Wiseola Co. of United States v. Moore

Supreme Court of Alabama

Wiseola Co. of United States v. Moore

65 So. 398, 187 Ala. 163, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 545

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 12, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 65 So. 398 (Wiseola Co. of United States v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wiseola Co. of United States v. Moore, 65 So. 398, 187 Ala. 163, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 545 (Ala. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

Appellee filed the bill in this case to annul and cancel a contract of subscription for 100' [164]*164shares of stock in the appellant corporation. The bill sought to have the contract of subscription canceled upon the ground of fraud practiced upon complainant, by the corporation, or its agents, through fraudulent representations made to him. The false representation alleged was that the corporation had a paid-up capital stock of $25,000; it being averred by complainant that the only paid-up capital consisted of certain property, of the value of $6,000, by the' promoters transferred and conveyed to the coi’poration, in payment of such stock, at the fictitionus price and value of $25,000, and that this fraud was practiced upon complainant and other bona fide purchasers of such stock with the purpose of inducing them to subscribe for shares of such stock. It is also alleged in the bill that m> certificates of stock have ever been issued to complainant, and that he has been denied the right to participate in the meetings of the stockholders of the corporation, and denied the right to share in the profits or dividends of such corporation.

Complainant, as a part of the rescission of the contract of subscription, asks to have the cash payments, which he has made on his subscription, refunded to him, and to have the notes executed by him for the deferred payments on such subscription, which are held by the corporation, canceled and surrendered to him.

The bill does not show that complainant has received any profits from his subscription, and it is therefore not defective in failing to offer to do equity. The corporation demurred to the bill, assigning want of equity and a number of special grounds of demurrer. The chancellor overruled the demurrer, and the corporation appeals from that decree on demurrer.

The bill certainly contains equity, and we find no error in the overruling of the demurrer as to any of the [165]*165special grounds assigned. Most of tbe special grounds' were speaking demurrers, and were clearly without merit. Tbe bill is not subject to demurrer on account of lacbes. We do not say that tbe bill was not subject to demurrer; but that it was clearly not subject to any of tbe grounds interposed.

Finding no error, tbe decree overruling tbe demurrer is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, O. J., and Somerville and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

MAYFIELD, J.

Appellee filed the bill in this case to annul and cancel a contract of subscription for 100' [164]*164shares of stock in the appellant corporation. The bill sought to have the contract of subscription canceled upon the ground of fraud practiced upon complainant, by the corporation, or its agents, through fraudulent representations made to him. The false representation alleged was that the corporation had a paid-up capital stock of $25,000; it being averred by complainant that the only paid-up capital consisted of certain property, of the value of $6,000, by the' promoters transferred and conveyed to the coi’poration, in payment of such stock, at the fictitionus price and value of $25,000, and that this fraud was practiced upon complainant and other bona fide purchasers of such stock with the purpose of inducing them to subscribe for shares of such stock. It is also alleged in the bill that m> certificates of stock have ever been issued to complainant, and that he has been denied the right to participate in the meetings of the stockholders of the corporation, and denied the right to share in the profits or dividends of such corporation.

Complainant, as a part of the rescission of the contract of subscription, asks to have the cash payments, which he has made on his subscription, refunded to him, and to have the notes executed by him for the deferred payments on such subscription, which are held by the corporation, canceled and surrendered to him.

The bill does not show that complainant has received any profits from his subscription, and it is therefore not defective in failing to offer to do equity. The corporation demurred to the bill, assigning want of equity and a number of special grounds of demurrer. The chancellor overruled the demurrer, and the corporation appeals from that decree on demurrer.

The bill certainly contains equity, and we find no error in the overruling of the demurrer as to any of the [165]*165special grounds assigned. Most of tbe special grounds' were speaking demurrers, and were clearly without merit. Tbe bill is not subject to demurrer on account of lacbes. We do not say that tbe bill was not subject to demurrer; but that it was clearly not subject to any of tbe grounds interposed.

Finding no error, tbe decree overruling tbe demurrer is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, O. J., and Somerville and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 398, 187 Ala. 163, 1914 Ala. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiseola-co-of-united-states-v-moore-ala-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack