Pacific Bank v. De Ro
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco The defendant appealed. The plaintiff had been incorporated prior to the 18th of April, 1866, under the laws of this State, under the corporate name of tho “Pacific Accumulation Loan Company.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco The defendant appealed. The plaintiff had been incorporated prior to the 18th of April, 1866, under the laws of this State, under the corporate name of tho “Pacific Accumulation Loan Company.” On that day, acting under an Act of the Legislature passed March 31st, 1866, entitled “An Act to authorize the ‘Pacific Accumulation Loan Company’ to change its name,” the plaintiff changed its name to “Pacific Bank.” On the 31st of August, 1865, one Bichard Chenery had made his promissory note payable to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J. :
Three questions have been discussed in argument:
First—Does the plaintiff exist as a corporation under the name of “Pacific Bank?”
Second—Is the defendant in a position to question the corporate existence of the plaintiff?
Third—Do the Bevenue Laws of the United States require a waiver of “ presentation and demand, notice of non-payment and protest for value received,” written upon the back of a promissory note by an indorser, to be stamped ?
The first question involves the power of the Legislature to change the name of a corporation by special statute, it being…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rondell v. FayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Harris v. McGregorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Dannebroge Gold Quartz Mining Co. v. AllmentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by3 opinions
- Long v. Geo. Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- California Cured Fruit Assn. v. StellingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- In re La Société Francaise d'Epargnes Et De Prevoyance MutuelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899