Quidnick Company v. Chafee

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Quidnick Company v. Chafee

13 R.I. 438, 1881 R.I. LEXIS 44

DecidedOctober 22, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 13 R.I. 438 (Quidnick Company v. Chafee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quidnick Company v. Chafee, 13 R.I. 438, 1881 R.I. LEXIS 44 (R.I. 1881).

Pincite

Opinions

Stiness, J.

This bill charges that “ under and pursuant to ” the contract 1 referred to in the preceding case, the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company became and is indebted to the complainant; that Mary Sprague, Fanny Sprague, William Sprague, and Amasa Sprague, as stockholders in that corporation, are personally liable for such debt; that the Quidnick Company by its charter has a lien on the stock of its members for debts due from them to the company, and hence prays that a lien may be declared in its favor on the stock in the Quidnick Company claimed to belong to the persons named, and that the respondent, Chafee, may be enjoined from selling said stock under a pledge from them.

We have already decided 2 that there is no debt due to the complainant from the A. & W. Sprague .Manufacturing Company “ under and pursuant to ” said contract, and therefore the Quidnick Company can have no lien on the stock on that account.

The answer admits that at the time the stock was pledged, and before the contract was made, there was a debt due to the complainant from the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company of $216,410.88, which was subsequently settled and paid by the Quid-nick Company’s acceptance of $216,400 of the notes of the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, secured by the trust mortgage to Chafee, and $10.88 in cash. The complainant contends that this was taken only as “ additional security,” without extin *440 guishing the original debt. We have no doubt, from the facts before us, that the mortgage notes were received and accepted as full payment of the debt then existing. The settlement in cash of the trifling balance of $10.88 indicates this, and a use of the portion of the notes by the Quidnick Company, to pay its own debts, is wholly inconsistent with its claim to hold them only as security. .

On neither ground, therefore, has the complainant a lien on the stock, and the bill must be dismissed.

Tiluing-HAST, J., concurred.

1

Ante, p. 369.

2

Quidnick Company v. Chafee, ante, pp. 367, 370.

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

Stiness, J.

This bill charges that “ under and pursuant to ” the contract 1 referred to in the preceding case, the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company became and is indebted to the complainant; that Mary Sprague, Fanny Sprague, William Sprague, and Amasa Sprague, as stockholders in that corporation, are personally liable for such debt; that the Quidnick Company by its charter has a lien on the stock of its members for debts due from them to the company, and hence prays that a lien may be declared in its favor on the stock in the Quidnick Company claimed to belong to the persons named, and that the respondent, Chafee, may be enjoined from selling said stock under a pledge from them.

We have already decided 2 that there is no debt due to the complainant from the A. & W. Sprague .Manufacturing Company “ under and pursuant to ” said contract, and therefore the Quidnick Company can have no lien on the stock on that account.

The answer admits that at the time the stock was pledged, and before the contract was made, there was a debt due to the complainant from the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company of $216,410.88, which was subsequently settled and paid by the Quid-nick Company’s acceptance of $216,400 of the notes of the A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Company, secured by the trust mortgage to Chafee, and $10.88 in cash. The complainant contends that this was taken only as “ additional security,” without extin *440 guishing the original debt. We have no doubt, from the facts before us, that the mortgage notes were received and accepted as full payment of the debt then existing. The settlement in cash of the trifling balance of $10.88 indicates this, and a use of the portion of the notes by the Quidnick Company, to pay its own debts, is wholly inconsistent with its claim to hold them only as security. .

On neither ground, therefore, has the complainant a lien on the stock, and the bill must be dismissed.

Tiluing-HAST, J., concurred.

1

Ante, p. 369.

2

Quidnick Company v. Chafee, ante, pp. 367, 370.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 R.I. 438, 1881 R.I. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quidnick-company-v-chafee-ri-1881.