Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-596-Corporations.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:08:58+00:00

Document:
79. 1 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 23 et seq; Page, Wills, Sec. 97 et seq; Bigelow, Wills, 72.
80. 2 Kent's Comm. 381; 1 Clark & Marshall Corporations. Sec. 152; Aurora Agricultural & Horticultural Soc. v. Paddock, 80 111. 264; Levering v. Bimel, 146 Ind. 545, 45 N. E. 775; State v. Western Irrigating Canal Co., 40 Kan. 96, 10 Am. St. Rep. 166, 19 Pac. 349; Treadwell v. Salisbury Mfg. Co., 7 Gray (Mass.) 393, 66 Am. Dec. 490; Holmes & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Holmes & Wessell Metal Co., 127 N. Y. 252, 24 Am. St. Rep. 448, 27 N. E. 831; Barry v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 280.
81. 1 Bl. Comm. 478; 2 Kent's Comm. 281; 1 Clark & M. Corp. Sec.Sec. 132, 138.
82. 2 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 8204.
83. See, as to these statutes, 2 Bl. Comm. 268; 2 Kent's Comm. 282.
84. Pennslyvania. See Lea-zure v. Hillegas, 7 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 313; 2 Kent's Comm. 283; 8 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 17.
85. 5 Thompson Corp. Sec. 5774. See Rev. St. U. S. Sec. 1890; In re McGraw's Estate, 111 N. Y. 66, 2 L. R. A. 387, 19 N. E. 233; Church Extension of M. E.
Church v. Smith, 56 Md 392.
86. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 2618; Lancaster v. Amsterdam Improvement Co., 140 N. Y. 576, 586, 24 L. R. A. 322, 35 N. E. 964; Beasley v. Aberdeen & R. R. Co., 145 N. C. 272, 59 S. E. 60; Fayette Land Co v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 93 Va. 274, 24 S. E. 1016; Milton v. Crawford, 65 Wash. 145, 118 Pac. 32; See 8 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 15 et seq, 23 Id. 495 et seq.
87. 1 Clark & Marshall, Corp. Sec. 228 et seq; 3 Thompson, Corp. (2nd Ed.) Sec. 2390 et seq; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 27 L. Ed. 401; Long v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co., 91 Ala. 519, 24 Am. St. Rep. 931, 8 So. 706; Kohlruss v. Zachery, 139 Ga. 625, 77 S. E. 812; Alexander v. Tolleston Club, 110 111. 65; Louisville School Board v. King 32 Ky. L. Rep. 687, 107 S. W. 247; Farring-ton v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 38 L. R. A. 339, 37 Atl. 652; Hanson v. Little Sisters of the Poor of Baltimore, 79 Md. 434, 32 L. R. A. 293, 32 Atl. 1052; Nantasket Beach S. S. Co. v. Shea, 182 Mass. 147. 65 N. E. 57.
DeCamp v. Dobbins, 31 N. J. Eq. 690; Contra, Brigham v. Peter Bent. Brigham Hospital, 126 Fed. 796, 801, 134 Id. 513, 527; Jones v. Habersham, 107 U. S. 174, 27 L. Ed. 401; Hamsher v. Ham-sher 132 111. 273, 8 L. R. A. 556, 23 N. E. 1123; Hayward v. Davidson, 41 Ind. 212 (semble); Farrington v. Putnam, 90 Me. 405, 38 L. R. A. 339, 37 Atl. 652; Hanson v. Little Sisters of the Poor of Baltimore, 79 Md. 434, 32 L. R. A. 293, 32 Atl. 1052; In re Stickney's Will, 85 Md. 79, 35 L. R. A. 693, 60 Am. St. Rep. 308, 36 Atl. 654; Hubbard v. Worcester Art Museum, 194 Mass. 280, 80 N. E. 490; Chambers v. St. Louis. 29 Mo. 543. The matter is discussed in 9 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 350, 11 Id. at p. 62, 20 Id. at p. 561. 24 Id. 546; 12 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 754.
89. See People v. Stockton Savings & Loan Society, 133 Cal. 611, 85 Am. St. Rep. 225, 65 Pac. 1078; Lancaster v. Amsterdam Improvement Co., assert its objection merely by a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto, to compel the corporation to relinquish the illegal holding, or perhaps to effect a forfeiture of the corporate franchise by reason of the abuse thereof.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.