Howell v. Manglesdorf

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Citation33 Kan. 194,5 P. 759
Decision Date06 February 1885

5 P. 759

33 Kan. 194


Supreme Court of Kansas

February 6, 1885

Error from Atchison District Court.

PROCEEDING to enforce the individual liability of S. R. Howell, as a stockholder in the Atchison Industrial Exposition and Agricultural Fair Association. At the February Term, 1884, the court ordered that execution in favor of A. Manglesdorf & Co. issue against S. R. Howell as a stockholder of said corporation, for the sum of $ 100 and the costs of this proceeding. Howell brings the case to this court. The opinion states the material facts.

Judgment reversed.

Smith & Solomon, for plaintiff in error.

Jackson & Royse, for defendants in error.

JOHNSTON, J. All the Justices concurring



This proceeding was instituted in the district court of Atchison county, to enforce the individual liability of S. R. Howell, the plaintiff in error, as a stockholder in the Atchison Industrial Exposition and Agricultural Fair Association, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Kansas, with its principal place of business at the city of Atchison. S. R. Howell subscribed to the capital stock of the corporation, and owned twenty shares thereof, amounting to one hundred dollars. The corporation became insolvent. [33 Kan. 195] A. Manglesdorf & Co., the defendants in error, recovered a judgment against the corporation, upon which an execution was issued and a return thereof made, that no property or effects of the corporation could be found upon which to levy the execution. The defendants in error began this proceeding by a motion filed in the district court, and obtained service of the notice of the motion upon S. R. Howell, at Chicago, Illinois. He appeared specially, and moved the court to set aside the service of the [5 P. 760] notice and motion, for the reason that the same was not served within the jurisdiction of the court, but was served upon him in the state of Illinois, of which state he was and is a resident. This motion was overruled by the court, and an order made awarding an execution against S. R. Howell as a stockholder in the corporation to the amount of the stock owned by him in the corporation. This action of the court is complained of by plaintiff in error.

The question to be decided arises under a statute which reads as follows:

"SEC. 32. If any execution shall have been issued against the property or effects of a corporation, except a railway or a religious or charitable corporation, and there cannot be found any property whereon to levy such execution, then execution may be issued against any of the stockholders, to an extent equal in amount to the amount of stock by him or her owned, together with any amount unpaid thereon; but no execution shall issue against any stockholder, except upon an order of the court in which the action, suit or other proceeding shall have been brought or instituted, made upon motion in open court, after reasonable notice in writing to the person or persons sought to be charged; and upon such motion, such court may order execution to issue accordingly; or the plaintiff in the execution may proceed by action to charge the stockholders with the amount of his judgment." (Comp. Laws 1879, ch. 23, § 32.)

It will be observed that two remedies for enforcing the individual liability of stockholders are prescribed in the statute above quoted. In the one case, the judgment creditor of an insolvent corporation may proceed by a summary action on a motion in the court where the judgment was rendered against [33 Kan. 196] the corporation; in the other, by an ordinary action to be instituted wherever personal jurisdiction of the stockholders can be acquired. Before the summary proceeding by motion can be maintained, notice to the stockholder must be given, in order that he may appear...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard, 1858-1861.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • July 16, 1904
    ...U.S. 559, 20 Sup.Ct. 477, 44 L.Ed. 587, and it is also the effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Kansas. Howell v. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan. 194, 5 P. 759; Abbey v. Dry Company, 60 Kan. 164, 55 P. 853; Woodworth v. Bowles, 61 Kan. 569, 60 P. 331. The decisions of the Supreme Court of t......
  • Wilson v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 22, 1891 Barlow v. Steel, 65 Mo. 611; Latimer v. Railroad Co., 43 Mo. 109; Eppright v. Nickerson, 78 Mo. 487, 490; Howell v. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan. 194, 5 Pac. Rep. 759. The Seligmans were not stockholders. See Association v. Seligman, 92 Mo. 635, 15 S. W. Rep. 630; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. ......
  • Howarth v. Lombard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 28, 1900
    ...26 L.Ed. 216; Richmond v. Irons, 121 U.S. 27-55, 7 S.Ct. 788, 30 L.Ed. 864; Dexter v. Edmands (C. C.) 89 F. 467; Howell v. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan. 194-199, 5 P. 759; Ferguson v. Sherman, 116 Cal. 169, 47 P. 1023, 37 L. R. A. 622. The weight of authority is in favor of holding this statutory li......
  • McVickar v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of New Hampshire
    • October 22, 1895
    ...sought to be established by the Kansas constitution and statute is one which we are bound to recognize and enforce. Howell v. Manglesdorf, 33 Kan. 194, 199, 5 P. 759; Flash v. Conn, 109 U.S. 371, 3 Sup.Ct. 263; Rhodes v. Bank, 13 C.C.A. 612, 66 F. 512; Bank v. Rindge, 57 F. 279; Cuykendall ......
  • 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