Stone v. Monticello Const. Co.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtHOBSON, J.
Citation135 Ky. 659,117 S.W. 369
Decision Date19 March 1909
PartiesSTONE et al. v. MONTICELLO CONST. CO.

117 S.W. 369

135 Ky. 659

STONE et al.
v.
MONTICELLO CONST. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 19, 1909


Appeals from Circuit Court, Wayne County.

"To be officially reported."

Actions by the Monticello Construction Company against E. O. Stone, Leo F. Sanders, A. Miller and others, and Joe Marsh. Judgments for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. [117 S.W. 370]

Stone & Wallace, McQuown & Beckham, and Harrison & Harrison, for appellants.

O.H. Waddle & Son and Cress & Cress, for appellee.

HOBSON, J.

Some years ago a corporation, known as the "Cumberland River & Nashville Railway Company," was organized for the purpose of building a railroad from Corbin, Ky. through Wayne county, into Tennessee. It made a contract for the building of the road from Tateville to Monticello, and this contract was sublet by the original contractors to Plunkett, Edwards & Clark. Some work was one upon the road between Tateville and Monticello, and then it developed that the railroad company was without means. The people about Monticello were very anxious to secure a railroad, and they began to organize a construction company which was to finance the building of the road from Tateville to Monticello. With this view the following written contract was signed by a number of persons interested in the building of the railroad: "Whereas it is proposed to organize a corporation with a capital stock of $100,000.00 divided into shares of $100.00 each under the name of the Monticello Railroad Construction Company, with its chief office at Monticello, Kentucky; said corporation to be organized for the purpose of constructing and building railroads and especially for the purpose of constructing and building the Cumberland River & Nashville Railroad, and taking over to itself all contracts now existing for building the said railroad from the Cincinnati Southern Railway near Tateville, Kentucky, to Monticello, Kentucky, and for such other work of construction as may be contracted for: Now we, the undersigned, agree to take the number of shares set opposite our names, and to pay for same at the rate of $100.00 each in installments as called for by the directors hereafter to be elected. It is further agreed that this subscription shall not be binding until there shall have been $80,000, of the capital stock of the said company subscribed for in good faith. It is further agreed that this subscription shall not be binding until an agreement and contract is entered into by a committee of the subscribers hereto, and the Cumberland River & Nashville Railroad Company, for the construction of said railroad from Tateville to Monticello, Kentucky, nor until satisfactory arrangements shall have been made with the present contractors now at work and holding contracts for work upon said line. Done at Monticello, Kentucky, this October 1, 1907." In October, 1907, when the necessary subscription was said to have been made, the Monticello Construction Company was organized. After the organization of the company, satisfactory arrangements were made with the contractors holding contracts for work upon the line, and a contract was entered into by a committee of the subscribers and the Cumberland River & Nashville Railroad Company for the construction of the railroad from Tateville to Monticello. Certain subscribers refused to pay their subscription when called for, and this suit was brought against them by the Monticello Construction Company to recover the amount they had subscribed. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Rose v. Magro, 6 Div. 468.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 24, 1929
    ...though the matters of which inquiry are made are not a disqualification. Such are the general authorities: Stone v. Monticello Const. Co., 135 Ky. 659, 117 S.W. 369, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 978, 21 Ann. Cas. 640; O'Hare v. Railroad Co., 139 Ill. 151, 28 N.E. 923; Bridge Works v. Pereira, 79 Ill......
  • Edwards v. Johnston, 778
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 1, 1915
    ...faith subscriptions for the entire stock is invalid. (Holman v. State, 105 Ind. 569, 5 N.E. 702; Stone v. Monticello Const. Co. (Ky.), 117 S.W. 369; State Bank v. Cook, 125 Ia. 111, 100 N.W. 72; Johnson v. Schar, 9 S.D. 536, 7 N.W. 838; New York Co. v. DeWolfe, 31 N.Y. 273; Luetzlsie v. Rob......
  • Rhodes v. Lamar, Case Number: 19112
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 9, 1930
    ...(Iowa) 115 Iowa 430, 88 N.W. 944; Bank of Rolla v. Romine (Mo.) 154 Mo. App. 624, 136 S.W. 21; Stone v. Monticello Construction Co. (Ky.) 135 Ky. 659, 117 S.W. 369.4. The defendant contends that the court erred in: (a) Admission of improper evidence; (b) abuse of discretion in limiting cros......
  • Grooms v. Com., No. 85-SC-418-MR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • June 9, 1988
    ...be peremptorily challenged. See Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1968); Stone v. Monticello Construction Company, 135 Ky. 659, 117 S.W. 369, 371 (1909); American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, Fair Trial and Free Press, Sec. Inquiry in the presence of ot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Rose v. Magro, 6 Div. 468.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 24, 1929
    ...though the matters of which inquiry are made are not a disqualification. Such are the general authorities: Stone v. Monticello Const. Co., 135 Ky. 659, 117 S.W. 369, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 978, 21 Ann. Cas. 640; O'Hare v. Railroad Co., 139 Ill. 151, 28 N.E. 923; Bridge Works v. Pereira, 79 Ill......
  • Edwards v. Johnston, 778
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 1, 1915
    ...faith subscriptions for the entire stock is invalid. (Holman v. State, 105 Ind. 569, 5 N.E. 702; Stone v. Monticello Const. Co. (Ky.), 117 S.W. 369; State Bank v. Cook, 125 Ia. 111, 100 N.W. 72; Johnson v. Schar, 9 S.D. 536, 7 N.W. 838; New York Co. v. DeWolfe, 31 N.Y. 273; Luetzlsie v. Rob......
  • Rhodes v. Lamar, Case Number: 19112
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • September 9, 1930
    ...(Iowa) 115 Iowa 430, 88 N.W. 944; Bank of Rolla v. Romine (Mo.) 154 Mo. App. 624, 136 S.W. 21; Stone v. Monticello Construction Co. (Ky.) 135 Ky. 659, 117 S.W. 369.4. The defendant contends that the court erred in: (a) Admission of improper evidence; (b) abuse of discretion in limiting cros......
  • Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 29, 1911
    ...Proverbs, xxii, 7; Davis v. Bank, 29 S. W. 926; Saller v. Friedman Bros., 130 Mo. App. 712, 109 S. W. 796; Stone v. Const. Co., 135 Ky. 659, 117 S. W. 369; Marrow v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 519, 120 S. W. 2. A witness was permitted, over objection of appellants, to state that it was cold and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT