upr000196 80

c a p ita l was in vested in lands, which lands i t has disposed o f, prevent the d is tr ib u tio n o f such p r o f it s in the same manner as i f i t had "been a banking corp oration and had in vested i t s funds in the purchase of bonds and s e c u r itie s , which by the r is e in the market had n etted i t tw e n ty -fiv e thousand d o lla rs ? In theory and p r in c ip le , I cannot see why the tw e n ty -fiv e thousand d o lla r s re s u ltin g from the tran saction s in each case would not be " p r o f it s and surplus" and as such subject to d is tr ib u tio n to the share h old ers in the way o f d ivid en d s. There might be, however, some d i f f i c u l t y in applying th is lin e o f argument to a ease vdiere the co rp o ra tio n had made an investment in lands and had made sales th e r e o f amounting to a considerable sum, and s t i l l had in i t s possession a p a rt o f the o r ig in a l purchase. For in stan ce, a corp oration organ­ize d w ith a p a id -in c a p ita l of f i f t y thousand d o lla r s makes an investment o f i t s whole c a p ita l in one tr a c t o f land. In the course o f tim e, i t s e lls o n e-h a lf o f i t s holdings and has on hand, we w i l l say, f i f t y thousand d o lla r s a ft e r the payment o f i t s debts and current expenses. What p rop ortion o f th is f i f t y thousand d o lla r s , i f any, would be subject to d is tr ib u tio n as dividends? My opinion is that i f the d ir e c to r s placed a f a i r appraisement upon the unsold p o rtio n o f the land and the other assets of the co rp o ra tio n , and added th ereto a s u ffic ie n t (6 )