In California, a corporation sole may:

(a) Sue and be sued, and defend, in all courts, and places, in all matters and proceedings whatever.

(b) Contract in the same manner and to the same extent as a natural person, for the purposes of the trust.

(c) Borrow money, and give promissory notes thereof, and secure the payment thereof by mortgage or other lien upon property, real or personal.

(d) Buy, sell, lease, mortgage, and in every way deal in real and personal property in the same manner that a natural person may, without the order of any court.

(e) Receive bequests and devises for its own use or upon trusts to the same extent as natural persons may, subject, however, to the laws regulating the transfer of property by will.

(f) Appoint attorneys in fact.

The most complex issue regarding the old corporation sole was that of continuing operation during a vacancy in the office. California deals with this issue in two ways: 1) at the time of incorporation,
the manner of filling a vacancy is to be specified," and 2) the law makes clear that the corporation has perptual existence even during a vacancy."

In contrast with the common law corporation sole, the California statute, like almost all its modern
counterparts, is far more precise. A comparison will be useful. The common law or "old" corporation sole applied to some unspecified officers, and not to others of similar origin. The statutory or "new" corporation sole, in contrast, applies to those who are designated at the time of their incorporation. The old corporation sole was "in abeyance" at the time of a vacancy, whereas the new corporation sole continues through temporary agents. The old corporation sole could hold title to real estate only, and alienation of the property was difficult and legally questionable. The new corporation sole has the same power over its property as any other corporation, and is not limited in the type of property it can own. In short, the new statutory corporation sole removes the vagaries of the old.

Private charters have a parallel history and similar content The Maryland legislation incorporating the Archbishop of Baltimore dates to 1832. The law permits church property held by trustees to be deeded to the Archbishop and his successors. However, such property is limited to two acres, must be real property, and can only be used for a church, parsonage, or burial ground.

In 1868, the Maryland legislature amended the act. The acreage designation was enlarged to five acres, and "school house" was added to the list of uses." Up to this point, the Maryland law did not mention the alienation of property. A later amendment, in 1874, granted the power "to dispose of, lease, sell and convey from time to time to the same extent, [as] any private person or other corporate body."

Two subsequent amendments completed the law. In 1894, the restriction to real property was removed. The Archbishop, as a corporation sole, was given the power to exercise rights over property "real, personal or mixed. Finally, in 1927, the acreage restriction was completely removed. This original 1832 legislation, with its four amendments, remains the charter of the
Archbishop of Baltimore as a corporation sole. No further change can now be made, because the Maryland code prohibits the General Assembly from amending the charter of a religious corporation even if it was previously incorporated by special act. Furthermore, the code now contains modern provisions for subsidiary or separate Roman Catholic corporations.

The contrast between the California and Maryland laws is very apparent. The California legislation
consists of more formal and highly structured general statutes, whereas the Maryland private charter is rather informal, the product of patchwork amendment. The California code carefully establishes a process for creating or dissolving a corporation sole, whereas the Maryland law barely goes beyond the simple statement that a corporation is deemed to exist. Clearly, the general statutes represent a later stage in the evolutionary process.

Although differences exist, the corporation’s sole created under general corporation laws and those
established by special acts or private charters have several common features. They both deserve to be classified under the heading of "new" or "modern" corporations sole, because both are more than merely modes of holding title to property. Both are meant to provide a framework for the operation of a continuing concern. They are also both meant to provide a structure for the planning, financing, direction and management necessary for an organization existing and working in a sophisticated business environment.

The Achilles heel of the "old" corporation sole was that the corporation itself was a person holding an office. When the incumbent died, the common law could only hold the corporate life and activity in suspension, or "abeyance", until the office was filled again. In regard to the "old" corporation sole, Maitland said, "Our corporation sole is a man who dies." Carr added, "that is the difficulty. The artificial personality of the corporation is not strong enough to compel us to ignore the natural
personality of the sole incorporator. The office has not been completely personified if the death of the officeholder can cause such a deadlock.

The modern corporation sole, created under legislative auspices, solves the succession problem quite satisfactorily in one of two ways. Either a specified structure of continuing operation is created in statutes, as in California, or the statutes specify some external set of canons, practices or rules to
deal with an interregnum, as in Maryland.
Dickinson's Law Review Page 1
Dickinson's Law Review Page 2
Dickinson's Law Review Page 3
Dickinson's Law Review Page 5