Case Name: The President and Directors of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana vs. George J. Lord
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1883-04
Citations: 35 La. Ann. 425
Docket Number: No. 8589
Parties: The President and Directors of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana vs. George J. Lord.
Judges: Fenner, J., recuses himself, on the ground of interest.
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 425–441

Head Matter:
No. 8589.
The President and Directors of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana vs. George J. Lord.
bhe judicial decree rendered in 1843, declaring tiie charter of the plaintiff forfeited, termimated its corporate existence.
The Act of 184V laid upon the managérs and directors of the plaintiff the duty of requiring of the stockholders such annual payments as would accumulate a fund sufficient to meet the obligations of the State; restricting them only in. this, that the equal instalments should run from one to seventeen years.
"When the managers and directors accepted the terms offered them by the State in this Act, and levied a contribution of six dollars on each share of every stockholder as sufficient to meet the obligations of the State issued.for this Association, a contract was thereby made' by and between the State and the stockholders which neither can he permitted to violate.
The attempt of the State, by the Act of 1878, to impose a further contribution of forty dollars per share upon each stockholder, is a violation of this contract, and cannot be enforced.
The annual contributions of six dollars per share are prescriptible in five years.
APPEAL from tbe Civil District' Court for the Parish of Orleans. Iiigldor, J..
J. G. Egan, Attorney General, and John MoEmry for Plaintiffs and Appellees:
1. “ One who contracts with what he acknowledges to he and treats as a corporation, inour- ' ring obligations in its favor, is estopped from denying its corporate existence, particularly when the obligations are sought to bo enforced.” Latolais, Administratrix, vs. Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana.
2. “ Although a corporation had expired by limitation, and judgment of forfeiture of charter had also been pronounced against it on behalf of the State, yet, when, from the nature and objects of the institution, a power to liquidate its affairs after the expiration of its charter might have been foreseen as absolutely necessary, the power to aooept from the State an extension of the charter for the purpose of liquidation will be implied? and this extension enabled it to sue a defaulting stockholder, notwithstanding the enabling statute was passed subsequent both to the deoree of forfeiture and the expiration of the charter by limitation.” 7 An. 319.
3. ‘ ‘ There is no prescription of obligations of individuals for the seourity. of stock subscribed and unpaid as long as the liquidation of the company continues.” 12 A*n. 528; 27 An. 535.
4. By Act No. 19, Sec. 14, of 1827, the liability of the stockholders depended upon the pay* ment of the debts of the corporation; and not until after its debts had been paid and settled was the entire stock obligation due, and no prescription could possibly begin to run until after that date.
J. A. Campbell on the same side.
M. IT, Marr and Jules Lavergne for Defendant and Appellant:
1. The Act 100 of 1847 was a contract between the State and the stockholders of the Con* solidated Association; and it fixes definitively the rights and obligations of both parties.
2. The amount to be contributed by the stockholders having been fixed by that Aot, the State is debarred from requiring any additional contribution by them.
3. Every stockholder has the right to invoke the benefit of that Aot as fixing the entire amount to be contributed by him, and as a bar to any claim for further contribution.
4. The Act No. 20 of 1878 is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 10, in that it impairs the obligation of the contract created by the oiiginal charter of the Association; and in that it impairs the obligation of the contract created by the Act No. 100 of 1847.
5. The right to call upon the stockholders for contribution was exhausted in 1847.
6. The right to oall upon the stockholders for contribution accrued when the Association became insolvent; and this right was barred by the lapse of more than thirty years from the date of .the accruing of that right, and the passage of Act No. 20 of 1878, and the assessment made under that Aot in July, 1880.
Chas. E. Claiborne and Blano & Butler on the same side.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Bermudez, C. J.
This is an action to recover from the defendant contributions assessed against him as stockholder of the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana, the payment of which is alleged to be secured by special mortgage on certain urban real estate.
The contributions first claimed are of six dollars on each of his 22 shares of $500 each, for five years, including 1865, with interest at eight per cent. They were levied under the provisions of Sec. 6 of Act 100 of 1847, extending the liquidation of the Association.
The contributions secondly claimed are of forty dollars on each of the same shares, with like interest. They were imposed under the terms of Act 40 of 1878, providing for a final liquidation of the concern.
Both contributions are claimed to satisfy an indebtedness to the State, and a liability incurred by her for the Association.
Under the averment of her claim and of an interest in the recognition and enforcement of the demand the State intervened, joining and assisting plaintiffs.
Numerous defenses were set up, which can be said substantially to be: that the petitioners have no standing in court; that their right of action is barred by prescription;, that the State is no creditor of the concern and has no interest in the litigation, and that, lackiug a foundation, the claim must fail.
From a judgment overruling the exception to plaintiffs' capacity to sue, and referring other defenses set up in limine to the merits, and from another judgment entitling the petitioners to recover, the defendant has appealed.
On Exceptions.
The plaintiffs were appointed under authority of Acts Nos. 113 of 1853 and 40 of 1878, for the purpose of bringing the liquidation of the affairs of the concern to a final close. To that end they brought the present suit. The complaint is that they did not set forth their names, but merely stated their official capacities.
It was not requisite that they should have given their names. As corporate bodies and chartered institutions can, during their existence, act judicially under the name or title given them in the act of incorporation, without mentioning the names of the officers representing them, so, when those organizations have ceased to operate and are in liquidation, the parties entrusted with the winding up of their business can sue in their official capacities without stating their individual names. C. P. 112; 6 An. 542. The plaintiffs have made themselves sufficiently known to the defendant by designating their titles.
Suits brought by persons as agents, or for the use of others, have often been decided to have been properly instituted, and defendants have been held to answer the demand. H. D. 1124. Had the defendant seasonably denied the existence of any person entitled to the capacity alleged, the plaintiffs could have been held before issue joined to identify themselves with the trust, but that denial was never entered.
The corporation was created in 1827. Its charter was modified in the year following. Its existence was to terminate in 1843; but in 1842 its charter was judicially declared forfeited.
In 1847, with the consent of the stockholders, an assessment was levied and the period of liquidation was extended to 1865. In the year following the legislature, authorized a continuation of the liquidation' until the maturity of the bonds which the State had issued in aid of the institution.
In' 1878 an Act was passed directing a process of liquidation and providing for the continuation of previous officials, and for the appoint-1 ment of additional ones. This suit was brought by such officials.
In the exercise of powers inherent to all well regulated governments over insolvent estates, the legislature was authorized to adopt the Acts which it passed for the liquidation of the business of the Association, Those powers have constantly been exercised in Europe, in our sister States and in our own, in some form or other. 12 An. 288; 10 R. 460; 7 An. 319; 5 An. 470; 7 An. 286; 6 An. 457; 5 An. 740.
The plaintiffs are rightfully in court and can sue as they have done. A payment made to them in their official capacity, of any sum due to1the concern, would exonerate the debtor and conclude the-organization! and all interested therein. 9 An. 265; 7 An. 114; 8 An. 132; 9 An. 341.
The exception to the right of plaintiffs to represent the concern in this suit and to the mode in which they have appeared in court to represent it was not well taken and was properly overruled. The other-defenses advanced in limine could not be dealt with as exceptions and were properly referred to the merits, to which they -really belong.. The reference could occasion defendant no injury. '