If the adversary party to the contract has performed his part thereof and by such performance the corporation has received something of value, some liability exists,1 though the courts are divided as to its nature. Many jurisdictions hold that in such case the liability is on the contract,2 The corporation cannot receive the benefits of a transaction and repudiate liability arising out of the same transaction.3 It is said to be "a general rule that undertakings, though they be ultra vires, will be enforced against quasi public corporations, if said corporations retain and enjoy the benefits of concessions granted on condition such undertakings should be performed."4 It is properly said that this rule "may not be strictly logical, but it prevents a great deal of injustice."5 Thus where a corporation borrows money,6 as by selling bonds,7 and such money has come into the possession of the corporation, it cannot retain the money and plead ultra vires. If a corporation buys property and retains it,8 or sells it to another person and retains the proceeds of such sale,9 it cannot invoke the doctrine of ultra vires to avoid liability on the contract for the purchase price. So where a corporation bought certain mining claims under a contract to pay the owner thereof a certain per cent of the sales as payment for such claims it cannot keep the claim and refuse to make such payments.10 An agreement to repay money borrowed by the corporation cannot be avoided as being ultra vires, even if the money borrowed was to be used for an unauthorized purpose,11 if not known to the lender,12 or even, it has been held, if such intention is known to the lender,13 as long as the contract of loan does not require such use. Even in cases of this sort the corporation cannot retain the benefits of the transaction and avoid liability thereon. A corporation cannot contest its liability on mortgage security bonds, though given to raise money with which to aid a street car line.14 Where a church sold land and the vendee paid the church therefor and then paid off pre-existing liens on such realty, the church cannot recover such realty, even if the contract was ultra vires, unless it restores the money thus paid.15 A corporation which has accepted the full benefit of the contract with a stockholder under which he became a member, cannot repudiate liability to him under such contract on the ground that it was ultra vires.16 In such a case the corporation "can-

16 Buckeye, etc., Co. v. Harvey, 92 Tenn. 115; 36 Am. St. Rep. 71; 18 L. R. A. 252; 20 S. W. 427. The eases here cited and followed are many of them cases arising on contracts between two corporations, ultra vires as to each, so that nothing but full performance on each side could eliminate the ultra vires feature of the contract, and on principle are different from this case.

17 Even if such contract is forbidden by statute, as long as it is not illegal. Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner, 13 Conn. 249; Vanatta V. State Bank, 9 O. S. 27.

1 Kadish v. Association, 151 111. 531; 42 Am. St. Rep. 256; 38 N. E. 236; Williams v. Bank, 71 Miss. 858; 42 Am. St. Rep. 503; 16 So. 238.

2 Poole v. Association, 30 Fed. 513; Wood v. Corry, etc., Works, 44 Fed. 146; 12 L. R. A. 168; Bowman v. Hardware Co., 94 Fed. 592; Illinois, etc., Bank v. Ry. Co., 117 Cal. 332; 49 Pac. 197; People v. R. R. Co., 178 111. 594; 49 L. R. A. 650; 53 N. E. 349; Kadish v. Association, 151 111. 531; 42 Am. St. Rep. 256; 38 N. E. 236; Ward v.

Johnson, 95 111. 215; Peoria, etc., R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 103 111. 187; Thomas v. Ry. Co., 104 111. 462; R. R. Co. v. Flanagan, 113 Ind. 488; 3 Am. St. Rep. 674; 14 N. E. 370; Wright v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412; 21 N. E. 907; Bedford Belt Ry. Co. v. McDonald, 17 Ind. App. 492; 60 Am. St. Rep. 172; 46 N. E. 1022; White v. Marquardt, etc., 105 Ia. 145; 74 N. W. 930; Twiss v. Association, 87 Ia. 733; 43 Am. St. Rep. 418; 55 N. W. 8; Humphrey v. Association, 50 Ia. 607; Alexandria, etc., R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 58 Kan. 175; 48 Pac. 847; Sherman, etc., Co. v. Morris, 43 Kan. 282; 19 Am. St. Rep. 134; 23 Pac. 569; Louisville Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Stewart (Ky.), 70 S. W. 285; Carson City, etc., Bank v. Elevator Co., 90 Mich. 550; 30 Am. St. Rep. 454; 51 N. W. 641; Auerbach v. Mill Co., 28 Minn. 291; 41 Am. Rep. 285; 9 N. W. 799; Winscott v. Investment Co., 63 Mo. App. 367; Manchester, etc., R. R. v. R. R.. 66 N. H. 100; 49 Am. St. Rep. 582; Chapman v. Rheostat Co., 62 N. J. L. 497; 41 Atl. 690; Camden, etc., R. R. Co. v. R. R., 48 N. J.

L. 530; 7 Atl. 523; Seymour v. Cemetery Association, 144 N. Y. 333; 26 L. R. A. 859; 39 N. E. 365; Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417; 33 Am. St. .Rep. 743; 20 L. R. A. 48; 33 N. E. 472; Duncomb v. R. R., 84 N. Y. 190; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62; 20 Am. Rep. 504; Jones v. Building Association, 94 Pa. St. 215; Wright v. Pipe Line Co., 101 Pa. St. 204; 47 Am. Rep. 701; Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. v. R. R. Co., 196 Pa. St. 452; 46 Atl. 431; Northside Ry. Co. v. Worth-ington, 88 Tex. 562; 53 Am. St. Rep. 778; 30 S. W. 1055; Texas, etc., R. R. Co. v. Gentry, 69 Tex. 625; 8 S. W. 98; City of Spokane v. Amsterdamsch Trustees, etc., 22 Wash. 172; 60 Pac. 141; Horton v. Long, 2 Wash. 435; 26 Am. St. Rep. 867; 27 Pac. 271; North Hudson, etc., Association v. Bank, 79 Wis. 31; 11 L. R. A. 845; 47 N. W. 300; McElroy v. Horse Co., 96 Wis. 317; 71 N. W. 652; Bullen v. Trading Co., 109 Wis. 41; 85 N. W. 115.

3 Marion Trust Co. v. Investment Co., 27 Ind. App. 451; 87 Am. St. Rep. 257; 61 N. E. 688. "That kind of plunder which holds onto the property, but pleads the doctrine of ultra vires against the obligation to pay for it, has no recognition or support in the laws of this state." Seymour v. Cemetery Association, 144 N. Y. 333, 341; 26 L. R. A. 859; 39 N. E. 365; (citing Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62; 20 Am. Rep. 504; Duncomb v. R. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 190; Woodruff v. R. R. Co., 93 N. Y. 609, 619). "Where an ultra vires contract is made and performed on one side, the other party cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefits received, but will be required in a proper action to account." Twiss v. Association, 87 Ia. 733, 737; 43 Am. St. Rep. 418; 55 N. W. 8; quoted in Beach v. Wakefield, 107 Ia. 567, 585; 76 N. W. 688; 78 N. W. 197.

4 People v. R. R. Co., 178 111. 594; 607; 49 L. R. A. 650; 53 N. E. 349; (citing Heims Brewing Co. v. Flannery, 137 111. 309; 27 N. E. 286; Kadish v. Association, 151 111. 531; 42 Am. St. Rep. 256; 38 N. E. 236; Eckman v. R. R. Co., 169 III. 312; 38 L. R. A. 750; 48 N. E. 496).

5 Seymour v. Society, 54 Minn. 147, 149; 55 N. W. 907.

6 Wright v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412; 21 N. E. 907.

7 International Trust Co. v. Mfg. Co.. 70 N. H. 118; 46 Atl. 1054.

8 Miners' Ditch Co. v. Zellerback, 37 Cal. 543; 99 Am. Dec. 300.

9 Rutland, etc., Co. v. Proctor, 29 Vt. 93.

10 Wall v. Smelting Co., 20 Utah 474; 59 Pac. 399.

11 Bradley v. Ballard, 55 111. 413; 8 Am. Rep. 656. (A corporation formed to mine in Illinois borrowed money and used it to mine in Colorado.)

12 As where money was borrowed by a loan association to pay off retiring shareholders. North Hudson, etc., Association v. Bank, 79 Wis. 31; 11 L. R. A. 845; 47 N. W. 300.

13 Money borrowed by a loan association to pay off retiring shareholders. Marion Trust Co. v. Investment Co., 27 Ind. App. 451; 87 Am. St. Rep. 257; 61 N. E. 688.

14 Illinois, etc., Bank v. Ry. Co., 117 Cal. 332; 49 Pac. 197.

15 Madison, etc., Church v. Church, 73 N. Y. 82.

16 Vought v. Loan Association, 172 N. Y. 508; 92 Am. St. Rep. 761; 65 N. E. 496. This case was followed in Eastern, etc., Association v. Williamson, 189 U. S. 122; affirming Williamson v. Loan Association, 62 S. C. 390; 38 S. E. 616, not be excused from payment upon the plea that the contract was beyond its power."17 Where A bought stock under an agreement with the corporation that he should be given employment and that at the end of such employment the corporation would purchase his stock, it cannot avoid liability on such contract after A has fully performed his part.18 Where one has rendered services to a corporation under a contract,19 ultra vires is no defense. Where an insurance company insured against a risk, not authorized by its charter and received the premium therefor, it was held liable on the policy.20 It is chiefly with reference to contracts of this class that the principle is suggested as a reason for the decisions, that ultra vires can be used as a defense only when "consistent with the obligations of justice."21 This is a better statement of ethics than a practical rule of law. It has been repudiated as a mere dictum by some of the courts that have enunciated it.22

•which involved a construction of the same statute.

17 Vought v. Loan Association, 172 N. Y. 508; 518; 92 Am. St. Rep. 761; 65 N. E. 496; quoted in Eastern, etc., Association v. Williamson, 189 U. S. 122.

18 Chapman v. Rheostat Co., 62 N. J. L. 497; 41 Atl. 690.

19 Tyler v. Academy, etc., 14 Or. 485; 13 Pac. 329.

20 Denver, etc., Co. v. McClelland, 9 Colo. 11; 59 Am. Rep. 134; 9 Pac. 771. Contra, where such policy was forbidden by statute. In re Assignment Mutual, etc., Ins. Co., 107 Ia. 143; 70 Am. St. Rep. 149.

21 Bath Gaslight Co. v. Claffy, 151 N. Y. 24, 37; 36 L. R. A. 664; 45 N. E. 390.

To the same effect are the following cases: Ohio, etc., Ry. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258; Union Water Co. v. Fluming Co., 22 Cal. 621; Burke, etc., Co. v. Wells Fargo &

Co., 7 Ida. 42; 60 Pac. 87; Chester Glass Co. v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 94; 8 Am. Dec. 128; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62; 20 Am. Rep. 504; Linkauf v. Lombard, 137 N. Y. 417; 33 Am. St. Rep. 743; 20 L. R. A. 48; 33 N. E. 472; Kadish v. Building Asssociation, 151 111. 531; 42 Am. St. Rep. 256; 38 N. E. 236; Carson City, etc., Bank v. Elevator Co., 90 Mich. 550; 30 Am. St. Rep. 454; 51 N. W. 641; Portland, etc., Co. v. East Portland, 18 Or. 21; 6 L. R. A. 290; 22 Pac. 536; Bear, etc., Co. v. Hanley, 15 Utah 506; 50 Pac. 611; Lewis v. American, etc., Association, 98 Wis. 203; 39 L. R. A. 559; 73 N. W. 793.

22 It is called "a mere passing remark" in Central, etc., Co. v. Car Co., 139 U. S. 24, 55. So, Buckeye, etc., Co. v. Harvey, 92 Tenn. 115; 36 Am. St. Rep. 71; 18 L. R. A. 252; 20 S. W. 427.