Russell v. Betts

156 S.W. 457, 107 Ark. 629, 1913 Ark. LEXIS 187
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedApril 28, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 156 S.W. 457 (Russell v. Betts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Russell v. Betts, 156 S.W. 457, 107 Ark. 629, 1913 Ark. LEXIS 187 (Ark. 1913).

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). This court, in Stifft v. Stiewell, 91 Ark. 445, held that a contract for the sale of corporate stock for the amount of $30 or more, is within the statute of frauds. Section 3656, of Kirby’s Digest. The several complaints under consideration disclose a contract entered into between the several appellants and the appellees, whereby the latter, in consideration that the appellants would not sell their stock to Smith, agreed that in case the corporation became insolvent, they would pay appellants the amount of the value of their stock and interest thereon, from the date of the contract until the date upon which the corporation became insolvent. This transaction was tantamount to the sale of the stock of the -several appellants to the appellee upon condition. The appellees, upon certain contingencies, which appellants alleged existed, agreed to pay appellants the par value of their stock with interest. While the complaint does not allege that the stock was to be delivered upon the payment of the amounts specified, an intention upon the part of the appellants to deliver upon the payment for the stock would necessarily be implied. Under the contract when the condition arose, upon which the payment was to be made, the presumption would be that when the payment was made that the stock would be delivered to appellees, the purchasers thereof.

We are of the opinion that the complaints state, what in law amounts to a conditional sale of the stock, and as the stock was more than $30 in value, the transaction was within section 3656 of Kirby’s Digest (Statute of Frauds), the same being an oral contract. The ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer to the complaint and its judgment dismissing the same, is therefore correct, and is affirmed.

Kirby, J., dissenting.

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

Related

Illinois-Indiana Fair Ass'n v. Phillips
159 N.E. 815 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1927)
Spencer v. McGuffin
130 N.E. 407 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1921)
Culp v. Holbrook
129 N.E. 278 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 S.W. 457, 107 Ark. 629, 1913 Ark. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-betts-ark-1913.