White v. Lorimer's City Dye Works

269 P. 90, 46 Idaho 490, 1928 Ida. LEXIS 125
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 16, 1928
DocketNo. 4957.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 P. 90 (White v. Lorimer's City Dye Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
White v. Lorimer's City Dye Works, 269 P. 90, 46 Idaho 490, 1928 Ida. LEXIS 125 (Idaho 1928).

Opinion

WM. E. LEE, C., J.

It is alleged that the defendants, E. 3L Lorimer and Lorimcr’s City Dye Works, a corporation, issued certain shares of stock in the corporation to plaintiff and certain others, his assignors, on an agreement that the purchasers could return the stock and receive back the price paid, together with interest, at any time they became dissatisfied with the stock. Plaintiff and his assignors, according to the complaint, became dissatisfied, offered to return the stock to the corporation and demanded the amount agreed to be repaid. The defendants refused to accept the stock or to pay the agreed sum. Appellant also alleged the insolvency of the corporation and demanded the appointment of a receiver. A separate general demurrer by the corporation was sustained by the court and, plaintiff refusing to plead further, judgment was entered dismissing the action as to that defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

The allegation that the corporation is insolvent makes it unnecessary to determine the sufficiency of the complaint in other respects. A contract by a corporation to repurchase its capital stock is not enforceable against the corporation while insolvent. (7 R. C. L. 236, sec. 210; 14a C. J. 280, sec. 2126, notes, 1, 2, 3; McIntyre v. Bement, 146 Mich. 74, 10 Ann. Cas. 143 and note, 109 N. W. 45; Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co., 164 Cal. 464, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 1013, 129 Pac. 582, 44 L. R. A., N. S., 156; Porter v. Plymouth Gold Mining Co., 29 Mont. 347, 101 Am. St. 569, 74 Pac. 938; Olmstead v. Vance & Jones Co., 196 Ill. 236, 63 N. E. 634; In re Fechheimer Fishel Co., 212 Fed. 357. See, also, Brown v. Feed, 31 Ida. 529, 174 Pac. 136.)

It is unnecessary to pass on the other questions presented. Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.

Givens, Taylor and T. Bailey Lee, JJ., concur. Budge, J., disqualified.

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

Related

LA VOY SUPPLY COMPANY v. Young
369 P.2d 45 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1962)
Shayne of Miami, Inc. v. Greybow, Inc.
101 S.E.2d 486 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1957)
Davies v. Montana Auto Finance Corp.
284 P. 267 (Montana Supreme Court, 1930)
Grinde v. Dakota Trust & Savings Bank
222 N.W. 670 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 P. 90, 46 Idaho 490, 1928 Ida. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-lorimers-city-dye-works-idaho-1928.