Cozad v. McKee

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Cozad v. McKee

18 A. 618, 130 Pa. 406, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1201

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 11, 1889

DocketNo. 104

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A. 618 (Cozad v. McKee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cozad v. McKee, 18 A. 618, 130 Pa. 406, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1201 (Pa. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per, Curl&m:

This case turns upon the meaning of the word “ dividends,” contained in the note or due-bill sued upon. The note was to' be paid only “ from the first dividends declared by the Title Insurance & Trust Company.” The defendant contends that it means dividends declared out of profits only. If such had been the language of the instrument, the case would have been free from difficulty. In point of fact there were no profits, and of course none could be divided. The company went into liquidation shortly after it commenced business, and the assets, from $25,000 to $30,000, were distributed among the shareholders. Of this, the defendant received $900; and the plaintiff contends, and the jury have so found, that to this extent defendant was liable to him upon the due-bill in question. We cannot give the word “ dividend ” the narrow construction claimed for it. There may be dividends out of profits, and there may be dividends out of insolvent estates. The one is as much a dividend as the other.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per, Curl&m:

This case turns upon the meaning of the word “ dividends,” contained in the note or due-bill sued upon. The note was to' be paid only “ from the first dividends declared by the Title Insurance & Trust Company.” The defendant contends that it means dividends declared out of profits only. If such had been the language of the instrument, the case would have been free from difficulty. In point of fact there were no profits, and of course none could be divided. The company went into liquidation shortly after it commenced business, and the assets, from $25,000 to $30,000, were distributed among the shareholders. Of this, the defendant received $900; and the plaintiff contends, and the jury have so found, that to this extent defendant was liable to him upon the due-bill in question. We cannot give the word “ dividend ” the narrow construction claimed for it. There may be dividends out of profits, and there may be dividends out of insolvent estates. The one is as much a dividend as the other.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A. 618, 130 Pa. 406, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cozad-v-mckee-pa-1889.