New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-07

nance OF the prohibited acr for tie very purpose anl
tie neceseaTy means ot pteyenting from becoming
act Of the Corporation.
Il Il Lot true a. the objection we are considering
plainly assumes, that when judicial commend la rela.
ton 10 a corporate ect-a mandamus junction t.
directed 20 corporation solely by u corporate nane-
the members and officers through whom alone the cor
pOrtOn can set may disregard T. WIKI entire impanity
iud ~ their Gsobclsuce render the process Of tine
Court wholly Intellectual Tie law we apprelea1 q
oJherwse settled Tnat the mandate Of tho Court IN
cusivcly the corporate body Oy its corporate name
has not been lied and there numerous decisions
that show that vi - such i the form OF the order or
wrf 10 / operative AID binding not only upOn Tue cor
poTaiicn melt but upon every person wicse personal
action o. Z member officer Of the corporate BODY il
seeks RESTRAIN control Every such persOn L a.
fully bouudtO personal obedience &c Il personal nlel
IN tie yrocets and consequently + just liable toy bis
dsobedieuce Rex Mayor Of Abingdon I Lord
RAYMOND, eco, Rex Mayor OF -helford , cases 10
Clan ILL.,. Lotd Raymond, SIS Rex r. Mlyor Of
Tre.cny Mo-. III Bank Commissioners g. Civ
Bank OF Rochester, !. Barb. CD. p. $50
Weundersiood the learned counsel Tor the Defendants
70 cL.t that n the OF nancarnuf the law u SUCH "a
have stated and clear in The opinion that In
respect othe peIsOns upon whon Opers,es there can
be 10 ciunc'.cn tetween mandaH.us ana az unc.
uln Indeed al tie deeis.0ns rest upon the same min
Ciple principle which Lord Kenyon la the ease Of ~,
Rex Holland, las briefly aud iorcihly gated IS
Tenn r, t-) i = that where duty Is thrown M
body consisting VI several persons each i iD3iyi
uauy responsible for Is performauce and inafyidusv
hsbie for Il breach; and tee application Of this pr6
ciple plainly iulmaterisl hecer the duty resBI,
ton act Of IL slature OF lie mandate Of Court
Of justice We remark In conclusion, that unless uuon
the construction that ADOPT injunction addressed
exclusively u corporation must be IN all cases NUS,
tory and senselcss proceeding. corporation c,n5o,
be attached nor nave been able 10 diseover ~,
there ere any means b WHICH, VIXEN such tle form ~
TIE u uuctiCr its dsObedienee a. corp0r,fioo 80
b. compelled, or IL disobedleuce punished And -,
there are none, Lord LCughboEoush ia the case ~ the
Mayor q London the Mayor Il Lynn sea,1s -
iiuci,y % admit. q IL BLACK, be- Unless ta. inipnc
tilD therefore, n sgrh cases operates ID n those r,r,
hers sHd cheers CT tee corporoon by whom its c1y
Tl,e WI Is manifested and corporate acss performed
ind urleEs creates duty tor which thew srs rs-,i
70 TIE suit psrsonsly responsible i / ecnns-s
-t:ufum ~ men. the words usy be thoEe NJ co..
nEud c. menace bui they addressed 70 no oae snJ
signify H0,AiFg.
The next O. ec;on that tie Omission 10 serve NM,
the Aldermen With the INJUNCTION copy OF tie com
PLANT rendered the se-vce CT the injunction tel az
O. them imperative and void, ike the preceiir ne
sai-sfed must be Cverrled Il furnishes IN th
no reason for nct proceeding 70 s:;scnnent No.
withfizrcirg The posEye terms e tie code eco we