Case Name: Holmes and others vs. Gilliland and others
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1864-03-07
Citations: 41 Barb. 568
Docket Number: 
Parties: Holmes and others vs. Gilliland and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Barbour's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 568–571

Head Matter:
Holmes and others vs. Gilliland and others.
A statute of another state, under which the plaintiffs claimed to have been incorporated, declared that persons associating under articles of agreement according to the statute, and who should comply with all the provisions thereof, should constitute a body politic and corporate. It then provided that before any corporation so formed should commence business, the officers should cause the articles to be published in two newspapers, &c. Held, that a corporation might be such for all the purposes of bringing an action, without publication. Sutherland, J. dissented.
Held, also, that general reputation that the plaintiffs were conducting business as a corporation, coupled with the fact that the note sued on was payable to them, was sufficient evidence of the existence of the corporation to prevent a dismissal of the complaint, for want of proof of publication of the articles.
APPEAL from a judgment ordered at the circuit, dismissing the complaint. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, claiming to be a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Connecticut, upon a promissory note made by the defendants, payable to the corporation. The plaintiffs proved, on the trial, that they had complied with all the provisions of the statute of Connecticut relative to the formation of corporations, except the one requiring any corporation formed under the statute to publish its articles of association in two newspapers, before commencing business, bio proof being given or offered, showing such a publication, the court dismissed the complaint; holding that proof of publication was necessary, in order to show that the plaintiffs were a corporation.
Mr. Birney, for the plaintiffs.
L. Birdseye, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Leonard, J.
The defense is purely technical. The publication is not, by the statute, a portion of the proceedings for the formation of a corporation. The publication must be made before the corporation commences business. It may be a corporation for all the purposes of bringing an action without publication. If the publication be omitted, the cor-, poration might be restrained or wound up; but it would not enable a debtor to escape payment.
General reputation is sufficient evidence of user, prima facie. General reputation that the plaintiffs were conducting business as a corporation, coupled with the fact that the note mentioned in the complaint is payable to the plaintiffs, was sufficient evidence of the existence of the corporation to prevent a dismissal of the complaint.
I think also it was competent for the legislature of Connecticut to declare what should be sufficient prima, facie evidence of the formation of a corporation. (2 Bosw. 166.)
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide the event.
Clerk®, J. concurred.