Phenix Bank of New-York v. Curtis
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as the indorser of a promissory note, made by William Clark, for 828 dollars, 69 cents, dated April, 19th, 1839, and payable to the defendant, or order, at the Windham County Bank, 30 days after date. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiffs were a body incorporated by the laws of the state of New-York, by the name of “ The Phenix Bank of the City of New-York,” and made a proferí of their charter.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as the indorser of a promissory note, made by William Clark, for 828 dollars, 69 cents, dated April, 19th, 1839, and payable to the defendant, or order, at the Windham County Bank, 30 days after date. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiffs were a body incorporated by the laws of the state of New-York, by the name of “ The Phenix Bank of the City of New-York,” and made a proferí of their charter. The defendant pleaded the general issue ; on which the cause was tried, at Brooklyn, October term, 1840, before Church, J. The plaintiffs…
1Opinion of the Court
WxnniAMs, Ch. J.
The plaintiff claims, that under the general issue, the defendant could not take the objection, that the existence of the plaintiffs as a corporation, was not proved; and if it could be, it was here taken too late in the trial.
As to the last point. If the plaintiffs are bound to prove their corporate powers, it is not easy to see why the defendant might not, at any time in the course of the trial, shew to the court and jury, that they had failed to do this. Why may he not wait and see whether the plaintiffs have produced all the proof necessary to make out their case, and if…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Welland Canal Co. v. HathawayNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Kendall v. StokesSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of PawletSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Betts v. StarrSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase v. CallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1805
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Heaston v. Cincinnati & Fort Wayne RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
- West Winsted Savings Bank & Building Ass'n v. FordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
- Litchfield Bank v. ChurchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- McIntire v. PrestonIllinois Supreme Court · 1848
- Beville v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.