The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-03-01

sion OF the contract OF membership and
wholly dissolves the delinquent MEM
ber's connection with the companv
He is not thereafter entitled to any o.
the privileges of memaership and ouy,+
not TO be compelled to bear any of the
burdens which are incidental to that
position. Nor would it be just to COM
pei a shareholder whose shares have
been forfeited for non-payrnent of calls
to pay any portion of such calls re-
manning unpaid after giving credit for
the amount realized by the sale of the
shares If the charter OF a corporation
simply authorizes forfeiture and sale
of the shares of a sharehoide, for non
payment of calls, and the agents of the
company elect to pursue that remedy
the shareholder is discharged from la
bility for any calls remaining unpaid
although the shares may sell for less
than the amount of the calls.
CANNOT COLLECT NOTE
Nor can an incorporated company
which exercises its power to forfeit the
stock of the subscriber for the nom
payment of call, afterward recover
upon g note given to it by such sub
seriber for previous unpaid assess
ment on his stock"
In support of the latter proposition
the court quotes Judge Dillon in the
Federal case of Ashton VS.. Burbank.
as holding that note given for an
unpaid stock assessment represents
that assessment
Counsel for plaintiff Judge Robin
son finally says, attempts to draw a
between a strict foreclosure.
that is, the taking of the stock by the
corporation itself, and the public sale
of the stock for non-payment of the
subscription, but 1 am unable to recog-
nize the distinction, as both methods
effectuaIly conclude the delinquent
members connection with the ,.onpa-
n.y.
DEsKY's CASE DIFFERENT.
The nonsuit granted to Mr.. Desky |
was on different grounds. He was sued |
for $500 on mis- subscription of Orphe- |
um stock. His shares We're not offer /
ed at auction as delinquent. He de-
tended the suit with the plea that due |
notice of the assessment was not given
him. The company's bylaws provide
that:
Of
dividends, or other notices to stock
lolders herein provided for, or which
may be ordered by the directors, shall
De served upon the stockholders per-
'onally, or by sending it through the
post in letter or by post card adj
dressed to such member at his post |
,ffice address, or by advertisement for
lot less than three times in at least |
me newspaper published in the city
# Honolulu
Upon review of the evidence, Judge
Robinson does not find this provision
o have been complied with. On this
rucial point he says:
THE NOTICE REQUIRED.
Unless provision is expressly other
wise, the notice must be given by
landing the subscriber a written no
ice, or by informing him orally that
he call has been made, giving the a.
Mount, time, place and the person to
HON payment is to be made. Where
office is served, not personally but
y mail, the notice is effective only in
ase it is actually received. A publica-
on of a notice in a newspaper is not
hiding and effectual unless it is
roved that the subscriber who is sued
ctually read the notice as published"
c. w. Ashford represented plaintiff in
9th cases. Magoon and Lightfoot ap-
cared for Parker, and B. l.. Marx for
esky.