mcxonr FARM 011. co; ·u; BUFFALO, N. Y. & P. R. co. 23
the state of New York entitled * An act to authorize the formation of corpo-
rations for manufacturing, mining, mechanical, and chemical purposes,' passed
February 17, 1848, and the several supplements thereto. ,
"(3) The articles of association of said corporation contain, inter alia., the
following paragraph: “*(11) The objects for which said company is formed
are to acquire by purchase, lease, or otherwise, and to hold and convey lands
in the mineral oil producing regions of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, and
to carry on the business of mining and boring for petroleum or mineral oils,
gpldlpther mineral products of such lands, and extracting the same from the
. " (4) If the court shallbe of opinion that, under the law, the plaintiff is en-
titled, upon the facts as recited, to recover, then judgment to be entered on the
verdict for the plaintiif; otherwise judgment to be entered for the defendant
nan obstcmte oe1·edictc."
By the fifth section of the act of assembly of the commonwealth of
Pennsylvania of April 26, 1855, (P. L. 329; 1 Purd. 361,) it is enacted'
that "no corporation other than such as shall have been incorporated un-
der the laws of this state, nor shall any foreign government, potentate,
or power, hereafter acquire and hold any real estate within this common-
wealth, directly in the corporate name, or by or through any trustee or
other device whatsoever, unless specially authorized to hold such prop-
erty by the laws of this commonwealth." And by the ninth section of
· said act (1 Purd. 719) it is provided that all property hereafter "acquired
and held" by corporations forbidden by said act to hold the same, or
held contrary to the intent of the act, shall escheat to the commonwealth;
and, upon the same being adjudged to have escheated under judicial
proceedings by quo warrrmto, it shall be taken into possession, and dis-
posed of as in cases of property escheated for defect of heirs.
The question of law arising upon the agreed state of facts is whether
the plaintiff, in view of the above recited provisions of the act of April
26,1855, by its purchase of the land in controversy, and the convey-
ance to it of the title thereto, acquired the legal estate therein. ‘ If the
plaintiff has the legal estate in the land, it can of course recover, for the
‘ defendant has shown no title whatever, but, as against the plaintiff, is a
mere intruder.
i. ·~ The leading case in Pennsylvania on-the subject of the effect of a con-
veyance of real estate to a corporation forbidden by law to "purchase
and hold" the same, is that, of Leazure v. Hdlegas, 7 Serg. & R. 313, in .
t which it was held that such corporation might purchase and take title
A to- the real estate; its title, however, like that of an alien, being defeasi-
ble at the pleasure ofthe commonwealth. That case, and the later case
of Gowndic v. Water Oo., 7 Pa. St; 233, settle the principle that the
commonwealth alone can object to a want of capacity in a corporation
to hold land. In Runyan v. Lesscc of Caster, 14 Pet. 122, (a Pennsyl-
· vania case in its facts singularly like the present case,) the supreme
Fcourt of the United States, following the ruling in Leazure v. Hillega-s,
sustained the right of a foreign corporation to maintain an action of ej ect
ment for land which it was not licensed to hold under the laws of Penn-
sylvania, the commonwealth not having exercised its right of escheat.