572 CORPORATIONS. [ART. 23

Bill of complaint; cause of forfeiture; proof.

Held that a bill of complaint (under section 367 of the code of 1904), must
be filed In the name of the state by authority of the governor, and not by a
member or certificate holder of the corporation. Insolvency, abuse of cor-
porate powers, etc., not proven. Mason v. Equitable League, 77 Md. 486.

Section 367 of the code of 1904, held to be sufficient authority for the Insti-
tion of proceedings against a corporation for the forfeiture of its charter, a
special act of assembly for such, purpose not being required. Alleged exces-
sive rates exacted in good faith by a coal company while operating a rail-
road which it claimed to own, held not to be a violation of the coal com-
pany's charter, and hence no cause of a forfeiture. State v. Consolidation
Coal Co., 46 Md. 5.

The furnishing of intoxicating liquor by an incorporated club to its mem-
bers for a fixed price is a violation of a local option law, and a cause of
forfeiture of the club's charter (under section 367 of the code of 1904). State
v. Easton Club, 73 Md. 99. And see State v. Easton Club, 72 Md. 297.

Proceedings under section 367, et seq., of the code of 1904, against a fra-
ternal order which was in reality doing an insurance business, upheld—see
notes to sections 193 and 229. International Fraternal Alliance v. State,
86 Md. 552. Cf. International Fraternal Alliance v. State, 77 Md. 556.

Where an incorporated subordinate lodge severs its connection with the
grand lodge, thereby inflicting injury upon its members, and also refuses to
obey the order of the grand lodge, such action is only cause for an annul-
ment of its charter (under section 367, et seq., of the code of 1904). A bill
held not to be a proceeding under said section, and hence, that the court
had no power to forfeit the charter or correct any misuse or abuse of its
corporate powers. Goodman v. Jedidjah Lodge, 67 Md. 125.

Generally.

The provisions of section 239 (relative to fraternal orders), held not to be
intended to supersede the remedies for the abuse, etc., of corporate powers
afforded by section 367 of the code of 1904. Barton v. International Fra-
ternal Alliance, 85 Md. 33.

The state may properly demur to an answer to a proceeding under section
367, et seq., of the code of 1904. Said section referred to in holding an amend-
ment of the charter of the Cumberland and Pennsylvanai Railroad Company
invalid. State v. Cumberland, etc., R. R. Co., 105 Md. 483.

The right of removal does not exist in proceedings for the forfeiture of
chartered franchises. Bel Air, etc., Club v. State, 74 Md. 300.

Section 367 of the. code of 1904, referred to in deciding that a state's attor-
ney had no authority to institute quo warranto proceedings to oust an Incum-
bent from a public office. Hawkins v. State, 81 Md. 311.

Cross references.

As to proceedings to vacate the charter of an insurance company, see
sec. 204.

As to the forfeiture of the charter of a railroad company which, after
being sold, has been reorganized, see sec. 295.

As to proceedings against companies doing a security or guarantee busi-
ness, for a failure to make the required deposit with the state treasurer, see
sec. 111.

As to the forfeiture of the charter of turnpike companies, see sec. 394.

As to the forfeiture of charters for the non-payment of state taxes and
the bonus tax, see art. 81, sections 99 and 103.

1904, art. 23, sec. 370. 1888, art. 23. sec. 258. 1868, ch. 471, sec. 179.
1908, ch. 240, sec. 58.

83. If issues of fact be joined in such proceedings, the same shall
stand for trial at such time as the court shall direct and shall be tried
by a jury if either party desires it; otherwise they shall be heard and
determined by the court. If from the findings of tte jury or upon con-
sideration or determination by the court, the court shall be of opinion