Legal Opinion

Elizabethport Manufacturing Co. v. Campbell

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1861PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Motion for judgment on answer and demurrer. This action was commenced to recover the sum of $2,500, 'the amount of five promissory notes, made by the defendants The amended complaint averred that the plaintiffs were a corporation, duly incorporated by the laws of the State of Hew Jersey (with power to sue and be sued), and did business in the State of Hew York, and set out the several notes as distinct causes of action, according to their legal effect.

Read the full summary

Motion for judgment on answer and demurrer. This action was commenced to recover the sum of $2,500, 'the amount of five promissory notes, made by the defendants The amended complaint averred that the plaintiffs were a corporation, duly incorporated by the laws of the State of Hew Jersey (with power to sue and be sued), and did business in the State of Hew York, and set out the several notes as distinct causes of action, according to their legal effect. To the - first cause of action the defendant demurred, on the ground that it appeared from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff had…

1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, J.

—1. The demurrer is frivolous.

2. The act of incorporation is not properly attested, and cannot be read.

“The acts of the Legislature of the several States shall be authenticated by having the seal of their respective States affixed thereto.” (2 Laws of U. S., 102, § 1 ; Cow. & Hills' Notes, note 776.)

The affidavits of plaintiffs do, however, prove the existence of the corporation, and that it is engaged in business. The de*92fendants were called upon to show why the plaintiffs were not a corporation.

The plaintiffs’ affidavits, not being contradicted, satisfactorily prove that every denial…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. The People v. . McCumberNew York Court of Appeals · 1858

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Penniman v. Fuller & Warren Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
  2. Varnum v. TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Holmes v. SlaterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API