Vokes v. Eaton

85 S.W. 174, 119 Ky. 913, 1905 Ky. LEXIS 54
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedFebruary 23, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 85 S.W. 174 (Vokes v. Eaton) 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
Vokes v. Eaton, 85 S.W. 174, 119 Ky. 913, 1905 Ky. LEXIS 54 (Ky. Ct. App. 1905).

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

CHIEF JUSTICE HOBSON

Affirming.

The National Rond & Security Company, incorporated under the laws of South Dakota, was engaged in the business of - selling certain installment bonds, with coupons attached, and appellant invested §1,600 there[916]*916in. Tlie appellees were officers and stockholders of the corporation. That company, . on the 10th of April, 1901, was merged in the National Bond. & Security Company, a corporation formed under the laws of the State of West Virginia, and this company shortly thereafter became insolvent, and was placed in the hands of a receiver. Appellant then filed this suit against the appellees, charging that his money had been procured to be paid to the corporation by mean* of false and fraudulent representations which the defendants made as its officers, and which they knew, or ought to have known, were untrue; that the corporation was not legally organized, but was a mere dummy, and that the scheme upon which the bonds were based could not finance out; that this he did not know, and that the defendants knew this, or ought to have known it. The circuit court sustained n demurrer to the petition, and the plaintiff appeals.

The question of the validity of the incorporation of the company turns upon the statute under which it was formed, which is as follows: “Purposes of private corporations: Private corporations can be fowned by the voluntary association of three or more persons upon complying with the provisions of this chapter, for the following purposes, namely: Mining, manufacturing, mechanical, quarrying, and other industrial pursuits, and for any other lawful business; the construction and operation of railroads, wagon roads, irrigation ditches; for seminaries, colleges, churches, libraries, benevolent, charitable and. scientific associations; banks of deposit and discount (but not of issue) for loan, trust, and guaranty associations; provided, however, that no insurance-company shall be incorporated under the provisions of this act, except by the voluntary association of seven or more persons.” Ann. St. R. D., 1901, section 3812. It is- insisted [917]*917for appellant that the words “and for any other lawful business” must be construed as referring to such corporations as have been above named, and that the rule of nosdtur a sociis should be applied. The difficulty of this is. that, after naming mining, manufacturing, mechanical, and quarrying purposes, these words are added, “and other industrial pursuits.” If only things like those which Avere named were ■meant, this Avould have been covered by the words “and other industrial pursuits” and the words “and for any other laAvful business” would have been unnecessary. Taking the statute as a whole, we are satisfied that the words: were used in their broad and natural sense, otherwise corporations for á great many purposes for which corporations are formed in nearly all the States could not be formed under the statute, such as title companies, mercantile companies, holding companies, and the like. The statute was evidently intended to be broad in its operation from the fact that so many things are named, and the words, “and for any other lawful business” are added to make it include things other than those named. It is not claimed that the proper steps were not taken to form the corporation under the act. It is simply claimed that the act does not authorize the incorporation of such a company. This, we think, can not be maintained, in view of the broad language of the act.

But it is also insisted that the company was not incorpor-' ated for a lawful business, and that, therefore, it does not come within the act. This position is based upon the idea that the bonds issued by the company contain a scheme which was in and of itself illegal. The bonds are as follows:

“The National Bond and Security Company, of Covington,
Kentucky, U. S. A.
“By this certificate, does hereby promise to pay Chas. E. Yokes, or order, upon maturity or redemption of any of the [918]*918ten coupons hereto attached, an amount equal to the total deposits made hereon, together with interest at the rate of sis and two-thirds (6 2-3) per cent, for the period of ten years from the date of said maturity or redemption.
“The terms and conditions printed on the back hereof and in the application herefor, are a part of this contract as fully as if recited herein.
“In testimony whereof, the said National Bond and Security Company has by its duly authorized officers, signed, sealed and delivered this contract, this the 28th day of January, in the year of 1901.
“[Signed] GEO. H. DAVISON, President.
“[Signed] IRVING J. ISBELL, Secretary.”

The terms and conditions printed on the back of the bonds or contracts are as follows, to-wit:

“Terms and conditions: This contract is issued to the holder hereof in consideration of a membership fee of ten dollars and an installment of five dollars, and thereafter a monthly installment of fifty cents on each unredeemed coupon until the redemption or maturity. The monthly dues of this contract are due and payable without notice on the first day of each month hereafter, and must be paid on or before the tenth of each month or a fine of ten cents on each coupon will be assessed, and if not paid on or before the twenty-fifth of each month this contract shall become null and void and the holder thereof shall forfeit all payments hereon to the several funds.
“Redemption of coupons: Any coupon of this contract shall be surrendered to the company at any time when called for by the redemption and the holder thereof shall receive for such surrender the guaranteed redemption value at the month in which the redemption shall occur.
“The monthly redemption shall occur after the close of [919]*919business of the last day of each month, except where the last day falls on a legal holiday, in which case they shall occur on the day following and shall be determined as 'follows.
“Seventy-five per cent, of the redemption fund shall be used each month to pay off one coupon on each contract in numerical order commencing the first month with the first coupon on contract number one, and so on in like manner until the first fund is exhausted; commencing each succeeding month with the first coupon on the next contract, following the last one paid tliB previous month, continuing in like manner each month until the entire list has been passed through, and then reverting back to the lowest numbered coupon in force, and pay off the second coupon on each contract in force in like manner. Twenty five per cent, of the redemption fund shall be used each month' to pay off one coupon on each contract in numerical order, commencing each month with the lowest number contract in force.
“Cash surrender or withdrawal value: At any time after thirty-six monthly installments have been paid hereon, the holder hereof may file a withdrawal and receive an amount equal to'the total amount previously contributed to the reserve fund plus the estimated earnings to the date of withdrawal, the estimated earnings to be paid from the general redemption fund for the month in which the withdrawal is made, the reserve contributions' to be drawn from the reserve fund.

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

Related

Morris Aviation, LLC v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc.
536 F. App'x 558 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
Johnson v. Lowery
270 S.W.2d 943 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1954)
McDaniel v. Tarry
17 S.W.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1929)
Lynch v. Dunn's Administrator
270 S.W. 468 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
McCoun v. Nickell
270 S.W. 457 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
Edmunds v. Illinois Central Railroad
2 Ill. Cir. Ct. 423 (Illinois Circuit Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.W. 174, 119 Ky. 913, 1905 Ky. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vokes-v-eaton-kyctapp-1905.