Case Name: Seymour G. Renick v. The Bank of West Union
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1844-12
Citations: 13 Ohio 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: Seymour G. Renick v. The Bank of West Union.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 13
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Seymour G. Renick v. The Bank of West Union.
A writ of error will not lie upon a judgment in favor of a defunct corporation. Á writ directed to a defunct corporation is a nullity.
The trustees of such corporation must be brought before the court.
This was a writ of error, brought by Seymour Gr. Ronick, to reverse a judgment against him in favor of the Bank of West Union.
The suit below was pending on January 1,1843, at the time the charter of the bank expired, but was continued and prosecuted to final judgment under section 3 of the act of March 10, 1843, 41 Ohio L. 52, which is as follows: .
“ Sec. 3. That all suits and actions, both at law and in equity, pending, wherein any such dissolved corporation may be, or may have been party, which may have abated prior to the passage of this act, by means of the dissolution of such corporation, shall be, and are hereby revived, and shall be proceeded in by the creditors, assignees, receivers, or trustees, having the legal charge of the assets of such dissolved corporation, in the name of such corporation, in all respects as if such abatement had not occurred.”
This writ was then sued out against the Bank of West Union by name, no mention being made of the assignees, receivers, or trustees.

Opinion:
*Birchard, J.
The first question, and only one necessary to bo considered in this case is, whether the proper parties are* before the court. Tho judgment sought to be reversed was-rendered in the court below on May 15, 1843. The act incorporating the Bank of West Union expired by limitation on January 1, 1843. There is, therefore, no such party as is named in the-record. The inquiry then is, whether the act of March 10, 1843, 41 Ohio L. 52, authorizes this suit to be prosecuted against an expired corporation by name.
Section 1 of the act provides only for the prosecution of suits then ponding. This writ of error was not then pending. Section 2 only provides for the enforcing of judgments, etc., existing at the expiration of the charter, or judgments obtained afterward in suits, etc., pending at the time, and therefore does not embrace a proceeding like this. Section 3 provides that all suits pending in which the corporation was a party, and which had abated by the dissolution, should be revived, and might be proceeded in by the creditors, assignees, receivers, or trustees, having the legal charge of tho assets in tho name of such corporation, in all respects as if such abatement had not occurred. The provisions of this section authorized the court of common pleas to proceed and render judgment in the name of the Bank of West Union. It was an action pending which had abated on January 1, 1843, and was revived on March 10, 1843, and the judgment, if not revived, may be enforced by virtuo of the provisions of section 2 of the act. In order to give us jurisdiction to determine the questions arising upon the assignment of errors, it becomes necessary to-bring before tho court, as a party, the trustees or other persons named in the statute, having the legal charge of the assets of the dissolved corporation. Without this we can not proceed.
A writ diroeted to a defunct corporation is a nullity. Notice upon a party having no existence is also null, and a judgment against such a party would be of no effect.
Writ dismissed.