Persons who deal with a corporation, or with an organization purporting to be a corporation, as if it were a corporation, are estopped to deny that it is a corporation,1 such as stockholders,2 or a judgment creditor.3 A subscriber to a corporation cannot deny its existence.4 So the corporation is estopped to deny its corporate existence.5 So persons who contract with a corporation after the time limited for its existence has expired, are estopped to deny that it is a corporation.6 The doctrine of estoppel is properly distinguished from the doctrine of corporations de facto. The former applies only to those dealing with the corporation; the latter to the world at large. In contracts of de facto corporations, the two doctrines necessarily exist together. Further, the doctrine of estoppel may apply to organizations which are not even de facto corporations.

10 Miller v. Coal Co., 31 W. Va. 836; 13 Am. St. Rep. 903; 8 S. E. 600.

11 People v. Water Co., 97 Cal. 276; 33 Am. St. Rep. 172; 32 Pac. 236; Doty v. Patterson, 155 Ind. 60; 56 N. E. 668; Improvement Co. v. Small, 150 Ind. 427, 431; 47 N. E. 11; 50 N. E. 476; Taylor v. Ry., 91 Me. 193; 64 Am. St. Rep. 216; 39 Atl. 560; Society Perun v. Cleveland, 43 O. S. 481; 3 N. E. 357.

12 Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396; 39 N. E. 400; (where the receiver of such corporation sues the state.)

1 Andes v. Ely, 158 U. S. 312; Close v. Cemetery, 107 U. S. 466; Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Bliss, 132 Ala. 253; 90 Am. St. Rep. 907; 31 So. 81; Schloss v. Montgomery Trade Co., 87 Ala. 411; 6 So. 360; Cahall v. Building Association, 61 Ala. 232; Raphael Weill, etc., Co. v. Crittenden, 139 Cal. 488; 73 Pac. 238; Fresno, etc., v. Warner, 72 Cal. 379; 14 Pac. 37; Jones v. Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263; 52 Am. St. Rep. 220; 40 Pac. 457; Winget v. Association, 128 111. 67; 21 N. E. 12; Cravens v. Mills Co., 120 Ind. 6;

16 Am. St. Rep. 298; 21 N. E. 981; Hasselman v. Mtge. Co., 97 Ind. 365; Butchers', etc., Bank v. McDonald, 130 Mass. 264; Stafflet v. Strome, 101 Mich. 197; 59 N. W. 411; Crete, etc., Association v. Patz, 1 Neb. Rep. Unofficial 768; 95 N. W. 793; (following Livingston, etc., Association v. Drummond, 49 Neb. 200; 68 N. W. 375) ; Otoe, etc., Association v. Doman, 1 Neb. Rep. Unofficial 179; 95 N. W. 327; Nebraska National Bank v. Ferguson, 49 Neb. 109; 59 Am. St. Rep. 522; 68 N. W. 370; Larned v. Beal, 65 N. H. 184; 23 Atl. 149; Washington, etc., Association v. Stanley, 38 Or. 319; 58 L. R. A. 816; 63 Pac. 489; Hooven Mercantile Co. v. Mining Co., 193 Pa. St. 28; 44 Atl. 277; Hamilton v. R. R., 144 Pa. St. 34; 23 Atl. 53; sub nomine Hamilton v. Jackson, 13 L. R. A. 779.

2 Fish v. Smith, 73 Conn. 377; 47 Atl. 711.

3 Shoun v. Armstrong (Tenn. Ch. App.), 59 S. W. 790.

4 Mullen v. Driving Park, 64 Ind. 202.