Legal Opinion

Empire Manufacturing Co. v. Stuart

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1881PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Kent. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMarston, C. J.

The plaintiff in error was sued upon a promissory note given by it in its corporate name. The principal defence relied upon was that the company, by mistake, was not, at the time of giving the note, properly organized under any law of this State; that afterwards, upon ascertaining this fact, the corporation was dissolved and a new corporation formed under a different name. This corporation was one that could have been legally organized under laws existing at the time of its formation. The business for which it was organized, that of manufacturing, was one authorized, and having attempted to…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Merchants & Manufacturers' Bank v. StoneMichigan Supreme Court · 1878

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Robertson v. LevyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1964
  2. Miller v. Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Dobson v. Maytag Sales Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Charvat v. GildemeisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Gardner v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API