This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1895 edition. Excerpt: ...and organization of the corporation must be proved by direct evidence, and that the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the company is not conclusive evidence of the existence and organization of the company as a corporation in such an action4 In like manner, in Pennsylvania, in an action at law against several parties alleged to have been directors and officers of a chartered bank, to recover upon bills issued by them which had become worthless, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the charter, --which in this instance consisted of letters patent signed by the Governor, --where, under the act of incorporation, a charter was necessary to create the bank a body corporate.8 In Massachusetts, in an action against an alleged manufacturing corporation, seeking also to charge the stockholders who are summoned in the suit in pursuance to a statute, ' it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the existence of the corporation in order to 1 Yeager v. Scranton Trust Co. Central Agricultural Ac. Asao. v. (Pa.); 14 Week. Not. Cas. 296; Citi-Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., tupra. zens' &c. Bank v. Gillespie, 115 Pa. St. 4 Hudson v. Carman, 41 Me. 84. 564, 572; $. c. 9 Atl. Rep. 73. Gardner v. Post, 43 Pa. St. 19 Citizens' &c. Bank v. Gillespie, Mass. Stat. 1851, ch. 315. 115 Pa. St. 564; i.e. 9 Atl. Bep. 73. charge the stockholders, although the corporation has suffered a judgment by default.1 The governing principle is, that the stockholder has a right to a hearing or adjudication of the question whether he is a member of such a corporation as that in which he is impleaded, and as such liable for its debts. "It is obvious that the trial of the issue which is thus opened to an alleged stockholder necessarily involves the question of...