Russell v. Berry
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to "Wayne. (Speed, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. Provisions in articles of association are invalid if not warranted by tbe statute under which the company is organized : Stewart v. Father Matthew Society 41 Mich. 67 ; see Upton v. Tribil-■cock 91 IT. S. 45; Wither v. Stockholders 18 N. B. E. 179 ; Greenwood’s case 3 De G.,. M. & G. 459.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.
The circuit court gave judgment in favor ■of the plaintiff- on special findings, and the defendant alleges error.
The insurance company mentioned in the title of the ■cause was established in 1880, under the general law of 1873 as modified in 1877, the defendant being one of the •original corporators. Pub. Acts 1873, p. 107, and amending Acts Nos. 66 and 142 of 1877. In December, 1880, the defendant took out three policies, for three years each, and executed three several “ undertakings ” to pay future .assessments. The amounts specified in these “undertakings ” and the reductions by payments…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Wardle v. TownsendMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Patrons' Mutual Fire Insurance v. BrinkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
- Peake v. YuleMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- West v. PinkstonUtah Supreme Court · 1914
- Macklem v. BaconMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.