Hamilton v. Accessory Transit Co.
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff sued in behalf of himself and other stockholders of the Accessory Transit Company who should come in and contribute to the expenses of this" suit, on a complaint, stating that ever since the 18th February, 1856, he has been, and now is, owner of 200 shares of the stock of said company; that previous to said 18th day of February, 1856, the Accessory Transit Company was a corporation created by the government of the state of Nicaragua; that on that day it was…
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff sued in behalf of himself and other stockholders of the Accessory Transit Company who should come in and contribute to the expenses of this" suit, on a complaint, stating that ever since the 18th February, 1856, he has been, and now is, owner of 200 shares of the stock of said company; that previous to said 18th day of February, 1856, the Accessory Transit Company was a corporation created by the government of the state of Nicaragua; that on that day it was dissolved by a decree of that government, duly made and published; that the defendant Vanderbilt, and some other…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, P. J.
The Eivas-Walker administration assuming the legislative and executive authority of Nicaragua, on the 18th of February, 1856, declared the charter of the Accessory Transit Company annulled, and the company dissolved and abolished, except for purposes thereafter mentioned. They then appointed persons called commissioners, to ascertain the amount due from the company to the state, and to hear the agents of the company, in Nicaragua, “with the privilege to defend the interests of their principals.” It was expressly declared that the company was tó be considered in existence for the purpose of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Murray v. VanderbiltNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Black v. Sullivan Timber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1906