upr000196 78

Courts have recogn ized the r ig h t o f corporation s engaged in mining, whose operation s o f course amount to a wasting o f the c a p ita l, to declare dividen ds from the p r o f it s d erived from the business, although such p r o fit s must neces­s a r ily res u lt in the redu ction o f the amount of the c a p ita l o f the company. One o f the lead in g cases on th is p oin t is th at of E x c e ls io r e t c . Co. v . P ie r c e , 90 C al. 131. In th is case it is s a id : " The tern 'c a p it a l s to ck ' has a double meaning as a p p lied to co rp o ra tio n s. In one sense, i t is the sum mentioned in the a r t ic le s of in co rp ora tio n as the amount o f the c a p ita l stock , in other words, i t is the share c a p ita l or nominal c a p it a l, and does net n e c e s s a rily represent a corresponding amount o f actu al c a p it a l. In case o f mining corp ora tion s, i t is always a r b itr a r y and g e n e ra lly extravagant in amount." "The c a p ita l stock r e fe r r e d to in the s ta tu te , how­e v e r, (C iv . Code , Sec .309) is the actu a l p rop erty of the corp oration con tribu ted by the share-holders o f the nominal c a p it a l. In th is case the nominal or share c a p ita l o f the p l a i n t i f f was f i v e m illio n d o lla r s . I t s actu al c a p ita l was it s mining and oth er p ro p erty (le s s the debt w ith which i t was encumbered) re c e iv e d in ex­change fo r the shares which i t issued, and th is actual c a p ita l was what i t was forbidden to d iv id e ." "T h is in h ib itio n , however, did net extend to the net proceeds o f i t s mining op eration s; fo r a mining corpora­tio n , lik e any other corp oration organized fo r the purpose o f u t iliz in g a wasting p ro p e r ty ,- a p ro p erty that can be used only by consuming i t , - as a mine, a le a s e , or a p a ten t, is not deemed to have d ivid ed i t s c a p ita l m erely because i t has d is trib u te d the net proceeds o f i t s mining op eration s, although the necessary r e s u lt i s th at so much has been subtracted from the substance o f i t s e s ta te . (Morawetz on c o rp o ra tio n s , sec1. 442; Lee v . Neughatel Asphalte C o., L.R . 41 Ch. L iv . 2 4 ). I t may d is tr ib u te (4)