The United States Express Co. v. Joseph H. Bedbury.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Parties: THE UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANYv.JOSEPH H. BEDBURY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

34 Ill. 459

1864 WL 3006 (Ill.)

THE UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY

v.JOSEPH H. BEDBURY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

APPEAL from Superior Court of Chicago.

Garnishee proceedings in the court below by appellee against appellant, as garnishee of H. H. Knights.

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Bates & Towslee, for appellant.

Herbert, Rich & Shepherd, for appellee.

WALKER, C. J.

It is insisted as a ground of reversal that there is nothing in the record to show that plaintiff in error was a corporation; and if there is no such evidence, the presumption should be that it is a copartnership. And if it was a copartnership, that the suit should have been against the individuals composing the firm. That it is irregular to sue a firm by its partnerthip name. The seventh section of the attachment act, Scates' Comp., 229 [Rev. Stat. 1845, 65], declares, that in original attachment proceedings defendants may be designated by their reputed names, by surnames, and joint defendants by their separate or partnership names, or by such names, styles, or titles as they are usually known. Whatever may be the common law governing such cases, this act has made it sufficient, if the defendants are described by their firm name, by the style or title by which they are known. In this case the plaintiffs in error are known by the firm name, the style or the title by which they are sued.¹ If they compose a partnership, they are properly sued, if a corporation the designation is correct; so no error is perceived in the description by which plaintiffs in error were sued, whether they are a corporation or only a partnership.

It is insisted that the service of the garnishee process upon the company was insufficient to sustain the judgment. By the amended return, it appears that if plaintiffs in error is a corporation the service was sufficient, and in strict compliance with the statute. It states that the president of the company not residing in the county in which the suit was pending, the writ was served upon the company as garnishee, by reading and delivering a copy thereof to Henry Colvin and James C. Fargo, agents of the company, and on D. B. Cook, their clerk.

This, then, presents the question whether this is a corporation. Plaintiff in error appeared to the suit by the name of the “United States Express Company,” and this is a sufficient admission that such is their name. In the case of Henriques v. Dutch West India Company, 28 Raym., 1535, it was held, that the name of the company imported a corporation. And the same rule has been announced or recognized in the courts of New York in the case of Stoddard v. Onondaga Conference, 12 Barb., 570; Kennedy v. Cotton, 28 Id., 62.

These cases show that such a name imports a corporation. It seems to comport with reason, that when an association of persons assume a name, which implies a corporate body, and exercise corporate powers, they should not be heard to deny that they are a corporation. When they do act and contract they are estopped from denying their corporate liability.

The first section of the act providing for garnishee proceedings, declares that the court may proceed against garnishees in the same manner as is required by law in original attachment...