Nelson v. Blakey

54 Ind. 29
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 54 Ind. 29 (Nelson v. Blakey) 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.

Bluebook
Nelson v. Blakey, 54 Ind. 29 (Ind. 1876).

Opinion

Howk, J.

William M. Blakey, the assignee in bankruptcy of the Mount Vernon Masonic Hall Company, sued the appellant, in the court below, to recover the amount of an alleged subscription by appellant to the capital stock of said Masonic Hall Company.

■ The appellee, in his complaint, alleged, in substance, that the Mount Vernon Masonic Hall Company was a corporation, organized under the laws of this state, for the purpose of erecting a building to be used in part as a masonic lodge; that said Blakey is the assignee in bankruptcy of said corporation; that before the organization of said corporation, appellant subscribed for five- shares of the capital stock of said corporation, and agreed and promised to pay therefor the sum of one hundred dollars, [31]*31being twenty dollars for each share thereof: that said subscription was made by appellant, in writing, in the preliminary articles of association of said corporation, 'which preliminary articles were duly made, signed and acknowledged, and were duly filed and recorded in the recorder’s office of Posey county, Indiana, where said corporation was to be located, and that a duplicate thereof, duly certified by the recorder of said county, was duly filed in the office of the secretary of state of Indiana, on the 27th day of May, 1867, and that a duly certified copy of said articles of association was filed with and made part of said complaint; and it was averred that defendant, though often requested so to do, had failed, neglected and refused to pay said sum of one hundred dollars, so subscribed by him, or any part thereof, and that there was due and unpaid thereon the sum of-; wherefore, appellee demanded judgment for-, and other proper relief.

Appellant answered, in five paragraphs, the appellee’s complaint, as follows:

11 That the capital stock of said company was and is fixed by the articles of association of said company, at the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and that only thirteen thousand dollars of said stock have ever been taken or subscribed; wherefore, he demands judgment for costs;

2. A general denial;

3. A denial that there was any corporation, known as the Mount Vernon Masonic Hall Company, and an averment that, at the time he signed the supposed article of agreement mentioned in appellee’s complaint, there was no such corporation, nor has there been any such corporation organized and existing since that time, nor at the time then present;

4. A denial that a duplicate copy of the articles of association, mentioned in appellee’s complaint, was filed in the office of the secretary of state of Indiana, before the commencement of this suit; and,

5. That appellant had paid the sum of twenty dollars, [32]*32of the amount subscribed by him in the articles of association, mentioned in the complaint.

Demurrers, for want of sufficient facts, were filed by appellee to the first and third paragraphs of the answer, which demurrers were each sustained, and to each decision appellant excepted.

On appellee’s motion, the fourth paragraph of the answer was stricken from the files, and appellee replied, in denial, to the fifth paragraph of the answer.

The cause at issue was tried by the court, and a finding made, in favor of appellee and against appellant, for the amount of his subscription; and appellant’s motion for a new trial having been overruled, and an exception saved to this decision, the judgment was rendered upon the finding, from which this appeal is now prosecuted. .

Appellant has assigned, in this court, the following alleged errors:

1. Sustaining appellee’s demurrer to the first paragraph of appellant’s answer;

2. Sustaining appellee’s demurrer to the third paragraph of appellant’s answer; '

3. Error of the court below, in admitting in evidence the copy of the articles of association of the company, set out in the bill of exceptions, over appellant’s objection; and,

4. In overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

In our opinion, the court below committed no error in sustaining appelleé’s demurrers to either the first or third paragraphs of the answer, as neither of the paragraphs stated facts sufficient to constitute a defense to appellee, in this action.

The third alleged error presents no question for the consideration of this court, when presented here as an independent error. It states a matter, which, if true, would be a good cause in a motion addressed to the court below for a new trial of the cause. If the matter stated is presented to the court below in a motion for a new trial, [33]*33as one of the causes for such new trial, and such motion is overruled, and proper exceptions are saved, then, hut not otherwise, such matter will be considered by this court; and in such case, the only error that need be assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial.

The fourth error assigned in this cause is the décision of the court below, overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. The causes assigned in said motion for a new trial were these:

1. The court erred in admitting a certified copy of a copy of the articles of association of the Mount Vernon Masonic Hall Company, in evidence; and,

2. The finding of the, court was contrary to the law and the evidence.

A bill of exceptions, containing the evidence on the trial, is properly in the record. It appears therefrom that, on the trial in the court below, the appellee offered in evidence “ a certified copy of a copy ” of the articles of association of 'the Mount Vernon Masonic Hall Company; that appellant objected to the introduction and reading of said “ copy of a copy,” for the following reasons:

1. Said copy of a copy was not admissible in evidence ;—it should be a copy of "the duplicate filed in the office of the secretary of state; and,

2. The certificate of the secretary of state is not admissible to prove the date of the filing of the same in his office; and that the court below, over appellant’s objections, permitted said copy to he read in evidence.

It seems, from the record in this cause, the appellee claimed that the Mount Vernon Masonic Hall Company was a corporation, organized and existing under the provisions of an act of the general assembly of this state, entitled “An act for the incorporation of companies for the purpose of building and maintaining buildings to he used or occupied, in whole or in part for masonic meetings, purposes, or in any way for the accommodation or [34]*34convenience of masonic bodies, or lodges,” approved March 11th, 1867. 1 R. S. 1876, p. 841. Section 1 of that act provides as follows:

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

Related

Lorch v. Page
115 A. 681 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1921)
Commonwealth v. Leilb
76 Pa. Super. 413 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
First National Bank v. Jamieson
128 P. 433 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen v. McFadden
111 S.W. 1172 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Grand Lodge, Ancient Order of United Workmen v. O'Malley
89 S.W. 68 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1905)
Wiley ex rel. Scobey v. Barclay
58 Ind. 577 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)
Whitworth v. Blakey
55 Ind. 510 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Ind. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-blakey-ind-1876.