Benbow v. . Cook
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
If the corporation never had any lawful existence, as the defendant contends, of course it did not authorize the execution of a mortgage some months after it is claimed that it was duly organized. The statute, The Code, sec. 677, provides that "Any number of persons, not less than three, who may be desirous of engaging in any business not unlawful, except building railroads or banking or insurance, at any place within the State, may, if it please them, become(329) incorporated in the manner following," etc. It seems that three persons, Amos Ragan, O. S. Causey and R. E. Causey, as the sole…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Handley v. StutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Nelson v. HubbardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Duke v. . MarkhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Powell Bros. v. McMullan Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Campbell v. Argenta Gold & Silver Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tuttle v. Junior Building Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Garnett v. State Ex Rel. Bank CommissionerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
- Anderson v. BurgessOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Bernard v. LeaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1913
- Britt v. . HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.