Levert v. Shirley Planting Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 20619 |
| Citation | 66 So. 301,135 La. 929 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEVERT v. SHIRLEY PLANTING CO |
Rehearing Denied October 21, 1914.$
Woodville & Woodville, of New Orleans, and Cappel & Cappel, of Marksville, for appellants.
C. F Borah and H. G. Bloch, both of New Orleans, for appellee.
In this case, an order of seizure and sale having issued against the defendant company, some of the stockholders of the company have personally appealed therefrom; and the appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellants are without pecuniary interest in the premises.
For showing their interest, appellants made the following allegations in their petition for appeal:
'That the plaintiff herein is president of the defendant company and charged with the duty of preserving and conserving its property and assets, and has no right to acquire and become the holder of the mortgage note herein sued upon for the purpose of using same to divest the company of its property to his own use and advantage.
'That the plaintiff herein failed to exhibit to the court, as provided for by law, any evidence of the authority on his part to execute, as president of the defendant company, the act of mortgage and the mortgage note, which he now makes the basis of his personal demand in this proceeding.
'That there was, in fact, no resolution of the board of directors of the Shirley Planting Company authorizing the president who is personally the plaintiff in this proceeding, to execute the note and act of mortgage herein sued upon.
'That your petitioners are aggrieved by the said orders of seizure and sale, and desire to appeal devolutively therefrom to the honorable the Supreme Court for the state of Louisiana.'
A corporation is an intellectual being, different and distinct from the persons who compose it; it may own and hold property, make contracts, incur debt, sue and be sued; all like a natural person. Its property belongs completely and exclusively to it; and in this respect it is different from a partnership. What is due to it is not due to any of the individuals who compose it, and vice versa. It acts through its legally constituted agents. All these are express provisions of our Civil Code, art. 432 et seq.
It follows from this, and it is elementary in the law of corporations generally, that the property which a corporation owns is its own, to be managed by it as it deems best; and that the suits which it brings, or that are brought against it, are, in like manner, its own, to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noble v. Farmers Union Trading Co.
...Co-op. Ass'n v. Mathews, La.App., 158 So. 247, 249; Wild v. Standard General Realty Co., La.App., 145 So. 58, 59; Levert v. Shirley Planting Co., 135 La. 929, 66 So. 301; Commonwealth v. Muir, 170 Ky. 435, 186 S.W. 194, 196; Ulmer v. Lime Rock R. Co., 98 Me. 579, 57 A. 1001, 1006, 1007, 66 ......
-
Singer v. Allied Factors, Inc.
...Bldg. Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 191;Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co., 201 Cal. 210, 256 P. 210;Levert v. Shirley Planting Co., 135 La. 929, 66 So. 301. Accordingly, Singer, as the original plaintiff who instituted the action, was not an aggrieved party. His right to sue as the representativ......
-
Singer v. Allied Factors
...Bldg. Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 191; Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co., 201 Cal. 210, 256 P. 210; Levert v. Shirley Planting Co., 135 La. 929, 66 So. 301. Accordingly, Singer, as the original plaintiff who instituted the action, was not an aggrieved party. His right to sue as the representat......
-
Singer v. Allied Factors, Inc.
...In re Michigan-Ohio Bldg. Corp., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 191; Difani v. Riverside County Oil Co., 201 Cal. 210, 256 P. 210; Levert v. Shirley Planting Co., 135 La. 929, 66 So. 301. Accordingly, Singer, as the original plaintiff who instituted the action, was not an aggrieved party. His right to su......