Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1899-06-01
A BEAR LAKE CASE.
COURT DECISION MOD.
flied.

In the case of Linnie Glow, appellant
VS.. James Redman, ct. al, from Bear
Lake county, the supreme court has
directed the court below to modify the
Judgment. In 1897 the c. B. R. Sheep
company was organized by James Red
man, Alex Beckman, Annie Redman,
Louisa Beckman, Richard Glow and
Linnie Glow. Prior to that time Rich
ard Glow, James Redman and Alex
Beckman had been in the sheep business
as copartners. The property of the CO.
partnership was transferred to the cor
poration, including lease of 820,acre
ranch owned by Richard Glow. Rich
ard Glow aftsrward assigned his stock
in the company to the plaintiff. That
gave plaintiff 1000 shares of the stock,
each of the other four having 1000
shares, the stock being of the par value
of 81 share. James Redman and Alex
Beckman sold the sheep and the wool
clip and appropriated the proceeds.
Then this action was brought to dis
solve the partnership and distribute
its assets.
The opinion of the supreme court is
in part as follows;
1T does not appear that any account
ing has ever been had with or made by
said receiver; but the court in its find
ings of fact enumerates certain articles
of personal properly, still on hand and
belonging to said corporation, and
then proceeds to designate by whom
the various articles we're furnished to
the corporation. In its enumeration
of the assets of the corporation, no
mention is made by the court of the
lease for five years of the ranch, ex-
ecuted by Richard Glow to the corpora
ton: but the court finds that $4930 90
of the money of the corporation is now
in the possession Of James Redman and
Alex Beckman."
Then follow the conclusions of law
and the Judgment of the lower court
and the opinion continues.
In rendering its judgment, the dis.
trict court seems to recognize some
binding force in the partnership exist.
ing between the parties prior to the
organization of the corporation, this is
evinced by the fact that in the order OF
distribution Annie Redman and LOUISE
3eckman are ignored entirely, a por
ton of what constituted the capita
stock of the corporation, to-wit: The
five years lease of the Glow ranch il
given summarily to the plaintiff, with
out any indication or intimation as t
its value, or the value of the use of thu
ranch during the existence of the cor
poration.
THE capital stock Of a corporation
Is that money or property which is pu
into single corporate fund, by thos
who, by subscription therefore becom
members of the corporate body only
That fund becomes the property of tn,
: aggregate body only. A share of tn
| capital stock is the right to partake, &C
cording to the amount put into tn
fund. of the surplus profits of the cor
poration, and ultimately on the disso
luton of it, of so much of the fund thu
created as remains unimpaired and i
not liable for debts of the corporation
Burial vs. Buskwich R. Co., rs NeV
York Rep. 216.
Counsel for respondents states j
his brief that, as matter of fact tn
/ court announced from the bench tina
it held this to be a partnership an
that the business had been conducte
under the agreement to form q CT
partnership, and that the coul
would treat it as a partnership in rer
dering its decision and fixing the prop
erty rights of the respective parties
:. But in its spinth finding of fact, til
. court finds: THAT the G. b. R. Shee
company was and is a corporation, bot
de jure and de facto, and was sue
from the Gath day Of March, 1897. an
it was the intention of said parties an
each of them. at the time or organizs
ton of the corporation, to transfer th
4 property in these findings described t
the said corporation, so as to place til
title of the same in it.. We think tn
findings of the court hardly agree wit
: the statement of counsel in his briei
though as matter Of fact both ma
be true-still this court must be 20,
erned by the findings of fact. as the
appear in the record. 1t is not til
province of this court, upon the recor
before us, TO pass upon the honesty {
fairness of the distribution of the asse
of the corporation as made, but to d
eide whether such distribution has bee
n directed as required by law. We I
not think that the law contemplat,
that the court may portion ont certai
of the assets of a corporation arbitraril
among the stockholders, without refe
ence to value, and then order sale I
the balance. We think the fifth par
graph of tho Judgment should be mao
applicable to all the assets of the CO