A contract which is beyond the power of the corporation to make is called ultra vires. Under this term are included both acts which are an excess of authority as against the stockholders, and also acts which are prohibited by law.

8 American and English Ency. of Law, Vol. VII, p. 755.; Green Bay, etc., R. Co. vs. Union Steamboat Co., 107 U. S.; 140 III., 98; Richelieu Hotel Co. vs. International Military Encampment Co., 140 III., 248,

33 Am. St. Rep., 234; Perkins vs. Portland, etc., R. Co., 47 Me., 573, 74 Am. Dec, 507; Morville vs. American Tract Soc, 123 Mass., 137. 9 Blair vs. Perpetual Ins. Co., 10 Mo., 565.

In general, an ultra vires contract of a corporation is void. This point was passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States in the leading cases of Pearce vs. The Madison and Indianapolis Railroad Company.10

"The rights, duties, and obligations of the defendants are defined in the Acts of the Legislature of Indiana, under which they were organized, and reference must be had to these, to ascertain the validity of their contracts. They empower the defendants respectively, to do all that was necessary to construct and put in operation a railroad between the cities which are named in the acts of incorporation. There was no authority of law to consolidate these corporations, and to place both under the same management, or to subject the capital of the one to answer for the liabilities of the other; and so the courts of Indiana have determined. But in addition to that act of illegality, the managers of these corporations established a steamboat line to run in connection with the railroads, and thereby diverted their capital from the objects contemplated by their charters, and exposed it to perils, for which they afforded no sanction. Now, persons dealing with the managers of a corporation must take notice of the limitations imposed upon their authority by the act of incorporation. Their powers are conceded in consideration of the advantage the public is to receive from their discreet and intelligent employment, and the public have an interest that neither the managers nor stockholders of the corporation shall transcend their authority. In McGregor vs. The Official Manager of the Deal and Dover Railway Co., 16 Eng. L. & Eq., 180, it was considered that a railway company incorporated by Act of Parliament was bound to apply all the funds of the company for the purposes directed and provided for by the act, and for no other purpose whatever, and that a contract to do something beyond these was a contract to do an illegal act, the illegality of which, appearing by the provisions of a public Act of Parilament, must be taken to be known to the whole world. In Coleman vs. The Eastern Counties Railway Co., 10 Beav., 1, Lord Langdale, at the suit of a shareholder, restrained the corporation from using its funds to establish a steam communication between the terminus of the road (Harwich) and the northern ports of Europe. The directors of the company vindicated the appropriation as beneficial to the company, and similar arrangements were not unusual among railway companies. Lord Langdale said: 'Ample powers are given for the purpose of constructing and maintaining the railway, and for doing all those things required for its proper use when made. But I apprehend that it has nowhere been stated that a railway company, as such, has power to enter into all sorts of other transactions. Indeed, it has been very properly admitted that railway companies have no right to enter into new trades or businesses not pointed out by the acts. But it has been contended that they have a right to pledge, without limit, the funds of the company for the encouragement of other transactions, however various and extensive, provided that the object of that liability is to increase the traffic upon the railway, and thereby to increase the profit to the shareholders.

10 21 Howard, 441.

" 'There is, however, no authority for anything of that kind. It has been stated that these things, to a small extent, have been frequently done since the establishment of railways; but unless the acts so done can be proved to be in conformity with the powers given by the special Acts of Parliament, under which these acts are done, they furnish no authority whatever. In the East Ang. Railway Company vs. The Eastern Counties Railway Company, 11 C. B. (73 Eng.), 803, the court say, the statute incorporating the defendants' company, gives no authority respecting the bills in Parliament promoted by the plaintiffs, and we are therefore bound to say that any contract relating to such bills is not justified by the Act of Parliament, is not within the scope of the authority of the company as a corporation, and is therefore void.'

"We have selected these cases to illustrate the principle upon which the decision of this case has been made. It is not a new principle in the jurisprudence of this court. It was declared in the early case of Head vs. Providence Insurance Company, 2 Cranch, 127, and has been reaffirmed in a number of others that followed it. Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, 13 Pet., 519; Perrine vs. Ches. & Del. Ca. Co., 9 How., 172.

"It is contended, that because the steamboat was delivered to the defendants, and has been converted to their use, they are responsible. It is enough to say, in reply to this, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the boat, nor does he claim under an assignment of the owner's interest. His suit is instituted on the note, as an indorsee; and the only question is, had the corporation the capacity to make the contract, in the fulfillment of which they were executed? The opinion of the court is, that it was a departure from the business of the corporation, and that their officers exceeded their authority."

When a contract is not on its face necessarily beyond the scope of the power of the corporation, by which it was made, it will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed to be valid, corporations being presumed to contract within their powers. The doctrine of ultra vires when invoked for or against a corporation, will not be allowed to prevail where it would defeat the ends of justice or work a legal wrong.11

The doctrine is gaining ground that as long as either party to a contract which was ultra vires on the part of the corporation retains the benefits received from such contract, such party will be estopped to set up the ultra vires character of the contract as a defense.