Thornton v. Alane
| Decision Date | 31 July 1852 |
| Docket Number | No. 64.,64. |
| Citation | 11 Ga. 459 |
| Parties | Dozier Thornton, plaintiff in error. vs. Richard A.Lane, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]
Debt, &c. in Muscogee Superior Court. Tried before Judge Iverson, at November Adjourned Term, 1851.
This was an action brought by Richard A. Lane, against Do-zier Thornton, as one of the stockholders of the Planters\' & Mechanics\' Bank of Columbus, to enforce his ultimate liability to redeem the bills issued by the said bank.
To this declaration, defendant below filed the following pleas:
1st. And now at this Term comes the defendant, by Hines Holt, his attorney, and defends the wrong and injury, when, &c. and for plea and answer saith, that he does not owe in manner and form as the said plaintiff in his said declaration hath declared against him, and of this he puts himself upon the country, &c.
2nd. And for further plea in this behalf this defendant saith, actio non.
Because, he says, that if he ever did owe in manner and form as the said plaintiff has declared against him, the said several causes of action in said declaration mentioned, did not, nor did any of them happen or accrue to the said plaintiff, at any time within six years next before the commencement of the said actions, and this he is ready to verify. And whereof he prays judgment of the Court, and puts himself upon the country, &c.
3d. And for further plea in this behalf, this defendant saith, actio non.
Because, he saith, that if he ever did owe as said plaintiff hath declared against him, the right of action therefor accrued and happened to said plaintiff upon the failure of the said Planters' & Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, and upon the forfeiture of the charter thereof, and that more than six years elapsed between the happening of said events and the commencement of said action. Wherefore, he saith that the same is barred by lapse of time, and therefore he prays judgment of the Court and puts himself upon the country, &c.
4th. And for further plea in this behalf this defendant saith, actio non.
Because, he saith, that if he ever was a stockholder, and as such ever held and owned in his own right or otherwise, any stock in the said Planters' & Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, as in plaintiff's said declaration alleged, all his rights, interests and liabilities as such stockholder, ceased, determined, and becameextinct, upon the rendition of the following judgment of forfeiture, against the said Planters\' and Mechanics\' Bank of Columbus—bearing date on the 13th day of June, 1843; and found upon writ of quo warranto, sued out against said bank in the Superior Court of said County of Muscogee, all which will more fully appear by the evidence of the same, herewith submitted, to wit:
" It is considered by the Court here, that the liberties, privileges and franchises, to wit: that of being a body politic and corporate by the name and style of the Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, heretofore used, enjoyed and exercised by the defendant, be seized into the hands of the State, and that the said defendant do not in any manner hereafter intermeddle, use, have, enjoy or exercise any of the liberties, franchises or privileges, of a body politic or corporate, but that the said defendant be absolutely forejudged and excluded from holding, using or exercising any of the privileges, franchises or liberties of a body politic or corporate, and that the State recover its costs to be taxed."
And this defendant saith, that with and by virtue and force of said judgment of forfeiture, rendered as aforesaid, and which is still subsisting and unreversed, and of full force and effect, all debts due to and from the said Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus were extinguished.
Wherefore, this defendant pleads the same in bar of his liability on said stock, in any manner or form, and in bar of the said plaintiff's right of recovery, and thereof prays judgment of the Court, and puts himself upon the country, &c.
5th. And for further plea in this behalf this defendant saith, actio non.
Because, he saith, that if he ever was a stockholder in said Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, as in said plaintiff's suit alleged, all his rights, duties and liabilities as such stockholder, except so far as the same are reserved and continued by public Acts of the Legislature of the State of Georgia, ceased, determined and became extinct upon the rendition of the judgment of forfeiture, as in the 4th above plea mentioned.
And because he saith, that by the same judgment of forfeiture, except so far as the same is reserved and continued by the aforesaid Acts of the Legislature, the debt of the said plaintiff and all right or rights of action thereon became extinguished. And this defendant saith the said judgment of forfeiture was executed by the delivery of the assets of said bank to said assignee, as provided, and the acceptance by said assignee of all the powers and duties conferred by said Acts of the Legislature.
Wherefore this defendant pleads the same, to wit: the said judgment of forfeiture, and the said Acts of the Legislature in bar of the said plaintiff's suit, and thereof prays judgment of the Court, and puts himself upon the country, &c.
6th. And for further plea in this behalf this defendant saith, actio non.
Because he saith that he is not, nor was he at the time of the commencement of said plaintiff's suit—nor was he when said right of action accrued—nor was he when the debts upon which the same is founded, were contracted—nor had he been for more than six years prior to either and each of said events, a stockholder in the said Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, in any manner or form. Wherefore he saith that he is not in any manner liable to said plaintiff's suit, and therefore puts himself upon the country, &c.
7th. And for further plea said defendant saith, actio non.
Because he says that if he ever did owe in manner and form as said plaintiff hath above thereof complained against him, said causes of action, nor any of them did not accrue within four years next before the commencement of said plaintiff's suit, and this he is ready to verify, and therefore puts himself upon the country, &c.
8th. And for further plea in this behalf this defendant saith, actio non.
Because he says, that if he ever was at any time a stockholder in the said Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, and as such, held any number of shares therein, the following is the account of his ownership thereof, as existing upon the books of said bank, showing the dates of its transfer to him, to wit; February 20, 1838.—To stock transferred by M. W. Turner, 50 shares.
March 28, 1838.—To " " " A. B. Ragan, 50 shares.
and defendant farther says that he never owned, had, or held any other or further number of shares in said bank, than said one hundred shares as aforesaid, and if the books of said bank show any other or further transfer of shares of said bank stock to this defendant, to wit: a transfer on the 19th day of May, 1838, by Hines Holt, of 188 shares of said bank stock, and Walter T. Colquitt, of 188 shares of said bank stock, transferred to the name of the defendant, the same was so transferred by said Colquitt and Holt, at the instance of, and for the sole and exclusive benefit of one Daniel McDougald, and without the knowledge or consent of the defendant, and the same was so known to be the fact, then and there, by the directors and officers of said bank, and the defendant never did assent to the same. Defendant further says, that he never voted on said last mentioned stock, nor did any other act in relation to said last mentioned stock, by which his assent to such transfer could or can be implied, and so the defendant says, that he never owned, had or held, said three hundred and seventy-six shares of bank stock, so transferred by said Holt and Colquitt, to his name, as aforesaid, at the instance of said McDougald, and without the defendant's knowledge or assent as aforesaid, nor is he in any manner liable therefor, all of which he is ready to verify, and therefore puts himself on the country, &c.
9th. And for further plea in this behalf, this defendant saith, actio non.
Because, he saith, that if he ever was a stockholder in said Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, he became such stockholder, not by original subscription for said stock, nor by purchase in any manner, form, or by any contract with said bank, but by transfer from the persons named in the 8th above plea, herewith submitted, and that the said persons who so transferred said stock to him, if any liability exists thereon which can be enforced by the said plaintiff, remain subject to said liability, they not having given notice of said transfer, and the failure of said bank having occurred within six months of the date there-of; and therefore he saith that said transfers to him were not made in pursuance of the provisions of said bank charter, and so far as concerns the rights of the said plaintiff, are void.
Whereof this defendant saith, that he is not liable on said stock to the said plaintiff's demand, and thereof he puts himself upon the country, &c.
10th. And for further plea in this behalf, this defendant saith, actio non.
Because, he saith, that if he ever did own and hold in his own right, or otherwise, any number of shares of stock in the Planters' and Mechanics' Bank of Columbus, that said bank, while he owned and held the same, and when the said plaintiff's right of action accrued, and when the same was instituted, was not insolvent, nor is the same now insolvent, but on the contrary thereof, the same had during all the time aforesaid and still has assets and effects altogether ample and sufficient to redeem all its bills and notes, without resorting to the ultimate liability of its stockholders, as provided by its charter, for the redemption and payment thereof. For this defendant saith, that there remained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines
...172 Ga. 675, 158 S.E. 747; Laslie v. Gragg Lumber Co., 184 Ga. 794, 193 S.E. 763, 113 A.L.R. 932. But this court long ago, in Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, stated in unmistakable terms the rule that the decisions of courts of other States are not binding upon this court; that they are mere ......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Wilson
...modifying older cases are Weed v. Knorr, 77 Ga. 636, 1 S.E. 167; Sanford v. Sanford, 58 Ga. 259; Broach v. Smith, 75 Ga. 159; Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, 501; Woolfolk v. State of Georgia, 81 Ga. 551, 8 S.E. 724; Sturtevant v. Robinson, 138 Ga. 734, 75 S.E. The court in Weaver v. Carter, ......
-
Dodd v. Newton, s. 45564
...case. Finally, while the decisions of the United States Supreme Court are binding upon our Georgia appellante courts (see Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, 500; Thompson v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 200 Ga. 216, 222, 39 S.E.2d 225; and Hertz v. Abrahams, 110 Ga. 707, 718, 36 S.E. 409; those of o......
-
Kroger Co. v. Bonny Corp.
...S.E.2d 778; Etowah Heading Co. v. Anderson, 73 Ga.App. 814, 38 S.E.2d 71; Martin v. Henson, 95 Ga.App. 715, 733, 99 S.E.2d 251; Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, 500. This is especially true here, as we have decisions of our own state on the question. Our own decisions will not be set aside in ......
-
When Wrong Is Right: Stare Decisis in the Supreme Court of Georgia
...acceptance of a court's interpretation of a statute. See Savage v. State, 297 Ga. 627, 774 S.E.2d 624, 636 (2015). [23] Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, 490 (1852). [24] Id. [25] At the time, the Supreme Court of Georgia had only three members. Note that a special concurrence was sufficient to......