Adelaide E. Buck v. Troy Aqueduct Co.
Supreme Court of Vermont
Generar Assumpsit, with specification relying on- a •promissory note. Pleas, the general issue with notice denying the execution of said note; payment, and Statute of Limitations. Pleard on the report of a referee and exceptions thereto', at the September Term, 1902, Orleans County, Has■elton, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. Said note was payable to “Jesse Bucle estate, or bearer,” ■and was signed “Troy Aqueduct Company,” and not otherwise.
Read the full summary
Generar Assumpsit, with specification relying on- a •promissory note. Pleas, the general issue with notice denying the execution of said note; payment, and Statute of Limitations. Pleard on the report of a referee and exceptions thereto', at the September Term, 1902, Orleans County, Has■elton, J., presiding. Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted. Said note was payable to “Jesse Bucle estate, or bearer,” ■and was signed “Troy Aqueduct Company,” and not otherwise. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtStafford, J.
The defendant is sued as a corporation. In the earlier stages of the case some question seems to have been made in regard to its legal existence, but that is not urged in this court, and upon the findings, the defendant is to be treated as having been organized under the statute creating it, No. 101, Acts 1861. Its by-laws provided that it ■should have five directors, a secretary, treasurer, collector .and superintendent, — all to- be elected annually. Every year from 1864 to 1881, it chose a full board, but from 1882 to 1892, it chose only three, although no change appears to bave been made…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State ex rel. Page v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1876
- Bank of Middlebury v. Rutland & Washington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1858
- Limerick National Bank v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Foot & Hodges v. Rutland & Whitehall RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Waite v. Windham County Mining Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1865
3Cited by7 opinions
- Elliott v. LindquistSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- In Re Ivey & Ellington, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1945
- Clark v. WildSupreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Keating v. KCK CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1964
- Silver v. Commonwealth Trust Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.