Court Opinion

ID: 6422985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:01:32.528409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:51.504586
License: Public Domain

C. Allen, J.
The apparent corporation was not a corporation. The statute of New Hampshire requires five associates, and the articles of agreement must be recorded in the town in which the principal business is to be carried on, and the place in which the business is to be carried on must be distinctly stated in the articles; otherwise there is no corporation. The defendant’s pretended associates were associates only in name; he alone was interested in the enterprise. The articles of agreement were recorded in Nashua, and stated that the business was to be carried on there; but it was not in fact carried on *253there, and was not intended to be. The defendant took all the shares of the capital stock, and paid in to himself as treasurer only fifty per cent of the amount thereof. This is not a case where there has been a defective organization of a corporation which has a legal existence under a valid charter. Here there was no corporation. It was just the same as if the defendant had done nothing at all in the way of establishing a corporation, but had conducted his business under the name of the Forbes Woolen Mills, calling it a corporation. The business was his personal business, which he transacted under that name. Fuller v. Hooper, 3 Gray, 334, 341. Bryant v. Eastman, 7 Cush. 111.
The jury found that he did not in good faith attempt to organize the corporation, but that he believed it to be a valid corporation. His belief, in view of the facts of the case, is immaterial. Under this state of things, the defendant bought goods of the plaintiffs for his own sole benefit, adopting the name of the apparent corporation, which had no real existence, and which represented nobody but himself. He cannot escape responsibility for his purchases by the device of putting such a mere name between himself and the plaintiffs. The purchase was in substance by and for himself alone. The plaintiffs might have repudiated the transaction, and maintained replevin, if they had learned the facts in time. They may also treat the transaction as a sale to the defendant personally. Fay v. Noble, 7 Cush. 188, 194. Kelner v. Baxter, L. R. 2 C. P. 174, 183, 185. 2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 630.
Since the notes represented nothing, the plaintiffs were at liberty to treat them as void, and recover on the original contract for goods sold. Melledge v. Boston Iron Co. 5 Cush. 158, 171.

Verdict to stand.