Russell v. Broadus Cotton Mills
| Decision Date | 30 June 1905 |
| Citation | 39 So. 712 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. BROADUS COTTON MILLS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; A. H. Alston, Judge.
"Not officially reported."
Action by I. P. Russell against the Broadus Cotton Mills. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This was a suit brought to recover the amount paid in the Broadus Cotton Mill on subscription to the capital stock thereof under the following agreement: --and alleging the failure within one year after the organization of the mill to erect a tiling plant.
W. F Esslinger, for appellant.
J. E Brown, for appellee.
The written obligation declared upon for a recovery does not purport to bind the defendant. It is not signed by it, or by any one purporting to act for it and in its behalf. On its face it is clearly the individual obligation of Broadus Timberlake, and Washington. Such being its legal effect, it is not permissible to plead or prove that it was intended that defendant was to be bound by it. Richmond L. & M. Works v. Moragne, 119 Ala. 80, 24 So. 834; s. c., 124 Ala. 537, 27 So. 240. And clearly, unless the plaintiff is legally entitled to establish the fact that the parties named above, who signed the instrument, intended to bind the defendant corporation, there could not be a recovery against it. The fact that Broadus and Washington were the commissioners to open books of subscription to the capital stock of the proposed corporation and were its promoters, coupled with the further fact that the writing sued on was executed by them and Timberlake contemporaneously with plaintiff's subscription to the stock, does not and cannot make the defendant liable on the instrument which purports to be their individual obligation.
The plea of the general issue put in issue the defendant's liability vel non, and upon that plea, under the evidence the general affirmative charge requested by defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co.
... ... against the appellees Edward Moyse & Co., cotton brokers in ... New York City, the State Bank & Trust Company, a banking ... Doolittle, 54 A. 611; Littleton v. Berlin Mills ... Co., 58 A. Rep. 877; Lescallett v ... Commonwealth, 89 Va. 878; ... ...
-
Stone v. Walker
...corporation itself is concerned, it ought to be so held. The case of Broadus v. Russell, 160 Ala. 353, 49 So. 327 (Id., on former appeal, 39 So. 712, not officially dealt with the liability of promoters and of the corporation, and with the rights and liabilities of subscribers, under guaran......
-
Broadus v. Russell
...Action by I. P. Russell against S. S. Broadus and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded. See, also, 39 So. 712. Bouldin, for appellants. W. F. Esslinger and Bilbro & Moody, for appellee. McCLELLAN, J. The insistence in behalf of counsel that this appea......
-
Seagraves v. Wallace, 5706
...the steps necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes mentioned was the individual obligation of the defendant. Russell v. Broadus Cotton Mills (Ala. Sup.) 39 So. 712. The defendant incurred liability by breaching that obligation. That obligation included the bringing about of the main......