Vermont Marble Co. v. Declez Granite Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Finlayson & Finlayson, for Vermont Marble Company, Appellant, and William T. Craig, for Intervener. The stockholder is liable to creditors for the full par value, even though he has received for a sum less than its par value stock purporting to be fully paid stock, and under an agreement to pay less, than its par, or face, value.
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Finlayson & Finlayson, for Vermont Marble Company, Appellant, and William T. Craig, for Intervener. The stockholder is liable to creditors for the full par value, even though he has received for a sum less than its par value stock purporting to be fully paid stock, and under an agreement to pay less, than its par, or face, value. (11 Thompson on Corporations, secs. 1562-1564, 1566, 1578, 1607; 1 Cook on Corporations, 4th ed., secs. 28, 31, 32, 42, 46; Scovill v. Thayer, 105 U. S. 143; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45; Sanger v. Upton, 91 U. S.…
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This is an action to collect on behalf of creditors the unpaid balance due on stock of the Declez Granite Company, which has become insolvent. The plaintiff and the intervener have each obtained judgments against the corporation, and executions issued upon such judgments have been returned nulla bona. Only the defendants Flint, Conroy, and Halfhill answered.
The par value of the corporate stock of the Declez Granite Company is one hundred dollars per share. Of this stock Halfhill owned two hundred and seventy-five shares, Conroy fifty shares, and Flint ten shares. Each stockholder had paid…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Scovill v. ThayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Sanger v. UptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Sawyer v. HoagSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Handley v. StutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Wood v. DummerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1824
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Robinson v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Moore v. MoffattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- McKee v. Title Insurance Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Burke v. MazeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.