Borton v. Brines-Chase Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania April 27, 1896

Borton v. Brines-Chase Co., 175 Pa. 209 (Pa. 1896)

34 A. 597; 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1237

Dean, Fell, Green, McCollum, Sterrett

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

We are satisfied that the controlling questions in this case were rightly decided by the learned president of the court below, .and we are quite content to affirm the decree on his opinion. There appears to be nothing in the record that would justify us •in sustaining any of the specifications of error. ■

Decree affirmed on the opinion of the learned president of the court below, and appeal dismissed at plaintiff’s costs.

Reference

Full Case Name: Joshua E. Borton v. Brines-Chase Co., William H. Burnett, Trustee, and Strawbridge & Chase
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Corporations — Foreign corporations — Receiver—Insolvency. The appointment of a foreign receiver being an act of comity, and addressed to the discretion of the court, will not be made where it will be against the interest of citizens of this state, and where it will serve no good purpose. Inasmuch as the New Jersey act of Marchó, 189Ó, prohibiting assignments for creditors and confession of judgments on the part of an insolvent corporation, does not go to the organic power of the corporation, but affects only the remedy, it is of merely local application and has no effect upon New Jersey corporations doing business in this state. The act does not apply retroactively to corporations chartered under the law as it existed before the passage of the act.