Heinig v. Adams & Westlake Manufacturing Co.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 45-EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. As to the existence of the corporation known as the Heinig Manufacturing Company, there can be no question.
Read the full summary
Case 45-EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. As to the existence of the corporation known as the Heinig Manufacturing Company, there can be no question. The burden of proof is upon the appellees to show that it is not. 2.1 Section 17, chapter 56, General Statutes, entitled “Incorporated Com-I panics,” provides “that persons acting as a corporation under the I provisions of this act shall he presumed to be legally organized 1 until the contrary is shown.” 1. The general rule is, that the existence of a corporation may be proved by producing its charter, and showing acts of user…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hargis
Mrs. Amelia Heinig, the wife of G. E. Heinig, claims that the Heinig Manufacturing Company existed prior to December, 1880, and that it owed her between six and seven thousand dollars; that a great part of the property on which appellees’ executions were levied belonged to that corporation, and is subject, first and exclusively, to the payment of her claims. The appellees denied the existence of such a corporation, and cast the burden upon her to show its legal existence.
A copy of what purported to be the articles of such a corporation was filed by her, but she failed to show that a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Stutz v. HandleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Tennessee · 1890
- Drake v. HerndonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- J. M. Robinson & Co. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1884