The corporation today does not live up to the mythical personality and attributes with which it has been endowed by jurisprudence and business folklore. It is in fact a completely different sort of animal, and lip service to such specious mythology does it and free enterprise a disservice by obscuring true facts and throwing the real issues off focus, this writer declares.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnoldThurman, The Folklore of Capitalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937).
2.
VaihingerHans, The Philosophy of As If (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1924), p. 15.
3.
The classical style employed here was suggested by Tatlock'sJessie M.Greek and Roman Mythology (New York: The Century Company, 1917).
4.
See RadinMax, “The Endless Doctrine of Corporate Personality,”Columbia Law Review, 32:643, pp. 653–4 (1932).
5.
See TimbergSigmund, “The Corporation as a Technique of International Administration,”University of Chicago Law Review, 19:739 (1952); TimbergSigmund, “Corporate Fictions: Logical, Social and International Implications,”Columbia Law Review, 46:533 (1946).
6.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518 (1819).
7.
See San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R.R., 116 U.S. 138 (1885); Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
8.
BallantineHenry W., “Proposed Revision of the Ultra Vires Doctrine,”Cornell Law Quarterly, 12: 453, 455 (1926).
9.
For example: LivingstonJoseph A., The American Stockholder (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1958).
10.
See SobieskiJohn G., “In Support of Cumulative Voting,”The Business Lawyer, 15: 316, 318 (1960).
11.
See EmersonF. D.LatchamF. C., Shareholder Democracy (Cleveland: Press of Western Reserve University, 1954).
12.
See the discussions in the literature following the decision in Perlman v. Feldman, 219 F. 2d 173 (2d Cir. 1955): E.g., JenningsRichard W., “Trading in Corporate Control,”California Law Review, 44: 1 (1956); HillAlfred, “The Sale of Controlling Shares,”Harvard Law Review, 70: 986 (1957).
13.
See BallantineHenry W., Corporations (Chicago: Rev. ed., Callaghan and Company, 1946), p. 385; State ex rel. Cochran v. Penn-Beaver Oil Company, 34 Del. (4 W. W. Harr.) 81, 143 Atl. 257 (1926).
14.
See HornsteinGeorge D., “The Death Knell of Stockholders' Derivative Suits in New York,”California Law Review, 32: 123 (1944); “New Aspects of Stockholders' Derivative Suits,”Colorado Law Review, 47: 1 (1947); “The Future of Corporate Control,”Harvard Law Review, 63: 476 (1950).
15.
See KelsoLouis O.AdlerMortimer J., The Capitalist Manifesto (New York: Random House, 1958); KelsoLouis O., “Corporate Benevolence or Welfare Redistribution?,”The Business Lawyer, 15: 259 (1960).
16.
For an excellent discussion, see ManningBayless, “Review of Joseph Livingston, The American Stockholder,”Yale Law Journal, 67: 1477, 1489–96 (1958).
17.
See DoddMerrick E.BakerRalph J., Cases and Materials on Corporations, 2d ed. (Brooklyn: Foundation Press, 1951), Ch. 6.
18.
Professor Timberg analyzes this problem thoroughly in “Corporate Fictions: Logical, Social and International Implications,”Columbia Law Review, 46: 533 (1946).
19.
See Sobieski, supra note 10, at 322.
20.
See ConantMichael, “Duties of Disclosure of Corporate Insiders Who Purchase Shares,”Cornell Law Quarterly, 46: 53 (1960).
21.
See Timberg, supra note 18 at 576.
22.
Ibid.
23.
See RutledgeWiley B., “Significant Trends in Modern Incorporation Statutes,”Washington University Law Quarterly, 22: 305 (1937), and FullerWarner, “The Incorporated Individual: A Study of the One-Man Company,”Harvard Law Review, 51: 1373 (1938).
24.
For example: BerleA. A.Jr., The Twentieth Century Capitalist Revolution (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1954) and Power Without Property (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959); The Corporation in Modern Society, MasonEdward S., ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960).
25.
326 U.S. 501 (1946).
26.
15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1222.
27.
See DahlRobert A.HaireMasonLazarsfeldPaul F., Social Science Research on Business: Product and Potential (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959).
28.
There is some controversy among economists on this point. For a good review see HildebrandGeorge, A Decade of Industrial Relations Research: 1946–1956, Industrial Relations Research Association Publication No. 19 (New York, 1958).
29.
See TaussigF. W.JoslynC. S., American Business Leaders (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932). See also WarnerLloydW., “The Corporation Man,” in The Corporation in Modern Society, supra note 24.
30.
See GordonRobert A., Business Leadership in the Large Corporation (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1945).
31.
See VotawDow, “The Politics of a Changing Corporate Society,”California Management Review, Vol. III, No. 3, Spring, 1961, pp. 105–118.
