Elyton Land Co. v. Birmingham Warehouse & Elevator Co.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Jefferson. Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. rests his contention, that the ■chancellor erred in sustaining the demurrers, upon the following propositions, and authorities: 1. Subscriptions to the ■capital stock of a corporation constitute a trust fund for the benefit of creditors, which neither the corporation, nor its directors, can dispose of or waste to their prejudice, and any agreement to that effect is void against creditors. —…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Jefferson. Heard before the Hon. Thomas Cobbs. rests his contention, that the ■chancellor erred in sustaining the demurrers, upon the following propositions, and authorities: 1. Subscriptions to the ■capital stock of a corporation constitute a trust fund for the benefit of creditors, which neither the corporation, nor its directors, can dispose of or waste to their prejudice, and any agreement to that effect is void against creditors. — Smith v. Huckabee, 53 Ala. 191; If. db W. P. II. P. v. Branch, 59 Ala. 139 ; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S. 60; Scovill v.…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
The bill was filed by the Elyton Land Company as a judgment creditor of the Birmingham Warehouse and Elevator Company, a corporation, and its purpose is to secure the payment of the judgment by the enforcement of the alleged unsatisfied liability of the- individual defendants as original subscribers to the stock of the defendant corporation. It is averred that said individual defendants pretend that they have discharged and satisfied their liability as such subscribers, but it is alleged that the transaction whereby it was attempted to discharge that liability is merely colorable and is void,…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Scovill v. ThayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Memphis & Little Rock Railroad v. DowSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Wood v. DummerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1824
- Coit v. Gold Amalgamating Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- McDonnell v. Alabama Gold Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Van Cleve v. BerkeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Corey v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- McKee v. Title Insurance Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Randle v. Winona Coal Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1921
- R. H. Herron Co. v. ShawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.