Legal Opinion

Hening & Hagedorn v. Glanton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided August 3, 1921No. 12145PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Complaint; from Troup superior court — Judge Terrell. December 10, 1920.

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

1. Under the general rule that a corporation as an artificial person must dwell in the state of its creation, and has no legal existence outside of the boundaries of the sovereignty by which it was created (Union Branch R. Co. v. East Tennessee R. Co., 14 Ga. 327, 328 (9), 341; Port Royal R. Co. v. Hammond, 58 Ga. 523, 526), its incorporators or stockholders as the corporate entity cannot hold meetings in another State for the performance of strictly corporate functions such as accepting the charter and organizing the corporation. Duke v. Taylor, 37 Fla. 64 (19 So. 172, 31 L. R. A. 484; 53…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Teasley v. BradleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  2. Akers v. Kirke & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1893
  3. Duke v. TaylorSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
  4. Union Branch Rail Road v. East Tennessee & Georgia R. R.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1853
  5. Port Royal Railroad v. HammondSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Williams v. Atlanta National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. Campbell v. Mutual Service Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  3. PACIFIC NATIONAL FIRE &C. CO. v. BeaversCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
  4. Swanson v. HodgesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
  5. Flannagan v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API