The breach of a condition contained in the charter may work a dissolution of the corporation. Whether a forfeiture clause in a charter is self-executing or not is a question of legislative intent.7 The courts will favor such a construction of the charter as will not render such clauses self-executing.8

"It is obvious that the requirement as to the completion of the work within a given time is a condition subsequent. It is a general rule that none but the grantor or his heirs can avoid a grant for failure to perform a condition subsequent; and in case of a public grant the right to avoid it on that ground is confined to the government and can be exercised only through the judgment of a court or by a legislative declaration of forfeiture. It follows that where such condition is imposed by statute a failure to perform it will not ipso facto avoid the grant unless so declared by the statute creating the condition. Unless the statute by express terms or plain implication so declares, or at least a legislative determination to that effect." 9

3 State Invest., etc., Co. vs.

Superior Ct. 101 Cal., 145;

Enc., etc., R. Co. vs. Casey,

26 Pa. St., 309. 4 Hollard vs. Heyman, 60 Ga., 174. 5 Campbell vs. Mississippi Union Park, 6 How. (Miss.), 677.

6 Shields vs. Ohio, 95 U. S., 319; Combes vs. Keyes, 89 Wis., 311; 46 Am. St. Rep., 839.

7 New York, etc., Bridge Co. vs.

Smith, 148 N. Y., 540.

8 Id.