Rickerson Roller-Mill Co. v. Farrell Foundry & Machine Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 'United ¡States for the Western District of Michigan, Boutliern Division. The original bill was Hied by the Panoli Foundry & Machine Company, as a judgment: creditor of the Iiiekerson Roller-Mill Company, a corporation of the state of Michigan. The bill sought relief upon two distinct grounds: First, that there was an unpaid stock subscription made by the individual defendants, JB.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 'United ¡States for the Western District of Michigan, Boutliern Division. The original bill was Hied by the Panoli Foundry & Machine Company, as a judgment: creditor of the Iiiekerson Roller-Mill Company, a corporation of the state of Michigan. The bill sought relief upon two distinct grounds: First, that there was an unpaid stock subscription made by the individual defendants, JB. O. and Charles Fox, which was subject to call by a court of equity at the Instance of a judgment creditor whose execution had been returned nulla, bona: second, that the…
1Opinion of the CourtLurtox, Circuit Judge
The first defense made by the Messrs. Fox to their liability as unpaid subscribers to the capital slock of the Riclcerson Roller-Mill Company is that they never were in fact subscribers for said stock, but that it was in reality issued to S. B. Rickerson and his associates as a further consideration for the patents theretofore applied for, and such as should thereafter be obtained, pertaining to roller-mill machinery, and that they purchased this stock, as fully paid up stock from Rickerson and his associates, who had received it in consideration of the property sold and transferred to the…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- United States v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Scovill v. ThayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Sawyer v. HoagSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Handley v. StutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Camden v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- F. H. McGraw & Co. v. Milcor Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Kiskadden v. SteinleCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- State Trust Co. v. TurnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Courtney v. YoungsMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
- First Trust Co. v. Illinois Cent. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.