, organize, elect officers, and adopt by-laws for the more detailed governing of the corporation. One of the most general principles pertaining to them is, the majority shall rule. This however may be modified by charter or statute. There are a few ancient charters which provide that, notwithstanding the quantity of stock a shareholder may own, he is entitled to only one vote. The writer knows of a case in which a shareholder bought nearly all the stock of a corporation and went to the annual meeting supposing that he could and would do as he pleased. On learning the unwelcome truth that he had only one vote like the others he quickly put on his hat and walked out.

The statutes usually prescribe how notice of the joint meeting shall be given. They are not mandatory, but directory, hence if all the persons in a corporation should come together without any notice or call whatever, and accept the charter, and do any other thing needful to form the corporation, their action would be valid. Where the regulations of a corporation definitely fix the place, the day, and hour of the annual meeting at which the directors are to be elected, no further notice of the meeting to the stockholders is needed unless required by its charter or by-laws.

A case may arise in which other persons than those designated by statute may call a meeting. Suppose a statute prescribes that the persons named in the certificate of incorporation, or any three of them, may call a meeting of the shareholders, and before giving notice all of them had died? Then the meeting could be called by others. Again, authority to create a corporation may fail through long delay in calling a meeting and organizing. Should the notices for the first meeting not be given as the law requires, it is nevertheless valid if the shareholders have notice and join in waiving the mailing of the required notices. Likewise a subscriber waives his notice of the first meeting when he afterwards offers to pay for his shares.

If the by-laws require that an annual meeting shall be held at a particular time, and those whose duty it is to call it, forget to do so, it may be held afterwards, and the officers elected and other business transacted would be as valid as if the meeting had been held at the proper time.

Should the officer who ought to call a meeting refuse to do so he may be compelled by law to call it. This proceeding is called a mandamus, and is issued at the instance or request of the shareholders.

"Besides annual meetings, corporations hold many stated or regular meetings at monthly or other times. Thus if a meeting of proprietors must be called by twelve of them, a call signed by eleven is defective. If a statute requires a committee of a society to sign the call, it cannot be signed by the clerk, nor by him for them. If the trustees of a corporation must issue the call, this cannot be done by the president. If exclusive authority to issue the call is vested in the directors, it cannot be exercised by the president and secretary. If the articles of association provide that meetings of shareholders may be called by the board of directors, or by any three shareholders, the president and cashier cannot issue a valid call. But if a board consists of three members and there is a vacancy, the other two may act and give the notice."

A well understood distinction exists between the calling of regular and special meetings. Regular meetings are held in the way set forth in the charter and by-laws of a corporation; special meetings are called at irregular times on proper authority. A notice for a special meeting must state the object of it, and no other business can be transacted. On the other hand unless the regular meeting is of great importance no mention need be made of its object in the notice.

An authorized meeting may be adjourned from time to time without giving further notice, for it is only a continuation of the original meeting. Says an eminent judge: whether a meeting is continued without interruption for many days, or is adjourned from day to day, or from time to time, many days intervening, it is evident that it must be considered the same meeting.

A meeting may be legally held though one of its members is incapable, physically or mentally, from receiving notice. "The law cannot look into the capacity of the stockholders to transact business, but can only regard the capacity of the aggregate body when duly assembled." On the death of a stockholder, the purchaser, if the stock has been sold, should have it transferred, or give distinct notice to the company how notices of its meetings should be sent to him; if neglecting to do this, he cannot charge the corporation with neglect should it continue to send notices to the former address.

Two other points may be mentioned concerning notices. One is, they may be waived and this is often done. Many a question though arises, what action amounts to a waiver of notice. If each shareholder attends in person or by proxy and participates in the meeting, he cannot afterward question its legality because he received no notice of it. An improper notice may also be cured by ratification. Thus if a secretary calls a meeting instead of the directors, and his action is properly ratified by them, the call is effective. More generally, the action of a meeting will be declared valid where it appears that every stockholder who did not participate in the meeting ratified its action afterwards. An election of trustees of a church may be valid even though the notice lacked the proper length of time and the names of the trustees whose seats became vacant at the election, if it was fairly conducted and all who had the right to vote were present. Likewise a stockholder who knows of the sale of his railroad, though not legally notified of the meeting which authorized its sale, and was not present, may be bound by its action through acquiescence. And a stockholder who, after receiving notice of a meeting called by the directors to consider their neglect of duty and who decides not to go, is not thereby prevented from taking action against them by the stockholders who did attend and authorized their unauthorized action. Lastly a stockholder who was present cannot complain that notice was not given to others; the objection is personal.

Next we may inquire, who can vote at such meetings? Unless prevented by charter, statute or by-law a stockholder may vote at any corporate meeting even though no certificate of stock has been issued to him. Nor does his indebtedness for his stock prevent him from voting. On the other hand if inspectors were not bound by the record of ownership in the company's books and went behind them to find out the real ownership of the company's stock, they would often have a grave task before them. Consequently in many, perhaps all of the states, only stockholders or those holding proxies for them can vote at a general election. By statute the stock record of ownership is usually made the conclusive test of the right to vote. Stockholders who thus appear on the stock books at the date of a meeting are entitled to vote the stock.

A trustee is the legal owner of stock standing in his name and may vote the stock for all purposes; but a testator may impose limitations on his voting power. Should trustees under a will holding a majority of the stock of a corporation disagree, and one of them should be enjoined from voting it, a minority stockholder would be entitled to an injunction to restrain the other trustee from holding an election or voting the stock alone until the right to vote the stock had been legally decided.

A different rule applies to a naked trustee who holds the title to the stock without any real interest in it. He can indeed vote, but in the way directed by the beneficiary or real owner. In Colorado, by statute, perhaps in some other states, a person to whom stock has been issued as trustee without the knowledge of the owner, is not a bona fide stockholder and cannot vote.

An executor has the power to vote the stock of his testator. And if one of joint executors issues a proxy authorizing the vote of the stock belonging to the estate, and the other executor is present at the stockholders' meeting, the vote of the stock by the executor who is present is deemed a revocation of the proxy given by his co-executor. And if a will gives to one of three executors the power to vote the stock, and directs the other two to give him a proxy for that purpose, which they decline to do, a court will order the proxy to be given. And whenever stock is held by executors who are not united in voting it, they cannot vote at all. A foreign executor should present to the inspectors of election an exemplified copy of his letters of administration, and having done so may vote on the stock standing in the testator's name. An administrator has the right to vote stock belonging to the estate, even though it has not been transferred to him in the corporation's books.

A partner of a firm who owns stock in a corporation may represent the stock in all meetings. He may therefore receive and waive notice of them, vote when attending them, in short, participate in all matters. And on the death of a partner the surviving partner has the right to represent the partnership and vote on its stock.

Two other kinds of stockholders still require mention, sellers and purchasers of stock and pledgors and pledgees. Until a transfer is entered on the books of a corporation, "the transferee, as between himself and the company, has no right beyond that of having the transfer properly entered. Until that is done, the person in whose name the stock is entered on the books of the company is, as between himself and the company, the owner to all intents and purposes, and particularly for the purpose of an election."

Many questions have arisen between pledgors and pledgees about their rights to vote the pledged stock. Of course, whenever an agreement has been made by them this must be respected. In other cases, if the record remains unchanged, the pledgor can vote the stock. But if the pledgor has transferred his right to vote the stock, he cannot ask a court to restore his right to vote it until the purpose for which it was pledged has been satisfied. Again a pledgor who pledges his stock not in good faith as security for a loan, but to enable the pledgee to vote it and effect an unlawful purpose, cannot do this and so defeat a statute which provides that the real owner, the pledgor, may vote his stock.

Passing to the pledgee, whenever he is registered as owner of the stock on the company's books, its officers will not look behind these to ascertain whether he is the real owner or not when he is voting his stock. A court of equity though may do this, and enjoin a pledgee from voting the stock whenever the pledgor's rights would be affected. Should the pledgor acquiesce for years in the control of the stock by the pledgee, who is the record owner, and not inform the company of his ownership until the holding of a contested election, he would be too late to claim the right to vote. Finally when a certificate of stock has been assigned in blank as collateral security, which is often done, and never transferred to the pledgee on the books of the corporation, a memorandum only having been made on the stub of the certificate in the stock book, the pledgee is not a stockholder and cannot vote the stock. It may be added that notices of meetings should be sent to whoever has the right to vote the stock, to the pledgor if the stock still stands in his name, to the pledgee if the stock has been transferred to him and stands in his name.

DIRECTORS.

Shareholders manage their corporations through directors or trustees elected for that purpose. The business of some corporations is managed by trustees who are named in the charter and who fill vacancies in their number by electing others themselves, a self-perpetuating body. Many savings banks especially are thus organized and continued. From their number they usually select a smaller number to manage or direct its affairs.

The directors are always shareholders, unless the charter of a corporation permits the election of outsiders, a thing that rarely happens. The national banking act requires that every director shall own at least ten shares of stock, and many other corporations have similar requirements. The charter or statutes prescribe at least the minimum number that must be elected, but the maximum number is left to the stockholders themselves. A national bank must have five directors, not infrequently the board is composed of ten, fifteen, or even more. A director is chosen for some real service that he is likely or willing to perform. An individual may be chosen a bank director who may not be able to do much in directing the affairs of the bank, yet by reason of his wealth or business relations he may be able to attract business to the bank and thus greatly promote its prosperity.

He is elected by a majority of the votes of the shareholders. More recently the cumulative system of voting has come into general favor. By this system a voter may cast as many votes for each of the candidates as he holds shares of stock, or he may distribute or cumulate his votes on a smaller number. "Where the votes under such a system are cast and counted, the validity of the election must be determined precisely as in all other cases." Where the shareholders have failed, whether voting cumulatively or otherwise, to elect a quorum of the new board, at an annual meeting of stockholders, it is the privilege of the shareholders to ask for successive voting for directors to fill the board. The ruling of a chairman on one occasion, that because of a tie further balloting could not proceed, and that the old board held over was arbitrary and illegal. A stockholder who has votes enough to elect himself and other directors by cumulating his shares in voting, but refrains from doing so in consequence of a verbal agreement among the stockholders that he shall be chosen president, which they fail to carry out, cannot obtain any satisfaction from a court. A court says in effect stockholders should not be trusted to make such agreements, and will not aid the tricked stockholder by ordering a new election. Probably he will be fooled only once.

Having elected directors, the management of a corporation is confided to them. What authority do they possess? This is defined by charter, statute, by-law, and custom. Says Morawetz: "The rule limiting the authority of the power of the majority to the general supervision of the affairs of the corporation is established for the protection of the individual shareholders, as well as for reasons of practical consequence." Directors also have wide discretion in delegating their authority. Their rights and limitations in this regard are also bounded by charter, by-laws and usage. Formerly bank directors loaned the money of their bank; this was their most important duty. Of late years, especially in the larger cities, this business has been largely delegated to a committee, chosen from their number, or to two or three officials of the bank. The directors continue to meet, very much as before and at their meetings the action of those who have been entrusted with power to lend the bank's money is ratified. More and more authority to direct or do the greater things in a corporation are concentrated in the hands of a smaller number of individuals. Time is ever becoming a more important element, a smaller number of men can act more quickly than a larger number, and so business must be more and more concentrated to be done efficiently.

A director has no authority to act separately and independently. Only as a board, properly convened, does he represent his corporation. While this is the law, he can and does in fact often act singly, and his action becomes effective to bind his corporation by ratification. Such action plays a great part in the modern corporation.

Though a principal may at any time, as a general rule, revoke the authority he has given to an agent, this does not apply to the directors of corporations. Says Morawetz: "The majority of the board clearly have no power to expel an individual director, or to exclude him from inspecting the company's books and participating in its management, although they may believe him to be hostile to the interests of the association." A president or other official is chosen pursuant to the charter to serve for a year or other period, and is simply an agent in serving the corporation, he cannot be turned away like an ordinary agent. If he conducts fraudulently, he may be removed, but this is not an easy process as corporations long ago found out.

Directors in most cases receive no compensation though the practice is growing of rewarding them. Unless this is fixed by charter or by the stockholders they can get nothing, for they cannot legally vote salaries to themselves. A director who performs a different service, serves as an attorney, for example, may receive compensation for it. This is a salutary rule of the law, which the courts everywhere do not hesitate to enforce. By another rule, hardly less important, directors cannot bind their corporation by any contract made with themselves, or represent their corporation in transactions wherein they have an interest. This is only another application of a rule of agency, that an agent cannot act at the same time for both parties. Yet there is increasing difficulty in applying this rule because the business of corporations has become so intermingled, and also the business of directors, directly or indirectly, with that of the corporations they represent. From this state of things has come another rule, that the transactions between directors and their corporations are not actually void but voidable, in other words if they are tainted with fraud, they can be set aside provided proper action is taken as soon as the fraud is discovered.

Suppose directors had defrauded their corporation, but the fraud was not discovered until several years afterward. Once it was held that they could shield themselves behind the Statute of Limitations (see Statute of Limitations) if the discovery of the fraud did not occur until after the Statute had become effective to protect them. This is no longer the law. Action however must be begun against them within the proper time after discovering the fraud, otherwise the Statute may be interposed as a bar to proceeding against them.

The complication of business has led to the adoption of another principle in managing corporations. A majority of the directors may lawfully act as opposed to the minority; in other words if a majority are not interested in a matter that concerns one or more of the minority directors, the interests of the corporation are supposed to be properly safeguarded. Yet an illustration discloses the dangerous character of this method of doing business. Suppose each director of a bank wished to obtain a loan of money from it. They could not legally make such loans, for no one would represent the bank. Suppose a single director made such an application, that would be a proper thing for him to do and for them to grant, for the bank would be represented by all the directors except the applicant. Suppose it were agreed in advance that each would make an application at different meetings that should be favorably regarded, the series of loans would be in fact only a single transaction in which the bank was not represented.

The knowledge of a director or other officer is imputed to, or regarded in the law as known by the bank on all matters relating to it. Thus if a director knew that a note was signed by a minor which was afterwards presented for discount at a directors' meeting at which this director was present, and he forgot to tell the directors what he knew and it was discounted, the bank would be regarded as having knowledge that the maker was a minor, who of course could not be held on the note. This principle has a very wide application, yet is very difficult to apply. The tendency of the law is to narrow the application of the rule, for directors do not in many cases impart their knowledge, either through forgetfulness or other cause, and it is not just to hold their corporation always for their unintentional neglect. Often they are busy men, have greater interests of their own, and do not remember the things they learn about matters relating to their corporation, and if it were always held as knowing as much as they do on all occasions, the way of a corporation would be fraught with a grave peril.

A proper distinction is made in the imputation of knowledge between that of a bank director for example who is engaged chiefly in some other business, and that of its president whose chief employment is the management of his bank. Suppose he should learn about a defective note before it was presented for discount, the bank would be very properly charged with his knowledge, because it would be his clear duty to remember what he had learned and impart it to his fellow directors.

Directors sometimes go astray and cases are constantly arising to determine their liability. When a corporation has failed or passed a dividend nothing is more common than to accuse its directors of negligence, incompetence or fraud. The legal rule of liability is quite a different thing. Let us try to give this in the fewest words possible. The charters of corporations, or statutes that apply to directors, prescribe some definite things which they must do or not do, and if these are violated they are clearly liable. The directors of a bank are required to make a statement of its affairs to a government official at a stated period, and if they neglect to do it, or intentionally make a wrong and deceptive one, they are liable. By many statutes they are forbidden to make loans above a certain amount, or a fixed proportion of their bank's capital, and if they violate this plain law they are liable. In all other cases where by charter or statute a plain rule of duty is prescribed for directors, they are liable, should they disregard it.

Besides these clearly defined lines of duty are other lines of duty in which the proper course of action is not so clearly defined, indeed is largely discretionary. From the nature of the business of almost any kind of corporation, it is impossible to prescribe in detail the course of action directors must follow. Much must be left to their judgment. They must on all occasions be honest and free from fraud. This is one limitation. If they are guilty of doing things tainted or marked with fraud, they are liable. Fraud may be of two kinds, omission and commission. If a director knew that his fellow directors were doing fraudulent things, and he kept away from directors' meetings because he did not wish to participate in their wrongdoing, or dared not go and try to stop them, or kept silent when he should have exposed them, he must suffer in the end as one of the number though entirely innocent of actual participation in the fraud. Many a director knowing or suspecting with good reason that his fellow directors were running the corporation in an illegal manner, has quietly sold out leaving the stockholders to find out afterwards and from some other source about the wrongdoing of their agents. In all such cases of omission of duty a director is held responsible for the wrongs of his associates.

Recently a court has declared that a director who desires to escape further responsibility by resigning his position must make sure that his resignation reaches the board. If therefore he should send it to the secretary, who failed to deliver it to the board, his resignation would not be effective and he would still be responsible like the other directors for whatever the board might do.

What acts are fraudulent are sometimes difficult to determine. Different courts interpret the same act sometimes in different ways. They do not differ so much on the application of the principle—for all acts of fraud, whether of omission or commission, directors are liable.

There is another series of acts for which they are liable, those of gross negligence. How gross must the act be? If it is so gross as to amount to a fraud, they are liable; if not so gross, if no fraud is found of any kind, nothing but negligence pure and simple, they are not liable at all. Most courts though go further and declare that if they are guilty of gross negligence, even though the smell or taint of fraud is not perceptible, they are liable. What, then, is the nature of the acts that constitute gross negligence? These cannot be easily defined, they differ in each case; so each case stands by itself. This is the conclusion of the highest court in the land and which is followed by many others. The same case therefore may be regarded differently by different tribunals. Thus some directors were tried not long since for wrecking a national bank. The lower court decided that all the directors were guilty of gross negligence, on appeal the reviewing court decided that the president only was guilty of fraud and acquitted the others.

DIVIDENDS.

One of the most cheerful things a corporation can do is to declare a dividend, especially if it be a large one. Until a dividend is declared the profits of a corporation are simply its assets, do not belong to the stockholders, and should it become insolvent must be used to pay creditors. But if a dividend has been declared and the corporation afterwards becomes insolvent before paying it, the stockholders may insist on its payment to them instead of paying it to the creditors.

Dividends must be paid from net profits. They can never be taken from the capital, for this would impair it and, if continued, result in the insolvency of the corporation. The laws everywhere forbid this, and, if violated, the directors are usually penalized. It is not an infrequent thing to declare a dividend that has not been earned in order to keep up the value of the stock, and enable the directors and their friends to sell out before the true condition of things has become public. Such action is a palpable fraud which the law recognizes and for which the guilty ones must answer.

Nor can dividends be declared out of borrowed money, for this is no profit, though money may be temporarily borrowed for this purpose. A profit may have been actually made, which may not have been reduced to money, that will justify a corporation in borrowing to pay a dividend, assured that the loan will soon be repaid. But the rule or practice is hedged about with limitations. Thus the premiums received by an insurance company and interest on its capital stock constitute the fund from which dividends are paid. Unearned premiums that have been paid do not form a part of that fund, for, while the risk is still running, the company may be obliged to pay them out in settling losses.

The profits of coal and other mining corporations may be divided without making any deduction for decrease in the value of the mine from extracting minerals. The same principle applies to all corporations organized to operate wasting property like a mine or patent, though in thus dividing all its net profits and accumulating no surplus the value of the property is lessened. Except such cases, before a corporation can lawfully set apart its profit as a dividend, a sufficient sum must be set aside to represent the wear and tear for the purpose of creating a fund to renew and improve the property of the corporation.

Dividends illegally declared and paid, not based on profits may be recovered either by the corporation or by its representative for the benefit of creditors. The fact, says Clark, that the directors acted in good faith under a misconception of the amount of profits possessed by the company or that were available for that purpose is immaterial. And if the capital stock of a company has been wrongfully paid away by the directors as dividends, it may be recovered by the creditors from anyone who is not an innocent receiver.

Whether a dividend shall be declared, and also the amount, are questions lying largely within the discretion of the directors. A company may earn a large net profit, yet the directors may think it should be used for improvements or kept for a future contingency in business, perhaps a time of business depression. Courts will not interfere in such cases. Corporations are sometimes organized with the well understood intention that the earnings shall be kept until a large surplus has been accumulated. On the other hand directors are not permitted to abuse their power; they must act in good faith. They cannot withhold dividends in order to depress the value of the property and buy its stock at a lower price.

Dividends must be distributed among the stockholders without unjust discrimination. "The dividends," said a court, "must be general on all the stock so that each stockholder will receive his proportionate share. The directors have no right to declare a dividend on any other principle. They cannot exclude any portion of the stockholders from an equal participation of the profits of the company." A stockholder cannot be deprived of his dividend because he purchased his stock a very short time before the action of the directors in declaring a dividend. On one occasion a person held bonds convertible into stock. Shortly after the conversion a dividend was declared. He was as much entitled to his dividend as any other stockholder.

To whom should the dividend be paid? To the person whose name appears as owner on the books of the company. But if a company has notice of a transfer of stock, a dividend subsequently declared should be paid to the purchaser even though the transfer was not registered. In pledging stock it is a common practice to declare that the pledgee shall be entitled to the dividends that are declared. If nothing is said, and the stock has been transferred on the books of the company, the pledgee is entitled to the dividends following the general rule above mentioned.

A dividend may be payable in cash or property or a stock dividend may be made. Such a dividend, if the stock is issued only to the extent of the surplus profits, is not a violation of the prohibition against reducing or withdrawing the capital stock by distribution among the stockholders.

During recent years some important questions have arisen about dividends or income on stock given by will to the legatees or friends of the testator. Dividends that are declared after a grant or bequest, though earned before, go to the legatee as income. This is not the rule everywhere. In some states the surplus profits accumulated during the testator's life, though not divided until after his death, belong to the estate, while the dividends or income earned and declared after his death are paid to the legatee or beneficiary mentioned in the will. Again, a somewhat different rule applies to stock dividends. In some states these are regarded as an increase of capital and must be kept as a part of the estate; in other states such stock is regarded simply as another form of income and goes to the legatee like any other income flowing from the investment. The highest federal court has declared that when a distribution of earnings is made by a corporation among its stockholders, the question whether such distribution is an apportionment of additional stock representing capital, or a division of profits and income, depends upon the substance and intent of the action of the corporation, as manifested by its vote or resolution; and ordinarily a dividend declared in stock is to be deemed capital, and a dividend in money is to be deemed income of each share.

A will bequeathed stock in a corporation in trust to pay the dividends as they accrued to a daughter of the testator during her lifetime. Stock dividends were declared by the corporation from time to time and after the death of the testator, and these accumulated earnings were invested by the company in permanent works. After the testator's death the corporation was authorized by statute to increase its capital stock. The dividends were held to be accretions to the capital, and the income only was payable to the daughter for life.

WRONGS.

Passing from the action of directors in declaring dividends, the wrongs done by corporations may be stated. As it is an impersonal, artificial thing, a corporation cannot possibly commit a wrong or tort like a natural person. For many years this conception of a corporation, that it could not commit many of the well-known wrongs, could not slander a person for example, led to perplexing consequences. Finally the principle was established that through its agents or servants a corporation could do wrong quite like an individual. Thus a corporation may be guilty of malice, and may be punished for slander or libel, for a malicious prosecution, false representation, for trespass should its agents unlawfully enter on the land of another, for maintaining a nuisance and the like. A national bank is forbidden to certify the check of a depositor unless he has the amount of money stated in the check in the bank. And if this is done the certifying official and all others who participated with him in disregarding the law are made criminally liable, and on several occasions the law has been enforced.

Again, a corporation is liable for the negligence of its servants in performing their duties, and are constantly sued for their failures. A railroad company is sued for injuries to its passengers caused by the improper running of its trains; for its failure to carry and deliver freight in accordance with its obligations or agreements. Street railways are constantly sued by passengers who are injured through the negligence of its officials.

By statutes corporations are required to do many things and, if they fail, are liable for the consequences. These duties may be divided into two classes, those toward the public and those that affect their stockholders. Their public duties may again be divided into those that are imposed on them by statute, and a still larger number by the common law. As we have seen, stockholders confide necessarily the management of their corporation to directors, who in most cases must necessarily have a largely discretionary power, and who, in turn, must appoint other agents to execute the details of the corporate business. These not infrequently fail through incompetence or neglect to perform their duties properly, and consequently corporations are subjected to lawsuits in which redress is sought by the injured parties. Some of these wrongs for which they are liable to the public have been mentioned, it would require too much space to mention all.

The injuries done to stockholders by their directors remain for consideration. Unless directors are restricted by action of the stockholders at a stockholders' meeting, they have the authority prescribed by charter and statute; outside these, their authority is largely discretionary, and must be so. If, therefore, stockholders are dissatisfied with their directors, as they often are, their remedy is to elect others at the end of their term of service. If at the time of choosing them, the annual meeting, none are chosen, the directors hold over until they are again elected, or others are chosen in their places. After they have been chosen, no stockholder can interfere in any way with their discretionary authority unless he has a clear case calling for judicial action. "Until a mistake," says Morawetz, "on the part of the directors, individual stockholders have no right to appeal to the courts to define the line of policy to be pursued by the company. The courts therefore are quite unanimous in sustaining the action of directors so long as they act within the discretionary authority given them."

Occasions happen when the removal of directors is essential to the welfare of a corporation. Suppose they are pursuing a course clearly ruinous to the company? In such a case the court will grant relief on the request of the stockholders whenever the corporation itself is unable or unwilling to do so. Primarily the corporation should proceed against the directors, for the wrong is a corporate one. In many cases the corporation is so completely in their control that the stockholders are unable to do anything through it. In such case they must act in the name of, and in behalf of the company. And if they succeed in establishing their case, the courts will order the removal of the directors.

Sometimes the courts, instead of going so far, will enjoin them from doing wrongs that are feared. Suppose it is feared that directors will declare a dividend that has not been earned, the courts on proper proof would enjoin them from making it. Suppose it is feared they will issue more stock and divide all the shares among themselves instead of proportionately among all the stockholders as the law requires, in order to get control of the company, a court would not hesitate to restrain them.

Lastly may be considered a stockholder's rights to inspect the books of his company. This he may do at all proper times and for reasonable purposes. And if the right is refused the courts will aid him in making an inspection. What then is a proper purpose that justifies him in making the request? He cannot do so to satisfy some freak, or to annoy an official with whom he may be on bad terms. Nor can he do it to obtain information to be used for stock-jobbing purposes. Suppose he has reason for supposing that the books were falsified, that the stockholders were not receiving correct accounts of the expenditures and earnings of the company, a stockholder would certainly have a right to make an examination, and could also employ an agent, attorney, or expert accountant to do this for him, for his ignorance of bookkeeping methods might debar him from making an efficient examination were the right confined exclusively to himself.

Curtesy.—A husband acquires an interest or estate in land belonging to his wife after her death. To be entitled to it, there must be a legal marriage. Even though it be unlawful, if not set aside during her life, his interest in her estate cannot be defeated by afterwards declaring the marriage void. Curtesy does not extend to land nominally held by her, or as trustee. The wife must have had a child who might have inherited the estate. It is immaterial whether she acquired her estate before or after the birth of the child. As soon therefore as a child is born, his estate or interest begins and is perfected or consummated by her death, and may be taken at any time afterward for his debts. What may be the effect of a divorce is not well settled. In some states even though he is an innocent party, he forfeits his estate. This rule is founded on the idea that he is a voluntary party, and therefore need not have one; in other states his interest continues. As the husband's rights to such an estate have been abolished in many states, we refrain from adding more principles.

Deceit.—A seller is not liable for deceit when the knowledge, or way of obtaining it, is equally known by both parties. If one goes into a store to buy a bushel of apples that he has seen by the door and inquires the price and pays for them without making any inquiry concerning their quality, he cannot recover his money if half of them prove to be rotten unless the seller intentionally deceived him, for he might have inquired whether they were all like those on top and of good quality. But if the merchant should put fine ones on top in order to deceive a purchaser, he could recover for his loss. This rule has a wide application. Suppose a seller keeps his store dimly lighted intentionally so that the inferior quality of his goods cannot be discerned, and a person should thereby be deceived and injured, he would have a good cause of action against the seller. Suppose a ship was decayed in places, and these were intentionally so concealed that they could not easily be seen by one who was examining with the intention of purchasing, and he was thereby misled, the seller would be liable for the loss to the purchaser. Of course, the prudent course is to obtain a warranty, or better still, whenever practicable, buy of one who has established a reputation for honest, fair dealing.

Suppose a man purchases a piece of land, generally supposed to be an ordinary farm, which contains, as he knows, a valuable coal mine, can the seller after the public knowledge of the mine, recover the land or a larger purchase price therefor? Has the purchaser deceived him? Did the law require the purchaser to make known his superior knowledge before purchasing? No, if it did, there would be no end to the confusion to which such a rule would lead. It is within ordinary experience that purchasers buy either knowing or supposing they will reap advantages from their contracts of which the seller is ignorant. There is no deception in this; but there is in withholding knowledge from the buyer of the quality or condition of a thing that affects its value, and which if known by him would probably prevent him from purchasing. Suppose a horse is blind in one eye and the prudent horse trader says nothing. Can the buyer recover? Ordinarily he could not, for he ought to have looked, and if he did not know enough to look, either he should have obtained a warranty, or have employed a competent agent to purchase for him. Suppose the old trader, skilled in his business, intentionally put his horse in the shadow so that the defective eye could not be seen, then the seller would surely have his remedy against him. If he put his horse there accidentally he would not.

Is a wink a deception for which the winker must answer in the law? A hardened dealer once went near a large meeting of men with a wagon load of bottles containing cold tea. The thirsty crowd soon came around. "One dollar a piece," he announced with a wink. The wink was effective and the bottles were quickly sold. They were filled with cold tea, and the buyers sued for the deceit that had been practiced on them. They failed, the court said that a wink was not enough. Another court might have decided otherwise.

Deeds.—In selling and buying land several deeds are in use. The forms differ considerably in the different states. The most important of them is called a warranty deed, in which the seller not only conveys the title, but warrants or agrees to defend it against all attacks. Suppose A sells a piece of land by warranty deed to B, who makes the unwelcome discovery that a mortgage is existing thereon. He notifies A and asks him to clear the title. Suppose the mortgage has been paid, but the lender of the money, the mortgagee, forgot to give the proper deed to show that he had received payment. And suppose he was an ugly fellow who would not give the proper release. B could compel him to do so, and the expense must be borne by A because his deed of warranty required him to give a clear title.