McAteer v. Menzel Building Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Chicago Reg. Coun. of Car. v. Joseph J. Sciamanna

    Case No. O8 C 4636 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2008)

    The fact that, through the error of an individual officer, a foreign corporation fails to comply with technical rules of filing is not sufficient reason to ignore the corporate entity and charge the individual. See McAteer v. Menzel Bldg. Co., Inc., 300 N.E.2d 583, 587-588 (Ill.App.Ct., 1973); Idrograndi Rubinetterie, S.p.A. v. Hico-Flex Brass Co., Inc., No. 90 C 256, 1990 WL 172581, *5 (N.D.Ill., Oct. 29, 1990). Officers may be personally liable, however, if they are alleged to have engaged in self-dealing, fraud, or the illegal acts giving rise to the corporation's liability.

  2. U.S. v. Daugherty

    599 F. Supp. 671 (E.D. Tenn. 1984)   Cited 8 times
    Applying Kentucky law to determine whether corporate veil should be pierced because corporation was incorporated in Kentucky

    The Court reasoned that enactment of the Tennessee General Corporation Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 48-101 to 48-1407, specifically sections 48-1106(1), (3), abrogated pre-Corporation Act case law which held the shareholder, director, or officer of a nonqualifying corporation liable for the corporate debt. Although the Tennessee courts have not addressed the issue, the decision is consistent with the decisions of courts of states which have adopted corporation acts similar to the Tennessee act. See e.g., National Ass'n of Credit Management v. Burke, 645 P.2d 1323, 1325, 26 (Colo.App. 1982); Mysels v. Barry, 332 So.2d 38 (Fla.App. 1976); McAteer v. Menzel Building Co., Inc., 300 N.E.2d 583, 13 Ill.App.3d 394 (1973). Thus, the failure of D D to qualify to do business in Tennessee does not subject Thomas Daugherty to liability for the corporate debt.

  3. National Assoc. v. Burke

    645 P.2d 1323 (Colo. App. 1982)   Cited 2 times
    Construing predecessor of § 7-115-102

    Moreover, more recent decisions of Illinois and Pennsylvania courts indicate that legislation in those jurisdictions has cast doubt upon the vitality of the earlier cases. See McAteer v. Menzel Building Co., 13 Ill. App.3d 394, 300 N.E.2d 583 (1973); Bala Corp. v. McGlinn, 295 Pa. 74, 144 A. 823 (1929); Walsh v. Hallstead, 140 Pa. Super. 13, 13 A.2d 95 (1940). In view of these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiff has no common law remedy against these defendants in this case.

  4. Kankakee Concrete Products Corp. v. Mans

    81 Ill. App. 3d 53 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)   Cited 19 times

    The record reveals that oral arguments were heard on the motion. In fact, it is apparent that during oral argument on the motion counsel for defendant cited to the court the case of McAteer v. Menzel Building Co. (1973), 13 Ill. App.3d 394, 300 N.E.2d 583, in support of the proposition that an officer of a foreign corporation which transacts business in the State of Illinois without a certificate of authority as required by the Business Corporation Act cannot be held individually liable for damages arising from breach of contract. Both the plaintiff and defendant subsequently filed memoranda of law with the court on the subject of the applicability of McAteer to the instant case.