Penn Match Co. v. Hapgood
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, in two counts. The first count was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that, before the matters hereinafter alleged between it and the defendants occurred, the Penn Match Company, Limited, existed according to the laws of Pennsylvania, in the city of Philadelphia, being a company in the nature of a corporation, with its capital divided into shares, with no personal liability on part of its stockholders further than the amount of the capital stock owned by each,…
Read the full summary
Contract, in two counts. The first count was as follows: “ And the plaintiff says that, before the matters hereinafter alleged between it and the defendants occurred, the Penn Match Company, Limited, existed according to the laws of Pennsylvania, in the city of Philadelphia, being a company in the nature of a corporation, with its capital divided into shares, with no personal liability on part of its stockholders further than the amount of the capital stock owned by each, and with the right and power to contract and do business in its associate name, and to bring and defend suits in the same…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Albeit, J.
The plaintiff was not in existence when the writings were made, and cannot maintain the action, unless it became a party to the contracts after its incorporation. There is no ground for the contention of the plaintiff that the declaration shows the existence of the corporation, though unorganized, sufficient to be a party to a contract, as in Vermont Central Railroad v. Clayes, 21 Vt. 30. All that is alleged is the verbal, conditional agreement of certain individuals to form a corporation under general laws.
The power of a corporation to make contracts can be exercised in accepting and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dayton, Watervleit Valley & Xenia Turnpike Co. v. CoyOhio Supreme Court · 1861
- Vermont Central Rail Road v. ClayesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
3Cited by18 opinions
- Boatright v. Steinite Radio Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
- Abbott v. HapgoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Mansfield v. LangMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Scadden Flat Gold Mining Co. v. ScaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- North Anson Lumber Co. v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.