Consolidated Paper Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Special Findings of Fact. 1. Plaintiff, a Michigan corporation, was organized under the laws of that state in May, 1921, by the consolidation of the Boeh-me & Rauch Company and the Monroe Binder Board Company, both Michigan corporations, and succeeded to the assets and liabilities of the corporations mentioned under the laws of Michigan and the terms of the two written agreements executed by the consolidating corporations. 2. The said consolidation was effected pursuant to…
Read the full summary
Special Findings of Fact. 1. Plaintiff, a Michigan corporation, was organized under the laws of that state in May, 1921, by the consolidation of the Boeh-me & Rauch Company and the Monroe Binder Board Company, both Michigan corporations, and succeeded to the assets and liabilities of the corporations mentioned under the laws of Michigan and the terms of the two written agreements executed by the consolidating corporations. 2. The said consolidation was effected pursuant to the terms of the two written agreements executed by the consolidating companies February 15 and April 30, 1921,…
1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, J.
Upon the facts in this case with reference to the organization of the plaintiff and the acquisition by it of the assets, through the consolidation of the Boehme & Rauch Company and the Monroe Binder Board Company, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is the proper party to prosecute this suit, and that the maintenance of the suitjby the plaintiff is not prohibited by section 3477 of the Revised Statutes (31 USCA § 203). The facts show that the plaintiff acquired the assets and assumed the liabilities of the Rauch Company and the Binder Board Company, as the result of a consolidation. Although…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Girard Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Seaboard Air Line Railway v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- United States v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
- Kingan & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Novo Trading Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Thompson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Couse v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. And Subsidiaries v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
- John Wanamaker Philadlephia, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp. v. ClelandDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.