Second National Bank v. Lovell

2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 397
CourtOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati
DecidedJanuary 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 397 (Second National Bank v. Lovell) 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
Second National Bank v. Lovell, 2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 397 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1873).

Opinion

Yaple, J.

This is a proceeding in error, to reverse a judgment, rendered in Special Term, against the plaintiff, and in favor of the defendants — Joseph L. Hall, Miles Greenwood, and J. H. French. The bank brought an action against Lovell, J. H. French, Joseph L. Hall, Miles Greenwood, B. Homans, Jr., J. Smith Homans, Jr., Francis Howland, and Nathan T. Johnson, as copartners, but three of whom were ever served with process, to wit, the three in whose favor judgment was rendered. The action was [398]*398brought upon a promissory note, of which, with the indorsements, the following is a copy:

“ $7,500. Cincinnati, June 10,1869.

“Ninety days after date, we promise to pay to the order of R. C. M. Lovell seven thousand five hundred dollars, payable at the office of Homans & Co. Value received.

[$3.75 stamp.] “ Southern Ohio Cohl Co.,

“By JR. G. M. Lovell, Pres’t.”

Indorsed, “R. C. M. Lovell.”

[5 cent stamp, canceled September 11,1869.]

“ Demand, notice, and protest waived.

“R. C. M. Lovell.”

In June, 1869, B. Homans, Jr., the owner of the bank called “ Homans & Co.,” the holder of the note, deposited it, with other paper, amounting in all to over $32,000, with the plaintiff, as collateral security for a loan it then made him, upon the faith thereof, of $20,000.

B. Homans, Jr., became insolvent on August 26, 1869, before the maturity of this note, and was afterward declared a bankrupt.

The defendants served with process denied by answer, among other things, that they executed the note, or that the defendants named in the petition were copartners, or personally liable on the note. '

On February 26,1868, the Southern Ohio Coal Company was incorporated by the legislature of the State of Kentucky, by special act, naming R. M. C. Lovell, J. H. French, and B. Homans, Jr., and constituting them, their associates, successors, and assigns, a body politic and corporate, with power to contract, etc., in all places; the principal office was to be kept in Covington, Kentucky, and power, so far as Kentucky could authorize it, was expressly granted to purchase, lease, hold and use, and mine real property in or out of the state, not exceeding ten thousand acres ; also, the right to hold and use personal property, merchandise, etc. The capital stock was fixed at $300,000, to be divided into [399]*399shares of $100 each, to he subscribed and paid for in such manner as the by-laws might prescribe.

On the nest day, February 29,1868, an organization was effected under this charter at Covington, the directors being Lovell, French, Johnson, and Homans; Lovell was elected president, and B. Homans, Jr., secretary and treasurer of the corporation. It was in evidence upon the trial that it was intended, bona fide, to keep the office of the company in Covington; that an office was always there, and that the annual meetings were held there. It appears, however, that most, if not all the subsequent business meetings of the directors were held in Cincinnati, Ohio, at Homans’ bank, he residing in Covington, and carrying on his bank in Cincinnati. At the time of procuring the act of incorporation, Lovell, Fi’eneh, andB. Homans, Jr., resided in Kentucky; J. Smith Homans, Jr., Francis Howland, and Nathan T. Johnson, in New Jersey; and Greenwood and Hall, in Cincinnati, Ohio; but the two latter had nothing to do with the enterprise until after the charter was obtained, after which they subscribed $5,000 stock each, being assured it was a Kentucky corporation. It seems, also, that French did not become a stockholder in fact till after the charter was procured, when be subscribed and paid $5,000. The enterprise was set on foot and organized by the other parties and French, the New Jersey parties having coal lands in Athens county, Ohio, which they put in as stock at a valuation of over $80,000.

They first designed to organize as a’ corporation under the laws of Ohio, and had articles duly prepared for that purpose, when they ascertained that none of them could be directors, as they did not reside in the state. Some of them lived in Kentucky, and all could become directors in that state. They were also informed that there would bo no individual liability under the laws of that state, whereas they would be personally liable in double the amount of their stock in Ohio; but, if they could have been qualified to act as directors in Ohio, it appears that they would have been organized under the Ohio law. They took the course [400]*400they did upon the advice of counsel, and with no actual intent to perpetrate a fraud upon the laws of this state. It appears, also, that they did keep an office in Covington, Kentucky, and it does not appear that they did not intend to do any business in that state, though, doubtless, the great preponderance of the company’s interest was expected to lie in Ohio. Indeed, furnishing coal to the factories of Newport and Covington, Kentucky, would seem to be an almost necessary consequence of the prosecution of a successful business by this corporation. It was not successful. It had difficulty with the railroad company with which it contracted to bring its coal to Cincinnati; and Homans’ failure seems to have virtually destroyed it.

The plaintiff contends that these defendants are personally liable on the note sued upon, because, in Ohio, the Southern Ohio Coal Company was never a corporation, as the parties getting it up did so to become an Ohio corporation in fact, but nominally a foreign corporation, with intent to defraud the constitution and laws of Ohio; and that, while we are precluded from holding that they perpetrated a fraud upon the State of Kentucky in procuring the special act of incorporation, we are authorized to find that they were personally guilty of a fraud upon the State of Ohio in accepting and organizing under that charter after it was passed, and in assuming to act under it in Ohio.

If the facts made out such a case, I have no doubt of the correctness of the legal position assumed by the plaintiff, though one of my brethren has. I do not think that individuals, by any mere fraudulent device, can come into the State of Ohio and control its constitution and laws for their own gain, by disregarding them, made, as they were, for the protection of its citizens, even if the legislature has not forbidden them to do so by statute. Hill v. Beach, 1 Beas. N. J. Ch. 31; Land Grant R. Co. v. Comm’rs Coffey County, 6 Kansas, 245. Newbury Petroleum Co. v. Weare, District Court, Washington County, Ohio, by Brinkerhoff, C. J.: “Held, that an incorporated company, under the laws of [401]*401another state, for the exclusive purpose of transacting business in this state, can not, as such incorporated company, bring suit in our courts.”

But, if such incorporated company keeps an office in the state creating it, and may do business there, though very little as compared with the business expected to be done in Ohio, and none of its organizers were qualified, by the laws of this state, to conduct it, and for that reason it became incorporated in another state, such body, we think, should be recognized in Ohio as a corporation of the state creatingit. Messick v. Van Santvoord, 34 N. Y. 208. The note, sued on, purports to have been made by the corporation and not by the members thereof.

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

Related

Cleaton v. Emery
49 Mo. App. 345 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/second-national-bank-v-lovell-ohsuperctcinci-1873.