Case Name: In Re MARGARET TURLEY
Court: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1892-02-01
Citations: 9 Mackey 315
Docket Number: No. 1300
Parties: In Re MARGARET TURLEY.
Judges: The Chief Justice and Justices Cox and James sitting.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 20
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
In Re MARGARET TURLEY.
Trust Companies; Purview oe Act op 1890.
The Act of -Congress of October i, 1890, providing for the incorporation in this District of trust and loan corporations, applies to the trust companies which were in existence at the time of the passage of the act and which have since complied with its provisions, as well as to those which were originally organized under that act.
Orphans’ Court.
No. 1300.
Decided February 1, 1892.
The Chief Justice and Justices Cox and James sitting.
Motions Certified by the Orphan’s Court to the General Term to be heard in the first instance.
Messrs. A. S. Worthington, J. J. Darlington and John B. Earner for petitioner.
Messrs. Nathaniel Wilson and R. Ross Perry for other like companies.

Opinion:
The Chief Justice
delivered the opinion of the Court:
These are two motions certified from the Orphans' Court to be heard here in the first instance, and the question presented is whether or not these companies can perform the duties specified in sections 31 and 32 of the Act of Congress entitled ' 'An act to provide for the incorporation of trust, loan, mortgage and certain other corporations within the District of Columbia' ' approved October 1, 1890, (26 Stat., 625, et seq.,') and become executors, administrators, guardians or trustees, without the execution of a bond.
It appears that this and other companies were originally organized under laws of different States, perhaps, and were doing business in the city of Washington at the time of the passage of this act of Congress. Each of the companies, however, have complied with the provisions of the act of Congress by filing proper vouchers and taking steps required by it in order to enable them to become authorized to do business. The court examined this question upon a former presentation,, and we were in doubt as to whether or not these companies, having been previously organized under State laws, and simply coming in and choosing to comply with this law so as to authorize them to proceed under the provisions of this act, ought to be regarded as included in the provisions of section thirty-one, "that no bond or other collateral security, except as hereinafter stated, shall be required from any trust company incorporated under this act, ' ' or whether the provisions of .this act applied exclusively to the incorporation of companies under it originally. The question is, what are to be regarded as existing corporations under the provisions of this statute so as to be included in section thirty-one. We have re-examined the question, and all are agreed that there can be no doubt that companies that were existing at the time of the passage of this act of Congress are described and included in section thirty-one. A comparison of that section with other sections of the statute we think removes every doubt as to whether they are to be considered as covered by this act. We are of the opinion that they are doing business now only by virtue of their incorporation under this act, and not under any previous incorporation under any State law. When they came under this law they surrendered their powers and authority derived under their original incorporation.
A proper order in accordance with this view of the law may be entered and the matter remanded to the Orphans' Court.