corporation violation in Oklahoma

1968We feel that it is appropriate — though not necessary in answering your specific questions to call your attention to certain dicta in the case of Headley v. Hall, 191 Okl. 352 , 129 P.2d 1018 , which cited the Tharel case, supra, with approval, and wherein it is pointed out that administrative officers acting in good faith under an unconstitutional law generally are excused from any penalty therefor.

1968We feel that it is appropriate — though not necessary in answering your specific questions to call your attention to certain dicta in the case of Headley v. Hall, 191 Okl. 352 , 129 P.2d 1018 , which cited the Tharel case, supra, with approval, and wherein it is pointed out that administrative officers acting in good faith under an unconstitutional law generally are excused from any penalty therefor.

1947Where this is the case the holding of real estate by a corporation in violation of the statute, while a cause or ground of escheat, does not ipso facto effect an escheat; in other words, the title to the property, notwithstanding the existence of the grounds of escheat, remains in the corporation until an action for es-cheat is instituted; . . .” A leading case which fully supports the quoted text and wherein authorities are reviewed and the question treated exhaustively is Louisville School Bd. v. King, 127 Ky. 824 , 107 S. W. 247 , 32 Ky. L. 687, 15 L.R.A.

1947Where this is the case the holding of real estate by a corporation in violation of the statute, while a cause or ground of escheat, does not ipso facto effect an escheat; in other words, the title to the property, notwithstanding the existence of the grounds of escheat, remains in the corporation until an action for es-cheat is instituted; . . .” A leading case which fully supports the quoted text and wherein authorities are reviewed and the question treated exhaustively is Louisville School Bd. v. King, 127 Ky. 824 , 107 S. W. 247 , 32 Ky. L. 687, 15 L.R.A.

1943(See, also, Collier v. Edwards, 144 Okla. 69 , 289 P. 260 .) We are asked to re-examine the questions involved in Lee v. Cameron, supra, and to hold that stock of a corporation issued for less than par is voidable and not void.

1943(See, also, Collier v. Edwards, 144 Okla. 69 , 289 P. 260 .) We are asked to re-examine the questions involved in Lee v. Cameron, supra, and to hold that stock of a corporation issued for less than par is voidable and not void.

1915Lynch v. Perryman, 29 Okla. 615 , 119 Pac. 229 , Ann.

1915Lynch v. Perryman, 29 Okla. 615 , 119 Pac. 229 , Ann.

1912It does not support the position . of the plaintiff, as appears from the syllabus, which reads as • follows: * “A note received by a corporation in violation of Laws 1892, c. 688, sec. 42, which forbids a corporation to issue stock, except for money, labor, or property, is nevertheless valid in the hands of a person who advanced money to the corporation on the faith of the note; and therefore the obligation of the corporation for the money advanced is one for which the directors are liable, where they fail to file the annual report, as required by Laws 1892, c. 688, sec. 30.” In Scoville v. Th

1912It does not support the position . of the plaintiff, as appears from the syllabus, which reads as • follows: * “A note received by a corporation in violation of Laws 1892, c. 688, sec. 42, which forbids a corporation to issue stock, except for money, labor, or property, is nevertheless valid in the hands of a person who advanced money to the corporation on the faith of the note; and therefore the obligation of the corporation for the money advanced is one for which the directors are liable, where they fail to file the annual report, as required by Laws 1892, c. 688, sec. 30.” In Scoville v. Th

1906In the case of Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 71 , Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion, remarked: "It remains to consider the suggestion that the contract, having been executed, the doctrine of ultra vires is inapplicable to the case.