¶1(concurring specially): I concur in the decision of this case, but I do not approve to the extent stated by Mr. Justice Johnston the doctrine that the state only can raise the question of the validity of corporate organization. If the objectionable portion of the opinion can be understood as applying to matters of mere regularity of corporate organization, it is, perhaps, not subject to criticism, but I fear that it may not be so understood. It seems to me to give countenance to the idea that questions as to the legal validity of corporate organization, and hence of corporate power, can only be raised by the state. I do not believe in that doctrine.
61 Kan. 102
State v. Mason
Decided November 11, 1899
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1899-11-11
<p>1. Banks and Banking — Existence Begins with Filing of Charter. Where several persons associate themselves together with a view of organizing a bank, and duly file a charter as a state banking corporation, the existence of the corporation dates from the filing of the charter; and if such bank is thereafter conducted under the supervision and control of the bank commissioner and is recognized and treated by him as one having authority, the mere omission or neglect of the commissioner formally to issue a written certificate of authority will not exempt the officers of the bank from an observance of the requirements of the banking law, or excuse them for violations of the same.</p> <p>2. - Officers Estopped from Denying Regularity of Organization. Where such a bank is duly chartered and holds itself out to the public as a banking institution, receiving money on deposit and otherwise transacting a banking business, and where the officers, having knowledge of the manner in which the bank is doing business, make reports to the bank commissioner on demand, showing the character of the business done, they cannot be heard to deny that the bank is duly organized and doing business under the laws of the state, and such officers become liable to punishment for a violation of any of the penal provisions of the banking law, the same as though a formal certificate of authority had been issued to it by the bank commissioner.</p> <p>3. -Jurisdiction of Offense by Officer. Where a false report or false statement of the condition of a bank is made, subscribed and sworn to by an officer of a bank in one county, and is then transmitted to and received by the bank commissioner in another county, in which his office is held, the jurisdiction of the offense in either county.</p> <p>4. -Intention of Offender. If the report or statement be false, and known to be such, and is made with intent to deceive the bank commissioner, or other persons; as to the financial condition of the bank, the person making it is guilty, although he he may not have intended to injure the bank or defraud its depositors.</p> <p>5. -Evidence Sufficient. The evidence examined, and held tobe sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1899-11-11
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2000
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →