Teller v. Wilcoxen

• Citation: 81 N.W. 772,110 Iowa 565
• Parties: JAMES TELLER v. WILLIAM M. WILCOXEN, Receiver, Appellant
• Decision Date: 07 February 1900
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

81 N.W. 772

110 Iowa 565

JAMES TELLER v. WILLIAM M. WILCOXEN, Receiver, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 7, 1900

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. W. F. CONRAD, Judge.

THE defendant was appointed receiver of the Union Building & Savings Association, insolvent, in an action brought against it, and this proceeding is an intervention by plaintiff, in which he seeks to have his claim, founded upon certain shares of stock, given a preference. There was a judgment in plaintiff's favor and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Wm. M Wilcoxen in pro. per.

W. B Tallman for appellee.

WATERMAN J. GRANGER, C. J., not sitting.

OPINION

WATERMAN, J.

The Union Building & Savings Association was duly incorporated under the laws of this state (title 9, chapter 6, Code 1873). It issued stock of different kinds for the purpose of raising money to loan to its members. One variety of stock was known as "Class D." This was full-paid stock, which bore interest at the rate of 8 per cent., payable semi-annually. The promise to pay interest was unconditional. It was in no way dependent on the profits of the association. According to the terms of the stock certificate, the principal could be withdrawn at any time after sixty days' notice. Plaintiff's contention is that he is a creditor, and not a member, of the association, and for this reason is entitled to a preference over other stockholders in the winding up and settlement of the affairs of the corporation. The parties argue this one question, and this alone we shall consider. Plaintiff presents his case upon the theory that his certificate is a note or bond, because of the absolute obligation to pay interest. But this claim is not justified. We find no provision of our statute authorizing an association like this to raise money in any other way than by issuing shares of stock, and the stockholders constitute its membership. No right of action existed on this certificate against the association, as would have been the case with a note or bond. The holder could only withdraw his money as provided by the by-laws. If this right were refused, his remedy would be in equity to wind up the corporate affairs. The mere fact that plaintiff had paid more on his shares than others did would not affect his standing as a member, or give him any superior equity. Nor would the absolute promise to pay interest tend to destroy his character as a member. There is...