14 Iowa 359 | Iowa | 1862
At the last June Term of this Court, it was determined, that the demurrer of defendant to tbe petition of plaintiffs was stated in such general terms as that tbe Court below should have disregarded it under § 2877 of the Revision of 1860. (See 13 Iowa, 487.) ■ Since that time the appellants have agreed to waive this objection, and present the cause for determination on its merits.
Defendant is a member of an incorporation styled tbe “Dubuque Times Company,” against wbicb plaintiffs obtained a judgment. This proceeding is instituted to make his individual property liable therefor. And tbe question made involves a construction of several sections of Chapter 52 of tbe Revision of 1860 (Cb. 43 of tbe Code of 1851) providing for “ corporations for pecuniary profit.”
By § 1152 it is declared that the incorporations therein provided for shall: “ Previous to commencing any business, except that of their own organization, adopt articles of incorporation, which must be recorded in tbe office of the recorder of deeds of the county where tbe principal place of doing business is to be in a book provided therefor. A notice must also be published for four weeks in succession in some newspaper as convenient as practicable to the principal place of business, which must contain: First. Tbe name of tbe corporation and its principal place of doing business. Second. Tbe general nature of tbe
Our conclusion is that appellee’s construction is the correct one, and that there was no error in sustaining the demurrer. The “ publicity ” provided for, relates to those important and essential publications required at the organization of the corporation, or the premature dissolution of the same. Such publications by name are the only ones actually styled such in-the statute; and while it is true that to post by-laws and the amount of capital stock, &c., would result in giving the same a certain publicity, such posting is not spoken of as a publication, as in the case of the notice provided for in § 1155, and the preceding parts of the statute. Not only so, but the prime object of this requirement is to make individual corporators liable-for the failure to do those things which are necessary to the transaction of business; and it was not designed that for a mere failure to post by-laws (which may or may not be adopted), the individual property could be made subject to execution. Then, again, if a failure to post by-laws and a statement of the amount of capital stock, &c., renders them liable, so a failure to give a corrected publicity to any material changes in such statement, would have the same effect. This was certainly not the intention of the Legislature. It makes individual liability depend upon failures or omissions, too, comparatively unimportant and unessential.
In the case of Milldam Foundery v. Hovey, 21 Pick., 457, cited by appellants, it will be found that the statute con
Affirmed.-