Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnells
| Decision Date | 15 October 1884 |
| Parties | ESTEY MANUF'G CO. v. RUNNELLS. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to Shiawassee.
S.F. Smith and G.R. Lyon, for plaintiff.
Hugh McCurdy, for defendant and appellant.
This action was commenced before a circuit court commissioner to recover the possession of certain land described in the complaint, and averring that the defendant holds the same unlawfully, and against the rights of the Estey Manufacturing Company. December 3, 1883, was the return-day, when the defendant appeared and pleaded not guilty. The cause was then tried, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff; and on the eighth day of December, 1883, the defendant appealed the suit to the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee. The cause was tried in the circuit, April 8, 1884, when the plaintiff again had a verdict, whereupon the defendant brings the suit to this court by writ of error.
On the trial in the circuit court the plaintiff offered in evidence a sheriff's certificate of sale of real estate, made by virtue of an execution issued upon a judgment rendered in the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee, in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant above named and one Craig, and also the sheriff's deed issued upon the certificate, to the introduction of which the defendant objected for the reasons that the grantee named in the instruments is a corporation and cannot hold real estate, by its articles of incorporation or under the laws of this state, and because the deed had not been recorded. The court very properly overruled the objections. Both the law and the articles of association of plaintiff authorized it to purchase and hold real estate; and there is nothing in the record showing that the purchase in this case was unauthorized. After proving that defendant was in possession of the premises described in the complaint, and demand thereof and defendant's refusal to surrender, the plaintiff rested its case.
The defendant introduced in evidence the execution under which the sale was made, which showed the recovery of a judgment in the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee in favor of the Estey Manufacturing Company against the said Carlton K Runnells and one Robert Craig, for damages it had sustained on the occasion of the non-performance of certain promises and undertakings of the defendants, to which execution was annexed the sheriff's return of sale. Defendant also introduced and read in evidence a duly certified copy of the articles of association of the plaintiff corporation, from which it appeared that there were but three corporators, two of whom resided in Michigan and one in Vermont. The acknowledgment of Jacob J. Estey was taken before a person styling himself a notary public, but his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota
... ... Freeland v. Pennsylvania, 94 Pa. St. 504; ... McClinch v. Sturgis, 72 Me. 288; Estey v ... Runnels, 55 Mich. 130; Wentz v. Lane (Pa. St.) ... 3 A. 878; Smith v. Sheeley, 12 ... ...
-
Duray Dev., LLC v. Perrin
...corporation by estoppel prevented the opposing party from arguing against the existence of a corporation.40 The Supreme Court in Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnells,41 summarized the principle of corporation by estoppel as follows: "Where a body assumes to be a corporation and acts under a particula......
-
Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. Owen
... ... 1913A, 1065, where it was said: "The rule, ... generally, is, as announced in the case of Estey Mfg. Co ... v. Runnels, 55 Mich. 130 [20 N.W. 823], that: 'Where ... a body assumes to be a ... ...
-
Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. Owen
...29 Okla. 615, 119 P. 229, Ann. Cas. 1913a, 1065, where it was said:"The rule, generally, is, as announced in the case of Estey Mfg. Co. v. Runnels, 55 Mich. 130 , that: 'Where a body assumes to be a corporation and acts under a particular name, a third party dealing with it under such assum......