Flint v. Sebastian, 300 S.W. 798

S'upReme 1344 [April Term, 317. Missouri, oh Vol. court ruling erred in that Hayes the real estate devised to Sam could be sold to satisfy plaintiff. debt of

IV. impressed We are not cogency with the the contention that exempt real is estate having from sale as been the homestead the testator. statute, 1919, Under the Section Revised Statutes the testator right exemption was not to the entitled to a homestead. entering into Before the contract with the devisee he Homestead. oeeupie(j dwelling property He alone. was a upon him dependent and had others widower neither children or support. He within terms therefore did come the statute. recently “housekeeper,” We have held that as a word is used statute, synonymous family” with and un the “head of exemption less one sustains this relation cannot claim under City & v. Jordan, law. Granite Co. the homestead Monument [Kansas Other cases announce rule 316 Mo. and cases cited therein.] principle, if not direct at interpretation, terms least [Reagan 124; l. v. Mo. c. Ensley, Gordon, v. l. Balance 283 Mo. c. Monroe, c. Loomis, 234 Mo. l. Mo. Bushnell Ridenour l. c. overrule this contention. We therefore 170.] ordering having erred the sale the real estate Hayes payment of the debt due from the devised to Sam judgment is plaintiff, estate of the reversed. All testator concur. Harley, Doing Business under Firm W. S. Name

A. M. Flint A. Earnest Koerner, Sebastian, Frank Flint & Harley, Guy C. Hoos, W. Albert Keating, H. Maher, John Arthur Henry Henry W. Geller, Arthur E. Griesedieck, L. Houck, Steinlage and John John C. H. Beims, Edmund Koerner, S. W. Appellants. Feckter, Two, October Division Corporation: De- General PARTIES: 1. DEFECTS OF Stockholders only by special parties de- reached A can be Waiver. defect of murrer: petition is special plea And demurrer answer. murrer a overruled, that such demurrer, even it could be said general if and if by answering over question, general demurrer reaches f amount of stockholders recover from it. So in an action to waive judgment defendants, file a failed to corporation, who answer, general special plea de- filed a special their or a demurrer over, overruled, being 'answered cannot be petition, on its murrer to secondary cor- therefore the heard to contend necessary and should poration have parties and stockholders were creditors other accounting joined in that a full between interested order all been adjusted. equities fully might and their be had 1927] FLINT v. Sebastian.

2. -: vides that each stockholder of a -: pro- Oklahoma Statutes. Since the Oklahoma statute individually of that State “is personally the debts liable for to the extent unpaid upon “any amount that is of the the stock held him” and that creditor -corporation may joint against 'any and several institute actions wholly paid its stockholders that have not stock held him” and liability by unpaid that “the upon of each stockholder is determined the amount by brought,” the stock or shares him at the time owned such action is by brought parties there is no defect in an action a of creditor of against alone, corporation joining corporation the stockholders without the or other creditors or other stockholders. Judgments: Adjustment. -: -:-: Several General 3. provision “in further of the Oklahoma statute that such actions the by unpaid upon must ascertain the scriber, that is the held each sub- amount stock liable, judgments several and for which he is and must be rendered conformity against can therewith” does mean that no creditor each not , corporation against unless and until realize the corporation a an established debt the rights the respective and claims of all creditors and stockholders of only adjudicated; provision as such was intended have been but liability stockholder, measuring whether method particular the of each individual of any proceeds against a a creditor one stockholder or number of stockholders. against Action Stockholders: Exhaust- OF CORPORATION: 4. CREDITOR ing against Remedies. In an action stockholders recover the amount of against corporation, proves that has exhausted a his a the creditor by against introducing legal the in evidence remedies the judgment, thereon. a return nulla bona an unsatisfied execution and or Allegations Action. AGAINST of Cause of ACTION STOCKHOLDERS: 5. corporation, petition were stockholders of a A which states that defendants by each, approximately and shares subscribed for and held the number of each, by praying unpaid respective and the amounts on the stock held the court unpaid upon that is the stock subscribed to ascertain the amount each, liable, alleges by each that defendants were and for which is and held stockholders each, by unpaid respective held the amounts on the stock and respect fail a does not to state cause of action. in that and Theory. Defendants, combating the -: -: Waiver: Trial they corporation which were stockholders óf whether issue plaintiffs by tions, judgment, held the amount on the stock had obtained necessary allega- containing each, having as those treated the front, lacking, change appeal cannot now are asserted be which on by theory adopted at the trial. are bound stock- defendants were Book: Stockholders. That Proof: Minute 7.-: showing corporation, (a) by proved official records of the holders the stock number subscription all as subscribers list and defendants by testimony each; (b) by of the officers subscribed of shares by (c) by report corporation, verified its officers company; filed, officer, containing proper list a prescribed, state with the the law as stockholders; (d) by proceedings official as of defendants by book, showing participation in its affairs an active minute in its found as stockholders. defendants Change name defendant on That the of one in Name: Erasure. -:8. it, through name of and that subscription a line drawn -list has thereon importance reversed, is of no appears with the initials another determining stockholders, first the name the' where whether list, report listed made thereafter and the official on the elsewhere appears Sup. Mo. —85. S’upreme Missouri, Vol. 317. they partici- proceedings stockholders, show the official

them as pated as stockholders. therein Stockholders; of Stock. Issuance AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS: 9. ACTION Under of certificates Oklahoma the issuance and decisions statutes necessary stockholders of them to constitute is not of stock to itself, but the stock corporation that State. certificates by required rights. law only The conditions stockholder’s evidence of the complied being preliminary granting charter to rights stockholders, with, all entitled to the subscribers to the stock become such, subscriptions pay becomes as fixed and their the amount of ’ - absolute. Unpaid: The.respective -: un -r: Amounts Proof. amounts paid defendants, and the stock of twelve amounts meeting liable, special each stockholders at which the consideration for the of and confirmed are shown the official minutes ratified, action, they approved, issuing its stockholders stock in a named amount to price, it of oil leases at named transfer'to certain covering1 testimony subscribers, all its said its officers that issued, paid shares of stock so The amounts of the shared sum for the in the named leases. may report also official annual be shown and calculated showing stock, corporation, paid-up the amount the names of the stockholders and the number shares each. having judg'ment, 11. FOREIGN JUDGMENT: Certification. The foreign certification, given objection been admitted without its natural certification meets the be to its' form must effect, probative objection, and form such whether or not the requirements or the statutes Federal statutes State, foreign appeal. cannot be considered on against 12. JUDGMENT: Joint action or Several: Action In Stockholders. against corporation, brought by stockholders of an Oklahoma a judgment against company, to creditor contention that should recover the amount of his the the 'judgment joint the should have been several of instead have been the in motion for a trial or in raised new the motion in arrest, only being evidentiary, way the Oklahoma statute if not in some brought to the attention the appeal. trial court cannot be considered on Compliance' --: 13. -:-: by with In a Statutes. an action corporation creditor of an Oklahoma to recover from its twelve stockholders judgment against amount company,-which of his $8,441, judg- a finding unpaid ment less than each, amount stock of which in no case was n $14,437.50, adjudging plaintiff and per .that recover from them said $8,441 interest, sum of amounting and six $1662.27,complies cent to with states, joint statutes of several; both and is both amount and the liability being definitely each by defendant’s judgment, fixed being greater the paid, of each adjudged than the total sum it to be rights prejudiced of no one of them was or can be its form. Foreign Judgment. 14. -: Interest on objection An allowance- ,a foreign judgment of interest on from its date should be raised in the" court, in the motion either for a new arrest, trial or the motion in not,so if judgment, appeal. raised Besides, is not reviewable on foreign- a actions on proof in the absence of foreign laws of interest of the (cid:127) State, interest should be allowed at per rate of six cent from the foreign judgment. date Juris-Cyc. Corpus Appeal-and Error, References: J., 905; 3-C. Section p. 984, 19; J., 2580, n. p. 679, 42; 4 C. Section 2609, 701, p. n. Section 49; n. 3047, p. 1063, Corporations, Section n. J.; 43. 127.2,:p. 836, 14 C. Section 25; p. 1109, 1731,, 76; n. 1733, Section 11.10, n. p. 87;' Section nV Section- 1746, 1119, 43; p. 1749, p. 1120, n. p. 1129,'n.'65. Section 1776, n. Section Interest, J., 25, p. 186, 33 C. Judgments, Section n. J., 72. 74, 33 C. Section p. 1125, Pleading, p. Cyc., 62; p. n. n. p. n. n. 20. n 1927]. Flint 1347- SebasiiaN. Appeal .City from Circuit Court of of St. B. Frey). Louis—Now. A. ' Judge. Affirmed. Edgar c§ B. Bombauer elder, Bosenberger Grand 'for Greensf

appellants. - (1) personal, liability imposed provisions by the 'of the'Okla11 Upon homa statute corporation stockholders a secondary, 'is only can be resorted to after against "the usual corpora remedies tion itself exhausted,' have been only! by and cán' then be enforced' a 'in equity suit where corporation .all the creditors and the itself be, parties, represented, are are 4n''acCounting-can, where had and'all the facts' equities adjusted. ascertained Kastor, and'the Smith v. App. 458; 195 Ill. National Bank of Auburn Dillingham, 147 N. Y-. (2) derogation A law,-:or .penal statute'in of the-common a statute, strictly must be Taff -v. -277 Tallman, construed. Mo. 157. (3) petition Plaintiff’s fails to state facts sufficient constitute cause charges action defendants. It defendants subscribed for a' certain number shares stock in,question, in-the 'corporation alleges nowhere the stock was held them. allege The failure that defendants held stock tq question plaintiffs” petition. (4) is fatal to failed Plaintiffs prove particulars: following their case in the First, that defendants any amount, in question; second, stock if any, defendants; and, that was such the various - third, plaintiffs1 .judgment. (a) company.- of the- creditors copy any judgment. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A is not a the record It merely copy entry journal presented’ judge for his is. signature making, clerk, aid of'the clerk’s assistance up journal recording proceedings1of court-. It cor his responds prepared-under to a memorandum or decree the- customs and usages practice,- accommodation-and conven spread of'our.Missouri for .the gets ready judgment.on when ience of the clerk judgment that the court record. There is no evidence--in the record plaintiffs’ against Company, which favor Oil was ever rendered 685, 867 judgment 865, for this lawsuit. Sees. forms basis 1921; Bouyan-t Qrockett, Oklahoma, v. 12. Compiled Statutes, 876, 549; Hilliguss 60 Webb, v. 57; parte S'tevenson, 20 Okla. Ex Okla. 181;- Savings Martin, Co. 89; 60 Midland v. v. Okla. Okla. Colter Co.-, 330; & Coffée Pac. Pac.'864; Boorigie 155 Tea Miller, 157 v. Bros?- Miller, 323; 37 48. Farris, App. v. Mo. Pac. Sherwood Molaski v. 2.19 plaintiffs. term an authenticated (b) A, Exhibit Plaintiffs’ mentioned, ip petition, by plain recovered copy S'upreme op 1348 Missouri, Yol. 317. against

tiffs company, wholly is prove insufficient to the rendition any judgment. such claim, Plaintiffs very foundation lawsuit, they this judgment against obtained a company, in the District Court of County, Kiowa February 1, on Oklahoma, 1921, $8,441. prove that, sum of the. To introduced evi copy journal dence a of a entry, certified to some court clerk. What court the of, attestator is clerk does not show. certificate signature to, The clerk's by, judge is not certified or attested District judge entirely Court of Kiowa County, but county different and inferior court. purported The authentication 10, Constitution; insufficient. 11 1, 12, 7, Secs. Art. 9, Okla. Secs. 3057, 3198, 1921; 876: Compiled 1519, Statutes, Oklahoma, Sec. 1918; 1919; Phelps Tilton, Federal Statutes R. Sec. S. Mo. v. 423; Dutton, 17 371; Steele, 65 Ind. Paca v. 4 Mo. Barlow v. Mo. Mayer 611; (5) App. v. 38 statute- Lyon, Mo. 635. The Oklahoma expressly provides judgments must be rendered that several proceeding court, kind. each defendant in a there fore, rendering joint judgment against the several de erred in 274; v. Threl Bayliss, fendants. v. 41 Mo. Ransdell Farmers Bank Telton, 386; kelds, (Ky.) 347; 84 Tex. Wilkin Bush Loew’s Adm. v. (6) allowing v. The court son Grant 189 Pac. 319. erred (Cal.), judg (a) question, At common law interest Monrow, (b) carry Thompson 101. v. Cal. ments do not interest. MeKennon England in force Oklahoma. common law of Major 767; Bain, 95 Pac. Winn, 327; Hdw. v. Hoppe v. Okla. Co., 758.' v. 260 S. W. Etna Life Ins. respondents. Kohn for

Patrick A. Lavin and William parties alleged defect question (1) having raised the Not doing now. so from precluded answer,- demurrer or 116; 255 Mo. Burkhardt, 1919; v. Rideout Secs. R. S'. 480; Mo. State Shull, 251 133; v. 222 W. Gibson Raster, S. Sanders v. 209; Keathley, 230 Mo. v. 572; Barnard Mo. Sullivan, 283 ex rel. v. pro- constitutional (a) Under the 412. Wright, 204 Mo. Hudson v. under proved, and pleaded and of Oklahoma vision and the statute or other matter, governs the really law, which our necessary proper nor any, were corporation, if neither creditors Mo. Barton, 285 638; Scott 278 Mo. Luehrmann, parties. Scott corpora- against the remedies (b) exhausted Plaintiffs de- fact, under In bona. nulla returned was tion when the execution plaintiffs insolvent, fendants’ admission Schneider judgment. recovering first without sued could have App. Co., 160 Ill. Pack. v. Calder App. Calder 164 Mo. Johnson, The contention (2) 7122, sec. Ency. Corp. Fletcher in the stock doe;b defendants petition not charge that the that 1927] 1349 v. Flint Sebastian. taken, alleged well petition it is in the in at least places two that the stock was to” .defendants, “issued and in one by” place them; prayer it that was “held and in the court is the upon asked unpaid to ascertain the that is amount the stock “held judgment each of the defendants” and that be entered “for them, remaining unpaid upon amount or the stock shares owned” (a) was disposed ease tried theory that an allegation that defendants held in was petition. support allegation Substantial evidence of such in- was objection. troduced theory up- without Defendants are bound Bottling 273 case was tried below. Machine which Co. v. Co., By. 142; Bragg Co., (b) Mo. 192 v. Mo. 331. Under Oklahoma law, evidence, granting shown after sub- charter, of a scribers so stockholders, to stock of a become allegation preliminary that view that all steps pursuant were taken and was granted, thereto charter allegation subscribers is to that tantamount defendants were Cummings 149 allegation they State, stockholders. Pac. v. con- (3) 864. It that a stock be issued is not essential certificate to. 110; 72 Natl. Seligman, stitute Griswold v. Mo. one stockholder. 810; Petty Knight- 401, 84 Shire, App. Supp. Bank v. 88 N. Y. v. Div. 587; 835; Shire,

Petty Co., 179 N. Pac. Bank Merc. 220 Natl. v. Y. Co., 94; Holland v. Iron Dewey, Chester Glass Co. v. Mass. 16 Min... 114; Corp. Lipscomb 324; State, 208 Y. 65 Minn. S. Badiator v. N. U. 410; Co., 249 Fed. ; Hdw. Condon, 56 416 In re Phoenix v. W. Va. Having that de- Co., 192 631. established v. Coast D. Pac. Basor W. continued presumption stockholders, the fendants were under the Oklahoma appears. fact, In contrary as such until do not relieve evidence, subsequent transfers introduced in decisions Cavanaugh, Chilson v. stock. stockholders 174 Pac. Huey Patterson, 312; v. 601; v.'Paine, 83 Barron Me. Pae. copy of objection the introduction (4) was made to No establish testimony both Flint, of. nor the execution judgment, copy As was recovered. that the sheriff's show the return.” did not only that “it objection it was objections court. in this objection is This abandoned having Not made were not below. made here document offered copy objections at the time the made the Bank Natl. now. cannot make them evidence, 399; 206 Mo. Lobban, Pierce, 633; Williams v. 280 Mo. v. Commerce 516; 278 Mo. Cramer, 306; v. Baade Goodwillie, 204 Mo. McCune v. v, 200; 176 Mo. Kenney, Meddis Keyes Munroe, 266 Mo. 114; v. Barada, Chouquette Co., Mo. City Bailroad Kansas “In- App. Silverstein, Mo. Hirsch Mo. State ex rel. void nullity is not objection without admitted admissible evidence if it was effect natural probative given its force, but is to be S'upReme 1350 op 'Court Missouri, Vol. 317.

law Sawyer admissible.” French, v. 235 (5) S. W. 126. The con- tention judgment that the joint is a judgment and should have been a judgment” “several was not made in the trial court. The three mo- tions for new trial of the several defendants are this; silent as to so are the two judgment. motions in arrest of If judg- the-form of the ment was erroneous, attention was not called to the matter trial given court. It was opportunity no -to correct it. Defendants, therefore, precluded raising'the from question in this court. Sec. 1512, R. 1919; S. Hubbard v. Slavens, 218 598; Cramer, Mo. v. Baade 278 516; Mo. Williamson; Freeland v. 217; 220 Aiken, Mo. Howell v. 403; 262 Mo. Ogden, Farmers Bank v. 192 App. (a) Mo. 243. That to', part of the Oklahoma statiite which remedy relates is not binding here, governs-the for the remedy. law-of the forum Broad- Noyes, Dorsey head v. 56; 9 Mo. 9 Hardesty, v. 157; Mo. Baker v. Stonebraker, 338; 36 v.-Wood, Mo. 502; Willard 164 U. S. Dexter v.-Edmonds, 467; 89 Fed. Bandall Sanitas, (b) v. 120 Minn. procedure judgment Under our against can there -be but one all de- fendants. Our entry judgment against statute authorizes th'e of a one or more of several defendants. This is true also under the Oklahoma 1160; 1522, 1528,- -1919; statute. Secs. B>.S.> State ex rel. Dunklin County Blakemore,- 695’; Connelly, 275 Mo.- Railroad, 169 Mo. App. Levy-v. 272; Bank;' (6) Tradesmen’s 188 107.7. Pac. .Under State, foreign judgments statute bear interest from their date per per -1919; at the six rate of cent annum. Sec. R. S. -Shickle y. Hopkins Watts, Mo.‘410; Shepard, -v. Mass. Clark Child,-136 344'; Davis,-105.N, Mass: Wells &TV -Co. v. Y:. Ol- n son v. Yeazie, Pac. , judgment .as creditors respondents, C. The HENWOOD Company, an Oklahoma cor Oklahoma of the St. Louis-Oklahoma Oil City of equity poration, in the .Circuit Court filed' suit covering against ¿ppellants recovery $8,441, St. Louis for the t company for the with said work and labor done under :a contrac being against appellants theory recovery drilling oil’well, of an company for its debts as stockholders of said 'company, under in the on their stock the amount extent was Joseph Griesedieek the Constitution and statutes of Oklahoma. him as to plaintiffs joined defendant, dismissed originally "a but the issues found the hearing following The. trial the case. case is accordingly. judgment . respondents and rendered judgment. findings appeal liere for' on an from said review District February petition alleges 1-, judg plaintiffs recovered Oklahoma, County, Court of Kiowa St; labor work Company Oil Louis-Oklahoma ment Oklahoma $8,441 the laws costs; that under the sum of and" execution date.; from eight per cent interest said bears 1927] FlíNT v. Sebastian.

on said was January issued on 17, 1922, and returned Iona; that said nulla insolvent and no assets can be found satisfy said judgment,.interest costs; that said duly" organized the' laws under of Oklahoma iff May, 1917, with a capital $500,000, stock of 500,000 stock, divided into shares of par each, value one dollar among "that, others, the subscribers said were the<defendants, and the number shares subscribed each them is as follows: Frank 30,000 S'ebastian, shares; 30,000 shares; Earnest A. Koerner, Arthur 15,000 Maher, shares; W. 15,000 shares; John H. Keating, Albert 15,000 Iioos, shares; Guy 15,000 shares; Houck, Henry C. L. Griese 15,000 shares; Henry dieck, 15,000 shares; W. Geller, Arthur E. Koerner, 30,000 shares; 15,000 Edmund Beims, shares; W. John G. 15,000 Steinlage, shares; 15,000 Feckter, shares; Joseph John fl. 15,000 shares;” Griesedieck, that Section of Article IX of corporation provides organized Constitution no of Oklahoma except money, the laws of Oklahoma shall issue for under stock labor property actually received, par done and amount value of thereof, and that Section 1283 of the Kevised Statutes Oklahoma of individually provides stockholder of a is that each personally corporation to and- liable the debts the extent for of the' by him, any unpaid creditors that is on the stock held and amount joint- may any or actions institute several' fully paid in such stock, and who have not for its stockholders unpaid and for ascertain the actions court must amount conformity judgments in liable, several subscriber is and render each paid in for the stock therewith; full “that of the defendants none out, about by and that them, as set or above issued to subscribed for per par seventy-five to or sub the stock issued value of cent that, and unpaid,” remains said scribed each defendants for decisions and statutes and therefore, under Constitution personally individually and are each Oklahoma, defendants costs, interest and judgment, amount of said plaintiffs for the liable to upon stock subscribed unpaid is amount that “to the extent each said for, or issued to them.” held amount ascertain court "to petition asks the prayer of the The each upon or unpaid subscribed the slock that is for ’’ liable, and which each them defendants, for exceeding amount not "in an amount accordingly, be rendered subscribed owned or shares the stock remaining for satisfy judgment, said and sufficient defendants, each” of costs annum, for per eight per cent interest at with accrued cases, proper relief. and for all both general denial. answer

The trial substance, as follows: testified, in plaintiff Flint S'upReme op Missouri, Vod. was He an oil-field worker and driller and had been business for thirty-two years. partner He and did his business under firm Harley. name Flint & He arrangements made the first to do drill- the, ing' work for company with the defendant Sebastian in Novem- ber, represented president general Sebastian was that he manager company and wanted a contractor drill wells. thoroughly company reliable, Sebastian told him the was that it was incorporated laws $300,000, under the of Oklahoma for. that it had production drilling Oklahoma was also a wild-cat well. He on representations relied when he went did these to work and paid $270,000 know that had been for Leases leases. pure were worth one or two in a country, dollars an acre wild-cat drilling but were no found. He oil was was when valueless company strictly country. in a Some oil had been found wild-cat twenty-five about from miles there.

On he He cross-examination further testified: drilled a well for the disputed company district, a lease area the Red River any He did not drill wells for between Texas Oklahoma. company County. agreement did not have in Kiowa He a written inquiries Sebastian, having with made some the com- concluded days pany right. working twenty-five was all After about he drew $3200, company’s sight according on the .draft sight got draft not honored and never instructions. was The, money. working noti- for the never continued He money quit. him: “We have company’s said to fied to auditor you.” for pay a cheek from the auditor in the bank took He protested. When part money was returned due the check and his completed $8,441, the total amount due was the work was company filed Hobart, at Oklahoma. firm sued the by counsel, but offered represented and was an answer to the suit company’s prop- file on was The sheriff ordered no evidence. nothing on the realized was erty, property found no judgment. land- depositions of several plaintiffs offered evidence tend to operations, which vicinity company’s owners prices for question, were obtained leases, at the time show that oil per acre, chief considera- ranging dollars dollar five from one testified, witnesses drilling of these being Six of wells. tion for a land parcels leased deposition, that actual- leasors of these One per lease. of oné dollar

cash consideration each: one dollar others leases; two for two ly two dollars received each, as price dollar of one the cash did not receive and two others leases. in their provided for documentary) (allHand B, C, F A, E,D, Exhibits Plaintiffs’ stated, in full quoted will be in evidence other documents admitted FliNt v. Sebastian. necessary proper for our may seem consideration substance, of the same. Oklahoma mentioned copy A a

Exhibit certified together thereto, and the same petition, with the certification full, quoted in as follows: will be

EXHIBIT A. County, of Oklahoma. Kiowa State Court for In the District doing Harley, A. Flint and W. S. M. under the firm name of business Harley, Flint & Plaintiffs, vs. Entry. Journal Company, Oil Louis-Oklahoma

St. Defendant. adjourned day February, 1921, this, the 1st at And now on court, regular comes on this cause term said

term of the for their December appear person regular hearing Plaintiffs order. in its at- Conner, appears attorney, its defendant and the T. W. torney, J. R. Tolbert. ready an- plaintiffs and defendant Thereupon for trial announce ready jury the issues submitted is waived and for trial and a nounces - to the court. and from case records and files- finds from the The court corporation; by plaintiffs that defendant is introduced the evidence that on the de- personal made in this action summons was service fendant; plaintiffs the sum for work and labor that defendant is due-to forty-one eight dollars. hundred thousand four by the ordered, adjudged Wherefore, considered, decreed it defendant for the sum of plaintiffs have court that forty-one all costs eight dollars and hundred and four thousand the, ;. action, taxed in sum of Edwards, Thomas A. Judge.

Attest: White, Ella (Seal). Court Clerk Conner, Attorney Plaintiffs. K.: T. W.

O. Tolbert, Attorney Defendant. & O. K.: Tolbert n Endorsements: Oil Louis-Oklahoma et al. v. St. M. Flint 3229. A. Co., Ella Entry. 1921. Filed Feb. Journal Journal, page 307. White, 14 on Recorded Court Clerk. Oklahoma, State of ] i ss. County Kiowa. of J aforesaid, county state and I, White, in and for Ella Court Clerk com- true, and correct hereby certify is a attached that the hereto do Supreme Yol. 317. Missouri, of píete copy journal entry in the matter M/ of A. Flint Harley, doing and firm name Flint & W. S. business under defendant,

Harley, plaintiffs, Company, Oil v. St. Louis-Oklahoma case County, Oklahoma, appears Court, No. District Kiowa same and office. on file in this record my day January, Witness hand seal this'14th 1922. and official (Court White; Clerk Seal -.Ella County, Kiowa Oklahoma) Court Clerk. Oklahoma, State of ] [ n ss. County of Kiowa. J state, I, County county Carpenter, Judge in J. S. and for said duly elected, qualified hereby certify Ella do acting White is .that County, Oklahoma; clerk in and for Kiowa State of that signature genuine signature is and that said certificate is the above her

in due form of law. my day January, seal Witness hand and official this 14th 1922. (County Carpenter, Court Seal J. S. (Signed) ' Oklahoma) County Judge. County, Kiowa Oklahoma, State of 1ss. County of Kiowa. J I, White, county state, Ella Court Clerk in and for said" do

hereby certify duly Carpenter elected, qualified J. S. is County acting Judge Oklahoma; County, in and for Kiowa State of signature genuine signature above the. his and that said certificate in due form of law. my day Witness hand and January, official seal this 14th (Court White, Clerk Seal Ella' , Oklahoma) , County, Kiowa Court Clerk. Exhibit B copy is a certified of the execution on the above January 17, 1922, quoted, issued and the sheriff’s nullá dona return ' ' thereon, day. on the same / copy . Exhibit C certified Louis-Okla- the charter the..St. is.a May Company, Philip homa Oil man, in which issued J. Scheuer- Louis, M. Missouri,

H. W. Geller and A. W. of St. Maher Mooney City, Newman and E. E. Oklahoma W. Oklahoma, incorporators company, which as the and in it is re- named capital $500,000, that its has a stock of cited that the place principal City, of business is Oklahoma Oklahoma. copy incorporation of the

Exhibit D is a of the articles of certified May provide company, 23, 1917, dated which -500,000 each, $500,000, and state into of one dollar divided shares* gas, oil purpose that the is to drill and mine for j. Maher, E. Philip A. Scheuerman, A. Geller, and that H. W. W. directors Mooney shall serve as Koerner, E. E. W. Newman and M. officers are elected.. and trustees of the until company’s proceedings, official H Exhibit is .the minute of-the book portions evidence, as follows: certain were offered A subscription pages appearing First, list the stock subscription be the same to copy list shows photostatic of this Flint v: Sebastian. 19271 1355 printed usual form with the blank spaces insertion-of name of the place and the date and subscription filled in. Among subscribers, .other the names of all of the. defend their, ants (appellants) and the respective amounts-of subscriptions appear subscription on list and ‘in same .names --the same alleged amount as except case, this the: .subscriber listed, Geller, iswho as Geller, Wm. H. and the Keating, subscribers listed-, Beims, Griesedieck .and .the.two Koerners, J.-H. as. .who - E; Beims, Keating, E.-W. H. L. Griesedieck, A. Koerner and E. A. page subscription Koerner. On the -first (pag'e 2 list of minute book) through lines drawn are' the names of the subscribers H. L. , Griesedieck, Mooney E. E.. Newman, and M. W. and-'on the second page subscription (page -3 book) list of minute -the H. names Griesedieck, Arthur W. Maher E. A. appear' again :L. and Koerner same-addresses-as:'given with the -page, .on the first but,.apparently, in. handwriting all are a different than that in same names ; - page. and addresses are on written the first : Second, meeting minutes of first appearing -the of stockholders on pages 14 'and 15 of the' minute book. .The show that minutes' this meeting -Louis, 2, 1917, was held in St. June :dnd that the defendants - (appellants) Hoos, Sebastian, Keating, Houck-, Griesedieck,; Geller, ;two present holding Maher and as-stockholders; Koerners-were alleged, shares of stock as and"-that E. Koerner was A. elected secretary meeting; also, Koerner, A. acted as E. Maher the- directors-oKthe, company';-and als,o and Sebastian were elected Steinlage Houck, Hoos, Sebastian, A. Koerner, Griesedieck, E. (cid:127) - (cid:127) - - signed meeting.. Feckter the-minutes of the . meeting'-of directors, appearing Third,, pages on minutes of-the first: book,,which meeting of directors im- show the minute

mediately meeting; meeting, following that, at the stockholders' this appointed committee officers of a. elected the. signed Se- by-laws coihpany. minutes were- draft for the These by, A. as-secretary company, and Sebastian and -E. bastian, director, present, Koerner, minutes show Maher as directors. The sign'the did not minutes. special meeting, attached stockholders’ Fourth, of notice waiver May showing meeting 27, page book, called for 25 minute .such signed by City,-and all of the waiver at Oklahoma .defend- , except (appellants)-, Griesedieck ants Geller. -stockholders, in Oklahoma special meeting of Fifth, minutes of minute, book; with -page City May -27, appearing on present, person, showing S'ebastian attached, four extra sheets Feckter, Steinlage, Beims,- Maher; Keating, Hoos, Houck, Geller; meeting .proxy, present the two Koerners .minutes .of the,.com- approval action adoption, ratification show the 270,000-shares of stock issuing stockholders”. pany to “its .the Supreme op [April Term, Missouri, Vol. par accepting value one dollar eaeb and in as consideration there- gas for certain oil and leases. Sixth, special waiver of notice of meeting, directors’ attached page 25 showing book, meeting minute May such called for 1918, at City, Oklahoma signed by Sebastian, waiver of notice Maher and A. E. Koemer.

Seventh, special minutes meeting, of directors’ the to attached 25 page of book, showing meeting minute the at time and the place notice, mentioned; indicated adoption the above the of also ratified, resolution in which approved the directors confirmed and company issuing the of action shares of stock sum of $270,000 accepting leases, gas and in as consideration certain oil-and covering parcels County, Oklahoma; eleven of land Kiowa also, by adoption adopted, of a which the directors resolution ratified and approved including persons, issuance of stock to certain named except Griesedieck, (appellants), all of the défendants and in the alleged. amounts G, respectively, copies F,

Exhibits E and were certified of an- reports' for 1918 and filed in the nual of Corporation 1917 re- office of the Commission of Oklahoma. The (Ex. F) (appellants) port as stock- shows all of the defendants alleged. holding number of shares holders and holdings (Ex. report E) alleged, them with as 1918 shows all of The appear do on the Maher, names except and whose Griesedieck abstracted, report (Ex. G), as does 1920 The list of stockholders. (Ex. F) report shows The 1917 a list stockholders: not show The capital $10,000, invested in leases.” “paid-up company’s $10,000 capital, with report E) $270,000 paid-up (Ex. as shows 1918 inyested paid- G) $234,160 as report (Ex. shows The leases. The development. expended in actual $10,000 on leases capital, up and Scheuerman, E) by sworn (Exs. F reports 1-917 secretary. by Sebastian, as presidént company, and attested óf the as president by Sebastian, G) report (Ex. was sworn company. of the Article IX plaintiffs 39 of Section in evidence offered 1267 and 7541 Oklahoma, Sections Constitution Oklahoma, 1910. Statutes Revised as follows: reads IX the Constitution 39 Article Section done, money, or except labor corporation stock shall issue “No thereof, par value amount of the actually received property void, shall be or indebtedness increases of all fictitious prevent regulations necessary prescribe Legislature shall indebtedness." stock or of fictitious issue that: provides statutes Section personally individually a stockholder “Each amount extent the debts liable for 1927] Flint 1357: v. Sebastian. unpaid upon by Any the stock held him. creditor of the cor- may joint poration institute or against any several actions of its wholly paid stockholders that have not stock held him, and in such actions court must ascertain the amount that is un- paid the stock held each stockholder and for which'he’is liable, judgments and several must be rendered each in con- formity therewith. The of each stockholder is determined unpaid upon the amount the stock or shares by him-at owned ” time such action is commenced. provides Section 1267 that all corporations organized profit keep

shall all a record of their business transactions and of all of proceedings meetings had at all directors, stockholders and and that such proceedings the record of every shall show act done present or done, ordered to be who were at absent from meetings. said provides

Section 7541 every domestic corporation file, shall annually, Corporation the office Commission a statement, president, managing secretary officer, showing verified its its stockholders,.officers and directors and their amount addresses and the of stock held each. plaintiffs The offered in also evidence certain decisions of the Su -

preme Oklahoma, namely, Court of in Chilson the cases of 601, Cassidy Cummings Cavanaugh, Hornor, Pae. Pac. Wallower, Knight-Petty State ex rel. Pac. and Petty v. Co., 220 Merc. Pac. reference to these decisions [Futher provisions some of them will in made the discussion be constitution and statutes of Oklahoma above mentioned.] plaintiffs original

And offered answer of the also evidence this.case; insolvency of the St. defendants which admitted the Company. Louis-Oklahoma Oil testimony

On only offered defendants’ side the evidence was the and E. Sebastian Arthur Koerner. defendants testimony Sebastian, substance, The was as follows: company... The secretary president He was first and later interest company closed in 1920. He had an affairs were covering Mooney, certain sec- leases, acquired from Newman and some to the County, Oklahoma. The leases were transferred Kiowa tions ‘‘ gentlemen .whose names money consideration. These company for a petition) (referring list attached to the you see on list” to the purchased the money They pay to for leases. “furnished the was Ten thousand dollars and Mr. Newman. Mooney from leases Mr. organized and the was paid leases, for and then the actually $10,000' was corporation. This leases were turned over names individuals whose paid Mooney these and Newman have objected the amount stockholders just been read.” -Some company’s at- advice of the given and, leases on the stock for these Missouri, Yol. SWeeme - torney, appraisement of the leases -was made in .1919, after the company had been operating* drilling, by three disinterested oil appraised

men of they experience, and the leases at $200. After the appraisement, the stock to be for issued the-leases was reduced from $270,000 $135,000. company attempt did any stock, not -to sell but some the individual stockholders pro- sold stock used foi) development purposes. ceeds personal sold some He None stock. of the stock original was issued to the subscribers, except ever one who brought and, suit in accordance with the court’snrder, he his received (cid:127) (cid:127) certificate. On gave this following testimony: witness cross.-examination “Q. Now, you believe testified these fourteen defendants .1 paid $10,000 leases, immediately and then turned the leases those( gpt over to $270,000 for'it; in stock isn’t-that cor- ! rect? A. Yes.” .. testifying on -witness said that Mr. cross-examination .this Further was,entitled brought Speers suit for. his stock and court found he thing. to it. other could have done -the same these All: subscribers, .was to .the rest of the but issued stock meetings. “may participated and voted at have” only to.questions personal In court, he -said sales of answer get blue-sky around” stock were made order “to law. And he court as follows: was further examined the- .stock, you particular people, .and “Q. And to those issued Yes; selling people other ? this stock these out A*. belonged people “.Q.' to the several fact,'.this As matter :of A. Yes.” to whom it was. issued?..-- examination,. direct testified' that was Kbernér, on

Arthur E. the-original incorporators of subscribed one of. any ;(cid:127) acreage actually stock that did not receive 30,000 shares, assigned pending Mooney acquired -from to him Newman" Company; organization of the preliminaries in the leases, Newman then the fo'r the paid $10,040 was to Mooney begun. incorporated and work company was get 30,000 “I did shares .not said:. On erossrexamination it.; stock., subscription. not a It formal I did not subscribe much.stpck meetings. I different that at may I that voted be It value,.of $270,000 par to be issued .was stock that understood . $10,04 .paid.up 0 who'had to-these-men: the-.-cóurtare follows: judgment.of The:findings and upon 12th,-day 1924, .May, due consideration this “Andmow concerning fully the- law and hav- having advised . cause, been of this respective, par- by -introduced the evidence ing duly’ considered allegations of.plaintiffs’ first amended- find that doth ties, and, .plaintiffs to the relief are-entitled .true herein-are Fumo? v. Sebastian. 192T\

prayed for in said petition; amended and the court doth further find that the amounts that are the stock in the S't. Louis- Company, Oklahoma Oil subscribed for and by each of the de- fendants at herein the time' of the commencement of this action and for which each one is liable, as follows:

Number of Amount' un- ' paid shares of and for which he is liable Frank 30,000 Sebastian . .$28,875.00 Ernest 30,000 A. 28,875.00 .... Koerner... Arthur "W. 15,000 14,437.50 Maher. . ...,;. Keating 15,000 John H. 14,437.50 Albert 15,000 14,437.50 Iioos ... .

Guy 15,000 14,437.50 ........ C. Houck ....

Henry 15,000 14,437.50 L. Griesedieck . .'.

Henry .....15,000 14,437.50 W. Geller . 30,000 28,875.00 Arthur E. ....'.1.... . Koerner 15,000 14,437.50 W. . Beiins ...'. Edmund 15,000 14,437.50 Steinlage .......\ ........ Jno. C. 14,437.50 15,000.'. .. John H. Feckter day February, 1st further find that on the the court doth “And said St. Louis-Okla- plaintiffs recovered duly (a organized laws of Company under the homa Oil County, Oklahoma)' for Kiowa' in the District Court State nothing paid $8,441; has beén of'Oklahoma, in the sum of State judg- upon said issued judgment; that execution on account of said and was unsatisfied; that said has been returned ment plaintiffs' insolvent, and of this suit commencement' at time defendants herein from the therefore, to recover are, entitled six at the rate judgment with interest thereon of said amount this suit. 1921, and the costs of February 1, from per annum cent per plaintiffs decreed that adjudged and is, ordered, ‘.‘It therefore, Sebastian, A. Frank Ernest defendants have recover Guy C. Keating, Albert H. Maher, Iioos, John Koerner, W. Arthur Koerner, Arthur E. Geller, Henry W. Griesedieck, Henry L. Houck, sum H. Steinlage John Feckter Beims, John'C. W. Edmund per February of six at the rate from interest $8,441 with making a $1,662.67, total amounts annum, interest per cent have this suit costs of arid the $10,103.67, sum of . execution.” therefor , plain parties is a -that there contend defect first Appellants Í. .liability that,' case; and defendant

tiff creditors company. and other secondary, being full that a in order necessary parties, Defect wer.e stockholders Parties. and their had parties be all interested accounting between S'upRBMB op Yol. Missouri, Court equities fully adjusted. As tbis contention, it would be sufficient say point that this was not in is, raised the court and there fore, not merely here for review. filing The record shows of a the demurrer to the and that the demurrer overruled as to was the first count as Manifestly, sustained second count. this the general elementary was a an demurrer. It is that a in rule defect parties by special only can be by special reached plea demurrer or in the answer. Defendants failed to take either course. In this situa questions tion it parties that all follows as to defect were waived. And if it said that be the demurrer filed did reach question, this then point by answering waived over. 1226, 1230, the [Secs. 1919; Keathley, Spar R. S. Barnard 230 Mo. l. c. Mitchell v. lin, 255 Sullivan, l. e. Mo. State ex rel. Mo. l. c. 572.] However, we in question as construe the Oklahoma statute there nois plain language statute, merit in this The contention. our opinion, clearly appellants’ position in particular. refutes this provides corporation statute that “each stockholder aof is individual personally ly corporation liable debts extent him; unpaid upon by any that is held amount the stock credi against corporation may joint institute actions tor or several any wholly paid its stockholders that have by that each him.” And further “the stockholder is unpaid upon oivned.by stock or shares the amount determined True, him is commenced.” this statute does at the time such action “in, provide further such actions the court must ascertain the that subscriber, unpaid upon stock held each and for that is amount against judgments must be rendered liable, which he is and several conformity therewith,” but it cannot be provision from each realize reason, no can established that creditor concluded, respective rights unless and until debt stockholders of the all of creditors and and claims of Taking adjudicated. whole, our as it is view statute have been this, .measuring only provision intended method any stockholder, particular whether credi liability of each individual any number stock .against any one stockholder proceeds tor ..or - Y. Dillingham, 147 N. Bank v. case holders. The National pleadings elearly distinguishable on the appellants^ cited Kastor, App 195 Ill. case of Smith likewise We think facts. contrary proposi ruling on this appellants insist a 458, in case Ap ruling by the Illinois Court so, If such is announced.. tion Supreme rulings of Illinois with peals in accord is not reasoning employed rule declared question. on the same Edwards v. Schill in the case Illinois Supreme Court of statute,..is exactly construing Missouri inger, Ill. In dis Oklahoma statute. construction as our' effect same says: proposition, cussing this identical 1927] FliNt v. Sebastian. in, corporation of a proceed without, “The creditor can equity any taking

call and without account of other indebtedness or mak ing’ all defendants. for, stockholders of a stockholder subscriptions unpaid is several and not joint, and the creditor is not up bound to settle the affairs the corporation in order to obtain his Dana, dues. S.U. A corporation 205.] creditor [Hatch seeking need satisfaction his debt look no further than find it, a solvent stockholder liable who is for and he sustains no relation corporation requires adjust equities to the him to between stockholders [Ogilvie others. v. Knox between-the ” Ins. 22Co., Plow. local citation, 91 N. c. see E. l. 380.] [For 1052.] also, See, Co., Mandel Swan Land l. c. Pri Ill. Beach on vate sec. Corporations, provisions it

"While must be that the conceded of the constitution controlling rulings statute of Oklahoma in this case, are very statutory this in construing similar constitutional. provisions helpful illuminating in this State in further this dis reaching meaning in cussion and a sound conclusion as to the purpose only, laws involved. of our sister here For this State we. quote Barton, 285 Mo. l. c. from the case of as follows: Scott “Appellants compelled parties; were not all of the interested sue joint one; was- obligation particular was not no stockholder ap payment owed, another hence liable for the of what stockholder have, Respondents, pellants they could sue such as desired. could desired, "in parties in action all of the brought had to the so them, adjudged among could be parties terested so contribution pursue this rested responsibility but we think course Luehrmann, 278 Mo. l. c. 646. them.” See also Scott v. connection, rule re make some reference

In this appellants against his remedies quiring a creditor to exhaust requirements All such against the stockholders. proceeding before by the case, fully by respondents this were met Exhausting execu-. general company and against the in Moreover, the bona. returned nulla thereon, tion Remedies Against appellants by admitted solvency of the corporation. wit testimony of the answer, original Koerner, Sebastian witnesses and of plaintiffs, for Flint, ness support conclusion. Fletcher defendants, further tends to “A says: point. It squarely 4129, is 7122, section Cye. Corp. exhausted, introducing remedy by legal his that he has proves creditor un return with the corporation, his in evidence unsatisfied execution The return thereon. execution satisfied of legal -his has exhausted creditor evidence is conclusive ’’ remedy. Sup. 317 Mo. —86. S’upRbme op Missouri, Yol.

II. by appellants It is next contended that the fails to action, state a allege canse it because does not that' defendants stockholders respective and the amounts un paid upon the stock held positive them. The direct and allegations' covering Petition: of the petition, both of matters is sufficient answer to this' ap contention. As meritione<l> Amount unpaid. pears from even a petition, casual examination of the above stated, alleges, it both words and in effect, that the defendants alleges were stockholders, definitely and also the number shares subscribed- approximately and held the re spective amounts each them. The prayer petition, though charging part not embraeéd light the sheds petition, pleaded, some on the character of the case requesting the court “to ascertain the amount that is unpaid by defendants,' stock subscribed for or held which each of the ’’ liable, by question. each of them provided is as the statute in More over, defendants, combating in the issue as to whether were containing stockholders, allega-,, or were not as treated the' Having adopted wanting. theory tions now of de claimed to be trial, cannot, rules, change defendants under the fense at the [Machinery Bottling Co., front in this Co. v. 273 Mo. l. c. court. Ry. 148; Bragg Co., 192 Mo. l. c. 358.] earnestly Appellants that evidence is not sufficient III. insist finding's in three court, of the to sustain the stockholders; first, second, defendants were particulars; that stock and for which each of them respective amounts on their liable; plaintiffs were creditors of third, company. amply sup stockholders is finding the defendants

The of the papers records and ported the official both Koerner, testimony Sebastian and of the defendants The recital of evidence. appears above as Proof: from.the Stockholders. pages 2 3 stoc]- subscription list, at found (Ex. H), as sub all of the defendants book shows company’s minute respective amounts company in the in the of stock for shares scribers annual re court. The found petition and as in alleged Corporation (Ex. with the F), filed company for port of the of by the by law, and verified Oklahoma, prescribed as Commission as “stockholders” company, of the défendants lists all ficers alleged The the court. and found respective amounts and Koerner Sebastian testimony of the positive direct company, found proceedings Other official effect. to the same participation in its af H) an active (Ex. show book minute its stockholders, time another. at one as the defendants all of fairs findings defend as to the court’s complaint special 1927] Flint v. Sebastian.'

ants Griesedieck Geller is of no value in the face'of company’s, report official (Ex. F), listing them as "stockholders” and proceedings official (Ex.‘ inH),' which they par ticipated as such. report and proceedings mentioned occurred closing after the subscription the stock list, above to,' referred on which Griesedieck’s name has a through line drawn place, it one though appearing place, another ap Geller’s name pears with his initials reversed sharp presented by teCtimony In connectionS with the is~ue the defendants Seba~tian and Koerner as to ~hether oi~not the stock question defendants, was ever isued to the it should be Stockholders. Subscribers rulings Supreme noted here that the Oourt of Okla- and~1iability stockholders, homa fix their status whether actually stock certificates were issued to them or not. Cummings In the ease ex State rel. Wallower, Pac. l. c. that court said: -‘‘The conditions'required moment'the by' law as preliminary granting to the of the charter to corpora tion were complied with, the ‘subscribers its stock became stock , holders; rights entitled as such to all the and at the same such time pay subscription amount of their became fixed and absolute.” Petty Knight-Petty

In the case of Co., 220 Pac. Mercantile that court held that ‘‘from the fact that a is not certificate merely itself, the stock rights, evidence of the stockholder’s it fol-' that, contrary, lows provisions the absence of the'-issue of. necessary, of stock is at all certificates éither to the existence of joint-stock corpora corporation or to make one a stockholder such a may formal tion, for one be a stockholder'without the written evidence ' rights'.” of his suggest appellants’ brief, only in their the failure of counsel, While Griesedieck continued -to be any proof to show that the' defendant action, following rule of this the commencement stockholder until well as Griesedieck: all of the other defendants applies to who; by corporate accepting imposed one thus ‘‘The obligates pay corpora shareholder, himself to original stock, as (cid:127) continuing one, done, property or money, labor therefor tion good are faitfr of the creditors discharged by far- as the at least so mere transfer- of such-stock concerned, is not (cid:127) - plain duty courts to of the -. It is the' . holder. innocent to an effectively it provision so as to render and enforce construe v. Cava directed.” against which it is [Chilson evil of the remedial l. c. 160 Pac. naugh, 602.] - opportunity at trial to en- full afforded were matters, but, apparently, other this and on lighten do fit to so. not see did S'upReme op Missouri, Yol. 317. ffndings respective The court's as to the amounts on the su~b,scriptions defendants, respective of the and as to the amounts liable, fully for which eaclt is are warranted the official minutes ~pecial meetings of ti~e of the stockholders of the com Unpaid pany, City May 7, (Ex. H), held in Oklahoma Amounts: they approved, ratified and. ~onfirmedthe action of Proof. company issping $~7O,OOO, of the stock to its stockholders'' in consideration for the transfer of certain oil leases, testimony the, th~ defendants Sebastia~n and Koerner subscribers, covering 270,000 shares, to the effect that all of stock payment $10,000 $10,040, shared in the findings or for said oil leases. These supported by reports company are further the official of the (Exs. F, G), showing paid-up 1918 and 1920 E and holding 225,000 stock of the at the times indicated. The defendants, sharing prop shares of stock thes& twelve ortionate ly $1Q,000 $10,0~0 paid 270,000 in the total sum of shares of stock, furnishes a sound and reasonable basis of calculation for the findings respective paid by court's as to the amounts each of. the de- respective remaining unpaid fen~1ants and the amounts on the stock of each defendant. finding~ plaintiffs of the court that credi ju~[gment tors of the and that was unsatisfied are supported by judg.- the records of the court in which the Foreign Judgment: (Exs.: B) testimony nient. ~wasrendered A and and the plaintiff Appe1l~nts strenuously J~1int. now ob Certification. ject to the fo~n~ of the as offered in evidence properly and to the failure of the certification thereof to authenticate

thesame, objections and, but no such were rnade in the trial court course, ExhibitA, copy cannot be made here for the first time. judgment, being proper objection, the Oklahoma admitted without given probative by. its natural effect the trial court and must be so here, regardless question considered o~ the of whethe~' or not its form mQets requirements Federa). and certification ~he statute and relating tQ the statute of this State~ foreign jadgments. ~heform and certification of [Sawyer French, 235 S. W. l. c. Wil Lobban, Goodwillie, liams v. 206 Mo. l. c. McCune v. 204 Mo. l. 333.] c. findings trial court not and the other We rule that-these evidence, supported support only in- have-substantial greater weight-of the evidence. form the by appellants as to the. is complaint made

IY. Further whereas joint judgment, judgment is that the judgment, is, a. Flint v. Sebastian. provides Oklahoma statute judgments that several shall be rendered in cases of this character. If it true, be as appellants Judgment: contend, that the Oklahoma statute is controlling as to of Joint. ^orm ^ .judgment, point then this should have been Several raised the motions for new trial, the Oklahoma statute being purely evidentiary in However, this case. challenge this as to form judgment brought was not to the attention of the court, trial in either of the motions for new trial or the motions judgment, is, arrest of therefore, not us before for review. [Sec. 1919; U. 1512, S. Baade v. Cramer, Mo. l. c. Certainly, the 528.] rule should be But, may invoked a matter so vital as this. it judgment requirements said that this meets the both Missouri being joint and the 1160, statutes, judgment. Oklahoma and several [Secs. 1528, 1522, 1919; R. S. Mo. ex v. Blakemore, State rel. 275 Mo. l. c. Levy Sec. U. S. Okla. l. Bank, Pac. c. Moreover, being amount of each defendant’s 1078.] definitely judgment,

fixed and the amount of each defendant’s liability being greater rendered, than the total sum of the prejudiced rights judg no one defendants can be form. ment appellants complaint the allowance The final is Y. February 1, per judgment from annum on the per cent interest

six judgment. Here the Oklahoma 1921, the rendition of date presented properly raised in the question which was not again, is judg or in arrest of new trial court, in the motions trial either S. 1512, R. here. therefore, properly reviewable ment, and, [Sec. foreign judg that, in suits on However, has held this court 1919.] proof of interest as the law the absence and in ments provided allowed, as be interest should involved, foreign state rendition of date of the from the State, interest .this law of 1919; Shickle R. S. foreign State. [Sec. in other states.] effect citing same Watts, cases l. c. 94 Mo. as- all errors findings as and conclusions with our accordance In properly presented questions all as to appellants and signed be affirmed. court should judgment of consideration, the our Davis, CC., concur. Higbee and so ordered. It Henwood, C., opinion foregoing PER CURIAM: The concur. judges All court. adopted decision

Case Details

Case Name: Flint v. Sebastian

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Oct 10, 1927

Citations: 300 S.W. 798; 317 Mo. 1344; 1927 Mo. LEXIS 585

Court Abbreviation: Mo.