Langworthy v. Garding
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover $204.75. From an order, Searle, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appealed. In a suit brought by a foreign corporation it is not necessary for the plaintiff either to allege or to prove a compliance with the law which permits such foreign corporation to do business within the state. Noncompliance is a matter of defense.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Stearns county to recover $204.75. From an order, Searle, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appealed. In a suit brought by a foreign corporation it is not necessary for the plaintiff either to allege or to prove a compliance with the law which permits such foreign corporation to do business within the state. Noncompliance is a matter of defense. Williams v. Cheney, 3 Gray, 215; American v. Cutler, 36.Mich. 261; Sprague v. Cutler, 106 Ind. 242; Acme v. Rockford, 10 S. D. 203; Horan v. Weiler, 41 Pa. St. 470; Hartwell…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
This is an action brought by the appellant, as receiver of the Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Chicago, to recover an assessment made by a decree of the circuit court of Cook county, Illinois, in the case in which the appellant was appointed receiver, against the respondent, upon his premium note of date July 26, 1887, and membership liability as a member and policy holder in said insurance company.
The answer admitted the execution and delivery of the note, and also the policy set out in the complaint, but averred that the note was executed and delivered, and the policy accepted, only by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hawkins v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Great Western Telegraph Co. v. PurdySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Cassaday v. American Ins.Indiana Supreme Court · 1880
- Great Western Telegraph Co. v. GrayIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
- Eichman v. HerskerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Straw & Ellsworth Manufacturing Co. v. L. D. Kilbourne Boot & Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Pink v. A. A. A. Highway Express Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. RamloseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Friedenwald Co. v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Abhau v.GrassieIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.