Skip to main content
· 12/19/1900

Richardson v. Chicago Packing & Provision Co.

Citations

  • 6 Cal. Unrep. 606
  • 63 P. 74
  • 1900 Cal. LEXIS 1109

Syllabus

<p>Corporation—Unpaid Subscriptions.—A Judgment Creditor of a Corporation Sued to enforce unpaid balances on stock subscriptions of fifteen stockholders. One of the defendants was also a</p> <p>judgment creditor of the corporation, but the action was dismissed as to him, and he became plaintiff by the court’s order. The corporation owed no other debts. The original plaintiff’s claim was paid by the fourteen remaining defendants, under a stipulation in which none of the other plaintiff’s rights were relinquished, and the court gave the fourteen defendants a several judgment against such plaintiff by way of contribution, ignoring the fact that he was also a creditor of the corporation. Held, that such plaintiff was entitled to have the amount of his proportionate liability to the corporation on both claims deducted from his own claim, and the balance due him apportioned against the fourteen defendants.</p> <p>Corporation—Unpaid Subscriptions.—Where a Creditor has the Bight to be Subrogated to the rights of a corporation to claim unpaid balances due on shares, he does not lose that right by reason of the fact that he is a stockholder.1</p> <p>Attorneys.—Where Plaintiff’s Attorney Entered into a Stipulation with defendants solely on behalf of a coplaintiff, reserving all plaintiff’s rights, the fact that the attorney was also attorney for plaintiff did not render the agreement binding on plaintiff.</p> <p>Corporation — Enforcement of Subscriptions.—Where a Subscriber for corporate stock sought to enforce subscriptions made under the same circumstances as his own, he could not repudiate his liability thereon under Civil Code, section 359, providing that no corporation shall issue stock except for money paid, labor done or property received.</p> <p>Corporation.—Where Stockholders Agreed That Shares Should be Deemed fully paid by payment of a stated amount less than the par value, a creditor, who was also a stockholder, could not compel •the payment of the par value of sha

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.