Montgomery v. Forbes
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, to recover the price of goods sold and delivered. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., the only question was whether the goods were sold to a corporation called the Forbes Woolen Mills, or to the defendant as doing business under that name.
Read the full summary
Contract, to recover the price of goods sold and delivered. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., the only question was whether the goods were sold to a corporation called the Forbes Woolen Mills, or to the defendant as doing business under that name. The plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that subsequently to May, 1885, they received an order for the goods by a letter, written upon paper with the printed heading, “ Incorporated 1885. Forbes Woolen Mills. George E. Forbes, Treasurer,” and signed, “ Forbes Woolen Mills by Geo. E. Forbes, Treasurer ”; that they…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The apparent corporation was not a corporation. The statute of New Hampshire requires five associates, and the articles of agreement must be recorded in the town in which the principal business is to be carried on, and the place in which the business is to be carried on must be distinctly stated in the articles; otherwise there is no corporation. The defendant’s pretended associates were associates only in name; he alone was interested in the enterprise. The articles of agreement were recorded in Nashua, and stated that the business was to be carried on there; but it was not in fact carried…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Marsch v. Southern New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Demarest v. . FlackNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- C. H. Batchelder & Co. v. BatchelderMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Baker v. Bates-Street Shirt Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1925
- American Mutual Liability Insurance v. CondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.