Steger v. Davis
Court of Appeals of Texas
Appeal from Fannin. Tried below before Hon. E. D. McClellan. The directors of tbe Bonham Hotel Company had no power to issue stock to defendants in payment of the Crockett House premises, for the reason that they at that date had not adopted any by-laws, without which they had no authority to issue stock, and they were prohibited by statutes from disposing of stock for the purchase of premises which the corporation could not hold after such purchase, and as defendants knew…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fannin. Tried below before Hon. E. D. McClellan. The directors of tbe Bonham Hotel Company had no power to issue stock to defendants in payment of the Crockett House premises, for the reason that they at that date had not adopted any by-laws, without which they had no authority to issue stock, and they were prohibited by statutes from disposing of stock for the purchase of premises which the corporation could not hold after such purchase, and as defendants knew these facts, there could not be an estoppel arising from the depreciation of the property after the trade. Bev. Stats.,…
1Opinion of the Court
LIGHTFOOT, Chief Justice.
This suit was brought by appellants, who were stockholders in the Bonham Hotel Company, in Fannin County District Court, against defendants, to cancel certain stock issued to defendants, W. Y. Davis and B. A. Davis, by the directors of said corporation, in payment of certain premises lying in Bonham, in said Fannin County, which said W. Y. and B. A. Davis deeded to said corporation. In the petition filed in the cause the following case is alleged: A corporation was organized in Bonham, Texas, June 3, 1889. Its capital stock was fixed at $40,000; its purpose was to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Union Pacific R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Texas Western Railway Co. v. GentryTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Bond v. Terrell Cotton & Woolen Manufacturing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1891
- Branch v. JesupSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Russell v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1887
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kincheloe Irrigating Co. v. Hahn Bros. & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912
- Canadian Long Distance Telephone Co. v. SeiberCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Dexter v. First Guaranty State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Hollis Cotton Oil, Light & Ice Co. v. Marrs & LakeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Coppard v. Farmers' & Merchants' State BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.