Case Name: Butchers' and Drovers' Bank of St. Louis vs. John W. McDonald, executor
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1881-01-19
Citations: 130 Mass. 264
Docket Number: 
Parties: Butchers’ and Drovers’ Bank of St. Louis vs. John W. McDonald, executor.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Butchers’ and Drovers’ Bank of St. Louis vs. John W. McDonald, executor.
Suffolk.
January 17. —19, 1881.
Colt, J., absent.
A person who contracts with a de facto corporation cannot, in an action against him on the contract, impeach the legality of its organization.
Contract upon a promissory note for $450, dated April 22, 1875, payable on demand to the order of the plaintiff, and signed by Bernard O’Reilly, the defendant’s testator. The writ described- the plaintiff as a corporation duly established and organized under the laws of the State of Missouri.
A t the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., without a jury, it appeared that, at the time the note in suit was given, the plaintiff was doing business as a defacto corporation; and the only issue in controversy was whether the requirements of the Gen. Sts. of Missouri of 1866, cc. 62, 68, were fully complied with before the plaintiff commenced its business. On this issue the judge ruled that the plaintiff had shown sufficient evidence of its corporate existence to enable it to maintain this action; and found for the plaintiff accordingly. The defendant alleged exceptions which stated all the evidence bearing upon this issue, which, being immaterial to the point decided, is omitted.
C. P. Donnelly, for the defendant.
M. P. White, for the plaintiff, was not called upon, and moved for double costs.

Opinion:
By the Cottbt.
The plaintiff being a corporation de facto, and the defendant having contracted with it as such, the legality of its organization cannot be impeached by him when sued upon his contract. Appleton Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 5 Allen, 446. Commissioners of Douglas v. Bolles, 94 U. S. 104.
Exceptions overruled, with double costs.