Lewis v. Montgomery
Citations
- 145 Ill. 30
- 33 N.E. 880
Syllabus
<p>1. Advances—whether loans or advance payments—liens on the goods consigned. Advances made by a factor to the consignor of goods under an express contract, which provides that the former shall reimburse himself out of the. proceeds of the goods when sold, are not in the nature of loans of money, but they are payments in advance as to a part of the price. Such advances are liens upon the goods in the hands of the factor, as the primary fund to which he must look for reimbursement, and until that fund is exhausted, he can have no recourse upon the consignor, whose liability is contingent, and only for the deficiency in the proceeds of the goods when sold.</p> <p>2. Corporation—indebtedness in excess of capital stock—advances by a factor. Advances by a factor to a manufacturing corporation of a part of the invoice price of goods, under a contract that the former is to reimburse himself from the proceeds of the goods when sold, do not create any substantial liability or indebtedness against the corporation while the goods are in the hands of the factor and before their sale, within the meaning of Sec. 16 of the act of 1872, relating to corporations.</p> <p>3. Sams—fixing the salaries—whether creating any indebtedness. The fixing of the salary of the superintendent of a corporation and that of the secretary, in the absence of other proof, is not sufficient to show that any corporate debt was thereby incurred, as it will be presumed that such salaries were paid as they accrued.</p> <p>4. Same—proof of incurring the indebtedness. To show the incurring of an indebtedness of a corporation in excess of its capital stock, it is not sufficient to show that various expenditures were ordered or authorized by the board of directors, when, so far as it appears, such expenditures may have been met at the time by cash payments. It must be shown that such expenditures resulted in indebtedness, or formed part of the indebtedness in excess of the capital stock.</p> <p>5. Same—liabilit
Judges: Bailey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cocalis v. NazlidesIllinois Supreme Court· 1923-04-18· cited 30×
- In re Beachy & Co.E.D. Wisconsin· 1909-06-07· cited 13×
- Gay v. KohlsaatIllinois Supreme Court· 1906-10-23· cited 8×
- Parsons v. Rinard Grain Co.Supreme Court of Iowa· 1919-07-07· cited 6×
- Seymour v. O. S. Richardson Fueling Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1902-10-24· cited 5×
- De Met's Inc. v. InsullSeventh Circuit· 1941-08-22· cited 4×
- Phoenix Third National Bank v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1927-04-29· cited 3×
- Joseph T. Ryerson & Son v. ShawAppellate Court of Illinois· 1916-10-10· cited 2×
- Hoyt v. HasseAppellate Court of Illinois· 1899-02-09· cited 1×
- Slater v. TaylorAppellate Court of Illinois· 1908-11-17· cited 1×
- Hart-Parr Co. v. PrattSeventh Circuit· 1921-01-11· cited 1×
- McCutcheon-Gerson Service v. Tire & Replacement Co. of North AmericaAppellate Court of Illinois· 1925-02-11· cited 1×
- James H. Rice Co. v. LibbeyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin· 1898-02-28· cited 1×
- De Witt Grocery Co. v. WareSupreme Court of Vermont· 1915-10-11
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Lewis v. Montgomery
4 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.