Rikhoff v. Brown's Rotary Shuttle Sewing Machine Co.

68 Ind. 388
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 68 Ind. 388 (Rikhoff v. Brown's Rotary Shuttle Sewing Machine 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.

Bluebook
Rikhoff v. Brown's Rotary Shuttle Sewing Machine Co., 68 Ind. 388 (Ind. 1879).

Opinions

Worden, J.

The complaint alleged facts showing that, after the sub-sci-iption was made, the plaintiff’s organization as a corporation was perfected.

The defendants pleaded, among other things, nul tiel corporation. Trial by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for the plaintiff". Judgment affirmed on appeal to general term.

But two questions are made here: 1. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the finding? and, 2. Was the amount found too largo?

It is claimed by the appellants that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the existence of the corporation. The contract of the defendants, being a subscription to the preliminary articles of association, did not purport to be with an existing corporation. The corporation was to be brought into existence thereafter. The contract, there[390]*390fore, did not estop the defendants to deny the existence of the corporation. The Indianapolis Furnace, etc., Co. v. Herkimer, 46 Ind. 142.

Under the issue joined, it devolved upon the plaintiff to show that the corporate organization had been perfected. But it was agreed upon the trial, and for the purposes thereof, “that fifty per centum of the assessment of the defendant’s subscription to the capital stock of said company had been paid, and that the assessment and calls for all the balance, in five different instalments of ten per centum each, have been duly and legally made, in accordance with the by-laws of said company, and the laws of the State of Indiana, the last ©f which assessments was made more than one year ago; and that defendants were duly notified thereof, and a demand duly made upon them by the proper authority that they pay their said assessments, which they promised to do, but have not done.”

It seems to us that this agreement involved a clear admission of the full and complete organization of the corporation, and, therefore, of the existence of every fact necessary to such organization.

The assessments and calls could not have been legally made in accordance with the by-laws of the company and the laws of the State of Indiana, unless . the corporation had been legally organized. There could have been no bylaws adopted by the company before its corporate organization, nor could there have been, before such organization, any “proper authority” to notify the defendants of the assessments, and demand payment thereof..

We are of the opinion that the agreement involved a full and complete admission of the existence of' the corporation, and that the finding, in this respect, was fully sustained by the evidence.

The amount of the finding does not exceed the amount of the calls and the interest thereon from the time they should have been paid. There was no error in allowing [391]*391interest. The statute requires the capital stock to be paid into the treasury of the corporation within eighteen months from the incorporation of the same.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs. ■

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

Related

De Proy v. Progakis
259 S.W. 620 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)
Shiffer v. Akenbrook
130 N.E. 241 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
Hawkins v. Citizens' Investment Co.
64 P. 320 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1901)
Williams v. Citizens' Enterprise Co.
57 N.E. 581 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
McCoy v. World's Columbian Exposition
87 Ill. App. 605 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Williams v. Citizens Enterprise Co.
55 N.E. 425 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1899)
Merchants' National Bank v. Greenhood
41 P. 851 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)
Greenbrier Industrial Exposition v. Squires
21 S.E. 1015 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1895)
Capps & McCreary v. Hastings Prospecting Co.
58 N.W. 956 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
Greenbrier Industrial Exposition v. Rodes
17 S.E. 305 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1893)
Danenhoffer v. State
79 Ind. 75 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Board of Commissioners v. Hall
70 Ind. 469 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 Ind. 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rikhoff-v-browns-rotary-shuttle-sewing-machine-co-ind-1879.