Sanders v. Herndon

108 S.W. 908, 128 Ky. 437, 1908 Ky. LEXIS 84
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 17, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 108 S.W. 908 (Sanders v. Herndon) 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
Sanders v. Herndon, 108 S.W. 908, 128 Ky. 437, 1908 Ky. LEXIS 84 (Ky. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

[439]*439Opinion op the Court by

Judge Barker

Reversing

This is the second' appeal of this case to this court. The first opinion is to he found in 29 Ky. Law Rep. 322, 93 S. W. 14, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1072. The former appeal was from a judgment of the trial court sustaining a general demurrer to the petition and dismissing it, upon the plaintiffs (appellants) declining to amend. This judgment was' reversed, the opinion holding that the petition stated a good cause of action; and the case was sent back to the circuit court, Vith directions to overrule the demurrer, and for proceedings consistent with the opinion. It is hardly necessary to say that whatever principles of law were settled on the former appeal are now the law of this case,'and not open to reargument. The appellants, Sanders and Walker, were, with seven other persons (among whom was the appellee William Herndon), sureties for the Lancaster Oil Company upon a note for $5,000, executed to the National Bank of Lancaster, Ky. When the. note fell due it was not paid, and the hank brought suit on it against the principal and all the sureties, and obtained judgment against them for the sum of $5,000, with accrued interest and costs. In order to prevent an execution which isssued on this judgment from being levied on their property the appellants paid it off in full to the bank, and took an assignment of it to themselves, and then had an execution issued against all of the other sureties,, which was returned “no property found” by the-sheriff into whose hands it came for execution. Thereupon the appellants obtained a copy of the execution and return of the sheriff, and instituted this equit[440]*440able action under the provision's of section 439 of the Civil Code of Practice- against the appellee Herndon alone, and caused attachments to be issued against certain money, which was-either his, or in which he had an interest. The petition, after setting forth in detail the transaction out of which the litigation springs, alleged that, while as to the bank the plaintiffs were sureties for the Lancaster Oil Company, as to. th© appellee 'Herndon the appellants were his sureties and he was their principal, and therefore bound to them for the full amount of the debt which they had-? been forced to pay for him. Upon the return of the case to the circuit court the appellee filed an answer denying that appellants were his sureties, and alleging that all the parties to the note were co-sureties for the principal, the Lancaster Oil Company. The question whether or not appellants were the sureties'of William Herndon in reality, or whether they were only his co-sureties on the note of the oil company, was the main question left for determination after the case returned' to the circuit court. Much testimony was-taken upon this issue, and upon the final trial the court evidently held that the appellánts failed to- establish the fact that they were the sureties for' appellee Herndon and therefore dismissed the petition, and of this judgment the appellants are here on appeal for the second time.

We are inclined to think the appellants failed to establish, by a -preponderance of the evidence,' that they were the sureties of Herndon, and that the court correctly so adjudged; but it does not follow that’ the petition should have been dismissed, because, on the facts stated in the pleadings and not disputed by either party, the appellants were, at 'least, the co-sureties of appellee Herndon, and1 they having paid [441]*441off the judgment in full, certainly he was indebted to them for his proportionate part of the whole debt which they had paid for the benefit.of all the sureties, and for this much, ,at least, the court should have given judgment in order to do complete justice between the parties under the general prayer of the petition for all proper and equitable relief. The failure of the court to do this will require a reversal of the judgment, and for procedure hereafter along the lines which we shall now set forth. The evidence in this case, without contradiction, shows the following facts as a part of the history which led up to the indebtedness which is the basis of this action; Wiliam Herndon 'and nine others, to wit, Gr. M. Patterson, J. B. Conn, J. I. White, R. Gr. Ward, J. J. Barton, J. B. Kinnaird, J. B. Sanders, Alex Walker, and William H. Kinnaird, apparently had caught the oil fever, and were anxious to acquire property in the oil region of Knox county, which at that time was experiencing what is commonly called a “boom.” On the 7th day of March, 1902, Herndon and his co-promoters executed articles of incorporation under the provisions of the Kentucky Statutes by which they, in form, organized the Lancaster Oil Company with a capital stock of $100, which was represented by 30 shares of $3.33 each; each of the incorporators subscribing for three shares of stock. On the 24th day of March, 1902, the articles of incorporation were amended by increasing the capital stock to $30,000, divided into 3,000 shares of $10 each. On the 5th day of April, 1902, the articles of incorporation were again amended, increasing’ the capital stocq to $60,000, with shares at $5 each, and authorizing an indebtedness of $30,000.- None of this increased stock was subscribed for, except as hereinafter stated. [442]*442On the 3d. day of April, 1902, William Herndon, with two other incorporators, went to Knox county on "business for the company, and while there took an option upon a'farm owned by one. Wages.at the agreed price of $25,000; $500 being paid for the option, and the remaining $24,500 to be paid in 30 days from that date, or sooner, if the company accepted the deed. Herndon then returned to Lancaster, and the incorporators of the oil company held a meeting at his residente, and it was agreed that the company should purchase the property and accept the deed, which was. afterwards done. A few" days after this Alex Walker subscribed for $300 worth of the stock' for his firm of Sanders & Walker, and paid for it with partnership money. Afterwards they subscribed for $2,200 more, which, was also. paid for with partnership money. And it was agreed that they were to have one-twelfth interest in the corporation under the amended articles. Of. the hew stock W. H. Kinnaird, one of the incorporators, subscribed and paid for $2,500 worth of the stock, and there were other scattering share's sold to various parties amounting in the aggregate to $1,120, so that of the increased capitalization of $60,000, $6,220 was the total amount subscribed for and paid in. In order to raise the $25,000 necessary for the purchase of the Wages oil farm, before mentioned, it was necessary to borrow, and the parties did borrow, $19,900, for which the notes of the company were executed with the incorporators, either all or the greater part of them, on each of the notes as sureties. These various notes 'were probably .renewed from time to time; but finally , “the bottom appears to have dropped out of the oil boom.and it collapsed,” and. nothing’ further w;as done to perfect the incorporation of the Lancaster Oil Company un[443]*443der the amended articles. None of the new stock was ever issued, and,, as said before, $6,220 was ail that was ever subscribed or paid for.

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

Related

Nomellini Construction Co. v. Harris
272 Cal. App. 2d 352 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Stearns Coal & Lumber Co. v. Douglas
185 S.W.2d 385 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1944)
Pope v. Cawood
169 S.W.2d 985 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1943)
Wiman v. First Christian Church of Mayfield
117 S.W.2d 989 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1938)
Shuey v. Hoffman
7 S.W.2d 202 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1928)
Thomas v. Haly Coal Co.
225 S.W. 1053 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Batman v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
220 S.W. 318 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1920)
Harris v. New
180 S.W. 375 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)
Bates v. Northern Coal & Coke Co.
172 S.W. 918 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Baker
159 S.W. 1169 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1913)
C., O. & S. W. R. R. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Keown
108 S.W. 248 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 S.W. 908, 128 Ky. 437, 1908 Ky. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-herndon-kyctapp-1908.