Eggleston v. Doolittle

33 Conn. 396
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedApril 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 33 Conn. 396 (Eggleston v. Doolittle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eggleston v. Doolittle, 33 Conn. 396 (Colo. 1866).

Opinion

Park, J.

It appears in this case that all the property belonging to the society of which the petitioner is a member is of the value of one thousand dollars, and that the society is indebted to the respondent Doolittle, in the sum of eight hundred and seventy-five dollars, leaving only one hundred and twenty-five dollars worth of property more than sufficient to pay the debts of the society. It further appears that the society is unable longer to support the preaching of the gospel, and that it would be for the interest of the Baptist church organized in Pleasant Valley that the church edifice should be removed to New Hartford, in accordance with the conditions specified in the vote of the society; thus enabling the society to pay its indebtedness, and affording its members the opportunity of enjoying the preaching of the gospel in the same edifice at another place.

Prom these facts we are of the opinion that the society acted wisely as well as legally in disposing of their property in the manner specified. They were indebted to an amount almost equal to the value of their property. They had no other means of payment. Their property was exposed to [402]*402attachment. Nothing was before them but.bankruptcy and dissolution. Under these circumstances the society succeeded in paying their indebtedness and preserving to themselves some right to the property. They acted in good faith, and for the best interest of the society under all the circumstances. Corporations may dispose of their property to pay their debts when necessary for the purpose, and what is lawful for corporations to do, may be done by a majority. Angell & Ames on Corp., §§ 187, 499 ; 1 Parsons on Cont.,120 ; Fisher v. Glover, 4 N. Hamp., 180; Fassett v. First Parish in Boylston, 19 Pick., 361.

We advise the superior comt to dismiss the petition.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Uzzell v. McClelland
65 Colo. 324 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1918)
Fadness v. Braunborg
41 N.W. 84 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1889)
Hubbard v. German Catholic Congregation
34 Iowa 31 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Conn. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eggleston-v-doolittle-conn-1866.