A contract made by a corporation ultra vires - that is, beyond the powers of the corporation executing it - is in many jurisdictions held to be void, so that no action can be brought upon it.98 In accordance with this view, the contract being absolutely void, it may not even be ratified." In many states, on the other hand, the defense of ultra vires is in such cases excluded, whether interposed for or against the corporation, on the ground of an equitable estoppel, when the contract has been wholly or partly performed on the part of the plaintiff, and it would be inequitable to allow the defense.100 And as a rule,* in all jurisdictions, where either party has received benefits under the contract in the form of money, property, or services, an action quasi ex contractu may be maintained to recover it.101 A discussion of the law of corporations in relation to contracts is, however, beyond the scope of this book.102

93 Head v. Insurance Co., 2 Cranch, 127, at page 169, 2 L. Ed. 229; Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 110 U. S. 1G2, 3 Sup. Ct. 555, 28 L. Ed. 105. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 452; Cent. Dig. §§ 1796-1805.

94 Southern Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 110, 58 Am. Dec. 448; Witte v. Fishing Co., 2 Conn. 260; Bulkley v. Same, 2 Conn. 252, 7 Am. Dec. 271. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 452; Cent. Dig. §§ 1796-1805.

95 DOWNING v. MT. WASHINGTON ROAD CO., 40 N. H. 230, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 161. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 449, 450; Cent. Dig. §§ 1786, 1798-1795.

96 DOWNING v. MT. WASHINGTON ROAD CO., supra; Morville v. Society, 123 Mass. 129, 25 Am. Rep. 40; Union Bank v. Jacobs, 6 Humph. (Tenn.) 515; London & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Price, 11 Q. B. D. 485; Simpson v. Hotel Co., 8 EL L. Cas. 712; Ft Worth City Co. v. Bridge Co., 151 U. S. 294, 14 Sup. Ct. 339, 38 L. Ed. 167. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 447; Cent. Dig. §§ 1786-1807.

97Clark, Corp 133 et seq.

98 DOWNING v. MT. WASHINGTON ROAD CO., 40 N. H. 230, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 161; East Anglian Rys. Co. v. Railway Co., 11 C. B. 775; Directors, etc., of Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co. v. Riche, L. R 7 H. L. 653; Pearce v. Railroad Co., 21 How. 441, 16 L. Ed. 184; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71, 25 L. Ed. 950; Central Transp. Co. v. Car Co., 139

U. S. 24, 11 Sup. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55; California Nat. Bank v. Kennedy, 167 U. S. 362, 17 Sup. Ct. 831, 42 L. Ed. 198. See "Corporations;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 487; Cent. Dig. §§ 189S-1898.

99 DOWNING v. MT. WASHINGTON ROAD CO., supra. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 487; Cent. Dig. §§ 1893-1898.

100 Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62, 20 Am. Rep. 504; Holmes & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Metal Co., 127 N. Y. 252, 27 N. E. 831, 24 Am. St Rep. 448; Denver Fire Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 9 Colo. 11, 9 Pac. 771, 59 Am. Rep. 134; Bradley v. Ballard, 55 I11. 413, 8 Am. Rep. 656; Day v. Buggy Co., 57 Mich. 151, 23 N. W. 628, 58 Am. Rep. 352; Wright v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324, 21 N. E. 907, 12 Am. St. Rep. 412; Seymour v. Society, 54 Minn. 147, 55 N. W. 907; Manchester & L. R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 66 N. H. 100, 20 Atl. 383, 9 L. R. A. 689, 49 Am. St. Rep. 582; Union Hardware Co. v. Manufacturing Co., 58 Conn. 219, 20 Atl. 455. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 487; Cent. Dig. §§ 1893-1898.

101 Day v. Buggy Co., 57 Mich. 146, 23 N. W. 628, 58 Am. Rep. 352; Davis v. Railroad Co., 131 Mass. 258, 41 Am. Rep. 221; Logan County Nat Bank v. Townsend, 139 U. S. 67, 11 Sup. Ct 496, 35 L. Ed. 107; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. Railroad Corp., 164 Mass. 222, 41 N. E. 268, 49 Am. St Rep. 454; Anthony v. Machine Co., 16 R. I. 571, 18 Atl. 176, 5 L. R. A. 575; Moore v. Tanning Co., 60 Vt 459, 15 Atl. 114. See "Corporations," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 487; Cent. Dig. §§ 1893-1898.

102 See Clark, Corp. 170 et seq.