Russell v. Betts
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Jacob M. Carter, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE 'COUBT. The plaintiff, Black, filed the complaint, alleging that on a certain day in the year 1911, plaintiff owned five shares of stock in the Hoke Metal Frame Screen Manufacturing Company, a corporation, and paid for said stock on July 20, 1910, the sum of $250.00; that defendants on said day owned stock in said corporation, and with certain of their friends, owned about 50 per cent of the stock…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court; Jacob M. Carter, Judge; STATEMENT BY THE 'COUBT. The plaintiff, Black, filed the complaint, alleging that on a certain day in the year 1911, plaintiff owned five shares of stock in the Hoke Metal Frame Screen Manufacturing Company, a corporation, and paid for said stock on July 20, 1910, the sum of $250.00; that defendants on said day owned stock in said corporation, and with certain of their friends, owned about 50 per cent of the stock of the said corporation. That one Smith and his friends owned about 50 per cent of the stock of the said corporation,…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). This court, in Stifft v. Stiewell, 91 Ark. 445, held that a contract for the sale of corporate stock for the amount of $30 or more, is within the statute of frauds. Section 3656, of Kirby’s Digest. The several complaints under consideration disclose a contract entered into between the several appellants and the appellees, whereby the latter, in consideration that the appellants would not sell their stock to Smith, agreed that in case the corporation became insolvent, they would pay appellants the amount of the value of their stock and interest thereon, from…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stifft v. StiewelSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
3Cited by3 opinions
- Illinois-Indiana Fair Ass'n v. PhillipsIllinois Supreme Court · 1927
- Spencer v. McGuffinIndiana Supreme Court · 1921
- Culp v. HolbrookIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920