Court Opinion

ID: 9830660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:22:07.595727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.341949
License: Public Domain

On Motion for a Rehearing.
[3, 4, 6] Among other contentions urged in the motion is one that this court “erred in holding that the legal effect of the peremptory instruction to/ the jury to find in favor of the Farmers’ & Merchants’ Insurance Company and against plaintiff was the same as a discontinuance or dismissal as to said company, and that appellant was not prejudiced thereby.” As' an abstract proposition, it would not be correct to say that the legal effect of such an instruction is the same as a dismissal or discontinuance of the plaintiff’s suit, but on the facts of this case as shown by the record we do not think to so hold would prejudice'rights of the appellant. It appeared that the state of Nebraska had brought suit to dissolve the Farmers’ & Merchants’ Insurance Company, and for a receiver to wind up its affairs, on the ground that it was insolvent. It further appeared, from the judgment rendered in that suit, that a Nebraska court had determined that said Farmers’ & Merchants’ Insurance Company was insolvent, and had appointed a receiver to take charge of and wind up its' affairs.
[5] The effect of the judgment under the laws of that state not having been shown, it should be presumed to be the same as it would be under the laws of this state, to wit, to dissolve the corporation. Article 1205, R. S. 1911. After it had-been dissolved and its affairs placed in the hands of a receiver, the corporation could not be sued. It had ceased to exist. Thompson on Corporations, § 6718 et' seq. It is apparent, therefore, that no right of appellant was prejudiced by the action of the court complained of. The motion is overruled.