White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1911-08-20
ELY CENTRAL HAS CONE
BACK INTO |TS0 OWN AGAIN.

found that there was no fraud prov
en-. In considering the Neall-Hill
case and the cases mentioned therein.
the language of Lord Halsbury the
foremost Judge of England, in an
opinion rendered in the house of
lords, is pertinent. He says:
Every judgment must be read
as applicable to the particular facts
proved, or assumed to be proved,
since the generality of the ex-
pressions which may be found there
are not intended to be expositions of
the whole law, but governed and
qualified by the particular facts of the
case In which such expressions are
found. A case is only an authority
for what 1t actually decides. I
entirely deny that 1t can be quoted
for a proposition that seems to fol-
low logically from It,"
In the light of this quotation it
does seem to me that the case of At
torney General VS.. Utica Insurance
Co, 2 Johns. Oh. 81, which Is fire.
quently cited in support of defend
ants position, is not an authority.
That was a case where the legislature
of New York granted a charter to the
corporation to do an insurance bust
ness only, and it undertook to do in
addition thereto a banking business,
and the attorney general brought a
suit to restrain it from doing a bank
ing business.
The Supreme Court of Illinois, in
the case of Baker VS.. Admr. of
Backus, 80 Ill. s3. considers the
English cases mentioned in Neall vs.
Hill. The court in speaking of the
case under consideration by it says:
The bill further prayed that IL the
company should be declared to be a
corporation. to direct and order it
to be closed up and dissolved" After
this statement follows a discussion of
the English cases alluded to, after
which the court says: Eminent law
writer's on this subject say that a
cause of forfeiture cannot be taken
advantage of, or enforced, against a
corporation, collaterally or inciden-
tally. or in any other mode than by a
direct proceeding for that purpose
against the corporation. so that It
may have an opportunity to answer.
And the government creating the cor
poration IA alone institute a pro-
ceeding, since IL may waive a broken
condition of a compact made with IL
as well as an individual
A court of chancery can be especially
empowered by statute, as in the state
of New York, to diyest a corporation
of It's corporate charter and capacity;
otherwise. In all cases, the mode to
proceed to enforce a dissolution, for
causes of forfeiture is by scire facias
. .. In the same case the Illi-
nois court, near the end of the cases
says: There was no necessity to APP
point a receiver. because no fraud is
alleged or shown . This Ian
guage indicates that the court was of
the opinion that a receiver should
have been appointed had fraud been
shown.
But 1t is claimed by the defendant
that the appointment of the receiver
in this case really means the dissolu-
ton of the company and that the
court cannot do indirectly what II
cannot do directly. There is logic in
The claim that a court cannot do in
directly what 1t cannot do directly,
but this court is of the opinion that
the appointment of the receiver did
not dissolve the defendant company,
for II IL did, such dissolution is now
an accomplished fact, yet the cor
poration is here making this fight.
But If 1t were true that the appoint
ment of the receiver dissolved the
corporation can this court revivify il
by removing the receiver? This
court Is of the opinion that the APP
continent of a receiver never dis
solves a corporation, as is laid down
by High on Receivers (4th ed Sec.
344 b. But counsel for defendant
say, we mean that the appointment
of the receiver dlssolves the corpora
ton for all practical purposes. They
say in other words, we admit hat the
of a company may be guilty
of the grossest frauds for their W
personal gain, and If not prevented
L., th.x .x,aDfnttann o n FnnAfunf