A de facto corporation is one whose members are in fact exercising and enjoying the franchise of being a corporation, but whose members may be ousted of their right to exercise corporate power, in an action in quo warranto, instituted by the state, by reason of omissions or defects in the incorporation.1 Thus an omission to record the final certificate,2 or recording the original articles of incorporation instead of a verified copy thereof,3 or a defective acknowledgment,4 still leaves the organization a de facto corporation. Many authorities hold that "where there cannot lawfully be a corporation de jure, there cannot be one de facto."5 Other authorities hold that a de facto corporation may exist even when a de jure corporation would be impossible.6 A colorable compliance with the statute on the subject of incorporation is sufficient,7 and it has been held that not even a colorable compliance with the incorporation laws is necessary.8

1 "A corporation de facto is, in plain English, a corporation in fact." Lamkin v. Mfg. Co., 72 Conn. 57; 44 L. R. A. 786; 43 Atl. 593, 1042. "A corporation de facto exists when, from irregularity or defect in the organization or constitution, or from some omission to comply with the conditions precedent, a corporation de jure is not created, but there has been a colorable compliance with the requirements of some law under which an association might lawfully be incorporated; . . . when there is an organization with color of law, and the exercise of corporate franchises and functions." Snider's Sons' Co. v. Troy, 91 Ala. 224, 228; 24 Am. St. Rep. 887; 11 L. R. A. 515; 8 So. 658. To the same effect see Duke v. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64; 53

Am. St. Rep. 232; 31 L. R. A. 484; 19 So. 172; Doty v. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60; 56 N. E. 668; Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486; 13 L. R. A. 647; 28 N. E. 94; Williams v. Ry., 130 Ind. 71; 30 Am. St. Rep. 201; 15 L. R. A. 64; 29 N. E. 408; Tennessee, etc., Co. v. Massey (Tenn. Ch. App.), 56 S. W. 35; American Salt Co. v. Heidenheimer, 80 Tex. 344; 26 Am. St. Rep. 743; 15 S. W. 1038; Marsh v. Mathias, 19 Utah 350; 56 Pac. 1074; Franke v. Mann, 106 Wis. 118; 48 L. R. A. 856; 81 N. W. 1014.

2 The Joliet v. Frances, 85 111. App. 243; Edwards v. Dryer Co., 83 111. App. 643.

3 Slocum v. Head, 105 Wis. 431; 81 N. W. 673.

4 Franke v. Mann, 106 Wis. 118; 48 L. R. A. 856; 81 N. W. 1014.

A corporation, whose charter limits a certain length of time for its existence is not a de facto corporation after the time thus limited has elapsed, but has no legal existence of any kind.9 If the corporate existence is continued by statute for certain purposes, it is a valid corporation for those purposes, after the limitation of its existence has expired.10 The status of a de facto corporation is not limited to those dealing with it in such capacity, but exists as to the world at large,11 except in cases where the state is suing in quo warranto to oust the de facto corporation of its franchises. In an action between a de facto corporation and the state other than quo warranto, the de facto corporation is to be treated as a corporation.12

5 McTighe v. Construction Co., 94 Ga. 306, 315; 47 Am. St. Rep. 153; 32 L. R. A. 208; 21 S. E. 701; cited also as Georgia R. R. Co. v. Mercantile, etc., Co.. To this effect are Davis v. Stevens, 104 Fed. 235; People v. Toll Road Co., 100 Cal. 87; 34 Pac. 522; Jones v. Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263; 52 Am. St. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143; 40 Pac. 457; American, etc., Co. v. R. R., 157 111. 641; 42 N. E. 153; Cozzens v. Brick Co., 166 111. 213; 46 N. E. 788; Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle, 22 Ind. App. 593; 72 Am. St. Rep. 326; 54 N. E. 407; Heaston v. Ry. Co., 16 Ind. 275; 79 Am. Dec. 430; Snyder v. Studebaker, 19 Ind. 462; 81 Am. Dec. 415; Pape v. Bank, 20 Kan. 440; 27 Am. Rep. 183; Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579; 6 L. R. A. 102; 43 X. W. 638; Detroit, etc., Bund v. Verein, 44 Mich. 313; 38 Am. Rep. 270; 6 N. W. 675; St. Louis, etc., Association v. Hennessy, 11 Mo. App. 555; Johnson v. Oker-strom, 70 Minn. 303; sub nomine Johnson v. Schulin, 73 N. W. 147; Vanneman v. Young, 52 N. J. L. 403; 20 Atl. 53; Gibb's Estate, 157 Pa. St. 59; 22 L. R. A. 276; 27 Atl. 383; McLeary v. Dawson, 87

Tex. 524; 29 S. W. 1044; Evenson v. Ellingson, 67 Wis. 634; 31 N. W. 342.

6 Goff v. Flesher, 33 O. S. 107; (where the purpose of the corporation was one not authorized by law).

7 Bibb v. Hall, 101 Ala. 79; 14 So. 98; Central, etc., Co. v. Insurance Co., 70 Ala. 120; Jones v. Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263; 52 Am. St. Rep. 220; 29 L. R. A. 143; 40 Pac. 457; Johnson v. Okerstrom, 70 Minn. 303; sub nomine Johnson v. Schulin, 73 N. W. 147; (distinguishing Johnson v. Corser, 34 Minn. 355; 25 N. W. 799; and disapproving Bergeron v. Hobbs, 96 Wis. 641; 65 Am. St. Rep. 85; 71 N. W. 1056) ; Pott v. Schmucker, 84 Md. 535; 57 Am. St. Rep. 415; 35 L. R. A. 392; 36 Atl. 592.

8 Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 52 Minn. 239; 38 Am. St. Rep. 552; 18 L. R. A. 778; 53 N. W. 1150.

9 Wilson v. Tesson, 12 Ind. 285; Grand Rapids Bridge Co. v. Prange, 35 Mich. 400; 24 Am. Rep. 585; Bradley v. Reppell, 133 Mo. 545; 54 Am. St. Rep. 685; 32 S. W. 645; 34 S. W. 841; Sturges v. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384.