Chicago Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Beaven
Decision Date | 21 June 1912 |
Citation | 149 Ky. 267,148 S.W. 37 |
Parties | CHICAGO BLDG. & MFG CO. v. BEAVEN et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.
Action by T. A. Beaven and others against the Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company. From the judgment, defendant appeals and plaintiffs Peterson, Walker, and Mattingly prosecute a cross-appeal. Affirmed upon the cross-appeal, and reversed on the original appeal.
John McChord, of Lebanon, for appellant.
H. W Rives, Proctor K. McElroy, and W. W. Spalding, all of Lebanon, for appellees.
This is the second appeal of this action. The opinion delivered upon the first appeal may be found in 133 Ky. 596, 118 S.W. 384 and contains a correct statement of the facts out of which the litigation grew and the principal portions of the contract sued on.
Briefly stated, the Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company (hereinafter called the Building Company for brevity) entered into a written contract with 55 farmers residing in the neighborhood of St. Mary's in Marion county, whereby the Building Company agreed to erect a creamery or butter factory for the sum of $4,950. Each subscriber bound himself to pay $100 for one share of stock in a corporation to be organized, in case the contract should become effective. The contract was tentative in its nature, and only bound the subscribers thereto in the event that $5,500, which was necessary to erect the creamery and start it in business, should be raised, and certain other specified facts should be found to exist. That feature of the contract is contained in this provision:
The contract further provided that, in the event the foregoing facts were found to be true, and the contract should become operative, the subscribers should then appoint a building committee, which should procure a suitable site for the creamery and superintend the building of it. This portion of the contract may be found in the former opinion on page 599.
After the $5,500 had been subscribed, an organization meeting was held in the depot at St. Marys, pursuant to a notice given to all the subscribers. It appointed a building or executive committee of its own number, which procured the site upon which the appellant subsequently erected the creamery, according to the plans and specifications. In September, 1908, that committee reported as follows to appellant:
The other proceedings are well narrated in the following excerpt taken from the opinion upon the former appeal of this case, to wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hargis v. Hargis
...20 Ky. Law Rep. 1704. This language has been quoted and approved by the Court of Appeals in the following cases: Chicago Building & Mfg. Co. v. Beaven, 149 Ky. 267, 148 S.W. 37; Taylor v. Mullins, 151 Ky. 597, 152 S.W. 774; Bewley v. Moremen, 162 Ky. 32, 171 S.W. "One who charges fraud, be ......
-
Bentley v. Stewart
... ... See ... Chicago ... See ... Chicago Building & Mfg ... See ... Chicago Building & Mfg. Co. v. Beaven ... ...
-
Rhoades v. Banking
...90, 64 N. W. 3, 29 L. R. A. 63, 58 Am. St. Rep. 468; Eichel-berger v. Mann, 115 Va. 774, 776, SO S. E. 595; Chicago Building & Mfg. Co. v. Bea-ven, 149 Ky. 267, 148 S. W. 37; Harrison v. Heathorn, 6 M. & S. 81; Estates Investment Co. v. Ashleys, L. R. 9 Eq. 266—cited for appellees, touching......
-
Towels v. Campbell
... ... 163, 50 S.W. 6, 20 Ky. Law Rep ... 1704; Chicago Building & Mfg. Co. v. Beaven, 149 Ky ... 267, 148 S.W. 37; Taylor v ... ...