Coale v. Société Co-operative Suisse Des Charbons
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Pangang Group Company, Ltd. (9th Cir. 2025)
- Rex v. Cia. Pervana De Vapores, S. A. (3d Cir. 1981)
- Et Ve Balik Kurumu v. B. N. S. International Sales Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- United States v. Zarrab (Turkiye Halk Bankasi) (2d Cir. 2024)
- Abrams v. Société Nationale Des Chemins De Fer Français (District Court, E.D. New York 2001)
- In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on October 31, 1994 (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1995)
- Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- In re Grand Jury Investigation of the Shipping Industry (District Court, District of Columbia 1960)
- In re Investigation of World Arrangements with Relation to the Production, Transportation, Refining & Distribution of Petroleum (District Court, District of Columbia 1952)
- McGrath v. Manufacturers Trust Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
- The Uxmal (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1941)
- United States v. Deutsches Kal-Isyndikat Gesellschaft (District Court, S.D. New York 1929)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is an action for failure to take and pay for coal sold to the defendants under a written contract. The Swiss government did not appear, but service of the summons and complaint was made upon the defendant Soeiété Co-operative Suisse des Charbons, a foreign corporation chartered by the government of Switzerland. On July 17, 1917, the Federal Council of Switzerland delegated to the Department of Commerce the power to control the importation and distribution of coal. This department caused the Soeiété to be organized on March 17,1919, to purchase coal in foreign countries and import it into
If the Swiss government chose to do its business by means of the Société, the latter, as a corporate entity, was liable for its corporate obligations. I find no case which holds otherwise. If the Société had contracted as agent for the Swiss government, the case might have been different; but in this instance the Swiss minister signed the contract for the corporation. The interest of the government in any balance after those contributing the capital received 6 per cent, interest is like the case of a hank where the government owns all the I stock. The decisions hold that the corporation is liable under such circumstances.
Various eases might be cited, but the opinion of Judge Mayer in Commercial Pacific Cable Co. v. Phillipine National Bank (D. C.) 263 F. 218, which lias been affirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals (269 F. 1022), is entirely conclusive. In that case the president and vice president of the Phillipine Bank were by statute required to be appointed by the Governor General of the Senate, and the insular auditor was by law auditor of the hank. By the same governmental authority various officers could he removed. The Supreme Court in United States v. Strang, 254 U. S. 491, 41 S. Ct. 165, 65 L. Ed. 368, reached a similar conclusion in dealing with the United Stales Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. [2-4] The joinder of the Swiss government will not defeat the cause erf action. That is a proper, if not necessary, party; hut, as it has not appeared, the action may proceed against the party served (Judicial Code, § 50 [Comp. St. § .1032]), and relief may he given without affecting it. Any profits which might become due to the government after payment of 6 per cent, to those furnishing capital would resemble dividends; property of the corporation taken on execution would not be property of the Swiss Federation.
The demurrer is sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.