HARRILL V. DAVIS.

187
equipped with proper safety appliances. The degree of diligence required
by the statute is of the highest order, and the duty thus imposed
is absolute and unconditional. Therefore any failure on the
part of a railroad company to comply with its requirements must
necessarily subject the railroad company to the penalty imposed.
It must be admitted that some of the cases relied upon by plaintiff
in error are in conflict with the views entertained by this court. However,
after due consideration of all the cases relied upon by plaintiff
in error, we are of opinion that they are not controlling in this instance.
For the reasons hereinbefore stated, the judgment of the court below
is affirmed.
HARRILL v. DAVIS et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 2, lOOO.)
No. 2,805.
1. PARTN'ERSlIIP (� 41*)-CORPORATIONS (� 225*)-INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY IN
CASE OF !fAILURE TO INCORPORATE-GENERAL ItULE.
'rlJe general rule is that parties who associate themseh'es together and
conduct a business for profit under a name adopted or used by them for
that purpose are liable as partners for the debts they incur under that
name.
This general rule governs if the name used be that of a supposed corporation
which the associates have attempted but failed to organize according
to law. .
But a compliance by such associates with the statlltes authorizing them
to Lecome a corporation exempts them from other individual liability
than that prescribed by such laws for debts incurred after they become a
corporation authorized to do business as SUCh.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. �� 56, 58; Dec.
Dig. � 41;* Corporatious, Ceut. Dig. �� 74, 8G4. 8li5; Dec. Dig. � 225.*J
2". l'ARTNERSHIP (� 41*)-CORPORATIONS (� 30*)-INDIVIDUAL LIABILITy-ExOEPTIONS
TO GENERAL RULE.
Two exceptions to tbe general rule that corporators failing to organize
legally are individually liable are: (1) Where such associates procure a
~harter or file articles of incorporation under a general enabling act, secure
thereby the color of a corporation, believe they are SUCh. and use
the snpposed franchise of their corporation, and third parties deal with
them as a corporation. they become a de facto corporation, which exempts
them from individual liability to such parties. although there are
defects in their incorporation. (2) Projectors of a corporation to be
organized who inform third parties that they are contracting for such
a corporation and assure them that the obligations incurred will become
the obligations of the future corporation may escape individual liability
to such tllird [Jal'ties for obligations tl1us incurred for services necessary
to effect the corporate organization and for machinery and other property
necessary to the commencement of the contemplated business of tile corporation.
where the corporation is suLspq1l(~ntly organized, takes the benefit
of such contracts. and assumes the ohligations.
[Ed, Note.-For other cases. see Partnership, Cent. Dig, �� M. 58; Dec.
Dig, � 41;* Corporations, Cent. Dig. �� 97--100; Dec. Dig, � ao.*]
3. PAH'l'NERSIlIP (� 44*)-BuRDEN OF PROOF ON CLAIMANTS OF EXEMPTION
]j'llO~I LIABILITY.
When the fact appears thnt parties associated themseh'es together and
Incurred liabilities in the conduct of a bllsille~S under a certain name, the
�For other cases see same topic & ~ NUMBEU ill Dec. &; Am. Digs, 1D07 to date, &
Rep'r IIld6AeII
188 168 FEDERAL REPORTER.
legal presumption is that they are governed by the general rule and are
liable as partners, and the burden is on them to prove that they are duly
incorporated or that they fall under some excelltion to the general rule.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. �� 62, 62Y2;
Dec. Dig. � 44.*]
4. CORPORATIONS (� 221*)-CORPORATION DE FACTO-COLOR OF ORGANIZATION
SUCH AS CHARTER OR FILING ARTlCLES REQUISITE.
Color of legal organization as a corporation, such as a charter or the
filing of articles of incorporation under some law, and user of the 8uppusell
corporate franchise in good faith, are indispensable to the existence of a
de facto corporation which will exempt from individual liability thosp
who actively conduct it.
Neither the execution of articles which are not filed, nor statements
nor beliefs of the promoters that they are a corporation, nor the treatment
of themselves by themselves and by those who deal with them as a
corporation, nor all these together, will exempt those who actively conduct
the business under the assumed name of such a nonexistent corporation
from individual liability for the debts they incur.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. � 221.*]
5. CORPORATIONS (� 34*)-CoRPORATION' DE FACTO-ESTOPPEL FROM DENYING
EXISTENCE INAPPLICABLE IN ABSENCE OF COLOR OF INCORPORATIO".
One who deals with a corporation de facto may be estopped from denying
its existence as a corporation de jure.
But no one is estopped uy dealing with parties as a corporation who
are actively conducting business for profit under an assumed corporate
name when they have no charter, have filed no articles of incorporation,
and procured no color of legal organization as a corporation, from denying
that they constitute a corporation of any kind or from enforcing tlleir
~ndividual liability for the debts they incur under such a name.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Oorporations, Gent. Dig. �� 84, 91;
Dec. Dig. � 34.*]
6. CORPORATI~NS (� 372*)-ULTRA VIRES-CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING COTTON
GIN BEYOND POWERS OF BROKERAGE COMPANY.
A corporation organized for the purpose of "buying, selling, leasing and
dealing in lands, securities, bonds, notes, stocks and other negotiable
paper and also buying and selling general merchandise" has no cOI'porate
power to build and operate cotton gins or to subscribe for stock in and
form another corporation for that purpose.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. � 372.*]
7. STATUTES (� 226*)-CONSTRUCTION-ADiDPTION ADOPTS INTERPRETATION.
The adoption of a statute previously io force in some other jurisdiction
is presumed to be the adoption of the interpretation thereof which had
been theretofore placed upon it by the judicial tribunal whose duty it was
to construe it.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see l3tatutes, Cent. Dig. �� 256, 307; Dec.
Dig. � 226.*]
8. ELECTION OF REMEDIES (� 12*)~PURSUIT OF INCONSISTENT MISTAKEN REMEDY
No DEFENSE TO TRUE REMEDY.
The fatuous choice of a funcied remedy that never existed, and the
futile pursuit of it until the court adjudges that it never had existence,
is no defense to an action to enforce an actual remedy inconsistent with
that first invoked.
[Ed. Note.-E'or other cases, see Election of Remedies, Cent. Dig. � 15;
Dec. Dig. � 12.*]
9. CORPORATIONS (�� 22, 221*) - PROMOTERS INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE - FAOTSCONCLUSIONS.
The four defendants agreed in April or June, 1902, to take specified
shares in a $10,000 enterprise for the purpose of building a cotton gin
*For other cases see same topic &; � NUMBER in Dec. &; Am. Digs. 1907 to date, &;
Rep'r Indexes
HARRILL v. DAVIS. 189
and carrying on the business of buying, ginning, and selling cotton, and
to organize a corporation for this purpose. In June or July, 1902, they
commenced to buy material and labor of the plaintiff and to build their
cotton gin. In September, 1902, they commenced to buy cotton, and in
the first days of October to operate their cotton gin. They transacted
a business with the plaintiff consisting of the purchase of lumber, ma�
terials, and labor for their buildings and of dealing in cotton with it which
amounted to several tens of thousands of dollars, and they remained
indebted to it over $5,000, of which $4,700 was incurred prior to December
22, 1902, when they first filed articles of incorporation in one
of two places required by the statute. During all this time they treated
themselves, and the plaintiff treated them, as a corporation.
Held: '['he defendants did not become a corporaton de jure because
they failed to file their articles in both the places required by the statute;
(2) they did not become a corporation de facto before they filed their articles
on December 22, 1902, to such an extent as to exempt them from
individual liability because they did not before th1l.t time secure any color
of legal organization as a corporation under any charter or enabling act;
(3) they were liable individually as partners for that part of the plaintiff's
claim incurred prior to the filing of their articles.
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. �� 62, 64;
Dec. Dig. �� 22, 221.*
Acts of corporators and promoters, see note to Yeiser v. United States
Board & Paper Co., 46 C. C� .A. 576.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In Error to the United States Court of Appeals in the Indian Territory.
For opinion below, see 104 S. W. 573.
The Western Investment Company brought this action for a balance due It
upon an account for lumber and materials sold, cotton handled, and services
rendered to ",Valter B. Mann, Frank 1\1. Davis, Robert S. Davis, and James
G. Knight, as partners doing business under the firm name the "Coweta Cotton
& Milling Company." '['he defendants denied the partnership and their
liability, and averred that the indebtedness in question was that of the milling
company and that that company was a corporation. 'l'he evidence established
these facts: One Naylor was the presWent, and Frank M. Davis was the vice
president and general manager, and Naylor, Davis, Edwards, and "Vallace were
directors, of the Western Investment Company. There were 1,000 shares of
the capital stock of that company, of which Naylor owned 520, Davis, Edwards,
and Wallace 80 each.
In .April or June, 1902, Mann, Frank M. Davis, Robert S. Davis, and Knight
agreed to embark in a $10,000 enterprise for the purpose of building a cotton
gin, buying, ginning, and selling cotton, that Mann should take two-fifths of
this undertaking and the other three members one-fifth each,. and that J!'rank
M. Davis should take his fifth for the ",Vestern Investment CompanJ'. Neither
the Western Investment Company nor any of its directors ever authorized
Davis to take this stock on its behalf, and he never reported to the company
that he had so talren it until January, 1903, after the indebtedness here in
question had been incurred, and at about the time when tile milling company
ceased to operate its gin. He testified that he hnd SOlIle eonversation with
Edwards and 'Vallace about his taking this stock for the corvoration, but
that he never mentioned it to Naylor, the president, who held a majority of
the stock. In February, 1903, after the milling company had ceased to operate
its gin, Davis caused an entry of a credit of $1,150 to that company to he
entered upon the account books of the investment company on account of
this stOCk, and the investment company subsequently repUdiated this charge
and charged the $1,150 back to the milling company.
In April or June, 1902, F. M. Davis, on behalf of the investment company,
agreed with the other defendants to furnish to them materials to build the
.For other oases see same topic & � NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, &
Rep'r Indexes
190 168 FEDERAL REPORTER.
cotton gin, iUld'in June or the following month the plaintiff commenced to
furnish materials and to render its services for this purpose, which were
received by Knight as the representative of the defendants and used by him
to construct the cotton gin and to carryon the business which the defendants
were conducting. 'l'he price of these materials and services were charged
upon the books of the investment company to Coweta Gin Company and the
Coweta Gin cotton account.
On September 3, 1902, three of the defendants met and signed articles of
incorporation as the "Coweta Cotton & Milling C<>mpany" and a declaration
of the purpose of the incorporation, which the statutes required to be verified
by the signers and to be filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals and
with the clerl{ of the judicial district in which the contemplated corporation
was to do business. 'l'his declaratioin was verified by Mann on November 10,
1902, and by Frank M. Davis on December 10, 1902, and it was filed with
the clerk of the Court of Appeals on December 22, 1902, and was never filed
elsewhere.' 1'he balance of indebtedness due to the investment company is
about $5,000 and interest, and all of it but a few hundred dollars was incurred
before the artieles of incorporation were filed. Frank M. Davis, as
general manager of the investment company, treated the milling company as a
corporation all the time during which this indebtedness was contracted, and
never charged any of it to himself or his associates. He and other witnesses
testified that the milling company received the benefit of all materials and
services fnrnlshed by the plaintiff, and that the defendants received no benefit
from them, and that they acted in good faith and without any intent to deceive
or defraud anyone. 'l'he entire amount of money paid into the milling
company by the corporators was not more than $4,9G0. That company never
had any.stock book and never issued any stock. The defendants commenced
to buy cotton and to operate their gin under the name of the milling company
in October, 1902, and they ceased to operate their cotton gin in January, 1903.
Knight managed the construction of the cotton gin and the other improvements
for the defendants and the business of the defendants and the milling
company from June, 1902, when he commenced the buildings, until January,
1903. About $3,000 of the claim in suit was for lumber and labor furnished,
and for this amount the investment company filed a claim for a mechanic's
lien verified' by the successor of Frank M. Davis in May, 1903, in which
there is a statement that the milling company is a corporation. Upon this
state of facts the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and refused
to instruct the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the portion
of the debt incurred prior to the filing of the articles of incorporation on
December
22, 1902.
R. C. Allen (]. C. Pinson, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Geo. A. Murphey (S. M. Rutherford, W. T. Hutchings, and W.
P. Z. German, on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before SANBORN and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges. and
W. H. MUNGER, District Judge.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above). The
patent and indisputable facts in this case are that the four defendants
associated themselves together, and from June, 1902, until December
22, 1902, actively engaged in purchasing lumber, material, and
labor of the plaintiff, and in constructing a cotton gin under the name
"The Coweta Gin Company," and in conducting the business of buying,
selling, and ginning cotton for profit under the name "The Coweta
Cotton .& Milling Company," and that during this time they incurred
more than $4,700 of the indebtedness of $5,145.48 for which
this action was brought. On December 22, 1902, they made their
first real attempt to incorporate, and for the first time took on the
color or appearance of a corporation. On that clay they filed articles
HARRILL V. DAVIS. 191
of incorporation with the clerk of the Court of Appeals,but they
never filed any duplicate of them with the clerk of the judicial district
in which their place of business was located, as required by the statutes
in order to constitute them a legal corporation and to authorize
them to do business as such. Act Feb. 18, 1901, c. 379, 31 Stat. 794;
Mansfield's Dig. Laws Ark. �� 960, 968, 979.
The general rule is that parties who associate themselves together
and actively engage in business for profit under any name are liable
as partners for the debts they incur under that name. It is an exception
to this rule that such associates may escape individual liability
for such debts by a compliance with incorporation laws or by a real
attempt to comply with them which gives the color of a legal corporation,
and by the user of the franchise of such a corporation in the honest
belief that it is duly incorporated. When the fact appears, as it
does in the case at bar, by indisputable evidence that parties associated
and knowingly incurred liabilities under a given name, the legal presumption
is that they are governed by the general rule, and the burden
is upon them to prove that they fall under some exception to it.
Owen v. Shepard, 59 Fed. 746, 8 C. C. A. 244; Wechselberg v. Flour
City National Bank, 64 Fed. 90, 94, 12 C. C. A. 56, 60, 61, 26 L. R.
A. 470; Clark v. Jones, 87 Ala. 474, 6 South. 362.
Counsel for the defendants argue with much force and persuasiveness
that they escape liability because they became a corporation de
facto, although they concede that they never became a corporation
de jure, and in support of this position they cite, among other cases:
Wells Company v. Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Co., 198 U. S. 177, 25 Sup.
Ct. 640, 49 L; Ed. 1003; Andes v. Ely, 158 U. S. 312, 322, 15 Sup. Ct.
954, 39 L. Ed. 996; New Orleans Debenture Redemption Co. v.
Louisiana, 180 U. S. 320, 327, 21 Sup. Ct. 378,45 L. Ed. 550; Gartside
Coal Co. v. Maxwell (C. C.) 22 Fed. 197; Johnson v. Okerstrom,
70 Minn. 303, 73 N. W. 147; Tennessee Automatic Lighting Company
v. Massey (Tenn. Ch. App.) 56 S. W. 35; Finnegan v. Noerenberg,
52 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 1150, 18 L. R. A. 778, 38 Am. St.
Rep. 552; Doty v. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60, 56 N. E. 668; Merchants'
National Bank v. Stone, 38 Mich. 779; Gow v. Collin Lumber Company.
109 Mich. 45, 66 N. W. 676, 678; Eaton v. Aspinwall, 19
N. Y. 119; Leonardsville Bank v. Willard, 25 N. Y. 574; Cahall v.
Citizens' Mutual Bldg. Ass'n, 61 Ala. 232; Fay v. Noble, 7 Cush.
(Mass.) 188, 192, 193; Snider Sons' Company v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224,
8 South. 658, 11 L. R. A. 515, 24 Am. St. Rep. 887; Cochran v.
Arnold, 58 Pa. 399, 404; Laflin & Rand Powder Co. v. Sinsheimer,
46 Md. 315, 321, 24 Am. Rep. 522; Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Or. 218,
29 Pac. 546, 17 L. R. A. 549, 29 Am. St. Rep. 596. But in every
one of these authorities articles of incorporation had been filed under
a general enabling act, or a charter had been issued and there had
been a user of the franchise of the supposed corporation which had
been colorably created by the filing of the articles or the issue of
the charter before the indebtedness in question was created, while
nothing of this nature had been done before the debt for the $4,700
which we are now considering was incurred. The authorities which
192 168 FEDERAL REPORTER.
have been recited rest upon the proposition that where parties procure
a charter or file articles of association under a general law, thereby
secure the color of a .legal incorporation, believe that they are a
corporation, and use the supposed franchise of the corporation in
good faith, and third parties deal with them as a corporation, they become
a corporation de facto and exempt from individual liability to
such third parties, although there are unknown defects in the proceedings
for their incorporation. The statement of Morawetz on Corporations,
at section 748, upon which counsel seem to rely, that:
"If an association assumes to enter into a contract in a corporate capacity,
and the party dealing with the association contracts with it as if it were a
corporation, the individual members of the association cannot be charged as
parties to the contract, eitber severally or jointly, or as partners.� This is
equally true whether the association was in fact a corporation or not, and
whether the contract with the association in its corporate capacity was authorized
by the Legislature or prohibited by law, or illegal"
-is too broad to be sound. Parties who actively engage in business
for profit under the name and pretense of a corporation which they
know neither exists nor has any color of existence may not escape
individual liability because strangers are led by their pretense to contract
with their pretended entity as a corporation. In such cases they
act as the agents of a principal that they know does not exist, and
they are liable under a familiar rule, because there is no responsible
principal. 2 Kent's Commentaries (14th Ed.) 630; Queen City Furniture
& Carpet Co. v. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356, 364, 30 S. W. 163.
The burden is not on the strangers who deal with them as a corporation,
but on themselves who act under the name of a pretended corporation,
to see that it is so organized that it exempts them from
individual liability, and if they fail in this they must pay the liabilities
they incur, even in the absence of fraud or bad faith, upon the
salutary principle that where one of two parties must suffer he must
bear the loss whose breach of duty caused it.
There are cases in which stockholders who took no active part in
the business of a pretended corporation which was acting without
any charter or filed articles, who supposed that the corporation was
duly organized, have been held exempt from individual liability for
the debts it incurred; but if they had been actively conducting its
business with knowledge of its lack of incorporation, those decisions
must have been otherwise. Seacord v. Pendleton, 55 Hun, 579, 9 N.
Y. Supp. 46; Fuller v. Rowe, 57 N. Y. 23, 26.
Neither the hope, the belief, nor the statement by parties that they
are incorporated, nor the signing of articles of incorporation which
are not filed, where filing is requisite to create the corporation, nor
the user of the pretended franchise of such a nonexistent corporation,
will constitute such a corporation de facto as will exempt those
who actively and knowingly use its name to incur obligations from
their individual liability to pay them. Color of legal organization as
a corporation under some charter or law and user of the supposed
corporate franchise in good faith are indispensable to such exemption.
HARRILL V. DAVIS. 193
Under the general law of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory,
the filing of articles of incorporation with the clerk of the Court of
Appeals was a sine qua non of any color of a legal corporation. Without
that there was not, and there could not be, an apparent corporation
or the color of a corporation, Agreements to form one, statements
that there was one, signed articles of association to make one,
acts as one, created no color of incorporation, because there could be
no incorporation or color of it under the law until the articles were
filed. Johnson v. Corser, 34 Minn. 355, 25 N. W. 799; Finnegan v.
Noerenberg, 52 Minn. 239, 243, 244, 53 N. W. 1150, 1151, 18 L. R.
A. 778, 38 Am. St. Rep. 552; Taylor on Private Corporations, p. 145,
Roberts Mfg. Co. v. Schlick, 62 Minn. 332. 64 N. W. 826. In Finnegan
v. Noerenberg, supra, Chief Justice Gilfillan well said:
"To give to a body of men assuming to act as a corporation, where there
has been no attempt to comply with the provisions of any law authorizing them
to become such, the status of a de facto corporation, might open the door to
frauds upon the public. It would certainly be impclitic to permit a number
of men to have the status of a corporation to any extent merely because
there is a law under which they might have become incorporated, and they
have agreed among themselves to act, and they have acted, as a corporation.
That was the condition in Johnson v. Corser, 34 J\1inn. 355, 25 N. W. 799, in
which it was held that what had been done was ineffectual to limit the individual
liability of the associates. They had not gone far enough to become
a de facto corporation. They had merely signed articles, but had not attempted
to give them publicity by filing for record, which the statute required."
The defendants cannot escape individual liability for the $-:1:,700 on
the ground that the Coweta Cotton & Milling Company was a corporation
de facto when that portion of the plaintiff's claim was incurred,
because it then had no color of incorporation, and they knew
it and yet, actively used its name to incur the obligation. Owen v.
Shepard, 8 C. C. A. 244, 59 Fed. 746; Wechse1berg v. Flour City
National Bank, 64 Fed. 90, 94, 12 C. C. A. 56, 60, 61, 26 L. R. A.
470; Abbott v. Omaha Smelting & Refining Co., 4 Neb. 416, 423,
424; Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144; Johnson v. Corser, 34
Minn. 355, 357, 25 N. W. 799; Queen City Furniture & Carpet Co.
v. Crawford, 127 Mo. 356, 364, 30 S. W. 163; Bigelow v. Gregory,
73 Ill. 197, 202; Parsons on Partnership, p. 544; Hill v. Beach, 12 N.
J. Eq. 31; Kaiser v. Lawrence Savings Bank, 56 Iowa, 104, 8 N. W.
772, 41 Am. St. Rep. 85; Pettis v. Atkins, 60 Ill. 454; Coleman v.
Coleman, 78 Ind. 344; Lawler v. Murphy, 58 Conn. 313, 20 Ad. 457,
8 L. R. A. 113; Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310, 314; Beach on Private
Corporations, � 16, p. 25; ),1artin v. Fewell, 79 Mo. 401, 411;
Smith v. Warden, 86 Mo. 382, 399; McVicker v. Cone, 21 Or. 353,
28 Pac. 77.
Another contention is that the defendants are released from liability
because the materials and labor for which the $4,700 became due
were furnished to them while they were promoting the organization
of the corporation for the future corporation, and that the latter has
received the benefit of them and ratified their purchase; and in support
of this position they cite vVhitney v. Wyman, 101 U. S. 396, 25
L. Ed. 1050; Little Rock & Ft. Smith R. R. Co. v. Perry, 37 Ark.
164; Paxton Co. v. First National Bank, 21 Neb. 621, 33 N. W. 271,
lG8l!'.-13
'168 ;FEDERAf" ~tEPORTER.
59d Am. St Rep;E5~;Sta.l)to~v. New YorkR. R. Co., 59 Conn. 272,
22 At1.300, 21 Am"St.,Rep. 110; Dav;is v. Montgomery, 101 Ala:
127, 8 South. 496; Reichwald v. Commer,cial Hotel Co., 106 Ill. 439;
Wall,v. Niaga,;a CI/.,20 Utah, 474,59, Pac. 399; Lancaster Co. v.
Murray C9., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 110, 47 S.W. 387; Kaeppler v. Redfi,
eld Cd., ~2 S, D. 483, 81 N.W.907 ; Chase v. Redfield, 12 S. D.
529, 8;1 N, W. 951. Itt Whitney v. Wyman, after the articles of incorporatiollwere
signe,d, b~1t before they were filed, three promoters
of the incotporatiot) wrote, to the plaintiff that the company was so
fat organized tha,t by dit~ction 0.� its officers they ordered seven lathes
and the ,necessary fixtures for clasping. These lathes were necessary
to enable the corporation to commence its contemplated business,
were received and used by it; and the, Supreme Court ,held that the
promoter~ were not individually liable" for their purr;:hasl1 price.
LittleRock & Ft. Smith R R. Co.'v.Perry was, an action against
the corporation, and the liability of the promoters was not in issue.
The, _tou~dedared that the' rule .hereirtvoked grew out of decisions
in ~qi#tythill: contracts necessarily made by promoters on, behalf of
a future~;oorporationin order to obtain its charter or to complete its
organization would be specifically enforced against it, as in Stanley v.
Birkenheli'dRail'way Co., 9 SilTIOns;264.16 Eng. Ch. Rep. 264, where
the projectors ofa railroad seeking a charter agreed with a landec:i
proprietor, on behalf -of the proposed company, in consideration that,
he would withdraw his opposition to their bill, to pay him �20,000
for tnep6rtion of his estate required by the road. and the court enforced
the specific performance of this obligation against the corporation
when the charter had been granted. and. as in Edwards v.
Grand Junction Railway Company, 1 Mylne & C. 650; Preston v. Liverpool,
Manchester, etc., Railway Co., 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 124, Webb
v. Direct London & Portsmouth Railway Company, 9 Hare, 129, Low
v.Ct. & Passumpric Railway, 45 N.H. 375, which are there cited, and
the Ark:msas court held that in order to recover' of such a corporation
the plaintiff must show "either an express promise of the tiew
company,: or that the contract was made with persons then engaged
in its formation and taking preliminary steps thereto.' and that the
contract was made on behalf of the new company, in the expectation
on the part of the plaintiff and with the assurance on the part of the
projectors that it would become a corporate debt, and that the companyafterwards
entered upon and enjoyed the benefit of the contract,
and by no other title than that derived through it." But there
is no evidence that the materials and labor furnished to the defendants
prior to December 2'2,1902, were sold by the plaintiff with the
assurance on their part. or with the expectation on its part, that their
price would not be paid by them, but would become the debt or obligation
of a corporation to be organized in the future. On the other
hand, Davis, ,who sold these articles for the plaintiff, and Knight, who
bought them for the defendants, both testified that in the purchase
and the sale of all of them they treated themselves asa corporation
before, as completely as after, the filing of their articles. The rule of
law here invoked applies to contracts preliminary and incidental to
the organization or to the commencement of the business of a con
HARRILL V. DAVIS. 195
templated corporation, and this debt for $4,700 was not the result of
any such contract. It is part of the balance of an account of many
tens of thousands of dollars which arose out of the conduct of a
business preliminary, not to its commencement, but to its close. The
business of the defendants was the buying and ginning of cotton.
They commenced to construct their buildings in June, to buy cotton
in September, to operate their gin in the first days of October, they
filed their articles on December 22d, and ceased to operate their gin
in the following January. They cannot escape liability for debts incurred
in this business prior to December 22d on the ground that
their construction of buildings and their dealing in and ginning cotton
for two months and a half were necessary preliminaries to the
organization of their corporation or to the commencement of their
business, nor on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff was incurred
on their assurance that it was for and should become the debt of
a corporation to be formed, because these grounds are not sustained
by the evidence.
Counsel insist that the defendants :Jre not liable here because one
who deals with a corporation de facto is estopped from denying its
existence as a corporation; but the true meaning and legal effect of
this rule is that such a dealer is estopped from denying its existence
on the ground that it was not legally incorporated. One who
deals with parties who masquerade under a name which represents
no corporation de facto is no more estopped from denying that it
is a corporation than he would be from denying that they constituted
or acted for the Union Pacific Railroad Company, or any other welloknown
corporation, when they did not. The fact that the plaintiff
dealt with and treated the Coweta Cotton & Milling Company as a
corporation did not estop it from denying that it was such before
the defendants filed their articles of incorporation, because it was
not a corporation de facto before that time and because the indispensable
elements of an estoppel in pais, ignorance of the truth and
absence of equal means of knowledge of .it by the party who claims
the estoppel, and action by. the latter induced by the misrepresentation
of the party against whom the estoppel is invoked, cia not e:)dst
in the case at bar. Bigelow on Estoppel (4th Ed.) p. 679. The plaintiffs
did not, and the defendants did, represent that the milling company
was a corporation when it was not. The defendants had better
means of knowledge of the fact than the plaintiff, and they knew it
was not a corporation, and they were not induced to act on any representation
of the plaintiff that it was such, or by its treatment of it as
such.
Nor was the plaintiff estopped by the fact that its general manager
stated under oath in its claim for a lien in May, 1903,that the milling
company was a corporation, first, because the defendants were not induced
to take any action by this statement from which they can suffer
any injury by the proof of the truth, and, second, because one is
not estopped' 'from pursuing his true legal remedy by a mistaken attempt
to pursue a supposed remedy that does not exist. Standard Oil
Company v. Hawkins, 20 C. C. A. 468,472, 74 Fed. 395, 398,399, 33
196 168 FEDERA.L REPOR'l'ER.
L. R.;A~ 739'; Barnsdallv. Waltemeyer, 73 C. C. A..515,520, 142 Fed.
415,4:2;Q; Bunch v. Grave, 111 Ind. 351,12 N. E. 514,517.
It is. said that the plaintiff is estopped from denying th~ existence
of the,.defendant's supposed corporation because it was one of its promoters
and stockholders, but the evidence fails to convince us that it
was ever either. F.:M. Davis was the general manager of the. plaintiff.
He, testified that in June, 1902, he agreed with the other defend~
ants to take a $2,000 share for the plaintiff in a corporatipn to be organiiyd
with a capital of $10,000 for the'purpose ,of ginning:apd dealing
in coHon, that Mann agreed to, ~ake a $4,000 share; R: $. Davis and
James G.l(night a share of $2,000 each, that in Septerpber he 'signed
the artic1~s of incorporation and subscribed tor this stock, that the
other d~f~ndants also subscribed, tha,t. these subscribers; paid the first
assessITl\':nt of $3,750 on $10,000 of the stock in the f,allof 1902, that
the sec:ond, assessment of $2,000 was made in January, 1903, that he
nev~r reported this stock tothe plaintiff until January, 1903, but that
in the summer and fall of 1902 he talked with Edwards and Wallace,
two of the directors, who had 80 shares of stock each in the plaintiff,
about this stock which he was to take and which he had taken, that
the plaintiff and they acquiesced in his action and tol<;l him to do the
best h~,could with it,,out that they did not direct. or instruct him to
t:;Lk:e the '$took or agree .that he should take it, and that he did not talk
WIth fhepres~<;lent, who was the owner"of the majority, of the stock of
the plaif).tiff;'il,fhotlgh a,tj:O,ther, witn~ss testified that ;~6me time in the
fall of 1902,,he told :t-:J<iylor that Davisha.d takfn, stoc~ jn the milling
c0mpany .for the plaintiff. pavis, however, subscribe1 for the stock
inhis own name,at:td the plaintiffr, did,not. He testified that he paid
the first assessment in the fall of 1902, but he never charged the plain~
ti,ff., a1j.d icredifed himself with that payment; but, on the contrary, on
FebrUarY 23, 1903; after the milling, company: ,hadce<J,sed to operate
its� gin, he caused an entry to be made. on the, books of. the investment
c6mp~ny charging it and crediting ~he inilling C0111p<\.ny with $1,150,
the amount of the two assessments ~ 9n .his; .stock, 'Ml,entry which the
plaintiff subsequently, r:ept:idiated�.'. "there ar~ two reaS0I1S why, under
the evidence in this re�pf;d, the pl<l,intiff never became a holder, either
in law Qt', in equity, of imyshare in the defend~nt's enterprise Or company,
either asa stockho\der or otherwise. In the first place, the con:structicll1
and operatiorJ..of a cptton gin was beyond the p'owers of the
plaintiff cQrpor<1-i:ion, the ,~ature of,whose business was declared and
limited by its articles to "buying, selling, leasing and dealing in lands,
securities, bonds, notes, stocks and other negotiable paper,and also
buying and' 'selling general merchandise." In the second place, if by
any conceivable. interpretation the construction and operation of a cotton
gin and. the formation of the corporation, and the taking of stock
therein to accomplish that purpose, could be deemed to be within the
powers of this corporation, they are so far beyond the scope of its
ordinary business that a general manager could be authorized to commit
his corporation to them onlyby the express authority of its board
of directors, or of its principal officers, after a full disclosure to them
of all the facts relating to the"proposed enterprise, and the desultory
HARRILL V. DAVIS. 197
talks which Davis had with the two directors fall far short of any evidence
of such authority.
Much is made in argument of the testimony of Davis and Knight
that they acted in good faith, that the defendants never received any
benefit from the materials and labor for the purchase price of which
the plaintiff sues, but good faith and the use of a name which they know
represents no corporation as the name of a corporation under which
they do business creates a partnership, and neither a corporation de
jure nor de facto. And the defendants had all the benefit there was
from the materials and labor furnished by the plaintiff, for the milling
company never issued any stock, and these defendants owned their
respective shares in its property, and whatever it had they had, and,
as far as they have not disposed of it, they still have. The fact is that
during this entire transaction while Davis was the general manager of
the plaintiff he was the partner of the defendants, and, in all transactions
between the plaintiff and the defendants, was pecuniarily interested
adversely to his principal.
The sum of the whole matter is that the defendants agreed in April
or June, 1902, to take certain shares in a $10,000 enterprise for the
purpose of building a cotton gin, and buying, ginning, and selling cotton,
and to organize a corporation to carryon this business they bought
between June and December 22, 1902, materials and labor with which
they built the cotton gin, and between September 15th and December
22d operated their cotton gin and carried on the business of buying,
ginning, and selling cotton with the plaintiff to the amount of several
tens of thousands of dollars, and there remains a balance of about $4-,700
due the plaintiff on this account. They never issued any stock, but
in September, November, and December they signed articles of incorporation
which they filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals on December
22, 1902. During this time they treated themselves and the
plaintiff dealt with them as a corporation. They represented themselves
to be a corporation when they knew they were not; under the name
of a corporation which did not exist they purchased these goods and
services.
And our conclusion is that the defendants never became a corporation
de facto prior to De.cember 22, 1902, that they never became a
corporation de jure, that the indebtedness here in question was not incurred
under any promise or assurance of the defendants as promoters
that it should become the obligation of a corporation to be formed,
that a large part of it was incurred in the conduct of a general commercial
business, and not to pre.pare for the commencement of such a
business or for the organization of a corporation, and that the trial
court below should have instructed the jury that the defendants were
individually liable for that portion of the plaintiff's claim which was
incurred prior to December 22, ] 902. Its failure to do so was a fatal
error which necessitates a reversal of the judgments below.
In view of the conclusion which has now been reached, it is unnecessary
to discuss at length or to determine other questions which
are presented in this record. It is sufficient to say regarding the portion
of the plaintiff's claim incurred subsequent to December 22, 1902,
that while there is a conflict of authority upon the question whether
198 168 FEDERAL REPORTER.
or not incorporators or stockholders remain personally liable after the
filing of articles in one office only where the statute requires them to
be filed in two offices as a condition of incorporation or of the commencement
of business (Mokelumne Hill Canal & Mining Co. v. Woodbury,
14 Cal. 265,267), the statute under which this caSe arose was
brought into the Indian Territory from the state of Arkansas, and the
Supreme Court of that state had held, before it was adopted in the Indian
Territory, that such corporators or stockholders remain individuallyliableunder
this statute unless and until their articles of incorporation
are filed in both offices. Garnett v. Richardson, 35 Ark. 144. This
conClusion is sustained by eminent authority (Wechselberg v. Flour
City National Bank, 12 C. C. A. 56, 60, 61, 64 Fed. 90, 94, 26 L. R. A.
470, and authorities there cited), and it is an established rule of statutory
construction that the adoption of a statute previously in force
in some other jurisdiction is presumed to be the adoption of the interpretation
thereof which had been theretofore placed upon it by the judicial
tribunal whose duty it was to construe it. Black, Interpretation
ofLaws, p. 159, � 70; McDonald v. Hovey, 110 U. S. 619, 628,4 Sup.
Ct. 142; 28 L. Ed. 269; Sanger v. Flow, 1 C. C. A. 56, 58, 48 Fed.
152; 154; Blaylock v. Incorporated Town of Muskogee, 54 C. C. A.
639, 117 Fed. 125.
The judgments of the courts below must be reversed, and the case
must� be remanded to the proper court for a new trial; and it is so
ordered..
MARTIN v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. March 13. 1909.)
No. 2,728.
1. UNITED STATES(� 52*)'-OFFICERS-CLERK OF COMMISSIONER NOT AN OFFICER-"
OFFICER OF UNITED STATES."
One of the clerks of the commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes, em�
ployed at a salary of $1,200 a year under authority granted b;y Congress
to the Secretary �of the Interior to employ all assistance necessary to
perform the duties of the commissioners to those tribes, was not an offi�
eel.' of the United States, and was not punishable nnder section ;)408, Rev.
St. (U. S. C:omp. St. 1001, p. 3658). which provides that "every officer
having .the custody of any record, document, paper, or proceeding,
� � � who fraudulently takes away, or withdraws, or destro~ls any
such record, document, or paper," shall suffer the penalties there prescribed.
..
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see United States, Dec. Dig. � 52.�
For other definitions, see Words .and Phrases, vol, 6, pp, 4047, 4948;
vol. 8, p. 7737.]
2. UNITED STA.TES (� 52*) - "CUSTODY" - DOCUMENT IN CrSTODY OF CHIEF
CLERK NOT IN 'I:HAT OF �SUBORDINA.Tl\'S \Vno HAVE ACCESS TO IT.
"CustOdY" means keeping, and .implies responsibility for the protection
and preseJ:vation of the l)erSOn or thing: in custody.
A.document in a public office in the general custody. of a commissioner
and in the particular custody of his chief clerk, under whom five or six
'For other cases see same topic & � NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, &
Rep'r Indexes