Hoknaday v. Indiana & Illinois Central Railway Co.
This text of 9 Ind. 263 (Hoknaday v. Indiana & Illinois Central Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The railway company sued Hornaday, on his stock subscription. He set up fraud in this, that since his cash subscription, the company had taken a large land subscription at enormous prices, &c. Demurrer to the answer sustained, and judgment for the plaintiffs below. Hornaday appeals.
There was no error in this ruling. That the officers of the railway company had made some foolish bargains, was no defense to the action. It was his duty as a stockholder to aid in the selection of more competent officers. He might complain, if they had gone beyond the common course of procedure — as if they had consolidated the road with some other. But procuring subscriptions of stock, was directly in the line of their duty. If land was taken, it was because the railway charter permitted it. It was only an error of judgment if they paid too high a price.
Besides, Hornaday took no exception to the opinion of the Court in sustaining the demurrer to his answer. The record, therefore, presents no question to be determined
The judgment is affirmed, with 2 per cent, damages and costs.
Jolly v. The Terre Haute Bridge Co., post.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 Ind. 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoknaday-v-indiana-illinois-central-railway-co-ind-1857.