Bank of Midland v. Harris
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Don, Judge; reversed in part, 1. The- alleged articles of incorporation in the clerk’s office were inadmissible.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Don, Judge; reversed in part, 1. The- alleged articles of incorporation in the clerk’s office were inadmissible. Acts 1905, p. 319; Kirby’s Dig., § 845. The stockholders did not become a corporation until after the articles were filed as prescribed by law. 35 Ark. 144; Ib. 365. The proper way to prove the corporate existence is by the certificate of the Secretary of State. 35 Ark. 144; Ib. 365; 132 Fed. 41; 62 Pac. 386; 70 N. W. 302; 55 Mo. 310; 55 Barb. 45; 46 Ind. 142, etc. 2. The court erred in admitting the minutes of the…
1Opinion
on rehearing.
McCulloch, C. J.
Counsel for appellants, Dyke Bros., call -our attention to the fact that we failed to decide the question raised by them that the proof was incomplete to establish the corporate existence of the Bank of Midland, and it is insisted, for that reason, that the judgment is not supported .by sufficient evidence. The opinion of the court is silent on that question and a decision on the petition for rehearing calls for a discussion of that subject.
Dyke Bros, denied the corporate existence of the Bank of Midland, and they were the only ones of the defendants who raised…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Garnett v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Forbes v. WhittemoreSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896