Logan v. McAllister
Opinion of the Court
the principal question raised in the case, I am of opinion that the Rockland Manufacturing Company, on the Brandywine River, had a legal existence, under the charter of February 8, 1825, and the supplement of January 5,1847, by legislative grant, acceptance and action, so far as action under the grant was necessary and proper for the objects of the incorporation, and under the circumstances surrounding' the parties in interest. This acceptance of the charter, and action under it, were of such public notoriety as to sustain the legal
What remained to make this an existing corporation ? The assent of the person or persons incorporated, their acceptance and concurrence must doubtless exist. The Legislature cannot confer a corporate existence on a heretofore dead body, which will not receive such vitality; but the fact of seeking such corporate existence, as well as the subsequent exercise of corporate powers, is evidence of an acceptance of the legislative grant. Proof of both of these exist in this case, satisfactory in itself, though not very full; as the circumstances surrounding this corporation did not often require a very formal exercise of powers in the usual manner of corporate action. Being the change of a partnership into a company, acting in a new capacity but much through the same agents, the proof of this character would not be so easy and obvious, as in the establishment of a new business, whether as a partnership or a corporation. The grant of corporate powers was applied for by William Young : it was made, and it was competent to the legislature to make it, to William Young, with or without associates. Persons were named in it to represent and carry on the corporation until others should be
The case made by the bill and answer, as agreed in the arguments, presents this as a preliminary question of vital importance to the cause, and the decision of which, on the opinion which has been already expressed as to proof of the legal existence of the Rockland Manufacturing Company, covers the whole case. It is not important, therefore, nor proper, that I should express any opinion as to the several other points raised by the defendants in this cause, considering as I do that the securities and deeds under which the defendants hold the property through that Company are valid, and that the claim of the complainant, as the assignee of William W. Young and John Evans Young, is invalid. The bill is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.