Cochran v. Arnold
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
4. Until the franchises of such corporation have been adjudged by proceedings by the Commonwealth not to exist, it is a corporation de facto at least.
Read the full summary
4. Until the franchises of such corporation have been adjudged by proceedings by the Commonwealth not to exist, it is a corporation de facto at least. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: To May Term 1868, No. 48. This was an action of assumpsit, to April Term 1860, by J. Harvey Cochran and Winfield S. Russell, trading as Cochran & Russell, against Gideon W. Arnold, Thomas Baumgardner, David Longenecker and eighty-four others, “ surviving partners of the firm lately doing business under the name of ‘ Conestoga Steam-Mills.’ ” A number of the defendants, including…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, July 2d 1868, by
Strong, J.
The Act of Assembly pf March 21st 1806, relative to amendments, is imperative in its directions. It declares that a plaintiff shall be permitted to amend his declaration or statement in the cases for which it makes provision. But the language of the later acts is different. The Act of April 16th 1846 confers upon courts power to permit amendments of the record, when it shall appear to them by any sufficient evidence that a mistake has been made in the Christian or surname of a party. So the Act of May 4th 1852, empowers the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Willis v. DunOhio Supreme Court · 1832
3Cited by21 opinions
- Harrill v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Monongahela Bridge Co. v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
- Pinkerton v. Pennsylvania Traction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Wolff v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- In re Johnstown, Indiana & Westmoreland Turnpike Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.