Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Ind. 307

Gaff v. Theis

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1870-07-01

<p>Corporation. — Manufacturing Company. — Directors.—Statute Construed. — Directors of an incorporated manufacturing company are officers, Tvithin the meaning of the fifteenth section of the act providing for the incorporation of such companies, 1 G. & H. 42T.</p> <p>Same. — Promissory Note. — A corporation known as 11 The Aurora Brewing: and Halting Company”' executed a note signed “ G. G. Kelsey, Ass’t Sec’y Aurora Brewing and Malting Company.”</p> <p>Held, that this was the’ note of the corporation;, and not ,that of C. C. Kelsey personally.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1900

8 state decisions

301870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Frazer, J.

¶1This was a suit against the appellants, who were the president and directors of an incorporated manufacturing company, known as “ The Aurora Brewing aud Malting Company,” to recover from them personally an indebtedness due to the plaintiff from the corporation by a note signed “ C. C. Kelsey, Ass’t Sec’y Aurora Brewing and Malting Company,” under the provision of the fifteenth section of the act providing for the incorporation of such companies, 1 G. & H. 427.

¶2The complaint made a case fully within the meaning of the statute, and there was therefore no error in overruling' a demurrer to it. It is argued that directors are not officers within the meaning of the act imposing the liability, but an attentive reading of it seems to us to be very convincing that this position is not correct. Though penal statutes should be strictly construed, yet such construction cannot be pushed to the extent of disregarding the plain letter and spirit of the act.

¶3Then it is argued that the note was not the note of the corporation, though expressly alleged (and distinctly proved) to be such; but that upon its face it appeared to be the note of C. C. Kelsey, and that the superadded words, “Ass’t Sec’y Aurora Brewing and Malting Company,” were merely a description of the person. A party may, we suppose, execute a note by any name, other than his own, and yet be bound by it, and this must apply as well to a corporation as to a natural person. "We perceive no error in overruling the demurrer to the complaint, nor, indeed, in any of the proceedings.

¶4Affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.

/33/ind/307 · .json · Public domain