Lingle v. Nat'l Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1869
• Citation: 45 Mo. 109
• Parties: BENJAMIN R. LINGLE et al., Respondents, v. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN HOGAN, STOCKHOLDER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 Mo. 109

BENJAMIN R. LINGLE et al., Respondents,

v.THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, JOHN HOGAN, STOCKHOLDER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1869.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Terry & Terry, and S. Reber, for appellant, cited City and County of St. Louis v. Alexander, 23 Mo. 528; R. M. Carlton, 260, 265.

Hudgens & Son, for respondents, cited Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 329, § 19; 36 Mo. 523; 28 Mo. 106; 3 Hill, 190; 8 Bos. 396; 33 Mo. 377; Barb. on Parties, 361-2; 7 Paige, 18; 8 Paige, 33; 1 Chit. Pl. 40 et seq.;Pearson v. Nesbitt, 1 Dev. 315.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding to recover of John Hogan, a stockholder in the National Insurance Company, the amount of a judgment obtained and held by the respondents against said company. It seems that Hogan was president of the company, and owned stock to the amount of three thousand dollars, which he paid by his services as such officer. Whilst so acting as president, the company became insolvent, and Nixon & Co. brought suit against it for $4,500, the amount of a policy they held against it. During the pendency of the suit, Hogan negotiated for the claim, and procured an assignment of it to him for the sum of $675, and then let judgment go against the company for the full amount.

Execution on respondents' judgment against the company was duly returned, no property found, and a motion was then made, according to the provisions of the statute, for judgment against Hogan as a stockholder. This motion he resisted, on the ground that he had paid all that he was liable for, and claimed the $4,500, the whole amount of the Nixon judgment, as among the credits to which he was entitled. The Circuit Court allowed him a credit for $675, the amount he actually paid, but refused to allow him $4,500, the face of the Nixon judgment, and then found against him for the amount of the respondents' debt. From that decision he appealed. It seems to me that the judgment of the court below was clearly right. At the time Hogan purchased the judgment he was president of the company, and acting for the company. The company's interests and his, in the transaction, were identical, and could not be separated. Whatever advantage he gained inured to its benefit. To permit the chief managing officer of a company in such a manner to speculate for his private gain, would be detrimental to the company and the other stockholders, and would lead to fraud, injustice, and wrong. Public...