JOINT STOCK COMPANY - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

JOINT STOCK COMPANYAuthored

The Law Mind • 1357 words

Definition

A joint stock company is an association of individuals formed for profit around a common capital fund, that capital being divided into transferable shares held by members of the association. It occupies a middle ground between a general partnership and a corporation: like a partnership, it may lack full corporate status and legal personality; like a corporation, its shares are freely transferable without requiring the consent of all other members.

The defining characteristics are: (1) a pooled capital fund contributed by members; (2) that capital divided into shares; (3) shares transferable by their owners without dissolving the association; and (4) governance typically established by a written instrument — in England, a deed of settlement.

The entity may be either unincorporated (a joint stock company at common law) or quasi-incorporated (invested by statute with some corporate privileges). The legal consequences differ substantially depending on which form applies.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A company that issues stock and allows open trading of that stock on a stock exchange or in private transactions; often used interchangeably with corporation in general speech.

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A company or association consisting of individuals organized for some purpose with a joint capital stock, divided into shares; the shares of each member being transferable without the consent of the rest.

The gap matters for research. In ordinary modern usage, "joint stock company" and "corporation" are often treated as synonyms. Legally, they are not — and historically they were sharply distinguished. The joint stock company could exist entirely without a corporate charter, carrying with it full partnership-style personal liability for members despite the transferability of shares. A researcher who reads the term in a nineteenth-century source and assumes it means an incorporated company will misread the liability structure, the governance rules, and the regulatory environment entirely.

Common Confusion

JOINT STOCK COMPANY vs. CORPORATION: The most persistent confusion in historical sources. A corporation requires a charter or statutory grant of legal personality. A common-law joint stock company has no such grant; it is, at bottom, a large partnership with transferable shares. Members of an unincorporated joint stock company could be personally liable for company debts — a consequence that vanishes in a true corporation. The Bubble Act of 1719 (6 Geo. I. c. 18) was directed specifically at unincorporated joint stock companies that were presuming to act as corporations without a charter, confirming that contemporaries understood the distinction as legally significant.

JOINT STOCK COMPANY vs. PARTNERSHIP: Because the joint stock company is technically a form of partnership under common law, courts in both England and the United States sometimes applied partnership rules to it — including rules on dissolution, authority of members, and liability. But its scale, transferable-share structure, and deed of settlement made it functionally unlike any ordinary partnership. Conflating the two produces errors in reading both liability analysis and procedural history.

Recognized Forms

/SUBTYPES

Common-Law Joint Stock Company: An unincorporated association with transferable shares, no statutory charter, governed by a deed of settlement or articles. Members remain personally liable as partners. The subject of the Bubble Act's restrictions and significant English and American litigation throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Statutory Joint Stock Company: An association organized under a specific enabling statute (in England, the Joint Stock Companies Acts beginning in 1844; in American states, analogous incorporation statutes) and thereby granted limited liability or other corporate attributes. Increasingly displaced by the modern corporation as the default business vehicle.

Quasi-Partnership Joint Stock Company: Bouvier's characterization — an association treated by courts as a partnership for some purposes (liability, dissolution) and as a corporation for others (share transferability, centralized management). The hybrid nature generated substantial nineteenth-century litigation over which body of law governed.

Why It Matters in Research

The joint stock company sits at the center of the transition from partnership law to modern corporate law. Researchers working in commercial law, business history, or early securities regulation will encounter the term constantly in sources spanning roughly 1700–1900, but its meaning shifts across that period and across jurisdictions.

The key trap: a source from 1790 using "joint stock company" almost certainly means an unincorporated association with full personal member liability. A source from 1890 using the same term may mean a fully incorporated limited-liability entity organized under a general incorporation statute. The word is the same; the legal animal is different.

The Bubble Act of 1719 is a recurring reference point in English sources through the early nineteenth century. It was repealed in 1825, after which English joint stock companies multiplied. The Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 introduced registration and some corporate attributes; the Limited Liability Act 1855 added limited liability. Researchers reading English commercial sources must track where in this sequence their document falls.

In American sources, the picture is more fragmented because state legislatures acted at different times and with different models. Some states assimilated joint stock companies into their corporation statutes early; others maintained separate treatment for unincorporated associations. New York, in particular, had a substantial body of joint stock company law distinct from its general corporation law well into the nineteenth century.

Corpus connections: this term links directly to the law of partnerships (for liability and dissolution rules), early securities regulation (for the Bubble Act context and subsequent English statutes), and the development of general incorporation statutes in the United States. Cases involving "joint stock companies" in American reporters before 1850 are often actually partnership cases dressed in different vocabulary.

Historical Dictionary Support

The three source dictionaries converge on the core definition — pooled transferable-share capital, association for profit, governance by written instrument — but frame the entity differently.

Burrill is the most technically precise, defining the joint stock company as "a species of partnership" with capital "divided into shares transferable without the express consent of all the copartners." His citation to Kent and Stephen's Commentaries locates the term firmly in the commercial-law tradition. The phrase "without the express consent of all the copartners" is the functional differentiator from ordinary partnership: in a standard partnership, transfer of a partner's interest requires universal consent; here it does not.

Bouvier emphasizes the quasi-partnership nature and the statutory overlay, noting that in England and many American states such associations had been "invested by statutes with some of the privileges of a corporation." This phrasing captures the hybrid status and implicitly acknowledges that the full corporate form is something more than what the joint stock company typically possesses.

Rapalje & Lawrence provide the most useful historical framing, tracing the term's application to unincorporated companies of "the beginning of the last century" — meaning the early 1700s — and flagging the Bubble Act directly. Their note that the legality of these associations "was and is entertained in England" signals that even at the time of their writing, the common-law joint stock company remained contested territory, not settled law.

What the historical dictionaries largely omit is the American statutory development. None of them tracks state-by-state enabling legislation or addresses the gradual displacement of the joint stock company form by the general business corporation. A researcher relying solely on these sources will have excellent coverage of the English common-law and early statutory period but will need supplemental sources for American jurisdictional specifics.

Jurisdictional Note

English law distinguished the joint stock company from the corporation more sharply, and for longer, than American law did. In many American jurisdictions, courts and legislatures eventually folded unincorporated joint stock associations into corporation statutes or treated them as corporations for most practical purposes. New York maintained a distinct joint stock association category; other states did not. Always identify the jurisdiction and era before applying any general rule about member liability or governance.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Business Associations — Historical Forms; Partnership Law and Its Evolution; Early Securities Regulation and the Bubble Act

JOINT STOCK COMPANYmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1888

- A term which was originally applied to those unincorporated companies or large partnerships with transferable shares formed at the beginning of the last century (joint stock companies under the common law), and as to the legality of which doubts were and are entertained in England. (See the Bubble Act of 1719 (6 Geo. I. c. 18), passed to discourage these associations; Lind. Part. 189 et seq.) By various acts of pariiament, from 1825 to 1857, the principal of which were those of 1844, 1855, 1856 and 1857, the formation of joint stock companies was legalized and facilitated. (Id. 7.) These companies are quite common in the United States, and we are not aware that any doubts are now entertained as to their legality. See the statutes of the several States on this subject. As to the English acts now in force, see COMPANIES ACTS; DISSOLUTION, § 3. 2. The term joint tenancy is also ap plied to personal property (Co. Litt. 182a), e. g. stock in the funds, although it is not the subject of tenure; hence it is more correct to say that two persons are jointly entitled to stock, or that they have a joint ownership of it. As to choses in action, see JOINT, & 2 et seq. 3. When two or more persons are joint tenants of property, they have, with respect to all other persons than themselves, the properties of a single owner. The principal incidents of joint tenancy are as follows: 4. Every joint tenant is seised or possessed of the joint property per my et per tout, i. e. by every part and by the whole;* by this is meant that the possession of each is indivisible, and that each has an equal right, so that no one can claim the exclusive possession of any particular part of the property, though each is entitled to his proportion of the rents or other income. (Wms. Real Prop. 134.) It also follows that one joint tenant cannot convey his interest to his co-tenants in the same way that one stranger conveys to another, and therefore the proper mode of conveyance from one joint tenant to another is by release, operating as an extinguishment of the interest conveyed. Id. 137. See RE-

JOINT STOCK COMPANYmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

An as- sociation of individuals for purposes of profit, possessing a common capital contrib- uted by the members composing it, such capital being commonly divided into shares of which each member possesses one or more, and which are transferable by the owner. Shelf. Jt. St. Co. 1. A quasi partnership, invested by statutes in England and many of the states with some of the privileges of a corporation. See 10 Wall. 556; L. R. 4 Eq. 695. A partnership whereof the capital is di- vided, or agreed to be divided, into shares so as to be transferable without the express consent of the co-partners. Pars. Part. § 435. Such associations are not pure partner- ships, for their members are recognized as an aggregate body; nor are they pure cor- porations, for their members are more or less liable to contribute to the debts of the collective whole. Incorporated companies are intermediate between corporations known to the common law and ordinary both. 1 Lindl. Partn., 1st ed. 6. corporations and partake of the nature of They are to be distinguished from limited partnerships chiefly in that there is, in a joint stock company, no dilectus persona- rum, that is, no choice about admitting partners, the shares are transferable with- out involving a dissolution of the asssocia- tion, the assignee of shares becomes a part- ner by virtue of the transfer, and the rights and duties of the members are determined by articles of association, or in England by a deed of settlement; 1 Pars. Contr., 8th ed. 144. The power to manage the business is vested exclusively in the directors, and a shareholder, as such, has no power to con- tract for the company; 2 H. L. Cas. 520. Generally the number of shares is fixed by the charter, but it is sometimes provided that there shall not be less than a certain number nor more than a certain number. In such cases it is left for the company to determine the number within the limits prescribed; 45 Me. 254; but where the charter fixes the amount of the capital stock, and provides that it may be increased from time to time at the pleasure of the corporation, the directors have no power to increase the amount of the stock, although the charter provides that all the corporate powers shall be vested in, and exercised by a board of directors, and such officers and agents as such board shall appoint; 18 Wall. 233. In New York joint stock companies have all the attributes of a corporation except the right to have and use a common seal, and an action is properly brought for or against the president as such, and the judgment and execution against him bind the joint property of the association, but do not bind his own property; 74 N. Y. 234; but it has been held that the pro- visions in the New York statutes are merely local in their operation, and that the mem bers may be sued in other states as part- ners; 128 Mass. 445; 60 Me. 468. They may be served with summons in another state in the same manner that corporations are served; 44 N. E. Rep. (Ohio) 506; and on an issue as to whether an association was a joint stock company or a corporation, its classification by the statutes of New York, where it was created, has been held not con- clusive; 1 Ohio, N. P. 259. A joint stock company having some of the characteristics of a corporation and some of a partnership, including the right to a common seal, ownership of the property by the associa- tion, and the right to sue and be sued in the corporate name, is as much a citizen of the state which created it as a corporation organized under its laws, and when sued in another state is entitled to a removal to the federal court irrespective of the citizen- ship of its individual members; 46 Fed. Rep. 209; 1 Flip. 611; 10 Biss. 273. At common law they are held not cor- porations but are to be sued as partners; 128 Mass. 445; 60 Me. 468; 4 Metc. 535; 64 [a. 220. But in states where there are statutory provisions concerning them the indebtedness of joint stock companies will be charged pro rata to the solvent mem- bers; 34 S. W. Rep. (Tex.) 178. An Eng- lish joint stock company (in this case a fire insurance company) endowed by its deed of settlement with the following powers and faculties, 1. A distinctive artificial name by which it can make contracts. 2. A statutory authority to sue and be sued in the name of its officers as representing the association. 3. A statutory recognition of it as an entity distinct from its members by allowing them to sue it or be sued by it. 4. A provision for its perpetuity by transfer of its shares so as to secure succession of membership, was held to be a corporation in this country; 10 Wall. 566; 100 Mass. 531; notwithstanding the acts of parlia- ment declaring it should not be so con- sidered, and the court held that such cor- porations, whether organized under the

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In