Magee

Magee v. Mokelumne Hill Canal

Good Law
1855 Cal. LEXIS 101·5 Cal. 258
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California374 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

Murray, C. J.. and Bryan, J., concurred.

The objection made by appellants as to the selection of the jury shown by an affidavit of one of the attorneys, which, although copied into the transcript, is no part of the record, and therefore cannot be noticed.

The only other assignment of error depends upon the construction of the third section of the “Act concerning Corporations,” of 1850. It provides that no corporation created, or to be created, shall by any implication or construction be deemed to possess the power of issuing bills, notes, or other evidences of debt, upon loans, or for circulation as money.

The paper upon which this suit is founded, was issued by the defendant for money loaned to it, and it is here insisted that the paper is a nullity on account of the prohibition of the statute.

The question might be well asked, if this was the intention of the Legislature, why allow corporations to issue their notes for considerations other than borrowed money ? And I can see no good reason which can be given. The Act contemplates that corporations will incur debt, and limits their power to incur debts to the amount of the capital stock paid in. It must be inferred that they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.