Court Opinion

ID: 9720003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:12:33.863791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.191552
License: Public Domain

*477Souris, J.
(concurring). I concur in reversal, but not for the reason stated in Mr. Justice Black’s opinion.
In addition to the claim that a prior suit for the same cause was pending in the Federal district court, defendant’s motion to 'dismiss also was based upon a claim that by virtue of the provisions of CL 1948, § 450.87 (Stat Ann § 21.87), plaintiff had lost its legal capacity to sue, having failed to file its 1959 annual report and to pay the privilege fee required by CLS 1956, §450.82 (Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp §21.82).
We have recently reviewed this subject in the case of Industrial Coordinators, Inc., v. Artco, Inc., 366 Mich 313. In that case defendant failed to object to the plaintiff’s capacity, or lack thereof, until after plaintiff had cured its default by filing its annual report and paying the privilege fee. We there held that under such circumstances the defense belatedly sought to be raised was no longer available. In this case, however, motion to dismiss was timely made and decided while plaintiff’s corporate powers continued to be suspended. Plaintiff’s declaration should have been dismissed, but only for the reason that plaintiff lacked capacity to sue during the period its corporate powers were thus suspended.
Reversed and remanded. Costs to appellant.
Carr, C. J., and Dethmers, J., concurred with Souris, J.