7 Ind. 474 (Ind. 1856), , Cincinnati Indianapolis & Chicago R.R. Co. v. Clarkson

Citation:7 Ind. 474
Opinion Judge:Perkins, J.
Party Name:The Cincinnati Indianapolis and Chicago Railroad Company v. Clarkson
Attorney:J. Ryman, for appellant. D. D. Jones and H. Berry, for appellee.
Case Date:June 12, 1856
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 474

7 Ind. 474 (Ind. 1856)

The Cincinnati Indianapolis and Chicago Railroad Company



Supreme Court of Indiana

June 12, 1856

From the Franklin Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, with 1 per cent. damages and costs.

J. Ryman, for appellant.

D. D. Jones and H. Berry, for appellee.


Page 475

Perkins, J.

Coker F. Clarkson sued the Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Chicago Railroad Company, upon a bill of exchange, and for compensation as stock solicitor of said company, claiming two per cent. on the amount of stock obtained. Stock was taken payable in property, real and personal. The company answered, denying the demands, alleging negligence in the transaction of business by said solicitor, whereby loss accrued to the company, payment, &c. Replies, constituting issues of fact. Jury trial. Verdict for the plaintiff for 1,200 dollars, and judgment, over a motion for a new trial, on the verdict.

The special errors assigned in this Court are--

1. That the Circuit Court erred in refusing to give instructions one, three and six, as asked by the defendant. And,

2. That said Court erred in giving instructions one and two, as asked by the plaintiff.

The instructions refused read--

"That the resolution of the board of directors offering a reward or commission of two per cent., in the stock of the company, to stock solicitors, for all subscriptions of stock solicited and procured by them, is unauthorized and void."

"Where it appears from the testimony that subscribers went voluntarily to the plaintiff, and through him made propositions to the defendant for the purchase of stock, which were accepted by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to the premium mentioned in said resolution, although the stock has been issued in pursuance of such proposition."

"That the plaintiff can not recover of the defendant the value of any particular services rendered her, whilst he was serving the defendant under an employment for so much by the month or year, if there was no special contract to pay extra for such particular service."

The first of the foregoing instructions is too palpably erroneous to require comment. Under its common law power to contract, a corporation might agree to give a compensation for labor in obtaining stock.

The second is bad for assuming the...

To continue reading