Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Attorney General v. President of the Bank of Pontiac

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1864PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Information in the nature of a quo warranto. The Attorney General filed his information against the defendants, charging them, with usurping banking franchises.

Read the full summary

Information in the nature of a quo warranto. The Attorney General filed his information against the defendants, charging them, with usurping banking franchises. The defendants filed their plea .thereto, claiming to be exercising such franchises by virtue of a charter granted by the territorial council of the territory of Michigan, on March 26th, 1835, under which they organized April 23d, 1835. To this plea the Attorney General interposed three replications, the second and third of which only were considered by the Court. They are as follows: “And the said Attorney General further saith, that…

1Opinion of the Court

Ciiristiancy J.:

By an act of the Legislature, of April 5th, 1839 — Laws of 1839, p. 104, § 49 (which, with slight alterations of phraseology, was incorporated in- the Revised Statutes of 1846, Chap. 117, § 8.; Comp. L. Ch. 155,) — it was expressly provided that, “whenever any incorporated company shall have remained insolvent, or shall have neglected or refused to pay its notes or other evidences of debt, or shall have *536suspended the proper and legitimate business of such corporation, for one whole year; it shall, in either case, be deemed to have surrendered its rights, privileges and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ward v. Sea InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
  2. People v. Fishkill & Beekman Plank Road Co.New York Supreme Court · 1857
  3. People v. PresidentNew York Supreme Court · 1825

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex inf. Jones v. Light & Development Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  2. Attorney General v. Superior & St. Croix RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  3. State v. DilbeckCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1927
  4. Abercrombie v. United Light & Power Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1934
  5. Heap v. Heap Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1893

1 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