Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 311 views

    Empire Manufacturing V Stuart

    Uploaded by

    Zox
    Empire Manufacturing Company was sued on a promissory note it had issued in its corporate name. Empire Manufacturing claimed it was not properly organized under state law at the time. However, the court ruled Empire Manufacturing could be held liable because it had attempted to organize in good faith and its business of manufacturing was authorized under state law. Even though Empire Manufacturing had dissolved, it could still be pursued for payment within the three years allowed by state statute for winding up corporate affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Empire Manufacturing V Stuart

    Uploaded by

    Zox
    311 views1 page
    Empire Manufacturing Company was sued on a promissory note it had issued in its corporate name. Empire Manufacturing claimed it was not properly organized under state law at the time. However, the court ruled Empire Manufacturing could be held liable because it had attempted to organize in good faith and its business of manufacturing was authorized under state law. Even though Empire Manufacturing had dissolved, it could still be pursued for payment within the three years allowed by state statute for winding up corporate affairs.

    Original Description:

    Empire Manufacturing v Stuart

    Original Title

    Empire Manufacturing v Stuart

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Empire Manufacturing Company was sued on a promissory note it had issued in its corporate name. Empire Manufacturing claimed it was not properly organized under state law at the time. However, the court ruled Empire Manufacturing could be held liable because it had attempted to organize in good faith and its business of manufacturing was authorized under state law. Even though Empire Manufacturing had dissolved, it could still be pursued for payment within the three years allowed by state statute for winding up corporate affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    311 views1 page

    Empire Manufacturing V Stuart

    Uploaded by

    Zox
    Empire Manufacturing Company was sued on a promissory note it had issued in its corporate name. Empire Manufacturing claimed it was not properly organized under state law at the time. However, the court ruled Empire Manufacturing could be held liable because it had attempted to organize in good faith and its business of manufacturing was authorized under state law. Even though Empire Manufacturing had dissolved, it could still be pursued for payment within the three years allowed by state statute for winding up corporate affairs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Empire Manufacturing Company of Grand Rapids v Stuart

    46 Mich. 482; 1881; Martson, CJ.


    Digest by Efren

    Facts:
    1. Empire Manufacturing was sued upon a promissory note given by it in its corporate name.
    a. Empire’s defense was that by mistake, at the time the note was given, the company was not properly
    organized under any law of the State. Afterwards, upon ascertaining such fact, the corporation was
    dissolved and formed under a different name

    Issue/Ratio:
    W/N Empire Manufacturing could be held Liable – Yes.
     The Corp. was one that could have been legally organized under laws existing at the time of its formation.
    o Its business of manufacturing was authorized. Having attempted to organize in good faith, and in the due
    course of its business giving paper in its corporate name, it could not later repudiate the transaction or
    evade responsibility thereon.
     The dissolution would not deprive the creditors of still looking to the old organization for payment. The state’s
    statute allows three years for winding up of affairs.

    You might also like