CORPORATIONS 831

its powers and franchises as would by law make proper the forfeiture of its
charter, the attorney general or state's attorney so authorized shall file in
the court hereinafter designated a petition in the name of the State setting
forth in detail the alleged cause of forfeiture; and thereupon the court
shall lay a rule upon the corporation to show cause within a time named
why a judgment of forfeiture should not be entered as prayed; a copy of
such rule and of the petition shall be served on the corporation by a day to
be therein limited, as other process against the corporation, as hereinafter
provided, would be served. By the day named in said order unless further
time is granted by the court, the corporation shall file its answer, setting
forth all its defences and verified by the affirmation or affidavit of one of
its officers; such further pleadings, if any, shall be filed within such time
as the court shall direct.

Bill of complaint; cause of forfeiture; proof.

Held that a bill of complaint (under sec. 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 corporate powers, etc., not
proven. Mason v. Equitable League, 77 Md. 486.

Sec. 367 of the Code of 1904, held to be sufficient authority for the institution of
proceedings against a corporation for the forfeiture of its charter, a special act of as-
sembly for such purpose not being required. Alleged excessive rates exacted in good
faith by a coal company while operating a railroad which it claimed to own, held
not to be a violation of the coal company'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 members for
a fixed price is a violation of a local option law, and a cause of forfeiture of the club's
charter (under sec. 367 of the Code of 1904). State v. Easton Club, 73 Md. 99. And
see State v. Easton Club, 72 Md. 297; Conococheague Club v. State, 116 Md. 323.

Proceedings under sec. 367, et seq., of the Code of 1904, against a fraternal order
which was in reality doing an insurance business, upheld—see notes to secs. 193 and
229 of art. 23, An. Code 1912 (see footnote to art. 48A, and to art. 48A, sec. 180, this
Code). International Fraternal Alliance v. State, 86 Md. 552. Cf. International Fra-
ternal 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 annulment of its charter (under
sec. 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 relative to fraternal orders of sec. 239 of art. 23, An. Code 1912—
see footnote to art. 48A, sec. 180, this Code—held not to be intended to supersede
the remedies for the abuse, etc., of corporate powers afforded by sec. 367 of the Code
of 1904. Barton v. International Fraternal Alliance, 85 Md. 33.

The state may properly demur to an answer to a proceeding under sec. 367, et seq.,
of the Code of 1904. Said section referred to in holding an amendment of the charter
of the Cumberland and Pennsylvania 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.

Sec. 367 of the Code of 1904, referred to in deciding that a state's attorney had no
authority to institute quo warranto proceedings to oust an incumbent from a public
office. Hawkins v. State, 81 Md. 311.

Cross references

As to the forfeiture of the charter of a railroad company which, after being sold,
has been reorganized, see sec. 234.

As to proceedings against companies doing a security or guarantee business, for a
failure to make the required deposit with the state treasurer, see sec. 141.

As to the forfeiture of the charter of turnpike companies, see sec. 324.

As to the forfeiture of charters for the non-payment of state taxes and the bonus
tax, see art. 81, sec. 152.

See art. 81, sec. 152.