Mechanics' Building Ass'n v. Stevens

5 Duer 676
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided June 4, 1856·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Duer, J.,

held, that this is not a defence of which the defendants can avail themselves; that, admitting that the association was a moneyed corporation, subject, as such, to the provisions of the [677]*677Revised Statutes, and that, by its failure to comply with those provisions, it had forfeited its charter, it belonged to the state alone, by a proceeding instituted for that purpose, to enforce the forfeiture, and that the association, until by a judicial sentence its charter was declared to be void, was a corporation de facto, and that no private person, more especially no person dealing with it, could be permitted to say that it was not also a corporation de jure. (Triton Ins. Co. v. McGarian, 4 Denio, 392; Brower v. Appleby, 1 Sand. S. C. R. 107; Palmer v. Lawrence, 3 id. 161, 170.)

Judgment for plaintiff, directing salé of mortgage and premises.

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

Mechanics' Building Ass'n v. Stevens, 5 Duer 676 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

5 Duer 676 (Mechanics' Building Ass'n v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haight v. New York Elevated Railway Co.
49 How. Pr. 20 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Merrick v. Brainard
38 Barb. 574 (New York Supreme Court, 1860)
Sprowl v. Lawrence
33 Ala. 674 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1859)