Walker v. Crain
New York Supreme Court
This was an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered against him for costs, upon the report of a referee. The complaint, after alleging that the Bank of Utica was a corporation under the general banking law, and that the plaintiff was its president, stated that the Astorogan Company was incorporated in 1844, under the act for incorporating manufacturing companies, passed in 1811, and that its place of business was at Little Falls, in the county of Herkimer; that it…
Read the full summary
This was an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered against him for costs, upon the report of a referee. The complaint, after alleging that the Bank of Utica was a corporation under the general banking law, and that the plaintiff was its president, stated that the Astorogan Company was incorporated in 1844, under the act for incorporating manufacturing companies, passed in 1811, and that its place of business was at Little Falls, in the county of Herkimer; that it continued to be a corporation until some time in April, 1852, when it was dissolved. It then set forth a liability of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Gridley, J.
Two questions only have been argued to any considerable extent, upon the appeal in this cause. First: Whether the act of April 16,1852, “ to facilitate the dissolution of manufacturing corporations in the county of Herkimer, and to secure the payment of their debts without preferences,”(b) vests in the trustees the debts due to the creditors from stockholders, pursuant to one of the provisions of the act of 1811, relative to manufacturing corporations. Secondly: Whether the first mentioned act be unconstitutional, for the reason that it impairs the obligation of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bullard v. BellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1817
- Edwards v. ClemonsNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Cushmam v. ShepardNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Fisk v. Keeseville Woollen & Cotton Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1844
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mercantile Mutual Insurance v. Hope InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- Cuykendall v. . CorningNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Pfohl v. SimpsonNew York Supreme Court · 1873