Shade v. Llewellyn

Citations

• 250 Pa. 456
• 95 A. 583
• 1915 Pa. LEXIS 970

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Sales—Shares of stoclc — Two sellers — Note in payment to one seller.</p> <p>1. Plaintiff and defendant, holders of shares of stock in a certain corporation, agreed to transfer their entire interest. For this purpose, plaintiff’s certificate of stock was assigned in blank and delivered to the defendant, and defendant received a judgment note in his own name for the full price of all the shares as security for the payment of his own and plaintiff’s stock. Judgment was subsequently entered on the note, which bore interest payable quarterly, and interest for the first quarter was paid and an amount equivalent to the interest on the value of plaintiff’s shares at six per cent, was sent by defendant to plaintiff by check on which was written “three months’ interest from” defendant. No further payment of interest or principal was made on the note and the corporation was subsequently adjudged a bankrupt. Plaintiff then brought this action to recover from the defendant the amount due for the stock, alleging he had no interest in the note, did not sanction its acceptance and that defendant was personally liable. Defendant contended that he was acting as the agent for the plaintiff with' a view of assisting him to dispose of his stock as a matter of friendship, and that plaintiff- had full knowledge of the transaction and ratified it in every respect. Held, the question as to defendant’s liability was one of fact for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was sustained.</p> <p>2. In such case, plaintiff was properly permitted to testify that defendant induced him to become a stockholder in the company, such testimony being offered for the purpose of rebutting the inference which the jury might draw from questions asked plaintiff on cross-examination, to the effect that defendant was taking care of plaintiff out of friendship, rather than because of an agreement to dispose of the plaintiff’s stock.</p> <p>3. In such case the court did not err in