Schwill v. Beckel

Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati

Schwill v. Beckel

1 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 104, 1903 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 322

DecidedApril 25, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 104 (Schwill v. Beckel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schwill v. Beckel, 1 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 104, 1903 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 322 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for a rehearing herein is denied. As we view the law, the liability of one alleged to be a stockholder in a corporation.is fixed by the fact that he is a stockholder — a fact which may be established by any competent evidence showing him t'o be a stockholder. Nor are we able to find any rule that relieves from this liability, at least as to previous debts and obligations, because of the duration, long or short as it may be, of a person’s position or status as a stockholder. While in this case it is claimed that there was only an instantaneous seisin of.the stock — just for sufficient time to enable it to be transferred to a third party — yet as we find the law, that instantaneous seisin was enough to render the holder subject to assessment for the debts and obligations then existing.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion for a rehearing herein is denied. As we view the law, the liability of one alleged to be a stockholder in a corporation.is fixed by the fact that he is a stockholder — a fact which may be established by any competent evidence showing him t'o be a stockholder. Nor are we able to find any rule that relieves from this liability, at least as to previous debts and obligations, because of the duration, long or short as it may be, of a person’s position or status as a stockholder. While in this case it is claimed that there was only an instantaneous seisin of.the stock — just for sufficient time to enable it to be transferred to a third party — yet as we find the law, that instantaneous seisin was enough to render the holder subject to assessment for the debts and obligations then existing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 104, 1903 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schwill-v-beckel-ohsuperctcinci-1903.