The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-06-14

Appeal From Reno Brings Up
Double Liability Act.
LOWER COURT UPHOLDS IT
Papers Filed in Court of Ap-
peaIs Yesterday.

Yesterday q case involving the double
liability of the stockholders in q. corpora
ton was fled in the court of appeals. The
case was appealed from the district court
of Reno county. w. II. Hinshaw is the
plaintiff in error and W. A Austin, Henry
Thompson Sam Verdi. B. B. Wilson, A.
N. Brontz. F. o. Littlefeld and j. o. Bur-
nett the defendants.
In the case tried before the lower court.
| W. A Austin, Henry Thompson and Sam
Verdiz We're the plaintiffs and obtained
| judgment against 3. 3. Wilson for $685.
+. o. Littlefeld for $3.50, A N. Brontz
for $3.50 and w. H. Rfnshaw for s647. 80.
The decision was rendered during the last
| term of court. In their petition to the
lower court the plaintiffs state that they,
| together with all but one of these defen-
dants, were stockholders in the Sylvia
| Milling company, a corporation organized
with a capital stock of $4,000. Prior to
1886 each of the plaintiffs owned 10
shares, B. B. Wilson shares. F. o.
Littlstield l share and J. o. Burnett 20
shares, which in that year was sold to
W. H. HinshaE. The reason why both
Burnett and Mr.. Hinshaw were named
| as defendants was that Hinshaw claimed
| that he was responsible for the debts Of
| the corporation which were incurred be-
fore he became a stockholder, and the pc
! titloners left that point to be settled by
! the court
The petitioners state that they have
| two causes of action. The first is that,
| in 1895, the company delivered a note for
$500 to George Ripple. This note was en-
dorsed by all the stockholders as securi-
| ties. The note was transferred to the
| First National bank of Larned, Kansas,
which afterwards failed. The receiver
who took charge of the affairs of the
bank brought suit on the note in the fed
eral court and was given a judgment
against the stockholders for $535.17 on the
note and for costs, the whole amounting
| to s6298S The three defendants were for
some reason obliged to pay this entire
amount while the other stockholders paid
nothing.
AS their second cause of action, the
plaintiffs state that in the same year
they gave note for $1,000 to the Valley
bank of Hutchinson. One payment Of
$500 was made and then the note was as
signed the Bank of Hutchinson. Suit was
brought TO collect the remaining $500, and
the matter was compromised for $3.50,
which amount was paid by the same
stockholders who had settled the first
suit
The plaintiffs further claim that these
are the only debts which were not paid
by the company before it went out Of ex-
istence about year ago. They maintain
that these debts do not exceed the double
liability of the stockholders, and that
none of the other stockholders have ever
paid their share of these judgments, al
though it has been demanded. They ask
the court to grant them a judgment
against each of the others for their just
proportion of these judgments.
The court decided in favor OF the plain
tiffs and also decided that w. H. Hinshaw
was responsible for his share regardless
of the fact that he did not own the
shares al the time when the debts We're
incurred.
In his appeal Mr.. Hinshaw asks that
the judgment rendered by the lower court
be set aside for the reason that the court
erred in admitting certain evidence for
the plaintiffs over the objection of the de-
PENDANTS and for the reason that the
court had not granted a motion for a new
trial.
The second case filed is one that was
sent to this court from the supreme court
on account of the property involved is
not of the value of $1,000. This case is
very peculiar one, as it involves the di-
vision Of the estates of persons dying in
testate and also contests a will. Alfred
Cook is the plaintiff in the action in he
| lower court and also in the appeal
The first action was fled in the district
court of Cowley county and was decided
in favor of the defendants, Pe:ry Law
son, Mary DecamD and Charles Oecamp
husband of Mrs. Decamp, during the fail
| term of 1893. In his petition Mr.. Cook
states that prior to the year 1879, Edward
NJ Lawson was the owner of = qua;ter
section of land in Cowley county ind
with his wife and two minor children was
occupying >the land as a homestead IN
1879 Mr.. Lawson died. Several years efter
Mrs. Lawson married Cook and they
with the two children, continued TO live
on the property until Mrs. Cooks DEATH
which occurred January % 1888 Mr..
Cook claims that, at the death of Lawson
one-half OF the homestead descended to
his wife and the other half was equally
divided between the two children. He
also claims that at the death 0f Mr..
Cook. VINO died intestate, one-half Of her
/ property descended to him as her hus-
band. and that the other half would be
divided between the children According
TO this arrangement he would be en-
titled TO one-fourth OF the original leo
| acres and the children would each &c en-
titled to three-eighths.
However. AZ the death of their mother
they claimed her entire share in the
property. In their answer TO Cooks Pc
tition they state that they are entitled 10
the property for the reason that heir
cther's VIII provided that his wife
should have entire possession Of the
| homestead until her death. when II was
to be divided between their two descen-
dants. The district court decided that
Mr.. Cock had no interest in the land He
| then appealed the case 10 the supreme
court and from there it was sent here te-
cause his one-fourih interest IS not worth
S20eo.
BOARD BILL JUMPER