Blair v. Gray
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Parties | BLAIR v. GRAY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
This was an action at law by Blair. The declaration alleges that a policy of insurance was issued by the Republican Life Insurance Company of Chicago on the life of his intestate, who died while the policy was in full force and effect; that proof of death and the d justment of the loss were duly made, but that the company failed to pay any part of the sum due by the terms of the contract.
The declaration also avers that Gray, the defendant, was a stockholder of the company to the amount of $10,000, of which he had actually paid in only $2,000; and that under the sixth section of the charter, which is set out in the opinion of this court, he is, to the amount of his unpaid stock, liable to the plaintiff.
The court sustained a demurred to the declaration, and Blair sued out this writ.
Mr. E. A. Otis for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. Francis Kales, contra.
The charter of the Republic Life Insurance Company of Chicago contains the following section:——
'.
The defendant, Gray, subscribed $10,000 to the capital stock of the company. He has paid only $2,000 on his subscription, and still owes the company for the rest. Under the foregoing section of the charter some appropriate action for the benefit of creditors may undoubtedly be maintained against him for the recovery of this unpaid balance, if the losses of the company are in excess of its means.
This suit was at law by a policy-holder of the company, against the defendant as a stockholder, to recover an amount claimed to be due on the policy. There is no averment in the declaration to the effect that the losses of the company, or its liabilities, exceed its assets. The case stands on demurrer to the declaration. Without, therefore, determining whether, under the decisions of the courts of Illinois, if it appeared that there was a deficiency of assets, an action like this might be maintained, we affirm the judgment below, because...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brunswick Terminal Co. v. National Bank of Baltimore
... ... employed.' ... And in ... the more recent case of Bank v. Francklyn, supra, Mr. Justice ... Gray, in referring to the principles as above settled, said: ... 'Pursuant ... to these principles, this court has repeatedly held, not ... Lynde, 106 U.S. 519, 1 Sup.Ct. 432, ... 27 L.Ed. 265; Flash v. Conn, 109 U.S. 371, 3 ... Sup.Ct. 263, 27 L.Ed. 966). See, also, Blair v ... Gray, 104 U.S. 769, 29 L.Ed. 922; Chase v ... Curtis, 113 U.S. 452, 460, 5 Sup.Ct. 554, 28 L.Ed ... Counsel ... for appellee ... ...
-
Fourth Nat Bank of City of New York v. Francklyn, Ex
...U. S. 216; Patterson v. Lynde, 106 U. S. 519, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 432; Flash v. Conn, 109 U. S. 371, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 263.) See, also, Blair v. Gray, 104 U. S. 769; Chase v. Curtis, 113 U. S. 452, 460, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. The case of Flash v. Conn, 109 U. S. 371, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 263, upon which the ......
- Poppe v. Langford