The ancient rule of the common law was supposed to be that upon the termination of a corporation its real estate reverted to the grantor and its personalty to the sovereign; Titcomb v. Ins. Co., 79 Me. 315, 9 Atl. 732; Kent (13th ed.) 307. See Huber v. Martin, Wis. 412, 105 N. W. 1031, 1135, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 653, 115 Am. St. Rep. 1023, 7 Ann. Cas. 400. This rule has long been obsolete, if it ever was the law, except as regards pub lic or religious corporations ; Late Corpora tion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478. It has been repudiated in the United States as to business corpora tions ; Huber v. Martin, 127 Wis. 412, 105 N. W. 1031, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 653, 115 Am. St. Rep. 1023, 7 Ann. Cas. 400; Baldwin v.
Johnson, 95 Tex. 85, 65 S. W. 171; Mora wetz, Priy. Corp. § 1032 ; Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. U. S., 136, U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 ; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. (U. S.) 480, 15 L. Ed. 499.
In England it is said there is no instance on record that the doctrine was ever applied by any English court; [1899] 1 Q. B. 325. But it is said that the doctrine that at dis solution the lands of a corporation revert to the donor was almost universally accepted in the English cases before 1800. Prof. Wil liston, in Business Corp. before 1800, 3 Sel. Essays, Anglo-Amer. Leg. Hist. 233.
As to a public or charitable corporation the ancient rule still prevails that upon dissolu tion its personal property, like that of a man dying without heirs, ceases to be the subject of private ownership and becomes subject to the disposal of the sovereign authority, while the real estate reverts to the grantor or donor unless it is otherwise provided by statute ; Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1, 47, 10 Sup. Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478, where it was held that the property of the Mormon church became vested in the United States.
On the dissolution of a Louisiana corpora tion owning land in Texas, it was held that the stockholders became tenants in common of such land ; Baldwin v. Johnson, 95 Tex. 85, 65 S. W. 171. The title to the land of an eleemosynary corporation reverts on its dis solution to the original owner without any act on his part; Mott v. Danville Seminary, 129 Ill. 403, 21 N. E. 927. But it is held that, upon the dissolution of a charitable corpora tion, the property must be appropriated by the court to the purposes most nearly akin to the intent of the donors ; it does not re vert to the donors ; Centennial & Memorial Ass'n of Valley Forge, 235 Pa. 206, 83 Atl.
683.
Actions at law brought against a pri vate corporation abate upon its dissolution ; Life Ass'n v. Goode, 71 Tex. 90, 8 S. W. 639 ; contra, Greenbrier Lumber Co. v. Ward, 30 W. Va. 43, 3 S. E. 227 ; Breene v. Bank, 11 Colo. 97, 17 Pac. 280. Dissolution puts an end to all existing contracts. It works a breach of the contract ; Green's Brice, Ultra Vires 803. See State Bank v. State, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 267, 12 Am. Dec. 239 ; Schleider v. Dielman, 44 La. Ann. 462, 10 South. 934.
Since the dissolution of a corporation, ei ther by its own limitation or by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, puts an end to its legal existence, it can thereafter neither prosecute nor defend an action. Ac cordingly, in the absence of statutory reser vations (which, however, generally exist), up on the dissolution of a corporation all actions Pending against it abate; Mumma v. Poto mac Co., 8 Pet. (U. S.) 281, 8 L. Ed. 945; First Nat. Bank v. Colby, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 609, 22 L. Ed. 687; City Ins. Co. v. Bank, 68 Ill. 348 ; Merrill v. Bank, 31 Me. 57, 50 Am. Dec. 649 ; Thornton v. R. Co., 123 Mass. 32 ; Mc Culloch v. Norwood, 58 N. Y. 562 ; Life Ass'n v. Goode, 71 Tex. 90, 8 S. W. 639 ; and if the suit has been commenced by attachment, the dissolution will destroy the attachment lien ; Wilcox v. Ins. Co., 56 Conn. 468, 16 Atl. 244 ; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Little, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 207, 42 Am. Dec. 293 ; unless ripen ed into a judgment at the time of the dis solution, and this, whether the attachment is original or is sued out in aid of a pending action.
Under the statutes providing for the keep ing alive of actions which would otherwise abate on the dissolution of a corporation, it is not quite settled whether the same prin ciples apply as those which apply to the sur vival of actions on the death of a natural per son ; but the weight of authority is in favor of the affirmative; Hepworth v. Ferry Co., 62 Hun 257, 16 N. Y. Supp. 692 ; Milwaukee Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sentinel Co., 81 Wis. 207, 51 N. W. 440, 15 L. R. A. 627.
See FORFEITURE OF CHARTER; FRANCHISE.
In Practice. The act of rendering a legal proceeding null, or changing its character ; as where an attachment is dissolved• so far as it is a lien on property by entering bail or security to the action ; or as injunctions are dissolved by the court.