Salem Mill Dam Corp. v. Ropes

23 Mass. 23
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 9, 1827
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 Mass. 23 (Salem Mill Dam Corp. v. Ropes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Salem Mill Dam Corp. v. Ropes, 23 Mass. 23 (Mass. 1827).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was afterwards drawn up by

Parker C. J.

Upon the general question presented in the argument of this case, viz. the legality of an assessment for the general objects and purposes for which the plaintiffs were incorporated, the Court are unanimously of opinion that such assessment would not be valid.

We are brought to this opinion by a careful consideration of the act of incorporation, and by a just construction of the obligations incurred under the instrument by which the individual members associated and became corporators. We consider the special promise incorporated with the subscription, as making the persons and property liable, to the extent of the subscription ; that is, to pay all assessments which shall be legally made ; the object of this form of subscription being obviously to create a personal duty upon those who should subscribe, beyond the statute liability which can be enforced only against their shares. The principle has heretofore been settled in analogous cases, that a mere subscription creates no promise, and gives no security to the corporation beyond the value of the stock, but that a promise superadded gives a right of action, where there are parties in being to give and take the promise.1 And this distinction is reasonable ; for as the objects for which such incor-' porations are applied for and granted are generally experimental, and as expenses must be incurred in trying the experiment, it is right and just that those who embark in the same cause should be holden to each other for a fair apportionment of the [32]*32expenses ; and it is not unjust, if a majority of those who aggocjate ghouid determine to complete the object, that those in whose promises they confide to bear their proportion of expense should be compelled to pay. But all such promises are in their'nature conditional, and depend upon the terms on which they are made, with reference to the capacity, duties and powers of the other party to the contract, the corporation ; who cannot extend the effect of the promise beyond the original meaning and extent of it, any more than the other party can limit it.

The power of corporations is derived only from the act, grant, charter or patent by which they are created. In this Commonwealth the source and origin of such power is the legislature, and corporations are to exercise no authority, except what is given by express terms or by necessary implication by that body. No vote or act of a corporation can enlarge its chartered authority, either as to the subjects on which it is intended to operate, or the persons or property of the corporators.1 If created with a fund limited by the act, it cannot enlarge or diminish that fund, but by license from the legislature, and if the capital stock is parcelled out into a fixed number of shares, this number cannot be changed by the corporation itself. Vide 1 Dane’s Abr. 457, c. 22, art. 1, and the numerous authorities cited by that author. The promise on which this action is brought must be construed with reference to the charter of the company, it being founded on that, and is to be governed by it.

What then are the terms and the legal effect of the contract now under consideration ? The words, after stating the object of the subscription and referring to the act of incorporation, are —

“We the subscribers severally agree to take the number of shares of the capital stock in said corporation, which are affixed to our respective names, and to pay all sue! legal assessments on each of said shares, as shall be made Vy the future government of said corporation, after the same shall have been organized according to said act ; it being under[33]*33stood, that in case more than five thousand shares shall be subscribed for, the committee, under whose direction this subscription is opened, shall reduce them to that number, in such a mode as they shall think equitable.”

An analysis of this contract will show the true and only fair construction of it. The promise is to pay all legal assessments. Upon what ? Upon the shares subscribed for. Shares of what ? Of the capital stock of the company created by the act of incorporation. What is this capital stock ? This must be answered by the act of incorporation, upon which the whole contract is founded ; and a reference to that shows manifestly, that the whole capital stock is composed of five thousand shares, which are liable to be assessed to the extent of one hundred dollars on each share. So that, potentially, the capital stock is five hundred thousand dollars, bui the corporators have a right to limit it to any less sum, by the assessment upon the shares, according to the amount of capital wanted for the object.

But this power of limitation is a privilege attached to the shares, and we think most clearly cannot be taken away by a reduction of the number of shares, leaving to the subscriber the hazard of being liable upon his subscription and promise to an amount much beyond what the actual expense of the project might subject him to, if the original number of shares were liable to assessment. Suppose, instead of the contemplated sum of five hundred thousand dollars, in the process and execution of the project, one hundred thousand dollars should be found to be competent to the purpose. Then it would follow, that upon five thousand shares a tax of twenty dollars on each share would be sufficient; whereas, if the shares were reduced to one thousand, an assessment to the whole extent of one hundred dollars on a share would Still be necessary.

Now a person called upon to subscribe, would naturally make his own calculations of the probable cost of the undertaking. He would see that the utmost limit of taxation is one hundred dollars upon a share, and that probably not more than one half of that sum would be required. I say probably, because the very fact of proceeding in the execution of [34]*34the project with but little more than half the number of shares taken up, shows the opinion of the corporation, that half the contemplated capital would be sufficient. We think the subscriber cannot be deprived of this probable advantage, by the vote of the corporation reducing the number of shares, and that a tax founded on such reduction would be illegal.

Such we think is the spirit of the act of incorporation, the intent and meaning of the limitation of the number of shares to constitute the capital stock. It could have been introduced for no other purpose than to show the extent of liability. The accomplishment of this project may cost five hundred thousand dollars ; there shall be therefore five thousand shares liable to the extent of one hundred dollars each. It may cost much less ; the shares may be taxed much less, but cannot be carried beyond one hundred dollars. These are the terms held out to the subscribers by the act of incorporation, and by the subscription paper itself; for the promise is, to pay what shall be legally assessed according to the act of incorporation. Besides which, it is agreed, that if there be an over-subscription, the shares shall be reduced to the number prescribed in the act; and there is no provision for the case that has happened, of not much more than one half of the number of shares being subscribed for.

There is another view of the subject which goes strongly -to show the correctness of this exposition of the contract. Suppose the sum contemplated by the legislature as at least the possible cost of the undertaking, should turn out

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

Related

Dondis v. Lash
186 N.E. 549 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1933)
Allen v. Rhodes
230 F. 321 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Mass. 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salem-mill-dam-corp-v-ropes-mass-1827.