Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1897-06-23

P'oiioters. such ratification NAV
oe lhlpl1ed from the acts of the cornor-
"'loh without an express accentance
ho iiaoIllty OF the corporation undar
'hese circumstances does not rest unor
"""Pposed agency of the promoters but
"Poii lhe imm edlate and voluntary ac+
vi the company. If the contract is with,
| the corporate powers of the cor,oroti,,,,
| Il may, when organized axn.a>..1,-
liii'ledly assume the responsibiIity of
'aine' ana thus make it a valid OBJ
vi 'He corporation. This is as
u "e i the agreement appears to
'e reasonable means of CARRYING ont
any o' the corporate powers or antbor-
lzed purposes.
rratt VS.. Oshkosh Match Co. 81 Y
". Rep (Wis.J 81.
% y. W. Rep, CIpakotaD OBJ Huro,,
rrlhuns d Bmdery Co. vs.. Kittlo- .
son ct el
"eatherford NJ. w. Il n. w. r. Cn We :
Granger, 2S :. W. Rep. (Texas> a,z
Colorado Land Il Water Co vs Ad.,
81 Pac. Rep, 80.
BIS p' 'iiio')
'ook on Stock and Stock holders. yoIo
Sec. 7O7. vi -
me respondent, the Wasboe J.al.a
i'esefVoIr and Galena Creek Ditch Co,, {
pahE' ratified by its acts the Wintor,s
i'''' ms contract is clearly /
''''lh the powers of this corno,
a'ion. The purposes Of tho o,ri
ttlon could not have been accon,,,l;Il
'',e concessions contained in this !,
-, Inc conditions of the contract
" heIepy Winters reserved the riubt to u
'oi'i"l 'he head gates of the dam for tho
'"I pose OF protecting his own pronart,. u
i reasonable, and the CORPORATION b.,
"9 accepted the benefits of this aoroo-
,.e"' cail"t repudiate its hurdo,,s
'''>' 'iS!iIs were exercised by Winters
0iil 'le date of the construction of +b
''iii up 10 he time of the alleped ini,r,- "a
ne appellant during all those t;,,a
y DIS agent or her immediate grantor
was Stockholder of said corpor
.'"' OF as stOckholder of a cornor-
ioH' accepted the benefits arising undar oV
us contract III tie irrigation of said
iiu' ana acQuiesced in the exoroiso 49,
"lnters of those rights reserved -
lie contract.
II II well settled that person cannot
eept ana reject the same instrument ~.
iFlhg avaiied himself of if rs to oar+
sieat Its provisions in anv otbar ,,art
Hermann on Estopple. Vol . Soc io,o
-atIonS in note
iio same doctrine is forcibly stated bv "a
- ''"'n"i III section 1919 and Section w.
~ Vi the same volume. Wherein ba
yS: a person shall not be allowed ~ pro
&c 70 oeneht by and repudiate an in
uhlent, but If he chooses to take tho
ieilt winch 1t confers he shall like
>e take The obligations or bear tho
A> Whlch 1t imposes: no Derson ,., -
tFt ana reject the same instrument -
VINO accepts benefit under = daod . ~
H. or ether instrument, must confr,
"h"ie instrument, conforming to all
P!'' iSiohs and renouncing every
III inconsistent with them
he appellant and her erantor com or tt
ieh III necessary that this dam shouId
constructed for the purpose of storinu
ef TO lrrlgate said lands. The dan,
constructed under the Winters CON fV
t. ohe ana her grantor accepted the
eilts OF this contract and she o,s.
accept the burden imposed bv if
ileVer damages she sustained in Nav IL,
july by reason of the acts of rho
arise from the exercisa of
rights under this contract. and the
7'i"'it as a Stockholder under the
iiar circumstances of this case. can ~.
complain Of these acts.
u 'iieSe reasons the Judgment Of the
fict Court will be affirmed.
'ohcuf' BELhNAP, {. J.
BoNNIFIEID j. - ~
ed June 49, 1891. N
EUGENE HOWELL, 1
'tary of State and ex-officio CIerL Of n...
Supreme Court OVutI
Win printer for publication JunaiAai