Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1905-12-17
STOCKHOLDERS FREED
FROM CASH LIABILITY
Supreme Court ReyersGS The Cor.
porali0R Court in this City
In Big Case.
ELLIOTT NOT HELD FOR DEBT.
i'u.irJ Made That the Elliott stock
Subscription Was Not Heaardsd ao
Enforcing liability on Its omner-
Newport News Men Interested In
the caae-Preoeden Established.
leneelal 10 the Dolly r,ess.,


RICHMOND. Dec. l6.-The follow.
iog in digest OF IN opinion hand.
cd down In the Supreme Court Of
Appeals yesterday:
IL Elliott VS.. Abby, receiycr.
Judge Keith. writing the opinion OF
mo court. royersc1 the Judgment OF
the Corporation Court of tho city OF
Newport News. rendered against ].
". Elliott for $liO.
In chancery suit agalngt tho
Schulz brewing Company. an insoI.
vent corporation, for tho payment OF
ia debts. mn assessment OF II Der
cont. upon tho stock subscribed way
made. and :. c. Ashby appointed re-
ce!ver. with direction 10 bring an
action NJ law against tho eeveral
Hnbncribera TO the gtock OF tho com.
pany Tor that amounts The judemsilt
agafnft.'d. W. Elliott wan tho result
,qs such g igsplt.ytS !. IA ], sys,s y.
: soart s5aies sjhfIsaIcfians,
The defendant in error mado a mo-
ton in the Supreme Court 10 dIsmIss
tho writ Of error lor want Of juris.
0ict!oh, on the ground that tho
amount OF Judgment was under the
appeal limit. Tho opinion declares
that the subject Is not an open one
IN this court. for 1t was held III "a
similar case that though tue juds,
ment wea under tho minimum appeal
limit yet the GubJect In controversy
wac tho validity Of tho subscription
for Ave shares OF stock, which
AMOUNT was within the limit. and
The Court OF Appeals had jurisdll-
ton 10 hear tho case. , .i
This Judgment. 1t Is said, muDt be
taken az having been approved by
tho adoption of tho Identical lau.
GuaGe IN the new code and constitu-
ton that was used In constitution
end ntatute construed In the former
decision. Tho stock subscription In
this case amounting to $1,000, 1t 10
held that tho court has Jurisdiction.
Question OF Common Law.
Answering the objection mnde that
Elliott conld not question In a court
OF law Tho fact he had subscribed to
ana become Il stochholdor IN the
Schulz Brewing Company, but that
he would BIO combined to defenses In
the nature OF confession and avoid.
"nce, the conrt says that the statute
l03a OF the code took away from
courts OF chancery the power to fx
the liability OF Tho stocI:holder and
transferred MI 1nestions affecting
inc validity of tho subscription for
inquiry AMI adjudication "a tho
courts of common law.
Plaintiff Finally Wins Case.
The plaintiff In the court below do.
INJURED to the evidence. upon which
TIC conr: gave judgment In his ia.
vor. The opinion reviews the testi.
nony. and declares that tested by
the principle already laid down by
me court the Judgment upon the dc.
murror shcn,d have hcen for Elliott
Ms the testimony OF ono OF the wit.
neSse9 was sufficient 10 warrant the
jury In IindinG iha; l:liott's sue.
Scrintion was not regarded either by
him@"l. or by Tho company rs hind.
ing npon him.
The Judgment ri the Corporation
Court Is reversed, and the Supreme
Court will enter such Judgment as Il.
should have rendered.
Nj. a. C. Garrett was counsel fnr
the Elliott estate ana. Ashhy & Read
were counsel 70. Ashby. rocetunr