Dundee Mortgage & Trust Investment Co. v. Hughes

Decision Date23 December 1896
Docket Number1,198.,991
Citation77 F. 855
PartiesDUNDEE MORTGAGE & TRUST INVESTMENT CO. v. HUGHES.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon

J. W Whalley and L. L. McArthur, for plaintiff.

Ellis G. Hughes, in pro. per.

GILBERT Circuit Judge.

The issues in this case were made, and the case was ready for trial, in the year 1886. On May 6, 1896, the defendant obtained leave to file an amended answer. Instead of filing an amended answer, he filed, under the name of an amended answer, a supplemental answer, in the nature of a plea in abatement, alleging that in the year 1889 the plaintiff was duly and regularly would up, dissolved, and discontinued its corporate existence, and lost its corporate powers, further or otherwise than might be necessary to wind up its affairs and that, at the present date, the said corporation has no legal existence. The plaintiff thereupon moved to strike the so-called amended answer from the files, for the reason that it is not an answer to the merits of the controversy, and is not an amended answer such as was contemplated in the order permitting it to be filed.

There can be no doubt that, without the permission of the court the defendant had the right to file this plea, which has the effect of a plea of nul tiel corporation, alleging occurring after the commencement of the action, and that he could do so whenever the facts on which it is based came to his knowledge. Upon the argument the motion was treated as a demurrer to the supplemental answer, and the question presented is whether or not it alleges matter which may be pleaded in abatement of the action. The plaintiff is a foreign corporation having its principal office at Dundee, in Scotland. The law of Great Britain and Ireland in regard to the powers of corporations after dissolution is not pleaded. It must be presumed, for the purposes of the demurrer, that the law applicable to the question is the law of the state of Oregon. By the common law an action by or against a corporation abates with its dissolution. Chair Co. v. Kelsey, 23 Kan. 632; In re Norwood, 32 Hun, 196; Exporting Co. v. Gano, 13 Ohio, 270; May v. Bank, 2 Rob. (Va.) 56. In many of the states the common law has been changed by statutes providing either for the appointment of trustees or receivers to close out the affairs of corporations after their dissolution, or providing that the existence of corporations shall be extended, for a fixed period after dissolution, for the purpose of winding up their own business. Of the latter class is the Oregon statute, which declares that all corporations after their dissolution shall--

'Continue to exist as bodies corporate for a period of five years thereafter if necessary for the purpose of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Service v. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 26, 1918
    ... ... 580] and ... decided in Sargent v. Am. Bank & Trust Co., 80 Or ... 16, 38, 154 P. 759, 156 P. 431 ... See, ... also, Dundee Mortgage & Trust Inv. Co. v. Hughes (C ... C.) 77 ... ...
  • Chicago Title Trust Co v. Wilcox Bldg Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1937
    ...10 Fed.Cas. p. 1075, No. 5,748, 3 Story 657; Board of Councilmen v. Deposit Bank (C.C.) 120 F. 165, 166 et seq.; Dundee Mortg. & T. Inv. Co. v. Hughes (C.C.) 77 F. 855. Sections 14 and 79 of the Illinois statute (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 32, § 157.94 note) seem plain enough on their face; b......
  • Harned v. Beacon Hill Real Estate Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 16, 1912
    ...Russell, 144 U.S. 640; Wheeler v. Walton & Whann Co., 65 F. 720; Rodgers v. Adriatric Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 34, 42 N.E. 515; Dundee Mortg. & Trust Co. v. Hughes, 77 F. 855. necessarily follows that the dissolution of a corporation from any cause may be shown in any case in which the existence ......
  • Board of Councilmen of City of Frankfort v. Deposit Bank of Frankfort
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • March 10, 1902
    ...said: 'That a dissolution of a corporation abates all suits against it is familiar law of the text-books.' In the case of Investment Co. v. Hughes (C.C.) 77 F. 855, Gilbert, Circuit Judge, 'The statute of this state gives a bare extension of life, for a fixed period after the dissolution of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT