Majority
Headnote
Under the act of April 12, 1852, for the incorporation of ocean steam companies, it is not a pre-requisite that the payment of the ten per cent should be stated in the certificate which is to be filed It is a matter to be proven, when necessary, as a fact.The articles of association, under which The Mexican Ocean Mail and Inland Company was formed, were dated the 1st of January, 1853, and a copy of such articles was filed in the office of the clerk of the county of New York, and a certified copy of the same was filed with the secretary of state on the 25th of January, 1853.
This was a sufficient compliance with the first section of the act of April 12, 1852, directing the filing of a certificate in writing, in order to the incorporation of ocean steam companies.
But by the second section of such act it is provided, “That when the certificate shall have been filed as aforesaid, and ten per cent, of the capital named paid in, the persons who shall have signed and acknowledged the same, and all others who may there
It is to be observed that the first section does not require that the certificate shall state the payment of the ten per cent. The strict letter of the second section imports that the corporate character does not arise until the ten per cent, is paid; but then that may be a fact to be ascertained by testimony.
In connection with this section of the statute, the seventh article of the association should be noticed. Scrip was to be issued when ten per cent, had been paid in. Each successive payment was to be endorsed on this scrip, until the whole was paid up, when certificates of Ml stock were to be issued.
The fourth section authorizes successive calls, by the directors, for payment of installments on the stock; and the seventh section directs a certificate to be filed within thirty days after the last installment has been paid, stating the amount of the capital paid in. This was not done, as the referee finds.
The referee also finds that the ten per cent, was not, in fact, paid in. A witness swears positively that all the stock had been paid up, and much testimony was taken as to the mode in which this was accomplished, We do not propose to enter upon this question, or to scrutinize this transaction. We shall decide the case upon the assumption that the ten per cent, had never been paid in.
There are two prominent facts to be noticed.
First, There is an allegation in the complaint, and an admission in the answer, of no slight consequence. The plaintiff avers that the defendant was a stockholder, and owner of two hundred and fifty shares of stock in the said corporation, to the amount; of $25,000, at the time the coaches were manufactured for, and delivered to, such company, and at the time the notes were given. The defendant admits that he is owner of two hundred and fifty shares of the full shares of said alleged corporation, but puts in issue the allegation of his being such when the debt was contracted.
Next, upon the 28th of March, 1853, the defendant has a transfer made to him, on the stock ledger of the company, by which Rankin, president, transfers to him two hundred and fifty shares.
The tenth section of the statute of 1842, directs a book to be provided, in which shall be entered the names of the original stockholders, and of all transferees, with their residences. This book is to be open to public inspection. In all proceedings under the provisions of the act, such book shall be presumptive evidence of the truth of the contents thereof, but such presumption may be repelled by evidence by any party or person interested in doing so.
There are other pieces of testimony tending to show recognitions, by the defendant, of his character as a stockholder of the company. But we think those we have referred to are enough to raise the legal question. That question is, Whether one who has openly avowed himself a stockholder of a company, registered himself as such upon its books, and as a stockholder taken part in its management, can be allowed to say, as to third persons, that the corporation was never lawfully created ?
We answer this question in the negative. We so answer it with greater confidence, when the defect is the omission of an act to be proven by testimony to have been performed, not a pre-requisite to be publicly declared and recorded, before the corporation can acquire a legal entity.
The cases referred to determine, that neither a stockholder who has acted as a director, nor a party incurring a debt to a company can set up as a defence, an irregularity which might show that the corporation never existed, or had incurred a forfeiture. (McFarlan v. The Triton Ins. Comp., 4 Denio, 392 ; The Sch. and Sarat Plank Road Comp. v. Thatcher, 1 Kernan, 108; Lawrence v. Palmer, 3 Sand. Rep.; All Saints’ Church v. Lovett, 1 Hall, 191 .)
The principle of these cases must control the present. If a party may not controvert the legality of a corporation when it is enforcing a contract avowedly made with it, he cannot be allowed to defeat a creditor of the company wholly ignorant of the defect or error.
There is a class of authorities decided in England upon the ob ligations of members of joint-stock associations, which may be usefully noticed. (Manderby v. Le Blanc, 2 Carr. & Payne, 409;
In these cases, the prevailing principle is, whether the parties have heldthemselves out as possessing the character, which involves the responsibility ? In one case, letters of the defendant, in which he admitted himself to be a shareholder, were held sufficient.
The defendant takes another defence, which should be noticed. The 6th and 7th of his printed points are to the effect, that the liability imposed by the statute is, that each stockholder should be responsible for his contributory share of the capital, and must respond to creditors only for what he has not paid in, and that the defendant had wholly paid up for the stock he held.
But the 6th section of the act of 1852 is express, that the stockholders shall be severally individually hable to the creditors of the corporation to an amount equal to the amount of stock held by them respectively for all debts and contracts made by such corporation, until the amount of its capital shall have been paid in, and a certificate thereof shall have been made and'recorded or presented in the next (the 7th) section. That section directs the filing of the sworn certificate thirty days after the whole of the installments have been paid up. This was wholly omitted as before stated.
. It seems, to us plain, that even if a stockholder has fully paid up his subscription, or is an assignee of fully paid stock, he is responsible, up to the entire amount he holds, for all debts contracted while he owned the stock.
The case appears to us a clear one, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs of the appeal.