East River Bank v. Judah
New York Court of Common Pleas
The plaintiffs being a banking institution, organized under the general act, brought an action in the name designated in the articles of association. The defendants demurred to the complaint, and among other causes of demurrer alleged that the action should have been in the name of the president, as provided by statute, and that the complaint did not show a cause of action.
1Opinion of the Court
Ingraham, First Judge.
The plaintiffs, being an association under the general banking act, bring their action in the name of the East River Bank, and not of their president.
To this complaint the defendant, Judah, demurs.
The grounds of demurrer are all embraced in one, viz., that the action should have been in the name of the president-instead of the name used.
The Act of 1838, p. 250, provides that all suits and proceedings may be brought in the name of the president thereof, and no other provision has been subsequently made altering this mode of bringing actions.
It is argued, on behalf of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Warner & Ray v. BeersCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1840
- Delafield v. KinneyNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by4 opinions
- Leonardsville Bank v. . WillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Bank of Havana v. WickhamNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Leonardsville Bank v. WillardNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Leonardsville Bank v. WillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1862