Pryse v. Three Forks Deposit Bank's Assignee

• Decision Date: 10 December 1898
• Citation: 48 S.W. 415
• Parties: PRYSE v. THREE FORKS DEPOSIT BANK'S ASSIGNEE. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

48 S.W. 415

PRYSE v. THREE FORKS DEPOSIT BANK'S ASSIGNEE. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 10, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Lee county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by the assignee of the Three Forks Deposit Bank against E. M Pryse on a promissory note, and for a sale of shares of stock pledged to secure its payment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Wm. H & M. J. Holt and H. L. Wheeler, for appellant.

J. M Sebastian, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

The Three Forks Deposit Bank instituted this suit against the appellant, E. M. Pryse, upon a promissory note for $779, and also alleged that, to secure the payment of said note, the appellant pledged to the bank seven shares of stock. Appellee asserted a lien thereon, and asked judgment for the amount of the debt, and for a sale of the stock to pay the same. The defendant demurred to the petition because it is neither good nor sufficient, and because there is no sufficient description of the stock. A further demurrer was filed raising the question of the sufficiency of the petition because of the failure of the plaintiff to state whether it is a corporation or an individual; and because it failed to state that plaintiff was a corporation and sued in its corporate name, etc.; and because the petition fails to show whether the action is in the name of a corporation or an individual; and because it does not sue as a corporation. It does not appear what judgment, if any, was rendered on the several demurrers. The substance of the answer is that the defendant admitted the execution of the note sued on, but claimed that he should not be required to pay the same or any part of it; that at the time he executed a former note, of which the note sued on is a renewal from time to time; that sometimes 8 per cent. and sometimes 10 per cent. per annum was charged, and compounded every four months. He also alleged that he was the owner of seven shares of the capital stock of the bank, of $100 each, which was pledged and delivered to the bank to secure the payment of the note, and that the affairs and business of the bank had been so improperly managed that said stock had been reduced to the sum of $175; that the plaintiff, without authority of law reduced the capital stock of the bank to $25,000, which is only one-half of the original, and this was done without the consent and against the will of this defendant, and to his prejudice in the sum of $735, and this was caused by the...