26 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. providing that ".no corporation or association not incorporated under the laws of this State shall acquire or own, hold or possess by right, title, or descent accruing hereafter, any real estate in the State of Nebraska." The Court held, nevertheless, that the title vested in the corporation, and that it could be questioned by the State alone. Another late decision to the same effect is Fisk v. Patton, Utah Supreme Court, 1891.^ The statute of Utah under consideration in this case provides that " a corporation shall not have power to enter into, as a business, the buying and selling of real estate." The Court say : " It will be observed that this statute, while it denies to a corporation the power to engage in buying and selling real estate as a business, affixes no penalty, by forfeiture or other- wise, for its violation. The buying and selling of real estate by a corporation is not a crime under this statute, nor is the business an immoral one, and while a stockholder might by proper proceed- ings prevent a corporation from engaging or continuing in the business of buying and selling real estate, we do not think that the corporation forfeits its title to real estate bought in violation of the statute." ^ And in the latest case on the subject, the New York Court of Appeals held that the question whether it is contrary to the policy of that State to permit a foreign corporation to take, hold, or con- vey land in the State is between the corporation and the govern- ment, and is not open to others.^ In conclusion, it may be well to note that the case of a devise to a corporation, under any of the conditions stated, is, when the heir of the devisor is the party complaining, distinguishable from the case of a conveyance. Here the rule contended for does not apply, because the will under which the devise is made does not take effect until the testator's death, and then, if his property is not legally devised, no title rests for a single moment in the devisee, but it vests instantly in the heir-at-law or next of kin, who accordingly have a standing in Court to raise the question of the capacity of the corporation to take.* Arthur M. Alger. Taunton, Mass. 1 36 Amer. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 669.
- See also Gilbert v. Hole, So. Dakota (1891), 36 Amer. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 664.
- Lancaster v. Amsterdam Improvement Co., 140 N. Y. 576, 586.
- /;/ re McGraw's Estate, in N. Y. 66; Trustees of Davidson College z/. Chambers'*
Executors, 3 Jones Equity (N. C.) 253; Wood v. Hammond, 16 R. I. 98.
