Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN iionorablcClaude Iabell secrekry of state Austin, TeIll8 Attention: Xr. I. L. BmGarl 0p5n10n 30. o-6561 Rer Whether the Se0 ahou3.dapprova oration ha8 a hich wodLd 1945, requeetln& the opln- @nt8 thu above geeetiou, and sred under the ioLl.oningfactual .“uhere the aubaoribl.ng putpose kk~? uhlah would not persit it buslnaee of the other aorporatlon.* ostatio copy of the propo8ed ssvmdnmnt blng the above qucpltions, aooonpenlrryour ou desire to kcior whether or not aa8#should be approved and illed. The applicablepubdlvlelon ot Brt. 1302, rterised Civil Statutes of ;Texna,1925, provldea: Zen. Claude Iaball, pace 2 wTt~epurpoaaa for which private oorpora- tiono may be formad am: "34. To trenecaot any nanuraoturingor m.inincbuainssa,en8 to purohatiaend aall hoods, waroisand merohaendisausad for auah business. ". . . ". . . *39. To gurohese and sell gooda, weraa end marohandiaeand agrioulturaland farm producta." The partioularoorporetionainvolved in your quaa- tlona have, in their ahartar, adopted the foregoing purpoea oleuae8. Yubdivialon 34 ia adopted by the rubaoriblng Qor- poretion, end Subdlvlalon39 by the corporationvoting the lnoreaae in atook and tandsrint:the smndment. Under the provisionaof Art8. 1313 and 13l& R.C.s., 1925, the duty ie lmpomd upon tha SaoLMery of Stateto file acd reoord tha oharter and properauthentloetadamandmanta thereto when the atookholderaof any oompang ahell turnlah aatisraotoryeoidonoa to tha Beoratary of State of a oom- plianoa with the prorl8lonsof Chap. 2, Title 32 (nrtr. 1303-18, inoluaive)V. A. C. S. Art. 1320, SUbdivisiOn 7 of aaid atatutaa provide8 that any oorporetionaa 8uoh haa the power to enter into any obllgetion or oontraot saabntial to the tranaeotionof it8 authorized buainoae. Art. 1321 of aaid atetutaa provldse that oorporatlona may borrow aumey o~i the orcdit of the oorporetlonand may ax- acute bond6 and promleaorynotas tharafor, and may pladga the property and income of the oorportation. Art. 1349, v. A. c. M., insofar a8 metarial, providea that no corporation,domastio or foral@i, doing buaineaa in this state, ahall employ or um tta stock, maana, assets or ottsr property, diraotly or indlraotly,ror any purpose what- ever other than to aooompliah the legltlmatabuainaas of lta creation or thoea purpoaaa otherwise p9rmlttad by law, pro- vided Mat nothing in thie artiola shall be bald to inhibit oorporetionarron oontributinCto eng . . . cloio enter- prieaa. . . ‘706 lion.Claude ;Lsbell, P4@ 3 It is generally raoognlzed,and by tha waight of euthorlty that in the ebsenoe of a statute or oonatitutional ~rovialon to the contrary,a corporationmay take atook of mothtir corporation in payment of, or aa eeourity, ror a debt. 16 C. J. ii., Far. a3, p 682; 13 Amer. Jur., Par. 791, i: 312; 1 iillCebrend*a Terse Cor oration8 Par. 80, p 243, a:.d see iimotatione in 701. 3i! , kamr. kit. dep., P 140. Neither the proposed amandment with eooompanying affidavit nor your letter, diaoloaa any other than a bona fide laaue ond aubaorlptlonof atook under the above mn- tiotad and generally reoo&zed rule. The cane of Uolnma and Orlgg8 Mfg. co. v. Holmaa and Ware611 Eatal Co., 127 Ic.Y. 252, 27 B. &. 831, 24 Ammsr. St. itap.4l+8,l'urnlahea tha leading authority and aupport of the above rule. In that oeae tha prerIdr.at and aaoretery of the EenufeoturlngCompany, a oorporatlon,aubaorlbadlndlvldu- ally for the atook ln a nawl.yforeud oorporetlon,aam being laaued to a truetee for said offloera. The nclw oorporatlon theraaftar purohaaed the entire plent, meahlnary, and ato., of tha plaintiff oorporetion for whloh it laaued raid atook ea aforesaid,and said tianufeoturing Company ratirad from bualneaa. The rule wee reoognlzed in thla oaao that a oor- poretlon oannot purohaaa or deal in atooke of other oorpore- tlona unless expraaalg authorlaed to do 80. Tha ltatute under which plaintiff oompeny waa Inoorporatadin the state or caw York provided that *It ahell not be lawful for suoh company to use any of their fund8 in the puroheac of any stock in eny other oorporet1on.n The court held that add statute was AOt intended to 1Imlt the power8 of th6 oorporetlonbayond its neoaaaary powara ln the exaroiaa of lta oorporata franohlse, to-wit: selling of property, oolleotlonof debta, . . . taking title to all kinds of property, including the atook of another oos- pariy in ths peymant of a debt, in holding tha tranaaotionnot ultra vlres. Tha court raeaoned in the following language; *The plaintiff haa mold lta rolling-mIl1 machli:ery,ato., to the defandant. It has taken stock in the lettirroompeny in paymaut therafor. Ineamuuh aa this wea done with tha oomant OS all or the stookholdara,It being the act of a private corporations,not in any manner harming tha publio, wa sac no reason ‘YV 6 ‘..,,._