Sprague v. National Bank of America

42 L.R.A. 606, 172 Ill. 149
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 14, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 42 L.R.A. 606 (Sprague v. National Bank of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sprague v. National Bank of America, 42 L.R.A. 606, 172 Ill. 149 (Ill. 1898).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court:

This was a bill in chancery filed by Charles F. Morse, one of the appellees, against the appellants, alleging the insolvency of the Pacific Railway Company, a corporation organized under the general incorporation laws of this State; that said corporation was indebted to him; that the appellants were shareholders of its capital stock and had not paid in full their subscriptions to the capital stock; and the prayer was the appellants should be made defendants to the bill, and each required to pay his pro rata share of the amount due the complainant, to the extent of the unpaid portion of stock held by each of said defendants. The other appellees are creditors of the said Pacific Railway Company who filed intervening petitions, and thereby came into the case as co-complainants with the said original complainant. The answers of the appellants, in substance, were that the subscriptions to the capital stock of the company had been paid in full. The cause was referred to a master, the proofs taken and reported, and a decree entered that the bill be dismissed for want of equity. The case came by appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, and the decree of the circuit court was reversed and the cause remanded, with directions as to the further course to be pursued by the trial court. This is an appeal prosecuted by the defendant's to the said bill in chancery to bring the judgment of the Appellate Court' into review in this court.

The Pacific Railway Company was incorporated under the general incorporation laws of the State of Illinois on the 22d day of August, 1889, with a capital stock of §2,500,000, divided into 25,000 shares, of §100 each. The entire capital stock was subscribed by five of the appellants, to-wit, John J. Mitchell, C. B. Holmes, Alexander G-eddes, James L. Houghteling and Morton B. Hull, each of whom subscribed for 5000 shares. No money was paid by- any of such subscribers, but the contention of appellants is such subscriptions were paid in full by the transfer of the assets and shares of capital stock of the Los Angeles Cable Railway Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, to the said Pacific Railway Company, the latter company, as a part of the transaction, assuming to pay the indebtedness of the cable company.

It appeared from the proofs the said cable company was incorporated under the laws of the State of California on the 13th day of July, 1887, with authority to construct a cable railway in the city of Los Angeles, California; that its capital stock was fixed at §2,500,000, divided into 25,000 shares, of §100 each; that only 650 shares of its capital stock were ever subscribed for to be paid in cash; that the subscribers thereto were as fol- ‘ lows: J. F. Crank 630 shares, and Charles Freeman, S. P. Jewett, S. C. Hubble and O. J. Heilman each five shares, who together paid only the sum of §6500 on their subscriptions; that on the 30th day of July, 1887, the said cable company leased three lines of horse railways in the city of Los Angeles, at an annual rental of §10,000 for each line, and by the further terms of the lease assumed to pay the indebtedness of the three lines of horse railways, aggregating the sum of §90,000; that on the 7th day of May, 1888, said cable railway company contracted to acquire the capital stock of the said horse railways, paying five shares of its capital stock for each share of stock of the said horse railway companies; that on the 15th day of September, 1887, the said cable company executed a mortgage on all its property, including the lines of horse railways, to secure its bonds, in the sum of $1,500,000, which it designed to place upon the market for sale, and such bonds, amounting in the aggregate to $836,000, were sold; that in addition to this bonded debt the company had contracted other obligations, aggregating in all more than $2,000,000; that an assessment on the stockholders sufficient to raise the sum of $100,000 was levied by the board of directors, to be paid November 1, 1888; that while the affairs of the cable company were thus situated, a committee representing a number, if not all, of the appellants visited the city of Los'Angeles and bought a large block of the stock of the cable company, paying $32 per share for each share of the face value of $100; that the number of shares so purchased does not clearly appear, nor does the record disclose the names of the purchasers, other than appellants Holmes and Mitchell, but it seems well established the purchase was consummated by a committee acting for themselves and others, and that the number of shares secured constituted a controlling interest in the company, and, counsel for appellants say, constituted about threeHourths of the capital stock; that appellants Holmes and Mitchell were elected directors of the cable company January 1, 1889, and appellant Holmes was elected its president February 1, 1889; that the board of directors authorized appellant Holmes, its president, to borrow money for the company for the purpose of paying its floating indebtedness and to defray the expense of extending the lines of the company; that the said Holmes borrowecjlarge sums of money very soon thereafter, the aggregate of such loans reaching the sum of $400,000 by the first of March, 1889; that of this amount §350,000 was applied to the construction of new lines or extending the old lines of the cable company, and the remainder was used in the payment of dividends to the stockholders; that the stock purchased by the Chicago parties, who are appellants here, was held by J. F. Crank, former president of the cable company, to whom it had been issued in exchange for the stock of certain horse railway companies, under an arrangement with Crank and other owners of the horse railway companies, by which the cable company gave five shares of its stock for each share of horse railway stock, and therefore the amount paid in the purchase of the stock by the said appellants did not reach the treasury of the cable company; that under the laws of the State of California each holder of the cable company stock was made liable for his pro rata portion of the indebtedness of the company; that while the entire capital stock of the cable company, to-wit, §2,500,000, has been issued as fully paid up, the company has only received from its shareholders in cash §6500, paid in upon the organization of the company, and §100,000 assessed and paid November 1, 1888, being the first and only assessment, and had repaid to them §50,000 out of the sums borrowed by Holmes, the remainder of the stock having been disposed of by the transaction between the cable company and its president and others, who were the owners of the stock of the horse railway companies, wherein five shares of the stock of the cable company were valued as equal to and were exchanged for one share of the stock of the horse railway companies, the cable company, in addition, assuming to pay the indebtedness of the horse railway companies to an amount approximating the sum of §90,000; that at the opening of the month of August, 1889, the indebtedness of the cable company, floating and bonded, had reached, and probably exceeded, the sum of §2,000,000, of which amount §1,264,000 was not bonded but partly due and all soon to mature, and in view of the fact that under the laws of the State of California each stockholder was personally liable for his pro rata share of the indebtedness of the corporation, a number of those owning and holding shares of its stock, probably thirty to forty in number, including appellant Holmes, its president, and J. F.

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

Related

Hospelhorn v. Poe
198 A. 582 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
State Bank of Collinsville v. Long
273 Ill. App. 177 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1933)
Gray Const. Co. v. Hyde
222 N.W. 675 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1928)
Lavell v. Bullock
174 N.W. 764 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1919)
Stoecker v. Goodman
209 S.W. 374 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1919)
William E. Dee Co. v. Proviso Coal Co.
212 Ill. App. 400 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1918)
Feehan v. Kendrick
179 P. 507 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1918)
John W. Cooney Co. v. Arlington Hotel Co.
101 A. 879 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1917)
Cohen v. Toy Gun Manufacturing Co.
172 Ill. App. 330 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Moore v. United States One Stave Barrel Co.
87 N.E. 536 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
Gillett v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.
82 N.E. 891 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1907)
Security Trust Co. v. Ford
75 Ohio St. (N.S.) 322 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1906)
Meyer v. Ruby Trust Mining & Milling Co.
192 Mo. 162 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
Garden City Sand Co. v. American Refuse Crematory Co.
68 N.E. 724 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1903)
Taylor v. Cummings
127 F. 108 (Seventh Circuit, 1903)
Buda Foundry & Manufacturing Co. v. Columbian Celebration Co.
1 Ill. Cir. Ct. 398 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1903)
Sherwood v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
62 N.E. 835 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Foote v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
62 N.E. 834 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Higgins v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
61 N.E. 1024 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)
Florsheim v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank
61 N.E. 491 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 L.R.A. 606, 172 Ill. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprague-v-national-bank-of-america-ill-1898.