Larned v. Beal
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for money had and received, against “copartners doing business in the name of The Mendocino Flume and Mining Company.” Facts found by a referee. The defendants are members of a company which Mann and others undertook to organize as a corporation of that name under Gen. Laws, e. 152, and which is a corporation defacto.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for money had and received, against “copartners doing business in the name of The Mendocino Flume and Mining Company.” Facts found by a referee. The defendants are members of a company which Mann and others undertook to organize as a corporation of that name under Gen. Laws, e. 152, and which is a corporation defacto. The company hired money of the plaintiff, both parties believing the borrower to be a corporation de jure, and understanding that the money was loaned to the company in its corporate capacity.
1Opinion of the CourtDoe, C. J.
It is not material in this case whether the corporation de facto was a corporation de jure or not. A want of regularity in its organization would not affect the validity of its contract with the plaintiff, and would not give him, against its members, as unincorporated persons, an action on a contract which he made with them as a corporation. S. F. Bridge v. Fisk, 28 N. H. 171, 178; Ossipee Manf'g Co. v. Canney, 54 N. H. 295, 312, 313; Saunders v. Farmer, 62 N. H. 572; Jewell v. Gilbert, 64 N. H. 13, 18; Case v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 21, 28; Mor. Corp., ss. 744-755.
Judgment for the defendants.
Smith,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Case v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mitchell v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Doty v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- Kenneth v. CompanySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895
- State v. ArataSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880