United Growers Co. v. Eisner

The action is upon two separate subscriptions which the defendant made to the stock of the plaintiff. The defendant was one of the original incorporators of the company,, and at the time of that incorporation he subscribed for 35 shares of stock, upon which was paid $350. This was done on the 14th day of August, 1891. Subsequently, and on the 20th day of August, 1891, he made a sub

It is said in the first place that it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff was not properly incorporated, for various reasons which are alleged by the defendant. Upon that point it is only necessary to say that the defendant was, one of the original incorporators, and also one of the directors, of the company. He took part in all that was done by way of incorporation, which included the filing of certificates of organization in the proper offices, and also in conducting the business of the company, as a director, from the time of its organization, on the 10th of August, 1891, until he resigned that place, on the 19th of October of that same year. In the face of these facts, when an action is brought against him upon his subscription to the stock of the corporation he is not in a situation to question that it was properly organized. Railroad Co. v. Carey, 26 N. Y. 75 ; Warehousing Co. v. Badger, 67 N. Y. 294 .

It is claimed that the defendant’s subscriptions to the stock were void because 10 per cent, was not paid at the time of making the subscription. There were two subscriptions,—one for 35 shares of stock, as to which there is a dispute as to whether the 10 per cent, was paid or not. ' But this was an original subscription made for the purpose of organization of the company, and it was not necessary that 10 per cent, should be paid upon it; so whether it was paid or not is a matter of no importance. Stock Corporation Law, § 41; 2 Rev. St. (9th Ed.) 1018; Railroad Co. v. Mason, 16 N. Y. 451 . As to the subscription for 128 shares, which was made after the corporation was organized, there can be no question that it was necessary that 10 per cent, should be paid upon it. Railroad Co. v. Clarke, 25 N. Y. 208 . But there is no dispute between the parties as to the payment of a sum of money at the time that subscription was made. Neither is there any substantial dispute that it was paid for the purpose of making the subscription valid. Curiel says that it was intended to be 10 per cent, upon each of the subscriptions then made, whether that of the defendant or of other people, and that it was received for the express purpose of making all the stock subscriptions good. It is true that the defendant denies this, but he speaks of the payment of $4,000 then made by him as "this ten per cent.,” and he says that his counsel told him that the payment complied with the law requiring 10 per cent, to be paid into the company for the stock subscribed for; and he at once swore that the 10 per cent, had been paid. It is true, he swears that it was

It was claimed by the plaintiff that on the 28th day of June, 1894, a resolution was passed calling upon the defendant to pay the balance-due upon his two subscriptions, which up to that time were unpaid. The second subscription, made on the 19th of August, 1891, contained an agreement to pay for the stock then subscribed for at such times, and on such installments, as the board of directors of the said company might by resolution require. The express agreement of the de-fendant, by that subscription, was to pay for the stock at the times,, and upon such installments, as the resolution might require. He did not stipulate that any notice of the resolution should be given to-him, and consequently he was not entitled to any notice of its passage,, as a condition precedent to an absolute liability on his part to pay. If a valid resolution was passed, he became liable to pay, although he had no actual notice of its passage. Mor. Priv. Corp. § 147. The question, then, is whether this resolution was legally passed. It is claimed by the defendant that the resolution was not competent evidence, because it was not sufficiently authenticated. But it appears that it was contained in the regular book of minutes kept by the secretary of the corporation, and its correctness was authenticated by the secretary, and his signature was proved. That was entirely sufficient to permit the plaintiff to read the resolution in evidence. It is not necessary that the secretary of a corporation, whose duty it is-to keep the minutes of the meetings, should enter those minutes in his own hand in the record book; but it is sufficient if he causes-them to be properly and correctly recorded; and, after that has been done, his signature, in the proper place, thereby authenticating their-correctness, is sufficient to entitle them to be read in evidence. Wells v. Rubber Co., 19 N. J. Eq. 402 .

But it is complained that the meeting does not seem to have been properly called, for the reason that the by-laws of the corporation, which were read in evidence, provide that the board of directors shall meet on the first Wednesday of the month, and do not provide for-any other meetings. It is not necessary, however, that the by-laws-should provide for the calling of a special meeting of the directors,, to enable such a meeting to be legally held. If the directors actually-

But it is said that all the directors of the corporation were not notified that such meeting was to be had. It is conceded on all hands that there were at that time three directors of the corporation; and the defendant claims that one G-ershel had been elected a fourth member of the board, and was then actually acting as such, and there is no dispute that he did not receive any notice that such meeting was to be held. It cannot be denied that, unless some other provision is made by law, it is necessary to the validity of a special meeting of a corporation that those persons who are directors shall have notice that the meeting is to be had, in the manner which the regulations prescribe; and, if Gershel was in fact a director of this corporation, the meeting was not valid, because it is conceded that he was not notified. But there is no sufficient evidence that at that time he was a director of the corporation. That he was elected such is very true, but the witness Guriel says that he had not accepted his election, and had never acted as a director, and that evidence is entirely undisputed. For that reason he was not yet a director, although he had been elected, because the mere election of the stockholders does not make him a director. There must be, in addition, ■an acceptance on his part of the duties of the office, either express, ■or implied from the circumstances of the case. Cameron v. Seaman, 69 N. Y. 396 . Nothing of this kind was shown in regard to Gershel, and for that reason it cannot be said that he was then a ■director of the corporation, and entitled to notice of its meetings. It appears from the undisputed testimony in the case that the only three persons who were then directors were present at the meeting, and voted for the passage of the resolution; and, that being so,—the meeting being a legal one,—the resolution was properly passed. For these reasons the liability of the defendant to pay his subscription ■upon these shares was sufficiently fixed when that resolution was passed, and the amount then unpaid became due at the time fixed by the resolution, which was the 8th day of July; that being 10 days after-the passage of the resolution.

But it is objected by the defendant that the resolution is not valid, because no such certificate as required by the statute as a condition precedent to the transaction of the business of the corporation had been filed. It appears that such a certificate was made on the 19th of August, 1891, and it was then filed in the office of the county clerk of New York county; but it does not appear that it was also filed in the office of the secretary of state, as is required by the statute. But we think the defendant is not in a situation to raise this

The final objection which the defendant makes to the payment of this subscription is that he was released from it by an agreement made with the corporation on the 17th of October, 1891. The testimony in that regard is given by himself. He says that on that day he had some conversation with Mr. Curiel, who was then the president of the company, in reference to his connection with it. Curiel said that he should be relieved from all liabilities and obligations against the company, and they should repay him the $4,000 which he put into it, to which he replied, that he saw they were just beginning business, and he did not want to take them short, but he was willing to take their note for $4,000, and thereupon the note was given to him. That this conversation was had is denied by Curiel, but, as a verdict was ordered against the defendant, his exception to that ruling must be sustained if this evidence, in any aspect of it, would be sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant was released from further liability upon his subscription. There is no aspect of the case in which it can be claimed that this release was valid. There is nothing to show that it was done at a meeting of the directors. On the contrary, there is no claim that more than one director besides

These suggestions dispose of all the points made by the defendant which were considered necessary to be examined, and the result of them all is that, upon the whole case, it was proper that the judge should order a verdict against the defendant for such sum as was actually due to the corporation. But we think that there was sufficient dispute as to the amount actually due from the defendant to require that question to have been submitted to the jury, had a request to that effect been made by the defendant. No such request seems to have been made, but the defendant did expressly except to the direction of the court fixing the amount of the verdict at $16,-952.40, upon the ground that he should be credited with the whole $4,000 paid on August 19, 1891. The question whether the verdict is proper is sufficiently raised by that exception. It is quite clear, however, that, upon all the evidence, there was a miscalculation as to the amount due, and that miscalculation should be corrected. It appears, and is not disputed, that the plaintiff paid $350 at the time of subscribing to the 35 shares of stock, and $4,000 at the time of subscribing to the 128 shares of stock, a few days later. It is claimed by the plaintiff that a portion of this money was paid back to him at different times, upon a note for $4,000, which was undoubtedly given to him on the 19th of October, 1891. But we are of opinion that these payments are not properly to be charged upon the sum of $4,000 which was paid upon these subscriptions, so as to deprive the defendant of the right to be credited for those sums as payments on his subscriptions at the time when they were made. The other advances which were made were advances of the money of the corporation to him upon a note which was given entirely without consideration, as we have seen, and for those the defendant is bound to answer in such action as might be brought against him for money had and received. Those advances legally had nothing to do with the money paid upon the stock. When that money was paid it was a complete transaction in itself, and it then stood as a credit to the defendant upon his stock subscriptions, to which he was entitled whenever he should be called upon to pay the balance of those subscriptions. The subsequent payments to him were not made upon any legal contract to release those subscriptions. They stand simply as money advanced, for which he must answer to the corporation. In this action, which involves solely the amount which he is bound to pay upon his stock subscription, he is entitled to have