S. Land, Timber and Pulp Corp. v. United States

3 Citing cases

  1. Mather Construction Company v. United States

    475 F.2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1973)   Cited 17 times
    In Mather, supra, the court dismissed an action by a contractor to recover on a contract with the Air Force for construction of military housing, because the plaintiff contractor was a California corporation that had been suspended for nonpayment of taxes.

    The court's decision was rendered in the same year as the promulgation of Rule 17(b), and although not addressed to the rule itself, has been uniformly interpreted as requiring that federal courts apply the law of the state of incorporation when determining corporate capacity under Rule 17(b). McGinnis Theatres Pay T.V., Inc. v. Video Independent Theatres, Inc., 386 F.2d 592 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1014, 88 S. Ct. 1265, 20 L.Ed.2d 163 (1968); Southern Land, Timber Pulp Corp. v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 788 (N.D.Ga. 1970); Joseph Muller Corp. v. Societe Anonyme De Gerance, 314 F. Supp. 439 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); American Optical Co. v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 228 F. Supp. 293 (E.D.Pa. 1964). The capacity of the plaintiffs to sue in this court under Rule 61(b) must therefore be determined by the law of the State of California.

  2. Litts v. Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc.

    375 F. Supp. 675 (M.D. Pa. 1973)   Cited 11 times
    Applying Georgia law

    Research has only discovered one Georgia case construing § 1325. In Southern Land, Timber and Pulp Corp. v. United States, 322 F. Supp. 788 (N.D.Ga. 1970) it was held that a suit instituted by a corporation, more than three years after its dissolution, against the United States for a tax refund was barred by § 1325. In addition, although § 1325 is patterned after § 98 of the Model Business Corporation Act, no case construing that Act has been found directly in point.

  3. Jones v. C S Nat. Bank

    204 S.E.2d 116 (Ga. 1974)   Cited 6 times

    The corporate dissolution involved in this case was accomplished under the prior law and would appear to be governed by its provisions. See Southern Land, Timber Pulp Corp. v. U.S. A., 322 F. Supp. 788 (N. D. Ga., 1970). However, we do not regard either of these limitation statutes to be applicable as a bar to appellant's claim.