55 S.C. 78 | S.C. | 1899
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The facts of this case are fully set forth in the report of the master, which will be set out by the Reporter. The said report was confirmed by the Circuit Court, except in the following particulars, to wit: 1st, the first, second, fourth, and latter part of the fifth conclusions of law were reversed, and 2d, it was ordered that the report be “amended by including in said finding of original subscribers liable for the thirty per cent, upon the amounts of their subscription to the following: C. J. Iredell, twenty shares, $2,000; W. H. Gibbes, ten shares, $1,000; Walter M. Gorham, ten shares, $1,000.” The defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, inasmuch as it alleges that an assessment for the unpaid instalment of subscription to the capital stock of said company was made, and does not allege that the board of directors of said company had refused to enforce the same, or were derelict in that regard, and that said payment could only be enforced by the corporation itself, or by a receiver duly appointed. Some of the defendants withdrew the demurrer, but others insisted upon it.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be modified in the manner hereinbefore indicated, and that the case be remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.
The defendants named below filed a petition for rehearing, and thereupon the following order was made:
May 3, 1899.
The defendants, F. H.
Hyatt, Jno. T. Sloan, W. H. Lyles, and Martin Stork, filed a petition for a rehearing in this case on the grounds set forth in their petition. They brought to the attention of the Court that the exceptions by Messrs. Mower and Bynum to that part of the decree releasing the said defendants from liability in the manner set forth in the petition had been withdrawn. They are, therefore, not liable as transferees of the shares of stock described in the complaint. It will not be necessary to order a rehearing in order that the petitioners may have this relief.
The judgment of this Court is hereby modified in accordance with these views and the petition for a rehearing is dismissed.
The defendant, Sloan, having filed a separate petition for rehearing, the following order was made:
The defendant, Jno. T.
Sloan, filed a petition for a rehearing in this case on the following grounds: “That your petitioner was named
The petition for rehearing is, therefore, dismissed.