Goodrich v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 30 April 1863 |
| Citation | 1863 WL 3136,31 Ill. 490,83 Am.Dec. 240 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CALVIN GOODRICHv.REYNOLDS, WILDER & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Rock Island county; the Hon. IRA O. WILKINSON, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the court below by Reynolds, Wilder & Co. against Calvin Goodrich. The declaration contained the common counts, and a special count upon a promissory note executed by Goodrich, on the 12th of August, 1857, to the Sterling and Rock Island Railroad Company, for the sum of five hundred dollars, payable five years from the first day of September following, with interest, at ten per cent., payable semi-annually. The note was assigned before maturity, to the plaintiffs, by the “Sterling and Rock Island Railroad, per M. S. Henry, President.”
The plaintiffs admitted that the note was the sole cause of action sued upon.
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and fourteen special pleas, as follows:
1. That said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock of said company, which defendant had theretofore subscribed for, being one hundred dollars per share, and that there was no other consideration for said note; and further avers, that said company had no power under its charter to make said contract by virtue of which it received said note, and that said note is void, because the said company had no power to receive said note in payment of their capital stock; all of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time of receiving said note.
2. That said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock that the defendant had theretofore subscribed for; that the amount of the capital stock required to build and equip said road was $600,000, as appears by the Articles of Association, on file in the office of the Secretary of State, at Springfield. Said capital stock has not been subscribed for, nor has it been taken. All of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time of receiving said note.
3. That the said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock of said company, which the defendant had previously subscribed for; and that the $250,000 of the capital stock of said company, as required by the amendments to said charter, had not been subscribed for nor taken; all of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time they received said note.
4. That the said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock that the defendant had previously subscribed for to said company, and that the $250,000 of capital stock has not been subscribed for nor taken, and that the work on said road has been suspended, and the project of building said road has been abandoned; all of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time they received said note. 5. That the said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock that the defendant had previously subscribed for to said company; and further avers, that said company had no power, under its charter and the laws of the land, to receive, transfer and indorse said note; and that the said note and the indorsements thereon are in violation of the laws of the land, and are therefore null and void; all of which the said plaintiffs knew well at the time they received said note.
6. That the said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock that the defendant had previously subscribed for to said company; and further avers, that said Miles S. Henry had no power or authority, under the charter of said company or any amendments thereto, or by virtue of the laws of the State-- nor had the said Miles S. Henry any authority from said company, as president or otherwise, nor had he any authority from the board of directors of said company--to transfer and indorse said note, as alleged in the plaintiff's declaration. The plea further avers, that the transferring and indorsing of said note was fraudulent and in violation of the laws of the State, and is therefore void. All of which the plaintiffs knew well at the time of receiving said note.
7. That the said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock that the defendant had previously subscribed for to said company; and further avers, that the defendant was induced to make, execute and deliver said note to said company by the false and fraudulent representations of said company, its officers and agents, in this, to wit: That before and at the time of the giving of said note, the said company, its officers and agents, falsely and fraudulently represented to this defendant, that all the capital stock required to build and equip said road had been subscribed for and in good faith taken; and that the said company was going to build and equip said road immediately; and that the cars would run through from Sterling to Rock Island within eighteen months or less from the date of said note. And the defendant, relying upon said representations, did make and deliver said note to said company. And further avers, that the said capital stock has not been subscribed for, nor has the road been built, but the work on said road has been abandoned; and that said note was thus obtained by fraud from the defendant. All of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time they received said note.
8. That the said note was given in payment of five shares of the capital stock that the defendant had previously subscribed for to said company; and further avers, that the defendant was induced to make and deliver said note to said company, by the false and fraudulent representations of said company, its officers and agents, in stating that all the capital stock required to build, construct and procure the right of way and buy the motive power and every other equipment necessary to build and complete said road, had been subscribed for, and in good faith taken; and that the company would build and equip said road immediately, and that the cars would run through from Sterling to Rock Island within eighteen months or less from the date of said note; that he relied upon said representations as being true, and therefore was induced to, and did give said note. That said representations are untrue--that all of the capital stock has not been subscribed for, and that the said road has not been built, and that the company actually refuses to build said road--therefore, the consideration for said note has entirely failed. All of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time they received said note.
9. That said company obtained said note from the defendant by means of fraud and circumvention, and by false and fraudulent representations made by said company, its officers and agents, to the defendant at the time said note was given; all of which the plaintiffs well knew at the time they received said note.
10. That said note was obtained from the defendant by fraud, covin and misrepresentation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callaway v. Hamilton Nat. Bank of Washington, 10908.
...as drawer of the checks, is precluded from challenging the payee's existence. Negotiable Instruments Law § 61;8 Goodrich v. Reynolds, Wilder & Co., 31 Ill. 490, 497; Vater v. Lewis, 36 Ind. 288. But it does not follow, as appellee maintains, that appellant is precluded from denying that the......
-
Fowler v. Equitable Trust Co Equitable Trust Co v. Fowler
...doctrine of that court that the mere taking of interest in advance does not bring a loan within the prohibition of usury. In Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 Ill. 490, 498, it was said: 'The remaining plea sets up usury in this: that the interest was made payable semi-annually. It has long been set......
-
Garland v. Union Trust Co.
...of that court that the mere taking of interest in advance does not bring a loan within the prohibition of usury. In Goodrich v. Reynolds, 31 Ill. 490, 498 (83 Am. Dec. 240), it was said: 'The remaining plea sets up usury in this, that the interest was made payable semi- annually. It has lon......
-
Diamond State Iron Co. v. Husbands
... ... N.H. 164; Jones vs. Dana, 24 Barb. 395; Douglas ... Co. vs. Balles, 94 U.S. 104; County of L. vs ... Barnes, 94 U.S. 70; Goodrich vs. Reynolds, 31 ... Ill. 490; Rice vs. Rock I. & A. R. R. Co., 21 Ill ... 93, 95; Cowell vs. Springs Co. , 100 U.S. 55, 60; ... Smith vs ... ...