AP Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow
1953 N.J. Super. LEXIS 435, 26 N.J. Super. 106, 97 A.2d 186 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporation has the implied power to make reasonable charitable contributions that benefit the public welfare, as such contributions also serve corporate interests. State legislatures can validly amend corporate charters under their reserved power to explicitly allow such contributions, without violating constitutional prohibitions against impairing contracts or depriving property without due process, so long as the alteration does not substantially impair the object of the corporate grant.
Facts:
- The A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company (Plaintiff) was incorporated in 1896 under the Corporation Act of 1875 to manufacture and sell waterworks equipment and related products.
- A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company maintained plants in East Orange and Bloomfield, New Jersey, producing valves, fire hydrants, and specialized machinery for the water and gas industries.
- On July 21, 1951, the board of directors of A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company adopted a resolution to contribute $1,500 to Princeton University for its general maintenance.
- Princeton University, a privately supported educational institution, faced mounting budgetary deficits due to high taxation against individual incomes and inflationary living costs, threatening its public usefulness.
- Ruth F. Barlow and other defendants, as stockholders of A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company, objected to the proposed contribution, contending it was ultra vires and that the legislative acts authorizing it were unconstitutional.
- The State of New Jersey had enacted legislation in 1930 and 1950 declaring it public policy to encourage contributions to educational institutions, permitting corporations to contribute up to one percent of their capital and surplus annually, with certain stockholder notification and objection provisions.
Procedural Posture:
- The A.P. Smith Manufacturing Company filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, seeking a declaratory judgment that its contribution to Princeton University was within its corporate powers and not a misapplication of funds.
- Ruth F. Barlow and other defendant stockholders filed an answer, seeking a declaratory judgment that the contribution would be a misapplication of corporate funds and an ultra vires act in violation of their property and contract rights.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New Jersey corporation, organized prior to modern charitable contribution statutes, have the power to donate corporate funds to a private educational institution for general maintenance, and are state statutes authorizing such contributions constitutional when applied to pre-existing corporate charters?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.S.C.
Yes, a New Jersey corporation, even if organized prior to modern statutes explicitly allowing it, has the power to make reasonable charitable contributions to private educational institutions, and state statutes authorizing such contributions are constitutional when applied to pre-existing corporate charters because the state's reserved power allows for such amendments in the public interest. The court held that the contribution to Princeton University was not ultra vires. Corporate powers extend beyond those expressly stated in a charter to include incidental powers reasonably designed to give fuller effect to expressed powers. Promoting a company's good-will and safeguarding the free enterprise system by supporting educational institutions that provide a reservoir of trained talent and promote democratic values is a direct benefit to corporations and, in the modern era, amounts to a "solemn duty." The common law has evolved to recognize the changing needs of industry and society, moving away from earlier restrictive views on corporate charitable giving. The court further rejected the defendants' constitutional objections under the Contract Clause and Due Process Clause of both the Federal and State Constitutions. The granting of a corporate charter is always subject to the State's reserved power to alter, suspend, or repeal it, provided such alterations do not "defeat or substantially impair the object of the grant, or any rights which have vested under it." The limited contribution allowed by the statutes (one percent of capital and surplus) was deemed not to constitute a substantial impairment of corporate purpose or stockholder rights. Additionally, the legislation falls squarely within the State's police power, which aims to protect and promote the general welfare of its citizens. The Legislature's explicit declaration of public policy in the 1950 act, promoting educational and benevolent activities for the betterment of social and economic conditions, was found to be a valid exercise of this power. Since corporations and their stockholders acquire contractual rights subject to these inherent state powers, they are considered to have constructively acquiesced to such legislation, thereby suffering no unconstitutional deprivation of vested property interests.
Analysis:
This case marked a significant shift in corporate law by broadly interpreting corporate powers to include charitable contributions, recognizing that such actions serve a long-term benefit to the corporation by promoting a stable society, an educated workforce, and public goodwill. It affirmed the state's expansive reserved power to amend corporate charters to reflect evolving public policy, demonstrating that foundational constitutional protections like the Contract Clause are not absolute when weighed against legitimate exercises of state police power for the public welfare. The decision provided legal support for corporations to engage in corporate social responsibility, setting a precedent for companies to contribute to the broader community beyond direct profit-making activities.
