Stuck v. Southern Steel & Aluminum Alloy Co.
Decision Date | 08 April 1895 |
Citation | 22 S.E. 592,96 Ga. 95 |
Parties | STUCK v. SOUTHERN STEEL & ALUMINUM ALLOY CO. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The plaintiff's petition alleging several distinct and independent causes of action against separate and distinct parties, and praying for relief in different forms severally against each of them, and these causes of action not being so connected with or dependent upon each other as to make a joinder of them in one and the same action necessary or proper, the court was right in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.
Error from superior court, Floyd county; W. M. Henry, Judge.
Bill by George Stuck against the Southern Steel & Aluminum Alloy Company and others. Demurrer to the bill sustained, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
The plaintiff's petition alleging several distinct and independent causes of action against separate and distinct parties, and praying for relief in different forms severally against each of them, and these causes of action not being so connected with or dependent upon each other as to make a joinder of them in one and the same action necessary or proper, the court was right in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.
The following is the official report:
The petition of Stuck, as amended, was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained, to which ruling Stuck excepted. It is stated in the bill of exceptions that no intimation or suggestion was made by the court as to any amendment by which the dismissal of the petition could be prevented. The petition alleged: On July 22, 1892, Stuck and Hartfeld citizens and residents of Newport, Ky. in contemplation of and preliminary to forming a corporation, to be known as the "Southern Steel & Aluminum Alloy Company of Newport Ky.," and taking out articles or charter of incorporation under the laws of Kentucky, entered into an agreement as follows: On July 22, 1892, in contemplation of this agreement, publication was made, and other formalities gone through with, as required by law, the publication, under the Kentucky law, being the charter or articles of incorporation of said company. Said articles were set forth in the petition, together with the certificate of the clerk of the county court of Campbell county, Ky. In addition to general corporate powers, the articles provide, so far as seems here material to be stated: On July 23, 1892, the corporation was duly organized, and by-laws were adopted. These by-laws are set forth in the petition. At said meeting the capital stock was subscribed, 250 shares of which were issued to Stuck, 225 to Hartfeld, and 25 to Blakely, the last-named stock being issued to Blakely, by direction of Hartfeld, out of that which otherwise would have been issued to Hartfeld,--Hartfeld and petitioner being alone interested in the corporation,--solely to make Blakely eligible as a director in the company. The board of directors elected at the meeting were Stuck, Hartfeld, and Blakely; and the board at once organized, by the election of Stuck as president, Hartfeld as superintendent, and Blakely as secretary. No treasurer was then elected, nor has one been since elected.
In compliance with the agreement of July 22d, Stuck came to Rome, purchased a suitable lot, erected thereon a suitable building, and purchased and provided the necessary power, in the way of machinery, for the location and operating the smelting furnace and business. The lot purchased by Stuck was described in the petition. He took title to it in his own name, but at once had prepared a deed thereto from him to the company, to be delivered whenever Hartfeld should have complied with his undertaking in the agreement of July 22d and Stuck now stands ready to deliver said deed to the company whenever the court shall so direct. This land was bought by him out of his own funds September 19, 1892, for $720.75. In the erection of the necessary buildings, and in the purchase and placing of the machinery and power, as provided in the agreement of July 22d, he expended $2,215.16 out of his own private funds. About November 28, 1892, the furnace which Hartfeld had agreed to furnish was shipped by him to Rome, Stuck paying freight and other bills connected therewith for Hartfeld, at Hartfeld's special instance and request, amounting to $185.83, which has never been repaid to Stuck. All the articles and things furnished by Stuck were so furnished at the actual cost price thereof, according to said agreement; but Hartfeld billed the furnace at a sum largely in excess of its cost to him, and insisted and still insists that, in the accounting between him and Stuck, under said agreement, Hartfeld should be credited with $2,450, when in fact, the furnace cost Hartfeld not exceeding $925. Although Stuck had paid out, before active operations began, a sum largely in excess of what had been paid out by Hartfeld, he was never able to effect any settlement with Hartfeld, as provided in the agreement. He has never been able to get from Hartfeld a statement of the actual cost of the furnace, or of anything else...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stuck v. Southern Steel & Aluminum Allot Co
... ... M. Henry, Judge.Bill by George Stuck against the Southern Steel & Aluminum Alloy Company and others. Demurrer to the bill sustained, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.The following is the official report: The petition of Stuck, as amended, was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained, to which ruling Stuck excepted. It is stated in the bill of exceptions that no ... ...
-
Portwood v. Huntress
...there cited. It was applied in Webb v. Parks, 110 Ga. 639, 36 S. E. 70. And see Bowden v. Achor, 95 Ga. 243, 22 S. E. 254; Stuck v. Alloy Co., 96 Ga. 95, 22 S. E. 592, The first of these cases is easily distinguishable from the case in hand, and the other is on the same line with the decisi......