Pease v. Chicago Crayon Co.
| Decision Date | 08 October 1908 |
| Citation | 235 Ill. 391,85 N.E. 619 |
| Parties | PEASE v. CHICAGO CRAYON CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Charles M. Walker, Judge.
Action by J. Warren Pease against the Chicago Crayon Company to compel defendant to make transfer of stock, and to issue certain stock certificates to him. From a judgment of the Branch Appellate Court for the First District affirming a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.A. D. Gash, for appellant.
William E. Cloyes, for appellee.
On June 11, 1903, the appellant, Chicago Crayon Company, a corporation with a capital stock of $200,000, divided into shares of $100 each, issued to A. L. Hamell its certificate that he was the owner of 15 of said shares fully paid and transferable only on the books of the corporation by the holder thereof in person or by attorney, upon surrender of the certificate, properly indorsed. On November 28, 1904, the appellee, J. Warren Pease, purchased said stock from Hamell for $1,200, and Hamell, by indorsement on the back of the certificate, assigned the same to appellee, and appointed Daniel W. Scanlan his attorney to transfer to appellee said stock on the books of appellant. Scanlan and appellee applied to appellant to make the transfer of the stock on its books, but appellant refused to make or permit such transfer. Appellee then filed his bill in this case in the circuit court of Cook county to compel appellant to make the transfer and to issue a stock certificate to him. Appellant answered, denying that Hamell was the owner of the stock at the time of the transfer and assignment to appellee, and alleged that on March 1, 1904, four of the shares were levied on by a constable under a writ of attachment issued by a justice of the peace in a suit wherein Abram D. Gash was plaintiff and Hamell was defendant; that said shares were sold to Gash by virtue of an execution and order of sale issued in said attachment proceeding, and a new certificate for the same was issued to Gash and the stock was transferred to him on the books of the corporation; that on May 1, 1904, the other 11 shares were levied upon under a writ of attachment issued out of the county court of Cook county in a suit wherein appellant, for the use of Page V. Lyon, was plaintiff and Hamell was defendant, and that said 11 shares were sold to A. J. Witherell by virtue of an execution and order of sale issuedin said cause, and a certificate was issued to Witherell for said shares and they were transferred to him on the books of the corporation. A replication having been filed, the cause was heard and a decree was entered as prayed for in the bill. The Branch Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the decree.
The refusal of appellant to make the transfer on its books rested wholly upon its claim that the title of the stock had passed to Gash and Witherell under the proceedings in the attachment suits. Appellee had no knowledge of the attachment suits until after his purchase of the stock, and his purchase of the same was made in good faith. In the suit brought by Gash before a justice of the peace the ground for the attachment was that Hamell lived at Dallas, Tex., and notice of the pendency of the suit was given by posting three notices in Cook county. The writ of attachment was not levied on the stock or any other property, but the constable made return that he had summoned appellant, as garnishee. Appellant made answer, as garnishee, that it had in its possession four shares of its own capital stock standing in the name of Hamell on its books. Judgment by default was rendered against Hamell for $100 and costs, and the justice ordered the four shares of stock in the hands of the garnishee sold to satisfy the judgment. The stock was sold and was purchased by plaintiff, Gash. The suit of appellant for the use of Lyon was begun in the county court, and the ground for the attachment was that Hamell lived at Los Angeles, Cal., to which place notice was mailed. There was no service on Hamell, and the writ was not levied on any property, but was served on appel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neiderjohn v. Thompson
...65 N.E. 1015; Culp v. Mulvane (Kans.) 71 P. 273; 28 C. J. 167; 2 Cook Corporations 1636; Fowler v. Dickson (Del.) 74 A. 601; Pease v. Co. (Ill.) 85 N.E. 619; Co. v. Laev (Wis.) 76 N.W. 596; 6020, 6021, 6022 C. S. The settled construction of a statute adopted from another state, is generally......
-
Granquist v. Western Tube Co.
...will result in depriving that person of some material right. Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Wire Fence Co., 109 Ill. 71;Pease v. Chicago Crayon Co., 235 Ill. 391, 85 N. E. 619;Abernathie v. Rich, 229 Ill. 412, 82 N. E. 308State Nat. Bank v. United States Life Ins. Co., 238 Ill. 148, 87 N. E. 3......
-
Gulick v. Hamilton
...71;State Nat. Bank of Springfield v. United States Life Ins. Co., 238 Ill. 148, 87 N. E. 396;Pease v. Chicago Crayon Co., 235 Ill. 391, 85 N. E. 619,18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1158,14 Ann. Cas. 263;Granquist v. Western Tube Co., 240 Ill. 132, 88 N. E. 468. A proceeding for an injunction is persona......
-
Burt v. Board of Educ. of Coal City Community Unit School Dist. No. 1
...made at trial must show that the decree will have the effect of depriving the party omitted of his legal rights. [Pease v. Chicago Crayon (1908), 235 Ill. 391, 85 N.E. 619.] Where objection to non-joinder of parties is not made until the final stage of a proceeding, it will receive little f......