Ruden v. Heckenlaible, 7172
Decision Date | 13 June 1932 |
Docket Number | 7172 |
Citation | 60 S.D. 62,243 N.W. 95 |
Parties | E.A. RUDEN, Superintendent of Banks, Appellant, v. ANDREW HECKENLAIBLE, Respondent. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Brown County, SD
#7172—Reversed
Van Slyke & Agor, Aberdeen, SD
H.A. Doyle, Frank Biegelmeier, Yankton, SD
Attorneys for Appellant.
Williamson, Williamson & Smith, Aberdeen, SD
Attorneys for Respondent.
Opinion Filed Jun 13, 1932
The defendant in this action was the owner of 8 2/3 shares of the capital stock of the Exchange State Bank of Menno, of the par value of $100 per share. About the 22d day of October, 1926, the bank levied an assessment of $100 per share on its capital stock, and on said date sent to defendant the following letter:
“Yours very truly,
“E.W. Aisenbrey, Vice President.”
On the 29th day of said month defendant in reply to said letter wrote the bank as follows: “The letter of the 22 received stating that I should have a draft there or the assigned certificate by Nov. 1 to pay for the assessment made by the board of directors. ...”
With this letter defendant returned to the bank his certificate for 8 2/3 shares of stock, properly assigned in blank and executed, by himself in the presence of a witness. In reply to this letter the bank wrote defendant Exhibit 12, which reads as follows:
The bank retained possession of the said certificate, and made no further attempt to collect the assessment, nor, so far as the record discloses, did the bank from then on give defendant notice of stockholders’ meetings or otherwise treat or recognize him as a stockholder of the bank, though it never canceled said certificate of stock nor transferred the same on the books of the bank.
On the 27th day of December, 1927, the bank, being insolvent, was taken over by the superintendent of banks for liquidation. The bank superintendent proceeded under the provisions of section 8993 to collect on the stockholder’s liability as provided by that section. Demand was made upon defendant for the face value of the 8 2/3 shares of stock standing in the name of defendant on the books of the bank. Defendant refused to pay, and this action was commenced. The case was tried to a jury. Verdict and judgment were for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Defendant contends that, after he assigned and delivered his stock certificate to the bank he was no longer a stockholder of the bank, and that he was not liable as a stockholder...
To continue reading
Request your trial