Davis & Rankin Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Caigle
Decision Date | 20 May 1899 |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Parties | DAVIS & RANKIN BLDG. & MFG. CO. v. CAIGLE. |
Appeal from chancery court, McMinn county; T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.
Bill by the Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company, for the use of Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company, against E. Caigle. There was a decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
W. T. Lane and Gaston & Madison, for appellant. Young Bros., for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed on a contract or undertaking to pay to Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company the sum of $100 towards the erection of a butter and cheese factory at Grady, in McMinn county, this state. The bill alleges that the contract had been assigned to the Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company, and the suit is therefore instituted in the name of the former for the use of the latter. The defenses contained in the answer are as follows: First, a general denial of all liability; second, that no demand for payment has been made of the defendant; third, that the Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company has not complied with the condition of the contract, upon which the money was to be paid in, that no stock was ever issued or tendered to the defendant; fourth, an averment that the Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company has no interest in the obligation sued on; fifth, that there was no consideration for the contract; sixth, that both the complainants are foreign corporations, and have not complied with the statute authorizing them, or either of them, to do business in this state, or in McMinn county. The chancellor adjudged that the complainant owed the defendant nothing, and dismissed the bill. The complainant has appealed and assigned errors.
The contract sued upon is entitled as follows: "Contract and specifications for a combined butter and cheese factory on the co-operative and farmers' protective system." It then proceeds: "The Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company, of Chicago, Illinois, party of the first part, hereby agrees with the undersigned subscribers hereto party of the second part, to build, erect, complete, and equip for said party of the second part a combined butter and cheese factory at or near Grady, Tenn., as follows, to wit." Here follow the dimensions of the factory building and a list of the machinery, with a reference to specifications upon the next page. The instrument then continues:
The paper on which the contract was written consisted of two sheets. The first sheet contained what we have written above, and was signed by the Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company as the first party, a blank being left on that page only for that signature. On the back of that sheet were the specifications already referred to, and then followed, on the next sheet, — being the third sheet, — a blank form for subscriptions as follows:
Amount of Names of Number Stock After Subscribers. of Shares. Incorporation
On this paper, among others, the name of the defendant Caigle was signed as follows:
Amount of Names of Number Stock After Subscribers. of Shares. Incorporation F. Caigle 1 100
This contract was dated on the 4th day of October, 1894. On the 2d day of November. 1894, the Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company transferred it to the Lake Street Manufacturing Block, and the latter company transferred it on the 1st of December, 1894, to the Chicago Building & Manufacturing Company. The Davis & Rankin Building & Manufacturing Company completed the factory according to the terms of the contract, but the defendant, Caigle, refused to pay, and relies in his answer on the defenses we have above mentioned....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.
... ... v. Josselyn, ... 92 Minn. 267, 99 N.W. 890; Davis & Rankin Building, etc., ... Co. v. Caigle (Tenn. Ch ... 791; New Haven Pulp & ... Board Co. v. Downingtown Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 130 F. 605; ... Wilson Moline Buggy Co. v ... ...
-
State, to use of Hart-Parr Co. v. Robb-Lawrence Co.
...Bank of Vancouver v. Sherman, 28 Ore. 573, 43 P. 658; Colorado Iron Works v. Sierra Grande Min. Co., 15 Col. 499, 25 P. 325; Davis v. Caigle, 53 S.W. 240; Empire v. Tombstone, 100 F. 910; Ware Cattle v. Anderson et al., 107 Iowa 231, 77 N.W. 1026; Wolf v. Bigler, 192 Pa. 466, 43 A. 1092; Mo......
-
Bayne v. Thorson
...Wis. 76, 142 N.W. 182; National Cash Register Co. v. Wilson, 9 N.D. 112, 81 N.W. 285; Davis & R. Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Caigle, -- Tenn. , 53 S.W. 240; Beard v. Union & American Pub. Co. 71 Ala. 60. The mere fact that a foreign corporation entered into a contract with some of their stockholder......
-
Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. E. W. Minter Co.
...made of the Colorado Constitution and statutes in the quotation just made from Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, supra. Davis & Rankin Co. v. Caigle (Tenn. Ch. App.) 53 S. W. 240; Cary-Lombard Lumber Co. v. Thomas, 92 Tenn. 587, 22 S. W. 743; Milan Milling Co. v. Gorten, 93 Tenn. 590, 27 S. W. 9......