p. 182fences against the prayer of the bill; but these, although much relied on by the defendants, and fully argued on both sides, did not enter into the consideration of the Chancellor and need not be here stated.
A large body of evidence was taken on both sides, which so far as it is material, is sufficiently set forth in the opinión of the Chancellor.
The cause came before the Chancellor at the September Term, 1858, for a hearing upon the bill, answers, exhibits and depositions. The argument embraced many questions arising out of the case as made by the bill and answers ; but it is deemed necessary to report only so much of it as relates to the question on which the case finally turned, viz : —whether the Rockland Manufacturing Company on the Brandywine ever had a corporate existence.
for. B. Rodney and W. H. Rogers, for the complainant.
The main question is, whether the charter of the Rock-land Manufacturing Company was ever so accepted as to make it a corporation previous to William Young's death in 1829. We do not insist that a formal acceptance in writing is necessary. The acceptance may be by acts, but it must be by corporate acts—by acts of the body incorporated. Ang. & Ames on Corp. 78; sec. 83. And these acts must be direct and unequivocal, consistent .with no other hypothesis but that of corporate existence. The acts relied on in this case are not of that character. The fact that the charter was one applied for is of no effect: for the application was made by William Young alone, not by those who were to become corporators. It was for them, and not for him. alone, to accept. Other acts following the grant •of the charter, such as the procuring of a seal, &e., were also by William Young alone, and were acts preparatory or tending to perfect the incorporation, but were not alone
p. 183effectual. There is no evidence of the use of the seal until 1842. The procuring of it is evidence only of an intention to organize. There is no sufficient proof of an organization by stockholders, of the election and meetings of directors, of the creation of a capital stock, of the adoption of bylaws, &c. It is proved that the old firm gave notice of its dissolution, and assumed the name of the Eockland Manufacturing Company ; that in this name it kept its accounts, gave orders and transacted its business ; but all this shews only a change of partnership name and not an incorporation. Except in name, the business, during William Young’s lifetime, was conducted precisely as before the charter was granted. After Young’s death no organization could be effected. The grant was to him and his associates. By his death an integral part of the contemplated corporation was lost. Rex vs. Passmore, 3 T. R. 97. Aside from this incapacity to organize, resulting from the death of William,Young, the non-user of the corporate powers for so many years prior to the execution of the deed from the trustees, under his will, was evidence of a surrender, and incapacitated the Company from taking under the deed as a corporation. 19 Johns R. 456. The result of the case is, that at the date of the deed from the trustees under William Young’s will there was no corporation capable of taking under it, and that the trustees still hold the property in controversy for his heirs at law, among whom were William W. Young and John E. Young, to whose shares the complainant is entitled, as their assignee under the insolvent law.J. A. Bayard and I). M. Bates, for the defendants.
The allegation of the bill that at the date of the conveyance of the property in controversy to the Eockland Manufacturing Company, no such corporation existed, is vital to the complainant’s claim. What then is essential to a
p. 184corporate existence ? Two things only, viz : corporators and a franchise vested. Under the-grant- of a charter the franchise is vested when the corporators are ascertained. Usually, certain acts are to be done by the corporators, in order to ascertain in whom the franchise is to vest, and the company does not exist until those acts are performed; but where the charter itself ascertains in whom the franchise is to vest, the Company exists as a corporation from the date of the charter. In such case no acceptance is necessary, other than, what is inferred from the application made for the charter, from its beneficial character and from the use of it.In tlds case, the charter ascertained the corporators, describing them as “ William Young and his associates,” the associates being William W. Young and Isaac Bannister. It not only ascertained the corporators, but supplied an immediate organization, by naming directors and providing for their succession. Nothing then was wanting but for the corporators to exercise the franchise vested in them, which they proceeded to do; and this, especially connected with the prior application for it. and its beneficial character, was an acceptance. 10 Wend. R. 266; Angell & Ames on Corp. 69 ; 12 Wheat R. 71; 11 Maine R. 227; 16 Ib. 224.With respect to the acts of William Young and his associates, relied on by us as shewing an acceptance, they are of great number, being such as would not have been lawful but for the charter, and therefore are conclusive of the intent to act under it. The old Company was dissolved, public notice given that thereafter the business would be conducted by the Rockland Manufacturing Company, as a corporation, officers were elected, a seal procured, new books opened, the capital of William Young transferred on the books and an equitable title to the real estate made by contract, to be executed by deed, after survey. Certificates of
p. 185stock were not issued; but these are only evidence of title to stock and are not essential to the corporate existence. Meetings of directors and stockholders were seldom held, because of the limited number of corporators, requiring less formality of action. But through William Young’s lifetime, and long after, the business was extensively and wholly conducted in the corporate name. It is proved also that the complainant for a number of years dealt with the corporation, was employed by it, was a witness in suits against it, and himself sued the Company as a corporation.Further, a supplement to the charter, passed in 1847, affords a clear legislative recognition of the prior existence of this corporation; and this is conclusive, because the question of corporate existence is one between the corporators and the State. 1 Humph. Term. Rep. 339.The corporate existence,once established, must be taken to have continued until terminated either by limitation, by repeal, by forfeiture judicially determined,by surrender or by loss of the power of succession, none of which modes of dissolution is alleged or proved. A mere temporary non-user of corporate powers is no evidence of a surrender of the franchise. See Ang. & Ames on Corp. 740, where the case cited from 19 Johns R. 456, is explained.the principal question raised in the case, I am of opinion that the Rockland Manufacturing Company, on the Brandywine River, had a legal existence, under the charter of February 8, 1825, and the supplement of January 5,1847, by legislative grant, acceptance and action, so far as action under the grant was necessary and proper for the objects of the incorporation, and under the circumstances surrounding' the parties in interest. This acceptance of the charter, and action under it, were of such public notoriety as to sustain the legal
p. 186character of this Company as a corporation and give it force, not only amongst the corporators and those interested in the Company, but with the public. The act was applied for, as it appears from the exhibits and from the public journals of the legislature, by William Young, then the proprietor of a large manufacturing establishment on the Brandywine. It incorporates the said William Young, and such others as were or might be associated with him for the purpose of carrying on the business of manufacturing woolen and cotton goods, and machinery, at Bock-land on the Brandywine; and it appoints, as directors of the Company then incorporated, until the first annual meeting, and until others should be appointed and should act, William Young, William Wallace Young, John McAllister, Sr., John McAllister, Jr.,and Isaac Bannister.
What remained to make this an existing corporation ? The assent of the person or persons incorporated, their acceptance and concurrence must doubtless exist. The Legislature cannot confer a corporate existence on a heretofore dead body, which will not receive such vitality; but the fact of seeking such corporate existence, as well as the subsequent exercise of corporate powers, is evidence of an acceptance of the legislative grant. Proof of both of these exist in this case, satisfactory in itself, though not very full; as the circumstances surrounding this corporation did not often require a very formal exercise of powers in the usual manner of corporate action. Being the change of a partnership into a company, acting in a new capacity but much through the same agents, the proof of this character would not be so easy and obvious, as in the establishment of a new business, whether as a partnership or a corporation. The grant of corporate powers was applied for by William Young : it was made, and it was competent to the legislature to make it, to William Young, with or without associates. Persons were named in it to represent and carry on the corporation until others should be
p. 187chosen; and the corporate franchise was thus vested, inasmuch as the persons in whom it should vest, were thus lawfully ascertained, These preliminaries, sufficient in themselves to establish a corporate existence, were followed by public notice, organization, the election of a president and other officers, a formal transfer of the capital of William Young to the Company, and an agreement to convey the real estate which was to form a part of the corporate property. This conveyance was directed by the will oí William Young to be made, according to the intent and to carry out the objects of the incorporation; and it was made, accordingly, by the executors and trustees on the 29th of June, 1842.
The case made by the bill and answer, as agreed in the arguments, presents this as a preliminary question of vital importance to the cause, and the decision of which, on the opinion which has been already expressed as to proof of the legal existence of the Rockland Manufacturing Company, covers the whole case. It is not important, therefore, nor proper, that I should express any opinion as to the several other points raised by the defendants in this cause, considering as I do that the securities and deeds under which the defendants hold the property through that Company are valid, and that the claim of the complainant, as the assignee of William W. Young and John Evans Young, is invalid. The bill is, therefore, dismissed with costs.