Mullin-Johnson Co. v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 19781-S.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 19781-S.,19781-S. |
| Citation | 9 F. Supp. 175 |
| Parties | MULLIN-JOHNSON CO. v. PENN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Mullin-Johnson Company, in pro. per.
David Freidenrich, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
Livingston & Livingston, of San Francisco, Cal., amicus curi?.
On removal from the superior court of the state of California there was filed in this court, on July 8, 1932, an action entitled Mullin-Johnson Company, a Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a Corporation, Defendant, Law No. 19275-S. The allegations of the complaint show that the plaintiff is a domestic corporation, and that the defendant is a foreign corporation. Thereafter, the cause being at issue, it was set for trial on October 9, 1934. The day before trial the attorney for plaintiff dismissed the action under the provisions of section 581 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Immediately thereafter plaintiff corporation "in propria persona" filed in this court the above-entitled action, the parties being the same and the allegations of the complaint identical with those in the first action.
It is undisputed that the corporate powers, rights, and privileges of plaintiff corporation have been suspended for nonpayment of state taxes as provided in the California Bank and Corporation Franchise Tax Act, ? 32 (St. 1929, pp. 19, 33, as amended St. 1931, p. 2228).
Defendant moves to dismiss, contending: First, that the effect of the suspension is to deprive plaintiff corporation of its capacity to sue; and, secondly, that a corporation may not appear as attorney or in propria persona. As the first point may be debatable, I pass to a consideration of the second, which I think is decisive of the motion.
It is settled in California that there are certain professional occupations which a corporation is functionally incapable of engaging in, such as the practice of the law. Plaintiff corporation is not, and could not be, a member of the bar of California, whose members, under our rules, may be admitted to practice in this court. Obviously plaintiff corporation could not plead and manage its case personally, as provided in 28 USCA ? 394, nor could it manage it through an agent of its appointment who is not an attorney of the court. Nightingale v. Oregon Cent. Ry. Co. (C. C. Or. 1873) 18 Fed. Cas. 239, No. 10,264.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Move Organization v. US Dept. of Justice
...is a legal entity, it is also an artificial one, existing only in the contemplation of the law"); Mullin-Johnson Co. v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 9 F.Supp. 175, 175 (N.D.Cal.1934) (corporation can act only through agency of natural persons); see also Commercial & R.R. Bank v. Slocomb, Rich......
-
Clark v. Austin
...63, 151 A. 630; Cary & Co. v. Satterlee & Co., 166 Minn. 507, 208 N.W. 408; In re Richards, 333 Mo. 907, 63 S.W.2d 672.] In the Mullin-Johnson Company case, supra, the court "It is settled in California that there are certain professional occupations which a corporation is functionally inca......
-
Rauso v. Fein, CIVIL ACTION No. 13-cv-693
...it manage it through an agent of its appointment who is not an attorney of the court." (quoting Mullin-Johnson Co. v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, Pa., 9 F.Supp. 175 (N.D. Cal. 1934)). Rauso is not a licensed attorney at law. He does not have standing to bring these claims as a ......
-
Ashley-Cooper Sales Services v. Brentwood Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 10961.
...is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice. Brandstein v. White Lamps, Inc., D.C.N.Y.1937, 20 F.Supp. 369; Mullin-Johnson Co. v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Cal.1934, 9 F.Supp. 175; see also, State of New Jersey v. People of State of New York, 1832, 6 Pet. 323, 327, 31 U.S. 323, 327, 8 L.......
-
Defense by salaried counsel: a bane or a blessing?
...insureds in legal matters arising under that company's policy." (5.) California--Mullin-Johnson Co. v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 9 F.Supp. 175 (N.D. Cal. 1934). Connecticut--King v. Guiliani, No. CV92 0290370 S, 1993 WL 284462 (Conn.Super., July 27, 1993). Florida--In re Proposed Addition ......