Majority
Headnote
BahjROAd Corporations—Existence—Certificate—Organization Tax—Liabilities.The evidence adduced for the plaintiff was amply sufficient to support his recovery for the services in suit, as upon a substantial compliance with the agreement entered into between the parties, and it appears to be undisputed that the amount awarded as damages was not excessive.
The main contention is that the defendant is not a corporation, and so may not be sued as such; the facts being that, while a certificate of incorporation, under the railroad law, was executed, filed, and published by the incorporators, no certificate had been issued by the railroad commissioners such as was required by section 59 of the said law (chapter 39, Gen. Laws; 2 Rev. St. [Banks & Bros.’ 9th Ed.] p. 1285; Laws 1890, c. 565, as amended by chapter 676. Laws 1892, and further amended by chapter 545, Laws 1895), and without which the statute declared that “no railroad corporation * * * shall exercise the powers conferred by law upon such corporations.” Further, it appeared that the organization tax had not been paid, and the tax law (chapter 24, Gen. Laws; 5 Rev. St.
We have not to determine whether the defendant's existence as a corporation could be successfully assailed in a direct proceeding-on the part of the state, the rule being that, where an action' is brought against an alleged corporation by a party contracting with it, the corporate existence is to be upheld if, colorably, there has been an organization under the statute; it being held that the corporation exists de facto, for the purpose of the case, and that both parties are estopped from asserting the contrary. Railroad Co. v. Cary, 26 N. Y. 75 , 77; Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel, 143 N. Y. 537 , 543, 38 N. E. 729 ; Thomp. Corp. §§ 218, 3683, et seq. In the present case the dealings of the parties were carried on throughout with acquiescence in the fact that the defendant was a corporation, and any defense that the defendant had no- power to make the contract, because not authorized to do business, cannot be entertained. It would seem, certainly, that this very agreement—one for the making of a preliminary survey and maps—was within the defendant’s powers, and expressly reserved from the restriction above noted (Railroad Law, § 59); but, assuming the contrary, the agreement being executed and the purported corporation having had the benefit of it, the plea of ultra vires could not be interposed, for the transaction was opposed to no principle of public policy, and the defendant was estopped fom availing itself of this defense (Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 70 ; Peck v. Doran-Wright Co. [Sup.] 10 N. Y. Supp. 401 ; Thomp. Corp. §§ 6015, 6016).
The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Cases cited
- Buffalo & Allegany Railroad v. Cary 26 N. Y. 75 at 77 p. 1024
- United States Vinegar Co. v. Schlegel 143 N. Y. 537 at 543, 38 p. 1024