Hammett v. Motor Express, Inc
| Decision Date | 04 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | 4-4018 |
| Citation | 87 S.W.2d 19,191 Ark. 595 |
| Parties | HAMMETT v. MOTOR EXPRESS, INC |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; Marvin Harris Judge; affirmed.
Action by Curtis Hammett and others against the Motors Express, Inc. From judgment for defendant plaintiffs have appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
John E. Coates, Jr., for appellants.
House Moses & Holmes, for appellee.
The appellants brought suit against the appellee to recover on a judgment theretofore obtained against J. E. Thompson Motor Express Company, on the allegations, (1) that appellee company was merely a reorganization or continuation of the J. E. Thompson Motor Express Company, and (2) that appellee had assumed the liabilities of the former company. Issue was joined and evidence adduced. At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant. Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict, from which judgment this appeal has been duly prosecuted.
Counsel for appellant bases his argument on the theory that, under a merger or consolidation or a continuation or reorganization, the successor corporation is liable for the debts of the old company, and cite authorities which amply sustain that contention. He also contends that the assets of a corporation are a trust fund for the payment of its debts, and may be followed into the hands of any person other than a bona fide purchaser in due course of business. The authorities cited sustain that contention.
When we examine the evidence, however, we find a total lack of any testimony to which the principles of law cited by the appellants would be applicable. There is no evidence that we can discover tending to show a reorganization or continuation of the J. E. Thompson Motor Express Company in Motor Express Inc. While Motor Express, Inc., was organized to transact business similar in nature to that pursued formerly by the J. E. Thompson Motor Express Company, only one of the owners of the capital stock of the former company was a shareholder in the succeeding company, and he owned only ten shares of its capital stock. Further than this there appears to be no connection between the two companies. The only assets of the former company shown to have been purchased by the latter was the license of the Thompson Motor Express Company and certain permits for the operation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial