VIRES

6 definitions found across Law Mind sources

VIRESAuthored
The Law Mind • 1114 words
Definition
Latin plural of vis. In legal usage, vires means powers — specifically the powers granted to, or withheld from, a legal actor such as a corporation, public body, legislature, or court. The term appears almost exclusively as the second element of compound Latin phrases: ultra vires (beyond the powers) and intra vires (within the powers). Taken alone, vires simply names the scope of authority against which an act is measured. Two distinct contexts give vires its practical meaning: 1. Corporate law: The powers a corporation possesses by virtue of its charter, articles of incorporation, or enabling statute. An act is intra vires if it falls within that grant; ultra vires if it exceeds it. 2. Public and administrative law: The jurisdiction or legal authority of a court, legislature, agency, or other governmental body. A statute or administrative decision challenged as ultra vires is one alleged to exceed the constitutional or statutory authority of the body that enacted or issued it.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Vires carries its Latin sense — plural of vis (force or power) — but is also defined in modern usage as "the state of being either ultra vires or intra vires; the extent of a court's, legislature's, or other government entity's jurisdiction to do something." Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 does not carry a standalone entry for vires, reflecting its status as a term that traveled directly from Latin legal usage into English legal writing without meaningful passage through ordinary speech. The gap worth noting: In everyday English, vires is not a free-standing word. It appears in legal research almost entirely as part of the paired phrases ultra vires and intra vires. Researchers encountering the bare term vires in a historical document should treat it as shorthand for the power-scope question and locate the qualifying prefix — ultra or intra — to understand what the author is actually asserting.
Common Confusion
VIRES vs. VIS: Vis (singular) means force or power in a more immediate, physical, or coercive sense and appears in phrases like vis major (superior force, an early form of force majeure) and vis et metus (force and fear, relevant in duress doctrine). Vires (plural) carries the institutional sense — granted powers, corporate capacities, jurisdictional limits. Historical sources sometimes use the words interchangeably in loose translation; readers of older treatises should note the distinction. VIRES alone vs. ULTRA VIRES: In modern legal writing, ultra vires is the operative term. Vires standing alone appears mainly in headnotes, dictionary cross-references, and older Latin maxims. A researcher who encounters vires in an index or table of contents is being directed to the ultra vires doctrine, not to a separate body of law.
Why It Matters in Research
Vires functions as a gateway term in the Law Mind corpus. It is rarely the target of research itself but appears as an orienting marker — in indexes, cross-references, and maxims — pointing toward the substantive ultra vires and intra vires doctrines that carry the legal weight. Several research traps deserve attention: Historical corporate law materials use vires heavily in the context of charitable, banking, and railroad corporations, where charter limitations were frequently litigated. The meaning of "powers granted" shifted significantly as states moved from special charters to general incorporation statutes in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. An act that would have been ultra vires under a narrow special charter may have been clearly intra vires under a general statute permitting "all acts necessary and convenient" to the corporate purpose. Date the source before relying on it. In public law materials — particularly English and Commonwealth sources that appear in historical American legal writing — ultra vires operates as a constitutional and administrative law concept, not merely a corporate one. American researchers working in administrative law should be alert to this dual valence. The term appears in early federal agency cases in ways that track the public law usage more than the corporate law usage. The maxim vires acquirit eundo (it gains strength by going, or by continuance) appears in Black's and in early American equity decisions. It describes how a legal right or obligation may grow stronger through exercise or passage of time. This maxim is substantively unrelated to the corporate powers doctrine but shares the same headword in historical indexes, creating a false association. Researchers should not conflate the two. Anderson's terse cross-reference — "corporate powers; see ultra vires" — reflects how mid-period legal dictionaries treated vires as purely derivative. Researchers relying on those sources will find nothing useful under this headword and must follow the cross-reference.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources agree that vires means powers or forces in the plural and that its legal significance flows entirely from the compound phrases it anchors. Black's first and second editions are consistent on this point. Anderson limits his entry to the corporate context, which accurately reflects the dominant American usage by the time of his writing but understates the term's presence in public law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary does not carry a standalone entry for vires as a definitional matter; the term appears in Bouvier only embedded in the ultra vires and intra vires treatments, and in passages discussing fiduciary duties of corporate directors. This is editorially revealing: by Bouvier's period, vires without its prefix had ceased to carry independent analytical content. None of the historical dictionaries addresses the administrative law dimension of the vires question with any depth, which is a significant gap for researchers working in early federal regulatory history. That body of doctrine developed largely through judicial elaboration rather than treatise systematization, and the dictionaries do not capture it well.
Jurisdictional Note
In American corporate law, the practical significance of the ultra vires doctrine contracted sharply after most states adopted statutes — modeled on the Model Business Corporation Act — providing that corporate acts are not void or voidable solely because they are ultra vires. English and Commonwealth jurisdictions retained a more robust version of the doctrine longer, and historical sources drawing on English equity will reflect that difference. In administrative and constitutional law, the vires question remains live in all jurisdictions.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Corporate Formation — Corporate Purpose, Powers, and Ultra Vires Doctrine (Law Mind Business Organizations & Corporate Law Encyclopedia)
Related Terms
Ultra vires — Intra vires — Corporate powers — Charter — Enabling statute — Jurisdiction — Vis — Vis major — Force majeure — Administrative authority — Capacity — Corporate capacity — Void act — Voidable act
VIRESmain
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
Lat. (The plural of “vis.") Pow- ing away a thing from another. Calvin. ers; forces; capabilities; natural powers; powers granted or limited. See ULTRA
VIRESmain
Black's Law Dictionary • 1891
Vires acquirit eundo. It gains strength by continuan e. 1 Johns. Ch. 231, 237.
VIRESmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Their acts are not voidable for mere errors of judgment; 43 Fed. Rep. 483; 18 Colo. 534; even though absurd, if honest; 71 Pa. 11; 86 Ky. 330. While directors are not strictly trustees, yet they occupy a fiduciary position; 21 Wall. 616; 59 Me. 277; 48 Cal. 898; 54 N. Y. 314; 2 Black 715: 71 Pa. 11; 5 Sawy. 408; 8 Baxt. 108; 1 Edw. Ch. 513; 9 Bush 468; s. c. Zinn, Cas. on Trusts 466, and 4 Am. Corp. Cas. 404; 14 Mich. 477; 8 Kan. 466; 24 N. J. Eq. 463; 80 W. Va. 443; Moraw. Priv. Corp. 516; and by some very leading authorities they are termed trustees; Wal- worth, Ch., in 3 Paige 222; Hardwicke, Ld. Ch., in 8 Atk. 400. The director of a cor- poration cannot buy the corporate property at a judicial sale; 2 Pa. Dist. R. 629. Direct- ors also occupy a fiduciary relation to cred- itors, for whom they have been said to be quasi trustees, and when the corporation becomes insolvent, they become trustees for the creditors and stockholders; 1 Holmes 433; 53 Cal. 306; 87 Tex. 660. When directors of an insolvent corporation con- fessed a judgment against it in favor of one of themselves to give him an advan- tage by priority of lien over another creditor, about to obtain judgment, the preference was not permitted and the two judgments were placed upon the same footing; 9 Fed. Rep. 532. See Thomp. Liab. of Dir. 897; 18 Ohio St. 169. Directors are held personally responsible for acts of misfeasance or gross negligence, or for fraud and breach of trust; L. R. 5 H. L. 480; 50 Vt. 477; 71 Pa. 11; 68 Law T. 380; 8 Fed. Rep. 817; 17 Cent. L. J. (N. J. Ch.) 433. An action to en- force this responsibility must be brought on behalf of all the stockholders, and not by a single one; 83 Pa. 19; and cannot be brought by a creditor; 8 W. Va. 530. Di- rectors are not liable for the fraud of agents employed by them; 26 W. R. 147; Thomp. Liab. of Dir. 855. It is their duty to use their best efforts to promote the interests of the stockholders, and they cannot acquire any adverse in- terests; 4 Dill. 330; 53 Cal. 466; 8. c. 81 Am. Rep. 62; 59 Me. 277; 21 Kan. 365. A director may become a creditor of a cor- poration, where his action is not tainted with fraud or other improper act; 37 Fed. Rep. 894. It is said to be the rule that con- tracts made by a director with his company are voidable; L. R. 6 H. L. 189; 4 Dill. 330; 79 Pa. 168; 36 Mich. 263; 91 U. S. 587; 44 Cal. 106. In many instances the courts have held them absolutely void. In a leading English case in the house of lords the view was taken that the directors were agents of the corporation and could not be permitted to enter into engagements or have any per- sonal interest which might possibly conflict with the interests of the corporation, and that no question could be raised as to the fairness or unfairness of such a contract; 1 McQ. H. L. (Sc.) 461; and in several Ameri- can cases taking this view it is considered that directors were subject to the rule ap- plying to all persons standing in relations of trust and involving duties inconsistent with their dealing with the trust property as their own; 22 N. Y. 327; 36 Ind. 60; 64 Wis. 639. A recent high authority says, "there is no sound principle of law or equity which prohibits" such contracts, if entered into in good faith, and where there is a quorum of directors on the other side of the contract present, so that the adoption of the measure does not depend on the vote of the interested director, and even in the latter case the contract is good at law. Because, however, he is on both sides of it equity will closely scrutinize it and set it aside if it violates the good faith which the circum- stances require; 3 Thomp. Corp. § 4059; but in many cases contracts of a corporation with directors, fairly made, have been up- held; 43 Fed. Rep. 488; 51 id. 83; 113 U. Š. 322; 134 id. 688; 80 N. Y. 527; 43 Mich. 105; 47 Conn. 47. The true rule to be ascertain- ed from the cases is probably, that as to such contract there is a presumption of invalidity which casts upon the party claiming under such contracts the burden of showing that no undue advantage was taken or resulted from the relation, and the evidence must clearly show such fairness and good faith; 134 Ν. Υ. 240; 122 id. 177; 125 id. 268; 103 U. S. 651; 146 id. 536; 80 N. J. Eq. 702. Accordingly, the more reasonable view is that first stated, and it is supported by the weight of American authority; 8 Thomp. Corp. § 4061; but courts holding the extreme view that such contracts are void will not enforce the fairest contract if the corpora- tion exercises the option to set it aside; id. Some courts take the view that in all cases of such contracts their nature and terms and the circumstances under which they were made must be taken into consideration, and that after having been subjected to careful scrutiny they will be enforced if for the benefit of the corpora- tion; 56 Ia. 178; 41 Fed. Rep. 736; 123 Pa. 508; 19 Vt. 187. A corporation acting in good faith and with the sole objec
viresnoun
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
plural of vire | plural of vis | the state of being either ultra vires or intra vires; the extent of a court's, legislature's, or other government entity's jurisdiction to do something.
viresverb
Wiktionary (English) • 2026
Wiktionary contributorsCC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.
third-person singular simple present indicative of vire

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In