Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/128

100 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, the well-known case of Lathrop v. Commercial Bank,^ the court, speaking of the fact that most acts of incorporation in Kentucky- concede a special authority to purchase land for specified purposes, say : ** That course of legislation has arisen either from a prevail- ing opinion that statutory corporations in this country shall pos- sess no other powers than those expressly granted, or from a prudential determination to limit and define their rights and ca- pacities with precision, and especially in relation to the purchase of real estate." Beyond this, mere ownership by a corporation of real estate in fee is not within the rule against perpetuities. Still, it may be urged that, admitting technically such ownership does not create a perpetuity, nevertheless it is a fair inference that the State imposed upon her corporations the restrictions referred to in order that land might not, except in certain specified cases, be held in mortmain by an immortal being. The answer to this would seem to be that it is not reasonable to draw such an infer- ence, because there is no necessity for the adoption of the mort- main policy or laws in this country. Land with us has not the privileges which were attached to it in feudal times in the country where the mortmain laws originated ; and the reserved power of the State to alter or repeal corporate charters is ample to ensure any needed regulation or control of corporate ownership of real estate. In Christian Union v. Yount,^ the question was as to the validity of a devise of real estate in Illinois to a missionary society incor- porated under the laws of New York. Carroll v. East St. Louis was quoted as authority for the broad contention that foreign corpora- tions were prohibited by the settled policy of the State of Illinois from taking, purchasing, or holding lands within its limits. The court, however, held that the decision in this case did not conclude the point involved in the case before it, inasmuch as it appeared that, under the general laws of Illinois, domestic missionary corpo- rations had power to take and hold real estate ; and it was decided that the existence of a public policy forbidding a foreign missionary corporation to take or hold real estate in Illinois could not be in- ferred from the general course of legislation or judicial decisions in that State. Upon the same ground, it was held in the recent case of Taylor 1 8 Dana (Ky.), 114. 2 loi U. S. 352.