Americanized Finance Corporation v. Yarbrough
Citation | 223 Ala. 266,135 So. 448 |
Decision Date | 18 June 1931 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 753. |
Parties | AMERICANIZED FINANCE CORPORATION v. YARBROUGH. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.
Action for money had and received by W. B. Yarbrough against the Americanized Finance Corporation. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Hugh A Locke and F. V. Wells, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Arlie Barber and Amzi G. Barber, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
The suit was for money had by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. The pleas were the general issue and in short by consent.
The several assignments of error challenge the action of the court in ruling on the admission of evidence and giving and refusing requested charges.
The court instructed the jury, among other things, that,
Such were the issues of material fact submitted and determined by the jury and verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount sued for with interest thereon.
The witness Yarbrough, having detailed the facts or words of inducement incident to the purchase of the instant stock in the corporation, was asked: "Just tell the jury what other or further statements were made to you by these men with reference to refunding the money or taking back the stock."
To which he answered:
In the admission of this evidence over the objection of defendant, there was no error; the question and answer were material to the issues of fact submitted to the jury. Appellant's brief says that "both plaintiff and defendant rely upon the evidence offered by plaintiff in support of their respective contentions."
The witness Yarbrough further stated that he made demand on rescission to Mr. Yeilding, the president of said company; was asked what Mr. Yeilding said to him, and was permitted to answer, over defendant's objection and exception: '
These statements were material and competent as to rescission and failure and refusal to return the purchase price under the alleged contract of purchase. And in this ruling there was no error.
The insistence of error in refusing the general affirmative instructions requested by defendant is without merit. The authorities need not be recited as to when such instructions may be given or refused. McMillan v. Aiken, 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135.
The real question is presented by the refusal of defendant's requested written charge H and affirmative instructions refused. As to the refusal of charge H, it may be said that the office of certificates of stock in corporations is discussed in Randle v. Winona Coal Company, 206 Ala. 254, 89 So. 790, 19 A. L. R. 118, and Hall & Farley v. Alabama Terminal & Improvement Co., 173 Ala. 398, 56 So. 235. Under the last-cited decision there was no error in refusing charge H. It is only when a corporation purchases shares of its own capital stock in an attempt to discharge the liability of its original stockholders on unpaid subscriptions, by the use of assets of the corporation, that fraud upon its creditors is presumed; and in this respect it was declared that if it operates as a fraud on its creditors, that will be taken into account on due application of such creditors. The initial case of Hall & Farley, Trustees v. Henderson, 126 Ala. 449, 28 So. 531, 61 L. R. A. 621, 85 Am. St. Rep. 53, recognized the right of a corporation to buy in its capital stock, if such transaction of the corporation does not impair its ability to pay its debts, and held if it was not a fraud on its creditors, and did not involve the elements of an estoppel as affecting others subscribing for stock on the faith of such subscription in question, such purchases may be made.
In Hall & Farley, Trustees v. Alabama Terminal & Improvement Co., 143 Ala. 464, 481, 39 So. 285, 291, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 130, 5 Ann. Cas. 363, the court said of the purchase of its stock by a corporation:
And in Dacovich et al. v. Canizas, 152 Ala. 287, 293, 294, 44 So. 473, 474, it is observed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bankers' Mortg. Bond Co. v. Rosenthal
...Cyc. 144, c. There was no error in refusing charges contrary to these authorities, such as charges 4-A, bb, g, and oo. Americanized Finance Corporation v. Yarbrough, supra. Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. Bartee, 24 Ala. App. 555, 139 So. 293, the holding was to the effect that common cou......
-
Bay Minette Land Co. v. Stapleton
... ... rental agreement with the Pan-American Petroleum Corporation ... after the date hereof. Upon transfer of such track rights ... 1018; McFadden v ... Henderson, 128 Ala. 221, 29 So. 640; Americanized ... Finance Corp. v. Yarbrough (Ala. Sup.) 135 So. 448, 451 ... ...
-
King v. Farmers Elec. Coop. Inc.
...fortified by respectable authority: Clark v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 14 App.D.C. 154, 43 L.R.A. 390; Americanized Finance Corporation v. Yarbrough, 223 Ala. 266, 135 So. 448; United Order of Golden Cross v. Hooser, 160 Ala. 334, 49 So. 354; Supreme Commandery Knights of Golden Rule ......
-
Van Antwerp Realty Corporation v. Cooke
... ... 14 Corpus Juris, 280; Sherrill v ... Hutson, 187 Ala. 189, 65 So. 538; Americanized ... Finance Corporation v. Yarbrough, 223 Ala. 266, 135 So ... 448; Henderson v. Garner, 200 ... ...