22 l 6: e T W FEDERAL REPORTER. ‘‘‘‘ J. C
oi Kentucky, have failedto comply with the provisions of article.236 of
V the constitution of the state of Louisiana, which provides that no- for-
eign eorporation shall clo:any business in this state without having one
or more known places of - business, and an authorized agent or agents in
the state upon whom process may be served. Held, that the provision
of the constitution of Louisiana referred to, being an attempt on the part
of the state to interpose a restriction on navigation, and therefore in con-
Hict with t the provisions of the act of congress approved February 18,
1793, passed in pursuance of aclear authority under the constitution of
the UnitedStates, is null and void. Sinmt v. Drwenport, 22 How. 227.
`Exceptionoverruled, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiiis in
each cause. . t - »
· `Hrcxoav‘F.um On. Co. v. Bur·r·.u.o,_N. Y. & P. R. C02
· (0•’rauit Oourt, WZ ,D. Pennsylvania. August 13, 1887.)
· 1. Foreman ConromrroNs—Rram ·r0 Horn Run. EBTATE;EFRECT or Dann.
_ · Under the Pennsylvania act of April 26, 1855, (1 Purd. 861,) which forbids
a foreign corporation to “acquire and hold" real estate, a deed of conveyance
of lan to such a corporationisnot void: It passes the title, and the corpora-
tion may hold the land subject to the c0mmonwealth's right of escheat.
I. Sam1:—Rrarr·r or Oamcrron. .
. , . The commonwealth alone can object to the legal capacity ofa corporation
to hold real estate.! , “ ` h ·
Ejectment. Question of law reserved. V _ __
. Jolm Dalzell, for plaintiff; ` ` ' ` ‘
J._D. Hancock, for defendant. V _ A ,
·ACHE80N,‘J. A B- consentiof the arties, a verdict was taken in favor
. . . - Y. . . P . . .
of the _PlH1I1t1il·,`$Ubj_G0t to the opinion of the court as to the law, upon
the following agreed state of facts: . » s i
_· *‘(1) It is admitted that theplaintlii has a good record title to the land de-
scribed in the writ; which is partner alarger tract, containingin all about 400
acres, purchased by and conveyed to plaintiff in 1864. '
"(2) That the plaintiff is a corporation, organized under the laws of New
Y0f‘k, in the year 1864, under the provisionsof an act of the legislature of
*The commonwealth alone can take advantage of the want of capacity in a corgm-
tionto take and hold land. Bone v. Canal Co., (Pa.) 5:Atl. Rep. 751; Railroad . v.
Lewis, (Iowa,) 4 N. W.'Rep. 842. . R ` .
‘ When a corporation is incompetent by its charterltotake a legahtitle to real estate, a
conveyance to it is not void, but only voidable, and the sovereign only can object. It
is valid until assailed in a direct proceeding for that purpose, Land_C0. v. Bushnell,
(Neb.) 8N. W. Rep. 389. ‘   o` ` ’   ‘ = ··~`‘· ( »
- Restrictions imposed by the charter of a corporation upon the amount of property
thatit mayhold-cannot be taken advantage of oollaterallyby private persons, ut only
in direct proceedings by the state. Jones v. Habersham;`2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336. i
Where aforeign corporation has the power to acpuire real estate, so far as necessary
for business, its acquisition of realty cannot be assai ed in a collateral proceeding as an
act ultra circs. :SnchIa question can be raised by the state only, and in a direct proceed-
ing. Barnes v. Sudderd, (Ill.) 7 N. E. Rep. 477. . . "