Chandler v. Brown
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 1875 WL 8318,77 Ill. 333 |
| Parties | GEORGE CHANDLERv.JOSHUA BROWN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. THOMAS F. TIPTON, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. GAPEN & EWING, for the appellant.
Messrs. WILLIAMS, BURR & CAPEN, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit, by appellant, as receiver of the Lamar Insurance Company, against appellee, to recover the balance remaining unpaid on his subscription to the capital stock of that company.
The declaration, after amendment, was composed of eight counts, but appellant subsequently entered a nolle prosequi to all but the first and second counts, and to these appellee demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and the only question raised by this appeal is, was the demurrer properly sustained.
So far as it is necessary to notice the allegations in these counts, they are the same.
It is, among other things, alleged that the company did acts authorizing a forfeiture, by permitting execution to be returned no property found, and by allowing executions to remain unpaid for more than ten days after demand, and that it did practically dissolve, leaving debts unpaid; that afterwards, the company being unable to meet its liabilities, certain persons, composing a firm, filed a bill, as well in their own behalf as in behalf of all other creditors of the company, against the company and others, in the Superior Court of Cook county, in which proceeding the court acquired jurisdiction of the company; that in said case the company was declared insolvent, its affairs ordered to be adjusted and closed up, and the plaintiff was appointed receiver of the estate of the company, in conformity with law, and was duly invested and clothed with all the property, assets, effects, rights, privileges and powers of said company; that plaintiff gave bond as receiver, and the company conveyed to him the money, property, assets and effects of the company, including the stock, bond or contract executed and delivered by the defendant to the company.
And a subsequent order of the Superior Court of Cook county is then recited, authorizing the plaintiff to collect, from all who had not paid 20 per cent on their subscription, the deficiency, so that all should be equal, and directing plaintiff to levy 20 per cent more on the stock, and give notice of such assessment by publishing a notice in a newspaper published in Chicago, and mail a notice to each stockholder; that he first make a call of 15 per cent, and if that be sufficient, on its payment, to surrender the obligation of the stockholders; and if it be not sufficient, that he make further calls until he secure sufficient for that purpose; that if any stockholders prove insolvent, the deficiency be made up by dividing the sum among the solvent stockholders, and providing that the assessments of the plaintiff, when made, be valid,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elson v. Wright
...that the Hildreth case must be overruled. It may be said in passing that in Lamar Insurance Co. v. Hildreth, supra, the case of Chandler v. Brown, 77 Ill. 333, was cited and on as stating the Illinois rule, which would be controlling in determining the liability of the stockholder in this S......
-
Elson v. Wright
...that the Hildreth Case must be overruled. It may be said in passing that in Lamar Insurance Co. v. Hildreth, supra, the case of Chandler v. Brown, 77 Ill. 333, was cited and relied on as stating the Illinois rule, which would be controlling in determining the liability of the stockholder in......
-
Farwell v. Great Western Tel. Co.
...the decree entered thereon, nor the petition, mention the preceding order of assessment, of October 16, 1879. It was held in Chandler v. Brown, 77 Ill. 333, that it would not admit of argument that a stockholder could be concluded by any proceedings under section 25 of the present chapter o......
-
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Phoenix Furniture Co.
...from Hawkins v. Glenn. The same was held in Insurance Co. v. Langley, 62 Md. 211. The learned counsel for the defendant cite Chandler v. Brown, 77 Ill. 333, Insurance Co. v. Gulick, 102 Ill. 41. These cases are distinguished from a case like the present in Telegraph Co. v. Gray, 122 Ill. 63......