Bouton v. Dement

14 N.E. 62, 123 Ill. 142
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 11, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 14 N.E. 62 (Bouton v. Dement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bouton v. Dement, 14 N.E. 62, 123 Ill. 142 (Ill. 1887).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District, affirming a decree of the circuit court of Cook county, against Christopher B. Bouton, rendered on June 80,1886, for the sum of $17,584.92, in the case of a creditor’s bill, brought by A. B. Dement and others, against said Bouton and others, the appeal being by Bouton. The decree was for an indebtedness found to be due from Bouton to the Empire Fire Insurance Company of Wheaton, for shares of the capital stock of said company taken by Bouton.

On October 26, 1878, said Dement and others recovered a judgment against said insurance company, for $3500, as damages, and $17 costs, for a loss upon a policy of insurance issued by the company in January, 1877. On October 1, 1878, the insurance company made an assignment of all its property and effects to William D. Cole, for the benefit of its creditors. An execution upon the aforesaid judgment having been issued, and returned no property found, the plaintiffs therein, Dement and others, on March 2,1880, brought this creditor’s bill upon the judgment, making the company, Bouton, Cole, and others, parties defendant, and praying for discovery and relief. The defendants filed their respective answers, Cole, in his answer, admitting the material allegations of the bill. ° He also filed a cross-bill, as assignee, making all the other parties to the original bill defendants, alleging Bouton’s liability to the company, and breaches of trust on his part and that of other directors and officers of the company, praying for the proper relief, and that the several parties charged with liability to the company be required to pay the several amounts found against them, to him, to be distributed among the creditors of the company.

Bouton’s account, by his answer and testimony, of his alleged liability to the company, is as follows: That about January 15,1875, he was the holder of one hundred and fifty shares of the capital stock of the Union Insurance Company, of the par value of $15,000, which he, at that time, exchanged for two hundred and eighty shares, of the par value of $14,000, full paid Empire Eire Insurance Company stock, with said Empire company; that he did not give his note to the said Empire company for any sum whatever, did not owe said company anything, and did not agree to pay said Empire company anything whatever for said two hundred and eighty shares of its stock, other than the said one hundred and fifty shares of said Union Insurance Company’s stock, which was then delivered in payment of said two hundred and eighty shares of the Empire Insurance Company’s stock; that the Empire Insurance Company of Chicago had purchased a note for $10,000, made by him to his own order, and by him indorsed to the Union Insurance Company, which note afterward came into the possession and ownership of the Empire Eire Insurance Company of Wheaton; that this note was secured by real estate in Cook county, conveyed by a trust-deed to a trustee; that in April, 1877, anticipating bankruptcy, he applied to the Empire Eire Insurance Company of Wheaton for a description of the note, whose officers then requested him to make an effort to get some third party to purchase the land securing the note, and to give a new note with the same security in lieu of his (Bouton’s) note; that this was done with one J. F. Page, to' whom the real estate was conveyed; that Page’s note for $11,200, and trust deed securing it, of the same real estate, were substituted for Bouton’s note and deed of trust, and the latter were cancelled, and surrendered to Bouton; that the Page note was afterward hypothecated to the First National Bank of Chicago, and by it sold to one Cushing, and by Cushing to Bouton, who still holds it. The Union Insurance Company became merged in the Empire Fire Insurance Company.

The finding of the circuit court was, that the change from the Union Insurance Company to the Empire Fire Insurance Company left Bouton a stockholder in the latter comjtany, and left him indebted upon the stock he held there, in the amount of the face of the Page note; that that note stood in place of his liability for that stock, and formed the measure of his said liability. The decree was for the amount of the note after deducting all payments of money made on account of it' by Bouton.

After a full examination of the testimony, we are not prepared to say that this finding of fact by the circuit court was not justified from the evidence. The evidence shows, that from about the time Bouton became a stockholder in the Empire Fire Insurance Company until it made its assignment, he was a director and a member of the finance committee of the company ; that when the Union Insurance Company was merged into the Empire Fire Insurance Company, a certain portion of the stockholders of the former made new subscriptions to the capital stock of the latter company, and their notes held by the Union company were surrendered and given up by the latter company. The books of the Empire Fire Insurance Company, as we read them, show that Bouton took $14,000 of that company’s capital stock, and paid therefor by his note for $10,235.55, which we take to he the same note (or one of the same amount) that had been given by him to the Union Insurance Company. There were suspicious circumstances attending the after-dealing with the note, tending to show it to have been a device to get rid of Bouton’s personal responsibility upon the note. Page, who substituted his note for this note of Bouton, as above stated, was an employe in the Union Foundry Company, of which Bouton was president, and Page was pecuniarily irresponsible. Cushing, who purchased this Page note and trust deed from the bank for $1500, was also an employe of said Union Foundry Company, and the brother-in-law of Bouton. Bouton was with him at the bank, at the time of the purchase. The president of the bank says that on investigation of the property described in the trust deed securing the note, the hank came to the conclusion that $1500 was all that they could realize from the security and note. Afterward, Bouton purchased from Cushing this Page note and deed of trust for the same price Cushing paid for them. Thus, by the dealing, if held valid, which has been had in regard to this note of Bouton for $10,235.55, held by the Empire Eire Insurance Company, and given, as is found, for stock of the company, Bouton is freed from his personal responsibility upon the note, and all that the company and its creditors realize from the note is $1500. Such dealing, to the prejudice of creditors, with the stock and assets of a corporation, between a stockholder and officer, and the corporation, is not to be tolerated.

It is contended, that taking the facts to be- as found by the circuit court, yet the decree is erroneous. As the transaction of the substitution of the note of Page in the place of that of Bouton, and the cancellation and surrender up of Bouton’s note, was approved of and ratified by the directors and the stockholders of the Empire Insurance Company of Wheaton, and the company afterwards used the Page note, and hypothecated it with a bank to raise money, it is insisted that the transaction was a valid one, and binding upon the company. This might be so as to the company, and yet be otherwise as against creditors. As bearing upon what were the rights of creditors under the facts as found in this case, we refer to what was said in Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kelly v. McCormick-Murray Manufacturing Co.
201 Ill. App. 308 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1916)
Potter ex rel. Root v. Sterling Vehicle Co.
177 Ill. App. 558 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1913)
Leman v. Teter
169 Ill. App. 503 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Parmelee v. Price
70 N.E. 725 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
Babcock v. Maxwell
74 P. 64 (Montana Supreme Court, 1903)
Ross v. Sayler
104 Ill. App. 19 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1902)
Taylor v. Seiter
65 N.E. 433 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Mills v. Bear
95 Ill. App. 586 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1901)
Weill v. Zacher
92 Ill. App. 296 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Bruner v. Campbell
90 Ill. App. 632 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Ahlgren v. Huntington
85 Ill. App. 639 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Hinkley v. Reed
55 N.E. 337 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Weir v. Mowe
55 N.E. 530 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Cohin v. F. S. Waters & Co.
83 Ill. App. 387 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Young v. Stevenson
54 N.E. 562 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
Weir v. Mowe
81 Ill. App. 287 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Young v. Stevenson
81 Ill. App. 40 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1899)
Gubbins v. Bank of Commerce
79 Ill. App. 150 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Home Savings & State Bank v. Wheeler
74 Ill. App. 261 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Pullman v. Railway Equipment Co.
73 Ill. App. 313 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 N.E. 62, 123 Ill. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouton-v-dement-ill-1887.