DALLAS COUNTY
v.
HUIDEKOPER
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.
Dallas County issued bonds to subscribe to stock in a railroad corporation, but later argued in a suit on the bond coupons that the corporation lacked legal existence when the subscription was made. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment against the county, holding that whether a corporation had legal existence at the time of subscription cannot be raised in a collateral proceeding when the corporation existed as a matter of fact and was exercising its chartered powers when the bonds were issued—such questions regarding corporate charter validity are between the state and the company, not available as a defense by the county.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
We think the only question in this case was settled by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Smith v. County of Clark, 54 Mo. 59, where it was held on a petition for rehearing, after the case had been once decided, p. 81, that “whether the corporation had a legal existence or not when the subscription wp,s made, is a question that cannot be raised in a collateral proceeding.” In this case, as in that, the corporation “did exist as a matter of fact, and was in the exercise of all its chartered franchises when the subscription was made and the bonds' issued.” That casef like this, was a suit upon coupons for interest attached to bonds issued-by the county in payment for its subscription to the capital stock of a railroad corporation, and the point made was, “that the charter of the company had ceased before the company was organized.” That, the court said, was “a question between the State and the company,” and gave judgment against the county. We had occasion to consider the-same question in County of Macon v. Shores, 97 U. S. 272, 276, and held the same way.
Mr. S. H. Boyd, Mr. A. D. Matthews and Mr. B. L.. Brush for plaintiff in error. Mr. Joseph Shippen for defendant in error. Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. L. Wells Co. v. Gastonia Cotton Mfg. Co., 198 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1905)
-
Dobson v. United States, 31 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1929)…d proofs, just as it was in the District Court before that court acted., This was indeed the rule upon appeals to the Circuit Court. Yeaton v. U. S., 5 Cranch, 281, 3 L. Ed. 101; The Lucille, 19 Wall. 73, 22 L. Ed. 64; The Louisville, 154 U. S. 657,14 S. Ct. 1190, 25 L. Ed. 771. But, although' the general doctrine has not been disturbed, (The John Twohy, 255 U. S. 77, 41 S. Ct. 251, 65 L. Ed. 511), we think that this feature of it has disappeared. Indeed, even before 1891, the decree was not vacated for all…
-
The Friendship II. Chambers v. Just, 135 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1943)…sessed 50% against appellant, 40% against Mrs. Just, and 10% against Mrs. Wilson. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result. Just v. Chambers, 312 U.S. 383, 668, 61 S.Ct. 687, 85 L.Ed. 903. The Louisville (Gibson v. Halliday), 154 U.S. 657, 14 S.Ct. 1190, 25 L.Ed. 771; Reid v. Fargo, 241 U.S. 544, 36 S.Ct. 712, 60 L.Ed. 1156; Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States, 287 U.S. 170, 53 S.Ct. 103, 77 L.Ed. 240.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cnty. of Macon v. Shores, 97 U.S. 272 (U.S. 1877)