Gambar halaman

Opinion of the Court.

due upon these two items the sum of $3778.16, which, added to the amount due upon the judgment, made the total amount due at the time of the decree $5232.27.

The whole basis of the decree, however, was the judgment for $1000, which was the amount for which the General Term directed a recovery. It is true that it also decreed the assignment to be void and remanded the case for further proceedings, that upon such further proceedings the court might direct an account to be taken and the property to be divided generally among the creditors, and that upon such accounting the plaintiffs might be admitted to prove the full amount of their claim. This amount, however, is not one directly involved in the decree, and the law is well settled that the jurisdiction is to be determined by the amount directly involved in the decree appealed from, and not by any contingent demand which may be recovered, or any contingent loss which may be sustained by either one of the parties through the probative effect of the decree, however direct its bearing upon such contingency. New England Mortgage Co. v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123. In that case, which was an action in assumpsit upon promissory notes, there had been a finding by a jury that the transaction was usurious. The amount involved in the particular suit was less than $5000, but the effect of the judgment under the laws of Georgia was to invalidate a mortgage given as security upon property worth over $20,000. It was held that, not withstanding such indirect effect, this court had no jurisdiction, the amount directly in dispute being only the usurious sum. All the prior authorities upon the point are cited in this case.

But again : if the decree appealed from be a final decree at all, it is final only for the amount of the judgment. If it be regarded as a decree for the whole amount of the plaintiffs' claim against Hollander, then it is clearly not a final decree, since the case was remanded for further proceedings, and until those proceedings were had, the amount of such indebtedness could not be fixed in such manner as to give this court jurisdiction of an appeal, and was purely conjectural upon the court finding that amount to be due. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co, v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374. This conclusion is not the less

Statement of the Case.

irresistible from the fact that the note and open account were reduced to judgment after the bill was filed, since this judgment was not made the basis of the bill, and the finding in the decree is restricted to the amount of the first judgment of $1000. The appeal must, therefore, be





No. 105. Argued December 6, 9, 1895. – Decided April 13, 1896.

Upon a bill in equity by subscribers for shares in a corporation to compel

it to issue shares to them, and to set aside as fraudulent a contract by which it had agreed to transfer all its shares to another person, a decrce was entered, setting aside that contract, and ordering shares to be issued to the plaintiffs, and a new board of directors to be chosen. Upon a bill by other stockholders, afterwards filed by leave of court in the same cause, and entitled a supplemental bill, alleging fraud and mismanagement of the new officers and insolvency of the company, and praying for the appointment of a receiver, the court, without notice to the plaintiffs in the original bill, appointed a receiver, and made an order for a call or assessment upon all stockholders of the company. Held, that this order, although conclusive evidence of the necessity of the assessment as against all stockholders, did not prevent a plaintiff in the original bill, when sued by the receiver, in the name of the corporation, for an assessment, from pleading the statute of limitations to his liability

upon his subscription. In an action brought in a state conrt, by a corporation against a subscriber

for shares, to recover an assessment thereon under an order of assessment made by a court of another State upon all the stockholders, in a proceeding of which he had no notice, a judgment of the highest court of the State for the defendant, upon the ground that, by its construction of a general statute of limitations of the State, the cause of action accrued against him at the date of his contract of subscription, and not at the date of the order of assessment, involves no Federal question, and is not reviewable by this court on writ of error.

This was an action brought August 30, 1838, in the district court of Des Moines county in the State of Iowa, by the

Statement of the Case.

Great Western Telegraph Company, a corporation of Illinois, by its receiver, Elias R. Bowen, against Hiram Purdy, a citizen of Iowa, to recover the sum of $437.50, with interest from July 10, 1886, alleged to be due from him to the company under his subscription to its stock, and under a decree of the circuit court of Cook County in the State of Illinois of that date, which ordered an assessment upon the stockholders of the company, and which was alleged to have been made in a suit to which he was a party, and to be binding upon him. Trial by jury was waived, and the case tried by the court. The material facts appeared by the record to have been as follows:

The company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois in 1867. On February 16, 1869, Purdy subscribed for fifty shares of the par value of $25 each, by signing and delivering to the company's agent at Burlington, in the State of Iowa, the following writing:

“Capital, $3,000,000; shares, $25; assessments not to exceed

$10 on a share. Subscription List for the Capital Stock of the Great Western

Telegraph Company. “We, the subscribers hereunto, for value received, severally, but not jointly, agree to take the number of shares in the capital stock of the Great Western Telegraph Company placed opposite our respective names, and pay for the same in instalments, to wit, five per cent on amount paid in, and the balance as the directors from time to time may order; in consid ration thereof the Great Western Telegraph Company agree that when forty per cent of the par value of the shares shall have been paid under such orders, and the instalment receipts therefor surrendered to the company, the number of shares severally subscribed by the undersigned shall be issued to them as full paid stock by the said company.

“T. C. Snow is appointed agent to solicit stock and receive only the first instalment of five per cent (fifty cents on a share) at the time of subscription.

"J. Snow, Secretary.”

Statement of the Case.

Upon this subscription Purdy paid $275, before November, 1869.

On November 19, 1869, Jeremiah Terwilliger and others, including Purdy, subscribers to stock in the company, and who had paid money on their subscriptions, filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of Cook county, Illinois, against the company, its president and secretary, and Selah Reeve, to compel the issue of certificates of stock to the plaintiffs and other subscribers, and to set aside as fraudulent a contract between the company and Reeve, by which Reeve agreed to build its telegraph lines, and the company agreed to transfer to him its entire capital stock. On November 16, 1872, a decree was entered in that suit, setting aside the contract between Reeve and the company; ordering an accounting between them; ordering the company to issue to the subscribers certificates for as many shares as they were entitled to by the money paid; directing the president and secretary to call a meeting of the company to choose a new board of directors; reserving leave to the plaintiffs at any time to apply for such further order or decree as should be necessary to carry out this decree or be necessary in the cause; and ordering the individual defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

On January 7, 1873, those costs were paid ; and on January 29, 1873, a meeting of the company was held and a new board of directors chosen, and a certificate for twenty-seven and a half shares was issued to Purdy.

The following proceedings were afterwards had in that cause: On September 19, 1874, other stockholders, by leave of the court, intervened, and filed a “supplemental bill” against the company and its officers, alleging mismanagement and fraud on the part of the new officers, and the insolvency of the company, and praying for the appointment of a receiver. On October 7, 1874, upon the motion of the plaintiffs in the supplemental bill, and after notice to and with the consent of all the parties to that bill, the court appointed Oliver H. Horton receiver of the property of the company. Bowen was afterwards appointed receiver in place of Horton; and upon his petition, and upon the report of a

Statement of the Case.

master appointed to inquire into the amount of the debts and assets of the company, and the percentage of the par value of the shares necessary to be paid by the stockholders to satisfy those debts, the court, on July 10, 1886, adjudged that the company was insolvent, and had no means for paying its debts, except the sums remaining unpaid upon subscriptions for stock, and that there were more than two thousand stockholders widely scattered through twelve States and Territories, and it was impracticable to make all of them parties to the suit; and entered an order and decree " that a call or assessment be, and the same is hereby, made upon the stock and stockholders of the said company, (excepting those who have paid in full,) their legal heirs, representatives and assigns, of thirty-five per centum of the par value of the shares of said stock subscribed for or held by them, being eight dollars and seventy-five cents on each and every share thereof; and that the stockholders of said company and each and every one of them (excepting those who have paid twenty-five dollars on each and every share subscribed for or held by them) and their heirs, legal representatives and assigns be, and they hereby are, severally ordered and required to pay to the receiver of said company, the said Elias R. Bowen, the several amounts by this decree called for and assessed and required to be paid, namely, eight dollars and seventy-five cents on each and every share subscribed for or held by them respectively, and that the same be paid upon the demand of said receiver or his agent;” and “that said receiver shall at once proceed to collect the said sums so ordered to be paid by this decree, and shall make all necessary demands for such payments, shall employ such assistance and counsel, take such action, and institute such suits and proceedings, in the name of the said company, and in such jurisdictions as he shall be advised or deem expedient and proper, and for the purpose of enforcing the payment of the sums hereby ordered paid."

On August 29, 1888, the receiver accordingly demanded of Purdy the payment of the sum of $8.75 upon each share of his stock, amounting to $437.50; and on the next day brought this action.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »