Sokoloski v. New South Building & Loan Ass'n
Mississippi Supreme Court
Fbom tbe chancery court of Copiah county. HoN. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. Sokoloski, appellant, was complainant in the court below; the building and loan association was defendant there. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
Fbom tbe chancery court of Copiah county. HoN. H. C. Conn, Chancellor. Sokoloski, appellant, was complainant in the court below; the building and loan association was defendant there. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The contract between Sokoloski and the building and loan association is a Mississippi contract; it was made in this state, payable in fact here, notwithstanding the recitals in the notes, and was secured by mortgage on lands here. 1 Randolph on Commercial Paper, 125; Brown v. Freeland, 34 Miss., 181; Bank v. Auze, 74 Miss., 609. The contract…
1Opinion of the CourtTurbal, J.
The appellee company was organized under the revised statutes of 1870 of the state of Louisiana, in which there is no reference to building associations. The statute authorizes any six persons to subscribe themselves into a corporation, with the ordinary powers of a corporation, and with power “to make by-laws for the proper management and regulation of the affairs of the corporation as may be necessary.” In pursuance of such statutory authority, the subscribers, Jules A. Blane and nine others, on the 10th of May, 1890, formed themselves into a corporation under the name of the New South…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bank of Newport v. CookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Mechanics & Working Men's Mutual Savings Bank v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855
3Cited by3 opinions
- Manship v. New South Building & Loan Ass'nU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Mississippi · 1901
- Shannon v. Georgia State Building & Loan Ass'nMississippi Supreme Court · 1901
- Southern Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. TonyMississippi Supreme Court · 1901