14 F. 631 (D.Colo. 1882), Prince v. Robinson's Adm'rs

Citation:14 F. 631
Party Name:PRINCE v. ROBINSON'S ADM'RS.
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 631

14 F. 631 (D.Colo. 1882)

PRINCE

v.

ROBINSON'S ADM'RS. 1

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

October Term, 1882

Willard Teller, for plaintiff.

G. G. Symes, for defendants.

HALLETT, D.J.

This suit against the administrators of George B. Robinson, deceased, is brought on two contracts executed by Robinson, in his life-time, to D. F. Verderal and L. L. Verderal, and by them assigned to plaintiffs.

The first of these contracts is as follows:

'NEW YORK, March 5, 1880.

'For value received, D. F. Verderal may call on me for 500 shares of the capital stock of the Robinson Consolidated Mining Company, at five dollars per share, any time until January 1, 1881. The bearer is entitled to all dividends declared during this time.

'Expires December 31, 1880.

G. B. ROBINSON.'

Page 632

And the second is for the same number of shares, and in the same words, except the name of the promisee. At the time the contracts were executed, words were impressed thereon, signifying that they were redeemable at the American Exchange National Bank, New York city, and it is conceded that they were payable at that place. Robinson died early in December, 1880, before the expiration of the time in which the stock could be demanded, and soon thereafter, and during the same month of December, plaintiff called on the bank for the stock, offering to pay the price mentioned in the agreement. The officers of the bank refused to deliver the stock or accept the money, saying, in substance, that by the death of Robinson their authority to act was withdrawn. At that time letters of administration on the estate of Robinson had not been issued. Defendants were appointed to be administrators in January, 1881, and about the twentieth of that month tendered the stock to plaintiff, and plaintiff refused to accept it. The stock had been declined below the price mentioned in the agreement.

No question is presented as to the character or validity of the contracts. But the point in dispute is as to the sufficiency of the demand for the stock at the bank, after the death of Robinson, and before administrators of his estate were appointed.

It will be observed that the agreements were executory, and no action had accrued thereon at the time of Robinson's death. The demand necessary by the terms of the agreements to secure the stock, or damages for the failure to deliver it, had not been made, and it was uncertain whether such demand...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP