Legal Opinion

Merrimac Mining Co. v. Bagley

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1866PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by plaintiffs to recover of defendant, who was a stockholder by purchase, the balance of certain assessments claimed by said plaintiffs after the sale, on default, of defendant’s stock. The cause was tried without a jury, on the following stipulation : “In Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. The Merrimac Mining Company of Lake Superior’, Plaintiffs, v. George F. Bagley, Defendant.

Read the full summary

Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by plaintiffs to recover of defendant, who was a stockholder by purchase, the balance of certain assessments claimed by said plaintiffs after the sale, on default, of defendant’s stock. The cause was tried without a jury, on the following stipulation : “In Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, State of Michigan. The Merrimac Mining Company of Lake Superior’, Plaintiffs, v. George F. Bagley, Defendant. It is hereby stipulated by the parties plaintiff and defendant in the above entitled cause, that on the trial thereof the…

1Opinion of the Court

Campbell J.

The only question presented for decision in this case is, whether a stockholder, who was not one of the original subscribers to a mining corporation, organized under the general mining law, is liable for the balance due upon assessments, after applying the proceeds of stock sold for default.

It was held by this Court, in Carson v. The Arctic Mining Company, 5 Mich. 288, that an original subscriber was liable for such deficiency, after his stock had failed to bring enough to clear off the assessment for which it was sold. There was nothing in his subscription beyond the single act of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Carson v. Arctic Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1858

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sigua Iron Co. v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Visalia & Tulare Railroad v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Vaughn v. Alabama National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
  4. Atlantic Dynamite Co. v. AndrewsMichigan Supreme Court · 1893

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API