Schloss & Kahn v. Montgomery Trade Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This action was brought against Schloss & Kahn as partners, by the “Montgomery Trade Company, a corporation,” as described in tbe complaint, or, as described in tbe summons, “a corporation organized under tbe laws of Alabama;” and was commenced on tbe 15th September, 1888. Tbe complaint contained tbe common count on an account stated, and a special count wbicb claimed $300, “due on account of…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. Thos. M. Arrington. This action was brought against Schloss & Kahn as partners, by the “Montgomery Trade Company, a corporation,” as described in tbe complaint, or, as described in tbe summons, “a corporation organized under tbe laws of Alabama;” and was commenced on tbe 15th September, 1888. Tbe complaint contained tbe common count on an account stated, and a special count wbicb claimed $300, “due on account of tbe subscription by defendants, in wfiting, to tbe capital stock of plaintiff, with interest thereon from Jannary 9th,…
1Opinion of the Court
SOMERVILLE, J. —
It is true, that where one contracts with an alleged corporation as such, and in such manner as to recognize its corporate existence de jure or de facto, he will often be estopped to deny the fact thus admitted, whether the denial go to the question of an originally legally organized body, or to that of a cessation of corporate existence. These are cases where the action is brought against one who contracts with the plaintiff in its real or asserted corporate capacity.
But this principle has no reference to cases where a subscription for stock is made by one in anticipation of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fredenburg v. Lyon Lake M. E. ChurchMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Knox v. Childersburg Land Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Kansas City Hotel Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Somerset & Kennebec Railroad v. CushingSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1858
3Cited by6 opinions
- Snider's Sons' Co. v. TroySupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Ex Parte SeymoreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1956
- Masonic Temple Ass'n v. ChannellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Greenbrier Industrial Exposition v. SquiresWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Western Investment Co. v. DavisCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.