Roman v. Fry

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Roman v. Fry

28 Ky. 634, 5 J.J. Marsh. 634, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 89

DecidedApril 19, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ky. 634 (Roman v. Fry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roman v. Fry, 28 Ky. 634, 5 J.J. Marsh. 634, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 89 (Ky. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of.the court.

This is an attempt by Roman and others, to escape the responsibility imposed on them as stockholders in the Fayette Paper Manufacturing Com» pany by their chatter. The principles in respect to their liability have heretofore been settled- by this court,in the case of Dallam, &c. vs. Holmes.

.We perceive no new facts in the case, which can ex— onerate the- plaintiffs in error, or any of them. If j)ajjam vvere permitted to escape by taking stock in the names of-infant children, the whole object of the charter in securing the community against the insob venc„ 0f {yie corporation, might be defeated. We canno¿- suffcr it lo he done. Such a thing would be a fraud on the community. We see no good reason why the.court should have opened its decree to receive the supplemental answer of Dallam.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

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

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of.the court.

This is an attempt by Roman and others, to escape the responsibility imposed on them as stockholders in the Fayette Paper Manufacturing Com» pany by their chatter. The principles in respect to their liability have heretofore been settled- by this court,in the case of Dallam, &c. vs. Holmes.

.We perceive no new facts in the case, which can ex— onerate the- plaintiffs in error, or any of them. If j)ajjam vvere permitted to escape by taking stock in the names of-infant children, the whole object of the charter in securing the community against the insob venc„ 0f {yie corporation, might be defeated. We canno¿- suffcr it lo he done. Such a thing would be a fraud on the community. We see no good reason why the.court should have opened its decree to receive the supplemental answer of Dallam.

The decree is affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Ky. 634, 5 J.J. Marsh. 634, 1831 Ky. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-fry-kyctapp-1831.