Martin v. Gregory
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from iClay Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The suit having been brought in the name of corporations, which had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit, the complaint could not be amended by the substitution of other parties. 34 Ark. 141; 41 Id. 167; 46 Id. 253; 47 Id. 548. A corporation and its directors and stockholders are different entities. 4 Ark. 304. Incorporating a partnership does not transfer its property, there must be a conveyance…
Read the full summary
Appeal from iClay Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The suit having been brought in the name of corporations, which had no interest in the subject-matter of the suit, the complaint could not be amended by the substitution of other parties. 34 Ark. 141; 41 Id. 167; 46 Id. 253; 47 Id. 548. A corporation and its directors and stockholders are different entities. 4 Ark. 304. Incorporating a partnership does not transfer its property, there must be a conveyance to the artificial entity. 1 Thomps. on Corp., § 1074. 2. The suits are barred-by limitation. 46 Ark. 251; 37 Ala. 169;…
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
On June 18,■ 1901, H. T. Simon, Gregory & Company-and the Shafer-Swarts Shoe Company filed their complaint against the Martin brothers and their wives, in which they sued upon judgments rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in the United States Circuit Court on the 17th of December, 1892, and prayed that certain conveyances of lands which- stood in the names of the wives of the said Martin brothers be set aside and said lands subjected to the payment of said judgments.
The case progressed until November 11, 1903, when an amended complaint was filed by the surviving partners of the firm of H. T.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- James v. MallorySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Baldwin v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
3Cited by2 opinions
- Green v. WhitneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
- Tellier v. DarraghSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952