Harriman v. Southam

16 Ind. 190, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 76
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJune 1, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 16 Ind. 190 (Harriman v. Southam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harriman v. Southam, 16 Ind. 190, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 76 (Ind. 1861).

Opinion

Perkins, J.

Harriman sued Southam to recover a tract of Tand. Harrimam owned the land in question in 1851, and conveyed it to the Fort Wayne and Soitthern Railroad Company for stock. A judgment was obtained against the company, the land sold on execution by virtue of it, and Southani became the purchaser.

According to the,answer, there never was a corporation in this Strife by the name of the '■'•Fort Wayne and Southern Railroad Company,” acting under color of authority. The State v. Dawson et al., at this term.

Hence, there was no grantee to receive the title attempted to be conveyed by Harriman. “A title by deed implies a contract, or at least competent parties. A deed to a person having no existence is generally inoperative, and passes no title from the grantor.” “If a man grant his estate to an imaginary corporation, which exists only in his own mind, no title passes.” Russell v. Topping, 5 McLean, 202.

The doctrine of estoppel does not apply in this case. In [191]*191Jones v. The Cincinnati Type Foundry Co., 14 Ind. 89, it is said, touching contracts with corporations:

C. B. Smith, W. J. Smith and If. L. Bundy, for the appellant. J. H. Mellett and E. B. Martindale, for the appellee.

. “ The doctrine of conclusive estoppel seems more properly-applied to eases involving the question of legality of organization, where the fact of an existing statute authorizing, in the given case, such corporation, is known to the Court, either by judicial notice, or actual evidence in the cause.”

In such cases, the power existing, the regularity of its exercise is admitted by the person contracting with the corporation. Here, there was no grant of power existing for the creation of the corporation pretended to be organized, and hence no even irregularly organized corporation.

The consequence is, no title passed from Harriman, and the land still remains his.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

AMERICAN LAND HOLDINGS OF INDIANA, LLC v. Jobe
655 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Indiana, 2009)
Jones v. Alpine Investments, Inc.
1987 OK 113 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1987)
Harwood v. Masquelette
181 N.E. 380 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1932)
Duffield v. Duffield
268 Ill. 29 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1915)
Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.
131 P. 119 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Mexican Agr. Land Co.
1912 OK 234 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Imperial Building Co. v. Chicago Open Board of Trade
87 N.E. 167 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1908)
Clark v. American Cannel Coal Co.
73 N.E. 1083 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1905)
Clark v. American Cannel Coal Co.
73 N.E. 727 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Indiana Bond Co. v. Ogle
54 N.E. 407 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1899)
Bank v. Lumber Co.
9 S.E. 243 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1889)
Kelley v. Bourne
16 P. 40 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)
Lyles v. Lescher
9 N.E. 365 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Douthitt v. Stinson
63 Mo. 268 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1876)
Reformed Church v. . Schoolcraft
65 N.Y. 134 (New York Court of Appeals, 1875)
Slocum v. Warren
10 R.I. 116 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1871)
Brown v. Phillipps
16 Iowa 210 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)
Snyder v. Studebaker
19 Ind. 462 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1862)
Gillespie v. Fort Wayne & Southern Railroad
17 Ind. 243 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Ind. 190, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harriman-v-southam-ind-1861.