Court Opinion

ID: 8821940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 15:36:09.660652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:39.699711
License: Public Domain

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume delivered the opinion of the court. 7. Corporations, § 745*—when foreign corporation not estopped to raise defense of ultra vires. As between a foreign corporation and one of its officers, the former cannot be estopped to assert the illegality of a contract between them which was ultra vires because contemplating the transaction of business in this State, which the corporation" was not authorized and could not under the law be authorized to transact. 8. Assumpsit, action op, § 71*—when quantum meruit proper for recovery on illegal contract. The fact that a contract between a foreign corporation and one of its officers for the performance of services by the latter was illegal because it was not authorized to transact business in this State, does not preclude a recovery upon the quantum meruit, but in such case inquiry should be permitted as to the amount already paid to such officer under the terms of the contract. 9. Appeal and error, § 1794*—when judgment against garnishee reversed. A reversal of a judgment against the defendant in the principal action necessarily requires a reversal of the judgment against the garnishee. 10. Frauds, statute op, § 24*—when agreement not to he performed within one year. An agreement on the part of one of the officers of a corporation to finance the corporation, which was organized to sell lands under a contract, giving it brokerage rights for a period of three years, is within the Statute of Frauds.