charter permitted it to take by devise; the legislature of New York must have conferred the power. Even a statute conferring the power to take would be ineffectual if passed after the devise had been made.54 Following these decisions Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, declared void a devise of land in New York to the United States government to be used in paying the national debt.55

56

But it was later held that a foreign corporation having power by its charter to take by devise might take land in New York by will; the New York act affecting New York corporations only.5 And this decision was recently followed and emphasized, under the General Corporation Law of 1895, and it was held that a devise to a foreign corporation capable by its charter of holding land, was good, though the corporation had not been empowered by the legislature of New York to take land, and the devise had been made within two months of the testator's death.57 Conversely, this act will not prevent a New York corporation from taking in another State. The law is one which affects the capacity to devise rather than corporate capacity to take, and it therefore applies only to devises that take effect in New York. 58

§ 226. Taking real estate.

According to the common law, then, a foreign corporation may hold land,50 and may even take land in payment for

54 A contrary decision has been given in Massachusetts on a similar point. Fellows v. Miner, 119 Mass. 546.

55 United States v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192.

56 Hollis v. Drew Theol. Seminary, 95 N. Y. 165. 67 In re Lampson's Will, 161 N. Y. 511, 56 N. E. 9.

58 Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Pa. 474.

59 Northern Trans. Co. v. Chicago, 7 Biss. 45, Fed. Cas. No. 10,324; New Hampshire Land Co. v. Tilton, 19 Fed. 73; St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Foltz, 52 Fed. 627; Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 120 Fed. 893; Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214, 12 A. R. 243; Taylor v. Alliance Tr. Co., 71 Miss. 694, 15 So. 121; Missouri L. M. & S. Co. v. Reinhard, 114 Mo. 218, 21 S. W. 488, 35 A. S. R. 74; Meddis v. Kenney, 176 Mo. 200, 75 S. W. 633; Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H. 31; Lancaster v. Amsterdam Imp. Co., 140 N. Y.

stock; 60 and a foreign corporation having the right to hold land itself for the actual transaction of business may take title in the name of a local auxiliary corporation.61 And the same thing is true, even if the foreign corporation has no right to hold land, provided it may rightfully hold the stock of the local corporation.62

64

Title may be acquired by a foreign corporation by lapse of time, through the operation of the Statute of Limitations.63 A foreign corporation may take any other interest in land as well as the fee. Thus, in Clairemont Bridge v. Royce, it was held that the plaintiff, a corporation of New Hampshire, might take from the owner of abutting land in Vermont a grant of the exclusive right of way to the river, and a right to prevent all passageway to the river. The corporation brought trespass relying on this grant and the grant was declared valid by the Supreme Court of Vermont. And there is in fact no reason why a corporation should not take a grant of a valid easement, or any other legal interest in land if it might acquire a fee.

65

As a foreign corporation may hold in fee or otherwise, it may accept and hold a lease of land for business purposes." So a railroad has the power at common law to accept the lease of another railroad. And it may take land on mortgage."

67

576; 35 N. E. 964, 24 L. R. A. 322; Hanna v. Petroleum Co., 23 Oh. S. 622; Lakeview Land Co. v. San Antonio Traction Co., 95 Tex. 252, 66 S. W. 766; State v. Boston, C. & M. R. R., 25 Vt. 433; Page v. Heineberg, 40 Vt. 81, 94 A. D. 378.

60 Brant v. Ehlen, 59 Md. 1; Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich. 214, 12 A. R. 243.

61 Day v. Postal Tel. Co., 66 Md. 354.

62 Com. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. R., 132 Pa. 591, 139 Pa. 457, 19 Atl. 291, 7 L. R. A. 634; White v. Ryan, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 170.

63 Lawrence v. Ballou, 50 Cal. 258; Myers v. McGavock, 39 Neb. 843, 58 N. W. 522, 42 A. S. R. 627.

64 42 Vt. 730.

65 Northern Transp. Co. v. Chicago, 7 Biss. 45, Fed. Cas. No. 10,324; Steamboat Co. v. McCutcheon, 13 Pa. 13.

66 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. v. Fletcher, 35 Kan. 236; Black v. D. & R. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 130.

67 New York Dry Dock v. Hicks, 5 McLean, 111, Fed. Cas. No. 10,204;

§ 227. Taking by way of security.

Even if a foreign corporation is not allowed to hold land generally, it will be allowed to take a mortgage of real estate for the purpose of securing a bona fide debt previously existing; 68 the State having power to avoid the evils of a perpetuity by providing for a sale.69 Having taken a mortgage on real estate, the foreign corporation may foreclose it on the same terms as any other mortgagee.70

The whole law on this point is summed up in American Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Owen,71 by Mr. Justice Metcalf, as follows: "A foreign corporation having a demand against a citizen of this State, on which an action can be maintained here, may take a mortgage of its debtor's real estate to secure such demand, and may thereby acquire the same rights which appertain to other mortgagees; and such corporation having such demand on such citizen, and recovering judgment thereon, may levy an execution on its judgment debtor's real estate, with all the rights of any other levying creditor."

A foreign corporation may usually purchase at execution

Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co. v. McKinney, 6 McLean, 1, Fed. Cas. No. 4667; Hards v. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 8 Biss. 234, Fed. Cas. No. 6055; Stevens v. Pratt, 101 Ill. 206; Commercial U. Ins. Co. v. Scammon, 102 Ill. 46; Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.), 114, 33 A. D. 481; Lebanon Savings Bank v. Hollenbeck, 29 Minn. 322, 13 N. W. 145; Williams v. Cresswell, 51 Miss. 817; Bard v. Poole, 12 N. Y. 495.

68 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chic. & N. P. R. R., 68 Fed. 412; National Trust Co. v. Murphy, 30 N. J. Eq. 408; Leasure v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 Pa. 491; Charter Oak Life Ins. Co. v. Sawyer, 44 Wis. 387.

69 United States Mtg. Co. v. Gross, 93 Ill. 483.

70 Black v. Caldwell, 83 Fed. 808; New York Dry Dock v. Hicks, 5 McLean, 111, Fed. Cas. No. 10,204; Hards v. Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 8 Biss. 234, Fed. Cas. No. 6055; Life Ins. Co. v. Overholt, 4 Dill. 287, Fed. Cas. No. 10,338; Diefenbach v. Vaughan, 116 Ala. 150, 23 So. 88 (semble); Kindred v. N. E. Mtg. Sec. Co., 116 Ala. 192, 23 So. 56 (semble); Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.), 114, 33 A. D. 481; Amer. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 15 Gray (Mass.), 491; Lebanon Savings Bank v. Hollenbeck, 29 Minn. 322; Lumbard v. Aldrich, 8 N. H. 31; Silver Lake Bank v. North, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 370; Brown v. Elwell, 17 Wash. 442, 49 Pac. 1068 (semble). 71 15 Gray (Mass.), 491, 493.

sales on judgments made in its favor; 72 and may purchase at any foreclosure or execution sale to protect its own lien bona fide acquired.73 A foreign corporation may maintain a real

action.74

Whether the foreign corporation may maintain foreclosure proceedings until the requirement of the State statute with regard to doing business have been complied with is not clear on the authorities.75 But where a foreign corporation as such mortgagee brings suit in a Federal court to foreclose for the benefit of innocent holders, the State will not be allowed to intervene because of violation of State law.76

228. Taking by devise or bequest.

English mortmain acts are not a part of our common law."7 In New York we have seen, by the statute of wills, no corporation may take by devise unless expressly authorized by the legislature of New York. Elsewhere the right to take by devise is a matter of comity, and ordinarily there is no more objection to a taking of real estate by devise than in any other manner.78 A devise in trust to a corporation incapable at the time of the devise of taking the trust, may be paid over

72 Black v. Caldwell, 83 Fed. 880; Columbus Buggy Co. v. Graves, 108 Ill. 459; Elston v. Piggott, 94 Ind. 14. See Leasure v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 Pa. 491.

73 Black v. Caldwell, 83 Fed. 880; Amer. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 15 Gray (Mass.), 491; Calrow v. Aultman, 28 Neb. 672, 44 N. W. 873; Meddis v. Kenney, 176 Mo. 200, 75 S. W. 633.

74 Diefenbach v. Vaughan, 116 Ala. 150, 23 So. 88 (semble); Amer. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Owen, 15 Gray (Mass.), 491.

75 That it may not: W. A. Wood M. Machine Co. v. Caldwell, 54 Ind. 270, 23 A. R. 641; Daly v. Nat. Life Ins. Co., 64 Ind. 1; contra, DeCamp v. Warren Mtg. Co., 65 Kan. 860, 70 Pac. 581; Keene Guaranty Savings Bank v. Lawrence, (Wash.) 73 Pac. 680. See Building & Loan Ass. v. Walker, (Tenn. Ch.) 42 S. W. 191; Gilmer v. U. S. Savings & Loan Co., 103 Tenn. 272, 52 S. W. 851.

76 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Chic. & N. P. R. R., 68 Fed. 412.

77 Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.), 114, 33 A. D. 481; Amer. Bible Soc. v. Marshall, 15 Oh. St. 537.

78 White v. Howard, 38 Conn. 342; Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 Dana (Ky.), 114, 33 A. D. 481; Amer. Bible Soc. v. Marshall, 15 Oh. St. 537;

on the passage by the legislature of an act enabling the corporation so to take.7

79

$229. Taking by eminent domain.

The right to exercise the power of eminent domain is a franchise, and a foreign corporation cannot exercise it without express permission; 80 and when condemnation proceedings have actually been begun by a foreign corporation and an appraisement made, the proceedings are absolutely void.31 A petition to remove a cause to the Federal court on the ground that one party was a foreign corporation was refused, since it appeared that the whole controversy arose out of a claim by the corporation of the right to condemn land.82 A foreign corporation that cannot take land directly cannot, it is held, do it by indirection, by means of domestic corporation.83 But a State may confer this power upon a foreign corporation; 84 or may grant to a foreign corporation the same privileges as to a domestic corporation.85 To this there is no constitutional objection.86 A municipal corporation whose charter

State v. Sherman, 22 Oh. St. 411; Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Pa. 474; University v. Tucker, 31 W. Va. 621, 8 S. E. 410.

79 Baker v. Clarke Institution, 110 Mass. 88; Fellows v. Miner, 119 Mass. 541; and so of a devise to a corporation to be created, Ould v. Washington Hospital, 95 U. S. 303, 24 L. ed. 450.

80 St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Foltz, 52 Fed. 627 (semble); St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. S. W. Tel. & Tel. Co., 121 Fed. 276; Holbert v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. R., 45 Ia. 23; Illinois S. T. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 208 Ill. 419, 70 N. E. 357; Trester v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 33 Neb. 171, 36 N. W. 502; State v. Boston, C. & M. R. R., 25 Vt. 433 (semble); Baltimore & O. R. R. v. Pittsburg, W. & K. R. R., 17 W. Va. 812, 867.

81 Trester v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 33 Neb. 171, 36 N. W. 502.

82 Baltimore & O. R. R. v. Pittsburg, W. & Ky. R. R., 17 W. Va. 812, 867. 83 Koenig v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R., 27 Neb. 699, 43 N. W. 423. 84 Illinois S. T. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry., 208 Ill. 419, 70 N. E. 357; Abbott v. New York & N. E. R. R., 145 Mass. 450, 15 N. E. 91; Gray v. St. Louis & S. F. R. R., 81 Mo. 126; In re Marks, 6 N. Y. Supp. 105; State v. Sherman, 22 Oh. St. 411.

85 New York & Erie Ry. v. Young, 33 Pa. 175.

86 In re Townsend, 39 N. Y. 171; Morris Canal & B. Co. v. Townsend, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 658.