Reuben Town v. President of the Bank of River Raisin
Michigan Supreme Court
Appeal from Chancery. The act of the legislative council of the late territory of Michigan, to incorporate “ The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of River Raisin,” took effect on the 29th of June, 1832, and conferred upon the persons who should become stockholders of the bank, corporate capaciiy, with the usual powers incident to banking incorporations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chancery. The act of the legislative council of the late territory of Michigan, to incorporate “ The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of River Raisin,” took effect on the 29th of June, 1832, and conferred upon the persons who should become stockholders of the bank, corporate capaciiy, with the usual powers incident to banking incorporations. Soon afterwards, the bank was organized under the provisions of this charter, and commenced doing ordinary banking business, which it continued to do, with the exception of suspensions and and interruptions which occurred between…
1Opinion of the CourtWhipple, J.
On the part of the complainant, it is contended, that the assignment is void, on general principles, and irrespective of the statutes of this state.
The first reason offered in support of this proposition is, that the assignment is in effect a surrender of the franchises of the corporation, without the concurrence of the state. No rule is better settled than that a corporation may be dissolved, by the surrender of its franchise of being a corporation into the hands of the government: if accepted by the government, the dissolution becomes effectual. The modes in which a surrender is to be made,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Haxton v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Dana v. Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Pope v. BrandonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1830
- People v. PresidentNew York Supreme Court · 1826
3Cited by16 opinions
- Rayner v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1879
- O'Bear Jewelry Co. v. Volfer & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Bank of Montreal v. J. E. Potts Salt & Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Birdsall v. PhillipsNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Kendall v. BishopMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.