Summary

Mahlon Pitney Corsicana National Bank of Corsicana v…

Even if it appeared that new stockholders acquired their interests with knowledge of the fact that such a loss had been sustained and that defendant was responsible for it, neither they nor the bank would be thereby estopped from having full recovery from defendant. There is no reason in the law to disentitle a purchaser of shares from even relying upon the responsibility of directors to make good previous losses as an element adding intrinsic value to the shares.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Corsicana National Bank of Corsicana v…

On the other hand, the argument of defendant in error regards the two corporations as if they were wholly independent, treats the transfer of the notes from the bank to the loan company, in February, 1908, as valid and the money or credit contemporaneously transferred to the bank like money coming from an outside party, and looks upon the retransfer in January, 1910, as voluntary on the part of the bank, and an unnecessary assumption of loss that otherwise it had escaped.
We cannot accede to either contention in the extreme.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney Corsicana National Bank of Corsicana v…

Because the bank and the loan company were distinct legal organizations, operating under separate charters derived from different sources, and possessing independent powers and privileges, we are constrained to hold that, notwithstanding the identity of stock ownership and their close affiliation in management, for some purposes they must be regarded as separate corporations-for instance, as being capable in law of contracting with each other.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature