Hull v. Burtis
| Decision Date | 30 September 1878 |
| Parties | JOSHUA R. HULL et al.v.JULIA A. BURTIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of debt, brought by Julia A. Burtis, against Joshua R. Hull and William H. Lidell, as stockholders in the Bank of Chicago, to recover for an indebtedness claimed to be due from the bank to the plaintiff. The action was based upon an act of the legislature, entitled “An act to incorporate the National Loan and Trust Company of Chicago,” approved March 9, 1867. The name of the corporation was subsequently changed to “The Bank of Chicago.”
The declaration alleged, for that whereas on the 11th day of May, 1874, thereafter and previous thereto, there existed in the city of Chicago, etc., and still exists, a private corporation, duly organized under and by virtue of an act of the General Assembly of this State, approved March 9, 1867, entitled “An act to incorporate the National Loan and Trust Company of Chicago,” which corporation, after its organization, to-wit, on the 17th day of June, 1872, under and by virtue of the act of the General Assembly of Illinois to provide, among other things, for changing the names of incorporated companies, approved March 26, 1872, did duly change its name, in manner as by said statute provided, to “The Bank of Chicago,” and by that name only has continued to transact business ever since said 17th day of June, 1872.
That said corporation was, by its said charter, empowered to do a general banking business; among other things, to borrow money and to receive money on deposit, to loan money, and make discounts, to accept trusts, fiduciary or otherwise, to issue letters of credit and other commercial obligations, and to buy and sell bills, notes, bonds, exchange and other securities. That section 3 of said act incorporating said bank is in words as follows: “The capital stock of said corporation shall be $50,000, with power to increase the same to $500,000, to be subscribed and paid for in the manner prescribed by the by-laws to be framed by said corporation, and shall be divided into shares of $100 each, which shall be deemed personal property, and shall be transferred on the books of said corporation in such manner as its by-laws may prescribe; and each stockholder shall be liable to double the amount of stock held or owned by him, and for three months after giving notice of transfers, as hereinafter mentioned.”
That in section 7 of said act it is, among other things, enacted as follows: “Whenever any transfer of stock is made, it shall be necessary to give notice of such transfer of such stock, which notice shall be published in a newspaper in the city of Chicago, Illinois, showing the amount of such stock so transferred, and the person to whom it is transferred.”
That pursuant to said act of incorporation, $100,000 of stock in said corporation was subscribed for, and certificates therefor were issued.
That on the 11th day of May, 1874, thereafter and previous thereto, the said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National New Haven Bank v. Northwestern Guaranty Loan Company
... ... Wilcox, 47 Pa. 51; McHose v. Wheeler, 45 Pa ... 32; Youghiogheny S. Co. v. Evans, 72 Pa. 331; ... McCarthy v. Lavasche, 89 Ill. 270; Hull v ... Burtis, 90 Ill. 213; Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga ... 217; Branch v. Baker, 53 Ga. 502; Norris v ... Johnson, 34 Md. 485; Norris v ... ...
-
Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Funk
... ... Dana, ... 101 U.S. 213; Terry v. Little, 101 U.S. 216; ... Fuller v. Ledden, 87 Ill. 310; McCarthy v ... Lavasche, 89 Ill. 270; Hull v. Burtis, 90 Ill ... 213; Culver v. Third Nat. Bank of Chicago, 64 Ill ... 528; Freeland v. McCollough, 43 Am. Dec. [N.Y.] 685, ... note ... ...
- Dodds v. Walker
- Root v. Sinnock