SEALCELL CORP.
v.
L. P. BERRY, JR.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sealcell Corporation (formerly American Becarri Corporation) sued to recover money received by the defendant. The lower court rendered judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff closed its case, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that a corporation's change of name does not affect its identity or legal rights, and the corporation may sue on contracts made or liabilities incurred under its former name.
A corporation may sue on contracts made or liabilities incurred to it before a change of its corporate name. A change in corporate name has no effect on the corporation's identity, property, rights, or liabilities, and the corporation continues to be responsible for liabilities previously contracted under its former name.
“The language used in the entry of appearance signifies merely a change of name of the defendant corporation, but no change of its identity. The change in the name of a corporation has no effect whatever upon its property, rights.or liabilities.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that corporate name changes do not affect identity or legal rights and liabilities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSealcell Corporation, formerly known as American Becarri Corporation, brought suit against L.P. Berry, Jr. for money received by the defendant for the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
In this case plaintiff in error sued in its then corporate name. The first paragraph of the declaration was:
*343“Now comes Sealcell Corporation, formerly the American Becarri Corporation, plaintiff in the above entitled cause by its attorney, D. C. McMullen, and brings its suit against L. P. Berry, Jr.”
The declaration was in three counts.-
The first count was for money received by defendant for the use of the plaintiff.
It is unnecessary to consider the other counts, as plaintiff was entitled to recover upon the evidence submitted under this count. The only plea to this count was the general issue.
The proof showed transactions with the defendant by the plaintiff under its former corporate name, American Bacarri Corporation.
At the close of plaintiff’s testimony defendant moved for an instructed verdict on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove that it was entitled to recover. Thereupon counsel stipulated that jury should be discharged and the court should render judgment. This was done and judgment for defendant was rendered, to which writ of error was sued out.
The judgment should be reversed on authority of the opinions and judgments in the cases of Stewart v. Preston, et al., 80 Fla. 473, 86 Sou. 348; and Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Co. v. First Baptist Church of Washington, D. C., 34 Law Ed. 784.
In the Stewart case, supra., this Court said:
“The language used in the entry of appearance signifies merely a change of name of the defendant corporation, but no change of its identity. The change in the name of a corporation has no effect whatever upon its property, rights.or liabilities. It continues as before, responsible in its new name for liabilities previously contracted or in*344curred, and has the right to sue on contracts made or liabilities incurred to it — before the change. After, the change it should, by proper averments showing the change, sue and be sued by its new name. The change .in the name of a corporation has no more effect upon its identity, as a corporation, than the change in the name of a natural person, has upon his identity. 14 C. J. 321; 7 R. C. L. 129; 1 Morawetz on Private Corporations, 354..”
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further appropriate proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Davis, C. J., and. Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Town of San Mateo City v. State, 117 Fla. 546 (Fla. 1934)…nder Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution is not controlled by the holdings of this Court in the cases of Pitts v. Belote, 108 Fla. 292, 146 Sou. Rep. 380; Thomas v. Mills, 107 Fla. 385, 144 Sou. Rep. 882, Swanson v. Therrell, 112 Fla. 474, 150 Sou. Rep. 634, and State, ex rel. Coarsey v. Harrison, 107 Fla. 20, 144 Sou. Rep. 316. Without doubt the Legislature could have properly determined to exercise its: powers to abolish the Town of San Mateo City only upon the condition that it should be informed t…
Authorities Cited
- Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 137 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1891)
- Stewart v. Preston, 80 Fla. 473 (Fla. 1920)