14 F. 399 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado | 1882
James P. Smith and two people called Sargent sue the Colorado Fire Insurance Company, S. Eldridge Smith and William A. Ellis and George C. Glass, upon a policy of insurance issued by the Colorado Company. After describing the policy and the destruction of the premises by fire, and so on, plaintiffs allege in the first count that the defendants Smith, Ellis, and Glass were tlie owners of equal parts of the capital stock of the insurance company, which is wholly unpaid by them, and they seek apparently in that count to recover the amount of the policy from the defendant company, and from these natural persons, the owners of the stock, jointly.
. Section 201 of the chapter relating to corporations declares that the stockholders shall be liable for the debts of the corporation to the extent that may be unpaid of the stock held by them, to be collected in the manner heroin provided. Whenever any action is brought to recover any indebtedness against the corporation, it shall be competent to proceed against any one or more of the stockholders at the same time to the extent of the balance * ® by them respectively, whether called in or not, as in cases of garnishment.
I do not understand that the defendants made any objection to that count; it appears to be based upon the section of the statute, and to be within its provisions.
In the second count plaintiffs set up the same policy of insurance, and the destruction of the premises by fire, and aver that at the time of the execution and delivery of the policy the corporation had not, nor
In the third count, the plaintiffs declare on the policy of insurance as in the other counts, and allege that although the stock of the corporation had been fixed by the certificate which they had made and filed, that it had not been divided and subscribed for, or distributed to anypefson or persons whomsoever. That count proceeds upon the theory of wrong-doing on the part of these incorporators in commencing business before they had fully organized their company, — before there was any capital stock paid in which could be liable for the debts of the company. I do not doubt that there is liability on the part of the persons who do the things that are charged in this count; but the question here is whether they may be liable with the corporation itself, because this is an action in which the corporation and the persons who organized it are sued jointly. I think it may be said, when persons get together and assume to be a corporation without complying with the terms of the statute, without having a subscription of stock, as the law requires, in forming the organization, that they may be jointly and severally liable as individuals for the debts contracted in the corporate name, but is not sufficient to say to maintain this; and the action here, as I stated before, is against the corporation itself, and these persons are, as I think, proceeding upon some theory of deceit, — an action on the case, as we
The result of all this is, the demurrer must be overruled as to the first count of the complaint, and sustained against ■ the other two counts on the ground that there is a misjoinder of defendants.