In the strict sense of the term, a contract which is ultra vires is not susceptible of ratification.1 If it is in excess of the power of the corporation, there is, obviously, no power capable of ratifying it, not even all the stockholders.2 "Being ultra vires, the consent of its stockholders cannot legalize or vitalize the transaction."3 What is meant by using the term "ratification " in this connection is that by reason of performance on one or both sides, and acquiescence by parties affected thereby, no one is in a position to take advantage of the fact that the contract was ultra vires in its inception. If the transaction is merely irregular, ratification is possible.4 This is not, however, a true case of ultra vires.

Bank, 181 111. 35; 72 Am. St. Rep. 245; 54 N. E. 619; Franklin National Bank v. Whitehead, 149 Ind. 560; 63 Am. St. Rep. 302; 39 L. R. A. 725; 49 N. E. 592.

11 Franklin National Bank v. Whitehead, 149 Ind. 560; 63 Am. St. Rep. 302; 39 L. R. A. 725; 49 N. E. 592; In re Assignment Mutual, etc., Ins. Co., 107 Ia. 143; 70 Am. St. Rep. 149; 77 N. W. 868; Kent v. Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 159; Miller v. Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 167; 20 L. R. A. 765; 21 S. W. 39. "His position is not such as appeals very strongly to a court of equity. He paid his money knowing that the company had no right to accept it, and ought not to be allowed to base an estoppel thereon. Again, the company was expressly prohibited from issuing such a policy as the one in suit." In re Assignment Mutual, etc., Ins. Co., 107 Ia. 143, 149; 70 Am. St. Rep. 149; 77 N. W. 868.

1 California Bank v. Kennedy, 167

U. S. 362; Central, etc., Co. v. Car Co., 139 U. S. 24; Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371;

Chambers v. Falkner, 65 Ala. 448; San Diego, etc., R. R. Co. v. Pacific, etc., Co., 112 Cal. 53; 33 L. R. A. 788; 44 Pac. 333; National, etc., Association v. Bank, 181 111. 35; 72 Am. St. Rep. 245; 54 N. E. 619; Davis v. R. R., 131 Mass. 258; 41 Am. Rep. 221; Thompson v. West, 59 Neb. 677; 49 L. R. A. 337; 82 N. W. 13; Miller v. Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 167; 20 L. R. A. 765; 21 S. W. 39. Such a contract is " ultra vires, void, and incapable of ratification." Wheeler v. Bank, 188 111. 34, 38; 80 Am. St. Rep. 161; 58 N. E. 598.

2 Webster v. Machine Co., 54 Conn. 394; 8 Atl. 482; Washington, etc., Co. v. Lumber Co., 19 Wash. 165; 52 Pac. 1067.

3 McCutcheon v. Capsule Co., 71 Fed. 787, 794; 31 L. R. A. 415. They may acquiesce so as to prevent themselves from attacking its validity thereafter, but they cannot ratify so as to bind third persons, such as creditors who may be prejudiced by such transaction.