Corporation Commission of North Carolina v. Harris

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ADAMS, J.
• Citation: Corporation Commission of North Carolina v. Harris, 148 S.E. 174, 197 N.C. 202 (N.C. 1929)
• Decision Date: 15 May 1929
• Docket Number: 493.
• Parties: CORPORATION COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARRIS.

148 S.E. 174

197 N.C. 202

CORPORATION COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARRIS.

No. 493.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 15, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Rowan County; J. L. Webb, Judge.

Proceeding by the Corporation Commission of North Carolina against Nathan Harris and another to enforce stockholder's statutory liability. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Harris appeals. New trial.

The plaintiff alleged that, as an administrative department of the state of North Carolina, created and organized as provided by law, it took charge of the business, property and effects of the People's Bank of East Spencer on the 30th day of July, 1926, and that the bank was insolvent. Thereafter the Atlantic Bank & Trust Company was appointed receiver of the People's Bank of East Spencer. The receiver filed a petition alleging that the defendant was a stockholder, and demanded payment of his statutory liability as provided in C. S. Supp. 1924, § 219(a). It was admitted for the purpose of the trial that the assets of the People's Bank of East Spencer were insufficient to discharge its obligations, and that it was necessary to assess the shares of stock issued by the bank to the full amount of 100 per cent. The defendant denied liability, and the following issue was submitted to the jury and answered in the affirmative: "Was the defendant Nathan Harris a stockholder in the People's Bank of East Spencer as alleged in the complaint?" Judgment was rendered in behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted and appealed.

J Harold McKeithen, of Winston-Salem, and Walter H. Woodson, of Salisbury, and Parrish & Deal, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.

P. S Carlton, of Salisbury, for receiver.

ADAMS J.

His honor instructed the jury to answer the issue in the affirmative if they believed all the evidence. In this instruction we think there was error. The stock appeared on the books of the bank as having been issued to and in the name of the defendant, but this entry, while prima facie evidence of the defendant's ownership, is not conclusive; the burden of the issue remained with the plaintiff throughout the trial to satisfy the jury by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant Harris was a stockholder in the bank, as alleged. White v. Hines, 182 N.C. 276, 109 S.E. 31, Austin v. R. R., 187 N.C. 7, 121 S.E. 1. There was evidence in rebuttal of the presumption arising from the entry of the stock in the name of the defendant on the books of the bank. To constitute the defendant a stockholder, it was necessary to show, not only that the stock had been issued, but that it had been actually or constructively accepted by the defendant. The defendant denied that he had accepted the stock.

There was evidence tending to show that on January 5, 1921, the People's Bank of East Spencer issued two shares of stock to R. H. Terry, and that on the 4th of April, 1924 Terry's certificate was surrendered to the bank, indorsed by Terry to the defendant; that certificates Nos. 103 and 104 were then issued in the name of the latter. The defendant testified that he...