The Bank of Toledo v. . the International Bank

21 N.Y. 542
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 5, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 21 N.Y. 542 (The Bank of Toledo v. . the International Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Bank of Toledo v. . the International Bank, 21 N.Y. 542 (N.Y. 1860).

Opinion

Denio, J.

The only question arising upon this appeal is, whether the plaintiff sufficiently proved itself to be a corporation under the laws of the State of Ohio. The statute of that State authorized individuals to associate and form banking companies, by signing and acknowledging a certificate stating *543 certain particulars, and causing it to be recorded in the office of tho recorder of the county. The act further provides for an examination of the institutions which shall have recorded certificates, by the bank commissioners or a special agent appointed by them, to ascertain whether they have complied with the "act; and the commissioners are to certify to the Governor as to such as shall have been approved of, and if he is also satisfied that the law has been complied with, he is to issue his proclamation, setting forth that they are authorized to commence and carry on the business of banking.

The plaintiff (the issue being on its having been created a corporation) proved that a certificate, containing the requisites mentioned in the act, had been recorded in the proper County, in the year 1845; and it examined its cashier, who proved that -it had been doing business as a bank, under its articles of association, at Toledo, for several years last past, and that the defendant, during all that time, had acted as its collecting agent at Buffalo, corresponding with it and addressing it letters under its corporate name. The Supreme Court held the proof sufficient, and the plaintiff recovered.

I am of opinion that the judgment was in accordance with the decisions of this court in the cases of The Methodist Episcopal Church v. Pickett (19 N. Y., 482), and Eaton v. Aspinwall (Id., 119), and that it ought to be affirmed.

Clerks, J., also delivered an opinion for affirmance, and all the judges concurred.

Judgment affirmed

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

Related

Mitchell v. Carter
1912 OK 204 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Gilkey v. Town of How
49 L.R.A. 483 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
Lancaster v. Amsterdam Improvement Co.
35 N.E. 964 (New York Court of Appeals, 1894)
Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. South Publishing Co.
17 N.Y.S. 587 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1892)
Doggett, Bassett & Hills Co. v. Bates
26 Ill. App. 369 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1887)
Knight v. Flatrock & Waldron Turnpike Co.
45 Ind. 134 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
State ex rel. Brown v. Bailey
79 Am. Dec. 405 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 N.Y. 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-bank-of-toledo-v-the-international-bank-ny-1860.