Case Name: THE AHRENS & OTT MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. JEAN B. CAIRE ET ALS.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1907-11-11
Citations: 5 Teiss. 154
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE AHRENS & OTT MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. JEAN B. CAIRE ET ALS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Decisions, Court of Appeal, parish of Orleans (Teissier)
Volume: 5
Pages: 154–158

Head Matter:
THE AHRENS & OTT MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. JEAN B. CAIRE ET ALS.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS ON CLERK.
The issues involved in this case are identical with those involved in Finlay, Dicks & Co., vs. Caire et als, decided this day.
Appeal from Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, St. James Parish.
H. Kenner, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Pugh & Himel, Kernan & Lambremont, for Defendant and Appellee.

Opinion:
ESTOPINAL, J.
The issues involved herein are identical with those in Finlay Dicks & Co. Ltd. vs. Jean B. Caire et als. decided this day.
For the reasons therein assigned the preliminary writ of mandamus is rescinded and recalled and relator's application is dismissed at their costs with the understanding that upon relator's paying the clerk the legal charges for preparing, certifying and transmitting the record of appeal to this Court the clerk shall thereupon comply with his duties.
t. Where parties, sued as individuals, seek to shelter themselveá under the 'protection of Corporate rights and privileges and by virtue thereof claim exemption from personal responsibility, the onus is upon them to establish that they have become a corporation by compliance with the requirements of the law.
2. A corporation must have full and complete organization and existence as an entity, and in accordance with the law to which it owes its origin, before it can assume its franchise or enter into any kind of contract or transact any business.
3. To create corporate existence under Act No. 36 of 1888, known as the "Limited Liability Act," there must be, at least, a substantial compliance with the provisions of the law of the State governing corporations in general and as embraced in Section 685 and 686 Rev. Sta't, as well as the same compliance with the specific provisions of the Act itself; and the burden of proving this compliance is upon those who, when sued individually, claim immunity under this act
Nov. 11, 1907.
Rehearing refused Dec. 9, 1907.