Reed v. Boston Machine Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Reed v. Boston Machine Co.

5 N.E. 852, 141 Mass. 454, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 230

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedApril 1, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 5 N.E. 852 (Reed v. Boston Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reed v. Boston Machine Co., 5 N.E. 852, 141 Mass. 454, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 230 (Mass. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

These cases are virtually covered by the decision in American Tube Works v. Boston Machine Co. 139 Mass. 5. In that case, to be sure, the plaintiff made an election to repudiate its stock, and offered to return it, before the adjudication in insolvency. Under the circumstances then existing, [456]*456this was a fact of somef importance, because, as stated in the opinion in that case, “ this special stock might have been made good, so that the plaintiff would be content or be bound to keep it.” But in the present case the time for doing this had passed. The stock was invalid, and nothing could be done by the corporation to make it valid. It was no longer possible to make the plaintiffs stockholders, by estoppel. Under these circumstances, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to return their certificates of shares, which were valueless; or the dividends which they had received, which were less than the sums they were entitled to receive, the stock being and remaining invalid. See Brewster v. Burnett, 125 Mass. 68; Kent v. Bornstein, 12 Allen, 342. In Allen v. Herrick, 15 Gray, 274, the plaintiff had received and held notes, indorsed by another party, for the dividends. The sums for which the plaintiffs are respectively entitled to prove their claims are the amounts paid by them for the special stock, without interest, which is not insisted on, and which would not run till after a demand, deducting the dividends received.

Judgments accordingly.

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

C. Allen, J.

These cases are virtually covered by the decision in American Tube Works v. Boston Machine Co. 139 Mass. 5. In that case, to be sure, the plaintiff made an election to repudiate its stock, and offered to return it, before the adjudication in insolvency. Under the circumstances then existing, [456]*456this was a fact of somef importance, because, as stated in the opinion in that case, “ this special stock might have been made good, so that the plaintiff would be content or be bound to keep it.” But in the present case the time for doing this had passed. The stock was invalid, and nothing could be done by the corporation to make it valid. It was no longer possible to make the plaintiffs stockholders, by estoppel. Under these circumstances, there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to return their certificates of shares, which were valueless; or the dividends which they had received, which were less than the sums they were entitled to receive, the stock being and remaining invalid. See Brewster v. Burnett, 125 Mass. 68; Kent v. Bornstein, 12 Allen, 342. In Allen v. Herrick, 15 Gray, 274, the plaintiff had received and held notes, indorsed by another party, for the dividends. The sums for which the plaintiffs are respectively entitled to prove their claims are the amounts paid by them for the special stock, without interest, which is not insisted on, and which would not run till after a demand, deducting the dividends received.

Judgments accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.E. 852, 141 Mass. 454, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-boston-machine-co-mass-1886.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack