Martin v. Inter-State Lumber Co.

Citations

• 260 Pa. 218
• 103 A. 613
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 497

Syllabus

<p>Judgments — Judgment by default — Opening of judgment — Judicial discretion.</p> <p>1. Where in an action on promissory notes brought against a corporation, judgment for want of an appearance was entered, and thereafter a receiver was appointed for the corporation and the receiver applied to the court to open the judgment, alleging that the service of the summons had been improper, that plaintiff and the former treasurer of defendant company had been guilty of fraud in the issue of the notes, and that the notes had been executed by the treasurer, on behalf of the company, without authority, the court did not abuse its discretion in opening the judgment.</p> <p>Corporations — Officers—Treasurer—Powers—Receipt of benefits —Previous course of dealing — Acquiescence—Estoppel—Waiver.</p> <p>2. A corporation may be held liable for the act of an officer in issuing promissory notes, although their issuance was not especially authorized by the by-laws or by the board of directors, only (1) where the corporation has received the benefit of the proceeds of the notes sued on, although irregularly executed, or (2) where the previous course of dealing of the same irregular character between the same parties for a term of years may be deemed a waiver of the by-laws, or (3) where the entire management and control of the corporation is allowed to pass into the hands of one of its officers who executes contracts in the name of the corporation.</p> <p>3. In an action on promissory notes executed by tbe treasurer of a lumber company in the name of the company, a compulsory non-suit was properly entered where it appeared that the treasurer was not authorized to execute promissory notes for the company, that he had no general control of the business of the company, and had not been in the habit of issuing notes in its behalf and that the corporation had received no benefit from the transaction.</p>