Barclay v. Globe Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1858 |
| Citation | 26 Mo. 490 |
| Parties | BARCLAY, Respondent, v. GLOBE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In a suit against a corporation, a stockholder thereof is a competent witness in behalf of the corporation; he is not a person for whose immediate benefit the suit is defended, although, in case of a deficiency of corporate property, his individual property would be liable to be taken on execution to double the amount of his stock.
2. Quere, would he be a competent witness if the corporation should be shown to be insolvent?
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
This suit against the Globe Mutual Insurance Company was commenced March 27, 1855. The defendant, at the trial, called as a witness W. W. Greene, president of the Globe Mutual Insurance Company, the defendant, who, being examined on his voir dire, stated that he was a stockholder in said company. The court ruled that he was incompetent. It is deemed unnecessary to set forth the facts bearing upon the other questions discussed.
Hudson & Thomas and Middlecome, for appellant.
I. Greene, although a stockholder, was a competent witness. He was not a person for whose immediate benefit the suit was defended.
S. T. & A. D. Glover, for respondent.
I. Mr. Greene was an incompetent witness. The suit was defended for his immediate benefit. If no corporate property could be found, then his private property was liable to the execution. (R. C. 1845, p. 233, § 13; Bank of Ithaca v. Bean, 2 Code Reporter, 133.) When the judgment in a cause binds the party so that an execution may issue against him without further judicial action, it would seem to fix an immediate benefit or interest in him to defeat the suit. If not, it would be difficult to conceive in what manner such benefit could arise. No owner of a steamboat has been allowed since the new practice act to testify on behalf of the boat; yet the steamboat is a person by our law and may be sued as such. (19 Mo. 73.)
This judgment will be reversed for the reason that the evidence of the president of the company, who was a stockholder, was excluded. A stockholder of a corporation, which is a defendant in an action, is not a person for whose immediate use such action is defended. Although the property of the witness was liable to an execution in the event of a want of corporate means to satisfy the judgment that might be recovered, yet, as the want of those means was not shown, the relation of the stockholder to the corporation was not variant from that of a stockholder in any corporation which was not subject to an execution, so far as this question is concerned. We express no opinion on the question of the competency of the witness had the insolvency of the company been proved. Under our statute, it has been held that a partner not a party to an action was a competent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
...to which he may belong, nor does such judgment bind his property. Hardwick v. Jones, 65 Mo. 54; Hannah v. Bank, 67 Mo. 678; Barclay v. Insurance Co., 26 Mo. 490; Whitman v. Cox, 26 Me. 335; Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. 405; Adams v. Bank, 1 Greenl. 361. In Blackman v. Railroad, it was ruled that, ......
-
Wilson v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co.
...to which he may belong, nor does such judgment bind his property. Hardwick v. Jones, 65 Mo. 54; Hannah v. Bank, 67 Mo. 678; Barclay v. Ins. Co., 26 Mo. 490; Whitman Cox, 26 Me. 335; Bank v. Cook, 4 Pick. 405; Adams v. Bank, 1 Greenl. (Me.) 362. In Blackman v. Railroad, it was ruled that, up......
-
Bredow v. Mut. Sav. Inst.
...note. 4. In a suit against a corporation, a stockholder thereof is a competent witness in behalf of the corporation. (Barclay v. Globe Mutual Insurance Co. 26 Mo. 490, affirmed.) Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Alpheus E. Koehls and Henry Golberg were partners in trade under th......