« PředchozíPokračovat »
(Ga.) 1059 (Tenn.) 742 (Conn.) 952
Co., (W. Va.)
Lagerquist v. Bankers' Bond & Mortg. Guaranty Co.
(Iowa) 585 (Wis.) 622 (Okla.) 803
Langen v. Borkowski Lawley v. Richardson L. D. Pearson & Son v. Bonnie (Ky.) 1166 Leahy, Spring v. (Mass.) 1203 Lehigh & W.-B. Coal Co. v. Globe & R. F. Ins. Co. (C. C. A.) 215 Leicht-Benson Realty & Constr. Corp. v. J. D. Stone & Co. (Va.) 1100 v. Stone (J. D.) & Co. (Va.) 1100 Levy (Nat) & Co., Heineman (Oscar) Corp. V. (C. C. A.) 727 Liebhauser v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. (Wis.) 870 Longbotham v. Takeoka ... (Or.) 1285 Louisville Trust Co., Silcott v.
Lynchburg, Lynchburg Trac-
McCullough v. Sullivan .... (N. J.)
Wills & Co. ....... (N. Y.) 956 v. Wills (Hamilton B.) & Co.. McKnight v. Brozich
(N. Y.) 956 (Minn.) 1352
Minister of Finance, Smith v.
Mitchell Mfg. Co., Portsmouth
(Ariz.) 1359 (Ark.) 114 (Iowa) 567
(Ohio) 961 (Fla.) 1127
(Okla.) 934 (S. C.) 1212
Moore v. Stevens Morgan, Thomas v. Moragne, Carr v. Morrison, Hattiesburg Auto Sales Co. v. .... (Miss.) 147 Mullings, Dickson v. (Utah) Mutual Tank Line Co. v. Gunderson (S. D.)
Newcomer v. Sibon Noble v. Noble Norfolk & W. R. Co., Angiline (W. Va.) (Wis.)
Norris, Steber v.
Northern P. R. Co. v. Spokane Valley Growers' Union
Nat Levy & Co., Oscar Heineman Corp. v. (C. C. A.) Nebraska Bldg. & Invest. Co., Furrer v. ... (Neb.) Nenzel v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct. ... Newark F. Ins. Co. v. Turk (C. C. A.) 496 (Kan.) 1387 (Cal.) 1235
Paccos v. Rosenthal .... (Wash.) Pearson (L. D.) & Son v. Bonnie
Osborne, Tighe v.
ANTONIO T. CAROZZA et al., Appts.,
FEDERAL FINANCE & CREDIT COMPANY et al.
December 9, 1925.
Maryland Court of Appeals
Constitutional law, § 311 - depriving corporation of defense of usury
Estoppel, § 68 - corporations
stockholder guarantor claim individual rights. 2. A stockholder who becomes guarantor for the obligation of the corporation will not ordinarily be heard to deny this status, and claim that a contract made in the name of the corporation, and within its competency, and as its corporate act, was not a corporate, but his own individual, act, because the corporation had ceased to exist, for the reason that he was, at the time of the apparent corporate act, the sole owner of the corporate stock.
1. A corporation is not unconstitutionally deprived of the equal protection of the laws by a statute depriving it of the defense of usury which is accorded to individual borrowers.
[See annotation on this question beginning on page 18.]
Corporations, § 16 when corporate form disregarded.
3. The rule that the form of a corporate entity may be disregarded where the ownership of all of its cor43 A.L.R.-1.
131 Atl. 332.)