The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1882-01-20
A cELERRATRD cAsr.
The ,rinso Iron works suit rhroWn ont
o. Court,


The Mtngo Iron Works suit Thrown out
ofcOurt.
Asuit brought by Nimiek 4 Co., Of Pitts.
burgh, against the Mingo Iron Works Com.
pany and the stockholders thereof, in tho
Municipal Court Of this city some months
ago, has attracted considerable attention for
several reasons. One Of these was the sum
involved, which was considerably upwards
OF 100000. Another was the number Of per.
sons involved, some twenty.four citizens Of
Wheeling being party defendants in he suit,
Ana another was the nice points OF law In.
yoiyed, 10 connection with the force Of tie
Ohio double.liRbility provision, and its en-.
lorcement In the courts Of West Virginia.
The interest OF the case was also enhanced BY
the TACT that some OF the ablest attorneys In
this vicinity are AFrayed on either side, the
compIainantS and co.credltors being repre-.
senteed BY MessS Hubbard, Russell and
Clark, OF this city, and Hayes, OF Steuben.
Vile, and the defense by MesSrs, Lamb, Peck,
Barr, Caldwell 4 Caldwell aud white, Of this
bur.
The bill Of the Complainants recited that
they are residents Of Allegheny county, Pa,
doing business In the city Of Pittsburgh; that
between the LIST day Of April, 1877, and Sep.
TENDER 20, 1875, they advanced and loaned TO
the MinRo lion Works Company large
amount q money, some $4,000, which was
used BY the company In It's business; that the
company y an incorporation formed under
the laws Of Ohio, having It's principal office
and place OF business at Mingo junction, in
Jefferson county, In said State; that said
compliments entered suit In the Common
atHak
company and there obtained Judgment for
the sum Of $2i,604 so; that this Judgment is
still In force and effect and unsatished, ex-
cePt as to the sum OF 81, 292 81 paid BY the
assignee OF said company, April 10, 1880. An
execution was issued on this Judgment In
March, 1870, and q return made that no
properly was to be found. It Is averred that
the company Is lnsoiyent. 1t was organized
under and In compliance with the laws Of
Ohio In lS7l, with capital stock OF $3.50, 900,
In shares OF 800 each. The stockholders are
now believed 10 number about seventy, OF
whom tweHty.tour are residents Of Wheel.
ing
It is further represented that the Ohio act
OF 1892 provides that stockholders Of COM
panies thereafter formed shall be liable in ad-
dttton to the amount OF their subscription or
stock, In sum equal to the face value
tuGI0uls
On May 5, 1875, the company gave mort
gage on Us furnace and other property to
Joseph seybold, said mortgage being for
SlV9VOO On the next succeeding day, May
y, they gave q further mortgage for the I'D.
dittonal sum Of $4,000. The debts which
these were meant 10 secure not being paid In
1878 they were ioreclosed in the Jefferson
county courts, and the property sold. In
July Of the same year the company made an
assignment OF the residue OF It's property To
George A. Dean, and he sold 1t for the benefit
oil the creditors, paying them from the pro-
ceeds percentage OF the liabilities OF the
company. There remains In his hands about
$1,000.
The plaintiffs pray, first that all the stock.
holders residing within the jurisdiction OF
this court and all the creditors OF the insol.
vent company, with the company, be made
parties to the suit and that the Court shall
ascertain the nature and amount OF the In.
debtGdneSs, and the stockholders, and the
number Of shares held by each; ,that receiver
be appointed, and that the Court assess on
each share OF stock such q sum as may be
necessary TO pay the Indebtedness, ordering
tile Stockholdersto pay itinto the hands Of the
receiver by some certain date, and unless by
that Time so paid that executions shall issue
NoN' 'Se 'aS stOSkllulueIs uuu III ldfOE QI Tue
receiver and further that the assignee be or.
dered to pay the money now In his hands
proceeding from the sale, OF the company's
property into the hands Of said receiver.
10 this bill the defendants demurred,
claiming in the first place that the remedy
provided by the Ohio law is in the nature
Of penalty, and that there is no
creating a liability. They hold further
that tt Is against the policy OF this State to
enforce the double-liabllity provision, as the
constitution OF this State recognizes only the
liability OF stockholders in any corporation
Tor the face value OF their stock. twas also
maintained that the West Virginia courts
had no Jurisdiction.
The court, in decision rendered at yester.
days session, sustained the demurrer. 1t
was, however, held by Judge JefIefs that the
provision OF the Ohio statute was not penal
IN It's character, but in the nature Of con-
tract, and therefore created liability. The
mode OF procedure in the courts would be
bill Of equity.
The Judge also declared 1t not against the
pollCy OF this State to enforce such statute.
Under our own constitution stockholders in
DanRS are held liable for double their stocks
but even II It were contrary to the genus OF
our law such contract made In another
state would be enforced in this.
The ground on which the demurrer was
sustained was that the courts Of this State
have no Jurisdiction in the case. The foreign
corporation outof whose affairs the suit grew
would OF necessity be party to 1t, and no
process issuing from this court could
have any force in another State, and tho
court was not for this reason in a position to
do Le,ven-handed justice to all parties.
The plaintiffs, upon hearing the decision,
took time to consider their further course.
The decision, while 1t stands, OF course bas
the effect Of throwing the case ont OF notonly
the Municipal Court, but all West Virginia