consldera- tionvas involvedin State . o Public k-v&q&~ 69 S.W.2d38 ('&run. App. 19;4 case a statutepro- vided that any corporationoperatinga streetor suburban railwaycou3doperatemotorvehloles to oarrypssengursfor hire ulthln the city or tovn or within five miles thereof. The public servioeooqany operatedbusses under the statute, but failed to amend its charterto includethis purpose. In holding that the ccnupanyuasauthorimd to operatethebussez, the Court said:
"The state contends,however,that in anyeventappellantwasrequired to amend its charterafter the enactmentof Article6548 in 1923, so as to avail Itself of its provi- SIOIUI. This contentionIs not sustained. Ar- ticle 6548 Is a psrt of the title YLaiJroads' of the R.S. 1925, and is not a subdivisionof article1302, relatingto the purpose clauses of corporations. It specifioallyauthorizes an electriomotor streetrailway corporation like appellantto operategasolineaopelled motor vehiclesin connectionwith its street railwaybusiness. Ihe law is settledthat the powers of a corporationorganizedunder gen- eral laws are not determinedalone from Its chartarprovislons,but are also determined flwm the law under which it is organizedor operates. It is also settledlaw that It is not necessaryfor the charterof a corpora- tion to containall the powers conferredby statute;nor is it necessarytoamend the char- ter of a corporationto includepowers confer- red solelyby statute,unless the act itself Ron. J. M. Falkner,Page 4 (V-1311)
requiresthe awrdment. RoaringSpringsTOWS site Co. v. FaducahTel. Co., 109 Tex, 452, 212 S.W. 147; Texas CentralPower Co. v. Jolly (Tex. Civ. App.) ,246 S.W. 420; Kuehlerv. Tex. Power Corporation(Tex.Civ. App.) 9 S.W. (2d) 435; M&his v. Pridham,1 Tex. Civ. App. 58, 20 S.W. 1015; WichitaFalls TractionCo. v. Reley (Tex. Civ. App.) 17 S.W.(2d)157; 'Chomp- ;sa~4~00rations (3d Ed.) R 188." (69 S.K .
We think the answer to your questionIs controlled by the law aunouucedin the above CBSC). The appellentin that case had no power to operatemotmbueses until such poVar was conferredupon it by the act creatingArticle6548, which act did not specifically requireappellantto amend its charter to inolwiethe powers so confemed before it could exeraiasthem. The Court held thatappellantwas ootreqtied to amend Its charterbsfore sxerclsidgthe p0uer to operate z~-toi9u~ses,for such paver tis 8p0ifi~a~ grantedbyArti- cle 654%
'Ibisholding is in accordwith the folkMug State- ments of the rule set forth in Texas Jurisprudence and Amrl- can Jurisprudeme~,j,
"The effeot of a generalstatutorygrant is to invest the corp0ratiOn~wlth the power as fully azd effectuallyas if It were set out at length in It6 charter.n(10 Tex. Jur. 863, kporations, Sec. 234.)
"The charterof a ooqmatiou organizeduz- der a generalaot consistsof the provielonsof the existingstate constltutlon, the particular statuteunder which it is formed and all other geuerallaws whloh are made applicableto oornor- ations formzd thereunderand of the articlesof associationor incoruorationfiled thereunder,as the charteror certlfioateof Incorporation grantedby the Court or offirerin compliance with its terms, althoughthe provisionsof suoh laws are n0t embodiedin the charter,and the parers,rjghtd,duties,and lisbllltiesof the corpratlon are determinedaccordingly." (l8 0. J.S. 422, Cqmrations, Sec. 43.) . . -
.
Ron. J. M. Nlkuer, Page 5 (V-l3l.l)
Your questionpertainsouly to corporationswhich have a minlmumcapital stockof $5O,COOand which were formed prior to Septembsr7, 1951, the effeotlvedate of Senate Bill 339, for the purposesspecifiedin