Williams v. Maryland Glass Corp.
Decision Date | 09 April 1919 |
Docket Number | 30. |
Citation | 106 A. 755,134 Md. 320 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. MARYLAND GLASS CORPORATION et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Morris A. Soper, Judge.
Suit by J. Harry Williams against the Maryland Glass Corporation and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, BURKE, THOMAS, and URNER, JJ.
Arthur W. Machen, Jr., of Baltimore (Machen & Williams and Herbert C. Forrester, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
George Ross Veazey and Vernon Cook, both of Baltimore, for appellees.
This suit involves the ownership of 40 shares of the capital stock of the Maryland Glass Corporation, incorporated under the laws of Maryland. This stock at one time appeared upon the books of the corporation in the name of J. Harry Williams the appellant, but was subsequently transferred to Isaac E Emerson under the circumstances hereinafter stated.
The primary object of this suit, as appears from the bill of complaint, is to obtain a decree requiring the defendants to restore the appellant's name to the registry or list of stockholders in the defendant company, and to accord to him all the rights of such stockholder in respect to said 40 shares of the capital stock of the said company, and requiring the defendant company to issue to him a certificate for said 40 shares, and that the transfer of said shares to Isaac E. Emerson may be canceled and annulled.
A statement of such facts as appear to us to be necessary to present the questions raised upon the record will now be made. In 1907 Isaac E. Emerson founded and organized a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing glass bottles. This corporation was incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, and its corporate name was the Maryland Glass Corporation. Its plant was located at Mt. Winans, Md., and its capital stock was $100,000, divided into 1,000 shares of the par value of $100 each. Practically the whole capital stock was owned by Mr. Emerson; he having furnished all the money for the erection of the plant and starting the business of the company. Mr. Emerson did not understand the business of manufacturing bottles, and wanted a capable and experienced man to take charge of the plant. The appellant was recommended to him as a qualified man for that position and on January 17, 1908, the Maryland Glass Corporation of New Jersey and J. Harry Williams, the appellant, entered into the following agreement:
By three indorsements entered upon the contract made during the existence of the Maryland Glass Corporation of New Jersey the salary of Mr. Williams, the manager, was increased. By the first memorandum, dated September 13, 1910, his salary was increased to $300 per month; by the second, dated August 5, 1912, to $333.33 1/3 per month; and by the third, dated 30th of March, 1914, to $375 per month. On August 31, 1908, in pursuance of the contract forty shares of the capital stock of the Maryland Glass Corporation of New Jersey were transferred to J. Harry Williams. At that time the whole capital stock of the corporation had been issued, and these 40 shares were taken from the holdings of Isaac E. Emerson. Mr. Williams then delivered to Mr. Parker Cook, as agent for Isaac E. Emerson, the following promissory note:
At the same time he indorsed in blank the certificate of stock, and delivered it to Mr. Cook, who put the certificate with the note as collateral security. The note and certificate were kept together in a vault of the Emerson Drug Company in a drawer marked with the name of Isaac E. Emerson. The corporation was very successful, and paid large dividends. Mr. Williams received three checks for $1,000 each, dated respectively September 3, 1910, November 19, 1910, and July 17, 1911, as dividends on his stock. These checks were indorsed by him to the order of Isaac E. Emerson, and the note was credited with the amount of each check. There remained due on the note the sum of $1,000, which Mr. Emerson never demanded, although other dividends were paid to Mr. Williams on the stock which he was permitted to use as he saw fit.
In December, 1914, the officers of the Maryland Glass Corporation of New Jersey determined to incorporate under the Laws of Maryland, and a few days prior to December 31, 1914, the Maryland Glass Corporation of Maryland was incorporated under the laws of this state. The amount of its capital stock was the same as the New Jersey corporation, and its officers were the same, and for all practical purposes it was identical with the New Jersey company. On December 31, 1914, the Maryland Glass Corporation of New Jersey submitted to the Maryland Glass Corporation, incorporated under the laws of Maryland, the following proposition:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brookings v. Scudder
...Wis. 81, 51 L. R. A. 906. (3) Plaintiffs are not seeking to enforce a forfeiture. Harrington v. Neville, 83 Mo.App. 589; Williams v. Maryland Glass Corp., 134 Md. 320; Lincoln Trust Co. v. Nathan, 175 Mo. 32; v. Realty Co., 146 F. 630; United States v. Railroad Co., 186 F. 861; Cherokee Con......
-
Vincent v. Palmer
... ... Court. Middendorf, Williams & Co. v. Alexander Milburn ... Co., 134 Md. 385, 107 A. 7; Spicer v ... sustained by the Courts whenever possible. Williams v ... Maryland Glass Corporation, 134 Md. 320, 106 A. 755. It ... is true that a hiring ... ...
-
Greenbelt Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Johnson
...There are views that the substitution of a party to a contract is a discharge of the original contract, Williams v. Maryland Glass Corporation, 134 Md. 320, 106 A. 755, 757-58 (1919), or, stated differently, is the consent for a separate contract which releases the replaced party from the o......
-
Alexander v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California
... ... R. Co., 1 Gill, 311, 341; Allen v. Sowerby, 37 ... Md. 410; Williams v. Maryland Glass Corp., 134 Md ... 320, 327, 106 A. 755; L. R. A ... ...