Wyoming Construction & Development Co. v. Buffalo Lumber Co.
Wyoming Supreme Court
Error to District Court of Sheridan County; HoN. V. J. Tidball, Judge. Action by the Wyoming Construction and Development Company against the Buffalo Lumber Company to recover upon an alleged written contract of subscription for bonds of plaintiff. The judgment was for defendant and plaintiff brings error. The material facts are stated in the opinion. Plaintiff was authorized to transact business in Wyoming.
Read the full summary
Error to District Court of Sheridan County; HoN. V. J. Tidball, Judge. Action by the Wyoming Construction and Development Company against the Buffalo Lumber Company to recover upon an alleged written contract of subscription for bonds of plaintiff. The judgment was for defendant and plaintiff brings error. The material facts are stated in the opinion. Plaintiff was authorized to transact business in Wyoming. The burden of proof- was on defendant to prove its second defense that plaintiff had not complied with the corporation laws of Wyoming. (White River L. Co. v. S. W. Imp.. Asso., 55 Ark.…
1Opinion of the Court
Beard, Justice.
The plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, brought' action against defendant in error, as defendant, to recover upon an alleged written contract of subscription for bonds of plaintiff. Upon the trial the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendant, and judgment was entered on the verdict, and plaintiff brings error.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of South Dakota, and the defendant a Wyoming corporation. The contract sued upon is signed: “Buffalo Dumber Co. by H. G. Campbell.” In its petition plantiff alleged its…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Glenn v. SumnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Buhne v. CorbettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Murphy v. Russell & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Rudd v. DeweySupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Morris v. HendersonMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cottier v. SullivanWyoming Supreme Court · 1934
- Spencer v. PringleWyoming Supreme Court · 1937
- Wyoming Inv. Co. v. Wax Et Ux.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1933
- Dewitt v. Sandy Market, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1941
- Powe v. A.C.L.R. R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1930