Stephen Johnson Field

Name: Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court
Author: Stephen Johnson Field

Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Stephen Johnson Field. It explores elements such as premises, corporation and grantor.

Quotes from Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ Whether the particular premises in controversy are necessary for that business is not important; that is a matter between the government of the State, succeeding that of the Territory, and the corporation, and is no concern of the defendant. It would create great inconveniences and embarrassments if, in actions by corporations to recover the possession of their real property, an investigation was permitted into the necessity of such property for the purposes of their incorporation, and the title made to rest upon the proof of that necessity. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ If the policy of the State or Territory does not permit the business of the foreign corporation in its limits, or allow the corporation to acquire or hold real property, it must be expressed in some affirmative way; it cannot be inferred from the fact that its legislature has made no provision for the formation of similar corporations, or allows corporations to be formed only by general law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ We have no doubt that the condition in the deed to the defendant here is valid and not repugnant to the estate conveyed. It is a condition subsequent, and upon its breach the company had a right to treat the estate as having reverted to it, and bring ejectment for the premises. A previous entry upon the premises, or a demand for their possession, was not necessary. By statute in Colorado it is sufficient for the plaintiff in ejectment to show a right to the possession of the demanded premises at the commencement of the action as heir, devisee, purchaser, or otherwise. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ The defendant, as already stated, went into possession of the premises in controversy under the deed of the plaintiff. He took his title from the company, with a condition that if he manufactured or sold intoxicating liquors, to be used as a beverage, at any place of public resort on the premises, the title should revert to his grantor; and he is therefore estopped, when sued by the grantor for the premises, upon breach of the condition, from denying the corporate existence of the plaintiff, or the validity of the title conveyed by its deed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ His position is that Congress intended to prevent the creation of corporations like this one of Pennsylvania, as the extensive powers granted to it tended to monopolize landed estates for purposes of speculation, and thereby injure the agricultural, mining, and manufacturing interests of the country; and if a domestic corporation could not be created with such powers for reasons of public policy, a foreign corporation could not for like reasons be permitted to exercise them in the Territory. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ In this way slaughter-houses, soap-factories, distilleries, livery-stables, tanneries, and machine-shops have, in a multitude of instances, been excluded from particular localities, which, thus freed from unpleasant sights, noxious vapors, or disturbing noises, have become desirable as places for residences of families. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ Telegraph companies did business in several States before their legislatures had created or authorized the creation of similar corporations; and numerous corporations existing by special charter in one State are now engaged, without question, in business in States where the creation of corporations by special enactment is forbidden. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court

“ In March, 1872, the patentee conveyed the premises to the National Land Improvement Company of El Paso County, Colorado, a corporation created under the laws of Pennsylvania, with power to receive, hold, and grant real and personal property; explore, locate, and improve lands; transport emigrants and merchandise; construct houses and buildings; manufacture, trade, and traffic ”

Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

Quotes from Cowell v. Springs Company — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature