Union Trust Co. v. Moore

Citations

• 104 Wash. 50
• 175 P. 565
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 1144

Syllabus

<p>Corporations (23) — Corporate Name’ — ’Right to Use — ’“Trust” Company — Statutes—Construction. A corporation the articles of which authorized it -to engage in a trust business, cannot lawfully use the word “trust” in its corporate name, although it does not actually engage in a trust business, without complying with Laws 1917, eh. 80, p. 271, which defines what constitutes a banking or trust business, provides for the incorporation of banks and trust companies and for their supervision, imposes penalties not applicable to other corporations, and provides that no corporation shall engage in a trust business except as authorized by the act and that no corporation shall use the word “trust” in its corporate name except a corporation authorized by the laws of the state; since the act was intended to put banks and trust companies in a distinct class with limited powers and new safeguards.</p> <p>Same (23). The words “Trust Company” in such act are not ambiguous, and the phrase “authorized by laws of the state,” was merely intended to differentiate between trust companies organized under the act and foreign trust companies authorized by the act to engage in a trust business, and not to authorize existing companies to continue the use of the trust name, if not engaged in a trust business without complying with the law.</p> <p>Constitutional Law (126) — Due Process — Deprivation of Property — Corporate Name. Laws 1917, p. 271, prohibiting the use of the word “trust” in the corporate name of a company not incorporated as a trust company, is not a taking of property without due process, as to existing corporations, in view of Const., art. 12, § 1, which provides that laws relating to corporations may he altered, amended or repealed at any time, and that corporations doing business in the state may be regulated, limited or restrained by law.</p>