ISBN: 1236658949

[EAN: 9781236658944], Neubuch, [PU: RareBooksClub], ANONYMOUS,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 348 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.7in.This historic book may ha… More...

[EAN: 9781236658944], Neubuch, [PU: RareBooksClub], ANONYMOUS,SUBJECTS, This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 348 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.7in.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. 1907 edition. Excerpt: . . . (Morawetz on Corporations, sees. 354, 355. ) The misnomer of a corporation in any written instrument does not invalidate the instrument if it can be reasonably ascertained from it what corporation is intended. (Civ. Code, sec. 357; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co. , 93 Cal. 314, 28 Pac. 1049; Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. , 138 Cal. 192, 94 Am. St. Rep. 28, 71 Pac. 93; People v. Sierra Buttes etc. Min. Co. , 39 Cal. 514; Rudys Beach on Corporations, 99, 99a, 1003. ) The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading by correcting a mistake in the name of a party. (Code Civ. Proc. , 473. ) In Chattanooga etc. R. Co. v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 676, 13 S. E. 109, the name of the corporate defendant contained the word Carrollton, instead of Columbus, and the plaintiff was permitted to amend by inserting the latter word. In Johnson v. Central B. R. etc. Co. , 74 Ga. 397, in a suit brought against the Central Railroad and Banking Company, the addition of the words of Georgia was sanctioned. In Singer etc. Co. v. Greenleaf, 100 Ala. 272, 14 South. 109, the defendant corporation was styled the Singer Sewing Machine Company, and the supreme court of Alabama approved the ruling permitting an amendment by inserting Singer Manufacturing Company, saying: There was not an entire change of party, but only a correction of part of a corporate name which had been misconceived. We do not think the change was calculated to mislead. And similar amendments were held proper in the following cases: Maker v. Interstate Switch Co. , 58 Kan. 817, 51 Pac. 286; Wilcox v. American Sav. Bank, 21 Colo. 348, 40 Pac. 881; Anglo-American Packing dr Provision Co. v. Turner Casing Co. , 34 Kan. 340, 8 Pac. 405. In the case at bar the. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN.<

2012, ISBN: 1236658949

[EAN: 9781236658944], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. This historic book may have numerous typos and missing… More...

[EAN: 9781236658944], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. 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. 1907 edition. Excerpt: .(Morawetz on Corporations, sees. 354, 355.) The misnomer of a corporation in any written instrument does not invalidate the instrument if it can be reasonably ascertained from it what corporation is intended. (Civ. Code, sec. 357; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 314, 28 Pac. 1049; Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 138 Cal. 192, 94 Am. St. Rep. 28, 71 Pac. 93; People v. Sierra Buttes etc. Min. Co., 39 Cal. 514; Rudy s Beach on Corporations, 99, 99a, 1003.) The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading by correcting a mistake in the name of a party. (Code Civ. Proc., 473.) In Chattanooga etc. R. Co. v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 676, 13 S. E. 109, the name of the corporate defendant contained the word Carrollton, instead of Columbus, and the plaintiff was permitted to amend by inserting the latter word. In Johnson v. Central B. R. etc. Co., 74 Ga. 397, in a suit brought against the Central Railroad and Banking Company, the addition of the words of Georgia was sanctioned. In Singer etc. Co. v. Greenleaf, 100 Ala. 272, 14 South. 109, the defendant corporation was styled the Singer Sewing Machine Company, and the supreme court of Alabama approved the ruling permitting an amendment by inserting Singer Manufacturing Company, saying: There was not an entire change of party, but only a correction of part of a corporate name which had been misconceived. We do not think the change was calculated to mislead. And similar amendments were held proper in the following cases: Maker v. Interstate Switch Co., 58 Kan. 817, 51 Pac. 286; Wilcox v. American Sav. Bank, 21 Colo. 348, 40 Pac. 881; Anglo-American Packing dr Provision Co. v. Turner Casing Co., 34 Kan. 340, 8 Pac. 405. In the case at bar the.<

2012, ISBN: 1236658949

[EAN: 9781236658944], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.This historic book may have numerous typos and missing … More...

[EAN: 9781236658944], Neubuch, [PU: Rarebooksclub.com, United States], Language: English Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.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. 1907 edition. Excerpt: .(Morawetz on Corporations, sees. 354, 355.) The misnomer of a corporation in any written instrument does not invalidate the instrument if it can be reasonably ascertained from it what corporation is intended. (Civ. Code, sec. 357; Underhill v. Santa Barbara etc. Co., 93 Cal. 314, 28 Pac. 1049; Donohoe-Kelly Banking Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 138 Cal. 192, 94 Am. St. Rep. 28, 71 Pac. 93; People v. Sierra Buttes etc. Min. Co., 39 Cal. 514; Rudy s Beach on Corporations, 99, 99a, 1003.) The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading by correcting a mistake in the name of a party. (Code Civ. Proc., 473.) In Chattanooga etc. R. Co. v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 676, 13 S. E. 109, the name of the corporate defendant contained the word Carrollton, instead of Columbus, and the plaintiff was permitted to amend by inserting the latter word. In Johnson v. Central B. R. etc. Co., 74 Ga. 397, in a suit brought against the Central Railroad and Banking Company, the addition of the words of Georgia was sanctioned. In Singer etc. Co. v. Greenleaf, 100 Ala. 272, 14 South. 109, the defendant corporation was styled the Singer Sewing Machine Company, and the supreme court of Alabama approved the ruling permitting an amendment by inserting Singer Manufacturing Company, saying: There was not an entire change of party, but only a correction of part of a corporate name which had been misconceived. We do not think the change was calculated to mislead. And similar amendments were held proper in the following cases: Maker v. Interstate Switch Co., 58 Kan. 817, 51 Pac. 286; Wilcox v. American Sav. Bank, 21 Colo. 348, 40 Pac. 881; Anglo-American Packing dr Provision Co. v. Turner Casing Co., 34 Kan. 340, 8 Pac. 405. In the case at bar the.<