Ogilvie v. Knox Insurance Co.

63 U.S. 380, 16 L. Ed. 349, 22 How. 380, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 736
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 12, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by71 cases

This text of 63 U.S. 380 (Ogilvie v. Knox Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ogilvie v. Knox Insurance Co., 63 U.S. 380, 16 L. Ed. 349, 22 How. 380, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 736 (1860).

Opinion

Mr. Justice GRIER

delivered the opinion of the court.

The complainants in this case are judgment creditors of the Knox Insurance Company. The numerous other defendants are stockholders of the company, and are severally charged as debtors to it, for the unpaid portion of the stock subscribed by them.

The company is insolvent, or at least is unable to pay its creditors, without calling in the capital subscribed and secured, but not actually paid in cash. This it has fajled or refused to do. This bill is filed to compel These stockholders or debtors to the corporation to pay the amount of their debts, in order that, the creditors of the company may obtain satisfaction. ,

The bill was taken pro confesso as against the corporation. The other defendants, being corporators, are consequently concluded as to the averments of the 'bill affecting them as such. As stockholders who have not paid in the whole amount, of the stock subscribed and owned by them,, they stand in the relation of debtors to the corporation for the several amounts due by each of them. As to them, this bill is in the nature of an- attachment, in which they are called on to answer as garnishees of the principal debtor.

Where a number of special partners are incorporated to carry on the business of insurance, the stock subscribed and owned by the several stockholders or partners constitutes the capital or fund publicly pledged to all who deal with them. Insurance companies or corporations, unless .they have the. privilege of using their capital for banking- purposes, seldom require the actual payment of it all in cash. Contracts of *388 insurance or indemnity, though not literally “gaming contracts,” are nevertheless in the nature of wagers against the happening of a certain event. The calculation of chances is greatly in favor of the insurer. In a large number of policies, it is but reasonable to expect that the amount of premiums will exceed that of the losses. The insured are thuo made to pay one another, and with common good fortune afford an overplus to make a dividend for the insurers. Hence the Knox Insurance Company, like others of the same description, did not require their stockholders to pay in cash more than ten per cent, of their several shares. They were allowed to retain the remaining ninety per cent, in their own possession, substituting therefor their bonds, or other securities. Thus every stockholder became a borrower from, and debtor to, the capital stock of the company. If in the course of events the chances were favorable, a dividend of twenty per cent, on capital would give a profit , of two hundred on the money actually paid out by them. On the contrary, if they were adverse, the capital represented by securities must necessarily be paid in to sátisfy the just debts of the company.

The ninety per cent, retained by the stockholders is as much a part of the capital pledged as the cash actually paid in. When that portion of the capital represented by these securities is required to pay the creditors of the company, the stockholders cannot be allowed to refuse the payment of them, unless they show such an equity as would entitle them to a preference over the creditors, if the capital had been paid in cash.

Let us now examine their defence,, and see if they have established such an equity.

They do not deny that they paid the ten per cent,, gave their securities for the balance, and have received their certificates for their several shares of stock; but they contend that they are not bound to pay these securities, because, the agent of the corporation, who took the subscriptions of stock, made certain representations concerning the state of the affairs of the corporation, which were not true; and, as a consequence thereof, they are not bound to pay these securities.

*389 The numerous defendants, with some immaterial variations and qualifications, adopt the answer of their co-defendant, Collum, which we shall give verbatim, from the record, to show we have not misstated or mistaken the nature of the defence set up.

“And, by way of defence to said suit, said Collum alleges that just before he gave said note, accepted said first bill, Robert N. Carnan, an agent of said insurance company, came to Jeffersonville to procure persons there to give notes and bills for stock in said insurance company;' and in order to induce said Collum to give his said note,- and accept said first bill for-such stock, said Carnan, as such agent, then and there falsely and fraudulently said and repi*esented to said Collum, and in his hearing, that stock in said insurance company to the amount of seventy-five dollars had then been subscribed for at Vincennes, and on the Wabash river, and all of said amount had then been paid or secured as the charter of said insurance company required. Said Collum did not then know, nor then have the means of knowing, to the contrary of said representations, and he fully believed them to be true, and with that belief he gave his said note, and accepted said two bills for stock in said insurance company; and if he had not fully believed said representations, he would not have given said note nor accepted said bills, or either of them. At the time said representations were so made, and said given and said first bill accepted, there had not been more than twenty-five thousand dollars of stock in. said insurance company subscribed for and paid and secured, as said charter required, at Vincennes, on the Wabash river, which said Car-nan then well knew. Saict Carnan also, at and just before said Collum made his said note and accepted his said first bill, represented to him that said insurance company then had $40,000 of funds on hand, mostly in Eastern exchange, which they could not dispose of at Vincennes, and they wished to get stockholders at Jeffersonville, so as to have an officer of said insurance company there, and they would then send those funds there to be sold and used. Said Collum did not then know, and had no means of knowing, to the contrary of said *390 representation, but he believed it, and it was a strong inducement with him to make his said note and accept his said bills; yet he is row informed and believes said representation was grossly ibise, and that said insurance company did not at that lime have and had not at any time had that sum or anything like that sum of money on hand, and mostly in Eastern exchange, which they could not dispose of at Vincennes.”

Caiman, who was examined as a witness, denies the charges made in -this answer, and declares that he was not authorized by the company to make such representations, and did not make them.

.To establish their defence, several of the defendants themselves were called as witnesses, alleging that, as their responsibility was several, and not joint, each one may be called as a witness for all the rest. Much of the argument of this ease, has been expended on the question of the competency of these witnesses to testify in their own .case ; but we do not think it necessary to decide it, as there are other facts in the case which show clearly that the matter pleaded cannot affect the relative rights of the parties in the case, assuming it to be true.

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

Related

In Re AJF
764 So. 2d 47 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2000)
In Re Fidelity Assur. Ass'n
42 F. Supp. 973 (S.D. West Virginia, 1941)
Gordon v. Washington
295 U.S. 30 (Supreme Court, 1935)
Grand Rapids Nat'l Bank v. Commissioner
15 B.T.A. 1166 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Flint v. Sebastian
300 S.W. 798 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Irby v. Harvey
129 S.E. 220 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1925)
Wright, Ins. v. Hix
83 So. 341 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Van Gilder v. Eagleson
66 Colo. 364 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1919)
Gordon v. Cummings
139 P. 489 (Washington Supreme Court, 1914)
Davis v. Burns
173 S.W. 476 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Woman's Temperance Building Ass'n v. Devore
160 Ill. App. 153 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)
Edwards v. Schillinger
91 N.E. 1048 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Edwards v. Schillinger
148 Ill. App. 227 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1909)
Winterhaler v. Hoffman
43 So. 980 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1907)
Williams' Exr. v. Chamberlain
94 S.W. 29 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906)
United States Shipbuilding Co. v. Conklin
126 F. 132 (Third Circuit, 1903)
Hawkins v. Donnerberg
66 P. 691 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1901)
Scott v. Latimer
89 F. 843 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Pickering v. Townsend & Brown
118 Ala. 351 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1897)
Martin v. South Salem Land Co.
26 S.E. 591 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 U.S. 380, 16 L. Ed. 349, 22 How. 380, 1859 U.S. LEXIS 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogilvie-v-knox-insurance-co-scotus-1860.