Oswego & Syracuse Plank Road Co. v. Rust & Rust
New York Supreme Court
This was a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint is as follows: “The Oswego and Syracuse Plank Road Company plaintiffs, by Ransom H. Tyler, their attorney, complain of Charles Rust and Spencer Rust defendants, for this, to wit: That the plaintiffs now are and have been ever since on or about the 28th day of December 1848, an incorporated company, organized pursuant to the provisions of the act of the legislature, entitled “ an act to provide for the incorporation of…
Read the full summary
This was a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint is as follows: “The Oswego and Syracuse Plank Road Company plaintiffs, by Ransom H. Tyler, their attorney, complain of Charles Rust and Spencer Rust defendants, for this, to wit: That the plaintiffs now are and have been ever since on or about the 28th day of December 1848, an incorporated company, organized pursuant to the provisions of the act of the legislature, entitled “ an act to provide for the incorporation of companies to construct plank roads, and of companies to construct turnpike roads, passed May 7, 1847,” and the acts amending…
1Opinion of the Court
Hubbard, Justice.
The demurrer may be stated in two points. 1. That the complaint does not show that the plaintiffs were duly *392incorporated. And 2d. There is no allegation of considerations for the subscription to stock in the plaintiffs’ road.
The complaint alleges generally the incorporation of the plaintiffs pursuant to the provisions of the act passed May, 7, 1847, This is sufficient for any purpose; but even that, I think, was unnecessary in this action. The defendants by subscribing for stock have admitted the legal existence of the plaintiffs as a corporation, and can not question their…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dutchess Cotton Manufactory v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- People v. ChapmanNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fuller v. TuskaCity of New York Municipal Court · 1891