Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-01-20
THE HEAVY MIsee SUIT.
The Nimiek k Go. Case Thrown Out OF
the Muuieinnl Court.

THE HEAVY MINGo SUIT.
the Municipal Court.
On the 9Th day of January, 1881, q bill in
equity was fled in the Municipal court OF
this city, BY Nimiek & Co, OF Pittsburgh,
against the Mingo Iron Works Company
and It's stockholders. Alexander Nimick,
George P. Mcbride and John S. Slogie, oil
the firm of Nimick & Co., Judgment credi-
tor of the Mingo Company sued for them
selves, as well as for the benefit OF all other
creditors who might come in and contribute
TO the expenses OF the suit. The following
persons. as stockholders of the Mingo Com
pany, were made defendants: Mingo Iron
Works Company, l.. BatteiIe, Thomas
II. Brashears, J. III; Brown, N.
w. Burt, John bruce, r
Brown, Sheriff of Ohio county. and admin
istration of the estate of VI. ]. Chew, de-
ceased; H. Caldwell, William Dean, Geo.
A. Dean. Edward Dunn, ID. Z. Duyall, +.
Fisher. G. Fritsche, W. w. Glass, Jane
Glass, Joseph Graves, Thomas Harris, Jr,
W. II. Harden, C. Hess. Silas H. Hatha-
way, administrator of the estate OF Siias
Hathaway. deceased; ID. c. Haynes, George
Ingler, c. L. Irwin, David Ingram, Her
mann Lunau, Thomas Lloyd. David Lloyd,
NJ. Lotus. George p. Linch, w. y. Linch,
Alex Laughlin, Abraham Myers, Ross Ny
ers. ID. J. Murray. Sarah NJ. Mendel. guar
dian of Harry ]. Mendel: NJ. Belle Meudel,
John r Mendel James V. Mendel. Charles
L. Mendel G. Ed Mendel, Mrs. C. G. Booth
Alice V. Myers, d. J. McGary, w. W. Nc
Candies, George Otto, George Z. Lnch, ad-
ministrator OF the estate OF \. p. Remick,
deceased: James Roberts, John Rodgers,
B. F. Roberts. John Sanford, David Simp-
son. MCrGal ct Stoddard, VIM. F. Stifel, II.
CT, Iohn II Trull n Trurall
W. II. Travis, executor of the will OF Jas.
II. Hayburn, deceased; John B. Hastings,
VIM H. Woodward and Samuel Lagghlin.
This case has attracted considerable at
tention in the manufacturing community
embraced in this city, Pittsburgh and
Steubenville, which fact leads interest and
importance TO yesterdays decision. The
suit was first brought in the. Common
Pleas Court of Steubenville, where a judy
ment for $4,000 was obtained by Nimick 4
Co. The matter was also in the hands OF
J. F. Daton, ESD, as Referee, who decided
that the stockholders who were served in
the action were liable TO the creditors for
an amount equal 10 the amount OF their
dividend stock.
The furnace was sold on the 10Th OF No
vember, 1878, 10 \. J. Clark and Daniel
McGary, trustees of the first mortgage
bondhOlderS. for SCI. 600. which sale wiped
out the liabilities OF the first mortgage
bonds, with the exception of SSOVI. This
latter amount was placed along with the
whole indebtedness, and stands against the
stockholders The creditors have long been
endeavoring to square themselves with the
concern and base their claim on the Ohio
statute which makes stakeholder liable,
beyond his stock, for sum equal to the
amount subscribed. The creditors claim.
as we understand, after 4 short talk with
their attorney here, is that the stakeholder
is liable to twice the amount of his stock.
Provided Nimick Il Co. can carry this point
it seems pretty well established that the
creditors would lose but 4 small amount.
The whole amount OF the subscribed
stock was $4,000, with limit of $780,
go. At q meeting OF stockholders held i'll
Wheeling, August %, 1872, dividend of
so percent was declared which was turned
into stock, the proceeds of which were used
TO build q new furnace. 1t was found that
the whole amount of this dividend stock
was $4,000, which would make the whole
amount of stock $255, 600, or 5000 more
than the $3.50, 900 allowed to be levied. 1t
is on this point that the stockholders made
plea that, as the sum allowed by law has
been over-reaChed, the action is illegal and
their Giants could not be held for any part
of the SSj, 900 stock. 1t was on this point
gave his decision as above. The Indebted
ness of the concern amounts to about
S277.GO0.
The main question presented was rs to
whether or not the stockholders should be
held for their statutory liability 10 the
amount ef 5000 on n stock dividend dis
closed in 1872 in addition to their original
stock. This was very important queS-
ton. 1t was claimed that this stock is alb
solutely void so far as any liability can be
prediCated against stakeholder who holds
il. 1t was also claimed that the corporate
organization having issued $4,000 OF stock
in pursuance of resolution by the stock
holders, and the same having been accept
ed by the stockholders that il is neverthe-
less void, because the corporation issued
5000 more stock than their certificate of
corporation authorized, tO-wit: S250,00)
The proposition contended for is that the
creditors may sue for an amount equal to
the stock the stockholders owned original
". which was $40, 900, but cannot recover
for the stock dividend upon $4,000.
The case came up in our Municipal Court,
from time to time, the defendants demur-
ring 10 the plaintiffs declaration. YeSter-
day morning, Judge LETTERS delivered an
Opinionk ustaininalth The demurrer, and,ruling
that this court has no jurisdiction in the
matter of foreign corporations. The plain
tin asked the appointment OF receiver and
the rendition OF a statement of accounts,
but as the books and papers were in anoth.
er State this was manifestly impossible and
the court could not undertake TO settle the
controversy, which must be done in Ohio.
The main point OF the opinion, which is
very long is based on the case OF Ericsson
VS.. NieSmith ct al, 18th Alum.
The counsel for the plaintiff were Messrs.
Hubbard and Russell, OF this city, and
Hayes, OF Steubenville; for the defendants,
Messrs. Barr. Caldwell & Caldwell, Lamb,
White and Peck, all ct this city. About
$4,000 OF Mingo stock was held in this city.