Demple v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 29 September 1913 |
| Docket Number | 734 |
| Citation | 133 P. 137,21 Wyo. 447 |
| Parties | DEMPLE v. CARROLL |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of June 30, 1913, Reported at: 21 Wyo. 447.
Rehearing denied.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Plaintiff in error has filed a petition for a rehearing in which it is claimed we did not give proper consideration to the alleged errors assigned in the motion for a new trial. The main contention now is that we did not consider the objection that the judgment was excessive and should have been for only $ 500, if for any amount, for the reason that Carroll was the owner of one-half of the capital stock of the Sheridan Manufacturing Co. The claim of plaintiff below, as we understand the pleading, was that the company was indebted to Metz in the sum of $ 1,000, and not having the money to pay Metz, Carroll advanced it for the company; that the company failed to repay him and still owed him that amount when Demple executed the instrument sued on. It was the company (a corporation) which was his debtor and not the stockholders and the fact that he was a stockholder did not make the company any less the debtor and him its creditor than if he had been an outside party. It was the debt of the company to him that Demple assumed. The fact that he borrowed the money and when he renewed the note another stockholder became surety on the note did not change his liability, or the company's obligation to him; and the evidence sufficiently shows that he paid the full amount. The amount of the company's indebtedness to him at the time of the transaction with Demple and at the time of the trial was $ 1,000, which Demple had assumed. The judgment therefore was not excessive.
In the brief in support of the petition for rehearing it is stated, "Although the contract set out in the petition signed by Demple appears to be the transaction of Demple, it is disclosed from the testimony of Demple that he was acting as agent for another person in the purchase, and from the testimony of the plaintiff, Carroll it also appears that he was aware of that fact, and from the testimony of both, it is disclosed that Demple was not the real party in interest." On that question it is sufficient to say, that no such issue was presented by the pleadings; and we have again carefully reread the entire testimony of Demple and no such...
To continue reading
Request your trial