Chadsey v. McCreery

27 Ill. 253
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 27 Ill. 253 (Chadsey v. McCreery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chadsey v. McCreery, 27 Ill. 253 (Ill. 1862).

Opinion

Breese, J.

This suit was not brought by a corporation, and consequently, no question of misnomer of a corporation can arise. The note is made payable to the appellee, who is described to be the treasurer of the Rock Island and Alton Railroad Company. It is mere description of the person, and if erroneous, cannot vitiate. The fact appears to be, that the true name of the railroad company is Alton and Rock Island. The transposition can be of no manner of consequence in this suit. There can be no doubt what road was meant of which the appellee was the treasurer. In 1 Kyd. 237, it is said, as the name of a corporation frequently consists of several words, the transposition, interpolation, omission or alteration of some of them may make no essential difference of their sense.

It is held, in a devise to a corporation, if the words, though the name be entirely mistaken, show that the testator could only mean a particular corporation, it is sufficient, as for in stance, a devise to the inhabitants of the South Parish maybe enjoyed by the inhabitants of the First Parish, “The First Parish” being the legal name. 3 Pickering, 237.

There is no evidence preserved in the record except the note, so we cannot know but that it was abundantly proved what corporation was understood and meant, by the description in the note. That the Alton and Eoclc Island Kail road Company are liable to issue stock on the payment of this note, there can be no doubt. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

National Bank of Commerce v. McLaughlin
145 A. 16 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1929)
Taylor v. Fluharty
208 P. 866 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1922)
Planters Chemical & Oil Co. v. Stearnes
66 So. 699 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
King v. Wilson
120 P. 342 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Dollar Saving & Trust Co. v. Crawford
70 S.E. 1089 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1911)
Malleable Iron Range Co. v. Pusey
91 N.E. 51 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Springfield Consolidated Railway Co. v. Hoeffner
51 N.E. 884 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1898)
Phillips v. E. J. Knight & Co.
40 A. 762 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1898)
Hately v. Pike
44 N.E. 441 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1896)
O'Connell v. Lamb
63 Ill. App. 652 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1895)
County of Moultrie v. Fairfield
105 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1882)
Trustees of Schools v. Rodgers
7 Ill. App. 33 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1880)
Turnbull v. Payson
95 U.S. 418 (Supreme Court, 1877)
Copper Company v. . Martin
70 N.C. 300 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)
Board of Education v. Greenebaum & Sons
39 Ill. 609 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ill. 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chadsey-v-mccreery-ill-1862.