· 2/23/1903

Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co.

Citations

120 F. 893
58 C.C.A. 79
1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4550

Syllabus

1. Foreign Corporation — Contracts—Eight to Hold Real Estate. In the absence of prohibitive legislation, a corporation may contract, acquire, hold, and convey real estate as fully in another state as in the state of its incorporation. ¶ 1. See Corporations, vol. 12, Cent. Dig. § 2581. 3. Same — Failure to Comply with Statute — Validity. In the absence of an express provision of statute to the contrary, the innocent acts and contracts of a foreign corporation, which has failed to comply with the statutes permitting it to do business in the state where the contracts are made and the acts done, are valid and enforceable, because it is not the intent of the authors of such laws to strike down contracts or acts in performance of them that are not evil in themselves. 8. Same — Prohibition to Maintain Actions in State Courts — Right to Sue in Federal Courts. The prohibition by a state of the maintenance of actions in its courts by a foreign corporation does not prohibit or limit the right of that corporation to maintain such actions in the national courts, nor does it forbid the corporation from defending actions in the state courts. 4. Lease — Construction—Payments. In a lease for 10 years, with a stipulation that in case no well was sunk within 2 years it should become void unless the lessee should elect from year to year to continue it by paying $40 each year, it is not essential that the $40 should be paid before the commencement of the year, but the payment may be made at any time during the year. 5. Estoppel — Performance of Contract — Forfeiture for Delay. The grantor of an option, who prevents its exercise within the time specified in his grant, may not take advantage of the failure of its timely exercise, but must give a reasonable time therefor after the obstruction he interposed is removed. (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that the predominance inquiry “is directed primarily toward whether the issue of liability is common to members of the class”
explaining that even if news reports provided some knowledge to investors, such information was “subject to generalized proof”
finding that articles and 5 complaints in lawsuits cited by defendants to show “knowledge or notice” were publicly available 6 and would be “subject to generalized proof”
class certification will be upheld if the question of investor knowledge does not predominate over the common issues
publicly available lawsuits were subject to general proof and could not defeat predominance
“[M]ateriality for Securities Act claims is an issue subject to generalized proof.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sanborn, Thayer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.