Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 17
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
where the corporation by its board of directors formally repudiated
the unauthorized contract executed by its president.
Quacker Oil & Gas Co. v. Jane Oil & Gas Co. (Oklahoma), 164 Pacific 671, p. 674.
LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF PRESIDENT.
A mining corporation that turned over to its president the entire
operation of a distinct part of its mining operations on his own
behalf may be liable for the' acts of the president in conducting this
branch of the business, where neither the corporation nor the presi-
dent took any steps to show that such branch of the business was
the individual operations of the president and where the miners, by
reason of the method of employment and of payment and the prop-
erty used in conducting the mining operations, were led to believe
that the operations were in fact those of the corporation.
Ward v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co. (West Virginia), 92 Southeastern 92, p. 96.
RIGHT TO SUE FOREIGN CORPORATION-DOING BUSINESS.
A mining corporation organized in New York and carrying on
its mining operations in Alaska can not be sued in the State of
Washington and jurisdiction acquired by the courts of that State
by virtue of a summons served upon a local agent with an office in
Seattle, where the duties of the agent in no wise related to the carry-
ing on of the mining operations in Alaska, but consisted in some
purchases and the forwarding of supplies to the company in Alaska.
McCario v. Alaska Gastineau Mining Co. (Washington), 165 Pacific 73, p. 75.
CORPORATION ORGANIZED IN ONE STATE TO DO BUSINESS IN ANOTHER.
A mining corporation was organized in the State of New York
under the general statute of that State for the purpose of carry-
ing on and conducting the business of gold mining on lands situated
in the State of North Carolina. Such a corporation may sue in the
courts of North Carolina where it has complied with the require-
ments of the latter State as to conditions precedent for doing business
in that State and has been duly domesticated.
Troy & North Carolina Gold Mining Co. v. Snow Lumber Co. (North Carolina), 92
Southeastern 494, p. 495.
CORPORATION TAX-DOING BUSINESS.
A mining corporation that merely keeps up its organization for
distributing rent received from a single lessee is not -doing business
within the meaning of the corporation tax act.
,Baimbach v, Sargent Land Co., 242 U. S. 503, p. 516.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/31/: accessed October 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.