Fogg v. Blair

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation139 U.S. 118,11 S.Ct. 476,35 L.Ed. 104
PartiesFOGG v. BLAIR
Decision Date02 March 1891

The appellant, Fogg, brought this suit to recover from the appellee, blair, the amount of a judgment obtained by him against an insolvent railroad corporation. The general ground upon which it is sought to make the appellee liable is that he holds stock of that corporation upon which he is alleged to owe more than is sufficient to discharge appellant's judgment against it.

The case was determined upon demurrer to the bill, which makes the following showing: The St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad Company, a corporation of Missouri created by an act approved February 16, 1857, was authorized to construct a railroad road from some suitable point on the North Missouri Railroad, not exceeding 30 miles west of St. Charles, in that state, by way of Louisiana, Hannibal, La Grange, and Canton, to some point near the mouth of the Des Moines river, on the northern the Des Moines river, on the northern 1, 1867, and May 1, 1880, it located its line between Gilmore, about 19 miles west of St. Charles, and Alexandria, at the mouth of that river, running in a northerly direction through St. Charles county to Lincoln county by the way of Troy, to a point near Prairieville, a distance of 38 miles. It was also located from the fair grounds near Hannibal, by the way of New London, to Frankfort, in Pike county. The road between the two places last named, a distance of 18 miles, was completed, and a large amount of grading was done in Lincoln county on the line located. The sum of $300,000 was expended in grading in that county. In the progress of the work the company became indebted in large amounts to a considerable number of persons, the plaintiff, Fogg, among the number.

On the 22d of September, 1870, Fogg and the railroad company had a final settlement of their respective claims, showing due him the sum of $9,547.75 for labor done and money furnished in the location and construction of the railroad.

Subsequently, June 3, 1872, nearly all of the stockholders and directors, and all of the executive officers, of the St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad Company entered into articles of association, and organized under the General Statutes of Missouri a new corporation named the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company, with a capital stock of $6,000,000, divided into 60,000 shares, of $100 each, for the purpose of building a railroad between the points named in the charter of the St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad Company, and over most of the same ground upon which the latter company located and graded its road, as above stated.

On the 3d of March, 1873, the St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad Company, by deed, assigned and transferred to the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company its entire line of railroad, completed as well as unfinished, together with all its property of every kind and nature, without paying the plaintiff's debt or said other debts, and by such assignment and transfer rendered itself incapable of doing so. But in such deed it expressly stipulated and required the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company to assume the said debts, including the plaintiff's, and the latter company did expressly assme and agree with the other company to pay the above debts of plaintiff and others. The St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company took possession of the railroad and all the property so assigned and transferred to it, and there was no other consideration for the assignment and transfer than its assumption of the above debts.

In an action at law brought by the plaintiff, September 22, 1880, in the court below, against the two companies, it was held that he could not recover against the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company the amount of his claim. Thereupon that action was dismissed as to that company; and at a second trial the plaintiff obtained judgment against the St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad Company for $16,496.06 and costs, upon which execution was issued and returned no property found. Afterwards, on the 5th of May, 1884, in a suit in equity in the court below, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against both companies for the full amount of his judgment, with interest and costs.

On the 24th of February, 1881, the defendant, Blair, a citizen of New Jersey, and Moses Taylor entered into a written contract tract with the St. Louis, hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company for the grading of its road, or so much thereof as remained ungraded, between the south line of Pike county near Prairie- ville, and some point on the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad between Wentzville and Peruque, for the building of bridings thereon, and for furnishing therefor all the materials, including the ties and rails, for the trackes of the road; the work to be completed and finished on or before the 31st of December, 1881, and to be equal in construction and materials to the part of the road then completed. In consideration of the work so to be done the company covenanted and agreed to pay and deliver to Blair and Taylor first mortgage bonds of the company equal to the sum of $12,000 for each mile of constructed road, and $850,000 par value of the capital stock of the company, in full payment for the construction of said part of its road.

In pursuance of that contract, Blair and Taylor constructed and compaleted such part of the road on or about July 15, 1882, making connection with the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad at Gilmore, a length of 38 miles of main track and 2 miles of side track, receiving from the rail road company its first mortgage bonds to the amount of $480,000, (equal to $12,000 per mile of main and side tracks,) and a certificate, each, for 4,250 shares of its full paid stock of the par value of $425,000. It is alleged in the bill that the work done by them 'was not worth more than $12,000 per mile;' that the first mortgage bonds delivered to them constituted 'full and adequate consideration for all the work done on said part of said railroad by said Blair and Taylor under said contract;' that the issuing and delivery 'of said certificates for said 4,250 full-paid shares each in the capital stock of said St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company to said Blair and Taylor, as aforesaid, was without any valuable consideration paid or moving from said Blair and Taylor, or either of them, to said railroad company, and there was no consideration for said stock and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
103 cases
  • Atlantic Trust Co. v. Dana
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 21, 1903
    ... ... As ... made, the charge is without effect (ambler v ... Choteau, 107 U.S. 586, 591, 1 Sup.Ct. 556, 27 L.Ed ... 322; Fogg v.Blair, 139 U.S. 118, 127, 11 Sup.Ct. 476, 35 ... L.Ed. 104; Ritchie v. McMullen 159 U.S. 235, 241, 16 ... Sup.Ct. 171, 40 L.Ed. 133), and it ... ...
  • Van Cleve v. Berkey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1898
    ...and not impeached for fraud, can not be disturbed simply because the corporation has made a disadvantageous sale of its stock. Fogg v. Blair, 139 U.S. 118; Clark Beaver, 139 U.S. 96; Handley v. Stutz, 139 U.S. 117; Streator Car Seat Co. v. Rankin, 45 Ill.App. 226; Whitehill v. Jacobs, 75 Wi......
  • Johnson v. United Railways Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1920
    ... ... Blair, J., ... dissents; Graves, J., dissents in separate opinion, in which ... Woodson, J., concurs; Goode, J., not sitting ...           ... trustees of those assets for the creditors of the ... corporation." [10, Cyc. 788; Fogg v. Blair, 139 ... U.S. 118, 126, 35 L.Ed. 104, 11 S.Ct. 476; Sawyer v ... Hoag, 17 Wall. 610, 21 L.Ed. 731; Upton v ... Tribilcock, 91 U.S ... ...
  • Strong v. Frerichs, 24439.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1938
    ...44 S.W. 743, 746, 42 L.R.A. 593, our Supreme Court in banc quoted approvingly the language used by Justice Harlan in Fogg v. Blair, 139 U.S. 118, 11 S.Ct. 476, 35 L.Ed. 104, as follows: "It is the settled doctrine of this court, as well as the supreme court of Missouri, that unpaid subscrip......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT