The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1906-03-16
Repeal Of the Liability Act
Of 1903 Is Thought to Be
Doomed By the House
Corporations Committee
AS DETRIMENTAL TO STATE
ASSEMBLYMMAN MARTIN, ITS IN .
TRoDUCER, WARMLY DEFENDS
IT AND DECLARES HE WILL
FIGHT FOR IT TO THE LAST
DITCH.
tspecial to .arhe Jersey city Nsws.'o


TRENTON, Mar. 16, 1906.-lt is re
garded as almost certain that the House
Committee on Corporations will not re-
port Assemblynan Martins bill No. 3s3S,
better known as s'the repeater OF the
promoters liability act of 1908, or at
least if compelled to, win report it adj
versely. The majority Of the committee
are of the opinion shat the passage OF
the Martin bill would tend to prevent
many corporations from coming to New
jersey, and at a time when other States
are catering for corporation work this
result would be undesirable.
Mr.. Martin IS not discouraged by the
outlook. He declares that he will con-
tinue his fight for the passage of his bill
until final adjournment of ire Legtsia-
ture. He claims that the preacEt law, to
a certain extent. places a permium on
fraud To substantiate his argument
that the repeater of the 1908 Act should
pass, he cites case in which the pres
ident of company. who was authorized
to buy a building, made deal for per-
sonal profit out of it.
Mr.. Martin claims that the present law
should be amended so that officials of
corporations who benefit from private
deals which bring personal pecuniary
profit to them out of the business of the
corporations with which they. are connec-
ted, should be liable from the time of the
discovery Of the offences with which the
present law deals, instead of from the
time of the commission of the offense.
He says that the law as it now stands
makes vast distinction between indi-
viduals and the officers and agents of
corporation. In the case of an individual
the law specifies that he shall be liable
for his acts within two years of the dis
eovery OF his promote scheme ,arIiile IN
the case of an officer OF agent of a cor
poration the hand OF the law cannot
reach him unless his promotion scheme
is discovered within two years of the
time it was made.
Mr.. Martin says that if the owner of
property Should place it in the hands Of
real estate broker for sale at fixed fig
ure, say $10,000and the broker should
manage to sell it for $15,0 900 without the
knowledge of the owner, thereby making
clear profit of $1,000 for himself, he
should be liable to legal proceedings for
two years after discovery of his act by
the ownerf
If a corporation officer or agent made
similar deal, the law could not reach
him unless his deal was discovered with
ntwo years of the time it was affected.
This, Mr.. Martin claims, is unfair and
makes flesh of the corporation officer or
agent. and stone Of the individual broker.
They should be put on the same footing
by the law and there should be no dis
erimination in favor of an officer or
agent Of a corporation as against an indi-
Counsellors r. V. Lindabury and
William H. Corbin appeared before the
Committee on Corporations, not as the
representatives of any client in connec-
ton with the BILL they said, bu. as I'M
taividuals, to give the committee the ben
eft Of their opinion. They doubted the
wisdom of such legislation, believing it
an innovation as 70 statutes of limita-
ton. in that none now on the books call
ed for the beginning of the period of
limitation at the time of the discovery
Of an offense They said that srcn tt
proposition was uzheard of in any other
State, and that it would work harm in
possibly compelling heirs of a man after
death fo@defend actions by the deceased
which may have occurred years previous
IL. but which had been discovered only
at the late date.
Both lawyers claimed that New York
CAPITALISTS were now advised to form
corporations under the New Jersey laws
because Of their liherality and stability.
least injured, they claimed. if the pro,
wise ns Of the Martin bill were enacted
into law.