Custer v. Tompkins County Bank

9 Pa. 27
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 12, 1848·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause is ruled by The Bank of Pittsburgh v. Whitehead. The rule laid down there, is, that notice to a corporator is not notice to the corporation, unless he were constituted an organ of communication between it and those who deal with it. The corporator, in this case, was not such an organ, and the evidence was properly rejected.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Custer v. Tompkins County Bank, 9 Pa. 27 (Pa. 1848).

9 Pa. 27 (Custer v. Tompkins County Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Joseph A. Puleo & Sons, Inc. v. Borough Council
298 A.2d 658 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)