Pierce v. Crompton

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Pierce v. Crompton

13 R.I. 312, 1881 R.I. LEXIS 24

DecidedJuly 9, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 13 R.I. 312 (Pierce v. Crompton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pierce v. Crompton, 13 R.I. 312, 1881 R.I. LEXIS 24 (R.I. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Cubiam.

The court is of opinion that an assignment by a non-resident debtor cannot have the effect of suspending or dissolving a previous attachment or levy under Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 723, § 1, of June 20, 1878, that section being applicable only where the assignment is made by a resident debtor. The court is also of opinion that a foreign debtor corporation is to be regarded under the section as a non-resident debtor. The demurrer to the bill is therefore sustained.

The court is of opinion that a foreign corporation doing business in this State has only such powers as have been conferred upon it by its charter or by the laws of the State to which it owes its existence; that it gains no additional powers by doing business here, because this State does not give it any, but only allows it, as *314 a matter of comity, to exercise sucb as it has; and consequently, inasmuch as the American Mills Company had no power under the laws of New York to make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors in contemplation of insolvency, that the voluntary assignments made by the company to the complainant, Thomas A. Pierce, are void. Harris v. Thompson, 15 Barb. S. C. 62; Robinson v. The Bank of Attica, 21 N. Y. 406; Loring v. The United States Vulcanized Gutta Percha Co. 30 Barb. S. C. 644 ; Sibell v. Remsen, 33 N. Y. 95. The plea to the bill is therefore sustained.

George H. Browne <$• Edwin Metcalf, for complainant. Thurston £ Bipley, James Tillinghasb, Samuel W. K. Allen, and Perce Hallett, for different respondents.

We wish to add that in coming to this conclusion we have kept in mind the fact that the complainant is simply a voluntary assignee of the corporation, having only a deed of assignment without possession of the property assigned, and that he therefore can have acquired no right or claim to the protection of the court by estoppel.

Unless the complainant wishes to contest the fact that the law of New York is as alleged in the plea, the bill will be dismissed.

Decree dismissing the hill entered July 15, 1881.

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

Peb Cubiam.

The court is of opinion that an assignment by a non-resident debtor cannot have the effect of suspending or dissolving a previous attachment or levy under Pub. Laws R. I. cap. 723, § 1, of June 20, 1878, that section being applicable only where the assignment is made by a resident debtor. The court is also of opinion that a foreign debtor corporation is to be regarded under the section as a non-resident debtor. The demurrer to the bill is therefore sustained.

The court is of opinion that a foreign corporation doing business in this State has only such powers as have been conferred upon it by its charter or by the laws of the State to which it owes its existence; that it gains no additional powers by doing business here, because this State does not give it any, but only allows it, as *314 a matter of comity, to exercise sucb as it has; and consequently, inasmuch as the American Mills Company had no power under the laws of New York to make an assignment for the benefit of its creditors in contemplation of insolvency, that the voluntary assignments made by the company to the complainant, Thomas A. Pierce, are void. Harris v. Thompson, 15 Barb. S. C. 62; Robinson v. The Bank of Attica, 21 N. Y. 406; Loring v. The United States Vulcanized Gutta Percha Co. 30 Barb. S. C. 644 ; Sibell v. Remsen, 33 N. Y. 95. The plea to the bill is therefore sustained.

George H. Browne <$• Edwin Metcalf, for complainant. Thurston £ Bipley, James Tillinghasb, Samuel W. K. Allen, and Perce Hallett, for different respondents.

We wish to add that in coming to this conclusion we have kept in mind the fact that the complainant is simply a voluntary assignee of the corporation, having only a deed of assignment without possession of the property assigned, and that he therefore can have acquired no right or claim to the protection of the court by estoppel.

Unless the complainant wishes to contest the fact that the law of New York is as alleged in the plea, the bill will be dismissed.

Decree dismissing the hill entered July 15, 1881.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 R.I. 312, 1881 R.I. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-crompton-ri-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack