This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1852 Excerpt: ...court, (though as a general rule they allowed that a corporation created by the laws of one Stale might sue in another, ) yet they said that it would not be permitted to a bank in Ohio to establish an agency in Virginia for discounting notes, or for carrying on any other banking operations; nor could they sustain an ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1852 Excerpt: ...court, (though as a general rule they allowed that a corporation created by the laws of one Stale might sue in another, ) yet they said that it would not be permitted to a bank in Ohio to establish an agency in Virginia for discounting notes, or for carrying on any other banking operations; nor could they sustain an action on any note thus acquired by them. But they said there was nothing in the policy of the laws of Virginia, which restrained its citizens from promoting their accommodation and interests by borrowing money from a bank in Ohio; nor was it the policy of its laws to restrain one citizen in Virginia from executing to another citizen or to a foreigner a note payable at a banking house legally constituted in Ohio; nor to prevent such bank from taking an assignment of such note by discounting it in Ohio; and a debt thus contracted, the court said, might be recovered by the bank by suit in Virginia. It was held by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, that a foreign corporation, keeping an office in that State for receiving deposits and discounting notes without being expressly authorized by the laws of that State to do so, cannot maintain an action for the money loaned either on a note or other security taken on such loan, or on the count for money lent. This decision was made in reference to a provision in the revised laws of that 1 Stewart v. Insurance Co. 9 Watts, (Penn.) R. 126. 2 Fiazier v. Wilcox, 4 Rob. (La.) R. 518; Atterbury v. Knox, 4 B. Mon. (Ken.) R. 92. A foreign corporation, although prohibited by its charter within the State of its creation, to take more than six per cent-per annum, on its loans or discounts, does not follow it into another State, by whose comity it is permitted to make contracts. Hitchcock (Adm'rs. of) v. Unit..
Read Less
Add this copy of A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations, to cart. $56.00, very good condition, Sold by TranceWorks rated 2.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Long Beach, CA, UNITED STATES, published 1972 by Arno Press.
