• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
35. Rule precluding collateral attack West's Key Number DigestWest's Key Number Digest, Corporations 28As distinguished from pretended existence without colorable compliancewith thelaw,[FN1] a showing of de facto existence is sufficient proof of the right to betreated as a corporation for purposes of a judicial proceeding.[FN2]In other words, a corporation that has at least a de facto existence cannot bequestioned collaterally.[FN3] Quo warranto proceedings are the sole andexclusiveremedy by which the legality of the existence and organization of acorporationcreated and existing under color of law may be questioned.[FN4]A certificate of incorporation is conclusive evidence of incorporation exceptasagainst the state in a proceeding for involuntary dissolution.[FN5] After thestatehas thus recognized the legal existence of the corporation, it would becontrary to public policy, and inconvenient as well, to allow a private individual toinitiatean inquiry into the validity of an act of state in a proceeding to which thestateis not a party.[FN6] After the expiration of the period of existence specifiedin acorporate charter, a corporation is dissolved and no longer has any existenceatall, either de jure or de facto.[FN7]
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[FN1] In re Ballard, 279 F. 574 (N.D. Tex. 1922); Hunt v. Atkinson, 12S.W.2d 142(Tex. Comm'n App. 1929), judgment set aside on reh'g on other grounds, 17S.W.2d 780(Tex. Comm'n App. 1929).[FN2] American Salt Co. v. Heidenheimer, 80 Tex. 344, 15 S.W. 1038(1891).[FN3] Miller v. Davis, 136 Tex. 299, 150 S.W.2d 973, 136 A.L.R. 177(1941); Sigler v. Realty Bond & Mortgage Co., 150 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth1941), writdismissed, judgment correct.[FN4] Walling v. North Cent. Tex. Municipal Water Authority, 162 Tex. 527,348S.W.2d 532 (1961); McGown v. Kittel, 480 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. Civ. App. FortWorth 1972),writ refused n.r.e., (Oct. 4, 1972).[FN5] § 6.[FN6] Payne v. Bracken, 90 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1936), writgranted,(Mar. 18, 1936) and judgment aff'd, 131 Tex. 394, 115 S.W.2d 903 (Comm'nApp. 1938);Rutherford v. Watson, 52 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1932), writrefused,(Nov. 28, 1932).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...