It was formerly the rule, subject to some exceptions, that a corporation could manifest its intention and act only by the use of its corporate seal;88 but this doctrine is no longer recognized in this country. Unless the charter or act of, incorporation or some statute provides otherwise, it need only use a seal where an individual would be required to use one. In all cases where it is not expressly so restricted, it may, like a natural person, contract under seal, or by writing not under seal, or orally.89 Like a natural person, also, it can ratify any contract made by an agent which it could have authorized the agent to make,90 and it may be liable on contracts implied as a fact from corporate acts,91 and on quasi contractual obligations.92

If the charter or act of incorporation, or any other statute, expressly prescribes a certain mode or form for entering into contracts, as is frequently the case, that form and mode must be strict-

86 Per Lord Cairns, in Ferguson v. Wilson, 2 Ch. 99. See "Corporations." Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 398, 406, 447; Cent. Dig. §§ 1592-1594, 1611-1614, 1786, 1787, 1807.

87 Anonymous, 12 Mod. 423; Bank of Ireland v. Evans Charities, 5 H. L. Cas. 389. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ S83, 406; Cent. Dig. §§ 1611-1614.

88 l Bl. Comm. 475; Church v. Gas Co., 6 Adol. & E. 846. See "Corpora tions," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 455; Cent. Dig. §§ 1801-1808.

89 Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299, 3 L. Ed. 351; Bank of United States v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64, 6 L. Ed. 552; Topping v. Bickford. 4 Allen (Mass.) 120; Goodwin v. Screw Co.. 34 N. H. 378; Pixley v. Railroad Co., 33 Cal. 183, 91 Am. Dec. 623; Regents of University of Michigan v. Society, 12 Mich. 138; Board of Education of Illinois v. Greenbaum, 39 III. 609; Mott v. Hicks, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 513, 13 Am. Dec. 550; Trustees of Christian Church of Wolcott v. Johnson, 53 Ind. 273; Clark, Corp. 156. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 455; Cent. Dig. §§ 1801-1803.

90 Peterson v. Mayor, etc., 17 N. Y. 450. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 426; Cent. Dig. §§ 1596, 1702-1716.

»i Proprietors of the Canal Bridge v. Gordon, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 297, 11 Am. Dec. 170; Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 299, 3 L. Ed. 351. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 451; Cent. Dig. § 1787.

92 Bank of Columbia v. Patterson, 7 Crancb, 299. 3 L. Ed. 351; Hall v. Mayor of Swansea, 5 Q. B. 526; Jefferys v. Gurr, 2 Barn. & Adol. 833; Sea-gravos v. City of Alton. 13 I11. 366; Trustees of Cincinnati Tp. v. Ogden, 5 Ohio, 23. See "Corporations,"- Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 4>,7, 451; Cent. Dig. §§ 1786, 1787.

Clark Cort.(3d En.) - 16

ly followed.88 The statutory provision, however, must be mandatory, and not merely directory.9*