Haldeman v. Ainslie
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 66 — CORPORATIONS APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Appellee, Ainslie, made these debts of the coi-poration in violation of' the company’s charter, and, therefore, he has no action against, the stockholders. (3 Mason, 308; 105 U. S. Sup.
Read the full summary
Case 66 — CORPORATIONS APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Appellee, Ainslie, made these debts of the coi-poration in violation of' the company’s charter, and, therefore, he has no action against, the stockholders. (3 Mason, 308; 105 U. S. Sup. Ct., 143; 1 DeGex & Smale, 422.) 2. The corporation, with Ainslie’s consent and agreement, accepted from each of defendants his patent right interest and 5500 in full payment of his stock subscription, and issued him “ full paid stock ” therefor(Leifchild’s Case, Law Rep.; 1 Eq., 231; 1 Dana, 609; 11 Eq., 140;.., 105 U. S. 153; 5 Ped. Rep., 537;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion or the court.
The present action in equity was instituted in the Louisville Chancery Court by Edwin Thompson', and a '.number of banks in that city, and by Ainslie, Cochran & Co., as plaintiffs, against Haldeman and others, defendants. Daring the progress of the action the appellee, Mrs. George Ainslie, as the executrix of her husband, having paid off the debts asserted by the banks and Thompson against the defendants, was made the real plaintiff in interest, and the litigation resulted in a judgment for Mrs. Ainslie against the' appellants, ■and also in a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State Trust Co. v. TurnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Taylor v. Citizens Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- Williams' Exr. v. ChamberlainCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Stutz v. HandleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Tennessee · 1890
- Croninger v. Bethel Grove Camp Ground Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.