People Ex Rel. Weatherly v. Golden Gate Lodge No. 6

60 P. 865, 128 Cal. 257, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 581
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1900
DocketS.F. No. 1698.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 60 P. 865 (People Ex Rel. Weatherly v. Golden Gate Lodge No. 6) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People Ex Rel. Weatherly v. Golden Gate Lodge No. 6, 60 P. 865, 128 Cal. 257, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 581 (Cal. 1900).

Opinion

COOPER, C.

This action is brought by the attorney general in the name of the people of the state, under section 803 *259 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of having it adjudged that the defendants usurp and unlawfully exercise the franchise of a corporation, and to enjoin them from so -doing. The court below filed findings and ordered judgment for defendants. This appeal is from the judgment and comes here on the judgment-roll. The object of the action is to determine the question as to whether there has been a valid incorporation of “Golden Gate Lodge No. 6 of the Benevolent Order of Elks of the United States of America.” It appears from the findings that prior to December 21, 1894, the said lodge consisted of about one hundred and forty members associated together under the name by which they claim to have incorporated, and that pecuniary profit was not their object. On said date, at a regular meeting, in accordance with the rules, regulations, and discipline of the association, the members thereof resolved and voted to incorporate in accordance with the laws of the state of California. They accordingly elected three directors for the ensuing year. The said election was conducted by two officers named by said association. The articles of incorporation contained substantially the matters required by the statute to be stated, and set forth the holding of the election for directors, the time and place where the same was held, that a majority of the members of such association were present and voted at such election, and the result thereof, which facts were verified by the two officers conducting the election. The articles of incorporation were not subscribed by any other persons than the said two officers and were not acknowledged by anyone unless the verification constituted an acknowledgment. The articles of incorporation so verified by the two officers, but not subscribed nor acknowledge^ in any other manner, nor by anyone else, were filed with the county clerk and a certified copy sent to the secretary of state, who issued a certificate of incorporation to said lodge under the name herein given. No question is made as to the election, directors, verification as to the facts of the election, and the regularity on its face of the certificate of incorporation. As said by counsel for appellant in their closing brief: “The whole case then comes down to this question: In the formation of a social corporation is it necessary that the articles of incorporation be subscribed and acknowledged by at least five persons?”

*260 ' A corporation is a creature of and created by the law. “Private corporations may be formed by the voluntary association of five or more persons in the manner prescribed in this article. A- majority of such persons must be residents of this state.” (Civ. Code, sec. 285.)

. “The instrument by which a private corporation is formed is called ‘Articles of Incorporation.’ ” (Civ. Code, sec. 289.)

It is provided in the Civil Code, section 290, that articles of incorporation must be prepared, setting forth certain matters enumerated in the section with particularity under five different heads. Section 292 of the Civil Code is as follows: “The articles of incorporation must be subscribed by five or more persons, a majority of whom must be residents of this state, and acknowledged by each before some officer authorized to take and certify acknowledgments of conveyances of real property.”

The above general provisions in regard to the formation of corporations are in part IV of the Civil Code, and apply to all corporations incorporated in the state, unless provision is otherwise made by special statute. It is not claimed in this case that the provisions of section 292 as to subscribing and acknowledging the articles of incorporation were complied with, but it is claimed that the provisions of the said .section are dispensed with by virtue of sections 593 and 594 of the Civil Code, which are as follows:

“See. 593. Any number of persons associated together for any purpose, where pecuniary profit is not their object, and for which individuals may lawfully associate themselves, may, in accordance with the rules, regulations, or discipline of such association, elect directors, the number thereof to be not less than three nor more than eleven, and may incorporate themselves as provided in this part.

“See. 594. In addition to the requirements of section 290, the articles of incorporation of any association mentioned in the preceding section must set forth the holding of the election for the directors, the time and place where the same was held, that a majority of the members of such association were present and voted at such election, and the result thereof; which facts must be verified by the officers conducting the election.”

*261 The contention is that these two sections furnish a complete scheme for the incorporation of benevolent or social associations, and that under the provisions thereof the subscribing and acknowledging by five persons is dispensed with. If the sections under which it is claimed that defendants incorporated expressly dispensed with the subscribing and acknowledging of the articles of incorporation, or if they plainly provided an entirely different method of authenticating the articles, the question would present no difficulty, but they do not, and we must determine whether the said sections in effect dispense with the requirements of section 292 of the Civil Code, as to subscribing and acknowledging. The sections of the Civil Code herein cited are all portions of part IV, and must be reconciled and read together, and, if possible, effect given to each. (Gleason v. Spray, 81 Cal. 217; 15 Am. St. Rep. 47; San Diego v. Granniss, 77 Cal. 511; Pol. Code, secs. 4478, 4480.) Section 593 says “any number of persons” may, in certain cases therein enumerated, “incorporate themselves as provided in this part.” We do no-t think it was the intent of the legislature that less than five persons could incorporate themselves. The expression “as provided in this part” being read with and as a part of the section providing that corporations may be formed by the association of five or more persons, would make the law mean that any number of persons consisting of five or more may incorporate themselves. The section does not say that less than five may become a corporation, and the language “any number of persons as provided in this part” is perfectly consistent with the interpretation that any number of persons consisting of five or more may become a corporation in the manner provided in part IV. The section provides that the number of directors shall not be less than three. It is therefore plain that by the very terms of the section itself a corporation could not be formed by less than three persons. Did the legislature intend that three or four persons could incorporate themselves? If so, in case of three persons incorporating themselves they would each be a director of the social corporation. The requirements of section 290, so far as they apply to a social corporation, are by section 594 expressly required to be set forth in the articles of incorporation of any such association. The *262

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Assembla Cristina Nel Nome Di Gesu v. Zampelli
6 P.2d 974 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
California Telephone & Light Co. v. Jordan
126 P. 598 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Boca Etc. R. R. v. Sierra Valleys R. R.
84 P. 298 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Boca & Loyalton Railroad v. Sierra Valleys Railroad
2 Cal. App. 546 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Wall v. Mines
62 P. 386 (California Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 P. 865, 128 Cal. 257, 1900 Cal. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-weatherly-v-golden-gate-lodge-no-6-cal-1900.