Visalia & Tulare Railroad v. Hyde

110 Cal. 632 | Cal. | 1895

Harrison, J.

The plaintiff is a corporation under the laws of this state, for the purpose of constructing and operating a railroad between the city of Visalia and the town of Tulare, and was incorporated November 1, 1887, with a capital stock of one hundred thousand dollars, divided into one thousand shares of one hundred dollars each, all of which was subscribed for, and upon each share of which stock there had been paid into the corporation the sum of fifty dollars. On March 28, 1894, the directors of the corporation levied an assessment of ten dollars upon each share of the capital stock, and in the order levying the assessment fixed a day on which the stock would be delinquent, and also a day for the sale of the delinquent stock. After the day specified for declaring the stock delinquent, and before the sale, the board of directors, by an order in that behalf, elected to waive and abandon further proceedings for the collection of the assessment by a sale of the stock, and to proceed by action to recover the amount that should be delinquent. November 29, 1890, the defendant became the owner of one hundred shares of the capital stock which had been originally subscribed for by Thomas Creighton, and on that day a certificate for said one hundred shares of stock was issued to and received by him, and he was then registered on the books of the plaintiff as the owner thereof, and has since remained registered as such stockholder. The present action is brought to recover from him the amount of the assessment, by virtue of the provisions of section-349 of the Civil Code. The answer to the complaint does not question the regularity of the steps taken in levying the assessment, or in the election of the plaintiff to proceed by action to collect the same, or that the plaintiff was indebted in an amount greater than the amount of the assessment; but sets up as special defenses that, at the time the plaintiff incurred the liability for which he alleges the assessment was levied, he was not a stockholder; that prior to the commencement of the action he had sold, indorsed, and delivered the shares of stock to another person; and that at the time of levying the assessment the plaintiff had sufficient property with which to meet all of its obligations, without levying an assessment therefor. The plaintiff had judgment and the defendant has appealed.

1. By purchasing the stock from Creighton, and causing a transfer thereof to himself to be entered upon the books of the plaintiff, the defendant was substituted for Creighton as a stockholder of the corporation, and thereafter held the shares on the same conditions, and subject to the same obligations, as did Creighton prior to the transfer. (Morawetz on Corporations, sec. 159; Cook on Stock and Stockholders, sec. 256; Hall v. United States Ins. Co., 5 Gill, 484; Hartford etc. R. R. Co. v. Boorman, 12 Conn. 530; Upton v. Hansbrough, 3 Biss. 417; Merrimac Min. Co. v. Bagley, 14 Mich. 501.) In the case last cited the court say: “The very essence of a corporation consists in its corporate succession, which, in stock companies, is kept up by the substitution of one owner for another in the proprietorship of shares. If the original stockholders stand under different relations to the company from their assigns, the corporation itself loses some of its attributes by the substitution, or else becomes introduced into more complicated relations. It seems to be an unavoidable conclusion that every liability which attaches to a stockholder, as such, is inseparable from the ownership of the stock.” And in Hartford etc. R. R. Co. v. Boorman, supra, it is said: "The reasons for subjecting the original subscribers to personal liability apply with equal force to those who become stockholders by purchase. The relation of stockholder and company exists. A privity between them is created.”

The defendant did not divest himself of this liability by an assignment of the certificate to another subsequent to the levy of the assessment, especially as his assignee did not procure a transfer to himself upon the books of the corporation. For the purpose of ascertaining those who are liable to it for the amount of the assessment, the corporation can look only to the list of stockholders as their names are registered upon its books.

2. The liability of the defendant to the creditors of the corporation for his proportion of their claims against the corporation, and his liability to the corporation for the unpaid portion of his subscription, are entirely distinct, and rest upon different principles. The stockholder is liable to a creditor upon only such liabilities as were incurred during the time he has been a stockholder, but he is liable to the corporation for the unpaid portion of his subscription, whenever the corporation may choose to call it in; and, while the creditor may enforce his claim against the corporation, and seek its entire satisfaction out of the corporate property, he can recover from the stockholder only his proportionate part of the claim. The corporation is authorized to levy an assessment for the express purpose of providing a fund with which to meet its outstanding obligations, and it is no defense to the assessment that the defendant was not a stockholder at the time, the obligation was contracted or the liability incurred. Nor is it any defense that the corporation has sufficient property with which to meet its obligations. The liability of the defendant rests upon his contract of subscription, and the propriety-or necessity of requiring him to pay it for the purpose of meeting the corporate liabilities, rather than to resort to property in the hands of the corporation with which to meet such liabilities, has been placed in the discretion of the board of directors.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Garoutte, J., and Van Fleet, J., concurred.