St. Paul daily globe., 1892-06-19

~ court was sit
JUDGE SHIRAs. Louis, wi Ii
Judges Henry c. Caldwell. Walter II.
SanbOrn and Oliver p. Shiras Oh the
bench. The opinions of the court were
written by Judge ShiraS which involved
eight of the cases, and Judge SanbOrn
wrote an opinion deciding two of the
cases which were treated as one be-
cause both sides appealed.
Several causes involving the same
matter were before the supreme court
Of the United States before the creation
or the circuit court Of appeals. A great
many other suits involving the same
court are yet pending before state
courts in several states.
Story OF the Case.
a brief resume OF the facts involved
in the story Of the litigation is as fol-
lows:
BY an act of the general assembly of
the state of Virginia, approved Dec. II,
1865, corporation was created for the
purpose of engaging in the express bus
mess under the name of the National
Express and pOrtatiOn company.
The acknowledged capital was S5,000,-
coo. divided INTO $4,000 shares of 500
each. A large part of the shares were
subscribed for by persons living in
Virginia, Maryland, Missouri and other
states. The company was not sue
cess. in a business way, and, becoming
financially embarrassed, it executed on
on the Goth day of September, 1866,
deed of trust for the benefit of creditors
to three trustees, who were in certain
contingencies authorized to. ecloSe
out the affairs of the corporation. On
the Sth or August, 1885, Josiah Rey-
nOldS, being the owner Of fifty shares of
stock Of the company, filed in the United
States circuit court for the eastern dis
trict OF Virginia, title in equity on
behalf of himself and other stockbold-
erS, wherein he changed mismanagement
of the company upon its officers aud
prayed the court to appoint a receiver
to take control of the property of the
company and to collect the unpaid calls
upan the capital stock and pay up the
debts of the cOrpOratian. A receiver
was appointed and qualified, but he took
no active steps to obtain possession of
the assets of the company. In NOvem-
Der. 1871, w. W. Glenn, creditor of the
company filed bill in the chancery
court Of the city Of Richmond, Va, on
behalf of tie creditors against the CON-
pany avering that a large amount of
the Indebtedness of the corporation was
unpaid, that the company was inSOlvent
and had for years
Abandoned the Business
for which it was created; that so per
cent of the capital stock remained un-
! called for and unpaid: that the trustees
! named in the deed of trust executed by
by the company had not performed
| their duty on behalf of creditors, and
asking that a receiver or trustee in their
stead be appointed. Before final action
On this bill, W. W. Glenn died, and the
suit was revived in the name of his adj
miniStratOr, and after much delay, in
December, 1850, John Glenn was ap-
pointed trustee, with full power to col
| lect the assets Of the company, and
call of 80 per cent was made upon the
| capital stock of the company.
Four days before this order was made
| the United States circuit court for the
eastern district of Virginia, upon the
| report of the receiver appointed by that
| court in the case brought by Reynolds,
| that none of the assets of the company
had come into his hands, vacated the
| order appointing the receiver and dis
missed that case for want of prOsecu-
ton.
The Glenn case, pending in the Rich
| mOnd chancery court, was removed to
the circuit court of Hennio county,
| Virginia, and that court made further
call of so per cent upon the capital
! stock of the corporation, and directed
the trustee, John Glenn, to enforce the
| collection thereof. A large number of
suits have been brought id the courts of
! Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina,
Georgia, and also in the United States
courts in Missouri, against the stock
holders of the insOlvent company. Sew
1s,ff Il
clded by the United States circuit court
| of appeals for the eighth circuit, sitting
in this city, and Monday last the opin-
ions therein were filed with the clerk.
The principal defenSeS relied on on
| part of the defendants we're that the
| entries in the stock books of the COM
| pany could not be Esed as evidence to
show that they were stockholders; also
that the actions were barred by the
statute of limitations: That the Chan
Gerry court of Richmond was without
| jurisdiction over the company or its
assets, by reason of the fact, that when
the suit was brought in that court, the
United States court in Virginia had full
and exclusive jurisdiction.
On these matters the ruling of the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals
is adverse to the stockholders, it being
held that the
Stock Books May be Used
in evidence to aid in proving who are the
owners of stock in corporation, also
that the proceedings in the Reynolds
case were not bar to the bringing
the Glenn case in the Chancery court of
Virginia and that that court had full
power to make an assessment upon the
capital stock for the purpose
of paying the debts of the
company, and that the statute
of Limitation did not begin to run until
the assessments were made and became
payable. In the majority of the cases
pending before the court the judgments
rendered by the trial court against the
stockholders were affirmed; but in two
a reversal and new trial was ordered by
reason OF special questions involved
| therein. In the case against TausSlg
Livingston & Co. it was sought to prove
| ownership of stock by the firm by intro
ducing the stock books, which showed
that certain stock was held by TanSing
Livingston & Co. different name.
But it was held that the dissimilarity in
the name, in the absence of other evi-
dence showing that the entry in the
stock book was intended for the defend.
ant was so great as to make the stock
book incompetent evidence, especially
in view of the fact that it was proven
that the firm was engaged in the wool
| and commission business, and no eYi.