British Empire Ins. Co. v. Hasenmayer
| Decision Date | 28 January 1919 |
| Citation | 90 Or. 608,178 P. 180 |
| Parties | BRITISH EMPIRE INS. CO. v. HASENMAYER. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; J. P. Kavanaugh, Judge.
Action by the British Empire Insurance Company, a corporation against Ernest Hasenmayer. Judgment for plaintiff for $1 set aside on plaintiff's motion, and new trial granted, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
G. G Schmitt, of Portland (Schmitt & Schmitt, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
Carey & Kerr and C. A. Hart, all of Portland, for respondent.
The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the province of British Columbia, Dominion of Canada. It is alleged in the complaint that on July 11, 1912, the plaintiff sold to the defendant 10 shares of its capital stock, for which the defendant agreed to pay $100 per share "upon calls to be made from time to time by plaintiff according to the laws, by-laws, and regulations governing the same." It is further averred that on June 20, 1913, the defendant purchased an additional share of stock, and agreed to pay $100 for it upon calls to be made from time to time. The complaint states that a call was issued for a payment of $10 per share to be made on or before April 16 1914, with interest at 10 per cent. per annum from and after that date; that a second call for the payment of $10 per share was issued requiring payments to be made on or before February 15, 1915, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from and after February 15, 1915; that a call was issued for a third payment of $10 per share to be made on or before May 1, 1915, and if not so paid then the amount called for was to bear interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum from May 1, 1915. The defendant refused to make any of the payments called for. The plaintiff prayed for a judgment for $330 with stipulated interest.
The answer avers that the 10 shares were sold to the defendant upon the payment by him of $250 and "with the definite understanding and agreement that the balance of said stock was to be paid by plaintiff corporation from accumulated dividends thereon; defendant agreeing to allow said dividends to be applied on the payment of the balance of said stock so purchased." It is further alleged in the answer that an additional share of stock was sold to the defendant and that he paid $15 for it. The defendant says in his pleading that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...412, 69 S.W. 27;Lozier Motor Co. v. Ziegler (Sup.) 115 N.Y.S. 134;Lish v. Martin, 55 Mont. 582, 179 P. 826;British Empire Insurance Co. v. Hasenmayer, 90 Or. 608, 178 P. 180;Bigelow v. Garwitz, 61 Hun, 624, 15 N.Y.S. 940;Kennedy v. McCook, 23 Ga.App. 422, 98 S.E. 390; Thomas v. Hatch, Fed.C......
-
Van Lom v. Schneiderman
...it "in its entirety", and likewise was able to ascertain the exact amount to which the plaintiff was entitled. British Empire Ins. Co. v. Hasenmayer, 90 Or. 608, 178 P. 180, was an action to collect the balance due on a subscription to corporate stock — a liquidated claim — in which we appr......
-
Williams v. Clemen's Forest Products
... ... The third case [188 Or. 578] cited ... was British Empire Ins. Co. v. Hasenmayer, 90 Or ... 608, 178 P. 180. That was ... ...
-
Bednarz v. Bay Area Motors, Inc.
...say that there was "no evidence to support the jury's finding that plaintiff was without fault." See also British Empire Ins. Co. v. Hasenmayer, 90 Or. 608, 610, 178 P. 180 (1919); McNamee v. First Nat. Bk. of Roseburg, 88 Or. 636, 640, 172 P. 801 (1918). Judge Lusk, dissenting in Fischer v......