Excelsior & Eureka Petroleum Co. v. Maxwell

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Excelsior & Eureka Petroleum Co. v. Maxwell

3 Ky. Op. 445, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 153

DecidedJanuary 18, 1870

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 445 (Excelsior & Eureka Petroleum Co. v. Maxwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Excelsior & Eureka Petroleum Co. v. Maxwell, 3 Ky. Op. 445, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 153 (Ky. Ct. App. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The appellants, incorporated on a broad scale for a magnificent [446]*446enterprise, soon after their organization, failed and suspended operations, like most others of the same kind. Before the abortion, a few of the stockholders had, on their own responsibility, borrowed $2,000 for the use of the company on its recorded pledge of reimbursement.

Harrison, for appellant. Ro & Fo, for appellees.

This suit seeks the enforcement of that pledge by contributions from the appellees and others as stockholders.

The petition charges that they were subscribers, and that their respective subscriptions were entered in a record exhibited as evidence. Th appellees denied that their names as inscribed therein, were signed by them. And, on that apparent issue, the circuit court dismissed the petition, as against those pleaders. This was erroneous. The appellees do not deny that they were stockholders, but only that the exhibit as evidence of that fact had ever been signed by them. Nevertheless they may have been subscribers and the record may certify the truth even though' they never signed their names as therein inscribed.

Wherefore, the .judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The appellants, incorporated on a broad scale for a magnificent [446]*446enterprise, soon after their organization, failed and suspended operations, like most others of the same kind. Before the abortion, a few of the stockholders had, on their own responsibility, borrowed $2,000 for the use of the company on its recorded pledge of reimbursement.

Harrison, for appellant. Ro & Fo, for appellees.

This suit seeks the enforcement of that pledge by contributions from the appellees and others as stockholders.

The petition charges that they were subscribers, and that their respective subscriptions were entered in a record exhibited as evidence. Th appellees denied that their names as inscribed therein, were signed by them. And, on that apparent issue, the circuit court dismissed the petition, as against those pleaders. This was erroneous. The appellees do not deny that they were stockholders, but only that the exhibit as evidence of that fact had ever been signed by them. Nevertheless they may have been subscribers and the record may certify the truth even though' they never signed their names as therein inscribed.

Wherefore, the .judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 445, 1870 Ky. LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/excelsior-eureka-petroleum-co-v-maxwell-kyctapp-1870.