Bill v. President, Directors, & Co. of Fourth Great Western Turnpike Road
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, cm certiorari to a justice’s court, The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, brought an action against the defendant below, the plaintiff in error, on a subscription, dated the 29th of March, 1814, by which the subscribers promised to pay to the plaintiffs 20 dollars, for each share of the stock annexed to their respective names, in such property as should be designated at the time of subscribing, with a proviso, that the agreement was…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, cm certiorari to a justice’s court, The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, brought an action against the defendant below, the plaintiff in error, on a subscription, dated the 29th of March, 1814, by which the subscribers promised to pay to the plaintiffs 20 dollars, for each share of the stock annexed to their respective names, in such property as should be designated at the time of subscribing, with a proviso, that the agreement was to be void, if the road should not he completed in the year 1815. The x. defendant below subscribed one share, in neat…
1Per curiam
The instrument subscribed by the defendant is not according to the form prescribed by the act incorporating this company. It must, therefore, be considered as a special contract, and some doubt might be raised with respect to the consideration; but it is unnecessary to notice it, for the plaintiffs did not make out what was necessary to show themselves duly and legally incorporated. It is a well-settled rule, that when a corporation sues on a contract, they must, at the trial, under the general issue, prove that they are a corporation. (8 Johns. Rep. 378.) In the case of the Highland Turnpike…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Grays v. Turnpike Co.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1826
- People ex rel. Hackley v. Croton Aqueduct BoardNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Bank of Port Jervis v. DarlingNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Vicksburg Waterworks & Banking Co. v. WashingtonMississippi Supreme Court · 1844